Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinal Environmental Assessment FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Upper Hoh River Road Project Jefferson County, Washington Prepared for: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION 610 East Fifth Street Vancouver, Washington 98661 WA JEFF 91420 Prepared by: DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 14432 SE Eastgate Way, Suite 400 Bellevue, Washington 98007 June 2017 This page intentionally left blank. Upper Hoh River Road Project ES-i June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment Executive Summary The Western Federal Lands Highway Division (WFLHD) of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in partnership with Jefferson County, plans to construct bank stabilization and bridge and culvert improvements in six locations along the Upper Hoh River Road (UHRR). One Build Alternative for bank stabilization and bridge or culvert replacement is analyzed in this Environmental Assessment (EA). The proposed project will develop and implement bank stabilization solutions at three locations along the UHRR, and will replace or improve three existing bridge or culvert locations. The purpose of the project is to prevent the road from washing away at these locations due to storms and flooding, and to provide safe and consistent access to residents, businesses, and Olympic National Park (ONP) visitors. Table ES-1 summarizes direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts associated with the Build Alternative, for each environmental resource. Upper Hoh River Road Project ES-ii June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment This page intentionally left blank. Upper Hoh River Road Project ES-iii June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment Table ES-1. Summary of Impacts – No Action and Build Alternatives Environmental Resource No Action Alternative Build (Selected) Alternative Direct Impacts Build (Selected) Alternative Indirect Impacts Build (Selected) Alternative Cumulative Impacts Transportation and Access  Continued delays, access difficulties, and closures related to maintenance and emergency repair of the road and river bank Construction  50 construction-related trips/day at each site  2-week road closure in winter  Lane closures 30 minutes to 4 hours Operation  Improved access and reliability on UHRR  Increased long-term reliability of UHRR  Fewer emergency repairs affecting access and traffic  More reliable and consistent access  Fewer traffic delays  Increased safety Land Use  No change to land use Construction  Potential need for easements or ROW acquisition  Temporary use of 157,000 square feet of vegetated areas as staging or access routes Operation  Conversion of small amounts of right-of-way to transportation use  No impact  Potential conversion of small amounts of right-of-way to transportation use Recreation  Continued unplanned, intermittent road closures and traffic delays related to emergency and maintenance work on the UHRR  Temporary solutions during unplanned road closures (1) ONP residents temporarily relocated outside ONP; or (2) ONP vehicle staged on east side of road work Construction  Temporary, minor disruption to recreationists due to construction traffic  Potential 2 percent decrease in annual Hoh District visitors during 2-week UHRR closure Operation  Increased long-term travel reliability for recreationalists  Increased road reliability and safety for recreationists  Temporary traffic delays for recreationists and possible decrease in use due to construction impacts  Increased road reliability and safety encouraging recreation use Hydrology and Hydraulics  Ongoing maintenance and monitoring activities along river banks and at stream-crossings  Continued placement of riprap along river banks as emergency measure, resulting in riverbed scour and diminished habitat value  Risk of more expanded riprap revetment along the riverbank that could increase bank erosion on private property downstream or across from the armored revetments  Continued incising and channel shortening at Tower Creek Construction  Temporary, localized turbidity releases Operation  Increased local accumulation of woody debris and sediment at sites  Higher water velocities (0.1-3.0 ft2/s) along the thalweg of the river near and downstream of treatment sites would alter sediment transport conditions by scouring bed materials and redepositing them downriver as gravel bars  Up to 0.5 ft localized increase of 100-year floodplain elevation  Reduced need for maintenance  Increase in aquatic habitat availability and diversity  Enhanced shoreline and aquatic habitat Vegetation  Continued damage to riparian areas adjacent to the river from riverbank failure and emergency repair work  Potential removal of riparian plants, mature forest, or early and mid-successional forest due to avulsive changes in the river channel Construction  Removal of riparian vegetation from riverbank and adjacent upland areas involving over 187,000 ft2 for staging, access, and construction layout  Removal of approximately 325 trees, including 20 conifers Operation  Replanting of riverbank and upland vegetation disturbed from construction  No impact (vegetation to be restored after construction)  Minor removal and replanting of riparian bank vegetation  Minor loss of upland vegetation including mature forest Fish  Continued emergency riprap placement, with incremental adverse impacts to fish habitat, including increased toe scour, erosion at downstream and upstream edges of riprap, and decreased habitat diversity  Reduced available spawning and foraging habitat quality for fish including Chinook salmon and steelhead Construction  Temporary displacement or minor reductions of fish populations during in-water construction  Temporary increases in turbidity and suspended sediment could adversely affect foraging efficiency and cause delays or alterations in daily migration patterns  Work area isolation at bridges would temporarily disrupt local fish populations Operation  Approximately 48,000 ft2 of river bottom would be permanently replaced by ELJ/dolosse units potentially displacing Chinook and steelhead spawning and migration habitat; bull trout migration habitat also would be altered  Creation of improved fish rearing habitat consisting of eddies, pools, and slack water refuge areas; spawning habitat would be redistributed downriver where scoured gravels from treatment sites accumulate  Potential formation of eddies and pools within and downstream of ELJ/dolosse units which could improve resting and foraging habitat for salmonids  Decreases in fish habitat at locations where emergency repairs have installed rip rap for bank stabilization  Increases in fish habitat from removal of fish passage barriers and implementation of other future in-water habitat improvement projects Upper Hoh River Road Project ES-iv June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment Environmental Resource No Action Alternative Build (Selected) Alternative Direct Impacts Build (Selected) Alternative Indirect Impacts Build (Selected) Alternative Cumulative Impacts Wildlife  Ongoing temporary disturbances to wildlife species, including marbled murrelet and northern spotted owl, at sites where emergency bank failure repairs or storm-related damages occur  Potential individual population decreases to wildlife (especially birds and amphibians) in ongoing maintenance/emergency repair areas Construction  Pile driving at bridges would temporarily disrupt wildlife populations  Temporary loss of habitat due to construction-related clearing Operation  Disturbed areas re-vegetated to re-establish habitat value in the long run  Potentially improved mobility of amphibians in streams that feed into Hoh River  Noise created by driving of piles to support proposed bridge foundations at Sites C3 and C5 would cause short-term disturbance to wildlife species occurring in close proximity to project construction.  Temporary, localized disruption to wildlife during construction Cultural and Historic Resources  No impact Construction  No impact Operation  No impact  No impact  No impact Noise  Intermittent noise from emergency repair projects would continue to occur and affect human receptors and wildlife. Construction  Temporary increased noise levels would occur at closest sensitive receptors but would be below federally regulated thresholds  Loudest temporary noise source would result from pile driving (at bridge locations) Operation  No impact  Temporary increased noise levels would extend beyond immediate construction areas  Potential temporary noise from concurrent construction activities involving the Dismal Pond work (or other sites) and proposed project areas Visual Quality  Continued reduction in visual quality along the Hoh River and UHRR resulting from an ongoing expansion of riprap revetment and further vegetation loss Construction  Temporary reduction in visual quality from construction equipment and vegetation removal Operation  Introduction of new contrasting forms and materials (dolosse) to the visual environment  No impact  Visual quality changes resulting from alterations of the landscape caused by past and future bank stabilization projects Utilities  Continued temporary service interruptions or facility relocations due to storm damage and emergency repairs  Continued potential service interruptions due to storm damage or emergency work Construction  Potential temporary service interruptions  Potential need for relocation or replacement of utilities Operation  No impact  Potential decreases in service interruptions or conflicts  Fewer future utility service interruptions as the frequency of emergency repair work along the UHRR decreases Social and Community  Continued sudden and temporary disruptions to community due to loss of access, unexpected traffic delays, and other temporary construction-related impacts related to emergency road work Construction  Temporary traffic delays, increased noise, access changes, and other construction-related disruptions to residents, ONP staff/visitors, local businesses, emergency vehicles, and school bus traffic traveling along UHRR east of proposed construction sites Operation  Increased long-term reliability of UHHR  Better quality of life for local residents, business owners, employees, and ONP users due to improved road reliability and safety and fewer road washouts and traffic delays from emergency repair work  The frequency of cumulative temporary disruptions, noise, and traffic delays would decrease as proposed bank stabilization and bridge/culvert improvements more effectively abate bank failure and storm damage along UHRR Economy  Emergency repairs would continue to result in unexpected delays and other temporary disruptions to businesses  Continued intermittent and temporary demand for labor and materials for emergency projects Construction  Proposed construction would provide temporary income for local or regional workers and businesses  Potential temporary decrease in patronage of local businesses affected by traffic delays and 2-week road closure Operation  Increased long-term reliability of UHHR which would support the economic character of the local community, ONP, and regional tourism  Indirect temporary economic benefits related to construction, including supplier and worker spending  Potential economic benefits related to increased use of area, resulting from increased road reliability  Potential stronger economic base provided by more reliable travel along UHRR (increased spending from visitor trips and tourism) Upper Hoh River Road Project i June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 NEPA and SEPA Compliance .................................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Proposed Project ......................................................................................................................... 1-2 1.4 Agency and Public Involvement ................................................................................................ 1-3 1.5 Funding ...................................................................................................................................... 1-4 1.6 Status of the Environmental Process .......................................................................................... 1-5 2.0 Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Purpose ....................................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Need ........................................................................................................................................... 2-1 3.0 Project Alternatives .......................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Project Area ................................................................................................................................ 3-1 3.2 No Action Alternative ................................................................................................................ 3-1 3.3 Build Alternative ........................................................................................................................ 3-8 3.3.1 Bank Stabilization .............................................................................................................................3-8 3.3.2 MP 4.38 Culvert .............................................................................................................................. 3-15 3.3.3 Site C3 Tower Creek Bridge ........................................................................................................... 3-17 3.3.4 Site C5 Canyon Creek Bridge ......................................................................................................... 3-19 3.3.5 Best Management Practices ............................................................................................................ 3-22 3.4 How the Build Alternative Satisfies the Purpose and Need ..................................................... 3-22 3.5 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed ................................................................................... 3-22 3.5.1 Bank Stabilization ........................................................................................................................... 3-22 3.5.2 MP 4.38 ........................................................................................................................................... 3-23 3.5.3 Tower Creek Bridge ........................................................................................................................ 3-24 3.5.4 Canyon Creek Culvert..................................................................................................................... 3-24 3.5.5 Road Relocation .............................................................................................................................. 3-24 4.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ........................................... 4-1 4.1 Transportation and Access ......................................................................................................... 4-8 4.1.1 Affected Environment ........................................................................................................................4-8 4.1.2 Environmental Consequences ......................................................................................................... 4-11 4.2 Land Use .................................................................................................................................. 4-13 4.2.1 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................................... 4-13 4.2.2 Environmental Consequences ......................................................................................................... 4-18 4.3 Recreation................................................................................................................................. 4-19 4.3.1 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................................... 4-19 4.3.2 Environmental Consequences ......................................................................................................... 4-23 4.3.3 Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 ................................................ 4-26 4.4 Hydrology and Hydraulics ....................................................................................................... 4-27 4.4.1 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................................... 4-27 4.4.2 Environmental Consequences ......................................................................................................... 4-31 4.5 Vegetation and Special Status Plants ....................................................................................... 4-36 4.5.1 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................................... 4-36 4.5.2 Environmental Consequences ......................................................................................................... 4-40 4.6 Fish and Wildlife ...................................................................................................................... 4-47 4.6.1 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................................... 4-47 Upper Hoh River Road Project ii June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment 4.6.2 Environmental Consequences ......................................................................................................... 4-61 4.7 Cultural and Historic Resources ............................................................................................... 4-73 4.7.1 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................................... 4-73 4.7.2 Environmental Consequences ......................................................................................................... 4-73 4.8 Noise ........................................................................................................................................ 4-74 4.8.1 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................................... 4-74 4.8.2 Environmental Consequences ......................................................................................................... 4-75 4.9 Visual Quality .......................................................................................................................... 4-79 4.9.1 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................................... 4-79 4.9.2 Environmental Consequences ......................................................................................................... 4-85 4.10 Utilities ..................................................................................................................................... 4-89 4.10.1 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................................... 4-90 4.10.2 Environmental Consequences ......................................................................................................... 4-91 4.11 Socioeconomics ........................................................................................................................ 4-92 4.11.1 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................................... 4-92 4.11.2 Environmental Consequences ......................................................................................................... 4-95 5.0 Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources .............................................. 5-1 6.0 Permits and Approvals .................................................................................................... 6-1 7.0 Coordination and Consultation ....................................................................................... 7-1 7.1 Agency Coordination ................................................................................................................. 7-1 7.2 Tribal Coordination .................................................................................................................... 7-1 7.3 Public Involvement .................................................................................................................... 7-2 7.4 List of Preparers ......................................................................................................................... 7-2 8.0 References ......................................................................................................................... 8-1 List of Tables1 Table ES-1. Summary of Impacts – No Action and Build Alternatives ...................................................... iii Table 1-1. Environmental Process Timeline .............................................................................................. 1-5 Table 3-1. Engineered Log Jams/Dolosse Installation – Units, Fill, and Excavation .............................. 3-10 Table 3-2. Vegetation to be Removed and Areas to be Cleared, Bank Stabilization and Bridge/Culvert Project Components ............................................................................................................... 3-12 Table 3-3. Culvert and Bridges – Riprap, Fill, and Excavation (cubic yards) ......................................... 3-17 Table 4-1. Cumulative Impacts – Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects along UHRR ...................................................................................................................................... 4-4 Table 4-2. UHRR Average Daily Traffic (Number of Vehicles) ............................................................. 4-10 Table 4-3. Number of Vehicles Entering ONP at Hoh District Entrance Station .................................... 4-10 Table 4-4. Olympic National Park Hoh District Visitors ......................................................................... 4-21 Table 4-5. Return Period Flow Values ..................................................................................................... 4-28 Table 4-6. Top Ten Flood Events on the Hoh River from USGS Stream Gage 12041200 ..................... 4-29 Table 4-7. Hydraulic Model Results ........................................................................................................ 4-32 Table 4-8. Special Status Plant Species Potentially Occurring in the Project Area ................................. 4-40 1 Tables labeled as “CR-” were added to the Final EA in response to comments on the Draft EA. Upper Hoh River Road Project iii June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment Table CR-1. WDFW Salmonid Stock Abundance Estimates for Hoh River Salmon Populations (1973-2015) ......................................................................................................................... 4-48 Table CR-2. Average Redd Density, Escapement, and Overall Reach Contribution for Winter Steelhead, Spring Chinook and Fall Chinook in the Project Area (2010-2016). ................ 4-55 Table 4-9. Special-status Fish Species with the Potential to Occur In or Near the Project Area ............. 4-57 Table 4-10. Federally Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Species with the Potential to Occur In or Near the Project Area .................................................................................... 4-58 Table 4-11. Other Special Status Species with the Potential to Occur in or Near the Project Area ........ 4-60 Table 4-12. Decibel Scale for Common Sounds ...................................................................................... 4-74 Table 4-13. Construction Equipment and Noise Levels .......................................................................... 4-76 Table 4-14. Noise Abatement Criteria ..................................................................................................... 4-78 Table 4-16. Estimated Construction Durations ........................................................................................ 4-96 List of Figures2 Figure 3-1. Vicinity Map ........................................................................................................................... 3-2 Figure CR-1a. Parcel Ownership Index Map ............................................................................................. 3-3 Figure CR-1b. Parcel Ownership ............................................................................................................... 3-5 Figure CR-1c. Parcel Ownership ............................................................................................................... 3-6 Figure CR-1d. Parcel Ownership ............................................................................................................... 3-7 Figure 3-2. Dolosse .................................................................................................................................... 3-9 Figure 3-3. Site C1 Bank Stabilization .................................................................................................... 3-13 Figure 3-4. Site C2 Bank Stabilization and MP 4.38 Culvert Replacement ............................................ 3-14 Figure 3-5. Site C3 Tower Creek Bridge Replacement and Site C4 Bank Stabilization ......................... 3-16 Figure 3-6. Site C5 Canyon Creek Culvert .............................................................................................. 3-20 Figure 4-1. Projects Analyzed for Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................. 4-7 Figure 4-2. UHRR Typical Roadway Conditions ...................................................................................... 4-9 Figure 4-3. Existing Land Use ................................................................................................................. 4-14 Figure 4-4. Community gathering space near Hard Rain Café ................................................................ 4-15 Figure 4-5. Jefferson County Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Designations ........................................ 4-16 Figure 4-6. Recreational Areas ................................................................................................................ 4-20 Figure 4-7. Mainstem Hoh River near Site C1 ........................................................................................ 4-23 Figure 4-8. Floodplains ............................................................................................................................ 4-30 Figure 4-9. Existing Culvert at MP 4.38, Downstream End .................................................................... 4-33 Figure 4-10a. Typical Vegetation near the Project .................................................................................. 4-38 Figure 4-10b. Typical Vegetation near the Project .................................................................................. 4-38 Figure 4-11a. Mature Forest .................................................................................................................... 4-42 Figure 4-11b. Mature Forest .................................................................................................................... 4-43 Figure 4-11c. Mature Forest .................................................................................................................... 4-44 Figure CR-2. Hoh River Salmon Abundance Trends .............................................................................. 4-50 2 Figures labeled as “CR-” were added to the Final EA in response to comments on the Draft EA. Figures labeled “M-” pertain to mitigation. Upper Hoh River Road Project iv June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment Figure CR-3. Hoh River Critical Time Periods ....................................................................................... 4-51 Figure 4-12. Canyon Creek Scour Pool, Downstream of Existing Culvert ............................................. 4-52 Figure CR-4a. Steelhead Spawing Redds 2014-2016 .............................................................................. 4-53 Figure CR-4b. Site C1/C2 Steelhead Spawning Redds ........................................................................... 4-54 Figure CR-5. Important Chinook Spawning Areas Near Sites C3/C4 ..................................................... 4-56 Figure M-1. Proposed Aquatic Mitigation Concept - Lindner Creek Side Channel Engineered Log Jams at MP 6.7 to 7.3 .......................................................................................................... 4-69 Figure M-2. Lindner Creek Side Channel Finger Channels - Emerging during Two-year Flood Event, MP 6.7 to 7.3 ....................................................................................................................... 4-70 Figure M-3. Proposed Aquatic Mitigation Concept - Spruce Creek/Canyon Creek ELJ at MP 9.8 ........ 4-72 Figure 4-13. Pile Driving Would Occur at Site C3 Tower Creek ............................................................ 4-77 Figure 4-14a. Viewpoint 1 Looking Southwest ....................................................................................... 4-80 Figure 4-14b. Viewpoint 1 Looking Southeast ........................................................................................ 4-80 Figure 4-15a. Viewpoint 2 Looking Southeast ........................................................................................ 4-81 Figure 4-15b. Viewpoint 2 Looking Southwest ....................................................................................... 4-81 Figure 4-16. Viewpoint 3 Looking Southwest ......................................................................................... 4-82 Figure 4-17a. Viewpoints 1 and 2 ............................................................................................................ 4-83 Figure 4-17b. Viewpoint 3 ....................................................................................................................... 4-84 Figure 4-18. Typical ELJ/Dolosse Installation ........................................................................................ 4-86 Figure 4-19. Existing MP 4.38 culvert to be replaced ............................................................................. 4-87 Figure 4-20. Tower Creek Bridge ............................................................................................................ 4-88 Figure 4-21. Canyon Creek Culvert ......................................................................................................... 4-88 Figure 4-22. Power Pole on North Side of UHRR ................................................................................... 4-90 Figure 4-23. Hard Rain Café, Restaurant and Mercantile ........................................................................ 4-94 List of Appendices3 A December 7, 2016 Scoping Report B March 10, 2015 Interagency Meeting Notes C July 8, 2015 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Pre-application and Coordination Meeting D Design Plan Set (30%) E Biological Survey Report F Wetlands Delineation Report G Biological Assessment H Cultural Resources Reports I Design Plan Set (70%) J Wetland Addendum 3 Refer to the Draft EA (July 2016) for Appendices A through H. Upper Hoh River Road Project v June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment Acronyms and Abbreviations ADT average daily traffic AINW Archaeological Investigations Northwest, Inc. AVE area of visual effect BA Biological Assessment BLM Bureau of Land Management BMP(s) best management practice(s) CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers County Jefferson County DAHP Department of Archaeological and Historic Preservation (Washington State) dB decibel dBA A-Weighted Sound Levels dbh diameter at breast height DEA David Evans and Associates, Inc. EA Environmental Assessment Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology ELJ(s) engineered log jam(s) EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency (Department of Homeland Security) FLAP Federal Lands Access Program FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMP Forest Management Plan FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact HRT Hoh River Trust IWWW In-water Work Window JCPH Jefferson County Public Health JCSO Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office km kilometer LWD large woody debris MP mile post NAC noise abatement criteria NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System NPS National Park Service WOFM Washington State Office of Financial Management OHWM ordinary high water mark ONP Olympic National Park ONRC Olympic Natural Resource Center PUD Public Utilities Department SEPA State Environmental Policy Act Upper Hoh River Road Project vi June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan TESC Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control UHRR Upper Hoh River Road US 101 U.S. Highway 101 USC United States Code USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USFS U.S. Forest Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey WDFW Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife WDNR Washington State Department of Natural Resources WFLHD Western Federal Lands Highway Division WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation Upper Hoh River Road Project 1-1 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background The Western Federal Lands Highway Division (WFLHD) of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in partnership with Jefferson County, plans to construct bank stabilization and bridge and culvert improvements in six locations along the Upper Hoh River Road (UHRR). The general project area4 extends from mile post (MP) 3.6 to MP 10.2 including areas north and south of the road and the adjacent northern (right) bank and channel of the Hoh River. The UHRR is located in western Jefferson County, Washington, between U.S. Highway 101 (US 101) and the Hoh Rain Forest Visitor Center. The road is used to access the Olympic National Park (ONP) and private properties along the road. The road was built in the 1930s, when the park was established, and is the primary western access to the park. The UHRR extends in a generally east-west direction north of and in many places adjacent to the Hoh River, an approximately 56-mile-long river originating from glaciers on Mount Olympus and flowing through the Olympic Mountains, foothills, and emptying into the Pacific Ocean at the Hoh Indian Reservation. The Hoh River valley is relatively flat and broad with a complex channel migration zone that supports a braided river channel, and a wide variety of gravel bars, side channels, and backwater areas. The Hoh River is also characterized by a wide range of seasonal flow rates, with recorded annual peak flows of more than 60,000 cubic feet per second. The road varies in proximity to the Hoh River and in certain areas is within approximately 5 feet of the river embankment. This has resulted in unstable banks and slides during high water or storm events. WFLHD and the County have constructed several bank stabilization projects in recent years along the road in order to prevent road closures due to loss of the roadbed or unstable slopes. WFLHD chose the locations for the proposed project as they had the highest risk of impending failure based on the Upper Hoh River Bank Failure Risk Reduction Study (WFLHD 2013). Without the proposed project, emergency repairs along the UHRR would be regularly required. 1.2 NEPA and SEPA Compliance This Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared by WFLHD, as the federal lead agency, for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance. At the federal level, NEPA requires that an environmental analysis and public review process are completed if the proposed action would be implemented by a federal agency, requires a federal permit, or has federal funding. Similarly, under Washington’s State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), any agency that proposes to take an official action is required to perform an environmental analysis to ensure that minimal impacts will result from that action, unless the action is exempt from SEPA. As a result, the proposed project, a proposed federally- and locally-funded action that will require federal permits for construction, must follow federal and state environmental regulations as dictated by NEPA and SEPA. As the local project proponent, Jefferson County is the SEPA lead agency. 4 The project area is refined for each environmental resource, according to where potential impacts could occur. Upper Hoh River Road Project 1-2 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment This EA describes the proposed project and the process WFLHD and Jefferson County used to develop and analyze project design concepts. It also analyzes potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposed project in the context of existing environmental conditions, and proposes mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate such impacts. This EA analyzes a No Action Alternative and a Build Alternative. Bank stabilization activities are proposed at three locations. Bridge or culvert improvements are proposed at three additional locations. This EA follows standard NEPA format and preparation guidelines, including Chapter 3, Environmental Stewardship, of the Project Development and Design Manual (USDOT 2012). Chapter 1 introduces and discusses the background of the project. Chapter 2 describes the purpose and need for the project. Chapter 3 presents the Build Alternative. Chapter 4 describes the existing social, economic, and environmental resources in the project area and potential impacts to these resources due to the No Action Alternative and the Build Alternative. This EA is organized into the following sections:  Executive Summary;  Introduction;  Purpose and Need;  Project Alternatives;  Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences;  Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources;  Permits and Approvals;  Coordination and Consultation; and  References. In order for Jefferson County and other state and local agencies to issue permits and approvals for construction activities associated with this project, the project must first comply with SEPA. Jefferson County may choose to adopt this NEPA EA to satisfy SEPA requirements, as allowed by Washington Administrative Code 197-11-610. As lead SEPA agency, Jefferson County has final responsibility for SEPA compliance, and will issue the public notice for the public review process. The SEPA process works in concert with other laws, such as NEPA, to provide a comprehensive review of a proposed project. Combining the review processes of SEPA and NEPA reduces duplication and delay by combining evaluations and considerations for all aspects of a proposal at the same time. This EA may, therefore, be utilized by state and local governments in meeting SEPA requirements. 1.3 Proposed Project The proposed project implements cost-effective, long-term bank stabilization solutions at three locations along the UHRR. The roadway at these sites is at risk of washing away in a large flood. The purpose of the proposed bank stabilization improvements is to eliminate or substantially reduce this risk at these three locations, and to assure safe and consistent access to residents, businesses, and ONP visitors via the UHRR. The project will also replace or improve three Upper Hoh River Road Project 1-3 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment existing bridge or culvert locations, the intent of which is also to assure safe and consistent access to residents, business, and ONP visitors via the UHRR. 1.4 Agency and Public Involvement An integral part of the NEPA environmental review process is to engage the public. The goal of the public involvement process is to develop public awareness and understanding of the project, gain public input from potentially affected interests, and then appropriately identify public issues, concerns, and environmental resources for consideration in the project development process. Several federal, state, tribal, and local organizations participated in the project scoping process, as well as project area residents and other stakeholders. No agencies were formally named as cooperating or participating agencies.5 The following agencies have been involved in the project development and consultation process. They have received notices for the scoping meeting in October 2015, the Notice of Availability of the Draft EA in August 2016, and the comment period extension in September 2016. Many also attended at least one of the more than eight project meetings, commented on the project, or participated in project consultation:  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS);  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps);  U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service (NPS) and Olympic National Park Olympic National Park (ONP);  U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS) and Olympic National Forest;  Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA);  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA);  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS);  Washington Department of Archaeological and Historical Preservation (DAHP);  Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR);  Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW);  Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology);  Cities of Port Townsend, Forks, and Sequim;  Clallam County;  Quillayute Valley School District No. 402; and  Queets-Clearwater School District No. 20. In addition, the Hoh Tribe has been involved throughout the alternatives analysis phase and in the development of mitigation concepts and environmental documentation. The Hoh Tribe is a co-manager of fisheries resources. 5 NEPA defines cooperating agencies in 23 U.S.C. 139(d) as those (other than the lead agency) that have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved in a proposed project. Participating agencies, as defined by SAFETEA-LU, are those with an interest in the project (FHWA 2017). Upper Hoh River Road Project 1-4 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment Stakeholder groups that have participated in the project planning and review process include the following:  Project area residents;  Project area businesses (Peak 6 Tours and Gift Shop and Hard Rain Café);  Hoh River Trust;6  Hoh Rainforest Enterprises;  Olympic Environmental Council;  Olympic Forest Coalition; and  North Olympic Salmon Coalition. Appendix A, the Scoping Report, describes the project in general, the goals of the project, and the public involvement process, which includes the scoping and meeting notices, dates, and locations. The Scoping Report also includes a summary of issues and concerns received from agencies and stakeholders that helped shape the scope of analysis to be reflected in the Draft EA. Appendices B and C contain the March 10, 2016, Interagency Meeting Notes and the July 8, 2015, Corps Meeting, respectively. The purpose of the March 10, 2015, meeting was to introduce agency personnel to the project, describe activities leading up to the meeting, and for WFLHD to receive guidance or direction from the agencies regarding methods to address the issues along the Upper Hoh River Road. The purpose of the July 8, 2015, meeting was to review the scope of the project and the purpose and need for the project; identify points of coordination between WFLHD and the Corps; and to confirm the list of information needs for the Corps Section 404 permit application. 1.5 Funding The Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) will provide funding for the project. Jefferson County applied for FLAP funding after completing a Bank Failure Risk Reduction Study in 2013 (WFLHD 2013). The FLAP program provides funding to non-federal agencies to rehabilitate roadways that provide access to federal lands (in this case, the ONP). The program has a match requirement, meaning that a percentage of the funding has to come from a funding mechanism other than FLAP. The NPS Pacific West Region, through the Park Roads Program (Federal Lands Transportation Program), will provide the matching funds. Jefferson County is responsible for a portion of the match, for which it will use toll credits. The County will also provide funding for the culvert at MP 4.38 through the Public Lands Highway Discretionary Program. The project may be advertised as one or two separate construction projects, depending on the estimated cost of construction. Bridge work may be more economical if advertised as a stand- alone construction project. 6 Land within the project area formerly managed by Hoh River Trust was transferred in May 2017 to the Nature Conservancy management. Upper Hoh River Road Project 1-5 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment 1.6 Status of the Environmental Process WFLHD released the Draft EA on August 8, 2016, and the public review period was August 9 to September 23, 2016. After receiving comments on the Draft EA, WFLHD conducted additional analysis that is reflected in the Final EA. WFLHD has determined in this Final EA that the project will have no significant impacts; therefore, WFLHD is publishing a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) along with this Final EA. Table 1-1 shows estimated dates for the project’s environmental process. Table 1-1. Environmental Process Timeline Step Expected Timing WFLHD Publishes Draft EA August 2016 Comment Period Ends September 2016 WFLHD Addresses Comments September 2016 – June 2017 WFLHD Prepares Final EA and FONSI, and signs FONSI June 2017 Publish Notice of Availability in Federal Register June 2017 Permits and approvals 2017-2018 Upper Hoh River Road Project 1-6 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment This page intentionally left blank. Upper Hoh River Road Project 2-1 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment 2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED 2.1 Purpose The proposed project’s purpose is to develop and implement cost-effective, long-term bank stabilization solutions at three locations along the UHRR in western Jefferson County, Washington. The project will also replace three stream-crossing structures (i.e., bridges or culverts). The UHRR at the bank stabilization and stream crossing sites is at risk of washing away in a large flood event. Key design objectives are to protect the UHRR at certain locations between MP 3.6 and MP 10.2 from erosion, and to provide safe and consistent access to residents, businesses, and ONP visitors between US 101 and the Hoh Rain Forest Visitor Center. 2.2 Need The UHRR serves as the only access road for the residents and businesses located along this roadway and for visitors entering ONP from US 101 from the west. In 2014, over 82,000 vehicles entered the park using the UHRR. In August of 2015 alone, 24,000 vehicles entered the park using the UHRR. In recent years, visitor numbers at the park have averaged 3 million visitors per year. The UHRR leads to the Hoh Rain Forest Visitor Center, which is one of four year-round ranger stations in ONP and the only year-round ranger station with access to the western side of the park (NPS 2015). Maintaining safe and consistent access along the UHRR has been increasingly difficult due to the dynamic character of the adjacent Hoh River, a low-gradient river with frequently-shifting braided channels. Additional challenges have recently exacerbated the conditions of the river corridor. For example, vegetation removal in the Hoh River drainage, combined with recent changes in weather patterns (warmer temperatures and less snow), have contributed to the magnitude and extent of the river’s channel migration. Often, this has caused flows to be directed against the road embankment causing significant erosion and instability. Damage to the UHRR due to flooding has resulted in road or lane closures lasting several weeks in 1996, 1998, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007, and 2014. A continuing trend of more frequent flooding will increase the potential for interrupted access to US 101 and ONP for local residents, business owners and patrons, and park users and other recreationists. The cost to repeatedly maintain safe access on the UHRR has increased substantially due to the Hoh River’s character and its proximity to the UHRR. Over the past decade, the County and WFLHD (through the Emergency Relief Program) have spent over $5 million on 13 projects to maintain safe access on the twelve-mile portion of the UHRR between US 101 and ONP. Built in 1983, the Tower Creek Bridge does not meet current seismic and design standards and is in need of replacement. The Hoh River’s migration toward the UHRR has shortened the Tower Creek channel length, which has caused the Tower Creek channel to incise and scour the bridge abutments. In addition to being undersized and requiring frequent maintenance to remove debris and sediment, the MP 4.38 and Canyon Creek culverts are barriers to fish passage at certain flows. Upper Hoh River Road Project 2-2 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment This page intentionally left blank. Upper Hoh River Road Project 3-1 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment 3.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES This section describes the project alternatives, including the No Action Alternative and the Build Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed project would not be constructed and maintenance and emergency repairs of the UHRR would continue similar to existing conditions. Jefferson County would continue to install or replace riprap on the riverbank in response to emergency situations that primarily include washed-out sections of road, bank erosion, and slope failure. The Build Alternative would involve Hoh River bank stabilization at three locations, and construction of bridges or culverts at three stream crossings along the UHRR. 3.1 Project Area The general project area7 includes the UHRR between MP 3.6 and MP 10.2, including the areas north and south of the road, and the northern (right) bank and channel of the Hoh River. The project area includes transportation use (the UHRR), private residential and commercial properties, private forest land (owned and managed by the Nature Conservancy), and public forest land (managed by WDNR and the USFS). The UHRR extends generally east-west and parallel to the Hoh River in unincorporated western Jefferson County, Washington. The project area is a heavily forested and rural area west of ONP. Figure 3-1 shows the locations where construction is proposed. Public landowners and managers in the project area include the Nature Conservancy, Jefferson County, the NPS, USFS, and WDNR. Private land owners, Hoh Rainforest Enterprises LLC, R.D. Merrill Company, and the Discovery Timber Company also own land in the project area. Figures CR-1a through CR-1d show parcel ownership in the project area. 3.2 No Action Alternative With the No Action Alternative, the proposed project would not be constructed and maintenance and emergency repairs along the UHRR would continue similar to existing conditions, on an as- needed basis in response to flood and storm event damages. Continued maintenance of banks and slopes in the project area, including at project Sites C1, C2, and C4 (see Figure 3-1), would involve monitoring varying lengths of riverbank and riprap8 revetment9 for excessive bank erosion, channel movement, and riprap loss. Monitoring will allow assessment of potential remedial measures needed to prevent a road closure. While riprap can be an effective emergency measure to deflect hydraulic forces from eroding riverbanks, it is not a sustainable design concept because (1) it is known to degrade fish habitat, and (2) adverse hydraulic effects related to riprap have the potential to be less localized and therefore occur downstream. 7 The project area is refined for each environmental resource, according to where potential impacts could occur. 8 Riprap is large, angular rock used to armor streambanks against erosion. 9 A revetment is a retaining structure or barricade for providing protection. Upper Hoh River Road Project Data Sources: Jefferson County, Washington DNR. \\Pdxfs1\project\F\FHAX00000226\0600INFO\GS\Maps\Public EA maps\Fig_1-1 Vicinity Map.mxd Figure 3-1Vicinity Map HohRiver Site C4 UpstreamBank StabilizationMP 7.9, RM 23.6 10101 H o h R i v e r Upper H o h R i v e r R d Upper Hoh River Rd Upper Hoh River Rd Maple Creek Rd Ow l C r e e k R d 10101 10101 Hoh Mainline Rd Culvert ReplacementMP 4.38, RM 19.5 Site C4 DownstreamBank StabilizationMP 7.5 to 7.6RM 23.3 Site C5Canyon Creek CulvertMP 10.2, RM 27.1 Site C1Bank StabilizationMP 3.6 to 3.8RM 18.8 to 18.9 Site C3Tower Creek BridgeMP 7.5, RM 23.3 Site C2Bank StabilizationMP 4.0 to 4.4RM 19.1 to 19.5 Project Locations Upper Hoh River Upper Hoh River Road Local Road 0 0.5 1Mile WASHINGTONEnlarged Area T. 27N R. 11WSec. 19, 25, 27, 28 & 30T. 27N R. 12W Sec. 24 & 25 Project Location 10101 10101 Olympic National Park Upper Hoh River Road Project Service Layer Credits: Copyright:© 2013National Geographic Society, i-cubed Data Sources: Jefferson County, Washington DNR, ESRI \\Pdxfs1\project\F\FHAX00000242\0600INFO\GS\Maps\Biological Assessment Maps\Fig_CR_1a IndexMap_Parcel_Ownership_Overview_11x17.mxd Figure CR-1aParcel Ownership Culvert Replacement Hoh M a i n l i n e Maple Creek Rd Owl C r e e k R d 10101 10101 Site C1 Site C2 Site C3 Site C4 Downstream Site C4 Upstream Site C5Figure CR-1b Figure CR-1c Figure CR-1a Sheet Extent Project Site Upper Hoh Rd Federal Jefferson County National Park Service Private Private - The Nature Conservancy Washington DNR Washington DOT³ Upper Hoh River Road Project 3-4 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment This page intentionally left blank. Service Layer Credits: Image courtesy ofUSGS Earthstar Geographics SIO © 2017Microsoft Corporation Upper Hoh River Road Project Data Sources: Jefferson County, Bing Maps Aerial \\Pdxfs1\project\F\FHAX00000242\0600INFO\GS\Maps\Biological Assessment Maps\Fig_CR_1b Property_Ownership_8x11_C1 and C2.mxd Figure CR-1bParcel Ownership 0 0.1 0.2Miles Project Site Upper Hoh Rd Jefferson County Tax Parcel Jefferson County Private Private - The Nature Conservancy Washington DNR³ Service Layer Credits: Image courtesy ofUSGS Earthstar Geographics SIO © 2017Microsoft Corporation Upper Hoh River Road Project Data Sources: Jefferson County, Bing Maps Aerial \\Pdxfs1\project\F\FHAX00000242\0600INFO\GS\Maps\Biological Assessment Maps\Fig_CR_1c Property_Ownership_8x11_C3 and C4.mxd Figure CR-1cParcel Ownership 0 0.05 0.1Miles Project Site Upper Hoh Rd Jefferson County Tax Parcel Federal Jefferson County Private - The Nature Conservancy³ Service Layer Credits: Image courtesy ofUSGS Earthstar Geographics SIO © 2017Microsoft Corporation Upper Hoh River Road Project Data Sources: Jefferson County, Bing Maps Aerial \\Pdxfs1\project\F\FHAX00000242\0600INFO\GS\Maps\Biological Assessment Maps\Fig_CR_1d Property_Ownership_8x11_C5.mxd Figure CR-1dParcel Ownership 0 0.1 0.2Miles Project Site Upper Hoh Rd Jefferson County Tax Parcel Jefferson County Private Private - The Nature Conservancy Washington DNR³ Upper Hoh River Road Project 3-8 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment At the two culvert locations, MP 4.38 and Canyon Creek (Site C5), continued maintenance would involve inspecting for (1) debris accumulation at the inlet and inside the culverts, (2) possible cracking or separating joints inside the culverts, and (3) potential undercutting10 at the outlets that cause the culvert to be suspended above the downstream discharge pool. Culverts that are completely blocked with debris during high flows can cause road flooding and pavement damage. Canyon Creek culvert currently has displaced and offset joints that can increase the accumulation of woody debris. Separation of culvert sections at joints also may allow surrounding groundwater or sediment to enter the culvert. Monitoring at Canyon Creek can be challenging because the bank is high and the interior portion of the culvert can only be accessed during low flow conditions. Monitoring at Tower Creek Bridge (Site C3) includes inspecting for dislodged riprap, bed scour, and accumulation of debris that could adversely affect the discharge capacity at high flow. The northward migration of the Hoh River channel in this area has shortened the length of the Tower Creek channel between the bridge and the river, which has caused Tower Creek to incise. With the No Action Alternative, emergency repair activities would continue, as needed, to prevent road closures. Jefferson County has constructed the majority of emergency repair activities along the UHRR. Typically, emergency repairs are undertaken immediately following the damage. This makes it difficult to conduct work during agency-approved in-water work windows established for fish protection. Emergency repair work would likely require that one lane of the UHRR is temporarily closed for staging vehicles, backhoes, cranes, and other equipment while riprap is placed. The amount of riprap would depend on the extent and magnitude of damage to the roadway, its shoulder, or the adjacent embankment where erosion or riprap displacement has occurred. Some or all of this work could occur below the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). Best Management Practices (BMPs) employed to minimize silt and materials movement during roadway and embankment stabilization and riprap placement would reduce temporary impacts to water quality. 3.3 Build Alternative The Build Alternative would stabilize the embankment along the UHRR in three locations. It also would replace one bridge and two culverts at three additional locations. 3.3.1 Bank Stabilization The proposed method of bank stabilization would include placing engineered log jams (ELJ) with dolosse at Sites C1, C2, and C4. Appendix I includes 70% design plans for Sites C1, C2, and C4. ELJs are collections of large woody debris (LWD) that when placed in a river or other water body, redirect flow, and increase stability to a bank or downstream gravel bar. Installation is patterned after stable, naturally-occurring log jams, which are usually formed by large trees with rootwads attached that stabilize and anchor other floating debris that accumulate against the trees. 10 Undercutting is when river flow cuts into the bank below the culvert, exposing the culvert. Upper Hoh River Road Project 3-9 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment Dolosse are large, concrete jack-like structures with two approximately 8-foot-long octagonal and perpendicular appendages (approximately 3 feet diameter) (see Figure 3-2). Each dolos would be chained to approximately three logs; each dolos/log bundle would be attached to one large tree forming an ELJ/dolosse unit. Each ELJ/dolosse unit would be approximately 75 feet long and 20 feet wide, consisting of approximately 75 logs and 20 dolosse. The elevation of the top of the ELJ/dolosse units would be generally level with the UHRR. Figure 3-2. Dolosse An ELJ structure of this character and size, ballasted with dolosse, would be needed to resist a high range of flood flow conditions and expected woody debris accumulation. The log and dolosse bundles and units would be chained together to resist displacement during high flows, which can cause deep scouring of the riverbed. Such a configuration would also resist dislodgement caused from excessive accumulation of LWD. The individual dolos/log bundles that make up the ELJ/dolosse unit may be pre-fabricated (manufactured) and bundled off-site prior to on-site installation. WFLHD, in partnership with the FHWA Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center, conducted a flume analysis on the proposed project in June 2017, which showed that the 30% design would result in excessive scour at the ends of each ELJ/dolosse unit. Therefore, WFLHD has updated the design plans as follows, as shown in Appendix I, Design Plan Set (70%):  The Design Plan Set (30%) included the placement of wood pins through each ELJ/dolosse unit, to a depth of 4 feet in the riverbed, to provide adequate resistance to buoyancy and displacement. The purpose of these pins was to initially stabilize the structure and allow it to have flexibility and limited movement as the ELJ/dolosse unit settles. The flume analysis found that the pins were not needed to secure and initially stabilize the units; therefore, the pins are not part of the Design Plan Set (70%).  The ELJ/dolosse units were previously designed so that a single unsecured dolos would be placed at the end of each ELJ/dolosse unit. The flume analysis results indicated that the singular dolos would become unattached to the unit itself. Therefore, the current design does not include a singular dolos at the end of each ELJ/dolosse unit.  In the Design Plan Set (30%), dolosse would be placed at the upstream end of each ELJ/dolosse unit, directly adjacent to the bank. The flume analysis found that this design and configuration of dolosse within each ELJ/dolosse unit would not suffice to secure the Upper Hoh River Road Project 3-10 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment ELJ/dolosse to the riverbank. Therefore, the current design (Design Plan Set [70%]) includes the placement of trees and logs (instead of dolosse) at the upstream end of each ELJ/dolosse unit. The trees and logs would be secured to the riverbank with slash and willow tree poles, similar to a picket fence. Construction will take place on the bank of the Hoh River and within the active flow channel. ELJ/dolosse installation would require excavation and fill in the riverbed and at the toe of the embankment. Assuming construction occurs at low flow periods during the proposed in-water work window (July 15 to August 31), a temporary increase in turbidity would occur within the mixing zone that extends downriver. Table 3-1 shows anticipated amounts of excavated and fill material below the OHWM and in total. Table 3-1. Engineered Log Jams/Dolosse Installation – Units, Fill, and Excavation Location Number of ELJ/ Dolosse Units Fill (cubic yards) Excavation (cubic yards) Total Below OHWM Total Below OHWM Site C1, MP 3.6-3.8 6 8,000 850 3,000 3,000 Site C2, MP 4.0-4.4 23 31,700 3,400 11,800 11,800 Site C4, MP 7.5-7.6, MP 7.9 4 15,000 1,600 14,000 5,600 As necessary and appropriate, WFLHD proposes constructing a temporary flow diversion structure near the upper end of each site (e.g., sheet pile installed with a vibratory hammer or similar method) that would direct the thalweg away from the work areas along the riverbank. In- water work, therefore, would occur under low velocity conditions. Dry areas or elevated bars would be excavated down to lay the first layer of dolosse with ELJ stacked on top. In areas that have flowing water, the first layer of dolosse would be installed on the bed of the river. All shoreline work would be accessed from the bank, working outward toward the river. The typical construction work sequence for installation of ELJ/dolosse units would involve the following:  Establish and flag construction and clearing limits and grade controls. One primary staging area would serve all six sites. On-site secondary staging and laydown areas will occur along the bank at each individual site, as required;  Install BMPs for erosion control (e.g., sediment fencing, silt curtains, and temporary flow diversions);  Mobilize, stage, and stockpile equipment and materials at the primary staging area. This will include construction and servicing equipment, timber (piles, logs to attach to dolosse, and slash material), racking material, dolosse, and chain for attaching logs to dolosse;  Assemble ELJ/dolosse bundles at primary staging area;  Implement temporary traffic controls in the work area for delivering equipment and materials from primary staging area to on-site staging and work area;11 11 In more constrained work areas such as Site C2, the closed lane may be used to place cranes or excavators for materials placement into river. Upper Hoh River Road Project 3-11 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment  Locate site-specific staging and work areas; mobilize a crane or large excavator for the purpose of placing ELJ/dolosse unit into the river;  Clear and grub vegetation and debris within the site-specific staging and work area; perform temporary access grading between the UHRR and the staging/work area, limiting vegetation removal to the minimum necessary to support construction;  Excavate and grade embankment (above the OHWM) as necessary to provide a stable equipment operating platform;  Excavate the riverbed to the depth necessary for placement of the ELJ/dolosse unit;  Install temporary flow diversion and install ELJ/dolosse unit;  Place slash and woody material on surface and within interstitial areas of the units;  Compact bank using alluvial and topsoil fill; restore temporary access road;  Install riparian vegetation plantings, including willow poles and fascines, above the OHWM;  Move equipment to next ELJ/dolosse unit and repeat steps 5 through 13;  Finish grade and repave the UHRR where needed;  Revegetate areas disturbed along the UHRR and upper embankment as a result of construction; and  Document post-construction conditions. Construction is expected to last two seasons during the period of June 1 through October 31. Certain construction activities would take place concurrently as determined by the contractor. Construction would require flaggers, pilot cars, and temporary stoplights to manage traffic. Temporary one-lane closures of UHRR and related short-term delays are anticipated, although emergency vehicle access would be provided at all times. While typical delays would be about 30 minutes, longer periods up to 4 hours are possible during certain construction activities. Neither a road detour nor a detour bridge would be required for bank stabilization activities. In-water work (below the OHWM) is proposed between July 15 and August 31 subject to permit approvals. Construction work outside of the in-water work window (IWWW) would only occur in upland areas (areas above the OHWM). Construction equipment would include one to two large cranes, one vibratory pile driver, two to three large track-mounted excavators, a medium track-mounted excavator, dump trucks, rollers, pavers, and a loader. Noise during construction would be generated from private and commercial vehicles and equipment, including vibratory pile drivers. No blasting is anticipated. Some private and public property acquisition would be required, and access to all properties along the UHRR would be maintained at all times. Vegetation in the project area primarily consists of the following: western hemlock, Sitka spruce, and red alder trees; salmonberry, vine maple, trailing blackberry, Himalayan blackberry, and red elderberry shrubs; and sword fern, Kentucky bluegrass, slough sedge, soft rush, and creeping buttercup in the understory. Table 3-2 shows approximate areas of disturbance and numbers of Upper Hoh River Road Project 3-12 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment trees to be removed as part of the Build Alternative. Tree removal would be necessary to allow the installation of the bank stabilization units, as well as construction staging and access. Table 3-2. Vegetation to be Removed and Areas to be Cleared, Bank Stabilization and Bridge/Culvert Project Components Site Approximate Number of Total Trees Removed Approximate Number of Large Conifer Trees to be Removed1 Area of Land to be Cleared for Site-specific Access, Staging, and Storage (square feet) C1 30 3 42,000 C2/MP 4.38 Culvert 175 3 100,000 C3 – Tower Creek 30 10 40,000 C4 West 2 0 10,000 C4 East 10 4 5,000 C5 – Canyon Creek 40 0 30,000 Total 325 20 187,000 1 Large conifer trees defined as greater than 18 inches in diameter After ELJ/dolosse units are installed, disturbed areas, including stream buffers, would be restored at a 1:1 impact-to-restoration ratio. Restoration would include re-planting vegetation salvaged from the site, supplemented by plantings from native nursery stock. Site restoration would be subject to performance monitoring for a minimum of five years to ensure efforts have been successful based on performance standards established in permit approvals. Site C1 is located between MP 3.6 and 3.8, parallel to an outside bank of a bend in the Hoh River (see Figure 3-3). The area to be stabilized at this site (involving approximately 600 lineal feet) is experiencing bank failure due to toe scour12 and undermining of the riverbank. Approximately six ELJ/dolosse units would be installed at Site C1, beginning at the east end and moving westward. The ELJ/dolosse units at Site C1 would displace approximately 9,000 square feet of the riverbed (below the OHWM) along the Hoh River. Site C2 is located between MP 4.0 and 4.4, upstream from Site C1 and includes the culvert at MP 4.38 (see Figure 3-4). Approximately 2,100 lineal feet would be stabilized due to toe scour and riverbank undermining that has caused bank failure. An expected 23 ELJ/dolosse units would be installed at Site C2. ELJ/dolosse placement at Sites C1 and C2 would last about 100 days, 75 days of which involve in-water work. The ELJ/dolosse units at Site C2 would displace approximately 35,000 square feet of the Hoh riverbed (below the OHWM). 12 Scour is caused by the erosive force of water on the riverbed or bank, which can be intensified by the volume and rate of water movement. Upper Hoh River Road Project Data Sources: USDA 2015 NAIP, David Evans and Associates, Inc., Jefferson County. \\Pdxfs1\project\F\FHAX00000226\0600INFO\GS\Maps\Public EA maps\Figs_3-1 and 3-4 Site Aerials.mxd Figure 3-3Site C1 Bank Stabilization HohRiver Upper Hoh River Rd Site C1Bank StabilizationMP 3.6 to 3.8RM 18.8 to 18.9 M P 3 . 8 MP 3 . 7 MP 3 . 5 M P 3 . 9 MP 3 . 6 R M 1 8 . 6 R M 1 9 R M 1 8 . 9 R M 1 8 . 8 R M 1 8 . 7 Project Location Upper Hoh River Road Milepost (Upper Hoh River Road) Rivermile (Hoh River)³ 0 150 300Feet Upper Hoh River Road Project Data Sources: USDA 2015 NAIP, David Evans and Associates, Inc., Jefferson County. \\Pdxfs1\project\F\FHAX00000226\0600INFO\GS\Maps\Public EA maps\Figs_3-2 and 3-3 Site Aerials.mxd Figure 3-4Site C2 Bank Stabilization andMP 4.38 Culvert Replacement Upper H o h R i v e r R d Hoh Riv e r Unna m e d C r e e k Site C2Bank StabilizationMP 4.0 to 4.4RM 19.1 to 19.5 Culvert ReplacementMP 4.38, RM 19.5 MP 4 . 5 MP 4 . 4 MP 4 . 3 MP 4 MP 4 . 2 MP 4 . 1 RM 19 . 6 R M 1 9 . 1 RM 1 9 . 3 RM 1 9 . 2 RM 1 9 . 5 RM 19 . 4 Project Location Upper Hoh River Road Milepost (Upper Hoh River Road) Rivermile (Hoh River)³ 0 150 300Feet Upper Hoh River Road Project 3-15 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment Site C4 is located between MP 7.5 and 7.6 (a 400-foot segment) and at MP 7.9 (a 100-foot segment), on either end of an approximately 1,300-foot-long riprap revetment Jefferson County installed in 2007 (see Figure 3-5). Four ELJ/dolosse units would be installed at Site C4: three units downstream of the western end of the revetment where a large gravel bar has formed and one unit upstream of the eastern end of the revetment. This would result in a total of 1,800 linear feet of bank stabilization at this location. The ELJ/dolosse units would be the same size and composition as at Sites C1 and C2. ELJ/dolosse placement at Site C4 would last approximately 45 days, of which 30 days would involve in-water work. The ELJ/dolosse units at Site C4 would displace approximately 6,000 square feet of the Hoh riverbed below the OHWM. Depending on the river stage, riffles13 may develop near Site C4 once the project is completed. 3.3.2 MP 4.38 Culvert The Build Alternative includes replacing the culvert at MP 4.38 within Site C2 (see Figure 3-4). Appendix I contains the design plans for the new MP 4.38 culvert. The existing 72-inch diameter corrugated steel culvert conveys flows from an unnamed tributary to the Hoh River, and is located just upstream of the tributary’s confluence with the river. The culvert is in poor condition, has a history of debris blockages during high flows that have caused the roadway to be overtopped. The culvert needs to be upgraded to increase its flow capacity and improve fish passage. Once BMPs for stormwater and erosion control have been installed, a temporary water bypass may be constructed, if needed, upstream from the culvert to divert tributary flows around the work area. However, this tributary is not perennial and is therefore expected to be dry during construction. If a temporary bypass is necessary, sheet piling would be manually driven into soft soils (to install a temporary cofferdam14) so construction can be undertaken “in the dry.” Alternatively, a vibratory hammer would be used to install the cofferdam depending on soil conditions. 13 A riffle is a shallow section of a river with rapid current and a surface broken by gravel, rubble or boulders. Riffles are instrumental in the formation of meanders. 14 A cofferdam is a nearly watertight temporary enclosure that, once installed, can be pumped dry to permit construction below the OHWM. It is often used when constructing bridges, culverts, or other structures in or along streams or other waterbodies. Upper Hoh River Road Project Data Sources: USDA 2015 NAIP, David Evans and Associates, Inc., Jefferson County. \\Pdxfs1\project\F\FHAX00000226\0600INFO\GS\Maps\Public EA maps\Figs_3-2 and 3-3 Site Aerials.mxd Hoh R i v e r Site C4 DownstreamBank StabilizationMP 7.5 to 7.6RM 23.3 Upper Hoh River Rd Site C4 UpstreamBank StabilizationMP 7.9, RM 23.6Site C3Tower Creek BridgeMP 7.5, RM 23.3 MP 8 M P 7 . 4 MP 7 . 8 M P 7 . 6 MP 7 . 9 MP 7 . 5 MP 7 . 7 RM 23.7 RM 2 3 . 4 RM 23 . 6 RM 2 3 . 5 RM 23 . 3 RM 23.2 Project Location Upper Hoh River Road Milepost (Upper Hoh River Road) Rivermile (Hoh River)³ 0 150 300Feet Figure 3-5Site C3 Tower Creek Bridge Replacement;Sites C4 Bank Stabilization Upper Hoh River Road Project 3-17 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment Subsequently, the existing culvert would be removed, the streambed would be re-graded, and two new sections of a 16- by 16-foot concrete box culvert would sequentially installed. The new culvert sections would be installed using a crane, excavator, bulldozer, and roller. Table 3-3 shows the volume of riprap, fill, and excavation material (in total and below the OHWM) associated with replacing the culvert at MP 4.38 and at the Tower Creek and Canyon Creek bridge replacement projects, as described below. Vegetation removal for culvert construction would be accomplished as the same time as Site C2 construction. Quantities are shown in Table 3-2. Table 3-3. Culvert and Bridges – Riprap, Fill, and Excavation (cubic yards) Location Riprap Below OHWM Fill Excavation Total Below OHWM Total Below OHWM MP 4.38 Culvert 0 4,000 500* 1,500 4,500 2,000 Tower Creek Bridge MP 7.5 1,500 3,500 1,000* 6,000 4,000 Canyon Creek Bridge MP 10.2 1,000 2,500 500* 10,000 2,000 *denotes streambed simulation material As an initial element of construction, traffic would be diverted to one side of the two-lane UHRR to temporarily convert the work corridor to a single-lane roadway. Active traffic control would be maintained until the first culvert section is constructed. Once this initial culvert section is installed and back filled, the overlying roadway would be resurfaced so that traffic could resume along its former route. The same work sequence would then be undertaken to construct the second section of the culvert. Throughout the duration of construction, traffic would be subject to delays lasting 30 minutes to 4 hours. Culvert construction activities would be coordinated with the Site C2 bank stabilization efforts, which would be undertaken within a similar timeline. Signage and other public notices would be used to advise travelers of current and upcoming construction and the timing of traffic delays. Approximately 30 days of the 45-day construction period would involve work below the OHWM. 3.3.3 Site C3 Tower Creek Bridge The Build Alternative includes replacing the existing bridge at Tower Creek (Site C3 [see Figure 3-5]) with a new bridge. Appendix I includes the 70% design plans for Tower Creek Bridge. The existing bridge is a single-span steel girder bridge, approximately 70 feet long and 30 feet wide. The bridge has 18 feet of clearance from the streambed to the bottom of the support girders. The bridge abutments that support the structure have been scoured out, to the point where piles and wingwall foundations are exposed. In addition, the existing riprap that was installed to provide scour protection is overly steep at this site. The new bridge would be at least 120 feet long and 29 feet wide and constructed of precast, pre- stressed girders with concrete decks. Abutment foundations would be supported by six 18-inch- diameter hollow steel pipe piles that would extend below the anticipated scour depth of the creek. Upper Hoh River Road Project 3-18 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment As currently planned, steel piles would be driven primarily using a vibratory hammer. An impact hammer would also be used, on a limited basis, for proofing the piles for load bearing. Assuming that six piles would be driven 50 feet deep at each of the two abutments, and that 30 strikes per foot are required for proofing, approximately 18,000 strikes of an impact pile driver would be required (WSDOT 2016a). To the extent contractors are able to effectively use vibratory equipment, the number of impact hammer strikes would be less than 18,000. Impact pile driving is expected to occur over seven days, at most, including two days at the start for driving one test pile at each of the abutments. The bridge approaches would be constructed using concrete slabs. The girders would be installed using cranes located on the banks of the channels. Curb cuts would be installed in the shoulder approach of the bridge to capture pavement runoff flowing toward the bridge and direct it toward road shoulders. The bridge replacement would also involve approximately 100 lineal feet of stream improvements. Prior to this particular work, a water bypass would be installed to dewater approximately 120 lineal feet of the creek (1,800 square feet). Existing riprap that was installed to provide scour protection at the abutments of the existing bridge would be removed to allow room for stream channel widening and bank reshaping. After rough grading is completed, new riprap revetments, approximately 5 feet in depth, would be installed to provide scour protection on both streambanks upstream and downstream of the new bridge abutments. Streambed material, a variable-size mixture of cobbles and gravels, would then be placed over the riprap and along the new channel configured in a manner that provides suitable fish passage under low- flow and high-flow conditions. If the final bridge alignment would overlap the existing bridge structure, one lane of the existing bridge would be closed and traffic would be diverted to the open lane at both approaches and across the bridge. For safety purposes, a concrete barrier would be installed in the center of the existing bridge to restrict traffic to one lane of travel. The closed portion of the existing bridge would then be demolished so the new bridge section can be constructed. After the first section of the bridge is completed, traffic would be diverted onto the newly constructed lane, so demolition and construction can proceed on the other side. If it is determined the final alignment of the new bridge would be separate from the existing bridge alignment, it may be possible to construct the new structure without disrupting traffic on the existing bridge. Demolition of the existing bridge would then take place after traffic is diverted to the new bridge. Construction staging and access, bridge construction and realignment, and grading adjacent to the newly constructed bridge would require approximately 40,000 square feet of land disturbance and removal of approximately 30 trees, as shown in Table 3-2. Bridge construction would involve the following typical sequence:  Establish project limits, clearing limits, and grade controls;  Mobilize equipment, materials, and personnel at the site;  Implement temporary traffic controls;  Install BMPs for erosion control; Upper Hoh River Road Project 3-19 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment  Clear and grub to remove vegetation and debris along the chosen bridge alignment and road approaches;  As necessary, install stream diversion to re-route water flow and conduct fish exclusion and relocation;  Position equipment;  Excavate streambanks to design conditions;  Excavate and install shoring as appropriate to stabilize abutment locations;  Drive pipe piles for abutment foundations;  Install forms for abutments and wingwalls;  Pour concrete for abutments and wingwalls;  Perform streambed work, including grading riprap installation, and placement of streambed material for new channel configuration;  Install girders and abutment connections;  Install decking, approach slabs, curb cuts, stormwater facilities, and other features of the bridge;  Remove stream diversion;  Erect guardrails and signs in designated areas;  Restore vegetation in areas disturbed by construction; and  Clean up and demobilize site. Table 3-1 shows the volume of riprap, fill, and excavation material in total and below the OHWM associated with replacing the Tower Creek Bridge. Construction would occur from June 1 to October 31, and possibly during a 10-day period in January or February (when a full road closure could occur). Approximately 10 days of the summer construction period would involve work below the OHWM; this work would occur within the proposed IWWW, July 15 through August 31. A combination of a minor bridge alignment shift and staged bridge removal would allow traffic to be maintained on at least one lane of the existing bridge. Stormwater runoff would be directed to the road shoulders and dispersed into the vegetated roadside ditch for infiltration, similar to existing conditions. Stormwater from the new bridge would be collected and routed to the edges of the bridge where it would disperse and infiltrate. Temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) measures would be installed prior to and during construction to minimize pollutants from entering area waterbodies. 3.3.4 Site C5 Canyon Creek Bridge Table 3-1 shows the volume of riprap, fill, and excavation material in total and below the OHWM associated with replacing the Canyon Creek culvert (see Figure 3-6) with a bridge. Construction would be completed in one season, June 1 through October 31, and possibly during a 10-day period in either January or February (when a full road closure could occur). Upper Hoh River Road Project Data Sources: USDA 2015 NAIP, David Evans and Associates, Inc., Jefferson County. \\Pdxfs1\project\F\FHAX00000226\0600INFO\GS\Maps\Public EA maps\Figs_3-1 and 3-4 Site Aerials.mxd U p p e r H o h R i v e r R d R o a d t o Q u a r r y Hoh River C a n y o n C r e e k Site C5Canyon Creek CulvertMP 10.2, RM 27.1 M P 1 0 M P 1 0 . 3 M P 1 0 . 2 M P 1 0 . 1 M P 1 0 . 4 R M 2 7 . 2 RM 2 7 . 1 Project Location Upper Hoh River Road Milepost (Upper Hoh River Road) Rivermile (Hoh River)³ 0 150 300Feet Figure 3-6Site C5 Canyon Creek Culvert Upper Hoh River Road Project 3-21 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment The Canyon Creek Bridge is expected to provide additional fish passage opportunities and improved access to approximately two miles of fish habitat in Canyon Creek. With this option, the existing culvert would be demolished and a bridge constructed in its place. The bridge would be approximately 120 feet long and comprised of precast, pre-stressed girders with concrete decks and approach slabs (see Figure 3-6 and Appendix I for design plans). Culvert demolition sequencing, bridge construction sequencing, and stormwater runoff and diversion would be similar to the Tower Creek Bridge. Semi-integral abutments15 set on deep foundations with cantilevered wing walls would support the bridge. Abutment foundations would be supported by six 18-inch diameter hollow steel pipe piles extending below the anticipated scour depth of the stream. The girders would be installed using cranes, located on the banks of the channels. Curb cuts would be installed in the shoulder approach of the bridge to capture pavement runoff flowing toward the bridge. While maintaining traffic in the existing alignment, WFLHD would construct the south portion of the new bridge, offset from the existing alignment. Then, a permanent bridge rail on the south bridge edge would be constructed, and a temporary concrete barrier would be installed along the north edge of the bridge. Traffic would then be diverted onto the completed south portion of the new structure. The existing fill and culvert would then be removed (completely or partially) to yield enough space to construct the remaining north portion of the new bridge. The existing embankment and culvert would be utilized at Canyon Creek to grade a detour during construction. Temporary shoring may be needed for abutment construction. Stormwater runoff during construction would be directed to the road shoulder and dispersed into the vegetated roadside ditch for infiltration. New riprap revetments approximately 5 feet in depth would be installed on both streambanks upstream and downstream of the new bridge. Streambed material would then be placed to cover the riprap and along the new channel, configured in a manner that provides suitable fish passage underlow-flow and high-flow conditions. Approximately 80 lineal feet of Canyon Creek would have streambed improvements. Approximately 100 lineal feet of Canyon Creek (1,000 square feet) would be dewatered and isolated. Workers would install approximately six 18-inch- diameter hollow steel piles using vibratory equipment, and then an impact hammer to proof piles for load bearing. Similar to the Tower Creek Bridge, 18,000 strikes would be required, at most; fewer strikes would be required to the extent vibratory equipment can be used instead of an impact pile driver. Pile installation would occur seven days at most. Curb cuts would be installed in the shoulder approaches of the bridge to capture pavement runoff flowing toward the bridge in the long run. Work below the OHWM would occur during the proposed IWWW, July 15 through August 31. Construction staging and access, bridge construction and realignment, and grading adjacent to the newly constructed bridge would require approximately 30,000 square feet of land disturbance and removal of approximately 40 trees, as shown in Table 3-2. 