Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
SWP272264(11)
SwP - z} - 226�f F Cory i MAPLEWOOD CREEK FISH CHANNEL GEO TEC:HNiCAL INVESTIGATION AND REPORT Preharcd for the CCity!-f Renton Prepared by: WARZA Engineering Company Westeri, Division Final Submittal Mav 13, 199R 19 l 1 MAPLEWOOD CREEK FISH CHANNEL GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND REPORT Prepared for the City of Renton Prepared by: —,A RZA Engineering Company Western Division Final Submittal May 13, 1998 --1.412Z.4 Maplewood Creek Fish Channel Geotechnical Investigation and Report TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................1 1.1 Project Description....................................................................................................................1 1.2 Scope of Work...........................................................................................................................1 1.3 Limitations ................................................................................................................................1 2. FIELD INVESTIGATION AND TESTING.....................................................................................2 2.1 Field Investigation.....................................................................................................................2 2.2 Laboratory Testing .......3 ............................................................................................................. 3. SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS............................................................................5 3.1 Surface Conditions....................................................................................................................5 3.2 Geologic Setting........................................................................................................................5 3.3 Subsurface Soil Conditions.......................................................................................................5 3.4 Groundwater..............................................................................................................................6 4. GEOTECHNICAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................7 4.1 Channel Design Considerations................................................................................................7 4.1.1 Channel Excavation and Side Slopes...............................................................................7 4.1.2 Channel Liner and Gravel Layers Design........................................................................7 4.2 Golf Cart Bridges......................................................................................................................9 4.2.1 Foundation Support..........................................................................................................9 4.2.2 Lateral Resistance............................................................................................................9 4.3 Earthwork and Construction Considerations..........................................................................10 4.3.1 Channel and Footing Excavations .................................................................................10 4.3.2 Excavation Dewatering..................................................................................................10 4.3.3 Foundation Subgrade Preparation..................................................................................10 4.3.4 Fill Material ...................................................................................................................10 4.3.5 Compaction....................................................................................................................11 5. CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND MONITORING.........................................................11 City of Renton Page i WPC,98PROJECT7163Dmc p,AW05/1 3198/1 1:33 AM W,4JR7-A Maplewood Creek Fish Channel Geotechnical Investigation and Report TABLES Table 2-1: Boring Water Content and Soil Classification Summary....................................................4 Table 4-1. Recommended Sand Layer Gradation.................................................................................8 Table 4-2. Recommended Clay Liner Gradation..................................................................................8 Table 4-3. Spawning Gravel Gradation Recommendations..................................................................8 APPENDICES Appendix A Boring Logs Appendix B Laboratory Testing (Gradation Curves) Appendix C Grain Size Analyses (Tabular Form) Appendix D Moisture Content Lab Sheet City of Renton Page ii WPC\98PROJEM7163Gwecpr.doc/05/13/9R'11:33 AM WAI2ZA Maplewood Creek Fish Channel Geotechnical Investigation and Report P S P 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Description This report presents the results of the geotechnical investigation for the City of Renton's proposed fish channel construction at the Maplewood Golf Course, Renton, Washington. The proposed project consists of constructing a new low-flow fish passage channel across the golf course. The ' new channel will begin at the sediment basin at the north side of the golf course and will extend to the southwest corner of the golf course where it will be connected to an existing Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) fish ladder that crosses under SR 169 to the Cedar River. The channel will be approximately 1,500 feet long, 12 to 26 feet wide, and 4 to 6 feet deep. The channel side slopes will be vegetated to provide shelter and fish habitat. 1.2 Scope of Work This investigation included the following tasks: M + review of existing data, including existing water well logs and field observations during sediment basin construction in 1996 and 1997; + drilling and logging of 10 exploratory auger borings along the proposed fish passage channel alignment; + installation of 5 groundwater monitoring wells to allow for water surface elevation monitoring during design and prior to construction; + laboratory index testing of soil materials recovered from the borings; + data analysis and reporting and development of geotechnical design parameters per the project goals including determining soil classification and stratification, depth to groundwater and soil permeabilities; and + preparation of this summary report. 1.3 Limitations This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices and per Harza's contractual agreement with the City of Renton for the exclusive use of the City of Renton and their consultants for the specific application to the Maplewood Creek improvement project. In the event that there are any changes in the ownership,nature, or design of the project, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless 1) the project changes are reviewed by Harza, and 2) conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are modified or verified in writing. Reliance on this report by another must be at their own risk unless Harza is consulted regarding the use or limitations. Harza cannot be responsible for the impacts of any changes in environmental standards, practices, or regulations subsequent to performance of services without our further consultation. We can neither vouch for the accuracy of information supplied by others,nor accept consequences for unconsulted use of selected portions of this report. City of Renton Page 1 WPC\98PROJECT7163Gmcfcpr.doc/05'13,/98/11:33 AM —I JRZ-A Maplewood Creek Fish Channel Geotechnical Investigation and Report 2. FIELD INVESTIGATION AND TESTING 2.1 Field Investigation The field investigation consisted of a surface reconnaissance and a subsurface exploration program. The subsurface exploration program was completed by using two drill rigs. A trailer-mounted drill rig fitted with 4-inch diameter continuous-flight hollow-stem auger was used to drill 9 borings on January 29 and 30, 1998. A lightweight drill rig mounted on a wheeled dolly fitted with 2.25 inch continuous-flight hollow-stem augers was used to drill 1 boring on January 30. The borings were advanced to depths ranging between 11.5 feet and 13 feet below the ground surface. The surveyed locations of the borings are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 1, and on the enlarged plan and profile sheets, Figures 3 through 5. The soils encountered in the borings were continuously logged in the field by our field geologist. The soils are described in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D-2487). The logs of the borings as well as a key for the classification of the soil are included in Appendix A. The elevations on the boring logs are based on a survey completed by Symonds Consulting Engineers dated February 13, 1998 per the project datum. Representative soil samples were obtained from the exploratory borings at selected depths appropriate to the soil investigation. Soil samples were obtained using the 2-inch O.D. split-spoon sampler. All samples were transported to our laboratory for evaluation and appropriate testing. Resistance blow counts were obtained with the samplers by dropping a 140-pound hammer through a 30-inch free fall. The sampler was driven 18-inches, or a shorter distance where hard resistance was encountered, and the number of blows were recorded for each 6-inches of penetration. The blows per foot recorded on the boring logs represent the accumulated number of blows that were required ' to drive the last 12-inches, or the number of inches indicated where hard resistance was encountered. These blow counts are the standard penetration resistance values. The attached boring logs and related information show our interpretation of the subsurface conditions at the dates and locations indicated, and it is not warranted that they are representative of subsurface conditions at other locations and times. Monitoring wells were installed in five borings (B-1, B-3, B-6, B-9, B-10). Three types of well screens were used as follows: 1. monitoring well B 1, machine slotted 2-inch I.D. 2. monitoring well B3,hand slotted 1-inch I.D. 3. monitoring wells B6, B9, B 10, hand slotted 2-inch I.D. Each well was backfilled