Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRS_Critical_Areas_Report_220408_v1 April 2022 City of Renton Critical Areas Report RapidRide I Line King County Metro King County Metro Gillian Zacharias Janine Robinson Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. Jennifer Thomas, MES, Senior Biologist Emily Drew, Biologist Amy Rotondo, Biologist Prepared by: iii Renton Critical Areas Report Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................. vi Executive Summary ............................................................... vii 1 Introduction ..................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Purpose ................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Project Location ..................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Project Description ................................................................ 1-1 1.3.1 Project Termini ........................................................... 1-3 1.3.2 RapidRide Stations ...................................................... 1-3 1.3.3 Infrastructure and Transportation Network Improvements . 1-4 1.3.4 Access to Transit Projects ............................................. 1-4 1.3.5 Construction Activities, Equipment, and Methods .............. 1-4 1.3.6 Project Schedule ......................................................... 1-6 2 Critical Areas Assessment ................................................ 2-1 2.1 Flood Hazard Areas ................................................................ 2-1 2.1.1 Definition ................................................................... 2-1 2.1.2 Methodology and Results .............................................. 2-1 2.2 Geologic Hazard Areas ........................................................... 2-2 2.2.1 Definition ................................................................... 2-2 2.2.2 Methodology and Results .............................................. 2-2 2.3 Habitat Conservation Areas ................................................... 2-3 2.3.1 Definition ................................................................... 2-3 2.3.2 Methodology and Results .............................................. 2-4 2.4 Streams and Lakes ................................................................ 2-5 2.4.1 Definition ................................................................... 2-5 2.4.2 Methodology and Results .............................................. 2-6 2.5 Wellhead Protection Areas..................................................... 2-8 2.5.1 Definition ................................................................... 2-8 2.5.2 Methodology and Results .............................................. 2-8 iv Renton Critical Areas Report 2.6 Wetlands ............................................................................... 2-9 2.6.1 Definition ................................................................... 2-9 2.6.2 Methodology and Results .............................................. 2-9 3 Proposed Impacts ............................................................ 3-1 3.1 Flood Hazard Areas ................................................................ 3-1 3.2 Geologic Hazard Areas ........................................................... 3-3 3.3 Streams ................................................................................. 3-3 3.4 Habitat Conservation Areas ................................................... 3-6 3.5 Wellhead Protection Areas..................................................... 3-8 3.6 Wetlands ............................................................................... 3-8 3.7 Summary ............................................................................... 3-9 4 Mitigation Sequencing ...................................................... 4-1 4.1 Measures to Avoid and Minimize Impacts .............................. 4-1 4.2 Measures to Rectify and Restore Impacts .............................. 4-2 4.3 Measures to Mitigate and Compensate for Impacts ............... 4-2 4.3.1 Stream and Wetland Buffers .......................................... 4-2 4.3.2 Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas and Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas ........................................................... 4-2 5 Limitations ....................................................................... 5-1 6 References ....................................................................... 6-1 v Renton Critical Areas Report List of Tables Table 2-1: City of Renton Stream Standard Buffer Widths ...................................... 2-6 Table 2-2: Streams in the City of Renton Study Area ............................................. 2-7 Table 2-3: Streams Near Proposed Construction ................................................... 2-8 Table 2-4: City of Renton Wetland Standard Buffer Widths ................................... 2-11 Table 2-5: Wetlands in the City of Renton Study Area .......................................... 2-12 Table 2-6: Wetlands Near Proposed Construction ................................................ 2-13 Table 3-1: Direct Impacts to Wetland and Stream Buffers ...................................... 3-6 Table 3-2: Direct Impacts to Wetland Buffer ......................................................... 3-8 List of Figures Figure 1-1: Proposed I Line Alignment and Stations............................................... 1-2 Figure 3-1: Flood Hazard Impact at South Grady Way ............................................ 3-2 Figure 3-2: Stream and Wetland Buffer Impact at Rolling Hills Creek ........................ 3-4 Figure 3-3: Stream and Wetland Buffer Impact at Stream SRN-11 ........................... 3-5 List of Appendices A Critical Areas Maps B 60% Geotechnical Report C ESA No Effect Determination D Maps and Photographs of Wetlands and Streams Close to Construction E Wetland Determination Forms F Wetland Rating Forms vi Renton Critical Areas Report Acronyms and Abbreviations bgs below ground surface City City of Renton FAC facultative FACW facultative wet FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency GIS Geologic Information Systems HGM hydrogeomorphic I-405 Interstate 405 Jacobs Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. Metro King County Metro Transit Department OBL obligate PEM palustrine emergent PFO palustrine forested PGIS pollution-generating impervious surfaces Project RapidRide I Line Project PSS palustrine scrub-shrub Report critical areas report RMC Renton Municipal Code ROW right-of-way SR State Route WAC Washington Administrative Code WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife vii Renton Critical Areas Report Executive Summary The RapidRide I Line Project (Project) would provide new RapidRide bus rapid transit service connecting the cities of Renton, Kent, and Auburn in South King County. This report identifies critical areas in the City of Renton that may be impacted by the Project and satisfies the reporting requirements of the Renton Municipal Code 3-5-050. A high-level reconnaissance of the City of Renton Study Area performed in January and February 2020 identified 12 streams or stream crossings (SRN-01, SRN-02, SRN- 03/Rolling Hills Creek, SRN-04, SRN-05, SRN-06/Panther Creek, SRN-07/Panther Creek, SRN-08, SRN-09 SRN-10, SRN-11, and SRN-12) and 16 potential wetlands (WRN-01-D, WRN-02-P, WRN-03-P, WRN-04-D, WRN-05-P, WRN-06-P, WRN-07-P, WRN-08-P, WRN- 09-P, WRN-10-P, WRN-11-P, WRN-12-P, WRN-13-D, WRN-14-P, WRN-15-P, and WRN- 16-P). The City of Renton Study Area covered areas within 300 feet of the project centerline. Wetland and stream locations were compared to the proposed 60% design construction footprint to identify potential impacts. The Project would have no impacts to wetlands or streams; however, the Project would impact wetland buffers and stream buffers. To assess buffer impacts, wetlands within 300 feet of proposed construction were rated and delineated within the public right-of-way. In Renton, the Project is expected to have minor impacts to one stream buffer (SRN-11) and one combined stream and wetland buffer (WRN-04-D and SRN-03/Rolling Hills Creek). Most of the buffer impacts would be from temporary clearing for construction access and would be restored following construction. Permanent buffer impacts would result in 447 square feet of buffer loss. This impact is proposed to be offset by enhancing wetland buffer within public right-of-way in the vicinity of the impact at a 1:1 ratio. The Project is not expected to have indirect impacts to habitat conservation areas from stormwater runoff. King County Metro has made an environmental commitment to treat the pollution-generating impervious surfaces created by the Project where feasible, even if it is not required by the City’s Surface Water Design Manual. The Project would require work within a flood hazard area, but no impact is expected because no net fill within the floodplain is proposed. No impact to critical aquifer recharge area is proposed. Work would occur in some areas mapped as steep slope, landslide, or seismic hazard, but no impact is proposed because the Project features in these locations are self-mitigating by design. There are no proposed tree removals within critical areas. 1-1 Renton Critical Areas Report 1 Introduction King County Metro (Metro) proposes to provide new RapidRide bus rapid transit service connecting the cities of Renton, Kent, and Auburn in south King County. This pathway is currently served by Route 160. The RapidRide I Line Project (Project) route would extend almost 17 miles from the northern terminus in Renton, the Renton Transit Center, to the southern terminus in Auburn, the Auburn Station. This report addresses the route segment that runs through Renton. 1.1 Purpose Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. (Jacobs) has prepared this report for the Land Use – Critical Areas Review permit application per Renton Municipal Code (RMC). The purpose of this report is to identify, classify, and describe all critical areas defined in RMC 4-3-050, in addition to all temporary and permanent impacts to these critical areas and their buffers resulting from the Project as it passes through Renton. This report also describes the mitigation required for temporary and permanent impacts. 1.2 Project Location The Project spans north from the existing Metro hub in downtown Renton and travels south toward the city limits at SE 192nd Street and SE 200th Street, where the Project continues into City of Kent jurisdiction. The Project is in Water Resource Inventory Area 9 (Duwamish-Green) and in U.S. Geological Survey Hydrological Unit Code #17110013. 1.3 Project Description Metro proposes to provide new RapidRide bus rapid transit service connecting the cities of Renton, Kent, and Auburn in south King County, upgrading the existing Route 160, which currently serves this corridor. This new route would extend 17 miles north-south (see Figure 1-1). 1-2 Renton Critical Areas Report Figure 1-1: Proposed I Line Alignment and Stations 1-3 Renton Critical Areas Report The cities of Renton, Kent, and Auburn are regionally designated growth centers and include the locally identified centers of East Hill, Panther Lake, and Benson. The corridor includes many high-concentration population and employment areas. The RapidRide I Line’s connections to other regional high-capacity transit, such as RapidRide F Line, Sounder Commuter Rail, and future Metro and Sound Transit bus rapid transit, will provide greater access to regional destinations. The RapidRide I Line would meet a critical need for improved north-south transportation options in south King County. Metro would operate diesel-electric hybrid buses approximately 20 hours a day, 7 days a week on this route. During peak times, buses would arrive approximately every 10 minutes. During off-peak times, buses would arrive approximately every 15 minutes. Passenger facility and transportation system improvements would be implemented to increase transit speed and reliability. The RapidRide I Line has an anticipated daily ridership of 9,000 to 12,000 in its opening year of 2025. The proposed Project elements are described in the following sections. 1.3.1 Project Termini The Project termini are listed below:  Northern terminus at Renton Transit Center. The proposed northern terminus is the existing Renton Transit Center, located at 257 Burnett Avenue South, Renton.  Southern terminus at Auburn Station. The southern terminus of the proposed route is existing Auburn Station, located at 110 2nd Street SW, Auburn. 1.3.2 RapidRide Stations The Project would include approximately 82 RapidRide stations. Of these, 17 stations will be in Renton. RapidRide stations include branded shelter design and signage that distinguish RapidRide facilities and service from Metro’s standard routes and service. All stops are considered RapidRide “stations” and typically occupy a 60- by 10-foot area. New concrete bus pads may be installed in the travelway at select stations. Passenger facilities may include all or a combination of some of the following features:  Weather-screening shelters  Shelter and pedestrian scale or upgraded existing street level lighting  Dedicated fare payment/ORCA card electronic readers for preboarding payment  Pole-mounted, fixed signage for station and route identification, maps, and schedule information  Pole-mounted, real-time arrival information signage 1-4 Renton Critical Areas Report  Trash and recycling receptacles  Benches or leaning rails  Bicycle racks Stations will be designed for all-door vehicle boarding and alighting where site conditions allow. At some locations, sidewalk and street crossing enhancements for pedestrian safety and access will be constructed. 1.3.3 Infrastructure and Transportation Network Improvements The following transportation system improvements are proposed to improve speed and reliability in the I Line corridor:  Roadway channelization for business access and transit lanes  Transit queue bypass lanes or transit queue jumps  Telecommunication infrastructure to support Wi-Fi and communications, off-board ORCA readers, transit signal coordination, and real-time scheduling information  Curb extensions and Americans with Disabilities Act-compliant sidewalk ramps and sidewalk and road crossing improvements to facilitate access to transit  Parking control or removal  New bus layover areas installed around the Renton and Auburn termini; identified bus layover locations include a single block location for bus layover in Renton on Morris Avenue South between South 2nd Street and South 3rd Street. Bus layover areas will include signage and curb painting and may include pavement improvement or a bus pad and lighting between the layover area and the existing comfort station, if needed. 1.3.4 Access to Transit Projects As Project design continues, Metro is working with City of Renton (City) partners to determine priority transit access improvements between adjacent neighborhoods and RapidRide stations along the corridor to improve safety and access to transit. These improvements may include roadway crossing and pedestrian channelization improvements, intersection control and signal upgrades, and sidewalk or bicycle accommodations (for example, striped lanes or intersection bicycle boxes). 1.3.5 Construction Activities, Equipment, and Methods Project construction would last approximately 12 to 14 months and could be divided into smaller bodies of work or by jurisdiction, which would allow for multiple segments to be constructed concurrently. 1-5 Renton Critical Areas Report The Project in Renton would include the following actions:  Constructing stations, curbs, curb ramps, sidewalks, retaining walls, and potential bus layovers and comfort stations near the Renton Transit Center.  Installing pedestrian crossings, signals, telecommunication infrastructure (to support traffic signal priority), ORCA readers, and real-time schedule information.  Widening roadways, landscaping, replacing pavement, reconstructing driveways, reconfiguring parking lots, and installing storm drainage infrastructure.  Removing some existing bus stops, which involves removing all aboveground assets (shelter, benches, litter receptacles, and flags) and curb paint. Construction equipment would include concrete trucks, flatbed trucks, sawcut machines, vibratory rollers, dump trucks, cranes, lift/bucket trucks, hand tools, and other equipment. We would use a directional boring machine to install underground conduit to avoid surface area disturbance. Construction debris or spoil materials would be hauled away to approved disposal sites. Haul routes connecting the corridor to Interstate 405 (I-405) and State Route (SR) 167 would mainly use arterials, avoiding the use of smaller side streets as much as possible. Excavation would be necessary to install several Project elements. Typical excavation depths for main components of the Project are listed below:  Stations. Excavation would extend up to 4 feet deep for footings and sidewalks, although sidewalks typically only require 1 to 2 feet of excavation.  Roadway and curb improvements. Excavation would extend 4 to 5 feet deep for roadway widening and 1 to 2 feet deep for curb ramps and pavement work.  Telecommunication infrastructure. Trenching, if needed, would extend up to 4 feet deep.  Traffic or pedestrian crossing signals. Signal pole foundations would extend up to 15 feet deep.  Illumination poles. Foundations would extend up to 15 feet deep.  Intersections where improvements are planned. Excavation would extend 4 to 5 feet deep for trenching and up to 15 feet for signal pole foundations.  Stormwater drainage infrastructure. Excavation would extend up to 10 feet deep to revise conveyance or install treatment vaults or structures.  Comfort station utilities (if required). Excavation for water and sewer utility connections would extend approximately 8 feet deep. The contractor would establish staging areas for equipment and materials storage where feasible within the roadway right-of-way (ROW). Other staging locations could include vacant or underutilized private lots. The Project may require temporary construction 1-6 Renton Critical Areas Report easements for staging or other construction activities, which we may identify during final design. Public ROW widening is anticipated in spot locations along the corridor and would require private property acquisition. Some work elements, such as roadway widening or utility trenching, may require closing two lanes for short durations, narrowing the roadway to one lane in each direction. New station construction typically requires closure of the curbside traffic lane immediately adjacent to the work area. During traffic signal work, a uniformed police officer would direct traffic while the signal is turned off. The contractor would maintain business access throughout the corridor in work zones. Prior to temporary bus stop closures or existing station relocation, we would post notifications to transit users. Temporary sidewalk closures may occur when installing utilities in the vicinity of stations. The contractor will maintain pedestrian access on at least one side of the street, and detour pedestrians with adequate signage. Project activities may require bicycles that currently use existing roadway shoulders or on-street bicycle lanes to share the general-purpose travel lanes during certain construction activities. 1.3.6 Project Schedule National Environmental Policy Act environmental review was completed in June 2021 to meet Federal Transit Administration Small Starts application requirements. State Environmental Policy Act review is anticipated to be complete in May 2022. The Project is scheduled to advertise for a construction contractor in fall 2023, with Project construction anticipated to start in early 2024. Metro plans to begin RapidRide I Line service in fall 2025. 2-1 Renton Critical Areas Report 2 Critical Areas Assessment The City considers the following to be critical areas (RMC 4-3-050.B): flood hazard areas; steep slopes, landslide hazards, erosion hazards, seismic hazards, and coal mine hazards; habitat conservation areas; streams and lakes; wellhead protection areas; and wetlands. These critical or environmentally sensitive areas are beneficial to the City and its residents, and their alteration may pose a threat to public safety, public and private property, and/or the environment. The City of Renton Study Area is defined as the area 300 feet from the centerline of the RapidRide I Line Route in the City of Renton. 2.1 Flood Hazard Areas The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maps one part of the City of Renton Study Area as a frequently flooded area (flood hazard area), described below. 2.1.1 Definition The City defines flood hazard areas in RMC 4-3-050.G.4 as follows: Flood hazard areas are defined as the land in the floodplain subject to one percent (1%) or greater chance of flooding in any given year. Designation on flood maps always includes the letters A or V…. The City shall determine the components of the flood hazard areas after obtaining, reviewing and utilizing base flood elevations and available floodplain data for a flood having a one percent (1%) chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year, often referred to as the “one hundred (100) year flood.” Lands subject to flooding are regulated by the City under the Critical Areas Regulations (RMC 4-3-050). Per the definition above, the City defines flood hazard areas as land within the floodplain subject to 1% or greater chance of flooding in any given year. These areas are commonly known as the 100-year floodplain and are referred to herein as “floodplain.” The City does not apply buffers to flood hazard areas. 2.1.2 Methodology and Results Floodplains associated with the Green River and its tributaries are mapped by FEMA (n.d.) within Renton. Based on this mapping, there is one location in the City of Renton Study Area where floodplain occurs: a floodplain associated with tributaries to the Green River. 2-2 Renton Critical Areas Report The City of Renton currently uses the 1995 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map for the Green River and its tributaries. Therefore, this report also assesses impacts to floodplain based on the specific floodplain boundaries in the 1995 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map. The floodplain is mapped by FEMA in The Flood Insurance Study for King County, Washington and Incorporated Areas, dated May 16, 1995. In Renton, the Project intersects regulated floodplain at one location south of South Grady Way and Shattuck Avenue South. Floodplain at this location is associated with Rolling Hills Creek (see Appendix A). 2.2 Geologic Hazard Areas Several geologic hazard areas were identified in the City of Renton Study Area, described below. 2.2.1 Definition The City defines geologic hazard areas in RMC 4-11-030 as: Areas which may be prone to one or more of the following conditions: erosion, flooding, landslides, coal mine hazards, or seismic activity. The City determines the boundaries of regulated steep slopes based on the City’s online mapping applications (RMC 4-30-050.E) and requires geotechnical studies for proposed developments in or within 50 feet of the hazard areas (RMC 4-3-050.F). Renton does not regulate buffer widths around steep slopes, landslide hazards (unless considered very high hazards), erosion hazards, seismic hazards, or coal mine hazards. 2.2.2 Methodology and Results Jacobs biologists conducted a background review and analysis of the following:  Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey for the Renton area (n.d.)  Washington Department of Natural Resources (n.d.)  Geologic Information Portal for liquefaction in the Renton area (n.d.)  RapidRide I Line Geotechnical Engineering Report (Appendix B)  GIS analysis to map areas with a slope of 40% or steeper The Geotechnical Engineering Report (Appendix B) notes that the geologic units that underlie the northern end of the alignment in the Renton area include urban land with artificial fill, alluvium, recessional glacial drift, and sedimentary rocks. Immediately south 2-3 Renton Critical Areas Report of I-405 to 2 miles south of Renton, where the alignment veers west of SR 515 and runs between SR 515 and SR 167, the alignment overlies the Tertiary-age Renton and Tukwila formations along the edge of the Duwamish Valley. The City of Renton Study Area contains geologic hazard areas in the City of Renton Study Area as follows:  The proposed Project alignment is in the seismically active region of the Pacific Northwest, and the City maps most of the northern half of the City of Renton Study Area as areas subject to seismic hazards, such as liquefaction during seismic ground motion.  Multiple areas were also mapped as having slopes 40% or steeper.  Erosion hazards are mapped intermittently between the I-405 crossing and South 32nd Street along Talbot Road, and again along Panther Creek within the City of Renton Study Area.  Coal mine hazards are mapped along Talbot Road South at South 21st Street, and along Talbot Road near South 32nd Street.  Landslide hazards are mapped intermittently from the I-405 crossing to SE Carr Road. The geologic hazards in the City of Renton Study Area are shown in Appendix A. 2.3 Habitat Conservation Areas Jacobs biologists identified several wildlife habitat conservation areas in the City of Renton Study Area, described below. 2.3.1 Definition The City defines wildlife habitat in RMC 4-11-230 as: An area characterized by wildlife that forage, nest, spawn, or migrate through in search of food or shelter. The City defines critical wildlife habitat in RMC 4-11-230 as: Habitat areas associated with threatened, endangered, sensitive, monitored, or priority species of plants or wildlife and which, if altered, could reduce the likelihood that the species would maintain and reproduce over the long term. 2-4 Renton Critical Areas Report The City requires a habitat assessment in the following circumstances (RMC 4-3- 50.F.2.b): Based upon subsection G6 of this Section, Habitat Conservation Areas, the City shall require a habitat/wildlife assessment for activities that are located within or abutting a critical habitat, defined in RMC 4-11-030, or that are adjacent to a critical habitat, and have the potential to significantly impact a critical habitat. The assessment shall determine the extent, function and value of the critical habitat and potential for impacts and mitigation consistent with report requirements in RMC 4-8-120.D. 2.3.2 Methodology and Results Jacobs biologists completed a No Effect analysis for Section 7 Endangered Species Act consultation in 2020 (Appendix C). The No Effect analysis analyzed the presence or absence of federally listed endangered species and potential adverse effects to each within the City of Renton Study Area. Jacobs found that the following federally listed fish and wildlife species could potentially occur in the City of Renton Study Area:  Yellow-Billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus; Threatened) could occur in riparian corridors along Panther Creek. However, these areas would provide only marginal habitat, at best, based on their size, habitat fragmentation, and level of human disturbance. Because there have been a minimal number of sightings in Western Washington since 1950 and suitable habitat in the action area is marginal, it is highly unlikely that yellow-billed cuckoos will be present  Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment Steelhead Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss; Threatened). The Statewide Washington Integrated Fish Distribution database (Northwest Indian Fisheries and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife [WDFW] 2018) identifies downstream segments of Rolling Hills Creek as gradient accessible to steelhead trout. In addition to the No Effect analysis, Jacobs biologists reviewed the Priority Habitats and Species Map from WDFW (n.d.-a). WDFW maps Panther Creek as containing cutthroat trout. WDFW also maps the Panther Creek wetland area as a priority habitat; this area is a large wetland complex with shrub and emergent vegetation, along the eastern side of SR 167. While this area is within the City of Renton Study Area, rows of residential properties separate this priority habit from Talbot Road where I Line buses would travel. Panther Creek runs under Talbot Road South where buses will travel, but no construction is occurring in this area. 2-5 Renton Critical Areas Report Other potential wooded areas along the corridor have been heavily disturbed, degraded, or fragmented by human development. Some patches of primarily deciduous trees provide a vegetated buffer along Rolling Hills Creek and Panther Creek. These habitat patches can provide marginal habitat for migrating or breeding songbirds, raptors, and typical suburban wildlife species such as deer, raccoon, and opossum. The riparian corridors along Panther Creek and Rolling Hills Creek can also provide amphibian habitat. 2.4 Streams and Lakes Jacobs biologists identified 12 streams or stream crossings (SRN-01, SRN-02, SRN- 03/Rolling Hills Creek, SRN-04, SRN-05, SRN-06/Panther Creek, SRN-07/Panther Creek, SRN-08, SRN-09 SRN-10, SRN-11, and SRN-12) in the City of Renton Study Area, described below. 2.4.1 Definition The City classifies bodies of water (streams and lakes) in RMC 4-3-050.G.7.a based on the water typing system in the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 222-16-030: i. Type S: Waters inventoried as “Shorelines of the State” under chapter 90.58 RCW. These waters are regulated under Renton’s Shoreline Master Program Regulations, RMC 4-3-090. ii. Type F: Waters that are known to be used by fish or meet the physical criteria to be potentially used by fish and that have perennial (year- round) or seasonal flows. iii. Type Np: Waters that do not contain fish or fish habitat and that have perennial (year-round) flows. Perennial stream waters do not go dry any time of a year of normal rainfall. However, for the purpose of water typing, Type Np waters include the intermittent dry portions of the perennial channel below the uppermost point of perennial flow. iv. Type Ns: Waters that do not contain fish or fish habitat and have intermittent flows. These are seasonal, non-fish habitat streams in which surface flow is not present for at least some portion of a year of normal rainfall and are not located downstream from any stream reach that is a Type Np Water. Ns Waters must be physically connected by an above-ground channel system to Type S, F, or Np Waters. 2-6 Renton Critical Areas Report RMC 4-3-050.G.7.b reads: Non-regulated: Waters that are considered “intentionally created” not regulated under this Section include irrigation ditches, grass-lined swales and canals that do not meet the criteria for Type S, F, Np, or Ns Non-regulated waters may also include streams created as mitigation. Purposeful creation must be demonstrated through documentation, photographs, statements and/or other persuasive evidence. 2.4.2 Methodology and Results Background information reviewed to evaluate streams located in or within 300 feet of the City of Renton Study Area includes the following:  Stream data from the City of Renton GIS (n.d.)  Stream, and waterbody data from the King County wetland and hydrology GIS datasets (2019) Jacobs biologists conducted a stream reconnaissance of the City of Renton Study Area on January 9 and 23, 2020, after reviewing the background information listed above. Observations were made from the public ROW and biologists estimated stream boundaries. Unnamed streams were named using the following nomenclature:  A unique stream ID that starts with the letter “S.”  “RN” for streams in Renton.  A number in consecutive order. Streams located within 300 feet of potential construction disturbance were typed per RMC 4-3-050G.7. Stream buffers were determined by identifying the standard buffer widths prescribed by City code and where standard buffer widths are interrupted by existing development as allowed by City regulations or practice. Standard buffer widths depend on the stream type (RMC 4-3-050G.2) and are presented in Table 2-1. Table 2-1: City of Renton Stream Standard Buffer Widths STREAM TYPE STANDARD BUFFER WIDTHa (FEET) Type F 115 Type Np 75 Type Ns 50 2-7 Renton Critical Areas Report a Buffer widths may be increased, per RMC 4-3-050.G.7.d.ii, in areas of high blow-down potential or habitat corridors. Buffer widths may be averaged or reduced under RMC 4-3-050I.2. The standard buffer width may be reduced or “cut-off” when the buffer overlaps structures or roads. This is called an interrupted buffer; the City critical areas code states that interrupted buffers end at preexisting structures, roads, and other substantial improvements (RMC 4-3-050G.2, footnote number 6, and RMC 4-3-050B.1.g). Interrupted buffers were determined using aerial photography (City, n.d.; King County, n.d.) to identify where existing improvements may interrupt a standard buffer width. In Renton, all pavement and structural improvements were considered to be interruptions to buffers. Jacobs biologists identified 12 streams or stream crossings in the City of Renton Study Area during the reconnaissance, as listed in Table 2-2 and shown in Appendix D. Photographs of streams were taken during fieldwork and are also provided in Appendix D. Seven of these streams were near proposed construction (Table 2-3) and were analyzed further. Table 2-2: Streams in the City of Renton Study Area LOCATION STREAM ID NEAR PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION Renton SRN-01 Yes Renton SRN-02 No Renton SRN-03/Rolling Hills Creek Yes Renton SRN-04 No Renton SRN-05 No Renton SRN-06/Panther Creek Yes Renton SRN-07/Panther Creek No Renton SRN-08 No Renton SRN-09 Yes Renton SRN-10 No Renton SRN-11 Yes Renton SRN-12 Yes 2-8 Renton Critical Areas Report Table 2-3: Streams Near Proposed Construction LOCATION STREAM ID FLOW DURATION RECEIVING WATER WATER TYPEa STANDARD BUFFER WIDTHa Renton SRN-01 Perennial Rolling Hills Creek Np 75 Renton SRN-03/ Rolling Hills Creek Perennial Springbrook Creek Np 75 Renton SRN-06/ Panther Creek Perennial Springbrook Creek F 115 Renton SRN-09 Perennial Panther Creek Np 75 Renton SRN-11 Seasonal Panther Creek Ns 50 Renton SRN-12 Perennial Panther Creek Np 75 Renton and Kent SRN-13/ Panther Creek Perennial Springbrook Creek F/2 115 a Stream/water type and standard buffer widths are based on RMC 4-3-050.G.7. 2.5 Wellhead Protection Areas Jacobs biologists identified one critical aquifer recharge area in the City of Renton Study Area, described below. 2.5.1 Definition The City defines critical aquifer recharge areas in RMC 4-11-010 as: The portion of an aquifer within the zone of capture and recharge area for a well or well field owned or operated by the City, and as identified in the City of Renton’s COR Maps, the City’s online interactive mapping application available through the City’s website. The term shall be synonymous with “wellhead protection area.” 2.5.2 Methodology and Results The Washington Department of Health’s Source Water Assessment Program Mapping Application (n.d.), the City of Renton GIS (n.d.), and King County iMap (n.d.) map a wellhead protection area within the City of Renton Study Area. The wellhead protection area encompasses all portions of the proposed Project route north of I-405. 2-9 Renton Critical Areas Report This includes the following streets:  Along South 2nd Street, South 3rd Street, and Logan Avenue South at the northern terminus of the Project  Along Rainier Avenue South, South 7th Street, Shattuck Avenue South, Lake Avenue South, and South Grady Way  Along Talbot Road South north of the I-405 crossing 2.6 Wetlands Jacobs biologists identified 16 wetlands (WRN-01-D, WRN-02-P, WRN-03-P, WRN-04-D, WRN-05-P, WRN-06-P, WRN-07-P, WRN-08-P, WRN-09-P, WRN-10-P, WRN-11-P, WRN- 12-P, WRN-13-D, WRN-14-P, WRN-15-P, WRN-16-P) within the City of Renton Study Area, as described below. 2.6.1 Definition The City defines wetlands in RMC 4-11-230 as: Areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands include artificial wetlands created from nonwetland areas to mitigate the conversion of wetlands. 2.6.2 Methodology and Results Background information reviewed to evaluate wetlands located in the City of Renton Study Area includes the following:  Hydric soils data derived from the Soil Survey Geographic database data from the NRCS Web Soil Survey (n.d.)  National Wetland Inventory dataset from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wetlands Mapper (2020)  Wetland data from the City of Renton (n.d.) 2-10 Renton Critical Areas Report  Wetland, stream, and waterbody data from the King County wetland and hydrology datasets (2019) Jacobs biologists conducted a wetland reconnaissance on January 9 and 23, 2020, in the City of Renton Study Area after reviewing the background information listed above. Jacobs conducted an additional analysis in fall 2021 to confirm non-wetland conditions in a rerouted section of the Project at 105th Place SE and SE 180th Street. Wetland delineation was conducted on February 21 and September 18, 2020. Wetland boundaries were delineated within 300 feet of potential construction disturbance at 10% and pre-60% design in the public ROW. Wetland boundaries within 300 feet of potential construction disturbance at 10% and pre-60% design but outside of the public ROW were approximated. Wetlands located entirely outside of public ROW are considered potential wetlands because direct observation of wetland parameters was not possible due to property access restrictions. Wetlands were identified and delineated using the methods described in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0) (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2010). This methodology uses the triple-parameter approach by evaluating vegetation, soil, and hydrology indicators. For an area to be considered a wetland, it must be dominated by hydrophytic vegetation, have soils that meet the federal definition of “hydric,” and have wetland hydrology indicators meeting the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers definitions. Jacobs biologists recorded data plots that characterize the vegetation, soils, and hydrology. Jacobs biologists assigned vegetation wetland indicator statuses with the National Wetland Plant List (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2020). Photographs of wetlands taken during fieldwork are provided in Appendix D. Wetland determination forms for data pits are in Appendix E. Only wetland determination forms for wetlands that are impacted by construction at 60% design are included. Wetland boundary points and data pits were recorded using a Trimble Geo7X with submeter accuracy. Wetlands were rated using the Washington State Department of Ecology’s Wetland Rating System for Western Washington, 2014 Update (Hruby 2014). Wetland rating forms are in Appendix F. Only wetland rating forms for wetlands that are impacted by construction at 60% design are included. Standard wetland buffer widths were determined based on the wetland category rating and habitat scores, on a scale from 3 to 9 (RMC 4-3-050.G.7.d). Error! Reference source not found. summarizes the City’s wetland standard buffer widths. 2-11 Renton Critical Areas Report Table 2-4: City of Renton Wetland Standard Buffer Widths WETLAND CATEGORY WETLAND HABITAT SCORE STANDARD BUFFER WIDTH (FEET) Category I Wetland 3 – 4 115 5 – 7 150 8 – 9 200 Category II Wetland 3 – 4 100 5 – 7 150 8 – 9 175 Category III Wetland 3 – 4 75 5 – 7 100 8 – 9 125 Category IV Wetland 3 – 4 50 5 – 7 50 8 – 9 50 Note: Buffer widths shown are for all other land uses besides low-impact land uses (for example, hiking, bird-watching). The standard buffer width may be reduced or “cut-off” when the buffers overlap structures or roads. This is called an interrupted buffer. In the City of Renton, interrupted buffers end at pre-existing structures, roads, and other substantial improvements (RMC 4-3-050.G.2, footnote No. 6, and RMC 4-3-050.B.1.g). Interrupted buffers were determined using aerial photography to identify where existing improvements may interrupt a standard buffer width. In Renton, all pavement and structural improvements were considered to be interruptions to buffers. Jacobs biologists identified 12 potential wetlands in the City of Renton Study Area during reconnaissance, as listed in Table 2-5 and shown in Appendix A. Project construction will not disturb any wetlands but will have impacts to wetland buffers based on 60% design. The assessment focused on the 5 of the 12 wetlands within the City of Renton Study Area that are located within 300 feet of proposed construction work. These 5 wetlands are further defined in Table 2-6, shown in Appendix D, and described below. 2-12 Renton Critical Areas Report Wetlands are designated in this report using the following nomenclature:  A unique wetland ID that starts with the letter “W.”  “RN” for wetlands in Renton.  A number in consecutive order.  A suffix on wetland IDs to designate the level of field verification. Wetland IDs that end with “D” (for delineated) designate that Jacobs was able to directly observe the presence of three wetland parameters and delineated part or all of the wetland boundary. A suffix of “P" (for potential) indicates a wetland was not delineated and direct observation of all three parameters was not possible because the wetland was located outside of the public ROW. Table 2-5: Wetlands in the City of Renton Study Area LOCATION WETLAND ID NEAR PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION Renton WRN-01-D Yes Renton WRN-02-P No Renton WRN-03-P No Renton WRN-04-D Yes Renton WRN-05-P No Renton WRN-06-P No Renton WRN-07-P No Renton WRN-08-P No Renton WRN-09-P No Renton WRN-10-P Yes Renton WRN-11-P Yes Renton WRN-12-P No Renton WRN-13-D Yes Renton WRN-14-P No Renton WRN-15-P No Renton WRN-16-P No 2-13 Renton Critical Areas Report Table 2-6: Wetlands Near Proposed Construction WETLAND ID SIZE (SQUARE FEET) HGM CLASSa COWARDIN CLASSb CATEGORYc HABITAT SCORE STANDARD BUFFER WIDTHd WRN-01-D 38,957 Riverine/ Depressional PEM, PSS III 4 75 WRN-04-D 18,642 Riverine PSS, PFO II 5 150 WRN-10-P 14,850 Riverine PSS — e — e — e WRN-11-P 12,310 Riverine PSS — e — e — e WRN-13-D 12,894 Slope/ Riverine PEM, PFO II 6 150 a A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands (Brinson 1993). b Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al. 1979). c Wetlands rated according to RMC 4-3-050.G.9 and the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington, 2014 Update (Hruby 2014). d Standard buffer widths according to RMC 4-3-050.G.7.d. e Wetlands WRN-10-P and WRN-11-P were not rated, and their buffers do not extend into the Project footprint. Neither the wetlands nor their buffers would incur permanent or temporary impacts. Note: This table includes only wetlands located within 300 feet of proposed ground-disturbing activities associated with the Project, based on 60% design dated November 2021. HGM = hydrogeomorphic; PEM = palustrine emergent; PFO = palustrine forested; PSS = palustrine scrub-shrub 2.6.2.1 WRN-01-D Wetland WRN-01-D is located east of Talbot Road South and north of I-405 and encompasses approximately 38,957 square feet. The Cowardin classifications observed are PSS and PEM, and the HGM classifications are riverine and depressional. Wetland WRN-01-D was partially delineated within the public ROW. Data plots WRN1-DP1 and WRN1-DP2 document the wetland and upland characteristics, respectively. Hydrologic sources to Wetland WRN-01-D include overbank flooding from Stream SRN- 01 (which flows through the northern portion of the wetland), stormwater runoff, precipitation, and high groundwater. A water table 9 inches below ground surface (bgs) and saturation to the surface was observed. Dominant vegetation observed in the PSS portion of Wetland WRN-01-D were willow species (Salix spp.; presumed FAC). The willow species observed were either Sitka or scouler’s willow. Skunk cabbage (Lysichiton americanus; OBL) was observed just outside of data plot WRN1-DP1. Dominant vegetation observed in the PEM portion was cattail (Typha latifolia; OBL). 2-14 Renton Critical Areas Report The soil profile was observed from 0 inches to 14 inches bgs at WRN1-DP1 and was comprised of two layers. Soil in the first (upper) layer (0 to 4 inches) was very dark brown (10YR 2/2) loam. Soil in the second layer (4 to at least 14 inches) was very dark gray (10YR 3/1) loam with brown (7.5YR 4/4) redoximorphic features. 2.6.2.2 WRN-04-D Wetland WRN-04-D is located east of Benson Drive South and west of South Puget Drive and encompasses approximately 18,642 square feet. The Cowardin classifications observed are PFO and PSS, and the HGM classification is riverine. Wetland WRN-04-D was partially delineated within the public ROW. Data plots WRN4-DP3 and WRN4-DP4 document wetland and upland characteristics, respectively. The primary hydrologic source to Wetland WRN-04-D is overbank flooding from Stream SRN-03/Rolling Hills Creek. Rolling Hills Creek bisects Wetland WRN-04-D and continues north underneath Benson Drive South. A water table 9 inches bgs and saturation to the surface was observed. There was also evidence of overbank flooding. Dominant vegetation observed in the PFO portion of Wetland WRN-04-D were red alder (Alnus rubra; FAC) and Western red cedar (Thuja plicata; FAC). Dominant vegetation observed in the PSS portion was Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus; FAC). The soil profile was observed from 0 to 16 inches bgs at WRN4-DP3 and was comprised of four layers. Soil in the first (upper) layer (0 to 3 inches) was black (10YR 2/1) loamy sand. Soil in the second layer (3 to 4 inches) was very dark, grayish-brown (10YR 3/2) loam. Soil in the third layer (4 to 15 inches) was very dark, grayish-brown (10YR 3/2) silty loam with brown (7.5YR 4/3) redoximorphic features. Soil in the fourth layer (15 to at least 16 inches) was grayish-green (5G 5/2) clay loam. 2.6.2.3 WRN-10-P Wetland WRN-10-P is located east of Talbot Road and south of South 38th Court and encompasses approximately 14,850 square feet. The Cowardin classification observed is PSS, and the HGM classification is riverine. Wetland WRN-10-P was not delineated or verified because the potential wetland is on private property outside of the ROW and therefore inaccessible. Wetland presence is presumed based on observations made from the public ROW. Wetland WRN-10-P includes the right and left banks of Panther Creek. The primary hydrologic source to Wetland WRN-10-P is presumed to be overbank flooding from Panther Creek. Dominant vegetation observed was Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus; FAC). 