15Abutments support the ends of bridges and transfer the loads from the superstructure into the ground. Semi- integral abutments completely encase the ends of the bridge support beams in the upper part of the abutment and isolate the upper section of the abutment from the lower with expansion joint material, which allows the upper part of the abutment to slide and rotate during earth movement. Upper Hoh River Road Project 3-22 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment 3.3.5 Best Management Practices BMPs typical for roadway improvements, bridge or culvert replacements, and riverbank stabilization projects would be employed during the construction and restoration phases of work, and are described for each resource, in Chapter 4.0. Potential impacts to listed species would be avoided and minimized by timing certain aspects of construction to avoid critical spawning, rearing, migration, and breeding periods. A TESC Plan and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be implemented that would include specific measures to protect water quality. Additional conditions of approval for key permits will contain specific additional BMPs to be implemented during construction. 3.4 How the Build Alternative Satisfies the Purpose and Need The purpose of the Build Alternative is to develop and implement, at six locations, cost- effective, long-term bank stabilization and stream crossing solutions to lessen the probability of road washouts and assure safe and consistent access along the UHRR. The need for the project stems from historic and ongoing damages to the UHRR, and its embankment, from flooding and erosion along the Hoh River. Such conditions have caused access along the UHRR to be unreliable for local residents, businesses, ONP visitors, and others traveling this sole route that connects US 101 with the ONP’s Hoh Rain Forest Visitor Center. The Build Alternative would accomplish the purpose of and need for the project while providing fish habitat benefits, including fish passage and in-stream habitat. 3.5 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed 3.5.1 Bank Stabilization Selection of the three bank stabilization sites was based on observations along the river and UHRR and represent locations most in need of stabilization. Methods considered for stabilizing banks, other than ELJs with dolosse, include riprap, log crib walls, and stream barbs and groins. 3.5.1.1 Riprap Riprap is the most common and highly effective form of bank protection in the Pacific Northwest. It consists of armoring the bank with large angular rock that deflects hydraulic forces from treated sites, and is used for long-term erosion control. Using riprap at the three bank stabilization sites would meet the purpose and need of the project, as it would stabilize the bank and result in long-term increased reliability and safety along the UHRR. However, riprap can permanently displace and adversely affect fish habitat, result in erosion at other untreated sites, and reduce the recruitment of LWD and sediment recruitment. Riprap not installed properly tends to (1) create downstream scour at the transition to the natural bank, and (2) undermine the toe of the slope downstream of the installed riprap. Existing riprap revetments along the Hoh River may be responsible for some observable downstream scour and channel changes, although the dynamic nature of the river’s migrating channel may also be a contributing factor. The riprap option was dismissed from further consideration due to the risks associated with improper installation and the long-term potential for adverse impacts related to fish habitat, LWD, and sediment transport. Upper Hoh River Road Project 3-23 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment 3.5.1.2 Log Crib Walls Log crib walls are large rectangular log boxes filled with rocks and soil, oriented parallel to the direction of streamflow. Planting spaces are formed in the wall by stacking the wall logs in alternating fashion. This solution would meet the purpose and need of the project—to stabilize the bank and create increased reliability and safety for residents, businesses, and ONP visitors using the UHRR. These structures are typically used where streambanks are experiencing mass failure or significant erosion from subsurface drainage. Bank failure along the Hoh River is caused by river scour at the toe of slope, not by erosion from subsurface drainage. As vertical structures, log crib walls are susceptible to hydraulic and gravitational forces that cause undermining and settling of soils within and behind the wall; therefore, this may not be a sustainable option, given the dynamic and forceful attributes of the Hoh River flow regime. Installing log crib walls along the banks of the Hoh River could result in the toe of the structure remaining vulnerable to scour and subsequent undermining, settling, and collapse. Therefore, log crib walls as a treatment option were also dismissed from further consideration. 3.5.1.3 Stream Barbs and Groins Stream barbs and groins extend from the bank into the flow of a water body, and are typically constructed of rock, LWD, or a combination of both. They are used for bank protection, to create lateral sand bars, to divert stream flow in a mid-channel direction, and to change depositional patterns of sediment. The height of groins usually extend above the high-flow water surface elevation. This tends to change the cross-section of the stream more than barbs, by deepening and narrowing the channel. Each type has the potential to provide pool habitat for fish. Although trees or LWD can be added into barbs or groins to increase habitat value, they increase the risk of voids in the rock fill, result in poor foundation conditions, and may cause buoyancy that affects the stability of the structure (NRCS 2013). Groins constructed of LWD typically allow more water to flow through them, which tends to create less scouring of the adjoining streambed than a rock groin. Although both groins and barbs would meet the project’s purpose and need of increasing bank stabilization and related reliability and safety of the UHRR, they can cause more significant changes to downstream and upstream hydraulic and erosion patterns. Stream barbs and groins were dismissed from further consideration because any additional downstream or upstream erosion they might cause could exacerbate current bank erosion conditions. 3.5.2 MP 4.38 The water conveyance/stream crossing improvement at MP 4.38 was initially envisioned as a bridge to minimize the level of disturbance to the UHRR at this site. During the design process, the Hoh River migrated closer to the existing roadway. Consequently, the anticipated detour route planned for construction was no longer feasible because there would be limited area for the contiguous footings and piers needed for construction. While the bridge option would have met the purpose and need for the project, the design layout at this site was no longer feasible. WFLHD, therefore, decided to only carry forward the culvert option for this site. Upper Hoh River Road Project 3-24 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment 3.5.3 Tower Creek Bridge Steel girders were considered as an option at the span length required for Tower Creek. Replacing Tower Creek Bridge (with steel girders or girders made from another material) meets the purpose and need for the project, in that a new bridge supports the long-term reliability of the UHRR. Concerns were expressed that steel girders could require a cast-in-place concrete deck and that the girders would be susceptible to corrosion and create new maintenance issues. Therefore, steel girders were dismissed from further consideration for the Tower Creek Bridge. 3.5.4 Canyon Creek Culvert A three-span bridge arrangement was initially evaluated for Canyon Creek. A three-span structure would use shorter and more cost-effective bridge girders, yet the cost saving from the superstructure could be offset by the cost of the additional foundation and piers and the required in-water work for the intermediate piers. Although the multiple span arrangements would help minimize the structural depth and reduce the cost of the bridge superstructure, the bridge piers would have potential problems due to added requirements for dewatering, cofferdams, and equipment access. The additional piers and shorter spans would combine to catch and retain debris, and provide another mechanism for scour to form under the bridge. The three-span arrangement was therefore dismissed from further consideration, even though it would have met the purpose and need for the project as part of a new bridge, which would have increased the long-term safety and reliability of the UHRR. 3.5.5 Road Relocation Relocating the UHRR north of the existing alignment was initially considered. This preliminary alternative would have required removal of mature vegetation and critical habitat for the marbled murrelet, resulted in impacts to undisturbed wetlands, and required excavation on very steep slopes with geologic hazards. Retaining walls could have been required. Slopes begin at the UHRR and generally become steeper moving north toward the 3,018-foot summit of Spruce Mountain, approximately 2.5 miles from Sites C4 and C5. With this alternative, WFLHD would have had to acquire large amounts of private and public property for conversion to transportation use. In addition to more extensive road demolition and construction that would have disrupted traffic for a considerably longer duration and extensive right-of-way acquisitions, substantial efforts and costs also would have been required to relocate several stream crossing structures (bridges and culverts) and restore vegetation and the river embankment sections along the original roadway. In 2013, WFLHD documented its examination of the UHRR relocation option in the Upper Hoh River Road Bank Failure Risk Reduction Study (WFLHD 2013). Major findings of the study included the following:  The required length of the relocated UHRR would have been 3,000 to 4,000 feet;  This option would have required the relocated road cross the 260-foot high terrace slope immediately north of the UHRR. Observed slumping16 on the terrace slope suggested geotechnical instability, meaning that a relocated road could have caused landslides and 16 A slump is a mass movement slope failure in which a mass of rock debris or unconsolidated material slips downward, along a concave surface. Upper Hoh River Road Project 3-25 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment debris flows, potentially blocking and damaging the UHRR. Road relocation would therefore have required significant efforts to stabilize the road foundation, in order to reduce the potential for landslides and debris flows; and  Road relocation would have allowed removal of the existing riprap revetment and reconstruction of an area of riverbank approximately 80 to 100 feet wide by 1,800 feet long. Bank stabilization techniques and newly planted vegetation would have been required on the reconstructed riverbank and upland area to prevent lateral bank erosion and migration of the channel to the north. Techniques and vegetation would have been subject to performance monitoring, similar to the proposed project. More recent evaluation of UHRR relocation considered two main options: (1) relocating the UHRR to the north between MP 3.0 and MP 11.0, and (2) relocating shorter segments of the UHRR that are closest to the road, including either the segment from MP 3.0 to MP 5.5, MP 7.0 to MP 9.0, or MP 9.0 to MP 11.0. Relocating the UHRR for 2.5 miles, between MP 3.0 to MP 5.5, would have moved the road away from Sites C1 and C2 and required demolition and replacement of two large bridges, relocation of two to three large-diameter fish-passable culverts, construction of major retaining walls on the north side of the UHRR, and clearing approximately 20 acres of ROW. The first bridge would have been approximately 600 feet long and 100 feet above ground. The second bridge would have been approximately 100 feet long. As the road length increased and the alignment differences grew, this preliminary alternative would have increasing risks, including steep slopes and unstable soils on the north side of the UHRR. WFLHD estimated that the total capital cost of relocating the road, not including addressing erosion and road washouts at Site C4, would have been ranged from $13 million to $17 million, based on these two options. Additional funds could have been required to stabilize the UHRR and surrounding area if landslides were to occur. Based on the greater magnitude of environmental consequences, a more extended construction timeline, and higher costs, relocating the UHRR was dismissed from further consideration. Upper Hoh River Road Project 3-26 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment This page intentionally left blank. Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-1 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment 4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES This chapter presents an analysis of potential impacts to the environment due to the proposed project. The following environmental resources potentially affected by the project were confirmed during the public scoping process and are discussed in this chapter:  Transportation and Access;  Land Use;  Recreation;  Hydrology and Hydraulics;  Vegetation;  Fish and Wildlife;  Cultural and Historic Resources;  Noise;  Visual Quality;  Utilities; and  Socioeconomics. For the purpose of this EA, the general project area includes the UHRR between MP 3.6 and MP 10.2, including areas north and south of the road and the northern (right) bank and channel of the Hoh River. The project area includes areas where direct impacts of the proposed project would occur, but is refined somewhat for each environmental resource. As defined below, the affected environment, direct impacts, indirect impacts, cumulative impacts, and mitigation measures are analyzed for each resource in the following section. Affected Environment. The affected environment is the existing condition for a specific environmental resource. Each affected environment is the existing social, economic, or environmental setting described at a level of detail commensurate with the magnitude, duration, likelihood, and extent of potential impacts of the proposed project. It also identifies environmentally sensitive features in the project area. Each environmental resource section describes the geographical area analyzed for that specific resource. Direct Impacts. Direct impacts typically result from construction or long-term operation of a proposed project within the project footprint, or in areas immediately adjacent. These impacts can occur at a variable intensity (or magnitude). While they often may be short-term in nature, they could persist over longer durations or may be permanent. Direct impacts may also occur within a common, important, or unique context relative to various environmental and regulatory considerations (e.g., environmentally sensitive habitats or species). Indirect Impacts. Indirect impacts are generally delayed or occur much later in time or at distance from direct impacts (i.e., downstream or downwind). In the case of this project, indirect impacts would include improvements in future years along the entire UHRR corridor and in local tributaries extending beyond the immediate project area (i.e., extending from US 101 to ONP). These indirect impacts are expected to result from increased safety and reliability of the future Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-2 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment roadway, fewer emergency response or repairs needed due to floods or storms, and improved fish passage conditions that provide more favorable or extended access to upstream spawning and rearing habitats. Cumulative Impacts. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) defines cumulative impacts on the environment as those that result from the incremental impact of a proposed action when added to other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, actions taking place over short or extended periods of time (CEQ 2016). When identifying other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, temporal and geographic limits are taken into consideration. For the purpose of identifying projects considered for the cumulative impact analysis, the geographic limits involved the UHRR corridor from US 101 to ONP because the properties and ongoing activities along the UHRR between US 101 and ONP depend on the exclusive access the UHRR provides to the project area. Therefore, impacts that occur anywhere along the UHRR will likely affect other locations and properties along the road. For example, a washout at MP 1.0, near US 101, would have effects not only within the proposed project area, but throughout the UHRR corridor between US 101 and ONP, as well as within the Hoh District of ONP. The temporal limits selected for this analysis are 2000 to 2025. This timeline is chosen because information about projects was found to be less available and specific prior to 2000. In addition, projects and plans beyond 2025 are more likely not to be reasonably foreseeable and more likely to be generally and preliminarily described, thus, impacts would have been more difficult to evaluate. To gather information about past, present, or reasonable foreseeable future projects within the cumulative impacts geographic limits, the Hoh Tribe, the Hoh River Trust (HRT), WDNR, and ONP were contacted. The Hoh Tribe’s 2014 Forest Management Plan (FMP) plans for general forestland management, maintenance, and development activities that provide clean water and habitat conditions conducive to thriving fish and wildlife species. The Hoh Tribe’s planned timber harvest methods primarily include individual trees, commercial thinnings, or small patch cuts (less than 10 acres). The FMP does not list any future projects planned along the UHRR between US 101 and the ONP (Hoh Tribe 2014). Jefferson County designated approximately $2.2 million for capital improvement in their 2017, 3-year review. The county has no plans at this time for projects along the UHRR, other than their work in partnership with WFLHD for this proposed project (Jefferson County 2009; 2014; 2015; 2017). ONP recently completed a $1.3 million improvement at the Hoh Rainforest Visitor Center and is currently working on apartment rehabilitation ($200,000) in the Hoh District. Both projects have created vehicle traffic on the UHRR and demand for construction materials and equipment. Upcoming transportation projects in ONP’s Road Project Plan include work on roads within park boundaries, including the road at Lake Crescent, trails and trail bridges, beach roads, as well as the UHRR. The ONP’s UHRR work within the park involves constructing bank stabilization methods along the Hoh River, similar to the proposed project, and is scheduled to be completed in 2018 (Turecek, pers. comm. 2016b). Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-3 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment Land within the project area formerly managed by HRT was transferred to the Nature Conservancy in May 2017. HRT’s main goals were to manage its approximately 7,000 acres of former industrial timberland along the Hoh River floodplain using the principles of forestry and fisheries restoration. The HRT keeps its lands open to the public for river recreation and hunting, and expects to produce old growth-like forests faster than if naturally grown. HRT has pre- commercially thinned about 3,300 acres of forest as of 2016, and is beginning to commercially thin overcrowded older stands that need diversification. Big game projects have included creating small open areas (0.5 to 1.5 acres) in conifer forests for elk pasture and edge-dependent species. HRT did not have specific future projects planned at the time research was conducted, in 2016 (HRT 2016; Hagen, pers. comm. 2016). Although WDNR has planned funding for future projects and studies, no reasonably foreseeable, specific future projects were identified on the UHRR, according to the WDNR 2017-2019 Biennium Budget Decision Package and the 2015-2017 WDNR Budget Request (WDNR 2015b; WDNR 2017). Table 4-1 lists past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects involving the UHRR, effects of which were considered in combination with those of the proposed project for the cumulative impacts analysis. Figure 4-1 shows the locations of these projects. Mitigation Measures. The CEQ regulations define mitigation as the following:  Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action;  Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation;  Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment;  Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; and  Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. Mitigation measures for the proposed project are described in detail in Sections 4.1 through 4.11. Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-4 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment Table 4-1. Cumulative Impacts – Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects along UHRR No. Owner/Agency Project Name Mile Post Year Mitigation Project? Description of Repair/Project 1 Jefferson County Upper Hoh Road Emergency - MP 12 12.0 1996 No Road relocated to north, ~7,000 cubic yards of heavy loose riprap installed to rebuild road; repair included riprap "barbs." LWD was incorporated into structure as required by permits for mitigation. 2 Jefferson County Upper Hoh Road Washout - MP 6.7 6.7 1998 No Constructed 600 lineal feet of heavy loose riprap bank armor. 3 Jefferson County Upper Hoh Road Washout - MP 6.7 - Mitigation ELJs 6.7 2003 Yes As mitigation for a 1998 repair project at MP 6.7, four very large ELJs were constructed just upstream from riprap; ELJs were up to 5 feet diameter by 60 feet long. 4 Jefferson County Upper Hoh Road - MP 7.7 7.7 2004 No Reconstructed eastbound lane using approximately 3,500 cubic yards of heavy loose riprap and armor stone. 5 Jefferson County Upper Hoh Road - MP 4.0 Emergency Restoration 4.0 2006 No Reconstructed eastbound lane using ~3,500 cubic yards of heavy loose riprap and armor stone; upper 10 feet of embankment reconstructed with "bioengineered" bank protection methods using natural erosion mats and willow cuttings. 6 Jefferson County Tower Creek Bridge No 7W 7.5 2006 No Sheet pile wall installed to shore up the bridge approach on the west end; riprap bank armor replaced under the bridge to protect foundation from scour and approaches from erosion and failure. 7 Jefferson County Upper Hoh Road - MP 7.8 7.8 2007 No Reconstructed eastbound lane using ~7,500 cubic yards of heavy loose riprap and armor stone. 8 Jefferson County / Hoh River Trust Pole Creek Culvert Replacement 8.3 2010 No Replaced 5-foot-diameter steel culvert (barrier) with 35-foot concrete bridge; temporary road bypass installed with signals during construction. 9 Jefferson County Dismal Creek Culvert (Mitigation) 9.2 2011 Yes Removed barrier culvert and replaced with bridge. 10 Jefferson County Willoughby Creek Bridge Repair 3.4 2011 Yes Installed tied-back sheet pile wall to shore up bridge approach embankment on west end; replaced riprap embankment protection; installed LWD upstream to protect outside of creek bend above road and as project mitigation. 11 Jefferson County Spruce Creek Culvert Replacement 9.7 2012 Yes Replaced damaged culverts with 24-foot concrete bridge; project was self- mitigating as it replaced an existing partial fish passage barrier. 12 Jefferson County Alder Creek Trib. Culvert (Mitigation) 2.1 2013 Yes Removed barrier culvert and replaced with bridge. 13 Jefferson County Upper Hoh Road - MP 3.9 ER 3.9 2014 No Reconstructed eastbound lane using ~2,500 cubic yards of heavy loose riprap and armor stone. Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-5 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment No. Owner/Agency Project Name Mile Post Year Mitigation Project? Description of Repair/Project 14 Jefferson County MP 3.338 Access Preservation: Hoh Rainforest, Olympic National Park 3.338 2015 No Replacement of substandard failing culvert. 15 Jefferson County MP 6.95 Access Preservation: Hoh Rainforest, Olympic National Park 6.95 2016 No Replacement of substandard failing culvert. 16 Jefferson County Emergency riprap placement MP 9.7 at Spruce Creek 9.7 2016 No Placed 350 lineal feet (3,500 tons) of riprap to stabilize bank. 17 NPS / ONP Hoh Rainforest Visitor Center Improvements 18 2016 No Improvements. 18 NPS / ONP Hoh Rainforest Visitor Center - Apartments Rehabilitation 18 2016 No Apartment rehabilitation. 19 NPS / ONP Upper Hoh River Road 12.0-18.0 2018 No Bank stabilization along Hoh River, within ONP. 20 Hoh River Trust Dismal Pond Outlet to Hoh River 9 2016 No Complete a new outlet to the Hoh River from Dismal Pond. 21 WDNR Lewis Ranch Off-Channel Habitat 11.2 1990s No WDNR partnered with WDFW in creating off-channel habitat near Lewis Ranch, known as Lewis Ponds. 22 WDNR H-3100 Road Decommissioning 1.4 1999 No H-3100 road decommissioning. 23 WDNR Culvert Replacement 6.7 2002 No Replace culvert with fish passable culvert, tributary to Tower Creek; H-3100. 24 WDNR Culvert Replacement 6.5 2003 No Replace culvert with 12-foot-diameter stream simulation culvert for fish passage at Dismal Creek. 25 WDNR Slide Clean-up 6.5 2007 No Clean up slide debris on H-3100 from road failure on H-3160 during November 2006 storm, including limited public works contracts. 26 WDNR Tower Creek Bridge Repairs 6.8 2008 No Repairs to Tower Creek Bridge, H-3100. 27 WDNR Road Repairs H-3160 and H-3100 6.5 2009 No Road repairs from debris flows and road failures on H-3160 and H-3100; install temporary bridge. Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-6 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment No. Owner/Agency Project Name Mile Post Year Mitigation Project? Description of Repair/Project 28 WDNR Linder Creek Bridge Replacement 6.5 2012 No Bridge replacement to replace bridge destroyed in January 2009 storm. 29 WDNR H-3160 Road Reconstruction 6.7 2012 No Repair road failure on the H-3160 road; washed out in November 2006 storm. 30 WDNR Alder Creek Bridge Deck 1.4 2013 No Re-deck bridge over Alder Creek, H-3100. 31 WDNR Rock Creek Bridge 6.6 2014 No Replace culvert with bridge for fish passage. 32 WDNR Close Willoughby Creek Campground 3.6 2015 No Closed Willoughby Creek Campground. 33 WDNR Hoh Down Thin Timber Sale 6.6 2015 No Timber sale - "Hoh Down Thin," on the H-3100. 34 WDNR Willy's Peak Timber Sale 11.4 2015 No Timber sale - "Willy's Peak," on the H-3900. 35 WDNR Restroom Removal 3.6 2016 No Removal of pre-fabricated restroom (installed in 2015) at Willoughby Creek Campground, at time of storm. 36 WDNR Re-permit Rock Pit 6.5 2016 No Re-permitting of rock pit near Spruce Creek. 37 WDNR Culvert at Minnie Peterson Campground 4.7 2016 No Minnie Peterson Campground, fish-passable culvert #1. 38 WDNR Culvert at Minnie Peterson Campground 4.7 2016 No Minnie Peterson Campground, fish-passable culvert #2. 39 WDNR Willy Thinner Timber Sale 6.5 2016 No Timber sale in process - "Willy Thinner," on the H-3100. 40 WDNR Goat Trail Timber Sale 6.9 2016 No Timber sale in process - "Goat Trail," H-3100. 41 WDNR Roaring Men Timber Sale 1.4 2016 No Timber sale in process - "Roaring Men," on the H-3100. 42 WDNR Timber Sale 1.4 2016 No Planned timber sale. 43 WDNR Culvert Maintenance and Replacements 6.5 varies No Culvert maintenance and replacements 2002, 2003, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014. Notes: Projects Jefferson County constructed were in response to damage to 2,550 lineal feet of the UHRR. Jefferson County repairs required an estimated 23,000 cubic yards of riprap. Sources: Allison, pers. comm. 2016 Hagen, pers. comm. 2016 Reinders, pers. comm. 2016a Tryall, pers. comm. 2016 Turecek, pers. comm. 2016a Service Layer Credits: Copyright:© 2013National Geographic Society, i-cubedSources: Esri, USGS, NOAA Upper Hoh River Road Project Data Sources: Jefferson County, Washington DNR, USGS NHD, ESRI Base MapsCumulative Projects: Hoh River Trust, Hoh Tribe, Council on Environmental Quality, National Park Service, Jefferson County \\Pdxfs1\project\F\FHAX00000242\0600INFO\GS\Maps\Biological Assessment Maps\Fig_4-1 Cumulative Impacts Analysis.mxd Figure 4-1Projects Analyzed for Cumulative Impacts ![ ![ ![ ![ ![![ ![ ![ ![ ![ ![ ![ ![![ ![![ ![ ![![ ![![![![![![![![![ ![![ ![![ ![![ ![ ![![![ ![![ ![ ![ Ho h R i v e r 10101 10101 Site C4 DownstreamBank StabilizationMP 7.5 to 7.6RM 23.3 UpperHohRiverRd H o h R i v e r 10101 Culvert ReplacementMP 4.38, RM 19.5 Site C4 UpstreamBank StabilizationMP 7.9, RM 23.6 Site C5Canyon Creek CulvertMP 10.2, RM 27.1 Site C1Bank StabilizationMP 3.6 to 3.8RM 18.8 to 18.9 Site C3Tower Creek BridgeMP 7.5, RM 23.3 Site C2Bank StabilizationMP 4.0 to 4.4RM 19.1 to 19.5 U p p e r H o h R i v e r R d Project 1MP 12 Projects17 & 18MP 18 Project 10MP 3.4 Project 14MP 3.338 Project 19MP 12.0-18.0 Projects11 & 16MP 9.7 Projects2, 3, 23, 29MP 6.7 Project 4MP 7.7 Project 5MP 4.0 Project 6MP 7.5 Project 7MP 7.8 Project 13MP 3.9 Project 12MP 2.1 Project 15MP 6.95 Project 8MP 8.3 Project 9MP 9.2 867 17 12 14 16 10 0 2 15 18 4 5 9 3 1 11 13 Projects32 & 35MP 3.6 Projects37 & 38MP 4.7 Project 34MP 11.4 Projects22, 30, 41, 42MP 1.4 Project 21MP 11.2 Project 26MP 6.8 Project 40MP 6.9 Projects24, 25, 27, 28,36, 39, 43MP 6.5 Projects31 & 33MP 6.6 Project 20MP 9 ³0 0.75 1.5Miles ![Cumulative Project Location Upper Hoh River Road Milepost (tenth) County Boundary 12 Milepost Upper Hoh River Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-8 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment 4.1 Transportation and Access This section describes existing conditions and potential impacts of the proposed project alternatives related to transportation and access. For the analysis, the evaluated UHRR corridor (i.e., the transportation project area) extends from the intersection of US 101 to the eastern terminus of the UHRR at the ONP Hoh Rainforest Visitor Center. The construction limits for the proposed project are within this corridor extending from MP 3.6 to MP 10.2. The UHRR is the single ingress and egress along the Upper Hoh River, including the Hoh Rainforest in ONP. 4.1.1 Affected Environment This section describes existing transportation and access within the project area. Information on transportation and access was gathered from existing documentation and references, and communications with Jefferson County, NPS, and WSDOT. 4.1.1.1 Road Conditions The existing UHRR is an 18-mile, two-lane asphalt and aggregate-surfaced road with traveled way widths (per lane) between 10 to 12 feet (see Figure 4-2). The UHRR intersects with US 101 at US 101 MP 178.49 and travels generally east, terminating at the existing Hoh Rainforest Visitor Center and parking area at UHRR MP 18.0. The road is managed and maintained by Jefferson County and the NPS, depending on the location. There are no established pedestrian or bicycle facilities along the UHRR corridor. Roadway shoulders vary in width, from 0- to 8-foot paved and from 0- to 10-foot unpaved, but are typically narrow (approximately 2 feet wide). Guardrails are located in several areas, primarily where the horizontal alignment does not meet design standards or where the river nearly abuts the roadway. Cement concrete barriers have also been installed at certain locations between the Hoh River and the UHRR. Some areas of the road surface are uneven, and potholes exist. The intersection with US 101 is a stop-controlled T-intersection. Both northbound and southbound lanes along US 101 have turn pockets for vehicles turning onto the UHRR. Jefferson County has rated the asphalt surface of UHRR fair to good, but the ride quality in some areas as poor (Reinders, pers. comm. 2016b). The geometry does not meet current County design standards in many locations for horizontal alignment, vertical profile, and width. Multiple clear zone hazards exist along the UHRR, including large trees and steep drop-offs. No weight restrictions are currently in place on the UHRR. Private, single-family residences along the UHRR are clustered near the center of the proposed project construction limits (MP 3.6 to MP 10.2). One full-time private resident lives along the UHRR east of the eastern project limits, and one full-time park ranger lives along the UHRR within ONP boundaries (see Section 4.1.1.3 below). Although the project area does not contain formal parking areas, the widened unpaved shoulders adjacent to the road are often used by travelers. These areas are unmarked and unsigned. Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-9 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment Figure 4-2. UHRR Typical Roadway Conditions 4.1.1.2 Road Uses The UHRR provides access to ONP and Hoh Rainforest Visitor Center, WDNR campgrounds, and private residences. Private residences are either adjacent to the UHRR or are accessed from the UHRR via private driveways or public roads. Owners and land managers in the area include WDNR, the Nature Conservancy, Jefferson County, NPS, USFS – Olympic National Forest, and private owners. Recreational, residential, and two commercial uses operate year-round. No transit services exist along the UHRR corridor. Seton Construction owns and operates a quarry just east of Site C5 in support of its construction projects. WFLHD, Jefferson County, and the Corps have used material from this quarry for repairs on the UHRR, Oil City Road, and at the Hoh and Quillayute Indian reservations. The quarry generates very limited volumes of truck traffic that periodically increase when materials are transported for specific construction projects. Tractors, excavators, and dump trucks with or without trailers are typically used at the quarry and to haul quarry materials (Reinders, pers. comm. 2016b). 4.1.1.3 Olympic National Park Access The UHRR is the sole access route to the Hoh District of ONP. The Hoh District includes the Hoh Rainforest Visitor Center, the Hoh Rainforest Ranger Station, an 88-site campground, a picnic area, hiking trails, and the Hoh Rainforest (NPS 2016a). One full-time, year-round park ranger is stationed at the Hoh Rainforest Ranger Station. Up to 12 residents may be located in ONP at any one time during the summer months of operation, May through September (Turecek, pers. comm. 2016b). Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-10 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment 4.1.1.4 Traffic Volumes Jefferson County average daily (one-way) traffic (ADT) counts (Table 4-2) on the UHRR during summer months (July and August) are over twice the levels documented in late spring (May and June). The road remains open in the winter except during emergency repair work; however, traffic counts were not available for winter months. Table 4-2. UHRR Average Daily Traffic (Number of Vehicles) Milepost May and June July and August MP 0.14 334-667 Up to 1,295 MP 6.15 236-576 Up to 1,209 MP 12.04 222-560 Up to 1,148 Source: Reinders, pers. comm., 2016b The NPS has visitor trip data for ONP for the period 2000 to 2015, based on the number of vehicles entering ONP through the Hoh District Entrance Station.17 During this period, the highest annual traffic volumes generally occurred in August, averaging 1,158 vehicles per day (Table 4-3). This is consistent with Jefferson County traffic counts. Table 4-3. Number of Vehicles Entering ONP at Hoh District Entrance Station Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2015 1,378 2,837 4,378 5,421 9,987 14,326 22,489 24,601 19,898 0 10,002 1,182 2014 1,490 2,133 3,174 3,470 10,334 10,714 13,690 20,354 9,911 4,011 1,610 1,149 2013 1,277 2,116 3,746 2,135 10,712 8,667 9,609 8,456 9,899 1,812 1,626 1,102 2012 960 1,742 2,837 3,012 10,856 4,525 18,418 10,653 9,642 3,028 1,277 1,215 2011 877 1,761 3,086 3,034 4,833 8,256 13,174 14,659 9,235 5,568 1,430 1,360 2010 1,394 2,997 3,556 3,311 4,959 9,353 16,018 15,812 9,633 3,684 1,394 1,072 2009 0 1,406 2,497 3,060 4,913 8,509 13,617 11,214 8,493 2,848 2,068 1,087 2008 0 0 2,830 2,315 4,746 6,964 11,834 13,394 7,467 2,848 2,610 492 2007 0 0 0 0 3,750 6,920 11,928 11,792 5,662 3,640 1,379 0 2006 1,118 1,585 2,568 2,658 3,722 6,970 12,186 11,450 2,524 3,140 0 0 2005 3,184 980 4,986 2,627 4,386 6,852 11,741 12,412 5,394 1,403 1,338 1,500 2004 404 2,867 2,813 3,250 4,739 7,894 9,397 10,457 6,896 6,968 567 710 2003 1,200 1,796 4,986 4,104 5,028 8,100 15,000 17,500 9,500 4,500 500 1,181 2002 1,567 1,976 5,080 5,102 4,203 7,380 13,472 47,424 8,000 4,111 1,652 1,181 2001 896 1,976 3,017 3,676 4,463 7,696 36,123 40,253 13,571 3,640 2,068 975 2000 896 1,976 3,017 3,676 5,003 9,369 24,922 16,769 9,207 3,640 2,865 1,222 Month Enter Avg 1,280 2,011 3,505 3,390 6,040 8,281 15,851 17,950 9,058 3,656 2,159 1,102 17 NPS data is incomplete where counts are not available due to count machine malfunctions or missing data. Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-11 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month Total 2,560 4,021 7,009 6,780 12,079 16,562 31,702 35,900 18,117 7,312 4,318 2,204 ADT 83 144 226 226 390 552 1,023 1,158 604 236 144 71 Source: NPS 2016d; additional calculations performed by David Evans and Associates, Inc. (DEA). Note: “Month Total” is twice “Month Enter Avg” to account for trips both into and out of the park. Based on Jefferson County and NPS traffic data, vehicle counts remain fairly constant west to east on the UHRR, as the majority of trips (ADT) are traveling to and from the ONP Hoh District recreational areas. ADT counts from Jefferson County indicate that only about 15 percent of trips are related to residential or commercial uses along the UHRR. WSDOT has basic daily traffic data for US 101 just north of the intersection with the UHRR. These counts indicate that ADT along US 101 was 1,300 vehicles in 2011 and 1,400 vehicles in 2014 (WSDOT 2016b). 4.1.1.5 Accident History Based on Jefferson County accident data for the period 2011 to 2016, most of the seven accidents that occurred along the UHRR involved vehicle damage only, a wet roadway, daytime hours, or eastbound travel. Nearly all of the collisions identified were associated with poor weather conditions or the horizontal alignment of the roadway (i.e., curves). Six of the seven accidents occurred between MP 3.160 and MP 3.842 (primarily within the MP 3.6 to MP 10.2 construction limits of the proposed project), while the seventh accident occurred at MP 9.134 (Reinders, pers. comm. 2016b). The following summarizes road and weather conditions associated with these accidents:  Severity: no fatalities, 3 injury, and 4 property damage only;  Surface conditions: 5 wet road, 1 dry road, and 1 icy road;  Light conditions: 4 light, 2 dark, and 1 dusk; and  Direction: 6 eastbound, 1 westbound. 4.1.2 Environmental Consequences This section describes direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to transportation and access due to the project alternatives. 4.1.2.1 No Action Alternative With the No Action Alternative, the proposed project would not be constructed. Residents, employees, recreationists, and ONP visitors would continue to use the UHRR for access. Maintenance of the road and sections of the adjoining riverbank would continue. Construction vehicles and equipment would continue to be required for maintenance and emergency repairs thereby contributing to UHRR traffic levels. Intermittent emergency repair work would continue to cause periodic traffic delays and access interruptions along the UHRR. Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-12 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment 4.1.2.2 Build Alternative Direct Impacts Direct impacts on transportation and access would be minor and result from periodic temporary detours, delays, and closures affecting traffic mobility along the UHRR corridor. Construction equipment, vehicles, and temporary traffic control devices would be required for project construction. Based on previous Jefferson County repair projects within and near the project corridor, each of the six construction sites would generate at least 50 construction-related trips per day (Reinders, pers. comm. 2016b). Eastbound trucks and other construction traffic traveling from the US 101 corridor would deliver equipment and supplies to the primary staging area. In addition, some trips may originate from a local quarry and other locations along the UHRR. The main disruption to traffic patterns would result from the movement of materials and equipment to the primary staging area and among individual construction sites. Detours, delays, and lane or road closures along the UHRR would occur during construction. Anticipated closures likely would be limited to a two-week period in January or February. This would temporarily reduce traffic mobility in the UHRR corridor. Temporary traffic controls, including signage, barriers, and flaggers, would be used to manage traffic throughout construction. Temporary delays and closures would last 30 minutes to 4 hours. To the extent the proposed design improves the roadway’s horizontal alignment, the number of accidents along curves may decrease after construction. Indirect Impacts The proposed project would improve long-term reliability, access, and safety along the UHRR by reducing the locations, number, and frequency of emergency repairs required to control future flood or storm damage on the roadway and along its adjacent river embankments and drainages. This would provide long-term benefits to private residents, recreationists, and ONP residents and visitors. No indirect adverse impacts are anticipated. Cumulative Impacts The proposed incremental improvements to bank stability along the Hoh River corridor and at bridge or culvert crossings complement other past projects in the watershed of a similar nature. Combined, these efforts will improve road reliability and access by reducing future risks of damages from stormwater and flooding. Such improvements would also help establish conditions that better accommodate anticipated future projects in the Hoh River watershed, such as the future ONP project in Table 4-1. Mitigation Measures WFLHD recommends the following mitigation measures to offset transportation- and access- related impacts during construction:  Signage installed and public notices locally advertised in advance of and during traffic changes to inform the public;  Installation and coordination of temporary traffic control devices to minimize the impacts to motorists; Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-13 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment  Placement and positioning of equipment in order to maintain local and area-wide access;  Use of flaggers and temporary battery- or solar-powered traffic signals to maintain access during long-term road closures; and  Use of pilot cars to guide residents or ONP visitors through construction zones, as may be appropriate during temporary lane closures. 4.2 Land Use This section describes existing and planned land uses in the project area and summarizes Jefferson County’s land use plan, adopted in 2009 and updated in 2014 (Jefferson County 2009; 2014), and policies and policies relevant to the proposed project. Potential impacts on land use attributable to the project alternatives are also described. For land use, the project area is defined as the area north of the Hoh River, along both sides of the UHRR corridor between MP 3.6 and MP 10.2 (i.e., the limits within which construction activities are proposed). 4.2.1 Affected Environment This section describes existing land use within the project area. Information was gathered from the Jefferson County Code, Jefferson County Comprehensive Plans, and the Washington Office of financial management. In addition, site reconnaissance was conducted in spring 2016. 4.2.1.1 Existing and Planned Land Uses The project area is within a rural, relatively isolated, and unincorporated section of Jefferson County that includes a mixture of land uses: forest and recreational lands, the Hoh River, and rural residential and commercial development. The project area, which lies east of US 101 and west of ONP, is outside of Jefferson County’s urban growth boundary in the western part of the County, referred to as the “West End.” Although the West End land use plan does not show any designated commercial land, some local businesses exist. The West End has very low projected growth (43 people) over the 20-year planning period (2014 to 2034) (Jefferson County 2009; 2014). Tourism and recreational attractions in the West End associated with ocean beaches, streams, forests, fishing, and hiking result in a seasonal influx of visitors to the area. The Hoh and Quinault Indian Reservation communities are concentrated population centers in the West End. Existing designated land uses in the project area include the following, as shown on Figure 4-3:  National forest land (USFS);  State-managed timberlands (WDNR);  NPS land;  Private/commercial timberland;  Residential homes and outbuildings;  Open space agricultural use;  Commercial uses (Jefferson County Maintenance Shop, Hard Rain Café, Peak 6 Tours & Gift Shop, and Seasonal RV lodging/parking area; and  Transportation (UHRR). Upper Hoh River Road Project Data Sources: Jefferson County, Washington DNR. \\Pdxfs1\project\F\FHAX00000226\0600INFO\GS\Maps\Public EA maps\Fig_4-3_Existing Land Uses.mxd Figure 4-3Existing Land Use HohRiver Site C4 UpstreamBank StabilizationMP 7.9, RM 23.6 Upper Hoh River Rd Hoh Mainline Rd Culvert ReplacementMP 4.38, RM 19.5 Site C4 DownstreamBank StabilizationMP 7.5 to 7.6RM 23.3 Site C5Canyon Creek CulvertMP 10.2, RM 27.1 Site C1Bank StabilizationMP 3.6 to 3.8RM 18.8 to 18.9 Site C3Tower Creek BridgeMP 7.5, RM 23.3 Site C2Bank StabilizationMP 4.0 to 4.4RM 19.1 to 19.5 Project Location Upper Hoh River Upper HohRiver Road Local Road Land Use 1100 - Residential - Single Unit 1101 - Residential - MH W/Land 1900 - Cabins, Park Models, RV Utilities 4590 - Other Hwy & St R/W 6242 - Cemeteries 6710 - County Facilities 7500 - Resorts - Seasonal - RV Parks 7690 - Olympic National Park 8000 - Farms 8300 - Open Space Agricultural (A) 8800 - Designated Forest Land (USFS) 9100 - Vacant Land 9300 - Water Areas - Tidelands/Shorelands 9700 - Federal Land 9720 - DNR Managed Timberlands (except forest transfer) 9800 - Garages, Outbuildings, Other Imps³ 0 0.25 0.5Miles Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-15 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment Residential and commercial uses are clustered on large parcels between MP 5 and MP 7, historically referred to as the Schmidt Ranch and Fisher Ranch residential areas. Figure 4-4 shows a community gathering area adjacent to the Hard Rain Café, within the proposed construction limits and between Sites C2 and C4. Just outside the project area, Seton Construction operates a quarry that produces backfill materials (gravel and rocks). Figure 4-4. Community gathering space near Hard Rain Café According to the updated 2014 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan (Jefferson County 2014), zoning and planning designations for the project area include the following and are shown in Figure 4-5:  Rural Residential on 20-acre lots (RR-20): single-family residential, located in an area with similar development patterns; adjacent to Urban Growth Area, Resource Production Land or State/National Forest Land; parcels are in coastal areas of similar size; includes land affected by critical areas; includes private timberlands and agricultural lands;  Rural Residential on 10-acre lots (RR-10): single-family residential, located in an area with similar development patterns; adjacent to the Urban Growth Area, transition density between Rural Residential 1:5 (one home per 5 acres) and 1:20 (one home per 20 acres); parcels in coastal areas of similar size; includes land affected by critical areas;  Rural Forest Lands (RF-40): minimum parcel size is 40 acres, with parcels smaller than the minimum included when the acres of at least the minimum size are contiguously owned and the land is in a deferred forest or exempt tax status; and  Commercial Forest (CF-80): minimum parcel size is 80 acres with parcels smaller than the minimum included when acres of at least the minimum size are contiguously owned and the land is in a deferred forest or exempt tax status (Jefferson County 2014). Upper Hoh River Road Project Data Sources: Jefferson County, Washington DNR. \\Pdxfs1\project\F\FHAX00000226\0600INFO\GS\Maps\Public EA maps\Fig_4-5_JC Zoning and Comp Plan Designation.mxd Figure 4-5Jefferson County Zoning andComprehensive Plan Designations HohRiver Site C4 UpstreamBank StabilizationMP 7.9, RM 23.6 Upper Hoh River Road CulvertMP 4.38, RM 19.5 Site C4 DownstreamBank StabilizationMP 7.5 to 7.6RM 23.3 Site C5Canyon Creek CulvertMP 10.2, RM 27.1 Site C1Bank StabilizationMP 3.6 to 3.8RM 18.8 to 18.9 Site C3Tower Creek BridgeMP 7.5, RM 23.3 Site C2Bank StabilizationMP 4.0 to 4.4RM 19.1 to 19.5 Hoh Mainline Rd Project Location Upper Hoh River Upper Hoh River Road Local Road Zoning AL-20 Local Agriculture CF-80 Commercial Forest IF-20 Inholding Forest RF-40 Rural Forest RR-10 Rural Residential RR-20 Rural Residential³ 0 0.25 0.5Miles Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-17 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment 4.2.1.2 Plans and Policies This project would comply with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, updated in 2014 (Jefferson County 2014), and Jefferson County codes and ordinances. Elements of the Comprehensive Plan relevant to this project include the Land Use and Rural Element, the Natural Resource Conservation Element, the Environment Element, and the Transportation Element. The proposed project would support the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Environment Goal 14.0 Preserve the functions and values of critical environmental areas and protect development from the risks of environmental hazards. Policies: 14.1 Ensure that land use decisions are based on land use ordinances which are in compliance with the Critical Areas Ordinance and all applicable state and federal environmental laws. 14.2 Allow residential, commercial, and industrial development in a manner that minimizes risk from flooding, earth movement, shoreline erosion, and other natural hazards. 14.3 Support cooperative ecosystem and habitat management processes between stakeholders and local, state, federal, and tribal governments. 14.4 Ensure that land use decisions along Jefferson County shorelines protect the shoreline environment, facilitate public access, recognize the needs of water-oriented activities and cooperate with regional plans for protection and management of shorelines. In areas of the County under the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW), activities which are water-oriented will be preferred over those activities which are not, all other factors being equal, consistent with the Shoreline Management Act and the land use designations, goals, and policies of this Comprehensive Plan. Highways and Arterials Goal 1.0 Provide a safe, convenient, efficient and integrated highway and arterial system for the movement of people and goods; one that is functionally well maintained, reflects local environment, and meets the demands of the future. Policies: 1.3 Minimize life cycle costs of the County transportation system by preserving and maintaining both the adequacy and operating condition of the existing transportation system. Intergovernmental Coordination Goal 7.0 Ensure that the Jefferson County Transportation Plan reflects public desire and is coordinated and consistent with the plans of state, regional, and local governments. Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-18 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment Policies: TRP 7.1 Ensure efficient management of all transportation resources through cooperation in planning and project development with federal, state, regional, and local jurisdictions. TRP 7.3 Reduce duplication of services, program costs, and increase the quality of service. TRP 7.4 Coordinate planning for transportation improvements and projects with the facilities/utility planning activities of other agencies and utilities in order to ensure that per-project costs are reduced, environmental impacts minimized, and community inconvenience and disruption lessened. TRP 7.5 Comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) in all transportation projects. 4.2.2 Environmental Consequences This section describes direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to land use due to the project alternatives. 4.2.2.1 No Action Alternative With the No Action Alternative, the proposed project would not be constructed. Land uses would not change. Residential and commercial uses along the UHRR would continue to be affected by temporary road and lane closures due to emergency repair activities. 4.2.2.2 Build Alternative Direct and Indirect Impacts In general, forest, residential, commercial, open space agricultural, and transportation land uses would remain the same as existing conditions during and following construction. Minor amounts of forest (within or outside the existing right-of-way) may be converted to transportation use for the project. Of the approximately 157,000 square feet of land that would be cleared of vegetation to provide construction access and equipment and materials storage and staging areas near Sites C1, C2, and C4, a portion would be forested area. For example, portions of the Hoh River that are privately owned would require new easements or land acquisitions before construction begins. These areas, along with portions of the bank and upland area between the UHRR and the Hoh River, would be cleared to provide temporary construction access, staging, and equipment storage. Once construction is completed, such areas would be revegetated with grasses, shrubs, or trees. No significant direct or indirect adverse impacts to land use (or impacts to access associated with such land uses) would result from the proposed project. Cumulative Impacts The proposed project, together with past and reasonable-foreseeable future projects along the UHRR, would result in no significant changes to land uses. Past project along the UHRR listed in Table 4-1 include ten bank stabilization projects and at least 15 culvert or bridge projects whose purpose was to maintain the safety and reliability of the roadway by improving and repairing Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-19 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment sections of the road embankment, culverts beneath the road, bridges, and the road surface and its foundation. To the extent future repairs or improvements would involve easements or acquisitions, conversion to transportation use may occur. Cumulative impacts to land use are expected to be minimal; property owners and amount of land area affected will be confirmed during final design. Mitigation Measures WFLHD will justly compensate property owners for temporary construction easements or permanent ROW acquisitions, according to the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies for Federal and Federally Assisted Programs (42 USC Chapter 61). 4.3 Recreation This section describes existing recreational uses and opportunities within the project area and impacts to recreation attributable to the project alternatives. For this resource, the project area is defined as the corridor north of the Hoh River and along either side of the UHRR within the construction limits that extend from MP 3.6 to MP 10.2. 4.3.1 Affected Environment This section describes existing recreational opportunities within the project area. Sources of information included NPS, ONP, and WDFW, as well as a spring 2016 site visit. Recreation in and near the project area includes camping, backcountry hiking and backpacking, fishing, boating, swimming, climbing, sight-seeing, picnicking, skiing, snowshoeing, environmental education, and other activities. These activities occur within the Hoh District of ONP, along the Hoh River corridor, and on lands adjacent to the UHRR as described below. 4.3.1.1 Hoh District of Olympic National Park The eastern terminus of the project is located approximately 1.8 miles west of the Hoh Rainforest entrance to ONP at MP 12.0. From the entrance, the UHRR extends approximately six miles into the park before reaching the Hoh Rainforest Visitor Center (see Figure 4-6). The Hoh Rainforest Visitor Center is open April through June, Friday through Tuesday, and daily from June until September. Interpretive exhibits, educational items, and wilderness camping permits are available at the Visitor Center. From the Visitor Center, visitors can access the Hoh campground and several trailheads, including the Hall of Mosses, the Hoh River Trail, and the Spruce Nature Trail. These trails provide hiking access to additional areas including backcountry wilderness trails within ONP. The Hoh campground has 88 campsites in the old growth forest along the Hoh River and is open year round. The campground has fire pits with grates, picnic tables, potable water, accessible restrooms, animal-proof food storage lockers, and a recreational- vehicle dump station. Upper Hoh River Road Project Data Sources: Jefferson County, Washington DNR. \\Pdxfs1\project\F\FHAX00000226\0600INFO\GS\Maps\Public EA maps\Fig_4-6_Recreational Areas.mxd Figure 4-6Recreational Areas ÆQÆX !y ÆQÆQ!y Culvert ReplacementMP 4.38, RM 19.5 Site C4 DownstreamBank StabilizationMP 7.5 to 7.6RM 23.3 Site C5Canyon Creek CulvertMP 10.2, RM 27.1 Site C1Bank StabilizationMP 3.6 to 3.8RM 18.8 to 18.9 Site C3Tower Creek BridgeMP 7.5, RM 23.3Site C2Bank StabilizationMP 4.0 to 4.4RM 19.1 to 19.5 Site C4 UpstreamBank StabilizationMP 7.9, RM 23.6 U p p e r H o h R i v e r R d Hoh River H o h R i v e r Clallam CountyJeffersonCounty O l y m p i c N a t i o n a l P a r k O l y m p i c N a t i o n a l P a r k Hoh RainForestCampground Hoh Rain ForestVisitor Center Morgan'sCrossing MinniePetersonCampground Former WilloughbyCreek Campground £¤101 £¤101 InformalBoat Launch Project Location Upper Hoh River Upper Hoh River Road Local Road County Boundary Olympic National Park Hoh River Trail ÆQ Campground ÆX Visitor Center !y Water Access³ 0 1 2Miles Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-21 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment During fiscal year 2015, approximately 300,000 visitors entered ONP through the Hoh Rainforest entrance. Also in 2015, the number of visitors to the Hoh District ranged from approximately 3,000 in December to approximately 64,000 in August (NPS 2016b). As shown in Table 4-4, based on data from the period 2010 to 2015, the number of visitors typically peaks from May through September, with the lowest number of visitors occurring from November to January. The ability of the public and ONP staff to access the Hoh Rainforest area of ONP depends entirely on whether the UHRR is passable. Although ONP rangers’ residences and work places are not located within the project area, ONP rangers use the UHRR exclusively for access. ONP has one year-round resident ranger who needs daily access to the UHRR, and up to 12 summer residents (Turecek, pers. comm. 2016b). Table 4-4. Olympic National Park Hoh District Visitors Month 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 January 3,624 2,280 2,496 3,320 3,874 3,583 February 7,792 4,579 4,529 5,502 5,546 7,376 March 9,246 8,024 7,376 9,740 8,252 11,383 April 8,609 7,888 7,831 5,551 9,022 14,095 May 12,893 12,566 28,226 27,851 26,868 25,966 June 24,318 21,466 11,765 22,534 27,856 37,248 July 41,647 34,252 47,887 24,983 35,594 58,471 August 41,111 38,113 27,698 21,986 52,920 63,963 September 25,046 24,011 25,069 25,737 25,769 51,735 October 9,578 14,477 7,873 4,711 10,429 0* November 3,624 3,718 3,320 4,228 4,186 26,005 December 2,787 3,536 3,159 2,865 2,987 3,073 * = No data available. Source: NPS 2016c ONP, as a whole, includes almost one million acres and three distinct ecosystems: mountains; 70 miles of coastline; and the Hoh Rainforest, an old-growth temperate rain forest. Ninety-five percent of ONP is designated as wilderness. Established in 1938, with an additional area of Pacific coastline added in 1953 (NPS 2016e), ONP offers day and backcountry hiking, camping, backpacking, climbing, fishing, viewing, picnicking, skiing, snowshoeing, and environmental education. In 2014, 3.2 million people visited ONP for recreational purposes. Visitor numbers peaked in 1997 at 3.8 million, decreased slightly in the early 2000s, and have been generally on the rise since 2006 (NPS 2016c). 4.3.1.2 Hoh River Vehicle pull-out locations along the UHRR are used informally to access the Hoh River for recreational fishing, swimming, boating, tubing, or viewing. An informal boat launch is located at MP 4.31 within the construction limits of the proposed project. In addition, Morgan’s Crossing Boating Site, on USFS land and co-managed by USFS and WDFW, is located approximately 2,200 feet downstream of Site C3 at Canyon Creek. It is used for launching both motorized and Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-22 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment non-motorized watercraft for fishing and other water-related activities. Figure 4-6 above shows these two informal boat launches. According to the Washington State Sport Catch Report (WDFW 2013), 1,771 salmon were caught in the Hoh river system’s freshwater fishery between April 1, 2013 and March 31, 2014. This represented 3 percent of the total Washington State freshwater salmon harvest in coastal river systems. For the same period, 732,850 salmon were caught in the sport fishery in all of Washington’s freshwaters (including non-coastal areas) with the harvest in the Hoh river system representing approximately 0.2 percent of the statewide harvest (WDFW 2013). Washington State 2011 expenditures related to recreational freshwater fishing were approximately $690 million (USFWS 2011; U.S. Census 2011). Approximately 30 percent of this was related to food, lodging, boating costs, equipment rental, guide fees, access fees, heating and cooking fuel, ice, and bait. Based on the Hoh river system’s contributing 0.2 percent of Washington’s 2011 freshwater sport salmon catch, the estimated annual spending related to this fishery was $1.5 million per year, a portion of which likely occurred near the project area. The Hoh River is eligible for designation as a Wild and Scenic River, under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, for the following Outstandingly Remarkable Values: scenery, recreation, geology, and fish. The portion of the river within the ONP was designated as wild and scenic in 1993. The Act protects selected rivers that possess remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural or other similar values; and states that these rivers shall be preserved in free-flowing condition, and that they and their immediate environments shall be protected for the benefit of present and future generations (American Rivers 2016; NWSRS 2017). Figure 4-7 shows the mainstem Hoh River near Site C1. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act also states that uses compatible with management goals of a Wild and Scenic River are allowed. When Congress designates a river as Wild and Scenic, the designation:  Protects existing uses of the river;  Prohibits development of federally-licensed dams, and any other federally-assisted water resource project if it would negatively impact the river’s outstanding values;  Establishes a quarter-mile protected corridor on both sides of the river; and  Requires the creation of a cooperative river management plan that addresses resource protection, development of lands and facilities, and user capacities (American Rivers 2016). Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-23 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment Figure 4-7. Mainstem Hoh River near Site C1 4.3.1.3 Camping WDNR operates Minnie Peterson Campground at approximately MP 5.0 with nine primitive campsites, in the Olympic Experimental State Forest. WDNR’s Willoughby Creek Campground, formerly at approximately MP 3.6, was closed in January, 2016 due to a storm and washout. The Huelsdonk Campground is just outside the project area, at approximately MP 10.3. No formal trailheads exist in the project area. A privately-owned area near MP 5.5 has been used recently for temporary placement or storage of recreational vehicles (see Figure 4-6). 4.3.2 Environmental Consequences This section describes direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to recreation uses and opportunities related to the project alternatives. 4.3.2.1 No Action Alternative With the No Action Alternative, the proposed bank stabilization and bridge and culvert replacement projects would not be constructed. Unplanned, intermittent road closures and delays associated with storm damage and emergency repairs would continue to affect recreational uses in the project area and affect access to ONP by the public and ONP staff. During unplanned road closures from storm or flood damage and emergency repairs, ONP has implemented temporary solutions to maintain access to and from the park. This has involved either (1) relocating ONP residents outside ONP, or (2) staging an ONP vehicle east of the Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-24 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment construction zone so ONP personnel can park their vehicles west of the work area and walk to the staged vehicles that would then be driven to ONP. ONP reports that the duration of the last episode of road damage and subsequent repair lasted approximately six months. With the No Action Alternative, similar impacts that would affect access to ONP and other recreational uses along UHRR would continue to occur. With the No Action Alternative, if the portion of the Hoh River eligible under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act for a wild, scenic, or recreational classification becomes classified as such, additional steps may be required to implement future improvements on the UHRR. However, the Act is meant to “safeguard the special character of these rivers, while also recognizing the potential for their appropriate use and development...(t)he Act purposefully strives to balance dam and other construction at appropriate sections of rivers with permanent protection for some of the country's most outstanding free-flowing rivers.” For classified rivers, the Act prohibits federal support for actions such as the construction of dams or other instream activities that would harm the river's free-flowing condition, water quality, or outstanding resource values. 4.3.2.2 Build Alternative Direct Impacts During the five-month construction period that would extend from June 1 to October 31, recreationists traveling through the project area along the UHRR would periodically experience temporary traffic delays. Such access limitations would result from temporary road or one-lane closures, establishment of staging areas, and delivery, storage, or use of construction equipment. This would disrupt or discourage access to recreational uses within the Hoh District of ONP, along the Hoh River, and in the vicinity of the project work corridor. This five-month construction period coincides with the ONP’s summer-fall season when the highest number of visitations typically occur. During construction, traffic typically would experience delays of about 30 minutes, although certain activities could result in delays up to 4 hours. Construction of the bridges and culvert may also occur over 10-day periods in January and February should road closures be required. The informal boat access at MP 4.31 would be maintained to the extent possible; although temporary access disruptions could occur during construction at Sites C1 or C2. To the extent Hoh District recreationists decide to delay or forego visits due to anticipated construction delays, use of ONP recreation areas likely would decrease. In January 2016, for example, 13,700 recreation visitors accessed the Hoh District of ONP using the UHRR. Using this measure, an estimated 6,850 recreation visitors (two percent of annual Hoh District visitation) would not have access to the Hoh District were there a full road closure during a two- week construction period in January. Using the estimate of $1.5 million in annual spending related to Hoh River recreational fishing, if access to recreational fishing were blocked for 2 weeks of the year, approximately $50,000 in spending related to recreational fishing could be foregone or delayed. In addition, summer and fall visits planned by recreationists could be delayed or canceled if substantial traffic delays were anticipated during construction. The potential decrease in ONP visitation during summer and fall, due to proposed project construction and related anticipated Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-25 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment delays, would not likely be significant due to the varying traffic volumes on the UHRR and the varying length of delays. In the long run, the ELJ/dolosse units would represent an additional river feature seen by recreationists on the Hoh River. Fishing recreationists could use the ELJ/dolosse units to access mid-channel locations from the riverbank, similar to the lower Hoh River. Drift boats in the river would need to navigate around the ELJ/dolosse units. The presence of the ELJ/dolosse units in the river are not expected to adversely affect recreational opportunities on the Hoh River. As the Hoh River channel changes in shape and direction, and its flow adjusts seasonally, new natural small-boat launch locations may develop. Although the project does not propose any modifications to the Morgan’s Crossing informal access and boat launch area, the addition of the ELJ/dolosse units upstream may result in slight modifications to the Morgan’s Crossing sand bar. Morgan’s Crossing will likely remain in use as a boat launch location. WFLHD will evaluate locations within the project construction limits, as required; to create other potential boat launches concurrent with project construction. The proposed project would result in permanent increased reliability and safety for the recreational community. Adverse impacts to recreational uses from temporary one-lane and full- road closures would not be significant. Indirect Impacts Having a more reliable and safe route to recreation areas in and around the project area, including the Hoh District of ONP, would encourage recreation uses in these areas. To the extent that bank stabilization structures provide additional access to the river or viewing opportunities, recreational use could increase slightly, as an indirect result of the project. During construction, temporary access limitations along UHRR could result in a minor reduction in recreational visitations to sites beyond the project area’s construction corridor including the ONP, the Hoh River, and nearby state and national forest lands. However, significant adverse indirect impacts to recreation are not expected. Cumulative Impacts Historic adverse impacts to recreational uses from the projects listed in Table 4-1 are similar to those expected from the proposed project. These largely are associated with temporary traffic delays for motorists resulting in reduced access to recreational uses. Because of the immediate nature of emergency repair projects, recreationists typically are unable to receive advanced notice regarding the timing or duration of traffic delays. Construction of the proposed project is not expected to occur concurrent with other projects in the UHRR corridor (although work at two or more of the six sites within the project area may occur concurrently). As a result, few and potentially shorter traffic delays are planned, compared to the frequency of delays that might occur if several projects were under construction at the same time. The proposed project, together with projects listed in Table 4-1, would result in greater cumulative reliability and safety on the UHRR for recreational users. Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-26 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are recommended to minimize potential impacts to recreation. Mitigation measures related to transportation and access along the UHRR also would be applicable to maintaining recreational uses.  WFLHD would coordinate with ONP so that notices regarding UHRR delays and closures can be posted on ONP’s website, in newspapers, etc.; and  WFLHD will evaluate locations within the project’s construction limits for development of potential boat launches concurrent with project construction. 4.3.3 Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (Transportation Act) provides for consideration of park and recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites during transportation project development. The law is implemented by the FHWA through the regulation 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 774. Section 4(f) applies to projects that receive funding from, or require approval by, an agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation. This project will be funded in part by WFLHD, a division of FHWA, therefore it is addressed for Section 4(f) applicability. Use of a Section 4(f) property occurs when:  Land is permanently incorporated into a transportation project;  There is a temporary occupancy of land that is adverse in terms of the statute’s preservation purpose; or  There is a constructive use (a project’s proximity impacts are so severe that the protected activities, features, or attributes of a property are substantially impaired). For this project, the UHRR may be closed for two weeks in winter to construct the Tower Creek Bridge and the Canyon Creek Bridge. During this potential closure, the Hoh District of ONP would be inaccessible to the public. If this closure occurs, an estimated 6,850 recreation visitors would temporarily lose access to the Hoh District. The closure would meet the criteria for a Section 4(f) temporary occupancy, a designation that does not constitute a use within the meaning of Section 4(f). These criteria as defined in 23 CFR 774.13(d) include the following:  The duration of the closure would be less than the duration of project construction;  No change in ownership of ONP land would occur;  No change to the Section 4(f) property would occur; and  No permanent adverse physical impacts or interference with the protected activities, features, or attributes of ONP are anticipated. Based on the above evaluation, a 4(f) evaluation would not be required. Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-27 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment 4.4 Hydrology and Hydraulics Hydrology and hydraulics are the science of water movement through the environment. Hydrology is the study of evaporation and precipitation, characterizing the quantity and frequency of rain and snow events. Hydraulics characterizes the movement of water on the ground and through streams or rivers. The science of hydraulics can determine floodplain widths and depths, water velocities within a channel, and scour potential of the channel flow. This section presents existing hydrologic and hydraulic conditions in the project area, which are used for analyzing the Hoh River and its floodplain. The section also evaluates the potential impacts of the proposed project on the Hoh River floodplain, erosion and deposition (channel character change and movement), and water quality. 4.4.1 Affected Environment This section presents the existing hydrologic and hydraulic conditions in the project area. Sources of information included the Western Regional Climate Center, existing hydraulic literature pertaining to the project area, United States Geological Survey (USGS), and FEMA. 4.4.1.1 Background The Hoh River originates at the Hoh Glacier on Mount Olympus and flows west through the Olympic Mountains of ONP, the Olympic National Forest, and private land. The broad and flat river valley allows for active meandering and dynamic channel migration. The Hoh River ends at the coast, where the river discharges into the Pacific Ocean through the Hoh Indian Reservation. The Hoh River’s watershed is 299 square miles, roughly one-sixth the size of Jefferson County. The river’s streamflow varies considerably, with summer streamflow averaging about one-third of winter streamflow. The highest stream flows are typically in the spring due to annual snowmelt. The Hoh River is a glacial river fed by Mount Olympus glaciers. Glacial powder and coarser sediments settle onto the broad and flat valley in the lower river, creating gravel bars, meanders, and a sinuous or braided channel configuration. Logs are recruited from forested shorelines adjacent to the Hoh River upstream of and within the project area. These logs accumulate as logjams that can become very large. Typically, natural logjams provide refuge habitat and pools important to fish and other aquatic species. They also may create hazardous conditions for those traveling the river by boats or rafts. 4.4.1.2 Regional Climate The Hoh Rainforest, as one of the few temperate rainforests in the northern hemisphere, receives the most intense precipitation in the continental United States. Moist air from the Pacific Ocean can bring 70 to 100 inches of rain per year to the coastal plains, an area that includes the Hoh River watershed. Inland, along the higher elevation windward slopes of the Olympic Mountains, annual rainfall can reach 150 inches. Winter snowfall ranges from 10 to 30 inches in lower elevations and 250 to 500 inches in higher elevations. In midwinter, the snowline in the Olympic Mountains fluctuates between 1,500 and 3,000 feet above sea level. Project area year-round temperatures are generally mild, with summer highs rarely over 80°F, and winter snows in the lowlands infrequent and short-lived. The average maximum temperature in July is near 70°F along the coast and 75°F in the foothills; minimum temperatures are near 50°F. Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-28 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment In winter, the coastal, lower-elevation areas are generally warmer than inland, higher areas. Maximum temperatures in January range from 43°F to 48°F, and minimum temperatures range from 32°F to 38°F (WRCC 2016). Climate science predicts that over the next century, heavy rains will become more intense, and less precipitation will fall as snow (Mauger et al. 2015). Currently, the Hoh River flow regime follows a general pattern of rising in the fall and dropping in the winter, when snow begins causing the mountains to retain precipitation. In spring, flows increase again as snow melts with low-flow periods typically occurring in the summer. As the snowline elevation rises, flow patterns will begin to mirror rainfall patterns more closely with the most intense flows occurring in fall, tapering off slowly throughout the winter and spring, and continuing to decline into the summer months (Mauger et al. 2015). 4.4.1.3 Hydrology Each project site is associated with the Hoh River or one of its tributaries. How the proposed structures interact with the river system would depend on the individual designs used and methods of construction. Table 4-5 shows return period18 flow values at each site, calculated using an on-line interactive tool, StreamStats, developed by the USGS. For reference, Table 4-5 also shows values from a flow-measuring gage near US 101. Table 4-5. Return Period Flow Values Site River Drainage Area (square miles) 10-year (cubic feet per second) 25-year (cubic feet per second) 50-year (cubic feet per second) 100-year (cubic feet per second) C1/C2 Hoh River 223 46,500 54,700 61,700 69,400 Culvert 4.38 Unnamed Creek 0.45 113 133 150 168 C3 Tower Creek 1.51 365 428 484 541 C4 Hoh River 221 44,700 52,500 59,300 66,700 C5 Canyon Creek 1.37 339 399 450 504 USGS Gage 12041200 Hoh River 253 51,100 59,700 65,700 71,400 Source: USGS 2016. 4.4.1.4 Floodplains The Department of Homeland Security – FEMA’s mapping of the Hoh River floodplain19 in 1982 is the current legally-defined floodplain boundary. The Hoh River 100-year floodplain covers most of the valley floor. The 100-year floodplain varies in width from approximately 700 feet to over 4,700 feet near the project. The FEMA Flood Insurance Study from 1982 categorizes this 100-year floodplain as a Zone A floodplain, which means floodplain elevations have not been established. 18 A return period is an estimate of the likelihood of an event, such as a particular river flow, based on historic data. Water-related structures often are designed to withstand hydraulic forces from a flow event with a certain return period. 19 An area of low-lying ground adjacent to a river, formed mainly of river sediments and subject to flooding. Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-29 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment Figure 4-8 shows the FEMA floodplain boundaries for the 100-year flood event (100-year floodplain boundaries). All of the proposed project sites are within the mapped 100-year floodplain except for Site C5. The Hoh River tributaries, including Tower Creek, Canyon Creek, and the unnamed tributary at MP 4.38, do not have mapped floodplains. The Hoh River’s frequent floods vary in intensity. Table 4-6 lists the ten highest floods on record (since January 15, 1961), as recorded by the USGS 12041200 stream gage near US 101. Table 4-6. Top Ten Flood Events on the Hoh River from USGS Stream Gage 12041200 Date Flow (cubic feet per second) Oct. 17, 2003 62,100 Nov. 6, 2006 60,700 Dec. 3, 2007 55,700 Nov. 24, 1990 54,500 Dec. 17, 1979 51,600 Dec. 26, 1980 51,100 Oct. 16, 1988 49,300 Nov. 23, 1986 48,600 Dec. 3, 1982 47,900 Nov. 29, 1995 47,600 Source: USGS 2016. The Hoh River channel meanders across the floodplain, which is typical for low-gradient, mainstem channels in flat river valleys. Large flood events transport sediment and LWD downstream, scour channels and riverbanks, and deposit gravel along bars. This, in turn, leads to changes in the channel’s migration pattern and form over time. As glaciers on Mount Olympus recede, the quantity of sediment transported to downstream depositional areas along the river channel is expected to increase (Mauger et al. 2015). Over time, this will intensify the braided character of the lower Hoh River’s main channel. Upper Hoh River Road Project Data Sources: Jefferson County, Washington DNR. \\Pdxfs1\project\F\FHAX00000226\0600INFO\GS\Maps\Public EA maps\Fig_4-8 Floodplains.mxd Figure 4-8Floodplains HohRiver Site C4 UpstreamBank StabilizationMP 7.9, RM 23.6 Upper Hoh River Rd Hoh Mainline Rd Culvert ReplacementMP 4.38, RM 19.5 Site C4 DownstreamBank StabilizationMP 7.5 to 7.6RM 23.3 Site C5Canyon Creek CulvertMP 10.2, RM 27.1 Site C1Bank StabilizationMP 3.6 to 3.8RM 18.8 to 18.9 Site C3Tower Creek BridgeMP 7.5, RM 23.3 Site C2Bank StabilizationMP 4.0 to 4.4RM 19.1 to 19.5 Project Location Upper Hoh River Upper Hoh River Road Local Road Floodzone Type A 100-yr Flood³ 0 0.25 0.5Miles Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-31 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment 4.4.1.5 Water Quality Neither the Hoh River nor the tributaries affected by the proposed bridge and culvert replacements are listed on Ecology’s 303(d) list of impaired waters. The quality of these waters, therefore, is very good. Three other Hoh River tributaries near the project but not affected by the project are on the 303(d) list due to elevated temperature. 4.4.1.6 Groundwater No significant groundwater withdrawal wells have been documented in the project area; therefore, no well-head protection areas are known to occur. 4.4.2 Environmental Consequences This section describes direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to hydrology and hydraulics from the project alternatives. 4.4.2.1 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed project would not be constructed and ongoing maintenance activities would continue. Where the river abuts the road embankment, existing riprap revetments would be monitored for stability, undermining, and scour. Riprap previously installed at various locations along the riverbank, including the toe of road embankments, experience high water velocities. They do not dissipate energy or inhibit scour at nearby unprotected sections of the river channel or riverbank. When floods threaten or damage the UHRR, Jefferson County places additional protective riprap along the road embankment as an emergency measure. This practice would continue with the No Action Alternative. Riprap revetments harden the riverbank in localized areas by preventing channel erosion. Flows deflected from riprap revetments may cause scouring or failure of nearby riverbanks or roadbed. Although riprap provides excellent scour protection, it diminishes habitat value along riverbanks. In addition, a continuous riprap revetment along a riverbank could increase bank erosion on properties immediately downstream. Revetments do not appear to affect current trends in mid- channel and floodplain sediment deposition. The proposed bridge and culvert structures at MP 4.38 and Sites C3 and C5 would not be replaced with the No Action Alternative. Maintenance activities would continue to be required to keep the existing structures free of debris and potential blockages during high flows. Regular inspections would continue to ensure that scour protection around the structures remains intact. At Site C3 (Tower Creek), monitoring for scour would continue to be required because the Hoh River channel in this area has continued to migrate to the north. This has caused significant incising and shortening of the length of the Tower Creek channel between the bridge and the river. Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-32 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment 4.4.2.2 Build Alternative Direct Impacts Bank Stabilization Sites C1, C2, and C4 The bank stabilization portion of this project would complete two continuous linear segments of bank protection in areas where the UHRR is threatened by bank erosion. Construction and installation of the ELJ/dolosse units would first require bank excavation above the OHWM to create a work area adjacent to the river for staging the ELJ/dolosse bundles and placing the crane or excavator. After this, the bed and bank of the active river channel would be excavated to install the ELJ/dolosse units. Flow diversion to fully isolate the in-water work area is not anticipated during construction. As a result, turbidity releases from the proposed in-water work would occur to a limited extent and duration during the proposed IWWW, July 15 through August 31. This would coincide with the summer low flow period to minimize water quality impacts. Hydraulic analysis conducted for the bank stabilization work consisted of two-dimensional river modeling that provided river flow velocities in a vector matrix. The analysis examines changes to two channel characteristics: the height of the 100-year floodplain and the intensity of flow velocity across the river channel. The ELJ/dolosse units would displace a portion of the river channel capacity, thereby compressing the active flow area and causing localized, minor rises to the 100-year floodplain elevation. The estimated local rise in overall floodplain elevation was calculated to be roughly one inch, with a maximum increase of up to six inches at Sites C1 and C2. Table 4-7 shows the hydraulic model results for the proposed project relative to floodplain elevation rise. Table 4-7. Hydraulic Model Results Bank Stabilization Site Hydraulic Measure C1/C2 C4 100-year Floodplain Elevation Rise Near Bank (feet) 0.5 <0.1 100-year Floodplain Elevation Rise Across Floodplain (feet) 0.1 <0.1 Velocity Increase (feet/second) 0.1 – 3.01 1.0 1 The highest velocity increase is near the bank stabilization structure. Water velocity from a given rate of discharge (flow) is a direct indication of scour potential. Higher flows generate higher velocities with greater scour potential. Installing ELJ/dolosse units would dissipate and redirect water velocities from the bank, thereby reducing erosion. The hydraulic analysis demonstrates this “hydraulic shadow” impact by showing that high-velocity areas are moved out and away from the bank toward the front of the ELJ/dolosse units. The resulting higher velocities along the front of the ELJ/dolosse units may induce scour along the toe of the structures; however, this effect would be lessened by the self-settling of the design that allows the structures to become more integrated into the changing riverbed. This ultimately prevents the structures from undermining dislodgement. The Corps is expected to require long- term monitoring of dolosse positions to ensure potential hazards are not created. As a result of the spacing of ELJ/dolosse units and the hydraulic shadow effect along the riverbank, areas with lower water velocities would tend to accumulate fine-texture sediments. Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-33 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment Woody debris also would accumulate at the ELJ/dolosse units as fallen logs washed away during flood flows are recruited to the river. Higher water velocities that become redirected waterward from the riverbank along the ELJ/dolosse units would tend to scour bed materials and deposit the sediments at gravel bars downriver. Mid-channel and floodplain sediment deposition, however, would not be expected to change significantly. Except for the riverbank segments protected by existing riprap revetments and the proposed bank stabilizations, erosion and migration of the natural, active channel would continue. Culvert at MP 4.38 The existing 72-inch culvert at MP 4.38 periodically plugs with debris, forcing water up and over the top of the UHRR (see Figure 4-9). The project would replace the culvert with a 16- by 16- foot box culvert, which would pass water and debris more freely, reducing the need for maintenance and the risk of water overtopping the road. The concrete segments of the new culvert would be fabricated off-site, avoiding the need to pour concrete near the stream channel, thereby eliminating the risk of potential adverse water quality impacts to the tributary or river. The new culvert’s configuration and dimensions would allow the natural width of the unnamed tributary to be unconstrained within the culvert, and would provide a structure with water depth and velocity conditions more suitable to successful fish passage. It would also reduce backwater impacts that may currently exist, and in turn benefit the unnamed tributary’s floodplain. The new culvert is not expected to increase downstream flooding effects to the Hoh River floodplain. With implementation of proposed standard BMPs during construction and operation, potential impacts to hydrology and hydraulics would be negligible. Figure 4-9. Existing Culvert at MP 4.38, Downstream End Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-34 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment Site C3 Tower Creek Bridge The proposed project would include replacing the existing Tower Creek Bridge with a new, longer bridge with the same vertical clearance as the existing bridge (approximately 18 feet from the creek bed to the bridge soffits). Maintaining this clearance would continue to allow the unrestricted passage of flood flows under the bridge. The new bridge would be approximately the same height and almost twice as long as the existing bridge. The proposed bridge would not cause any backwater conditions or result in higher levels of flow downstream; therefore, no adverse impacts to the floodplain upstream or downstream from the structure are anticipated. As part of construction, the Tower Creek stream channel would be restored near the bridge. Riprap installed to protect the existing bridge would be removed, and approximately 50 feet of the stream channel bed would be restored. Riprap to protect the new bridge foundation would be buried under streambed material to isolate the heavy rock from the channel. The bridge would be constructed upstream of the current location, where the wider channel may necessitate a longer bridge to cross the channel. The new location of the bridge also would require an adjustment to the road alignment. Stormwater from the proposed bridge and its approaches would be collected, dispersed, and allowed to infiltrate along the shoulder of the UHRR, similar to existing conditions. Road runoff would not be directly discharged to Tower Creek or the Hoh River. Impacts from construction of the Tower Creek Bridge would be the same as for MP 4.38. With standard BMPs and off-site fabrication of the structure’s concrete components, significant adverse impacts would be avoided. Site C5 Canyon Creek Bridge Canyon Creek currently crosses underneath the UHRR through an approximately 96-inch culvert. The project would replace this culvert with a bridge. As a result, the hydraulic cross-sectional area that the creek currently passes through would be increased. This would eliminate or reduce flow constraints and upstream backwater conditions associated with the existing culvert because the new bridge would fully span the channel. In general, bridges are better at passing floodwaters than culverts installed using former culvert design standards. Under current design guidelines for culverts, backwater conditions and related upstream flooding would be uncommon. Stormwater from the proposed bridge and its approaches would be collected, dispersed, and allowed to infiltrate along the shoulder of the UHRR, thereby avoiding any direct discharges of untreated stormwater to Canyon Creek. Potential adverse impacts from construction of the Canyon Creek Bridge would be similar to those for the Tower Creek Bridge. Such impacts would be minimized through the use of standard construction BMPs and the off-site fabrication of concrete bridge components. Indirect Impacts Over time, ELJ/dolosse units tend to recruit additional debris at the point where they have been installed along the riverbank. As the logjams further develop in the project area, they would cause the aquatic habitat availability and diversity to increase along the river channel. Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-35 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment The hydraulic analysis reviewed potential upstream and downstream effects that could result from the project and determined that channel or riverbank erosion would not increase beyond the project limits. Indirect impacts to hydrology and hydraulics are not anticipated at any of the bridge or culvert sites. Cumulative Impacts The proposed project, together with the projects listed in Table 4-1, would result in further hardening of the north bank of the Hoh River. Past projects have hardened the bank with riprap, which has diminished shoreline habitat. The proposed project’s ELJ/dolosse units would enhance shoreline habitat as a beneficial substitute to the former practice of installing riprap for erosion protection. Agencies have been constructing projects since the 1990s (and likely prior to the 1990s) that protect and repair the UHRR. These projects are either riprap bank stabilization projects or culvert or bridge repairs or replacements. Each bank stabilization project has incrementally contributed to hardening the north bank of the Hoh River. The projects have been installed where the Hoh River threatens the integrity of UHRR in the general vicinity of MP 4 and MP 7. Over time, the riprap at these locations has restricted the river migrating laterally toward the road and, by doing so, has reduced the extent of aquatic habitat along the shoreline. The proposed project’s ELJ/dolosse units, however, would restrict river migration toward the road, but in a manner that also benefits aquatic habitat along the shoreline. Continued hardening of the channel banks in these areas is necessary to protect the UHRR. If the proposed ELJ/dolosse methods are not implemented, local agencies would continue emergency riverbank stabilization repairs using riprap with adverse consequences to aquatic habitat. Over time, proposed bank stabilization combined with reasonably foreseeable future bank stabilization projects using similar methods would help restore aquatic habitat along the riverbank and prevent further degradation. Over the past ten years, more than ten stream crossing structures (culverts and bridges) along UHRR have been repaired or replaced. Some of the replaced culverts eliminated fish passage barriers, improving the availability of aquatic habitat. The proposed project would replace three more stream crossing structures. Stream crossings are now constructed with greater cross- sectional area than in the past. This allows water to pass during most flows without restricting the channel’s configuration or ability to transport sediment and with more favorable fish passage conditions. In general, culvert and bridge replacements are beneficial to the aquatic and hydraulic environment. The three stream-crossing structure replacements, together with past and reasonably foreseeable future structure replacement projects, would contribute to improving aquatic habitat conditions and fish passage in the Hoh River tributaries along the UHRR. Mitigation Measures Standard stormwater BMPs would be employed at all project sites during construction as required by the project’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) construction stormwater permit. BMPs would minimize the release of turbid water from the construction site, thereby protecting water quality, and would follow current permit requirements for erosion and Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-36 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment sediment control. A long-term monitoring program would be implemented to track the settling and potential dislodgement of the ELJ/dolosse unites over time, to avoid creation of potential navigational hazards. FEMA has not established base flood elevations along the Hoh River or its tributaries; therefore, compensatory mitigation for fill is not required. Two mitigation projects are proposed that would improve aquatic impact conditions in the project areas. The primary mitigation project would be constructed in the area between approximately MP 6.7 and MP 7.3 of the UHRR, west of Site C3 (Tower Creek). In this area, a large side channel meander of the Hoh River has formed where the mainstem was formerly located prior to approximately 2010. Lindner Creek and several other creeks flow into this large side channel. Lindner Creek, the large main channel, and the high-water channels on the ‘peninsula’ comprise a side channel complex. In order to preserve the side channel complex, WFLHD would install approximately 24 ELJs in an arc configuration, extending approximately 0.8 mile south and west from MP 7.3 of the UHRR, crossing the lower section of the side channel complex. The second proposed mitigation project would involve installing four ELJs in front of the existing riprap from just upstream of the Hoh River confluence with Spruce Creek to MP 9.8. Because the riprap is stacked steep, removing it would remove the buttress effect the riprap currently has on the UHRR roadbed. Placing the ELJs in front of the riprap would reduce local flow velocity. The ELJ design would be similar to the ELJ/dolosse units installed as part of the proposed project. Section 4.6.2.2 contains further details about these projects and their fish and wildlife habitat benefits. 4.5 Vegetation and Special Status Plants This section addresses existing vegetation and special status vascular and non-vascular plants in the project area and provides an assessment of potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on vegetation from the project alternatives. For the purposes of assessing impacts on vegetation, the project area includes a 100-foot-wide corridor along either side of the UHRR from approximately MP 3.6 to MP 10.2, and the adjacent Hoh River bank where bank stabilization work is proposed. 4.5.1 Affected Environment This section includes information about vegetation in the project area. Information sources include previously existing studies, records of coordination with state and federal agencies, and field reconnaissance conducted by biologists in July 2016 and April 2017. Further information on background resources and methods for gathering this information is included in the Biological Survey Report (David Evans and Associates [DEA] 2015a), Wetland Delineation Report (DEA 2015b), Biological Assessment (BA) (DEA 2016), and Wetland Addendum (DEA 2017) for the project, which are included as Appendices E, F, G, and J respectively. 4.5.1.1 Vegetation The project area is located in the Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest habitat type, as described in Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington (Johnson and O’Neil 2000). Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-37 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment Native forest in the project area is dominated by trees such as Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) and western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) in lower elevations, and silver fir (Abies amabilis) at higher elevations. Early successional and riparian forest is dominated by red alder (Alnus rubra) and bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum). Understory areas include salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), vine maple (Acer circinatum), swordfern (Polystichum munitum), devil’s club (Oplopanax horridus), and red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa) (see Figures 4-10a and 10b). The project area ranges in elevation from approximately 250 feet to 400 feet. Although much of the project area has been previously logged, which has reduced structural complexity and habitat diversity across the lower Hoh River watershed, the portion of the upper Hoh River watershed within ONP is protected, and therefore remains in pristine condition. The majority of the project area is occupied by native upland and wetland forest vegetation, except for the ditches and cleared areas adjacent to the roadside. In ditches and cleared areas, non-native species such as Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) and creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens) are present. Vegetation near Site C1 is a mixture of disturbed and mature wetland and upland forest, indicated by slight changes in topography, groundwater movement, and the presence of berms created by past digging of ditches adjacent to the UHRR. Soils are primarily silty clay loams, and trees in the vicinity of Site C1 are on average 75 feet to 100 feet tall. A few trees reach approximately 125 feet in height. Upland areas near Site C1 contain western hemlock and swordfern. A narrow band of riparian vegetation between the UHRR and the Hoh River has eroded somewhat, and resulted in the road dropping steeply to the river. A section of bank near the east end of Site C1 has undergone emergency repair. Site C2 is similar to Site C1 in terms of vegetation, although the forest near Site C2 is somewhat younger and topography much steeper. Soils are derived primarily from sandstone, which is visible in cut banks and results in much better drainage than soils found near C1. Similar to Site C1, a narrow band of riparian vegetation is present intermittently between the UHRR and the Hoh River, except where it has eroded away. This area varies between 30 and 80 feet wide and is composed almost entirely of young deciduous trees and shrubs. Forest upslope of the UHRR on the west end of Site C2 is mature conifer forest. Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-38 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment Figure 4-10a. Typical Vegetation near the Project Figure 4-10b. Typical Vegetation near the Project Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-39 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment The area surrounding the culvert at MP 4.38 (which is located within Site C2) contains largely disturbed roadside vegetation. Upstream of the road, the unnamed tributary flows through a riparian zone dominated by young- to middle-successional forest containing mainly red alder, with surrounding mid-successional upland forest containing mainly Sitka spruce. The forest near Site C3 (Tower Creek Bridge) is older than near other sites, with greater cover by Sitka spruce, and taller trees (approximately 100 feet to 125 feet tall, on average), particularly west of the creek. Fewer red alder are present, but they are older and covered by moss and lichen, similar to the few big-leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) trees present in this area. The understory contains dense sword fern as well as relatively fewer wetlands and less salmonberry and vine maple cover, when compared to other areas in the project area as a whole. LWD and snags are relatively large and abundant near Site C3. Vegetation surrounding the adjacent Jefferson County storage area is disturbed. Vegetation near Site C4 is very similar to Site C1, but with larger, mossy red alder and more cover by slough sedge in the wetlands. Several large spruce and alder snags are present, but LWD is limited, especially within wetlands. Tower Creek, a tributary to the Hoh River, flows into the river at the west end of Site C4. Forest adjacent to the east end of Site C4 is mostly large conifer trees with a deciduous understory. Site C5 (Canyon Creek culvert) is characterized generally by younger forest, dominated by deciduous red alder along the stream with young conifer forest on the adjacent slopes. Canyon Creek is a tributary to the Hoh River, but the UHRR crossing of Canyon Creek is approximately 1,500 feet north of the river. Swordfern is the dominant species in the understory near Site C5, and recent clear-cut areas exist directly east of Site C5. A few patches of older hemlock forest are located southwest and southeast and Site C5. No wetlands exist near Site C5. 4.5.1.2 Special Status Plants No federally-listed vascular plants, bryophytes, fungi, or lichens are documented or suspected to occur in the project area (USFWS 2015a; USFS/BLM 2015). The WDNR identifies 32 rare plant species with known or historical occurrences in Jefferson County (WDNR 2016). The USFS identified 22 plants, bryophytes, fungi, or lichens that are listed as “sensitive” within the Washington region and documented within the Olympic district. Of these WDNR and USFS special status plant species known to occur near the project area, the species found in Table 4-8 were determined to likely exist within the project area, based on documented occurrences in the Hoh River watershed or in the Calawah River watershed (USFS 2014). The Calawah River watershed is located two drainages and less than 10 miles north of the Hoh River, and contains low-elevation forest habitat similar to the project area. Based on this similarity and given the presence of suitable habitat, species present in the Calawah River watershed were assumed to also be present in the Hoh River watershed. However, surveys conducted by the USFS in May through September of 2012 of the Calawah River watershed did not detect the presence of suitable habitat (USFS 2014). Further, whether any plant species surveys have been conducted within the Hoh River project area is unknown. Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-40 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment Table 4-8. Special Status Plant Species Potentially Occurring in the Project Area Common Name Scientific Name USFS / State Status Habitat Requirements Potential Occurrence in the Study Area? Project Impacts? Pacific lance-leaved spring beauty Claytonia multiscapa ssp. pacifica S / ST Vernally moist areas. Flowers spring to early summer. Yes May Impact Spleenwort-leaved goldthread Coptis asplenifolia S / SS Moist woods and bogs. Flowers April through May. Yes May Impact Pink fawn lily Erythronium revolutum – / SS High precipitation areas within 100 km of the coast; in moist soil in open or moderately shaded forests, but requires full light at ground level. Yes May Impact Quinault fawn lily Erythronium quinaultense S / ST Openings and rocky ledges in coniferous forests. Flowers in May. Yes May Impact Branching montia Montia diffusa S / – Moist woods at low elevations. Flowers April to July. Yes May Impact Northern grass-of- Parnassus Parnassia palustris var. tenuis S / SS Riparian areas, moist meadows and bogs; at or near seeps, springs, and roadside ditches. Flowers July to August. Yes May Impact Loose-flowered bluegrass Poa laxiflora – / SS Moss-covered rocks and logs, along streams and rivers, and on edges of wet meadows in moist, shady woods. Yes May Impact Great polemonium Polemonium carneum S / – Thickets, woodlands and forest openings, from near sea level to moderate elevations in the mountains. Flowers May to August. Yes May Impact Iwatsukiella moss Iwatsukiella leucotricha S / SE On trunks, twigs, and branches of conifers along exposed, fog-drenched, high- elevation coastal ridges. No No Impact Source of Habitat Requirements: USFS 2014. Source of Habitat Requirements: WDNR 2015a. State Status: SC = State Species of Concern; SE = State Endangered; SS = State Sensitive; ST = State Threatened USFS Status: S= Sensitive or Strategic 4.5.2 Environmental Consequences This section describes direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to vegetation and special status plants from the project alternatives. Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-41 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment 4.5.2.1 No Action Alternative With the No Action Alternative, ongoing maintenance, monitoring, and emergency bank stabilization projects would continue to occur along the UHRR, as necessary, to maintain UHRR access. Emergency bank stabilization projects would continue to adversely affect immediately- adjacent riparian areas through the removal of vegetation for the purpose of providing staging and equipment storage for emergency placement of riprap. No impacts to special status plant species are anticipated. Although no specific surveys have been conducted, emergency actions are not likely to affect potential suitable habitat for rare plants. Several stands of potentially mature forest that could provide habitat, including nest platforms for marbled murrelets or northern spotted owl, are found along the UHRR (Figures 4-11a through 11c). Early and mid-successional forest is also used by these species for foraging and dispersal. Depending on the location and extent of emergency repair work, impacts to vegetation could include removal of riparian plants, mature forest, or early and mid-successional forest. Service Layer Credits: Upper Hoh River Road Project Data Sources: USDA 2015 NAIP, Jefferson County. Washington DNR. \\Pdxfs1\project\F\FHAX00000226\0600INFO\GS\Maps\Public EA maps\Fig_4-11 Mature Forest.mxd HohRiver Upper Hoh River Rd Site C1Bank StabilizationMP 3.6 to 3.8RM 18.8 to 18.9 Site C2Bank StabilizationMP 4.0 to 4.4RM 19.1 to 19.5 Culvert ReplacementMP 4.38, RM 19.5 Project Location Upper Hoh River Road Mature Forest³ 0 250 500Feet Figure 4-11aMature ForestDisclaimer: Mature forest stands delineation based onaerial photography. No ground-truthing conducted.Stands within Olympic National Park not delineated. Upper Hoh River Road Project Data Sources: USDA 2015 NAIP, Jefferson County. Washington DNR. \\Pdxfs1\project\F\FHAX00000226\0600INFO\GS\Maps\Public EA maps\Fig_4-11 Mature Forest.mxd Upper Hoh River Rd Hoh River Site C4 UpstreamBank StabilizationMP 7.9, RM 23.6 Site C3Tower Creek BridgeMP 7.5, RM 23.3 Site C4 DownstreamBank StabilizationMP 7.5 to 7.6RM 23.3 Project Location Upper Hoh River Road Mature Forest³ 0 250 500Feet Figure 4-11bMature ForestDisclaimer: Mature forest stands delineation based onaerial photography. No ground-truthing conducted.Stands within Olympic National Park not delineated. Upper Hoh River Road Project Data Sources: USDA 2015 NAIP, Jefferson County. Washington DNR. \\Pdxfs1\project\F\FHAX00000226\0600INFO\GS\Maps\Public EA maps\Fig_4-11 Mature Forest.mxd HohRiver U p p e r H o h R i v e r R d R o a d t o Q u a r r y Hoh River C a n y o n C r e e k Site C5Canyon Creek CulvertMP 10.2, RM 27.1 Project Location Upper Hoh River Road Mature Forest³ 0 250 500Feet Figure 4-11cMature ForestDisclaimer: Mature forest stands delineation based onaerial photography. No ground-truthing conducted.Stands within Olympic National Park not delineated. Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-45 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment 4.5.2.2 Build Alternative Direct Impacts Bank Stabilization Sites C1, C2, and C4 The installation of ELJ/dolosse units at Sites C1, C2, and C4 would affect vegetation. These impacts would include the removal of riparian bank vegetation to allow for installation of ELJ/dolosse units. As shown in Table 3-2, approximately 157,000 square feet of land would be cleared of vegetation to provide construction access and equipment and materials storage and staging areas near Sites C1, C2, and C4. Vegetation clearing would include removing a total of 217 trees, 10 of which are large conifer trees. Most of the vegetation to be removed is located in a narrow corridor between the UHRR and the Hoh River along Site C2. In this location, vegetation experiences a relatively high level of disturbance from repeated high water scour events and human activities. Loss of riparian vegetation associated with ELJ/dolosse installation would be partially offset by proposed revegetation, including alder and cedar tree planting and willow pole planting at each bank stabilization site (see design plans in Appendix I). To the extent practicable, and depending on the size of trees and on river conditions at the time of construction, trees removed will be placed into the river to contribute to the naturally occurring LWD. MP 4.38 Culvert The proposed project would include replacing the existing undersized 72-inch culvert at MP 4.38 with a much larger 16- by 16-foot concrete box culvert that would pass flood flows and debris without plugging. Construction would be coordinated with construction of the bank stabilization units at Site C2, which surrounds the MP 4.38 culvert location. Vegetation removal for this culvert is anticipated to be minimal. Up to three large conifers, greater than 18 inches in diameter, would be removed during construction. Site C3 Tower Creek Bridge and Site C5 Canyon Creek Bridge Installation of the new bridges would result in removal of a variety of trees. As shown in Table 3- 2, approximately 70,000 square feet of land would be cleared of vegetation to provide for access, staging, construction activity, and storage near Sites C3 and C5. Vegetation clearing would include removing a total of 70 trees, 10 of which are large conifer trees. All 10 conifers would be removed from Site C3, Tower Creek Bridge. Few conifers exist near Site C5, Canyon Creek; therefore, no removal of conifers near Site C5 would occur. More tree removal would occur on the west side of Tower Creek Bridge, along the north edge of the existing UHRR, as opposed to the east side, due to the revised alignment. Various deciduous shrubs within the Tower Creek and Canyon Creek riparian zones would be removed in order to widen the existing creek channels. After construction, riparian vegetation would be partially restored by planting native shrubs and trees. Overall, construction of Tower Creek Bridge is likely to remove the most large conifers of any of the sites (Table 3-2) but relatively little overall vegetation. Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-46 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment Indirect Impacts In general, the proposed project would have limited indirect adverse impacts to vegetation in the long term because vegetation would be restored after construction. Culvert and bridge replacements would provide improved long-term hydraulic connectivity, allowing riparian areas to become restored over time. Cumulative Impacts Agencies with jurisdiction in and around the UHRR have completed over 40 projects in the project area since the 1990s. Approximately 20 of these 40 projects were in response to emergencies such as a shifting river channel contributing to bank failure or debris falling into the river, which in turn compromised the road. Projects in Table 4-1 include 10 bank stabilization projects and over 10 culvert or bridge repair or replacement projects. In general, these projects have had minor impacts to vegetation. Some riparian bank vegetation was likely removed during each project, but in some cases, all bank vegetation had already been lost to natural bank avulsion. Also, many of these projects were conducted for the express purpose of improving or restoring native vegetation and aquatic conditions, which provide a long term cumulative benefit to native plant communities. The proposed project would have a minor adverse cumulative impact to vegetation along the UHRR because only about four acres (Table 3-2) of native plant communities would be temporarily disturbed. Such impacts would be mitigated by revegetating the riverbank in disturbed construction areas and by the long-term development of vegetation along the riverbank at Sites C1, C2, and C4, which would be protected from future disturbance by the ELJ/dolosse units. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are recommended to offset impacts to vegetation:  Remove mature trees greater than 21 inches diameter at breast height (dbh) only if absolutely necessary for project construction;  Use logs procured outside the project area for the ELJs;  Utilize larger trees when planting the riparian zone (at least 5-gallon size) to speed up establishment; and  Stabilize cleared ground as necessary to prevent erosion, particularly on slopes adjacent to the Hoh River or its tributaries. The contractor will employ the following BMPs to reduce the potential for introduction or spreading of noxious weeds during construction:  Inspect materials and equipment for noxious weeds or seed material prior to bringing them on-site;  Clean equipment as needed;  Retain shade on imported materials to suppress weeds to the extent practicable;  Retain native vegetation to the extent possible; Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-47 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment  Use native plants and certified weed-free products for re-vegetation;  Incorporate weed prevention into final vegetation restoration plan; and  To the extent feasible, place in the river trees removed due to the project. Two mitigation projects would be constructed to benefit the long-term development of vegetation in the project area. The primary mitigation project will be constructed in the area between approximately MP 6.7 and MP 7.3 of the UHRR, west of Site C3 (Tower Creek). Lindner Creek, the large main channel, and the high-water channels on the ‘peninsula’ comprise a side channel complex. Long-term preservation of the side channel complex would (1) protect the remaining mature forest stand south of the UHRR, and (2) encourage riparian forest development in the area surrounding the side channel complex, by preventing a future channel avulsion. In order to preserve the side channel complex, approximately 24 ELJs would be installed in an arc configuration, extending approximately 0.8 mile south and west from MP 7.3 of the UHRR, crossing the lower section of the side channel complex. Each ELJ would consist of approximately 10 dolosse/log bundles, each comprised of one dolos connected to two or three logs. Between the ELJs, the bank would be planted with cottonwood, bank willow, and emergent willow. In addition, the bank would be stabilized using a mixture of gravel and cobble. Installation of the ELJs would require use of an existing side road off the UHRR that is currently used for drift boat access to the river. The extended portion of the road would be replanted with dense native shrubs and trees once ELJ installation is complete. Vegetation clearing for the newly extended access road would be primarily limited to young alders and willows. The second proposed mitigation project will involve installing four large ELJs in the Hoh River adjacent to and upstream of the confluence of Spruce Creek, to MP 9.8. The ELJs would be placed in front of the existing riprap and would be similar in design to the ELJ/dolosse units previously described for the proposed project. They would preserve existing riparian vegetation at this location, where the river is actively scouring upstream of the riprap installation (installed by Jefferson County in an emergency). 4.6 Fish and Wildlife This analysis addresses general fish and wildlife resources, as well as special status fish and wildlife, in accordance with NEPA and the federal Environmental Species Act (ESA). This section also provides an assessment of the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the project alternatives on these resources. For the purposes of this analysis, the project area surrounds the UHRR from approximately MP 3.6 to MP 10.2 and includes the areas of the adjacent Hoh River where bank stabilization work is proposed. 4.6.1 Affected Environment This section describes the existing fish and wildlife resources within the project area. Information on biological resources was gathered from existing documentation and references, coordination with state and federal agencies, and field reconnaissance conducted by biologists in 2015 and 2016. Further information on background resources and methods for gathering this information is included in the Biological Survey Report (DEA 2015a), Wetland Delineation Report (DEA 2015b), and BA (DEA 2016), which are included as Appendices E, F, and G, respectively. Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-48 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment 4.6.1.1 Fish The project area includes a portion of the upper Hoh River, which is located on the west side of the Olympic Mountains and drains a watershed area of 345 square miles. It originates from the glaciers of Mount Olympus at approximately 4,000 feet in elevation and flows west for approximately 57 miles to the Pacific Ocean. Much of the Hoh River watershed lies within ONP, and has therefore been protected from human impacts. Downstream of the park, riparian and in-stream habitats within the watershed have been adversely affected by nearby roadway operations and timber harvest practices. Key problems include reduced river recruitment of LWD; poor riparian conditions from vegetation loss along roadways; and scoured, incised side channels that lack spawning and rearing habitat. Reduction in the quantity and quality of off-channel habitat connected to the main river channel has been observed. Timber management practices in some areas resulted in decreased levels of LWD, increased landslides, and increased sedimentation in off-channel habitat (Smith 2000). The Hoh River supports populations of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), sockeye salmon (O. nerka), fall Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha), spring/summer Chinook salmon, chum salmon (O. keta), pink salmon (O. gorbuscha), winter and summer steelhead (O. mykiss), cutthroat trout (O. clarkii), and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Other fish species present in the Hoh River and its tributaries include mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni), shorthead sculpin (Cottus confusus), torrent sculpin (C. rhotheus), reticulate sculpin (C. perplexus), prickly sculpin (C. asper), coast range sculpin (C. aleuticus), riffle sculpin (C. gulosus), longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae), three-spine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus), Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentada), and western brook lamprey (L. richardsoni) (Mongillo and Hallock 1997). Coho salmon are the most abundant fish species in the watershed; however, their populations have declined since 1992 (Smith 2000). According to the Hoh River Tribe, coho salmon stocks declined sharply in 2015, leading to a tribal fishery closure for that species (Hoh Tribe 2016). This observation is consistent with WDFW salmon abundance trend data (Table CR-1 below), which shows 2015 had the lowest coho population levels since 2006. Fall and spring/summer Chinook salmon as well as winter steelhead stocks have shown similar downward trends for some recent years prior to 2015 (Table CR-1 and Figure CR-2). Bull trout, chum salmon, pink salmon, and summer steelhead likely have the smallest salmonid populations in the watershed, with the least known about population abundance and distribution. Table CR-1. WDFW Salmonid Stock Abundance Estimates for Hoh River Salmon Populations (1973-2015) Year Coho Salmon Fall Chinook Spring/Summer Chinook Winter Steelhead 1973 N/A 2,100 817 N/A 1974 N/A 1,936 791 N/A 1975 N/A 2,028 546 N/A 1976 2,300 2,500 621 1,290 1977 2,400 2,100 1,015 2,786 1978 2,100 1,900 1,351 3,002 1979 5,000 1,700 1,442 1,723 Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-49 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment Year Coho Salmon Fall Chinook Spring/Summer Chinook Winter Steelhead 1980 1,700 2,200 842 2,660 1981 1,900 3,100 1,498 2,224 1982 3,600 4,500 1,553 3,984 1983 1,735 2,500 1,696 4,593 1984 7,400 1,900 1,430 3,670 1985 2,218 1,725 978 3,228 1986 4,270 4,981 1,248 3,000 1987 3,516 4,006 1,710 2,908 1988 2,350 4,068 2,605 2,906 1989 3,321 5,102 4,721 2,808 1990 2,094 4,236 3,894 2,390 1991 4,129 1,420 1,078 2,783 1992 4,045 4,003 1,018 2,061 1993 1,345 2,280 1,411 2,053 1994 1,161 3,967 1,699 2,239 1995 4,710 2,202 1,132 2,204 1996 4,858 3,022 1,372 2,304 1997 1,386 1,773 1,826 3,008 1998 4,418 4,257 1,287 3,689 1999 4,594 1,924 1,027 3,095 2000 6,772 1,749 492 3,162 2001 10,773 2,560 1,159 2,767 2002 9,009 4,497 2,466 2,811 2003 6,273 1,681 1,228 1,616 2004 4,702 3,237 1,786 2,268 2005 4,711 4,180 1,193 1,480 2006 1,310 1,422 904 3,547 2007 3,020 1,655 750 3,026 2008 2,461 2,849 671 2,419 2009 6,595 2,081 880 2,256 2010 N/A N/A N/A 2,234 2011 5,933 1,293 827 3,499 2012 4,046 1,937 915 3,221 2013 2,899 1,269 750 2,302 2014 4,565 1,933 744 1,786 2015 1,794 1,955 1,070 2,227 N/A = Data not available. Source: WDFW 2016. Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-50 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment Figure CR-2. Hoh River Salmon Abundance Trends Source: WDFW 2016. In the project area, Chinook salmon (fall and spring/summer runs) and winter steelhead are the predominant species, followed by bull trout. Fall Chinook salmon spawn between October and December, while spring/summer Chinook spawn during September and October (Figure CR-3). Juvenile Chinook salmon begin their seaward migration in the spring; fall Chinook outmigrate after only a short residence time in the mainstem Hoh River. Winter steelhead spawn in the springtime, after spending several months in the mainstem Hoh River and its tributaries. Juvenile steelhead can spend one to three years rearing in freshwater before beginning their seaward migration. Therefore, steelhead can be present in the Hoh River year round. Bull trout also migrate through and rear within the project area on an extended, year-round basis. They spawn in the fall after temperatures drop below 48ºF, in streams with abundant cold, unpolluted water, clean gravel and cobble substrate, and gentle stream gradients. Typically, characteristic spawning habitat occurs in the upper watershed, outside the project area. Rearing bull trout could access the unnamed tributary at MP 4.38 during high water; however, the culvert may be unpassable at such times. Bull trout could likely access Canyon Creek up to the culvert (see Figure 4-12), and possibly Tower Creek as well, depending on the ability of the fish to navigate several step pools with significant LWD downstream of the bridge. Overall, the standard Hoh River IWWW established for fish protection avoids spawning periods that are critical for sustaining salmonid populations. However, rearing life stages for certain species, e.g., bull trout or steelhead, could occur in the project vicinity during in-water construction. Also, spring/summer Chinook spawning begins shortly after the IWWW ends (see Figure CR-3). In-water construction will not occur at night. 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 Hoh River Salmon Abundance Trends Hoh Coho Hoh Fall Chinook Hoh Spring/Summer Chinook Hoh Winter Steelhead Linear (Hoh Coho)Linear (Hoh Fall Chinook) Linear (Hoh Spring/Summer Chinook)Linear (Hoh Winter Steelhead) Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-51 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment Figure CR-3. Hoh River Critical Time Periods Hoh River Critical Time Periods Critical Construction/Activity Periods Construction work window (summer) Standard IWWW for Hoh River Proposed IWWW for Hoh River Bridge construction potential timing Prime tourist season Critical Fish and Wildlife Activity Periods Marbled murrelet critical nesting season Northern spotted owl critical nesting season Steelhead spawning (winter) Steelhead egg/larval development (winter) Steelhead freshwater rearing Fall Chinook spawning Spring/summer Chinook spawning Fall Chinook egg/larvae development Spring/summer Chinook egg/larvae development Bull trout spawning Bull trout migration in lower Hoh River Bull trout potential juvenile rearing DecJanFebMarAprMayJuneJulyAugSepOctNov Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-52 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment Figure 4-12. Canyon Creek Scour Pool, Downstream of Existing Culvert WFLHD proposes an IWWW beginning July 15 and ending August 31. Prior to initiating in- water work, sheet piles or bladders will be temporarily placed in the river to deflect flow away from work sites. WDFW provided spawning data on steelhead trout in the Hoh River for the period 2014 to 2016. This information is displayed in Figures CR-4a through 4b. Index reaches for this study included Sites C1 and C2, but not Sites C3 or C4. While these spawning results have not been incorporated into a published study, several conclusions can be drawn:  There is significant variation in the distribution of steelhead spawning from year to year in certain reaches;  These differences appear to be related to the distribution of microhabitats in the river, which can change dramatically through time depending on the frequency and magnitude of flows, movements of LWD and associated changes in river morphology;  Certain reaches tend to have a higher abundance of spawning activity. For example, of the four primary spawning index reaches, three on the mainstem Hoh River and one on South Fork Hoh River, the highest redd density occurred between river mile (RM) 32 and 36 within ONP. Redd density per mile in this reach averaged 33.9 between 2014 and 2016, which was approximately twice the average density of other index reaches; and  There appears to be limited spawning occurring in the deeper, higher velocity water channels that are adjacent to Sites C1 and C2. Service Layer Credits: Copyright:© 2013National Geographic Society, i-cubed Upper Hoh River Road Project Data Sources: USDA 2015 NAIP, Jefferson County. Washington DNR, WDFW Salmon Data, Hoh River Tribe, USGS NHD \\Pdxfs1\project\F\FHAX00000242\0600INFO\GS\Maps\Biological Assessment Maps\Fig_CR-4a Spawning.mxd !(!(!(!(!(!( !(!( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !(!(!(!( !(!( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!(!( !( !(!( !(!(!( !( !(!( !( !(!(!( !(!(!( !(!(!( !(!(!(!(!( !( !(!(!( !( !(!(!(!(!(!( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !(!( !( !(!( !(!(!( !(!(!( !( !( !(!( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!( !(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !(!(!(!( !( !(!(!(!( !(!(!( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !(!(!(!( !(!( !(!( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !(!(!( !(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !(!( !( !( !(!(!( !(!(!( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!(!( !(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !(!(!(!(!( !(!(!( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !(!(!( !( !(!(!(!(!( !(!( !( !(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!( !(!( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !(!( !( !(!( !(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !(!(!( !(!( !( !(!(!(!( !(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!( !(!( !(!(!(!( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !(!(!( !(!(!(!(!( !(!(!( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!( !( !(!( !(!(!( !( !(!(!( !(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!(!(!(!( !( !(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!( !(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!( !( !( !(!( !(!(!(!( !(!( !( !( !(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !(!(!(!( !(!(!( !(!( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !(!( !(!(!( !( !( !(!(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!( !( !(!(!(!( !(!( !(!(!(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !(!(!( !( !(!(!(!( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!( !(!( !(!(!(!( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !(!( !(!( !(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!( !(!( !(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !(!(!(!(!( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !(!(!( !( !(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !(!(!( !(!(!( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!( !( !( !(!(!( !(!( !(!(!( !(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !(!(!( !(!( !(!( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !(!( !(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( South F o r k H o h R i v e r W infieldCk A lderCk Hellr o aring C k Upper Hoh River Upper H o h R i v e r Owl Ck 10101 10101 U p p er Ho h R d Site C5Canyon Creek CulvertMP 10.2, RM 27.1 Site C1Bank StabilizationMP 3.7 to 3.8RM 18.8 to 18.9 Site C2Bank StabilizationMP 4.0 to 4.4RM 19.1 to 19.5 CulvertReplacementMP 4.38, RM 19.5 Site C3Tower Creek BridgeMP 7.5, RM 23.3 Site C4 DownstreamBank StabilizationMP 7.5 to 7.6RM 23.3 Site C4 UpstreamBank StabilizationMP 7.9, RM 23.6 Project Site Upper Hoh Road Upper Hoh River Perennial Creek/River !(2016 Steelhead Redds* !(2015 Steelhead Redds* !(2014 Steelhead Redds*³0 1 2Miles Figure CR-4aSteelhead Spawning Locations* Note: Steelhead redds varied in position according to seasonal changes in river position. WDFW did not conduct spawning surveys in the vicinity of Sites C3 and C4. Service Layer Credits: Upper Hoh River Road Project Data Sources: USDA 2015 NAIP, Jefferson County. Washington DNR, WDFW Salmon Data, USGS NHD \\Pdxfs1\project\F\FHAX00000242\0600INFO\GS\Maps\Biological Assessment Maps\Fig_CR-4b Spawning.mxd UpperHohRd HohRiver Upper Hoh Rd ¶ W i l l o u g h b y C k Site C1Bank StabilizationMP 3.6 to 3.8RM 18.8 to 18.9 Site C2Bank StabilizationMP 4.0 to 4.4RM 19.1 to 19.5 Culvert ReplacementMP 4.38, RM 19.5 ³0 250 500Feet Figure CR-4bSteelhead Redds - 2014-2016* Note: Steelhead redds varied in position according to seasonalchanges in river position.Project Site Upper Hoh Road Perennial Creek 2016 Steelhead Redds* 2015 Steelhead Redds* 2014 Steelhead Redds* Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-55 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment The Hoh River Tribe provided additional data describing important Chinook spawning areas in the vicinity of Site C4. Specifically, the Tribe described the area immediately across the river from Site C4 and immediately upstream of Site C4 as particularly important spawning areas (see Figure CR-5). According to tribal fishery managers, this area, including the Pole Creek reach immediately to the south, is one of the most important spawning reaches in the lower Hoh River. Table CR-2 summarizes escapement data on steelhead and Chinook populations in the project area, provided by the Hoh River Tribe. Table CR-2. Average Redd Density, Escapement, and Overall Reach Contribution for Winter Steelhead, Spring Chinook and Fall Chinook in the Project Area (2010-2016). Reach Average Redds/Mile Reach Escapement (Observed Fish) Reach Contribution to the Hoh River Mainstem Escapement (percent) Reach Contribution to the Hoh System Total Escapement (percent) Winter Steelhead Morgan’s Crossing to Willoughby Creek (RM 18.8 to 23.0) 21.5 195 11.2 7.4 ONP Boundary to Morgan’s Crossing (RM 23.0 to 29.7) 25.8 178 10.3 6.8 Spring Chinook Morgan’s Crossing to Willoughby Creek (RM 18.8 to 23.0) 5.3 22 4.9 2.8 ONP Boundary to Morgan’s Crossing (RM 23.0 to 29.7) 5.6 37.5 6.4 4.4 Fall Chinook Morgan’s Crossing to Willoughby Creek (RM 18.8 to 23.0) 12.7 136.7 15.7 8.9 ONP Boundary to Morgan’s Crossing (RM 23.0 to 29.7) 16.1 268.8 29.6 13.7 Source: Hoh Tribe, 2016. This data from the Tribe indicates that two reaches are relatively similar in fish production, except that the upstream reach (including the Pole Creek area) is more productive for fall Chinook than the downstream reach. Furthermore, the reach between Morgan’s Crossing and the ONP Boundary contributes a higher percentage of both the Hoh River Mainstem and overall Hoh River System escapement for fall Chinook (29.6 percent and 13.7 percent, respectively). This data seems to support the Tribe’s claim that the Pole Creek reach is one of the most productive spawning reaches in the lower Hoh River for Chinook salmon. Service Layer Credits: Upper Hoh River Road Project Data Sources: USDA 2015 NAIP, Jefferson County. Washington DNR, Hoh River Tribe. \\Pdxfs1\project\F\FHAX00000242\0600INFO\GS\Maps\Biological Assessment Maps\Fig_CR-5 Spawning.mxd Upper Hoh Rd Hoh River Pole Ck To w e r C k ¶ UpperHoh Rd Site C4 UpstreamBank StabilizationMP 7.9, RM 23.6 Site C3Tower Creek BridgeMP 7.5, RM 23.3 Site C4 DownstreamBank StabilizationMP 7.5 to 7.6, RM 23.3 ³0 250 500Feet Figure CR-5Site C3/C4 Chinook Spawning Areas* Note: WDFW did not conduct spawning surveys in thevicinity of Sites C3 and C4. Chinook spawning areapolygons were provided by the Hoh Tribe. Project Site Upper Hoh Road Perennial Creek Important Chinook Spawning Area* Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-57 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment Table 4-9 below lists special-status fish species in the project area that have been documented or are considered likely to occur in the project area. The list includes both bull trout and Dolly Varden because of their similarity in appearance. Table 4-9. Special-status Fish Species with the Potential to Occur In or Near the Project Area Common Name Scientific Name USFWS or NMFS Status Habitat Requirements Potential Occurrence in the Project Area Bull trout Salvelinus confluentus Threatened Deep pools in cold rivers and large tributary streams Present within Hoh River and some runs in Tower Creek Dolly Varden Salvelinus malma Threatened (similarity of appearance) Deep runs and pools of creeks and small to large rivers Present within Hoh River and some runs in Tower Creek Source of Habitat Requirements: USFS 2014; NatureServe 2015. According to the Hoh Tribe, other special status fish species that may occur in the Hoh River, include Pacific lamprey (Entosphenus tridentatus), southern green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris), and eulochon (Thaleichthys pacificus) (Hoh Tribe 2016). However, no documented occurrences of these species could be verified in the Hoh River; therefore, these species are not considered likely to occur in or near the project area (Gustafson 2016; NMFS 2015; USFWS 2015b). Of all native salmonids in the Pacific Northwest, bull trout generally have the most specific habitat requirements (Rieman and McIntryre 1993). Bull trout are known to require a habitat of clean water less than 54ºF with deep pools, overhanging banks, LWD, and connectivity between spawning and rearing areas and downstream foraging, migration, and wintering habitats. Bull trout are an ESA-listed threatened species (Table 4-9). 4.6.1.2 Wildlife Large mammal species likely present in the project area include black bear, cougar, bobcat, coyote, red fox, mule deer, and Roosevelt elk. Small mammal species likely present in the project area include raccoon, beaver, Douglas’ squirrel, ermine, fisher, long-tailed weasel, marten, mink, mountain beaver, porcupine, river otter, spotted skunk, opossum, eight different bat species, as well as various shrews, mice, voles, and other rodents (Johnson and Cassidy 1997). According to a database of bird sightings developed by the Washington Ornithological Society, approximately 150 species of birds are considered “common” or “uncommon” in Jefferson County. Not all of these birds are likely to occur in the project area due to lack of certain types of unique habitats (e.g., prairie) and being outside documented range (e.g., Puget Sound) (Smith, Mattocks, and Cassidy 1997). Eleven species of amphibians and two species of reptiles are documented to potentially occur in the project area, including two types of garter snakes, six salamanders, four frogs and toads, and the roughskin newt. These amphibian species most likely prefer the aquatic habitats adjacent to the six proposed sites, particularly wetlands and small tributaries and their adjacent riparian buffers (Dvornich, McAllister, and Aubry 1997). Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-58 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment Federally-listed threatened and endangered species are those animal species formally listed by the USFWS under authority of the ESA. Table 4-10 lists federally-listed threatened and endangered species with the potential to occur in or near the project area (USFWS 2009; 2015). Information about these species is addressed in detail in the BA for the proposed project (Appendix G) and summarized below. Detailed information such as life history, habitat requirements, and documented occurrences is provided in Appendix E Biological Survey Report and Appendix G BA. Table 4-10. Federally Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Species with the Potential to Occur In or Near the Project Area Common Name Scientific Name USFWS or NMFS Status Habitat Requirements Potential Occurrence in the Project Area Marbled murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus Threatened Large or forked branches, deformities, mistletoe infections, or other similar structures Yes Northern spotted owl Strix occidentalis caurina Threatened Canopy closure, multi-layered, multi- species canopy with large overstory trees with various deformities Yes Streaked horned lark Eremophila alpestris strigata Threatened Large expanses of bare or thinly vegetated land Not present due to lack of habitat Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Threatened Deciduous riparian woodland, especially including dense stands of cottonwood and willow Not present due to lack of habitat Pacific fisher Martes pennanti Candidate Mature forest cover and late- successional forests Yes Olympic (Mazama) pocket gopher Thomomys mazama melanops Candidate Glacial outwash prairies of the higher Olympic Mountains Not present due to lack of habitat Taylor’s checkerspot Euphydryas editha taylori Candidate Dry prairies or prairie-like native grassland Not present due to lack of habitat Source of Habitat Requirements: USFS 2014; NatureServe 2015. Marbled Murrelet Marbled murrelets nest in coniferous trees with attributes that provide nesting platforms. These attributes include large or forked branches, deformities, mistletoe infections, “witches brooms,” or other similar horizontal structures greater than 4 inches in diameter. They are generally found in old-growth and mature forests, but can also occur on remnant trees in younger forests (USFWS 1996). Suitable nesting habitat for marbled murrelet is assumed to be generally similar to nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat suitable for northern spotted owl. Dispersal habitat for northern spotted owl, however, is not suitable nesting habitat for marbled murrelet. Marbled murrelets have been detected several times near all six sites. All of the sites lie within areas containing murrelet detections or within a 3/4-mile buffer of those areas. Site C3 provides a particularly suitable habitat for murrelets due to the presence of larger trees for nesting, compared to the other five sites. The project BA contains an extensive analysis of potential project impacts to marbled murrelet suitable habitat (Appendix G). Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-59 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment Northern Spotted Owl Suitable habitat for the northern spotted owl supports the spotted owl’s need to nest, roost, and forage. Nesting and roosting habitat generally includes attributes such as the following:  A moderate to high canopy closure (60 to 80 percent coverage);  A multi-layered, multi-species canopy with overstory trees larger than 30 inches dbh;  Plentiful large trees with various deformities (e.g., large cavities, broken tops, and mistletoe infections);  Snags larger than 30 inches dbh;  Large accumulations of fallen trees and other woody debris on the ground; and  Sufficient space below the canopy for owls to fly (Thomas et al. 1993). A wider range of habitats with more general attributes is used for spotted owl foraging and dispersal. Habitat that meets nesting and roosting requirements also provides for foraging and dispersal (USFWS 1992). Dispersal habitat assists juvenile dispersal and breeding dispersal of adult spotted owls and also connects suitable habitat patches. The general rule for classifying dispersal habitat is to have a stand of trees with an average dbh of 11 inches within a canopy cover of 40 percent (Thomas et al. 1993). Seven spotted owl activity centers are located within the project area, and are described in further detail in the BA. Both dispersal and nesting/roosting habitat is present in portions of the project area. In the absence of recent species surveys, it is assumed that suitable habitat may be occupied. The project BA contains an extensive analysis of potential project impacts to northern spotted owl suitable habitat (Appendix G). Pacific Fisher The Pacific fisher commonly occurs in landscapes dominated by mature forest cover, and has been categorized by some researchers as “closely-associated” with late-successional forests (Thomas et al. 1993). Until recently, the Pacific fisher was considered extirpated from the Olympic Peninsula. Reintroductions of the fisher to the Olympic Peninsula began in 2008, and all introduced Pacific fishers were radio-collared. Several different radio-collared fishers were documented in the Calawah River watershed from 2008 to 2010, while collars were still functioning (USFS 2014). Although no denning was documented in the Calawah River watershed, two drainages north of the Hoh River, it is assumed that fishers still periodically use the Calawah River watershed, and could conceivably migrate to the Hoh River watershed. Pacific fishers could be found in older tree stands adjacent to project sites, especially within the older forest near Site C3. Other Federal and State Special Status Species Table 4-11 lists wildlife species that (1) have other federal and state status, including federal species of concern, state listed species, and USFS sensitive species; and (2) could potentially exist in or near the project area. Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-60 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment Table 4-11. Other Special Status Species with the Potential to Occur in or Near the Project Area Common Name Scientific Name USFS/ State Status Habitat Requirements Potential Occurrence in the Project Area? Project Impacts? Amphibians Tailed frog Ascaphus truei – / Smon Fast, cold streams, sea level to approx. 5,000 feet, with cobble or boulder substrates Yes May Impact Western toad Bufo boreas – / – Ponds/shallow lakes, but may be found near streams during dry periods Yes May Impact Van Dyke's salamander Plethodon vandykei S / SC Seepages and streams, but can also be observed far from water Yes May Impact Olympic torrent salamander Rhyacotriton olympicus S / Smon Near the splash zone of cold, clear streams, seepages, or waterfalls Yes May Impact Mollusks Puget Oregonian (snail) Cryptomastix devia S / – Hardwood shrubs and trees, particularly big leaf maple and vine maple Yes May Impact Burrington's (keeled) jumping slug Hemphillia burringtoni S / – Hardwoods and large fallen logs may be found in forested areas Yes May Impact Malone's jumping slug Hemphillia malonei S / – Hardwoods and large fallen logs may be found in forested areas Yes May Impact Blue-gray taildropper (slug) Prophysaon coeruleum S / SC Hardwoods and large fallen logs may be found in forested areas Yes May Impact Broadwhorl tightcoil (snail) Pristiloma johnsoni S / – Hardwoods and large fallen logs may be found in forested areas Yes May Impact Butterflies Johnson’s hairstreak Callophrys johnsoni S / SC Old-growth or more advanced age second-growth habitat that contains dwarf mistletoes Yes May Impact Birds Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis – / SC Coniferous forests with open understories Yes May Impact Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi – / – Coniferous forests with uneven canopies, openings and wet areas, dead or partially dead trees Yes May Impact Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus S / SS Mature forest/snags within 1 mile of large bodies of water Yes May Impact Harlequin duck Histrionicus histrionicus S / – Winters along rocky Pacific coasts and moves inland to breed in the Olympic Mountains Yes May Impact Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-61 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment Common Name Scientific Name USFS/ State Status Habitat Requirements Potential Occurrence in the Project Area? Project Impacts? Bats Townsend's big- eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii S/ SC Large trees and manmade structures can provide suitable roosting habitat Yes May Impact Keen’s myotis bat Myotis keenii S/ SC Sloughing bark, most often found on old-growth trees and snags Yes May Impact Long- eared myotis Myotis evotis – / Smon Coniferous forests, tree cavities, rock crevices Yes May Impact Long-legged myotis Myotis volans – / Smon Coniferous forests, tree cavities, rock crevices Yes May Impact Source of Habitat Requirements: USFS 2014; NatureServe 2015 State Status: SC = State Species of Concern; Smon = State Monitor; SS = State Sensitive USFS Status: S= Sensitive or Strategic 4.6.2 Environmental Consequences This section describes direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to fish and wildlife resources from the project alternatives. 4.6.2.1 No Action Alternative Fish With the No Action Alternative, bank failures along the project corridor would continue to periodically occur, likely on an annual or near annual basis. Given that emergency bank stabilization projects are almost exclusively constructed with riprap, they are expected to result in incremental adverse impacts to fish habitat in the mainstem Hoh River over time. Impacts could include increased toe scour, erosion at the downstream and upstream edges of the riprap, and decreased habitat diversity at the locations where the riprap is used. The intensity and magnitude of these impacts would depend on the location and size of the bank stabilization areas. The No Action Alternative would create incremental reductions in the quality of fish habitat at and downstream of the riprap installed for emergency bank stabilization, reducing available spawning and foraging habitat quality for fish, including Chinook salmon and steelhead. Wildlife With the No Action Alternative, emergency bank stabilization projects would continue along the UHRR as necessary to maintain year-round access. These unplanned projects would create permanent impacts of varying intensities to aquatic habitat in the Hoh River and immediately adjacent riparian areas. They would also create temporary disturbances to wildlife species using the immediate areas of construction. The removal of vegetation associated with these unplanned projects would incrementally decrease the amount of riparian habitat potentially utilized by wildlife species, including aquatic-associated amphibians and mammals. The extent of potential habitat impacts would be dependent on the extent of damage or threat to the UHRR and the nature of the emergency repair work. Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-62 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment Of the federally-listed species listed in Table 4-10, marbled murrelets nesting near the work areas could experience temporary adverse impacts from emergency repair work. Several stands of potentially mature forest that could support potential nest platforms for marbled murrelets exist along the UHRR (Figures 4-11a through 11c). If unplanned emergency work is conducted during murrelet nesting season (April through September), nearby nesting birds could be disturbed. Similar to marbled murrelet, northern spotted owls nest and roost in mature forest stands. They also use early and mid-successional forest for foraging and dispersal. If emergency repair projects occur during spotted owl nesting season, and spotted owls are nearby, they could be temporarily disturbed. The No Action Alternative is not expected to adversely affect any other listed species. See the project BA (Appendix G) for a more detailed impact assessment related to listed species. Of the other special status species described in Table 4-11, several bird species that could occur in the riparian zone of the Hoh River during construction, including harlequin duck and bald eagle, could experience potential adverse impacts with the No Action Alternative. Several active bald eagle nests are near the proposed project sites, including one documented nest within the Willoughby Creek area on the south side of the Hoh River, across from Site C2 (see Appendix E, Biological Survey Report). If emergency repair work were to occur outside the nesting season for bald eagle (January 1 to August 31), construction would not adversely affect the species. However, construction work occurring between January 1 and August 31 would necessitate nesting surveys, which entail direct observation of historic nests to determine occupancy. Aquatic conservation measures would ensure that no measurable adverse impacts to bald eagle prey species would occur. The amphibians listed in Table 4-11 are not likely to be affected because they are likely located in higher elevation tributaries and side tributaries to the Hoh River. However, any individuals in the mainstem Hoh River at the time of construction could be exposed to reduced water quality and increased stress from sedimentation. It is possible that any of the mollusk species could occur in the project area, but their distributions are not well documented. Emergency repair projects would not affect the nesting habitat of the olive-sided flycatcher if Migratory Bird Treaty Act seasonal restrictions are observed. The nesting season for migratory birds is approximately March 1 to August 31, but should be coordinated with local biologists as the project progresses. Goshawks, if present and nesting within or near the project area, could be affected by emergency repair projects, and nest surveys may need to be conducted to determine their presence. Goshawk nests would need to be protected from disturbance if any were located near construction activities. Tree removal could also affect individual long-legged myotis and long-eared myotis if they are roosting in those trees. Townsend’s big-eared bat could be found roosting in snags or hollow trees, and tree removal associated with construction of emergency repair projects could potentially remove a roost tree; however, the likelihood of this impact occurring is low. Overall, potential adverse impacts would only occur at the individual level and would not impact the populations as a whole. Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-63 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment 4.6.2.2 Build Alternative Direct Impacts Bank Stabilization Sites C1, C2, and C4 Fish At the three bank stabilization sites, approximately 48,000 square feet of river bottom would become permanently occupied by ELJ/dolosse units. This would displace potential migration, spawning, and rearing habitat for Chinook salmon and steelhead, and migration habitat for bull trout. Some of this area would be replaced with new in-stream habitat structure that provides additional fish rearing habitat. Installation of the ELJ/dolosse units would result in temporary, localized direct impacts on water quality in the Hoh River caused by increased turbidity and suspended sediment, which can reduce foraging efficiency, alter daily migration patterns, and in extreme cases, cause damage to gill tissues. Life stages of key fish species that are most likely to be affected by such impacts during construction include the following:  Fry and young-of-year juvenile winter steelhead from spawning reaches near in-water construction areas;  Rearing juvenile steelhead and bull trout;  Adult spring/summer Chinook salmon migrating past in-water construction areas while enroute to spawning reaches; and  Rearing and migrating juvenile and adult bull trout. Implementation and monitoring of construction BMPs including the project TESC plan will reduce risks of temporary water quality impacts associated with these life stages of sensitive fish species. In contrast to the temporary water quality and permanent habitat impacts discussed above, installation of ELJ/dolosse units would likely have long-term beneficial impacts to fish in the Hoh River by increasing in-stream habitat structure. Localized morphological changes to the river channel will consist of eddies, pools, and slack-water refuges, which in turn will improve the quality of these reaches for fish spawning and rearing. As an example, Peters et al. (2012) documented an increase in habitat diversity at certain sites on the lower Hoh River after ELJs were installed at those sites. The ELJ units simulate the impacts of woody debris by creating pools and cover for salmon. They also collect nutrients and support benthic macroinvertebrate communities, which enhance the food web salmon depend on. WSDOT personnel making post-construction observations of ELJ installations along the Skagit River have anecdotally reported fish use of ELJs (Spahr, pers. comm. 2017). Although the ELJ/dolosse units themselves will increase the amount of cover available for juvenile fish in these reaches, monitoring of the lower Hoh River ELJ sites found fewer than expected juvenile salmon under the ELJs (Peters et al. 2012). The study suggests that the high Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-64 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment levels of natural turbidity in the Hoh River provided natural cover from predators, and the ELJs lessened the amount of natural turbidity, which resulted in greater predation of juvenile salmon. The increased hydraulic complexity and interstitial spaces between wood and dolosse within the ELJ/dolosse units would provide increased fish habitat along the north bank. In addition, reduced erosion (a result of the project) could allow for more mature bank vegetation to develop over the long term, which would increase cover and shading for fish. However, in the short term, there will be a reduction in potential LWD recruitment caused by the removal of several hundred trees along the river that will be cleared to install the ELJs (see Section 4.5.2 for more information). Long-term impacts of bank stabilization at the three sites on the upper Hoh River can be reasonably expected to be similar to those documented on the lower Hoh River. Most long-term impacts of the ELJ/dolosse are expected to benefit fish populations, as the ELJ structures increase in size from the accumulation of additional mobile wood from upstream sources and create more favorable hydraulic impacts along the riverbank. Construction and installation of the ELJ/dolosse units from the banks of the Hoh River would result in relatively fewer temporary adverse impacts to aquatic resources during construction. In addition, impact pile driving will not occur at any of the bank stabilization sites. This is in contrast to the lower Hoh River ELJ installation, which was constructed entirely from the river. The lower Hoh River installation work minimized bank disturbance and vegetation removal, while this project would minimize adverse aquatic impacts during construction. The BA (Appendix G) provides more detailed information about the status and distribution of listed fish species and related impacts of the proposed project. Wildlife The vegetation to be removed in the strip of land between the UHRR and the Hoh River would reduce the land’s value for wildlife; however, the habitat in this location experiences a relatively high level of human disturbance, decreasing the adverse impact to wildlife. Table 3-2 shows the amount of area that would be cleared near each site for the purpose of construction, staging, access, and storage. Loss of riverbank vegetation would be partially offset by proposed planting of trees (alder and cedar) and willow poles at each site (see preliminary design plans in Appendix I). However, there would be a short-term loss of riverbank habitat as the mitigation plantings grow to maturity. Construction activities would create elevated noise levels that would disrupt daily activities of wildlife in the vicinity of the project sites. The extent of disturbance would depend on the duration and magnitude of construction noise at each site. Construction noise is anticipated to last 45 days at Site C1 and C4 and 100 days at Site C2. As described in the BA, noise, particularly pile driving, has the potential to adversely affect nesting and foraging by northern spotted owls and marbled murrelets, if they occur in the immediate area (within 120 yards) during construction (Appendix G). Overall, the proposed project would have minor, short-term adverse impacts to wildlife in the form of daily foraging decreases, avoidance of the construction area by birds, and potential disruption of spotted owl and marbled murrelet in occupied habitat due to construction noise. Following completion of construction, long-term impacts to terrestrial wildlife should be limited Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-65 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment to a minor reduction in available mature conifer trees that could be used by old-growth adapted species, such as marbled murrelet, northern spotted owl, and banded pigeon. The constructed ELJ/dolosse would provide additional perching and foraging opportunities for aquatic mammals such as otter and mink, as well as raptors such as eagles and osprey who use the river to hunt for food. MP 4.38 Culvert Construction of the culvert, together with Site C2 bank stabilization, would remove approximately three large conifers in the riparian zone (Table 3-2). Adverse impacts to wildlife habitat would be minor because most construction would be contained within the existing road prism. Construction noise would create short-term disturbance to wildlife in the immediate vicinity of the culvert, although the incremental addition of MP 4.38 culvert construction noise to Site C2 construction noise would be small. Fish passage and hydraulic connectivity would significantly improve with the larger culvert. No fish use of this unnamed tributary has been documented, but the proposed project would increase the likelihood of its use, particularly as rearing or resting habitat for juvenile salmonids. Site C3 Tower Creek Bridge Removal of upland and riparian vegetation associated with the Tower Creek Bridge replacement (40,000 square feet, as shown in Table 3-2) would create temporary loss of potential habitat for some wildlife species, such as northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet. Site C3 is adjacent to mature forest habitat that is potential suitable habitat for both of these federally listed species. Individual trees provide potential roosting habitat for bats and birds as well. Construction activities in the Tower Creek channel, including stream diversion, bank excavation, and scour protection, could potentially affect stream-associated wildlife species, such as amphibians. These species could experience short-term disturbance and loss of habitat, but these impacts would be offset in the long run by improved floodplain connectivity under the wider bridge and restoration of riparian vegetation through planting of native shrubs and trees. The bridge abutment foundations may be built on pilings, which would be driven by a combination of vibratory and impact pile driving. Pile driving would create the loudest noise of the entire project. The noise from pile driving could disturb wildlife in a wide area surrounding Site C3. Elevated noise levels could disrupt daily nesting, roosting, and foraging behaviors for a variety of wildlife. Similar to Sites C1 and C2, the project BA concludes that the project as a whole would meet the likely-to-adversely affect marbled murrelet and northern spotted owl at Site C3, where potentially suitable habitat is adjacent to project sites. See the project BA (Appendix G) for more information on noise levels produced by the project and their impacts on listed wildlife species. The new bridge would provide enhanced fish passage and improved hydraulic connectivity by widening the channel and therefore increasing the available capacity to pass debris and flood flows. Temporary increases in erosion and runoff from the construction sites may lead to temporary increases in turbidity and suspended sediment in Tower Creek. These sediment discharges could affect juvenile and adult fish in Tower Creek. However, sedimentation impacts are not expected Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-66 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment to reach the Hoh River, because the confluence is now approximately 3,300 feet downstream of the bridge as a result of the Hoh River shifting to the south side of the channel migration zone at the Tower Creek confluence. These short-term temporary water quality impacts would be minimized by appropriate implementation of BMPs and TESC plans. Also, implementation of a stream diversion plan that provides a dry work area under the bridge would greatly reduce the risk of downstream water quality impacts. Proposed project impacts to fish and wildlife would generally be (1) minor and adverse during construction, except for a moderate adverse impact during impact pile driving, and (2) beneficial in the long run due to improved hydraulic connectivity. Site C5 Canyon Creek Bridge Impacts to fish and wildlife would be similar to Site C3, except that impacts to fish populations at Site C5 would be greater in magnitude than at Site C3. Replacement of the existing culvert with a bridge would significantly improve floodplain connectivity and remove a partial fish barrier. The project would improve access to approximately two miles of upstream spawning and rearing habitat for fish, including sensitive species such as bull trout. Indirect Impacts Indirect impacts are caused by the proposed project, but occur later in time or farther in distance. Indirect impacts to wildlife due to the proposed project would be limited because most of the project’s adverse impacts would be of a short-term duration. The culvert and bridge replacements would have long-term positive indirect impacts on hydraulic connectivity, which could improve the movement of low-mobility amphibians upstream and downstream in those tributaries. Noise created by driving of piles to support proposed bridge foundations at Sites C3 and C5 would cause short-term disturbance to wildlife species occurring in close proximity to project construction. See Appendix G, BA, for additional evaluation of noise impacts to listed species. Indirect impacts of the proposed project on fish and fish habitat would be more substantial. The ELJ/dolosse units would create long-term hydraulic changes at and downstream of the units. The ELJ/dolosse units would be expected to form areas with lower water velocity close to shore, which would increase sediment deposition in those areas. Downstream eddy pools may also form, which could provide improved resting and foraging habitat for salmonids. These eddy pools were observed forming downstream of ELJs installed on the lower Hoh River (Peters et al. 2012). The ELJ/dolosse units would also encourage the thalweg of the river to move away from the bank in areas where they are installed, increasing water velocity in the main channel, and potentially encouraging the formation of side channels opposite the stabilization areas. The new Tower Creek Bridge could improve bull trout passage near the bridge, but would not alter the downstream step pools. Replacement of the culvert with a bridge at Site C5 would have long- term, positive indirect benefits to fish migration and habitat access that are greater than potential negative impacts at this location. Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-67 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment Cumulative Impacts Agencies have completed over 40 projects in the project area since the 1990s, approximately 20 of which have benefited the UHRR. These projects were primarily in response to emergencies such as a shifting river channel contributing to bank failure or debris falling into the river, which in turn compromised the road. Projects identified in Table 4-1 include 10 bank stabilization projects, and more than 10 culvert or bridge repair or replacement projects. In general, these projects had minor impacts to fish and wildlife. Some riparian bank vegetation was likely removed during each project, but in some cases, all bank vegetation had already been lost to natural bank avulsion. Some localized disturbance to wildlife in the immediate vicinity of the projects was likely created. Most of the projects were completed relatively quickly, so this impact was short term. The proposed project, in combination with past and future projects, would result in minor short- term adverse cumulative impacts to fish and wildlife due to noise and turbidity created by construction. However, in the long term, the project would result in a positive incremental cumulative impact due to improvements in hydraulic connectivity for fish and wildlife habitat between the Hoh River and adjacent tributaries. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are proposed to offset impacts to fish and wildlife.  Avoid construction during critical nesting times for sensitive species (murrelet, owl, etc.) where feasible. For instance, critical nesting season for marbled murrelet is April 1 to September 23, and for the northern spotted owl is March 1 to September 30;  In-water work would be limited to the proposed IWWW (July 15 through August 31);  Utilize stream diversions/bypasses at Tower Creek and Canyon Creek to minimize downstream sedimentation impacts;  Implement all reasonable and prudent measures identified during ESA consultation; and  Adhere to the design standards and conditions of approval specified in all construction permits (e.g., WDFW – Hydraulic Project Approval, Corps – Clean Water Act Section 404, Ecology – Clean Water Act Section 401), which may include maintenance and monitoring conditions. In addition, two complementing mitigation projects would be constructed to improve long-term aquatic habitat conditions in the project area along the mainstem Hoh River. Lindner Creek Side Channel Engineered Log Jams at MP 6.7 to 7.3 The primary mitigation project would be constructed in the area between approximately MP 6.7 and MP 7.3 of the UHRR, west of Site C3 (Tower Creek) (see Figure M-1). In this area, a large side channel meander of the Hoh River has formed where the mainstem was formerly located prior to approximately 2010. This large side channel is adjacent to a stand of mature forest and located on WDNR and USFS land. Lindner Creek and several other creeks flow into this large side channel. Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-68 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment Tributaries to the Hoh River, such as Lindner Creek, and the high-water channels that cross the ‘peninsula’ between the Hoh River upstream and the large side channel near MP 6.7 (see Figure M-1) provide important rearing and high-water refuge habitat for fish species such as steelhead, Chinook salmon, coho, and bull trout. Many of the high-water channels have emerged during relatively minor flood events (e.g., less than 10-year flood flow) since the 1990s, due to the increasingly erratic nature of the Hoh River’s migration across the river meander belt. Figure M- 2 shows the finger- and overflow-channels that emerge on the ‘peninsula’ during a two-year flood event. Lindner Creek, the large main channel, and the high-water channels on the ‘peninsula’ comprise a side channel complex. Long-term preservation of the side channel complex would result in the following benefits to aquatic and forest resources, which are important to stakeholders such as WDFW and the Hoh Tribe:  Preservation and maintenance of vital rearing and high-water refuge habitat for steelhead, Chinook salmon, coho, and bull trout;  Preservation of nearby priority steelhead spawning areas, which could potentially undergo modification during the next channel migration event;  Protection of the remaining mature forest stand south of the UHRR;  Encouragement of riparian forest development in the area surrounding the side channel complex by preventing a future channel avulsion; and  Preservation of the small overflow ‘peninsula’ channels as small, finger- and overflow- channels, rather than having them develop into larger channels, or the main channel, if a river avulsion occurs. In order to preserve the side channel complex, approximately 24 engineered log jams (ELJs) would be installed in an arc, extending approximately 0.8 mile south and west from MP 7.3 of the UHRR, crossing the lower section of the side channel complex (see Figure M-1). Each ELJ will consist of approximately 10 dolosse/log bundles, each comprised of one dolos connected to two or three logs. Sheet F.8 of Appendix I, Design Plan Set (70%) shows details of the dolosse/log bundle design. Between the ELJs, the bank would be planted with cottonwood, bank willow, and emergent willow. In addition, the bank would be stabilized with a mixture of gravel and cobble, as shown on Sheet H.13 (Gravel-Cobble Bank Stabilization Typical Sections of Appendix I, Design Plan Set (70%). Installation of the ELJs would require use of an existing side road off the UHRR that is currently used for drift boat access to the river. This road segment would be extended beyond the existing terminus to provide temporary construction access. The extended portion of the road would be replanted with dense native shrubs and trees once ELJ installation is complete. Vegetation clearing for the newly extended access road would primarily involve young alders and willows. In addition to the benefits listed above, this mitigation project would encourage long-term preservation of rearing and spawning habitat elsewhere on the mainstem Hoh River by increasing channel stability. Service Layer Credits: Upper Hoh River Road Project Data Sources: USDA 2015 NAIP, Jefferson County \\Pdxfs1\project\F\FHAX00000242\0600INFO\GS\Maps\Biological Assessment Maps\Fig_1_M1 Lindner Ck Mitigation ELJs.mxd U p p e r H o h R d HohRiver H o h R i v e r ¶ U p p e r H o h R d Existing Road New Road EngineeredLog Jam (ELJ) Site C3Tower Creek BridgeMP 7.5, RM 23.3 Site C4 DownstreamBank StabilizationMP 7.5 to 7.6RM 23.3 0 250 500Feet Figure M-1Proposed Aquatic Mitigation Concept -Lindner Creek Side ChannelEngineered Log Jams, MP 6.7 to 7.3 Project Site Upper Hoh Road New Road Existing Road Engineered Log Jam (ELJ)³ Upper Hoh River Road Project Data Source: FHWA Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center flume analysis, June 2017 \\Pdxfs1\project\F\FHAX00000242\0600INFO\GS\Maps\Biological Assessment Maps\Fig_2_M2 Lindner Ck Mitigation Finger Channels.mxd U p p e r H o h R d HohRiver H o h R i v e r ¶ U p p e r H o h R d ³0 250 500Feet Figure M-2Lindner Creek Side Channel Finger Channels -Emerging During Two-year Flood Event, MP 6.7 to 7.3 Hoh River ¶ Approximate Scale Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-71 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment Spruce Creek/Canyon Creek ELJ at MP 9.8 The second proposed mitigation project will involve installing four large ELJs in the Hoh River adjacent to and upstream of the confluence of Spruce Creek, to MP 9.8. The ELJs would be placed in front of the existing riprap that Jefferson County installed as part of emergency repair. They would be similar in design to the ELJ/dolosse units previously described for the proposed project (see Figure M-3 and ELJ details in Sheet F.8 of Appendix I, Design Plan Set [70%]), and will provide the following benefits:  Preserve the existing riparian habitat at this location, where the river is actively scouring upstream of the riprap installation;  Improve channel roughness and complexity, which has decreased due to nearby riprap;  Provide additional rearing habitat and cover for salmonids, through decreasing near-shore flow velocity at this important location near the mouth of Spruce Creek and the mouth of Canyon Creek (Canyon Creek flows through a large side channel and joins the mainstem upstream of this location); and  Provide more favorable habitat for juvenile salmonids through (1) the use of the single ELJ itself as cover, and (2) creation of additional channel complexity including scour pools. (Post-construction monitoring studies of similar ELJ structures installed by WSDOT in the lower Hoh River and elsewhere have demonstrated this effect.) When the above recommended mitigation measures are combined with the proposed mitigation projects at MP 6.7 and MP 9.8, the proposed project is anticipated to have a positive net benefit to fish and wildlife in the project area. Upper Hoh River Road Project Data Sources: Google Earth \\Pdxfs1\project\F\FHAX00000242\0600INFO\GS\Maps\Biological Assessment Maps\Fig_3_M-3 Spruce Creek Canyon Creek Mitigation ELJs - NEW2.mxd ³Figure M-3Proposed Aquatic Mitigation Concept -Spruce Creek/Canyon CreekEngineered Log Jams, MP 9.8Approximate Scale Hoh River ¶ U p p e r H o h R d Engineered Log Jam (ELJ)Feet0150300 Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-73 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment 4.7 Cultural and Historic Resources This section discusses cultural and historic resources in the project area, and potential impacts to cultural and historic resources resulting from the project alternatives. The project area evaluated for cultural resources (Area of Potential Effect) is defined in Appendix H. 4.7.1 Affected Environment Archaeological Investigations Northwest, Inc. (AINW) completed a cultural resource survey and records search related to Sites C1 through C5 (see Appendix H for complete reports) in April 2015. No evidence of cultural or archaeological resources were found during the pedestrian survey or records search, nor were any historic-period buildings or structures found to be present in the project area. Sites C1, C2, and C5 contain steep slopes and swampy areas outside the road corridor, and archaeological deposits are unlikely to be present. However, ground surface conditions found near Sites C3 and C4 were determined to have potential for containing subsurface archaeological deposits. As a result, AINW recommended shovel testing at Site C3 (Tower Creek Bridge) and Site C4 (proposed bank stabilization location) to determine if subsurface archaeological deposits exist. The DAHP concurred with AINW’s findings and recommendation. In September 2015, AINW excavated two shovel tests at Sites C3 and C4. No archaeological material or historic-period buildings or structures were identified during the field survey. As a result of the historic records review, the surface survey, and the subsurface excavation, AINW determined that archaeological deposits are unlikely to be located within the project area. AINW recommended that no further archaeological investigations related to the UHRR project were warranted and concluded their analysis with a finding of “No Historic Properties Affected” (AINW 2015). DAHP concurred with this finding in October 2015 (DAHP 2015). DAHP has also concurred on the Cultural Resources report for the culvert replacement at MP 4.38 (Appendix H; DAHP 2014). 4.7.2 Environmental Consequences This section describes direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to cultural resources from the project alternatives. 4.7.2.1 No Action Alternative With the No Action Alternative, emergency repairs would continue, similar to existing conditions, but would not likely disturb or adversely affect cultural or historic resources, based on AINW’s finding that archaeological material or historic-period buildings or structures are unlikely to exist in the project area. 4.7.2.2 Build Alternative The proposed project would not result in disruptions or other adverse direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to cultural or historic resources, based on the finding that no cultural resources are likely to exist in the project area. Future projects would need to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Executive Order 05-05, which address cultural and historic resources for federal and state funded projects. Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-74 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are recommended because the proposed project would not result in adverse impacts to cultural or historic resources. 4.8 Noise This section discusses existing noise sources and human receptors in the project area and noise that would be attributable to the proposed project. A traffic noise analysis is not required because this project would not involve new highway construction, significant realignment of an existing highway, vertical or horizontal road realignment, an increase in the number of through lanes, or a change in road topography. This federal aid project does not have the potential to increase traffic noise levels at nearby noise sensitive properties, and therefore, is classified as a Type III project. By definition, Type III projects do not require a noise analysis (WSDOT 2011). The project area for noise includes noise receptors along the UHRR between approximately MP 3.6 and MP 10.2. 4.8.1 Affected Environment This section presents existing sound levels and noises in the project area. FHWA defines noise as unwanted sound (FHWA 1996). Sound is measured using a logarithmic scale and is expressed in decibels (dB) of sound pressure. An increase of 10 dB causes a doubling of perceived loudness and represents a ten-fold increase in sound level. In other words, if the sound of one piece of construction equipment measures 70 dB, 80 dB would be the equivalent of 10 pieces of that same equipment (NPS 2016d). Sound levels adjusted for human hearing are expressed as dB(A). These measurements are called A-Weighted Sound Levels, expressed in A-weighted decibels (dBA). Table 4-12 illustrates the A-weighted levels of common sounds. When sounds exceed 110 dBA, there is a potential for hearing damage, even with relatively short exposures. Noise levels in the project area are generally very low, due to the rural and low-density uses and the undeveloped nature of the area. No sources of measured background noise were available for this analysis; therefore, ambient noise in this area is assumed to be 40 dBA, which is consistent with the estimated ambient noise level used in the ONP programmatic BA for undisturbed forested areas (see Appendix G, BA, for information on potential noise impacts to wildlife). Table 4-12. Decibel Scale for Common Sounds Category Measure (dB) Threshold of pain 140 Jet aircraft at 300 meters of altitude 90 Highway traffic at 30 meters away 75 Quiet restaurant 50 Residential area at night 40 Rustling of leaves 20 Threshold of hearing 0 Source: FHWA 2016a Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-75 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment The project area is considered soft ground, which is defined as “any highly absorptive surface in which the phase of the sound energy is changed upon reflection; examples include terrain covered with dense vegetation or freshly fallen snow” (FHWA 1996), meaning that sound is absorbed faster than if dense vegetation were not present. Other factors such as climate, vegetation, topography, and our individual hearing sensitivity also contribute to the soundscape experience. For example, sound travels faster in warmer and more humid conditions. Sound also reflects off of very hard surfaces such as rock, water, or ice, and can travel great distances. Softer surfaces like leaf litter or duff tend to absorb sound (NPS 2016d). Sounds in the project area include water rushing in the Hoh River and the streams that meet the Hoh River, birds and other wildlife, and general sounds related to a small rural community. Existing sources of noise in and near the project area include the traffic on the UHRR and occasional blasting at the Seton Construction quarry. Traffic noise is not prevalent because the UHRR is a two-lane highway, and traffic volumes are relatively low. Types of traffic on the UHRR include automobiles, large recreational vehicles, and medium and heavy trucks carrying stone and rocks from the Seton Construction quarry. Average daily traffic on the UHRR varies throughout the year from 71 vehicles per day in December, to 1,158 vehicles per day in August (see Table 4-2). Noise-sensitive receptors in the project area include the homes and businesses between approximately MP 5.0 and MP 7.0 (between Sites C2 and C3), homes located south of the Hoh River at the end of Owl Creek Drive, and recreationists on and near the Hoh River. The homes and businesses are permanent receptors, while recreationists are present on an intermittent and seasonal basis. The permanent receptor closest to any of the six sites is a home at the end of Owl Creek Road, approximately 2,600 feet southwest of Site C5 (where impact pile driving would occur), south of the Hoh River. 4.8.2 Environmental Consequences This section describes direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts resulting from noise generated by the project alternatives. 4.8.2.1 No Action Alternative With the No Action Alternative, the proposed project would not be constructed and related construction noise would not occur. Noise related to emergency repair projects would continue to occur intermittently and without prior notice. 4.8.2.2 Build Alternative Direct Impacts Construction of the proposed project would result in temporary increases in noise levels in the project area. Equipment required to complete the project would include construction equipment typically used for many types of construction projects. Table 4-13 lists equipment that could be used for this type of project, the activities for which the equipment would be used, and the corresponding maximum noise level as measured at 50 feet under normal use. To minimize the Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-76 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment temporarily higher noise levels, all equipment would be required to comply with FHWA’s standard noise mitigation measures. Based on the types of construction equipment proposed for the project, typical noise levels associated with construction are not expected to exceed 101 dBA, which is the average maximum noise level at 50 feet from an impact pile driver (FHWA 2016b). The project will comply with Chapter 8.70 Noise Control of the Jefferson County Code (JCC 2016). For temporary night construction noise, a variance or exemption from the municipal or county codes could be required (WSDOT 2011). Impact pile drivers are the construction equipment with the highest noise levels, and would be used to proof piles for the new bridge abutments at Sites C3 and C5. The pile drivers have a maximum noise level of 101 dBA at 50 feet, which equates to approximately 59 dBA at the closest sensitive receptor (2,600 feet southwest of Site C5). Figure 4-13 shows the area surrounding Site C5, where pile driving would occur. Table 4-13. Construction Equipment and Noise Levels Equipment Typical Expected Project Use1 Typical Noise Level at 50 feet in dBA2 Air Compressors Used for pneumatic tools and general maintenance 78 Backhoe General construction and yard work 78 Crane Materials handling, removal, and replacement 81 Excavator General construction and materials handling 81 Generators Lighting and staging area 81 Haul/Dump Trucks Materials handling, general hauling 76 Impact Pile Driver Installing steel piles at bridge and culvert locations 101 Jackhammers/Vibratory Equipment Pavement removal at bridge and culvert locations, installing wood piles at ELJ/dolosse locations 89 Loader General construction and materials handling 79 Pumps General construction use, water removal 81 Pneumatic Tools Miscellaneous construction work 85 Service and Utility Trucks Repair and maintenance of equipment and general project work 75 1 Typical project uses 2 Typical maximum noise level under normal operation as measured at 50 feet from the noise source Source: FHWA 2016b Typical construction noise, other than pile driving, would generate noise measuring 85 dBA at 50 feet from the construction site, and 43 dBA at the closest sensitive receptor. Assuming the noise level of a jackhammer at 50 feet (89 dBA), the closest sensitive receptor would hear noise measuring 47 dBA when jackhammers are used for demolishing the bridge and culvert sites. Based on Table 4-12, noise at the closest receptor would typically range from what is likely to be heard at a quiet restaurant and what is likely to be heard in a residential area at night. During impact pile driving, noise at the closest receptor would be similar to noise heard 30 miles from a highway. The nature of the local topography would contain the sound within the Hoh River valley to some extent, and the “soft” environment would absorb some of the noise. Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-77 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment Figure 4-13. Pile Driving Would Occur at Site C3 Tower Creek CFR Part 772 establishes noise abatement criteria (NAC) for highway traffic noise impacts. FHWA established values for the NAC by attempting to balance the control of future increases in highway traffic noise levels and the economic, physical, and aesthetic considerations related to highway traffic noise abatement measures (FHWA 2016c). Table 4-14 shows levels of impact at which noise abatement measures must be considered. These noise levels are expressed in Leq, which is the preferred method to describe sound levels that vary over time. For example, pile driving noise that can reach 59 dBA at a nearby home would result in a sound level over time at that home less than 59 Leq. The project area falls into the B category, which has a limit of 67 Leq(h), above which noise abatement criteria must be met. During construction, approximated maximum noise levels at sensitive receptors are not expected to result in noise levels above 59 dBA, which would result in Leq levels below the NAC threshold. Increases in noise related to project construction would not be significant. Long-term operation of the proposed project, after construction is complete, would not change noise levels in the project area because traffic would not increase on the UHRR as a result of the proposed project. Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-78 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment Table 4-14. Noise Abatement Criteria Activity Category Activity Criteria (Leq) Evaluation Location Activity Description A 57 Exterior Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public need, and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose. B 67 Exterior Residential C 67 Exterior Active sport areas, amphitheaters, auditoriums, campgrounds, cemeteries, day care centers, hospitals, libraries, medical facilities, parks, picnic areas, places of worship, playgrounds, public meeting rooms, public or nonprofit institutional structures, radio studios, recording studios, recreation areas, Section 4(f) sites, schools, television studios, trails, and trail crossings. D 52 Interior Auditoriums, day care centers, hospitals, libraries, medical facilities, places of worship, public meeting rooms, public or nonprofit institutional structures, radio studios, recording studios, schools, and television studios. E 72 Exterior Hotels, motels, offices, and restaurants/bars; and other developed lands, properties, or activities not included in A–D or F. F – – Agriculture, airports, bus yards, emergency services, industrial, logging, maintenance facilities, manufacturing, mining, rail yards, retail facilities, shipyards, utilities (water resources, water treatment, electrical), and warehousing. G – – Undeveloped lands that are not permitted. Leq = a measure to describe sound levels that vary over time. Source: FHWA 2016c Indirect Impacts No indirect impacts to noise levels would occur as a result of the proposed project. After construction, sound and noise levels would return to existing conditions. Noise impacts to sensitive fish and wildlife species are addressed in Section 4.6, Fish and Wildlife, and in the BA, Appendix G. Cumulative Impacts The proposed project, together with past and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would result in temporary noise impacts related to construction work, similar to impacts due to the proposed project alone. Past projects listed in Table 4-1 will no longer have noise impacts because construction is finished. Only one future project is near the proposed project site—construction of a new outlet to the Hoh River from Dismal Pond at MP 9.0. This project is approximately 1.2 miles east of Site C4, and 1.2 miles west of Site C5. To the extent construction of the proposed project and this Dismal Pond occurs concurrently, temporary noise impacts would be higher than if construction were not concurrent. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are recommended to offset noise impacts:  All equipment would have sound control devices no less effective than those provided on the original equipment; Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-79 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment  All equipment would have muffled exhaust;  All equipment would comply with pertinent noise standards of the EPA and with the Jefferson County Code; and  No construction would be performed within 100 feet of any occupied residence. Should a specific noise impact complaint occur during construction, one or more of the following measures may be required:  Shutting off idling equipment when possible;  Working with landowners who submit noise complaints;  Notifying nearby residents when extremely noisy work would be occurring; and  Installing temporary or portable acoustic barriers around stationary construction noise sources, if possible. 4.9 Visual Quality Beneficial and adverse impacts to visual quality are considered when an agency plans and develops a highway project due to the public nature and visual importance of our highways. The project area for visual quality is the area of visual effect (AVE) and includes locations where views of the project would exist and would be influenced by the presence or absence of topography, vegetation, or structures. 4.9.1 Affected Environment The project area is a combination of Hoh River views, natural forest lands, rural development, and the UHRR. Views within the AVE are from (1) the roadway by the traveling public, and (2) those recreating on the river or the banks of the river. Certain areas along the UHRR show signs of the public repeatedly accessing the river, including informal pathways and damaged vegetation. Figures 4-14, 4-15, and 4-16 show key viewpoints from the road at Sites C1, C2, and the downstream portion of C4, respectively. Figure 4-17 identifies the viewpoint locations. Views from the road to the south include the Hoh River and forested, undeveloped land (Figure 4-15), primarily managed by public or semi-public agencies such as NPS and the Nature Conservancy. Views to the north from the road are mostly forest and land sloping upward. No officially designated scenic areas or attributes exist in the project area, although the USFS and NPS have determined the Hoh River eligible for Wild and Scenic designation due to its outstanding fisheries, wildlife, cultural, historical, and recreation values (American Rivers 2016). Views from the Hoh River include forested, mostly public land to the south, and the UHRR and forested land sloping upward to the north. Views within the AVE are generally dynamic (experienced while moving) because the majority of viewers are traveling along UHRR. UHRR drivers travel 30 to 40 miles per hour. Dynamic views are for a short duration and frequency and tend to result in low viewer sensitivity to visual change. The majority of views within the AVE are dynamic. Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-80 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment Figure 4-14a. Viewpoint 1 Looking Southwest Figure 4-14b. Viewpoint 1 Looking Southeast Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-81 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment Figure 4-15a. Viewpoint 2 Looking Southeast Figure 4-15b. Viewpoint 2 Looking Southwest Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-82 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment Figure 4-16. Viewpoint 3 Looking Southwest Key existing viewpoints within the AVE are shown in Figures 4-17a, Viewpoints 1 and 2 and Figure 4-17b, Viewpoint 3. The viewpoints are from the UHRR or accessible pullovers because access to views from the river (i.e., a boat) was not available. As shown in Figures 4-14, 4-15, and 4-16, the viewpoints generally show vivid views of the riverbank in the foreground, the Hoh River in the middleground, and a forested background or horizon line. The existing views exhibit natural harmony between the roadway and the river, with vivid views of the Hoh River floodplain in the foreground and middleground with natural forested slopes in the background. Upper Hoh River Road Project Data Sources: Jefferson County, Washington DNR. \\Pdxfs1\project\F\FHAX00000226\0600INFO\GS\Maps\Public EA maps\Fig_4-17 Visual.mxd Figure 4-17aViewpoints 1 and 2³ 0 0.1 0.2Miles Project Location Area of Visual Effect (AVE) Upper Hoh River Road <A ViewpointV1Viewpoint 1 Upper Hoh River Road Project Data Sources: Jefferson County, Washington DNR. \\Pdxfs1\project\F\FHAX00000226\0600INFO\GS\Maps\Public EA maps\Fig_4-17 Visual.mxd Figure 4-17bViewpoint 3³ 0 0.1 0.2Miles Project Location Area of Visual Effect (AVE) Upper Hoh River Road <A ViewpointV3Viewpoint 3 Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-85 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment 4.9.2 Environmental Consequences This section describes direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to visual quality from the project alternatives. 4.9.2.1 No Action Alternative With the No Action Alternative, the proposed project would not be constructed and maintenance along the UHRR would continue similar to existing conditions, on an as-needed basis and after flood and storm events. The visual quality in the project area would be reduced over time with more riprap revetment and further vegetation loss near Sites C1, C2, and C4, related to continuing unplanned, emergency repair projects. 4.9.2.2 Build Alternative Direct Impacts Bank Stabilization Sites C1, C2, and C4 Each individual ELJ/dolosse unit would be approximately 75 feet long, 20 feet high, and 20 feet wide; and would consist of approximately 75 logs and 20 dolosse. ELJs are log structures with multiple tiers of logs installed for protection along the riverbank and typically include some type of anchoring (Figure 4-18). The most visible anchoring would be dolosse. Dolosse are “jack- like” concrete structures with two approximately 8-foot-long octagonal and perpendicular appendages (approximately 3 feet diameter). Each dolosse would be chained to three logs; each dolosse/log bundle would be attached to one large tree; the bundles would be combined to form an ELJ/dolosse unit. Table 4-15 shows the length of proposed bank stabilization and number of ELJ/dolosse units proposed at Sites C1, C2, and C4. Site C2 would be most visible due to its length of 2,100 linear feet and 23 ELJ units. ELJs are comprised of wood, a natural material, and would therefore be more consistent with the existing visual character of the river and its surroundings than a riprap revetment typically used for emergency repairs. Although the concrete dolosse would introduce new contrasting unnatural forms and materials to the natural Hoh River viewshed, they would be intertwined with and partially covered by the ELJs. In addition, over time, as the logs that comprise the ELJs lose their bark and become bleached by the sun, they would become similar in color to the dolosse, causing the dolosse to be less discernible from natural materials by viewers. Removal of vegetation, including mature trees, along the riverbank for installation of the ELJ/dolosse units would adversely affect views for recreational viewers on the river because the roadway (and vehicles traveling along UHRR) would be more visible. Conversely, this would likely be a beneficial impact for viewers on UHRR because it would provide more opportunities for expanded scenic views of the river. Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-86 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment Figure 4-18. Typical ELJ/Dolosse Installation Table 4-15. Riverbank Stabilization Options Summary Project Location Length of Bank Stabilization (linear feet) No. of ELJ/Dolosse Units Site C1, MP 3.6 - 3.8 600 6 Site C2, MP 4.0 - 4.4 2,100 23 Site C4, MP 7.5 - 7.6, MP 7.9 400 (downstream segment), 100 (upstream segment) 4 The change in visual character due to the installation of the ELJ/dolosse units would be minor. The ELJ/dolosse units would not reduce the natural harmony, cultural order, and coherence between the roadway and the river when compared to existing views and, as a result, would have an overall neutral effect on long-term visual quality at Sites C1, C2, and C4. Temporary construction-related visual impacts would occur due to the presence of large heavy equipment such as excavators and cranes during installation of the ELJ/dolosse units, which would occur over two construction seasons, from June through October. Culvert and Bridge Sites At MP 4.38, the project would replace the existing 72-inch-wide corrugated metal pipe culvert (Figure 4-19) with a 16- by 16-foot box culvert. Despite the increased size, the larger culvert would not likely be more visible to viewers from the UHRR than the existing culvert because the Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-87 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment culvert would be beneath the bridge. Views from the river would change minimally due to the larger culvert, and materials and forms would be consistent with the existing views. Figure 4-19. Existing MP 4.38 culvert to be replaced The project would replace the existing Tower Creek Bridge with a new, longer bridge (see Figure 4-20) and approximately 50 feet of the Tower Creek stream channel would be restored near the bridge. Riprap would be removed. The new bridge would consist of materials and forms compatible with the existing bridge, and would not introduce any new visual element to the visual character of the Hoh River viewshed. Therefore, this bridge would result in a negligible visual change. The project would replace the 96-inch Canyon Creek culvert (Figure 4-21) with a bridge, resulting in views that are wider and include more of Canyon Creek. The visual experience would likely improve slightly, although the clearest views of the new bridge would be from the banks of Canyon Creek, which are relatively inaccessible. Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-88 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment Figure 4-20. Tower Creek Bridge Figure 4-21. Canyon Creek Culvert Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-89 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment Long-term changes in visual character due to the new culvert and bridges would result in a neutral impact to visual quality. Construction-related visual impacts would include temporary views of large, heavy equipment such as excavators and cranes, lasting approximately 90 days for two construction seasons. Indirect Impacts No indirect impacts to visual quality have been identified as a result of the proposed project. Cumulative Impacts The proposed project, together with the projects listed in Table 4-1, would result in visual changes to the viewshed of the Hoh River. The past projects have modified the banks with riprap. The ELJ/dolosse units would add a new visual element within the UHRR viewshed. Without the proposed project, local agencies would need to continue the practice of emergency repairs to maintain UHRR. However, because the emergency repairs and proposed bank stabilization projects are in locations visible mainly to the traveling public, which generally have filtered and brief views from UHRR, they would likely result in a neutral cumulative impact to visual resources in these areas. Over the past ten years, eight stream crossing structures (culverts and bridges) along the UHRR have been repaired or replaced. The proposed project would replace an additional three stream crossing structures. In general, culvert and bridge replacements would not affect views of the traveling public along UHRR or those recreating on the river or the banks of the river. The three structure replacements proposed with this project, together with past and reasonably foreseeable future structure replacement projects, would likely result in a neutral cumulative impact to visual quality along the UHRR. Although views from the river have changed slightly, these projects do not represent a significant change in visual character as viewed from the river. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are recommended to offset potential visual impacts.  Impact Minimization: apply black cottonwood bark-like concrete form-liner texture to dolosse, instead of smooth finish. A textured concrete finish would help the structures blend into the environment.; and  Riverbank and Streambank Restoration after Construction: revegetate all riverbanks, streambanks, and riparian areas temporarily disturbed by the installation of the bank stabilization option, with native coniferous and deciduous trees. Utilize larger trees when planting the riparian zone (at least 5-gallon size) to speed up establishment. 4.10 Utilities This section presents information about utilities available in the project area and analyzes potential impacts due to project construction and ongoing operation. The project area for the assessment of impacts to utilities includes the UHRR and adjacent homes and businesses between MP 3.6 and MP 10.2. Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-90 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment 4.10.1 Affected Environment Utilities in the project area include electricity and telephone (see Figure 4-22). Clallam County Public Utilities Department (PUD) provides electricity service to the homes and businesses in the project area with overhead power lines originating from north of the project area. Century Link provides telephone service to project area residents and businesses. The phone lines are also above ground. The above-ground lines extend along the UHRR in certain areas, including near Site C5. Century Link may also provide internet service to the project area. Satellite internet is available to the project area. Figure 4-22. Power Pole on North Side of UHRR No water service exists in the project area. Homes and businesses source their water from private wells. Jefferson County Public Health (JCPH) governs and monitors water quality in the project area, and sets performance standards for well water. JCPH reviews and approves applications for well construction, reconstruction, or decommissioning. Homes and businesses in the project area use septic systems because sewer service is not provided. JCPH manages an Onsite Sewage Program, which includes setting performance Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-91 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment measures, adopting a Sewage Management Plan, and maintaining an Onsite Sewage Code. JCPH also offers inspection, monitoring, and education related to septic systems (JCPH 2016). Jefferson County works with Skookum Environmental Service and DM Disposal for garbage and recycling pick-up. West Waste & Recycling, Inc. provides the following services to the Greater Forks area: residential and commercial curbside collection, drop box services, recycling and disposal services at a transfer facility, and commercial paper and cardboard collection routes. 4.10.2 Environmental Consequences This section describes direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to utilities from the project alternatives. 4.10.2.1 No Action Alternative With the No Action Alternative, maintenance, monitoring, and as-needed emergency repair work would continue along the UHRR. Utility avoidance or relocation could be required, associated with future emergency repairs along the Hoh River bank and UHRR. Temporary service interruptions could occur in the future to the extent future repair work requires utility avoidance or relocation. 4.10.2.2 Build Alternative Direct Impacts Depending on the specific location of utility lines and structures, the proposed project could require avoidance or relocation of utilities. Lines are above ground; therefore, avoidance or relocation would be required when equipment movement or placement interferes with the utility structures. If avoidance is not feasible, WFLHD and Jefferson County would work with utility providers to temporarily relocate utility lines, poles, and other related structures. When design plans for Sites C1 through C5 and MP 4.38 are final, WFLHD would coordinate with Jefferson County and Clallam County PUD to locate utility lines, poles, and other related structures; and either avoid or temporarily relocate utility structures to avoid damage and limit service interruptions. If temporary service interruptions are expected, WFLHD and Jefferson County would coordinate with the utility to make sure customers are notified in advance of the temporary outage. With these plans in place, temporary adverse impacts to utilities during construction are expected to be minimal. Utility service would not change in the long run, associated with the proposed project. As necessary, WFLHD will coordinate with private property owners to minimize impacts on wells and private septic systems and fields. Indirect Impacts To the extent the proposed project results in fewer incidences of damage to banks and emergency repairs on the UHRR, the number of utility service interruptions or conflicts with utility structures would decrease. Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-92 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment Cumulative Impacts Together with past and reasonably foreseeable future projects that also improve the reliability of the UHRR, the proposed project would result in fewer interruptions in utility service related to emergency repair and construction work. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are recommended to offset impacts to project area utilities.  Power and telephone lines, poles, private buried septic systems and well fields, and related structures would be located and avoided during construction to the extent possible;  If avoidance of utilities is not feasible, WFLHD and Jefferson County would work with utility providers to temporarily relocate utility lines, poles, and other related structures; and  Outages would not last more than four hours. 4.11 Socioeconomics This section presents the existing social and economic conditions in the project area, and analyzes the expected socioeconomic impacts on the community, attributable to the project alternatives. 4.11.1 Affected Environment The project area for analyzing social and economic impacts is defined as the UHRR and surrounding properties between MP 3.6 and MP 10.2. Sources if information included the U.S. Census, Washington Office of Financial Management, Washington State Employment Security Department, Jefferson County, and public services agencies in Jefferson County. In addition, site reconnaissance was conducted in spring, 2016. 4.11.1.1 Population and Housing The project area is located in unincorporated Jefferson County (Figure 3-1), a rural county on the Olympic Peninsula covering 1,801 square miles. Jefferson County is home to 30,880 residents (Census 2014); reflecting a population density of 17 persons per square mile, much less than the Washington State average population density of 106 persons per square mile. Port Townsend, the only incorporated city in Jefferson County, is located on the east end of the County and has 9,380 residents; the majority of Jefferson County residents live in unincorporated areas. Between 2010 and 2015, Jefferson County’s population grew by less than one percent per year (WOFM 2014), slower than Washington as a whole. The Washington Office of Financial Management expects Jefferson County’s population to grow by over one percent per year in future years 2016 to 2040, slightly faster than Washington State as a whole. The approximately 10 homes located in the project area north of the UHRR and the Hoh River between approximately MP 5 and MP 7 are accessed exclusively by the UHRR. These homes are single-family residences on relatively large lots. According to the 2010 census, the 28 census blocks that encompass the project area had 19 residents (U.S. Census 2010). The residences are Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-93 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment clustered around Oscar Peterson Road and Lindner Creek Lane, rural roads extending north from the UHRR. 4.11.1.2 Economy Jefferson County jobs in 2013 were in government (28 percent), accommodation and food services (13 percent), retail trade (12 percent), and healthcare and social assistance (10 percent). The average wage earned was $34,497 in 2013, 35 percent less than the average wage in Washington State as a whole ($53,030) (WESD 2013). The regional decline of the timber and commercial fishing industries over the last two decades has resulted in distressed economic conditions in the West End of Jefferson County where the project area is located, similar to some other rural and forested areas in the Pacific Northwest. The county has been working to diversify the economy by encouraging new employment opportunities in other economic sectors such as tourism and recreation. Situated on US 101 between the Olympic Mountains and rainforest and the ocean beach portions of ONP, the West End serves visitors from the Puget Sound regional metropolitan areas, as well as national and international visitors. The Hoh and Quinault Indian Reservation communities are concentrated population centers that contribute to and rely upon the West End economy. Jefferson County’s Comprehensive Plan encourages diverse employment opportunities in the West End with policies that allow businesses serving tourists to carry a broader range of goods and services (Jefferson County 2009). In addition, policies related to home businesses and cottage industries allow for greater flexibility under criteria specific to the West End. Forest resource- based industries in the West End continue to support employment in a distressed economic sector that has long-term economic importance for Jefferson County, even though some employment decline has occurred (Jefferson County 2014). The following privately-owned businesses are located along UHRR within the project area:  Hard Rain Café, 5763 Upper Hoh River Road (see Figure 4-23); and  Peak 6 Tours and Gift Shop, 4913 Upper Hoh River Road. Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-94 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment Figure 4-23. Hard Rain Café, Restaurant and Mercantile The Jefferson County Public Works Maintenance Shop is also located along UHRR, at 5632 Upper Hoh River Road. Seton Construction operates a rock quarry north of the road, just east of Site C5. The quarry produces and supplies rock and backfill material. The project area is unique in that the UHRR is the only road leading to ONP’s western entrance. Visitors entering ONP from the west (traveling into the Hoh District of ONP) must travel along the UHRR to reach ONP entrance. The two businesses within the project area, the Hard Rain Café and the Peak 5 Tours and Gift Shop, rely heavily on tourism. In 2015, six percent of ONP visitors entered through the Hoh District (NPS 2016c), meaning they traveled along the UHRR to reach ONP. Applying this percentage to the visitor spending at ONP in 2014 (Cullinane et al. 2015), an estimated $15 million in visitor spending per year was attributable to Hoh District ONP visitors. This spending, and the jobs and income it supports, are spread across the jurisdictions and commercial centers located along the routes leading to US 101 and the UHRR. Tourism spending is a substantial part of the local project area economy and the West End economy. 4.11.1.3 Community Cohesion The small residential community within the project area is home to those who value what the area has to offer, including the nearby ONP, a rural way of life, opportunities for larger parcels of land, forest resources, recreational opportunities, solitude and quiet, wildlife, and the nearby Hoh River. Community members include the residents near Oscar Peterson Road and Lindner Creek Lane as well as employees at the two businesses and the County maintenance shop. Some residents have lived in the area for many years and are highly invested in the community. A small community such as this one tends to be close-knit, especially when isolated from services and goods typically found in more urban areas such as medical care and grocery stores. Community members rely on the UHRR to travel to work, to run errands, and to receive medical care. Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-95 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment 4.11.1.4 Public Services The Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office (JCSO) provides law enforcement services to the unincorporated portion of the County, including the project area. Services include patrol of unincorporated areas, delivery of civil papers, execution of court orders, incarceration of offenders, supervision of parole and probation clients, organizing search and rescue operations, and preparing for and coordinating responses to man-made and natural disasters. The sheriff’s office criminal division consists of 13 patrol deputies, 3 detectives, 2 patrol sergeants, 2 patrol captains, and an undersheriff. Resident deputies are stationed on the coastal portion of the County to serve communities west of ONP. The NPS is responsible for law enforcement services within the park (JCSO 2016). The fire department closest to the project area is the Clallam County Fire Protection District No. 1, at 11 Spartan Avenue in Forks, approximately 20 miles northwest of the project area. District No. 1 is a volunteer district with 43 firefighters and two fire stations: one station in Forks (20 miles northwest of the project area), and one station in Beaver (30 miles north of the project area). Jefferson County Fire District No. 7 has a station in Clearwater, approximately 40 miles southwest of the project area. Clallam County Hospital District No. 1 serves the residents of west Clallam and west Jefferson counties. The Hospital District includes Forks Community Hospital, the Bogachiel Medical Clinic and Women’s Health, Clallam Bay Clinic, West End Outreach Services facility, and the Forks Ambulance Service. The hospital closest to the project area is the Forks Community Hospital, located at 530 Bogachiel Way, 20 miles northwest of the project area. The Jefferson County Department of Emergency Management provides services to county residents in case of an emergency. The project area is within the boundaries of the Quillayute Valley School District, which buses students from Lindner Creek Lane in the project area to schools in Forks. Schools and programs include the Forks Elementary School (preschool through grade 3), Forks Intermediate School (grades 4 through 6), Forks Junior/Senior High School (grades 7 through 12), Forks Alternative School, and Home School Plus. 4.11.1.5 Revenues and Expenditures Jefferson County’s 2016 Final Budget, adopted in December of 2015, includes $47.3 million in revenues and $52.7 million in expenses. Top revenue and expenditure categories include County roads, the sheriff’s department, and public health. Jefferson County and the state tax goods and services at 9.0 percent, with 6.5 percent going to the State of Washington and the remaining 2.5 percent staying in the County. Hotel/motel tax is an additional 2 percent of sales. The tax code area for the project area is 0220; residents in this tax code area paid taxes to the following districts or programs in 2014: flood zone, hospital, library, port, public utility, road, and school. 4.11.2 Environmental Consequences This section describes direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to socioeconomic resources from the project alternatives. Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-96 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment 4.11.2.1 No Action Alternative With the No Action Alternative, emergency repairs would continue to occur on the UHRR and result in unexpected delays and other temporary construction-related disruptions to residents and employees in the project area. Emergency repairs would continue to require the purchase of materials, the temporary employment of workers, and the use of equipment. 4.11.2.2 Build Alternative Direct Impacts Construction Construction would occur between June 1 and October 31, and possibly over two weeks in January or February. One lane of the UHRR would be closed at a time to allow for construction activities, staging, and equipment storage at each of the six sites. Flaggers, pilot cars, and temporary stoplights would control traffic during lane closures. If bridge and culvert construction also occurs during the winter, the road may close for up to two weeks during January or February. Table 4-16 shows the estimated duration of construction at each of the six sites. Some construction activities would be concurrent. Table 4-16. Estimated Construction Durations Location Estimated Length of Construction (days) Site C1 45 Site C2 100 MP 4.38 Culvert 45 Site C3 -Tower Creek Bridge 90 Site C4 45 Site C5 - Canyon Creek Bridge 90 During bank stabilization activities at Sites C1, C2, and C4, residents and businesses would retain access to their properties, but all traffic on UHRR would experience typical delays of 30 minutes, and occasional delays up to 4 hours. The UHRR may close for two weeks during the winter to allow for bridge and culvert construction at MP 4.38 and Sites C3 and C5. The closure would disrupt access for residents and businesses and result in travel delays. WFLHD and the construction crew would need to coordinate with the full-time park ranger and the private resident residing between the project area and the park to ensure that access to their homes is maintained at all times. Typical construction disruptions, such as increases in noise levels and dust, could temporarily change the character of the quiet, rural community for as long as construction activities occur. Due to the location of the sites in relation to the cluster of residences in the project area, the temporary noise and dust would not represent a substantial change in the character of the community. Adverse economic impacts during construction could include lost patronage at local businesses due to access difficulties, both in summer months due to lane closures and in winter months due to a possible road closure. Visitors to the Hoh District of ONP would also experience delays. To the extent Hoh District visitors decide to delay or forego their visit, economic benefits to the local area related to ONP Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-97 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment visitors would decrease. The decrease in economic benefit would not be substantial within the context of total visitor spending by Hoh District ONP visitors because the road would not be closed during high-use summer months, and most delays would be approximately 30 minutes. Temporary economic benefits related to project construction would include additional jobs, earned income, and spending for materials and equipment. To the extent workers are hired locally and materials are sourced locally, these temporary economic benefits would occur locally. Seton Construction, the quarry just east of Canyon Creek culvert (Site C5) provides riprap for local construction projects, including some projects along the Hoh River banks. During lane or road closures, Seton Construction would need to coordinate with construction crews to minimize disruptions. Access for fire and emergency services would need to be maintained at all times during construction. WFLHD and construction crews would work with service providers to put in place procedures so that during the possible winter road closure, if an emergency arises, emergency vehicles can pass. Construction crews would coordinate with residents to the extent practical. WFLHD and Jefferson County would coordinate with ONP so that notice of traffic delays on UHRR can be posted on ONP’s website. The school district, WFLHD, and Jefferson County would work together to ensure that students living in the project area can be picked up and dropped off for school during any road closures in the winter. Construction would result in (1) temporary benefits to the region in the form of jobs, income, and spending; and (2) temporary adverse impacts to the social and economic conditions in the project area due to intermittent traffic delays. Long-Term Operation The proposed project would increase the long-term safety and reliability of the UHRR, thus ensuring more consistent and reliable access for project area residents; business owners, employees, and patrons; and ONP visitors. Increased reliability of the UHRR would improve the quality of life for the project area residents due to fewer travel delays, fewer emergency repairs along the road, and better access for emergency services. In addition, road reliability would encourage tourism and the related economic stimulus. Spending related to tourism and recreation (including fishing) could increase slightly, due to more reliable access to the Hoh River from the UHRR. Seton Construction and vehicles accessing the quarry, east of the project area, would benefit from the improved reliability associated with the proposed project. No long-term direct adverse impacts to socioeconomics are expected. Indirect Impacts Increased long-term reliability of the road could lead to indirect economic benefits such as supplier and worker spending in the local and regional area, and related tax revenues. In addition, local businesses relying on tourism may benefit due to increased visitation to ONP and area recreational attractions related to road reliability. No long-term, indirect, adverse impacts to socioeconomics are expected. Cumulative Impacts The proposed project, together with the projects listed in Table 4-1, could result in long-term permanent increased economic activity for area businesses, leading to potential increases in tax Upper Hoh River Road Project 4-98 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment revenue and a more sustainable economy. The projects would cumulatively increase the long- term quality of life for project area residents. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are recommended to offset potential impacts:  Access for fire and emergency services would be maintained during construction;  Specific procedures would be in place so that if an emergency arises during the winter road closure, emergency vehicles could pass;  Construction crews would coordinate with residents to the extent practical to ease access during construction activities;  WFLHD and Jefferson County would coordinate with ONP so that notice of traffic delays on UHRR can be posted on ONP’s website;  Flaggers, pilot cars, and temporary stoplights would control traffic during lane closures; and  WFLHD and Jefferson County would coordinate with the school district to ensure students can be picked up and dropped off during the winter road closure. Upper Hoh River Road Project 5-1 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment 5.0 IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES Irreversible commitments are those that cannot be regained, such as the extinction of a species, the expenditure of federal funds, or the removal and use of fossil fuels. Irretrievable commitments are those that are lost for a period of time, such as the loss of production, harvest, or use of renewable resources. Fossil fuels, labor, and construction materials such as riprap, dolosse, logs, and steel would be irreversibly expended by construction of the proposed project. Labor and fossil fuels would be consumed during operation of construction equipment for material movement and construction activities. In addition, labor and natural resources would be used in the fabrication and preparation of construction materials. Construction would also require an expenditure of federal funds that could not be used for any other projects. Vegetation, including large conifers, would be temporarily lost for a period of time as a result of the project, representing an irretrievable commitment of resources, and a use of renewable resources. Upper Hoh River Road Project 5-2 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment This page intentionally left blank. Upper Hoh River Road Project 6-1 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment 6.0 PERMITS AND APPROVALS Required permits and approvals would be obtained prior to construction. The following permits and approvals are expected to be required for implementation of the Build Alternative:  National Environmental Policy Act;  State Environmental Policy Act;  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 of the Clean Water Act;  Endangered Species Act Section 7;  Washington State Department of Ecology Section 401 of the Clean Water Act;  Section 402 Stormwater Construction Permit;  Washington Department of Natural Resources Aquatic Lease;  Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act;  Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Act;  Coastal Zone Management Certification;  Jefferson County Shoreline Substantial Development and Conditional Use Permit; and  Jefferson County Stormwater Management/Grading/Clearing Permit. Upper Hoh River Road Project 6-2 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment This page intentionally left blank. Upper Hoh River Road Project 7-1 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment 7.0 COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION 7.1 Agency Coordination WFLHD is the lead agency for federal reviews and approvals on this project and has therefore coordinated with the following agencies as part of project design, planning, and scoping: DAHP, ONP (NPS), WDNR, the Hoh Tribe, the Corps, WDFW, the Hoh River Trust, Ecology, and the USFWS. Coordination with DAHP included the following: WFLHD submitted the April 1, 2015, cultural resources report to DAHP, and the updated report completed in September 2015. On October 29, 2015, DAHP concurred with the study, which stated the following:  No evidence of archaeological material was found during the pedestrian survey;  No historic-period buildings or structures are present in the area of potential effect; and  Sites C1, C2, and C5 contain steep slopes and swampy areas outside the road corridor and archaeological deposits are unlikely to be present. However, ground surface conditions found at two locations in the central portion of study areas C3 and C4 may contain subsurface archaeological deposits. Shovel testing was recommended and conducted and did not recover any archaeological material or identify any historic-period buildings or structures. DAHP concurred with the finding that archaeological deposits are unlikely to be located within the project area and with the “No Historic Properties Affected” finding in October 2015 (DAHP 2015). DAHP has also concurred on the cultural resources report for the culvert replacement at MP 4.38 (DAHP 2014). Cultural resource reports are included as Appendix H. WFLHD and Jefferson County held a meeting on March 10, 2015, at the project site to introduce agency personnel to the project, describe activities leading up to the meeting, and to receive guidance or direction from the agencies regarding methods to address the issues along the UHRR. Agencies present in addition to WFLHD and Jefferson County included ONP, WDNR, the Hoh Tribe, the Corps, WDFW, the Hoh River Trust, and Ecology. The USFWS was invited but was unable to attend. Appendix B includes notes for this meeting. WFLHD and Jefferson County held a pre-application meeting with the Corps on July 8, 2015, the purpose of which was to review the project scope and purpose and need; identify points of coordination between WFLHD and the Corps; and to confirm the list of information needs for the Corps Section 404 permit application. Appendix C includes notes from this meeting. On April 25, 2017, a pre-application meeting with Jefferson County occurred at Jefferson County City Hall in Port Townsend related to local permits such as those to meet requirement of the Shoreline Master Program. 7.2 Tribal Coordination In June 2015, WFLHD contacted representatives of the Hoh Tribe (Cultural Resources; Business Committee; and Timber, and Fisheries & Wildlife) and provided results of the April 2015 cultural resources study of the project area, completed as part of Section 106 compliance. Upper Hoh River Road Project 7-2 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment The study was updated in September 2015 and in October 2015; DAHP concurred on the updated report. A representative of the Hoh Tribe attended the October 2015 scoping meeting in Forks, Washington, and provided verbal comments on the project. 7.3 Public Involvement WFLHD and Jefferson County held a public meeting on October 27, 2015, which was attended by approximately 10 people. WFLHD held the scoping meeting at the Olympic Natural Resource Center (ONRC) in Forks, Washington. The ONRC is located 15 miles from the western milepost limits of the project in Forks, which is the closest town to the project site. WFLHD advertised the scoping meeting in several ways:  WFLHD mailed letters to involved agencies and interested parties on October 13, 2015, announcing the project and the scoping meeting. The mailing list included (1) property owners and residents within 0.5 mile of the project, (2) public agencies with potential interest in the project, and (3) other interested groups for whom Jefferson County had contact information. Residents received postcards, and agencies and groups received letters. Both the letter and the postcard introduced the project; provided an invitation to the scoping meetings; invited comments and questions on the project; gave an email, phone number, and address for submitting comments; and gave an end date for receiving comments (November 20, 2015);  The scoping letter was mailed to local newspapers, including the Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader, the Peninsula Daily News, and the Forks Forum; and  The scoping letter was emailed to the Forks library and posting was requested and confirmed. WFLHD organized the meeting as an open house format. The open house ran from 7:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., with a short introduction given by WFLHD. Nine people attended the meeting, including project area residents and representatives of the Hoh River Residents Association, the Olympic Forest Coalition, the Hoh Tribe, the Hoh River Trust, and the North Pacific Coast Lead Entity. Three display boards and two roll plots describing various elements of the proposed project were available at the meeting for attendees to review and provide comment. In general, the meeting attendees were supportive of the project and interested in the methods to be employed to meet the project purpose. The scoping report for this project is included as Appendix A. This EA will be distributed to agencies and the public after its publication. See Section 1.6 for next steps in the environmental process. 7.4 List of Preparers This EA was prepared by Federal Highway Administration, Western Federal Lands Highway Division, in partnership with Jefferson County.  Kirk Loftsgaarden, PE, WFLHD Project Manager;  Steve Morrow, WFLHD Environmental Protection Specialist; Upper Hoh River Road Project 7-3 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment  Sven Leon, PE, WFLHD Lead Hydraulics Engineer; and  Monte Reinders, Jefferson County Public Works Director The NEPA EA and associated technical reports were prepared by David Evans and Associates, Inc. and its subconsultants. David Evans and Associates, Inc.  Kevin Bracy, PMP;  Keith Wolf, PhD;  Gray Rand, PWS;  Mike Wert, MS;  Katie Carroz, MA;  Karen Comings, PE;  Anthony Wilen, PE;  Jon Gage, LA;  Pat Mattson;  Setheny How, MBA;  Sara Gilbert, PGIS;  Phil Rickus; and  Ethan Rosenthal. Natural Systems Design  Tim Abbe, PhD, PEG; and  Garvey Dooley. Archaeological Investigations Northwest, Inc.  Lucie Tisdale, MA, RPA; and  Jason Cowan, MA, RPA. Upper Hoh River Road Project 7-4 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment This page intentionally left blank. Upper Hoh River Road Project 8-1 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment 8.0 REFERENCES Allison, Steve. 2016. Personal communication between Steve Allison, Director, Department of Natural Resources, Hoh Tribe, and Katie Carroz, David Evans and Associates, Inc. March 4, 2016. American Rivers. 2016. Wild and Scenic Rivers, Designating Rivers. http://www.americanrivers.org/initiatives/wild-and-scenic/designating/. Accessed March 7, 2016. Archaeological Investigations, Northwest, Inc. (AINW). 2015. Cultural Resource Survey for the Upper Hoh River Road Project, Jefferson County, Washington. September 3. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 2016. Section 1508.7 of the CEQ NEPA regulations. https://ceq.doe.gov/ceq_regulations/regulations.html. Accessed March 4, 2016. Cullinane, Thomas C., C. Huber, and L. Koontz. 2015. 2014 National Park Visitor Spending Effects: Economic Contributions To Local Communities, States, and the Nation. Natural Resource Report NPS/NRSS/EQD/NRR—2015/947. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. http://www.nature.nps.gov/socialscience/docs/VSE2014_Final.pdf. Accessed February 29, 2016. David Evans and Associates, Inc. (DEA). 2015a. Biological Survey Report. Upper Hoh River Road Project. April 2015. ———. 2015b. Wetland Delineation Report. Upper Hoh River Road Project. July 2015. ———. 2016. Upper Hoh River Road Project Biological Assessment. March 2016. ———. 2017. Upper Hoh River Road Project Wetland Addendum. June 2017. Department of Archaeological and Historic Preservation (DAHP). 2014. Letter to Trent deBoer, Archaeologist, Highways & Local Programs, WSDOT, from Matthew Sterner, Transportation Archaeologist, DAHP. February 27, 2014. ———. 2015. Letter to Michael Schurke, Cultural/Environmental Protection Specialist, Western Federal Lands Highway Division of FHWA, from Matthew Sterner, Transportation Archaeologist, DAHP. October 29, 2015. Dvornich, K.M., K.R. McAllister, and K.B. Aubry. 1997. Amphibians and Reptiles of Washington State: Location Data and Predicted Distributions, Volume 2 in Washington State Gap Analysis – Final Report, (K.M. Cassidy, C.E. Grue, M.R. Smith and K.M. Dvornich, eds.), Washington Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Washington, Seattle, 146 pp. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 1996. Measurement of Highway-Related Noise. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/measurement/measure.pdf. Accessed March 14, 2016. ———. 2016a. Noise Barrier Design Handbook. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/ noise_barriers/design_construction/design/design03.cfm. Accessed March 15, 2016. Upper Hoh River Road Project 8-2 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment ———. 2016b. FHWA Highway Traffic Noise, Construction Noise Handbook. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/handbook/handbook09.cfm Accessed March 16, 2016. ———. 2016c. Analysis and Abatement Guidance. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/ noise/regulations_and_guidance/analysis_and_abatement_guidance/polguide02.cfm. Accessed April 28, 2016. ———. 2017. Environmental Review Toolkit, Frequently Asked Questions on the Environmental Review Process. https://www.environment.fhwa. dot.gov/strmlng/safe_faq.asp#faq_1. Accessed April 24, 2017. Gustafson, R.G. 2016. Status Review Update of the Eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) Listed under the ESA: Southern DPS. R.G. Gustafson, editor. Other authors: L. Weitkamp, Y. Lee, E. Ward, K. Somers, V. Tuttle, J. Jannot. March 25, 2016. Hagen, Mike. 2016. Personal communication between Mike Hagen, Executive Director, Hoh River Trust, and Katie Carroz, David Evans and Associates, Inc. March 3, 2016. Hoh River Trust (HRT). 2016. Hoh River Trust website. http://www.hohrivertrust.org/ten-years- of-achievements-by-hoh-river-trust and http://www.hohrivertrust.org/weve-been-working- on-salmon-projects1. Accessed March 4, 2016. Hoh Tribe. 2014. Hoh Tribe Forest Management Plan. http://hohtribe-nsn.org/wp- content/uploads/2015/03/Draft-FMP-Hoh-Tribe.pdf. Accessed May 4, 2017. ———. 2016. Comment letter from Joseph Gilbertson, Fisheries Management Biologist, Hoh Tribal Department of Natural Resources. September 10, 2016. Jefferson County. 2009. Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Rural Element, 2009. http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/Comp%20Plan%20Pages/ CompPlanGeneral.htm. Accessed March 14, 2016. ———. 2014. Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. Revised September 2014. http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/ compplangeneral.htm. Accessed February 29, 2016. ———. 2015. Jefferson County 2016-2021 6-Year Transportation Improvement Program. http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/publicworks/pdf/TIP/2016-2021/2016- 2021%20TIP%20Package.pdf. Accessed May 5, 2017. ———. 2016. Jefferson County 2016 Budget. Jefferson\Board of Commissioners\Committees\ Budget Committee\2016\01 January. Accessed May 5, 2016. ———. 2017. Jefferson County Treasurer, Other Funds Revenue Report 2017. http://test.co.jefferson.wa.us/WebLinkExternal/0/edoc/1681583/.2_Other%20Funds%202017 .pdf. Accessed May 5, 2017. Jefferson County Code (JCC). 2016. Jefferson County Code, Chapter 8.70 Noise Control. http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/JeffersonCounty/. Accessed March 14, 2016. Upper Hoh River Road Project 8-3 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment Jefferson County Public Health (JCPH), 2016. Website http://jeffersoncountypublichealth.org/. Accessed March 15, 2016. Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office (JCSO). 2016. Website. http://www.jeffersonsheriff.org/. Accessed March 9, 2016. Johnson, R.E., and K.M. Cassidy. 1997. Terrestrial Mammals of Washington State: Location Data and Predicted Distributions, Volume 3 in Washington State Gap Analysis – Final Report (K.M. Cassidy, C.E. Grue, M.R. Smith, and K.M. Dvornich, eds.). Washington Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Washington, Seattle, 304 pp. Johnson, D.H., and T.A. O’Neil. 2000. Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press. Corvallis, Oregon. Mauger, G.S., J.H. Casola, H.A. Morgan, R.L. Strauch, B. Jones, B. Curry, T.M. Bushch Isaksen, L. Whitely Binder, M.B. Krosby, and A.K. Snover. 2015. State of Knowledge: Climate Change in Puget Sound. Report prepared for the Puget Sound Partnership and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Climate Impacts Group, University of Washington, Seattle. doi:10.7915/CIG93777D. Mongillo, P.E. and M. Hallock. 1997. Distribution and Habitat of Native Nongame Stream Fishes of the Olympic Peninsula. Technical Report #FRD 97-05, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2015. Southern DPS of the North American Green Sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) 5-year Review: Summary and Evaluation. NMFS west coast region, Long Beach, California. July 29, 2015. National Park Service (NPS), 2015. Olympic National Park maps http://www.nps.gov/olym/ planyourvisit/maps.htm and STATS - Park Report https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/Reports/Park/ OLYM. Accessed September 28, 2015. ———. 2016a. Visiting the Hoh Rainforest. http://www.nps.gov/olym/planyourvisit/ visiting-the-hoh.htm. Accessed February 25, 2016. ———. 2016b. Park Entrance Traffic Counts. https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/SSRSReports/ Park%20Specific%20Reports/Traffic%20Counts?Park=OLYM. Accessed March 9, 2016. ———. 2016c. National Park Service Visitor Use Statistics. https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/Reports/Park/OLYM. Accessed January 20, 2016. ———. 2016d. Science of Sound. http://www.nature.nps.gov/sound/science.cfm. Accessed March 15, 2016. ———. 2016e. National Park Service, Places, History and Culture. http://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/historyculture/places.htm. Accessed January 20, 2016 National Wild and Scenic River System (NWSRS). 2017. https://www.rivers.gov/wsr-act.php Accessed May 5, 2017. Upper Hoh River Road Project 8-4 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer, online. http://explorer.natureserve.org/. Accessed March 15, 2016. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2013. Kansas Engineering Technical Note No. KS-1 (Revision 1). ENG – Design of Stream Barbs. January 23, 2013. Peters, R.J, S. Sanders, M. Li, K.P. Denton, M.T. Celedonia, R.A. Tabor, and G.R. Pess. 2012. Fish Abundance, Habitat, and Habitat Use at Two Stabilized Banks in the Hoh River, Washington: Preliminary Data to Evaluate the Influence of Engineered Logjams. Washington State Department of Transportation, Office of Research and Library Services. WA-RD 786.1. October 2012. Reinders, Monte. 2016a. Personal communication between Monte Reinders, Public Works Director/County Engineer, Jefferson County, and Katie Carroz, David Evans and Associates, Inc. March 2, 2016. ———. 2016b. Personal communication between Monte Reinders, Public Works Director/ County Engineer, Jefferson County, and Anthony Wilen, P.E., David Evans and Associates, Inc. February 18, 2016. Rieman, B.E., and J.D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and Habitat Requirements for Conservation Of Bull Trout. U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Boise, Idaho. General Technical Report INT-302. Smith, C.J. 2000. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors in the North Coast Streams of Water Resource Inventory Area 20. Smith, M.R, P.W. Mattocks, Jr., and K.M. Cassidy. 1997. Breeding Birds of Washington State. Volume 4 in Washington State Gap Analysis – Final Report (K. M. Cassidy, C.E. Grue, M.R. Smith, and K.M. Dvornich, eds.). Seattle Audubon Society Publications in Zoology No. 1, Seattle, Washington. 538pp. Spahr, Shane. 2017. Personal Communication between Shane Spahr, Washington State Department of Transportation, and Gray Rand, David Evans and Associates, Inc. February 19, 2017. Thomas, J.W., M.G. Raphael, R.G. Anthony, E.D. Forsman, A.G. Gunderson, R.S. Holthausen, B.G. Marcot, G.H. Reeves, J.R. Sedell, and D.M. Solis. 1993. Viability Assessments and Management Considerations for Species Associated with Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forests of the Pacific Northwest. Portland, Oregon: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 523 pp. Tryall, Jeremy. 2016. Personal communication between Jeremy Tryall, Region Engineer, Olympic Region, Washington Department of Natural Resources, and Katie Carroz, David Evans and Associates, Inc. March 17, 2016. Turecek, Elizabeth. 2016a. Personal communication between Elizabeth Turecek, Chief of Facility Management, Olympic National Park, and Katie Carroz, David Evans and Associates, Inc. ONP Road Project Plan. March 2, 2016. Upper Hoh River Road Project 8-5 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment ———. 2016b. Personal communication between Elizabeth Turecek, Chief of Facility Management, Olympic National Park, and Anthony Wilen, P.E., David Evans and Associates, Inc. February 24, 2016. U.S. Census, American Community Survey (Census). 2010. Census, Summary File 1. www.census.gov. Accessed March 9, 2016. ———. 2014. 2014 ACS 5-year Estimates. Tables S0101, S1601, S1701, and B03002. http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/download_center.xhtml. Accessed January 20, 2016. U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). 2012. Federal Highway Administration, Office of Federal Lands Highway Project Development and Design Manual. July 2012. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992. Determination of Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl; Final Rule. Federal Register 57: 1796-1838. ———. 1996. Final Designation of Critical Habitat for the Marbled Murrelet. Fed. Reg. 61(102):26256-26320. ———. 2009. Federally Listed Species for Jefferson County, Washington, as prepared by the Washington Fish and Wildlife Office (Revised December 16, 2009). http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/pdf/species_list.pdf. Accessed March 31, 2016. ———. 2015a. Coastal Recovery Unit Implementation Plan for Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus). September 2015. ———. 2015b. Curent and Historic Know Distribution of Pacific Lamprey. Columbia River Fisheries Pogram Office. June, 2015. Map available at https://www.fws.gov/pacificlamprey/ images/Maps/PNW_Pacific_lamprey_distribution.jpg. Accessed April 17, 2017. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Census. 2011. 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-associated Recreation. https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/fhw11- wa.pdf. Accessed March 21, 2016. U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2014. Environmental Assessment for the Calawah Watershed. U.S Department of Agriculture. U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (USFS/BLM). 2015. Interagency Special Status/Sensitive Species Program website. U.S. Department of Agriculture and Bureau of Land Management. Available on-line: www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/agency-policy/. Accessed March 31, 2016. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2016. WaterData. https://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis. Accessed March 31, 2016. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2013. 2013 Washington State Sport Catch Report, Tables 23 and 31. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01790/ wdfw01790.pdf. Accessed March 21, 2016. ———. 2016. WDFW Salmonid Stock Abundance Estimates (1973-2015). Upper Hoh River Road Project 8-6 June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2015a. Washington Natural Heritage Program Online Field Guides. http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/ pubs/index.html. Accessed March 31, 2016. ———. 2015b. Community Support for Washington State Department of Natural Resources 2015-2017 Budget Request. http://mtsgreenway.org/our-work/OnePagerDNR.pdf. Accessed May 4, 2017. ———. 2016. Natural Heritage Program GIS Data Layer. Dataset dated February 2015. Available at http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/gis/wnhpgis.html. Accessed February 2016. ———. 2017. Washington State Department of Natural Resources 2017-2019 Biennium Budget Decision Package. Washington Office of Financial Management State Budget. http://www.ofm.wa.gov/budget/decisionpackages/1719/490.pdf. Accessed May 4, 2017. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2011. 2011 Traffic Noise Policies and Procedures. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/037A8249-EB4A-4F3D-BCB1- 3B9C309944AB/0/NoisePolicyProcedures.pdf. Accessed March 14, 2016. ———. 2016a. WSDOT Bridge Design Manual. December 2016. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/ publications/manuals/fulltext/M23-50/BDM.pdf ———. 2016b. Traffic Volume Map. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/mapsdata/tools/traffictrends/. Accessed on March 7, 2016. Washington State Employment Security Department (WESD). 2013. Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages. Covered Employment Classified by Industry, 2013 Annual Averages (Revised). https://fortress.wa.gov/esd/employmentdata/reports- publications/industry-reports/quarterly-census-of-employment-and-wages. Accessed January 20, 2016. Washington State Office of Financial Management (WOFM). 2014. April 1 Official Population Estimates http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/april1/default.asp. Accessed January 20, 2016. Western Federal Lands Highway Division (WFLHD). 2013. Federal Highway Administration, Western Federal Lands Highway Division, Upper Hoh River Road Bank Failure Risk Reduction Study. September 12, 2013. Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 2016. Website. Climate of Washington, Narratives. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/narratives/Washington.htm. Accessed March 1, 2016. Upper Hoh River Road Project June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment Final EA Appendix I Design Plan Set (70%) Upper Hoh River Road Project June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment This page intentionally left blank. FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION e (max) V ADT (YR+20) ADT (2005) Project Location Projects, FP-14 US Customary Units of Roads and Bridges on Federal Highway Standard Specifications for Construction APPROVED: DATE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: DESIGN DESIGNATION: SPECIFICATION: Western Federal Lands Highway Division Director, Project Delivery, PROJECT MANAGER VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION PLANS PREPARED BY PLANS FOR PROPOSED PROJECT WA JEFF 91420(1) COMMITMENT TO EXCELLENCE FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY R E N O R A I N N S T F R I D D E P A T NT OF T A SP T T O U TE ATES O AMERICA M UPPER HOH RIVER ROAD PHASE 2 BRITISH COLUMBIA I D A H O OREGON UNITED STATES CANADA P A C I F I C O C A E N tS r a it o f Juan de Fuca OCLUMBIA RIVER ASNKE RVERI MCOLU B I A V R I E R Lakes Banks Lakes Moses Reservoir Potholes OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK MOUNT RAINIER N.P. MOUNT ST. HELENS NAT'L VOLC. MON. NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK BELLINGHAM Forks Aberdeen Chehalis Longview OLYMPIA TACOMA SEATTLE EVERETT Wenatchee Lake Moses SPOKANE Pullman Pasco RICHLAND Kennewick Walla Walla ANGELES PORT Townsend Port Vernon Mt. VANCOUVER WASHINGTON KEY MAP 395 395 195101 12 2 2 2 12 12 101 101 97 97 20 90 82 5 5 205 405 90 YAKIMA u n d o S t e g u P SCALE IN MILES 0 1 2 31 WASHINGTON JEFFERSON COUNTY OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK O L Y M P I C N A T I O N A L P A R K Forks Island Abbey T 26 N T 25 N Hoh River CLALLAM COUNTY JEFFERSON COUNTY 101 101 101 MP 4 MP 7.6 MP 10.2 K. Loftsgaarden River Road Upper Hoh PROJECT LOCATIONS and Bank stabilization Bridge construction, AOP pipe 0.060 35 MPH 750 600 LENGTH 1.047 MILES C . C o n r a d - - / - - - - 0 4 / 2 0 1 7 C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : N A.1 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] U S _ S u r _ f t 2 D [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 0 3 2 2 6 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 - a a . d g n WA JEFF 91420(1) 6 : 5 1 A M 1 8 A p r il 2 0 1 7 for Vicinity Map See Sheet A.4 70 % PL A N IN HA N D 04 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 INDEX TO SHEETS A.2 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] U S _ S u r _ f t 2 D [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 0 3 2 2 6 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 - a b . d g n WA JEFF 91420(1) 6 : 4 7 A M 1 8 A p r il 2 0 1 7 - - / - - - - - - / - - - - C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : 7 0 % P L A N I N H A N D 0 4 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION DETAIL APPROVED FOR USE 11/2001 REVISED: 9/2005 1/2007 10/2009 10/2014 W101-1 AND ABBREVIATIONS PLAN SYMBOLS W west drwg(s). dist. diaph. diag. dia. DHV D exp. jt. exc. EW ER EQ or eq. EP emb. elev. El. 94.16 ft e E expansion joint excavation edge of water edge of road equation edge of pavement embankment elevation elevation with number superelevation rate east drawing(s) distance diaphragm diagonal diameter design hourly volume diameter galv. ga. galvanized gage (gauge) HW hex. hdwl. high water hexagon headwall ftg. ft3 ft2 flg. fin. footing cubic foot (feet) square foot flange finish jt. ID joint inside diameter LW lt. or LT Ls LPSM long. LNFT lat. lam. L low water left length of spiral lump sum longitudinal linear foot (feet) latitude lamination length of curve NC N normal crown north OG OD o. to o. o. c. original ground outside diameter out to out on center pvmt. PT PST PSC PS POT POS POC pl. PI PCS PCC PC pavement point of tangent point of spiral to tangent point of spiral to curve point of tangent to spiral point on tangent point on spiral point on curve plate point of intersection point of curve to spiral point of compound curve point of curve rte. rt. or RT reqd. reinf. rdwy. R/W R. R route right required reinforcement roadway right-of-way range radius typ. Ts TS thd. TBM T. T typical tangent distance (spiraled curve) point of tangent to spiral thread temporary bench mark township tangent distance VPI vph V vertical point of intersection vehicles per hour design speed yd3 yd2 cubic yard(s) square yard sym. STS struc. stiff. stgr. std. STA, Sta. ST SS SRS SQYD SQFT spa. SLRY shldr. sec. SC SADT S symmetrical point of spiral to tangent spiral structural stiffener stringer standard station point of spiral to tangent point of spiral to spiral (no curve) point of spiral to reverse spiral square yard square foot spacing, spaces or spaced slurry unit shoulder section point of spiral to curve seasonal average daily traffic south CUYD culv. CUFT cubic yard(s) culvert cubic foot (feet) mon. min. MGAL max. matl. monument minimum thousand gallon maximum material 3 : 2 1 P M 5 A p r i l 2 0 1 7 ] U S C [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 0 3 2 2 6 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 _ a b _ D e t . W 1 0 1 - 1 . d g n FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DETAIL U.S. CUSTOMARY DETAIL STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET A.3 JEFF 91420(1) WA BH CP GPS JH TP DI 36 31 6 1 36 31 6 1 15 22 15 22 SEC. 16 1 SEC. 16 1 400 EL. 1234.56 N E RIP G GW W DI T T NOTE: NO SCALE on the appropriate plan sheet. Other symbols used in the plans will be shown in a legend 1. Property Line w/Found Property Corner Section Corner (Found, Projected)16 1 Section Line16 1 Section Corner (Found, Projected)4 1 Section Line4 1 Parcel Number National Park Boundary National Forest Boundary National Wildlife Refuge Boundary Trail Lake, Pond or Reservoir; Marshland Spring or Seep Material Source; Bore Hole; Test Pit Section Line Indian Reservation Boundary Existing Roadway (Road, Paved, Gravel) Section Corner (Found, Projected) Large Creek or River Spot Elevation; Coordinate Grid Tick Above Ground Tank; Underground Tank Treeline; Individual Trees Boulder; Well; Satellite Dish; Grave Cooking Grate; Garbage Can; Picnic Table Flagpole; Fire Hydrant Gas & Water Meter; Gas & Water Valve Silt Fence National Boundary State Boundary County Boundary City Boundary Township or Range Line BLM Lands Boundary Railroad Intermittent Drainage or Small Creek Control Point (Terrestrial and GPS); Jump Hub θs Ø ∆c ∆ spiral central angle diameter curve central angle total central angle approach ahead average daily traffic abutment appr. AH ADT abut. bearing bridge balance point bench mark back brg. br. BP BM BK ctrs. CS cont. constr. jt. conn. conc. col. CMP clr. cc or c. to c. centers point of curve to spiral continuous construction joint connection concrete column corrugated metal pipe clear centerline center to center mile post main line M.P. M.L. STEAM = steam, T = telephone, TV = CATV, W = water P = power, SA = sanitary sewer, SD = storm drain, SS = storm sewer, FM = force main, FO = fiber optic, G = gas, IRR = irrigation, O = oil, UP = transformer or junction box, WF = water fountain EM = electric meter, T = telephone pedestal, TV = CATV pedestal, Light, Support w/Anchor) Poles (Power, Telephone, Joint Use, - no symbol - EXISTING PROPOSED Transition Toe of Fill Top of Cut wall face CL North Arrow Fence Gate with Fence Cattleguard Guardrail Retaining Wall Pipe Culvert (arrow shows flow) Pipe Culvert with End Section Pipe Culvert with Headwall Underdrain Concrete Barrier Slope Stake Limits Pipe Culvert with Drop Inlet Box Culvert Delineators Underground Utilities Overhead/Above Ground Utilities Signs (single, double post; portable) Miscellaneous Utility Features Building Right-of-Way Line with Monument Permanent Easement Construction Easement Riprap N Fiber Roll or Wattle 70 % PL A N IN HA N D 04 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 keerC dleifniW keerC k lE k eerC raelC k e e rC ybhguolli W C a ny o n C r ee k D AOR REVIR HOH REPPU A l d e r C r e e k T o w e r Creek L i n d n e r C r e e k O w l C r e e k 101 OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK NF OLYMPIC NF OLYMPIC NATIONAL FOREST OLYMPIC Campground Willoughby Creek Campground Minnie Peterson REVIR HOH 9992 FN 14.9 MI. Forks WA. Scale in Miles 0 .5 1 N 97+57.95 UPPER HOH RIVER ROAD WA JEFF 91420(1) RESUME PROJECT 15+39.03 UPPER HOH RIVER ROAD WA JEFF 91420(1) SUSPEND PROJECT 53+48.89 UPPER HOH RIVER ROAD WA JEFF 91420(1) SUSPEND PROJECT 30+93.41 UPPER HOH RIVER ROAD WA JEFF 91420(1) RESUME PROJECT 9+62.52 UPPER HOH RIVER ROAD WA JEFF 91420(1) BEGIN PROJECT 85+00 UPPER HOH RIVER ROAD WA JEFF 91420(1) SUSPEND PROJECT 117+02.39 UPPER HOH RIVER ROAD WA JEFF 91420(1) END PROJECT VICINITY MAP A.4 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] U S _ S u r _ f t 2 D [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 0 3 2 2 6 \ W A - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 _ a c . d g n WA JEFF 91420(1) 8 : 5 0 A M 1 3 A p r il 2 0 1 7 - - / - - - - - - / - - - - C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : T. 27 N.T. 27 N. T. 26 N.T. 26 N. R . 