HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved - TIRSTORM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS
The Home Depot
901 S Grady Way,
Renton, WA 98057
Prepared by:
LARS ANDERSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
4694 W. JACQUELYN AVENUE, FRESNO, CA 93722-6405
PHONE (559) 276-2790 FAX (559) 276-0850
WEBSITE: WWW.LARSANDERSEN.COM
Project No: 19204
May 27th, 2022
DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING
JChavez 10/17/2022
1
Table of Contents
Section Page
1 Project Overview 2
2 Conditions and Requirements Summary 2
3 Offsite Analysis 5
4 Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design 5
5 Conveyance System Analysis and Design 8
6 Special Reports and Studies 8
7 Other Permit 8
8 CSWPPP Analysis and Design 8
9 Bond Quantities, Facility Summaries, and Declaration of Covenant 9
10 Operations and Maintenance Manual 9
Appendix Title
A Technical Information Report (TIR) Worksheet
B Site Map
C ALTA Survey
D Grading Plan
E Stormwater Drainage Plan
F Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
G Existing Civil Plans
H Basin Map
I Soils Map
J City of Renton Flow Control Applications Map
K Operations and Maintenance Manual
L Wetland and Stream Delineation Report
M Geotech Addendum Letter
2
Section 1 – Project Overview
The project site is located at 901 S Grady Way, just Northeast of the 405 and 167 highway exchange (See
Appendix B). The site is fully developed and the former location of a Sam’s Club retail store. The site is
approximately 15.4 AC with an existing building located on it that is currently 135,373 SF. The project
calls for the redevelopment of the existing building and adjacent improvements including pavements,
curbs, landscaping, and some utilities. Proposed grading activities will be limited and will aim to match
existing drainage patterns as closely as possible.
The existing site currently utilizes stormwater drainage control and pollution control measures. Because
the project is maintaining drainage patterns and not increasing the number of impervious surfaces, the
project will be utilizing the aforementioned stormwater measures with no structural additions. The
project will include the maintenance and refurbishment (if necessary) of these measures for permanent
use.
Section 2 – Conditions and Requirements Summary
The site is fully developed with sections of concrete pavement, asphalt pavement, and landscaping. The
existing landscaping includes lawn within the parking lot and adjacent areas and brushy sloped areas
along the eastern perimeter of the site. See Table 2.1 for a breakdown of the existing areas. The site is
currently designed to slope away from the existing building, primarily towards the adjacent streets of
Grady Way and Talbot Rd S. The site is served by an existing, extensive stormwater system. Said system
includes a network of stormwater drainage pipes, catch basins, manholes, stormwater control
structures, and pollution control structures. Surface runoff is collected in various catch basins
throughout the site and then delivered via the underground storm line system. Said water is treated
with existing oil separators and biofiltration basins. Stormwater is then discharged via a storm drain at
the northwest side of the site into the Grady Way South public storm system and through a storm drain
at the south corner of the site that outfalls into a 48” culvert under SR-515 (Talbot Rd). The existing sub-
basins on site would be maintained as closely as possible. See Appendix G – Existing Plans for more
details.
Table 2.1
Existing Surfaces
Surface Type Area (SF)
Landscape 179,745
(Lawn) 100,730
(Light Forrest) 79,015
Pavement 474,242
Total* 653,987
*This total represents the total site area upon right-of-way take, therefore it is less than the recorded
total site number. This has been done for clarity of calculations.
3
The proposed project aims to utilize the existing stormwater system as-is; not changing the current
discharging locations. The proposed improvements will result in a reduction of impervious pavements
and an increase in pervious area, specifically lawn area, by 463 SF. See Table 2.2 for more details.
Table 2.2
Proposed Surfaces
Surface Type Area (SF)
Landscape 180,208
(Lawn) 101,193
(Light Forrest) 79,015
Pavement 473779
Total* 653987
*This number represents the total site upon right-of-way take, therefore it is less than the reported total
site number. This has been done for clarity of calculations.
Table 2.3
Proposed PG Surfaces
Surface Type Area (SF)
Replaced PGPS 613
New PGPS 4,747
Replaced PGIS 38,187
New PGIS 4,284
Because the project calls for over 2,000 SF of new plus replaced impervious surface but less than 50
acres of new impervious surface, it is subject to a Full Drainage Review per the City of Renton Surface
Water Design Manual (SWDM). See Table 2.3 for complete pollution generated (PG) surface areas. As
per the SWDM, a Full Drainage Review results in the project adhering to the 9 core and 6 special
requirements (barring exception):
Core Requirements
Core Requirement #1: Discharge at the Natural Location
• The site currently discharges via a storm drain at the northwest side of the site into the Grady
Way South public storm system and through a storm drain at the south corner of the site that
outfalls into a 48” culvert under SR-515 (Talbot Rd). The proposed project will maintain utilize
the existing discharge points.
Core Requirement #2: Offsite Analysis
• The project will be maintaining the existing rate, volume, duration, and locations of discharges
to and from the site and therefore is exempt from a full offsite analysis. Nonetheless, the
following analysis has been made. There are no significant off-site sources of tributary runoff
from the adjoining properties as runoff from Renton Hill will continue to bypass the site in a
storm drain concrete ditch system along the southeast side of the site. Furthermore, the site
4
occupies a very small percentage of the tributary drainage basin the runoff impact from the site
is insignificant.
Core Requirement #3: Flow Control
• The existing on-site stormwater system incorporates (2) separate flow control measures that the
project will continue to utilize. Said measures are concrete flow control structures that are part
of the existing stormwater pipe network at 2 different locations: part of the storm network that
outflows to Grady and part of the storm network that outflows to Talbot (see Core Requirement
1). The project does not intend to increase the peak flow rate; therefore, there are no proposed
flow control measures as part of the project.
Core Requirement #4: Conveyance System
• The existing conveyance system was designed to convey the 25-yr storm peak flow for the
existing off-site and on-site runoff. Furthermore, the system was designed to provide for an
overflow route of the 100-yr runoff event to prevent on-site flooding or erosion. The project will
continue to use this designed conveyance system.
Core Requirement #5: Erosion and Sediment Control
• There is limited risk of erosion and sediment introduction into the existing stormwater system
as there is limited grading activities. Regardless, the project will implement erosion and
sediment measures per the SWDM during construction. These measures include methods to
reduce erosion onsite soils and to prevent the introduction of sediments into the stormwater
system.
Core Requirement #6: Maintenance and Operations
• All drainage facilities are to be located on-site and will be privately maintained by the site
owner. A standard Operations and Maintenance Manual will be submitted to outline scheduling
and methods.
Core Requirement #7: Financial Guarantees and Liability
• As the project does not call for the installation of any new stormwater structures, financial
guarantees nor liability are required to be addressed.
Core Requirement #8: Water Quality
• The site is currently served by 3 different biofiltration swales and 2 separate oil separators as
water quality measures within the existing stormwater system. The 3 biofiltration swales and 1
oil separator are located in the southwest corner of the site (outflows to Talbot). The 2nd oil
separator is located in the north part of the site as part of the storm system that ultimately
outflows to Grady. The project will maintain and refurbish (if necessary) these structures in
order to use permanently on-site.
Core Requirement #9: On-site BMPs
• The project will implement several different BMPs in order to mitigate the impacts of storm and
surface water runoff. Said measures include bioretention, drain inlet protection, concrete wash
outs, material storage areas, and other measures per the SWDM.
• Any infiltration or permeable pavement measure is infeasible for the project. However, the site
currently utilizes 3 separate biofiltration basins as on-site BMPs. The project will maintain and
refurbish (if necessary) these structures in order to use permanently on-site.
Special Requirements
Special Requirement #1: Other Adopted Area-Specific Requirements
• The project does not fall under any other known Adopted Area-Specific requirements.
Special Requirement #2: Flood Hazard Area Delineation
• The project is not located within a flood hazard area.
5
Special Requirement #3: Flood Protection Facilities
• The project is not located near a Class 1 or 2 stream and does not propose to modify or
construct a flood protection facility.
Special Requirement #4: Source Control
• Water quality source control measures will be utilized during the construction of the project in
according to the SWDM.
Special Requirement #5: Oil Control
• This site does not fall under the requirements for oil control as the number vehicles/ day are
expected is below the limit of 13, 500 vehicles/ day for this site nor does the project involve the
maintenance storage and use of the site by a fleet of 25 or more diesel vehicles, heavy trucks,
buses, etc. Therefore, special treatment of stormwater runoff will not be necessary or required
for the proposed store.
Special Requirement #6: Aquifer Protection Area
• This site does not fall within the City’s Aquifer Protection Area Zones 1 nor 2.
Section 3 – Offsite Analysis
As stated in Section 1, proposed surface improvements call for matching drainage patterns. As stated in
Section 2, the project will result in a decrease of 463 SF of pavement area and maintain the existing
discharge points. For these reasons, the project will not change the rate, volume, duration, nor locations
of discharges from the site at any effective degree; therefore, the project is exempt from an extensive
Offsite Analysis.
Section 4 – Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design
Flow Control
Per the City of Renton Flow Control Applications Map (Appendix J), the project must adhere to Peak
Rate Flow Control Standards. This means it must match existing site conditions 2, 10 and 100-year peak-
rate runoff for areas draining to constructed (man-made) or highly modified drainage systems so as not
to create a downstream flooding problem. See Tables 4.1-4.7 to see this done. More specifically, Table
4.7 shows that there is, in fact, a decrease in peak flows after improvements. For this reason, the project
is exempt from installing flow control devices. It is also important to note that there already exists flow
control structures within the stormwater system (see Appendix G). Existing structures shall be
inspected, cleaned, and maintained for continued use.
6
Table 4.1
Ex. Runoff Coefficient
Area Cx A (ac) C
Ex. LS (L) 0.25 2.31
0.71 Ex. LS (LF) 0.15 1.81
Ex. Pavement 0.9 10.89
Table 4.2
Existing Tc
Count Area kR so (ft/ft) V (fps) L (ft) tt (min) Tt (min) Tc (min)
14 XLS-L-1 7 0.015 0.86 10 0.19 2.7
43.7
1 XLS-L-2 7 0.025 1.11 40 0.60 0.6
1 XLS-L-3 7 0.005 0.49 345 11.62 11.6
12 XLS-L-4 7 0.01 0.70 10 0.24 2.9
1 XLS-L-5 7 0.05 1.57 130 1.38 1.4
1 XLS-L-6 7 0.105 2.27 75 0.55 0.6
1 XLS-L-7 7 0.02 0.99 30 0.51 0.5
1 XLS-L-8 7 0.015 0.86 70 1.36 1.4
1 XLS-LF 2.5 0.2 1.12 75 1.12 1.1
1 XP-1 10 0.01 1.00 665 11.08 11.1
1 XP-2 10 0.0175 1.32 265 3.34 3.3
1 XP-3 10 0.02 1.41 100 1.18 1.2
1 XP-4 11 0.015 1.35 40 0.49 0.5
2 XP-5 11 0.01 1.10 160 2.42 4.8
Table 4.3
Existing Intensity
Storm Tc (min) aR bR iR PR (in) I (in/hr)
2-yr 43.7 1.58 0.58 0.18 2 0.35
10-yr 43.7 2.44 0.64 0.22 2.9 0.63
100-yr 43.7 2.61 0.63 0.24 3.9 0.94
Table 4.4
Pr. Runoff Coefficient
Area Cx A (ac) C
Pr. LS (L) 0.25 2.32
0.71 Pr. LS (LF) 0.15 1.81
Ex. Pavement 0.9 10.88
7
Table 4.5
Proposed Tc
Count Area kR so (ft/ft) V (fps) L (ft) tt (min) Tt (min) Tc (min)
16 PLS-L-1 7 0.015 0.86 10.5 0.20 3.3
44.3
1 PLS-L-2 7 0.025 1.11 40 0.60 0.6
1 PLS-L-3 7 0.005 0.49 345 11.62 11.6
12 PLS-L-4 7 0.01 0.70 10.5 0.25 3.0
1 PLS-L-5 7 0.05 1.57 130 1.38 1.4
1 PLS-L-6 7 0.105 2.27 75 0.55 0.6
1 PLS-L-7 7 0.02 0.99 30 0.51 0.5
1 PLS-L-8 7 0.015 0.86 70 1.36 1.4
1 PLS-LF 2.5 0.2 1.12 75 1.12 1.1
1 PP-1 10 0.01 1.00 665 11.08 11.1
1 PP-2 10 0.0175 1.32 265 3.34 3.3
1 PP-3 10 0.02 1.41 100 1.18 1.2
1 PP-4 11 0.015 1.35 40 0.49 0.5
2 PP-5 11 0.01 1.10 160 2.42 4.8
Table 4.6
Proposed Intensity
Storm Tc (min) aR bR iR PR (in) I (in/hr)
2-yr 44.3 1.58 0.58 0.18 2 0.35
10-yr 44.3 2.44 0.64 0.22 2.9 0.62
100-yr 44.3 2.61 0.63 0.24 3.9 0.93
Table 4.7
Peak Runoff Rates
Storm Area C I (in/hr) A (ac) Q (cfs)
2-yr Existing 0.71 0.35 15.013 3.76
10-yr 0.71 0.63 15.013 6.72
100-yr 0.71 0.94 15.013 10.04
2-yr Proposed 0.71 0.35 15.013 3.73
10-yr 0.71 0.62 15.013 6.65
100-yr 0.71 0.93 15.013 9.94
8
Water Quality
Because the project falls under commercial land use, it must adhere to Enhanced Basin WQ measures.
As seen in the Existing Plans (Appendix G), the existing site currently utilizes (2) separate oil separator
structures and (3) biofiltration basins to meet these WQ standards. The project intends to inspect, clean,
and maintain said facilities for continued use.
Section 5 – Conveyance System Analysis and Design
The existing conveyance system was designed to serve the existing site during a 100-yr event. It includes
the underground storm pipe system as well as the concrete aqueduct. The project intends to continue
using and maintaining the existing system.
Section 6 – Special Reports and Studies
See Appendix L – Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and Appendix M – Geotech Addendum Letter
for additional reports and studies regarding the project site.
Section 7 – Other Permit
There are no other permits required for the project.
Section 8 – CSWPPP Analysis and Design
Most of the on-site construction will take place in-doors, with minimal site work being completed. This
factor, along with the fact that the site is already developed, requires minimal measures to ensure
erosion and sediment control. Nonetheless the below measures will be implemented to achieve this.
The proposed measures will be implemented per the SWDM prior to the start of any grading activity and
will be regularly inspected. See Appendix F for more information.
• ESC Measures
o Flow Control
o Dust Control
o Control Pollutants
o Protect Existing Stormwater Facilities and On-site BMPs
o Maintain Protective BMPs
o Manage the Project
9
• SWPPS Measures
o Follow effective pollutant handling and disposal procedures.
o Provide cover and containment for materials, fuel and other pollutants.
o Manage the project site to maximize pollutant control and minimize pollutant sources.
o Protect from spills and drips of petroleum products and other pollutants.
o Avoid overapplication or untimely application of chemicals and fertilizers.
Section 9 – Bond Quantities, Facility Summaries, and Declaration of Covenant
There are no new facilities proposed for this project.
Section 10 – Operations and Maintenance Manual
All drainage facilities are to be maintained privately as specified per the SWDM. A copy of the Operation
and Maintenance Manual submitted as part of the permit application for flow control and water quality
treatment facilities shall be retained on site and shall be transferred with the property to the new
owner. A log of maintenance activity indicating when cleaning occurred and where waste was disposed
of shall also be kept by the owner and be available for inspection by the City. See Appendix K for
operations and maintenance standards.
CITY OF RENTON SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL
2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 12/12/2016 8-A-1
REFERENCE 8-A
TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR)
WORKSHEET
Part 1 PROJECT OWNER AND
PROJECT ENGINEER Part 2 PROJECT LOCATION AND
DESCRIPTION
Project Owner _____________________________
Phone ___________________________________
Address __________________________________
_________________________________________
Project Engineer ___________________________
Company _________________________________
Phone ___________________________________
Project Name __________________________
CED Permit # ________________________
Location Township ________________
Range __________________
Section _________________
Site Address __________________________
_____________________________________
Part 3 TYPE OF PERMIT APPLICATION Part 4 OTHER REVIEWS AND PERMITS
Land Use (e.g., Subdivision / Short Subd.)
Building (e.g., M/F / Commercial / SFR)
_ Grading
Right-of-Way Use
Other _______________________
DFW HPA
COE 404
DOE Dam Safety
FEMA Floodplain
COE Wetlands
Other ________
Shoreline
Management
Structural
Rockery/Vault/_____
ESA Section 7
Part 5 PLAN AND REPORT INFORMATION
Technical Information Report Site Improvement Plan (Engr. Plans)
Type of Drainage Review
(check one):
Date (include revision
dates):
Date of Final:
_ Full
Targeted
Simplified
Large Project
Directed
__________________
__________________
__________________
Plan Type (check
one):
Date (include revision
dates):
Date of Final:
_ Full
Modified
Simplified
__________________
__________________
__________________
Home Depot, USA Inc
770-384-2543 x12543
2455 Paces Ferry, Rd C19
Atlanta, GA 30339
Daniel J. Zoldak
Lars Andersen & Associates, INC
559-276-2790 x117
Home Depot
23N
5E
SW1/4-17, NE1/4-19, NW1/7-20
901 S Grady Way,
Renton, WA 98057
Appendix A
REFERENCE 8: PLAN REVIEW FORMS AND WORKSHEET
TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET
12/12/2016 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 8-A-2
Part 6 SWDM ADJUSTMENT APPROVALS
Type (circle one): Standard / Blanket
Description: (include conditions in TIR Section 2)
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
Approved Adjustment No. ______________________ Date of Approval: _______________________
Part 7 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monitoring Required: Yes / No
Start Date: _______________________
Completion Date: _______________________
Describe: _________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
Re: SWDM Adjustment No. ________________
Part 8 SITE COMMUNITY AND DRAINAGE BASIN
Community Plan: ____________________________________________________________________
Special District Overlays: ______________________________________________________________
Drainage Basin: _____________________________________________________________________
Stormwater Requirements: _____________________________________________________________
Part 9 ONSITE AND ADJACENT SENSITIVE AREAS
River/Stream ________________________
Lake ______________________________
_ Wetlands ____________________________
Closed Depression ____________________
Floodplain ___________________________
Other _______________________________
_______________________________
Steep Slope __________________________
Erosion Hazard _______________________
Landslide Hazard ______________________
Coal Mine Hazard ______________________
Seismic Hazard _______________________
Habitat Protection ______________________
_____________________________________
City of Renton
N/A
Black River Basin
Full Drainage Review
Adjacent to SW corner of site
REFERENCE 8-A: TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET
TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET
2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 12/12/2016 Ref 8-A-3
Part 10 SOILS
Soil Type
______________________
______________________
______________________
______________________
Slopes
________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________
Erosion Potential
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
High Groundwater Table (within 5 feet)
Other ________________________________
Sole Source Aquifer
Seeps/Springs
Additional Sheets Attached
Part 11 DRAINAGE DESIGN LIMITATIONS
REFERENCE
Core 2 – Offsite Analysis_________________
Sensitive/Critical Areas__________________
SEPA________________________________
LID Infeasibility________________________
Other________________________________
_____________________________________
LIMITATION / SITE CONSTRAINT
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
Additional Sheets Attached
Part 12 TIR SUMMARY SHEET (provide one TIR Summary Sheet
per Threshold Discharge Area)
Threshold Discharge Area:
(name or description)
Core Requirements (all 8 apply):
Discharge at Natural Location Number of Natural Discharge Locations:
Offsite Analysis Level: 1 / 2 / 3 dated:__________________
Flow Control (include facility
summary sheet)
Standard: _______________________________
or Exemption Number: ____________
On-site BMPs: _______________________________
Conveyance System Spill containment located at: _____________________________
Erosion and Sediment Control /
Construction Stormwater Pollution
Prevention
CSWPP/CESCL/ESC Site Supervisor: _____________________
Contact Phone: _________________________
After Hours Phone: _________________________
Urban 0.5-25%Limited
Project Site
2
N/A
Flow Control Structure (x2)
Bio-Filtration Basin (x3), Oil Sperator (x2)
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
REFERENCE 8: PLAN REVIEW FORMS AND WORKSHEET
TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET
12/12/2016 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 8-A-4
Part 12 TIR SUMMARY SHEET (provide one TIR Summary Sheet
per Threshold Discharge Area)
Maintenance and Operation Responsibility (circle one): Private / Public
If Private, Maintenance Log Required: Yes / No
Financial Guarantees and Liability Provided: Yes / No
Water Quality (include facility
summary sheet)
Type (circle one): Basic / Sens. Lake / Enhanced Basic / Bog
or Exemption No. _______________________
Special Requirements (as applicable):
Area Specific Drainage
Requirements
Type: SDO / MDP / BP / Shared Fac. / None
Name: ________________________
Floodplain/Floodway Delineation Type (circle one): Major / Minor / Exemption / None
100-year Base Flood Elevation (or range): _______________
Datum:
Flood Protection Facilities Describe:
Source Control
(commercial / industrial land use)
Describe land use:
Describe any structural controls:
Oil Control High-Use Site: Yes / No
Treatment BMP: _________________________________
Maintenance Agreement: Yes / No
with whom? _____________________________________
Other Drainage Structures
Describe:
N/A
Commercial
Oil Separators (x2)
REFERENCE 8-A: TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET
TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET
2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 12/12/2016 Ref 8-A-5
Part 13 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIREMENTS
MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS
DURING CONSTRUCTION
Clearing Limits
Cover Measures
Perimeter Protection
Traffic Area Stabilization
Sediment Retention
Surface Water Collection
Dewatering Control
_ Dust Control
_ Flow Control
_ Control Pollutants
_ Protect Existing and Proposed
BMPs/Facilities
_ Maintain Protective BMPs / Manage
Project
MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS
AFTER CONSTRUCTION
Stabilize exposed surfaces
Remove and restore Temporary ESC Facilities
_ Clean and remove all silt and debris, ensure
operation of Permanent BMPs/Facilities, restore
operation of BMPs/Facilities as necessary
Flag limits of sensitive areas and open space
preservation areas
Other _______________________
Part 14 STORMWATER FACILITY DESCRIPTIONS (Note: Include Facility Summary and Sketch)
Flow Control Type/Description Water Quality Type/Description
Detention
Infiltration
Regional Facility
Shared Facility
_ On-site BMPs
Other
________________
________________
________________
________________
________________
________________
Vegetated Flowpath
Wetpool
Filtration
Oil Control
Spill Control
_ On-site BMPs
Other
________________
________________
________________
________________
________________
________________
________________
Part 15 EASEMENTS/TRACTS Part 16 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
Drainage Easement
Covenant
Native Growth Protection Covenant
Tract
_ Other ____________________________
Cast in Place Vault
Retaining Wall
Rockery > 4′ High
Structural on Steep Slope
Other _______________________________
Existing Flow Control
Existing separators &
bio-filtration basins
Utility Easeements
REFERENCE 8: PLAN REVIEW FORMS AND WORKSHEET
TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET
12/12/2016 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 8-A-6
Part 17 SIGNATURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER
I, or a civil engineer under my supervision, have visited the site. Actual site conditions as observed were
incorporated into this worksheet and the attached Technical Information Report. To the best of my
knowledge the information provided here is accurate.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Signed/Date
Appendix B – Site Map
Appendix C
TALBOT RD SS. GRADY WAY(WET
L
AND
)Rsealsheet infoproject infoownercivil landscape structural equipment plumbing mechanical electricalcivilarchitectural project no. 19165issue datesdesigned by:submission:revisions:THE HOME DEPOT2455 PACES FERRY ROAD, C-19ATLANTA, GA 30339-4024PHONE: (770) 433-8211PERMITBIDchecked by:datedatedescription#prototype:CONSTRUCTION5/7/2020 1:32:58 PM
Renton901 S Grady WayRenton, WA 98057STORE: xxxxLRDZ00/00/0004/15/22N/A00/00/00civil engineerDATE:LARS ANDERSEN &ASSOCIATES, INC.CIVIL ENGINEERS-LAND SURVEYORS-PLANNERS05/13/22ADDENDUM 1C2.0GRADINGPLANCONSTRUCTION NOTES:LEGEND:GENERAL NOTES:HEAVY DUTY PCC PAVEMENT SECTION :12" MIN. COMPACTED SUBGRADE·95% RELATIVE COMPACTION·MIN. COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF4000 PSI6.0" PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE·CLASS ALIGHT DUTY AC PAVEMENT SECTION :12" MIN. COMPACTED NATIVE SOIL·95% RELATIVE COMPACTION4" CLASS 2 AGGREGATE BASE COURSE·95% RELATIVE COMPACTION3" AC PAVEMENT·REINFORCE WITH #4 REBAR EACH WAY AT 12" OC ATMID-DEPTH4" CLASS 2 AGGREGATE BASE COURSE·95% RELATIVE COMPACTIONSURVEY NOTES:GENERAL GRADING NOTES:ESTIMATED QUANTITIES:HEAVY DUTY AC PAVEMENT SECTION :12" MIN. COMPACTED NATIVE SOIL·95% RELATIVE COMPACTION4" CLASS 2 AGGREGATE BASE COURSE·95% RELATIVE COMPACTION4" AC PAVEMENTAPPENDIX D
TALBOT RD SS. GRADY WAY(WET
L
AND
)Rsealsheet infoproject infoownercivil landscape structural equipment plumbing mechanical electricalcivilarchitectural project no. 19165issue datesdesigned by:submission:revisions:THE HOME DEPOT2455 PACES FERRY ROAD, C-19ATLANTA, GA 30339-4024PHONE: (770) 433-8211PERMITBIDchecked by:datedatedescription#prototype:CONSTRUCTION5/7/2020 1:32:58 PM
Renton901 S Grady WayRenton, WA 98057STORE: xxxxLRDZ00/00/0004/15/22N/A00/00/00civil engineerDATE:LARS ANDERSEN &ASSOCIATES, INC.CIVIL ENGINEERS-LAND SURVEYORS-PLANNERS05/13/22ADDENDUM 1C3.0STORMWATERDRAINAGEPLANCONSTRUCTION NOTES:LEGEND:GENERAL NOTES:APPENDIX E
TALBOT RD SS. GRADY WAY(WET
L
AND
)Rsealsheet infoproject infoownercivil landscape structural equipment plumbing mechanical electricalcivilarchitectural project no. 19165issue datesdesigned by:submission:revisions:THE HOME DEPOT2455 PACES FERRY ROAD, C-19ATLANTA, GA 30339-4024PHONE: (770) 433-8211PERMITBIDchecked by:datedatedescription#prototype:CONSTRUCTION5/7/2020 1:32:58 PM
Renton901 S Grady WayRenton, WA 98057STORE: xxxxLRDZ00/00/0004/15/22N/A00/00/00civil engineerDATE:LARS ANDERSEN &ASSOCIATES, INC.CIVIL ENGINEERS-LAND SURVEYORS-PLANNERS05/13/22ADDENDUM 1C4.0TEMPORARYEROSION ANDSEDIMENTCONTROL PLANEROSION CONTROL NOTES:EROSION CONTROL SYMBOLS:GENERAL NOTES:EROSION CONTROL LEGEND:··········EROSION CONTROL/ SWPPS MEASURESAPPENDIX F
FLOW SEPARATOR
OIL SEPERATOR OIL POLLUTION
OIL POLLUTION
FLOW CONTROL
Appendix G
TALBOT RD SS. GRADY WAY(WETLAND)BASIN ABASIN BBASIN CBASIN D(
U
N
I
N
C
O
R
P
O
R
A
T
E
D
)Rsealsheet infoproject infoownercivil landscape structural equipment plumbing mechanical electricalcivilarchitectural project no. 19165issue datesdesigned by:submission:revisions:THE HOME DEPOT2455 PACES FERRY ROAD, C-19ATLANTA, GA 30339-4024PHONE: (770) 433-8211PERMITBIDchecked by:datedatedescription#prototype:CONSTRUCTION5/7/2020 1:32:58 PM
Renton901 S Grady WayRenton, WA 98057STORE: xxxxLRDZ00/00/0004/15/22N/A00/00/00civil engineerDATE:LARS ANDERSEN &ASSOCIATES, INC.CIVIL ENGINEERS-LAND SURVEYORS-PLANNERS05/13/22ADDENDUM 1BASIN PLANPROPOSED BASIN MAPEXISTING BASIN MAPAPPENDIX H
Soil Map—King County Area, Washington
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
5/27/2022
Page 1 of 352577005257800525790052580005258100525820052583005257700525780052579005258000525810052582005258300559300559400559500559600559700559800559900560000560100560200560300
559300 559400 559500 559600 559700 559800 559900 560000 560100 560200 560300 560400
47° 28' 33'' N 122° 12' 48'' W47° 28' 33'' N122° 11' 54'' W47° 28' 9'' N
122° 12' 48'' W47° 28' 9'' N
122° 11' 54'' WN
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 10N WGS84
0 250 500 1000 1500
Feet
0 50 100 200 300
Meters
Map Scale: 1:5,150 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.
Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Appendix I
LakeDesire
ShadyLake (MudLake)
PantherLake LakeYoungs
LakeWashington
Bl a c kRi ver
Gr eenRiv
e
r
C
edarRi verUV900
UV167
UV515
UV169
UV900
UV169
UV167BN IncBN IncBBNNIInnccSSEE
RReennttoonn IIssss aa qquuaahh RR dd
RReennttoonn MMaappllee VVaalllleeyyRRdd
MMaapplleeVVaalllleeyyHHwwyy
110088tthhAAvveeSSEESSWW SSuunnsseettBBllvv
dd RRaaiinnii
eerrAAvveeNNNE 3rd S
t
NE 3rd S
t
SW 43rd StSW 43rd St SS EE CCaarrrrRR dd
NE 4th StNE 4th St
SSEE RReennttoonn MMaappllee VVaalllleeyy RRddLLooggaannAAvveeNN
SR 515SR 515PPaarrkkAAvveeNNOOaakkeessddaalleeAAvveeSSWWSSuunnsseettBBllvvddNN EE
DDuuvvaallllAAvveeNNEEI-405 FWYI-405 FWY II--440055FFWWYYSR 167SR 1671144
00tthh
WWaayy
SS
EENNEE 2277tthh SStt
115566tthhAAvveeSSEEUUnniioonnAAvveeNNEE111166tthhAAvveeSSEESW 7th StSW 7th St
N 8th StN 8th St
PP uuggeettDDrrSSEE
RR
ee
nnttoonnAAvvee SS
SSWW 2277tthh SStt BBeennssoonnRRddSSWWiilllliiaammssAAvveeSSMMoonnrrooeeAAvveeNNEESE 128th StSE 128th St
II
nntt
eerr
uurr
bbaannAA
vvee
SS HHooqquuiiaammAAvveeNNEE8844tthhAAvveeSSSSEEPPeett
rr
oovvii
tt
sskkyyRRddEEVVaalllleeyyHHwwyySE 192nd StSE 192nd St
SE 60th StSE 60th St
TTaallbboottRRddSSRRee
nn
tt
oo
nn
AAvveeSS116644tthhAAvveeSSEESE 208th StSE 208th St
SE 72nd StSE 72nd St
RR
aaiinniieerr
AA
vvee
SS 111166tthhAAvveeSSEES 128th StS 128th St
NNeewwccaassttllee WWaayy
SS 221122tthh SStt
SS 118800tthh SStt CCooaall
CCrreeeekkPPkkwwyySSEESW 41st StSW 41st St
114400tthhAAvveeSSEE112288tthhAAvveeSSEE6688tthhAAvveeSSSSEE 116688tthh SStt
NE 12th StNE 12th St
BBeeaaccoonn
AA
vv
ee
SS
FFoorreesstt DDrr SSEE
SSEE 116644tthh SStt 114488tthhAAvveeSSEESSEE MMaayy VVaalllleeyy RRdd
SS EE JJ oo nn ee ss RR dd
SS EE 22 00 44 tthh WW aayySW 34th StSW 34th St
SE 144th StSE 144th St
114488tthhAAvveeSSEE115544tthhPPllSSEELL
aa
kk
ee
WWaa
sshhii
nnggtt
oonnBBll
vvddNNEEddmmoonnddssAAvveeNNEEAAbbeerrddeeeennAAvveeNNEEEEMM eerrcceerrWWaayyWWeessttVVaalllleeyyHHwwyyEast Valley RdEast Valley Rd,§-405
,§-405
,§-405
µ0 1 2
Miles
Flow Control Application Map
Reference 15-A
Date: 01/09/2014
Flow Control Standards
Peak Rate Flow Control Standard (Existing Site Conditions)
Flow Control Duration Standard (Existing Site Conditions)
Flow Control Duration Standard (Forested Conditions)
Flood Problem Flow
Unincorporated King County Flow Control Standards
Renton City Limits
Potential Annexation Area
Appendix J
APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR STORMWATER FACILITIES AND ON-SITE BMPS
12/12/2016 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual
A-4
NO. 2 – INFILTRATION FACILITIES
MAINTENANCE
COMPONENT
DEFECT OR
PROBLEM
CONDITIONS WHEN
MAINTENANCE IS NEEDED
RESULTS EXPECTED WHEN
MAINTENANCE IS PERFORMED
Site Trash and debris Any trash and debris which exceed 1 cubic
foot per 1,000 square feet (this is about
equal to the amount of trash it would take
to fill up one standard size office garbage
can). In general, there should be no visual
evidence of dumping.
Trash and debris cleared from site.
Noxious weeds Any noxious or nuisance vegetation which
may constitute a hazard to City personnel
or the public.
Noxious and nuisance vegetation removed
according to applicable regulations. No
danger of noxious vegetation where City
personnel or the public might normally be.
Contaminants and
pollution
Any evidence of contaminants or pollution
such as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or
paint.
Materials removed and disposed of
according to applicable regulations.
Source control BMPs implemented if
appropriate. No contaminants present
other than a surface oil film.
Excessive growth of
grass/groundcover
Grass or groundcover exceeds 18 inches
in height.
Grass or groundcover mowed to a height
no greater than 6 inches.
Infiltration Pond, Top
or Side Slopes of
Dam, Berm or
Embankment
Rodent holes Any evidence of rodent holes if facility is
acting as a dam or berm, or any evidence
of water piping through dam or berm via
rodent holes.
Rodents removed or destroyed and dam
or berm repaired.
Tree growth Tree growth threatens integrity of dams,
berms or slopes, does not allow
maintenance access, or interferes with
maintenance activity. If trees are not a
threat to dam, berm, or embankment
integrity or not interfering with access or
maintenance, they do not need to be
removed.
Trees do not hinder facility performance or
maintenance activities.
Erosion Eroded damage over 2 inches deep where
cause of damage is still present or where
there is potential for continued erosion.
Any erosion observed on a compacted
slope.
Slopes stabilized using appropriate
erosion control measures. If erosion is
occurring on compacted slope, a licensed
civil engineer should be consulted to
resolve source of erosion.
Settlement Any part of a dam, berm or embankment
that has settled 4 inches lower than the
design elevation.
Top or side slope restored to design
dimensions. If settlement is significant, a
licensed civil engineer should be consulted
to determine the cause of the settlement.
Infiltration Pond,
Tank, Vault, Trench,
or Small Basin
Storage Area
Sediment
accumulation
If two inches or more sediment is present
or a percolation test indicates facility is
working at or less than 90% of design.
Facility infiltrates as designed.
Liner damaged
(If applicable)
Liner is visible or pond does not hold water
as designed.
Liner repaired or replaced.
Infiltration Tank
Structure
Plugged air vent Any blockage of the vent. Tank or vault freely vents.
Tank bent out of
shape
Any part of tank/pipe is bent out of shape
more than 10% of its design shape.
Tank repaired or replaced to design.
Gaps between
sections, damaged
joints or cracks or
tears in wall
A gap wider than ½-inch at the joint of any
tank sections or any evidence of soil
particles entering the tank at a joint or
through a wall.
No water or soil entering tank through
joints or walls.
Infiltration Vault
Structure
Damage to wall,
frame, bottom, and/or
top slab
Cracks wider than ½-inch, any evidence of
soil entering the structure through cracks
or qualified inspection personnel
determines that the vault is not structurally
sound.
Vault is sealed and structurally sound.
Appendix K
APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR STORMWATER FACILITIES AND ON-SITE BMPS
2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 12/12/2016
A-5
NO. 2 – INFILTRATION FACILITIES
MAINTENANCE
COMPONENT
DEFECT OR
PROBLEM
CONDITIONS WHEN
MAINTENANCE IS NEEDED
RESULTS EXPECTED WHEN
MAINTENANCE IS PERFORMED
Inlet/Outlet Pipes Sediment
accumulation
Sediment filling 20% or more of the pipe. Inlet/outlet pipes clear of sediment.
Trash and debris Trash and debris accumulated in
inlet/outlet pipes (includes floatables and
non-floatables).
No trash or debris in pipes.
Damaged inlet/outlet
pipe
Cracks wider than ½-inch at the joint of the
inlet/outlet pipes or any evidence of soil
entering at the joints of the inlet/outlet
pipes.
No cracks more than ¼-inch wide at the
joint of the inlet/outlet pipe.
Access Manhole Cover/lid not in place Cover/lid is missing or only partially in
place. Any open manhole requires
immediate maintenance.
Manhole access covered.
Locking mechanism
not working
Mechanism cannot be opened by one
maintenance person with proper tools.
Bolts cannot be seated. Self-locking
cover/lid does not work.
Mechanism opens with proper tools.
Cover/lid difficult to
remove
One maintenance person cannot remove
cover/lid after applying 80 lbs of lift.
Cover/lid can be removed and reinstalled
by one maintenance person.
Ladder rungs unsafe Missing rungs, misalignment, rust, or
cracks.
Ladder meets design standards. Allows
maintenance person safe access.
Large access
doors/plate
Damaged or difficult
to open
Large access doors or plates cannot be
opened/removed using normal equipment.
Replace or repair access door so it can
opened as designed.
Gaps, doesn't cover
completely
Large access doors not flat and/or access
opening not completely covered.
Doors close flat; covers access opening
completely.
Lifting rings missing,
rusted
Lifting rings not capable of lifting weight of
door or plate.
Lifting rings sufficient to lift or remove
door or plate.
Infiltration Pond,
Tank, Vault, Trench,
or Small Basin Filter
Bags
Plugged filter bag (if
applicable)
Filter bag more than 1/2 full. Replace filter bag or redesign system.
Infiltration Pond,
Tank, Vault, Trench,
or Small Basin Pre-
settling Ponds and
Vaults
Sediment
accumulation
6" or more of sediment has accumulated. Pre-settling occurs as designed
Infiltration Pond,
Rock Filter
Plugged rock filter High water level on upstream side of filter
remains for extended period of time or little
or no water flows through filter during
heavy rain storms.
Rock filter replaced evaluate need for filter
and remove if not necessary.
Infiltration Pond
Emergency
Overflow Spillway
Rock missing Only one layer of rock exists above native
soil in area five square feet or larger, or
any exposure of native soil at the top of
out flow path of spillway. Rip-rap on inside
slopes need not be replaced.
Spillway restored to design standards.
Tree growth Tree growth impedes flow or threatens
stability of spillway.
Trees removed.
APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR STORMWATER FACILITIES AND ON-SITE BMPS
12/12/2016 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual
A-8
NO. 4 – CONTROL STRUCTURE/FLOW RESTRICTOR
MAINTENANCE
COMPONENT
DEFECT OR
PROBLEM
CONDITION WHEN MAINTENANCE
IS NEEDED
RESULTS EXPECTED WHEN
MAINTENANCE IS PERFORMED
Structure Trash and debris Trash or debris of more than ½ cubic foot
which is located immediately in front of the
structure opening or is blocking capacity of
the structure by more than 10%.
No Trash or debris blocking or potentially
blocking entrance to structure.
Trash or debris in the structure that
exceeds 1/3 the depth from the bottom of
basin to invert the lowest pipe into or out of
the basin.
No trash or debris in the structure.
Deposits of garbage exceeding 1 cubic
foot in volume.
No condition present which would attract or
support the breeding of insects or rodents.
Sediment
accumulation
Sediment exceeds 60% of the depth from
the bottom of the structure to the invert of
the lowest pipe into or out of the structure
or the bottom of the FROP-T section or is
within 6 inches of the invert of the lowest
pipe into or out of the structure or the
bottom of the FROP-T section.
Sump of structure contains no sediment.
Damage to frame
and/or top slab
Corner of frame extends more than ¾ inch
past curb face into the street (If
applicable).
Frame is even with curb.
Top slab has holes larger than 2 square
inches or cracks wider than ¼ inch.
Top slab is free of holes and cracks.
Frame not sitting flush on top slab, i.e.,
separation of more than ¾ inch of the
frame from the top slab.
Frame is sitting flush on top slab.
Cracks in walls or
bottom
Cracks wider than ½ inch and longer than
3 feet, any evidence of soil particles
entering structure through cracks, or
maintenance person judges that structure
is unsound.
Structure is sealed and structurally sound.
Cracks wider than ½ inch and longer than
1 foot at the joint of any inlet/outlet pipe or
any evidence of soil particles entering
structure through cracks.
No cracks more than 1/4 inch wide at the
joint of inlet/outlet pipe.
Settlement/
misalignment
Structure has settled more than 1 inch or
has rotated more than 2 inches out of
alignment.
Basin replaced or repaired to design
standards.
Damaged pipe joints Cracks wider than ½-inch at the joint of the
inlet/outlet pipes or any evidence of soil
entering the structure at the joint of the
inlet/outlet pipes.
No cracks more than ¼-inch wide at the
joint of inlet/outlet pipes.
Contaminants and
pollution
Any evidence of contaminants or pollution
such as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or
paint.
Materials removed and disposed of
according to applicable regulations. Source
control BMPs implemented if appropriate.
No contaminants present other than a
surface oil film.
Ladder rungs missing
or unsafe
Ladder is unsafe due to missing rungs,
misalignment, rust, cracks, or sharp edges.
Ladder meets design standards and allows
maintenance person safe access.
FROP-T Section Damaged FROP-T T section is not securely attached to
structure wall and outlet pipe structure
should support at least 1,000 lbs of up or
down pressure.
T section securely attached to wall and
outlet pipe.
Structure is not in upright position (allow up
to 10% from plumb).
Structure in correct position.
APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR STORMWATER FACILITIES AND ON-SITE BMPS
2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 12/12/2016
A-9
NO. 4 – CONTROL STRUCTURE/FLOW RESTRICTOR
MAINTENANCE
COMPONENT
DEFECT OR
PROBLEM
CONDITION WHEN MAINTENANCE
IS NEEDED
RESULTS EXPECTED WHEN
MAINTENANCE IS PERFORMED
FROP-T Section
(cont.)
Damaged FROP-T
(cont.)
Connections to outlet pipe are not
watertight or show signs of deteriorated
grout.
Connections to outlet pipe are water tight;
structure repaired or replaced and works
as designed.
Any holes—other than designed holes—in
the structure.
Structure has no holes other than designed
holes.
Cleanout Gate Damaged or missing
cleanout gate
Cleanout gate is missing. Replace cleanout gate.
Cleanout gate is not watertight. Gate is watertight and works as designed.
Gate cannot be moved up and down by
one maintenance person.
Gate moves up and down easily and is
watertight.
Chain/rod leading to gate is missing or
damaged.
Chain is in place and works as designed.
Orifice Plate Damaged or missing
orifice plate
Control device is not working properly due
to missing, out of place, or bent orifice
plate.
Plate is in place and works as designed.
Obstructions to orifice
plate
Any trash, debris, sediment, or vegetation
blocking the plate.
Plate is free of all obstructions and works
as designed.
Overflow Pipe Obstructions to
overflow pipe
Any trash or debris blocking (or having the
potential of blocking) the overflow pipe.
Pipe is free of all obstructions and works
as designed.
Deformed or
damaged lip of
overflow pipe
Lip of overflow pipe is bent or deformed. Overflow pipe does not allow overflow at
an elevation lower than design
Inlet/Outlet Pipe Sediment
accumulation
Sediment filling 20% or more of the pipe. Inlet/outlet pipes clear of sediment.
Trash and debris Trash and debris accumulated in
inlet/outlet pipes (includes floatables and
non-floatables).
No trash or debris in pipes.
Damaged inlet/outlet
pipe
Cracks wider than ½-inch at the joint of the
inlet/outlet pipes or any evidence of soil
entering at the joints of the inlet/outlet
pipes.
No cracks more than ¼-inch wide at the
joint of the inlet/outlet pipe.
Metal Grates
(If applicable)
Unsafe grate opening Grate with opening wider than 7/8 inch. Grate opening meets design standards.
Trash and debris Trash and debris that is blocking more
than 20% of grate surface.
Grate free of trash and debris. footnote to
guidelines for disposal
Damaged or missing
grate
Grate missing or broken member(s) of the
grate.
Grate is in place and meets design
standards.
Manhole Cover/Lid Cover/lid not in place Cover/lid is missing or only partially in
place. Any open structure requires
urgent maintenance.
Cover/lid protects opening to structure.
Locking mechanism
not working
Mechanism cannot be opened by one
maintenance person with proper tools.
Bolts cannot be seated. Self-locking
cover/lid does not work.
Mechanism opens with proper tools.
Cover/lid difficult to
remove
One maintenance person cannot remove
cover/lid after applying 80 lbs. of lift.
Cover/lid can be removed and reinstalled
by one maintenance person.
APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR STORMWATER FACILITIES AND ON-SITE BMPS
12/12/2016 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual
A-10
NO. 5 – CATCH BASINS AND MANHOLES
MAINTENANCE
COMPONENT
DEFECT OR
PROBLEM
CONDITION WHEN MAINTENANCE
IS NEEDED
RESULTS EXPECTED WHEN
MAINTENANCE IS PERFORMED
Structure Sediment
accumulation
Sediment exceeds 60% of the depth from
the bottom of the catch basin to the invert
of the lowest pipe into or out of the catch
basin or is within 6 inches of the invert of
the lowest pipe into or out of the catch
basin.
Sump of catch basin contains no sediment.
Trash and debris Trash or debris of more than ½ cubic foot
which is located immediately in front of the
catch basin opening or is blocking capacity
of the catch basin by more than 10%.
No Trash or debris blocking or potentially
blocking entrance to catch basin.
Trash or debris in the catch basin that
exceeds 1/3 the depth from the bottom of
basin to invert the lowest pipe into or out of
the basin.
No trash or debris in the catch basin.
Dead animals or vegetation that could
generate odors that could cause
complaints or dangerous gases (e.g.,
methane).
No dead animals or vegetation present
within catch basin.
Deposits of garbage exceeding 1 cubic
foot in volume.
No condition present which would attract or
support the breeding of insects or rodents.
Damage to frame
and/or top slab
Corner of frame extends more than ¾ inch
past curb face into the street (If
applicable).
Frame is even with curb.
Top slab has holes larger than 2 square
inches or cracks wider than ¼ inch.
Top slab is free of holes and cracks.
Frame not sitting flush on top slab, i.e.,
separation of more than ¾ inch of the
frame from the top slab.
Frame is sitting flush on top slab.
Cracks in walls or
bottom
Cracks wider than ½ inch and longer than
3 feet, any evidence of soil particles
entering catch basin through cracks, or
maintenance person judges that catch
basin is unsound.
Catch basin is sealed and is structurally
sound.
Cracks wider than ½ inch and longer than
1 foot at the joint of any inlet/outlet pipe or
any evidence of soil particles entering
catch basin through cracks.
No cracks more than 1/4 inch wide at the
joint of inlet/outlet pipe.
Settlement/
misalignment
Catch basin has settled more than 1 inch
or has rotated more than 2 inches out of
alignment.
Basin replaced or repaired to design
standards.
Damaged pipe joints Cracks wider than ½-inch at the joint of the
inlet/outlet pipes or any evidence of soil
entering the catch basin at the joint of the
inlet/outlet pipes.
No cracks more than ¼-inch wide at the
joint of inlet/outlet pipes.
Contaminants and
pollution
Any evidence of contaminants or pollution
such as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or
paint.
Materials removed and disposed of
according to applicable regulations. Source
control BMPs implemented if appropriate.
No contaminants present other than a
surface oil film.
Inlet/Outlet Pipe Sediment
accumulation
Sediment filling 20% or more of the pipe. Inlet/outlet pipes clear of sediment.
Trash and debris Trash and debris accumulated in
inlet/outlet pipes (includes floatables and
non-floatables).
No trash or debris in pipes.
APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR STORMWATER FACILITIES AND ON-SITE BMPS
2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 12/12/2016
A-11
NO. 5 – CATCH BASINS AND MANHOLES
MAINTENANCE
COMPONENT
DEFECT OR
PROBLEM
CONDITION WHEN MAINTENANCE
IS NEEDED
RESULTS EXPECTED WHEN
MAINTENANCE IS PERFORMED
Inlet/Outlet Pipe
(cont.)
Damaged inlet/outlet
pipe
Cracks wider than ½-inch at the joint of the
inlet/outlet pipes or any evidence of soil
entering at the joints of the inlet/outlet
pipes.
No cracks more than ¼-inch wide at the
joint of the inlet/outlet pipe.
Metal Grates
(Catch Basins)
Unsafe grate opening Grate with opening wider than 7/8 inch. Grate opening meets design standards.
Trash and debris Trash and debris that is blocking more
than 20% of grate surface.
Grate free of trash and debris. footnote to
guidelines for disposal
Damaged or missing
grate
Grate missing or broken member(s) of the
grate. Any open structure requires
urgent maintenance.
Grate is in place and meets design
standards.
Manhole Cover/Lid Cover/lid not in place Cover/lid is missing or only partially in
place. Any open structure requires
urgent maintenance.
Cover/lid protects opening to structure.
Locking mechanism
not working
Mechanism cannot be opened by one
maintenance person with proper tools.
Bolts cannot be seated. Self-locking
cover/lid does not work.
Mechanism opens with proper tools.
Cover/lid difficult to
remove
One maintenance person cannot remove
cover/lid after applying 80 lbs. of lift.
Cover/lid can be removed and reinstalled
by one maintenance person.
APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR STORMWATER FACILITIES AND ON-SITE BMPS
12/12/2016 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual
A-12
NO. 6 – CONVEYANCE PIPES AND DITCHES
MAINTENANCE
COMPONENT
DEFECT OR
PROBLEM
CONDITIONS WHEN
MAINTENANCE IS NEEDED
RESULTS EXPECTED WHEN
MAINTENANCE IS PERFORMED
Pipes Sediment & debris
accumulation
Accumulated sediment or debris that
exceeds 20% of the diameter of the pipe.
Water flows freely through pipes.
Vegetation/root
growth in pipe
Vegetation/roots that reduce free
movement of water through pipes.
Water flows freely through pipes.
Contaminants and
pollution
Any evidence of contaminants or pollution
such as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or
paint.
Materials removed and disposed of
according to applicable regulations. Source
control BMPs implemented if appropriate.
No contaminants present other than a
surface oil film.
Damage to protective
coating or corrosion
Protective coating is damaged; rust or
corrosion is weakening the structural
integrity of any part of pipe.
Pipe repaired or replaced.
Damaged pipes Any dent that decreases the cross section
area of pipe by more than 20% or is
determined to have weakened structural
integrity of the pipe.
Pipe repaired or replaced.
Ditches Trash and debris Trash and debris exceeds 1 cubic foot per
1,000 square feet of ditch and slopes.
Trash and debris cleared from ditches.
Sediment
accumulation
Accumulated sediment that exceeds 20%
of the design depth.
Ditch cleaned/flushed of all sediment and
debris so that it matches design.
Noxious weeds Any noxious or nuisance vegetation which
may constitute a hazard to City personnel
or the public.
Noxious and nuisance vegetation removed
according to applicable regulations. No
danger of noxious vegetation where City
personnel or the public might normally be.
Contaminants and
pollution
Any evidence of contaminants or pollution
such as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or
paint.
Materials removed and disposed of
according to applicable regulations. Source
control BMPs implemented if appropriate.
No contaminants present other than a
surface oil film.
Excessive vegetation
growth
Vegetation that reduces free movement of
water through ditches.
Water flows freely through ditches.
Erosion damage to
slopes
Any erosion observed on a ditch slope. Slopes are not eroding.
Rock lining out of
place or missing (If
applicable)
One layer or less of rock exists above
native soil area 5 square feet or more, any
exposed native soil.
Replace rocks to design standards.
APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR STORMWATER FACILITIES AND ON-SITE BMPS
2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 12/12/2016
A-13
NO. 7 – DEBRIS BARRIERS (E.G., TRASH RACKS)
MAINTENANCE
COMPONENT
DEFECT OR
PROBLEM
CONDITION WHEN MAINTENANCE
IS NEEDED
RESULTS EXPECTED WHEN
MAINTENANCE IS PERFORMED.
Site Trash and debris Trash or debris plugging more than 20% of
the area of the barrier.
Barrier clear to receive capacity flow.
Sediment
accumulation
Sediment accumulation of greater than
20% of the area of the barrier
Barrier clear to receive capacity flow.
Structure Cracked, broken, or
loose pipe or structure
Structure which bars attached to is
damaged – pipe is loose or cracked or
concrete structure is cracked, broken, or
loose.
Structure barrier attached to is sound.
Bars Incorrect bar spacing Bar spacing exceeds 6 inches. Bars have at most 6 inches spacing.
Damaged or missing
bars
Bars are bent out of shape more than 3
inches.
Bars in place with no bends more than ¾
inch.
Bars are missing or entire barrier missing. Bars in place according to design.
Bars are loose and rust is causing 50%
deterioration to any part of barrier.
Repair or replace barrier to design
standards.
APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR STORMWATER FACILITIES AND ON-SITE BMPS
12/12/2016 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual
A-14
NO. 8 – ENERGY DISSIPATERS
MAINTENANCE
COMPONENT
DEFECT OR
PROBLEM
CONDITIONS WHEN
MAINTENANCE IS NEEDED
RESULTS EXPECTED WHEN
MAINTENANCE IS PERFORMED.
Site Trash and debris Trash and/or debris accumulation. Dissipater clear of trash and/or debris.
Contaminants and
pollution
Any evidence of contaminants or pollution
such as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or
paint.
Materials removed and disposed of
according to applicable regulations. Source
control BMPs implemented if appropriate.
No contaminants present other than a
surface oil film.
Rock Pad Missing or moved
rock
Only one layer of rock exists above native
soil in area five square feet or larger or any
exposure of native soil.
Rock pad prevents erosion.
Dispersion Trench Pipe plugged with
sediment
Accumulated sediment that exceeds 20%
of the design depth.
Pipe cleaned/flushed so that it matches
design.
Not discharging water
properly
Visual evidence of water discharging at
concentrated points along trench (normal
condition is a “sheet flow” of water along
trench).
Water discharges from feature by sheet
flow.
Perforations plugged Over 1/4 of perforations in pipe are
plugged with debris or sediment.
Perforations freely discharge flow.
Water flows out top of
“distributor” catch
basin.
Water flows out of distributor catch basin
during any storm less than the design
storm.
No flow discharges from distributor catch
basin.
Receiving area over-
saturated
Water in receiving area is causing or has
potential of causing landslide problems.
No danger of landslides.
Gabions Damaged mesh Mesh of gabion broken, twisted or
deformed so structure is weakened or rock
may fall out.
Mesh is intact, no rock missing.
Corroded mesh Gabion mesh shows corrosion through
more than ¼ of its gage.
All gabion mesh capable of containing rock
and retaining designed form.
Collapsed or
deformed baskets
Gabion basket shape deformed due to any
cause.
All gabion baskets intact, structure stands
as designed.
Missing rock Any rock missing that could cause gabion
to loose structural integrity.
No rock missing.
Manhole/Chamber Worn or damaged
post, baffles or side of
chamber
Structure dissipating flow deteriorates to ½
or original size or any concentrated worn
spot exceeding one square foot which
would make structure unsound.
Structure is in no danger of failing.
Damage to wall,
frame, bottom, and/or
top slab
Cracks wider than ½-inch or any evidence
of soil entering the structure through
cracks, or maintenance inspection
personnel determines that the structure is
not structurally sound.
Manhole/chamber is sealed and
structurally sound.
Damaged pipe joints Cracks wider than ½-inch at the joint of the
inlet/outlet pipes or any evidence of soil
entering the structure at the joint of the
inlet/outlet pipes.
No soil or water enters and no water
discharges at the joint of inlet/outlet pipes.
APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR STORMWATER FACILITIES AND ON-SITE BMPS
2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 12/12/2016
A-17
NO. 11 – GROUNDS (LANDSCAPING)
MAINTENANCE
COMPONENT
DEFECT OR
PROBLEM
CONDITIONS WHEN
MAINTENANCE IS NEEDED
RESULTS EXPECTED WHEN
MAINTENANCE IS PERFORMED
Site Trash and debris Any trash and debris which exceed 1 cubic
foot per 1,000 square feet (this is about
equal to the amount of trash it would take
to fill up one standard size office garbage
can). In general, there should be no visual
evidence of dumping.
Trash and debris cleared from site.
Noxious weeds Any noxious or nuisance vegetation which
may constitute a hazard to City personnel
or the public.
Noxious and nuisance vegetation removed
according to applicable regulations. No
danger of noxious vegetation where City
personnel or the public might normally be.
Contaminants and
pollution
Any evidence of contaminants or pollution
such as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or
paint.
Materials removed and disposed of
according to applicable regulations. Source
control BMPs implemented if appropriate.
No contaminants present other than a
surface oil film.
Excessive growth of
grass/groundcover
Grass or groundcover exceeds 18 inches
in height.
Grass or groundcover mowed to a height
no greater than 6 inches.
Trees and Shrubs Hazard tree identified Any tree or limb of a tree identified as
having a potential to fall and cause
property damage or threaten human life. A
hazard tree identified by a qualified
arborist must be removed as soon as
possible.
No hazard trees in facility.
Damaged tree or
shrub identified
Limbs or parts of trees or shrubs that are
split or broken which affect more than 25%
of the total foliage of the tree or shrub.
Trees and shrubs with less than 5% of total
foliage with split or broken limbs.
Trees or shrubs that have been blown
down or knocked over.
No blown down vegetation or knocked over
vegetation. Trees or shrubs free of injury.
Trees or shrubs which are not adequately
supported or are leaning over, causing
exposure of the roots.
Tree or shrub in place and adequately
supported; dead or diseased trees
removed.
APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR STORMWATER FACILITIES AND ON-SITE BMPS
2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 12/12/2016
A-19
NO. 13 – BASIC BIOSWALE (GRASS)
MAINTENANCE
COMPONENT
DEFECT OR
PROBLEM
CONDITION WHEN MAINTENANCE
IS NEEDED
RESULTS EXPECTED WHEN
MAINTENANCE IS PERFORMED
Site Trash and debris Any trash and/or debris accumulated on
the bioswale site.
No trash or debris on the bioswale site.
Contaminants and
pollution
Any evidence of contaminants or pollution
such as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or
paint.
Materials removed and disposed of
according to applicable regulations. Source
control BMPs implemented if appropriate.
No contaminants present other than a
surface oil film.
Swale Section Sediment
accumulation
Sediment depth exceeds 2 inches in 10%
of the swale treatment area.
No sediment deposits in grass treatment
area of the bioswale.
Sediment inhibits grass growth over 10%
of swale length.
Grass growth not inhibited by sediment.
Sediment inhibits even spreading of flow. Flow spreads evenly through swale
Erosion/scouring Eroded or scoured swale bottom due to
channelization or high flows.
No eroded or scoured areas in bioswale.
Cause of erosion or scour addressed.
Poor vegetation
coverage
Grass is sparse or bare or eroded patches
occur in more than 10% of the swale
bottom.
Swale has no bare spots and grass is thick
and healthy.
Excessive vegetation
growth
Grass excessively tall (greater than 10
inches), grass is thin or nuisance weeds
and other vegetation have taken over.
Grass is between 3 and 4 inches tall, thick
and healthy. No nuisance vegetation
present.
Excessive shade Grass growth is poor because sunlight
does not reach swale.
Healthy grass growth or swale converted
to a wet bioswale.
Constant baseflow Continuous flow through the swale, even
when it has been dry for weeks or an
eroded, muddy channel has formed in the
swale bottom.
Baseflow removed from swale by a low-
flow pea-gravel drain or bypassed around
the swale.
Standing water Water pools in the swale between storms
or does not drain freely.
Swale freely drains and there is no
standing water in swale between storms.
Channelization Flow concentrates and erodes channel
through swale.
No flow channels in swale.
Flow Spreader Concentrated flow Flow from spreader not uniformly
distributed across entire swale width.
Flows are spread evenly over entire swale
width.
Inlet/Outlet Pipe Sediment
accumulation
Sediment filling 20% or more of the pipe. Inlet/outlet pipes clear of sediment.
Trash and debris Trash and debris accumulated in
inlet/outlet pipes (includes floatables and
non-floatables).
No trash or debris in pipes.
Damaged inlet/outlet
pipe
Cracks wider than ½-inch at the joint of the
inlet/outlet pipes or any evidence of soil
entering at the joints of the inlet/outlet
pipes.
No cracks more than ¼-inch wide at the
joint of the inlet/outlet pipe.
APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR STORMWATER FACILITIES AND ON-SITE BMPS
2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 12/12/2016
A-35
NO. 23 – COALESCING PLATE OIL/WATER SEPARATOR
MAINTENANCE
COMPONENT DEFECT
CONDITION WHEN MAINTENANCE
IS NEEDED
RESULTS EXPECTED WHEN
MAINTENANCE IS PERFORMED
Site Trash and debris Any trash or debris which impairs the
function of the facility.
Trash and debris removed from facility.
Contaminants and
pollution
Floating oil in excess of 1 inch in first
chamber, any oil in other chambers or
other contaminants of any type in any
chamber.
No contaminants present other than a
surface oil film.
Vault Treatment
Area
Sediment
accumulation in the
forebay
Sediment accumulation of 6 inches or
greater in the forebay.
No sediment in the forebay.
Discharge water not
clear
Inspection of discharge water shows
obvious signs of poor water quality –
effluent discharge from vault shows thick
visible sheen.
Repair function of plates so effluent is
clear.
Trash or debris
accumulation
Trash and debris accumulation in vault
(floatables and non-floatables).
Trash and debris removed from vault.
Oil accumulation Oil accumulation that exceeds 1 inch at the
water surface in the in the coalescing plate
chamber.
No visible oil depth on water and
coalescing plates clear of oil.
Coalescing Plates Damaged Plate media broken, deformed, cracked
and/or showing signs of failure.
Replace that portion of media pack or
entire plate pack depending on severity of
failure.
Sediment
accumulation
Any sediment accumulation which
interferes with the operation of the
coalescing plates.
No sediment accumulation interfering with
the coalescing plates.
Vault Structure Damage to wall,
frame, bottom, and/or
top slab
Cracks wider than ½-inch and any
evidence of soil particles entering the
structure through the cracks, or
maintenance inspection personnel
determines that the vault is not structurally
sound.
Vault replaced or repaired to design
specifications.
Baffles damaged Baffles corroding, cracking, warping and/or
showing signs of failure as determined by
maintenance/inspection person.
Repair or replace baffles to specifications.
Ventilation Pipes Plugged ventilation
pipes
Any obstruction to the ventilation pipes. Ventilation pipes are clear.
Shutoff Valve Damaged or
inoperable shutoff
valve
Shutoff valve cannot be opened or closed. Shutoff valve operates normally.
Inlet/Outlet Pipe Sediment
accumulation
Sediment filling 20% or more of the pipe. Inlet/outlet pipes clear of sediment.
Trash and debris Trash and debris accumulated in
inlet/outlet pipes (includes floatables and
non-floatables).
No trash or debris in pipes.
Damaged inlet/outlet
pipe
Cracks wider than ½-inch at the joint of the
inlet/outlet pipes or any evidence of soil
entering at the joints of the inlet/outlet
pipes.
No cracks more than ¼-inch wide at the
joint of the inlet/outlet pipe.
Access Manhole Cover/lid not in place Cover/lid is missing or only partially in
place. Any open manhole requires
immediate maintenance.
Manhole access covered.
Locking mechanism
not working
Mechanism cannot be opened by one
maintenance person with proper tools.
Bolts cannot be seated. Self-locking
cover/lid does not work.
Mechanism opens with proper tools.
APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR STORMWATER FACILITIES AND ON-SITE BMPS
12/12/2016 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual
A-36
NO. 23 – COALESCING PLATE OIL/WATER SEPARATOR
MAINTENANCE
COMPONENT DEFECT
CONDITION WHEN MAINTENANCE
IS NEEDED
RESULTS EXPECTED WHEN
MAINTENANCE IS PERFORMED
Access Manhole
(cont.)
Cover/lid difficult to
remove
One maintenance person cannot remove
cover/lid after applying 80 lbs of lift.
Cover/lid can be removed and reinstalled
by one maintenance person.
Ladder rungs unsafe Missing rungs, misalignment, rust, or
cracks.
Ladder meets design standards. Allows
maintenance person safe access.
Large access
doors/plate
Damaged or difficult
to open
Large access doors or plates cannot be
opened/removed using normal equipment.
Replace or repair access door so it can
opened as designed.
Gaps, doesn't cover
completely
Large access doors not flat and/or access
opening not completely covered.
Doors close flat and cover access opening
completely.
Lifting rings missing,
rusted
Lifting rings not capable of lifting weight of
door or plate.
Lifting rings sufficient to lift or remove door
or plate.
750 Sixth Street South | Kirkland, WA 98033
P 425.822.5242 | f 425.827.8136 | watershedco.com
January 03, 2022
Ashley Nulick
Lars Andersen & Associates, Inc.
Via email: ANulick@larsandersen.com
Phone: (559)978-0845
Re: 901 South Grady Way - Wetland and Stream Delineation
Report
The Watershed Company Reference Number: 211115
Dear Ashley,
On December 06, 2021, Sage Presster and Peter Heltzel, visited the property located at 901 South
Grady Way (parcels #2023059007, 9154600010, and 1723059183) in the City of Renton to
delineate and flag the encumbering boundaries of on-site jurisdictional wetlands and streams.
This letter summarizes the findings of the study and details applicable federal, state, and local
regulations. The following documents are enclosed:
• Delineation Sketch
• Wetland Determination Data Forms
• Wetland Rating Form and Figures
Findings Summary
One depressional wetland (Wetland A) is located in the southern portion of the subject property
and along Rolling Hills Creek. Wetland A is a Category III wetland with a habitat score five
points, requiring a standard buffer of 100 feet in accordance with Renton Municipal Code
(RMC) 4-3-050G.2. Rolling Hills Creek is located along the fence immediately east of the
parking lot. It is a Type-F stream, which requires a standard buffer of 115 feet in accordance
with RMC 4-3-050G.2. Additionally, a 15-foot wide structure setback is required beyond the
wetland and stream buffers per RMC 4-3-050G.2. A summary of the delineated critical areas
and their associated buffers is found below in Table 1.
Appendix L - Wetland and Stream Delineation Report
Wetland and Stream Delineation Report
Lars Andersen & Associates, Inc.
January 03, 2022
Page 2
Table 1. Summary of on-site critical area buffer and building setbacks per RMC 4-3-050G.2.
Feature Name Category/Type Habitat Score Standard Buffer Building Setback
Wetland A III 5 100 feet 15 feet
Rolling Hills Creek Type-F n/a 115 feet 15 feet
Study Area
The study area for this project is defined as the property located at 901 South Grady Way
(parcels #2023059007, 9154600010, and 1723059183) in the City of Renton.
Figure 1. Vicinity map of the study area (source: Google Maps).
Project location
Wetland and Stream Delineation Report
Lars Andersen & Associates, Inc.
January 03, 2022
Page 3
Methods
Public‐domain information on the subject properties was reviewed for this delineation study.
Resources and review findings are presented in Table 2 of the “Findings” section of this letter.
The study area was evaluated for wetlands using methodology from the Corps of Engineers
Wetland 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). Presence or absence of wetlands was
determined on the basis of an examination of vegetation, soils, and hydrology. Wetlands were
classified using the Department of Ecology’s 2014 rating system (Hruby 2014). All observations
were made from within the subject property/study area; adjoining private properties were not
entered.
The subject property and nearby public property was evaluated for streams based on the
presence or absence of an ordinary high water mark (OHWM) as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act, the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 220‐660‐030, the Revised Code
of Washington (RCW) 90.58.030, and guidance documents including Determining the Ordinary
High Water Mark for Shoreline Management Act Compliance in Washington State (Anderson 2016)
and A Guide to Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) Delineation for Non-Perennial Streams in the
Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region of the United States (Mersel 2016).
Assessment of fish use of streams and waterbodies was based on WAC 222-16-031, Interim
Water Typing System. Specifically, morphological and topographic characteristics such as
dimensions, gradient, and natural migration barriers were assessed per WAC criteria.
Characterization of climatic conditions for precipitation in the Wetland Determination Data
Forms were determined using the WETS table methodology (USDA, NRCS 2015). The “Seattle
Tacoma Intl AP” station from 1991‐2020 was used as a source for precipitation data
(http://agacis.rcc‐acis.org/). The WETS table methodology uses climate data from the three
months prior to the site visit month to determine if normal conditions are present in the study
area region.
Findings
The study area is within the Black River drainage basin of the Cedar-Sammamish River
watershed (WRIA 8); Sections 19 and 20 of Township 23 North, Range 05 East of the Public
Land Survey System. The study area is approximately 15.35 acres in size per the King County
Assessor as is currently developed with a warehouse store and parking lot previously occupied
Wetland and Stream Delineation Report
Lars Andersen & Associates, Inc.
January 03, 2022
Page 4
by a Sam’s Club retail store (Figure 2). Several stormwater features (Figure 3) with herbaceous
wetland vegetation dominated by soft rush (Juncus effusus), small-flowered bulrush (Scirpus
microcarpus), and creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens) are located near the southwest
entrance to the study area. The stormwater features appear to capture runoff from the parking
lots and is piped south out of the study area into Wetland A and Stream A per City of Renton
Maps (Figure 4).