2-15 Renton Critical Areas Report 2.6.2.4 WRN-11-P Wetland WRN-11-P is located west of Talbot Road and encompasses approximately 12,310 square feet. The Cowardin classification observed is PSS, and the HGM classification is riverine. Wetland WRN-11-P was not delineated or verified because the potential wetland is on private property outside of the ROW and therefore inaccessible. Wetland presence is presumed based on observations made from the public ROW. Wetland WRN-11-P includes the right bank of Panther Creek. The primary hydrologic source to Wetland WRN-11-P is presumed to be overbank flooding from Panther Creek. Dominant vegetation observed was Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus; FAC). 2.6.2.5 WRN-13-D Wetland WRN-13-D is located south of SE Carr Road and west of the New Horizon School. Wetland WRN-13-D encompasses approximately 12,894 square feet. The Cowardin classifications observed are PEM and PFO. Two HGM classifications are present: a slope wetland in the eastern portion, with the rest of Wetland WRN-13-D classified as riverine. Wetland WRN-13-D was partially delineated within the public ROW. Data plots WRN13-DP5 and WRN13-DP6 document the wetland and upland characteristics, respectively. The primary hydrologic sources to Wetland WRN-13-D are overbank flooding from Stream SRN-11 and Stream SRN-12 and surface and subsurface flow from the surrounding uplands. Stream SRN-11 bisects the wetland east to west and drains through a metal culvert at the western end of Wetland WRN-13-D. Stream SRN-12 bisects the wetland south to north and merges with Stream SRN-11 just before the metal culvert. Surface water with a depth of 1 inch, a water table to the surface, and saturation to the surface was observed. Dominant vegetation observed in the PEM portion of Wetland WRN-13-D was reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea; FACW). Dominant vegetation observed in the PFO portion were willow species (Salix spp.; presumed FAC) and red alder (Alnus rubra; FAC). The soil profile was observed from 0 to 4 inches bgs and was comprised of one layer. The soil was very dark, grayish-brown (10YR 3/2) loam. Soils below 4 inches were not observable due to a high groundwater table. 3-1 Renton Critical Areas Report 3 Proposed Impacts Impacts to critical areas were assessed by comparing the locations of proposed work with each mapped critical area. Proposed work is based on the 60% Project design plan set, dated November 2021 (Jacobs). Construction staging locations have not been determined yet but would be limited to existing improved areas and would, therefore, not impact aquatic resources. Additionally, no ground disturbing or vegetation removal would occur between the proposed work limits and temporary construction easements. 3.1 Flood Hazard Areas In Renton, floodplain is mapped south of South Grady Way at Shattuck Avenue South within the Renton Village shopping center parking lot (Figure 3-1). Floodplain at this location is associated with Rolling Hills Creek and is mapped as Zone AH (1% annual chance of shallow flooding). Work proposed at this location consists of converting the existing eastbound curb lane from a general purpose lane to a business access and transit lane, adjusting curbs at pedestrian crossings, and replacing signal poles. Work would occur over 3,936 square feet of floodplain, would primarily replace existing paved areas and signal poles, and would not significantly change the existing grades. The project is expected to increase pavement along the edge of existing paved areas by 55 square feet (see Figure 3-1). Any landscaped/mowed areas disturbed during construction would be restored with similar plantings as the existing condition. The proposed work is not expected to cause an increase in the 100-year flood levels. However, according to the City of Renton’s regulations, hydrologic and hydraulic analyses conducted by a registered professional engineer may be required to certify that no adverse impacts would result from work proposed in the floodplain. The City does not apply buffers to flood hazard areas. Development standards are provided in RMC 4-3-050.G and are focused on ensuring that buildings and structures are able to withstand flood events without damage and that new development in floodplains does not result in any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge. Any proposed new fill or encroachments in floodplain requires hydrologic and hydraulic analyses that uses future land use condition flows and demonstrates that the Project would not increase the 100-year flood levels or adversely impact properties. 3-2 Renton Critical Areas Report Figure 3-1: Flood Hazard Impact at South Grady Way 3-3 Renton Critical Areas Report 3.2 Geologic Hazard Areas The Project proposes constructing stations or other Project features in seismic hazard areas, and a few isolated areas mapped as steep slopes, landslide hazards, or erosion hazards. These overlaps can be seen in Appendix A. At most locations where Project features overlap geologic hazards, construction consists of modifying curb lanes to accommodate bus travel, and modifying medians. At a few locations, bus stations built or modified adjacent to steep slopes would include building a short retaining wall to stabilize the slope, with some cut and fill to establish the wall. These walls would be low (2 to 3 feet high). At two locations (a station on Talbot Road South at South 32nd Street on the west side of the road and at the South Grady Way/Talbot Road South corner), a retaining wall 4 to 6 feet high would be required to meet Project design and City requirements in steep slope locations and would require building permits specific to the retaining walls. These retaining walls would be constructed in conformance with Metro 2020-2021 Standard Details (Metro 2020). Where the Project’s construction overlaps with landslide hazards, work would primarily be restricted to modifying existing paved areas. The Project’s geotechnical report (Appendix B) provides design recommendations for retaining walls, signal poles and lighting structures, stormwater drainage features, and pavement to withstand the effects of landslides. The geotechnical report includes details on appropriate site preparation, dewatering, subgrade preparation, pavement design, and wall backfill. The Project design would reduce the risks to public safety and is therefore considered self-mitigating. For this reason, no mitigation is proposed. 3.3 Streams Construction activities would not occur in streams. Some construction activities would occur in stream buffers (see Figures 3-2 and 3-3). Activities in buffers would consist of both temporary clearing of vegetation for construction equipment access and operation and permanent replacement of vegetation with new pavement or bus station structures. When proposed work or construction disturbance overlapped a stream buffer, areas of existing pavement within the buffer were excluded from impact quantities because work would not change or degrade the condition of those areas. 3-4 Renton Critical Areas Report Figure 3-2: Stream and Wetland Buffer Impact at Rolling Hills Creek 3-5 Renton Critical Areas Report Figure 3-3: Stream and Wetland Buffer Impact at Stream SRN-11 3-6 Renton Critical Areas Report Permanent and temporary loss of wetland and stream buffer habitat is provided in Table 3-1. In total, 813 square feet of temporary impacts and 447 square feet of permanent impacts would occur within stream buffers. Table 3-1: Direct Impacts to Wetland and Stream Buffers BUFFER TYPE WETLAND/STREAM IDS EXISTING CONDITION OF BUFFER TEMPORARY IMPACT AREA (SQUARE FEET) PERMANENT IMPACT AREA (SQUARE FEET) Wetland and Stream WRN-04-D and SRN-03/ Rolling Hills Creeka Forested 384 269 Stream SRN-11 Mowed grass 429 178 TOTAL — — 813 447 a Stream SRN-03/Rolling Hills Creek buffer is entirely within Wetland WRN-04-D buffer. Where stream buffer and wetland buffer overlap, impacts have been calculated for a combined wetland/stream buffer to avoid double-counting buffer impact. Additional fieldwork may be needed to confirm boundaries of those streams that would have potential buffer impacts. Stream ordinary high water marks have been approximated and have not been delineated. Delineation of these boundaries may affect buffer impact calculations. Right of entry should be obtained for properties outside of the ROW and stream ordinary high water marks should be delineated and surveyed to confirm buffer extents. 3.4 Habitat Conservation Areas Although streams and wetlands are present in the City of Renton Study Area, none would be directly affected by the Project. Direct impacts to sensitive habitats (stream/wetland buffer) would only occur at two locations, as also described in Sections 3.3 and 3.6. A stream buffer at SRN-11 would not remove any trees, and would only temporarily affect mowed grass. The combined wetland/stream buffer at Rolling Hills Creek would result in 384 square feet of temporary impact and 269 feet of permanent impact. This impact would affect areas currently covered by mowed grass or shrubs. Based on 60% design plans, Metro has calculated about 55 tree removals as part of the Project (King County Metro and Jacobs 2021). About 49 of these trees are significant trees. RMC 4-11-200 defines a significant tree as a minimum of 6 inches in diameter or as an alder or cottonwood with a minimum of 8 inches in diameter at standard height. Most removals would occur within Renton ROW, and about 2 would be removed on private land. All of these removals would occur outside habitat conservation areas and critical areas and buffers. 3-7 Renton Critical Areas Report Any street trees removed from the City’s ROW should be replaced on a 1:1 ratio per RMC 9-13-8 and would be planted in the Project area per the Project landscape plan as space allows. In lieu of planting replacement trees and at the sole discretion of the City arborist, the permittee may contribute to the City’s tree fund a dollar amount equal to the value of the replacement trees, including installation costs. Significant trees removed from private property are subject to the tree density requirements and would be replaced onsite if tree removal takes the parcel below the minimum density, according to RMC 4-4-130. Generally, stormwater pollution has the potential to indirectly impact habitat conservation areas. Project stormwater is collected and drained by stormwater facilities associated with the existing roads and parking areas. Generally, stormwater enters catch basins in roads and parking lots and is conveyed in underground pipes to a discharge point where it enters a receiving waterbody, typically, a stream or wetland. Stormwater flow paths would be maintained following the completion of the Project construction. Stormwater pollution and water quality impacts can occur as a result of construction activities when stormwater is exposed to disturbed sediments and equipment as well as long-term changes that increase the amount of pollution-generating impervious surfaces (PGIS). PGIS is pavement that is subject to vehicle use and considered to be a significant source of pollutants in stormwater runoff. Increased PGIS would be associated with roadway widening and busway improvements. Most paving work would consist of replacing existing pavement and would not increase the amount of impervious surfaces. The Project would comply with local stormwater and drainage regulations. The City’s regulations are based on the 2016 King County Surface Water Design Manual. Local stormwater and drainage regulations all have similar thresholds for treatment of new PGIS. Generally, projects that create or replace more than 5,000 square feet of PGIS in a threshold discharge area must provide stormwater treatment. However, for transportation redevelopment projects, treatment is only required for projects that create more than 5,000 square feet of new PGIS, regardless of how much is replaced. Additionally, high-use intersections may require treatment for oil control. Metro has also made an environmental commitment to treat the PGIS created by the Project where feasible, even if it is not required by King County’s Surface Water Design Manual (2016). This would be accomplished by treating additional PGIS where treatment is proposed or removing the existing PGIS. Given this environmental commitment, no indirect impacts are anticipated to occur to habitat conservation areas from the Project. 3-8 Renton Critical Areas Report 3.5 Wellhead Protection Areas Metro has made an environmental commitment to treat the PGIS created by the Project where feasible even if it is not required by King County’s Surface Water Design Manual (2015). Therefore, no impacts to critical aquifer recharge areas (that is, wellhead protection areas) are proposed. Metro is monitoring groundwater throughout the Project corridor, including in the Renton critical aquifer recharge area, to understand the fluctuation of seasonal groundwater and confirm Project designs as described in the Project’s geotechnical report (Appendix B). 3.6 Wetlands Construction activities would not occur in wetlands; therefore, the Project would have no direct impact to wetlands. Some construction activities would occur in one wetland buffer in Renton (see Figure 3-2) for a wetland associated with Rolling Hills Creek. Activities in this buffer would consist of temporary clearing of vegetation for construction equipment access and operation, and permanent replacement of vegetation with new pavement or bus station structures. The area of existing pavement within the buffer was excluded from impact quantities because work would not change or degrade the condition of this area. Permanent and temporary loss of wetland buffer habitat is provided in Table 3-2. In total, 384 square feet of temporary impacts and 269 square feet of permanent impacts would occur within wetland and stream buffers. Note that this area is also stream buffer, as listed in the first row of Table 3-1. Table 3-2: Direct Impacts to Wetland Buffer BUFFER TYPE WETLAND/ STREAM IDS EXISTING CONDITION OF BUFFER TEMP IMPACT AREA (SQUARE FEET) PERMANENT IMPACT AREA (SQUARE FEET) Wetland and Stream WRN-04-D and SRN-03/ Rolling Hills Creeka Forested 384 269 TOTAL — — 384 269 a Stream SRN-03/Rolling Hills Creek buffer is entirely within Wetland WRN-04-D buffer. Where stream buffer and wetland buffer overlap, impacts have been calculated for a combined wetland/stream buffer to avoid double-counting buffer impact. Additional fieldwork may be needed to confirm boundaries of WRN-04-D. Wetland boundaries outside of the public ROW have been approximated and have not been formally delineated. Delineation of these boundaries may affect buffer impact calculations. 3-9 Renton Critical Areas Report 3.7 Summary The Project has proposed the following impacts:  The Project involves work in a small area of flood hazard, mostly within existing paved areas, and is predicted to result in no net rise in elevations within this area.  The Project would add road improvements and roadside bus stops within areas subject to geologic hazards (seismic, steep slopes, erosion, and landslide). The geotechnical report prepared for the Project describes the design considerations that would mitigate risk at these locations, including details on appropriate site preparation, dewatering, subgrade preparation, pavement design and wall backfill (Appendix B).  The Project has proposed direct impacts to a stream buffer, and an area of combined wetland and stream buffer. Mitigation for these proposed impacts is discussed in the following section.  No impacts to habitat conservation areas are proposed. No trees are proposed to be removed from critical areas or their buffers in the Project area.  The northern end of the Project includes construction within a critical aquifer recharge area. Due to Project design, no impacts to the critical aquifer recharge area are proposed. 4-1 Renton Critical Areas Report 4 Mitigation Sequencing RMC 4-3-050.L describes the sequential order of preference of avoiding, minimizing, or compensating for critical area impacts: i. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of actions. ii. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation. iii. Rectifying adverse impacts to wetlands, Wellhead Protection Areas, flood hazard areas, and habitat conservation areas by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment to the historical conditions or the conditions existing at the time of the initiation of the project. iv. Minimizing or eliminating the hazard by restoring or stabilizing the hazard area through engineered or other methods. v. Reducing or eliminating the adverse impacts or hazard over time by preservation and maintenance operations over the life of the action. vi. Compensating for adverse impacts to wetlands, Wellhead Protection Areas, flood hazard areas, and habitat conservation areas by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments. vii. Monitoring the hazard or other required mitigation and taking remedial action when necessary. 4.1 Measures to Avoid and Minimize Impacts The Project is designed to first avoid and then minimize impacts to critical areas and their buffers in accordance with letters (i) and (ii) listed above. The Project minimized impacts in the following ways:  Along SE Carr Road at the New Horizon School driveway, where a stream buffer impact occurs, the bus station would be limited to only a concrete pad, with a railing, instead of the standard-sized station area, to minimize impacts within this buffer.  Along Benson Drive South, at the Talbot Road South intersection, the station placed in the Rolling Hills Creek/Wetland WRN-04-D buffer is planned as a smaller than standard station to minimize impacts within the buffer. Grading would also be kept away from the steep slope alongside the station location, to avoid any fill or cut in the slope itself. 4-2 Renton Critical Areas Report 4.2 Measures to Rectify and Restore Impacts The Project would have unavoidable temporary impacts to small areas of wetland and stream buffers due to clearing and grubbing for construction of new stations. These activities would also occur in a frequently flooded area. All temporary fills would be removed, and all disturbed areas would be restored to pre-existing or better conditions. 4.3 Measures to Mitigate and Compensate for Impacts The Project would have unavoidable permanent impacts to small areas of stream and wetland buffers. Metro is committed to ensuring that all impacts would be mitigated, and any proposed future mitigation areas would be maintained through the entirety of the required monitoring period. 4.3.1 Stream and Wetland Buffers The 813 square feet of critical area buffer (stream and wetland combined) temporarily impacted by the Project would be restored per RMC 4-3-050.J.4.d and RMC 4-3-050.L. Mitigation for the 447 feet of permanent impacts to stream and wetland buffer is required at a 1:1 ratio (RMC 4-3-050.J.4.d). A ratio for stream buffers is not specified in the City municipal code. A 1:1 mitigation ratio for stream buffers is proposed, subject to review and approval by the City. Compensatory mitigation is typically conducted either onsite or offsite and may entail enhancing existing degraded buffer or reclaiming previously developed buffer. Metro proposes to enhance existing degraded buffer in the vicinity of the impact within public ROW using appropriate native plant species at a 1:1 ratio. Metro would follow all performance standards applicable to wetland and stream buffer mitigation areas as described in RMC 4-3-050. 4.3.2 Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas and Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Metro is committed to ensuring that the Project does not degrade water quality. Jacobs developed a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP; Jacobs 2021) to minimize water quality impacts to threatened or endangered salmonids or habitats and species generally. 4-3 Renton Critical Areas Report The SWPPP includes best management practices (BMPs) to achieve the following goals: 1. Preserve vegetation/mark clearing limits 2. Establish construction access 3. Control flow rates 4. Install sediment controls 5. Stabilize soils 6. Protect slopes 7. Protect drain inlets 8. Stabilize channels and outlets 9. Control pollutants 10. Control dewatering 11. Maintain BMPs The SWPPP also details visual monitoring and water quality sampling of turbidity and pH during construction. Jacobs also developed a temporary erosion and sediment control plan to minimize construction stormwater pollution from impacting aquatic resources. Erosion and sediment control BMPs, such as silt fencing, mulch, and straw wattles, would be installed between the work area and sensitive aquatic areas (wetlands and streams) prior to any ground-disturbing activity. A spill prevention, control, and countermeasure plan would be developed to control and contain pollutants and products. 5-1 Renton Critical Areas Report 5 Limitations This report was prepared for the exclusive use of the King County Metro and its representatives. The findings and conclusions documented in this report have been prepared for specific application to this Project. They have been developed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill normally exercised by members of the environmental science profession currently practicing under similar conditions in the area. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are professional opinions based on interpretation of information currently available to us and made within the operational scope, budget, and schedule constraints of this Project. These conclusions are subject to review and approval by King County Metro and its representatives. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. 6-1 Renton Critical Areas Report 6 References Brinson, M. M. 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. Technical Report WRP-DE-4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Final Report August. City of Renton. n.d. Maps and GIS. Online database. Available at https://rentonwa.gov/city_hall/executive_services/Information_technology/maps___ g_i_s_data. Accessed February 2022. Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service PUBL. FWS/OBS-79/31. 103p. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1 (online edition). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Final Report January. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 1995. The Flood Insurance Study for King County, Washington and Incorporated Areas. Flood Insurance Study Number 53033CV001B. May 16. ———. n.d. National Flood Hazard Layer GIS Data for King County. Hruby, T. 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington, 2014 Update. (Publication #14-06-029). Olympia, WA: Washington State Department of Ecology. Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. 2021. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. Prepared for King County Metro Transit Department. Draft. October. Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. and HDR Inc. 2021. King County Metro, Metro Transit RapidRide I Line, King County, 60% Submittal. November. King County. 2016. Surface Water Design Manual. Department of Natural Resources and Parks. April 24. ———. 2019. Wetlands, streams, and waterbodies dataset. Last updated June 21, 2019. https://gis-kingcounty.opendata.arcgis.com/. Accessed December 2019. ———. n.d. King County iMap. https://gismaps.kingcounty.gov/iMap/. Accessed February 2022. 6-2 Renton Critical Areas Report King County Metro Transit Department (Metro). 2020. KCMT 2020-2021 Standard Details: Metro Transit Capital Division, Transit Passenger Facilities – Improvement. May. King County Metro Transit Department and Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. (Metro and Jacobs). 2021. City of Renton Arborist Report for RapidRide I Line. Draft, November 2021. Northwest Indian Fisheries and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2018. Statewide Washington Integrated Fish Distribution dataset. Accessed April 21, 2020. https://data-wdfw.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets /statewide-washington-integrated-fish-distribution. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0). May. ———. 2020. National Wetland Plant List, Version 3.5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH. http://wetland_plants.usace.army.mil/. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). n.d. Soil Survey Geographic database. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App /WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed November 2021. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2020. National Wetland Inventory Wetlands Mapper. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/. Accessed May 2020. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). n.d.-a. Priority Habitat and Species Map in the vicinity of Township 26 North, Range 05 East, Section 7. http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/phsontheweb/. Accessed February 2, 2022. Washington Department of Health. n.d. Source Water Assessment Program Mapping Application. https://fortress.wa.gov/doh/swap/. Accessed December 2021. Washington Department of Natural Resources. n.d. Washington Geologic Information Portal. https://geologyportal.dnr.wa.gov/2d-view#natural_hazards?-13939287,- 13000029,5803322,6244822?Surface_Geology,500k_Surface_ Geology,Geologic_Units_500K. Accessed December 2021. Renton Critical Areas Report Appendix A: Critical Areas Maps S 2nd St Logan Ave SS 3rd St Rai n i e r Av e SS 7th St S h a tt u c k Av e SLake Ave S S G ra d y W a y T a l b o t Rd S Kent Renton 6 9 8 7 4 5 3 2 1 10 City of RentonCritical AreasMap 1 of 10RapidRide I Line Project ¯ 0 360 720Feet Document Path: C:\Users\rotonda\OneDrive - Jacobs\Misc\Scratch GIS\I Line\MXD\Renton_CritAreas_v0.mxdNote: Wetland and stream inventory occurred at 10% design(2020). Wetland boundaries are approximate except wheredenoted with a "-D" in the suffix. Geologic Hazard TypeSteepSlopesCoalmineErosionLandslideSeismic Wetland Stream CenterlineConstructionFootprintRapidRideI Line Route City Boundary 300ft Study Area FEMA Floodway S 7th St Sh a tt u c k Av e SLake Ave S S G ra d y W a y T a l b o t R d S I -4 0 5 S 15th St WRN-03-P WRN-04-D SRN-03/Rolling Hills CreekConstruction Footprint Sheet 1C4.06No Station WRN-01-D WRN-02-P SRN-01SR N-02 AH AH Kent Renton 6 9 8 7 4 5 3 2 1 10 City of RentonCritical AreasMap 2 of 10RapidRide I Line Project ¯ 0 330 660Feet Document Path: C:\Users\rotonda\OneDrive - Jacobs\Misc\Scratch GIS\I Line\MXD\Renton_CritAreas_v0.mxdNote: Wetland and stream inventory occurred at 10% design(2020). Wetland boundaries are approximate except wheredenoted with a "-D" in the suffix. Geologic Hazard TypeSteepSlopesCoalmineErosionLandslideSeismic Wetland Stream CenterlineConstructionFootprintRapidRideI Line Route City Boundary 300ft Study Area FEMA Floodway S 21st St Benson Dr SS 15th St WRN-03-P WRN-04-D SRN-03/Rolling Hills Creek WRN-06-P WRN-07-P WRN-05-P Construction Footprint Construction FootprintSheet 1C2.11Sheet 1S1.12Station Number 59830 SRN-02 Kent Renton 6 9 8 7 4 5 3 2 1 10 City of RentonCritical AreasMap 3 of 10RapidRide I Line Project ¯ 0 240 480Feet Document Path: C:\Users\rotonda\OneDrive - Jacobs\Misc\Scratch GIS\I Line\MXD\Renton_CritAreas_v0.mxdNote: Wetland and stream inventory occurred at 10% design(2020). Wetland boundaries are approximate except wheredenoted with a "-D" in the suffix. Geologic Hazard TypeSteepSlopesCoalmineErosionLandslideSeismic Wetland Stream CenterlineConstructionFootprintRapidRideI Line Route City Boundary 300ft Study Area FEMA Floodway S 23rd St S 21st St Benson Dr STalbot Rd SWRN-06-P WRN-07-P WRN-05-P S 26th St Sheet 1C4.12Sheet 1S1.14Station Number 59944 Kent Renton 6 9 8 7 4 5 3 2 1 10 City of RentonCritical AreasMap 4 of 10RapidRide I Line Project ¯ 0 270 540Feet Document Path: C:\Users\rotonda\OneDrive - Jacobs\Misc\Scratch GIS\I Line\MXD\Renton_CritAreas_v0.mxdNote: Wetland and stream inventory occurred at 10% design(2020). Wetland boundaries are approximate except wheredenoted with a "-D" in the suffix. Geologic Hazard TypeSteepSlopesCoalmineErosionLandslideSeismic Wetland Stream CenterlineConstructionFootprintRapidRideI Line Route City Boundary 300ft Study Area FEMA Floodway S 27th St Talbot Rd SS 32nd St WRN-08-P S 26th St Construction FootprintSheet 1C2.13Sheet 1S1.16Station Number 60359 Sheet 1C2.13Sheet 1S1.15Station Number 59951 SRN-04 SRN-05 Kent Renton 6 9 8 7 4 5 3 2 1 10 City of RentonCritical AreasMap 5 of 10RapidRide I Line Project ¯ 0 240 480Feet Document Path: C:\Users\rotonda\OneDrive - Jacobs\Misc\Scratch GIS\I Line\MXD\Renton_CritAreas_v0.mxdNote: Wetland and stream inventory occurred at 10% design(2020). Wetland boundaries are approximate except wheredenoted with a "-D" in the suffix. Geologic Hazard TypeSteepSlopesCoalmineErosionLandslideSeismic Wetland Stream CenterlineConstructionFootprintRapidRideI Line Route City Boundary 300ft Study Area FEMA Floodway S 43rd St Talbot Rd SS Carr RdWRN-09-P WRN-11-P WRN-10-P WRN-12-P SRN-12 Sheet 1C4.15Sheet 1C2.15Sheet 1S1.19Sheet 1S1.20 Construction FootprintSheet 1C2.16Sheet 1S1.21Station Number 60340 SRN-08SRN-05 SRN-07 / Panther Creek Kent Renton 6 9 8 7 4 5 3 2 1 10 City of RentonCritical AreasMap 6 of 10RapidRide I Line Project ¯ 0 270 540Feet Document Path: C:\Users\rotonda\OneDrive - Jacobs\Misc\Scratch GIS\I Line\MXD\Renton_CritAreas_v0.mxdNote: Wetland and stream inventory occurred at 10% design(2020). Wetland boundaries are approximate except wheredenoted with a "-D" in the suffix. Geologic Hazard TypeSteepSlopesCoalmineErosionLandslideSeismic Wetland Stream CenterlineConstructionFootprintRapidRideI Line Route City Boundary 300ft Study Area FEMA Floodway 105th Pl SESE 180th St SE Carr Rd WRN-10-P WRN-12-P WRN-13-PSRN-12 108th Ave SESE 184th Ln SRN-11 Construction FootprintSheet 1C2.16Sheet 1S1.22Station Number 59390 Construction FootprintSheet 1C2.16Sheet 1S1.21Station Number 60340 Sheet 1C2.22Sheet 1S1.27Station Number 57300 SRN-09 Kent Renton 6 9 8 7 4 5 3 2 1 10 City of RentonCritical AreasMap 7 of 10RapidRide I Line Project ¯ 0 440 880Feet Document Path: C:\Users\rotonda\OneDrive - Jacobs\Misc\Scratch GIS\I Line\MXD\Renton_CritAreas_v0.mxdNote: Wetland and stream inventory occurred at 10% design(2020). Wetland boundaries are approximate except wheredenoted with a "-D" in the suffix. Geologic Hazard TypeSteepSlopesCoalmineErosionLandslideSeismic Wetland Stream CenterlineConstructionFootprintRapidRideI Line Route City Boundary 300ft Study Area FEMA Floodway SE 180th St SE 184th Ln SE 188th St 108th Ave SEWRN-14-P WRN-15-P Sheet 1C2.22Sheet 1S1.27Station Number 57300Pant her Creek Out si de of Study AreaKent Renton 6 9 8 7 4 5 3 2 1 10 City of RentonCritical AreasMap 8 of 10RapidRide I Line Project ¯ 0 290 580Feet Document Path: C:\Users\rotonda\OneDrive - Jacobs\Misc\Scratch GIS\I Line\MXD\Renton_CritAreas_v0.mxdNote: Wetland and stream inventory occurred at 10% design(2020). Wetland boundaries are approximate except wheredenoted with a "-D" in the suffix. Geologic Hazard TypeSteepSlopesCoalmineErosionLandslideSeismic Wetland Stream CenterlineConstructionFootprintRapidRideI Line Route City Boundary 300ft Study Area FEMA Floodway Panther Creek Renton KentSE 192nd St SE 188th St 108th Ave SEWRN-14-P WRN-15-P WKN-01-P WRN-16-P Sheet 1C2.22Sheet 1S1.27Station Number 57300 Volume 2 - City of KentSheet 2C2.01Panther Cr eek Out s i de of St udy Ar ea Kent Renton 6 9 8 7 4 5 3 2 1 10 City of RentonCritical AreasMap 9 of 10RapidRide I Line Project ¯ 0 290 580Feet Document Path: C:\Users\rotonda\OneDrive - Jacobs\Misc\Scratch GIS\I Line\MXD\Renton_CritAreas_v0.mxdNote: Wetland and stream inventory occurred at 10% design(2020). Wetland boundaries are approximate except wheredenoted with a "-D" in the suffix. Geologic Hazard TypeSteepSlopesCoalmineErosionLandslideSeismic Wetland Stream CenterlineConstructionFootprintRapidRideI Line Route City Boundary 300ft Study Area FEMA Floodway Renton Kent Panther Creek 108th Ave SESE 200th St SE 196th St WKN-01-P WKN-02-P Kent Renton 6 9 8 7 4 5 3 2 1 10 City of RentonCritical AreasMap 10 of 10RapidRide I Line Project ¯ 0 290 580Feet Document Path: C:\Users\rotonda\OneDrive - Jacobs\Misc\Scratch GIS\I Line\MXD\Renton_CritAreas_v0.mxdNote: Wetland and stream inventory occurred at 10% design(2020). Wetland boundaries are approximate except wheredenoted with a "-D" in the suffix. Geologic Hazard TypeSteepSlopesCoalmineErosionLandslideSeismic Wetland Stream CenterlineConstructionFootprintRapidRideI Line Route City Boundary 300ft Study Area FEMA Floodway Renton Critical Areas Report Appendix B: 60% Geotechnical Report Draft November 2021 RapidRide I Line Geotechnical Engineering Report King County Metro Transit Version Information Version Date Project Manager Approval Notes A(draft) November 2021 i Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations ......................................................... iv 1 Introduction ............................................................................ 1 1.1 Site Location and Description .......................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose and Scope .......................................................................... 1 1.3 Pertinent Reports and Investigations .............................................. 1 1.3.1 Renton ...................................................................................1 1.3.2 Kent .......................................................................................2 1.3.3 Auburn ....................................................................................2 1.4 Limitations ...................................................................................... 3 2 Field Explorations .................................................................... 5 2.1 Geotechnical Subsurface Explorations ............................................. 5 2.1.1 Geotechnical Instrumentation Installed in Explorations ...................7 2.2 Laboratory Testing .......................................................................... 9 2.3 Falling Weight Deflectometer Testing .............................................. 9 3 Site Characterization ............................................................. 12 3.1 Geologic Setting ............................................................................ 12 3.1.1 Renton ................................................................................. 12 3.1.2 Kent ..................................................................................... 13 3.1.3 Auburn ................................................................................. 14 3.2 Faulting and Seismicity ................................................................. 14 3.3 Subsurface Condition ..................................................................... 15 3.3.1 Renton ................................................................................. 15 3.3.2 Kent ..................................................................................... 17 3.3.3 Auburn ................................................................................. 18 3.4 Groundwater ................................................................................. 19 ii 4 Analyses and Recommendations ........................................... 21 4.1 Seismic Design Considerations ...................................................... 21 4.1.1 Design Seismic Event .............................................................. 21 4.1.2 Design Seismic Motion ............................................................ 21 4.2 Seismic Hazard Evaluations ........................................................... 24 4.2.1 Liquefaction Potential .............................................................. 24 4.2.2 Liquefaction-Induced Settlement ............................................... 25 4.3 Retaining Wall Design Recommendations ...................................... 26 4.3.1 Bearing Capacity .................................................................... 26 4.3.2 Lateral Earth Pressure ............................................................. 27 4.4 Signal Pole and Luminaire Design Recommendation ..................... 32 4.5 Infiltration Screening Analyses and Recommendation .................. 33 4.6 Pavement Design ........................................................................... 36 4.6.1 Methodology .......................................................................... 36 4.6.2 ESAL Calculation .................................................................... 38 4.6.3 Subgrade Resilient Modulus ..................................................... 40 4.6.4 Results ................................................................................. 41 5 Construction Considerations ................................................. 43 6 References ............................................................................ 45 Tables Table 1. Summary of Geotechnical Field Explorations ................................................6 Table 2. Monitoring Wells with Level Troll Data Loggers along the Project Alignment ......8 Table 3. Falling Weight Deflectometer Testing Results ............................................. 10 Table 4. Major Faults within 30 Miles of the Project Site .......................................... 15 Table 5. Groundwater Elevation in Monitoring Wells at Time of Transducer Installation . 19 Table 6. Seismic Design Parameters at Each Boring Location .................................... 22 Table 7. Estimated Liquefaction-Induced Settlement ............................................... 25 iii Table 8. Allowable Bearing Pressure for Shallow Foundations Supporting Retaining Walls ..................................................................................................................... 26 Table 9. Earth Pressure Coefficients ..................................................................... 28 Table 10. Equivalent Fluid Pressure – Static Lateral Earth Pressure ........................... 30 Table 11. Estimated Engineering Parameters for Signal Pole and Luminaire Design ...... 32 Table 12. Estimated Hydraulic Conductivity at Proposed Locations for Pervious Sidewalk or Shelter Drainage ........................................................................................... 34 Table 13. Measured Groundwater Elevation at Proposed Locations for Detention Tanks 35 Table 14. Yearly Traffic Equivalent Single Axle Loads .............................................. 38 Table 15. Design Equivalent Single Axle Loads for 20 and 50 Years ........................... 39 Table 16. Subgrade Resilient Modulus Values ........................................................ 40 Table 17. Pavement Design Analysis Summary ...................................................... 41 Figures Figure 1. Rapid Ride I Line Project Alignment Figure 2A. Renton to Kent Geology Map Figure 2B. Kent to Auburn Geology Map Figure 3. Historic Seismicity and Potentially Active Faults Figure 4. Potentially Liquefiable Zones at Liquefaction-Susceptible Locations along S Grady Way in Renton Figure 5. Potentially Liquefiable Zones at Liquefaction-Susceptible Locations on E Smith Avenue in Kent Figure 6. Potentially Liquefiable Zones at Liquefaction-Susceptible Locations along Auburn Way N in Auburn Figure 7. Cumulative Liquefaction-Induced Settlement along Depth at Liquefaction- Susceptible Locations in Renton Figure 8. Cumulative Liquefaction-Induced Settlement along Depth at Liquefaction- Susceptible Locations in Kent Figure 9. Cumulative Liquefaction-Induced Settlement along Depth at Liquefaction- Susceptible Locations in Auburn iv Acronyms and Abbreviations AADT Annual Average Directional Traffic AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials As design Peak Acceleration, in units of g ASTM ASTM International (formerly American Society for Testing and Materials) bgs below ground surface cm/s centimeter(s) per second DNR Washington Department of Natural Resources El. Elevation ESAL equivalent single axle load FPGA site coefficient for PGA FWD falling weight deflectometer GDM Geotechnical Design Manual GPS global positioning system HAS hollow stem auger HWA Hong West & Associates IB inbound km kilometers ksi kilopound(s) per square inch LRFD Load and Resistance Factor Design LT left turn N-value sum of second and third SPT blow counts v NAVD88 North American Vertical Datum of 1988 OB outbound pcf pound(s) per cubic foot PGA peak ground acceleration psf pound(s) per square foot RT right turn SPT standard penetration test SR State Route USGS U.S. Geological Survey WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation 1 1 Introduction 1.1 Site Location and Description Located in south King County, Washington, the planned Metro RapidRide I Line corridor extends from S 2nd Street in Renton to 2nd Street SW in Auburn, passing through State Route (SR) 515, SR 516, and Central Avenue S in Kent. The project alignment is shown on Figure 1. 1.2 Purpose and Scope The purpose of this geotechnical report is to provide geotechnical data and recommendations to support development of contract documents for the construction of retaining walls, utilities, stormwater infrastructure, signal pole foundations, and other road improvements associated with the planned King County Metro Transit (Metro) RapidRide I Line Project. This report presents the results of the geotechnical engineering investigation, including a description of subsurface conditions; a site plan showing exploration locations and other pertinent features; a summary of boring logs; and laboratory test results. The report provides geotechnical recommendations for each of the proposed improvements. 1.3 Pertinent Reports and Investigations As part of this study, Jacobs collected and reviewed existing geologic, seismic, soil, and groundwater data available on Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Geologic Information Portal (2010). The most pertinent documents reviewed for each city include the following: 1.3.1 Renton  Geotech Consultant Inc., Geotechnical Engineering Study-Proposed Southport Mix- Use Development, 1101 Lake Washington Boulevard North, Renton, WA, April 1999  Converse Consultants NW, Geotechnical Testing Report, Lake Washington Boulevard/North Park Drive Improvements, Renton, WA, November 1991  Nelson-Couvrette & Associates, Inc., Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation, Lakeridge Skyway Residential Development, King County Washington for Lakeridge Development, December 2000 2  Geoengineers, Geotechnical Engineering Services-Liberty Park Library, Renton, Washington, for King County Library System, December 2012  Washington State Department of Transportation, SR405, OL-3478, SR405/167 Interchange Flyover Ramp Geotechnical Recommendations, August 1999  Washington State Department of Transportation, Soils Report: SR167-Vic. 84th Ave. I/C to S. Grady Way Resurface, MP 21.66 to MP 26.48 PI 11072X, March 1984  Geotech Consultants, Geotechnical Engineering Study: Proposed Mini Storage Facility, Southeast 174th St and State Highway 515, King County, Washington, June 1987  Hong West & Associates (HWA), Geotechnical Investigation: State Route 167, 15th St SW to South Grady Way, South King County, Washington, March 1992  Earth Solutions NW LLC, Geotechnical Engineering Study: Proposed Panther Lane Residential Development, 10321 SE 192nd St, King County, Renton, Washington, May 2007  Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Report: Benson Hill Elementary Schoon, Renton, Washington, February 1999 1.3.2 Kent  Pacific Environmental Group, Inc., Environmental Site Assessment: Chevron U.S.A. Service Station #60093594, 10120 SE 256th Street, Kent, Washington, November 1992  Fluor Daniel GTI, Site Assessment Report: The Southland Corporation, South land Facility #25303, 511 South Central Avenue, Kent, Washington, October 1997  Way, Grover C., P.E., Consulting Soil Engineer, Soil Investigation: Junior High School N. 8 for Kent School District N. 415, Kent, Washington, March 2000  Metropolitan Engineers, Final Report: Site Investigation-Mill Creek Interceptor, Kent, Washington, January 1969 1.3.3 Auburn  Terra Associates, Inc., Geotechnical Report: Emerald North, Auburn, Washington, August 2002  Earth Consultant Inc., Geotechnical Engineering Study: Proposed Support Services Facility Warehouse, Auburn, Washington, October 1990  Terra Associates, Inc., Geotechnical Report: Emerald Corporate Park, 37th St NE, Auburn, Washington, June 1998 3  Redmond and Associates, Geotechnical Investigation: Proposed New Chevron Food Mart Site, 1501 Auburn Way North, Auburn (King County), Washington, June 1998  CH2M HILL Northwest, Inc., Tacoma Second Water Supply Project Special Crossing Draft Geotechnical Data Report, July 1994  Creative Engineering Options, Inc., Geotechnical Engineering Study: Proposed Restaurant, 12th Street NE Auburn Way N, Auburn, Washington, June 1995  GN Northern, Inc. Geotechnical Study Report: Proposed Fred Meyer Gas Station Project, Auburn, Washington, November 2001  Shannon & Wilson, Inc., Underground Storage Tank Site Check, Brown Bear Carwash—Auburn 3, Auburn, Washington, September 1995  Pacific Testing Laboratories, Les Schwab Tire Centers: Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Recommendations, Auburn Way North and 26th St NE, Auburn, Washington, April 1997 1.4 Limitations This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Metro and Jacobs for specific application to support the development of contract documents for the construction of retaining walls, utilities, stormwater infrastructure, signal pole foundations, and other road improvements associated with the planned Metro RapidRide I Line Project. The report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. The data, analysis, and recommendations contained in this report are based on the geotechnical explorations during the 2021 geotechnical exploration program by Jacobs. Exploration data indicate subsurface conditions only at specific locations and times, and only to the depths penetrated; they do not reflect strata variations that may exist between such locations. Subsurface conditions and water levels at other locations may differ from conditions occurring at these locations. The nature and extent of variation may not become evident until exposed during construction. The passage of time may result in a change in the conditions at these locations. Therefore, inaccuracies of the subsurface conditions and soil strength properties used in the analyses and conclusions should be expected. If variations in ground surface and subsurface conditions from those described are noted, conclusions in this report must be re-evaluated. If any changes in the nature, design, or location of the facilities are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report should not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed, and conclusions of this report modified or verified in writing by Jacobs. Jacobs is not responsible for any claims, damages, or liability 4 associated with the interpretations of subsurface data or reuse of the subsurface data without the express written authorization of Jacobs. 