1 1 W . R . 1 2 W . R . 1 2 W . R . 1 1 W . 103+00 UPPER HOH RIVER ROAD WA JEFF 91420(1) RESUME PROJECT 98+46.74 UPPER HOH RIVER ROAD WA JEFF 91420(1) SUSPEND PROJECT 71+00 UPPER HOH RIVER ROAD WA JEFF 91420(1) RESUME PROJECT Channel Preservation Lindner Creek Bank Stabilization Spruce Creek kee r C e c u rpS deR k eerC keerC llenS 7 0 % P L A N I N H A N D 0 4 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 Sheet and Description Section C Section D Section E Section F Section G Section H Section I Section J Section K Section L Typical Section Plan & Profile Approach Roads Sediment/ Erosion Control Bridge Drainage Roadsde Features Rockery and Special Rock Embankment Temporary Traffic Control Permanent Traffic Control ALLOWANCE Bid Schedule A0020 15101-0000 MOBILIZATION LPSM ALL A0040 15201-0000 CONSTRUCTION SURVEY AND STAKING LPSM ALL A0060 15215-4000 SURVEY AND STAKING, PERMANENT MONUMENT AND MARKER(PROPERTY CORNER)EACH 1 1 A0080 15301-0000 CONTRACTOR QUALITY CONTROL LPSM ALL A0100 15401-0000 CONTRACTOR TESTING LPSM ALL A0120 15501-0000 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE LPSM ALL A0140 15702-1000 SOIL EROSION CONTROL, TEMPORARY DIVERSION CHANNEL LPSM ALL A0160 15705-0100 SOIL EROSION CONTROL, SILT FENCE LNFT 3,795 305 4,100 A0180 15706-0200 SOIL EROSION CONTROL, CHECK DAM (FILTER ROCK)EACH 29 3 32 A0200 15706-0200 SOIL EROSION CONTROL, CHECK DAM (FILTER ROCK)EACH 49 5 54 A0220 20101-0000 CLEARING AND GRUBBING ACRE 5.0 5.0 A0240 20220-1000 REMOVAL, INDIVIDUAL TREE EACH 1 1 A0260 20301-0300 REMOVAL OF BOX CULVERT EACH 1 1 A0280 20301-1100 REMOVAL OF GATE EACH 1 1 A0300 20301-1900 REMOVAL OF PIPE CULVERT (60 - INCH DIA. CMP)EACH 1 1 A0320 20301-1900 REMOVAL OF PIPE CULVERT (18 - INCH DIA. CMP)EACH 1 1 A0340 20301-2400 REMOVAL OF SIGN EACH 8 8 A0360 20302-1200 REMOVAL OF GUARDRAIL LNFT 229 229 A0380 20304-2000 REMOVAL OF BRIDGE LPSM ALL ALL A0400 20401-0000 ROADWAY EXCAVATION CUYD 12,970 522 148 1,360 15,000 A0420 20701-0300 SEPARATION-STABILIZATION GEOTEXTILE, CLASS 1, TYPE C SQYD 100 10 110 A0440 20702-0100 GEOTEXTILE FILTER, CLASS 1, TYPE A SQYD 144 16 160 A0460 20801-0000 STRUCTURE EXCAVATION CUYD 85 85 A0480 20803-0000 STRUCTURAL BACKFILL CUYD 585 585 A0500 20810-0000 SHORING AND BRACING LPSM ALL A0520 21101-1000 ROADWAY OBLITERATION, METHOD 1 SQYD 2,770 270 3,040 A0540 25101-0300 PLACED RIPRAP, METHOD A, CLASS 3 CUYD 100 10 110 A0560 25201-1000 SPECIAL ROCK EMBANKMENT, MECHANICALLY-PLACED CUYD 161 9 170 A0580 25210-0000 ROCKERY SQFT 96 9 105 A0600 30110-0000 AGGREGATE SURFACE COURSE TON 185 15 200 A0620 30202-1000 ROADWAY AGGREGATE, METHOD 1 TON 5,460 314 576 6,350 SUMMARY OF QUANTITIES - Schedule A A M E N D Line Item No. Pay Item Number Pay Item Description Unit Estimated Quantities Remarks and/or Determination of Estimated Quantity 18 - A p r - 2 0 1 7 5 : 0 4 P M c: \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 0 3 2 3 4 \ [ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 - E s t i m a t e - 1 4 . x l s x ] S h e e t STATE PROJECT B.1 JEFF 91420(1) WA SHEET NUMBER 70 % PL A N IN HA N D 04 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 Sheet and Description Section C Section D Section E Section F Section G Section H Section I Section J Section K Section L Typical Section Plan & Profile Approach Roads Sediment/ Erosion Control Bridge Drainage Roadsde Features Rockery and Special Rock Embankment Temporary Traffic Control Permanent Traffic Control ALLOWANCE Bid Schedule A0640 40301-0100 ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT, TYPE 1 TON 1,771 90 129 1,990 A0660 41201-0000 TACK COAT TON 9 1 10 A0680 55101-0200 CONCRETE FILLED STEEL PIPE PILE, IN PLACE(24-INCH DIAMETER X 0.75=INCH)LNFT 1,635 1,635 A0700 55104-1000 DYNAMIC PILE LOAD TEST EACH 4 4 A0720 55201-0200 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, CLASS A (AE)CUYD 90 90 A0740 55201-0800 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, CLASS D (AE)CUYD 80 80 A0760 55202-2000 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, CLASS D (AE), FOR APPROACH SLABS, TYPE 2 SQYD 110 110 A0780 55302-2700 PRECAST, PRESTRESSED CONCRETE DECKED BULB TEE GIRDERS, 53-INCH LNFT 1,190 1,190 A0800 55401-1000 REINFORCING STEEL LB 12,600 12,600 A0820 55401-2000 REINFORCING STEEL, EPOXY COATED LB 7,000 7,000 A0840 55601-1100 BRIDGE RAILING, STEEL, TWO RAIL LNFT 712 712 A0860 55901-0000 MEMBRANE WATERPROOFING SQYD 700 700 A0880 56401-1000 BEARING DEVICE, ELASTOMERIC EACH 20 20 A0900 60220-0000 PRECAST REINFORCED CONCRETE BOX CULVERT (16-FT SPAN x 16-FT RISE)LNFT 40 40 A0920 61701-2000 GUARDRAIL SYSTEM G4, TYPE 4, CLASS B WOOD POSTS LNFT 175 175 A0940 61702-0300 TERMINAL SECTION, TYPE G4-BAT EACH 2 2 A0960 61702-0800 TERMINAL SECTION TYPE TANGENT EACH 10 10 A0980 61707-0000 STRUCTURE TRANSITION RAILING LNFT 104 104 A1000 62502-0000 TURF ESTABLISHMENT SQYD 8,929 871 9,800 A1020 62632-0000 PLANTINGS(POLE PLANTINGS)LPSM ALL A1040 62632-0000 PLANTINGS(LINDNER CREEK POLE PLANTINGS)LPSM ALL A1060 62632-0000 PLANTINGS(SPRUCE CREEK POLE PLANTINGS)LPSM ALL A1080 62901-0000 ROLLED EROSION CONTROL PRODUCT SQYD 8,929 871 9,800 A1100 63302-0000 SIGN SYSTEM SQFT 49 49 A1120 63401-0300 PAVEMENT MARKINGS, TYPE B, SOLID (YELLOW)LNFT 12,404 1,196 13,600 A1140 63502-0600 TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL, BARRICADE TYPE 3 EACH 12 12 A1160 63502-1000 TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL, CONE, TYPE 36-INCH EACH 107 107 A1180 63502-1300 TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL, DRUM EACH 12 12 Estimated Quantities Remarks and/or Determination of Estimated Quantity 18 - A p r - 2 0 1 7 5 : 0 4 P M c: \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 0 3 2 3 4 \ [ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 - E s t i m a t e - 1 4 . x l s x ] S h e e t ( 2 ) SUMMARY OF QUANTITIES - Schedule A A M E N D Line Item No. Pay Item Number Pay Item Description Unit STATE PROJECT B.2 JEFF 91420(1) WA SHEET NUMBER 7 0 % P L A N I N H A N D 0 4 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 Sheet and Description Section C Section D Section E Section F Section G Section H Section I Section J Section K Section L Typical Section Plan & Profile Approach Roads Sediment/ Erosion Control Bridge Drainage Roadsde Features Rockery and Special Rock Embankment Temporary Traffic Control Permanent Traffic Control ALLOWANCE Bid Schedule A1200 63502-1600 TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL, WARNING LIGHT TYPE B EACH 12 12 A1220 63502-2000 TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL, PORTABLE CHANGEABLE MESSAGE SIGN EACH 2 2 A1240 63502-2100 TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL, CRASH CUSHION EACH 6 6 A1260 63502-3100 TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL, TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM EACH 3 3 A1280 63503-0400 TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL, CONCRETE BARRIER LNFT 5,990 5,990 A1300 63504-1000 TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL, CONSTRUCTION SIGN SQFT 449 449 A1320 63504-2000 TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL, PAVEMENT MARKINGS, SYMBOLS AND LETTERS (STOP LINE)SQFT 144 144 A1340 63506-0600 TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL, PILOT CAR HOUR 3,300 3,300 A1360 63507-0700 TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL, TRAFFIC CONTROL SUPERVISOR DAY 400 400 A1380 63509-1000 TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL, FLAGGER FXHR 6,600 6,600 A1400 64703-6000 MITIGATION, FISH PASSAGE BOULDER EACH 0 A1420 64703-8000 MITIGATION, BANK STABILIZATION(KEY DOLOSE)EACH 186 186 A1440 64703-8000 MITIGATION, BANK STABILIZATION(WOOD BUFFER w/ DOLOSSE)EACH 31 31 A1460 64703-8000 MITIGATION, BANK STABILIZATION(LINDNER CREEK WOOD BUFFER w/ DOLOSSE)EACH 24 24 A1480 64703-8000 MITIGATION, BANK STABILIZATION(SPRUCE CREEK KEY DOLOSE)EACH 6 6 A1500 64703-8000 MITIGATION, BANK STABILIZATION(SPRUCE CREEK WOOD BUFFER w/ DOLOSSE)EACH 1 1 A1520 64704-1000 MITIGATION, STREAMBED MATERIAL(CONSERVED)CUYD 3,900 400 4,300 A1540 64704-1000 MITIGATION, STREAMBED MATERIAL CUYD 0 A1560 64704-1700 MITIGATION, BANK STABILIZATION(COARSE WOODY DEBRIS)CUYD 9,300 9,300 Estimated Quantities Remarks and/or Determination of Estimated Quantity 18 - A p r - 2 0 1 7 5 : 0 4 P M c: \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 0 3 2 3 4 \ [ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 - E s t i m a t e - 1 4 . x l s x ] S h e e t ( 3 ) SUMMARY OF QUANTITIES - Schedule A A M E N D Line Item No. Pay Item Number Pay Item Description Unit STATE PROJECT B.3 JEFF 91420(1) WA SHEET NUMBER 70 % PL A N IN HA N D 04 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 Sheet and Description Section C Section D Section E Section F Section G Section H Section I Section J Section K Section L Typical Section Plan & Profile Approach Roads Sediment/ Erosion Control Bridge Drainage Roadsde Features Rockery and Special Rock Embankment Temporary Traffic Control Permanent Traffic Control ALLOWANCE Bid Schedule A1580 64704-1700 MITIGATION, BANK STABILIZATION(LINDNER CREEK COARSE WOODY DEBRIS)CUYD 2,880 2,880 A1600 64704-1700 MITIGATION, BANK STABILIZATION(SPRUCE CREEK COARSE WOODY DEBRIS)CUYD 300 300 A1620 65001-1000 CONSTRUCT AND MAINTAIN DIVERSION(FLOW DIVERSION)LPSM ALL A1640 65001-1000 CONSTRUCT AND MAINTAIN DIVERSION(LINDNER CREEK FLOW DIVERSION)LPSM ALL A1660 65001-1000 CONSTRUCT AND MAINTAIN DIVERSION(SPRUCE CREEK FLOW DIVERSION)LPSM ALL A1680 99920-0000 DESIGN CONTINGENCY LPSM ALL Estimated Quantities Remarks and/or Determination of Estimated Quantity 18 - A p r - 2 0 1 7 5 : 0 4 P M c: \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 0 3 2 3 4 \ [ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 - E s t i m a t e - 1 4 . x l s x ] S h e e t ( 4 ) SUMMARY OF QUANTITIES - Schedule A A M E N D Line Item No. Pay Item Number Pay Item Description Unit STATE PROJECT B.4 JEFF 91420(1) WA SHEET NUMBER 7 0 % P L A N I N H A N D 0 4 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 TYPICAL SECTION [2] C l e a r i n g l i m i t S l o p e s t a k e C l e a r i n g l i m i t C l e a r i n g l i m i t FOOTNOTE: turf establishment limits stimil tnemhsilbatse frut C l e a r i n g l i m i t Shoulder 2'-0" 5'-0'5'-0" 0.25 D 0.25 D Existing ground Slope stake Existing ground Shoulder 2'-0" Existing ground 5'-0" Profile grade 1 2 " 10'-0' 5'-0"5'-0" [2] Variable [2] Variable proportionally. dimension and reduce the front slope rounding distance For cut heights less than "B" reduce "B" to the cut height[4] approach road quantities see Sheet E.1. Includes quantities for turnouts and guardrail widening. For[3] Construct slopes as shown in the Staking Report.[2] on the plan and profile curve data. Superelevate roadway on curves at the rate 'e' as indicated [1] [1]2% Crown ROUNDING DETAIL [4]FILL SLOPE ROUNDING DETAIL [4]CUT SLOPE [2] Variable CL D D Traveled lane 11'-0" Traveled lane 11'-0" 4-inch compacted depth, placed in two equal lifts Asphalt concrete pavement, type 1, 1:4 1 : 4 Tack coat C.1 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] U S _ S u r _ f t 2 D [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 0 3 2 3 0 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 c a . d g n WA JEFF 91420(1) 1 1 : 4 9 A M 1 8 A p r il 2 0 1 7 C . C o n r a d - - / - - - - 0 1 / 2 0 1 6 C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : 103+00 to 117+02.39 71+00 to 85+00 47+81.15 to 50+79.67 MAINLINE TYPICAL SECTION Roadway aggregate, method 1, 8-inch depth dna lortnoc noisore delloR Rolled erosion control and 70 % PL A N IN HA N D 04 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 QUANTITIES PLAN AND PROFILE TABULATION OF D.1 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] U S _ S u r _ f t 2 D [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 0 3 2 3 1 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 _ f a . d g n WA JEFF 91420(1) 1 1 : 4 4 A M 1 8 A p r il 2 0 1 7 C . C o n r a d - - / - - - - 1 0 / 2 0 1 6 C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : 7 0 % P L A N I N H A N D 0 4 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 3 5 El= 259.98 E= 815,019.639 N= 318,061.255 15+39.03 UPPER HOH RIVER ROAD WA JEFF 91420(1) SUSPEND PROJECT UP T T T UP CP 14101 CP 14102 CP 14105 30+93.41 to 53+50.46 Bank Stabilization RT. RESUME PROJECT El= 269.92 E= 816,549.507 N= 318,249.233 30+93.41 UPPER HOH RIVER ROAD WA JEFF 91420(1) BEGIN PROJECT El= 266.89 E= 814,443.431 N= 318,075.887 9+62.52 UPPER HOH RIVER ROAD WA JEFF 91420(1) 98362 Port Angeles, WA P.O. Box 3068 Hoh River Trust 002 001 98504-7014 Olympia, WA P.O. Box 47014 Dept. of Natural Resources State of Washington 9+62.52 TO 39+00 PLAN AND PLAN CP 14106 N N D.2 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] U S _ S u r _ f t 2 D [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 0 3 2 3 1 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 _ f b . d g n WA JEFF 91420 (1) 1 0 : 1 5 A M 1 8 A p r il 2 0 1 7 C . C o n r a d - - / - - - - 1 0 / 2 0 1 6 C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : Section 24 T27N, R12W Section 25 T27N, R12W See Section H for details 9+62.52 to 15+39.03 Bank Stabilization RT. See Section H for details 70 % PL A N IN HA N D 04 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 4 0 4 5 5 0 9009 9005JHJH 37+00 TO 54+00 PLAN AND PLAN UP UP UP T T T 14107 CP TT T CP 14106 003 98331-9470 Forks, WA 4193 Upper Hoh Road Peterson, Gary L. & Charlotte 001 98504-7014 Olympia, WA P.O. Box 47014 Dept. of Natural Resources State of Washington 001 003 003 98331-9470 Forks, WA 4193 Upper Hoh Road Peterson, Gary L. & Charlotte 003 003 003 003 N N D.3 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] U S _ S u r _ f t 2 D [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 0 3 2 3 1 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 _ f c . d g n WA JEFF 91420 (1) 1 0 : 1 6 A M 1 8 A p r il 2 0 1 7 C . C o n r a d - - / - - - - 1 0 / 2 0 1 6 C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : S e c ti o n 3 0 T 2 7 N, R 1 1 W S e c ti o n 2 5 T 2 7 N, R 1 2 W sliated rof H noitceS eeS See Section H for details 30+93.41 to 53+50.46 Bank Stabilization RT. .TR noitazilibatS knaB 64.05+35 ot 14.39+03 See Section H for details Precast concrete culvert 49+49.1 MP 4.0 AOP BEGIN MP 4.0 AOP END MP 4.0 AOP SUSPEND PROJECT El= 263.11 E= 818,510.379 N= 317,242.985 53+48.89 WA JEFF 91420(1) El= 265.88 E= 818,093.592 N= 317,630.060 See sheet D.4 for plan and profile. 47+81.15 El= 263.76 E= 818,308.987 N= 317,423.417 50+97.67 7 0 % P L A N I N H A N D 0 4 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 TT UP UP CP 14107 T 4 8 + 0 0 2 6 6 . 1 4 +0.7571% 2 6 3 . 4 7 4 9 + 7 0 +0.2611% -1 .5691 %SSD = 514' K = 43 100' VC K = 109 200' VC Guardrail Rt 48+71.93 to 49+84.69 49+43.01 to 49+55.48 Guardrail Lt T T B B Backslope anchor terminal Tangent terminal LEGEND T B Special rock embankment Rt 47+81.15 to 48+50 concstructed Line to be Profile grade Existing ground 563 003 98331-9470 Forks, WA 4193 Upper Hoh Road Peterson, Gary L. & Charlotte 003 003 003 003 003 D T= 127.53' R= 4,522.00' P C C 4 7 + 0 8 . 3 0 P T 4 9 + 6 3 . 3 0 P C 5 1 + 9 9 . 8 1 5 0 N END MP 4.0 AOP EL= 263.76 E= 818,308.987 N= 317,423.417 50+79.67 UPPER HOH RIVER ROAD WA JEFF 91420(1) e= Normal Crown L= 255.00' 1 1 S e e S e c t i o n H P r e c a s t c o n c r e t e b o x A O P c u l v e r t I n s t a l l 1 6 ' x 1 6 ' R e m o v e e x i s t i n g c u l v e r t 4 9 + 4 9 . 1 0 CONNECTION DETAIL paved surface Existing for pavement structure See Section C Proposed See Connection Detail this sheet Saw cut existing pavement See Connection Detail this sheet Saw cut existing pavement BEGIN MP 4.0 AOP EL= 265.88 E= 818,093.592 N= 317,630.060 47+81.15 UPPER HOH RIVER ROAD WA JEFF 91420(1) existing pavement Saw cut CUYD EXC. CUYD EMB. 54+0051+0045+00 250 253 256 259 262 265 268 271 274 46+00 47+00 48+00 49+00 50+00 52+00 53+00 D.4 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] S h e e t C e l l [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 0 3 2 3 1 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 _ f d . d g n WA JEFF 91420(1) 7 : 5 6 A M 1 8 A p r il 2 0 1 7 C . C o n r a d - - / - - - - 0 1 / 2 0 1 7 C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : CUYD EXC. CUYD EMB. 45+00 250 253 256 259 262 265 268 271 274 ] S h e e t C e l l [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 0 3 2 3 1 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 _ f d . d g n 7 : 5 6 A M 1 8 A p r il 2 0 1 7 70 % PL A N IN HA N D 04 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 +1.1367% +1.1367% N P C C 7 1 + 7 7 .0 0 P T 7 4 + 0 2 . 2 3 P C 7 5 + 1 8. 7 3 P T 7 6 + 4 3 . 3 9 340 346 352 334 328 352 346 340 T T P C 7 5 + 1 8. 7 3 7 5 T keerC r e w o T Profile grade Existing ground RESUME PROJECT Existing ground Profile grade BH TCB-1601 BH TCB1602 EL= 319.92 E= 833,008.593 N= 314,584.308 71+00 UPPER HOH RIVER ROAD WA JEFF 91420(1) CP 14203 CP 14202 7 5 + 0 0 3 5 4 . 6 2 +9.8130% +1.1367% 7 1 + 4 1 3 1 9 . 3 9+1.7526% +9.8130% K = 33 268' VC Rockery wall Lt. 73+77 to 74+70 Structure transition railing Rt 76+56.07 to 76+81.66 Structure transition railing Lt 78+12.25 to 78+37.83 T T T T 76+68.19 to 76+81.27 Structure transition railing Lt 78+12.25 to 78+25.34 Structure transition railing Rt Tangent terminal LEGEND T Remove gate 78+35 Lt R e m o v e e x i s t i n g 1 8 " C M P 7 6 + 4 7 L t Remove Bridge 77+10 t77+80 constructed Line to be obliteration Roadwayobliteration Roadway 2,057 52 726 SSD = 273' K = 35 300' VC 018 98512-5607 Olympia, WA 1835 Black Lake Blvd. S.W. Olympic National Forest United States Dept. of Agriculture 018 98362 Port Angeles, WA P.O. Box 3068 Hoh River Trust 019 020 98368-0920 Port Townsend, WA P.O. Box 1220 Jefferson County 020 Set property corner 76+73 Lt See Section G Tower Creek Bridge 76+87 to 78+07 Section 28 T27N, R11W Section 27 T27N, R11W R= 231.00' D T= 122.48' L= 225.23' e= 0.060 L= 124.65' D R= 231.00' T= 63.88' e= 0.060 R= 485.00' D T= 89.50' L= 177.00' e= 0.058 526 121 44 Remove existing guardrail 76+55 to 77+10 Remove existing guardrail 76+76 to 77+10 Remove existing guardrail 77+85 to 78+06 Remove existing guardrail 78+31 to 78+46 See Connection Detail sheet D.6 Saw cut existing pavement D.5 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] S h e e t C e l l [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 0 3 2 3 1 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 _ f e . d g n WA JEFF 91420(1) 1 0 : 5 3 A M 1 F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 7 C . C o n r a d - - / - - - - 0 1 / 2 0 1 7 C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : CUYD EXC. CUYD EMB. 79+0076+0070+00 310 328 316 334 322 340 328 346 334 352 340 358 346 364 352 370 358 376 71+00 72+00 73+00 74+00 75+00 77+00 78+00 D.6 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] S h e e t C e ll [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 0 3 2 3 1 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 _ f f . d g n WA JEFF 91420(1) 1 0 : 5 3 A M 1 F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 7 C . C o n r a d - - / - - - - 0 1 / 2 0 1 7 C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : CUYD EXC. CUYD EMB. 88+0085+0079+00 318 318 324 324 330 330 336 336 342 342 348 348 354 354 360 360 366 366 80+00 81+00 82+00 83+00 84+00 86+00 87+00 N P C 7 9 + 7 3 . 5 9 8 0 P T 8 1 + 5 9 . 1 4 8 5 Existing ground Profile grade - 5. 7 3 0 2 % 7 9 + 1 6 3 5 9 . 3 5 8 4 + 4 8 3 2 8 . 8 7 - 5. 7 3 0 2 % +2.3649% K = 46 370' VC CP 14204 SUSPEND PROJECT EL= 332.03 E= 833,967.476 N= 315,476.235 85+00 UPPER HOH RIVER ROAD WA JEFF 91420(1) S ee s h ee t H .2 -8 f o r d e t a i l s 80 + 0 0 .5 9 to 83 + 52 .45 B a nk S t a b i l i za t i on RT . constructed Line to be Roadway obliteration 200' VC K = 29 SSD = 257' 021 020 98368-0920 Port Townsend, WA P.O. Box 1220 Jefferson County 020 021 98362 Port Angeles, WA P.O. Box 3068 Hoh River Trust S e c ti on 27 T 27 N , R 11 W S e c ti o n 28 T 27 N , R 11 W D R= 340.00' L= 185.55' e= 0.060 T= 95.15' 2,173 251 31 237 See Connection Detail this sheet Saw cut existing pavement CONNECTION DETAIL existing pavement Saw cut paved surface Existing for pavement structure See Section C Proposed 70 % PL A N IN HA N D 04 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 sliated rof 8-2.H teehs eeS .TR noitazilibatS knaB 47.64+89 ot 59.75+79 95+00 to 99+00 PLAN AND PLAN SUSPEND PROJECT El= 336.83 E= 835,248.168 N= 315,207.414 98+46.74 UPPER HOH RIVER ROAD WA JEFF 91420(1) El= 339.11 E= 835,166.511 N= 315,242.152 97+57.95 UPPER HOH RIVER ROAD WA JEFF 91420(1) RESUME PROJECT 021 98362 Port Angeles, WA P.O. Box 3068 Hoh River Trust 021 D.7 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] U S _ S u r _ f t 2 D [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 0 3 2 3 1 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 _ f g . d g n WA JEFF 91420(1) 1 1 : 1 5 A M 1 8 A p r il 2 0 1 7 C . C o n r a d - - / - - - - 1 0 / 2 0 1 6 C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : N Spruce 63" dia. Remove tree [1]98+35 RT Verify exact location in field.[1] FOOTNOTE 7 0 % P L A N I N H A N D 0 4 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 108 110 108 110 D.8 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] S h e e t C e l l [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 0 3 2 3 1 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 _ f h . d g n WA JEFF 91420(1) 6 : 2 7 A M 1 2 J a n u a r y 2 0 1 7 C . C o n r a d - - / - - - - 0 1 / 2 0 1 7 C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : CUYD EXC. CUYD EMB. 111+00108+00102+00 432 408 438 414 444 420 450 426 456 432 462 438 468 444 474 450 480 456 103+00 104+00 105+00 106+00 107+00 109+00 110+00 450 444 438 432 N P C 1 0 3 + 3 8 . 0 6 P T 1 0 5 + 1 0 . 5 1 1 1 0 1 0 5 UP T k e e r C n o y n a C 432 438 444 450 456 Profile Grade Exising ground Exising ground Profile Grade CCC16-01 BH BH CCC16-02 CP 15103 15102 CP Structure transition railing Rt 108+12.17 to 108+37.75 T T Structure transition railing Lt 109+52.25 to 109+77.83 T 108+24.67 to 108+37.75 Structure transition railing Lt 109+52.25 to 109+65.33 Structure transition railing Rt T 8 . 5 ' C M P R e m o v e e x i s t i n g 1 0 8 + 8 8 . 7 0 Tangent terminal LEGEND T WA JEFF 91420(1) UPPER HOH RIVER ROAD 103+00 N= 313,355.855 E= 844,624.648 EL= 466.96 RESUME PROJECT 1,411 2,115 023 98362 Port Angeles, WA P.O. Box 3068 Hoh River Trust 023 023 023023 P C 1 1 0 + 7 2 . 9 4 See Section G Canyon Creek Bridge 108+35 to 109+55 D T= 86.23' e= Normal Crown L= 172.45' R= 5,000.00' 5,186 117 See Connection Detail sheet D.9 Saw cut existing pavement N UP T= 281.67' D R= 5,000.00' P O T 1 1 7 + 0 2 . 3 9 P T 1 1 6 + 3 5 . 6 9 1 1 5 P C 1 1 0 + 7 2 . 9 4 +5.7715% -2.2446% 1 1 2 + 3 0 4 4 0 . 8 7 4 3 0 . 2 7 SSD = 212' K = 19 155' VC 15104 CP 15201 GPS CP 15105 END PROJECT EL= 430.27 E= 845,968.915 N= 313,751.062 117+02.39 UPPER HOH RIVER ROAD WA JEFF 91420(1) 2,097 1 023 023 98362 Port Angeles, WA P.O. Box 3068 Hoh River Trust 023 e= Normal Crown L= 562.75' See Connection Detail this sheet Saw cut existing pavement CONNECTION DETAIL existing pavement Saw cut paved surface Existing for pavement structure See Section C Proposed D.9 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] S h e e t C e ll [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 0 3 2 3 1 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 _ f i . d g n WA JEFF 91420(1) 3 : 2 8 P M 1 0 J a n u a r y 2 0 1 7 C . C o n r a d - - / - - - - 0 1 / 2 0 1 7 C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : CUYD EXC. CUYD EMB. 120+00117+00111+00 408 408 414 414 420 420 426 426 432 432 438 438 444 444 450 450 456 456 112+00 113+00 114+00 115+00 116+00 118+00 119+00 7 0 % P L A N I N H A N D 0 4 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 TYPICAL SECTION APPROACH ROAD C l e a r i n g l i m i t Seeding, mulching and turf establishment limits dna ,gnihclum ,gnideeS stimil tnemhsilbatse frut C l e a r i n g l i m i t Shoulder 2'-0" Shoulder 2'-0" Existing ground 5'-0" Profile grade 1 2 " [2] Variable [2] Variable [1]2% Crown CL Traveled lane Varies Traveled lane Varies APPROACH TYPICAL SECTION 1:4 1 : 4 FOOTNOTE: Construct slopes as shown in the Staking Report.[2] on the plan and profile curve data. Superelevate roadway on curves at the rate 'e' as indicated [1] E.1 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] U S _ S u r _ f t 2 D [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 0 3 2 3 2 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 - j a . d g n WA JEFF 91420(1) 4 : 4 2 P M 1 3 A p r il 2 0 1 7 - - / - - - - - - / - - - - C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : Roadway aggregate, method 1, 8-inch depth 70 % PL A N IN HA N D 04 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 P O T 7 0 2 + 3 2 .2 5 7 0 0 T= 22.33' L= 40.73' D R= 40.00' R= 40.00' T= 51.19' L= 72.60' D R= 40.00' T= 24.96' L= 44.64' D 7 0 1 + 0 0 4 2 8 . 2 64 3 3 . 1 8 -7.8553% 7 0 1 + 6 0 4 1 4 . 0 3 - 23 . 7 208 % -15 .2542 % K = 6 50' VC K = 4 59' VC Elev = 405.33 E = 845,344.130 N = 313,398.668 702+17.01Chain = HZ_11122 Line to be constructed Profile grade Existing ground END ROAD APPROACH DR HOH REPPU yaw levart fo egdE BEGIN ROAD APPROACH Elev = 433.18 E = 845,410.253 N = 313,532.952 700+37.40 Chain = HZ 11122 111+22.01 - 11' RT Chain = CANYON_UP2 90 PT 700+55.68 P C 7 0 0 + 1 4 . 9 6 P T 70 1 +48.61 P C 70 1 +57.67 P T 7 0 2 + 0 2 . 3 1 +76.01 700PC 111+22 7 0 0 + 3 7 N CUYD EXC. CUYD EMB. 702+00701+50701+00700+50700+00 390 390 400 400 410 410 420 420 430 430 440 440 450 450 460 460 470 470 E.2 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] U S _ S u r _ f t 2 D [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 0 3 2 3 2 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 _ j b . d g n WA JEFF 91420(1) 4 : 2 5 P M 1 3 A p r il 2 0 1 7 C . C o n r a d - - / - - - - 0 1 / 2 0 1 7 C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : 6 7 0 % P L A N I N H A N D 0 4 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 CP 5 0 0 5 0 0 + 6 0 3 5 9 . 5 0 +9.8259% 5 0 0 + 1 4 3 5 0 . 3 8 +7.7768% 5 0 0 + 9 6 3 6 3 . 0 0 +6.5551% 3 4 9 . 3 0 +19.8128% 6 0 0 + 2 0 4 3 9 . 2 2 -2.0040% 6 0 1 + 0 0 4 4 2 . 8 4 +4.5350% +8.8905% 6 0 1 + 7 5 4 4 9 . 5 1 4 3 9 . 6 2 K = 25 338 342 346 350 354 460 456 452 448 370 366 362 358 444 440 436 432 428 CUYD EXE. CUYD EMB. P T 8 1 + 59. 1 4 END ROAD APPROACH Elev = 363.49 E = 833,522.211 N = 315,416.046 501+03.08 Chain = APP8110 P T 6 0 1 + 3 3 . 4 2 y a w l e v a r t f o e g d E y a w l e v a r t f o e g d E 14204 P O T 5 0 1 + 0 3 . 0 8 END ROAD APPROACH Elev = 444.13 E = 833,522.211 N = 315,416.046 601+10.00 Chain = APP11264 BEGIN ROAD APPROACH Elev = 356.18 E = 833,567.215 N = 315,376.729 500+43.32 Chain = APP8110 81+08.32, 13.55 LT Chain = CANYON_UP2 D R H O H R E P P U D R H O H R E P P U Existing ground Existing ground Profile grade Profile grade E d g e o f t r a v e l w a y 110' VC E d g e o f t r a v e l w a y limit Construction BEGIN ROAD APPROACH Elev = 439.20 E = 845,549.818 N = 313,623.157 600+20.11 Chain = APP11264 112+63.69, 20.11 LT Chain = TOWER_SK2 N N 8 1 + 0 0 113+00 112+00 15104 326 P C 6 0 0 + 7 0 . 7 7 Line to be constructed 6 0 0 CUYD EXC. CUYD EMB. 602+00601+00600+00 501+00500+00 338 428 342 432 346 436 350 440 354 444 358 448 362 452 366 456 370 460 E.3 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] U S _ S u r _ f t 2 D [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 0 3 2 3 2 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 _ j c . d g n WA JEFF 91420(1) 4 : 4 0 P M 1 3 A p r il 2 0 1 7 - - / - - - - - - / - - - - C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : 106 70 % PL A N IN HA N D 04 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 CONTROL QUANTITIES EROSION/SEDIMENT TABULATION OF F.1 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] U S _ S u r _ f t 2 D [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 0 3 2 2 7 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 _ d a . d g n WA JEFF 91420(1) 2 : 1 2 P M 1 8 A p r il 2 0 1 7 - - / - - - - - - / - - - - C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : FOOTNOTE Quantity tabulated in ITEM 62901-0000. See Sheet D.2.[1] 7 0 % P L A N I N H A N D 0 4 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 CONTROL QUANTITIES EROSION/SEDIMENT TABULATION OF F.2 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] U S _ S u r _ f t 2 D [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 0 3 2 2 7 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 _ d a 1 . d g n WA JEFF 91420(1) 2 : 1 3 P M 1 8 A p r il 2 0 1 7 - - / - - - - - - / - - - - C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : 70 % PL A N IN HA N D 04 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 24524 5 2 4 5 2 4 5 2 4 5 2 4 5 245 2 4 5 245 245 2 4 5 245 245 2 4 5 2 4 5 2 4 5 245 245 2 4 5 2 4 5 24 5 245 245 245 245 2 4 5 2 4 5 2 4 5 2 4 5 2 4 5 2 4 5 2 4 5 245 2 4 5 2 4 5 2 4 5 2 4 5 2 4 5 2 4 5 2 45 245 245 245 2 4 5 2 4 5 2 4 5 245 245 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 2 5 0 255 255 2 5 5 25 5 255 255 2 5 5 255 255 255 2 5 5 26 0 260 2 6 0 2 6 0 260 26 0 26 0 260 260 2 6 0 260 260 260 260 26 0 2 6 0 260 2 6 0 26 0 2 6 0 2 6 0 26 0 2 6 0 260 26 0 260 260 260 2 6 0 2 6 0 2 6 0 2 6 0 2 6 0 2 6 0 2 6 0 2 6 0 260 2 6 0 2 6 0 2 6 0 260 2 6 0 2 6 0 260 260 260 2 6 0 260 2 6 0 260 260 2 65 265 26 5 2 6 5 2 6 5 2 6 5 265 265 2 4 0 240 245 24 5 24 5 2 4 5 245 245 245 2 4 5 245 2 45 245 2 5 0 250250 2 5 0 2 5 0 250 2 5 0 2 5 0 250250 250 2 5 0 2 5 0 2 5 0 250 250 250 250 250 250 2 5 0 250 2 5 0 2 5 0 2 50 255 255 255 255 255 255 255 255 255 2 5 5 260 260 260 260 260 26 0 260 260 260 265 265 265 265 265 2 6 5 265 265 265 265 270 270 2 7 0 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 270 27 0 2 7 0 2 7 0 2 7 0 2 7 0 270 275 275 275 2 7 5 275 275 275 2 7 5 275 275 275275 280 280 2 8 0 280 280 280 280 2 8 0 280 280 280 285 2 8 5 285 285 285 285 2 85 2 8 5 285 285 285 28 5 29 0 290 290 2 9 0 290 290 290 290 290 2 9 5 295 295 295 3 00 300 300 300 305 305 30 5 3 1 0 310 321 CP 14101 CP 14102 BEGIN PROJECT El= 266.89 E= 814,443.431 N= 318,075.887 9+62.52 UPPER HOH RIVER ROAD WA JEFF 91420(1) El= 259.98 E= 815,019.639 N= 318,061.255 15+39.03 UPPER HOH RIVER ROAD WA JEFF 91420(1) SUSPEND PROJECT UP T T T UP CP 14105 RESUME PROJECT El= 269.92 E= 816,549.507 N= 318,249.233 30+93.41 UPPER HOH RIVER ROAD WA JEFF 91420(1) 1 0 1 5 3 0 3 5 N N F.3 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] U S _ S u r _ f t 2 D [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 0 3 2 2 7 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 _ d b . d g n WA JEFF 91420 (1) 1 2 : 5 0 P M 1 8 A p r il 2 0 1 7 C . C o n r a d - - / - - - - 1 0 / 2 0 1 6 C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : 10+00 TO 39+00 CONTROL PLAN EROSION/SEDIMENT LEGEND 1 5 3 0 3 5 HOH RIVER HOH RIVER Roadway Obliteration Inlet Protection Filter Rock Check Dam Silt Fence Flow Arrow 7 0 % P L A N I N H A N D 0 4 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 245 2 4 5 2 4 5 245 245 245 2 4 5 2 4 5 245 2 4 5 245 2 4 5 245 250 250250 250 250 250 2 5 0 250 2 5 0 250 2 5 0 2 5 0 255 255 255 255 2 5 5 255 255 255 2 5 5 2 5 5 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 2 6 0 265 265 265 265 265 265 265 265 265 265 265 270 2 7 0 270 2 7 0 270 270 270 270 270 2 7 0 270 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 280 280 280 280 280 2 8 0 280 280 285 285 285 2 8 5 285 285 285 28 5 285 290 290 290 29 0 2 90 2 9 0 290 290 2 9 0 29 5 2 9 5 295 295 295 2 9 5 295 295 295 30 0 300 300 300 3 0 0 3 0 0 300 300 300 305 305 305 3 0 5 305 30 5 3 05 305 31 0 310 3 1 0 31 0 310 310 3 1 5 315 315 3 1 5 3 2 0 320 3 2 0 325 325 330 3 3 0 330 335 340 340 3 45350 355 35 5 3 6 0 245 24 5 2 4 5 2 4 5 2 4 5 2 4 5 245 245 245 2 4 5 2 5 0 2 5 0 2 5 0 2 5 0 2 5 0 2 5 0 2 5 0 250 250 250 250 250 250255 255 255 255 255 255 255 2 5 5 2 55 255 2 6 0 260 2 6 0 2 6 0 260 260 260 260 2 6 0 260260 265 265 265265 265 2 6 5265265 265 265 2 6 5 2 6 5 2 6 5 270 270 270270 27 0 2 7 027027027 0 270 27 5 275 275 275 2 7 5 2 7 5 2 7 5 275 2 7 5 275275275 280 280 280 280 2 8 0 280 28 0280280 2 8 0 280 285285 285285 2 8 5 2 85 285285285 2 8 5 285 290 29 0 29 0 290 29 0 2 9 0 290 290 290 2 9 0 295 2 9 5 2 9 5 29 5 295 295 295 295 29 5 300 3 0 0 300 300 3 0 0 3 00 300 300 3 0 0 3 05 3 0 5 305 305 3 0 5 3 0 5 305 30 5 30 5 310 310 3 1 0 3 1 0 310 3 1 0 310 315 315 315 3 1 5 31 5 315 3 1 5 3 1 5 320320 320 3 2 0 3 2 0 320 320 32 0 32 5 325 325 325 3 2 5 3 2 5 32 5 3 2 5 33 0 330 3 3 0 330 3 3 0 330 335 335 335 3 3 5 3 3 5 3 3 5 3 3 5 33 5 34 0 340 3 4 0 3 4 0 3 4 0 34 0 3 45 345 345 3 4 5 3 4 5 345 345 350 3 5 0 3 5 0 35 0 3 55 355 3 5 5 360 3 6 0 36 0 360 3 6 5 3 6 5 36 5 370 37 5 375 3 7 5 3 8 0 380 385 3 9 0 40 0 260 265265 265265 265 2 6 5 270 270270270275275280280285285 UP UP UP T T T 14107 CP TT T CP 14106 Clearing limits Clearing limits SUSPEND PROJECT El= 263.11 E= 818,510.379 N= 317,242.985 53+48.89 WA JEFF 91420(1) 4 0 4 5 5 0 N N F.4 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] U S _ S u r _ f t 2 D [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 0 3 2 2 7 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 _ d c . d g n WA JEFF 91420 (1) 1 2 : 5 3 P M 1 8 A p r il 2 0 1 7 C . C o n r a d - - / - - - - 1 0 / 2 0 1 6 C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : 37+00 TO 54+00 CONTROL PLAN EROSION/SEDIMENT LEGEND HOH RIVER HOH RIVER Check dam (Filter rock) 47+81 to 49+31 Lt Check dam (Filter rock) 49+70 to 50+80 Lt Silt fence 47+81 to 50+79 RT Silt fence 49+22 to 49+39 LT Silt fence 49+71 to 49+84 LT Roadway Obliteration Inlet Protection Filter Rock Check Dam Silt Fence Flow Arrow 70 % PL A N IN HA N D 04 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 7 . 2 5 8 2 % 0 . 8 0 1 2 % 7 0 7 5 320320 3 2 5 3 3 0 3 3 0 3 3 5 335 3 3 5 3 4 0 34 0 3 4 0 34034 0 345 345 3 4 5 3 4 5 350 350 3 5 0 3 5 0 3 50 3 5 0 3 5 0 355 3 5 5 3 55 355 355 355 355 360 360 360 360 36 0 365 365 370 370375 3 1 0 315 31 5 31 5 3 1 5 315 3 1 5 3 1 5 315 315 31 5 315 315 315 3 1 5 3 1 5 3 1 5 315 315 3 1 5 31 5 315 315 3 1 5 31 5 3 1 5 3 1 5 31 5 315 3 1 5 31 5 3 1 5 31 5 315 315 31 5 32 0 32 0 320 320 320 320 320 3 2 0 32 0 320 320 320 3 2 0 3 2 0 32 0 3 2 0 32 0 32 0 3 2 0 32 0 32 0 32 0 32 0 32 0 320 3 2 5 325 3 2 5 325 325 3 2 5 325 32 5 3 25 32 5 325 325 325 32 5 3 2 5 32 5 3 2 5 3 2 5 325 32 5 32 5 32 5 3 2 5 325 32 5 32 5 325 32 5 3 2 5 330 33 0 3 3 0 330 3 3 0 33 0 330 3 3 0 330 330 3 3 0 3 30 3 3 0 330 3 3 0 330 3 3 0 33 5 3 3 5 3 3 5 335 33 5 335 335 3 3 5 3 3 5 335 3 3 5 3 3 5 3 3 5 335 335 34 0 3 4 0 3 4 0 340 340 340 3 4 0 3 4 0 3 4 0 34 0 340 340 34 0 340 340 34 0 340 34 5 3 4 5 3 4 5 345 345 34 5 3 4 5 3 4 5 345 34 5 3 4 5 350 3 5 0 3 5 0 350 3 5 0 3 5 0 35 0 3 5 0 350 350 350 3 5 0 3 5 0 3 5 0 3 5 0 3 5 0 35 0 35 0 35 0 3 55 3 5 5 355 355 3 5 5 3 5 5 355 3 5 5 3 5 5 3 5 5 355 355 3 5 5 355 3 5 5 3 5 5 36 0 36 0 360 360 3 6 0 3 6 0 360 3 6 0 360 3 6 0 3 60 365 3 6 5 365 36 5 365 3 6 5 3 6 5 3 6 5 3 6 5 370 370 3 7 0 370 37 0 370 370 37 0 370 370 375 375 375 375 375 375 37 5 3 7 5 375 375 3 8 0 38 0 380 3 8 0 380 380 3 8 0 380 3 8 5 38 5 3 85 385 38 5 385 3 9 0 3 9 0 390 3 90 39 0 3 9 5 3 9 5 395 395 3 95 4 0 0 4 0 0 40 0 4 00 400 4 0 5 4 0 5 4 05 405 405 4 1 0 4 1 0 410 410 41 5 4 1 5 41 5 415 4 2 0 42 0 4 2 0 4 20 42 0 4 2 5 425 425 4 3 0 430 430 4 3 5 435 43 5 4 4 0 440 4 4 0 4 4 5 44 5 4 4 5 4 5 0 4 50 4 5 5 45 5 4 60 460 4 65 4 6 5 470 4 70 47 0 N Clearing limit Clearing limit Clearing limit Clearing limit HOH RIVER Silt fence 71+00 to 76+99 Rt. Silt fence 77+80 to 85+00 Rt. rolled erosion control product Filter rock check dams with 72+85 to 75+50 Lt. Silt fence 77+61 Lt./Rt. 77+34 Lt./Rt. Filter rock check dams 78+55 to 80+75 Lt. F.5 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] U S _ S u r _ f t 2 D [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 0 3 2 2 7 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 _ d d . d g n WA JEFF 91420(1) 1 2 : 4 2 P M 1 3 A p r il 2 0 1 7 C . C o n r a d - - / - - - - 0 1 / 2 0 1 7 C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : 71+00 to 79+00 CONTROL PLAN EROSION/SEDIMENT LEGEND Roadway Obliteration Inlet Protection Filter Rock Check Dam Silt Fence Flow Arrow 7 0 % P L A N I N H A N D 0 4 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 315 3 1 5 3 15 315 3 1 5 3 1 5 3 1 5 3 1 5 31 5 3 1 5 315 3 1 5 315 315 315 315 3 1 5 31 5 3 1 5 31 5 315 315 315 315 315 315 3 1 5 315315 3 1 5 3 1 5 31 5 3 1 5 315 3 1 5 315 315 315 315 315 320 320 320 325 325 325 330 3 3 0 33 0 33 5 335 335 340 3 4 0 340 3 4 0 340 340 345 345 345 345 3 5 0 350 350 3 5 5 3 55 355 355 3 6 0 360 360 3 6 0 360 3 6 5 365 3 6 5 365 365 365 3 7 0 370 3 7 0 370 3 7 5 3 7 5 3 8 0 380 38 5 3 8 5 385 390 390400410 420 330 335 3 3 5 340 345350 355 355 35 5360 360 3 1 0 310 310 3 1 0 3 1 0 3 1 0 310 310 31 0 310 310 3 1 0 3 1 0 3 1 0 3 1 0 3 1 0 310 3 1 0 31 0 3 1 0 31 0 3 1 0 3 1 0 3 1 0 310 3 1 0 310 3 10 3 1 0 3 1 0 3 1 0 3 1 0 3 1 0 3 1 0 31 0 3 1 0 3 1 0 3 1 0 3 1 0 3 1 0 310 3 1 0 31 5 3 1 5 3 1 5 315 315 315 315 315 31 5 3 1 5 3 2 0 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 325 325 3 2 5 325 325 325 3 3 0 330 330 330 330 3 3 0 3 3 0 3 3 0 335 33 5 335 335 335 335 3 3 5 340 3 4 0 3 4 0 340 340 340 3 4 0 3 4 0 3 4 0 3 4 5 345 3 4 5 3 4 5 345 345345 345 3 4 5 35 0 350 350 3 5 0 350 3 5 0 3 5 0 3 5 5 355 355 355 355 3 5 5 360 360 360 3 6 0 36 0 3 6 5 3 6 5 36 5 365 365 365 365 3 6 5 365 3 7 0 370 3 7 0 370 370 3 7 0 370 370 370 3 7 0 3 7 5 375 375 375 3 7 5 375 375 3 7 5 3 8 0 3 8 0 380 380 3 8 0 380 380 3 8 5 3 8 5 385 385 385 385 385 3 9 0 390 390 390 390 390 3 9 0 3 9 0 3 9 5 395 395 395 39 5 3 9 5 40 0 400 400 400 4 0 5 405 405 410 410 410 415 420 4 2 5 4 3 0 N N 8 0 500 8 5 9 6 9 8 F.6 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] U S _ S u r _ f t 2 D [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 0 3 2 2 7 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 _ d e . d g n WA JEFF 91420(1) 1 2 : 4 1 P M 1 3 A p r il 2 0 1 7 C . C o n r a d - - / - - - - 0 1 / 2 0 1 7 C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : 79+00 to 85+00 CONTROL PLAN EROSION/SEDIMENT 96+00 to 98+60 CONTROL PLAN EROSION/SEDIMENT LEGEND LEGEND Clearing limit Clearing limit Clearing limit HOH RIVER HOH RIVER Silt fence 77+80 to 85+00 Rt. Filter rock checkdams 78+55 to 80+75 Lt. Roadway Obliteration Inlet Protection Filter Rock Check Dam Silt Fence Flow Arrow Roadway Obliteration Inlet Protection Filter Rock Check Dam Silt Fence Flow Arrow 70 % PL A N IN HA N D 04 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 380 380 3 8 0 3 8 0 38 0 3 8 0 385 38 5 3 8 5 3 8 5 385 385 385 3 9 0 390 390 390 3 9 0 390 390 39 0 395 395 3953 9 5 395 395 395 4 0 0 400 400 4 0 0 4 0 0400 4 0 0 400 4 0 0 40 0 4 0 0 400 40 5 4 0 5 4 0 5 405 4 0 5 4 0 5 405405 405 405 4 0 5 4 0 5 4 0 5 4 0 5 4 0 5 4 0 5 4 0 5 4 05 410 4 1 0 410 410 410 410 410 4 1 0 4 10 4 1 0 4 1 0 4 1 0 4 1 0 4 1 0 4 1 0 4 1 0 4 1 0 415 4 1 5 4 1 5 415 415 415 41 5 41 5 415 4 1 5 4 1 5 4 1 5 4 1 5 4 1 5 4 1 5 4 1 5 415 420 42 0 4 2 0420 420 4 2 0 420 4 2 0 4 2 0 420 4 2 0 42 0 4 20 4 2 0 4 2 0 4 2 0 420 4 2 0 4 2 0 4 2 0 420 4 2 0 4 2 0 4 2 0 4 2 0 4 2 0 420 4 2 5 425 425 425 425 4 2 5 425 425 425 42 5 4 2 5 4 2 5 4 2 5 425 425 425 4 3 0 430 430 430 4 3 0 43 0 4 30 43 0 4 3 0 4 3 0 4 3 0 4 3 0 430 4 3 0 4 30 4 3 0 4 3 0 43 0 4 3 0 4 3 0 43 0 435 435 435 435 435 435 435 4 3 5 4 3 5 4 3 5 43 5 435 4354 3 5 435 4 3 5 43 5 4 3 5 435 4 3 5 43 5 4 3 5 440 4 4 0 440 4 4 0 4 4 0 4 4 0 4 4 0 4 4 0 4 4 0 4 4 0 44 0 4 4 0 44 0 445 445 445 4 4 5 4 4 5 44 5 4 4 5 4 4 5 44 5 4 4 5 4 4 5 44 5 45 0 45 0 4 5 0 4 5 0 4 5 0 4 5 0 4 5 0 4 5 0 4 5 0 4 50 4 5 0 450 4 5 0 4 5 0 4 50 45 0 45 0 45 0 4 5 0 4 50 45 0 450 4 5 5 4 5 5 45 5 455 4 55 455 455 455 460 4 6 0 460 460 460 465 4 6 5 465 46 5 470 4 70 470 4 7 5 4 7 5 475 48 0 4 8 0 4 8 0 480 4 8 0 480 485 4 8 5 4 8 5 4 8 5 48 5 485 48 5 485 48 5 485 485 485 4 8 5 485 4 8 5 485 4 8 5 4 9 0 4 9 0 4 9 0 49 0 490 4 9 0 3 9 0 395 4 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 5 4 0 5 405 405 4 1 0 4 1 0 41 0 4 1 5 4 1 5 415 4 2 0 4 2 0 420 4 2 5 425 4 2 5 4 2 5 4 2 5 430 430 4 3 0 4 3 0 4 3 0 4 3 5 4 3 5 4 3 5 43 5 4 35 440 440 440 445 445 445 445 450 450 455 455 455 460 460 460 465 465 465 465 4 6 5 470 470 470 4 7 0 475 475 475 480 480 480 485 485 485 N k e e r C n o y n a C rolled erosion control product Filter rock checkdams with 103+00 to 107+52 Lt. Filter rock check dams 110+42 to 112+40 Clearing limit Silt fence 103+00 to 108+68 Rt. Silt fence 109+30 Lt./Rt. 108+51 Lt/Rt. Silt fence 107+47 to 108+49 Lt. Silt fence 109+29 to 110+43 Lt. Silt fence 109+11 to 110+22 Rt. rolled erosion control product Filter rock checkdams with 701+19 to 702+17 Lt. rolled erosion control product Filter rock checkdams with 700+46 to 701+20 Rt. control product checkdams with rolled erosion 700+22 to 700+45 Lt. Filter rock 1 0 5 70 0 1 1 0 F.7 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] U S _ S u r _ f t 2 D [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 0 3 2 2 7 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 _ d f . d g n WA JEFF 91420(1) 1 2 : 4 0 P M 1 3 A p r il 2 0 1 7 C . C o n r a d - - / - - - - 0 1 / 2 0 1 7 C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : 103+00 to 112+00 CONTROL PLAN EROSION/SEDIMENT LEGEND rolled erosion control product Filter rock check dams with 701+60 to 702+17 Rt. Roadway Obliteration Inlet Protection Filter Rock Check Dam Silt Fence Flow Arrow 7 0 % P L A N I N H A N D 0 4 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 380 3 8 0 3 8 0 380 380 3 8 5 38 5 38 5 390 39 0 390 395 39 5 39 5 395 4 0 0 40 0 40 0 40 0 400 4 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 5 405 405 40 5 4 0 5 4 0 5 4 1 0 410 410 410 415 4 15 41 5 4 1 5 420 4 2 0 42 0 42 0 4 2 5 42 5 42 5 425 425 4 2 5 4 2 5 4 2 5 430 430 4 3 0 4 3 0 430 4 3 0 430 430 4 3 0 4 3 0 4 3 0 4 3 0 4 3 0 4 3 0 4 3 0 4 3 0 4 3 0 4 3 0 4 3 5 4 3 5 435 435 4 3 5 4 3 5 435 4 3 5 4 3 54 3 5 435 4 3 5 4 3 5 4 3 5 4 3 5 4 3 5 4 3 5 4 3 5 4 3 5 4 3 5 4 3 5 4 3 5 4 3 5 4 3 5 435 4 3 5 435 4 3 5 4 3 5 4 3 5 4 3 5 4 3 5 4 3 5 4 3 5 4 3 5 4 3 5 4 3 5 4 3 5 4 3 5 440 440 4 4 0 4 4 0 4 4 0 440 4 4 0 4 4 0 4 4 0 4 4 0 4 4 0 4 4 0 4 4 0 4 4 0 4 4 0 4 4 0 4 4 0 4 4 0 4 4 0 44 5 44 5 4 4 5 445 445 4 4 5 4 4 5 4 4 5 4 4 5 4 4 5 4 4 5 445 4 4 5 4 4 5 4 4 5 4 4 5 4 5 0 450 4 5 0 450 45 0 455 455 460 4 3 0 4 3 0 435 4 3 5 4 3 5 435 4 3 5 435 4 4 0 4 4 0 4 4 5 445 N 1 1 5 Clearing limit Clearing limit rolled erosion control product Filter rock checkdam with 111+40 to 112+63 Rt. F.8 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] U S _ S u r _ f t 2 D [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 0 3 2 2 7 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 _ d g . d g n WA JEFF 91420(1) 1 2 : 3 9 P M 1 3 A p r il 2 0 1 7 C . C o n r a d - - / - - - - 0 1 / 2 0 1 7 C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : 112+00 to 117+03.39 CONTROL PLAN EROSION/SEDIMENT LEGEND Filter rock check dams 112+71 to 117+02 Lt. Filter rock check dams 112+63 to 117+02 Rt. Roadway Obliteration Inlet Protection Filter Rock Check Dam Silt Fence Flow Arrow 70 % PL A N IN HA N D 04 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 NO SCALE POST AND GEOTEXTILE INSTALLATION DETAIL SILT FENCE INSTALLATION AT TOE OF FILL Fill slope T o e o f s l o p e PLAN ELEVATION 4. 3. 2. 1. T o e o f s l o p e Fill slope ELEVATION PLAN PLAN PLAN END DETAIL END POSTS DETAIL POSTS AT JOINTS Varies Varies Geotextile Steel or wood post Backfilled and compacted soil f o r s p a c i n g S e e N o t e 4 Limits of clearing (undisturbed) Existing ground Silt fence reinforcement REVISED: 7/2016 DETAIL APPROVED FOR USE --/---- WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION SILT FENCE W157-1 U.S. CUSTOMARY DETAIL DETAIL STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET F.9 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION JEFF 91420(1)WA ] U S C [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 0 3 2 2 7 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 _ d h . d g n 7 : 2 2 A M 2 7 J a n u a r y 2 0 1 7 NOTE: Staple or tie Section B Geotextile fabric, Tie top of posts together driven tightly together. Steel or wood posts Steel or wood post Staple or tie Geotextile fabric Fasten fabric to posts around each post one full turn. Fold geotextile fabric See Note 3 End Posts Detail End posts, see End Posts Detail End posts, see See Note 3 fabric, Section A Geotextile Flow Flow Flow running around the ends. Curve ends of silt fence upgrade to prevent water from as possible. Install silt fence to follow the ground contours as closely does not slide down, supporting posts. All types must ensure silt fence remains attached to, and manufacturer's recommendations for installation procedures. as long as specified dimensions are satisfied. Follow Alternate preassembled silt fence options will be allowed 3 0 " m i n . 4 0 " m i n . 2 0 " m i n . 6-foot (max.) spacing without silt fence reinforcement. 10-foot (max.) spacing with silt fence reinforcement. 4" min. 6" min. trench 7 0 % P L A N I N H A N D 0 4 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 See Note 4 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% NO SCALE 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 5% 4% 3% 2% 7. 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. Adjust check dam spacing based on site-specific conditions. around the ends of the fiber roll. Provide sufficient length to prevent water from flowing Drive stakes into undisturbed soil of trench bottom. stakes. Drive stakes at each end of the fiber roll and at Install check dams in ditches perpendicular to the flowline. installation. Repair all rills or gullies and properly compact prior to functional requirements of the check dam device. gravel bags as approved by the CO, to meet the Construct check dams from fiber rolls, filter rock, or REVISED: 7/2016 DETAIL APPROVED FOR USE --/---- WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION W157-15 MODERATE GRADES CHECK DAM U.S. CUSTOMARY DETAIL DETAIL STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET F.10 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION JEFF 91420(1)WA ] U S C [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 0 3 2 2 7 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 _ d i . d g n 7 : 1 0 A M 2 7 J a n u a r y 2 0 1 7 CROSS SECTION V-DITCH CROSS SECTION FLAT-BOTTOM DTICH CROSS SECTION CROSS SECTION STAKING DETAIL FIBER ROLL PLAN are similar for flat-bottom ditches Check dam installation details V-ditch design shown. Flow line GRADE DITCH (See Note 7) CHECK DAM SPACING* GRAVEL BAG Gravel bag the ends. See Note 6 to prevent flow around Curve ends upstream Filter rock Filter rock FIBER ROLL CHECK DAM GRAVEL BAG CHECK DAM SPACING (max.) CHECK DAM See Note 5 NOTE: GRADE DITCH SPACING (max.) CHECK DAM (See Note 7) CHECK DAM SPACING FILTER ROCK GRADE DITCH (See Note 7) CHECK DAM SPACING* FIBER ROLL SPACING (max.) CHECK DAM FILTER ROCK CHECK DAM uphill side of fiber roll trench material on Place excavated Flow F l o w on ditch grades steeper than 5%. Do not use fiber roll check dams * Spacing calculated based on on ditch grades steeper than 6%. * Do not use gravel bag check dams 60 80 100 150 50 60 80 100 150 50 60 80 100 150 (FT) (FT) (FT) Trench 2" (min.) 1 6 " m i n . Fiber roll 9" Ø (min.) Trench 2" (min.) -inch wood 8 1-inch x 18 1Stake fiber rolls in place with 1 Expose stakes 2-inches (min.) above top of fiber roll. 2-foot (max.) spacing. m i n . 1 2 " 6 " 6 " m i n . 1 2 " 1 2 " m i n . 6 " 9" Ø minimum fiber roll. 6 " 70 % PL A N IN HA N D 04 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 NO SCALE REVISED: 7/2016 DETAIL APPROVED FOR USE --/---- WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION EROSION CONTROL PRODUCT CHECK DAM WITH ROLLED W157-16 6 " 6 " 6 " ( m i n . ) 1 2 "6 " 6 " ( m i n . ) 1 2 "6 " U.S. CUSTOMARY DETAIL DETAIL STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET F.11 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION JEFF 91420(1)WA ] U S C [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 0 3 2 2 7 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 _ d j . d g n 7 : 1 1 A M 2 7 J a n u a r y 2 0 1 7 3. 2. 1. PROFILE VIEW V-DITCH CROSS SECTION FLAT-BOTTOM DITCH CROSS SECTION (G) GRADE DITCH ≥10% 8% and 9% 7% Rolled erosion control product 1:2 (typ.) Rolled erosion control product Rolled erosion control product NOTE: Adjust check dam spacing based on site-specific conditions. Install check dams in ditches perpendicular to the flowline. to installation. Repair all rills or gullies and properly compact prior Filter rock Filter rock Ponded water (See Note 3) CHECK DAM SPACING FILTER ROCK Filter rock SPACING (S) MAX. CHECK DAM ROLLED EROSION CONTROL PRODUCT FILTER ROCK CHECK DAM WITH (FT) 20 30 40 Check Dam spacing (S) Ditch Grade (G) 7 0 % P L A N I N H A N D 0 4 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 NO SCALE Existing ground Water surface elevation OPTION B OPTION A OPTION C OPTION D Existing ground Sandbag (typ.) Sandbag (typ.) Sandbag (typ.) Sandbag (typ.) Concrete barrier Concrete barrier Concrete barrier Water surface elevation membrane Waterproof Water surface elevation membrane Waterproof Water surface elevation Existing abutment or pier elevation (min.) Top of berm Existing ground at time of construction Diverted water level at time of construction Diverted water level Existing ground at time of construction Diverted water level Limit of work zone Limit of work zone Limit of work zone elevation (min.) Top of berm elevation (min.) Top of berm at time of construction Diverted water level (anchoring method to be approved) Waterproof membrane REVISED: 7/2016 DETAIL APPROVED FOR USE --/---- WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION 4 " 6 " ( m i n . ) 4'-6" 6 " 4 " 4 " W157-17 METHODS TEMPORARY DIVERSION BERM 6 " ( m i n . ) 6 " ( m i n . ) 6" (min.) freeboard. Submit temporary stream diversion 6 " ( m i n . ) U.S. CUSTOMARY DETAIL DETAIL STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET F.12 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION JEFF 91420(1) WA ] U S C [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 0 3 2 2 7 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 _ d k . d g n 7 : 1 1 A M 2 7 J a n u a r y 2 0 1 7 NOTE: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4. 3. 2. 1. membrane Waterproof height of the sandbag barrier. directed. Remove sediment when deposits reach half the berm daily. Repair as needed after rainfall events or as While in use, inspect and maintain the temporary diversion given time. Place a maximum of one diversion in the stream at any upper rows of sandbags above the joints in lower rows. of bottom rows as there are vertical course. Overlap the Place sandbags to form a pyramid by laying equal numbers plans for approval prior to installation. minimum height equal to the water surface elevation with As a minimum, provide a temporary diversion berm with a prefabricated or portable diversion berms, dams, etc.). methods may be chosen (including any approved during construction operations. Alternate stream diversion These options suggest configurations for diverting a stream 70 % PL A N IN HA N D 04 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 NO SCALE Spacing Slope STAKES REQUIRED 1:1 1:2 1:3 1:4 or flatter for each roll Stakes required FIBER ROLL SPACING 4 6 8 Fiber roll length Flow T o e o f f i l l s l o p e ELEVATION PLAN disturbed areas Runoff from INSTALLATION BEYOND TOE OF SLOPE INSTALLATION ALONG SLOPES FIBER ROLL STAKING DETAIL PROPERLY STAKED AND ENTRENCHED FIBER ROLL Existing ground (typ.) Fiber roll Flow direction Slope Direction of runoff from disturbed areas spacing chart See Fiber Roll Fiber roll ffonur fo noitceriD along contours Install fiber rolls Fiber roll Slope Fill slope Direction of runoff ground Existing soil to match ground level Backfilled and compacted F l o w larger than fiber roll wood stakes. See Note 2. Pay limits Pay limits SLOPE PROTECTION INSTALLATION ALTERNATE FIBER ROLL JOINT DETAIL FIBER ROLL LAPPING DETAIL on uphill side of fiber roll Place excavated material Stagger joints (typ.) 2. 1. permanent installations. Do not crush fiber roll while staking. roll is secure to slope. Live stakes may be used for and install fiber rolls Step 1: Excavate trench Step 2: Backfill soil against fiber rolls DRAFT: 7/2016 REVISED: DETAIL APPROVED FOR USE 10/2014 WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION FIBER ROLL (FT) 12 20 25 (FT) 10 20 30 40 W157-21 2" (min.)Excavate trench 2" 1" x 1" or 1" Ø overlap12" (min.) 2 " t o 3 " 2 4 " ( m i n . ) 1 2 " ( m i n . ) 1" x 1" Wood stake as specified in plans 3' min. or 3' (min.) Drive stakes at each end and at 4-foot spacing until fiber fiber roll and space stakes at 4-foot max. 6-inches from fiber roll end angles towards the adjacent Overlap fiber rolls 12-inch minimum. Drive stakes at U.S. CUSTOMARY DETAIL DETAIL STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET F.13 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION JEFF 91420(1) WA ] U S C [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 0 3 2 2 7 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 _ d l . d g n 7 : 1 1 A M 2 7 J a n u a r y 2 0 1 7 NOTE: 7 0 % P L A N I N H A N D 0 4 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 NO SCALE PLASTIC LINED DIVERSION CHANNEL RIPRAP LINED DIVERSION CHANNEL TEMPORARY CULVERT DIVERSION CHANNEL SECTION B-B SECTION A-A SECTION A-A SECTION B-B SECTION B-B PLAN W B W B W B B W T TØwhen scheduled) Silt fence (typ. Roadway embankment Roadway embankment Temporary culvert backfill Subgrade Bedding Sandbags Riprap lining Riprap lining backflow into natural channel Use sandbags to prevent Permanent natural channel Earthwork limits when scheduled) Silt fence (typ. See Note 5 Permanent culvert Roadway centerline temporary barrier Use sandbags to construct SandbagsPlastic liner SS S S S S SS D D D D SSS S S S SS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. FlowFlow FlowFlow Plastic liner when scheduled) Silt fence (typ. When specified replace the portion of the diversion channel through the roadway embankment with temporary culvert. Compact temporary culvert backfill using one of the methods listed in Subsection 204.11(a). See Erosion Control Section for temporary culvert diameter, riprap class, channel dimensions and quantities. Use plastic liner or riprap along the entire length and width of the temporary diversion channel. Construct channel at a minimum grade of 0.5 percent. Do not construct with longitudinal joints if using a plastic liner. Bury the upstream edge of the liner a minimum of A A BB GeotextileGeotextile Flow Natural ground and secure with sandbags (typ.) 157-5 STANDARD APPROVED FOR USE 6/2005 DRAFT: 3/2014 REVISED: 6/2007 DIVERSION CHANNELS TEMPORARY 6" deep and secure with riprap or sandbags. 2'2' Bury plastic liner 6" deep 2'2' STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET F.14 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION JEFF 91420(1) WA ] U S C [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 0 3 2 2 7 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 _ d m . . d g n 7 : 1 2 A M 2 7 J a n u a r y 2 0 1 7 FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY U.S. CUSTOMARY STANDARD STANDARD NOTE: with plastic liner or riprap Temporary diversion channel 70 % PL A N IN HA N D 04 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 E629-01 U.S. CUSTOMARY DETAIL DETAILDETAIL APPROVED FOR USE with Ground Fasteners (See Detail A) Stake at 36" to 60" intervals into triangular shape 1" X 3" stock cut Wood Stakes 12" to 18" 6 " 1 0 " Each fastener on 12" center Double row of fasteners at erosion stop Overlap edges by 3" at 50 ft intervals (up slope face) 6'' deep x 6'' wide transverse trench over lower blanket and anchor Overlap matting ends 6", upper blanket APPROVED : MAY 2011 WITH MATTING SLOPE STABILIZATION REVISED: SEPTEMBER 2014 F.15 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] U S C u s t o m a r y [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 0 3 2 2 7 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 _ d n . d g n WA JEFF 91420(1) 7 : 3 3 A M 2 7 J a n u a r y 2 0 1 7 - - / - - - - - - / - - - - C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : NO SCALE A A Matting Erosion Stop (Check Slot) Detail SECTION A-A Typical Ground Fasteners DETAIL A DETAIL FOR STABILIZING SLOPES WITH MATTING Erosion stop (check slot) No. 11 gauge wire Typical staples Backfill with soil and tamp Matting Fastener top of slope. Do not stretch matting face (in direction of flow). Anchor at 2. Unroll and lay matting out down slope flush with the ground. Do not track slope face which will prevent the matting from laying Remove rocks, trash, and other material 1. Grade, smooth, and compact slope. (See Detail A) 3. Secure matting with wood or metal fasteners manufacturers recommendations 4. Apply seed and fertilizer per 7 0 % P L A N I N H A N D 0 4 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 : 4 5 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ T o w e r C r e e k \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION TOWER CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) AR George Choubah 18 March 2017 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 : 4 5 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ T o w e r C r e e k \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY REVISIONS BSK 1 A C T U A L F I L E : P E _ T O W E R . D G N PLAN AND ELEVATION N (Typ.) 120'-0"8'-0"8'-0" slab Approach slab Approach Class 4 riprap Limit of StructureCL CLRoadway Begin Bridge Elev. 356.75 Sta. 76+87 12'-8" 77+00 1 1 ' - 0 " 1 1 ' - 0 " 2 ' - 0 " 1 ' - 6 " C u r b S h o u l d e r 1 ' - 6 " C u r b 2 ' - 0 " S h o u l d e r End Bridge Elev. 358.11 Sta. 78+07 78+0077+50 of roadway Existing edge of roadway Existing edge Edge of existing bridge T o w e r C r e e k 360 3 5 5 3 5 0 335 34 5 350 35 5 3 4 5 3 4 0 3 3 0 3 4 0 L a n e L a n e PLAN 360 355 350 345 340 335 330 325 line ground Proposed 2.25 1 2.25 1 1.75 1 1.75 1 line at existing ground Approximate CL channel Bottom of CLright of ground line at 13'-0" Approximate existing left of ground line at 13'-0" Approximate existing CL ground line Proposed ELEVATION Profile grade Bridge length = 120'-0" 1.1367% TRANSITION" sheet See "THRIE BEAM TRANSITION" sheet See "THRIE BEAM Wingwall 1 Wingwall 2 Wingwall 3 Wingwall 4 CL Post (Typ.) G.1 RG3105-A " 2 1" = 131'-16 514 Spa. 9'-4 "2 12'-5 "2 12'-5 " = 1'8 1 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION TOWER CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) AR George Choubah 18 March 2017 +1.1367% 70 % PL A N IN HA N D 04 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 12 - A p r - 2 0 1 7 10 :0 4 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ T o w e r C r e e k \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION TOWER CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) AR George Choubah 18 March 2017 NO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY REVISIONS AR A C T U A L F I L E : M 0 2 M T 2 1 0 ( 1 ) G N . D G N 2 GENERAL NOTES Construction: Design: DESIGN LOADING: Dead Loads: Live Loads: AASHTO HL-93; maximum dynamic load allowance, IM=33% MATERIALS: Design stresses: Concrete: Reinforcing steel: with 2015 Interim Revisions. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 2014, 7th Edition on Federal Highway Projects, FP-14. Standard Specifications for Construction of Roads and Bridges DRAWING TITLE DRAWING INDEX DRAWING NO. GENERAL NOTES: SPECIFICATIONS: Prestressing steel: Bearings: GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: method A. durometer hardness. Bearings are designed according to AASHTO LRFD design Section 18.2 of the AASHTO LFRD Bridge Construction Specifications, with 60 Provide laminated elastomeric bearing pads conforming to the requirements of estimated losses of 23.48 ksi. The final estimated effective prestress force per strand is 38,840 lb based on Pre-tension each strand to a total load of 43,940 lb (f'si = 0.75*f's = 202,500 psi). steel conforming to AASHTO M 203. Furnish grade 270, 0.60" diameter, seven-wire, low-relaxation, prestressing No Scale Provide 2" cover for reinforcing steel unless otherwise noted. Provide standard hooks as defined by ACI SP-66 for bends unless otherwise noted. steel located or anchored in Class D(AE) concrete unless otherwise noted. Provide epoxy coated reinforcing steel for girders and all reinforcing Furnish reinforcing steel conforming to AASHTO M 31 or M 322, grade 60 deformed. Memorandum No. 20-16, dated 07-2016. For boring logs and other geotechnical information, see Geotechnical Future asphalt wearing surface: 25 psf Asphalt wearing surface: 25 psf Concrete: 150 pcf Prestressing Steel: Reinforcing Steel: Structural Steel: Class P (Prestressed) Concrete: Class D(AE) Concrete: Class A(AE) Concrete: RG3105-R RG3105-Q RG3105-P RG3105-O RG3105-N RG3105-M RG3105-L RG3105-K RG3105-J RG3105-I RG3105-H RG3105-G RG3105-F RG3105-E RG3105-D RG3105-C RG3105-B RG3105-A G.2 RG3105-B Approach Slab Details Epoxy Coated Reinforcing Steel Bar List Reinforcing Steel Bar List Thrie Beam Transition Bridge Railing Girder Details Interior Girder Top Flange Exterior Girder Top Flange Girder Sections Interior Girder Exterior Girder Typical Section and Framing Plan Abutment Wingwall Abutment Endwall Abutment Layout Foundation Layout General Notes Plan and Elevation Furnish preformed expansion material meeting the requirments of AASHTO M 213. grade 4 or 5. Furnish flexible cellular joint filler meeting the requirments of ASTM D1056, Type 2, " unless otherwise noted.4 3Chamfer exposed edges of all concrete Furnish Class A(AE) concrete for all other concrete. Furnish Class D(AE) concrete for approach slabs, curbs, diaphragms, and endwalls. Furnish Class P (Prestressed) concrete for precast decked bulb tees. fs = 270,000 psi fy = 60,000 psi fy = 50,000 psi f'ci = 7,500 psi at time of release f'c = 10,000 psi at 28 days f'c = 5,000 psi at 28 days f'c = 4,500 psi at 28 days 12 - A p r - 2 0 1 7 10 :0 4 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ T o w e r C r e e k \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION TOWER CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) AR George Choubah 18 March 2017 7 0 % P L A N I N H A N D 0 4 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 : 2 2 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ T o w e r C r e e k \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION TOWER CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) AR George Choubah 18 March 2017 A C T U A L F I L E : F L . D G N 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 : 2 2 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ T o w e r C r e e k \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY REVISIONS BSK 3 FOUNDATION LAYOUT Begin Bridge End Bridge 114'-0" CL CL Piles Abutment 2 &CL CL Piles Abutment 1 & N 2 ' - 1 0 " 2 ' - 1 0 " 4 S p a . @ 5 ' - 1 0 " = 2 3 ' - 4 " 2 9 ' - 0 " 3'-0" A A 2 ' - 1 0 " 2 ' - 1 0 " 4 S p a . @ 5 ' - 1 0 " = 2 3 ' - 4 " 2 9 ' - 0 " FACTOR RESISTANCE Abut. 1 Abut. 2 PILES LENGTH OF TOTAL ESTIMATED 0.65 LOCATION PILE DRIVING INFORMATION (kips/pile)* RESISTANCE BEARING NOMINAL COMPRESSIVE REQUIRED bearing resistance * Drive piles to the required compressive nominal ABUTMENT 2 FOUNDATION PLAN ABUTMENT 1 SECTION A-A SECTION B-B Min. Tip Elev. 272.80Min. Tip Elev. 272.70 ( T y p . ) 2 ' - 0 " m i n . 0.65 260 260 Notes: " = 1'4 1 B B Elev. 348.25 Elev. 349.55 StructureCL 77.55 ft 78.75 ft G.3 RG3105-C Indicates Dynamic Load Test location.2. Indicates pile location.1. (Typ.) Fill top 10'-0" with concrete. 24" Ø x 0.75" steel pipe pile. Open-ended NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION TOWER CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) AR George Choubah 18 March 2017 70 % PL A N IN HA N D 04 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 : 2 2 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ T o w e r C r e e k \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION TOWER CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) AR George Choubah 18 March 2017 A C T U A L F I L E : A B U T L A Y O U T . D G N 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 : 2 2 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ T o w e r C r e e k \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY REVISIONS BSK As Shown ABUTMENT LAYOUT 1'-0" (Typ.) 1 2 ' - 8 " 14'-6"14'-6" 5'-8"5'-8"3 Spa. @ 5'-10" = 17'-6" 2'-9"2'-9"Girder spacing Girder DCL Girder ECL Girder CCL Girder BCL Girder ACL 5'-8"5'-8"" = 17'-6"8 73 Spa. @ 5'-9 Step spacing Weephole spacing CL Bearings Abutment & CL 1 ' - 8 " 3 ' - 4 " 1 ' - 4 " Begin/End Bridge StructureCLdrain pipe 3" Ø Perforated Girder ECL 3'-4" PLAN ELEVATION (Abutment 1 shown, Abutment 2 similar) SECTION A-A Scale: 1" = 1' " = 1'2 1Scale: (Abutment 1 shown, Abutment 2 similar) " = 1'2 1Scale: Notes: ABUT. 1 ABUT. 2 BEARING SEAT ELEVATIONS A B C D E GIRDER 1 ' - 6 " 3 ' - 6 " M i n . 4 Spa. @ 5'-10" = 23'-4" 2 ' - 9 " 4 (See Note 2) Geocomposite sheet drain (Typ. between abutment and wingwall) 1" Expansion jt. fill A A "8 53'-8 "8 53'-8 See Note 3 See Note 3 Girder DCL Girder CCL Girder BCL Girder ACL 351.75 351.87 351.92 351.87 351.75 353.05 353.05 353.16 353.16 353.28 Abut. 1 Elev. 348.25 Abut. 2 Elev. 349.55 2 ' - 0 " M i n . l a p 6" = 3'-6" 7 Spa. @ #5A1 (2 each) piles) (Typ. between #7A2 (Typ.) #5A3 (Typ.) #7A2 #7A4 #5A1 #5A5 piles) (Between (At piles) #5A7 5 S p a . @ 5 " = 2 ' - 1 " # 5 A 8 #7A2 #5A3 piles) between (Typ. #7A4 #7A2 #5A5 piles) (Typ. at #5A6 (Typ.) into pile) embed 3'-0" (4'-0" x 10", = 1 '-8 "@ 10 "2 S p a .(T yp .)#5 A 7 (Typ.) #5A8 (Typ.) #5A6 #5A6 "2 11'-4" = 2 15 3 Spa. @ (Typ. at ends) #5A1 (2 each) (Typ.) weephole 3" Dia. WINGWALL" sheet for details. surface of cap at shear block locations. See "ABUTMENT Cast shear block after girders have been set. Roughen 3. weep holes at face of abutment. perforated abutment pipe and daylight through Cap ends of pipe. Tie perforated wingwall pipes to perforated drain pipe behind wingwalls and abutment. Install continuous geocomposite sheet drain and 3" dia.2. and elevations. See "ABUTMENT WINGWALL" sheet for wingwall details 1. 2'-0" (Typ.) ( T y p . ) 2 ' - 0 " 3 " C l r . G.4 RG3105-D (Typ.) Fill top 10'-0" with concrete. 24" Ø x 0.75" steel pipe pile. Open-end NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION TOWER CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) AR George Choubah 18 March 2017 7 0 % P L A N I N H A N D 0 4 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 : 2 2 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ T o w e r C r e e k \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION TOWER CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) AR George Choubah 18 March 2017 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 : 2 2 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ T o w e r C r e e k \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY REVISIONS BSK As Shown 5 ABUTMENT ENDWALL A C T U A L F I L E : A B U T E N D W A L L . D G N StructureCL PLAN (Abutment 1 shown, Abutment 2 similar) " = 1'2 1Scale: VIEW A-A (Abutment 1 shown, Abutment 2 similar) " = 1'2 1Scale: 1'-2" 1"embedment into endwall Gdr. top flange bridge Begin/End 1'-0" 1 ' - 0 " 1 ' - 3 " 1 ' - 0 " sheet drain Geocomposite filler cellular joint 2" Flexible 2% 3" Ø WeepholeCL 1 ' - 6 " SECTION B-B " = 1'-0" 4 3Scale: A A CL Bearings Abutment & CL Girder ACL Girder B Girder CCL Girder DCL Girder ECL CL Shear block Shear block and wingwall) (Typ. between abutment 1" Expansion jt. fill #5EE6 (Typ.) StructureCL 9" = 3'-0" 4 Spa. @ (Typ.) #6EE9 #5EE1, #6EE7, 6"6"8" = 1'-4" 2 Spa. @ (Typ.) #6EE9 #5EE1, #6EE7, #5EE2 #5EE2 (11 Total) #5EE2 2 ' - 3 " M i n . l a p #5EE2 #5EE1 #5EE6 n.f. #5EE5, or #5EE4, #5EE3, Key: n.f. = near face f.f. = far face e.f. = each face (Typ. at girders) #6EE8 & #6EE9 #6EE9 #6EE8 #6EE7 or #6EE8 1 ' - 0 " 1 ' - 0 "2 '-2 "1'-4" " 8 3 1 ' - 6 "8 31'-6 1 ' - 0 " 1 ' - 0 " #6EE7 2 '-2 "" 8 3 1 ' - 6 "8 31'-6 2'-0" n.f. f.f. " 1 6 1 5 @ 1 0 3 S p a . 7 " 1 " d i a . h o l e s # 5 E E 5 , & # 5 E E 3 , # 5 E E 4 # 5 E E 3 #5EE3 webs) exterior girder (Typ. through # 5 E E 4 g i r d e r s ) b e t w e e n ( T y p . # 5 E E 5 #5EE5 webs) interior girder (Typ. through Abut. 1 Elev. 350.73 Abut. 2 Elev. 352.07 G.5 RG3105-E NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION TOWER CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) AR George Choubah 18 March 2017 70 % PL A N IN HA N D 04 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 : 2 3 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ T o w e r C r e e k \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION TOWER CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) AR George Choubah 18 March 2017 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 : 2 3 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ T o w e r C r e e k \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY REVISIONS BSK As Shown ABUTMENT WINGWALL A C T U A L F I L E : A B U T W I N G W A L L . D G N 6 ELASTOMERIC STOP PAD DETAIL No Scale (8 req'd) 60 Durometer hardness " Elastomeric stop pad2 1 Notes: pads with approved cementitions adhesive prior to installation. Place elastomeric pads after constructing shear blocks. Coat2. Cast concrete for shear blocks after placement of girders.1. 3'-0" ELEVATIONS ELEV. 356.51 356.37 348.25 357.77 357.91 349.55 3 " V a r i e s 6 S p a . @ 9 " = 4 ' - 6 " # 5 W 1 e . f . 4 S p a . @ 9 " = 3 ' - 0 " # 5 W 2 e . f . 4 Spa. @ 1'-0" = 4'-0" #5W3 e.f. 1'-0"7 Spa. @ 1'-0" = 7'-0" #5W4 e.f. 4"4" #5W1 #5W2 3 ' - 0 " 4'-8" AA B C C D D B #5W3 #5W4 Elev. A Elev. C Elev. B WING. 1 & 2 WING. 3 & 4 A B C ELEVATION SECTION B-B SECTION A-A SECTION C-C SECTION D-D Key: n.f. = near face f.f. = far face e.f. = each face 1'-0"1'-0"10" = 3'-4" 4 Spa. @ = 3 ' - 0 " @ 1 ' - 0 " 3 S p a . "8 53'-8 (Typ.) #5A9 ( T y p . ) # 5 A 1 0 (Typ.) #5A10 Level #5A10 #5A9 (Typ.) 1 ' - 6 " ( m i n . ) Girder CCL " = 1'-0"8 3Scale: SHEAR BLOCK ELEVATION SHEAR BLOCK PLAN " = 1'-0"8 3Scale: Girder CCL " = 1'-0"4 3Scale: " = 1'-0"4 3Scale: " = 1'-0"4 3Scale: " = 1'-0"4 3Scale: " = 1'-0"4 3Scale: (Typ.) stop pad, see detail " elastomeric2 1" Gap & 8 1 Endwall " 8 7 7 7 " G.6 RG3105-F NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION TOWER CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) AR George Choubah 18 March 2017 7 0 % P L A N I N H A N D 0 4 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 : 2 3 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ T o w e r C r e e k \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION TOWER CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) AR George Choubah 18 March 2017 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 : 2 3 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ T o w e r C r e e k \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY REVISIONS BSK As Shown TYPICAL SECTION AND FRAMING PLAN 120'-0" 30'-0"30'-0"30'-0"30'-0"Diaphragm spacing Girder ACL CL CL CL CL Girder B Girder C Girder D Girder E CL (Typ.) Diaphragm Begin Bridge End Bridge CL Structure 1'-9" (Typ.) 1'-9" (Typ.) (Typ.) 6" Dia. blockout (See Note) Welded connection (Typ.) 29'-0" 1'-6"11'-0"11'-0"1'-6"2'-0" Shoulder Lane 2'-0" Lane Shoulder "4 12'-10 "4 12'-10"2 123'-3" = 8 74 Spa. @ 5'-9 "8 75 Eq. spa. = 4'-96"6" (Typ.) #6D1 (Typ.) #6D3 Dowels 2%2% membrane pavement over waterproof 2" Hot asphalt concrete Precast concrete deck girders CL Structure TYPICAL SECTION FRAMING PLAN A C T U A L F I L E : T Y P X S . D G N DIAPHRAGM ANCHOR BOLT " Thread2 11 1'-6" No Scale A-307 bolt 1" Dia. ASTM 8" 4"4" of non-shrink grout and topped with 1" layer with concrete diaphragms 6" Dia. Blockout poured "2 11 Clr. #5D2 1 0 " " 1 6 5 3 S p a . @ 1 0 CL Diaphragm Scale: 1" = 1' GIRDER PARTIAL ELEVATIONSECTION A-A Scale: 1" = 1' " = 1'16 3Scale: " = 1'2 1Scale: Note: spacing. FLANGE" sheets for welded connection TOP FLANGE" and "INTERIOR GIRDER TOP connection details. See "EXTERIOR GIRDER See "GIRDER DETAILS" sheet for welded A A (See detail) 1" Dia. anchor bolt (Typ.) #5D2 (Typ.) 2'-9" Min. lap (Typ.) G.7 7 RG3105-G (Typ.) #6D1 CL CL CL #6D3 dowels anchor bolts and @ diaphragms for 1" Hole & inserts NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION TOWER CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) AR George Choubah 18 March 2017 70 % PL A N IN HA N D 04 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 : 4 5 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ T o w e r C r e e k \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION TOWER CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) AR George Choubah 18 March 2017 A C T U A L F I L E : E X T G I R D E R . D G N 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 : 4 5 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ T o w e r C r e e k \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY REVISIONS BSK As Shown EXTERIOR GIRDER 1 "(Typ.) 90° full width Sawtooth keys are SAWTOOTH KEY DETAIL No Scale 1 "3 ' - 6 " 3 ' - 6 " " 1 6 5 3 S p a . @ 1 0 " 1 6 1 5 = 2 ' - 6 1 " D i a . H o l e s "4 15'-8 "4 12 3" 5 Spa. @ 3" = 1'-3"8 Spa. @ 6" = 4'-0" #4GE10, #4GE13, #4GE14 #4GE14 #4GE13 #4GE10 4 " " 2 1 9 4 S p a . @ 6 " = 2 ' - 0 " # 4 G E 1 1 #4GE11 7'-0" #5GE1 or #5GE3 #5GE4 or #5GE5 (Typ.) #3GE12 hook (Typ.) provide 90° 10" #5GE3 bars & Extend #5GE1 & 3" 2 ' - 0 " Extend strands GirderCL (Typ.) #4GE10 #4GE11 (Typ.) #3GE12 CC GIRDER END ELEVATION SECTION C-C Scale: 1' = 1' Scale: 1' = 1' 59'-5" "4 15'-8 1'-0""4 3852 Spa. @ 1'-0" = 52'-0" #4GE10, #4GE13, #4GE14 span Symm. about "4 33 2'-5" 29'-5"30'-0"Diaphragm spacing 4 ' - 2 " 3 ' - 6 " 2 ' - 8 " CL Diaphragm CL CL Bearing 2'-8" 6" Elevation See Girder End (See Note 1) CL Lifting eye strands Extend (10) 0.60" Dia. Strands (8) 0.60" Dia. Strands (2) 0.60" Ø Strands (2) 0.60" Dia. Strands (Typ.) (See Note 2) & #4GE14 #4GE10, #4GE13 "8 512'-4 Deflect (4) 0.60" dia. strands HALF GIRDER ELEVATION " = 1'8 3Scale: (20 straight, 4 draped) 0.60" Dia. Strands both ends of girder and bend as shown at Extend circled strands 2" = 1'-6" 9 Spa. @ "2 13 "2 13 2 " 2 " 2" = 1'-6" 9 Spa. @ "2 13 "2 13 2 " 2 " 2 " 1"1" CL Girder CL Girder Notes: sheet for diaphragm layout and details. See "TYPICAL SECTION AND FRAMING PLAN"2. Blockout full girder flange width at both ends.1. Draped strands (4) 0.60" Dia. SECTION B-B Scale: 1' = 1' VIEW A-A Scale: 1' = 1' A A B B keys Sawtooth (See detail) Length of girder = 118'-10" RG3105-H G.8 7 " 3 " 8 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION TOWER CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) AR George Choubah 18 March 2017 7 0 % P L A N I N H A N D 0 4 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 : 4 6 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ T o w e r C r e e k \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION TOWER CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) AR George Choubah 18 March 2017 A C T U A L F I L E : I N T G I R D E R . D G N 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 : 4 6 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ T o w e r C r e e k \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY REVISIONS BSK As Shown INTERIOR GIRDER 1 "(Typ.) 90° full width Sawtooth keys are SAWTOOTH KEY DETAIL No Scale 1 "3 ' - 6 " 3 ' - 6 " " 1 6 5 3 S p a . @ 1 0 " 1 6 1 5 = 2 ' - 6 1 " D i a . H o l e s "4 15'-8 "4 12 3" 5 Spa. @ 3" = 1'-3"8 Spa. @ 6" = 4'-0" #4GE10, #4GE13, #4GE14 #4GE14 #4GE13 #4GE10 4 " " 2 1 9 4 S p a . @ 6 " = 2 ' - 0 " # 4 G E 1 1 #4GE11 7'-0" #5GE1 or #5GE3 #5GE4 or #5GE5 (Typ.) #3GE12 hook (Typ.) provide 90° 10" #5GE3 bars & Extend #5GE1 & 3" 2 ' - 0 " Extend strands GirderCL (Typ.) #4GE10 #4GE11 (Typ.) #3GE12 CC GIRDER END ELEVATION SECTION C-C Scale: 1' = 1' Scale: 1' = 1' 59'-5" "4 15'-8 1'-0""4 3852 Spa. @ 1'-0" = 52'-0" #4GE10, #4GE13, #4GE14 span Symm. about "4 33 2'-5" 29'-5"30'-0"Diaphragm spacing 4 ' - 2 " 3 ' - 6 " 2 ' - 8 " CL Diaphragm CL CL Bearing 2'-8" 6" Elevation See Girder End (See Note 1) CL Lifting eye strands Extend (10) 0.60" Dia. Strands (8) 0.60" Dia. Strands (2) 0.60" Ø Strands (2) 0.60" Dia. Strands (Typ.) (See Note 2) & #4GE14 #4GE10, #4GE13 "8 512'-4 Deflect (4) 0.60" dia. strands HALF GIRDER ELEVATION " = 1'8 3Scale: (20 straight, 4 draped) 0.60" Dia. Strands both ends of girder and bend as shown at Extend circled strands 2" = 1'-6" 9 Spa. @ "2 13 "2 13 2 " 2 " 2" = 1'-6" 9 Spa. @ "2 13 "2 13 2 " 2 " 2 " 1"1" CL Girder CL Girder Notes: sheet for diaphragm layout and details. See "TYPICAL SECTION AND FRAMING PLAN"2. Blockout full girder flange width at both ends.1. Draped strands (4) 0.60" Dia. SECTION B-B Scale: 1' = 1' VIEW A-A Scale: 1' = 1' A A B B keys Sawtooth (See detail) Length of girder = 118'-10" RG3105-I 9 G.9 7 " 3 " NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION TOWER CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) AR George Choubah 18 March 2017 70 % PL A N IN HA N D 04 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 : 2 3 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ T o w e r C r e e k \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION TOWER CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) AR George Choubah 18 March 2017 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 : 2 3 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ T o w e r C r e e k \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY REVISIONS BSK 1" = 1' GIRDER SECTIONS A C T U A L F I L E : G I R D E R S E C T . D G N Notes: ESTIMATED QUANTITIES Concrete reinforcing steel Expoxy coated 0.6" Ø Strands One beam only Cu. Yd. Lbs. Ln. Ft. Int. Girder Ext. Girder 5315 5770 2870 2870 29.1 29.1 GIRDER TOP FLANGE" sheets for top flange and curb bars. See "EXTERIOR GIRDER TOP FLANGE" and "INTERIOR 5. Thicken flange at both ends to compensate for final camber.4. to placing overlay. flange and fill with an approved non-shrink grout prior After erection, cutoff lifting loops 1 inch below top of3. ".4 1Estimated camber after placing overlay and railing = 23. ".4 3Estimated camber at release of strands = 12. shortening due to prestressing. " longer than shown to allow for4 1Cast girders 1. A B B C MARK DIMENSION #5GE1 REINFORCING STEEL SCHEDULE A E G G D HF 22'-4" 2 TYPE K #5GE2 #5GE3 #5GE4 #5GE5 #5GE6 #5GE7 #5GE8 #4GE9 #4GE10 #3GE12 #4GE14 STR B C C D O K H O F H D C E B C B D E B G A B A G Type 51 Type T9 Type 81 Type 54 60'-0" Type 2 10"43'-0" Type 1 "2 15'-9 6 " 2 " 2 ' - 9 " 6 " 3 " "2 11'-7 2" 3 ' - 1 1 " (Typ.) #5GE2 #5GE8 #4GE10 2'-1" 6""2 19 #4GE13 #5GE2 "8 15'-9 CLGirder 3 " 2 " " 8 3 7 2 ' - 9 " 6 " 3 " "2 11'-7 2" #5GE8 6 " 3 ' - 1 1 " 6""2 19 #4GE13 #5GE2 2'-1" #4GE10 (Typ.) #5GE2 #5GE7 2 " C l r . (Typ.) #5GE3 #5GE1 or #5GE6 1 " C l r .(Typ.) #5GE5 #5GE4 or #5GE8 (Typ.) #4GE11 (Typ.) #3GE12 1" Clr. (Typ.) #4GE11 #4GE11 #5GE5 #5GE4 or #5GE5 #5GE4 or 1 " C l r . ( T y p . ) (Typ.) #3GE12 #4GE11 (Typ.) #4GE11 1" Clr. (Typ.) #4GE11 #5GE5 #5GE4 or 1 " C l r . ( T y p . ) 2 " C l r . #5GE7 #5GE8 1 " C l r . (Typ.) #5GE3 #5GE1 or (Typ.) #5GE5 #5GE4 or CL Girder 2 " C l r . ( T y p . ) #4GE9 2.0% 2.0%2.0% 2.0% INTERIOR GIRDER MIDSPAN EXTERIOR GIRDER MIDSPAN INTERIOR GIRDER END EXTERIOR GIRDER END #4GE14 #4GE14 #4GE10 #4GE14 #4GE13 #4GE9 #5GE5 #5GE4 or #4GE14 #4GE13 #4GE10 2 10" STR 5'-8" STR 51 "8 14'-2"2 11'-1 4""2 14 STR 43'-0" 22'-4" 6'-10"STR#4GE11 T9 4"4"4" 54 "2 111"2 111 4"4""4 33 "4 33#4GE13 81 5'-8""2 12'-0"4 33"2 19 "2 19"4 32'-0 1 5'-8"7" 2 4"4"4" G.10 RG3105-J10 curb location (Typ.) Roughen surface under CL Girder Type S5 A G B D C S5 8"1'-0"1'-0"1'-0""4 11'-2 8" " 8 3 7 G i r d e r s " B " a n d " D " 6 " G i r d e r " C " 2.0%Girder "C"2.0% Girder "D" and "B" GirderCL #5GE6 3 " (Girder "D" shown, Girders "B" and "C" similar)(Girder "E" shown, Girder "A" similar) (Girder "E" shown, Girder "A" similar)(Girder "D" shown, Girders "B" and "C" similar) NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION TOWER CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) AR George Choubah 18 March 2017 7 0 % P L A N I N H A N D 0 4 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 : 4 6 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ T o w e r C r e e k \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION TOWER CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) AR George Choubah 18 March 2017 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 : 4 6 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ T o w e r C r e e k \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY REVISIONS BSK As Shown EXTERIOR GIRDER TOP FLANGE A C T U A L F I L E : E X T T O P F L A N G E . D G N 12 Spa. @ 3" = 3'-0" 6 Spa. @ 6" = 3'-0" (#5GE7, top) (#5GE8, bot.) 8"3" 110 Spa. @ 1'-0" = 110'-0" (#5GE8, top flange, bot. bars) 220 Spa. @ 6" = 110'-0" (#5GE7, top flange, top bars) 118'-10" 116 Spa. @ 1'-0" = 116'-0" 3"8" 12 Spa. @ 3" = 3'-0" (#5GE7, top) 6 Spa. @ 6" = 3'-0" (#5GE8, bot.) 220 Spa. @ 6" = 110'-0" (#5GE7, top flange, top bars) 110 Spa. @ 1'-0" = 110'-0" (#5GE8, top flange, bot. bars) 118'-10" 23 Spa. @ 5'-0" = 115'-0" #5GE1 (Alternate with #5GE3) (Alternate with #5GE1) #5GE3 # 5 G E 2 # 5 G E 2 #5GE1 (Alternate with #5GE3) (Alternate with #5GE1) #5GE3 3'-0" Min. lap (Typ.) M a t c h l i n e M a t c h l i n e GirderCL spacing connection Welded EXTERIOR GIRDER PLAN flange-top bars similar. bars shown. Top flange-bottom bars and top splices in top and bottom flanges. Top flange-top Alternate all longitudinal bars to avoid adjacent Note: BOTTOM FLANGE PLAN "4 12 3" = 1'-3" 5 Spa. @ (Typ.) " Chamfer4 3 #4GE14 #4GE13 & Scale: 1" = 1' " = 1'8 3Scale: 1'-5" 23 Spa. @ 5'-0" = 115'-0" spacing connection Welded 1'-5" 3"8" 8"3"116 Spa. @ 1'-0" = 116'-0" #4GE9 (Curb tie spacing) #4GE9 (Curb tie spacing) (Girder E shown, Girder A similar) EXTERIOR GIRDER PLAN " = 1'8 3Scale: (Girder E shown, Girder A similar) G.11 RG3105-K11 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION TOWER CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) AR George Choubah 18 March 2017 70 % PL A N IN HA N D 04 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 : 4 6 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ T o w e r C r e e k \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION TOWER CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) AR George Choubah 18 March 2017 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 : 4 6 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ T o w e r C r e e k \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY REVISIONS BSK As Shown INTERIOR GIRDER TOP FLANGE A C T U A L F I L E : I N T T O P F L A N G E . D G N 12 Spa. @ 3" = 3'-0" 6 Spa. @ 6" = 3'-0" (#5GE6, top) (#5GE8, bot.) 8"3" 110 Spa. @ 1'-0" = 110'-0" (#5GE8, top flange, bot. bars) 220 Spa. @ 6" = 110'-0" (#5GE6, top flange, top bars) 118'-10" 1'-5"23 Spa. @ 5'-0" = 115'-0" 3"8" 12 Spa. @ 3" = 3'-0" (#5GE6, top) 6 Spa. @ 6" = 3'-0" (#5GE8, bot.) 220 Spa. @ 6" = 110'-0" (#5GE6, top flange, top bars) 110 Spa. @ 1'-0" = 110'-0" (#5GE8, top flange, bot. bars) 118'-10" 1'-5"23 Spa. @ 5'-0" = 115'-0" #5GE1 (Alternate with #5GE3) (Alternate with #5GE1) #5GE3 # 5 G E 2 # 5 G E 2 #5GE1 (Alternate with #5GE3) (Alternate with #5GE1) #5GE3 3'-0" Min. lap (Typ.) M a t c h l i n e M a t c h l i n e GirderCL spacing connection Welded spacing connection Welded INTERIOR GIRDER PLAN INTERIOR GIRDER PLAN flange-top bars similar. bars shown. Top flange-bottom bars and top splices in top and bottom flanges. Top flange-top Alternate all longitudinal bars to avoid adjacent Note: BOTTOM FLANGE PLAN "4 12 3" = 1'-3" 5 Spa. @ (Typ.) " Chamfer4 3 #4GE14 #4GE13 & Scale: 1" = 1' " = 1'8 3Scale: " = 1'8 3Scale: G.12 RG3105-L12 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION TOWER CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) AR George Choubah 18 March 2017 7 0 % P L A N I N H A N D 0 4 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 :2 4 A M M : \ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ T o w e r C r e e k \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION TOWER CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) AR George Choubah 18 March 2017 A C T U A L F I L E : G I R D E R D E T . D G N 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 :2 4 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ T o w e r C r e e k \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY REVISIONS BSK No Scale GIRDER DETAILS "2 1 " 2 1 1 " 2 1 1 " 2 1 1 " Chamfer4 3 1" or until grout reaches design strength. After pouring, water cure grout for 72 hours wetted for 24 hours prior to placing grout. strength non-shrink grout. Keep keyways Fill longitudinal flange keys with high "2 11 (Typ.) Girder flange " Ø Backer rod8 5 " Gap2 1 FLANGE KEY DETAIL FLANGE KEY BETWEEN CONNECTIONS non-shrink grout Fill with high strength5" "4 12 " x 4" P4 3" x 24 3 L 2 " 1 " (Typ.) x 8" Welded studs " Ø 2 1(2) (Typ.) x 6"8 3L2x2x " Gap2 1 SECTION A-A (Typ.) Welded stud " Ø x 8"2 1 " x 6"8 3L2x2x " x 4" P4 3" x 24 3 L (Typ.) "4 1 1 " 4 " 6 " 1 " A A 3 0 ° ( T y p . ) WELDED CONNECTION DETAIL (Typ.) anchors "Ø x 4" Welded 2 1 2'-1" 1 ' - 1 " " 2 1 4 2 " " 2 1 4 2 " BEARING PLATE PLAN "2 14 8"8""2 14 chamfer Match girder 1 " BEARING PLATE ELEVATION (10 Req'd) BearingCL 1 ' - 0 " 2'-0" GirderCL BEARING PAD PLAN " Clr. all4 1 around BEARING PAD ELEVATION (10 Req'd) Note: Grade 3 or higher. bearing pads. Provide 60 Durometer hardness, elastomer Conform to AASHTO M 251 for steel reinforced elastomeric " 8 7 1 (3 total per pad) " Steel shim moulded securely to pad8 1 6 " 6 " "2 1& 2 inner layers @ "4 12 Layers (top & bottom) @ G.13 13 RG3105-M NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION TOWER CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) AR George Choubah 18 March 2017 70 % PL A N IN HA N D 04 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 :2 4 A M M : \ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ T o w e r C r e e k \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION TOWER CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) AR George Choubah 18 March 2017 NO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY REVISIONS BRIDGE RAILING NOTES: C PostL B B 1 ' - 2 " " 2 1 2 " 2 1 2 2" Leveling nuts C Post 2"2" L " rails16 5TS 5"x5"x " rails16 5TS 5"x5"x L L L L Scale: 1" = 1'-0' 4 " BRIDGE RAILING 2 11 W8x24 Post 1 ' - 2 " 9" Scale: 1" = 1'-0' TYPICAL SECTION VIEW A-A A A Post " 2 1 1 5 " 5 " " 2 1 1 "2 11"2 14"2 14"2 11 1'-0" 1 ' - 1 " P 1'-0" x 1'-1" x 1"L LC Post 5" "4 31 " 4 1 1 Roadway Side " 4 1 1 " 2 1 2 member Rail tube 5 " 1"* "2 15 4"assure proper fit. to galvanizing to Grind all edges prior "4 14 " 4 1 4 L 9 " RAIL SPLICE END SECTION Scale: 1" = 1'-0'Scale: 1" = 1'-0' " rails16 5TS 5"x5"x VIEW B-B RAIL CAP DETAILS RAIL SPLICE DETAILSBASE PLATE DETAILS "8 12 " PL WASHER "C"4 1 Post W8x24 Post W8x24 9 " * 1" Gap unless noted otherwise on detail plans. As Shown 9 " 16 13 1 " 1 " 2 " "2 11 "16 5 L BASE WELD STUD DETAIL Not to scale Not to scale Not to scale Not to scale Not to scale "2 16 "2 16 " 2 1 4 " 2 1 4 1 ' - 0 " " 2 1 1 (Typ.) ( T y p . ) 5""2 115" 5" 5 " " 2 1 2 " 2 1 2 "16 5TS 5"X5"X locking nuts or nuts and jam nuts. Install angle with washers and self Not to scale ANCHOR PLATE DETAIL 2'-6" max. #4GE9 (Typ.) 9 " Tack weld plate to bolt head. See "ANCHOR PLATE DETAIL", DETAIL" See "RAIL SPLICE DETAILS" See "RAIL CAP " rails16 5TS 5"x5"x "8 1" x 2" x 24 1L P " to provide zinc drains.4 3corners ", cope4 3" x 44 3" x 416 3L P "x1'x1'-1"8 3L P (Typ.) 8 7 8 14 - 1 1'-1" nut 1-lockwasher with 1-plate washer-c stud 2" long with " Galvanized4 3 slotted holes in Post (Typ.). " horizontally2 1& C 1" x 1 weld base studs on rails 4 3C and 2-flat washer (Typ.). fully threaded with 2 nuts 8 72 - DETAIL" See "BASE WELD STUD weld base studs on rails 4 3C (Typ.) Holes Post (Typ.). horizontally slotted holes in " 2 1studs on rails & C 1" x 1 4 3C connections. studs on each rail cap at guardrail 4 32- "4 11 "8 7 1'-5"1" 2 " " 2 1 2 "2 14 "2 14 Typ. " P8 3from Make splice tube "16 3 "16 3 TRANSITION" Dwg. CONNECTION ANGLE" ON "THRIE BEAM Leg of connection angle. See "DETAIL A - "8 3 Typ. Tube sliding fit Bent P SpliceL structure. railing. The completed installation shall not reflect any unevenness in the girder profile. Contractor shall furnish steel shim plates as required to align All rail Posts shall be set vertically and the railing erected parallel to the ERECTION: No field cutting or welding is permitted unless approved by the CO. GROUT: Use grout that has a minimum 24 hours f'c of 3,000 psi. on the plans. With rails continuous over two or more posts. RAIL SPLICE ASSEMBLIES: Rail splice assemblies must be provided as shown shall be fabricated before being galvanized. stud bolts shall conform to ANSI/AASHTO/AWS. All steel AASHTO/AWS, and shall be by a certified welder. Welding for welded to the CO for approval prior to fabrication. Welding shall conform to the ANSI/ FABRICATION: Structural steel shall be shop fabricated. Submit shop drawings hot-dip galvanized after fabrication in accordance with AASHTO M 111 or M 232. to ASTM A500 or A501, Grade B. All components of the bridge rail shall be shall conform to ASTM A36. Structural tubing for rails shall conform MATERIALS: Steel Posts, base plates, plate washers, and splice sleeves GENERAL: The Alaska Multi-State Rail meets the TL-4 performance criteria. A C T U A L F I L E : R 1 4 _ W A _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) _ B r i d g e _ R a i l i n g . D G N G.14 RG3105-N14 1-lockwasher and 1-nut. with 1-plate washer "C", weld base stud x 2" long 4 3Threaded Notes: from approach slab curb into bridge curb. reinforcement. Place curb reinforcement continuously adjacent splices similar to longitudinal deck 3. Alternate longitudinal curb reinforcement to avoid TOP FLANGE" sheets for curb reinforcement. 