Areas east of the pavement are densely vegetated with Himalayan blackberry (Rubus
armeniacus) with a tall retaining wall supporting an off-ramp for I-405 (Figure 5). Stream A is
located at the base of the slope in a 4-foot wide concrete channel, flowing southwest toward
Wetland A and Talbot Rd S. A chain-link fence separates the stream and wetland from the
parking lot. The surrounding land use is categorized by high intensity commercial and urban.
Public-domain information on the subject properties was reviewed for this study and include
the following, as summarized in Table 2.
Table 2. Summary of online mapping and inventory resources.
Resource Summary
USDA NRCS: Web Soil
Survey Urban land mapped throughout the study area.
USFWS: NWI Wetland
Mapper
Freshwater emergent wetland (PEM1C) is mapped immediately south of the
study area. Riverine habitat (R4SBC) is mapped immediately southeast of the
study area. Riverine habitat (R5UBH) is mapped immediately east of the
study area.
WDFW: PHS on the Web Freshwater emergent wetland (PEM1C) is mapped immediately south of the
study area.
WDFW: SalmonScape
An intermittent and ephemeral stream is mapped immediately east of the
study area. Both stream segments do not have documented SalmonScape
species present.
DNR Mapping Tool A Type F stream is mapped immediately east of the study area. A Type N
stream is mapped east of the Sam’s Club warehouse.
King County iMap No wetlands or streams mapped in the study area. Coal mine hazard mapped
in the eastern portion of the study area.
City of Renton Maps
Rolling Hills Creek, a Type-Np stream, is mapped immediately east of the
parking lot of the study area. Puget wetland (Ref #: W-31) mapped
immediately south of the study area.
WETS Climatic Condition Wetter than normal.
Wetland and Stream Delineation Report
Lars Andersen & Associates, Inc.
January 03, 2022
Page 5
Figure 2. Warehouse and large parking lot throughout majority of study area.
Figure 3. Stormwater feature located in southwestern portion of study area.
Wetland and Stream Delineation Report
Lars Andersen & Associates, Inc.
January 03, 2022
Page 6
Figure 4. COR Map illustrating stormwater features and the concrete stream channel.
Figure 5. Dense Himalayan blackberry at the base of I-405.
Wetland and Stream Delineation Report
Lars Andersen & Associates, Inc.
January 03, 2022
Page 7
W etland A
One wetland (Wetland A) was delineated in the study area and is summarized below in Table 3.
Table 3. Wetland A assessment summary.
WETLAND A – Assessment Summary
Location: Located along the southern boundary of the study area.
WRIA / Sub-basin: Cedar-Sammamish River Watershed (WRIA 8) / Black River drainage basin
2014 Western WA
Ecology Rating:
Category III
Standard Buffer Width: 100 ft standard buffer
and 15 ft setback
Wetland Size: Approx. 1.1 acres
Cowardin Classification(s): Palustrine Emergent,
Palustrine Forested
HGM Classification(s): Depression, Riverine
Wetland Data Sheet(s): DP-1
Upland Data Sheet (s): DP-2
Flag Color: Pink- and black-striped
Flag Numbers: A-1 to A-17
Vegetation
Tree stratum: Populus balsamifera, Salix lucida, Alnus rubra
Shrub stratum: Salix sitchensis, Cornus sericea, Rubus armeniacus
Herb stratum: Phalaris arundinacea, Typha latifolia, Athyrium filix-femina, Ranunculus repens
Soils
Soil survey: Urban land
Field data: Depleted Matrix (F3), Sandy Redox (S5)
Hydrology
Source: Stream A, High Water Table
Field data: Saturation (A3), Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3), Geomorphic
Position (D2), FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Wetland Functions
Improving
Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat
Site Potential H M L H M L H M L
Landscape Potential H M L H M L H M L
Value H M L H M L H M L TOTAL
Score Based on Ratings 7 7 5 19
Wetland and Stream Delineation Report
Lars Andersen & Associates, Inc.
January 03, 2022
Page 8
Rolling Hills Creek
Rolling Hills Creek is a stream in the Green River Basin (HUC 171100130305). Rolling Hills
Creek flows into the study area via a 4-foot round concrete pipe underneath I-405 (Figure 6),
originating to the southeast of the study area. The delineated stream segment is 4 feet wide with
a relatively flat gradient of approximately 2%. The channel flows in a 4-foot wide concrete
flume with a flat bottom and vertical sides (Figure 4 and 7). Downstream of the I-405 culvert,
the flume has accumulated streambed sediments comprised of cobble, gravel, and
unconsolidated silt (Figure 8). Several segments of the stream contain overhanging vegetation
of red alder, Pacific willow, Sitka willow, Himalayan blackberry, and red-osier dogwood.
Rolling Hills Creek flows along the encumbering boundary of Wetland A and flows off-site via
a “60-inch corrugated metal pipe” per City of Renton Maps (Figure 4).
Figure 6. Rolling Hills Creek flows into study area via a 4 foot round concrete pipe.
Wetland and Stream Delineation Report
Lars Andersen & Associates, Inc.
January 03, 2022
Page 9
Figure 7. Rolling Hills Creek in the concrete flume.
Figure 8. Natural streambed composition atop the flume bottom, downstream near Wetland A.
Wetland and Stream Delineation Report
Lars Andersen & Associates, Inc.
January 03, 2022
Page 10
Non -wetlands
Areas outside of observed wetlands do not meet criteria for wetland hydrophytic vegetation,
hydric soils, or wetland hydrology. Non-wetland areas include the warehouse, parking lot, and
vegetated slopes in the northeastern portion of the study area. Non-wetland areas dominant
vegetation include black cottonwood, Douglas-fir, big-leaf maple, Pacific wax myrtle,
snowberry, Himalayan blackberry, tall Oregon grape, scotch broom, yarrow, bull thistle,
common catsear, and ornamental shrubs.
Local Regulation s
Wetlands
Wetlands in the City of Renton are regulated under Chapter 4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations of
the RMC. Wetlands in Renton are classified using the 2014 Update to the Western Washington
Wetland Rating System (Publication #14-06-029) (Rating System). According to the RMC,
wetlands are rated as one of four categories based on the Rating System, and wetland buffers
are determined based upon a combination of the wetland category and habitat score. Wetland A
is a Category III wetland with a habitat score of five points and therefore requires a standard
buffer of 100 feet per RMC 4-3-050G.2.
Per RMC 4-3-050G.2.6, “areas that are functionally and effectively disconnected from the
wetland by a permanent road or other substantially developed surface or sufficient width and
with use characteristics such that buffer functions are not provided shall not be counted toward
the minimum buffer unless these areas can feasibly be removed, relocated or restored to
provide better functions.” The buffer of Wetland A consist of a substantially developed surface,
the large parking lot, which buffer functions are not provided. Therefore, the minimum 100 foot
standard buffer of Wetland A does not apply, and it would extend to the edge of the existing
parking lot.
Streams
Streams in the City of Renton are regulated under Chapter 4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations of
RMC. Stream buffer widths are determined based on stream class (Type F, Np, and Ns).
Although City of Renton maps Rollings Hills Creek as a Type Np stream, we conclude this
mapping designation is an error, as described below, and the correct classification is Type F.
According to WAC 222-16-031, potential fish use of streams in Western Washington is inferred
based on physical characteristics where the bankfull channel width is two feet or greater and
slopes are less than or equal to 16% for basins less than or equal to 50 acres in size, or less than
or equal to than 20% for basins greater than 50 acres. Per RMC 4-3-050G.7.a.ii, Type F Streams
Wetland and Stream Delineation Report
Lars Andersen & Associates, Inc.
January 03, 2022
Page 11
are “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.”
Where these physical characteristics lead to a presumption of fish use, absence of actual fish use
can sometimes be established by carrying out a recognized State of Washington protocol
(Washington State Forest Practices Board Manual, Section 13 Guidelines for Determining Fish
Use for the Purpose of Typing Water under WAC 222-16-030, and the Washington Department
of Natural Resource Forest Practices Board Emergency Rules, adopted 11/14/96, updated
07/01/01, 02/2002, et. Seq.). This “Section 13 protocol” typically consists of conducting an
electrofishing survey according to establish methodologies along with review and concurrence
of study methods and timing by WDFW and the Tribes. However, according to the protocol,
“determinations of fish absence using this protocol generally can be applied only to streams
where human-made fish blockages, such as impassable culverts, do not exist below the
proposed survey reach.” And, “Above human-made fish blockages, physical criteria are used to
determine the presumption of fish use unless otherwise approved by the DNR in consultation
with the WDFW, Washington Department of Ecology (DOE), and affected tribes.”
In short, within the project area, the Section 13 protocol would not be applicable due to the
culvert located downstream at Talbot Road South. By default, stream typing must therefore be
based on the physical criteria of stream gradient, stream width, and basin size, as described
above. The rationale, generally, is that artificial barriers may eventually be corrected and so
potential functional habitat should be protected under the same regulations as though it were
occupied in anticipation of access being restored. Type F streams, or potentially fish-bearing
waters, require a standard buffer of 115 feet per RMC 4-3-050G.2.
Although the wetland buffer extends to the parking lot per RMC 4-3-050G.2.6, there are not
similar exemptions for stream buffers in the City of Renton.
Building Setbacks
The City of Renton requires a 15-foot building setback from the edges of all wetland buffers.
Building setbacks may contain landscaping, uncovered decks, building overhangs (if no more
than 18 inches into the setback), and impervious ground surfaces (such as driveways and
patios) provided that such improvements may be subject to water quality regulations and
maximum impervious surface limitations.
Wetland and Stream Delineation Report
Lars Andersen & Associates, Inc.
January 03, 2022
Page 12
Stat e and Federal Regulations
Federal Agencies
Most wetlands and streams are regulated by the Corps under Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act. Any proposed filling, crossing, or other direct impacts to Waters of the U.S., including
wetlands (except isolated wetlands), would require notification and permits from the Corps.
Wetlands A is not isolated due to the hydrological connection to Rolling Hills Creek.
Unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional wetlands are typically required to be compensated
through implementation of an approved mitigation plan. If activities requiring a Corps permits
are proposed, a Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application (JARPA) could be submitted to
obtain authorization.
Federally permitted actions that could affect endangered species may also require a biological
assessment study and consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or the National
Marine Fisheries Service. Compliance with the Endangered Species Act must be demonstrated
for activities within jurisdictional wetlands and the 100‐year floodplain. Application for Corps
permits may also require an individual 401 Water Quality Certification and Coastal Zone
Management Consistency determination from Ecology and a cultural resource study in
accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology)
Similar to the Corps, Ecology, under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, is charged with
reviewing, conditioning, and approving or denying certain federally permitted actions that
result in discharges to state waters. However, Ecology review under the Clean Water Act would
only become necessary if a Section 404 permit from the Corps was issued. However, Ecology
also regulates wetlands, including isolated wetlands, under the Washington Pollution
Prevention and Control Act, but only if direct wetland impacts are proposed. Therefore, if
filling activities are avoided, authorization from Ecology would not be needed.
If filling is proposed, a JARPA may also be submitted to Ecology in order to obtain a Section 401
Water Quality Certification and Coastal Zone Management Consistency Determination. Ecology
permits are either issued concurrently with the Corps permit or within 90 days following the
Corps permit.
In general, neither the Corps nor Ecology regulates wetland and stream buffers, unless direct
impacts are proposed. When direct impacts are proposed, mitigated wetlands and streams may
be required to employ buffers based on Corps and Ecology joint regulatory guidance.
Wetland and Stream Delineation Report
Lars Andersen & Associates, Inc.
January 03, 2022
Page 13
Washington De partment of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Chapter 77.55 of the RCW (the Hydraulic Code) gives WDFW the authority to review,
condition, and approve or deny “any construction activity that will use, divert, obstruct, or
change the bed or flow of state waters.” This provision includes any in‐water work, the crossing
or bridging of any state waters (including repair, replacement or lengthening of culverts) and
can sometimes include stormwater discharge to state waters. If a project meets regulatory
requirements, WDFW will issue a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA).
Through issuance of an HPA, WDFW can also restrict activities to a particular timeframe. Work
is typically restricted to late summer and early fall. However, WDFW has in the past allowed
crossings that don’t involve in‐stream work to occur at any time during the year.
Disclaimer
The information contained in this letter is based on the application of technical guidelines
currently accepted as the best available science and in conjunction with the manuals and criteria
referenced above. All discussions, conclusions and recommendations reflect the best
professional judgment of the author(s) and are based upon information available at the time the
study was conducted. All work was completed within the constraints of budget, scope, and
timing. The findings of this report are subject to verification and agreement by the appropriate
local, state and federal regulatory authorities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is
made.
Please call if you have any questions or if we can provide you with any additional information.
Sincerely,
Sage Presster
Ecologist
Enclosures
Wetland and Stream Delineation Report
Lars Andersen & Associates, Inc.
January 03, 2022
Page 14
References
Anderson, P.S. et al. 2016. Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark for Shoreline
Management Act Compliance in Washington State. (Publication #16-06-029). Olympia,
WA: Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, Washington Department of
Ecology.
Department of Ecology (Ecology). 2018. July 2018 Modifications for Habitat Score Ranges.
Modified from Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates, Western Washington Version.
(Publication #16-06-001). Accessed 8/16/18:
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/parts/1606001part1.pdf.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. “Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,” Technical
Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Hruby, T. 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014
Update. (Publication #14-06-029). Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Ecology.
Lichvar, R.W. and S. M. McColley. 2008. A Guide to Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM)
Delineation for Non-Perennial Streams in the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast
Region of the United States. ERDC/CRREL TR-14-13. Hanover, NH: U.S. Army Engineer
Research and Development Center.
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). ed. J.
S. Wakely, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-3. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army
Engineer Research and Development Center.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2015.
National Engineering Handbook, Part 650 Engineering Field Handbook, Chapter 19
Hydrology Tools for Wetland Identification and Analysis. ed. R. A. Weber. 210-VI-NEH,
Amend. 75. Washington, DC.
Page 1 of 1
Wetland and Stream Delineation Sketch – 901 South Grady Way
Site Address: 901 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 Prepared for: Ashley Nulick; Lars Andersen & Associates, Inc.
Parcel Number: 2023059007, 9154600010, and 1723059183 TWC Ref. No.: 211115
Site Visit Date: December 06, 2021
Note: Field sketch only. Features depicted are approximate and not to scale. Wetland boundaries are marked with pink- and black-striped flags.
Stream boundaries are marked with blue- and white-striped flags. Data points are marked with yellow- and black-striped flags. All observations were
made from within the study area; adjoining private properties were not entered.
DP-2
LEGEND
Wetland Boundary
Delineated Wetland Boundary
Non-Delineated Wetland Boundary
Delineated Stream OHWM
Non-Delineated Stream OHWM
Study Area
Data Point (DP)
Culvert
DP-1
Wetland A
Flags A-1 to A-17
Stream A
Flags WMA-1R to WMA-44R
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
DP - 1
Project/Site: 901 South Grady Way City/County: City of Renton Sampling date: 12-06-2021
Applicant/Owner: Lars Andersen & Associates, Inc. State: WA Sampling Point: DP-1
Investigator(s): S. Presster, P. Heltzel Section, Township, Range: S20, T23N, R5E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Terrace/Streambank Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): <2%
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: - Long: - Datum: -
Soil Map Unit Name: Urban Land 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 on the site? ☒ 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 Soils Present? Yes ☒ No ☐
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☒ No ☐
Remarks: Wetter than normal per WETS methodology. Wetland A in-pit.
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5-m diameter)
Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 1.
2. Total Number of Dominant
Species Across all Strata: 3 (B) 3.
4. Percent of Dominant Species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B) 0 = Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3-m diameter) Prevalence Index worksheet:
1. Rubus armeniacus 40 Y FAC Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
2. OBL species x 1 =
3. FACW species x 2 =
4. FAC species x 3 =
5. FACU species x 4 =
40 = Total Cover UPL species x 5 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1-m diameter) Column Totals: (A) (B)
1. Typha latifolia 40 Y OBL Prevalence Index = B/A = 2. Phalaris arundinacea 60 Y FACW
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. 100 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3-m diameter)
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
Yes ☒ No ☐
1.
2.
0 = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: 0
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM –
Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: DP-1
HYDROLOGY
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 - - - - Silt loam -
4-11 10YR 4/2 80 7.5YR 4/6 20 C M, PL Sandy loam -
11-14 10YR 2/2 95 7.5YR 4/4 5 C M, PL Silt loam -
14-16 10YR 4/3 80 7.5YR 4/6 20 C M, PL Sandy loam -
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Loc: 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) ☐ 2cm Muck (A10)
☐ Histic Epipedon (A2) ☐ Stripped Matrix (S6) ☐ Red Parent Material (TF2)
☐ Black Histic (A3) ☐ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ☐ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
☐ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ☐ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ☐ Other (Explain in Remarks)
☐ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ☒ Depleted Matrix (F3)
☐ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ☐ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present, unless
disturbed or problematic.
☐ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ☐ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
☐ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ☐ Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric soil
present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
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 (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A
& 4B) (B9) ☐ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1,
2, 4A & 4B) ☐ High Water Table (A2)
☒ 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 Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ☐ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
☐ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ☐ Other (explain in remarks) ☐ Frost-Heave Hummocks
☐ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Wetland Hydrology
Present? Yes ☒ No ☐
Surface Water Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): -
Water Table Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): -
Saturation Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Depth (in): 10”
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
DP - 2
Project/Site: 901 South Grady Way City/County: City of Renton Sampling date: 12-06-2021
Applicant/Owner: Lars Andersen & Associates, Inc. State: WA Sampling Point: DP-2
Investigator(s): S. Presster, P. Heltzel Section, Township, Range: S20, T23N, R5E
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): <5%
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: - Long: - Datum: -
Soil Map Unit Name: Urban Land 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 on the site? ☒ 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 Soils Present? Yes ☒ No ☐
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☐ No ☒
Remarks: Wetter than normal per WETS methodology. Wetland A out-pit.
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5-m diameter)
Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A) 1.
2. Total Number of Dominant
Species Across all Strata: 4 (B) 3.
4. Percent of Dominant Species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B) 0 = Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3-m diameter) Prevalence Index worksheet:
1. Rubus armeniacus 40 Y FAC Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
2. OBL species x 1 =
3. FACW species x 2 =
4. FAC species x 3 =
5. FACU species x 4 =
40 = Total Cover UPL species x 5 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1-m diameter) Column Totals: (A) (B)
1. Phalaris arundinacea 20 Y FACW Prevalence Index = B/A = 2. Ranunculus repens 40 Y FAC
3. Poa sp. 40 Y FAC* Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4. ☐ 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5. ☒ 2 – Dominance Test is > 50%
6. ☐ 3 – Prevalence Index is ≤ 3.01
7. ☐ 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. 100 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3-m diameter)
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
Yes ☒ No ☐
1.
2.
0 = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: 0
Remarks: *Presumed FAC.
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM –
Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: DP-2
HYDROLOGY
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 2/2 100 - - - - Silt loam -
6-8 10YR 4/3 85 7.5YR 4/6 15 C M. PL Sandy loam -
8-16 10YR 2/1 60 7.5YR 4/6 5 C M. PL Sandy loam Mixed matrix
8-16 10YR 3/2 30 7.5YR 4/6 5 C M\, PL Sandy loam Mixed matrix
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains . 2Loc: 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) ☐ 2cm Muck (A10)
☐ Histic Epipedon (A2) ☐ Stripped Matrix (S6) ☐ Red Parent Material (TF2)
☐ Black Histic (A3) ☐ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ☐ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
☐ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ☐ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ☐ Other (Explain in Remarks)
☐ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ☐ Depleted Matrix (F3)
☐ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ☒ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present, unless
disturbed or problematic.
☐ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ☐ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
☐ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ☐ Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric soil
present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
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 (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A
& 4B) (B9) ☐ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1,
2, 4A & 4B) ☐ High Water Table (A2)
☐ 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 Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ☐ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
☐ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ☐ Other (explain in remarks) ☐ Frost-Heave Hummocks
☐ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Wetland Hydrology
Present? Yes ☐ No ☒
Surface Water Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): -
Water Table Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): -
Saturation Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): -
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
1
Wetland name or number: Wetland A
RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington
Name of wetland (or ID #): Wetland A Date of site visit: December 6, 2021
Rated by: S. Presster, P. Heltzel Trained by Ecology? ☒Y ☐N Date of training: March 2021
HGM Class used for rating: Depressional Wetland has multiple HGM classes? ☒Y ☐N
NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined).
Source of base aerial photo/map: Google Earth, DOE Water Quality Atlas
OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY III (based on functions ☒ or special characteristics ☐)
1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS
☐ Category I – Total score = 23 - 27
☐ Category II – Total score = 20 - 22
☒ Category III – Total score = 16 - 19
☐ Category IV – Total score = 9 - 15
FUNCTION Improving
Water Quality
Hydrologic Habitat
Circle the appropriate ratings
Site Potential H M L H M L H M L
Landscape Potential H M L H M L H M L
Value H M L H M L H M L TOTAL
Score Based
on Ratings 7 7 5 19
2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland
CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY
Estuarine I II
Wetland of High Conservation Value I
Bog I
Mature Forest I
Old Growth Forest I
Coastal Lagoon I II
Interdunal I II III IV
None of the above ☒
Score for each
function based
on three
ratings
(order of ratings
is not
important)
9 = H,H,H
8 = H,H,M
7 = H,H,L
7 = H,M,M
6 = H,M,L
6 = M,M,M
5 = H,L,L
5 = M,M,L
4 = M,L,L
3 = L,L,L
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
2
Wetland name or number: Wetland A
Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for
Western Washington
Depressional Wetlands
Map of: To answer questions: Figure #
Cowardin plant classes D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4 1
Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2 2
Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1 2
Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) D 2.2, D 5.2 2
Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3 3
1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including
polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat
H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 4
Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2 5
Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3 6
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
3
Wetland name or number: Wetland A
HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington
1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods?
☒NO – go to 2 ☐YES – the wetland class is Tidal Fringe – go to 1.1
1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)?
NO – Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) YES – Freshwater Tidal Fringe
If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it
is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to
score functions for estuarine wetlands.
2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater
and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit.
☒NO – go to 3 ☐YES – The wetland class is Flats
If your wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands.
3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
☐The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any
plants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size;
☐At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m).
☒NO – go to 4 ☐YES – The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe)
4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
☐The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual),
☐The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from
seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks,
☐The water leaves the wetland without being impounded.
☒NO – go to 5 ☐YES – The wetland class is Slope
NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and
shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft
deep).
5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
☐The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that
stream or river,
☐The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years.
For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated.
If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you
probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in
questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8.
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
4
Wetland name or number: Wetland A
☒NO – go to 6 ☐YES – The wetland class is Riverine
NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not
flooding
6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the
surface, at some time during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior
of the wetland.
☐NO – go to 7 ☒YES – The wetland class is Depressional
7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank
flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be
maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural
outlet.
☐NO – go to 8 ☐YES – The wetland class is Depressional
8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM
classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small
stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY
WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT
AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the
appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the
wetland unit being scored.
NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or
more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2
is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the
total area.
HGM classes within the wetland unit
being rated
HGM class to
use in rating
Slope + Riverine Riverine
Slope + Depressional Depressional
Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe
Depressional + Riverine along stream
within boundary of depression
Depressional
Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional
Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine
Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other
class of freshwater wetland
Treat as
ESTUARINE
If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have
more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the
rating.
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
5
Wetland name or number: Wetland A
DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS
Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality
D 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality?
D 1.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland:
☐ Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key) with no surface water leaving it (no outlet).
points = 3
☒ Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet.
points = 2
☐ Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing. points = 1
☐ Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. points = 1
2
D 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff layer) is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions).☐Yes = 4 ☒No = 0 0
D 1.3. Characteristics and distribution of persistent plants (Emergent, Scrub-shrub, and/or Forested Cowardin classes):
☒ Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 95% of area points = 5
☐ Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 1/2 of area points = 3
☐ Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants > 1/10 of area points = 1
☐ Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants < 1/10 of area points = 0
5
D 1.4. Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation:
This is the area that is ponded for at least 2 months. See description in manual.
☐ Area seasonally ponded is > ½ total area of wetland points = 4
☐ Area seasonally ponded is > ¼ total area of wetland points = 2
☒ Area seasonally ponded is < ¼ total area of wetland points = 0
0
Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above 7
Rating of Site Potential If score is: ☐12-16 = H ☒6-11 = M ☐0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page
D 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site?
D 2.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? ☒Yes = 1 ☐No = 0 1
D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? ☒Yes = 1 ☐No = 0 1
D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? ☐Yes = 1 ☒No = 0 0
D 2.4. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in
questions D 2.1-D 2.3? Source: Click here to enter text. ☐Yes = 1 ☒No = 0 0
Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above 2
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: ☐3 or 4 = H ☒1 or 2 = M ☐0 = L Record the rating on the first page
D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society?
D 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine
water that is on the 303(d) list? ☒Yes = 1 ☐No = 0 1
D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list? ☒Yes = 1 ☐No = 0 1
D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality
(answer YES if there is a TMDL for the basin in which the unit is found)? ☒Yes = 2 ☐No = 0 2
Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above 4
Rating of Value If score is: ☒2-4 = H ☐1 = M ☐0 = L Record the rating on the first page
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
6
Wetland name or number: Wetland A
DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS
Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation
D 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion?
D 4.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland:
☐ Wetland is a depression or flat depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet). points = 4
☒ Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently
flowing outlet. points = 2
☐ Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. points = 1
☐ Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing. points = 0
2
D 4.2. Depth of storage during wet periods: Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For wetlands
with no outlet, measure from the surface of permanent water or if dry, the deepest part.
☐ Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet. points = 7
☐ Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet. points = 5
☒ Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet. points = 3
☐ The wetland is a “headwater” wetland. points = 3
☐ Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water. points = 1
☐ Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft (6 in). points = 0
3
D 4.3. Contribution of the wetland to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin
contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself.
☐ The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit. points = 5
☐ The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit. points = 3
☒ The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit. points = 0
☐ Entire wetland is in the Flats class. points = 5
0
Total for D 4 Add the points in the boxes above 5
Rating of Site Potential If score is: ☐12-16 = H ☐6-11 = M ☒0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page
D 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic functions of the site?
D 5.1. Does the wetland receive stormwater discharges? ☒Yes = 1 ☐No = 0 1
D 5.2. Is >10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff? ☒Yes = 1 ☐No = 0 1
D 5.3. Is more than 25% of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses (residential at
>1 residence/ac, urban, commercial, agriculture, etc.)? ☒Yes = 1 ☐No = 0 1
Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above 3
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: ☒3 = H ☐1 or 2 = M ☐0 = L Record the rating on the first page
D 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society?
D 6.1. The unit is in a landscape that has flooding problems. Choose the description that best matches conditions around
the wetland unit being rated. Do not add points. Choose the highest score if more than one condition is met.
The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow down-gradient into areas where flooding has
damaged human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds):
• ☒ Flooding occurs in a sub-basin that is immediately down-gradient of unit. points = 2
• ☐ Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient. points = 1
☐ Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub-basin. points = 1
☐ The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that
the water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood.
Explain why: points = 0
☐There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland. points = 0
2
D 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan?
☐Yes = 2 ☒No = 0 0
Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above 2
Rating of Value If score is: ☒2-4 = H ☐1 = M ☐0 = L Record the rating on the first page
Wetland name or number: Wetland A
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
7
These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes.
HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat
H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat?
H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the
Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold
of ¼ ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked.
☐ Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4
☒ Emergent 3 structures: points = 2
☐ Scrub-shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points = 1
☒ Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0
If the unit has a Forested class, check if:
☒ The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover)
that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon
2
H 1.2. Hydroperiods
Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover
more than 10% of the wetland or ¼ ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods).
☐ Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3
☒ Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2
☐ Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1
☒ Saturated only 1 type present: points = 0
☒ Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland
☐ Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland
☐ Lake Fringe wetland 2 points
☐ Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points
2
H 1.3. Richness of plant species
Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft2.
Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name
the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle
If you counted: ☒ > 19 species points = 2
☐ 5 - 19 species points = 1
☐ < 5 species points = 0
2
H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats
Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or
the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you
have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high.
☐ None = 0 points ☐ Low = 1 point ☒ Moderate = 2 points
All three diagrams in
this row are
☐ HIGH = 3points
2
Wetland name or number: Wetland A
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
8
H 1.5. Special habitat features:
Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points.
☒ Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long).
☒ Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland.
☐ Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) AND/OR overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m)
over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m).
☐ Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree
slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered
where wood is exposed).
☐ At least ¼ ac of thin-stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are
permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians).
☐ Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of
strata).
2
Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above 10
Rating of Site Potential If score is: ☐15-18 = H ☒7-14 = M ☐0-6 = L Record the rating on the first page
H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site?
H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit).
Calculate: % undisturbed habitat + [(%moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] = 0% + [0.4%/2) = 0.2%
If total accessible habitat is:
☐ > 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3
☐ 20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2
☐ 10-19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1
☒ < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0
0
H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland.
Calculate: % undisturbed habitat + [(%moderate and low intensity land uses)/2 = 2.2% + 13.0%/2) = 8.7%
☐ Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3
☐ Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2
☐ Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches points = 1
☒ Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0
0
H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If
☐ > 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (- 2)
☒ ≤ 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0
-2
Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above -2
Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: ☐4-6 = H ☐1-3 = M ☒< 1 = L Record the rating on the first page
H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society?
H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score
that applies to the wetland being rated.
Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2
☐ It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page)
☐ It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists)
☐ It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species
☐ It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources
☐ It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan,
in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan
☒ Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points = 1
☐ Site does not meet any of the criteria above points = 0
1
Rating of Value If score is: ☐2 = H ☐ 1 = M ☐0 = L Record the rating on the first page
Wetland name or number: Wetland A
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
9
WDFW Priority Habitats
Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can
be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington.
177 pp. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/)
Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE: This question is
independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat.
☐ Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha).
☐ Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish
and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report).
☐ Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock.
☐ Old-growth/Mature forests: Old-growth west of Cascade crest – Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a
multi- layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha ) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh
or > 200 years of age. Mature forests – Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover
may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally
less than that found in old-growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest.
☐ Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the
oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 – see web link above).
☒ Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic
and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other.
☐ Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a
wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 – see web link above).
☒ Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to
provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources.
☐ Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore,
and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW
report – see web link on previous page).
☐ Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils,
rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human.
☐ Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation.
☐ Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt,
andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs.
☐ Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to
enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western
Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft
(6 m) long.
Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed
elsewhere.
Wetland name or number: Wetland A
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
10
CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS
Wetland Type
Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met.
Category
SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands
Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands?
☐ The dominant water regime is tidal,
☐ Vegetated, and
☐ With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt ☐Yes –Go to SC 1.1 ☒No= Not an estuarine wetland
SC 1.1. Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area
Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151?
☐Yes = Category I ☒No - Go to SC 1.2
Cat. I
SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions?
☐ The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has
less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are Spartina, see page 25)
☐ At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or
un- mowed grassland.
☐ The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water,
or contiguous freshwater wetlands. ☐Yes = Category I ☒No= Category II
Cat. I
Cat. II
SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV)
SC 2.1. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High
Conservation Value? ☒Yes – Go to SC 2.2 ☐No – Go to SC 2.3
SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value?
http://www.dnr.wa.gov/NHPwetlandviewer ☐Yes = Category I ☒No = Not a WHCV
SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland?
http://file.dnr.wa.gov/publications/amp_nh_wetlands_trs.pdf
☐Yes – Contact WNHP/WDNR and go to SC 2.4 ☒No = Not a WHCV
SC 2.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on
their website? ☐Yes = Category I ☒No = Not a WHCV
Cat. I
SC 3.0. Bogs
Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key
below. If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions.
SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks, that compose 16 in or
more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? ☐Yes – Go to SC 3.3 ☒No – Go to SC 3.2
SC 3.2. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are less than 16 in deep
over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on top of a lake or
pond? ☐Yes – Go to SC 3.3 ☒No = Is not a bog
SC 3.3. Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND at least a 30%
cover of plant species listed in Table 4? ☐Yes = Is a Category I bog ☒No – Go to SC 3.4
NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory, you may substitute that criterion by
measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the
plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog.
SC 3.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar,
western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the
species (or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy?
☐Yes = Is a Category I bog ☒No = Is not a
bog
Cat. I
Wetland name or number: Wetland A
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
11
SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands
Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA
Department of Fish and Wildlife’s forests as priority habitats? If you answer YES you will still need to rate
the wetland based on its functions.
☐ Old-growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi-layered
canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of
age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more.
☐ Mature forests (west of the Cascade Crest): Stands where the largest trees are 80- 200 years old OR
the species that make up the canopy have an average diameter (dbh) exceeding 21 in (53 cm).
☐Yes = Category I ☒No = Not a forested wetland for this section
Cat. I
SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons
Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon?
☐ The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated
from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks
☐ The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5
ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the
bottom)
☐Yes – Go to SC 5.1 ☒No = Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon
SC 5.1. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions?
☐ The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has
less than 20% cover of aggressive, opportunistic plant species (see list of species on p. 100).
☐ At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or
un- mowed grassland.
☐ The wetland is larger than 1/10 ac (4350 ft2)
☐Yes = Category I ☐No = Category II
Cat. I
Cat. II
SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands
Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? If
you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions.
In practical terms that means the following geographic areas:
☐ Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103
☐ Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105
☐ Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109
☐Yes – Go to SC 6.1 ☒No = not an interdunal wetland for rating
SC 6.1. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form (rates H,H,H or H,H,M
for the three aspects of function)? ☐Yes = Category I ☐No – Go to SC 6.2
SC 6.2. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger?
☐Yes = Category II ☐No – Go to SC 6.3
SC 6.3. Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac?
☐Yes = Category III ☐No = Category IV
Cat I
Cat. II
Cat. III
Cat. IV
Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics
If you answered No for all types, enter “Not Applicable” on Summary Form NA
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
12
Wetland name or number: Click here to enter text.
This page left blank intentionally
2014 Ecology Wetland Rating Form Figures
901 S OUTH G RADY W AY
Wetland A (Depressional) ............................................................................................................................. 1
Figure 1. Cowardin plant classes – D1.3, H1.1, H1.4 ................................................................................ 1
Figure 2. Hydroperiods, outlet(s), and 150-ft area – D1.1, D1.4, H1.2, D2.2, D5.2 .................................. 2
Figure 3. Map of the contributing basin – D4.3, D5.3 .............................................................................. 3
Figure 4. Undisturbed habitat and moderate-low intensity land uses within 1 km from wetland edge
including polygon for accessible habitat – H2.1, H2.2, H2.3 .................................................. 4
Figure 5. Screen-capture of 303(d) listed waters in basin – D3.1, D3.2 ................................................... 5
Figure 6. Screen-capture of TMDL map for sub-basin in which unit is found – D3.3 ............................... 6
Page left blank intentionally to allow for duplex printing.
Features depicted are not to scale. Sketches are based on available data and best professional
judgment.
Wetland Figures - 1
WETLAND A (DEPRESSIONAL)
Figure 1. Cowardin plant classes – D1.3, H1.1, H1.4
Features depicted are not to scale. Sketches are based on available data and best professional
judgment.
Wetland Figures - 2
Figure 2. Hydroperiods, outlet(s), and 150-ft area – D1.1, D1.4, H1.2, D2.2, D5.2
Outlet
Features depicted are not to scale. Sketches are based on available data and best professional
judgment.
Wetland Figures - 3
Figure 3. Map of the contributing basin – D4.3, D5.3
Contributing basin
Wetland A
Features depicted are not to scale. Sketches are based on available data and best professional
judgment.
Wetland Figures - 4
Figure 4. Undisturbed habitat and moderate-low intensity land uses within 1 km from wetland edge
including polygon for accessible habitat – H2.1, H2.2, H2.3
Features depicted are not to scale. Sketches are based on available data and best professional
judgment.
Wetland Figures - 5
Figure 5. Screen-capture of 303(d) listed waters in basin – D3.1, D3.2
Wetland A
Features depicted are not to scale. Sketches are based on available data and best professional
judgment.
Wetland Figures - 6
Figure 6. Screen-capture of TMDL map for sub-basin in which unit is found – D3.3
Wetland unit located in the
Black River drainage basin
(HUC = 171100130305)
Terracon Consultants, Inc. 21905 64 th Ave. W, Suite 100 Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043
P (425) 771 3304 F (425) 771 3549 www.terracon.com
LETTER HEAD
December 27, 2021
The Home Depot
2455 Paces Ferry Road, C19
Atlanta, GA 30339
Attn: John R. Foy – Manager/Field Construction
P: (678) 764-2837
E: john_r_foy@homedepot.com
Re: Geotechnical Engineering Report –Addendum Letter No. 1
The Home Depot (WA-Renton)
South Grady Way and Talbot Road
Renton, WA
Terracon Project No. 81195216
Dear Mr. Foy:
This addendum letter serves as an update to the existing geotechnical engineering report which
was developed for the Former Sam’s Club (the existing structure on the site). The report was
developed by Terracon (i.e. formerly Zipper Zeman & Associates; ZZA) and dated December 6,
2002 (see attached). The Home Depot is proposing a renovation of the Former Sam’s Club store
to a Home Depot store. This addendum letter was developed consistent with our proposal dated
July 13, 2021 and supplemental proposal dated November 8, 2021 and is intended to support the
proposed renovation. Presented in this letter are the following:
■ Summary of subsurface conditions observed from the seven (7) soil borings performed in
November and December 2021 as part of our scope of services. These borings were
performed to address geotechnical data gaps identified from review of the existing
subsurface information.
■ Liquefaction hazard analysis results performed using current methods with previously
performed boring logs (ZZA; Terra Associates; GeoEngineers) and seven (7) recently
performed soil borings by Terracon.
■ Considerations for adding piles to the existing building and new piles to building additions.
■ Recommendations for downdrag loads on existing piles as a result of post-liquefaction
settlement and recommendations for downdrag loads on other pile sizes.
■ Recommendations for soil parameters to use in LPile analyses performed by the structural
engineer to assess lateral capacity of existing piles
■ Soil corrosivity
■ Exclusions and Limitations of this addendum letter
■ Conceptual geologic cross sections: A-A’, B-B’, C-C’, and D-D’ that present inferred
transitions between potentially liquefiable and non-liquefiable soil units as well as contact
with underlying bedrock.
■ Exploration plan and location of cross sections.
Geotechnical Engineering Report –Addendum Letter No. 1
The Home Depot (WA-Renton) ■ Renton, WA
December 27, 2021 ■ Terracon Project No. 81195216
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 2
■ Description of subsurface explorations and laboratory testing.
■ Photography log from a site visit performed August 26, 2021.
This addendum letter should be used with the attached geotechnical engineering report. Based
on review of the construction plans and drawings, the existing building (foundation and floor slabs)
is supported by 18-inch diameter augercast piles advanced to 85 feet or founded in at least 2 feet
of bedrock. The augercast pile schedule is presented in the photography log that is attached at
the end of this letter. Floor slabs are supported by grade beams with piles spaced approximately
20 feet. Each column is supported by a pile cap with two piles. Additional single augercast piles
support the grade beams for the floor slab. The allowable pile capacity presented in the plan set
is 75 tons per pile. Photos of a portion of the plan set are included in the attached photography
log.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
In general, the subsurface conditions observed in the recently performed soil borings were
similar to the borings performed in 2002. The exploration locations for the recently performed
soil borings, 2002 soil borings, and soil borings performed by others are presented in the
attached Exploration Plan. A summary of the surface findings are presented in the table below:
Soil
Layer1 Layer Name USCS General Description
Surface Asphalt and concrete ---
■ Asphalt: 4 inch
■ Concrete sidewalk: 5 inch
■ Concrete loading dock: 7½ to 10 inch
12 Fill – Silty Sand SM
■ Dark brown, moist, generally medium dense
with denser and looser zones, frequent
anthropogenic debris, some zones that are
more gravelly, variable organics, some coal
tailings
■ Unit ranges in thickness from 4 to 13 feet below
ground surface (bgs) and was observed
immediately beneath the asphalt and concrete
23 Fill – Coal Tailing ---
■ Dark brown to black, generally fine grained,
moist to wet, highly variable stiffness, variable
organic content, abundant/predominately coal
mine tailings
■ Unit thickness ranges from 2½ to 13½ feet and
is immediately beneath the silty sand fill unit
34 Organic Silt OL, ML, SM
■ Brown to grayish brown, generally organic silt
and silt with interbedded layers of silty sand,
abundant organics, predominately very soft to
Geotechnical Engineering Report –Addendum Letter No. 1
The Home Depot (WA-Renton) ■ Renton, WA
December 27, 2021 ■ Terracon Project No. 81195216
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 3
soft with some medium stiff to stiff zones, zones
of fibrous organics and woody debris
■ Unit thickness ranges from 2½ to 22½ feet and
was generally observed below the fill/coal
tailings
44 Upper Alluvium
SP-SM,
SM, ML,
CL-ML
■ Generally grayish brown, wet, highly variable,
ranges from sand with silt to low plastic silt y
clay, generally loose/soft to medium dense/ stiff
■ Unit was generally observed below the organic
silt unit but was present above the organic silt at
B-2
■ Unit thickness ranges from 10 to 17 feet
54 Lower Alluvium 5
SM, SP-
SM, GP,
GP-SM
■ Grayish brown, wet, variable density from loose
to medium dense with dense to very dense
zones, generally silty sand and sand with gravel
and poorly graded gravel, variable silt content
■ Unit thickness ranges from 10 to 34½ feet
64 Clay/Silt CL, ML
■ Grayish brown to tanish brown, moist, generally
stiff to hard with very soft to soft zones,
generally low plastic silt and clay with variable
sand content
■ Unit was observed immediately beneath the
lower alluvium unit at all locations
72 Sand/Silty Sand SP, SM
■ Dark gray, wet, fine to medium sand, generally
medium dense to very dense with higher density
trending with depth, predominately sand and
silty sand
■ Observed immediately above the sandstone
bedrock unit in all borings except B-7.
■ Thickness ranges from 4 to 33 feet
85 Bedrock --- ■ Weathered sandstone; sandstone
■ Dark gray, very dense/hard
1. This summary is for convenience only. It should be used in conjunction with the geotechnical engineering
report and the entire addendum letter.
2. This unit was encountered at all boring locations.
3. This unit was encountered in B-1, B-2, and B-3. Was observed to be thickest at B-1 and thinnest at B-3.
4. This unit was encountered at all soil borings locations except B-6
5. All borings expect B-4a were terminated in this unit.
The fill, coal tailings, organic silt, and upper alluvium unit are all generally considered
susceptible to liquefaction based on soil composition and densities/stiffnesses inferred from the
in-situ testing results. The lower alluvium unit; however, is variable in density although the soil
compositions are consistent with liquefaction-susceptible soils. In our opinion, the in-situ testing
performed within this soil unit has limited reliability as gravel-sized particles appear to have
artificially inflated some of the results and the soils are not necessarily as dense as testing
Geotechnical Engineering Report –Addendum Letter No. 1
The Home Depot (WA-Renton) ■ Renton, WA
December 27, 2021 ■ Terracon Project No. 81195216
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 4
results would suggest. This conclusion is based on observations made during borehole
advancement. Flowing sands and gravels where commonly encountered once the borehole was
advanced into the lower alluvium unit. This led to challenging drilling conditions including
borehole collapse at location B-4 prompting readvancement of the borehole.
Groundwater
Depth to groundwater noted on the boring logs are inferred from changes in sample moisture
and not by direct measurement. Mud rotary drilling methods were used to advance the
boreholes thereby limiting the ability to perform groundwater measurements. Without the benefit
of a series of monitoring wells with variable screen depths, it is difficult to assess the true
hydrogeologic conditions of the site.
In general, the shallow groundwater which was observed as shallow as 5 feet is suspected to be
perched above the more fine-grained units (silt and clay) within the upper alluvium. However,
this perched water table is expected to extent beyond the site boundaries and will influence the
site much like a regional water table. Below these silt and clay units appears to be a confined
aquifer with the potential for an artesian condition. Further study is necessary to understand the
likelihood of an artesian aquifer.
It should be noted that groundwater level fluctuations occur due to seasonal variations in the
amount of rainfall, runoff and other factors not evident at the time the borings were performed.
Therefore, groundwater levels during construction or at other times in the life of the structure
may be higher or lower than the levels indicated on the boring logs. The possibility of
groundwater level fluctuations should be considered when developing the design and
construction plans for the project.
UPDATED SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS
The existing geotechnical engineering report for the project was originally published while the
International Building Code (IBC) 1997 was the current code. Since that time, IBC 2018 has been
adopted by Washington State, which references ASCE 7-16. This new code introduces different
ground motion parameters than the previous version, including an increase in the peak ground
acceleration (PGA) which is used for liquefaction evaluations. Updated seismic design
parameters are presented in the table below:
Description Value
Site Class F
Site Latitude 47.4727
Site Longitude -122.2061
SS – Short Period Spectral Acceleration, Site Class E 2 1.431 g
Geotechnical Engineering Report –Addendum Letter No. 1
The Home Depot (WA-Renton) ■ Renton, WA
December 27, 2021 ■ Terracon Project No. 81195216
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 5
Description Value
S1 – 1-Second Period Spectral Acceleration, Site Class E 2 0.488 g
PGA - ASCE 7, Peak Ground Acceleration2 0.609 g
FPGA – Peak Ground Acceleration Site Coefficient2 1.1
PGAM – Site-modified peak ground acceleration2 0.67
1. The IBC requires a site profile extending to a depth of 100 feet for seismic site classification. Borings were
performed to the depth range of 50 to 100 feet where blow counts were used to define the site class.
2. These values were obtained using online seismic design maps and tools provided by ATC
(https://hazards.atcouncil.org/).
LIQUEFACTION
The subsurface conditions are described and presented in the geotechnical report. In general,
subsurface conditions consist of fill that includes some compacted structural fill near the surface
underlain by uncompacted fill that includes very loose to loose coal mine tailings, cinders, and
sandstone and shale fill. The uncompacted unit of fill is underlain by alluvial soil consisting of very
loose to loose sand and silty sand, very soft to soft clay, silty clay, clayey silt, organic silt, and
peat. Sandstone bedrock underlies the alluvial soil at depths ranging from 19 to 110 feet below
the ground surface that existed at the time the subsurface explorations were performed. The
bedrock is described as highly weathered but becomes more competent with depth.
Liquefaction was evaluated for select, full-depth borings (i.e. advanced to bedrock) from the
geotechnical report and for the recently performed soil borings using the liquefaction triggering
methods proposed by Idriss & Boulanger (2014). The borings for the geotechnical engineering
report were selected for analysis based on the boring location, depth, and available data. In
general, the liquefiable unit is observed to extend from the water table to denser alluvium or
cohesive soils. In some borings, zones of dense alluvium are present, and liquefaction is not
estimated to trigger. However, these zones do not appear to be continuous between borings.
Liquefaction is assumed to occur no deeper than 60 feet bgs, though soils that exhibit
characteristics that would suggest liquefaction exist deeper than 60 feet. The estimated range of
liquefiable soils and the resulting free-field post-liquefaction settlement for the design level
earthquake is presented in the table below:
Summary of Liquefaction Analysis for Soils Borings performed in 2002
Locations 1
Depth Range of Liquefiable Unit
(feet bgs) 2
Estimated Total Settlement
(inches) 3
B-3 10 to 50 20
B-5 10 to 43 18
B-6 10 to 38 16
B-7 10 to 40; 55 to 60 18
Geotechnical Engineering Report –Addendum Letter No. 1
The Home Depot (WA-Renton) ■ Renton, WA
December 27, 2021 ■ Terracon Project No. 81195216
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 6
Locations 1
Depth Range of Liquefiable Unit
(feet bgs) 2
Estimated Total Settlement
(inches) 3
B-8 10 to 28; 38 to 48 18
B-10 10 to 43; 50 to 56 26
1. Boring performed by ZZA that are presented in geotechnical engineering report.
2. Below existing ground surface (bgs) at the time of the explorations. An average groundwater table of 10 feet
was estimated at the time soil borings were performed.
3. Free-field estimate.
Summary of Potential Liquefiable Soils for Recently Performed Soils Borings
Locations 1
Depth Range of Liquefiable Unit
(feet bgs) 2
Estimated Total Settlement
(inches) 3
B-1 7 to 27 8
B-2 7 to 30; 43 to 48 24
B-3 7 to 60 4 21
B-4 7 to 42 17
B-5 7 to 37 19
B-6 7 to 16 5
B-7 7 to 37 10
1. Boring performed during November and December of 2021.
2. Below existing ground surface (bgs) around the exterior of the building. An average groundwater table of 7
feet was estimated at the time soil borings were performed.
3. Free-field estimate.
4. Lower alluvium unit is expected to liquefy despite higher N-values noted in the boring logs.
Although the borings selected from the geotechnical engineering report were located within the
building footprint and the recently performed borings were around the building perimeter, similar
magnitudes of settlement should be expected for pavement areas. Smaller (but still significant)
earthquakes could result in less settlement than the estimated total liquefaction resulting from the
design earthquake.
Considerations for differential settlement should be made for any areas of the planned
development that are not pile supported. Over a span of 40 feet, we estimate the differential
settlement will be on the order of 3 to 12 inches. The differential settlement limit allowed by the
code for preserving life safety is 4½ inches (per ASCE 7-16, Table 12.13-3). The estimated
differential settlement exceeds the code limit; therefore, mitigation (i.e. pile support) is considered
to be necessary.
Geotechnical Engineering Report –Addendum Letter No. 1
The Home Depot (WA-Renton) ■ Renton, WA
December 27, 2021 ■ Terracon Project No. 81195216
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 7
DEEP FOUNDATIONS
Conceptual Geologic Cross Sections
The recently performed soils boring, as well as existing soil borings from the geotechnical
engineering report and reports from others, were used to generate conceptual geologic cross
sections. The geologic cross sections are intended to conceptually present the extent of
potentially liquefiable soils, non-liquefiable soils, and the sandstone bedrock contact. The cross
sections can be used to evaluate pile stability with other recommendations presented in this
addendum letter. The cross sections are presented at the end of this letter.
Existing Pile Design and Performance Observations
As mentioned previously, the existing building is supported by 18-inch diameter augercast piles
advanced to 85 feet or founded in at least 2 feet of bedrock. Construction documents of as-built
conditions to verify existing pile lengths are not available to Terracon at this time. Based on the
project plan set, these piles are designed with an allowable capacity of 75 tons. This translates to
an allowable end bearing capacity of 85 kips per ft2. A typical factor of safety of 3 is assumed.
Based on our site visit and review of exterior walls, columns, and floor slabs, the building appears
to be in relatively good condition with no areas of significant cracking or structural distress noted
on the exterior walls or floor slabs. We surmise that the existing pile foundation appears to be
performing well for the near 20-year old building. Given this apparent satisfactory performance,
similar pile sizes and capacities could be assumed for additional piles. However, pile installation
within the building may be limited, and alternative pile methods such as segmental torque-down
piles, in addition to augercast piles, should be considered.
Allowable Vertical Pile Capacity for New Piles
We understand that it is likely that new piles will be added to support additional floor slab
loading, and possibly as retrofits to meet more recent design codes. If piles smaller than 18
inches are used for new piles, lower capacities should be assumed. As mentioned previously, a
pile capacity of 75 tons was assumed for the existing, 18 inch auger cast piles. This is the
pile/soil capacity. Structural loading considerations and code provisions may further limit the pile
capacity. For planning purposes, an allowable end bearing capacity of 85 kips per ft2 can be
assumed to estimate vertical pile capacity for alternative sizes. Due to the unique nature of the
installation methods that must be used to install piles within the existing building, we
recommend that a pilot study be performed on various pile sizes to better understand vertical
pile capacity that can be achieved under these unique circumstances.
We recommend that all piles be advanced to bedrock. If the design team elects to terminate
piles above the bedrock contact, load testing should be performed on the piles to verify that the
piles are not bearing in a weaker zone of the Lower Alluvium (Soil Layer 5) or a soft zone of the
Geotechnical Engineering Report –Addendum Letter No. 1
The Home Depot (WA-Renton) ■ Renton, WA
December 27, 2021 ■ Terracon Project No. 81195216
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 8
deeper, Clay/Silt unit (Soil Layer 6). A factor of safety of 2.5 is appropriate for pile subjected to
pile load testing; otherwise a factor of safety of 3.0 should be assumed.
For consideration of earthquake scenarios, the design vertical pile capacities must be reduced
by the appropriate downdrag load resulting from post-liquefaction settlement. Downdrag loads
are presented in the following section. An increase of the allowable vertical pile capacity by a
factor of 1/3 is permissible for evaluation of earthquake scenarios only.
Pile Downdrag for Existing and New Piles
The phenomenon of liquefaction can have a negative impact on pile capacity due to the induced
vertical loading from ground subsidence, or liquefaction-induced settlement. The zone of
liquefaction, as it settles, drags with it the overlying soil overburden. Rather than providing added
vertical capacity via side friction, the overlying non-liquefiable soil and liquefiable soil impart a
load on the pile. The downdrag load; however, is a function of the liquefiable zone thickness,
overburden soil thickness, and soil overburden composition. In general, the soil overburden
thickness is roughly 7 to 10 feet while the composition is relatively variable. For purposes of this
addendum letter, an average condition (thickness and composition) is assumed for estimating the
downdrag load. The table below presents a range of values that can be assumed for structural
analysis of pile capacity:
Depth Range of
Liquefiable Unit
(feet bgs) 1,2
Estimated Downdrag Load per Pile (kips) for Various Pile Diameters 1,2
12 inch 14 inch 16 inch 18 inch
7 to 20 8 11 14 18
7 to 30 15 20 26 33
7 to 40 22 30 40 50
7 to 50 30 41 54 68
7 to 60 38 52 67 85
1. For values between the ranges presented, linearly interpolate.
2. See the attached conceptual geologic cross sections for evaluation of other scenarios.
LATERAL PILE LOADING
The following table lists input values for use in LPILE analyses. LPILE estimates values of kh and
E50 based on strength; however, non-default values of kh should be used where provided,
particularly for the sand strata. Since deflection or a service limit criterion will most likely control
lateral capacity design, no safety/resistance factor is included with the parameters.
Geotechnical Engineering Report –Addendum Letter No. 1
The Home Depot (WA-Renton) ■ Renton, WA
December 27, 2021 ■ Terracon Project No. 81195216
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 9
Material 1
L-Pile Soil
Model
Depth to Bottom of
Stratum bgs (ft) c (psf) 2
2 (pcf)
2,3 ε50 2 K (pci) 2
Fill (above WT) Sand
(Reese) 7 0 30° 120 --- 25
Potentially
Liquefiable Soil
Liquefied
Sand
(Rollins)
see Cross Sections 0 30° 120 --- ---
Non-Liquefiable
Soil
Soft Clay
(Matlock) see Cross Sections 1,200 0 125 0.01 125
Sandstone Weak Rock --- 28,000 --- 145 0.001 1,000
1. See attached Conceptual Geologic Cross Sections at the end of this letter.
2. Definition of Terms:
c: Cohesive intercept
: Internal friction angle,
Moist unit weight
ε50: Non-default E50 strain
K: Horizontal modulus of subgrade reaction
3. Buoyant unit weight values should be used below water table (i.e. less 62.4 pcf)
When piles are used in groups, the lateral capacities of the piles in the second, third, and
subsequent rows of the group should be reduced as compared to the capacity of a single,
independent pile. Guidance for applying p-multiplier factors to the p values in the p-y curves for
each row of pile foundations within a pile group are as follows:
■ Front row: Pm = 0.8;
■ Second row: Pm = 0.4
■ Third and subsequent row: Pm = 0.3.
For the case of a single row of piles supporting a laterally loaded grade beam, group action for
lateral resistance of piles would need to be considered when spacing is less than three pile
diameters (measured center-to-center).
Geotechnical Engineering Report –Addendum Letter No. 1
The Home Depot (WA-Renton) ■ Renton, WA
December 27, 2021 ■ Terracon Project No. 81195216
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 10
CATHODIC PROTECTION OF STEEL PILES
The subsurface conditions consist of coal tailings (fill) and organic silt with zones of high organic
contents. These soils require special considerations for cathodic protection as these soils
present the potential for a corrosive environment. Typical protections include thickened steel
side walls (for pipe-piles) and epoxy coating. We recommend that epoxy coated sections should
be used within the upper 35 feet of piles. Additional testing of archived samples recovered from
the coal tailings and organic silt units can be performed upon request if the design team
requires analytical data for cathodic protection design.
SLAB-ON GRADE
We understand that a lumber canopy, a lumber staging pad, and a garden center will be
constructed along the northwest, northeast, and southwest sides of the building, respectively.
Each of the areas is specifically discussed below:
Lumber Canopy: located nearest to soil boring locations B-8 (ZZA), B-2 (2021) and B-3 (2021).
Within this area of the site exists approximately 10 feet of fill that is underlain by about 10 feet of
very soft Organic Silt. Although our in-situ testing results suggest that the fill unit may have been
well-compacted in this area, the underlying Organic Silt unit is expected to consolidate over time
in response to long-term, sustained loading. We anticipate that the footings of the lumber
canopy will be pile supported with a slab under the canopy. Unless the slab will be pile
supported, it is likely that loss of subgrade support will occur due to settlement and that
significant cracking of the slab will persist as a result. Given the substantial depth to bedrock in
this area (as deep as 113 feet bgs), it may be more economical to design the lumber canopy
slab for short-term loading only (i.e. point-loads, vehicular traffic, etc.) and allow slab
deterioration as a result of long-term settlement to be treated as a maintenance issue and
replace the slab (or sections of the slab) as needed.
Lumber Staging Pad: located nearest to soil boring locations B-1 (GE) and B-13 (GE). This
slab will be around the back of the building and out of the view or use of the public. In this area,
the fill unit is about 7 feet and is underlain by about 7 feet of soft Organic Silt. The depth to
bedrock is roughly 28 feet in this area. Due to the thinner unit of the soft Organic Silt, less
settlement is anticipated than the lumber canopy area; however, an appreciable settlement is
anticipated. Based on discussion with the design team, this pad will be a slab on grade and
concerns for deterioration from long-term settlement will be treated as a maintenance issue.
Garden Center: located nearest to soil borings B-10 (ZZA), B-9 (GE) and B-7 (2021). Within
this area of the site, the fill unit is approximately 17 feet and is underlain by about 10 feet of soft
to medium stiff Organic Silt. Given the thicker unit of fill and apparently stiffer nature of the
Organic Silt, long-term settlement potential is anticipated to be less than that of the lumber
canopy area. Additionally, bedrock is shallow but still at an appreciably deep (about 63 to 76
Geotechnical Engineering Report –Addendum Letter No. 1
The Home Depot (WA-Renton) ■ Renton, WA
December 27, 2021 ■ Terracon Project No. 81195216
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 11
feet bgs). As discussed for the lumber canopy area, it may be more economical to design the
slab for short-term loading only and treat slab deterioration as a maintenance issue and replace
the slab (or sections of the slab) as needed.
For design of exterior slabs under short-term loading, the following subgrade modulus values
can be assumed.
■ Point loads: 320 lbs per in2 per in (pci)
■ Wide-area loads: 175 pci
The values above assume at least two feet of compacted subgrade (i.e. 95% relative
compaction) exists beneath the slab. Terracon recommends that the upper two f eet below the
slab is either removed and replaced with structural fill or reworked, moisture conditioned (if
needed) and re-compacted back in place. Recommendations for Earthwork are provided in the
geotechnical engineering report.
It must be understood that construction over existing fills presents an inherent risk that
deleterious materials or zones of poorly compacted material may be present that lead to erratic,
and unpredictable settlement. This risk cannot be entirely eliminated without full-depth removal
of the fill or the use of deep foundations (structural slab with pile-supported grade beams);
however, the risks can be reduced though partial removal of the fill as presented herein.
CORROSIVITY
The table below lists the results of laboratory soluble sulfate, soluble chloride, electrical resistivity,
and pH testing. The values may be used to estimate potential corrosive characteristics of the on-
site soils in the upper 10 feet with respect to contact with the various underground materials.
Analyte Tested Test Method Test Result
pH AWWA 4500H 7.98
Water Soluble Sulfates (mg/kg) ASTM C1580 182
Sulfides (mg/kg) AWWA 4500-S D No Detect
Chlorides (mg/kg) ASTM D512 75
Red-Ox 1 AWWA 2580 +685
Total Salts (mg/kg) AWWA 2540 1,338
Resistivity (ohm-cm) ASTM G57 1,552
Geotechnical Engineering Report –Addendum Letter No. 1
The Home Depot (WA-Renton) ■ Renton, WA
December 27, 2021 ■ Terracon Project No. 81195216
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 12
Analyte Tested Test Method Test Result
AWWA = American Water Works Association
ASTM = American Society for Testing and Materials
1. Reduction-Oxidation potential (positive values indicates an oxidizing environment)
2. Composite of samples B-3 (S-1, S-2), B-4 (S-1, S-2), B-5 (S-1, S-2) and B-7 (S-1, S-2, S-3)
The above analytical results should be reviewed by the structural engineer for selection of
concrete type. We recommend that the design engineers consult with the manufactures of specific
underground products to determine the need for corrosion protection of buried metal pipes.
EXCLUSIONS
This addendum letter and associated report address geotechnical concerns associated with the
renovation of the Former Sam’s Club to a Home Depot. The residential lots (identified as Outlots
1 and 2 on the Site Plan) are not considered in the development of our recommendations.
Additional study and inclusion of specific recommendations for these developments should be
performed. Please contact Terracon if geotechnical services are desired for these lots.
LIMITATIONS
Our analysis and opinions are based upon our understanding of the project, the geotechnical
conditions in the area, and the data obtained from our site exploration as well as those obtained
by others. Natural variations will occur between exploration point locations or due to the modifying
effects of construction or weather. The nature and extent of such variations may not become
evident until during or after construction. Terracon should be retained as the Geotechnical
Engineer, where noted in this report, to provide observation and testing services during pertinent
construction phases. If variations appear, we can provide further evaluation and supplemental
recommendations. If variations are noted in the absence of our observation and testing services
on-site, we should be immediately notified so that we can provide evaluation and supplemental
recommendations.
Our Scope of Services does not include either specifically or by implication any environmental or
biological (e.g., mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or identification or prevention of
pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for
such contamination or pollution, other studies should be undertaken. We understand that other
consultants are addressing environmental issues or methane gas mitigation issues under
contract to The Home Depot. This addendum letter only considers geotechnical aspects of the
proposed project.
Geotechnical Engineering Report –Addendum Letter No. 1
The Home Depot (WA-Renton) ■ Renton, WA
December 27, 2021 ■ Terracon Project No. 81195216
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 13
Our services and any correspondence or collaboration through this system are intended for the
sole benefit and exclusive use of The Home Depot for specific application to the project discussed
and are accomplished in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices
with no third-party beneficiaries intended. Any third-party access to services or correspondence
is solely for information purposes to support the services provided by Terracon to The Home
Depot. Reliance upon the services and any work product is limited to The Home Depot, and is
not intended for third parties. Any use or reliance of the provided information by third parties is
done solely at their own risk. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made.
Site characteristics as provided are for design purposes and not to estimate construction costs.
Any use of our report in that regard is done at the sole risk of the cost estimator as there may be
variations on the site that are not apparent in the data that could significantly impact construction
costs. Any parties charged with estimating construction costs should seek their own site
characterization for specific purposes to obtain the specific level of detail necessary for costing.
Site safety, and cost estimating including, excavation support, and dewatering
requirements/design are the responsibility of others. If changes in the nature, design, or location
of the project are planned, our conclusions and recommendations shall not be considered valid
unless we review the changes and either verify or modify our conclusions in writing.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions
concerning this letter, or if we may be of further service in the meantime, please contact us.
Sincerely,
Terracon Consultants, Inc.
Zachary L. Koehn, P.E. Dennis R. Stettler, P.E.
Project Engineer Senior Engineering Consultant
Attachments:
■ Conceptual Geologic Cross Sections (A-A’, B-B’, C-C’, D-D’)
■ Exploration Site Plan (includes existing and proposed explorations)
■ Description of Exploration Procedures
■ Exploration Results
■ Supporting Information
■ Photography Log
■ ZZA Geotechnical Engineering Report (2002)
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable
FIGURES
Contents:
Conceptual Geologic Cross Sections (A-A’, B-B’, C-C’, D-D’)
DEPTH BGS (AT TIME OF DRILLING, FEET)-80-70-60-50-40-30-20-10010-90-100-110-120-130-80-70-60-50-40-30-20-10010-90-100-110-120-130DEPTH BGS (AT TIME OF DRILLING, FEET)A'AEXISTINGGRADEBUILDING FOOTPRINTB-15 (GE)B-3 (120')B-14 (GE)B-4a/B-4b (100')B-11 (GE)B-5 (70')B-5 (GE)B-13 (GE)B-1 (GE)B-2 (ZZA)FILLFILLPOTENTIALLY LIQUIFIABLE SOIL NON-LIQUIFIABLE SOILSANDSTONESANDSTONEFILL??SCALE IN FEET03060HORIZONTAL1' = 30'VERTICAL1' = 30'NON-LIQUIFIABLE SOILSANDSTONEPOTENTIALLY LIQUIFIABLE SOILPOTENTIALLY LIQUIFIABLE SOIL???????Project Mngr:Approved By:Checked By:Drawn By:Project No.Scale:Date:File No.CRQVXOWLQJ EQJLQHHUV DQG SFLHQWLVWVFIGURE21905 64th Avenue W, Ste 100Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043FAX. (425) 771-3549PH. (425) 771-3304 CONCEPTUAL GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION A - A'Home Depot - Sam's Club Site901 S Grady WayRenton, Washington181195216AS SHOWN*.dwgDEC 2021ZKTBZKDSLEGEND:BORING NUMBERB-1BORING END DEPTHSTRATAGRAPHIC CONTACTINFERRED TRANSITION FROM POTENTIALLYLIQUEFIABLE TO NON-LIQUEFIABLE SOILS??AVERAGE WATER TABLE (ASSUMED)SANDSTONENOTES:1.PRESENTED ARE POSSIBLE REPRESENTATIONS OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS FOLLOWINGSTRONG GROUND MOTIONS. THE STRATIGRAPHY PRESENTED SHOULD BE CONSIDEREDCONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING ADDITIONAL EXPLORATIONS2.EXTENT OF LIQUEFACTION IS BASED ON ASCE 7-16 CODE AND CURRENT STANDARD OFPRACTICE FOR LIQUEFACTION EVALUATION.
-80-70-60-50-40-30-20-10010-90-100-110-120-130-80-70-60-50-40-30-20-10010-90-100-110-120-130B'BEXISTINGGRADEBUILDING FOOTPRINTB-6 (ZZA)B-3 (ZZA)B-1A (ZZA)B-6 (GE)B-3 (GE)B-8 (ZZA)B-2 (106')FILLFILLFILL???DEPTH BGS (AT TIME OF DRILLING, FEET)
DEPTH BGS (AT TIME OF DRILLING, FEET)SCALE IN FEET03060HORIZONTAL1' = 30'VERTICAL1' = 30'SANDSTONESANDSTONESANDSTONE NON-LIQUIFIABLE SOIL NON-LIQUIFIABLE SOILPOTENTIALLY LIQUIFIABLE SOILPOTENTIALLY LIQUIFIABLE SOILPOTENTIALLY LIQUIFIABLE SOILPOTENTIALLY LIQUIFIABLE SOIL????????????? NON-LIQUIFIABLE SOILProject Mngr:Approved By:Checked By:Drawn By:Project No.Scale:Date:File No.CRQVXOWLQJ EQJLQHHUV DQG SFLHQWLVWVFIGURE21905 64th Avenue W, Ste 100Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043FAX. (425) 771-3549PH. (425) 771-3304CONCEPTUAL GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION B - B'Home Depot - Sam's Club Site901 S Grady WayRenton, Washington281195216AS SHOWN*.dwgDEC 2021ZKTBZKDSLEGEND:BORING NUMBERB-1BORING END DEPTHSTRATAGRAPHIC CONTACT??INFERRED TRANSITION FROM POTENTIALLYLIQUEFIABLE TO NON-LIQUEFIABLE SOILSAVERAGE WATER TABLE (ASSUMED)SANDSTONENOTES:1.PRESENTED ARE POSSIBLE REPRESENTATIONS OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS FOLLOWINGSTRONG GROUND MOTIONS. THE STRATIGRAPHY PRESENTED SHOULD BE CONSIDEREDCONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING ADDITIONAL EXPLORATIONS2.EXTENT OF LIQUEFACTION IS BASED ON ASCE 7-16 CODE AND CURRENT STANDARD OFPRACTICE FOR LIQUEFACTION EVALUATION.
-80-70-60-50-40-30-20-10010-90-100-110-120-130-80-70-60-50-40-30-20-10010-90-100-110-120-130C'CEXISTINGGRADEBUILDING FOOTPRINTB-11 (ZZA)B-2 (106')B-8 (GE)B-10 (ZZA)B-9 (GE)B-5 (ZZA)B-6 (30')B-4 (ZZA)FILLFILLFILL?????????????DEPTH BGS (AT TIME OF DRILLING, FEET)
DEPTH BGS (AT TIME OF DRILLING, FEET)SCALE IN FEET03060HORIZONTAL1' = 30'VERTICAL1' = 30'SANDSTONESANDSTONESANDSTONEPOTENTIALLY LIQUIFIABLE SOILPOTENTIALLY LIQUIFIABLE SOILPOTENTIALLY LIQUIFIABLE SOIL NON-LIQUIFIABLE SOIL NON-LIQUIFIABLE SOIL???Project Mngr:Approved By:Checked By:Drawn By:Project No.Scale:Date:File No.CRQVXOWLQJ EQJLQHHUV DQG SFLHQWLVWVFIGURE21905 64th Avenue W, Ste 100Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043FAX. (425) 771-3549PH. (425) 771-3304CONCEPTUAL GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION C - C'Home Depot - Sam's Club Site901 S Grady WayRenton, Washington381195216AS SHOWN*.dwgDEC 2021ZKTBZKDSLEGEND:BORING NUMBERB-1BORING END DEPTHSTRATAGRAPHIC CONTACT??INFERRED TRANSITION FROM POTENTIALLYLIQUEFIABLE TO NON-LIQUEFIABLE SOILSAVERAGE WATER TABLE (ASSUMED)SANDSTONENOTES:1.PRESENTED ARE POSSIBLE REPRESENTATIONS OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS FOLLOWINGSTRONG GROUND MOTIONS. THE STRATIGRAPHY PRESENTED SHOULD BE CONSIDEREDCONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING ADDITIONAL EXPLORATIONS2.EXTENT OF LIQUEFACTION IS BASED ON ASCE 7-16 CODE AND CURRENT STANDARD OFPRACTICE FOR LIQUEFACTION EVALUATION.