5 2 Field Explorations 2.1 Geotechnical Subsurface Explorations To characterize the subsurface conditions in support of retaining wall, signal pole and luminaire foundation design, and infiltration potential screening, a geotechnical field exploration was planned and conducted by Jacobs from June 17 to July 23, 2021. The geotechnical field investigation included drilling 23 hollow stem auger (HSA) soil borings along the project alignment. Groundwater monitoring wells were also installed at six of these borings to monitor groundwater fluctuations over time for developing recommendations for infiltration and retaining wall design. The boring locations along the project alignment are shown in the geotechnical exploration plans included in Appendix A, Geotechnical Exploration Plans. Table 1 summarizes these field explorations. The borings were drilled using truck-mounted mobile B-58 and B-60 rigs capable of performing HSA drilling with a mobile auto hammer. Based on the reports provided by Holt Services Inc., the hammers have an average energy transfer ratio of 83 and 88 percent, respectively. The drill rigs are equipped with a 7.5-inch-diameter HSA. The soil borings were drilled to the depths ranging from 7.5 feet to 40 feet below ground surface (bgs). Jacobs specified the global positioning system (GPS) coordinates for the proposed boring locations and depths, sampled intervals of the borings, logged materials encountered, and observed the drilling and sampling operations. Soil samples were collected at 2.5-foot intervals from the ground surface to 15 feet bgs and at 5-foot intervals thereafter to the bottom of the boreholes, in general accordance with ASTM International (ASTM) D-1586, Standard Test Method for Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils. Representative soil samples were collected using a 2-inch outside diameter SPT split-spoon sampler driven 18 inches. The blow counts were recorded for every 6 inches of penetration. The blow counts for the last 12 inches of penetration represent the field N-values. The soil boring logs are included in Appendix B, Boring Logs. 6 Table 1. Summary of Geotechnical Field Explorations City Boring Number Coordinate (degree) Ground Surface Elevation (feet, NAVD88) Boring Depth (feet) Exploration Purpose Renton B-1W-21 47.471608, - 122.213082 25.97 35 For stormwater infiltration design B-2-21 47.472376, - 122.210191 28.64 40 For stormwater infiltration design B-3-21 47.472683, - 122.209151 30.48 40 For retaining wall, stormwater infiltration, and signal foundation design B-4W-21 47.470801, - 122.207859 32.7 30 For retaining wall design B-5-21 47.459157, - 122.212039 193,94 20 for retaining wall and signal foundation design B-6-21 47.450443, - 122.211144 101.67 25 For retaining wall design B-7-21 47.442588, - 122.212114 108.1 30 For retaining wall design B-8-21 47.444873, - 122.199990 354.3 25 For retaining wall design B-9W-21 47.445209, - 122.198263 379.24 30 For stormwater infiltration design B-10-21 47.436954, - 122.197002 461.85 25 For retaining wall design Kent B-11-21 47.429823, - 122.197029 450.5 25 For retaining wall design B-12-21 47.416878, - 122.197021 443.13 20 For retaining wall design B-13-21 47.416399, - 122.196909 435.45 25 For retaining wall design B-15-21 47.388026, - 122.202105 424.39 12.5 For retaining wall design 7 Table 1. Summary of Geotechnical Field Explorations City Boring Number Coordinate (degree) Ground Surface Elevation (feet, NAVD88) Boring Depth (feet) Exploration Purpose B-17-21 47.374174, - 122.202359 404.94 25 For retaining wall design B-19-21 47.372607, - 122.207301 382.3 7.5 For retaining wall design B-21W-21 47.383353, - 122.226227 45.65 30 For retaining wall design B-22-21 47.383369, - 122.230765 41.72 35 For signal foundation design Auburn B-29-21 47.351422, - 122.227151 51.72 25 For liquefaction analysis B-31W-21 47.325774, - 122.221525 63.15 25 For liquefaction analysis B-32-21 47.320331, - 122.221514 71.2 25 For signal foundation design B-33W-21 47.316443, - 122.222568 74.41 25 For stormwater infiltration design B-34-21 47.314607, - 122.224414 75.86 28.9 For light pole foundation design NAVD88 = North American Vertical Datum of 1988 2.1.1 Geotechnical Instrumentation Installed in Explorations Groundwater monitoring wells were installed at six borings along the corridor to monitor groundwater fluctuations. Data logging transducer (level troll data logger) was also installed in the wells to measure water levels over time. The water level information collected will be used in developing recommendations for infiltration and retaining wall design. Table 2 presents the installed wells and locations. 8 PMOC template Table 2. Monitoring Wells with Level Troll Data Loggers along the Project Alignment City Location Boring Number Well ID Boring Depth, feet (NAVD88) Piezometer Level Troll Data Logger Installation Depth, feet Bottom Depth, ft Screen Interval, feet (bgs) Renton S Grady Way/Shattuck Ave S B-1W-21 BNN 115 35 25.4 14.8 – 24.8 20 Talbot Rd S/Renton Village Pl B-4W-21 BNN 116 30 28.5 25 SE Carr Rd/106th Pl SE B-9W-21 BNN 114 30 29.5 19.3 – 29.3 25.3 Kent E Smith St/E Titus St B-21W-21 BNN 117 30 25.6 15-25 20 Auburn Auburn Way N/21st St N B-31W-21 BKX 381 25 23.3 14-24 19 Auburn Way N/ 10th St NE B-33W-21 BNN 118 25 24 14-24 19 9 PMOC template 9 PMOC template 9 PMOC template 2.2 Laboratory Testing A laboratory testing program was developed to provide classification and engineering properties of the selected soil samples obtained from the geotechnical borings. The soil laboratory testing was conducted by Hong West & Associates (HWA), under subcontract to Jacobs. Soil laboratory testing was performed using the following methods:  ASTM D2216, Standard Test Method for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass.  ASTM D1140, Standard Test Methods for Determining the Amount of Material Finer Than the No. 200 Sieve in Soils.  ASTM D6913, Standard Test Methods for Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) of Soils Using Sieve Analysis.  ASTM D4318, Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils. Liquid limit was tested using multi-point method.  ASTM D2974, Standard Test Methods for Determining the Water (Moisture) Content, Ash Content, and Organic Material of Peat and Other Organic Soils. Moisture content Method A (oven dried at 105 degrees Celsius [°C]) and ash content Method C (burned at 440°C) were followed. Jacobs engineers reviewed the laboratory test results for completeness and reasonableness. The results of the laboratory testing are presented in Appendix C, Laboratory Testing Results. 2.3 Falling Weight Deflectometer Testing The falling weight deflectometer (FWD) testing was performed to support pavement design planned for this project. Non-destructive pavement evaluation with the FWD was done along the project alignment in accordance with ASTM D4694, Standard Test Method for Deflections with a Falling-Weight-Type Impulse Load Device and ASTM D4695, Standard Guide for General Pavement Deflection Measurements. FWD tests were conducted on the pavement of the outermost lane every 200 feet. If testing was required along both sides of an undivided road, tests were done on the outermost lane every 400 feet in each direction, staggering the test locations so that there were 200 feet between test points. Analyzed electronic data from FWD measurements, including maximum deflection, and in-place determination of the appropriate modulus for the pavement structure and the subgrade at each location are presented in Table 3. 10 PMOC template 10 PMOC template 10 PMOC template Pavement cores are planned to be obtained at 10 locations along the alignment during the 90% design phase to determine existing pavement thickness and sections. Table 3. Falling Weight Deflectometer Testing Results City Location Station Average of Maximum Deflections Normalized to 9,000-pound Loada Average Subgrade Resilient Modulus,a ksi From To Renton Morris Ave S 0+00 0+41 7.8 9.1 Grady Way WB 24+80 11+10 24+30 6.4 11.3 Grady Way EB 22+57 22+57 34+50 4.1 16.9 Talbot Rd SB 10+50 10+69 21+54 5.4 14.2 Talbot Rd NB 17+00 10+70 17+00 5.8 13.7 Talbot Rd NB 73+75 71+51 73+75 6.7 16.3 Talbot Rd SB 73+60 73+60 75+39 3.7 19.2 SE Carr Rd EB 45+60 46+00 52+71 2.9 25.1 Kent 108th Ave NB 16+00 14+24 16+00 2.4 29.6 108th Ave NB 31+50 30+51 31+50 2.1 34.7 108th Ave SB 101+50 101+50 104+00 2.8 26 108th Ave NB 106+50 105+20 106+44 2.7 29.7 108th Ave NB 112+50 110+00 112+50 2.0 35.9 108th Ave SB 107+70 108+42 109+51 2.4 29.4 104th Ave NB 51+80 49+61 51+73 3.1 23 104th Ave SB 50+40 50+03 58+01 3.4 21.4 104th Ave SB 102+15 102+04 102+48 3.3 21.8 256th St EB 12+30 12+08 18+04 2.3 32.7 E Smith St WB 13+00 10+51 12+55 6.8 10.3 E Smith St EB 13+50 14+26 19+79 5.2 13.5 Auburn Auburn Way SB 135+60 136+07 136+70 6.4 10.9 Auburn Way SB 150+00 150+00 153+00 3.5 20.8 11 PMOC template 11 PMOC template 11 PMOC template Table 3. Falling Weight Deflectometer Testing Results City Location Station Average of Maximum Deflections Normalized to 9,000-pound Loada Average Subgrade Resilient Modulus,a ksi From To a Values at a depth of 36 inches. EB = eastbound ksi = kilopound(s) per square inch NB = northbound SB = southbound WB = westbound 12 PMOC template 12 PMOC template 12 PMOC template 3 Site Characterization 3.1 Geologic Setting The project site is located in the southeastern part of the Puget Sound lowland. The local geology consists of Tertiary-age sedimentary rocks overlain by unconsolidated Quaternary-age glacial and alluvial deposits. The following geologic descriptions are summarized from Schuster et al. (2015), Mullineaux (1965a, 1965b), and the DNR Geologic Information Portal (2010). Figures 2A and 2B show geographic information system-based geologic maps of the alignment; refer to the figures for map unit abbreviations. 3.1.1 Renton Geologic units that underlie the northern end of the alignments in the Renton area include urban land with artificial fill, alluvium, recessional glacial drift, and sedimentary rocks. The following geologic units are described in more detail as follows:  afm: Urban or industrial land modified by widespread or discontinuous artificial fill materials.  Qac: This unit consists of alluvium deposited by the Cedar River, which is chiefly sand and gravel with thin beds of silt, clay, and peat mostly at the edges of a fan-shaped fill in Duwamish Valley on the southwest side of Renton, north of Interstate 405 (I-405). The maximum thickness of this unit is estimated to be 100 feet.  Qis: Near I-405, the alignment crosses a deposit recessional stratified glacial drift. The unit is glaciofluvial deposits (deposited as the ice front was receding) and consist primarily of unweathered well-sorted sand and gravel. In the vicinity of the proposed alignment, the Qis consists of sand, silt, and clay deposited in and ice-dammed lake in Duwamish Valley.  Qgt: South of I-405, the alignment climbs up on ground moraine deposits of thin ablation till (recessional till) overlying lodgment till (advancing till). The lodgment till is generally dense, compact, coherent unsorted mixture of sand, silt, clay, and gravel. Ablation till is similar, but much less dense and compact. This unit is highly variable in thickness; where the lodgment till is 5 to 30 feet thick and the ablation till is 2 to 10 feet thick. This deposit forms an irregular surface characterized by southeastward- trending hills and swales and is commonly overlain by thin sand, clay, or peat. Lodgment till is nearly impermeable and relatively difficult to excavate. 13 PMOC template 13 PMOC template 13 PMOC template Immediately south of I-405 to 2 miles south of Renton, where the alignment veers west of SR 515 and runs between SR 515 and SR 167, the alignment overlies the Tertiary-age Renton and Tukwila formations along the edge of the Duwamish Valley. These units are described as follows:  Tr: The Renton Formation crops out in the hills south of Renton and along the east side of the Duwamish Valley. The Renton Formation is described as arkosic sandstone, mudstone, and shale, that contains beds of coal.  Tt: The Tukwila Formation underlies the Renton Formation and also crops out along the east side of the Duwamish Valley. The Tukwila Formation is divided into three members. The upper member consists primarily of tuffaceous sandstone, conglomerate, mudstone, mudflow deposits; the middle member consists of arkosic sandstone, mudstone, shale, and claystone. The lower member is similar to the upper member but also contains some lava flows. The combined thickness of these two formations is as much as 5,000 feet. These units are folded into anticline and synclines south of Renton.  Ti: Small, irregularly shaped body of porphyritic andesite is also mapped near the proposed alignment. This intrusive igneous body is intersected by numerous faults and joints, and by veins of clay, calcite, and quartz. This rock is hard and used locally as riprap. 3.1.2 Kent The project alignment in Kent continues to cross rolling glaciated terrain underlain by ground moraine deposits (Qgt) of thin ablation till (recessional till) and overlying lodgment till (advancing till). These deposits are described in Section 3.1.1. Near the vicinity of Kent, where the alignment turns northwest and follows SR 516 along the Mill Creek Valley toward Kent, the alignment is underlain by the following geologic units:  afm: Much of the town of Kent is underlain by urban or industrial land, modified by widespread or discontinuous artificial fill materials.  Qit: These are kame terrace deposits that consist of sand and gravel in scattered terraces. The surfaces of these terraces are locally deformed by extensive collapse. These sediments were deposited underwater in ice-margin meltwater in contact with glacial ice, and thus were saturated at the time of deposition.  Qss: The lower part of Mill Creek Valley near Kent is occupied by the Salmon Springs glacial drift, which is predominantly fluvial sand and gravel with interbedded silt, clay, and peat. Some parts of this unit contain a tight silt and clay matrix and is generally 14 PMOC template 14 PMOC template 14 PMOC template stained brown by iron oxide. The maximum known thickness of this unit is about 150 feet. 3.1.3 Auburn South of Kent, and along the Auburn Segment, the alignment overlies the flat lowlands of alluvium deposited by the White River during its original course, described as follows:  Qaw: This unit is alluvium of White River and is comprised chiefly of sand and silt clay deposited by the White and Green Rivers before diversion of the White River in 1906. This deposit contains curvilinear channel gravels and thin peat lenses. The upper part consists primarily of clayey silt and fine sand, with a thickness up to 30 to 40 feet near Kent. The lower part is mostly medium and coarse sand deposited by the White River with a thickness of more than 75 feet. These sediments include glassy volcanic material that is possibly reactive in some concrete. 3.2 Faulting and Seismicity The proposed project alignment is in the seismically active region of the Pacific Northwest. Tectonic structure and stresses in this region are primarily associated with the subduction of the Juan de Fuca Plate under the North American Plate. Within this tectonic environment, seismic events in this region may result from the following source mechanisms:  Interplate events associated with the Cascadia Subduction Zone: Very large earthquakes of an estimated magnitude of 8 to 9 are believed to have originated at irregular intervals offshore from Oregon and Washington. These earthquakes are believed to have occurred at the interface of the Juan de Fuca Plate where it subducts under the North America Plate. Earthquakes occurring on the subduction zone will likely be located at distances of more than 100 miles from the project site.  Intraplate events: Most of the historic earthquakes that have affected western Washington have been intraplate events, which occurred at depths within the subducting Juan de Fuca Plate. These events included the M7.1 Olympia Earthquake in 1949, the M6.5 Puget Sound (SeaTac) event in 1965, and the M6.8 Nisqually Earthquake in 2001. While the maximum magnitude of the intraplate events is not precisely known, this zone has typically been associated with a maximum earthquake magnitude of 7.5 (Frankel et al. 1996).  Crustal events: These “shallow” earthquakes (10 to 15 miles deep) are caused by movements along the near-surface crustal faults. These faults are believed to be capable of producing seismic events with a magnitude of 7 or greater. Locations of 15 PMOC template 15 PMOC template 15 PMOC template some major Quaternary faults within 50 miles from the project are shown on Figure 3. Known crustal faults within 30 miles of the project site are summarized in Table 4. Table 4. Major Faults within 30 Miles of the Project Site USGS Fault No. USGS Fault Classa Fault Name 539 B Rattlesnake Mountain Fault Zone (RMFZ) 570 A Seattle Fault Zone (SFZ) 572 A Southern Whidbey Island Fault Zone (SWIFZ) 581 A Tacoma Fault Zone (TFZ) Source: U.S. Geological Survey 2014 a Fault Class A is defined as geologic evidence that demonstrates the existence of a Quaternary fault of tectonic origin, whether the fault is exposed by mapping or inferred from liquefaction or other deformational features. Fault Class B is defined as geologic evidence demonstrates the existence of a fault or suggests Quaternary deformation, but either (1) the fault might not extend deeply enough to be a potential source of significant earthquakes, or (2) the currently available geologic evidence is too strong to confidently assign the feature to Class C but not strong enough to assign it to Class A. USGS = U.S. Geological Survey 3.3 Subsurface Condition Based on a review of the information from geotechnical explorations, the subsurface soil condition of each segment is summarized in the following subsections. 3.3.1 Renton The subsurface condition along the project alignment in Renton is described as follows:  S Grady Way (Borings B-1W-21, B-2-21, and B-3-21) The subsurface soil along S Grady Way from west of Shattuck Avenue to Talbot Road S consists of several very loose, low/high plastic organic soils and peat among the other intermittent layers of very loose to medium dense sand, low/high plastic silt and clay, silty/clayey fine to coarse sand, and gravel with SPT N-Value ranging from 0 to 30. The fines content varied from as low as 2 percent in mainly sand/gravel layers to between 7 and 39 percent in silty/clayey soils and up to 78 percent in silt and clay layers. On the west side of Shattuck Avenue S (Boring B-1W-21), these soil layers 16 PMOC template 16 PMOC template 16 PMOC template overlay very dense silty sand and gravel layers at the depth of 35 feet bgs (Elevation [El.] -10 feet). Toward Talbot Road S, at Borings B-2-21 and B-3-21, medium dense to dense (N-SPT=24 to 30) silty/clayey fine to medium sand was reached at the bottom of the borehole at 40 feet bgs (El. of about -10 feet). A noticeable amount of organics was observed at different depths along S Grady Way, with organic content of 27 to 52 percent. The groundwater was encountered at El. of about 15.5 feet at B- 1W-21 and B-2-21, and at about 6.5 feet at B-3-21.  Talbot Road S (Borings B-4W-21, B-5-21, B-6-21, and B-7-21) At the northern part of Talbot Road S, close to Grady Way S (Boring B-4W-21), subsurface soil includes intermittent layers of sand with silt, silty sand, low plastic silt, high plastic organic soil, and peat. The subsurface is mostly very loose/soft to medium dense with N-SPT ranging from 1 to 21. However, right beneath the pavement there is a 1.5-foot-thick layer of very dense, well-graded sand with silt. Going south toward S 23rd Street (Boring B-5-21), the subsurface is more uniform and consists of silty sand down to El. 173 feet. The silty sand between El. 173 feet and 181 feet is dense to very dense, while the silty sand above El. 181 feet is loose to medium dense (N-SPT varying between 3 and 15). Toward the south, between SE 32nd Street and SE Carr Road (Borings B-6-21 and B- 7-21), the subsurface soil consists of mostly silty sand/gravel. Close to B-6-21, the soil profile is more uniform. Right beneath the pavement, there is about 4-foot-thick medium dense, silty fine to coarse, angular to subangular gravel overlaying medium dense to very dense silty fine sand extended to the maximum drilling elevation of about 76 feet (NAVD88). Going south toward SE Carr Road (Boring B-7-21), the soil is less uniform and the N-SPT value is also generally lower than the one at the same elevation at B-6-21. Down to the depth of 9 feet (El. 99 feet), the soil consists of layers of dense, poorly graded sand with silt overlaying very loose/soft silty sand and high plastic silt. Medium dense to dense silty sand (N-SPT 15 to 43) exists below this elevation to maximum depth of drilling (El. 76 feet). In this zone, the groundwater was encountered during drilling at two ends of Talbot Road S, Borings B-4W-21 and B-7-21, at Els. 7 feet and 81 feet, respectively. No water was encountered at the middle borings, B-5-21 and B-6-21, down to El. 173 and 76 feet, respectively.  SE Carr Road (Borings B-8-21 and B-9W-21) Based on the geotechnical data from Borings B-8-21 and B-9W-21, the subsurface soil close to the east end of SE Carr Road is mostly medium dense to very dense, silty fine to coarse sand. Going east toward B-8-21 there is a medium dense, silty angular fine to coarse gravel of less than 4 feet thick directly beneath the pavement. The 17 PMOC template 17 PMOC template 17 PMOC template average fines content for the silty sand layer at this location was about 45 percent. It is while at location of B-9W-21, about 500 feet away toward east, the average fines content is about 21 percent. At this location, there was also a loose to medium dense (N-SPT value of 4 and 25) layer of silty sand at the depth between 2.5 and 6.5 feet bgs. Groundwater was encountered at Els. of about 330 feet and 351 feet, respectively, at locations B-8-21 and B-9W-21.  108th Avenue SE (SR 515) (B-10-21) Subsurface at this subsection is mainly medium dense to very dense (N-SPT varies between 24 and over 50) silty fine to coarse sand with fines content between 12 and 20 percent. The fines content decreases to about 8 percent around the depth of 5 feet bgs where medium dense, poorly graded fine to coarse sand with silt was encountered. No groundwater was encountered down to the maximum drilling El. of 436 feet (NAVD88). 3.3.2 Kent For a description of the subsurface conditions, the project alignment in Kent is divided into the following four subsections:  108th Avenue SE (SR 515) from SE 192nd Street to SE 208th Street (Borings B-11-21, B-12-21, and B-13-21) The subsurface soil in this region consists mainly of medium dense to very dense silty sand (fines content varies between 20 and 50 percent) with less silty sublayers and lenses of fine to coarse sand with silt. At the Boring B-11-21, located at SE 192nd Street, there was a 1-foot layer of medium dense silty gravel with 2 percent organic content directly beneath the pavement. At Boring B-13-21, located at SE 208th Street, loose silty sand with maximum thicknesses of 2.5 feet and an average SPT N- Value of 7 was present at depths of 2.5 and 12.5 feet bgs. The density of the subsurface generally increased by depth in all three borings. The average SPT N- Value was higher than 50 at elevations lower than about 420 and 442 feet (NAVD88), respectively, at SE 208th Street (B-13-21) and between 192nd S and SE 206th Street (B-11-21 and B-12-21). For higher elevations at Borings B-11-21 and B-13-21, the average SPT N-Values are 23 and 14, respectively. Although water was not encountered at Borings B-11-21 and B-13-21 down to the maximum drilling elevations of 426 and 410 feet, respectively, it was detected at about El. 428 feet at Boring B-12-21 in between.  108th Avenue SE (SR 515) from SE 239th Street to SE 253rd Street (Borings B-15-21 and B-17-21) 18 PMOC template 18 PMOC template 18 PMOC template In this subsection, the subsurface soil is relatively uniform, and consists of silty sand with average fines content of 28 percent and fine to coarse sand. There is 1-foot- thick well-graded sand with silt and fine to medium subangular to angular gravel just beneath the pavement at Boring B-15-21. The SPT N-Value is higher than 50 below the depths of 7.5 and 10 feet bgs at locations of B-15-21 and B-17-21, respectively. The average SPT N-Value for shallower depth is 19 at these locations. The groundwater was encountered at El. 382 feet (NAVD88) at B-17-21, while it was not encountered at B-15-21 down to the maximum drilling El. of 411 feet.  SE 256th Street (Boring B-19-21) Down to the maximum drilling depth of 8.5 feet bgs (Elevation of 374 feet), the subsurface soil in this location consists of very dense silty sand with fine content of 27 percent. The amount of silt is less in the 1.5 feet right beneath the pavement and consists of dense, poorly graded fine to coarse sand with silt. Groundwater was not encountered down to the maximum drilling El. of 374 feet.  E Smith Street from E Titus Street to Central Avenue N (Borings B-21W-21 and B-22- 21) Near the E Smith Street at location of Boring B-21W-21, there is a very loose (SPT N- Value=0) silty sand layer with fines content of 26 percent and organic content of 10 percent at the depth of 5 feet bgs, which locates beneath a very dense silty fine to medium, subangular gravel and overlays medium dense silty fine sand over intermittent layers of loose to dense sand/gravel with silt, silty sand, and silt with SPT N-Values range from 7 to 50. Going toward west on E Smith Street, at Boring B-22- 21 and below the pavement and the very dense, silty fine to coarse sand with subangular fine to medium gravel of about 2 feet thick, the subsurface soil consists of intermittent layers of very loose to medium dense (N-SPT ranges from 0 to 22) sand, silty sand, low plastic silt, and organic soils until it reaches a dense, silty fine to medium sand at about El. 6.5 feet. The elevation of the encountered groundwater decreases from El. 43 feet near E Titus Street to El. 23 feet at Central Avenue N. 3.3.3 Auburn The upper 25 feet of the in situ soil along the project alignment in Auburn is comprised primarily of loose to medium dense sand and silty sand with zones of very loose to stiff silt, clay, and organic soils. The SPT N-Value varies between as low as 0 and as high as 63 with an average of 13. At the most northern boring, B-29-21 at intersection of Auburn Way N and NE 49th Street, the subsurface soil is relatively uniform, and consists predominantly of poorly graded fine to medium sand with a thin lens of soft, low plastic clay at the depth of about 21 feet bgs. 19 PMOC template 19 PMOC template 19 PMOC template The average SPT N-Value at this location was 9 down to the depth of 25 feet bgs at which it increased to 46 by encountering the dense, poorly graded sand layer. The amount of silt, clay, and organic soils are generally higher along the alignment toward the south of Auburn, between NE 21st Street and NE 8th Street. It is most noticeable at Boring B-34-21 located at Auburn Way N and NE 8th Street, where a layer of very soft to soft, low to high plastic organic soil with a thickness of about 7 feet presents at depths between 9 and 17 feet bgs. Groundwater was present at all the drilled locations at depths between 10 and 17.5 feet bgs. Overall, the groundwater elevation increased along the alignment toward the south from about 40 feet at NE 49th Street to about 62 feet at Northeast 8th Street (NAVD 88). 3.4 Groundwater Groundwater fluctuation is being monitored by installed monitoring wells including data logging transducers at six locations along the project alignment. The groundwater elevation at these locations at the time of installation of data logging transducers is included in Table 5. During 90% design, the recorded data from these transducers will be obtained and reported to understand the fluctuation of seasonal groundwater since the time of well installation in June/July 2021. Table 5. Groundwater Elevation in Monitoring Wells at Time of Transducer Installation City Location Boring Number Well ID Date of Well Installati on Date of Piezometer Installation Groundwate r Elevation (feet, NAVD88) Renton S Grady Way/Shattuck Ave S B-1W-21 BNN 115 6/22/2021 6/25/2021 20 Talbot Rd S/Renton Village Pl B-4W-21 BNN 116 6/23/2021 6/25/2021 25.2 SE Carr Rd/106th Pl SE B-9W-21 BNN 114 6/21/2021 6/25/2021 359.3 Kent E Smith St/E Titus St B-21W-21 BNN 117 7/15/2021 7/26/2021 42.9 Auburn Auburn Way N/21st St NE B-31W-21 BKX 381 7/22/2021 7/26/2021 55.8 20 PMOC template 20 PMOC template 20 PMOC template Table 5. Groundwater Elevation in Monitoring Wells at Time of Transducer Installation City Location Boring Number Well ID Date of Well Installati on Date of Piezometer Installation Groundwate r Elevation (feet, NAVD88) Auburn Way N/10th St NE B-33W-21 BNN 118 7/20/2021 7/26/2021 63.1 21 PMOC template 21 PMOC template 21 PMOC template 4 Analyses and Recommendations 4.1 Seismic Design Considerations 4.1.1 Design Seismic Event The proposed road improvements along the project alignment will be designed for the life safety performance objective considering a seismic event with a 5 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years (AASHTO 2009). This seismic event has a return period of 975 years. The life safety performance objective implies that a structure has a low probability of collapse during the design seismic event but may suffer significant damage resulting in major disruption to service and/or requiring partial or complete replacement. Because no critical structure is proposed at any locations along the alignment within 6 miles of known faults, the AASHTO-required near-fault effects were not considered here. 4.1.2 Design Seismic Motion The design seismic motion was determined for the project alignment. The site class at the location of each boring was determined based on SPT N-Values using the procedure provided in Table 3.10.3.1-1 of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) (AASHTO 2017). Deaggregation analysis for the associated site class was performed using USGS interactive tool located at https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive. The deaggregation analysis was performed for an earthquake with a 975-year return period using the latitude/longitude of the boring and the Dynamic: Conterminous U.S. 2014 map (v4.2.0). Results from the deaggregation analysis include the design earthquake magnitude (M) and distance (R). The peak ground acceleration (PGA ) at the location of each boring was calculated for the site class using AASHTO 2009 Web Service Documentation located at https://earthquake.usgs.gov/ws/designmaps/aashto- 2009.html. Table 6 summarizes these parameters as follows:  The PGA decreases from 0.44 in north of Renton to 0.4 in south of Auburn. It is recommended to use PGA of 0.44, 0.43, and 0.41 for seismic design in Renton, Kent, and Auburn, respectively.  Design earthquake magnitude is 7.1 along the project alignment.  Design earthquake distance varies between 41.2 and 41.5 miles (66.3 and 66.8 kilometers [km]). It is recommended to consider design earthquake distance of 41 miles (66 km) for all locations along the project alignment. 22 PMOC template Table 6. Seismic Design Parameters at Each Boring Location City Boring Number Location Site Class Peak Ground Acceleration Design Earthquake Magnitude, M Design Earthquake Distance, R (mile) [km] Renton B-1W-21 S Grady Way/Shattuck Ave S E 0.44 7.11 (41.4) [66.6] B-2-21 S Grady Way/Talbot Rd S E 0.44 7.11 (41.4) [66.6] B-3-21 S Grady Way/Talbot Rd S E 0.44 7.11 (41.4) [66.6] B-4W-21 Talbot Rd S/Renton Village Pl E 0.44 7.11 (41.5) [66.8] B-5-21 Talbot Rd S/S 23rd St D 0.44 7.1 (41.3) [66.5] B-6-21 Talbot Rd S/S 32nd St C 0.44 7.11 (41.3) [66.5] B-7-21 Talbot Rd S/Valley Medical Center E 0.44 7.1 (41.4) [66.6] B-8-21 S Carr Rd/105th Pl SE D 0.43 7.11 (41.4) [66.6] B-9W-21 SE Carr Rd/106th Pl SE D 0.43 7.11 (41.4) [66.6] B-10-21 108th Ave SE (SR 515)/SE 184th Ln C 0.43 7.11 (41.3) [66.5] Kent B-11-21 108th Ave SE (SR 515)/SE 192nd St D 0.43 7.1 (41.4) [66.6] B-12-21 108th Ave SE (SR 515)/SE 206th St C 0.43 7.11 (41.2) [66.3] B-13-21 108th Ave SE (SR 515)/SE 208th St D 0.43 7.1 (41.3) [66.5] B-15-21 104th Ave SE (SR 515)/SE 239th St D 0.42 7.1 (41.3) [66.5] B-17-21 104th Ave SE (SR 515)/SE 253rd St D 0.42 7.1 (41.4) [66.6] B-19-21 SE 256th St/100th Pl SE C 0.42 7.11 (41.2) [66.3] 23 PMOC template Table 6. Seismic Design Parameters at Each Boring Location City Boring Number Location Site Class Peak Ground Acceleration Design Earthquake Magnitude, M Design Earthquake Distance, R (mile) [km] B-21W-21 E Smith St/E Titus St E 0.42 7.1 (41.4) [66.6] B-22-21 E Smith St/Central Ave N E 0.42 7.1 (41.5) [66.8] Auburn B-29-21 Auburn Way N/49th St NE E 0.41 7.1 (41.4) [66.6] B-31W-21 Auburn Way N/21st St NE E 0.41 7.1 (41.3) [66.5] B-32-21 Auburn Way N/15th St NE E 0.41 7.1 (41.3) [66.5] B-33W-21 Auburn Way N/10th St NE E 0.41 7.1 (41.3) [66.5] B-34-21 Auburn Way N/8th St NE E 0.4 7.1 (41.3) [66.5] 24 PMOC template 24 PMOC template 24 PMOC template 4.2 Seismic Hazard Evaluations 4.2.1 Liquefaction Potential Soil liquefaction is where a saturated soil substantially loses strength and stiffness in response to a cyclic shear stress induced by earthquake shaking. In general, liquefaction is more likely to occur in loose and saturated granular soil (silty sand, sand, and gravel) although some low plasticity silt and clay may also be susceptible to liquefaction-type behavior, which is commonly referred to as cyclic softening. The susceptibility of a soil deposit to liquefaction is a function of the in situ stress state of the material, degree of saturation, soil grain size, relative density, percent of fines, age of deposit, plasticity of fines, earthquake ground motion characteristics, and several other factors. The following methods and assumptions were used to evaluate the liquefaction potential for the soils encountered along the project alignment:  For cohesionless soil (sand and gravel), the SPT-based simplified procedure (Youd et al, 2001) was used as specified in Section 6-4.2.2 of the Geotechnical Design Manual (GDM; WSDOT 2020b). A more recent procedure by Idriss and Boulanger (2010) was also used here. Per the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) GDM, a cohesionless soil is considered susceptible to liquefaction if the factor of safety against the occurrence of liquefaction is less than 1.2 (WSDOT 2020b, Section 6-4.2.3).  The liquefaction susceptibility of cohesive soil (silt and clay) was evaluated using the screening criteria developed by Bray and Sancio (2006), as specified in Section 6-4.2.1 of the GDM (WSDOT 2020b). According to Bray and Sancio (2006), a cohesive soil is considered susceptible to liquefaction if the soil has a water-content- to-liquid-limit ratio equal to or greater than 0.85 and a plasticity index of less than 12 percent. Using the above procedures and criteria, w zones of potentially liquefiable soils were identified at several locations along the project alignment. Potentially liquefiable locations along the project alignment in each segment are as follows. 4.2.1.1 RENTON The northern part of project alignment in Renton is susceptible to liquefaction under the design seismic ground motion. Geotechnical explorations and analysis identified potentially liquefiable soils at Borings B-1W-21, B-2-21, and B-3-21 on S Grady Way Street. Figure 4 shows the potentially liquefiable zones in each of these locations. 25 PMOC template 25 PMOC template 25 PMOC template 4.2.1.2 KENT The potentially liquefiable soils in Kent under the design ground motion were identified at Borings B-21W-21 and B-22-21 located on E Smith Street close by intersections with, respectively, E Titus Street and Central Avenue N. The potentially liquefiable zones at each of these locations are shown on Figure 5. 4.2.1.3 AUBURN Liquefaction susceptibility analysis based on geotechnical explorations data along Auburn Way N in Auburn indicated liquefaction potential at Borings B-29-21, B-31W-21, B-32- 21, and B-33W-21 located near intersections with, respectively, 49th Street NE, 21st Street NE, 15th Street NE, and 10th Street NE. The potentially liquefiable zones at each of these locations are shown on Figure 6. 4.2.2 Liquefaction-Induced Settlement The liquefaction-induced settlement was estimated using the procedures developed by Ishihara and Yoshimine (1992) and by Tokimatsu and Seed (1987). Using this methodology, liquefaction-induced ground settlement at liquefaction susceptible locations along the project alignment ranges between 0.5 and 4.4 inches. Table 7 includes the total liquefaction-induced ground settlement at these locations. Figures 7 through 9 show the cumulative estimated liquefaction-induced settlement along depth at these locations. The reported values for liquefaction-induced settlement at each location is the maximum of values calculated from liquefaction analysis based on Youd et al. (2001) and Idriss and Boulanger (2010) methods. Table 7. Estimated Liquefaction-Induced Settlement City Boring Number Location Liquefaction- Induced Settlement (inch.) Renton B-1W-21 S Grady Way/Shattuck Ave S 2.4 B-2-21 S Grady Way/Talbot Rd S 3.6 B-3-21 S Grady Way/Talbot Rd S 0.7 Kent B-21W-21 E Smith St/E Titus St 3.6 B-22-21 E Smith St/Central Ave N 0.5 26 PMOC template 26 PMOC template 26 PMOC template Table 7. Estimated Liquefaction-Induced Settlement City Boring Number Location Liquefaction- Induced Settlement (inch.) Auburn B-29-21 Auburn Way N/49th St NE 1.6 B-31W-21 Auburn Way N/21st St NE 4.4 B-32-21 Auburn Way N/15th St NE 4.3 B-33W-21 Auburn Way N/10th St NE 3.2 4.3 Retaining Wall Design Recommendations 4.3.1 Bearing Capacity It is anticipated that conventional, shallow foundation concepts can support the retaining wall structures. The retaining walls for the project will be constructed in conformance with Metro 2020-2021 Standard Details (King County Metro 2020). Table 8 provides allowable bearing pressure for shallow foundations. Allowable bearing pressure calculation assumes the foundation is a strip footing of length 50 feet and width of 3 feet. The footing is further assumed to be embedded to a depth of 1 foot. The calculation includes a strength limit state resistance factor (F=0.45) and service limit (1-inch settlement) considerations. One-half of the service limit settlement could occur as differential settlement. Table 8. Allowable Bearing Pressure for Shallow Foundations Supporting Retaining Walls City Location Allowable Bearing Pressure (psf) Renton RT wall from TAL-21 Station 56+86.07 TO 57+36.37 (Talbot Rd/S 32nd St) 2,500 LT wall from TAL-21 Station 56+28.14 to 56+40.39 (Talbot Rd/S 32nd St) 2,500 27 PMOC template 27 PMOC template 27 PMOC template Table 8. Allowable Bearing Pressure for Shallow Foundations Supporting Retaining Walls City Location Allowable Bearing Pressure (psf) RT wall from TAL-21 Station 88+36.24 to 89+09.24 (Talbot Rd/Valley Medical Center) 1,200 LT wall from CAR Station 33+36.26 to 33+49.26 (Carr Rd/Wells Ave) 2,500 RT wall from 108th Station 31+15.85 to 31+70.85 (108th Ave SE/SE 186th St) 3,000 RT wall from GRA Station 22+78.25 to TAL-B 11+70.89 (Grady Way/Talbot Rd) 900 Kent 108th Ave/192nd St OB 2,500 108th Ave/208th St OB 1,800 108th Ave/208th St IB 1,800 104th Ave/240th St IB (cut) 3,000 104th Ave/240th St IB (fill) 3,000 104th Ave/253rd St OB 2,500 256th St/101st St OB 3,000 256th St/101st St IB 3,000 Smith Ave/Titus St/Jason Ave OB 1,800 IB = inbound LT = left turn OB = outbound psf = pound(s) per square foot RT = right turn 4.3.2 Lateral Earth Pressure Retaining walls will be subject to lateral earth pressures from the backfill behind the walls. Lateral earth pressures were estimated assuming gravel borrow conforming to Section 9-03.14(1) of WSDOT’s 2020 Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction (WSDOT 2020a). 28 PMOC template 28 PMOC template 28 PMOC template Methods for calculating at-rest lateral earth pressure coefficients presented in Chapter 11 of An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering (Holtz et al. 1981) were used. The active and passive earth pressure coefficients were calculated using methods described in Section 3.11.5.3 and 3.11.5.4 respectively, of LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (AASHTO 2020). Gravel borrow conforming to Section 9-03.14(1) of WSDOT (2020b) used as wall backfill for fill walls. Backfill behind the retaining walls will be horizontal; therefore, the lateral earth pressure coefficients presented in Table 9 do not include parameters for sloping backfill. Traffic loading can be represented as a live load surcharge equal to an equivalent height of soil. Table 3.11.6.4-1 from LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (AASHTO 2020) provides guidance on estimating the equivalent height of soil based on wall height. The live load surcharge is converted into uniform horizontal earth pressure that is added to static lateral earth pressure. Table 9 presents lateral earth pressure coefficients and Table 10 presents equivalent fluid pressure for the active conditions (walls that are free to rotate away and toward soil backfill) and for at-rest conditions (walls that are restrained against rotation). Passive soil resistance should be neglected if there is potential for erosion at the base of the wall. Dynamic pressures were calculated for walls using the Mononobe-Okabe Method described in Chapter 11 of Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering (Kramer 1996). Calculations included a pseudo-static coefficient of ½ design peak acceleration, in units of g (As) (½ x site coefficient for PGA [FPGA] x PGA). The seismic increment calculated for walls is shown in Table 10. Limit-equilibrium global stability calculations were performed using Rocscience SLIDE 2 software (2020) to evaluate the global stability of the retaining walls. Calculations included a pseudo-static coefficient of ½ As (½ x FPGA x PGA) to simulate earthquake loading conditions. Based on these calculations, retaining walls constructed as per recommendations are expected to remain stable during a design-level earthquake. Table 9. Earth Pressure Coefficients City Location Active Pressure, Ka At-rest Pressure, K0 Passive Pressure, Kp Renton RT wall from TAL-21 Station 56+86.07 to 57+36.37 (Talbot Rd/S 32nd St) 0.26 0.41 3.85 LT wall from TAL-21 Station 56+28.14 to 56+40.39 (Talbot Rd/S 32nd St) 0.28 0.44 3.54 29 PMOC template 29 PMOC template 29 PMOC template Table 9. Earth Pressure Coefficients City Location Active Pressure, Ka At-rest Pressure, K0 Passive Pressure, Kp RT wall from TAL-21 Station 88+36.24 to 89+09.24 (Talbot Rd/Valley Medical Center) 0.26 0.41 3.85 LT wall from CAR Station 33+36.26 to 33+49.26 (Carr Rd/Wells Ave) 0.26 0.41 3.85 RT wall from 108th Station 31+15.85 to 31+70.85 (108th Ave SE/SE 186th St) 0.26 0.41 3.85 RT wall from GRA Station 22+78.25 to TAL-B 11+70.89 (Grady Way/Talbot Rd) 0.36 0.53 2.77 Kent 108th Ave/192nd St OB 0.26 0.41 3.85 108th Ave/208th St OB 0.26 0.41 3.85 108th Ave/208th St IB 0.31 0.47 3.25 104th Ave/240th St IB (cut) 0.26 0.41 3.85 104th Ave/240th St IB (fill) 0.26 0.41 3.85 104th Ave/253rd St OB 0.26 0.41 3.85 256th St/101st St OB 0.26 0.41 3.85 256th St/101st St IB 0.26 0.41 3.85 Smith St/Titus St/Jason Ave OB 0.31 0.47 3.25 30 PMOC template Table 10. Equivalent Fluid Pressure – Static Lateral Earth Pressure City Location Active Pressure (pcf) At-rest Pressure (pcf) Passive Pressure (pcf) Seismic Increment (pcf) Renton RT wall from TAL-21 Station 56+86.07 TO 57+36.37 (Talbot Rd/S 32nd St) 32.5 51.5 481 8 LT wall from TAL-21 Station 56+28.14 to 56+40.39 (Talbot Rd/S 32nd St) 35.3 55.1 442 9 RT wall from TAL-21 Station 88+36.24 to 89+09.24 (Talbot Rd/Valley Medical Center) 32.5 51.5 481 8 LT wall from CAR Station 33+36.26 to 33+49.26 (Carr Rd/ Wells Ave) 32.5 51.5 481 8 RT wall from 108th Station 31+15.85 to 31+70.85 (108th Ave SE/SE 186th St) 35 55.6 520 9 RT wall from GRA Station 22+78.25 to TAL-B 11+70.89 (Grady Way/Talbot Rd) 38 56 291 9 Kent 108th Ave/192nd St OB 32.5 51.5 481 8 108th Ave/208th St OB 32.5 51.5 481 8 108th Ave/208th St IB 36.9 56.4 391 9 104th Ave/240th St IB (cut) 35 55.6 520 9 104th Ave/240th St IB (fill) 32.5 51.5 481 8 104th Ave/253rd St OB 32.5 51.5 481 8 256th St/101st St OB 35 55.6 520 9 256th St/101st St IB 32.5 51.5 481 8 Smith St/Titus St/Jason Ave OB 36.9 56.4 391 9 31 PMOC template Table 10. Equivalent Fluid Pressure – Static Lateral Earth Pressure City Location Active Pressure (pcf) At-rest Pressure (pcf) Passive Pressure (pcf) Seismic Increment (pcf) Notes: The magnitude of the lateral earth pressure at a given height of wall is given in units of pcf per foot of wall height (H), where wall height is the distance between the ground surface and the base of the wall. Walls should be designed to resist surcharge loads and adjacent at-grade structures. The lateral earth pressure caused by a uniform surcharge load is equal to the anticipated surcharge load multiplied by the applicable earth pressure coefficient K0 or Ka. Compaction within 3 feet of the face of the wall should be performed with lightweight, hand-operated equipment so that compaction-induced lateral stresses are limited. If heavy or large equipment is used for compaction immediately adjacent to the abutments, lateral stresses will be larger than those shown in this table. The resultant force from the earth pressure should be assumed to act at 0.33H from the base of the wall. The movement to mobilize active earth pressure is typically 0.001 times the wall height for dense granular soils. The movement to mobilize passive pressures are much larger, typically 0.01 times the wall height for dense granular soils. If the deflection required to fully mobilize passive pressures are not anticipated, a reduction of 0.5 the passive coefficient may be used for estimating earth pressures. The seismic increment is to be applied as a uniform force. The passive pressure is unfactored. pcf = pound(s) per cubic foot 32 32 32 4.4 Signal Pole and Luminaire Design Recommendation The signal pole and luminaire design will be based on a pre-approved WSDOT’s Traffic Signal Standard Foundation Plan (WSDOT 2016), City of Renton’s Arterial Street Small Cell Decorative Luminaire Pole Details (2020a) and City of Renton’s Arterial & Downtown Street Decorative Pedestrian Luminaire Pole Details (2020b). The allowable lateral bearing pressure for the foundation of signal pole and luminaire structures is estimated as described per Section 17-2.1. of the WSDOT GDM (WSDOT 2020b) and angle of friction of soils at the site were estimated as described per the Section 5-8.3 of the GDM. The location of signal poles and luminaires and their estimated engineering properties are summarized in Table 11. Table 11. Estimated Engineering Parameters for Signal Pole and Luminaire Design City Location Angle of Friction, φ (degrees) Allowable Lateral Bearing Pressure (psf) Renton SE corner of 2nd St/Logan Ave 30 1,100 NE corner of 2nd St/Shattuck Ave S 30 1,100 All four corners of Grady Way/Shattuck Ave 28 800 NE and SW corners of Grady Way/ Talbot Rd 30 1,100 NW corner Talbot Rd/I-405 SB off-ramp 33 2,500 Talbot Rd/Valley Medical Center driveway 32 1,500 SE and SW corner Carr Rd/106th Pl 34 4,200 SW corner of Carr Rd/108th Ave 34 4,500 SE corner of 108th Ave/Fred Meyer Driveway 35 4,500 SE corner 108th Ave/180th Ave 35 4,500 Both sides of 108th Ave on 108th Ave/186th Ave 35 4,500 Kent NE and SW corners of 108th Ave/208th St 33 2,500 Both sides of Benson Rd/224th St 35 4,500 Both east and west sides of 104th Ave/228th St 38 4,500 NW, NE, and SW corners of 104th Ave/240th St 38 4,500 33 33 33 Table 11. Estimated Engineering Parameters for Signal Pole and Luminaire Design City Location Angle of Friction, φ (degrees) Allowable Lateral Bearing Pressure (psf) NW corner of 104th Ave/256th St 34 4,200 SW corner of 101st Ave/256th St 34 4,200 All corners of E Smith St/State Ave 33 3,100 All corners of E Smith St/Central Ave 34 4,200 Both east and west sides of Central Ave/266th St 33 3,100 SW and SE corners of 102nd Ave/240th St 38 4,500 Both sides of SE 240th St/104th to 108th St SE 38 4,500 Auburn SW Corner of Auburn Way N/Harvey Rd 32 1,400 NW Corner of A St SW/2nd St SW 28 750 East of Auburn Way N/28th St NE 32 1,500 West of Auburn Way N/28th St NE 32 1,500 East of Auburn Way N/42nd St NE 32 1,300 West of Auburn Way N/42nd St NE 32 1,300 4.5 Infiltration Screening Analyses and Recommendation The proposed road improvement along the project alignment includes design and construction of some pervious sidewalk, bus shelter roof drainage, and stormwater detention facilities. Table 12 and Table 13 contain the location of proposed facilities and corresponding hydraulic conductivity or groundwater elevation depending on the facility type. The k-values are presented as an estimated range because these are empirical based on soil type and grain size (USBR 1987) in the upper 3 to 5 feet because no permeability or infiltration tests were scoped for the project. To be more conservative, it is recommended to use the lower k value of the range. Otherwise, it is recommended to use a representative value in the middle of the range. 