The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMisc 3: i ! L _ I j . I .,. •. : ::.. A A LARSON ANTHRO -PO LOGICAL ARCHAEO -LOGICAL SERVICES P.O. BO X 70106 S.EATilE . WASHl~GTON 98107 lEl; [206] 782 fAX; [206] 783 0980 2'15 9 s Cit'1 oi p.enton p1anr11\19 Qi\/isio\1 • ; i ' CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT JAG DEVELOPMENT, KING COUNTY, W ASHL'l"GTON by Bradley Bowden Leonard A. Forsman Lynn L. Larson Dennis E. Lewarch Submitted to: CN A Architecture 777-108th Avenue NE #400 Bellevue, Washington 98004-5118 Larson Anthropological/ Archaeological Services LAAS Technical Report #97-7 P.O. Box 70106 Seattle, Washington 98107 March 27, 1997 ' I ' i JAG Development Cultural Resource Assessment ABSTRACT Larson Anthropological and Archaeological Services (LAAS) conducted a cultural resource assessment for the proposed JAG Development Project in February and March of 1997. Examination of archival sources revealed that the Duwamish village, Sbal't", was located at the former mouth of May Creek and is probably within the Pan Abode Cedar Homes property or on the Port Quendall property (Harrington ca_ 1909; Waterman ca. 1920). The site was identified as a place where fish were dried and May Creek was noted as a spawning area for "redfish" (either sockeye salmon or lake-locked kokanee salmon) (Harrington ca. 1909; Waterman ca. 1920). The fieldwork involv.ed a series of opportunistic subsurface shovel probes designed to determine if buried archaeological deposits exist in the project area. Most · of the proposed JAG Development project area was either paved with asphalt, covered with fill, or access was not pennitted because the area contained hazardous and dangerous materials. Shovel probes were excavated in locations that appeared to be the least disturbed based on an examination of historic and modern maps and consultation with Mark Larsen (personal communication, 1997) of Remediation Technologies, Incorporated. One possibly fire modified rock (FMR) was identified in a shovel probe at the north end of the Pan Abode Cedar Homes property, near the old channel of May Creek. · The possible FMR was recovered from 90 to 100 centimeters below the surface in what appeared to be alluvial deposits. No other cultural materials or feamres were identified. The LAAS field reconnaissance was unable to detennine if any materials or features related to the Duwamish village, Sbal't", are present within the proposed JAG Development project area because less than 10 percent of the project area was examined for subsurface archaeological remains. It is recommended that a professional archaeologist monitor areas with a high probability for cultural resources if future subsurface activities related to the proposed JAG Development Project are planned for those areas. An archaeological monitor should be present during any further investigation or preconstruction remediation related to the potentially hazardous and dangerous materials at the site as well as any ground disturbing activities associated with construction in high probability areas at the proposed JAG Development. 11 JAG Development Cultural Resource Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ....................................................... ii Table of Coments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 4 Cultural Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 6 Previous Cultural Resource Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 6 Ethnography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 History . . . . . . . . . . . ......................................... 12 Field Reconnaissance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Field Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Field Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 High Probability Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Low Probability Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . ....................................... 21 Appendix 1: Agencies and Individuals Contacted ........................... 27 Appendix 2: Tribal Correspondence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Appendix 3: Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Cultural Resources Survey Cover Sheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Project area location ........................................ 2 Figure 2. Project area map showing individual properties and shovel probe locations . . . . . 3 Figure 3. Historic features, shoreline changes, and former beds of May Creek in proposed JAG Development Project vicinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Figure 4. Recommended monitoring areas in the JAG Development Project area ...... 18 iii I · .. i I JAG Development Cultural Resource Assessment ACK.i'IOWLEDGMENTS Several individuals contributed to the completion of this cultural resource assessment; the project would not have been as successful without them. Jim Spitze, CNA Architecture, was extremely helpful in facilitating access to the proposed JAG Development property and in providing necessary documents that LAAS needed to complete this report. Mark Larsen, Remediation Technologies, Incorporated, also helped in securing access to the proposed JAG Development property and provided useful information regarding the history of the var\ous properties that are part of the proposed project. Joe Gibbons and Mike Paulson, Remediation Technologies, Incorporated, also deserve thanks for monitoring fieldwork at the proposed JAG Development,project area. Joe Gibbons and Mike Paulson not only related information about hazardous and dangerous materials in the project area but also offered data regarding the soil and fill episodes in various locations of the proposed JAG Development Project area. Finally, Stan Greene, Renton Historical Society and Museum, gave us access to historical information and photographs of the May Creek and Kennydale region. His cooperation and assistance was greatly appreciated. lV I JAG Development Cultural Resource Assessment INTRODUCTION Larson Anthropological/ Archaeological Services (LAAS) was retained by CN A Architecture in December 1996 to conduct a cultural resource assessment of the proposed JAG Development Projec:. The proposed JAG Development Project would occupy a 60-acre parcel on the eastern shore of Lake Washington, west of Interstate 405 at Exit 7, NE 44th Street, North Renton. The proposed JAG Development project area is comprised of four properties: the Barbee Mill, the Port Quendall Log Yard, the Pan Abode Cedar Homes property, and the Baxter Property. The Baxter Property has been divided into the South Baxter Property and the North Baxter Property. The North Baxter Property contains the northernmost portion of the Baxter property along the shore of Lake Washington and a small wedge of property east of the shoreline properties, called the north Baxter Property East Wedge. The project area is in Sections 19 and 32. Township 24 North, Range 5 East, Bellevue South Quadrangle, King County, Washington (Figures 1 and 2). The cultural resource assessment consisted of an archival and literature review, field reconnaissance, consultation with the Muckleshoot Tribe and the Duwamish, and preparation of this report. Published and unpublished environmental, ethnographic, historic, and archaeological documents were gathered and reviewed. Environmental, ethnographic, and historic information was collected from Special Collections, Allen Library, University of Washington; Renton Historical Society and Museum; and the Renton Library. Archaeological site forms and project reports were obtained from the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Field reconnaissance consisted of the excavation of subsurface shovel probes to determine the potential for buried archaeological deposits in the proposed JAG Development project area. No cultural resources were identified that may be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. However, fill and development of the area precluded investigation of at least 90 percent of the project area. Because ethnographic literature suggests portions of the project area have a high probability for cultural resources, we recommend that a professional archaeologist monitor subsurface activities, e.g. geotechnical testing, remediation of hazardous and dangerous waste, and construction, clearing, grading, and excavation in areas of the proposed JAG Development Project with a high probability for cultural resources. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed JAG Development would be a mixed-use area containing office space, conference facilities, restaurants, a marina, recreational spaces, retail shops, a hotel, parking areas, and residential properties (CNA Architecture 1997). The proposed development is projected to begin by 1999 and be completed by approximately 2010 (CNA Architecture 1997). . , . _; ·•ij,f-~--,--,: .. ··"··4 · ti"" l 'i' !"i;i er j I • ·~· ,-. .p,._,~~;. '. I :;,pn·~ I 'h ·,., :t·"~} tt"'L-· r.....-.~~~· f!L j.:~·1~ ·:~3~~::r .:;~!~'.: ,_ I e!;H'l::p·.':,:;::·<fr~~,:• .. ' , ... 1 r I -~-.SJ~ .... · '.~1-i·, ~ jw. t:~:§.:i· t•,, I~ \..,:-~·,, • • , ; • •• r ~,,,_ • !8"Pi D · ' .,. :..,-r(Tll-' ... ~~-·-d . , -,_Mercer lslan".J"L =: 1 . •, . ·, ..... _ -'.~:!.?;. -~-~-.. ?rr.~_J~· .. ! -~;p~_.i_~·· 1 ; .• ,--•• "J!•,.° o:· ··~, . \ I /1 ~; 1 ·+j : ,'::o_,_:J i :,:.·,-·, · · .. r_,-a: . t<. . ~ ... ' Figure 1. Project ,rea location. 2 r --.. Shoreline 0 N Base Map from USGS Bellevue South, Washington, 1983. Miles 0.5 t N #1 D 0 1000 Feet Pro1ect Area Boundaries Figure 2. Project area map showing individual properties and shovel probe locations. 3 G { \ \ ·I I . I JAG Development Cultural Resource Assessment ENVIRONMENT The proposed JAG Development project area is on the eastern shore of Lake Washington in a small valley where May Creek enters the lake. Prior to historic manipulation of the channel, May Creek dropped from a narrow meandering stream in upland locations to a braided stream at the mouth which formed a delta. Historic and modern maps of the area show that the mouth of May Creek naturally moved over time but was also altered to its present course by 1940 (Figure 3) (Kroll Map Company 1940). Most of the proposed JAG Development project area was probably inundated or subject to periodic flooding prior to the completion of the Lake Washington Ship Canal in 1916 (Chrzastowski 1983). The mean water level of Lake Washington was almost nine feet higher than its current level before the Lake Washipgton Ship Canal was built (Chrzastowski 1983:3). The mean water level of the lake probably fluctuated as much as seven feet, however, due to seasonal and periodic fluctuation in rainfall prior to completion of the Lake Washington Ship Canal (Chrzastowski 1983:3). An article in the Town Crier (1917) describes archaeological and botanical remains along the shoreline of Lake Washington at lhe mouth of May Creek after the Lake Washington Ship Canal was completed and the water [evel had dropped. This corroborates Chrzastowski's (1983) statement regarding the lake's fluctuation long before the Lake Washington Ship Canal was built. Periodic advance and retreat of glaciers over the last 37,000 years is largely responsible for the topography and soils present in the Puget Sound basin. The glacial event responsible for the current topography of the Seattle area was tbe Vashon Stade of the Fraser Glaciation (Mullineaux 1970:27). The Vashon glacier originated in British Columbia and brought rocks and minerals typical of that area southward into the Puget Sound area (Mullineaux 1970:27) The Vashon glacier began a retreat approximately 1'4000 BP (years before present) and allowed marine waters into Puget Sound (Crandell 1963). The glacier had fully retreated approximately 13000 BP leaving deposits collectively known as the Vashon Drift (Galster and Laprade 1991:252). Lake Washington is one of several glacially scoured lakes in the Seattle area (Galster and Laprade 1991:247). The Lake Washington vicinity was a glacially scoured trough prior to 14000 BP. Marine water filled what was to become Lake Washington as the Vashon Stade retreated northward around 13500 BP. The Cedar River deposited an alluvial fan across the south end of the marine embayment to fonn Lake Washington by 13400 BP (Dragovich et al. 1994; Leopold et al. 1982; Mu!lineax 1970). The shoreline of Lake Washington also fluctuated several times over the past 7,000 years because of earthquakes (Karlin and Abella 1992, 1993). Large earthquakes triggered underwater slumping on steep submerged trough walls and landslides on shoreline bluffs. Over 14 earthquake events were identified in cores from the lake bottom (Karlin and Abella 1992, 1993). The sediment record coincides with dates obtained from submerged forests that slid into the lake as pan of landslide debris. A forest that slid into Lake Washington during an 1100 BP earthquake along the Seattle Fault, is off the southeast corner of Mercer Island, just west of the proposed JAG Development project area. The landslides and underwater slumping 4 -• , -Shoreline Boundary (United States Surveyof General 1864) ---May Creek {United States Surveyor General 1864} ·••·•··•·••••• Trail (United States Surveyor General 1864} -·-·-Shoreline Boundary (United States Army Corps of Engineers 1920) -----May Creek (United States Army Corps of Engineers 1920) --• Former Railroad / / ' I '~;:,1 ! ..,; I I/ ' ' ! ,· ' Marsh rn 1920 j/ .. • • ' ' . /) . j .~ \ I ~:..-~ • } I ~\~ !J ) · ...... Figure 3. Historic features, shoreline changes, and former beds of May Creek in proposed JAG Development Project vicinity. 5 ( ! .I ·, JAG Development Cultural Resource Assessment caused large amplitude changes in the lake level (Karlin and Abella 1992: 1619). Sudden landslides coupled with ground subsidence from an earthquake probably produced large waves that scoured the Lake Washington shoreline, causing additional landslides and depositing sediment. Large waves and earthquake-induced elevation changes in ground surface elevations probably modified the outfall of Lake Washington at the Black River, south of the proposed JAG Development project area. The proposed JAG Development project area is approximately three miles south of the Seattle Fault and would have been uplifted during an earthquake about l, 100 years ago. The geological history of the proposed JAG Development project area is complex. Changing ground surface elevations and fluctuating levels of Lake Washington caused the project area to be exposed above the Lake Washington shoreline, washed by waves, and/or inundated by rising lake levels. Hunter-fisher-gatherer sites in the area were alternately raised and/or inundated. Cultural deposits were probably covered by landslide debris and/or silt during periods of submergence. The contemporary ground surface of the project area is probably at a higher elevation than prior to 1,100 years ago, when the area was uplifted during an earthquake. This suggests that pre-1100 BP shorelines may exist inland from the contemporary shoreline in the eastern portion of the project area. Pre-llOO BP hunter-fisher- gatherer occupations may occur in the eastern portion of the ·project area and may be buried beneath landslide debris or alluvial deposits. Prior to European contact, the Puget Sound basin was home to animals typical of the Pacific Northwest inland forest environment such as deer (Odocoileus spp.), elk (Cervus canadensis), black bear (Ursus americanus), coyote (Canis latrans), fox (Vulpes), mountain lion {Fe/is concolor), bobcat (Lynx rufus), raccoon (Procyon locor), mink (Mustela vison), river otter (J,urra canadensis), beaver (Castor canadensis), and muskrat (Ondatra ziethica). Various species of salmon were also abundant in the Puget Sound basin and were a large part of the diet of native inhabitants of the region. The Puget Sound basin is part of the Western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) physiographic zone. The overstory vegetation includes Douglas fir, big!eaf maple, Western red cedar and red alder. Understory vegetation of particular importance to the native inhabitants of the Puget Sound area included a variety of berries such as salmonberry, blackberry, strawberry, and red elderberry, camas and other lilies, ferns, and numerous other plants used for economic purposes (Gunther 1981). CULTURAL BACKGROUND PREVIOUS CULTURAL RESOURCE STUDIES Most of the property on Lake Washington has been privately owned for several decades, consequently, few archaeological studies have been conducted along the lake. An archaeological site has never been recorded on Lake Washington despite rnany references to Duwamish villages along the shores of the lake in historical documents (Harrington ca. 1909; 6 JAG Development Cultural Resource Assessment Waterman ca. 1920). Residential and cormnercial development of the Renton area has prompted several archaeological projects, however, and the data from those surveys and excavations offers evidence of the nature of hunter-fisher-gatherer archaeological sites in the region. The Sbabidid Site (45KI51) is on the west side of Hardie Avenue SW in Renton along a remnant channel of the Black River and was recorded by the Office of Public Archaeology (OPA), University of Washington, as part of a survey for the Earlington Woods Planned Unit Development (Chatters 1981:1). The site contained the remains of at least three structures and midden deposits which dated from AD 1790 to AD 1856 although radiocarbon dates were not obtained for several portions of the site (Ct)atters 1981:1). Archaeological deposits were buried approximately one meter below the surface and backhoe trenches were excavated to help determine the depth of buried deposits (Chatters 1981 :31). The precise nature of the site has been disputed (Butler 1990), but it appers that the site was either a Duwamish village or a fishing camp. Subsequent monitoring by Reid (1991:22) during the construction of the Earlington Woods Development revealed the presence of seven additional midden areas at the Sbabidid Site. The Ozbolt property, adjacent and north of the Sbabidid Site, was surveyed by LAAS in 1988 but no cultural resources were identified despite site maps for the Sbabidid site that suggest midden deposits were recorded on this property (Larson 1988:1,13). The survey was conducted using surface reconnaissance and shovel testing and Larson (1988: 1,13) attributed the absence of cultural materials identified during this survey to their probable depth below the fill. BOAS conducted a cultural resource assessment of the Ozbolt property in 1990 and produced a letter report that indicated the presence of a possible burial on the property (Stump 1990: 1). Trade beads, buttons, twisted cedar thread, a fragment of cloth, fragments of woven cedar bark, cedar wood, and a human bone fragment were identified in a subsurface survey of the property (Stump 1990:1). LAAS later surveyed the Ozbolt property for a proposed apartment complex and relocated the northernmost midden deposits identified by Chatters (1981) and additional midden deposits in the eastern portion of the property (Lewarch et al. 1996:16). The Tualdad Altu Site (45KI59) was recorded by OPA in 1980 when archaeologists surveyed the planned development of the Black River Corporate Park located downstream from the Sbabidid Site on the former Black River (Chatters 1988:2). Chatters (1988:50) believed the site was occupied approximately 1600 BP (before present) but corrected radiocarbon dates for the Tualdad Altu Site suggest that the site was occupied approximately 1400 BP (Lewarch et al. 1996:3-5). The Tualdad Altu Site is buried below more than one meter of sterile alluvium (Chatters 1988:37, 47). Chatters (1988:134) believed that the pattern of artifacts, hearths, and midden deposits at the Tualdad Altu Site represented a similar way of life to that of the occupants of the Sbabidid Site despite approximately 1600 years between occupations. 45KI439 was recorded by LAAS in 1994 and is approximately 200 feet east of the Sbabidid Site on the east side of Hardie Avenue SW in Renton (Lewarch et al. 1994:Appendix 2). The site was identified in backhoe trenches and is approximately one meter below the surface (Lewarch 1994:1). Four hearths containing fire modified rock, midden deposits three to eight 7 ' ·.' ' I ., JAG Development Cultural Resource Assessment centimeters thick, calcined bone, charcoal, and historic period midden deposits were identified in tli.ree trenches (Lewarch 1994:7). The site was identified in association with archaeological montioring of the proposed location of a Fred Meyer Corporation store (Lewarch 1994: 1). The site is deeper than proposed construction would have taken place so no impacts to the site were expected and no further evaluation of the site was undertaken (Lewarch 1994: 10). The Marymoor Site ( 45KI9) is on the Sammamish River one half mile from its source at the north end of Lake Sammamish (Greengo 1966:6). The Sammamish River and Lake Sammamish were occupied by the Sammamish band of the Duwamish (Greengo 1966:2). The Marymoor Site was excavated by Robert Greengo (1966) and students from the University of Washington in 1964 (Greengo 1966:vi). The site contained numerous !ithic tools recovered from two layers of midden deposits. A Cascade Phase lithic assemblage with leaf-shaped Cascade points, large stemmed points, and basalt cobble tools was mixed with later cultural materials such as small projectile points. Two radiocarbon dates from the site had corrected age ranges between 1648 and 2741 BP (Lewarch et al. 1995:Table 1.2). Site deposits were probably mixed during one or more earthquake events that liquefied sand beneath cultural strata and forced the sand through cracks to the ground surface (Lewarch et al. 1995: 1-23). Marymoor occupations probably date between 3500 BP and [000 BP based on stratigraphy, radiocarbon dates, and diagnostic artifacts (Lewarch et al. 1995:1-23). The Marymoor Site may have been a hunting camp whose inhabitants also lived along the shore of Lake Washington at other times of the year (Forsman and Larson 1995:7). Other archaeological surveys have been conducted near the proposed JAG Development project area that failed to identify archaeological sites. OPA conducted a survey of an extension of sanitary sewers along May Creek which tenninated at May Creek's intersection with Interstate 405. No archaeological remains were identified but Lorenz (1976: 1) noted that an etbnohistoric village was reported at the mouth of May Creek. Archaeological and Historic Services (AHS), Eastern Washington University, conducted a pedestrian survey of State Road 900 in the upper May Creek Valley but no archaeological resources were idemified (Robinson 1990: 1). AHS conducted two surveys for highway development along Interstate 405 in the Bellevue area but determined that prior disturbance due to original highway construction had significantly disturbed native soils and no intact archaeological deposits would be encountered (Robinson 1982a, 1982b). ABS also conducted a survey of a proposed park and ride lot in northeast Renton approximately . 7 miles southwest of May Creek but no archaeological resources were identified (Robinson 1983:3). The Sbabidid Site, the Tualdad Altu Site, and 45KI439 are within five miles of the proposed JAG Development project area and were probably occupied by the Duwamish. Sites such as these and the May Creek village location, Sbal't", were identified by Harrington (ca. 1909) and Waterman (ca. 1920) along the shores of Lake Washington and in upland locations in several places. Archaeological features and artifacts such as those found at the Sbabidid Site, the Tuladad Altu site, 45KI439, and the Marymoor Site may also be present within the proposed JAG Development project area and may be deeply buried below the surface. 8 . I JAG Development Cultural Resource Assessment ETHNOGRAPHY The proposed JAG Development project area is within the territory of the Duwamish, a Salish- speaking group who lived in the general vicinity of Seattle. The Duwamish lived in a series of villages, loosely allied through kinship and political alliances, that consisted of individual or multiple cedar longhouses on Elliott Bay, Lake Washington, Lake Union, Salmon Bay, and on the Duwamish, Green (formerly White), and Cedar Rivers (Duwamish et al. 1933; Harrington ca. 1909; Larson 1986; Waterman ca. 1920). The Duwamish, who were named for a group that lived on the Cedar River known as the Dua'bs, prospered by efficiently procuring food resources from the rivers, lakes, and marine waters within their territory. The Duwamish were primarily dependent on salmon for food and seasonally harvested and processed various salmon species as the fish returned to local bays, lakes, streams, and rivers during spawning migrations. Salmon were harvested in these waters with nets, weirs, traps, hook and line, seines and spears. Some of the salmon were consumed fresh, but most were dried in .smokehouses for winter storage or trade. Other marine fishes such as trout, flounder, octopus, and cod were taken for similar pui:poses. Lake Washington hosted an especially abundant variety of freshwater, non-salmonid species including chub, squawfish, bass, perch and suckers, Shellfish, such as clams, mussels, and crabs, were also taken from local Puget Sound shorelines; and freshwater mussels were gathered from lakes and streams, Waterfowl were snared in aerial duck nets or hunted from canoes, Plant resources, especially berries and roots, were harvested in the warmer months and processed for winter consumption, Wapato and camas were two important plant resources used by the local native groups living on or visiting Lake Washington (Indian Claims Commission 1955:16, 25; Lewarch et al. 1996;3.16). Wapato is a potato-like tuber that grows in flooded areas and camas is a lily-like flowering bulb that grows in prairie environments. A visitor to Lake Washington witnessed Duwamish canoers catTying strings of dried clams and cakes made from roots while he was transported across Lake Washington in 1871 (Cawley 1994:3). This observation demonstrates the accuracy of later ethnographic research and shows the tenacity of local native culture several decades after initial contact with non-Indians. The Duwamish focused their late summer and fall seasonal food gathering and preservation activities towards support of their extended residence in the winter houses, Winter ceremonials, social events, repair and maintenance of fishing equipment, and leisure were the main activities reserved for the winter season. Several of the winter settlements on Lake Washington were inhabited by people that spoke the Duwamish language and intermarried with the neighboring Duwamish villages. Despite the cultural similarities this group maintained a separate identity from their Duwamish kin and neighbors (Smith 1940: 16) and have been collectively referred to as: the S'Ke'tehl'mish, meaning people of the Skatelbs village near the former outlet of Lake Washington at its southerly end (Gibbs 1877; Larson 1986); the Xa'tco'abc meaning "Lake Washington Indians" (Ballard 1929:38; Harrington ca. 1909:Frame 314; Smith 1940:17); or simply the Lake Indians (Paige 1856b). The Duwamish 9 JAG Development Cultural Resource Assessment of Lake Washington lived in winter houses at Kirkland, Juanita, Yarrow Point, Mercer Slough, Union Bay, Thornton Creek, Bryn Mawr, May Creek and McAleer Creek (Duwamish et al. 1933; Harrington ca. 1909:314, 421; Larson 1986:31-37; Waterman ca. 1920). The original shoreline of Lake Washington and the original mouth of May Creek are within the proposed JAG Development project area (United States Surveyor General 1864). May Creek was known to the Duwamish of Lake Washington as Sbal't' meaning "place where things are dried" (Waterman 1922:191). The name referred to the "great quantities of redfish" that were harvested at a point of land which was the mouth of May Creek (Waterman 1922: 191). "Redfish" were the run of sockeye salmon that were taken here each year. It is unclear if the "redfish" noted by Waterman (1922: 191) are the resident "lake salmon" recorded by Smith (1940:236) or a "select race" of sockeye salmon that migrated to outside marine waters (Williams et al. 1975:8.601). May Creek was the site of a Duwamish village consisting of "two medium houses" known as Shub-alugh each measuring "8 by 16 fathoms" (48 feet by 96 feet) (Duwamish et al. 1933). This name, which is an anglicized approximation of the term Sbal't' recorded by Waterman (1922:191), originates from testimony given by Duwamish informants for the Indian Claims Commission in 1927 (Duwamish et al. 1933). Harrington (ca. 1909:Frame 421) recorded a group of Duwamish called the Subaltuabs, who took their name from May Creek, an obvious reference to the people who lived in the May Creek village. The Subaltuabs probably caught the sockeye and the smaller resident salmon using a combination of traps, weirs, and dipnets. The marine run of sockeye salmon were probably smoked in the customary way, either in a cedar planked smokehouse or dried on racks using a combination of sunlight and a small, smoky fire (Smith 1940:238). "Lake salmon" spawned in the small drainages of Lake Washington, such as May Creek (Smith 1940:236). They were cleaned with the backbone left in, smoked and stored for later use. The Subaltuabs of May Creek had strong contacts with the neighboring villages of Skatelbs, Tuwe'b-qo and the other Duwamish villages at the confluence of the Black and Cedar Rivers. This connection is also suggested by a historic trail from the Black River to the mouth of May Creek, documented by U.S. territorial government surveyors in 1864 and 1865 (Figure 3) (United States Surveyor General 1864, 1865). The largest concentration of Duwamish villages was on the Black and Cedar Rivers, giving the May Creek villagers incentive to maintain the trail as an overland route between villages for economic and social purposes. The trail was also part of a system that included the trail over Naches Pass used by the Klickitat and other plateau groups for trade missions with the Duwamish and other Puget Sound groups. The Puget Sound groups also used the trail to gain access to upland hunting and berrying grounds (Prater 1981:9-11). The Subaltuabs lived at their homes on May Creek continuously until events related to the increased Euroamerican settlement of the Seattle area began to affect aboriginal settlement patterns. Introduced diseases, such as smallpox, were the first effects of non-native contact felt by the Duwamish. In addition, settlers began to occupy gathering sites and fishing places, 10 JAG Development Cultural Resource Assessment causing the Duwamish great concern about the increasing population of non-natives in their territory (Lewarch et al. 1996:5.162). The United States Government attempted to address their fears by negotiating treaties with the Duwamish and other Puget Sound tribes in 1855. The Treaty of Point Etliot was srgned in January of 1855 by Chief Seattle for the Suquamish and Duwamish Tribes (Lane 1975:22-23). Original surveys of the area record the village on the Black River but fail to note any houses on May Creek (United States Surveyor General 1864, 1865). The absence of houses at May Creek in the 1860s suggests that the Subaltuabs had moved from their wimer village and perhaps resettled at other Duwamish villages or on nearby reservations such as the Muckleshoot or Port Madison Indian Reservations. The Subaltuabs and the other "Lake Indians." were considered part of the larger Duwarnish Tribe by the United States Government. The Treaty assigned the Duwamish to live on the Port Madison Indian Reservation on the Kitsap Peninsula, far from their aboriginal territory. Some Duwamish moved to the Port Madison Indian Reservation while others found the notion of living in Suquamish territory unsatisfactory and stayed in their homes on the Cedar and Black Rivers. The treaty terms and occupation of usual and accustomed fishing and gathering places motivated some of the more aggressive tribal groups to engage in skirmishes with regular army troops and volunteers. These were called the Indian War of 1855-56 .. Federal officials were fearful that the Duwamish would engage in hostile activities. They were especially concerned about the Duwamish on Lake Washington, because they had marital and trade ties to the plateau groups like the Yakama, who maintained a strong stance against the military. Indian agency officials attempted to restrain the Duwamish from joining the conflict through removal to a temporary reservation in Seattle and by monitoring their movements. It appears that the Subaltuabs remained at or near their village at May Creek for several months after the Indian War ended according to the local Indian Agent in his December 1856 letters. He stated that ''on the eastern shore of the Lake there are three large houses containing 38 persons" (Paige 1856a) and "the band of Lake Indians are encamped on the east side of the Lake near the South end" (Paige 1856b). Most of the Subaltuabs and the other "Lake Indians" eventually moved to either the Port Madison or Muckleshoot Indian Reservations with other Duwamish people. Relocation to the reservations was probably complete by 1930, after it became obvious to the remaining Duwamish that a reservation was not going to be established for their exclusive use. Today, the Muckleshoot Tribe exercises Treaty fishing rights in Lake Washington as successors to the aboriginal rights of the "Lake Indians" and other Duwamish groups. The types of hunter-fisher-gatherer resources expected in the JAG Development project area would primarily relate to food gathering activities and permanent winter settlement. Remnants of weirs, traps, smokehouses, and drying racks built for harvesting the annual sockeye runs may be preserved beneath the ground surface. Middens and fire hearths from fish processing and consumption of marine and freshwater resources may also be present. The project area may also contain house posts, post molds, depressions and other remnants of former winter l l ,i ' JAG Development Cultural Resource Assessment houses. Projectile points, scrapers, debitage, and adze blades related to hunting and processing land game, fish processing, and winter house maintenance and construction may also be expected. HISTORY Isaac Ebey was the first non-native to observe Lake Washington while he ascended the Duwamish River in 1850, in search of a homestead (Bagley 1929:1:27). After following the Black River into Lake Washington, Ebey described the lake as "surrounded principally with woodland, consisting of cedar, fir, ash, oak, etc...the water is clear and very deep" (Bagley 1929: 1 :27). Ebey named the body of water Lake Geneva, a short-lived appellation (McDonald 1979:15-19). -Lake Washington was permanently renamed Lake Washington in 1854 (McDonald 1979: 15-19). Lake Washington was also known as Lake Dawamish (sic) in early United States territorial surveys (United States Surveyor General 1864, 1865). Ebey may have passed May Creek, called Honeydew Creek in the 1860s (United States Surveyor General 1864), during his investigation of Lake Washington. The proposed JAG Development project area was first settled by James Madison Colman in 1875 (Bagley 1929:1:413: Fawcett 1979). Colman, who is also listed as James Manning Colman by a local historian (McDonald 1979:75), should not be confused with James Murray Colman, who was a prominent Seattle sawmill operator, railroad financier and coal mine developer. James Murray Colman originally came to Puget Sound in 1861 to operate the Port Madison Mill (Bagley 1929:2:48-55). James Murray Colman was very active in the development of the Columbia and Puget Sound Railroad, a line that went from Seattle to the Newcastle coal mines 2.2 miles east of the project area. The historical occurrence of two J. M. Colmans in close proximity to each other has caused the men to be mistakenly identified. The J. M. Colman of May Creek will be referred to as J. Madison Colman to avoid further confusion. J. Madison Colman, who was born in Kentucky, came to Seattle from his home in Georgia by ship with his wife Clarissa in approximately 1875 (Fawcett 1979; McDonald 1979:75). Shortly after his arrival, J. Madison Colman acquired a 160-acre parcel of land bisected by May Creek, formerly the homestead of Jeremiah Sullivan, who, in turn, had acquired the property from the United States Government in 1873 (Remediation Technologies, Incorporated 1996: 1.1). He cleared one acre of his property and built a house where he lived with his wife and four children (McDonald 1979:75-77). J. Madison Colman was elected to a position as King County Commissioner in 1880 and 1882 (McDonald 1979:77). He was murdered in 1886 while rowing to Seattle to testify in a land claim dispute. The suspect in the murder was a neighbor that Colman had accused of illegally obtaining title to his lands. The suspect was tried three times and finally convicted, however, his sentence was later overturned (Bagley 1929:1:413-414; McDonald [979:77-78). Coleman Point at Kennydale, approximately one- half mile south of the project area, was named for J. Madison Colman (McDonald 1979:75). 12 i JAG Development Cultural Resource Assessment J. Madison Colman's widow, Clarissa, maintained ownership of the homestead after his death but the property remained unused for several years. Lands near the northern boundary of the project area were used for access to coal fields in the Newcastle Hills. The 1864 survey of the area in which the JAG Development project area is located shows an unfinished wagon road one-quarter mile northeast of the project boundary. The road runs east to west from the shoreline of Lake Washington parallel to the northern boundary, but is entirely outside the project area. This road was built to haul coal to Lake Washington from Newcastle for shipment to Seattle (Bagley 1929:1:285; United States Surveyor General 1864). In 1902, the timber on the Colman property, which still encompassed the entire project area, was sold (Remediation Technologies, Incorporated 1996:1.1). A year later, the Northern Pacific Railroad acquired a right-of-way through the Colman property for construction of a railroad spur along the eastern shore 0f Lake Washington that connected Woodinville and Renton. The Lake Washington Belt Line Railroad had attempted to build the same spur in 1890, but this railroad was only partially completed (McDonald 1979:53). The Lake Washington Belt Line Railroad was intended to unite iron ore from the Cascades with coal from near the Carbon River for processing purposes. The railroad route along the eastern shore was later built by the Northern Pacific Company around 1905 (O'Hare 1905; Slauson 1976:182; Way 1989:37- 38) with five stations along Lake Washington: Kirkland, Houghton, Northrup, Wilburton, and May Creek (Scott and Turbeville 1983:53). The Colman family began selling parts of their 160-acre homestead after 1908. In 1916. Peter Reilly purchased a waterfront portiou of the original Colman property (Remediation Technologies, Incorporated 1996: 1.1). This parcel of land became the Quendall Terminals Property where Reilly established the Republic Creosote Company in 1917; later, the company was known as the Reilly Tar and Chemical Corporation (McDonald 1979:78; Remediation -------~T-ec_h_n_o-lo_gi_·-es-,~l-nc_o_rp-or_a_te_d_1=99=6~:=3-.1-)-. ~L-ak-e~w=-as_h_in_g_t_o_n_w_as_l_o_w_e-re-d~j-u-st_a_·=fe_w_m_o_n_th_s_a_ft_e_r ____ _ Reilly purchased his parcel when the Lake Washington Ship Canal and the Hiram Chittenden Locks were constructed in the sununer of 1916. The project was initiated to provide improved navigation to Puget Sound, to help control flooding, and to provide moorage for Naval ships (Ballard News Tribune 1988:88; Chrzastowski 1983:7). Lowering Lake Washington's water level expanded Reilly's holdings to over 29 acres (Kroll Map Company 1926). The Quendall area received its name from a mistaken creosote order from England addressed to a plant at Port Quendall and a variation of the name is still used on modern maps and by current owners (McDonald 1979:78). The Reilly Tar Company used the tar by-products generated by the Lake Union Gas Works to produce creosote and other refined products (McDonald 1979:78; Remediation Technologies, Incorporated 1996:3.2). The plant was operational from 1917 to 1969. Another parcel of the Colman property, which was eventually owned by the Baxter Company, was sold in approximately 1914 for establishment of a shingle production facility (Remediation Technologies, Incorporated 1996:4. 