with sand or pea gravel to a level of approximately 3 feet below the ground surface. Bentonite chips were used to create a minimum 2-foot thick impermeable seal above the sand pack. Each well was fitted with a steel flush monument set in concrete. The general design of each well is shown on the boring logs in Appendix A. ' City of Renton Page 2 WPC\98PROJECT7163C,mc(cpr.dWO5'13/98/11:37 AM WIAJ2ZA Maplewood Creek Fish Channel Geotechnical Investigation and Report 2.2 Laboratory Testing The laboratory testing program was directed toward a quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the physical and mechanical properties of the soils underlying the site. The natural water content was determined on 28 samples recovered from the borings in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-2216. These water contents are recorded in the boring logs (Appendix A) at the appropriate sample depths, and the moisture content lab sheets are included in ' Appendix D. Gradation tests were performed on 28 samples of the subsurface soils in accordance with ASTM Test Designations D-421 and D-422. These test were performed to assist in the classification of the soils and to determine their grain size distribution. The results of these tests are presented in graphical form in Appendix B and in tabular form in Appendix C. Table 2-1 summarizes the grain size analysis results. City of Renton Page 3 WPC\98PROJECT7163G mdcor.doc/05i 13i9W 11:33 AM WARZA Maplewood Creek Fish Channel Geotechnical Investigation and Report Table 2-1: Boring Water Content and Soil Classification Summary 1 Boring Depth Water Classification Gravel Sand Silt or Clay M (feet) Content(%) (USCS) (%) (%) (%) B-1 5.0 27 SM 11 60 29 7.5 4 GP 49 48 2 10.0 4 GW 58 42 1 ' B-2 5.0 31 SM 0 55 44 7.5 34 SM 0 63 37 10.0 12 SP 6 90 4 B-3 5.0 24 SM 6 51 43 7.5 19 SW-SM 9 83 8 10.0 4 GP 60 40 0 iB-4 5.0 22 SP-SM 1 91 8 7.5 7 GW 51 46 3 ' B-5 5.0 22 SM 1 68 30 7.5 6 GP 60 38 2 10.0 10 SP 40 58 2 B-6 5.0 34 ML 0 23 77 7.5 31 ML 0 46 53 10.0 26 SM 19 68 13 B-7 5.0 48 ML 0 17 83 7.5 13 SM 1 79 20 10.0 26 SP 6 91 3 B-8 5.0 37 SM 0 58 42 7.5 34 ML 0 30 69 10.0 18 SP 36 61 3 B-9 5.0 22 SM 21 46 33 7.5 26 SM 13 49 38 10.0 17 SM 19 43 38 B-10 5.0 18 SM 34 51 15 7.5 32 SP-SM 7 84 8 10.0 23 SP-SM 23 66 11 Note - Soil percentages are rounded. City of Renton Page 4 WPC\98PROJECT7163G cfcgir.doU05;13i98i11:33 AM W A R7—A Maplewood Creek Fish Channel Geotechnical Investigation and Report 3. SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3.1 Surface Conditions The subject site is located north of the Maple Valley Highway (SR 169) at 132nd Avenue Southwest in Renton, Washington. The site is occupied by the Maplewood Golf Course, an 18-hole course operated by the City of Renton. The site is bounded on the south by the Maple Valley Highway and on the north by steep slopes that mark the northern boundary of the Cedar River Valley. Land use in the areas immediately adjacent to the site is predominately residential. The Cedar River transects the eastern portion of the site. Maplewood Creek flows north to south through the mid-portion of the site. In general, surface water flows across the site in a southwesterly direction. 3.2 Geologic Setting The site is located within the Cedar River groundwater basin, a northwest trending deep bedrock ' valley between Lake Washington, at the City of Renton, and Landsburg in the Cascade foothills. The Cedar River basin contains rolling glacial upland areas that are incised along the edges by modern river and creek valleys. Unconsolidated glacial deposits in the basin range between 300 feet thick near the City of Renton to roughly 700 feet thick near Maple Valley, Washington. Groundwater wells drilled at the site for the City of Renton indicate that the unconsolidated deposits in the vicinity of the site are on the order of 350 feet thick. The unconsolidated deposits are the result of a combination of deposition by glacial activity and ' reworking and deposition of glacial deposits by the Cedar River and its tributaries. The unconsolidated deposits consist of five distinct stratigraphic units. The upper most stratigraphic unit, and the only unit penetrated by borings for this study, is comprised of recessional outwash and ' holocene alluvium, consisting of a mixture of laterally discontinuous layers of sands, gravel, silt and clay. Throughout most of the basin, but not at all locations, till underlies the outwash and holocene deposits. Till, typically referred to as hard pan,consists of blue to gray to brown silty sand and ' gravel with discontinuous silt layers. Advance/recessional alluvium underlies the till and typically consists of gray coarse sand with fine gravel and lenses of silt. A prominent glaciolacustrine unit is found underling the previous unit. The glaciolacustrine deposit contains mostly clay that is interbedded with silt and sands. The last stratigraphic unit is referred to as the deeper unit. This unit is actually made up of a combination of units because correlation of the units at the deeper depths becomes problematic. This unit consists of a variety of geologic material ranging from silt and clays Ito sands and coarse gravel. 3.3 Subsurface Soil Conditions Subsurface conditions at the site were explored by drilling 10 borings along the proposed fish passage channel alignment. The materials encountered generally consisted of sandy silt and silty sand to depths varying between five and ten feet below existing grades. Below the sandy silt and silty sand, the exploratory borings encountered gravely sand and sandy gravel to the total depths explored, 11.5 to 13 feet. City of Renton Page 5 WPL�99PROJECT7163Gmcfcgir.dc 05/13/98/11:33 AM ' WARZ.4 Maplewood Creek Fish Channel Geotechnical Investigation and Report Detailed descriptions of the soil encountered in the exploratory borings are presented on the exploratory logs in Appendix A. The passage of time may result in changes in the subsurface conditions due to environmental changes. The attached log and related information depict location specific subsurface conditions, encountered during our field investigation. The surveyed locations of the exploratory borings are shown on Figures 1, 3, 4, and 5. 3.4 Groundwater ' A summary plot illustrating groundwater levels observed during drilling and in the wells is provided as Figure 2. Groundwater was encountered at the time of drilling at 10 feet below grade in borings B-5 and B-6, at 7 feet below grade in borings B-7 and B-9, at 4 feet below grade in boring B-8, and at 6 feet below grade in B-10. No groundwater was encountered in borings B-1 through B4. On February 13, 1998, groundwater levels were measured in the five monitoring wells. No groundwater was detected in monitoring wells B-1, B-3, and B-6. The groundwater level in B-9 was 1.5 feet below grade, and the groundwater level in monitoring well B-10 was 5 feet below grade. It should be noted that fluctuations in the groundwater level could occur due to changes in seasons, variations in rainfall, and other factors. City of Renton Page 6 WPC\98PROfEM7163G4ndcpcdoc/05A 3i9&11:33 AM {—IA}2ZA Maplewood Creek Fish Channel Geotechnical Investigation and Report 4. GEOTECHNICAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 Channel Design Considerations ' 4.1.1 Channel Excavation and Side Slopes Based on the soils encountered in the exploratory borings, it is our opinion that the channel can be constructed with side slopes inclined at 2H:IV. The preliminary plans indicate that two different rchannel side slopes are planned. One channel plan shows side slopes inclined at 211:1 V along the entire height of the channel. The second plan shows 2H:1 V side slopes interrupted by a 4-foot bench and then inclined again at 2H:IV. Both configurations are feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. It should be recognized that surface sloughing can occur during heavy rains on unprotected slopes. For this reason, it should be planned to vegetate the channel's side slopes as soon as construction has been accomplished and before the rainy season. It should be recognized by the contractor that the onsite soils have a high silt and water content and ' therefore are very sensitive. Soil disturbance outside the construction zone should be kept to a minimum. Disturbed soil will be very difficult to rework and recompact and will have to be replaced with imported till as described in Section 4.3.4. 4.1.2 Channel Liner and Gravel Layers Design In the preliminary channel design the channel depth will vary from 4 to 7 feet below existing grades. Generally the soils encountered in the upper 4 to 8 feet consist of clayey silt and silty clay with fine sand, and silty sand (SM, ML). The silty clay and find sand content varied between 40 and 80 percent by weight, and is expected to have a low permeability. Below 6 to 8 feet some of the soils consisted of sandy gravel and gravely sand (GW, GP, SP), which would have a higher permeability than the silty clay. Based on the soil boring and sampling results it should be feasible to construct the majority of the channel without a liner. Some localized areas may require a liner to reduce the potential for water ' infiltration. These areas are between borings B-3 and B-5, and around borings B-9 to B-10, where gravely sand was encountered at or above the proposed channel bottom. The exact extent for the liner will depend on the soil encountered at the bottom of the channel excavation. The soil at the bottom of the channel should be inspected during construction to determine the soil type and infiltration potential. Special provisions should be included in the contract specifications to overexcavate the channel bottom and place a low permeability liner, where identified in the field. If the final channel depth is greater than about seven feet, then the channel's invert will probably be in sand and gravel soil. Based on the exploratory borings and the grain size analyses, these soils have a high permeability. While it would be feasible to construct the channel, it would be necessary to use a low permeability material to line the base of the channel and the upper two feet of side slopes. The low permeability liner will be required to minimize water loss from infiltration into the ' sandy gravelly soils. The low permeability liner can consist either of a PVC liner or a clayey silt layer as described in the following paragraphs. A PVC liner option would consist of a 30-mil thick liner placed along the channel's base and side slope slopes and anchored into the slope. This will require over-excavation of the side slopes to City of Renton Page 7 WPC,98PR0JEM7163GNndcP1lko 105/13/98/11:33 AM r :i,,. 