-80-70-60-50-40-30-20-10010-90-100-110-120-130-80-70-60-50-40-30-20-10010-90-100-110-120-130D'DEXISTINGGRADEBUILDING FOOTPRINTSCALE IN FEET04080B-4a/B-4b (100')B-6 (ZZA)HORIZONTAL1' = 40'VERTICAL1' = 40'B-11 (GE)B-7 (ZZA)B-7 (GE)B-5 (ZZA)B-9 (GE)B-7 (70')FILLFILLB-6 (GE)???????????DEPTH BGS (AT TIME OF DRILLING, FEET)
DEPTH BGS (AT TIME OF DRILLING, FEET) NON-LIQUIFIABLE SOILSANDSTONEFILLNON-LIQUIFIABLE SOILSANDSTONESANDSTONESANDSTONEPOTENTIALLY LIQUIFIABLE SOILPOTENTIALLY LIQUIFIABLE SOIL NON-LIQUIFIABLE SOIL?????Project Mngr:Approved By:Checked By:Drawn By:Project No.Scale:Date:File No.CRQVXOWLQJ EQJLQHHUV DQG SFLHQWLVWVFIGURE21905 64th Avenue W, Ste 100Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043FAX. (425) 771-3549PH. (425) 771-3304CONCEPTUAL GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION D - D'Home Depot - Sam's Club Site901 S Grady WayRenton, Washington481195216AS SHOWN*.dwgDEC 2021ZKTBZKDSLEGEND:BORING NUMBERB-1BORING END DEPTHSTRATAGRAPHIC CONTACT??INFERRED TRANSITION FROM POTENTIALLYLIQUEFIABLE TO NON-LIQUEFIABLE SOILSAVERAGE WATER TABLE (ASSUMED)SANDSTONENOTES:1.PRESENTED ARE POSSIBLE REPRESENTATIONS OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS FOLLOWINGSTRONG GROUND MOTIONS. THE STRATIGRAPHY PRESENTED SHOULD BE CONSIDEREDCONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING ADDITIONAL EXPLORATIONS2.EXTENT OF LIQUEFACTION IS BASED ON ASCE 7-16 CODE AND CURRENT STANDARD OFPRACTICE FOR LIQUEFACTION EVALUATION.
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Home Depot (WA-Renton) ■ Renton, WA
December 27, 2021 ■ Terracon Project No. 81195216
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES 1 of 2
EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES
Field Exploration
Boring ID Boring Depth (feet) Location
B-1 100 Southwest corner of building
B-2 106 Southwest side of building
B-3 120 Northwest corner of building
B-4a/B-4b 1 100 North side of building
B-5 67 Loading dock
B-6 17 Southeast corner
B-7 63 South side near store entrance
1. B-4a was terminated at 65 feet due to borehole collapse. The boring was re-advanced in the general vicinity
of B-4b.
Boring Layout and Elevations: Terracon personnel provided the boring layout. Coordinates
were obtained with a handheld GPS unit (estimated horizontal accuracy of about ±10 feet) and
approximate elevations were obtained from Google Earth Imagery. If elevations and a more
precise boring layout are desired, we recommend borings be surveyed.
Subsurface Exploration Procedures: We advanced the borings with a truck-mounted drill rig
using mud rotary drilling methods. Four samples were obtained in the upper 10 feet of each boring
and at intervals of 5 feet thereafter. In the thin-walled tube sampling procedure, a thin-walled,
seamless steel tube with a sharp cutting edge was pushed hydraulically into the soil to obtain a
relatively undisturbed sample. In the split-barrel sampling procedure, a standard 2-inch outer
diameter split-barrel sampling spoon was driven into the ground by a 140-pound automatic hammer
falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows required to advance the sampling spoon the
last 12 inches of a normal 18-inch penetration is recorded as the Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
resistance value. The SPT resistance values, also referred to as N-values, are indicated on the
boring logs at the test depths. Due to the use of mud rotary methods, observed and recorded
groundwater levels were based on inferred changes in sample moisture. Borings were backfilled
with bentonite chips following completion. Pavements were patched with pre-mixed concrete and
liquid black dye, as appropriate.
The sampling depths, penetration distances, and other sampling information was recorded on the
field boring logs. The samples were placed in appropriate containers and taken to our soil laboratory
for testing and classification by a Geotechnical Engineer. Our exploration team prepared field
boring logs as part of the drilling operations. These field logs included visual classifications of the
materials encountered during drilling and our interpretation of the subsurface conditions between
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Home Depot (WA-Renton) ■ Renton, WA
December 27, 2021 ■ Terracon Project No. 81195216
Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES 2 of 2
samples. Final boring logs were prepared from the field logs. The final boring logs represent the
Geotechnical Engineer's interpretation of the field logs and include modifications based on
observations and tests of the samples in our laboratory.
Laboratory Testing
The project engineer reviewed the field data and assigned laboratory tests to understand the
engineering properties of the various soil strata, as necessary, for this project. Procedural
standards noted below are for reference to methodology in general. In some cases, variations to
methods were applied because of local practice or professional judgment. Standards noted below
include reference to other, related standards. Such references are not necessarily applicable to
describe the specific test performed.
■ ASTM D2216 Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture)
Content of Soil and Rock by Mass
■ ASTM D4318 Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of
Soils
■ ASTM D422 Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils
■ ASTM D2166/D2166M Standard Test Method for Unconfined Compressive Strength of
Cohesive Soil
■ ASTM D2974 Standard Test Method for Determining the W ater (Moisture) Content, Ash
Content, and Organic Material of Peat and Other Organic Soils
The laboratory testing program often included examination of soil samples by an engineer. Based
on the material’s texture and plasticity, we described and classified the soil samples in accordance
with the Unified Soil Classification System.
EXPLORATION PLAN
Home Depot (WA-Renton) ■ Renton, WA
December 27, 2021 ■ Terracon Project No. 81195216
Note to Preparer: This is a large table with outside borders. Just click inside the table
above this text box, then paste your GIS Toolbox image.
When paragraph markers are turned on you may notice a line of hidden text above and
outside the table – please leave that alone. Limit editing to inside the table.
The line at the bottom about the general location is a separate table line. You can edit
it as desired, but try to keep to a single line of text to avoid reformatting the page.
MAP 2 PORTRAIT
DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES MAP PROVIDED BY MICROSOFT BING MAPS
EXPLORATION RESULTS
Contents:
Boring Logs (B-1 through B-7)
Atterberg Limits
Grain Size Distribution
13-11-12
N=23
5-5-5
N=10
1-3-5
N=8
1-0-0
N=0
0-0-3
N=3
1-4-4
N=8
1-2-4
N=6
5-9-11
N=20
63.6
41.4
13.3
35-28-7
CONCRETE, ~5'' concrete
FILL - SILTY SAND (SM), dark brown, moist, medium dense
@S-1: with coal tailings
PID @S-1: 1.2 ppm
FILL - COAL TAILING , with organics, black, moist, medium
stiff to stiff
@S-2, with orange cinders
PID @ S-2: 2.6 ppm
wet, @S-3: O.C = 25.4%
PID @ S-3: 2.0 ppm
transitions to very soft to soft
PID @ S-4: 2.2 ppm
PID @ S-5: 1.4 ppm
ORGANIC SILT (OL), with abundant organics, fine grained,
brown, moist, medium stiff
SILT (ML), low plasticity, grayish brown, moist, medium stiff
increase in sand content, SILT with sand
SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM), fine grained, grayish
brown, wet, medium dense, possible artesian condition, flowing
sands and gravels during borehole advancement
@32' driller notes increasing in gravel content
0.4
4.5
18.0
20.5
30.5
30.5+/-
26.5+/-
13+/-
10.5+/-
0.5+/-
10
10
18
14
3
9
18
12
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
S-5
S-6
S-7
S-8 14
Hammer Type: Automatic (ETR=96%)Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.THIS BORING LOG IS NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. GEO SMART LOG-NO WELL 81195216 HOME DEPOT - SAM'S CLUB_122421.GPJ TERRACON_DATATEMPLATE.GDT 12/23/21DEPTH (Ft.)5
10
15
20
25
30
35 WATER LEVELOBSERVATIONSFIELD TESTRESULTSWATERCONTENT (%)LL-PL-PI
ATTERBERG
LIMITSLOCATIONSee Exploration Plan
Latitude: 47.4729° Longitude: -122.2067°GRAPHIC LOGDEPTH ELEVATION (Ft.)
Approximate Surface Elev.: 31 (Ft.) +/-
Page 1 of 3
Advancement Method:
MUD ROTARY
Abandonment Method:
Boring backfilled with bentonite
Surface capped with concrete
Notes:
Project No.: 81195216
Drill Rig: Track Mounted Rig No. 129
BORING LOG NO. B-1
Home Depot USA IncCLIENT:
Atlanta, GA
Driller: HOLOCENE
Boring Completed: 11-30-2021
PROJECT: Home Depot - Sam's Club Site
Elevations were interpolated from Google Earth.
See Exploration and Testing Procedures for a
description of field and laboratory procedures used
and additional data (If any).
See Supporting Information for explanation of
symbols and abbreviations.
South Grady Way and Talbot Road
Renton, WA
SITE:
Boring Started: 11-30-2021
21905 64th Ave W, Ste 100
Mountlake Terrace, WA
While sampling
While sampling
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS RECOVERY (In.)SAMPLE IDPERCENT FINESSAMPLE TYPE
42-50/6"
N=50/6''
24-21-27
N=48
14-12-19
N=31
31-38-41
N=79
0-41-46
N=87
12-13-16
N=29
10.2
SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM), fine grained, grayish
brown, wet, medium dense, possible artesian condition, flowing
sands and gravels during borehole advancement (continued)
@S-9: rock fragments, blow counts might be over stated,
transitions to medium-coarse grained
@S-10: rock fragments, blow counts might be over stated,
decrease in silt content,
POORLY GRADED GRAVEL (GP), with sand, trace silt,
subangular to angular, grayish brown, very dense
@S-12: rock fragments, blow counts might be over stated
@S-13: rock fragments, blow counts might be over stated
@S-14: rock fragments, blow counts might be over stated,
medium dense
LEAN CLAY (CL), medium plasticity, gray, moist, medium stiff
47.5
65.0
-16.5+/-
-34+/-
4
6
0
11
8
1
S-9
S-10
S-11
S-12
S-13
S-14
4
Hammer Type: Automatic (ETR=96%)Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.THIS BORING LOG IS NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. GEO SMART LOG-NO WELL 81195216 HOME DEPOT - SAM'S CLUB_122421.GPJ TERRACON_DATATEMPLATE.GDT 12/23/21DEPTH (Ft.)40
45
50
55
60
65
70 WATER LEVELOBSERVATIONSFIELD TESTRESULTSWATERCONTENT (%)LL-PL-PI
ATTERBERG
LIMITSLOCATIONSee Exploration Plan
Latitude: 47.4729° Longitude: -122.2067°GRAPHIC LOGDEPTH ELEVATION (Ft.)
Approximate Surface Elev.: 31 (Ft.) +/-
Page 2 of 3
Advancement Method:
MUD ROTARY
Abandonment Method:
Boring backfilled with bentonite
Surface capped with concrete
Notes:
Project No.: 81195216
Drill Rig: Track Mounted Rig No. 129
BORING LOG NO. B-1
Home Depot USA IncCLIENT:
Atlanta, GA
Driller: HOLOCENE
Boring Completed: 11-30-2021
PROJECT: Home Depot - Sam's Club Site
Elevations were interpolated from Google Earth.
See Exploration and Testing Procedures for a
description of field and laboratory procedures used
and additional data (If any).
See Supporting Information for explanation of
symbols and abbreviations.
South Grady Way and Talbot Road
Renton, WA
SITE:
Boring Started: 11-30-2021
21905 64th Ave W, Ste 100
Mountlake Terrace, WA
While sampling
While sampling
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS RECOVERY (In.)SAMPLE IDPERCENT FINESSAMPLE TYPE
7-5-3
N=8
16-13-15
N=28
34-29-43
N=72
50/4"
39.8 35-21-14LEAN CLAY (CL), medium plasticity, gray, moist, medium stiff
(continued)
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), trace silt, medium grained,
grayish brown, wet, medium dense
gray, very dense
@97' driller notes sandstone
SANDSTONE, fine grained, light gray, damp, very dense,
highly weathered
Boring Terminated at 100.3 Feet
75.0
97.0
100.3
-44+/-
-66+/-
-69.5+/-
18
14
15
1
S-15
S-16
S-17
S-18
Hammer Type: Automatic (ETR=96%)Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.THIS BORING LOG IS NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. GEO SMART LOG-NO WELL 81195216 HOME DEPOT - SAM'S CLUB_122421.GPJ TERRACON_DATATEMPLATE.GDT 12/23/21DEPTH (Ft.)75
80
85
90
95
100 WATER LEVELOBSERVATIONSFIELD TESTRESULTSWATERCONTENT (%)LL-PL-PI
ATTERBERG
LIMITSLOCATIONSee Exploration Plan
Latitude: 47.4729° Longitude: -122.2067°GRAPHIC LOGDEPTH ELEVATION (Ft.)
Approximate Surface Elev.: 31 (Ft.) +/-
Page 3 of 3
Advancement Method:
MUD ROTARY
Abandonment Method:
Boring backfilled with bentonite
Surface capped with concrete
Notes:
Project No.: 81195216
Drill Rig: Track Mounted Rig No. 129
BORING LOG NO. B-1
Home Depot USA IncCLIENT:
Atlanta, GA
Driller: HOLOCENE
Boring Completed: 11-30-2021
PROJECT: Home Depot - Sam's Club Site
Elevations were interpolated from Google Earth.
See Exploration and Testing Procedures for a
description of field and laboratory procedures used
and additional data (If any).
See Supporting Information for explanation of
symbols and abbreviations.
South Grady Way and Talbot Road
Renton, WA
SITE:
Boring Started: 11-30-2021
21905 64th Ave W, Ste 100
Mountlake Terrace, WA
While sampling
While sampling
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS RECOVERY (In.)SAMPLE IDPERCENT FINESSAMPLE TYPE
15-17-11
N=28
9-15-17
N=32
7-6-8
N=14
5-7-6
N=13
0-3-3
N=6
0-1-3
N=4
3-6-5
N=11
2-1-2
N=3
29-23-29
N=52
30.0
42.9
71.9
26-23-3
ASPHALT, ~4" asphalt
FILL - SILTY SAND (SM), trace gravel, fine grained, dark
brown, moist, medium dense to dense
@S-1: with coal tailings and orange cinders
PID @ S-1: 1.0 ppm
@S-2: rock fragments, blow counts may be overstated, with
sandstone fragments
PID @ S-2: 1.0 ppm
FILL - COAL TAILINGS , with organics, black, moist, stiff
@ S-3: trace orange cinders
PID @ S-3: 1.2 ppm
wet, @ S-4: trace clay
PID @ S-4: 4.4 ppm
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM), fine to
medium grained, grayish brown, moist, loose
SILT WITH SAND (ML), low to nonplastic, grayish brown, wet,
soft, @ S-6: with 1'' to 4" lenses of silty sand
ORGANIC SILT (OL), with organics, nonplastic, brown to
grayish brown, moist, soft
@ S-8: with lenses of sand with silt, O.C = 10.2%
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL
(SP-SM), coarse grained, grayish brown, wet, dense to very
dense
0.3
7.0
12.5
18.5
22.5
33.0
30.5+/-
24+/-
18.5+/-
12.5+/-
8.5+/-
-2+/-
14
12
12
14
18
15
12
16
9
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
S-5
S-6
S-7
S-8
S-9
8
Hammer Type: Automatic (ETR=96%)Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.THIS BORING LOG IS NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. GEO SMART LOG-NO WELL 81195216 HOME DEPOT - SAM'S CLUB_122421.GPJ TERRACON_DATATEMPLATE.GDT 12/23/21DEPTH (Ft.)5
10
15
20
25
30
35 WATER LEVELOBSERVATIONSFIELD TESTRESULTSWATERCONTENT (%)LL-PL-PI
ATTERBERG
LIMITSLOCATIONSee Exploration Plan
Latitude: 47.4732° Longitude: -122.2065°GRAPHIC LOGDEPTH ELEVATION (Ft.)
Approximate Surface Elev.: 31 (Ft.) +/-
Page 1 of 3
Advancement Method:
MUD ROTARY
Abandonment Method:
Boring backfilled with bentonite
Surface capped with asphalt
Notes:
Project No.: 81195216
Drill Rig: Track Mounted Rig No. 129
BORING LOG NO. B-2
Home Depot USA IncCLIENT:
Atlanta, GA
Driller: HOLOCENE
Boring Completed: 12-01-2021
PROJECT: Home Depot - Sam's Club Site
Elevations were interpolated from Google Earth.
See Exploration and Testing Procedures for a
description of field and laboratory procedures used
and additional data (If any).
See Supporting Information for explanation of
symbols and abbreviations.
South Grady Way and Talbot Road
Renton, WA
SITE:
Boring Started: 12-01-2021
21905 64th Ave W, Ste 100
Mountlake Terrace, WA
While sampling
While sampling
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS RECOVERY (In.)SAMPLE IDPERCENT FINESSAMPLE TYPE
29-21-27
N=48
19-16-11
N=27
19-27-26
N=53
26-23-22
N=45
7-9-16
N=25
11.8
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL
(SP-SM), coarse grained, grayish brown, wet, dense to very
dense (continued)
@S-10: increase in gravel content, poorly graded GRAVEL with
silt and sand, coarse grained, subangular to angular, brown
medium dense
@S-12, rock fragments, blow counts may be overstated
@S-13, rock fragments, blow counts may be overstated
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), grayish brown, wet, medium
dense
68.0 -37+/-
5
10
4
5
18
S-10
S-11
S-12
S-13
S-14
7
Hammer Type: Automatic (ETR=96%)Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.THIS BORING LOG IS NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. GEO SMART LOG-NO WELL 81195216 HOME DEPOT - SAM'S CLUB_122421.GPJ TERRACON_DATATEMPLATE.GDT 12/23/21DEPTH (Ft.)40
45
50
55
60
65
70 WATER LEVELOBSERVATIONSFIELD TESTRESULTSWATERCONTENT (%)LL-PL-PI
ATTERBERG
LIMITSLOCATIONSee Exploration Plan
Latitude: 47.4732° Longitude: -122.2065°GRAPHIC LOGDEPTH ELEVATION (Ft.)
Approximate Surface Elev.: 31 (Ft.) +/-
Page 2 of 3
Advancement Method:
MUD ROTARY
Abandonment Method:
Boring backfilled with bentonite
Surface capped with asphalt
Notes:
Project No.: 81195216
Drill Rig: Track Mounted Rig No. 129
BORING LOG NO. B-2
Home Depot USA IncCLIENT:
Atlanta, GA
Driller: HOLOCENE
Boring Completed: 12-01-2021
PROJECT: Home Depot - Sam's Club Site
Elevations were interpolated from Google Earth.
See Exploration and Testing Procedures for a
description of field and laboratory procedures used
and additional data (If any).
See Supporting Information for explanation of
symbols and abbreviations.
South Grady Way and Talbot Road
Renton, WA
SITE:
Boring Started: 12-01-2021
21905 64th Ave W, Ste 100
Mountlake Terrace, WA
While sampling
While sampling
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS RECOVERY (In.)SAMPLE IDPERCENT FINESSAMPLE TYPE
39-50/3"
N=50/3"
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), grayish brown, wet, medium
dense (continued)
@95' driller notes sandstone
SANDSTONE, trace gravel, fine grained, dark gray, damp, very
dense, highly weathered
Boring Terminated at 105.8 Feet
95.0
105.8
-64+/-
-75+/-4 S-15
Hammer Type: Automatic (ETR=96%)Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.THIS BORING LOG IS NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. GEO SMART LOG-NO WELL 81195216 HOME DEPOT - SAM'S CLUB_122421.GPJ TERRACON_DATATEMPLATE.GDT 12/23/21DEPTH (Ft.)75
80
85
90
95
100
105 WATER LEVELOBSERVATIONSFIELD TESTRESULTSWATERCONTENT (%)LL-PL-PI
ATTERBERG
LIMITSLOCATIONSee Exploration Plan
Latitude: 47.4732° Longitude: -122.2065°GRAPHIC LOGDEPTH ELEVATION (Ft.)
Approximate Surface Elev.: 31 (Ft.) +/-
Page 3 of 3
Advancement Method:
MUD ROTARY
Abandonment Method:
Boring backfilled with bentonite
Surface capped with asphalt
Notes:
Project No.: 81195216
Drill Rig: Track Mounted Rig No. 129
BORING LOG NO. B-2
Home Depot USA IncCLIENT:
Atlanta, GA
Driller: HOLOCENE
Boring Completed: 12-01-2021
PROJECT: Home Depot - Sam's Club Site
Elevations were interpolated from Google Earth.
See Exploration and Testing Procedures for a
description of field and laboratory procedures used
and additional data (If any).
See Supporting Information for explanation of
symbols and abbreviations.
South Grady Way and Talbot Road
Renton, WA
SITE:
Boring Started: 12-01-2021
21905 64th Ave W, Ste 100
Mountlake Terrace, WA
While sampling
While sampling
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS RECOVERY (In.)SAMPLE IDPERCENT FINESSAMPLE TYPE
14-50/4"
N=50/4''
9-7-11
N=18
9-11-11
N=22
1-0-0
N=0
0-0-0
N=0
11-16-7
N=23
1-4-1
N=5
3-12-13
N=25
61.3
22.1
35.5
20.6
48-37-11
ASPHALT, ~4" asphalt
FILL - SILTY SAND (SM), with coal tailing, dark brown, moist,
very dense
@S-1: rock fragments, blow counts may be over stated, with
orange cinders
PID @ S-1: 2.3 ppm
with gravel, coarse grained, wet,
PID @S-2: 1.3 ppm
FILL - COAL TAILINGS , fine grained, dark brown to black,
wet, very stiff
PID @S-3: 1.5 ppm
ORGANIC SILT (OL), with sand, abundant organics and wood
debris, dark brown to black, wet, very soft
trace gravel,
PID @S-4: 2.0 ppm
grayish brown, decrease in sand content, SILT
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium grained, grayish brown,
wet, loose to medium dense, grain size increasing with depth
@ S-8: trace organics, gravel content increasing with depth,
decrease in silt content
0.3
7.0
9.5
19.5
30.5+/-
24+/-
21.5+/-
11.5+/-
9
17
12
12
18
24
12
12
15
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
S-5
ST-1
S-6
S-7
S-8
48
32
12
Hammer Type: Automatic (ETR=96%)Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.THIS BORING LOG IS NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. GEO SMART LOG-NO WELL 81195216 HOME DEPOT - SAM'S CLUB_122421.GPJ TERRACON_DATATEMPLATE.GDT 12/23/21DEPTH (Ft.)5
10
15
20
25
30
35 WATER LEVELOBSERVATIONSFIELD TESTRESULTSWATERCONTENT (%)LL-PL-PI
ATTERBERG
LIMITSLOCATIONSee Exploration Plan
Latitude: 47.4736° Longitude: -122.2063°GRAPHIC LOGDEPTH ELEVATION (Ft.)
Approximate Surface Elev.: 31 (Ft.) +/-
Page 1 of 4
Advancement Method:
MUD ROTARY
Abandonment Method:
Boring backfilled with bentonite
Surface capped with asphalt
Notes:
Project No.: 81195216
Drill Rig: Track Mounted Rig No. 129
BORING LOG NO. B-3
Home Depot USA IncCLIENT:
Atlanta, GA
Driller: HOLOCENE
Boring Completed: 12-02-2021
PROJECT: Home Depot - Sam's Club Site
Elevations were interpolated from Google Earth.
See Exploration and Testing Procedures for a
description of field and laboratory procedures used
and additional data (If any).
See Supporting Information for explanation of
symbols and abbreviations.
South Grady Way and Talbot Road
Renton, WA
SITE:
Boring Started: 12-01-2021
21905 64th Ave W, Ste 100
Mountlake Terrace, WA
While sampling
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS RECOVERY (In.)SAMPLE IDPERCENT FINESSAMPLE TYPE
20-17-15
N=32
20-19-20
N=39
5-5-13
N=18
8-6-5
N=11
36-27-26
N=53
6-1-1
N=2
22-41-34
N=75
28.3
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium grained, grayish brown,
wet, loose to medium dense, grain size increasing with depth
(continued)
with gravel, coarse grained
POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SILT AND SAND
(GP-GM), coarse grained, subrounded to subangular, grayish
brown, wet, dense
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), fine to medium grained,
grayish brown, wet, medium dense
POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SILT AND SAND
(GP-GM), coarse grained, subangular to angular, grayish
brown, wet, very dense
@ S-13: rock fragments, blow counts may be overstated
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), fine to medium grained,
grayish brown, wet, very loose
POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SILT AND SAND
(GP-GM), coarse grained, subrounded to subangular, grayish
brown, wet, very dense
SILT WITH SAND (ML), fine grained, low to nonplastic, grayish
brown, moist, hard
37.5
42.5
52.5
57.5
62.5
67.5
-6.5+/-
-11.5+/-
-21.5+/-
-26.5+/-
-31.5+/-
-36.5+/-
8
7
0
9
7
1
7
S-9
S-10
S-11
S-12
S-13
S-14
S-15
10
Hammer Type: Automatic (ETR=96%)Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.THIS BORING LOG IS NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. GEO SMART LOG-NO WELL 81195216 HOME DEPOT - SAM'S CLUB_122421.GPJ TERRACON_DATATEMPLATE.GDT 12/23/21DEPTH (Ft.)40
45
50
55
60
65
70 WATER LEVELOBSERVATIONSFIELD TESTRESULTSWATERCONTENT (%)LL-PL-PI
ATTERBERG
LIMITSLOCATIONSee Exploration Plan
Latitude: 47.4736° Longitude: -122.2063°GRAPHIC LOGDEPTH ELEVATION (Ft.)
Approximate Surface Elev.: 31 (Ft.) +/-
Page 2 of 4
Advancement Method:
MUD ROTARY
Abandonment Method:
Boring backfilled with bentonite
Surface capped with asphalt
Notes:
Project No.: 81195216
Drill Rig: Track Mounted Rig No. 129
BORING LOG NO. B-3
Home Depot USA IncCLIENT:
Atlanta, GA
Driller: HOLOCENE
Boring Completed: 12-02-2021
PROJECT: Home Depot - Sam's Club Site
Elevations were interpolated from Google Earth.
See Exploration and Testing Procedures for a
description of field and laboratory procedures used
and additional data (If any).
See Supporting Information for explanation of
symbols and abbreviations.
South Grady Way and Talbot Road
Renton, WA
SITE:
Boring Started: 12-01-2021
21905 64th Ave W, Ste 100
Mountlake Terrace, WA
While sampling
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS RECOVERY (In.)SAMPLE IDPERCENT FINESSAMPLE TYPE
8-17-21
N=38
1-0-0
N=0
9-8-11
N=19
22-25-19
N=44
25-27-22
N=49
28-31-33
N=64
41.9 37-20-17
SILT WITH SAND (ML), fine grained, low to nonplastic, grayish
brown, moist, hard (continued)
@ S-16: with interbedded sand and clay
LEAN CLAY (CL), fine grained, medium plasticity, grayish tan
to gray, moist, very soft, interbedded with fine grain poorly graded
sand
wet, very stiff
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), trace silt, fine to medium
grained, dark gray, wet, dense to very dense
@S-21: trace brown silty sand
72.5
80.0
-41.5+/-
-49+/-
13
18
0
18
3
14
12
S-16
S-17
ST-2
S-18
S-19
S-20
S-21
Hammer Type: Automatic (ETR=96%)Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.THIS BORING LOG IS NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. GEO SMART LOG-NO WELL 81195216 HOME DEPOT - SAM'S CLUB_122421.GPJ TERRACON_DATATEMPLATE.GDT 12/23/21DEPTH (Ft.)75
80
85
90
95
100
105 WATER LEVELOBSERVATIONSFIELD TESTRESULTSWATERCONTENT (%)LL-PL-PI
ATTERBERG
LIMITSLOCATIONSee Exploration Plan
Latitude: 47.4736° Longitude: -122.2063°GRAPHIC LOGDEPTH ELEVATION (Ft.)
Approximate Surface Elev.: 31 (Ft.) +/-
Page 3 of 4
Advancement Method:
MUD ROTARY
Abandonment Method:
Boring backfilled with bentonite
Surface capped with asphalt
Notes:
Project No.: 81195216
Drill Rig: Track Mounted Rig No. 129
BORING LOG NO. B-3
Home Depot USA IncCLIENT:
Atlanta, GA
Driller: HOLOCENE
Boring Completed: 12-02-2021
PROJECT: Home Depot - Sam's Club Site
Elevations were interpolated from Google Earth.
See Exploration and Testing Procedures for a
description of field and laboratory procedures used
and additional data (If any).
See Supporting Information for explanation of
symbols and abbreviations.
South Grady Way and Talbot Road
Renton, WA
SITE:
Boring Started: 12-01-2021
21905 64th Ave W, Ste 100
Mountlake Terrace, WA
While sampling
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS RECOVERY (In.)SAMPLE IDPERCENT FINESSAMPLE TYPE
37-50/6"
N=50/6"
50/0"
POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), trace silt, fine to medium
grained, dark gray, wet, dense to very dense (continued)
@105' driller notes density increase
@S-22: with sandstone fragments, increase in silt content, trace
gravel grayish brown, moist
@113': driller notes sandstone
SANDSTONE, very dense
@ S-23, no recovery, possibly due to hardness of sandstone
Boring Terminated at 120 Feet
113.0
120.0
-82+/-
-89+/-
9
0
S-22
S-23
Hammer Type: Automatic (ETR=96%)Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.THIS BORING LOG IS NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. GEO SMART LOG-NO WELL 81195216 HOME DEPOT - SAM'S CLUB_122421.GPJ TERRACON_DATATEMPLATE.GDT 12/23/21DEPTH (Ft.)110
115
120 WATER LEVELOBSERVATIONSFIELD TESTRESULTSWATERCONTENT (%)LL-PL-PI
ATTERBERG
LIMITSLOCATIONSee Exploration Plan
Latitude: 47.4736° Longitude: -122.2063°GRAPHIC LOGDEPTH ELEVATION (Ft.)
Approximate Surface Elev.: 31 (Ft.) +/-
Page 4 of 4
Advancement Method:
MUD ROTARY
Abandonment Method:
Boring backfilled with bentonite
Surface capped with asphalt
Notes:
Project No.: 81195216
Drill Rig: Track Mounted Rig No. 129
BORING LOG NO. B-3
Home Depot USA IncCLIENT:
Atlanta, GA
Driller: HOLOCENE
Boring Completed: 12-02-2021
PROJECT: Home Depot - Sam's Club Site
Elevations were interpolated from Google Earth.
See Exploration and Testing Procedures for a
description of field and laboratory procedures used
and additional data (If any).
See Supporting Information for explanation of
symbols and abbreviations.
South Grady Way and Talbot Road
Renton, WA
SITE:
Boring Started: 12-01-2021
21905 64th Ave W, Ste 100
Mountlake Terrace, WA
While sampling
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS RECOVERY (In.)SAMPLE IDPERCENT FINESSAMPLE TYPE
10-14-16
N=30
3-2-2
N=4
6-7-6
N=13
0-0-0
N=0
2-1-0
N=1
9-11-7
N=18
4-4-7
N=11
1-1-1
N=2
69.6
21.7
31.9
36.4
37-29-8
29-26-3
CONCRETE, ~7.5" concrete
FILL - SILTY SAND (SM), with coal tailings and cinders, dark
brown to black, damp, dense
@S-1: trace bentonite and brick fragments, blow counts may be
overstated
trace gravel, wet, transitions to loose to medium dense
PID@S-2: 1.0 ppm
trace organics,
PID@S-3: 0.7 ppm
ORGANIC SILT (OL), with sand, abundant wood debris, dark
grayish brown, wet, very soft to soft, variable silt
@S-6: with interbedded medium to coarse grained sand with silt,
grayish brown, medium dense
@S-7: silty SAND, trace organics, grayish brown, medium dense
@S-8, sandy SILT, dark brown, moist, with organics and wood
debris
SILTY SAND (SM), grayish brown, wet, loose to medium dense
0.6
9.5
33.0
30.5+/-
21.5+/-
-2+/-
7
10
13
13
13
15
13
15
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
S-5
S-6
S-7
S-8
7
17
Hammer Type: Automatic (ETR=96%)Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.THIS BORING LOG IS NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. GEO SMART LOG-NO WELL 81195216 HOME DEPOT - SAM'S CLUB_122421.GPJ TERRACON_DATATEMPLATE.GDT 12/23/21DEPTH (Ft.)5
10
15
20
25
30
35 WATER LEVELOBSERVATIONSFIELD TESTRESULTSWATERCONTENT (%)LL-PL-PI
ATTERBERG
LIMITSLOCATIONSee Exploration Plan
Latitude: 47.4736° Longitude: -122.2058°GRAPHIC LOGDEPTH ELEVATION (Ft.)
Approximate Surface Elev.: 31 (Ft.) +/-
Page 1 of 2
Advancement Method:
MUD ROTARY
Abandonment Method:
Boring backfilled with bentonite
Surface capped with concrete
Notes:
Project No.: 81195216
Drill Rig: Track Mounted Rig No. 129
BORING LOG NO. B-4a
Home Depot USA IncCLIENT:
Atlanta, GA
Driller: HOLOCENE
Boring Completed: 12-03-2021
PROJECT: Home Depot - Sam's Club Site
Elevations were interpolated from Google Earth.
See Exploration and Testing Procedures for a
description of field and laboratory procedures used
and additional data (If any).
See Supporting Information for explanation of
symbols and abbreviations.
South Grady Way and Talbot Road
Renton, WA
SITE:
Boring Started: 12-02-2021
21905 64th Ave W, Ste 100
Mountlake Terrace, WA
While sampling
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS RECOVERY (In.)SAMPLE IDPERCENT FINESSAMPLE TYPE
4-4-3
N=7
10-8-11
N=19
22-17-18
N=35
27-22-33
N=55
27-17-35
N=52
18.7
SILTY SAND (SM), grayish brown, wet, loose to medium dense
(continued)
@S-9: with interbeds of peat
@S-10: increase in gravel content, silty SAND with gravel,
medium to coarse grained
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL
(SP-SM), coarse grained, grayish brown, wet, dense to very
dense
POORLY GRADED GRAVEL (GP), with sand, trace gravel,
coarse grained, subangular, grayish brown, very dense
@S-13: rock fragments, blow counts might be over stated
Borehole Collapse at 65 Feet
43.0
53.0
65.0
-12+/-
-22+/-
-34+/-
Borehole collapse due to loose flow gravels. Unable to keep hole
open.
10
9
8
5
5
S-9
S-10
S-11
S-12
S-13
16
Hammer Type: Automatic (ETR=96%)Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.THIS BORING LOG IS NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. GEO SMART LOG-NO WELL 81195216 HOME DEPOT - SAM'S CLUB_122421.GPJ TERRACON_DATATEMPLATE.GDT 12/23/21DEPTH (Ft.)40
45
50
55
60
65 WATER LEVELOBSERVATIONSFIELD TESTRESULTSWATERCONTENT (%)LL-PL-PI
ATTERBERG
LIMITSLOCATIONSee Exploration Plan
Latitude: 47.4736° Longitude: -122.2058°GRAPHIC LOGDEPTH ELEVATION (Ft.)
Approximate Surface Elev.: 31 (Ft.) +/-
Page 2 of 2
Advancement Method:
MUD ROTARY
Abandonment Method:
Boring backfilled with bentonite
Surface capped with concrete
Notes:
Project No.: 81195216
Drill Rig: Track Mounted Rig No. 129
BORING LOG NO. B-4a
Home Depot USA IncCLIENT:
Atlanta, GA
Driller: HOLOCENE
Boring Completed: 12-03-2021
PROJECT: Home Depot - Sam's Club Site
Elevations were interpolated from Google Earth.
See Exploration and Testing Procedures for a
description of field and laboratory procedures used
and additional data (If any).
See Supporting Information for explanation of
symbols and abbreviations.
South Grady Way and Talbot Road
Renton, WA
SITE:
Boring Started: 12-02-2021
21905 64th Ave W, Ste 100
Mountlake Terrace, WA
While sampling
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS RECOVERY (In.)SAMPLE IDPERCENT FINESSAMPLE TYPE
CONCRETE, ~5" of concrete
DRILL OUT
0.4 30.5+/-
Boring re-drilled within about 5 feet of the original location of B-4a
due to the borehole collapse. Drill out from 0.4 to 90 feet.
Confrimation sampling performed at 90 and 100 feet.
Hammer Type: Automatic (ETR=96%)Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.THIS BORING LOG IS NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. GEO SMART LOG-NO WELL 81195216 HOME DEPOT - SAM'S CLUB_122421.GPJ TERRACON_DATATEMPLATE.GDT 12/23/21DEPTH (Ft.)5
10
15
20
25
30
35 WATER LEVELOBSERVATIONSFIELD TESTRESULTSWATERCONTENT (%)LL-PL-PI
ATTERBERG
LIMITSLOCATIONSee Exploration Plan
Latitude: 47.4736° Longitude: -122.2058°GRAPHIC LOGDEPTH ELEVATION (Ft.)
Approximate Surface Elev.: 31 (Ft.) +/-
Page 1 of 3
Advancement Method:
MUD ROTARY
Abandonment Method:
Boring backfilled with bentonite
Surface capped with concrete
Notes:
Project No.: 81195216
Drill Rig: Track Mounted Rig No. 129
BORING LOG NO. B-4b
Home Depot USA IncCLIENT:
Atlanta, GA
Driller: HOLOCENE
Boring Completed: 12-06-2021
PROJECT: Home Depot - Sam's Club Site
Elevations were interpolated from Google Earth.
See Exploration and Testing Procedures for a
description of field and laboratory procedures used
and additional data (If any).
See Supporting Information for explanation of
symbols and abbreviations.
South Grady Way and Talbot Road
Renton, WA
SITE:
Boring Started: 12-06-2021
21905 64th Ave W, Ste 100
Mountlake Terrace, WA
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS
Water level not directly observed RECOVERY (In.)SAMPLE IDPERCENT FINESSAMPLE TYPE
DRILL OUT (continued)
@52' driller notes possible gravel
Hammer Type: Automatic (ETR=96%)Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.THIS BORING LOG IS NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. GEO SMART LOG-NO WELL 81195216 HOME DEPOT - SAM'S CLUB_122421.GPJ TERRACON_DATATEMPLATE.GDT 12/23/21DEPTH (Ft.)40
45
50
55
60
65
70 WATER LEVELOBSERVATIONSFIELD TESTRESULTSWATERCONTENT (%)LL-PL-PI
ATTERBERG
LIMITSLOCATIONSee Exploration Plan
Latitude: 47.4736° Longitude: -122.2058°GRAPHIC LOGDEPTH ELEVATION (Ft.)
Approximate Surface Elev.: 31 (Ft.) +/-
Page 2 of 3
Advancement Method:
MUD ROTARY
Abandonment Method:
Boring backfilled with bentonite
Surface capped with concrete
Notes:
Project No.: 81195216
Drill Rig: Track Mounted Rig No. 129
BORING LOG NO. B-4b
Home Depot USA IncCLIENT:
Atlanta, GA
Driller: HOLOCENE
Boring Completed: 12-06-2021
PROJECT: Home Depot - Sam's Club Site
Elevations were interpolated from Google Earth.
See Exploration and Testing Procedures for a
description of field and laboratory procedures used
and additional data (If any).
See Supporting Information for explanation of
symbols and abbreviations.
South Grady Way and Talbot Road
Renton, WA
SITE:
Boring Started: 12-06-2021
21905 64th Ave W, Ste 100
Mountlake Terrace, WA
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS
Water level not directly observed RECOVERY (In.)SAMPLE IDPERCENT FINESSAMPLE TYPE
19-29-27
N=56
50/0"
@70' driller notes possible sand
DRILL OUT (continued)
SILTY SAND (SM), fine to medium grained, moist, very dense
@S-1: with sandstone fragments
@95' driller notes hard bedrock
SANDSTONE
@S-2: no recovery, poosibly due to hardness of sandstone
Boring Terminated at 100 Feet
90.0
95.0
100.0
-59+/-
-64+/-
-69+/-
11
0
S-1
S-2
Hammer Type: Automatic (ETR=96%)Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.THIS BORING LOG IS NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. GEO SMART LOG-NO WELL 81195216 HOME DEPOT - SAM'S CLUB_122421.GPJ TERRACON_DATATEMPLATE.GDT 12/23/21DEPTH (Ft.)75
80
85
90
95
100 WATER LEVELOBSERVATIONSFIELD TESTRESULTSWATERCONTENT (%)LL-PL-PI
ATTERBERG
LIMITSLOCATIONSee Exploration Plan
Latitude: 47.4736° Longitude: -122.2058°GRAPHIC LOGDEPTH ELEVATION (Ft.)
Approximate Surface Elev.: 31 (Ft.) +/-
Page 3 of 3
Advancement Method:
MUD ROTARY
Abandonment Method:
Boring backfilled with bentonite
Surface capped with concrete
Notes:
Project No.: 81195216
Drill Rig: Track Mounted Rig No. 129
BORING LOG NO. B-4b
Home Depot USA IncCLIENT:
Atlanta, GA
Driller: HOLOCENE
Boring Completed: 12-06-2021
PROJECT: Home Depot - Sam's Club Site
Elevations were interpolated from Google Earth.
See Exploration and Testing Procedures for a
description of field and laboratory procedures used
and additional data (If any).
See Supporting Information for explanation of
symbols and abbreviations.
South Grady Way and Talbot Road
Renton, WA
SITE:
Boring Started: 12-06-2021
21905 64th Ave W, Ste 100
Mountlake Terrace, WA
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS
Water level not directly observed RECOVERY (In.)SAMPLE IDPERCENT FINESSAMPLE TYPE
1-6-12
N=18
3-5-4
N=9
0-0-0
N=0
1-0-0
N=0
0-0-0
N=0
1-0-1
N=1
0-3-4
N=7
2-4-3
N=7
1-0-3
N=3
46.2
74.5
37.6
29.9 27-21-6
CONCRETE, ~10" concrete
FILL - SILTY SAND (SM), brown, medium dense
@S-1: with black coal trailings, trace gravel
PID@S-1: 0.6 ppm
@S-2: with wood debris & plastic fragments
PID@S-2: 0.6 ppm
ORGANIC SILT (OL), with sand, abundasnt organics,
nonplastic, grayish brown, wet, very soft
@S-4: decrease in silt content
@S-5: medium plasticity, with interbeds of silty sand
@S-6: increase in sand content
O.C=9.6%
SANDY SILTY CLAY (CL-ML), low plasticity, grayish brown
@S-8: with wood debris
0.8
7.0
23.0
27+/-
21+/-
5+/-
14
11
3
12
18
18
18
5
15
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
S-5
S-6
S-7
S-8
S-9
21
Hammer Type: Automatic (ETR=96%)Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.THIS BORING LOG IS NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. GEO SMART LOG-NO WELL 81195216 HOME DEPOT - SAM'S CLUB_122421.GPJ TERRACON_DATATEMPLATE.GDT 12/23/21DEPTH (Ft.)5
10
15
20
25
30
35 WATER LEVELOBSERVATIONSFIELD TESTRESULTSWATERCONTENT (%)LL-PL-PI
ATTERBERG
LIMITSLOCATIONSee Exploration Plan
Latitude: 47.4735° Longitude: -122.2053°GRAPHIC LOGDEPTH ELEVATION (Ft.)
Approximate Surface Elev.: 28 (Ft.) +/-
Page 1 of 2
Advancement Method:
MUD ROTARY
Abandonment Method:
Boring backfilled with bentonite
Surface capped with asphalt
Notes:
Project No.: 81195216
Drill Rig: Track Mounted Rig No. 129
BORING LOG NO. B-5
Home Depot USA IncCLIENT:
Atlanta, GA
Driller: HOLOCENE
Boring Completed: 12-06-2021
PROJECT: Home Depot - Sam's Club Site
Elevations were interpolated from Google Earth.
See Exploration and Testing Procedures for a
description of field and laboratory procedures used
and additional data (If any).
See Supporting Information for explanation of
symbols and abbreviations.
South Grady Way and Talbot Road
Renton, WA
SITE:
Boring Started: 12-06-2021
21905 64th Ave W, Ste 100
Mountlake Terrace, WA
While sampling
While sampling
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS RECOVERY (In.)SAMPLE IDPERCENT FINESSAMPLE TYPE
32-48-46
N=94
24-50/6"
N=50/6"
19-17-15
N=32
3-5-10
N=15
11-15-22
N=37
50/2"
@37.5' driller notes gravel
POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND (GP), trace silt,
medium grained, subrounded to subangular, grayish brown, very
dense
SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM), trace wood debris, grayish
brown, dense
@52' driller notes gravel content decreasing
LEAN CLAY (CL), medium plasticity, tan, moist, very stiff
SILTY SAND (SM), trace gravel, fine grained, moist, dense
@67' driller notes increase in density, presumably sandstone
SANDSTONE, fine grained, light gray, damp, highly weathered
Boring Terminated at 70.2 Feet
37.5
47.0
53.0
58.0
67.0
70.2
-9.5+/-
-19+/-
-25+/-
-30+/-
-39+/-
-42+/-
11
7
13
12
18
12
S-10
S-11
S-12
P-1
S-13
S-14
S-15
Hammer Type: Automatic (ETR=96%)Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.THIS BORING LOG IS NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. GEO SMART LOG-NO WELL 81195216 HOME DEPOT - SAM'S CLUB_122421.GPJ TERRACON_DATATEMPLATE.GDT 12/23/21DEPTH (Ft.)40
45
50
55
60
65
70 WATER LEVELOBSERVATIONSFIELD TESTRESULTSWATERCONTENT (%)LL-PL-PI
ATTERBERG
LIMITSLOCATIONSee Exploration Plan
Latitude: 47.4735° Longitude: -122.2053°GRAPHIC LOGDEPTH ELEVATION (Ft.)
Approximate Surface Elev.: 28 (Ft.) +/-
Page 2 of 2
Advancement Method:
MUD ROTARY
Abandonment Method:
Boring backfilled with bentonite
Surface capped with asphalt
Notes:
Project No.: 81195216
Drill Rig: Track Mounted Rig No. 129
BORING LOG NO. B-5
Home Depot USA IncCLIENT:
Atlanta, GA
Driller: HOLOCENE
Boring Completed: 12-06-2021
PROJECT: Home Depot - Sam's Club Site
Elevations were interpolated from Google Earth.
See Exploration and Testing Procedures for a
description of field and laboratory procedures used
and additional data (If any).
See Supporting Information for explanation of
symbols and abbreviations.
South Grady Way and Talbot Road
Renton, WA
SITE:
Boring Started: 12-06-2021
21905 64th Ave W, Ste 100
Mountlake Terrace, WA
While sampling
While sampling
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS RECOVERY (In.)SAMPLE IDPERCENT FINESSAMPLE TYPE
31-39-29
N=68
6-4-3
N=7
0-0-1
N=1
3-1-1
N=2
6-9-10
N=19
50/5"
50/4"
18.4
ASPHALT, ~4" asphalt
FILL - SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM), fine to medium
grained, brown, moist, dense
@S-1: concrete and brick fragments encountered
FILL - POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SILT AND SAND
(GP-GM), subangular, brown, wet, very loose to loose
@S-2: with anthropogenic debris
fine to medium grained, subangular to subrounded, @S-3:
decrease in gravel content
SILTY SAND (SM), orangish tan to tanish brown, moist,
(medium stiff)
@S-5: with low plasticity silt at top
@17' drilling notes increase in density
SANDSTONE, fine grained, tan to light gray, moist, very dense,
highly weathered
Boring Terminated at 30.3 Feet
0.3
4.5
13.0
17.0
30.3
30.5+/-
26.5+/-
18+/-
14+/-
0.5+/-
14
4
2
5
16
4
3
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
S-5
S-6
S-7
11
Hammer Type: Automatic (ETR=96%)Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.THIS BORING LOG IS NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. GEO SMART LOG-NO WELL 81195216 HOME DEPOT - SAM'S CLUB_122421.GPJ TERRACON_DATATEMPLATE.GDT 12/23/21DEPTH (Ft.)5
10
15
20
25
30 WATER LEVELOBSERVATIONSFIELD TESTRESULTSWATERCONTENT (%)LL-PL-PI
ATTERBERG
LIMITSLOCATIONSee Exploration Plan
Latitude: 47.4724° Longitude: -122.2056°GRAPHIC LOGDEPTH ELEVATION (Ft.)
Approximate Surface Elev.: 31 (Ft.) +/-
Page 1 of 1
Advancement Method:
MUD ROTARY
Abandonment Method:
Boring backfilled with bentonite
Surface capped with asphalt
Notes:
Project No.: 81195216
Drill Rig: Track Mounted Rig No. 129
BORING LOG NO. B-6
Home Depot USA IncCLIENT:
Atlanta, GA
Driller: HOLOCENE
Boring Completed: 11-29-2021
PROJECT: Home Depot - Sam's Club Site
Elevations were interpolated from Google Earth.
See Exploration and Testing Procedures for a
description of field and laboratory procedures used
and additional data (If any).
See Supporting Information for explanation of
symbols and abbreviations.
South Grady Way and Talbot Road
Renton, WA
SITE:
Boring Started: 11-29-2021
21905 64th Ave W, Ste 100
Mountlake Terrace, WA
While sampling
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS RECOVERY (In.)SAMPLE IDPERCENT FINESSAMPLE TYPE
13-9-7
N=16
25-14-7
N=21
14-9-6
N=15
2-3-3
N=6
3-3-2
N=5
4-2-2
N=4
0-0-0
N=0
6-4-11
N=15
5-1-4
N=5
53.2
24.4
42.9
26.3
36.1 NP
~4'' asphalt
FILL - SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM), with coal tailings,
fine to medium grained, dark brown to black, moist, loose to
medium dense
PID@S-1: 2.2ppm
grayish brown, PID@S-2: 2.3ppm
wet, PID@S-3: 2.6ppm
@S-4: with cinders, decrease in gravel content
PID@S-4: 2.5ppm
FILL - POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM), with
wood debris, medium grained, dark gray, wet, loose
ORGANIC SILT (OL), with abundant organics, brown to
grayish brown, wet, very soft to soft
@S-6: with interbed of sand with silt, mediun grained,
@S-7: decrease in organic content
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM), medium
grained, grayish brown, wet, medium dense
SANDY SILT (ML), nonplastic, brown, wet, grain size
decreasing with depth
0.4
13.0
17.0
27.0
32.0
30.5+/-
18+/-
14+/-
4+/-
-1+/-
5
9
7
12
13
17
16
17
17
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
S-5
ST-1
S-6
S-7
S-8
S-9
18
8
13
Hammer Type: Automatic (ETR=96%)Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.THIS BORING LOG IS NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. GEO SMART LOG-NO WELL 81195216 HOME DEPOT - SAM'S CLUB_122421.GPJ TERRACON_DATATEMPLATE.GDT 12/23/21DEPTH (Ft.)5
10
15
20
25
30
35 WATER LEVELOBSERVATIONSFIELD TESTRESULTSWATERCONTENT (%)LL-PL-PI
ATTERBERG
LIMITSLOCATIONSee Exploration Plan
Latitude: 47.4725° Longitude: -122.2063°GRAPHIC LOGDEPTH ELEVATION (Ft.)
Approximate Surface Elev.: 31 (Ft.) +/-
Page 1 of 2
Advancement Method:
MUD ROTARY
Abandonment Method:
Boring backfilled with bentonite
Surface capped with asphalt
Notes:
Project No.: 81195216
Drill Rig: Track Mounted Rig No. 129
BORING LOG NO. B-7
Home Depot USA IncCLIENT:
Atlanta, GA
Driller: HOLOCENE
Boring Completed: 11-29-2021
PROJECT: Home Depot - Sam's Club Site
Elevations were interpolated from Google Earth.
See Exploration and Testing Procedures for a
description of field and laboratory procedures used
and additional data (If any).
See Supporting Information for explanation of
symbols and abbreviations.
South Grady Way and Talbot Road
Renton, WA
SITE:
Boring Started: 11-29-2021
21905 64th Ave W, Ste 100
Mountlake Terrace, WA
While sampling
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS RECOVERY (In.)SAMPLE IDPERCENT FINESSAMPLE TYPE
0-11-13
N=24
31-24-50/5"
N=74/11"
21-50/4"
N=50/4"
12-11-13
N=24
14-16-21
N=37
50/2"
50/2"
SANDY SILT (ML), nonplastic, brown, wet, grain size
decreasing with depth (continued)
low plasticity
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM), medium
grained, grayish brown, moist, medium dense
POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SILT AND SAND
(GP-GM), fine to medium grained, subangular to angular,
grayish brown, wet, very dense
@S-11: rock fragments, blow counts might be over stated
coarse grained, subangular to subrounded
LEAN CLAY (CL), medium plasticity, grayish brown, damp,
very stiff
@S-13, with interbed of sand
SANDY SILT (ML), low plasticity, tanish brown, damp, hard
@63' driller notes sandstone
SANDSTONE, fine grained, light gray, damp, highly weathered
Boring Terminated at 70.2 Feet
40.5
43.0
53.0
58.0
63.0
70.2
-9.5+/-
-12+/-
-22+/-
-27+/-
-32+/-
-39+/-
17
7
5
17
16
1
1
S-10
S-11
S-12
S-13
S-14
S-15
S-16
Hammer Type: Automatic (ETR=96%)Stratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.THIS BORING LOG IS NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. GEO SMART LOG-NO WELL 81195216 HOME DEPOT - SAM'S CLUB_122421.GPJ TERRACON_DATATEMPLATE.GDT 12/23/21DEPTH (Ft.)40
45
50
55
60
65
70 WATER LEVELOBSERVATIONSFIELD TESTRESULTSWATERCONTENT (%)LL-PL-PI
ATTERBERG
LIMITSLOCATIONSee Exploration Plan
Latitude: 47.4725° Longitude: -122.2063°GRAPHIC LOGDEPTH ELEVATION (Ft.)
Approximate Surface Elev.: 31 (Ft.) +/-
Page 2 of 2
Advancement Method:
MUD ROTARY
Abandonment Method:
Boring backfilled with bentonite
Surface capped with asphalt
Notes:
Project No.: 81195216
Drill Rig: Track Mounted Rig No. 129
BORING LOG NO. B-7
Home Depot USA IncCLIENT:
Atlanta, GA
Driller: HOLOCENE
Boring Completed: 11-29-2021
PROJECT: Home Depot - Sam's Club Site
Elevations were interpolated from Google Earth.
See Exploration and Testing Procedures for a
description of field and laboratory procedures used
and additional data (If any).
See Supporting Information for explanation of
symbols and abbreviations.
South Grady Way and Talbot Road
Renton, WA
SITE:
Boring Started: 11-29-2021
21905 64th Ave W, Ste 100
Mountlake Terrace, WA
While sampling
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS RECOVERY (In.)SAMPLE IDPERCENT FINESSAMPLE TYPE
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 20 40 60 80 100CH or OHCL or OLML or OL
MH or OH"U" Line"A" Line
ATTERBERG LIMITS RESULTS
ASTM D4318
P
L
A
S
T
I
C
I
T
Y
I
N
D
E
X
LIQUID LIMIT
21905 64th Ave W, Ste 100
Mountlake Terrace, WA
PROJECT NUMBER: 81195216
SITE: South Grady Way and Talbot Road
Renton, WA
PROJECT: Home Depot - Sam's Club Site
CLIENT: Home Depot USA Inc
Atlanta, GA
LABORATORY TESTS ARE NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. ATTERBERG LIMITS 81195216 HOME DEPOT - SAM'S CLUB_LAB.GPJ TERRACON_DATATEMPLATE.GDT 12/20/21
35
35
26
48
37
37
29
27
26
28
21
23
37
20
29
26
21
NP
7
14
3
11
17
8
3
6
26
PIPLLLBoring ID Depth
B-1
B-1
B-2
B-3
B-3
B-4a
B-4a
B-5
B-7
Fines
25 - 26.5
70 - 71.5
20 - 21.5
15 - 16.5
75 - 76.5
10 - 11.5
30 - 31.5
35 - 36.5
35 - 36.5
ML
CL
ML
ML
CL
ML
ML
CL-ML
ML
SILT WITH SAND
LEAN CLAY
SILT WITH SAND
SILT
LEAN CLAY
SILT WITH SAND
SANDY SILT
SANDY SILTY CLAY
SANDY SILT
DescriptionUSCS
CL-ML
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
0.0010.010.1110100
30 40 501.5 200681014413/4 1/2 60
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERSPERCENT FINER BY WEIGHTHYDROMETERU.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS
4 3/8 3 100 14032
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
ASTM D422 / ASTM C136
6 16 20
21905 64th Ave W, Ste 100
Mountlake Terrace, WA
PROJECT NUMBER: 81195216
SITE: South Grady Way and Talbot Road
Renton, WA
PROJECT: Home Depot - Sam's Club Site
CLIENT: Home Depot USA Inc
Atlanta, GA
LABORATORY TESTS ARE NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. GRAIN SIZE: USCS-2 81195216 HOME DEPOT - SAM'S CLUB_LAB.GPJ TERRACON_DATATEMPLATE.GDT 12/20/21SILT OR CLAY
B-1
B-1
B-2
B-2
B-3
mediumcoarse coarsefine fineCOBBLESGRAVEL SAND
SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM)
POORLY GRADED GRAVEL (GP)
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM)
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL (SP-SM)
SILTY SAND (SM)
8.66
1.53
0.90
18.36
3.05
19.60
30 - 31.5
50 - 51.5
15 - 16.5
45 - 46.5
20 - 21.5
13.3
10.2
30.0
11.8
22.1
B-1
B-1
B-2
B-2
B-3
14.4
4.2
7.5
6.9
47.9
30 - 31.5
50 - 51.5
15 - 16.5
45 - 46.5
20 - 21.5
40.0
86.4
4.6
31.7
45.6
9.4
87.9
61.5
37.5
37.5
19
25
0.075
4.743
14.684
0.373
3.184
0.201
10.088
0.265
0.681
0.8
0.122
0.162
Boring ID Depth WC (%)LL PL PI Cc Cu
%Clay%Fines%Silt%Sand%Gravel Boring ID Depth D100 D60 D30 D10
USCS Classification
%Cobbles
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
0.0010.010.1110100
30 40 501.5 200681014413/4 1/2 60
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERSPERCENT FINER BY WEIGHTHYDROMETERU.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS
4 3/8 3 100 14032
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
ASTM D422 / ASTM C136
6 16 20
21905 64th Ave W, Ste 100
Mountlake Terrace, WA
PROJECT NUMBER: 81195216
SITE: South Grady Way and Talbot Road
Renton, WA
PROJECT: Home Depot - Sam's Club Site
CLIENT: Home Depot USA Inc
Atlanta, GA
LABORATORY TESTS ARE NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. GRAIN SIZE: USCS-2 81195216 HOME DEPOT - SAM'S CLUB_LAB.GPJ TERRACON_DATATEMPLATE.GDT 12/20/21SILT OR CLAY
B-3
B-3
B-3
B-4a
B-4a
mediumcoarse coarsefine fineCOBBLESGRAVEL SAND
SILTY SAND (SM)
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM)
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM)
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM)
SILTY SAND (SM)
25 - 26.5
30 - 31.5
50 - 51.5
20 - 21.5
25 - 26.5
35.5
20.6
28.3
21.7
31.9
B-3
B-3
B-3
B-4a
B-4a
32.4
11.9
9.9
7.1
17.4
25 - 26.5
30 - 31.5
50 - 51.5
20 - 21.5
25 - 26.5
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
Boring ID Depth WC (%)LL PL PI Cc Cu
%Clay%Fines%Silt%Sand%Gravel Boring ID Depth D100 D60 D30 D10
USCS Classification
%Cobbles
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
0.0010.010.1110100
30 40 501.5 200681014413/4 1/2 60
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERSPERCENT FINER BY WEIGHTHYDROMETERU.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS
4 3/8 3 100 14032
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
ASTM D422 / ASTM C136
6 16 20
21905 64th Ave W, Ste 100
Mountlake Terrace, WA
PROJECT NUMBER: 81195216
SITE: South Grady Way and Talbot Road
Renton, WA
PROJECT: Home Depot - Sam's Club Site
CLIENT: Home Depot USA Inc
Atlanta, GA
LABORATORY TESTS ARE NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. GRAIN SIZE: USCS-2 81195216 HOME DEPOT - SAM'S CLUB_LAB.GPJ TERRACON_DATATEMPLATE.GDT 12/20/21SILT OR CLAY
B-4a
B-5
B-6
B-7
B-7
mediumcoarse coarsefine fineCOBBLESGRAVEL SAND
SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM)
SILTY SAND (SM)
POORLY GRADED SAND SILT WITH GRAVEL (SP-SM)
SILTY SAND (SM)
POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM)
0.90 65.81
40 - 41.5
10 - 11.5
2.5 - 4
10 - 11.5
15 - 16.5
18.7
46.2
18.4
53.2
24.4
B-4a
B-5
B-6
B-7
B-7
16.2
21.4
11.0
17.8
7.6
40 - 41.5
10 - 11.5
2.5 - 4
10 - 11.5
15 - 16.5
38.2 50.8
0.075
0.075
25
0.075
0.075
4.286 0.5
Boring ID Depth WC (%)LL PL PI Cc Cu
%Clay%Fines%Silt%Sand%Gravel Boring ID Depth D100 D60 D30 D10
USCS Classification
%Cobbles
0.0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
0.0010.010.1110100
30 40 501.5 200681014413/4 1/2 60
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERSPERCENT FINER BY WEIGHTHYDROMETERU.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS
4 3/8 3 100 14032
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
ASTM D422 / ASTM C136
6 16 20
21905 64th Ave W, Ste 100
Mountlake Terrace, WA
PROJECT NUMBER: 81195216
SITE: South Grady Way and Talbot Road
Renton, WA
PROJECT: Home Depot - Sam's Club Site
CLIENT: Home Depot USA Inc
Atlanta, GA
LABORATORY TESTS ARE NOT VALID IF SEPARATED FROM ORIGINAL REPORT. GRAIN SIZE: USCS-2 81195216 HOME DEPOT - SAM'S CLUB_LAB.GPJ TERRACON_DATATEMPLATE.GDT 12/20/21SILT OR CLAY
B-7
mediumcoarse coarsefine fineCOBBLESGRAVEL SAND
SILTY SAND (SM)30 - 31.5 26.3
B-7 12.530 - 31.5 0.075
Boring ID Depth WC (%)LL PL PI Cc Cu
%Clay%Fines%Silt%Sand%Gravel Boring ID Depth D100 D60 D30 D10
USCS Classification
%Cobbles
750 Pilot Road, Suite F
Las Vegas, Nevada 89119
(702) 597-9393
Client
Date Received:
--
C-01
--
7.98
182
Nil
75
+685
1338
1552
C-01:Composite B-3 (S-1, S-2), B-4 (S-1, S-2), B-5 (S-1, S-2), B-7 (S-1, S-2, S-3)
Analyzed By:
The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM and AWWA test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated
above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual
samples tested at the location(s) referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials.
Terracon (81)Sample Submitted By:12/14/2021
Results of Corrosion Analysis
Engineering Technician II
Project
Lab No.: 21-0887
Sample Number
Sample Location
Sample Depth (ft.)
Nathan Campo
pH Analysis, ASTM G 51
Water Soluble Sulfate (SO4), ASTM C 1580
(mg/kg)
Sulfides, AWWA 4500-S D, (mg/kg)
Chlorides, ASTM D 512, (mg/kg)
Red-Ox, ASTM G 200, (mV)
Total Salts, AWWA 2520 B, (mg/kg)
Saturated Minimum Resistivity, ASTM G 57,
(ohm-cm)
Home Depot USA Inc Home Depot- Sam's Club Site
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Contents:
General Notes
Unified Soil Classification System
Home Depot Renton Renton, WA
Terracon Project No. 81195216
0.25 to 0.50
> 4.00
2.00 to 4.00
1.00 to 2.00
0.50 to 1.00
less than 0.25
Unconfined Compressive Strength
Qu, (tsf)
Shelby
Tube
Standard
Penetration
Test
N
(HP)
(T)
(DCP)
UC
(PID)
(OVA)
Standard Penetration Test
Resistance (Blows/Ft.)
Hand Penetrometer
Torvane
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer
Unconfined Compressive
Strength
Photo-Ionization Detector
Organic Vapor Analyzer
SAMPLING WATER LEVEL FIELD TESTS
GENERAL NOTES
DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Water levels indicated on the soil boring logs are
the levels measured in the borehole at the times
indicated. Groundwater level variations will occur
over time. In low permeability soils, accurate
determination of groundwater levels is not possible
with short term water level observations.
Water Initially
Encountered
Water Level After a
Specified Period of Time
Water Level After
a Specified Period of Time
Cave In
Encountered
Exploration point locations as shown on the Exploration Plan and as noted on the soil boring logs in the form of Latitude and
Longitude are approximate. See Exploration and Testing Procedures in the report for the methods used to locate the
exploration points for this project. Surface elevation data annotated with +/- indicates that no actual topographical survey was
conducted to confirm the surface elevation. Instead, the surface elevation was approximately determined from topographic
maps of the area.
LOCATION AND ELEVATION NOTES
Soil classification as noted on the soil boring logs is based Unified Soil Classification System. Where sufficient laboratory data
exist to classify the soils consistent with ASTM D2487 "Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes" this procedure is used.
ASTM D2488 "Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure)" is also used to classify the soils, particularly
where insufficient laboratory data exist to classify the soils in accordance with ASTM D2487. In addition to USCS classification,
coarse grained soils are classified on the basis of their in-place relative density, and fine-grained soils are classified on the basis
of their consistency. See "Strength Terms" table below for details. The ASTM standards noted above are for reference to
methodology in general. In some cases, variations to methods are applied as a result of local practice or professional judgment.
DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION
The soil boring logs contained within this document are intended for application to the project as described in this document.
Use of these soil boring logs for any other purpose may not be appropriate.
RELEVANCE OF SOIL BORING LOG
STRENGTH TERMS
Standard Penetration or
N-Value
Blows/Ft.
Descriptive Term
(Density)
Hard
15 - 30Very Stiff> 50Very Dense
8 - 15Stiff30 - 50Dense
4 - 8Medium Stiff10 - 29Medium Dense
2 - 4Soft4 - 9Loose
0 - 1Very Soft0 - 3Very Loose
(50% or more passing the No. 200 sieve.)
Consistency determined by laboratory shear strength testing, field visual-manual
procedures or standard penetration resistance
> 30
Descriptive Term
(Consistency)
Standard Penetration or
N-Value
Blows/Ft.
(More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve.)
Density determined by Standard Penetration Resistance
CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILSRELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests A
Soil Classification
Group
Symbol Group Name B
Coarse-Grained Soils:
More than 50% retained
on No. 200 sieve
Gravels:
More than 50% of
coarse fraction
retained on No. 4 sieve
Clean Gravels:
Less than 5% fines C
Cu 4 and 1 Cc 3 E GW Well-graded gravel F
Cu 4 and/or [Cc<1 or Cc>3.0] E GP Poorly graded gravel F
Gravels with Fines:
More than 12% fines C
Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel F, G, H
Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel F, G, H
Sands:
50% or more of coarse
fraction passes No. 4
sieve
Clean Sands:
Less than 5% fines D
Cu 6 and 1 Cc 3 E SW Well-graded sand I
Cu 6 and/or [Cc<1 or Cc>3.0] E SP Poorly graded sand I
Sands with Fines:
More than 12% fines D
Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand G, H, I
Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand G, H, I
Fine-Grained Soils:
50% or more passes the
No. 200 sieve
Silts and Clays:
Liquid limit less than 50
Inorganic: PI 7 and plots on or above “A”
line J
CL Lean clay K, L, M
PI 4 or plots below “A” line J ML Silt K, L, M
Organic: Liquid limit - oven dried 0.75 OL Organic clay K, L, M, N
Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K, L, M, O
Silts and Clays:
Liquid limit 50 or more
Inorganic: PI plots on or above “A” line CH Fat clay K, L, M
PI plots below “A” line MH Elastic Silt K, L, M
Organic: Liquid limit - oven dried 0.75 OH Organic clay K, L, M, P
Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K, L, M, Q
Highly organic soils: Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat
A Based on the material passing the 3-inch (75-mm) sieve.
B If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add “with cobbles
or boulders, or both” to group name.
C Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded
gravel with silt, GW -GC well-graded gravel with clay, GP-GM poorly
graded gravel with silt, GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay.
D Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW -SM well-graded
sand with silt, SW-SC well-graded sand with clay, SP-SM poorly graded
sand with silt, SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay.
E Cu = D60/D10 Cc =
6010
2
30
DxD
)(D
F If soil contains 15% sand, add “with sand” to group name.
G If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM, or SC-SM.
H If fines are organic, add “with organic fines” to group name.
I If soil contains 15% gravel, add “with gravel” to group name.
J If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay.
K If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add “with sand” or “with
gravel,” whichever is predominant.
L If soil contains 30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add
“sandy” to group name.
M If soil contains 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add
“gravelly” to group name.
N PI 4 and plots on or above “A” line.
O PI 4 or plots below “A” line.