1). The property was owned by Sound Timber Company in 1926 which owned and operated the shingle mill (Kroll Map Company 1926). The shingle mill was just outside the project area and was demolished between 1936 and 1946 (Remediation Technologies, Incorporated 1996:4.1). The remaining property was owned by 13 . i 1 ., . ! JAG Development Cultural Resource Assessment Peter Reilly and two other individuals, a Mr. Falk and Emil Gaupholm, who built residences on the property, according to Remediation Technologies, Incorporated (1996:2. 1). The property was owned by J. B. Polk in.1936 (Metsker 1936) but was sold to Mr. Rydeen by 1940 (Kroll Map Company 1940). The property may l1ave changed hands many times over the years or county ·atlases were not frequently or reliably updated resulting in the contradictions between thle records and coumy atlases. The property was finally leased to the Baxter Company in 1955 which established a wood treatment facility where logs were debarked and treated for use for telephone poles and pilings (McDonald 1979:78; Remediation Technologies, Incorporated 1996:4.2). A few years later the Baxter Company purchased the property. The majority of facility operations has recently been transferred to another site in Arlington, Washington. The last parcel of the Colman property within the proposed JAG Development project area was held by the Colman family through 1940. From 1926 to 1936 the land was owned by James Colman, possibly one of J. Madison Colman's descendants, or the name is a reflection of the persistence of the deceased Colman's name in land records (Kroll Map Company 1926). In 1940, the land was owned by George Lathrop Coleman (sic), a son of J. Madison Colman (Fawcett 1979). The land was sold by the Colmans to the B.arbee Marine Yards in 1943, a company that built ships for the military during World War II (Remediation Technologies, Incorporated 1996:2.2). A sawmill was built on-site to process wood for shipbuilding. After the war ended, the Barbee Mill abandoned shipbuilding and concentrated on sawmill operations.· The Barbee Mill is in operation today. Most of the remaining lands around the project area were sold by the Colmans to C. D. Hillman, a real estate developer who established the Garden of Eden tracts in the early 1900s. The Garden of Eden tracts were the stimulus for the development of Kennydale, named for Hillman's brother-in-law and best salesperson (Kroll Map Company 1926; McDonald· 1979:78; Slauson 1976:180-181). Hillman's development attracted several families which established homes and small farms. Many others were employed in logging local timber that was transported to Lake Washington on the May Creek Lumber Company's log railroad along May Creek (Slauson 1976:180-181). The first road along the lake shore was built in 1918 and is now known as Lake Washington Boulevard (Slauson 1976: 181). Interstate 405 was completed in the early 1960s as part of the expanding interstate highway network. Historic archaeological resources which may be expected in the JAG Development project area would be associated with early residential and industrial development. Types of resources would be structural remnants of early creosote refinery-structures and equipment, remains of the first Northern Pacific Railway tracks, evidence of the May Creek Lumber Company's logging railroad, and/or other early sawmill activity. Indications of these occupations would be railroad timbers and trackage, historic refuse, machinery parts and components, and roadbeds. Evidence of early residential development would be indicated by house foundations, root cellars, structural remnants, and historic artifact assemblages . 14 JAG Development Cultural Resource Assessment FIELD RECONNAISSANCE FIELD METHODS The proposed JAG Development properties are currently developed as the Barbee Mill, Port Quendall Log Yard, the Baxter Property, and the Pan Abode Cedar Homes Property. The Baxter Property is divided into two parcels; one of the parcels contains two areas. The North Baxter Property includes the northern end of the Baxter Property and a small wedge of property east of Ripley Lane (Hazelwood Lane) and west of Interstate 405 called the North Baxter Property East Wedge (Figure 2). The South Baxter Property contains the area where the Baxter Wood Treating facility was located (Figure 2). These properties were historically occupied and recently modified to such an extent that few surfaces or exposures of native soil were available throughout the proposed JAG Development site for field investigation. The Pan Abode Cedar Homes Property and the Barbee Mill Properties are paved with asphalt and subsurface investigation was only possible at the extreme margins of the properties. The Baxter Property is currently undeveloped but the southern portion of the property was a wood treating plant between 1955 and the early 1960s (Remediation Technologies, Incorporated 1996:4-2). Contamination of the soil on the South Baxter Property from creosote forbade subsurface archaeological investigation (Mike Paulson, personal communication 1997). Creosote and other chemicals were manufactured on the Port Quendall Property between the late 1910s and late 1960s and could not be shovel-probed due to contamination of the soil (Remediation Technologies, Incorporated 1996:3-5: Mike Paulson, personal communication 1997). The North Baxter Property and the North Baxter Property East Wedge were the only large parcels that were available for subsurface investigation. The field reconnaissance was conducted by LAAS archaeologist Bradley Bowden on March 4, 5, and 7, 1997. Joe Gibbons and Mike Paulson of Remediation Technologies, Incorporated, monitored Bradley Bowden's movements throughout the project area to insure that no potentially hazardous materials were encountered during the field reconnaissance. Joe Gibbons monitored fieldwork on March 4, between 8:30 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. and on March 5, between 8:00 a.m. and 2:30 p.m., and Mike Paulson monitored fieldwork on March 4, between 10:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. and on March 7, between 8:30 a.m. and 2:30_ p.m. Shovel probes were placed in areas of the proposed JAG Development parcels that appeared to exhibit minimal disturbance based on historic maps and information relating to the previous and current use of the properties. Reconnaissance was focused primarily on the eastern portion of the JAG Development project area because most of the western portion of the properties was under water prior to the construction of the Lake Washington Ship Canal and becanse no soil contamination was in these areas. Shovel probes were approximately 35 centimeters in diameter and were an average of 80 centimeters deep. Two shovel probes were excavated to depths below one meter and two shovel probes were terminated between 20 and 30 centimeters below the surface because large cobbles related to fill episodes were encountered. The shoveled portion of the probes was 15 .J . I I , I ' JAG Development Cultural Resource Assessment terminated at approximately 65 centimeters below the surface and a five and one quarter-inch (13 centimeter) diameter auger was used to complete the probe. All sediments excavated in the shovel probes were passed through 1/4" and 1/8" screen. Field notes, photograph records, and photographs are stored in LAAS project files. FJELD RESULTS One cobble-sized, possibly fire modified rock (FMR), was identified in Shovel Probe #9 on the Pan Abode Cedar Homes Property (Figure 2). This rock was recovered in pebble-sized stream deposits and may have been broken naturally. The possible FMR was recovered from soils buried 90 to 100 centimeters below the.surface. No other cultural materials were identified in Shovel Probe #9. Shovel Probe #12, at the southeast corner of the Port Quendall Log Yard, contained small charcoal deposits within the soil at a depth of 90 to 100 centimeters that may have been related to human activities in the area. No other cultural materials or archaeological sites were identified during the field reconnaissance. Fill was encountered in all but two of the shovel probes and was between 30 and 90 centimeters in depth. The most shallow fill episodes were noted in the eastern portion of the North Baxter Property near the railroad tracks. The deepest fill episode was in the southeastern portion of the Port Quendall Log Yard, near the old channel of May Creek. Four of the 12 shovel probes were terminated because the fill was impenetrable. Approximately 10 percent of the proposed JAG Development Project area was shovel-probed for buried archaeological deposits. The remaining 90 percent of the project area was not field assessed because access to buried deposits was not possible. The Barbee Mill and the Pan Abode Cedar Homes Properties were mostly paved with asphalt or contained existing strucmres. Three shovel probes were successfully excavated in these areas, comprising 27 acres of the 60-acre JAG Development Project area. The Port Quendall Log Yard and the South Baxter Property were identified as having hazardous and dangerous materials on and below ground surface by Remediation Technologies, Incorporated (Mark Larsen, personal communication 1997). Access to the majority of these properties was not possible due to contamination of soils below the surface. One shovel probe was excavated at the extreme southeast corner of the Port Quendall Log Yard within one meter of a Remediation Technologies, Incorporated, soil probe that was free of contaminants (Mike Paulson, personal communication 1997). The Port Quendail Log Yard Property and the South Baxter Property comprise 20 acres of the 60-acre JAG Development project area. The North Baxter Property is divided into two parcels; the larger is adjacent to the South Baxter Property and is 19 acres in area. Three of four shovel probes in this parcel encountered impenetrable fill and were terminated before native soils could be observed. The smaller North Baxter Property is the North Baxter Property East Wedge, a one-acre wedge-shaped parcel east of Ripley (Hazelwood) Lane _and west of Interstate 405 (Figure 2). Three shovel probes were excavated in this area and native soils were encountered in all three shovel probes. 16 I JAG Development Cultural Resource Assessment Soils that appeared to be native and undisrurbed ranged from sand to loam and contained abundant waterwom pebbles and cobbles. The soil identified in shovel probes in the eastern portion of the project area tended to be a mixture of sandy loam and sandy silts and contained moderate amoums of pebbles and small cobbles. These soils appeared to be remnant alluvial deposits from flooding and movement of May Creek. Soils in the western portion of the proposed JAG Development project area tended to be fine to coarse sands with abundant waterworn pebbles and cobbles. These deposits were suggestive of beach deposits associated with the changing shoreline of Lake Washington. CONCLUSIONS A.ND RECOMMENDATIONS No cultural resources eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places were identified in the proposed JAG Development project area during archival review or field reconnaissance. Literature review indicated that the mouth of May Creek was in the Port Quendall Log Yard portion of the proposed JAG Development Project area prior to modern channelization. Waterman (ca. 1920) identified the Duwamish site Sbal't" at this location, a village with two winter houses known as a good place for fishing and drying redfish (sockeye or kokanee salmon). The village was recorded by two anthropologists shortly after the turn of the century and was occupied at least until the Treaty of Point Elliot was signed in 1855. No Duwamish ·village occupations or any type of archaeological sites have been recorded on Lake Washington. Environmental factors and the location of archaeological sites south of Lake Washington on the old Black River channel suggest that archaeological remains are probably extant under fill and or pavement associated with the proposed JAG Development. However, field reconnaissance of the proposed JAG Development proiect area was [1m1ted by modern and historic changes to the area, including fill episodes, asphalt and concrete paving, and potentially hazardous materials on and below the ground surface. Lake fluctuations from earthquakes and historic modifications have alternately submerged and uplifted the Lake Washington shoreline, burying and/ or eroding hunter-fisher-gatherer deposits over time. In addition, the mouth of May Creek has moved across the landscape leaving alluvial deposits or scouring earlier surfaces. Predicting the location of high probability areas for cultural resources becomes a challenge. Nevertheless, it is entirely likely that archaeological remains are extant on the proposed JAG Development project area. MONITORING Monitoring for archaeological materials is recommended in all future subsurface activities in high probability areas within the proposed JAG Development project area. Monitoring should be included in any future activities relating to the cleanup of the potentially hazardous materials in high probability areas of the project area as well as during any construction activities related to the proposed JAG Development. High probabilit,'. areas are those that are most likely to contain archaeological deposits (Figure 4). A professional archaeologist should be on-site to monitor any subsurface activities to insure that no intact archaeological materials 17 ' I -I ·J . ·! I . i '! ! i ) i N 0 I 1000 Feet Project Area Boundaries -Shoreline .' ··~ ..... Figure 4. Recommended monitoring areas in the JAG Development project area. 18 ·i ' JAG Development Cultural Resource Assessment or features are adversely affected during such activities. If any archaeological materials or features are identified during monitoring of subsurface activities, the activity should be halted immediately in areas large enough to maintain the integrity of the remains to allow the archaeologist to determine the integrity and significance of the materials and/ or features. If the archaeologist determines that a probably significant archaeological site is present, a testing strategy for evaluation should be developed through consultation with the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and the Muckleshoot Tribe. If human remains are identified during subsurface activities, construction must halt in an area large enough to maintain integrity of the remains and the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and the Muckleshoot Tribe contacted immediately. HIGH PROBABILITY AREAS Areas that are most likely to contain archaeological deposits within the JAG Development project area are those that border old channels of May Creek, areas that border the trail shown on the U.S. Surveyor General map from 1864, areas adjacent to the 1864 shoreline and areas near tb.e current shoreline in the May Creek mouth vicinity that may have been exposed and inundated repeatedly over time because of water level fluctuations. High probability areas in the JAG Development project area include all of the Port Quendall Log Yard, a portion of the South Baxter Property, the central portion of the North Baxter Property, and northern portions of the Pan Abode Cedar Homes and Barbee Mill Properties (Figure 4). The Port Quendall Log Yard contains the old channel of May Creek visible on the 1864 GLO map and the 1920 DNR map (United States Army Corps of Engineers 1920; United States Surveyor General 1864). It also contains the end of the historic trail shown on the 1864 GLO map. The 1920 DNR map shows a marsh in the eastern portion of the Port Quendall Log Yard where the mouth ofMay Creek formed a delta (Figure 3). l'hls area was undoubtedly used by the inhabitants of the Duwamish village Sbal't" to gather plants such as wapato and to fish. The South Baxter Property borders the Port Quendall Log Yard on the north and was probably also occupied by hunter-fisher-gatherers. The 1920 DNR map of the project area shows two small promontories that were probably formed when stream-born alluvial deposits entered the lake (Figure 3). The early historic period shoreline shown in the 1864 United States Surveyor General Map traverses the North Baxter Property and may have been used by hunter-fisher- gatherers after 1,100 years ago. Non-village, lacustrine sites may be adjacent to the shoreline. It is likely that an old channel of May Creek was in the southern portion of the South Baxter Property and. that native inhabitants of the JAG Development project area used the area for fishing and gathering. The northern portion of the Barbee Mill also borders the Port Quendall Log Yard and may contain archaeological resources related to the activities mentioned previously. The northern portion of the Pan Abode Cedar Homes Property contains old channels of May Creek that were several meters east of fluctuating lake shorelines. The property was probably not subject to inundation and may have been occupied when lake levels were high and the Port Quendall Log Yard was under water. The historic trail shown on the 1864 GLO map intersected with May Creek in the northern portion of the Pan Abode Cedar Homes Property which suggests that an archaeological site may be in the immediate vicinity. 19 I I I ., JAG Development Cultural Resource Assessment Low PROBABILITY AREAS The North Baxter Property and the North Baxter Property East Wedge were successfully shovel probed below fill and contained no archaeological deposits, however, areas near the early historic period shoreline may have undiscovered cultural deposits. Likewise, the southern portion of the Pan Abode Cedar Homes Property was successfully shovel probed and contained no archaeological deposits. These areas may have been slightly outside the use area of the inhabitants of the Duwamish village Sbal't". The North Baxter Property East Wedge, portions of the North Baxter Property away from the early historic period shoreline, and the southern portion of the Pan Abode Cedar Homes Property are considered to have a low probability of containing archaeological deposits. Shovel probes were attempted in the southern portion of the Barbee Mill but were completely inundated with ground water and appeared to contain several feet of fill. This portion of the project area may have been under water prior to historic use of the JAG Development project area and is considered to be a low probability area as well. The current shoreline of the JAG Development project area is fill material that was placed from 100 to 1,000 feet west of the 1864 shoreline (Figure 3). Contemporary offshore bathymetry with water depth in two meter contours (Figures I and 3) shows a broad submarine platform west of the project area to a depth of 10 meters below the low water elevation of Lake Washington. This is probably the submarine portion of the May Creek delta. Higher elevations of this offshore platform may have been exposed during low stands of Lake Washington during the past 1,100 years, but were probably not available for hunter-fisher-gatherer use before then, when the landform was probably uplifted during an earthquake. The current shoreline is therefore considered low probability in all areas of the JAG Development project area. In areas that are considered to be high probability and have shoreline portions, e.g. the Port Quendall Log Yard, the South Baxter Property, and the northem portion of the Barbee Mill Property, a 100 foot (approximately 30 meter) area from the shoreline east should be considered to be low probability. 20 JAG Development Cultural Resource Assessment BIBLIOGRAPHY Bagley, Clarence B. 1929 History of King County. 4 vols. SJ. Clarke Publishing Company, Seattle. Ballard News Tribune 1988 Passport to Ballard: The Centennial Story. Ballard News Tribune: A Division of Newspaper Enterprises of Washington State Company, Seattle. Ballard, Arthur C. 1929 Mytlrology of Southern Puget Sound. University of Washington Publications in Anthropology 3(2):131-150. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Butler, Virginia L. 1990 Fish Remains from the Black River sites (45KI59 and 45KI51-D). Archaeology in Washington 2:49-65. Carter, M. J. 1917 Lake Washington's New Beach Line. Town Crier 14 April, 1917. Cawley, Martinus 1994 Indian Journal of Rev. R. W. Summers. Guadalupe Translations, Lafayette, Oregon. Chatters, James C. 1981 Archaeology of the Sbabadid Site 45K151, King County, Washington. Office of Public Archaeology, Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Washington. On file Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia. 1988 Tua/dad A/tu (45K159), a 4th Century Village on the Black River, King County, Washington. First City Equities, Seattle. Chrzastowski, Michael 1983 Historical Changes to Lake Washington and Route of the Lake Washington Ship Canal, King County, Washington. Water Resources Investigation Open-File Report 81-1182. CNA Architecture 1997 Port Quendall Planned Action EIS Information, Proposed Conditions. CNA Architecture, Seattle. 21 . I ··1 I I •. I ! .. . . ·,·1 ' ' JAG Development Cultural Resource Assessment Crandell, Dwight R. 1963 Surficial Geology and Geomorphology of the Lake Tapps Quadrangle, Washington. Geological Sur:vey Professional Paper 388-A. Department of the Interior. Washington, D.C. Dragovich, Joe D., Patrick T. Pringle, and Timothy J. Walsh 1994 Extent and Geometry of the Mid-Holocene Osceola Mudflow in the Puget Lowland: Implications for Holocene Sedimentation and Paleography. Washington Geology 22(3):3-26. Di.lwamish et al. Tribes of Indians v. The United States of America 1933 Testimony before the Court of Claims of the United States. Proceedings of the Indian Court of Claims, No. F-275. Fawcett, Clarissa M. 1979 Colman Family History. Letter from Clarissa M. Fawcett to Renton Museum, 3 March. On file at the Renton Historical Society, Renton, Washington. Forsman, Leonard and Lynn Larson 1995 Regional Wastewater Services Plan Cultural Resource Management Overview Draft Technical Memorandum. LAAS Technical Report 95-12. Submitted to CH2M Hill, Bellevue, Washington. Galster, Richard W. And William T. Laprade 1991 Geology of Seattle Washington, United States of America. Bulletin of the Association of Engineering Geologists, Volume XXVIII, Number 3:235-302. Gibbs, George 1877 Tribes of Western Washington and Northwestern Oregon. Contributions to Nonh American Ethnology 1(2):157-361. John Wesley Powell, editor. U.S. Geographical and Geological Survey of the Rocky Mountain Region. Reprinted. Shorey Books, Seattle, 1970. Greengo, Robert E. 1966 Archaeological Excavations at the Marymoor Site (45Kl9). A Report to the National Park Service Region 4, Order Invoice Voucher 34-703 Sammamish Flood Control Project. Department of Anthropology, University of Washington, Seattle. Gunther, Erna 1981 Ethnobotany of Western Washington, the Knowledge and Use of Indigenous Plants by Native Americans. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 22 JAG Developrr.ent Cultural Resource Assessment Harrington, John P, ca. John P. Harrington Papers. National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian 1909 lnstimtion. Reel 15, 1907-1957, on microfilm at Suzzallo Library, University of Washington, Seattle. Indian Claims Commission 1955 Defendant's Request for Findings of Fact, Objections to Findings of Fact requested by Petitioner, and Brief, Docket No. 109, The Duwamish Tribe of Indians v. The United States of America. Indian Claims Commission, Washington, D.C. Frederick W. Post collection, Box 23. On file Suquamisb. Tribal Archives, Suquamish, Washington. Karlin, Robert E. and Sally B. Abella 1992 Paleoearthquakes in the Puget Sound Region Recorded in Sediments of Lake Washington, U.S.A. Science 258:1617-1620. 1993 A History of Past Eanhquakes Recorded in Lake Washington Sedimems. Paper presented in the U.S. Geological survey and Quaternary Research Center, University of Washington Conference on Large Earthquakes and Active Faults in the Puget Sound Region. Kroll Map Company 1926 Kroll's Atlas of King County. Kroll Map Company, Seattle. 1940 Kroll's Atlas of King County. Kroll Map Company, Seattle. Lane, Barbara 1975 Identi,:y and Treaty Status of the Duwamish Tribe of Indians. Report prepared for the US Department of the Interior and the Duwarnish Tribe. Ms. on file at Special Collections, Allen Library, University of Washington, Seattle. Larson, Lynn L. 1986 Ethnographic and Historic Duwamish Land Use. On file at Larson Anthropological/ Archaeological Services, Seattle. 1988 Cultural Resource Investigation of a Proposed Warehouse in Renton, King County, Washington. Submitted to Public Storage, Incorporated, Renton, Washington. Letter report on file Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia. Leopold, Estella B., Rudy J. Nickman, John I. Hedges, and John R. Ertel 1982 Pollen and Lignin Records of Late Quaternary Vegetation, Lake Washington. Science 218:1305-1307. 23 ' ·' JAG Development Cultural Resource Assessment Lewarch, Dennis E. 1994 Cultural Resources Field Assessment of the Fred Meyer Corporation Building Project Area, Renton, King County, Washington. Submitted to Fred Meyer Corporation, Portland, Oregon. Letter report on file Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia. Lewarch, Dennis E., Lynn L. Larson, and Leonard A. Forsman 1995 Introduction. In The Archaeology of West Point, Seattle, Washington, 4,000 Years of Hunter-Fisher-Gatherer Land Use in Southern Puget Sound, 2 vols, pp. 1-1-1-39. Edited by Lynn L. Larson and Dennis E. Lewarch. Larson Anthropological/ Archaeological Services, Seattle. ~ubmitted to the King County Department of Metropolitan Services, Seattle. Lewarch, Dennis E., Lynn L. Larson, Leonard A. Forsman, Guy F. Moura, Eric W. Bangs, and Paula Mohr Johnson 1996 King County Department of Natural Resources, Water Pollution Control Division, A/ki Transfer!CSO Project Allentown Site (45KJ431) and White Lake Site (45KI438 and 45Kl438A) Data Recovery. LAAS Technical Report #95-8. Larson Anthropological/ Archaeological Services, Seattle. Submitted to HDR Engineering, Bellevue, Washington and King County Department of Natural Resources, Water Pollution Control Division, Seattle. Lorenz, Thomas H. 1976 Archaeological Assessment, Army Corps of Engineers, Pennit Number 071-0YB-1- 002916. Phase 1-May Creek Interceptor,. METRO/King County Water District Number 107. Letter report submitted to Moore, Wallace and Kennedy, Incorporated, Seattle. On file Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia. McDonald, Lucile 1979 The Lake Washington Story. Superior Publishing Company, Seattle. Metsker, Charles 1936 Metsker's Atlas of King County. Metsker Map Company, Seattle. Mullineaux, Donald R. 1970 Geology of the Renton, Auburn, and Black Diamond Quadrangles, King County, Washington. Geological Survey Professional Paper 672, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. O'Hare, Daniel 1905 State of Washington. Compiled from the Official Records of the General Land Office and other sources. In Early Washington Atlas, 1981, Ralph Preston, Binford and Mort, Portland, Oregon. 24 JAG Development Cultural Resource Assessment Paige, George 1856a Report to Isaac I. Stevens, Superintendent of Indian Affairs, Washington Territory. December 29, 1856, Fort Kitsap, Washington Territory. On microfilm, US. National Archives, Records of the Washington Superintendency of Indian Affairs, Letters received from Puget Sound, Microcopy 5, Roll 10. 1856b Report to Isaac I. Stevens, Superintendent of Indian Affairs, Washington Territory. December 31, 1856, Fort Kitsap, Washington Territory. On microfilm, U.S. National Archives, Records of the Washington Superintendency of Indian Affairs. Letters received from Puget Sound, Microcopy 5, Roll 10. Prater, Yvonne 1981 Snoqualmie Pass, From Indian Trail to Interstate. The Mountaineers, Seattle. Reid, Al 1991 Archaeological Monitoring at Sbahadid Site (45Kl51) During the Earlington Woods Development Project, 1990. Submitted to the Holly Corporation, Tacoma, Contract Job No. 947001. Remediation Technologies, Incorporated 1996 Review of Historical Information and Environmental Records for the Baxter, Quendall and Barbee Mills Propenies. Prepared for JAG Development Corporation, Bellevue, Washington. Robinson, Joan 1982a SR 405: Factor/a to Nonhup Way-HOV, Archaeological and Historical Services, Eastern Washington University, Cheney. Prepared for Washington State Department of Transportation, Seattle. Letter report on file Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia. 1982b SR 90: Bellevue Access Study, Archaeological and Historical Services, Eastern Washington University, Cheney. Prepared for Washington State Department of Transportation, Seattle. Letter report on file Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia. 1990 A Cultural Resources Survey of SR 900: Junction SE May Valley Road, King County, Washington. Archaeological and Historical Services, Eastern Washington University, Cheney. Prepared for Washington State Department of Transportation, Seattle. Letter report on file Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia. Scott, James W. and Daniel Turbeville III 1983 Whatcom County in Maps 1832-1837. Center for Pacific Northwest Studies and the Fourth Corner Registry, Bellingham, Washington. 25 i I I ,I JAG Development Cultural Resource Assessment Slauson, Morda C. 1971 One Hundred Years Along the Cedar River. Maple Valley Historical Society, Maple Valley, Washington. 1976 Renton, From Coal to Jets. Renton Historical Society, Renton, Washington. Smith, Marian W. 1940 The Puyailup-Nisqually. Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology, Volume 32. Columbia University Press, New York. U £1ited States Army Corps of Engineers 1920 Survey of Lake Washington Shoreline at May Creek. On file at Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Olympia. United States Geological Survey 1983 Bellevue South, Washington 7.5 Quadrangle. United States Geological Survey, Reston, VA. United States Surveyor General 1864 General Land Office Map, Township 24 North, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian. Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Olympia. 1865 General Land Office Map, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian. Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Olympia. 1864-General Land Office Surveyor's Notes, Township 24 North, Range 5 East, 1865 Willamette Meridian. Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Olympia. Waterman, T. T. ca. Puget Sound Geography. Unpublished manuscript on file Pacific Northwest 1920 Collection, Allen Library, University of Washington, Seattle. 1922 Geographic Names Used by Indians of the Pacific Coast. Geographical Review 12: 175-194. Way, Nancy 1989 Our Town Redmond. Publishers Press, Salt Lake City, Utah. Williams, R. Walter, Richard M. Laramie, and James J. Ames 1975 Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization, Volume 1, Puget Sound Region. Washington State Department of Fisheries, Olympia. 26 Appendix 1 Agencies and Individuals Contacted Agencies and Individuals Contacted Jim Spitze, Director, CNA Architecture, telephone, 9 January, 1997, 17 January, 1997, 21 January, 1997, 11 March, 1997, 12 March 1997. Mark Larsen, Redevelopment Specialist, Remediation Technologies, Incorporated, telephone, 10, March 1997. Joe Gibbons, Hydrogeologist, Remediation Technologies, Incorporated, in person, 4 and 5 March, 1997. Mike Paulson, Environmental Scientist, Remediation Technologies, Incorporated, in person, 4 and 7 March, 1997. Stan Greene, Researcher, Renton Historical Society and Museum, in person, 7 and 8 March, 1997. Jason Wear, Administrative Assistant, Duwamish Tribe, telephone, 21 February, 1997. Walter Pacheco, Community Services Director, Muckleshoot Tribe, telephone, 26 March, 1997. Appendix 2 Tribal Correspondence " I ' A A s LARSON ANTH!OPOLOGICAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL January 17, 1997 Virginia Cross Chairperson Muckleshoot Indian Tribe 39015 172nd Avenue S.E. Auburn, WA 98002 Dear Ms. Cross: CNA Architecture Group, Incorporated, has retained Larson Anthropological/Archaeological Services to conduct a culrural resource assessment for a Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement for JAG Development's proposed redevelopment of the Quendall Terminal Site. The project area is a 69 acre site on the southeasrnm shoreline of Lake Washington at May Creek, a quarter mile north of Kennydale, Washington (Figure 1). JAG Development has preliminarily proposed development of office buildings, residential housing, a. hotel/conference center, a marina, · and restaurant space on the property to be phased over a 10-15 year period. LAAS' cultural resource assessment includes identification of archaeological sites and potential traditional cultural use areas within the boundaries of the JAG Develoi:,ment. A field survey will be conducted on the 69 acre parcel to determine the existence or probability for significant cultural resources. LAAS is currently gathering existing archaeological, historic, ethnographic, and ethnohistoric data from the State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, University of Washingcon Libraries, and pertinent local King County repositories. However, we believe mat the Muckleshoot Tribe may have information gathered from elders and/or the Tribe may currently use areas for traditional cultural activities. We encourage a cultural representative from the Muckleshoot Tribe to contact LAAS if the Tribe has information that might be useful in the assessment. We understand that traditional cultural use areas are private, but LAAS welcomes the opportunity to work with the Tribe regarding incorporation of this type of information in a secure and respectful manner. Please phone Lynn Larson or Leonard Forsman at LAAS at your earliest convenience if you would like to discuss the matter further. Otherwise, Leonard Forsman will phone your cultural representative within a week of your receipt of this letter. Sincerely, ~21-, ;_:;~ Lynn L. Larson Principal Investigator LLL/LF enclosure cc: Walter Pacheco, Community Service Coordinator i' D BOX 70106 SEATTtE WASHINGTON QB 1 0 7 o::c, r':.,"l>.1 71>" /"ll)D,1 L ·I . ' A A s January 17, 1997 Cecile Maxwell-Hansen Chairperson Duwarnish Indian Tribe 212 Wells Avenue South, Suite C Rentori, WA 98055 Dear Ms. Maxwell-Hansen: LARSON A"!TH!OPOLOGICAL A<CH.~EOlOGICAL SE,VICES CNA Architecture Group, Incorporated, has retairied Larson Anthropological/ Archaeological Services to conduct a cultural resource assessment for a Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement for JAG Development's proposed redevelopment of the Quendall Terminal Site. 'The project area is a 69 acre site on the southeastern shoreline of Lake Washington at May Creek, a quarter mile north of Kennydale, Washington (Figure 1). JAG Development has preliminarily proposed development of office buildirigs. residemial housing, a hotel/conference center, a marina, and restaurant space on the property to be phased over a 10-15 year period. LAAS' cultural resource assessment includes identificalion of archaeological sites and potential traditional cultural use areas within the boundaries of the JAG Development. A field survey will be conducted on the 69 acre parcel to determine the existence or probability for significant cultural resources. LAAS is currently gathering existing archaeological, historic, ethnographic, and ethnohistoric data from the State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, University of ------Washmgten-hibl'ltfies,mla-peF,iflem-leeal-K-mg-Ge1,J,F1,)'-,e~esit@fies.-Efo-=e..,_~eLie1!e-that.th"'-----~ Duwamish Tribe may have information gathered from elders and/or the Tribe may currently use areas for traditional cultural activities. We encourage a culrural representative from the Duwamish Tribe to contact LAAS if the Tribe has information that might be useful in the assessment. We understand that traditional cultural use areas are private, but LAAS welcomes the opportunity to work with the Tribe regarding incorporation of this type of information in a secure and respectful manner. Please phone Lynn Larson or Leonard Forsman at LAAS at your earliest convenience if you would like to discuss the matter further. Otherwise, Leonard Forsman will phone your cultural representative within a week of your receipt of this letter. Sincerely, ~o-~ Lynn L. Larson Principal Investigator LLL/LF enclosure cc: James Rasmussen, Tribal Council Member ~ o eox 10100 StAriLE WA SHINGTQN 99107 i':( f206! 782 09BQ I .1 I ·, I ; . ·~ Appendix 3 Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Cultural Resources Survey Cover Sheet --~, Cultural Resources Survey Cover Sheet Author: Bradley Bowden Leonard A. Forsman Lvnn L Larson, Dennis E. Lewarch Title: Cultural Resource Assessment JAG Development, King County, Washington Date: March 27 1997 County: King Sections: .1.2.....lZ Township: :MN Range: 21:. Quad: Bellevue South, Washington Total Pages:..JJ. Acres:60 Site No. : (For Author's review) Th is report: X X X Describes the objectives & methods. Summarize the results of the survey. Reports where the survey records and data are stored. X Has a Research Design that: Details survey objectives Details specific methods Details expected results Derails area surveyed Details how results will be feedback in the .. -~---·---1,tanuixrg ptoce:s~::i-----------------(-- -------------------------------~------------ ------~-~---------------------~------~--- OAHP Use Only NADB Document No: _______ _ OAHP Log No:------- My review results in the opinion this survey report __ does __ _cdoes not conform with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Identification. Signed: Date: _____ _ ,--.,,, GENERAL NOTES I) 5TORMFILTER BY CONTECH 5TORMWATER 50LUTION5; FORTLAND, OR (BOD) 54B-4GG7; SCARBOROUGH, ME (B77) g07-8G7G; LINTHICUM, MD (8GG) 740-331 B. 2) FILTER CARTRIDGE(5) TO BE 51FHON-ACTUATED AND 5ELF-CUEANING. STANDARD DETAIL 5HOW5 MAXIMUM NUMBER OF CARTRIDGES. ACTUAL NUMBER REQUIRED TO BE 5FECIFIED ON SITE FLAN5 OR IN DATA TABUE BELOW. 3) FRECA5T MANHOUE STRUCTURE TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH A5TM C47B. DETAJL REFUECT5 DESIGN INTENT ONLY. ACTUAL DIMEN510N5 AND CONFIGURATION OF STRUCTURE WILL BE 5HOWN ON FRODUCTION SHOP DRAWING. 4) STRUCTURE AND ACCE55 COVERS TO MEET AA5HTO H-20 LOAD RATING. 5) FOR LOW DROF CARTRIDGE, DROP REQUIRED 15 I .B', FOR I B" CARTRIDGE, DROF REQUIRED 15 2.3', FOR 27" CARTRIDGE DROF REQUIRED 15 3.05'. MINIMUM ANGUE BETWEEN INUET AND OUTUET 15 45°. G) INUET FIFING TO BE 5F!'CIFIED BY ENGINEER AND FROVIDED EIY CONTRACTOR. FRECA5T MANHOUE 5TORMFILTER EQUIFFED WITH A DUAL DIAMETER HDFE OUTUET 5TUB AND SAND COLLAR. EIGHT INCH DIAMETER OUTUET SECTION MAY BE 5EFARATED FROM OUTUET STUB AT MOLDED-IN CUT LINE TO ACCOMMODATE A I 2 INCH OUTUET FIFE. CONNECTION TO DOWNSTREAM FIFING TO BE MADE U51NG A FLEXIBLE COUFLING OR ECCENTRIC REDUCER, A5 REQUIRED. COUFUNG BY FERNCO OR l:QUAL AND PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR. 7) FROVIDE MINIMUM CLEARANCE FOR MAINTENANCE ACCE55. If A 5HALLOWIER 5Y5TEM 15 REQUIRED. CONTACT CONTECH 5TORJMWATER 50LUTION5 FOR OTHER OFTION5. B) ANTI-FLOTATION BALLAST TO EIE 5FECIFIED BY ENGINEER AND FROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR, IF REQUIRED. BALLAST TO BE 5ET AROUND THE FERIMETER OF THE STRUCTURE. gJ ALL 5TORMFILTER5 REQUIRE REGULAR MAINTENANCE. REFER TO OFERATION AND MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES FOR MORE INFORMATION. ~-~-.;..~-/. .... ~~~~-.,- ~-', 030' FRAME AND COVER (5TD) \• \ . ' . /· JI ., . I . ,,, ... I .. ~. . I \ , , ·, . ~-I. \. .. • I ·, \ . I PRECAST MANHOLE STORMFILTER DATA STRUCTURE ID WATER QUALITY FLOW RATE1 cfs1 FEAK FLOW RATE I< I .6 cfo) RETURN FERIOD OF FEAK FLOW '· -' # OF CARTRIDGES REQUIRED CARTRIDGE FLOW RATE MEDIA TYFE (C5F, FERLITE ZPG) RIM EUEVATION XXX x.xx x.xx XXX xx xx XXX.XX' •.\ I ,,, /' \. . . •'/ FIFE DATA, I.E. ORIENTATION MATERIAL DIAMETER ~,-· /. ...... .,..,,,,,._ ..... _____ ., MANHOLE STORM FILTER -TOP VIEW ED 5AND COLLAR INUET FIFE# I XXX.XX' INUET FIFE #2 xxx.xx OUTUET 5TUB XXX.XX' ECCENTRIC REDUCER (BY CONTRACTOR) ANTI-FLOTATION BALLAST XX' XX' 0' OUTUET R15ERX 0 I 2" OUTUET 5TUB MOLDED-IN CUT LINE 0B" OUTUET 5TUB NOTE5/5FECIAL REQUIREMENTS, 4 ('"f ~\1 • . _-:;,."