2. See "GIRDER SECTIONS" and "EXTERIOR GIRDER " above finish grade.2 11. Set top of Post 2'-8 hole (Typ.). See detail. to completely cover slotted " PL washer "C", positioned4 1 washer (Typ.). " PL 4 1w/ lock washer and 4 3Hex nut for (Typ.) (See Note 3) #4CE2 (19'-8" long) spliced 2'-0" with 2 - #4CE1 (60'-0" long) " Clr.2 11 AR STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. REGION PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) PROJECT TEAM LEADERSCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BY AR George Choubah BRIDGE DRAWING of DATE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK TOWER CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. George Choubah 18 March 2017 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK TOWER CREEK BRIDGE 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 :2 4 A M M : \ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ T o w e r C r e e k \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION TOWER CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) AR George Choubah 18 March 2017 7 0 % P L A N I N H A N D 0 4 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 :2 4 A M M : \ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ T o w e r C r e e k \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION TOWER CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) AR George Choubah 18 March 2017 NO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY REVISIONS THRIE BEAM TRANSITION No scale connector Thrie beam terminal connector Thrie beam terminal back of plate Bolt flush with "2 1 "8 1 DETAIL E SECTION A-A " 8 5 7 " 4 1 1 ' - 9 " 2 1 2 7 " " 8 1 4 " 4 1 2 W8x15 DETAIL F - STEEL BLOCKOUT " 2 1 1 " 2 1 6 " 8 5 7 " 8 1 7 " 4 1 1 ' - 9 "4 31 3" "4 1L 5"x3"x Rail cap 5" "2 11 "4 31 " 4 1 1 " 2 1 2 " 2 1 1 1 " 2 1 2 5 " " 4 3 1 ' - 1 0 DETAIL A - CONNECTION ANGLE "2 11'-2 "2 11'-4"2 11 "2 12'-8 " 2 1 1 "2 19 8"3" vertical leg angle (Typ.) "431'-3 3:1 slope plate Transition "16 3 "8 3L 4"x4'x SECTION C-C "2 11 "2 11'-2 "2 11'-4" 2 1 1 4 " "2 12'-8 plate Transition " Plate8 3 "16 3 plate Guardrail connection VIEW D-D "2 1 "2 14 " 4 1 4 " 4 3 8 1 ' - 1 0 " 9 " plate connection Guardrail DETAIL B - GUARDRAIL CONNECTION PLATE "8 31'-1 " 8 3 3 " 1 6 1 3 3 " 1 6 1 3 3 " 8 3 3 1 1 " 1 1 " CC D D "2 12 4"4""8 72 G C plate connection Guardrail Transition section Thrie beam to W-beam Two Class A elements, See Note 3 3"L End of rail cap connector Thrie beam terminal Transition plateA A blockout (Typ.) 6"x8"x14" wood (Typ.) W6x9 steel post "4 117'-2 3'-9" max.C End rail postL PLAN ELEVATION 5. This design approved for NCHRP 350, TL-4. Adjust guardrail bolts for sliding fit. " horizontal slot in approach guardrail.2 14. Provide 4 3. Lap approach guardrail to prevent snags from oncoming traffic. 2. Conform to G-00, G-04S, G-25S for all guardrail details not shown. steel to conform to ASTM A709 Grade 36. AASHTO M 180. All H.S. Bolts conform to ASTM A325. All other 1. All guardrail and guardrail connection hardware to conform to Notes: " 8 3 2 " 8 5 7 " 8 5 7 1 ' - 8 " 8"2"3""4 14 "4 14 "2 18 "4 31'-10"4 17 THRIE BEAM TERMINAL CONNECTOR ( T y p . ) 2'-6" 3" " 8 3 3 " 1 6 3 6 " 8 5 7 " 1 6 3 6 slot (optional) " post bolt2 1"x 24 3 " slots8 1" x 132 29See Note 4 8 5 connection plate " Guardrail 2 1 "4 3"x9"x1'-32 1 Transition plate H.S. bolts and nuts 8 7 C "2 1" = 9'-42 13 Spa. @ 3'-1 "4 3" = 7'-94 35 Spa. @ 1'-6 holes (Typ.) " Slotted 4 1"x18 7 jam nut locking nut or nut and with washers and self 8 7 CL 13 16 (4 total each flange) STEEL BLOCKOUT" (Typ.) See "DETAIL F - W8x15 steel blockout "2 11'-2 Nested (2) Thrie beam rail CONNECTION ANGLE" See "DETAIL A - Connection Angle, CONNECTION PLATE" See "DETAIL B - GUARDRAIL Guardrail connection plate, See "DETAIL E" 8 7for Drill and tap 4 holes "16 3 "16 3 (Typ.) Slotted holes "2 1"x14 3 End of rail cap A C T U A L F I L E : R 1 5 _ W A _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) _ T h r i e _ B e a m _ R a i l . D G N AR G.15 RG3105-O15 STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. REGION PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) PROJECT TEAM LEADERSCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BY AR George Choubah BRIDGE DRAWING of DATE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK TOWER CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. George Choubah 18 March 2017 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK TOWER CREEK BRIDGE 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 :2 5 A M M : \ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ T o w e r C r e e k \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION TOWER CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) AR George Choubah 18 March 2017 70 % PL A N IN HA N D 04 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 :2 5 A M M : \ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ T o w e r C r e e k \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION TOWER CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) AR George Choubah 18 March 2017 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 :2 5 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ T o w e r C r e e k \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY REVISIONS No Scale 16 RG3105-P REINFORCING STEEL BAR LIST TO BE PROVIDED G.16 A C T U A L F I L E : R E B A R . D G N NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION TOWER CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) AR George Choubah 18 March 2017 7 0 % P L A N I N H A N D 0 4 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 :2 5 A M M : \ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ T o w e r C r e e k \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION TOWER CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) AR George Choubah 18 March 2017 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 :2 5 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ T o w e r C r e e k \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY REVISIONS No Scale 17 RG3105-Q REINFORCING STEEL BAR LIST TO BE PROVIDED G.17 A C T U A L F I L E : R E B A R E P O X Y . D G N EPOXY COATED NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION TOWER CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) AR George Choubah 18 March 2017 70 % PL A N IN HA N D 04 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 :2 5 A M M : \ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ T o w e r C r e e k \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION TOWER CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) AR George Choubah 18 March 2017 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 :2 5 A M M : \ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ T o w e r C r e e k \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY REVISIONS BSK As Shown APPROACH SLAB Notes: (Cu. Yd.) Concrete (Lbs.) Steel Reinf. Slab Length ONE APPROACH SLAB ESTIMATED QUANTITIES FOR Width Joint * Does not include dowels Slab Width 8'-0" #5APE3 (Top & bottom) 2 9 ' - 0 " 3 " 6 " 2 8 S p a . @ 1 ' - 0 " = 2 8 ' - 0 " 5 7 S p a . @ 6 " = 2 8 ' - 6 " # 5 A P E 2 ( B o t t o m ) # 5 A P E 1 ( T o p ) #5APE4 (Typ.) #5APE5 8'-0" 7 Spa. @ 1'-0" = 7'-0" #5APE3 (Top & bottom) 6"3" " Jt.2 11 1'-0" " 2 1 2 ' - 3 1 ' - 0 " 3'-0" #5APE6 #5APE5 Match with #5APE5 1'-0" spaced @ 3 " C l r . 3 " C l r . " 2 1 2 C l r . See Detail A See Detail B "2 1 " 4 3 1 " 8 3 sealer silicon joint Low modulus Backer rod " Dia.4 3 Sleeper slab Approach slab joint material Preformed expansion "4 1 Bridge Begin/End to AASHTO M282 sealant conforming elastomeric joint 2" Deep hot poured joint material Preformed expansion Approach slab Endwall 10"10" See Detail A CL Structure Begin/End Bridge See Detail C surface level Roughened Approach slab grading D 6" Aggregate base Wingwall material expansion joint Preformed Curb Wingwall "2 1 material expansion joint Preformed B B B B A A PLAN DETAIL A DETAIL B DETAIL C SECTION A-A SECTION B-B ASPHALT PLUG JOINT felt roofing paper 30 lb. Double layer with predrilled holes at 12" maximum. butted segments. Centered over joint Galvanized plate, placed in 4'-0 long " x 8" AASHTO M270 Grade 364 1 Aggregate/Binder " = 1'8 3Scale: Scale: 1" = 1' Scale: 1" = 1' No Scale No Scale No Scale No Scale A C T U A L F I L E : A P P R O A C H S L A B . D G N surface 2" Hot asphalt wearing surface Hot asphalt wearing G.18 RG3105-R18 (Typ.) #4CE1 or #4CE2 #4GE9 (Match with #5APE3) #4GE9 (Typ.) details. See "ABUTMENT LAYOUT" sheet for dowel reinforcement2. reinforcement details. FLANGE," and "BRIDGE RAILING" sheets for curb See "GIRDER SECTIONS," "EXTERIOR GIRDER TOP1. '' 2 1120801429'-0"8'-0" treated both sides) " sheets,16 1gasket (2 - Compressed synthetic sheet #5APE1 #5APE2 sheeting Polyethylene 10 mil approach slab total width of polystyrene, 6" x 6" Expanded (10 Total) #5APE4 95% compacted grading D, 6" Aggregate base NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION TOWER CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) AR George Choubah 18 March 2017 7 0 % P L A N I N H A N D 0 4 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 : 10 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY AR George Choubah March 2017 STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION CANYON CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) 18 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 : 10 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY REVISIONS BSK 1 PLAN AND ELEVATION channel Bottom of N 120'-0"8'-0"8'-0" slab Approach slab Approach 4 0 5 41 0 4 15 4 2 0 4 2 0 425 420 108+50 109+00 109+50 Structure Roadway CL CL Begin Bridge Elev. 433.54 Sta. 108+35 12'-8" (Typ.) of pavement Existing edge riprap Limit of Class 4 of pavement Existing edge Class 4 riprap Limit of of shoulder Existing edge End Bridge Elev. 432.03 Sta. 109+55 of shoulder Existing edge C a n y o n C r e e k Existing culvert 1 1 ' - 0 " 1 1 ' - 0 " S h o u l d e r C u r b 1 ' - 6 " 2 ' - 0 " C u r b 1 ' - 6 " S h o u l d e r 2 ' - 0 " L a n e L a n e PLAN " = 1'8 1 ELEVATION 1 1.75 1 1.75 425 430 435 420 415 410 405 400 395 390 line ground Proposed 1.60 1 1.60 1 left of ground line at 13'-0" Approximate existing CL ground line at Approximate existing CL right of ground line at 13'-0" Approximate existing CL ground line Proposed Profile grade A C T U A L F I L E : P E . D G N Bridge length = 120'-0" 1.2611% CL Post (Typ.) Wingwall 1 Wingwall 2 Wingwall 4 Wingwall 3 TRANSITION" sheet See "THRIE BEAM TRANSITION" sheet See "THRIE BEAM G.19 RG3106-A " 2 1" = 131'-16 514 Spa. 9'-4 "2 12'-5 "2 12'-5 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY AR George Choubah March 2017 STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION CANYON CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) 18 70 % PL A N IN HA N D 04 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 12 - A p r - 2 0 1 7 10 :0 1 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY AR George Choubah March 2017 STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION CANYON CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) 18 NO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY REVISIONS AR A C T U A L F I L E : M 0 2 M T 2 1 0 ( 1 ) G N . D G N 2 GENERAL NOTES Construction: Design: DESIGN LOADING: Dead Loads: Live Loads: AASHTO HL-93; maximum dynamic load allowance, IM=33% MATERIALS: Design stresses: Concrete: Reinforcing steel: with 2015 Interim Revisions. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 2014, 7th Edition on Federal Highway Projects, FP-14. Standard Specifications for Construction of Roads and Bridges DRAWING TITLE DRAWING INDEX DRAWING NO. GENERAL NOTES: SPECIFICATIONS: Prestressing steel: Bearings: GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: method A. durometer hardness. Bearings are designed according to AASHTO LRFD design Section 18.2 of the AASHTO LFRD Bridge Construction Specifications, with 60 Provide laminated elastomeric bearing pads conforming to the requirements of estimated losses of 23.48 ksi. The final estimated effective prestress force per strand is 38,840 lb based on Pre-tension each strand to a total load of 43,940 lb (f'si = 0.75*f's = 202,500 psi). steel conforming to AASHTO M 203. Furnish grade 270, 0.60" diameter, seven-wire, low-relaxation, prestressing No Scale Provide 2" cover for reinforcing steel unless otherwise noted. Provide standard hooks as defined by ACI SP-66 for bends unless otherwise noted. steel located or anchored in Class D(AE) concrete unless otherwise noted. Provide epoxy coated reinforcing steel for girders and all reinforcing Furnish reinforcing steel conforming to AASHTO M 31 or M 322, grade 60 deformed. Memorandum No. 20-16, dated 07-2016. For boring logs and other geotechnical information, see Geotechnical Future asphalt wearing surface: 25 psf Asphalt wearing surface: 25 psf Concrete: 150 pcf Prestressing Steel: Reinforcing Steel: Structural Steel: Class P (Prestressed) Concrete: Class D(AE) Concrete: Class A(AE) Concrete: RG3106-R RG3106-Q RG3106-P RG3106-O RG3106-N RG3106-M RG3106-L RG3106-K RG3106-J RG3106-I RG3106-H RG3106-G RG3106-F RG3106-E RG3106-D RG3106-C RG3106-B RG3106-A G.20 RG3106-B Approach Slab Details Epoxy Coated Reinforcing Steel Bar List Reinforcing Steel Bar List Thrie Beam Transition Bridge Railing Girder Details Interior Girder Top Flange Exterior Girder Top Flange Girder Sections Interior Girder Exterior Girder Typical Section and Framing Plan Abutment Wingwall Abutment Endwall Abutment Layout Foundation Layout General Notes Plan and Elevation Furnish preformed expansion material meeting the requirments of AASHTO M 213. grade 4 or 5. Furnish flexible cellular joint filler meeting the requirments of ASTM D1056, Type 2, " unless otherwise noted.4 3Chamfer exposed edges of all concrete Furnish Class A(AE) concrete for all other concrete. Furnish Class D(AE) concrete for approach slabs, curbs, diaphragms, and endwalls. Furnish Class P (Prestressed) concrete for precast decked bulb tees. fs = 270,000 psi fy = 60,000 psi fy = 50,000 psi f'ci = 7,500 psi at time of release f'c = 10,000 psi at 28 days f'c = 5,000 psi at 28 days f'c = 4,500 psi at 28 days 12 - A p r - 2 0 1 7 10 :0 1 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY AR George Choubah March 2017 STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION CANYON CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) 18 7 0 % P L A N I N H A N D 0 4 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 12 - A p r - 2 0 1 7 10 :0 3 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY AR George Choubah March 2017 STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION CANYON CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) 18 A C T U A L F I L E : F L . D G N 12 - A p r - 2 0 1 7 10 :0 3 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY REVISIONS BSK 3 FOUNDATION LAYOUT Begin Bridge End Bridge 114'-0" CL CL Piles Abutment 2 &CL CL Piles Abutment 1 & N 2 ' - 1 0 " 2 ' - 1 0 " 4 S p a . @ 5 ' - 1 0 " = 2 3 ' - 4 " 2 9 ' - 0 " 3'-0" A A 2 ' - 1 0 " 2 ' - 1 0 " 4 S p a . @ 5 ' - 1 0 " = 2 3 ' - 4 " 2 9 ' - 0 " FACTOR RESISTANCE Abut. 1 Abut. 2 PILES LENGTH OF TOTAL ESTIMATED 0.65 LOCATION PILE DRIVING INFORMATION (kips/pile)* RESISTANCE BEARING NOMINAL COMPRESSIVE REQUIRED bearing resistance * Drive piles to the required compressive nominal ABUTMENT 2 FOUNDATION PLAN ABUTMENT 1 SECTION A-A SECTION B-B Min. Tip Elev. 358.70Min. Tip Elev. 324.70 ( T y p . ) 2 ' - 0 " m i n . 0.65 260 260 Notes: Provide 60° conical driving point (inside flange).3. Indicates Dynamic Load Test location.2. Indicates pile location.1. " = 1'4 1 B B Elev. 424.97 Elev. 423.54 StructureCL 102.27 ft 66.84 ft G.21 RG3106-C (Typ.) (See Note 3) filled with concrete 24" Ø x 0.75" steel pipe pile Closed-end NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY AR George Choubah March 2017 STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION CANYON CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) 18 70 % PL A N IN HA N D 04 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 12 - A p r - 2 0 1 7 10 :0 3 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY AR George Choubah March 2017 STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION CANYON CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) 18 A C T U A L F I L E : A B U T L A Y O U T . D G N 12 - A p r - 2 0 1 7 10 :0 3 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY REVISIONS BSK As Shown ABUTMENT LAYOUT 1'-0" (Typ.) 1 2 ' - 8 " 14'-6"14'-6" 5'-8"5'-8"3 Spa. @ 5'-10" = 17'-6" 2'-9"2'-9"Girder spacing Girder DCL Girder ECL Girder CCL Girder BCL Girder ACL 5'-8"5'-8"" = 17'-6"8 73 Spa. @ 5'-9 Step spacing Weephole spacing CL Bearings Abutment & CL 1 ' - 8 " 3 ' - 4 " 1 ' - 4 " Begin/End Bridge StructureCLdrain pipe 3" Ø Perforated Girder ECL 3'-4" PLAN ELEVATION (Abutment 1 shown, Abutment 2 similar) SECTION A-A Scale: 1" = 1' " = 1'2 1Scale: (Abutment 1 shown, Abutment 2 similar) " = 1'2 1Scale: Notes: ABUT. 1 ABUT. 2 BEARING SEAT ELEVATIONS A B C D E GIRDER 1 ' - 6 " 3 ' - 6 " M i n . 4 Spa. @ 5'-10" = 23'-4" 2 ' - 9 " 4 (See Note 2) Geocomposite sheet drain (Typ. between abutment and wingwall) 1" Expansion jt. fill A A "8 53'-8 "8 53'-8 See Note 3 See Note 3 Girder DCL Girder CCL Girder BCL Girder ACL 428.47 428.59 428.71 428.59 428.47 427.04 427.04 427.15 427.15 427.27 Abut. 1 Elev. 424.97 Abut. 2 Elev. 423.54 2 ' - 0 " M i n . l a p 6" = 3'-6" 7 Spa. @ #5A1 (2 each) piles) (Typ. between #7A2 (Typ.) #5A3 (Typ.) #7A2 #7A4 #5A1 #5A5 piles) (Between (At piles) #5A7 5 S p a . @ 5 " = 2 ' - 1 " # 5 A 8 #7A2 #5A3 piles) between (Typ. #7A4 #7A2 #5A5 piles) (Typ. at #5A6 (Typ.) into pile) embed 3'-0" (4'-0" x 10", = 1 '-8 "@ 10 "2 S p a .(T yp .)#5 A 7 (Typ.) #5A8 (Typ.) #5A6 #5A6 "2 11'-4" = 2 15 3 Spa. @ (Typ. at ends) #5A1 (2 each) (Typ.) weephole 3" Dia. WINGWALL" sheet for details. surface of cap at shear block locations. See "ABUTMENT Cast shear block after girders have been set. Roughen 3. weep holes at face of abutment. perforated abutment pipe and daylight through Cap ends of pipe. Tie perforated wingwall pipes to perforated drain pipe behind wingwalls and abutment. Install continuous geocomposite sheet drain and 3" dia.2. and elevations. See "ABUTMENT WINGWALL" sheet for wingwall details 1. 2'-0" (Typ.) ( T y p . ) 2 ' - 0 " 3 " C l r . G.22 RG2106-D (Typ.) filled with concrete 24" Ø x 0.75" steel pipe pile Closed-end NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY AR George Choubah March 2017 STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION CANYON CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) 18 7 0 % P L A N I N H A N D 0 4 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 : 11 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY AR George Choubah March 2017 STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION CANYON CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) 18 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 : 11 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY REVISIONS BSK As Shown 5 ABUTMENT ENDWALL A C T U A L F I L E : A B U T E N D W A L L . D G N StructureCL PLAN (Abutment 1 shown, Abutment 2 similar) " = 1'2 1Scale: VIEW A-A (Abutment 1 shown, Abutment 2 similar) " = 1'2 1Scale: 1'-2" 1"embedment into endwall Gdr. top flange bridge Begin/End 1'-0" 1 ' - 0 " 1 ' - 3 " 1 ' - 0 " sheet drain Geocomposite filler cellular joint 2" Flexible 2% 3" Ø WeepholeCL 1 ' - 6 " SECTION B-B " = 1'-0" 4 3Scale: A A CL Bearings Abutment & CL Girder ACL Girder B Girder CCL Girder DCL Girder ECL CL Shear block Shear block and wingwall) (Typ. between abutment 1" Expansion jt. fill #5EE6 (Typ.) StructureCL 9" = 3'-0" 4 Spa. @ (Typ.) #6EE9 #5EE1, #6EE7, 6"6"8" = 1'-4" 2 Spa. @ (Typ.) #6EE9 #5EE1, #6EE7, #5EE2 #5EE2 (11 Total) #5EE2 2 ' - 3 " M i n . l a p #5EE2 #5EE1 #5EE6 n.f. #5EE5, or #5EE4, #5EE3, Key: n.f. = near face f.f. = far face e.f. = each face (Typ. at girders) #6EE8 & #6EE9 #6EE9 #6EE8 #6EE7 or #6EE8 1 ' - 0 " 1 ' - 0 "2 '-2 "1'-4" " 8 3 1 ' - 6 "8 31'-6 1 ' - 0 " 1 ' - 0 " #6EE7 2 '-2 "" 8 3 1 ' - 6 "8 31'-6 2'-0" n.f. f.f. " 1 6 1 5 @ 1 0 3 S p a . 7 " 1 " d i a . h o l e s # 5 E E 5 , & # 5 E E 3 , # 5 E E 4 # 5 E E 3 #5EE3 webs) exterior girder (Typ. through # 5 E E 4 g i r d e r s ) b e t w e e n ( T y p . # 5 E E 5 #5EE5 webs) interior girder (Typ. through Abut. 1 Elev. 427.50 Abut. 2 Elev. 426.01 G.23 RG3106-E NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY AR George Choubah March 2017 STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION CANYON CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) 18 70 % PL A N IN HA N D 04 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 : 12 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY AR George Choubah March 2017 STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION CANYON CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) 18 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 : 12 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY REVISIONS BSK As Shown ABUTMENT WINGWALL A C T U A L F I L E : A B U T W I N G W A L L . D G N 6 ELASTOMERIC STOP PAD DETAIL No Scale (8 req'd) 60 Durometer hardness " Elastomeric stop pad2 1 Notes: pads with approved cementitions adhesive prior to installation. Place elastomeric pads after constructing shear blocks. Coat2. Cast concrete for shear blocks after placement of girders.1. 3'-0" ELEVATIONS ELEV. 433.19 433.35 424.97 431.80 431.64 423.54 3 " V a r i e s 6 S p a . @ 9 " = 4 ' - 6 " # 5 W 1 e . f . 4 S p a . @ 9 " = 3 ' - 0 " # 5 W 2 e . f . 4 Spa. @ 1'-0" = 4'-0" #5W3 e.f. 1'-0"7 Spa. @ 1'-0" = 7'-0" #5W4 e.f. 4"4" #5W1 #5W2 3 ' - 0 " 4'-8" AA B C C D D B #5W3 #5W4 Elev. A Elev. C Elev. B WING. 1 & 2 WING. 3 & 4 A B C ELEVATION SECTION B-B SECTION A-A SECTION C-C SECTION D-D Key: n.f. = near face f.f. = far face e.f. = each face 1'-0"1'-0"10" = 3'-4" 4 Spa. @ = 3 ' - 0 " @ 1 ' - 0 " 3 S p a . "8 53'-8 (Typ.) #5A9 ( T y p . ) # 5 A 1 0 (Typ.) #5A10 Level #5A10 #5A9 (Typ.) 1 ' - 6 " ( m i n . ) Girder CCL " = 1'-0"8 3Scale: SHEAR BLOCK ELEVATION SHEAR BLOCK PLAN " = 1'-0"8 3Scale: Girder CCL " = 1'-0"4 3Scale: " = 1'-0"4 3Scale: " = 1'-0"4 3Scale: " = 1'-0"4 3Scale: " = 1'-0"4 3Scale: (Typ.) stop pad, see detail " elastomeric2 1" Gap & 8 1 Endwall " 8 7 7 7 " G.24 RG3106-F NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY AR George Choubah March 2017 STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION CANYON CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) 18 7 0 % P L A N I N H A N D 0 4 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 : 12 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY AR George Choubah March 2017 STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION CANYON CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) 18 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 : 12 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY REVISIONS BSK As Shown TYPICAL SECTION AND FRAMING PLAN 120'-0" 30'-0"30'-0"30'-0"30'-0"Diaphragm spacing Girder ACL CL CL CL CL Girder B Girder C Girder D Girder E CL (Typ.) Diaphragm Begin Bridge End Bridge CL Structure 1'-9" (Typ.) 1'-9" (Typ.) (Typ.) 6" Dia. blockout (See Note) Welded connection (Typ.) 29'-0" 1'-6"11'-0"11'-0"1'-6"2'-0" Shoulder Lane 2'-0" Lane Shoulder "4 12'-10 "4 12'-10"2 123'-3" = 8 74 Spa. @ 5'-9 "8 75 Eq. spa. = 4'-96"6" (Typ.) #6D1 (Typ.) #6D3 Dowels 2%2% membrane pavement over waterproof 2" Hot asphalt concrete Precast concrete deck girders CL Structure TYPICAL SECTION FRAMING PLAN A C T U A L F I L E : T Y P X S . D G N DIAPHRAGM ANCHOR BOLT " Thread2 11 1'-6" No Scale A-307 bolt 1" Dia. ASTM 8" 4"4" of non-shrink grout and topped with 1" layer with concrete diaphragms 6" Dia. Blockout poured "2 11 Clr. #5D2 1 0 " " 1 6 5 3 S p a . @ 1 0 CL CL CL CL Diaphragm Scale: 1" = 1' GIRDER PARTIAL ELEVATIONSECTION A-A Scale: 1" = 1' " = 1'16 3Scale: " = 1'2 1Scale: Note: spacing. FLANGE" sheets for welded connection TOP FLANGE" and "INTERIOR GIRDER TOP connection details. See "EXTERIOR GIRDER See "GIRDER DETAILS" sheet for welded A A (See detail) 1" Dia. anchor bolt (Typ.) #5D2 (Typ.) 2'-9" Min. lap (Typ.) G.25 RG3106-G7 (Typ.) #6D1 #6D3 dowels anchor bolts and @ diaphragms for 1" Hole & inserts NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY AR George Choubah March 2017 STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION CANYON CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) 18 70 % PL A N IN HA N D 04 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 : 12 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY AR George Choubah March 2017 STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION CANYON CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) 18 A C T U A L F I L E : E X T G I R D E R . D G N 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 : 12 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY REVISIONS BSK As Shown EXTERIOR GIRDER 1 "(Typ.) 90° full width Sawtooth keys are SAWTOOTH KEY DETAIL No Scale 1 "3 ' - 6 " 3 ' - 6 " " 1 6 5 3 S p a . @ 1 0 " 1 6 1 5 = 2 ' - 6 1 " D i a . H o l e s "4 15'-8 "4 12 3" 5 Spa. @ 3" = 1'-3"8 Spa. @ 6" = 4'-0" #4GE10, #4GE13, #4GE14 #4GE14 #4GE13 #4GE10 4 " " 2 1 9 4 S p a . @ 6 " = 2 ' - 0 " # 4 G E 1 1 #4GE11 7'-0" #5GE1 or #5GE3 #5GE4 or #5GE5 (Typ.) #3GE12 hook (Typ.) provide 90° 10" #5GE3 bars & Extend #5GE1 & 3" 2 ' - 0 " Extend strands GirderCL (Typ.) #4GE10 #4GE11 (Typ.) #3GE12 CC GIRDER END ELEVATION SECTION C-C Scale: 1' = 1' Scale: 1' = 1' 59'-5" "4 15'-8 1'-0""4 3852 Spa. @ 1'-0" = 52'-0" #4GE10, #4GE13, #4GE14 span Symm. about "4 33 2'-5" 29'-5"30'-0"Diaphragm spacing 4 ' - 2 " 3 ' - 6 " 2 ' - 8 " CL Diaphragm CL CL Bearing 2'-8" 6" Elevation See Girder End (See Note 1) CL Lifting eye strands Extend (10) 0.60" Dia. Strands (8) 0.60" Dia. Strands (2) 0.60" Ø Strands (2) 0.60" Dia. Strands (Typ.) (See Note 2) & #4GE14 #4GE10, #4GE13 "8 512'-4 Deflect (4) 0.60" dia. strands HALF GIRDER ELEVATION " = 1'8 3Scale: (20 straight, 4 draped) 0.60" Dia. Strands both ends of girder and bend as shown at Extend circled strands 2" = 1'-6" 9 Spa. @ "2 13 "2 13 2 " 2 " 2" = 1'-6" 9 Spa. @ "2 13 "2 13 2 " 2 " 2 " 1"1" CL Girder CL Girder Notes: sheet for diaphragm layout and details. See "TYPICAL SECTION AND FRAMING PLAN"2. Blockout full girder flange width at both ends.1. Draped strands (4) 0.60" Dia. SECTION B-B Scale: 1' = 1' VIEW A-A Scale: 1' = 1' A A B B keys Sawtooth (See detail) Length of girder = 118'-10" RG3106-H G.26 7 " 3 " 8 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY AR George Choubah March 2017 STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION CANYON CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) 18 7 0 % P L A N I N H A N D 0 4 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 : 12 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY AR George Choubah March 2017 STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION CANYON CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) 18 A C T U A L F I L E : I N T G I R D E R . D G N 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 : 12 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY REVISIONS BSK As Shown INTERIOR GIRDER 1 "(Typ.) 90° full width Sawtooth keys are SAWTOOTH KEY DETAIL No Scale 1 "3 ' - 6 " 3 ' - 6 " " 1 6 5 3 S p a . @ 1 0 " 1 6 1 5 = 2 ' - 6 1 " D i a . H o l e s "4 15'-8 "4 12 3" 5 Spa. @ 3" = 1'-3"8 Spa. @ 6" = 4'-0" #4GE10, #4GE13, #4GE14 #4GE14 #4GE13 #4GE10 4 " " 2 1 9 4 S p a . @ 6 " = 2 ' - 0 " # 4 G E 1 1 #4GE11 7'-0" #5GE1 or #5GE3 #5GE4 or #5GE5 (Typ.) #3GE12 hook (Typ.) provide 90° 10" #5GE3 bars & Extend #5GE1 & 3" 2 ' - 0 " Extend strands GirderCL (Typ.) #4GE10 #4GE11 (Typ.) #3GE12 CC GIRDER END ELEVATION SECTION C-C Scale: 1' = 1' Scale: 1' = 1' 59'-5" "4 15'-8 1'-0""4 3852 Spa. @ 1'-0" = 52'-0" #4GE10, #4GE13, #4GE14 span Symm. about "4 33 2'-5" 29'-5"30'-0"Diaphragm spacing 4 ' - 2 " 3 ' - 6 " 2 ' - 8 " CL Diaphragm CL CL Bearing 2'-8" 6" Elevation See Girder End (See Note 1) CL Lifting eye strands Extend (10) 0.60" Dia. Strands (8) 0.60" Dia. Strands (2) 0.60" Ø Strands (2) 0.60" Dia. Strands (Typ.) (See Note 2) & #4GE14 #4GE10, #4GE13 "8 512'-4 Deflect (4) 0.60" dia. strands HALF GIRDER ELEVATION " = 1'8 3Scale: (20 straight, 4 draped) 0.60" Dia. Strands both ends of girder and bend as shown at Extend circled strands 2" = 1'-6" 9 Spa. @ "2 13 "2 13 2 " 2 " 2" = 1'-6" 9 Spa. @ "2 13 "2 13 2 " 2 " 2 " 1"1" CL Girder CL Girder Notes: sheet for diaphragm layout and details. See "TYPICAL SECTION AND FRAMING PLAN"2. Blockout full girder flange width at both ends.1. Draped strands (4) 0.60" Dia. SECTION B-B Scale: 1' = 1' VIEW A-A Scale: 1' = 1' A A B B keys Sawtooth (See detail) Length of girder = 118'-10" RG3106-I 9 G.27 7 " 3 " NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY AR George Choubah March 2017 STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION CANYON CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) 18 70 % PL A N IN HA N D 04 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 : 12 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY AR George Choubah March 2017 STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION CANYON CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) 18 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 : 12 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY REVISIONS BSK 1" = 1' GIRDER SECTIONS A C T U A L F I L E : G I R D E R S E C T . D G N Notes: ESTIMATED QUANTITIES Concrete reinforcing steel Expoxy coated 0.6" Ø Strands One beam only Cu. Yd. Lbs. Ln. Ft. Int. Girder Ext. Girder 5315 5770 2870 2870 29.1 29.1 GIRDER TOP FLANGE" sheets for top flange and curb bars. See "EXTERIOR GIRDER TOP FLANGE" and "INTERIOR 5. Thicken flange at both ends to compensate for final camber.4. to placing overlay. flange and fill with an approved non-shrink grout prior After erection, cutoff lifting loops 1 inch below top of3. ".4 1Estimated camber after placing overlay and railing = 23. ".4 3Estimated camber at release of strands = 12. shortening due to prestressing. " longer than shown to allow for4 1Cast girders 1. A B B C MARK DIMENSION #5GE1 REINFORCING STEEL SCHEDULE A E G G D HF 22'-4" 2 TYPE K #5GE2 #5GE3 #5GE4 #5GE5 #5GE6 #5GE7 #5GE8 #4GE9 #4GE10 #3GE12 #4GE14 STR B C C D O K H O F H D C E B C B D E B G A B A G Type 51 Type T9 Type 81 Type 54 60'-0" Type 2 10"43'-0" Type 1 "2 15'-9 6 " 3 " 2 " " 8 3 7 2 ' - 9 " 6 " 3 " "2 11'-7 2" 3 ' - 1 1 " (Typ.) #5GE2 #5GE6 CLGirder #5GE8 #4GE10 2'-1" 6""2 19 #4GE13 #5GE2 "8 15'-9 CLGirder 3 " 2 " " 8 3 7 2 ' - 9 " 6 " 3 " "2 11'-7 2" #5GE8 6 " 3 ' - 1 1 " 6""2 19 #4GE13 #5GE2 2'-1" #4GE10 (Typ.) #5GE2 #5GE7 2 " C l r . (Typ.) #5GE3 #5GE1 or #5GE6 1 " C l r .(Typ.) #5GE5 #5GE4 or #5GE8 (Typ.) #4GE11 (Typ.) #3GE12 1" Clr. (Typ.) #4GE11 #4GE11 #5GE5 #5GE4 or #5GE5 #5GE4 or 1 " C l r . ( T y p . ) (Typ.) #3GE12 #4GE11 (Typ.) #4GE11 1" Clr. (Typ.) #4GE11 #5GE5 #5GE4 or 1 " C l r . ( T y p . ) 2 " C l r . #5GE7 #5GE8 1 " C l r . (Typ.) #5GE3 #5GE1 or (Typ.) #5GE5 #5GE4 or CL Girder 2 " C l r . ( T y p . ) #4GE9 2.0% 2.0%2.0% 2.0% INTERIOR GIRDER MIDSPAN EXTERIOR GIRDER MIDSPAN INTERIOR GIRDER END EXTERIOR GIRDER END #4GE14 #4GE14 #4GE10 #4GE14 #4GE13 #4GE9 #5GE5 #5GE4 or #4GE14 #4GE13 #4GE10 2 10" STR 5'-8" STR 51 "8 14'-2"2 11'-1 4""2 14 STR 43'-0" 22'-4" 6'-10"STR#4GE11 T9 4"4"4" 54 "2 111"2 111 4"4""4 33 "4 33#4GE13 81 5'-8""2 12'-0"4 33"2 19 "2 19"4 32'-0 1 5'-8"7" 2 4"4"4" G.28 RG3106-J10 curb location (Typ.) Roughen surface under CL Girder Type S5 A G B D C S5 8"1'-0"1'-0"1'-0""4 11'-2 8" (Girder "E" shown, Girder "A" similar)(Girder "D" shown, Girders "B" and "C" similar) (Girder "D" shown, Girders "B" and "C" similar)(Girder "E" shown, Girder "A" similar) G i r d e r s " B " a n d " D " 6 " G i r d e r " C " 2.0%2.0%Girder "C" Girder "D" and "B" NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY AR George Choubah March 2017 STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION CANYON CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) 18 7 0 % P L A N I N H A N D 0 4 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 : 13 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY AR George Choubah March 2017 STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION CANYON CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) 18 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 : 13 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY REVISIONS BSK As Shown EXTERIOR GIRDER TOP FLANGE A C T U A L F I L E : E X T T O P F L A N G E . D G N 12 Spa. @ 3" = 3'-0" 6 Spa. @ 6" = 3'-0" (#5GE7, top) (#5GE8, bot.) 8"3" 110 Spa. @ 1'-0" = 110'-0" (#5GE8, top flange, bot. bars) 220 Spa. @ 6" = 110'-0" (#5GE7, top flange, top bars) 118'-10" 116 Spa. @ 1'-0" = 116'-0" 3"8" 12 Spa. @ 3" = 3'-0" (#5GE7, top) 6 Spa. @ 6" = 3'-0" (#5GE8, bot.) 220 Spa. @ 6" = 110'-0" (#5GE7, top flange, top bars) 110 Spa. @ 1'-0" = 110'-0" (#5GE8, top flange, bot. bars) 118'-10" 23 Spa. @ 5'-0" = 115'-0" #5GE1 (Alternate with #5GE3) (Alternate with #5GE1) #5GE3 # 5 G E 2 # 5 G E 2 #5GE1 (Alternate with #5GE3) (Alternate with #5GE1) #5GE3 3'-0" Min. lap (Typ.) M a t c h l i n e M a t c h l i n e GirderCL spacing connection Welded EXTERIOR GIRDER PLAN flange-top bars similar. bars shown. Top flange-bottom bars and top splices in top and bottom flanges. Top flange-top Alternate all longitudinal bars to avoid adjacent Note: BOTTOM FLANGE PLAN "4 12 3" = 1'-3" 5 Spa. @ (Typ.) " Chamfer4 3 #4GE14 #4GE13 & Scale: 1" = 1' " = 1'8 3Scale: 1'-5" 23 Spa. @ 5'-0" = 115'-0" spacing connection Welded 1'-5" 3"8" 8"3"116 Spa. @ 1'-0" = 116'-0" #4GE9 (Curb tie spacing) #4GE9 (Curb tie spacing) (Girder E shown, Girder A similar) EXTERIOR GIRDER PLAN " = 1'8 3Scale: (Girder E shown, Girder A similar) G.29 RG3106-K11 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY AR George Choubah March 2017 STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION CANYON CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) 18 70 % PL A N IN HA N D 04 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 : 2 0 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY AR George Choubah March 2017 STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION CANYON CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) 18 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 : 2 0 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY REVISIONS BSK As Shown INTERIOR GIRDER TOP FLANGE A C T U A L F I L E : I N T T O P F L A N G E . D G N 12 Spa. @ 3" = 3'-0" 6 Spa. @ 6" = 3'-0" (#5GE6, top) (#5GE8, bot.) 8"3" 110 Spa. @ 1'-0" = 110'-0" (#5GE8, top flange, bot. bars) 220 Spa. @ 6" = 110'-0" (#5GE6, top flange, top bars) 118'-10" 1'-5"23 Spa. @ 5'-0" = 115'-0" 3"8" 12 Spa. @ 3" = 3'-0" (#5GE6, top) 6 Spa. @ 6" = 3'-0" (#5GE8, bot.) 220 Spa. @ 6" = 110'-0" (#5GE6, top flange, top bars) 110 Spa. @ 1'-0" = 110'-0" (#5GE8, top flange, bot. bars) 118'-10" 1'-5"23 Spa. @ 5'-0" = 115'-0" #5GE1 (Alternate with #5GE3) (Alternate with #5GE1) #5GE3 # 5 G E 2 # 5 G E 2 #5GE1 (Alternate with #5GE3) (Alternate with #5GE1) #5GE3 3'-0" Min. lap (Typ.) M a t c h l i n e M a t c h l i n e GirderCL spacing connection Welded spacing connection Welded INTERIOR GIRDER PLAN INTERIOR GIRDER PLAN flange-top bars similar. bars shown. Top flange-bottom bars and top splices in top and bottom flanges. Top flange-top Alternate all longitudinal bars to avoid adjacent Note: BOTTOM FLANGE PLAN "4 12 3" = 1'-3" 5 Spa. @ (Typ.) " Chamfer4 3 #4GE14 #4GE13 & Scale: 1" = 1' " = 1'8 3Scale: " = 1'8 3Scale: G.30 RG3106-L12 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY AR George Choubah March 2017 STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION CANYON CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) 18 7 0 % P L A N I N H A N D 0 4 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 : 13 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY AR George Choubah March 2017 STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION CANYON CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) 18 A C T U A L F I L E : G I R D E R D E T . D G N 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 : 13 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY REVISIONS BSK No Scale GIRDER DETAILS "2 1 " 2 1 1 " 2 1 1 " 2 1 1 " Chamfer4 3 1" or until grout reaches design strength. After pouring, water cure grout for 72 hours wetted for 24 hours prior to placing grout. strength non-shrink grout. Keep keyways Fill longitudinal flange keys with high "2 11 (Typ.) Girder flange " Ø Backer rod8 5 " Gap2 1 FLANGE KEY DETAIL FLANGE KEY BETWEEN CONNECTIONS non-shrink grout Fill with high strength5" "4 12 " x 4" P4 3" x 24 3 L 2 " 1 " (Typ.) x 8" Welded studs " Ø 2 1(2) (Typ.) x 6"8 3L2x2x " Gap2 1 SECTION A-A (Typ.) Welded stud " Ø x 8"2 1 " x 6"8 3L2x2x " x 4" P4 3" x 24 3 L (Typ.) "4 1 1 " 4 " 6 " 1 " A A 3 0 ° ( T y p . ) WELDED CONNECTION DETAIL (Typ.) anchors "Ø x 4" Welded 2 1 2'-1" 1 ' - 1 " " 2 1 4 2 " " 2 1 4 2 " BEARING PLATE PLAN "2 14 8"8""2 14 chamfer Match girder 1 " BEARING PLATE ELEVATION (10 Req'd) BearingCL 1 ' - 0 " 2'-0" GirderCL BEARING PAD PLAN " Clr. all4 1 around BEARING PAD ELEVATION (10 Req'd) Note: Grade 3 or higher. bearing pads. Provide 60 Durometer hardness, elastomer Conform to AASHTO M 251 for steel reinforced elastomeric " 8 7 1 (3 total per pad) " Steel shim moulded securely to pad8 1 6 " 6 " "2 1& 2 inner layers @ "4 12 Layers (top & bottom) @ G.31 RG3106-M13 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY AR George Choubah March 2017 STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION CANYON CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) 18 70 % PL A N IN HA N D 04 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 : 13 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY AR George Choubah March 2017 STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION CANYON CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) 18 NO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY REVISIONS BRIDGE RAILING NOTES: C PostL B B 1 ' - 2 " " 2 1 2 " 2 1 2 2" Leveling nuts C Post 2"2" L " rails16 5TS 5"x5"x " rails16 5TS 5"x5"x L L L L Scale: 1" = 1'-0' 4 " BRIDGE RAILING 2 11 W8x24 Post 1 ' - 2 " 9" Scale: 1" = 1'-0' TYPICAL SECTION VIEW A-A A A Post " 2 1 1 5 " 5 " " 2 1 1 "2 11"2 14"2 14"2 11 1'-0" 1 ' - 1 " P 1'-0" x 1'-1" x 1"L LC Post 5" "4 31 " 4 1 1 Roadway Side " 4 1 1 " 2 1 2 member Rail tube 5 " 1"* "2 15 4"assure proper fit. to galvanizing to Grind all edges prior "4 14 " 4 1 4 L 9 " RAIL SPLICE END SECTION Scale: 1" = 1'-0'Scale: 1" = 1'-0' " rails16 5TS 5"x5"x VIEW B-B RAIL CAP DETAILS RAIL SPLICE DETAILSBASE PLATE DETAILS "8 12 " PL WASHER "C"4 1 Post W8x24 Post W8x24 9 " * 1" Gap unless noted otherwise on detail plans. As Shown 9 " 16 13 1 " 1 " 2 " "2 11 "16 5 L BASE WELD STUD DETAIL Not to scale Not to scale Not to scale Not to scale Not to scale "2 16 "2 16 " 2 1 4 " 2 1 4 1 ' - 0 " " 2 1 1 (Typ.) ( T y p . ) 5""2 115" 5" 5 " " 2 1 2 " 2 1 2 "16 5TS 5"X5"X locking nuts or nuts and jam nuts. Install angle with washers and self Not to scale ANCHOR PLATE DETAIL 2'-6" max. #4GE9 (Typ.) 9 " Tack weld plate to bolt head. See "ANCHOR PLATE DETAIL", DETAIL" See "RAIL SPLICE DETAILS" See "RAIL CAP " rails16 5TS 5"x5"x "8 1" x 2" x 24 1L P " to provide zinc drains.4 3corners ", cope4 3" x 44 3" x 416 3L P "x1'x1'-1"8 3L P (Typ.) 8 7 8 14 - 1 1'-1" nut 1-lockwasher with 1-plate washer-c stud 2" long with " Galvanized4 3 slotted holes in Post (Typ.). " horizontally2 1& C 1" x 1 weld base studs on rails 4 3C and 2-flat washer (Typ.). fully threaded with 2 nuts 8 72 - DETAIL" See "BASE WELD STUD weld base studs on rails 4 3C (Typ.) Holes Post (Typ.). horizontally slotted holes in " 2 1studs on rails & C 1" x 1 4 3C connections. studs on each rail cap at guardrail 4 32- "4 11 "8 7 1'-5"1" 2 " " 2 1 2 "2 14 "2 14 Typ. " P8 3from Make splice tube "16 3 "16 3 TRANSITION" Dwg. CONNECTION ANGLE" ON "THRIE BEAM Leg of connection angle. See "DETAIL A - "8 3 Typ. Tube sliding fit Bent P SpliceL structure. railing. The completed installation shall not reflect any unevenness in the girder profile. Contractor shall furnish steel shim plates as required to align All rail Posts shall be set vertically and the railing erected parallel to the ERECTION: No field cutting or welding is permitted unless approved by the CO. GROUT: Use grout that has a minimum 24 hours f'c of 3,000 psi. on the plans. With rails continuous over two or more posts. RAIL SPLICE ASSEMBLIES: Rail splice assemblies must be provided as shown shall be fabricated before being galvanized. stud bolts shall conform to ANSI/AASHTO/AWS. All steel AASHTO/AWS, and shall be by a certified welder. Welding for welded to the CO for approval prior to fabrication. Welding shall conform to the ANSI/ FABRICATION: Structural steel shall be shop fabricated. Submit shop drawings hot-dip galvanized after fabrication in accordance with AASHTO M 111 or M 232. to ASTM A500 or A501, Grade B. All components of the bridge rail shall be shall conform to ASTM A36. Structural tubing for rails shall conform MATERIALS: Steel Posts, base plates, plate washers, and splice sleeves GENERAL: The Alaska Multi-State Rail meets the TL-4 performance criteria. A C T U A L F I L E : R 1 4 _ W A _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) _ B r i d g e _ R a i l i n g . D G N G.32 RG3106-N14 1-lockwasher and 1-nut. with 1-plate washer "C", weld base stud x 2" long 4 3Threaded Notes: from approach slab curb into bridge curb. reinforcement. Place curb reinforcement continuously adjacent splices similar to longitudinal deck 3. Alternate longitudinal curb reinforcement to avoid TOP FLANGE" sheets for curb reinforcement. 2. See "GIRDER SECTIONS" and "EXTERIOR GIRDER " above finish grade.2 11. Set top of Post 2'-8 hole (Typ.). See detail. to completely cover slotted " PL washer "C", positioned4 1 washer (Typ.). " PL 4 1w/ lock washer and 4 3Hex nut for (Typ.) (See Note 3) #4CE2 (19'-8" long) spliced 2'-0" with 2 - #4CE1 (60'-0" long) " Clr.2 11 AR STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. REGION PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) PROJECT TEAM LEADERSCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BY AR George Choubah BRIDGE DRAWING of DATE March 2017 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK CANYON CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. 18 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK CANYON CREEK BRIDGE 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 : 13 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY AR George Choubah March 2017 STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION CANYON CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) 18 7 0 % P L A N I N H A N D 0 4 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 : 5 2 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY AR George Choubah March 2017 STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION CANYON CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) 18 NO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY REVISIONS THRIE BEAM TRANSITION No scale connector Thrie beam terminal connector Thrie beam terminal back of plate Bolt flush with "2 1 "8 1 DETAIL E SECTION A-A " 8 5 7 " 4 1 1 ' - 9 " 2 1 2 7 " " 8 1 4 " 4 1 2 W8x15 DETAIL F - STEEL BLOCKOUT " 2 1 1 " 2 1 6 " 8 5 7 " 8 1 7 " 4 1 1 ' - 9 "4 31 3" "4 1L 5"x3"x Rail cap 5" "2 11 "4 31 " 4 1 1 " 2 1 2 " 2 1 1 1 " 2 1 2 5 " " 4 3 1 ' - 1 0 DETAIL A - CONNECTION ANGLE "2 11'-2 "2 11'-4"2 11 "2 12'-8 " 2 1 1 "2 19 8"3" vertical leg angle (Typ.) "431'-3 3:1 slope plate Transition "16 3 "8 3L 4"x4'x SECTION C-C "2 11 "2 11'-2 "2 11'-4" 2 1 1 4 " "2 12'-8 plate Transition " Plate8 3 "16 3 plate Guardrail connection VIEW D-D "2 1 "2 14 " 4 1 4 " 4 3 8 1 ' - 1 0 "9 " plate connection Guardrail DETAIL B - GUARDRAIL CONNECTION PLATE "8 31'-1 " 8 3 3 " 1 6 1 3 3 " 1 6 1 3 3 " 8 3 3 1 1 " 1 1 " CC D D "2 12 4"4""8 72 G C plate connection Guardrail Transition section Thrie beam to W-beam Two Class A elements, See Note 3 3"L End of rail cap connector Thrie beam terminal Transition plateA A blockout (Typ.) 6"x8"x14" wood (Typ.) W6x9 steel post "4 117'-2 3'-9" max.C End rail postL PLAN ELEVATION 5. This design approved for NCHRP 350, TL-4. Adjust guardrail bolts for sliding fit. " horizontal slot in approach guardrail.2 14. Provide 4 3. Lap approach guardrail to prevent snags from oncoming traffic. 2. Conform to G-00, G-04S, G-25S for all guardrail details not shown. steel to conform to ASTM A709 Grade 36. AASHTO M 180. All H.S. Bolts conform to ASTM A325. All other 1. All guardrail and guardrail connection hardware to conform to Notes: " 8 3 2 " 8 5 7 " 8 5 7 1 ' - 8 " 8"2"3""4 14 "4 14 "2 18 "4 31'-10"4 17 THRIE BEAM TERMINAL CONNECTOR ( T y p . ) 2'-6" 3" " 8 3 3 " 1 6 3 6 " 8 5 7 " 1 6 3 6 slot (optional) " post bolt2 1"x 24 3 " slots8 1" x 132 29See Note 4 8 5 connection plate " Guardrail 2 1 "4 3"x9"x1'-32 1 Transition plate H.S. bolts and nuts 8 7 C "2 1" = 9'-42 13 Spa. @ 3'-1 "4 3" = 7'-94 35 Spa. @ 1'-6 holes (Typ.) " Slotted 4 1"x18 7 jam nut locking nut or nut and with washers and self 8 7 CL 13 16 (4 total each flange) STEEL BLOCKOUT" (Typ.) See "DETAIL F - W8x15 steel blockout "2 11'-2 Nested (2) Thrie beam rail CONNECTION ANGLE" See "DETAIL A - Connection Angle, CONNECTION PLATE" See "DETAIL B - GUARDRAIL Guardrail connection plate, See "DETAIL E" 8 7for Drill and tap 4 holes "16 3 "16 3 (Typ.) Slotted holes "2 1"x14 3 End of rail cap A C T U A L F I L E : R 1 5 _ W A _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) _ T h r i e _ B e a m _ R a i l . D G N AR G.33 RG3106-O15 STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. REGION PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) PROJECT TEAM LEADERSCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BY AR George Choubah BRIDGE DRAWING of DATE March 2017 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK CANYON CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. 18 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK CANYON CREEK BRIDGE 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 : 5 2 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY AR George Choubah March 2017 STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION CANYON CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) 18 70 % PL A N IN HA N D 04 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 : 5 2 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY AR George Choubah March 2017 STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION CANYON CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) 18 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 : 5 2 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY REVISIONS No Scale 16 RG3106-P REINFORCING STEEL BAR LIST TO BE PROVIDED G.34 A C T U A L F I L E : R E B A R . D G N NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY AR George Choubah March 2017 STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION CANYON CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) 18 7 0 % P L A N I N H A N D 0 4 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 : 5 2 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY AR George Choubah March 2017 STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION CANYON CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) 18 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 : 5 2 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY REVISIONS No Scale 17 RG3106-Q REINFORCING STEEL BAR LIST TO BE PROVIDED G.35 A C T U A L F I L E : R E B A R E P O X Y . D G N EPOXY COATED NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY AR George Choubah March 2017 STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION CANYON CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) 18 70 % PL A N IN HA N D 04 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 : 5 2 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY AR George Choubah March 2017 STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION CANYON CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) 18 17 - M a r - 2 0 1 7 10 : 5 2 A M M :\ P R O J E C T S \ _ A C C E S S \ W A \ W A _ J E F F _ 9 1 4 2 0 ( 1 ) \ B r i d g e \ M i c r o s t a t i o n \ B r i d g e D e s i g n F i l e s \ 0 _ 0 P R O J E C T S .d g n NO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY REVISIONS BSK As Shown APPROACH SLAB Notes: 8'-0" (Cu. Yd.) Concrete (Lbs.) Steel Reinf. Slab Length ONE APPROACH SLAB ESTIMATED QUANTITIES FOR Width Joint * Does not include dowels '' 2 11 Slab Width 2080 8'-0" #5APE3 (Top & bottom) 2 9 ' - 0 " 3 " 6 " 2 8 S p a . @ 1 ' - 0 " = 2 8 ' - 0 " 5 7 S p a . @ 6 " = 2 8 ' - 6 " # 5 A P E 2 ( B o t t o m ) # 5 A P E 1 ( T o p ) #5APE4 (Typ.) #5APE5 8'-0" 7 Spa. @ 1'-0" = 7'-0" #5APE3 (Top & bottom) 6"3" " Jt.2 11 1'-0" " 2 1 2 ' - 3 1 ' - 0 " #5APE1 #5APE2 3'-0" #5APE6 #5APE5 Match with #5APE5 1'-0" spaced @ (10 Total) #5APE4 3 " C l r . 3 " C l r . " 2 1 2 C l r . sheeting Polyethylene 10 mil 95% compacted grading D, 6" Aggregate base See Detail A See Detail B "2 1 " 4 3 1 " 8 3 sealer silicon joint Low modulus Backer rod " Dia.4 3 Sleeper slab Approach slab joint material Preformed expansion "4 1 Bridge Begin/End to AASHTO M282 sealant conforming elastomeric joint 2" Deep hot poured joint material Preformed expansion Approach slab Endwall 10"10" See Detail A CL Structure Begin/End Bridge See Detail C surface level Roughened Approach slab grading D 6" Aggregate base Wingwall material expansion joint Preformed Curb Wingwall "2 1 material expansion joint Preformed B B B B A A PLAN DETAIL A DETAIL B DETAIL C SECTION A-A SECTION B-B ASPHALT PLUG JOINT felt roofing paper 30 lb. Double layer with predrilled holes at 12" maximum. butted segments. Centered over joint Galvanized plate, placed in 4'-0 long " x 8" AASHTO M270 Grade 364 1 Aggregate/Binder " = 1'8 3Scale: Scale: 1" = 1' Scale: 1" = 1' No Scale No Scale No Scale No Scale A C T U A L F I L E : A P P R O A C H S L A B . D G N surface 2" Hot asphalt wearing surface Hot asphalt wearing G.36 RG3106-R18 (Typ.) #4CE1 or #4CE2 #4GE9 (Match with #5APE3) #4GE9 (Typ.) details. See "ABUTMENT LAYOUT" sheet for dowel reinforcement2. reinforcement details. FLANGE," and "BRIDGE RAILING" sheets for curb See "GIRDER SECTIONS," "EXTERIOR GIRDER TOP1. 29'-0"14 treated both sides) " sheets,16 1gasket (2 - Compressed synthetic sheet approach slab total width of polystyrene, 6" x 6" Expanded NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT TEAM LEADER BRIDGE DRAWING of DATESCALECHECKED BYDRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVISIONSNO.DATE BY REVISIONS NO.DATE BY AR George Choubah March 2017 STATE PROJECT SHEET NO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK REGION CANYON CREEK BRIDGE DRAWING NO. PW WA WA JEFF 91420(1) 18 7 0 % P L A N I N H A N D 0 4 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 FOOTNOTE: MITIGATION QUANTITIES STABILIZATION AND HABITAT TABULATION OF BANK [1] [2] [3] H.1 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] U S _ S u r _ f t 2 D [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 9 0 7 4 6 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 - T a b u l a t i o n . d g n WA JEFF 91420(1) 1 0 : 1 6 A M 2 5 M a y 2 0 1 7 C . C o n r a d - - / - - - - 0 5 / 2 0 1 7 C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : (CHANNEL PLUG) pay item. Subsidiary to the 64703-8000 MITIGATION, BANK STABILIZATION Stabilization (Wood Buffer w/ Dolosse) unit. assumes 4 deflector log bundles with dolos per Mitigation Bank Provide additional deflector log bundles with dolos as needed. Quantity (WOOD BUFFER w/ DOLOS) pay item. Subsidiary to the 64703-8000 MITIGATION, BANK STABILIZATION CULVERT QUANTITIES TABULATION OF MP 4.0 AOP H.2 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] U S _ S u r _ f t 2 D [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 9 0 7 4 6 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 - T a b u l a t i o n 4 . d g n WA JEFF 91420(1) 8 : 3 0 A M 2 5 M a y 2 0 1 7 - - / - - - - - - / - - - - C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : 245 245 245 2 4 5 2 4 5 2 4 5 2 4 5 245 2 4 5 2 4 5 245 2 4 5 245 2 4 5 245 245 245 2 4 5 2 4 5 245 2 4 5 2 4 5 2 4 5 245 245 245 245 245 245 2 4 5 245 245 245 2 4 5 2 4 5 245 245 2 4 5 2 4 5 2 4 5 245 245 245 245 245 2 4 5 245 2 4 5 245 245 245 245 245 245 245 245 245 245 245 245 245 245 245 245 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250250 250 2 5 5 255 255 2 5 5 2 5 5 255 255 2 5 5 255 255 255 255 2 5 5 260 260 2 6 0 2 6 0 260 260 260 260 2 6 0 260 2 6 0 2 6 0 2 6 0 260 260 2 6 0 260 2602 6 0 260 260 260 2 6 0 260 2 6 0 2 6 0 2 6 0 2 6 0 260 260 260 2 6 0 260 260 260 2 6 0 260 260 260 2 6 0 2 6 0 2 6 0 260 260 2 6 0 2 6 0 260 2 6 0 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 265 265 265 2 6 5 2 6 5 265 265 265 265265 265 265 265 2 6 5 2 6 5 2 6 5 265 265 2 6 5 265265 270 270 2 7 0 2 7 0 2 7 0 2 7 0 2 7 0 270 270 270 275 280 CP 14102 CP 14101 1 0 1 5 N Existing road Existing pavement edge LC Stream bank toe Wood buffer Existing road surface Start wood buffer Sta. 11+58.52, RT 145.04' End wood buffer Sta. 15+39.03, RT 45.76' 50 year water surface profile Flow Existing river bed contour CUYD EXC. CUYD EMB. 17+0016+0014+0013+0011+0010+00 12+00 15+00 255 245 235 265 255 245 235 265 240 250 260 270 240 250 260 270 30'± 30'± Start wood buffer Sta. 9+63.45, RT 216.86 6 Wood Buffer w/ Dolosse units Temporary work pad H.3 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] U S _ S u r _ f t 2 D [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 9 0 7 4 6 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 e a . d g n WA JEFF 91420(1) 8 : 0 2 A M 3 0 M a y 2 0 1 7 - - / - - - - - - / - - - - C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : A A A A A A 2 4 0 240 245 2 4 5 2 4 5 2 4 5 2 4 5 245 245 245 2 4 5 245 2 4 5 245 250250 2 5 0 2 5 0 2 5 0 2 5 0 2 5 0 250 250 2 5 0 2 5 0 2 5 0 2 5 0 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 2 5 0 250 2 5 0 2 5 0 250 255 255 255 2 5 5 255 255 255 255 2 5 5 260260 2 6 0 260260260 260 260 260 265 265 2652 6 5 265265 265 265 265 270 270 270 270 270 2 7 0270270270 270 270 2 7 0 270 270270 2 7 0 2 7 0 270 275 275 275 275 275 2 7 5 275 275275275275 280280280 2 8 0 2 8 0 280280 280280280 285285 2 8 5 2852 8 5 2852 8 5 2 8 5 285 285 290 2 9 0 2 9 0 290 290 290 2 9 5 2 9 5 295 2 9 5 3 0 0 300 300 300 3 0 5 305 310310 CUYD EXC. CUYD EMB. 235 245 255 265 275 35+0030+00 31+00 32+00 33+00 34+00 36+00 37+00 38+00 235 245 255 265 275 Existing ground N Existing road Existing pavement edge LC 50 Year water surface profile Stream bank toe Wood buffer Existing river bed contour Flow 280 270 260 250 240 280 260 250 240 270 Start wood buffer RT 48.04' Sta. 30+93.41, RT 78.43' Sta. 38+21.38, CP 14105 UP T T T UP 14105 321 T T T 3 0 3 5 2 Wood Buffer w/ Dolosse units 3 Wood Buffer w/ Dolosse units 2 Wood Buffer w/ Dolosse units H.4 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] U S _ S u r _ f t 2 D [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 9 0 7 4 6 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 e b . d g n WA JEFF 91420(1) 8 : 0 4 A M 3 0 M a y 2 0 1 7 - - / - - - - - - / - - - - C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : Temporary work pad A A A A AA A CP 14106 T UP T T CP 14106 T T T 4 0 4 5 CUYD EXC. CUYD EMB. 235 245 255 265 275 43+0038+00 39+00 40+00 41+00 42+00 44+00 45+00 46+00 235 245 255 265 275 Existing ground N Existing road Existing pavement edge LC 50 Year water surface profile Stream bank toe Wood buffer Existing river bed contour Flow 280 270 260 250 240 280 260 250 240 270 Sta. 38+52.31, RT 75.17' Sta. 45+85.33, RT 65.54' 32' ± 245 245 2 4 5 245 245 2 4 5 2 4 5 245 2 4 5 2 4 5 2 4 5 2 4 5 245 2 5 0 2 5 0 2 5 0 2 5 0 2 5 0 2 5 0 250 250 250250 250 250 250 2 5 0 250 2 5 0 2 5 0 250250 2 5 0 2 5 0 255 255 255 255 255 255 255 255 2 5 5 2 5 5 2 5 5 2 6 0 260 260 260 260260 260 260 2 6 5 2 6 5 265 265265265 265 265 265 2 6 5 265 2 7 0 270 270270 270 270270 270 270 270 2 7 0 270 275 275 275 275 275 2 7 5 2 7 5 275 275 2 8 0 280 280 2 8 0 280 280 280 280 280 285 285 2 8 52852 8 5 2 8 5 285 285 285 285 290 2 9 0 290 290 2 9 0 2 9 0 290 290 2 9 0 2 9 0 295 2 9 5 295 295 2 95 295 2 9 5 295 2 9 5 2 9 5 295 3 0 0 300 300 3 0 0 300 300 300 3 0 0 300 300 305 305 3 0 5 3 0 5 305 3 0 5 3 0 5 305 305 3 0 5 305305 310 3 1 0 310 3 1 0 3 1 0 310 3 10 310 315 315 3 1 5 315 315 320 3 2 0 320 325 3 2 5 330 3 3 0 330 335 3 3 5 335 340 3 4 0 3 4 0 3 45 3 4 5 345 3 5 0 3 5 0 3 5 5 3 5 5 3 6 5 3 6 5 370 3 7 0 380 3 Wood Buffer w/ Dolosse units 4 Wood Buffer w/ Dolosse units Temporary work pad H.5 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] U S _ S u r _ f t 2 D [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 9 0 7 4 6 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 e c . d g n WA JEFF 91420(1) 8 : 0 8 A M 3 0 M a y 2 0 1 7 - - / - - - - - - / - - - - C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : A A A A AA A A A 245 245 2 4 5 2 4 5 2 4 5 2 4 5 2 4 5 245 245 245 2 4 5 2 5 0 2 5 0 2 5 0 2 5 0 2 5 0 2 5 0 250 2 5 0 250250 2 50 250250 250 250 250 2 5 5 255 255 255 2 5 5 255 255 255 2 5 5 255 255 2 5 5 2 5 5 255 255255255255255255260 260 260 2 6 0 260 2 6 0 260260 260 260260265 265 265 265 265 2652652 6 5265265265 2 6 5 2 6 5 270 270 270 270 270 270 2 7 0 2 7 02702702 7 5 275 275 275 2752752752752752 8 0 2 8 0 280 280 280 280 2 8 0 280285 285 285 2 8 5 285 2 8 5 285 285 2852 9 0 290 290 2 9 0 290 290 290 2 9 0 295 2 9 5 295 2 9 5 295 295 295 295 300 300 3 0 0 300 300 300 3 0 0 3 0 0 300 305 305 3 0 5 305 3 0 5 305 305 3 0 5 3 1 0 3 1 0 310 3 1 0 310 310 310 3 1 5 315 3 1 5 315 315 320 3 2 0 320 3 2 0 320 320 325 325 3 2 5 325 330 3 3 0 330 330 335 335 335 335 340 340 340 3 4 0 3 4 5 345 345 350 3 5 0 3 5 0 355 355 3 6 0 360 3 6 5 3 7 0 3 7 0 3753 8 0 260 265265265265 265 2 6 5 270 270270270275275280280285285A A A A A A A A A CP14107 CP14108UPTTTUP1410714108TTT5 0 CUYD EXC. CUYD EMB. 51+0046+00 47+00 48+00 49+00 50+00 52+00 53+00 54+00 235 235 Existing road Existing pavement edge LC 50 Year water surface profile Stream bank toe 255 265 245 275 275 265 255 245 End wood buffer Sta. 53+50.46, RT 75.27' Existing road surface Existing river bed contour Flow 280 270 260 250 240 280 260 250 240 270 10' Sta. 46+19.67, RT 64.59' Wood buffer Proposed 16' X 16' AOP culvert Proposed 16' X 16' AOP culvert 10' 4 Wood Buffer w/ Dolosse units3 Wood Buffer w/ Dolosse units Temporary work pad H.6 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] U S _ S u r _ f t 2 D [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 9 0 7 4 6 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 e d . d g n WA JEFF 91420(1) 8 : 3 0 A M 3 0 M a y 2 0 1 7 - - / - - - - - - / - - - - C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : N 365 3 3 0 335 335 340 3 4 5 350 355 355 355 360 360 3 1 0 3 1 0 310 310 310 3 1 0 3 1 0 3 1 0 3 1 0 310 3 1 0 3 1 0 3 1 0 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 3 1 0 310 3 1 0 3 1 0 3 1 0 310 310 310 310310 310 3 1 0 3 1 0 310 310 310 3 1 0 310 310 3 1 5 3 1 5 3 1 5 315315 315 3 1 5 3 1 5 315 3 1 5320 3 2 0 320 320 320 320 320 320 3 2 0 320 325 3 2 5 3 2 5 3 2 5 325 325 325 325 325 3 2 5 3 2 5 325 325 325 325 3 3 0 330 330 330 330330 3 3 0 330 3 3 0 3 3 0 3 3 0 330 330 330 330 330330 330 330 330 330 335 3 3 5 335335 335 335 335335 3 3 5 335 3 3 5 335 3 4 0 340 340 340 340 3 4 0 3 4 0 3 4 0 3 4 0 340 340 3 4 5 345 3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 5 345 3 4 5 3 4 5 345 345 350 350 350 3 5 0 3 5 0 3 5 0 350 350 3 5 5 3 5 5 355 355 3 5 5 3 5 5 3 6 0 3 6 0 360 3 6 0 3 6 0 365 370 370 375 CP 14203 CP 14204 T T 8 5 3 Wood Buffer w/ Dolosse units Existing pavement edge End wood buffer Sta. 83+52.32, RT 59.83' Wood buffer Existing river bed contour surface profile 50 Year water Existing road surface Stream bank toe 30' ± 3 0' ± Start wood buffer Sta. 79+93.79, RT 128.59' Line to be constructed N Flow F l o w Temporary work pad 77+00 H.7 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] U S _ S u r _ f t 2 D [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 9 0 7 4 6 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 e e . d g n WA JEFF 91420(1) 8 : 2 4 A M 3 0 M a y 2 0 1 7 - - / - - - - - - / - - - - C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : 320 300 330 340 350 310 290 360 370 320 300 330 340 350 310 290 360 370 79+00 80+00 81+00 82+00 83+00 84+00 84+0078+00 A A A CP 14206 Existing road Start wood buffer Sta. 97+57.95, RT 75.33' Existing pavement edge Wood buffer Stream bank toe surface profile 50 Year water Existing road surface End wood buffer Sta. 98+46.74', RT 94.17' Existing river bed contour N Fl o w 1 Wood Buffer w/ Dolosse units H.8 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] U S _ S u r _ f t 2 D [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 9 0 7 4 6 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 e f . d g n WA JEFF 91420(1) 8 : 2 3 A M 3 0 M a y 2 0 1 7 - - / - - - - - - / - - - - C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : 101+00 340 350 360 CUYD EXC. CUYD EMB. 320 300 330 310 290 370 102+0099+0094+00 95+00 96+00 97+00 98+00 100+00 320 300 330 340 350 310 360 370 320 300 330 340 350 310 290 360 370 9 5 3 1 5 3 1 5 3 1 5 3 1 5 3 1 5 3 1 5 315315315 315315 315 315 3 1 5 315 3 1 5 3 1 5 315 315 315 3 1 5 3 1 5 3 1 5 315 315 315 315 315 315 3 1 5 3 1 5 315315 3 1 5 315 315 315 315 315 315 315 315 315 315 315 320 320 320 320 3 2 0 3 2 0 320 320 320 325 325 325 325 3 2 5 325 32 5 325 325 325 325 330 330 330 3 3 0 3 3 0 330 330 330 330 335 3 3 5 335 335 335 335 335 335 3 3 5 3 3 5 3353 3 5 335 3 3 5 340 340 3 4 0 3 4 0 3 4 0 340 340 340 3 4 0 3 4 0 340 340 3 4 0 3 4 0 340 340 340340 340 340 340 340 340 340 340 340 340345 3 4 5 345 345 345 345 350 350 A H.9 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] U S _ S u r _ f t 2 D [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 9 0 7 4 6 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 e g . d g n WA JEFF 91420(1) 2 : 2 5 P M 2 5 M a y 2 0 1 7 - - / - - - - - - / - - - - C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : OHW 8'-4" DETAILS WOOD BUFFER w/ DOLOSSE BANK STABILIZATION Dolos Place deflector logs to min. design elev, per plan, repeat Layer B as needed Dolos, center in log bundle Deflector log bundle Deflector log bundle Notes: Deflector log-dolos bundleExisting bank toe Existing bank toe Existing bank top Existing bank top Defector rootwad, 7 Deflector rootwad, random, 7 ELJ unit limits ELJ unit limits Deflector log bundle, random, 15 Deflector log bundle, 10 Layer A elements buffer bottom within 1 foot of nearest water surface elevation. Excavate and conserve streambed material as needed for setting wood 6 defector rootwads. Layer B; 15 randomly placed deflector log-dolos bundles and space between fill logs and deflector logs. vegetation, 1-inch to 8-inch diameter, tightly pack into void Coarse woody debris; even mixture of branches, limbs, trunks, weight. Deflector log bundle; 110 to 150 ft3 total log volume, 16,000 lbs dolos attached rootwad. Deflector rootwad; 20 to 22 feet trunk, 18 to 37-inch diameter with attached rootwad. Deflector log; 20 to 22 feet trunk, 18 to 37-inch diameter without 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. 5' min. Match existing grade NO SCALE Flow Wrap each log bundle and dolos trunk with chain Wrap each log bundle and dolos trunk with chain 75'-0" 2 0 ' - 0 " Flow 4 5 ° 2 0 ' t o 2 3 ' 7 ' ( t y p . ) 50-year W.S. 3 ' m i n . Existing embankment pavement edge Existing road 8 ' - 4 " 1 ' - 8 " 3'-0" Fluke Trunk Per plan DOLOS DETAIL TYPICAL SECTION LAYER A PLAN LAYER B PLAN Existing channel bottom L a y e r B Existing road CL over deflector logs Placed coarse woody debris, min. 1' DETAIL TYPICAL DEFLECTOR LOG-DOLOS BUNDLE Layer A Geotextile, class 1C A A A A Set trunk base on channel bottom H.14 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] U S _ S u r _ f t 2 D [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 9 0 7 4 6 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 e h - 5 . d g n WA JEFF 91420(1) 8 : 5 8 A M 3 0 M a y 2 0 1 7 - - / - - - - - - / - - - - C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : OHW Deflector log bundle Deflector log bundle Defector rootwad, 5 Deflector log bundle, 7 4. 3. 2. 1. DETAILS CHANNEL PLUG Deflector log bundle space between fill logs and deflector logs. vegetation, 1-inch to 8-inch diameter, tightly pack into void Coarse woody debris; even mixture of branches, limbs, trunks, Deflector log bundle; 110 to 150 ft3 total log volume. attached rootwad. Deflector rootwad; 20-foot min. trunk, 18 to 37-inch diameter with attached rootwad. Deflector log; 20 to 22-foot trunk, 18 to 37-inch diameter without NO SCALE Flow Wrap each log bundle trunk with chain Wrap each log bundle trunk with chain, center in log bundle 50-year W.S. 20'-0" 4 ' m i n . Do not disturb existing vegetation Do not disturb existing vegetation NOTE: TYPICAL SECTION Existing channel bottom over deflector logs Placed coarse woody debris, min. 1' A A on subgrade excavate as needed for setting flush Set trunk base on channel bottom, Temporary access road random spacing 3 per channel plug, Doug fir planting, 3' random spacing method, single group Pole planting, Deflector rootwad 5 ' m i n . DETAIL TYPICAL DEFLECTOR LOG BUNDLE 80'-0" 1 2 ' - 0 " Placed riprap, Class 5, 120 cy Placed riprap, Class 5, 120 cy PLAN Existing embankment H.15 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] U S _ S u r _ f t 2 D [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 9 0 7 4 6 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 e p . d g n WA JEFF 91420(1) 1 1 : 0 0 A M 3 0 M a y 2 0 1 7 - - / - - - - - - / - - - - C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : OHWOHW placing conserved streambed material. Do not excavate existing stream bank or bottom when streamed material. Do not disturb existing trees when placing conserved 2. 1. 2'-0"8'-0" 2'-0"8'-0" TYPICAL SECTIONS BANK STABILIZATION GRAVEL-COBBLE NOTE: method single group Pole plantings, Placed conserved gravel-cobble toe NO SCALE Flow Flow 2' to 3' 2' to 3' 3 5 ° t o 5 0 ° 20'-0" +/- PLAN SECTION A A A B B SECTION B C C SECTION C 1 1 Stream bank toe Set hingeline at OHW Stream bottom Set hingeline at OHW Placed gravel-cobble toe Stream bottom Set hingeline at OHW Existing embankment Stream bottom gravel-cobble crest Placed conserved trench method Pole plantings, gravel-cobble Placed conserved trench method Pole plantings, trench method Pole plantings, elev 6830 gravel-cobble crest, Placed conserved trench method single group or Pole plantings, Bank toe at OHW gravel-cobble crest Placed conserved gravel-cobble redistribute as placed conserved conserved gravel-cobble, Temporary work pad, gravel-cobble Placed conserved Elevation 6830 gravel-cobble crest Placed conserved H.14 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] U S _ S u r _ f t 2 D [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 9 0 7 4 6 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 e q . d g n WA JEFF 91420(1) 3 : 3 4 P M 1 7 A p r i l 2 0 1 7 - - / - - - - - - / - - - - C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 7060504030201070 270 260 250 240 8090100110120130140150 80 90 100 110 120 130 2 50 50 HYDRAULIC INFORMATION OUTLETINLETPIPE FISH SPECIES: INSTREAM WORK WINDOW: INFILL TYPE: SBM TYPE: Conserved PLAN & PROFILE MP 4.0 AOP CULVERT Q : 71 cfs Q : 150 cfs ACTIVE CHANNEL WIDTH: 12 feet N SCALE IN FEET 0 1010 20 25 INV N/E/EL: 245.8 INV N/E/EL: 245.8 BURIAL DEPTH: 10.0 feet BURIAL DEPTH: 5.4 feet BEVEL: 2.0(h):1(v)BEVEL: 2.0(h):1(v) HEADWALL: Precast Conc./Riprap HEADWALL: Precast Conc./Riprap LOWER BEVEL HEIGHT: 14.0 feet LOWER BEVEL HEIGHT: 9.0 feet TYPE: Precast Concrete SPAN: 16'-0"RISE: 16'-0" WALL THICKNESS: 10 in PIPE SLOPE: 0.0 ft/ft FLOWLINE SLOPE: 0.12 ft/ft LENGTH: 40 feet F l ow F l o w OHW: 1.2 feet HW : 4.4 feet Hoh River 50-year water surface, 460.0 OHW, 252.6 H o h R i v e r LCExisting road locate as needed Temporary flow barrier, Existing stream bottom New precast wingwall Flowline material Conserved streambed Match existing stream bottom Elev 263.8' Elev 241.8' (L=40') concrete box culvert New 16' x 16' precast 0.12 Ft/Ft New precast wingwall Elev 244.8' 1 1 transition to existing stream channel shape and locate for smooth New stream channel CL, 70 L.F., locate as needed barrier, Temporary flow LC LC locate as needed Temporary flow barrier, grade contour Existing Placed riprap, class 3 Existing road New culvert Placed riprap, class 3 (L-8') New precast wingwall (L-24') New precast wingwall (L-40') concrete box culvert New 16' x 16' precast elev 254.0 locate as needed, Temporary flow barrier, Proposed wood buffer Elev 263.8' "2 1 4 '-3 "2 1 4 '-3 Elev 251.8' Elev 258.8' 2 6 0 2 6 0 2 6 0 2 6 5 270 2 7 5 2 7 5 T A CULVERT INLET CULVERT OUTLET H.15 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] U S _ S u r _ f t 2 D [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 9 0 7 4 6 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 e r . d g n WA JEFF 91420(1) 3 : 3 5 P M 1 7 A p r i l 2 0 1 7 - - / - - - - - - / - - - - C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : ELEVATIONS MP 4.0 AOP CULVERT Elev 241.8' New precast wingwall Elev 251.8' Existing stream bottom Flowline Placed riprap, class 3 concrete box culvert New 16' x 16' precast Culvert/channel CL Culvert/channel CL Existing 66" CMP Placed riprap, class 3 concrete box culvert New 16' x 16' precast Flowline Elev 258.8' New precast wingwall Existing 66" CMP 5'-0" 3 ' - 0 " material Conserved streambed material Conserved streambed 2 ' - 0 " TOW, elev 263.8' TOW, elev 263.8' Existing grade, upstream Match existing road surface Match existing road surface 50-yr WS 2-yr WS 50-yr WS 2-yr WS Floor elev 244.8' Floor elev 244.8' Not to scale. H.16 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET WA JEFF 91420(1) 3 : 3 5 P M 1 7 A p r i l 2 0 1 7 ] U S _ S u r _ f t 2 D [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 9 0 7 4 6 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 e s . d g n - - / - - - - - - / - - - - C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : plate assembly Welded connection Headed Stud GENERAL NOTES:Varies 15° Non-shrink grout V a r i e s 3 ' 4½" ½" gap 8 4¼" 831 ref. ref. 1 foam gasket Closed cell rope 1¼" mastic box culvert Inside of box culvert Outside oftop and sides (outside joint) on mastic joint wrap Grout and 9" wide TYPICAL STRUCTURAL DETAILS PRECAST BOX CULVERT along slope both sides (typ.) 21#2" x 21#2" Bevel (per manufacturer) wire mesh (typ.) 6"x6"xW1/4"2 connection plates (typ.) Embedded Weep holes (typ.) CONNECTION PLATE DETAIL WATERTIGHT BOX JOINT SECTION WINGWALL DETAIL Bearing capacity: 2 ton/sq. ft. Unit weight: 125 lbs/cu. ft. SOIL: Provide 2-inch minimum concrete cover to the face of any bar. ASTM A1064. (ASTM, A615) grade 60, or welded wire reinforcing conforming to Furnish reinforcing steel bars conforming to AASHTO M31, deformed REINFORCING STEEL: Chamfer all exposed edges 3/4-inch. compressive strength f'c=5000 psi. Furnish structural concrete, class A(AE) with minimum 28-day design CONCRETE: HL-93. LIVE LOAD: Soil: 125 lb per cubic foot. Concrete: 150 lb per cubic foot. DEAD LOAD: AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, latest edition. Design stem walls, headwalls, wingwalls, and footings in accordance with Design precast culverts in accordance with Section 602. DESIGN: Install tie rods or connector plates per manufacturer between precast sections. See section 104. grades shown in the plans and provide shop drawings for review by the CO. Provide precast concrete culverts conforming to the dimensions, lines, and of Roads and Bridges on Federal Highway Projects, FP-14 (U.S. Customary). Federal Highway Administration Standard Specifications for Construction Detail is for general information only. CONSTRUCTION: Precast footing O Ring if required 1 1/4" dia. hole for 1" dia. joint tie over pipe joint Do not install fastener 1'-3" min. 1'-5" max. 2 " m a x . t y p i c a l 2'-9 1/2" max. 2' -6 1/2" min. precast permitted when Tapered holes SUPPLEMENTAL CONCRETE PIPE TIE H.17 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET WA JEFF 91420(1) $ D A T E $ $ P A T H $ - - / - - - - C h e c k e d b y : - - / - - - - D e s i g n e d b y : SECTION A-A DETAILS BOX CULVERT RIPRAP TYPICAL CULVERT & STREAM CHANNEL PROFILE CULVERT INLET/OUTLET ELEVATION 25101-0400 20701-0200 RIPRAP QUANTITIES Flow TYPICAL CULVERT PLAN 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0"5'-0"5'-0" Per plan 5'-0" 1 1 V a r i e s ELEVATION TYPICAL OUTSIDE WINGWALL FACE ELEVATION TYPICAL INSIDE WINGWALL FACE 5'-0" 5'-0" 2 ' - 0 " 1 Varies Not to scale 1 1 1 Varies 5'-0" 2 ' - 0 " 1 1 1 1 2 ' - 0 " 1 Varies 1 Per plan Per plan 1 Per plan Varies 1 1 1 Per plan 5'-0" 2 '-0 " 2 ' - 0 " Per plan Varies Geotextile, class 1-C Geotextile, class 1-C Geotextile, class 1-C Geotextile, class 1-C Geotextile, class 1-C Geotextile, class 1-CGeotextile, class 1-C Placed riprap, class 3 class 3 Placed riprap, class 3 Placed riprap, class 3 Placed riprap, Placed riprap, class 3 Placed riprap, class 3 CL culvert & stream CL culvert & stream CL culvert & stream Existing stream bottom Existing stream bottom bank top Stream bank top Stream bank top Stream bank top Stream Proposed road grade Proposed road grade bank top Stream Box culvert headwall Box culvert headwall headwall Box culvert headwall Box culvert footing Wingwall Wingwall footing Wingwall footing Wingwall footing Wingwall footing footing Headwall Wingwall Wingwall Wingwall Wingwall top Placed riprap, class 3 A A outside face Wingwall Wingwall inside faceWingwall inside face Stream bank toe Stream bank toe wall Box culvert NOTE: for transition to existing bank top and toe. 1. Place conserved streambed material over riprap as needed class 3 Placed riprap, Grade break Grade break 2 ' - 0 " 2 ' - 0 " Placed riprap, method A, class 3 Separation- stabilization geotextile, class 1, type C NO SCALE 1 SECTION A-A Flow sediment Streambed D2 1 SECTION B-B PLAN LC F l o w 2 Culvert wall Channel flowline A A B B NOTE: FOOTNOTE: 1 Streambed cobble 2 D D ( t y p . ) D ( t y p . ) 4 1 (typ.) (typ.) 3 Streambed sediment 36" min. 3. 2. 1. or Length on plan sheet 4 2 3 4 5 Round pipe culvert wall Streambed top LOCATION (each) STONE HABITAT (ft) D (ft) W (in) GRADATION COBBLE STREAMBED INFILL INFORMATIONAL QUANTITIES (cuyd) COBBLE STREAMBED (cuyd) SEDIMENT STREAMBED 5 Round culvert Pipe arch culvert Culvert outlet Culvert inlet 12 Class E 9 __ WA W Bank stone Bank stone 14 __ (cuyd) STONE BANK CULVERT INTERIOR TREATMENT SIMULATED STREAM Streambed sediment Streambed cobble Channel flowline Pipe arch culvert wall Box culvert wall 1 8 " b u r i a l d e p t h b u r i a l d e p t h 16 30 boulder Fish passage boulder Fish passage boulder Fish passage (in +/- 4) BOULDER DIAMETER FISH PASSAGE Stagger in-channel fish passage boulder within the culvert span. streambed cobble, and bank stone gradations. See special contract requirements for streambed sediment, Mix streambed cobbles evenly throughout streambed sediment. Material. Quantities included in Item 64704-1000 Mitigation, Streambed 18-inches or as specified on plan sheet. smallest dimension.4 3Embed fish passage boulders within active channel streambed sediment. Construct well defined banks with bank stone and parabolic shape. Slope streambed aggregate towards flowline to ensure 80 ____ 170MP 4.0 AOP Culvert H.18 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET JEFF 91420(1) $ D A T E $ $ P A T H $ X / X X X X C h e c k e d b y : X / X X X X D e s i g n e d b y : H.19 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET WA WA JEFF 91420(1) $ D A T E $ $ P A T H $ - - / - - - - C h e c k e d b y : J . N e i g h o r n D e s i g n e d b y : N PLAN ELEVATION Q Vel. 500Q 100Q 50Q 2Q SLOPE PROTECTION CLASS: 4 WS ELEV. 76+00 76+50 77+00 77+50 78+00 78+50 360 SCALE IN FEET 4020010 340 320 300 360 340 320 300 PLAN AND PROFILE TOWER CREEK BRIDGE TYPE: Riprap 20 7 7 7 8 F l o w F l o w proposed channel Bottom edge of stream channel Centerline proposed Width 20' Channel Bottom Degraded El. = 345.10 Min. low chord Placed Riprap, Class 4 El. 344.10 El. 327.80 centerline El. = 333.80 @ road Proposed channel bottom at road centerline Existing ground El. = 342.10 50-yr WS at road centerline Proposed finish grade 70' Waterway 1 669 538 481 229 8.9 8.4 8.1 6.5 342.6 342.2 342.1 341.2 DEPTH: 5 ft. SLOPE: 1.75(h):1(v)BOTTOM EL.: 327.8 ft. TOP EL.: 344.1 ft. Width 20' Degraded Width 41' Channel Bottom 5 ' 6 ' Width 41' Channel Bottom Channel Bottom El. = 333.8 N 315090.45, E 833347.64 Sta 77+47.29 REMARKS: Scour includes long-term degradation. Centerline Proposed Roadway 2 1 1.75 )500); 324.9 ft. (Q100TOTAL SCOUR EL: 325.3 ft. (Q 360 330 335 340 3 4 5 355 3 5 0 3 5 0 3 5 5 335 3 4 5 3 5 0 3 5 5 355 360 3 6 5 H.20 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET WA WA JEFF 91420(1) $ D A T E $ $ P A T H $ - - / - - - - C h e c k e d b y : J . N e i g h o r n D e s i g n e d b y : N PLAN ELEVATION Q Vel. 500Q 100Q 50Q 2Q SLOPE PROTECTION CLASS: 4 WS ELEV. CL F l o w 107+50 108+00 108+50 109+00 109+50 110+00 430 SCALE IN FEET 4020010 410 390 370 430 410 390 370 TYPE: Riprap 20 PLAN AND PROFILE CANYON CREEK BRIDGE 1 1 0 F l o w proposed channel Bottom edge of stream channel Centerline proposed Width 20' Channel Bottom Width 20' Channel Bottom El. = 402.00 Min. low chord Placed Riprap, Class 4 El. 401.00 El. 394.30 centerline El. = 395.63 @ road Proposed channel bottom at road centerline Existing ground El. = 398.7 50-yr WS at road centerline Proposed finish grade 626 504 450 215 9.3 8.7 8.5 6.8 399.3 398.9 398.7 397.8 TOP EL.: 401.00 ft. BOTTOM EL.: 394.30 ft. 31' Waterway (Upstream Alignment Option) Proposed Roadway Centerline 1 5 ' 1.5 1.75 1 4 ' SLOPE: 1.75(h):1(v) DEPTH: 5 ft.(4 ft. bottom) Channel Bottom El. = 395.63 N 313505.32, E 845200.69 Sta 108+95.16 REMARKS: Scour includes long-term degradation. )500); 377.1 ft. (Q100TOTAL SCOUR EL: 390.2 ft. (Q 4 3 0 430 4 3 0 430 4 2 5 4 2 0 4 1 5 4 1 0 4 0 5 4 0 0 395 4 0 0 4 0 5 4 1 0 4 1 5 4 2 0 425 4 0 0 4 0 5 4 1 5 4 2 0 4 2 0 4 3 0 I.1 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] U S _ S u r _ f t 2 D [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 9 0 7 4 9 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 r a . d g n WA JEFF 61420(1) 7 : 1 4 A M 2 0 J a n u a r y 2 0 1 7 C . C o n r a d - - / - - - - 0 1 / 2 0 1 7 C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : TABULATION OF QUANTITIES ROADSIDE 70 % PL A N IN HA N D 04 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 "2 13'-8 PLAN @ ABUTMENT " T a p e r 2 1 4 slotted holes "32 29" x 8 1(8) 1 "2 19'-4" = 2 13 spac. @ 3'-1 LCPost " = 1'-0"2 1SCALE: " 4 1 1 2 " 2 1 3 " 2 1 3 TERMINAL CONNECTOR 2"4"4""4 14 "4 14 "4 17 2'-6" 3"3 " 1 0 G a . " = 1'-0"2 1SCALE: 1 slotted holes " long 2 1" x 24 3 " x 2'-6"8 3L 4"x 3" x " Ø A325 bolts, typ.8 7(3) W-Beam guardrail W8x24 Post " 2 1" x 108 3L 4" x 4" x 16 3 16 3 L " Ø Guardrail bolt8 5 " = 1'-0"2 1SCALE: 1 2" " x 4" x 2'-6"8 3 P SECTION A-A ± thru 1" Ø holes in rail tubes, typ. washers, nuts and jam nuts " Ø A307 bolts with8 7(8) W-Beam Guardrail with 6" x 8" timber blocks (typ.) Transition posts will be steel 1'-6" ELEVATION VIEW 6'-0" long post (typ.) PostLC Curb taper A A 2-W-Beam type 4 (Weathering) - class B (10 gauge) SCALE: NTS Assembly Detail A See Transition Guardrail connection plate 1 ' - 7 " "4 31'-1 " 1 6 3 5 " 1 6 3 5 " 8 5 8 "16 3Typical TRANSITION ASSEMBLY DETAIL A DETAIL B DETAIL C " 2 1 1 1 " 4 3 1 ' - 0 "4 1L 3"x 3"x "4 1L 3"x 3"x 67° "16 5L 5"x 5"x " 4 1 1 " 4 1 1 " 2 1 2 5" "2 11 "4 31 " 2 1 2 " 2 1 1 1 1 ' - 7 " holes (typ.) Slotted "4 3" x 18 7 " 2 1 9 " 2 1 9 3" " 2 1 1 " 2 1 1 1 ' - 4 " 5" "8 51 "8 33 7 8 8"x 23 " Slotted hole See Detail B See Detail C Connection plate with back of plate Bolt to be flush "8 1 "2 1 Connector Terminal W-Beam "431'-3 "8 31'-10 connection plate Guardrail Transition plate 3:1 "8 3P L "16 3 "16 3 "16 3 "2 12'-8 "2 11'-4"2 11'-2 1"Ø Hole, typ. 4 " "2 11 " 2 1 1 typ. DETAIL G connection plate Guardrail " 4 1 4 "2 14 "2 1" 4 1 4 " 2 1 1 ' - 5 " 2 1 1 ' - 5 " 4 1 5 " 4 1 5 " 2 1 3 " 2 1 3 connection plate " Guardrail2 1 "Ø H.S. bolts8 7(3) 1"Ø Holes for "Ø H.S. bolts, see Detail G8 7 Drill and tap 2 holes for 9 " "4 3"x 9"x 1'-32 1P Transition plate L "8 31'-1 "2 12 "8 72 4"4" HH G GUARDRAIL CONNECTION PLATE DETAIL D see Detail D Connection plate, EDIT DETAILS APPROACH RAILING BRIDGE I.2 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] U S _ S u r _ f t 2 D [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 9 0 7 4 9 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 2 0 r a . d g n WA JEFF 91420(1) 1 : 3 8 P M 1 8 J a n u a r y 2 0 1 7 - - / - - - - - - / - - - - C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : 7 0 % P L A N I N H A N D 0 4 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. When encountering impenetrable material, see are specified. See Special Contract Requirements when the alternative hole arrangement is specified. Install reflector tab between post bolt and rail, every fourth post. Alternate reflector tab shapes are acceptable. Dimensional tolerances not shown or implied are intended to be those consistent with the proper functioning of the part, including its appearance, and accepted manufacturing practices. A spacing, center to center A 8 required, each end of rail Thickness Sheet slots Splice bolt Neutral axis Splice bolt slots SECTION A-A CL RAIL ELEVATION W BEAM RAIL L Thread Length GUARDRAIL BOLT AND RECESS NUT recess both sides L POST BOLT ASSEMBLY Post and block W beam rail guardrail bolt nut by more extend beyond Thread not to on terminal sections All posts except those Post length stamp o r g r o u n d l i n e o f p a v e m e n t STANDARD HOLE ARRANGEMENT POST AND BLOCK DETAIL future overlays to accommodate raising guardrail Upper 2 holes for ALTERNATE HOLE ARRANGEMENT POST AND BLOCK DETAIL on each side of block 16d galvanized nail Toenail with one Hinge line of foreslope steeper than fill slope Variable slope but not V a ri a b l e fill sl o p e REFLECTOR TAB (See Note 4) TYPICAL GUARDRAIL CROSS SECTION 1:10 or flatter slope bolts and nuts (8 per splice) Traffic Lap in direction of traffic groundline at face of rail Edge of pavement or POST SPACING STANDARD POST SECTION rail as applicable ground line at face of Edge of pavement or terminal sections approach and departure Widening required for Subgrade shoulder. NO SCALE Symmetrical about placed front and rear Reflective sheeting 617-10 STANDARD APPROVED FOR USE 1/1994 DRAFT: 10/2013 REVISED: 4/1994 6/2005 WOOD POSTS G4 W-BEAM GUARDRAIL See Special Contract Requirements when 7 foot or longer posts Standards 617-13 or 617-24. 