P PI plots on or above “A” line.
Q PI plots below “A” line.
Photography Log
Home Depot (WA-Renton) ■ Renton, WA
December 27, 2021 ■ Terracon Project No. 81195216
Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable PHOTOGRAPHY LOG 1 of 6
PHOTOGRAPHY LOG
Store front entrance from inside
From store front entrance looking toward middle of floor
Photography Log
Home Depot (WA-Renton) ■ Renton, WA
December 27, 2021 ■ Terracon Project No. 81195216
Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable PHOTOGRAPHY LOG 2 of 6
Typical perimeter wall and column
Loading dock area from inside the building
Photography Log
Home Depot (WA-Renton) ■ Renton, WA
December 27, 2021 ■ Terracon Project No. 81195216
Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable PHOTOGRAPHY LOG 3 of 6
Typical interior column. Minor slab cracking.
Slab cracking within loading dock area
Photography Log
Home Depot (WA-Renton) ■ Renton, WA
December 27, 2021 ■ Terracon Project No. 81195216
Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable PHOTOGRAPHY LOG 4 of 6
Loading dock area from outside the store
Southwest side of store
Photography Log
Home Depot (WA-Renton) ■ Renton, WA
December 27, 2021 ■ Terracon Project No. 81195216
Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable PHOTOGRAPHY LOG 5 of 6
General notes for foundations and slabs from construction plan set
Sample of augercast pile layout from construction plan set
Photography Log
Home Depot (WA-Renton) ■ Renton, WA
December 27, 2021 ■ Terracon Project No. 81195216
Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable PHOTOGRAPHY LOG 6 of 6
Augercast pile schedule from construction plan set
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
J~1470
December 6, 2002
PacLand
1144Eastlake Avenue R,Suite 601
Seattle, Washington 98109
Attention:
Subject:
Mr. Joe Geivett,P.R
Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Proposed Retail Development
S. Grady Way and Talbot Road
Renton, Washington
Dear Mr. Geivett:
This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering
evaluation for the above-referenced project. The authorized scope of services for this project
consisted of our field exploration programs for the slope stability analysis and site evaluation,
field and laboratory testing, geotechnical engineering analyses, and preparation of this report. Our
services were completed in accordance the scopes presented in our Proposal for Subsurface
Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services, Slope Stability Analysis, and Proposed
Retail Development (P-1673) dated September 3, 2002 and September 13, 2002, respectively.
Written authorization to proceed with this project was provided by PacLand on September 19,
2002.
The purpose of this evaluation was to establish general subsurface conditions at the site
from which conclusions and recommendations for foundation design, pavement design, and
general earthwork construction for the project could be formulated. In the event that there are any
changes in the nature, design, elevation, or location of the proposed structure, the conclusions and
recommendations contained in this report should be reviewed by Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc.
(ZZA) and modified, as necessary, to reflect those changes. This report has been prepared in
accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice for the exclusive use of
Pacific Land Design and their agents for specific application to this project.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The following is a brief summary outline of the geotechnical conclusions and
recommendations for this project. The summary should be read in complete context with the
accompanying report for proper interpretation.
Review of Existing Literature
• We reviewed two geotechnical reports completed for the project site that were provided to us
by the property owner. In October 1999, a report was prepared by GeoEngineers titled
Geotechnical Engineering Services, Proposed Home Depot Development.Another report by
18905 33
rd Avenue W., Suite 117 Lynnwood,Washington 98036 (425) 771-3304
Proposed Retail Development
S. Grady Way and Talbot Road
Renton,Washington
~-~--_.._-------------~~~~~~
J-1470
December 6, 2002
Page 2
Terra Associates, Inc. was prepared in September 2000 and was titled Geotechnical Report,
Southpoint Corporate Center.
Subsurface Conditions
• The subsurface evaluation consisted of completing 43 hollow-stem auger and mud rotary
borings, and 3 electric cone probes across the project site, as shown on Figure 1, the Site and
Exploration Plan.Of the 43 borings, 6 were completed in a separate phase in order to
evaluate the stability of a proposed alteration to protected slopes along the east side of the site.
The slopes were man-made as a result of placing coal mine tailings on the site.
• A large portion of the site is currently covered with asphalt pavement and structural concrete
floors. Elsewhere, the surface is covered with gravel. Surficial site soils typically consist of
4Y2 to more than 11Y2 feet of very loose to loose, moist, wet, and saturated, brown to black,
coal, cinders, sandstone, and shale fill. Limited topsoil of variable thickness should be
expected in areas that are not currently developed.
• In general, the fill materials are underlain by alluvial soils consisting of very soft to soft peat,
clay, silty clay, clayey silt and silt, as well as very loose to loose sandy silt and sand with
varying proportions of silt and gravel. Sandstone bedrock was encountered at depths ranging
from as shallow as 19 feet to greater than 110 feet. These generalizations should be used in
conjunction with the attached exploration logs.
•Groundwater depths varied across the site from 3 to 12 feet at the time of completing the
explorations. The elevations of the groundwater levels vary between 23 and 34 feet with the
highest groundwater elevation occurring near a small pond that is between the outflow from
two discharge pipes at the base of the slope along the east side of the site and the north end of
the aqueduct. Groundwater levels, including quantity and duration of flow, should be expected
to fluctuate throughout the year due to on- and off-site factors.
Site Preparation
• Topsoil,if encountered in undeveloped areas, should be completely stripped and removed
from the building pad and parking lot areas. Stripping should also include the removal of
existing asphalt pavement, asphalt and concrete rubble, and vegetation that consists primarily
of limited brush and trees.
• The proposed 3H:1V permanent slope that will be created after removing the lobe of coal
mine tailings on the east side of the site appears feasible, based upon our slope stability
analyses. However, in order to maintain adequate slope stability safety factors, we
recommend that a series of groundwater collection pipes be installed above the sandstone
bedrock contact in order to limit the build-up of perched groundwater in the remaining loose
fill materials that will comprise the finished slope.
18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite 117
Zipper Zeman Associates. Inc.
Lynnwood,Washington 98036 (425)771-3304
Proposed Retail Development
S. Grady Way and Talbot Road
Renton,Washington
J-1470
December 6, 2002
Page 3
• All asphalt and concrete should be removed prior to placing fill in low areas. Existing asphalt
and gravel surfacing should be left in place wherever possible to protect the site from
construction traffic and provide laydown areas.
• Pile foundations beneath the existing structural slabs on site should be cut off a minimum of 3
feet below slab and pavement subgrade elevations. Other concrete foundation elements, slabs,
and walls should be removed and disposed or crushed for reuse as structural fill.
• Exposed soils will likely consist of moist to wet coal tailings. As such they should be
considered susceptible to disturbance from construction traffic. Existing fill soils (the entire
site) should be covered with a minimum of 12 inches of pit-run sand and gravel, crushed
recycled concrete, or other approved granular material to protect the sensitive subgrade.
• Existing underground utilities should be removed or grouted in place. Excavations created in
order to remove the utilities should be backfilled with compacted structural fill. Deeper
underground structures, such as manholes, should also be backfilled with structural fill, lean-
mix concrete, or controlled density fill.
• Depending on the groundwater levels at the time of construction, dewatering may be
necessary to lower groundwater levels if utility excavations or other underground structures
extend below the shallow groundwater table.
• Peat should be expected in some of the deeper utility excavations and should be
overexcavated and replaced when encountered.
Structural Fill
• All fill used to raise grades should be compacted to a minimum 95 percent of the modified
Proctor maximum dry density.
•It is our opinion that all of the existing coal tailings fill on site should be considered
unsuitable for reuse as structural fill. Random areas of silty sand will likely be encountered
and would likely be suitable for reuse as structural fill, although it is not possible to quantify
the amount of this material. Granular material immediately below existing pavements and
slabs should also be considered suitable for reuse.
• The parking lots and building pad should be covered with a minimum of one foot of pit-run
snad and gravel or equivalent.
• Common fill used for general grading below the upper foot should have less than 15 percent
fines passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve. During periods when wet weather construction is
necessary, we recommend that import fill materials consist of pit-run sand and gravel or
crushed recycled concrete with less than 5 percent fines.
18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite 117
Zipper Zeman Associates. Inc.
Lynnwood,Washington 98036 (425) 771-3304
Proposed Retail Development
S.Grady Way and Talbot Road
Renton,Washington
Utilities
J-1470
December 6, 2002
Page 4
• Existing on-site,underground utilities should be removed, relocated or properly abandoned in
place in order to prevent possible future settlement problems. All existing underground
utilities should be decommissioned, abandoned, or backfilled in accordance with all
applicable State and local regulations.
• We anticipate that most utility subgrades will consist of very loose to loose coal tailings fill or
possibly soft silt, loose silty sand, or peaty soils. Soils deemed unsuitable for utility support
should be overexcavated a minimum of 12 inches in order to develop a firm, uniform base.
Where peat is encountered, we recommend that the entire thickness of the material be
removed and replaced.
• Existing on-site soils are considered unsuitable for utility trench backfill.
• The two existing mine runoff drain pipes that enter the east side of the site will be tightlined
across a portion of the site. We recommend that the company or agency who owns or is
responsible for their maintenance be determined in order to coordinate a long-term
maintenance and inspection program. We further recommend that the peak flow in the drain
pipes be determined in order to size the proposed tightline pipe. This should likely be done in
the late winter or spring when groundwater would be anticipated to be at its highest.
Building Foundations
• Based upon the soil conditions encountered, we recommend that augercast pile foundations be
used to support the proposed building. We recommend using I8-inch diameter piles with
allowable axial compressive capacities of 75 tons, provided the piles penetrate a minimum of
2 feet into the sandstone bedrock or extend to a maximum of 85 feet below the pile caps.
Building Floor Slab
• Based upon a finish floor elevation of 37 feet, grading across most of the building pad will
vary from a fill of up to about 3 feet to a cut of up to about 4 feet.However where the lobe of
coal mine tailings is present along the east side of the site, cuts of up to about 20 feet will be
necessary. Due to the presence of the very loose to loose coal fill and the potential for
liquefaction of the underlying native soils, we recommend that the floor slab be pile
supported.
• Subgrade compaction may be difficult to achieve because of the existing very loose coal fill.
Instead, it may become necessary to proofroll the subgrade with a loaded dump truck or other
suitable heavy equipment to reveal areas of soft or pumping soils.Overexcavated materials
should be replaced with non-organic compacted structural fill. The same process should be
completed in cut areas of the building pad once the cuts have been completed.
• A woven geotextile (as necessary) and a minimum of 12 inches of pit-run sand and gravel fill
should be placed above floor subgrade soils and be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of
18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite 117
Zipper Zeman Associates. Inc.
Lynnwood,Washington 98036 (425)771-3304
Proposed Retail Development
S.Grady Way and Talbot Road
Renton,Washington
J-1470
December 6, 2002
Page 5
the modified Proctor maximum dry density. We recommend that a durable methane/water
vapor barrier be placed between the 12 inches of granular structural fill and the capillary
break. A minimum 6-inch thick capillary break layer consisting of free-draining aggregate
should be placed over the methane gas barrier.
• We recommend that the building be underlain with a passive methane gas venting system that
is installed in the 12 inches of granular soil below the methane gas barrier and be routed to the
outside of the building.Confined spaces and underground structures should also be vented.
Light Pole Foundations
• Due to the loose fill conditions on site, we recommend that the parking lot light poles and
large signs be supported on augercast piles.It may be possible to consider other pole support
options, such as overexcavating the poor soils around the pole foundation and replacing it
with compacted structural fill or placing the light pole in a larger diameter steel pipe to
effectively increase the diameter of the foundation.
Drainage
• A perimeter footing system is recommended for the proposed structure due to the depth to
groundwater at the time of our explorations relative to the proposed finish floor elevation.
Retaining Walls
•Cast-in-place concrete walls should be supported on augercast piles.
•Backfilled subsurface walls should be designed using equivalent fluid pressures of 35 and 55
pcf for active and at-rest loading conditions,respectively.Surcharge pressures from
backslopes,traffic, and floor loads should be added to the earth pressures.
• Walls should be backfilled with a minimum of 18 inches of free-draining granular structural
fill that communicates with a footing drain or weepholes at the base of the wall.
Subsurface Walls
•Relatively shallow groundwater levels should be expected across the eastern portion of the
site. The highest groundwater elevation at the time of drilling was approximately 34 feet and
occurred along the toe of the slope along the east side of the site.Waterproofing systems
should prevent moisture migration through the walls, floors, and construction joints as
necessary to satisfy the owners requirements.
•Subsurface walls and floor slabs should be designed to resist hydrostatic lateral and uplift
forces,additive to the lateral earth pressure. Along the east side of the site,structures that
extend below elevation 34 feet should be designed for hydrostatic forces.
18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite 117
Zipper Zeman Associates. Inc.
Lynnwood,Washington 98036 (425)771-3304
Proposed Retail Development
S. Grady Way and Talbot Road
Renton,Washington
East Slope Retaining Wall
J-1470
December 6, 2002
Page 6
• A cut of approximately 18 feet will be necessary in the slope along the east side of the site in
order to provide access around the southeast comer of the proposed building.Permanent
shoring using soldier piles set in drilled holes that extend into the native sandstone and
retained by tieback anchors is recommended for the proposed wall.Soldier pile drilling
within the water-bearing sand deposits will likely require stabilizing the holes because the
saturated sands are very loose to loose. A program to maintain stabilized soldier pile holes
should be the responsibility of the contractor.The contractor should also be required to have
the capability to case holes when required.
•Historical records indicate that there were mineshaft adits in the area of the project site.
Review of the historical documents leads us to suspect that one of the mine openings may be
along the alignment of the existing 48-inch drainpipe that daylights on the project site. We
did not encounter conditions that would indicate the presence of the shafts. However,if a
zone of fill and/or a mine adit exists in the anchor zone of the proposed wall, it may not be
possible to install some of the tiebacks as recommended.
•Permanent tiebacks will also be necessary to support the proposed cut. We anticipate that a
single row of tiebacks will be sufficient.However,we would also anticipate that the tiebacks
could extend beyond the limits of the site and into the Benson Road right-of-way.The
feasibility of constructing permanent tiebacks in the right-of-way should be determined.
•Tieback anchors should be performance and proof tested. We recommend that all of the
tiebacks be performance tested to 150 percent of the design load and that that a minimum of 2
anchors be proof tested to 300 percent of the design load.
•Recommendations for Further Study: We recommend that additional subsurface
explorations be completed in support of the retaining wall design.If a mineshaft is present in
the tieback zone, further definition of the conditions prior to bidding would reduce the
possibility of change orders and delays during construction.Evaluations could consist of
surficial geophysical evaluations using resistivity or magnetics and/or downhole geophysical
methods in predrilled holes. We also recommend that the 48-inch pipe be logged with a
camera to determine its alignment and where it terminates.
Pavement
•Based upon compacting the exposed subgrade to a minimum of 95 percent of the modified
Proctor maximum dry density,standard pavement sections should consist of 3 inches of Class
B asphalt over 4 inches of crushed gravel base course over a minimum of 12 inches of pit-run
subbase.Heavy duty pavement sections should consist of 4 inches of Class B asphalt over 4
inches of crushed gravel base course over 12 inches of pit-run subbase.Depending on the
actual level of compaction,it may be necessary to use a geotextile fabric and additional
subbase. This would have to be determined at the time of construction.Asphalt-treated base
(ATB) may be substituted for crushed gravel base course (CGBC)at a ratio of
O.75"ATB:l"CGBC.
18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite 117
Zipper Zeman Associates. Inc.
Lynnwood,Washington 98036 (425) 771-3304
Proposed Retail Development
S.Grady Way and Talbot Road
Renton,Washington
Infiltration
J-1470
December 6, 2002
Page 7
• Due to the composition of the fill materials on site and the anticipated high groundwater levels
across the site, we recommend that infiltration rates be considered negligible.
SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The approximate 16 acre project site is located east of the intersection of South Grady
Way and Talbot Road (State Route 515), in the N.W.lf4 of Section 20, Township 23 North, Range
5 East in Renton, Washington. The property is bordered to the north by the Renton City Hall
Building, to the west and south by Talbot Road, to the north and west by South Grady Way, and
to the east by Benson Road and undeveloped land. The site is currently vacant, and with the
exception of an area along Benson Road, the project site is covered with asphalt pavement, gravel
covered areas, and the remains of two structural slabs that supported former buildings that have
been demolished. Slopes and a large lobe of coal mine waste fill on the eastern margin of the site
are primarily covered with blackberry brush and maple trees. The slopes appear to be on the
order of 20 to 30 feet in height and vary in steepness from about 1~H:1V to 2H:1V, or flatter.
Based on topographic information provided to us,it appears that the flatter portion of the site
varies in elevation between approximately 30 and 39 feet.It appears that Benson Road is
approximately 30 feet above the project site. A concrete aqueduct is situated along the toe of the
eastern slope and conducts water that appears to originate from the former Renton Coal Mine.
There are many above- and below-ground utilities at the site, some of which are still live.
High voltage electrical transmission lines also extend across the site.
As a result of past environmental site assessments on the project site, there are numerous
resource protection wells across the site. We estimate that there could be between 30 and 40
wells across the site.
We understand that the proposed development will consist of an approximate 135,000
square foot building with associated parking and landscaping. At the time of preparing this
report, the finish floor elevation is anticipated to be 37.0 feet. We anticipate that the exterior walls
will be constructed of concrete masonry block or steel frame and metal stud, and that steel tube
columns will provide interior roof support. Typical bay spacing between columns and walls is
approximately 50 by 47 feet and exterior columns are typically spaced 47 feet apart. For
purposes of preparing this report, the following structural loads are anticipated:
Interior column gravity load
Estimated maximum gravity load due to severe live loading
Exterior column gravity load
Maximum Column uplift forces from wind
Uniform load on continuous footings
Maximum uniform floor slab live load
Maximum floor slab concentrated load
65 kips
150kips
50 kips
30 kips
1.5-2.0 kips/lineal foot
250 psf
16.0kips
18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite 117
Zipper Zeman Associates. Inc.
Lynnwood,Washington 98036 (425) 771-3304
Proposed Retail Development
S.Grady Way and Talbot Road
Renton,Washington
J·1470
December 6, 2002
Page 8
Zipper Zeman Associates should be notified of any deviation from the project description
presented herein to determine its potential effect on the conclusions and recommendations
presented herein.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The subsurface exploration program completed by ZZA at the project site included 43
hollow-stem auger and mud-rotary borings, the approximate locations of which are presented on
Figure 1, the Site and Exploration Plan, enclosed with this report.Of the 43 borings, 6 were
completed in a separate phase in order to evaluate the stability of a proposed alteration to a lobe
of coal mine waste fill along the east side of the site. We also reviewed the logs of subsurface
explorations completed by GeoEngineers and Terra Associates for previous proposed projects on
the subject site. Copies of the boring logs completed for this evaluation are enclosed in Appendix
A.
The borings electric cone probes completed in the building pad and parking areas for this
study extended to depths ranging from 11'i'2 to 110'i'2 feet below the existing ground surface.
Below the surface, soils typically consisted of 4'i'2 to more than ll'i'2 feet of very loose to loose,
moist, wet, and saturated, brown to black, coal, cinders and shale fill. In general, the coal ranged
in size from silt to gravel sized. In many borings loose silty sand fill that appeared to originate
from the local sandstone formation was also encountered.Underlying the coal mine wastes,
interbedded alluvial soils consisting of very loose to loose silty sand and very soft to soft sandy
silt, peat, organic silt, and clayey silt extended to depths of 15 to 49 feet below grade. The
alluvium graded to medium dense sand with varying proportions of silt and gravel and medium
stiff to stiff sandy silt, silt, organic silt, clayey silt and silty clay that extended to depths of
approximately 18'i'2 to 107 feet below grade. Very dense,weathered sandstone bedrock was
encountered below these materials and extended to the bottom of the borings. The sandstone is
part of the Renton Formation that is also the source of the coal fill encountered on the site. The
sandstone appears to dip relatively steeply to the west.
Borings B-IA through B-6A were completed on the lobe of coal mine waste fill along the
east side of the site.Subsurface conditions consisted of 20 to 36 feet of very loose to loose, damp
to wet, brown and black, coal and cinder fill with random layers of silty sand that originated from
the sandstone bedrock. Because of the steeply dipping sandstone bedrock in the area, borings B-
IA, B-2A, and B-3A, that were completed along the western margin of the fill,encountered 7 to
19 feet of very loose to loose sandy alluvial soils beneath the fill.Sandstone bedrock was
encountered in borings B-IA and B-2A at depths of 29 and 47 feet below existing grades,
respectively. In borings B-4A, B-5A, and B-6A, an approximate 3-foot thick layer of very loose,
wet to saturated, silty sand was encountered between the tailings and the dense sandstone. The
very loose layer was interpreted to be residual soil derived from the weathering of the sandstone.
Dense to very dense sandstone was encountered at depths of 23 to 33 feet below existing grades.
Four borings (B-4, B-9, B-36, and B-37) were completed in the area of the proposed
retaining wall that is situated near the southeast comer of the proposed building. Boring B-4
encountered approximately 7 feet of loose silty sand fill over 8 feet of loose native soils
consisting of sand with varying proportions of silt, gravel and organics. At 15 feet, a 3-foot thick
18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite 117
Zipper Zeman Associates. Inc.
Lynnwood,Washington 98036 (425)771-3304
Proposed Retail Development
S.Grady Way and Talbot Road
Renton,Washington
J-1470
December 6, 2002
Page 9
layer of medium dense, silty sand with some gravel, interpreted as highly weathered sandstone
was.encountered. At a depth of approximately l8'i'2 feet, very dense sandstone was encountered.
In borings B-36 and B-37, approximately 4'i'2 to 6Y2 feet of very loose to loose silty sand and coal
tailings fill was encountered. In B-36, interbedded, very loose silty sand, sandy silt, and peaty
organic layers were encountered between 6'i'2 and 13 feet. Between 13 and 19 feet, medium stiff
sandy silt with interbedded silty sand and organics extended to a depth of approximately 19 feet.
At his depth, very dense sandstone was encountered. In B-37, very loose to loose alluvial sand
with varying proportions of silt gravel and peat was generally encountered. However, a 4-foot
thick peat layer was encountered between 8Y2 and 28 feet below grade. Dense grading to very
dense sandstone was encountered at a depth of 28 feet and continued to the bottom of the boring.
Boring B-9 was completed above the site along the edge of Benson Road. Approximately 10 feet
of loose to medium dense, silty sand fill was encountered below the surface. A possible relic,
silty sand topsoil layer.was encountered between 10 and IOY2 feet. Between 1OY2 and 20 feet,
medium dense silty sand was encountered. This material graded to a dense condition and
extended to a depth of about 25 feet. At that depth, the material graded to very dense weathered
sandstone.
The enclosed boring logs should be referred to for more specific information. Figure I,
the Site and Exploration plan includes information regarding the thickness of fill and depth to
bedrock at each of the boring locations.
Groundwater Conditions
Groundwater was encountered at the time of drilling in 39 of the 43 the borings.
Excluding the topographically higher borings, groundwater levels varied in depth across the site
from 3 to 12 feet at the time of completing the explorations. The elevations of the groundwater
levels varied between 23 and 34 feet with the highest groundwater elevation occurring nearest a
small pond that is between the outflow from two discharge pipes at the base of the slope along the
east side of the site and the north end of the aqueduct. Based on information presented by
GeoEngineers, it appears that the observed groundwater levels at the time of drilling coincide
with their observations.
Wet soils were encountered in borings B-4A, B-5A, and B-6A above the sandstone.
Perched groundwater should be expected to develop above the sandstone in areas above the
regional groundwater table. Variations in groundwater conditions should be expected due to
seasonal variations, on and off-site land usage, irrigation, and other factors.
Seismic Criteria
According to the Seismic Zone Map of the United States contained in the 1997 Uniform
Building Code,the project site lies within Seismic Zone 3. The Seismic Zone Factor (Z) for
Seismic Zone 3 is 0.30 that corresponds Seismic Coefficients C,and C,of 0.36 and 0.84,
respectively. Based on soil conditions encountered at the site, the subsurface site conditions are
interpreted to correspond to a seismic soil profile type SE as defined by Table 16-J of the 1997
Uniform Building Code.Soil profile type SE applies to an average soil profile within the top 100
feet consisting predominantly of soft soil characterized by Standard Penetration Test blowcounts
18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite 117
Zipper Zeman Associates. Inc.
Lynnwood,Washington 98036 (425)771-3304
Proposed Retail Development
S.Grady Way and Talbot Road
Renton,Washington
J-1470
December 6, 2002
Page 10
less than 15, a shear wave velocity of less than 600 feet per second, and an undrained shear
strength less than 1,000 psf. Some of the near-surface soils are considered to be prone to
liquefaction during a design earthquake with a 10percent probability of exceedance in 50 years.
Results of pH and Resistivity Tt(stin~
Results of the pH and resistivity testing are presented in the following table.
Borlna and Sample Number Depth (Feet)pH Resistivity (ohm-em)
B-2, S-1 5-6'l'2 6.9 4,600
B-5 S-2 5-6'l'2 6.7 9,400
B-8, S-5b 15'l'2 5.6 3,300
B-26 S-2 5-6'l'2 5.6 4500
The electrical resistivity of each sample listed above was measured in the laboratory with
distilled water added to create a standardized condition of saturation. Resistivities are at about
their lowest value when the soil is saturated. Electrical resistivities of soils are a measure of their
resistance to the flow of corrosion currents. Corrosion currents tend to be lower in high resistivity
soils. The electrical resistivity of the soil varies primarily with its chemical and moisture
contents. Typically, the lower the resistivity of native soils, the more likely that galvanic currents
may develop and increase the possibility of corrosion. Based on .laboratory test results, resistivity
values for the near surface native soils varied between 3,300 and 9,400 ohm-ern.Soils with
resistivity values between 2,000 and 10,000ohm-em are generally associated with soils classified
as "mildly to moderately corrosive". The pH of the soils is slightly acidic but is not considered
significant in evaluating corrosivity. Therefore, it is our opinion that Type IIII cement is suitable
for this project. With respect to the need for protection of buried metal utilities, we recommend
that PacLand consult with the manufacturers of specific products in order to determine the need
for protection.
Climate Data
According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, Climatic Atlas of the United States,
1993, the project site lies within thePuget Sound Lowlands Region of Washington. Mean
monthly rainfall varies from a low of 0.96 inches in July to a high of 5.56 inches in December.
Between November and March, there are about 20 days per month where 0.01 inches or more of
rainfall occurs. Normal daily minimum temperatures are above freezing throughout the year.
Mean annual total snowfall is about 12inches.
Weather data from the Western Region Climate Center (WRCC) for Kent, Washington
(the nearest weather station) varied slightly from the Climatic Atlas and likely represents a more
accurate representation of the local weather. The greatest mean monthly snowfall occurs in
18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite 117
Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc.
Lynnwood, Washington 98036
Proposed Retail Development
S.Grady Way and Talbot Road
Renton,Washington
J-1470
December 6, 2002
Page 11
January and averages 7.3 inches. Average monthly rainfall and snowfall amounts can be greatly
exceeded as can be seen in the enclosed weather data.
The mean total precipitation for each month at the Kent weather station is:
January:5.73 in.July: 0.85 in.
February:4.32 in.August:1.15 in.
March:3.88 in.September: 1.78 in.
April:2.70 in.October:3.49 in.
May 1.86 in.November: 5.88 in.
June:1.56in.December: 6.00 in.
The WRCC Monthly Total Snowfall, Monthly Total Precipitation, and Monthly Normals
data are also presented in Appendix D.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The geologic conditions at the site are considered to be relatively poor from a geotechnical
engineering standpoint. The soil conditions generally consist of very loose to loose fill soils
composed primarily of coal and cinders over very soft to soft peat, silt, clay, clayey silt, and sandy
silt, as well as very loose to loose, wet to saturated silty sand and sand. The fill soils are
considered unsuitable for shallow foundation support and the native peat, silt and clay exhibit
relatively low strength and high compressibility characteristics that makes them susceptible to
consolidation when loaded. Consolidation under normally loaded foundation elements would
produce excessive total and differential settlements of the structure. Additionally, the cleaner,
very loose to loose sands are susceptible to liquefaction during a design earthquake. Liquefaction
susceptible sands were encountered in the borings within the building pad and the resulting
settlement associated with the occurrence of liquefaction could result in relatively large
differential settlements across the building pad. Preloading would not mitigate the liquefaction
potential at the site.
Environmentally Critical Areas -StelW Slope, Landslide, and Erosion Considerations
The slopes around the base of the fill lobe are relatively steep and are considered sensitive
and/or protected slopes as presented in the Municipal Code of Renton. As such, slopes
categorized as sensitive or protected are also considered to be geologic hazards by the City of
Renton. In order to modify the ridge, it was necessary to evaluate the soils and complete a slope
stability analysis of the proposed modifications to the slope.
Steep slope areas are classified as protected or sensitive. A protected slope is defined as a
hillside, or portion thereof, with an average slope of 40 percent or greater with a minimum
vertical rise of 15 feet. A sensitive slope is a hillside, or portion thereof,of 25 percent to less than
40 percent or and average slope of 40 percent or greater with a vertical rise of less than 15 feet
abutting an average slope of 25 percent to 40 percent.It is our opinion that all of the affected area
would be classified as protected or sensitive.
1890533rd Avenue W., Suite 117
Zipper Zeman Associates. Ipc.
Lynnwood,Washington 98036 (425) 771-3304
Proposed Retail Development
S.Grady Way and Talbot Road
Renton,Washington
J-1470
December 6, 2002
Page 12
Moderate landslide hazard areas are defined as those areas with slopes between 15 and 40
percent where the surficial soils are underlain by permeable geologic units. High landslide hazard
areas are defined as those areas with slopes greater than 40 percent and areas with slopes between
15 and 40 percent where the surficial soils are underlain by low permeability geologic units.It
appears that slopes are greater than 15 percent and are underlain by both permeable and
impermeable soils. Therefore, it appears that the existing slope would fall within both categories
depending on the subsurface conditions.
The lobe of fill would also be defined as a high seismic hazard area due the hillsides being
comprised of loose fill over alluvium and post-glacial silts and peats.It also meets the definition
of a high erosion hazard area because the slopes are greater than 15percent.
Slope Stability Analysis
A slope stability analysis was performed for the site using the XSTABL5.2 computer
program. The stability analysis was based on a generalized subsurface soil and groundwater
profile through the existing and was developed using the site-specific subsurface data. Two direct
shear test were completed on representative samples obtained in borings B-3A at a depth of 16 to
16~feet and B-5A at a depth of 21 ~to 22 feet. This provided us with strength parameters that
were used in the slope stability analyses.
A topographic and subsurface profile was developed along line A-A'as shown on Figure
1, the Site and Exploration Plan. Based on the relative density, grain size distribution,
depositional history, and the site specific subsurface and laboratory data, it is our opinion that the
friction angle and cohesion values are reasonable estimates of the site soil strength parameters.
SOIL PARAMETERS FOR SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES
Soil Layer Friction Angle (<I»Cohesion (pst) Moist Unit Weight
(pcf)
Coal Tailings 37 0 70
Loose Sand Above
Sandstone 33 0 120
Loose Alluvium 32 0 120
Sandstone 15 3,000 140
Our analysis evaluated both static and dynamic (seismic) conditions for the existing slope
inclinations with and without an inferred perched groundwater table. The USGS Seismic Hazard
Mapping Project earthquake hazard map for the area indicated a peak horizontal bedrock
acceleration of O.32g for an earthquake with a 10 percent exceedance in 50 years. Our analysis
used a dynamic (seismic) horizontal ground acceleration of 0.16g (1/2 the peak acceleration)
conditions for the permanent cut slope inclination of 3H:1V, which is more indicative of the
average ground acceleration during a seismic event of design magnitude. Figure 2, Generalized
Subsurface Profile A-A', presents the subsurface soil and groundwater profile used for our
analysis.
18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite 117
Zipper Zeman Associates. Inc.
Lynnwood,Washington 98036 (425) 771-3304
Proposed Retail Development
S.Grady Way and Talbot Road
Renton,Washington
J-1470
December 6, 2002
Page 13
The following table presents the results of the static and dynamic stability analysis
conducted for this project.
TABLE 1
RESULTS OF SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
Minimum Minimum
Slope Configuration Static Safety Factor Seismic Safety Factor
3H:IV Permanent Slope 2.1*1.3*
*Reduced factors of safety are possible if high groundwater or low shear strength materials are present in the slope.
Based on our analysis, a permanent cut slope inclination of 3H:IV appears to be suitable
for static and seismic conditions. The results of the pseudostatic stability analysis (lowest safety
factor) are presented on Figure 3.
The occurrence of perched groundwater above the sandstone and within the tailings would
reduce the factor of safety and could potentially cause failure. In order to reduce the risk of
groundwater and surface infiltration destabilizing the slope, a subsurface drainage should be
installed to maintain groundwater levels as deep as possible. A series of perforated interceptor
drains on about a 25-foot lateral spacing in a herringbone pattern and connected to a collector
pipe will likely be necessary. The laterals would be connected to a collector pipe installed
essentially down the middle of the proposed slope. We recommend that the laterals be installed on
the sandstone and that the lowest set of interceptor pipes be installed to an invert elevation of 34
feet. We recommend that our firm review the design of the drains and that ZZA monitor their
installation. The final depths and locations will likely require field adjustments based on the
conditions encountered during construction.
Erosion Mitigation
The soils comprising the proposed cut slope are susceptible to erosion by flowing water.
We recommend the following erosion control Best Management Practices be implemented during
construction:
• Establish well-defined clearing limits to reduce the amount of vegetation disturbed during
construction;
• Place silt control fence downslope of disturbed areas;
• Cover excavated slopes with plastic sheeting during rainfall events;
• Cover disturbed and graded areas with straw, excelsior blankets, or other appropriate erosion
control materials, combined with seeding or other planting, to promote revegetation. Excelsior
blankets such as Curlex®,jute matting such as Geojute®, or other rolled erosion control
products, installed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations, are
recommended for sloping portions of the site disturbed during construction. Such areas
18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite 117
Zipper Zeman Associates.Inc.
Lynnwood,Washington 98036 (425) 771-3304
Proposed Retail Development
S.Grady Way and Talbot Road
Renton,Washington
J-1470
December 6, 2002
Page 14
include spots were the existing landscaping waste located at or slightly over the slope break is
removed.
• Perched groundwater could daylight on the proposed 3H:1V slope that generally is not evident
on the existing slopes.If groundwater seepage daylights on the slope, it might cause shallow
slumping. These areas,ifit occurs, should be covered with a minimum of 10 inches of riprap.
We recommend that riprap conform to the specifications for Quarry Spalls as presented in
section 9-13.6 of the 2002 WSDOT Standard Specifications.
Foundations Settlement Discussion
There are three modes of potential settlement relative to the soil conditions encountered at
the site. The existing fill soils are comprised primarily of very loose to loose coal fragments in
the size range of silt, sand, and gravel. The composition and relative density of this material
makes it unsuitable for support of shallow foundations. The very soft to soft peat, silt, clay, and
clayey silt are expected to consolidate under the weight of static foundation loads and fill soil
surcharges. Additional, long-term settlements are probable due to secondary compression of
these materials. Finally, seismically-induced liquefaction in the very loose to loose saturated
sandy soils below the water table is also a significant risk. We have estimated that seismically-
induced settlements on the order of 4 to 7 inches could occur within the zones of sand that were
encountered across the building pad.
Because of the subsurface conditions encountered, we recommend that the building be
supported on pile foundations or soils that are deeply mixed with cement. In our opinion, either
option used to support structural loads for the new building would substantially reduce the risk of
excessive post-construction settlement and transmit foundation loads through liquefaction
susceptible soils. We recommend that the floor also be supported on piling or columns of cement-
mixed soil that extends to the bedrock.
Liqyefaction Analysis
As part of this study, we performed a site-specific liquefaction analysis using the methods
developed by Seed and Idriss for the soil conditions encountered in our boring. Liquefaction can
be described as a sudden loss of shear strength due to the sudden increase in porewater pressure
caused by shear waves associated with earthquakes.Based.on our liquefaction analysis, we
estimate that there is a risk that liquefaction would occur at various depths between approximately
10 to 40 feet below the existing ground surface during a design level earthquake event, as
discussed below. Laboratory testing was completed as a part of this liquefaction analysis, the
results of which are attached or indicated on the boring logs, as appropriate.
Based on the Uniform Building Code (UBC) guidelines, seismic analysis should be based
on an event having a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years or return period of
approximately 475 years. According to available historical data, this return period within the
Seattle-Portland area would be associated with an earthquake of approximate Richter magnitude
7.5. According to the United States Geological Survey, the peak ground surface acceleration
18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite 117
Zipper Zeman Associates. Inc.
Lynnwood,Washington 98036 (425) 771-3304
Proposed Retail Development
S. Grady Way and Talbot Road
Renton,Washington
J-1470
December 6, 2002
Page 15
produced by an earthquake of this magnitude will be about 0.3g at the subject site, which
corresponds with the locally accepted acceleration values for fill or alluvial soils.
Using these seismic parameters, we computed safety factors against liquefaction for the
various soil layers below the water table using an analysis method developed by Seed and Idriss.
Our analyses revealed a high probability of liquefaction (safety factors ranging from <1 to 1.3)
within the zones of sand that were encountered at various depths below the water table down to
depths of 40 feet and more.
The report titled Liquefaction Susceptibility for the Des Moines and Renton 7.5-minute
Quadrangles,Washington,(Geologic Map GM-41), prepared by the Washington State
Department of Natural Resources, delineates the site as being underlain by Category I soil
deposits. Category I soil is defined having a high susceptibility to liquefaction. The report
presents quotes from the Mayor and City Engineer of Renton after the 1965, Richter magnitude
6.5, Seattle-Tacoma earthquake. Reportedly, the entire lengths of Burnett Street and 7
th Avenue
required filling and paving to repair settling. In some places, the settlement was reported to be as
much as 2 feet. Burnett Street and 7
th Avenue are located just north and west of Grady Way,
respectively, and within a few hundred feet of the project site.
Liquefaction could produce surface disturbance in the form of lateral spreading,
subsidence, fissuring, or heaving of the ground surface, which could result in cracking, settling or
tilting of the building. Volumetric strain on the order of ~to 3 percent could be possible in the
liquefiable layers which correlates the potential settlements of about 4 to 7 inches of settlement,
depending on the thickness of liquefiable soils. Due to the potential for liquefaction, as well as
the relatively high settlement potential for shallow foundations, a pile foundation system that
transmits foundation loads to the competent bedrock or dense soils encountered at a depth of
approximately 19to approximately 85 feet is recommended.
Site Preparation
Critical geotechnical considerations on the site include the moisture-sensitive soils
encountered, high groundwater conditions along the east side of the site, the poor quality coal
tailings fill across the site, and the deeper compressible and potentially liquefiable soils. The
design recommendations presented in this report are therefore based on the observed conditions
and on the assumption that earthwork for site grading, utilities, foundations, floor slabs, loading
dock walls, and pavements will be monitored by a qualified geotechnical engineer.
Any existing buried utilities, underground storage tanks or septic tanks on the site should
be removed, relocated, or abandoned, as necessary, in accordance with all local, state and federal
regulations. Localized excavations made for removal of utilities should be backfilled with
structural fill as outlined in the following section of this report. The excavated soils should be
considered unsuitable for reuse as structural fill.
Stripping, excavation, grading, and subgrade preparation should be performed in a manner
and sequence that will provide positive drainage at all times and provide proper control of
erosion. Accumulated water must be removed from subgrades and work areas immediately and
18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite 117
Zipper Zeman As~ociates.Inc.
Lynnwood, Washington 98036 (425)771-3304
Proposed Retail Development
S.Grady Way and Talbot Road
Renton,Washington
J-1470
December 6, 2002
Page 16
prior to performing further work in the area.If ponded surface water collects it should be pumped
or drained to provide a suitable discharge location. The site should be graded to prevent water
from ponding in construction areas and/or flowing into excavations. Exposed grades should be
crowned, sloped, and smooth-drain rolled at the end of each day to facilitate drainage if inclement
weather is forecasted. Equipment access may be limited if drainage efforts are not accomplished
in a timely sequence. Project delays and increased costs could be incurred due to the muddy
conditions if a working drainage system is not utilized.
Site preparation will require the removal of limited surface vegetation and organic-rich
topsoil across the site. Based on the conditions encountered in the explorations, we recommend
that all organics, root mats, and topsoil be stripped to an average depth of 6 inches in those areas
where topsoil is present. Additional removal of vegetation and/or organic-rich soils, such as in
areas of heavy vegetation, should be determined by a qualified geotechnical engineer at the time
of grading based on the subgrade material's organic content and stability.
In general, relatively wet conditions prevail in the project area between November and
May. During this period, the existing surficial fill soils could remain relatively wet and unstable.
A relatively high groundwater table along the east side of the site and the probability of cutting
this area down to approximately elevation 35 or 36 feet will expose very loose fill soils that are
currently wet to saturated. The surficial soils are sensitive because of the elevated moisture
contents and will become unstable if they are not protected from construction traffic. In wet
conditions, additional soils will need to be removed and replaced with a coarse crushed or
naturally occurring sand and gravel or crushed recycled concrete mat. Other stabilization
methods such as lime or cement treatment are not recommended due to the high organic content
of the coal tailings fill. Where overexcavation is necessary, it should be confirmed through
monitoring and testing by a qualified inspection firm.
We recommend that site preparation and initial construction activities should be planned
to reduce disturbance to the existing ground surface. The severity of construction problems will
be dependent, in part, on the precautions that are taken by the contractor to protect the moisture
and disturbance-sensitive site soils. Construction traffic should be restricted to dedicated
driveway and laydown areas to prevent excessive disturbance of the parking area and driveway
subgrades.If site stripping and grading activities are performed during extended dry weather
periods, a lesser degree of subgrade stabilization may be necessary. However, it should be noted
that intermittent wet weather periods during the summer months could delay earthwork if soil
moisture conditions become elevated above the optimum moisture content. The use of a working
surface of pit-run sand and gravel, crushed rock, or quarry spalls may be required to protect the
existing soils particularly in areas supporting concentrated equipment traffic.
Prior to placing structural fill in the building pad, the subgrade should compacted to a firm
and unyielding condition, moisture conditions permitting. Alternatively, the building pad should
be covered with a woven geotextile equivalent to Mirafi 600X and a minimum of 12 inches of
select granular structural fill. The building pad may then be raised to the planned finished grade
with compacted structural fill. Subgrade preparation and selection, placement, and compaction of
structural fill should be performed under engineering controlled conditions in accordance with the
project specifications. We recommend that the building pad be surfaced with a minimum of 18
18905 33rd Avenue W.,Suite 117
Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc.
Lynnwood,Washington 98036 (425)771-3304
Proposed Retail Development
S.Grady Way and Talbot Road
Renton,Washington
-------------------------------
J-1470
December 6, 2002
Page 17
inches of "select"granular fill, or free-draining crushed ballast or base course, as defined by
Sections 9-03.9(1) and 9-03.9(3), respectively,of the 2002 WSDOT Standard Specifications
Manual. Material considered to be "select" should meet the 2002 WSDOT Standard
Specifications Section, 9-03.14(1), Gravel Borrow, or be approved by the owner's geotechnical
engineer. Haul roads should be constructed by placing a woven geotextile such as Mirafi 600X or
Amoco 2006 over the existing coal tailings with a minimum of 12 inches of select granular fill
placed over the fabric. The fabric should only be placed in areas between the rows of augercast
piles and not where the piles will be drilled.
If earthwork takes place during freezing conditions, all exposed subgrades should be
allowed to thaw and then be recompacted prior to placing subsequent lifts of structural fill or
foundation components. Alternatively, the frozen material could be stripped from the subgrade to
reveal unfrozen soil prior to placing subsequent lifts of fill or foundation components. The frozen
soil should not be reused as structural fill until allowed to thaw and adjusted to the proper
moisture content, which may not be possible during winter months.
Structural Fill
All structural fill should be placed in accordance with the recommendations presented
herein. Prior to the placement of structural fill, all surfaces to receive fill should be prepared as
previously recommended in Site Preparation section of this report.
Structural fill includes any fill material placed under footings, pavements, or other
permanent structures or facilities. The existing surficial fill soils should be considered unsuitable
for reuse as structural fill. Limited zones of silty sand may be encountered in the large lobe of
coal tailings fill on the east side of the site and should be considered suitable for reuse as
structural fill. However, it appears that the majority of the lobe consists of coal.
It appears that material used as structural fill will need to be imported. On-site soils
considered suitable for reuse appear to be limited to the base course material beneath the existing
asphalt pavement and limited pockets of silty sand that is layered in the coal tailings fill.
Materials typically used for import structural fill include clean, well-graded sand and gravel ("pit
run"), clean sand, various mixtures of sand, silt and gravel, and crushed rock. Recycled concrete,
if locally available, is also useful for structural fill provided the material is thoroughly crushed to
a well-graded, 2-inch minus product. Structural fill materials should be free of deleterious,
organic, or frozen matter and should contain no chemicals that may result in the material being
classified as "contaminated".
Import structural fill for raising site grades can consist of a combination of "common" and
"select granular" material. "Common" structural fill consists of lesser quality, more moisture-
sensitive soil, such as the soils encountered at the project site, that is free of organics and
deleterious materials, is compactable to a firm and unyielding condition, and meets the minimum
specified compaction levels. We recommend that common structural fill meet the requirements
of the 2002 WSDOT Standard Specifications Section, 9-03.14(3), Common Borrow.
18905 33rd Avenue W.,Suite 117
Zipper Zeman Associates. Inc.
Lynnwood,Washington 98036 (425) 771-3304
Proposed Retail Development
S.Grady Way and Talbot Road
Renton,Washington
J·1470
December 6, 2002
Page 18
"Select"granular fill consists of free-draining naturally occurring, crushed aggregate, or
quarry spalls. Select fill is generally used when less moisture sensitive material is needed for
structural fill applications."Select"structural fill should meet the requirements of the 2002
WSDOT Standard Specifications Sections, 9-03.12(2), Gravel Backfill for Walls or 9-03.14(1),
for Gravel Borrow.
Structural fill should be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness.
Individual lifts should be compacted such that a minimum density of at least 95 percent of the
modified Proctor (ASTM:D-1557) maximum dry density is achieved. Higher compaction levels
should be achieved where called for in the project specifications of the local development
standards. Subgrade soils below pavement areas and all base course materials should also be
compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density. The top
12 inches of compacted structural fill should have a maximum 2-inch particle diameter and all
underlying fill a maximum 6-inch diameter unless specifically recommended by the geotechnical
engineer and approved by the owner. We recommend that a qualified geotechnical engineer from
ZZA be present during the placement of structural fill to observe the work and perform a
representative number of in-place density tests. In this way, the adequacy of earthwork may be
evaluated as grading progresses.
The suitability of soils used for structural fill depends primarily on the gradation and
moisture content of the soil when it is placed. As the fines content (that portion passing the U.S.
No. 200 sieve)of a soil increases, it becomes increasingly sensitive to small changes in moisture
content and adequate compaction becomes more difficult or impossible to achieve. We therefore
recommend that grading activities be scheduled for the driest time of year in consideration of the
moisture-sensitive nature of the site soils. Adjusting the moisture content of the site soils during
the wetter and colder months between November and March would be much more difficult to
accomplish.If inclement weather or soil moisture content prevent the use of imported common
borrow material as structural fill, we recommend that use of "select"granular fill be considered.
It should be noted that the placement of structural fill is in many cases weather-dependent and
delays due to inclement weather are common even when using "select"granular fill.
Reusing wet or excessively over-optimum on-site or import soils for structural fill would
necessitate treatment of the soils to reduce the moisture content to a level adequate for
compaction..In the summer, air drying is commonly incorporated.When air drying is not
feasible, kiln dust admixtures are typically used to increase the workability of the wet soils to a
level where the soils can be compacted. The admixtures are extremely alkaline and can increase
the pH of the soil mixture. Before such admixtures are considered, we recommend that their use
be submitted to the appropriate overseeing agency since some jurisdictions are putting restrictions
on their use, in particular kiln dust.If moisture conditioning of the soils is required to increase the
moisture content of dry-of-optimum soils, we recommend that the soils be uniformly blended
with the added moisture.
Based upon the nature of the existing fill soils, it is our opinion that the subgrade soils
exhibit a low potential for swelling. However because the surficial fill soils consist primarily of
coal, we anticipate that the material left in place could generate methane over time.
18905 33rd Avenue W.,Suite 117
Zipper Zeman Associates. Inc.
Lynnwood,Washington 98036 (425)771·3304
Proposed Retail Development
S.Grady Way and Talbot Road
Renton,Washington
J-1470
December 6, 2002
Page 19
Excess soils may require stockpiling for extended periods of time before they can be used.
It is recommended that all stockpiled soils intended for reuse as structural fill be protected with
anchored polyethylene sheet plastic strong enough to withstand local wind conditions.
Utility Trenchin~and Backfillin~
Existing on-site, underground utilities should be removed, relocated or properly
abandoned in place in order to prevent possible future settlement problems. All existing
underground utilities should be decommissioned, abandoned, or backfilled in accordance with all
applicable State and local regulations. Alternatively, abandoned utilities may be grouted in place.
If the trench backfill materials above the existing utilities consist of coal tailings fill, we
recommend that it be considered unsuitable for reuse as structural fill anywhere on site.If any
existing utilities are to be preserved, grading operations must be carefully performed so as to not
disturb or damage the existing utility.
We anticipate that most utility subgrades will consist of very loose to loose coal tailings
fill or possibly soft silt, loose silty sand, or peaty soils. Soils deemed unsuitable for utility support
should be overexcavated a minimum of 12inches in order to develop a firm, uniform base. Where
peat is encountered, we recommend that the entire thickness of the material be removed and
replaced. The replacement fill will be difficult to compact due to groundwater seepage and/or the
underlying soft, native soils. Where possible, the structural fill used to replace overexcavated
soils should be compacted as specified and as recommended in this report. Where water is
encountered in the excavations, it should be removed prior to fill placement. Alternatively, clean
(less than 1 percent fines) quarry spalls could be used for backfill below the water level. We
recommend that utility trenching, installation, and backfilling conform to all applicable federal,
state, and local regulations such as OSHA for open excavations.
In boring B-37, approximately 4 feet of peat was encountered at a depth of about 812 feet
below existing grade or about elevation 33Y2 feet. This is in the area of an alignment for a 4-foot
diameter pipe that will convey mine runoff along the toe of a permanent retaining wall. We
understand that the pipe may be covered with as little as one foot of soil. Given the proposed cut
of about 5 to 6 feet in the area of boring B-37, it appears that the pipe invert will be situated in the
middle of the peat.It is our opinion that the peat is not suitable for support of the pipe and should
therefore be overexcavated and replaced with compacted structural fill.It appears that dewatering
will be necessary to accomplish this since groundwater was encountered approximately 8 feet
below grade at the time of drilling. We recommend that similar measures be taken for all deep
utilities and structures, such as manholes and vaults, when peat or otherwise unsuitable materials
are encountered. We recommend that trench excavation and preparation for all utilities be
completed in general accordance with WSDOT Standard Specification 7-08.
Existing on-site soils are considered unsuitable for utility trench backfill. Instead,
imported soils that can be compacted to the minimum recommended levels should be used taking
into consideration the surrounding soil and groundwater conditions at the time of construction.
Pipe bedding and cover should be placed according to utility manufacturer's recommendations
and local ordinances. Generally, it is recommended that a minimum of 4 inches of bedding
material be placed in the trench bottom. All bedding should conform to the specifications
18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite 117
Zipper Zeman Associate~.Inc.
Lynnwood, Washington 98036 (425) 771-3304
Proposed Retail Development
S. Grady Way and Talbot Road
Renton,Washington
J-1470
December 6, 2002
Page 20
presented in Section 9-03.12(3)of the WSDOT Standard Specifications Manual or be approved
by the owners'geotechnical representative based upon specific conditions encountered at the site.
All excavations should be wide enough to allow for compaction around the haunches of pipes and
underground tanks. Otherwise, materials such as controlled density fill or pea gravel could be
used to eliminate the compactive effort required.
Backfilling for the remainder of the trenches could be completed utilizing common fill or
select granular fill, depending on soil moisture and weather conditions, as well as groundwater
levels. Compaction of backfill material should be accomplished with soils within ±2 percent of
their optimum moisture content in order to achieve the minimum specified compaction levels set
forth in this report and project specifications. However, initial lift thickness could be increased to
levels recommended by the manufacturer to protect utilities from damage by compacting
equipment. For planning purposes, we recommend that all native soils be considered unsuitable
for reuse as structural fill.
Filtered sump pumps placed in the bottoms of excavations or other conventional
dewatering techniques are anticipated to be suitable for dewatering excavations that terminate
above the water table,if seepage is encountered. Pumped dewatering well systems would likely
be required to facilitate excavations below the water table.
Pre-bid test pits could assist in evaluating the most economical means of site excavation.
Relatively flat slopes, benching, or temporary bracing may be needed. Conventional trench box
shoring is also an option for the project.
Terrworary and Permanent Slopes
Temporary slope stability is a function of many factors, including the following:
• The presence and abundance of groundwater;
• The type and density of the various soil strata;
• The depth of cut;
• Surcharge loadings adjacent to the excavation;
• The length of time the excavation remains open.
It is exceedingly difficult under the variable circumstances to pre-establish a safe and
"maintenance-free"temporary cut slope angle. Therefore, it should be the responsibility of the
contractor to maintain safe temporary slope configurations since the contractor is continuously at
the job site, able to observe the nature and condition of the cut slopes, and able to monitor the
subsurface materials and groundwater conditions encountered.It may be necessary to drape
temporary slopes throughout the site with plastic sheeting or other means to protect the slopes
from the elements and minimize sloughing and erosion. Unsupported vertical slopes or cuts
deeper than 4 feet are not recommended if worker access is necessary. The cuts should be
adequately sloped, shored, or supported to prevent injury to personnel from local sloughing and
spalling. The excavation should conform to applicable federal, state, and local regulations.
18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite 117
Zipper Zeman Associates. Inc.
Lynnwood,Washington 98036 (425) 771-3304
Proposed Retail Development
S.Grady Way and Talbot Road
Renton,Washington
J-1470
December 6, 2002
Page 21
We recommend that all permanent slopes constructed in the coal tailings be designed at a
3H:1V (Horizontal:Vertical) inclination or flatter. Temporary slopes should be excavated at an
inclination no steeper than 2H:1V. Where wet or saturated coal tailings are exposed, temporary
and permanent slope angles flatter than those may be necessary.
Permanent structural fill placed on existing slopes steeper than 5H:1V
(Horizontal:Vertical) should be keyed and benched into natural soils of the underlying slope. We
recommend that the base downslope key be cut into undisturbed native soil. The key slot should
be at least 8 feet wide and 3 feet deep. The hillside benches cut into the native soil should be at
least 4 feet in width. The face of the embankment should be compacted to the same 95 percent
relative compaction as the body of the fill. This may be accomplished by overbuilding the
embankment and cutting back to the compacted core. Alternatively, the surface of the slope may
be compacted as it is built, or upon completion of the embankment fill placement.
Shorinlj Desiljn Criteria
Development of the site will require the construction of a permanent retaining wall near
the southeast comer of the proposed building. The exposed maximum height of the wall will be
approximately 18 feet. However, we understand that a 4-foot diameter pipe will be installed
along the base of the wall to convey mine runoff that currently is routed to the site and then
through an aqueduct to the south end of the site. Below the pipe, the native soils will consist of
very loose sand and silty sand, as well as soft peat, and silt. Sandstone bedrock was encountered
about 19 to 24 feet below the existing ground surface in the area of the wall. Based on the
subsurface conditions encountered at the site we recommend that the retaining wall consist of
soldier pile shoring with permanent tiebacks. A permit to allow the permanent tiebacks in the
Benson Road right-of-way will likely be necessary for a tieback-supported system.If permanent
tiebacks are not permitted, it will be necessary to consider designing a cantilevered soldier pile
wall or a temporarily tied-back wall that is integrated with a pile-supported concrete retaining
wall.
The lateral movement of soil and shoring surrounding the excavation will cause varying
degrees of settlement of streets and sidewalks adjacent to the excavation. The settlement-
sensitivity and importance of any adjacent structures and improvements need to be considered
when selecting appropriate shoring system and design criteria. The excavation will be near
Benson Road that contains utilities that may be settlement-sensitive.
The shoring design criteria presented in this report should be used by the structural
engineer and contractor to design an appropriate system. The shoring system design should be
reviewed by Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. for conformance with the design criteria presented in
this report.It is generally not the purpose of this report to provide specific criteria for construction
methods, materials, or procedures.It should be the responsibility of the shoring subcontractor to
verify actual soil and groundwater conditions at the site and determine the construction methods
and procedures needed for installation of an appropriate shoring system.
18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite 117
Zipper Zeman Associates. Inc,
Lynnwood,Washington 98036 (425) 771-3304
Proposed Retail Development
S.Grady Way and Talbot Road
Renton,Washington
Lateral Earth Pressures and Movement
J-1470
December 6, 2002
Page 22
The design of shoring is conventionally accomplished using empirical relationships and
apparent earth pressure distributions. These earth pressure distributions or envelopes do not
represent the precise distribution of earth pressures but rather constitute hypothetical pressures
from which tieback loads can be calculated which would not likely be exceeded in the excavation.
Additionally, pressures must be selected adjacent to existing settlement-sensitive utilities that will
tend to limit deflections, both vertical and horizontal.
Design of temporary shoring could be based on either "active"or "at-rest"lateral earth
pressures, depending on the degree of deformation of the shoring that can be tolerated. Shoring
which is free to deform on the order of 0.001 to 0.002 times the height of the shoring is
considered to be capable of mobilizing active earth pressures. This lateral deformation is likely to
be accomplished by vertical settlement of up to roughly 0.005 times the height of the shoring,
which may extend back from the side of the cut a distance equal to roughly the height of the cut.
Lesser degrees of settlement may also occur within a setback extending twice as far back. A
greater amount of lateral deformation could lead to greater vertical settlements behind the wall.If
no structural elements are located within this zone, or if any structural elements within the zone
are considered to be insensitive to this degree of settlement, then it would be appropriate to design
utilizing active earth pressures. An assumed "at-rest"earth pressure condition theoretically
assumes no movement of the soil behind the shoring; however, some settlement should
realistically be anticipated due to construction practices and/or the fact that it is not possible to
construct a perfectly stiff shoring system.
All deep excavations do invite a certain amount of risk. Since the selection of shoring
techniques and criteria affect the level of risk, we recommend that the final selection of shoring
design criteria be made by the owner in conjunction with the structural engineer and other design
team members. The project shoring walls could be designed using active pressures, provided
lateral movement and vertical settlement to the degree described above is considered tolerable.
The anticipated lateral and vertical movements of l-inch or less with active earth pressures are
typically tolerable for streets and buried utilities.
For the case of a cantilevered shoring system, or shoring with only one level of internal or
external bracing, the applied lateral pressure would be represented by a triangular pressure
distribution termed an equivalent fluid density. Figure 4 of this report illustrates the
recommended pressure distribution. We recommend an active pressure equivalent fluid density
of 36 pounds per cubic foot (pet) for these conditions. Additional lateral pressure should be
added to this value to model surcharges such as street or construction loads, or existing
foundation and floor loads. For design of shoring for assumed "at-rest"earth pressure conditions,
with cantilever piles or one level of bracing, we recommend using an equivalent fluid density of
50 pcf.
As noted on Figure 4, a backslope surcharge is recommended for shoring. The backslope
surcharge load is added to the height of the excavation as an equivalent soil height of H/4,where
H is the height of the wall in feet. We also recommend applying a uniform seismic pressure of
16H to the shoring wall.It appears that Benson Road is more than 25 feet away from the wall and
18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite 117
Zipper Zeman Associates.Inc.
Lynnwood, Washington 98036 (425)771-3304
Proposed Retail Development
S.Grady Way and Talbot Road
Renton,Washington
1-1470
December 6, 2002
Page 23
should not impose a traffic surcharge. Other surcharge pressures acting on the shoring can be
determined by the methods shown on Figure 5, and should be added to the lateral earth pressures
as discussed above.
Soldier Piles
Soldier piles for shoring are typically set in pre-angered holes and backfilled with lean or
structural concrete. Vertical loads on such piles could be resisted by a combination of friction and
end bearing below the base of the excavation. We recommend neglecting the side friction
throughout the loose and soft native soils and using a value of 2,000 psf in the sandstone. An
allowable end-bearing value of 30 ksf (kips per square foot) can be used for soldier piles
embedded at least 5 feet into the sandstone. The above values include a factor of safety of 1.5.
Embedment depth of soldier piles below final excavation level must be designed to
provide adequate lateral or "kick out" resistance to horizontal loads below the lowest strut or
tieback level. For design, the lateral resistance may be computed on the basis of the passive
pressure presented on Figure 4, acting over twice the diameter of the concreted soldier pile
section or the pile spacing, whichever is less. We recommend that the passive resistance within
the upper loose and soft soils be neglected and that an allowable passive resistance of 1,200 psf be
used for that portion of the pile embedded in the sandstone.
If excessive ground loss is allowed to occur during pile installation, increased settlement
of the areas retained by the shoring would be more likely to occur. Soldier pile drilling is
anticipated to extend through water-bearing coal tailings and native sand layers. Casing is
recommended for these drilling conditions, in order to prevent caving. The contractor should be
responsible for installation of casing, or using alternate means at their discretion, to prevent
caving and loss of ground during pile drilling.
We recommend lagging, or some other form of protection, be installed in all areas. Due to
soil arching effects, lagging may be designed for 50 percent of the lateral earth pressure used for
shoring design. Prompt and careful installation of lagging will reduce potential loss of ground.
The requirements for lagging should be made the responsibility of the shoring subcontractor to
prevent soil failure, sloughing and loss of ground and to provide safe working conditions. We
recommend all void space between the lagging and soil be backfilled. The backfill should be
free-draining in order to prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. A
permeable sand slurry or pea gravel should be considered for lagging backfill.If the lagging is
exposed for the life of the wall, we recommend that it consist of concrete.If the wall is faced
with a protective layer of concrete, the lagging should be adequately treated to resist rot.
Lateral Support and Tiebacks
Lateral support for the shored wall should be provided by tieback anchors. We anticipate
that the anchors will be drilled into competent sandstone bedrock. However, historical records
indicate that there were mineshaft adits in the area of the project site. Review of the historical
documents leads us to suspect that one of the mine openings may be along the alignment of the
existing 48-inch drainpipe that daylights on the project site. We did not encounter conditions that
18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite 117
Zipper Zeman Associates.Inc.
Lynnwood,Washington 98036 (425) 771-3304
Proposed Retail Development
S. Grady Way and Talbot Road
Renton,Washington
----------------------------
J-1470
December 6, 2002
Page 24
would indicate the presence of the shafts. However,if a zone of fill and/or a mineshaft exists in
the anchor zone of the proposed wall, it may not be possible to install some of the tiebacks as
recommended. We recommend that additional subsurface explorations be completed in support of
the retaining wall design.If a mineshaft is present in the tieback zone, further definition of the
conditions prior to bidding would reduce the possibility of change orders and delays during
construction. Evaluations could consist of surficial geophysical evaluations using resistivity or
magnetics and/or downhole geophysical methods in predrilled holes. We also recommend that
the 48-inch pipe be logged with a camera to determine its alignment and where it terminates.
The anchor portion of the tieback must be fully located a sufficient distance behind the
retained excavation face to develop resistance within the stable soil mass. We recommend the
anchorage be attained behind an assumed failure plane that is formed by a 60° angle from the base
of the excavation and set back from the retained excavation face for a horizontal distance of one-
fourth the height of the soldier pile above the bottom of the excavation. The zone in front of the
above-described plane is called the "no-load zone". The unbonded portion of the tieback anchor
should extend entirely through the no-load zone, and should be a minimum of 15 feet in length.
The anchor portion of the tieback should be a minimum length of 12 feet. All tieback holes
within the no-load zone should be immediately backfilled. The sole purpose of the backfill is to
prevent possible collapse of the holes, loss of ground and surface subsidence. We recommend
that the backfill consist of sand or a non-cohesive mixture. Sand/cement grout could be utilized
only if some acceptable form of bond-breaker (such as plastic sheathing) is applied to the tie-rods
within the no-load zone.
Anchor holes should be drilled in a manner that will minimize loss of ground and not
disturb previously installed anchors. Caving will likely occur in the coal tailings above the
sandstone and will likely require the use of casing. Caving could also occur if wet or saturated
zones are encountered. Drilling with and grouting through a continuous-flight auger or a casing
would reduce the potential for loss of ground.
Using the design values presented herein is dependent on a well-constructed anchor. We
recommend that concrete be placed in the drilled tieback anchor hole by tremie methods such as
pumping through a hose placed in the bottom of the hole or pumping through the center of a
continuous-flight auger. In this way, the grout is forced up through the anchor zone under
pressure, with the resulting anchor more likely to be continuous. The grout should not be placed
into the anchor zone by simple gravity methods such as flowing down a chute. We recommend
that Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. monitor all tieback installation.
With a low-pressure grouted tieback shoring system, we estimate an allowable concrete-
sandstone adhesion of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf) is recommended. We recommend that
all anchors be located at least 10 feet below ground surface. For high-pressure grouted or
secondary grouted anchors, the adhesion is highly dependent on grouting procedures. For
planning purposes, a four-inch diameter pressure-grouted tieback can be assumed to have the
same capacity per lineal foot as a 12-inch diameter low-pressure grouted (augered) tieback, or
roughly 9 kips per lineal foot.
18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite II7
Zipper Zeman Associates. Inc.
Lynnwood,Washington 98036 (425)771-3304
Proposed Retail Development
S. Grady Way and Talbot Road
Renton,Washington
Tieback Testing and Lockoff
J·1470
December 6, 2002
Page 25
All permanent tieback anchors should be performance tested to at least 150 percent of
design capacity prior to lockoff. Performance testing should include increasing the load on the
tieback to the test load in five increments. Each increment is to be held long enough to obtain a
stable measurement of tieback deflection, and the 150percent load is to be held until five minutes
elapse with less than 0.01 inch of creep movement. The anchors should then be locked off at 80
percent of design load.
Tieback adhesion capacities presented in this report are estimates based on soil conditions
encountered in the borings. The final adhesion capacity for each anchor installation method and
soil type should be determined by field tests. We recommend that at least two, 300-percent
tieback proof tests be completed prior to installing production tiebacks for each soil type and
installation method.Proof tests should consist of applying the load in eight increments to the test
load, with each increment held until 5 minutes elapses with less than 0.01 inch of creep. The 300-
percent load should be held until 30 minutes elapse with less than 0.0I inch of creep.
Acceptance criteria for tieback tests should include all of the following:
1. Hold maximum test load for required duration with less than 0.0 l-inch of creep;
2. Linear or near-linear plot of unit anchor stress and movement, with creep movement less than
0.08 inches per log cycle of time;
3. Total movement during performance test loading, from 50 to 150 percent of design load,
exceeds 80 percent of theoretical elastic elongation of unbonded tendon length;
4. Total movement during test loading, does not exceed theoretical elastic elongation of
unbonded tendon length plus 50 percent of bond length;
5. Performance of the anchor head/pile connection acceptable to the structural engineer.
Failure of an anchor to meet the required test acceptance criteria should be brought to the
attention of the structural engineer. In most cases, where total anchor movement is within
tolerable ranges, a reduced capacity will be assigned to the subject tieback.If total anchor
movement is in excess of 6 inches, we recommend that the anchor be abandoned and replaced.
Shoring Monitoring
Any time an excavation is made below the level of existing buildings, utilities or other
structures, there is risk of damage even if a well-designed shoring system has been planned. We
recommend, therefore, that a systematic program of observations be conducted on adjacent
facilities and structures. We believe that such a program is necessary for two reasons. First, if
excessive movement is detected sufficiently early, it may be possible to undertake remedial
measures that could prevent serious damage to existing facilities or structures. Second, in the
unlikely event that problems do arise, the responsibility for damage may be established more
equitably if the cause and extent of the damage are better defined. Monitoring can consist of
conventional survey monitoring of horizontal and vertical movements.
18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite 117
Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc.
Lynnwood,Washington 98036 (425)771-3304
Proposed Retail Development
S.Grady Way and Talbot Road
Renton,Washington
J-1470
December 6, 2002
Page 26
The monitoring program should include measurements of the horizontal and vertical
movements of the retained improvements and the shoring system itself. At least two reference
lines should be established adjacent to the excavation at horizontal distances back from the
excavation space of about 1/3H and H, where H is the final excavation height. Monitoring of the
shoring system should include measurements of vertical and horizontal movements at the top of
each soldier pile.If local wet areas are noted within the excavation, additional monitoring points
should be established at the direction of the soils engineer. Reference points for horizontal
movement should also be selectively placed at various tieback levels as the excavation progresses.
The measuring system used for shoring monitoring should have an accuracy of at least
O.Ol-foot.All reference points on the existing structures should be installed and readings taken
prior to commencing the excavation. All reference points should be read prior to and during
critical stages of construction. The frequency of readings will depend on the results of previous
readings and the rate of construction. As a minimum, readings should be taken about once a week
throughout construction until the excavation is completed. A registered surveyor should complete
all readings and the data should be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer.
Building Foundations
We recommend that the proposed building be supported on pile foundations due to the
risk of settlements that exceed the maximums presented in the Geotechnical Investigation and
Report Requirements.We recommend that foundation support be provided by augercast piles,
although other pile options such as timber or pipe piles could be considered.If steel piles are
considered, the effects of corrosion will need to be taken into account. We can provide
recommendations for alternative pile options,if requested.
As noted in the Subsurface Conditions section of this report, the thickness of coal tailings
fill, compressible soils, and potentially liquefiable soils, and the depth to sandstone bedrock varies
across the site. In general, the depth to sandstone bedrock varies from about 19 to more than 110
feet below existing grades. We anticipate that the auger will be able to slightly penetrate the
bedrock as it appears to be moderately to highly weathered at the contact.It is our opinion that
piles can achieve the recommended allowable capacities with a maximum length of 85 feet.