\'•'-"' , . -fil,1,1--+-J/(\_ OUTUET FIFE (BY CONTRACTOR) COUFUNG , ---(BY CONTRACTOR) ..........__ \ (5EE NOTE G) BALLAST GROUT (5EE NOTE B) (BY CONTECH 5TORMWATER 50WTION5) MANHOLE STORMFIL TER -OUTLET DETAIL (2'\ C:alllliil1'lblilicat!Slormwater Solutions Q7 XXX XX'' XXX XX'' XXX 8"/12" YE5\NO 51ZE XXX XX" X YX' WIDTH HEIGHT XX' XX' FIFE ORIENTATION KEY, 100°{t)-~ 27~ THE STORMWATER MA.NAGEMENT Storml",11:a'"® U.S. PATENT No. 5,322,G29, No. 5,707,527, No. G,02?,1;39 No. G,G49,04B, No. 5,G24.57G, ANO OTHER U.S. AND rOe::flGN PATENTS PtNDING DRAWING .... A~ .... u· ~ .. i'i!; ;."! ! STORMWATER:.---. ...._ SOLUTIONS- PRECAST 96" MANHOLE STORMFIL TER TOP AND SECTION VIEWS, NOTES AND DATA STANDARD DETAIL 2 212 contechatonnwater.com DATE:B/18/08 I SCALE:NONE. ) FILE NAME: MHSF14-962PC-Dll I DRAWN: JHR I CHECKED: 01< .. 1--·-· I STORMFILTERDESIGNTABLE 1~--Al I GENERAL NOTES 1~ Storm Filter• i I ; • THE 8' 11 16 STOfWFIL TER TREATMENT CAPN:;ff'f VARIES BY NUMBER OF Ft.TEA CARTRIDGES INST Al.LEO AND BY REGKIN SPECIFIC INTERNAL FlOW CONTROLS. CONVEY NICE CAP~ITY IS RA TEO 1'T1.8 CFS. • THE STANDARD CONFIGURATION IS SHOWN. ACTUAL CONFIGURATION OfTHE SPECIAEO STRUCltlRE(SJ PER CML EN~ WR..L BE SHOWN ON $1)8t,HTTAL DRAWING($}, • AU PARTS PROVIDED AND INTERN.Al ASSEUBLY BY CONTECH STORMWATERSOLUTIONS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. A L~ INLET PIPE (SEEM0TE1) "1. TERNA TE PIPE LOCATION (NP OF 4) (SEENOTE1) FAAME ANO COVER (TYPOf2} (SEENOTE6) STE' 2r 1~ 1T 'H-REQ'D. MIN. SIJRF,.c;e AREA 3.06' ' ]iL__r 11~ INSPECTION ANO MAJNTEt,l,\NCE ACCESS (SEE FRAME AND COVER DETAIL) ,., ~ 7.5 1---~~,__~~~~~1• ~~~~~~~~----l Fl.."ffiATION BA.Y PLAN (ACCESS FR.IIME AND COVERS OMITTED FOR ct.>RITY) SECTION A-A GIWJERJNG (TYPOF2J 19- • .!ff A J =-(SEE NOTE 1) 1. INLET AND OUTLET PIPING SHALL BE SPEC IRED BY SITE CML ENGltEER (SEE PL.ANS) AND PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR STORMFIL TER IS PROVIDED WITH OPENINGS AT INLET AND OUTLET LOCATIONS. 2. IF TIE PEAK FLOW RATE, M; DETERMINED BY ntE SITE CIVIL ENGINEER, EXCEEDS THE PEAK HYDRAULIC CAPACITY OF TIE PROOUCT. AN UPSTREAM BYPASS STRUCTURE IS REQUIRED. Pt.EASE CONTACT CONTECH STORMWATER sa..unoNS FOR OPTIONS. 3. n£ FILTER CARTRIDGE(S)ARE StPHQN-ACTIJATED ANO SELF-0.EANNG. TIE STANDARD DETAIL DRAWING SHOWS THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF CARTRIJGES. THE ,'CTIJAL NUMBER SHAU.. BE SPECIFIED BY 1HE SITE CM... ENGINEER ON SITE PLANS OR IN DATA TABLE BELOW. PRECAST sTRUCruRE TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCOROANCEWTTH ASTM C857 AND C85!1 • 4. SEE $TQRMFLTER DESIGN T"8l.E FOR REQUIRED HYDRAULIC DROP. FOR SHAU.OW, LOW DROP OR SPECIAL DESKiN CONSTRAINTS. CONTACT CONTECH STORMWATER SOLUTIONS FOR DESIGN ClPTIONS. 5. ALL WATER QUAUTY PRODUCTS REQUIRE PERIOOIC WJNTENANCE AS OUTLINED IN 1HE O&M GUIJELNES. PROVlOE MINIMUM CLEARANCE FOR MAINTENAt,ICE ACCESS. 6. STRUCTI..AE AND ACCESS COVERS TO MEET AASHTO H-20 LOAD RATNG. 7. THE STRUCTURE THICKNESSES SHOWN ARE FOR REPRESENTATlONAL PURPOSES AND VAAY Rf.GIC)MAI..L Y. 8. AAY BACKf1Ll DEPTH, SUB-8ASE, ANO OR ANTI-FLOTATION PROVISIONS AAE $1TE--SPEClFIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ANO SHALL BE SPECIFIED BY SITE CIVIL ENGWEER. e. STANDARD CARTRIDGE HEIGHT IS 2r (SHOWN~ CARTRIDGE HEIGHT ANO ASSOCIATED DESIGN PARAMETERS PER STORMFILTER DESIGN TAEILE. 10. STORMALTER BY CONTECH STORMWATER SCN..UTIONS: (800) 925-S2-40. CONTECK ~A1ER-- ----sow110NS--- SITE SPECIFIC DATA REQUIREMENTS STRUCnJRE ll WATER·QUHJTY~TE{aii' PEAK FLOW RATE (ds) RETIJRN PERIOD OF PEAK FLOW # OF CARlRlpGES REQUIRED CARTRIDGE flOW RATE MEDIA TYPE {CSF PERl.JTE. ZPG PPEDATA: CJ&: INLET PIPE 11 INLET PIPE #2 OOTLETP1PE NOtts/sPECIAL RE, MATERW. WIDTH R PER SITT: CIVl.. ENGINEER ~~ ·_r· -"1 FRAME AND COVER (DIAMETER VARIES. SEE SUBMITTAL.. DRAWINGS) THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT STORMFILTER • 8' x 16' STORMFILTER STANDARD DETAIL Ii: Tt,lo dnowlng --!IIIO -n<>I ba -w11110u1 tl»ai:,pro~al ofCONTia:CH S---.. Thm pnx1uct m11y ba proled6<1,,., one ar man, Ill ot Iha~ us_, 15,322,11211; 15,112-4.15715; 11.707.e:127; 11,98$,1117; 11,027,839; 6.6'11.04!:l; '*"led ron,1gn ~. or --penc111,.... Quendall Terminals Renton, Washington Drainage Report November 2009 I Preliminary Report . . .;1P ·,1 I , "' ~, / '• ''1 : t~ •• ' .. ,. .. . CenturyPaclflc, LP Quendall Terminals Drainage Report November 2009 Prepared for: CenturyPacific, LP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 1680 Seattle, WA 98101 Prepared by: Tom Jones Kris Koski, EIT KPFF Consulting Engineers 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600 Seattle, WA 98101 (206) 622-5822 KPFF Job No. 109118.10 Property Owners: Altino Properties, Inc., and J.H. Baxter & Company I This page is intentionally left blank. II CenturyPaclflc, LP Quendall Terminals , i • , 'I 4. i ' ' ' r.;: 11! ' ~ J.. ' ,. j /. CenturyPaclflc, LP Quendall Terminals Table of Contents 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Project Overview ............................................................................................................................ 1 Project Location .............................................................................................................................. 1 Project Description .......................................................................................................................... 1 Predeveloped Site Conditions ........................................................................................................ 1 Developed Site Conditions ............................................................................................................. 2 Conditions and Requirements Summary ...................................................................................... 3 Off-Site Analysis ........................................................................................................................... .4 Upstream Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 4 Downstream Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 5 Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design ....................................................... 5 Flow Control ..................................................................................................................................... 5 Water Quality ................................................................................................................................... 5 Conveyance System Analysis and Design .................................................................................... 5 Special Reports and Studies ......................................................................................................... 6 Other Perm its ................................................................................................................................ 6 Erosion and Sedimentation Control (ESC) Analysis and Design .................................................. 6 Bond Quantities, Facility Summaries, and Declaration of Covenant ........................................... 7 10. Operations and Maintenance Manual .......................................................................................... 7 Ill Iv List of Tables 2-1 Conditions and Requirements Summary ....................................................................................... 3 Appendices Appendix A -Site and Project Information Figure 1A: Project Location Figure 2A: Existing Site Conditions Figure 3A: Proposed Site Conditions Figure 4A: NRCS Soils Map Figure 5A: FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map Figure 6A: TIR Worksheet Appendix B -Calculations and Proposed Strom Drainage System Figure 1B: Conceptual Storm Drainage Plan Figure 2B: lsopluvial Maps (2-Year, 25-Year, 100-Year, and Annual Runoff) Figure 3B: Conveyance Calculations Figure 4B: Water Quality Calculations Figure 5B: Storm Filter Product Information CenturyPacfflc, LP Quendall Terminals CenturyPaclflc, LP Quendall Terminals 1. Project Overview This Technical Information Report (TIR) addresses the conceptual design of the storm drainage conveyance and water quality facilities for Quendall Terminals Master Site Plan entitlement. Site drainage will be conveyed to on-site water quality treatment facilities prior to discharge to Lake Washington. See Figure 6A (Appendix A) for the TIR Worksheet. PROJECT LOCATION The Quendall Terminals project is located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard North within the City of Renton in King County, Washington. The project is located west of Ripley Lane North and northwest of the intersection of Lake Washington Boulevard North and Ripley Lane North. The project is located in a portion of Section 29, Township 24 N, Range 5 E, W.M. See Figure 1A in Appendix A for the project location. An additional parcel located east of the main project site across Ripley Lane North is included in project planning considerations but is not part of this drainage report. No improvements are planned for this additional parcel. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Quendall Terminals is a proposed mixed-use development including five stories of residential or office space above two levels of above-grade parking or retail and restaurant space. The development project anticipates entitlement of the following: • Residential 800 Units • Office 245,000 Square Feet • Retail 21,600 Square Feet • Restaurant 9,000 Square Feet • Parking 2,215 Spaces PREDEVELOPED SITE CONDITIONS The existing site is vacant and is under the direction of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The site is partially vegetated with areas of grass, shrubs, brush, and trees where the site has been undisturbed for an extended amount of time. Other areas used more recently contain bare soil and debris from log yard operations. Debris piles from log yard operations are located on the site. The site is contaminated with hazardous substances as a result of past industrial uses, including a creosote processing facility. 1 2 The main site is approximately 20.3 acres in size with approximately 1,583 feet of shoreline along Lake Washington. Site slopes are generally Oto 5 percent with localized slopes up to 2H:1V at debris piles and up to 1H:1V at the bank of the lake. The site slopes gradually from east to west. Wetlands are located along and near the lakeshore on the west side of the site. There are approximately 34,959 square feet of existing wetlands on the site. The parcel east of the main project site and Ripley Lane North is approximately 1.2 acres in size and is not part of this drainage report. No improvements are planned for the east parcel. Man made stormwater conveyance, water quality, and detention facilities on the site consist of swales and berms constructed in accordance with the Quendall Terminals Interim Stormwater Management Plan (Aspect, October 2008) in conjunction with a previously existing small sediment pond (approximately 1,722 square feet including rock check dams). The purpose of the Interim Stormwater Management Plan is to control site runoff and erosion prior to future environmental mitigation. Surface runoff currently infiltrates or is conveyed to Lake Washington via surface flow or swales. There are no creeks or streams located on the site. See Figure 2A in Appendix A for existing conditions. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soils Map indicates that the site is underlain with Norma sandy loam and Bellingham silty loam. See Figure 4A in Appendix A. The site does not lie within a 100-year floodplain per Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map. See Figure 5A in Appendix A. DEVELOPED SITE CONDITIONS The proposed site improvements include a mixed-use development consisting of residential, office, retail, restaurant, and parking spaces. Proposed site slopes are anticipated to be 3:1 (horizontal:vertical) or less. Piped storm drainage systems will collect and convey surface runoff from pollution-generating surfaces to water quality treatment facilities then to outfalls at Lake Washington. Treated stormwater will discharge to Lake Washington during normal flows. During high flows that exceed the capacity of the water quality treatment facilities, stormwater will bypass the water quality facilities, discharging directly to the lake. To the greatest extent possible, roof drainage will be conveyed directly to Lake Washington, bypassing water quality treatment facilities, via dedicated storm drainage systems for non-pollution-generating surfaces. Surface water collection, conveyance, and treatment will be maintained separately from any groundwater activity. Prior to this development, a site remediation/mitigation plan will be executed under the direction of the EPA to prevent the exposure and spread of hazardous substances to humans and the surrounding environment. Proposed measures to prevent environmental health hazards include minimal disturbance to contaminated soils and capping of the site. CenturyPaclflc, LP Quendall Terminals . '!In I/ f ' .. ic A ,f ~: r/P !~·~· ..... .. f'" CenturyPaclfic, LP Quendall Terminals 2. Conditions and Requirements Summary This report supports City of Renton entitlement processing for Master Site Plan ApprovaL This report is intended to be amended in conjunction with future construction documents. Future report amendments will be in accordance with the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM). The 2009 KCSWDM outlines eight core requirements and five special requirements that must be addressed. A summary of the requirements is shown in Table 2-1. The table shows which requirements are applicable to this project and where requirements are addressed within this report. Table 2-1: Conditions and Requirements Summary Conditions and Requirements Summary I I See Section I Core Requirement No. 1 Discharge at the Natural Location Required 2 Core Requirement No. 2 Off-Site Analysis Required 3 Core Requirement No. 3 Flow Control Exempt 4 Core Requirement No. 4 Conveyance System Required 5 Core Requirement No. 5 Erosion and Sediment Control Required 8 Core Requirement No. 6 Maintenance and Operations N/A 10 Core Requirement No. 7 Financial Guarantees and Liability N/A 9 Core Requirement No. 8 Water Quality Required 4 Special Requirement No. 1 Other Adopted Area-Specific Requirements N/A 2 Special Requirement No. 2 Flood Hazard Area Delineation N/A 2 Special Requirement No. 3 Flood Protection Facilities N/A 2 Special Requirement No. 4 Source Control Required 2 Special Requirement No. 5 Oil Control N/A 2 3 4 Core and Special Requirements not addressed below are discussed in other sections of this report. Table 2-1 provides a summary of the requirements and where they are addressed within this report. Core Requirement No. 1: Discharge at the Natural Location Stormwater runoff from the existing site either infiltrates or is conveyed to Lake Washington via surface flow or swales. Stormwater runoff from the proposed improvements will be collected and conveyed by a piped stormwater system to new outfalls at Lake Washington. Runoff from the existing and proposed sites both discharge to Lake Washington. See the "Existing Site Conditions" and "Proposed Site Conditions" exhibits in Figures 2A and 3A, Appendix A. Special Requirement No. 1: Dther Adopted Area-Specific Requirements Does not apply. The proposed project is not in a Critical Drainage Area or in an area included in an adopted master drainage plan, basin plan. salmon conservation plan, stormwater compliance plan, flood hazard reduction plan, lake management plan, or shared facility drainage plan. Special Requirement No. 2: Flood Hazard Area Delineation Does not apply. The proposed project does not contain and is not adjacent to a flood hazard area. Special Requirement No. 3: Flood Protection Facllltles Does not apply. The proposed project does not rely on existing flood protection facilities or construct a new flood protection facility. Special Requirement No. 4: Source Control The proposed project will require a commercial building and commercial site development permit; therefore, water quality source controls will be implemented in accordance with the King County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual. Special Requirement No. 5: OIi Control Does not apply. None of the proposed land uses generate average daily traffic of 100 or more vehicles per 1,000 square feet of gross building area. 3. Off-Site Analysis A Level 1 qualitative off-site analysis is required per Core Requirement No. 2. The off-site analysis assesses potential off-site drainage and water quality impacts associated with development of the project site, and proposes appropriate mitigation of the impacts, if necessary. UPSTREAM ANALYSIS There is no upstream tributary area contributing to site stormwater runoff. CenturyPaclflc, LP Quendall Terminals ' -p i • ., , I 4. I' ' .. :;;:$ • l ~ ~ ' -j • .. ..... "' t CenturyPaclflc, LP Quendall Terminals DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS Runoff from the proposed site will be collected and conveyed via a piped storm drainage system and discharge to Lake Washington. The water level in Lake Washington is maintained at the Hiram M. Chittenden Locks. Outfalls at the lake will require armoring to prevent erosion. 4. Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design FLOW CONTROL The project is exempt from flow control requirements by the "direct discharge exemption" as defined in Section 1.2.3.1 of the 2009 KCSWDM. The project will feature a piped conveyance system of adequate capacity that discharges directly to Lake Washington. WATER QUALITY Runoff from pollution-generating surfaces will be collected and conveyed to water quality treatment facilities for treatment prior to discharge to Lake Washington. A water quality design flow of 60 percent of the developed 2-year peak flow rate will be used in accordance with the 2009 KCSWDM. The water quality treatment facilities will discharge to Lake Washington. Flows greater than the water quality design flow rate will bypass the water quality facilities and discharge directly to Lake Washington. See Figure 48 for water quality calculations, Figure 18 for the water quality facility layout, and Figure 58 for Storm Filter product information, Appendix 8. 5. Conveyance System Analysis and Design The proposed conveyance system will be designed to convey and contain (at minimum) the 25-year peak flow, assuming developed conditions for on-site tributary areas. Potential overflow from a 100- year runoff event is not anticipated to create or aggravate a severe flooding problem or severe erosion problem. There is no upstream tributary area draining to the site or the proposed storm drainage system. Outfalls at the discharge points of the stormwater systems will be designed to prevent erosion. 5 6 The conveyance system design is based on the following assumptions: • The peak flows used to design the conveyance system were calculated using the Rational Method. • Runoff coefficients ("C" values) for the Rational Method are based on Table 3.2.1.A in the KCSWDM: • C=0.90 for impervious surfaces, roofs, and paving. • C=0.25 for pervious surfaces and lawns. • The minimum time of concentration is assumed to be 6.3 minutes. • Drainage areas are based on the current site plan and grading plan. • Manning's roughness coefficients are based on Table 4.2.1.D in the KCSWDM for PVC pipe. A coefficient of 0.013 is used in the uniform flow analysis. • A hydrologic analysis is performed for the 25-year storm event. A precipitation amount of 3.43 inches was used based on Figure 3.1.2.C of the KCSWDM. • Twenty-five-year uniform flow calculations were performed in order to calculate design flows and to choose preliminary pipe sizes. • The minimum full flow pipe velocity is 3 feet per second, per KCSWDM Figure 4.2.1.F. This report will be amended in conjunction with future construction documents to include backwater calculations for final storm drain design. 6. Special Reports and Studies The following reports have been prepared as part of the Quendall Terminal's Master Site Plan: • Geotechnical Study, Aspect Consulting, LLC • Wetland Assessment, Standard Lake Study, Habitat Data Report, and Conceptual Restoration Plan, Anchor QEA, LLC (one document) 7. Other Permits This report supports City of Renton entitlement processing for Master Site Plan Approval, which includes the following permits: • Master Site Plan • Land Use • Shoreline Substantial Development CenturyPaclflc, LP Quendall Terminals • : 'I . . . .~. I ' .. , ~ ~ ..... ~ 1 ,, ,,. .... ... t' '/•, CenturyPaciflc, LP Quendall Terminals Prior to this development, a site remediation/mitigation plan will be executed under the direction of the EPA. 8. Erosion and Sedimentation Control (ESC) Analysis and Design A temporary sediment and erosion control plan designed by a professional civil engineer will be included with the project's construction documents (to be produced in the future) conforming to the requirements of the 2009 KCSWDM. 9. Bond Quantities, Facility Summaries, and Declaration of Covenant Bond quantities and facility summaries are not required for Master Site Plan Approval. These items will be provided with the project's future construction documents. 10. Operations and Maintenance Manual An operations and maintenance manual is not required for Master Site Plan Approval. This item will be provided with the final project design. 7 .. 111m 8 This page is intentionally left blank. CenturyPaclflc, LP Quendall Terminals , i•1 r,; 4. ty , ' ' ' . . ,-. j ~. ' ,. t ' CenturyPaclflc, LP Quendall Terminals Appendix A Site and Project Information Figure 1A: Project Location Figure 2A: Existing Site Conditions Figure 3A: Proposed Site Conditions Figure 4A: NRCS Soils Map Figure 5A: FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map Figure 6A: TIR Worksheet Appendix A KPFF Consulting Engineers 11/2009 VICINITY MAP NTS Quendall Terminals Storm Drainage Report Figure 1 A: Project Location i f • i i f I l • I 1 ~ I t I • :··~~ 7 SU:_ lllS· Hfi '\\ . -' ~~\\,' I --·-· 1~----- •: ·------___ ] __ ~Kz WAS~l~yTON i cu,;, (:f{'t.j.i<·- ··'-'2.J_:Jl,~ ,' i ' .· "'' • . __ .I;' J\ . ~" \_ ' ,\ ·,,;, .. , n-·.~ .. ··-1 -e llJIHIJSLJIIZ· •. _ .•.. ,, ', \ ~ •• k,.·.r ~- '~ I\ ~,, 1.~ 877,085 SQ FT ' 20,14 AC ~ · ,, .. ___ ")~O'c, .. ~ --:·-' '; ) · .... '¥ I '}::>, ·,,'; ., 1 •. ~~ /• ':,,,._=-r --·-: _ .. },· '·:,,, -~•;,f . ,.-, sum; 161" / 1. ,_c..-n-• ,, -Ult /{ ~t :.. rr-~~~--~--:= f--- );-r../"'\;J!' ~.~:u- -·---··---"'-·-t t ,-- ---, - )/1" ,. ,, ·-.: i~; '"' ' ,, . 1.-·!.' · ... ~) '/ r.rn i' ,';! 1,·, 1,,1'r Aili !"·'_ .,p 'l',:1 '[:'i' 111,!,_ f I ·•I: i'' i-~· ::i,: ;Ii'"'"' . ··, t:, "' 1li;, ' .. ----.=,.....,._,.. -,, I --:---1 ¢ ,--@ ___ ,:.:~~; ·~=:t--------~.,..:t·i ,-i--~--1~t.,.2 -----------,-------- ______ _j_ =\~]j ,·.::_:, -, ... _::,·~--:~f-~-~i~:;.~~ _c·;~~~(~\--;=-:~~-~£-~=~------____ i ___ f 1 ll." ~~ti".-._ -1~· ---.-Ml ~--,~ ~~-~ ,-1.. -.::::-~ , '\ 0 , --\/ 1'M,',, ' ""' -~..... "I!' "'} I I>' = ----, ------------------~ = ~~=~-~----~-~--[-u_aP--n~~~~~L~~-~~~----~-~-r------- ----------· ~:~. ~~.·.·.-.r.~.·~, .. -.::~: .. ·:.,:.:~.·.~~."=.:~~·~;t(~~~\r7:_N:~~·.:;·"?~~:~~~~-~;~=~ -c~U~-, "· QAlE " CHO. IAPPR. "''"''" ~Gr'·, , '' ' \ .. ' ' -< "'·:-q&.:c_eIJ,o~ • ·.\ -·,:< :::--::i; .. _\ . '~-··· ~ ... '"""' "" i OB No. :109118 Clll IWDIS M~IRIIIH: l·IH!~ $ C I< LE: l<S NOlED ', '-· >'-,,_ . :.:Ja... ............ WWWeoo~ ..... l&»FlftlrA-Sullfr6llO S...11/e.. .....,.,g,,,., 9al0/-Jt/6S (206) 622-!Jl!XJ ffllt (206) 622-8/JC • • 111111 a !Oft. ~ ' ~ ,. LAND USE, SHORELINE ! MASTER PLAN PERMIT APPLICATION DRAINAGE REPORT -EXISTING CONDITIONS ",_ ~m FIG 2A i l ' I • i I I l i I i • I ! I I -OS.\/ i~, .·,y".\;\ Ii<,_.'\\ '. ~:'~- ' '\ \'- PROPOSED SITE TOTAL BASIN: 20.19 AC IMPERVIOUS: 15.58 AC {77%) P[RVIOUS: 4.61 AC (23%) ASSUMPTIONS: BUILDINGS: 100% IMPERVIOUS STREETS: 90% IMPERVIOUS \ LAKE SHOR[ AREA: 0% IMPERVIOUS i --r- \'' """"""~"' -.'. \-, LAK( WASHINGTON ,,...:z~~ , ,.. - -~ _·-' / \ -"'~~-- •"J ~ \·-::----~-·,-,: '' ):·,: ", .. ... t.·:,-,.:~,.L. ~r >,:,Si!'iOUAp I 'Q BYPA$S: '<.\ i •,.__ __ SE QUAp WQ BY~ASS ··t~E:-,:~: ·~gt ~erVWlllE ·: I 1· \'t\ ·;:·. '· ---rwr fitlh A-Suit,, r61YJ 1)£0® BY #'l'IIO!(]) BllllS llRI YI I f--+---l--\f--+--+-------------!-~='~0 ATE MAI/ I-B-QH,555 s.at/1«. lllao/,itgt«> !NIUJI-J665 (206) 522-51122 Fas (20/I) U2-B1JlJ NO\IEMEIER~ 2009 ot'.l. IAPPR. ""'""' JOS No.:109118 SCALE: AS NOTED ..,_ "~ " ' ' J'.Y ~ r I' I 1·· ' ' ' ,, ' ' ' ' ' r--J ' ' ')1 .;.1_-. ;-1 r--~ ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '' ~iJ QUAD WlUlYPASS ·-i1· --'j- ,- ---1- /f~ -·1 ' I. ·:,.' J .· ;, 111,I i-I\ 1;1!·: f, ' ·1 ·· 1: ' 11'1 1, •,/,ii' '1 JI,, ~,,fr/ ,,H 1:r:·1 =ttt ,,,[ 1'j, j 1 11:1~--" , I ' I. • • llodl• ~fl '!: ~;-....______ /J :·~ -: ~=~:~-,~,~--~,,~:J ·,1_ ,i.,..~,:;-;1,··;_[·1~>-___ _ '•i '·'t'ri"'jjf.,~-. ~~~~~iF~r"'"~~,~~-:.;~·.; ;--~·i.:_,'.-;.;::~i-.:~ -~ ·-· ---:-~: st: ,>?J{f~ ! -c~ tF 1' ~-~ ·~;.~--·.' -__ -iF~:-·: ~-=--.- ·'--""~- (D QUOO.W. TERIIIIIALS .fJ5Q lJKE WIISIINGTCM IIC.'llllVARD. IIElfR:III. IAHIIR1II LAND USE, SHORELINE & MASTER PLAN PERMIT APPLICATION DRAINAGE REPORT -PROPOSED CONDITIONS SHEET FIG 3A .0'.'\2'4" A7"31'51" 2 i ~ ~· ~ i 558_170 S59'7 70 N A ""'" SS9e40 581910 5519980 MEIP SIMe 1 2 .010, p-r(ecJOfl8 W e {11• • 17"1 s.1*t. :::.:::.:.:::;;;;;,;;,;;:;,;_,;_ ____ ~=====~~'11111 •1'!1 ,ao c::::==~;.-----~~=======;;,,;,"' 0 30 60 0 100 200 ·= U~DA Natural Resources iiiiiii Conservation Se,vice !i600 50 Soil M ap--K1ng County Arca, Washington (OuMdall Terminals) Sl,0110 W eb Soll S urvey National Cooperative Soil Survey 560190 -.0 ,;,o:no ,.,.,, ''''"' a ·~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ! Figure 4A: NRCS Soils Map 9/1/2009 Page I of3 A r'J2'4" Ar)1 5(1' USDA - Soil MaJrl<ing County Area, Washington (Quendall Terminals) MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Units Special Point Features "' Blowout 181 Borrow Pit * Clay Spot • Closed Depression X Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot @ Landfill A Lava Flow ... Marsh or swamp ~ Mine or Quarry Ii) Miscellaneous Water Ii) Perennial Water V Rock Outcrop + Saline Spot Sandy Spot -=-Severely Eroded Spot 0 Sinkhole l> Slide or Slip -Sadie Spot 5 Spoil Area C Stony Spot Natural Resources Conservation Service O'.) t Very Stony Spot Wet Spot .a. Other Special Line Features .. ,_ Gully Short Steep Slope ,,... ,, Other Political Features 0 Cities Water Features Oceans Streams and Canals Transportation +++ Rails .,.,,, Interstate Highways __ .-,_,.-US Routes Major Roads -Local Roads Map Scale: 1 :2,070 if printed on B size (11 ~ x 17") sheet. The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1 :24,000. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: http:J/websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov Coordinate System: UTM Zone 10N NAD83 This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Suivey Area: Survey Area Data: King County Area, Washington Version 5, Jun 12, 2009 Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 7/24/2006 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey Figure 4A: NRCS Soils Map 9/1/2009 Page 2 of3 Soil Map-King County Area, Washington Quendall Terminals Map Unit Legend King County Area, Washington (WA633) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI USDA ~1F ' Bh Bellingham silt loam No Norma sandy loam Totals for Area of Interest Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 5 3 22.7% 182 ~--------77.3% 23.6. 100.0% Figure 4A: NRCS Soils Map 9/112009 Page 3 of 3 \ \ I I ,--\-I ZONE X Areas of 500-year flood; areas of 100- year flood with average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; and areas protected by levees from 100-year floor. 05F.,· ' ' ' ... ~ !8 I L\!'&tl I \ \ " o1 I !i .. ~ CJ ~ -rfz \S2 S2 15F I .,; 1001F S3033C0935F 'PANEL NOT PRINTED· OPEN WATER AREA ALL IN z, I H PANEL NOT PRINTED • AREA IN ZONE X I -PANEL NOT PRINTED· AREA IN ZONED -PANEL NOT PRINTED -PANEL 53033C1490 IS SHO' MAPINDEX FIRM FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AND INCORPORATED AREAS (SEE LISTING OF COMMUNITIES TABLE) MAP INDEX PAtELS PRINTED: 20, 40, 43. 44, 13, M. ea, n., ID, U. 81, 11.5, 120, 1M. 213, 21 .. 310, SZO, 321,321. 330, 331, m, 333, 3M, MG, 312., JM. 380,381,381, •• 370, 377,371,311,31S,315,3I0,3'&,401,405, 410, .. 11, ,11, ,11, GO, 431, 4311, 480, 502, !09, lt11, SOI, 127, Ul,821,133.110,011,820,IIO,Ul,131, IMO, Ml, 112, IM.111.117,111, IN, 914, Nl,117, 1111, -. II0,181,1117,.,All,H'l,912,113,fMM, JOI, TOI, 710, 7115, 718,717,711. 719,721,736.737, 731, 741, 742, 7.Q, 744t 711,783,125,935, ISO, 153, IM, 911, 117,IMl8,IIO,N1,N2,IN,N4,117,N8, 1111, ffl, ffl,171,9711,111,182.113,9114,116,117, 11811, ffl, "2, 193, ltM., 1001, 1001, 1003, 1004, 1008, 100T, 10D1, 100l, 101S. 1020, 1028, 1032, 1038, 1038, 10l2, 10H, 1087, 10l8, 1078, 1077, 1078, 107l, 1200, 1221, ,m.1238, 1242,, 12I0, 1211, 1212, 1213, 1214, 1217, 1211, 12'1, 1212, 121l, 12M,, 1218, 1217, 12118, 12811, 1280, 1290, 1215,, 1311, 1350, 1457, 1eG, 14U, 1"'5, UIOa, 15115, 1121. 1NO 8 MAP NUMBER 53033CIND0A MAP REVISED APRIL 19, 2005 Fedorlli Emergency Maoa...,ent Agency This is an official copy of a portion of the abow referenced ffood map. It was extreicted U&ing F-MITOn-Line. Thia map doeEI not relleet changes or amendmenW which miily t\a"9 been made subsequent to the date oo the tiUe block. For the late,st product Information about National Flood lm;:.urance Program tood mape check the FEMA Flood Map Store at www.mac fema gov Figure 5A: FEMA Map KPFF KING COUNTY. WASIITNGTOI\. SURFACE WATER DESJGI\ MANl;AL 11/2009 TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) V\/ORKSHEET Part 1 PROJECT OWNER AND PROJECT ENGINEER ! Project Owner Century Pacific. L.P. I · Phone (206) 757-8899 I] Address 1201 Third Ave. Suite 1680 Seattle, WA 98101 I Project Engineer _,_To"'m=J"'o""ne,,,s'------- ! Company KPFF Consulting Engineers • i Phone (206) 622-5822 I Part 3 TYPE OF PERMIT APPLICATION D Landuse Services Subdivison I Short Subd. I UPD U Building Services M/F / Com merical I S FR D Clearing and Grading D Right-of-Way Use ~ Other Master Site Plan Entitlement I Part 5 PLAN AND REPORT INFORMATION 'I Technical lnfonmation Report , Type of Drainage Review ~/ Targeted / ! (circle): 'i:ar§e Site I I Date (include revision November. 2009 dates): Date of Final: I Part 6 ADJUSTMENT APPROVALS ' I I Part 2 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1 Project Name Quendall Terminals I I DDES Permit# _Nc.c/A'----------- Location Township --'T-"2""9,_,_N ___ _ Range R5E 1 Section _...:S:..:W.:.:2:::9;__ __ _ 1 Site Address 4350 Lake Washington Blvd Renton, WA 98056 I Part 4 OTHER REVIEWS AND PERMITS DFWHPA 1 10 IO COE404 'o I D DOE Dam Safety FEMA Floodplain D COE Wetlands !ZI Shoreline Management D Structural RockeryNaulU __ D ESA Section 7 !ZI Other EPA Superfund i Site Improvement Plan (Engr. Plans) I Type (circle one): ~ / Modified / 'sii<a11 Site Date (include revision November, 2009 dates): Date of Final: I Type (circle one): ~ Complex I ?reapplication / Experimental/ Blanket · Description: (include conditions in TIR Section 2) Date of Approval: Quendall Terminals Storm Drainage Report Figure 6A: TIR Worksheet KPFF Kl"IG COUNTY. WASHINGTO!'<. SURF.'.CE WATER DESlG:\ lvlANCAL 11/2009 TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET I ?art 7 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS ! Monitoring Required: @) No ' Start Date: N/A for Master Site Plan : Completion Date: N/A ' I Describe: N/A 1----- I Part 8 SITE COMMUNITY AND DRAINAGE BASIN ! Community Plan:-------------- Special District Overlays: Overlay Design District C Drainage Basin: Lake Washington Stormwater Requirements: 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual Part 9 ONSITE AND ADJACENT SENSITIVE AREAS I D River/Stream ---------- 1 ~ Lake Lake Washington I ~ Wetlands----------- i D Closed Depression _______ _ [ D Floodplain __________ _ I D Other __________ _ D Steep Slope ________ _ D Erosion Hazard _______ _ D Landslide Hazard _______ _ D Coal Mine Hazard -------- [&I Seismic Hazard Liquefaction D Habitat Protection _______ _ D -----------! ___________________________________ _; Part 10 SOILS Soil Type Bellingham Silt Loam Norma Sandy Loam Slopes 0-5% typical 0-5% typical i ~ High Groundwater Table (within 5 feet) D Sole Source Aquifer D Seeps/Springs D Other D Additional Sheets Attached Quendall Terminals Storm Drainage Report Erosion Potential Low Low Figure 6A:· tiRWorksheet KPFF KI\G COU!\TY. WASHINGTO\. SURFACE W.~TER DESIGN MANl;/,L 11/2009 TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET i Part 11 DRAINAGE DESIGN LIMITATIONS I I i REFERENCE I [ D Core 2 Offsite Analvsis I D Sensitive/Critical Areas ID SEPA I g Other D Additional Sheets Attached LIMITATION I SITE CONSTRAINT Part 12 TIR SUMMARY SHEET rovide one TIR Summa Sheet per Threshold Dischar e Area) Threshold Discharge Area: Entire site discharges to Lake Washington. ( name or description) I Core Requirements (all 8 apply) ' Discharoe at Natural Location Number of Natural Dischar e Locations: Offsite Analysis Level: 1 2 I 3 dated: _______ _ Flow Control Level: I 2 I 3 or Exemption Number Direct Dischar!Je (incl facility summary sheet) Small Site BMPs NIA Conveyance System Spill containment located at: NIA for Master Site Plan Erosion and Sediment Control ESC Site Supervisor: N/A Not applicable for Master Contact Phone: N/A After Hours Phone: N/A Site Plan Entitlement. Maintenance and Operation Responsibility: Private I Public If Private. Maintenance Loo Required: Yes I No Financial Guarantees and Provided: Yes/~ Liabilitv Water Quality Type: !Basic)/ Sens. Lake/ Enhanced Basicm / Bog include facilit summa sheet or Exem ticin"Jlfo. I ( y ry p Landscape Manaaement Plan: Yes I No Soecial Reauirements (as annlicablel I Area Specific Drainage Requirements ! Floodplain/Floodway Delineation I ' I Flood Protection Facilities Source Control (comm./industrial landuse) Type: CDA I SDO / MDP I BP/ LMP / Shared Fae. {None") Name: Type: Major / Minor I Exemption 1@ 100-year Base Flood Elevation (or range): _____ _ Datum: Describe: N/A Describe landuse: Mixed-Use Residential/Office/Commercial Describe any structural controls: N/A for Master Site Plan Quendall Terminals Storm Drainage Report Figure 6A: TIR Worksheet I I : I KPFF U'iCi COL'NTY. WASHi'iGTOl\. SCRFACE W . .\TER DES!Cil\ 'vlANCA'.. 11/2009 TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Oil Control I Other Drainage Structures Describe: High-use Site: Yes I No Treatment BMP: ------------- Maintenance Agreement: Yes /@ with whom? ' Part 13 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION ~ Clearing Limits ~ Cover Measures ~ Perimeter Protection ~ Traffic Area Stabilization I ~ Sediment Retention ! ~ Surface Water Collection I ~ Dewatering Control I iID Dust Control D Flow Control MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS I AFTER CONSTRUCTION I ii Stabilize Exposed Surfaces I ~ Remove and Restore Temporary cSC Facilities I ~ Clean and Remove All Silt and Debris, ensure , Operation of Permanent Facilities I j D Flag Limits of SAO and open space ; preservation areas I I O Other --------- i Part 14 STORMWA I ER FACILITY DESCRIPTIONS (Note: Include Facility Summarv and Sketch\ ' '1 I I ! Flow Control Type/Description Water Quality D Detention D Infiltration D Regional Facility D Shared Facility I D Flow Control I BMPs I D Other ! I I D Biofiltration i i ~ Wetpool ~ Media Filtration D Oil Control D Spill Control D Flow Control BMPs D Other Tvc,e/Description Presettling Vault StormFilters Quendall Terminals Storm Drainage Report Figure 6A: TIR Worksheet KPFF UNG ccw,:r,-. \1°.'\SH11'GTON. SURFACE W:\TER DES]G:\ MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) V\IORKSHEET I Part 15 EASEMENTS/TRACTS 1 ~ Drainage Easement D Covenant D Native Growth Protection Covenant I O Tract I D Other Part 16 STRUCTURAL ANAL ys:s I ' 0 Cast in Place Vault , 0 Retaining Wall 1 0 Rockery> 4· High 0 Structural on Steep Slope 0 Other ! Part 17 SIGNATURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER i 11/2009 1 L or a civil engineer under my supervision, have visited the site. Actual site conditions as observed were 1 incorporated into this worksheet and the attached Technical Information Report. To the best of my i knowledge the information provided here is accurate. ! _______________________________ _ Si ned!Date Quendall Terminals Storm Drainage Report Figure 6A:-TIR Worksheet ' ' ' ' ,. ,.,, ' \ . ~' I '" .. m , ; ., m :Jt. ~ ,_-,io. I .,. ..... " ', CenturyPaclflc, LP Quendall Terminals Appendix B Calculations and Proposed Strom Drainage System Figure 18: Conceptual Storm Drainage Plan Figure 28: lsopluvial Maps (2-Year, 25-Year, 100-Year, and Annual Runoff) Figure 38: Conveyance Calculations Figure 48: Water Quality Calculations Figure 5B: Storm Filter Product Information Appendix B . ' I :---- 1 <D i (.') ;:;: z 0 a= < u :::, "' !l: z <a I t:: ;,:; "' "' i!'ic o..z ii ... ~t,j O..< ~I "',5 t=';,:; V, C :i "' 11 "' ""12 w"' z~ ~ ::::I< W:, "'~ ! Oo.. ,cw v,U z "0 t,ju :, Q ~ -......., __ ~ ..... I ' ' .I ·:1 :1 I L_~i='\~~.,----'--,~~ ' ~---'-L._________r------..1~ r' ' ' I , ' --.-~ ---/~--_._. __ . I -..:.,,,' . ' I ' I \ :i, • ! i ii !~ ~~ ;[ u "' i " § z CD 0 i " u (.!) "' ~ ..... r V, z 0 u z ~ 0 0 ;;;: ~ r u 0 ::::;<.:> z itz «;s I !:: ~ "'<.:> f!'ic o..z ii "" s= o..~ !I "',!; ~~ V>C ~"' 11 "' '"'la! ="' z~ ~ :::J« ==> "'~ ! Oo.. :c"' V> !il •o t,,iu "' C 5 8 ~ !;~i i1~- l 1i~ l'J~ h! i'"i!! i ii..._ !!!I!!* ~ ali,- • i' ~ ~ • ,. :& ~~ ~ l;; c::li i. 1;;.., .., ~ "' r . ~ ~ -""'",_.,..,. .... SECTIO!\ J.c Rl.''IOFF COMPlT~ TION AND ANALYSIS METHODS FIGURE 3.2.1.A 2-YEAR 24-HOUR 1SOPLl'\1ALS <.;: / ', \ )'· ~~~~i~~HTisRMINALS SITE \ ·, I r ' ', I \ / ) ...... -.... ~,.,, .c WESTERN KING COUNTY 2-Year 24-Hour Precipitation in Inches l/912009 "' . ' 0 ' * 2 4 MIies 3-14 SN0H0!111SI" C:OL•:n-r -7ii.-.-ca~.rn ---3.5 Figure 2B: lsopluvial Maps 2009 Surface Water Design Manual SECT!Ol\ 3.2 RUNOFF COMPCTAT!Ol\ AND ANALYSIS METHODS FIGURE 3.2.1.C 25-YEAR 24-HOUR ISOPLlTVIALS "' --. ,,.,. ( -..... \ "'"• co ,.,,. ! \ (' WESTERN KING COUNTY 25-Year 24-Hour Precipitation in Inches 11912009 ~" ~~..!:'..!.S.!"21;'.'!.!...:'.. 1<.tN'-COllJ<!~ i ,!,' : ' ,_! --·, ' * 0 2 4 Miles Figure 28: lsopluvial Maps 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 3-16 i f i I i } l l : I 11 Is i:i l'i l'i ~ Is i!l°ls,ttls~ Is Is Is i'i I ...... , .... ~ 1:::5 ~ ~ ~ -J_ - • ! 1 111 Ii I, ,;, I,, ! i ] l ! l i ! i ! I • ' ! ; ~ I j ' ' 1tr ~~:~ ' ' "' ' l .. I I ' Ii o,;.i, ' I !i' H ' ' 11 1-ri i, +++-! ~~+-tt, I I I +-, 1-++,+-,+c;+-,,++'-++,++,- . I I i ' i I I I I I J ! l I f i ! i l i I i • l • l l • , 1 , '!,!I • !, , ,i;r,;;,,I,,, "i I I 11 11. 111! 1 11 iS llj l!l!i l!i 1 i':ii':i!H1!1!1!1! : ., .. "' .. ·~ .. I_""' ;; ;~ i~1~~E.~~:~:i.i : 1 ,I, ,,I,, ,.. 1 . ,., "I°' "'."'~~!~~~~;i; ,-I--;-,---~, --: _, 0 1,1.,1,, ~ i ,; \!.l )!j ~ --- ~ ~ i.;i 5l i,:i $i fl Ii: ii:::; i:l I'll I I I I I §I ;:! ~1~ ! s S'~:S ~: C J_ I ' .i ~,~ :ii :::::;,I:;; >1 :.'~ ~ ": i!l iu: ~~·::;:o.:'/l;;:i :;r: I ' ,,,.'ii;;,;,:.;,;, 'i! ~I. oooooolooj ' KX~~~iiiillll '~ fl 'i! "'1~ "+·.= !!8 _ _,_ --+ - I , .. ~ .. ,,.,., .... 1 .......... ~ ~.o i:5<>~:~o§cc .1. .1. • I !J"S1r.: .... I ' I i I T +-t-+4+-- 1 +> I I I ' I I 'I I ' r ! i 1 ! KPFF Consulting Engineers BASIN AREAS Basin areas are for Storm Drain Lines #1, #2, and #3, which carry PGIS from streets and open-air parking to water quality treatment facilities. STORM DRAIN LINE #1 TOT 57810 [SFJ IMP 90% 52029 [SF] PER\!: 10% ___ 5781 [SF] $_TORM DRAIN LINE #2 TOT 124226 [SF] IMP-90% 111803 (SF] PERY" 10% 12423iS.B_ 1 33 [ACJ 1.19 (ACJ-- 0.13 jAC] 2.85 [AC] 2.57 [AC] 0.29 [AC]. STO_BM DRAIN LINE #3 (INCL~DES NE ~D PARKING} TOT 114770 [S~ : 2.63 [ACJ ~_95.6% 109fB7 [SF] = --2.521,0,9_1 __ PERV 4.4% 5083_@F] : 0.12 l~ PRESETTLING TANK VOLUMES Presettling prior lo StormFllter per Section 6.5.1 of 2009 KCS\fv'DM. PRESETTLING VOLUME= 0.75""1/, V, = (0.9*A + o.2s·Ai,_ + 0.10*Ait + 0.01*A,)*R A,= IMP ~=PERV Att"' 0 A,= 0 R = 0.039 [FT] SD LINE-#Jl§D LiNE #2 [ SD LINE #3 IV, [CF] 0.75""1/, [CF] 1sa3 I 4045 .. I 3900 1412 3034 2925 Quendall Terminals (Eq 6-13, 2009 KCS\NDM) (Fig 6.4.1.A, 2009 KCSV\IOM) November, 2009 STORMFIL TER CALCULATIONS StormFilter design per Section 6.5.5 of 2009 KCSWDM. Treatment flow is 35% of the developed 2-year peak flow rate determined using KCRTS and 15-minule times steps. Sea-Tac 1.0 scale factor used in KCRTS. Cartridge design flows per Table 6.5.5.A of 2009 KCSlA/DM. NUMBER OF CARTRIDGES 2-YR FLOW WO FLOW 12" (5 GPM 18" C7 .5 GP Ml 27"(11.3GPM 1:D UN.