6'- 0 " 5 " 2 " 2 " ( t y p . ) 9 " " dia. holes (typ.)4 3 " deep4 1" high and 2 11 6'- 0 " 2 3 " t o e d g e " plain round washer.4 31 " recess nut8 5 "2 1than " dia. hole4 3 8"8" 7 " " x 18"8 5 " splice bolt slot.8 1" x 132 29 " post bolt slot at 6'-3"2 1" x 24 3 " GUARDRAIL BOLT8 5 "4 11 25" 18" 10" 2" " minimum8 11 " minimum4 31 4" minimum 4" minimum 4" minimum " RECESS NUT8 5 " deep16 11" dia. x " guardrail splice 4 1" x 18 5 " x 18" guardrail post bolt8 5 (t yp.) 8"(typ.)6" (typ.)6" (t y p.) 8" ( t y p . ) 7 " 2" 3" "4 32 5 " " 2 1 1 " 4 3 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET I.3 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION JEFF 91420(1) WA ] U S C [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 9 0 7 4 9 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 r b - S t d 6 1 7 - 1 0 . d g n 4 : 0 6 P M 6 J u n e 2 0 1 6 FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY U.S. CUSTOMARY STANDARD STANDARD NOTE: 10° shown on Typical Section Aggregate base or as " 4 1 1 2 " 4 1 3 " 1 6 9 " 4 3 "32 171 "32 29 "16 1 1 "4 13 " R16 15 "32 29 2""4 14"4 14 "16 1"16 33 Post spacing 6'-3" "16 11"4 11 2 9 " ± 1 " 2 9 " ± 1 " See Note 2 2'-0" (typ.) "16 5 "32 7 " 1 6 1 5 "8 5 " 8 1 1 "16 51 S e e N o t e 2 6 ' - 0 " ( t y p . ) 1 4 " " R16 15 70 % PL A N IN HA N D 04 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 STANDARD APPROVED FOR USE 1/1994 DRAFT: 5/2014 REVISED: 4/1994 6/2005 617-15 ASSEMBLY DETAILS MELT, LST & CRT ANCHORAGE G4 W-BEAM GUARDRAIL 8" 4" 8 " 5 " " dia. hole8 11 1 8 " 9 " 9"6"9" 24" " dia. holes4 3 " thick plate4 1 " thick plate8 5 6 " 2 " " 8 3 2 5 ' - 0 " 8"6" " dia. hole4 3 1" H.S. hex nut 2" 4 1 " hex head bolt8 5" x 18 5 " end plate4 3" x 3" x 28 3 " dia. hole8 1with 1 3 " " 2 1 1 "4 32 "8 31 3" "2 11 " 4 3 1 " 8 7 "16 3 " x 1" slotted hole4 3 " dia. hole4 31 6 " 1 " 3" " dia. hole4 3 "16 3TS 8" x 6" x " dia. holes (typ.)4 3 threaded entire length " Stud32 31" dia. x 7 (min.) 2" "8 15 "8 3 "8 3 " 4 1 1 " 8 5 1 ") galvanized cable to be4 3" x 4 1" dia. (4 3 " bent plate16 3" x 8 516" x 12 R "83 3" 3" "2 15 "4 32 "2 17 "4 33 1 5 " " 2 1 4 2 7 " 1 8 " " dia. hole2 12 "4 3" x 24 3 " dia. hole8 7 2"4"4"4"2" 16" "8 51 2 " " 4 3 1 " 163 1" R "8 33 "8 32 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET I.4 FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION U.S. CUSTOMARY STANDARD STANDARD 4 : 0 7 P M 6 J u n e 2 0 1 6 ] U S C [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 9 0 7 4 9 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 r d - S t d . 6 1 7 - 1 5 . d g n JEFF 91420(1) WA NOTE: NO SCALE BEARING PLATE STEEL TUBE ANCHOR POST SLEEVE GUARDRAIL ANCHOR PLATE TERMINAL POST (Standard swaged fitting and stud) CABLE ASSEMBLY ANCHOR PLATE DETAILS FOR LST ANCHORAGE ASSEMBLY FRONT SIDE FRONT SIDE the post of anchorage assembly) (Use to attach the section to RECTANGULAR PLATE WASHER (2 REQUIRED) SOIL PLATE slotted hole on end post only S4S 1. manufacturing practices. part, including its appearance, and accepted to be those consistent with the proper functioning of the Dimensional tolerances not shown or implied are intended and steel washer Stud Anchor plate Standard swaged fitting Neutral axis W Beam rail element swage connected (AASHTO M-30, type II) 35° 2.5° ASTM A500 grade B axis of rail, 8 required on front face of neutral and nut with steel washer 7 0 % P L A N I N H A N D 0 4 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 See Standards 617-10 and 617-11 for other details. ground to the bottom of the W-beam exceeds 18". 8"8" 3 ' - 9 " ( m a x . ) 3 " 3 " 3 ' - 9 " ( m a x . ) W6 x 9 " x 10"8 5 " x 2"8 5 STANDARD APPROVED FOR USE 1/1994 DRAFT: 5/2014 REVISED: 4/1994 6/2005 617-17 Sheet 1 of 2 TYPE G4-BAT BACK SLOPE ANCHOR TERMINAL G4 W-BEAM GUARDRAIL w h e n r u b r a i l i s r e q u i r e d 8 ' - 0 " M i n . p o s t l e n g t h w h e n r u b r a i l i s r e q u i r e d 8 ' - 0 " M i n . p o s t l e n g t h MPH < 35 45 50 55 60 70 0 3' 5' 8' (typ.) 6'-3" 25'-0" 12'-6" 12'-6" C o v er 1 2 " min. 6' 3" spacing Posts #1 to #8Minimum 75' to hazard Terminal section, type G4-BAT 125' (min.) Pay limits Posts A to #1 " spacing2 13'-1 " dia. x 6" bolt8 5post with a STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET I.5 FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION U.S. CUSTOMARY STANDARD STANDARD 2 : 0 9 P M 1 O c t o b e r 2 0 1 4 ] U S C [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 9 0 7 4 9 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 r e - S t d . 6 1 7 - 1 7 . d g n JEFF 91420(1)WA ShoulderShoulder NOTE: NO SCALE ditch bottom. Add the rubrail when the distance from the the roadway shoulder elevation until the barrier crosses the Hold the height of the W-beam rail constant in relation to PLAN AND BLOCK DETAIL WOOD POST AND BLOCK DETAIL STEEL POST ALONG RAIL ELEVATION SECTION A-A SECTION B-B ELEVATION ELEVATION SECTION D-DSECTION C-C 1 1 1 1 SSSS 8 10 11 12 14 15 #8 #4 #2 A SPEED DESIGN FLARE POST DISTANCE GUARDRAIL FLARE BOTTOM FROM VEE DITCH POST OFFSETS A A B B C C D D AB1 2345678 AB1 2 34 5678 8 6 4 1 1 1 1 Flare Distance varies to fit offset to end anchorage When necessary taper height of guardrail parallel to roadway grade Maintain guardrail height Shoulder Ground line at guardrail See Note 2 Rubrail Toe of Fill Top of Cut Shoulder Varies Shoulder Varies Wood block wood post Steel or Steel post AVee ditch (typ.) Wood block See Detail on Sheet 2 End anchorage Wood post Wood block Modified block Steel post Rub rail (typ.) See Note 2 Rubrail (typ.) bolt and nut guardrail bolt and nut guardrail V a r i e s depending on ditch design Location will vary Guardrail system G4 Pay limits Bottom of vee ditch Field bend (steel post) or lag bolt (wood post) Connect the rubrail to back of Steel or wood post 2. 1. Wood block 70 % PL A N IN HA N D 04 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 See Standard 617-10 and 617-11 for block detail and 14" 1 4 " 2 " 5 " 4 " 3 " "2 12"2 122"2""2 12"2 12 6"8" "4 31 "8 7 " 4 3 1 " 8 7 1" dia. hole " slots (typ.)4 31" x 1 " thickness16 3 " thickness2 1 " dia. hole (typ.)4 3 3 - 1" dia. holes to be " dia. hex head 8 7with " long each8 3bolts 1 " x 14" x 14"2 1 6"8" STANDARD APPROVED FOR USE 1/1994 DRAFT: 5/2014 REVISED: 4/1994 6/2005 Sheet 2 of 2 TYPE G4-BAT BACK SLOPE ANCHOR TERMINAL G4 W-BEAM GUARDRAIL 617-17 " threaded (min.)4 31 1" x 2" galvanized " dia. bar 2 1 6'-3"6'-3""2 13'-1"2 13'-1 1" dia. hole to be field W 6 x 9 6 ' - 0 " " x 14" x 14"2 1 " dia. hex8 7W-beam with head bolt 2" long with one W 6 x 9 8 ' - 0 " 8"6"8" 3 - 1" dia. holes to be " dia. hex head 8 7with " long each8 3bolts 1 1" dia. hole to be field " dia. hex8 7W-beam with head bolt 2" long with one 3 " 4"4" " 2 1 3 " 2 1 3 5 " 2 " STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET I.6 FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION U.S. CUSTOMARY STANDARD STANDARD 2 : 0 9 P M 1 O c t o b e r 2 0 1 4 ] U S C [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 9 0 7 4 9 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 r e - S t d . 6 1 7 - 1 7 . d g n JEFF 91420(1) WA NOTE: NO SCALE 4. 3. 2. 1. Use zinc rich paint to coat field drilled holes. guardrail run, unless otherwise noted. For posts #3 and higher, match post material of adjacent See Sheet 1 of 2 for terminal layout. attachment. AT POSTS A, B, AND 1 SPECIAL RAIL TO POST CONNECTION CONNECTION AT POST 2 SPECIAL RUBRAIL TO POST STEEL PLATE AND WASHER FRAMEWORK FOR THREADED INSERTS POSTS A, B, 1, 2 END ANCHORAGE DETAIL ELEVATION GALVANIZED STEEL PLATE GALVANIZED SQUARE WASHER 2 1 B A See guardrail flare rate on Sheet 1 Rubrail washers (typ.). Steel plate and CL of post Threaded inserts (typ.) hex head cap screws Threaded inserts for be closed (typ.) End of insert to welded to inserts Steel post (See Detail) steel plate wood block Modified (See Detail) steel plate Steel post washer and hex nut with one square element and attached field drilled in W-beam square washer and hex nut. and post flange. Attach drilled through both W-beam washer and hex nut with one square element and attached field drilled in W-beam square washer and hex nut and post flange. Attach drilled through both W-beam 7 0 % P L A N I N H A N D 0 4 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 6 1 3. 2. 1. ELEVATION PLAN TEST LEVEL L NO SCALE (min.) Taper Length L post section Standard Pay limits terminal section type tangent Guardrail system G4 Pay limits Length of Need according to manufacturer's recommendations Install a reflectorized object marker the standard post section. face of the last two post blocks in Tangent line projected from the embankment Edge of widened f l a t t e r 1 : 1 0 o r See manufacturer's drawings for other details. taper per manufacturer's recommendations. end farther away from the edge of the shoulder, or use a Install terminal at a 1:25 taper or flatter, to position the meets appropriate test level for the project. manufacturer's recommendations. Ensure that terminal terminal that meets NCHRP-350 or MASH requirements per details may vary. Install a tangent G4 W-beam guardrail Use details shown as a general guide since manufacturer's 617-20 STANDARD APPROVED FOR USE 6/2005 DRAFT: 3/2016 REVISED: TYPE TANGENT TERMINAL G4 W-BEAM GUARDRAIL (ft) 3 (> 45 mph) 2 (≤ 45 mph) 37.5 or 50 25 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET I.7 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION JEFF 91420(1) WA ] U S C [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 9 0 7 4 9 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 r f - S t d 6 1 7 - 2 0 . d g n 3 : 4 7 P M 1 9 J a n u a r y 2 0 1 7 FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY U.S. CUSTOMARY STANDARD STANDARD NOTE: 2 9 " ± 1 " 10' m i n . 2 ' m i n . 2 ' 70 % PL A N IN HA N D 04 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 EMBANKMENT QUANTITIES AND SPECIAL ROCK TABULATION OF ROCKERY J.1 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] U S _ S u r _ f t 2 D [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 3 1 4 3 9 1 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 s a . d g n WA JEFF 91420(1) 8 : 0 4 A M 3 0 J a n u a r y 2 0 1 7 C . C o n r a d - - / - - - - 1 0 / 2 0 1 6 C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : 7 0 % P L A N I N H A N D 0 4 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 J.2 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] U S _ S u r _ f t 2 D [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 3 1 4 3 9 1 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 s a . d g n WA JEFF 91420(1) 6 : 2 1 A M 3 0 J a n u a r y 2 0 1 7 C . C o n r a d - - / - - - - 0 1 / 2 0 1 7 C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y :1 :1 Varies 1:1.25 max1:1 CL subgrade Proposed Geotextile filter, class I, type A 2'-0" Slope stake Original ground MECHANICALLY PLACED EMBANKMENT SPECIAL ROCK embankment, mechanically placed Special rock special rock embankment Top of 47+84.15 to 48+50 SPECIAL ROCK EMBANKMENT, MECHANICALLY PLACED 8' 70 % PL A N IN HA N D 04 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 J.3 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] U S _ S u r _ f t 2 D [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 3 1 4 3 9 1 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 s b . d g n WA JEFF 91420(1) 7 : 1 3 A M 3 0 J a n u a r y 2 0 1 7 C . C o n r a d - - / - - - - 1 2 / 2 0 1 6 C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : 3 4 0 340 3 4 5 350 3 5 0 355 355 360 365 370 375 3 3 5 3 4 0 3 4 5 3 5 0 355 3 5 5 360 3 6 0 365 365 350 360 340 360 355 350 345 340 335 355 345 335 300+00 300+25 300+50 300+75 73+77 to 74+70 ROCKERY WALL Top of rockery Bottom of rockery Bottom of rockery foundationDitchline Existing ground 300+00 (ROCKERY) 73+77 (MAIN) BEGIN ROCKERY WALL END ROCKERY WALL 300+90.32 (ROCKERY) 74+70 (MAIN) Top of Rockery Edge of travel way Excavation limits N 7 0 % P L A N I N H A N D 0 4 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 ROCKERY TYPICAL SECTION 4 1 CUT SLOPE TAPER DETAIL 1:3 D C B A yawdaor desoporP N or m al c ut sl o p e 1 :1 .5 M a x . NOTE: STONE CLASS STONE MASS 3 4 5 2 1 Granular backfill 1 2 " m i n UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM TYPICAL SECTION 12" min FOOTNOTE: 6 6,000 - 8,000 lb 4,000 - 6,000 lb 2,000 - 4,000 lb 650 - 2,000 lb 200 - 650 lb 50 - 200 lb AVERAGE DIMENSION 54 to 60 inches 48 to 54 inches 36 to 48 inches 30 to 36 inches 18 to 30 inches 12 to 18 inches WALL HEIGHT (H) H > 10 ft 6 ft < H < 10 ft 0 ft < H < 6 ft A B C D E F 2 15 4 3 4 3 2 3 2 6 5 4 STONE SIZE DESIGNATION STONE SIZE Number in table is equal to stone class. 0.550.03 (CUYD/LNFT) backfill Granular (FOR INFO ONLY) APPLICATION RATES UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM front toe of rockery Proposed ditch invert and Bottom of rockery 1 :6 Variable 1.5:1 1.5' beyond wall. Install underdrain at 0.5% minimum grade. Daylight to ditch DitchLine type I-A Earthwork geotextile, (SQYD/LNFT) type I-A geotextile, Earthwork See detail this sheet Underdrain system DETAILS ROCKERY WALL conserved excavation Backfill with Bed coarse J.4 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] U S _ S u r _ f t 2 D [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 3 1 4 3 9 1 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 s c . d g n WA JEFF 91420(1) 7 : 2 2 A M 3 0 J a n u a r y 2 0 1 7 C . C o n r a d - - / - - - - 0 1 / 2 0 1 7 C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : Geotextile filter, Class I, Type A [1]6" dia. perforated pipe [1] required. and eliminate gaps over 6". Cutting or dressing of stones is not beneath it. Use smaller stones as needed to maintain spacing Bear each larger stone (size 4-6) firmly on at least two stones to wall. Place larger stones (size 4-6) with longest axis perpendicular 2. 1. 70 % PL A N IN HA N D 04 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 K.1 TRAFFIC CONTROL QUANTITIES TABULATION OF TEMPORARY STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] U S _ S u r _ f t 2 D [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 9 0 7 4 7 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 _ n a . d g n WA JEFF 91420(1) 4 : 5 3 P M 1 3 A p r il 2 0 1 7 - - / - - - - - - / - - - - C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : FOOTNOTE: For temporary widening at Canyon Creek. See detail Sheet K._[1] 7 0 % P L A N I N H A N D 0 4 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 NO SCALE G20-2 G20-2 G20-2 G20-1 See Note 11 G20-1 See Note 11 Min or R oa d M ajor R oa d W20-1 See Note 10 W20-1 See Note 10 W20-1 over W16-8P See Note 9 W20-1 over W16-8P See Note 9 W20-1 Road Name SIGN SPACING TABLE ROAD TYPE DISTANCE BETWEEN A B C 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. ROAD WORK END WORK ROAD AHEAD ROAD WORK END ROAD WORK END ROAD WORK END WORK ROAD AHEAD WORK ROAD AHEAD W20-1 See Note 10 W20-1 See Note 10 G20-2 Erect all project advance warning signs before starting construction work. Not all details shown on the temporary traffic control sheets may be applicable to this project. The Contractor may add or delete information and details in this traffic control plan as necessary to accommodate actual operations. Where advance warning signs, placed as shown, interfere with permanent signs, locate the warning signs as determined by the CO for best results. Vary messages as required. Additional or different message signs may be required to fit the actual construction conditions. Install advisory speed plates under the W20 series warning signs as needed to indicate a maximum recommended speed through the construction area. Ensure all sign supports exposed to impact by traffic meet the requirements of NCHRP-350 or MASH for crashworthiness. Maintain two-way traffic during all non-work hours except as approved by the CO. Do not store traffic control devices along the roadway when not in use. Cover post-mounted signs when not applicable. If W20-1 is placed on a roadway other than that on which the actual construction work occurs, include a supplementary plaque indicating the name of the road on which the construction does occur (applies to major roads only). The message on the W20-1 signs may be "ROAD WORK AHEAD" or may specify the distance to the work area in feet or in miles. Install an additional W20-1 each end of the project. Show the distance on the G20-1 sign to the nearest whole mile. If signing on a roadway under a jurisdiction other than the client agency, verify that an encroachment permit has been obtained. State standards may be used as an alternative if approved by the CO. Refer to the Section 635 of the Special Contract Requirements for allowable retroreflective sheeting types. Expressway / Freeway A B C (See Sign Spacing Table) ADVAN CE W ARNING AREA C B A as determined by the CO W ork zone Area of Influence A Project Limits A A (See Sign Spacing Table) ADVAN CE W ARNING AREA A A ROAD NAME ROAD NAME ROAD WORK NEXT xx MILES WORK ROAD xxxxxxx WORK ROAD xxxxx WORK ROAD xxxxxxx WORK ROAD xxxxxxx ROAD WORK NEXT xx MILES W13-1P (optional) W13-1P (optional) xx MPH xx MPH STANDARD APPROVED FOR USE 6/2005 DRAFT: 6/2014 REVISED: For work zones that are 2 miles or more in length, install G20-1 signs at signs "B" feet apart according to the Sign Spacing Table. sign when approach speeds exceed 50 MPH. When used place the two W20-1 Rural greater than 50 MPH Urban and Rural 35 MPH to 50 MPH Urban and Rural 30 MPH and less 1000 500 350 100 1500 500 350 100 2640 500 350 100 SIGNS IN FEET 635-1 ADVANCE SIGNING TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET K.2 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION JEFF 91420(1) WA ] U S C [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 9 0 7 4 7 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 _ n b . d g n 1 0 : 0 6 A M 3 1 J a n u a r y 2 0 1 7 FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY U.S. CUSTOMARY STANDARD STANDARD NOTE: 70 % PL A N IN HA N D 04 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 T r a ffi c fl o w T r a ffi c fl o w Traffic flow Traffic flow Traffic flow Traffic flow T r a ffi c fl o w T r a ffi c fl o w T r a ffi c fl o w T r a ffi c fl o w Traffic flow Traffic flow Double solid line: two pavement markers, side by side, spaced on allowed by the gap shown based on curvature. DETAIL A DETAIL B NOTE: DETAIL B1 Passing zone both directions Two-way traffic DETAIL A1 Passing zone both directions Two-way traffic DETAIL A2 No passing zone one direction Two-way traffic DETAIL B2 No Passing zone one direction Two-way traffic DETAIL A3 No passing zone both directions Two-way traffic DETAIL B3 No Passing zone both directions Two-way traffic yellow centerline Shoulder Shoulder and solid yellow centerline Shoulder yellow centerline Shoulder yellow centerline solid yellow centerline Shoulder Shoulder On two- or three-lane roads, signs may be used instead of temporary To substitute raised pavement markers for lines, use the following patterns: 1. 2. 635-2 STANDARD APPROVED FOR USE 6/2005 DRAFT: 9/2016 REVISED: 4" Broken yellow 4" Broken yellow 4" Solid double 4" Solid double 4" Broken yellow and 2' broken line: two pavement markers spaced 2' apart Single solid line: pavement markers spaced on 10' centers. 10' centers. Curves < 500' Radius Tangents or Curves ≥ 500' Radius PAVEMENT MARKINGS TEMPORARY 2'18' 40' 2'18' 40' 2'38' 4" Broken yellow centerline 2'38' 20' 20' pavement markings as shown on Standard 635-3. STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET K.3 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION JEFF 91420(1) WA ] U S C [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 9 0 7 4 7 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 _ n c . d g n 1 0 : 1 3 A M 3 1 J a n u a r y 2 0 1 7 FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY U.S. CUSTOMARY STANDARD STANDARD 7 0 % P L A N I N H A N D 0 4 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 WORK ROAD xxxxxxx WORK ROAD xxxxxxx xx MPH ROAD WORK END NO SCALE 635-4 FOR DIVERSION TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL STANDARD APPROVED FOR USE 6/2005 DRAFT: 6/2015 REVISED: STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET K.4 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION JEFF 91420(1) WA ] U S C [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 9 0 7 4 7 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 _ n d . d g n 1 0 : 1 3 A M 3 1 J a n u a r y 2 0 1 7 FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY U.S. CUSTOMARY STANDARD STANDARD W1-6 Rt. or Lt. Traffic flow Traffic flow Signs are shown for one direction of travel only. Place devices similar to those depicted for the opposite direction of travel. If the area approaching diversion is not already signed and marked as a no passing zone, add signing and/or marking as appropriate. Remove conflicting pavement markings. W20-1 See Note 4 W20-1 See Note 4 G20-2 See Note 4 LENGTH AND SPACING TABLE APPROACH SPEED*TAPER AREA BUFFER SPACE WORK SPACE CHANNELIZING DEVICE W13-1P 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. W24-1 See Note 3 *Approach speed based on the regulatory posted speed, not the advisory speed. SIGN SPACING TABLE ROAD TYPE DISTANCE BETWEEN A B C BUFFER SPACE LENGTH NOTE: Expressway / Freeway use an appropriate "Reverse Curve" sign (W1-4) instead of the "Double Reverse Curve" sign (W24-1). Install a second, appropriate "Reverse Curve" sign (W1-4) in advance of the second reverse curve back to the original alignment. Use "Reverse Turn" signs (W1-3) instead when the diversion has sharp curves with recommended speeds of 30 mph or less. If the diversion is completely within the project limits, eliminate the "ROAD WORK AHEAD" (W20-1) and "END ROAD WORK" (G20-2) signs. Place channelizing devices outside temporary roadway. Do not allow equipment, materials, or vehicles to be parked or stored in the buffer space. ABC ADVANCE WARNING AREA (See Sign Spacing Table) TAPER AREA BUFFER SPACE See Length and Spacing Table A TAPER AREABUFFER SPACE for all diversion curves radius for the signed speed Use at least the minimum Mounted on Type 3 barricades Show markings as no passing unless otherwise directed by the CO) Channelizing devices (drums, directed by the CO along diversion as channelizing devices Delineators or If the tangent distance along the temporary diversion is more than 600', SIGNS IN FEET 1500 500 350 100 2640 500 350 100 1000 500 350 100 Rural greater than 50 MPH Urban and Rural 35 MPH to 50 MPH Urban and Rural 30 MPH and lessSPACING IN FEET FEETMPH 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 730 645 570 495 425 360 305 250 200 155 115 20-70 20-65 20-60 20-55 20-50 20-45 20-40 20-35 20-30 20-25 20 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 70 % PL A N IN HA N D 04 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 NO SCALE Traffic flow Traffic flow Signs are shown for one direction of travel only. Place devices similar to those depicted for the opposite direction of travel. Final location and spacing of signs and devices may be changed to fit field conditions as approved by the CO. For pilot car operation, mount the "PILOT CAR FOLLOW ME" (G20-4) sign at a conspicuous location on the rear of vehicle. Prominently display the name of the Contractor on the pilot car. If closure is completely within the project limits, eliminate the "ROAD WORK AHEAD" (W20-1) and "END ROAD WORK" (G20-2) signs. For night time flagging operation, provide floodlighting at flagger stations. Do not allow equipment, materials, or vehicles to be parked or stored in the buffer space. (See Length and Spacing Table) LENGTH AND SPACING TABLE APPROACH SPEED*1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. (See Length and Spacing Table) WORK SPACE G20-2 See Note 4 W20-1 See Note 4 W3-4 W16-2P (optional) W20-7 SIGN SPACING TABLE ROAD TYPE DISTANCE BETWEEN A B C *Approach speed based on the regulatory posted speed, not the advisory speed. BUFFER SPACE BUFFER SPACE LENGTH NOTE: Expressway / Freeway WORK ROAD AHEAD BE PREPARED TO STOP ROAD WORK END xxx FEET ADVANCE WARNING AREA (See Sign Spacing Table) TERMINATION AREAVARIABLEBUFFER SPACEABC (optional) A Flagger location Flagger location 635-5 STANDARD APPROVED FOR USE 6/2005 DRAFT: 8/2013 REVISED: MPH 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 FEET 730 645 570 495 425 360 305 250 200 155 115 Rural greater than 50 MPH Urban and Rural 35 MPH to 50 MPH Urban and Rural 30 MPH and less SIGNS IN FEET 1000 500 350 100 1500 500 350 100 2640 500 350 100 (WITH FLAGGERS) ROAD CLOSURE LAYOUT TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET K.5 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION JEFF 91420(1) WA ] U S C [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 9 0 7 4 7 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 _ n e . d g n 1 0 : 1 5 A M 3 1 J a n u a r y 2 0 1 7 FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY U.S. CUSTOMARY STANDARD STANDARD 7 0 % P L A N I N H A N D 0 4 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 NO SCALE Traffic flow Traffic flow See Note 4 W20-1 W20-7W20-4 See Note 4 G20-2 Spacing Table) (See Length and (optional) WORK SPACE (optional)(optional) (optional) W13-1P (optional) W16-2P 7. 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. the buffer space. Do not allow equipment, materials, or vehicles to be parked or stored in Requirements, Section 156. For project specific minimum width, refer to the Special Contract For night time flagging operation, provide floodlighting at flagger stations. WORK AHEAD" (W20-1) and "END ROAD WORK" (G20-2) signs. If closure is completely within the project limits, eliminate the "ROAD name of the contractor on the pilot car. a conspicuous location on the rear of vehicle. Prominently display the For pilot car operation, mount the PILOT CAR FOLLOW ME (G20-4) sign at conditions as approved by the CO. Final location and spacing of signs and devices may be changed to fit field those depicted for the opposite direction of travel. Signs are shown for one direction of travel only. Place devices similar to LENGTH AND SPACING TABLE SPEED* APPROACH AREA TAPER SPACE BUFFER SPACE WORK CHANNELIZING DEVICE not the advisory speed. Approach speed based on the regulatory posted speed, * SIGN SPACING TABLE ROAD TYPE DISTANCE BETWEEN A B C LENGTH BUFFER SPACE NOTE: Expressway / Freeway WORK ROAD AHEAD ONE LANE ROAD AHEAD xx MPH xxx FEET ROAD WORK END ATAPER AREABUFFER SPACEVARIABLEBUFFER SPACETAPER AREAABC (See Length and Spacing Table)ADVANCE WARNING AREA (See Sign Spacing Table)TERMINATION AREA Device spacing BUFFER SPACE Channelizing devices Flagger location Flagger location 635-6 STANDARD APPROVED FOR USE 6/2005 DRAFT: 8/2013 REVISED: MPH FEET 730 645 570 495 425 360 305 250 200 155 115 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 Rural greater than 50 MPH Urban and Rural 35 MPH to 50 MPH Urban and Rural 30 MPH and less SIGNS IN FEET 1000 500 350 100 1500 500 350 100 2640 500 350 100 (WITH FLAGGERS) SINGLE LANE CLOSURE LAYOUT TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL SPACING IN FEET 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 50' - 100'50' - 100' (optional) See Note 6 10' min. STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET K.6 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION JEFF 91420(1) WA ] U S C [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 9 0 7 4 7 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 _ n f . d g n 1 0 : 1 6 A M 3 1 J a n u a r y 2 0 1 7 FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY U.S. CUSTOMARY STANDARD STANDARD 70 % PL A N IN HA N D 04 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 NO SCALE LENGTH AND SPACING TABLE SPEED* APPROACH AREA TAPER SPACE BUFFER SPACE WORK CHANNELIZING DEVICE not the advisory speed. Approach speed based on the regulatory posted speed, * SIGN SPACING TABLE ROAD TYPE DISTANCE BETWEEN A B C STOP HERE ON RED ROAD WORK END ROAD WORK END STOP HERE ON RED LENGTH BUFFER SPACE Expressway / Freeway xx MPH ONE LANE ROAD AHEAD WORK ROAD AHEAD (optional) light warning Type B See Note 5 STOP LINE Channelizing devices See Note 5 STOP LINE See Note 2 Temporary traffic signal to provide access to work space downstream taper if necessary Reduce or eliminate drums in See Note 2 Temporary traffic signal 635-9 STANDARD APPROVED FOR USE 6/2005 DRAFT: 9/2016 REVISED: MPH FEET SPACING IN FEET Rural greater than 50 MPH Urban and Rural 35 MPH to 50 MPH Urban and Rural 30 MPH and less SIGNS IN FEET 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 730 645 570 495 425 360 305 250 200 155 115 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 1000 500 350 100 1500 500 350 100 2640 500 350 100 it has two signal faces that are at least 8 feet apart and meets the other 50' - 100'50' - 100' (optional) (WITH SIGNALS) SINGLE LANE CLOSURE LAYOUT TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL See Note 7 10' min. 40' - 180' 40' - 180' STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET K.7 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION JEFF 91420(1) WA ] B o r d e r . U S [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 4 3 0 7 7 \ F L H - C e l l s . d g n l i b 8 : 5 9 A M 2 4 F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 6 FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY U.S. CUSTOMARY STANDARD STANDARD (optional) W1-4 (optional)(optional) WORK SPACE Traffic flow Traffic flow W3-3 R10-6 See Note 6 G20-2 See Note 6 G20-2 Spacing Table) (See Length and 8. 7. 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. See Note 6 W20-1 W20-4 (optional) W13-1P R10-6 NOTE: A single signal installation is acceptable, on the right-hand side of the road, if depicted for the opposite direction of travel. Signs are shown for one direction of travel only. Place devices similar to those ADVANCE WARNING AREA (See Sign Spacing Table) ABC (See Length and Spacing Table)VARIABLE TERMINATION AREA BUFFER SPACETAPER AREA BUFFER SPACE TAPER AREA A Device spacingSee Note 5 the buffer space. Do not allow equipment, materials, or vehicles to be parked or stored in Section 156. For project specific minimum width, refer to Special Contract Requirements, AHEAD" (W20-1) and "END ROAD WORK" (G20-2) signs. If closure is completely within the project limits, eliminate the "ROAD WORK pavement markings. Removeable pavement markings may be used for stop lines and no-passing advance of the stop line that comply with MUTCD Section 3B.02. markers between the work space and the stop line. Add no-passing lines in Section 3B.16. Remove existing conflicting pavement markings and raised For paved roadway surfaces, install stop lines complying with MUTCD must be determined by a qualified engineer. conditions as approved by the CO. If signals are moved, revised signal timing Final location and spacing of signs and devices may be changed to fit field automatically, ensure red signal indications are flashed to both approaches. engineer. When the signal is changed to the flashing mode either manually or provisions of the MUTCD, Part 4. Signal timing shall be established by a qualified Install and operate temporary traffic control signals in accordance with the requirements of Part 4 of the MUTCD. 7 0 % P L A N I N H A N D 0 4 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 NO SCALE STANDARD APPROVED FOR USE 6/2005 DRAFT: 6/2015 REVISED: 635-13 (WITH TEMPORARY BARRIER) SINGLE LANE CLOSURE LAYOUT TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET K.8 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION JEFF 91420(1) WA ] U S C [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 9 0 7 4 7 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 _ n h . d g n 1 0 : 1 9 A M 3 1 J a n u a r y 2 0 1 7 FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY U.S. CUSTOMARY STANDARD STANDARD Traffic flow Traffic flow Install signs and other devices for single lane closure according to LENGTH AND SPACING TABLE SPEED* APPROACH AREA TAPER SPACE BUFFER SPACE WORK CHANNELIZING DEVICE RATE FLARE BARRIER CONCRETE 1:16 1:16 1:16 1:16 1:14 1:12 1:10 1:9 1:8 1:8 1:8 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1.LENGTH BUFFER SPACE Approach speed based on the regulatory posted speed, not the advisory speed.* NOTE: WIDTH CLEAR ZONE WORK ZONE barrier ends outside the work zone clear zone or protect the barrier ends Place barrier according to the AASHTO Roadside Design Guide. Terminate devices may be changed to fit field conditions as approved by the CO. to provide access to work space. Reduce or eliminate drums and barrier in downstream taper if necessary the buffer space. Do not allow equipment, materials, or vehicles to be parked or stored in when access is not needed. Place channelizing devices at downstream taper during non-work hours or Section 156. For project specific minimum width, refer to Special Contract Requirements, spacing Device pavement markings Remove conflicting Channelizing devices See Note 2 Temporary concrete barrier. See Note 4 TAPER AREA ( (optional) BUFFER SPACE VARIABLE WORK SPACE (See Length and Spacing Table) (optional) BUFFER SPACE TAPER AREA 50' - 100') (50' - 100') with a crash cushion. Include reflectors on barrier at 25' intervals. Standard 635-6, 7, 8, or 9. Final location and spacing of signs and FEETSPACING IN FEETFEETMPH 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 730 645 570 495 425 360 305 250 200 155 115 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 30 30 20 20 20 15 10 10 10 10 See Note 3 10' min. See Note 2 See Note 2 70 % PL A N IN HA N D 04 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 WIDTH "X" AREA 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 4 3 NUMBER OF POSTS POST SIZE D HOLE SIZE WOOD POST SELECTION TABLE SINGLE POST SIGN TWO POST SIGN SIGN INSTALLATION ANGLE POST DETAIL S e e N o t e 5 S e e N o t e 5 See Note 4 E d g e o f t r a v e l e d w a y E d g e o f p a v e d s h o u l d e r CL NO SCALE Post Local tangent Bottom of sign panel X H 1 H 1 D H 2 0.75XX X H 2 Y D H 1 0.2X 0.6X 0.2X D See post detail (typ.) Break-away holes. Long side of post D 90° 93° 635-14 STANDARD APPROVED FOR USE 6/2005 DRAFT: 9/2014 REVISED: 6" x 6" or larger. Use 7' minimum spacing between posts for sign posts and 6' minimum mounting height for secondary sign. use 7' minimum mounting height for main sign a minimum lateral distance of 1' behind the face of lateral offset of 2' may be used. In areas with curbs, Diamond ≤ 48" > 30' > 17' 12' - 16' > 13' < 10 65 - 95 65 - 95 50 - 65 50 - 65 20 - 50 10 - 20 10 - 20 6 x 6 4 x 6 4 x 6 6 x 6 4 x 6 4 x 4 6 x 6 4 x 6 4 x 4 (INCH)(INCH) 48 48 48 48 48 36 48 48 36 (INCH) 2 2 1.5 2 1.5 0 2 1.5 0 (SQFT) Other Shapes ≤ 48" Diamond ≤ 36" Other Shapes ≤ 12' Diamond ≤ 48" 200' 1 4 " 4 " 5 ' m i n . 4 ' m i n . 6' - 12' WOOD POSTS SIGN INSTALLATION TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL " dia. bolts 4 1Attach sign panels with a minimum of 2 - STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET K.9 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION JEFF 91420(1) WA ] U S C [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 9 0 7 4 7 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 _ n i . d g n 1 0 : 2 1 A M 3 1 J a n u a r y 2 0 1 7 FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY U.S. CUSTOMARY STANDARD STANDARD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.State standards may be used as an alternative if approved by the CO. per post. H1 and H2 = Overall post length. Select post lengths to fit field conditions. D = Post embedment depth for average soil conditions. In areas where lateral distance is limited, a minimum the curb may be used. In pedestrian locations, or in areas with obstructed views, NOTE: See table for hole size parallel to sign face. Field drill holes through post 7 0 % P L A N I N H A N D 0 4 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 QUANTITIES PERMANENT TRAFFIC CONTROL TABULATION OF FOOTNOTE: Includes quantity for double application.[1] L.1 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] U S _ S u r _ f t 2 D [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 9 0 7 4 8 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 p a . d g n WA JEFF 91420(1) 1 : 5 3 P M 1 8 A p r il 2 0 1 7 C . C o n r a d - - / - - - - 0 1 / 2 0 1 7 C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : 70 % PL A N IN HA N D 04 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 N 5 0 EL= 265.88 E= 818,093.592 N= 317,630.060 47+81.15 UPPER HOH RIVER ROAD WA JEFF 91420(1) RESUME PROJECT EL= 263.76 E= 818,308.987 N= 317,423.417 50+79.67 UPPER HOH RIVER ROAD WA JEFF 91420(1) SUSPEND PROJECT Double solid yellow 47+81.15 TO 50+79.67 MP 4 AOP PERMANENT TRAFFIC CONTROL L.2 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] U S _ S u r _ f t 2 D [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 9 0 7 4 8 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 p b . d g n WA JEFF 91420(1) 6 : 4 5 A M 1 F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 7 C . C o n r a d - - / - - - - 0 1 / 2 0 1 7 C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : 7 0 % P L A N I N H A N D 0 4 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 N 7 5 8 5 8 0 N SUSPEND PROJECT EL= 332.03 E= 833,967.476 N= 315,476.235 85+00 UPPER HOH RIVER ROAD WA JEFF 91420(1) 71+00 TO 85+00 TOWER CREEK PERMANENT TRAFFIC CONTROL Double solid yellow Double solid yellow EL= 319.92 E= 833,008.593 N= 314,584.308 71+00 UPPER HOH RIVER ROAD WA JEFF 91420(1) RESUME PROJECT NO SHOULDER 73+71 RT W11-10 76+76 LT OM3L 76+76 RT OM3R 78+18 LT OM3R 78+18 RT OM3L 81+68 RT W8-23 [1]83+79 RT OM3R FOOTNOTE Verifiy location in field.[1] L.3 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] U S _ S u r _ f t 2 D [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 9 0 7 4 8 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 p c . d g n WA JEFF 91420(1) 1 : 5 5 P M 1 8 A p r il 2 0 1 7 C . C o n r a d - - / - - - - 0 1 / 2 0 1 7 C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y : 70 % PL A N IN HA N D 04 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 1 0 5 1 1 0 1 1 5 103+00 TO 117+02.29 CANYON CREEK PERMANENT TRAFFIC CONTROL EL= 466.96 E= 844,624.648 N= 313,355.855 103+00 UPPER HOH RIVER ROAD WA JEFF 91420(1) RESUME PROJECT EL= 430.27 E= 845,968.915 N= 313,751.062 117+02.39 UPPER HOH RIVER ROAD WA JEFF 91420(1) END PROJECT N N Double solid yellow Double solid yellow L.4 STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET ] U S _ S u r _ f t 2 D [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 9 0 7 4 8 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 p d . d g n WA JEFF 91420(1) 7 : 0 9 A M 2 F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 7 C . C o n r a d - - / - - - - 0 1 / 2 0 1 7 C h e c k e d b y : D e s i g n e d b y :76+76 RT OM3R 76+76 RT OM3L 76+76 LT OM3L 76+76 LT OM3R 104+67 LT R2-1 SPEED LIMIT 35 SPEED LIMIT 35 104+67 RT R2-1 7 0 % P L A N I N H A N D 0 4 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 REVISED: W633-7 WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION DETAIL APPROVED FOR USE 10/2009 6" x 8" when located within the clear zone or if the WOOD POSTS INSTALLATION PERMANENT SIGN Product of X-Y-Z in CUFT(inch) 8 x 12 8 x 10 6 x 10 6 x 8 6 x 6 4 x 6 4 x 4 775 575 385 300 235 180 80 2310 1610 1180 850 475 385 155 3465 2410 1170 1280 710 545 235 4620 3215 2360 1700 950 725 310 6'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 4'-0" 4'-0" 4'-0" 3'-0" "4 31 "4 31 "2 12 - - - - 7 ft 5 ft6 ft 2 ft For all retroflectorized signs where W > 25' all around (typ.) 3" minimum all around (typ.) 3" minimum all around (typ.) 3" minimum all around (typ.) 3" minimum 1 4 " 4 " " 2 1 maximum X=5 ft to 12 ft (max.) X=4 ft (min.) 18 ft (max.) X=10 ft (min.) to 22 ft (max.) X=14 ft (min.) to V may be reduced by 1 foot in rural districts for " lock nut16 5 " oversized washer16 5 " bolt16 5 " bolt thru the post8 3 " outside dia.) 4 1(1 oversized washer " nonmetallic16 5 9 : 1 7 A M 1 F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 7 ] U S C [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 9 0 7 4 8 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 p e . d g n FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DETAIL U.S. CUSTOMARY DETAIL STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET L.5 JEFF 91420(1) WA SINGLE POST SIGNS POST DETAIL THREE POST SIGNS FOUR POST SIGNS MINIMUM DISTANCE TO SIGN SIGN INSTALLATION ANGLE SIGNS WITHOUT ANGLES TYPICAL MOUNTING FOR WOOD POST SELECTION TABLE Direction of traffic flow SIZE POST NUMBER OF POSTS 1 2 3 4 D diameter and hole depth Notch from curb Offset (W) Lateral Height (V) Mounting NOTE: NO SCALE 0.6X0.2X 0.2X W 0 . 5 Y Z ( t y p . ) D V Y 2 H 5. 4. 3. 2. 1.Traffic barrier protection is required for all posts larger than 1 H TWO POST SIGNS of traveled way Elevation at edge of traveled way Elevation at edge of traveled way Elevation at edge of traveled way Elevation at edge E d g e o f s h o u l d e r E d g e o f t r a v e l e d w a y E d g e o f s h o u l d e r E d g e o f t r a v e l e d w a y E d g e o f t r a v e l e d w a y E d g e o f s h o u l d e r Long side of post single post installations of post. Omit notch for Saw cut notch full width (See Post Selection table) Notch depth (where required) W 0.15X0.35X0.35X0.15X 0.125X0.25X0.25X0.25X0.125X Same post size V Y ( t y p . ) DBackfill material ( t y p . ) D Z 0 . 5 Y 0 . 5 Y Z V Y 93° 1 H 2 H 3 H 1 H 2 H 3 H 4 H Location Rural Districts Residence Districts Business or W W V Y 0 . 5 Y Z ( t y p . ) D 1 H CL Bottom of sign post See table for hole size post, parallel to sign face. Field drill holes through Finish ground line Same post size Backfill materialBackfill material Same post size Backfill material a secondary sign mounted below another sign. exceeds the limit for the largest post, use steel post installation. Values shown are the maximum permitted. If the product of XYZ E d g e o f t r a v e l e d w a y E d g e o f s h o u l d e r rectangle enclosing all the signs. - Multiple sign installations: X and Y are the dimensions of a dimensions of the signs. - Single sign, or back to back signs: X and Y are the overall For the purpose of post selection X and Y are as follows: longest post. Z is the height from ground line to mid-height of sign at the conditions. See Wood Post Selection Table below. D is the minimum post embedment depth for average soil to fit field conditions. indicate overall post length. Select post lengths 4 thru H1H clear zone. post is vulnerable to being struck when placed outside the 70 % PL A N IN HA N D 04 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 Place delineators 2 feet from the edge of design shoulder " x 2" lag screws8 3using two 1,000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 250 180 115 50 90 85 80 75 70 65 55 50 40 35 25 20 (FEET)(FEET) WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION DETAIL APPROVED FOR USE 1/2008 REVISED: DELINEATORS WASHINGTON W633-80 Spacing = 3 √ R-50. Curve spacing should not exceed 300 feet. The minimum spacing should be 20 feet. typ. 100' max. 50' 3" 4 " 4 " 4 " 1 " 8 " 1 "3" 6 " m i n . 4 5 " m i n t o 5 1 " m a x . 4 5 " m i n t o 5 1 " m a x . 4 5 " m i n t o 5 1 " m a x . 8' max. 2' min.8' max. 2' min. 9 : 1 8 A M 1 F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 7 ] U S C [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 9 0 7 4 8 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 p f . d g n FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DETAIL U.S. CUSTOMARY DETAIL STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET L.6 JEFF 91420(1) WA NO SCALE 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. Manufacturer's bury depth PLACEMENT ON HORIZONTAL CURVES PLACEMENT AT BRIDGE APPROACHESREFLECTIVE SHEETING DETAIL ON HORIZONTAL CURVES DELINEATOR SPACING CURVE RADIUS SPACING (S) NOTE: guide for delineation layout. Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD) as a Use the current edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic of the traffic delineators. pavement to be placed later when establishing the elevation the ultimate pavement, allow for the thickness of base and When the contract does not provide for the construction of on this sheet. mount a shorter delineator onto the guardrail post as shown Either drive the delineator in line with the guardrail posts or Install delineators behind the rail at guardrail locations. unless otherwise specified. delineator if this allowance is exceeded. to exceed one quarter of the normal spacing. Eliminate the delineator may be moved in either direction a distance not When a delineator falls within a cross road or approach, the FACING TRAFFIC BACK SIDE manufacturer are also acceptable submitted by the delineator Other approved fastening methods with washers at centerline of post. Fasten delineator to guardrail post outside of curve at spacing S Install delineators on E d g e o f s h o u l d e r E d g e o f s h o u l d e r traffic departing the bridge so that it is visible for Locate initial delineator Final delineator may be removed if B > S/2 the view of the bridge delineator for approaching traffic Locate initial delineator so that it does not hinder P T P C A b o v e n e a r t r a v e l l a n e e d g e (Use only with wood guardrail posts) A b o v e n e a r t r a v e l l a n e e d g e A b o v e n e a r t r a v e l l a n e e d g e reflective sheeting Top edge of Top edge of reflective sheeting Top edge of reflective sheeting sheeting retroreflective White from the table, or calculated using the formula: Spacing for a specific curve may be interpolated GROUND MOUNTED FLEXIBLE DELINEATOR GUARDRAIL MOUNTED OPTION FLEXIBLE DELINEATOR SURFACE MOUNTED FLEXIBLE DELINEATOR S S B S 7 0 % P L A N I N H A N D 0 4 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 10'30'10'30'10' 2' to 6' REVISED: 10/2012 W634-2 WESTERN FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION DETAIL APPROVED FOR USE 10/2007 PAVEMENT MARKINGS LINEAR 2' 3 0 ' m a x . 4 ' m i n . 2 " 2 " 4 " 4 " 4" dotted white line 4" solid white edge 4" solid double 4" dotted white Locate 12" wide stop line to 4" solid white edge line 4" broken yellow centerline 9 : 1 8 A M 1 F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 7 ] U S C [ c : \ m y f i l e s \ p w _ p r o d u c t i o n \ d 0 2 9 0 7 4 8 \ w a - a 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 p g . d g n FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DETAIL U.S. CUSTOMARY DETAIL STATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET L.7 JEFF 91420(1) WA NOTE: NO SCALE s s w Transition C u r v e w i d e n i n g Tr a n siti o n S ho u l d e r s T r a v e l L T r a v e l L S ho u l d e r s s L L s when specified in plans S h o u l d e r L a n e T r a v e l L a n e T r a v e l S h o u l d e r required by the maintaining agency. pavement markings when specified on the plans or when Typical pavement marking widths are shown. Use wider for curve widening transition locations. throughout the curve widening area. See staking details the roadway. Maintain a constant shoulder width "s" curve widening "w" to achieve equal lane widths within Paint centerline pavement markings on curves with curb interface when curb is present. Place edge line pavement markings at asphalt/concrete required by the maintaining agency when specified in the plans or when Increase spacing between parallel lines 3. 2. 1. markings when specified Approach road pavement TYPICAL PAVEMENT MARKING APPLICATIONS CENTERLINE MODIFICATION FOR CURVES WITH WIDENING APPLIED ON INSIDE CENTERLINE DETAIL See Note 2 for treatment of curves when widening "w" is split equally on both sides of centerline 2 L + w break specified in plans extension when edge line line when specified in plans yellow centerline line extension Turnout Edge of pavement allow sufficient sight distance Major approach road Minor approach Centerline as required Edge line when specified in plans and location of top lift pavement joint Offset centerline for pavement markings Design Edge line when specified in plans 2w L + 2w L + 2 w CL CL L a n e L a n e 70 % PL A N IN HA N D 04 - 1 8 - 2 0 1 7 Upper Hoh River Road Project June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment Final EA Appendix J Wetland Addendum Upper Hoh River Road Project June 2017 Final Environmental Assessment This page intentionally left blank. Wetland Delineation Report – Addendum 1 Upper Hoh River Road Project Jefferson County, Washington WA JEFF 91420 Prepared for: Federal Highway Administration Western Federal Lands Highway Division 610 East Fifth Street Vancouver, Washington 98661 FHAX0000-0242 Prepared by: Richard Pratt DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 14432 SE Eastgate Way, Suite 400 Bellevue, WA 98007 July 2017 Upper Hoh River Road Project July 2017 Wetland Delineation Report - Addendum 1 page i Table of Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................................................... ii 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................... 3 3 METHODS ............................................................................................................................. 3 4 RESULTS .............................................................................................................................. 5 4.1 Background .................................................................................................................... 5 4.2 Wetlands ......................................................................................................................... 5 4.3 Streams ........................................................................................................................ 19 5 References ......................................................................................................................... 32 List of Figures Figure 1. Project Location ............................................................................................................................. 2 List of Tables Table 1. Wetland Summary Table ................................................................................................................ 6 Table 2. Individual Wetland Summary Data ................................................................................................ 7 Table 3. Stream Summary Table ................................................................................................................. 19 Table 4. Individual Stream Summary Data ................................................................................................ 20 List of Appendices Appendix A: Wetland and Stream Figures Appendix B: Wetland Data Forms Appendix C: Wetland Rating Sheets Upper Hoh River Road Project July 2017 Wetland Delineation Report - Addendum 1 page ii Acronyms and Abbreviations Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers DEA David Evans and Associates, Inc. Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FAC facultative FACW facultative wetland FHWA Federal Highway Administration GIS Geographic Information System HGM hydorgeomorphic MP mile post OBL obligate wetland OHWM ordinary high water mark ONP Olympic National Park UHRR Upper Hoh River Road US 101 U.S. Highway 101 WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WFLHD Western Federal Lands Highway Division Upper Hoh River Road Project July 2017 Wetland Delineation Report - Addendum 1 page 1 1 INTRODUCTION This addendum provides supplemental information on wetland, streams, and ditches for expanded areas of the study area beyond those described in the original Wetland Delineation Report for the Upper Hoh River Road (UHRR) Project (DEA 2015). The overall project is proposed by the Western Federal Lands Highway Division (WFLHD) of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The proposal will implement bank stabilization, replace Tower Creek Bridge, and replace Canyon Creek culvert with a bridge along UHHR located in Jefferson County, Washington. Work will occur between milepost 3.52 and 10.27. The UHRR is an 18-mile road that extends east from Highway 101 along the north side of the Hoh River and ends in Olympic National Park (ONP). Jefferson County owns and maintains the 12 westernmost miles of the road and ONP maintains the remaining 6 miles within the park. The proposed UHRR Project (project) study area covers five impact sites and two mitigation sites for the project (Appendix A: Figures 1 and 2). These were specified in the project statement of work as follows:  Site C1, Milepost 3.52 to 4.0 – Implement bank stabilization  Site C2, Milepost 4.0 to 4.49 – Implement bank stabilization  Site C3, Milepost 7.3 – Replace Tower Creek Bridge  Site C4, Milepost 7.3 to 7.93 – Implement bank stabilization  Site C5 Milepost 10.17 to 10.27 – Replace Canyon Creek culvert with a bridge  Site M1, Milepost 7.28 – Mitigation  Site M2, Milepost 9.76 to 9.83 – Potential Mitigation Mileposts provided above are approximate. The individual site study areas were mapped by David Evans and Associates, Inc. (DEA) using Geographic Information System (GIS) software and hand markup maps provided by FHWA. Site study area mapping was confirmed by FHWA and are shown in the Wetland and Stream figures provided in Appendix: A. The Hoh River is eroding away the riverbank and undermining sections of UHRR. FHWA is studying and designing options to stabilize the banks along the river and improve overpasses of several tributaries. This wetland delineation addendum supplements the UHRR Wetland Delineation Report (DEA 2015) and is intended to support related planning, permitting, and design efforts. Upper Hoh River Road Project July 2017 Wetland Delineation Report - Addendum 1 page 2 Figure 1. Project Location Upper Hoh River Road Project July 2017 Wetland Delineation Report - Addendum 1 page 3 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION WFLHD, in partnership with Jefferson County, plans to construct bank stabilization and bridge and culvert improvements in six locations along UHRR. The general project area extends from mile post (MP) 3.6 to MP 10.2 including areas north and south of the road and the adjacent northern (right) bank and channel of the Hoh River. The UHRR is located in western Jefferson County, Washington, between U.S. Highway 101 (US 101) and the Hoh Rain Forest Visitor Center. The road is used to access ONP and private properties along the road. The road was built in the 1930s, when the park was established, and is the primary western access to the park. The UHRR extends in a generally east-west direction north of and in many places adjacent to the Hoh River, an approximately 56-mile-long river originating from glaciers on Mount Olympus and flowing through the Olympic Mountains, foothills, and emptying into the Pacific Ocean at the Hoh Indian Reservation. The Hoh River valley is relatively flat and broad with a complex channel migration zone that supports a braided river channel, and a wide variety of gravel bars, side channels, and backwater areas. The Hoh River is also characterized by a wide range of seasonal flow rates, with recorded annual peak flows of more than 60,000 cubic feet per second. The road varies in proximity to the Hoh River and in certain areas is within approximately 5 feet of the river embankment. This has resulted in unstable banks and slides during high water or storm events. WFLHD and the County have constructed several bank stabilization projects in recent years along the road in order to prevent road closures due to loss of the roadbed or unstable slopes. WFLHD chose the locations for the proposed project as they had the highest risk of impending failure based on the Upper Hoh River Bank Failure Risk Reduction Study (WFLHD 2013). Without the proposed project, emergency repairs along the UHRR would be regularly required. The proposed project implements cost-effective, long-term bank stabilization solutions at three locations along the UHRR. The roadway at these sites is at risk of washing away in the event of a large flood. The purpose of the proposed bank stabilization improvements is to eliminate or substantially reduce this risk at these three locations, and to assure safe and consistent access to residents, businesses, and ONP visitors via the UHRR. The project will also replace or improve three existing bridge or culvert locations, the intent of which is also to assure safe and consistent access to residents, business, and ONP visitors via the UHRR. 3 METHODS DEA performed field visits to the study area in April 2017 to delineate wetland boundaries, mark stream ordinary high water mark (OHWM), and document existing habitat conditions and wildlife use for areas defined for this addendum. Wetlands were identified and delineated using the routine approach described in the Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Lab 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [Corps] 2010). Upper Hoh River Road Project July 2017 Wetland Delineation Report - Addendum 1 page 4 Data plots were sampled that identify the presence/absence of wetland indicators (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology). Hydrophytic vegetation was determined to be present when dominant cover of plants observed (greater than 50 percent) had an indicator status of facultative (FAC), facultative wetland (FACW), or obligate wetland (OBL) (Lichvar 2012). Plant species in the study area were identified according to Cooke (1997), Pojar and MacKinnon (1994), and Hitchcock and Cronquist (1973), but updated nomenclature was used where known. Hydric soils were determined based on field indicators such as chroma color, redoximorphic features, and organic content (USDA and NRCS 2017). Evidence of wetland hydrology was based on observations of surface water, indicators of recent inundation, indicators of soil saturation, and from other site conditions (Corps 2010). If the three criteria were present, a wetland determination was made. If one or more of the criteria were absent, the area was designated non-wetland unless determined to be a problem area or atypical situation according to the methodologies (Corps 2010). Wetlands were classified using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wetland classification system (Cowardin et al. 1979). Wetlands were rated and functions/values were assessed using the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), Washington State Rating System for Western Washington (Hruby 2014). This rating system is function-based and differentiates wetlands based on their sensitivity to disturbance, their significance and rarity, the ability to replace them, and the functions they provide. The Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) classes are defined as part of the Ecology rating system (Hruby 2014). Where wetlands are sufficiently similar, a single rating form was completed for multiple wetlands. Wetland boundaries and data plot locations were mapped and subsequently surveyed using a GPS unit. All wetland boundaries, classifications, and assigned buffer widths are subject to verification by regulator agencies. Streams and their OHWM are defined by both the Corps and Ecology. The Corps (2014) guidance defines the OHWM as “that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas.” Ecology’s guidance (Olson and Stockdale 2010) defines the OHWM for state waters. Typical characteristics used to identify the OHWM (Corps 2005) include the following physical characteristics are used when making an OHWM determination, to the extent that they can be identified and are deemed reasonably reliable:  Natural line impressed on the bank  Shelving changes in the character of soil  Destruction of terrestrial vegetation  Presence of litter and debris wracking  Vegetation matted down, bent, or absent  Sediment sorting  Leaf litter disturbed or washed away Upper Hoh River Road Project July 2017 Wetland Delineation Report - Addendum 1 page 5  Scour  Deposition  Multiple observed flow events  Bed and banks  Water staining  Change in plant community Ditches may also be considered jurisdictional when they transport relatively permanent flow (continuous flow for at least three months) directly or indirectly into waters of the United States. All ditches within the study area were reviewed to determine if they meet the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Corps guidance (EPA and Corps 2008) for being jurisdictional waters. In most situations, it is not possible to document whether a ditch or channel within the project area has relatively permanent flows. The presence of an OHWM should be used as a baseline to establish the potential of relatively permanent flows. The OHWM and relatively permanent flow can be indicated by the following physical characteristics: The following additional characteristics were used to establish potential relatively permanent flow in ditches:  Presence of a defined channel with bed and bank  Areas exhibiting scour marks  Debris wracks  Shelving  Water staining  Areas of flowing or standing water  Clear areas of gravel with no vegetation In several locations, a new OHWM was determined that reflects a significant amount of bank erosion since the original field work in 2015. 4 RESULTS 4.1 Background The planning for this project has required the addition of areas that were not considered in the initial wetland survey (DEA 2015). Wetlands, streams and ditches in these additional areas are described below. Table 1 includes all features identified for the project (wetlands and streams from the 2015 report and this addendum). . 4.2 Wetlands A total of nine additional wetlands were identified and 3 wetland boundaries were extended in the Project area. These wetlands are in addition to the 10 wetlands identified in 2015 (DEA 2015). The wetlands not identified and described in this addendum are fully described in the original wetland Upper Hoh River Road Project July 2017 Wetland Delineation Report - Addendum 1 page 6 delineation report (DEA 2015). Wetland were identified in sites C1, C2, M1, and M2. Wetlands with sufficient similarities were rating together on a rating form. Wetland naming nomenclature in this report were named sequentially from W1 to W12. Wetlands identified in the original report (DEA 2015) used a numbering system that includes the type of aquatic feature (W) for a wetland and (S) for a stream, a site designation (i.e. 1 to 5), and an alpha designation (for example WC1-A). Where the two wetland delineations overlap, both names were included in Tables 1 and 2. Wetlands identified and described in this report slope seep systems except for two depressional wetlands at site M1. The wetlands are forested with evergreen trees. The rating for the wetlands are generally Category III except for the depressional wetlands that have increased water quality and hydrologic functions, which are Category II systems. A detailed comparison of identified wetlands is shown in Table 1. Each individual wetland is detailed in Table 2. Data sheets and rating sheets for all wetlands are in Appendix B and Appendix C. Detailed summaries for each of the described wetlands are included in Table 2. Table 1. Wetland Summary Table Wetland ID Ecology1 Category NWI Classifi- cation HGM Wetland Class Total Wetland Functions Score Water Quality Functions Score Hydrology Functions Score Wildlife Habitat Functions Score Jefferson County Wetland Buffer2 Site C1 W4 III PFO Slope 18 6 4 8 150 W5 III PSS Slope 17 6 4 7 80 W6/WC1-A III PFO Slope 18 6 4 8 150 Site C2 W1 III PEM Slope 17 6 4 7 80 W2/WC1-H III PFO Slope 18 6 4 8 150 W3/WC1-F III PFO Slope 18 6 4 8 150 W12 III PFO Slope 18 6 4 8 150 Site M1 W7 II PFO Depressional 20 7 5 8 300 W8 II PFO Depressional 20 7 5 8 300 Site M2 W9 II PSS Depressional 20 7 7 6 150 W10 II PSS Slope 20 7 5 8 150 W11 II PSS Slope 20 7 5 8 150 1 Washington State Department of Ecology (2014) 2 Wetland buffer widths in the Jefferson County Upper Hoh River Road Project July 2017 Wetland Delineation Report - Addendum 1 page 7 Table 2. Individual Wetland Summary Data WETLAND W1 – INFORMATION SUMMARY Location: Upper Hoh River Road, Phase 2; Roadmile 4.06 (Lat. 47.8231° N Long. -124.1872° W). Wetland W1 on slope above river with groundwater discharge. Saturated swale looking west in Wetland W1. WRIA / HUC 20- Soleduc / 17100101 Hoh-Quillayute Watershed Western WA Ecology Rating III Wetland Size (acre) 0.01 Cowardin Classifications PEM HGM Classification Slope Wetland Data Sheet(s) DP–W1–1 Upland Data Sheet(s) DP–W1–2 Dominant Vegetation salmonberry, common ladyfern, creeping buttercup, youth on age, water parsley. The forest canopy of Sitka spruce and red alder is rooted outside of the wetland. Soils Soil Survey data: Huel loamy fine sand. Field data: Hydric soil indicator(s) include Redox Dark Surface (F6). Hydrology Assumed Source: Precipitation, groundwater, and adjacent area runoff. Field Data: Surface Water (A1), High Water Table (A2), and Saturation (A3). Wetland Functions Summary Function Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Circle the appropriate ratings Site Potential H M L H M L H M L Landscape Potential H M L H M L H M L Value H M L H M L H M L TOTAL Score Based on Ratings 6 4 7 17 General Description and Comments Wetland is a seep system that is eroding into the Hoh River channel. Upper Hoh River Road Project July 2017 Wetland Delineation Report - Addendum 1 page 8 WETLAND W2 – INFORMATION SUMMARY Location: Upper Hoh River Road, Phase 2; Roadmile 4.05 (Lat. 47.8233° N Long. -124.1874° W). Wetland W2 to right with S8 in the roadside ditch. Wetland W2 with S8 where it discharges in to a ditch. WRIA / HUC 20- Soleduc / 17100101 Hoh-Quillayute Watershed Western WA Ecology Rating III Wetland Size (acre) 0.01 Cowardin Classifications PFO HGM Classification Slope Wetland Data Sheet(s) DP–W2–1 Upland Data Sheet(s) DP–W1–2 Dominant Vegetation western red cedar, Sitka spruce, salmonberry, youth on age, water parsley, and common ladyfern. Soils Soil Survey data: Huel loamy fine sand. Field data: Hydric soil indicator(s) include Redox Dark Surface (F6). Hydrology Assumed Source: Precipitation, groundwater, and adjacent area runoff. Field Data: Surface Water (A1), High Water Table (A2), and Saturation (A3). Wetland Functions Summary Function Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Circle the appropriate ratings Site Potential H M L H M L H M L Landscape Potential H M L H M L H M L Value H M L H M L H M L TOTAL Score Based on Ratings 6 4 8 18 General Description and Comments This slope wetland is a seep system that flows down slope and excess water collects along roadway. Upper Hoh River Road Project July 2017 Wetland Delineation Report - Addendum 1 page 9 WETLAND W3 – INFORMATION SUMMARY Location: Upper Hoh River Road, Phase 2; Roadmile 3.95 (Lat. 47.8234° N Long. -124.1890° W). Wetland W3 looking north from the road. water parsley (Oenanthe sarmentosa) in roadside ditch. WRIA / HUC 20- Soleduc / 17100101 Hoh-Quillayute Watershed Western WA Ecology Rating III Wetland Size (acre) 0.22 Cowardin Classifications PFO HGM Classification Slope Wetland Data Sheet(s) DP–W3–1 Upland Data Sheet(s) Dominant Vegetation red alder, salmonberry, Himalayan blackberry, and youth on age. Soils Soil Survey data: Huel loamy fine sand. Field data: Hydric soil indicator(s) include Redox Dark Surface (F6). Hydrology Assumed Source: Precipitation, groundwater, and adjacent area runoff. Field Data: Surface Water (A1), High Water Table (A2), Saturation (A3). Wetland Functions Summary Function Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Circle the appropriate ratings Site Potential H M L H M L H M L Landscape Potential H M L H M L H M L Value H M L H M L H M L TOTAL Score Based on Ratings 6 4 8 18 General Description and Comments This slope wetland is a seep system that flows down slope and excess water collects along roadway. Upper Hoh River Road Project July 2017 Wetland Delineation Report - Addendum 1 page 10 WETLAND W4 – INFORMATION SUMMARY Location: Upper Hoh River Road, Phase 2; Roadmile 3.65 (Lat. 47.8227° N Long. -124.1961° W). Wetland W4 looking east along the wetland boundary. Saturated soil and yellow skunk cabbage in Wetland W4. WRIA / HUC 20- Soleduc / 17100101 Hoh-Quillayute Watershed Western WA Ecology Rating III Wetland Size (acre) 0.35 Cowardin Classifications PFO HGM Classification Slope Wetland Data Sheet(s) DP–W4–1 Upland Data Sheet(s) DP–W4–2 Dominant Vegetation Sitka spruce, red alder, salmonberry, yellow skunk cabbage, and water parsley. Soils Soil Survey data: Huel loamy fine sand. Field data: Hydric soil indicator(s) include Thick dark Surface (A12). Hydrology Assumed Source: Precipitation, groundwater, and adjacent area runoff. Field Data: High Water Table (A2) and Saturation (A3). Wetland Functions Summary Function Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Circle the appropriate ratings Site Potential H M L H M L H M L Landscape Potential H M L H M L H M L Value H M L H M L H M L TOTAL Score Based on Ratings 6 4 8 18 General Description and Comments This slope wetland is a seep system that flows down slope and excess water collects along roadway. Upper Hoh River Road Project July 2017 Wetland Delineation Report - Addendum 1 page 11 WETLAND W5 – INFORMATION SUMMARY Location: Upper Hoh River Road, Phase 2; Roadmile 3.64 (Lat. 47.8223° N Long. -124.1969° W). Wetland W5 at cut bank of the river. W5 looking away from the river. WRIA / HUC 20- Soleduc / 17100101 Hoh-Quillayute Watershed Western WA Ecology Rating III Wetland Size (acre) 0.01 Cowardin Classifications PSS HGM Classification Slope Wetland Data Sheet(s) DP–W5–1 Upland Data Sheet(s) DP–W4–2 Dominant Vegetation salmonberry, red elderberry, yellow skunk cabbage, and violets. Soils Soil Survey data: Huel loamy fine sand. Field data: Hydric soil indicator(s) include Thick dark Surface (A12). Hydrology Assumed Source: Precipitation, groundwater, and adjacent area runoff. Field Data: Saturation (A3). Wetland Functions Summary Function Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Circle the appropriate ratings Site Potential H M L H M L H M L Landscape Potential H M L H M L H M L Value H M L H M L H M L TOTAL Score Based on Ratings 6 4 7 17 General Description and Comments Wetland is a seep system that is eroding into the Hoh River channel. Upper Hoh River Road Project July 2017 Wetland Delineation Report - Addendum 1 page 12 WETLAND W6/CW1-A – INFORMATION SUMMARY Location: Upper Hoh River Road, Phase 2; Roadmile 3.74 (Lat. 47.8227° N Long. -124.1942° W). Wetland W6 looking east with the wetland boundary. Inundated soil and trees in Wetland W6. WRIA / HUC 20- Soleduc / 17100101 Hoh-Quillayute Watershed Western WA Ecology Rating III Wetland Size (acre) 0.10 Cowardin Classifications PFO HGM Classification Slope Wetland Data Sheet(s) (DEA 2015) Upland Data Sheet(s) (DEA 2015) Dominant Vegetation red alder, salmonberry, and water parsley. Soils Soil Survey data: Huel loamy fine sand. Field data: Hydric soil indicator(s) include Redox Dark Surface (F6). Hydrology Assumed Source: Precipitation, groundwater, and adjacent area runoff. Field Data: Saturation (A3), Water-stained Leaves (B9), & Geomorphic Position (D2). Wetland Functions Summary Function Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Circle the appropriate ratings Site Potential H M L H M L H M L Landscape Potential H M L H M L H M L Value H M L H M L H M L TOTAL Score Based on Ratings 4 5 8 17 General Description and Comments This slope wetland was on the edge of the area address in this report. The data used here is from the original wetland delineation report (DEA 2015). Upper Hoh River Road Project July 2017 Wetland Delineation Report - Addendum 1 page 13 WETLAND W7 – INFORMATION SUMMARY Location: Upper Hoh River Road, Phase 2; Roadmile 7.28 (Lat. 47.8138° N Long. -124.1225° W). Wetland W7 looking east along high flow river channel. PEM vegetation in Wetland W7. WRIA / HUC 20- Soleduc / 17100101 Hoh-Quillayute Watershed Western WA Ecology Rating II Wetland Size (acre) 0.02 Cowardin Classifications PFO HGM Classification Depressional Wetland Data Sheet(s) DP–W7–1 Upland Data Sheet(s) DP–W7–2 Dominant Vegetation Sitka spruce, red alder, salmonberry, small-fruited bulrush, creeping buttercup, slough sedge, and swordleaf rush. Soils Soil Survey data: Udifluvents, 1-5% slope. Field data: Hydric soil indicator(s) include Redox Dark Surface (F6). Hydrology Assumed Source: Precipitation and adjacent area runoff. Field Data: Surface Water (A1), High Water Table (A2), Saturation (A3). Wetland Functions Summary Function Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Circle the appropriate ratings Site Potential H M L H M L H M L Landscape Potential H M L H M L H M L Value H M L H M L H M L TOTAL Score Based on Ratings 7 5 8 20 General Description and Comments Upper Hoh River Road Project July 2017 Wetland Delineation Report - Addendum 1 page 14 WETLAND W8 – INFORMATION SUMMARY Location: Upper Hoh River Road, Phase 2; Roadmile 7.28 (Lat. 47.8136° N Long. -124.1230° W). Wetland W8 looking west along a flood plain depression. PEM vegetation in Wetland W8 near a side road. WRIA / HUC 20- Soleduc / 17100101 Hoh-Quillayute Watershed Western WA Ecology Rating II Wetland Size (acre) 0.01 Cowardin Classifications PFO HGM Classification Depressional Wetland Data Sheet(s) DP–W8–1 Upland Data Sheet(s) DP–W8–2 Dominant Vegetation Sitka spruce, red alder, salmonberry, and slough sedge. Soils Soil Survey data: Udifluvents, 1-5% slope. Field data: Hydric soil indicator(s) include Thick Dark Surface (A12). Hydrology Assumed Source: Precipitation, groundwater, and adjacent area runoff. Field Data: Surface Water (A1) and Saturation (A3). Wetland Functions Summary Function Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Circle the appropriate ratings Site Potential H M L H M L H M L Landscape Potential H M L H M L H M L Value H M L H M L H M L TOTAL Score Based on Ratings 7 5 8 20 General Description and Comments Upper Hoh River Road Project July 2017 Wetland Delineation Report - Addendum 1 page 15 WETLAND W9 – INFORMATION SUMMARY Location: Upper Hoh River Road, Phase 2; Roadmile 9.81 (Lat. 47.8106° N Long. -124.0785° W). Wetland W9 looking south from within the wetland. Wetland W9 looking southwest. WRIA / HUC 20- Soleduc / 17100101 Hoh-Quillayute Watershed Western WA Ecology Rating II Wetland Size (acre) 0.001 Cowardin Classifications PSS HGM Classification Depressional Wetland Data Sheet(s) DP–W9–1 Upland Data Sheet(s) DP–W10–2 Dominant Vegetation vine maple, slough sedge. The forest canopy of red alder is rooted outside of the wetland. Soils Soil Survey data: Klone-Hoko association moderately steep. Field data: Hydric soil indicator(s) include Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11). Hydrology Assumed Source: Precipitation, groundwater, and adjacent area runoff. Field Data: Saturation (A3) and Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots. Wetland Functions Summary Function Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Circle the appropriate ratings Site Potential H M L H M L H M L Landscape Potential H M L H M L H M L Value H M L H M L H M L TOTAL Score Based on Ratings 7 7 6 20 General Description and Comments Upper Hoh River Road Project July 2017 Wetland Delineation Report - Addendum 1 page 16 WETLAND W10 – INFORMATION SUMMARY Location: Upper Hoh River Road, Phase 2; Roadmile 9.76 (Lat. 47.8107° N Long. -124.0787° W). Wetland W10 looking west along road. Wetland W10 looking east along road. WRIA / HUC 20- Soleduc / 17100101 Hoh-Quillayute Watershed Western WA Ecology Rating II Wetland Size (acre) 0.01 Cowardin Classifications PSS, PEM HGM Classification Slope Wetland Data Sheet(s) DP–W10–1 Upland Data Sheet(s) DP–W10–2 Dominant Vegetation salmonberry, slough sedge, water parsley, and giant horsetail. The forest canopy of western hemlock and red alder is rooted outside of the wetland. Soils Soil Survey data: Klone-Hoko association moderately steep. Field data: Hydric soil indicator(s) include Redox Dark Surface (F6). Hydrology Assumed Source: Precipitation, groundwater, and adjacent area runoff. Field Data: Surface Water (A1), High Water Table (A2), Saturation (A3), Oxidized Rhizospheres along live roots (C3). Wetland Functions Summary Function Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Circle the appropriate ratings Site Potential H M L H M L H M L Landscape Potential H M L H M L H M L Value H M L H M L H M L TOTAL Score Based on Ratings 7 5 8 20 General Description and Comments This slope wetland is a seep system that flows down slope and excess water collects along roadway. Upper Hoh River Road Project July 2017 Wetland Delineation Report - Addendum 1 page 17 WETLAND W11 – INFORMATION SUMMARY Location: Upper Hoh River Road, Phase 2; Roadmile 9.84 (Lat. 47.8109° N Long. -124.0780° W). Wetland W11 looking west along the road. Saturated soil and PEM vegetation in Wetland W11. WRIA / HUC 20- Soleduc / 17100101 Hoh-Quillayute Watershed Western WA Ecology Rating II Wetland Size (acre) 0.001 Cowardin Classifications PSS, PEM HGM Classification Slope Wetland Data Sheet(s) DP–W11–1 Upland Data Sheet(s) Dominant Vegetation salmonberry, water parsley, and small-fruited bulrush. The forest canopy of red alder and western hemlock is rooted outside of the wetland. Soils Soil Survey data: Klone-Hoko association moderately steep. Field data: Hydric soil indicator(s) include Thick dark Surface (A12) Hydrology Assumed Source: Precipitation, groundwater, and adjacent area runoff. Field Data: Surface Water (A1) and Saturation (A3). Wetland Functions Summary Function Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Circle the appropriate ratings Site Potential H M L H M L H M L Landscape Potential H M L H M L H M L Value H M L H M L H M L TOTAL Score Based on Ratings 7 5 8 20 General Description and Comments Upper Hoh River Road Project July 2017 Wetland Delineation Report - Addendum 1 page 18 WETLAND W12 – INFORMATION SUMMARY Location: Upper Hoh River Road, Phase 2; Roadmile 4.17 (Lat. 47.8228° N Long. -124.1843° W). Wetland W12 looking north along the road. PEM vegetation in Wetland 12 along Stream S15. WRIA / HUC 20- Soleduc / 17100101 Hoh-Quillayute Watershed Western WA Ecology Rating III Wetland Size (acre) 0.03 Cowardin Classifications PFO HGM Classification Slope Wetland Data Sheet(s) DP–W12–1 Upland Data Sheet(s) DP–W1–2 Dominant Vegetation red alder, salmonberry, youth on age, giant horsetail, common bedstraw, and water parsley. Soils Soil Survey data: Phelan Gravelly Silt Loam 30-80% Slope. Field data: Hydric soil indicator(s) include Thick Dark Surface (A12). Hydrology Assumed Source: Precipitation, groundwater, and adjacent area runoff. Field Data: Saturation (A3). Wetland Functions Summary Function Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Circle the appropriate ratings Site Potential H M L H M L H M L Landscape Potential H M L H M L H M L Value H M L H M L H M L TOTAL Score Based on Ratings 6 4 8 18 General Description and Comments This slope wetland is a seep system that flows down slope and excess water collects along roadway. Upper Hoh River Road Project July 2017 Wetland Delineation Report - Addendum 1 page 19 4.3 Streams A total of 12 additional streams were confirmed in the Project area. These streams include S8 through S18 and Willoughby Creek. Eight streams are fully described in the original wetland report (DEA 2015). Streams address in this addendum and basic characteristics are shown in Table 3. The streams are organized by the study area sites. Streams identified in the 2015 report were not re-evaluated in this addendum. Detailed descriptions of the streams in the addendum are included in Table 4. Most of the streams are high gradient valley wall tributaries that drain to culverts on the north side of UHRR and then into culverts that drain almost directly to the Hoh River. Stream naming nomenclature in this report were named sequentially from S8 to W18. Streams identified in the original report (DEA 2015) used a numbering system that includes the type of aquatic feature (S) for a stream, a site designation (i.e. 1 to 5), and an alpha designation (for example WC1-A). Where the two wetland delineations overlap, both names were included in Tables 1 and 2. Table 3. Stream Summary Table Stream Watershed DNR Classification1 Local Jurisdiction Classification2 Field Estimated Classification Stream Width (feet) Buffer Width (feet)2 Site C1 S9 WRIA 20 Not Mapped Not Mapped Ns 2 – 2.5 50 Willoughby Creek WRIA 20 Type F = Fish Type F = Fish F = Fish 15 -20 150 Hoh River (C1) WRIA 20 Type S Type F = Fish F = Fish 570 - 830 150 Site C2 S8/SC1-C WRIA 20 Not Mapped Not Mapped Ns 1 – 1.5 50 S12 WRIA 20 Not Mapped F = Fish F = Fish 3 - 5 150 S13 WRIA 20 Not Mapped Not Mapped Ns 1 - 2 50 S14 WRIA 20 Not Mapped Not Mapped Ns 2 - 3 50 S15 WRIA 20 Not Mapped Not Mapped Ns 1 - 2 50 S16 WRIA 20 Not Mapped Not Mapped Ns 1 – 2.5 50 S17/SC1-D WRIA 20 Not Mapped Not Mapped Ns 1 - 3 50 S18 WRIA 20 Not Mapped Not Mapped Np 1 - 2 50 Hoh River (C2) WRIA 20 Type S Type F = Fish F = Fish 560 - 590 150 Site M1 Hoh River (M1) WRIA 20 Type S Type F = Fish F = Fish 400 - 750 150 Site M2 S10 WRIA 20 Not Mapped Not Mapped Ns 2 - 3 50 S11 WRIA 20 Not Mapped Not Mapped Ns 2 - 3 50 Hoh River (M2) WRIA 20 Type S Type F = Fish F = Fish 800 - 1000 150 1 WDNR 2017 2 Jefferson County 2017 Upper Hoh River Road Project July 2017 Wetland Delineation Report - Addendum 1 page 20 Table 4. Individual Stream Summary Data STREAM S8 – INFORMATION SUMMARY Location: Upper Hoh River Road, Phase 2; Roadmile 3.98 (Lat. 47.8233° N Long. -124.8811° W). Stream S8 flowing out of Wetland W2 at the road. Stream S8 flowing west in the road ditch. WRIA / HUC 20- Soleduc / 17100101 Hoh-Quillayute Watershed WA Stream Catalog # Not listed on WDFW map DNR FPARS mapper This stream is not mapped by DNR. Jefferson County jMAP mapper This stream is not mapped by Jefferson County Documented Fish Use Salmonscape (WDFW 2017a) does not include this stream. Priority Habitat and Species (WDFW 2017b) does not include this stream. Location of Stream Relative to Study Area S8 is located in unincorporated Jefferson County along the north or right bank of the Hoh River. Connectivity (where stream flows from/to) S8 originates from the ridge north of the Hoh River and the road prism. The stream passes under the road through a culvert near roadmile 3.98 and flows to the Hoh River south of the road. Stream Characteristics This is a small steep gradient valley side stream that flows seasonally. It was flowing during the May 2017 site visit. The channel is approximately 1 to 1.5 feet wide and 4 to 6 inches deep. The substrate is cobble, gravel, and fines. Riparian/Buffer Condition The buffer is mostly Sitka spruce and western hemlock forest with salmonberry, western swordfern, common ladyfern, youth on age, and salmonberry. General Description and Comments This stream flow down the valley slope to the roadside ditch and flow north to a under road culvert and flow to the Hoh River. Upper Hoh River Road Project July 2017 Wetland Delineation Report - Addendum 1 page 21 STREAM S9 – INFORMATION SUMMARY Location: Upper Hoh River Road, Phase 2; Roadmile 3.70 (Lat. 47.225° N Long. -124.1962° W). Stream S9 from road looking south toward the Hoh River. Stream S9 substrate downstream of the road. WRIA / HUC 20- Soleduc / 17100101 Hoh-Quillayute Watershed WA Stream Catalog # Not listed on WDFW map DNR FPARS mapper This stream is not mapped by DNR. Jefferson County jMAP mapper This stream is not mapped by Jefferson County Documented Fish Use Salmonscape (WDFW 2017a) does not include this stream. Priority Habitat and Species (WDFW 2017b) does not include this stream. Location of Stream Relative to Study Area S9 is located in unincorporated Jefferson County along the north or right bank of the Hoh River. Connectivity (where stream flows from/to) S9 originates from the ridge north of the Hoh River and the road prism. The stream passes under the road through a culvert near roadmile 3.70 and flows to the Hoh River south of the road. Stream Characteristics This is a small steep gradient valley side stream that flows seasonally. It was flowing during the May 2017 site visit. The channel is approximately 2 to 2.5 feet wide and 4 to 8 inches deep. The substrate is cobble, gravel, and fines. Riparian/Buffer Condition The buffer is mostly Sitka spruce forest with salmonberry, common ladyfern, redwood-sorrel, and western swordfern. General Description and Comments Upper Hoh River Road Project July 2017 Wetland Delineation Report - Addendum 1 page 22 STREAM S10 – INFORMATION SUMMARY Location: Upper Hoh River Road, Phase 2; Roadmile 9.83 (Lat. 47.8108° N Long. -124.0781° W). Stream S10 from the road looking south toward the Hoh River. Stream S10 Substrate near the road. WRIA / HUC 20- Soleduc / 17100101 Hoh-Quillayute Watershed WA Stream Catalog # Not listed on WDFW map DNR FPARS mapper This stream is not mapped by DNR. Jefferson County jMAP mapper N = Non-Fish Documented Fish Use Salmonscape (WDFW 2017a) does not include this stream. Priority Habitat and Species (WDFW 2017b) does not include this stream. Location of Stream Relative to Study Area S10 is located in unincorporated Jefferson County along the north or right bank of the Hoh River. Connectivity (where stream flows from/to) S10 originates from the ridge north of the Hoh River and the road prism. The stream passes under the road through a culvert near roadmile 9.83 and flows to the Hoh River south of the road. Stream Characteristics This is a small valley side stream that flows seasonally. It was flowing during the May 2017 site visit. The channel is approximately 2 to 3 feet wide and 3 to 12 inches deep. The substrate is cobble, gravel, and fines. The channel is entrenched Riparian/Buffer Condition The buffer is mostly Sitka spruce forest with upland and wetland understory plants including salmonberry, common ladyfern, western swordfern, and redwood-sorrel. General Description and Comments Upper Hoh River Road Project July 2017 Wetland Delineation Report - Addendum 1 page 23 STREAM S11 – INFORMATION SUMMARY Location: Upper Hoh River Road, Phase 2; Roadmile 9.79 (Lat. 47.8106° N Long. -124.1811° W). Stream S11 looking south toward the road and the Hoh River. Stream S11 at the culvert inflow under the road. WRIA / HUC 20- Soleduc / 17100101 Hoh-Quillayute Watershed WA Stream Catalog # Not listed on WDFW map DNR FPARS mapper This stream is not mapped by DNR. Jefferson County jMAP mapper This stream is not mapped by Jefferson County Documented Fish Use Salmonscape (WDFW 2017a) does not include this stream. Priority Habitat and Species (WDFW 2017b) does not include this stream. Location of Stream Relative to Study Area S11 is located in unincorporated Jefferson County along the north or right bank of the Hoh River. Connectivity (where stream flows from/to) S11 originates from the ridge north of the Hoh River and the road prism. The stream passes under the road through a culvert near roadmile 9.79 and flows to the Hoh River south of the road. Stream Characteristics This is a small valley side stream that flows seasonally. It was flowing during the May 2017 site visit. The channel is approximately 2 to 3 feet wide and 4 to 8 inches deep. The substrate is cobble, gravel, and fines. The channel is moderately entrenched. Riparian/Buffer Condition The buffer is mostly red alder forest with salmonberry. General Description and Comments Upper Hoh River Road Project July 2017 Wetland Delineation Report - Addendum 1 page 24 STREAM S12 – INFORMATION SUMMARY Location: Upper Hoh River Road, Phase 2; Roadmile 4.37 (Lat. 47.8213° N Long. -124.1811° W). Stream S12 from the east side of the railroad facing west. Stream S12 from the east side of the railroad facing east. WRIA / HUC 20- Soleduc / 17100101 Hoh-Quillayute Watershed WA Stream Catalog # Not listed on WDFW map DNR FPARS mapper This stream is not mapped by DNR. Jefferson County jMAP mapper F = Fish Documented Fish Use Salmonscape (WDFW 2017a) does not include this stream. Priority Habitat and Species (WDFW 2017b) does not include this stream. Location of Stream Relative to Study Area S12 is located in unincorporated Jefferson County along the north or right bank of the Hoh River. Connectivity (where stream flows from/to) S12 originates from the ridge north of the Hoh River and the road prism. The stream passes under the road through a culvert near roadmile 4.37 and flows to the Hoh River south of the road. Stream Characteristics This is a medium steep gradient valley side stream that flows seasonally. It was flowing during the May 2017 site visit. The channel is approximately 3 to 5 feet wide and 6 to 20 inches deep. The substrate is cobble and gravels. Riparian/Buffer Condition The buffer is mostly forest Sitka spruce and western hemlock forest with salmonberry. General Description and Comments Fish passage in this stream will be improved by the proposed project, which will remove the existing culvert under the road with a 16-foot diameter structure. Upper Hoh River Road Project July 2017 Wetland Delineation Report - Addendum 1 page 25 STREAM S13 – INFORMATION SUMMARY Location: Upper Hoh River Road, Phase 2; Roadmile 4.31 (Lat. 47.8220° N Long. -124.1823° W). Stream S13 Down channel to the south above the road. Stream S13 outflow from the culvert under the road. WRIA / HUC 20- Soleduc / 17100101 Hoh-Quillayute Watershed WA Stream Catalog # Not listed on WDFW map DNR FPARS mapper This stream is not mapped by DNR. Jefferson County jMAP mapper This stream is not mapped by Jefferson County Documented Fish Use Salmonscape (WDFW 2017a) does not include this stream. Priority Habitat and Species (WDFW 2017b) does not include this stream. Location of Stream Relative to Study Area S13 is located in unincorporated Jefferson County along the north or right bank of the Hoh River. Connectivity (where stream flows from/to) S13 originates from the ridge north of the Hoh River and the road prism. The stream passes under the road through a culvert near roadmile 4.31 and flows to the Hoh River south of the road. Stream Characteristics This is a small steep gradient valley side stream that flows seasonally. It was flowing during the May 2017 site visit. The channel is approximately 1 to 2 feet wide and 4 to 6 inches deep. The substrate is cobble and gravels. Riparian/Buffer Condition The buffer is mostly red alder and bigleaf maple forest wth salmonberry, Indian plum, and western swordfern. General Description and Comments Upper Hoh River Road Project July 2017 Wetland Delineation Report - Addendum 1 page 26 STREAM S14 – INFORMATION SUMMARY Location: Upper Hoh River Road, Phase 2; Roadmile 4.25 (Lat. 47.8223° N Long. -124.1835° W). Stream S14 looking north from up slope of the road. Stream S14 substrate near the road. WRIA / HUC 20- Soleduc / 17100101 Hoh-Quillayute Watershed WA Stream Catalog # Not listed on WDFW map DNR FPARS mapper This stream is not mapped by DNR. Jefferson County jMAP mapper This stream is not mapped by Jefferson County Documented Fish Use Salmonscape (WDFW 2017a) does not include this stream. Priority Habitat and Species (WDFW 2017b) does not include this stream. Location of Stream Relative to Study Area S14 is located in unincorporated Jefferson County along the north or right bank of the Hoh River. Connectivity (where stream flows from/to) S14 originates from the ridge north of the Hoh River and the road prism. The stream passes under the road through a culvert near roadmile 4.25 and flows to the Hoh River south of the road. Stream Characteristics This is a small steep gradient valley side stream that flows seasonally. It was flowing during the May 2017 site visit. The channel is approximately 2 to 3 feet wide and 4 to 8 inches deep. The substrate is cobble, gravel, and fines. Riparian/Buffer Condition The buffer is mostly Sitka spruce, western hemlock, and red alder forest, with salmonberry and western swordfern. General Description and Comments Upper Hoh River Road Project July 2017 Wetland Delineation Report - Addendum 1 page 27 STREAM S15 – INFORMATION SUMMARY Location: Upper Hoh River Road, Phase 2; Roadmile 4.21 (Lat. 47.224° N Long. ?