The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPermit L07-082 - CREEGAN TOM - UNCLASSIFIED USEBOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILITY 18800 ORILLA RD S L07 -082 SEE L07 -081 FOR APPLICATION MATERIALS AND STAFF REPORT July 30, 2008 City of Tukwila Minnie Dhaliwal, Senior Planner 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 -2544 Re: Bow Lake Recycling and Transfer Station Unclassified Use Permit Application L07 -081 Design Review Permit Application L07 -082 Dear Ms. Dhaliwal: The purpose of this letter is to inform you that La Pianta LLC is working with King County (County) to establish a permanent surface water and sanitary sewer easement across our property that will provide surface water and sanitary sewer conveyance from the County's reconstructed Bow Lake Recycling and Transfer Station to an area that is commonly referred to as Ditch E and a connection to a possible future sewer line in the area. We have granted the County a temporary construction easement so that they may begin construction of surface water drainage facilities this year. As soon as we coordinate other project - related aspects with the County in the coming months, it is our expectation that the temporary construction easement will be converted to a permanent surface water and sanitary sewer easement. It is our understanding that the City is requiring that the County provide assurances that future surface water and sewer improvement plans will meet with our approval and that we will grant the County the permanent easement needed. Please accept this letter as assurance that La Pianta LLC has been working closely with the County in coordinating development plans. Thank you for your consideration. La Pianta LL i Mark A. S (✓l:. ! A LA PIANTA LLC TRADE NAME AAUU INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL • AGRICULTURAL • NATURAL RESOUR CES 0 1 ?Ong DEve Cc: Kevin Kiernan Neil Fujii Tom Creegan Harold McNelly EGALE P ROPE RTI E CE vt: P O B O X 88028 • T U K W I L A , W A 9 8 1 3 8 • 5 8 1 1 S E G A L E P A R K D R I V E C • T U K W I L A , W A 9 8 1 8 8 P 2 0 6 . 5 7 5 . 2 0 0 0 • F 2 0 6. 5 7 5. 1 8 3 7 • www.segaleproperties.com Errata Sheet RECEIVED JUL 2 4 2001' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT July 23, 2008 This cover letter should have accompanied the Addendum to: 2006 Environmental Checklist State Environmental Policy Act, 2006 Facility Master Plan Update, Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station, sent to you on July 22, 2008. If you have any questions or comments, call Tom Creegan, Solid Waste Division at (206) 263 -6476 King County Solid Waste Division Department of Natural Resources and Parks King Street Center. 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 701 Seattle, WA 98104 -3855 206 - 296 -6542 Fax 206 - 296 -0197 TTY Relay: 711 Proponent and Lead Agency: REC EIVED off Addendum to SEPA Checklist Bow Lake Recycling and Transfer Station July 21, 2008 Description of Proposal: The King County Solid Waste Division (KCSWD) is proposing to replace and expand the existing Bow Lake Recycling and Transfer Station. The proposed project involves an 8.9 -acre expansion to the north of the existing station on adjacent property currently owned by Washington State Department of Transportation ( WSDOT). The County is currently finalizing acquisition of this surplus right -of -way. The proposed project will-involve demolition of existing structures and site work. New structures will include a transfer building, transfer trailer yard, recycling and yard waste facilities, internal roadways and parking areas, and associated utilities. This project is detailed in the 2006 Facility Master Plan Update, Bow Lake Recycling and Transfer Station Update (FMP). The Master Plan was prepared to provide a blueprint for expanding the existing Bow Lake Recycling and Transfer Station. This expansion is necessary because of the station's important role within the County's solid waste management system, including improved operational efficiency, compliance with current building and environmental standards, enhanced customer service, customer and employee safety improvements, and preparation for eventual out -of- county waste export. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division 201 S. Jackson Street, Suite 701 Seattle, Washington 98104 -3855 Location of Proposal: The location of the project is the existing Bow Lake Recycling and Transfer Station in south Tukwila near the intersection of Orillia Road South and South 188 Street, just east of Interstate 5 (I -5). The project will also involve a parcel of land directly north of the Bow Lake Recycling and Transfer Station, currently owned by WSDOT. Environmental Documentation: KCSWD issued a SEPA Environmental Checklist (EC) and Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance (MDNS) for the project on December 21, 2006. The lead agency for this proposal determined that it did not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. A number of mitigation measures intended to minimize potentially adverse impacts were described. The lead agency determined that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was not required under Chapter 20.44 County Environmental Procedures and RCW 43.21C.030(2)0. The decision was made after a review of the completed Environmental Checklist. Date: 0 - c ( Signature: As design of the project has progressed, there have been:a number of modifications to the project as previously described in the 2006 Environmental Checklist. In some areas (e.g. stormwater system), design has progressed to a point where more detail is now available. In other areas, new regulations (e.g. climate change) are now in place, which require additional evaluation. For these reasons, an Addendum to the 2006 Environmental Checklist has been prepared. Specific issues that are addressed in the Addendum include: site footprint, construction schedule, solid waste processing capability, stormwater handling during construction, construction traffic, additional geotechnica] studies, long -term stormwater handling, climate change, and noise from operations. Conclusion: The results of evaluation of potential impacts resulting from modifications to the project do not change the analysis of significant impacts in the 2006 Environmental Checklist and no new probable significant environmental impacts are expected. This SEPA Addendum is issued in accordance with Chapter 20.44 KCC and WAC 197 -11 -350. Information used in support of the SEPA Addendum is on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request for a nominal photocopying fee. Responsible Official: Kevin E. Kiernan, P.E. Position/Title: Division Director Telephone: . 206 -296 -4385; TTY Relay: 711 Address: 201 S. Jackson Street, Suite 701 Seattle, Washington 98104 -3855 The SEPA Addendum is available on the following project Web site: http: / /www.metrokc. gov/ dnrn/ swd/facilities/bowlake /index.asfl ADDENDUM TO 2006 Environmental Checklist State Environmental Policy Act 2006 Facility Master Plan Update Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station July 2008 km King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division Addendum to Environmental Checklist State Environmental Policy Act 2006 Facility Master Plan Update Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station July 2008 Ul King County King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division King Street Center 201 S. Jackson Street Seattle, WA 98104 www.metrokc.gov/dnrp/swd This material will be provided in alternate formats upon request by contacting: King County Solid Waste Division 206 - 296 -4466 1- 800 - 325 -6155, ext. 6 -4466 TTY Relay: 711 www.metrokc.gov/dnrp/swd TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF APPENDICES July 2008 Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist Introduction 1 Reason for Addendum 1 Modifications to the Project 2 Site Plan 2 Project Schedule 2 Processing 5 Analyses 7 Construction Traffic 7 Stormwater Management During Construction 10 Geotechnical Studies 11 Stormwater Discharge 14 Climate Change 15 Noise from Yard Waste/Wood Waste Grinder 1 7 Conclusion 18 Construction Traffic Impacts Appendix A Construction Traffic Forecast Appendix B Stormwater Truck Haul Analysis Appendix C GHG Emission Worksheet Appendix D Noise Assessment - Yard Waste/Wood Waste Grinder Appendix E Introduction Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist In 2005 and 2006, King County Solid Waste Division (KCSWD) initiated a series of engineering and environmental studies intended to determine the best means for expanding the Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station and to identify potential environmental impacts associated with expansion. In late summer 2006, KCSWD, acting as lead agency, prepared a State Environmental Policy Act Environmental Checklist (SEPA Checklist) for the project, Environmental Checklist, State Environmental Policy Act: 2006 Facility Master Plan Update, Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station (KCSWD, 2006). KCSWD issued a Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance (MDNS) on August 30, 2006. The lead agency determined that the proposed project did not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was not required under Chapter 20.44 County Environmental Procedures and RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). The SEPA Checklist was circulated to interested residents, adjacent landowners, municipalities, and government agencies and a public meeting was held on September 14, 2006. Responses to the SEPA Checklist were obtained from two municipalities and one private developer. Following review of comments received on the SEPA Checklist, KCSWD determined that it was desirable to provide additional information on environmental issues associated with the project and decided to temporarily withdraw the SEPA Checklist. Additional information was incorporated into a revised SEPA Checklist. Minor modifications to the Facility Master Plan (FMP) were also made in response to the new information. The revised SEPA Checklist was then recirculated and the MDNS reissued on December 21, 2006. Reason for Addendum There are several reasons that have led KCSWD to prepare this Addendum to the December 2006 SEPA Checklist. As design of the project has progressed, there have been a number of modifications to the project as previously described in the 2006 SEPA Checklist. In some areas (e.g. stormwater system), design has progressed to a point where more detail is now available. In other areas, new regulations (e.g. climate change) are now in place that require additional evaluation of the project. Specific issues that will be addressed in this Addendum are listed below: 1. Site Footprint. The site footprint has changed slightly from that shown in the 2006 SEPA Checklist. 2. Construction Schedule. A more specific timetable for proposed construction activities has now been developed. 3. Processing. Since the SEPA Checklist was issued in 2006, KCSWD has added additional solid waste processing capability to the project. 4. Stormwater During Construction. In accordance with applicable requirements, more details about potential methods for handling stormwater during construction have now been developed. July 2008 1 Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist 5. Construction Traffic. Progress on the design of the facility has resulted in changes in estimates of the volumes of material and required truck trips required to haul material to and from the site. 6. Geotechnical Studies. There have been additional geotechnical studies since the SEPA Checklist was issued. 7. Stormwater System. KCSWD has determined that directing stormwater to Stream E at the base of the slope east of the site is the most desirable means of discharge. Design details have now been developed and are being reviewed by the City of Tukwila. 8. Climate Change. Since the SEPA Checklist was issued in December 2006, King County has developed SEPA requirements associated with effects of the proposed station on climate change. This Addendum to the 2006 SEPA Checklist has been prepared in accordance with King County Code (KCC), Chapter 20.44 that adopts SEPA Administrative Rules, Washington Administrative Code (WAC), Chapter 197 -11. Specifically, this Addendum follows WAC 197 -11 -625 Addenda Procedures and WAC 197 -11 -706 Addendum, which defines the purpose and nature of an Addendum. Modifications to the Project Site Plan The updated Site Plan is provided in Figure 1. Slight modifications have been made to the size and layout of the Transfer Building in the northern portion of the site. Minor changes to the recycling and yard waste areas on the south side of the Transfer Building have also been made. The offsite easement for the stormwater and sewer pipelines adjacent to the eastern boundary or the site is in the process of being negotiated and acquired. Project Schedule The Environmental Checklist described a project schedule consisting of three phases, beginning in April 2008. Construction was to be completed in June 2011. Since the Environmental Checklist was issued in December 2006, the overall construction process has been described and the project schedule refined. The facility will be constructed under two general construction contracts. Bulk excavation and grading of the site areas outside the existing station footprint and some site utility work will be conducted under the Site Preparation contract. The Site Preparation contract will be a conventional design- bid -build contract. 2 July 2008 Figure 1. General Arrangement Site Plan Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist GENERAL 110118 474 .r �4 4- M4. r YL 4409 480 84044 4811 R ■ 44.040 MN OR 4 18441..% 044040 4/O40q 8; coon 04@ID4 16164 .0 404441104 SWAM 40 4764E IMP 05000 .441 44 4901 45444 KM 4 4Q114401 00001 498; MR 000 0 9�Emoet 1 4. m MUM= 4I 4a NBta 4014 4670 4 44[44 8' 014 449144 4 114946 w 8' 48 4410h 8084 40ICIL441 P 41+'4 44044D 144404.11. 11@1 4 on 8; 8071 W. 4.880104 4485 0700 814" ALM14 49 �1tC 4 4g)�p9 9007 49 4P Sat =051R VW 14144. 48844 04 � 4.4441 41404`6 KW 48448 w 11E4414% 400E SAM x148 119 =PDX 4141 44 1044: 1 411 8844 Da 04418 4 4.081. 1. 8E 40444001 4 110:10.46 0 131 9888; 4884 M0 (312/0[40 (31 8 9484 4110 4 ___ 944 9 1409944 8' 84 OF MIS 704 00 8120 M1®1 4E 414. 4.4 =DA 00 0040' 444[ 8;) 369.40 • Y / 48440• 44E 4484 CAD KAN 8[ 44104 444.6E 4 88 88 - 1041 40454000• ® tAYMl4 41. 4144 44784 AY0 844489 8; I IT4144D 444E .111• -44 4N4 .P DAL •849! 4814 84*4 44 '4F •• -r. 8 • D VfT R ^� S1.. UUP2 kg King County Deparbnent of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division K R.W. 44*. 1e MD/ F49E1 Awn" SIM MO S. WA 9144.1004 a0n e44400 1081, IAKE P r +aun GENERAL ARRANGEMENT SITE PLAN •t '44.884 w 4 G17 July 2008 3 The Site Preparation contract is now expected to run from October 2008 through October 2009. The remainder of the facility construction, including demolition of the existing structures, will be conducted under the Site Facilities contract. The Site Facilities contract is now scheduled to commence November 2009 and continue through Summer 2012. In order to expedite construction, the Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station will be closed to self -haul traffic during contractor work hours on weekdays under both the Site Preparation and Site Facilities contracts. Self -haul traffic on weekdays will utilize other solid waste facilities in south King County (e.g. Renton, Algona) and may, at times, be allowed in after construction work hours on weekdays. The Bow Lake facility will continue to serve all commercial and account - holding customers. Processing Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist A limited amount of processing is currently conducted at the existing Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station. Processing takes place primarily at the Free Recycling area south of the Scale Facility and at the Paid Recycling area south of the existing Transfer Building. As described in the 2006 SEPA Checklist, the proposed project may expand processing at the site through the addition of a Yard Waste Tipping Area and compaction of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW). Yard waste and other woody waste may be chipped and ground into a compostable material. This material would then be placed in trailers for transport to a compost facility. Within the Transfer Building, two stationary, preload compactors will compress MSW prior to loading into containers to be hauled from the site. Compaction of MSW will maximize truck payloads and reduce the number of haul trips. Since the 2006 SEPA Checklist was issued, KCSWD has further expanded future processing capability at the site. Design of the new Transfer Building will allow space for separation of specific materials (i.e. cardboard, paper, wood, metal, plastic) from the general MSW stream. All recyclable materials except wood and metal will be baled on site. A summary of materials processing activities is provided in Table 1. Note that expanded processing activities are shown in bold. July 2008 5 Facility Area Materials Processed Process Type of "Solid Waste Processing" as defined in WAC 173-350-01 or ` WAC 173 -304 -100 Fee Recycling Area Metal Appliances Fluorescent tubes Household batteries E -Waste Collect and consolidate by material type Operation to prepare a material for reuse, recycling or disposal Yard Waste Tipping Area Woody waste Yard waste Collection and consolidation of woody waste and non- ground yard waste in trailers for transport to a composting facility One part of an operation to convert a material into a useful product Building Tipping Floor and Lower Level Cardboard Paper Wood Metal Film plastic Separation from the general Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) waste stream and consolidate by material type Bale all recyclable materials except wood and metal including material collected at the free recycle area Operations to prepare a material for reuse or recycling MSW Compact MSW in two stationary, preload compactors prior to loading into containers to maximize payloads and minimize hauling traffic and costs Operation to prepare solid waste for disposal Possible Future Facility Enhancements Wood waste chipping. Vactor decant facility Chipping and grinding of woody waste into a compostable material Dewater grit removed from storm sewers and roads and streets One part of an operation to convert a material into a useful product. Operation to prepare solid waste for disposal 6 Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist Table 1. Material Processing Bow Lake Recycling & Transfer Station The addition of processing capability within the proposed Transfer Building required several design modifications to the interior of the structure but did not alter the overall building footprint or height. Separation and baling of selected materials from the MSW stream will reduce the volume of waste to be hauled from the site. The types of trucks used to haul separated and baled waste may be different than those used for hauling compacted waste in containers, however, the number of truck trips required is not expected to change. July 2008 WSDOT Right- of -Way Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist King County has been working cooperatively with WSDOT to address right -of -way issues since an early point in the planning process. As design has progressed, more detailed information has become available regarding potential impacts on the WSDOT right -of -way, adjacent to the project site's western boundary. Construction of the retaining wall near the project site's western boundary will require clearing and grading activity within the WSDOT right -of -way. In addition, a portion of the Highline Water District water main that serves the Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station lies within the right -of -way. The project will include upgrading this pipeline. Both of these activities are temporary in nature. The duration of construction is estimated to range from six to nine months. Neither activity will involve disruption of the on -ramp to I -5. No significant impacts are anticipated. WSDOT has prepared a Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the right -of -way work as part of compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 23 CFR 771.117. Analyses Construction Traffic Construction traffic was first described in Section 14. f. of the 2006 SEPA Checklist for the Site Preparation and Site Facilities contracts. As design has progressed further, estimates of excavation and fill requirements have been refined and volumes of material to be exported modified. The schedules for the Site Preparation and Site Facilities contracts have also been developed in more detail. For these reasons, KCSWD has developed more detailed information concerning construction traffic and potential impacts on adjacent roadways. Additional analyses of potential construction traffic have been conducted and are summarized in this section of the Addendum. These analyses include a trip generation analysis and comparison of construction traffic with expected self -haul operations. For more detail, refer to "Bow Lake Transfer Station — Construction Impacts" in Appendix A. As described previously in the Addendum, construction activity will occur under two contracts. Under the Site Preparation contract, it is expected that site work will be conducted between October 2008 and October 2009. It is likely that most site work and heaviest traffic will occur during dry periods within this time frame. During the Site Preparation contract, construction traffic will include trucks associated with soil delivery, material export, piling and concrete, as well as worker vehicles and miscellaneous vehicle trips (e.g. deliveries, vendor visits, inspectors, etc.). In order to facilitate construction, the station will be closed to self -haul traffic during contractor work hours on weekdays under both Site Preparation and Site Facilities contracts. The Site Facilities phase will occur after completion of the Site Preparation contract. It is tentatively scheduled to occur between November 2009 and summer 2012. Construction July 2008 7 Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist traffic during this contract is expected to include trucks associated with material removal, material and equipment import, worker vehicles, and miscellaneous trips. Daily trip generation estimates for both contracts of construction are based on information provided in "Memorandum: Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station Facility Master Plan Update and Implementation — Construction Traffic Forecast" prepared in spring 2008. (See Appendix B.) Estimates for typical and peak conditions during the more active dry seasons are shown in Table 2. Weekday PM peak hour traffic generation for trucks and miscellaneous vehicle trips are estimated using specific amount of work hours per day. Estimates for 8 -hour and 10 -hour workdays are provided to demonstrate the effect of workday length on PM peak hour trip generation. Finally, weekday PM peak hour trips generated by workers are based on the expected number of workers and trip generation rates from Trip Generation, 7 Edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), 2004). Specifically, a trip rate of 0.42 weekday PM peak hour trips per worker is used based on the General Light Industrial land use category. Table 2. Estimates of Construction Period Trip Generation Land Use Total Average "Dry" Season Conditions Peak "Dry" Season Conditions Weekday Daily Trips Weekday PM Peak Hour Trips 10 -Hour 8 -Hour Workday Workday Weekday Daily Trips Weekday PM Peak Hour Trips 10 -Hour 8 -Hour Workday Workday Site Preparation' Soil Removal Trucks 80 8 10 200 20 25 Imported Material Trucks 20 2 3 20 2 3 Concrete Trucks 20 2 3 20 2 3 Workers 90 13 13 150 21 21 Other 50 5 6 60 6 8 260 30 35 450 51 60 Site Facilities' Material Removal Trucks 56 6 7 56 6 7 Imported Material Trucks 14 1 2 60 6 8 Workers 150 21 21 450 63 63 Other 60 6 8 80 8 10 Total 280 34 38 646 83 88 Existing Operations Transfer Trailer Trucks' 116 12 15 116 12 15 Commercial Haul Trucks' 468 8 8 468 8 8 Self -Haul Vehicles' 456 34 34 456 34 34 Total 1040 54 57 1040 54 57 1. Daily trip generation based on estimates provided in Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station Facility Master Plan Update and Implementation — Construction Traffic Forecast (R.W. Beck, 2008). 2. Weekday PM peak hour estimates for soil removal trucks, imported material trucks, material removal trucks, and other vehicles based on daily estimates and the number of hours in a typical workday. 3. Weekday PM peak hours estimates for workers during Site Preparation and Site Facilties contracts based on the estimated number of workers and the trip rate per employee taken from Trip Generation, 7` Edition, 2003 (ITE, 2003). 4. Estimates of daily and weekday PM peak hour traffic associated with the Self -Haul Operations are based on the existing data and transaction forecasts provided by King County. 8 July 2008 Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist Self -haul traffic at the recycling and transfer station consists of passenger vehicles and small trucks. It does not include trucks used to haul solid waste from the processing /transfer facility. In Table 2, estimates of traffic associated with each self -haul operation have been calculated based on historical data and projections over the four -year construction period. Daily trip generation for the transfer trailer trucks was obtained from existing data provided by KCSWD. Weekday PM peak hour trip generation was calculated based on 8 -hour and 10 -hour workdays. For commercial and self -haul operations, future estimates of transactions over the period 2008 through 2012 have been provided based on existing data and historical growth. To determine the number of daily trips associated with these operations during the construction period, the August 2010 estimate of transactions provided by KCSWD were used. This estimate of approximately 18,000 monthly transactions is expected to represent an average number of transactions during the "dry" portion of the construction period. Of the total number of transactions, approximately 68 percent are associated with self -haul operations while the remaining 32 percent are tied to the commercial haul operations. Applying this breakdown, approximately 12,300 self -haul transactions and 5,700 commercial haul transactions are expected. The resulting daily and weekday PM peak hour trip generation expected during the two construction phases and the self -haul operations are summarized in Table 2. As shown in the table, during the dry season, the Site Preparation phase is expected to generate approximately 260 daily trips with approximately 30 to 35 of these trips occurring during the weekday PM peak hour. During the Site Facilities phase (dry season), construction is expected to generate a slightly higher number of trips, approximately 280 trips on a daily basis. Of these, approximately 34 to 38 trips are likely to occur during the weekday PM peak hour. During peak conditions, likely to be infrequent, construction activity may generate up to approximately 650 daily trips and 90 weekday PM peak hour trips. Hypothetically, in the absence of construction activities, self -haul operations are projected to generate approximately 1,040 daily trips on an average weekday over the next four years. During weekday PM peak hour, approximately 54 to 57 trips would likely occur. A comparison of construction - related trips with self -haul trips in the absence of construction indicates that trip generation associated with construction activity will be substantially less than would normally occur at the site during self -haul operations. Although weekday PM peak hour traffic during peak conditions of the Site Facilities phase of construction is expected to exceed typical self -haul trip generation by approximately 30 trips, this condition is expected to occur infrequently. Overall, with the facility closed to self -haul traffic during contractor work hours, off -site impacts to the adjacent roadway network during construction are generally expected to be within the boundaries of traffic impacts during normal operations of the processing /transfer facility. July 2008 9 Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist Several mitigation measures are intended to reduce or eliminate potential impacts associated with haul truck traffic to and from the site. • Construction documents will require all truck traffic to enter the site with a right - turn only movement. Similarly, truck traffic leaving the site will be required to exit with a right -turn only movement. This will reduce potential impacts at the Orillia Road S.W./ S.W. 188` Street intersection near the entrance to the site. • Signage will be provided as needed to alert drivers to construction activity and to facilitate vehicle movement through construction areas and vehicle access locations. • Flaggers will be utilized as needed, particularly during peak hour periods, to expedite vehicle movements through potentially congested areas. Stormwater Management During Construction The 2006 SEPA Checklist (Section 3) described surface waters in the vicinity of the project, potential impacts on water quality associated with construction and operation of the new facility, and mitigation measures that would be used to reduce or eliminate potential impacts. The SEPA Checklist also described applicable state and local regulations that will apply to stormwater management during construction. Since the SEPA Checklist was issued, additional design work has been conducted on the proposed stormwater discharge system as well as stormwater management during construction. Similar to the operational stormwater system, design work for stormwater management during construction has been developed in accordance with provisions of the King County Surface Water Design Manual (King County, 1998), as amended by the Tukwila Public Works Development Guidelines and Design and Construction Standards (Tukwila Municipal Code [TMC] 14.30.070). In order to meet City of Tukwila and Ecology regulations, KCSWD will prepare and implement a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control (TESC) Plan. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be developed as part of NPDES Permit conditions. An Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) will be developed that will describe procedures for managing and monitoring excavation activities, including procedures for identifying, testing, and handling of contaminated materials should they be encountered during site work. Each of these plans has specific measures, including Best Management Practices (BMPs), intended to reduce or eliminate potential stormwater impacts during construction. Although design is not yet complete, the elements are now available and can be used to assist regulators in refining the design to minimize potential impacts and ensure that stormwater quality meets applicable standards. Stormwater generated on the site during construction will be intercepted and conveyed to a temporary detention pond located east of the facility. Flow from the pond will be directed to a chitosan- enhanced sand filtration (CESF) treatment system with chemical treatment for suspended solids. Following 10 July 2008 Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist treatment, stormwater will be pumped to a newly - constructed pipeline to an outfall that discharges to Stream E. All construction- related stormwater will be directed to the detention pond until the permanent stormwater vaults are installed. These vaults will then provide stormwater treatment for suspended solids and will also discharge through the new stormwater pipeline to Stream E. Both the pond and vaults will remain available for construction stormwater treatment until the project can transition to sole use of the vaults. Note that any stormwater that conies into contact with burn fill or refuse material will be considered contaminated stormwater (CSW) and will be collected and hauled offsite independent of the pond or vault systems. In the event that there is a temporary delay in construction of the stormwater discharge line to Stream E (the County is in the process of obtaining an easement), on -site stormwater would be collected, treated as necessary in ponds and /or vaults to meet applicable water quality requirements and then discharged through spreaders along the upper slopes on the east side of the site. Discharged stormwater would then percolate into the soil on the vegetated hillside before infiltrating into the groundwater system. (This system is very similar to that which exists at the present time.) The temporary detention and treatment pond system would meter out flows to the spreader system. During major storm events, runoff quantities may occasionally exceed the capacities of the pond and spreader system. When this occurs, the contractor would be required to pump excess flows into portable tanks and haul the water off -site for approved disposal. In order to estimate potential truck trips resulting from major storm events, a 10 -year, 72- hour storm event was assumed. Based on projected stormwater volumes, detention pond storage volumes, and projected spreader rates, excess volumes of treated stormwater to be hauled were calculated. Assuming a tank truck with 8,000 gallons capacity, peak and average truck trips are calculated to be 3.6 and 1.6 trips per hour, with a total of 114 trips over the course of 72 hours. See Appendix C for more detail. During peak storm conditions, truck haul trips would be a small percentage of daily construction traffic and are not considered a significant traffic impact. Most storm events would be considerably less than a 10 -year event and the required truck trips correspondingly less. See Construction Traffic Section above. Geotechnical Studies Following issuance of the 2006 SEPA Checklist, additional geotechnical investigations have been conducted in support of overall project design. These provide useful information on potential geotechnical impacts of the project, recommended design elements, and mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate potential impacts. The Geotechnical Report: Slope Pipelines, Bow Lake Processing /Transfer Facility, King County Solid Waste Division, Tukwila, Washington (HWA Geosciences, Inc., 2008) July 2008 11 Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist examined geotechnical issues associated with the proposed construction of stormwater and sanitary sewer pipelines from the project site east to the valley floor. Work included a combined geotechnical and environmental subsurface exploratory program; analytical laboratory testing; and geotechnical laboratory testing and engineering analyses. The study found "...no signs of either incipient or on -going slides..." along the proposed pipeline alignment although steep gradient cuts are present on the lower slopes. The study determined that "...the proposed pipelines can be installed as planned when the engineering recommendations as presented herein are adhered to. "(HWA Geosciences, Inc., 2008). These recommendations addressed various methods of pile support in refuse and non - refuse areas, use of spread footings, use of shallow auger piles and /or pin - piles, regarding of slopes in selected areas, and buttress fill at the toe of steep slopes. The study also analyzed soil samples along the alignment for contamination associated with refuse material. Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) and total metals analyses were performed to assess offsite disposal options for excess or unsuitable soils. TCLP analysis involves evaluation of a leached extract to determine the tested material's Hazardous Waste ( "Dangerous Waste" in the State of Washington) classification for regulatory compliance and disposal purposes. Total metals analyses measure all of the selected metals in a sample. The results of these analyses indicated elevated petroleum hydrocarbon and metals concentrations near the top of the slope within the proposed pipeline alignment. The study recommended a number of measures that should be implemented during construction. These include: • Construction bid documents should include all analytical results and requirements for handling of contaminated soil and refuse, treatment/disposal requirements and health and safety requirements. • During excavation and soils handling, soils should be field screened for staining and/or odors. Prior to export, stockpiled soils should be sampled for potential contamination as required by the disposal facility. • All geotechnical studies and environmental analyses of soils should be made available to the receiving facility for review. • The contractor should be required to notify the Owner's Project Representative of suspected contaminated materials. • Contract specifications should contain provisions for testing, segregating and stockpiling materials, decontamination, and standby time for delays due to testing. • The contractor should be required to submit waste characterization, waste management, spill prevention/control, and health and safety plans. The geotechnical reports and accompanying analytical data will be made available to the Contractor. Required measures for identifying and handling contaminated materials will be incorporated into the Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) and Contract Documents. 