1-4,AJZZA Maplewood Creek Fish Channel Geotechnical Investigation and Report anchor onion and then backfillin and rebuilding the channel's side slopes. The PVC place the a p g g P liner should be covered with at least six inches of sand, meeting the requirement in Table 4-1, before the spawning gravel is placed. ' Table 4-1. Recommended Sand Layer Gradation US Standard Sieve Size Percent Finer by Weight 111 100% 3/8" 60- 100 % No. 4 40- 80% No. 10 15 -45 % No. 40 0- 10% iPlanting in lined sections can be achieved by cutting into the liner and placing the plant root-ball below the liner, where appropriate. While this option is viable, it will require additional earthwork during construction and special care during planting. If a PVC liner is used, the side slopes will need to be overexcavated to accommodate the trench anchor for the liner. The trench will need to be about 18 inches wide. Once the liner is installed, it will be very difficult to rebuild and compact the channel's side slopes. A clay liner option would consist of an eight-inch thick clayey silty layer, covered with a 4-inch thick sand filter, followed by the 12-inch spawning gravel layer. In order to minimize migration of the clay liner and sand particles into the spawning gravel layer, the gradation requirements for the clay and sand layers were analyzed as recommended by the US Bureau of Reclamation (1986) guidelines for filter design. Based on these guidelines the grain size distributions presented in Tables 4-1 and 4-2 are recommended for the sand filter and clay liner layers,respectively. Table 4-2. Recommended Clay Liner Gradation US Standard Sieve Size Percent Finer by Weight No. 4 100% ' No. 40 70- 100% No. 100 40-70% No. 200 20-45 % The spawning gravel layer, which serves a fish habitat enhancement along the open channel, would have a typical gradation as shown in Table 4-3. Table 4-3. Spawning Gravel Gradation Recommendations US Standard Sieve Size Percent Finer by Weight 611 60- 100% 311 30-60% 1" 0- 30% 1/4" 0% City of Renton Page 8 WPC\98PROJEM7163Gvncfcpr.dcw05/13/98/11:33 AM I JRZA Maplewood Creek Fish Channel Geotechnical Investigation and Report ' Based on the grain size analyses results, (Appendix B) it appears that some of the excavated soil conforms to the recommended gradation requirements of the clay liner. However, the excavated silty clayey and sandy soils would need to be evaluated and suitable material stockpiled, screened, and protected as necessary by the contractor for potential re-use. Based on the exploratory borings and laboratory testing, the clayey silty soils have a high moisture content. If these soils are to be ' reused as a liner they will need to be spread and aerated to dry them. In addition, the soils need to be covered with plastic sheets to prevent saturation from rain. This process will require a relatively large work area outside the golf course. The Contractor and the City will need to evaluate if such work area is available in the vicinity of the project. If such area is not available, then the excavated soils need to be hauled away and replaced with suitable imported material conforming to the liner and fill specifications, as needed. 4.2 Golf Cart Bridges 4.2.1 Foundation Support Bridge deck and abutment type golf cart bridges can be supported on conventional shallow foundations. However,because of the presence of soft silty clayey and loose sandy soils to a depth of up to eight feet below existing grades, we recommend that the footing areas be over-excavated to at least two (2) feet below the proposed footing base, to provide adequate support for the proposed golf cart bridges. Once the soft soil is over-excavated, the excavations can be backfilled with compacted imported fill or with re-compacted on-site sandy gravely soil. If water is encountered in the excavation and the footing excavation cannot be adequately dewatered and the subgrade compacted, a two (2) foot layer of 2-inch minus crushed rock can be used to backfill the excavation to provide a dry surface area. A layer of geofabric, such as a Mirafi 140N, should be placed at the bottom and around the excavation side walls before the crushed rock layer is placed to minimize soil migration into the crushed rock layer. The conventional footings can be designed for an allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 psf, provided Ithat the footing has a minimum embedment of 2 feet, if placed along the channel base. If the footings are located along the channel's side slopes, they should have a minimum setback equal to the footing width, or at least two feet, from the face of the slope. If concrete box culverts are used as bridge crossings, overexcavation of two feet of onsite soil will be required. The excavation should be lined with a layer of geofabric, such as Mirafi 140N. The geofabric should be placed at the bottom and around the excavation side walls. The excavation can then be filled with compacted 2-inch minus crushed rock to provide foundation support. 4.2.2 Lateral Resistance Lateral load resistance for the proposed bridge foundations can be developed by a combination of ' friction between the foundation bottom and the supporting subgrade and passive resistance acting against the vertical face of the buried portion of the foundation. A friction coefficient of 0.35 and a ' passive resistance equal to an equivalent fluid weighing 300 pounds per cubic foot are considered applicable. The passive resistance along the top 1-foot should be ignored to account for potential scour or softening of the foundation during flood episodes. City of Renton Page 9 WPC\98PROJECT7163GmdcpcAod05 1 3198/1 1:33 AM -4,412Z,4 Maplewood Creek Fish Channel Geotechnical Investigation and Report ' 4.3 Earthwork and Construction Considerations 4.3.1 Channel and Footing Excavations Channel and foundation construction excavation safety should comply with local, state and federal safety regulations. Specifically, the current OSHA Health and Safety Standards for excavations, 29 CFR Part 1926, should be followed. We understand that these regulations are to be strictly enforced and if they are not closely followed the owner and contractor could be liable for substantial penalties. ' The contractor's "responsible person, as defined in 29 CFR Part 1926" should evaluate the soil exposed in the excavations as part of the contractor's safety procedures and use temporary support as needed. 4.3.2 Excavation Dewatering As described in Section I11.4, groundwater was encountered at different depths below existing grade. The depths to groundwater varied between 1.5 and 10 feet at the time of exploration and one week later. For this reason the contractor should be prepared to dewater the excavations, if needed. A dewatering technique could include but not be limited to sloping the excavation into collection sumps and pumping the water into an approved disposal area. We recommend that the contractor measure the water levels in the observation wells before excavation work proceeds, and implement a ' dewatering plan if needed. It should be noted that if the excavations are not dewatered, it will be difficult to achieve channel design grades because of the nature of the clayey silty soils. These soils are considered moisture sensitive and would be difficult to rework under high moisture content conditions. ' 4.3.3 Foundation Subgrade Preparation The foundation areas for bridge support should be stripped and cleared of all obstructions and debris, ' including surface vegetation. Holes resulting from the removal of tree roots extending below the proposed foundation finish grade should be cleared and backfilled with suitable material compacted to the requirements given below under Section 4.3.5, "Compaction". We recommend that backfilling operations for any excavations to remove unsuitable material be carried out under the observation of a representative from Harza. 4.3.4 Fill Material On-site soils below the stripped layer with an organic content of less than 3 percent by volume can be used as fill if the moisture content allows for handling and the required compaction. Based on our exploratory borings, it is our opinion that the onsite soils have a high silt and clay content and their moisture contents are above optimum. It will be difficult to dry these soils to optimum moisture ' content and therefore will be very difficult, if not impossible, to recompact. If imported fill is needed, it should consist of a free-draining, granular organic-free material with a maximum size of three inches. It should contain less than 5 percent fines (silt and clay-size particles passing the No. 200 mesh sieve). City W�PRO Renton Page 10 ticpr.dod05/13/98/11:33 AM 1-IARZA Maplewood Creek Fish Channel Geotechnical Investigation and Report All imported fill material, including the clayey silty liner if needed, should be placed at or near the optimum moisture content. If the materials are too wet to be compacted to the required degree, it will be necessary to dry them or replace them to achieve required compaction. ' 4.3.5 Compaction All structural fill for bridge foundation support should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction as determined by ASTM Designation D1557-78. Fill material should be spread and compacted in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in uncompacted thickness. The clay liner material, if needed, will need to be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. 5. CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND MONITORING The analysis and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the exploratory borings, available published geologic information, and surface exposures on and ' around the site. The nature and extent of variations of subsurface conditions may not become evident until construction. If variations then become apparent, it will be necessary to re-evaluate the recommendations of this report. ' We recommend that Harza be retained to provide geotechnical services during site grading, channel excavation, foundation excavation, subgrade preparation and backfilling to observe compliance with ' the design concepts, specifications and recommendations presented in this report. Our presence will also allow us to modify the design if unanticipated subsurface conditions are encountered. City of Renton Page 11 WPC\98PRO7ECT7163G.m,fcpr.&n J05/13/98/I 1:33 AM i 1 1 1 1 1 1 � Figures Maplewood Creek Fish Channel CL CHANNEL HORIZONTAL CURVE DATA FIGURE 1 ' CURVE RADIUS(ft) LENGTH (ft) DELTA PI NORTHING PI EASTING l� \ HC-1 30'-0" .97 151'9' 175415.66 1310239.49 HC-2 30'-0" 21.35 40'47'18' 175437.07 1310239.49 HC-3 150'-0" 156.91 5957'51" 175522.26 1310501.68 /� ) ' HC-4 125'-0' 49.12 22'31'41' 175414.89 1310621.07 HC-5 75'-00'-" 67.45 22'8'38' 175321.07 1310758.38 HC-6 100'-0" 67.45 38'40'3' 175321.07 1310755.28 / HC-7 50'-0' 18.31 21'0'9" 175316.80 131D839.16 HC-8 50,-0" 48.89 56*3*17' 175292.75 1310893.40 / HC-9 100'-0" 10.22 5.51'34" 175351.87 1310987.50 / i HC-10 100'-0" 88.73 5051'53" 175414.08 1311068.15 ' HC-11 60'-0' 97.50 939*14" 175380.26 1311219.72 ) HC-12 100'-O' 22.12 12'40'53' 175514.44 1311242.68 HC-13 100'-0" 33.00 1855'12" 175571.77 1311266.62 , / HC-14 95'-0' 139.71 8418'8' 1 175668.07 1 1311357-09 HC-15 80'-O" 89.07 63'49'39" 175813.25 1311216.04 CL FISH LADDER INTAKE HC-16 75'-O" 37.62 28'45'5" 175946.31 1311269.41 / HC-17 50'-0- 23.70 2710'35" 176024.83 1311362.54 E.NO FISH LADDER /( ,,� / SEDIMENTATION BASIN p or STRUCTURE Clk& SURVEY MONUMENT SURVEY MONUMENT 8'49 NQ S 76,46*59 fl BASIS OF BEARING E / - `Il._ /1888 897 6g 2198.59 ° I.: i N 8929'54"W \ / c 1 ) SPILLWAY - 1 p EMBANKMENT I UTILITY LOCATE INFORMATION \ \ / _.... ) SEE MAPLEWOOD CREEK I /• SEDIMENTATION BASIN UTILITY I DESCRIPTION NORTHING. FASTING- T.O. PIPE EL � t- t""1 ® 1 - "'`--- / � RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT DRAWINGS FOR WORK COND7 T.V. Ye WHITE PVC 175417.68 7310232.70 66.59 \ ,�I r WITHIN THESE LIMITS COND3 PHONE, 4"0 TAN do 1 1/2'/BLACK 175425.02 1310240.86 67.34 CONDO PHONE, 4'e GRAY PVC 175427.59 1310241.90 67.13 �I "ii -� \ _ UGW1 16"0 WATER MAIN 175435.48 1310243.89 66.69 ' UGW2 12"0 PIPE 175563.66 1311241.38 UGW3 16"0 PIPE 175571.33 /311255.83 80.64 UGW4 16'0 PIPE 175567.30 7311248.72 79.95 DRIPUNE (TYP)� of / CONSTRUCTION NOTES MW-37 V 54'0 CEDAR TO BE REMOVED. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR REMOVAL AND INTENDED USE NOTE: THE COORDINATES FOR THE UTILITY LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE VENT BOXES �' `�T'•�" - .1 } / AND ARE ONLY INTENDED TO HELP THE CONTRACTOR LOCATE THE � O2 REMOVE 6'f TALL FENCE OVER 10 CONNECTION WITH BUILDING. POSITION OF THE CONDUITS. 4 ..� �� a.. MW-36 c 3 REMOVE ABANDONED UNDERGROUND PROPANE CONDUITS: TANK PREVIOUSLY REMOVED. REMOVE CONCRETE PATIO, FENCE, AND ROCKERY. RESTORE TO NATURAL GRADE V REMOVE AND REINSTALL OUT OF BOUNDS MARKER PER CITY FIELD ENGINEER'S DIRECTION. ' BORE I D © REMOVE EXISTING ASPHALT CART PATH. SURVEY MONUMENT HOLE 10 #1520 / UTILITY CROSSING /2 �� -' '�" T'P% O7 CONSTRUCT CONCRETE SLAB OVERTOPPING FOR UTILITY CROSSING PER DETAIL XX, SHEET XX. SEE SHEET 5. DETAIL2 ` ' REMOVE AND RELOCATE 6"0 FIR/PINE ALONG PATH OF CHANNEL. TYP• FOR NEW LOCATIONS, SEE SHEET XX, FOR REMOVAL AND CARE PROCEDURES SEE SPECIAL BORE 2^' r t / PROVISIONS IN SPECIFICATIONS. A CULVERT CROSSING, •Y'r.� HOLE 9 9 UNDERGROUND WATER MAIN TO BE RELOCATED BELOW PROJECT EXCAVATION TYP. ,� UMITS BY OTHERS(CITY OF RENTON). UTILITY CROSSING o� ;.,h.., MAPLEWOOD SEE SHEET 3. DETAIL 1 �) BORE 8 BOOSTER PUMP ® UNDERGROUND MISCELLANEOUS UTILITY CONDUITS TO BE RELOCATED BELOW PROJECT BORE \ HOLE 4 b STATION EXCAVATION LIMITS, SEE SHEET 5. 47, HOLE 1 : 1 C •i �_/ it REMOVE DECIDUOUS TREE INCLUDING STUMP AND ROOTS FOR FUTURE CART PATH. s FISH CHANNEL // - f 'ORE / / \ \„ / '1 \ ,� © PROTECT TREE ROOTS DURING CONSTRUCTION, SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS. HOLE 2 / ©BORE REMOVE DEAD STUMP AND ROOTS. / \ HOLE 7 -•\ BORE \ + BORE O4 42'0 CONCRETE FISHWAY PIPE M BE INSTALLED UNDER 'SEDIMENTA TION BASIN HOLE 3 1 HOLE 6 ` RECONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENT PROJECT' CONTRACT. CAST PIPE INTO FISH EXISTING LADDER HEADWALL, SEE SHEET 10. -.T CART PATH clk.ts+ -�.��-rs• ' CURB AND GUTTER + + ® W EXISTING WSDOT BOX CULVERT NGWALL INLET STRUCTURE. FOR REFERENCE * BORE ;;,` PURPOSES, SEE WSDOT STANDARD PLAN B-6B W/SPAN - 6'-0', HEIGHT= 4'-0'. a BORE HOLE 8 ® 8 HOLE 5 +` USE SECTION A-A FOR CHANNEL BETWEEN NEW CULVERT CROSSING AND EXISTING •` ' - CULVERT WINGWALL STRUCTURE LINE BOTTOM OF CHANNEL WITH i'-O'LAYER OF 12' MAX. SIZE RIPRAP. EXISTING FISH LADDER \� /;/; © REMOVE ROCK WALL AND STOCKPILE FOR USE ON REST OF PROJECT. B" CONCRETE WALL CONC. WALL 'mot' s WELL 11 CEOTE<�I i i- PW-17� VAULT : �NVEsnGA1 M, PW-11 s.......................... CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF PUBXJC WORKS MAPLEWOOD CREEK FISH CHANNEL PROJECT PROJECT SITE PLAN SCALE 0 40 80 160 FEET DESM,NED: w1E: ME NAME:s>fErroz C 1 I I 1 HCN: D1111 e qin•.• anc suenu.c, 1' v 8D' Bellew e, Wa�hington XECKEP. OEP SGv.E AS SHOWN rm aoaie �' EXCEPT AS NOTED TEL (425<602-4020'602-400C FAX 415) No. VLSI011 By w1E APPROVED:APPROVED: SHEET: OF ' FIGURE 2 i 173.19 117.54 , 121.72 122.54 124.91 126.77 125.47 123.70 139.29 cD O O N u� O O Oj N OD n 0) c0 r DO ODD OD c0 N , � OS OO;S 0)= 1S Oj0 IO p 10 10 IQ _ m m m''o m m m I- m m S E— F-cr- I ' 100 M W-37 . . . WATER LEVEL IN PROPOSED MONITORING WELL B-10 90 PROBABLE. SILTY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EXISTING. .GROUND. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WATER LEVEL. . . . . . ; . . . . .° 1998 . . . ' OBSERVED 1 .O8 CHANNEL INVERT SOIL / GRANULAR OBSERVED FEB. 3, SOIL BOUNDARY DURING DRILLING 80 . . . . . . . — - - i _ S7 , 70 -- . . . . . . . . . . II ---------. . . . . . .. - -. . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - ----e-------- _- --o------- - o-------- --o- -------- - - -----:7 __�--_ --------- - 60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . i BORE HOLE PROFILE (FEBRUARY, 1998) VW-37 ' BOW -136.00 �- N OTE DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE � HOLE TO �- HOLE. i CEOTEC:H i ' a LEGEND 40 80 160 co 0 o PROBABLE SILTY SOIL / GRANULAR SOIL BOUNDARY SCALE IN FEET - HORIZONTAL BORE HOLE PROFILE V WATER LEVEL IN MONITORING WELL WATER LEVEL OBSERVED DURING DRILLING 0 10 20 40 _ Scale: AS SHOWN o W - BOTTOM OF HOLE �— Date: DEECBEMPBER, 1996 Drawing o SCALE IN FEET - VERTICAL I I ^p NORTHWEST, INC. BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON c r--�i--�s�r% Enginw-one sdenasts (426) 602-4000 FIGURE 3 START OF NEW CONSTRUCTION, STA 0+09.35 i ,� UGWI COND4 ' COND3 / \ •p EXISTING WSDOT BOX COND2 0 HC-3 CULVERT WINGWALL r I 7L 48j CEDAR STRUCTURE �? t COND1 O r` ����\ DRIPLINE (TYP) SEE CULVERT PLAN, STA 0+00(q EXISTING \,;; / �'a --% N \\ SHEET 8■ TYP. ' CULVERT O HEADWALL) �0 7Z 7 / EXISTNG FENCE IB / 77 EXISTING WSDOT RECT. N BOX CULVERT 20" DEC. 5 LMLfTY CROSSING DETAIL 1 ytr HC-2 QR A - n r / I BEGIN CONSTRUCTION # B-1 1 \ / O ly tob 3/4"�Aj.'S OSTA. 0-1 W /' \ 40" DEC. 1 ! I B l A \\ d I r 2 40" EC. \ 4'" DEC. i — B \ 30' DEC. - T.O. HEADWALL \ 4 MAPLE ° 6" PINE I r EL 70.96 ' HC-1 fr✓ \ 6" CEDAR SHRUB HEAD WALL WSOOT FISH ''.;�r �' �� ^ FI LADDER ,,t;� � -'- / ` FENL'f p HC-4 6" PINE 40" MAPLE` ����� 8 x" 6 IR _ •`i41a�`� 40" MMAP E\ N A. SUE PLAN \ Q. STA. 0+00 TO STA. 4+75 Inc !~ SCALE 0 10 20 40 FEET Lj 71 1' = 20'-0" Q EXCEPT AS NOTED �I 80 I 80 I T.O. HEADWALL EL 70.96 EXISTING GROUND PROFILE. CHANNEL I 75 EXIS NG WSDOT CULVERT _ .-.--- - -..-----� �. - - VIINCWAC�STRU B-2 70.0 8..3...70H...M7._... .---- - --_ _. -.-...------__... SITE L .__..WA°FER...i£'VEL...�N...---_-...-- -- ----- MONITORIN WELL 75 T.O. CUL T SLAB T.0__9UL._._?Ste .. .-- _.....-----...._ -- ._...__...-.....-.---.-._._.__.....___. ..�L...83.96 .._...._.__._._......... _------ ----- - EL 63.96 -S -0.. .gX...._ _. QURIN�RLLLJNG_... ... ... .. -5---- f0897i"- - ....... ..._ 70 ff6 BELOW CHANNEL BY THERS -------- --------------- ---------- - -------- ------ ----- CROSSING i1 i'-0' IMPERVIOUS LAYER. O AVAnON STREAMBED GRAVEL, g 65 GEOTECH UMITS,TYP. 12' AVG. DEPTH + • INNESMATION SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR rL NG i2 � c ■ ■ O O SPECIAL PROVISIONS 8 PROBABLE 6 N IMPERMEABLE g o �' 8 + + BOUNDARY + In p O O ± N N ✓) f~n m CITY OF RENTON < N N N N DEPA.RTMLIVT OF PiU'BLiC WORKS SCALE 0 10 20 40 FEET MAPLEWOOD CREEK FISH CHANNEL PROJECT I SITE PLAN A AND PROFILE CHANNEL PROFILE HORIZONTAL 1' 20'-0' 7 DESIGNED: CMG DATE. FILE NAME:sl¢ros SCALE 0 2 4 9 FEET DRAWN: DVM tI EngBellows and hint sts on Bellows. Washington CNECKW: DEP SCALE: ��� �Eln e0ac rvCG VERTICAL: " ' ' :02-4000 M1E APPROVED- FAX NO. RrIISION BY APWL43 SNEET: J OF:16 - FIGURE 4 \ \ ro B-8 \` / o I \ �ti ¢ �+ dx y \ CO HC-5 Sn-E PLAN B a 6• Q�5 STA. 4+75 TO STA. 9+00 SCALE 0 10 20 40 FEET ` L `\B-4 EXCEPT AS NOTED ; A B-7 / / e`7' a If 6 SIR `\ \ '5 > QE' + o� HID-7 A, m N If �. If a. AI -6 \ U 2 tr9" FIRS / e Z` w ZI ;2 i Z OO ' _j J I+N =I 6" FIR ( Ko 6' FIR. TYP. `t 11D—S I I ' 80 - - - - 8 TOH 76 4. .... I 80 ---- ---- - - - _ - - --.._.-...... - - --- EXISTING GROUND 4 TOH 71. PRO - ...-- - --- --- -- -- ._.- -'-- -- -LE.�CHANNEL .. . ...- -. --- B-6 725-- ._-._ 75 75 i 8-5 OH 71.2 __-. _..._- -___. . ..... ... .. 0 CULVERT SLAB --- 68 2 .. I - _- ..._ ...._ 7 SLAB— --._.. i --- '--....._ _.._ _._...._ _ ...... 0 '-- -- - - '-S'-='1.947G -- •.`.=— • F1 6z56 --.—._._ _. SITE PLAN LOCATION 70 = o.7ez - ---- - ---- --- ................... - - - --- ---- - — — - _..._........._...._..._........ _...- ----- ._ .._._ ----.._-..._..------...