~_#1 -_Q/572 {CFS]_ • 35% = 0.2002 [<;:FSJ. = 89.9 [GPMJ -18 12 -8 - S~ LINE #2 1.23 !CFS] * 35% = 0.4305 [CFS1 = 193.2 !GPMI 39 26 18 SD LINE #3 1.20 ICFS ~ 35%.: 0.42 ICFS1 = 188.5 IGPM 38 26 17 Drainage Report Figure 48: Water Quality Calculations KPFF Consulting Engineers Flow Frequency Analysis Time series File:sd line #1.tsf Project Location:sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) o. 572 6 8/27/01 18:00 0.399 8 9/17/02 17:45 1.11 2 12/08/02 17:15 0.460 7 8/23/04 14: 30 0.613 5 10/28/04 16:00 0.647 4 10/27/05 10:45 0.780 3 10/25/06 22:45 1.48 1 1/09/08 6: 30 computed Peaks Quendall Terminals 11/2009 SD Line #1. pks -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- --Peaks Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period 1.48 1 100.00 0.990 1.11 2 25.00 0.960 0. 780 3 10.00 0.900 0.647 4 5.00 0.800 0.613 5 3.00 0.667 0. 572 6 2.00 0. 500 0.460 7 1.30 0.231 o. 399 8 1.10 0.091 1. 36 50.00 0.980 Page 1 Storm Drainage Report Figure 4B: WQ Cales KPFF Consulting Engineers Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:sd line #2.tsf Project Location:sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 1. 23 6 8/27/0118:00 0.854 8 9/17/02 17:45 2.38 2 12/08/02 17:15 0.986 7 8/23/04 14:30 1.31 5 10/28/04 16:00 1.39 4 10/27/05 10:45 1.67 3 10/25/06 22:45 3.18 1 1/09/08 6:30 computed Peaks Quendall Terminals 11/2009 so Line #2.pks -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- --Peaks Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period 3.18 1 100.00 0.990 2.38 2 25.00 0.960 1.67 3 10.00 0.900 1. 39 4 5.00 0.800 1. 31 5 3.00 0.667 1. 23 6 2.00 0. 500 0.986 7 1. 30 0.231 0.854 8 1.10 0.091 2.91 50.00 0.980 Page 1 Storm Drainage Report Figure 48: WQ Cales KPFF Consulting Engineers Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:sd line #3.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 1.20 6 8/27/01 18:00 0.838 8 9/17/02 17:45 2.30 2 12/08/02 17:15 0.966 7 8/23/04 14:30 1. 28 5 10/28/04 16:00 1. 35 4 10/27/05 10:45 1.63 3 10/25/06 22:45 3.03 1 1/09/08 6: 30 Computed Peaks Quendall Terminals 11/2009 SD Line #3.pks -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- --Peaks Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period 3.03 1 100.00 0.990 2.30 2 25.00 0.960 1.63 3 10.00 0.900 1. 35 4 5.00 0.800 1. 28 5 3.00 0.667 1.20 6 2.00 0.500 0.966 7 1.30 0.231 0.838 8 1.10 0.091 2.79 50.00 0.980 Page 1 Storm Drainage Report Figure 4B: WO Cales 09G" INLET FIFE (SEE NOTES 5 < G) BALLAST , ~ (SEE NOTE B) 0B'1 I 2" H DPE OUTLET STUB (SEE NOTES 5 • G) MANHOLE STORMFIL TER -PLAN VIEW ED CONCRETE GRADE RING STEP (TYP) INLET PIPE (SEE NOTES 5 • G) BALLAST (SEE NOTE B) ~, HEIGHT "1DTl1' I UNDERDRAIN MANIFOLD 030" FRAME AND COVER (STD) (SEE NOTE 4) HDPE OUTLET RISER WITH SCUM BAFFLE 4'-b'MIN (SEE NOTE 7) SEE DET Al L 212 STORMFILTER CARTRIDGE (TYP) (SEE NOTE 2) MANHOLE STORM FILTER -SECTION VIEW Cf) THE STOIWWATER MANAGEMENT Stormrrtter® C>3111illW!lltliiOOSlormwater Solutions .-.~UTr.-.U'" ~ ...... i ;;;,~ STORMWATER.-.-~--._ ~---SOLUTIONS- contec11etormwater.com DATE:8118/08 U.S. PAT!NT No. 5,322,b29, No. 5,707.527. No. G,027,G39 No. b.'49,048, No. 5,624,576, AND 0Tt1t:R. U.S. AND FOREIGN PATENTS Pf"NDlNG DRAWING PRECAST 96" MANHOLE STORMFIL TER PLAN AND SECTION VIEWS STANDARD DETAIL 1 "' SCALE:NONE FILE NAME: MHSF14-96PC-OTL DRAWN:JHR CHECKED:DK TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................. 3 1.2 Site Description ................................................................................................................ 3 1.3 Report Organization ........................................................................................................ 3 2 SITE IITSTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA .............................................................. 5 2.1 Site History ...................................................................................................................... .5 2.1.1 Site Ownership and Easements .................................................................................. 5 2.1.2 Tar Refining and Distillate Manufacturing Activities .............................................. 6 2.1.3 Later Site Uses ............................................................................................................. 9 2.2 Summary of Sources of Contamination .......................................................................... 9 2.2.1 Historical Structures ................................................................................................. 10 2.2.2 Aboveground Storage Tanks .................................................................................... 11 2.2.3 Waste Disposal .......................................................................................................... 12 2.2.4 Potentially Contaminated Fill Materials ................................................................. 12 2.2.5 WeedControl ........................................................................................................... 13 2.2.6 Summary of Sources, Release Mechanisms and Exposure Media .......................... 13 2.3 Summary of Historical Investigations ........................................................................... 13 2.4 Historical Data Evaluation Process ............................................................................... 15 2.4.1 Historical Data Selected for Use in the RI/FS ......................................................... 17 2.5 Summary Rl/FS Data Needs and Task 5 Data Collection ............................................. 18 2.5.1 Chemicals of Interest ................................................................................................ 18 2.5.2 Nature and Extent ofNAPL ..................................................................................... 18 2.5.3 Nature and Extent of Contamination in Groundwater .......................................... 19 2.5.4 Nature and Extent of Contamination in Sediment.. ............................................... 20 3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ..... , ..................................................................................... 23 3.1 Physical Characteristics ................................................................................................. 23 3.1.1 Topography and Site Drainage ................................................................................ 23 3.1.2 Site Climatic Conditions .......................................................................................... 25 3.1.3 Regional H ydrogeology ............................................................................................ 26 3.1.4 Site Geology .............................................................................................................. 26 Draft Remedial Investigation Quendall Terminals RI/FS 1 March2010 060059-01 3.1.4.1 Fill and Fill History .......................................................................................... 27 3.1.4.2 Shallow Alluvium ............................................................................................ 29 3.1.4.3 Deeper Alluvium .............................................................................................. 30 3.1.5 Site Groundwater Hydrology .................................................................................. 30 3.1.5.1 Seasonal Variability ......................................................................................... 31 3.1.5.2 Vertical Gradients ............................................................................................ 32 3.1.5.3 Hydraulic Conductivity Estimates .................................................................. 32 3.1.5.4 Shallow Aquifer ............................................................................................... 32 3.1.5.5 Deep Aquifer .................................................................................................... 33 3.1.5.6 Groundwater Flow Conditions ....................................................................... 34 3.1.5.7 Groundwater Discharge to Lake Washington ................................................ 34 3.1.6 Bathymetry and Sediment Characteristics .............................................................. 36 3.1.7 Geotechnical Characteristics ................................................................................... 36 3.2 Natural Resources ........................................................................................................... 37 3.2.1 Upland and Aquatic Habitat .................................................................................... 37 3.2.2 Riparian and Submerged Plants ............................................................................... 38 3.2.3 Benthic Organisms ................................................................................................... 38 3.2.4 Phytoplankton and Zooplankton ............................................................................ 38 3.2.5 Fish ............................................................................................................................ 39 3.2.6 Wildlife ..................................................................................................................... 39 3.2.7 Threatened and Endangered Species ....................................................................... 40 3.2.8 Resource Management ............................................................................................. 40 3.3 Surrounding Land Use Characteristics .......................................................................... 40 3.3.1 Surrounding Land Use ............................................................................................. .41 3.3.1.1 Conner Homes Property .................................................................................. 41 3.3.1.2 Football Northwest Property .......................................................................... 42 3.3.2 Drinking Water Use ................................................................................................. 43 4 NATURE AND EXTENT OF NAPL .................................................................................... 45 4.1 NAPL Source Areas ........................................................................................................ 45 4.1.1 Potential LNAPL Source Areas ............................................................................... .45 4.1.2 Potential DNAPL Source Areas .............................................................................. .45 4.2 Identification ofNAPL in the Subsurface .................................................................... .46 4.2.1 Identification Methods ............................................................................................ .46 Draft Remedial Investigation Quendall Tenninals RI/FS ii March2010 060059-01 4.2.2 Distinguishing Between LNAPL and DNAPL ....................................................... .47 4.3 Physical and Chemical Properties of DNAPL ............................................................. .48 4.3.1 Density ...................................................................................................................... 48 4.3.2 Viscosity .................................................................................................................... 49 4.3.3 Chemical Composition ............................................................................................ .49 4.3.4 DNAPL Mobility in the Subsurface ......................................................................... 50 4.3.4.1 Subsurface Soils ................................................................................................ 50 4.3.4.2 Residual Saturation Level ................................................................................ 51 4.3.4.3 Improperly Abandoned Wells ........................................................................ 52 4.3.4.4 Potential for DNAPL Migration ...................................................................... 53 4.4 DNAPL Occurrences and Characteristics by Site Area .............................................. .54 4.4.1 Former May Creek Channel .................................................................................... 56 4.4.1.1 Horizontal and Vertical Extent of DNAPL .................................................... 57 4.4.1.2 Physical and Chemical Properties .................................................................. 59 4.4.1.3 Mobility ............................................................................................................ 59 4.4.1.4 DNAPL Volume ............................................................................................... 60 4.4.2 Still House Area ........................................................................................................ 61 4.4.2.1 Horizontal and Vertical Extent ofDNAPL .................................................... 61 4.4.2.2 Physical and Chemical Properties .................................................................. 62 4.4.2.3 Mobility ............................................................................................................ 63 4.4.2.4 DNAPL Volume ............................................................................................... 63 4.4.3 Quendall Pond/North Sump Area ........................................................................... 63 4.4.3.1 Horizontal and Vertical Extent of DNAPL .................................................... 63 4.4.3.2 Physical and Chemical Properties .................................................................. 65 4.4.3.3 Mobility ............................................................................................................ 66 4.4.3.4 DNAPL Volume ............................................................................................... 67 4.4.4 T-Dock Area ............................................................................................................. 67 4.4.4.1 Vertical and Horizontal Extent of DNAPL .................................................... 68 4.4.4.2 Physical and Chemical Properties .................................................................. 70 4.4.4.3 Mobility ............................................................................................................ 71 4.4.4.4 DNAPL Volume ............................................................................................... 71 4.4.5 Railroad Loading Area .............................................................................................. 71 4.4.5.1 Horizontal and Vertical Extent of DNAPL .................................................... 72 Draft Remedial Investigation Quendall Terminals RIPS iii March2010 060059-01 4.4.5.2 4.4.5.3 4.4.5.4 Physical and Chemical Properties .................................................................. 73 Mobility ............................................................................................................ 73 DNAPL Volume ............................................................................................... 73 5 NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION IN SITE MEDIA ................................. 75 5.1 Nature and Extent of Contamination in Soil ................................................................ 75 5.1.1 Potentially Contaminated Fill Materials ................................................................. 76 5.1.1.1 Solid Tar Products ............................................................................................ 76 5.1.1.2 Slag .................................................................................................................... 77 5.1.2 Occurrence of Indicator Chemicals for Coal Tar and Coal Tar Distillates ............ 77 5.1.2.1 Benzene ............................................................................................................ 78 5.1.2.2 Naphthalene ..................................................................................................... 79 5.1.2.3 cPAHs ............................................................................................................... 80 5.1.2.4 Summary .......................................................................................................... 82 5.1.3 Occurrence of Indicator Chemicals for Other Potential Sources .......................... 83 5.1.3.1 Pentachlorophenol. .......................................................................................... 84 5.1.3.2 Polychlorinated Biphenyls .............................................................................. 85 5.1.3.3 Arsenic .............................................................................................................. 85 5.1.3.4 Chromiurn ........................................................................................................ 87 5.1.3.5 Summary .......................................................................................................... 88 5.2 Nature and Extent of Contamination in Groundwater ................................................ 90 5.2.1 Sources of Groundwater Contamination ................................................................ 90 5.2.2 Occurrences of Indicator Chemicals for Coal Tar Products .................................. 91 5.2.2.1 Benzene ............................................................................................................ 92 5.2.2.2 Naphthalene ..................................................................................................... 96 5.2.2.3 cPAHs ............................................................................................................... 99 5.2.3 Occurrence of Indicator Chemicals for Other Contaminant Sources ................. 102 5.2.3.1 Pentachlorophenol.. ....................................................................................... 102 5.2.3.2 Arsenic ............................................................................................................ 102 5.2.3.3 Chromium ...................................................................................................... 104 5.2.3.4 Copper ............................................................................................................ 104 5.3 Nature and Extent of Contamination in Sediment ..................................................... 105 5.3.1 Sources of Sediment Contamination ..................................................................... 105 5.3.1.1 T-DockArea ................................................................................................... 106 Draft Remedial Investigation Quendall Tenninals R1/FS JV March20IO 060059-01 5.3.1.2 Nearshore Discharge Area ............................................................................. 106 5.3.1.3 Wood Debris Area ......................................................................................... 106 5.3.2 Occurrences of Indicator Chemicals for Sediments ............................................. 107 5.3.2.1 Surface Sediment ............................................................................................ 107 5.3.2.2 Subsurface Sediment ...................................................................................... 114 5.3.3 Sediment Toxicity Testing ..................................................................................... 119 5.3.3.1 Hydrocarbon Sample Testing ........................................................................ 120 5.3.3.2 Wood Debris Sample Testing ........................................................................ 125 5.3.3.3 Dredge Elutriate Testing ................................................................................ 131 6 CONTAMINANT FATE AND TRANSPORT ................................................................... 133 6.1 Contaminant Transport Mechanisms .......................................................................... 133 6.1.1 Advection ................................................................................................................ 133 6.1.1.1 Soil Vapor ....................................................................................................... 134 6.1.1.2 DNAPL ........................................................................................................... 135 6.1.1.3 Groundwater .................................................................................................. 135 6.1.2 Diffusion and Dispersion ........................................................................................ 135 6.2 Contaminant Partitioning between DNAPL, Water, Soil, and Air.. ......................... 137 6.2.1 Volatilization .......................................................................................................... 137 6.2.2 Dissolution .............................................................................................................. 137 6.2.3 Sorption ................................................................................................................... 139 6.3 Contaminant Transformation Reactions ..................................................................... 140 6.3.1 Abiotic Transformation .......................................................................................... 140 6.3.2 Biodegradation ........................................................................................................ 141 6.4 Contaminant Transport Pathways .............................................................................. 142 6.4.1 DNAPUSoil/Groundwater to Air Pathway .......................................................... 142 6.4.2 DNAPUSoil to Groundwater to Sediment/Porewater Pathway ......................... 144 6.4.2.1 Groundwater Flow and Contaminant Fate and Transport .......................... 144 6.4.2.2 Groundwater Pathway-Shallow Aquifer ................................................... 147 6.4.2.3 Groundwater Pathway -Deep Aquifer ........................................................ 149 6.4.3 Groundwater to Lake Pathway .............................................................................. 151 6.4.3.1 Model Inputs and Calibration Approach ...................................................... 152 6.4.3.2 Model Calibration Results ............................................................................. 153 6.4.3.3 Sensitivity Analyses ....................................................................................... 155 Draft Remedial Investigation Quenda!! Terminals RIPS V March2010 060059-01 6.4.3.4 Summary ........................................................................................................ 155 7 BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................ 157 7.1 Human Health Risk Assessment .................................................................................. 157 7.1.1 Data Availability and Selection ............................................................................. 158 7.1.1.1 Soil Data .......................................................................................................... 158 7.1.1.2 Groundwater Data ......................................................................................... 158 7.1.1.3 Sediment and Porewater Data ....................................................................... 159 7.1.1.4 Surface Water Data ........................................................................................ 159 7.1.2 Data Reduction ....................................................................................................... 159 7.1.3 Updated COI Screening and Human Health Chemicals of Potential Concern . .160 7.1.4 Exposure Assessment .............................................................................................. 164 7.1.4.1 Human Health Conceptual Site Model.. ....................................................... 165 7.1.4.2 Exposure Parameter Selection and Chronic Daily Intake Calculations ...... 168 7.1.5 Toxicity Assessment ............................................................................................... 173 7.1.6 Risk Characterization ............................................................................................. 173 7.1.6.1 7.1.6.2 7.1.6.3 7.1.6.4 7.1.6.5 Carcinogenic Risks ......................................................................................... 173 Non-Carcinogenic Health Effects ................................................................. 174 Acceptable Risk Thresholds .......................................................................... 175 Background Sediment cP AHs ....................................................................... 175 Risk Characterization Results ....................................................................... 176 7.1.7 Uncertainty Analysis .............................................................................................. 182 7 .2 Ecological Risk Assessment ......................................................................................... 184 7.2.1 Data Availability and Selection ............................................................................. 185 7.2.1.1 Soil Data .......................................................................................................... 185 7.2.1.2 Sediment and Porewater Data ....................................................................... 186 7.2.1.3 Surface Water Data ........................................................................................ 186 7.2.1.4 Bioassay Data .................................................................................................. 186 7.2.2 Data Reduction ....................................................................................................... 187 7.2.3 Ecological COPCs ................................................................................................... 187 7.2.3.1 Soil .................................................................................................................. 187 7.2.3.2 Surface Water and Porewater ....................................................................... 188 7.2.3.3 Sediment ......................................................................................................... 188 7.2.4 Problem Formulation and ERA Conceptual Site Model ...................................... 189 Draft Remedial Investigation Quendall Terminals RJIFS V1 March2010 060059-01 7.2.4.1 Selection of Representative Receptors .......................................................... 189 7 .2.4.2 Assessment Endpoints ................................................................................... 191 7 .2.5 Exposures and Effects Assessment for Terrestrial Receptors ............................... 192 7.2.5.1 Exposure and Effects: Terrestrial Soil Invertebrates and Plants ................. 193 7.2.5.2 Exposure Assessment Terrestrial Wildlife .................................................... 193 7.2.5.3 Effects Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife .................................................. 196 7.2.6 Exposure and Effects Assessment for Aquatic-Dependant Receptors ................. 197 7 .2.6.1 Benthic Macroinvertebrates .......................................................................... 198 7.2.6.2 Fish and Shellfish ........................................................................................... 200 7.2.6.3 Aquatic-Dependant Wildlife ......................................................................... 202 7.2.7 Ecological Risk Characterization Results .............................................................. 202 7.2.8 Uncertainty Analysis .............................................................................................. 203 8 BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS OF RISK DRIVER CHEMICAI.5 ....................... 207 8.1 Background Concentrations of Trace Elements in Soil and Groundwater ............... 207 8.2 Background Concentrations of P AHs in Lake Washington Sediment ...................... 207 9 CONCEP'IUAL SITE MODEL AND REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES ..................... 211 9.1 Conceptual Site Model Summary ................................................................................ 211 9.1.1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................... 21 l 9 .1.1.1 Historical Releases ......................................................................................... 211 9.1.1.2 Geology ........................................................................................................... 212 9.1.1.3 Hydrogeology ................................................................................................. 213 9.1.2 Nature and Extent ofContamination .................................................................... 214 9.1.3 Fate and Transport ................................................................................................. .215 9.1.4 Risk Assessment ...................................................................................................... 216 9.2 Recommended Remedial Action Objectives ............................................................. .217 10 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 219 List of Tables Table 2.1-1 Table 2.3-1 Table 2.4-1 Primary Constituents of Creosote and Coal Tar Summary of Historical Quendall Site Investigation Data Summary of Historical Soil Data Included in the RI Draft Remedial Investigation Quendall Terminals RI/FS vii March2010 060059-01 Table 2.4-2 Table 2.4-3 Table 2.4-4 Table 2.4-5 Table 3.1-1 Table 3.1-2 Table 3.1-3a Table 3.1-3b Table 3.3-1 Table 4.2-1 Table 4.3-1 Table 4.4-1 Table 5.1-1 Table 5.1-2 Table 5.1-3 Table 5.2-1 Table 5.2-1 Table 5.3-1 Table 5.3-2 Table 5.3-3 Table 5.3-4a Table 5.3-4b Table 5.3-5a Table 5.3-5b Table 5.3-6a Table 5.3-6b Table 6.2-1 Table 6.4-1 Table 6.4-2 Table 6.4-3 Summary of Historical Groundwater Data Included in the RI Summary of Historical Sediment Data Included in the RI Summary of Historical Sediment Porewater Data Included in the RI Summary of Historical Surface Water Data Included in the RI Summary of Groundwater Elevation Measurements Hydraulic Conductivity Estimates Summary of Lake bed Seepage Estimates Summary of Lakebed Seepage Estimates Well Construction Information for Area Groundwater Wells DNAPL Thickness Measurements at Site Monitoring Wells Analytical Results for DNAPL and DNAPL-Containing Soil Samples Estimated DNAPL Volume in Subsurface Statistical Summary of Chemical Data for Surface Soil -Quendall Site Statistical Summary of Chemical Data for Surface Soil -Railroad Area Statistical Summary of Chemical Data for Subsurface Soil -Railroad Statistical Summary of Chemical Data for Groundwater -Quendall Site Statistical Summary of Chemical Data for Groundwater -Railroad Area Statistical Summary of Chemical Data for Sediment Statistical Summary of Chemical Data for Porewater Reference and Control Bioassay Performance Standards Bioassay Results Summary -Hydrocarbon Test Bioassay Results Summary -Hydrocarbon Test Bioassay Results Summary -Wood Debris Test 1 Bioassay Results Summary -Wood Debris Test 1 Bioassay Results Summary -Wood Debris Test 2 Bioassay Results Summary -Wood Debris Test 2 Summary of Site-Specific Indicator Chemical Fate and Transport Properties and Risk Potential Summary of Cation Concentrations in Porewater for Reible Sediment Model Summary of Benzene and Naphthalene Concentrations in Porewater for Reible Sediment Model Model Input Parameters for Cations, Benzene, and Naphthalene Draft Remedial Investigation Quendall Tenninals R!/FS viii March2010 060059-01 Table 7.1-1 Table 7.1-2 Table 7.1-3 Table 7.1-4 Table 7.1-5 Table 7.1-6 Table 7.1-7 Table 7.1-8 Table 7.1-9 Table 7.1-10 Table 7.1-11 Table 7.1-12 Table 7.1-13 Table 7.1-14 Table 7.1-15 Table 7.1-16 Table 7.1-17 Table 7.1-18 Table 7.1-19 Table 7.1-20 Table 7.1-21 Table 7.1-22 Table 7.1-23 Table 7.1-24 Table 7.1-25 Table 7.1-26 Summary of Available Quendall Site Event Investigation Data for Risk Assessment Summary of Site Data for Characterizing Human Exposure Updated Chemicals oflnterest and Indicator Chemicals Human Health Chemicals of Potential Concern Rationale for the Selection or Exclusion of Quantitative Exposure Human Health Pathways EPC -Soil, Site -Commercial User, Residential User, Construction/Excavation Worker EPC -Soil, Beach -Beach User EPC -Groundwater, Site -Commercial User, Residential User EPC -Sediment, Beach -Beach User, Commercial User, Residential User, Construction/Excavation Worker EPC -Sediment, Site -Recreational Fisher, Subsistence Fisher EPC -Fish and Shellfish Ingestion, Recreational Fisher and Subsistence Fisher EPC -Surface Water, Site -Recreational Fisher, Commercial User, Residential User Cancer Toxicity Data (Oral/Dermal) for Chemicals of Potential Concern Non-Cancer Toxicity Data (Oral) for Chemicals of Potential Concern Risk Characterization Summary -Adult Resident Risk Characterization Summary -Child Resident Risk Characterization Summary -Commercial Worker Risk Characterization Summary -Adult Beach User Risk Characterization Summary -Child Beach User Risk Characterization Summary -Adult Recreational Fisher -In-Water Risk Characterization Summary -Child Recreational Fisher -In-Water Risk Characterization Summary -Adult Recreational Fisher -Beach Risk Characterization Summary -Child Recreational Fisher -Beach Risk Characterization Summary -Adult Subsistence Fisher -In-Water Risk Characterization Summary -Child Subsistence Fisher -In-Water Risk Characterization Summary -Industrial Worker Draft Remedial Investigation Quendall Tenninals R1IFS ix March2010 060059-01 Table 7.1-27 Table 7.1-28 Table 7.1-29 Table 7.2-1 Table 7.2-2 Table 7.2-3 Table 7.2-4 Table 7.2-5 Table 7.2-6 Table 7.2-7 Table 7.2-8 Table 7.2-9 Table 7.2-10 Table 7.2-11 Table 7.2-12 Table 7.2-13 Table 7.2-14 Table 7.2-15 Table 7.2-16 Table 7.2-17 Table 7.2-18 Table 7.2-19 Table 7.2-20 Table 9.2-1 list of Figures Figure 1.1-1 Figure 2.1-1 Figure 2.2-1 Figure 2.2-2 Figure 2.3-1 Risk Characterization Summary -Construction/Excavation Worker Comparison of Site and Background Fish and Shellfish Tissue Risks HHRA Uncertainty Analysis Sununary of Site Data for Characterizing Ecological Exposures Ecological Chemicals of Potential Concern Rationale for the Selection or Exclusion of Quantitative Exposure Ecological Pathways Summary of Ecological Assessment and Measurement Endpoints Bulk Soil Screening: Terrestrial Soil Invertebrates and Plants Wildlife Exposure Parameters Summary of Dietary Fractions for Wildlife Exposure Assessment Bulk Soil Screening: Terrestrial Wildlife Avian Toxicity Reference Values Mammalian Toxicity Reference Values Terrestrial Wildlife TOI Hazard Qµotients Surface Water Screening: Aquatic Plants Surface Water Screening: Fish Fish Tissue and Dietary Toxicity Reference Values Summary of Biota-Sediment Accumulation Factors for Modeling Tissue Exposure to Ecological Receptors and Prey Items Dietary Fish Hazard Qµotients Aquatic-Dependant Wildlife TD I Hazard Quotients Ecological Risk Sununary Allowable Concentrations in Soil for Ecological TOI HQ; above 1 Allowable Concentrations in Sediment for Ecological TOI HQ; above 1 Preliminary Remedial Action Objectives, Quendall Terminals Site Quendall Site Location and Vicinity Sununary of Current Site Features Summary of Historical Site Features Timeline of Site Operations Upland Exploration Location Map Draft Remedial Investigation Quendall Terminals RI/FS X March2010 060059-01 Figure 2.3-2 Figure 3.1-la Figure 3.1-lb Figure 3.1-2 Figure 3.1-3 Figure 3.1-4 Figure 3.1-5 Figure 3.1-6 Figure 3.1-7 Figure 3.1-8 Figure 3.1-9 Figure 3.1-10 Figure 3.1-11 Figure 3.1-12 Figure 3.1-13 Figure 3.3-1 Figure 3.3-2 Figure 3.3-3 Figure 4.1-1 Figure 4.1-2 Figure 4.2-la Figure 4.2-1 b Figure 4.4-1 Figure 4.4-2 Figure 4.4-3 Figure 4.4-4 Figure 4.4-5 Figure 4.4-6 Figure 4.4-7 Figure 5.1-1 Figure 5.1-2 Historical and 2009 RI/FS Sediment Sample Locations Comparison of 1975 and 2009 Topographic Contours Comparison of 1975 and 2007 Topographic Contours Wind Rose Diagram for SeaTac Airport Regional Geology Conceptual Cross Section of Regional Geology Cross Section Location Map Geologic Cross Section A-A' Geologic Cross Section B-B' Geologic Cross Section C-C' Geologic Cross Section D-D' Geologic Cross Section E-E' Topographic Map of Vicinity September 2009 Groundwater Elevation Contour Map Shallow Aquifer November 2008 Groundwater Elevation Contour Map Shallow Aquifer Summary of Remedial Actions and Groundwater Monitoring Results - September 2009 Summary of Environmental Conditions and Remedial Actions, Football NW Property Locations of Water Wells within 0.5 Miles of Q.rendall Terminals Potential LNAPL Product Release Areas Potential DNAPL Product Release Areas Histograms of P AH Distribution in Samples and Standards Histograms of P AH Distribution in Samples and Standards Site Plan Showing DNAPL Occurrences 3-D DNAPL Visualization -Plan View 3-D DNAPL Visualization -Cross-Sectional View Cumulative DNAPL Thickness Contour Map Maximum Depth of DNAPL Occurrences Product Recovery Pilot Test Results Maximum Depth of DNAPL Occurrences -T Dock Occurrences of Potentially Contaminated Fill Materials Surface Soil Benzene Concentrations -0 to 5 Feet Draft Remedial Investigation Quendall Tenninals RJ,FS xi March2010 060059-01 Figure 5.1-3 Figure 5.1-4 Figure 5.1-5 Figure 5.1-6 Figure 5.1-7 Figure 5.1-8 Figure 5.1-9 Figure 5.1-10 Figure 5.1-11 Figure 5.1-12 Figure 5.1-13 Figure 5.2-1 Figure 5.2-2 Figure 5.2-3 Figure 5.2-4 Figure 5.2-5 Figure 5.2-6 Figure 5.2-7 Figure 5.2-8 Figure 5.2-9 Figure 5.2-10 Figure 5.2-11 Figure 5.2-12 Figure 5.2-13 Figure 5.2-14 Figure 5.2-15 Figure 5.2-16 Figure 5.2-17 Figure 5.2-18 Figure 5.2-19 Figure 5.2-20 Figure 5.3-1 Figure 5.3-2 Subsurface Soil Benzene Concentrations -5 to 15 Feet Subsurface Soil Benzene Concentrations -15 to 25 Feet Subsurface Soil Benzene Concentrations -Depth Greater than 25 Feet Surface Soil Naphthalene Concentrations -0 to 5 Feet Subsurface Soil Naphthalene Concentrations -5 to 15 Feet Subsurface Soil Naphthalene Concentrations -15 to 25 Feet Subsurface Soil Naphthalene Concentrations -Greater than 25 Feet Surface Soil cPAHs (B(a]P Equivalent) Concentrations -0 to 5 Feet Subsurface Soil cPAHs (B[a]P Equivalent) Concentrations -5 to 15 Feet Subsurface Soil cPAHs (B(a]P Equivalent) Concentrations -15 to 25 Feet Subsurface Soil cPAHs (B[a]P Equivalent) -Greater than 25 Feet Shallow Groundwater Benzene Concentrations Deeper Groundwater Benzene Concentrations Groundwater Cross-section Locations Benzene Occurrences along Cross-section A-A' Benzene Occurrences along Cross-section B-B' Benzene Occurrences along Cross-section E-E' Historical Benzene Concentrations at Shoreline Wells Shallow Groundwater Naphthalene Concentrations Deeper Groundwater Naphthalene Concentrations Naphthalene Occurrences along Cross-section A-A' Naphthalene Occurrences along Cross-section B-B' Naphthalene Occurrences along Cross-section E-E' Historical Naphthalene Concentrations at Shoreline Wells Shallow Groundwater cPAHs (B[a]P Equivalent) Concentrations Deeper Groundwater cP AHs (B[ a JP Equivalent) Concentrations Groundwater Pentachlorophenol Concentrations Shallow Groundwater Arsenic Concentrations Deeper Groundwater Arsenic Concentrations Groundwater Chromium Concentrations Groundwater Copper Concentrations 2009 RI/FS Surface Sediment Sample Locations Surface Bulk Sediment Naphthalene Concentrations Draft Remedial Investigation Quendall Terminals RI/FS xii March2010 060059-01 Figure 5.3-3 Figure 5.3-4 Figure 5.3-5 Figure 5.3-6 Figure 5.3-7 Figure 5.3-8 Figure 5.3-9 Figure 5.3-10 Figure 5.3-11 Figure 5.3-12 Figure 5.3-13 Figure 5.3-14 Figure 5.3-15 Figure 5.3-16 Figure 5.3-17 Figure 5.3-18 Figure 5.3-19 Figure 5.3-20 Figure 5.3-21 Figure 6.4-1 Figure 6.4-2 Figure 6.4-3 Figure 6.4-4 Figure 6.4-5 Figure 6.4-6 Figure 6.4-7 Figure 7.1-1 Figure 7.1-2 Figure 7.1-3 Surface Bulk Sediment Organic Carbon Normalized cP AHs (B[ a JP) Equivalent Concentrations Surface Bulk Sediment P AH ESB Toxic Units Surface Sediment