34 34 34 Table 12. Estimated Hydraulic Conductivity at Proposed Locations for Pervious Sidewalk or Shelter Drainage City Location Boring at or Near the Location Hydraulic Conductivity, k (cm/s) Renton S Grady Way, west of Shattuck Ave S B-1W-21 5e-5 to 1e-4 S Grady Way, between Shattuck Ave S and Talbot Rd S B-2-21 1e-5 to 5e-4 S Grady Way/Talbot Rd S B-3-21 1e-5 to 5e-5 Talbot Rd S, south of Grady Way S B-3-2 B-4-21 1e-5 to 5e-5 Talbot Rd S, north of S Renton Village Pl B-4W-21 5e-6 to 1e-5 Talbot Rd S/Valley Medical Center B-7-21 5e-6 to 1e-5 108th Ave SE (SR 515)/SE 184th Ln B-10-21 2.5e-6 to 7.5e-6 Kent 108th Ave SE (SR 515)/SE 192nd St B-11-21 5e-5 to 1e-4 108th Ave SE (SR 515), south of SE 200th St B-11-21 (0.45 mile away) B-12-21 (0.35 mile away) 1e-6 to 1e-5 108th Ave SE (SR 515)/SE 208th St B-12-21 (up to 0.2 mile away) B-13-21 1e-4 to 1e-3 108th Ave SE (SR 515)/SE 208th St B-13-21 (0.5 mile away) 1e-4 to 1e-3 Benson Rd SE/SE 224th St B-13-21 (1 mile away) B-15-21 (1 mile away) 1e-4 to 5e-4 104th Ave SE, between SE 226th St and SE 228th St B-15-21 (0.7 mile away) 1e-4 to 5e-4 104th Ave SE/SE 235th St B-15-21 (0.2 mile away) 1e-4 to 5e-4 104th Ave SE/SE 248th St B-15-21 (0.5 mile away) B-17-21 (0.5 mile away) 1e-5 to 5e-5 104th Ave SE/SE 256th St B-17-21 1e-5 to 5e-5 E Smith St/E Titus St B-21W-21 5e-6 to 5e-5 35 35 35 Table 12. Estimated Hydraulic Conductivity at Proposed Locations for Pervious Sidewalk or Shelter Drainage City Location Boring at or Near the Location Hydraulic Conductivity, k (cm/s) E Smith St/State Ave N B-22-21 1e-6 to 5e-6 Central Ave S/S 266th St B-22-21 (1.3 miles away) B-29-21 (1 mile away) 1e-5 to 1e-4 Auburn Auburn Way N/49th St NW B-29-21 1e-4 to 1e-3 Auburn Way N/37th St NE B-29-21 (0.8 mile away) B-31W-21 (1 mile away) 1e-5 to 1e-4 Auburn Way N/15th St NE B-32-21 5e-5 to 1e-4 Auburn Way N/8th St NE B-34-21 5e-6 to 5e-5 cm/s = centimeter(s) per second Table 13. Measured Groundwater Elevation at Proposed Locations for Detention Tanks City Location Boring at or Near the Location Groundwater Elevation, NAVD88 (feet) in June/July 2021 Renton Talbot Rd S, north of S Renton Village Pl B-4W-21 25.2 (at time of data logger installation) Kent 108th Ave SE (SR 515)/ SE 208th St B-12-21 (up to 0.2 mile away) 428 (at time of drilling) B-13-21 Not encountered down to the drilling El. of 410 feet 104th Ave SE/SE 240th St B-15-21 Not encountered down to drilling El. of 411 feet SE 256th St/100th Pl SE B-19-21 Not encountered down to drilling El. of 374 feet E Smith St/Central Ave N B-21W-21 (0.25 mile away) 43 (at time of data logger installation) B-22-21 23 (at time of drilling) 36 36 36 4.6 Pavement Design This section summarizes the pavement design analysis for the Metro RapidRide I Line Expansion Project. This project involves connecting the cities of Renton, Kent, and Auburn with a bus rapid transit system. The streets connecting the three cities will be improved and widened to implement the new transit system. Several street segments were involved in the pavement design analysis for this project to ensure the proposed typical sections are adequate for the intended traffic. The street segments analyzed include: S Grady Way/Talbot Road S and SE Carr Road in the City of Renton; 104th Street/208th Street, 108th Street/240th Street, 108th Street/256th Street, 256th Street/ 101st Street, Smith Street, and Central Avenue in the City of Kent; and Auburn Way N/ 15th Street NE in the City of Auburn. The analysis used the 1993 AASHTO Flexible Design Equation (AASHTO 1993) for each segment and confirmed that the proposed typical section for each of the segments listed above are adequate for the future traffic load on this project. 4.6.1 Methodology The Flexible Design Equation from the Guide for Design of Pavement Structures (AASHTO 1993) was used for the analysis for the proposed pavement design for this project. The structural number is calculated for the proposed pavement thickness using layer coefficients from the WSDOT Pavement Policy Manual (WSDOT 2018) and compared against the number of design equivalent 18-kip single axle loads (ESALs), or W18, using the following equation. log10(𝑊𝑊18)=𝑍𝑍𝑅𝑅× 𝑆𝑆0 +9.36 × log10(𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆+1)−0.20 +log10 �∆𝑃𝑃𝑆𝑆𝑃𝑃4.1 −1.5�0.4 +1094(𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆+1)5.19 +2.32 × log10(𝑀𝑀𝑅𝑅)−8.07 Where: W18= predicted number of 80 kN (18,000 lb) ESALs ZR= standard normal deviate S0= combined standard error of the traffic prediction and performance prediction SN= Structural Number (an index that is indicative of the total pavement thickness required) = a1D1+a2D2m2+a3D3m3+… ai=ith layer coefficient 37 37 37 Di=ith layer thickness (inches) mi= ith layer drainage coefficient ΔPSI= difference between initial design serviceability index, p0, and the design terminal serviceability index, pt MR= subgrade resilient modulus (in psi) Traffic loadings over the design life of the pavement are expressed as ESAL. To determine the adequacy of the proposed pavement thickness per segment, the allowable ESAL calculated from the Flexible Design Equation based on the proposed pavement thickness was compared with the ESAL calculated for the pavement design life based on the segment’s Annual Average Directional Traffic (AADT) for vehicles and trucks. 38 38 38 Guidance from each of the city’s design standards was used along with the WSDOT Pavement Policy (2018) to determine the criteria needed for calculating the ESALs. Design life used is based on the design standard for each city. For the two segments in the City of Renton, a design life of 50 years was used. The City of Renton refers to WSDOT for design standards and WSDOT Pavement Policy recommends a design life of 50 years. For the segments in both the City of Kent and Auburn, a design life of 20 years was used per the City of Kent Design and Construction Standards and per the City of Auburn Engineering Design Standards. 4.6.2 ESAL Calculation For each segment, the AADT and percentage of truck traffic was used to calculate the Yearly Traffic ESALs. A lane distribution factor of 0.80 was used along with a factor of 1.5 ESALs per vehicle for trucks. Using the annual growth rate of 0.7, ESALs were calculated for the 20-year and 50-year design life based on Year 1 being 2023. A summary of the Yearly Traffic ESALs of 2023 calculated for each segment is presented in Table 14. Table 14. Yearly Traffic Equivalent Single Axle Loads City Location AADT Truck % ESAL/ Veh1 Lane Distribution Factor Yearly ESALs 2023 Renton S Grady Way/Talbot Rd S (BAT Lane Widening) 48,000 2.23% 1.5 0.8 478,87 3 SE Carr Rd near 108th Ave SE (BAT Lane Widening) 29,000 2.1% 1.5 0.8 272,45 3 Kent 104th Ave SE/208th Ave SE (BAT Lane widening) 29,000 2.3% 1.5 0.8 298,401 108th Ave SE/SE 240th St (Realignment + BAT Lane widening) 28,432 3.0% 1.5 0.8 375,23 6 108th Ave SE/SE 256th St Approach (BAT Lane widening) 26,000 3.6% 1.5 0.8 422,23 5 SE 256th ST/101st Pl SE (BAT Lane widening) 26,000 3.6% 1.5 0.8 422,23 5 E Smith St, east of Central AVE N 29,000 1.4% 1.5 0.8 178,39 2 Central Ave N, south of E Smith St 17,000 2.6% 1.5 0.8 199,64 2 Auburn Auburn Way N & 15th St NE 20,332 3.3% 1.5 0.8 297,897 1 ESAL/Veh backcalculated from the values reported in the Design Pavement Report dated 11/06/2018 39 39 39 Using the individual ESAL numbers for 2023 for the individual segments, the 20- and 50-year design ESALs are calculated and shown in Table 15. Table 15. Design Equivalent Single Axle Loads for 20 and 50 Years City Location Predicted ESAL 20-Yr Design Life Predicted ESAL 50-Yr Design Life Renton S Grady Way/Talbot Rd S (BAT Lane Widening) 2,714,828 3,346,774 SE Carr Rd near 108th Ave SE (BAT Lane Widening) 1,544,591 1,904,134 Kent 104th Ave SE/208th Ave SE (BAT Lane widening) 1,691,695 2,085,480 108th Ave SE/SE 240th St (Realignment + BAT Lane widening) 2,127,285 2,622,465 108th Ave SE/SE 256th St Approach (BAT Lane widening) 2,393,735 2,950,939 SE 256th ST/101st Pl SE (BAT Lane widening) 2,393,735 2,950,939 E Smith St, east of Central AVE N 1,011,339 1,246,755 Central Ave N, south of E Smith St 1,130,790 1,394,010 Auburn Auburn Way N & 15th St NE 1,688,836 2,081,957 City Location AADT Truck %ESAL/Veh1 Lane Distribution Factor Yearly ESALs 2023 Renton S Grady Way/Talbot Rd S – BAT Lane Widening 48,000 2.23%1.5 0.8 478,873 Renton SE Carr Rd near 108th Ave SE – BAT Lane Widening 29,000 2.1%1.5 0.8 272,453 Kent 104th & 208th (BAT Lane widening)29,000 2.3%1.5 0.8 298,401 Kent 108th & 240th (Realignment + BAT Lane widening)28,432 3.0%1.5 0.8 375,236 Kent 108th & 256th Approach (BAT Lane widening)26,000 3.6%1.5 0.8 422,235 Kent 256th & 101st (BAT Lane widening)26,000 3.6%1.5 0.8 422,235 Kent Smith St, east of Central 29,000 1.4%1.5 0.8 178,392 Kent Central Ave, south of Smith 17,000 2.6%1.5 0.8 199,642 Auburn Auburn Way N & 15th St NE 20,332 3.3%1.5 0.8 297,897 40 40 40 4.6.3 Subgrade Resilient Modulus A subconsultant, HWA Geosciences, Inc., provided the subgrade resilient modulus values that were used to determine allowable ESAL calculation using AASHTO’s Flexible Design Equation. HWA Geosciences, Inc. calculated the resilient modulus values using the FWD test at a depth of 36 inches. The average of each subgrade resilient modulus for each segment was input into the Flexible Design Calculation. A summary of these values is shown in Table 16. Note that a value of 10.65 kilopounds per square inch (ksi) was assumed for Central Avenue, where no value was provided from the FWD testing. Table 16. Subgrade Resilient Modulus Values City Location MR (ksi) Renton S Grady Way/Talbot Rd S (BAT Lane Widening) 12.15 SE Carr Rd near 108th Ave SE (BAT Lane Widening) 13.3 Kent 104th Ave SE/208th Ave SE (BAT Lane widening) 21.98 108th Ave SE/SE 240th St (Realignment + BAT Lane widening) 11.95 108th Ave SE/SE 256th St Approach (BAT Lane widening) 11.6 SE 256th ST/101st Pl SE (BAT Lane widening) 16 E Smith St, east of Central AVE N 10.65 Central Ave N, south of E Smith St - Auburn Auburn Way N & 15th St NE 13.15 City Location Predicted ESAL 20-Yr Design Life Predicted ESAL 50-Yr Design Life Renton S Grady Way/Talbot Rd S – BAT Lane Widening 2,714,828 3,346,774 Renton SE Carr Rd near 108th Ave SE – BAT Lane Widening 1,544,591 1,904,134 Kent 104th & 208th (BAT Lane widening)1,691,695 2,085,480 Kent 108th & 240th (Realignment + BAT Lane widening)2,127,285 2,622,465 Kent 108th & 256th Approach (BAT Lane widening)2,393,735 2,950,939 Kent 256th & 101st (BAT Lane widening)2,393,735 2,950,939 Kent Smith St, east of Central 1,011,339 1,246,755 Kent Central Ave, south of Smith 1,130,790 1,394,010 Auburn Auburn Way N & 15th St NE 1,688,836 2,081,957 41 41 41 4.6.4 Results As summarized in Table 17, the proposed pavement thickness for each segment is adequate for the intended traffic from the project. The ESALs calculated per the 20-year or 50-year design life are well below the allowed ESALs calculated from the Flexible Design Equation. Table 17. Pavement Design Analysis Summary City Location Resilia nt Modulus (psi) Predicte d ESAL 20-Yr Design Life Predicte d ESAL 30-Yr Design Life Predicte d ESAL 50-Yr Design Life Allowed ESAL Pavement Thickness Pass/Fail Renton S Grady Way/Talbot Rd S (BAT Lane Widening) 14025 2,714,828 2,910,965 3,346,774 7,935,235. 19 7"HMA/6"CSBC PASS SE Carr Rd near 108th Ave SE (BAT Lane Widening) 25100 1,544,591 1,656,182 1,904,134 9,787,654.84 7"HMA/6"CSBC PASS Kent 104th Ave SE/208th Ave SE (BAT Lane widening) 30250 1,691,695 1,813,914 2,085,480 22,015,156 .35 6"HMA/8"CSBC PASS 108th Ave SE/SE 240th St (Realignment + BAT Lane widening) 22200 2,127,285 2,280,974 2,622,465 5,357,230.15 6"HMA/8"CSBC PASS 108th Ave SE/SE 256th St Approach (BAT Lane widening) 2180 0 2,393, 735 2,566, 675 2,950, 939 5,000,222.14 6"HMA/8"CS BC PASS SE 256th ST/101st Pl SE (BAT Lane widening) 32700 2,393,735 2,566,675 2,950,939 10,543,993.36 6"HMA/8"CSBC PASS E Smith St, east of Central AVE N 1190 0 1,011, 339 1,084, 405 1,246, 755 1,876,114.29 5"HMA/8"CS BC PASS City Location Mr (ksi) Renton S Grady Way/Talbot Rd S – BAT Lane Widening 14.025 Renton SE Carr Rd near 108th Ave SE – BAT Lane Widening 25.1 Kent 104th & 208th (BAT Lane widening)30.25 Kent 108th & 240th (Realignment + BAT Lane widening)22.2 Kent 108th & 256th Approach (BAT Lane widening)21.8 Kent 256th & 101st (BAT Lane widening)32.7 Kent Smith St, east of Central 11.9 Kent Central Ave, south of Smith - Auburn Auburn Way N & 15th St NE 15.85 42 42 42 Central Ave N, south of E Smith St 11900 1,130,790 1,212,485 1,394,010 1,876,114.29 5"HMA/8"CSBC PASS Auburn Auburn Way N & 15th St NE 15850 1,688,836 1,810,849 2,081,957 18,195,735 .91 7"HMA/9.5"CSBC PASS City Location Resiliant Modulus (psi)Predicted ESAL20-Yr Design Life Predicted ESAL30-Yr Design Life Predicted ESAL50-Yr Design Life Allowed ESAL Pavement Thickness Pass/Fail Renton S Grady Way/Talbot Rd S – BAT Lane Widening 14025 2,714,828 2,910,965 3,346,774 11,070,251.73 7"HMA/6"CSBC PASS Renton SE Carr Rd near 108th Ave SE – BAT Lane Widening 25100 1,544,591 1,656,182 1,904,134 42,715,537.18 7"HMA/6"CSBC PASS Kent 104th & 208th (BAT Lane widening)30250 1,691,695 1,813,914 2,085,480 46,209,326.97 6"HMA/8"CSBC PASS Kent 108th & 240th (Realignment + BAT Lane widening)22200 2,127,285 2,280,974 2,622,465 22,541,648.05 6"HMA/8"CSBC PASS Kent 108th & 256th Approach (BAT Lane widening)21800 2,393,735 2,566,675 2,950,939 21,610,550.45 6"HMA/8"CSBC PASS Kent 256th & 101st (BAT Lane widening)32700 2,393,735 2,566,675 2,950,939 55,360,187.21 6"HMA/8"CSBC PASS Kent Smith St, east of Central 11900 1,011,339 1,084,405 1,246,755 2,427,041.22 5"HMA/8"CSBC PASSKentCentral Ave, south of Smith 11900 1,130,790 1,212,485 1,394,010 2,427,041.22 5"HMA/8"CSBC PASS Auburn Auburn Way N & 15th St NE 15850 1,688,836 1,810,849 2,081,957 28,062,720.89 7"HMA/9.5"CSBCPASS 43 43 43 5 Construction Considerations 5.1 Site Preparation Site preparation should include the removal of surface vegetation, organic soil, trash, and debris. At the locations of wall foundations, organic or materials containing debris must also be removed and replaced with compacted backfill. Removed materials must not be used as structural fill or backfill without geotechnical engineering approval, and only when material meets the requirements and can be compacted per the project specifications for structural fill or backfill. Existing utilities, drainage structures, and other existing structures may also need to be removed or protected before construction. 5.2 Dewatering Because of the possible presence of groundwater in excavations for stormwater retention facilities, groundwater can be expected to impact construction. Based on the proposed depth of these facilities the lower part of the excavations will be constructed below the static groundwater level as encountered in the recent subsurface explorations. Utility trenches may also encounter groundwater. If groundwater is encountered near or above the base of any excavation, groundwater control is required to limit the disturbance of subgrade soils and instability of the excavation bottom, sides, and face. The native soils are expected to have relatively low permeability; therefore, for most excavations of shallow to moderate depths, a passive dewatering system is anticipated to be adequate. A passive dewatering system consists of a series of drainage trenches installed along the perimeter of the excavation bottom. The trenching bottom will be sloped to drain to collection points, where submersible pumps are used. The actual method of groundwater control selected for the particular application should consider the amount of water to be removed, surrounding soil settlement, groundwater contamination, and impacts to existing utilities and structures. It should be noted, the groundwater table might fluctuate with time. An experienced dewatering contractor should be selected to design and install the system. The water should be brought down to at least 3 feet below the excavation bottom. 5.3 Subgrade Preparation The subgrade for the foundation of a structure should be free of soft or wet soils. It should be scarified and aerated to dry if necessary, and proof-compacted with at least four passes using a sheep-foot compactor or other approved method and/or compaction as specified in the design documents. The compactor should be operated at a slow walking pace. 44 44 44 5.4 Wall Backfill All fill and backfill materials should be of a good quality unsaturated material and free of organics and deleterious materials. Fill should be placed in layers not exceeding 12 inches in loose thickness, moisture-conditioned, and compacted. When it is placed, the fill material’s moisture content should not be less than the optimum moisture content and should not exceed 3 percent above the optimum moisture content. Structural fill placed directly beneath foundations and pavement should be highly compacted and as specified in the design documents. Clayey soil from onsite excavation may be used as fill and backfill only in areas that are not within the influence of new structures and, if it is necessary to import soil for fill and backfill, the material should be a soil or soil-rock mixture meeting the project specifications. Placement specifications for alternate fill materials proposed by the design-builder should be approved by the geotechnical engineer. 45 45 45 6 References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 1993. AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2009. Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design. 1st Edition. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).2020. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. Bray, J. D., and R. Sancio. 2006. “Assessment of the Liquefaction Susceptibility of Fine- Grained Soils.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. Vol. 132, No. 9. pp. 1165-1170.City of Auburn Community Development & Public Works Departments. 2021. Engineering Design Standards. January. City of Kent Public Work Department. 2021. 2021 Design & Construction Standards Manual. March. City of Renton Public Works Department. 2020a. STD. Plan 117.1A: Arterial Street Small Cell Decorative Luminaire Pole Details. November. City of Renton Public Works Department. 2020b. STD. Plan – 117.2: Arterial & Downtown Street Decorative Pedestrian Luminaire Pole Design. November. Frankel, A., C. Mueller, T. Barnhard, D. Perkins, E. Leyendecker, N. Dickman, S. Hanson, and M. Hopper. 1996. National seismic-hazard maps: documentation, June 1996, U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report Holtz, R. D., W.D. Kovacs, and T.C. Sheahan. 1981. An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering (Vol. 733). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Idriss, I. M., and R.W. Boulanger. 2010. SPT-based Liquefaction Triggering Procedures. Report UCD/CGM-10/02, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis, CA, 259 pp. Ishihara, K. and M. Yoshimine. 1992. “Evaluation of Settlements in Sand Deposits Following Liquefaction During Earthquakes.” Soils and Foundations, JSSMFE. Vol. 32, No. 1. pp. 173–188. March. King County Metro. 2020. KCMT 2020-2021 Standard Details: Metro Transit Capital Division, Transit Passenger Facilities – Improvement. May. King County Metro. n.d. Rapid Ride I-Line Overview Map [Image]. Accessed September 2021. https://kingcounty.gov/~/media/depts/metro/programs- projects/rapidride/i_line_map_800x1700.jpg. Kramer, S. L. 1996. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. Pearson Education India. 46 46 46 Mullineaux, D.R. 1965a. Geologic map of the Auburn quadrangle, King and Pierce Counties, Washington: U.S. Geological Survey, Geologic Quadrangle Map GQ-406, scale 1:24,000. Mullineaux, D.R. 1965b. Geologic map of the Renton quadrangle, King County, Washington: U.S. Geological Survey, Geologic Quadrangle Map GQ-405, scale 1:24,000. Schuster, J. E., A.A. Cabibbo, J.F. Schilter, and I.J. Hubert. 2015. Geologic map of the Tacoma 1:100,000-scale quadrangle, Washington: Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources Map Series 2015-03, 1 sheet, scale 1:100,000, 31 p. text. http://www.dnr.wa.gov/publications/ger_ms2015-03_geol_map_tacoma_100k.zip. Tokimatsu, K., and H.B. Seed. 1987. “Evaluation of settlement in sands due to earthquake shaking.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. ASCE, Vol. 113, No. 8. pp. 861-878. United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). 1987. Design of Small Dams. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2014. U.S. Quaternary Faults Map. https://usgs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5a6038b3a1684561a9 b0aadf88412fcf. U.S. Geologic Survey. n.d. Dynamic: Conterminous U.S. 2014 (update) (v4.2.0). Unified Hazard Tool. https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive.Youd, T. L., I. M. Idriss, R.D. Andrus, I. Arango, G. Castro, J. T. Christian, R. Dobry, W. D. L. Finn, L. F. Harder Jr., M. E. Hynes, K. Ishihara, J. P., Koester, S. S. C. Liao, W. F. Marcuson. III, G. R. Martin, J. K. Mitchell, Y. Moriwaki, M. S. Power, P. K. Robertson, R. B. Seed, and K. H. Stokoe, II. 2001. “Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. Vol. 127, 656, No. 10. pp. 817–833. Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR). 2010. Geologic Information Portal. Accessed September 2021. https://geologyportal.dnr.wa.gov/. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2016. Standard Plan: J- 26.10.03: Traffic Signal Standard Foundations. July. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2018. Pavement Policy. Multimodal Development and Delivery, Pavement Office, Olympia, WA. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2020a. Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction. February. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2020b. Geotechnical Design Manual – Version M46-03.13. December. Figures Figure 1. Rapid Ride I Line Project Alignment Source: King County Metro n.d. Figure 2A: Renton to Kent Geology MapKing County Metro Rapid Ride I-lineKing County, Washington \\DC1VS01\GISPROJ\K\KING_COUNTY_METRO\RAPIDRIDE_I_LINE\MAPFILES\REPORT\2021\GEOLOGY\SEP\GEOLOGY_MAP.MXD CARCHER 9/13/2021 2:27:35 PMI Line Corridor - IB 1 I Line -- KentSegment (1-49) I Line -- RentonSegment (1-41) Qalwtr Qal Ti Tpr Qal Tpt Tpta Qal Qvt Qal Qal Qal wtr wtr Qlmafmafm afm afm afm Qas Qg Qit Qik Qit Qg af af af af Qu af Qss Qas afafaf af Qlp afafQlm Qit af wtraf Qss af af Qg wtr Qit Qlp Qgt af Qas Qsr Qit af af af af Qu Qaw Qawaf Qaw Qu af TrQaw Qas af af Tr Tr af af Ti Ttl TtTtaafaf Ttu QikQawaf af af af QlpQlp Qg Qaw af afaf Qaw Ti QsrafTr af afQaw Tr Qaw wtr QisQac Tta QgQac Qaw af af afaf QikQac Qpa Qpa af Tr Ts afTrafaf Qgt Qac Qmc TsafQacQasTr Qac af Ti Qac Tr af afm Qu QitTtu af Qg af Tr af af Qgt Ttu Qu QacQisTtaTta Ttu Ttl Qpa afm wtr afm Ttu Qaw 0 3,500 7,000 Feet LEGEND I Line - Kent Segment (1-49)I Line - Renton Segment (1-41)I Line Corridor - IB 1Geologic Units 24kQuaternary Rocks and DepositsQlp, Qlm - Quaternary bog, marsh, swamp, orlake depositsaf, afm - Holocene artificial fill and modified landQal, Qas, Qaw - Quaternary alluviumQmc - Quaternary mass-wasting depositsQg, Qit, Qsr, Qpa - Pleistocene continental glacialdriftQgt, Qit - Pleistocene continental glacial tillQis - Pleistocene glaciolacustrine depositsQu, Qss - Pleistocene glacial and nonglacialdepositsTertiary RocksTr - Tertiary sedimentary rocks and depositsTt- Tertiary volcanic and sedimentary rocksTi -Tertiary intrusive rocksWaterwtr - Water Pierce County King County 1 in = 3,500 feet $ Source:Washington Geological Survey (WGS)Washington State Department of Natural Resources Figure 2B: Kent to Auburn Geology MapKing County Metro Rapid Ride I-lineKing County, Washington \\DC1VS01\GISPROJ\K\KING_COUNTY_METRO\RAPIDRIDE_I_LINE\MAPFILES\REPORT\2021\GEOLOGY\SEP\GEOLOGY_MAP.MXD CARCHER 9/13/2021 2:27:35 PMI LineCorridor- IB2 I Line -- AuburnSegment (1-28) I Line -- KentSegment (1-49) Qal wtr wtr wtr wtr Qal wtr wtr Qal Qal Qal wtr Qal wtr Qvt Qvt Qvt Qvt Qw Qvi Qpog(t) Qvi Qmw Qpf Qw Qva Qpf Qal Qva wtr Qpon Qal Qvr Qpf(c) Qpf(c) QrQponm Qpon wtr wtr Qu Qmc Qu Qpv wtr af afm QssQgt Qaw Qpd af af afQaw Qag af Qag Qpy Qit Qaw Qit af af QawQss Qid Qaw af Qid Qmc Qss Qaw af Qaw Qit QasQgt Qit Qss af Qawaf Qss Qgt af Qaw Qas Qpy Qmc af wtr af Qlm af Qaw QlmQlp Qlmwtrafaf Qlp wtr af Qawaf Qlm Qsa Qss af af afQitQss Qg Qit Qgt Qgt Qit Qg Qss afm af afm af Qaw wtr wtr afQgtQawQawwtr Qit QitQgQit Qg afQit Qas af Qit Qlm afm afm afm Qik af Qss af Qgt Qaw Qaw Qaw wtrQaw 0 3,500 7,000 Feet LEGEND I Line - Auburn Segment (1-28)I Line - Kent Segment (1-49)I Line Corridor - IB2Geologic Units 24kQuaternary Rocks and DepositsQlp, Qlm - Quaternary bog, marsh, swamp, orlake depositsaf, afm - Holocene artificial fill and modified landQal, Qas, Qaw - Quaternary alluviumQmc - Quaternary mass-wasting depositsQg, Qit, Qsr, Qpa - Pleistocene continental glacialdriftQgt, Qit - Pleistocene continental glacial tillQu, Qss - Pleistocene glacial and nonglacialdepositsWaterwtr - Water Pierce County King County 1 in = 3,500 feet $ Source:Washington Geological Survey (WGS)Washington State Department of Natural Resources Figure 3Historical Seismicity and Potentially Active FaultsKing County Metro Rapid Ride I-lineKing County, Washington \\DC1VS01\GISPROJ\K\KING_COUNTY_METRO\RAPIDRIDE_I_LINE\MAPFILES\REPORT\2021\GEOLOGY\SEP\HISTORICAL_SEISMICITY_AND_POTENTIALLY_ACTIVE_FAULTS.MXD CARCHER 9/13/2021 2:44:44 PM RapidRide I line Alignment Rattlesnake Mountain Fault zone Saddle Mountain West fault Cherry Valley fault (class B) Cherry Creek fault zone Cherry Valley fault Steele Creek--Rattlesnake Mountain Olympia Structure West strand Evergreen fault Dow Mountain fault Straight Creek fault Devils Mountain fault zone Kittitas Valley faults (class B) Tacoma fault zone Southern Whidbey Island fault zone Saddle Mountain faults Seattle fault zone Seattle fault zone Southern Whidbey Island fault zone Tacoma fault zone Structure "G" Western Rainier Seismic Zone Olympia structure Hood Canal fault zone 3.32 2.99 2.61 2.68 2.66 2.69 2.75 2.93 2.79 2.73 3.25 2.6 2.72 2.7 2.8 3.69 2.772.5 3.43 3.473.31 3.01 3.15 4.09 2.65 3.58 3.13 2.6 2.96 3 2.61 2.58 2.92 2.77 3.5 2.63 3.01 3.4 2.93 2.51 2.55 2.58 2.7 3.42 2.542.57 2.5 2.88 3.4 3.04 2.69 2.7 2.722.63 2.78 3.86 2.8 2.91 2.54 2.55 3.19 2.59 4.2 2.55 2.66 2.54 2.57 2.87 3.5 2.55 3.98 2.62.65 2.55 3.53 2.85 2.55 3.11 2.82 2.87 2.56 3.03 2.51 3.02 2.87 3.47 2.75 2.54 2.76 3.27 3.023.02 3.6 2.94 2.76 2.58 4.27 3.3 3.37 3.46 3.23 2.74 2.55 2.73 2.55 2.653.34 2.72 2.77 2.82 2.6 2.9 3.4 3.2 3.2 2.81 2.8 2.76 3.85 3.25 2.8 32.5 2.96 2.52.6 3.4 2.5 2.9 2.52.7 2.5 3 4.2 2.5 2.53.24 2.5 2.5 2.5 3.8 2.5 2.8 3.4 2.7 2.7 2.5 3.2 3.95 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.58 2.9 3.6 2.62 4.67 2.5 2.8 3.22 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.97 3.87 2.9 2.8 3.42.7 2.5 2.5 3.3 2.6 2.6 2.7 6.7 6.7 4.1 4.1 4.7 4 4.2 4.5 4 4.84.1 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.1 4.3 4.1 4.5 4.4 4.9 4 4.3 4.1 5.4 4.9 5.8 5.8 6.8 5 4.3 4.8 4.01 4.5 4.67 4.2 4.27 4.2 120°40'W 120°40'W 120°50'W 120°50'W 121°0'W 121°0'W 121°10'W 121°10'W 121°20'W 121°20'W 121°30'W 121°30'W 121°40'W 121°40'W 121°50'W 121°50'W 122°0'W 122°0'W 122°10'W 122°10'W 122°20'W 122°20'W 122°30'W 122°30'W 122°40'W 122°40'W 122°50'W 122°50'W 123°0'W 123°0'W 123°10'W 123°10'W 123°20'W 123°20'W 123°30'W 123°30'W 123°40'W 123°40'W123°50'W 48°10'N48°10'N48°0'N48°0'N47°50'N47°50'N47°40'N47°40'N47°30'N47°30'N47°20'N47°20'N47°10'N47°10'N47°0'N47°0'N46°50'N46°50'N46°40'N46°40'N0 12 24 Miles LEGEND Project Alignments 50 Miles from Project Quaternary Faults (Age) <10,000 years <130,000 years <1,600,000 years Unknown Earthquake Epicenters (1900 - 2018)Earthquake Magnitude 0.0 - 4.1 4.1 - 4.7 4.7 - 5.1 5.1 - 6.0 1 in = 12 miles $ VICINITY MAP Source:1. Faults - Washington Geological Survey (WGS) Washington State Department of Natural Resources 2. Earthquakes - U.S. Geological Survey, National Geospatial Program. and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency The earthquake events span the timeframe between 1949 and 2018 Figure 4. Potentially Liquefiable Zones at Liquefaction-Susceptible Locations along S Grady Way in Renton Figure 5. Potentially Liquefiable Zones at Liquefaction-Susceptible Locations on E Smith Avenue in Kent -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 1.2 Elevation (ft)Factor of Safety against Liquefaction, FS Youd et al. 2001 Idriss & Boulanger 2010 2+ B-1W-21 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 1.2 Elevation (ft)Factor of Safety against Liquefaction, FS Youd et al. 2001 Idriss & Boulanger 2010 2+ B-2-21 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 1.2 Elevation (ft)Factor of Safety against Liquefaction, FS Youd et al. 2001 Idriss & Boulanger 2010 2+ B-3-21 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 1.2 Elevation (ft)Factor of Safety against Liquefaction, FS Youd et al. 2001 Idriss & Boulanger 2010 2+ B-21W-21 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0 1.2 Elevation (ft)Factor of Safety against Liquefaction, FS Youd et al. 2001 Idriss & Boulanger 2010 2+ B-22-21 Figure 6. Potentially Liquefiable Zones at Liquefaction-Susceptible Locations along Auburn Way N in Auburn 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 0 1.2 Elevation (ft)Factor of Safety against Liquefaction, FS Youd et al. 2001 Idriss & Boulanger 2010 2+ B-29-21 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 0 1.2 Elevation (ft)Factor of Safety against Liquefaction, FS Youd et al. 2001 Idriss & Boulanger 2010 2+ B-31W-21 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 0 1.2 Elevation (ft)Factor of Safety against Liquefaction, FS Youd et al. 2001 Idriss & Boulanger 2010 2+ B-32-21 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 0 1.2 Elevation (ft)Factor of Safety against Liquefaction, FS Youd et al. 2001 Idriss & Boulanger 2010 2+ B-33W-21 Figure 7. Cumulative Liquefaction-Induced Settlement along Depth at Liquefaction- Susceptible Locations in Renton -20 -10 0 10 20 30 0 1 2 3 Elevation (ft)Total Calculated Settlement (in) B-1W-21 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 0 1 2 3 4 Elevation (ft)Total Calculated Settlement (in) B-2-21 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 0 0.5 1 Elevation (ft)Total Calculated Settlement (in) B-3-21 Figure 8. Cumulative Liquefaction-Induced Settlement along Depth at Liquefaction- Susceptible Locations in Kent 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 1 2 3 4 Elevation (ft)Total Calculated Settlement (in) B-21W-21 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 0.5 1 Elevation (ft)Total Calculated Settlement (in) B-22-21 Figure 9. Cumulative Liquefaction-Induced Settlement along Depth at Liquefaction- Susceptible Locations in Auburn 20 30 40 50 60 0 1 2 Elevation (ft)Total Calculated Settlement (in) B-29-21 30 40 50 60 70 0 2 4 6 Elevation (ft)Total Calculated Settlement (in) B-31W-21 40 50 60 70 80 0 2 4 6 Elevation (ft)Total Calculated Settlement (in) B-32-21 40 50 60 70 80 0 1 2 3 4 Elevation (ft)Total Calculated Settlement (in) B-33W-21 Appendix A Geotechnical Exploration Plans and Sections Project Id: Project Title: LocaƟon: Client: W3X86400 King County Metro Transit RapidRide I Line Renton, Kent, Auburn in Washington, USA King County Title: Scale: Engineer: Contractor: Site Plan 1 1:3000 Jacobs PPS West Region Various Legend Key Locations By Type -Empty Locations By Type -BH Project Id: Project Title: LocaƟon: Client: W3X86400 King County Metro Transit RapidRide I Line Renton, Kent, Auburn in Washington, USA King County Title: Scale: Engineer: Contractor: Site Plan 2 1:3000 Jacobs PPS West Region Various Legend Key Locations By Type -Empty Locations By Type -BH Project Id: Project Title: LocaƟon: Client: W3X86400 King County Metro Transit RapidRide I Line Renton, Kent, Auburn in Washington, USA King County Title: Scale: Engineer: Contractor: Site Plan 3 1:3000 Jacobs PPS West Region Various Legend Key Locations By Type -Empty Locations By Type -BH Project Id: Project Title: LocaƟon: Client: W3X86400 King County Metro Transit RapidRide I Line Renton, Kent, Auburn in Washington, USA King County Title: Scale: Engineer: Contractor: Site Plan 4 1:3000 Jacobs PPS West Region Various Legend Key Locations By Type -Empty Locations By Type -BH Project Id: Project Title: LocaƟon: Client: W3X86400 King County Metro Transit RapidRide I Line Renton, Kent, Auburn in Washington, USA King County Title: Scale: Engineer: Contractor: Site Plan 5 1:3000 Jacobs PPS West Region Various Legend Key Locations By Type -Empty Locations By Type -BH Project Id: Project Title: LocaƟon: Client: W3X86400 King County Metro Transit RapidRide I Line Renton, Kent, Auburn in Washington, USA King County Title: Scale: Engineer: Contractor: Site Plan 6 1:3000 Jacobs PPS West Region Various Legend Key Locations By Type -Empty Locations By Type -BH Project Id: Project Title: LocaƟon: Client: W3X86400 King County Metro Transit RapidRide I Line Renton, Kent, Auburn in Washington, USA King County Title: Scale: Engineer: Contractor: Site Plan 7 1:3000 Jacobs PPS West Region Various Legend Key Locations By Type -Empty Locations By Type -BH Project Id: Project Title: LocaƟon: Client: W3X86400 King County Metro Transit RapidRide I Line Renton, Kent, Auburn in Washington, USA King County Title: Scale: Engineer: Contractor: Site Plan 8 1:3000 Jacobs PPS West Region Various Legend Key Locations By Type -Empty Locations By Type -BH Project Id: Project Title: LocaƟon: Client: W3X86400 King County Metro Transit RapidRide I Line Renton, Kent, Auburn in Washington, USA King County Title: Scale: Engineer: Contractor: Site Plan 9 1:3000 Jacobs PPS West Region Various Legend Key Locations By Type -Empty Locations By Type -BH Project Id: Project Title: LocaƟon: Client: W3X86400 King County Metro Transit RapidRide I Line Renton, Kent, Auburn in Washington, USA King County Title: Scale: Engineer: Contractor: Site Plan 10 1:3000 Jacobs PPS West Region Various Legend Key Locations By Type -Empty Locations By Type -BH Project Id: Project Title: LocaƟon: Client: W3X86400 King County Metro Transit RapidRide I Line Renton, Kent, Auburn in Washington, USA King County Title: Scale: Engineer: Contractor: Site Plan 11 1:3000 Jacobs PPS West Region Various Legend Key Locations By Type -Empty Locations By Type -BH Project Id: Project Title: LocaƟon: Client: W3X86400 King County Metro Transit RapidRide I Line Renton, Kent, Auburn in Washington, USA King County Title: Scale: Engineer: Contractor: Site Plan 12 1:3000 Jacobs PPS West Region Various Legend Key Locations By Type -Empty Locations By Type -BH Project Id: Project Title: LocaƟon: Client: W3X86400 King County Metro Transit RapidRide I Line Renton, Kent, Auburn in Washington, USA King County Title: Scale: Engineer: Contractor: Site Plan 13 1:3000 Jacobs PPS West Region Various Legend Key Locations By Type -Empty Locations By Type -BH Project Id: Project Title: LocaƟon: Client: W3X86400 King County Metro Transit RapidRide I Line Renton, Kent, Auburn in Washington, USA King County Title: Scale: Engineer: Contractor: Site Plan 14 1:3000 Jacobs PPS West Region Various Legend Key Locations By Type -Empty Locations By Type -BH Project Id: Project Title: LocaƟon: Client: W3X86400 King County Metro Transit RapidRide I Line Renton, Kent, Auburn in Washington, USA King County Title: Scale: Engineer: Contractor: Site Plan 15 1:3000 Jacobs PPS West Region Various Legend Key Locations By Type -Empty Locations By Type -BH Project Id:W3X86400 Title:SecƟon 1 Project Title:King County Metro Transit RapidRide I Line VerƟcal Scale:1:280 LocaƟon:Renton, Kent, Auburn in Washington, USA Horizontal Scale:1:3340 Client:King County Engineer:Jacobs PPS West Region 33 33 28 28 23 23 18 18 13 13 8 8 3 3 -2 -2 -7 -7 -12 -12-13.00 Legend Key B-1W-21ASP HALTSP-SM PT SM MH MLSP CL SPML SP ML SP CL GP- GM B-2-21ASP HALTSP ML SM ML SM CL-ML ML SP- SM SPMLSM SP- SM ML SM ML CL B-3-21ASPHALT SP-SM PT ML SM PT SP- SM SM CL MLCL ML PT SP ML CL SM B-4W-21ASPHALTSP- SM SM PT ML SP- SMSMPT ML SPPT SP- SM SPML SP- SM Project Id:W3X86400 Title:SecƟon 2 Project Title:King County Metro Transit RapidRide I Line VerƟcal Scale:1:723 LocaƟon:Renton, Kent, Auburn in Washington, USA Horizontal Scale:1:10594 Client:King County Engineer:Jacobs PPS West Region 194 194 189 189 184 184 179 179 174 174 169 169 164 164 159 159 154 154 149 149 144 144 139 139 134 134 129 129 124 124 119 119 114 114 109 109 104 104 99 99 94 94 89 89 84 84 79 79 75.00 Legend Key B-5-21ASP HALT SP-SMML SM B-6-21ASP HALTGPSM B-7-21ASPHALTSP- SM MLCLSC SM CL Project Id:W3X86400 Title:SecƟon line 1 Project Title:King County Metro Transit RapidRide I Line VerƟcal Scale:1:322 LocaƟon:Renton, Kent, Auburn in Washington, USA Horizontal Scale:1:1032 Client:King County Engineer:Jacobs PPS West Region 380 380 375 375 370 370 365 365 360 360 355 355 350 350 345 345 340 340 335 335 330 330 327.00 Legend Key B-8-21ASP HALT SP-SM SM B-9W-21ASPHALT SP- SMSM Project Id:W3X86400 Title:SecƟon 4 Project Title:King County Metro Transit RapidRide I Line VerƟcal Scale:1:322 LocaƟon:Renton, Kent, Auburn in Washington, USA Horizontal Scale:1:13223 Client:King County Engineer:Jacobs PPS West Region 462 462 457 457 452 452 447 447 442 442 437 437 432 432 427 427 422 422 417 417 412 412 409.00 Legend Key B-10-21ASP HALT CONCRETE SP- SM B-11-21ASPHALT CON CRETESP- SM SM SP-SM B-12-21ASP HALTCONCRET E SM B-13-21ASPHALTSP- SM SM SW- SM SM SP-SM SM Project Id:W3X86400 Title:SecƟon line 1 Project Title:King County Metro Transit RapidRide I Line VerƟcal Scale:1:316 LocaƟon:Renton, Kent, Auburn in Washington, USA Horizontal Scale:1:12424 Client:King County Engineer:Jacobs PPS West Region 425 425 420 420 415 415 410 410 405 405 400 400 395 395 390 390 385 385 380 380 375 375 373.00 Legend Key B-15(W)-21ASPHALT SW- SMSP-SM SM B-17-21ASP HALTSM B-19-21ASP HALTSP-SM SM Project Id:W3X86400 Title:SecƟon 6 Project Title:King County Metro Transit RapidRide I Line VerƟcal Scale:1:286 LocaƟon:Renton, Kent, Auburn in Washington, USA Horizontal Scale:1:23347 Client:King County Engineer:Jacobs PPS West Region 52 52 47 47 42 42 37 37 32 32 27 27 22 22 17 17 12 12 7 7 5.00 Legend Key B-21W-21ASPHALTCON CRETESM ML PT SM ML SM ML SW- SM ML GP-GM SP-SM B-22-21ASP HALT SW-SMSP ML SW- SM SM ML SP-SM SM B-29-21ASPHALT SW- SMSP CL SP Project Id:W3X86400 Title:SecƟon 7 Project Title:King County Metro Transit RapidRide I Line VerƟcal Scale:1:243 LocaƟon:Renton, Kent, Auburn in Washington, USA Horizontal Scale:1:7682 Client:King County Engineer:Jacobs PPS West Region 76 76 71 71 66 66 61 61 56 56 51 51 46 46 41 41 36.00 Legend Key B-31W-21ASPHALTCON CRET ESM SP ML SP B-32-21ASP HALTSW-SM SP-SM SP SP-SM B-33W-21ASPHALT CON CRETESM SP B-34-21ASPHALT CON CRETESM SP-SMML SP- SM ML SMML SP-SM ML SP- SM Appendix B Boring Logs 13-32-11 (43) 13-1-13 (14) 10-12-35(47) 11-17-18(35) 4-6-27(33) 12-27-50/6(77/12") 37-50/6(50/6") 50/1(50/1") 28-50/3(50/3") 1-SS 2-SS 3-SS 4-SS 5-SS 6-SS 7-SS 8-SS 9-SS 1.2 3.7 6.2 8.7 11.2 13.7 16.2 21.2 26.2 2.7 5.2 7.7 10.2 12.7 15.2 17.2 21.3 27.0 1.4 1.1 1.1 0.0 1.0 1.2 0.8 0.1 0.8 Asphalt Pavement, approx 6-inches Concrete, approx 8-inches POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT and GRAVEL and fractured rock (SP-SM) brown, moist, dense, fine to coarse angular to subangular sand, fine to coarse subangular gravel Similar to above but medium dense Similar to above but dense No Recovery Similar to above but wet and coarser sand Similar to above but very dense and moist to wet Similar to above Similar to above Similar to above but less gravel Bottom of Boring at 25.8 ft bgs on 6/28/21 11:30 Lab Results: MC : 7.2% Lab Results: MC : 8.4% Sieve : GRAVEL : 24.1%, SAND : 55.8%,FINES : 20.1% Lab Results: MC : 7.7% P200 : 8.7% Lab Results:MC : 13.1%P200 : 12.1% ORIENTATION : Vertical WATER LEVELS : Not encountered BORING NUMBER: SHEET 1 OF 1B-10-21 DEPTH BELOWEXISTING GRADE(ft)6"-6"-6"(N) PROJECT NUMBER: SOIL DESCRIPTION DRILLING CONTRACTOR : Holt Services, Inc. LOCATION : (47.4 N, -122.2 E) STANDARDPENETRATIONTEST RESULTS COMMENTS ELEVATION : 461.8 ft W3X86400 DRILLING EQUIPMENT AND METHOD : Mobile B-58 Truck-Mounted Rig, Hollow Stem Auger #TYPELOGGER : N. ZabihiSTART : 6/28/21 09:15 END : 6/28/21 11:30 PROJECT : I-Line Rapid Ride SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL, COLOR,MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE DENSITY ORCONSISTENCY, SOIL STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY SYMBOLIC LOG461.8 456.8 451.8 446.8 441.8 436.8 SOIL BORING LOG DEPTH OF CASING, DRILLING RATE,DRILLING FLUID LOSS, TESTS, ANDINSTRUMENTATION INTERVAL (ft)5 10 15 20 25 30 SAMPLERECOVERY (ft) 5-7-10(17) 4-5-6 (11) 5-12-17 (29) 11-16-19 (35) 15-30-37 (67) 12-27-47(74) 26-33-50/6(83/12") 30-28-34(62) 50/5(50/5") 1ASS 1BSS 2-SS 3ASS 3BSS 4-SS 5ASS 5BSS 6-SS 7-SS 8ASS 8BSS 9-SS 0.7 1.7 3.2 5.7 6.5 8.2 10.7 11.7 13.2 15.7 20.7 21.2 25.7 2.2 4.7 7.2 9.7 12.2 14.7 17.2 22.2 26.1 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.5 0.0 Asphalt Pavement, approx 5-inches Concrete, approx 3-inches POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT and GRAVEL(SP-SM)dark brown, dry to moist, medium dense, fine tocoarse angular sand, fine to coarse angular tosubangular gravel SILTY SAND (SM)brown, moist, medium dense, fine angular sand,orange oxidationSimilar to aboveSimilar to above except with some fine to coarse subangular to subrounded gravel Similar to above except gray with orange oxidation Similar to above except becomes dark brown with oxidation, dense with fine to coarse angular to subangular sand Similar to above except becomes very dense with fine to medium sand SILTY SAND (SM)gray, moist, very dense, fine angular sand Similar to above Similar to above except with fine to coarse angulargravel Similar to above POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM) brown, moist, very dense, fine to medium angular sand No Recovery Bottom of Boring at 25.4 ft bgs on 7/1/21 23:00 Lab Results:MC : 3%ORGANIC CONTENT : 2.2% Lab Results:MC : 15.2% Sieve : GRAVEL : 5.9%, SAND : 54.3%, FINES : 39.8% Lab Results: MC : 12.8% P200 : 41.4% Lab Results: MC : 12.2% P200 : 23.3% ORIENTATION : Vertical WATER LEVELS : Not encountered BORING NUMBER: SHEET 1 OF 1B-11-21 DEPTH BELOWEXISTING GRADE(ft)6"-6"-6"(N) PROJECT NUMBER: SOIL DESCRIPTION DRILLING CONTRACTOR : Holt Services, Inc. LOCATION : (47.4 N, -122.2 E) STANDARDPENETRATIONTEST RESULTS COMMENTS ELEVATION : 450.5 ft W3X86400 DRILLING EQUIPMENT AND METHOD : Mobile B-58 Truck-Mounted Rig, Hollow Stem Auger #TYPELOGGER : N. ZabihiSTART : 7/1/21 20:10 END : 7/1/21 23:00 PROJECT : I-Line Rapid Ride SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL, COLOR,MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE DENSITY ORCONSISTENCY, SOIL STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY SYMBOLIC LOG450.5 445.5 440.5 435.5 430.5 425.5 SOIL BORING LOG DEPTH OF CASING, DRILLING RATE,DRILLING FLUID LOSS, TESTS, ANDINSTRUMENTATION INTERVAL (ft)5 10 15 20 25 30 SAMPLERECOVERY (ft) 7-17-32(49) 17-28-31 (59) 8-26-44 (70) 10-27-36 (63) 31-50/4 (50/4") 29-50/6(50/6") 16-27-50/5(77/11") 1-SS 2-SS 3-SS 4-SS 5-SS 6-SS 7-SS 1.0 3.5 6.0 8.5 11.0 16.0 21.