We understand that the former buildings on site were timber pile supported.Of the two
pile supported buildings, the proposed building envelopes one entire building and a portion of
another. Therefore, we recommend that the layout of the piles take into consideration the location
of the existing piles. We also recommend that the location of the piles be surveyed in order to
modify the layout of the new piles before construction begins.
An augercast pile is formed by drilling to an appropriate pre-determined depth with a
continuous-flight, hollow-stem auger. Cement grout is then pumped down the stem of the auger
under high pressure as the auger is withdrawn. The final result is a cast-in-place pile.
Reinforcing can be lowered into the unset concrete column to provide lateral and/or tension
capabilities.
18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite 117
Zipper Zeman AssOl;iates.Inl;.
Lynnwood,Washington 98036 (425) 771-3304
Proposed Retail Development
S. Grady Way and Talbot Road
Renton,Washington
J-1470
December 6, 2002
Page 27
Pressure grouting methods typically result in a grout column diameter in excess of the
nominal diameter of the drilled hole. The soft and loose soils on the site could provide difficult to
augercast pile construction due to grout loss into the loose/soft soil strata. We anticipate grout
volumes within the soil column could average about 150to 180percent of the theoretical volume
of drilled holes. The contractor should be required to stagger the pile grouting and drilling
operations, such that all completed piles within 10 feet of the pile being drilled have set for at
least 24 hours. Greater spacings may become necessary due to the length of the piles and should
be determined at the time of construction.
Augercast piles would gain their vertical compressive capacity mainly from end-bearing
on bedrock or end-bearing and skin friction in soils below the liquefiable zone where bedrock is
not encountered. Vertical uplift pile capacity will develop as a result of side friction between the
pile and the adjacent soil in addition to the weight of the pile. Due to the variable depth of the
bedrock, augercast piles will likely vary in length from about 20 to 85 feet. Recommended
augercast pile capacities are presented in Table I below. The vertical compressive pile capacities
presented assume that adjacent piles are located at least three pile diameters apart and that the
piles supported on the sandstone bedrock are embedded a minimum of 2 feet into the rock.
Lateral pile capacities are also presented in Table 1 for l8-inch diameter piles. The allowable
lateral capacities are based on fixed- and free-head conditions and limiting the deflection to 12
inch.
Because augercast piles are drilled, obstacles such as rocks, utilities, foundations and other
man-placed debris in the subsurface can cause difficult installation conditions.It is possible that
obstacles encountered during drilling the piles would require relocation of piles at the time of
construction if impenetrable obstacles are encountered at planned pile locations.It may be
necessary to periodically remove the pile auger from the holes during drilling in order to verify
depths of the various soil types, and penetration into the bearing soil layer.
We understand that the proposed building will be designed for the typical structural loads
as presented to ZZA in the Geotechnical Investigation Specifications and Report Requirements.
Based upon these values, as well as the conditions that could develop during a liquefaction event,
we have developed allowable compressive and uplift capacities for l8-inch diameter augercast
piles. The recommended pile lengths and associated allowable capacities are presented in Table I
below. The allowable capacities may be increased by one-third to resist short-term transient
forces.If the piles are spaced closer than three pile diameters, the allowable capacities should be
reduced. The reduction factor will be based on the actual center to center pile spacing and the
configuration of the group.
18905 33rdAvenue W., Suite 117
Zipper Zeman Associates. Inc.
Lynnwood,Washington 98036 (425)771-3304
Proposed Retail Development
S. Grady Way and Talbot Road
Renton,Washington
J-1470
December 6, 2002
Page 28
TABLE 1
ALLOWABLE CAPACITIES OF AUGERCAST PILES
Pile Diameter Estimated Pile Allowable Allowable Allowable Lateral
(Inches)Length (feet)Compressive Uplift Capacity Capacity,fixed
Capacity (tons)(tons)*head/free head
(tons)
18 (in bedrock)20 - 30 75 2 6.0/3.0
18 (in bedrock)30-40 75 4 6.0/3.0
18 (in bedrock)40-50 75 6 6.0/3.0
18 (in bedrock)50-60 75 10 6.0/3.0
18 (in bedrock)60 -70 75 15 6.0/3.0
18 (in bedrock)70 - 80 75 22 6.0/3.0
18 (in soil)85 75 36 6.0/3.0
*Does not mclude the weight of the pile
Based on an assumed modulus of horizontal subgrade reaction of 3 pci in the loose and
soft near-surface soils, the stiffness factor (T) for a fixed- and free-head, 18-inch diameter auger-
cast pile was calculated to be 88 inches (7.3 feet). The recommended allowable lateral capacities
are based on limiting deflection to 0.5 inch. We recommend that the reinforcing cages extend a
minimum of 30 feet into each pile, or the full pile length if it is shorter than 30 feet. In addition to
the reinforcing cages, we recommend that a full-length center bar be installed in each pile in order
to develop the allowable uplift capacity.
Some downdrag forces on the piles should be expected to develop over time as the peat
and organic-rich soils consolidate over time. We estimate that forces of up to about 5 tons could
develop on longest piles that penetrate through the greatest thicknesses of compressible soils.
However, given the 2.5 safety factor applied to the ultimate pile capacities, it does not appear that
the downdrag forces will adversely affect the performance of the piles.
Provided the piles are designed in accordance with our recommendations and they are
constructed in accordance with industry standards, we estimate that total settlements will be less
than one inch.Differential settlements are estimated to be less than ~inch in 40 feet.
The integrity of augercast piles is controlled in the field and can be affected by many
variables. Unlike steel or timber piles with structural characteristics that can be predetermined
during design, the construction of augercast piles must be continuously observed in order to
determine that the piles have been constructed in a manner that will achieve the required design
characteristics. Therefore, we recommend that ZZA provide construction observation services
during the installation of the augercast pile foundations. This will allow us evaluate all of the
variables that go into constructing an augercast pile and determine the adequacy of the piles as
they are constructed.
18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite 117
Zipper Zeman Associates. Inc.
Lynnwood,Washington 98036 (425) 771-3304
Proposed Retail Development
S.Grady Way and Talbot Road
Renton,Washington
Methane Gas MitigatiQn
J-1470
December 6, 2002
Page 29
The presence of peat, organic-rich soils and coal tailings at the site can result in the
generation of methane gas as the organics decay. Methane gas will follow the path of least
resistance and has been shown to migrate laterally to find escape paths. It accumulates in pockets
both inside and outside of buildings. Methane can present an explosive hazard if it concentrates in
confined or enclosed spaces within a building, in underground vaults, conduits, and other
collection points. We recommend that a methane barrier system that prevents the passage of
methane gas into the building be provided under the floor slab and that a collection and venting
system be installed below the gas barrier. We recommend that the vapor barrier be installed after
the pile foundations have been constructed but before the capillary break is placed. The venting
system should consist of 4-inch diameter perforated pipes fully enveloped in granular soils that is
routed to the outside of the building.
Further study of the development of methane at the site could be completed to determine
hQW significant the development of methane is at the site. We would recommend that a minimum
of four gas collection wells be installed at the site in order to collect samples of the vapor
generated. The concentration of methane would then be determined in the samples and specific
recommendations could be formulated based on the test results.
Structural FIQors
We recommend that all floor slabs be supported on augercast piles due to the thickness of
very IQQse coal tailings and the risk of liquefaction induced settlements. We recommend that the
slab be supported on a minimum of 12 inches of nonexpansive, granular structural fill compacted
to a minimum of 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D-1557).
This will provide the SUPPQrt for the augercast pile construction equipment.
We recommend that 6 inches of free-draining granular material be placed over the
building pad to serve as a capillary break. Aggregates similar to those specified in WSDOT 2002
Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction, listed under specifications
9-03.12(4), 9-03.15 or 9-03.16 can be used for capillary break material provided they are
modified to meet the fines content recommendation,Alternatively, we recommend that the
capillary break consist of free-draining aggregate that conforms with ASTM D2321, Table 1,
Classes of Embedment and Backfill Material, Class lA, IB, or II (GW or GP). The fines content
of the capillary break material should be limited tQ 3 percent or less, by weight, when measured
on that portion passing the U.S.NQ.4 sieve. A water vapor barrier is not considered to be
necessary if a methane gas barrier is constructed. After the capillary break is placed, it will be
required to SUPPQrt the reinforcing steel for the structural floor and its SUPPQrts (dobies). We
understand that it is very important to maintain the proper clearance between the structural fill
subgrade and the rebar. Therefore, we recommend that the contractor submit detailed information
in a timely manner about the material they intend to use in order tQ determine its adequacy for the
intended use.
18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite 117
Zipper Zeman Associates. Inc.
Lynnwood,Washington 98036 (425) 771-3304
Proposed Retail Development
S. Grady Way and Talbot Road
Renton,Washington
----------~------------
J-1470
December 6, 2002
Page 30
We recommend that all outdoor slabs and sidewalks supported on a minimum of 12 inches
of nonexpansive,granular structural fill compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the modified
Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D-1557).
We have estimated a vertical modulus of subgrade reaction of approximately 150 pounds
per cubic inch for a l2-inch thick layer of granular soil compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of
the modified Proctor maximum dry density.
Conventional Retaining Walls
The lateral soil pressure acting on backfilled walls will primarily depend on the degree of
compaction and the amount of lateral movement permitted at the top of the wall during
backfilling operations.lfthe wall is free to yield at the top an amount equal to at least 0.1 percent
of the height of the wall, the soil pressure will be less than if the wall structurally restrained from
lateral movement at the top. We recommend that an equivalent active fluid pressure of35 pcfbe
used for yielding walls and an at-rest equivalent fluid pressure of 55 pcfbe used for non-yielding
backfilled walls. These equivalent fluid pressures assume the backfill is compacted to
approximately 90 percent of its modified Proctor maximum dry density. We recommend that we
be allowed to review the design values and modify them,if necessary,if they are to be applied to
walls greater than 12 feet in height. For those portions of foundations embedded more than 18
inches below finish surrounding grade, we recommend using an allowable passive earth pressure
of 125 and 250 pcf in the existing loose fill and in structural fill that extends laterally beyond the
limits of the footing a distance of twice the embedment depth,respectively.We recommend
using an allowable base friction coefficient of 0.30.
The above equivalent fluid pressures are based on the assumption of a uniform horizontal
backfill and no buildup of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall.Surcharge pressures due to
sloping ground,adjacent footings, vehicles,construction equipment,etc. must be added to these
values. For loading docks,surcharge loading on the floor slab above the dock will result in a
horizontal,uniformly distributed surcharge on the wall equal to 40 percent of the distributed
vertical loading. We can provide surcharge criteria for other loading conditions behind the
loading dock wall,if requested. We recommend a minimum width of 18 inches of clean,
granular,free-draining material should extend from footing drains at the base of the wall to the
ground surface, to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic forces.Alternatively,weepholes on 4-foot
centers could be constructed at the bases of the wall to provide a drainage path.It should be
realized that the primary purpose of the free draining material is reduction in hydrostatic
pressures.Some potential for moisture to contact the back face in the wall may exist even with
this treatment,which may require more extensive water proofing be specified for walls which
require interior moisture sensitive finishes.
Care should be taken where utilities penetrate through backfilled walls.Minor settlement
of the wall backfill soils can impart significant soil loading on utilities,and some form of flexible
connection may be appropriate at backfilled wall penetrations.
18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite 117
Zipper Zeman Associates.Inc.
Lynnwood,Washington 98036 (425)771-3304
Proposed Retail Development
S.Grady Way and Talbot Road
Renton,Washington
Drainage Considerations
J-1470
December 6, 2002
Page 31
A perimeter foundation drainage system is recommended for this site due to the proposed
finish floor elevation and the depth to groundwater at the time of our explorations. All retaining
walls should be designed to include drainage systems that drain by gravity to a storm sewer or
other suitable discharge location.
Water from downspouts and surface water should be independently collected and routed
to a suitable discharge location. Final exterior grades should promote free and positive drainage
from the building areas at all times. Water must not be allowed to pond or to collect adjacent to
foundations or within the immediate building area. We recommend that a gradient of at least two
percent for a minimum distance of 10 feet from the building perimeter be provided, except in
paved locations. In paved locations, a minimum gradient of one percent should be provided
unless provisions are included for collection and disposal of surface water adjacent to the
structure.
For design purposes, we recommend using a high groundwater elevation of 34 feet along
the east side of the site. Permanent structures that extend below this elevation should be designed
to resist hydrostatic pressures and should be appropriately waterproofed.
The two existing mine runoff drainpipes that enter the east side of the site will be
tightlined across a portion of the site. We recommend that the company or agency that owns or is
responsible for their maintenance be determined in order to coordinate a long-term maintenance
and inspection program. We further recommend that the peak flow in the drainpipes be
determined in order to size the proposed tightline pipe. This should likely be done in the late
winter or spring when groundwater would be anticipated to be at its highest.
Pavement Design Parameters
The subgrade soils are anticipated to generally consist of very loose to loose coal tailings.
As such, a CBR sample was not collected because it is our opinion that a minimum of one foot of
structural fill will be necessary over the coal. Therefore, we have assumed that the fill will have a
minimum California Bearing Ratio (CBR)of 50 percent. This would be similar to using a pit-run
sand and gravel soil. All soil within the upper one foot of the base course must have pavement
support characteristics at least equivalent to this and must be placed under engineering controlled
conditions. A confirmatory CBR test should be completed on the proposed import road bed
material.
Asphalt Concrete Pavement
It must be recognized that pavement design is a compromise between high initial cost and
little maintenance on one side and low initial cost coupled with the need for periodic repairs. As a
result, the owner will need to take part in the development of an appropriate pavement section.
Critical features which govern the durability of the surface include the level of compaction of the
subgrade, the stability of the subgrade, the presence or absence of moisture, free water and
18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite 117
Zipper Zeman Associates. Inc.
Lynnwood,Washington 98036 (425) 771-3304
Proposed Retail Development
S.Grady Way and Talbot Road
Renton,Washington
J-1470
December 6, 2002
Page 32
organics, the fines content of the subgrade soils, the traffic volume, and the frequency of use by
heavy vehicles. Our recommendations are based upon a 20-year design life.
The pavement design recommendations assume that the subgrade and any structural fill
will be prepared in accordance with the recommendations presented in this report. The top 12
inches beneath the pavement surface should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative
compaction, using AASHTO T-180 (ASTM: D1557) as a standard. However, the majority of
the surficial soils consist of coal fill that may be difficult to compact and can break down over
time.
The pavement design recommendations assume that the subgrade and any structural fill
will be prepared in accordance with the recommendations presented in this report. All fill, as
well as the upper 12 inches beneath the pavement surface should be compacted to a minimum of
95 percent relative compaction, using AASHTO T-180 (ASTM:D1557).Specifications for
manufacturing and placement of pavements and crushed top course should conform to
specifications presented in Divisions 5 and 4,respectively,of the 2002 Washington State
Department of Transportation,Standard Specifications for Roads, Bridges, and Municipal
Construction.We recommend that the subbase course material conform to Sections 9-03.9(1),
Ballast, 9-03.10, Aggregate for Gravel Base, 9-03.14(1), Gravel Borrow, 9-01.14(2), Select
Borrow, or 9-03.11 Recycled Portland Cement Concrete Rubble, with the maximum aggregate
size of3 inches. The crushed aggregate base course material conform to Section 9-03.9(3),
Crushed Surfacing Top Course. In lieu of crushed gravel base/top course,asphalt-treated base
(ATB) can be substituted. The ATB would provide a more durable wearing surface if the
pavement subgrade areas will be exposed to construction traffic prior to final paving with Class
B asphalt.Production and placement of asphalt should be completed in accordance with Section
5-04 of the WSDOT Standard Specifications.We recommend using a Class B mix as described
in Section 9-03.8(6), Proportions of Materials,of the WSDOT Standard Specifications.ATB
should conform to the specifications of Section 4-06, Asphalt Treated Base of the WSDOT
Standard Specifications.
Recommended Pavement Sections for 20-Year Lifespan
ATB Substitute for
Traffic Asphalt Crushed Top/Base Pit-Run Subbase Crushed Aggregate
Thickness (in.)Course (in.) (Inches)(Inches)*
Heavy 4 4 12 3
Standard 3 4 12 3
*ATB:Asphalt Treated Base may be substituted for crushed Top/Base Course beneath Class B asphalt.
Pavement design recommendations assume that the subgrade can be compacted to a
minimum of 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density and that construction
monitoring will be performed.If the subgrade can only be compacted to 90 percent of the
modified Proctor or 95 percent of the standard Proctor, we recommend that an additional 5 inches
of subbase be added to the pavement section. Continual flexible pavement maintenance along
with major rehabilitation after about 8 to 10 years should be expected to obtain a 20-year service
life.
18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite 117
Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc.
Lynnwood,Washington 98036 (425) 771-3304
Proposed Retail Development
S.Grady Way and Talbot Road
Renton,Washington
---------------------------------------------,
J-1470
December 6, 2002
Page 33
If possible,construction traffic should be limited to unpaved and untreated roadways, or
specially constructed haul roads.If this is not possible, the pavement design should include an
allowance for construction traffic.
Stabilizing the subgrade with a fabric such as Mirafi 600X or similar may be necessary
during wet weather construction or wet subgrade conditions.Proper geotextile fabrics will
maintain segregation of the subgrade soil and base course materials.If the subgrade soils are
allowed to migrate upwards into the base course, the result would be decreased pavement support.
The use of stabilization fabric will not reduce the necessary base rock thickness,as fabric does not
provide structural strength at such shallow depths.If the subgrade is disturbed when wet,
overexcavation may be required and backfill with import fill.
Concrete pavement
Concrete pavement design recommendations are based on the soil parameters used for the
asphalt pavement design, and an assumed modulus of rupture of 550 psi and a minimum
compressive strength of 4,000 psi for the concrete. For standard and heavy-duty concrete
pavement sections,minimum concrete pavement sections are presented below.
Recommended Base and Subbase Thickness
Traffic Concrete Crushed Base Pit-Run Subbase (in)
Surfacing (in) Course (in)
Heavy 6 4 12
Standard 5 4 12
The materials and construction procedures should be in accordance with WSDOT
Standard Specifications for concrete pavement construction.
Stormwater Detention
It appears that underground stormwater detention vaults may be constructed on site.If
liquefaction related settlements can not be tolerated, we recommend that the vaults be supported
on augercast piles. Even if the vaults are supported on piles, we recommend that the grading be
completed prior to excavating for the vaults in order to preconsolidate the native soils around the
limits of the vault. We recommend that the area of the vaults be preloaded with a 3-foot
surcharge (using a soil with a unit weight of 125 pet)to reduce the effects of differential
settlements around the perimeter of the vault that would likely be manifested in the asphalt
surfacing over time. This surcharge should extend at least 5 feet beyond the limits of the vault
and be left in place a minimum of 4 weeks. We estimate that the resulting consolidation could be
on the order of 1 inch or more. Based on previous projects with similar conditions,we understand
that settlement of this magnitude may not be acceptable with respect to the possibility of damage
to the pipe connections at the vault.
We recommend that a minimum of two settlement plates be installed on the existing
subgrade at each vault location and that the elevations of the plates be determined prior to the
18905 33rd Avenue W _,Suite 117
Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc.
Lynnwood,Washington 98036 (425) 771-3304
Proposed Retail Development
S. Grady Way and Talbot Road
Renton,Washington
J-1470
December 6, 2002
Page 34
placement of any structural fill/surcharge soils. Readings made by a qualified surveyor should be
completed twice a week until the finish subgrade elevation has been achieved. From then on,the
readings should be taken once a week until it is determined that the vault excavation can begin.
The survey information should be provided to ZZA in a timely manner for review.
Because of the loose/soft, wet subgrade conditions below the surface, (even after
preloading) we recommend that vault subgrades be overexcavated a minimum of 18 inches in
order to replace the loose/soft soils with relatively uncompressible granular soils. These materials
would also provide a working surface.If the vaults are not pile supported and peat is encountered
in the bottom of the excavation, we recommend that all of the peat be removed and replaced with
compacted structural fill. Prior to placing the granular fill, we recommend that a geotextile such
as Amoco 1199,Layfield 104F, or similar (with an AOS of70 or less) be placed over the exposed
subgrade except in those areas where the augercast piles will be installed. The fill should be
placed in maximum 6-inch thick lifts and be statically rolled and compacted. Vibratory
compactors should be used with extreme caution as these could soften and disturb the underlying
native soils. Pumped sumps or well points may also be necessary around the perimeter of the
vaults depending on groundwater levels at the time of construction.If groundwater is present, we
recommend that the water level be maintained a minimum of 18 inches below the top of the
gravel pad during construction. We recommend that the structural fill placed over the geotextile
consist of select aggregate as described in the Structural Fill section of this report.
At the time of drilling, the groundwater elevations varied between 23 and 34 feet. Where
applicable, we recommend designing the vault for buoyant forces for that portion that extends
below the interpreted seasonal high groundwater levels.If underground vaults are used and their
locations are determined, we recommend that ZZA be contacted in order to determine if buoyant
forces should be incorporated into their design.
CLOSURE
The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based, in part, on the
explorations accomplished for this study. The number, location, and depth of the explorations
were completed within the constraints of budget and site access so as to yield the information to
formulate the recommendations.Project plans were in the preliminary stage at the time of this
report preparation. We therefore recommend that ZZA be provided the opportunity to review the
project plans and specifications when they become available in order to confirm that the
recommendations and design considerations presented in this report have been properly
interpreted and implemented into the project design package.
The integrity of earthwork, structural fill, and foundation and pavement performance
depend greatly on proper site preparation and construction procedures. We recommend that a
qualified geotechnical engineering firm be retained to provide geotechnical engineering services
during the earthwork-related construction phases of the project.If variations in the subsurface
conditions are observed at that time, a qualified engineer would be able to provide additional
geotechnical engineering recommendations to the contractor and design team in a timely manner
as the project construction progresses.
18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite 117
Zipper Zeman Associates. Inc.
Lynnwood,Washington 98036 (425) 771-3304
Proposed Retail Development
S. Grady Way and Talbot Road
Renton,Washington
~----~-~~------~
J·1470
December 6, 2002
Page 35
We appreciate the opportunity to have been of service on this project and would be
pleased to discuss the contents of this report or other aspects of this project with you at your
convenience.If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Respectfully submitted,
Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc.
Thomas A.Jones, P.E.
Associate
[~PIRES 4/~7{~:J ::::l
Enclosures: Figure 1 -Site and Exploration Plan
Figure 2 - Generalized Subsurface Profile A-A'
Figure 3 -Pseudostatic Seismic Stability Analysis
Figure 4 -Recommended Design Criteria for Shoring,Cantilever or Single Row of
Tiebacks
Figure 5 - Surcharge Pressure Acting on Adjacent Shoring or Subsurface Wall
Appendix A - Field Procedures and Exploration Logs
Appendix B -Laboratory Testing and Classification
Appendix C -Geotechnical Investigation Fact Sheet,Foundation Design Criteria,
Foundation Subsurface Preparation Notes and AASHTO Pavement
Design
Appendix D -Climatic Data
Distribution: PacLand - 7 copies
18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite 117
Zipper Zeman Associates. Inc.
Lynnwood,Washington 98036 (425)771-3304
Proposed Retail Project
Renton,Washington
FIGURE 1 . SITEAND EXPLORATION PLAN
Basemap DWGFile Provided by PACLAND,dated9/13/02.
Date:Oct.2002
Project No:J-1470
Drawnby:J.Duncan
Scale:As Noted
18905 33rdAvenueWest, Suite 117
Lynnwood,Washington 98036
Tele:(425)771-3304 Fax:(425)771-3549
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting
).
o 120 240
i i
APPROXIMATE SCALE INFEET
APPROXIMATE BORING
LOCATiON AND NUMBER
APPROXIMATE DUTCH CONE PROBE
LOCATION AND NUMBER
APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION AND NUMBER OF EXPLORATION
COMPLETED BY GEOENGINEERS ( )AND TERRA ASSOCIATES (
GENERALIZED GEOLOGIC
CROSS SECTION
A A'
U
...P-1
EB GB-1/TB-1
LEGEND:
SB-1
--~~-----
A
80
GB-12
(OFFSET 6' NORTH)B-1A (SLOPE EVALUATION)
(OFFSET 4'SOUTH)
At
80
EXISTING GROUND
SURFACE
B-3 (SITE EVALUATION)
(OFFSET 20' SOUTH)
8
501~
50/~~~
~---
---<;~~
~---<;
40
Q)
CD
LL
.5
20 ~
~
jjj
o
60
3
3
5
5
10
8
17
50/5"
22
Interbedded very looseto loose,
silty SAND,sandy SILT,andSILTwith
variable gravel,wood,and organic
debris content.(ALLUVIUM)
5
4
~---~------Loose,siltySAND ---::::___
---------Verydense SANDSTONE
Verydense SANDSTONE
40
60
o
Q)
CD
LL
l:
~20
~m
-20 5011"-20
-40 -40
EXPLORATION NUMBER,APPROXIMATE LOCATION, AND
OFFSET FROM PROFILE A-A'
STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE
MEASURED GROUNDWATER LEVEL AT TIME OF DRILLING
OR DATE NOTED
THE STRATA ARE BASED UPON INTERPOLATION
BETWEEN EXPLORATIONS AND MAY NOT REPRESENT
ACTUAL SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.SIMPLIFIED NAMES
ARE SHOWN FOR SOIL DEPOSITS,BASED ON
GENERALIZATIONS OFSOIL DESCRIPTIONS.
SEE EXPLORATION LOGS AND REPORT TEXTFOR MORE
DETAILED SOILAND GROUNDWATER DESCRIPTIONS.
LEGEND:
B-1
OFFSET 4' SOUTH
7
Note:
See Figure 1 for location of profile.
o
i
20
HORIZONTAL 1"=20'
VERTICAL 1"=20'
40
I
NOTES:
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting
1890533rd Avenue West,Suite 117
Lynnwood,Washington 98036
Tele:(425)771-3304 Fax:(425)771-3549
Project No:J-1470
Drawn by:J. Duncan
Date:Oct.2002
Scale:As Noted
Renton Retail SlopeStability Analysis
Renton,Washington
FIGURE2 - GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE
PROFILEA-A'
Pseudostatic Seismic Stability Analysis
J 1470A 1 10-29-......9:36
200
160
Renton Retail
10 most critical surfaces,MINIMUM BISHOP FOS 1.312
SOIL STRENGTH VALUES
Soil Type I: Loose to medium dense
coal tailings (Fill),0=37',C=O psf.
SoilType 2: Interbedded very loose to
loose, silty sand, sandy silt, and silt
with variable gravel, wood, and
organic debris content (Alluvium),
0=32°,C=O.O psf.
1
Critical Failure Surface
FOS =1.312
U1
X«80
I>-
40
o
o 40
4
80 120 160 200
X-AXIS (feet)
2
240 280
Soil Type 3: Loose silty sand
(Residual Soil),0=33°,C=O psf.
Soil Type 4: Very dense sandstone,
0=15°,C=3000 psf.
320
ZIPPERZEMAN ASSOCIATES,INC.
GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSULTING
Project No. J-1470
Date: September 2002
Scale: Noted
Renton Retail
Renton, Washington
Pseudostatic Seismic Stability Analysis
Fi~re3
Hs =EQUIVALENT SOIL ~]I NOTES:
SURCHARGE FOR BACKSLOPE A
E!!!1 !/1
1. SOIL SURCHARGE "Hs"APPLIES TO
V~-2H:1V BACKSLOPE SURCHARGE.EXCAVATION BASE
GROUN~Y GR~UND'S~RF:CE -.l /ADDITIONAL SURCHARGE REQUIRED ~,ASSUME NO RESISTANCEAS NOTED ON FIGURE 4,AND/OR FOR
(APPROXIMATE 2H:1V) /
SLOPE ABOVE TOP OF PILE.
t t (fs)SURFACE I\2. ACTIVE, AT-REST, AND SURCHARGE
\PRESSURE ASSUMED TO ACT OVER tc-t (fs)(qa)
\I PILE SPACING ABOVE EXCAVATION ALLOWABLE ALLOWABLE
ttt FRICTION END BEARING
NOLOAD ZONEJ \ \
/BASE AND OVER PILE DIAMETER
BELOW EXCAVATION BASE.NATIVE SOIL 0 ksf o ksf
/SANDSTONE 2.5ksf 30 ksf
LOCATE ALL
3. PASSIVE PRESSURE ASSUMED TO RECOMMENDED MINIMUM EMBEDMENT
ANCHORS BEHIND \
\ I
.>ACT OVER TWICE THE GROUTED DEPTH 5 FEET INTO SANDSTONE
THIS LINE
\SOLDIER PILE DIAMETER OR THE PILE
V ~SPACING,WHICHEVER IS SMALLER.B.VERTICAL CAPACITY OFHPASSIVEPRESSURESINCLUDE
FACTOR OF SAFETY OF ABOUT 1.5.SOLDIER PILE/\.>TIEBACK ANCHOR NEGLECT LOOSE/SOFT NATIVE SOILS.
(TYP.)<»:36 (H+D)36 Hs 16 H
4. SEISMIC PRESSURE =16 H, Hs =H/4
~\5.0 =DEPTH OF EMBEDMENT INTO
':\SANDSTONE.
FRICTION
I \6. ALL DIMENSIONS IN FEET.SOIL TYPE
(ADHESION)
\NATIVE SOIL o ksf
/\SANDSTONE 3.0 ksf (augered)
I 60r 9.0 kif (pressure grouted)
\------EXCAVATION BASE VERIFY WITH LOAD TEST 300% OF DESIGN STRESS
I !-H/4-
y/LEVEL, SEE TEXT.
.r >.
/(--l-PROPOSED PROOF TEST TO 150% OF DESIGN ANCHOR LOAD,
J 4-FT DIA. PIPE SEE TEXT.
I -,-r-=-:::::.- - ---..J>ANDSTON~I C.TENTATIVE ANCHOR PULLOUT___0
RESISTANCEI."I
PASSIVE PRESSURE
ACTIVE PRESSURE 36(H+D)+ 36(Hs) + 16 H 100 0 (psf) in loose/soft native soil
AT-REST PRESSURE 50(H+D) + 50(Hs) + 16 H 1200 0 (psf) in sandstone
A.LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE·NO LOAD ZONE
NOTE:Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc.Project No. J-1470 PROPOSED RETAIL DEVELOPMENT
FIELD VERIFY BACKSLOPE ANGLE
Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting Renton, Washington
Date: Nov. 2002
BETWEEN WALL AND BENSON 18905 33rd Avenue West, Suite 117
ROAD BEFORE DESIGN.Lynnwood,Washington 98036 Drawn by: J.D.
Figure 4:Recommended Design Criteria for
Tele: (425) 771-3304 Fax: (425)771-3549 Shoring Cantilever or Single Row of Tiebacks
-roc:
II,N1----1
BASE OF EXCAVATION
POINT LOAD
(FOR m > 0.4)
1.77q m
2 n 2
O'h =[)2.(m2+ n2)3
(FOR rn <0.4)
0.28q n 2
O'h =~.(0.16+n 2 )3
ft)q 0'I h =O'h cos2 (1.1-&)
0"h
q,Ib per ft2
D
BASE OF EXCAVATION
BASE OF EXCAVATION
PLAN VIEW OF WALL
STRIP LOADING PARALLEL
TO EXCAVATION
O'h =~(~-sin ~cos2a.)
1t
UNIFORM LOAD DISTRIBUTION
O'h =0.4 q
q =VERTICAL PRESSURE in psf
Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc.
Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting
18905 33rd Avenue West, Suite 117
Lynnwood, Washington 98036
Tele: (425) 771-3304 Fax: (425) 771-3549
Project No.J-1470
Date:Nov.2002
Drawn by: J.D.
PROPOSED RETAIL DEVELOPMENT
Renton,Washington
Figure 5:Surcharge Pressure Acting on
Adjacent Shoring or Subsurface Wall
APPENDIX A
FIELD EXPLORATION PROCEDURES AND LOGS
FIELD EXPLORATION PROCEDURES AND LOGS
J-1470
Our field exploration program for this project included 43 borings and 3 cone
penetrometer probes advanced between September 19, 2002 and October 10, 2002. The
approximate exploration locations are shown on Figure 1, the Site and Exploration Plan.
Exploration locations were determined by measuring distances from existing site features with a
tape relative to an undated Draft Grading and Drainage Plan prepared by PacLand. As such, the
exploration locations should be considered accurate to the degree implied by the measurement
method. The following sections describe our procedures associated with the exploration.
Descriptive logs of the explorations are enclosedin this appendix.
Soil Boring Procedures
Our exploratory borings were advanced using track- and truck-mounted drill rigs
operated by an independent drilling firm working under subcontract to our firm. The borings
were completed utilizing hollow-stem auger and mud rotary drilling methods. An experienced
geotechnical engineer from our firm continuously observed the borings logged the subsurface
conditions encountered, and obtained representative soil samples. All samples were stored in
moisture-tight containers and transported to our laboratory for further visual classification and
testing. After each boring was completed, the borehole was backfilled with soil cuttings and
bentonite clay.
Throughout the drilling operation, soil samples were obtained at 2.5- to 5-foot depth
intervalsby means of the Standard Penetration Test (ASTM: D-1586). This testing and sampling
procedure consists of driving a standard 2-inch outside diameter steel split spoon sampler 18
inches into the soil with a 140-pound hammer free falling 30 inches. The number of blows
required to drive the sampler through each 6-inch interval is recorded, and the total number of
blows struck during the final 12 inches is recorded as the Standard Penetration Resistance, or
"blow count"(N value). If a total of 50 blows is struck within any 6-inch interval, the driving is
stopped and the blow count is recorded as 50 blows for the actual penetration distance. The
resulting Standard Penetration Resistance values indicate the relative density of granular soils
and the relative consistency of cohesive soils.
Undisturbed samples were obtained by pushing a 3-inch outside diameter, seamless steel
Shelbytube into the soil using the hydraulic system on the drill rig in accordance with ASTM:D-
1587. Since the thin wall tube is pushed rather than driven, the sample obtained is considered to
be relatively undisturbed. The samples were classified in the field by examining the ends of the
tube prior to sealing with plastic caps. The samples were then transported to our laboratory
where they were extruded for further classificationand laboratorytesting.
The enclosed boring logs describe the vertical sequence of soils and materials
encountered in each boring, based primarily upon our field classifications and supported by our
subsequent laboratory examination and testing. Where a soil contact was observed to be
gradational, our logs indicate the average contact depth. Where a soil type changed between
sample intervals, we inferred the contact depth. Our logs also graphically indicate the blow
count, sample type, sample number, and approximate depth of each soil sample obtained from
the boring, as well as any laboratory tests performed on these soil samples.If any groundwater
was encountered in a borehole, the approximate groundwater depth, and date of observation, is
FIELD EXPLORATION PROCEDURES AND LOGS
J-1470
Our field exploration program for this project included 43 borings advanced between
October September 19, 2002 and October 10, 2002. The approximate exploration locations are
shown on Figure 1, the Site and Exploration Plan. Exploration locations were determined by
measuring distances from existing site features with a tape relative to an undated Draft Grading
and Drainage Plan prepared by PacLand. As such, the exploration locations should be
considered accurate to the degree implied by the measurement method. The following sections
describe our procedures associated with the exploration. Descriptive logs of the explorations are
enclosed in this appendix.
Soil Boring Procedures
Our exploratory borings were advanced using track- and truck-mounted drill rigs
operated by an independent drilling firm working under subcontract to our firm. The borings
were completed utilizing hollow-stem auger and mud rotary drilling methods.An experienced
geotechnical engineer from our firm continuously observed the borings logged the subsurface
conditions encountered, and obtained representative soil samples. All samples were stored in
moisture-tight containers and transported to our laboratory for further visual classification and
testing. After each boring was completed, the borehole was backfilled with soil cuttings and
bentonite clay.
Throughout the drilling operation, soil samples were obtained at 2.5- to 5-foot depth
intervals by means of the Standard Penetration Test (ASTM: D-1586). This testing and sampling
procedure consists of driving a standard 2-inch outside diameter steel split spoon sampler 18
inches into the soil with a 140-pound hammer free falling 30 inches. The number of blows
required to drive the sampler through each 6-inch interval is recorded, and the total number of
blows struck during the final 12 inches is recorded as the Standard Penetration Resistance, or
"blow count" (N value).If a total of 50 blows is struck within any 6-inch interval, the driving is
stopped and the blow count is recorded as 50 blows for the actual penetration distance. The
resulting Standard Penetration Resistance values indicate the relative density.of granular soils
and the relative consistency of cohesive soils.
Undisturbed samples were obtained by pushing a 3-inch outside diameter, seamless steel
Shelby tube into the soil using the hydraulic system on the drill rig in accordance with ASTM:D-
1587. Since the thin wall tube is pushed rather than driven, the sample obtained is considered to
be relatively undisturbed. The samples were classified in the field by examining the ends of the
tube prior to sealing with plastic caps. The samples were then transported to our laboratory
where they were extruded for further classification and laboratory testing.
The enclosed boring logs describe the vertical sequence of soils and materials
encountered in each boring, based primarily upon our field classifications and supported by our
subsequent laboratory examination and testing. Where a soil contact was observed to be
gradational, our logs indicate the average contact depth. Where a soil type changed between
sample intervals, we inferred the contact depth. Our logs also graphically indicate the blow
count, sample type, sample number, and approximate depth of each soil sample obtained from
the boring, as well as any laboratory tests performed on these soil samples.If any groundwater
was encountered in a borehole, the approximate groundwater depth, and date of observation, is
depicted on the log.Groundwater depth estimates are typically based on the moisture content of
soil samples, the wetted portion of the drilling rods, the water level measured in the borehole
after the auger has been extracted.
The boring logs presented in this appendix are based upon the drilling action,observation
of the samples secured,laboratory test results, and field logs. The various types of soils are
indicated as well as the depth where the soils or characteristics of the soils changed. It should be
noted that these changes may have been gradual, and if the changes occurred between samples
intervals, they were inferred.
Electric Cone Penetrometer Probes
A local exploration company under subcontract to our firm performed three electric cone
penetrometer probes for this project on September 26, 2002. The descriptive soil interpretations
presented on the cone penetrometer probe logs have been developed by using this classification
chart as a guideline.It consists of a steel cone that is hydraulically pushed into the ground at up
to 40,000 pounds of pressure. Sensors on the tip of the cone collect data.Standard cone
penetrometers collect information to classify soil type by using sensors that measure cone-tip
pressure and friction. The detailed interpretive logs of the static cone penetrometer probes
accomplished for this study are presented subsequently.
..
L
SLOPE STABILITY EVALUATION BORING LOGS
----------------------------------------,
PROJECT: Renton Retail Slope Stability JOB NO. J-1470 A
BORING B-1A PAGE 1 OF 3
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:56.5 feet
Soil Description
II)
-II)Q.Q.
E >-~t-
II).._II)
Q..Q
E El'll :;,tnz
Penetration Resistance III Cl"C ...~l:::.II)c:II):;,e:;,-Ii ;::e~Standard Blows per foot Other
III::r II)
C)Z t-
O 10 20 30 40
i" -
Loose, moist, brown, silly,gravelly SAND (Fill)-------------------------------------------------
---
---Loose to medium dense,moist, dark brown to black,
~silty SAND with some gravel,trace organics
interbedded with COAL fragments (Fill)
---
---+----___.1-_
----T---
----±---
S-1
S-2
-'- _ ..!._.1...!.
5
18
Loose, moist,dark brown-black,silty SAND with trace
I--gravel and organics interbedded with COAL fragments
(Fill)
I--
I------------------------------------------------
~
Very loose, moist, dark brown-black and reddish-pink,
I--silty SAND with trace gravel interbedded with COAL
and SANDSTONE fragments (Fill)
I--
---1---
------------
---T--·-
---±----
S-3
S-4
__~~~!..__.!.__l._:A I
- -.---r-- r --r -T - - T - - T --l'--l' - - .
,
-- -I --r - r -T -T - T - - T --I - -1 --.
.:
7
3 MC
I------- ----- ---- --------- - ------------------------------------
I--
~
Very loose, moist, black, COAL fragments with some
_ silty SAND (Fill)
-
-
,--
25
---T----
---±----S-5
,,
- - - - -- - - I I I - -- - I --
,
Explanation
I
Monitoring Well Key
2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample rz:::z:J Clean Sand
]I 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample
~Cuttings
®e29 BentoniteNo Recovery
T •Grout
--Groundwater level at time of drilling
ATD or date of measurement
E3 Screened Casing
0 10 20 30
40 50
Moisture Content
Plastic Limit Natural Liquid Limit
I •I
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9119102
Figure A-1
Logged By: CRT
---------------------------------------""""l
PROJECT: Renton Retail Slope Stability JOB NO. J-1470 A
BORING B-1A PAGE20F 3
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:56.5 feet
Soil Description
QI
-QICoCoE>.
Illl-
l/)
QI ...
-QICo.QE E
III ::I
l/)Z
'C ....
Penetration Resistance III CI...6.QI
C QI ::I C
::I'-iii :;::e;:Standard Blows per foot Other
III::r QIeZI-
0 10 20 30 40
__I.-__!.._!.._~1.._!.__!. ____1 _
,,
Very loose, moist, black, COAL fragments with some
I--silty SAND and SANDSTONE fragments (Fill)
~----------------------------------------------
2Q
Very loose to loose, saturated, brown-gray, SAND with
I--some silt and gravel and trace organics and wood
fragments
I--
_L.-
---T---
~---±---
S-6
S-7
T
ATD
.:
•
,
-_I- - -I- -I-_ -I-- -I-_I-- --I-_-of - -.._
3
4
MC
GSA
---T---
----±----S-8
__ _ _ _i...••5 200W
Grades to very loose, saturated, brown-gray, silty
I--SAND with some gravel and trace organics
---T---
----±----S-9
,
__L L L _ L __.I-_J._-l _.1 _J __.,
,
- -I - -I -T - -r -r --T - --'I - -"I - -•
~I I I I Ie:
_""__l..__l.-_L __L __..._-l._J __..l __,
4 200W
~
Medium stiff to stiff, wet, brown-gray, sandy SILT with
,...-some clay and organics interbedded with silty SAND
with some gravel
"""-Dense to very dense, moist, tan-brown, silty, weathered
"""-SANDSTONE
50
---T----
---±----S-10 ,,- --- - ----- - - - ---- - --- ---_.,
---r --r --r --T --r --r--T--,--'---,,
_L __L !._l __l __l 1 __,
Explanation
I
MonitoringWell Key
2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample E2J Clean Sand
]I 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample
~Cuttings
e ~BentoniteNo Recovery
T -Grout
Groundwater level at time of drilling
ATD or date of measurement
E3 Screened Casing
0 10 20 30 40 50
Moisture Content
,
Plastic Limit Natural liquid Limit
I •I
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/19/02
FigureA-1
Logged By: CRT
PROJECT: Renton Retail Slope Stability JOB NO. J-1470 A
BORING B-1A PAGE30F 3
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:56.5 feet
Soil Description
Q)
-Q)a.a.E >.
~...
Q)'"-Q)a..QE E
111 :Jrnz
Penetration Resistance 1/1 Cl"C '"...~Q)
C Q):J C
:J ....iii ;o 111 Standard Blows per foot
Other 1/1'"3:::r Q)
C)z ...
0 10 20 30
40
Very dense, moist, tan-brown, silty SANDSTONE S-11 .50/3"
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
55 Very dense, moist, light gray, silty SANDSTONE
~I--------------f...::r::-._-
Boring completed at 55.5 feet on 9/19/02
-Groundwater seepage observed at 29 feet at time of
drilling
~
S·12
-"-i,-"-"--"--"---"--"--..
50/1"
-_!..._!..- -!...- -!..- -!..--!..--1.__..!.__~__,
~
-- - - - - - - - - ----,,
,--- - - - - - ---- - - - - ---, ,
-,,--
-
-
-,
--r -- r - -r - -r -T - -T --T - -"I -1 --
75
Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50
•Natural
Moisture Content
Plastic Limit liquid Limit1----------1
I
MonitoringWell Key
2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample ~Clean Sand
]I 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample
~Cuttings
®No Recovery
1129 Bentonite
••Grout
Groundwater level at time of drilling
ATD or date of measurement
E3 Screened Casing
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/19/02
Figure A·1
Logged By: CRT
PROJECT: Renton Retail Slope Stability JOB NO. J-1470 A
BORING B-2A PAGE 1 OF 2
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:56 feet
Soil Description
CI>
-CI>CoCoE>.~I-
CI>..._CI>
CoDE E
111 ::I
0Z
Penetration Resistance UI Cl'tl L-A 6 CI>c CI>::I C
::1-'jij ;o 111 Standard Blows per foot Other
UI...;::=r CI>C)Z I-
0 10 20 30 40
Loose, damp, brown, silty SAND with some gravel, coal
I--and sandstone fragments (Fill)I...L 1._
,,-_.
Loose, moist, dark brown-black, silty SAND with some
I--gravel with interbedded COAL and pink-orange
SANDSTONE fragments (Fill)
----T---
----±---S-1 5
~pink-orange SANDSTONE fragments (Fill)
Loose, moist, dark brown-black. silty SAND with
I--interbedded COAL and SANDSTONE fragments (Fill)
---T---
----:t----
,,,- ------
S-2
",-r--T--T--"--'--',,
9 MC
__!...!._ _ _ _ 1 _ !.1 __,
,
- --;-- r - - - -I - -T - -T - T - - 1 --t-
--T----
---±----S-3
-r r --I -"I -T - -T --"i - -i --,-
~11
I--
I--
I------------------------------------------------
I I I I I- - - ---- - - - ---- - -.
I I I I
Loose, moist, tan-brown, silty weathered SANDSTONE
_ and COAL fragments with some wood fragments (Fill)
-
---T----
---±----S-4 •- - - - -'---!...--!.-- -~-!.
--r -- r - - r -r - -T - T - - T - - -,.- -,
5 MC
I----0·..0-----------_____________________________ _
Very loose, moist to wet, brown-gray, silty SAND with
_ some gravel, interbedded with sandy SILT with some
organics
25
_!...._l _L .!..__!.1 __1 _
Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50
•
Natural
Moisture Content
Plastic Limit Liquid limitIf--------I
I
MonitoringWell Key
2-inch 0.0,split spoon sample 0 Clean Sand
]I 3-inch 1.0 Shelby tube sample
~Cuttings
®No Recovery
l1:2:,l Bentonite
~•Grout
--Groundwater level at time of drilling
ATD or date of measurement a Screened Casing
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/19/02
Figure A·1
Logged By: CRT
PROJECT:Renton Retail Slope Stability JOB NO. J-1470 A
BORING B-2A PAGE 2 OF 2
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:56 feet
Soil Description
Gl
-GlCoCoE>.
1111-tn
Gl ..Q.~E E
111 :stnz
"...C Gl:s ....e~C)-
Penetration Resistance 1/1 CI...6.Gl:s c
iO :;:;
Standard Blows per foot Other 1/1::-~z
0 10 20 30 40
Very loose, wet,brown-gray,silty SAND with some
I--gravel,intebedded with sandy SILT with some organics S-5 -L
ATD A :.2 MC
I--
30 ----------------------------------------------
~
Very dense, moist,tan-brown,silty weathered
I--SANDSTONE
-
----I--
-.....---S-6
..,..T t -.,I"I"
"5015"MC
....-------------------------------------------------------------
I--
I--
Very dense, moist to wet, light gray, silty SANDSTONE ---::c---
S-7
I I I I I I
~~--- ------ -_.
"50/3"MC
--- r -r -- r - - r - - r --T --T --1 - -1 - -, ,
~1_-----------__1---T---
I--Boring completed at 40.4 feet on 9/19/02
Groundwater seepage observed 25 feet at time of
I--drilling
f--
---T---
----±---
50
S-8
I I I I---- - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - --
Explanation
I
Monitoring Well Key
2-inch O.D. split spoon sample r;::;:,]Clean Sand
]I 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample
~Cuttings
e No Recovery
1129 Bentonite..•Grout
Groundwater level at time of drilling
ATD or date of measurement E3 Screened Casing
0 10 20 30 40 50
Moisture Content
Plastic Limit Natural Liquid Limit
I •I
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/19/02
FigureA·1
Logged By: CRT
PROJECT: Renton Retail Slope Stability JOB NO. J-1470 A
BORING B-3A PAGE 1 OF 2
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:69 feet
Soil Description
QI
-QIa.a.E >.
J1Jt-
QI ...
-QIa.,cE E
III ::IVJz
"C ...
Penetration Resistance III Cl.A-I::::.QICQI::I C
::I'-ii :;::o III Standard Blows per foot Other III...;:~QIC)Z t-
O 10 20 30
40
,,
-
Very loose. moist. dark brown-black, silty SAND with
f--some gravel. COAL.SANDSTONE.SILTSTONE
fragments and trace organics (Fill)
-
----T---
----±---S-1
__!.._L __L __.!..__1 __! _.1 __.!_
2
-- - ------ - --------I ,I I
-----------------------------------------------
~
Loose, moist, dark brown-black, COAL tailings with
~some silty SAND with sandstone and siltstone
fragments (Fill)
~----------------------------------------------
Loose, moist. black, COAL tailings (Fill)~
I--
I------------------------------------------------
~
Very loose. moist.tan-orange-white.highly weathered.
~silty SANDSTONE (Fill)
~
l-
Very loose, moist, black. COAL tailings (Fill)
I-
---T---
---±----
-----1r---
-----It--
---T----
---±----
S-2
S-3
S-4
- - '-_.!...!...!..-.!..-!.- - -.!-_..I _.•- r r --r - - r - -T -T - - T -- T --,-,
,
-j -r - -r T --f --T - - T - - T - -1 - -•,,
___\..__L __L __L __.L __J. _.L _1 __..I __•,
- - 1- - -I -1-r--"'I --.- -T --I"- -1 _.
-- - -"I - - - - -...--
- -~-_!..._!...- -I .!.._ _ _ __•
9
6
3 MC
25
Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50
I
Monitoring Well Key
2-inch O.D. split spoon sample m Clean Sand
J[2.5-inch I.D ring sample
~Cuttings
®No Recovery
22SJ Bentonite
••GroutGroundwater level at time of drilling
ATD or date of measurement
E3 Screened Casing
Plastic Limit
I
Moisture Content
Natural•
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/19/02
FigureA-1
Logged By: CRT
-----~---------------------------------,
PROJECT: Renton Retail Slope Stability JOB NO. J-1470 A
BORING B-3A PAGE 2 OF 2
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:69 feet
Soil Description
CIl
-CIlQ.Q.
E >-c'.ll-
CIl .._CIl
Q..Q
E Ecoj
lnz
"0 "-
Penetration Resistance In Cl•6.CIlcCIlj C
j-ii ;~==Standard Blows per foot Other
In:r CIlC)Z I-
0 10 20 30 40
Very loose, moist, black, COAL TAILINGS (Fill)
I--
S-5 3
I--
---T---
-_.-±---S-6
~- -~-I"----I"-I -~i --
3 MC
I--
~----------------------------------------------
Loose, moist, brown-gray, silty SAND with some gravel
~and trace organics
---T---
----±----S-7
-~---~I.._!.._________
7 MC
~----------------------------------------------
40~Medium dense, wet, brown-gray, silty SAND with some ---T---~l_gr-a-ve-l-to-g-r-aV-e-lIy--Si-lty-S-A-N-D---------1 ± _
S-8 ATD
I I I I
- -I - -I -I ....- -T -T -i - -i -i - -.
.~19 200W
I--Boringcompleted at 41.5 feet on 9/19/02
Groundwater seepage observed at 40 feet at time of
I--drilling
,,-------
,, ,
-- ---
-
-
,
- -!...- - - - - - -_!..- - - - - -_..!._..!.--..!.- -,
, ,
---r - - r - - r - -T - - T - - T - T - -,-- - T - --
~
50
Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50
•Natural
Moisture Content
Plastic Limit Liquid limitIf---------I
I
MonitoringWell Key
2-inch O.D. split spoon sample f§3 Clean Sand
][3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample
WI Cuttings
®No Recovery
~Bentonite
T •GroutGroundwater level at time of drilling
ATD or date of measurement E3 Screened Casing
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/19/02
FigureA.1
Logged By: CRT
PROJECT: Renton Retail Slope Stability JOB NO.J-1470 A BORING B-4A PAGE 1 OF 2
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:68.5 feet
Soil Description Gl
-GlQ.Q.E >.
IV'"l/)
Gl .._Gl
Q..a
E EIV:::l
l/)Z
Penetration Resistance lfI CD"C .....6-GlCGl:::l C
:::l-l ~o IV Standard Blows per foot Other lfI..~GleZ...
0 10 20 30
40
Coaltailings over
_L !._-
-
- Loose. damp, brown and black, mix of coal and cinders
(Fill)-
.1.
Very loose. damp. brown and black. mix of coal and
~cinders (Fill)
----l=----___-1.._
----T---
----±---
S-1
S-2
~
I -,-t r -T -T --F 1-"i
;-
9
3
Loose, damp, brown and black, mix of coal and cinders
i--(Fill)
12
f--Loose. damp, brown and black. mix of coal and cinders
(Fill)
----+---____...L _
---T---
----±----
S-3
S-4
,,- ------- - -_.•
I ,,I I------ - - - - ----- - - ----
6
10
,--Loose, damp, brown and black, mix of coal and cinders
(Fill)
f--
~
Very loose. damp, brown and black,mix of coal and
f--cinders (Fill)
----+---____-l _
--T----
---±----
S-5
S-6
--,--,--,--,--,-,--T--'--I---
~'.9
6 MC
-
-
-
-
---T----
---±----S-7 •-_!..._!.._!..!..- - --- - -~- --- - ---
-r-- -,- -r - -r - -T - - T - - T --"T --,._.,
________!.__I..__1._ ___!__1 __1 __.,,
5 MC
25
Explanation o 10 20 30
40 50
•
Natural
Moisture Content
Plastic LImit Liquid LImitIf-----al------II
I
MonitoringWell Key
2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample C:z:J Clean Sand
]I 3-inch 1.0 Shelby tube sample
~Cuttings
®No Recovery
~Bentonite
T •GroutGroundwaterlevel at time of drilling
ATD or date of measurement E3 Screened Casing
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:10/10/02
FigureA-1
Logged By: TAJ
PROJECT: Renton Retail Slope Stability JOB NO. J-1470 A
BORING B-4A PAGE 2 OF 2
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:68.5 feet
Soil Description
CIl
-CIlQ.Q.
E >-CGI-en
CIl ..c..8
E ECG:;,enz
Penetration Resistance Ul Cl"C .....6.CIlr::CIl :;,r:::;''lij iij :;::
Standard Blows per foot Other
Ul2~~CIlC)Z I-
0 10 20 30
40
____L ~!._..I.._!.__
Very loose, moist, brown and black, mix of coal and
I--cinders (Fill)
S-8 •3 MC
j'"--r - -j'"-T --T - -T -T 1 - 1,,
__L._L _ L _I.._l._J.__.J.__.1 __J.__,
--I"-,-;---,- -I - -T - -,.- -I - -i - -
•e.e·.e·,...,.•.••MC=55%.
.:• 38
I-Very loose, wet, brown, silty, fine to medium SAND
I---------.--.----------....---------------------Wood debris
I-----------------------------------
Very dense, moist,orange-tan,silty SAND (Weathered
I--Sandstone)
----T---
---~±---
---T---
----±----
S-9
S-10
- - - -----,,
.:2
--;-.,-
MC
MC
Boring completed at 36 feet on 10/10/02
~No groundwater observed at time of drilling
S-11
~-!.._!..-!.-.!.--.!.-I _ .
•50/3"
__I...__L __L __).__!.__1 _
,"
,,
--- - -- - - -"I --"I --I"---
,--- - - ------
-
-
---T---
----±----
,,------ --- - --- --I I I I--- - - - ---
-
50
,
,.i""-r - r -r T --T - T -1-, ,
0 10 20 30 40 50
Moisture Content
Plastic Limit Natural liqUid Limit
I •I
I
]I
®
T
ATD
Explanation
2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample
3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample
No Recovery
Groundwater level at time of drilling
or date of measurement
MonitoringWell Key
Q Clean Sand
~Cuttings
I1S29 Bentonite
• Grout
E3 Screened Casing
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:10/10/02
FigureA-1
Logged By: TAJ
PROJECT: Renton Retail Slope Stability JOB NO. J-1470 A
BORING B-SA PAGE 1 OF 2
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:61.5 feet
Soil Description
(I)
-(I)Q,Q,
E >-
1111-
(/)
(I)...0.1:E E
111 :;,
(/)Z
"C "-
Penetration Resistance Ul Cl..6-(I)
C (I):;,C:;,....iii ;:;e~Standard Blows per foot Other Ul~(I)
(l)Z I-
0 10 20 30 40
Coal tailings S-1
~----------------------------------------------
I--Loose, damp, brown, silty SAND with trace gravel (Fill)
-'--
----+----.._.-.L _S-2
__L L _!.__L _.J.__1 __1 _J __.,,
•---t -i""-.--1--r -...-I -"I --.,--
10
I--,-
,--- - - --- - - - - - -I--Very loose, damp, brown and black,COAL TAILINGS
(Fill)
I--
J.Q
----+---____--l _S-3 .&:
,,
- - - ----,"- - --- - - ----
3
I---- ,.. - - r -r -T -T - - T - T _.-"T _.-.,.-,
I--
~Loose, damp,brown and black. COAL TAILINGS (FiJI)----T----___.1-_S-4 10
,
___l...__l...__l...__.I._ _ _ _.L __J.__.I.__J.__•
6
11
33
5040302010
-- - -,----I - - - -"I - -"I - -I"-"i - -
,
_L __L __L L __l __l __l __l __
.&:
-I"- -r --r - -T -T --T - - T -"[--1 -
",-- - ------- - - - --- - ----
,
---r--r--r--r--T--T --,--,--1---,
o
S-6
S-7
S-5
----=r---____--l _
---+----___-1._
Explanation
I--Very dense,wet,mottled orange-tan,silty SAND
25 (Weathered Sandstone)
I--Loose, wet, brown, silty SAND
I--
Loose to medium dense,moist, brown and black,
I--COAL TAILINGS (Fill)
I--
20 thin wood in tip of sampler
~----------------------------------------------.---T-------±----
I--
•
Natural
Moisture Content
Plastic:Limit Liquid Limit11------1 -1
I
MonitoringWell Key
2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample EJ Clean Sand
][3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample
@'<]Cuttings
®No Recovery
~Bentonite
T •Grout
Groundwater level at time of drilling
ATD or date of measurement
E3 Screened Casing
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:10/10/02
Figure A·1
Logged By: TAJ
PROJECT: Renton Retail Slope Stability JOB NO. J-1470 A
BORING B-5A PAGE 2 OF 2
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:61.5 feet
Soil Description
Q)
-Q)Q.Q.
E >.~~
Q)..
-Q)Q..cE E
III ::JC/)z
"t'"-
Penetration Resistance III Cl..6 Q)
C Q)::J C
::J'"ii ;;e~Standard Blows per foot Other
III=r Q)
C)Z ~
0 10 20 30 40
IVery dense, wet, mottled orange-tan,silty SAND
(Weathered Sandstone)S-8 .5014"
Boring completed at 26 feet on 10110102
~No groundwater observed at time of drilling
I"i" -T "I -,-T --"j -"i --
- -I"- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-'---'--_!..-_!..- -,
I--
I--
,
_ l-__l-l-_.l.__..__.j.__.j._.j._ ___
I--
I--
I--I I I I I I 1 I--------------------------,,,
I--
I--
50
Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50
Moisture Content
Liquid Limit
1----__--1Plastic Limit Natural
I •
a Screened Casing
MonitoringWell Key
rz:;'Zl Clean Sand
~Cuttings
~Bentonite
• Grout
2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample
3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample
Groundwater level at time of drilling
or date of measurement
No Recovery
ATD
I
]I
e
T
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:10/10/02
FigureA-1
Logged By: TAJ
--------------------------------------------,
PROJECT:Renton Retail Slope Stability JOB NO.J-1470 A BORING B-6A PAGE 1 OF 2
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:57 feet
Blows per foot Other
Penetration Resistance
6.
403020
't:I .....C Gl::s ....2;:Standard
C'
0 10
,
Gl .._Gl
o...QE E
III ::s
l/)Z
Gl
-Gl0.0.E >.c'-lt-
Soil Description
Blackberry briars over-
-
_ L _L ~_~__.!.1 _.!.~_,
-
-
2..
Medium dense, damp, dark brown, COAL and COAL
- CINDERS (Fill)
I--
----T---
----±---
Medium dense, damp to moist, brown, red-brown and
I--black, COAL, silty SAND and CINDERS (Fill)
---T---
---±----S-2
I I I I I- - ------ - -- --------- ---_.
~19
I--
J2
Loose, damp, black, COAL TAILINGS (Fill)
I--
--T-----_...±......-S-3
,
_ L _ L _ L _ L __.i _.1 _.J.__.1 __j _
,,,
-I - -i-I - -I - -T - -T --,.- -"'i - -•
10
I--
I--
~----------------------------------------------
Very loose, wet, brown, silty SAND with trace to some
I--gravel
---T---
---±----S-4 •'---- - - - -------,
2 MC
GSA
I------------------------------------------------
Very dense, moist,orange-brown and gray-tan, silty
I-SAND (Weathered Sandstone)
25
I I I.I I I I-- ----- - - - - -------- - - - - - - - - -
-r - -r - -r - -r --r --T -- T - - T - 1 - -,
Explanation
I
Monitoring Well Key
2-inch O.D. split spoon sample r:;:::IJ Clean Sand
]I 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample
~Cuttings
®~BentoniteNo Recovery
T •Grout
Groundwater level at time of drilling
ATD or date of measurement E3 Screened Casing
0 10 20 30 40 50
Moisture Content
Plastic Limit Natural Liquid Limit
I •I
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:10/10102
FigureA-1
Logged By: TAJ
PROJECT: Renton Retail Slope Stability JOB NO. J-1470 A
BORING B-6A PAGE 2 OF 2
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:57 feet
Soil Description
QI
-QIa.a.
E >-~I-
QI ...
-QIa..Q
E Eco::l
!/)Z
Penetration Resistance 1/1 Cl"C L-A 6.QIl:QI ::l l:
::l1V iV ;:
Standard Blows per foot Other
1/1e:;:>,QIC)Z I-
0 10 20 30 40
""'-..Very dense, moist,orange-brown and gray-tan,
~I "'-silty SAND (Weahtered Sandstone)
Boring completed at 25.5 feet on 10110/02
~No groundwater observed at time of drilling
~50/2"
,
_L __l.-_L _ L _.l _.L __.J._l __.l __
.--,.- -.,-T -I -....--;-
-
, ,
_I..I..__L _!.._!.._~__2.__.!.__.!__
-
I--I - -...- -r -r -T - T --T -T -"1 - -
,
__L __L __L __L __L __.1 __.L __J.__.l __, ,
-I"--i --r - -I"- -T - -T - -j - -I - -I - -., ,
I--_ L.__L _L.J-__.l-__..1 __..l.__,
t--
,I ,I- - - - - - - - - -
I----r --r--r--r---T --T --T --T--,--,
I--I I I I I I !I I- - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I-
50
- - r - -r - - r ~-T --T -- T - - T --"1 --"1 --,
Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50
Moisture Content
Liquid Limit1--------1Plastic:Limit Natural
I •
MonitoringWell Key
Q Clean Sand
~Cuttings
1129 Bentonite
• Grout
a Screened Casing
3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample
No Recovery
Groundwater level at time of drilling
or date of measurement
2-inch 0.0.split spoon sampleI
J[
®
T
ATD
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:10/10/02
FigureA-1
Logged By: TAJ
PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470
BORING B-1 PAGE 1 OF 2
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:36 feet
Soil Description
III
-IIIa.a.E >-1111-
UJ
III ..._III
a..Q
E E
III ::I
UJz
Penetration Resistance
"0 '-...c:C III
::I'"~~Standard Blows per foot Other
C)
0 10 20 30 40 50
Surfacegrassover tan-brown,silty,gravelly SAND
""-(Fill)
•
3 MC
MC
MC4
3 200W
17
___________I ''
:A
~--I"--;---I --T --T --T - -T -I"- -1 - - .
,- - - - - ---- - - -
'Y
ATDS-4
S-3
S-1
S-2
----r--------
----_..-
---T---
----±----
----1---
....__.........------
---+----...-.L _
f--Looseto mediumdense,moist,brown,silty,gravelly
SANDwith trace organics(Fill)
- Veryloose,moist,gray-black,silly, gravellySANDto
gravelly,sandy SILTwith someorganics(Fill)
~Soft,wet, gray-black,silty SAND withsomeorganics
-
-
-
~
--------------------------------.-------------u
Loose,moist,gray-black,silty SAND with somegravel
""-and someorganics(Fill)
f------------------------------------------------
,
- ,- - -i"-,.- -;-- -r - -T -- T - - T --1 --•,,
_ L _ L __L __1.__i __.l __.i __.1 _J _.,,
Very loose,wet, brown-gray-black,silty SAND with
""-tracegravelinterbeddedsandySILTand organic SILT
--T----
---±----S-5 A,•
,,,
--;---,----I--I"--7--i---
2 GSA
f------------------------------------------------
20
..;;,,;.Verydense, moist,orangish-tan-brown,weatheredsilty ---::c----
SANDSTONE---------------
S-6 ~50/6"
-,
- r - r - - r -r - -T - - T - - T --T --T-
-_________L 1 __1 __1 __..! _
-
25
Explanation
I
]I
e
'Y
ATD
2-inch a.D.split spoon sample
3-inch 1.0 Shelby tube sample
No Recovery
Groundwaterlevel at time of drilling
or date of measurement
MonitoringWell Key
~Clean Sand
~Cuttings
I:525l Bentonite
• Grout
E3 Screened Casing
0 10 20 30
40 50
Moisture Content
Plastic Limit Natural Liquid Limit
I •I
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/23/02
Figure A-1
Logged By: CRT
PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470
BORING B-1 PAGE 2 OF 2
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:36 feet
Penetration Resistance
6
Blows per foot Other
g
a
G>c
Soil Description
Gl
-GlQ.Q.
E >.
~1-
Gl .._Gl
Q..cE E
lU :::l
l/)Z
"C ...
C Gl:::l ....2;:
C)
...
Standard
o 10 20 30
40 50
III
Gl
:::l
iii>,
Z
IVery dense, rnolst,light aray,silty ~ANu~UNt:
I--Boring completed at 25.5 feet on 9/23/02.
Groundwater encountered at approximately 10 feet at
I--time of drilling.
I--
-
-
-
~
-
-
I--
I--
I--
I--
-
-
S-7
__L _!..__!..__i _1 __.!.__1 __1 __..l __
I I I I
,
- - r -r - -T --r --T --T - T -- T - - 1 - -
,
__L __L __L __L __1.__.1 _ .1 __1 _ J __,,
,
r -i""-I"--"I - -i"- -T - -T - -\- -"'i - -
-- - - -- - -- ----------I I I I 1
,,
-_I..-_!...__!..__.!.__.!-__.I.-__..!.__..!.__..!.__
,,
__!..__!..!.. _ !..__1.1 __l __1 __
,,
--i --i --,- -I - -T - -T - -T - -T --i - -
,,,
- -..- - - - - - ----I --I"--i --I - -
-- I - - - - - - - - ------j --I - -
,
--!..--I..-__!..__!..__!..__1.__1.__.1 __..!.__
..50/5"
-
-
50
--,--r--r--r Y--I--1--1--1--
,
E3 Screened Casing
0 10 20 30 40 50
Moisture Content
Plastic Limit Natural Liquid Limit
I •I
I
]I
e
T
ATD
Explanation
2-inch a.D.split spoon sample
3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample
No Recovery
Groundwater level at time of drilling
or date of measurement
MonitoringWell Key
IZ"J Clean Sand
~Cuttings
f'S29 Bentonite
• Grout
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/23/02
Figure A-1
Logged By: CRT
PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO.J-1470 BORING B-2
PAGE 1 OF 3
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:34 feet
g
.c
Q.
CII
C
Soil Description CI)..Penetration Resistance III 0'1CI)'tl ....oA 6.CI)
-CI)
_CI)c CI):J Cc..oc.c.E E
:J-iij ;;E»o III Standard Blows per foot
Other III~~III :J ..;:~CI)
I/)Z C)Z ~
0 10 20 30
40 50
2 inches asphalt and 2 inches crushed rock over
I-brown, silty, gravelly SAND (Fill)
I-----------------------------------------------
I--Loose, moist,brown-gray,silty SAND with some gravel,
sandstone fragments and trace organics (Fill)
---=l=----___-L~__S-1
,
-..--r -r -T -T -T -T --1 --"T --
, ,
_L __L _L _L __L __.L __.L __.i _.l _
7,, ,
---i--i--1--1--"1--1--1--T--,---
5~----------------------------------------------
Very loose, wet, gray, silty SAND with interbedded
I--sandy SILT
----T"-
----±---S-2 ATD 2
-----------------I I I I
GSA
~Loose, wet,brown-gray,silty SAND to sandy SILT with
some wood
~
~----------------------------------------------Loose, saturated, gray,gravelly SAND with some silt,
I--trace wood and organics
-----it------s---I---
-.-----
S-3
S-4
,I I I I--_.----- - ---- --- - --_.
9
~___L __L __!..__l_.l __l._!.1 __.! _, ,
~----------------------------------------------,
- - I· -r --r - - r - -r - -T --T - -7 - -;r --
,
- -i --I -~T --I --I --T - -i - -I"- -1 - -
,
,----------- - - -----I 'j I
,
_ L _.L __L __1.__L _ .L __.\.__.1 __.1 __
~
Soft, wet, brown-gray, sandy SILT with interbedded silty
~SAND and organic SILT
--T----
---±----S-5 A:MC=64% •3 MC
~----------------------------------------------,
I I I !---- - - ----- -
I I I I
Very soft, moist to wet, dark brown, PEAT,ORGANIC
_ SILT with interbedded silty SAND
-
---T---
---±----S-6 A :.