Porewater Benzene Concentrations Surface Sediment Porewater Naphthalene Concentrations Surface Sediment Porewater PAH ESB Toxic Units U=l/2 Surface Sediment Porewater PAH ESB Toxic Units U=O Surface Sediment Wood Debris Locations and Bulk Sediment Indicators 2009 RI/FS Subsurface Sediment Sample Locations Subsurface Sediment Porewater Benzene Concentrations-Nearshore Cores Subsurface Sediment Porewater Naphthalene -Nearshore Cores Subsurface Sediment Porewater Total cPAH -Nearshore Cores Subsurface Sediment Porewater PAH ESB Toxic Units-Nearshore Cores U=l/2 Subsurface Sediment Porewater PAH ESB Toxic Units-Nearshore Cores U=O Subsurface Bulk Sediment Naphthalene Concentrations-T-Dock Cores Subsurface Bulk Sediment Total cPAH Concentrations-T-Dock Cores Subsurface Bulk Sediment P AH ESB Toxic Units-T-Dock Cores Surface Sediment Bioassay Sample Locations Mortality and Growth in 28-day Hyalella azteca Bioassay Mortality and Growth in 20-day Oiironomus dilutus Bioassay Particle Endpoint Analysis Simulated Concentrations of Naphthalene from Source at MC-1 Simulated Concentrations of Naphthalene from Source at BH-30 Simulated Concentrations of Benzene from Source at BH-20C Cation Calibration Results Benzene Calibration Results Naphthalene Calibration Results Exposure Sample Data Locations for Surface and Subsurface Soil Exposure Sample Data Locations for Groundwater Exposure Sample Data Locations for Bulk Surface Sediment Draft Remedial Investigation Quendall Terminals Rl/FS xiii March2010 060059-01 Figure 7.1-4 Figure 7.1-5 Figure 7 .1-6 Figure 7.1-7 Figure 7 .1-8 Figure 7.2-1 Figure 7.2-2 Figure 8.2-1 Figure 8.2-2 Exposure Sample Data Locations for Surface Water and Surface Sediment Porewater Decision Matrix for Identifying Contaminants of Interest Decision Matrix for Identifying Chemicals of Potential Concern Baseline Quendall Human Health Conceptual Site Model Decision Matrix for Evaluating Subsistence and Tribal Fishing Scenarios Baseline Quendall Terminal Terrestrial Wildlife Conceptual Site Model Baseline Quendall Terminal Aquatic-Dependent Wildlife Conceptual Site Model Background Surface Sediment Sample Locations Background Surface Bulk Sediment Total cPAH Concentrations List of Appendices Appendix A AppendixB AppendixC AppendixD Appendix£ AppendixF AppendixG AppendixH Remedial Investigation Field Data Report Hydrogeologic Data Boring Logs Geotechnical Data Chemical database Groundwater Modeling Reible Sediment Cap Modeling Risk Assessment Supporting Information Draft Remedial Investigation Quendall Tenmnals RI/FS xiv March2010 060059-01 LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS µg/kg µgil 1918 Plant Map 1958 Plant Map ADD AF AnchorQEA ANOVA AOC Aspect ASTM ASTs ATSDR bgs BMP BNSF BSAF BTAG BTEX BTV CERCLA cm/s COis COPC COPC cp cPAHs CSM CT DNAPL microgram per kilogram microgram per liter Blueprints of the Reilly Plant, Circa 1918 1958 Republic Creosoting Company "Seattle Plant Map" Average Daily Dose adherence factors Anchor QEA, LLC analysis of variance Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent Aspect Consulting, LLC American Standards for Testing and Materials aboveground storage tanks Agency for Toxic Substances Disease Registry below ground surface best management practices Burlington Northern Santa Fe biota-sediment accumulation factor Biological Technical Assistance Group benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene background threshold value Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act centimeters/second contaminants of interest chemical of potential concern chemical of potential concern centipoise carcinogenic polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons Conceptual Site Model central tendency dense non-aqueous phase liquid Draft Remedial Investigation Quendall Tenninals RIIFS xv March2010 060059-01 DQO DRET Ecology Eco-SSLs EPA EPC ERA ESA ESB ESB ESLs FCV FFS FS ft/day ft/ft GIS H HEAST HERA HHRA HI HSDB HVAC IEUBK LAET LCSO LNAPL LOAEL MCL Metro mg/kg mg/L data quality objectives dredging elutriate test Washington State Department of Ecology Ecological Soil Screening Levels United States Environmental Protection Agency exposure point concentration Ecological Risk Assessment Endangered Species Act equilibrium screening benchmark equilibrium-partitioning sediment benchmark Ecological Screening Levels final chronic value Focused Feasibility Study Feasibility Study feet per day feet per foot Geographic Information System Henry's Law constant Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables Human and Ecological Risk Assessment Human Health Risk Assessment hazard index Hazardous Substance Data Bank Heating, Ventilation, & Air Conditioning integrated exposure uptake biokenetic lowest apparent effects threshold 50 percent lethal concentration light non-aqueous phase liquid lowest apparent effects level maximum contaminant level Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle milligram per kilogram milligram per liter Draft Remedial Investigation Quendall Tenninals RI/FS xvi March2010 060059-01 MIW MTCA NAPL NAS NAVD NCP NOAEL oc OGWDW OHWM PAHs PAZ PCBs PCP PQL PRGs QA QAPP QC RA RAGS RAOs RCW Retec RID RI RME RSET SAP SF Site SLERA SP! mean individual weight Model Toxics Control Act non-aqueous phase liquid Northwestern Aquatic Sciences North American Vertical Datum National Contingency Plan no apparent effects level organic carbon Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water ordinary high water mark polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons passive attenuation zone polychlorinated biphenyls pentachlorophenol practical quantitation limit Preliminary Remediation Goals quality assurance Quality Assurance Project Plan quality control risk assessment Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund remedial action objectives Revised Code of Washington Remediation Technologies, Inc. reference dose Remedial Investigation reasonable maximum exposure Regional Sediment Evaluation Team Sampling and Analysis Plan slope factor Quendall Terminals Site Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment sediment profile imaging Draft Remedial Investigation Quendall Terminals RI/FS xvii March2010 060059-01 SPME SVOCs TEF the Respondents TI roe TPH TPH TRV TRW TU TVS U&A UCL USACE USFWS UT voes WAC WDFW WDNR WEFH WRIA WSDOT semi-phase microextraction semivolatile organic compound toxicity equivalent factor Altino Properties, Inc., and J.H. Baxter & Company Technical Impracticability total organic carbon total petroleum hydrocarbons total petroleum hydrocarbon total reference values total replicate weight toxic unit total volatile solids Usual and Accustomed upper confidence level U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service University at Texas volatile organic compounds Washington Administrative Code Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Washington Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook Water Resources Inventory Area Washington State Department of Transportation Draft Remedial Investigation Quenda/1 Terminals RI/FS xviii March2010 060059-01 1 INTRODUCTION Under the direction of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Quendall Terminals owners (Altino Properties, Inc., and J.H. Baxter & Company; the Respondents) are conducting a Remedial Investigation (RI) and Feasibility Study (FS) at the Quendall Terminals Site (Site) in Renton, Washington. The work is being conducted under an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent, as amended (AOC). This draft RI Report describes detailed investigations conducted in 2008 and 2009 at the Site as described in the EPA-approved Data Collecdon Work Plan (Work Plan; Anchor QEA and Aspect 2009a), along with the results of these investigations and associated risk assessments, and was prepared by Anchor QEA, LLC (Anchor QEA) and Aspect Consulting LLC (Aspect) under the direction of EPA and the Respondents. The purpose of the RI is to collect, develop, and evaluate sufficient information to determine if cleanup actions at the Site are necessary. Because the Site includes uplands areas and aquatic lands, the media investigated included soil, groundwater, and sediment. In addition to the 2008 and 2009 investigations conducted under EPA oversight, the scope and results of previous environmental investigations performed at the Site under the oversight of the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) are also described in this report to provide a comprehensive summary of Site conditions. The Site is a 23-acre property located on the southeast shore of Lake Washington (Figure 1.1- 1 ). Shortly after the lowering of Lake Washington in 1916 to construct the Lake Washington Ship Canal, the Site, including newly exposed portions of the former May Creek delta, was developed into a creosote manufacturing facility. Until 1969, creosote was manufactured on the Site by refining and processing coal tar and oil-gas tar residues. From 1969 to approximately 1977, some of the aboveground tanks at the Site were used intermittently for crude oil, waste oil, and diesel storage. From 1977 to 2008, the Site was used primarily for log sorting and storage. The Site is currently vacant. Aquatic lands adjacent to the facility managed by the Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) were historically leased for log rafting and vessel storage, but those leases were terminated in the 1990s. Draft Remedial Investigation Quenda/1 Terminals RIPS 1 March20IO 060059-01 Introduction The physical and chemical characteristics of the Quendall Site (i.e., within the property boundary) have been explored through more than 150 soil/sediment borings and test pits excavated for environmental and geotechnical investigations over the past 30 years. The considerable characterization data available for the Quendall Site (e.g., Hart Crowser 1997; Retec 1997c; Exponent 1999; Anchor and Aspect 2004) were previously collected and incorporated into an earlier RI/FS process overseen by Ecology under the Washington State Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) and its implementing regulations (Chapter 173-340 Washington Administrative Code [WAC]; Chapter 70.105D Revised Code of Washington [RCW]). These earlier investigations revealed that polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (P AHs) and other organic chemicals such as benzene detected at the Qµendall Site are present at concentrations that would likely trigger cleanup actions under MTCA. Site investigations identified creosote-related contamination in soil, groundwater, and sediment at the Site. Previous investigation activities and results have been summarized in three RI/FS documents previously prepared for EPA under the AOC; summaries of these documents are included in this draft RI Report: Task 2-Suromary of Existing IDformation and Data Qµality Report (Anchor and Aspect 2007a). The Draft Task 2 Report includes a summary of background information, a description of previous environmental investigations and studies, and a summary and data quality evaluation of previously collected data. Task 3 -Preliminary Conceptwll Site Model (CSM), Remedial Action Objectives, Remediation Goals, and Data Gaps(Anchor and Aspect 2007b). The Draft Task 3 Report describes the preliminary Conceptual Site Model (CSM), including history, physical setting, and the nature and extent of contamination at the Site. Consistent with EPA's September 19, 2008 follow-on comments on the Task 3 Report, updates to the CSM were provided in the Task 5 Wark Plan and this draft RI Report. Task 5-Final Data Collection Won: Plan (Anchor QEA and Aspect 2009a). Based on its review of the existing data, EPA determined that additional data were necessary to complete the RVFS for the Site. The Task 5 Work Plan describes implementation of work efforts to Draft Remedial Investigation QuendaJJ Terminals RI/FS 2 March2010 060059-01 Introduction fulfill information needs identified by EPA and fulfills the requirements of RI/FS Task 5 as described in the AOC. 1.1 Purpose The purpose ofthis draft RI Report is to compile, develop, and evaluate the comprehensive sampling and analysis to characterize the nature and extent and chemical fate and transport of hazardous substance contamination at the Site. At EP A's direction, CSMs and baseline ecological and human health risk assessments have been integrated into this draft RI Report to provide a comprehensive evaluation of Site conditions. A forthcoming FS report will be prepared to document the development and detailed analysis of remedial alternatives and to provide a basis for remedy selection by EPA. 1.2 Site Description The Quendall Site is located on Lake Washington in the northernmost limits of the City of Renton (Figure 1.1-1). The property is relatively flat and occupies the middle portion of a roughly 70-acre alluvial plain. The Site borders approximately 1,500 feet of Lake Washington shoreline. Access to the Site is from Lake Washington Boulevard, located along the eastern boundary of the property. Shoreline properties that are immediately adjacent to the Site include Conner Homes to the south (former Barbee Mill property) and Port Quendall Company/Football Northwest to the north (former J.H. Baxter property). Interstate 405 is located approximately 500 feet to the east. Existing Site features and surrounding features are illustrated on Figure 2.1-1. Previous Site activities including operation of log sorting yards have resulted in accumulation of wood chips and bark materials on the central and eastern portions of the property. The exposed Site soils are relatively fine-grained, which slows infiltration during rainy periods causing ponding in many areas. Site drainage is discussed in Section 2.2.1. 1.3 Report Organization This report is organized as follows: • Section 2: Site History and Environmental Data Draft Remedial Investigation Qµendall Tenninals R1IFS 3 March2010 060059-01 • Section 3: Environmental Setting • Section 4: Nature and Extent of Non Aqueous Phase Liquid (NAPL) • Section 5: Nature and Extent of Contaminated Media • Section 6: Contaminant Fate and Transport • Section 7: Baseline Risk Assessment • Section 8: Background Concentrations of Risk Driver Chemicals • Section 9: Conceptual Site Model and Remedial Action Objectives • Section 10: References Detailed technical appendices are attached to this report. Draft Remedial Investigation Quendall Terminals RJIFS 4 Introduction March2010 060059-01 2 SITE HISTORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA 2.1 Site History This section provides a discussion of historical site operational activities. Locations of historical Site features are presented on Figure 2.2-1. A time line of Site operations is provided in Figure 2.2-2. The principal data sources for this historical summary include: • 1958 Republic Creosoting Company "Seattle Plant Map" with revisions through 1962 ( 1958 Plant Map) • Blueprints of the Reilly Plant, Circa 1918 (1918 Plant Map) • Aerial photography from 1936, 1946, 1956, 1968, and 1976 • Interviews with Walter (Ward) Roberts, a former employee of the Republic Creosoting Company/Reilly Tar Company during the 1950s and 1960s • Interviews with Don Norman, a former Site manager for Quendall Terminals in the 1970s • Historical Site photographs • Historical records including government agency inspection reports, property tax records, leases, deeds, and historical Sanborn maps • Previous environmental reports prepared for the Quendall Site 2.1.1 Site Ownership and Easements Jeremiah Sullivan acquired the property from the United States Government in 1873 for use as a homestead. It was subsequently conveyed to James Colman in 1875. During Colman's ownership, he sold timber on the land (starting in 1902) and in 1903, conveyed a right-of way to Burlington Northern. Colman sold the property to Peter Reilly in 1916. The Reilly family began Republic Creosoting in 1917, shortly after Lake Washington levels were lowered by construction of the Ship Canal/Montlake Cut. The Quendall Site was subsequently used for creosote manufacturing activities for more than 50 years until 1969. Creosote manufacturing and related historical Site features are discussed in more detail in the next sections. In addition to the creosote manufacturing facilities, the company built family housing, bachelor quarters, and a barn for the plant's horses sometime in the 1920s. These housing quarters were located in the area that is now the Interstate-405, Exit 7 interchange. Draft Remedial Investigation Quendall Tenninals RI/F'S 5 March20IO 060059-01 Site History and Environmental Data Prior to connection to municipal water supply, Roberts reported that water for company housing was supplied by approximately four to five shallow wells less than 30 feet deep located northeast of the still house on the west side of the railroad tracks. However, the 1918 Plant Map shows two wells, 50 and 75 feet deep, located just south of the still house that appear connected to the company housing water supply. Drinlcing water for the plant was supplied by a 180-foot deep artesian well located just west of the office (Ecology 1989). The artesian well was located during September 2009 RI field work (see Figure 2.1-1). The other wells have not been located. King County tax assessor records indicate that by 1939, company housing and the plant site were connected to city water. Quendall Terminals purchased the Site in 1971. Between 1969 and 1983, Quendall Terminals leased aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) that remained on the Site from the creosote manufacturing operations for the storage of Bunker C oil, waste oil, diesel, and lard. From 1975 to 2009, the Quendall Site was used as a log sorting and storage yard. A City of Renton utility easement for a sanitary sewer line is located just inside the eastern property boundary. A second City of Renton utility easement for a water line is located near the existing office. Puget Sound Energy (formerly Puget Power and Light) has an easement along the north property line for a pole line and for underwater cables, which connect electrical services to Mercer Island underneath Lake Washington. King County (Metro) also has a utility easement along the northern property boundary for the South Mercer Force Main. According to plans from King County, the sewer main is located just north of the property boundary. Easement locations are shown on Figure 2.1-1. 2.1.2 Tar Refining and Distillate Manufacturing Activities Reilly Tar & Chemical Company, formerly Republic Creosoting, operated on the Site from 1916 until 1969. The company distilled coal and oil-gas tar residues (collectively referred to as coal tar) from coal gasification plants into several fractions that were shipped off site for a variety of uses. The light distillate fraction was typically used as feedstock in chemical manufacturing. The middle distillate fraction, creosote, was used in the wood preserving industry. The bottom fraction, pitch, was used for applications such as roofing tar (Hart Crowser 1994). Historical site features that were part of the manufacturing process are based Draft Remedial Investigation Quenda/1 Tenninals RJ/FS 6 March2010 060059-01 Site History and Environmental Data on historical aerial photographs and former plant maps (Reilly 1918; Republic Creosoting 1969) and illustrated on Figure 2.2-1. The facility typically refined and processed coal tar from local sources such as Seattle (e.g., Lake Union Gas Works), Bellingham, and Tacoma. At the height of productivity, the facility reportedly processed about 500,000 gallons of tar per month (CH2M Hill 1983). The typical chemical compositions of coal tar and creosote are summarized in Table 2.1-1. The composition of coal tar and creosote varies with the source, but in general, creosote consists of approximately 85 percent P AHs, 10 percent phenolic compounds, and 5 percent heterocyclic hydrocarbons (EPA 1995). Coal tar has a similar composition but also includes up to 5 percent light aromatic (e.g., benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene [BTEX]) compounds (Cohen and Mercer 1993). Tars used at the Site were generally oil-gas tars that contained a relatively low fraction of light aromatics, except for tars imported from the Honolulu Gas Company from 1957 to 1965, which contained a higher proportion of light aromatics (Hart Crowser 1994). Pitch has a similar composition to creosote (no light aromatics) but contains more higher-weight PAHs. Tar feedstock was typically shipped to the Site and offloaded from tankers and barges along the T -Dock and the short pier offshore of the upland operation areas. Tax assessor records indicate that a 6-inch pipeline conveyed product from the T-Dock to two 2 million gallon- tanks (Tanks 23 and 26 on Figure 2.2-1). In 2005, during the installation of stormwater controls overseen by Aspect Consulting, a section of 6-inch pipe with tar residue on the inside of the pipe was unearthed just upland of the T-Dock area. The large tar feedstock storage tanks contained heating elements that maintained product viscosity to facilitate product transfer from the tanks to the still house. Aboveground pipelines were used to convey the tar feedstock to the still house where it was distilled into the different product fractions (light distillates, creosote, and pitch) (Ecology 1989). Heat for distillation was provided by steam from the boiler house, located just west of the still house. According to Roberts (Hart Crowser 1994), the boilers were reportedly oil-fired. An historical photograph also shows a heating oil barge moored to the Oil Dock. Draft Remedial Investigation Quendall Tenninals RI/F'S 7 March2010 060059-01 Site History and Environmental Data Light distillates and creosote were stored in aboveground tanks prior to shipment. Aboveground tanks were installed west and south of the still house for use in the creosote manufacturing operations, and each tank was assigned a number in chronological order as it was installed (Roberts undated). Figure 2.2-1 provides the location of and, when available, the assigned number for tanks identified on Site maps (Republic Creosoting 1969) and photographs. A summary of how these tanks were used during light distillate and creosote manufacturing and subsequent site use is provided in the Aboveground Storage Tanks Section 2.2.2. Pitch was poured into the pitch bays located north of the still house where it was allowed to solidify. Roberts described the pitch bays as having concrete bottoms with wood sides. The bays were approximately 40 feet wide, 150 feet long, and 4 feet deep (Ecology 1989). Products were shipped off site via rail, tanker truck, or ship. Rail loading racks were located along the east side of the railroad tracks. The 1918 Plant Map shows product lines running between the still house and the loading racks for transferring coal tar and creosote. The 1958 Plant Map also indicates a pipeline was present between the AS Ts west of the still house and the property to the north of the Site (formerly occupied by J.H. Baxter, which operated a wood treatment plant from 1955 until 1982). This pipeline was used to transport creosote, which was used in the wood treatment process. Wastes produced in the manufacturing process were disposed of on Site. When the stills were cleaned, the waste pitch, also called Saturday Coke, was chiseled out of the stills ( on Saturdays) and reportedly placed near the Site shoreline (Ecology 1989). Liquid waste from the still house cooling lines was reportedly disposed of in the North and South Sumps. This effluent stream reportedly sometimes contained creosote and tars (Ecology 1989). Roberts indicated that the condensers sometimes leaked, allowing creosote to enter the sanitary sewer (Ecology 1989). The sewer outfall discharged into the former May Creek channel. The old bed of May Creek marked the southern boundary of improvements. A fence line along the channel alignment is shown the 1958 Plant Map. Aerial photographs from 1936 through 1968 indicate little to no activity occurred in the area immediately south of the former May Creek channel. Draft Remedial Investigation QuendaII Terminals RJ/FS 8 March20IO 060059-01 Site History and Environmental Data The Reilly facility closed permanently in 1969. Subsequently, the still house, boiler house, and many of the storage tanks were demolished (E&E 1990). Z.1.3 Later Site Uses From 1971 to 1983, Qµendall Terminals leased the remaining Site ASTs to various companies for storage of Bunker Coil, waste oil, diesel, and lard. Tanks 35 through 38 were the principal tanks used during this period, mostly for storage of diesel and waste oils (E&E 1990). Roberts indicated that Tanks 23 and 26 (2 million-gallon capacity) were only used once after Quendall Terminals purchased the property in 1971. These tanks were leased by Willamette Industries for an 18-month period to store Bunker C crude oil. The Bunker C crude oil was transported to the Site by truck. The remaining ASTs were demolished in 1983 (E&E 1990). An Ecology memorandum dated June 2, 1971 indicates that no containment dikes were present around the tanks until about 1971. An Ecology site inspection in 1972 noted substantial oil and tar product residue in the area of the central tank farm. Since the late 1970s, the Site has been used as a log saning and storage yard with most of this activity occurring in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Wood chips and bark have been scattered and mounded throughout the Quendall Site as a result of these operations. 2.2 Summary of Sources of Contamination This section provides a discussion of potential primary source areas based on historical operational activities and Qµendall Site land use. Products released to the subsurface may act as ongoing secondary sources of contamination, which are discussed in Sections 4 and 5, Nature and Extent of NAPL and Nature and Extent of Contaminated Site Media, respectively. Tar refining was conducted at the Quendall Site for approximately 53 years from 1916 through 1969. Releases of tars and distillate products to the environment have occurred at locations of the Qµendall Site where transport, production, storage, and/or disposal of the products were performed. The release of waste products, including solids (e.g., still bottoms, Draft Remedial Investigation Quendall Tenninals RI/FS 9 March2010 060059-01 Site History and Environmental Data Saturday Coke, and pitch) and liquids (e.g., steam condensate and spills), has also impacted site media quality. After the plant was closed in 1969, all structures except for six of the AS Ts and the office were demolished. After the tar refining facility was demolished, petroleum was stored at the Quendall Site using the remaining tanks for approximately 13 years, from 1969 to 1982. Reported spills during this period may also have impacted site media quality. Primary sources of potential contaminant releases are described below. 2.2.1 Historical Structures T-Dock: Tar feedstock was typically shipped to the Quendall Site and transferred to ASTs through a transfer line located on the deck of the dock (Hart Crowser 1994). A relatively large spill occurred sometime between 1930 and 1940 at the western end of the T-Dock. Approximately 30,000 to 40,000 gallons oftar feedstock were reportedly released into Lake Washington during barge offloading (Ecology 1989). In 1946, the Washington State Pollution Control Commission noted that: "Upon reaching the end of the intake pipes, a large drip pan was observed completely filled with heavy crude oil. In fact, it was so full that it was overflowing ... The entire end of this dock was saturated with oil ... " (WSPCC 1946). Still House: The still house, where tar was refined to distillate products, reportedly did not have an impervious floor. Historical information suggests that spills onto the soil floor of the still house occurred (CH2M Hill 1983 and Ecology 1989). Boiler House: Although there were no reported releases from the boiler house, the boilers were fired by heating oil and likely required transfer and storage of this product. According to Roberts, tar distillates were sometimes also used as boiler fuel (Hart Crowser 1994). The boiler house was demolished when the plant closed in 1969. Former Structure near Tanks 37 and 36: Chlorinated liquid tar distillates were reportedly used in a small volume in an experimental wood treating area located near Tanks 36 and 37 (Ecology 1989). According to Roberts, chlorine was added to tanks of creosote in an effort to Draft Remedial Investigation Quendall Terminals RI/FS 10 March2010 060059-01 Site History and Environmental Data improve the creosote mix, but the process was not successful in practice and was shortly discontinued (Hart Crowser 1994). Railroad Loading Racks: In 1972, the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro) indicated that loading areas at the railroad tracks "received heavy spilling over the years" (Metro 1972). Roberts indicated that the railroad loading areas closest to the still house and to the south were used for loading liquid products, and that the areas to the north (east of the pitch bays) were used for loading solid products (Hart Crowser 1994). 2.2.2 Aboveground Storage Tanks Historical tank locations and numbers, based on facility maps and aerial photographs, are shown on Figure 2.2-1. The smaller tanks were also numbered, but the numbers are illegible on the 1953 facility map. Available information regarding tank installation and use is summarized below: • Tanks 1 to 5: Installed in 1916, these tanks were primarily used to store creosote- related products. Product shipping via rail also occurred in this area of the Site. • Tanks 23 and 26: The two largest tanks, installed in 1928, had an approximate capacity of 2 million gallons each. These tanks were primarily used to store raw tar and later used to store Bunker C oil. The tanks contained heating elements, which allowed for transfer of the raw tar to the still house. • Tanks 31 to 34: The installation date of these four 20,000-gallon tanks is unknown. They were dismantled and disposed of off site in 1974 (E&E 1990). • Tanks 35 and 36: These 272,000-gallon tanks were installed in 1956. They were primarily used to store creosote-related products. After Reilly Tar operations ceased, the tanks were used to store waste oil. Historical documents do not specify what the waste oil contained; however, the source was thought to use automobile crankcase oil from service stations (E&E 1990). • Tanks 37 and 38: These I million-gallon tanks were installed in 1956. They were primarily used to store creosote-related products. After Reilly operations ceased, tanks 37 and 38 were used to store Bunker C oil and later to store lard. Draft Remedial Investigation Qµendall Tenninals R1IFS 11 March2010 060059-01 Site History and Environmental Data 2.2.3 Waste Disposal Sumps: The sumps received effluent from still house cooling lines, and this effluent sometimes contained creosote and tars (Retec 1996). Roberts stated that steam condensate tubes in the still would often corrode, resulting in distillates released into the steam (CH2M Hill 1983). This condensate would then be discharged to the sumps. Two sumps, the North Sump and South Sump, were located west of the process area (Figure 2.2-1 ). The South Sump was reportedly filled in before 1950 (Hart Crowser 1994). Shortly after the plant was shut down, approximately 50 truckloads of material were excavated from the larger North Sump and disposed of at the Coal Creek Landfill (CH2M Hill 1983). Former May Creek Channel/Sanitary Sewer Outfall: Roberts stated that historical source areas may be located along the former May Creek Channel because residue from aboveground tank cleaning operations were placed there (Retec 1996). The sanitary sewer outfall also discharged into the former channel (Republic Creosoting 1969). Roberts indicated that the condensers sometimes leaked, allowing creosote to enter the sanitary sewer and ultimately reach the former channel (Hart Crowser 1997). Waste Pitches and Tar Dumps: Roberts recounted that the waste pitch, or Saturday Coke, was chiseled out of the stills and placed near the shoreline on the northwest portion of the Site (CH2M Hill 1983). Tank Bottoms: When tanks were cleaned, tank bottoms were reportedly placed on Site near the tank (CH2M Hill 1983). 2.2.4 Potentially Contaminated Fill Materials Potentially contaminated materials used as fill at the Site include foundry slag and heavy tar distillates, such as pitch and Saturday Coke, that are solid or semi-solid (e.g., products of high viscosity that do not flow through porous media such as soil). Solid tar products of coal tar distillation were produced north of the still house around the pitch bays, where pitch was cooled. A coal shed was also located in this area according to a 1918 Plant Map. Draft Remedial Investigation Quendall Tenninals RI/FS 12 March2010 060059-01 Site History and Environmental Data Roberts reported that PACCAR foundry slag had been used as fill at the Quendall Site. In one interview, he reported that it had been placed northwest of the large tank farm in the area around Quendall Pond (CH2M Hill 1983). However, during two other interviews he reported that these materials had been placed southwest of the tank farm (Ecology 1989; Hart Crowser 1994). 2.2.5 Weed Control Before 1950, sodium arsenate was reportedly sprayed at the Site every spring to control weeds (Hart Crowser 1994). 2.2.6 Summary of Sources, Release Mechanisms and Exposure Media The CSM, which describes primary and secondary sources and release mechanisms and exposure media, is illustrated in Figure 2.5-1. The nature and extent of the exposure media, NAPL, soil, groundwater, sediment, porewater, and surface water, are detailed below in Sections 4 and 5 Contaminant fate and transport considerations associated with secondary release mechanisms and additional exposure media important for risk evaluations (i.e., vapor and aquatic biota) are detailed below in Section 6. Potential risks from exposure to Site media are detailed in the Baseline Risk Assessment in Section 7. 2.3 Summary of Historical Investigations This subsection summarizes the historical data that were determined to be useable for the RI/FS and describes the data evaluation process that was applied to select historical data of suitable quality to develop the CSM and identify data collection needs, per the Task 3 Report and Task 5 Work Plan, respectively. Fallowing a summary of historical data suitable for the RI, the data generated under the Task 5 Work Plan are briefly described to provide a summary of the data used in this RI and risk assessment (RA). Details regarding the application of the historical data and the data generated under Task 5 for this RI are presented in the appropriate sections, which detail the nature and extent of contamination, fate and transport, and risk assessment. Numerous environmental investigations have been conducted at the Site since the 1970s, as detailed in the Task 2 Report (Anchor and Aspect 2007a). This section summarizes the Draft Remedial Investigation Quendall Terminals R1IFS 13 March2010 060059-01 Site History and Environmental Data various studies that generated physical, chemical, and/or biological data that are potentially relevant to the Site RI/FS. The following is a list of events; each investigation is described in more detail below, organized by sampling media. Figures 2.3-1 and 2.3-2 summarize the historical uplands and in-lake exploration locations listed below. Soil • Twelker Geotechnical Investigation (1971) • Woodward Clyde Upland Investigations (1983, 1988, and 1990) • Hart Crowser Upland Investigations (June 1995 and July 1996) • Shannon & Wilson Geotechnical Investigation (November 1997) • Remediation Technologies, Inc. (Retec) Upland Investigations (December 2000 and April 2001) • Aspect Geoprobe and Surface Soil Investigations (November 2003 and February 2004) Groundwater • Woodward Clyde Groundwater Investigation (1983) • Woodward Clyde Groundwater Investigations (January, June, and November 1989; March 1990; and May and June 1991) • Hart Crowser Groundwater Investigations (January, June, and December 1996) • Retec Upland Investigations (December 2000 and April 2001) • Retec Lake Mudline Wellpoint Sampling (January 2001) • Anchor Environmental, L.L.C. (Anchor) Lake Mudline Wellpoint Samplings (September 2002 and February 2003) • Aspect Deep Aquifer Sampling (August 2003) Surface Water • CH2M Hill (1979) • Hart Crowser (1996) • Anchor Lake Mudline Wellpoint Samplings (September 2002 and February 2003) Sediment and Porewater • EPA Sediment Study (1983) Draft Remedial Investigation Quendall Tenninals RJ;FS 14 March2010 060059-01 Site History and Environmental Data • Washington State Department of Ecology (May 1990 and February 1991) • Retec Sediment Investigations (November 1996 and February 1997) • Exponent Sediment Gray Zone Investigation (June 2000) • Retec Lake Mudline Wellpoint Sampling (January 2001) • Anchor Lake Mudline Wellpoint Samplings (September 2002 and February 2003) • Anchor Sediment Natural Recovery Evaluation (September 2003) • Aspect Sediment Hydraulic Properties Assessment (January 2004) • Anchor Sediment Chemistry and Bioassay Sampling (February 2004) For sampling events conducted before 1995, only the physical information is potentially suitable for use in the RI/FS and is evaluated in the Task 3 Report and herein. While analytical data is available from earlier events, they may not be representative of current Site conditions because of their age. Table 2.3-1 summarizes the available historical Site investigation data events. 2.4 Historical Data Evaluation Process This section summarizes the process by which the quality of the historical data identified above was evaluated for use in the RI. The sections below summarize the quality assurance (QA) screening and corresponding data quality designations assigned to each dataset. The detailed data validation and assignment of QA categories are provided in the Task 2 Report (Anchor and Aspect 2007a). The Task 2 Report presented a summary of environmental sampling data available for different Site environmental media (surface water, groundwater, sediment, surface, and subsurface soils), along with other related information relevant to the RI/FS. The Task 2 Report reviewed the quality of available sediment, surface water, groundwater, and soil data collected at the Site, and evaluated such data relative to their age, analytical methods employed, detection limits achieved, data validation methods and results, and other data limitations and/or strengths. The Task 2 Report was conditionally approved by EPA in August 2007. The data screening consisted of a two-step process that first identified datasets that were sufficiently recent (samples obtained 1995 or after) and for which adequate documentation of event-, station-, sample-and result-level data was available. If the initial data screening Draft Remedial Investigation Quendall Terminals RI/FS 15 March2010 060059-01 Site History and Environmental Data parameters were met for historical investigations, additional data quality indicators were applied that related specifically to the results and availability of quality assurance/quality control (QNQC) information and the manner in which this information was documented. Tirree levels of data validation were applied: • Category QA2 was defined for this evaluation as a level of validation where full documentation was available and n independent third party performed a full validation. QA2 data are useable for all RI/FS purposes, including determining Site boundaries and performing risk assessment exposure calculations. • Category QAI was defined for this evaluation as an abbreviated data review, where information such as method blanks, surrogates, or other quality control (QC) summary data were reviewed. QAI results provide a more limited set of qualifiers than QA2 data. QAI data were further categorized as QAI-or QA!+ indicating that certain non-critical data quality indicators were either missing (QAI-) or available (QA!