12 July 2008 Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist The Final Geotechnical Report: Bow Lake Processing /Transfer Facility, King County Solid Waste Division, Tukwila, Washington (HWA Geosciences, Inc., 2008) is a design level geotechnical engineering study that provides recommendations for site work and construction of the new facility. The investigation examined the existing transfer station site and the WSDOT site to the north, which King County is in the process of acquiring. The work included a combined geotechnical and environmental subsurface exploratory program; analytical laboratory testing; and geotechnical laboratory testing and engineering analyses. Based on subsurface explorations, detailed cross - sections were developed throughout the site. The information generated in this study substantially increased the level of information available beyond that described in previous studies and summarized in the 2006 Environmental Checklist. More detailed information was provided on engineering properties of soils, seismicity, refuse extent and characteristics and probable settlement. This information led to development of design recommendations for specific elements of the project including the Transfer Building, the Scale Facilities, various retaining walls, the stormwater detention vaults and wastewater holding tank, and the maintenance building. A number of geotechnical measures have been incorporated into the design in order to minimize or eliminate potential geotechnical impacts related to seismicity, slope stability, and settlement. These include: • Design of structures according to International Building Code (IBC) seismic criteria. • Use of preloading methods to compress soils subject to settlement. • Use of structural fill and compaction. • Use of cast -in -place concrete, soldier pile, or mechanically - stabilized earth (MSE) designs for retaining walls. • Use of pile foundations. • Over - excavation of refuse and unsuitable soils. • Provision of landfill gas- venting systems for all buildings and vaults. In spring 2008, the Final Slope Stability Report Bow Lake Recycling and Transfer Station, King County Solid Waste Division, Tukwila, Washington (HWA Geosciences, Inc., 2008) was prepared. The document provides an evaluation of the stability of eastern and southern slopes, slope stability along the northern perimeter road, Wall E design and construction considerations, and fill handling and disposal. The scope of work included a geotechnical subsurface exploration program, slope stability analyses, engineering analyses for wall design, and design and construction recommendations. These recommendations indicate that significant slope stability impacts can be avoided using generally- accepted engineering methods. July 2008 13 Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist Stormwater Discharge The SEPA Checklist issued in December 2006 described proposed collection and treatment of stormwater generated on the project site. The SEPA Checklist also described how the stormwater system would meet all applicable requirements, specifically, the King County Surface Water Design Manual (King County, 1998) as amended by the Tukwila Public Works Development Guidelines and Design and Construction Standards (Tukwila Municipal Code [TMC] 14.30.070). The December 2006 SEPA Checklist described two possible methods for disposing of stormwater following collection and treatment, one, a pipeline down the slope east of the site with a discharge to Stream E, and two, an engineered spreader for distributing stormwater on -site near the top of the slope. More detailed analyses of these options were conducted in spring 2007. A Sensitive Area Study of Wetland and Watercourses was conducted in accordance with TMC Chapter 18.45 Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Wetlands and portions of Stream E likely to be affected by the project were surveyed and an inventory of trees on the project site was conducted in accordance with TMC Chapter 18.54 Tree Regulations. These analyses further confirmed that the preferred method for disposing of stormwater was the pipeline to Stream E, as originally described in the 2006 SEPA Checklist. Stream E is a fish- bearing watercourse that discharges to the Green River via a pump station and flow control structure referred to as the S. 180 Pump Station. Note that collection and treatment of stormwater on the project site remains the same as described in the SEPA Checklist. From the proposed stormwater treatment vaults, flows will be directed down steep slopes east of the site via pipeline (See Figure 1.). This pipe will terminate in an energy dissipating catch basin and rock -lined channel that will discharge directly into Stream E, a City of Tukwila Type 2 watercourse (See Figures 2 and 3.). More detailed information is available in Preliminary Surface Water Technical Information Report, Bow Lake Recycling and Transfer Station Project, King County (R.W. Beck, May, 2008). A sanitary sewer line will also be constructed within the pipeline corridor. Use of this pipeline will await connection with a new sewer line to be constructed on the valley floor at an undetermined future date. For the foreseeable future, sanitary flows generated at the facility will be conveyed to an on -site holding tank. Periodically, these sanitary flows will be pumped from the holding tank, trucked to the KCSWD's Cedar Hills Regional Landfill for pre- treatment in that facility's leachate ponds, and then discharged to the Metro sewer. The proposed action will have minor impacts on two wetlands along the pipeline alignment and on Stream E. Temporary wetland and stream impacts are calculated to be 948 and 280 square feet, respectively. Temporary wetland and stream buffer impacts are expected to be approximately 12,200 square feet. Permanent wetland impacts are expected to be 110 square feet. Mitigation for these impacts on wetlands and the stream 14 July 2008 will be provided on -site in accordance with the requirements of Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) Chapter 18.45 — Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Design of mitigation site(s) for the project is now underway and will be submitted to the City of Tukwila for approval. In addition, the project will have to meet state and federal requirements regarding impacts to wetlands and streams. A Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application (JARPA) was submitted on January 11, 2008 for review by state and federal agencies. Subsequently, an Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) was issued on January 28, 2008 by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WSDFW). It included standard conditions for construction of the discharge structure to Stream E. The JARPA was also reviewed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps). The Army Corps issued a Nationwide 12 Permit on March 24, 2008. The Army Corps also concurred with the assessment of "110 effect" to listed species under the Endangered Species Act. The 401 Water Quality Certification and Coastal Zone Management (CZM) consistency approvals were obtained on April 3, 2008 from the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) in conjunction with the Nationwide 12 permit. Climate Change Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist The proposed Bow Lake Recycling & Transfer Facility will generate short-term emissions from construction/redevelopment of the existing facility and long -term emissions during operation of the upgraded facility. Both short-term and long -term emissions were addressed in the 2006 SEPA Checklist, including an air quality evaluation provided in Appendix E of that document. Subsequent to issuance of the SEPA Checklist in December 2006, King County issued an Executive Order on September 1, 2007, which required King County departments to evaluate the impacts on climate of actions being evaluated under authority of SEPA. These impacts included those relating to greenhouse gas emissions. Although the SEPA Checklist for the Bow Lake Processing /Transfer Facility was issued prior to this Executive Order, KCSWD determined that it was desirable to include a climate change analysis in this SEPA Addendum. Analysis of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for the proposed facility has utilized the SEPA GHG Emissions Worksheet (Version 1.7 12/26/2007) developed by King County Department of Development and Environmental Services (DDES). This worksheet identifies multiple sources of GHG emissions associated with development including: • The extraction, processing, transportation, construction and disposal of materials and landscape disturbance (Embodied Emissions); • Energy demands created by the development after it is completed (Energy Emissions); and • Transportation demands created by the development after it is completed (Transportation Demands). July 2008 15 Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist The worksheet is intended to provide estimates of GHG emissions that will be generated over the life span of a project. This includes emissions associated with obtaining construction materials, fuel used during construction, energy consumed during operation, and transportation by building occupants. See Appendix C. For the proposed Bow Lake Processing /Transfer Facility, a lifespan of 50 years is assumed. The standard of measure used in the worksheet is carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2 since CO2 is typically the most common component of GHG emissions. Using the SEPA GHG Emissions Worksheet, the total CO2 generated by construction and operation of the proposed facility over a 50 -year lifespan is estimated to be 91,581 metric tons CO2, (MTCO2 This total includes 26,918 MTCO2 on building size (i.e. square footage), 16,500 MTCO2 based on amount of pavement (i.e. square footage), and 48,163 MTCO2 based on operation of heavy equipment within the facility. Embodied emissions included the cumulative footprints of all site structures, a total of approximately 83,400 square feet. Although use of some recycled materials (e.g. concrete, asphalt) are likely to be used for construction of the new facility, these were not included in the analysis of embodied emissions. Energy emissions were based on an energy consumption model for the proposed Transfer Building. This included a base 1,389,000,000 btu/year regulated load (e.g. lighting, heat, ventilation) and a 1,413,000,000 btu/year process load (e.g. compactor, grinder). The regulated load was applied to the remaining site buildings as a square footage ratio that resulted in 54,000,000 btu /year of energy consumption for the remainder of the site. The site will also produce approximately 38,000,000 btu/year of renewable energy from a photovoltaic solar array on the roof of the Transfer Building. The cumulative energy consumption will be 2,818,000,000 btu /year. This estimate includes heat energy recovery from the compactor equipment. Transportation emissions included a total of 25 on -site operational personnel over all shifts at the 24 -hour facility. Haulers were not included because of the variability of the operations and the different sites involved. Equipment emissions were not accounted for in the original worksheet and have been added to account for the biodiesel- powered heavy equipment to be used for on -site operations. It was assumed that there will be one full and one half time front end loader (4.5 gallons per hour); one full and one half time piece of small equipment (1.5 gallons per hour); and one full time yard tractor operating on -site at the 24 -hour facility. The resulting estimate of fuel usage was 100,000 gallons per year. The facility equipment currently operates on a fuel mixture of 20 percent biofuel and 80 percent diesel fuel. It is also important to note that the analysis applies solely to the proposed facility; no adjustment is made for replacing GHG emissions from the existing facility. To obtain incremental GHG emissions for the project, GHG emissions for the existing facility 16 July 2008 would have to be subtracted from the GHG emissions for the proposed facility. Although this was not done in this evaluation, it is likely that the increment of additional GHG emissions at this location would be substantially lower than the GHG figure developed for the proposed new facility. Noise, ii-onm Yard Waste /Wood Waste Grinder Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist As discussed above, KCSWD has expanded processing capabilities at the proposed facility since the SEPA Checklist was issued in December 2006. This has included possible use of a portable grinder for yard waste and wood waste.. The grinder reduces the volume of yard and wood waste, thereby reducing the number of haul truck trips from the facility. Further, grinding is one of the first steps in reprocessing of yard and wood waste into useable materials. The grinder would be located near the southwest corner of the new Transfer Building. It would be partially- enclosed within a u- shaped wall approximately 8 feet in height. Although a specific grinder has yet to be selected, KCSWD determined that it would be desirable to assess potential noise impacts from grinder operations. A noise consultant was retained by KCSWD to evaluate potential noise impact on users of the facility and the nearest residential properties. See Appendix D. This evaluation utilized representative equipment (i.e. Morbark Woodhog 2600), which the manufacturer indicated produced a noise level of 82 dBA at a distance of 100 feet at full power. Sound levels generated by grinder operations were modeled at the nearest residential properties to the transfer facility. As with previous analyses conducted for the SEPA Checklist, the Cadna /A model was used to predict potential sound levels. Projected sound levels for grinder operations were added to sound levels of other on -site equipment considered previously in the SEPA Checklist. The evaluation included both daytime and nighttime operations. Daytime noise levels at the nearest residential properties were modeled for a yard waste /wood waste grinder at the proposed facility. Noise levels ranging from 49 to 53 dBA were predicted for the residences located to the west across Interstate 5 (I -5) and at the La Pianta property line to the north. Existing background sound levels (L9os) during the day range from 68 to 71 dBA and are at least 15 dBA higher than the predicted facility sound levels at these nearest residential locations. As a result, even with the inclusion of a waste grinder at the new facility, noise from I -5 would obscure noise from daytime facility operations. Therefore, it is unlikely that noise from the facility would be audible except during rare lulls in I -5 traffic, and no adverse noise impacts are expected. For nighttime operations, inclusion of the yard waste /wood waste grinder would result in noise levels ranging from 48 to 53 dBA at the nearest residential properties. Sound levels greater than 50 dBA would not comply with the nighttime noise limit. For this reason, KCSWD does not intend to operate the waste grinder at night, July 2008 17 Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist Conclusion A number of modifications to the Bow Lake Recycling and Transfer Station project have been made since the 2006 Checklist was issued by KCSWD. The results of evaluation of potential impacts resulting from these modifications do not change the analysis of significant impacts in the 2006 SEPA Checklist and no new probable significant environmental impacts would result. Signature The above statements are true and complete to th- best of my knowledge. I understand eir decision. that the lead agency is relying on Signature: Name (print): 4 IN E Title: b v" S t p.A1 (),(2C-T-4 Date Submitted: o) —a-) -0 d 18 July 2008 REFERENCES Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist Geomatrix. 2008. Memorandum: Noise Assessment of the Proposed Yard Waste /Wood Waste Grinder. From K. Wallace to S. Bingham, ESA Adolfson. 2 p. HWA Geosciences, Inc. 2008. Final Slope Stability Report, Bow Lake Recycling and Transfer Station, King County Solid Waste Division, Tukwila, Washington. HWA Project No. 2003 - 008 -21. Prepared for R.W. Beck. Lynnwood, Washington. HWA Geosciences, Inc. 2008. Final Geolechnical Report, Slope Pipelines: Bow Lake Processing /Transfer Facility, King County Solid Waste Division, Tukwila, Washington. Prepared for R.W. Beck. Lynnwood, Washington. 19 p. HWA Geosciences, Inc. 2008. Technical Memorandum: Response to City Review of Geotechnical Reports, Bow Lake Recycling and Transfer Station, Tukwila, Washington. B. Thurber and S. Hong to I. Sutton, R.W. Beck. Lynnwood, Washington. 2p. HWA Geosciences, Inc. 2007. Final Geotechnical Report: Bow Lake Processing /Transfer Facility, King County Solid Waste Division, Tukwila, Washington. Prepared for R.W. Beck. Lynnwood, Washington. 49 p. King County Department of Development and Environmental Services. 2007. SEPA GHG Emissions Worksheet. Version 1.7. Seattle, Washington. 10 p. R.W. Beck. 2008. Technical Memorandum: Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station Facility Master Plan Update and Implementation — Construction Traffic Forecast. From K. Hufnagel to S. Bingham (ESA Adolfson) and K. Gahnberg (The Transpo Group). October 16, 2006. Revised March 27, 2008. 4p. The Transpo Group. 2008. Memorandum: Bow Lake Transfer Station — Construction Impacts. From K. Gahnberg and B. Przybyl (The Transpo Group) to K. Hufnagel (R.W. Beck). Kirkland, Washington. April 22, 2008. 4p. July 2008 19 APPENDIX A Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist Construction Traffic Impacts July 2008 Appendix A MEMORANDUM The Transpo Group Date: May 2, 2008 TG: 021 50.00 To: Karl R. Hufnagel, P.E. - RW Beck From: Kurt Gahnberg - The Transpo Group Bart Przybyl, P.E., PTOE - The Transpo Group Subject: Bow Lake Transfer Station - Construction Impacts This memorandum may serve as an addendum to the Bon' Lake Recycling /T ians/er Station Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by Transpo in December 2006. Its purpose is to address the potential impacts of changed construction activity levels. A trip generation analysis was undertaken to estimate the number of trips that will be generated during the - construction phase of the Bow Lake Recycling /Transfer Station expansion project. The estimates of construction traffic are then compared to the trips that are typically generated by the self -haul operations at the site to determine if construction traffic will now exceed typical self -haul traffic generation which will be curtailed during construction and therefore result in additional impacts to the surrounding roadway network. The following summarizes our analysis. Trip Generation Estimates Construction Traffic Construction activity at the site will be performed in two phases. The Site Preparation will be done first and is scheduled to occur between August 2008 and October 2009. During this phase, construction traffic will include trucks associated with soil export, material import, concrete, as well as worker and miscellaneous (deliveries, vendor visits, etc.) trips. The Site Facilities construction phase will be done after the Site Preparation is complete and is scheduled to occur from November 2009 to Summer of 2012. Construction traffic for the Site Facilities phase will include trucks associated with material export, material and equipment import, as well as worker and miscellaneous trips. Daily trip generation associated with the two phases of construction is based on information provided in Bon' Lake Transfer /Recycling Station Facility Master Plan I %plate and Implementation — Contraction Traffic Forecast prepared by harl Hufnagel, P.E., in March 2008. Estimates for typical and peak conditions during the more active "dry" season are shown. Weekday PM peak hour traffic generation for the various trucks and miscellaneous trips were estimated assuming a specific amount of work hours per day. Estimates for 8 -hour and 10 -hour workdays are provided to demonstrate the effect of the workday length on PM peak hour trip generation. Finally, weekday PM peak hour trips generated by the workers is based on the expected number of workers and trip generation rates from Trip Generation, 7th Edition, 2004, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Specifically, a trip rate of 0.42 weekday The Transpo Group Inc. 11730118th Avenue N.E., Suite 600 Kirkland, WA 98034 -7120 425.821.3665 Fax: 425.825.8434 PM peak hour trips per worker was used and is based on the General Light Industrial land use. Self - Haul Traffic Self -haul traffic at the site is comprised of transfer trailer trucks, commercial haul trucks, and passenger /small trucks associated with self -haul operations. Estimates of the traffic associated with each self -haul operation were calculated based on historical data and projections into the four -year construction period. Daily trip generation for the transfer trailer trucks was obtained from existing data provided by the County. Weekday PM peak hour trip generation was calculated assuming a specific amount of work hours per day. Estimates for 8 -hour and 10 -hour workdays are provided. For commercial haul and self -haul operations, future estimates of transactions from 2008 and 2012 were provided based on existing data and historical growth. To determine the number of daily trips associated with these operations during the construction period, the August 201(1 estimate of transactions provided by the County were used. This estimate of approximately 18,000 monthly transactions is expected to represent an average number of transactions during the "dry" season of the construction period. Of the total number of transactions, approximately 68 percent are associated with self -haul operations while the remaining 32 percent are tied to the commercial haul operations. Applying this breakdown, approximately 12,30( self -haul transactions and 5,700 commercial haul transactions are expected. The total transaction count for each type of operation was then divided benyeen weekday and weekend using historical data. Specifically, for commercial haul operations, approximately 91 percent of transactions occur during weekdays with the remaining 9 percent occurring on weekends. For self -haul operations, approximately 41 percent of transactions occur during the weekdays with the remaining 59 percent occurring during on weekends. Finally, the total number of weekday transactions was divided by 22 weekdays during August 2010 to achieve an estimate of the number of daily transactions. Weekday PM peak hour trips associated with commercial haul and self -haul operations were obtained by utilizing historical hourly transaction data to determine the percentage of daily trips that occur during the weekday PM peak hour. The results indicate that approximately 1.5 percent of daily commercial haul trips and approximately 7.4 percent of daily self -haul trips occur during the weekday PM peak hour. The resulting daily and weekday PM peak hour trip generation expected during the two construction phases and the self -haul operations are summarized in Table 1. The Transpo Group Page 2 Table 1. Estimates of Construction Period Trip Generation' Land Use Site Preparation' Soil Removal Trucks' Imported Material Trucks' Concrete Trucks' Workers' Other' Total Site Facilities' Material Removal Trucks' Imported Material Trucks' Workers' Other' Total Self-Haul Operations Transfer Trailer Trucks' Commercial Haul Trucks' Self -Haul Vehicles' Total 80 20 20 90 50 56 14 150 60 Average "Dry" Season Conditions Weekday PM Peak Hour Trips Weekday Daily Trips Workday Workday 10 -Hour 8 -Hour 8 2 2 13 5 260 30 35 6 1 21 6 10 3 3 13 6 7 2 21 8 Weekday Daily Trips 200 20 20 150 60 450 56 60 450 80 Peak "Dry" Season Conditions 116 12 15 116 12 468 8 8 468 8 456 34 34 456 34 1,040 54 57 1,040 54 Weekday PM Peak Hour Trips 10 -Hour 8 -Hour Workday Workday 20 2 2 21 6 25 3 3 21 8 51 60 6 6 63 8 7 8 63 10 280 34 38 646 83 88 15 8 34 57 1. Daily trip generation based on estimates provided in Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station Facility Master Plan Update and Implementation - Construction Traffic Forecast by Karl Hufnagel, P.E. dated March 27, 2008. 2. Weekday PM peak hour estimates for soil removal trucks, imported material trucks, material removal trucks, and other vehicles based on daily estimates and the number of hours in a typical workday. 3. Weekday PM peak hour estimates for workers during Site Preparation and Site Facilities based on the estimated number of workers and the trip rate per employee taken from Trip Generation, 7th Edition, 2003, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) for the General Light Industrial land use. 4. Estimates of daily and weekday PM peak hour traffic associated with the Self -Haul Operations are based on existing data and transaction forecasts provided by the client. As shown, the Site Preparation phase of construction during the dry season is expected to generate approximately 260 daily trips with approximately 30 to 35 of those occurring during the weekday PM peak hour. The Site Facilities phase is expected to generate a higher number of trips with a total of approximately 280 trips expected on a daily basis. Of those, approximately 34 to 38 are expected to occur during the weekday PM peak hour. During peak conditions, which are expected to occur infrequently, construction activity may up to approximately 650 daily trips and 90 weekday PM peak hour trips. Assuming that construction did not occur at the site and self -haul operations continued through the construction period, it is estimated that approximately 1,040 daily trips would be expected on an average weekday. During the weekday PM peak hour, approximately 54 to 57 trips would typically be expected. Comparing these estimates to the estimates of traffic during construction, it is expected that trip The Transpo Group Page 3 generation associated with the construction activity will generally be significantly less than would normally occur at the site during self -haul operations. Although weekday PM peak hour traffic during peak conditions of the Site Facilities phase of construction is expected to exceed typical self -haul trip generation by approximately 30 trips, this is expected to occur infrequently. As a result, off -site impacts to the nearby roadway network during construction are generally expected to he within the boundaries of traffic impacts during normal operations and no additional analysis or mitigation will be required. The Transpo Group Page 4 APPENDIX B Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist Construction Traffic Forecast July 2008 Appendix B October 16, 2006 Revised March 27, 2008 Technical Memorandum From: Karl Hufnagel, P.E. To: Steve Bingham, ESA Adolfson Kurt Gahnberg, The Transpo Group Subject: Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station Facility Master Plan Update and Implementation — Construction Traffic Forecast Background The purpose of this memorandum is to provide an estimate of the construction traffic traveling to and from the project site during the approximately four years that construction will be in progress at the site. As currently envisioned, the site construction will take place under two consecutive contracts: a Site Preparation contract scheduled to run from August 1, 2008 through October 31, 2009, and a Site Facilities contract scheduled to run from November 1, 2009 through Summer /Fall 2012. Note that periods of heavy traffic will likely be within the Dry Season (April 30 — October 1) of each year. Site Preparation Contract This is primarily an earthworks contract with some retaining wall and stormwater system construction. At the completion of this construction the site will be "winterized" to protect it from stormwater erosion during the winter months of 2009/2010. Soil Removal: Based on preliminary estimates there is expected to be approximately 167,000 cubic yards of material excavated and removed from site. At 20 cubic yards per dump truck and pup trailer, this material will require around 8,350 round trip truck trips to /from the site over an estimated thirteen month period. Assuming that the work is carried out only on weekdays, this would be 280 hauling days or an average of 30 truck trips per day. The Dry Season will be more conducive to earthworks and will result in more truck trips, while the Wet Season will limit truck trips. It's expected that there will be 130 days of Dry Season hauling and 150 days on Wet Season hauling. Assuming twice the production in the Dry Season as the Wet Season, results in an average 20 truck trips per day in the Wet Season and 40 truck trips per day in the Dry Season. The peak truck trips per day are expected to occur in the Dry Season at approximately 100 truck trips per day. Construction Traffic Forecast Technical Memorandum October 16, 2006 (Revised March 27, 2008) Page 2 Imported Materials: It is estimated that there will be around 20,000 of earthwork material brought in to the site over a period of five months. At 20 cubic yards per dump truck and pup trailer, this material will require about 1,000 round trip truck trips. Assuming the work is carried out on weekdays, this would be around 108 hauling days or an average of 10 truck trips per day. These trips are expected to coincide with the soil removal trips. Concrete: It is estimated that there will be around 1,000 cubic yards of concrete brought to the site during the site preparation work, primarily for retaining walls. At 10 cubic yards per truck, this would require 100 truck trips. It is expected that concrete will be delivered and placed at an average rate of around 100 cubic yards per day, which equates to 10 truck trips per day. These trips are expected to coincide with the soil removal and soil import trips. Workers: The average workforce during the site preparation work is expected to be around 30 with a peak work force of 50. These workers are expected to park on site and to make an average of 1.5 round trips to the site each day. The peak workforce days are expected to coincide with the soil removal, import material and the concrete delivery trips. Other: It is expected that there will be other miscellaneous materials deliveries, vendor visits, labor union visits, contractor home office visits and County and consultant daily visits or between 25 and 30 per day throughout the life of the construction. Total: Wet Season average daily traffic is expected to be around 110 trips. Dry Season average daily traffic is expected to be approximately 130 trips. Peak daily traffic in the Dry Season is expected to be 225 trips. Site Facilities Contract This is primarily a building, pavement and utilities contract with some additional earthwork, and site retaining wall construction. Material Removal: An estimated 20,000 cubic yards of rubble from the demolition of the existing transfer building and pavements and 27,000 cubic yards of refuse will be removed during Phase 2 ,:)'a f I , Concrete `' c, i l ,«;c; 7,700 CY �`„ I2 4 ; K' 10 CY \ 4,.)_ "ra h 770 Road Aggregates 13,000 CY 20 CY 650 Structural Fill, Drain Rock 38,000 CY 20 CY 1,900 Hot Mix Asphalt 4,000 CY 20 CY 200 Roadway Appurtenances - -- - -- 20 Topsoil & Amendments 4,000 CY 20 CY 200 4" and larger Utility Pipe 15,000 LF 2,000 LF 8 Manholes /CBs 80 EA 6 EA 14 Metal Building - -- - -- 50 Electrical Equipment - -- - -- 50 Plumbing Pipe & Fixtures - -- - -- 20 Compactors - -- - -- 10 Industrial Wastewater Treatment System - -- - -- 20 Miscellaneous - -- - -- 1000 Total 4,912 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Construction Traffic Forecast Technical Memorandum October 16, 2006 (Revised March 27, 2008) Page 3 of this contract. At an average load of 20 cubic yards, this equates to 2,400 truck trips over a four month period, or around 28 trips per day. Imported Materials: The estimated material types, quantities, load size and number trips are provided in the following table: These material delivery trips are expected to occur on weekday over the full 32 month construction period (695 weekdays). The average daily trips would therefore be around 7. It is estimated that a peak day for this category could be 30 trips. Workers: The average workforce during the site facilities work is expected to be around 50 with a peak work force of 150. These workers are expected to park on site and to make an average of 1.5 round trips to the site each day. Construction Traffic Forecast Technical Memorandum October 16, 2006 (Revised March 27, 2008) Page 4 Other: It is expected that there will be other miscellaneous materials deliveries, vendor visits, labor union visits, contractor home office visits and County and consultant daily visits or between 30 and 40 per day throughout the life of the construction. Total: Disregarding the months when soil is being removed from site, the average daily traffic is expected to be around 112 trips. The peak daily traffic is expected to be around 300 trips. APPENDIX C Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist Stormwater Truck Haul Analysis July 2008 Appendix C Duration (hr) Tributary Areas (ac) Volume Factors (ac -ft) Volume (ac -ft) Total Volume (cf) Treatment or Haul Design Rate (gph) Treatment or Haul Volume (cf) Storage Volume (cf) Storage Volume (gal) Required Haul Rate (gph) Load equivalent ( #) Duration (hrs) Loads per time step ( #) Impervious Soil Impervious Soil Impervious Soil 1 6.6 5.7 0.04 0.02 0.3 0.1 16466 0 0 16466 123,163 0 0 0 0 2 6.6 5.7 0.06 0.03 0.4 0.2 24699 50000 6684 18014 134,745 28500 3.5625 1 3.5625 3 6.6 5.7 0.08 0.04 0.5 0.2 32931 50000 13369 19562 146,327 28500 3.5625 1 3.5625 4 6.6 5.7 0.09 0.04 0.6 0.2 35806 50000 20053 15753 117,831 28500 3.5625 1 3.5625 5 6.6 5.7 0.10 0.05 0.7 0.3 41164 50000 26738 14426 107,908 28500 3.5625 1 3.5625 6 6.6 5.7 0.11 0.06 0.7 0.3 46522 50000 33422 13100 97,985 28500 3.5625 3 10.6875 9 6.6 5.7 0.16 0.09 1.1 0.5 68346 50000 53476 14870 111,225 28500 3.5625 3 10.6875 12 6.6 5.7 0.18 0.10 1.2 0.6 76578 40000 58824 17755 132,807 18500 2.3125 6 13.875 18 6.6 5.7 0.23 0.14 1.5 0.8 100885 40000 90909 9976 74,620 18500 2.3125 6 13.875 24 6.6 5.7 0.27 0.18 1.8 1.0 122316 35000 107620 14696 109,927 13500 1.6875 24 40.5 48 6.6 5.7 0.36 0.25 2.4 1.4 165572 25000 157086 8486 63,475 3500 0.4375 24 10.5 72 6.6 5.7 0.41 0.28 2.7 1.6 187395 20000 189840 -2444 (18,285)_ -1500 0 24 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Storage Volume Required' 19562 146,327 cf gal Add 20% to Required Storage CONSTRUCTION RUNOFF: ON -SITE DISPERSION & TRUCKING ANALYSIS (7/15/08) 234751 cf NOTES: 1 Assumes 4 on -site dispersion trenches able to discharge at a total flow rate of 0.8 cfs (= 21,500 gph) 2 Assumes 2 Baker Tanks on -site with a total storage volume of 5,610 cf (= 42,000 gallons) 3 Total live storage is TESC Storage Pond + 2 Baker Tanks = 23,500 cf 4 Therefore, need a peak truck haul rate for the 10 -year, 72 -hour event of 28,500 gph 5 If assume a tank truck with 8,000 gallons capacity then 3.6 truck loads per hour (about 1 truck every 15 to 20 minutes leaving and entering the site) 6 The basin is the same as assumed for the CESF system plus 1 additional acre of impervious to be conservative (total = 12.3 ac) 7 Assumes a 1 -hr ramp up time where no flows are released or hauled (see first time step) Total truck loads - - -> 114 APPENDIX D GHG Emission Worksheet Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist July 2008 Appendix D Geomatrix Memorandum TO: Steve Bingham, ESA Adolfson DATE: February 26, 2008 FROM: Kristen Wallace PROJ. NO.: 12209.000.0 CC: Karl Hufnagel, R.W. Beck PROJ. Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling NAME: Station Upgrade SUBJECT: Noise Assessment of the Proposed Yard Waste/Wood Waste Grinder As part of the proposed upgrade of the Bowlake Transfer /Recycling Station, King County is proposing to install a yard waste /wood waste grinder at the new transfer building. Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. (Geomatrix) was asked to assess whether the addition of the grinder would result in any additional noise impacts when compared to the SEPA documentation. The results of our analysis follow. The yard waste /wood waste grinder would be located near the southwest corner of the new transfer building, partially surrounded by a u- shaped wall approximately 8 feet in height. The specific grinder proposed for the site had not been identified at the time of this analysis, so Geomatrix used the sound level of a Morbark Woodhog 2600 as a representative piece of equipment, which the manufacturer identified as 82 dBA at a distance of 100 feet with the unit running at full power. To estimate the additional noise expected from the grinder, Geomatrix modeled the sound levels of the grinder at the nearest residential properties to the transfer facility. As with the assessment conducted for the SEPA checklist, Geomatrix used the Cadna/A noise model to predict future sound levels from the grinder. The projected sound levels of the proposed grinder were added to the sound levels of the other on -site equipment considered previously for the SEPA evaluation. Daytime Operation Inclusion of a yard waste /wood waste grinder in addition to the equipment specified in the SEPA checklist results in predicted daytime sound levels ranging from 49 to 53 dBA at the nearest residences on the hill to the west and at the Pianta property line north of the site. The existing background sound levels (L9os) during the day range from 68 to 71 dBA and are at least 15 dBA higher than the predicted facility sound levels at these nearest residential locations. Consequently, even with inclusion of a grinder at the transfer facility, noise from the freeway would obscure noise from the facility operations. Therefore, it is unlikely that noise from the facility would be audible except during rare lulls in I -5 traffic, and no adverse noise impacts are anticipated. 3500188th Street SW, Suite 600 Lynnwood, Washington 98037 -4763 Tel 425.921.4000 Fax 425.921.4040 www.geomatrix.com Geomatrix Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station Upgrade February 26, 2008 Page -2- Nighttime Operation For nighttime operations, inclusion of the yard waste /wood waste grinder in the modeling results in predicted overall sound levels ranging from 48 to 53 dBA at the nearest residential properties. Sound levels greater than 50 dBA would not comply with the nighttime noise limit. Therefore, we recommend that the grinder only be operated during daytime hours (i.e., between 7 a.m. to 10 p.m.). Conclusion During daytime operations, predicted noise levels from the upgraded Bowlake Transfer /Recycling Station with inclusion of the yard waste /wood waste grinder would easily comply with the daytime noise limit at the nearest residential properties, are at least 15 dBA lower than the existing background sound levels (primarily from the adjacent freeway), and are not be expected to result in any adverse noise impacts. During nighttime operations, predicted sound levels with the grinder are greater than 50 dBA at residential locations on the hillside west of the facility and would not comply with the nighttime noise limits. Therefore, operation of the grinder should be restricted to daytime hours only. 3500188th Street SW, Suite 600 Lynnwood, Washington 98037 -4763 Tel 425.921.4000 Fax 425.921.4040 www.geomatrix.com 1 I Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist 1 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX E Noise Assessment 1 Yard Waste /Wood Waste I Grinder 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 July 2008 Appendix E King County Department of Development and Environmental Services SEPA GHG Emissions Worksheet Version 1.712/26/07 Introduction The Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires environmental review of development proposals that may have a significant adverse impact on the environment. If a proposed development is subject to SEPA, the project proponent is required to complete the SEPA Checklist. The Checklist includes questions relating to the development's air emissions. The emissions that have traditionally been considered cover smoke, dust, and industrial and automobile emissions. With our understanding of the climate change impacts of GHG emissions, King County requires the applicant to also estimate these emissions. Emissions created by Development GHG emissions associated with development come from multiple sources: • The extraction, processing, transportation, construction and disposal of materials and landscape disturbance (Embodied Emissions) • Energy demands created by the development after it is completed (Energy Emissions) • Transportation demands created by the development after it is completed (Transportation Emissions) GHG Emissions Worksheet King County has developed a GHG Emissions Worksheet that can assist applicants in answering the SEPA Checklist question relating to GHG emissions. The SEPA GHG Emissions worksheet estimates all GHG emissions that will be created over the life span of a project. This includes emissions associated with obtaining construction materials, fuel used during construction, energy consumed during a buildings operation, and transportation by building occupants. Using the Worksheet 1. Descriptions of the different residential and commercial building types can be found on the second tabbed worksheet ( "Definition of Building Types "). If a development proposal consists of multiple projects, e.g. both single family and multi - family residential structures or a commercial development that consists of more than on type of commercial activity, the appropriate information should be estimated for each type of building or activity. 2. For paving, estimate the total amount of paving (in thousands of square feet) of the project. 3. The Worksheet will calculate the amount of GHG emissions associated with the project and display the amount in the "Total Emissions" column on the worksheet. The applicant should use this information when completing the SEPA checklist. 4. The last three worksheets in the Excel file provide the background information that is used to calculate the total GHG emissions. 5. The methodology of creating the estimates is transparent; if there is reason to believe that a better estimate can be obtained by changing specific values, this can and should be done. Changes to the values should be documented with an explanation of why and the sources relied upon. 6. Print out the "Total Emissions" worksheet and attach it to the SEPA checklist. If the applicant has made changes to the calculations or the values, the documentation supporting those changes should also be attached to the SEPA checklist. TA.= Residential orPrinci.al Activi Commercial # Units Square Feet (in thousands of .uare feet Embodied Trans.ortation espan Emissions MTCO2e Sin . le -Famii Home 0 MEENEIM 98 672 792 0 I AJJAA J•rrU!u .r•!iMlfth[r 0 l'._ (3cziu, — 33 357 766 0 Multi -Famil Unit in Small Buildin! 0 ]3j 54 681 766 0 Mobile Home 0 41 475 709 0 Education 'r 0.0 39 646 361 0 Food Sales 4 0.0 39 1,541 282 0 Food Service 0.0 39 1,994 561 0 Health Care I .atient 0.0 39 1,938 582 0 Health Care Out.atient 0.0 39 737 571 0 Lod , in. • a , ,. 0.0 39 777 ® 0 Retail Other Than Mall •; - r, r 39 577 0 Office . Q3c 0.0 39 723 588 0 Public Assembl 1 0.0 39 733 150 0 Public Order and Sale 0.0 39 899 374 0 Reli.'ous Worshi• 11111 a r r 39 339 129 0 Service ti zµs A 1111■013 IIIIMINIECI 599 266 0 Warehouse and Stora_e 0.0 39 352 181 0 Other '''�'.� -� 83.4 39 210 74 26918 Vacant al - 0.0 39 162 47 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Section 1: Buildings Section 11: Pavement Pavement 330.00 Section 111: Facility Equipment quipmen mmissions • e it, :4 48163 Version 1.7 12/26/07 Project Emissions: Emissions Per Unit or Per Thousand Square Feet (MTCO2e) 91581 Type (Residential) or Principal Activity (Commercial) Description Single- Family Home Unless otherwise specified, this includes both attached and detached buildings Multi - Family Unit in Large Building Apartments in buildings with more than 5 units Multi - Family Unit in Small Building Apartments in building with 2 -4 units Mobile Home Education Buildings used for academic or technical classroom instruction, such as elementary, middle, or high schools, and classroom buildings on college or university campuses. Buildings on education campuses for which the main use is not classroom are included in the category relating to their use. For example, administration buildings are part of "Office," dormitories are "Lodging," and libraries are "Public Assembly." Food Sales Buildings used for retail or wholesale of food. Food Service Buildings used for preparation and sale of food and beverages for consumption. Health Care Inpatient Buildings used as diagnostic and treatment facilities for inpatient care. Health Care Outpatient Buildings used as diagnostic and treatment facilities for outpatient care. Doctor's or dentist's office are included here if they use any type of diagnostic medical equipment (if they do not, they are categorized as an office building). Lodging Buildings used to offer multiple accommodations for short-term or long -term residents, including skilled nursing and other residential care buildings. Retail (Other Than Mall) Buildings used for the sale and display of goods other than food. Office Buildings used for general office space, professional office, or administrative offices. Doctor's or dentist's office are included here if they do not use any type of diagnostic medical equipment (if they do, they are categorized as an outpatient health care building). Public Assembly ..... Buildings in which people gather for social or recreational activities, whether in private or non - private meeting halls. Public Order and Safety Buildings used for the preservation of law and order or public safety. Religious Worship Buildings in which people gather for religious activities, (such as chapels, churches, mosques, synagogues, and temples). Service Buildings in which some type of service is provided, other than food service or retail sales of goods Warehouse and Storage Buildings used to store goods, manufactured products, merchandise, raw materials, or personal belongings (such as self - storage). Other Buildings that are industrial or agricultural with some retail space; buildings having several different commercial activities that, together, comprise 50 percent or more of the floorspace, but whose largest single activity is agricultural, industrial/ manufacturing, or residential; and all other miscellaneous buildings that do not fit into any other category. Vacant Buildings in which more floorspace was vacant than was used for any single commercial activity at the time of interview. Therefore, a vacant building may have some occupied floorspace. Definition of Buildinu Tvoes Sources: Residential 2001 Residential Energy Consumption Survey Square footage measurements and comparisons http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/sqft-measure.html Commercial Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS), Description of CBECS Building Types http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/pba99/bidgtypes.html 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Type (Residential) or Principal Activity (Commercial) 4 thousand sq feel/ unit or building Life span related embodied GHG missions (MTCO2e/ unit) Ufa span related embodied GHQ missions (MTCO2e/ thousand square feet) • See calculations in table below Single -Family Home ............. ... 