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 11.8 17.0 22.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.8 1.0 1.4 Asphalt Pavement, approx 6-inches Concrete, approx 6-inches SILTY SAND with GRAVEL (SM)brown, moist, dense, fine to medium angular sand,fine to coarse angular to subrounded gravel Similar to above but very dense and with fine to coarse sand and fine gravel Similar to above but gray, more silty, fine sand and fine to coarse gravel Similar to above Similar to above Similar to above but moist to wet with fine to coarsesand Similar to above but wet Bottom of Boring at 21.5 ft bgs on 6/28/21 23:20 Lab Results:MC : 9.4%Sieve : GRAVEL : 13.9%, SAND : 45.3%, FINES : 40.8% Lab Results: MC : 10.7% Sieve : GRAVEL : 10.3%, SAND : 45.8%, FINES : 43.9% Rig is chattering between 10 to 15-ft bgs Lab Results: MC : 11% P200 : 49.4% Ground water observed on 6/28/2021 Lab Results:MC : 12.1%P200 : 35% ORIENTATION : Vertical WATER LEVELS : 15.0 ft bgs BORING NUMBER: SHEET 1 OF 1B-12-21 DEPTH BELOWEXISTING GRADE(ft)6"-6"-6"(N) PROJECT NUMBER: SOIL DESCRIPTION DRILLING CONTRACTOR : Holt Services, Inc. LOCATION : (47.4 N, -122.2 E) STANDARDPENETRATIONTEST RESULTS COMMENTS ELEVATION : 443.1 ft W3X86400 DRILLING EQUIPMENT AND METHOD : Mobile B-58 Truck-Mounted Rig, Hollow Stem Auger #TYPELOGGER : N. ZabihiSTART : 6/28/21 20:30 END : 6/28/21 23:20 PROJECT : I-Line Rapid Ride SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL, COLOR,MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE DENSITY ORCONSISTENCY, SOIL STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY SYMBOLIC LOG443.1 438.1 433.1 428.1 423.1 418.1 SOIL BORING LOG DEPTH OF CASING, DRILLING RATE,DRILLING FLUID LOSS, TESTS, ANDINSTRUMENTATION INTERVAL (ft)5 10 15 20 25 30 SAMPLERECOVERY (ft) 17-17-14(31) 4-2-5(7) 9-8-6(14) 5-5-10(15) 2-4-6(10) 2-3-4(7) 21-29-29(58) 17-40-44 (84) 41-50/3 (50/3") 1-SS 2-SS 3-SS 4-SS 5-SS 6-SS 7-SS 8-SS 9-SS 1.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 20.0 25.0 4.0 6.5 9.0 11.5 14.0 16.5 21.5 25.8 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.4 1.0 1.5 1.1 0.7 Asphalt Pavement, approx 11-inches POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT and GRAVEL(SP-SM)brown, moist, dense, fine to coarse sand, fine to coarse subangular to subrounded gravel SILTY SAND with GRAVEL (SM)brown, moist, loose, fine to coarse sand, fine tocoarse subangular gravel WELL GRADED SAND with SILT and GRAVEL(SW-SM)gray and brown, dry to moist, loose, fine to coarsesand, fine to coarse subangular gravel Similar to above except with few caorse angulargravel SILTY SAND with GRAVEL (SM)gray, moist, loose, fine to medium sand, fine to coarsesubangular gravel SILTY SAND with GRAVEL (SM)gray, moist, loose, fine to medium sand, fine to coarse angular to subangular gravel, trace organics and wood chips Similar to above except gray and brown with fracturedrock POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT and GRAVEL (SP-SM)gray, moist, very dense, fine to medium sand, fine tocoarse angular to subangular gravel SILTY SAND with GRAVEL (SM)gray, moist, very dense, fine to coarse sand, fine tocoarse subangular gravel Bottom of Boring at 25.8 ft bgs on 7/12/21 23:30 Lab Results:MC : 9.0%Sieve : GRAVEL : 25%, SAND : 51.5%,FINES : 23.5% Lab Results:MC : 10.8%P200 : 21% Lab Results:MC : 23% P200 : 19.4% ORIENTATION : Vertical WATER LEVELS : Not encountered BORING NUMBER: SHEET 1 OF 1B-13-21 DEPTH BELOWEXISTING GRADE(ft)6"-6"-6"(N) PROJECT NUMBER: SOIL DESCRIPTION DRILLING CONTRACTOR : Holt Services, Inc. LOCATION : (47.4 N, -122.2 E) STANDARDPENETRATIONTEST RESULTS COMMENTS ELEVATION : 435.4 ft W3X86400 DRILLING EQUIPMENT AND METHOD : Mobile B-58 Truck-Mounted Rig, Hollow Stem Auger #TYPELOGGER : N. ZabihiSTART : 7/12/21 22:40 END : 7/12/21 23:30 PROJECT : I-Line Rapid Ride SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL, COLOR,MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE DENSITY ORCONSISTENCY, SOIL STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY SYMBOLIC LOG435.4 430.4 425.4 420.4 415.4 410.4 SOIL BORING LOG DEPTH OF CASING, DRILLING RATE,DRILLING FLUID LOSS, TESTS, ANDINSTRUMENTATION INTERVAL (ft)5 10 15 20 25 30 SAMPLERECOVERY (ft) 13-18-10(28) 7-3-8(11) 15-30-43(73) 8-50/6(50/6") 32-43-50/4(93/10") 50/5(50/5") 1-SS 2-SS 3-SS 4-SS 5-SS 6-SS 0.4 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 1.9 4.0 6.5 8.5 11.4 13.0 1.0 0.9 1.5 1.0 1.4 0.5 Asphalt Pavement, approx 4.5-inches WELL GRADED SAND with SILT and GRAVEL (SW-SM) brown, dry, medium dense, fine to coarse sand, low placticity silt, fine to medium subrounded to angular gravel POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM)brown with red oxidation mottling, moist, mediumdense, fine to medium sand, low plasticity silt SILTY SAND with TRACE GRAVEL (SM)light brown, moist, medium dense, fine to mediumsand, low plasticity silt Similar to above except with gravel Similar to above except grayish brown and dry tomoist Similar to above except some red oxidation mottlingobserved at bottom Bottom of Boring at 13.0 ft bgs on 7/19/21 20:45 Lab Results:MC : 3.8% Sieve : GRAVEL : 40.7%, SAND : 48.9%, FINES : 10.4% Lab Results:MC : 14.6%P200 : 26.1% Lab Results:MC : 7.9%P200 : 37.6% ORIENTATION : Vertical WATER LEVELS : Not encountered BORING NUMBER: SHEET 1 OF 1B-15(W)-21 DEPTH BELOWEXISTING GRADE(ft)6"-6"-6"(N) PROJECT NUMBER: SOIL DESCRIPTION DRILLING CONTRACTOR : Holt Services, Inc. LOCATION : (47.4 N, -122.2 E) STANDARDPENETRATIONTEST RESULTS COMMENTS ELEVATION : 424.4 ft W3X86400 DRILLING EQUIPMENT AND METHOD : Mobile B-58 Truck-Mounted Rig, Hollow Stem Auger #TYPELOGGER : M. EndoSTART : 7/19/21 19:40 END : 7/19/21 20:45 PROJECT : I-Line Rapid Ride SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL, COLOR,MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE DENSITY ORCONSISTENCY, SOIL STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY SYMBOLIC LOG424.4 419.4 414.4 409.4 404.4 399.4 SOIL BORING LOG DEPTH OF CASING, DRILLING RATE,DRILLING FLUID LOSS, TESTS, ANDINSTRUMENTATION INTERVAL (ft)5 10 15 20 25 30 SAMPLERECOVERY (ft) 3-3-2 (5) 7-8-5 (13) 7-10-16 (26) 12-18-14 (32) 12-27-45(72) 17-50/6(50/6") 32-47-39(86) 28-24-50/6(74/12") 50/6(50/6") 1-SS 2-SS 3-SS 4-SS 5-SS 6-SS 7-SS 8-SS 9-SS 0.4 2.9 5.4 7.9 10.4 12.9 15.4 20.4 25.4 4.4 6.9 9.4 11.9 13.9 16.9 21.9 25.9 0.9 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.0 1.1 1.0 0.5 Asphalt Pavement, approx 4.5-inches SILTY SAND with GRAVEL (SM) dark brown, moist, loose, fine to coarse angular to subangular sand, fine to coarse angular to subrounded gravel Similar to above but light brown, with fractured rockand medium dense Similar to above Similar to above but moist to wet, without fractured rock and dense Similar to above but very dense Similar to above but gray, moist and less gravel SILTY SAND with GRAVEL and fractured rock (SM)gray brown, moist to wet, very dense, fine to coarseangular to subangular sand, fine to coarse angular tosubrounded gravel Similar to above but gray, moist and without fracturedrock Similar to above but brown and moist to wet Bottom of Boring at 25.5 ft bgs on 6/29/21 23:55 Lab Results:MC : 18% Sieve : GRAVEL : 25.4%, SAND : 49.2%, FINES : 25.4% Lab Results:MC : 12.5% P200 : 25.3% Lab Results: MC : 9.8%P200 : 25.6% Lab Results: MC : 11.4%P200 : 23.2% ORIENTATION : Vertical WATER LEVELS : 23.2 ft bgs BORING NUMBER: SHEET 1 OF 1B-17-21 DEPTH BELOWEXISTING GRADE(ft)6"-6"-6"(N) PROJECT NUMBER: SOIL DESCRIPTION DRILLING CONTRACTOR : Holt Services, Inc. LOCATION : (47.4 N, -122.2 E) STANDARDPENETRATIONTEST RESULTS COMMENTS ELEVATION : 404.9 ft W3X86400 DRILLING EQUIPMENT AND METHOD : Mobile B-58 Truck-Mounted Rig, Hollow Stem Auger #TYPELOGGER : N. ZabihiSTART : 6/29/21 22:10 END : 6/29/21 23:55 PROJECT : I-Line Rapid Ride SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL, COLOR,MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE DENSITY ORCONSISTENCY, SOIL STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY SYMBOLIC LOG404.9 399.9 394.9 389.9 384.9 379.9 SOIL BORING LOG DEPTH OF CASING, DRILLING RATE,DRILLING FLUID LOSS, TESTS, ANDINSTRUMENTATION INTERVAL (ft)5 10 15 20 25 30 SAMPLERECOVERY (ft) 21-50/3(50/3") 37-50/6(50/6") 50/6(50/6") 38-50/5(50/5") 1-SS 2-SS 3-SS 4-SS 0.8 3.3 5.8 8.3 2.3 4.3 6.3 9.3 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.8 Asphalt Pavement, approx 10-inches POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT and GRAVEL(SP-SM)brown, moist, very dense, fine to coarse angular tosubangular sand, fine to coarse angular to subangulargravel Similar to above but light brown with gray fracturedrock Similar to above SILTY SAND with GRAVEL and fractured rocks(SM)brown, moist, very dense, fine to coarse angular to subangular sand, fine to coarse angular to subrounded gravel Bottom of Boring at 8.5 ft bgs on 6/29/21 20:30 Rig is chattering between 0 to 2.5-ft bgs Rig is chattering between 2.5 to 5-ft bgs Lab Results:MC : 4.1%Sieve : GRAVEL : 30.6%, SAND : 42.8%,FINES : 26.6%Rig is chattering between 5 to 7.5-ft bgs ORIENTATION : Vertical WATER LEVELS : Not encountered BORING NUMBER: SHEET 1 OF 1B-19-21 DEPTH BELOWEXISTING GRADE(ft)6"-6"-6"(N) PROJECT NUMBER: SOIL DESCRIPTION DRILLING CONTRACTOR : Holt Services, Inc. LOCATION : (47.4 N, -122.2 E) STANDARDPENETRATIONTEST RESULTS COMMENTS ELEVATION : 382.3 ft W3X86400 DRILLING EQUIPMENT AND METHOD : Mobile B-58 Truck-Mounted Rig, Hollow Stem Auger #TYPELOGGER : N. ZabihiSTART : 6/29/21 19:30 END : 6/29/21 20:30 PROJECT : I-Line Rapid Ride SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL, COLOR,MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE DENSITY ORCONSISTENCY, SOIL STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY SYMBOLIC LOG382.3 377.3 372.3 367.3 362.3 357.3 SOIL BORING LOG DEPTH OF CASING, DRILLING RATE,DRILLING FLUID LOSS, TESTS, ANDINSTRUMENTATION INTERVAL (ft)5 10 15 20 25 30 SAMPLERECOVERY (ft) 6-4-2 (6) 0-1-1(2) 0-0-1 (1) 0-1-1(2) 4-4-4(8) 1-1-1(2) 0-0-1(1) 7-11-10(21) 0-4-6 (10) 1-SS 2-SS 3ASS 3BSS 4ASS 4BSS 4CSS 5-SS 6ASS 6BSS 7ASS7BSS7CSS 8-SS 9ASS 9BSS 0.9 3.4 5.9 7.1 8.4 9.1 9.7 10.9 13.4 14.4 15.916.116.6 20.9 25.9 26.9 2.4 4.9 7.4 9.9 12.4 14.9 17.4 22.4 27.4 0.7 1.5 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.4 Asphalt Pavement, approx 11-inches POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT and GRAVEL (SP-SM) dark brown, moist, loose, fine to coarse angular tosubangular sand, fine angular to subangular gravelwith trace woodchips PEAT with SANDY SILT (PT) dark brown, moist, soft Similar to above SILTY SAND (SM) gray, moist, very loose, fine to medium angular sand with some peat mixed inSANDY SILT/ CLAY (MH/CH)dark brown, moist, very soft to soft SILT with trace ORGANICS (ML) gray, moist, very soft to soft POORLY GRADED SAND (SP)gray, moist, very loose, fine to medium angular sandPOORLY GRADED SAND (SP)gray, wet, loose, fine to medium angular tosubangular sand Similar to above but very loose CLAY with SAND (CL) grayish brown, moist to wet , very soft to soft, fine sandPOORLY GRADED SAND (SP)gray, wet, very loose, fine to medium angular sand SILT with ORGANICS (ML)brown, moist, very soft, trace wood chips Similar to above POORLY GRADED SAND (SP)gray, wet, medium dense, fine to medium angular sand Similar to above but loose to medium dense SANDY SILT (ML)gray, moist to wet, very stiff, fine angular sand Lab Results: MC : 9% Sieve : GRAVEL : 29.7%, SAND : 60.9%,FINES : 9.4% Lab Results: MC : 56.1%ORGANIC CONTENT : 32.6% Lab Results:MC : 20.7%P200 : 2.2% Lab Results: MC : 181.3% ORGANIC CONTENT : 30.2% Lab Results:MC : 23.2% P200 : 10% Lab Results:MC : 27.2%P200 : 50.7% ORIENTATION : Vertical WATER LEVELS : Not encountered BORING NUMBER: SHEET 1 OF 2B-1W-21 DEPTH BELOWEXISTING GRADE(ft)6"-6"-6"(N) PROJECT NUMBER: SOIL DESCRIPTION DRILLING CONTRACTOR : Holt Services, Inc. LOCATION : (47.5 N, -122.2 E) STANDARDPENETRATIONTEST RESULTS COMMENTS ELEVATION : 26.0 ft W3X86400 DRILLING EQUIPMENT AND METHOD : Mobile B-58 Truck-Mounted Rig, Hollow Stem Auger #TYPELOGGER : N. ZabihiSTART : 6/22/21 08:40 END : 6/22/21 10:10 PROJECT : I-Line Rapid Ride SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL, COLOR,MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE DENSITY ORCONSISTENCY, SOIL STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY SYMBOLIC LOG26.0 21.0 16.0 11.0 6.0 1.0 SOIL BORING LOG DEPTH OF CASING, DRILLING RATE,DRILLING FLUID LOSS, TESTS, ANDINSTRUMENTATION INTERVAL (ft)5 10 15 20 25 30 SAMPLERECOVERY (ft) 5-5-5 (10) 15-30-33 (63) 10-SS 11ASS 11BSS 11CSS 30.9 35.9 36.5 37.2 32.4 37.4 1.3 1.4 POORLY GRADED SAND (SP) gray, wet, loose to medium dense, fine to medium angular sand Similar to above but very dense CLAY with ORGANICS (CL) grayish brown, moist to wet, hard POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SILT and SAND(GP-GM) gray, wet, very dense, fine to coarse angular to subangular gravel, medium angular to subangular sand Bottom of Boring at 36.5 ft bgs on 6/22/21 10:10 Lab Results: MC : 23.1% P200 : 5.6% ORIENTATION : Vertical WATER LEVELS : Not encountered BORING NUMBER: SHEET 2 OF 2B-1W-21 DEPTH BELOWEXISTING GRADE(ft)6"-6"-6"(N) PROJECT NUMBER: SOIL DESCRIPTION DRILLING CONTRACTOR : Holt Services, Inc. LOCATION : (47.5 N, -122.2 E) STANDARDPENETRATIONTEST RESULTS COMMENTS ELEVATION : 26.0 ft W3X86400 DRILLING EQUIPMENT AND METHOD : Mobile B-58 Truck-Mounted Rig, Hollow Stem Auger #TYPELOGGER : N. ZabihiSTART : 6/22/21 08:40 END : 6/22/21 10:10 PROJECT : I-Line Rapid Ride SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL, COLOR,MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE DENSITY ORCONSISTENCY, SOIL STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY SYMBOLIC LOG-4.0 -9.0 -14.0 -19.0 -24.0 -29.0 SOIL BORING LOG DEPTH OF CASING, DRILLING RATE,DRILLING FLUID LOSS, TESTS, ANDINSTRUMENTATION INTERVAL (ft)35 40 45 50 55 60 SAMPLERECOVERY (ft) 16-36-24 (60) WOH(WOH") 6-8-7(15) 7-9-14(23) 6-8-12(20) 3-4-3(7) 4-6-5 (11) 24-16-11(27) 1-SS 2-SS 3-SS 4-SS 5-SS 6-SS 7-SS 8-SS 1.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 20.0 25.0 3.0 6.5 9.0 11.5 14.0 16.5 21.5 26.5 0.7 1.2 0.8 0.7 0.6 1.3 1.3 1.0 Asphalt Pavement, approx 11-inches Concrete, approx 7-inches SILTY SAND with GRAVEL (SM) grayish brown, moist, very dense, fine to coarse sand, non-plastic silt, medium to coarse subrounded gravel SANDY SILT (ML)brown, wet, very soft, non-plastic silt, fine to mediumsand PEAT (PT) SILTY SAND (SM)brown, wet, medium dense, fine tomedium sand, lowplastic silt Similar to above SANDY SILT (ML)gray with red oxidation mottling, moist, very stiff, lowplastic silt, fine to medium sand SILTY SAND (SM)brown, wet, medium dense, fine tomedium sand, low plastic silt SANDY SILT (ML)gray with red oxidation mottling, moist, very stiff, lowplastic silt, fine to medium sandWELL GRADED SAND with SILT (SW-SM) light brown, wett, loose, fine to coarse sand, low plasticity silt Similar to above SILT (ML)dark brown with gray, moist, very stiff, medium plasticsilt, trace sand POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SILT (GP-GM) Lab Results: MC : 6.4% Sieve : GRAVEL : 54.8%, SAND : 31.5%, FINES : 13.8% Lab Results:MC : 79.2%P200 : 26.1%ORGANIC CONTENT : 10.2% Lab Results:MC : 17.8%P200 : 13.2% Lab Results:MC : 25.2% P200 : 8.2% Lab Results: MC : 21.4%P200 : 14.3% ORIENTATION : Vertical WATER LEVELS : Not encountered BORING NUMBER: SHEET 1 OF 2B-21W-21 DEPTH BELOWEXISTING GRADE(ft)6"-6"-6"(N) PROJECT NUMBER: SOIL DESCRIPTION DRILLING CONTRACTOR : Holt Services, Inc. LOCATION : (47.4 N, -122.2 E) STANDARDPENETRATIONTEST RESULTS COMMENTS ELEVATION : 45.6 ft W3X86400 DRILLING EQUIPMENT AND METHOD : Mobile B-58 Truck-Mounted Rig, Hollow Stem Auger #TYPELOGGER : M. EndoSTART : 7/15/21 19:40 END : 7/15/21 21:55 PROJECT : I-Line Rapid Ride SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL, COLOR,MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE DENSITY ORCONSISTENCY, SOIL STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY SYMBOLIC LOG45.6 40.6 35.6 30.6 25.6 20.6 SOIL BORING LOG DEPTH OF CASING, DRILLING RATE,DRILLING FLUID LOSS, TESTS, ANDINSTRUMENTATION INTERVAL (ft)5 10 15 20 25 30 SAMPLERECOVERY (ft) 25-30-50/5(80/11")9-SS30.0 31.5 1.5 POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM)light brown with red oxide mottling, moist, very dense,fine to medium sand, low plasticity silt Bottom of Boring at 31.5 ft bgs on 7/15/21 21:55 ORIENTATION : Vertical WATER LEVELS : Not encountered BORING NUMBER: SHEET 2 OF 2B-21W-21 DEPTH BELOWEXISTING GRADE(ft)6"-6"-6"(N) PROJECT NUMBER: SOIL DESCRIPTION DRILLING CONTRACTOR : Holt Services, Inc. LOCATION : (47.4 N, -122.2 E) STANDARDPENETRATIONTEST RESULTS COMMENTS ELEVATION : 45.6 ft W3X86400 DRILLING EQUIPMENT AND METHOD : Mobile B-58 Truck-Mounted Rig, Hollow Stem Auger #TYPELOGGER : M. EndoSTART : 7/15/21 19:40 END : 7/15/21 21:55 PROJECT : I-Line Rapid Ride SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL, COLOR,MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE DENSITY ORCONSISTENCY, SOIL STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY SYMBOLIC LOG15.6 10.6 5.6 0.6 -4.4 -9.4 SOIL BORING LOG DEPTH OF CASING, DRILLING RATE,DRILLING FLUID LOSS, TESTS, ANDINSTRUMENTATION INTERVAL (ft)35 40 45 50 55 60 SAMPLERECOVERY (ft) 16-12-10(22) 1-1-1(2) 0-WOH(WOH") 1-2-1(3) 0-WOH(WOH") 2-3-2(5) 0-0-1(1) 4-4-9(13) 7-9-6 (15) 1-SS 2-SS 3-SS 4ASS 4BSS 5ASS 5BSS 6-SS 7-SS 8ASS 8BSS 9ASS 9BSS9CSS 0.8 2.5 5.0 7.57.9 10.0 10.8 12.5 15.0 20.0 20.7 25.0 25.5 25.9 2.3 4.0 6.5 9.0 11.5 14.0 16.5 21.5 26.5 0.4 1.5 0.3 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.5 1.5 Asphalt Pavement, approx 9-inches POORLY GRADED SAND with GRAVEL (SP)dark gray, moist, medium dense, fine sand, coarseangular gravel SILT/ORGANICS (ML/OL)black, moist, soft with sand and woodchips, tracerounded grass SANDY SILT (ML)black, moist, very soft, fine to coarse sand Similar to above except dark brown and becomes soft SILTY SAND (SM) grayish brown, wet, very loose, fine to medium sand SILT with SAND (ML)dark brown, moist, very soft, fine sand, trace gravel SILTY SAND (SM)brownish gray, wet, very loose, fine to medium sand Similar to above except becomes loose SANDY SILTY CLAY (CL-ML)brown with gray, moist, very soft, fine to medium sand, with organics SANDY SILT (ML) brown with gray, moist, stiff, fine to medium sand,trace clay POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT and GRAVEL(SP-SM) gray, wet, medium dense, lense of brown sand POORLY GRADED SAND (SP)gray, wet, medium dense, fine to medium sand SANDY SILT/CLAY (ML/CL) brown, wet, stiff, fine sand SILTY SAND (SM)gray, wet, medium dense, fine to medium sand Lab Results:MC : 49.3%Sieve : GRAVEL : 6.1%, SAND : 40.7%,FINES : 53.2%ORGANIC CONTENT : 52% Lab Results:MC : 29.1% Lab Results:MC : 126.2%LL : 76, PI : 17 Lab Results:MC : 79% LL : 76, PI : 24 Lab Results:MC : 21.4%P200 : 7% ORIENTATION : Vertical WATER LEVELS : 12.0 ft bgs BORING NUMBER: SHEET 1 OF 2B-2-21 DEPTH BELOWEXISTING GRADE(ft)6"-6"-6"(N) PROJECT NUMBER: SOIL DESCRIPTION DRILLING CONTRACTOR : Holt Services, Inc. LOCATION : (47.5 N, -122.2 E) STANDARDPENETRATIONTEST RESULTS COMMENTS ELEVATION : 28.6 ft W3X86400 DRILLING EQUIPMENT AND METHOD : Mobile B-58 Truck-Mounted Rig, Hollow Stem Auger #TYPELOGGER : N. ZabihiSTART : 6/23/21 12:40 END : 6/23/21 13:50 PROJECT : I-Line Rapid Ride SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL, COLOR,MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE DENSITY ORCONSISTENCY, SOIL STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY SYMBOLIC LOG28.6 23.6 18.6 13.6 8.6 3.6 SOIL BORING LOG DEPTH OF CASING, DRILLING RATE,DRILLING FLUID LOSS, TESTS, ANDINSTRUMENTATION INTERVAL (ft)5 10 15 20 25 30 SAMPLERECOVERY (ft) 3-2-6 (8) 4-4-6 (10) 10-15-18(33) 10ASS 10BSS 11ASS 11BSS 12-SS 30.0 30.7 35.0 36.2 40.0 31.5 36.5 41.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM)gray, moist, loose, fine to coarse sand SANDY SILT (ML)gray, moist, medium stiff, fine sand, organics SILTY/CLAYEY SAND (SM/SC)gray, moist, loose, fine to medium sand, traceorganics SILT/CLAY (ML/CL)gray, moist, medium stiff, trace organics SANDY CLAY/CLAYEY SAND (CL/SC)gray, moist, hard, fine to medium sand Bottom of Boring at 41.5 ft bgs on 6/23/21 13:50 Lab Results:MC : 36%P200 : 3.7% Lab Results:MC : 32.1%P200 : 26.5% ORIENTATION : Vertical WATER LEVELS : 12.0 ft bgs BORING NUMBER: SHEET 2 OF 2B-2-21 DEPTH BELOWEXISTING GRADE(ft)6"-6"-6"(N) PROJECT NUMBER: SOIL DESCRIPTION DRILLING CONTRACTOR : Holt Services, Inc. LOCATION : (47.5 N, -122.2 E) STANDARDPENETRATIONTEST RESULTS COMMENTS ELEVATION : 28.6 ft W3X86400 DRILLING EQUIPMENT AND METHOD : Mobile B-58 Truck-Mounted Rig, Hollow Stem Auger #TYPELOGGER : N. ZabihiSTART : 6/23/21 12:40 END : 6/23/21 13:50 PROJECT : I-Line Rapid Ride SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL, COLOR,MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE DENSITY ORCONSISTENCY, SOIL STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY SYMBOLIC LOG-1.4 -6.4 -11.4 -16.4 -21.4 -26.4 SOIL BORING LOG DEPTH OF CASING, DRILLING RATE,DRILLING FLUID LOSS, TESTS, ANDINSTRUMENTATION INTERVAL (ft)35 40 45 50 55 60 SAMPLERECOVERY (ft) 22-23-29(52) 6-11-8(19) 4-6-6(12) WOH(WOH") 2-2-2(4) 0-2-2(4) 3-1-1(2) 2-6-11 (17) 4-10-12(22) 1-SS 2-SS 3-SS 4-SS 5-SS 6-SS 7-SS 8-SS 9-SS 0.5 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 20.0 25.0 2.0 4.0 6.5 9.0 11.5 14.0 16.5 21.5 26.5 1.2 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.5 1.2 Asphalt Pavement, approx 5-inches WELL GRADED SAND with SILT and GRAVEL (SW-SM) light brown, dry, very dense, fine to coarse sand, non-plastic silt, fine to medium angular gravel POORLY GRADED SAND (SP)light brown, dry to moist, medium dense, fine tomedium sand Similar to above SILT (ML)light gray, wet, very soft, medium plastic silt Similar to above WELL GRADED SAND with SILT (SW-SM)dark brown, wet, veryloose, fine to coarse sand,medium plastic silt SILTY SAND (SM)dark brown, wet, very loose, fine to medium sand, low plasticity silt Similar to above SILT (ML)grayish brown, moist to wet, very soft, low to mediumplasticity silt Similar to above except very stiff POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM)dark grayish brown, wet, medium dense, fine tomedium sand, low plasticity silt Lab Results:MC : 3.3%Sieve : GRAVEL : 32%, SAND : 55.7%,FINES : 12.3% Lab Results:MC : 13.9%P200 : 19.3% Lab Results:MC : 49.6%LL : 42, PI : 9 Lab Results:MC : 29.4% P200 : 28.3% Lab Results:MC : 41.6% LL : 38, PI : 8 Lab Results: MC : 40.3%P200 : 71.3% Lab Results:MC : 27.4%P200 : 13.8% ORIENTATION : Vertical WATER LEVELS : 19.1 ft bgs BORING NUMBER: SHEET 1 OF 2B-22-21 DEPTH BELOWEXISTING GRADE(ft)6"-6"-6"(N) PROJECT NUMBER: SOIL DESCRIPTION DRILLING CONTRACTOR : Holt Services, Inc. LOCATION : (47.4 N, -122.2 E) STANDARDPENETRATIONTEST RESULTS COMMENTS ELEVATION : 41.8 ft W3X86400 DRILLING EQUIPMENT AND METHOD : Mobile B-58 Truck-Mounted Rig, Hollow Stem Auger #TYPELOGGER : M. EndoSTART : 7/16/21 01:12 END : 7/16/21 02:55 PROJECT : I-Line Rapid Ride SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL, COLOR,MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE DENSITY ORCONSISTENCY, SOIL STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY SYMBOLIC LOG41.8 36.8 31.8 26.8 21.8 16.8 SOIL BORING LOG DEPTH OF CASING, DRILLING RATE,DRILLING FLUID LOSS, TESTS, ANDINSTRUMENTATION INTERVAL (ft)5 10 15 20 25 30 SAMPLERECOVERY (ft) 4-7-7(14) 19-30-17(47) 10-SS 11-SS 30.0 35.0 31.5 36.5 1.5 1.5 Similar to above except 0.5-inch silt lense observed at31' SILTY SAND (SM)dark grayish brown, moist to wet, very dense, fine tomedium sand, low plasticity silt Bottom of Boring at 36.5 ft bgs on 7/16/21 02:55 Lab Results:MC : 28.5%P200 : 21.3% ORIENTATION : Vertical WATER LEVELS : 19.1 ft bgs BORING NUMBER: SHEET 2 OF 2B-22-21 DEPTH BELOWEXISTING GRADE(ft)6"-6"-6"(N) PROJECT NUMBER: SOIL DESCRIPTION DRILLING CONTRACTOR : Holt Services, Inc. LOCATION : (47.4 N, -122.2 E) STANDARDPENETRATIONTEST RESULTS COMMENTS ELEVATION : 41.8 ft W3X86400 DRILLING EQUIPMENT AND METHOD : Mobile B-58 Truck-Mounted Rig, Hollow Stem Auger #TYPELOGGER : M. EndoSTART : 7/16/21 01:12 END : 7/16/21 02:55 PROJECT : I-Line Rapid Ride SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL, COLOR,MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE DENSITY ORCONSISTENCY, SOIL STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY SYMBOLIC LOG11.8 6.8 1.8 -3.2 -8.2 -13.2 SOIL BORING LOG DEPTH OF CASING, DRILLING RATE,DRILLING FLUID LOSS, TESTS, ANDINSTRUMENTATION INTERVAL (ft)35 40 45 50 55 60 SAMPLERECOVERY (ft) 12-7-9 (16) 1-3-4(7) 2-3-5(8) 4-3-6(9) 3-5-6(11) 3-1-5(6) 4-5-12(17) 2-1-2 (3) 7-14-32(46) 1-SS 2-SS 3-SS 4-SS 5-SS 6-SS 7-SS 8ASS 8B 9ASS 9B 0.6 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 20.0 21.0 25.0 26.0 2.1 4.0 6.5 9.0 11.5 14.0 16.5 21.5 26.5 0.4 0.9 1.4 1.4 0.9 0.9 1.4 1.5 1.5 Asphalt Pavement, approx 7-inches WELL GRADED SAND with SILT and GRAVEL (SW-SM)brown, dry to moist, medium dense, fine to coarsesand, coarse subangular gravelPOORLY GRADED SAND (SP)brown, moist, loose, fine to medium sand Similar to above Similar to above except coarser sand and moist to wet Similar to above except wet and medium dense Similar to above except loose Similar to above except medium dense Similar to above except very loose LEAN CLAY (CL)gray, wet, soft POORLY GRADED SAND (SP)brown, wet, dense POORLY GRADED SAND with GRAVEL (SP) grayinsh brown, wet, dense, coarse sand, fine angular to subangular gravel Bottom of Boring at 26.5 ft bgs on 7/19/21 11:15 ORIENTATION : Vertical WATER LEVELS : 12.0 ft bgs BORING NUMBER: SHEET 1 OF 1B-29-21 DEPTH BELOWEXISTING GRADE(ft)6"-6"-6"(N) PROJECT NUMBER: SOIL DESCRIPTION DRILLING CONTRACTOR : Holt Services, Inc. LOCATION : (47.4 N, -122.2 E) STANDARDPENETRATIONTEST RESULTS COMMENTS ELEVATION : 51.7 ft W3X86400 DRILLING EQUIPMENT AND METHOD : Mobile B-58 Truck-Mounted Rig, Hollow Stem Auger #TYPELOGGER : N. ZabihiSTART : 7/19/21 09:45 END : 7/19/21 11:15 PROJECT : I-Line Rapid Ride SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL, COLOR,MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE DENSITY ORCONSISTENCY, SOIL STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY SYMBOLIC LOG51.7 46.7 41.7 36.7 31.7 26.7 SOIL BORING LOG DEPTH OF CASING, DRILLING RATE,DRILLING FLUID LOSS, TESTS, ANDINSTRUMENTATION INTERVAL (ft)5 10 15 20 25 30 SAMPLERECOVERY (ft) 6-3-6 (9) 3-5-7(12) 4-7-6(13) 3-2-4(6) 2-5-5(10) 4-5-9(14) 2-2-2(4) 0-2-3 (5) 2-3-4(7) 1-SS 2ASS 2BSS 3-SS 4-SS 5-SS 6-SS 7-SS 8ASS 8BSS 9-SS 1.2 3.5 4.0 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 20.0 21.0 25.0 2.7 6.5 9.0 11.5 14.0 16.5 21.5 26.5 0.5 1.5 1.4 1.0 1.5 1.4 1.0 1.5 1.4 Asphalt Pavement, approx 7-inches Concrete, approx 7-inches SILTY SAND with GRAVEL (SM) brown, moist, loose, fine to medium sand, fine to coarse subangular gravel Similar to above except medium dense POORLY GRADED SAND with TRACE SILT andGRAVEL (SP)brown, moist, medium dense, fine to medium sand Similar to above Similar to above except loose and moist to wet Similar to above Similar to above Similar to above except very loose and wet Similar to above SILT with TRACE SAND and ORGANICS (ML)brown, wet, firm POORLY GRADED SAND with TRACE SILT (SP)brown, wet, loose, fine to medium sand Bottom of Boring at 26.5 ft bgs on 7/22/21 11:45 Lab Results: MC : 15.8% P200 : 41.4% Lab Results:MC : 22.2%P200 : 6.8% Lab Results:MC : 23.4%P200 : 2.1% Lab Results:MC : 26.8% P200 : 2.6% Lab Results:MC : 29.1% P200 : 3.6% Lab Results: MC : 25%P200 : 3%Lab Results:MC : 93.8%LL : 85, PI : 23 ORIENTATION : Vertical WATER LEVELS : 14.1 ft bgs BORING NUMBER: SHEET 1 OF 1B-31W-21 DEPTH BELOWEXISTING GRADE(ft)6"-6"-6"(N) PROJECT NUMBER: SOIL DESCRIPTION DRILLING CONTRACTOR : Holt Services, Inc. LOCATION : (47.3 N, -122.2 E) STANDARDPENETRATIONTEST RESULTS COMMENTS ELEVATION : 63.1 ft W3X86400 DRILLING EQUIPMENT AND METHOD : Mobile B-58 Truck-Mounted Rig, Hollow Stem Auger #TYPELOGGER : N. ZabihiSTART : 7/22/21 09:45 END : 7/22/21 11:45 PROJECT : I-Line Rapid Ride SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL, COLOR,MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE DENSITY ORCONSISTENCY, SOIL STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY SYMBOLIC LOG63.1 58.1 53.1 48.1 43.1 38.1 SOIL BORING LOG DEPTH OF CASING, DRILLING RATE,DRILLING FLUID LOSS, TESTS, ANDINSTRUMENTATION INTERVAL (ft)5 10 15 20 25 30 SAMPLERECOVERY (ft) 11-17-13 (30) 8-7-6(13) 1-2-1(3) 0-0-0(0) 0-0-1(1) 0-0-0(0) 0-0-2(2) 2-5-2(7) 3-4-8 (12) 1-SS 2-SS 3-SS 4ASS 4BSS 5ASS 5BSS 6-SS 7ASS 7BSS 8ASS8BSS 8CSS 9ASS 9BSS 0.9 3.4 5.9 8.4 9.1 10.9 11.3 13.4 15.916.3 20.921.1 21.9 25.9 26.9 2.4 4.9 7.4 9.9 12.4 14.9 17.4 22.4 27.4 1.3 0.0 1.3 1.2 1.2 0.0 1.3 1.4 1.4 Asphalt Pavement, approx 11-inches POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT and GRAVEL (SP-SM) dark brown, moist, dense, fine to coarse angular tosubangular sand, fine to coarse angular gravel No Recovery PEAT with SANDY SILT (PT)dark brown to black, moist to wet, soft, wood chips insampler SANDY SILT/CLAY (ML/CL)brown, moist, very soft SILTY SAND (SM) gray, wet, very loose, fine angular sand PEAT with SAND and SILT (PT)dark brown to black, moist to wet, very soft, woodchips in sampler POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM)gray, wet, very loose, fine angular sandNo Recovery SILTY SAND (SM)gray, moist to wet, very loose, fine angular sand CLAY (CL/CH)gray, moist, very soft SANDY SILT/CLAY (ML/CL)gray, wet, medium stiff CLAY (CL/CH)gray, moist, medium stiff SANDY SILT/CLAY (ML/CL) gray, moist to wet, medium stiff Similar to above except becomes stiff PEAT with SAND and SILT (PT)dark brown to black, moist to wet, stiff Rig is chattering between 0 to 2.5-ft bgs Lab Results: MC : 6.5% Sieve : GRAVEL : 32.9%, SAND : 58.7%,FINES : 8.4% Lab Results:MC : 40.7%ORGANIC CONTENT : 34.4% Lab Results:MC : 26.8%ORGANIC CONTENT : 27.4%Lab Results:MC : 29.8%P200 : 17.9% Lab Results:MC : 47.8%LL : 51, PI : 16 Lab Results: MC : 46.7% P200 : 78.1% ORIENTATION : Vertical WATER LEVELS : 24.4 ft bgs BORING NUMBER: SHEET 1 OF 2B-3-21 DEPTH BELOWEXISTING GRADE(ft)6"-6"-6"(N) PROJECT NUMBER: SOIL DESCRIPTION DRILLING CONTRACTOR : Holt Services, Inc. LOCATION : (47.5 N, -122.2 E) STANDARDPENETRATIONTEST RESULTS COMMENTS ELEVATION : 30.5 ft W3X86400 DRILLING EQUIPMENT AND METHOD : Mobile B-58 Truck-Mounted Rig, Hollow Stem Auger #TYPELOGGER : N. ZabihiSTART : 6/22/21 13:20 END : 6/22/21 16:00 PROJECT : I-Line Rapid Ride SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL, COLOR,MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE DENSITY ORCONSISTENCY, SOIL STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY SYMBOLIC LOG30.5 25.5 20.5 15.5 10.5 5.5 SOIL BORING LOG DEPTH OF CASING, DRILLING RATE,DRILLING FLUID LOSS, TESTS, ANDINSTRUMENTATION INTERVAL (ft)5 10 15 20 25 30 SAMPLERECOVERY (ft) 6-7-8 (15) 4-6-6 (12) 8-9-15(24) 10ASS 10BSS 11ASS 11BSS 12-SS 30.9 31.6 35.936.1 40.9 32.1 37.4 42.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 POORLY GRADED SAND (SP) gray, wet, medium dense, fine to medium angular sand SILT (ML)gray, moist, stiff SANDY SILT (ML)gray, moist to wet, stiff, fine angular sand CLAY (CL)gray, moist to wet, stiff SILTY SAND (SM)gray, wet, medium dense, fine angular sand Bottom of Boring at 41.5 ft bgs on 6/22/21 16:00 Lab Results: MC : 24% P200 : 11.5% Lab Results:MC : 32.8%P200 : 39.1% ORIENTATION : Vertical WATER LEVELS : 24.4 ft bgs BORING NUMBER: SHEET 2 OF 2B-3-21 DEPTH BELOWEXISTING GRADE(ft)6"-6"-6"(N) PROJECT NUMBER: SOIL DESCRIPTION DRILLING CONTRACTOR : Holt Services, Inc. LOCATION : (47.5 N, -122.2 E) STANDARDPENETRATIONTEST RESULTS COMMENTS ELEVATION : 30.5 ft W3X86400 DRILLING EQUIPMENT AND METHOD : Mobile B-58 Truck-Mounted Rig, Hollow Stem Auger #TYPELOGGER : N. ZabihiSTART : 6/22/21 13:20 END : 6/22/21 16:00 PROJECT : I-Line Rapid Ride SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL, COLOR,MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE DENSITY ORCONSISTENCY, SOIL STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY SYMBOLIC LOG0.5 -4.5 -9.5 -14.5 -19.5 -24.5 SOIL BORING LOG DEPTH OF CASING, DRILLING RATE,DRILLING FLUID LOSS, TESTS, ANDINSTRUMENTATION INTERVAL (ft)35 40 45 50 55 60 SAMPLERECOVERY (ft) 16-15-8(23) 3-4-3(7) 2-4-3(7) 1-2-1(3) 7-9-10(19) 1-1-1(2) 4-4-4(8) 3-4-5 (9) 3-4-7(11) 1-SS 2-SS 3-SS 4-SS 5-SS 6-SS 7-SS 8-SS 9ASS 9BSS 1.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 20.0 25.0 26.0 4.0 6.5 9.0 11.5 14.0 16.5 21.5 26.5 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.1 0.8 1.5 1.5 Asphalt Pavement, approx 11-inches WELL GRADED SAND with SILT and GRAVEL(SW-SM)brown, moist, medium dense, fine to coarse sand, fine to coarse subangular to subrounded gravel POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM)brown, moist, loose, fine sand Similar to above Similar to above except very loose POORLY GRADED SAND (SP)dark gray, wet, medium dense, fine sand Similar to above except very loose and trace organicspresent Similar to above except loose Similar to above except with coarser sand Similar to above except medium dense POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM)light gray, wet, medium dense Bottom of Boring at 26.5 ft bgs on 7/23/21 11:10 Lab Results:MC : 8.3%Sieve : GRAVEL : 28.9%, SAND : 48.8%, FINES :22.3% Lab Results:MC : 8.3%P200 : 8.4% Lab Results:MC : 17.2%P200 : 9.4% Lab Results:MC : 24.4%P200 : 8% Lab Results:MC : 34.1% P200 : 11.5% ORGANIC CONTENT : 1.4% Lab Results:MC : 32.3% P200 : 3.8% ORGANIC CONTENT : 0.4% Lab Results: MC : 34.3%P200 : 7.6% Lab Results:MC : 22.9%P200 : 31.8% ORIENTATION : Vertical WATER LEVELS : Not encountered BORING NUMBER: SHEET 1 OF 1B-32-21 DEPTH BELOWEXISTING GRADE(ft)6"-6"-6"(N) PROJECT NUMBER: SOIL DESCRIPTION DRILLING CONTRACTOR : Holt Services, Inc. LOCATION : (47.3 N, -122.2 E) STANDARDPENETRATIONTEST RESULTS COMMENTS ELEVATION : 71.2 ft W3X86400 DRILLING EQUIPMENT AND METHOD : Mobile B-58 Truck-Mounted Rig, Hollow Stem Auger #TYPELOGGER : N. ZabihiSTART : 7/23/21 09:40 END : 7/23/21 11:10 PROJECT : I-Line Rapid Ride SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL, COLOR,MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE DENSITY ORCONSISTENCY, SOIL STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY SYMBOLIC LOG71.2 66.2 61.2 56.2 51.2 46.2 SOIL BORING LOG DEPTH OF CASING, DRILLING RATE,DRILLING FLUID LOSS, TESTS, ANDINSTRUMENTATION INTERVAL (ft)5 10 15 20 25 30 SAMPLERECOVERY (ft) 9-11-8 (19) 4-11-14(25) 7-8-7(15) 7-11-19(30) 8-8-7(15) 0-0-1(1) 3-6-6(12) 4-12-33 (45) 1-3-12(15) 1-SS 2-SS 3-SS 4-SS 5-SS 6-SS 7-SS 8-SS 9-SS 1.5 3.0 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 20.0 25.0 4.5 6.5 9.0 11.5 14.0 16.5 21.5 26.5 0.5 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.5 Asphalt Pavement, approx 8-inches Concrete, approx 7-inches SILTY SAND with GRAVEL (SM) brownish gray, moist, medium dense, fine to coarse sand, coarse rounded gravel Similar to above except dark brown POORLY GRADED SAND with GRAVEL (SP)dark brown, moist, medium dense, fine to mediumsand, fine subrounded gravel Similar to above except dense Similar to above except becomes medium dense, fineto coarse sand and fine subangular gravel Similar to above except becomes very loose, withoutgravel and wet Similar to above except becomes medium dense Similar to above except becomes dense Similar to above except becomes medium dense, 1"thick clay lernse observed Bottom of Boring at 26.5 ft bgs on 7/20/21 13:15 Lab Results: MC : 9.3% Sieve : GRAVEL : 30.5%, SAND : 46.4%, FINES :23.2% Lab Results:MC : 4%Sieve : GRAVEL : 41.6%, SAND : 54.4%,FINES :4% Lab Results:MC : 11%Sieve : GRAVEL : 37.5%, SAND : 59.5%,FINES :3% Lab Results:MC : 23.2% P200 : 1% Lab Results:MC : 23.2% P200 : 1.4% Lab Results:MC : 20.2%P200 : 9.5% ORIENTATION : Vertical WATER LEVELS : 12.1 ft bgs BORING NUMBER: SHEET 1 OF 1B-33W-21 DEPTH BELOWEXISTING GRADE(ft)6"-6"-6"(N) PROJECT NUMBER: SOIL DESCRIPTION DRILLING CONTRACTOR : Holt Services, Inc. LOCATION : (47.3 N, -122.2 E) STANDARDPENETRATIONTEST RESULTS COMMENTS ELEVATION : 74.4 ft W3X86400 DRILLING EQUIPMENT AND METHOD : Mobile B-58 Truck-Mounted Rig, Hollow Stem Auger #TYPELOGGER : P. BennetSTART : 7/20/21 10:15 END : 7/20/21 13:15 PROJECT : I-Line Rapid Ride SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL, COLOR,MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE DENSITY ORCONSISTENCY, SOIL STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY SYMBOLIC LOG74.4 69.4 64.4 59.4 54.4 49.4 SOIL BORING LOG DEPTH OF CASING, DRILLING RATE,DRILLING FLUID LOSS, TESTS, ANDINSTRUMENTATION INTERVAL (ft)5 10 15 20 25 30 SAMPLERECOVERY (ft) 42-48-15(63) 3-2-2(4) WOH(WOH") 1-0-0(0) 2-4-2(6) 0-0-1(1) 0-0-2(2) 5-12-11 (23) 42-16-23(39) 7-9-23 1-SS 2-SS 3-SS 4ASS4BSS4CSS 5ASS 5BSS 6-SS 7ASS 7BSS 8ASS 8BSS 8CSS 9-SS 10-SS 1.4 3.9 6.4 8.9 9.49.7 11.4 12.4 13.9 16.4 16.9 21.421.7 22.6 26.4 28.9 2.9 5.4 7.9 10.4 12.9 15.4 17.9 22.9 27.9 1.3 0.4 1.2 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.6 Asphalt Pavement, approx 8-inches Concrete, approx 8-inches No recovery SILTY SAND (SM)brown, moist, very loose, fine sand Similar to above Similar to above POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM) dark brown, moist to wet, very loose, fine to medium sand SANDY SILT (ML)dark gray, moist to wet, very soft, fine sand POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM) brown, moist to wet, loose, fine to medium sand SILT (ML)brown, moist, firm, fine sandSimilar to above except very soft Similar to above Similar to above except becomes gray SILTY SAND (SM) brown, wet, medium dense SILT with ORGANICS (ML)brown, moist,very stiff POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM)gray, moist to wet, medium dense, fine sand SANDY SILT (ML)brown, wet, hard POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM)gray, wet, dense, fine sand Lab Results:MC : 28.3%P200 : 57.4% Lab Results:MC : 29.7%P200 : 40.7% Lab Results:MC : 41.7%LL : 36, PI : 4 P200 : 68.5% Lab Results: MC : 29.9% P200 : 13.8%Lab Results:MC : 85.2%ORGANIC CONTENT : 11.2Lab Results:MC : 126.6%LL : 135, PI : 36ORGANIC CONTENT : 16.9% Lab Results: MC : 65.4% LL : 62, PI : 7ORGANIC CONTENT : 7.2% Lab Results: MC : 32.7%P200 : 44.2%Lab Results:MC : 29.5%Sieve : GRAVEL : 0%, SAND : 67.6%,FINES :32.4% ORIENTATION : Vertical WATER LEVELS : 17.5 ft bgs BORING NUMBER: SHEET 1 OF 2B-34-21 DEPTH BELOWEXISTING GRADE(ft)6"-6"-6"(N) PROJECT NUMBER: SOIL DESCRIPTION DRILLING CONTRACTOR : Holt Services, Inc. LOCATION : (47.3 N, -122.2 E) STANDARDPENETRATIONTEST RESULTS COMMENTS ELEVATION : 75.9 ft W3X86400 DRILLING EQUIPMENT AND METHOD : Mobile B-58 Truck-Mounted Rig, Hollow Stem Auger #TYPELOGGER : N. ZabihiSTART : 7/21/21 09:15 END : 7/21/21 11:45 PROJECT : I-Line Rapid Ride SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL, COLOR,MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE DENSITY ORCONSISTENCY, SOIL STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY SYMBOLIC LOG75.9 70.9 65.9 60.9 55.9 50.9 SOIL BORING LOG DEPTH OF CASING, DRILLING RATE,DRILLING FLUID LOSS, TESTS, ANDINSTRUMENTATION INTERVAL (ft)5 10 15 20 25 30 SAMPLERECOVERY (ft) (32)30.4 Bottom of Boring at 30.4 ft bgs on 7/21/21 11:45 ORIENTATION : Vertical WATER LEVELS : 17.5 ft bgs BORING NUMBER: SHEET 2 OF 2B-34-21 DEPTH BELOWEXISTING GRADE(ft)6"-6"-6"(N) PROJECT NUMBER: SOIL DESCRIPTION DRILLING CONTRACTOR : Holt Services, Inc. LOCATION : (47.3 N, -122.2 E) STANDARDPENETRATIONTEST RESULTS COMMENTS ELEVATION : 75.9 ft W3X86400 DRILLING EQUIPMENT AND METHOD : Mobile B-58 Truck-Mounted Rig, Hollow Stem Auger #TYPELOGGER : N. ZabihiSTART : 7/21/21 09:15 END : 7/21/21 11:45 PROJECT : I-Line Rapid Ride SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL, COLOR,MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE DENSITY ORCONSISTENCY, SOIL STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY SYMBOLIC LOG45.9 40.9 35.9 30.9 25.9 20.9 SOIL BORING LOG DEPTH OF CASING, DRILLING RATE,DRILLING FLUID LOSS, TESTS, ANDINSTRUMENTATION INTERVAL (ft)35 40 45 50 55 60 SAMPLERECOVERY (ft) 15-50/6 (50/6") 7-8-8(16) 3-2-5(7) 0-0-1(1) 3-1-1(2) 1-2-3(5) 3-1-2(3) 2-4-8 (12) 3-5-6 (11) 1-SS 2-SS 3-SS 4-SS 5-SS 6ASS6BSS6CSS 7ASS 7BSS7CSS 8-SS 9ASS 9BSS 0.6 3.1 5.6 8.1 10.6 13.113.413.6 15.6 16.416.7 20.6 25.6 26.1 2.1 4.6 7.1 9.6 12.1 14.1 17.1 22.1 27.1 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.9 0.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 Asphalt Pavement, approx 7-inches POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT and GRAVEL (SP-SM)gray, moist, very dense, fine to coarse angular sand,fine to coarse angular to subangular gravel SILTY SAND with GRAVEL (SM)gray and black, moist, medium dense, fine to coarseangular to subangular sand, fine to coarse gravel PEAT with SAND and SILT (PT)dark brown to black, moist, medium stiff SANDY SILT with GRAVEL (ML)gray, moist, very soft, fine to coarse angular tosubangular sand, fine to coarse angular tosubrounded gravel Similar to above POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM)gray, wet, loose, fine angular sand SILTY SAND (SM)brown, moist, loose, fine angular sand PEAT (PT)dark brown, moist, medium stiff SANDY SILT (ML) brown, moist, soft POORLY GRADED SAND (SP)gray, wet, very loose, fine to medium angular sand PEAT with SAND and SILT (PT)dark brown to black, moist, soft POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM) gray, wet, medium dense, fine to medium angular sand POORLY GRADED SAND (SP) gray, wet, medium dense, fine to coarse angular sand SANDY SILT (ML)brown and gray, moist, stiff Rig is chattering between 0 to 2.5-ft bgs Lab Results: MC : 2.7%Sieve : GRAVEL : 40%, SAND : 53.8%,FINES : 6.2% Lab Results:MC : 35.9%ORGANIC CONTENT : 36.3%P200 : 37.7% Lab Results:MC : 18.6%P200 : 29.4% Lab Results:MC : 60.4%LL : 69, PI : 29 Lab Results: MC : 26.7% P200 : 6.4% ORIENTATION : Vertical WATER LEVELS : 26.1 ft bgs BORING NUMBER: SHEET 1 OF 2B-4W-21 DEPTH BELOWEXISTING GRADE(ft)6"-6"-6"(N) PROJECT NUMBER: SOIL DESCRIPTION DRILLING CONTRACTOR : Holt Services, Inc. LOCATION : (47.5 N, -122.2 E) STANDARDPENETRATIONTEST RESULTS COMMENTS ELEVATION : 32.7 ft W3X86400 DRILLING EQUIPMENT AND METHOD : Mobile B-58 Truck-Mounted Rig, Hollow Stem Auger #TYPELOGGER : N. ZabihiSTART : 6/23/21 08:40 END : 6/23/21 10:15 PROJECT : I-Line Rapid Ride SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL, COLOR,MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE DENSITY ORCONSISTENCY, SOIL STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY SYMBOLIC LOG32.7 27.7 22.7 17.7 12.7 7.7 SOIL BORING LOG DEPTH OF CASING, DRILLING RATE,DRILLING FLUID LOSS, TESTS, ANDINSTRUMENTATION INTERVAL (ft)5 10 15 20 25 30 SAMPLERECOVERY (ft) 7-10-11 (21)10-SS 30.6 32.1 1.4 POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM) gray, wet, medium dense, fine to medium angularsand Bottom of Boring at 31.5 ft bgs on 6/23/21 10:15 Lab Results: MC : 16.5%P200 : 8.6% ORIENTATION : Vertical WATER LEVELS : 26.1 ft bgs BORING NUMBER: SHEET 2 OF 2B-4W-21 DEPTH BELOWEXISTING GRADE(ft)6"-6"-6"(N) PROJECT NUMBER: SOIL DESCRIPTION DRILLING CONTRACTOR : Holt Services, Inc. LOCATION : (47.5 N, -122.2 E) STANDARDPENETRATIONTEST RESULTS COMMENTS ELEVATION : 32.7 ft W3X86400 DRILLING EQUIPMENT AND METHOD : Mobile B-58 Truck-Mounted Rig, Hollow Stem Auger #TYPELOGGER : N. ZabihiSTART : 6/23/21 08:40 END : 6/23/21 10:15 PROJECT : I-Line Rapid Ride SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL, COLOR,MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE DENSITY ORCONSISTENCY, SOIL STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY SYMBOLIC LOG2.7 -2.3 -7.3 -12.3 -17.3 -22.3 SOIL BORING LOG DEPTH OF CASING, DRILLING RATE,DRILLING FLUID LOSS, TESTS, ANDINSTRUMENTATION INTERVAL (ft)35 40 45 50 55 60 SAMPLERECOVERY (ft) 12-9-6(15) 2-2-1(3) 3-5-8(13) 2-3-7(10) 4-5-10(15) 29-45-50/3(95/9") 50/5(50/5") 27-25-20 (45) 1-SS 2-SS 3-SS 4-SS 5ASS 5BSS 6-SS 7-SS 8ASS 8BSS 0.8 3.3 5.8 8.3 10.8 11.6 13.3 15.8 20.8 21.6 2.3 4.8 7.3 9.8 12.3 14.6 16.3 22.3 1.1 0.4 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.3 0.4 1.5 Asphalt Pavement, approx 10-inches POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT and GRAVEL(SP-SM)brown, moist, medium dense, fine to coarse angularto subangular sand, fine to coarse angular tosubangular gravel Similar to above except becomes very loose SANDY SILT with GRAVEL (ML)grayish brown, moist, stiff, fine sand, fine to coarseangular gravel, some orange oxidation Similar to above except becomes brown SILTY SAND (SM) dark orange, moist, medium dense Similar to above except becomes brown SILTY SAND (SM) gray with brown stains, moist, very dense, fine angular sand Similar to above gray fractured rock in sampler SILTY SAND (SM)gray, moist, very dense Bottom of Boring at 21.5 ft bgs on 6/24/21 13:30 Lab Results:MC : 10.5%Sieve : GRAVEL : 13.7%, SAND : 57.9%,FINES : 28.4% Lab Results:MC : 17.2%Sieve : GRAVEL : 6.3%, SAND : 48%, FINES : 45.7% Lab Results:MC : 19.7%P200 : 51.2% Lab Results:MC : 22.7% P200 : 27.7% Rig is chattering between 15 to 20-ft bgsDifficult drilling ORIENTATION : Vertical WATER LEVELS : Not encountered BORING NUMBER: SHEET 1 OF 1B-5-21 DEPTH BELOWEXISTING GRADE(ft)6"-6"-6"(N) PROJECT NUMBER: SOIL DESCRIPTION DRILLING CONTRACTOR : Holt Services, Inc. LOCATION : (47.5 N, -122.2 E) STANDARDPENETRATIONTEST RESULTS COMMENTS ELEVATION : 193.9 ft W3X86400 DRILLING EQUIPMENT AND METHOD : Mobile B-58 Truck-Mounted Rig, Hollow Stem Auger #TYPELOGGER : N. ZabihiSTART : 6/24/21 11:50 END : 6/24/21 13:30 PROJECT : I-Line Rapid Ride SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL, COLOR,MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE DENSITY ORCONSISTENCY, SOIL STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY SYMBOLIC LOG193.9 188.9 183.9 178.9 173.9 168.9 SOIL BORING LOG DEPTH OF CASING, DRILLING RATE,DRILLING FLUID LOSS, TESTS, ANDINSTRUMENTATION INTERVAL (ft)5 10 15 20 25 30 SAMPLERECOVERY (ft) 10-14-10(24) 8-6-10(16) 18-27-49(76) 26-50/5(50/5") 12-19-50/5 (69/11") 12-15-22 (37) 28-42-50/5 (92/11") 50/6 (50/6") 38-50/4(50/4") 1-SS 2ASS 2BSS 3-SS 4-SS 5-SS 6-SS 7-SS 8-SS 9-SS 0.2 2.7 3.4 5.2 7.7 10.2 12.7 15.2 20.2 25.2 1.7 4.2 6.7 9.2 11.7 14.2 16.7 20.7 26.1 1.4 1.0 1.4 0.7 1.4 1.4 1.4 0.5 0.9 Asphalt Pavement, approx 3-inches POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SAND (GP) brown, moist, medium dense, fine to coarse angular to subangular gravel, medium to coarse angular sand Similar to above SILTY/CLAYEY SAND (SM) light brown, moist, medium dense, fine angular sand Similar to above but very dense Similar to above Similar to above Similar to above but dense Similar to above but very dense SILTY SAND (SM)light gray, moist, very dense, fine angular sand Similar to above Bottom of Boring at 25.9 ft bgs on 6/17/21 12:10 Lab Results:MC : 4.1%Sieve : GRAVEL : 46.2%, SAND : 40.4%,FINES : 13.3% Lab Results: MC : 16.6%Sieve : GRAVEL : 1%, SAND : 49.2%,FINES : 49.8% ORIENTATION : Vertical WATER LEVELS : Not encountered BORING NUMBER: SHEET 1 OF 1B-6-21 DEPTH BELOWEXISTING GRADE(ft)6"-6"-6"(N) PROJECT NUMBER: SOIL DESCRIPTION DRILLING CONTRACTOR : Holt Services, Inc. LOCATION : (47.5 N, -122.2 E) STANDARDPENETRATIONTEST RESULTS COMMENTS ELEVATION : 101.7 ft W3X86400 DRILLING EQUIPMENT AND METHOD : Mobile B-58 Truck-Mounted Rig, Hollow Stem Auger #TYPELOGGER : N. ZabihiSTART : 6/17/21 10:10 END : 6/17/21 12:10 PROJECT : I-Line Rapid Ride SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL, COLOR,MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE DENSITY ORCONSISTENCY, SOIL STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY SYMBOLIC LOG101.7 96.7 91.7 86.7 81.7 76.7 SOIL BORING LOG DEPTH OF CASING, DRILLING RATE,DRILLING FLUID LOSS, TESTS, ANDINSTRUMENTATION INTERVAL (ft)5 10 15 20 25 30 SAMPLERECOVERY (ft) 37-25-17(42) 2-1-1(2) 0-1-4(5) 1-2-2 (4) 12-14-17(31) 13-19-24 (43) 8-14-14(28) 3-5-10(15) 8-10-11(21) 1ASS 1B 2ASS 2BSS 3-SS 4-SS 5ASS 5B 6-SS 7-SS 8-SS 9-SS 0.5 1.5 3.0 3.2 5.5 8.0 10.5 11.3 13.0 15.5 20.5 25.5 2.0 4.5 7.0 9.5 12.0 14.5 17.0 22.0 27.0 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.0 0.9 1.4 1.4 Asphalt Pavement, approx 6-inches POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT and GRAVEL (SP-SM) gray, moist, dense, fine to coarse angular to subangular sand, fine to coarse angular to subangular gravel Similar to above except becomes brown and fine tomedium sandSimilar to above except becomes very loose SANDY SILT/CLAY (ML/CL)gray, moist, softCLAY with SAND (CL)gray, moist, medium stiff, orange oxidation Similar to above except becomes soft to medium stiff CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL (SC)gray, moist, dense, fine to medium angular to subangular sand, fine to coarse angular to subangular gravel SILTY SAND (SM)brown, moist, dense, fine to medium angular tosubangular sand, orange oxidation Similar to above except with coarse subangular to subrounded gravel and no oxidation Similar to above except becomes medium dense and finer gravels SILTY SAND (SM)gray, moist, medium dense, fine to medium angular tosubangular sand SANDY CLAY (CL)gray, moist, very stiff, fine to medium sand Lab Results:MC : 10.6%Sieve : GRAVEL : 0.2%, SAND : 66.2%,FINES : 33.6%Lab Results: MC : 17.5% P200 : 30.5% Lab Results:MC : 39%LL : 51, PI : 21 Lab Results: MC : 12%P200 : 43.8% ORIENTATION : Vertical WATER LEVELS : 27.3 ft bgs BORING NUMBER: SHEET 1 OF 2B-7-21 DEPTH BELOWEXISTING GRADE(ft)6"-6"-6"(N) PROJECT NUMBER: SOIL DESCRIPTION DRILLING CONTRACTOR : Holt Services, Inc. LOCATION : (47.4 N, -122.2 E) STANDARDPENETRATIONTEST RESULTS COMMENTS ELEVATION : 108.1 ft W3X86400 DRILLING EQUIPMENT AND METHOD : Mobile B-58 Truck-Mounted Rig, Hollow Stem Auger #TYPELOGGER : N. ZabihiSTART : 6/17/21 14:10 END : 6/17/21 15:30 PROJECT : I-Line Rapid Ride SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL, COLOR,MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE DENSITY ORCONSISTENCY, SOIL STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY SYMBOLIC LOG108.1 103.1 98.1 93.1 88.1 83.1 SOIL BORING LOG DEPTH OF CASING, DRILLING RATE,DRILLING FLUID LOSS, TESTS, ANDINSTRUMENTATION INTERVAL (ft)5 10 15 20 25 30 SAMPLERECOVERY (ft) 8-10-16(26)10-SS 30.5 32.0 1.4 Similar to above except becomes wet Bottom of Boring at 31.5 ft bgs on 6/17/21 15:30 Lab Results:MC : 13.3%P200 : 47% ORIENTATION : Vertical WATER LEVELS : 27.3 ft bgs BORING NUMBER: SHEET 2 OF 2B-7-21 DEPTH BELOWEXISTING GRADE(ft)6"-6"-6"(N) PROJECT NUMBER: SOIL DESCRIPTION DRILLING CONTRACTOR : Holt Services, Inc. LOCATION : (47.4 N, -122.2 E) STANDARDPENETRATIONTEST RESULTS COMMENTS ELEVATION : 108.1 ft W3X86400 DRILLING EQUIPMENT AND METHOD : Mobile B-58 Truck-Mounted Rig, Hollow Stem Auger #TYPELOGGER : N. ZabihiSTART : 6/17/21 14:10 END : 6/17/21 15:30 PROJECT : I-Line Rapid Ride SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL, COLOR,MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE DENSITY ORCONSISTENCY, SOIL STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY SYMBOLIC LOG78.1 73.1 68.1 63.1 58.1 53.1 SOIL BORING LOG DEPTH OF CASING, DRILLING RATE,DRILLING FLUID LOSS, TESTS, ANDINSTRUMENTATION INTERVAL (ft)35 40 45 50 55 60 SAMPLERECOVERY (ft) 15-18-12(30) 14-12-10(22) 12-10-8(18) 5-7-10(17) 10-14-18(32) 14-31-45 (76) 12-25-37 (62) 31-44-50/5(94/11") 25-50/6 (50/6") 1-SS 2-SS 3-SS 4-SS 5-SS 6-SS 7-SS 8-SS 9ASS 9BSS 1.1 3.6 6.1 8.6 11.1 13.6 16.1 21.1 26.1 26.4 2.6 5.1 7.6 10.1 12.6 17.6 22.6 27.1 1.3 0.