",-- - - --- - - -------- --- ------
2 MC
'--Soft, wet,brown-gray,silty SAND interbedded with
sandy SILT and WOOD
25
Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50
•Natural
Moisture Content
Plastic Limit Liquid Limit11---------1
I
MonitoringWell Key
2-inch D.D.split spoon sample 0 Clean Sand
]I 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample
~Cuttings
e No Recovery
~Bentonite
~•GroutGroundwater level at time of drilling
ATD or date of measurement E3 Screened Casing
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/23/02
Figure A·1
Logged By: CRT
--------------------------------------~
PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470
BORING B-2 PAGE20F 3
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:34 feet
g
.c
Q.
CI>
C
Soil Description
Ql
-Qlc.c.E»~I-
Ql ...
-Qlc..cEE
I'll ='rnz
Penetration Resistance Ul Cl"C .....6.QlCQl='C
='-iV ;::o I'll Standard Blows per foot Other Ul...:=:r QlC)Z I-
0 10 20 30 40 50
Soft, wet,brown-gray,silty SAND interbedded with
;--sandy SILT and wood
Loose, wet, gray, silty SAND with some gravel
,.....interbedded with sandy SILT
f--
f--
---T---
----±----
---T---
----±----
S-7
S-8
S-9
-I'I"-I"-"I -i --T --T --T --"I ---,
•,- ---------- ----- --,I I I I
L ,,I L----- - ------- ----- -
,
,..--r - r --i -T -T --,.--7 -"(--
5
4 GSA
6
~------------------------------------------------------------
~
Loose, wet,brown-gray,silty SAND with some gravel
I--and trace organics
f------------------------------------------------
f--
45
..;.;;.Stiff, wet, gray,sandy SILT with some gravel with
_interbedded silty SAND
-
Medium dense,moist,tan-brown,weathered silty
-SANDSTONE
-
50
---T---
----±----
---T---
---±----
S-10
S-11
:A 7
,, ,-----------------------,,
10-I....!._1 _
,,
- -r - -r - -r - -T -T - -T - T --T --T ---
Explanation
I
MonitoringWell Key
2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample 0 Clean Sand
][3-inch 1.0Shelby tube sample
WI Cuttings
®~BentoniteNo Recovery
y •GroutGroundwater level at time of drilling
ATD or date of measurement
E3 Screened Casing
0 10
20 30 40 50
Moisture Content
Plastic Limit Natural Liquid limit
I •I
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/23/02
Figure A·1
Logged By:CRT
PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470
BORING B-2
PAGE30F 3
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:34 feet
Soil Description CIl
-CIlc.c.E >.
III I-
II)
CIl .._CIl
c.oCE E
III :::l
II)z
Penetration Resistance II)
Cl"Cl ...•6-CIlr::CIl :::l r::
:::l1O ~;
2;:Standard Blows per foot Other II)
C)Z ~
0 10 20 30 40 50
Medium dense, moist,tan-brown,silty, highly
___weathered SANDSTONE
-------------------------------------------------
---
---:1----S-12 ~26
---
,,
__.l-J-__.l-_.l-_..I __
650/3"S-13~~~~~~~
1--------------1 ±-
~
Very dense, moist, light gray, silty SANDSTONE
I--
I-Boring completed at 56.3 feet on 9/23/02.
Groundwater encountered at approximately 5.5 feet at
~time of drilling.
,,- - ---------- -----
, ,,-----,, ,- - ----- -
,
-r - r - - r --r --T --T - -j - -1 --1 -
,
__L _ L __L __1._1. _J..__.J.__.1 __J _
,
--I"-I"-;-- -'I -I - -T - -j - --;- -"I -
~
~
~
12.
,,- - - ------- --- - - ----
---I I I 1 I I I I I- --- - - - - ------ - - - - - - - - ----
---
---
---
75
Explanation o 10 20 30
40 50
•
Natural
Moisture Content
Plastic Limit Liquid Limit1-------1
I
MonitoringWell Key
2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample [:;'a Clean Sand
K 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample
~Cuttings
e No Recovery
I1Q9 Bentonite
•-GroutGroundwater level at time of drilling
ATD or date of measurement
E3 ScreenedCasing
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/23/02
FigureA-1
Logged By: CRT
PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470
BORING B-3 PAGE 1 OF 3
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:38 feet
Soil Description
CIl
-CIlQ"Q"
E >.
~I-
CIl ""_CIl
Q".Q
E E
III ~
fl)Z
"0 "-
Penetration Resistance III Cl..b"CIlcCIl~C
~....ii :;::o III Standard Blows per foot Other III"";::r CIleZI-
0 10 20 30 40 50
13 Inches asphalt over 9 Inches loose to medium dense,
moist. brown. sillv.oravellv SAND IFiIIl
~----------------------------------------------
~
~Very loose, moist, black, COAL TAILINGS (Fill)
~
~
---=r----~__-L _
----1---
-..._--....-..----
S-1
S-2
--r --r -f --i"--T -~T -r --1 -- 1 ---
3
3, ,
---I --;--!-"I --,.- -I"- -"I - -.
----+---____.1-_S-3 ATO
--, ,,2
Very loose, wet, gray,silty SAND interbedded with
~organic SILT and PEAT
-
---1---
------ ------
S-4
,"------- ----------------- --,
,
-r-I--r--T--T-T--T--,--'---
2 200W
,
___L __L __L __1.__1._1.__.1 __.1 _..I _,
Very loose,wet, brown-gray, silty SAND with trace
~gravel interbedded with ORGANIC SILT to sandy SILT
---1----
------.-----_..
S-5
_!-__L __L __.L.__.I-__...__.I-__.1 __..I __•,
3
-1--- --I - -I - -1---;--1--,
~----------------------------------------------
12-
Loose, wet,brown-gray,silty SAND with some gravel
~interbedded with organic silt, peat, charcoal, sandy silt
and some organics-
---T----
---±----S-6
,-- ------- - - - ---,
,
-r ---r -T --T - -.,.- - - - .,. --"t _.
_____!._.!..__!.1-__I _,,
,
- - r --,--r - -T - - T -- T - - T --,- - 1 - -•
10
_ L _ L __L 1 1 1 _, ,-
-
25
Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50
•
Natural
Moisture Content
Plastic Limit Liquid Limit1'---------1
I
MonitoringWell Key
2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample ffil Clean Sand
li 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample
~Cuttings
®329 BentoniteNo Recovery
~•Grout
Groundwaterlevel at time of drilling
ATD or date of measurement
a Screened Casing
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/23/02
FigureA-1
Logged By: CRT
PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470
BORING B-3
PAGE 2 OF 3
Location:Renton, WA
Approximate Elevation:38 feet
Soil Description Q)
-Q)0.0.E>.~I-
Q)...
-Q)o.J:l
E E
III :scnz
Penetration Resistance en C)'tl ....A-D.Q)
C Q):s C:s-~~o III Standard Blows per foot
Other en
...::~e z
0 10 20
30 40 50
Soft, wet, brown, sandy SILT interbedded with organic I
_ silty, peat, silty sand and trace gravel ----i---S-7
_L __L _!.._.L _.!.__l __1 __1 __J _
,"
-
-
-
1.Q.
Loose, wet,brown-gray,silty SAND with some gravel-
-
----T--
-----±---S-8
-----------------------------------------"-----
-
2?
Loose, wet,brown-gray,silty SAND with some gravel
-interbedded with sandy SILT and trace organics
---T---
----±----S-9
I !j!I I I-- --- - - ---- ---- ---- - - - --,,
5
I--
-----------------------------------------------
-
~
Medium dense, saturated, gray, SAND with some
- gravel and silt
-
---T---
----±----S-10 :~,22
, ,--- --- --- - - - - - --, , ,
~----------------------------------------------
Loose, wet, gray, silty SAND with some gravel to
- gravelly, trace organics
---T---
---±----S-11 8
I I I I I ·1 I I I- - -~------- --- - - - ----
I--I I I I j I I I I---- - ---- --- ---- --- --- - - - - -
I--------------------------------------------------------------
50
,
- - r - r --r --T - - T - - T -- T -- T --1 - -
Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50
•Natural
Moisture Content
Plastic limit liquid limit
I-~----I
I
Monitoring Well Key
2-inch 0,0.split spoon sample EJ Clean Sand
]I 3-inch 1.0 Shelby tube sample
~Cuttings
®No Recovery
ezJ Bentonite
~•Grout
--Groundwater level at time of drilling
ATD or date of measurement
E3 Screened Casing
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/23/02
Figure A·1
Logged By: CRT
PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO.J-1470 BORING B-3 PAGE30F 3
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:38 feet
Medium dense, wet, gray, silty SAND with some gravel I
I--and trace organics ±_
Soil Description Q)
-Q)Q.Q.
E >.~I-
Q)~
-Q)Q..QE E
III ::I
C/)z
S-12
"Q "-
Penetration Resistance III CDA6-Q)
C Q)::I C::I ...."iii ;::o III Standard Blows per foot Other
III~;:::-Q)
C)Z I-
0 10 20 30
40 50:., ,17,
I--
I------------------------------------------------
~Very dense, moist,orange-tan,weathered silty
SANDSTONE
I------------------------------------------------
----I---
-------
S-13
,
_L ___....__....__.\._....__.J._...__
A 50/5"
----- ------ - - -----I I 1 I I I I
, ,--- - - - - - --- ------- --
_!..._L
A 50/1"S-141------------1---:c---
I--
~Very dense, moist, light gray, silly SANDSTONE
I--Boring completed at 60.5 feet on 9/23/02
Groundwater seepage observed at 8.5 feet at time of
I--drilling
-r - r -r -T j -'i --i"--1 --"'i --,
",- -r - -i - -;---T - -T -1--i --I - -I -
,
__I->-_I.-__...._...__.I-__.J._
,,- --- --- - - - - ----- - ----
,
- -l-_ - ....__.._ -__+__+__+__1-__-i-_,
",--- - - --- -------------
-
,
r - r - r -T - T - -T - - T - -T -")- -
I--
75
Explanation o 10 20 30 40
50
•
Natural
Moisture Content
Plastic Limit Liquid LimitIf--------I
I
MonitoringWell Key
2-inch O.D. split spoon sample I2ill Clean Sand
]I 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample
WI Cuttings
®No Recovery
1129 Bentonite
T •GroutGroundwater level at time of drilling
ATD or date of measurement E3 Screened Casing
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/23/02
FigureA-1
Logged By: CRT
PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO.J-1470 BORING 8-4 PAGE 1 OF 2
Location:Renton,WA Approximate Elevation:39.5 feet
g
.c:
C.
CII
C
Soil Description
CIl
-CIlQ.Q.
E >-J1J1-
CIl ..._CIl
Q.DE E
CII :::lIJ)Z
Penetration Resistance II)01'tl .....b.CIlcCIl:::l C
:::l ....~;:o CII Standard Blows per foot Other II)
...;:CIlC)Z I-
0 10 20 30 40 50
3 inches asphalt over 1.5 inches gravel over 2 inches
___asphalt over loose to medium dense, damp, brown,
silty,gravelly SAND (Fill)
--------------------------------------------------------------
_~_L __L __1 __1.__1 __1.__1 __1 _,,
MC
MC
GSA
4
5
5
9
•
~.'
- - ,---j'"-,--T - -T - -i"-,.--'I - -I - -
__L __L __L i 1 __1 __,,
I I I I- - - ----- --- - - -
",
,
---I --r--r --r --T--T--T --T--T--
,
---r --r-- r --T --T --T--T--1--1---
~
ATD
S-3
S-4
S-2
S-1
----+----___-L _
----+---____-.L _
---T---
---±----
----1---
--------.....---
---Loose, moist, dark brown. silty SAND with some gravel
and organics (Fill)
---Loose, moist,tan-brown,silty,gravelly SAND with trace
organics
---
---
-------------------------------------------------
---
---
2..
---
---
10-------------------------------------------------
Loose, wet,tan-brown,SAND with some silt and gravel
---
.22
Medium dense, moist,tan-brown,silty SAND with
---some gravel (Highly Weathered SANDSTONE)
---
--T----
---±----S-5
,,,
------"1---7--1--1"--'---1---
19
---
---
12.Very dense, moist,whitish-tan-brown,silty
SANDSTONE---
---:r----
S-6
I I I I j-- - - -- ---, ,
~50/6", , ,---- --- ----- ---- - ---
---
___L L __!.__1 __1.__.!__1 __l _,
,,
--r - - r --r --T - - T --T - - T - -1 --1 - - -
-------------------------------------------------
Very dense, moist, light gray, silty SANDSTONE
---
25
Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50
•
Natural
Moisture Content
Plastic Limit Liquid Limit
I--l--------I
I
MonitoringWell Key
2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample Q Clean Sand
][3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample
Ii'2ZJ Cuttings
®No Recovery
f'SC]Bentonite
~•GroutGroundwater level at time of drilling
ATD or date of measurement
E3 Screened Casing
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/24/02
Figure A-1
Logged By: CRT
PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470
BORING B-4 PAGE 2 OF 2
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:39.5 feet
Soil Description
Gl
-GlQ.Q.
E >-~...
Gl ..._Gl
Q..QE E
co =t/)Z
Penetration Resistance en Cl"C ...•6-GlCGl=C=..."iii :;::;
E!;:Standard Blows per foot Other
en>.GlC)Z ...
0 10 20 30 40
Very dense, moist, light gray, silty SANDSTONE
I--
S-7 A 50/2"
,
--r --r -- r --f --T T - T --T -1--,
__L __L __L __L __1. _J. _.1 __.I.__J.__,
10-
2Q ---:::c---I------------i
I--Boring completed at 30.2 feet on 9/24/02.
Groundwater encountered at approximately10 feet at
I--time of drilling.
S-8
,
,-I - -r -T -i -T -"i --"I --I - -,
--- - - - - - - --- - -,"
A 50/2"
__i..-__!...__!...__.!..!.__1.__.!.__ _ _ _
,
- - r - - r - -r - -r - -T --T --T - -1" - -"l - -,
,
-r-'--,--,--,--T--l--1--'--
,,
__L __l.__l.__L __l.__.1_.1 __-1 __..1 __,
,
--r--i--l--r--j"-,--1--1--'-
,--- - - - - ---,,
___~_ __ _ I __2._ ____I __
-_:..__!...__!..._--_!..__.!.__L __.!._---,
--r-r--,--"--T--T--T--'--'--,
Explanation
I--
50
,,
0 10 20 30 40 50
Moisture Content
Plastic Limit Natural liquid Limit
I •I
MonitoringWell Key
rzm Clean Sand
~Cuttings
~Bentonite
• Grout
E3 Screened Casing
2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample
3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample
No Recovery
Groundwater level at time of drilling
or date of measurement
ATD
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/24/02
FigureA-1
Logged By: CRT
PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470
BORING B-5 PAGE 1 OF 3
Location:Renton,WA Approximate Elevation:34.5 feet
Soil Description
.!!!Q)a.a.E >.
~...
Q)....
-Q)a..QE E
III :::s
(/)Z
"0 "-
Penetration Resistance III til...6-Q)
C Q):::s C:::s'-iij ;~~Standard Blows per foot Other III>,Q)
C)Z ...
0 10 20 30 40 50
-t -r --r -..--T -T --T --i --1 -,
5 inches asphalt over concrete rubble over medium
I--dense, moist, brown. sandy GRAVEL (Fill)
I--Soft, moist. black, COAL TAILINGS with some silty
SAND and sandy SILT (Fill)
I--
I--Very loose, wet, gray, silty SAND with some wood and
organics
~----------------------------------------------
Loose, saturated, gray,gravelly SAND with some silt
I--and wood and peat
I--
----+----___--L.__
----T---
----±---
----=r---____-l.__
---T---
----±----
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
T
ATD
__L __L ~_l __1.__1.__1.__.1 __J.__J.__
,
- - -~- - - -!.--------- -
,,
- r - - r - -T - -f -T - -T - -i - -1 - - 1 - -.,,
4
3
3
4 GSA
I------------------------------------------------
I--
--T----
---±----S-5
---- - - - - --- - - - - -I I I 1
,,,----- - - - - - - ---
12.Loose, saturated, gray, silty SAND with interbedded
sandy SILT with some wood-
-
-
I--
25
---T----
---±----S-6 •,,,- - - - - - - - - - - - --,,
,
-,--r -r--,--I--T -1--1--1---
4 200W
Explanation
I
MonitoringWell Key
2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample f§:J Clean Sand
]I 3-inch 1.0 Shelby tube sample
~Cuttings
®1129 BentoniteNo Recovery
T •Grout
Groundwater level at time of drilling
ATD or date of measurement
a Screened Casing
0 10 20 30 40 50
Moisture Content
Plastic Limit Natural Liquid Limit
I •I
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/26/02
FigureA-1
Logged By: CRT
PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470
BORING B-5 PAGE20F 3
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:34.5 feet
Blows per foot Other
Penetration Resistance
l:J.g
.J:.
Q.
Ql
C
Soil Description
Q)
-Q)Q.Q.
E >.~...
Q)...
-Q)Q..Q
E E
III :IUJz
~Gi A:I ....e ~Standard
C)
o 10 20 30
40
Loose, wet, gray, silty SAND with some gravel and
I--interbedded sandy SILT with some organics
I------------------------------------------------
S-7
1-- - ,- -r r r - -T --T T --1 -,-
7 Me
Very loose to loose, wet,brown-gray,silty SAND with
I--interbedded sandy SILT with some organics
---T----
---±----S-8
,.-1"-- - -----, ,
4
I------------------------------------------------
Loose, wet, gray, silty SAND with some gravel and
I--organics
----T---
---~±---
S-9
--,-- - - I --- I 1
,
--,...-t---,...--,...-1"-'f-- ,. --1"_.-.,-_.,
_!...-!..- ----.!.- - - - - - -.
,
l.-__L __1.._1._!._1.__1 __1 .
5
I--------------------------------------------------------------r T -r -T -..- T - -1--T - -1-_.,
Loose, saturated,greenish-gray,silty SAND with some
I--gravel
~----------------------------------------------
~
45~Stiff, moist,orange-brawn-gray,sandy SILT with some
clay (Highly Weathered SANDSTONE)
I------------------------------------------------
I--Very dense, moist, light gray, silty SANDSTONE
I--
50
---T---
----±---
---T---
----±----
S-10
S-ll
,
--'---1-i--j"--r--i--"'j--l--"'i--
:A
_l-_ ____1.-__-I._-I.__J.__-1_,
I ,,I j- - - - - - --- - - ---,
_L __!.L 1.__1.__!__1.__1 _
, ,
--,--,--r--r--T--T--'-,--,--
7
35
Explanation
I
Monitoring Well Key
2-inch O.D. split spoon sample Q Clean Sand
]I 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample
~Cuttings
®t'29 BentoniteNo Recovery
~-Grout
Groundwater level at time of drilling
ATD or date of measurement
a Screened Casing
0 10 20 30
40 50
Moisture Content
Plastic Limit Natural Liquid Limit
I •I
\
Zipper Zeman Associates.Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/26/02
FigureA-1
Logged By: CRT
PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470
BORING B-5 PAGE30F 3
Location:Renton,WA Approximate Elevation:34.5feet
Soil Description
CIl
-CIlc.c.E >-~...
CIl ~_CIl
c..c
E E
III ;,If)z
Penetration Resistance 1/1 Cl'C ~•6.CIlcCIl;,c
;,-iij :;::e~Standard Blows per foot Other
1/1>,CIlC)Z ...
0 10 20 30
40
l--""v_e_ry_d_e_n_se_,_m_o_is_t'_li_9_ht_g_ra_Y_,_Si_ltY_S_A_N_D_S_T_O_N_E 1----d:----S-12 A 00/3"
_J __
I--Boringcompletedat 50.4 feet on 9/26/02.
Groundwaterencounteredat approximately8 feet at
~time of drilling.
~
-
-
-
~
75
-r - r -r -T --T -- T --T -I --1 - -,
_ L __L __L __L __J.__.1 __.1 __.1 __.J __,
-~- ----.!..--!.--.'..--!.------,, ,
, ,
--r-r--r--r·--r--T-,.--,.--,--
__L _L __1.__1 __.l..__1 __1 __1 __1 __, ,
, , ,
--r-r--,--r--r--T--l--1--1--
,
-,-I"- -j -T -'j"- -T - -I - -"I - -"'i -
,,
- - - - - --!- -"I -----;---i --i - -
- - - --- I -- - - - - - - - - - - - I - -
- -I.._ _ _ _!...__!...__.!._.!._.!.__~_ ___,
,
-1-r -f --T -T - -T - T --"I -1--,
Explanation
I
][
e..
ATD
2-inch a.D.split spoon sample
3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample
No Recovery
Groundwaterlevel at time of drilling
or date of measurement
MonitoringWell Key
D CleanSand
~Cuttings
~Bentonite
• Grout
a ScreenedCasing
0 10 20 30
40 50
Moisture Content
Plastic Limit Natural Liquid Limit
I •I
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/26/02
FigureA-1
Logged By: CRT
PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470
BORING B-6 PAGE 1 OF 3
Location:Renton,WA Approximate Elevation:35.5 feet
Soil Description Q)
-Q)a.a.E >.
III I-U)
Q)..
-Q)a..cE E
III ::I
U)z
Penetration Resistance 1/1 Cl"0 ..•6-Q)
C Q)::I C
::I ....iii :;::o III Standard Blows per foot Other 1/1..~~Q)
C)Z I-
0 10 20 30 40 50
17 GSA
3" Asphalt over 6" base-
-
-loose,moist, orange-gray, silty fine to medium SAND
with some gravel and occasional cinders (Fill)-
2..
loose,moist, orange-gray, silty SAND with occasional
- cinders (Fill)
......
~Medium dense, gray, saturated, gravelly fine to coarse
SAND with some silt
----+----___-.L _
----T---
----±---
----+---____-L _
S-1
S-2
S-3
T
ATD
-1--r --j-~f --,--T --,--T --,-- T --,-_.
•,----_.- - --------- ----- ----I I !1 I I I I
, ,
-- - ---I I - I !I I
4
5
GSA
MC
Very soft, wet, dark gray-brown,SilT with some fine
~sand and fine woody derbis
......
---T---
---±----S-4
- -_!..-_!.- -1.1..!.,__
I I I I
__1 __L __I __L __,__1 __,_1 __1 __l __,__.
2 ATT
Soft, wet, dark gray-brown,SilT with some fine sand
......and fine sand interbeds and fine woody debris
~
~
......
--T----
---±----S-5
-- - - - - ---,
4 MC
12-
Very loose, wet, dark gray-brown,silty, fine SAND-
-
-
-
25
---T----
---±----S-6 •,"--------------------
I I I I I I I I, ,
, , ,
- -,--r --,- -r --1-- T --,-- T --1-- T - -1--
1 200W
Explanation
I
Monitoring Well Key
2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample rz:;z:J Clean Sand
][3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample
~Cuttings
®f29 BentoniteNo Recovery
T •Grout
Groundwater level at time of drilling
ATD or date of measurement
a Screened Casing
0 10 20 30 40
50 60
Moisture Content
Plastic limit Natural Liquid Limit
I •I
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/24102
Figure A·1
Logged By: EJL
PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470
BORING B·6 PAGE20F 3
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:35.5 feet
g
a
Glc
Soil Description
Q)
-Q)c..c..E >.
~I-
Q)..
-Q)c...cE E
IV ~
l/)Z
Penetration Resistance Ul Cl'tI ......6 Q)C Q)~C
~-l ;:l~~Standard Blows per foot Other
UlQ)C)Z I-
0 10 20 30 40
Very loose,saturated,gray, silty, fine SAND with fine
......woody debris and interbeded silt S-7
,,,------I I I I- --~------- - - - - - - -
3
_I--
- - r - -r r -r -T - -T - - T -1--,---,
Stiff, wet,brown-gray,SILT with fine sand interbeds
......and some woody debris
-
----T--
----±---S-8 :.'
-----
",
9 Me
-
-
1§.
Medium dense. wet,green-gray,silty fine SAND with
_ fine sand interbeds S-9
- - - --- --- -,
I I It'1 I------- - - - - - - - --------_.
5 200W
___L L __!..__1_...!__1 __1 __1.:._,
~----------------------------------------------.
- -r -r - -i"- -r - -T - - T --T - - I - - 1 -
Very dense, saturated, gray,gravelly SAND
~
~
---T---
----±----S-10
,
-I"-I - -r -'I - -I --T --i - -"'i -"'i-
.A 51
--------- -- -~- - --- -----
I I "I
.
__'I _.!.__.!.__~__~__.!.__., ,,
Dense. saturated. gray. gravelly, fine to coarse SAND
----T---
----±---S-11 ~46
,
-- r - - r -. - r - -r - -T - - T - - T -T - -"T - -
~
~
50
Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50
•
Natural
Moisture Content
Plastic Limit Liquid Limit
II-------~-I
I
MonitoringWell Key
2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample ~Clean Sand
]I 3-inch 1.0 Shelby tube sample
~Cuttings
®No Recovery
~Bentonite..•GroutGroundwater level at time of drilling
ATD or date of measurement E3 Screened Casing
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/24/02
Figure A-1
Logged By: EJL
PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470
BORING B-6 PAGE 3 OF 3
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:35.5 feet
l-L _____1 _.!...!__..!__,
Soil Description
Dense, saturated, gray, gravelly, fine to coarse SAND
CD
-CDQ.Q.
E >-J1J1-
----1----
CD .._CD
Q.,c
E E
III ;:,tnz
S-12
Penetration Resistance en Cl"tl ....~6-CDcCD;:,c
;:,-c;;:
E!;:Standard Blows per foot Other
en:r CDC)Z I-
0 10 20 30 40 50
:~32
"""-
"""-
I t I I I I I
- - 1- - -I --r --T --r --T --1 - -I"- -i --"""-
~----------------------------------------------Very stiff, moist, light green-gray,CLAY with interbeds
~~!~~:_~~~~------------------------------------
Dense, moist, light brown grading to gray, fine to
_ medium SAND with trace to some silt
---T---
._-±----S-13
, ,
__l.-__I.-_L __J.. _ _ _.I.__J._.I.__-I __.
32
,~63,,
--r-r--r--r--T--T--r--,---,---,,,
__l..__!..__L _.!.__1.__.!.__!__..I.__1 __.
__I !...__!....!.__.!.__!__..:__
I I I I I
----,
S-14----------------------------------------------~----T-------±---_ Very dense, saturated, orange, gravelly, silty SAND
-
-------------------------------------------------------------
-
..29.
"""-
Very dense, damp, light gray,SANDSTONE ----T---
----±---S-15 ~5011"
- -j --;---I"---;--"I ---I --1--,
"""-
"""-
Very dense, damp, light gray,SANDSTONE
29.----:::c---1--------------1
_ Boring completed at 70.2 feet on 9/24/02
Groundwater seepage observed at 7.5 feet at time of
_ drilling
-
S-16
, ,---- - - - - - -
I I 'I
~~.~~.~~.~~-~~-~~-~~.~~:~~~~~..
50/2"
!...L - L -.!.-_.!._.!.- -I
,
- r - r - - r - -T - - T -T --T - -"T --,.- -•
, ,
L _.!._!.1.•
-,
---I -r--r--l--r--T--T--T--l---
75
Explanation
MonitoringWell Key
I 2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample fiill Clean Sand
]I 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample
f2'tZI Cuttings
®229 BentoniteNo Recovery
~•Grout
Groundwater level at time of drilling
ATD or date of measurement
El Screened Casing
,,,, , ,
0 10 20 30
40 50
Moisture Content
Plastic Limit Natural Liquid Limit
I •I
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/24/02
FigureA.1
Logged By: EJL
PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470
BORING B-7 PAGE 1 OF 4
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:34.5 feet
Soil Description
CII CII ~""-
Penetration Resistance III Cl•6.CII-CII
_CII
C CII ::::l Cc.c.c..cE E
::::l-iV ;lE:>0 o III Standard Blows per foot Other III~....III ::::l ~::>,CIIcnzC)z ....
0 10 20 30
40 50
3 inches asphalt over 6 inches gravel base
---Very loose, moist, black, COAL TAILINGS ----T----___-.1-_S-1 •, 3
I ,.-.-- - --,.- -.,- -"I ~-1 -"I
- Very loose, wet to saturated,gray, silty, fine SAND
----T---
----±---S-2 .:
- ------ - - - - - ------- --I I )I I I
3 MC
---Very loose, wet to saturated, gray, fine to medium
SAND with some silt and trace gravel
I--
~
Loose, saturated, gray, fine to coarse SAND with trace
'""-silt
----=r---____..1-_
---T---
----±----
S-3
S-4
...
ATD
---•
,,- - - - - - - - - ---- - - -----,
2 GSA
6
_ _ _ _L __!..__ _ _!_
,,
- -I - -r - - r - -T T - -I"- -"I - -7 - -1 - -.
Very loose, saturated,gray-brown,silty fine SAND with
~wood 1/4 inches in tip
--T----
---±----S-5
,-C ,,-T-T--T--;-MC=93
•• 2 200W
I--I I I I !
---1--1--'1--1--,--7--7--
'""-
Loose to medium dense, saturated, gray,gravelly
~SAND with some silt
---T---
---±----S-6 A •
~-_!.._!...- -!---~---- -I _.,
11 GSA
-
- - -r -,- - r - r - -T - - T - - T - - T - - , - - .,-----------------------------------------------Stiff, wet, brown, organic SILT
25
Explanation o 10 20 30
40 50
•Natural
Moisture Content
Plastic Limit Liquid Limit1-------1
I
Monitoring Well Key
2-inch O.D. split spoon sample [Z}3 Clean Sand
]I 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample
~Cuttings
e I'S3J BentoniteNo Recovery...•Grout
Groundwater level at time of drilling
ATD or date of measurement
E3 Screened Casing
Zipper Zeman Associates.Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/24/02
Figure A·1
Logged By: EJL
PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470
BORING B-7 PAGE20F 4
Location:Renton,WA Approximate Elevation:34.5feet
Blows per foot Other
403020
Penetration Resistance
6.
10o
Standard
G).._G)
c..cE E
I'll :::Jenz
G)
-G)c.c.E >.
I'll I-en
Soil Description
-"--
S-7
_L __J..~_1.__.1-__L __.!.__1 __l __J __,
19
~~:;;:""~::I:~_":~~Y:_~"_~~:~_,,,---:=±~
I-----------------
S-8
, ,
__L __L __L __1.__J.__J. _.1 __.1 __.1 __,
.:
--- -,.-I - - ---
13
,
_.-- - - -- -----
Soft. wet, dark gray-brown, SILT with sand interbeds
I--and thin organic layers
---T---
----±----S-9
•,,,I I I I----- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -,•3 Me
--r--,--r--r-T--r--T--l--1 -,
I-------------------------------------------------
~
Medium dense, saturated, gray, gravelly fine to coarse
I--SAND with trace silt
---T---
----±----S-10
- ----- - - - - --- - -.--- -I I ,I I I
17
Medium dense to dense, saturated, gray, gravelly, fine
I--to coarse SAND to fine to coarse sandy GRAVEL
---T---
-±-S-11
_!...--~---'-- - - -.I.___ _ _ _.!.__, ,
,
- r - r - - r r --T --"r --T --l'--,.- -,
34
__L __L __.l __!.__!.__!.__1 __J __1 __,,
50
Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50
I
MonitoringWell Key
2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample 0 Clean Sand
][3-inch 1.0 Shelby tube sample
~Cuttings
e No Recovery
P29 Bentonite
T •GroutGroundwaterlevel at time of drilling
ATD or date of measurement
a ScreenedCasing
Plastic Limit
I
Moisture Content
Natural
•
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/24102
FigureA-1
Logged By: EJL
PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470
BORING B-7 PAGE30F 4
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:34.5 feet
g Soil Description G)..Penetration Resistance II)ClG)"...•6-G)
Q.G)
_G)
c::::s c:c...c SaEc..E E
:::s iG ;::;
~e '"Standard Blows perfoot Other II)
Gl '"'":::s ;:~G)
0 en en z C)z ....
0 10 20 30 40
Medium dense,saturated,gray with orange and brown,....:b--_.S-12 :A 26
~silty gravelly SAND c ,-c ,,,-,-J -,
I------------------r -
-r -r - -r - -r -T - -T -T - -T - -
,
I------------------t,- -
L - -
t,--,-j,-,- -
,- -
,- -
,- -,,
~----------------r -r -,-T -T - -T - -T --T - -,--,,
~'-'1-'"- -
,--,,--,-,-,- -
,- -"- - - -
Dense,saturated,gray,sandy GRAVEL .__._-..._..-S-13 ,~39
~- - - - - - - - -,- -- -T - -T - -
I---.....-..----------~-~- -~- - -·-·- -
.- -
.--.--
,
I-----------------------------------------------------...----------- -- -
- --- - -
,,
~_..--------------c - -c - - - -·- -·- -·--T --T --T --,
~,,,,
- -
c - -
c - -
,- -
,- -
,- -
,- -"--"-- ------1"-Stiff,wet,green-gray,clayey SILT with occasional ------~-..----
S-14 •,9,
I--interbeds of fine SAND - -r-- -c --r-- -·- -t---,--T --T - -T --
~---------...----- -
c -c - -
L -,- -
,- -
,-J --J - -
J --
I----------------------...-----------------------------..-..........----- -r -r - -r - -r --T - -T --T - -T --T --,,
I--------...--.....--...--t,--t,--,- -
i,--,- -
,-,-,-,-
~···I··--,--r -T -T -T -T - -T - -T --,-
Loose,saturated,gray,fine to medium SAND with
------------S-15 :A 7
~J~~~~~~~~~~_~~~~!______________________________-,- -
,- -
,-·-"- -"--"- -
Medium stiff,wet,gray,fine sandy SILT and SILT with ,,
~trace clay -----..-..-..-........- - - - - - - - - -- -T --,- -
,
I--------------------------------------------------------------- -~- -~--~- -·- -·- -·- -
.- -
.- -
.--,,
~- - - - - - -
,-,---,- -- - ----_.._------........,
~- -"-c -c - -·- -·- -·--T --T --T -----I---Medium dense.saturated,gray,fine SAND with trace
---...--------
S-16 :.16
~silt - -
,- -
,-c --,- -
,--,- -
,- -"-"--
~--..-..-_.......----- -c r-- -r-- -r-- -r-- -
,--T - -T - -T --
I---t,-t,- -
c -,- -
,-1 -1 - -
1 --J ----...---------_...
,
I--- -r -r - -r--,- -T -r - -T --T --T ----------------,
75
,
Explanation 0 10 20 30
40 50
I
Monitoring Well Key
2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample m Clean Sand
Moisture Content
]I 3-inch 1.0Shelby tube sample
~Cuttings Plastic Limit Natural Liquid Limit
I •I®I1.QSJ BentoniteNo Recovery
••Grout
Groundwater level at time of drilling
ATD or date of measurement
E3 Screened Casing
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BORING LOG
FigureA-1
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants Date Drilled:9/24/02 Logged By:EJL
PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470
BORING B-7 PAGE40F 4
Location:Renton,WA Approximate Elevation:34.5 feet
Penetration Resistance
I::::.
Blows per foot Other
Soil Description Q)
-Q)Q.Q.E >.
~1-
Q)..ii.!
E E
111 ~rnz
-g~•
g 10 Standard(;~
o 10 20 30 40
Medium dense, saturated, gray, fine SAND with trace
~silt
80~Medium dense, wet, gray with some orange, gravelly
SAND with some silt
I--
"""-Dense to very dense, light gray, SANDSTONE in tip
---T----
---±----
S-17
S-18
,
-- -I --I - -I - -'I - -T --T --T - -I"-1-
;&
I"-..-..-"1--I"--i --
,
..-j-.-l--l----I--..-+---+- -_.
-- - - ---, ,
26
26
~
~Very dense, light gray SANDSTONE
"""-Very dense, light gray SANDSTONE
90
Boring completed at 90 feet on 9/24/02
~Groundwater seepage observed at 9.5 feet at time of
drilling
I--
---:c---
S-19
S-20
I I I I I I----------------------------, ,,
A 50/3"
- r - r - - r - -T - - T - - T - - T - - T - - T --•,
,- -i"-r - -T -T -T - T --;- -1-_.,
- -I - -I -r - -T - -T --T - - T --~--~--A
50/2"
,,
- - -I -i - - - - - -I"-I"- -.
,- - ----- - ---- - --,"
,,- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---_.,
f I I I I I I I I._---------------------------, ,
f--
100
Explanation
I
MonitoringWell Key
2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample l'z:::zJ Clean Sand
J[3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample
~Cuttings
®No Recovery
~Bentonite
T •GroutGroundwaterlevel at time of drilling
ATD or date of measurement E3 ScreenedCasing
,
- - -I - - T - -r - - r - -T - T - - T - -T --1 --
,,
0 10 20 30 40 50
Moisture Content
Plntie Limit Natural liquid Limit
I •I
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/24/02
FigureA-1
Logged By: EJL
PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470
BORING B-8 PAGE 1 OF 5
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:36 feet
Soil Description
GI
-GIQ.Q.
E >-~~
GI .._GI
Q..Q
E E
l'O :::J
(J)Z
Penetration Resistance III Cl"tl ....A 6.GI
C GI :::J C
:::J-~;::~~Standard Blows per foot Other
III
GIC)Z ~
0 10 20 30 40 50
3 inches asphalt pavement over 5 inches base
______1.._1 _l ~_!__1 __.!_,,
Loose, moist, black, COAL tailings (Fill)
I------+----___-1-_S-1
- -r - -r --,- -T - - T - - T - - T - -"'1 - -1 --, ,
A:
--,-r 1--1--"1--'--1--1-1--
18
Loose, damp,orange-brown,silty fine to medium SAND
I--with trace gravel and some cinders, and coal tailings
(Fill)
----T---
----±---S-2
-- ---- - - - - - -I I I I
4 GSA
I--
- Loose, wet, gray, fine to medium SAND with trace
10 gravel
~
I--Loose,saturated,gray, silty fine to coarse SAND with
some gravel
I--
I--
~Very loose,saturated,gray, fine to coarse SAND
I--Soft to medium dense, wet, brown, sandy SILT with
wood debris 1/2 inches thick
I--
I--
Soft, wet, brown, SILT with some fine sand and
_abundant wood derbis (PEAT)
-
-
I--
25
----=r---___.-.L _
---T---
----±----
---T----
---±----
---T----
---±----
S-3
S-4
S-5
S-6
T
ATD --- - - - -!..-!..----!.- - - - - --- - - --••--r ,--r -r-T-T -T--'---'--
__l- ___ _ _ _.._ _.j._.;._..r.__.j.__•,
, ,
-- -...- -t"- -,.--,.--,.--T - -T·--1"MC=70%•- - -!..- -I __!..____ _ _ _ ___
_!..__!.._!...!.__!__1 __1 __1 __,
4
9
5
3
MC
GSA
MC
0 10 20 30 40 50
Moisture Content
Plastic Limit Natural Liquid Limit
I •I
I
]I
®
T
ATD
Explanation
2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample
3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample
No Recovery
Groundwater level at time of drilling
or date of measurement
MonitoringWell Key
o Clean Sand
~Cuttings
I125J Bentonite
• Grout
E:3 Screened Casing
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/24/02
FigureA.1
Logged By: EJL
PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470
BORING B-8 PAGE20F 5
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:36 feet
Soil Description
CIl
-CIlc.c.
E >-IIlI-en
CIl .._CIl
c..cEE
III :::Jenz
"....
Penetration Resistance 1/1 Cl~c:CIlCCIl:::J C
:::J-ii ;:;e~Standard Blows per foot Other 1/1:r ~C)z
0 10 20 30 40
Medium stiff, wet, brown, PEAT
-'--
5-7 MC=93% •6 Me
~----------------------------------------------
Dense, saturated, gray, fine to coarse, sandy GRAVEL
I--to gravelly SAND with trace silt
---T---
----±----5-8 47 200W
I-------------- ---------- -----------------------------_
,
-r-- -r -t"--,.--...--.,.--...-.,.-.,- -
Dense, saturated, gray, fine to coarse sandy GRAVEL
Medium dense, saturated, gray, fine to medium SAND
I--
~
Medium dense, saturated, gray. silty, fine to medium
I---SAND with trace gravel
---T---
----±----
---T---
----±---
---T---
---±----
5-9
5-10
5-11
I I ,,,I I- -- - --- - - --- --- - - -- - ---•- - r r - - r -- r - -T --T -T - - T -"l-, ,
,
-- r -- r --r - - r --T - - T - - T - -,.--"T - -
__L __L __L _ L __L _.L __.1 __.1 __.1 _
",
I I I I
-I -,.- ---T --T -T --T --"'i --I - -
- - - - - -.,---
,----- - - - - - - - - - - ---
~,:.
I I +I I-- - - - --- - - - - - - - --------,,
44
18
11 GSA
50
Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50
I
Monitoring Well Key
2-inch a.D. split spoon sample Q Clean Sand
]I 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample
~Cuttings
e No Recovery
229 Bentonite
~-GroutGroundwater level at time of drilling
ATD or date of measurement a Screened Casing
Plastic Limit
I
Moisture Content
Natural
•
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/24/02
FigureA-1
Logged By: EJL
PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470
BORING B-8 PAGE30F 5
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:36 feet
Soil Description
CII
-CIIQ.Q.
E >-~I-
CII ""_CII
Q..Q
E E
IV ~rnz
Penetration Resistance III Cl"tI ""..6.CIIcCII~C
~-iii ~o IV Standard Blows per foot Other
III
"":l::r CIIC)Z I-
0 10 20 30 40 50
Medium dense,saturated,gray, gravelly, fine to coarse I .
.....SAND ±_S-12
_L 1.__1 __!__J.__1 __
-r -r -r -T - -T -T - - T --T --,--,
22
Dense, saturated, gray, gravelly, fine to medium SAND
-
-
----T---
----±---S-13 33
-
~
Medium dense, saturated, gray,gravelly SAND with
- some silt to silty SAND
-
----T---
----±~--
S-14
,
-t"--...-r-- -r -T - -T --,.--,.-.,---
, ,,- - - - ---- - - ----- - - - - - - - - - -
18
f--
~Medium dense,saturated,green-gray,silty, fine to
medium SAND with some gravel
f------------------------------------------------Medium dense, saturated, brown, silty, fine SAND with
f--thin seams of black, cinders, coal pieces at 66 feet
---T---
----±._--S-15
,
__L __L __L __L __L __.1.__.1 __.1 __..1 __
-- --- - - - - --- ---------.I I I I I
33
f-------------.------.-----------------.--".-------------------
- - - - -- - -1--
-
-
-
-
Soft, wet,green-gray,silty CLAY
---T---
----±----S-16
MC=57%
• 4
- - - - - - - - --- - - -----
I I I I
,
-r--r--..---,-r--T--T--T--,---
ATT
75
I
][
®...
ATD
Explanation
2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample
3-inch 1.0Shelby tube sample
No Recovery
Groundwater level at time of drilling
or date of measurement
MonitoringWell Key
r:z:;;::J Clean Sand
~Cuttings
112'9 Bentonite
• Grout
a Screened Casing
,,
0 10 20 30
40 50
Moisture Content
Plastic Limit Natural Liquid Limit
I •I
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/24/02
FigureA-1
Logged By: EJL
PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470
BORING B-8 PAGE40F 5
Location:Renton,WA Approximate Elevation:36 feet
Soil Description
.!!!Glc.c.
E >-~I-
Gl .._Gl
c..aE E
I'll ~cnz
Penetration Resistance III Cl'a ...~6.GlCGl~C
~-~+:~~Standard Blows per foot Other III
GlC)Z I-
0 10 20 30 40
~~<:!i~~~~~~~:~~t:il:~~~:.g!~y:~~aJ..eJ..~~~!_
~Medium dense, saturated, gray, silty, fine SAND
-'-
S-17
_L..1._1 _ __.!.__.!__1 _ ___.,
- - r --r - -,--T --T - - T - - T --T - -1 --•
,
_L _ L __L __L _1._.1 __.1 _..l __.1 __
16
Loose, saturated, gray, silty fine to medium SAND with
~trace gravel
-
-
-
85
...;";,,Dense, saturated, brown, fine to medium SAND
-
-
-
I--
90 Medium dense to dense, saturated, brown, fine to
~medium SAND
---T---
---±----
---T---
---±----
---T----
---±----
S-18
S-19
S-20
••- - - - - - - - - ----_.
--- --- - - - - - - - - - - --- -.,
__L L _ L _ L __.L _.l-__J._ .1 _.J_,..
__1-__1.-__"-__1.-__1.-__1.-__.I.__.1 __.1 __, ,
j j I I I I
---1--1--- --1"--1"--"1--,--
,---- - - - - - - - ---
9
45
30
GSA
Dense to very dense, wet, gray, fine to medium SAND
I--with 4 inches yellow-brown,SANDSTONE fragments
I--
100
---T---
---±----S-21 6 58,"- - - - - - - _.- - - - ----- - - - -_.
___.L L .\.__1 __J _
,
---r--r--r--r--T--T --T --,--,--
Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50
I
MonitoringWell Key
2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample rz:;:]Clean Sand
]I 3-inch 1.0Shelby tube sample
~Cuttings
®No Recovery
1129 Bentonite
~•GroutGroundwater level at time of drilling
ATD or date of measurement E3 Screened Casing
Plastic Limit
I
Moisture Content
Natural•
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/24/02
FigureA-1
Logged By: EJL
PROJECT:Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470
BORING B-8 PAGE50F 5
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:36 feet
Soil Description
Gl
-GlQ.Q.E >.Jgl-
Gl .._Gl
Q..cE E
111 ~cnz
"...
Penetration Resistance III Cl...D.GlCGl~C
~...iii ;::2~Standard Blows per foot Other III~GlezI-
0 10 20 30
40
__L __'-__L __L , '_,
,--,---,--,--- ---,-- - - - - - - - - - -
i--
...:!.Q2.
Dense, moist, gray, silty SAND-
---T---
----±----S-22
,,- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
:...47
-'--'--'--- --- - - - - - - -
,
__I.-__l.__I...__I...__I...__I...__1 1 1 _
A 50/5"
, , ,- - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - ---
S-23I-----------I----:r---
f--
~Very dense, moist, gray, silty SAND
i--Boring completed at 110,5 feet on 9/24/02.
Groundwater seepage observed at 9.5 feet at time of
f--drilling.
- -I..__'-__1 t, _ _ _ _ __, ,
,
- -r - - r - -r - -l - -,.- - ,- - - ,--- ,- - -,-- -
_L-_L._1..__1...__1...__•1...__1 1__,
---- - - - --- - - -------
I I I I
,
I I I t- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---,
f--
,,
--,--r--r--,--,--,---,---,--,---
__L __L __L __L __L ' , ,_
,
------- - - - - - - - - - - - -----------I I I I I I
-
-,
--r--'--,--r--r--,---'--,---,---
-__L __L __'L _
-
125
Explanation o 10 20 30
40 50
•Natural
Moisture Content
Plastic Limit Liquid Limit1'--------1 --1
I
Monitoring Well Key
2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample ~Clean Sand
]I 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample
~Cuttings
Q9 No Recovery
I1S2SJ Bentonite...•Grout
Groundwater level at time of drilling
ATD or date of measurement E3 Screened Casing
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/24102
FigureA-1
Logged By:EJL
PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO.J-1470 BORING 8-9 PAGE 1 OF 2
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:71 feet
Soil Description G>
-G>CoCoE>.~t-
G>..._G>
Co.cEE
ClI :::Jfl)z
Penetration Resistance UI tll'tl ...•6-G>C G>:::J C
:::J-l :;::e~Standard Blows per foot Other
UI
G>C)Z t-
O 10 20 30
40
Gravelly, silty SAND shoulder
w~e-wrapped-wood:Stave-~pe---------------------
~----------------------------------------------
,
__L _L __L __L __1.__.1.__..L __J.__..L __•
.'MC6
12
16 GSA
11
I I I I I I---_._-----------------_.,,,
--r--r--r·--T--T-T--T--T--,---,
- - ---'..-_.:--- - 1 __••
.,~
S-3
S-4
S-1
S-2
----1--------
-------
----T---
----±---
---T---
---±----
----+---___.-.L _
Medium dense, damp, light brown, gravelly SAND with
i--some silt
_~:>:>.:'~:~~~'::"~:.:'~I~~~~~_~~~~~~~l)_
loose,damp,orange-brown to brown, silty SAND with
- trace gravel
-
Medium dense, moist,orange-brown,sillY SAND with
~trace gravel (Fill)
-
-loose to medium dense,orange-brown to black, silty
SAND with trace gravel (Fill)-..!Q black coal from 8 1/2 to g feet
Medium dense, damp, light to buff, silty SAND with
~trace gravel
---T---
---±----S-5 .:...17 MC
,,--- ---- ----,
20~Dense, damp, strongly mottled orange and tan, silty
SAND
~----------------------------------------------
Dense, damp, strongly mottled orange and tan, fine,
~sandy SilT to silty fine SAND
---T----
---±----S-6 •, ,.----- - - - - - - ---, ,,
- -r -- - r -T - - T - T -,.- - ,. - -""I - -•,
34 MC
~
25
Explanation o 10 20 30
40 50
I
MonitoringWell Key
2-inch a.D.split spoon sample ~Clean Sand
K 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample
~Cuttings
e No Recovery
~Bentonite
~-GroutGroundwater level at time of drilling
ATD or date of measurement E3 Screened Casing
Plastic Limit
I
Moisture Content
Natural•
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:10/10/02
FigureA·1
Logged By: TAJ
PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470
BORING B-9 PAGE 2 OF 2
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:71 feet
Soil Description
CIl
-CIlc.c.E >-Illt-en
CIl ..._CIl
c..QE E
III :Ienz
Penetration Resistance III Cl'tI ......6-CIlc:CIl :I c::I ....iii ;::o III Standard Blows per foot Other III
...~>,CIlC)Z t-
O 10 20 30 40
Very dense,moist,mottled orange and tan, silty SAND
I--(Very Weathered Sandstone)
S-7 • ,~50/3"MC
___L_~1..__1 __1 1 __
_I.-
,
- -r - - r - -f - -T - - T - - T --I"-T --"'i-,
Very dense,moist.orange-brown-tan,silty SAND
I--(Weathered Sandstone)S-8 ~50/2"MC
!I I I---------------------_.I I I I I I
I--Boring completed at 35.5 feet on 10/10/02
No groundwater observed at time of drilling
~50/2"
,,- - - - - - - --- - - ---
S-91-----------1---:1:---
---Very dense.moist.mottled orange and tan, silty SAND~(Weathered Sandstone)
I--
I--
, ,,
•__L __L __L __1..__J.__.1 __.1 __.1 __.1 __•, , ,
I--
I j 1 I- - - ----- ----- ------I I I I I
I _ I _I _.
-- --- - - -- - - - - I I .
I--
,
- - r - - -r - -r - -T -- T - - T - - T - - , - - •
,
,,
-r r -r --T - - T - - T --T - - T - - 1 - -
50
Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50
I
Monitoring Well Key
2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample r:z:;:;:;J Clean Sand
]I 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample
~Cuttings
®1029 BentoniteNo Recovery...•Grout
Groundwater level at time of drilling
ATD or date of measurement
E3 Screened Casing
Plastic Limit
I
Moisture Content
Natural
•
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:10110102
Figure A-1
Logged By: TAJ
PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470
BORING B-10 PAGE 1 OF 4
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:36 feet
Soil Description
Q)
-Q)c.c.E >-~I-
Q)...Q.~E E
l'll ;:,
l/)Z
'C "-
Penetration Resistance 1/1 Cl...c:Q)
C Q);:,C;:,....iii ;e;:Standard Blows per foot Other
1/1>,Q)
C)Z I-
0 10 20 30 40 50
3 inches asphalt over 5 inches base
I.-Very loose, damp, black, COAL TAILINGS (Fill)---+----___-1-_5-1
--r --r - - r - r -T -T --T --1 --1 --,
3 MC
Loose, damp to moist, black, COAL TAILINGS mixed
~with brown cinders (Fill)
----T---
----±---S-2 •,
-...- - - - - --I"- -1-
5 MC
I.-Very loose, wet, black, COAL TAILINGS mixed with
cinders (Fill)
Soft, saturated, green-gray, clayey SILT with interbeds
f--silty, fine SAND seams
----+---____..1._
---T---
----±----
S-3
S-4
~
ATD
,
I I I I I I I I- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---.~
3 MC
4 200W
~1 __1 __1 __1 1 _
f-----r--,--,--,--T--T -T--'--,--,
_L _ L __L _...._1._.I._.1 __1 __.i __
Loose, saturated, gray, silty SAND in tip
f--
f--
I.-:~~u~ltd:~~~;a::t~~:~~i~~t~~~t~r~~~~oT~~~;,ith
organic SILT with wood derbis (PEAT)I.-..._
22.
Medium dense, wet, brown, organic SILT with abundant
- wood debris (PEAT)
-
----~----
-----------
---- ----
----=t=----___--1.-_
---T---
---±----
S-5
S-6
S-7
,
__l.-L _J.__.j.J.__.1 _..I _
.', , ,
--- --- -- - - - - ---------,
-- -r - -r -r _ -•__•__•- _~- _MC=119%•
,
--r---r - - r - -T - - T - - T - - T - -,.- --r --
6
5
GSA
MC
-
I--- r - r --;--T - - T - T - - T -1 - -1-,
25
Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50
Moisture Content
Liquid Limit1---------1PlasticLimitNatural
I •
a Screened Casing
MonitoringWell Key
rz:::zJ Clean Sand
mJ Cuttings
~Bentonite
• Grout
No Recovery
2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample
Groundwater level at time of drilling
or date of measurement
3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample
I
]I
®
~
ATD
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/26/02
FigureA-1
Logged By: EJL
PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470
BORING B-10 PAGE 2 OF 4
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:36 feet
Soil Description
Stiff, wet, brown, fibrous PEAT
Q)
-Q)0.0.E >.
~I-
Q)'-
-Q)o..QE Eca:IU)z
S-8
"C "-
Penetration Resistance III Cl....c:Q)C Q):I C
:1"-iU :;:;o ca Standard Blows per foot Other
III'-:=:r Q)
C)Z I-
0 10 20 30 40
A:, , ,
MC=168%•9 MC
_:....
,,
-I -r - -..- -r - -T - -T - - T --T --1 --
_ L __L __L __l.__l.__l._l __.l __..l __,
Medium dense, saturated, gray-brown, fine interbeds of
~silty, fine SAND and fine, sandy SILT with occasional
wood debris
---T---
----±----S-9 .:.
- - - -I"- -I - -i"- -"I --I --- -"'j - -
13 200W
-
-
-
~----------------------------------------------~~~~~e~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~_~~_
~~~~~~_~~9~~~_~~~~~i!~~~~~~~!_
Stiff, we, brown, fibrous PEAT
~~~~~:~~a~~~~~~~~~!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---r-------..--..------
S-10
- - - - - - -----, ,,
,
__~__~1_-,
:.MC=109% •7 MC
-r --r - r --r - -T - - T - - T - -T --,.- -,
Medium dense, saturated, gray, gravelly, fine to coarse
~SAND with trace silt
---T---
----±----S-11 24
- -I'-1'--;---'I --1"- -"I - -t - -"'i - -1--
~
~
~
Dense, saturated, gray, gravelly, fine to coarse SAND
~with trace silt
~
---T---
----±----S-12 A 52,- - - - - - - - - - - ---- ---
~-_!..._!...- -!..- -!.- -!.- -1..__.!._.!._..!_,
~
,
-r--r--r--r--T--1--1--'--,--,,
50
Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50
•
Natural
Moisture Content
Plastic Limit Liquid limit1-------1
I
MonitoringWell Key
2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample rz:;z]Clean Sand
]I 3-inch 1.0 Shelby tube sample
I<@ Cuttings
®No Recovery
~Bentonite
'Y •GroutGroundwater level at time of drilling
ATD or date of measurement E3 Screened Casing
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/26/02
FigureA-1
Logged By: EJL
PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470
BORING B-10 PAGE30F 4
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:36 feet
Soil Description
ell
-ellQ.Q.E >.
CIIt-en
ell '""'Q.il
E E
CII ;:,enz
'tl ...Penetration Resistance Ul Cl...6.ellCell;:,C;:,....iii :;:;o CII Standard Blows per foot Other Ul'"";::r ~C)z
0 10 20 30 40
Medium dense, saturated, gray, gravelly, fine to coarse I
~SAND ±_S-13
_L _____!.__l _.!.__1._1 ___
15
I--
~,
~Medium dense, saturated, gray, gravelly, fine to coarse
SAND
I------------------------------------------------
Medium dense, saturated, green-gray, silty CLAY with
_ some sand
---T----
---±----S-14
__I-_____J._.j._.j.__.j._.J _,
24
-
---------------
~---I---Medium dense, saturated, gray, fine to medium SAND S-15----..-..--.----
------.....-....-...--
---------------
I---........_----_.._--
~---I---Medium dense, saturated, gray, fine to medium SAND S-16
I--with small (1/8")clumps of yellow SAND ---------....-
I-----..-..........._---
I--------..-..-----
----------------------------------------------
I----------------
12.---I---Stiff, wet, green-gray, silly CLAY with fine sandy SILT
S-17interbeds1/4 inches thick-..-.........------
I I I I I- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - --- - - -.
.&:13
__L __L __1.__L __L __.L __1 __1 _1 __.,
- -r -- r --r --r --r --T --1"--"j"-1 - -.,
__L __L __j,._..__1._.1.__.1 __.1 __J __•
,
",- -I - -I - -;---r --"I -T -.,-"i - -1 - -
19
,"--------- - - - - -_.
,,- - ---- -- - - - -_.
9
til I I I------~~---- - - - - - - -,
-----------------------------------------------
-I I I I I I I 1--~---~----------------------
,
- - r - - r -r r - - r - - r - -T --1 -- 1 - -I--
75
Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50
Moisture Content
Liquid Limit
~-------I
Plastic Limit Natural
I •
E3 Screened Casing
MonitoringWell Key
rz:;z:j Clean Sand
~Cuttings
I32Sl Bentonite
• GroutGroundwater level at time of drilling
or date of measurement
3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample
2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample
No Recovery
ATD
I
]I
®
T
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/26/02
Figure A·1
Logged By: EJL
PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470
BORING B-10 PAGE40F 4
Location:Renton,WA Approximate Elevation:36 feet
Soil Description
Gl
-Glc.c.E >.
lilt-en
Gl ..._Gl
c..cE E
III :Ienz
Penetration Resistance III Cl"C ......6 es::Gl :I e
:1-m :;::o III Standard Blows per foot Other III...;:::r GlC)Z t-
O 10 20 30 40
IVery dense, moist,orange-brown.silty ::iANU with
some gravel~----------------------------------------------
"'-"Very dense, damp to moist, light gray.SANDSTONE
-'--
S-18
__!..__!.__L __L __.L __I..__1.__1 __..!.__,
L _ L l-_.L _.I.-_.l _.1.._.1 _.1 _
,6 52
80
Boring completed at 80 feet on 9/30/02
f--Groundwater seepage observed 9.5 feer at time of
drilling
"'-"
"'-"
"'-"
S-19
-"----_.•-"-"---,6
50/1"
- -r---r - -1""- -,..- -,.-T - -,.- - - -"T --, ,
I I I I I I I I--- - --- - - - --- -------------- -,
"'-",1 I I I I-- - - ---- - --- - - - - -
~
I--
~
I--
"'-"
"'-"
~
,,
-;-- r --r - -T -T - - T - -1--1--1--
_ L _L __L __i._l._J.__.1 _ .1 __J __,,
,
--I"-1"--\--T--I--T--l--1--1--
,,
- - - - - --- - -;-- --- -I"- - -I -
- ---------,
,
-r---,...----"..--,..--".--1;--;--"--
,I ,I I- -- - - - - ---
__L __!..__!.__!.__!..__1 __.!__1 _
-r - -.-- -r - r -T - - T - - T - - T - -1 --,,
~
100
Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50
I
MonitoringWell Key
2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample [';'ill Clean Sand
]I 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample
~Cuttings
®I1QS]BentoniteNo Recovery
T •GroutGroundwaterlevel at time of drilling
ATD or date of measurement
E3 ScreenedCasing
Plastic Limit
I
Moisture Content
Natural•
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/26/02
FigureA.1
Logged By: EJL
PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470
BORING B-11 PAGE 1 OF 4
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:38 feet
Soil Description
Q)
-Q)a.a.E >.
~...
Q)...
-Q)a..Q
E E
nl :;,
I/)Z
Penetration Resistance
"C ......6CQ):;,-e~Standard Blows per foot Other
e
0 10 20 30 40 50
III
Q)
:;,
l
Z
2 " Asphalt, 2" Base
Loose, moist, black Coal Tailings with orange cinders
'------+----___-1-_S-1 , ,
-I --I --I -T -T - -T - -I"- -"i - -"I - -•
4 MC
~
Soft, moist black (clayey texture)Coal Tailings
----T---
----±---S-2
,
_l.._L.__l-__l.-_.I._ _ _J.__J.__.l _
~.:
I -;--I -i"-i""I j - -j -1-
4 MC
MC=59% •MC
MC
4
2MC=62% •
- - - - ---- -- ---,
A.,
ATD
S-4
S-3
----=r---____.1-_
---T---
---±----
I--
I--Soft, wet, black Coal Tailings
I--
..!.Q.
Very soft, wet, black,fine-grain Coal Tailings
'--
~----------------------------------------------10------------_
~
,,
- - -r - - r - - r - - r - - r -T - - T - - T --"1 - -
Medium dense,saturated,gray,gravelly SAND with
~tracesill
~
---T---
----±----S-5
_____L 1 _ _ _ _ 1 __1 __1 __..1 __
:_12 GSA
~
'--
,
-I -i--i--'!--T--T--i--"j"-1---
,
___I.._ _ _ _L.__l.-__l.-__J.__.1 __.1 __-I __•,
'--
12.
Loose,saturated,gray, fine SAND with some silt
-------------------------------------------------
___Medium dense,saturated,green-gray,clayey SILT
with occasional wood debris
---T---
Ir---±----S-6
-- - 1- - -,.- -I"- -I - -;-- -'I - -I"--I -I - --,
7 ATT
--'-
I--
25
Explanation
I
MonitoringWell Key
2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample 0 Clean Sand
]I 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample
~Cuttings
®~BentoniteNo Recovery••GroutGroundwater level at time of drilling
ATD or date of measurement
E3 Screened Casing
,
0 10 20 30 40 50
Moisture Content
Plastic Limit Natural Liquid Limit
I •I
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/25/02
FigureA-1
Logged By: EJL
PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470
BORING B-11 PAGE20F 4
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:38 feet
Medium dense, saturated, gray, silty fine SAND with
I--occasionaly fine wood debris
Penetration Resistance
!::l
Blows per foot Other
g
..ca.
G>c
Soil Description
CIl
-CIl0.0.E >-1Il!-
(/)
-"-
CIl .._CIl
0..0
E E
III ::::I
(/)Z
S-7
'gQj ~
::::I-e ~Standard
C)
o 10 20 30
40
I/)ClCIl
::::I C
iii ;l
I/)=r CIlz!-
12 200W
22
Medium dense,saturated,gray, silty fine SAND with
~occational wood debris
----1--
._----------
S-8 ~
----;-~~I"--i --"I - -"I --
11
- -~- - ---!..-1-_.!.-_,
Medium dense, saturated, gray, silty fine SAND ---1---
-----...--..........
S-9 •,
r - -r - -r - -T - - T - - T - - T -;-_.,- --,,
13 200W
~-----------------------------------------------------------,
- - - r -T - -T - -f - -1 - -"I - -"I - -1 - - 1 - - -,,
Stiff, wet, brown, organic SILT (Peat) with
I--interbedded of fine to medium Sand with silt lenses
I------------------------------------------------
---T---
----±---S-10 MC=113% •15
,,,
--1--1----i---i--i--i--i--
Me
Stiff, saturated, gray, fine sandy SILT
I--Dense,saturated,gray, fine ,coarse sandy GRAVEL
----T---
----±---S-11 ;&'
,
- r - r - - r --T -r --T - - - T - - 1 - -
,,
--r - - r - r - -f - -T - - T - -T - - T - - 1 - - -
31
50
Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50
I
MonitoringWell Key
2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample rz:;'ZJ Clean Sand
]I 3-inch 1.0 Shelby tube sample
~Cuttings
®~BentoniteNo Recovery
T •Grout
Groundwater level at time of drilling
ATD or date of measurement
E3 Screened Casing
Plastic Limit
I
Moisture Content
Natural
•
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/24/02
Figure A·1
Logged By: EJL
PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470
BORING B-11 PAGE30F 4
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:38 feet
~_l __L 1 __1 _1 __,,
Soil Description
I--Medium dense,saturated,gray fine-coarse sandy
GRAVEL to gravelly fine to coarse sand with trace
Gl
-GlQ.Q.
E >-~...
----1----
Gl .._Gl
Q..cE E
I'll :;,cnz
S-12
Penetration Resistance VI C)'C .....6-GlCGl:;,C:;,....ii ;e~Standard Blows perfoot Other VI:::GlC)Z ...
0 10 20 30
22
,
___L __L _ L __!.__1.__.I._.l __.1 __.i __.
---I"--.-.--"1--T --1--I"-"I --"1-
Medium dense,saturated,ary,fine to coarse SAND
I--with trace siltand some gravel
-
---T---
----±----S-13 ~,------------_.
25
-
MCMC=103% •10•, , ,----- - - - - - - ------- -.,
S-14
----T---
----±---_Stiff,moist,dark brown,organic SILT and PEAT and
1"thick fine sandy siltinterbedded
-
.22.
-----------------------------------------------'--------------,
-- - r --r - - r - - r --T - - T - - T - - T - - , - - -
....-
Medium dense,saturated,green-grey,silty fine to
~=:~=:~_:~_:;:=_O~_~=:~:'::~I~
Medium dense,wetgray,fine to medium SAND with
....-trace gravel
S-15 19
-
-
Stiff,wet,green-gray and blue-gray,highly plastic
CLAY with thin fine sand Interbeds
----T---
----±---S-16
..~~--..-._-._-L _.--.~~-
,
9 ATT
I--
--r - - r - -r - - r - -T - - T - - T - - T - -"1 - -•,
75
Explanation o 10 20 30 40
Moisture Content
Liquid Limitf--...---a__--IPlasticLimitNatural
I •
a Screened Casing
Monitoring Well Key
I2J Clean Sand
~Cuttings
1129 Bentonite
• Grout
2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample
3-inch 1.0Shelby tube sample
No Recovery
Groundwater level at time of drilling
or date of measurement
ATD
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/24/02 Logged By: EJL
PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO.J-1470 BORING B-11 PAGE40F4
Location:Renton,WA Approximate Elevation:38 feet
Soil Description CI>
-CI>Q,Q,E>o
\'Gl-en
Penetration Resistance I/)C)"~A /::;.CI>C CI>::I C
::I-ii ;le~Standard Blows per foot Other
I/)~t!C)z
0 10 20 30
Medium dense, saturated, brown, fine SAND with
~tracesilt
S-17
__L __L_1..__,1..1__1 '__
19
I--
S·18 34
29
,- - - - -,,,- - ------,
,,
-,- - 1--- ,- - - ,- - -1-- -1-- -!-- - - - - 1- - -,
___L __I..__1.._1..__1..1 1 ' _
S-19-------------------------------------------------T-------±----
-
~Brown sand
I--Medium dense to dense, saturated, gray, fine SAND
with green-gray clayey silt interbeds
---T----
---±----
I-------------------------------------------------------------
~Dense, wet, gray, with light gray and black organic
I--fragments, blue-gray sand seams, silty sand with
some gravel
S-20
,,- - - - - ---
_L _L _L L _ _ _ _ _1 1 _
,,,
-- 1---1- - -.,---,-- - ,- - -,-- -,-- -,-- -,-- -
34
I--------------------------------------------------------------
,
__...__l-__I-_I-__I-__I-__1 I-__1 _,
",- ------ - - - ----- ---
Dense, wet, gray, silty SAND with some gravel and
_ light gray sandstone fragments
-
---T----
---±----S-21 _!...L __L ' ' ' _
,,
---,-- -j---,-- -,---,-- ----,-- -1- - ---
32
--_I _____1 :_ ___
Explanation
-S-22
o 10 20
..50/0
30
MonitoringWell Key
I 2-inch O.D. split spoonsample Clean Sand
Moisture Contentr:.::;;]
]I 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample
~Cuttings Plastic Limit Natural Liquid Limit
Q.9 I1QSI Bentonite I •INo Recovery...•GroutGroundwaterlevel at time of drilling
ATD or date of measurement
E3 ScreenedCasing
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:
FigureA-1
Logged By: EJL
PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470
BORING B-12 PAGE 1 OF 1
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:35.5 feet
Soil Description
Q)
-Q)CLCLE>.~I-
Q)..
-Q)CL..a
E ECO~rnz
Penetration Resistance UI Cl"tl ...~6 Q)C Q)~C
~-iU ;~~Standard Blows per foot Other
UI:r Q)
C)Z I-
0 10 20 30 40 50
3"asphalt over loose, moist, brown, silty,gravelly
I--SAND (Fill)
I--Very loose, moist,brown-black,COAL TAILINGS with
silty SAND (Fill)
----T----___-.L _S-1
L _L ~L __.L __.L _.I.__.1 __J.__..1 _,
3 MC
MC
6 MC
8
8
e:A,
I I I !- -,- -I - -- -"I - -"I - -"'i - - .