253 98 39 Multi- Partly Unit in Large Building . 0.85 33 39 Multi -Family Unit in Small Building . 1.39 54 39 Mobile Home ........... . 1.06 41 39 Education .. 25.6 991 39 Food Sales ... _.. 5.6 217 39 Food Service .. 5.6 217 39 Health Care Inpatient .. .... 241,4 9,346 39 Health Care Outpatient ., 10.4 403 39 Lodging ............... ....... 35.8 1,386 39 Retail (Other Than Mall).. . 9.7 376 39 ONice ........, ... ..... 14.8 573 39 Public Assembly .... 142 550 39 Public Order and Safety ..... 15 5 600 39 Religious Worship 101 391 39 Service ................... ... ....... 65 252 39 Warehouse and Storage ... ....... . 16 9 654 39 Other ........ ..... .. .. 83 4 3,229 39 Vacant .. .... ............... 14.1 546 39 Sources All data In black text Residential floorspace per unit Roorspace per building Average Materials in a 2,272 - square foot single family home Average window size Embodied Emissions Worksheet Section I: Build! Section II: Pavement (All Types of Pavement .. 50 King County, DNRP. Contact Matt Kuharic, matt.kuharlc@kingcounty.gov 2001 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (National Average, 2001) Square footage measurements and comparisons httpJ/www eradoe gov /emeuirecs/soft- measure.html ETA, 2003 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Surrey (National Average, 2003) Table C3. Consumption and Gross Energy Intensity for Sum 01 Major Fuels for Non -Mall Buildings, 2003 httpi /www.etadoe gov /emeu/cbecs/cbecs2003/datailed_ tabl es _2003I2003set9 /2003exceuc3.xls Average GWP (IDs CO2e/sq 5): Vancouver. Low Rise Building Athena EcoCalculator Athena Assembly Evaluation Tool v2 3- Vancouver Low Rise Building Assembly Average GWP (kg) per square meter httpl/www.athenasml ca /tools/ecoCalculator/Index.html Lbs per kg 2.20 Square feet per square meter 10.76 Buildings Energy Data Book 7 3 Typical/Average Household Materials Used in the Construction of a 2, 272 - Square -Foot Single -Family Home, 2000 htfpfbu ngsdatabook .eren.doe.govfid_- view_book lable &TableID=20368t_-Ms See also: NAHB, 2004 Housing Facts. Figures and Trends. Feb. 2004, p. 7. Energy Information Administration/Housing Characteristics 1993 Appendix B, Oualy of the Data Pg. 5 ftp: /Rip eta. doe. gw/ publconsumptionlresldentiauirt93hetpdf Columns and Beam Intermediate Floors. Exterior Wafts Windows Interlor Walls Rods Average GWP (lbs CO2e/sq ft): Vancouver, Low Rise Building 5.3 7.8 19.1 51.2 5.7 21.3 Average Materials ina 2,272 - square foot single family home 0 0 2269.0 3206.0 285.0 6050.0 3103.0 Total Embodied Emissions (MTCO2e) Total Embodied Emissions (MTCO2W Thousand sq feet) MTCO2e 0.0 8.0 27.8 6.6 15.6 30.0 98.0 38.7 Sources All data In black text Residential floorspace per unit Roorspace per building Average Materials in a 2,272 - square foot single family home Average window size Embodied Emissions Worksheet Section I: Build! Section II: Pavement (All Types of Pavement .. 50 King County, DNRP. Contact Matt Kuharic, matt.kuharlc@kingcounty.gov 2001 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (National Average, 2001) Square footage measurements and comparisons httpJ/www eradoe gov /emeuirecs/soft- measure.html ETA, 2003 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Surrey (National Average, 2003) Table C3. Consumption and Gross Energy Intensity for Sum 01 Major Fuels for Non -Mall Buildings, 2003 httpi /www.etadoe gov /emeu/cbecs/cbecs2003/datailed_ tabl es _2003I2003set9 /2003exceuc3.xls Average GWP (IDs CO2e/sq 5): Vancouver. Low Rise Building Athena EcoCalculator Athena Assembly Evaluation Tool v2 3- Vancouver Low Rise Building Assembly Average GWP (kg) per square meter httpl/www.athenasml ca /tools/ecoCalculator/Index.html Lbs per kg 2.20 Square feet per square meter 10.76 Buildings Energy Data Book 7 3 Typical/Average Household Materials Used in the Construction of a 2, 272 - Square -Foot Single -Family Home, 2000 htfpfbu ngsdatabook .eren.doe.govfid_- view_book lable &TableID=20368t_-Ms See also: NAHB, 2004 Housing Facts. Figures and Trends. Feb. 2004, p. 7. Energy Information Administration/Housing Characteristics 1993 Appendix B, Oualy of the Data Pg. 5 ftp: /Rip eta. doe. gw/ publconsumptionlresldentiauirt93hetpdf Pavement Emissions Factors Mrf:02eMousand square feel of asphalt or concrete pavement 50 (see below) Embodied GHG Emissions Worksheet Background Information Buildings Embodied GHG emissions are emissions that are created through the extraction, processing, transportation, construction and disposal of building materials as well as emissions created through landscape disturbance (by both soil disturbance and changes in above ground biomass). Estimating embodied GHG emissions is new field of analysis; the estimates are rapidly improving and becoming more inclusive of al elements of construction and development. The estimate included in this worksheet is calculated using average values for the main construction materials that are used to create a typical family home. In 2004, the National Association of Home Builders calculated the average materials that are used in a typical 2272 square foot single - family household. The quantity of materials used is then multiplied by the average GHG emissions associated with the life-cycle GHG emissions for each material. This estimate is a rough and conservative estimate; the actual embodied emissions for a project are likely to be higher. For example, at this stage, due to a lack of comprehensive data, the estimate does not include important factors such as landscape disturbance or the emissions associated with the interior components of a building (such as furniture). King County realizes that the calculations for embodied emissions in this worksheet are rough. For example, the emissions associated with building 1,000 square feet of a residential building will not be the same as 1,000 square feet of a commercial building. However. discussions with the construction community indicate that while there are significant differences between the different types of structures, this method of estimation is reasonable; it will be Improved as more data become available. Additionally. it more specific information about the project Is known, King County recommends two online embodied emissions calculators that can be used to obtain a more tailored estimate for embodied emissions: www.buildcarbonneutral.orq and www.athen asmi. ca/tools/ecoCalculator /. Pavement Four recent life cycle assessments of the environmental impacts of roads form the basis for the per unit embodied emissions of pavement. Each study is constructed in slightly different ways; however, the aggregate results of the reports represent a reasonable estimate of the GHG emissions that are created from the manufacture of paving materials, construction related emissions, and maintenance of the pavement over its expected life cycle. For specifics, see the worksheet. Special Section: Estimating the Embodied Emissions for Pavement Four recent lice cycle assessments of the environmental impacts of roads form the basis for the per unit embodied emissions of pavement. Each study Is constructed in slightly different ways; however, the aggregate results of the reports represent a reasonable estimate of the GHG emissions that are created from the manufacture of paving materials, construction related emissions, and maintenance of the pavement over its expected life cycle. The results of the studies are presented in different units and measures; considerable effort was undertaken to be able to compare the results of the studies in a reasonable way. For more details about the below methodology, contact matt.kuharic ®kingcounty.gov. The tour studies, Mail (2001), Park (2003), Stripple (2001) and Treolar (2001) produced total GHG emissions of 4 -34 MTCO2e per thousand square feet of finished paving (for similar asphalt and concrete based pavements). This estimate does not including downstream maintenance and repair of the highway. The average (tor all concrete and asphalt pavements In the studies, assuming each study gets one data point) is -17 MTCO2efhousand square feet Three of the studies attempted to thoroughly account for the emissions associated with long term maintenance (40 years) of the roads. Stripele (2001), Park et al. (2003) and Treolar (2001) report 17, 81, and 68 MTCO2e /thousand square feet, respectively, after accounting for maintenance of the roads. Based on the above discussion, King County makes the conservative estimate that 50 MTCO2e/thousand square feet of pavement (over the development's life cycle) will be used as the embodied emission factor for pavement until better estimates can be obtained. This is roughly equivalent to 3.500 MTCO2e per lane mile of road (assuming the lane is 13 feet wide). It is important to note that these studies estimate the embodied emissions for roads. Paving that does not need to stand up to the rigors of heavy use (such as parking lots or driveways) would likely use less materials and hence have lower embodied emissions. Sources: Meil, J. A Lite Cycle Perspective on Concrete and Asphalt Roadways: Embodied Primary Energy and Global Warming Potential 2006. Available: http:Nwww.cement.ca/ cement. nsf/ eee9ec7bbd630126852566c40052107b /6ec79dc8ae03a782852572b90061 b9 1 4/$FILE/ATTKOW E3 /athena %20reoo rt%20Feb.%202 %202007.pdf Park, K, Hwang, Y., Seo, S., M.ASCE, and Seo, H. , °Quantitative Assessment of Environmental Impacts on Life Cycle of Highways," Journal of Construction Engineering and Management , Vol 129, January/February 2003, pp 25 -31. (001: 10.1061 /(ASCE)0733- 9364(2003)129:1(25)). Stripple, H. Life Cycle Assessment of Road. A Pilot Study for Inventory Analysis. Second Revised Edition. IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute Ltd. 2001. Available: http://www.ivIse/raoporter/pdf/B1210E-odf Treloar, G., Love, P.E.D., and Crawford, R.H. Hybrid Life -Cycle Inventory for Road Construction and Use. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. P. 43-49. January/February 2004. Type (Residential) or Principal Activity (Commercial) Energy consumption per building per year (million Btu) Carbon Coefficient for Buildings MTCO2e per building per year Floorspace per Building (thousand square feet) MTCE per thousand square feet per year MTCO2e per thousand square feet per year Average Building Life Span Ufespan Energy Related MTCO2e emissions per unit Lifespan Energy Related MTCO2e emissions per thousand square feet Single - Family Home ........................ 107.3 0.108 11.61 2.53 4.6 16.8 57 9 672 266 Multi- Family Unit in Large Building ., 41.0 0.108 4.44 0.85 5.2 19.2 80 5 357 422 Multi- Family Unit in Small Building 78.1 0.108 8.45 1.39 6.1 222 80 5 681 489 Mobile Home 75.9 0.108 8.21 1.06 7.7 28.4 57 9 475 448 Education 2,125.0 0.124 264.2 25.6 10.3 37.8 62.5 16,526 646 Food Sales 1,110.0 0.124 138.0 5.6 24.6 90 4 62.5 8,632 1541 Food Service 1,436.0 0.124 178.5 5.6 31.9 116.9 62.5 11,168 1,994 Health Care Inpatient 60,152.0 0.124 7,479.1 241.4 31.0 113 6 62.5 467,794 1,938 Health Care Outpatient 985.0 0.124 122.5 10.4 11.8 43.2 62.5 7,660 737 Lodging 3,578.0 0.124 444.9 35.8 12.4 45.6 62.5 27,826 777 Retail (Other Than Mall) 720.0 0.124 89.5 9.7 9.2 33.8 62.5 5,599 577 Office 1,376.0 0.124 171.1 14.8 11.6 42.4 62.5 10,701 723 Public Assembly 1,338.0 0.124 166.4 14.2 11.7 43.0 62.5 10,405 733 Public Order and Safety ............. 1,791.0 0.124 222.7 15.5 14.4 52.7 62.5 13,928 899 Religious Worship 440.0 0.124 54.7 10.1 5.4 19,9 62.5 3,422 339 Service 501.0 0.124 62.3 6.5 9.6 35.1 62.5 3,896 599 Warehouse and Storage ...... 764.0 0.124 95.0 16.9 5.6 20.6 62.5 5,942 352 Other 2,818.0 0.124 350.4 83.4 4.2 15.4 50.0 17,519 210 Vacant 294.0 0.124 36.6 14.1 2.6 9.5 62.5 2,286 162 Energy Emissions Worksheet Sources All data in black text Energy consumption for residential buildings King County, DNRP. Contact: Matt Kuharic, matt.kuharic @kingcounty.gov 2007 Buildings Energy Data Book: 8.1 Quad Definitions and Comparisons (National Average, 2001) Table 6.1.4: Average Annual Carbon Dioxide Emissions for Various Functions http : //buildingsdatabook.eren.doe.gov/ Data also at: http: / /www.eia. doe. gov /emeu/ revs/ recs2001 _ce /ce1- 4c_housingunits2001.html Energy consumption for commercial buildings EIA, 2003 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (National Average, 2003) and Table C3. Consumption and Gross Energy Intensity for Sum of Major Fuels for Non -Mall Buildings, 2003 Floorspace per building http: / /www.eia. doe. gov / emeu/ cbecs/cbecs2003/detailed_tabtes _2003 /2003set9 /2003excel/c3 xis Note: Data in plum color is found in both of the above sources (buildings energy data book and commercial buildings energy consumption survey). Carbon Coefficient for Buildings Buildings Energy Data Book (National average, 2005) Table 3.1.7. 2005 Carbon Dioxide Emission Coefficients for Buildings (MMTCE per Quadrillion Btu) http: //buildingsdatabook. sere. energy .gov / ?id=view_book_tabie &Table) D =2057 Note: Carbon coefficient in the Energy Data book is in MTCE per Quadrillion Btu. To convert to MTCO2e per million Btu, this factor was divided by 1000 and multiplied by 44/12. Residential floorspace per unit 2001 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (National Average, 2001) Square footage measurements and comparisons http://www.eia.doe.goviemeu/recs/sqft-measure.html average lief span of buildings, estimated by replacement time method (national average, 2001) Note: Single fami y homes calculation is used for mobi e homes as a best estimate life span. Note' At this time KC staff could find no reliable data for the average fife span of commercial buildings. Therefore, the average lice span of residential buildings is being used until a better approximation can be ascertained. Sources. New Housing Construction, 2001 Quarterly Starts and Completions by Purpose and Design - US and Regions (Excel) http: / /www. census. gov /consiquarterty_starts completlons_cust.xls See also: http : / /www. census. gov / const/www /newresconstindex.html Existing Housing Stock, 2001 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) 2001 Tables HC1:Housing Unit Characteristics, Million U.S. Households 2001 Table HC1 -4a. Housing Unit Characteristics by Type of Housing Unit, Million U.S. Households, 2001 Million U.S. Households, 2001 http //www.eia. doe. gov /emeu/ recs /recs2001/hc_pdf/ housunits /hc1- 4a_housingunits2001.pdf Single Family Homes Multi - Family Units In Large and Small Buildings All Residential Buildings New Housing Construction, 2001 1,273,000 329,000 1,602,000 Existing Housing Stock, 2001 73,700,000 26,500,000 100,200,000 Replacement time: 57.9 80.5 62.5 average lief span of buildings, estimated by replacement time method (national average, 2001) Note: Single fami y homes calculation is used for mobi e homes as a best estimate life span. Note' At this time KC staff could find no reliable data for the average fife span of commercial buildings. Therefore, the average lice span of residential buildings is being used until a better approximation can be ascertained. Sources. New Housing Construction, 2001 Quarterly Starts and Completions by Purpose and Design - US and Regions (Excel) http: / /www. census. gov /consiquarterty_starts completlons_cust.xls See also: http : / /www. census. gov / const/www /newresconstindex.html Existing Housing Stock, 2001 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) 2001 Tables HC1:Housing Unit Characteristics, Million U.S. Households 2001 Table HC1 -4a. Housing Unit Characteristics by Type of Housing Unit, Million U.S. Households, 2001 Million U.S. Households, 2001 http //www.eia. doe. gov /emeu/ recs /recs2001/hc_pdf/ housunits /hc1- 4a_housingunits2001.pdf Type (Residential) or Principal Activity (Commercial) # people/ unit or building # thousand sq feet/ unit or building it people or employees/ thousand square feet vehicle related GHG emissions (metric tonnes CO2e per person per year) MTCO2e/ year/ unit MTCO2e/ year/ thousand square feet Average Building Life Span Life span transportation related GHG emissions (MTCO2e/ per unit) Life span transportation related GHG emissions (MTCO2e/ thousand sq feet) Biodiesel Used to Operate Equiment at Facility gal/year Life span equipment operation related GHG emissions (MTCO2e) Single - Family Home 2.8 2.53 1.1 4.9 13.7 5.4 57.9 792 313 Multi- Family Unit in Large Building 1.9 0.85 1.39 2.3 4.9 9.5 11.2 80.5 766 904 Multi - Family Unit in Small Building .., 1.9 1.4 4.9 9.5 6.8 80.5 766 550 Mobile Home 2.5 1.06 2.3 4.9 12.2 11.5 57.9 709 668 Education 30.0 25.6 1.2 4.9 147.8 5.8 62.5 9247 361 Food Sales 5.1 5.6 0.9 4.9 25.2 4.5 62.5 1579 282 Food Service ......... ............................... 10.2 5.6 1.8 4.9 50.2 9.0 62.5 3141 561 Health Care Inpatient ................ ........ 455.5 241.4 1.9 4.9 2246.4 9.3 62.5 140506 582 Health Care Outpatient .......... 19.3 10.4 1.9 4.9 95.0 9.1 62.5 5941 571 Lodging 13.6 35.8 0.4 4.9 67.1 1.9 62.5 4194 117 Retail (Other Than Mall) 7.8 9.7 0.8 4.9 38.3 3.9 62.5 2394 247 Office 28.2 14.8 1.9 4.9 139.0 9.4 62.5 8696 588 Public Assembly 6.9 14.2 0.5 4.9 34.2 vo m tti N O 62.5 2137 150 Public Order and Safety ......... .. ... 18.8 15.5 1.2 4.9 92.7 62.5 5796 374 Religious Worship 4.2 10.1 0.4 4.9 20.8 62.5 1298 129 Service 5.6 6.5 0.9 4.9 27.6 62.5 1729 266 Warehouse and Storage .......... 9.9 16.9 0.6 4.9 49.0 62.5 3067 181 Other 25.0 83.4 0.3 4.9 123.4 1.5 50.0 6170 74 100,000 48163 Vacant 2.1 14.1 0.2 4.9 10.5 0.7 62.5 657 47 Transportation Emissions Worksheet Sources All data in black text # people/ unit Residential floorspace per unit # employees/thousand square feet vehicle related GHG emissions King County, DNRP. Contact: Matt Kuharic, matt.kuharic @kingcounty.gov Estimating Household Size for Use in Population Estimates (WA state, 2000 average) Washington State Office of Financial Management Kimpel, T. and Lowe, T. Research Brief No. 47. August 2007 http://www.ofm.wa.gov/researchbriefs/brief047.pdf Note: This analysis combines Multi Unit Structures in both large and small units into one category the average is used in this case although there is likely a difference 2001 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (National Average, 2001) Square footage measurements and comparisons http: //www.eia. doe .gov /emeu/recs/sgft- measure.html Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey commercial energy uses and costs (National Median, 2003) Table B2 Totals and Medians of Floorspace, Number of Workers, and Hours of Operation for Non -Mall Buildings, 2003 http: / /www.eia. doe. gov /emeu/cbers/cbecs2003/ detailed_ tables _2003 /2003set1 /2003excel/b2. xls Note: Data for # employees/thousand square feet is presented by CBECS as square feet/employee. In this analysis employees/thousand square feet is calculated by taking the inverse of the CBECS number and multiplying by 1000. Estimate calculated as follows (Washington state, 2006)_ 56,531,930,000 2006 Annual WA State Vehicle Miles Traveled Data was daily VMT. Annual VMT was 365'daily VMT. http://www.wsdotwa.gov/mapsdataffdo/annualmileage.htm 6,395,798 2006 WA state population http://quickfacts.census.gov/q1d/states/53000.html 8839 vehicle miles per person per year 0.0506 gallon gasoline/mile This is the weighted national average fuel efficiency for all cars and 2 axle, 4 wheel light trucks in 2005. This includes pickup trucks, vans and SUVs. The 0.051 gallons/mile used here is the inverse of the more commonly known term "miles/per gallon" (which is 19.75 for these cars and light trucks). Transportation Energy Data Book. 26th Edition. 2006. Chapter 4: Light Vehicles and Characteristics. Calculations based on weighted average MPG efficiency of cars and Tight trucks. http: / /cta.oml. gov /data tedb26/Edition26_Chapter04.pdf Note: This report states that in 2005, 92.3% of all highway VMT were driven by the above described vehicles. http: / /cta. oml.gov/ data /tedb26/Spreadsheets/Table3_04. xls 24.3 lbs CO2e /gallon gasoline The CO2 emissions estimates for gasoline and diesel include the extraction, transport, and refinement of petroleum as well as their combustion. Life -Cycle CO2 Emissions for Various New Vehicles. RENew Northfield. Available: http:// renewnorthfield. org/ wpcontent/uploads /2006/04/CO2%20emissions.pdf Note: This is a conservative estimate of emissions by fuel consumption because diesel fuel, 2205 lbs/metric tonne with a emissions factor of 26.55 lbs CO2e/gallon was not estimated. 4.93 vehicle related GHG emissions (metric tonnes CO2e per person per year) Commercial floorspace per unit 0.20 Asssume a 20% reduction in CO2e for using biofuel average lief span of buildings, estimated by replacement time method See Energy Emissions Worksheet tor Calculations EIA, 2003 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (National Average, 2003) Table C3. Consumption and Gross Energy Intensity for Sum of Major Fuels for Non -Malt Buildings, 2003 http: / /www.eia. doe. gov /emeuicbeks/cbecs2003/ detailed_ tales _2003 /2003set9 /2003exceVc3.xls Transportation Worksheet Background Information This section helps estimate the emissions associated with transportation of building occupants. At this time, it is based on average vehicle miles traveled by the average Washington State citizen. King County Solid Waste Division Department of Natural Resources and Parks King Street Center 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 701 Seattle, WA 98104 -3855 206 - 296 -6542 Fax 206 - 296 -0197 TTY Relay: 711 Minnie Dhaliwal, Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 -2544 RE: Transmittal of Addendum to SEPA Checklist Bow Lake Processing/Transfer Facility, King County Solid Waste Division Dear Ms. Dhaliwal: The purpose of this letter is to transmit the Addendum to SEPA Checklist for the Bow Lake Processing/Transfer Facility. We appreciate your efforts on this project. If you have any questions or comments, please call me at 206 - 263 -6476. Sincerely, Tom Creegan Engineer III TC:er TC2/Dhaliwal — Cyr Ltr for Addendum to SEPA Checklist — Final 072208 Enclosure cc: Karl Hufnagel, R.W. Beck Steve Bingham, ESA Adolfson Shirley Jurgensen, Managing Engineer, Solid Waste Division (SWD) Neil Fujii, Managing Engineer, SWD nrnEIVED Jul 2 9 2009 DEVELOPMENT July 22, 2008 ADDENDUM TO 2006 Environmental Checklist State Environmental Policy Act 2006 Facility. Master Plan Update Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station July 2008 La King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division Addendum to Environmental Checklist State Environmental Policy Act 2006 Facility Master Plan Update Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station July 2008 King County King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division King Street Center 201 S. Jackson Street Seattle, WA 98104 www.metrokc.gov/dnrp/swd This material will be provided in alternate formats upon request by contacting: King County Solid Waste Division 206 - 296 -4466 1- 800 - 325 -6155, ext. 6 -4466 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 Reason for Addendum 1 Modifications to the Project 2 Site Plan 2 Project Schedule 2 Processing 5 Analyses 7 Construction Traffic 7 Stormwater Management During Construction 10 Geotechnical Studies 11 Stormwater Discharge 14 Climate Change 15 Noise from Yard Waste /Wood Waste Grinder 17 Conclusion 18 LIST OF APPENDICES Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist Construction Traffic Impacts Appendix A Construction Traffic Forecast Appendix B Stormwater Truck Haul Analysis Appendix C GHG Emission Worksheet Appendix D Noise Assessment - Yard Waste /Wood Waste Grinder Appendix E July 2008 Introduction In 2005 and 2006, King County Solid Waste Division (KCSWD) initiated a series of engineering and environmental studies intended to determine the best means for expanding the Bow Lake Transfer/Recycling Station and to identify potential environmental impacts associated with expansion. In late summer 2006, KCSWD, acting as lead agency, prepared a State Environmental Policy Act Environmental Checklist (SEPA Checklist) for the project, Environmental Checklist, State Environmental Policy Act: 2006 Facility Master Plan Update, Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station (KCSWD, 2006). KCSWD issued a Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance (MDNS) on August 30, 2006. The lead agency determined that the proposed project did not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was not required under Chapter 20.44 County Environmental Procedures and RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). The SEPA Checklist was circulated to interested residents, adjacent landowners, municipalities, and government agencies and a public meeting was held on September 14, 2006. Responses to the SEPA Checklist were obtained from two municipalities and one private developer. Following review of comments received on the SEPA Checklist, KCSWD determined that it was desirable to provide additional information on environmental issues associated with the project and decided to temporarily withdraw the SEPA Checklist. Additional information was incorporated into a revised SEPA Checklist. Minor modifications to the Facility Master Plan (FMP) were also made in response to the new information. The revised SEPA Checklist was then recirculated and the MDNS reissued on December 21, 2006. Reason for Addendum Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist There are several reasons that have led KCSWD to prepare this Addendum to the December 2006 SEPA Checklist. As design of the project has progressed, there have been a number of modifications to the project as previously described in the 2006 SEPA Checklist. In some areas (e.g. stormwater system), design has progressed to a point where more detail is now available. In other areas, new regulations (e.g. climate change) are now in place that require additional evaluation of the project. Specific issues that will be addressed in this Addendum are listed below: 1. Site Footprint. The site footprint has changed slightly from that shown in the 2006 SEPA Checklist. 2. Construction Schedule. A more specific timetable for proposed construction activities has now been developed. 3. Processing. Since the SEPA Checklist was issued in 2006, KCSWD has added additional solid waste processing capability to the project. 4. Stormwater During Construction. In accordance with applicable requirements, more details about potential methods for handling stormwater during construction have now been developed. July 2008 1 Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist 5. Construction Traffic. Progress on the design of the facility has resulted in changes in estimates of the volumes of material and required truck trips required to haul material to and from the site. 6. Geotechnical Studies. There have been additional geotechnical studies since the SEPA Checklist was issued. 7. Stormwater System. KCSWD has determined that directing stormwater to Stream E at the base of the slope east of the site is the most desirable means of discharge. Design details have now been developed and are being reviewed by the City of Tukwila. 8. Climate Change. Since the SEPA Checklist was issued in December 2006, King County has developed SEPA requirements associated with effects of the proposed station on climate change. This Addendum to the 2006 SEPA Checklist has been prepared in accordance with King County Code (KCC), Chapter 20.44 that adopts SEPA Administrative Rules, Washington Administrative Code (WAC), Chapter 197 -11. Specifically, this Addendum follows WAC 197 -11 -625 Addenda Procedures and WAC 197 -11 -706 Addendum, which defines the purpose and nature of an Addendum. Modifications to the Project Site Plan The updated Site Plan is provided in Figure 1. Slight modifications have been made to the size and layout of the Transfer Building in the northern portion of the site. Minor changes to the recycling and yard waste areas on the south side of the Transfer Building have also been made. The offsite easement for the stormwater and sewer pipelines adjacent to the eastern boundary or the site is in the process of being negotiated and acquired. Project Schedule The Environmental Checklist described a project schedule consisting of three phases, beginning in April 2008. Construction was to be completed in June 2011. Since the Environmental Checklist was issued in December 2006, the overall construction process has been described and the project schedule refined. The facility will be constructed under two general construction contracts. Bulk excavation and grading of the site areas outside the existing station footprint and some site utility work will be conducted under the Site Preparation contract. The Site Preparation contract will be a conventional design- bid -build contract. 2 July 2008 Figure 1. General Arrangement Site Plan 1 7 GENERAL NOTES PROPERTY UNE 1. ALL 10601 AM MATERIALS Stall BE N AOCJ1EMACE WRR CRY CM 0,N125N 0010110110 SWARDS, IOC COLICY 0 5EERRIG DISIGY A10 01114022011 SOACARDS.. AW INGIIWE WATER O5'I0LR TOR WATER AND SEMI S15TN5 REFER 10 59416 A2CN SECTION 01025 FW ORJE0 6 PRODEOOICE. 2. ALL ROR( REREADING 10 965 PROEM SKILL RE DUNCE 10 245PE010N BY ME amour PERLMAN AGENUES MUD 644 1NE OM1FR'S PROJEET REP ETEYMAINE (29) DR PRY DESIGNATED REFOLD:ARA3NE. PRIOR 10 ANY $RE CORN, TIE 0412020201 9MLL CON'ACR DC PR AT (235) (*}6•16 TO SO®V.F A PROD51A.C101 CDNNEREk10. S. PRIOR 10 ANY SUE OSDPBNC ACM, NCLUDNG CORM. 1006140 OR GAMING, 1NE 012 CIFAWNG U4105 AS SHOWN ON MNESE PLANS SHALL BE LOCATED AND FE(D IDENTIFIED B" THE COUM6S PROJECT SUREYOI 119 PRY NAVE AND TELEPHONE AAAE[R ARE NWE 1044 CPEEGAN. (60 MONTI PHONE: (206) 203 4270 ♦ 1LF 00111RAL1OR s R0ONS0E 012 PRDIEI100 SRFA(1 UDR MAT GYCUIOIA4E9 CANDY. A $REACT OMR INNETI 6L PROGRAM SAW BE E51271660 BY ME 61. TIE PRY NAME AND RIDE WINER ARE: NAME: 1 044 OELO.. IND DOUAN MORE (206) 2S5 6 FREE REL?lNG AREA 1-1 O Y _ Rym . / r / l Hot LOAD AREA PLAN 5 GRANNO SCALE: 1' - BO 50096 PERYEIER ROM FAST SLOPE F11 AREA 'E2TOTUFY GONSIWCICN ACCESS 1SE0N1 SOF ENERWCE ( J'URE ENS ROES AAA CF 1 10002 500155 8110 DJYYE2CNL ENTRANCE ROT➢ 1 1 I U1NY FA0E6EN1 SELF KAM EATRNKEADD ROAD / CONSYMCDON UYR NOM SCALE FPOUIY ROAD 80676 PERIMETER SCALE iACIRT RE - ANNC WALL. DEP f STREG, ORMNG RANGE BO 0 BO 160 See* Feet UUP2 mow NA S TOADY ARM 9 - WWY1W RN OCT 0R 0■11 0AM0 4(019 LTC.SSEIED USE °MIR REYISICAI ;SRO. WI King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division 11 R.W. BWdt.250 10D1 F1922h ANw1W, Bulb 7500 BAIOW. WA 98164 -1004 (206) 605-47130 BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER DOLBY GENERAL ARRANGEMENT SITE PLAN nom -WE12 -2700 G17 Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist July 2008 3 Processing Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist The Site Preparation contract is now expected to run from October 2008 through October 2009. The remainder of the facility construction, including demolition of the existing structures, will be conducted under the Site Facilities contract. The Site Facilities contract is now scheduled to commence November 2009 and continue through Summer 2012. In order to expedite construction, the Bow Lake Transfer/Recycling Station will be closed to self -haul traffic during contractor work hours on weekdays under both the Site Preparation and Site Facilities contracts. Self -haul traffic on weekdays will utilize other solid waste facilities in south King County (e.g. Renton, Algona) and may, at times, be allowed in after construction work hours on weekdays. The Bow Lake facility will continue to serve all commercial and account- holding customers. A limited amount of processing is currently conducted at the existing Bow Lake Transfer/Recycling Station. Processing takes place primarily at the Free Recycling area south of the Scale Facility and at the Paid Recycling area south of the existing Transfer Building. As described in the 2006 SEPA Checklist, the proposed project may expand processing at the site through the addition of a Yard Waste Tipping Area and compaction of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW). Yard waste and other woody waste may be chipped and ground into a compostable material. This material would then be placed in trailers for transport to a compost facility. Within the Transfer Building, two stationary, preload compactors will compress MSW prior to loading into containers to be hauled from the site. Compaction of MSW will maximize truck payloads and reduce the number of haul trips. Since the 2006 SEPA Checklist was issued, KCSWD has further expanded future processing capability at the site. Design of the new Transfer Building will allow space for separation of specific materials (i.e. cardboard, paper, wood, metal, plastic) from the general MSW stream. All recyclable materials except wood and metal will be baled on site. A summary of materials processing activities is provided in Table 1. Note that expanded processing activities are shown in bold. July 2008 5 Facility Area Materials Processed Process Type of "Solid Waste Processing" as defined in WAC 173 - 350 -01 or WAC 173 -304 -100 Fee Recycling Area Metal Appliances Fluorescent tubes Household batteries E -Waste Collect and consolidate by material type Operation to prepare a material for reuse, recycling or disposal Yard Waste Tipping Area Woody waste Yard waste Collection and consolidation of woody waste and non- ground yard waste in trailers for transport to a composting facility One part of an operation to convert a material into a useful product Building Tipping Floor and Lower Level Cardboard Paper Wood Metal Film plastic Separation from the general Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) waste stream and consolidate by material type Bale all recyclable materials except wood and metal including material collected at the free recycle area Operations to prepare a material for reuse or recycling MSW Compact MSW in two stationary, preload compactors prior to loading into containers to maximize payloads and minimize hauling traffic and costs Operation to prepare solid waste for disposal Possible Future Facility Enhancements Wood waste chipping. Vactor decant facility Chipping and grinding of woody waste into a compostable material Dewater grit removed from storm sewers and roads and streets One part of an operation to convert a material into a useful product. Operation to prepare solid waste for disposal Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist Table 1. Material Processing Bow Lake Recycling & Transfer Station The addition of processing capability within the proposed Transfer Building required several design modifications to the interior of the structure but did not alter the overall building footprint or height. Separation and baling of selected materials from the MSW stream will reduce the volume of waste to be hauled from the site. The types of trucks used to haul separated and baled waste may be different than those used for hauling compacted waste in containers, however, the number of truck trips required is not expected to change. 6 July 2008 WSDOT Right -of -Way Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist King County has been working cooperatively with WSDOT to address right -of -way issues since an early point in the planning process. As design has progressed, more detailed information has become available regarding potential impacts on the WSDOT right -of -way, adjacent to the project site's western boundary. Construction of the retaining wall near the project site's western boundary will require clearing and grading activity within the WSDOT right -of -way. In addition, a portion of the Highline Water District water main that serves the Bow Lake Transfer/Recycling Station lies within the right -of -way. The project will include upgrading this pipeline. Both of these activities are temporary in nature. The duration of construction is estimated to range from six to nine months. Neither activity will involve disruption of the on -ramp to I -5. No significant impacts are anticipated. WSDOT has prepared a Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the right-of-way work as part of compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 23 CFR 771.117. Analyses Construction Traffic Construction traffic was first described in Section 14. f. of the 2006 SEPA Checklist for the Site Preparation and Site Facilities contracts. As design has progressed further, estimates of excavation and fill requirements have been refined and volumes of material to be exported modified. The schedules for the Site Preparation and Site Facilities contracts have also been developed in more detail. For these reasons, KCSWD has developed more detailed information concerning construction traffic and potential impacts on adjacent roadways. Additional analyses of potential construction traffic have been conducted and are summarized in this section of the Addendum. These analyses include a trip generation analysis and comparison of construction traffic with expected self -haul operations. For more detail, refer to "Bow Lake Transfer Station — Construction Impacts" in Appendix A. As described previously in the Addendum, construction activity will occur under two contracts. Under the Site Preparation contract, it is expected that site work will be conducted between October 2008 and October 2009. It is likely that most site work and heaviest traffic will occur during dry periods within this time frame. During the Site Preparation contract, construction traffic will include trucks associated with soil delivery, material export, piling and concrete, as well as worker vehicles and miscellaneous vehicle trips (e.g. deliveries, vendor visits, inspectors, etc.). In order to facilitate construction, the station will be closed to self -haul traffic during contractor work hours on weekdays under both Site Preparation and Site Facilities contracts. The Site Facilities phase will occur after completion of the Site Preparation contract. It is tentatively scheduled to occur between November 2009 and summer 2012. Construction July 2008 7 Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist traffic during this contract is expected to include trucks associated with material removal, material and equipment import, worker vehicles, and miscellaneous trips. Daily trip generation estimates for both contracts of construction are based on information provided in "Memorandum: Bow Lake Transfer/Recycling Station Facility Master Plan Update and Implementation — Construction Traffic Forecast" prepared in spring 2008. (See Appendix B.) Estimates for typical and peak conditions during the more active dry seasons are shown in Table 2. Weekday PM peak hour traffic generation for trucks and miscellaneous vehicle trips are estimated using specific amount of work hours per day. Estimates for 8 -hour and 10 -hour workdays are provided to demonstrate the effect of workday length on PM peak hour trip generation. Finally, weekday PM peak hour trips generated by workers are based on the expected number of workers and trip generation rates from Trip Generation, 7 Edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), 2004). Specifically, a trip rate of 0.42 weekday PM peak hour trips per worker is used based on the General Light Industrial land use category. Table 2. Estimates of Construction Period Trip Generation Land Use Average "Dry" Season Conditions Peak "Dry" Season Conditions Weekday Daily Trips Weekday PM Peak Hour Trips 10 -Hour 8 -Hour Workday Workday Weekday Daily Trips Weekday PM Peak Hour Trips 10 -Hour 8 -Hour Workday Workday Site Preparation' Soil Removal Trucks 80 8 10 200 20 25 Imported Material Trucks 20 2 3 20 2 3 Concrete Trucks 20 2 3 20 2 3 Workers' 90 13 13 150 21 21 Other 50 5 6 60 6 8 Total 260 30 35 450 51 60 Site Facilities' Material Removal Trucks 56 6 7 56 6 7 Imported Material Trucks 14 1 2 60 6 8 Workers' 150 21 21 450 63 63 Other 60 6 8 80 8 10 Total 280 34 38 646 83 88 Existing Operations Transfer Trailer Trucks` 116 12 15 116 12 15 Commercial Haul Trucks` 468 8 8 468 8 8 Self -Haul Vehicles` 456 34 34 456 34 34 Total 1040 54 57 1040 54 57 1. Daily trip generation based on estimates provided in Bow Lake Transfer/Recycling Station Facility Master Plan Update and Implementation — Construction Traffic Forecast (R.W. Beck, 2008). 2. Weekday PM peak hour estimates for soil removal trucks, imported material trucks, material removal trucks, and other vehicles based on daily estimates and the number of hours in a typical workday. 3. Weekday PM peak hours estimates for workers during Site Preparation and Site Facilties contracts based on the estimated number of workers and the trip rate per employee taken from Trip Generation, 7 Edition, 2003 (ITE, 2003). 4. Estimates of daily and weekday PM peak hour traffic associated with the Self -Haul Operations are based on the existing data and transaction forecasts provided by King County. 