HomeMy WebLinkAboutAtt04_Critical Areas Report
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