--I.-!..__!.._
e:
ATD
S-2
S-4
S-3
----+---____.L _
----T---
----±---
~~~=r=~~~1--------------1 .L
--Loose, moist,whitish-brown,silty SAND to sandy SILT
with some sandstone and coal (Fill)--
------------------------------------------------
..:!.2.
Loose, wet to saturated,whitish-brown,weathered
__SANDSTONE,SILTSTONE fragments (Fill)
Loose, moist,brown-black,COAL TAILINGS with silty
I--SAND (Fill)
__Boring completed at 11.5 feet on 9/26/02
Groundwater seepage observed at 11.5 feet at time of
__drilling
--
,
--i --I"--I"-f - -..-T -.-T - -"I - -"I -
,
--;--I ------
,
I--- -....-I---....--..--+----+----+---..- -of __,
I--
,
-t'"- -,..- -r - -r - -l'--'t-----...- -"f --
---
,
I I I I I
~-------------------------
---
I--
25
Explanation 0 10 20 30
40 50
I
MonitoringWell Key
2-inch O.D. split spoon sample Clean Sand
Moisture Contentrz:;z]
J[3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample
~Cuttings Plastic Limit Natural Liquid Limit
e ~Bentonite I e INo Recovery
~•Grout
--Groundwater level at time of drilling
ATD or date of measurement E3 Screened Casing
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/26/02
Figure A·1
Logged By: CRT
PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470
BORING B-13 PAGE 1 OF 1
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:35 feet
Soil Description
(J)
-(J)0.0.
E >.~...
(J).._CI)
o..c
E E
l'Il :;,
l/)Z
Penetration Resistance I/)til~.....6-(J)
C (J):;,C:;,-iii ;e~Standard Blows per foot Other
I/)~CI)
C)Z ...
0 10 20 30 40 50
Surface grass over loose to medium dense, damp,
""-?~~~!:':~~~~.!l!~~~~~?_':~~_~~~_
,
- r - - r - r - - r -T - - T - - T --1 - - 1 - -
MC
ATT2
8
L __L _ L __L __.I.__.1 __.l.__.1 __.1 __.,
S-1
S-2
----+----___-.L _
----T---
----±---
Loose, moist, dark brown-black, COAL TAILINGS with
f--some silty SAND,SANDSTONE fragments (Fill)
Very soft, moist, blue-gray, sandy silly CLAY with
:..-some organics
-
2.
~Very soft, wet, blue-gray, sandy SILT interbedded with
some silty SAND and some organics
----+---____-L _S-3 ATD
---T---
""-t----------------1---±----
S-4
_!...- - - -!...- -.!..- - - -1._
- - - r - - r -r T - T - - T - - --T --1"--•, ,
""-Boring completed at 11.5 feet on 9/26/02
Groundwater seepage observed at 8.0 feet at time of
""-drilling ,
-,---r - - r - -..-T - T - -I --T --I --•
,
L __L _ L __L __1 _J.__.1 __.1 __..1 __, ,
,
__l.-__..__L __J..__.l-__.I.__...__.4 __..__
, ,,
--,--,- ---1"--"1--\--,--
- - - - - - - - - ---- - -, ,
-
-
-___'-_ _ _ _1._1 __.!.__1 __!__.!__..\__.,
-
25
Explanation
I
MonitoringWell Key
2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample ~Clean Sand
][3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample
~Cuttings
®No Recovery
22.9 Bentonite..•Grout
Groundwater level at time of drilling
ATD or date of measurement
E3 Screened Casing
- - ,- - - r - - r - -T - -T - - T - - T --T - - 1 - - •,,,
0 10 20 30 40 50
Moisture Content
Plastic Limit Natural Liquid Limit
I •I
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/26/02
FigureA-1
Logged By: CRT
PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470
BORING B-14 PAGE 1 OF 1
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:34 feet
Soil Description
(I)
-(I)c.c.E >.
~I-
(I)..
-(I)c..cEE
III ::srnz
Penetration Resistance 1II CI'C ...•6-(I)
C (I)::s C::s"iii :;::~~Standard Blows per foot Other
1II:r (I)
C)Z I-
0 10 20 30 40 50
Surface grass over loose to medium dense, damp,
I-brown, silty,gravelly SAND (Fill)
MC
MC
3
8
4
_!...- - --- - - - - - - - -!---
A:
- - r --- - r - -T - - T - T - - T --,.--.,.-..-
.:
,
L _ L _L __1 __ _ _.!..1 _.!__.,
,
r - r - -r ~-T --T ..-T - -T - - T - - 1 - - .,
A:~
--,- - -I - -I --"I --..--T - -T - -I - -1 - -
...
ATD
S-3
S-4
S-2
S-1
----1--------
-------
----+----___-.1-_
----T---
.._--±---
---1---
----........_---1--------------1
~----------------------------------------------
Loose, moist, brown, silty SAND with some organics
~mixed with COAL TAILINGS (Fill)
~
~----------------------------------------------
Very soft. wet, blue-gray, sandy SILT interbedded with
I--silty SAND and some organics
us
~Boring completed at 11.5 feet on 9/26/02
Groundwater seepage observed at 7.5 feet at time of
I-drilling
I-----------------------------------------------
Very loose to loose, moist to wet, blue-gray, silty SAND
I--interbedded with sandy SILT with some organics
I-_'-__l.-__l-_..__l-__.l-...l-__.1 .._.l __•,
.,,
-,---1--'1 - --7--7--i----;--
I I!I I I I
- I -- -----i--7--~--I--'
I 1 I I I ---- --..--_.----- - ----
I--
,
.--- - r - - - -T - - T -- T - -l'--T ..-.,-,
__L __L 1 __!__.!.1._.!__1 __,
I--
25
Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50
Moisture Content
Liquid Limit
-------1 --1PlasticLimitNatural
I •
MonitoringWell Key
rzs::J Clean Sand
~Cuttings
I12SI Bentonite
• Grout
E3 Screened Casing
2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample
3-inch 1.0 Shelby tube sample
No Recovery
Groundwater level at time of drilling
or date of measurement
I
]I
®...
ATD
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/26/02
FigureA-1
Logged By: CRT
PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470
BORING B-15 PAGE 1 OF 1
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:32 feet
Blows per foot Other
Penetration Resistance
Dog
i
CIlc
Soil Description
Q)
-Q)Q.Q.
E >.cal-
C/)
Q)....
-Q)Q..Q
E Eca~
C/)z
'tl ....C Q)
~o ca....;:
C)
Standard
o 10 20 30 40 50
Surface grass over loose to medium dense, damp,
___brown, silty,gravelly SAND (Fill)
.~~1 __i __1 _,
Loose to medium dense, moist, brown, silty,gravelly
___SAND with some organics (Fill)
---Loose, moist, black, COAL TAILINGS mixed with silty
5 SAND, some gravel and organics (Fill)
---
I--Very loose, wet, blue-gray, silty SAND with some gravel
interbedded with sandy SILT and some organics
----+----___J...._
----1---
..._-----------
S-1
S-2 •ATD
~
--r - -I"- -I -I -j"-T - -I"-"'j - -I _.
A •
- - - -i"--"j -1---
12
2
MC
GSA
2
I I I I
~-------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
A 1S-4
S-3
----=J=---____-L _
~~~=r=~~~1--------------1 .L
I--
~Very soft, wet,brown-gray,sandy SILT with some
organics with interbedded organic SILT---
I--Boring completed at 11.5 feet on 9/26/02
Groundwater seepage observed at 6 feet at time of
I--driling
- - - ---!.-
,
- - 1- - - - -- - --t ---
,- - - - - -- -_.,
,
--...---r--r -r--T--T--T--'--'---,
I--
25
Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50
•
Natural
Moisture Content
Plastic Limit Liquid Limit1-------1
I
MonitoringWell Key
2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample [:3 Clean Sand
]I 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample
~Cuttings
e ~BentoniteNo Recovery•-Grout
Groundwater level at time of drilling
ATD or date of measurement
El Screened Casing
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/26/02
FigureA-1
Logged By: CRT
PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470
BORING B-16 PAGE 1 OF 1
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:36 feet
g
s:c..
C1lc
Soil Description
41
-41Q.Q.E >.
III I-en
41 .._41
Q..Q
E E
III ::Jenz
't:l ...
Penetration Resistance III C'I...6 41C41::J C::J-"i ;::o III Standard Blows per foot Other III..;:~41ClZI-
0 10 20 30 40 50
3 ±inches of ASPHALT above 7.5 ±inches of
~medium dense, damp, brown, sandy GRAVEL
(Crushed Rock Base Course)
I--
I--Medium dense, moist, brown and gray, silty sandy
GRAVEL (Fill)
---+----___.1-_S-1
,
- - r -r -- r --r --T - - T ~~T T - 1 - -.~
-r -I - -I - -T - -I -T - -I - -T --"I -
21 MC
GSA
I--
~--------------------------------------------..
~Medium dense, moist to wet (below 10 feet) brown and
gray, silty, gravelly SAND (Fill)
----T---
----±---
----+---____--l _
S-2
S-3
..~
-,-I"-.--,-"1--I -"'i I _.
,,
- -- -- - - - -I 1--I...
MC
20 GSA
15 MC
------,---I---
'"""------- ------......-----------1
I--Boring completed at 11.5 feet on 9/25/02.
Groundwater encountered at approximately 10.5 feet at
I--time of drilling.
S-4 T
ATD :.&
~- -
I I I I-- - - - - ---
12
I--
-
-
-
-
25
Explanation
I
Monitoring Well Key
2-inch a.D.split spoon sample rz:::;:'J Clean Sand
]I 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample
~Cuttings
®No Recovery
~Bentonite
T •GroutGroundwater level at time of drilling
ATD or date of measurement E3 Screened Casing
_L _L __1._1.__'-_1 __1 __1 __1 __.,
,
- r - -r r -T -T - - T --T --1 -1-_.
,
__L __L _ L _ L __L _.I._1.__J.__.1 __
,
- -I"- -I"--f - -"I - -T - -T -T -"'j --"'i --
--- I --- -I I
,- - - - - --_.
0 10 20 30 40 50
Moisture Content
Plastic Limit Natural Liquid Limit
I •I
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/25/02
FigureA-1
Logged By: DCW
PROJECT:Renton Retail JOB NO.J-1470 BORING B-17 PAGE 1 OF 1
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:35 feet
Soil Description
CI)
-CI)c.c.E >-~I-
CI)..._CI)
c..cE E
III ::Irnz
'tl ...Penetration Resistance CIl CI...6-CI)c CI)::I C::I ....ii :;:;o III Standard Blows per foot Other CIl...;::r CI)C)z I-
0 10 20 30 40 50
13Inchespver3 Inchesasphalt.crushed rockover
mediumdense. moist.brown. silty.gravellySAND(Fill)~----------------------------------------------
---Loose,moist.black,COALTAILINGSwith reddishash
cinderswith somesilty sand (Fill)
~
~
----+----.__-L__~
----T---
-~--±---
S-1
S-2
_L __L __L __L __.I._.L _.l __.J.~_.1 __,
A:
-;-- - r >-..- -T -'I - -'1--i -i --i ---
8
11
---------------------------------------------"----
- Looseto mediumdense. black,COALTAILINGSwith
reddishash cinderswith somesilty sand(Fill)-
..!.Q
-
----+---.-l_~_
---T---
----±----
S-3
S-4
-- -I.._ _ _!...,
14
10
10
ATD
S-5
Looseto mediumdense,wet to saturated,whitish-brown-
I--gray, SHALEfragmentsmixedwith COALTAILINGS
(Fill)t--t----_~:::f~
Boringcompletedat 14 feet on 9/26/02
Grounwaterseepageobservedat 14 feet at time of
drilling
,- - - --- - - - - ----- - -,,
",-- - - - --- - - - ---
!...__L __!.._ !.1 _1.__1.__1 _,
~
25
Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50
I
Monitoring Well Key
2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample rill Clean Sand
]I 3-inch 1.0 Shelby tube sample
t:@ Cuttings
®No Recovery
629 Bentonite
T •Grout
--Groundwater level at time of drilling
ATD or date of measurement E3 Screened Casing
Plastic Limit
I
Moisture Content
Natural•
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled: 9/26/02
FigureA-1
Logged By: CRT
PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470
BORING B-18 PAGE 1 OF 1
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:35 feet
Blows per foot Other
Penetration Resistance
6.
40302010o
A
Standard
(I)"-
-(I)a..cEE
III :lVJz
(I)
-(I)a.a.E >.~1-
Soil Descriptiong
..c
Q.
QI
Q
4 ±inches ASPHALT and 2 ±inches medium dense,
I--damp, brown. sandy GRAVEL above loose, damp,
reddish-brown and black, silty SAND with some
I--gravel (coal and sedimentary rock fragments, Fill)
---+----....-.L _S-1
,
-;--r --r - -T --T -- T - - T - T --,-
8 2001/\
-
----T---
----±---S-2 ~'
--t --i - -i""- -'1--'I I -I"-i -,-
6 MC
I--Boring completed at 11.5 feet on 9/25/02.
Groundwater encountered at approximately 10 feet at
I--time of drilling.
MC
5
6
- - - ------------- - - - - ---,
T
ATDS-4
S-3
----+---____-L _
---I---
...............------1--------------1
I--
~Loose, staturated, pale gray, silly SAND with gravel-
size friable sedimentary rock fragments (Fill)
_________L __1 __L _1 _.!_ .1 __1 __., ,
,
--,--,--,--T--T--T--T--T --,---
, ,
-,.-..-f --I"- -r -T ~T --i -i - - .
__L._ L __L __L __.I.__.j.__-I.__.1 __.l __•,
--I - -;-- -i'"-'I - -'I -I -I I -I - - .,
-
-
25
Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50
•Natural
Moisture Content
Plastic:Limit Liquid Limit1---------1
I
Monitoring Well Key
2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample EJ Clean Sand
]I 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample
~Cuttings
e ~BentoniteNo Recovery
T •Grout
Groundwater level at time of drilling
ATD or date of measurement
E3 Screened Casing
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/25/02
FigureA-1
Logged By: DCW
PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470
BORING B-19 PAGE 1 OF 1
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:34.5 feet
Soil Description
GI
-GI0.0.
E >-~I-
GI .._GI
o..Q
E E
111 ~
l/)Z
Penetration Resistance 1/1 Cl'tl ......6-GIc::GI ~e
~-l :;::o 111 Standard Blows per foot Other 1/1"3:GIC)Z I-
0 10 20 30 40 50
1.5 ±inches ASPHALT above 3 ±inches medium
'--dense, damp, brown,gravelly SAND
~-------------------------------------------------------------
MC
MC
7
9•I"- -'I -I -I --"'i --"'j --
e
~
..-I",-
...
S-2
S-1
----T----___...L _
~Loose, moist, black, pink, gray, silty SAND with trace
gravel (coal and shale fragments-fill)
I--Stiff, moist, black, fine and fibrous ORGANICS
'--
u ------------------.-------.-_.----------....---~~~~±~~~
I-----------.-.---------..-------...---------.--.---------------
'"'-Loose to very loose, moist to saturated (below 8.5
'"'-feet), black, pink and gray, silty SAND (coal and shale
fragments-fill)
----=r---___.--l _S-3
ATD
-~-,.--- - - -I
e:8 MC
S-4 ..:3
,"--- --- - - -
~- -
__L __L __L 1 __!__!__1 __1 __.
I--__L _ L L L _L __L __J.__J.__.1 __•,
I--
'"'-
I--
,- - --- - -,- -_.,,,
I--
25
Explanation
MonitoringWell Key
I 2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample Q Clean Sand
]I 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample
~Cuttings
®I1SCl BentoniteNo Recovery
T •Grout
Groundwater level at time of drilling
ATD or date of measurement
E3 Screened Casing
,,
0 10 20 30
40 50
Moisture Content
Plastic Limit Natural Liquid Limit
I •I
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/25/02
FigureA·1
Logged By: DCW
PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470
BORING B-20 PAGE 1 OF 1
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:35 feet
~
~
Soil Description
1.5 ±inches ASPHALT above 1.5 inches medium
dense, damp, brown, sandy GRAVEL above loose
grading to very loose, moist grading to saturated
(below 7 feet), black, silty SAND (coal fragments-fill)
Q)
-Q)a.a.E >-~I-
---1=----___-.L _
Q)..
-Q)a..c
E E
I'll ::I
lI'JZ
s-i
Penetration Resistance III Cl'tl ...•l:::.Q)l:Q)::I l:
::I-ii ;;o I'll Standard Blows per foot Other
IIICi3:~Q)
Z I-
0 10 20 30 40 50
_L .L __L __1 __1 __1 _ _ _ _J __,
.;e:4 GSA
-.-I I -T -"I -T -"j -I -..--
4 GSA
I-
-
-
-
..1.2.
-
~
-
I--
25
----T---
----±---
----1--------
-------
S-2
S-3
S-4
T
ATD
e:-.--- - - ---
MC=58%.2
,
,,---------- - - -----
.&:3
I I I I I--- - - - - ------- - - - - - - -
,
_ L __L __L __L __...__.1.__.L __.1 _.1 __
,
j'"- - - -I"-"I --..--.,--'i ...-I
-- ---'--- - - - --, ,,
,
-r--r -r - -r - -T - - T - -l'- -,.- -"T - - •
Me
Explanation
I
MonitoringWell Key
2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample fZZ]Clean Sand
]I 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample
~Cuttings
e No Recovery
l'2'5I Bentonite
T -GroutGroundwater level at time of drilling
ATD or date of measurement E3 Screened Casing
0 10 20 30 40 50
Moisture Content
Plastic Limit Natural Liquid Limit
I e I
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/25/02
Figure A-1
Logged By: DCW
PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470
BORING B-21 PAGE 1 OF 1
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:34.5 feet
Soil Description
QI
-QIa.a.E >.
III I-
W
QI ..
-QIa.J:lE E
III ::::lWz
Penetration Resistance l/)Cl"C ....•6.QI
C QI ::::l C
::::l-iii ;o III Standard Blows per foot Other
l/)..~~QI
C)Z I-
0 10 20 30 40
,
~_l..__L ~~!..1 __1 ~_.!._,
A:•3
--1"---1---..-..__"'__"'__-+__-+__-1 __'
1.5 ±inches ASPHALT above 3.5 ±inches medium
dense. damp, brown, sandy GRAVEL above medium
dense, damp to moist, black. gray, and beige. SAND
(reworked coal and shale rock fragments-fill)
I--
--------------~--------------------------------~
~Very loose, wet to saturated. black SAND with
horizontal bedding (coal fragments-fill)
I--
---+----__....L _
----T---
----±---
----r--------
..._--_...-
S-1
S-2
S-3
T
ATD
,
- - - r - r - r --T -- T - - T - - T --T -- 1 - --
A'I I I I
---,--1--I--t--I--7--7--j--j---
11
2
MC
MC
MC
I--Boring completed at 11.5 feet on 9/25/02
Groundwater encountered at approximately 8 feet at
I--time of drilling
I--
I--
I--
I--
-
-
I--
I--
S-4
___~_ _ _ _ _ _t I __!
A:3
__l..__~_ _!..!._
__L L __L __l __l_1 __1 __1 _,
,
- - -r - -r -r - -T - - T --T - - T --"T -i --.,
_ L __L __L __L __L __.L __.1 __.1 __.1 _,
,
---I -1--'--1--'--'--'--1--1---
I ,
,,--- - - -------
,
~-r-- -r-- -r --r - -r - -T - - T - -,.- -"t - -•,,
25
Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50
I
MonitoringWell Key
2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample rz:;z:j Clean Sand
]I 3-inch 1.0 Shelby tube sample
m:'<J Cuttings
®I1'Q9 BentoniteNo Recovery
T •GroutGroundwater level at time of drilling
ATD or date of measurement
E3 Screened Casing
Plastic Limit
I
Moisture Content
Natural•
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/25/02
FigureA-1
Logged By: DCW
PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470
BORING B-22 PAGE 1 OF 1
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:35.5 feet
Blows per foot Other
Penetration Resistance
6.g
a
<II
Q
Soil Description
Gl
-GlCLCLE>.Illl-
C/)
Gl ..._Gl
CLJ:IE E
III ;:,
C/)z
'gQj ...
g 'lii Standard(5==
o 10 20 30 40
2 ±inches ASPHALT above 2.5 ±inches medium
I--dense, damp, brown, sandy GRAVEL above loose,
damp to moist, black, silty SAND (coal fragments-fill)
----"T----___.1-...__S-1
,
-,-r - r T - - T - T --T --1"--..--,,
6 MC
:.----1---
............_-----...-S-2 •-- --I - - - - -'I --i --I --I - -
5 MC
Grades to wet at 8 feet
----+---____-l _S-3 ATD
,, ,--------- - - - -...;
- ------.,,
:.3 MC
---I---
I-------- ------1---------------1
S-4
_I !...!.__!__..!._
I I I I
,
-- -r --.--- - - - r - -T - - T - - T - --r --, - --
3
I--Boring completed at 11.5 feet on 9/25/02.
Groundwater encountered at 8 feet at time of drilling.
r r ..- - r -T -1 -"T - -i -1-, ,
_L __l.__L _ L __J._ .I.__.1 __.1 __-.l __,
,,
-1--1--1---'i."--1---
I--
,
---I--__.._ _ _ _..__...__...__...--...- -...-
____I __I 1 __
-
, ,
- -r - -r - -r - -t---'l"- -'l"-.,.- - .,. - ---
,"---- - - - - - - - - - --- - -------
-,,
- - r - - - - r --1""- -T - - T - T - --,--
-
- -r - -f -r - -T - - T - T - T --1 - -1 --•,, ,-
25
Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50
Moisture Content
Liquid Limit1---------1PlasticLimitNatural
I •
a Screened Casing
MonitoringWell Key
~Clean Sand
~Cuttings
~Bentonite
• Grout
No Recovery
3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample
2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample
Groundwater level at time of drilling
or date of measurement
ATD
I
]I
®
T
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/25/02
FigureA.1
Logged By: DCW
PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470
BORING B-23 PAGE 1 OF 1
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:34.5 feet
Soil Description
CIl
-CIl0.0.
E >-~...
CIl .._CIl
0.'"E E
III :;,cnz
Penetration Resistance III Cl'C ..£8 CIlcCIl:;,c:;,-ii :;:le~Standard Blows per foot Other III>,CIlC)Z ...
0 10 20 30 40
1.5 ±inches ASPHALT above 3 inches medium
dense, damp, brown,gravelly SAND above loose,
moist, black, pinic, and red, silty SAND with trace
GRAVEL (coal and shale fragments)
----+----___.1-_S-1
, ,
I I I I I I I
-~-r--r--r--r--T--T--T -1--1--,
10 MC
MC3
2
6 MC
MC=53% •
~.,
L --..,.-J --"I --1--
-~!...-!..---------.:.- -.!.- - - --, ,•---r--r--r--r--r--r --T--"--"'1--, ,
~
ATD
S-2
S-4
S-3
----+---____..l._
----T---
----±---
Very soft, wet, gray, SILT and fine sandy SILT
_ Very loose, wet, black, pink, red, silty SAND (coal and
shale fragments)
-
---1----------------1--------------1
-
..!Q.
_ Boring completed at 11.5 feet on 9/25/02.
Groundwater encountered at approximately 7.5 feet at
___time of drilling.
___L __L __L __L __L __!__l __.i __l _, ,,
,
- ,- - -r -r --r --T - T - - T - - T - -1 - - .
,
-I"--I--I--I--T--I"-1"--1--1--
- - - - -----
",
-I 'I I- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -_.
-
-________L 1 1 __1 _
, ,
- ,- - r - r -T - - T -T --T -:-1 - -1 _.-
25
Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50
•
Natural
Moisture Content
Plastic limit liquid Limit11---------1
I
MonitoringWell Key
2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample rz:,;:'.j Clean Sand
]I 3-inch 1.0Shelbytube sample
~Cuttings
®f'S29 BentoniteNo Recovery
~•Grout
Groundwater level at time of drilling
ATD or date of measurement E3 Screened Casing
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/25/02
FigureA·1
Logged By: DCW
PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470
BORING B-24 PAGE 1 OF 1
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:34 feet
g
..c
15.
Gl
C
Soil Description
Ql
-Ql0.0.
E >.~I-
Ql ..
-Qlo..aE E
111 :::Jrnz
Penetration Resistance III CI't:I ...A f:::,.Ql
C Ql :::J C
:::J-iii ;;e~Standard Blows per foot Other III>,Ql
C)Z I-
0 10 20 30 40
'-_!..
4 ±inches ASPHALT above 4.5 ±inches medium
~dense, damp, brown, gravelly SAND above very loose,
moist, grading to wet, black and reddish orange, silty
~SAND (coal and sedimentary rock fragments-fill)
~
----+_._-___-.1-_s-t
-1'"--r -r - -r - -T - T - T -"I --1 --
,
A:•3 MC
--I -....--I -T - -T -"I --"I -.,-
MC
MC
2
3
:.,- - --- ---
,
-- - - - -\-- - -- - - - - I __1._•,
A 0
T
ATD
S-4
S-2
S-3
----+---____..l...__
----T---
----±---
---I---
..._----------1--------------1
~
~
~
~Very soft, wet, gray, SILT and sandy SILT
,.1Q
I--Boring completed at 11.5 feet on 9/25/02.
Groundwater encountered at approximately 6.5 feet at
I--time of drilling.
,
--I -r-r--r-,--T--l--'--
~
I--
~
~
--- - - - --,
.....
.....
- - - - I I !._, , ,
I--
__L __L __1..1 __1 __L __1 __1 _,,
,
- - r -- r - -r - - r - -T - - T - - T - - T - - 1 - -I--
25
Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50
Monitoring Well Key
I 2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample ~Clean Sand
]I 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample
~Cuttings
®f'29 BentoniteNo Recovery
T •Grout
Groundwater level at time of drilling
ATD or date of measurement
E3 Screened Casing
Plastic Limit
I
Moisture Content
Natural
•
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/25/02
FigureA-1
Logged By: DCW
PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO.J-1470 BORING B-25 PAGE 1 OF 3
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:33 feet
Soil Description
Cll
-Cll0.0.E >.
Jl.lt-
Cll .._Cll
o..cE E
Cll ::l
l/)Z
Penetration Resistance III Cl"tl ......6.Clls:Cll ::l s:
::l1O iii ;:
Standard Blows per foot Other
IIIe::~Cll~Z t-
O 10 20 30 40
12 Inches asphalt over 0 mcnes loose, moist, oarx
brown, silty,gravelly SAND (Fill)---------------------------------------------------------------,
_L _L __L __l _1-!__.1 _.!__
~6
f--Loose, moist, black, COAL TAILINGS (Fill)
---~
Very loose, moist, black, COAL TAILINGS (Fill)
-
-
_ Soft, wet,dark brown,ORGANIC SILT with some sand
interbedded with gray, SAND with some silt and gravel10~----------------------------------------------
_ Loose,saturated,gray SAND with some gravel and
trace silt
-
-----------------------------------------------
----+----___-.1-_
----T---
----±---
----+----___-.1-_
---T---
----±----
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
ATD
.:
-- -,-- - -+-1--1-1--
,
- -....- - - -.-----+ - - + - - + - - + - - - --, ,
...
- - -~- - - -!...-.!.- - - -1._ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___
___L _ _ _ _L !._1._ _ ___ __
r - -I - -r --T - -r --T - - T - -,- -1 - -, ,
3
5
7 GSA
Loose, wet, gray, silty SAND with some organics,trace
f--gravel interbedded with sandy SILT
--T----
---±----S-5 .:MC=54%•8 200W
---12-
Grades to medium dense
-
-
100-
25
---T----
---±----S-6
,"- - - - - - - - - -_.
•-- -I.._ _!.._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___~__,,
, ,
______L 1 __1_1 __.1 _,
11 GSA
Explanation
I
MonitoringWell Key
2-inch a.D.split spoon sample r.::::zJ Clean Sand
]I 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample
~Cuttings
e No Recovery
1329 Bentonite
T -GroutGroundwater level at time of drilling
ATD or date of measurement
E3 Screened Casing
0 10 20 30
40 50
Moisture Content
Plastic Limit Natural Liquid Limit
I •I
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/24/02
Figure A·1
Logged By: CRT
PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470
BORING B-25 PAGE 2 OF 3
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:33 feet
Soil Description
..!!!CIIQ.Q.
E >-lilt-
In
CII ""_CII
Q..Q
E E
III :::J
Inz
Penetration Resistance III Cl'tl ...A 6 CIIcCII:::J C
:::J"i1i ;:o III Standard Blows per foot Other
III"";:::r CIIC)Z t-
O 10 20 30 40
Medium dense to dense, wet, gray,gravelly SAND to
f--sandy GRAVEL with some silt, trace organics
-
-
_......
----T---
----±---
S-7
S-8
36
28
~----------------------------------------------
----T---
----±---
, , ,- - - ---- ---
,I I I I- - ---~-- - - - - - -
S-9
,
--r - r T --T --.--- T - T -T --1 - -
20
Loose to medium dense, wet, gray, silty SAND with
~some gravel with interbedded PEAT (3")
---T---
----±----S-10
, ,
- - - - - ----- ----- --.,"
11
f--------------------------------------------------------------__1-__1-__1-_l---+--+--+--+---I---,
..§.
Medium dense to dense, wet, gray,gravelly SAND with
- some silt and trace organics
-
~----------------------------------------------
Medium dense, wet, gray, silty SAND with some gravel
~and peaty organics (1")
---T---
----±---S-11 37
- -'--- - -!.._!.._!.- - -_..!. - - - - ---
,
__L L __1.__1.__!__1._.!__1 __,
, ,
- -r - -r - -I --r -- r --T --T - -.-- - 1 --.,
50
Explanation o 10 20 30
40 50
I
MonitoringWell Key
2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample I:Z.}J Clean Sand
][3-inch 1.0 Shelby tube sample
~Cuttings
e ~BentoniteNo Recovery
T •Grout
--Groundwater level at time of drilling
ATD or date of measurement
El Screened Casing
Plastic Limit
I
Moisture Content
Natural
•
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/24/02
FigureA-1
Logged By: CRT
PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO.J-1470 BORING B-25 PAGE30F 3
Location:Renton,WA Approximate Elevation:33 feet
Soil Description
<II
-<IIC1.C1.
E >-COl-
(/)
<II ..._<II
C1..QE Eco::I(/)Z
Penetration Resistance til Cl'tl ...•6 <IIC<II ::I C
::1-iii ;:l~~Standard Blows per foot Other til:r ~C)Z
0 10 20 30 40
Medium dense, wet, gray, silty SAND with some gravel I
~and peaty organics (1")±_S-12 20
~----------------------------------------------_ L _ L __L _L __.L ~_1 __1 __.1 __.1 __
,
,
- -t --,-- -I -.,- -T --"I - -i --I"- -1 _.
Medium dense, wet, gray, silty, fine SAND
~----------------------------------------------
Loose, wet, gray, silty SAND interbedded with sandy
~SILT
----T---
----±---
S-13
S-14
17
-- - -!...-!..--!..._.!.._.!.- --- - -,
•9
- -,-r r --T -T --T --,- -"'I -,
~
Medium dense, saturated, gray, silty SAND interbedded
~with sandy SILT
---T---
~-_.±----
S-15
,
_ L __L __L __.L __.I._.L __.1 __.1 __.l __
, ,-+--
20
~-----------------------------------------------.------------
~Very dense, damp, light gray, silty SANDSTONE
70
Boring completed at 70 feet on 9/24/02
~Groundwater seepage observed at 6.5 feet at time of
drilling
-
S-16
,,--- - - -------
-""-"--"-------------6 00/1"
,
--r - -r--r --T - -r--T --,--j--,---
75
Explanation o 10 20 30
40 50
I
MonitoringWell Key
2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample f2z:J Clean Sand
]I 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample
~Cuttings
®I'2Sl BentoniteNo Recovery
T •Grout
Groundwaterlevel at time of drilling
ATD or date of measurement
E3 ScreenedCasing
Plastic:Limit
I
Moisture Content
Natural
•
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/24/02
FlgureA-1
Logged By: CRT
PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470
BORING B-26 PAGE 1 OF 1
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:32 feet
g
s:
Q.
Gl
C
Soil Description
CII
-CII0.0.E >.1lI!-en
CII ..._CII
o..cE E
III :::senz
Penetration Resistance Ul Cl"Cl ....A 6 CIIcCII:::s c:::s-~+loIIIStandardBlows per foot Other
Ul"'3:CIIC)Z !-
0 10 20 30 40 50
I Surface gravel over medium dense. moist, orown, Silty.
~~~~~~_~~~~~!~~9 _,,
_~L __L !. _ !.__1-__.!__1 __J.__
I--Loose, moist. black, silty SAND, COAL TAILINGS,
some organic wood debris (Fill)
----+----___-.L _S-1 11, , ,
- -I"-I --;---I"--"I --T - -.,- -.,- -I - - .
Very loose, moist. block, silty SAND with COAL
I--TAILINGS wood debris and organics (Fill)
----1---
...--.........------S-2 3
- - - --- - - - - - - - - ----- - - -I I I I I
I------------------------------------------------
I--Very soft. wet, black. organic SILT with some wood
fragments
I--
~----------------------------------------------
Very soft, wet to saturated,greenish-gray,sandy SILT
I--with some clay interbedded with silty SAND
----+---____-.L _
---T---
---±----
S-3
S-4
ATD
,, ,,MC=132%
~- - -:--H •
I I I I----- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---,
ATT
MC
I------------------------------------------------
~
Very soft, wet, brown-gray, silty SAND interbedded with
I--silty SAND and PEAT (4")
---T---
---±----S-5
L L _L _1-_.L __.l _.L __.1 _.L __,
,
--I -i--I--I"--I--T--I---------A MC=116% •2 200\11
---I---
---......------1------------1- Boring completed at 21.5 feet on 9/26/02
Groundwater seepage observed at 8 feet at time of
I--drilling
S-6
----- -
I I I I I I,
~,
I I I I I-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _.---
,,
---r - -r - -r -- r - -r - -T - - T - -,.- -,- - •
__!..__L 1 __!.__! _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___,
16
25
Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50
•Natural
Moisture Content
Plastic Limit Liquid Limit1-------1
I
MonitoringWell Key
2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample f2J Clean Sand
]I 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample
~Cuttings
e No Recovery
~Bentonite
T •GroutGroundwater level at time of drilling
ATD or date of measurement E3 Screened Casing
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/26/02
FigureA-1
Logged By: CRT
PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470
BORING B-27 PAGE 1 OF 1
Location:Renton,WA Approximate Elevation:31 feet
g
a
Glc
Soil Description
(I)
-(I)Q.Q.E >.
~I-
(I)...
-(I)Q.J:lE E
III ::lcnz
Penetration Resistance en Cl"C .....I:::.(I)
C (I)::l C
::l"-iii ;::o III Standard Blows per foot Other
en...:;::r (I)e z I-
0 10 20 30
40
Medium dense grading to very loose, moist grading to
___wet (below 4.5 feet), brown, gray, and black, gravelly,
silty SAND (Fill)
,
_L !..__L _.L _ 1 __.J._,
----+----___.1-_S-1
___L __L-__t.__L __1.__.1 __J.__J.__-.I _
•A;,
-r ,.- -I --"I -'I -T -I"-"i I - - .
18 MC
----T---
----±---S-2
ATD
3 MC
- - - --~-
- Soft to very soft, weI, gray, SILT with interbeds of
saturated,greenish-gray,fine to medium SAND,
_irregular horizons of fibrous organics up to 0.25 inches
thick
-
..!Q
----+---____-L _S-3
S-4
A:
I I I t-------- - - - - - - - ---
,, , ,---------
3
--Boring completed at 11.5 feet on 9/25/02.
Groundwater encountered at approximately 4.5 feet at
~time of drilling,---r - - r - - r - r - -T - - T - - T - - T - -"1 - -,
___L __L __1.__1.__1,.__.L __.1 _.1 __.1 __,
- ---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---- -.I I I I I I I
-- - - - -!..- - - - - - - -.!.- - - - - - - -.!.- - - - -
-
..-
25
Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50
Moisture Content
Liquid Limit1--------1Plastic Limit Natural
I •
MonitoringWell Key
!Zi"'J Clean Sand
~Cuttings
~Bentonite
• Grout
E3 ScreenedCasing
No Recovery
2-inch a.D.split spoon sample
3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample
Groundwaterlevel at time of drilling
or date of measurement
ATD
I
J[
e•
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING lOG
Date Drilled:9/25/02
FigureA-1
logged By: DCW
PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470
BORING B-28 PAGE 1 OF 1
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:32.5 feet
Soil Description
ell
-ellQ.Q.
E >-
I'll I-en
ell .._ell
Q..Q
E E
I'll :::Jenz
Penetration Resistance III Cl'tl ......6 ellCell:::J C
:::J-iii ;o I'll Standard Blows per foot Other III..:::r ellClzI-
0 10 20 30 40
loose to medium dense, damp, brown, gravelly SAND
_(Fill)
-----------------------------------------------
- Medium stiff to soft, moist to wet, dark brown, sandy
SILT with some fine organics (Fill)-
....+...-__..-.L _S-1 5 MC
-
····T···----±---S-2
~-- - - - - - - - -,"
•3 MC
MC
2
e:
I I I I I - - - - - - - --------- - - - - - - - -..S-4
ATD
S-3···-1-·-
--..--
·-·I···
---------.---1--------------1
~----------------------------------------------
Very soft, wet, gray, SILT with some wood fiber
I--horizons
~
~Boring completed at 11.5 feet on 9/25/02.
Groundwater encountered at approximately 7.5 feet at
I--lime of drilling.
__'..._L _ L _1...1 _1 _ _ _ _1 _
,
-r - r --r -,-r -T --T --T -,-_.
~
,,,
----------------------I 1 I I I I
I--
,
__...--...--...--...--...._-.---+--...---.1--
-- - -:..- -!..- ------!-- -----
-
---r--r --r --r--T--1 --T--l--1--',
__1..__1...__1..__1 l __.1 •,-
-
25
Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50
Moisture Content
Liquid Limit------<.---1PlasticLimitNatural
I e
MonitoringWell Key
rzs:.:J Clean Sand
~Cuttings
f'Q9 Bentonite
• Grout
E3 Screened Casing
2-inch a.D.split spoon sample
3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample
No Recovery
Groundwater level at time of drilling
or date of measurement
ATD
I
]I
e
~
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/25/02
FigureA·1
Logged By: DCW
PROJECT:Renton Retail JOB NO.J-1470 BORING B-29 PAGE 1 OF 1
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:33 feet
g
a
Q)c
I--
Soil Description
3.5 ±inches ASPHALT above 4 ±of medium dense,
damp, brown, gravelly SAND above very loose, moist,
black, silty SAND (coal fragments)with scattered
horizons of brown, gravelly SAND (Fill)
Q)
-Q)CoCoE>.
Ill ....en
---+----___.1-_
Q)...
-Q)Co.cEE
III :::J
enZ
S-1
Penetration Resistance 1Il 01"C .......6-Q)
C Q):::J C
:::J'"iii ;;o III Standard Blows per foot Other 1Il...::~Q)
C)Z ....
0 10 20 30 40
A:.3 MC
--~,--J --I !-..-T --I -..--I"--
I--
I------------------------------------------------
Very loose, saturated, gray, fine SAND with some silty
"--zones and scattered fibrous organics
----T---
----±---
----+---____-L _
S-2
S-3
T
ATD
, ,- - - - ----,,•
MC
MC
---T---
I--t--t---±----
"--Boring completed at11.5 feet on 9/25/02.
Groundwater encountered at approximately 7.0 feet at
"--time of drilling.
I--
I--
S-4
____ _ I I _!..t _
,
__L _ L _ L _L __.l _1.__.1 __J.__J_
I I I I---1--1--'-,--,--T--l--,--I--, ,
I I I I-- --- - - - - - - - ---- ---- - - - - - -
- - r - - r - - -r - -T - - T - - T - - T - -"'f - -,
,
i'"- -r --r - -r - -T - - T - - T --T - - , - - .
25
Explanation o 10 20 30
40 50
I
Monitoring Well Key
2-inch O.D. split spoon sample IZSJ Clean Sand
]I 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample
~Cuttings
®~BentoniteNo Recovery
T •GroutGroundwaterlevel at time of drilling
ATD or date of measurement E3 Screened Casing
Plastic Limit
I
Moisture Content
Natural
•
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled: 9/25/02
Figure A-1
Logged By: DCW
PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470
BORING B-30 PAGE 1 OF 1
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:34 feet
Blows per foot Other
Penetration Resistance
b.
30 402010o
...
Standard
"0 ....e Q)
;:''''o I'll..::e
CII .._CII
a..QE E
I'll ;:,
l/)Z
..9!CIIa.a.E >.
I'll I-
l/)
Soil Description
Medium dense, damp, brown,gravelly SAND (Fill)
I--
Very loose, moist grading to saturated, black, red, and
I--beige, silty SAND and sandy SILT (coal fragments-fill)----+----__.-1.._S-1
,
--r -~,--r--T --T --T--l--1--1---
",
_ L __L __L _1.__1._1.__.1 __.1 __l __.
MC=58% •3 MC
MC=58% •
MC=69% •
-
-
-
----T---
----±---
----+---____-L _
S-2
S-3
~
ATD •--t --- - - - --I - -"I --"I -- .
2 MC
MC
-~I _!..__!.__ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
A '0
- r - r - - - - r - -T ---- - T -r -_.
S-4---I---
------.--.----.....-------------1
~Very stiff, wet, gray, SILT with trace fine SAND and
fibrous organics
f--
I--Boring completed at 11.5 feet on 9/25/02.
Groundwater encountered at approximately 5.5 feet at
f--time of drilling.
,,
_ L _ L __L __1._.L __.l-__.1 _ .1 __.J_,
,
-- - ,- - -I - -i - -i --,.- -T - --;- -I - -..-
,,,
- - -I - -I ---"I --I"--i --
f--
,- - - - - - - - -
--_.,,,
,
- - -r-- -to - -r-- -.,..- -.,..- -T - - T - - ,. - - .1 - -
-~- -----!.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --,
f--
--r--r-r--T--T--l--1--1--1--,
25
Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50
I
MonitoringWell Key
2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample ~Clean Sand
]I 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample
~Cuttings
®~BentoniteNo Recovery
~•GroutGroundwater level at time of drilling
ATD or date of measurement
E3 Screened Casing
Plastic Limit
I
Moisture Content
Natutal
•
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/25/02
FigureA-1
Logged By: DCW
PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470
BORING B-31 PAGE 1 OF 1
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:32 feet
Soil Description G).._G)
a.J:lE E
l'll ~
fl)Z
Penetration Resistance III Cl"C .......c:G)
C G)~C
~..iii :;::le~Standard Blows per foot Other
III~G)
C)Z I-
0 10 20 30 40
Medium dense grading to very loose, damp to moist,
I--brown and dark gray, silty SAND with trace gravel (Fill)---_
f--
5 ----------------------------------------------
....;;..Very soft. wet. dark brown and gray, SILT with some
fine sand and organic material interbeds-
I--Loose to very loose, saturated, gray, fine SAND with
some fine and fibrous organics
f--Boring completed at 11.5 feet on 9/25/02.
Groundwater encountered at approximately 7.5 feet at
I--time of drilling.
-
-
-
-
25
----l"=----___-.L _
----T---
----±---
----+---____--l _
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
'Y
ATD
,
--r - -j'"--r --r - -T - T - - T -1 -I --, ,
A:
-;-I -T --;---T - -i - -..,- -.,- --
I I I I- - - - - - - - - ----, , ,..
..I-_
,
- - r -- r -T - T - - T - T - - T - -.,- -1 - --
,,-------------------.
I I I I I, ,, ,
- --I- _I-__I-__I-__+-__I-_.j.- -.j.- --I -
-'...- - - -!...-!..- - --!..- --- --- - - - -
__1..1.1 __1_l __!__!__l _, ,
3
o
5
4
MC
MC
MC
Explanation
I
MonitoringWell Key
2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample 0 Clean Sand
]I 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample
~Cuttings
®No Recovery
~Bentonite
'Y •GroutGroundwater level at time of drilling
ATD or date of measurement
a Screened Casing
0 10 20 30 40 50
Moisture Content
Plastic Limit Natural Liquid Limit
I •I
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/25/02
FigureA-1
Logged By: DCW
PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470
BORING B-32 PAGE 1 OF 1
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:33 feet
Penetration Resistance
6-
Blows per foot Other
Soil Description
Medium dense, damp. brown. silty,gravelly SAND (Fill)
CIl
-CIlQ.Q.
E>.
CllJ-
t/)
CIl .._CIl
Q..Q
E E
Cll :::l
t/)Z
"gQj ...
:::l-2 ~Standard
C)
o 10 20 30 40
'--r--r--,-,--r--T-,--1--1---,~----------------------------------------------
~Medium stiff. moist to wet. black and brown. silty SAND
(coal fragments-fill)
I--
~----------------------------------------------
Very loose. wet, black, SAND with some fine roots and
~wood fibers (coal fragments-fill)
---+----___.1-_
----T---
----±---
S-1
S-2
..
ATD .'MC=51% •
5 200W
2 MC
~Very loose.saturated.gray-brown.fine SAND
~Boring completed at 11.5 feet on 9/25/02.
Groundwater encountered at approximately 4.5 feet at
'--time of drilling.
I--
-
-
-
---+---____-.L _S-3
S-4
----- ----,I.:.
,
- - -r -f --r -- r - -T - - T - - T - - T - - 1 - --
I I I t
---1----j--i--i--i--i--"'i--
-~_!...- ---!..--_.--j I _,,,
- - r - - r - -r - -I - -T --T - - T - - T - - , - - .,
__!...1 __.!__J.__1 __1 __,
,
--r - -r--,--r --r--T--I--7--1--,
4
3
MC
25
Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50
I
MonitoringWell Key
2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample !'L::TI Clean Sand
]I 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample
~Cuttings
®~BentoniteNo Recovery..•Grout--Groundwater level at time of drilling
ATD or date of measurement
a Screened Casing
Plastic Limit
I
Moisture Content
Natural
•
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/25/02
FigureA-1
Logged By: CRT
PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470
BORING B-33 PAGE 1 OF 1
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:33 feet
Blows per foot Other
Penetration Resistance c:g
a
CIlc
Soil Description
CIl
-CIlc.c.E >.C111-
(f)
CIl ..._CIl
c.,c
E E
CII :I
(f)z
'gQj ....
:I-E!~Standard
C)
o 10 20 30 40
Medium dense to loose. damp, brown,sandy GRAVEL
~(Fill)
MC
MC
MC
7
2
2
4
:., ,- - - - - - -
,
__L __L __L __L _1._.1 __J.__.1 __.1 __
•'MC=81:%.
r -I"--I -T --'I -,.-T --I --;-
,
-~- - -!..--!..--!..---- ----- -.
",
:..:ATD
S-4
S-2
S-1
S-3
----+----__.-.L _
----+---___.-l _
----T---
----±---
- Loose,saturated,gray,gravelly SAND
-----------------------------------------------
-
~-----------------------------------------------~~~-I----~~~Medium stiff wet brown oroanic SILT
-
~-----.----------------------------------------
Very soft. wet. dark brown. SILT with abundant fine
~and fibrous organics.and thin interbeds of sand size
coal fragments (Fill)u
I--Boring completed at 11.5 feet on 9/25/02.
Groundwater encountered at approximately 7.0 feet at
,..-time of drilling.
__!...__L .
,
_ L __L __L __L __.I.__.I._.1 __J.__J __,
,
--I"--1--,.-I --,.- -T -T --"i --"'i --
I--
,
___I.-_L _ L ;j._.j.__..._ _ _ _.j.__..I __,
I--
,----- _.- --- - - - - - ---I I I I
I--
-I I I I I I------------------------------
I j I I I I I,
_ L __L __L __1 __!1 _.!.__1 __.,
I--
25
Explanation 0 10 20 30 40 50
MonitoringWell Key
I 2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample Clean Sand
Moisture ContentI'Zi"Z1
J[3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample
WI Cuttings Plastic Limit Natural Liquid Limit
®229 Bentonite I •INo Recovery
~•Grout
--Groundwater level at time of drilling
ATD or date of measurement
E3 Screened Casing
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/25/02
Figure A·1
Logged By: DCW
PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470
BORING B-34 PAGE 1 OF 1
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:33 feet
Soil Description
Gl
-GlQ.Q.
E >-~1-
Gl ..._Gl
Q..Q
E E
III :;,
I/)Z
Penetration Resistance CIl Cl'tl ......6..GlCGl:;,C:;,-iii ;
e$Standard Blows per foot Other CIl>,~C)Z
0 10 20 30 40
MC3,
- -I --,-I"--.,--T --p - -T --I"- -i - -.
_~_L __l _ L __L _J.__.L __.1 _1 __j __e:~
ATDS-1
----+----___..1.-_
4 ±innches ASPHALT above 2 ±inches of medium
dense, damp, brown,gravelly SAND above very
loose, moist to wet, black and brown,silly SAND (coal
fraqments-flll)
I--
I--
----1---
--------S-2 2 MC
I--
I--Very soft, wet, gray, SILT with saturated fine sand
interbeds ----+---____-.L _S-3
-- - - - -••MC
---I---
...._---.----...-....-------------1
S-4
",---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --, ,
o
I--Boring completed at 11.5 feet on 9/25/02.
Groundwater encountered at approximately 3.5 feet at
I--time of drilling.
___________1._1 __1 __1 __.!__1 _.
, ,
___L __L __L __L __l.__.L _ .I.__i __.1 __
I--
I---c i" -
I--
I--
,
-r-- - -r - - - - - -"t - -,.- - .,. - -"'t --
I--
,,
- --- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
I--
I--
,, ,
--r --r--r --r --r --r--T--'--'---
,
________l __i l .
25
Explanation o 10 20 30
40 50
I
MonitoringWell Key
2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample Clean Sand
Moisture Contentf'L::'a
][3-inch 1.0 Shelby tube sample
~Cuttings Plastic Limit Natural Liquid Limit
®~Bentonite I e INo Recovery
~-GroutGroundwater level at time of drilling
ATD or date of measurement
E3 Screened Casing
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/25/02
Figure A-1
Logged By: DCW
PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470
BORING B-35 PAGE 1 OF 1
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:34 feet
Blows per foot Other
Penetration Resistance
6.
40302010o
'gCii ~
5 1li Standard(;:i:
CIl ..._CIlc..QE Eco:::Itnz
CIl
-CIlc.c.
E >-COl-tn
Soil Description
3 ±..ASPHALT above 7.5 ±inches medium dense.
I--damp. brown.gravelly SAND (Fill) above very loose,
moist. black SAND (coal fragments-fill)
----+----___..1-_
----T---
----±---
S-1
S-2
I
ATD
,
__L _ L __L _I.._.L __1._.I.__.1 _.1 __A:
- - ,- - -;--;-- -I - -T -,.- -T - -I - -...- -
3
2
MC
Me
,"--- I -I I ,--1---
A'
- Very soft. wet. gray, SILT and sandy SILT with some
fine and fibrous organics-
-
~
----=r---____.1-_S-3
S-4
I I I I I------ - - - - - - - - - - - - ---,
•o MC
- Boring completed at 11.5 feet on 9/25/02.
Groundwater encountered at approximately 5 feet at
_ time of drilling.
___L L __L __L __1 __1 __1 __1 _,,,
,
- r -r-- r --f --T --T -- T - -,- -"I - - .
,,,
'--r--r--1--'I--,--I--,--i---
~
I--
I--
25
---r--r--r--r--r--T--T--T-1---, ,
Explanation o 10 20 30 40 50
•
Natural
Moisture Content
Plastic Limit Liquid Limit1-------1
I
MonitoringWell Key
2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample rzs:.:J Clean Sand
]I 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample
~Cuttings
®No Recovery
I1Q9 Bentonite
T •GroutGroundwater level at time of drilling
ATD or date of measurement E3 Screened Casing
Zipper Zeman Associates.Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/25/02
FigureA-1
Logged By: DCW
PROJECT:Renton Retail JOB NO.J-1470 BORING B-36 PAGE 1 OF 2
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:34 feet
Penetration Resistance
6-
Blows per foot Other
Soil Description
CD
-CDQ.Q.
E >-~1-
CD '"_CD
Q..cEE
III ::Ifl)z
"C ...c CD::1-o III'":=C)
~
Standard
o 10 20 30 40
3 inches asphalt over loose to medium dense, moist.
brown, silty, gravelly SAND (Fill)~----------------------------------------------
~Very loose. moist, black, COAL TAILINGS (Fill)
~----------------------------------------------
~Very loose. moist.brown-gray-black,silty SAND with
some gravel interbedded with COAL TAILINGS (Fill)
~
~Very loose. moist to wet. gray. silty SAND with some
gravel interbedded with black sandy SILT and peaty
~organics (2")
~
----+.._-___.1-_
---·T---
----±---
----+---____.1.._
--·T---
---±----
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
ATD
.:
--~--!..- -!...-!.-I .!.__.!__,
,,
-r -r - - r - -l'-T - - T - - T - --r --.,.- -,,
3
2
3
4
~---------------------------------------------------_..-._-----r--r--r--T--T--T-~T--T--'--
~
~
Medium stiff, moist to wet, brown-gray, sandy SILT with
~some interbedded silty SAND with some organics
--T····---±-._-S-5
__L __L __L __L __L _.1 __J.__.l __..I __•,:.
--;---- - ---I - -.,,
7
-.-::c----
I------------------------------------------------.-.-------.--.
~Very dense. moist, tan-brown, silty weathered
SANDSTONE-
-
I----------------------------------------------------------.-.-
Very dense, moist. light gray, silty SANDSTONE
I--
25
S-6
___I_!I I _~__~__.
A 50/6"
I I I I I I- - - - ---- - - - - ---
,
- r f --T - - T - T --T --,-
,
-- - r - r -f - -T --T -T - - T ~-T --,- -
Explanation
Monitoring Well Key
I 2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample r;::;:a Clean Sand
]I 3-inch 1.0Shelby tube sample
~Cuttings
®~BentoniteNo Recovery
T •Grout
Groundwater level at time of drilling
ATD or date of measurement a Screened Casing
0 10 20 30 40 50
Moisture Content
Plastic Limit Natural Liquid Limit
I •I
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9124102
Figure A·1
Logged By: CRT
PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470
BORING B-36 PAGE20F 2
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:34 feet
Soil Description
(I)
-(I)Q.Q.E >.~I-
(I)...
-(I)Q.J:IE E
111 :Icnz
Penetration Resistance III Cl't:l ...•6.(I)
C (I):I C
:1-iii :;:le~Standard Blows per foot
Other III1-(I)
C)Z I-
0 10 20 30
40
Very dense, moist, light gray, silty SANDSTONE
I--
S-7 .5014"
,
__L _I..__L __1.__.L __.L __.1 __.1 __.1 __, ,
,
- -r - -I - -I --I - -T - -T -1--i --1-
---:::c---1--------------1
I--Boring completed at 30.4 feet on 9/24/02
Groundwater seepage observed at 9.5 feet at time of
'""-drilling
S-8 A 50/4"
-
-
-- - -,
_ L _!..__1.__!._1.__1 _!__.!__1 __,,
,
- -r -r - - r - -T -r - -T - T - - T - - 1 - -
__L __L __L __L __L __J.__J.__.1 __.1 __
,
- -- - - - - - - -----,,
~-+--+-__1-__-1-_...__..__+__+__+__,
-
-
,
- - - - - - -!..- -.!..- -1._1.__.!.__..!.___,,
,,
- - r -- r - - r - - r - -,..--T - -,.-- T - - ,. - -
-
50
Explanation o 10 20 30
40 50
Moisture Content
Liquid Limit
f----a__--I
Plastic Limit Natural
I •
E:3 Screened Casing
MonitoringWell Key
EZJ Clean Sand
~Cuttings
I32SI Bentonite
• Grout
No Recovery
3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample
2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample
Groundwater level at time of drilling
or date of measurement
ATD
I
][
e
T
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/24/02
Figure A·1
Logged By: CRT
PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470
BORING B-37 PAGE 1 OF 2
Location:Renton, WA Approximate Elevation:42 feet
Soil Description
G)
-G)a.a.
E >-~I-
G).._G)
a..Q
E E
III :JU)z
Penetration Resistance CIl Cl"C .......6-G)c:CI):J c:
:J'"iU :;::o III Standard Blows per foot Other
CIl..~:::-G)
C)Z I-
0 10 20 30
40 50
Surfacegrassover
I--
I--Looseto mediumdense,moist,brown-black,silty
SANDwith somegravel,coal tailings andorganics (Fill)
I--
----+----___-.L _
,
.--r -- r - - r -r --T - - T - - T -"I -"I --.
_ L _ L __1..__1.l.__J.__J.__.1 __J _.
S-1 11
5 ----------------------------------------------
I--
Veryloose,moist,brown-black,silly SANDwith trace
I--gravel,interbeddedwith sandySILTand PEAT
----T---
----±---S-2
-I ,-- --- ---- ---I I I I
3
I--Very soft,wet, brown,PEAT
.lQ.
I--Veryloose,wet, gray, silty SAND interbeddedwith
organicSILTand PEAT
Loose,saturated,brown-gray,gravelly SANDwith
I--somesilt
I------------------------------------------------
Veryloose, saturated,brown, silty SAND with some
I--graveland trace organics
I--
25
----+---____-1-_
---I---------------
-------
----+----___.1-_
--T----
---±----
---T----
---±----
S-3
S-4
S-5
S-6
S-7
ATD
,-- - ------
A;
-_I..__!...__!..__!"..!.,
,
- - r -r -T - T - - T T --1--,-r --
- - - ----- - - --_.-- -
I I I I
I I I I I-- - - - - - ------ - - - -
_!..!.__1 __l _!_.t _1_.1 __,
3
2
10
2
Explanation
I
MonitoringWell Key
2-inch O.D. split spoon sample D Clean Sand
]I 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample
~Cuttings
®~BentoniteNo Recovery
T •GroutGroundwaterlevel at time of drilling
ATD or date of measurement
a Screened Casing
0 10 20 30 40 50
Moisture Content
Plastic Limit Natural Liquid Limit
I •I
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/24/02
FigureA-1
Logged By: CRT
PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470
BORING B-37 PAGE20F 2
Location:Renton,WA Approximate Elevation:42 feet
Soil Description
CI)
-CI)a.a.E>o
I'll I-en
CI).._CI)
a..cE E
I'll ;:,enz
Penetration Resistance II)Ol"'C ...A 6.CI)
I:CI);:,e
;:'''l tioI'll Standard Blows per foot Other...;::CI)e Z I-
0 10 20 30 40
Loose, wet,brown-greenish-gray,silty SAND with
I--some gravel and trace organics
I--
~----------------------------------------------
_L-.
S-8 6
,
I"-f -f -i"--,--,.-,.-"'i --;--
30~Dense, moist, tan-brown, silty weathered SANDSTONE
I------------------------------------------------
I--
---T---
----±----S-9
,
I-L __L L __..._.i._ _ _ _ ___,
40
--- - - ------- - - - - - ---,,,
I--
Very dense, moist, light gray, silty SANDSTONE
J§..........---::c----
.....-Boring completed at 35.2 feet on 9/24/02
Groundwater seepage observed at 8 feet at time of
I--drilling
I--
I--
I--
I--
S-10 ..50/2"
,
- -r - -r - -T - -r - -T - T --T -- T -- 1 - -, ,
,
- -I"- -I - -f - -i"- -I --T - -T --I"- -"j - -
,,
-- - - - ------ - - - - ---,
- -~-!...--!...- -!..- -.!.- -.!.-..!.- -..!.---.!- -,
I--
50
Explanation
I
MonitoringWell Key
2-inch 0.0.split spoon sample r,:;;;]Clean Sand
]I 3-inch 1.0 Shelby tube sample
~Cuttings
e \l25I BentoniteNo Recovery
~•GroutGroundwaterlevel at time of drilling
ATD or date of measurement
E3 ScreenedCasing
, ,
- -r - -r - - r - -T - - T - T - - T - - T -- , - -,,,
0 10 20 30 40 50
Moisture Content
Plastic Limit Natural Liquid Limit
I •I
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical &Environmental Consultants
BORING LOG
Date Drilled:9/24/02
FigureA.1
Logged By: CRT
----------------------------
APPENDIXB
LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES AND RESULTS
J-1470
LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES
All drilling samples were collected using split-spoon and Shelby tube sampling
techniques as described in ASTM D-1586 and D-1587, respectively. Samples collected from test
pit excavations were obtained from discrete soil layers in order to have a representative number
of disturbed, but representative samples. A series of laboratory tests were performed on
representative samples during the course of this study to evaluate the index and geotechnical
engineering properties of the subsurface soils. Descriptions of the types of tests performed are
given below.
Visual Classification
Samples recovered from the exploration locations were visually classified in the field
during the exploration program. Representative portions of the samples were carefully packaged
in moisture tight containers and transported to our laboratory where the field classifications were
verified or modified as required. Visual classification was generally done in accordance with the
Unified Soil Classification system. Visual soil classification includes evaluation of color,
relative moisture content, soil type based upon grain size, and accessory soil types included in
the sample. Soil classifications are presented on the exploration logs in Appendix A.
Moisture Content Determinations
Moisture content determinations were performed on representative samples obtained
from the exploration in order to aid in identification and correlation of soil types. The
determinations were made in general accordance with the test procedures described in ASTM:
D-2216. The results are shown on the exploration logs in Appendix A.
Grain Size Analysis
A grain size analysis indicates the range in diameter of soil particles included in a
particular sample. Grain size analyses were performed on representative samples in general
accordance with ASTM: D-422. The results of the grain size determinations for the samples
were used in classification of the soils, and are presented in this appendix.
Atterberg Limits
The liquid limit, plastic limit, and plastic index of representative cohesive soil samples
were determined using standard Atterberg limits testing procedures in general accordance with
ASTM:D-4318-84. The Atterberg limits are presented in this appendix.
Consolidation Test
A one-dimensional consolidation test was performed in general accordance with
ASTM:D-2435 on a selected sample of the site soils to provide data for developing settlement
estimates. The undisturbed soil sample was carefully trimmed and fit into a rigid ring. Porous
stones were placed on both the top and bottom of the sample to allow drainage. After seating
loads were applied, the sample was inundated and the swell was measured. Vertical loads were
then applied to the sample incrementally in such a way that the sample was allowed to
consolidate under each load increment over time. The rebound of the sample during unloading
was also measured.
Direct Shear Test
Two direct shear tests were completed in support of the stability analyses completed for this
project. The tests were completed in general accordance with ASTM D-3080. Samples were
subjected to four stress increments (500 to 2,000 pst) and the shear stress was determined at each
point. The apparent cohesion and friction angle of the soil for peak and/or residual conditions
could then be inferred from a best-fit line through the four points.
Organic Content Test
The organic content of three near-surface samples were determined by AASHTO T-267,
Organic Content by Loss on Ignition.
pH and Resistivity Tests
Soil chemical analytical tests were completed on three representative soil samples by
AMTEST Laboratories in Redmond, Washington. The results of the pH and resistivity tests
were used to assess the corrosion potential to concrete and unprotected steel.
PLASTICITY CHART
ASTMD4318
"/I;
1//
//'
//
/·A.linQ
//
/
//
.//'
/..'J ./
1/III~II ./
/•V
/l.N /-//11111"
Low plast C Inorganic //sana~iIIry SOliS;e CIS IC suts:
"1::Iv,,·"::II Inv ..nn siltv /orqanl t clays and silty clays
~I~..~/Medium ./...
/I nl",c:til'/
\.//'...vr
\.1/-"•/Iv,ay"'/v,
'::>1Il}Iclays;\.//UI-l
clay ev silts V V
..nn I"..nn"/~l.L/01
"'/n
V /...h.._----------/-'...........~
vI..·."~/'"V//U <,,..J IVvf'.IU\,AI,F'''y VI """'y ~y '"''''
1/hI /'anas
/1/
"
60
50
40
~0
><CP
"30.5
~
CJ;:
III 20IIIn:
10
7
4
o
o 10 20 30 40 50
Liquid Limit %
60 70 80 90 100
USCS Received Liquid Plastic Plasticity
Symbol Berino Sample Description M.C.(%)Limit Limit Index Comments
•8-8 S-16 MH 57 60 33 27..8-11 S-6 MH 57 59 37 22
•8-6 S-4 MH 55 78 47 30
•8-11 S-16 CH 44 66 29 37
Remarks:
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.PROJECT NO:J-1470 PROJECT NAME:
Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting DATE OF TESTING:10/7/02 Renton Retail
PLASTICITY CHART
ASTMD4318
/
/'"/./
/./
/./
/"iU;no
/./
./
/./
././
/..-J ./
/"'!:I''J ./
/""/(jH ./
/./",.....v
Low plast C morqaruc /./sanoyano my SOliS;e asnc snts:
clavs:~~,r1"~~r1 siltv ./oraanic silt clavs and siltv clavs
"b""/Medium ./
/nl"c:ti,.../,././vr
\./.&./
/".ay~v,
vlll~clays;-,/./U\..I
c1av ~v silts V /
/~l;L./()I
"./ny./UI ..~~r1 "•.,<._----------/--..........-J -J
l;L-"////./'"JOO ,IV""'"IIVY',""'y U.v •.,y ry ....'"
1/h,./anos
/./
/
60
50
40
~0
)(
CJ)
'0 30.E
~'u
~
I/)20IVc::
10
7
4
o
o 10 20 30 40 50 60
Liquid Limit %
70 80 90 100
USCS Received Liquid Plastic
Plasticity
Symbol Boring Sample Description M.C.(%)Limit Limit Index Comments
•B-26 S-3 CL 132 42 34 8
•B-13 S-2 ML 39 46 26 20
••
Remarks:
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.PROJECT NO:J-1470 PROJECT NAME:
Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting DATE OF TESTING:10/9/02 Renton Retail
CONSOLIDATION TEST
BASED ON ASTM D 2435 AND ASTM 0 4546
J-1470
Renton Retail B-37
S-4
10-10.5
Peat
Exploration No.:--=:.....::.:...-_
Sample No.:~___=:~_
Depth (tt):.....:..::.....:..::.:~_
Description:....:...:=_
10/1/02
ELIME
Job Name:
Job No:
Date:-------~....;.;..;;=----'---'---Tested By:
Moisture Content (%):
Atterberg Limits:LL :
Before: 60.3--PL:
After: 107.4
PI:
Wet Unit Weight (pcf):
U.S.C.
73.6
10.00
Stress (tsf)
1.000.100.01 100.00
10 -.-----....--....-,..----....----.oT---....--....-,..,..,..-....--....--"""""1".,..,-20.0
•-.-
-10 +--------+--------'-+-\---i---:..-...,.....-H-+t------'"--!-~~+1
..'"........
·30 +-----'---'-!---_--__i_--i-..:..,.f ---.:-H----+-____i_........__+!
18.0
16.0
14.0
12.0
o<
10.0 -=-!:!
Q.
III~
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
-50 ~I--__.............u.__'____"_"'_'_'-'-'-__i___-'-'_"'"'-0.0
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary ASTM 01140,422
SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S.STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER
36"12"r 3"11/2"314"3/8"i 10 20 i 50
100 200
~I I Iv
\-
,~
-
I I ~"'v"\-I
'n
v
-1\,
'n
-1\
'n ~'v ......
-
"'v
I-~
!n 1\
\
-1\.n
.V
-1\n
-
"
1
9
2
3
10
....
J:8
C)
W
3:7>-m
ffi6z
LL
....5Z
Wo
0:::4W
Q.
1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001
PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Coarse IFine COarse 'IMedium IFine Silt IClay
BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED
Comments:
Exploration Sample Depth (feet)Moisture (%)Fines (%) Description
B-1 S-7 30-31.5 20 7.4 gravelly SAND with
some silt
PROJECT NO:J-1470A PROJECT NAME:Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc,
Renton Retail Slope
DATE OF 10/2/02
Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting TESTING:Stability
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary ASTM 01140,422
SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER
36"12"r 3"1 112"3/4"3/8"4 10 20 T50
100 200
I -I I Irv
..............
-~r--rv
-\
n I~
V"
-\"v
-I II I I 1\,"
\-
"1\
-\"v \-
0
-
,".v
-
n
-
n
2
9
3
10
1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001
PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Coarse IFine Coarse IMedium IFine Silt IClay
BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED
Comments:
Exploration Sample Depth (feet)Moisture (%)Fines (%)Description
8-6 S-4 20-21.5 20 30.0 silty SAND with some
gravel
Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc.
PROJECT NO: J-1470A PROJECT NAME:
DATE OF
10/14/02 Renton Retail Slope
Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting TESTING:Stability
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary ASTM 0 1140,422
0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000
SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S. STANDARDSIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER
36"12"r 3"1f'2"3/4"3/8"
f
10 20 T50 r 200
,..
v "l-t-.~-
,..
-~
,..1\'v ,
-
',..1\v
1\-
,,..
'v
-\n
'v"\-
,..
-~
0
-
,,..
.v
-
n ...
-
,..
v .
2
1000.000
9
3
10
I-~8
C)
iii
3:7
>-m
ffi6z
u.
1-5Z
Wo
0::4Wa.
PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Coarse IFine Coarse IMedium IFine Silt IClay
BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED
Comments:
Exploration Sample Depth (feet)Moisture (%)Fines (%)Description
B-1 S-5 15-16.5 39 28.9 silty SANDwith trace
gravel
PROJECTNO:J-1470 PROJECT NAME:Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc.
DATE OF
10/9/02 Renton RetailGeotechnicalandEnvironmentalConsultingTESTING:
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary ASTM D 1140,422
SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S.STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER
36'12'r 3'1f'2'r 3/S'j 10 20 4,50 r 200
~
-r-.~
rv
'v 1\-
,,..~
'v
I'-
'n
-1\.~
-\:n
'v"\-
In
'v
-
0
-
.,..