8 July 2008 Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist Self -haul traffic at the recycling and transfer station consists of passenger vehicles and small trucks. It does not include trucks used to haul solid waste from the processing/transfer facility. In Table 2, estimates of traffic associated with each self -haul operation have been calculated based on historical data and projections over the four -year construction period. Daily trip generation for the transfer trailer trucks was obtained from existing data provided by KCSWD. Weekday PM peak hour trip generation was calculated based on 8 -hour and 10 -hour workdays. For commercial and self -haul operations, future estimates of transactions over the period 2008 through 2012 have been provided based on existing data and historical growth. To determine the number of daily trips associated with these operations during the construction period, the August 2010 estimate of transactions provided by KCSWD were used. This estimate of approximately 18,000 monthly transactions is expected to represent an average number of transactions during the "dry" portion of the construction period. Of the total number of transactions, approximately 68 percent are associated with self -haul operations while the remaining 32 percent are tied to the commercial haul operations. Applying this breakdown, approximately 12,300 self -haul transactions and 5,700 commercial haul transactions are expected. The resulting daily and weekday PM peak hour trip generation expected during the two construction phases and the self -haul operations are summarized in Table 2. As shown in the table, during the dry season, the Site Preparation phase is expected to generate approximately 260 daily trips with approximately 30 to 35 of these trips occurring during the weekday PM peak hour. During the Site Facilities phase (dry season), construction is expected to generate a slightly higher number of trips, approximately 280 trips on a daily basis. Of these, approximately 34 to 38 trips are likely to occur during the weekday PM peak hour. During peak conditions, likely to be infrequent, construction activity may generate up to approximately 650 daily trips and 90 weekday PM peak hour trips. Hypothetically, in the absence of construction activities, self -haul operations are projected to generate approximately 1,040 daily trips on an average weekday over the next four years. During weekday PM peak hour, approximately 54 to 57 trips would likely occur. A comparison of construction- related trips with self -haul trips in the absence of construction indicates that trip generation associated with construction activity will be substantially less than would normally occur at the site during self -haul operations. Although weekday PM peak hour traffic during peak conditions of the Site Facilities phase of construction is expected to exceed typical self -haul trip generation by approximately 30 trips, this condition is expected to occur infrequently. Overall, with the facility closed to self -haul traffic during contractor work hours, off -site impacts to the adjacent roadway network during construction are generally expected to be within the boundaries of traffic impacts during normal operations of the processing/transfer facility. July 2008 9 Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist Several mitigation measures are intended to reduce or eliminate potential impacts associated with haul truck traffic to and from the site. • Construction documents will require all truck traffic to enter the site with a right - turn only movement. Similarly, truck traffic leaving the site will be required to exit with a right -turn only movement. This will reduce potential impacts at the Orillia Road S.W./ S.W. 188 Street intersection near the entrance to the site. • Signage will be provided as needed to alert drivers to construction activity and to facilitate vehicle movement through construction areas and vehicle access locations. • Flaggers will be utilized as needed, particularly during peak hour periods, to expedite vehicle movements through potentially congested areas. Stormwater Management During Construction The 2006 SEPA Checklist (Section 3) described surface waters in the vicinity of the project, potential impacts on water quality associated with construction and operation of the new facility, and mitigation measures that would be used to reduce or eliminate potential impacts. The SEPA Checklist also described applicable state and local regulations that will apply to stormwater management during construction. Since the SEPA Checklist was issued, additional design work has been conducted on the proposed stormwater discharge system as well as stormwater management during construction. Similar to the operational stormwater system, design work for stormwater management during construction has been developed in accordance with provisions of the King County Surface Water Design Manual (King County, 1998), as amended by the Tukwila Public Works Development Guidelines and Design and Construction Standards (Tukwila Municipal Code [TMC] 14.30.070). In order to meet City of Tukwila and Ecology regulations, KCSWD will prepare and implement a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control (TESC) Plan. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be developed as part of NPDES Permit conditions. An Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) will be developed that will describe procedures for managing and monitoring excavation activities, including procedures for identifying, testing, and handling of contaminated materials should they be encountered during site work. Each of these plans has specific measures, including Best Management Practices (BMPs), intended to reduce or eliminate potential stormwater impacts during construction. Although design is not yet complete, the elements are now available and can be used to assist regulators in refining the design to minimize potential impacts and ensure that stormwater quality meets applicable standards. Stormwater generated on the site during construction will be intercepted and conveyed to a temporary detention pond located east of the facility. Flow from the pond will be directed to a chitosan- enhanced sand filtration (CESF) treatment system with chemical treatment for suspended solids. Following 10 July 2008 Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist treatment, stormwater will be pumped to a newly- constructed pipeline to an outfall that discharges to Stream E. All construction- related stormwater will be directed to the detention pond until the permanent stormwater vaults are installed. These vaults will then provide stormwater treatment for suspended solids and will also discharge through the new stormwater pipeline to Stream E. Both the pond and vaults will remain available for construction stormwater treatment until the project can transition to sole use of the vaults. Note that any stormwater that comes into contact with burn fill or refuse material will be considered contaminated stormwater (CSW) and will be collected and hauled offsite independent of the pond or vault systems. In the event that there is a temporary delay in construction of the stormwater discharge line to Stream E (the County is in the process of obtaining an easement), on -site stormwater would be collected, treated as necessary in ponds and/or vaults to meet applicable water quality requirements and then discharged through spreaders along the upper slopes on the east side of the site. Discharged stormwater would then percolate into the soil on the vegetated hillside before infiltrating into the groundwater system. (This system is very similar to that which exists at the present time.) The temporary detention and treatment pond system would meter out flows to the spreader system. During major storm events, runoff quantities may occasionally exceed the capacities of the pond and spreader system. When this occurs, the contractor would be required to pump excess flows into portable tanks and haul the water off -site for approved disposal. In order to estimate potential truck trips resulting from major storm events, a 10 -year, 72- hour storm event was assumed. Based on projected stormwater volumes, detention pond storage volumes, and projected spreader rates, excess volumes of treated stormwater to be hauled were calculated. Assuming a tank truck with 8,000 gallons capacity, peak and average truck trips are calculated to be 3.6 and 1.6 trips per hour, with a total of 114 trips over the course of 72 hours. See Appendix C for more detail. During peak storm conditions, truck haul trips would be a small percentage of daily construction traffic and are not considered a significant traffic impact. Most storm events would be considerably less than a 10 -year event and the required truck trips correspondingly less. See Construction Traffic Section above. Geotechnical Studies Following issuance of the 2006 SEPA Checklist, additional geotechnical investigations have been conducted in support of overall project design. These provide useful information on potential geotechnical impacts of the project, recommended design elements, and mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate potential impacts. The Geotechnical Report: Slope Pipelines, Bow Lake Processing /Transfer Facility, King County Solid Waste Division, Tukwila, Washington (HWA Geosciences, Inc., 2008) July 2008 11 Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist examined geotechnical issues associated with the proposed construction of stormwater and sanitary sewer pipelines from the project site east to the valley floor. Work included a combined geotechnical and environmental subsurface exploratory program; analytical laboratory testing; and geotechnical laboratory testing and engineering analyses. The study found "...no signs of either incipient or on -going slides..." along the proposed pipeline alignment although steep gradient cuts are present on the lower slopes. The study determined that "...the proposed pipelines can be installed as planned when the engineering recommendations as presented herein are adhered to. "(HWA Geosciences, Inc., 2008). These recommendations addressed various methods of pile support in refuse and non - refuse areas, use of spread footings, use of shallow auger piles and/or pin - piles, regarding of slopes in selected areas, and buttress fill at the toe of steep slopes. The study also analyzed soil samples along the alignment for contamination associated with refuse material. Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) and total metals analyses were performed to assess offsite disposal options for excess or unsuitable soils. TCLP analysis involves evaluation of a leached extract to determine the tested material's Hazardous Waste ( "Dangerous Waste" in the State of Washington) classification for regulatory compliance and disposal purposes. Total metals analyses measure all of the selected metals in a sample. The results of these analyses indicated elevated petroleum hydrocarbon and metals concentrations near the top of the slope within the proposed pipeline alignment. The study recommended a number of measures that should be implemented during construction. These include: • Construction bid documents should include all analytical results and requirements for handling of contaminated soil and refuse, treatment/disposal requirements and health and safety requirements. • During excavation and soils handling, soils should be field screened for staining and/or odors. Prior to export, stockpiled soils should be sampled for potential contamination as required by the disposal facility. • All geotechnical studies and environmental analyses of soils should be made available to the receiving facility for review. • The contractor should be required to notify the Owner's Project Representative of suspected contaminated materials. • Contract specifications should contain provisions for testing, segregating and stockpiling materials, decontamination, and standby time for delays due to testing. • The contractor should be required to submit waste characterization, waste management, spill prevention/control, and health and safety plans. The geotechnical reports and accompanying analytical data will be made available to the Contractor. Required measures for identifying and handling contaminated materials will be incorporated into the Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) and Contract Documents. 12 July 2008 Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist The Final Geotechnical Report: Bow Lake Processing /Transfer Facility, King County Solid Waste Division, Tukwila, Washington (HWA Geosciences, Inc., 2008) is a design level geotechnical engineering study that provides recommendations for site work and construction of the new facility. The investigation examined the existing transfer station site and the WSDOT site to the north, which King County is in the process of acquiring. The work included a combined geotechnical and environmental subsurface exploratory program; analytical laboratory testing; and geotechnical laboratory testing and engineering analyses. Based on subsurface explorations, detailed cross - sections were developed throughout the site. The information generated in this study substantially increased the level of information available beyond that described in previous studies and summarized in the 2006 Environmental Checklist. More detailed information was provided on engineering properties of soils, seismicity, refuse extent and characteristics and probable settlement. This information led to development of design recommendations for specific elements of the project including the Transfer Building, the Scale Facilities, various retaining walls, the stormwater detention vaults and wastewater holding tank, and the maintenance building. A number of geotechnical measures have been incorporated into the design in order to minimize or eliminate potential geotechnical impacts related to seismicity, slope stability, and settlement. These include: • Design of structures according to International Building Code (IBC) seismic criteria. • Use of preloading methods to compress soils subject to settlement. • Use of structural fill and compaction. • Use of cast -in -place concrete, soldier pile, or mechanically- stabilized earth (MSE) designs for retaining walls. • Use of pile foundations. • Over - excavation of refuse and unsuitable soils. • Provision of landfill gas- venting systems for all buildings and vaults. In spring 2008, the Final Slope Stability Report Bow Lake Recycling and Transfer Station, King County Solid Waste Division, Tukwila, Washington (HWA Geosciences, Inc., 2008) was prepared. The document provides an evaluation of the stability of eastern and southern slopes, slope stability along the northern perimeter road, Wall E design and construction considerations, and fill handling and disposal. The scope of work included a geotechnical subsurface exploration program, slope stability analyses, engineering analyses for wall design, and design and construction recommendations. These recommendations indicate that significant slope stability impacts can be avoided using generally- accepted engineering methods. July 2008 13 Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist Starmwater Discharge The SEPA Checklist issued in December 2006 described proposed collection and treatment of stormwater generated on the project site. The SEPA Checklist also described how the stormwater system would meet all applicable requirements, specifically, the King County Surface Water Design Manual (King County, 1998) as amended by the Tukwila Public Works Development Guidelines and Design and Construction Standards (Tukwila Municipal Code [TMC] 14.30.070). The December 2006 SEPA Checklist described two possible methods for disposing of stormwater following collection and treatment, one, a pipeline down the slope east of the site with a discharge to Stream E, and two, an engineered spreader for distributing stormwater on -site near the top of the slope. More detailed analyses of these options were conducted in spring 2007. A Sensitive Area Study of Wetland and Watercourses was conducted in accordance with TMC Chapter 18.45 Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Wetlands and portions of Stream E likely to be affected by the project were surveyed and an inventory of trees on the project site was conducted in accordance with TMC Chapter 18.54 Tree Regulations. These analyses further confirmed that the preferred method for disposing of stormwater was the pipeline to Stream E, as originally described in the 2006 SEPA Checklist. Stream E is a fish - bearing watercourse that discharges to the Green River via a pump station and flow control structure referred to as the S. 180 Pump Station. Note that collection and treatment of stormwater on the project site remains the same as described in the SEPA Checklist. From the proposed stormwater treatment vaults, flows will be directed down steep slopes east of the site via pipeline (See Figure 1.). This pipe will terminate in an energy dissipating catch basin and rock -lined channel that will discharge directly into Stream E, a City of Tukwila Type 2 watercourse (See Figures 2 and 3.). More detailed information is available in Preliminary Surface Water Technical Information Report, Bow Lake Recycling and Transfer Station Project, King County (R.W. Beck, May, 2008). A sanitary sewer line will also be constructed within the pipeline corridor. Use of this pipeline will await connection with a new sewer line to be constructed on the valley floor at an undetermined future date. For the foreseeable future, sanitary flows generated at the facility will be conveyed to an on -site holding tank. Periodically, these sanitary flows will be pumped from the holding tank, trucked to the KCSWD's Cedar Hills Regional Landfill for pre- treatment in that facility's leachate ponds, and then discharged to the Metro sewer. The proposed action will have minor impacts on two wetlands along the pipeline alignment and on Stream E. Temporary wetland and stream impacts are calculated to be 948 and 280 square feet, respectively. Temporary wetland and stream buffer impacts are expected to be approximately 12,200 square feet. Permanent wetland impacts are expected to be 110 square feet. Mitigation for these impacts on wetlands and the stream 14 July 2008 Climate Change Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist will be provided on -site in accordance with the requirements of Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) Chapter 18.45 — Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Design of mitigation site(s) for the project is now underway and will be submitted to the City of Tukwila for approval. In addition, the project will have to meet state and federal requirements regarding impacts to wetlands and streams. A Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application (JARPA) was submitted on January 11, 2008 for review by state and federal agencies. Subsequently, an Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) was issued on January 28, 2008 by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WSDFW). It included standard conditions for construction of the discharge structure to Stream E. The JARPA was also reviewed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps). The Army Corps issued a Nationwide 12 Permit on March 24, 2008. The Army Corps also concurred with the assessment of "no effect" to listed species under the Endangered Species Act. The 401 Water Quality Certification and Coastal Zone Management (CZM) consistency approvals were obtained on April 3, 2008 from the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) in conjunction with the Nationwide 12 permit. The proposed Bow Lake Recycling & Transfer Facility will generate short-term emissions from construction/redevelopment of the existing facility and long -term emissions during operation of the upgraded facility. Both short-term and long -term emissions were addressed in the 2006 SEPA Checklist, including an air quality evaluation provided in Appendix E of that document. Subsequent to issuance of the SEPA Checklist in December 2006, King County issued an Executive Order on September 1, 2007, which required King County departments to evaluate the impacts on climate of actions being evaluated under authority of SEPA. These impacts included those relating to greenhouse gas emissions. Although the SEPA Checklist for the Bow Lake Processing/Transfer Facility was issued prior to this Executive Order, KCSWD determined that it was desirable to include a climate change analysis in this SEPA Addendum. Analysis of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for the proposed facility has utilized the SEPA GHG Emissions Worksheet (Version 1.7 12/26/2007) developed by King County Department of Development and Environmental Services (DDES). This worksheet identifies multiple sources of GHG emissions associated with development including: • The extraction, processing, transportation, construction and disposal of materials and landscape disturbance (Embodied Emissions); • Energy demands created by the development after it is completed (Energy Emissions); and • Transportation demands created by the development after it is completed (Transportation Demands). July 2008 15 Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist The worksheet is intended to provide estimates of GHG emissions that will be generated over the life span of a project. This includes emissions associated with obtaining construction materials, fuel used during construction, energy consumed during operation, and transportation by building occupants. See Appendix C. For the proposed Bow Lake Processing/Transfer Facility, a lifespan of 50 years is assumed. The standard of measure used in the worksheet is carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2 since CO2 is typically the most common component of GHG emissions. Using the SEPA GHG Emissions Worksheet, the total CO2 generated by construction and operation of the proposed facility over a 50 -year lifespan is estimated to be 91,581 metric tons CO2, (MTCO2 This total includes 26,918 MTCO2 based on building size (i.e. square footage), 16,500 MTCO2 based on amount of pavement (i.e. square footage), and 48,163 MTCO2 based on operation of heavy equipment within the facility. Embodied emissions included the cumulative footprints of all site structures, a total of approximately 83,400 square feet. Although use of some recycled materials (e.g. concrete, asphalt) are likely to be used for construction of the new facility, these were not included in the analysis of embodied emissions. Energy emissions were based on an energy consumption model for the proposed Transfer Building. This included a base 1,389,000,000 btu/year regulated load (e.g. lighting, heat, ventilation) and a 1,413,000,000 btu/year process load (e.g. compactor, grinder). The regulated load was applied to the remaining site buildings as a square footage ratio that resulted in 54,000,000 btu/year of energy consumption for the remainder of the site. The site will also produce approximately 38,000,000 btu/year of renewable energy from a photovoltaic solar array on the roof of the Transfer Building. The cumulative energy consumption will be 2,818,000,000 btu/year. This estimate includes heat energy recovery from the compactor equipment. Transportation emissions included a total of 25 on -site operational personnel over all shifts at the 24 -hour facility. Haulers were not included because of the variability of the operations and the different sites involved. Equipment emissions were not accounted for in the original worksheet and have been added to account for the biodiesel- powered heavy equipment to be used for on -site operations. It was assumed that there will be one full and one half time front end loader (4.5 gallons per hour); one full and one half time piece of small equipment (1.5 gallons per hour); and one full time yard tractor operating on -site at the 24 -hour facility. The resulting estimate of fuel usage was 100,000 gallons per year. The facility equipment currently operates on a fuel mixture of 20 percent biofuel and 80 percent diesel fuel. It is also important to note that the analysis applies solely to the proposed facility; no adjustment is made for replacing GHG emissions from the existing facility. To obtain incremental GHG emissions for the project, GHG emissions for the existing facility 16 July 2008 Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist would have to be subtracted from the GHG emissions for the proposed facility. Although this was not done in this evaluation, it is likely that the increment of additional GHG emissions at this location would be substantially lower than the GHG figure developed for the proposed new facility. Noise from Yard Waste/Wood Waste Grinder As discussed above, KCSWD has expanded processing capabilities at the proposed facility since the SEPA Checklist was issued in December 2006. This has included possible use of a portable grinder for yard waste and wood waste. The grinder reduces the volume of yard and wood waste, thereby reducing the number of haul truck trips from the facility. Further, grinding is one of the first steps in reprocessing of yard and wood waste into useable materials. The grinder would be located near the southwest corner of the new Transfer Building. It would be partially- enclosed within a u- shaped wall approximately 8 feet in height. Although a specific grinder has yet to be selected, KCSWD determined that it would be desirable to assess potential noise impacts from grinder operations. A noise consultant was retained by KCSWD to evaluate potential noise impact on users of the facility and the nearest residential properties. See Appendix D. This evaluation utilized representative equipment (i.e. Morbark Woodhog 2600), which the manufacturer indicated produced a noise level of 82 dBA at a distance of 100 feet at full power. Sound levels generated by grinder operations were modeled at the nearest residential properties to the transfer facility. As with previous analyses conducted for the SEPA Checklist, the Cadna/A model was used to predict potential sound levels. Projected sound levels for grinder operations were added to sound levels of other on -site equipment considered previously in the SEPA Checklist. The evaluation included both daytime and nighttime operations. Daytime noise levels at the nearest residential properties were modeled for a yard waste /wood waste grinder at the proposed facility. Noise levels ranging from 49 to 53 dBA were predicted for the residences located to the west across Interstate 5 (I -5) and at the La Pianta property line to the north. Existing background sound levels (L90s) during the day range from 68 to 71 dBA and are at least 15 dBA higher than the predicted facility sound levels at these nearest residential locations. As a result, even with the inclusion of a waste grinder at the new facility, noise from I -5 would obscure noise from daytime facility operations. Therefore, it is unlikely that noise from the facility would be audible except during rare lulls in I -5 traffic, and no adverse noise impacts are expected. For nighttime operations, inclusion of the yard waste /wood waste grinder would result in noise levels ranging from 48 to 53 dBA at the nearest residential properties. Sound levels greater than 50 dBA would not comply with the nighttime noise limit. For this reason, KCSWD does not intend to operate the waste grinder at night_ July 2008 17 Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist Conclusion A number of modifications to the Bow Lake Recycling and Transfer Station project have been made since the 2006 Checklist was issued by KCSWD. The results of evaluation of potential impacts resulting from these modifications do not change the analysis of significant impacts in the 2006 SEPA Checklist and no new probable significant environmental impacts would result. Signature The above statements are true and complete to th- best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on t i tom.. a eir decision. Signature: Name (print): 4 !N E Title: ! ✓'Srp ) 0)QC, R Date Submitted: o)— 18 July 2008 REFERENCES Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist Geomatrix. 2008. Memorandum: Noise Assessment of the Proposed Yard Waste /Wood Waste Grinder. From K. Wallace to S. Bingham, ESA Adolfson. 2 p. HWA Geosciences, Inc. 2008. Final Slope Stability Report, Bow Lake Recycling and Transfer Station, King County Solid Waste Division, Tukwila, Washington. HWA Project No. 2003 - 008 - 21. Prepared for R.W. Beck. Lynnwood, Washington. HWA Geosciences, Inc. 2008. Final Geotechnical Report, Slope Pipelines: Bow Lake Processing /Transfer Facility, King County Solid Waste Division, Tukwila, Washington. Prepared for R.W. Beck. Lynnwood, Washington. 19 p. HWA Geosciences, Inc. 2008. Technical Memorandum: Response to City Review of Geotechnical Reports, Bow Lake Recycling and Transfer Station, Tukwila, Washington. B. Thurber and S. Hong to I. Sutton, R.W. Beck. Lynnwood, Washington. 2p. HWA Geosciences, Inc. 2007. Final Geotechnical Report: Bow Lake Processing /Transfer Facility, King County Solid Waste Division, Tukwila, Washington. Prepared for R.W. Beck. Lynnwood, Washington. 49 p. King County Department of Development and Environmental Services. 2007. SEPA GHG Emissions Worksheet. Version 1.7. Seattle, Washington. 10 p. R.W. Beck. 2008. Technical Memorandum: Bow Lake Transfer/Recycling Station Facility Master Plan Update and — Construction Traffic Forecast. From K. Hufnagel to S. Bingham (ESA Adolfson) and K. Gahnberg (The Transpo Group). October 16, 2006. Revised March 27, 2008. 4p. The Transpo Group. 2008. Memorandum: Bow Lake Transfer Station — Construction Impacts. From K. Gahnberg and B. Przybyl (The Transpo Group) to K. Hufnagel (R.W. Beck). Kirkland, Washington. April 22, 2008. 4p. July 2008 19 APPENDIX A Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist Construction Traffic Impacts July 2008 Appendix A MEMORANDUM Date: May 2, 2008 TG: 021 50.00 To: Karl R. Hufnagel, P.E. - RW Beck From: Kurt Gahnberg - The Transpo Group Bart Przybyl, P.E., PTOE - The Transpo Group Subject: Bow Lake Transfer Station - Construction Impacts This memorandum may serve as an addendum to the Bow Lake Recycling /T. Transfer Station Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by Transpo in December 2006. Its purpose is to address the potential impacts of changed construction activity levels. A trip generation analysis was undertaken to estimate the number of trips that will be generated during the construction phase of the Bow Lake Recycling /Transfer Station expansion project. The estimates of construction traffic are then compared to the trips that are typically generated by the self -haul operations at the site to determine if construction traffic will now exceed typical self -haul traffic generation which will be curtailed during construction and therefore result in additional impacts to the surrounding roadway network. The following summarizes our analysis. Trip Generation Estimates The Transpo Group Construction Traffic Construction activity at the site will be performed in two phases. The Site Preparation will be done first and is scheduled to occur between August 2008 and October 2009. During this phase, construction traffic will include trucks associated with soil export, material import, concrete, as well as worker and miscellaneous (deliveries, vendor visits, etc.) trips. The Site Facilities construction phase will be done after the Site Preparation is complete and is scheduled to occur from November 2009 to Summer of 2012. Construction traffic for the Site Facilities phase will include trucks associated with material export, material and equipment import, as well as worker and miscellaneous trips. Daily trip generation associated with the two phases of construction is based on information provided in Bow Lake Transfer/ Re Station Facility Master Plan Update and Implementation — Construction Traffic Forecast prepared by Karl 1 Iufnagel, P.E., in March 2008. Estimates for typical and peak conditions during the more active "dry" season are shown. Weekday PM peak hour traffic generation for the various trucks and miscellaneous trips were estimated assuming a specific amount of work hours per day. Estimates for 8 -hour and 10 -hour workdays are provided to demonstrate the effect of the workday length on PM peak hour trip generation. Finally, weekday PM peak hour trips generated by the workers is based on the expected number of workers and trip generation rates from Trip Generation, 7th Edition, 2004, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Specifically, a trip rate of 0.42 weekday The Transpo Group Inc. 11730118th Avenue N.E., Suite 600 Kirkland, WA 98034 -7120 425.821.3665 Fax: 425.825.8434 PM peak hour trips per worker was used and is based on the General Light Industrial land use. Self -Haul Traffic Self -haul traffic at the site is comprised of transfer trailer trucks, commercial haul trucks, and passenger /small trucks associated with self -haul operations. Estimates of the traffic associated with each self -haul operation were calculated based on historical data and projections into the four -year construction period. Daily trip generation for the transfer trailer trucks was obtained from existing data provided by the Counry. Weekday PM peak hour trip generation was calculated assuming a specific amount of work hours per day. Estimates for 8 -hour and 10 -hour workdays are provided. For commercial haul and self -haul operations, future estimates of transactions from 2008 and 2012 were provided based on existing data and historical growth. To determine the number of daily trips associated with these operations during the construction period, the August 2010 estimate of transactions provided by the County were used. This estimate of approximately 18,000 monthly transactions is expected to represent an average number of transactions during the "dry" season of the construction period. Of the total number of transactions, approximately 68 percent are associated with self -haul operations while the remaining 32 percent are tied to the commercial haul operations. Applying this breakdown, approximately 12,300 self -haul transactions and 5,700 commercial haul transactions are expected. The total transaction count for each type of operation was then divided between weekday and weekend using historical data. Specifically, for commercial haul operations, approximately 91 percent of transactions occur during weekdays with the remaining 9 percent occurring on weekends. For self -haul operations, approximately 41 percent of transactions occur during the weekdays with the remaining 59 percent occurring during on weekends. Finally, the total number of weekday transactions was divided by 22 weekdays during August 2010 to achieve an estimate of the number of daily transactions. Weekday PM peak hour trips associated with commercial haul and self -haul operations were obtained by uuhzing historical hourly transaction data to determine the percentage of daily trips that occur during the weekday PM peak hour. The results indicate that approximately 1.5 percent of daily commercial haul trips and approximately 7.4 percent of daily self -haul trips occur during the weekday PM peak hour. The resulting daily and weekday PM peak hour trip generation expected during the two construction phases and the self -haul operations are summarized in Table 1. The Transpo Group Page 2 Table 1. Estimates of Construction Period Trip Generation' Land Use Total Total The Transpo Group Average "Dry" Peak "Dry" Season Conditions Season Conditions Weekday PM Weekday PM Weekday Peak Hour Trips Weekday Peak Hour Trips Daily 10 -Hour 8-Hour Daily 10-Hour 8 -Hour Trips Workday Workday Trips Workday Workday Site Preparation' Soil Removal Trucks' 80 8 10 200 20 25 Imported Material Trucks' 20 2 3 20 2 3 Concrete Trucks' 20 2 3 20 2 3 Workers' 90 13 13 150 21 21 Other' 50 5 6 60 6 8 260 30 35 450 51 60 Site Facilities' Material Removal Trucks' 56 6 7 56 6 7 Imported Material Trucks' 14 1 2 60 6 8 Workers' 150 21 21 450 63 63 Other' 60 6 8 80 8 10 280 34 38 646 83 88 Self -Haul Operations Transfer Trailer Trucks' 116 12 15 116 12 15 Commercial Haul Trucks' 468 8 8 468 8 8 Self -Haul Vehicles' 456 34 34 456 34 34 Total 1,040 54 57 1,040 54 57 1. Daily trip generation based on estimates provided in Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station Facility Master Plan Update and Implementation - Construction Traffic Forecast by Karl Hufnagel, P.E. dated March 27, 2008. 2. Weekday PM peak hour estimates for soil removal trucks, imported material trucks, material removal trucks, and other vehicles based on daily estimates and the number of hours in a typical workday. 3. Weekday PM peak hour estimates for workers during Site Preparation and Site Facilities based on the estimated number of workers and the trip rate per employee taken from Trip Generation, 7th Edition, 2003, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) for the General Light Industrial land use. 4. Estimates of daily and weekday PM peak hour traffic associated with the Self -Haul Operations are based on existing data and transaction forecasts provided by the client. As shown, the Site Preparation phase of construction during the dry season is expected to generate approximately 260 daily trips with approximately 30 to 35 of those occurring during the weekday PM peak hour. The Site Facilities phase is expected to generate a higher number of trips with a total of approximately 280 trips expected on a daily basis. Of those, approximately 34 to 38 are expected to occur during the weekday PM peak hour. During peak conditions, which are expected to occur infrequently, construction activity may generate up to approximately 650 daily trips and 90 weekday PM peak hour trips. Assuming that construction did not occur at the site and self -haul operations continued through the construction period, it is estimated that approximately 1,040 daily trips would be expected on an average weekday. During the weekday PM peak hour, approximately 54 to 57 trips would typically be expected. Comparing these estimates to the estimates of traffic during construction, it is expected that trip Page 3 generation associated with the construction activity will generally be significantly less than would normally occur at the site during self -haul operations. Although weekday PM peak hour traffic during peak conditions of the Site Facilities phase of construction is expected to exceed typical self -haul trip generation by approximately 30 trips, this is expected to occur infrequently. As a result, off -site impacts to the nearby roadway network during construction are generally expected to be within the boundaries of traffic impacts during normal operations and no additional analysis or mitigation will be required. The Transpo Group Page 4 APPENDIX B Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist Construction Traffic Forecast July 2008 Appendix B October 16, 2006 Revised March 27, 2008 Technical Memorandum From: Karl Hufnagel, P.E. To: Steve Bingham, ESA Adolfson Kurt Gahnberg, The Transpo Group Subject: Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station Facility Master Plan Update and Implementation — Construction Traffic Forecast Background The purpose of this memorandum is to provide an estimate of the construction traffic traveling to and from the project site during the approximately four years that construction will be in progress at the site. As currently envisioned, the site construction will take place under two consecutive contracts: a Site Preparation contract scheduled to run from August 1, 2008 through October 31, 2009, and a Site Facilities contract scheduled to run from November 1, 2009 through Summer/Fall 2012. Note that periods of heavy traffic will likely be within the Dry Season (April 30 — October 1) of each year. Site Preparation Contract This is primarily an earthworks contract with some retaining wall and stormwater system construction. At the completion of this construction the site will be "winterized" to protect it from stormwater erosion during the winter months of 2009/2010. Soil Removal: Based on preliminary estimates there is expected to be approximately 167,000 cubic yards of material excavated and removed from site. At 20 cubic yards per dump truck and pup trailer, this material will require around 8,350 round trip truck trips to /from the site over an estimated thirteen month period. Assuming that the work is carried out only on weekdays, this would be 280 hauling days or an average of 30 truck trips per day. The Dry Season will be more conducive to earthworks and will result in more truck trips, while the Wet Season will limit truck trips. It's expected that there will be 130 days of Dry Season hauling and 150 days on Wet Season hauling. Assuming twice the production in the Dry Season as the Wet Season, results in an average 20 truck trips per day in the Wet Season and 40 truck trips per day in the Dry Season. The peak truck trips per day are expected to occur in the Dry Season at approximately 100 truck trips per day. Construction Traffic Forecast Technical Memorandum October 16, 2006 (Revised March 27, 2008) Page 2 Imported Materials: It is estimated that there will be around 20,000 of earthwork material brought in to the site over a period of five months. At 20 cubic yards per dump truck and pup trailer, this material will require about 1,000 round trip truck trips. Assuming the work is carried out on weekdays, this would be around 108 hauling days or an average of 10 truck trips per day. These trips are expected to coincide with the soil removal trips. Concrete: It is estimated that there will be around 1,000 cubic yards of concrete brought to the site during the site preparation work, primarily for retaining walls. At 10 cubic yards per truck, this would require 100 truck trips. It is expected that concrete will be delivered and placed at an average rate of around 100 cubic yards per day, which equates to 10 truck trips per day. These trips are expected to coincide with the soil removal and soil import trips. Workers: The average workforce during the site preparation work is expected to be around 30 with a peak work force of 50. These workers are expected to park on site and to make an average of 1.5 round trips to the site each day. The peak workforce days are expected to coincide with the soil removal, import material and the concrete delivery trips. Other: It is expected there will be other miscellaneous materials deliveries, vendor visits, labor union visits, contractor home office visits and County and consultant daily visits or between 25 and 30 per day throughout the life of the construction. Total: Wet Season average daily traffic is expected to be around 110 trips. Dry Season average daily traffic is expected to be approximately 130 trips. Peak daily traffic in the Dry Season is expected to be 225 trips. Site Facilities Contract This is primarily a building, pavement and utilities contract with some additional earthwork, and site retaining wall construction. Material Removal: An estimated 20,000 cubic yards of rubble from the demolition of the existing transfer building and pavements and 27,000 cubic yards of refuse will be removed during Phase 2 Construction Traffic Forecast Technical Memorandum October 16, 2006 (Revised March 27, 2008) Page 3 of this contract. At an average load of 20 cubic yards, this equates to 2,400 truck trips over a four month period, or around 28 trips per day. Imported Materials: The estimated material types, quantities, load size and number trips are provided in the following table: Concrete Road A re ates Structural Fill, Drain Rock Hot Mix As halt Roadway A • . urtenances Topsoil & Amendments 4" and larger Utility Pi .e Manholes /CBs Metal Buildin Electrical E. ui. ment Plumbing Pipe & Fixtures Comsactors Industrial Wastewater Treatment S stem Miscellaneous Total 7,700 CY 13,000 CY 38,000 CY 4,000 CY 4,000 CY 15,000 LF 80 EA 10 CY 20 CY 20 CY 20 CY 20 CY 2,000 LF 6 EA 770 650 1,900 200 20 200 8 14 50 50 20 10 20 1000 4,912 These material delivery trips are expected to occur on weekday over the full 32 month construction period (695 weekdays). The average daily trips would therefore be around 7. It is estimated that a peak day for this category could be 30 trips. Workers: The average workforce during the site facilities work is expected to be around 50 with a peak work force of 150. These workers are expected to park on site and to make an average of 1.5 round trips to the site each day. Construction Traffic Forecast Technical Memorandum October 16, 2006 (Revised March 27, 2008) Page 4 Other: It is expected that there will be other miscellaneous materials deliveries, vendor visits, labor union visits, contractor home office visits and County and consultant daily visits or between 30 and 40 per day throughout the life of the construction. Total: Disregarding the months when soil is being removed from site, the average daily traffic is expected to be around 112 trips. The peak daily traffic is expected to be around 300 trips. APPENDIX C Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist Stormwater Truck Haul Analysis July 2008 Appendix C Duration (hr) Tributary Areas (ac) Volume Factors (ac -ft) Volume (ac-ft) Total Volume (cf) Treatment or Haul Design Rate (gph) Treatment or Haul Volume (cf) Storage Volume (cf) Storage Volume (gal) Required Haul Rate (gph) Load equivalent (4) Duration (hrs) Loads per time step (4) Impervious Soil Impervious Soil Impervious Soil 1 6.6 5.7 0.04 0.02 0.3 0.1 16466 0 0 16466 123,163 0 0 0 0 2 6 6 5.7 0.06 0.03 0.4 0.2 24699 50000 6684 18014 134,745 28500 3.5625 1 3.5625 3 6 6 5.7 0.08 0.04 0,5 0.2 32931 50000 13369 19562 146,327 28500 3.5625 1 3.5625 4 6 6 5.7 0.09 0 04 0.6 0.2 35806 50000 20053 15753 117,831 28500 3.5625 1 3.5625 5 6 6 5.7 0.10 0 05 0.7 0.3 41164 50000 26738 14426 107,908 28500 3.5625 1 3.5625 6 6 6 5.7 0.11 0 06 0.7 0.3 46522 50000 33422 13100 97,985 28500 3.5625 3 10.6875 9 6.6 5.7 0.16 0 09 1.1 0.5 68346 50000 53476 14870 111,225 28500 3.5625 3 10.6875 12 6.6 5.7 0.18 010 1.2 0.6 76578 40000 58824 17755 132,807 18500 2.3125 6 13.875 18 6.6 5.7 0.23 014 1.5 0.8 100885 40000 90909 9976 74,620 18500 2.3125 6 13.875 24 6.6 5.7 0.27 018 1.8 1.0 122316 35000 107620 14696 109,927 13500 1.6875 24 40.5 48_ - 72 72 _ _ 6.6 6.6 _.._. .._._._5.7___...,..