__._..._....... - p - VIE 65 -- - > 65 o g 12' AVG. DEPTH I A ' aon $ -- -- a___ 1EXCAVATION + V-0' IMPERVIOUS LAYER, o+ SEESPECIFICATIONS FORE-STREAMISM GRAVEL. n N SPECIAL PROVISIONS o , o 1'-0' IMPERVIOUS LAYER. c 12' AVG. DEPTH S LIMITS. TYP. m r.......................... SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR C5 n $ g W ~ ~ • GE0�H 9 SPECIAL PROVISIONS 9 WATER LEVEL PROBABLE Kn Kn N o OBSERVED IMPERMEABLE ^ + + INVESTIGATION ' J d d < L.............. F DURING DRILLING BOUNDARY CITY OF RENTON DEPAIrrUENT OF PUBIJC WORKS ' SCALE 0 10 20 40 FIST MAPLEWOOD CREEK FISH CHANNEL PROJECT I , , , , I SITE PLAN B AND PROFILE HORIZONTAL 1' — 20'-0' CHANNEL PROFILE DESIGNED:CMG DATE: NE NAME:AIEETW SCALE 0 2 4 8 FEET EBneglinrc, Waehn CHECKED: DEP eweandScienti.te gton SCALE AS�� r.in eooX. P� VERTICAL: 1' = 4� TEL (425)602-4000 N0. RENSIDH BY MPR M7E APPROVED: SHEET: 4 OF:16 FAX: 425 602-s020 7 FIGURE 5 16" x GRA PAm .4 T.O. ASPHALT 21 EL 80.73 UGW2 HALT,,, 2! 80.5t MC-14- HO-1 UGW4 ol ................... % UGM .10, CIO :'000' ' C/ _ _ /� LOG STRUCTURES 'N SEE SHEET 9 FOR DETAIL APPROXIMATE LOCATION TILITIES TYP. q DETAL 2 UrLrrY CROSSING 9E.V Cl/ DETAIL 2 ------------ D:,�Ir7yp. I \ ,,- EXIStNG GROUND 5' WITH APPROX. 5'-0'APPROX. F-CONCRETE OVERTOPPING SLAB TH 6 X 6 /V 1.4 W 1.4 WWM .CENTER OF SLAB, SLAB SHALL EXTEND 4'-0*(EA. Ti zkis NG , Tj Io/ CHEMICAL ELECTRICAL SIDE) OUT FROM AND PERPENDICULAR TO CHANNEL,9 GOLF CA A% CONDUIT l000l CONDUIT TRENCH 7 LOG DROP Lli STRUCTURE, TIP. \D SrTE PLAN C STA. 10+25 TO STA. 14-+00 -j 7 <Lj SCALE 0 10 20 40 FEET 0 <I"n HO-111 16"* EXCEPT AS NOTED 2 2*0 16-0 0 M........... WATER LEVEL IN B-10 TIN a&2 o ................................................ MONFrORTNG WELL T.O. CULVERT on f no f OBSE RVED ON- -SLAB-El- 83.15- 0N I N 1 C) FEB 13, 1998 < FLOW • EXISTING GROUND B-9 TOH 81.4--\ 85 PROFILE,Ii. ANNLL--\, 85 T.O. CULVERT SLAB .......................... ....... /......... .................... .............. ..... ... ........................ .................................. 1-7 .................. ........ ... FETAL 3—UnLITY OVERTOPPING SLAB ;7-- NOTE SEE SHEET 2 FOR APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS OF PIPES. 80 so SITE PLAN LOCATION- AND LOG ST!�LC NOTE: 75 75 ' / --_--_ - — 1. FOR CULVERT CROSSING DETAILS, SEE SHEET B. S- Ill ...... ED CROSSING #6 ...... 6 A......... 0 0 0 81 + + + + ......................... 70 + DRIP STRUCTURES. 1 - In co We —1 GEOTE<�H -W. SEE SHE ET 9 WATER .......... CLA OBSERVED '—j i"A5 NVESMIATM ' _ _ I m #�.SE%. L............ ---.. - - ' DURWG..DRLl-lNG--....-...- .............. BOUNDARY I MBED GRAVEL CITY OF RENTON STIRREA 12. AVG. DEPTH LOG DROP STRUCTURES(5X SLOPE 0 LOG CREST) SCALE 0 1� 20 4� FEET DEPARTMENT OF PTJBLIC WORKS 9 DROPS 0 l'-O" - 9'-D' I , 1.-D' IMPERVIOUSib io rL CROSSING #5 — MAPLEWOOD CREEK FISH CHANNEL PROJECT LAYER, SEE coo O HRIZONTAL 1' 20'-C" SITE PLAN C AND PROFILE SPECIFICATIONS0 FOR + 8 SP 9 ECIAL PROVISIONS j OT + + SCALE 0 2 4 8 FEET DID �w + DATE. FILE W&C:SHEM : cn Pq 1 1- DR, In Engin"m and Sclonti. w w VERTICAL, I" 4'-C" CHECKED: DEP SCALE: AS SHOW nuA 110IM. 114M w cwo=gt CHANNEL Q PROFILE FAX- 4251 a,. NO. REIISK)N BY APPIR. DATE APPROVED: SHEE!". 5 OF -A Appendix A Boring Logs UNIFIED SOIL.CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Major Divisions grf ltr Description Major Divisions grf itr Description Well- raded ravel or ravel-sand Inorganic silt and very fine sand, �GW 8 8 8 ML rock flour, silty or clayey fine sand mixtures,little or no fines Silts or clayey silt with slight plasticity Gravel '� Poorly-graded gravel or gravel And Inorganic clay of low to medium C'P sand matures, little or no fines Cla s CL plasticity,gravelly clay,sandy And Y clay, silty clay,lean clay Gravel LL < 50 y Silty gravel,gravel-sand-silt Organic silt and organic silt-clay of Soils GM SiltyFine OL low plasticity Grained 1111 Clayey ravel,gravel-sand-clay Inorganic silt, micaceous or GC Y Y 8 8 Y Soils MH diatomaceous fine or silty soil, Coarse mixtures Silts elastic silt Grained Soils SW Well-graded sand or gravelly sand, And CH Inorganic clay of high plasticity, y: little or no fines Clays fat clay Sand LL > 50 SP Poorly-graded sand or gravelly OH Organic clay of medium to high And sand,little or no fines plasticity Sandy -- Soils SM Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures " Highly Organic Pt Peat and other highly organic Soils soils SC Clayey sand,sand-clay mixtures SYMBOLS Standard penetration split-spoon sample Blank casing ® Modified California(Porter)sample ® Screened casing Grab(Cuttings)sample Cement grout Water level in monitoring well ® Bentonite IIIIIIIIIIIIII Recommended Water level observed during drilling Filter pack maximum depth Sands and Gravels Blows per Foot Silts and Clays Blows per Foot Very Loose 0-4 Very Soft 0-2 Soft 2-4 Loose 4- 10 Firm 4-8 Medium Dense 10-30 Stiff 8-16 Dense 30-50 Very Stiff 16-32 Very Dense Over 50 Hard Over 32 ' Note(l): Penetration resistance values are recorded as the number of blows of a 140-pound hammer falling 30-inches required to drive a sampler through the last 12 inches of an 18-inch drive. Blow count for samples obtained using a Modified California sampler(indicated by an asterisk)should be multiplied by a factor of 0.8 to obtain equivalent standard penetration resistance values. Note(2): The lines separating strata on the logs represent approximate boundaries only. No warranty is provided as to the continuity of soil strata between borings. Logs represent the soil section observed at the boring location on the date of drilling only. BORING LOG LEGEND W A fz Z A Maplewood Creek Fish Channel Renton, Washington Consulting Engineers&Scientists PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE A-1 7163-G February 20, 1998 DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger SURFACE ELEVATION 69.6 feet LOGGED BY RAW DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER —feet BORING DIAMETER flinch DATE DRILLED 1/29/98 z DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION X HZU- v H = H W ~Q\ W J U w W E MU3 ¢w TESTS b REMARKS W W JW p v Q WHO 3H 3F— DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS Ho�� N Wwm z z Dark brown Silty Sand(SM), moist, loose 3 5 < #100 sieve = 50.83% 64 27 < #200 sieve = 29.2% Mottled brown-yellow-orange Silty Sand IIIIIIIIIIIIIII to Sandy Silt (SM/ML)with some gravel, moist to wet, very dense. Dark brown Gravelly Sand to Sandy Gravel (GP/GV), moist, dense. Gravel 42 4 < #100 sieve = 4.5% up to 2.5" in diameter. < #200 sieve = 2.3% �. 10 < #100 sieve = 2.4% _ 42 4 < #200 sieve = 0.8% Bottom of borehole at 11.5 feet below existing grades. EXPLORATORY BORING LOG WAIZZA Maplewood Creek Fish Channel Renton, Washington Consulting Engineers&Scientists PROJECT NO. DATE BORING $-1 7163-G February 20, 1998 DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger SURFACE ELEVATION 70.0 feet LOGGED BY RAW DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER —feet BORING DIAMETER 4-inch DATE DRILLED 1/29/98 Z DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION = W Hz W off w W E �N3 ¢w TESTS b REMARKS W W HO DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS o} o N w w m 3 0 3 Z cn a.w" U 00 Brown Silty Sand to Sandy Silt (SM/ML)with some rootlets, moist to wet, loose. Brown Silty Sand (SM) with some rootlets and occasional grave up to 1/4-inch diameter, moist, loose 2 5 < #100 sieve = 76.3% 3 31 < #200 sieve = 44.5% Mottled brown-orange Silty Sand(SM), moist to wet,loose 3 34 < #100 sieve = 52.2% < #200 sieve = 36.7% IIIIIIIIIIIIIII Mottled brown-orange-grey Sand(SP), locally silty, moist, very loose. 10 < #100 sieve = 10.0% 4 12 < #200 sieve = 4.0% Bottom of the borehole at 11.5 feet below existing grades. EXPLORATORY BORING LOG --IA2ZA Maplewood Creek Fish Channel Renton, Washington Consulting Engineers&Scientists PROJECT NO. DATE BORING $-Z 7163-G February 20, 1998 DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger SURFACE ELEVATION 69.7 feet LOGGED BY RAW DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER -- feet BORING DIAMETER flinch DATE DRILLED 1/29/98 z DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION ,. H-1 w w � �N3 ¢W TESTS & REMARKS w W DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS o} o N W W CO 3 0 3 z U)F (L U U Dark brown Silty Sand to Sandy Silt (SM/ML), some rootlets, moist, very loose Mottled brown-grey Silty Sand (SM), some rootlets, moist, very loose 3 5 < #100 sieve = 46.2 I II II II I II II III 4 24 < #200 sieve = 43.2% Brown-grey Sand with some silt (SW/SM), coal and some gravel up to 1/2 inch diameter, moist, very loose. < #100 sieve = 17.4% �. 6 19 < #200 sieve = 8.5% Dark brown gravelly Sand to Sandy Gravel (GP), gravel up to 1/2 inch diameter, moist, very dense. 10 �. 59 4 < #100 sieve = 0.8% Off. < #200 sieve = 0.2% Bottom of boring at 11.5 feet below existing grades. EXPLORATORY BORING LOG WAIZZA Maplewood Creek Fish Channel Renton, Washington Consulting Engineers&Scientists PROJECT NO. DATE BORING $-3 7163-G February 20, 1998 DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger SURFACE ELEVATION 71.0 feet LOGGED BY RAW DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER — feet BORING DIAMETER 4-inch DATE DRILLED 1/29/98 z DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION HZL off w W � N 3 ¢W TESTS & REMARKS w X LL HoDESCRIPTION AND REMARKS 0} .. cn w w m 3 0 3 0 Q_ U U Brown Silty Sand to Sandy Silt (SM/ML), some rootlets, moist loose. 3 IIIIIIIIIIIIIII Mottled orange-brown Sand (SP) with 5 — some silt, moist, loose 6 22 < #100 sieve 19.9% < #200 sieve = 7.8% Orange to dark brown Sandy gravel to Graven Sand G y ( Vl), moist, medium •. dense. < #100 sieve = 5.1% 23 7 < #200 sieve = 2.6% 10 Bottom of boring at 11.5 feet below existing grades. EXPLORATORY BORING LOG � I-IARZA Maplewood Creek Fish Channel Renton, Washington Consulting Engineers&Scientists PROJECT NO. DATE BORING $-4 7163-G February 20, 1998 DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger SURFACE ELEVATION 71.2 feet LOGGED BY RAW DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER 9.0 feet BORING DIAMETER 4-inch DATE DRILLED 1/29/98 z DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION rY H H"_" F=- ~ J CC\ W H J U w w Z �U)3 ¢w TESTS & REMARKS w � 1 DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS EUCN�U__L o U) Wcnm<r WHO a o 30 d U U Brown Silty Sand to Sandy SIlt (SM/ML), rootlets, moist, loose. Mottled brown-orange Silty Sand to Sandy Silt (SM/ML), locally clayey, moist to wet, very loose 2 i 5 : IIIIIIillllllll 11 22 < #100 sieve = 39.4% Mottled grey-orange Sand (SW), layered - < #200 sieve = 30.4% with coarse sand and fine gravel, moist to wet, medium dense. Brown Sandy Gravel (GP), sand is fine ' to coarse, gravel up to 1/2 inch < #100 sieve = 4.1% diameter, moist to wet, dense. — s 58 6 < #200 sieve = 2.4% -� Brown-grey Gravelly Sand(SP), moist, dense. 