.v
-
(\
-
,..
v
2
9
3
10
1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001
PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Coarse IFine Coarse IMedium IFine Silt IClay
BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED
Comments:
Exploration Sample Depth (feet) Moisture (%)Fines (%)Description
B-2 S-2 5-6.5 29 32.3 silty SAND
PROJECT NO:J-1470 PROJECT NAME:Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
Renton Retail
DATE OF 10/9/02
Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting TESTING:
,,,
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary ASTM 0 1140,422
SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S.STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER
36"12"6" 3"
1 1/2"3/4"3/8"4 10 20 T50
100 200
~I I I
-<,
,n
'V '~-
n ~'v
""-
n
-1\
,n ~
'v 1\-1\:n
-1\n
·v
\-
,n
-
,n
-
0
-
n
v
2
9
3
10
~8
C)
iii
~7
>-m
ffi6zu::
1-5Z
Wo
0:::4W
D.
1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001
PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Coarse IFine Coarse IMedium IFine Silt ICla y
BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED
Comments:
Exploration Sample Depth (feet) Moisture (%)Fines (%)Description
B-2 S-8 30-31.5 25 25.3 silty SAND with some
gravel
PROJECT NO: J-1470 PROJECT NAME:Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
DATE OF 10/9/02 Renton Retail
Geotechnicaland EnvironmentalConsulting TESTING:
~-~-----------~------~----~~--~~.....,
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary ASTM D 1140,422
SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S.STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER
36"12"r 3"1 1/2"3/4"3/8"i 10 20 T50
100 200
n I Iv-.....
-~~
n
-r'.~rv
'"-
'n
v
-~
·n \'v ~
-
1\'n
-\
n
'v
1\-
,n
\
-1\,n
.v
\-
n...
-
~
2
9
3
10
I-
::I:8
~
W
3:7
>-m
3]6
Z
LL
1-5Z
Wo
0:::4wa.
1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001
PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Coarse IFine Coarse IMedium IFine Silt IClay
BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED
Comments:
Exploration Sample Depth (feet)Moisture (%)Fines (%)Description
8-4 S-4 10-11.5 20 7.2 SAND with some silt
and some gravel
PROJECT NO: J-1470 PROJECT NAME:Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
DATE OF 10/9/02 Renton RetailGeotechnicalandEnvironmentalConsultingTESTING:
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary ASTM 0 1140,422
SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES u.S.STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER
36"12"6"3'1(2'3/4"3/8"4 10 20
4\50
100 200
~I I I
-1\nv
-
,..
v
-~
,..\
v
'\-
,,..~
-\
n
'v
-
0 1\
-1\
n \'v \
-f\1(\
-1\1"1
-
,..
v
2
9
3
10
!i:8
~
W
3:7
~
ffi6
Z
ii:
1-5Z
Wo
0:::4wa.
1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001
PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Coarse IFine Coarse IMedium IFine Silt IClay
BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED
Comments:
Exploration Sample Depth (feet)Moisture (%)Fines (%)Description
8-5 S-4 10-11.5 27 8.4 gravelly SAND with
some silt
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.PROJECT NO:J-1470 PROJECT NAME:
DATE OF
10/9/02 Renton Retail
Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting TESTING:
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary ASTM D 1140,422
SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S.STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER
36"12"r 3"1(2"3/4"3/8"4 10 20 T50
100 200
h I I--"'r-.-
h
V
-\
h
V I~I-
I'I'!I
I ,
t"'L
I
-,\
'h
'v
-1\n
-'\
h
'v 1\-I'I
0 \-i
I
,"
-I
"
-
h
V
2
9
3
10
I-
::I:8
~
W
:5:7
)0-m
3]6
Z
i:i:
1-5
Z
Wo
0:::4W
Q.
1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001
PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Coarse IFine Coarse IMedium IFine Silt IClay
BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED
Comments:
Exploration Sample Depth (feet) Moisture (%) Fines (%)
Description
8-6 S-1 2.5 16 20.8 silty SAND with some
gravel
PROJECT NO: J-1470 PROJECT NAME:Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc,
DATE OF TESTING:10/4/02 Renton Retail
Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary ASTM 01140,422
SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S.STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER
36"12"6"3"11/2"314"3/8"4 10 20 T50 r 200
rv I 1v
-
rv
-1\
~
0 I 1\II I I II I-I f\~II I
I I-rv
v
I i I I <,-I I!i
I
·n
'v
-
'n
-\
n
'v
1\-
0 1\,
I
\I I I I III i I i i-I il. I I I I
I
.n
.v 1\-I
0 f\.
'"-
"
2
9
3
10
I-~8
~
W
3:7>-m
3]6
Z
LL
1-5Z
Wo
0:::4Wa.
1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001
PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Coarse IFine Coarse IMedium IFine Silt IClay.
BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED
Comments:
Exploration Sample Depth (feet) Moisture (%)Fines (%)Description
8-6 S-3 7.5 18 5.4 gravelly SAND with
some silt
PROJECT NO:J-1470 PROJECT NAME:Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
DATE OF TESTING:10/4/02 Renton RetailGeotechnicalandEnvironmentalConsulting
~-----------------------------,
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary
SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S.STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER
36"12"6"3"1 112"r 3/8"4 10 20
T
50 100 200
~I I I
"l-i-..-
~1\
v
I'-
"v 1\-
rv
-
~
-1\nv \-
~
v
1\-
0
\-
,"
-\
0-
-
~
v
2
9
3
10
~8
S2w:=7
>-m
3]6
zu:
~5Z
W
(J
0:::4W
D.
1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001
PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Coarse IFine Coarse IMedium IFine Silt IClay
BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED
Comments:
Exploration Sample Depth (feet)Moisture (%) Fines (%)Description
8-7 S-3 7.5'35 9.7 SAND with some silt
and trace gravel
PROJECT NO: J-1470 PROJECT NAME:Zipper Zeman Associates,Iuc.
DATE OF 10/6/02 Renton Retail
Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting TESTING:
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary
SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES u.S.STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER
36"12"r 3"11/2"r 318"4 10 20 i 50 r 200
~I
-~
~
v
-!\~
"i',.
v ~--.
"
-
~\
-1\
"v \-
0
-\0
-1\,n
-\
"...
-
"
2
9
3
10
I-::I:8
C)
W
3:7
>-!Xl
ffi6
Zu::
1-5Z
Wc
0:::4W
Q.
1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001
PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Coarse IFine Coarse TMedium IFine Silt /Cla y
BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED
Comments:
Exploration Sample Depth (feet) Moisture (%) Fines (%) Description
8-7 S-6 20'25 11.2 gravelly SAND with
some silt
PROJECT NO:J-1470 PROJECT NAME:Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
DATE OF
10/6/02 Renton RetailGeotechnicalandEnvironmentalConsultingTESTING:
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary
SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S.STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER
36"12"r 3"1112"r 31a"4 10 20
T
50 r 200
10"
-"I"-
grt ~
<,
-
~eo
C)1\
w -1\3:7~
>-
1\m -
ffi 6"
Z
,
i:i:-
....5"Z ,,~
1\w -0
D::4"W
D.-1\3n
\-
2~
-
1n
-
~
1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001
PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Coarse IFine Coarse IMedium IFine Silt Clay
BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED
Comments:
Exploration Sample Depth (feet)Moisture (%)Fines (%)Description
B-8 S-2 5'14 18.1 silty SAND withtrace
gravel
PROJECT NO:J-1470 PROJECT NAME:Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
DATE OF
10/6/02 Renton Retail
Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting TESTING:
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary
SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES u.S.STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER
36"12"r 3"1 112"r 3/8"4 10 20 T50 r 200
.n
-<,
,n.
-"'~~
1'\
,
.......
-
·n
v
-1\
.1'\1\
I~-
o,\
\-
i"'L
v
-\.n
--,
,n
-
n
~
-
n
v
2
9
3
10
~8
C)
W
3:7
>-a:l
ffi6
Z
u:::
1-5Z
Wo
~4W
D.
1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001
PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Coarse IFine Coarse IMedium IFine Silt IClay
BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED
Comments:
Exploration Sample Depth (feet)Moisture (%) Fines (%)Description
8-8 S-4 10'20 22.2 silty SAND with some
gravel
Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc.
PROJECT NO:J-1470 PROJECT NAME:
DATE OF
10/6/02 Renton Retail
Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting TESTING:
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary
SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S.STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER
36"12"r 3"11/2"3/4"3/8"4 10 20 4\50 100 200
.~I I-~r-,-
.~
'v
-~
."1\'v
-\."v ,
-
'n 1\
-\:n."\-
.0-
-
:0
-
.n
-
0
-
"v
2
9
3
10
~8
~
W
~7
>-a:l
ffi6
Zu::
1-5Z
Wo
0:::4W
D.
1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001
PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Coarse IFine Coarse IMedium IFine Silt IClay
BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED
Comments:
Exploration Sample Depth (feet)Moisture (%)Fines (%)Description
B-8 S-11 45'22 33.1 silty SAND with trace
gravel
PROJECT NO:J-1470 PROJECT NAME:Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
DATE OF 10/6/02 Renton Retail
Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting TESTING:
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary
SiZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S. STANDARDSIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER
36"12"r 3"1 1/2"r 3/8"4 10 20 T50
100 200
-I Iv
-r-,
n
V
-
n 1\
-\n
v
-1\n
v \-
nv
1\-
n
v ,
-
1\0 \-
.n
.v
\-
nv
-
~
v
2
9
3
10
~8
C)
iii
3:7
>aJ
ffi6
Zu::
1-5Z
W
CJ
0:::4wa.
1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001
PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Coarse IFine Coarse IMedium IFine Silt IClay
BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED
Comments:
Exploration Sample Depth (feet)Moisture (%)Fines (%)Description
8-8 S-18 80'19 10.4 SAND with some silt
and trace gravel
PROJECTNO: J-1470 PROJECT NAME:
Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
DATE OF
10/6/02 Renton Retail
Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting TESTING:
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary ASTM 0 1140,422
SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S.STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER
36"12"r 3"1f'2'r 318"4 10 20 4150 100 200
I I"v 1\-
I(}j
I \-
0
-I I I I r-."I ,r-,
"vr ~~-
In ,!i ii 1\-i I 1\,0
1\-
1'\
-ill'l i I ~rll·:\o-
JI-I IlftlIrl ,
-1\I{\
\-i II ,.i i 1 i '!'I
"re-.L ,
~-
n 1
2
9
3
10
I-
::I:8
C)
W:=7
>-m
ffi6
Z
LL
1-5Z
W
U
~4W
Q.
1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001
PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Coarse IFine Coarse IMedium IFine Silt IClay
BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED
Comments:
Exploration Sample Depth (feet)Moisture (%) Fines (%)Description
B-9 S-4 12.5-14 2 5.3 gravelly SAND with
somesilt
PROJECT NO:J-1470A PROJECT NAME:Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
DATE OF 10/14/02 Renton Retail Slope
Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting TESTING:Stability
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary
SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S.STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER
36"12"6" 3"
11/2"r 3/8"4 10 20 \50 T 200
~I I
""'"~-
,~
'"
-
,~
'v
-
'''-
-
,~1\,,,
-
'~1\
-I~
"-·v
-
,n
'"
-
.~.v
-1'\Inv"""'II
-
~
"
2
9
3
10
I-
:1:8
C)m
~7
>-EO
3]6
Zu::
1-5Z
Wo
~4Wa.
1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001
PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Coarse IFine Coarse IMedium IFine Silt IClay
BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED
Comments:
Exploration Sample Depth (feet)Moisture (%)Fines (%)Description
8-10 S-6 17'31 9.1 SAND with some silt
and trace gravel
PROJECT NO:J-1470 PROJECT NAME:Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
DATE OF 10/6/02 Renton Retail
Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting TESTING:
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary
SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES u.S.STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER
36"12"r 3"1f'2"r 3/8"4 10 20 40 50 r 200
1Qn I
-
9"\-
~8"
C)
W -
3:7r1-
>1\a1 -
a:so ~W 'v
1\z
LL -
I-5"~
Z ,
W -f\oa:4"W 'v \
D.-
30
-1\
2~1\
14
-1\
1n I'l.
~-
n
1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001
PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Coarse Fine Coarse IMedium Fine Silt Clay
BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED
Comments:
Exploration Sample Depth (feet)
Moisture (%) Fines (%)Description
8-11 S-5 15'12 4.6 gravelly SAND with
trace silt
PROJECT NO: J-1470 PROJECT NAME:Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
DATE OF
10/6/02 Renton Retail
Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting TESTING:
-----------------------_._._-------------,
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary ASTM 0 1140,422
SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S.STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER
36"12"r 3"1 f/2"3/4"3/8" 4 10 20 T50
100 200
~I I
-~,
~r-,
\J ~-
"\J
1\-\.\~,
-1\"v \-
"\J
1\-
"v
\-
0 ~-
,"
-
n
-
"v
2
9
3
10
....
J:8
C)
jjj
3:7
>-m
ffi6
Zu::
....5
Z
Wo
0:::4W
D.
1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001
PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Coarse IFine Coarse IMedium IFine Silt IClay
BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED
Comments:
Exploration Sample Depth (feet) Moisture (%) Fines (%)Description
8-15 S-2 5-6.5 36 20.8 silty SAND with some
gravel
PROJECT NO: J-1470 PROJECT NAME:Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
DATE OF 10/9/02 Renton Retail
Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting TESTING:
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary ASTM D 1140,422
SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S.STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER
36"12"6"3"1(2"3/4"3/8"4 10 20
4\50
100 200
I I In
-
n \
v \-~n
'v'\-
(\.
I
-
J\.
-1\
,n ~v
-1\
rv.[\.
-i
I -.
0
-.....~
",n -....
-~
1"1
-
n
2
9
3
10
~8
C)
W
3:7
)0-m
3]6
Zu:
~5Z
Wo
0::4W
D.
1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001
PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Coarse IFine Coarse IMedium IFine Silt IClay
BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED
Comments:
Exploration 8ample Depth (feet) Moisture (%)Fines (%)Description
8-16 8-1,8-2 2.5-5.0 11 14.4 silty sandy GRAVEL
composite
PROJECT NO:J-1470 PROJECT NAME:Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
DATE OF
10/3/02 Renton Retail
Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting TESTING:
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary ASTM D 1140,422
SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S.STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER
36"12"r 3"1 1/2"3/4"3/8"4 10 20 T50
100 200
.~I I
-
.~
'V"
-,
.n ~
'v"
-~'nv
~
-1\'1'\
-\:1'\
'v \-
n
'v
-
iO
-
,1'\
-1\n
\
-~~~
v
2
9
3
10
~8
C)
iii
3:7
>-III
ffis
Z
u:::
1-5Z
Wo
0:::4wa.
1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001
PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Coarse IFine Coarse IMedium IFine Silt IClay
BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED
Comments:
Exploration Sample Depth (feet)Moisture (%)Fines (%)Description
8-25 S-4 10-11.5 14 2.5 SAND with some
gravel and trace silt
PROJECT NO: J-1470 PROJECT NAME:Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.
DATE OF
10/9/02 Renton Retail
Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting TESTING:
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary ASTM 0 1140,422
SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S.STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER
36"12"r 3"1r2"3/4"3/8"i 10 20 T50 r 200
~
-""~
v
-
n
'v ~-
'n
I~-
n 1\--'v
-\'n
'V'\-
rv 1\'v \-
0
\-
In
-
0-
-
0
2
9
3
10
!i:8
C)
jjj
==7>-m
ffi6z
LL
1-5Z
Wc
0::4W
D.
1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001
PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Coarse IFine Coarse 'IMedium IFine Silt 1C1ay
BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED
Comments:
Exploration Sample Depth (feet)Moisture (%)Fines (%)Description
8-25 S-6 20-21.5 29 18.4 silty SAND with trace
gravel
PROJECT NO: J-1470 PROJECT NAME:Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc.
DATE OF
10/9/02 Renton RetailGeotechnicalandEnvironmentalConsultingTESTING:
-----------------------
SAMPLE I DEPTH (tt)CLASSIFICATION
J147083 1 S-3 16.0 -16.5 COAL TAILINGS
TEST CONDITIONS:
1.50
1.30
1.40
1.70
I
/
V
V
/'
V
/'
t-
17
/'
1/
/'
/'
.>
V
/
V
v
1/
V I
/
V
/
1/It
V
1/
V
1.20
0.90
1.00
0.60
0.70
0.80
1.10
0.50
0.40
2.00
1.90
1.80
1.60
if)
if)
W
~
I-
if)
~-cw
I
if)
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00
NORMAL STRESS (ksf)
FRICTION ANGLE (degrees) 37
APPARENT COHESION (psf) 340
AVERAGE DRY DENSITY (pet) 49.9
AVERAGE WATER CONTENT ("!o)18.9
Zipper Zeman and Associates, Inc.
Miscellaneous Testing Services
DIRECT SHEAR
TEST RESULT
PROJECT NO.:2002-092 FIGURE:1
HWADIRS 2002092.GPJ 9/26/02
SAMPLE DEPTH (tt)CLASSIFICATION
J1470A 851 6&7 21.5 - 23.5 (SM) silty SAND, occasional organic inclusion
TEST CONDITIONS:RESIDUAL
1.80
1.70
1.60
1.30
2.001.751.501.251.000.750.500.25
1/
/
/"
V
.>
-:
V
/"-:
V-:
/
/
/"
V
V
/'-:
/"
V
/"
V
V
/
V
v
-:
V
0.70
1.10
1.00
0.90
0.60
0.50
0.80
1.20
0.20
0.40
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.30
1.50
2.00
1.90
1.40
(f)
(f)
Wc:::
I-
(f)
c:::«w
I
(f)
NORMAL STRESS (ksf)
FRICTION ANGLE (degrees) 35
APPARENT COHESION (psf) 120
AVERAGE DRY DENSITY (pet) 91.0
AVERAGE WATER CONTENT (%)30.4
Zipper Zeman and Associates,Inc.
Miscellaneous Testing Services
DIRECT SHEAR
TEST RESULT
PROJECT NO.:2002-092 FIGURE:2
HWADIRS 2002092.GPJ 10/25/02
------_._----------------
Organic Content Test Results
ASTMD-2974
Test Location Moisture Content (%)Orzanlc Content (%)
B-2 @ 20-21.5 ft.97 12
B-26 @ 7.5-9 ft.57 19
SOIL CHEMICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS
SAMPLE LOCATION DEPTH (FT)pH RESISTIVITY (ohm-em)
B-2, S-2 5-6Y2 6.9 4,600
B-5, S-2 5-6Y2 6.7 9,400
B-8, S-5b 15Y2 5.6 3,300
B-26,S-2 5-6Y2 5.6 4,500
APPENDIXC
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FACT SHEET,
FOUNDATION DESIGN CRITERIA,FOUNDATION SUBSURFACE
PREPARATION NOTES, AND AASHTO PAVEMENT DESIGN
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FACT SHEET
Include this form in the Geotechnical Report as an Appendix.
PROJECT LOCATION:S.Grady Way and Talbot Road.Renton.:Washin~ton
Engineer:Thomas A.Jones Phone #:425-771-3304 E-mail:tom.jones@zipperzeman.com
Geotechnical Engineering Co.:Zipper Zeman Associates.Inc.Report Date:December 6.2002
Ground Water Elevation:23 to 34 feet Fill Soils Characteristics:
Date Groundwater Measured:October.2002 Maximum Liquid Limit: 40 in UL!l?er 4 feet
Maximum Plasticity Index: 12 in uvper 4 feet
Specified Compaction:95%ASTM:D-1557
Moisture Content Range: -2 to +2%granular
-1%to +3%fine-grained
Topsoil/Stripping Depth: 6 inches min..limited areas, (see text)
Undercut (If Req'd):18 inches below structural slab
Compaction:95%ASTM:D-1557 or 98%ASTM D-698
Modified Proctor Results:Not completed on existing coal tailings fill, see report
Recommended Compaction Control Tests:
5,000
10,000
8StructuralFillMaximumLiftThickness_-->.<.__in.(Measured loose)
Subgrade Design CBR value =N/A for coal tailings fill.assumed 50% at 95%relative comvaction of ASTM D-
1557A for subbase material.see text
COMPONENT ASPHALT
Standard Heavy
CONCRETE
Standard Heavy
Stabilized Subgrade
(If Applicable)
Subbase Material
(Pit-run Sand and Gravel)
12 12 12 12
Crushed Gravel Base Course 4 4 4 4
Leveling Binder Course
Surface Course 3 4 5 6
NOTE:Asphalt and concrete sections are based on minimum subgrade compaction levels of 95%of the modified
Proctor maximum dry density.All compacted subbase should have a minimum CBR value of 50. This information
should not be used separately from the geotechnical report.
-----------------------------------------
FOUNDATION DESIGN CRITERIA
Include this form in the Geotechnical Report as an Appendix.
PROJECT LOCATION:S. Grady Way and Talbot Road. Renton.Washington
Engineer: Thomas A.Jones Phone #:425-771-3304 E-mail:tom.jones@zipperzeman.com
Geotechnical Engineering Co.:Zipp~r Zeman Associates.Inc.Report Date:December 6. 2002
Foundation type:Augercast piles u.p to 85 feet IQng and grade beams (see r~ort)
Allowable bearing pressure: 75-tons per pile.supported on bedrock. or dense soils
Factor of Safety: 2.5
Minimum footing dimensions:Individual:.---"'2.....4ui""n""'ch...,e""s'--Continuous:24 inches
Minimum footing embedment:Exterior:----'2=.;;4l..1w·n~chu:e""'s!...-Interior: 12 inches
Frost depth: 18 inches
Maximum foundation settlements:Total: <1 inch
Differential:<0.5 inch in 40 ft.
<%4 inch below slabsSlab:Potential vertical rise:_---'''''''-'.....".,.........~..............'''''__
Capillary break (describe):6 inches free-draining sand and gravel.see floor slab section ofr~ort
Vapor barrier:Recommended for methane gas and soil moisture
Subgrade reaction modulus:150psi/in at 95%compaction ASTM D-1557
Method obtained: CBR correlation
Perimeter Drains (describe):Building:4 inch dia.perfQfated PVC Qr corrugated plastic
Retaining Walls: 4 inch dia. perfQfated PvC or corrugated plastic. or
we~holes
Cement Type:_....I __
Retaining Wall: Active: 35 pcf,At-rest pressure:~,Passive: variable. se r~Qrt
Allowable Coefficient of Base Friction:--!U..Q.
COMMENTS:
NOTE:This information shall not be used separately from the geotechnical report.
AASHTO 1993 METHOD FOR DESIGN OF ASPHALT PAVEMENT STRUCTURES
FOR:PROPOSED RETAIL DEVELOPMENT,RENTON,WASHINGTON
DESIGN LIFE: 20 YEARS
DESIGN CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO: 50%(imported pit-run sand and gravel)
INPUT VALUES FOR STRUCTURAL NUMBER (SN)
Estimated ESAL (20 yrs)=43,800 (Std.), 335,800 (heavy duty)
Reliability (R)=85%
Standard Normal Deviation (Z)=1.037
Overall Standard Deviation (So)=0.45
Resilient Modulus (MR)=12,000 psi
Effective Resilient Modulus (M R,seasonally adjusted)=4,600 psi
Initial Serviceability (Po)=4.2
Terminal Serviceability (Pt )=2.0
Design Serviceability Loss (PSI)=2.2
Structural Number (SN): Hvy =3.4, Std =2.5
Input values for thickness calculations
Asphalt layer coefficient (at)=0.37
Base course layer coefficient (a2)=0.14
Base course drainage coefficient (m.)=1.35
Subbase layer coefficient (a3)=0.13
Subbase layer coefficient (m-)=::1.30
Recommended Pavement Section Thicknesses (inches)
REFERENCE
Specified
Specified
1-62
Specified
1-14
II-IS
Specified
Specified
II-I0
II-35
II-18
II-19
II-25
II-21
II-25
Asphalt Concrete Crushed Base Course Pit-Run Subbase Imported Roadbed
Standard
Heavy
3
4
4
4
o
o
12
12
Imported roadbed must have a minimum CBR value of 50 when compacted to a minimum of 95 of the
modified Proctor maximum dry density. Add 5 inches subbase if subgrade compaction is 90 percent of
modified Proctor maximum dry density. Verify CBR of import sample.
AASHTO 1993 METHOD FOR DESIGN OF CONCRETE PAVEMENT STRUCTURES
FOR:PROPOSED RETAIL DEVELOPMENT,RENTON,WASHINGTON
DESIGN LIFE: 20 YEARS
DESIGN CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO: 50%(imported pit-run sand and gravel)
INPUT VALUES FOR STRUCTURAL NUMBER (SN)
Estimated ESAL (20 yrs)=::43,800 (Std.), 335,800 (heavy duty)
Reliability (R)=::85%
Standard Normal Deviation (Zr)=::1.037
Overall Standard Deviation (So)=::0.35
Resilient Modulus (M R)=::15,000 psi
Effective Resilient Modulus (M R,seasonally adjusted)=::4,000 psi
Effective Modulus of Subgrade Reaction =::300 pci
Initial Serviceability (Po)=::4.2
Terminal Serviceability (P t)=::2.0
Design Serviceability Loss (PSI)=::2.2
Input values for thickness calculations:
Mean Concrete Modulus of Rupture =::550 psi
Base course layer coefficient (az)=::0.14
Base course drainage coefficient (m-)=::1.35
Base Modulus (EsB)=::30,000 psi
Subbase layer coefficient (aj)=::0.13
Subbase layer coefficient (m.)=::1.30
Subbase Modulus (E sB)=::20,000 psi
Recommended Concrete Pavement Section Thicknesses (inches)
REFERENCE
Specified
Specified
1-62
Specified
11-15
11-39
Specified
Specified
11-10
Recommended
11-19
11-25
11-19
11-21
11-25
11-21
Standard
Heavy
Concrete
5
6
Crushed Base Course
4
4
Pit-Run Subbase
o
o
Imported Roadbed
12
12
Imported roadbed must have a minimum CBR value of 50 when compacted to a minimum of 95 of the
modified Proctor maximum dry density. Add 5 inches subbase if subgrade compaction is 95 percent of
the standard Proctor maximum dry density. Verify CBR of import sample.
--------------------------------------,
FOUNDATION SUBSURFACE PREPARATION NOTES
UNLESS SPECIFICALLY INDICATED OTHERWISE IN THE DRAWINGS AND/OR SPECIFICATIONS, THE
LIMITS OF THIS SUBSURFACE PREPARATION ARE CONSIDERED TO BE THAT PORTION OF THE SITE
DIRECTLY BENEATH AND 10 FEET BEYOND THE BUILDING AND APPURTENANCES.APPURTENANCES
ARE THOSE ITEMS ATTACHED TO THE BUILDING PROPER (REFER TO DRAWING SHEET SP1),
TYPICALLY INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE BUILDING SIDEWALKS, GARDEN CENTER,
PORCHES, RAMPS, STOOPS, TRUCK WELLSIDOCKS, CONCRETE APRONS,COMPACTOR PAD, ETC. THE
SUBBASE AND VAPOR BARRIER, WHERE REQUIRED, DOES NOT EXTEND BEYOND THE LIMITS OF THE
ACTUAL BUILDING AND THE APPURTENANCES.
THE SURFICIAL COAL TAILINGS AND EXISTING FILL SOILS SHALL BE COVERED WITH GRANULAR
STRUCTURAL FILL TO ACHIEVE SUBGRADE ELEVATON BENEATH THE FLOOR SLAB AND PROVIDE
ADEQUATE SUPPORT FOR ALL FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT. THE UPPER ONE FOOT OF
EXPOSED FILL SOILS SHALL BE PROOFROLLED AND COMPACTED TO A FIRM AND UNYIELDING
CONDITIN PRIOR TO PLACING THE GRANULAR STRUCTURAL FILL. A PASSIVE METHANE GAS
VENTING SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED IN WASHED ROCK FILL PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF THE
METHANE GAS VAPOR BARRIER. A 2-INCH THICK LAYER OF PROTECTIVE MATERIAL SHALL BE
INSTALLED OVER THE METHANE GAS BARRIER THAT IS CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING REINFORCING
STEEL SUPPORTS.
ESTABLISH THE FINAL SUBGRADE ELEVATION AT 23 INCHES BELOW THE FINISHED CONCRETE
ELEVATION WHEN USING A 9 INCH SLAB TO ALLOW FOR THE SLAB THICKNESS, A 2-INCH METHANE
BARRIER PROTECTIVE LAYER, MINIMUM 10-MIL METHANE GAS VAPOR BARRIER, AND 12 INCHES OF
7/8-INCH MINUS WAHED ROCK. SIX-INCH DIAMETER PERFORATED METHANE VENTING PIPES SHALL
BE EMBEDDED IN THE WAHED ROCK PER THE PROJECT PLANS. THE 2-INCH METHANE BARRIER
PROTECTIVE LAYER SHALL BE CONTROLLED DENSITY FILL OR APPROVED IMPORTED GRANULAR
MATERIALS. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ACCURATE MEASUREMENTS FOR
ALL CUT AND FILL DEPTHS REQUIRED.
EXISTING FOUNDATIONS, SLABS, PAVEMENTS, UTILITIES, AND BELOW-GRADE STRUCTURES SHALL
BE REMOVED FROM OR PROPERLY ABANDONED IN-PLACE WITHIN THE BUILDING AREA. EXISTING
PILING SHALL BE CUT OFF 3 FEET BELOW THE NEW SLAB AND THEIR LOCATIONS PRESERVED FOR
FUTURE REFERENCE DURING INSTALLATION OF THE NEW PILE FOUNDATIONS. REMOVE SURFACE
VEGETATION, TOPSOIL, ROOT SYSTEMS, AND UNSUITABLE ORGANIC MATERIAL FROM THE BUILDING
AREA. STRIPPED SOILS SHOULD NOT BE REUSED AS STRUCTURAL FILL UNLESS APPROVED BY THE
OWNER'S GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. PROOFROLL EXPOSED SUBGRADE. REMOVE AND REPLACE
UNSUITABLE AREAS WITH SUITABLE MATERIAL. FILL SHALL BE FREE OF ORGANIC AND OTHER
DELETERIOUS MATERIALS AND SHALL MEET THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS:
LOCATION WITH RESPECT TO FINAL GRADE
BUILDING AREA, BELOW UPPER 4 FEET
BUILDING AREA, UPPER 4 FEET
P.I.
20 MAX.
12MAX.
L.L.
50 MAX.
40 MAX.
STRUCTURAL FILL SHALL BE PLACED IN LOOSE LIFTS NOT EXCEEDING 8 INCHES IN THICKNESS AND
COMPACTED TO AT LEAST 95 PERCENT OF THE MODIFIED PROCTOR MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY (ASTM:
D-1557) AT A MOISTURE CONTENT WITHIN 2 PERCENT BELOW TO 2 PERCENT ABOVE THE OPTIMUM.
THE FOUNDATION SYSTEM SHALL BE PILES BELOW COLUMNS, WALLS, AND FLOORS AS DESCRIBED
IN THE SOILS REPORT BY ZIPPER ZEMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. DATED DECEMBER 6,2002,OR SUITABLE
ALTERNATIVES APPROVED BY THE OWNER.
THIS FOUNDATION SUBSURFACE PREPARATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE· A COMPLETE SITE WORK
SPECIFICATION. IN CASE OF CONFLICT, INFORMATION COVERED IN THIS PREPARATION NOTE SHALL
TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER THE PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS. REFER TO THE SPECIFICATIONS FOR
SPECIFIC INFORMATION NOT COVERED IN THIS PREPARATION. ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS
MAY ALSO BE FOUND IN THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT PREPARED BY ZIPPER ZEMAN ASSOCIATES,
INC., DATED DECEMBER 6,2002.THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND IS
NOT A CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATION.
APPENDIXD
CLIMATE DATA
The following climate data was obtained from the internet web page of the Western Regional Climate Center
KENT.WASHINGTON Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary Page I of 1
KENT,WASHINGTON (454169)
Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary
Period of Record :111111948 to 12/3112001
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
5.73 4.32 3.88 2.70 1.86 1.56 0.85 1.15 1.78 3.49 5.88 6.00 39.20
o
4.0
42.1
61.5
o
0.9
ooooooooo
0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3
oo
1.6 0.5
33.5 35.0 36.5 39.8 44.6 49.7 52.4 52.2 48.3 42.6 37.0 33.9
45.9 50.7 54.6 60.7 67.4 72.5 78.0 77.5 72.0 61.3 51.5 46.0
Average Max.
Temperature (F)
Average Min.
Temperature (F)
Average Total
Precipitation (in.)
Average Total
SnowFall (in.)
Average Snow
Depth (in.)
Percent of possible observations for period of record.
Max. Temp.: 91.5% Min. Temp.: 91.5% Precipitation: 91.9% Snowfall: 90.4% Snow Depth: 88.9%
Check Station Metadata or Metadata graphics for more detail about data coll1pleteness.
Western Regional Climate Center,wrcc@dri.edu
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliRECtM.pl?wakent 10/29/02
KENT,WASHINGTON Period of Record General Climate Summary -Precipitation
KENT,WASHINGTON
Period of Record General Climate Summary ..Precipitation
I Station:(454169)KENT I
I From Year=1948 To Year=2000 1
I Precipitation "Total Snowfall I
B~BEJBI 1Day Max.Ilo.;in.llo.;o~in.llo.;in.lk~~m.lIMeanllHi~ly earl
tJBDtJDtJb!JBBBBtJtJD
I January II 5.731111.751~1 0.831[§]12.3011 19/196711 2011 1311 411 11m1 18.21021
IFebruary II 4.3211 8.8510]1 0.37ICBI2.9511 08/199611 1611 1111 311 1lrnm~
I March II 3.8811 7.901C2Z11 0.441[~12.2511 05/197211 1711 1111 211 01031 10.01021
I April II 2.7011 6.821C2TI1 0.251~12.1911 04/199111 1411 811 111 010][Q]~
I May II 1.8611 4.391~1 0.38IGZlI1.7911 31/199711 1111 611 111 010][Q]~
I June II 1.5611 3.931~1 0.1010]12.2411 12/200011 911 411 111 010][Q]~
I July II 0.8511 3.531~1 0.001~11.1511 01/195411 511 211 011 01 O][Q]0]
I August I[IJ]~~I 0.00IGZlI1.7311 18/197511 611 311 011 010][Q]~
ISeptemberl~1 5.751~1 0.001~11.9711 23/197811 911 511 111 010][Q]0]
I October II 3.4911 8.211~[Q1!]02I12.1611 09/195511 1411 811 211 110][Q]0]
INovemberl1 5.881110.331Q211 0.881~12.5611 20/195911 1911 1311 411 1IrnG]G2l
IDecemberI16.001110.791~~~16.0011 27/194911 2111 1311 411 1Irnl13.2I~
1 Annual 1139.2oI154.541~121.691~16.0011 1949122711 16111 9611 2311 510]1 18.21021
I Winter II 16.061123.621Q211 6.5910Z116.001i 1949122711 5711 3611 1011 31CIQ1131.4102l
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliGCStP.pl?wakent
Page 1 of2
10/29/02
KENT,WASHINGTON Period of Record General Climate Summary -Precipitation
Table updated on Jun 4, 2001
For monthly and annual means, thresholds, and sums:
Months with 5 or more missing days are not considered
Years with 1or more missing months are not considered
Seasons are climatological not calendar seasons
Winter =Dec., Jan., and Feb. Spring =Mar., Apr., and May
Summer =Jun., Jul., and Aug. Fall =Sep., Oct., and Nov.
Western Regional Climate Center,wrcc@dri,(?qy
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliGCStP.pl?wakent
Page 2 of2
10/29/02
KENT,WASHINGTON Periodof RecordGeneralClimate Summary -Temperature
KENT,WASHINGTON
Period of Record General Climate Summary -Temperature
Page lof2
I Station:(454169)KENT I
I FromYear=1948 To Year=2000 1
IMonthly Averagesll Daily Extremes II MonthlyExtremes II Max.Temp.II Min.Temp.I
BBB~BBBHighestBLowestB[;J[;J[;J~Max. Mm. Mean HIgh Date Low Date Mean Year Mean Year 90F 32F 32F 0 F
~0[][jZdGZdEJDGDI#DaYsIE}DaY+DaYsl
January II 45.91133.511 39.8[]~1 20/1981 I[ill1 18/195011 45.710]1 29.51[¥-1 0.011 0.811 12.611 0.01
February II 50.71135.011 42.910I11 29/1968101 011195011 47.71UDI 34.71[J2J1 0.011 0.211 9.611 0.01
March II 54.61136.511 45.610i11 29/196410Q11 04/195511 49.71~1 40Almi 0.011 0.011 7.911 0.01
April II 60.71139.811 50.31~1 30/19761~1 20/196111 54.31~1 46.3lml 0.011 0.011 3.211 0.01
May II 67AI144.6100~1 20/1963 IOIl I 01/195411 61.31~1 51.91~1 0.111 0.011 0.511 0.01
June II 72.511 49.7I[illl 10011 09l19551rnl 19/195611 65.61~1 57.510I11 0.611 0.011 0.011 0.01
July II 78.011520411 65.21D211 12/19511~1 03/196211 69.71~1 62.01~1 2.011 0.011 0.011 0.01
August II 77.51/52.211 64.810211 09/19811rnl 29/198011 69.510211 60.81~1 1.311 0.011 0.011 0.01
ISeptemberll 72.01148.311 60.1IL§]l 07/198110ill1 27/197211 64AI~1 56.51[J2]1 0.311 0.011 0.211 0.01
I October II 61.31142.61[ill~1 01/19751ml 28/197111 55.51~1 49.11~1 0.011 0.011 20411 0.01
INovemberl[JD]137.011 44.210i11 02/1970101 23/198511 49.31~1 34.71[J]1 0.011 0.311 8.211 0.01
!Decemberll 46.01133.911 39.91~1 27/1980101 23/198311 44AI~1 34.71[J]1 0.011 0.811 12.811 0.01
I Annual 1@]142.110TIlIl0011 195506091[ill1 1950011811 54.31~1 49.3lml 4.311 2.111 57.311 0.11
I Winter II 47.51134.111 40.910I11 196802291[ill1 1950011811 44.61~1 36AI~1 0.011 1.811 35.011 0.01
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliGCStT.pl?wakent 10/29/02
54.9103l1
67.110]]1
Page 2 of2
0.0110.111 11.611 0.01
3.911 0.011 0.011 0.01
0.311 0.311 10.811 0.01
46.71~1
60.9ICElI:=::::==
48.810]1
I Spring II 60.911 40.311 50.61~1 1963052010Ql1 1955030411
I Summer II 76.011 51.4[§]1 10011 195506091rnl 1956061911
I Fall 1~142.61[}D]~119810907IDI1985112311 55.51~1
KENT,WASHINGTON Period of Record General Climate Summary -Temperature
Table updated on Jun 4, 2001
For monthly and annual means, thresholds, and sums:
Months with 5 or more missing days are not considered
Years with 1 or more missing months are not considered
Seasons are climatological not calendar seasons
Winter =Dec., Jan., and Feb. Spring =Mar., Apr., and May
Summer =Jun., Jul., and Aug. Fall =Sep., Oct., and Nov.
Western Regional Climate Center,l1!r~q[L~du
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-binicliGCStT.pl?wakent 10/29/02
Monthly Average Temperature, KENT, WASHINGTON
KENT,WASHINGTON
Page 1 of2
Monthly Average Temperature (Degrees Fahrenheit)
(454169)
File last updated on Oct 24, 2002
***Note ***Provisional Data ***After Year/Month 200207
a =1day missing, b =2 days missing, c =3 days, ..etc..,
z =26 or more days missing, A =Accumulationspresent
Long-term means based on columns; thus, the monthly row may not
sum (or average)to the long-term annual value.
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLENUMBER OF MISSING DAYS:5
Individual Months not used for annual or monthly statistics if more than 5 days are missing.
Individual Years not used for annual statistics if any month in that year has more than 5 days missing.
~~AR JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN nn.AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Am
1948 -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z44.28 36.35 40.32
1949 29.47a35.08i 45.98 50.20 57.00 58.98 -----z 62.98 -----z -----z -----z 36.44n50.77
1950 25.73i 39.04 -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z47.38g39.04
1951 38.82 41.86 42.08 52.63c57.39 63.83 67.34 64.56 61.24c51.47 44.05a37.40 51.89
1952 36.98 41.83 44.27 51.02 56.82 59.50 66.42 66.61 60.83a54.38b40.10 41.13 51.66
1953 45.66b42.48 46.10 49.82 55.82a58.87 65.21 65.00 60.09b51.68 45.90 41.71 52.36
1954 36.45 43.75 42.98 48.65 55.95 58.65 62.23 61.79 59.62 50.69 49.08 40.81 50.89
195540.1539.54 40.3546.3353.29 60.68 62.18 62.90 58.85 51.21 38.81a37.89 49.35
1956 38.82 35.72 42.02 50.87 58.70a58.70 66.77 64.94 59.13 50.50 41.74a40.58 50.71
1957 32.15 a40.00 45.72a52.45 60.24 62.62 63.60a 63.05 62.43 50.15 41.23 41.29c 51.24
1958 41.63 47.14 44.85d50.95 61.28a65.37 69.66 66.15 59.28 52.77 42.95 44.35d53.87
1959 40.83b41.02a44.81 50.45a53.77 61.02 64.82 61.74 56.45 50.61 42.05a39.05 50.55
1960 38.06 41.00a43.88b49.70 52.92 59.38 65.52 62.68 57.24a51.95 43.10 38.00 50.29
1961 42.85 44.20 45.88b47.75 54.93a63.57a66.48 67.16 57.1Oa49.24 40.03a39.40 51.55
1962 37.42a42.15a42.57a50.93a51.94 59.30 63.85 62.96d60.02b52.27 45.62a41.70a50.89
1963 34.17a46.80 43.92a48.62 55.38f59.65 62.61 62.95a62.75 52.78f44.40 41.03 50.69
1964 41.48 41.41 45.15 47.55a53.65 60.18 64.15 63.26 58.08 52.31 41.37 36.44 50.42
1965 40.45 42.75 44.87 51.02 53.28b60.97 66.68 65.85 57.42 55.19 47.90 39.16 52.13
1966 40.32 42.80 45.50 50.13 55.15 59.90 63.53 64.50 61.32 51.31 45.07a44.21 51.98
1967 42.34 42.93 42.48 46.53 55.89 64.38 65.61 69.15 63.52 54.02 45.73 40.35 52.74
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMONtavt.pl?wakent 10/29/02
Monthly Average Temperature, KENT, WASHINGTON Page 2 of2
344949434849494946515152
1968 39.85 45.98 47.97 48.95 56.52 60.43 67.03a63.29 59.33 50.84 44.95 35.90 51.75
1969 32.40 40.89 45.79 49.53 58.23a65.63 64.26 61.83a59.78a50.50 44.83 42.31 51.33
1970 40.16 44.88 45.27a47.52 55.12a63.22 65.10 63.68 56.84a50.03 44.73 38.37 51.24
1971 39.90 41.52 42.12a49.18 55.88c 57.55 65.77 67.14c 58.03 50.87 45.25 37.71 50.91
1972 36.71 41.62 47.37 46.98 58.06 60.27 64.63 64.26 56.48 49.08 44.83 37.47 50.65
1973 38.73 43.71 46.26 49.47 56.37 60.62a63.98 60.77 59.37 51.15 41.95 43.26 51.30
1974 38.08 43.57 45.80a50.10 53.50 60.80 62.81 64.98 62.17 -----z -----z42.90 52.47
1975 39.95 41.88 43.84 46.48 55.43a59.75 65.52d62.34 60.38 52.08 44.75 42.48 51.24
1976 42.55 41.53 43.12a49.57 56.22b54.94v63.75a62.63a61.26a51.62a45.21 b42.24 50.88
1977 36.63 45.61 44.18 51.80 53.45 61.27 63.13 68.34c 57.02 -----z42.82 -----z 52.42
1978 43.63 45.54 47.85 -----z 54.90a 63.55b65.76 64.94 58.42 52.97 -----z 36.23 53.38
1979 35.36b41.57 -----z 50.17c56.15h60.60 66.08 65.03a -----z -----z43.27 44.10 50.77
1980 33.36f44.00 -----z52.97a -----z -----z63.63 62.52b60.50k -----z45.80 43.85 52.13
1981 42.76 43.66 48.56 50.07c54.20a58.22c63.09c66.92a59.90 -----z44.27 -----z53.17
1982 40.02 42.38 44.77 47.93 55.35 63.63 62.32 64.45 60.98a52.10 41.33 39.44 51.23
1983 43.76 46.39 48.03 49.83 -----z60.50 64.26 65.45 58.37 50.31 47.33 35.27 51.77
1984 42.94 44.81 49.03 49.23 54.55 60.13 65.45 64.42 60.26a49.18 44.35 36.47 51.73
1985 36.39 39.00 42.95 50.20 55.68 60.97 67.34 64.13 56.82 -----z34.70 34.73 49.35
1986 44.18 43.29 49.60 49.07 55.69 62.80 62.05 67.21 j 58.50 53.60 44.98 40.21 51.27
1987 39.53 45.18 47.87 53.33 56.77 62.13 63.45a64.98 61.20 53.10 47.47 37.79 52.73
1988 39.50 43.55 45.23 50.88 -----z59.48 65.11 64.23 60.02 -----z45.57 40.56 51.41
1989 40.84 34.70 43.63 53.03 55.92 62.77 -----z -----z -----z 51.91c46.08 41.17k48.61
1990 42.85 -----z47.74 -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z64.18 51.74 -----z34.9248.29
1991 39.53 47.70 44.27 50.07 55.08 59.80 67.55 67.63 62.00 52.73 47.40 42.95 53.06
1992 43.92 47.02 49.71 54.30 60.61 -----z -----z67.35 60.28 54.00 45.22 38.62a52.10
1993 37.48 40.93 48.24 50.93 -----z61.65 62.45 66.16 61.78 55.53 41.13 40.08a51.49
1994 44.39 40.25 48.34 53.20 59.08 60.98 68.60 67.08 64.38 52.26 41.83 41.05 53.45
1995 -----z45.54 47.56 52.05 60.11 62.98 68.34 64.00 64.43 52.82 49.30 41.65 55.34
1996 40.74 43.78 47.97 53.38 54.66 61.31 a68.87 67.42 58.65 52.35 43.98 39.71 52.74
1997 41.29 42.98 46.40 51.50 60.53 61.82 66.68 69.50 63.25 52.48 48.77 41.21 53.87
1998 43.21 46.46 48.00 51.65 57.13 62.65 69.39 68.03 63.45 53.26 47.02 40.87 54.26
1999 42.93 b43.46a45.84b50.60d53.62c 60.43b64.67 a 66.50d61.98d51.65 d48.38a42.24b52.69
2000 40.85a44.33 45.87a52.75 56.05 62.48 65.85 64.42a61.32 52.89d42.58 41.05c 52.54
2001 42.62 a41.02 b46.55 a49.26c 57.32 59.95 64.50 66.13e60.50b 51.43c 47.14a41.83 a52.35
2002 41.79 42.91 43.18 50.30 55.29 63.18 66.68 -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z51.90
Period of Record Statistics
42.85 45.54 50.23 56.07 61.17 65.20 64.87 60.14 51.91 44.30 39.97 51.81
2.65 2.22 1.91 2.22 1.87 1.99 2.08 2.20 1.49 2.84 2.60 1.13
-0.63 -0.08 -0.08 0.60 0.45 0.36 0.27 0.15 0.30 -0.72 -0.30 0.29
47.70 49.71 54.30 61.28 65.63 69.66 69.50 64.43 55.53 49.30 44.35 54.26
34.70 40.35 46.33 51.94 57.55 62.05 60.77 56.45 49.08 34.70 34.73 49.35
MEAN39.87
S.D. 3.35
SKEW -0.92
MAX 45.66
MIN 29.47
NO
YRS 51
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMONtavt.pl?wakent 10/29/02
Monthly AverageMinimum Temperature, KENT, WASHINGTON
KENT,WASHINGTON
Monthly Average Minimum Temperature (Degrees
Fahrenheit)
(454169)
Page 1 of3
File last updated on Oct 24, 2002
***Note ***Provisional Data ***After Year/Month 200207
a =1day missing, b =2 days missing, c =3 days, ..etc..,
z =26 or more days missing, A =Accumulationspresent
Long-term means based on columns; thus, the monthly row may not
sum (or average)to the long-termannual value.
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLENUMBER OF MISSING DAYS:5
Individual Months not used for annual or monthly statistics if more than 5 days are missing.
Individual Years not used for annual statistics if any month in that year has more than 5 days missing.
r~AR JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN.JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ANN
1948 -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z 35.80 29.65 32.72
1949 20.55 29.75 36.61 39.77 43.87 44.03 -----z 50.42 -----z -----z -----z27.41 n37.86
1950 15.77i 31.39 -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z42.50g31.39
1951 33.26 35.11 34.52 38.44c44.45 49.37 52.74 50.13 48.63 43.42 36.62a32.16 41.57
1952 31.10 35.34 36.52 38.33 44.13 47.97 51.97 53.45 47.00 44.03b31.60 34.71 41.35
1953 40.90a 35.89 38.32 39.97 44.27a49.23 51.71 51.90 47.20 41.58 37.93 35.42 42.86
1954 30.55 37.04 32.13 39.10 43.81 47.87 49.10 50.84 50.17 41.84 43.40 34.52 41.70
1955 35.52 33.32 33.10 36.90 43.32 49.97 52.10 50.03 48.40 44.42 32.31a31.74 40.93
1956 31.90 29.34 33.77 38.07 45.00a48.43 53.19 51.81 48.07 42.77 35.55a35.29 41.10
1957 25.90a32.86 38.27a42.40 48.74 51.43 51.27a50.13 48.23 40.97 33.23 36.18c41.63
1958 36.61 41.36 35.11d39.47 47.53a53.53 54.42 50.52 47.17 42.03 35.03 37.57c43.36
1959 34.35 33.96a36.65 40.45a41.90 50.17 50.26 47.97 46.40 41.10 32.55a32.55 40.69
1960 31.48 32.75a34.17a39.07 42.84 46.67 49.68 52.03 45.62a43.03 34.97 30.68 40.25
1961 34.61 37.93 37.28b38.37 43.33a50.14a 52.10 51.77 44.03a39.13 30.17a33.03 40.99
1962 29.17a33.19a32.73a40.48a42.61 46.17 50.10 51.17b47.lOa42.81 37.62a35.30a40.70
1963 27.33a37.21 34.07a39.10 41.92e49.13 51.39 50.13a49.93 42.00e 36.87 35.13 41.19
1964 35.58 32.28 36.97 37.43 40.97 49.73 52.23 51.74 46.73 41.16 35.67 30.71 40.93
1965 35.19 35.89 31.61 39.73 41.28b47.47 52.00 53.26 44.70 44.00 40.43 32.55 41.51
1966 34.39 34.39 35.19 38.50 40.94 48.30 51.13 49.84 49.07 41.29 37.72a38.68 41.62
10£::"7 'J£::"I£::'JA A£::'J'J 'JO 'JC £::0 A'J £::C CO O'J C1 'J"I Cl0A AO 1'J AA 0"7 'J"70"7 '1A 0"7 Al0A
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-binicliMONtmnt.pl?wakent 10/29/02
Monthly Average Minimum Temperature, KENT,WASHINGTON Page 2 of3
17U/JU.4.U J"t."tu JJ.J7 JJ.uu "tJ.UJ JU.OJ J1.J4.J1.O"t "to.IJ "t"t.O/J/.7/J"t.7/"t1.7"t
1968 33.87 34.66 39.48 38.57 45.00 49.27 52.87a51.55 49.37 41.19 37.57 30.06 41.95
1969 27.23 32.43 34.45 39.80 44.60a54.07 50.10 48.67a48.77 39.32 37.73 35.42 41.05
1970 33.87 34.57 34.53a37.83 42.48 48.93 50.42 49.13 44.76a39.42 36.67 32.61 40.44
1971 34.00 34.86 34.30a37.60 44.11 c47.97 52.06 53.14c45.70 42.00 39.03 32.52 41.44
1972 30.61 34.28 39.45 37.77 44.74 49.47 50.90 49.81 44.23 37.68 37.10 32.19 40.69
1973 31.16 34.18 38.10 37.47 43.29 49.93a49.77 47.65 46.13 42.26 35.37 37.97 41.11
1974 31.29 37.36 37.50a41.87 44.03 47.73 50.32 50.45 45.63 -----z -----z36.61 42.28
1975 34.10 34.50 35.19 36.23 43.00a48.53 52.00d51.84 45.43 44.45 37.60 36.81 41.64
1976 36.52 34.97 34.53a38.23 44.17a44.96d51.00 53.03a49.83 40.57a36.86a34.81 41.62
1977 29.81 36.07 35.97 39.30 43.19 49.50 50.39 54.10b45.77 -----z35.23 -----z41.93
1978 37.87 38.54 38.03 -----z43.57a50.21 b52.84 53.55 50.03 41.39 -----z29.87 43.59
1979 28.07b 35.18 -----z 39.57b43.86c 47.43 52.39 52.53a -----z -----z 35.37 37.74 41.35
1980 25.68f36.31 -----z41.48a -----z -----z50.81 49.52b47.17 -----z38.07 37.55 42.99
1981 34.42 34.07 37.13 39.48c42.70a48.52c50.31 b50.81 45.50 -----z33.80 -----z41.67
1982 34.06 35.07 34.97 35.43 42.77 49.97 49.45 50.87 48.28a42.03 32.20 32.16 40.61
1983 36.61 38.00 38.19 36.43 -----z50.17 53.55 53.29 46.33 39.13 40.80 28.90 41.95
1984 36.61 36.76 39.87 38.57 43.39 49.43 51.45 49.84 47.90a38.97 37.97 30.06 41.73
1985 29.32 30.39 32.39 40.00 42.42 48.43 50.26 49.45 45.13 -----z27.03 28.48 38.48
1986 36.65 34.79 39.84 38.90 44.13 49.80 50.81 52.48j 48.30 43.84 39.90 33.48 41.86
1987 32.71 36.93 39.06 41.63 45.68 48.93 52.30a51.23 48.40 40.16 40.20 31.55 42.40
1988 32.94 35.52 35.90 41.00 -----z48.27 51.35 51.00 47.53 -----z40.10 34.52 41.81
1989 35.68 25.68 35.32 41.23 45.10 51.37 -----z -----z -----z43.21 c39.90 34.85k39.69
1990 37.97 -----z 38.55 -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z 53.93 43.26 -----z29.29 40.60
1991 33.39 40.04 36.71 41.63 47.77 51.40 56.39 57.52 50.67 43.06 42.00 37.45 44.84
1992 37.55 38.76 39.45 44.73 48.55 -----z -----z 55.77 50.20 46.23 39.17 33.13a43.35
1993 30.84 31.04 39.48 43.67 -----z 53.33 54.52 56.10 49.57 47.26 33.03 33.87 42.97
1994 39.26 33.93 39.29 44.87 49.39 51.03 57.00 56.39 53.83 44.13 36.17 35.06 45.03
1995 -----z38.86 37.52 43.10 49.6853.2358.4554.6553.97 44.48 43.23 35.35 46.59
1996 35.58 35.03 39.19 44.73 46.58 51.34a57.52 56.42 50.60 45.48 38.30 34.65 44.62
1997 35.65 35.64 39.61 42.73 50.87 53.80 57.06 59.00 53.43 46.29 40.37 34.00 45.71
1998 37.58 39.54 40.23 41.83 49.71 53.17 59.23 57.39 52.77 45.29 41.03 35.71 46.12
1999 37.86b37.44a 37.86b38.73 d44.36c 52.21b54.57 a 57.22d49.38d42.63 d42.00a37.62b44.32
2000 34.73a36.24 38.07a43.53 47.97 52.73 56.35 54.70a52.23 45.48d35.00 34.61c44.30
2001 36.13a32.15b 38.00a 40.67c46.58 51.30 54.58 56.15e51.14b44.25 c41.38a35.73 a44.01
2002 37.26 35.29 36.29 42.07 46.32 53.13 56.55 -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z43.84
Period of Record Statistics
MEAN33.64 34.95 36.57 39.84 44.68 49.80 52.54 52.28 48.34 42.59 37.05 33.89 42.16
S.D.3.78 2.84 2.35 2.33 2.44 2.24 2.54 2.73 2.63 2.20 3.42 2.66 1.62
SKEW -0.97 -0.53 -0.29 0.37 0.83 -0.07 1.01 0.64 0.50 -0.09 -0.46
-0.25 1.05
MAX 40.90 41.36 40.23 44.87 50.87 54.07 59.23 59.00 53.97 47.26 43.40 38.68 46.12
MIN 20.55 25.68 31.61 35.43 40.94 44.03 49.10 47.65 44.03 37.68 27.03 28.48 40.25
NO 51 53 51 51 48 50 49 49 49 44 49
49 36YRS
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMONtmnt.pl?wakent 10/29/02
Monthly Precipitation, KENT, WASHINGTON
KENT,WASHINGTON
Monthly Total Precipitation (inches)
(454169)
Page 1 of2
File last updated on Oct 24, 2002
***Note ***Provisional Data ***After Year/Month 200207
a =1day missing, b =2 days missing, c =3 days, ..etc..,
z =26 or more days missing, A =Accumulations present
Long-term means based on columns; thus, the monthly row may not
sum (or average) to the long-term annual value.
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE NUMBER OF MISSING DAYS:5
Individual Months not used for annual or monthly statistics if more than 5 days are missing.
Individual Years not used for annual statistics if any month in that year has more than 5 days
missing.
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ANN
YEAR
(S)
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z
0.91 7.51 3.51 2.25 0.49 1.23 O.OOz 0.42 O.OOz O.OOz
0.00 z 0.00x 0.00 z 2.33 1.90 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z
7.39 7.31 3.68 0.62 1.23 0.10 0.64 1.00 2.38 6.09
4.08 2.66 2.86 1.95 1.03 0.75 0.54 0.56 0.17 1.08
11.75 3.42 3.04 2.70 3.26 2.33 0.67 1.86 1.18 4.97
7.93 3.98 2.45 2.81 2.04 1.97 1.92 1.29a 1.85 1.54
3.22 4.04 3.02 4.18 1.64 1.20 1.96 0.35 1.31 7.52
8.65 1.81 5.76 0.25 0.70 1.94 0.52 0.91 2.26 6.95
3.19 5.49 6.25 2.61 1.72 1.11 1.21 1.17 0.86 3.53
7.52 6.18 2.34 3.64 0.72 0.72 0.00 0.35 1.29 3.82
8.25 2.95 4.06 3.47 1.50 2.13 0.66 0.42 3.57 2.69
5.65 4.00 3.99 3.18 3.43 0.87 0.00 1.78 1.38 4.43
7.90 8.85 4.55a 2.68 3.43 0.56 0.56 0.55 0.67 3.20
2.40 2.48 3.13 2.10 2.20 0.83 0.54 1.42 2.13 3.67
2.27 5.30 2.47 3.14 0.82e 1.91 1.22 0.95 1.17 3.38
9.92 1.48 3.70 1.10 0.97 3.04 1.10 1.49 2.11 1.20
5.80 3.85 0.44 3.68 1.56 0.48 0.47 2.59 0.54 2.93
5.00 2.07 4.31 1.80 1.47 1.25 1.34 0.47 1.82 2.58
9.48 2.93 3.90 2.34 0.38 1.83 0.05 0.00 0.99 6.91
6.85 6.32
O.OOz 30.70n
O.OOz 6.75f
4.90 3.75
0.88 5.13
7.02 6.31
7.16 5.75
8.48a 10.42
2.07 5.79
3.21 6.36
8.13 7.87
7.03 6.59
8.37 2.70
3.81 6.20
8.96 5.48
8.86 4.86
8.51 6.01
4.58 6.69
5.56 7.59
2.62 3.98
13.17
16.32
4.23
39.09
21.69
48.51
40.69
47.34
37.61
36.71
42.58
43.32
39.78
42.96
35.34
36.35
40.63
33.61
35.26
35.41
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMONtpre.pl?wakent 10/29/02
Monthly Precipitation,KENT,WASHINGTON Page 2 of2
1968 6.91 5.51 5.09 1.43 1.57 3.49 0.66 5.13 2.12 4.18 5.99 8.39 50.47
1969 6.43 3.71 2.12 4.45 3.00 1.23 0.47 0.21 5.70 1.47 2.76 6.95 38.50
1970 8.49 2.47 3.63 3.58 1.48 0.67 0.55 0.57 2.84 2.84 5.82 9.92 42.86
1971 5.78 4.05 7.54 2.65 1.59 3.13 0.48 0.60 4.27 3.75 5.84 6.78 46.46
1972 6.65 8.80 6.39 5.17 0.67 1.85 1.59 1.45 4.36 0.90 3.91 8.70 50.44
1973 4.59 1.81 2.38 1.35 1.69 3.30 0.08 0.18 2.12 3.33 8.33 8.71 37.87
1974 8.12 4.90 5.98 3.09 2.44 1.31 1.47 0.02 0.17 O.OOz O.OOz 6.63 34.13
1975 6.83 5.86 3.35 2.80 1.57 1.02 0.71 4.36 0.00 8.21 5.45 7.35 47.51
1976 5.81 4.82 2.95 2.28 1.68 0.65 1.16 3.22 1.21 2.18 0.99 2.68 29.63
1977 2.51 1.40 4.08 0.67 3.73 0.75 0.42 3.98 2.59 O.OOz 5.69 O.OOz 25.82
1978 5.67 3.59 2.79 O.OOz 1.96 1.27 1.52 1.30 5.75 0.85 O.OOz 1.86 26.56
1979 2.55 6.17 O.OOz 1.49 1.33 0.36 1.02 1.24 O.OOz O.OOz 2.56 10.79 27.51
1980 4.68 5.03 O.OOz 3.64 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.69 0.88 1.77 O.OOz 9.92 7.98 34.59
1981 2.83 5.15 2.87 2.07 2.60 2.78 1.23 0.37 3.53 O.OOz 5.23a O.OOz 28.66
1982 4.98a 7.25 3.95 2.00 0.69 1.11 0.72 0.59 1.84 4.18 5.20 6.25 38.76
1983 7.07 4.76 4.40 1.51 O.OOz 2.45 3.53 2.33 2.24 1.17 8.76a 5.56b 43.78
1984 4.21a 4.51 4.40a 3.06 4.39a 3.93 0.00 0.12 1.13 3.12 8.64 5.57 43.08
1985 0.83 2.66a 3.35a 1.32a 1.24 2.33 0.05 0.86 2.11 O.OOz 4.60 2.34
21.69
1986 7.54b 4.34 2.69 1.79 1.97 0.69 0.87 0.05 1.80 4.01 8.19 3.33a 37.27
1987 5.42a 3.13 5.53a 3.10 2.68a 0.16 0.52a 0.36 1.27 0.31 2.76 6.96
32.20
1988 4.24 1.13 5.10 3.98 O.OOz 1.64 0.59 0.36 1.88a O.OOz 9.04a 3.53 31.49
1989 3.29 3.16 5.21b 2.79 2.63 1.40 O.OOz O.OOz O.OOz 3.08c 5.51 5.04i 27.07
1990 8.35a O.OOz 3.05 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.10 6.90 O.OOz 3.20a 21.60
1991 4.49 5.33a 5.67 6.82 1.63 1.37 0.29 1.97 0.01 1.76 5.38 3.02c 37.74
1992 7.04c 2.98b 1.09 3.40a 0.40 0.00 z 0.00 z 1.26 1.00 2.75 5.77b 4.07 29.76
1993 4.20 0.37 4.67 4.84b 0.00 z 1.89e 1.50a 0.28 0.00 1.88 1.34a 5.16b 26.13
1994 3.07a 6.36 3.71 3.30 1.29 1.39 0.32 0.32 1.28 3.59 5.35 7.71 37.69
1995 O.OOz 4.49 3.89 1.69 0.75 1.68a 1.30 2.22 1.36 4.23b 8.98 6.50 37.09
1996 7.69a 8.67 2.17a 6.12 2.74 0.52 0.91 1.31 2.08a 5.77b 6.16a 10.40a 54.54
1997 6.35a 2.12a 7.90 4.12a 3.85 2.32 1.57 1.09 3.05 5.56f 3.61a 3.12b 39.10
1998 7.57 2.76 3.56a 0.90 2.45c 1.34b 0.50 0.29 0.62 3.12a 10.24a 9.43 42.78
1999 7.38b 6.81a 4.64b 1.45c 2.01b 1.78a 1.10 1.56 0.12 2.38b 10.33a 4.95 44.51
2000 3.71a 5.71 2.42a 1.50 2.85 2.94 0.50 0.39 1.22 4.15 2.85 2.49 30.73
2001 2.74 1.59 3.00a 3.72b 1.36 3.92 1.22 1.85 0.79 3.27b 11.23 6.39a 41.08
2002 5.92 4.31 3.31 3.48 1.25 2.00 0.84a 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z O.OOz 21.11
Period of Record Statistics
MEAN 5.68 4.27 3.85 2.74 1.84 1.62 0.85 1.17 1.76 3.49 5.99 6.01 40.03
S.D.2.39 2.04 1.48 1.35 0.97 0.96 0.64 1.12 1.34 1.90 2.66 2.28 6.51
SKEW 0.04 0.41 0.55 0.68 0.67 0.68 1.59 1.72 1.18 0.67 -0.07 0.15 -0.22
MAX 11.75 8.85 7.90 6.82 4.39 3.93 3.53 5.13 5.75 8.21 11.23 10.79 54.54
MIN 0.83 0.37 0.44 0.25 0.38 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.88 1.86 21.69
NO 52 52 51 52 49 50 49 50 49 43 49 49 36YRS
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMONtpre.p1?wakent 10/29/02
Monthly Total Snowfall,KENT,WASHINGTON
KENT,WASHINGTON
Monthly Total Snowfall (Inches)
(454169)
Page 10f4
File last updated on Oct 24,2002
***Note ***Provisional Data ***After YearlMonth 200207
a =1 day missing, b =2 days missing, c =3 days, ..etc..,
z =26 or more days missing, A =Accumulations present
Long-term means based on columns; thus, the monthly row may not
sum (or average) to the long-term annual value.
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE NUMBER OF MISSING DAYS:5
Individual Months not used for annual or monthly statistics if more than 5 days are missing.
Individual Years not used for annual statistics if any month in that year has more than 5 days
missmg.
~~AR JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN ANN
1~~7-O.OOz O.OOz O.OOz O.OOz O.OOz O.OOz O.OOz O.OOz O.OOz O.OOz O.OOz O.OOz 0.00
1948-49 0.00z 0.00z 0.00z 0.00z 0.00 0.00 2.30 6.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.80
1949-50 O.OOz 0.00 O.OOz O.OOz O.OOz 2.00n22.l0i 0.00 O.OOz 0.00 0.00 O.OOz 0.00
1~5l0-O.OOz O.OOz O.OOz O.OOz O.OOz O.OOf 1.10 0.00 7.60b 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.70
1951-52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.50 5.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.10
1952-53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1953-54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.30 0.00 O.OOb 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.30
1954-55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00
1955-56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.50a 7.00 0.30 6.lOd 7.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.90
1956-57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.50 5.80 3.00e 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.30
1957-58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1958-59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OOc 0.00 O.OOa O.OOw O.OOa 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1959-60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OOa 3.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMONtsnf.pl?wakent 10/29/02
Monthly Total Snowfall,KENT,WASHINGTON Page 2 of4
1960-
61
1961-
62
1962-
63
1963-
64
1964-
65
1965-
66
1966-
67
1967-
68
1968-
69
1969-
70
1970-
71
1971-
72
1972-
73
1973-
74
1974-
75
1975-
76
1976-
77
1977-
78
1978-
79
1979-
80
1980-
81
1981-
82
1982-
83
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 6.50
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.50
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 a 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.60 O.OOz 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 z 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.70 3.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.50 0.00 z 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.20 18.20 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.20 1.10
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00s 10.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 2.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 b 0.80 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OOz 3.00 O.OOz 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 z 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 0.00 0.00 z 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OOz 0.00 O.OOa 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 z 0.00 0.00 z 2.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00e 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00
0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.10
0.00 0.00 0.00 e 0.00 2.50
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.60
O.OOz 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.70
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.50
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 31.40
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.30
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.80
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.80
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60
0.00 O.OOz 0.00 0.00 3.00
0.00 z 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00z 0.00 0.00z 0.00z 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 z 0.00 0.00
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMONtsnf.p1?wakent 10/29/02
---
Monthly Total Snowfall,KENT,WASHINGTON Page 3 of4
1983-0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0084
1984-0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OOz O.OOz O.OOz 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0085
1985-0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 z 0.00z 0.00z 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0086
1986-0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0087
1987-0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OOa 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OOz 0.00 0.0088
1988-0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OOz 0.00 0.00 0.00 a 0.00z 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.0089
1989-0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OOz 0.00 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.0090
1990-0.00 z 0.00z 0.00 0.00 0.00z 0.30 b 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.3091
1991-0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OOz 0.0092
1992-O.OOz 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OOz 0.00 O.OOa 0.00 0.00 O.OOz 0.00 0.0093
1993-0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.0094
1994-0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OOz 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0095
1995-0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 2.0096
1996-0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.3097
1997-0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0098
1998-0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0099
1999-0.00 O.OOa 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0000
2000-0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OOa 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0001
2001-0.00 0.00 O.OOa 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0002
Period of Record Statistics
MEAN 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.86 1.55 0.51 0.66 0.00 0.00
0.00 4.48
S.D.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.23 2.31 3.49 1.58 2.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.40
SKEW 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.99 3.91 3.20 3.22 3.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.48
MAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 13.20 18.20 6.50 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 31.40
MIN 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
NO 48 50 49 44 48 46 47 50 50 52 49 50 30YRS
http://www.wrcc.dri.edulcgi-bin/cliMONtsnf.pl?wakent 10/29/02