____.._0.41- 5.7 0.36 0 25 ''�___ 0 28 2.4 ___........_._..2.7' 1.4 165572 25000 157086 8486 63,475 3500 0.4375 24 y 10.5 1.6 187395 20000 189840 -2444 (18.285) -1500 0 24 0 CONSTRUCTION RUNOFF: ON -SITE DISPERSION 8 TRUCKING ANALYSIS (7115/08) Storage Volume Required' 19562 146.327 ct gal Add 20' to Required Storage 234751 cf NOTES: 1 Assumes 4 on -site dispersion trenches able to discharge at a total flow rate of 0.8 cfs (= 21,500 gph) 2 Assumes 2 Baker Tanks on -site with a total storage volume of 5,610 cf (= 42,000 gallons) 3 Total live storage is TESC Storage Pond + 2 Baker Tanks = 23,500 cf 4 Therefore, need a peak truck haul rate for the 10 -year, 72 -hour event of 28.500 gph 5 If assume a tank truck with 8,000 gallons capacity then 3.6 truck loads per hour (about 1 truck every 15 to 20 minutes leaving and entering the site) 6 The basin is the same as assumed for the CESF system plus 1 additional acre of impervious to be conservative (total = 12.3 ac) 7 Assumes a 1 -hr ramp up time where no flows are released or hauled (see first time step) Total truck loads -> 114 APPENDIX D GHG Emission Worksheet Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist July 2008 Appendix D i.� Geomatrix Memorandum TO: Steve Bingham, ESA Adolfson DATE: February 26, 2008 FROM: Kristen Wallace PROJ. NO.: 12209.000.0 CC: Karl Hufnagel, R.W. Beck PROJ. Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling NAME: Station Upgrade Noise Assessment of the Proposed Yard Waste/Wood Waste Grinder SUBJECT: As part of the proposed upgrade of the Bowlake Transfer /Recycling Station, King County is proposing to install a yard waste /wood waste grinder at the new transfer building. Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. (Geomatrix) was asked to assess whether the addition of the grinder would result in any additional noise impacts when compared to the SEPA documentation. The results of our analysis follow. The yard waste /wood waste grinder would be located near the southwest corner of the new transfer building, partially surrounded by a u- shaped wall approximately 8 feet in height. The specific grinder proposed for the site had not been identified at the time of this analysis, so Geomatrix used the sound level of a Morbark Woodhog 2600 as a representative piece of equipment, which the manufacturer identified as 82 dBA at a distance of 100 feet with the unit running at full power. To estimate the additional noise expected from the grinder, Geomatrix modeled the sound levels of the grinder at the nearest residential properties to the transfer facility. As with the assessment conducted for the SEPA checklist, Geomatrix used the Cadna/A noise model to predict future sound levels from the grinder. The projected sound levels of the proposed grinder were added to the sound levels of the other on -site equipment considered previously for the SEPA evaluation. Daytime Operation Inclusion of a yard waste /wood waste grinder in addition to the equipment specified in the SEPA checklist results in predicted daytime sound levels ranging from 49 to 53 dBA at the nearest residences on the hill to the west and at the Pianta property line north of the site. The existing background sound levels (L9os) during the day range from 68 to 71 dBA and are at least 15 dBA higher than the predicted facility sound levels at these nearest residential locations. Consequently, even with inclusion of a grinder at the transfer facility, noise from the freeway would obscure noise from the facility operations. Therefore, it is unlikely that noise from the facility would be audible except during rare lulls in I -5 traffic, and no adverse noise impacts are anticipated. 3500188th Street SW, Suite 600 Lynnwood, Washington 98037 -4763 Tel 425.921.4000 Fax 425.921.4040 www.geomatrix.com i.: Geomatrix Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station Upgrade February 26, 2008 Page -2- Nighttime Operation For nighttime operations, inclusion of the yard waste /wood waste grinder in the modeling results in predicted overall sound levels ranging from 48 to 53 dBA at the nearest residential properties. Sound levels greater than 50 dBA would not comply with the nighttime noise limit. Therefore, we recommend that the grinder only be operated during daytime hours (i.e., between 7 a.m. to 10 p.m.). Conclusion During daytime operations, predicted noise levels from the upgraded Bowlake Transfer/Recycling Station with inclusion of the yard waste /wood waste grinder would easily comply with the daytime noise limit at the nearest residential properties, are at least 15 dBA lower than the existing background sound levels (primarily from the adjacent freeway), and are not be expected to result in any adverse noise impacts. During nighttime operations, predicted sound levels with the grinder are greater than 50 dBA at residential locations on the hillside west of the facility and would not comply with the nighttime noise limits. Therefore, operation of the grinder should be restricted to daytime hours only. 3500 188th Street SW, Suite 600 Lynnwood, Washington 98037 -4763 Tel 425.921.4000 Fax 425.921.4040 www.geomatrix.com APPENDIX E Noise Assessment Yard Waste /Wood Waste Grinder Addendum to 2006 SEPA Checklist July 2008 Appendix E King County Department of Development and Environmental Services SEPA GHG Emissions Worksheet Version 1.7 12/26/07 Introduction The Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires environmental review of development proposals that may have a significant adverse impact on the environment. If a proposed development is subject to SEPA, the project proponent is required to complete the SEPA Checklist. The Checklist includes questions relating to the development's air emissions. The emissions that have traditionally been considered cover smoke, dust, and industrial and automobile emissions. With our understanding of the climate change impacts of GHG emissions, King County requires the applicant to also estimate these emissions. Emissions created by Development GHG emissions associated with development come from multiple sources: • The extraction, processing, transportation, construction and disposal of materials and landscape disturbance (Embodied Emissions) • Energy demands created by the development after it is completed (Energy Emissions) • Transportation demands created by the development after it is completed (Transportation Emissions) GHG Emissions Worksheet King County has developed a GHG Emissions Worksheet that can assist applicants in answering the SEPA Checklist question relating to GHG emissions. The SEPA GHG Emissions worksheet estimates all GHG emissions that will be created over the life span of a project. This includes emissions associated with obtaining construction materials, fuel used during construction, energy consumed during a buildings operation, and transportation by building occupants. Using the Worksheet 1. Descriptions of the different residential and commercial building types can be found on the second tabbed worksheet ( "Definition of Building Types "). If a development proposal consists of multiple projects, e.g. both single family and multi - family residential structures or a commercial development that consists of more than on type of commercial activity, the appropriate information should be estimated for each type of building or activity. 2. For paving, estimate the total amount of paving (in thousands of square feet) of the project. 3. The Worksheet will calculate the amount of GHG emissions associated with the project and display the amount in the "Total Emissions" column on the worksheet. The applicant should use this information when completing the SEPA checklist. 4. The last three worksheets in the Excel file provide the background information that is used to calculate the total GHG emissions. 5. The methodology of creating the estimates is transparent; if there is reason to believe that a better estimate can be obtained by changing specific values, this can and should be done. Changes to the values should be documented with an explanation of why and the sources relied upon. 6. Print out the `Total Emissions" worksheet and attach it to the SEPA checklist. If the applicant has made changes to the calculations or the values, the documentation supporting those changes should also be attached to the SEPA checklist. T A. e Residential or Princi a al Activi Commercial Square Feet (in thousands of # Units .uare feet Embodied Energy Transportation i espan Emissions MTCO2e Sin.le -Famil Horne 0 C 1 98 672 792 0 y t t , 0t3"WE311 33 357 766 0 Multi -Famil Unit in Small Buildin. 0 j 54 681 766 0 Mobile Home . .... .. ... .. .... 0 ; roT `!`? 1 41 475 709 0 Education 1111. „k¢ r 39 646 361 0 Food Sales'• 0.0 39 1,541 282 0 Food Service ....................... ..... n4 0.0 39 1.994 561 0 Health Care In.atient r 3 0.0 39 1,938 582 0 Health Care Out. :tient1 0.0 39 737 571 0 Lodgin. " 0.0 39 777 117 0 Retail Other Than Mall”' 0.0 39 577 247 0 Office S cb' 0.0 39 723 0 PublicAssembl*, 0.0 39 733 150 0 Public Order and Safe . + 0.0 39 899 374 0 Reli.ious Worshi. ; €a "... S 0.0 39 339 129 0 Service s =slk 0.0 39 599 266 0 Warehouse and Stora.e 0.0 39 352 • 181 0 Other 83.4 39 210 74 26918 Vacant ........... ....... .. ... . A •• 0.0 39 162 47 0 Section 1: Buildings Emissions Per Unit or Per Thousand Square Feet (MTCO2e Section 1I: Pavement Pavement 330.00 E a 5764 1 "1Ef 16500 Section 111: Facility Equipment quipmen mmissions r • e vi Via' g r. °' s "s /14 T-171. 48163 Version 1.7 12/26/07 Project Emissions: 91581 Type (Residential) or Principal Activity (Commercial) Description Single- Family Home Unless otherwise specified, this includes both attached and detached buildings Multi - Family Unit in Large Building Apartments in buildings with more than 5 units Multi - Family Unit in Small Building Apartments in building with 2 -4 units Mobile Home Education Buildings used for academic or technical classroom instruction, such as elementary, middle, or high schools, and classroom buildings on college or university campuses. Buildings on education campuses for which the main use is not classroom are included in the category relating to their use. For example, administration buildings are part of "Office," dormitories are "Lodging," and libraries are "Public Assembly." Food Sales Buildings used for retail or wholesale of food. Food Service Buildings used for preparation and sale of food and beverages for consumption. Health Care Inpatient Buildings used as diagnostic and treatment facilities for inpatient care. Health Care Outpatient Buildings used as diagnostic and facilities for outpatient care. Doctor's or dentist's office are included here if they use any type of diagnostic medical equipment (it they do not, they are categorized as an office building). Lodging .......................... Buildings used to offer multiple accommodations for short-term or long -term residents, including skilled nursing and other residential care buildings. Retail (Other Than Mall) Buildings used for the sale and display of goods other than food. Office Buildings used for general office space, professional office, or administrative offices. Doctor's or dentist's office are included here if they do not use any type of diagnostic medical equipment (if they do, they are categorized as an outpatient health care building). Public Assembly Buildings in which people gather for social or recreational activities, whether in private or non - private meeting halls. Public Order and Safety Buildings used for the preservation of law and order or public safety. Religious Worship Buildings in which people gather for religious activities, (such as chapels, churches, mosques, synagogues, and temples). Service Buildings in which some type of service is provided, other than food service or retail sales of goods Warehouse and Storage Buildings used to store goods, manufactured products, merchandise, raw materials, or personal belongings (such as self- storage). Other Buildings that are industrial or agricultural with some retail space; buildings having several different commercial activities that, together, comprise 50 percent or more of the floorspace, but whose largest single activity is agricultural, industrial/ manufacturing, or residential; and all other miscellaneous buildings that do not fit into any other category. Vacant .............. .. Buildings in which more floorspace was vacant than was used for any single commercial activity at the time of interview. Therefore, a vacant building may have some occupied floorspace. Definition of Building Tvoes Sources: Residential 2001 Residential Energy Consumption Survey Square footage measurements and comparisons http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/sqft-measure.html Commercial Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS), Description of CBECS Building Types http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/pba99/bIdgtypes.html Type (Residential) or Principal Activity (Commercial) a thousand sq feet/ unit or building Life span related embodied GHO missions (MTCO2e/ unit) Life span related embodied GHO missions (MTCO2e/ thousand square feet) - See calculations in table below Single -Family Home 2 53 98 39 Multi-Family Unit In Large Budding 0 85 33 39 Multi- Family Unit in Small Building 1.39 54 39 Mobile Home ...... 1 06 41 39 Education ...... ... .... 25.6 991 39 Food Sales ... .. 5.6 217 39 Food Service ... .... ... 5.6 217 39 Health Care Inpatient 241.4 9,346 39 Health Care Outpatient ... .. 10.4 403 39 Lodging .............. .. .. 35.8 1,386 39 Retail (Other Than Mall).. ... 9.7 376 39 Office ...................... 14.8 573 39 Public Assembly .. .......... 14 2 550 39 Public Order and Safety 15 5 600 39 Religious Worship . .... 10 1 391 39 Service ..... .. 6 5 252 39 Warehouse and Storage . ... 16 9 654 39 Other ............ 83 4 3,229 39 Vacant .., 14.1 546 39 Sources All data in black text Residential floorspace per unit Floorspace per building Average GWP (lbs CO2e/sq ft): Vancouver. Low Rise Building Average Materials in a 2,272 - square foot single family home Average window size Embodied Emissions Worksheet Section I: Buildings Section 11: Pavement ..... ................... 11::x: King County, DNRP. Contact Man Kuharic, matt.kuharic®kingcounty.gov 2001 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (National Average, 2001) Square footage measurements end comparisons http://www.eia.cloe.gov/emouPecs/sgft-measurehtml EIA, 2003 Commercial Buildmps Energy Consumption Survey (National Average, 2003) Table C3. Consumption and Gross Energy Intensity for Sum of Major Fuels for Non -Mall Buildings, 2003 http: / /www.ela. doe. gov /ema Wcbecs/ cbecs2003/ detallad_ tables_2003/2003set9/2003exceVc 3. xis Athena EcoCalcutator Athena Assembly Evaluation Tool v2.3- Vancouver Low Rise Building Assembly Average GWP (kg) Der square meter http: / /wow athenasml. ca /tools/ecoCalculatorindex.html Lbs per kg 2.20 Square feet per square meter 10.76 Buildings Energy Data Book 7 3 Typical/Average Household Materials Used in the Construction of a 2,272 - Square -Foot Single- Family Home, 2000 http: //tuildingsdatebook.eren doe gov /lid= view_book_table &Teble1D= 2036 &t=xls See also NAHB, 2004 Housing Facts, Figures and Trends, Feb. 2004, p. 7 Energy Information AdrnrnisuatienMousing Characteristics 1993 Appendix 9, (Duality of the Data. Pg 5. itp: / /itp.aia.doe.gov/pub/consumption/residentiat/rx93hcf .pdf Columns and Beams Intermediate Floors Exterior Walls Windows Interior Walls Roots Average GWP (Ibs CO2e/sq ft): Vancouver, Low Rise Building 5 3 7.8 19.1 51.2 5.7 21.3 Average Materials In a 2,272 -square foot single family home 0 0 2269.0 3206.0 285.0 6050.0 3103.0 Total Embodied Emissions (MTCO2e) Total Embodied Emissions (MTCO2e/ thousand sq feet) MTCO2e 0 0 8.0 27.8 6.6 15.6 30.0 88.0 38.7 Sources All data in black text Residential floorspace per unit Floorspace per building Average GWP (lbs CO2e/sq ft): Vancouver. Low Rise Building Average Materials in a 2,272 - square foot single family home Average window size Embodied Emissions Worksheet Section I: Buildings Section 11: Pavement ..... ................... 11::x: King County, DNRP. Contact Man Kuharic, matt.kuharic®kingcounty.gov 2001 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (National Average, 2001) Square footage measurements end comparisons http://www.eia.cloe.gov/emouPecs/sgft-measurehtml EIA, 2003 Commercial Buildmps Energy Consumption Survey (National Average, 2003) Table C3. Consumption and Gross Energy Intensity for Sum of Major Fuels for Non -Mall Buildings, 2003 http: / /www.ela. doe. gov /ema Wcbecs/ cbecs2003/ detallad_ tables_2003/2003set9/2003exceVc 3. xis Athena EcoCalcutator Athena Assembly Evaluation Tool v2.3- Vancouver Low Rise Building Assembly Average GWP (kg) Der square meter http: / /wow athenasml. ca /tools/ecoCalculatorindex.html Lbs per kg 2.20 Square feet per square meter 10.76 Buildings Energy Data Book 7 3 Typical/Average Household Materials Used in the Construction of a 2,272 - Square -Foot Single- Family Home, 2000 http: //tuildingsdatebook.eren doe gov /lid= view_book_table &Teble1D= 2036 &t=xls See also NAHB, 2004 Housing Facts, Figures and Trends, Feb. 2004, p. 7 Energy Information AdrnrnisuatienMousing Characteristics 1993 Appendix 9, (Duality of the Data. Pg 5. itp: / /itp.aia.doe.gov/pub/consumption/residentiat/rx93hcf .pdf Pavement EJntsslons Factors MTCO2e/dwusand square feet ot asphalt or concrete pavement 50 (see below) Embodied GHG Emissions Worksheet Background Information Buildings Embodied GHG emissions are emissions that are created through the extraction, processing. transportation, construction and disposal of building materials as well as emissions created through landscape disturbance (by both soil disturbance and changes in above ground biomass). Estimating embodied GHG emissions is new field of analysis: the estimates are rapidly improving and becoming more Inclusive of all elements of construction and development. The estimate included in this worksheet Is calculated using average values for the main construction materials that are used to create a typical family home. In 2004, the National Association of Home Builders calculated the average materials that are used in a typical 2,272 square foot single - family household. The quantity of materials used is then multiplied by the average GHG emissions associated with the life -cycle GHG emissions for each material. This estimate is a rough and conservative estimate; the actual embodied emissions for a project are likely to be higher. For example, at this stage, due to a lack of comprehensive data. the estimate does not include important factors such as landscape disturbance or the emissions associated with the interior components of a building (such as fumiture). King County realizes that the calculations for embodied emissions in this worksheet are rough. For example, the emissions associated with building 1,000 square feet of a residential building will not be the same as 1,000 square feet of a commercial building. However, discussions with the construction community indicate that while there are significant differences between the different types of structures, this method of estimation is reasonable; it will be improved as more data become available. Additionally, if more specific information about the project is known, King County recommends two online embodied emissions calculators that can be used to obtain a more tailored estimate for embodied emissions: www.buildCarbonneutral.orq and www.athenasmi.ca/tools/ecoCalculator/. Pavement Four recent life cycle assessments of the environmental impacts of roads form the basis for the per unit embodied emissions of pavement. Each study is constructed in slightly different ways; however, the aggregate results of the reports represent a reasonable estimate of the GHG emissions that are created from the manufacture of paving materials, construction related emissions, and maintenance of the pavement over its expected life cycle. For specifics, see the worksheet Special Section: Estimatina the Embodied Emissions for Pavement Four recent life cycle assessments of the environmental impacts of roads tone the basis for the per unit embodied emissions of pavement. Each study is constructed in slightly different ways; however, the aggregate results of the reports represent a reasonable estimate of the GHG emissions that are created from the manufacture of paving materials, construction related emissions, and maintenance of the pavement over its expected life cycle. The results of the studies are presented in different units and measures; considerable effort was undertaken to be able to compare the results of the studies In a reasonable way. For more details about the below methodology, contact matt. kuharic @ kingcounty.gov. The four studies, Mail (2001), Park (2003), Stripple (2001) and Treolar (2001) produced total GHG emissions of 4-34 MTCO2e per thousand square feet of finished paving (for similar asphalt and concrete based pavements). This estimate does not including downstream maintenance and repair of the highway. The average (for all concrete and asphalt pavements In the studies, assuming each study gets one data point) is -17 MTCO2e4housand square feet. Three of the studies attempted to thoroughly account for the emissions associated with long term maintenance (40 years) of the roads. Stripple (2001), Park et al. (2003) and Treolar (2001) report 17, 81, and 68 MTCO2e/thousand square feet, respectively. after accounting for maintenance of the roads. Based on the above discussion, King County makes the conservative estimate that 50 MTCO2e /thousand square feet of pavement (over the development's life cycle) will be used as the embodied emission factor for pavement until better estimates can be obtained This is roughly equivalent to 3,500 MTCO2e per lane mile of road (assuming the lane is 13 feet wide) It is important to note that these studies estimate the embodied emissions tor roads. Paving that does not need to stand up to the rigors of heavy use (such as parking lots or driveways) would likely use less materials and hence have lower embodied emissions. Sources: Mail, J. A Life Cycle Perspective on Concrete and Asphalt Roadways: Embodied Primary Energy and Global Warming Potential. 2006. Available: htto: //www.cement.cal cement. nsf/ eee9ec7bbd630126852566640052107b /6ec79dc8ae03a782852572b90061 b9 1 4/$FI LE/ATTKOW E3 /athena %20reoort%20Feb. %202 %202007.pd( Park, K, Hwang, Y., Seo, S., MASCE, and Seo, H. ,'Quantitative Assessment of Environmental Impacts on Life Cycle of Highways, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management , Vol 129, January/February 2003, pp 25-31, (DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733- 9364(2003)129:1(25)). Stripple, H. Life Cycle Assessment of Road. A Pilot Study for Inventory Analysis. Second Revised Edition. IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute Ltd. 2001. Available: http://www.ivLse/raoporterticlf/B1210E.odf Treloar, G., Love, P.E.D., and Crawford, R.H. Hybrid Life -Cycle Inventory for Road Construction and Use. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. P. 43 -49. January/February 2004. Type (Residential) or Principal Activity (Commercial) Energy consumption per building per year (million Btu) Carbon Coefficient for Buildings MTCO2e per building per year Floorspace per Building (thousand square feet) MICE per thousand square feet per year MTCO2e per thousand square feet per year Average Building Life Span Lifespan Energy Related MTCO2e emissions per unit Llfespan Energy Related MTCO2e emissions per thousand square feet Single - Family Home 107.3 0.108 11.61 2.53 4.6 16.8 57.9 672 266 Multi- Family Unit in Large Building 41.0 0.108 4.44 0.85 5.2 19.2 80.5 357 422 Multi- Family Unit in Small Building 78.1 0.108 8.45 1.39 6.1 22.2 80.5 681 489 Mobile Home 75.9 0 108 8.21 1.06 7.7 28.4 57.9 475 448 Education .. 2,125.0 0 124 264.2 25.6 10.3 37.8 62.5 18,526 646 Food Sales 1,110.0 0124 138.0 5.6 24.6 90.4 62.5 8,632 1,541 Food Service 1,436.0 0.124 178.5 5.6 31.9 116.9 62.5 11,168 1,994 Health Care Inpatient ... 60,152.0 . 0 124 7,479.1 241.4 31.0 113.6 62.5 467,794 1,938 Health Care Outpatient 985.0 0.124 122.5 10.4 11.8 43.2 62.5 7,660 737 Lodging 3,578.0 0124 444.9 35.8 12.4 45.6 62.5 27,826 777 Retail (Other Than Mall). 720.0 0.124 89.5 9.7 9.2 33.8 62.5 5,599 577 Office 1,376.0 0.124 171.1 14.8 11.6 42.4 62.5 10,701 723 Public Assembly 1,338.0 0.124 166.4 14.2 11.7 43.0 62.5 10,405 733 Public Order and Safety .. ...... 1,791.0 0.124 222.7 15.5 14.4 52.7 62.5 13,928 899 Religious Worship 440.0 0.124 54.7 10.1 5.4 19.9 62.5 3,422 339 Service 501.0 0.124 62.3 6.5 9.6 35.1 62.5 3,896 599 Warehouse and Storage .. ..... 764.0 0.124 95.0 16.9 5.6 20.6 62.5 5,942 352 Other ... ............................... .. 2,818.0 0.124 350.4 83.4 4.2 15.4 50.0 17,519 210 Vacant 294.0 0.124 36.6 14.1 2.6 9.5 62.5 2,286 162 Energy Emissions Worksheet Sources All data in black text Energy consumption for residential buildings Energy consumption for commercial buildings EIA, 2003 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (National Average, 2003) and Table C3. Consumption and Gross Energy Intensity for Sum of Major Fuels for Non -Mall Buildings, 2003 Floorspace per building http / /www.eia. doe. gov / emeu /cbecs/cbecs2003/ detailed_ tables _2003 /2003set9 /2003excel/c3.xls Carbon Coefficient for Buildings Residential floorspace per unit King County, DNRP. Contact: Matt Kuharic, matt.kuharic ®kingcounty.gov 2007 Buildings Energy Data Book: 6.1 Quad Definitions and Comparisons (National Average, 2001) Table 6.1.4: Average Annual Carbon Dioxide Emissions for Various Functions http // buildingsdatabook.eren.doe.gov/ Data also at: http: / /www.eia. doe. gov /emeu/ recs/ recs2001_ ce/ce1- 4c_housingunits2001.html Note: Data in plum color is found in both of the above sources (buildings energy data book and commercial buildings energy consumption survey). Buildings Energy Data Book (National average, 2005) Table 3.1.7. 2005 Carbon Dioxide Emission Coefficients for Buildings (MMTCE per Quadrillion Btu) http //buildingsdatabook.eere. energy. gov /?id= view_book_table &TableID =2057 Note: Carbon coefficient in the Energy Data book is in MICE per Quadrillion Btu. To convert to MTCO2e per million Btu, this factor was divided by 1000 and multiplied by 44/12. 2001 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (National Average, 2001) Square footage measurements and comparisons http: / /www. eia. doe .gov /emeu/recs/sgft -measu re. html average lief span of buildings, estimated by replacement time method (national average, 2001) Note: Single fami y homes calculation is used for mobile homes as a best estimate lite span. Note: At this time KC staff could find no reliable data for the average life span of commercial buildings. Therefore, the average life span of residential buildings is being used until a better approximation can be ascertained. Sources: New Housing Construction, 2001 Quarterly Starts and Completions by Purpose and Design - US and Regions (Excel) http: / /www. census. gov /const/q uarterly _starts_completions_cust.xls See also: httpJ/www. census. gov / const/www /newresconstindex.html Existing Housing Stock, 2001 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) 2001 Tables HC1:Housing Unit Characteristics, Million U.S. Households 2001 Table HC1 -4a. Housing Unit Characteristics by Type of Housing Unit, Million U.S. Households, 2001 Million U.S. Households, 2001 http://www.ela.doe.goviemeu/recs/recs2001/hc_pdVhousunits/hcl - 4a_housingunits2001.pdf Single Family Homes Multi - Family Units in Large and Small Buildings All Residential Buildings New Housing Construction, 2001 1,273,000 329,000 1,602,000 Existing Housing Stock, 2001 73,700,000 26,500,000 100,200,000 Replacement time: 57.9 80.5 62.5 average lief span of buildings, estimated by replacement time method (national average, 2001) Note: Single fami y homes calculation is used for mobile homes as a best estimate lite span. Note: At this time KC staff could find no reliable data for the average life span of commercial buildings. Therefore, the average life span of residential buildings is being used until a better approximation can be ascertained. Sources: New Housing Construction, 2001 Quarterly Starts and Completions by Purpose and Design - US and Regions (Excel) http: / /www. census. gov /const/q uarterly _starts_completions_cust.xls See also: httpJ/www. census. gov / const/www /newresconstindex.html Existing Housing Stock, 2001 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) 2001 Tables HC1:Housing Unit Characteristics, Million U.S. Households 2001 Table HC1 -4a. Housing Unit Characteristics by Type of Housing Unit, Million U.S. Households, 2001 Million U.S. Households, 2001 http://www.ela.doe.goviemeu/recs/recs2001/hc_pdVhousunits/hcl - 4a_housingunits2001.pdf Type (Residential) or Principal Activity (Commercial) # people/ unit or building # thousand sq feet/ unit or building # people or employees/ thousand square feet vehicle related GHG emissions (metric tonnes CO2e per person per year) MTCO2e/ year/ unit MTCO2e/ year/ thousand square feet Average Building Life Span Life span transportation related GHG emissions (MTCO2e/ per unit) Life span transportation related GHG emissions . (MTCO2e/ thousand sq feet) Biodiesel Used to Operate Equiment at Facility gaVyear Life span equipment operation related GHG emissions (MTCO2e) Single - Family Home 2.8 2.53 1.1 4.9 13.7 5.4 57.9 792 313 Multi- Family Unit in Large Building . 1.9 0.85 2.3 4.9 9.5 11.2 80.5 766 904 Multi - Family Unit in Small Building 1.9 1.39 1.4 4.9 9.5 6.8 80.5 766 550 Mobile Home............ . .................. ...... . 2 5 1.06 2.3 4 9 12 2 11.5 57.9 709 668 Education ......................... .............. 30.0 25.6 1.2 4.9 1478 5.8 62.5 9247 361 Food Sales 5.1 5.6 0.9 4.9 25.2 4.5 62.5 1579 282 Food Service . ............................... ..... 10.2 5.6 1.8 4.9 50.2 9.0 62.5 3141 561 Health Care Inpatient ........, .. 455 5 241.4 1.9 4 9 2246 4 9.3 62.5 140506 582 Health Care Outpatient ..... .... 19 3 10.4 1.9 4 9 95.0 9.1 62.5 5941 571 Lodging 13 6 35.8 0.4 4.9 67 1 1.9 62.5 4194 117 Retail (Other Than Mall) ........... .. ...... . 7.8 9.7 0.8 4 9 38 3 3.9 62.5 2394 247 Office 28.2 14.8 1.9 4 9 139 0 9.4 62.5 8696 588 Public Assembly ........................ ....... 6.9 14.2 0.5 49 34.2 2.4 625 2137 150 Public Order and Safety .., . 18 8 15.5 1.2 4 9 92 7 6.0 62 5 5796 374 Religious Worship 4 2 10.1 0.4 4 9 20 8 2.1 62 5 1298 129 Service 5.6 6.5 0.9 4 9 27.6 4.3 62 5 1729 266 Warehouse and Storage ....., 9.9 16.9 0.6 4 9 49.0 2.9 62 5 3067 181 Other .. ....... . 25.0 83.4 0.3 4.9 123.4 1.5 50.0 6170 74 100,000 48163 Vacant .... ........ 2.1 14.1 0.2 4.9 10.5 0.7 62 5 657 47 Transportation Emissions Worksheet Sources All data in black text # people/ unit Residential floorspace per unit # employees/thousand square feet vehicle related GHG emissions King County, DNRP. Contact: Matt Kuharic, matt.kuharic @kingcounty.gov Estimating Household Size for Use in Population Estimates (WA state, 2000 average) Washington State Office of Financial Management Kimpel, T. and Lowe, T. Research Brief No. 47. August 2007 http://www.ofm.wa.gov/researchbriefs/brief047.pdf Note: This analysis combines Multi Unit Structures in both large and small units into one category, the average is used in this case although there is likely a difference 2001 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (National Average, 2001) Square footage measurements and comparisons http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/sqft-measure.html Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey commercial energy uses and costs (National Median, 2003) Table 62 Totals and Medians of Floorspace, Number of Workers, and Hours of Operation for Non -Mall Buildings, 2003 http: / /www.eia. doe. gov/ emeu/ cbecs/ cbecs2003 /detailed_tables_2003/2003set1 /2003excel/b2.xls Note: Data for # employees/thousand square feet is presented by CBECS as square feet/employee. In this analysis employees/thousand square feet is calculated by taking the inverse of the CBECS number and multiplying by 1000. Estimate calculated as follows (Washington state, 2006)_ 56,531,930,000 2006 Annual WA State Vehicle Miles Traveled Data was daily VMT. Annual VMT was 365'daily VMT. httpiAvww.wsdot.wa.gov/mapsdatartdo/annualmileage.htm 6,395,798 2006 WA state population http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/53000.html 8839 vehicle miles per person per year 0.0506 gallon gasoline/mile This is the weighted national average fuel efficiency for all cars and 2 axle, 4 wheel light trucks in 2005. This includes pickup trucks, vans and SUVs. The 0.051 gallons/mile used here is the inverse of the more commonly known term "miles/per gallon" (which is 19.75 for these cars and light trucks). Transportation Energy Data Book. 26th Edition. 2006. Chapter 4: Light Vehicles and Characteristics. Calculations based on weighted average MPG efficiency of cars and light trucks. http://cta.ornl.gov/dataffedb26/Edition26_Chapter04.pdf Note: This report states that in 2005, 92.3% of all highway VMT were driven by the above described vehicles. http: / /cta.ornl .gov/ data /tedb26 /Spreadsheets/Table3_04. xls 24.3 Ibs CO2e /gallon gasoline The CO2 emissions estimates for gasoline and diesel include the extraction, transport, and refinement of petroleum as well as their combustion. Life -Cycle CO2 Emissions for Various New Vehicles. RENew Northfield. Available: http:// renewnorthfield .org/wpcontentiuploads /2006/04 /CO2 %20emissions.pdf Note: This is a conservative estimate of emissions by fuel consumption because diesel fuel, 2205 lbslmetric tonne with a emissions factor of 26.55 Ibs CO2e/gallon was not estimated. 4.93 vehicle related GHG emissions (metric tonnes CO2e per person per year) 0.20 Asssume a 20% reduction in CO2e for using biofuel average lief span 01 buildings, estimated by replacement time method See Energy Emissions Worksheet for Calculations Commercial floorspace per unit EIA, 2003 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (National Average, 2003) Table C3. Consumption and Gross Energy Intensity for Sum of Major Fuels for Non -Mall Buildings, 2003 http: / /www. eia. doe. gov /emeu /cbecs/cbecs2003/detailed_ tables _2003 /2003set9 /2003exceVc3.xls Transportation Worksheet Background Information This section helps estimate the emissions associated with transportation of building occupants. At this time, it is based on average vehicle miles traveled by the average Washington State citizen. Effimo July 22, 2008 Ms. Joanna Spencer City of Tukwila Public Works Department/Engineering Division 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: GEOTECHNICAL PEER REVIEW, BOW LAKE TRANSFER/ RECYCLING STATION, KING COUNTY SOLID WASTE DIVISION, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Dear Ms. Spencer: SHANNON 6WILSON, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Raab v flit We have reviewed the Technical Memorandum by HWA Geosciences, Inc. (HWA) dated June 25, 2008. Their memorandum presents their responses to our June 6, 2008, second peer review comments regarding the above - referenced project in Tukwila, Washington. HWA has provided acceptable explanation of their slope stability analyses and the engineering parameters used. They have addressed the discrepancy between the lateral loading diagram presented in their geotechnical report and the loading diagram presented in the structural drawings. In our opinion, HWA has adequately responded to our peer review comments and we recommend the City of Tukwila accept their final geotechnical report and slope stability report provided the technical memorandum dated June 25, 2008, is included as an addendum to the reports. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions or need clarification, I am available at (206) 695 -6875 or mwp @shanwil.com. Sincerely, SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Martin W. Page, P.E., L.E.G. Associate MWP:TMG /mwp 21 -1- 20955 -003- L1.doc/wp /LKD 400 NORTH 34TH STREET • SUITE 100 P.O. BOX 300303 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98103 206-632-8020 FAX 206.695.6777 TDD: 1.800.833.6388 www.shannonwilson.com 21 -1- 20955 -003 ALASKA CALIFORNIA COLORADO FLORIDA MISSOURI OREGON WASHINGTON City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director CITY OF TUKWILA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Tukwila City Council will hold a public hearing on Monday, August 4, 2008 beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Blvd., Tukwila, to consider the following: Jim Haggerton, Mayor Unclassified Use Permit and Design Review approval of the proposal to replace and expand the existing Bow Lake Transfer/Recycling Station. The proposed project involves an 8.9- acre expansion to the north of the existing station on the adjacent property currently owned by Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). The proposed project will involve demolition of existing structures and site work. New structures will include a Transfer Building, two scale facilities, a maintenance building, transfer trailer yard, recycling and yard waste facilities, internal roadways and parking areas, and associated utilities. The applicant is King County Solid Waste Division and the project location is 18800 Orillia Road South, Tukwila WA. File numbers are L07 -081 (Design Review) and L07 -082 (Unclassified Use Permit). All interested persons are invited to be present to voice approval, disapproval, or opinions on this issue. For those unable to attend in person, you may submit written testimony to the City Clerk's office until 5:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. For further information on this proposal, for a copy of any decision, information on hearings, and your appeal rights contact Minnie Dhaliwal at 206 - 431 -3685. Project files are available for your review, Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100, Tukwila WA 98188. Tukwila City Hall is wheelchair accessible. The City strives to accommodate people with disabilities. Reasonable accommodations are available at the public hearing with advance notice. This notice is also available in alternate formats for individuals with disabilities. Please contact the City Clerk's Office at (206) 433 -1800 or TDD (206) 248 -2933 if we can be of assistance. Christy O'Flaherty, CMC City Clerk Published: Seattle Times — July 21, 2008 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 A 350ft N CityGIS Copyright @ 2006 All Rights Reserved. The information contained herein is the proprietary property of the contributor supplied under license and may not be approved except as licensed by Digital Map Products. Page 1 of 1 AR 1 1 1 9 J g ig m < n o � m kg Ain 0. lg /B r 4F Y 00 Cdr at? i opte i _A � : ill 10 l i g Rigli ! 