+), to supplement the QAI data validation. QA! data are usable for evaluating the nature and extent of contamination, and can be used with QA2 data to assist in determining boundaries of contamination. QA! data are not usable for performing risk assessment exposure calculations. • Category QAO was assigned to data that because of age, analytical method, or lack of complete lab report documentation, were determined to have too much uncertainty for determining Site boundaries or risk assessment exposure concentrations. QAO data include Woodward Clyde data collected from 1989 to 1991. Although complete lab reports were not obtained for these data, the work was performed under an Agreed Order with Ecology and Ecology reviewed and accepted the data for use in the 1997 Upland RI Report (Hart Crowser 1997). These data may be used in conjunction with higher quality data and/or other lines of evidence to assist in identifying contaminants of interest (COis), refining nature and extent determinations, and qualitatively evaluating historical trends in contaminant occurrences. The analytical chemistry data for soil, groundwater, surface water, sediment, or sediment porewater are contained in the project database. The database includes all pertinent event, station, sample, and result information including qualifiers determined from initial and final reviews and overall QA category. The Site database is provided in Appendix E. Draft Remedial Investigation Quendall Tenninals R1/FS 16 March2010 060059-01 Site History and Environmental Data 2.4.1 Historical Data Selected for Use in the RI/FS Investigation events and samples that were retained for use in the RI are identified below for soil, groundwater, surface water, bulk sediment, and sediment porewater. Figures 2.3-1 and 2.3-2 present the investigation event sample locations for upland and lake explorations meeting data quality requirements. The following datasets met necessary data quality indicators and the validated datasets were determined to be level QA!-or better: • Historical soil data generated for the Hart Crowser RI (1997), Retec RI/Focused FS (FSS; 2002), and Anchor and Aspect RNFS (2004) were of sufficient quality to be retained for use in the RI/FS. Table 2.4-1 summarizes the soil events for inclusion in the RI/FS. • Historical groundwater data generated for the Hart Crowser RI (1997), Retec RI/FFS (2002), and Anchor and Aspect RNFS (2004) were of sufficient quality to be retained for use in the RI/FS. Table 2.4-2 summarizes the groundwater events for inclusion in the RI/FS. • Historical sediment data generated for the Retec (1997b) due diligence investigation, Exponent (2002) RI/FFS, and Anchor and Aspect RNFS (2004) were of sufficient quality to be retained for use in the RI/FS. Table 2.4-3 summarizes the sediment event data for inclusion in the RI/FS. • Historical sediment porewater data generated for the Retec (2002) RI/FFS and Anchor and Aspect RNFS (2004) were of sufficient quality to be retained for use in the RI/FS. Table 2.4-4 summarizes the sediment porewater event data for inclusion in the RI/FS. • Historical surface water data generated for the Hart Crowser RI ( 1997) were of sufficient quality to be retained for use in the RI/FS. Table 2.4-5 summarizes the surface water event data for inclusion in the RI/FS. • Soil and groundwater data generated for the Port of Seattle Phase I and Phase 2 investigations by Pinnacle GeoSciences (2009) of the BNSF (Burlington Railway Company) Eastside Rail Corridor adjacent to the Site were of high quality and were included in the RI/FS. The data are discussed in detail in this report and are included in the project analytical database (Appendix E of this report). Draft Remedial Investigation Quendall Tenninals RI/FS 17 March2010 060059-01 Site History and Environmental Data 2.5 Summary RI/FS Data Needs and Task 5 Data Collection This section provides an overview of the Task 5 efforts including the selection of indicator chemicals, the identification of data needs, and the subsequent 2008 and 2009 RI/FS data collection. The general discussion is framed around the three primary data collection data quality objectives (DQOs)-nature and extent ofNAPL, nature and extent of contamination in Site media, and fate and transport-that were detailed in the Task 5 Work Plan (Anchor QEA and Aspect 2009a). The purpose ofthis section, along with Section 2.4, is to provide a road map to the historical and current RI/FS Site investigations and the data to be used in the RI/FS. The details of how historical and current data are applied in this RI and RA are included in the relevant sections below. 2.5.1 Chemicals of Interest The purpose of the Task 5 COI screening was to identify hazardous chemical substances associated with historical Site uses that have the potential to pose risks to human health or the environment. The COI selection was also used as a basis for identifying indicator hazardous chemicals, a subset of Site CO Is used for the purpose of more efficiently characterizing the nature and extent of contamination. The CO Is and indicator chemicals identified in the Task 5 Work Plan were used in evaluating existing RI/FS data and guided the collection of supplemental data necessary to complete the RI/FS. The Site CO Is and indicator chemicals identified in the Task 5 Work Plan are further refined through the RA, as detailed in Section 7 of this report. 2.5.2 Nature and Extent of NAPL The RI Field Investigation included advancing soil borings and sediment cores to delineate the vertical extent of dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) in subsurface soil and sediment in three areas of the Site: I) in the vicinity of Quendall Pond; 2) in the former May Creek Channel; and 3) at the T-Dock cross span. Explorations included: • Quendall Pond: Five direct-push soil borings (QP-1 through QP-5) to a maximum depth of 30 feet in the upland to the south, west, and north of Quendall Pond, and eight continuous sediment vibracores (QPN-1 through QPN-8) to a maximum depth of 15 feet in sediments offshore to the west and north of Qµendall Pond. Draft Remedial Investigation Quendall Terminals R1/FS 18 March2010 060059-01 Site History and Environmental Data • Former May Creek Channel: Twenty-four direct-push soil borings (MC-I through MC-24) to a maximum depth of 40 feet, and three trenches (T-5 through T-7) to a maximum depth of IO feet in and to the north, south, and west of the former Channel. • T-Dock: Seventeen core samples to a maximum depth of 15 feet along the main span and the cross span historical spill area. Five Quendall Pond and former May Creek Channel soil samples containing DNAPL and two tar samples were analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and semi volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) to evaluate the composition ofDNAPL in these areas. Specific objectives and a description of field activities for the NAPL investigation are provided in Appendix A. 2.5.3 Nature and Extent of Contamination in Groundwater The RI Field Investigation included installing new monitoring wells, measuring water levels, and collecting groundwater samples from monitoring wells and direct-push borings to: I) delineate the vertical and lateral extent of groundwater contamination; 2) evaluate seasonality of contaminant groundwater concentrations along the shoreline; and 3) evaluate vertical and horizontal Site groundwater gradients. Work included: • Southwestern extent of contamination: Two wells (BH-29A and BH-29B) were installed in the southwestern comer of the Site to bound the extent of groundwater contamination south of the former May Creek Channel. • One well (BH-SB) was installed next to existing wells BH-SA and BH-5 to delineate the extent of contamination at the top of the Deep Aquifer in the vicinity of Quendall Pond. • Two wells (BH-20C and BH-30C) were installed near the base of the Deep Aquifer to delineate the vertical extent of groundwater contamination. Two borings (QP-6 and QP-7) were advanced as reconnaissance borings for locating well BH-30C. • One well (BH-25A(R)) was installed to replace an existing, damaged well. • Groundwater samples were collected from three direct-push borings (SP-BAX9-1 through 3) to delineate the northern extent of contamination. Draft Remedial Investigation Quendall Terminals RI/FS 19 March2010 060059-01 Site History and Environmental Data • Water levels and DNAPL thickness (if present) were measured at all Site wells. • Groundwater samples were collected from all Site wells and analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, and metals. Specific objectives and a description of field activities for the groundwater investigation are provided in Appenclix A. 2.5.4 Nature and Extent of Contamination in Sediment The RI Field Investigation included collecting surface sediment grab samples and subsurface core samples for analysis of bulk sediment and porewater to: 1) confirm estimated boundaries of the horizontal and vertical extent of contamination in sediment; 2) confirm estimated boundaries of the horizontal and vertical extent of wood debris in sediment; and 3) determine current conditions for surface and subsurface sediment. Work included: • Forty-one surface grab samples to characterize background contaminant bulk sediment concentrations • Forty-six surface grab samples to characterize background contaminant sediment porewater concentrations • Twenty surface grab samples, ten of which were randomly selected for bulk and porewater sediment characterization of background P AHs • Seventeen subsurface cores in the T-Dock area to bound the extent of contamination around historical spill areas and characterize DNAPL • Fifteen subsurface cores in the nearshore area to bound the extent of contamination from groundwater discharge and to characterize the flowpath • Collection of three lake water samples for use in characterizing lake water diffusion into surface sediment. Specific objectives and a description of field activities for the groundwater investigation are provided in Appendix A. The groundwater, surface and subsurface sediment porewater, and lake water samples were also used to address fate and transport of contamination to Lake Washington, as detailed in Draft Remedi'al Investigation Quendall Tenninals RJ/FS 20 March2010 060059-01 Site History and Environmental Data Section 6 ofthis report. Additionally, the data collected for Site media were used to quantify exposure to human and ecological receptors, as detailed in Section 7. Draft Remedial Investigation Quendall Terminals RI/FS 21 March2010 060059-01 3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 3.1 Physical Characteristics The physical characteristics of the Quendall Site discussed in this section include topography/bathymetry and surface water drainage, climate, geology and hydrogeology (both regional and site-specific), bathymetry and sediment characteristics, and geotechnical characteristics. The following provides a discussion of each of these components based on previous Site investigations and available regional information. 3.1.1 Topography and Site Drainage The Site is located in the Puget Lowlands on the southeast side of Lake Washington. The Site is relatively flat with hills rising to the east beyond 1-405. Much of the property was formed by the lowering of Lake Washington in 1916, which exposed the alluvial delta of May Creek. The creek originates in the hills east of the Site. When the Site was first developed in the 1910s and 1920s, May Creek flowed across the southern portion of the property as illustrated in Figure 2.2-1. Based on review of aerial photographs, the creek had been diverted south by 1936 and no longer crossed the Site. Site topography has been modified over the past 90 years by filling and grading activities. The resulting topography is relatively flat, having a maximum relief of about 12 feet across the 25-acre area (Figure 3.1-la). Upland elevations at the Site range from approximately 35 feet on the east side of the property to about 20 feet at the lake shore (all elevations reported in North American Vertical Datum [NA VD] 88). Site drainage is relatively poor because of the flat topography and the fine-grained nature of the shallow soils. Recent changes in Site topography can be noted by comparing topographic maps generated over the past 30 years as part of specific environmental and geotechnical investigations. The most current information on topography is based on a Site survey performed by Bush Roed Hitchings in 2009. Historical topographic surveys were also conducted in 1997 (Retec 1997c; includes bathymetry; see Section 3.1.6) and in 1975. The comparison of 1997 contours with 1975 contours is shown on Figure 3.1-la and a comparison of 2009 topographic contours with the 1975 contours is shown on Figure 3.1-1 b. The source of topographic contours on site maps provided in Woodward Clyde Consultants Technical Memorandum No. 1 Draft Remedial Investigation Quendall Tenninals RI/F'S 23 March2010 060059-01 Environmental Setting (Woodward Clyde 1990) and the Hart Crowser (1997) RI Report is not referenced, but the maps appear identical to topographic maps based on aerial photography dated December 6, 1975. Key differences between the 1975 and 1997 maps include: • Generally lower elevations (typically 2 to 5 feet) were observed across the Site in 1975 compared with the 1997 topographic map, attributable to fill that was imported and placed on the Site in the 1980s. • Berms in the center of the Site (around the ASTs) are shown in the 1975 map, but are absent in the 1997 topographic map. • Several mounds are shown on the 1997 topographic map, which have been characterized as piles of wood debris from log yard operations. No significant grading or filling activities have occurred since approximately 1997. Activities that have resulted in relatively minor changes to Site topography include: • Under the Ecology Agreed Order, a stormwater control pilot study was implemented in 2004 to direct stormwater runoff away from Quendall Pond. A small detention basin was excavated south of the pond, and a berm was constructed between the log yard and the pond. • In 2006, the former Site tenant performed the following: Increased the capacity of drainage ditches, including installation of rock check dams and silt fencing. along the south property boundary. Constructed a silt fence and sediment/debris trap between the access road and the southern property shoreline. Constructed an earthen berm between a settling basin and the shoreline, improving drainage ditches with rock check dams to route Site runoff to Quendall Pond, and increased the capacity of a settling basin just upland of the dock area. • In 2009, several stormwater best management practices (BMPs) were implemented at the Site to control runoff. Activities are documented in the Construction Report (Aspect 2009) and included installation of two shallow swales that directed stormwater away from Quendall Pond (Figure 2.1-2), installation and improvements of berms along the lakeshore, and mulching and hydroseeding soils disturbed from Draft Remedial Investigation Quendall Terminals RI/FS 24 March2010 060059-01 Environmental Setting former log yard operations. • As part of the recent development of the Conner Homes property, Quendall Terminals dedicated the far southeastern comer of the Site right-of-way easement to the City of Renton and the developer placed several feet of fill as sub-base for an access road in this location. • As part of the recent development of the Football Northwest property, the developer placed quarry spalls and gravel in the northeastern comer of the Site, within a right- of-way easement, as a roadbed for construction access. During the rainy season, much of the runoff in the center of the Site that is not diverted by the two shallow swales flows into two stormwater collection ponds on the west side of the Site (Quendall Pond and South Detention Pond). Stormwater also accumulates in low-lying areas east of BH-24, southwest of BH-21NB, and south of BH-20NB. Approximate locations of Site stormwater control swales and ditches are shown on Figure 2.1-1. Included on Figure 2.1-1 are generalized drainage patterns observed during inspections of the stormwater BMPs described above. 3.1.2 Site Climatic Conditions The climate in the Site vicinity is characterized as Pacific Marine, typical of the Puget Sound area. Winters are generally mild and wet, and summers are usually dry. Based on data available for SeaTac International Airport from 1931 to 2006, annual precipitation ranges between 23.8 and 55.1 inches with a mean of 38.1 inches. A majority of the precipitation occurs between November and February. Monthly winter temperatures average between 35 and 49 degrees Fahrenheit while monthly summer temperatures range between 51 and 75 degrees Fahrenheit. Wind direction, distribution frequency, and wind velocity data are available for the SeaTac International Airport, and are summarized in Figure 3.1-2. These data indicate that wind direction is most frequently from the south-southwest and north. Wind coming from the west across the Pacific Ocean is typically deflected around the Olympic range and enters the Puget Sound from either the north or south. This regional wind pattern is reinforced at the Draft Remedial Investigation Quendall Tenninals R1/FS 25 March2010 060059-01 Environmental Setting Site by its location on the shore of Lake Washington, where wind is likely to follow the water area between Mercer Island and the Renton shore. 3.1.3 Regional Hydrogeology The Site is located in the southeastern part of the Puget Sound Lowland. The physiographic features of the lowland are dominated by repeated advances and recessions of glacial ice within the lowland. The hills to the east of the Site are composed of glacial and non-glacial soils with bedrock outcrops a mile east of the Site. A map of the regional geology is provided on Figure 3.1-3, and shows the outcropping of bedrock to the east and southwest, forming the margins of the Cedar River drainage. A conceptual regional geologic cross section shown on Figure 3.1-4, extending east of the Site, illustrates a sequence of fine and coarse-grained materials overlying bedrock as documented in area well and boring logs. The presence of bedrock and fine-grained deposits limits the lateral extent of aquifers encountered beneath the Site, isolating it from regional aquifers located south in the Cedar River valley. The groundwater flow system is characterized primarily by recharge in the upland areas east and the May Creek drainage south/southeast of the Site, with flow towards the west and discharge to Lake Washington. Site groundwater likely originates from precipitation on and east of the Site and recharge from alluvial deposits in the May Creek drainage immediately south of the Site. The months ofJuly through September constitute the low precipitation period when groundwater recharge is generally at its lowest. Conversely, the months of November through February are the rainy period when groundwater recharge is at its highest. Beneficial use of groundwater is discussed below in Section 3.3.2. 3.1.4 Site Geology The geologic units beneath the Site consist of highly heterogeneous alluvial and lacustrine silts, sands, and peat underlain by a coarser sand-gravel alluvium. The alluvial deposits have been overlain by fill deposited over the years since the lake levels were lowered in 1916. The alluvium was deposited by May Creek, and the Site is located within the creek's delta. The shape of the delta below lake level extends approximately 5,000 feet along the shoreline of Lake Washington, and projects up to 3,000 feet offshore toward Mercer Island (Figure 3.1- 3). Normal delta processes and periodic earthquake-induced landslides that occurred at the Draft Remedial Investigation Quendall Tenninals R1IFS 26 March2010 060059-01 Environmental Setting margin of the delta have resulted in a deposit with abruptly changing lithologies and little vertical or lateral continuity. Detailed geologic cross sections along four alignments depict subsurface conditions and the relationship of the uplands portion of the Site to Lake Washington and underlying sediments. The geologic and hydrostratigraphic interpretation depicted in the text below and on the referenced cross sections is based on identification and correlation of specific strata observed in the Site borings. Significant consideration was also given to the location of the Site within the context of regional and local topographic and physiographic features- including Lake Washington, May Creek, and the Renton uplands-and the geologic history of the Puget Sound region, including documented glacial and non-glacial depositional sequences (Troost and Booth 2008; Karlin et al. 2004; Pacific Northwest Center for Geologic Mapping Studies 2006). Cross section locations are depicted on Figure 3.1-5 with the cross sections on Figures 3.1-6 through 3.1-10. A discussion of the major geologic units is provided below. 3.1.4.1 Fill and Fill History Fill is found across the entire Site. Along the southern and eastern boundaries, fill ranges from 1 to 2 feet in thickness, while in other Site areas the fill ranges to more than JO feet thick. Most commonly, the fill is a mix of silt, sand, and gravel with wood debris. Wood chips and bark from the log sorting operations are common in the upper few feet. Where creosote and pitch-like material has been encountered in soil explorations, such materials have generally been observed at depths greater than 2 feet below ground surface (bgs). Specific areas of Site fill include: • Northwest Quarter of Site: Fill may be as thick as 10 to 14 feet in this portion of the Site. Fill in this area includes abundant wood material, glass, brick, and pitch-like material. • East of Quendall Pond: Fill is 7 to 9 feet in thickness with brick and pitch-like material observed in area explorations (BH-5/SA, TP-4, and TP-9). • Former May Creek Channel: Exploration logs from this area indicate that some of the fill includes tar, brick, wood, and metal fragments to depths of 6 to 7 feet. • Former Tank Area: Tar and pitch were logged at a depth of 5 feet in borings BH-5, Draft Remedial Investigation Quendall Tenninals RJ;FS 27 March20IO 060059-01 Environmental Setting BH-6, and BH-25. This may represent a previous ground surface in the former tank area. • West of South Detention Pond: In July 2007, slag-like material was observed in near surface soils in the area of former well BH-12. Fill history is informed by geologic characteristics identified in subsurface explorations and historical records. Key episodes of Site fill placement are summarized below: • The Lake Washington Ship Canal was completed in 1916, which resulted in the lowering of the lake level by about 9 feet. Not long after the lake was lowered, tar refining operations began at the Site. Both the existing shoreline and the historical (pre-1916) lake shoreline based on historical WDNR maps are shown on Figure 2.2-1. • May Creek stream channels were located on the southern portion of the Site until the creek was rerouted sometime between 1920 and 1936. These channels have now been filled in. The former channel locations on the Site, indicated by early WDNR maps, are shown on Figure 2.2-1. • Solidified tar products (pitch or Saturday coke) were reportedly placed on the Site during the period of creosote manufacturing (CH2MHill 1983). These materials as well as other debris, including brick, concrete, and metal, have been observed in the fill unit. • Foundry slag from PACCAR, Inc., was reported by Roberts to have been placed as fill along the shoreline (CH2MHill 1983; Ecology 1989; Hart Crowser 1994). Although geologic logs in this area generally have not identified slag, a few pieces of slag-like material were identified in the June 2007 well survey east of the former location of well BH-12. • In 1983, Quendall Terminals placed approximately 3 feet of fill consisting of sawdust and dirt over most of the Site. • Log yard operations have resulted in the creation of several piles on the Site consisting largely of wood debris. Fill is typically only seasonally saturated in isolated areas around the Site and does not substantially affect the Site-wide groundwater flow regime. Fill materials, like the Shallow Alluvium discussed below, are heterogeneous and could provide preferential flowpaths to groundwater when saturated. However, due to the heterogeneous nature of the material Draft Remedial Investigation Quendall Terminals RI/FS 28 March2010 060059-01 Environmental Setting used, hydraulic effects are expected to be localized. Areas where the lower portion of the fill unit is seasonally saturated, such as in the nonhwest comer of the Site, do not appear to influence the Site-wide groundwater flow regime. 3.1.4.2 Shallow Alluvium The Site Shallow Alluvium is pan of the May Creek delta. The May Creek delta is best illustrated on the topographic map in Figure 3.1-11, where the deltaic fan is seen as a bulge extending west into Lake Washington. The Site is located at the approximate center of that fan. These deltaic deposits consist of interbedded sand, silt, clayey silt, organic silt, and peat beds. The Shallow Alluvium occurs to a depth of about 25 to 40 feet, with thinner deposits in the southeastern portion of the Site. Saturated conditions have been encountered at depths ranging from 2 to 10 feet depending on groundwater elevation and seasonal recharge. The majority of the delta is composed of gently dipping foreset beds consisting of very soft peat and organic silts interbedded with very loose silty, fine to medium sand. In a typical deltaic depositional environment, sediment is deposited on the delta slope at an angle that is marginally stable. The accumulated sediment periodically slumps or flows down the face of the delta. The process of alternating deposition of finer and coarser sedimentation continues as the delta accumulates material over time. As the sediment built up a topographic mound around the mouth of May Creek, the stream would periodically jump its bank and shift laterally to a new position. Deposition of coarse-grained sedimentation then resumed elsewhere on the delta and the former location of sandy deposition was blanketed with silt and clay. As the result of historical earthquake activity in the area, large ponions of the delta slump into deeper water, contributing further to the discontinuous nature of these deltaic deposits. The discontinuous layering observed at the Site borings and illustrated on the cross sections is consistent with a deltaic depositional environment. Cross sections A-A' and B-B' (Figures 3.1-6 and 3.1-7) illustrate the foreset beds deposited by the May Creek channel. Note that the angle of the beds appears exaggerated due to the vertical exaggeration of the cross sections. The lateral migration of the stream bed is illustrated in the cross sections C-C' and Draft Remedial Investigation Quendall Tenninals RI/FS 29 March2010 060059-01 Environmental Setting 0-0' oriented north-south (Figures 3.1-8 and 3.1-9). The subsurface geology is based on the borings illustrated on the figures. 3.1.4.3 Deeper Alluvium The Deeper Alluvium is generally coarser, consisting of medium dense to dense sand and gravels. This unit occurs at a depth of 30 to 40 feet, with a shallower occnrtence of about 25 feet at the southeast comer of the Site (BH-17B). The sand and gravel most likely represents a historical continuation of the May Creek delta. As inferred from geophysical explorations (Woodward Clyde 1988) and four Site deep borings, the base of this unit is estimated to be in the range of 90 to 137 feet bgs. Borings SWB-3 and SWB-4B were completed to depths of 121 and 151 feet, respectively (Shannon Wilson 1997). In these borings, a fine to medium sand was encountered at approximately 90 feet, followed by a silty clay deposit at approximately 120 feet. The clay was interpreted to be a Jacustrine deposit consisting of a very soft to medium stiff silty clay. A third deep boring (SWB-8) was completed to a depth of 121.5 feet near the lake shore and did not reach this fine grained sequence. Most recently, two borings (BH-20C and BH-30C) were advanced to a depth of 140 feet and 142 feet bgs, respectively. Boring BH-20C encountered the silty clay at 137 feet bgs, while boring BH-30C encountered 10 feet of clay at 127 feet bgs. In addition, Boring BH-30C identified a sequence of interbedded clay and fine sand layers from approximately 105 to 127 feet bgs, and fine sand from 127 to 142 feet. A boring advanced several hundred feet east of the Site (B9; Shannon and Wilson 2000) indicates the clay is in excess of 40 feet thick at that location. 3.1.5 Site Groundwater Hydrology Three aquifer zones have been identified beneath the Site and are described as the Shallow Aquifer, Deep Aquifer, and the Artesian Aquifer zones. The groundwater flow system within the Shallow and Deep Aquifer zones is the primary focus of the RI/FS. The Shallow Aquifer occurs in the fill material and peat, silt, sand deposits (Shallow Alluvium) from near ground surface to approximately 35 feet bgs. The Deep Aquifer occurs within the coarser alluvium (Deeper Alluvium) from approximately 35 feet bgs to approximately 140 feet bgs. The water table is typically encountered at depths of 6 to 8 feet in the Shallow Aquifer. The Draft Remedial Investigation Quendall Tenninals Rl!FS 30 March2010 060059-01 Environmental Setting discontinuous layers of silt, sandy silt, and peat provide varying degrees of hydraulic separation between the two aquifers. The presence of flowing conditions in the former plant water supply well located at the Site indicates a deeper confined aquifer, which for purposes of the RI/FS is referred to as the Artesian Aquifer. The plant well was recently located in a field survey and is located north of BH-30C. Based on field observations, the well is constructed of 2-inch diameter steel well casing. According to a former plant manager, the well is 180 feet deep (Hart Crowser 1994). The well exhibited flowing artesian pressures when the well cap was removed. Aside from the former plant well, no other wells are known to have been installed in this aquifer zone. 3.1.5.1 Seasonal Variability Historical water level measurements collected from Site groundwater monitoring wells are summarized in Table 3.1-1. Measurements made in the 1995 to 1996 season were the most complete for evaluating the seasonal variability in groundwater flow across the Site. In 1995 to 1996, Hart Crowser measured water levels bimonthly in on-Site monitoring wells, the Quendall Pond, the South Detention Pond, and Lake Washington. The elevation of Lake Washington is controlled by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USA CE) at the Hiram Chittenden Locks. The lake is at its maximum elevation of 18.7 feet (NAVD88) in June and early July and its minimum elevation of 16.7 feet in December, January, and early February. Water level elevation data collected in years before and since the 1995 to 1996 monitoring program show little variation in seasonal groundwater patterns or minimum/maximum Site groundwater elevations. Water level measurements were collected periodically in 2004 to 2005, primarily associated with the monitoring of Quendall Pond. Water level measurements were collected from BH- 5, BH-5A, BH-19NB, BH-21A, RW-QP-1, and RW-NS-1, including the stage height of the ponds. This information was used to determine the local groundwater/surface water interaction. The conclusion of the study was that the pond was connected to a seasonally perched groundwater unit observed at BH-5A that, when filled during the winter months, resulted in seeps through the west bank of Quendall Pond to Lake Washington. Draft Remedial Investigation Quendall Terminals RI/FS 31 March2010 060059-01 Environmental Setting In June 2007, November 2008, and September 2009, water level measurements were collected from all available Site monitoring wells. September 2009 measurements were coordinated with water level measurements on the Conner Homes property to the south of the Site. 3.1.5.2 Vertical Gradients During 1995 to 1996, water level measurements were collected from six shallow/deep Site well pairs. The shallow/deep well pairs were completed at depths that ranged from 20 to 41 feet apart. A consistent downward gradient ranging between -0.01 and -0.12 feet per foot (ft/ft) was recorded in well pairs located towards the center of the Site and eastward (BH- 17 NB, BH-26NB, and BH-25NB). The highest downward gradients were typically observed during the winter months when recharge is greatest. Wells that were completed near the shoreline (BH-18NB, BH-20NB, and BH-21NB) exhibited consistently upward gradients ranging between 0.01 and 0.05 ft/ft with the exception of BH-18NB. The highest upward gradients in nearshore wells are typically observed in the fall, when recharge is low and the lake level is dropping. However, in the winter months at BH-18NB, a downward gradient of up to -0.02 ft/ft has been recorded. This area of the Site, located at the edge of a wetland area, likely receives more recharge, and this well pair is also located farther from the shoreline relative to the other nearshore wells. 3.1.5.3 Hydraulic Conductivity Estimates Hydraulic conductivities of the Shallow and Deep Aquifers and Lake Washington sediments were characterized in previous studies (Woodward Clyde 1992; Hart Crowser 1997; Anchor and Aspect 2004). Table 3.1-2 presents a compilation of estimates of hydraulic conductivity derived from aquifer testing (i.e., pumping or slug tests), grain size analysis, and sediment vertical permeability measurements using a piezo-seep meter. Pumping test, slug test, and grain size data were used to estimate hydraulic conductivities for the Shallow and the Deep Aquifers. Specific parameters used to characterize each of the aquifers are presented below. 3.1.5.4 Shallow Aquifer Water level data for the Shallow Aquifer are shown as groundwater elevation contours on Figures 3.1-12 and 3.1-13. These figures represent the seasonal hydraulic gradients observed Draft Remedial Investigation Quendall Tenninals RI/FS 32 March2010 060059-01 Environmental Setting in the Shallow Aquifer during November 2008 and September 2009. They illustrate the consistent flow of groundwater in the Shallow Aquifer to the west toward Lake Washington. A horizontal hydraulic gradient of0.005 ft/ft was measured in September 2009, when Lake Washington was near its maximum water level and groundwater elevations were on a decline. During the wetter month of November 2008, an average horizontal hydraulic gradient of0.005 ft/ft was observed Site-wide; however, the gradient steepened to 0.01 ft/ft as groundwater nears discharge to Lake Washington. Higher gradients occur when Lake Washington water levels are at their minimum and Site groundwater levels are rising due to higher precipitation recharge to the shallow groundwater system. Hydraulic conductivity data indicate at least a two order of magnitude range in Shallow Aquifer materials from lxI0-2 to lxJ0-4 centimeters/second (cm/s). Due to the highly interbedded nature of the Shallow Alluvium, the Shallow Aquifer is assumed to be highly anisotropic with respect to hydraulic conductivity, indicating preferential groundwater flow pathways are near horizontal and impeding vertical movement of groundwater. Anisotropy value for this type of aquifer is typically greater than 100: 1 horizontal to vertical conductivity (Freeze and Cheery 1979). 3.1.5.5 Deep Aquifer The Deep Aquifer flows consistently toward Lake Washington as illustrated by the water level collected (Table 3.1-1). During the 1995 to 1996 season, flow gradients toward the lake ranged from 0.005 ft/ft (August 1995) to 0.04 ft/ft (December 1995). Like the Shallow Aquifer, water level data indicate that the Deep Aquifer is equally affected by lake levels and recharge with the maximum, wet season gradient being more than double the minimum, dry season gradient. More recent measurements show horizontal gradients of 0.003 ft/ft and 0.002 ft/ft for November 2008 and September 2009 respectively. The measurement of hydraulic conductivity available for the Deep Aquifer is 2xl0·2 cm/sec at BH-18B. This measurement is consistent with literature values for sand and gravel (Freeze and Cherry 1979). Draft Remedial Investigation Quendall Tenninals RJIFS 33 March2010 060059-01 Environmental Setting 3.1.5.6 Groundwater Flaw Canditians Groundwater flow conditions at the Site were evaluated using groundwater hydraulic models. Several different models have been developed depicting the Site conceptual groundwater flow regime. Hart Crowser (1997) initially used FLONET to conceptualize groundwater flowpaths across the Site while Retec (1998) developed a groundwater flow model using Visual MODFLOW. In support of this RI effort, a similar numerical groundwater flow model was developed using MOD FLOW incorporating the most recently collected stratigraphic and hydraulic data. A description of the construction, calibration, and results of this model in provided in Appendix F. Based on this most recent modeling, Figures 3.1-12 and 3.1-13 illustrates the pathway of Site groundwater flow. Groundwater flow between the Shallow and Deep Aquifers is influenced by the vertical gradients observed at the Site. As discussed in Section 3.1.5.2, vertical gradients are downward in the eastern portion of the Site, resulting in downward flow into the Deep Aquifer and transition to upward flow near the shoreline, resulting in discharge to Lake Washington. Groundwater enters the Site as underflow from the east and from infiltration of on-Site precipitation. As illustrated by the flow lines, groundwater moves through the property from east to west. Through the anisotropic Shallow Aquifer, groundwater generally moves laterally to the west with a downward component in the eastern portion of the Site, primarily horizontally through the central Site area, and then upward at the shoreline before discharging to Lake Washington. Groundwater flow in the Deep Aquifer is predominately horizontal until it nears Lake Washington, where flowpaths bend upward consistent with discharge into Lake Washington. 3.1.5.7 Groundwater Discharge to Lake Washington Groundwater in the Shallow and Deep Aquifers discharges into Lake Washington. The discharge rate of groundwater to Lake Washington through nearshore lake sediments has been estimated in several studies through a combination of empirical measurement and modeling. Results of these studies are summarized in Table 3.1-3. Field studies have included: • Aspect 2003. Seepage rates were estimated by measuring the vertical gradients Draft Remedial Investigation Quendall Tenninals RJ/FS 34 March2010 060059-01 Environmental Setting through shallow sediments (upper 12 to 60 inches) and by measuring the vertical hydraulic conductivity of shallow sediments (upper 12 inches) using a piezo-seep meter (summarized above in Section 3.1.5.3 and discussed in Appendix F of the Draft RNFS, Anchor and Aspect 2004). Estimated Darcy velocities (i.e., one dimensional flux) ranged from 0.1 to 12 cm/day. • EPA 2009. Seepage rates were estimated by deploying bucket-and-bag seepage meters at several locations in April and May 2009. Methods and results were documented in draft field reports (EPA 2009a and 2009b). Estimated Darcy velocities ranged from 0.05 to 3 cm/day. The geometric mean of all field-estimated seepage rates measured at the Site is 0.83 cm/day. It should be noted that significant variation was noted in the field measurements, even between seepage meters collected at the same location on consecutive days (EPA 2009b). Field measurements of groundwater seepage, particularly in horizontally stratified deposits observed beneath the Site lake bed sediments are prone to a high degree of variability. Although the stratified deposits beneath the lakebed include high permeability sand lenses, vertical flow velocities will be limited by the lower permeability silt and peat layers that comprise the stratified delta deposit. Due to the limited depth of the seepage meter embedment, the higher end of the observed vertical flow velocities are generally not representative of flow rates across the entire stratified deposit. For this RI, the groundwater hydraulic model described above and in Appendix F was used to estimate seepage rate through the sediments from 40 to 240 feet offshore along three transects. The model-predicted seepage rate varies across the sediment bed due to differences in the offshore thickness of the Shallow Alluvium (based on sediment core logs) and changes in the model-predicted gradient moving offshore. The average seepage rate was calculated to be 0.44 cm/day, with a standard deviation of ±0.13 cm/day. The hydraulic model does not account for local variations in the composition of the Shallow Alluvium. To estimate the variability that might result from local stratigraphic differences, the nearshore sediment core logs (NS-1 through NS-15) were reviewed and the percentage of layers that primarily contained low-permeability materials (e.g., silt or peat) was calculated. The average percent thickness of low permeability materials was calculated to be 47 percent, Draft Remedial Investigation Quendall Terminals R1IFS 35 March2010 060059-01 Environmental Setting with a standard deviation of ±25 percent (see Table 3.1-3). Incorporating this variability into the estimated flux, the model-estimated seepage rate is therefore approximately 0.44 cm/day with a standard error of ±0.27 cm/day (160 ± 97 cm/year). These values were used as input to the sediment porewater fate and transport modeling discussed in Section 6.4.2. 