10 < #100 sieve = 4.5% 36 10 < #200 sieve = 1.9% Bottom of boring at 11.5 feet beow existing grades. EXPLORATORY BORING LOG I--I A fZ Z A Maplewood Creek Fish Channel Renton, Washington Consulting Engineers&Scientists PROJECT NO. DATE BORING B-5 7163-G February 20, 1998 DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger SURFACE ELEVATION 72.5 feet LOGGED BY RAW DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER 10.0 feet BORING DIAMETER 4-inch DATE DRILLED 1/29/98 z DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION � H Z� v H J U w W E 3 ¢w TESTS b REMARKS w JW v ¢ WHO 3H 3H DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS o r Cn w�.Jm, zo z fn F- (L U U Brown Sandy Silt (ML)with rootlets, moist, loose. 4 Mottled brown-orange Sandy Silt (ML), locally clayey. Sand is fine grained, moist to wet, loose. 5 4 34 < #100 sieve = 89.3% < #200 sieve = 77.0% Grey Slity fine Sand (SM)with thin layers of clean medium sand, moist, loose. Mottled brown-grey Silty Sand to Sandy < #IW sieve = 65.2% Silt (ML), sand is fine locally sandy and 5 31 < #200 sieve = 53.3 silty, with some wood, wet, loose. IIIIIIIIIIIIIII GreySiltySand SM with ravel moist - 10 ( ) g < #100 sieve = 31.5% medium dense. 13 26 < #200 sieve = 13.1 Bottom of boring at 11.5 feet below existing grades. EXPLORATORY BORING LOG -IAIZZA Maplewood Creek Fish Channel Renton, Washington Consulting Engineers&Scientists PROJECT NO. DATE BORING B-( 7163-G February 20, 1998 i DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger SURFACE ELEVATION 73.4 feet LOGGED BY RAW DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER 7.0 feet BORING DIAMETER 4-inch DATE DRILLED 1/29/98 z DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION ,� W �Z u_ NZ o w w Z H 30 ¢w TESTS & REMARKS 3 DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS o} o In zwm a o z fn F- n_�'v U UU Brown Silty Sand to Sandy Silt (ML) some rootlets, moist to wet, loose. 2 Mottled grey-brown-orange Clayey Silt (ML)with fine to medium sand layers up to 1/2 inch thick, wet, very loose. 5 2 48 < #100 sieve = 92.2% < #200 sieve = 83.1% Mottled brown Silt Sand grey-reddish Y (SM)with scattered gravels, sand is fine to coarse, moist, medium dense. < #100 sieve = 44.8% IIIIIIII III IIII 11 13 < #200 sieve = 19.9% Greymeium to coarse Sand SP , moist 10 ( ) < #100 sieve = 11.6% to wet, medium dense. 12 26 < #200 sieve = 2.8 Bottom of boring at 11.5 feet below existing grades. i EXPLORATORY BORING LOG --IAIZZA Maplewood Creek Fish Channel Renton, Washington Consulting Engineers&Scientists PROJECT NO. DATE BORING $-7 7163-G February 20, 1998 DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger SURFACE ELEVATION 76.4 feet LOGGED BY RAW DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER 4.0 feet BORING DIAMETER 2.25-inch DATE DRILLED 1/30/98 z DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION = „ w H z t~i W`�' w W E �(n 3 ¢w TESTS b REMARKS w � C WHO DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS o} o (n z(n_j a o 3 (n Q_ U V Brown Silty Sand to Sandy Silty (SM/ML)with rootlets, moist, loose. Mottled orange-grey Silty Clayey Sand 2 (SM), wet, very loose 5 Grey Sandy Clayey Silt (ML/CL), 1 37 < #100 sieve = 68.4%< #200 sieve = 42.3 statified with fine to coarse sand, wet, very soft to soft locally. 1 34 < #100 sieve = 80.4% < #200 sieve = 69.5% IIIIIIIIIIIIIII r 10 < #100 sieve = 9.5% 6 18 < #200 sieve = 3.0% Grey fine to coarse Gravelly Sand(SP), moist to wet. Bottom of Boring at 11.5 feet below existing grades. EXPLORATORY BORING LOG --IARZA Maplewood Creek Fish Channel Renton, Washington Consulting Engineers&Scientists PROJECT NO. DATE BORING B-8 7163-G February 20, 1998 DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger SURFACE ELEVATION 70.0 feet LOGGED BY RAW DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER 7.0 feet BORING DIAMETER 4-inch DATE DRILLED 1/30/98 Z DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION W Hzu H ~ J ¢Q\ Wi- JU w w E �U)3 ¢W TESTS & REMARKS w X ' DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS o CL o U) Wu)- 3 0 3 0 (A►- 0_ U U Grey Silty Sand(SM), some rootlets, moist to wet, loose Light to dark brown Gravelly Silty Sand 5 (SM)with black organic material and rootlets, moist to wet, loose. 5 < #100 sieve = 40.5% 1 22 < #200 sieve = 33.1% Grey Gravelly Silty Sand (SM), sand locally very coarse, moist to wet, loose. < #100 sieve = 39.3% 5 26 < #200 sieve = 37.6% -. .- illllllllllllll 10 < #100 sieve = 44.9% 6 17 < #200 sieve = 38.1% Bottom of boring at 11.5 feet below existing grades. 1 EXPLORATORY BORING LOG --IA2ZA Maplewood Creek Fish Channel Renton, Washington Consulting Engineers&Scientists PROJECT NO. DATE BORING B-9 7163-G February 20, 1998 DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger SURFACE ELEVATION 88.2 feet LOGGED BY RAW DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER 6.0 feet BORING DIAMETER 4-inch DATE DRILLED 1/30/98 Z DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION ,� W off z u_ ' aW w E W(n3 ¢w TESTS & REMARKS W = ►'1 DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS o r o ww000 3WHO 0 3 z Brown Silty Sand to Sandy Silt (SM) with some gravel and rootlets, moist, loose to medium dense. Mottled grey-orange Silty Sand (SM) 10 with some clay and gravel, moist to wet, meium dense. < #100 sieve = 15.9% 2 18 < #200 sieve = 14.9% Grey-tan Sand(SP)with some silt and gravel, stratified with 1 inch thick layers of reddish-brown silt, moist to wet, very loose. 1 32 < #100 sieve = 21.4% < #200 sieve = 8.4% 10 < #100 sieve = 22.4% 5 23 < #200 sieve = 10.9% 15 Bottom of boring at 13 feet below existing grades. EXPLORATORY BORING LOG W A 2 Z A Maplewood Creek Fish Channel Renton, Washington Consulting Engineers&Scientists PROJECT NO. DATE BORING $-lO 7163-G February 20, 1998 C r ` Appendix B Laboratory Testing (Gradation Curves) r r U.S.SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S.SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER 6 4 2 1.5 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 3 4 6 810 1416,)0 30 40 50 70 100140 200 100 90 80 i i P I R 70 C E N T 60 F I N E 50 R B Y 40 w E I G 30 H T i 20 10 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND coarse fine coarse medium fine SILT OR CLAY Specimen Identification Classification WC% %Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay • B-1 5.0 ft SM 26.7 11.0 59.8 29.2 m B-1 7.5 ft GP 3.8 49.4 48.3 2.3 A B-1 10.0 ft GW 3.7 57.6 41.6 0.8 GRADATION CURVES, ASTM D-422 WARZAMaplewood Creek Fish Channel Consulting Engineers&Scientists Renton, Washington PROJECT No. DATE FIGURE B-1 7163-G February 13, 1998 U.S.SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S.SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER 6 4 2 1.5 1 3/4 1/2 3 A. 6 810 1416 ,0 30 40 50 70 100140 200 100 90 80 P R 70 C E N T 60 F I N E 50 RIII :N B Y 40 w E I H 30 T 20 10 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY coarse fine icoarse I medium fine Specimen Identification Classification WC% %Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay • B-2 5.0 ft SM 31.0 0.1 55.4 44.5 m B-2 7.5 ft SM 33.7 0.0 63.3 36.7 A B-2 10.0 ft SP 12.3 5.9 90.1 4.0 GRADATION CURVES, ASTM D-422 WARZAMaplewood Creek Fish Channel Consulting Engineers&Scientists Renton, Washington PROJECT No. DATE FIGURE $-Z 7163-G February 13, 1998 U.S.SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S.SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER 100 6 4 2 1.5 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 3 4 6 810 1416 .70 30 40 50 70 100140 200 IN 11 90 80 P R 70 C E N T 60 F I N E 50 R B Y 40 w E I H 30 T 20 10 V.100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY coarse I fine 1coarse I medium I fine Specimen Identification Classification WC% %Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay • B-3 5.0 ft SM 24.0 5.7 51.1 43.2 m B-3 7.5 ft SW-SM 19.2 8.7 82.8 8.5 A B-3 10.0 ft GP 3.6 60.2 39.6 0.2 GRADATION CURVES, ASTM D-422 WARZAMaplewood Creek Fish Channel Consulting Engineers&Scientists Renton, Washington PROJECT No. DATE FIGURE $-3 7163-G February 13, 1998 U.S.SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S.SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER 6 4 2 1.5 1 3/4 112 3/8 3 4 6 810 1416 20 30 40 50 70 100140 200 100 90 80 P R 70 C E N T 60 F I N E 50 R B Y 40 w E I H 30 T 20 10 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY coarse I fine Icoarse I medium I fine Specimen Identification Classification WC% %Gravel %Sand %Silt %Cla P Y • B-4 5.0 ft SP-SM 22.0 0.7 91.5 7.8 m B-4 7.5 ft GW 6.5 51.4 46.0 2.6 GRADATION CURVES, ASTM D-422 WARZAMaplewood Creek Fish Channel Consulting Engineers&Scientists Renton, Washington PROJECT No. DATE FIGURE B4 7163-G February 13, 1998 U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER 6 4 1 2 1.5 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 3 4 6 810 1416 20 30 40 50 70 100140 200 100 90 80 P R 70 C E N T6o F I N E 50 R B Y 40 W E I H 30 T 20 ' 10 IHI I -1EE 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY coarse I fine 1coarse I medium fine Specimen Identification Classification WC% %Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay • B-5 5.0 ft SM 22.0 1.4 68.2 30.4 m B-5 7.5 ft GP 5.7 60.0 37.6 2.4 A B-5 10.0 ft SP 9.9 40.1 58.0 1.9 GRADATION CURVES, ASTM D-422 [ ARZA Maplewood Creek Fish Channel Renton, Washington Consulting Engineers&Scientists PROJECT No. DATE FIGURE $-5 7163-G February 16, 1998 U.S.SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S.SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER 6 4.4 2 1.5 1 3/4 1/2 3 6 810 1416 20 30 40 50 70 100140 200 100 90 80 P R 70 C E N T 60 F I N E$0 R B Y 40 w E I H 30 T 20 ' 10 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MMLIMETERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY coarse I fine Icoarse I medium I fine Specimen Identification Classification