04 Ir MATCH UNE BELOV ;pi NI K p h ReM z DESIGN REVIEW - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION - 7 iMirrGi LINE; 1 eilt of J ukutiea Dept. Of Community Development AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION , / 1 ' HEREBY DECLARE THAT: Project Name: e o e c . ) (6 .O L Project Number: L. q a3/ Notice of Public Hearing 2_,6 Mailer's signature: Af/) 1 Determination of Non - Significance Notice of Public Meeting Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Notice of Action Planning Commission Agenda Packet Official Notice Short Subdivision Agenda Notice of Application Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit _ — FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 Other: v Project Name: e o e c . ) (6 .O L Project Number: L. q a3/ Mailing requested by: ek;&, 2_,6 Mailer's signature: Af/) 1 Was mailed to each of the addresses listed/attached on this / day of C: \DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS \TERI- S\DESKTOP DAVITOF DISTRIBUTION.DOC in the year 20 d 82' Smooth Feet SheetsTM Use template for 5160 Sue Carlson Director of Development D .O. Box 88028 Tukwila, Washington 98138 4nthony Manns Donstruction Manager T — Mobile USA 19807 North Creek Parkway North 3othell, Washington 98011 John R. and Angela L. Richardson 18410 Military Road S. 3eaTac, Washington 98188 Steven G. Reynolds 18430 Military Road S. Seattle, Washington 98188 South Ridge Condominiums come Owners Association 802 S. 187 Place #103 3EATAC, WA 18188 IODIE R HOLMES 802 S. 187 Place 3Idg A, # 103 3EATAC, WA 18188 IULIA A BLAIR 802 S. 187 Place 3Idg A, # 106 3EATAC, WA 18188 3YBIL SUANE POWELL 802 S. 187 Place 3Idg A, # 203 3EATAC, WA 8188 3EGUNDO BEN QUIJANO 802 S. 187 Place 3Idg A, # 206 3EATAC, WA 18188 ESSE MARTINEZ .802 S. 187 Place 3Idg A, # 303 3EATAC, WA 18188 Sue Carlson Director of Development 5811 Segale Park Drive C Tukwila, Washington 98188 Schoenbachler Enterprises 9253 E. Sands Drive Scottsdale, Arizona 85255 .Leslie C. Clayton 18418 Military Road S. SeaTac, Washington 98188 Bui Vien D. and Tonnu Thanh -Thie 12613 38 Avenue S.E. Everett, Washington 98208 LOYDA VILCHES 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg A, # 101 SEATAC, WA 98188 ALI AL- YASIRI 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg A, # 104 SEATAC, WA 98188 J E PEMBERTON 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg A, # 201 SEATAC, WA 98188 LAWRENCE LUM 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg A, # 204 SEATAC, WA 98188 VINCENT M GARCIA 4802 S. 187 Place, Bldg A, #301 SEATAC, WA 98188 RICHARD G +CAROL F SINES 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg A, # 304 SEATAC, WA 98188 La Pianta LLC P.O. Box 88028 Tukwila, Washington 98138 Schoenbachler Enterprises 18115 57 Ave S Tukwila, WA 98188 Simeon C. Pabillon, Jr. 18424 Military Road S. Seattle, Washington 98188 Neil St. Pierre 18402 Military Road S. SeaTac, Washington 98188 CHERI L LEMONS 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg A, # 102 SEATAC, WA 98188 BOUBACAR DIALLO 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg A, # 105 SEATAC, WA 98188 Fairbanks Capital Corp 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg A, # 202 SEATAC, WA 98188 JEANNE L DUNN 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg A, # 205 SEATAC, WA 98188 GRACIA STUECKLE 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg A, # 302 SEATAC, WA 98188 STEPHANIE ANN MARTINSON 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg A, # 305 SEATAC, WA 98188 (rocootn feed wroeeLS "vu Use templiate for 516® 3RENT CURTIS SCOTT 1.802 S. 187 Place 3Idg A, # 306 3EATAC, WA 38188 SOUTH RIDGE HOMEOWNERS 4SSO 1802 S. 187 Place 3Idg B, # 103 3EATAC, WA c( k or 3AROLE ASBURY 1802 S. 187 Place 3Idg B, # 106 3EATAC, WA )8188 C & P LEASING CO )802 S. 187 Place 3Idg B, # 204 3EATAC, WA )8188 'ATRICK R HANCOCK 4302 S. 187 Place 3Idg B, #301 3EATAC, WA 18188 "ERESA J RAYMOND G802 S. 187th Place 3Idg B, # 304 )EATAC, WA 8188 IEVERLY A LICON 802 S. 187 Place 3Idg C, # 101 )EATAC, WA 18188 )ARLENE R TAYLOR .802 S. 187 Place Ildg C, # 104 ;EATAC, WA 18188 )HILDERS SOCTT PAUL+ 802 S. 187 Place Ildg C, # 201 ;EATAC, WA 8188 TEED W JENSIK 802 S. 187 Place Iidg C, # 204 )EATAC, WA 8188 KATHLEEN Z SMITHSON 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg B, # 101 SEATAC, WA 98188 K & P LEASING CO 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg B, # 104 SEATAC, WA 98188 MICHAEL S BALLARD 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg B, # 201 SEATAC, WA 98188 SCOTT C ROSS 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg B, # 205 SEATAC, WA 98188 GEORGE J HOAG 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg B, # 302 SEATAC, WA 98188 STACEY ANNE JOHNSTON 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg B, #305 SEATAC, WA 98188 LEW VAJTAI 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg C, # 102 SEATAC, WA 98188 PATRICK and MOIRA L O'CROTTY- 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg C, # 105 SEATAC, WA qi K NATSUHARA 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg C, # 202 SEATAC, WA 98188 ANGELIA S LIBERTY 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg C, # 205 SEATAC, WA 98188 NATHAN COMES 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg B, # 102 SEATAC, WA 98188 BARBARA J BRADBURY 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg B, # 105 SEATAC, WA 98188 LAURA E MARTINEZ 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg B, # 203 SEATAC, WA 98188 MARIA RIAS JAVIER +MARTINEZ 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg B, # 206 SEATAC, WA 98188 JENNIFER SPOFFORD 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg B, # 303 SEATAC, WA 98188 ANDREA L SLADE 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg B, # 306 SEATAC, WA 98188 MELKUMYANTS ALEKSANDR F +ELIONORA 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg C, # 103 SEATAC, WA 98188 TERRI J RAYMOND 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg C, # 106 SEATAC, WA 98188 ROBERT TODD WOOLMAN 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg C, # 203 SEATAC, WA 98188 STANLEY I +NAOMI T NAKANISHI 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg C, # 206 SEATAC, WA 98188 Smooth Feed SVheetsTw' Use tempuaete for 5160® TERRY Y UEMURA 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg C, # 301 SEATAC, WA 98188 JEFF & GAIL GANZER 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg D, # 102 SEATAC, WA 98188 GARRETT +MARTIN MELIS MOFFAT Bldg D, # 105 4802 S. 187 Place SEATAC, WA BILLY L DAVIE Bldg D, # 202 4802 S. 187 Place SEATAC, WA 38188 RAYMOND A REINHOLZ 3Idg D, # 205 4802 S. 187 Place 3EATAC, WA )8188 CANDA KHAMPHILOM 3Idg D, # 302 1802 S. 187 Place 3EATAC, WA )8188 William Forbes 18234 51 Ave S. Tukwila, WA 98188 !IIi. 7.11 or JULIE A MEDLEY 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg C, # 302 SEATAC, WA 98188 MARK I MARQUEZ 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg D, # 103 SEATAC, WA 98188 EVON A TANABE Bldg D, # 106 4802 S. 187 Place SEATAC, WA 98188 EVELYN C LEON Bldg D, # 203 4802 S. 187 Place SEATAC, WA 98188 BRENDA D DINGWALL Bldg D, # 206 4802 S. 187 Place SEATAC, WA 98188 THERESA R WILSON Bldg D, # 303 4802 S. 187 Place SEATAC, WA 98188 M &P Company 19000 57 Ave S Tukwila, WA 98188 BELCHER GENE 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg D, # 101 SEATAC, WA 98188 RICHARD TONG 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg D, # 104 SEATAC, WA 98188 AUGURNEL P JOHNSON Bldg D, # 201 4802 S. 187 Place SEATAC, WA 98188 EDDIE J BROWN Bldg D, # 204 4802 S. 187 Place SEATAC, WA 98188 MALKIT SINGH Bldg D, # 301 4802 S. 187 Place SEATAC, WA 98188 Bill and Janet Ravander 18240 51 Ave S Tukwila, WA 98188 GWI Realty LLC 18700 Southcenter Pkwy Tukwila, WA 98188 .S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS EDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION (VEPT OF FISH & WILDLIFE )OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY \ () TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT \v APEPT NATURAL RESOURCES () OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR k DEFr OF COMM. TRADE & ECONOMIC DEV. DEPT OF FISHERIES & WILDUFE () BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD () FIRE DISTRICT #11 ( ) FIRE DISTRICT #2 () KC. WASTEWATER TREATMENT DIVISION () KC. DEPT OF PARKS &REC ><KC. ASSESSORS OFFICE ( ) TUKWILA SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) TUKWILA LIBRARY ( ) RENTON LIBRARY ( ) KENT LIBRARY ( ) CITY OF SEATTLE LIBRARY O CWEST () SEATTLE CITY UGHT () PUGET SOUND ENERGY ( ) HIGHUNE WATER DISTRICT ( ) SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT () COMCAST $KENT PLANNING DEPT ( ) TUKWILA CITY DEPARTMENTS: ( ) PUBLIC WORKS () FIRE ( ) POLICE () FINANCE () PLANNING () BUILDING ( )PARKS & REC. () MAYOR ( ) CITY CLERK () PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL ()SW K C CHAMBER OF COMMERCE MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE V CULTURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM" FISHERIES PROGRAM"" (7 WILDLIFE PROGRAM "Send SEPA Checklist and full set of plans w/ NOA ( ) SEATTLE TIMES O SO COUNTY JOURNAL J wool P: W DMWISTRATIVEIFORMSICHECKLLST.DOC CHECKLIST: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW /SHORELINE PERMIT MAILINGS FEDERAL AGENC WASHINGTON STATE A S KING COUNTY AGE IES SCHOOLS/LIBRARIES auziEs MEDIA NCIES )U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Q U.S. DEPT OF H.U.D. TIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE () DEPT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERV. X DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SHORELAND DIV, NW Regional Office .(EPT OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DIVISION* ( ) OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL 'SEND CHKUST W/ DETERMINATIONS `SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION ..K HEALTH DEPT \ 144PORT OF SEATTLE v K C. DEV & ENVIR SERVICES-SEPA INFO CNTR () KC. TRANSIT DIVISION - SEPA OFFICIAL () K.C. LAND & WATER RESOURCES () FOSTER UBRARY () K C PUBLIC LIBRARY ()HIGHUNE SCHOOL DISTRICT () SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT () RENTON SCHOOL. DISTRICT ( ).OLYMPIC PIPELINE ( ) VAL -VUE SEWER DISTRICT ( ) WATER DISTRICT #20 ( ) WATER DISTRICT #125 ( ) CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS () BRYN MAWR- LAKERIDGE SEWERNVATER DISTRICT :( RENTON PLANNING DEPT .Q CITY OF SEA -TAC (CITY OF BURIEN ( ) TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ( ) TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ( ) CITY OF SEATTLE - SEPA INFO CENTER - DCLU ( ) STRATEGIC PLANNING OFFICE' • NOTICE OF ALL SEATTLE RELATED PLNG PROJ. DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE* QtP.S. AIR POLLUTION CLEAN AGENCY ( ) SOUND TRANSIT .(*DUWAMISH RIVER CLEAN-UP COALITION* • SEND NOTICE OF ALL APPUCAT1ONS ON DUWAMISH RIVER ( ) HIGHUNE TIMES ( ) CI.TUKWILA.WA.US.WVVW M> d 111 OLC'el,'A. c . 4' 'dote 1+ YD 'IcA"" -cs ct Li VD s tares s e-- Northwest Mountain Regional Office Air Traffic Division, ANM -520 1601 Lind Avenue, SW Renton, WA 98055 -4056 WSDOT -NW Region Rick Roberts MS -120 P.O. Box 330310 Seattle WA 98133 -9710 Tom Creegan, Engineer III KSC -NR -0701 Solid Waste Division Department of Natural Resources and Parks 201 South Jackson Street Suite 701 Seattle WA 98104 -3855 WSDOT - NW Local Agency & Development Services Attn: Ramin Pazooki SnoKing Area, MS 240 P.O. Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133 -9710 CcttLy e7 Nora @lerloff - RE: Bow Lake Transfer Station Permitting From: "Creegan, Tom" <Tom.Creegan @metrokc.gov> To: "Nora Gierloff' <ngierloff @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Date: 07/26/2007 9:30 am Subject: RE: Bow Lake Transfer Station Permitting CC: "Sutton, Ian" <isutton @rwbeck.com> Nora, our focus will be to present some simulated views of the large transfer building. We would like to get a sense of how the City Council might react to the design during the review process. We will also bring a site lay -out plan, but this is little changed from that presented in the Facility Master Plan. Tom. Original Message From: Nora Gierloff [mailto :ngierloff @ci.tukwila.wa.us] Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 8:51 AM To: Bob Benedicto; Brenda Holt; "Conference Room #2. 6300 - po.tuk- mail" @ci.tukwila.wa.us; David McPherson; Donald Tomaso; Frank Iriarte; Joanna Spencer; Nora Gierloff Cc: Creegan, Tom Subject: Bow Lake Transfer Station Permitting Item Type: Appointment Start Date: Thursday, 2 Aug 2007, 01:00:OOpm (Pacific Daylight Time) Duration: 1 Hour Place: Conference Room #2 King County will be reconstructing the Bow Lake Transfer Station just east of 1 -5 at Orillia /188th. This meeting will focus on an informal presentation on the site lay -out at the 20% design level. Tom Creegan and other King County staff will attend. Nora Gierloff Planning Supervisor City of Tukwila DCD (206) 433-7141 Bow Lake Processing /Transfer Station City of Tukwila Project Review Meeting August 2, 2007 Meeting Notes Attendees: Nora Gierloff (City of Tukwila), Bob Benedicto (COT), Sandra Whiting (COT), Joanna Spencer (COT), Brenda Holt (COT), Tom Creegan (King County), Ian Sutton (R. W. Beck), Greg Harry (KPG), Steve Bingham (ESA Adolfson) 1. Transfer Building: The Transfer Building structure was not a concern for the City at this meeting. However, there was discussion of the visibility of the roof due to its light color. The County can proceed with the Tight color as required for LEED, but may need to adjust as necessary if a darker roof becomes a condition of permit approval. 2. Setbacks: The new City Code is in effect. The primary consideration the County needs to make with regard to the North Access Road wall is that if the wall is on the property line, there will need to be a maintenance agreement between the County and WSDOT. If the wall is just inside the property line, no agreement is required by the City as the County facility will be on the lower side of the wall. 3. WSDOT: The WSDOT property acquisition does not need to be completed to begin the UUP process; however, it is important to have the dimensions of the new County parcel submitted with the UUP application. The transfer of ownership can occur later. This is more of an issue of County risk, if there ends up being an unanticipated boundary change that impacts the design. 4. Stream Buffer: Originally we delineated the stream buffer from the top -of -bank. The City has indicated that we can define the buffer from the edge -of- water. Under this scenario, all paved areas and retaining walls will likely be outside of the buffer area, though construction activities will occur within the buffer. Note that there is also the option to apply for a buffer reduction of up to 50 %. Any reduction will require buffer enhancement. Adolfson will be coordinating with the City (Sandra Whiting) to revise the buffer. This will include edge -of- water delineation and survey. 5. UUP: The permit will follow Type 5 procedures. It's expected that once submitted, it will take 4 months until the permit hearing. The hearing can be a combined UUP and Design Review approval. (Note, the UUP application and Design Review application are separate actions, which may contain some similar content.) Within the first 2 years of UUP approval, substantial construction needs to have commenced. With regard to buildings, visual aspects and materials need to be included in the application. Sensitive Areas (i.e. watercourses, wetlands, steep slopes) have to be well defined as part of the UUP application, including "protection" measures. There are some design aspects, such as fencing, that require a separate permit application and can be pursued independent of the UUP submittal. Note that the Building Permit process can be initiated prior to obtaining the UUP approval; however, there are some Building Permit time constraints that may preclude an early submittal. There are also risks associated with submitting the Building Permit application prior to UUP approval, as the conditions or changes required as part of UUP approval may require revisions to the Building Permit application. It may be preferable to submit the Building Permit application when the conditions of UUP approval are known. City of Tukwila Project Review Meeting Page 1 of 2 August 2, 2007 6. Building Permit: Once the Building Permit is obtained, construction must be initiated within 6 months, with only one 6 month extension allowable. Bob Benedicto is our best City contact for Building Permit issues. Full acquisition of the WSDOT property is required prior to Building Permit application. City of Tukwila Project Review Meeting Page 2 of 2 August 2, 2007 NOra.C�ieeloff - RE Bow Lake Transfer / Recycling Station From: To: Date: Subject: CC: Nora- Boy are you efficient! Thanks for getting us that letter on the comp plan and zoning designation of the Bow Lake site & proposed WSDOT property. That is a big relief and let's us take a couple of things off of our to -do list. Karl and Ian at HDR, were going to get you a drawing of the retaining wall. Did they do that? Apparently the retaining walls on west side of the site where we had a concern about their location in the side yard, will be in the range of 12' -15'. The other retaining walls will not be located in required yards so having a structure -in- the - setback will not be an issue. Your proposed text amendment seems like it would cover our situations, but not having seen the drawings, can't say for sure. Thanks for getting back to us so quickly on all fronts and for sharing your proposed text change with us. It has been pleasure working with you and hope you will remain on our project through to the end! Ikuno. "Ikuno Masterson" <ikuno @adolfson.com> "Nora Gierloff' < ngierloff @ci.tukwila.wa.us> 05/23/2007 9:18 am RE Bow Lake Transfer / Recycling Station Original Message From: Nora Gierloff [mailto :ngierloff @ci.tukwila.wa.us] Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 11:52 AM To: Steve Bingham Cc: Ikuno Masterson Subject: Re: Permittimg - Bow Lake Transfer / Recycling Station "Steve Bingham" <sbingham @adolfson.com> Here is the draft language that I am planning to take to the Planning Commission regarding retaining wall setbacks: There are several different standards for whether retaining walls can be located in required setbacks which leads to confusion and in some cases unusable yards. The Zoning Code defines yard and structure as: 18.06.945 Yard "Yard" means a required open space unoccupied and unobstructed by any structure or portion of a structure from 30 inches above the general ground level of the graded lot upward. 18.06.800 Structure "Structure" means a combination of materials constructed and erected permanently on the ground or attached to something having a permanent location on the ground, but excluding all forms of vehicles even though immobilized. Not included are residential fences, retaining walls less than three feet in height, rockeries and similar improvements of minor character. The building code allows most rockeries and retaining walls up to four feet high without a permit, which many people assume is the trigger for meeting setbacks. Rockeries are rarely allowed to retain more than four feet of earth. While the intent may have been to prevent a neighbor from having to look at a tall retaining wall on the property line it sometimes has the effect of creating a yard that is unmaintained and unusable to the property owner because of the grade separation. These rules do not provide for the Nora Giedoff - RE Bow Lake Transfer / Recycling Station 2 situations where a retaining wall is perpendicular to a property line across two or more lots or alongside a driveway when the garage is built into the basement of a house on a hillside. Staff suggests that retaining walls and rockeries with up to 4 feet of exposed face be allowed in yards to match building code requirements. This could be increased in special circumstances if the property in question is on the lower side of the retaining wall, if the wall benefits the Tots on both sides of the property line or if the wall is needed due to R -O -W improvements. TMC 18.06.800 Structure "Structure" means a combination of materials constructed and erected permanently on the ground or attached to something having a permanent location on the ground, but excluding all forms of vehicles even though immobilized. Not included are residential fences up to six feet in height, retaining walls or rockeries with up to four feet of exposed face and similar improvements of minor character. TMC ? ?? Retaining walls with an exposed height greater than four feet may be allowed in required front, side or rear yards as a Type 2 special permission decision under the following circumstances: 1. When the applicant's property is on the lower side of the retaining wall and it does not negatively impact any neighboring property, or 2. When a wall built on a property line or perpendicular to it benefits the Tots on both sides and the owners of both properties agree to jointly maintain the wall , or 3. When a wall in a front yard is required due to roadway expansion or improvements, or 4. When a wall or walls are needed to create a vehicular access road that meets Fire Department slope requirements. Do you think that this will cover your situations? Nora Gierloff Planning Supervisor City of Tukwila DCD (206) 433 -7141 »> "Steve Bingham" <sbingham @adolfson.com> 05/15/2007 10:56 am »> Nora: Ikuno Masterson and I were wondering when you might be available for a telephone conversation on Bow Lake WSDOT property and UUP issues. We are both available today til 1:30 and tomorrow in the morning. What works for you? Let us know. Thanks, Steve Bingham May 18, 2007 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Ikuno Masterson ESA Adolfson 5309 Shilshole Ave. NW Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98107 RE: Bow Lake Transfer Station Expansion Dear Ms. Masterson, I wanted to follow up on our previous discussions about the permit process for the Bow Lake Transfer Station expansion project. I had previously stated that it appeared that the project site would be in two zoning districts which would have implications for the permit process and timeline. I researched the area on the official zoning map and think that it is clear that both the current transfer station property as well as the area the County intends to purchase from WSDOT are both within the Tukwila Valley South (TVS) zone. I have enclosed the TVS chapter from the Tukwila Zoning Code as well as a copy of the applicable section of the Zoning Map. If you have any additional questions or comments, please call me at (206) 431 -3670. Sincerely, Nora Gierloff Planning Supervisor Enclosures NG Q:\LETTERS\BowLakeZoning.DOC RECEIVED BY AA! MY 2 .I 2007 Page 1 of 1 05/18/2007 2:59:00 PM Steven M. Mullet, Mayor COMMJNiTI DEVELOPMENT 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Nora Gierloff - Re: Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station Expansion: West Retaining Wall Setback From: Nora Gierloff To: Ian Sutton Date: 04/30/2007 9:22 am Subject: Re: Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station Expansion: West Retaining Wall Setback Hi Ian, The wall would definitely be considered a structure and subject to setbacks. Since your access is from the south we could consider that your front (25' setback) and the west as a second front (12.5' setback). That leaves you with 5' side yards on the north and east. The BLA with WSDOT should be drawn to accommodate that setback from the wall. I have a code amendment under review that would allow retaining walls in setback areas under certain circumstances but it will be a few months before we know what direction the City Council will take. Nora Gierloff Planning Supervisor City of Tukwila DCD (206) 433 -7141 »> "Sutton, Ian" <isuttonPrwbeck.com> 04/27/2007 9:00 am »> Hi, Nora. As part of the Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station Expansion, there will be a retaining wall along the I -5 right -of -way. The wall will likely have an approximate height of 14 -feet and run the length of the site. Since this wall exceeds 3 -feet in height, will it be classified as a structure? Assuming that the property acquired from WSDOT will be classified as Tukwila Valley South (TVS), what setback will be required for the wall in a TVS zoned area? Any guidance you could give me in this matter would be appreciated. Thanks, Ian Ian Sutton, P.E. R. W. Beck, Inc. - Water and Waste Resources Civil Engineer 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2500 Seattle, WA 98154 Phone: (206) 695 -4548 1 Fax: (206) 695 -4701 Environmental Health Services Division 401 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98104 -1818 206 - 205 -4394 Fax 206 - 296 -0189 TTY Relay: 711 www.kingcounty.gov /health July 10, 2008 Jim Morrow, P.E., Director Public Works Department City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 -2544 Dear Mr. Morrow: Public Health - Seattle & King County has reviewed the December 200kga6l. alig s I Yi$Si'il'ifili o e- Facility Master Plan and is aware of plans to re -build and expand the facility. Recognizing the many environmental benefits afforded by the proposed project, Public Health supports this King County Solid Waste Division project. In accordance with the Code of the King County Board of Health Title 10 and WAC 173- 350 -350, Public Health issues an annual Operating Permit and conducts regular facility inspections. We are aware of the existing wastewater system utilizing an underground holding tank for the collection of wastewater and waste - contaminated surface water. Since its installation in 1991, this tank has been continuously operated by the Solid Waste Division (SWD). Wastewater is pumped out regularly and transported by tanker to the SWD's Cedar Hills Regional Landfill for pre- treatment in the leachate lagoon and subsequent discharge to the Metro sewer main. In the absence of an available sanitary sewer main serving the facility, the regulations do not prohibit and this department has no objection to the 30,000 gallon engineered pre- cast concrete storage vault proposed to serve the expanded facility, with continuance of the existing arrangements for wastewater disposal at Cedar Hills Regional Landfill. Should a nearby sewer main become available in the future, we would recommend that a connection be established to serve the Bow Lake facility. If you have any questions or wouid like any additional information, please contact Teri Barclay at (206) 263 -8428. Sincerely, Bill Lasby, Supervisor BL:mp cc: Teri Barclay, Public Health Tom Creegan, KCSWD Public Health Seattle & King County R Jun uo - 0000 rul UG.41 1 June 6, 2008 Ms. Joanna Spencer City of Tukwila Public Works Department/Engineering Division 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Ms. Spencer: 400 NORTH 34TH STREET • SUITE 100 F.O. BOX 300303 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98103 206.632.8020 FAX 206.696.6777 Tl1n. nP•n_nnn r nn Irv. SHANNON iWILSON, INC. IMP GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT S RE: SECOND GEOTECHNICAL PEER REVIEW, BOW LAKE TRANSFER/ RECYCLING STATION, KING COUNTY SOLID WASTE DIVISION, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON This letter presents the results of our second geotechnical peer review for the above - referenced project in Tukwila, Washington. The purpose of our second review is to evaluate the adequacy of the geotechnical analyses and recommendations provided by HWA Geosciences, Inc. (HWA) in response to our initial review comments presented in our March 31, 2008, letter. On May 14, 2008, we received a package from you containing the following documents: • "Final Draft Slope Stability Report, Bow Lake Recycling and Transfer Station, King County Solid Waste Division, Tukwila, Washington," prepared by HWA Geosciences, Inc. for R.W. Beck, dated April 29, 2008. • "Site and Exploration Plan for Bow Lake Recycling and Transfer Station, Tukwila, Washington," prepared by HWA Geosciences, Inc. (three sheets — one copy of sheet 2A dated April 29, 2008, and one copy each of 2A and 2B dated April 22, 2008) • "Response to City Review of Geotechnical Reports, Bow Lake Recycling and Transfer Station, Tukwila, Washington," prepared by HWA Geosciences, Inc. for R.W. Beck, dated April 29, 2008. • "Response to City Comment, Tree Planting and Slope Stability, Bow Lake Recycling and Transfer Station, Tukwila, Washington," prepared by HWA Geosciences, Inc. for ESA Adolfson, dated May 2, 2008. • "Sensitive Areas Plan, Conceptual Mitigation Plan, and Tree Removal and Replacement Plans for Bow Lake Processing/Transfer Facility," by R.W. Beck (incomplete set). 27-1-20955-002 r. uc ALASKA CnLIFOPINIA cOLOf1ADO rLoulUA misampI nH��cpN WASHINGTON uulr uu - cuuo rRI uc.'o nl Ms. Joanna Spencer City of Tukwila June 6, 20ub Page 2 1 - 1111 11V, SHANNON &WILSON. INC. ■ Retaining Wall Plans for Bow Lake Processing/Transfer Facility, by R.W. Beck (Sheet C13, dated October 25, 2007 and Sheets S11, 5401 to S415, and Wall G Typical Section dated April 25, 2008). Based on our review of these documents, we have developed the following comments. 2 I.1.20955- 002- LI .doc/wpiLICD SLOPE STABILITY COMMENTS In response to our recommendations that a comprehensive slope stability evaluation be provided, HWA prepared a draft slope stability report, which includes detailed slope stability analyses based on the 90 percent grading plans. We reviewed the detailed slope stability analysis input and results in conjunction with the draft geotechnical report (for the transfer /recycling station), dated May 21, 2007. Based on the subsurface explorations and the subsurface profiles presented in the 2007 draft geotechnical report, the soil strength parameters used for the stability analysis of glacial soil deposit are =conservative with the exception of those used in Profile 7 -7'. Specifically, we feel that a cohesion of 200 pounds per square foot and a phi angle of 40 degrees is excessive for medium dense sand. The glacial soil deposit strength properties in Profiles 5 -5" and 6 -6', in particular, are inappropriate because the borings and subsurface profiles indicate the glacial deposit is medium dense to dense sand (advance outwash). Additionally, Profile 5 -5' indicates that the soil on and underlying the slope is all glacial soil. However, based on subsurface Profiles K -K' and F -F' in the 2007 geotechnical report and A -A' in the draft geotechnical report (for the slope pipelines) dated January 17, 2008, it appears that profile 5 -5' should include layers of Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) fill, bum till, and /or fill with refuse over glacial soils. In our opinion, HWA should re- evaluate and revise the glacial soil strength parameters used in their slope stability analyses to reflect generally accepted practices used in this area, or provide a basis for the relatively high strength parameters used. In addition, Profile 5 -5' should be revised to accurately depict the subsurface conditions that were presented in the two earlier draft geotechnical reports (2007 and 2008). 21 -1 -20955 -002 1. VJ Jun nu Uc''FO rll Ms. Joanna Spencer City of Tukwila June 6, 2UUS Page 3 HWA provided responses to our March 31, 2008, peer review letter in a letter dated April 29, 2008, and provided further clarification in their April 29, 2008, draft slope stability report. The responses and clarifications were related to materials and methods for benching, filling, preloading, and excavating on slopes, pile design, and setback distances. In general, their responses to our comments are acceptable. However, HWA should incorporate these responses and clarifications in their May 2007 and January 2008 reports when they are finali2ed. Two lateral loading diagrams are provided to indicate parameters used for wall design on Sheet S 11 of the retaining wall design plans. It appears that the lateral loading diagram for soldier pile walls A and D (Detail 1) is not in accordance with the recommendations provided in Figure 5A, 1-5 Cantilever Soldier Pile Wall, of the 2007 draft geotechnical report. Earth pressures on Sheet SI 1 should be revised or otherwise approved by HWA. We recommend that HWA review all plans and specifications prepared by R.W. Beck to determine if they are in accordance with their geotechnical recommendations. In general, additional analyses and final versions of the geotechnical reports will be necessary before a permit can be approved for the proposed redevelopment. A review of the revised/additional analyses and final geotechnical reports should be performed by Shannon & Wilson, Inc. We recommend that the permit applicant have the Geotechnical Engineer of Record respond to our comments and submit revised reports, as appropriate. Comments made during the review process do not relieve the project applicant from compliance with code requirements, conditions of approval, or permit requirements, nor is the designer relieved of responsibility for a complete design in accordance with the laws or the State of Washington. This peer review is a check for compliance with generally accepted professional geotechnical engineering principles and practices used by geotechnical engineering firms in the area. 21- 1- 20055.002- u,doon„auco OTHER GEOTECHNICAL COMMENTS CONCLUSION r nn nu. SHANNON 6WILSON. jWILSON. INC. 21 -1- 20955 -002 F. U'+ VVIr VU LUUU I a1 VC. to II Ms. Joanna Spencer City of Tukwila June 6, 20UK Page 4 We appreciate the opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions or need clarification, we are available at (206) 632 -8020. Sincerely, SHANNON & WILSON, INC. atozte aureen M. Beintum, P.E. Senior Engineer Martin W. Page, P.E., L.E.G. Associate LMB:MWP/lmb 2 1.1- 20955 - 002- LI.due /wp /LKD I nn Irv. 1 . u.J SHANNON &WILSON, INC. 21- 1.20955 -002 VI Washington State Department of Transportation Paula J. Hammond, P.E. Secretary of Transportation May 8, 2008 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: IC # 1 -17 -05521 SR 5, S.S.H. No 5 -A to So. 178 St. Bow Lake Transfer Site To Whom It May Concern: Transportation Building 310 Maple Park Avenue S.E. P.O. Box 47300 Olympia. WA 98504 -7300 360- 705 -7000 TTY: 1 -800- 833 -6388 www.wsdot.wa.gov This letter is being submitted for you consideration in granting King County (County)a permit to being work on the Bow Lake Transfer site without a conveyance from the State of Washington, Department of Transportation (WSDOT). The WSDOT and County have been working together on a possible transfer of surplus highway property for the Bow Lake Transfer Site project for a period of time. The time has now come that all of us would like to see a completed project. The project, which has the support WSDOT, will benefit to the residents of the County for many years to come. The WSDOT has entered into an agreement to sell the surplus highway right of way to the County. It should be noted that WSDOT has received the required down payment from the County. A requirement for WSDOT to transfer any property is that it has a current right of way plan showing the area to be disposed of as surplus. WSDOT has not completed the required plan revision and therefore it is unable to complete the transfer of the property rights to the County. The required revision should be complete by no later than July 31, 2008. Should you have any questions please call the undersigned at the telephone number shown below. Sincerely, Edward A. Gilda Property Management Disposal Program Supervisor P.O. Box 47338 Olympia, WA 98504 -7338 (360) 705 -7331 CC: Mr. Harold McNelly, King County EAG:eag RECEIVED MAY 22 2008 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Project: Q0 LL) Lod es -- cy 151 -- -- - - 46/1.-- Address: l ` O �l S I Date transmitted: �'`1 2� Response requested by: M cud 9 / '2/t Staff coordinator: � (� Date response received: TO: LAND USE PERMIT ROUTING FORM City of Tukwila Department of Community Development File Number 10'7 -- °kl FLU Planning tg Public Works [Fire Dept. ❑ Police Dept. ❑ Parks/Rec COMMENTS e y o-vi cs..Q C01-114Ecriot ( 0 a4 Tile ac, 60.DER jJ RLtGEWIF- 15 ROTA-041LAELE e t2Otat 13U l Lpi OJCt 5 6} -TALL -tom cam EC -TED To t ms 1b -4N AFp1nv&V 6at/A(o V( C.- 'rEM r U,1 ?C 3o6,Z 'b . N Mt. r -r EsttN BF iWs 5r tsrem.. crJ f - « 1 Cb �$L i!t.! Mil N Ic 6 1 601) ❑ DRC review requested ❑ Plan submittal requested ❑ Plan approved Plan check date: a5/0 /66 Comments prepared by: Attachment L Inspection Responsibilities Comment No. Source of Comment Comment Response to Comment Department of Public Works 1) Please submit a letter requesting code exemption due to lack of available sanitary sewers for discharge at the present time and explanation of current working arrangement for sanitary sewer holding tank and the proposed system. See Letter - Attachment A. 2) Submit a site map that clearly identifies properties (show property lines of individual parcels) and easements. Explain progress of WSDOT property acquisition. See Attachment B for property boundaries and easements. As part of the project, the County is also acquiring from the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) adjacent property directly north of the existing station. The County and WSDOT have agreed on a purchase price for this property and a down payment has already been made." See page 2, Letter - Attachment A. 3) 4) Provide response of S &W March 31, 2008 geotech peer review letter and update your plans accordingly. See Attachment C for copy of Shannon and Wilson, Inc. peer review and HWA Memorandum providing responses to comments. The Draft Slope Stability Report Bow Lake Recycling and Transfer Station King County Solid Waste Division Tukwila, Washington (HWA Geosciences, Inc., April 28, 2008) is also provided in Attachment C. KCSWD acknowledges that the Highline Water District shall review and approve the water service plan at the time the building permit is submitted. 5) Please note that Highline Water District shall review and approve water service plan at the time of building permit application. 6) Please submit an updated Storm Drainage Report, PW has only a 20% Conceptual Stormwater Management Plan. Attachment D - Updated Storm Drainage Report Bow Lake Recycling and Transfer Station UUP/DR Applications Comment / Response Matrix May 2, 2008 1 of 6 Comment No. Source of Comment Comment Response to Comment Planning Department 1. Please provide the status of ownership of WSDOT property and if the easements on the adjacent property have been executed. As part of the project, the County is also acquiring from the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) adjacent property directly north of the existing station. The County and WSDOT have agreed on a purchase price for this property and a down payment has already been made." See page 2, Letter - Attachment A. 2. It is not dear If all the existing trees are subject to replacement. Per TMC Chapter 18.54 only those trees that are on slopes greater than 15% or are within wetland/watercourse or its associated buffer are subject to replacement. Also, please clarify on the Tree Removal sheets which trees are labeled to be removed and which will be saved. Further, the Tree Replacement Plan shows the areas to be replanted but the size of the trees is not specified. The note regarding proposed permit exceptions includes a request for smaller sized trees, planting at greater density, off -site tree replacement or fee -in -lieu for the remaining 710 trees. If the proposal includes fee -in -lieu please propose a specific cost estimate and it should include site preparation, delivery and planting labor. Also, the planting of trees on the undisturbed portion of the slope, east and south of Retaining Wall G, needs to be approved by the Geotech Engineer. The slope stability analysis should include the planting on slopes issue. Most of the trees to be removed are located on slopes greater than 15 percent gradient. The majorityof the hillside to the north and east of the existing facility is on a slope greater than 15 percent. The Tree Removal sheets show trees to be removed with a "cross" symbol through the tree symbol. A Cost Estimate for the fee -in -lieu of 710 trees is provided in Attachment E. 3 Please provide cross sections, elevations and finish details for the retaining walls. See Attachment F for cross sections, elevations, and finish details for the retaining walls. 4. Please submit the conceptual Public Art information to be included in the Design Review information. Additional conceptual information on Public Art is provided in Attachment G. 5. Please submit a Special Permission Application for the wetland/watercourse Impacts. The application should address the comments from Sandra Whiting listed below. The Special Permission Application Is to be submitted when wetland or wetland buffer impacts are anticipated. We will continue to coordinate with Sandra Whiting on this issue. See also responses to Sandra Whiting's comments below. Bow Lake Recycling and Transfer Station UUP/DR Applications Comment / Response Matrix May 2, 2008 2 of 6 Comment No. Source of Comment Comment Response to Comment 6. The City of Tukwila only regulates signs that are visible from adjacent properties or public right -of -way. Please clarify if any signs within City of Tukwila City limits will be visible from public rightoof -way or adjacent properties. No signs located within the City of Tukwila city limits will be visible from adjacent properties or public right -of -way within the City. A site entrance sign with the facility name as well as normal traffic control and informational signs will be located in unincorporated King County and will be visible from the public right -of -way in unincorporated King County. Sandra Whiting, Urban Environmentalist Draft Sensitive Areas Study 1. Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2. Please clarify that the wetlands continue off -site and that only the portions on the easement were delineated (assuming that is the case) and also indicate how wetland areas were estimated for the purposes of classification and functional ratings. Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 of the Draft Study have been revised to indicate wetlands continue off-site and that only those portions within the easement were delineated. Wetland size for the purposes of determining wetland classification and ratings were based on site observations and review of aerial photography. See Attachment H for text revisions. 2. Section 3.4.2, Stream E2. The text refers to Flag 4 at Stream E2, but there is no drawing that shows flag numbers, so it is confusing. Please clarify. Text in the Draft Study was changed to read the stream channel was dry, extending approximately 100 feet downstream of the 1 -5 culvert." References to flag numbers were removed from the document. See Attachment H for text revisions. 3. Section 3.4.3, Stream El. The text states that the stream originates in a wetland on adjacent property, but no wetland is shown on the drawings. The wetland and associated buffer is located off -site. It is referred to as Wetland 4 (0.04 acres) in the Tukwila South Draft EIS (Volume 111) (Raedeke Associates, Inc., 2005). We do not have the CAD data to show exact location of the wetland; however, based on the Draft EIS, it is out of our project area and will not be impacted. Bow Lake Recycling and Transfer Station UUP /DR Applications Comment / Response Matrix May 2, 2008 3 of 6 Comment No. Source of Comment Comment Response to Comment 4. Section 6.3.1 Wetland and Stream Restoration and Enhancement a. There are inconsistencies between the text and Table 2 in terms of the amount of mitigation. B. Also, it is unclear how much mitigation Is proposed for the permanent impact to Wetland A versus temporary wetland impacts to Wetlands A and B. Mitigation of the 110 sq ft of permanent impacts to Wetland A requires 330 sq ft of enhancement. Temporary impacts ( 948 sq ft) would require a 1:1 ration. Therefore, enhancement of 948 sq ft total (if that is the correct figure) falls short of Tukwila's required ratios. Please explain. c. Please explain that the 30 ft permanent maintenance easement would not be mowed and that native shrubs will be installed in the corridor as part of the mitigation plan. Section 6.3.1 of the Draft Study has been revised to reflect the appropriate amount of mitigation required and remove inconsistencies between text and tables. The appropriate amount of mitigation is 330 square feet of enhancement for the 110 square feet of impact to Wetland A (3:1) and 948 square feet of enhancement for the 948 square feet of temporary impact to Wetland A and B (1:1). As shown, we were 330 square feet short of enhancement area. We propose providing this additional 330 square feet of enhancement along Stream E2, which according to my conversation with Sandra Whiting on April 21, 2008, is acceptable. We have included a statement that the 30 -foot permanent easement will not be mowed and that native shrubs will be installed as part of the mitigation plan. 5. Section 7.5, Maintenance. How would watering be accomplished? The construction specifications (Sections 02935 and 02950) require the contractor to submit a temporary irrigation plan for approval. Access to the mitigation sites will be accommodated in subsequent phases for adequate watering during the warranty period. After the 1 -year warranty period, the County will contract for the irrigation of the mitigation sites for at least an additional two years. 6. Figure 6. The road shown in the drawing is not Southcenter Parkway - it is Frager Road. Please make that correction. Figure 6 has been revised to replace Southcenter Parkway with Frager Road. See Attachment I - Revised Figures, Draft Sensitive Areas Study. 7. Figure 10. The shading symbols shown in the legend do not appear to be consistent with the figure. Figures 12,13,14. Are the trees located within the wavy outlines those to be removed? Please make It clear on the drawings. Shading symbols in the legend have been revised. See Attachment I - Revised Figures, Draft Sensitive Areas Study. The "wavy lines" indicate existing tree canopy. Only t defined as "Significant Trees" with diameter at breast height of 4 inches or greater were inventoried. Trees that are designated for removal are marked with a "cross" symbol through the tree symbol. A legend was added to the figures for clarity. See Attachment 1- Revised Figures, Draft Sensitive Areas Study. 8. • Bow Lake Recycling and Transfer Station UUP/DR Applications Comment / Response Matrix May 2, 2008 4 of 6 Comment No. Source of Comment Comment Response to Comment 9. Figure 15. Tree Removal Plan, Sheet 4. Tree Protection Detail - show the feeder root zone on the drawing (tree roots extend well beyond the drip line and can be damaged by some construction activities) and indicate that operation of heavy equipment or stockpiling of materials within this zone are subject to the engineer's approval. Figure 17, Tree /shrub Slope Planting Detail. The planting holes should not be amended with compost. Instead, they should be backfilled with native soil and the compost should be applied around the tree/shrub on the surface. Alternatively, the entire planting area could be amended before planting. The tree protection detail on Figure 15 has been revised to show the root zone outside of the dripline. The detail note states that stockpiling of material, vehicular traffic, or equipment storage is not allowed within the protection fence. See Attachment I - Revised Figures, Draft Sensitive Areas Study. Figure 17 has been revised as noted, except that the mulch will be wood chips rather than bark or compost. There is concem with adding compost to the surface of the planting pits as it might encourage roots to grow upwards toward the source of nutrients. See Attachment I - Revised Figures, Draft Sensitive Areas Study. - 10. 11. Figures 18 -21, Tree Replacement Plan. Since at least one Pacific Madrone will be removed, it Is recommended that a few of this species be included in the planting plan. Also, since some of the trees to be removed were noted to have cavities used by wildlife, it would be appropriate, where feasible to install some large wildlife snags as part of mitigation (Ideally by slavaging some of the large trees with cavities). We have included Madrone in our final tree replacement plan as 5 percent of the tree mix and now show locations where snags will be installed. Figure 21 also provides a sang detail for installation. See Attachment I - Revised Figures, Draft Sensitive Areas Study. Plans 1. Sheet L106, Landscape schedule. Specifications for topsoil should be called out and the notes should indicate that topsoil is to be tilled into native soils to a depth of at least 12 inches. Sheet L106, Landscape schedule. All burlap should removed prior to planting so that roots can be inspected, and pruned if necessary. See Attachment J - Revised Landscape Schedule (Sheet L 106). See Attachment J - Revised Landscape Schedule (Sheet L106). 2. 3 Sheet C70, Surface Water System Plan. Does the County have previous experience with a similar system for managing stormwater that comes from the hot load area (i.e. the manually operated valve to divert flow to the wastewater system)? What assurances do we have that this system will work to keep contamination out of the stormwater system? King County has experience with manually- operated diversion and shut -off valves in similar situations at several other transfer stations including the Enumclaw and Shoreline facilities. The hot load pad use will be in response to a specific need and will require staff to direct the hot load vehicle from the transfer station tipping floor to the hot load pad areas in the transfer trailer yard. Staff will accompany load to the pad and will follow posted procedures for diverting the pad drainage from the normal stormwater flow situation to the sanitary sewer. The valve switching procedure will be posted on conspicuous signs at the hot load pad and staff will be trained in performing this switch over as part of the broader training in how to deal with hot load situations. The station Operating Plan will include a section on responding to hot loads and will also cover the valve management procedures. The valve will be pneumatically operated which means that the staff will only have to push a button to make the valve switch over. The valve will likely be a three -way valve, so that only one valve will need to be operated to make the switch over. Bow Lake Recycling and Transfer Station UUP/DR Applications Comment / Response Matrix May 2, 2008 5 of 6 Comment No. Source of Comment Comment Response to Comment Draft Geotechnic al Report 1. What are the probable hydrology sources to the streams and wetlands and what might the hydrological impacts be to downgradient wetlands and streams from collecting stormwater from the new facility and discharging it dorectly Into Stream/Ditch E, rather than infiltrating it? The probable source of water to Stream E2 is both natural surface water flowing beneath Interstate 5 via a culvert, and groundwater. No impacts to the water source of Stream E2 from the proposed stormwater collection system is anticipated. The probable source of water to Stream El and the wetlands below is groundwater daylighting from the valley wall. Stormwater collection is not anticipated to affect these sources or impact downgradient streams or wetlands due to the presence of groundwater seepage. The source of hydrology for Stream E is both groundwater and surface flow. The stormwater collection system may result in temporary increased discharge of water to Stream E during large storm events that exceed the capacity of the detention system. Fire Department 1. Fire flow was calculated using 1000 GPM as required, this is incorrect FireFlow. The calculated flow requirement with sprinkler system reduction is 3,375 gpm for 4 hours. See Attachment K for additional information on fire flow requirements. 2. Sprinkler density shall be no less than .30/3000. KCSWD acknowledges that the sprinkler density shall be no less than 0.30 gpm /sf over 3,000 sf application area. See Attachment K for additional information on fire flow requirements. Building Department All work pertaining to construction of buildings and retaining wall will not be inspected solely by King County Inspectors. There have been requests in the past to self certify (King County) Construction. Ref General Note #2, Sheet G17. The note to which this comment refers has been amended to state: "All work pertaining to this project shall be subject to inspection by the relevant permitting agencies and by the owner's Project Representative (PR) or PR's designated representative." See Attachment L for Sheet G17 and General Note #2. Bow Lake Recycling and Transfer Station UUP/DR Applications Comment / Response Matrix May 2, 2008 6 of 6 Attachment K Fire Flow Requirements L N S Date: October 3, 2007 To: RW Beck, Inc. Attn: Beverley Charlish Copies: Karl Hufnagel /lan Sutton I-NS ENGINEERS, INC. P.O. BOX 2598, GIG HARBOR, WASHINGTON 98335 P: 253.851 .51 75 •F:253.851.7366 •E MAIL:LNS @LNSENGINEER MEMORANDUM RE: Bow Lake Processing/Transfer Station Fire Flow Requirements From: Larry Storset The following summary is provided determination of the fire flow requirements for the BLPTS Facility per the 2006 International Fire Code, Appendix B:: The project consists of multiple buildings on the site with the Processing/Transfer Building being the significant structure on the site with a total building square footage, including canopies and overhangs, of 100,322 square feet summarized as follows: Main Floor Including all Roof Overhangs : Compactor Level: Equipment Level: Mezzanine Level: Penthouse Level: Total Area Including All Floors, Overhangs: 75,390 SF 16,167 SF 6,984 SF 1,378 SF 403 SF 100,322 SF Main Floor includes all area under the roof line including the Transfer Area Floors and the Upper Level TSO Area. The Processing/Transfer Building is a Type II -B Construction per the IBC. Per Table B105.1 of the IFC, the required fire flow and duration for an un- sprinklered building is 6,750 gallons per minute for a duration of 4 hours. With 100% fire sprinkler protection of the structure, a reduction of 50% is allowed per direction of the Tukwila Fire Marshal. Required Fire Flow = 3,375 gpm with a residual pressure of 20 psi Required Fire Flow Duration = 4 hours Attachments: (4) Area Calculation Sheets BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANFER FACILITY REQUIRED FIRE FLOW t/. c. 03 0 0 0 ; 0 W a 30 • Scale Fee 1 1 I ;IruhIH COMPACTOR LEVEL = 16167 sqft COMPACTOR PLAN AREA LEVEL 1 COMPACTOR AND YARD WASTE SCAUE 1/32' On 11x17 Sheet X_A100JP—SUB—CNISAhvg 6 0 0 !.• 0 tO 20 30 40 Scole Fee 11111111l111111111111•11111111111111111111 94 3 AI& f1 V N LL —/ 0 =0 L _J EQUIPMENT LEVEL (INCLUDING MEZZ. LEVEL) = 6984 sqft MEZZANINE LEVEL = 1378 sqft LF _ J L _ — — r EQUIPMENT LEVEL AREA LEVEL 2 1RANSFER & 7S0 BUILDING SCALE: 1/32 1 On 11x17 Sheet X_A100_FP—LVL2—CALCS.dwg O 0 0 0 0 0 L Ld Id Y ROOF AREA (INCLUDING OVERHANGS) = 75390 sqft — ROOF PLAN AREA lEva 1 1RANSFER & TSO BUILDING SCALE: 1/32 _ , -0 On 11x17 Sheet X_A1oo RP- cxcsAwq E4- 0 0 Ntiv1Y > ^a b ^q s : pD - 1N3d a1 061v a \•! W -Z-U1 •, > :- 4, 1 0 1 -+• SBL: U \ _UUC a UI - :UUL SU VU •+ toia A 2 3 �tiT r :, al ;T71�7 RO S G GENERAL NOTES 1. ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY OF TUKWIIJA ENGINEERING STANDARDS, KING COUNTY ENGINEERING DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, AND HIGHUNE WATER DISTRICT FOR WATER AND SEWER SYSTEMS. REFER TO SPECIFICATION SECTION 01095 FOR ORDER OF PRECEDENCE. 2. ALL WORK PERTAINING TO THIS PROJECT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO INSPECTION BY THE RELEVANT PERMITTING AGENCIES AND BY THE OWNER'S PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE (PR) OR PR'S DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE. PRIOR TO ANY SITE WORK, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE PR AT (206) 263 -6476 TO SCHEDULE A PRECONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE. 3. PRIOR TO ANY SITE DISTURBING ACTIVITY INCLUDING CLEARING, LOGGING OR GRADING, THE SITE CLEARING UMITS AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS SHALL BE LOCATED AND FIELD IDENTIFIED BY THE COUNTY'S PROJECT SURVEYOR. THE PR'S NAME AND TELEPHONE NUMBER ARE: NAME TOM CREEGAN, KING COUNTY PHONE: (206) 263 -6476 4. THE CONTRACTOR 6 RESPONSIBLE FOR PROTECTING SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER QUALITY. A SURFACE WATER MONITORING PROGRAM SHALL BE ESTABUSHED BY THE PR. THE PR'S NAME AND PHONE NUMBER ARE: NAME TOM CREEGAN, KING COUNTY PHONE: (206) 26,3-6476 UUP2 I Drum 3-20- DESIGNED DRAWN VERIFY SCALE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ANSI '0' DRAWING 0 1' REV A OCT 07 FREE RECYCUNG AREA PROPERTY LINE DATE CHK'D APP'D I-5 ON—RAM PLAN SfTE GRADING SCALE: 1' = 80' SOUTH PERIMETER ROAD HOT LOAD AREA TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ACCESS EASEMENT UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT REVISION DESCRIPTION SITE ENTRANCE CELL TOWER ACCESS ROAD COMMERCIAL ENTRANCE ROAD King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division SELF —HAUL ENTRANCE /EXIT ROAD R.W. Beck, Inc. 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2500 Seattle, WA 98154 -1004 (206) 695 -4700 7 CONSTRUCTION LIMIT RETAINING WALL, TYP NORTH SCALE FACIUTY ROAD NORTH PERIMETER ROAD NORTH SCALE FACILITY BO 1 Scale BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILITY GENERAL ARRANGEMENT SITE PLAN 0 80 PROJECT NUMBER: DRAWING NUMBER: G17 Feet 160 11- 00839 -2000 SM. OF 6 s Project: QD to Lod es Address: 1 CO 0v-i tl i . I ' Date transmitted: ,Zi �� r Response requested by: rn cuo / '. Staff coordinator: I V l ( ` " 3 Date response received: LAND USE PERMIT ROUTING FORM TO: 1 Building in Planning 4 Public Works E Fire Dept. ❑ Police Dept. ❑ Parks /Rec e ce-- ;)_&_sL_ C .6 is(v IK 0 n i s Airn.L ❑ DRC review requested Plan check date: 11 0 tb Cii' of Tukwila Department of Community Development COMMENTS Comments prepared by: File Number 1 —0c, Lb 7 _ O� ❑ Plan submittal requested Plan approved MinnieDhaliwal - Re: Bow Lake Transfer Facility From: Joanna Spencer To: Minnie Dhaliwal Date: 04/17/2008 5:21 pm Subject: Re: Bow Lake Transfer Facility Minnie: Reg your voice mail /traffic & access safety issues I checked with Cyndy and PW can not enforce any restrictions or access road modifications if the streets are outside Tukwila right of way, however they will be subject to traffic mitigation impact fee. As far as additional comment to be provided by PW after they resubmit: due to steep slopes, complexity and magnitude of earthwork PW will ask for a land altering /geotech inspection for their grading activities to be a performed by S & W at applicants expense. Page 1, Attendees Minnie Dhaliwal, City of Tukwila Joanna Spencer, City of Tukwila Brenda Holt, City of Tukwila Neil Fujii, King County Tom Creegan, King County Ian Sutton, R. W. Beck Meeting Notes Bow Lake Transfer and Recycling Station City of Tukwila Status Meeting April 4, 2008 The purpose of the meeting was to update the City of Tukwila (City) on the construction schedule for the Bow Lake Recycling and transfer Station (BLRTS) and also to obtain an update from the City regarding the King County (County) Unclassified Use Permit and Design Review (UUP/DR) application. 1. The County plans to move forward with construction in 2008, rather than postpone construction until the Dry Season (May 1 — September 30 of 2009. To help facilitate an earlier start of construction, the County is open to paying additional costs for an accelerated review of the UUP/DR and other required permits. 2. UUP/DR a. The City is currently compiling comments. The City will send the current comments that they have, and expect to be able to send the remainder of the comments by Friday, April 11. b. Once City comments are resolved the public hearing can be scheduled. It's expected that the public hearing will take place approximately 1 month after comments are resolved. c. At the time of the public hearing, the County will need to present reassurance that the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) property and Segale easement acquisitions are secure. d. It was noted by the City that trees only need to be replaced if they are removed from sensitive area buffers or from steep ( >15 %) slopes. This should be considered in the tree replacement calculations, if not already done so. e. Updated items that have been modified since the application submittal should be resubmitted to the City as early as possible for consideration for the public hearing in their updated form. 15 extra sets of plans will be required for the public hearing. f. Project art concepts and placement should be presented at the public hearing. 1 g. Only signs visibly from City streets need be permitted by the City. No signs currently fit this situation as the entrance to the site is within Unincorporated King County. 3. Other Permitting a. A letter needs to be composed to the Public Works Director regarding the existing and proposed sewer vault. An exemption needs to be requested, as the site will not be initially connected to municipal sewer. b. Other City permits related to building and grading are expected to include: i. One combined permit for the retaining walls, grading, and utilities; ii. One permit for the surface water detention vault; iii. One permit for the surface water treatment vault; and iv. One permit for the electrical. Brenda will confirm the required permits with Bob Benedicto and send the County the appropriate information. A separate review fee will be required for each permit. Permit fees will need to consider the cost related to the work related to the specific permit. The County needs to provide the estimated costs. Note that these other permits can be applied for once the public hearing is scheduled. c. No right -of -way use permit is needed from the City. d. A Special Permissions Director permit is required for work within sensitive areas. This permit can be applied for once the City's environmental comments are received. e. The City of SeaTac has been notified and briefed on the project. The City of SeaTac has had no comments to date. [Note that following the meeting, through communications with Dixie Hallenberger of the City of SeaTac, it was determined that a Grading Permit would be required for the work within City of SeaTac.] f. Highline Water District will need to approve the water - supply design. 111 I\ U1 LVUU IUL 1 V'LL 1111 March 31, 2008 1 I Ill 11V• =111 SHANNON &WILSON, INC.. Ms. Joanna Spencer City of Tukwil a Public Works Department/Engineering Division 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: GEOTECHNICAL PEER REVIEW, BOW LAKE TRANSFER/RECYCLING STATION, JUNG COUNTY SOLID WASTE DIVISION, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON ALASKA CAUFOFNIA COLORADO FLORIPA MIB8OUHI OREGON WAHHINGYON Dear Ms. Spencer: This letter presents the results of our review of two geotechnical engineering reports for the above - referenced project in Tukwila, Washington. The project consists of redeveloping the transfer station by demolishing the existing station, constructing new facilities and roadways, and constructing stormwater and sanitary sewer pipelines extending down slope from the station to the adjacent valley floor. The purpose of our review is to offer an opinion as to the appropriateness and adequacy of the geotechnical reports prepared by HWA Geosciences Inc. (FIWA). Our opinions are based on information contained in the reports, a brief site visit, and review of the City of Tukwila's Administrative Design Review Requirements and Geotechnical Report Guidelines. The following geotechnical reports were submitted to the City of Tukwila for this project: • "Draft Geotechnical Report, Bow Lake Transfer/Recycling Station, King County Solid Waste Division, Tukwila, Washington," prepared by HWA Geosciences, Inc. for R.W. Beck, dated May 21, 2007. • "Draft Geotechnical Report, Slope Pipelines, Bow Lake Processing/Transfer Facility, King County Solid Waster Division, Tukwila, Washington," prepared by HWA Geosciences, Inc. for R.W. Beck, dated January 17, 2008. 400 NORTH 34TH STREET • SUITE 100 P.O, BOX 300303 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 96103 206'632.5020 FAX 206.695.6777 TDD! 1.600.933.6368 www.snannonwilson,com 21 -1 -20955 -001 1. VL 111 0. V L 1-VVV 1 VI.. . V • 1.1- 111 Ms. Joanna Spencer City of Tukwila March 31, 2008 Page 2 The following sections summarize the results of our reviews. 2I- 140689.001 -L1 /wplerr SHANNON 6WILSON, INC. The first report presents results of geotechnical studies for the redevelopment of the transfer station. The second report presents results of geotechnical studies for the proposed pipelines. The redevelopment site is on a closed landfill along the east side of Interstate 5 (1 -5). The proposed development is owned partly by King County and partly by Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). The subject property is bordered on the east side by the La Pianta property, which lies at the toe of the slope, approximately 180 feet below the Bow Lake transfer /recycling station. A natural ravine exists north of the site. The WSDOT parcel is predominantly occupied by a large stockpile of fill material. Fill on both parcels — landfill and stockpile —was not placed as engineered structural fi11 and has variable content and consistency. The geotechnical report indicates that refuse is likely present underlying the ground surface in varying amounts over the entire King County parcel and the southeast portion of the WSDOT parcel. We understand that the proposed redevelopment will include retaining walls, new buildings, scale and parking facilities, and access drives, including a new access drive supported on fill at the eastern side of the site. We understand that the proposed stormwater and sanitary sewer lines will be routed from the new transfer station at the north end of the site (on the WSDOT parcel) to the valley floor. The pipelines likely will be high - density polyethylene (HOPE), and will be laid on the ground, anchored into the slope, or placed in a trench, depending on the slope conditions along the route. In their geotechnical reports, HWA provided the results of their field and laboratory testing, general site conditions, and recommendations or conclusions for the following: seismic design, refuse compressibility, preloading considerations, retaining wall schemes, geotechnical parameters for wall design, foundation design, fill placement and compaction, slope stability, and pipe support design. 21.1 -20955 -001 111 11 V1 1-V VV 1 VV 1VLV 1111 Ms. Joanna Spencer City of Tukwila March 31, 2008 Page 3 TRANSFER STATION REDEVELOPMENT REPORT REVIEW COMMENTS The contour line labels on Figures 2A and 2B of the report are not legible; therefore, it is difficult to confirm the elevation difference between lines. During our site visit, we noted that the slope to the east of the proposed east access road appears steeper that the 2.6 horizontal to 1 vertical (2.6H:1V) slope depicted in Section B -B' on Figure 3B -1. We recommend using a bigger font for the contour labels for clarity. We also recommend checking the ground surface shown on the profiles and correcting them, if necessary. On page 19 in Section 4.5.6 of the report, New Road Fill East of the Trailer Parking, HWA recommends preloading prior to fill placement for a new road expanding easterly from the existing east access road. The existing east access road is underlain by up to 40 feet of refuse in some places. On Profile B -B', it appears that the fill will be about 20 to 30 feet high at the easternmost edge and will be placed over sloping ground. HWA states that a shallow toe wall should be placed on a bench cut. On page 38, HWA states that the refuse slope will remain stable provided that their recommendations relating to preloading and structural fill placement and compaction are followed; however, they do not describe the slope stability evaluation performed for the proposed road construction. Slope stability should be addressed in accordance with Section 4.1, Slope Stability, of the City of Tukwila's Bulletin B4, Geotechnical Report Guidelines. Section 4.1 lists the following elements, which must be considered and addressed in a geotechnical report submitted to the City ► Summarize data and analysis used to evaluate slope stability. ■ Provide an opinion regarding the risk of instability on the site or adjacent properties currently, during construction, and after the project is completed. ■ Describe how design and construction recommendations will reduce or eliminate the risk of instability. ■ Discuss any construction or post- construction measures necessary to verify slope stability. We recommend that HWA provide a comprehensive slope stability evaluation that meets Section 4.1 guidelines. 21- 1- 2060-00I -U /wp/CE l` 1 1111 1 4VI SHANNON ,WILSON, INC. 21 -1- 20955 -001 1 11 1% J 1 L %.11.1%.J 1 V L 1 V• L N 1 11 1 Ms. Joanna Spencer City of Tukwila March 31, 2008 Page 4 2 I.2o6B9 -OO I -1.1 hvaser 1 1 111 11V. SHANNON &WILSON, INC. HWA states in Section 4.5.6 of their report that excess fill from the WSDOT stockpile could be used for preloading. Structural fill and compaction recommendations are provided in Section 4.19, on page 35, of the report. These recommendations are provided for material used to raise site grades, support structures, or as backfill behind below -grade structures such as catch basins or pipes. It is unclear if the WSDOT stockpile material can be used as structural fill as well and if that is the intent of the recommendation. The report should clarify if material from the stockpile can be used as permanent structural fill. On page 21 in Section 4.7 of the report, Retaining Walls along the North and ]East Access Road, HWA states that road fill will be required along the north and east perimeter roads where existing fill slopes are as steep as 1H:1V. HWA states that their slope stability analyses indicated a new road in this location would be unstable and would require a retaining structure. They do not indicate if a stability evaluation was performed with the proposed retaining wall in place. A slope stability evaluation should be performed for all retaining walls and/or fills, particularly walls and fills that will be on or adjacent to slopes. The evaluation should be performed in accordance with Section 4.1 of Bulletin B4 (shown above). On page 26 in Section 4.11 of the report, South Scale Facility, HWA states that placement of structural fill over sloped excavation sidewalls will cause settlement of the refuse and result in differential settlement of pavement and utilities near the scale facility. They indicate that this differential settlement could be alleviated by preloading. On page 21, they also address preloading on a slope. They state that before placing fill on the slope, the area should be bench- cut into the existing slope to key in initial lifts. We recommend that HWA include a detail illustrating their recommendations for benching, filling, and preloading on slopes. On page 36 in Section 4.20 of the report, Pile Foundations, HWA provides recommended allowable bearing cap.acities/allowable pile capacities. We recommend that HWA provide estimated embedment depths into the glacial deposits underlying the site for each of the listed pile capacities. If pile foundations are further considered, lateral resistance of pile foundations may need to be addressed and evaluated in the final geotechnical report. 21- 1- 20955 -001 1.11♦ V1 ■VVV I VIr 1V'LV 1111 Ms. Joanna Spencer City of Tukwila March 31, 2008 Page 5 SHANNON 6WILSON. INC. On page 39 in Section 4.22.2 of the report, WSDOT Parcel, HWA reconunends a minimum horizontal setback of 40 feet from the crest of steep slopes with inclinations of 40 percent or greater. This report should address setback distances for structures on the King County parcel as well. PIPELINE REPORT REVIEW COMMENTS On page 11 in Section 4.1 of this report, General, HWA states that steep gradient cuts along the lower slope should be regraded to flatten their slopes to 1V:1.5H for laying the proposed pipes. On page 15 in Section 4.4, HWA states that existing steep cut slopes which are presently standing nearly vertical should be regraded to 1V:1.5H in native, glacially - consolidated, dense soil slopes and to 1V:2H for all other slopes consisting of other soil types. HWA should provide clarification on the slope regarding reconunendations for the pipeline route. On page 15 in Section 4.3, Pipe Support in Non - refuse Areas, HWA provides design parameters to evaluate lateral resistance using the computer program L -PILE. The effective unit weight provided for the upper 10 feet is 0,125 pounds per cubic inch (pci) and 130 pci below 10 feet. This appears to be an error and should be corrected. CONCLUSION In general, the geotechnical reports we reviewed are draft and incomplete at this time. Additional analyses are necessary and may be necessary in final planning of the proposed redevelopment and pipeline construction. A review of the final geotechnical reports should be performed. We recommend that the permit applicant have the Geotechnical Engineer of Record respond to these comments and submit a revised report, as appropriate. Comments made during the review process do not relieve the project applicant or designer from compliance with code requirements, conditions of approval, or permit requirements; nor is the designer relieved of responsibility for a complete design in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. This peer review is a check for compliance with generally accepted professional 21 -1- 20689.001 -LI Iwp/LKO 21 -1 -20955 -001 111 IS V1 LVVV IVI- 1•'1 -V 1111 Ms. Joanna Spencer City of Tukwila March 31, 2008 Page 6 geotechnical engineering principles and practices used by geotechnical engineering firms in this area. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions or need clarification, we are available at (206) 632 -8020. Sincerely, SHANNON & WILSON, INC. ureen M. Beintum, P.E. Senior Engineer LMB:MWP:TMG/lmb 2 I -I- 20609- 001- Lllwp/I.KD Martin W. Page, P.E., L.E.G. Associate SHANNON &WILSON. INC. 21 -1 -20955 -001 Name Address Phone 1. LJO 51 si- X4 ( 3 2. kit I - 5I 3. it- kc CI' s 1.# C o ( -I vi ..--4 - t -- X 72 - o 4. D n0►- S c - CtrK oc - 114./6)/60- Ptti 206 - q3 3 -o17y 5. KlLlt_ 11 '1l.qT kvKi c`i 5-01-tb tAnkS d-OCo - agCo - 4`c 670 COR h Is r I ' 4 20 G 261 tw416 7. - (2.1___ lAv rJPi , Z lA) , i fk J by z,Dt • `P 5- 45 o?GY -5 7S aoo0 - C. 2) g. >8c� .g "TU„ 1 4014 9R/ 3c' • 14-1-- T+ -lul� 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. SIGN UP SHEET FOR PUBLIC MEETING January 22, 2008 Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this (1 day of year 20 V in the Dept. Of Community City of Tukwila AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION Development I JOliite) . rirg' nu HEREBY DECLARE THAT: Project Number: I0 7 _ Notice of Public Hearing Mailer's Signature: ' Determination of Non - Significance Notice of Public Meeting Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt Notice of Action Planning Commission Agenda Pkt Official Notice Short Subdivision Agenda Notice of Application Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit _ - FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 Other ►t - .__ d,, Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this (1 day of year 20 V in the Project Name: 4 Ale, 6- mc;ttu Project Number: I0 7 _ a I Lo7_o r2-- Mailer's Signature: ' Person re requesting m � 4 9 ails g• Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this (1 day of year 20 V in the City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director NOTICE OF APPLICATION DATED JANUARY 11, 2008 The following application has been submitted to the City of Tukwila Department of Community Development for review and decision. APPLICANT: King County Solid Waste Division LOCATION: 18800 Orillia Road South, Tukwila WA Parcel No. 3523049037 FILE NUMBERS: L07 -081 (Design Review) L07 -082 (Unclassified Use Permit) PROPOSAL: The proposal is to replace and expand the existing Bow Lake Transfer/Recycling Station. The proposed project involves an 8.9 -acre expansion to the north of the existing station on adjacent property currently owned by Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). The proposed project will involve demolition of existing structures and site work. New structures will include a Transfer Building, two scale facilities, a maintenance building, transfer trailer yard, recycling and yard waste facilities, internal roadways and parking areas, and associated utilities. King County was the lead agency for SEPA and had previously issued a Mitigated Determination of Significance for this project. These files can be reviewed at the Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., #100, Tukwila, WA. Please call (206) 431 -3670 to ensure that the file(s) will be available. OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT Your comments on the project are requested. There will be a public meeting on January 22, 2008, from 4 -6 p.m. at the City of Tukwila Department of Community Development, which is located at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100. This will be your opportunity to meet the applicant, review the plans and speak with City staff member. You must submit your comments in writing to the Department of Community Development by 5:00 p.m. on January 25, 2008. If you have questions about this proposal contact Minnie Dhaliwal, Senior Planner at 206 - 431 -3685. Anyone who submits written comments will become parties of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. APPEALS Jim Haggerton, Mayor 6300 Southcenter Boulevard. Suite #100 • Tukwila. Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 4 - .3/70 • Fax• 2n6 4 Cit y GIS � 350ft Copyright O 2006 All Rights Reserved. The information contained herein is the proprietary property of the contributor supplied under license and may not be approved except as licensed by Digital Map Products. City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director NOTICE OF APPLICATION DATED JANUARY 11, 2008 The following application has been submitted to the City of Tukwila Department of Community Development for review and decision. APPLICANT: King County Solid Waste Division LOCATION: 18800 Orillia Road South, Tukwila WA Parcel No. 3523049037 FILE NUMBERS: L07 -081 (Design Review) L07 -082 (Unclassified Use Permit) PROPOSAL: The proposal is to replace and expand the existing Bow Lake Transfer/Recycling Station. The proposed project involves an 8.9 -acre expansion to the north of the existing station on adjacent property currently owned by Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). The proposed project will involve demolition of existing structures and site work. New structures will include a Transfer Building, two scale facilities, a maintenance building, transfer trailer yard, recycling and yard waste facilities, internal roadways and parking areas, and associated utilities. King County was the lead agency for SEPA and had previously issued a Mitigated Determination of Significance for this project. These files can be reviewed at the Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., #100, Tukwila, WA. Please call (206) 431 -3670 to ensure that the file(s) will be available. OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT Your comments on the project are requested. There will be a public meeting on January 22, 2008, from 4 -6 p.m. at the City of Tukwila Department of Community Development, which is located at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100. This will be your opportunity to meet the applicant, review the plans and speak with City staff member. You must submit your comments in writing to the Department of Community Development by 5:00 p.m. on January 25, 2008. If you have questions about this proposal contact Minnie Dhaliwal, Senior Planner at 206 - 431 -3685. Anyone who submits written comments will become parties of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. APPEALS Jim Haggerton, Mayor 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 350ft CityG IS Copyright 02006 All Rights Reserved. The information contained herein is the proprietary property of the contributor supplied under license and may not be approved except as licensed by Digital Map Products. Page 1 of 1 PROPERTX UNE . DR3 ft.... 1. _ RETAINING WALL G EXISTING TRANSFER BUILDING 1AAINTFNANCE BUILDING RETAINING WALL E CELL TOWER 1 ACCESS ROAD A REV OCT 07 DATE CNK'D APP'D 1 DESIGN REVIEW REVISION DESCRIPTION / • INSTRUCTION UNITS, TYP / PLAN SITE PLAN SCALE 1' = 50' PROPERTY UNE r's---- PROPERTY UNE, TYP x La King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division Y FREE RECYCU NG AREA RETAINING WALL C ON p- R.W. Bedc, Inc. 1001 Fourth Avenue, Sutle 2500 Seattle, WA 98154 -1004 (206) 695-4700 • RETAINING WALL A ACCESS GATE/ SITE PLAN sacieravu. owl co 1. FIRE DEPAR err HAS ACCESS TO ALL BUILOLNGS VIA ON —SITE ROADS WHICH PROVIDE A RUU. LOOP AROUND THE SHE. 2. NO PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS ARE PROVIDED ALONG THE PROPERTY FRONTAGE TO DISCOURAGE PEDESTRIAN ACTMIY. IN ORDER TO HELP KEEP CUSTOMERS AND VISITORS SAFE. WHILE ON —SHE, LACED PEDESTRIAN ACCESS 6 PROVIDED ON —SITE. 3. 'THE PROJECT PROPERTY 6 WITHIN THE CRY OF TUNNUA'S TUKWILA VALLEY SOUTH ZONING DESIGNAION WHICH REQUIRES SETBACKS OF 25 FEET AT NE FRONT, 5 FEET ON THE SIDES, AND 5 FEET AT THE REAR. SETBACKS HAVE NOT BEEN SHOWN DUE TO DRAWING SCALE. 