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.0 Asphalt Pavement, approx 13-inches POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT and GRAVELand fractured rock (SP-SM)brown, moist, medium dense, fine to coarse angularsand, fine to coarse angular gravel Similar to above but light brown No Recovery SILTY SAND (SM)brown, moist, medium dense, fine to coarse angularto subangular sand Similar to above but dense with gravel, crushed rockand some orange oxidation Similar to above but very dense Similar to above but without coarse gravels or crushed rock Similar to above but with fine angular to subangular gravel Similar to above Similar to above but gray with orange oxidation,coarse gravels and fractured rock Bottom of Boring at 26.0 ft bgs on 6/21/21 10:10 Rig is chattering between 2.5 to 5-ft bgs Lab Results:MC : 3.7%Sieve : GRAVEL : 65.2%, SAND : 27.6%,FINES : 7.2% Lab Results:MC : 13.2%Sieve : GRAVEL : 5.3%, SAND : 50.2%,FINES : 44.6% ORIENTATION : Vertical WATER LEVELS : 24.9 ft bgs BORING NUMBER: SHEET 1 OF 1B-8-21 DEPTH BELOWEXISTING GRADE(ft)6"-6"-6"(N) PROJECT NUMBER: SOIL DESCRIPTION DRILLING CONTRACTOR : Holt Services, Inc. LOCATION : (47.4 N, -122.2 E) STANDARDPENETRATIONTEST RESULTS COMMENTS ELEVATION : 354.3 ft W3X86400 DRILLING EQUIPMENT AND METHOD : Mobile B-58 Truck-Mounted Rig, Hollow Stem Auger #TYPELOGGER : P. BennetSTART : 6/21/21 08:45 END : 6/21/21 10:10 PROJECT : I-Line Rapid Ride SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL, COLOR,MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE DENSITY ORCONSISTENCY, SOIL STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY SYMBOLIC LOG354.3 349.3 344.3 339.3 334.3 329.3 SOIL BORING LOG DEPTH OF CASING, DRILLING RATE,DRILLING FLUID LOSS, TESTS, ANDINSTRUMENTATION INTERVAL (ft)5 10 15 20 25 30 SAMPLERECOVERY (ft) 8-28-23(51) 4-3-1(4) 3-8-17(25) 12-18-50/5(68/11") 12-27-28 (55) 13-50/6 (50/6") 29-50/4(50/4") 30-50/6 (50/6") 50/6(50/6") 1ASS 1B 2-SS 3-SS 4-SS 5-SS 6-SS 7-SS 8-SS 9-SS 0.8 1.8 3.3 5.8 8.3 10.8 13.3 15.8 20.8 25.8 2.3 4.8 7.3 9.8 12.3 14.3 16.6 21.8 26.3 1.3 1.0 0.4 1.3 1.3 1.0 0.8 1.0 0.5 Asphalt Pavement, approx 10-inches POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT and GRAVEL(SP-SM)brown, moist, very dense, fine to coarse angular sand,fine to coarse angular gravel Similar to above except becomes graySILTY SAND with GRAVEL and fractured rock andORGANICS (SM)brown, moist, loose, fine to coarse angular tosubangular sand Similar to above except becomes brownish gray,medium dense with no gravel and organics SILTY SAND (SM)brown, moist, very dense, fine to medium angular tosubangular sand Similar to above SILTY SAND with GRAVEL and fractured rock (SM) brown and gray, moist, very dense, fine to coarse angular to subangular sand SILTY SAND with GRAVEL (SM) brown and gray, moist, very dense, fine angular sand, fine to coarse angular to subangular gravel Similar to above Similar to above except no gravel Lab Results:MC : 4.2%Sieve : GRAVEL : 31.7%, SAND : 54.6%,FINES : 13.8%Rig is chattering between 2.5 to 5-ft bgs Lab Results:MC : 19.4%Sieve : GRAVEL : 19%, SAND : 61.8%,FINES : 19.2% Lab Results:MC : 11.6%P200 : 28.7% Rig is chattering between 15 to 20-ft bgs Drilling becomes difficult Rig is chattering between 25 to 30-ft bgs ORIENTATION : Vertical WATER LEVELS : 28.5 ft bgs BORING NUMBER: SHEET 1 OF 2B-9W-21 DEPTH BELOWEXISTING GRADE(ft)6"-6"-6"(N) PROJECT NUMBER: SOIL DESCRIPTION DRILLING CONTRACTOR : Holt Services, Inc. LOCATION : (47.4 N, -122.2 E) STANDARDPENETRATIONTEST RESULTS COMMENTS ELEVATION : 379.2 ft W3X86400 DRILLING EQUIPMENT AND METHOD : Mobile B-58 Truck-Mounted Rig, Hollow Stem Auger #TYPELOGGER : N. ZabihiSTART : 6/21/21 11:15 END : 6/21/21 12:15 PROJECT : I-Line Rapid Ride SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL, COLOR,MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE DENSITY ORCONSISTENCY, SOIL STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY SYMBOLIC LOG379.2 374.2 369.2 364.2 359.2 354.2 SOIL BORING LOG DEPTH OF CASING, DRILLING RATE,DRILLING FLUID LOSS, TESTS, ANDINSTRUMENTATION INTERVAL (ft)5 10 15 20 25 30 SAMPLERECOVERY (ft) 28-50/5(50/5")10-SS 30.8 31.7 0.9 Similar to above except with fractured rock Bottom of Boring at 30.9 ft bgs on 6/21/21 12:15 ORIENTATION : Vertical WATER LEVELS : 28.5 ft bgs BORING NUMBER: SHEET 2 OF 2B-9W-21 DEPTH BELOWEXISTING GRADE(ft)6"-6"-6"(N) PROJECT NUMBER: SOIL DESCRIPTION DRILLING CONTRACTOR : Holt Services, Inc. LOCATION : (47.4 N, -122.2 E) STANDARDPENETRATIONTEST RESULTS COMMENTS ELEVATION : 379.2 ft W3X86400 DRILLING EQUIPMENT AND METHOD : Mobile B-58 Truck-Mounted Rig, Hollow Stem Auger #TYPELOGGER : N. ZabihiSTART : 6/21/21 11:15 END : 6/21/21 12:15 PROJECT : I-Line Rapid Ride SOIL NAME, USCS GROUP SYMBOL, COLOR,MOISTURE CONTENT, RELATIVE DENSITY ORCONSISTENCY, SOIL STRUCTURE, MINERALOGY SYMBOLIC LOG349.2 344.2 339.2 334.2 329.2 324.2 SOIL BORING LOG DEPTH OF CASING, DRILLING RATE,DRILLING FLUID LOSS, TESTS, ANDINSTRUMENTATION INTERVAL (ft)35 40 45 50 55 60 SAMPLERECOVERY (ft) Appendix C Laboratory Testing Results B-01w-21,SS-1 1.0 2.5 9.0 29.7 60.9 9.4 SP-SM Grayish-brown, poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel B-01w-21,SS-2 2.5 4.0 56.1 32.6 OL Very dark grayish-brown, organic SILT with sand B-01w-21,SS-5 10.0 11.5 20.7 2.2 SP Dark gray, poorly graded SAND B-01w-21,SS-7b 15.2 15.7 181.3 30.2 PT Very dark brown, PEAT B-01w-21,SS-8 20.0 21.5 23.2 10.0 SP-SM Olive-brown, poorly graded SAND with silt B-01w-21,SS-9b 26.0 26.5 27.2 50.7 ML Dark gray, sandy SILT B-01w-21,SS-10 30.0 31.5 23.1 5.6 SP-SM Olive-brown, poorly graded SAND with silt B-02-21,SS-2 (cal) 2.5 4.0 49.3 52.0 6.1 40.7 53.2 OL Very dark grayish-brown, sandy organic SILT B-02-21,SS-3 5.0 6.5 29.1 PT Very dark grayish-brown, PEAT with gravel B-02-21,SS-5a 10.0 10.6 126.2 76 59 17 OH Very dark brown, organic SILT B-02-21,SS-7 15.0 16.5 79.0 76 52 24 OH Dark olive-brown, organic SILT B-02-21,SS-9a 20.0 20.5 21.4 7.0 SP-SM Olive-brown, poorly graded SAND with silt B-02-21,SS-10a 30.0 30.7 36.0 3.7 SP Olive-brown, poorly graded SAND B-02-21,SS-11a 35.0 36.2 32.1 26.5 SM Dark gray, silty SAND B-03-21,SS-1 1.0 2.5 6.5 32.9 58.7 8.4 SP-SM Very dark brown, poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel B-03-21,SS-3 5.0 6.5 40.7 34.4 PT Very dark grayish-brown, PEAT with sand B-03-21,SS-5a 10.0 10.4 26.8 27.4 SM Black, silty SAND with organic fines B-03-21,SS-5b 10.4 11.5 29.8 17.9 SM Very dark gray, silty SAND B-03-21,SS-7b 15.4 16.5 47.8 51 35 16 MH Olive-brown, elastic SILT B-03-21,SS-9a 25.0 26.0 46.7 78.1 CL Gray, lean CLAY with sandBOTTOM DEPTHCONTENT (%)% SAND% GRAVELPIPL(feet)TOP DEPTHSAMPLE DESCRIPTION Notes:ASTM SOILMOISTURECONTENT (%)ORGANIC% FINESSPECIFIC GRAVITYEXPLORATIONDESIGNATION1. This table summarizes information presented elsewhere in the report and should be used in conjunction with the report test, other graphs and tables, and the exploration logs. 2. The soil classifications in this table are based on ASTM D2487 and D2488 as applicable. MATERIAL PROPERTIES 1 PAGE: 1 of 4 SUMMARY OF LIMITS (%) ATTERBERG LL CLASSIFICATION(feet)2021-038 T200PROJECT NO.: INDEX MATSUM 2 2021-038 T200.GPJ 8/2/21 FIGURE: King County Metro RapidRide I-Line Client Project No.: W3X86400 Client Task No.: A.P2.TE.2181.01 B-03-21,SS-10a 31.2 31.5 24.0 11.5 SP-SM Olive-brown, poorly graded SAND with silt B-03-21,SS-11a 35.0 36.3 32.8 39.1 SM Olive-brown, silty SAND B-04w-21,SS-1 1.0 2.0 2.7 40.0 53.8 6.2 SW-SM Light olive-brown, well-graded SAND with silt and gravel B-04w-21,SS-3 5.0 6.5 35.9 36.3 37.7 SM Very dark grayish-brown, silty SAND with organic fines B-04w-21,SS-5 10.0 11.5 18.6 29.4 SM Dark grayish-brown, silty SAND with gravel B-04w-21,SS-7a 15.0 15.8 60.4 69 40 29 OH Dark reddish-brown, organic SILT B-04w-21,SS-8 20.0 21.5 26.7 6.4 SP-SM Dark gray, poorly graded SAND with silt B-04w-21,SS-10 30.0 30.5 16.5 8.6 SP-SM Olive-brown, poorly graded SAND with silt B-05-21,SS-1 1.0 2.5 10.5 13.7 57.9 28.4 SM Brown, silty SAND B-05-21,SS-3 5.0 6.5 17.2 6.3 48.0 45.7 SM Strong brown, silty SAND B-05-21,SS-4 7.5 9.0 19.7 51.2 ML Brownish-yellow, sandy SILT B-05-21,SS-5b 10.8 11.5 22.7 27.7 SM Yellowish-brown, silty SAND B-06-21,SS-2a 2.5 3.0 4.1 46.2 40.4 13.3 GM Olive-brown, silty GRAVEL with sand B-06-21,SS-2b 3.0 4.0 16.6 1.0 49.2 49.8 SM Brownish-yellow, silty SAND B-07-21,SS-2a 2.5 2.7 10.6 0.2 66.2 33.6 SM Very dark gray, silty SAND B-07-21,SS-2b 2.7 4.0 17.5 30.5 SM Dark gray, silty SAND B-07-21,SS-4 7.5 9.0 39.0 51 30 21 MH Olive-brown, elastic SILT with sand B-07-21,SS-8 20.0 21.5 12.0 43.8 SM Gray, silty SAND with gravel B-07-21,SS-10 30.0 31.5 13.3 47.0 SM Gray, silty SAND with gravel B-08-21,SS-2 2.5 4.0 3.7 65.2 27.6 7.2 GW-GM Olive-brown, well-graded GRAVEL with silt and sandBOTTOM DEPTHCONTENT (%)% SAND% GRAVELPIPL(feet)TOP DEPTHSAMPLE DESCRIPTION Notes:ASTM SOILMOISTURECONTENT (%)ORGANIC% FINESSPECIFIC GRAVITYEXPLORATIONDESIGNATION1. This table summarizes information presented elsewhere in the report and should be used in conjunction with the report test, other graphs and tables, and the exploration logs. 2. The soil classifications in this table are based on ASTM D2487 and D2488 as applicable. MATERIAL PROPERTIES 2 PAGE: 2 of 4 SUMMARY OF LIMITS (%) ATTERBERG LL CLASSIFICATION(feet)2021-038 T200PROJECT NO.: INDEX MATSUM 2 2021-038 T200.GPJ 8/2/21 FIGURE: King County Metro RapidRide I-Line Client Project No.: W3X86400 Client Task No.: A.P2.TE.2181.01 B-08-21,SS-4 7.5 9.0 13.2 5.3 50.2 44.6 SM Yellowish-brown, silty SAND B-09w-21,SS-1a 1.0 2.5 4.2 31.7 54.6 13.8 SM Olive-brown, silty SAND with gravel B-09w-21,SS-2 2.5 4.0 19.4 19.0 61.8 19.2 SM Very dark brown, silty SAND with gravel B-09w-21,SS-3 5.0 6.5 11.6 28.7 SM Light olive-brown, silty SAND with gravel B-10-21,SS-1 1.0 3.5 7.2 SM Yellowish-brown, silty SAND with gravel B-10-21,SS-2 3.5 5.0 8.4 24.1 55.8 20.1 SM Light olive-brown, silty SAND with gravel B-10-21,SS-3 5.0 6.5 7.7 8.7 SP-SM Olive-brown, poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel B-10-21,SS-5 10.0 11.5 13.1 12.1 SM Olive-yellow, silty SAND with gravel B-11-21,SS-1a 0.25 1.75 3.0 2.2 GM Olive-brown, silty GRAVEL with sand B-11-21,SS-2 2.5 4.0 15.2 5.9 54.3 39.8 SM Strong brown, silty SAND B-11-21,SS-3a 5.0 6.5 12.8 41.4 SM Yellowish-brown, silty SAND with gravel B-11-21,SS-4 7.9 9.0 12.2 23.3 SM Brown, silty SAND with gravel B-12-21,SS-1 1.0 2.5 9.4 13.9 45.3 40.8 SM Dark grayish-brown, silty SAND B-12-21,SS-3 5.0 6.5 10.7 10.3 45.8 43.9 SM Dark gray, silty SAND B-12-21,SS-5 10.0 11.5 11.0 49.4 SM Gray, silty SAND with gravel B-12-21,SS-8 20.0 21.5 12.1 35.0 SM Dark gray, silty SAND with gravel B-13-21,SS-2 2.5 4.0 9.0 25.0 51.5 23.5 SM Olive-brown, silty SAND with gravel B-13-21,SS-4 7.5 9.0 10.8 21.0 SM Olive-brown, silty SAND with gravel B-13-21,SS-6 12.5 14.0 23.0 19.4 SM Very dark grayish-brown, silty SAND with gravel B-17-21,SS-1 0.4 1.9 18.0 25.4 49.2 25.4 SM Very dark brown, silty SAND with gravelBOTTOM DEPTHCONTENT (%)% SAND% GRAVELPIPL(feet)TOP DEPTHSAMPLE DESCRIPTION Notes:ASTM SOILMOISTURECONTENT (%)ORGANIC% FINESSPECIFIC GRAVITYEXPLORATIONDESIGNATION1. This table summarizes information presented elsewhere in the report and should be used in conjunction with the report test, other graphs and tables, and the exploration logs. 2. The soil classifications in this table are based on ASTM D2487 and D2488 as applicable. MATERIAL PROPERTIES 3 PAGE: 3 of 4 SUMMARY OF LIMITS (%) ATTERBERG LL CLASSIFICATION(feet)2021-038 T200PROJECT NO.: INDEX MATSUM 2 2021-038 T200.GPJ 8/2/21 FIGURE: King County Metro RapidRide I-Line Client Project No.: W3X86400 Client Task No.: A.P2.TE.2181.01 B-17-21,SS-2 2.5 4.0 12.5 25.3 SM Yellowish-brown, silty SAND with gravel B-17-21,SS-3 5.0 6.0 9.8 25.6 SM Olive-brown, silty SAND with gravel B-17-21,SS-4 7.5 9.0 11.4 23.2 SM Olive-brown, silty SAND with gravel B-19-21,SS-2 2.5 3.5 4.1 30.6 42.8 26.6 SM Light olive-brown, silty SAND with gravelBOTTOM DEPTHCONTENT (%)% SAND% GRAVELPIPL(feet)TOP DEPTHSAMPLE DESCRIPTION Notes:ASTM SOILMOISTURECONTENT (%)ORGANIC% FINESSPECIFIC GRAVITYEXPLORATIONDESIGNATION1. This table summarizes information presented elsewhere in the report and should be used in conjunction with the report test, other graphs and tables, and the exploration logs. 2. The soil classifications in this table are based on ASTM D2487 and D2488 as applicable. MATERIAL PROPERTIES 4 PAGE: 4 of 4 SUMMARY OF LIMITS (%) ATTERBERG LL CLASSIFICATION(feet)2021-038 T200PROJECT NO.: INDEX MATSUM 2 2021-038 T200.GPJ 8/2/21 FIGURE: King County Metro RapidRide I-Line Client Project No.: W3X86400 Client Task No.: A.P2.TE.2181.01 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.010.1110 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 50 SAMPLE SS-1 SS-5 SS-8 1.0 - 2.5 10.0 - 11.5 20.0 - 21.5 #10 60.9 30 CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES SAND 5 Coarse #60#40#20 Fine Coarse SYMBOL Gravel% 3"1-1/2"PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT#4 #200 29.7 Sand% (SP-SM) Grayish-brown, poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel (SP) Dark gray, poorly graded SAND (SP-SM) Olive-brown, poorly graded SAND with silt Fines% 0.00050.005 CLAY B-01w-21 B-01w-21 B-01w-21 SILT 3/4" GRAVEL 0.05 5/8" 70 #100 0.5 9 21 23 50 Medium Fine 3/8" 5 PI 90 10 % MC LL PLDEPTH ( ft.) PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D6913 9.4 2.2 10.0 2021-038 T200PROJECT NO.: HWAGRSZ 2021-038 T200.GPJ 8/2/21 FIGURE: King County Metro RapidRide I-Line Client Project No.: W3X86400 Client Task No.: A.P2.TE.2181.01 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.010.1110 CLAYSILT 3/4" Medium GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 50 SAMPLE PI Gravel% 6.1 Sand% 40.7 43.2 90 10 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D6913 % MC 27 23 49 26.0 - 26.5 30.0 - 31.5 2.5 - 4.0 SS-9b SS-10 SS-2 (cal) B-01w-21 B-01w-21 B-02-21 Fine Coarse SYMBOL 3" 1-1/2" Fines%PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT#4 #200 (ML) Dark gray, sandy SILT (SP-SM) Olive-brown, poorly graded SAND with silt (OL) Very dark grayish-brown, sandy organic SILT 0.00050.005 Clay%LL PL GRAVEL 0.05 5/8" 70 #100 0.5 Silt% 10.0 #10 30 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES SAND 6 Coarse #60#40 ASTM SOIL CLASSIFICATION #20 Fine 3/8" 5 50.7 5.6 50 DEPTH ( ft.) 2021-038 T200PROJECT NO.: HWAGRSZ SILT-CLAY PERCENTAGE 2021-038 T200.GPJ 8/2/21 FIGURE: King County Metro RapidRide I-Line Client Project No.: W3X86400 Client Task No.: A.P2.TE.2181.01 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.010.1110 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 50 SAMPLE SS-9a SS-10a SS-11a 20.0 - 20.5 30.0 - 30.7 35.0 - 36.2 #10 30 CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES SAND 7 Coarse #60#40#20 Fine Coarse SYMBOL Gravel% 3"1-1/2"PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT#4 #200 Sand% (SP-SM) Olive-brown, poorly graded SAND with silt (SP) Olive-brown, poorly graded SAND (SM) Dark gray, silty SAND Fines% 0.00050.005 CLAY B-02-21 B-02-21 B-02-21 SILT 3/4" GRAVEL 0.05 5/8" 70 #100 0.5 21 36 32 50 Medium Fine 3/8" 5 PI 90 10 % MC LL PLDEPTH ( ft.) PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D6913 7.0 3.7 26.5 2021-038 T200PROJECT NO.: HWAGRSZ 2021-038 T200.GPJ 8/2/21 FIGURE: King County Metro RapidRide I-Line Client Project No.: W3X86400 Client Task No.: A.P2.TE.2181.01 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.010.1110 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 50 SAMPLE SS-1 SS-5b SS-9a 1.0 - 2.5 10.4 - 11.5 25.0 - 26.0 #10 58.7 30 CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES SAND 8 Coarse #60#40#20 Fine Coarse SYMBOL Gravel% 3"1-1/2"PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT#4 #200 32.9 Sand% (SP-SM) Very dark brown, poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel (SM) Very dark gray, silty SAND (CL) Gray, lean CLAY with sand Fines% 0.00050.005 CLAY B-03-21 B-03-21 B-03-21 SILT 3/4" GRAVEL 0.05 5/8" 70 #100 0.5 6 30 47 50 Medium Fine 3/8" 5 PI 90 10 % MC LL PLDEPTH ( ft.) PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D6913 8.4 17.9 78.1 2021-038 T200PROJECT NO.: HWAGRSZ 2021-038 T200.GPJ 8/2/21 FIGURE: King County Metro RapidRide I-Line Client Project No.: W3X86400 Client Task No.: A.P2.TE.2181.01 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.010.1110 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 50 SAMPLE SS-10a SS-11a SS-1 31.2 - 31.5 35.0 - 36.3 1.0 - 2.0 #10 53.8 30 CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES SAND 9 Coarse #60#40#20 Fine Coarse SYMBOL Gravel% 3"1-1/2"PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT#4 #200 40.0 Sand% (SP-SM) Olive-brown, poorly graded SAND with silt (SM) Olive-brown, silty SAND (SW-SM) Light olive-brown, well-graded SAND with silt and gravel Fines% 0.00050.005 CLAY B-03-21 B-03-21 B-04w-21 SILT 3/4" GRAVEL 0.05 5/8" 70 #100 0.5 24 33 3 50 Medium Fine 3/8" 5 PI 90 10 % MC LL PLDEPTH ( ft.) PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D6913 11.5 39.1 6.2 2021-038 T200PROJECT NO.: HWAGRSZ 2021-038 T200.GPJ 8/2/21 FIGURE: King County Metro RapidRide I-Line Client Project No.: W3X86400 Client Task No.: A.P2.TE.2181.01 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.010.1110 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 50 SAMPLE SS-3 SS-5 SS-8 5.0 - 6.5 10.0 - 11.5 20.0 - 21.5 #10 30 CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES SAND 10 Coarse #60#40#20 Fine Coarse SYMBOL Gravel% 3"1-1/2"PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT#4 #200 Sand% (SM) Very dark grayish-brown, silty SAND with organic fines (SM) Dark grayish-brown, silty SAND with gravel (SP-SM) Dark gray, poorly graded SAND with silt Fines% 0.00050.005 CLAY B-04w-21 B-04w-21 B-04w-21 SILT 3/4" GRAVEL 0.05 5/8" 70 #100 0.5 36 19 27 50 Medium Fine 3/8" 5 PI 90 10 % MC LL PLDEPTH ( ft.) PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D6913 37.7 29.4 6.4 2021-038 T200PROJECT NO.: HWAGRSZ 2021-038 T200.GPJ 8/2/21 FIGURE: King County Metro RapidRide I-Line Client Project No.: W3X86400 Client Task No.: A.P2.TE.2181.01 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.010.1110 CLAYSILT 3/4" Medium GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 50 SAMPLE PI Gravel% 13.7 6.3 Sand% 57.9 48.0 37.1 90 10 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D6913 % MC 17 11 17 30.0 - 30.5 1.0 - 2.5 5.0 - 6.5 SS-10 SS-1 SS-3 B-04w-21 B-05-21 B-05-21 Fine Coarse SYMBOL 3" 1-1/2" Fines%PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT#4 #200 (SP-SM) Olive-brown, poorly graded SAND with silt (SM) Brown, silty SAND (SM) Strong brown, silty SAND 0.00050.005 Clay%LL PL GRAVEL 0.05 5/8" 70 #100 0.5 Silt% 8.6 #10 30 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES SAND 11 Coarse #60#40 ASTM SOIL CLASSIFICATION #20 Fine 3/8" 5 8.6 28.4 50 DEPTH ( ft.) 2021-038 T200PROJECT NO.: HWAGRSZ SILT-CLAY PERCENTAGE 2021-038 T200.GPJ 8/2/21 FIGURE: King County Metro RapidRide I-Line Client Project No.: W3X86400 Client Task No.: A.P2.TE.2181.01 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.010.1110 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 50 SAMPLE SS-4 SS-5b SS-2a 7.5 - 9.0 10.8 - 11.5 2.5 - 3.0 #10 40.4 30 CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES SAND 12 Coarse #60#40#20 Fine Coarse SYMBOL Gravel% 3"1-1/2"PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT#4 #200 46.2 Sand% (ML) Brownish-yellow, sandy SILT (SM) Yellowish-brown, silty SAND (GM) Olive-brown, silty GRAVEL with sand Fines% 0.00050.005 CLAY B-05-21 B-05-21 B-06-21 SILT 3/4" GRAVEL 0.05 5/8" 70 #100 0.5 20 23 4 50 Medium Fine 3/8" 5 PI 90 10 % MC LL PLDEPTH ( ft.) PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D6913 51.2 27.7 13.3 2021-038 T200PROJECT NO.: HWAGRSZ 2021-038 T200.GPJ 8/2/21 FIGURE: King County Metro RapidRide I-Line Client Project No.: W3X86400 Client Task No.: A.P2.TE.2181.01 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.010.1110 CLAYSILT 3/4" Medium GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 50 SAMPLE PI Gravel% 1.0 0.2 Sand% 49.2 66.2 37.9 90 10 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D6913 % MC 17 11 17 3.0 - 4.0 2.5 - 2.7 2.7 - 4.0 SS-2b SS-2a SS-2b B-06-21 B-07-21 B-07-21 Fine Coarse SYMBOL 3" 1-1/2" Fines%PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT#4 #200 (SM) Brownish-yellow, silty SAND (SM) Very dark gray, silty SAND (SM) Dark gray, silty SAND 0.00050.005 Clay%LL PL GRAVEL 0.05 5/8" 70 #100 0.5 Silt% 11.9 #10 30 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES SAND 13 Coarse #60#40 ASTM SOIL CLASSIFICATION #20 Fine 3/8" 5 33.6 30.5 50 DEPTH ( ft.) 2021-038 T200PROJECT NO.: HWAGRSZ SILT-CLAY PERCENTAGE 2021-038 T200.GPJ 8/2/21 FIGURE: King County Metro RapidRide I-Line Client Project No.: W3X86400 Client Task No.: A.P2.TE.2181.01 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.010.1110 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 50 SAMPLE SS-8 SS-10 SS-2 20.0 - 21.5 30.0 - 31.5 2.5 - 4.0 #10 27.6 30 CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES SAND 14 Coarse #60#40#20 Fine Coarse SYMBOL Gravel% 3"1-1/2"PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT#4 #200 65.2 Sand% (SM) Gray, silty SAND with gravel (SM) Gray, silty SAND with gravel (GW-GM) Olive-brown, well-graded GRAVEL with silt and sand Fines% 0.00050.005 CLAY B-07-21 B-07-21 B-08-21 SILT 3/4" GRAVEL 0.05 5/8" 70 #100 0.5 12 13 4 50 Medium Fine 3/8" 5 PI 90 10 % MC LL PLDEPTH ( ft.) PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D6913 43.8 47.0 7.2 2021-038 T200PROJECT NO.: HWAGRSZ 2021-038 T200.GPJ 8/2/21 FIGURE: King County Metro RapidRide I-Line Client Project No.: W3X86400 Client Task No.: A.P2.TE.2181.01 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.010.1110 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 50 SAMPLE SS-4 SS-1a SS-2 7.5 - 9.0 1.0 - 2.5 2.5 - 4.0 #10 50.2 54.6 61.8 30 CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES SAND 15 Coarse #60#40#20 Fine Coarse SYMBOL Gravel% 3"1-1/2"PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT#4 #200 5.3 31.7 19.0 Sand% (SM) Yellowish-brown, silty SAND (SM) Olive-brown, silty SAND with gravel (SM) Very dark brown, silty SAND with gravel Fines% 0.00050.005 CLAY B-08-21 B-09w-21 B-09w-21 SILT 3/4" GRAVEL 0.05 5/8" 70 #100 0.5 13 4 19 50 Medium Fine 3/8" 5 PI 90 10 % MC LL PLDEPTH ( ft.) PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D6913 44.6 13.8 19.2 2021-038 T200PROJECT NO.: HWAGRSZ 2021-038 T200.GPJ 8/2/21 FIGURE: King County Metro RapidRide I-Line Client Project No.: W3X86400 Client Task No.: A.P2.TE.2181.01 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.010.1110 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 50 SAMPLE SS-3 SS-2 SS-3 5.0 - 6.5 3.5 - 5.0 5.0 - 6.5 #10 55.8 30 CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES SAND 16 Coarse #60#40#20 Fine Coarse SYMBOL Gravel% 3"1-1/2"PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT#4 #200 24.1 Sand% (SM) Light olive-brown, silty SAND with gravel (SM) Light olive-brown, silty SAND with gravel (SP-SM) Olive-brown, poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel Fines% 0.00050.005 CLAY B-09w-21 B-10-21 B-10-21 SILT 3/4" GRAVEL 0.05 5/8" 70 #100 0.5 12 8 8 50 Medium Fine 3/8" 5 PI 90 10 % MC LL PLDEPTH ( ft.) PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D6913 28.7 20.1 8.7 2021-038 T200PROJECT NO.: HWAGRSZ 2021-038 T200.GPJ 8/2/21 FIGURE: King County Metro RapidRide I-Line Client Project No.: W3X86400 Client Task No.: A.P2.TE.2181.01 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.010.1110 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 50 SAMPLE SS-5 SS-2 SS-3a 10.0 - 11.5 2.5 - 4.0 5.0 - 6.5 #10 54.3 30 CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES SAND 17 Coarse #60#40#20 Fine Coarse SYMBOL Gravel% 3"1-1/2"PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT#4 #200 5.9 Sand% (SM) Olive-yellow, silty SAND with gravel (SM) Strong brown, silty SAND (SM) Yellowish-brown, silty SAND with gravel Fines% 0.00050.005 CLAY B-10-21 B-11-21 B-11-21 SILT 3/4" GRAVEL 0.05 5/8" 70 #100 0.5 13 15 13 50 Medium Fine 3/8" 5 PI 90 10 % MC LL PLDEPTH ( ft.) PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D6913 12.1 39.8 41.4 2021-038 T200PROJECT NO.: HWAGRSZ 2021-038 T200.GPJ 8/2/21 FIGURE: King County Metro RapidRide I-Line Client Project No.: W3X86400 Client Task No.: A.P2.TE.2181.01 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.010.1110 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 50 SAMPLE SS-4 SS-1 SS-3 7.9 - 9.0 1.0 - 2.5 5.0 - 6.5 #10 45.3 45.8 30 CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES SAND 18 Coarse #60#40#20 Fine Coarse SYMBOL Gravel% 3"1-1/2"PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT#4 #200 13.9 10.3 Sand% (SM) Brown, silty SAND with gravel (SM) Dark grayish-brown, silty SAND (SM) Dark gray, silty SAND Fines% 0.00050.005 CLAY B-11-21 B-12-21 B-12-21 SILT 3/4" GRAVEL 0.05 5/8" 70 #100 0.5 12 9 11 50 Medium Fine 3/8" 5 PI 90 10 % MC LL PLDEPTH ( ft.) PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D6913 23.3 40.8 43.9 2021-038 T200PROJECT NO.: HWAGRSZ 2021-038 T200.GPJ 8/2/21 FIGURE: King County Metro RapidRide I-Line Client Project No.: W3X86400 Client Task No.: A.P2.TE.2181.01 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.010.1110 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 50 SAMPLE SS-5 SS-8 SS-2 10.0 - 11.5 20.0 - 21.5 2.5 - 4.0 #10 51.5 30 CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES SAND 19 Coarse #60#40#20 Fine Coarse SYMBOL Gravel% 3"1-1/2"PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT#4 #200 25.0 Sand% (SM) Gray, silty SAND with gravel (SM) Dark gray, silty SAND with gravel (SM) Olive-brown, silty SAND with gravel Fines% 0.00050.005 CLAY B-12-21 B-12-21 B-13-21 SILT 3/4" GRAVEL 0.05 5/8" 70 #100 0.5 11 12 9 50 Medium Fine 3/8" 5 PI 90 10 % MC LL PLDEPTH ( ft.) PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D6913 49.4 35.0 23.5 2021-038 T200PROJECT NO.: HWAGRSZ 2021-038 T200.GPJ 8/2/21 FIGURE: King County Metro RapidRide I-Line Client Project No.: W3X86400 Client Task No.: A.P2.TE.2181.01 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.010.1110 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 50 SAMPLE SS-4 SS-6 SS-1 7.5 - 9.0 12.5 - 14.0 0.4 - 1.9 #10 49.2 30 CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES SAND 20 Coarse #60#40#20 Fine Coarse SYMBOL Gravel% 3"1-1/2"PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT#4 #200 25.4 Sand% (SM) Olive-brown, silty SAND with gravel (SM) Very dark grayish-brown, silty SAND with gravel (SM) Very dark brown, silty SAND with gravel Fines% 0.00050.005 CLAY B-13-21 B-13-21 B-17-21 SILT 3/4" GRAVEL 0.05 5/8" 70 #100 0.5 11 23 18 50 Medium Fine 3/8" 5 PI 90 10 % MC LL PLDEPTH ( ft.) PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D6913 21.0 19.4 25.4 2021-038 T200PROJECT NO.: HWAGRSZ 2021-038 T200.GPJ 8/2/21 FIGURE: King County Metro RapidRide I-Line Client Project No.: W3X86400 Client Task No.: A.P2.TE.2181.01 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.010.1110 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 50 SAMPLE SS-2 SS-3 SS-4 2.5 - 4.0 5.0 - 6.5 7.5 - 9.0 #10 30 CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES SAND 21 Coarse #60#40#20 Fine Coarse SYMBOL Gravel% 3"1-1/2"PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT#4 #200 Sand% (SM) Yellowish-brown, silty SAND with gravel (SM) Olive-brown, silty SAND with gravel (SM) Olive-brown, silty SAND with gravel Fines% 0.00050.005 CLAY B-17-21 B-17-21 B-17-21 SILT 3/4" GRAVEL 0.05 5/8" 70 #100 0.5 12 10 11 50 Medium Fine 3/8" 5 PI 90 10 % MC LL PLDEPTH ( ft.) PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D6913 25.3 25.6 23.2 2021-038 T200PROJECT NO.: HWAGRSZ 2021-038 T200.GPJ 8/2/21 FIGURE: King County Metro RapidRide I-Line Client Project No.: W3X86400 Client Task No.: A.P2.TE.2181.01 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.010.1110 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 50 SAMPLE SS-2 2.5 - 3.5 #10 42.8 30 CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES SAND 22 Coarse #60#40#20 Fine Coarse SYMBOL Gravel% 3"1-1/2"PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT#4 #200 30.6 Sand% (SM) Light olive-brown, silty SAND with gravel Fines% 0.00050.005 CLAY B-19-21 SILT 3/4" GRAVEL 0.05 5/8" 70 #100 0.5 4 50 Medium Fine 3/8" 5 PI 90 10 % MC LL PLDEPTH ( ft.) PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D6913 26.6 2021-038 T200PROJECT NO.: HWAGRSZ 2021-038 T200.GPJ 8/2/21 FIGURE: King County Metro RapidRide I-Line Client Project No.: W3X86400 Client Task No.: A.P2.TE.2181.01 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 20 40 60 80 100 17 24 16 29 21 CH % Fines LIQUID LIMIT (LL) ML 76 76 51 69 51 % MC LL CL-ML 126 79 48 60 39 LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT AND PLASTICITY INDEX OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D4318 CL 23 SAMPLE CLASSIFICATION MHPLASTICITY INDEX (PI)SYMBOL PL PI 59 52 35 40 30 DEPTH (ft) (OH) Very dark brown, organic SILT (OH) Dark olive-brown, organic SILT (MH) Olive-brown, elastic SILT (OH) Dark reddish-brown, organic SILT (MH) Olive-brown, elastic SILT with sand B-02-21 B-02-21 B-03-21 B-04w-21 B-07-21 10.0 - 10.6 15.0 - 16.5 15.4 - 16.5 15.0 - 15.8 7.5 - 9.0 SS-5a SS-7 SS-7b SS-7a SS-4 2021-038 T200PROJECT NO.: HWAATTB EXPANDED SAMPLE COLUMN 2021-038 T200.GPJ 8/1/21 FIGURE: King County Metro RapidRide I-Line Client Project No.: W3X86400 Client Task No.: A.P2.TE.2181.01 B-15w-21,SS-1 0.4 1.9 3.8 40.7 48.9 10.4 SW-SM Olive-brown, well-graded SAND with silt and gravel B-15w-21,SS-2 2.5 4.0 14.6 26.1 SM Dark yellowish-brown, silty SAND with gravel B-15w-21,SS-5 10.0 11.4 7.9 37.6 SM Dark gray, silty SAND with gravel B-21w-21,SS-1 1.5 3.0 6.4 54.8 31.5 13.8 GM Dark grayish-brown, silty GRAVEL with sand B-21w-21,SS-2 5.0 6.5 79.2 10.2 26.1 SM Very dark grayish-brown, silty SAND with heavy organics B-21w-21,SS-3 7.5 9.0 17.8 13.2 SM Dark grayish-brown, silty SAND with gravel B-21w-21,SS-6 15.0 16.5 25.2 8.2 SP-SM Dark grayish-brown, poorly graded SAND with silt B-21w-21,SS-7 20.0 21.5 21.4 14.3 SM Olive-brown, silty SAND with gravel B-22-21,SS-1 0.4 2.0 3.3 32.0 55.7 12.3 SM Dark olive-brown, silty SAND with gravel B-22-21,SS-2 2.5 4.0 13.9 19.3 SM Very dark grayish-brown, silty SAND B-22-21,SS-4 7.5 9.0 49.6 42 33 9 ML Grayish-brown, SILT with sand B-22-21,SS-6 12.5 14.0 29.4 28.3 SM Very dark gray, silty SAND B-22-21,SS-7 15.0 16.5 41.6 38 30 8 52.6 OL Very dark grayish-brown, sandy organic SILT B-22-21,SS-8 20.0 21.5 40.3 71.3 ML Olive-brown, sandy SILT B-22-21,SS-9 25.0 26.5 27.4 13.8 SM Very dark grayish-brown, silty SAND B-22-21,SS-10 30.0 31.5 28.5 21.3 SM Very dark grayish-brown, silty SAND B-31w-21,SS-1 1.2 2.7 15.8 41.4 SM Dark brown, silty SAND with gravel B-31w-21,SS-4 7.5 9.0 22.2 6.8 SP-SM Very dark brown, poorly graded SAND with silt B-31w-21,SS-5 10.0 11.5 23.4 2.1 SP Very dark brown, poorly graded SAND B-31w-21,SS-6 12.5 14.0 26.8 2.6 SP Very dark grayish-brown, poorly graded SANDBOTTOM DEPTHCONTENT (%)% SAND% GRAVELPIPL(feet)TOP DEPTHSAMPLE DESCRIPTION Notes:ASTM SOILMOISTURECONTENT (%)ORGANIC% FINESSPECIFIC GRAVITYEXPLORATIONDESIGNATION1. This table summarizes information presented elsewhere in the report and should be used in conjunction with the report test, other graphs and tables, and the exploration logs. 2. The soil classifications in this table are based on ASTM D2487 and D2488 as applicable. MATERIAL PROPERTIES 1 PAGE: 1 of 3 SUMMARY OF LIMITS (%) ATTERBERG LL CLASSIFICATION(feet)2021-038 T200PROJECT NO.: INDEX MATSUM 2 2021-038 T200.GPJ 8/17/21 FIGURE: King County Metro RapidRide I-Line Client Project No.: W3X86400 Client Task No.: A.P2.TE.2181.01 B-31w-21,SS-7 15.0 16.5 29.1 3.6 SP Very dark grayish-brown, poorly graded SAND B-31w-21,SS-8a 20.0 21.0 25.0 3.0 SP Very dark grayish-brown, poorly graded SAND B-31w-21,SS-8b 21.0 21.5 93.8 85 62 23 OH Dark grayish-brown, organic SILT B-32-21,SS-1 1.0 1.5 8.3 28.9 48.8 22.3 SM Dark grayish-brown, silty SAND with gravel B-32-21,SS-3 5.0 6.5 8.3 8.4 SP-SM Very dark grayish-brown, poorly graded SAND with silt B-32-21,SS-4 7.5 9.0 17.2 9.4 SP-SM Very dark grayish-brown, poorly graded SAND with silt B-32-21,SS-5 10.0 11.5 24.4 8.0 SP-SM Very dark grayish-brown, poorly graded SAND with silt B-32-21,SS-6 12.5 14.0 34.1 1.4 11.5 SP-SM Very dark grayish-brown, poorly graded SAND with silt B-32-21,SS-7 15.0 16.5 32.3 0.4 3.8 SP Very dark grayish-brown, poorly graded SAND B-32-21,SS-8 20.0 21.5 34.3 7.6 SP-SM Very dark grayish-brown, poorly graded SAND with silt B-32-21,SS-9b 26.0 26.5 22.9 31.8 SM Dark grayish-brown, silty SAND B-33w-21,SS-1 1.5 3.0 9.3 30.5 46.4 23.2 SM Dark olive-brown, silty SAND with gravel B-33w-21,SS-3 5.0 6.5 4.0 41.6 54.4 4.0 SP Dark brown, poorly graded SAND with gravel B-33w-21,SS-5 10.0 11.5 11.0 37.5 59.5 3.0 SP Dark olive-brown, poorly graded SAND with gravel B-33w-21,SS-6 12.5 14.0 23.2 1.4 SP Dark olive-brown, poorly graded SAND with gravel B-33w-21,SS-7 15.0 16.5 23.2 1.0 SP Very dark brown, poorly graded SAND B-33w-21,SS-9 25.0 26.5 20.2 9.5 SP-SM Very dark brown, poorly graded SAND with silt B-34-21,SS-2 3.9 5.4 28.3 57.4 ML Olive-brown, sandy SILT B-34-21,SS-3 6.4 7.9 29.7 40.7 SM Dark olive-brown, silty SAND B-34-21,SS-4c 9.5 10.4 41.7 36 32 4 68.5 OL Dark grayish-brown, sandy organic SILTBOTTOM DEPTHCONTENT (%)% SAND% GRAVELPIPL(feet)TOP DEPTHSAMPLE DESCRIPTION Notes:ASTM SOILMOISTURECONTENT (%)ORGANIC% FINESSPECIFIC GRAVITYEXPLORATIONDESIGNATION1. This table summarizes information presented elsewhere in the report and should be used in conjunction with the report test, other graphs and tables, and the exploration logs. 2. The soil classifications in this table are based on ASTM D2487 and D2488 as applicable. MATERIAL PROPERTIES 2 PAGE: 2 of 3 SUMMARY OF LIMITS (%) ATTERBERG LL CLASSIFICATION(feet)2021-038 T200PROJECT NO.: INDEX MATSUM 2 2021-038 T200.GPJ 8/17/21 FIGURE: King County Metro RapidRide I-Line Client Project No.: W3X86400 Client Task No.: A.P2.TE.2181.01 B-34-21,SS-5a 11.4 12.4 29.9 13.8 SM Very dark brown, silty SAND B-34-21,SS-5b 12.4 12.9 85.2 11.2 OL Dark grayish-brown, organic SILT with sand B-34-21,SS-6 13.9 15.4 126.6 16.9 135 99 36 OH Dark brown, organic SILT B-34-21,SS-7b 16.9 17.4 65.4 7.2 62 55 7 OH Dark brown, organic SILT B-34-21,SS-8a 21.4 21.6 32.7 44.2 SM Dark grayish-brown, silty SAND B-34-21,SS-8c 22.6 22.9 29.5 67.6 32.4 SM Dark grayish-brown, silty SANDBOTTOM DEPTHCONTENT (%)% SAND% GRAVELPIPL(feet)TOP DEPTHSAMPLE DESCRIPTION Notes:ASTM SOILMOISTURECONTENT (%)ORGANIC% FINESSPECIFIC GRAVITYEXPLORATIONDESIGNATION1. This table summarizes information presented elsewhere in the report and should be used in conjunction with the report test, other graphs and tables, and the exploration logs. 2. The soil classifications in this table are based on ASTM D2487 and D2488 as applicable. MATERIAL PROPERTIES 3 PAGE: 3 of 3 SUMMARY OF LIMITS (%) ATTERBERG LL CLASSIFICATION(feet)2021-038 T200PROJECT NO.: INDEX MATSUM 2 2021-038 T200.GPJ 8/17/21 FIGURE: King County Metro RapidRide I-Line Client Project No.: W3X86400 Client Task No.: A.P2.TE.2181.01 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.010.1110 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 50 SAMPLE SS-1 SS-2 SS-5 0.4 - 1.9 2.5 - 4.0 10.0 - 11.4 #10 48.9 30 CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES SAND 4 Coarse #60#40#20 Fine Coarse SYMBOL Gravel% 3"1-1/2"PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT#4 #200 40.7 Sand% (SW-SM) Olive-brown, well-graded SAND with silt and gravel (SM) Dark yellowish-brown, silty SAND with gravel (SM) Dark gray, silty SAND with gravel Fines% 0.00050.005 CLAY B-15w-21 B-15w-21 B-15w-21 SILT 3/4" GRAVEL 0.05 5/8" 70 #100 0.5 4 15 8 50 Medium Fine 3/8" 5 PI 90 10 % MC LL PLDEPTH ( ft.) PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D6913 10.4 26.1 37.6 2021-038 T200PROJECT NO.: HWAGRSZ 2021-038 T200.GPJ 8/17/21 FIGURE: King County Metro RapidRide I-Line Client Project No.: W3X86400 Client Task No.: A.P2.TE.2181.01 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.010.1110 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 50 SAMPLE SS-1 SS-2 SS-3 1.5 - 3.0 5.0 - 6.5 7.5 - 9.0 #10 31.5 30 CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES SAND 5 Coarse #60#40#20 Fine Coarse SYMBOL Gravel% 3"1-1/2"PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT#4 #200 54.8 Sand% (GM) Dark grayish-brown, silty GRAVEL with sand (SM) Very dark grayish-brown, silty SAND with heavy organics (SM) Dark grayish-brown, silty SAND with gravel Fines% 0.00050.005 CLAY B-21w-21 B-21w-21 B-21w-21 SILT 3/4" GRAVEL 0.05 5/8" 70 #100 0.5 6 79 18 50 Medium Fine 3/8" 5 PI 90 10 % MC LL PLDEPTH ( ft.) PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D6913 13.8 26.1 13.2 2021-038 T200PROJECT NO.: HWAGRSZ 2021-038 T200.GPJ 8/17/21 FIGURE: King County Metro RapidRide I-Line Client Project No.: W3X86400 Client Task No.: A.P2.TE.2181.01 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.010.1110 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 50 SAMPLE SS-6 SS-7 SS-1 15.0 - 16.5 20.0 - 21.5 0.4 - 2.0 #10 55.7 30 CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES SAND 6 Coarse #60#40#20 Fine Coarse SYMBOL Gravel% 3"1-1/2"PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT#4 #200 32.0 Sand% (SP-SM) Dark grayish-brown, poorly graded SAND with silt (SM) Olive-brown, silty SAND with gravel (SM) Dark olive-brown, silty SAND with gravel Fines% 0.00050.005 CLAY B-21w-21 B-21w-21 B-22-21 SILT 3/4" GRAVEL 0.05 5/8" 70 #100 0.5 25 21 3 50 Medium Fine 3/8" 5 PI 90 10 % MC LL PLDEPTH ( ft.) PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D6913 8.2 14.3 12.3 2021-038 T200PROJECT NO.: HWAGRSZ 2021-038 T200.GPJ 8/17/21 FIGURE: King County Metro RapidRide I-Line Client Project No.: W3X86400 Client Task No.: A.P2.TE.2181.01 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.010.1110 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 50 SAMPLE SS-2 SS-6 SS-7 2.5 - 4.0 12.5 - 14.0 15.0 - 16.5 38 #10 30 CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES SAND 7 8 Coarse #60#40#20 Fine Coarse SYMBOL Gravel% 3"1-1/2"PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT#4 #200 Sand% (SM) Very dark grayish-brown, silty SAND (SM) Very dark gray, silty SAND (OL) Very dark grayish-brown, sandy organic SILT Fines% 0.00050.005 CLAY B-22-21 B-22-21 B-22-21 30 SILT 3/4" GRAVEL 0.05 5/8" 70 #100 0.5 14 29 42 50 Medium Fine 3/8" 5 PI 90 10 % MC LL PLDEPTH ( ft.) PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D6913 19.3 28.3 52.6 2021-038 T200PROJECT NO.: HWAGRSZ 2021-038 T200.GPJ 8/17/21 FIGURE: King County Metro RapidRide I-Line Client Project No.: W3X86400 Client Task No.: A.P2.TE.2181.01 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.010.1110 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 50 SAMPLE SS-8 SS-9 SS-10 20.0 - 21.5 25.0 - 26.5 30.0 - 31.5 #10 30 CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES SAND 8 Coarse #60#40#20 Fine Coarse SYMBOL Gravel% 3"1-1/2"PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT#4 #200 Sand% (ML) Olive-brown, sandy SILT (SM) Very dark grayish-brown, silty SAND (SM) Very dark grayish-brown, silty SAND Fines% 0.00050.005 CLAY B-22-21 B-22-21 B-22-21 SILT 3/4" GRAVEL 0.05 5/8" 70 #100 0.5 40 27 29 50 Medium Fine 3/8" 5 PI 90 10 % MC LL PLDEPTH ( ft.) PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D6913 71.3 13.8 21.3 2021-038 T200PROJECT NO.: HWAGRSZ 2021-038 T200.GPJ 8/17/21 FIGURE: King County Metro RapidRide I-Line Client Project No.: W3X86400 Client Task No.: A.P2.TE.2181.01 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.010.1110 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 50 SAMPLE SS-1 SS-4 SS-5 1.2 - 2.7 7.5 - 9.0 10.0 - 11.5 #10 30 CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES SAND 9 Coarse #60#40#20 Fine Coarse SYMBOL Gravel% 3"1-1/2"PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT#4 #200 Sand% (SM) Dark brown, silty SAND with gravel (SP-SM) Very dark brown, poorly graded SAND with silt (SP) Very dark brown, poorly graded SAND Fines% 0.00050.005 CLAY B-31w-21 B-31w-21 B-31w-21 SILT 3/4" GRAVEL 0.05 5/8" 70 #100 0.5 16 22 23 50 Medium Fine 3/8" 5 PI 90 10 % MC LL PLDEPTH ( ft.) PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D6913 41.4 6.8 2.1 2021-038 T200PROJECT NO.: HWAGRSZ 2021-038 T200.GPJ 8/17/21 FIGURE: King County Metro RapidRide I-Line Client Project No.: W3X86400 Client Task No.: A.P2.TE.2181.01 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.010.1110 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 50 SAMPLE SS-6 SS-7 SS-8a 12.5 - 14.0 15.0 - 16.5 20.0 - 21.0 #10 30 CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES SAND 10 Coarse #60#40#20 Fine Coarse SYMBOL Gravel% 3"1-1/2"PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT#4 #200 Sand% (SP) Very dark grayish-brown, poorly graded SAND (SP) Very dark grayish-brown, poorly graded SAND (SP) Very dark grayish-brown, poorly graded SAND Fines% 0.00050.005 CLAY B-31w-21 B-31w-21 B-31w-21 SILT 3/4" GRAVEL 0.05 5/8" 70 #100 0.5 27 29 25 50 Medium Fine 3/8" 5 PI 90 10 % MC LL PLDEPTH ( ft.) PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D6913 2.6 3.6 3.0 2021-038 T200PROJECT NO.: HWAGRSZ 2021-038 T200.GPJ 8/17/21 FIGURE: King County Metro RapidRide I-Line Client Project No.: W3X86400 Client Task No.: A.P2.TE.2181.01 