WC% %Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay • B-6 5.0 ft ML 33.9 0.0 23.0 77.0 m B-6 7.5 ft ML 31.0 0.2 46.5 53.3 A B-6 10.0 ft SM 25.5 18.9 68.0 13.1 p GRADATION CURVES, ASTM D-422 NAB' ZA Maplewood Creek Fish Channel Consulting Engineers&Scientists Renton, Washington PROJECT No. DATE FIGURE $-() 7163-G February 13, 1998 U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S.SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER 100 6 4 2 1.5 1 3/4 1/2 3 6 810 t416 20 30 40 50 70 100140 200 90 80 P E R 70 C E N T 60 F I N E 50 R B Y 40 w E I G 30 H T 20 10 0 T[H 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY coarse I fine 1coarse I medium I fine7 Specimen Identification Classification WC% %Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay • B-7 5.0 ft ML 48.0 0.0 16.9 83.1 M B-7 7.5 ft SM 12.6 0.6 79.5 19.9 A B-7 10.0 ft SP 25.5 6.1 91.1 2.8 i GRADATION CURVES, ASTM D-422 I---IARZA Maplewood Creek Fish Channel Consulting Engineers&Scientists Renton, Washington PROJECT No. DATE FIGURE $-7 7163-G February 13, 1998 U.S.SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S.SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER 100 6 4 a 2 1.5 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 3A. 10 6 8 1416 20 30 40 50 70 100140 200 90 N 80 P R 70 C E N T 60 F I N E 50 R B Y 40 w E I H 30 T 20 10 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY coarse I fine icoarse I medium I fine Specimen Identification Classification W av P C� %Gr el 4'oSand So Silt 4oClay • B-8 5.0 ft SM 36.5 0.0 57.7 42.3 m B-8 7.5 ft ML 33.8 0.0 30.5 69.5 A B-8 10.0 ft SP 17.5 35.9 61.1 3.0 GRADATION CURVES, ASTM D-422 WA R Z A Maplewood Creek Fish Channel Consulting Engineers&Scientists Renton, Washington PROJECT No. DATE FIGURE $-$ 7163-G February 13, 1998 U.S.SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S.SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER 6 4 2 1.5 13/4 1/2 3/8 3 4 6 810 1416 0 30 40 50 70 100140 200 100 90 80 P E R 70 C IN I N T 60 F I N E 50 R B Y40 W E I H 30 T 20 10 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MII.LIMETERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY coarse I fine 1coarse I medium Ifine Specimen Identification Classification WC% %Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay • B-9 5.0 ft SM 21.5 21.1 45.8 33.1 m B-9 7.5 ft SM 26.1 12.9 49.5 37.6 A B-9 10.0 ft SM 17.4 19.0 42.9 38.1 GRADATION CURVES, ASTM D-422 WARZAMaplewood Creek Fish Channel Consulting Engineers&Scientists Renton, Washington PROJECT No. DATE FIGURE $-9 7163-GI February 13, 1998 U.S.SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S.SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER 100 6 4 2 1.5 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 3 4 6 810 1416,)0 30 40 50 70 100140 200 . 111 "Ilk 90 80 P R 70 C E N T 60 F I N E 50 R B Y40 W E I H 30 T 20 10 7-1 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY coarse I fine Icoarse I medium I fine i Specimen Identification Classification WC`Yo %Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay • B-10 5.0 ft SM 18.4 33.8 51.3 14.9 m B-10 7.5 ft SP-SM 31.5 7.1 84.5 8.4 A B-10 10.0 ft SP-SM 23.0 22.7 66.4 10.9 S GRADATION CURVES, ASTM D-422 WAS'p ZA Maplewood Creek Fish Channel Consulting Engineers&Scientists Renton, Washington PROJECT'No. DATE FIGURE B-10 7163-G February 13, 1998 i Appendix C Grain Size Analyses (Tabular Form) i L Sieve.xls i Sieve# Weight Weight of Soil Weight of Soil Retained % of Wt. Retained Cumulative % Finer 485.2 +Sieve on Each Sieve on Each Sieve % Retained 3/8 485.2 516.4 31.2 8.36 8.36 91.64 4 462.4 472.2 9.8 2.63 10.99 89.01 10 692.9 702.5 9.6 2.57 13.56 86.44 20 370.6 378.7 8.1 2.17 15.73 84.27 30 652.4 657.3 4.9 1.31 17.04 82.96 40 345.9 352.5 6.6 1.77 18.81 81.19 ?' 60 320.3 364.3 44 11.79 30.60 69.40 100 312.7 382 69.3 18.57 49.17 50.83 200 292 372.6 80.6 21.60 70.77 29.23 pan 464.6 573.7 109.1 29.23 100.00 0.00 Sample# B 1 @5 Page 1 � r r� irr irr rr rr +r �r �r �r rr ■r r rr rr rr rr r�s � Sieve.xls 1� C$ Sieve# Weight Weight of Soil Weight of Soil Retained % of Wt. Retained Cumulative % Finer 485.2 + Sieve on Each Sieve on Each Sieve % Retained 3/8 485.2 625.3 140.1 35.69 35.69 64.31 4 462.5 516.2 53.7 13.68 49.37 50.63 10 692.9 750.5 57.6 14.67 64.04 35.96 20 370.3 427.3 57 14.52 78.56 21.44 30 652.2 671.5 19.3 4.92 83.48 16.52 40 344.1 360.4 16.3 4.15 87.63 12.37 60 318.8 337.5 18.7 4.76 92.40 7.60 100 312.1 324.1 12 3.06 95.45 4.55 200 291.95 300.7 8.75 2.23 97.68 2.32 pan 464.6 473.7 9.1 2.32 100.00 0.00 Sample # B1@7.5 Page 1 Sieve.xls Sieve # Weight Weight of Soil Weight of Soil Retaine-d7 % of Wt. Retained cumulative % Finer 485.2 + Sieve on Each Sieve on Each Sieve % Retained 3/8 485.2 701.9 216.7 39.50 39.50 60.50 4 462.3 561.7 99.4 18.12 57.62 42.38 10 692.9 785.9 93 16.95 74.57 25.43 20 371.1 430.8 59.7 10.88 85.45 14.55 30 653.6 672.2 18.6 3.39 88.84 11.16 40 346.6 363.1 16.5 3.01 91.85 8.15 60 321 340.8 19.8 3.61 95.46 4.54 100 313.1 324.9 11.8 2.15 97.61 2.39 200 292.3 301 8.7 1.59 99.20 0.80 pan 464.5 468.9 4.4 0.80 100.00 0.00 Sam le # 131@10 Page 1 r t 1 Sieve.xls Sieve # Weight Weight of Soil Weight of Soil Retained % of Wt. Retained Cumulative % Finer 485.2 +Sieve on Each Sieve on Each Sieve % Retained 3/8 485.2 485.2 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 4 462.3 462.5 0.2 0.04 0.04 99.96 10 693.1 705.9 12.8 2.64 2.68 97.32 20 370.9 378.3 7.4 1.53 4.21 95.79 30 653.1 658.4 5.3 1.09 5.30 94.70 40 346.4 354.8 8.4 1.73 7.04 92.96 60 320.7 342.5 21.8 4.50 11.54 88.46 100 312.95 371.9 58.95 12.17 23.70 76.30 200 292.15 446.1 153.95 31.78 55.48 44.52 pan 464.7 680.4 215.7 44.52 100.00 0.00 :I Sample # B2@5 I r� Y Page 1 � r r r r r r r r � rr rE r r � r rr rr rr Sieve.xls i I Sieve# Weight Weight of Soil Weight of Soil Retained % of Wt. Retained Cumulative % Finer 485.2 +Sieve on Each Sieve on Each Sieve % Retained 3/8 485.2 485.2 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 4 462.5 462.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 10 693.1 705.9 12.8 1.84 1.84 98.16 20 370.7 397.8 27.1 3.90 5.75 94.25 30 653.4 674.8 21.4 3.08 8.83 91.17 40 345.4 387.6 42.2 6.08 14.91 85.09 60 320.2 428.2 108 15.56 30.46 69.54 100 312.7 433.3 120.6 17.37 47.83 52.17 200 292 399.2 107.2 15.44 63.27 36.73 pan 464.8 719.8 255 36.73 100.00 0.00 1' r i Sample # B2@7.5 { Page 1 i i i i i i i i r i M i i Sieve,xls w V 1 P Sieve# Weight Weight of Soil Weight of Soil Retained % of Wt. Retained Cumulative % Finer 485.2 +Sieve on Each Sieve on Each Sieve % Retained 3/8 485.2 489.5 4.3 1.47 1.47 98.53 ' 4 462.3 475.3 13 4,44 5.91 94.09 10 692.7 709.7 17 5.81 11.73 88.27 20 370.4 385.3 14.9 5.09 16.82 83.18 30 652.4 670.2 17.8 6.09 22.91 77.09 40 344.2 389.5 45.3 15.49 38.39 61.61 60 319 421.5 102.5 35.04 73.44 26.56 100 312.2 360.6 48.4 16.55 89.98 10.02 200 292 309.6 17.6 6.02 96.00 4.00 pan 464.7 476.4 11.7 4.00 100.00 0.00 Sample # B2@ 10 Page 1 +r� r r r r r r rr r r rr rr r rr r lr r r r Sieve.xls Sieve# Weight Weight of Soil Weight of Soil Retained % of Wt. Retained Cumulative % Finer 485.2 + Sieve on Each Sieve on Each Sieve % Retained 3/8 485.3 486.5 1.2 0.34 0.34 99.66 4 462.3 481.6 19.3 5.40 5.74 94.26 10 693.6 717.1 23.5 6.58 12.32 87.68 20 371.5 384.6 13.1 3.67 15.99 84.01 30 653.1 665.4 12.3 3.44 19.43 80.57 40 346.2 373.8 27.6 7.73 27.16 72.84 60 320.5 355.4 34.9 9.77 36.94 63.06 100 313.2 373.5 60.3 16.89 53.82 46.18 200 292.3 302.9 10.6 2.97 56.79 43.21 pan 464.7 619 154.3 43.21 100.00 0.00 Sample # 133@5 Page 1 ■r rr r r rr r rr rr �r rr r � rr rr r r r r rr Sieve.xls Sieve# Weight Weight of Soil Weight of Soil Retained % of Wt. Retained Cumulative % Finer 485.2 + Sieve on Each Sieve on Each Sieve % Retained 3/8 485.1 490.1 5 1.66 1.66 98.34 4 462.5 483.7 21.2 7.02 8.68 91.32 10 692.9 726.6 33.7 11.16 19.84 80.16 20 370.5 408.8 38.3 12.69 32.53 67.47 30 652.7 678.3 25.6 8.48 41.01 58.99 40 344.4 378.2 33.8 11.20 52.20 47.80 60 318.8 374.1 55.3 18.32 70.52 29.48 100 312 348.6 36.6 12.12 82.64 17.36 200 291.7 318.4 26.7 8.84 91.49 8.51 pan 464.6 490.3 25.7 8.51 100.00 0.00 Sample # B3@7.5 J Page 1 Sieve.xis Sieve# Weight Weight of Soil Weight of Soil Retained % of Wt. Retained Cumulative % Finer 485.2 + Sieve on Each Sieve on Each Sieve % Retained 3/8 485.2 675.9 190.7 43.65 43.65 56.35 4 462.6 534.8 72.2 16.53 60.18 39.82 10 692.6 742.9 50.3 11.51 71.69 28.31 20 370.4 432.7 62.3 14.26 85.95 14.05 30 652.2 673.9 21.7 4.97 90.92 9.08 40 344.1 362.8 18.7 4.28 95.20 4.80 60 318.4 330.9 12.5 2.86 98.06 1.94 100 311.88 316.66 4.78 1.09 99.16 0.84 200 291.68 294.47 2.79 0.64 99.79 0.21 pan 464.6 465.5 0.9 0.21 100.00 0.00 I Sample # B3@ 10' 1 I i Page 1 Sieve.xls i $ Sieve# Weight Weight of Soil Weight of Soil Retained % of Wt. Retained Cumulative % Finer of Sieve +Sieve on Each Sieve on Each Sieve % Retained 3/8 482.5 485.2 2.7 0.62 0.62 99.38 4 462.4 462.7 0.3 0.07 0.69 99.31 I 10 693 700.5 7.5 1.73 2.42 97.58 ' 20 370.6 396.2 25.6 5.89 8.31 91.69 30 653.1 690.2 37.1 8.54 16.85 83.15 40 345.6 419.7 74.1 17.06 33.91 66.09 60 319.7 438.6 118.9 27.37 61.28 38.72 4 100 312.5 394.1 81.6 18.78 80.06 19.94 200 291.8 344.2 52.4 12.06 92.13 7.87 pan 464.6 498.8 34.2 7.87 100.00 0.00 Sample# B4@5' Page 1 SieveAs It i� Sieve# Weight Weight of Soil Weight of Soil Retained % of Wt. Retained Cumulative % Finer 485.2 +Sieve on Each Sieve on Each Sieve % Retained 3/8 485.1 619.9 134.8 29.70 29.70 70.30 4 462.4 560.9 98.5 21.71 51.41 48.59 10 693.1 761.5 68.4 15.07 66.48 33.52 20 370.4 423.4 53 11.68 78.16 21.84 30 652.4 672.3 19.9 4.39 82.55 17.45 40 344.3 362.1 17.8 3.92 86.47 13.53 60 319.2 342.6 23.4 5.16 91.63 8.37 100 312.3 327.2 14.9 3.28 94.91 5.09 200 291.9 303 11.1 2.45 97.36 2.64 pan 464.6 476.6 12 2.64 100.00 0.00 Sample# B4@7.5 Page 1 �s � M s Sieve.xis Sieve# Weight Weight of Soil Weight of Soil Retained % of Wt. Retained Cumulative % Finer 485.2 + Sieve on Each Sieve on Each Sieve % Retained 3/8 485.2 487.4 2.2 0.38 0.38 99.62 4 462.3 467.9 5.6 0.97 1.35 98.65 10 693.9 708.3 14.4 2.49 3.84 96.16 20 419.9 439.6 19.7 3.41 7.24 92.76 30 653 664.1 11.1 1.92 9.16 90.84 40 346.4 377.1 30.7 5.31 14.47 85.53 60 320.7 445.7 125 21.61 36.08 63.92 100 313.2 455.3 142.1 24.57 60.65 39.35 200 292.3 344.2 51.9 8.97 69.62 30.38 pan 464.7 640.4 