3.1.6 Bathymetry and Sediment Characteristics As discussed above in Section 2.2.1 and depicted in Figure 3.1-lB, topographic and bathymetric survey data were available for the years 1975 and 1996. Overall, Site bathymetry has been similar through the 22-year time span and minor changes in mudline elevation that may have occurred over this period are likely the result of natural sediment transport processes. Surface sediment conditions were characterized in 1996 using sediment profile imaging (SPI), video transect surveys for determination of surface wood debris, side- scan sonar surveys to map large debris, beach surveys, and surface sediment grab sampling (Retec 1997b). Follow-on diver-operated video transect surveys were performed by EPA in 2009 and revealed similar distributions of submerged wood debris at the Site. The primary bathymetric feature in the nearshore is the sand spit to the north of the T-Dock. The lake bottom is relatively flat between the inner and outer harbor lines with water depths at the outer harbor line ranging from 26 to 31 feet (as measured at normal high water line). The maximum water depth between the Site and Mercer Island is approximately 70 feet (Retec 1997b). Bottom substrate is typically a fine silt/mud, although several areas with a sandier bottom were evident, including the Quendall sand spit and sediments near the outer harbor line south of the T-Dock. With the exception of a wood debris area along the southern shoreline, aquatic vegetation is dominated by dense areas of Eurasian watermilfoil. 3.1.7 Geotechnical Characteristics Site geotechnical studies have been conducted by Twelker in 1971, CH2M Hill in 1978, and Shannon and Wilson in 1997. In 2009, Aspect completed a preliminary geotechnical study compiling data from these previous studies and other geotechnical data available for the Quendall Site (Aspect 2009). A summary of the Aspect's geotechnical findings are provided below. For further details, refer to the reports referenced above. Draft Remedial Investigation Quendall Tenninals RJ/FS 36 March2010 060059-01 Environmental Setting In general, soils from O feet to approximately 25 feet deep (Fill and Shallow Alluvium) are relatively weak with variable compressibility and permeability characteristics. Soils from approximately 25 feet to 135 feet (Lower Alluvium Deposits) are moderately strong with low compressibility and high permeability. Below 120 feet, soils consist of Lacustrine deposits with moderate strength, low to moderate compressibility, and low permeability and are presumed to overlie other glacial deposits and bedrock. The near-surface soils (Fill and Shallow Alluvium) are considered to be compressible and weak. Therefore, deep foundations (piles) would be required to support the buildings and any other heavily loaded and/or settlement-sensitive strucrures. Seismic hazards to consider for Site development include surface fault rupture due to the Site proximity to the Seattle Fault Zone, amplification of strong shaking as a result of the soft soil profile, and liquefaction of the relatively weak granular soils beneath the Site. The Site is located in a moderately active seismic zone. The subsurface soils beneath the Site exhibit susceptibility to liquefaction to a depth of about 80 feet. 3.2 Natural Resources This section briefly summarizes natural resources at the Site and adjacent areas and their management. More detailed information on natural resources is provided in the risk assessment as it applies to the selection of receptors of concern. 3.2.1 Upland and Aquatic Habitat The upland area is characterized by log handling and storage uses that have resulted in large deposits of wood debris covering access roads and storage areas. The Site vegetation consists primarily of early successional species and invasive species including large stands of Himalayan blackberry and Scot's broom. Site wetlands were most recently surveyed in 2009, including assessments of water quality, hydrologic, and habitat functional values (Anchor QEA 2009). Five current Site wetlands were previously constructed as depressions to control spills and stormwater flows, and more recently to avoid disruption to log storage operations that have since ceased. Historical construction of each these features influences the regulatory starus of these wetlands as determined by the municipal, state, and/or federal Draft Remedial Investigation Qµendall Tenninals R1/FS 37 March2010 060059-01 Environmental Setting regulations. A more detailed discussion of wetland delineation, lake ordinary high water mark (OHWM) delineation, and habitat assessments at the Site are provided in Anchor QEA (2009). The shoreline can be divided into three sections. The northern area, including the sand spit, is low and sloping with upland vegetation and a sandy beach. There is a marshy area behind the sand beach. The middle section is characterized by beaches with wood and other debris and shoreline with brush and small trees. The southern end of the property is partially bulkheaded and armored with riprap. There is no vegetation on the southern uplands because of the log handling activities. Beach and nearshore restoration was completed south of the Site (i.e., on aquatic lands adjacent to the Conner Homes Site) in 2005, in accordance with federal, state, and local permits and a WDNR Right of Entry. 3.2.2 Riparian and Submerged Plants Riparian vegetation is generally present across the Site shoreline, with the exception of the southern log handling area. Aquatic vegetation is mostly dense beds of Eurasian milfoil, which has choked out the majority of native plant growth (KCDNR 2003). 3.2.3 Benthic Organisms Benthic invertebrates have been described for Lake Washington near the Site by EVS (1990) and identified and enumerated in surface sediment samples by Ecology (1991 and 1992). Chironomids constitute the majority of the benthic abundance and biomass. Other prevalent taxa include oligochaetes, bivalves, porifera, amphipods, and copepods. 3.2.4 Phytoplankton and Zooplankton Phytoplankton populations are relatively uniform throughout Lake Washington. Dominant species vary seasonally. In winter and spring, the phytoplankton community is dominated by diatoms. In June, in response to nutrient depletion, diatom populations decline and gelatinous green or blue-green algae dominate (EVS 1990). Zooplankton populations are distributed in random patches, with a relative constant composition of crustaceans and rotifers, dominated by Daphnia species (EVS 1990). Draft Remedial Investigation Quendall Tenninals RI/FS 38 March2010 060059-01 Environmental Setting 3.2.5 Fish Based on a review of Lake Washington fish species information (EVS 1990; KCDNRP 2003; WDFW 2009; WDOH 2004; and Wydoski and Whitney 2003), resident and migratory species were inventoried, their life history needs were compared to available Site niches, and representative species were selected. The fish community in Lake Washington is dominated by cutthroat trout ( Oncorhynchus clarla), northern pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus oregonensis), yellow perch (Perea flavescens), smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomiem), and sockeye salmon ( 0. nerka). Other fish species include rainbow trout, steelhead ( 0. mykiss), coho and Chinook salmon ( 0. tshawytscha), lamprey, sculpin, carp, bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), and threespine stickleback ( Gasterosteus aculeatus). Longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys) are known to spawn in May Creek. Salmon species are likely to use the nearshore area as juveniles. The mouth of May Creek was historically relocated from its original delta position. Due to upstream development, the creek experiences elevated peak flows along with relatively large sediment loads that are detrimental to fish and wildlife habitat. Additional information on fish species is provided in Appendix B of the Task 3 Report. 3.2.6 Wildlife Mammals observed in the Quendall Site vicinity include occasional coyotes ( Canis larans) and red fox ( Vulpes vulpes), deer, raccoons, skunks, river otters, beaver, weasels, opossums, and rodents including rabbits, squirrels, shrews, mice, voles, and bats. Birds found at the Site may include seabirds such as great blue heron (Ardea herodias), common merganser (Mergus merganser), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), spotted sandpiper (Actitis maculan·us), and osprey (Pandion haliaetus); bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus); and upland birds such as wrens, crows, woodpeckers, robins, sparrows and finches. Amphibians potentially using the Site include several salamander species, including the Pacific giant salamander (Dicamptodon tenebrosus), and several frog species, including the Draft Remedial Investigation Quenda/1 Tenninals RI/FS 39 March2010 060059-01 Environmental Setting Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) and non-native bullfrogs. Reptiles include newts, lizards, turtles, and common garter snakes. Additional information on wildlife species is provided in Appendix B of the Task 3 Report. 3.2.7 Threatened and Endangered Species Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) -listed species that use the Quendall Site include: • Chinook salmon • Steelhead • Bull trout Juveniles of all three species may use the nearshore for rearing; however, steelhead are more likely to remain in their natal streams until they migrate directly to Puget Sound. 3.2.8 Resource Management This section provides a discussion of water resource, tribal and recreational fisheries, and shoreline management. The Lake Washington fishery is co-managed by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the Muckleshoot, Suquamish, and Tulalip Tribes. Lake Washington is a Usual and Accustomed (U&A) fishing ground for these tribes. The Hiram M. Chittenden Locks regulate water levels in the lake. The locks are managed by USACE. The King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks administers the Shoreline Management Program for Water Resources Inventory Area (WRIA) 8. On behalf of the State of Washington, the WDNR manages the aquatic land below the ordinary high water line. The Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish watershed is managed by the WRIA 8 Steering Committee, which consists of delegates from city governments (including the City of Renton and others), county governments (including King County), state and federal agencies, sewer, water, and conservation districts, and private entities, foundations, and councils. 3.3 Surrounding Land Use Characteristics This section provides a discussion of surrounding land and drinking water use. Draft Remedial Investigation Quendall Terminals RJ/FS 40 March2010 060059-01 Environmental Setting 3.3.1 Surrounding land Use The Site and surrounding properties are zoned Commercial/Office/Residential. To the east. the property is bordered by the Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way, which in turn is bordered on the east by Ripley Lane and Lake Washington Boulevard North. Adjacent to the south is the Conner Homes property, which is currently being developed for residential townhomes. The property to the north is owned by Port Quendall Company/Football Northwest, and has been developed for office and recreational field use. Extensive environmental investigations have been performed on both the Conner Homes and Football Northwest properties. Soil, groundwater, and sediment cleanup actions were completed on these properties prior to recent redevelopment, as described below. 3.3.1.1 Conner Homes Property The Conner Homes property was formerly operated as a lumber mill by Barbee Mill Marine Yards from 1943 to 1945, and Barbee Mill Co., Inc., from 1945 to 2001 (Hart Crowser 2000). Environmental investigations indicated the presence of arsenic in soil and groundwater on the northern portion of the property where an experimental arsenic solution was used to treat wood in the late 1940s. The area of impacted groundwater extended from the former treatment area to the northwest, crossing the southwestern corner of the Quendall Terminals property as shown on Figure 3.3-1. Localized occurrences of pentachlorophenol (PCP), which was used in small quantities in a spray for sap stain control prior to 1978, and petroleum hydrocarbons used to run mill equipment, were identified in the central portion (mill area) of the property. A cleanup action that combined removal and containment technologies and supported residential development of the property was implemented and included the following (Aspect 2006): • Removal of soils containing PCP and total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) above State MTCA (Chapter 173-340 WAC) unrestricted use cleanup levels • Removal of soils in the upper 15 feet containing arsenic above MTCA unrestricted use cleanup levels • Installation of a passive attenuation zone (PAZ) along the downgradient property boundary to intercept and remove arsenic from groundwater migrating towards Lake Draft Remedial Investigation Quendall Terminals R1IFS 41 March2010 060059-01 Environmental Setting Washington above the MTCA cleanup level • Installation of a groundwater extraction and treatment system to remove the highest concentrations of arsenic-impacted groundwater upgradient of the PAZ • Placement of institutional controls on the property, including deed restrictions preventing groundwater withdrawal or disturbance of the PAZ. • Monitoring arsenic concentrations in groundwater and sediment porewater upgradient and downgradient of the PAZ, including well points on the southwestern corner of the Qµendall Site. The areas addressed by the cleanup action, the location of existing compliance monitoring wells, and the arsenic concentrations measured at these wells in September 2009 are shown in Figure 3.3-1. 3.3.1.2 Football Northwest Property The Football Northwest property was formerly owned by the J.H. Baxter Company, which operated a wood treatment plant from 1955 to 1981. Wood was treated using either creosote or PCP dissolved in an aromatic oil. Following several environmental investigations, PCP and PAHs were identified as chemicals of concern in soil, groundwater, and sediments. Dioxins and furans were also identified as a chemical of concern, but because dioxin/furan occurrences were collocated with PCP, the indicator hazardous substance PCP was used as a surrogate for evaluating and addressing dioxin contamination (Retec 2000). In the J.H. Baxter Remedial Investigation (Woodward Clyde 1997), eight surface soil samples with the highest concentrations of PCP were submitted for dioxin analysis. Only dioxin congeners with six to eight chlorine substituents were detected, consistent with the components of commercial-grade PCP. Dioxin and furan congeners were detected at concentrations ranging from 0.033 to 2,770 µg/kg in the eight samples. A MTCA cleanup action that combined removal and containment technologies was completed at the Football Northwest property and included the following: • Removal of DNAPL from one well • Focused removal of shallow hot-spot soils containing light non-aqueous phase liquid (LNAPL) • Focused removal of shallow hot-spot sediments in Baxter Cove Draft Remedial Investigation Quendall Tenninals RIIFS 42 March2010 060059-01 Environmental Setting • In-situ stabilization of NAPL-irnpacted soil near the shoreline • Placement of a cap on upland soils across the property • Implementation of institutional controls to address contamination left in place, including prevention of groundwater withdrawal, groundwater compliance monitoring, and operations and maintenance requirements for the soil cap. Areas addressed by the cleanup action and the location of existing compliance monitoring well, are shown on Figure 3.3-2. 3.3.2 Drinking Water Use Site facilities and all surrounding properties are served by City of Renton and Coal Creek Water District municipal water lines, which will continue to be used in the future. Coal Creek Water District is supplied with water from the City of Seattle system, which uses surface water from the Cedar River watershed. The City of Renton system is supplied by groundwater from wells located approximately 4 miles southeast of the Quendall Site in downtown Renton. To protect their groundwater supply, the City of Renton has established an aquifer protection zone (Renton Municipal Code 4-3-050). The Site is located outside this zone (Figure 3.3-3). A search of well records and water right certificates and permits was conducted to identify any possible water supply uses within a half mile of the Site, either from a groundwater source or Lake Washington. Table 3.3-1 provides well construction information available for water wells listed in the Ecology Well Logs database. As illustrated on Figure 3.1-4, these wells are completed in aquifers above the Site and cannot be impacted by Site contamination. A search of the Water Rights Tracking System identified two certificates for Lake Washington and no groundwater certificates or permits. The certificates for Lake Washington were for J.H. Baxter to the north and Bellevue Sewer District for industrial sanitation use. Lake Washington is no longer available for consumptive appropriation as it was closed in 1979 to further withdrawals by Chapter 173-508 WAC. It is highly unlikely that Lake Washington water will be used as drinking water in the future because of this closure. Furthermore, any use of the surface water would require some form of treatment for Draft Remedial Investigation Quendall Terminals R1IFS 43 March2010 060059-01 Environmental Setting bacterial purification prior to use for drinking purposes. While Lake Washington is classified as a Suitable Source of Water Supply under Chapter l 73-201A WAC, it is not currently used as such and is highly unlikely to be used as such in the future. The surrounding community is serviced by public water systems, which have sources outside the Site area. The use of private wells in the area is limited and these wells are located upgradient of the Site. In accordance with the King County Comprehensive Plan, individual private water supply wells will not be permitted within municipal water supply service area boundaries, which include the Site. Draft Remedial Investigation Quendall Terminals RI/FS 44 March2010 060059-01 TABLES Table 2.1-1 Primary Consisutents of Cresote and Coal Tar Creosote Coal Tar Commercial Creosote U.S. Creosote Coal Tar (USEPA 19901 /USDA 19801 IGRI 19871 Volatile Aromatics Benzene 0.001 Toluene Ethylbenzene 0.002 Xylenes 0.01 Styrene Base/Neutrals Naphthalene 0.17 0.03 0.109 Methylnapthalenes 0.1 0.021 0.024 Dimethylnaphtalenes 0.033 Biphenyl 0.019 0.008 Acenaphthene 0.078 0.09 0.013 Fluorene 0.06 0.1 0.016 Phenanthrene 0.194 0.21 0.04 Anthracene 0.025 0.02 0.011 Fluoranthene 0.118 0.1 Pyrene 0.084 0.085 Chrysene 0.042 0.03 Methylanthracene 0.04 Acid Extractables Phenol 0.007 Cresols 0.011 Xylenols 0.002 N,S,0-H eterocycl ics Carbazole 0.051 0.02 0.011 Pitch (See Note 1) 0.62 Notes: 1. Pitch is a general term for the mixture of very low solubility, high-molecular weight hydrocarbons. Data as tabulated by Cohen and Mercer (1993). Original references as follows: GRI 1987. Management of manufactured gas plant sites. Gas Research Institute. Rl-87 /0260. U.S. Coal Tar (USDA 19801 0.0012 0.0002 0.0025 0.0014 0.0002 0.088 0.019 0.0106 0.0084 0.0266 0.0075 0.0061 0.0097 0.0036 0.006 0.635 Aqueous Solubility of Pure Compound (mg/L) 1780 152 515 200 300 32 25 2 7 3 2 1 0.07 0.3 0.1 0.002 0.04 82000 24000 5000 1 USDA 1980. The biologic and economic assessment of pentachlorophenol, inorganic arsenicals, creosote, Volume l: Wood preservatives. U.S. Department of Agriculture Technical Bulletin 1658-1. USEPA 1990. Approaches for remediation of uncontrolled wood preserving sites. EPA/625/7-90/011. Draft Remedial lnvestigarion Quendall Terminals Rl/FS March20IO 060059-01 Table 2.3-1 Summary of Historical Quendall Site Investigation Data Sampling Event Year Twelker & 1971 Associates CH2M Hill 1979 US EPA 1983 Woodward 1983 Clyde Woodward 1983 Clyde l Woodward 1989 Clyde Woodward 1989 Clyde Washington 1990/1991 Department of Ecology Woodward 1990 Clyde Woodward 1991 Clyde Hart 1995 Crowser RI Draft Remedial Investigation Quendall Tenninals RI/FS Number of New Exploration Locations and Matrix General Type SO, SE 15 upland and 15 offshore borings ws 3 in lake stations SE Ten sediment cores so 4 trenches, 18 borings (12 completed as wells) WG (Existing wells) WG (Existing wells) WG (Existing wells) SE 11 in-lake stations so 6 well borings WG (Existing wells) so 10 test pits/ 8 borings/ 1 well boring i Number of Samples and General Type Chemicals 8 soil, 11 Total aromatic sediment hydrocarbons 3 events of Oil & grease, sampling, 9 Fecal coliform, samples conventionals 17 subsurface PAHs subsurface samples 121 PAHs screen, subsurface, voe screen 13 surface voes, svocs, pesticides 12 upland pH, wells conventionals, voes, svoes 2 quarters of pH, sampling 11 conventionals, upland wells metals, voes, SVOCs 2 quarters of pH, sampling 10 conventionals, upland wells metals, SVOCs, voes 22 surface Conventionals, samples, 11 PAHs, SVOCs, per event Bioassays 9 subsurface SVOCs 6 upland wells voes, svocs 42 subsurface pH, TOC, TPH, metals, pesticides/PCB, svoes. voes Reference Twelker 1973 i CH2MHill 1979 I EPA 1983 wee 1983 wee 1983 wee 1990 wee 1991 a Ecology 1991 and 1992 wee 1991 a wee 1991b Hart Crowser 1997 March2010 060059-01 Table 2.3-1 Summary of Historical Quendall Site Investigation Data (continued) T Sampling Event Year Hart 1996 erowser RI Hart 1996 erowser RI Retec 1996 Retec 1997 Exponent 2000 Retec 2001 Retec 2001 Retec 2001 Anchor 2002 Anchor 2002 Draft Remedial Investigation Quendall Terminals RI/FS Matrix WG ws SE SE SE so WG PW WG SE Number of New Exploration Locations and General Type 1 upland groundwater well/ 6 in-lake temporary wellpoint 6 in-lake stations : 53 grab samples 23 vibracore samples/5 grab samples 12 grab samples 23 geoprobe 19 in-lake permanent wellpoint : ' 5 vibracore (Existing wellpoints) ! 5 grab samples I Number of Samples and General Type Chemicals 15 existing Metals, SVOes, upland voes groundwater well/ 6 in-lake temporary wellpoint 6 near lake Conventionals, bottom metals, SVOCs, voes 53 surface/ 7 Conventionals, subsurface metals, SVOCs, voes 11 surface Conventionals, samples/43 metals, SVOCs, subsurface voes, bioassays 12 surface Conventionals, samples bioassays details) 9 subsurface voes, svocs 19 existing voes, svoes upland groundwater well/19 in- lake permanent wellpoint/9 geoprobe 5 subsurface voes, svoes vibracore samples 5 permanent Conventionals, wellpoint PAHs, voes (subset of Retec 2001 wellpoints) 5 surface Conventionals, PAHs, voes Reference Hart erowser 1997 Hart Crowser 1997 Retec 1997a Retec 1997a Exponent 2001 Retec 2002a Retec 2002a Retec 2002a Anchor and Aspect 2004 Anchor and Aspect 2004 March2010 060059-01 Table 2.3-1 Summary of Historical Quendall Site Investigation Data (continued) I ' ' ' Sampling Event Year Matrix I Anchor 2002 PW i Anchor 2003 WG Anchor 2003 PW Aspect 2003 WG Anchor 2003 ws Anchor 2003 SE Anchor 2004 SE Aspect 2004 so I Matrix Definitions: SO soil SE sediment WS surface water WG groundwater PW porewater Chemicals: PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons VOC volatile organic compounds SVOC semivolatile organic compounds TPH total petroleum hydrocarbons TDC total organic carbon Draft RemecHal Investigation Quendall Tenninals RIIFS Number of New Exploration Number of Locations and Samples and General Type General Type Chemicals 5 grab samples 5 surface Convention a ls, PAHs, voes (Existing 5 permanent Conventionals, wellpoints) wellpoint PAHs, voes (subset of Retec 2001 wellpoints) 5 grab samples 5 surface Conventionals, PAHs, voes (Existing wells) 2 existing Conventionals, deep aquifer metals, svoes, groundwater voes wells 1 in lake station 1 near lake PAHs, voes bottom correspond in gwith wellpoint 19A 3 grab samples 1 surface, 9 Conventionals, radiochemistr PAHs, y radiochemistry 6 grab samples 6 surface Conventionals, bioassays 11 surface 11 surface svoe and voe Reference Anchor and Aspect 2004 Anchor and Aspect 2004 Anchor and Aspect 2004 Anchor and Aspect 2004 Anchor and Aspect 2004 Anchor and Aspect 2004 Anchor and Aspect 2004 Anchor and Aspect 2004 March2010 060059-01 Table 2.4-1 Summary of Historical Soil Data Included in the Site RI Year Survey Event Title Published Description Hart 1997 Report Crowser characterizes the Remedial spatial extent and Investigation magnitude of soil contamination in the upland of the Site resulting from historic operations. Retec 2001 Results of Shoreline geoprobe Geoprobe investigation characterizing the extent of DNAPL in the subsurface near the shoreline. Aspect 2004 Results of Surface Soil supplemental sampling performed to assess distribution and risk associated with SVOCs and voes in surface soils at the Site. Note: voe Volatile organic carbon SVOC Semivolatile organic carbon DNAPL Dense nonaqueous phase liquid Draft Remedial Investigation Quendall Tenninals RJ/FS Sampling Description Reference Sampling Hart conducted in 1995. Crowser Explorations 1997 included 10 test pits 5.5 to 10 feet deep and eight soil borings 11.5 to 39 feet deep. 39 subsurface soil and five soil vapor samples submitted for analysis. Sampling Retec conducted in 2001. 2002a Explorations included 23 soil borings 4 to 4 7 feet deep. Nine subsurface soil samples submitted for analysis. Sampling Anchor conducted in 2004. and Explorations Aspect included 11 hand-2004 auger borings 2 to 3 feet deep. One grab and one composite sample from each boring submitted for analysis. Sponsor Quendall Terminals JAG Development Quendall Terminals March2010 060059-01 Table 2.4·2 Summary of Historical Groundwater Data Included in the Site RI Year Event Title Published Hart Crowser 1997 Remedial Investigation Retec Shoreline 2002 Geoprobe Retec Upland 2002 and Wellpoint Anchor 2004 Wellpoint Anchor 2004 Wellpoint Aspect Deep 2004 Aquifer Draft Remedial Investigation Quendall Tenninals RI/FS Survey Description Report characterizes spatial extent and magnitude of groundwater contamination in the upland of the Site resulting from historic operations. Results of supplemental sampling characterizing spatial extent and magnitude of groundwater contamination near shoreline. Results of sampling performed to characterize transport of contaminants toward the lake and assist in fate and transport modeling. Results of supplemental sampling to assist in fate and transport modeling. Results of supplemental sampling to assist in fate and transport modeling. Results of supplemental sampling to confirm previous sampling results. Sampling Description Reference Sampling of 15 Hart monitoring wells and Crowser six well points 1997 conducted in January 1996. Sampling conducted Retec in 2001. Six 2002a groundwater grab samples collected from direct-push soil borings and submitted for analysis. Sampling conducted Anchor in 2001 at 19 upland 2003a wells and 19 well points. Sampling conducted Anchor in 2002 at five and well points. Aspect 2004 Sampling conducted Anchor in 2003 at six and well points. Aspect 2004 Sampling conducted Anchor in 2003 at two deep and wells. Aspect 2004 Sponsor Quendall Terminals JAG Development JAG Development Quendall Terminals Quendall Terminals Quendall Terminals March2010 060059-01 Table 2.4-3 Summary of Historical Sediment Data Included in the Site RI Year Event Title Published Retec Due Diligence 1997 Sediment Quality Investigation Exponent Gray Zone 2001 Characterization Anchor well point 2003 Anchor Natural 2004 Recovery Anchor T-Dock 2004 Bioassay Draft Remedial Investigation Quendall Tenninals RI/FS Survey Description Report characterizes occurrence of Site contaminants in surface and subsurface sediment in Lake Washington. Report characterizes sediment chemistry and bioassay results for wood debris "gray zone." Report characterizes sediment chemistry adjacent to wellpoints for use in synoptic evaluation of groundwater-to- sediment pathway. Report characterizes natural recovery parameters for T- Dock sediment. Report characterizes sediment bioassay results for selected stations to verify natural recovery. Sampling Description Reference Collection of 60 Retec surface grab samples 1997a; and 43 subsurface Retec samples (from 23 1996c vibracore stations). Bioassay analysis of gray zone sediment area also performed. Collection of 12 Exponent surface grab 2000; samples ASci 2000 Collection of five Anchor surface grab samples and adjacent to existing Aspect mud line well points 2003a; Anchor and Aspect 2004 Collection of piston Anchor core samples at 2003b three stations for Anchor high resolution and sampling of sediment Aspect intervals 2004 Collection of six Anchor surface grab samples 2004a, (including reference Anchor samples) for bioassay and analysis ofl-Dock Aspect sediments 2004 Sponsor JAG Group City of Renton Quendall Terminals Quendall Terminals Quendall Terminals March2010 060059-01 Table 2.4-4 Summary of Historical Sediment Porewater Data Included in the Site RI Year Event Title Published Retec Upland and 2002 Wellpoint Anchor Wellpoint 2004 Anchor Wellpoint 2004 Draft Remedial Investigation QuendaJJ Tenninals RJ/FS Survey Description Results of sampling performed to characterize transport of contaminants toward the lake and assist in fate and transport modeling. Results of supplemental sampling to assist in fate and transport modeling. Results of supplemental sampling to assist in fate and transport modeling. Sampling Description Sampling conducted in 2001 included five vibracore samples extracted for porewater Sutface sediment porewater sampling conducted in 2002 at five wellpoints. Surface sediment porewater sampling conducted in 2003 at five wellpoints. Reference Anchor and Aspect 2003 Anchor and Aspect 2004 Anchor and Aspect 2004 Sponsor JAG Development Quendall Terminals Quendall Terminals March2010 060059-01 Table 2.4-5 Summary of Historical Surface Water Data Included in the Site RI Event Title Year Published Ha rt Crowse r 1997 Remedial Investigation Draft Remedial Investigation Quendall Tenninals Rl/FS Survey Description Report characterizes occurrence of Site contaminants in surface water offshore of Site. Sampling Description Reference Collection of six Hart samples adjacent to Crowser the mudline and next 1997 to six temporary well points. Sponsor Quendall Terminals March2010 060059-01 Well ID Date of Installation To" of Casin Ground level Ton of Sandoack Ton of Screen Bottom of Screen Bottom of Well Measurement Date 6/8/1983 6/27/1983 1/12 -1/16/89 2/7/1989 4/12/1989 5/31-6/7/89 9/14/1989 11/21-11/28/89 1/16/1990 3/12 -3/16/90 4/2S/1991 5/7/1991 6/10/1991 8/30/1995 10/12/1995 12/14/1995 1/15/1996 4/5/1996 5/16/1996 6/11/1996 1/18/2001 8/21/2003 3/9/2004 3/16/2004 3/24/2004 4/8/2004 4/13/2004 9/3/2004 9/22/2004 10/14/2004 11/11/2004 12/20/2004 1/5/2005 1/21/2005 2/8/2005 2/25/2005 3/10/2005 5/17/2005 6/11/2005 6/7/2007 11/13 "11/20/2008 919 2009 10/28/2009 Drali Rem1:dial lnvestig;,tion Qu1:ndall Terminals RVFS References Woodward Clvde 1983 Woodward Clvde 1983 Woodward Clvde 1990 Woodward Clvde 1990 Woodward Clvde 1990 Woodward Clvd£< 1990 Woodward Clvd!< 1990 Woodward Clvde 1990 Woodward Clvd£< 1990 Woodward Clvde 1990 Woodward Cl de 1991a Woodward Clvde 1991a Woodward Clvde 1991a Hart Crowser 1997 Hart Crowser 1997 Hart Crowser 1997 Hart Crowser 1997 HartCrowser 1997 Hartcrowser 1997 HartCrowser 1997 Anchor and Asoect 2004 Anchor and Asn£<ct 2004 Asnect Field Forms Amect Field Forms As=ct Field Forms Aspect Field Forms Asoect field forms Asnect field Forms ASP!<ct Fl!<ld Forms Aso£<ct Field Forms Asned Field Forms Aspect Fi£<1d Forms Aso~t Field Forms Asnect Field Forms Aspect Field Forms Asoect Field forms AsnPct Field Forms A<""cl Field Forms Amee! Field Forms Asr><>ct Field Forms Aspect Field Forms As""ct Field Forms Aspect Field Forms BAX-9 BH-1 12/14/1988 5/17/1983 Depthln Elevation Deptli In Elevation Feet In Feel Feet in Feet 27 27.02 25.5 27 4 21.5 .. 5 20.5 5 " 15 10.5 19.5 7.5 18.S 7 19.5 7.5 .. .. 5.8 21.22 6.11 20.91 6.45 20.55 6.79 20.21 . 6.06 20.94 .. .. 5.88 21.12 6.91 20.09 6.7 20.3 .. 6.4 20.6 6.48 20.52 5.7 21.3 .. S.81 21.19 . .. 6.74 20.26 .. 7.17 19 83 .. 6.02 20.98 5.76 21.24 5.95 21.05 .. .. S.46 21.54 5.84 21.16 .. 6.46 20.54 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Table 3.1-1 Summary of Groundwater Elevation Measurements BH-2 BH-2A BH-5 5/17/1983 5/17/1983 S/20/1983 Deptli In E,evatlon Depth In Elevation Depth In Elevation Feet In Feet Feet In Feet Feet !n Feet 29.07 28.66 29.24 N.4 24.4 26.9 .. 3 21.4 .. . . 5 19.4 5 19.4 13 13.9 19.5 ,9 20 4.4 2l 3.9 19.5 4.9 20 ,.4 2l 3.9 7., 21.67 7.17 21.49 9.36 19.88 7.53 21.54 7.16 21.5 9.51 19.73 --.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. 5.37 23.87 .. .. 5.18 24.06 .. .. .. .. . . .. . . .. 10.04 19.2 .. . 10,37 18.87 .. '' 20.34 .. .. 9.07 20.17 .. 9.27 19.97 .. .. 8.82 20.42 .. 9.04 20.2 .. 9.87 19.37 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 10.51 18.73 .. 10.46 18.78 .. . . 10.38 18.86 10.36 18.88 .. .. 9.81 19.43 .. .. 10.19 19.0S .. 9.31 19.93 .. .. 9.92 19.32 .. .. . . 10.07 19.17 10.2 19.04 .. .. .. .. 9.68 19.56 9.66 19.58 .. . 29 24 .. . . 10.7S 18.49 .. 1 of5 BH-SA BH-58 5/20/1983 8/6/2009 Depth In Elevation Depth ln Elevation Feet In Feet Feet In feet 27.88 27.96 26.9 25.29 4 22.9 38 -12.71 5 21.9 40 ·14.71 rn 16.9 49.63 ·24.34 10 16.9 49.63 -24.34 7 I 20.78 7.81 20.07 .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. 9.71 18.17 .. . . 9.77 18.11 9.67 18.21 .. .. .. .. .. 8.19 19.69 .. 5.24 22.64 .. 4.47 23.41 4.35 23.53 4.97 22.91 .. . . 4.98 22.9 .. 5.62 22.26 5.7 22.68 . . . .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . . 6.51 21.37 .. 5.85 22.03 8.77 19.11 8.77 19.19 .. .. BH~ 5/20/1983 Deptn In Elev at Ion Feet In Feet 25.45 B.6 .. 8 156 18 56 19.5 4.1 4.67 20.78 4.84 20.61 .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. BH-8 5/19/1983 Depth !n Elevation Feet in Feet 28.72 27 13 14 23 4 '45 2.5 6.37 22.35 6.4 22.32 .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. . . .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. DH· 5/19/ Depth in Feet 4.5 5 10 10 4.54 4.72 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ,lfarch 2010 [!6(}(}59-0! Well ID Date of Installation Too of Casini! Ground Level Ton of Sandnack Too of Screen Bottom of Screen Bottom of Well Meas(Jrement Date 6/8/1983 6/27/1983 1/12 -1/16/89 2/7/1989 4/12/1989 5/31-6/7/89 9/14/1989 11/21-11/28/89 1/16/1990 3/12 -3/16/90 4/25/1991 5/7/1991 6/10/1991 11/30/1995 10/12/1995 12/14/1995 1/15/1996 4/5/1995 5/16/1996 6/11/1996 1/18/2001 8/21/2003 3/9/2004 3/16/2004 3/24/2004 4/8/2004 4/13/2004 9/3/2004 9/22/2004 10/1412004 11/11/2004 12/20/2004 1/5/2005 1/21/2005 2/8/2005 2/25/2005 3/10/2005 5/17/2005 6/11/2005 6/7/2007 11/13 -11/20/2008 9/912009 10/28/2009 Draft Remedial lnvestigarion Que11dall Tenmiials R/,FS References Woodward Clllde 1983 Woodward Cl"de 1983 Woodward Clvde 1990 Woodward Clllde 1990 Woodward (lvde 1990 Woodward Clvde 1990 Woodward Clllde 1990 Woodward n,de 1990 Woodward Clvde 1990 Woodward Clllde 1990 Woodward (l,"'e 199la Woodward Clvde 1991a Woodward Clllde 1991a flartCrowser 1997 flartCrowser 1997 Hartcrowser 1997 Hartcrowser 1997 HartC,owser 1997 HartCrowser 1997 Hart Crowser 1997 Anchor and As""ct 2004 An~hor and Asnect 2004 Asoect Field Forms Asnect Field Forms As"ed Field Forms Asnect Field Forms As,,..ct Field Forms As""ct Field Forms Asnect Field Forms As,,..,t Field Forms Asnect Field Forms AS0£,ct fiekl Forms Asn.,,ct field Forms A5"£,Cl fi.,,ld Forms Asoect Field Forms Asn.,,ct Field Forms Asnect Field Forms Aso£,d Fi.,,ld Forms Asnect Fl.,,ld Forms Asnect Field Forms Asn.,,,t Fi.,,ld Forms ASO£,ct fi£,ld Forms Aspect Field Forms 8A BH-10 1983 5/18/1983 Elevation Depth In Elevation In feet Feet ln Feet 27.24 26.1 17 25.l 22.5 22 5 20.1 17 19.5 5.6 17 19.5 5.6 22.7 6.65 19.45 22.52 6.59 19.51 . .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Table 3.1-1 Summary of Groundwater Elevation Measurements BH-12 BH-12A BH-15 BH-17A 5/17/1983 5/17/1983 12/22/1988 Depth In Elevation Depth ln Elevation Depth In Elevation Depth In Elevation Feet In Feet Feet in Feet Feet In Feet "" in Feet 27.99 25.01 25.3 32.81 25.5 25.5 25.5 31.3 .. .. 4.5 21 4 27.3 B 12.S 5 20.5 5 20.5 6 25.3 2l 2.5 10 15.5 19.5 6 16 15.3 2l 2.5 10 15.5 19.5 6 16 15.3 7.5 20.49 5.11 19.9 55 19.B .. .. 7.56 20.43 5.11 19.9 5.55 19.75 .. 5.35 22.64 .. .. 9.72 23.09 5.76 22.23 9.13 23.68 5.47 22.52 .. .. 8.02 24.79 .. .. .. 9.17 23.64 8.89 19.1 .. 10.23 22.58 6.8 21.19 10.03 22.78 4.85 23.14 .. .. . . 8.75 24.06 4.96 23.03 8.54 24.27 .. .. .. 6.43 21.56 .. .. .. . 8.71 24.1 .. .. .. .. .. .. 10.21 22.6 .. .. .. .. 10.35 22.46 .. .. .. 7.58 25.23 8.23 24.58 .. .. .. 8.93 23.88 . .. .. . . 8.63 24.18 . 9.04 23.77 .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 2of5 BH-178 BH-lBA 12/22/1989 12/14/1988 Depth In Elevation Dept .. In E,evatlon Feet In Feet Feet In Feet 32.76 22.72 31.3 23.72 36 -4.7 J 20.72 38 -6.7 4 19.72 48 -16.7 14 9.72 50 -18.7 14 9.72 .. 11.31 21.45 2.22 20.5 11.61 21.15 3.18 19 54 10.37 22.39 2.94 19.78 10.21 22.55 2.91 19.81 11.67 21.09 4.36 18.36 11.77 20.99 3.17 19.55 11.38 21.38 3.12 19.6 11.04 21.72 2.57 20.05 .. .. 4.5 18.22 2.69 20.03 .. 11.08 21.68 3.92 18.8 11.32 21.44 3.09 19.63 11.15 21.61 1.8] 20 89 11.22 21.54 1.75 20.97 10.61 22.15 1.97 20.75 10.19 22.57 1.66 21.06 10.32 22.44 2.98 19.74 .. 2.92 19.8 .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. 3.49 19.23 .. .. 3.07 19.65 5.25 17.47 . .. BH-18B 12/14/1988 Depth In Elevation Feet In Feet 23.04 21.5 40 -18.5 42 -20.5 52 -30.5 54 -32.5 .. .. 3.06 19.98 3.22 19.82 1.98 21.06 1.74 21.3 3.07 19.97 3.23 19.83 3.03 20.01 2.56 20.48 .. .. 2.45 20.59 2.17 20.27 2.86 20.18 2.88 20.16 '"' 20.95 1.62 21.42 1.71 21.33 3.25 19.79 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 2.04 21 3.1 19.94 3 20.04 .. BH-19 12/19/1988 Depth ln Feel 3 5 15 17 .. 7.86 8.37 7.25 7 8.35 8.08 82 7.59 7.1 6.98 7.69 7.95 7.43 7.5 7.3 6.85 6.97 8.22 .. .. .. .. 7.9 8.21 7.18 7.96 8.16 8.12 6.68 6.82 7.14 8.05 8.29 Eleva1lon in Feet 26.23 24.7 21.7 19.7 9.7 7.7 18.37 17.86 18.98 19.23 17.88 18.15 18.03 18.64 19.13 19.25 18.54 18.28 18.8 18.73 18.93 19.38 19.26 18.01 .. .. 18.33 18.02 19.05 18.27 18.07 18.11 19 55 19.41 19.09 1818 17.94 Mar,-h201() /)6/)()59 01 WelllO Date of Installation Too of Casini Ground Level Top of Sandpack Too of screen Bottom of Screen Bottom of Well Measurement Date 6/8/1983 6/27/1983 1/12 -1/16/89 2/7/1989 4/12/1989 5/31 · 5/7/89 9/14/1989 11/21-11/28/89 1/16/1990 3/12 · 3/16/90 '1/25/1991 5/7/1991 6/10/1991 8/30/1995 10/12/1995 12/14/1995 1/15/1996 4/5/1996 5/16/1996 6/11/1996 1/18/2001 8/21/2003 3/9/2004 3/16/2004 3/24/2004 4/8/2004 4/13/2004 9/3/2004 9/22/2004 10/14/2004 11/11/2004 12/20/2004 J/5/2005 1/21/2005 2/B/2005 2/25/2005 3/10/2005 5/17/2005 6/11/2005 6/7/2007 11/13 -11/20/2008 91912009 10/28/2009 Draft Remedial Investigation Quenda/1 Terminals RhFS References Woodward Cl de 1983 Woodward Clvde 1983 Woodward Clvde 1990 Woodward Cl de 1990 Woodward Clvde 1990 Woodward Clvde 1990 Woodward Cl de 1990 Woodward Clvde 1990 Woodward Clvde 1990 Woodward Cl de 1990 Woodward Ctvde 1991a Woodward Ovde 199h Woodward Clvde 1991. Hart Crowser 1997 Hart Crowser 1997 Hart Crowser 1997 Har1 Crowser 1997 Hart Crowser 1997 Hart Crowser 1997 Hart Crowser 1997 Anchor and Asnect 2004 Anchor and Aspect 2004 Asoect Field Forms Asnect Field Forms Aspect Field Forms /\soect Field Forms Asnect Field Forms Aspect Field Forms Asoect Field Forms Asnect Field Forms Asoect Field Forms Asoect Field Forms Asnect Field Forms Aspect Field Forms Asoect Field Forms Asnect Field rorms Aspect Field Forms Asoect Field Forms As""ct Field Forms Asoect Field Forms Asoect Field Forms Asoect Field Forms Asoect Field Forms BH-198 U/4/2000 Depth In Elevation Feet In Feet 27.3 24.6 3B -13.4 40 ·15.4 so -25.4 50.S -25.9 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 7.92 19.38 5.75 21.55 .. .. .. .. .. 