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.010.1110 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 50 SAMPLE SS-1 SS-3 SS-4 1.0 - 1.5 5.0 - 6.5 7.5 - 9.0 #10 48.8 30 CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES SAND 11 Coarse #60#40#20 Fine Coarse SYMBOL Gravel% 3"1-1/2"PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT#4 #200 28.9 Sand% (SM) Dark grayish-brown, silty SAND with gravel (SP-SM) Very dark grayish-brown, poorly graded SAND with silt (SP-SM) Very dark grayish-brown, poorly graded SAND with silt Fines% 0.00050.005 CLAY B-32-21 B-32-21 B-32-21 SILT 3/4" GRAVEL 0.05 5/8" 70 #100 0.5 8 8 17 50 Medium Fine 3/8" 5 PI 90 10 % MC LL PLDEPTH ( ft.) PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D6913 22.3 8.4 9.4 2021-038 T200PROJECT NO.: HWAGRSZ 2021-038 T200.GPJ 8/17/21 FIGURE: King County Metro RapidRide I-Line Client Project No.: W3X86400 Client Task No.: A.P2.TE.2181.01 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.010.1110 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 50 SAMPLE SS-5 SS-6 SS-7 10.0 - 11.5 12.5 - 14.0 15.0 - 16.5 #10 30 CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES SAND 12 Coarse #60#40#20 Fine Coarse SYMBOL Gravel% 3"1-1/2"PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT#4 #200 Sand% (SP-SM) Very dark grayish-brown, poorly graded SAND with silt (SP-SM) Very dark grayish-brown, poorly graded SAND with silt (SP) Very dark grayish-brown, poorly graded SAND Fines% 0.00050.005 CLAY B-32-21 B-32-21 B-32-21 SILT 3/4" GRAVEL 0.05 5/8" 70 #100 0.5 24 34 32 50 Medium Fine 3/8" 5 PI 90 10 % MC LL PLDEPTH ( ft.) PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D6913 8.0 11.5 3.8 2021-038 T200PROJECT NO.: HWAGRSZ 2021-038 T200.GPJ 8/17/21 FIGURE: King County Metro RapidRide I-Line Client Project No.: W3X86400 Client Task No.: A.P2.TE.2181.01 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.010.1110 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 50 SAMPLE SS-8 SS-9b SS-1 20.0 - 21.5 26.0 - 26.5 1.5 - 3.0 #10 46.4 30 CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES SAND 13 Coarse #60#40#20 Fine Coarse SYMBOL Gravel% 3"1-1/2"PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT#4 #200 30.5 Sand% (SP-SM) Very dark grayish-brown, poorly graded SAND with silt (SM) Dark grayish-brown, silty SAND (SM) Dark olive-brown, silty SAND with gravel Fines% 0.00050.005 CLAY B-32-21 B-32-21 B-33w-21 SILT 3/4" GRAVEL 0.05 5/8" 70 #100 0.5 34 23 9 50 Medium Fine 3/8" 5 PI 90 10 % MC LL PLDEPTH ( ft.) PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D6913 7.6 31.8 23.2 2021-038 T200PROJECT NO.: HWAGRSZ 2021-038 T200.GPJ 8/17/21 FIGURE: King County Metro RapidRide I-Line Client Project No.: W3X86400 Client Task No.: A.P2.TE.2181.01 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.010.1110 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 50 SAMPLE SS-3 SS-5 SS-6 5.0 - 6.5 10.0 - 11.5 12.5 - 14.0 #10 54.4 59.5 30 CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES SAND 14 Coarse #60#40#20 Fine Coarse SYMBOL Gravel% 3"1-1/2"PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT#4 #200 41.6 37.5 Sand% (SP) Dark brown, poorly graded SAND with gravel (SP) Dark olive-brown, poorly graded SAND with gravel (SP) Dark olive-brown, poorly graded SAND with gravel Fines% 0.00050.005 CLAY B-33w-21 B-33w-21 B-33w-21 SILT 3/4" GRAVEL 0.05 5/8" 70 #100 0.5 4 11 23 50 Medium Fine 3/8" 5 PI 90 10 % MC LL PLDEPTH ( ft.) PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D6913 4.0 3.0 1.4 2021-038 T200PROJECT NO.: HWAGRSZ 2021-038 T200.GPJ 8/17/21 FIGURE: King County Metro RapidRide I-Line Client Project No.: W3X86400 Client Task No.: A.P2.TE.2181.01 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.010.1110 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 50 SAMPLE SS-7 SS-9 SS-2 15.0 - 16.5 25.0 - 26.5 3.9 - 5.4 #10 30 CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES SAND 15 Coarse #60#40#20 Fine Coarse SYMBOL Gravel% 3"1-1/2"PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT#4 #200 Sand% (SP) Very dark brown, poorly graded SAND (SP-SM) Very dark brown, poorly graded SAND with silt (ML) Olive-brown, sandy SILT Fines% 0.00050.005 CLAY B-33w-21 B-33w-21 B-34-21 SILT 3/4" GRAVEL 0.05 5/8" 70 #100 0.5 23 20 28 50 Medium Fine 3/8" 5 PI 90 10 % MC LL PLDEPTH ( ft.) PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D6913 1.0 9.5 57.4 2021-038 T200PROJECT NO.: HWAGRSZ 2021-038 T200.GPJ 8/17/21 FIGURE: King County Metro RapidRide I-Line Client Project No.: W3X86400 Client Task No.: A.P2.TE.2181.01 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.010.1110 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 50 SAMPLE SS-3 SS-4c SS-5a 6.4 - 7.9 9.5 - 10.4 11.4 - 12.4 36 #10 30 CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES SAND 16 4 Coarse #60#40#20 Fine Coarse SYMBOL Gravel% 3"1-1/2"PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT#4 #200 Sand% (SM) Dark olive-brown, silty SAND (OL) Dark grayish-brown, sandy organic SILT (SM) Very dark brown, silty SAND Fines% 0.00050.005 CLAY B-34-21 B-34-21 B-34-21 32 SILT 3/4" GRAVEL 0.05 5/8" 70 #100 0.5 30 42 30 50 Medium Fine 3/8" 5 PI 90 10 % MC LL PLDEPTH ( ft.) PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D6913 40.7 68.5 13.8 2021-038 T200PROJECT NO.: HWAGRSZ 2021-038 T200.GPJ 8/17/21 FIGURE: King County Metro RapidRide I-Line Client Project No.: W3X86400 Client Task No.: A.P2.TE.2181.01 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.010.1110 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 50 SAMPLE SS-8a SS-8c 21.4 - 21.6 22.6 - 22.9 #10 67.6 30 CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES SAND 17 Coarse #60#40#20 Fine Coarse SYMBOL Gravel% 3"1-1/2"PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT#4 #200 Sand% (SM) Dark grayish-brown, silty SAND (SM) Dark grayish-brown, silty SAND Fines% 0.00050.005 CLAY B-34-21 B-34-21 SILT 3/4" GRAVEL 0.05 5/8" 70 #100 0.5 33 29 50 Medium Fine 3/8" 5 PI 90 10 % MC LL PLDEPTH ( ft.) PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D6913 44.2 32.4 2021-038 T200PROJECT NO.: HWAGRSZ 2021-038 T200.GPJ 8/17/21 FIGURE: King County Metro RapidRide I-Line Client Project No.: W3X86400 Client Task No.: A.P2.TE.2181.01 SYMBOL PL PI 33 30 62 32 99 55 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 40 80 120 160 200 7.5 - 9.0 15.0 - 16.5 21.0 - 21.5 9.5 - 10.4 13.9 - 15.4 16.9 - 17.4 (ML) Grayish-brown, SILT with sand (OL) Very dark grayish-brown, sandy organic SILT (OH) Dark grayish-brown, organic SILT (OL) Dark grayish-brown, sandy organic SILT (OH) Dark brown, organic SILT (OH) Dark brown, organic SILT LIQUID LIMIT (LL) 42 38 85 36 135 62 % MC LL B-22-21 B-22-21 B-31w-21 B-34-21 B-34-21 B-34-21 50 42 94 42 127 65 LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT AND PLASTICITY INDEX OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D4318 52.6 68.5 18 9 8 23 4 36 7 CL-ML % FinesSAMPLE ML CLASSIFICATION MHPLASTICITY INDEX (PI)SS-4 SS-7 SS-8b SS-4c SS-6 SS-7b DEPTH (ft) CL CH 2021-038 T200PROJECT NO.: HWAATTB EXPANDED SAMPLE COLUMN (HIGH LL) 2021-038 T200.GPJ 8/17/21 FIGURE: King County Metro RapidRide I-Line Client Project No.: W3X86400 Client Task No.: A.P2.TE.2181.01 Renton Critical Areas Report Appendix C: ESA No Effect Determination August 2020 Endangered Species Act No Effect Determination Assessment King County Metro Transit Department King County Metro Transit Department Gillian Zacharias Greg McKnight Jacobs Engineering Group Brooke O’Neill, Professional Wetland Scientist Prepared by: iii Endangered Species Act No Effect Determination Assessment Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................... vii 1 Introduction ......................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Project Location and Setting ....................................................... 1-1 2 Project Description ............................................................... 2-1 2.1 Project Termini ............................................................................ 2-1 2.2 RapidRide Stations ...................................................................... 2-2 2.3 Infrastructure and Transportation Network Improvements ........ 2-2 2.4 Access to Transit Projects ........................................................... 2-3 2.5 Construction Activities, Equipment, and Methods ........................ 2-4 2.6 Project Schedule ......................................................................... 2-6 3 Project Stormwater .............................................................. 3-1 3.1 Stormwater Drainage and Discharge ........................................... 3-1 3.2 Pollution-Generating Impervious Surface ................................... 3-4 3.3 Stormwater Regulatory Requirements ........................................ 3-7 4 Impact Avoidance and Minimization Measures ..................... 4-1 4.1 Vegetation Clearing and Removal ................................................ 4-1 4.2 Construction Stormwater Control Measures ................................ 4-2 4.3 Water Quality Treatment Measures ............................................. 4-2 5 Action Area .......................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Terrestrial ................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Aquatic ........................................................................................ 5-2 6 Species and Habitat Presence .............................................. 6-1 6.1 Yellow-Billed Cuckoo (Threatened) ............................................. 6-2 6.2 Bull Trout (Threatened) .............................................................. 6-3 6.3 Puget Sound ESU Chinook Salmon (Threatened) ......................... 6-3 iv Endangered Species Act No Effect Determination Assessment 6.4 Puget Sound DPS Steelhead Trout (Threatened) ......................... 6-4 7 Analysis of Effects ................................................................ 7-1 7.1 Terrestrial Impacts...................................................................... 7-1 7.2 Aquatic Impacts .......................................................................... 7-1 8 Conclusions and Effect Determinations ................................ 8-1 9 Essential Fish Habitat ........................................................... 9-1 10 References ......................................................................... 10-1 List of Figures Figure 1-1. Proposed I Line Alignment and Stations ................................................ 1-2 Figure 3-1. Project Stormwater Drainage Discharge Locations.................................. 3-3 Figure 5-1. Project Action Area ............................................................................ 5-3 List of Tables Table 3-1. Proposed Pollution-Generating Impervious Surfaces ................................ 3-4 Table 6-1. Federally Listed Species Summary ........................................................ 6-1 List of Appendices A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Species List B National Marine Fisheries Species List v Endangered Species Act No Effect Determination Assessment Acronyms and Abbreviations BMP best management practice dB decibel dBA A-weighted decibel EFH Essential Fish Habitat ESA Endangered Species Act FTA Federal Transit Administration ID identification Leq equivalent sound level Metro King County Metro Transit NE No Effect NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NWIFC Northwest Indian Fisheries PGIS pollution-generating impervious surface Project RapidRide I Line Project SWIFD Statewide Washington Integrated Fish Distribution TDA threshold discharge area USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation vii Endangered Species Act No Effect Determination Assessment Executive Summary The RapidRide I Line Project (Project) would provide new RapidRide bus rapid transit service connecting the cities of Renton, Kent, and Auburn in South King County. This No Effect Determination Assessment evaluates the potential effects of the Project on Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed species and designated critical habitat. This assessment also looks at potential affects to essential fish habitat under the Magnuson- Stevens Act. The Project is located mostly along arterial roadways within an urban or suburban environment. Open space, parks, and farmland are present intermittently in the corridor. The Project is located in the lower Green River Subwatershed. The Green River, as well as several smaller streams, are located in the project vicinity. Information on species and habitats within the vicinity of the Project was obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries. One bird and three fish species listed under the ESA are potentially present in the vicinity of the Project. The yellow-billed cuckoo is a migratory bird that nests in large patches of dense riparian vegetation. The yellow-billed cuckoo used to be common in King County but now is very rarely found in Western Washington. Bull trout, Chinook salmon, and steelhead trout are anadromous fish that spawn and rear in freshwater streams in King County, including the Green River. Critical habitat for Bull trout, Chinook salmon, and steelhead trout is designated in the vicinity of the Project and includes the Green River. The Project will conduct relatively minor improvements to existing arterials along the 17-mile-long corridor. Most improvements will occur in existing paved areas. Vegetation removal will be relatively minor and consist of street trees and existing landscaping. No work will be conducted in aquatic resources, including streams and wetlands. The Project will result in a net increase of pollution-generating impervious surfaces (PGIS). No direct impacts to species or critical habitat will occur. Indirect impacts from stormwater pollution during construction and operation of the Project have the potential to impact species and habitats. Avoidance and minimization measures will be implemented to address stormwater impacts. During construction, best management practices will be implemented to minimize or eliminate the potential for stormwater impacts. During operation, impacts from new PGIS will be mitigated with stormwater treatment. The Project will provide water quality treatment for runoff equal to or greater than what will be created by the net increase in PGIS resulting from the Project. viii Endangered Species Act No Effect Determination Assessment Therefore, the Project is expected to have no effect to listed species, designated critical habitat, or essential fish habitat. 1-1 Endangered Species Act No Effect Determination Assessment 1 Introduction King County Metro Transit (Metro) proposes to provide new bus rapid transit service, RapidRide I Line, along a corridor currently served by Routes 169 and 180. These routes serve the City of Renton (Renton), City of Kent (Kent), and City of Auburn (Auburn) corridor in South King County (Figure 1-1). This new RapidRide I Line route would extend almost 17 miles from the northern terminus, Renton Transit Center, in Renton to the southern terminus, Auburn Station, in Auburn. The RapidRide I Line (Project) is subject to Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) because the Project is receiving federal funds through the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). This No Effect Determination Assessment (NE Assessment) was developed on behalf of the FTA to address potential affects the proposed Project may have on ESA listed species and habitat. The NE Assessment follows the Washington State Department of Transportation’s (WSDOT) No Effects Assessment template; used when acting for the Federal Highway Administration. WSDOT’s No Effects Assessment template is used “for projects that result in a no effect determination but require additional documentation and analysis to support the NE call, such as projects with new impervious surface (i.e., document lack of stormwater impacts), projects with complicated action areas, or projects that require completion of a detailed indirect effects analysis…” (WSDOT 2020). 1.1 Project Location and Setting The Project is located mostly along arterial roadways within an urban or suburban environment, with a small section of the Project located in less dense unincorporated King County. 1-2 Endangered Species Act No Effect Determination Assessment Figure 1-1. Proposed I Line Alignment and Stations 1-3 Endangered Species Act No Effect Determination Assessment Dominant land uses adjacent to the Project alignment are commercial and residential, with areas of central business district uses. Open space, parks, and farmland are present intermittently in the corridor. Most of the construction will occur in existing impervious surfaces (roadways or public sidewalks), and some construction will occur in non-impervious areas. Non-impervious areas consist of street trees, vegetated planting strips, lawns, and forested riparian habitat. The Project spans multiple township sections:  Township 21 North, Range 4 East, Section 13  Township 21 North, Range 5 East, Sections 6, 7, 18  Township 22 North, Range 4 East, Sections 24, 25, 36  Township 22 North, Range 5 East, Sections 5, 8, 17, 19, 20, 31  Township 23 North, Range 5 East, Sections 18, 19, 30, 31, and 32 The Project is in Water Resource Inventory Area 9: Duwamish-Green and in U.S. Geological Survey Hydrological Unit Code #17110013. 2-1 Endangered Species Act No Effect Determination Assessment 2 Project Description King County Metro Transit (Metro) proposes to provide new RapidRide bus rapid transit service connecting the cities of Renton, Kent, and Auburn in south King County, upgrading the existing Route 169 and Route 180 which serve this corridor. This new RapidRide I Line route would extend 17 miles north-south; see Figure 1-1, Proposed I Line Alignment and Stations. The cities of Renton, Kent, and Auburn are regionally designated growth centers and include locally identified centers of East Hill, Panther Lake, and Benson. The corridor includes many areas of high concentrations of population and employment. The RapidRide I Line’s connections to other regional high-capacity transit such as RapidRide F Line, Sounder Commuter Rail, and future Metro and Sound Transit bus rapid transit (BRT) will provide greater access to regional destinations. The RapidRide I Line would meet a critical need for improved north-south transportation options in south King County. Metro would operate diesel-electric hybrid buses approximately 20 hours a day, seven days a week on this route. During peak times, buses would arrive approximately every 10 minutes. During off-peak times, buses would arrive approximately every 15 minutes. Passenger facility and transportation system improvements would be implemented to increase transit speed and reliability. The RapidRide I Line has an anticipated daily ridership of 9,000 to 12,000 in its opening year of 2023. The proposed RapidRide I Line project elements are described in the following subsections. 2.1 Project Termini The project termini are:  Northern terminus at Renton Transit Center. The proposed northern terminus is the existing Renton Transit Center, located at 257 Burnett Avenue South in the City of Renton.  Southern terminus at Auburn Station. The southern terminus of the proposed route is existing Auburn Station, located at 110 2nd Street SW in the City of Auburn. 2-2 Endangered Species Act No Effect Determination Assessment 2.2 RapidRide Stations The Project would include approximately 82 RapidRide stations. Of these, approximately 11 stations would be at completely new locations, and the rest would replace existing Route 169 or Route 180 bus stops at the same location or along the same block. RapidRide stations include branded shelter design and signage that distinguish RapidRide facilities and service from Metro’s standard routes and service. All stops are considered RapidRide “stations” and typically occupy a 60-foot by 10-foot area. New concrete bus pads may be installed in the travelway at select stations. Passenger facilities may include all or a combination of the following features:  Weather screening shelters  Shelter and pedestrian scale or upgraded existing street level lighting  Dedicated fare payment/ORCA card electronic readers for preboarding payment  Pole-mounted, fixed signage for station and route identification, maps, and schedule information  Pole-mounted, real-time arrival information signage  Trash and recycling receptacles  Benches or leaning rails  Bicycle racks Stations will be designed for all-door vehicle boarding and alighting where site conditions allow. At some locations, sidewalk and street crossing enhancements for pedestrian safety and access will be constructed. 2.3 Infrastructure and Transportation Network Improvements Transportation system improvements are proposed to improve speed and reliability in the I Line corridor. They include:  Channelization of roadways for business access and transit (BAT) lanes  Transit queue bypass lanes, or transit queue jumps 2-3 Endangered Species Act No Effect Determination Assessment  Telecommunication infrastructure to support wireless networking technologies and communications, off-board ORCA readers, transit signal coordination, and real-time scheduling information  Curb extensions and Americans with Disabilities Act-compliant sidewalk ramps and sidewalk and road crossing improvements to facilitate access to transit  Parking control or removal  New bus layover areas installed around the Renton and Auburn termini; identified bus layover locations include a single block location for bus layover in Renton on Morris Avenue South between S 2nd Street and S 3rd Street, and potential bus layover locations in Auburn along two blocks facing 1st Street and three blocks facing 2nd Street. Bus layover areas will include signage and curb painting, and may include pavement improvement, or a bus pad, and lighting between the layover area and the existing comfort station, if needed. 2.4 Access to Transit Projects As design of the project continues, Metro is working with city partners to determine priority transit access improvements between adjacent neighborhoods and RapidRide stations along the corridor to improve safety and access to transit. These improvements may include roadway crossing and pedestrian channelization improvements, intersection control and signal upgrades, and sidewalk or bicycle accommodations (e.g. striped lanes or intersection bicycle boxes). The access to transit projects proposed are:  Renton Project 1: Construct a two-way bicycle lane along the south side of 2nd Street between Logan Avenue and Shattuck Avenue S.  Kent Project 1: Formalize Fred Meyer driveway, provide protected pedestrian phase at traffic light, mark crosswalk, install curb ramp and curb return at 102nd Ave SE north of SE 240th St.  Kent Project 2: Install a mid-block crossing (high-intensity activated crosswalk [HAWK] signal), a pedestrian refuge island, and pedestrian scale lighting on SE 240th Street, one-half block east of State Route (SR) 515. 2-4 Endangered Species Act No Effect Determination Assessment  Auburn Project 1: Install a rapid rectangular flashing beacon with refuge island and marked crosswalk at the intersection of 30th Street NE and I Street.  Auburn Project 2: Install approximately 40 feet of concrete sidewalk, relocate utility pole, and install companion curb ramp at 15th Street NE and I Street. 2.5 Construction Activities, Equipment, and Methods Project construction will last approximately 12 to 14 months and could be divided into smaller bodies of work or by jurisdiction, which would allow for multiple segments to be constructed concurrently. The Project would include the following actions:  Construction of stations, curbs, curb ramps, sidewalks, retaining walls, and potential bus layovers and comfort stations near the Renton Transit Center and Auburn Station.  Installation of pedestrian crossings, signals, telecommunication infrastructure to support traffic signal priority (TSP), ORCA readers, and real-time schedule information.  Roadway widenings, landscaping, pavement replacement, driveway reconstruction, parking lot reconfiguration, and installation of storm drainage infrastructure.  Removal of some existing bus stops, which involves removal of all above ground assets (shelter, benches, litter receptacles, and flags) as well as curb paint removal. Construction equipment would include concrete trucks, flatbed trucks, sawcut machines, vibratory rollers, dump trucks, cranes, lift/bucket trucks, hand tools, and other equipment. To install underground conduit, a directional boring machine is planned to be used to avoid surface area disturbance. Construction debris or spoil materials will be hauled away to approved disposal sites. Haul routes connecting the corridor with Interstate 405 (I-405) and SR 167 will mainly use arterials, avoiding the use of smaller side streets as much as possible. 2-5 Endangered Species Act No Effect Determination Assessment Excavation would be necessary to install several elements of the Project. Typical excavation depths for main components of the Project are:  Stations. Excavation depth could be up to 4 feet for footings and sidewalks, although sidewalks typically only require 1 to 2 feet of excavation.  Roadway and curb improvements. Excavation would be 4 to 5 feet deep for roadway widening. Excavation depth for curb ramps and pavement work would be 1 to 2 feet.  Telecommunication infrastructure. Trenching, if needed, could be up to 4 feet deep.  Traffic or pedestrian crossing signals. Signal pole foundations could be up to 15 feet deep.  Illumination poles. Foundations could be up to 15 feet deep.  Intersections where improvements are planned. Excavation would be 4 to 5 feet deep for trenching and signal pole foundations could be up to 15 feet deep.  Stormwater drainage infrastructure. Excavation could be up to 10 feet deep to revise conveyance or install treatment vaults or structures.  Comfort station utilities (if required). Excavation for water and sewer utility connections could be approximately 8 feet deep. Staging areas for storage of equipment and materials will be established by the contractor where feasible within the roadway right-of-way. Other staging locations could include vacant or underutilized private lots. Temporary construction easements (TCEs) for staging or other construction activities may be required and will be identified during final design. Widening of the public right-of-way is anticipated in spot locations along the corridor and will require acquisition of private property. For some elements of work, such as roadway widening or utility trenching, two lanes may be closed for short durations, narrowing the roadway to one lane in each direction. Construction of new stations will typically require closure of the curbside traffic lane immediately adjacent to the work area. Traffic signal work will be completed with a uniformed police officer directing traffic while the signal is turned off. Business access would be maintained throughout the corridor in work zones. 2-6 Endangered Species Act No Effect Determination Assessment Prior to temporary bus stop closures or relocation of existing stations, notifications to transit users would be posted. Temporary sidewalk closures may occur when construction occurs around stations for the installation of utilities. Pedestrian access will be maintained on at least one side of the street, and pedestrians would be detoured with adequate signage. Bicycles that currently use existing roadway shoulders or on-street bicycle lanes may be required to share the general-purpose travel lanes during certain construction activities. 2.6 Project Schedule National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental review is anticipated to be completed in August 2020 to meet Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Small Starts application deadline. Design is scheduled to conclude in fall 2021, with project construction anticipated to start in early 2022. Metro plans to begin RapidRide I Line service in fall 2023. 3-1 Endangered Species Act No Effect Determination Assessment 3 Project Stormwater 3.1 Stormwater Drainage and Discharge The Project area generally drains from southeast to northwest within the Lower Green River Subwatershed. The 17-mile-long project spans numerous drainage basins. Drainage area boundaries in the Project have been delineated by stormwater engineers and are referred to as threshold discharge areas (TDA). TDAs are areas that drain to a single natural discharge location, or multiple natural discharge locations that combine within one-quarter-mile downstream. Stormwater runoff in the Project corridor generally flows off the roadway pavement to roadside curb and gutter where it is collected by inlets or catch basins and conveyed through storm drainage systems to points of discharge, typically, a stream or wetland (receiving waterbody). Figure 3-1, Project Stormwater Drainage Discharge Locations, identifies the natural discharge locations that will receive stormwater from the Project. Discharge locations were given a unique identification number for this Project starting with the prefix “D-“. In Renton, stormwater from the Project would discharge to the following receiving waterbodies:  Black River  Rolling Hills Creek  Panther Creek  Unnamed Panther Creek tributaries In Kent, stormwater from the Project would discharge to the following receiving waterbodies:  North Fork Garrison Creek  Middle Fork Garrison Creek  South Fork Garrison Creek  Mill Creek (Kent)  Green River 3-2 Endangered Species Act No Effect Determination Assessment In Auburn, stormwater from the Project would discharge to the following receiving waterbodies:  Mill Creek (Auburn)  Green River Although the I Line Route passes through unincorporated King County, no work is proposed in unincorporated King County. Therefore, unincorporated King County is not included in our stormwater analysis. Flows in all receiving waterbodies throughout the Project (including Renton, Kent, and Auburn) eventually join with the Green River, which continues on to enter the Puget Sound in Elliot Bay. 3-3 Endangered Species Act No Effect Determination Assessment Figure 3-1. Project Stormwater Drainage Discharge Locations 3-4 Endangered Species Act No Effect Determination Assessment 3.2 Pollution-Generating Impervious Surface Pollution-generating impervious surface (PGIS) is pavement that is subject to vehicle use and considered to be a significant source of pollutants in stormwater runoff. Increased PGIS would be associated with roadway widening and busway improvements. Most paving work will consist of replacing existing pavement and will not increase the amount of impervious surfaces. However, some existing landscaped areas will be converted to PGIS (new PGIS), and some existing PGIS will be converted to landscaping (removed PGIS). Overall, the Project will result in a net increase in PGIS (net new PGIS). New PGIS quantities have been calculated based on the 10-percent Project design plan set, dated January 24, 2020, and the April 23, 2020 re-design of E Smith Street improvements in Kent. A 30 percent contingency was added to PGIS quantities to accommodate potential design changes and to ensure our analysis does not underestimate quantities. Table 3-1 identifies new PGIS, removed PGIS, and net new PGIS quantities that will result from the Project for each TDA. Table 3-1. Proposed Pollution-Generating Impervious Surfaces TDA ID NEW PGIS REMOVED PGIS NET NEW PGIS DISCHARGE LOCATION ID RECEIVING WATERBODY City of Renton REN-01-AT1-TDA1 0 0 0 D-1 Black River REN-03-TDA1 650 0 650 D-2 Rolling Hills Creek REN-030405-TDA1 8,100 0 8,100 D-2 Rolling Hills Creek REN-06-TDA1 130 0 130 D-3 Panther Creek REN-06-TDA2 80 0 80 D-4 Panther Creek REN-06-TDA3 130 0 130 D-5 Panther Creek REN-06-TDA4 40 0 40 D-6 Panther Creek REN-07-TDA1 410 0 410 D-7 Panther Creek tributary 3-5 Endangered Species Act No Effect Determination Assessment TDA ID NEW PGIS REMOVED PGIS NET NEW PGIS DISCHARGE LOCATION ID RECEIVING WATERBODY REN-0708-TDA1 2,600 60 2,540 D-8 Panther Creek tributary REN-08-TDA1 100 30 70 D-8 Panther Creek tributary REN-08-TDA2 140 30 110 D-8 Panther Creek tributary REN-08-KEN-01-TDA1 110 30 80 D-9 Panther Creek Renton Subtotal 12,490 150 12,340 - - City of Kent REN-08-KEN-01-TDA1 120 60 60 D-9 Panther Creek KEN-01-TDA1 120 60 60 D-10 N.F. Garrison Creek KEN-01-TDA2 760 390 370 D-10 N.F. Garrison Creek KEN-01-TDA3 350 180 170 D-11 M.F. Garrison Creek KEN-01-TDA4 350 180 170 D-12 M.F. Garrison Creek KEN-01-TDA5 910 470 440 D-13 S.F. Garrison Creek KEN-01-TDA6 950 480 470 D-14 S.F. Garrison Creek KEN-0102-TDA1 270 330 -60 D-14 S.F. Garrison Creek KEN-02-TDA1 0 240 -240 D-15 Mill Creek (Kent) KEN-02-TDA2 0 360 -360 D-15 Mill Creek (Kent) KEN-03-TDA1 130 0 130 D-16 Mill Creek (Kent) KEN-03-TDA2 1,240 0 1,240 D-17 Mill Creek (Kent) 3-6 Endangered Species Act No Effect Determination Assessment TDA ID NEW PGIS REMOVED PGIS NET NEW PGIS DISCHARGE LOCATION ID RECEIVING WATERBODY KEN-03-TDA3 470 0 470 D-18 Mill Creek (Kent) KEN-0304-TDA1 1,500 0 1,500 D-19 Mill Creek (Kent) KEN-0405-TDA1 750 0 750 D-20 Mill Creek (Kent) KEN-06-TDA1 0 0 0 D-20 Mill Creek (Kent) KEN-06-TDA2 0 0 0 D-21 Green River Kent Subtotal 7,920 2,750 5,170 - - City of Auburn AUB-01-TDA1 0 0 0 D-22 Green River AUB-01-TDA2 0 0 0 D-22 Green River AUB-01-TDA3 0 0 0 D-23 Mill Creek (Auburn) AUB-01-TDA4 0 0 0 D-23 Mill Creek (Auburn) AUB-01-TDA5 0 0 0 D-23 Mill Creek (Auburn) AUB-0102-TDA1 230 0 230 D-23 Mill Creek (Auburn) AUB-02-TDA1 680 0 680 D-24 Green River AUB-03-TDA1 0 0 0 D-24 Green River Auburn Subtotal 910 0 910 - - Project Totals 21,320 2,900 18,420 All numbers are in square feet. Quantities based on 10-percent design plus a 30-percent contingency. New PGIS = Existing landscaping to be converted to PGIS Removed PGIS = Existing PGIS to be converted to landscaping Net New PGIS = New PGIS minus removed PGIS M.F. = middle fork S.F. = south fork 3-7 Endangered Species Act No Effect Determination Assessment 3.3 Stormwater Regulatory Requirements Stormwater management for the Project is regulated by the local stormwater codes and management manuals for the Cities of Renton, Kent, and Auburn. The Cities of Kent and Renton regulations generally are based on the 2016 King County Surface Water Design Manual, and the City of Auburn regulations generally are based on the 2019 Washington Department of Ecology’s Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Local stormwater and drainage regulations all have similar thresholds for treatment of new PGIS. Projects that create or replace more than 5,000 square feet of PGIS in a single TDA typically must provide stormwater treatment. However, for transportation redevelopment projects, treatment is only required for projects that create more than 5,000 square feet of new PGIS in a single TDA, regardless of how much is replaced. The Project will likely be classified as a transportation redevelopment project during permitting and be required to provide treatment for TDAs where more than 5,000 square feet of new PGIS is created, regardless of the amount of replaced PGIS. In total, the Project will create more than 5,000 square feet of new PGIS. However, because the proposed improvements are dispersed throughout the 17-mile-long corridor and span multiple TDAs, the Project would not create more than 5,000 square feet of new PGIS in most TDAs and therefore, would not be required to provide treatment of polluted runoff. Based on the 10-percent design estimates in Table 3-1, only the road-widening along Southwest Grady Way in Renton (TDA ID: REN-030405-TDA1) would require treatment because it is the only TDA where more than 5,000 square feet of new PGIS would be created. The amount of new PGIS in other TDAs is well below 5,000 square feet (Table 3-1). 4-1 Endangered Species Act No Effect Determination Assessment 4 Impact Avoidance and Minimization Measures The Project will not involve in-water work. However, the Project crosses several streams on existing structures and may have minor impacts to riparian habitat and wetland buffers. The Project will comply with requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Construction General Permit, as well as local stormwater and critical areas regulations. Numerous best management practices (BMPs), described below, will be incorporated into the Project to avoid and minimize short-term and long-term impacts to fish and wildlife habitats in the Project action area. 4.1 Vegetation Clearing and Removal The Project will implement the following BMPs to minimize vegetation clearing and removal:  High-visibility construction fencing will be installed to define the boundary of the work area and protect surrounding areas from construction-related impacts  Any temporarily cleared vegetation will be replanted to its pre- construction condition following construction  Trees and vegetation will be protected and/or replaced in accordance with local codes. Applicable local codes include the Renton Municipal Code Chapter 13 (Street Trees) and Section 4-4-130 (Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations), the Kent City Code Chapter 6.10 (Street Trees) and the Auburn City Code Chapter 18.50 (Landscaping and Screening).  Removal of vegetation in wetland or steam buffers will be avoided and minimized to the extent feasible. Restoration and/or compensation for impacts to buffer vegetation will be conducted as required by local critical areas regulations. 4-2 Endangered Species Act No Effect Determination Assessment 4.2 Construction Stormwater Control Measures The Project will develop a stormwater pollution prevention plan and implement sediment, erosion, and pollution prevention control measures. Measures will include the following:  Sediment control measures, such as silt fences, check dams, sediment traps, sedimentation basins, and flocculation methods will be installed as appropriate  Erosion-control practices, such as seeding, mulching, geo-synthetics, erosion-control blankets, and vegetative buffer strips will be installed as appropriate  Mechanical equipment will be fueled at pre-designated sites  Construction best management practices to control dust will be used  All construction vehicles will be inspected daily for fluid leaks before leaving the vehicle staging area  Spill response equipment will be kept on-site for potential fluid leakage 4.3 Water Quality Treatment Measures Based on stormwater regulations and the 10-percent design estimates in Table 3-1, only the road widening work along Southwest Grady Way in Renton would require permanent stormwater treatment. Treatment would not be required at all other Project locations because the amount of PGIS created in each individual TDA is below the regulatory threshold. Implementing the minimum treatment required by stormwater regulations would result in treatment of a little less than half of the net new PGIS created by the Project. Metro is committed to ensuring the Project does not degrade water quality and will implement voluntary stormwater treatment measures (in addition to regulatory requirements), if needed, to ensure water quality impacts do not affect threatened or endangered species and in support of the County’s Clean Water Healthy Habitat initiative. To ensure water quality is not degraded by the Project, Metro is committed to installing permanent stormwater treatment measures in the Lower Green River Subwatershed to treat an amount of PGIS equal to or greater than the total PGIS created by the Project. Due to the early phase of Project design, specific treatment measures and locations have not yet been determined. However, treatment measures will consist of BMPs and technologies approved by the Washington State Department of Ecology and will be detailed in the Project’s Stormwater and Drainage Report. 5-1 Endangered Species Act No Effect Determination Assessment 5 Action Area The action area includes all areas that could be affected directly or indirectly by the proposed work and is not limited to the actual work area. The action area, illustrated on Figure 5-1, Project Action Area, represents the geographic extent of the physical, biological, and chemical impacts of the Project. The Project action area includes potential terrestrial effects from ground disturbance and construction noise and aquatic effects from stormwater discharge. 5.1 Terrestrial The terrestrial portion of the Project’s action area includes the footprint of construction disturbance as well as the area where construction noise will be elevated above ambient noise. Combined, these areas comprise the Terrestrial Zone of Effect. The extent of in-air noise was established by calculating the distance that Project construction noise will attenuate to ambient noise levels using the methods described in Chapter 7 of the WSDOT Biological Assessment Preparation for Transportation Projects – Advanced Training Manual (2019) and information prepared for the Project’s Noise and Vibration Technical Report (Greenbusch 2020). FTA publishes construction equipment noise emission levels in Table 7-1 of the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (2018). Noise levels for construction equipment are given in A-weighted decibels (dBA) for equivalent sound levels (Leq) at 50 feet from source. The three loudest pieces of equipment to be used during construction and their respective noise levels are as follows:  Concrete saw (assumed to have a noise level similar to a rail saw at 90 dBA)  Mounted impact hammer (hoe ram) (assumed to have a noise level similar to a jack hammer at 88 dBA)  Grader (85 dBA) (FTA 2018) Using the additive approach of noise compounding (WSDOT 2019), a combined construction noise level of 93 dBA was determined. Ambient noise was measured at eight different locations along the Project corridor for 24 continuous hours during several days by the Greenbusch Group and ranged from 60 dB Leq to 77 dB Leq (Jacobs 2020a). To be conservative, the lowest measured ambient noise level of 60 dB was used to calculate elevated noise from construction. 5-2 Endangered Species Act No Effect Determination Assessment The attenuation rate of construction noise was assumed to be a loss of 6 dBA per the doubling of distance from each ground disturbing activity location (WSDOT 2019). Applying a linear attenuation model to point source noise (construction noise) of 93 dBA at 50 feet from the point source, it was determined Project construction noise will attenuate to the background noise of 60 dBA at a distance of 2,233 feet (Figure 5-1). This area captures the farthest distance where noise from any construction activity for the Project could be distinguished from background noise. 5.2 Aquatic No in-water work is associated with the Project. Therefore, the aquatic portion of the action area was determined for potential indirect effects to water quality using the Washington State Department of Ecology mixing zone distances as established in the Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington, Chapter 173- 201A-400 Washington Administrative Code for the outfalls where Project-related stormwater would discharge (Figure 5-1). The aquatic portion of the Project’s action area includes the areas downstream and upstream from stormwater outfalls in receiving waterbodies where turbidity, sedimentation, and/or pollutant concentrations could be elevated due to the Project. These areas comprise the project’s Aquatic Zone of Effect. A 300-foot distance downstream and a 100-foot distance upstream have been assumed based on the standard mixing zones for the receiving waterbodies in the Project corridor (Washington Administrative Code 173-201A-400). 5-3 Endangered Species Act No Effect Determination Assessment Figure 5-1. Project Action Area 6-1 Endangered Species Act No Effect Determination Assessment 6 Species and Habitat Presence A review of species and habitats that could potentially occur in the action area was conducted using the following information:  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS’) Information for Planning and Consultation tool (Appendix A), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (Appendix B)  Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (WDFW) Priority Habitats and Species Map (WDFW 2020)  WDFW and Northwest Indian Fisheries (NWIFC) Statewide Washington Integrated Fish Distribution (SWIFD) dataset (NWIFC and WDFW 2018) Federally listed species and designated critical habitat under the jurisdiction of the USFWS and NMFS that could potentially occur in the action area are summarized in Table 6-1, and descriptions of species and habitats and their potential occurrence in the action area are provided below. Table 6-1. Federally Listed Species Summary COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME FEDERAL STATUS CRITICAL HABITAT IN ACTION AREA? AGENCY WITH JURISDICTION Yellow-Billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Threatened No USFWS Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus Threatened Yes USFWS Puget Sound ESU Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Threatened Yes NMFS Puget Sound DPS steelhead trout Oncorhynchus mykiss Threatened Yes NMFS ESU = evolutionary significant unit DPS = distinct population segment Other species listed by USFWS in the action area include the Western distinct population segment of gray wolf (Canis lupus, proposed endangered), North American wolverine (Gulo luscus, proposed threatened), marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus, 6-2 Endangered Species Act No Effect Determination Assessment threatened), and the streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata, threatened). All these species are excluded from the action area for the reasons described below. Suitable habitat for the gray wolf consists of large, remote areas with limited human activity (WDFW 2020b). The nearest wolf pack documented by WDFW is the Teanaway wolf pack roughly 55 miles east over the Cascade range (WDFW 2020c). The gray wolf is excluded because the action area has human activity (heavily trafficked roads, neighborhoods) with no wildlife corridor connecting it to the Teanaway wolf pack. Suitable habitat for the North American wolverine consists of higher elevations with low temperatures and persistent, deep snow cover (Copeland et al. 2010). The North American wolverine is excluded because the action area is in a low elevation (maximum of 1,000 feet) and does not experience large amounts of snow cover in the spring. The marbled murrelet forage in nearshore marine habitats and fly 43 miles or more inland to nest in old-growth forests (Ralph et al. 1995). Suitable nesting habitat for marbled murrelets consist of contiguous, coniferous forest stands that are at least 5 acres. No suitable habitat for the marbled murrelet exists in the action area. The streaked horned lark prefers large (generally larger than 300 acres) areas of habitat dominated by short grasses no more than several inches tall or bare ground (Stinson 2016). Agricultural fields present within the action area are in use, and it is likely the vegetation grows to more than several inches tall. Additionally, a desktop review searching for observations of the streaked horned lark at the Auburn Municipal Airport was conducted. There are no records of the streaked horned lark at the Auburn Municipal Airport. Therefore, the streaked horned lark is excluded from this assessment. 