-124.1840° W). Stream S15 up slope of the road looking north. Stream S15 substrate at the inlet of the road culvert. WRIA / HUC 20- Soleduc / 17100101 Hoh-Quillayute Watershed WA Stream Catalog # Not listed on WDFW map DNR FPARS mapper This stream is not mapped by DNR. Jefferson County jMAP mapper This stream is not mapped by Jefferson County Documented Fish Use Salmonscape (WDFW 2017a) does not include this stream. Priority Habitat and Species (WDFW 2017b) does not include this stream. Location of Stream Relative to Study Area S15 is located in unincorporated Jefferson County along the north or right bank of the Hoh River. Connectivity (where stream flows from/to) S15 originates from the ridge north of the Hoh River and the road prism. The stream passes under the road through a culvert near roadmile 4.21 and flows to the Hoh River south of the road. Stream Characteristics This is a small steep gradient valley side stream that flows seasonally. It was flowing during the May 2017 site visit. The channel is approximately 1 to 2 feet wide and 4 to 6 inches deep. The substrate is cobble and gravels. Riparian/Buffer Condition The buffer is mostly Sitka spruce and western hemlock forest with salmonberry and western swordfern. General Description and Comments Upper Hoh River Road Project July 2017 Wetland Delineation Report - Addendum 1 page 28 STREAM S16 – INFORMATION SUMMARY Location: Upper Hoh River Road, Phase 2; Roadmile 4.17 (Lat. 47.8138° N Long. -124.1225° W). Stream S16 from the road looking north up slope of the road. Stream S16substrate at the road culvert inlet. WRIA / HUC 20- Soleduc / 17100101 Hoh-Quillayute Watershed WA Stream Catalog # Not listed on WDFW map DNR FPARS mapper This stream is not mapped by DNR. Jefferson County jMAP mapper This stream is not mapped by Jefferson County Documented Fish Use Salmonscape (WDFW 2017a) does not include this stream. Priority Habitat and Species (WDFW 2017b) does not include this stream. Location of Stream Relative to Study Area S16 is located in unincorporated Jefferson County along the north or right bank of the Hoh River. Connectivity (where stream flows from/to) S16 originates from the ridge north of the Hoh River and the road prism. The stream passes under the road through a culvert near roadmile 4.17 and flows to the Hoh River south of the road. Stream Characteristics This is a small steep gradient valley side stream that flows seasonally. It was flowing during the May 2017 site visit. The channel is approximately 1 to 2.5 feet wide and 4 to 8 inches deep. The substrate is cobble and gravels. Riparian/Buffer Condition The buffer is mostly Sitka spruce and western hemlock forest with salmonberry, western swordfern, and redwood-sorrel. General Description and Comments Upper Hoh River Road Project July 2017 Wetland Delineation Report - Addendum 1 page 29 STREAM S17 – INFORMATION SUMMARY Location: Upper Hoh River Road, Phase 2; Roadmile 4.11 (Lat. 47.8230° N Long. -124.1859° W). Stream S17 looking north from near the road. Stream S17 within the vegetated ditch along the road. WRIA / HUC 20- Soleduc / 17100101 Hoh-Quillayute Watershed WA Stream Catalog # Not listed on WDFW map DNR FPARS mapper This stream is not mapped by DNR. Jefferson County jMAP mapper This stream is not mapped by Jefferson County Documented Fish Use Salmonscape (WDFW 2017a) does not include this stream. Priority Habitat and Species (WDFW 2017b) does not include this stream. Location of Stream Relative to Study Area S17 is located in unincorporated Jefferson County along the north or right bank of the Hoh River. Connectivity (where stream flows from/to) S17 originates from the ridge north of the Hoh River and the road prism. The stream passes under the road through a culvert near roadmile 4.11 and flows to the Hoh River south of the road. Stream Characteristics This is a small steep gradient valley side stream that flows seasonally. It was flowing during the May 2017 site visit. The channel is approximately 1 to 3 feet wide and 4 to 6 inches deep. The substrate is cobble and gravels. Riparian/Buffer Condition The buffer is mostly Sitka spruce, western hemlock, red alder, bigleaf maple forest and salmonberry. General Description and Comments Upper Hoh River Road Project July 2017 Wetland Delineation Report - Addendum 1 page 30 STREAM S18 – INFORMATION SUMMARY Location: Upper Hoh River Road, Phase 2; Roadmile 4.47 (Lat. 47.8207° N Long. ?-124.1799° W). Stream S18 channel looking north between the road and river. Stream S18 cobble substrate between the road and Hoh River. WRIA / HUC 20- Soleduc / 17100101 Hoh-Quillayute Watershed WA Stream Catalog # Not listed on WDFW map DNR FPARS mapper This stream is not mapped by DNR. Jefferson County jMAP mapper This stream is not mapped by Jefferson County Documented Fish Use Salmonscape (WDFW 2017a) does not include this stream. Priority Habitat and Species (WDFW 2017b) does not include this stream. Location of Stream Relative to Study Area S18 is located in unincorporated Jefferson County along the north or right bank of the Hoh River. Connectivity (where stream flows from/to) S18 originates from the ridge north of the Hoh River and the road prism. The stream passes under the road through a culvert near roadmile 4.47 and flows to the Hoh River south of the road. Stream Characteristics This is a small steep gradient valley side stream that flows seasonally. It was flowing during the May 2017 site visit. The channel is approximately 1 to 2 feet wide and 4 to 8 inches deep. The substrate is cobble and gravels. Riparian/Buffer Condition The buffer is mostly bigleaf maple and red alder forest with thimbleberry, salmonberry, western swordfern, and common ladyfern. General Description and Comments Upper Hoh River Road Project July 2017 Wetland Delineation Report - Addendum 1 page 31 Willoughby Creek – INFORMATION SUMMARY Location: Upper Hoh River Road, Phase 2; Roadmile 4.47 (Lat. 47.8207° N Long. ?-124.1799° W). Willoughby Creek channel looking south from road bridge. Willoughby Creek and Hoh River confluence. WRIA / HUC 20- Soleduc / 17100101 Hoh-Quillayute Watershed WA Stream Catalog # WDFW maps Willoughby Creek and numbers it 0451 DNR FPARS mapper This stream is mapped by DNR as a Type S system. Jefferson County jMAP mapper This stream is mapped by Jefferson County as a Type S and F system within the study area. Documented Fish Use Salmonscape (WDFW 2017a) and Priority Habitat and Species (WDFW 2017b) document Fall Chinook, Coho, Winter Steelhead spawning in this stream. Location of Stream Relative to Study Area Willoughby Creek is located in unincorporated Jefferson County along the north or right bank of the Hoh River. Connectivity (where stream flows from/to) Willoughby Creek originates from the ridge north of the Hoh River and the road prism. The stream passes under the road under a bridge near roadmile 3.52 and flows to the Hoh River south of the road. Stream Characteristics This is a medium moderately steep gradient valley side stream that has perennial flows. The channel is approximately 15 to 20 feet wide and 2 to 4 feet deep. The substrate is cobble and gravels. Riparian/Buffer Condition The buffer is mostly bigleaf maple and red alder forest with thimbleberry, salmonberry, western swordfern, and common ladyfern. General Description and Comments PHS data list the following species in Willoughby Creek: Resident Coastal Cutthroat, Coho, Winter Steelhead, Fall Chinook, steelhead, Chinook, and cutthroat. Upper Hoh River Road Project July 2017 Wetland Delineation Report - Addendum 1 page 32 5 References Cooke, Sarah Spear. 1997. A Field Guide to the Common Wetland Plants of Western Washington & Northwestern Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society. Seattle, Washington. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Office of Biological Services, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, FWS/OBS-79/31. David Evans and Associates, Inc. (DEA). 2015. Wetland Delineation Report, Upper Hoh River Road Project. David Evans and Associates, Inc. 14432 SE Eastgate Way, Suite 400, Bellevue WA. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Jefferson County. 2017. Jefferson County Code, Chapter 18.22 Critical Areas. Jefferson County Washington. Hitchcock, C.L., and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. Hruby, T. 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #14-06-029. Olympia, Washington. Lichvar, R.W. 2012. The National Wetland Plant List. ERC/CRREL TR-12-11. Hanover, New Hampshire. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. Available at http://acwc.sdp.sirsi.net/client/search/asses:asset?t:ac=$N/1012381. Olson, P. and E. Stockdale. 2010. Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark on Streams in Washington State. Second Review Draft. Washington State Department of Ecology, Shorelands & Environmental Assistance Program, Lacey, Washington. Ecology Publication # 08-06-001 Pojar, J. and A. MacKinnon. 1994. Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast. B.C. Ministry of Forests and Lone Pine Publishing. Redmond, Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS). 2017. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 8.1. L.M. Vasilas, G.W. Hurt and J.F. Berkowitz (eds.). USDA, NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2005. Ordinary High Water Mark Identification. Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 05-05. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington DC. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0), Upper Hoh River Road Project July 2017 Wetland Delineation Report - Addendum 1 page 33 ed. J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-3. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. ———. 2014. A Guide to Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) Delineation for Non-Perennial Streams in the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region of the United States. Technical Report 14-13. The U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC), Vicksburg, MS. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2008. Memorandum on Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2017a. WDFW PHS on the Web. Interactive website http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/. Retrieved June 2017. ———. 2017b. WDFW Salmonscape interactive website http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscape/. Retrieved June 2017. Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2017. Forest Practices Water Type Maps. Accessed June 2017. Available at http://fortress.wa.gov/dnr/app1/fpars/viewer.htm. Western Federal Lands Highway Division (WFLHD). 2013. Federal Highway Administration, Western Federal Lands Highway Division, Upper Hoh River Road Bank Failure Risk Reduction Study. September 12, 2013. Upper Hoh River Road Project July 2017 Wetland Delineation Report - Addendum 1 page 34 This page intentionally left blank. Upper Hoh River Road Project July 2017 Wetland Delineation Report-Addendum 1 Appendix A: Wetland and Stream Figures Upper Hoh River Road Project July 2017 Wetland Delineation Report-Addendum 1 This page intentionally left blank. D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D ! ! ! "" "" H o h R i v e r Plot W4-DP-2 Plot W4-DP-1 Plot W5-DP-1 Wetland W 5 Stream S9 Ditch D3 C1 OHWM(Hoh River) Wetland W4extends outside study area OHWM(Willoughby Creek) W i l l o u g h byCk 1 8 . 8 1 8.7 3 .6 3 .7 Upper Hoh Rd C1 C2 C3 & C4 Lindner CkMitigation Site C5 Milepost 9.8Mitigation Site Upper Hoh Rd Document Path: C:\Users\sast\Desktop\Wetland Delineation_8x10_Maps.mxd Date: 6/28/2017 Time: 1:18:48 PM User Name: Sast Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri,DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID,IGN, and the GIS User Community Upper Hoh Road Wetland Delineation Figure 6, Sheet 1Study Area C1 ´0 125 250Feet 2017 Wetland D elineation Features Study Area D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D Wetland Riprap Wetland Stream Wetland outside study area Wetland/OHWM outside study area Pond Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) Ditch Culvert ""Culvert !Data Plot 2015 Wetland Delineation Features Study Area D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D Wetland Riprap Stream - OHWM Ditch - OHWM Ditch - Wetland Wetland/OHWM outside study area ""Culvert !!.Upland Ditch End !Data Plot Existing Road New Road Creek (USGS NHD) Roadmile Rivermile Engineered Log Jam (ELJ) 3.7 18.9 D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D ! ! !! !! "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" H o h R i v e r Plot 2 Plot 3 Plot 4 Plot 6Plot 5 WC1-Cextends outsidestudy area WC1-Boutsidestudy area D C 1 -A C1 OHWM Ditch D3 Stream S9 Wetland W4extends outside study area Wetland 6/WC1-Aextends outside study area 1 9 1 8 . 9 3 .7 3 . 8 U p p e r H o h R d C1 C2 C3 & C4 Lindner CkMitigation Site C5 Milepost 9.8Mitigation Site Upper Hoh Rd Document Path: C:\Users\sast\Desktop\Wetland Delineation_8x10_Maps.mxd Date: 6/27/2017 Time: 10:43:08 AM User Name: Sast Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri,DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID,IGN, and the GIS User Community Upper Hoh Road Wetland Delineation Figure 6, Sheet 2Study Area C1 ´0 125 250Feet 2017 Wetland D elineation Features Study Area D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D Wetland Riprap Wetland Stream Wetland outside study area Wetland/OHWM outside study area Pond Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) Ditch Culvert ""Culvert !Data Plot 2015 Wetland Delineation Features Study Area D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D Wetland Riprap Stream - OHWM Ditch - OHWM Ditch - Wetland Wetland/OHWM outside study area ""Culvert !!.Upland Ditch End !Data Plot Existing Road New Road Roadmile Rivermile Engineered Log Jam (ELJ) 3.7 18.9 D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D !! !! !! !! !! !!! ! "" "" "" "" "" "" "" ! ! ! !"" "" H o h R i v e r Plot 9Plot 8Plot 1 Plot 2 Plot 10 Plot 11 WC1-Dextends outsidestudy area WC1-Eextends outsidestudy area DC1-B SC1-Bextends outsidestudy area SC1-Aextends outsidestudy area DC1-A Wetland W 3/WC1-G/WC1-Fextends outside study area Stream S8/SC1-C C2 OHWM Plot W3-DP-1 Plot 12 13 Plot W1-DP-2 Wetland W1 Wetland W2/WC1-Hextends outside study area Stream S8/SC1-Cextends outside study area Plot W2-DP-1 1 9 . 1 4 3.9 Upper Hoh Rd C1 C2 C3 & C4 Lindner CkMitigation Site C5 Milepost 9.8Mitigation Site Upper Hoh Rd Document Path: C:\Users\sast\Desktop\Wetland Delineation_8x10_Maps.mxd Date: 6/27/2017 Time: 10:45:34 AM User Name: Sast Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri,DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID,IGN, and the GIS User Community Upper Hoh Road Wetland Delineation Figure 6, Sheet 3Study Area C1 ´0 125 250Feet 2017 Wetland D elineation Features Study Area D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D Wetland Riprap Wetland Stream Wetland outside study area Wetland/OHWM outside study area Pond Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) Ditch Culvert ""Culvert !Data Plot 2015 Wetland Delineation Features Study Area D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D Wetland Riprap Stream - OHWM Ditch - OHWM Ditch - Wetland Wetland/OHWM outside study area ""Culvert !!.Upland Ditch End !Data Plot Existing Road New Road Roadmile Rivermile Engineered Log Jam (ELJ) 3.7 18.9 D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D !!! ! !! !! ! ! "" "" "" "" ! !! ! ! "" "" "" """""" "" "" "" """" S t u d y A r e a f o rSites C 1 &b C 2 Hoh River Plot 14Plot 15 Plot 10Plot 11 Plot 17 Plot 18 Plot 16 DC1-A Plot W1-DP-2 Wetland W3/WC1-G/WC1-F extends outside study area Stream S8/S C 1 -C Stream S17/SC1-D Stream S 15Stream S16 Stream S14 Ditch D4 C2 OHWM Plot W3-DP-1 C2 OHWM Stream S8/SC1-Cextends outside study area Plot 12 Plot 13 Wetland W2/WC1-Hextends outside study area Plot W1-DP-2 Plot W2-DP-1 Wetland W12extends outside study areaPlot W12-DP-1 Wetland W1 1 9 . 3 1 9 . 2 4 . 1 4 .2 U p p e r H o h R d C1 C2 C3 & C4 Lindner CkMitigation Site C5 Milepost 9.8Mitigation Site Upper Hoh Rd Document Path: C:\Users\sast\Desktop\Wetland Delineation_8x10_Maps.mxd Date: 6/27/2017 Time: 10:58:16 AM User Name: Sast Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri,DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID,IGN, and the GIS User Community Upper Hoh Road Wetland Delineation Figure 6, Sheet 4Study Area C1 ´0 125 250Feet 2017 Wetland D elineation Features Study Area D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D Wetland Riprap Wetland Stream Wetland outside study area Wetland/OHWM outside study area Pond Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) Ditch Culvert ""Culvert !Data Plot 2015 Wetland Delineation Features Study Area D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D Wetland Riprap Stream - OHWM Ditch - OHWM Ditch - Wetland Wetland/OHWM outside study area ""Culvert !!.Upland Ditch End !Data Plot Existing Road New Road Roadmile Rivermile Engineered Log Jam (ELJ) 3.7 18.9 D D D DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD ! ! "" "" "" "" ! "" "" "" "" "" """""""" """" H o h R i v e r No wetlands, jurisdictional ditches, or streams other than the Hoh River were observed at site C2. Stream S13Stream S15Stream S16 Stream S14 C2 OHWM Plot 2 Plot 1 Stream S12 1 9 .5 1 9 .4 4 .3 4 .4 Upper Hoh Rd C1 C2 C3 & C4 Lindner CkMitigation Site C5 Milepost 9.8Mitigation Site Upper Hoh Rd Document Path: C:\Users\sast\Desktop\Wetland Delineation_8x10_Maps.mxd Date: 6/27/2017 Time: 11:03:33 AM User Name: Sast Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri,DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID,IGN, and the GIS User Community Upper Hoh Road Wetland Delineation Figure 6, Sheet 5Study Area C1 ´0 125 250Feet 2017 Wetland D elineation Features Study Area D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D Wetland Riprap Wetland Stream Wetland outside study area Wetland/OHWM outside study area Pond Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) Ditch Culvert ""Culvert !Data Plot 2015 Wetland Delineation Features Study Area D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D Wetland Riprap Stream - OHWM Ditch - OHWM Ditch - Wetland Wetland/OHWM outside study area ""Culvert !!.Upland Ditch End !Data Plot Existing Road New Road Roadmile Rivermile Engineered Log Jam (ELJ) 3.7 18.9 !! "" "" "" """" "" "" "" "" H o h R i v e r Stream S13 C2 OHWM Plot 1 Plot 2 Stream S12 Stream S18 1 9 .6 1 9 .5 4 .4 4 .5 Upper Hoh Rd C1 C2 C3 & C4 Lindner CkMitigation Site C5 Milepost 9.8Mitigation Site Upper Hoh Rd Document Path: C:\Users\sast\Desktop\Wetland Delineation_8x10_Maps.mxd Date: 6/28/2017 Time: 11:06:36 AM User Name: Sast Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri,DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID,IGN, and the GIS User Community Upper Hoh Road Wetland Delineation Figure 6, Sheet 6Study Area C2 ´0 125 250Feet 2017 Wetland D elineation Features Study Area D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D Wetland Riprap Wetland Stream Wetland outside study area Wetland/OHWM outside study area Pond Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) Ditch Culvert ""Culvert !Data Plot 2015 Wetland Delineation Features Study Area D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D Wetland Riprap Stream - OHWM Ditch - OHWM Ditch - Wetland Wetland/OHWM outside study area ""Culvert !!.Upland Ditch End !Data Plot Existing Road New Road Roadmile Rivermile Engineered Log Jam (ELJ) 3.7 18.9 D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D!! !! ! ! ! ! Plot W7-DP-1 Plot W7-DP-2 Plot W8-DP-2 Plot W8-DP-2 M1 OHWM M1 OHWM Wetland W7extends outside study area Wetland W8wetland outside study area H o h R i v e r 23 2 2 .3 2 2 . 4 2 2 . 5 2 2 .2 2 2 . 6 2 2 .1 2 2.7 2 2.8 22.9 7 .2 7 .3 7 .1 Upper Hoh Rd C1 C2 C3 & C4 Lindner CkMitigation Site C5 Milepost 9.8Mitigation Site Upper Hoh Rd Document Path: C:\Users\sast\Desktop\Wetland Delineation_8x10_Maps.mxd Date: 6/27/2017 Time: 11:11:34 AM User Name: Sast Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri,DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID,IGN, and the GIS User Community Upper Hoh Road Wetland Delineation Figure 6, Sheet 7Lindner Creek Mitigation Area ´0 500 1,000Feet 2017 Wetland D elineation Features Study Area D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D Wetland Riprap Wetland Stream Wetland outside study area Wetland/OHWM outside study area Pond Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) Ditch Culvert ""Culvert !Data Plot 2015 Wetland Delineation Features Study Area D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D Wetland Riprap Stream - OHWM Ditch - OHWM Ditch - Wetland Wetland/OHWM outside study area ""Culvert !!.Upland Ditch End !Data Plot Existing Road New Road Roadmile Rivermile Engineered Log Jam (ELJ) 3.7 18.9 D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D !! ! ! !! ! "" "" ! Plot W7-DP-1 Plot W7-DP-2 H o h R i v e r Wetland W7 Plot 5 Plot 6 Plot 7DC3-A WC3-Bextends outsidestudy area Plot 3 Plot 4 WC3-A Plot 2 Plot 1 Lindner CreekMitigationStudy Area 23.1 23.2 7 .3 7.4 7.5 U p p e r H o h R d C1 C2 C3 & C4 Lindner CkMitigation Site C5 Milepost 9.8Mitigation Site Upper Hoh Rd Document Path: C:\Users\sast\Desktop\Wetland Delineation_8x10_Maps.mxd Date: 6/27/2017 Time: 9:28:55 AM User Name: Sast Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri,DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID,IGN, and the GIS User Community 2017 Wetland Delineation Features Study Area D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D Wetland Riprap Wetland Stream Wetland outside study area Wetland/OHWM outside study area Pond Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) Ditch Culvert ""Culvert !Data P lot 2015 Wetland Delineation Features Study Area D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D Wetland Riprap Stream - OHWM Ditch - OHWM Ditch - Wetland Wetland/OHWM outside study area ""Culvert !!.Upland Ditch End !Data Plot Existing Road New Road Roadmile Rivermile Engineered Log Jam (ELJ) Upper Hoh Road Wetland Delineation Figure 6, Sheet 8Study Areas C3 and C4 ´0 150 300Feet 3.7 18.9 D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! "" "" "" "" "" "" H oh Riv er H o h R i v e r T o w e r C r e e k Plot 5 Plot 6 Plot 7 DC4-A DC3-A Plot 13 Plot 12 Plot 14 WC4-Aextends outsidestudy area Plot 11 Plot 8 Plot 10 Plot 9 DC4-B DC-B H o h R i v e r 2 3.3 23.2 2 3 .4 7 . 5 7 .6 7 .7 U p p e r H o h R d C1 C2 C3 & C4 Lindner CkMitigation Site C5 Milepost 9.8Mitigation Site Upper Hoh Rd Document Path: C:\Users\sast\Desktop\Wetland Delineation_8x10_Maps.mxd Date: 6/27/2017 Time: 10:20:07 AM User Name: Sast Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri,DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID,IGN, and the GIS User Community 2017 Wetland Delineation Features Study Area D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D Wetland Riprap Wetland Stream Wetland outside study area Wetland/OHWM outside study area Pond Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) Ditch Culvert ""Culvert !Data P lot 2015 Wetland Delineation Features Study Area D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D Wetland Riprap Stream - OHWM Ditch - OHWM Ditch - Wetland Wetland/OHWM outside study area ""Culvert !!.Upland Ditch End !Data Plot Existing Road New Road Roadmile Rivermile Engineered Log Jam (ELJ) Upper Hoh Road Wetland Delineation Figure 6, Sheet 9Study Areas C3 and C4 ´0 150 300Feet 3.7 18.9 D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DDD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D ! !!! !!! !! ! ! !! "" "" "" "" "" "" "" ""H o h R i v e r Hoh River Plot 19 Plot 20 WC4-Cextends outsidestudy areaPlot 14Plot 13 SC4-Aextends outsidestudy area WC4-Bextends outsidestudy area WC4-Aextends outsidestudy area Plot 12 Plot 15 Plot 16 Plot 18 Plot 17 2 3 .5 2 3 .4 7 .7 7 .8 Upper Hoh Rd C1 C2 C3 & C4 Lindner CkMitigation Site C5 Milepost 9.8Mitigation Site Upper Hoh Rd Document Path: C:\Users\sast\Desktop\Wetland Delineation_8x10_Maps.mxd Date: 6/27/2017 Time: 10:21:04 AM User Name: Sast Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri,DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID,IGN, and the GIS User Community 2017 Wetland Delineation Features Study Area D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D Wetland Riprap Wetland Stream Wetland outside study area Wetland/OHWM outside study area Pond Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) Ditch Culvert ""Culvert !Data P lot 2015 Wetland Delineation Features Study Area D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D Wetland Riprap Stream - OHWM Ditch - OHWM Ditch - Wetland Wetland/OHWM outside study area ""Culvert !!.Upland Ditch End !Data Plot Existing Road New Road Roadmile Rivermile Engineered Log Jam (ELJ) Upper Hoh Road Wetland Delineation Figure 6, Sheet 10Study Areas C3 and C4 ´0 150 300Feet 3.7 18.9 D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D !! !! "" """" "" "" "" HohRiver H o h R i v e r SC4-Bextends outsidestudy areaPlot 19Plot 20 WC4-Cextends outsidestudy area 2 3 .6 2 3.5 8 7 . 9 7 . 8 Upper Hoh Rd C1 C2 C3 & C4 Lindner CkMitigation Site C5 Milepost 9.8Mitigation Site Upper Hoh Rd Document Path: C:\Users\sast\Desktop\Wetland Delineation_8x10_Maps.mxd Date: 6/27/2017 Time: 10:20:11 AM User Name: Sast Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri,DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID,IGN, and the GIS User Community 2017 Wetland Delineation Features Study Area D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D Wetland Riprap Wetland Stream Wetland outside study area Wetland/OHWM outside study area Pond Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) Ditch Culvert ""Culvert !Data P lot 2015 Wetland Delineation Features Study Area D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D Wetland Riprap Stream - OHWM Ditch - OHWM Ditch - Wetland Wetland/OHWM outside study area ""Culvert !!.Upland Ditch End !Data Plot Existing Road New Road Roadmile Rivermile Engineered Log Jam (ELJ) Upper Hoh Road Wetland Delineation Figure 6, Sheet 11Study Areas C3 and C4 ´0 150 300Feet 3.7 18.9 D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D ! ! ! ! "" "" "" "" H o h R i v e r Stream S10 Stream S11 M2 OHWM Plot W9-DP-1Plot W10-DP-2 Plot W10-DP-1 Plot W11-DP-1 Wetland W10extends outside study area Wetland W11extends outside study area Wetland W-9 Stream S10 Stream S11 9 . 8 U p p e r H o h R d C1 C2 C3 & C4 Lindner CkMitigation Site C5 Milepost 9.8Mitigation Site Upper Hoh Rd Document Path: C:\Users\sast\Desktop\Wetland Delineation_8x10_Maps.mxd Date: 6/27/2017 Time: 11:02:20 AM User Name: Sast Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri,DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID,IGN, and the GIS User Community Upper Hoh Road Wetland Delineation Figure 6, Sheet 12Milepost 9.8 Mitigation Area ´0 75 150Feet 2017 Wetland D elineation Features Study Area D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D Wetland Riprap Wetland Stream Wetland outside study area Wetland/OHWM outside study area Pond Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) Ditch Culvert ""Culvert !Data Plot 2015 Wetland Delineation Features Study Area D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D Wetland Riprap Stream - OHWM Ditch - OHWM Ditch - Wetland Wetland/OHWM outside study area ""Culvert !!.Upland Ditch End !Data Plot Existing Road New Road Roadmile Rivermile Engineered Log Jam (ELJ) 3.7 18.9 !"" "" C a n y o n C r e e k C a n y o n C r e e k R o a d to Q u arry Plot 1 1 0 .2 1 0 . 3 U p p e r H o h R d C1 C2 C3 & C4 Lindner CkMitigation Site C5 Milepost 9.8Mitigation Site Upper Hoh Rd Document Path: C:\Users\sast\Desktop\Wetland Delineation_8x10_Maps.mxd Date: 6/27/2017 Time: 9:29:50 AM User Name: Sast Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri,DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID,IGN, and the GIS User Community 2017 Wetland Delineation Features Study Area D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D Wetland Riprap Wetland Stream Wetland outside study area Wetland/OHWM outside study area Pond Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) Ditch Culvert ""Culvert !Data P lot 2015 Wetland Delineation Features Study Area D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D Wetland Riprap Stream - OHWM Ditch - OHWM Ditch - Wetland Wetland/OHWM outside study area ""Culvert !!.Upland Ditch End !Data Plot Existing Road New Road Roadmile Rivermile Engineered Log Jam (ELJ) Upper Hoh Road Wetland Delineation Figure 6, Sheet 13Study Area C5 ´0 150 300Feet 3.7 18.9 Upper Hoh River Road Project July 2017 Wetland Delineation Report-Addendum 1 This page intentionally left blank. Upper Hoh River Road Project July 2017 Wetland Delineation Report-Addendum 1 Appendix B: Wetland Data Forms Upper Hoh River Road Project July 2017 Wetland Delineation Report-Addendum 1 This page intentionally left blank. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants Tree Stratum (Plot size: )Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1. Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis)40 no FAC 2. red alder (Alnus rubra)50 no FAC Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:5 (A) 3. 4. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:5 (B) 50% = , 20% = 90 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:100 (A/B) 1. salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis)10 yes FAC Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total % Cover of:Multiply by: 3. OBL species x1 = 4. FACW species x2 = 5. FAC species x3 = 50% = , 20% = 10 = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: )UPL species x5 = 1. common ladyfern (Athyrium cyclosorum)50 yes FAC Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens)30 yes FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. youth on age (Tolmiea menziesii)25 yes FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. water parsley (Oenanthe sarmentosa)20 yes OBL 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. redwood-sorrel (Oxalis oregana)10 no FACU 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01 7. 8. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 11. 50% = , 20% = 135 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 1. 2. 50% = , 20% = = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Trees listed are not rooted in the wetland and are therefore not considered dominant in the wetland. Project Site:Upper Hoh River Road, Phase 2 City/County: /Jefferson Sampling Date:24 April 2017 Applicant/Owner:Western Federal Lands State:WA Sampling Point:DP-W1-1 Investigator(s):RIP, ECC, OGR Section, Township, Range:S25 T27N R12W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):River side slope Local relief (concave, convex, none):convex Slope (%):1-20 Subregion (LRR):LRR A Lat:47.8231°Long:-124.1872°Datum:WM Soil Map Unit Name:Huel loamy fine sand NWI classification:PEM Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology ,significantly disturbed?Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes No Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology ,naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes No Hydric Soil Present?Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-W1-1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches)Color (moist)%Color (moist)%Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-8 10YR 3/2 100 loam 8-16 10YR 3/2 95 7.5YR 5/6 5 c m clay loam 1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1)Sandy Redox (S5)2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2)Stripped Matrix (S6)Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3)Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present?Yes No Remarks:Parent material volcanic and is dark in color. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1)Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) High Water Table (A2)(except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)(MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3)Salt Crust (B11)Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3)Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A)Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Other (Explain in Remarks)Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present?Yes No Depth (inches):1 Water Table Present?Yes No Depth (inches):0 Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe)Yes No Depth (inches):0 Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Project Site:Upper Hoh River Road, Phase 2 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants Tree Stratum (Plot size: )Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1. Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis)60 yes FAC 2. western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla)40 yes FACU Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:3 (A) 3. 4. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:8 (B) 50% = , 20% = 100 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:37.5 (A/B) 1. salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis)30 yes FAC Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. red huckleberry (Vaccinium parvifolium)15 yes FACU Total % Cover of:Multiply by: 3. thimbleberry (Rubus parviflorus)15 yes FACU OBL species x1 = 4. FACW species x2 = 5. FAC species x3 = 50% = , 20% = 60 = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: )UPL species x5 = 1. western swordfern (Polystichum munitum)60 yes FACU Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. common ladyfern (Athyrium cyclosorum)30 yes FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. redwood-sorrel (Oxalis oregana)40 yes FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01 7. 8. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 11. 50% = , 20% = 130 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 1. 2. 50% = , 20% = = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Project Site:Upper Hoh River Road, Phase 2 City/County: /Jefferson Sampling Date:24 April 2017 Applicant/Owner:Western Federal Lands State:WA Sampling Point:DP-W1-2 Investigator(s):RIP, ECC, OGR Section, Township, Range:S25 T27N R12W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):river terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none):convex Slope (%):1-3 Subregion (LRR):LRR A Lat:47.8231°Long:-124.1872°Datum:WM Soil Map Unit Name:Huel loamy fine sand NWI classification:upland Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology ,significantly disturbed?Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes No Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology ,naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes No Hydric Soil Present?Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-W1-2 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches)Color (moist)%Color (moist)%Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-10 10YR 3/2 100 loam 10-12+10YR 4/2 100 loam 1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1)Sandy Redox (S5)2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2)Stripped Matrix (S6)Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3)Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present?Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1)Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) High Water Table (A2)(except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)(MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3)Salt Crust (B11)Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3)Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A)Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Other (Explain in Remarks)Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present?Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present?Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe)Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Project Site:Upper Hoh River Road, Phase 2 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants Tree Stratum (Plot size: )Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1. western red cedar (Thuja plicata)20 yes FAC 2. Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis)30 yes FAC Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:6 (A) 3. vine maple (Acer circinatum)10 no FAC 4. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:6 (B) 50% = , 20% = 60 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:100 (A/B) 1. salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis)80 yes FAC Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total % Cover of:Multiply by: 3. OBL species x1 = 4. FACW species x2 = 5. FAC species x3 = 50% = , 20% = 80 = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: )UPL species x5 = 1. youth on age (Tolmiea menziesii)50 yes FAC Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. water parsley (Oenanthe sarmentosa)30 yes OBL Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. common ladyfern (Athyrium cyclosorum)25 yes FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01 7. 8. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 11. 50% = , 20% = 105 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 1. 2. 50% = , 20% = = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Project Site:Upper Hoh River Road, Phase 2 City/County: /Jefferson Sampling Date:24 April 2017 Applicant/Owner:Western Federal Lands State:WA Sampling Point:DP-W2-1 Investigator(s):RIP, ECC, OGR Section, Township, Range:S25 T27N R12W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Groundwater discharge slope Local relief (concave, convex, none):concave Slope (%):1-3 Subregion (LRR):LRR A Lat:47.8233°Long:-124.1874°Datum:WM Soil Map Unit Name:Huel loamy fine sand NWI classification:PFO Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology ,significantly disturbed?Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes No Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology ,naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes No Hydric Soil Present?Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-W2-1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches)Color (moist)%Color (moist)%Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-8 10YR 3/2 100 loam 8-+10YR 3/2 95 10YR 5/4 5 c m loam 1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1)Sandy Redox (S5)2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2)Stripped Matrix (S6)Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3)Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present?Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1)Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) High Water Table (A2)(except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)(MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3)Salt Crust (B11)Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3)Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A)Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Other (Explain in Remarks)Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present?Yes No Depth (inches):1 Water Table Present?Yes No Depth (inches):0 Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe)Yes No Depth (inches):0 Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Project Site:Upper Hoh River Road, Phase 2 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants Tree Stratum (Plot size: )Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1. red alder (Alnus rubra)100 yes FAC 2. Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:3 (A) 3. 4. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:4 (B) 50% = , 20% = 100 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:75 (A/B) 1. salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis)30 yes FAC Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus)20 yes FACU Total % Cover of:Multiply by: 3. OBL species x1 = 4. FACW species x2 = 5. FAC species x3 = 50% = , 20% = 50 = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: )UPL species x5 = 1. youth on age (Tolmiea menziesii)80 yes FAC Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. giant horsetail (Equisetum telmateia)10 no FACW Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01 7. 8. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 11. 50% = , 20% = 90 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 1. 2. 50% = , 20% = = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Project Site:Upper Hoh River Road, Phase 2 City/County: /Jefferson Sampling Date:24 April 2017 Applicant/Owner:Western Federal Lands State:WA Sampling Point:DP-W3-1 Investigator(s):RIP, ECC, OGR Section, Township, Range:S25 T27N R12W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Groundwater discharge slope Local relief (concave, convex, none):concave Slope (%):1-3 Subregion (LRR):LRR A Lat:47.8234°Long:-124.1890°Datum:WM Soil Map Unit Name:Huel loamy fine sand NWI classification:PFO Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology ,significantly disturbed?Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes No Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology ,naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes No Hydric Soil Present?Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-W3-1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches)Color (moist)%Color (moist)%Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-8 10YR 3/2 95 7.5YR 4/6 5 c m loam 8-+10YR 4/2 90 7.5YR 4/6 10 c m sandy loam 1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1)Sandy Redox (S5)2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2)Stripped Matrix (S6)Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3)Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present?Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1)Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) High Water Table (A2)(except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)(MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3)Salt Crust (B11)Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3)Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A)Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Other (Explain in Remarks)Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present?Yes No Depth (inches):1 Water Table Present?Yes No Depth (inches):0 Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe)Yes No Depth (inches):0 Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Project Site:Upper Hoh River Road, Phase 2 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants Tree Stratum (Plot size: )Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1. Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis)40 yes FAC 2. red alder (Alnus rubra)60 yes FAC Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:5 (A) 3. 4. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:5 (B) 50% = , 20% = 100 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:100 (A/B) 1. salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis)30 yes FAC Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total % Cover of:Multiply by: 3. OBL species x1 = 4. FACW species x2 = 5. FAC species x3 = 50% = , 20% = 30 = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: )UPL species x5 = 1. yellow skunk cabbage (Lysichiton americanus)40 yes OBL Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. water parsley (Oenanthe sarmentosa)50 yes OBL Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. youth on age (Tolmiea menziesii)10 no FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01 7. 8. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 11. 50% = , 20% = 100 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 1. 2. 50% = , 20% = = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Project Site:Upper Hoh River Road, Phase 2 City/County: /Jefferson Sampling Date:24 April 2017 Applicant/Owner:Western Federal Lands State:WA Sampling Point:DP-W4-1 Investigator(s):RIP, ECC, OGR Section, Township, Range:S25 T27N R12W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Groundwater discharge slope Local relief (concave, convex, none):concave Slope (%):1-2 Subregion (LRR):LRR A Lat:47.8227°Long:-124.1961°Datum:WM Soil Map Unit Name:Huel loamy fine sand NWI classification:PFO Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology ,significantly disturbed?Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes No Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology ,naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes No Hydric Soil Present?Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-W4-1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches)Color (moist)%Color (moist)%Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-24 10YR 3/1 100 c m fine sandy loam 1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1)Sandy Redox (S5)2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2)Stripped Matrix (S6)Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3)Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present?Yes No Remarks:Assume gleyed layer below 24 inches HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1)Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) High Water Table (A2)(except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)(MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3)Salt Crust (B11)Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3)Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A)Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Other (Explain in Remarks)Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present?Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present?Yes No Depth (inches):10 Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe)Yes No Depth (inches):0 Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Project Site:Upper Hoh River Road, Phase 2 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants Tree Stratum (Plot size: )Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1. Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis)40 yes FAC 2. western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla)60 yes FACU Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:2 (A) 3. 4. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:5 (B) 50% = , 20% = 100 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:40 (A/B) 1. salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis)60 yes FAC Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total % Cover of:Multiply by: 3. OBL species x1 = 4. FACW species x2 = 5. FAC species x3 = 50% = , 20% = 60 = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: )UPL species x5 = 1. western swordfern (Polystichum munitum)20 yes FACU Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. common ladyfern (Athyrium cyclosorum)5 no FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. redwood-sorrel (Oxalis oregana)80 yes FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01 7. 8. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 11. 50% = , 20% = 105 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 1. 2. 50% = , 20% = = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Project Site:Upper Hoh River Road, Phase 2 City/County: /Jefferson Sampling Date:24 April 2017 Applicant/Owner:Western Federal Lands State:WA Sampling Point:DP-W4-2 Investigator(s):RIP, ECC, OGR Section, Township, Range:S25 T27N R12W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):slope Local relief (concave, convex, none):convex Slope (%):3 Subregion (LRR):LRR A Lat:47.8227°Long:-124.1961°Datum:WM Soil Map Unit Name:Huel loamy fine sand NWI classification:upland Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology ,significantly disturbed?Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes No Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology ,naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes No Hydric Soil Present?Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-W4-2 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches)Color (moist)%Color (moist)%Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-10 10YR 4/2 100 loam 1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1)Sandy Redox (S5)2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2)Stripped Matrix (S6)Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3)Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present?Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1)Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) High Water Table (A2)(except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)(MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3)Salt Crust (B11)Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3)Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A)Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Other (Explain in Remarks)Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present?Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present?Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe)Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Project Site:Upper Hoh River Road, Phase 2 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants Tree Stratum (Plot size: )Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1. Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis)80 no FAC 2. Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:3 (A) 3. 4. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:4 (B) 50% = , 20% = 80 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:75 (A/B) 1. salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis)20 yes FAC Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa)10 yes FACU Total % Cover of:Multiply by: 3. OBL species x1 = 4. FACW species x2 = 5. FAC species x3 = 50% = , 20% = 30 = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: )UPL species x5 = 1. yellow skunk cabbage (Lysichiton americanus)15 yes OBL Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. violets (Viola spp.)5 yes NI Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01 7. 8. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 11. 50% = , 20% = 20 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 1. 2. 50% = , 20% = = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: trees are not rooted in the wetland area. Assume violets are FAC or wetter. Project Site:Upper Hoh River Road, Phase 2 City/County: /Jefferson Sampling Date:24 April 2017 Applicant/Owner:Western Federal Lands State:WA Sampling Point:DP-W5-1 Investigator(s):RIP, ECC, OGR Section, Township, Range:S25 T27N R12W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Groundwater discharge slope Local relief (concave, convex, none):concave Slope (%):1-5 Subregion (LRR):LRR A Lat:47.8223°Long:-124.1969°Datum:WM Soil Map Unit Name:Huel loamy fine sand NWI classification:PSS Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology ,significantly disturbed?Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes No Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology ,naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes No Hydric Soil Present?Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-W5-1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches)Color (moist)%Color (moist)%Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-24 10YR 3/1 100 c m fine sandy loam 1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1)Sandy Redox (S5)2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2)Stripped Matrix (S6)Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3)Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present?Yes No Remarks:Assume gleyed layer below 24 inches HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1)Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) High Water Table (A2)(except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)(MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3)Salt Crust (B11)Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3)Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A)Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Other (Explain in Remarks)Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present?Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present?Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe)Yes No Depth (inches):6 Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Project Site:Upper Hoh River Road, Phase 2 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants Tree Stratum (Plot size: )Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1. Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis)20 yes FAC 2. red alder (Alnus rubra)70 yes FAC Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:7 (A) 3. 4. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:7 (B) 50% = , 20% = 90 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:100 (A/B) 1. salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis)20 yes FAC Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total % Cover of:Multiply by: 3. OBL species x1 = 4. FACW species x2 = 5. FAC species x3 = 50% = , 20% = 20 = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: )UPL species x5 = 1. small-fruited bulrush (Scirpus microcarpus)50 yes OBL Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens)30 yes FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. slough sedge (Carex obnupta)25 yes OBL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. swordleaf rush (Juncus ensifolius)20 yes FACW 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. soft rush (Juncus effusus)10 no FACW 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01 7. 8. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 11. 50% = , 20% = 135 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 1. 2. 50% = , 20% = = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Project Site:Upper Hoh River Road, Phase 2 City/County: /Jefferson Sampling Date:25 April 2017 Applicant/Owner:Western Federal Lands State:WA Sampling Point:DP-W7-1 Investigator(s):RIP, ECC, OGR Section, Township, Range:S28 T27N R11W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):River terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none):concave Slope (%):0-1 Subregion (LRR):LRR A Lat:47.8138°Long:-124.1225°Datum:WM Soil Map Unit Name:Udifluvents, 1-5% slope NWI classification:PFO Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology ,significantly disturbed?Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes No Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology ,naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes No Hydric Soil Present?Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-W7-1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches)Color (moist)%Color (moist)%Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-8 2.5YR 3/1 90 7.5YR 5/4 fine sand 8-10 gravel Could not type soil in gravel 1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1)Sandy Redox (S5)2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2)Stripped Matrix (S6)Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3)Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present?Yes No Remarks:Parent material volcanic and is dark in color. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1)Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) High Water Table (A2)(except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)(MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3)Salt Crust (B11)Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3)Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A)Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Other (Explain in Remarks)Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present?Yes No Depth (inches):6 Water Table Present?Yes No Depth (inches):0 Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe)Yes No Depth (inches):0 Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Project Site:Upper Hoh River Road, Phase 2 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants Tree Stratum (Plot size: )Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1. Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis)80 yes FAC 2. red alder (Alnus rubra)20 yes FAC Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:4 (A) 3. 4. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:8 (B) 50% = , 20% = 100 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:50 (A/B) 1. salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis)25 yes FAC Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis)15 yes FACU Total % Cover of:Multiply by: 3. snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus)5 yes FACU OBL species x1 = 4. red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa)5 yes FACU FACW species x2 = 5. FAC species x3 = 50% = , 20% = 50 = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: )UPL species x5 = 1. western swordfern (Polystichum munitum)35 yes FACU Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. trailing blackberry (Rubus ursinus)20 no FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01 7. 8. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 11. 50% = , 20% = 55 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 1. 2. 50% = , 20% = = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Project Site:Upper Hoh River Road, Phase 2 City/County: /Jefferson Sampling Date:24 April 2017 Applicant/Owner:Western Federal Lands State:WA Sampling Point:DP-W7-2 Investigator(s):RIP, ECC, OGR Section, Township, Range:S28 T27N R11W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):river terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none):convex Slope (%):3 Subregion (LRR):LRR A Lat:47.8138°Long:-124.1225°Datum:WM Soil Map Unit Name:Udifluvents, 1-5% slope NWI classification:upland Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology ,significantly disturbed?Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes No Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology ,naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes No Hydric Soil Present?Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-W7-2 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches)Color (moist)%Color (moist)%Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-5 10YR 2/2 100 gravelly loam 5-10 10YR 4/1 100 cobbley sand 1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1)Sandy Redox (S5)2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2)Stripped Matrix (S6)Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3)Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present?Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1)Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) High Water Table (A2)(except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)(MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3)Salt Crust (B11)Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3)Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A)Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Other (Explain in Remarks)Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present?Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present?Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe)Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Project Site:Upper Hoh River Road, Phase 2 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants Tree Stratum (Plot size: )Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1. Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis)20 yes FAC 2. red alder (Alnus rubra)70 yes FAC Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:4 (A) 3. 4. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:4 (B) 50% = , 20% = 90 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:100 (A/B) 1. salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis)25 yes FAC Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total % Cover of:Multiply by: 3. OBL species x1 = 4. FACW species x2 = 5. FAC species x3 = 50% = , 20% = 25 = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: )UPL species x5 = 1. slough sedge (Carex obnupta)80 yes OBL Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens)15 no FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. American speedwell (Veronica americana)5 no OBL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01 7. 8. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 11. 50% = , 20% = 100 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 1. 2. 50% = , 20% = = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Project Site:Upper Hoh River Road, Phase 2 City/County: /Jefferson Sampling Date:25 April 2017 Applicant/Owner:Western Federal Lands State:WA Sampling Point:DP-W8-1 Investigator(s):RIP, ECC, OGR Section, Township, Range:S28 T27N R11W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):River terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none):concave Slope (%):0-1 Subregion (LRR):LRR A Lat:47.8136°Long:-124.1230°Datum:WM Soil Map Unit Name:Udifluvents, 1-5% slope NWI classification:PFO Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology ,significantly disturbed?Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes No Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology ,naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes No Hydric Soil Present?Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-W8-1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches)Color (moist)%Color (moist)%Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-10 2.5YR 3/1 100 fine sand clay loam 8-+ gravel Could not type soil in gravel 1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1)Sandy Redox (S5)2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2)Stripped Matrix (S6)Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3)Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present?Yes No Remarks:Parent material volcanic and is dark in color. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1)Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) High Water Table (A2)(except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)(MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3)Salt Crust (B11)Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3)Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A)Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Other (Explain in Remarks)Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present?Yes No Depth (inches):1 Water Table Present?Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe)Yes No Depth (inches):0 Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Project Site:Upper Hoh River Road, Phase 2 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants Tree Stratum (Plot size: )Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1. red alder (Alnus rubra)100 yes FAC 2. Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:2 (A) 3. 4. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:4 (B) 50% = , 20% = 100 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:50 (A/B) 1. salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis)10 yes FAC Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total % Cover of:Multiply by: 3. OBL species x1 = 4. FACW species x2 = 5. FAC species x3 = 50% = , 20% = 10 = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: )UPL species x5 = 1. grasses 70 yes FACU Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens)10 no FAC Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. redwood-sorrel (Oxalis oregana)10 no FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. trailing blackberry (Rubus ursinus)20 yes FACU 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01 7. 8. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 11. 50% = , 20% = 110 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 1. 2. 50% = , 20% = = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: grasses are assumed FACU or UPL Project Site:Upper Hoh River Road, Phase 2 City/County: /Jefferson Sampling Date:24 April 2017 Applicant/Owner:Western Federal Lands State:WA Sampling Point:DP-W8-2 Investigator(s):RIP, ECC, OGR Section, Township, Range:S28 T27N R11W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):high ground within river terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none):convex Slope (%):0-1 Subregion (LRR):LRR A Lat:47.8136°Long:-124.1230°Datum:WM Soil Map Unit Name:Udifluvents, 1-5% slope NWI classification:upland Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology ,significantly disturbed?Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes No Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology ,naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes No Hydric Soil Present?Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-W8-2 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches)Color (moist)%Color (moist)%Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-24 10YR 3/1 100 fine sand 1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1)Sandy Redox (S5)2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2)Stripped Matrix (S6)Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3)Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present?Yes No Remarks:While this soil could be an A12 the parent material is volcanic and dark in color. This large River deposition terrace is uniform with fine sand that is 10YR 3/1. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1)Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) High Water Table (A2)(except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)(MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3)Salt Crust (B11)Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3)Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A)Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Other (Explain in Remarks)Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present?Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present?Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe)Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Project Site:Upper Hoh River Road, Phase 2 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants Tree Stratum (Plot size: )Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1. red alder (Alnus rubra)50 no FAC 2. Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:2 (A) 3. 4. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:2 (B) 50% = , 20% = 50 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:100 (A/B) 1. vine maple (Acer circinatum)80 yes FAC Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total % Cover of:Multiply by: 3. OBL species x1 = 4. FACW species x2 = 5. FAC species x3 = 50% = , 20% = 80 = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: )UPL species x5 = 1. slough sedge (Carex obnupta)85 yes OBL Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. yellow skunk cabbage (Lysichiton americanus)5 no OBL Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. trailing blackberry (Rubus ursinus)10 no FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01 7. 8. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 11. 50% = , 20% = 100 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 1. 2. 50% = , 20% = = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Trees not rooted in the wetland area. Project Site:Upper Hoh River Road, Phase 2 City/County: /Jefferson Sampling Date:25 April 2017 Applicant/Owner:Western Federal Lands State:WA Sampling Point:DP-W9-1 Investigator(s):RIP, ECC, OGR Section, Township, Range:S26 T27N R11W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):River terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none):concave Slope (%):0-1 Subregion (LRR):LRR A Lat:47.8106°Long:-124.0785°Datum:WM Soil Map Unit Name:Klone-Hoko Association Mod. Steep NWI classification:PSS Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology ,significantly disturbed?Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes No Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology ,naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes No Hydric Soil Present?Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-W9-1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches)Color (moist)%Color (moist)%Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-14 10YR 2/2 100 fine sand clay loam 14+G1 3/10Y 90 5YR4/6 10 c m clay loam oxydation in rhyosphere 1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1)Sandy Redox (S5)2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2)Stripped Matrix (S6)Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3)Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present?Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1)Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) High Water Table (A2)(except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)(MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3)Salt Crust (B11)Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3)Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A)Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Other (Explain in Remarks)Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present?Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present?Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe)Yes No Depth (inches):0 Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Project Site:Upper Hoh River Road, Phase 2 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants Tree Stratum (Plot size: )Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1. red alder (Alnus rubra)10 no FAC 2. western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla)60 no FACU Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:4 (A) 3. 4. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:4 (B) 50% = , 20% = 70 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:100 (A/B) 1. salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis)10 yes FAC Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total % Cover of:Multiply by: 3. OBL species x1 = 4. FACW species x2 = 5. FAC species x3 = 50% = , 20% = 10 = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: )UPL species x5 = 1. slough sedge (Carex obnupta)40 yes OBL Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. water parsley (Oenanthe sarmentosa)40 yes OBL Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. giant horsetail (Equisetum telmateia)20 yes FACW Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. yellow skunk cabbage (Lysichiton americanus)10 no OBL 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. common ladyfern (Athyrium cyclosorum)10 no FAC 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 6. American speedwell (Veronica americana)5 no OBL 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01 7. 8. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 11. 50% = , 20% = 125 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 1. 2. 50% = , 20% = = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Trees not rooted in the wetland area. Project Site:Upper Hoh River Road, Phase 2 City/County: /Jefferson Sampling Date:25 April 2017 Applicant/Owner:Western Federal Lands State:WA Sampling Point:DP-W10-1 Investigator(s):RIP, ECC, OGR Section, Township, Range:S26 T27N R11W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):shallow slope Local relief (concave, convex, none):concave Slope (%):0-1 Subregion (LRR):LRR A Lat:47.8107°Long:-124.0787°Datum:WM Soil Map Unit Name:Klone-Hoko Association Mod. Steep NWI classification:PSS/PEM Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology ,significantly disturbed?Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes No Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology ,naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes No Hydric Soil Present?Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-W10-1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches)Color (moist)%Color (moist)%Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-6 10YR 3/1 100 clay loam 6-12 2.5YR 3/1 90 10YR5/6 10 c m clay loam 1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1)Sandy Redox (S5)2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2)Stripped Matrix (S6)Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3)Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present?Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1)Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) High Water Table (A2)(except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)(MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3)Salt Crust (B11)Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3)Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A)Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Other (Explain in Remarks)Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present?Yes No Depth (inches):1 Water Table Present?Yes No Depth (inches):0 Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe)Yes No Depth (inches):0 Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Project Site:Upper Hoh River Road, Phase 2 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants Tree Stratum (Plot size: )Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1. Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis)80 yes FAC 2. western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla)10 yes FACU Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:2 (A) 3. 4. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:7 (B) 50% = , 20% = 90 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:28.5 (A/B) 1. salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis)5 yes FAC Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. red huckleberry (Vaccinium parvifolium)5 yes FACU Total % Cover of:Multiply by: 3. OBL species x1 = 4. FACW species x2 = 5. FAC species x3 = 50% = , 20% = 10 = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: )UPL species x5 = 1. western swordfern (Polystichum munitum)20 yes FACU Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. redwood-sorrel (Oxalis oregana)60 yes FACU Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. mosses 20 yes NI Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01 7. 8. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 11. 50% = , 20% = 100 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 1. 2. 50% = , 20% = = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Project Site:Upper Hoh River Road, Phase 2 City/County: /Jefferson Sampling Date:24 April 2017 Applicant/Owner:Western Federal Lands State:WA Sampling Point:DP-W10-2 Investigator(s):RIP, ECC, OGR Section, Township, Range:S26 T27N R11W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):slope Local relief (concave, convex, none):none Slope (%):1-2 Subregion (LRR):LRR A Lat:47.8107°Long:-124.0787°Datum:WM Soil Map Unit Name:Klone-Hoko Association Mod. Steep NWI classification:upland Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology ,significantly disturbed?Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes No Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology ,naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes No Hydric Soil Present?Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-W10-2 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches)Color (moist)%Color (moist)%Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 3/2 100 loam 1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1)Sandy Redox (S5)2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2)Stripped Matrix (S6)Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3)Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present?Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1)Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) High Water Table (A2)(except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)(MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3)Salt Crust (B11)Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3)Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A)Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Other (Explain in Remarks)Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present?Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present?Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe)Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Project Site:Upper Hoh River Road, Phase 2 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants Tree Stratum (Plot size: )Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1. red alder (Alnus rubra)40 no FAC 2. 3western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla)20 no FACU Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:3 (A) 3. 4. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:3 (B) 50% = , 20% = 60 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:100 (A/B) 1. salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis)10 yes FAC Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total % Cover of:Multiply by: 3. OBL species x1 = 4. FACW species x2 = 5. FAC species x3 = 50% = , 20% = 10 = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: )UPL species x5 = 1. water parsley (Oenanthe sarmentosa)50 yes OBL Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. small-fruited bulrush (Scirpus microcarpus)20 yes OBL Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. yellow skunk cabbage (Lysichiton americanus)10 no FACW Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. common ladyfern (Athyrium cyclosorum)10 no OBL 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01 7. 8. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 11. 50% = , 20% = 90 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 1. 2. 50% = , 20% = = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Trees not rooted in the wetland area. Project Site:Upper Hoh River Road, Phase 2 City/County: /Jefferson Sampling Date:25 April 2017 Applicant/Owner:Western Federal Lands State:WA Sampling Point:DP-W11-1 Investigator(s):RIP, ECC, OGR Section, Township, Range:S26 T27N R11W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):River side slope Local relief (concave, convex, none):none Slope (%):1-2 Subregion (LRR):LRR A Lat:47.8109°Long:-124.0780°Datum:WM Soil Map Unit Name:Klone-Hoko Association Mod. Steep NWI classification:PSS/PEM Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology ,significantly disturbed?Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes No Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology ,naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes No Hydric Soil Present?Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-W11-1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches)Color (moist)%Color (moist)%Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-8 10YR 3/1 100 clay loam 8+ gravel could not sample in the gravel 1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1)Sandy Redox (S5)2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2)Stripped Matrix (S6)Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3)Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present?Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1)Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) High Water Table (A2)(except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)(MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3)Salt Crust (B11)Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3)Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A)Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Other (Explain in Remarks)Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present?Yes No Depth (inches):1 Water Table Present?Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe)Yes No Depth (inches):0 Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Project Site:Upper Hoh River Road, Phase 2 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants Tree Stratum (Plot size: )Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1. red alder (Alnus rubra)70 yes FAC 2. Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:5 (A) 3. 4. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:6 (B) 50% = , 20% = 70 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:80 (A/B) 1. salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis)10 yes FAC Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total % Cover of:Multiply by: 3. OBL species x1 = 4. FACW species x2 = 5. FAC species x3 = 50% = , 20% = 10 = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: )UPL species x5 = 1. youth on age (Tolmiea menziesii)25 yes FAC Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. giant horsetail (Equisetum telmateia)20 yes FACW Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. common bedstraw (Galium aparine)20 yes FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. water parsley (Oenanthe sarmentosa)20 yes OBL 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01 7. 8. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 11. 50% = , 20% = 85 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 1. 2. 50% = , 20% = = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Project Site:Upper Hoh River Road, Phase 2 City/County: /Jefferson Sampling Date:24 April 2017 Applicant/Owner:Western Federal Lands State:WA Sampling Point:DP-W12-1 Investigator(s):RIP, ECC, OGR Section, Township, Range:S25 T27N R12W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):shallow slope Local relief (concave, convex, none):concave Slope (%):1-2 Subregion (LRR):LRR A Lat:47.8228°Long:-124.1843°Datum:WM Soil Map Unit Name:Phelan Gravelly Silt Loam 30-80% Slope NWI classification:PFO Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology ,significantly disturbed?Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes No Are Vegetation ,Soil ,or Hydrology ,naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes No Hydric Soil Present?Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-W12-1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches)Color (moist)%Color (moist)%Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-5 10YR 3/2 100 sandy gravelly loam 5-10 10YR 3/3 100 10+10YR 4/2 95 7.5YR 4/4 5 c m fine sand 1Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1)Sandy Redox (S5)2 cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2)Stripped Matrix (S6)Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3)Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soils Present?Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1)Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) High Water Table (A2)(except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)(MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) Saturation (A3)Salt Crust (B11)Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3)Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (B4)Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)Shallow Aquitard (D3) Iron Deposits (B5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)Stunted or Stresses Plants (D1) (LRR A)Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Other (Explain in Remarks)Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present?Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present?Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe)Yes No Depth (inches):10 Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Project Site:Upper Hoh River Road, Phase 2 Upper Hoh River Road Project July 2017 Wetland Delineation Report-Addendum 1 Appendix C: Wetland Rating Sheets Upper Hoh River Road Project July 2017 Wetland Delineation Report-Addendum 1 This page intentionally left blank.