7.93 19.37 '·" 19.26 8.08 19.22 7.9 19.4 8.03 19.27 7.83 19.47 7.69 19.61 6.27 21.03 6.32 20.98 6.69 20.61 7.7 19.6 7.62 19.68 BH-ZOA 12/20/1988 Depth ln Elevatlon "" In Feet 27 25.S 4 21.5 7 18.5 22 ,.s 22.14 3.36 - .. .. 8.6 18.4 8.72 18.28 7.49 19.51 7.21 19.79 8.43 18.57 8.61 18.39 8.62 18.38 8.39 18.61 .. .. 7.23 19.77 7.89 19.11 8.33 18.67 8.13 18.87 8.32 18.68 7.66 19.34 7.13 19.87 7.24 19.76 8.72 18.28 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 7.62 19.38 8.41 18.59 8.26 18.74 Table :3.1-1 Summary of Groundwater Elevation Measurements BH-ZOB BH-ZOC BH-ZlA 12/20/1988 12/20/1988 12/27/1988 Pepth ln Elevatlon Depth ln Elevatlon Pepth in Elevation Feet In Feet Feet In Feet Feet In Feet 26.4S 27.35 26.16 25 25.1 24.7 37 -1' 111 -85.9 7 17.7 39 -14 113 -87.9 9 15.7 49 -24 120.35 -95.25 19 5.7 48.13 -23.13 120.35 -95.25 18.41 6.29 . .. .. .. .. .. 6.73 19.75 8.43 17.73 6.9 19.58 5.65 20.83 .. .. .. .. s.s 20.98 7 19.16 6.7 19.78 10.44 15.72 6 84 19.64 .. 8.48 17.68 6.73 19.75 -8.45 17.71 6.17 20.31 .. .. .. .. .. .. 6.09 20.39 .. .. 7.57 18.59 6.43 20.05 .. .. 7.92 18.24 6.56 19.92 8.05 18.11 6.58 19.9 7.98 18.18 5.75 20.73 .. .. 7.29 18.87 5.27 21.21 6.81 19.35 5.39 21.09 6.88 19.28 6.94 19.54 8.49 17.67 .. .. .. .. .. .. 7.73 18.43 7.64 18.52 7.54 18.62 .. 7.3 18.86 7.13 19.03 .. .. .. .. 8.01 18.15 7.88 18.28 8.08 18.08 .. .. .. 8.42 17.74 846 17.7 8.51 17.65 .. .. .. .. 8.35 17.81 8.46 17.7 8.39 17.77 .. .. .. 8.25 17.91 .. .. .. .. .. 6.82 19.34 5.76 20.72 .. 7.17 18.99 6.7 19.78 .. - 6.68 19.8 7.45 19.9 8.11 18 05 3of5 BH-218 BH-22 12/27/1988 12/6/1988 Depth Jn Etevat!on Depth In Elevation Feet ln Feet ffft in Feel 25.88 31.69 24.4 30.2 39 -14.6 13 17.2 41.5 •17.1 1S 15.2 51.5 -27.1 25 5.2 50.79 -26.39 24.8 5.4 .. .. .. .. 6.56 19.32 7.7 23 99 6.72 19.16 5.44 20.44 7.09 24.6 s 2 20.68 8.19 23.5 6.45 19.43 9.79 21.9 6.66 19.22 8.99 22.7 6.61 19.27 7.69 24 6 19.88 7.39 24.3 .. .. .. 8.2 23.49 S.88 20 6.18 19.7 .. 6.4 19.48 .. 6.4 19.48 5.54 20.34 .. .. 5.05 20.83 .. .. 5.15 20.73 6.71 19.17 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 5.49 20.39 8.63 23.06 6.47 19.41 8.B4 22.85 6.43 19.45 9.14 22.55 BH-23 12/28/1988 Depth In Elevation Feet in Feet 28.ll 26.6 4 226 6 20.6 21.5 5.1 21.5 5.1 .. S.94 22.17 7.D8 21.03 .. 0 28.11 "' 20.01 7.39 10.72 6.95 21.16 s.s 22.61 .. 6.3 21.81 g 20.11 8.38 19.73 5.61 22.5 S.79 22.32 6.52 21.59 6.05 22.06 6.56 21.55 6.24 21.87 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. - - . .. 7.43 20.68 7.38 20.73 8.99 19.12 BH-24 7/31/1990 Depth In Elevation Feet ln Feet 25.04 26 7 l9 9 17 19 7 19 7 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 4.97 20.07 5.83 19.21 5.82 19.22 4.79 20.25 rn 20.29 4.98 20.06 4.6 20.44 5.04 20 4.9 20 14 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. S.28 19.76 5.21 19.83 6.14 18.9 .. BK- 8/6/ Depth In Feet 7 9 19 19 .. 8.53 "' 9.85 10.31 882 874 S.83 8.57 879 981 .. .. .. .. .. ,\fa1ch 2010 060059-01 Well ID Date of Installation Ton of Casina Ground Level Too of Sandoack Ton of Screen Bottom of Screen Bottom of Well Measurement Date 6/8/1983 6/27/1983 1112 -1/16/89 2/7/19B9 4/12/1989 5/31 · 6/7/89 9/14/]989 11/21 -11/28/89 1/16/1990 3/12 -3/16/90 4/25/1991 5/7/1991 6/10/1991 8/3D/1995 10/12/1995 12/14/1995 1/15/1996 4/5/1996 5/16/1996 6/11/1996 l/lB/2001 8/21/2003 3/9/2004 3/16/2004 3/24/2004 4/8/2004 4/13/2004 9/3/2004 9/22/2004 10/14/2004 11/11/2004 12/20/2004 1/5/2005 1/21/2005 2/8/2005 2125/2005 3/10/2005 5/17/2005 6/11/2005 6/7/2007 11/13 -11/20/2008 91912009 10/28/2009 Drafi: Rcmcd1Etl lnvcsrig11rion Q11end11/J Term1mls RliFS SA 990 Elevation References 1n Feet 31.27 28 lt 19 9 9 Woodward (1-,de 1983 Woodward Clvd" 1983 Woodward Cllme 1990 .. Woodward Cl"'"e 1990 Woodward Clllde 1990 Woodward Cllme 1990 .. Woodward (l"de 1990 Woodword Chide 1990 Woodward Cllme 1990 .. Woodward Cl,,de 1990 Woodword Clvde 1991a 22.74 Woodward Clvde 1991a .. Woodward C""'e 1991a 22.13 Hart Crowser 1997 2] 42 fl art Crowser 1997 20.96 fl art Crowser 1997 22.45 Hart Crowser 1991 22.53 Hart Crowser 1997 22 44 Hart Crowser 1997 22.7 Hart Crowser 1997 22.48 Anchor and As=ct 2004 21.46 Anchor and AsD<!d 2004 Asnect Field Forms .. As=ct Field Forms Asoect Field Forms Asnect Field Forms .. Asnect Field Forms Asoect Field Forms Asnect Field Forms As=ct field Forms .. Asnect Field Form, Asnect Field Forms . Asnect Field Forms Asoect Field Forms Asnect Field Forms Asoect Field Forms .. Asnect Field Form, Asnect Field Form, Asnect Field Forms Asnect Field Forms Asnect Field Forms Asnect Field Farms .. Asnect Field Farms BH-25B B/3/1990 Depth In Elevation Feet lri Feet 32.43 " 23 5 25 3 4S -17 45 ·17 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 10.98 21.45 11.59 20.84 11.87 20.56 11.88 20.55 11.93 20.5 11.18 21.25 10.75 21.68 10.88 21.55 12.34 20.09 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. Table 3.1·1 Summary of Groundwater Elevation Measurements BH-25AR 8H-26A BH-268 BH-27 7/6/2009 8/9/1990 8/6/1990 8/1/1990 Depth ln Elevation Depth In Elevation Depth In Elevation Depth ln Elevation Feet In Feet Feet In Feet Feet In Feet Feet In Feet 31.34 28.98 26.62 28.51 29.23 26.18 29.23 28.01 6 23.23 5 21.18 23 6.23 1l 15.01 8 21.23 7 19.18 25 4.23 15 13.01 18 11.23 12 14.18 36 -6.77 25 3.01 18.8 10.43 12.8 13.38 36 -6.77 25 3.01 .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 9.84 21.43 S.63 20.99 604 22.47 . .. 8.42 20.56 6.24 20.38 6.97 21.54 8.15 20.83 6.55 20.07 7.28 21.23 6.48 22.S 6.62 20 4.22 24.29 .. .. 6.81 22.17 6.67 19.95 . .. 7.41 21.57 5.91 20.71 6.04 22.47 6.99 21.99 5.45 21.17 .. . 7.54 21.44 5.59 21.03 5.66 22.85 .. .. 8.44 20.54 7.07 19.55 .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 8.19 20 79 5.94 20.68 7.98 21 6.77 19 85 .. 10.47 20.87 9.29 19.69 6.88 19.74 .. .. .. .. 4of5 BH-2BA BH-28B 6/15/1995 12/4/2000 Depth ln Elevation Depth In Elevation '"' ln Feet Feet in Feet 29.6 26.65 26.67 23.85 3 23.67 3B -14.15 5 21.67 40 ·16.15 15 11.57 so -26.15 16.S 10.17 54 ·30.15 .. .. . . .. .. .. . . .. . .. . . .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. 10 19.6 .. . 10.24 19.36 .. . 8.8 20.8 . 9.13 20.47 .. .. . . 7.88 21.72 9.03 20.57 9.83 19.77 9.24 17.41 .. 8.14 18.51 .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. . . .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. 9.57 20.03 8.03 18.62 9.82 19.78 9.05 17.6 10.92 18.68 8.96 17.69 .. .. BH-29A 7/8/2009 Depth In Elevation Feet in Feet 27.5 24.8 65 18.3 85 16.3 18.S 6.3 18.55 6.25 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 9.65 17.85 BH-29B 7/8/2009 Depth In Feet 38 39 49.6 49.43 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 8.59 .. Elevatlon in Feet 27.66 25 09 12.91 ·13.91 .24 51 24.34 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 19.07 M~lch2010 06()()59-01 Draft Remedial lnve.m'g.arion Quendall Terminals RJIFS Well ID Date of lnstallat!on Toi:> of Casin~ Ground Level To" of sand"ack Toi:> of Screen Bottom of Screen Bottom of Well Measurement Date 6/8/1983 6/27/1983 1/12 · l/16/B9 2/7/1989 4/12/1989 5/31. 6/7/89 9/14/1989 11/21-11/28/89 1/16/1990 3/12 -3/16/90 4/25/1991 5/7/1991 6/10/1991 8/30/1995 10/12/1995 12/14/1995 1/15/1996 4/5/1996 5/16/1996 6/11/1996 1/18/2001 8/21/2003 3/9/2004 3/16/2004 3/24/2004 4/8/2004 4/13/2004 9/3/2004 9/22/2004 10/14/2004 11/11/2004 12/20/2004 1/5/2005 1/21/2005 2/8/2005 2/25/2005 3/10/2005 5/17/2005 6/11/2005 6/7/2007 11/13 -11/20/2008 9/912009 10/28/2009 References Woodward Clvde 1983 Woodward Clyde 19B3 Woodward Clvde 1990 Woodward Clvde 1990 Woodward Clyde 1990 Woodward Clvde 1990 Woodward Clvde 1990 Woodward Clyde 1990 Woodward Clvde 1990 Woodward Clvde 1990 Woodward Clyde 1991a Woodward Clvde 1991a Woodward Clvde 1991a Hort Crowser 1997 Hart Crowser 1997 Hart Crowser 1997 Hort Crowser 1997 Hort Crowser 1997 Hart Crowser 1997 Hart Crowser 1997 Anchor and Asnect 2004 Anchor and Asnect 2004 Asoect Field Forms Asoect Field Forms Asnect Field Forms Asoec! Field Form, A,,,..ct Field Forms Aspect Field Forms Asoect Field Forms Asnect Field Forms Aspect Field Forms Aspect Field Forms As""C! Field Forms Aspect Field Forms Aspect Field Forms A,,,..ct Field Forms Asoect Field Forms Asoect Held Forms A,,,..ct Field Form, Asoect Field Forms Asoect Field Forms Asoec! Field Forms A.lpect Field Forms BH-30P 10/23/2009 Depth In Elevation Feet in Feet 32.94 30.71 8 22.71 ,0 20.71 10 10.71 20.1 10.61 .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 7.99 24.95 Table 3.1-1 Summary of Groundwater Elevation Measurements 8H-30C RW-QP-1 RW-NS-1 10/23/2009 11/13/2003 11/14/2003 Depth In Elevation Deptn In E1evatlon Depth In Elevation Feet In Feet Feet in Feet feet in Feet 30.47 21.56 27.2 30.71 21.6 " B3 -52.29 4 17.6 4.5 21.5 BS -54.29 6.5 15.1 6.5 19.5 95 -64.29 16.S 5.1 16.S 95 97 27 -66.56 16.S 5.1 16.5 9.5 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. . . 3.43 18.13 .. .. .. 3.33 18.23 5.44 21.76 .. .. 3.05 18.S .. 2.9 18.66 .. .. 2.62 18.94 5.95 21.25 3.49 18.07 8.02 19.18 .. 3.42 18.14 .. 3.53 18.03 .. 3.93 17.53 .. .. 41 17.46 5.63 21.57 4.15 17.41 6.2 21 3.93 17.63 4.36 22.84 .. .. 4.07 17.49 5.67 21.53 3.79 17.77 6.42 20.78 3.81 17,75 6.76 20.44 .. .. .. 2.33 19.23 .. .. 2.67 18.89 6.87 20.64 .. .. .. 6.94 20.64 1.67 17.89 8.09 20.64 1185 18.62 .. .. .. 5of5 SG-1 (Quendall Pond) SG-2 (Lake Wash.) Depth In Elevatlon Depth In Elevation Feet In Feet Feet in Feet 17.72 17.35 .. .. . . .. .. .. .. . . .. . . .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. 1.86 15.86 0.72 18.07 2.22 15.5 0.34 17.69 5.16 12.56 ·0.6 16.75 5.2 12.52 -0.35 17 3.B4 13.88 0.9 18.25 4.1 13.52 1.41 18.76 3.9 13.82 1.41 18.76 .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. . .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. . .. .. . SG-3 Depth In Elevation Feet in Feet 21.91 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. dN 1.41 20.S 2.68 19.23 2.58 19.33 3.3 1B.61 1.4 19.51 2.09 19.82 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. Maffh2010 06(X}59-0J Table 3.1-2 Hydraulic Conductivity Estimates Upland Soils and Subsurface Sediments Based on Aquifer Testing Hydraulic Conductivity in Test Location cm/sec Type of Test BAX-9 0.011 pumping test BH-2A 0.00038 pumping test BH-6 0.0031 pumping test BH-8 0.00013 pumping test BH-10 0.0012 pumping test BH-12 0.00076 slug test BH-15 0.0017 pumping test BH-17A 0.00006 slug test BH-18A 0.0002 slug test BH-18B 0.02 slug test BH-19 0.006 slug test BH-19 0.0055 pumping test BH-20A 0.006 slug test BH-218 0.002 slug test BH-23 0.00006 slug test BH-25A 0.0024 pumping test WP-1 0.0081 slug test WP-4 0.00017 slug test WP-5 0.0071 slug test Upland Soils Based on Grain Size Analyses Hydraulic Conductivity in Sample Location cm/sec HC-2, 5-5 0.023 HC-3, 5-8 0.019 HC-6, 5-8 0.037 HC-7, 5-4 0.024 TP-SA, 85-1 0.0085 Sediments Vertical Permeability in cm/sec WP-19A, No 1 0.0076 WP-19A, No 2 0.0026 WP-19A, No 3 0.011 WP-20A, No 1 0.011 WP-20A, No 2 0.0023 WP-20A, No 3 0.028 Draft Remedial Investigation Quendall Terminals RJIFS Grain Size DlO in mm 0.1526 0.1388 0.1914 0.1542 0.0923 Type of Test piezo-seep meter piezo-seep meter piezo-seep meter piezo-seep meter piezo-seep meter piezo-seep meter Depth of Screen Interval in Feet 5 to 15 5 to 20 8to 18 13 to 23 5 to 20 13 to 23 5 to 19.5 6 to 16 4to 14 42 to 52 5 to 15 5 to 15 7 to 22 41.5 to 51.5 7 to 21.5 9 to 19 2 to 3 2 to 3 2 to 3 Sample Depth Interval in Feet 12.5 to 14 22 to 23.5 16to17.5 lOto 11.5 7 to 8 Gradient Probe Depth in cm 25 25 25 31 31 31 1 ofl Type of Soil in Screened Interval Silty Sand with Silt and Clay layer Silty Sand with Peat interbeds Silty Sand and Silty Clay with Peat Silty Clay with layer of Silty Sand Silty Clay with layer of Clayey Silt Sandy/Clayey Silt and Very Silty Sand Silty Sand Sand to V. Silty Sand with layer of Silt Silt Sandy Gravel Sand with layer of Silt Sand with layer of Silt lnterbedded Sands and Silts Silty Sand Silt with a small Sand layer Sand and silty Sand with layer of Silt Sand Silt Sand Type of Soil in Sample Interval Sand Slightly Silty Sand Sand Sand Slightly Silty Sand Sediment Description Silty Sand Silty Sand Sand Silty Sand Silty Sand Sand March2010 060059-01 Table 3.1-3a Summary of Lakebed Seepage Estimates Sediment Type· Surface to Depth of Seepage Meter lmbedment Study and Method Location Based on Closest EKploration Observed in Field Darcy Velocity In cm/day Aspect 20D3 Field-measured permeability and gradient across upper 10 to 12 inches of surface sediment at each location WP-19A No Adjacent Exploration Silty Sand 4.88 No Adjacent Exploration Silty Sand 1.65 No Adjacent Exploration Sand 7.25 WP-20A Sandy Silt (VC-20A) Silty Sand 2.44 Sandy Silt (VC-20A) Silty Sand 11.58 Aspect 2003 Field-measured gradient across upper 4 to 6 feet of surface sediment at each location. Permeability of sand measured at other locations with similar sediment type (Aspect 2003). Permeability of silt based on calibrated groundwater model (Retec 1998) WP-21A Sand (VS-36) WP-21B Sand (VS-36) WP-19C Peaty Silt WP-19B Sandy Silt EPA 2009 Bucket-and-bag seepage meters. lmbedment depth not reported. Assumed to be 1 foot or less for identifying sediment type. Data from May dive report (EPA, June 2009) assuming a bucket cross-sectional area of 559 cm2 (EPA, May 2009} Minimum Maximum Geometric Mean Draft Remedial Investigation Quendall Terminals RJ!FS A {near VS-28) B (near VS-23) C (nearVS-30) D (near VS-3) Sandy Silt Silty Sand Sand Silty Peat 1 of3 Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 5.49 9.7S 0.21 0.13 0.70 2.22 0.10 0.05 2.99 0.08 0.31 0.82 0.80 0.21 1.06 1. 73 0.05 0.05 11.58 0.83 March2010 060059-01 Table 3.1-3a Summary of Lakebed Seepage Estimates (continued) Sediment Type · Surface to Depth of Seepage Meter lmbedment Study and Method Location Based on Closest Exploration Observed in Fleld Darcy Velocity In cm/day Aspect 2009 Calibrated Groundwater Model -Accounts for local variation in gradients and the thickness of the shallow alluvium. Does not account for local variation in material type. Darcy Velocity along Transect Distance from Shore in Feet WP-21 (south of T-Dock) WP-20 (T-Oock) 37.S 0.76 0.66 62.5 0.61 0.53 87.5 0.52 0.46 112.5 0.47 0.41 137.5 0.49 0.37 162.S 0.52 0.35 187.5 0.52 0.34 212.5 0.53 0.34 237.5 0.66 0.35 Minimum 0.47 0.34 Maximum 0.76 0.66 Average 0.56 0.42 Average -All three transects 0.44 Standard deviation -All three transects 0.13 Table 3.1-3b Summary of Lakebed Seepage Estimates Variability of Shallow Alluvium Composition (Anchor 2009) South of T-Dock Drafr Remedial Investigation Quenda/1 Terminals Rf/FS Location NSD1 NSD2 N503 NSD4 NSD6 NS07 NS08 N512 Percent of Core Thickness Comprised Primarily of Silt Short cores less than 6 feet deep excluded Cl I C2 (Duplicate Location) 3 27 42 45 18 78 60 40 54 24 55 67 29 39 Average {Cl and C2) 42 2of3 WP-19 (North ofT-Dock) 0.46 0.40 0.36 0.32 0.30 0.29 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.46 0.33 March 2010 060059-01 Table 3.1-3b Summary of Lakebed Seepage Estimates (continued) Variability of Shallow Alluvium Composition (Anchor 2009) Percent of Core Thickness Comprised Primarily of Silt Short cores less than 6 feet deep excluded Location North of T-Dock NS05 NS09 NS10 NS11 NS13 NS14 NS15 Notes: 1. No sediment core collected close to well point. Data Sources: Cl I 91 S7 8 69 60 10 S6 Average (Cl and C2) Average for Nearshore Area Standard deviation in nearshore area Aspect 2003: Draft RA/FS {Anchor and Aspect 2004); Appendix F -Groundwater Vertical Permeability and Vertical Head Study Anchor 2009: Sediment Core Logs -NS01 through NS15 EPA, May 2009: Interim Dive Report, May 1, 2009 EPA, April 2009: Dive Report, June 11, 2009 Draft Remedial Investigation Quendall Terminals Rl/FS 3of3 Cl (Duplicate Location) 93 58 S6 47 25 Afarch 2010 060059-01 Table 3.3-1 Well Construction Information for Area Groundwater Wells Water Wells within 0.5 mlle of Quendall Terminals Well Depth In Well Reported Water Feet Below Diameter In Well Owner "" Location Ground Surface inches Duane Cederberg Domestic, NW, NE, S32, T24N, RSE 89 6 ' Grahm Construction Domestic NW, NE, S32, T24N, RSE 144 6 Hazelwood Gardens Nurserv Irrigation NW, NE, S32, T24N, RSE 157 6 " Hazelwood Gardens Nursery (Well Deepened) 325 AA Miller S31, T24N, R5E 92 6 Kennydale Water co. .. S31, T24N, R5E 345 8 Abandoned Water Wells within 0.5 mile of Quendall Terminals Well Depth in Well Feet Below Diameter In Well Owner Location Ground Surface Inches Chaffey Corp. SE, NE, S29, T24N, RSE 52 48 Lorna !Walker) Ricks SE, NE, 29, T24N, RSE 31 4 George Sharrow SE, NE, 529, T24N, R5E 42 36 Woodside LLC NW, NE, S32, T24N, RSE 22 40 Woodside LLC NW, NE, S32, T24N, RSE 6 2 Water District 107 SW, NE, S32, T24N, R5E '" 18 to 30 Note! --Indicates Information was not reported on well log or cannot be inferred from the information available " Indicates information was is the same as the above row screen Interval In Approximate Feet Below Well Elevation Surf.ice In Feet No Screen 125 139 to 144 125 No screen 300 No Screen " No Screen .. 145 to 155 .. '" Date Abandoned 12/11/1991 5/15/1983 12/3/2003 7/5/2000 7/5/2000 2/23/1994 Information based on data available on the Washington State Department of Ecology website (http://apps.ecy.wa.gov/welllog/inde~.asp) Draft Remedial lnFestigation QuendeJ/ Tenmnals Rl/FS I ofl Depth to Water in Feet 3 95 .. 160 .. .. Well Test Information Pump-24gal/min with 27ft ..... "·· Bailer -20galfmin with Oft drawdown after 2hrs Not tested Air -50gal/min with stem set at 310ftfor2.Shrs .. Completion Date 8/3/1973 11/17/1981 2/27/1992 3/25/1993 2/10/1930 11/6/1936 M,w.:h2010 0600WOJ FIGURES ·-'. w (• ~~ d, 0 v, " ,,. "C f I: C: Q > <• @ .. C, R .. -. ~ ., Pua~t Sound --,I .... ,~ 1 _ _._.;;;::;,.. ____ __, E ~ = ~ ,, ... a ~ c:, (, ti 0 .... I .-.. ,.._ L ~Ae- W.uhin9tot1 , f :J L '-=-=-=-=-::-::-::--=--=--=-::-::-::-=-= .... -------2::.!!....:..___;:.....JJ.~-...11-._..arl...-----------:::---:~ Figure 1.1·1 Ouendall Sit• Loce.tion Bnd Vicinity Legend -CurrentShoreline -4'-Existing t,fon~orlng Web --¢-" Existing Welpoints ~ Existing Structures Puget Sound Energy (PSE) Ear;,,ment Boundary City R1gh1--ol-Way (R.O.W.) Eaoemenl Sewer Easemenl Boundary Weter Line Easement Boundary Surf-Wat.or Faat.ire• an,d Stormwater Contn>I StructuNs 0 = - Detention pond Stormwater dramage ditch ..;th sit fence an(tlor rotk check dams (appr<>limate location) 011erland flow direcbon -·--Ditcllflowdirecbon = Shalow interceptor swale Note& 1) Welpoints with "'s, WP-19 AfB/C and WP-20 NB. were confirmed to still exist in September 2002. WP-21C could not b<! located at thattme. Alte"11ts to loc,i\e reme,ning weHpoin!s have no1 been made since Retec las\ oampled !hem ,n 2001. 2) "Cily" refers to City of Renton In easement labels. 3) South boundary of King County s..._r and PSE E""ements is the north t>oundary of the Quendall S~e. / ' ·, ' ./ ~ .. '~'\+/ i.) 1. \ ;(' . ' '/'' / .· /, . .-' \ ... / .1 •• ".' / </ > ;/ <'/ i '! / ·a 9e~tond,~ r . /' ·/ /''' . ' T-Dock Rerhnant ........._ · .' I -~ < I~,...;,;,,. "' ' ~ 1, -_/ I ' - -+ ;;> 0/ FoQt~all Northwest (F6rmer JH ,et38xter Site) . 1:1,·. -'l_l .H.lf ;J ).~:}j'v /;{{; .. J;l ' / .·t:;'1 ;.<{i.·-· .. -·.·· .... ., .4·!·1(··· .. ). / . · .. ·· :;;/· .·· . i"1:J·.·· ... ·/' . r.f.· I .if:•(· i; 0 · •.,c :,[ ·,/; . / 1rl 1:11/~.'..· · . 1 -.. , \ -. ~·· ,· ... ··:1f.('· 1 .. " .. 11.· .. ?}./$JY L / ·\ / 'J/J ,:Jf"' ;.fff:f:'j';' ~ / ,! I Af:jjf'' -~~" ),1#,YJt: ( ' ~ /'A ,,, •. , , ,1· -· .. •,' •/ """""'' /t ?/J.'', ) ~.,/,, I ~e:.-·_ / ,:; ., .-.,. < - JJ ' .·,,:' .. , I .I ':;f' ~~; '':::i~ 1 ' . ,., /···. ,· ' -I · -+~~:,~ -~_f ·-. 1 '~u~ Deten on Pond ; L _; I ..,,,-_f.-'"( ~ lfl;,. , ;·;,,:; -,, .. • IS W . A -~· :. --,>~ ~ ~ )(J!or/ Quend~~I Co -' (Pan Abode) ny -~ . -. :·:.-·:~ . .,_J'._ ... __ Conner Homes at ' · -- Barbee Mill LLC f § I s a I r \,\ Aspect •. Summary of Current Site Features s,~emo.,200, PROJECrNO = , 00 • consu ing ,·.1r11l• :.ct,, D.C/JJr 020027 I -'""'-""'~'"0 '"'·'"'" Quendall Terminals ~"" ~GuREN0 .,, • ..,-_,.,,.,,...,, Rentan. Washington 2 1 •1 cl .JP,[)<,l('.C,O> • 0 Legend ~ 1916 Shoreline Former May Creek Channel Current Shore!m, Tank~ Tank Number Sump Pipe$ Pipes Oo~abon in1erred) Historic Structufe t ,oo ,oo - / Property Line /(/~ ~ Boiler House South Sump --...... TI--~~, J) ,.r .., .,,.---.---....;_,, ' 26 ' '---' 23 • 38 7:7 . . Sewer Outfall-.\ Former ~ Wier~c ) / \ "-"- ( ', / Still House ' ; FormarPlant~~Walar , ./' Supply WaU J § --./ i\ Aspeclconsumn; • H,C>:> •:•''. .......... _""""' <) ; --' - ·)'' 1--·, I I I h ,i·'.~.:/ / . .• > / I;, f./ ' Waler Supply Walls for ,,,.--Company Housing (6 total) Company Housmg-1918 Plant Map TrestlefTank Car· Loading ~rea "--- Summary of Historic Site Features Quendall Terminals Renton, Washington DRAFT -~~:-·'"'' J.F'i,,n;-o,o, PROJECHiO 020027 FIGURE NU 2.2-1 Creosote Manufacturing 1916: Reilly starts construction of creosote mfg plant 193?: Spill off t-dock 1910 1920 1930 1920s: Plant expansion 1917: Lake level lowered 8 feet with construction of locks 1940 1950 1960 Petroleum Storage 1971: Plant structures demolished except Tanks 35-38 Log Storage 1988: Ecology Agreed Order for RI 1970 1980 1990 2000 2009: Log yard operations cease 2010 1969: Creosote mfg plant shuts down 1983: Tanks 35-38 removed 2005: Quendall Terminals listed on N PL Figure 2.2-2 Timeline of Site Operations :.;.:........;.,~..;..c,;:.;;;:.-;,;,.:.. ·~'.:::.).:.;«;,~..:,_., .~~:.::tG;zi;,,-:::;:::.:,.c.·~.ll'.tlt1',;-,.:;::::;-":e.;k.:?:.z·. _:,.,,.,:;,c,;,;,,·wM\'<t;,,:;;;:s.:;..,,<.:,.:.:~,;,,;;,,1,,.,..c -~,;;.,,11• · ;..o,,_.,,Ahi -· .b-i:i':.0.~'' ,y_~_",j}_J:;;:;;:,.'{y;,_.,:;;<-';'k.,f_'t;:S',f. ,c,,.;,;._;74,;;.,;';'.C!!" .,0 •.;:!<u .;:,, ... ,;.-..,;e·C:-?S,'..:e,,.:.~;c _,,,;sc-'.< ,_..,,,.~~~\!}\_~;\_,;< ·:• .. 10,,sc ·,;:• • ....... • Surface Grab • S!.Jbsutiace Core Hi!torlcal Core and Grab Sample Locations ~ Surface Grab C) Subsurface Core ~ histing Structure Historical Structure c::J Detention Pond --Current Shoreline TD-CT-4 • TO-CT-S • 110-<:f.3 1110-n-2 () 1110--CT-l TD-W-4 • ·O-S0-3 TD-S0-2 • • 1916 Shoreline Former May Creek Channel ml,,,//' BNS-16 / 11.s QPN-08 ,,. ', TO 05 . SS-05 -06 /.~.5-~ ).,..,~ 02 - 'TD-13 i-o--H·m-14· • .•. I TD·13 ') TD--09 •.. ,. rn.1i11 •. , TD-11 I . T0·09 ·T~--16 ¥1,,. •• 1' ,.1)-D"';"i_· T~-TD·~-• ;;; , TO·S0·5 '-I I, • '~· TD-JSA TD-12 TD-I,. 0-12 T0-10 I I !1 i TD-S0-6 ill • ' ,, ill ' . .,,,,.-;-;s;"!!, -~ •"' ;.:~~!'?'~~··· ' : " rj (_ NS t 4.0l QPN 06 11 V 55.03 • NS 13 V '· .J1S 13 'IC 01 NS 11 VC 01 NS ll Ii TD-03 C~ QPNOS m ro , ,rn ,c o, • t rn .J;c .;;;; •• D-09 p J NS ll-VC ~1 V,: ,-02. ~-~s'!ro02 1 1 roper1y lme 12 Ii 1 -·· I •'_,,, -"'· "• ,, , r'9"'"i , SS.-02 I S-09 VC-0 • r rnso, Iii"' , , Ns,.,1t'-' I • 0,,-0,~ . , ' ,. '' ..,;.::"· W007 NS-07 c--0i-tiS07VC0l PI..-Oock., m • '" ' ;ft' ' . WO-OS ,s-0.,co,A · .. """-0' • 0 • ,N 06-VC-· ' WO-OS S 0Js-o3-VC-01 NS-04-C-02 • : _NS1.>-0J._VC·02 J.·. · 1 • TO-W-9 NS·0 2 ·V~ 02. · -· ~·, , /• •. N5-02·VC· ,'.• ... /;:.I "':, .. • WD-04 · · ,, "°'"-0,.~, . ', n w.~>0,K0> ··~I .. (' V WO·Ol ~ - ,,_..,_ __ ro~ (~· ro"' :• tlo-10 TD--CT·6 II T0-07 .• ··.· TD-07 II /al,· jl "' Oitt~len ll TD--CT-7 ill ,1 ll TD-CT-S • J WD-03 • .TD-CT-9 :I': Notes: i l. Contour lnterv~ls are 5 ft, NAVD 88 . ConMr ~ .! 2. In 2009, two cores were taken at Nearshore stations. !Forme< Barbea Mill) ~ 3. Historic stations presented are from Retec, 1997; Exponent, 2000; EPA, 1983; and Anchor, 2002, 20(.13. · ,·~· ... -,· _-~ .. -_~--~-,--_. ..... _,_. __ --r ·· .-,. · -.. :;c, -" .. ., :.s. _ ,, , · ;:r~.·-> T~.t:.;, _,,_,,-,.-,,---·· ·c;: :~::- • )!!.ANCHOR \/.... OEA :=:::: Feet 0 200 l"-lww--· 400 0 Pot1 Q-,d,111 CDffil*I~ [FOlfflfi Butel' Sltotl ', I '"-..._ .,,! I , 11' "-.... /,/ . , ' I ",'/ !, (),' I _/ ( I 1S>f'.~\~G -.f,IJ.#\~ "'. Figure 2.3-2 Historical and 2009 RI/FS Sediment Sample Locations Remedial Investigation, Quendall Terminals • ;//. • Property line~/ • 1"(! I ' • / .,, ., > .·.-··: ----/fj/.'_~·-,'._'·'\ -/ ~ II i .-T;;,,i ¥~:::ti, / '·"' ,r/~'t-; • " J -I / -,, -......-,--~,,~ ,t -• Ii ;. / ~:~'~>=~·"11'; ,:· ' • / • V /);¢: '•/ . ' . •. . . -/ .. } , e..·i/ / .. ,.~-... J Detention, • ;,.; 7 ~ , ., ,, / .:-.. ,,,_ t .-~ Pond * -· ' ' •·:') "'-~-- . /,~' ;~c;'.;~~,• . :·~ S.-"-'> ·ijT .:w c'-. i;l. :r " ' / Note: Cc,ntour 1n\i,rvals are 1 k>ot, NAVO 88. Legend -Current Shoreline • Mon~oring Well e Soil Boring 1975 Major Con\oor 197; Minor Contour / ._,,): /' ,,',/ /' ;\ _,.._. '-..__ Cross Section a-a' ~ Cross Section b-b' ~ '"' """ ,..,, 0,.00 Cross Section e-c' ·1 . . ____;=..7 i i r~ --~~ ..,,. """ .. .,, '°" : :,: s " ~ r-----< Trench • TestF'll 2009 Major Contour (Bush, Roed and H~ch01gs) 2009 Minor Conlour (Bush, Roed and H~~hi1Q5) 1ll16 Shoreline DRAFT ll 1 ·>:; Aspecicons1.1lting Comparison of 1975 and 2009 Jao/C"O AAOJE.CTNO. I ' urth•_walor Topographic Contours JJO 020027 "-I -~•·fu(l,,,...., Quendall Terminals ·"'"'M" RGI./RE,VO. ·---Renton. Washiri9tori 3.1•1A a fill E.>:istlng Structure 0 Delentioo Pond t -His!orie S1ructur& Former May Creek Channel ;oo / / / v;D • • ./ /;/ 0 / ', \) ~~' / Property Line~/ I ! / • .. ",'.-.' .. · /~ . ·: ·.r----·/ . ......,. " ,l / ' ,·,. ' .... / /.-'• '!.'.i-_:: ) . / •. ,,,: • c. • • • I ... ,.~ . I .. -, I .,._ It --~(, § •·' J, ~· " · • -. _Detention~ •. '.:let;/-: 'L. . .. Pond • • ;/ / ;~: • j,-, ;~c -....__ -!+-----~----~-'---~ -~-____j_J_j/ ,, • ·-.,/ I . • IJ \ ;, ., .. '•) Note: Contour in1ervals are 11<>ot, NAVO 66. Legend -Current Shoreline ~ Monlt<!rinQWel • &>II Boring ~ Trench • TeotPi1 ----1975 Ma)Of Contour 1975 Minor Contour 1997 Major Contour (RETEC) 1997 Minor Contour (RE.TEC) 1916 Sho,.,hne 0 ·c;' /• AJ41?,/ .0), ~,/ .tr// Offi<;e Truck · states !),; . '....:./ (:c,, J 0 (!J (j> ()/ ,. ' ·-, ', ~-- Histo,ic Strnc1ure Form"r May Creek Channel £ " C Cross Section a-a' I Cross Section b-b' / J / Cross Section c-c' l ,;.;:,,· ' j_ DRAFT 1, I C3 '"'"' ''"'"'" 0 °'""'"" ''"" I · · Aspeclro,,.,m,, omparlson of 1975 and 1997 -""" """"'"" 0 100 :ioo 400 • o•rtO•wGtor Topographic Contours 020027 ....-,,,..,""lt'o . U' -""" Ouendall Terminals ::,_.,,. l'IG{Efoo. ·---Renton, Washington - 8 3.1 •1 B Q C 'WEST i I t~ltant Vector 189 deg • H\'Jl, I ___ _ 1 ·:::0f;!MENT:';', I Dora "'°urce WcbMET •'ld Nationai Cl'rn,lk Data Certlor 1 LNCDC) i 1971-1989 19,0-199$ 1991-1000 Jan 1 • Dec. 31 00 :00 • 23:00 2.19% 7 . .t6Kno1s NCflTil j ,:: .JM~M'<fi tJ"'ME· ' EAST· \.I\/IIJD SPEED (KJio,s) >=-22: • 17, ~i • 'l'I. 11 • 7 .11 '.? • ;~4 C:ilns:25~"'-' Office of the Washington Stae Climatologist 2484811n. ~ ' l,_,...,.,.,. .,,..,,..,-~· +---------······· I DA'E F¥ol0 e:-r u .. '1.: i I 6110/2005 ~---------··------------ 1-----------.------------------------------..,.,,,,.----T""------I~ 1 \_Aspedconsultillll Wind-Rose Diagram N Jan 2010 PROJECT NO. • . '°"".'""" for SeaTac Airport 1--::;..--+------11 ,,,,.,esce•Hos,,,,c,,, •. m Quendall Terminals • Sl,, lllim1l&d/iab,My=npat1y Renton, Washington '----------..L.-------------'---.::.. ___________ _.. ____ .._ ____ _,o "' 020027 '"' FIGURE NO. 3.1-2 Lake Washington Qgt Qa Cedar River \ Draina e Note: Geology data from WA DNR OFR 2005-03 ANCHOR OEA~ Qgt Ec(2r) Ec(2r Op Wlter Ec(2r)-Rentoo Formation Evc(t) -Tukwila Formation Qg t -Vashon TiU _ Qgll -V8Shon A<Nanced Outwash Qgo -Vashon Recessional Outwash on-g lacial Deposits Of -Fill Qa -Al IUYium Qp -Peat Deposits OEn -Nearshore Sedimentary Rock Ider Glaclal Deposits Qgpc -Pre-Fraser Deposits sits Figure 3 .1-3 Regional Geology Draft Remedial Invest iga tion Quendall Term i nals RI/FS ... rl ,,; u. ;:" "O .,; N 0 ci.. "' ..!, 0 C1\ 8 "' .3 ... g "' § ~ c3 ~ 6 "' 8 "' ~ .D 0 ;:,. ;,i C: ~ "' .c E C. ..,. (T) ;..; 0 ... 0 N ,..: 0 C: ~ 600 400 ~e nd all Term in als 200 Q) Q) LL .S C: 0 ~ > Q) [j 0 -200 -400 LJ -Gl acia l Till -Silt, San d , Cl ay, Peat, a nd A ll uvium ~ Gl a ci al San d D Sa nd a nd Gr avel ~ . Glaci al Cla y CJ M ud-Flow De p osit s CJ Si lt a nd Sand D Be drock ~~;~~ +-- ----- Ill "f Ill 3: VJ ~ en N M in ~ ~ C: 0 ~ s VJ C: 0 (.) E "' .:: "' (5 m N !:1 ~ ~ "'Cl 0 0 3: ai N "' :c Rainwa ter Infi ltrat ion 6 6 l lll ll l f d llVII . 6 ...... :,.-1 6 . ... : ... ;.~/ 6 ... ;,)-_~.;~d~r_:f 0::~ ,..~ t >,~·~ ' ... ,-.-~ :-~#Tf,t' ; .~ '.i~~~f;;}:.L:::.~::;_~_f Gr ound an d Surface Wat er Flow Di rect i on Ge ol ogic Co ntact 0 1000 Sca le in Feet Wel l (T o w ns h i p /Ra nge/Sectio n ) Ver ti cal Exaggerat ion xS Wat er Level in Well Figure 3.1-4 Conceptua l Cross Sect ion of Regiona l Geo l ogy Q u enda ll Termi n als ' I i ! ' 11 I ' • ~. ~. • ,r-' --~-'L d; ~ . ~ ;. I ~ 0 cc (N ,OS) ZL ·O (N .OC) ':ti ·O "Jf'../''-,' ,,,, a. § (/) t z (S .o,l 9-dS --0\'V~~;/E::::::l--"-'""-\? (N ,OSL) 88L·H8 (N .OB) 86L·H8- (N se ) 6 L ·HS- (S,OL L)6·8~'-r (s .si) oi·s~- (s .oi l 1>-1 - (S .SL) OC·S/\ I I (N ,OL)\16hW,L I I I : I L~S/\/86h:W1 +-} (N ,OL) N·SN -!-+ (S ,09) £·SJ\-i-+---;- :J6L·dM -,--r r :J6L·:JA -\--+- I I : I I I I I I I I I I I I I -1 I :;;, i:1 '°' "'' ~~ i 1 i : :r:1 -'I 010 Di ce ------ L 0 "' g a N 0 1 0 (88 0 /\\IN) iaa~ UI UO!le•a13 0 ~ .9 . > 0 <D "7 w "C C (I) C> (I) ..J ~ J!! ., bl ~~ l 2 <:: ~ I-~ i::; ~~ II. 0 0 ~ "l"" = i 0 N ~~ 0 Q ~ . ~ L ~ .L ~ :s: J! i I~ ~ J!! C ~ "' 0 ~ U'J J ~ (ij 2 0, 0, 0 .. cc i: ul ~ ~ C 0 i: ; "' ~ C) ni C Cl> C: 0 E C, Cl) C w ~ II) I-. II) ni ~ e " 'C j) CJ C: Q) C :::, ~ C) O c,: ·;, 0 0 GI c., u :, ~ <ii >, <ii = ~ 0 ui "' ·c >, (/) "' ;>;, 0 e' c 0 ~ ., :;, u "' "' ;; 0 "' 0.. (/) D D "' 'O ·s g "' -' u :';] :, e "' .c 0.. a. (S ,OL) Ol<WJ - .3-3------ (S ,09) S·dl- (S .os)Bf·:Jl'j- (S ,09)0\·:Jr.l - (S .Sl) f·dS- (N mf)8·8MS- / S .Q~) 9\·Bl:1- N ,09) lf·HB- (S ,09) ~(-H8- (N .QL) H·:Jl'j- Z·Sl:1- g 0 "' ,:, C: "' C/) £ en ;;;; C/) >-,:, C: "' C/) u :, ~ ·-C/) >-,:, C: "' C/) u ·1: "' C) ·-0 u. ~ (s .szl 3 \Z·dfvl- (N .S f ) l:JH:J"90SN -._....,__....,-+~,~. ill al C: 0 ; " GI Cl) Ill Ill e (J .~ r:n 0 0 GI c:, ,:, C: "' C/) en u ·1: "' C> Q 1ii ~ a. D -g "ii "' > C/) ~ >-(!) ~i ~"' (!)Cf) en >-<V >-"' u ~ en D Water--....:: Level ATD ~ ~ _u:,- ~D' w.,., ~~ ";' I ww WW (.) -~~ w _u ~ U') g ill w inb b ~ u ~ w c mm b £!.~ "' - "' ~-ua b 0 w c ±i M f'-,.... -..... I,{) £:i 8~1 £:i - b ~ ~-"' <'/'7 ~ z V)~ !:2- e <\' N";' "' "' CXICXI ~~ 1 f 11 w <\' "' g ~ CXl ..!.~ 'l 11 ~ "? a.. M "' (.) ~ (/) a. I l ()~\/Ith., l 1Rh.7 '\ N ::; <D ~ I I T D :;; I (/) m ~x I Fill -i V Alluvium -I I 1 ~ ~/. I 'b..: ·.: ·,, 1. ' ...... ,.,, ' ··: · T ··4 ·.··n 1 - .. ,.. -; . ·· , . ·0 ·~;~o~°o~ ~ooOooOoO~:; o -OooOooOooOc Coarser Alluvium E_U.,,..._ ..... _ ....,,_ ..... _ ,,,.._ .r..-.r.,,... <J A Oo OQ Oo Oo O• ~ . : ·.' . . 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ~ '':2~~~~~~~~iTiffli~~~~~f:c~~~~~~~,..:~:l~~;·s -~ OooOooOooOooOooO ooOc :t :' · ; '0 a' 0o 00 °oo'J, °oo°J, °oo'J, °oo'J, °ooJ' °ooJ' °rJO~ °cPJI oo Ooo Ooo Ooo Ooo Ooo Ooo Ooo Ooo Ooo Ooo Oc ,~ ~ o} ~,O} ~oJ> ~p j, ~0:0 °oo} ~,OJ' °ooj, 0 j, °ooj, ~oj, ~pj, ~oJ' ~oJ' ~oJ' °ooJJ °ooJJ °oo fJ °ooJ' °ooJ1 -70' to -1 00' Elev. OoO Ooo Ooo Ooo Ooo Ooo Ooo Ooo Ooo Ooo Qoo Ooo Ooo Ooo Ooo Ooo Ooo Ooo Ooo O o o 0 L?-o-o-o-a o~ o-o" o-o" o-o'J o~-O o-o~ dLo.., o-o-o-o-6 o-6 o-o o-o o-o-o" o+,i~~0 JO°o0 ~ 0rP°?°o0 f °o0 f/)a0 f °o0 R0cPJ'°o0 t'°o0 ?°o':1!):Pj,°c,o°J,°o0 J'°o0 J'°o0 °J> 0cP°.f °o0 °R°o0 J'0cP' -· .. --· · -114.9' Bottom Elevation u:,-Legend "' £:i ';2 - ± a, I Well ID and Offset f rom Cross Section Non-Aqueous Phase Liqu ids ~ WellScreen ~ ~ ~ D Fill O rganic Sandy S ilt (Mud) PeaUOrga nic Silt SilUClayey S ilt ~ L.:..:.:....J ~ Sandy S 11VS1tty Sand Sand Gravelly Sandi Sandy Gravel lspect~~~u,t'.\~~ ..... -... 1, .. ~~" Honzontal Scale ,oo ,_ Vertical Scale 10 VerticaLEx aggerat,on 10X Geologic C r oss Section D-D' Quendall Term inals Renton. Washington -, 30 Jzo 10 ~ 0 > <{ ~ iii I Q) u. 0 !;; C .Q 1ii > Q) w -1 0 -20 -30 r 0 ~ ,00 I§ ~ " j DRAFT ~ S.F(..-no.i:xm PROJECrf,./0_ ~ 0200 27 8 OlC I FIG/JRENO 3.1-9 ! 0 E 90 60 t--,: w w ~ ,c-w zz §" ""~ z cc i¥"' ~:;:[~ i~ ll ---~tL,"J B !_ ~ 1 ( ~ OLWM<10.611 l I ( J ~O _ I I , . -----rr,- £ ~allow f-1 .§ ~ ., w -60 -90 120 ,,..,, AIIIN#um Legend N u-,w NZ -oob z "' I Well ID and Offset from Cross Section ,----DNAPL p icks Cl Q -. Ir, • w UJ • (/) II) zZ (l)fUJ UJ ~lll · U1 f ~~~~~ ! --~ ~ z i ~w;:;c3~:::..~ !£, !~ J. 0 _zq .;,N"f~ ~ r;,i J: 0 H !ji 'UJ \ '.i I I) __ )1ll ___ /L ___ , ,: ,: ui W UI "'"' z Zz <n .n ~ g_ ~ t:..~ ~o ~ "? ~ ~ ;i; "-~ Ql 0 I I ~I I 1---------I---••----- [ b 'T <.) :i: mu mu 'I ir· ,o-,:,:, 1 r LLij l ff v; ui z e ---L-----~--~ ~J Fill Shallow Alluvium -;,_...;;..L.. __ _ ... __ .... -- t:,,,m ui z g ~ i --? E' w z b C- i I -------------·------------------------------------? c=J c=J C:J C=:J FI LL: Sill, Sand, Gravel. Wood and Mixed Debris Shalloy, Aljuvium: Slralifted Organic St t, Peat, Sand Deep Alluvium: Sand and Gravel s U;:1cuslrine Oe posrts· Sill and Clay Lacustrine Deposi ts Horizontal Scale ,., ,.., Vertical Scale 3() 200 r w ----LI,J -~ Vertical Exaggeration 3. 33X ~ ~ DRAFT ~ \ Aspect Geologic Cross Section E-E' ··~_,,.,, PROJEc rno I consulting ·-• 020027 .i --E-----------Model Generated Particle Palhlines 6 ._. ....... 1~.".'-~.;.,~" 1 :· Quenda ll Terminals --:: FIGUR.E NO J 1:13 ·-·'""'")-Renton, Washington ··,cc 3.1-10 ~ Well Screen Base map USGS Bellevue South Quadrangle. Contour interval is 5 meters. Aspedconsutting earth twater a limrlfld liat,ifiry company Topographic Map of Vicinity Quendall Terminals Re nton, Washington 0 ' N i 2000 F eet Jan 2010 JJP PMB ..it~,o.et ~ "'! 0 J, r- 0 0 "' 9 M .>< <I) "' I- 0 0 0 ~ <I) <ii C E ~ <ii 4000 "O C <l) ::, 0 r- "' PROJECT NO. 0 0 "' 020027 ~ <ii "O FIGURE NO C <l) 3.1-11 ::, 9 0 Legend ~~~2 --IJ· 20---.... Monitoring Wei \Oith Data from Se!'«'mber 2009 (Aspect) Gr<llindwaler Elevation Contour (September 2009) lnferre<:I D~ecbon of Groondwater Groundftow 18---GroundwaterElev~tionContours for adjacen1 former Barbee Mill Property 0 Detention Ponds [SJ Exislng structur~ D Hi~torlc Fealllres \._,0oc. .,, ,· I I I I I I -! ~Di o Ir ~~;)<,· 0 / I// I /; I/! fl / /·.' / T-Ooe<Rfflr•••• ~ "s Cc RW..QP-1 1&09 BH-19 J7 94 + .-·-- ' 26 / 23 ,J //, / ,, !/ .. l1 ;/ ;,,: ; / >.t Ii "'~~;;' 'I' _,: /' . ,'·/ ;::,/ -/ ·/ 0 / ~ I />1o1<1~~-~~:S/0_1 ~.r.~~ BJ-j-JOA / \, 7 tr='· -/· / BH->SA ,, / /J ,,' •rn· I L_J 5 1 ·> fl D ~;::i = . / .J. f ,,' BH-25A)R) 0 1-/ 1 r-)~ ....;,_ 2og7 ---/,""', /' I '::J'!I( ~ -/ -· / _J jl ----=-/ / / /, - / !i __ )J_._7--,' ~,\::(,•//I 7/·. ·-·· .. -,,~"·· .. ~M. -.,,--I \ I ... , f?&f'./ /://;~;., .. -.....,,v ,. -; ..--~1'11"'·r..-.... . ,. 37· L-..:i\'-... l•9Ar ..... -~~ _ ... ..,:,.,.. _.'~ "'"";--..... .:,,.;)iJt-. -••-"/.:...::.....-....:::...---- " " < I f--_:::----1... --__,--, I ' · . · ,A. I -----, r~ !,•· ,. BH-2'A \ / .,--;,..;;A I ' / "'""' \_, '--; ~ /,e,, I I --/l ;;,,-=------'* 0' ; ~-,'__::::::---==---::::--- ; ~ I I -=i.--...... / / /.->( / / \ I I I I \ / I I I \ I ./ '\, I I , J I I 4 lo" ! ~ DRAFT I ~ " / I , Aspect ,r September 2009 Graundwater El8¥1111an Contour Map ~ = 0 -" ~ s • ~.~ .... ~?~ Shallow Aquifer "'~ ',., 020021 ~ I I ,,,,,.,,,.,c• ""'°''"'"" Quendall Terminals ... ~ .. ""'" r/GUREl/0 i .,,_,..,.~ , Renton. Washington "''"' . 3.1 •12 9 0 t '" Legend ~+ Momtorin!I WeN .,.,th Data tom November 2008 (Aspect) ! 9---Grourldwater Elevation Contour (NOii ember 2008) ~ 0 lSi;;J D Inferred o;rection of Groundwater G,oundnow Detention Ponds E,i:oting Slructures Historic Features t -- '-,- , ,/ I '\]Di // / ~ t::J\) /'ii I ,I . A 17 / /·. f l i /. • / I J I /, 1 • ;r/ / H.-i<~1 // .. /! 990 I 1,/ ··1 ,;--..,..-/1 I i,, .:.;/ ., / / ' " /j J 1 ;~:· :1 ~r,':~:;;"' /< , , ! , . [./I' / \ / 1'<',. $. ; _[L/ \ I ..-.. BH-2~ ,/; / "Ff / / " '"" ,' ::: ~ ' /, .t,·•• w~~;l' f/L<'p/1 I _ 'I""" , J ~,5 :.,--""""' I I ~-' " -•0 t. ••• ,,~· I l I , ' , ' 0 ~ I/ , . D" '...J VI ,' •' ' ! . ___ /. ;;,.s'H-20/38, ... '37 · -~.' :=:, d'~ ./2>'.· / g:2; -·;,,<.-_ .• _1a9e , //35-. I .(!"1; /i; . //I/ /// Q o ; / SdUHo"':.. /. ./i:~~-~: ~ f.::'~Y I~ I I 8H-JA26 1 1 .x~:~R~-o1/ 0: ,' }1 /<',,,a I " ::1;;1"•//J ' .// f 1 ~ ·,;;. -,.,,.. .. ,...... ' :;/ / °"""""" D/ /\j///.=:!.co .· !\ _f-~ / /, / /•I / 0!(!',-1 / I;,_..,.:.,..!~,.,,;;;. · .. ;,,,,~ / / / JI .L ~.-L.~,~..,... .' . .;r . / ., C '"1:.------r-----=-----=---·=--,,-..__ ~;~ ? L,--:;:.-, , .__ -7 // / .I .· ,,=-~~ --.:c---~ /,,; "I-/ I ~,....-~:~nei j 1/>·· . ----~ . I . /°,X \ '. I -)_::: --=-.~\ / /.· .7/.,'···' .,~ . ~ ~ / {/ \"" /'""/ ----~-__, ,' ',-~ -i //:::: -J'1 / ;~H-26A , // . ~· ~-~ --_ ..:l!':2100 "~ "' .._'!, {' ,c· '-"-"'-~o----/ / \ \ \ \ j l 9 a I DRAFT ~ 1 I NOYelllbar 2008 Groundwater Elevation Contom Map ···· '"" '""" PROJECT NO § Shallow Aquifer ·="s~ 020021 ~ ¥-· Aspecicolllolltting Quendall Terminals •·•· _. Frc;uREMJ ~ [ ·--~ "' I Renton,Wash1ngton .. '""" 3.1-13 ~ . .,, .. :::·::;:,: owo•n ,·,.U N$01,t:1 X: PW-CMW-4 2.~ z WD01@ v:-lA \~ EBVB8 ,-/b~W-4S•4U t,amui ~y..,c,i z ~ffiVM C) z :i: i w ; ",f PW-CMV#..j <l.{ ,., ewf' MW-2 11 ® I . I ecM·w-J "" ,, I I f·cMW-2Si2D : x::i- 1 i I I ... ·cMW-1 "" • i'iH lli' ,,;• r;:~:.~I>'. "" " r.· ~ ')11 • ' -CMW-6_,' cJ 1 ·t../,- 1ur " ' NOTES: I :, HORIZONTAL DATUM WASHINGTON STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM (SPCJ, NAD i,3191. NORTl-l ZOt.E 2 VERTICAL DATUMMfAVb 88. 3. PRIMARY 1/ERTICAL BENCHMAR/;'1~;J~GAGINGSTA". BRAS SI 81'~~ STAMPED "lJSGS" SET IN A DRILL HOLE IN HIE SW CORNER OF A ~~~~~~~l~:T,~~;;~~~~~~Et~~ ~~t~~~~~::~~: ~~EE OF WEST SIDE OF THE MAY CREEK BRIDGE Otl I l,KI'. WM1'lltlll>n~ IIOULE\/ARD. ELEVATION·~~~ FEET. 4. TOPOGRAPHY IS PRO\/IDED IIY DEGROSS AERIAL MAl'PING\MTH AERIAL CONTROL BY OTAK. INC. IN 2003. BOUNDARY LINES SHO'MII ARE FROM ALT A. A,C S.M. LAND TITLE SURVEY OF SOUTH PARCH FOR JAG DE\/ElOPt.lENT BY BUSH R0£0 .S. HITCHINGS, INC. DATED 8122/WAND A FIELD SUR\/EY BY OT AK. INC IN MARCH, 2002. 5 PLAT DETAILS AND SITE GRADEJl\(EVl~i,p ON SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY OTAKON9125/06. c::r/:t:::cr:::, ~~:tWc·0'----. ,.-• 7A __ _ ~;t~5'.'/"7~---"I,,';\/",' ----~-P<op,.tp8ou"do" \ • ,-r,.,1 rr- 1 "" ~ .,··,'f.J 'ti.ff '" ,;-,,1,'J u ,. 1L"li•1 "" • MILL POND \ Rorne<1a,t1on S~oi.m VauJl/lroa .:., PZ-1 V •N ~PZ..2 ' ~,, . -Excavation / Footprint ' L•g•nd ~WP-6 ,,rcMW-1 ~Pl:-1 '"" We,IPoo,! Mor<t<r~~ WoU Locahoo E,,-tmbonWoll<><•1ion p,.,om,1<,L0<a1ion v"''"'""'·""""" $_PW.CMW·2 Peopo..a Po"'"""'' $•mf<...,, Locac~n __ .,__ R,m,...,,on Sv,r•m ~• 31 ArsMiicC,,o,;,nt"'"''"'"""''- "" ""'"""-"'' E~,olion ""'"""'"''"' ~~"'-'°"""'"' I r .• ,. DRAFT r i a , :: 1 1 Summary of Remedial Actions and Groundwater '""' ,w, PRoJECrno § Monitoring Results -September 2009 .,-;,~,orn 020027 ~ ·,.,, Aspecttor1$ult1ng J, """~~ .. ot&< Barbee Mill ··~ ·· ""B FIGuRE 00 ] 1 , 1 4101 Lake Washington Blvd. Norin, Renton. Washinglcn .~.-, 3.3-1 ~ . ---""" ·--- / / ' ' , , / / I ! Legend • • Note: Environmental Cap Areas of Excavation or In-site Stabilization Quendall Terminals Compliance Monitoring Well ; ,· I Information compiled from Cleanup Action Plan, J.H. Baxter South Property, Renton, WA (Retec 2000) s /Jmded habilitycompfmy Summary of Environmental Conditions and Remedial Actions, Footlaall Noall1wwt P1opwty Quendall Terminals Renton, Washington l 1 200 400 Fe.I DRAFT Jan 2010 PROJECT NO. occ 020027 LALJPMB FIGURE NO. 3.3-2 ~ • " m 9 ~ N 0 0 N 9 ~ ~ m I! ~ ~ 0 0 ,, .,, • C ~ I- "' u C • 0 a ~ N 0 0 N ~ u C • 0 9. ( Kennydale Wa t er Co. ' Depth ,. Screen Interval ( ' '·;;; Property Elevation Completion Date Legend 345' 145'-155', 285'-333' NIA 11/6/1936 .. ,.,-• • Water Well [] Renton Aquifer Protection Z on e Wells listed under AA Miller and Vl Kennydale Water Co. are located LLJ within shaded area (Section 3 1, T24N, R5E). Notes: Exact locati on not provided on well log. 0 1) Well information based on well log database at Washington State Department of Ecology website . Refer to Table X for complete well information , includi ng a list of abandoned wate r wells. 2) Base map USGS Bellevue South Quadrangle. Contour interval is 5 meters. Locations of Water Wells Aspedconsulting aarlh +waler Within 0.5 Miles of Quendall Terminals Quendall Terminals a limif&d liaMiry com pony Renton , Washington ~ l "CJ oi 1 q ..... N 0 2000 4000 0 N Feet ~ "" DRAFT if) "' ~ N ~ ' PROJECT NO. "' Jan 2010 0 0 020027 ~ DLC oi "CJ FIGURE NO C: LAUPMB QJ :, "'fM tf.l8t 3.3-3 9. 0