6.1 Yellow-Billed Cuckoo (Threatened) Description. Yellow-billed cuckoos are medium-sized birds with a long tail. They are migratory birds that begin arriving in western North America to breed from mid-May to June and remain until late August to mid-September. The yellow-billed cuckoo once nested near Lake Washington before 1950 (Wiles and Kalasz 2017). Only four sightings have been reported west of the Cascades since 1950, and the yellow-billed cuckoo appears to be functionally extirpated (that is, no longer present) in Washington (Wiles and Kalasz 2017). However, no surveys for this species have been conducted in Washington, and therefore, the possibility exists that very small numbers of breeding pairs may still occasionally occur in the state (Wiles and Kalasz 2017). Yellow-billed cuckoos nest in large, continuous patches of riparian vegetation, typically vegetated with dense willow and cottonwood. Patch size is a key factor in breeding 6-3 Endangered Species Act No Effect Determination Assessment habitat suitability, with patches of more than 200 acres in size being “optimal,” 100 to 200 acres in size being “suitable,” 50 to 100 acres in size being “marginal,” and less than 40 acres in size being “unsuitable.” Occurrence in the Action Area. In the action area, suitable habitat may be found in riparian corridors along Mill Creek, Panther Creek, and the Green River. However, these areas would provide only marginal habitat, at best, based on their size, habitat fragmentation, and level of human disturbance. Because there have been a minimal number of sightings in western Washington since 1950 and suitable habitat in the action area is marginal, it is highly unlikely that yellow-billed cuckoos will be present in the action area. Critical Habitat. Critical habitat was proposed for this species in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, Texas, and Utah on August 15, 2014, and revised on February 22, 2020. Critical habitat has not been proposed in Washington. No critical habitat is proposed in the action area. 6.2 Bull Trout (Threatened) Description. Bull trout are members of the salmon family. Bull trout are either migratory or resident. They require cold water streams with cover, stable stream channels, spawning gravel, and unblocked migratory corridors. Although the bull trout were once abundant and widespread, they now exist primarily in upper tributary streams and several lake and reservoir systems (USFWS 2019). Occurrence in the Action Area. Bull trout are known to occur within the action area. SWIFD (NWIFC and WDFW 2018) identifies the Green River and Cedar River as having a documented presence for bull trout. Project stormwater would discharge to the Green River; therefore, bull trout are known to occur in the Aquatic Zones of Effect in the Green River. No Project stormwater would discharge to the Cedar River; therefore, the Cedar River is not located in the Aquatic Zones of Effect. Critical Habitat. Critical habitat for bull trout was designated on October 26, 2005 and revised on October 18, 2010. The Green River is designated as critical habitat. Therefore, there is critical habitat within the action area. 6.3 Puget Sound ESU Chinook Salmon (Threatened) Description. Chinook salmon is the largest species of Pacific salmon, with adults often exceeding 40 pounds. They migrate from saltwater to freshwater and spawn once. 6-4 Endangered Species Act No Effect Determination Assessment Juvenile chinook salmon spend between 3 months to 2 years in their natal stream before migrating to saltwater. Chinook require streams that are deeper and larger than those used by other Pacific salmon (NOAA 2019a). Occurrence in the Action Area. Chinook salmon are known to occur in the action area. SWIFD (NWIFC and WDFW 2018) identifies the Black River, Garrison Creek, Green River, and Mill Creek (Auburn) as documented streams for fall run Chinook salmon. Other streams in the action area are mapped as presumed presence because they are gradient-accessible from documented fall run Chinook-bearing streams. These streams are Rolling Hills Creek, Middle Fork Garrison Creek, South Fork Garrison Creek, and Mill Creek (Kent). Critical Habitat. Critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook salmon was designated on September 2, 2005. The Green River is designated as critical habitat. Critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook salmon is designated within the action area. 6.4 Puget Sound DPS Steelhead Trout (Threatened) Description. Steelhead trout is a species of Pacific salmon that migrate from saltwater to freshwater. Steelhead can survive in a wide range of temperatures and spawn more than once. They are found along the entire Pacific Coast (NOAA 2019b). Occurrence in the Action Area. Puget Sound steelhead trout are known to occur in the action area. SWIFD (NWIFC and WDFW 2018) identifies the Black River, lower Mill Creek (Kent), Mill Creek (Auburn), and Green River as documented streams for winter Puget Sound steelhead trout. Other streams are mapped as presumed presence because the streams are gradient-accessible to documented winter Puget Sound steelhead trout. These streams include downstream segments of Rolling Hills Creek, South Fork and Middle Fork Garrison Creek, and upper Mill Creek (Kent). Critical Habitat. Critical habitat for Puget Sound steelhead trout was designated on February 24, 2016. The Green River is designated as critical habitat. Critical habitat for Puget Sound steelhead trout is designated within the action area. 7-1 Endangered Species Act No Effect Determination Assessment 7 Analysis of Effects 7.1 Terrestrial Impacts The only listed terrestrial species for the Project is the yellow-billed cuckoo which have not been documented in the action area since 1950 (Wiles and Kalasz 2017) and will, therefore, not be directly impacted by construction activities, including elevated noise levels. The biggest factor of decline for yellow-billed cuckoos is riparian habitat loss and degradation (Wiles and Kalasz 2017). Although the action area contains marginally suitable habitat for the yellow-billed cuckoo, the project will not impact this habitat. Vegetation removal will be minimal and predominately affect street trees and vegetation along existing transportation corridors. 7.2 Aquatic Impacts The Project will have no direct impact to aquatic habitat because no in-water work will occur. A wetland and stream study has been conducted for the Project, which determined the Project can avoid all work within wetlands and streams (Jacobs 2020b). Disturbed ground during construction has the potential to cause temporary increases in turbidity and sedimentation in nearby streams during rain events and sometimes from the deliberate use of large quantities of water, such as that used for dust control. As previously stated, the Project would implement several BMPs, including a Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control plan and a stormwater pollution prevention plan, to eliminate or minimize to the extent practicable the potential for temporary increases of sedimentation and turbidity in local streams from the Project. The Project would result in an increase of about 18,420 square feet of PGIS. However, water quality treatment would be provided sufficient to offset the amount of total net new PGIS created by the Project. 8-1 Endangered Species Act No Effect Determination Assessment 8 Conclusions and Effect Determinations We have determined the proposed Project will have no effect on Chinook salmon, steelhead trout, bull trout, or yellow-billed cuckoo and no effect on the designated critical habitat for Chinook salmon, steelhead trout, or bull trout based on the following rationale:  The Project will meet all local, state, and federal water quality regulations during construction and operation  No in-water work will occur  The Project will provide water quality treatment for runoff equal to or greater than what will be created by the net increase in PGIS resulting from the Project  A Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control plan and a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan implemented during construction will minimize or eliminate the potential for increased turbidity and sedimentation in streams within the Project corridor  The Project’s construction noise will not result in any in-air disturbance to any listed species  The Project occurs in a highly developed urban area, and no changes in land use will occur as a result of the Project  Vegetation removal will be minimal and impact predominately street trees and landscaping. No suitable habitat for terrestrial species will be disturbed by clearing activities. 9-1 Endangered Species Act No Effect Determination Assessment 9 Essential Fish Habitat The Magnuson-Stevens Act mandates that NMFS identify Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for federally managed marine fish. Federal agencies are required to consult with NMFS on all activities authorized, funded, or undertaken by the agency that may adversely affect EFH. The Pacific Fishery Management Council has designated EFH for the Pacific salmon fishery, federally managed ground fishes, and coastal pelagic fisheries. Chinook salmon, coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch), and pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) are part of the Pacific salmon fishery. The action area is mapped as Chinook, coho, and pink salmon EFH. Chinook and coho salmon are documented in the action area per WDFW SalmonScape web map services (WDFW 2020). Based on the above assessment for listed species, it was determined the proposed Project will have no adverse effect on the designated EFH for Pacific coast salmon based on the same rationale for ESA effect determinations as listed above. 10-1 Endangered Species Act No Effect Determination Assessment 10 References Copeland, J. P., K. S. McKelvey, K. B. Aubry, A. Landa, J. Persson, R. M. Inman, J. Krebs, et al. 2010. “The Bioclimatic Envelope of the Wolverine (Gulo Gulo): Do Climatic Constraints Limit Its Geographic Distribution?” Canadian Journal of Zoology 88 (3): 233–46. https://doi.org/10.1139/Z09-136. Federal Transit Administration, 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. Prepared by John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. September. The Greenbusch Group, Inc. 2020. Noise and Vibration Technical Report, RapidRide I Line Project. Draft. Prepared for King County Metro Transit. April. Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. 2020. Wetland and Stream Technical Report, RapidRide I Line Project. Prepared for King County Metro Transit. April. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2019a. “Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha).” Accessed February 7, 2019. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/chinook-salmon.html. NOAA. 2019b. “Steelhead Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss).” Accessed February 7, 2019. http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/steelhead-trout.html. Northwest Indian Fisheries and Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (NWIFC and WDFW). 2018. Statewide Washington Integrated Fish Distribution dataset. Accessed April 21, 2020. https://data- wdfw.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/statewide-washington-integrated-fish- distribution. Ralph, John C., George L. Hunt Jr, Martin G. Raphael, and John F. Piatt. 1995. “Ecology and Conservation of the Marbled Murrelet in North America: An Overview.” In Ecology and Conservation of the Marbled Murrelet. State of Washington. 2020. Heat map population density. Accessed March 17. https://data.wa.gov/Demographics/heat-map-population-density/exfi-4bxp/data. Stinson, Derek W. 2016. “Periodic Status Review for the Streaked Horned Lark.” Olympia, Washington: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 10-2 Endangered Species Act No Effect Determination Assessment U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2019. “Species Fact Sheet Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus.” Washington Office. Accessed February 7, 2019. https://www.fws.gov/wafwo/species/Fact%20sheets/BT%20final.pdf. USFWS. 2020a. Priority Habitat and Species Map in the vicinity of Township 26 north, Range 05 east, Section 7. Accessed February 7, 2019. http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/phsontheweb/. USFWS. 2020b. “Gray Wolf”. Accessed March 25, 2020. https://wdfw.wa.gov/species- habitats/species/canis-lupus. USFWS. 2020c. “Wolf Packs in Washington.” Accessed March 25, 2020. https://wdfw.wa.gov/species-habitats/at-risk/species-recovery/gray-wolf/packs/. Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2019. Construction Noise Impact Assessment. Biological Assessment Preparation for Transportation Projects – Advanced Training Manual (pp. 7.1 – 7.88). August. WSDOT.2020. Endangered Species Act and Biological Assessments. Accessed May 1, 2020. https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/environment/technical/fish-wildlife/policies-and- procedures/esa-ba. Wiles, G. J., and K. S. Kalasz. 2017. “Status Report for the Yellow-Billed Cuckoo.” Olympia, Washington: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01881/wdfw01881.pdf. Endangered Species Act No Effect Determination Assessment Appendix A: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Species List March 20, 2020 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Washington Fish And Wildlife Office 510 Desmond Drive Se, Suite 102 Lacey, WA 98503-1263 Phone: (360) 753-9440 Fax: (360) 753-9405 http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/ In Reply Refer To: Consultation Code: 01EWFW00-2020-SLI-0254 Event Code: 01EWFW00-2020-E-01510 Project Name: KC RapidRide Subject:Updated list of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project To Whom It May Concern: The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, and proposed species, designated and proposed critical habitat, and candidate species that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. The species list is currently compiled at the county level. Additional information is available from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Priority Habitats and Species website: http://wdfw.wa.gov/ mapping/phs/ or at our office website: http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/species_new.html. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list. The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat. 03/20/2020 Event Code: 01EWFW00-2020-E-01510   2    ▪ A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether or not the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12. If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species, and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF Please be aware that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.). You may visit our website at http://www.fws.gov/pacific/ eagle/for information on disturbance or take of the species and information on how to get a permit and what current guidelines and regulations are. Some projects affecting these species may require development of an eagle conservation plan: (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/ eagle_guidance.html). Additionally, wind energy projects should follow the wind energy guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/) for minimizing impacts to migratory birds and bats. Also be aware that all marine mammals are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). The MMPA prohibits, with certain exceptions, the "take" of marine mammals in U.S. waters and by U.S. citizens on the high seas. The importation of marine mammals and marine mammal products into the U.S. is also prohibited. More information can be found on the MMPA website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/laws/mmpa/. We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office. Related website: National Marine Fisheries Service: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/protected_species/species_list/ species_lists.html Attachment(s): Official Species List 03/20/2020 Event Code: 01EWFW00-2020-E-01510   1    Official Species List This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action". This species list is provided by: Washington Fish And Wildlife Office 510 Desmond Drive Se, Suite 102 Lacey, WA 98503-1263 (360) 753-9440 03/20/2020 Event Code: 01EWFW00-2020-E-01510   2    Project Summary Consultation Code:01EWFW00-2020-SLI-0254 Event Code:01EWFW00-2020-E-01510 Project Name:KC RapidRide Project Type:TRANSPORTATION Project Description:Bus route/transit lane improvements. Timing unknown at this time. Project Location: Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/place/47.38905887946798N122.21455842519151W Counties:King, WA 03/20/2020 Event Code: 01EWFW00-2020-E-01510   3    1. Endangered Species Act Species There is a total of 6 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list. Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries , as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce. See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce. Mammals NAME STATUS Gray Wolf Canis lupus Population: Western Distinct Population Segment No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Proposed Endangered North American Wolverine Gulo gulo luscus No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5123 Proposed Threatened 1 03/20/2020 Event Code: 01EWFW00-2020-E-01510   4    Birds NAME STATUS Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus Population: U.S.A. (CA, OR, WA) There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4467 Threatened Streaked Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris strigata There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7268 Threatened Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Population: Western U.S. DPS There is proposed critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3911 Threatened Fishes NAME STATUS Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus Population: U.S.A., conterminous, lower 48 states There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location overlaps the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8212 Threatened Critical habitats There is 1 critical habitat wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. NAME STATUS Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8212#crithab Final Endangered Species Act No Effect Determination Assessment Appendix B: National Marine Fisheries Service Species List ! ! ^ ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ^ ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ^ ! ^ C o lum biaColumbiaSna k e Pocatello SpokaneWenatchee Walla WallaYakima Boise Bend Medford Eugene Salem Astoria Olympia Bellingham Redding Sacramento San Francisco Santa Cruz Fresno Santa Barbara San Diego Los Angeles Seattle Portland Salmon CoosBay Eureka DeschutesWillametteRogu e Umpqu a K l a m athTrinity E el Ru ssian S a c r a mentoSan J o a quin Salinas SantaAnaSa l mon Snake United StatesUnited StatesCanadaCanada U nit ed Sta t esUnited S t a t e s M ex ic oMexico 0 200Miles O R E G O N W A SH I N G TO N I D A H O C A L I F O R N I A Status of ESA Listings & Critical Habitat Designationsfor West Coast Salmon & Steelhead Updated July 2016 Recovery DomainPuget SoundInterior Columbia Oregon Coast North-Central California Coast Central Valley North-Central California Coast and Central Valley Overlap So. OR / No. CA Coast and North-Central CA Coast Overlap Southern OR / Northern CA Coast Willamette / Lower Columbia and Interior Columbia OverlapWillamette / Lower Columbia South-Central / Southern CA Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit / Distinct Population Segment ESA Status Date of ESA Listing Date of CH Designation Hood Canal Summer-run Chum Salmon T 3/25/1999 9/2/2005 Ozette Lake Sockeye Salmon T 3/25/1999 9/2/2005 Puget Sound Chinook Salmon T 3/24/1999 9/2/2005 Puget Sound Steelhead T 5/11/2007 2/24/2016 Middle Columbia River Steelhead T 3/25/19991/5/2006 9/2/2005 Snake River Fall-run Chinook Salmon T 4/22/1992 12/28/1993 Snake River Spring / Summer-run Chinook Salmon T 4/22/1992 10/25/1999 Snake River Sockeye Salmon E 11/20/1991 12/28/1993 Snake River Steelhead T 8/18/19971/5/2006 9/2/2005 Upper Columbia River Spring-run Chinook Salmon E 3/24/1999 9/2/2005 Upper Columbia River Steelhead T 8/18/19971/5/2006 9/2/2005 Columbia River Chum Salmon T 3/25/1999 9/2/2005 Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon T 3/24/1999 9/2/2005 Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon T 6/28/2005 2/24/2016 Lower Columbia River Steelhead T 3/19/19981/5/2006 9/2/2005 Upper Willamette River Chinook Salmon T 3/24/1999 9/2/2005 Upper Willamette River Steelhead T 3/25/19991/5/2006 9/2/2005 Oregon Coast Coho Salmon T 2/11/2008 2/11/2008 Southern OR / Northern CA Coasts Coho Salmon T 5/6/1997 5/5/1999 California Coastal Chinook Salmon T 9/16/1999 9/2/2005 Central California Coast Coho Salmon E 10/31/1996 (T) 6/28/2005 (E)4/2/2012 (RE)5/5/1999 Central California Coast Steelhead T 8/18/19971/5/2006 9/2/2005 Northern California Steelhead T 6/7/20001/5/2006 9/2/2005 California Central Valley Steelhead T 3/19/19981/5/2006 9/2/2005 Central Valley Spring-run Chinook Salmon T 9/16/1999 9/2/2005 Sacramento River Winter-run Chinook Salmon E 11/5/1990 (T) 1/4/1994 (E)6/16/1993 South-Central California Coast Steelhead T 8/18/19971/5/2006 9/2/2005 Southern California Steelhead E 8/18/19975/1/2002 (RE)1/5/2006 9/2/2005 ESA = Endangered Species Act, CH = Critical Habitat, RE = Range ExtensionE = Endangered, T = Threatened, Willamette / Lower Columbia Recovery Domain Interior Columbia Recovery Domain Puget Sound Recovery Domain Oregon Coast Recovery Domain North-Central California Coast Recovery Domain Central Valley Recovery Domain South-Central / Southern California Coast Recovery Domain Southern Oregon / Northern California Coast Recovery Domain Critical Habitat Rules Cited • 2/24/2016 (81 FR 9252) Final Critical Habitat Designation for Puget Sound Steelhead and Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon • 2/11/2008 (73 FR 7816) Final Critical Habitat Designation for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon • 9/2/2005 (70 FR 52630) Final Critical Habitat Designation for 12 ESU's of Salmon and Steelhead in WA, OR, and ID • 9/2/2005 (70 FR 52488) Final Critical Habitat Designation for 7 ESU's of Salmon and Steelhead in CA • 10/25/1999 (64 FR 57399) Revised Critical Habitat Designation for Snake River Spring/Summer-run Chinook Salmon • 5/5/1999 (64 FR 24049) Final Critical Habitat Designation for Central CA Coast and Southern OR/Northern CA Coast Coho Salmon • 12/28/1993 (58 FR 68543) Final Critical Habitat Designation for Snake River Chinook and Sockeye Salmon • 6/16/1993 (58 FR 33212) Final Critical Habitat Designation for Sacramento River Winter-run Chinook Salmon ESA Listing Rules Cited • 4/2/2012 (77 FR 19552) Final Range Extension for Endangered Central California Coast Coho Salmon • 2/11/2008 (73 FR 7816) Final ESA Listing for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon • 5/11/2007 (72 FR 26722) Final ESA Listing for Puget Sound Steelhead • 1/5/2006 (71 FR 5248) Final Listing Determinations for 10 Distinct Population Segments of West Coast Steelhead • 6/28/2005 (70 FR 37160) Final ESA Listing for 16 ESU's of West Coast Salmon • 5/1/2002 (67 FR 21586) Range Extension for Endangered Steelhead in Southern California • 6/7/2000 (65 FR 36074) Final ESA Listing for Northern California Steelhead • 9/16/1999 (64 FR 50394) Final ESA Listing for Two Chinook Salmon ESUs in California • 3/25/1999 (64 FR 14508) Final ESA Listing for Hood River Canal Summer-run and Columbia River Chum Salmon • 3/25/1999 (64 FR 14517) Final ESA Listing for Middle Columbia River and Upper Willamette River Steelhead • 3/25/1999 (64 FR 14528) Final ESA Listing for Ozette Lake Sockeye Salmon • 3/24/1999 (64 FR 14308) Final ESA Listing for 4 ESU's of Chinook Salmon • 3/19/1998 (63 FR 13347) Final ESA Listing for Lower Columbia River and Central Valley Steelhead • 8/18/1997 (62 FR 43937) Final ESA Listing for 5 ESU's of Steelhead • 5/6/1997 (62 FR 24588) Final ESA Listing for Southern Oregon / Northern California Coast Coho Salmon • 10/31/1996 (61 FR 56138) Final ESA Listing for Central California Coast Coho Salmon • 1/4/1994 (59 FR 222) Final ESA Listing for Sacramento River Winter-run Chinook Salmon • 4/22/1992 (57 FR 14653) Final ESA Listing for Snake River Spring/summer-run and Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon • 11/20/1991 (56 FR 58619) Final ESA Listing for Snake River Sockeye Salmon • 11/5/1990 (55 FR 46515) Final ESA Listing for Sacramento River Winter-run Chinook Salmon Renton Critical Areas Report Appendix D: Maps and Photographs of Wetlands and Streams Close to Construction S o u t h G r a d y W a yShattuck Avenue SouthKent Renton Critical AreasImpactsMap 1 of 3RapidRide I Line Project¯ 0 30 60 Feet Document Path: C:\Users\rotonda\OneDrive - Jacobs\Misc\Scratch GIS\I Line\MXD\Renton_Impacts.mxdI Line Route Construction Footprint Stream Centerline \\\ \\\Wetland Wetland Buffer FEMA Flood Flood Impact Existing pavement New pavement Wetland/Stream Impact Non-Impervious, Permanent Non-Impervious, Temporary Stream Buffer \\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\ WRN-04-D SRN-03/Rolling Hills Creek Benson Drive SouthTalbot Road SouthKent Renton Critical AreasImpactsMap 2 of 3RapidRide I Line Project¯ 0 10 20 Feet Document Path: C:\Users\rotonda\OneDrive - Jacobs\Misc\Scratch GIS\I Line\MXD\Renton_Impacts.mxdI Line Route Construction Footprint Stream Centerline \\\ \\\Wetland Wetland Buffer FEMA Flood Flood Impact Existing pavement New pavement Wetland/Stream Impact Non-Impervious, Permanent Non-Impervious, Temporary Stream Buffer SRN-11Southeast Carr RoadN e w H orizo n S c h o ol Driv e w ay Kent Renton Critical AreasImpactsMap 3 of 3RapidRide I Line Project¯ 0 10 20 Feet Document Path: C:\Users\rotonda\OneDrive - Jacobs\Misc\Scratch GIS\I Line\MXD\Renton_Impacts.mxdI Line Route Construction Footprint Stream Centerline \\\ \\\Wetland Wetland Buffer FEMA Flood Flood Impact Existing pavement New pavement Wetland/Stream Impact Non-Impervious, Permanent Non-Impervious, Temporary Stream Buffer Renton Critical Areas Report Appendix E: Wetland Determination Forms 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: 30ft) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1. Alnus rubra 10 yes FAC Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 2. Salix sp* 10 yes FAC 3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 4. 50% = 10, 20% = 2 20 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. Salix sp* 50 yes FAC Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Salix lasiandra 15 no FACW Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. Cornus sericea 10 no FACW OBL species x1 = 4. Rubus armeniacus 10 no FAC FACW species x2 = 5. Sambucus racemosa 2 no FACU FAC species x3 = 50% = 43.5, 20% = 17.4 87 = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5ft) UPL species x5 = 1. Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. 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. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. 9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 11. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 50% = , 20% = 0 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2. 50% = , 20% = 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 100 with trash Remarks: Salix spp may be sitka or scoulers willow, assumed FAC. Skunk cabbage was observed just outside of the data plot. Project Site: I Line City/County: Renton/King Sampling Date: 02/21/2020 Applicant/Owner: King County Metro State: WA Sampling Point: WRN1-DP1 Investigator(s): Amy Rotondo, Brooke O'Neill Section, Township, Range: Section 19, Township 23N, Range 05E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 2 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Urban Land NWI classification: PEM1C 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 Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: Lots of trash is present. This data plot is in the PSS portion of the wetland. The PEM portion is domoinated by cattails. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: WRN1-DP1 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 0-4 10YR 2/2 100 loam 4-14+ 10YR 3/1 85 7.5YR 4/4 15 C M, PL 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) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Type: Depth (inches): 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): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 9 BGS* Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches): to surface Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: * = below ground surface Approximately 8 feet away was seasonally ponded water. A stream exists along the northern wetland boundary. Project Site: ILine 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: 30ft) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1. Alnus rubra 10 yes FAC Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 (A) 2. 3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 5 (B) 4. 50% = 5, 20% = 2 10 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. Rubus armeniacus 20 yes FAC Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Lawn grasses* 20 yes FAC Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x1 = 4. FACW species x2 = 5. FAC species x3 = 50% = 10, 20% = 4 20 = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5ft) UPL species x5 = 1. Ranunculus repens 20 yes FAC Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Lawn grasses 20 yes 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. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. 9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 11. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 50% = 20, 20% = 8 40 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2. 50% = , 20% = = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 10 Remarks: The 2016 Plant List was used for this delineation. Lawn grasses are presumed to be FAC. Moss had approximately 50% total cover in the herb stratum. Project Site: I Line City/County: Renton/King Sampling Date: 2/21/2020 Applicant/Owner: King County Metro State: WA Sampling Point: WRN1-DP2 Investigator(s): Amy Rotondo, Brooke O'Neill Section, Township, Range: Section 19, Township 23N, Range 05E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 1 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Urban Land NWI classification: PEM1C 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 Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: Approximately 12 feet away from parking lot. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: WRN1-DP2 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 2/1 100 gr 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) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: *gr loam = gravelly loam Difficult to dig below 6 inches due to compacted gravel layer. 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): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches): Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Soils were moist but not saturated. Project Site: I Line 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: 30ft) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1. Alnus rubra 50 yes FAC Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 2. Thuja plicata 25 yes FAC 3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) 4. 50% = 37.5, 20% = 15 75 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. Rubus armeniacus 100 yes FAC Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x1 = 4. FACW species x2 = 5. FAC species x3 = 50% = 50, 20% = 20 100 = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5ft) UPL species x5 = 1. Polystichum munitum 1 yes FACU Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. 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. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. 9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 11. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 50% = 0.5, 20% = 0.2 1 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2. 50% = , 20% = = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 99 with leaf litter Remarks: The 2016 Plant List was used for this delineation. A large snag (~18 inches DBH) is approximately 20 feet away from the data pit. Project Site: I Line City/County: Renton/King Sampling Date: 2/21/2020 Applicant/Owner: King County Metro State: WA Sampling Point: WRN4-DP3 Investigator(s): Amy Rotondo, Brooke O'Neill Section, Township, Range: Section 19, Township 23N, Range 05E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 0 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes NWI classification: R4SBC 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 Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: Rolling Hills Creek is approximately 6 feet away. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: WRN4-DP3 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 1-3 10YR 2/1 100 loamy sand 3-4 10YR 3/2 100 loam 4-15 10YR 3/2 80 7.5YR 4/3 20 C M, PL silt loam 15-16+ 5G 5/2 100 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) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Type: Depth (inches): 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): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 9 BGS Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches): Surface Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: BGS = below ground surface Evidence of overbank flooding. Project Site: I Line 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: 30ft) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1. Acer macrophyllum 50 yes FAC Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) 2. Pseudotsuga menziesii 10 no FACU 3. Tsuga heterophylla 10 no FACU Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) 4. Thuja plicata 5 no FAC 50% = 37.5, 20% = 15 75 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 25 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. Corylus cornuta 45 yes FACU Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Oemleria cerasiformis 10 no FACU Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. Gaultheria shallon 5 no FACU OBL species x1 = 4. Rubus armeniacus 2 no FAC FACW species x2 = 5. Ilex aquifolium 2 no FACU FAC species x3 = 50% = 32, 20% = 12.8 64 = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5ft) UPL species x5 = 1. Polystichum munitum 15 yes FACU Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. 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. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. 9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 11. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 50% = 7.5, 20% = 3 15 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. Hedera helix 50 yes FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2. 50% = 25, 20% = 10 50 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 35 Remarks: The 2016 Plant List was used for this delineation. A cherry tree species was also observed within 30 feet of the data plot with 5% total cover. Project Site: I Line City/County: Renton/King Sampling Date: 2/21/2020 Applicant/Owner: King County Metro State: WA Sampling Point: WRN4-DP4 Investigator(s): Amy Rotondo, Brooke O'Neill Section, Township, Range: Section 19, Township 23N, Range 05E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 5 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes NWI classification: R4SBC 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 Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: WRN4-DP4 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 2/2 100 sandy loam 12-14+ 10YR 4/6 100 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) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Type: Depth (inches): 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): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches): Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Project Site: I Line 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: 30ft) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1. Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 2. 3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 4. 50% = , 20% = 0 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. Rubus armeniacus 5 yes FAC Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x1 = 4. FACW species x2 = 5. FAC species x3 = 50% = 2.5, 20% = 1 5 = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5ft) UPL species x5 = 1. Phalaris arundinacea 100 yes FACW Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. 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. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. 9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 11. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 50% = 50, 20% = 20 100 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2. 50% = , 20% = 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Remarks: The 2016 Plant List was used for this delineation. Project Site: I Line City/County: Renton/King Sampling Date: 2/21/2020 Applicant/Owner: King County Metro State: WA Sampling Point: WRN13-DP5 Investigator(s): Amy Rotondo, Brooke O'Neill Section, Township, Range: Section 32, Township 23N, Range 05E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): 1 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes NWI classification: None 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 Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: WRN13-DP5 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 0-4 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) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Soils below 4 inches were not observable due to a high ground water table. Surface ponding was also observed. Aquic moisture regime, hydric soils assumed present 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 BGS* Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Surface Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches): Surface Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: BGS = below ground surface Project Site: I Line 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: 30ft) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheet: 1. Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 2. 3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 4. 50% = , 20% = 0 = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 67 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. Rubus armeniacus 4 yes FAC Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species x1 = 4. FACW species x2 = 5. FAC species x3 = 50% = 2, 20% = 0.8 4 = Total Cover FACU species x4 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5ft) UPL species x5 = 1. Festuca spp.* 40 yes FAC Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Festuca arundinacea 30 yes NL (UPL) Prevalence Index = B/A = 3. Equisetum telmateia 3 no FACW Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 6. 3 - Prevalence Index is <3.01 7. 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. 9. 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 11. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 50% = 36.5, 20% = 14.6 73 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15ft) 1. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No 2. 50% = , 20% = 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Remarks: The 2016 Plant List was used for this delineation. Festuca species were presumed FAC. Moss species was also present with approximately less than 20% cover. Project Site: I Line City/County: Renton/King Sampling Date: 2/21/2020 Applicant/Owner: King County Metro State: WA Sampling Point: WRN13-DP6 Investigator(s): Amy Rotondo, Brooke O'Neill Section, Township, Range: Section 32, Township 23N, Range 05E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): top of hill Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): 3 Subregion (LRR): A Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes NWI classification: None 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 Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: WRN13-DP6 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 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) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Type: Depth (inches): 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): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe) Yes No Depth (inches): Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Project Site: I Line Renton Critical Areas Report Appendix F: Wetland Rating Forms X XX XThis wetland is depressional and riverine. 8 Pictometry, King County ±0 75 15037.5 FeetApproximate wetland boundary based onelevation contours and LiDAR. FIGURE 1 3/5/2020QUESTIONS: D 1.3, D 2.2, D 5.2, H 1.1, H 1.4 RapidRide I Line Legend Delineated Wetland Boundary Approximate Wetland Boundary 150-foot Buffer Palustrine Emergent Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Pictometry, King County ±0 40 8020 FeetApproximate wetland boundary based onelevation contours and LiDAR. FIGURE 2 3/30/2020QUESTIONS: D 1.1, D 1.4, D 4.1, H 1.2 RapidRide I Line Legend Delineated Wetland Boundary Approximate Wetland Boundary Outlet Stream SRN-01-P Saturated only Seasonally flooded or inundated Pictometry, King County ±0 110 22055 FeetApproximate wetland boundary based onelevation contours and LiDAR. FIGURE 3 3/5/2020QUESTIONS: D 4.3, D 5.3 RapidRide I Line Legend Delineated Wetland Boundary Approximate Wetland Boundary Contributing Basin Pictometry, King County ±0 750 1,500375 FeetApproximate wetland boundary based onelevation contours and LiDAR. There is noaccessible habitat. FIGURE 4 3/6/2020QUESTIONS: H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 RapidRide I Line Legend Approximate Wetland Boundary 1 kilometer Buffer Low Intensity Medium Intensity High Intensity FIGURE 5 Questions: D 3.1, D 3.2 WRN-1-D FIGURE 6 Questions: D 3.3 WRN-1-D Pictometry, King County ±0 70 14035 FeetWetland to Stream Width (ft) - 25:5Approximate wetland boundary based on elevationcontours and LiDAR. FIGURE 1 3/5/2020QUESTIONS: R 2.4, R 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4 RapidRide I Line Legend Delineated Wetland Boundary Approximate Wetland Boundary Rolling Hills Creek 150-foot Buffer Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Palustrine Forested Pictometry, King County ±0 30 6015 FeetApproximate wetland boundary based onelevation contours and LiDAR. FIGURE 2 3/5/2020QUESTIONS: H 1.2 RapidRide I Line Legend Delineated Wetland Boundary Approximate Wetland Boundary Rolling HIlls Creek Occasionally flooded or inundated Seasonally flooded or inundated Pictometry, King County ±0 30 6015 FeetApproximate wetland boundary based onelevation contours and LiDAR. FIGURE 3 3/5/2020QUESTIONS: R 1.1 RapidRide I Line Legend Delineated Wetland Boundary Approximate Wetland Boundary Ponded Depressions Rolling Hills Creek Pictometry, King County ±0 30 6015 FeetApproximate wetland boundary based onelevation contours and LiDAR. FIGURE 4 3/5/2020QUESTIONS: R 1.2, R 4.2 RapidRide I Line Legend Delineated Wetland Boundary Approximate Wetland Boundary Rolling Hills Creek Area of Trees or Shrubs Pictometry, King County ±0 450 900225 FeetApproximate wetland boundary based onelevation contours and LiDAR. FIGURE 5 3/5/2020QUESTIONS: R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2 RapidRide I Line Legend Delineated Wetland Boundary Approximate Wetland Boundary Contributing Basin Pictometry, King County ±0 730 1,460365 FeetApproximate wetland boundary based onelevation contours and LiDAR. FIGURE 6 3/6/2020QUESTIONS: H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 RapidRide I Line Legend Approximate Wetland Boundary 1 kilometer Buffer Low, Accessible Habitat Med, Accessible Habitat Low Med High 58.58.5 SRN-08-P SRN-11-PSRN-12-PPictometry, King County ±0 60 12030 FeetWetland to Stream Width (ft) - 18:1Approximate wetland boundary and streamcenterline based on elevation contours and LiDAR. FIGURE 1 3/6/2020QUESTIONS: R 2.4, R 4.1, H 1.1, H 1.4 RapidRide I Line Legend Delineated Wetland Boundary Approximate Wetland Boundary Streams 150-foot Buffer Palustrine Emergent Palustrine Forested S R N -1 1 -P SRN-12-PPictometry, King County ±0 30 6015 FeetApproximate wetland boundary based onelevation contours and LiDAR. FIGURE 2 3/6/2020QUESTIONS: H 1.2 RapidRide I Line Legend Delineated Wetland Boundary Approximate Wetland Boundary Stream Occasionally flooded or inundated Seasonally flooded or inundated S R N -1 1 -P SRN-12-PPictometry, King County ±0 30 6015 FeetNo ponded depressions are present.Approximate wetland boundary based on elevationcontours and LiDAR. FIGURE 3 3/6/2020QUESTIONS: R 1.1, R 1.2, R 4.2 RapidRide I Line Legend Delineated Wetland Boundary Approximate Wetland Boundary Streams Area of Trees or Shrubs Pictometry, King County ±0 240 480120 FeetApproximate wetland boundary based onelevation contours and LiDAR. FIGURE 4 3/6/2020QUESTIONS: R 2.2, R 2.3, R 5.2 RapidRide I Line Legend Delineated Wetland Boundary Approximate Wetland Boundary Contributing Basin Pictometry, King County ±0 740 1,480370 FeetApproximate wetland boundary based onelevation contours and LiDAR. FIGURE 5 3/30/2020QUESTIONS: H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 RapidRide I Line Legend 1 kilometer Buffer Approximate Wetland Boundary Low, Accessible Habitat Medium, Accessible Habitat Medium Low High FIGURE 6 Question: R 3.1 WRN-13-D FIGURE 7 Questions: R 3.2, R 3.3 WRN-13-D