175.7 30.38 100.00 0.00 Sample# 65@5 Page 1 Sieve.xls Sieve# Weight Weight of Soil Weight of Soil Retained % of Wt. Retained Cumulative % Finer 485.2 +Sieve on Each Sieve on Each Sieve % Retained 3/8 485.2 697.8 212.6 45.95 45.95 54.05 4 462.6 527.6 65 14.05 60.00 40.00 10 693 745.7 52.7 11.39 71.39 28.61 20 370.4 418.1 47.7 10.31 81.70 18.30 30 652.3 673 20.7 4.47 86.17 13.83 40 344.2 363.9 19.7 4.26 90.43 9.57 60 318.9 334.8 15.9 3.44 93.87 6.13 100 312.1 321.4 9.3 2.01 95.88 4.12 200 291.95 300.12 8.17 1.77 97.64 2.36 pan 464.6 475.5 10.9 2.36 100.00 0.00 Sample # B5@7.5 3' Page 1 i. �. M OM MM LIN M AM am 4w M JIM Sieve.xls Sieve# Weight Weight of Soil Weight of Soil Retained 0 of Wt. Retained Cumulative % Finer j of Sieve +Sieve on Each Sieve on Each Sieve % Retained 3/8 485.3 644.3 159 27.02 27.02 72.98 t 4 462.7 539.1 76.4 12.98 40.01 59.99 10 692.7 775.4 82.7 14.06 54.06 45.94 20 370.5 470.3 99.8 16.96 71.02 28.98 30 652.5 700.8 48.3 8.21 79.23 20.77 40 344.4 392.1 47.7 8.11 87.34 12.66 60 318.8 351.9 33.1 5.63 92.96 7.04 100 312.1 327.1 15 2.55 95.51 4.49 200 292.1 307.3 15.2 2.58 98.10 1.90 pan 464.7 475.9 11.2 1.90 100.00 0.00 Sample# B5@ 10' z la { i Page 1 POW MM 1 Sieve.xls 9 s s F �q F i 1� Sieve# Weight Weight of Soil Weight of Soil Retained 0 of Wt. Retained Cumulative % Finer i 485.2 +Sieve on Each Sieve on Each Sieve % Retained 3/8 485.2 485.2 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 4 4 462.3 462.3 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 10 693.1 695.4 2.3 0.68 0.68 99.32 20 370.9 375 4.1 1.22 1.90 98.10 30 653.1 655.3 2.2 0.65 2.55 97.45 40 347.6 350.7 3.1 0.92 3.47 96.53 60 321.4 329.1 7.7 2.29 5.76 94.24 100 313.2 329.7 16.5 4.90 10.66 89.34 200 292.3 333.8 41.5 12.32 22.97 77.03 pan 464.7 724.2 259.5 77.03 100.00 0.00 Sam le # 136@5 Page 1 r� m so am Ow JIM m m m m we m Sieve.xls Sieve# Weight Weight of Soil Weight of Soil Retained % of Wt. Retained Cumulative % Finer 485.2 +Sieve on Each Sieve on Each Sieve % Retained 3/8 485.2 485.7 0.5 0.11 0.11 99.89 4 462.4 462.8 0.4 0.09 0.19 99.81 10 693.7 698.8 5.1 1.09 1.28 98.72 20 370.9 377.5 6.6 1.41 2.70 97.30 30 653.1 657.5 4.4 0.94 3.64 96.36 40 395.5 405.6 10.1 2.16 5.80 94.20 60 321.1 417.2 96.1 20.58 26.38 73.62 100 313.2 352.7 39.5 8.46 34.84 65.16 200 292.3 347.6 55.3 11.84 46.68 53.32 pan 464.7 713.7 249 53.32 100.00 0.00 Sample # B6@7.5 Page 1 SieveAs Sieve # Weight Weight of Soil Weight of Soil Retained % of Wt. Retained Cumulative % Finer 485.2 + Sieve on Each Sieve on Each Sieve % Retained 3/8 485.2 546.1 60.9 15.66 15.66 84.34 4 462.3 475.1 12.8 3.29 18.95 81.05 10 692.7 709.2 16.5 4.24 23.19 76.81 20 370.4 383.5 13.1 3.37 26.56 73.44 30 652.4 660.1 7.7 1.98 28.54 71.46 40 344.36 356.36 12 3.09 31.62 68.38 60 319.15 370.29 51.14 13.15 44.77 55.23 100 312.3 404.43 92.13 23.69 68.46 31.54 200 291.9 363.99 72.09 18.53 86.99 13.01 pan 464.6 515.2 50.6 13.01 100.00 0.00 Sample # B6@ 10 i Page 1 Sieve.xls Sieve # Weight Weight of Soil Weight of Soil Retained % of Wt. Retained Cumulative % Finer 485.2 + Sieve on Each Sieve on Each Sieve % Retained 3/8 485.2 485.2 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 4 462.3 462.3 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 10 693.2 694.1 0.9 0.17 0.17 99.83 20 371 376.1 5.1 0.95 1.12 98.88 30 653.4 657.7 4.3 0.80 1.92 98.08 40 396.5 402.3 5.8 1.08 3.00 97.00 60 321.4 332.5 11.1 2.07 5.07 94.93 100 313.2 327.6 14.4 2.69 7.76 92.24 200 292.3 341.4 49.1 9.16 16.92 83.08 pan 464.7 910.1 445.4 83.08 100.00 0.00 I Sample # B7@5 u I a-. Page 1 r Nrr ,r r� � r r a■� trr � � ■r �r ■r �r � r � ,rr Sieve.xls I 9- Sieve# Weight Weight of Soil Weight of Soil Retained % of Wt. Retained Cumulative % Finer 485.2 + Sieve on Each Sieve on Each Sieve % Retained 3/8 485.2 485.2 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 4 462.3 465.4 3.1 0.58 0.58 99.42 10 692.9 720.9 28 5.26 5.84 94.16 20 371.1 398.3 27.2 5.11 10.95 89.05 30 653.6 663.4 9.8 1.84 12.79 87.21 40 346.6 366.6 20 3.76 16.55 83.45 60 321 377.5 56.5 10.61 27.16 72.84 ifl 100 313.1 462.2 149.1 28.01 55.17 44.83 200 292.3 425 132.7 24.92 80.09 19.91 pan 464.5 570.5 106 19.91 100.00 0.00 Sample # B7@7.5 Page 1 ! r so am ail Sieve.xls I; i I Sieve# Weight Weight of Soil Weight of Soil Retained-TO of Wt. Retained Cumulative % Finer 485.2 +Sieve on Each Sieve on Each Sieve % Retained 3/8 485.3 491.5 6.2 1.44 1.44 98.56 4 462.4 482.2 19.8 4.60 6.04 93.96 10 692.6 715.7 23.1 5.37 11.41 88.59 20 370.6 404.6 34 7.90 19.32 80.68 30 652.4 685 32.6 7.58 26.89 73.11 40 393.4 480.4 87 20.22 47.12 52.88 60 319.3 441.3 122 28.36 75.48 24.52 100 312.2 367.9 55.7 12.95 88.42 11.58 200 292.1 329.9 37.8 8.79 97.21 2.79 pan 464.6 476.6 12 2.79 100.00 0.00 Sample # B7@10 Page 1 r m r m w m m � m m m m m it M WO M M r Sieve,xis Sieve# Weight Weight of Soil Weight of Soil Retained % of Wt. Retained Cumulative % Finer of Sieve + Sieve on Each Sieve on Each Sieve % Retained 3/8 482.5 482.5 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 4 462.4 462.4 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 10 693 701.5 8.5 1.41 1.41 98.59 20 420.4 440.9 20.5 3.40 4.81 95.19 30 652.4 672.4 20 3.32 8.13 91.87 40 347.8 347.8 0 0.00 8.13 91.87 60 321.21 365.93 44.72 7.42 15.54 84.46 100 313.12 409.81 96.69 16.03 31.58 68.42 200 292.5 450.04 157.54 26.13 57.70 42.30 pan 464.6 719.65 255.05 42.30 100.00 0.00 Sample # B8@5' Page 1 SieveAs Sieve # Weight Weight of Soil Weight of Soil Retained % of Wt. Retained Cumulative % Finer 485.2 + Sieve on Each Sieve on Each Sieve % Retained 3/8 485.2 485.2 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 4 462.3 462.3 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 10 693.1 694.5 1.4 0.21 0.21 99.79 20 370.9 379.8 8.9 1.31 1.52 98.48 30 653.1 662.1 9 1.32 2.84 97.16 40 346.4 365.3 18.9 2.78 5.62 94.38 60 320.7 363.1 42.4 6.24 11.86 88.14 100 312.95 365.6 52.65 7.74 19.60 80.40 200 292.15 366.2 74.05 10.89 30.49 69.51 pan 464.7 937.2 472.5 69.51 100.00 0.00 Sample # B8@7.5 Page 1 f i Sieve.xls Sieve # Weight Weight of Soil Weight of Soil Retained % of Wt. Retained Cumulative % Finer 485.2 +Sieve on Each Sieve on Each Sieve % Retained 3/8 485.2 575.4 90.2 16.22 16.22 83.78 4 462.5 572.1 109.6 19.71 35.94 64.06 10 693.2 773.6 80.4 14.46 50.40 49.60 20 371.2 421.4 50.2 9.03 59.43 40.57 30 653.4 681 27.6 4.96 64.39 35.61 I 40 346.7 395.4 48.7 8.76 73.15 26.85 60 320.8 386 65.2 11.73 84.88 15.12 100 312.7 344.2 31.5 5.67 90.54 9.46 200 292.1 328.09 35.99 6.47 97.01 2.99 pan 464.6 481.2 16.6 2.99 100.00 0.00 Sample # 138@ 10 i 1 i Page 1 mmm am Sieve.xls Sieve # Weight Weight of Soil Weight of Soil Retained % of Wt. Retained Cumulative % Finer 485.2 + Sieve on Each Sieve on Each Sieve % Retained 3/8 485.2 573.8 88.6 11.42 11.42 88.58 4 462.3 537 74.7 9.63 21.05 78.95 10 693.1 742.5 49.4 6.37 27.42 72.58 20 370.9 413.2 42.3 5.45 32.88 67.12 30 653.1 680 26.9 3.47 36.35 63.65 4n 346.4 391,2 44.8 5.78 42.12 57.88 60 320.7 392.1 71.4 9.21 51.33 48.67 100 312.95 376.3 63.35 8.17 59.50 40.50 200 292.15 349.6 57.45 7.41 66.90 33.10 pan 464.7 721.4 256.7 33.10 100.00 0.00 Sample # B9@5 Page 1 i' Sieve.xls Sieve# Weight Weight of Soil Weight of Soil Retained % of Wt. Retained Cumulative % Finer of Sieve + Sieve on Each Sieve on Each Sieve % Retained 3/8 482.5 542.8 60.3 11.00 11.00 89.00 4 462.4 472.9 10.5 1.92 12.92 87.08 10 693 710.3 17.3 3.16 16.07 83.93 20 371.4 387.4 16 2.92 18.99 81.01 30 652.4 666 13.6 2.48 21.48 78.52 40 347.8 382.5 34.7 6.33 27.81 72.19 60 321.21 403.2 81.99 14.96 42.77 1�7.23 100 313.12 411.6 98.48 17.97 60.73 39.27 200 292.5 301.7 9.2 1.68 62.41 37.59 pan 464.6 670.6 206 37.59 100.00 0.00 Sample # B9.@7.5' Page 1 Sieve.xis Sieve# Weight Weight of Soil Weight of Soil Retained % of Wt. Retained Cumulative % Finer 485.2 + Sieve on Each Sieve on Each Sieve % Retained 3/8 485.2 518.7 33.5 6.67 6.67 93.33 4 462.3 524.3 62 12.34 19.00 81.00 10 693.1 747.2 54.1 10.77 29.77 70.23 20 370.9 401.8 30.9 6.15 35.92 64.08 30 653.1 667.2 14.1 2.81 38.73 61.27 40 346.4 367.1 20.7 4.12 42.85 57.15 60 320.7 352.8 32.1 6.39 49.23 50.77 100 312.95 342.2 29.25 5.82 55.05 44.95 200 292.15 326.6 34.45 6.86 61.91 38.09 pan 464.7 656.1 191.4 38.09 100.00 0.00 Sample # B9@ 10 1 r Page 1 Sieve.xls Sieve # Weight Weight of Soil Weight of Soil Retained % of Wt. Retained Cumulative % Finer 485.2 + Sieve on Each Sleve on Each Sieve % Retained 3/8 485.2 578.9 93.7 18.54 18.54 81.46 4 462.3 539.4 77.1 15.26 33.80 66.20 10 693.1 758.7 65.6 12.98 46.77 53.23 20 370.9 411.1 40.2 7.95 54.73 45.27 30 653.1 670 16.9 3.34 58.07 41.93 40 346.4 374.3 27.9 5.52 63.59 36.41 60 320.7 371.4 50.7 10.03 73.62 26.38 100 312.95 365.7 52.75 10.44 84.06 15.94 200 292.15 297.4 5.25 1.04 85.10 14.90 pan 464.7 540 75.3 14.90 100.00 0.00 Sample # B10@5 Page 1 SieveAs Sieve # Weight Weight of Soil Weight of Sail Retained % of Wt. Retained cumulative % Finer !: 485.2 +Sieve on Each Sieve on Each Sieve % Retained 3/8 485.1 487.6 2.5 0.62 0.62 99.38 4 462.2 488.5 26.3 6.48 7.09 92.91 10 692.8 734.6 41.8 10.30 17.39 82.61 20 371.1 403.6 32.5 8.00 25.39 74.61 30 653.8 676.1 22.3 5.49 30.89 69.11 40 346.7 391.5 44.8 11.03 41.92 58.08 60 320.8 401.3 80.5 19.83 61.75 38.25 100 312.8 381.3 68.5 16.87 78.62 21.38 200 292.1 344.9 52.8 13.00 91.63 8.37 pan 464.5 498.5 34 8.37 100.00 0.00 Sample # B10@7.5 Page 1 �r r� rr► rr r� rrr r r� r �r r� rr r� rr rr r r� ar rr Sieve.xls fCC I f� f II� Sieve # Weight Weight of Soil Weight of Soil Retained % of Wt. Retained Cumulative % Finer 485.2 + Sieve on Each Sieve on Each Sieve % Retained 3/8 485.2 518.3 33.1 6.14 6.14 93.86 4 462.8 552.2 89.4 16.59 22.74 77.26 10 692.7 776.3 83.6 15.52 38.25 61.75 20 370.9 399.1 28.2 5.23 43.49 56.51 30 653.4 674.4 21 3.90 47.38 52.62 40 346.7 380.5 33.8 6.27 53.66 46.34 60 320.8 391.9 71.1 13.20 66.85 33.15 100 312.9 371 58.1 10.78 77.64 22.36 200 291.9 353.4 61.5 11.41 89.05 10.95 pan 464.6 523.6 59 10.95 100.00 0.00 Sample # B10@10 Page 1 i 1 ' Appendix D Moisture Content Lab Sheet lO.01 - 0 1- � S, 1 '�ZI ��h � � -�j'�1s r� `75 ,�` � 0 -S ILI IQ 9 14 7� 9 Q LL c.� 9z� � �� !•42�1-� �Ls Zs�s�(� I � 9 , S 'L � L :� LS�i 9LI I b 1 rJ �, '� �? , o Z-1 47 0 -3 bD -7/ q'/' L VD Q "4 bl st- (z �. � _C �°� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1