4. THE SITE 6 A DROP —OFF AND LOAD—OUT FACILITY DESIGNATING ALL ACTIVE AREAS AS LOADING AND SERVICE AREAS. RECEIVED 50 (� 0 ry R 50 100 1 =so 0 NO V — '6 5 LDIi� 5� Fse2 OOMMU11i BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILWEVEWPP'' Ante 11-00839-2000 OF: OROOINO MI✓ WR Sue Carlson Director of Development P.O. Box 88028 Tukwila, Washington 98138 Anthony Manns Construction Manager T — Mobile USA 19807 North Creek Parkway North Bothell, Washington 98011 John R. and Angela L. Richardson 18410 Military Road S. SeaTac, Washington 98188 Steven G. Reynolds 18430 Military Road S. Seattle, Washington 98188 South Ridge Condominiums Home Owners Association 4802 S. 187 Place #103 SEATAC, WA 98188 JODIE R HOLMES 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg A, # 103 SEATAC, WA 98188 JULIA A BLAIR 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg A, # 106 SEATAC, WA 98188 SYBIL SUANE POWELL 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg A, # 203 SEATAC, WA 98188 SEGUNDO BEN QUIJANO 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg A, # 206 SEATAC, WA 98188 JESSE MARTINEZ 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg A, # 303 SEATAC, WA 98188 VE Y® Address Labels Sue Carlson Director of Development 5811 Segale Park Drive C Tukwila, Washington 98188 Schoenbachler Enterprises 9253 E. Sands Drive Scottsdale, Arizona 85255 Leslie C. Clayton 18418 Military Road S. SeaTac, Washington 98188 Bui Vien D. and Tonnu Thanh -Thie 12613 38 Avenue S.E. Everett, Washington 98208 LOYDA VILCHES 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg A, # 101 SEATAC, WA 98188 ALI AL- YASIRI 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg A, # 104 SEATAC, WA 98188 J E PEMBERTON 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg A, # 201 SEATAC, WA 98188 LAWRENCE LUM 4802 S. 187th Place Bldg A, # 204 SEATAC, WA 98188 VINCENT M GARCIA 4802 S. 187 Place, Bldg A, #301 SEATAC, WA 98188 RICHARD G +CAROL F SINES 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg A, # 304 SEATAC, WA 98188 La Pianta LLC P.O. Box 88028 Tukwila, Washington 98138 Schoenbachler Enterprises 18115 57 Ave S Tukwila, WA 98188 Simeon C. Pabillon, Jr. 18424 Military Road S. Seattle, Washington 98188 Neil St. Pierre 18402 Military Road S. SeaTac, Washington 98188 CHERI L LEMONS 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg A, # 102 SEATAC, WA 98188 BOUBACAR DIALLO 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg A, # 105 SEATAC, WA 98188 Fairbanks Capital Corp 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg A, # 202 SEATAC, WA 98188 JEANNE L DUNN 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg A, # 205 SEATAC, WA 98188 GRACIA STUECKLE 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg A, # 302 SEATAC, WA 98188 STEPHANIE ANN MARTINSON 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg A, # 305 SEATAC, WA 98188 Laser 5160® BRENT CURTIS SCOTT 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg A, # 306 SEATAC, WA 98188 SOUTH RIDGE HOMEOWNERS ASSO 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg B, # 103 SEATAC, WA CAROLE ASBURY 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg B, # 106 SEATAC, WA 98188 K & P LEASING CO 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg B, # 204 SEATAC, WA 98188 PATRICK R HANCOCK 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg B, #301 SEATAC, WA 98188 TERESA J RAYMOND 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg B, # 304 SEATAC, WA 98188 BEVERLY A LICON 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg C, # 101 SEATAC, WA 98188 DARLENE R TAYLOR 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg C, # 104 SEATAC, WA 98188 CHILDERS SOCTT PAUL+ 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg C, # 201 SEATAC, WA 98188 REED W JENSIK 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg C, # 204 SEATAC, WA 98188 AVERY® Address Labels KATHLEEN Z SMITHSON 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg B, # 101 SEATAC, WA 98188 K & P LEASING CO 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg B, # 104 SEATAC, WA 98188 MICHAEL S BALLARD 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg B, # 201 SEATAC, WA 98188 SCOTT C ROSS 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg B, # 205 SEATAC, WA 98188 GEORGE J HOAG 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg B, # 302 SEATAC, WA 98188 STACEY ANNE JOHNSTON 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg B, #305 SEATAC, WA 98188 LEW VAJTAI 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg C, # 102 SEATAC, WA 98188 PATRICK and MOIRA L O'CROTTY- 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg C, # 105 SEATAC, WA K NATSUHARA 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg C, # 202 SEATAC, WA 98188 ANGELIA S LIBERTY 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg C, # 205 SEATAC, WA 98188 NATHAN COMES 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg B, # 102 SEATAC, 98188 BARBARA J BRADBURY 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg B, # 105 SEATAC, WA 98188 LAURA E MARTINEZ 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg B, # 203 SEATAC, WA 98188 MARIA RIAS JAVIER +MARTINEZ 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg B, # 206 SEATAC, WA 98188 JENNIFER SPOFFORD 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg B, # 303 SEATAC, WA 98188 ANDREA L SLADE 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg B, # 306 SEATAC, WA 98188 MELKUMYANTS ALEKSANDR F +ELIONORA 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg C, # 103 SEATAC, WA 98188 TERRI J RAYMOND 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg C, # 106 SEATAC, WA 98188 ROBERT TODD WOOLMAN 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg C, # 203 SEATAC, WA 98188 STANLEY I +NAOMI T NAKANISHI 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg C, # 206 SEATAC, WA 98188 Laser 5160® TERRY Y UEMURA 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg C, # 301 SEATAC, WA 98188 JEFF & GAIL GANZER 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg D, # 102 SEATAC, WA 98188 GARRETT +MARTIN MELIS MOFFAT Bldg D, # 105 4802 S. 187 Place SEATAC, WA BILLY L DAVIE Bldg D, # 202 4802 S. 187 Place SEATAC, WA 98188 RAYMOND A REINHOLZ Bldg D, # 205 4802 S. 187 Place SEATAC, WA 98188 KANDA KHAMPHILOM Bldg D, # 302 4802 S. 187 Place SEATAC, WA 98188 William Forbes 18234 51 Ave S. Tukwila, WA 98188 //• rt, EW® A,irlrIrshcc E ahaIlc JULIE A MEDLEY 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg C, # 302 SEATAC, WA 98188 MARK I MARQUEZ 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg D, # 103 SEATAC, WA 98188 EVON A TANABE Bldg D, # 106 4802 S. 187 Place SEATAC, WA 98188 EVELYN C LEON Bldg D, # 203 4802 S. 187 Place SEATAC, WA 98188 BRENDA D DINGWALL Bldg D, # 206 4802 S. 187 Place SEATAC, WA 98188 THERESA R WILSON Bldg D, # 303 4802 S. 187 Place SEATAC, WA 98188 M &P Company 19000 57 Ave S Tukwila, WA 98188 BELCHER GENE 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg D, # 101 SEATAC, WA 98188 RICHARD TONG 4802 S. 187 Place Bldg D, # 104 SEATAC, WA 98188 AUGURNEL P JOHNSON Bldg D, # 201 4802 S. 187 Place SEATAC, WA 98188 EDDIE J BROWN Bldg D, # 204 4802 S. 187 Place SEATAC, WA 98188 MALKIT SINGH Bldg D, # 301 4802 S. 187 Place SEATAC, WA 98188 Bill and Janet Ravander 18240 51 Ave S Tukwila, WA 98188 GWI Realty LLC 18700 Southcenter Pkwy Tukwila, WA 98188 =car g'C APA® S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS EDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION (X)EPT OF FISH & WILDLIFE )'OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY () TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT EPT NATURAL RESOURCES ( ) OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR ( ) DEPT OF COMM. TRADE & ECONOMIC DEV. ( ) DEPT OF FISHERIES & WILDLIFE ( ) BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD () FIRE DISTRICT #11 () FIRE DISTRICT #2 () K.C. WASTEWATER TREATMENT DIVISION () K.C. DEPT OF PARKS &REC <K.C. ASSESSORS OFFICE ( ) TUKWILA SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) TUKWILA LIBRARY ( ) RENTON LIBRARY () KENT LIBRARY ( ) CITY OF SEATTLE LIBRARY ( ) QWEST ( ) SEATTLE CITY LIGHT () PUGET SOUND ENERGY () HIGHLINE WATER DISTRICT () SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT ( ) COMCAST KENT PLANNING DEPT ( ) TUKWILA CITY DEPARTMENTS: ( ) PUBLIC WORKS () FIRE () POLICE ( ) FINANCE ( ) PLANNING () BUILDING ( ).PARKS & REC. () MAYOR ( ) CITY CLERK () PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL ( ISW K C CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 41 MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE CULTURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM" FISHERIES PROGRAM" ())(WILDLIFE PROGRAM "Send SEPA Checklist and full set of plans w/ NOA ( ) SEATTLE TIMES ( ) SO 1 COUNTY JOURNAL w a ° T P:\ADMINLSTRATWE \FORMS \CHECKLIST.DOC CHECKLIST: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW /SHORELINE PERMIT MAILINGS FEDERAL AGENCIES WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES. KING COUNTY AGENCIES SCHOOLS/LIBRARIES UTILITIES CITY AGENCIES OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES MEDIA ,(> ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY U.S. DEPT OF H.U.D. (JJA TIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE ( ) DEPT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERV. DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SHORELAND DIV, NW Regional Office ,(EPT OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DIVISION' ( ) OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL * SEND CHKUST W/ DETERMINATIONS ' SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION ..(HEALTH DEPT 54PORT OF SEATTLE K.C. DEV & ENVIR SERVICES -SEPA INFO CNTR ( ) K.C. TRANSIT DIVISION - SEPA OFFICIAL ( ) K.C. LAND & WATER RESOURCES ( ) FOSTER LIBRARY ( ) K C PUBLIC LIBRARY ( ) HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT () RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ).OLYMPIC PIPELINE ( ) VAL -VUE SEWER DISTRICT ( ) WATER DISTRICT #20 ( ) WATER DISTRICT #125 ( ) CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS () BRYN MAWR- LAKERIDGE SEWERNVATER DISTRICT :( RENTON PLANNING DEPT PirCITY OF SEA -TAC (>)ZCITY OF BURIEN ( ) TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ( ) TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ( ) CITY OF SEATTLE - SEPA INFO CENTER - DCLU ( ) STRATEGIC PLANNING OFFICE* • NOTICE OF ALL SEATTLE RELATED PLNG PROJ. , DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE' ktP.S. AIR POLLUTION CLEAN AGENCY ( ) SOUND TRANSIT UWAMISH RIVER CLEAN -UP COALITION' • SEND NOTICE OF ALL APPLICATIONS ON DUWAMISH RIVER ( ) HIGHLINE TIMES ( ) CI.TUKWILA.WA.US.WWW ar CtCCA, - i , , � ti -Ye-� �'I " Co -c M Gov s tat s w A cf&(8`r . Northwest Mountain Regional Office Air Traffic Division, ANM -520 1601 Lind Avenue, SW Renton, WA 98055 -4056 WSDOT -NW Region Rick Roberts MS -120 P.O. Box 330310 Seattle WA 98133 -9710 Tom Creegan, Engineer III KSC -NR -0701 Solid Waste Division Department of Natural Resources and Parks 201 South Jackson Street Suite 701 Seattle WA 98104 -3855 WSDOT - NW Local Agency & Development Services Attn: Ramin Pazooki SnoKing Area, MS 240 P.O. Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133 -9710 November 30, 2007 Dear Mr. Creegan: City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Tom Creegan Engineer 111 KSC -NR -0701 Waste Division Department of Natural Resources 201 South Jackson Street Suite 701 Seattle WA 98104 -3855 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Re: Design Review and Unclassified Use Permit applications for Bow Lake Processing/Trasfer Facility. File Numbers L07 -081 and L07 -082. The Design Review and the Unclassified Use permit applications for the above referenced project have been determined complete for the purposes of meeting state mandated time requirements. This determination of complete application does not preclude the ability of the City to require that you submit additional plans or information, if in our estimation such information is necessary to ensure the project meets the substantive requirements of the City or to complete the review process. The next step is to send the notice of application to surrounding properties and posting the site. The City will be coordinating the mailing and posting. Also, as discussed before we would like to schedule an on site meeting to go over the different aspects of your proposed project. The city would be represented by the Builidng, Fire, Public Works and Planning Departments. Let me know what days and times work best for your team and we'll go from there. If you have any questions you can reach me at 206 - 431 -3685. Sincerely, Minnie Dhaliwal Senior Planner Page 1 11/30/2007 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Project: 1 0 LC L e. l � ' 11 f - l t ' CL, fe't� -t' _`-„z i �', Address: 60 Oft ,( r-- 9 Date transmitted: � � 2-9 requested by: Staff coordinator: ' ;� ` �� , ,� Vim- Date response received: City of Tukwila Department of Community Development LAND USE PERMIT ROUTING FORM TO: Building a Planning .'Public Works Fire Dept. REVIEWERS: Please specify how the attached plans conflict with your ADOPTED development regulations, including citations. Be specific in describing the types of changes you want made to the plans. When referencing codes, please identify the actual requirement and plan change needed. The Planning Division review does not supplant each department's ability to administer its own regulations and permits. However, project consistency at the Planning review stage is important to minimize significant later design changes. More than minimal design changes require further Planning Commission review, even if alteration is required to satisfy a City requirement. This further review is typically a minimum 60-day process. Requirements based on SEPA (e.g., not required by an adopted development regulation) MUST identify the impact being mitigated, the policy basis for requiring mitigation, and the method used to calculate the mitigation required. Calculations of project impacts and the mitigation required (e.g., water capacity, road level of service analyses, or turning analyses) may be required of the applicant. COMMENTS (Attach additional comment sheets and/or support materials as needed.) w ∎ 1 +,A1 cc, .mil S L,•-e . :-J Q - (24. YY\ i� � , - � �- L . c ti coy �..k- ' T L"., �,, �' S •■ S C� � s - T0 M • 1) F,•,,, vo.,.) W95 CAL(, Oh "S 11obb Cs YA AJ 4stv TrA; i 6 in we-4 c•ti-ikcko.,.a , z) --lc vr, ' s i).cvlir nn°X1 u. ve Less` -Ain 130 `3 j 61. pi ( z. L., bY2}vi Ci t....--4_1:1--- •l,+ cu.w -c, A__/..,.° - f Plan check ate: s Comments prepared by Update date: � b� File Number . c'1 -c g i 0,24 i Pc -L, Lc? - O $ Z (..Q.> =L__s Si Lt S-e (L) Police Dept. Parks /Rec Project: 12 1 0 (.(..) L___ ca _Q 1 Yucc..5kg ‘i L / q{c-1., cc, \,l_ ' Address: to l ( t ° r` 1 Date transmitted: 1 2 9 l requested by: Staff coordinator: -�- � � �° ^-Q Date response received: TO: City of Tukwila Department of Community Development LAND USE PERMIT ROUTING FORM Planning 'Public Works X Fire Dept. LE Police Dept. 1 Parks /Rec File Number 1 01 - i ti -e REVIEWERS: Please specify how the attached plans conflict with your ADOPTED development regulations, including citations. Be specific in describing the types of changes you want made to the plans. When referencing codes, please identify the actual requirement and plan change needed. The Planning Division review does not supplant each department's ability to administer its own regulations and permits. However, project consistency at the Planning review stage is important to minimize significant later design changes. More than minimal design changes require further Planning Commission review, even if alteration is required to satisfy a City requirement. This further review is typically a minimum 60 -day process. Requirements based on SEPA (e.g., not required by an adopted development regulation) MUST identify the impact being mitigated, the policy basis for requiring mitigation, and the method used to calculate the mitigation required. Calculations of project impacts and the mitigation required (e.g., water capacity, road level of service analyses, or turning analyses) may be re of the applicant. 6fi LN #Zi oiim_Gl7.co NTs 0 R,C4T /oW (Attach additional comment sheets and/or support materials as needed.) t 1 -{ vt- �.� �l S� Q-- a , c c itz_, 'WA LlS 0,._.....- 0 TcNi c�u a D. f- ks -% ■ `.�,•.p_c...�: tA)a.�,L lA S t��^--� t.,__, - ' - 1 3 0 `' tCTC I AI( (,t,Ir < pertn.1vtI -6 G vvvofto!I o btatWiyc 4 I I ``�� Y ` 4 I ! 5 I /G s� " ( ♦ G r1ivi 0h LA 4 1 _At% . I P1 s T La \ ,r CSLn t:• tikc6 1 .-%-t- . -� -4---s - ' vest has beat Cltif1M II'\ 11446 fa 51 - 40 61 k &1°CL ChM a (4ov -&oof ioi4 S 15 Ilb`(Aagfr t tg, I Plan clfeck date: Comment i Update date: 10/07/07 prepared by: �•! Project: g L Address: 5 ,, l( ‘. ,.� ,n I Date transmitted: - 2 -9 t LCD - Response requested by: Staff coordinator: - - -s�.- t " 4- Date response received: TO: h Building Pis I Plan check date: City of Tukwila Department of Community Development LAND USE PERMIT ROUTING FORM Planning :'Public Works Fire Dept. REVIEWERS: Please specify how the attached plans conflict with your ADOPTED development regulations, including citations. Be specific in describing the types of changes you want made to the plans. When referencing codes, please identify the actual requirement and plan change needed. The Planning Division review does not supplant each department's ability to administer its own regulations and permits. However, project consistency at the Planning review stage is important to minimize significant later design changes. More than minimal design changes require further Planning Commission review, even if alteration is required to satisfy a City requirement. This further review is typically a minimum 60 -day process. Requirements based on SEPA (e.g., not required by an adopted development regulation) MUST identify the impact being mitigated, the policy basis for requiring mitigation, and the method used to calculate the mitigation required. Calculations of project impacts and the mitigation required (e.g., water capacity, road level of service analyses, or turning analyses) may be required of the applicant. COMMENTS (Attach additional comment sheets and/or support materials as needed.) t lti.D t C 'N"\A - -6 S WcNt � �t,. �f�Ck V i ��..c. ` (, al k(._ L& S -(trt r13V1 C : Comments prepared by: Police Dept. ,_` Parks /Rec Update date: File Number LA -e ,��) Mark Segale La Pianta LLC P.O. Box 88028 Tukwila WA 98138 RE: ACCESS TO YOUR PROPERTY Dear Mr. Segale: King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Solid Waste Division is planning to replace the Bow Lake Transfer /Recycling Station. As part of this project, the Solid Waste Division is planning a route to convey stormwater from an on -site detention facility to a ditch east of the transfer station property. King County planners and private consultants need permission to enter your property. Your permission will allow County employees and consultants access to your property to conduct site reconnaissance, surveying and geotechnical investigation. If we may have permission to enter your property, please sign and fax to me at (206) 296 -7467 or email at lillian.holley @metrokc.gov before April 27, 2007. The Right of Entry will be valid until completion of above stated Nvork. Approval of the Right of Entry is conditioned as follows: 1. For security purposes, prior to accessing the property, please contact Mark Segale at (206) 575 -2000 and leave a message when activities will occur. 2. King County will provide La Pianta LLC copies of all final reports, studies, survey information, etc. gathered from the property. 3. Tax Parcels to be accessed are: 352304 -9015, 352304 -9049, 352304 -9050 and 352304 -9051 If you have any questions, please call me at (206) 296 -7495. Sincerely, Lillian A. Holley Right of Way Agent PROJECT: B O W L A K E T R A N S F E R STATION TAX ACCOUNT: 3 5 2 3 0 4 - 9 0 1 5; 352304 -9049; 352304 -9050; 352304- 9051 APPRO DATED; April 24, 2007 TELEPHONE NO: aO() • 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E -mail: tukplan @ci.tukwila.wa.us 102 .9 0 AON CITY OF TUKWILA � Department of Community Development 1ti _ . LASSIFIED USE PERMIT APPLICATION NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Bow Lake Processing /Transfer Facility LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: (Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), • block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. LIST ALL 10 DIGIT PARCEL NUMBERS. 18800 Orillia Road South Tukwila, WA Parcel No. 3523049037 WSDOT Property (portion of 352304555) purchase in progress Quarter: SW 1/4 Section: 35 Township: 23N Range: 4E (This information may be found on your tax statement.) DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the owner /applicant in meetings with City staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, and • is the primary contact with the City to whom all notices and reports will be sent. Name: Tom Creegan, Engineer III KSC -NR -0701 Solid Waste Division, Dept. of Natural Resources Address: 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 701 Seattle, WA 98104 -3855 Phone: 206- 263 -6476 FAX: 206 - 296 -8431 E -mail: tom.creegan@metrokc.gov Signature: Date: 1,0 q ( 0? P: \Planning Forms \ Applications \UUPApp-06-07.doc June 6, 2007 FOR STAFF USE ONLY Permits Plus Type P -UU Planner: File Number: L01 ` O Z Application Complete (Date: ) Project File Number: Application Incomplete (Date: ) Other File Numbers: • 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E -mail: tukplan @ci.tukwila.wa.us 102 .9 0 AON CITY OF TUKWILA � Department of Community Development 1ti _ . LASSIFIED USE PERMIT APPLICATION NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Bow Lake Processing /Transfer Facility LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: (Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), • block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. LIST ALL 10 DIGIT PARCEL NUMBERS. 18800 Orillia Road South Tukwila, WA Parcel No. 3523049037 WSDOT Property (portion of 352304555) purchase in progress Quarter: SW 1/4 Section: 35 Township: 23N Range: 4E (This information may be found on your tax statement.) DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the owner /applicant in meetings with City staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, and • is the primary contact with the City to whom all notices and reports will be sent. Name: Tom Creegan, Engineer III KSC -NR -0701 Solid Waste Division, Dept. of Natural Resources Address: 201 South Jackson Street, Suite 701 Seattle, WA 98104 -3855 Phone: 206- 263 -6476 FAX: 206 - 296 -8431 E -mail: tom.creegan@metrokc.gov Signature: Date: 1,0 q ( 0? P: \Planning Forms \ Applications \UUPApp-06-07.doc June 6, 2007 DRAFT GEOTECHNICAL REPORT SLOPE PIPELINES BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILITY KING COUNTY SOLID WASTE DIVISION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON HWA Project No. 2003 - 008 -21 Contract No. E23001E January 17, 2008 Prepared for: R.W. Beck 0121 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC RECEIVED cm/ of TUKWILA I JAM 3 12008 January 17, 2008 HWA Project No. 2003 - 008 -21 R.W. Beck 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2500 Seattle, WA 98154 -1004 Attention: Mr. Karl Hufnagel, P.E. SUBJECT: REVISED DRAFT GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Slope Pipelines Bow Lake Processing/Transfer Facility King County, Washington Dear Sir: As requested, HWA GeoSciences Inc. (HWA) has completed an investigation to assess potential slope stability issues for design and construction of stormwater and sanitary sewer pipelines from the proposed Bow Lake Processing/Transfer Facility, down the east slope to the valley floor. We understand that the pipelines will be constructed of HDPE pipe, laid on or above the ground surface, and anchored to the slope. The proposed route of the pipelines was determined in part based on geologic reconnaissance of the slopes in 2006, as part of the project SEPA checklist, and an April 2007 reconnaissance by members of the project team. We appreciate the opportunity to provide geotechnical services on this project, and request that you provide further review commentary on this revised draft so that any issues may be addressed in the final report. Sincerely, HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. Sa H. Hong, P.E. Principal BWT: SHH:bwt TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 GENERAL 1 1.2 SCOPE OF SERVICES AND AUTHORIZATION 1 2.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION 2 2.1 FIELD INVESTIGATION 2 2.2 LABORATORY TESTING 2 3.0 GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS 3 3.1 SITE DESCRIPTION 3 3.2 GENERAL GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS 3 3.3 SITE HISTORY 4 3.4 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 4 3.4.1 Fill Soil 4 3.4.2 Fill with Refuse 5 3.4.3 Refuse 5 3.4.4 Glacial Deposits 5 3.5 SLOPE CONDITIONS 6 3.6 GROUND WATER 7 3.7 ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS 7 3.7.1 Analytical Results 8 3.7.2 Summary 10 3.7.3 Dangerous Waste 11 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 11 4.1 GENERAL 11 4.2 PIPE SUPPORT IN REFUSE AREAS 12 4.3 PIPE SUPPORT IN NON - REFUSE AREAS 12 4.3.1 Spread Footings 12 4.3.2 Shallow Auger Piles 13 4.3.3 Pin -Piles 13 4.4 SLOPE REGRADING 15 4.5 BUTTRESS FILL AT THE TOE OF STEEP SLOPES 15 4.6 FILL SOIL HANDLING AND DISPOSAL 15 4.6.1 Construction Issues 15 4.6.2 Health and Safety 16 5.0 CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS 16 6.0 REFERENCES 18 LIST OF FIGURES (FOLLOWING TEXT) Figure 1 Vicinity Map Figure 2 Site and Exploration Plan Figures 3A -3C Cross Section A -A' APPENDICES Appendix A: Field Investigation Figure A -1 Legend of Terms and Symbols on Exploration Logs Figures A -2 to A -11 Logs of Boreholes B -238 through B -247 Appendix B: Laboratory Investigation Figure B -1 Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index Figures B -2 — B -6 Particle -Size Analyses Appendix C: Analytical Laboratory Data and COC 1.1 GENERAL DRAFT GEOTECHNICAL REPORT SLOPE PIPELINES BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILITY KING COUNTY SOLID WASTE DIVISION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of a geotechnical engineering investigation performed by HWA GeoSciences Inc. (HWA) for the proposed design and construction of stormwater and sanitary sewer pipelines from the proposed Bow Lake Processing/Transfer Facility, down the east slope to the valley floor. Per the 2006 Facility Master Plan Update (FMP), King County Solid Waste Division (SWD) plans to construct a new transfer building on property to be acquired from WSDOT, lying immediately north of the existing transfer station; demolish the existing station; and also construct scale facilities, a maintenance building, roadways, and trailer parking. We understand that one of the pipelines, a stormwater sewer, will likely consist of HDPE pipe and be laid on the ground and anchored at necessary intervals. The other pipe, a sanitary sewer, would also be of HDPE, and would either be placed in a trench and backfilled, or also laid on the ground surface. The project location is shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. Existing and proposed features, topography, and exploration locations are shown on the Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 2. The purpose of our investigation was to evaluate the subsurface conditions along the proposed pipelines route and provide geotechnical recommendations for design and construction. 1.2 SCOPE OF SERVICES AND AUTHORIZATION A scope of services and cost estimate for the geotechnical and environmental investigation was submitted to Karl Hufnagel, of R.W. Beck, on May 29, 2007. Verbal authorization to proceed was given by Karl Hufnagel in August, 2007. Our scope of work for this project included a combined geotechnical and environmental subsurface exploration program; performing analytical laboratory tests; performing geotechnical laboratory tests and engineering analyses; and preparing draft and final geotechnical reports. January 17, 2008 HWA Project No. 2003 - 008 -21 We proposed an exploration program that consisted of drilling to determine the physical properties of soils along the alignment, including the extent and thickness of refuse, thickness of colluvium, and depth to dense native soils. The explorations were performed in order to evaluate slope stability and provide geotechnical parameters for design and construction. 2.1 FIELD INVESTIGATION The fieldwork consisted of geologic reconnaissance of the site and adjacent slopes, and a subsurface exploration program that included 10 borings (designated B -238 through B- 247). The surveyed exploration locations are plotted on the Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 2. These subsurface explorations were performed to obtain both geotechnical and environmental data, particularly regarding the character of fill and refuse on the site. Geotechnical data obtained in previous investigations (see Appendix C) since 1965 in the vicinity of the existing transfer station were utilized in planning our subsurface investigation, as well as for developing geotechnical recommendations in this report. HWA retained CN Drilling, a Washington - licensed drilling subcontractor, for this portion of the work. The borehole drilling was conducted from September 25 through September 27, 2007. Hand - portable drilling equipment was selected based on site access conditions. The boreholes were advanced to depths ranging from 5.5 to 20.5 feet below the existing ground surface levels at the exploration locations. Each of the explorations was advanced under full -time HWA supervision, and was logged by an environmental geologist. During the field investigation, soil samples were classified in the field and pertinent information, including sample depths, stratigraphy, soil engineering characteristics, and ground water occurrence was recorded. HWA collected a composite soil sample from each soil boring located within landfill refuse for environmental analytical testing. Soil samples selected for composite analyses were collected from the top soil - refuse interface, and throughout visibly refuse - contaminated soil to the bottom of the soil - refuse interface. Representative soil samples were also obtained from the explorations and taken to our laboratory for further examination and geotechnical testing. All samples were field screened using a photoionization detector (PID). Field exploration methods are described in detail and logs of the explorations are presented in Appendix A. 2.2 LABORATORY TESTING 2003- 008_slope pipelines DR2.doc 2.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION Laboratory tests were conducted on selected samples obtained from the explorations to characterize relevant engineering and index properties of the soils encountered. 2 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. January 17, 2008 HWA Project No. 2003 - 008 -21 Laboratory tests included natural moisture content, grain size distribution, pH and resistivity, and Atterberg Limits. The tests were conducted in general accordance with appropriate American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards. The tcst results and a discussion of laboratory test methodology are presented in Appendix B, or displayed on the exploration logs in Appendix A, as appropriate. Composite samples for environmental analytical testing were taken to Analytical Resources, Inc. in Tukwila. The results are summarized in Table 1 in Section 3.7.1, and laboratory reports are attached in Appendix C. 3.1 SITE DESCRIPTION 3.2 GENERAL GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS 2003- 008_slope_pipclines DR2.doc 3.0 GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS The existing Bow Lake Transfer Station is located on the site of a closed landfill, adjacent to the east side of I -5, north of the South 188 Street Interchange (see Figure 1). The project site, consisting of the pipeline alignment, is situated east of the existing facility on the west slope of the Duwamish River Valley. The topography of the general site area has been extensively modified by previous landfill operations, construction of I- 5, and historical sand and gravel mining activities. Topographic relief is on the order of 235 feet from the existing east access road down to the valley bottom. Descriptions of the slope conditions are presented in Section 3.5. Surficial geological information for the site area was obtained partly from the published map; "Geologic Map of the Des Moines Quadrangle, King County, Washington." (Waldron, 1962). This map indicates that the plateau west of the site, upon which Sea - Tac International Airport, and the cities of SeaTac, Burien, and Des Moines lie, is predominantly mantled by Vashon till, deposited during the most recent Pleistocene glaciation. This material was deposited as a discontinuous mantle of ground moraine beneath advancing glacial ice on the eroded surface of older deposits. Soils defined as Vashon till consist of an unsorted and heterogeneous mass of silt, gravel, and sand in varying proportions. The till is of high density/strength due to glacial over - consolidation, and typically has low permeability. The surficial geology of the slope forming the side of the Duwamish River Valley, which includes the subject site, is mapped as kame - terrace deposits. This material consists of stratified sand and gravel that was deposited by meltwater streams flowing from receding glacial ice, and was deposited against or close to the ice as Ice - Contact Stratified Drift. Inclusions of till are common, typically discontinuous, and of limited thickness. Locally, these kame - terrace deposits were frequently mined for sand and gravel. 3 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. January 17, 2008 HWA Project No. 2003 - 008 -21 3.3 SITE HISTORY Based on a report entitled Abandoned Landfill Study in King County, produced by Public Health Seattle -King County (PHSKC) in 1985, the facility property was used as a landfill from 1943 to the late 1950's when construction of I -5 began (PHSKC, 1985). According to the report, the Bow Lake Landfill was the largest in the county during the 1950's. An incinerator was installed in 1955 and was used for a short time before being shut down. Interpretations of site history from aerial photographs are included in the Phase I and II assessment of the WSDOT parcel (HWA, 2007). Old newspapers retrieved from a previous exploration had dates which indicated landfilling continued until at least 1961. Construction of 1 -5 displaced a portion of the landfill, and material consisting of burned refuse and soil was stockpiled eastward. The original transfer station was constructed in 1961, but was closed down by the Washington Department of Labor and Industries in 1970. The current transfer station was built in 1978 and continues to serve the area around Tukwila, Washington. The existing transfer building was constructed above refuse, and is supported on driven timber piles. However, it has suffered distress from settlement due to some of the supporting piles encountering refusal in fill above deeper refuse (Hong Consulting Engineers, 1986, 1987, and 1988). Settlement of paved areas supported above refuse has also occurred, as is normal for landfill materials. 3.4 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The current soil investigation encountered three general material types: Fill soil, Fill with Refuse, and Glacial Deposits, as summarized in the following sub - sections. Most of the developed portion of the site contains surficial fill soil, evidently placed as a cap over the refuse for construction of the existing transfer station. Geologic cross - sections through the project site, presented in Figures 3A through 3C, are based on the current and previous exploration logs, the recent topographic survey by DHA, and our ground surface observations. It is to be noted that, due to the interpretive nature of cross - sections, only the exploration logs should be relied upon for subsurface detail at particular locations. On the exploration logs, soil layers containing refuse are indicated with a cross - hatched pattem, as noted in the left -hand column for soil symbols. A similar hatching on the cross- sections also indicates the presence of compressible refuse. 3.4.1 Fill Soil Sand with variable silt content (Unified Soil Classification SP to SM), approximately 10 feet thick, was encountered beneath pavement and lawn areas during previous 2003- 008_slope jipelines DR2.doc 4 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. January 17, 2008 HWA Project No. 2003 - 008 -21 investigations (HWA, 2007). The fill was thicker in portions of the transfer station site; up to nearly 30 feet thick beneath the transfer shed. 3.4.2 Fill with Refuse A stratified mixture of silty sand fill and municipal solid waste (MSW) was present beneath the surface fill in boreholes B -238, B -239, and B -240. The refuse content observed in explorations was approximately 10 to 20 percent by volume, and was mostly non - decomposable (metal, glass, brick, porcelain, plastic, etc.). This layer vaned from approximately 5 to 20.5 feet thick in the three boreholes. 3.4.3 Refuse Unburned refuse (municipal solid waste) with little or no soil fill was encountered in three previous explorations just above the top of the slope (BH -211, HCE -4, and BH- 218; see Figure 2). It was observed to consist of household waste with glass and bottles, tin cans, assorted metal, plastic, porcelain, newspaper, etc. Deposits containing soil fill with greater than 50 percent refuse by volume were logged as Refuse. The refuse dates from the late 1950's to early 1960's, based on observations during our explorations for the processing / transfer facility investigation. The refuse thickness in these borings varied from approximately 20 to 30 feet and extended to depths of approximately about 35 feet below the existing ground surface. 3.4.4 Glacial Deposits With the exception of boring B -238, each of the borings was advanced into native glacial soils, generally consisting of massive to stratified clean sand (Unified Soil Classification of SP), and silty sand or sandy silt (Unified Soil Classification of SM to ML), of variable density ranging from medium dense to very dense. The stratified character, varied texture, and variable density are consistent with an ice - marginal origin; i.e., kame - terrace deposits at the edge of an ice - filled valley during glacial retreat. Although classified in general as kame - terrace deposits, the glacial deposits are interpreted on the exploration logs as particular depositional facies; e.g. ice - contact stratified drift in most of the borings, and glaciolacustrine silt encountered only in borehole B -247. Native glacial soils were encountered at the ground surface in all explorations east of and including B -241. 2003- 008_slope_pipelines DR2.doc 5 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. January 17, 2008 HWA Project No. 2003 - 008 -21 3.5 SLOPE CONDITIONS Elevations of the eastern slope vary from approximately 245 feet, at the existing Bow Lake Transfer Station perimeter road, to 28 feet at the golf driving range on the valley floor. The slope is differentiated geomorphically and geologically into two distinct areas: the former landfill, and cut benches with steep head cuts from 1960's surface mining (as indicated in historical aerial photos) below the landfill to the valley floor. Slope inclinations along the alignment vary from 30 to 200 percent, over slope distances greater than 10 feet, and up to 550 percent (80 degrees) over a few feet. The slopes are judged to be Class 2 and 3 per the City of Tukwila Environmentally Sensitive Areas designation (TMC 18.45.120 A). These slopes also are mapped by the City as an erosion hazard area. Landfill Geotechnical explorations (HWA, 1993 and 2007) indicated fill and refuse depths up to 45 feet at the crest of the slope. The former landfill, with a soil fill cover, extends down the slope to about elevation 160 feet as indicated by historical aerial photos (HWA, 1993). Explorations indicated that refuse diminishes downslope and ends above an old road which is at elevation 176 feet along the proposed alignment (however, scattered refuse on the ground surface was also observed along the alignment from about elevations 76 to 40 feet). Refuse scattered on the ground surface, consisted of glass, metal, and porcelain items scattered over loose, brown, silty sand. The ground surface probed loosely to a depth of 3 feet, with a 1/2 -inch diameter, 3 -foot long, steel T- handled probe. The explorations encountered soil mixed with up to 20 percent (by volume) refuse, with native soil below the refuse consisting of very dense silty sand (ice - contact stratified drift). The refuse observed in the samples was non - decomposable, except for some burnt wood and paper in borehole B -238. The slope inclination varies from about 30 to 75 percent, with the steepest portion less than 15 feet high at 75 percent. From the crest of the slope, adjacent to the transfer station perimeter road, the slope is inclined at 40 percent along the upper 20 feet of elevation. It is vegetated with cut grass above the perimeter fence (upper 10 feet or so of elevation), then with blackberries and grape vines. Below this to the old road, the slope varies locally in a somewhat hummocky manner, and is forested with big leaf maples (12" diameter at breast height, or more), native brush, and some blackberries. Soil creep during early growth of some of the trees was evident, and ground settlement due to decomposition of refuse is assumed. The maples appear generally vertical, with a few bent down slope in the lower approximately 15 feet of the trunks. No evidence of recent deep- seated sliding is evident on this portion of the slope. 2003- 008_slope pipclines DR2.doc 6 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. January 17, 2008 HWA Project No. 2003 - 008 -21 Benched Slope The surface -mined portion of the slope has distinct benches and cut slopes, as though no reclamation occurred after mining. Even so, the majority of it has become reforested with deciduous trees and native brush. The exceptions are the largest bench (approx. 80 to 100 feet wide) below the landfill, and a raveling cut with a 5 to 15 foot soil exposure along the middle large bench, about 80 feet west of the pipelines alignment (where the alignment traverses north along the bench). Slope inclinations vary along the alignment from approximately 60 to 200 percent along cut slopes, with the benches grading at 0 to about 10 percent. Soils encountered in the boreholes consisted of dense to very dense clean sand and silty sand (Unified Soil Classification SP to SM). The raveled cut noted above consisted of very dense, silty, sandy gravel. This material was stratified with deformed bedding and till -like lenses, indicative of an ice - contact origin. An exposure at about 10 feet above the lowest bench consisted of very dense, clean to silty, fine sand, which appeared to be advance outwash. No ground water was encountered, nor was seepage observed on the ground surface. No evidence of recent deep- seated sliding is evident on this portion of the slope. Raveling was observed as noted above, and soil creep on some of the cut slopes was evident, as indicated by bent tree trunks and accumulation of soil in the past (now vegetated) at the toes of cuts. Also, two deep rills up to 6 feet deep were observed, just north of the alignment above the middle large bench, and one rill of about the same depth was observed on the alignment descending to the lowest bench. No runoff was observed, nor evidence of fresh soil erosion, within or upslope from the rills. We conclude that the rills were eroded after surface mining concluded, and erosion has ceased or diminished due to reforestation. 3.6 GROUND WATER No ground water was observed during advancement of the explorations along the pipeline alignment. Perched ground water was observed in previous explorations on the facility site. 3.7 ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS In addition to geotechnical sampling, we field screened soil samples for the potential presence of petroleum hydrocarbons or other contamination in geotechnical borings where apparent fill or refuse was observed. Field screening of soil for the presence of volatile organic vapors was conducted using a Mini -Rae PGM 75 photoionization detector (PID). Visual indications of fill and refuse, or other potential contamination and odor were also noted. Although the PID is not capable of quantifying or identifying specific organic compounds, this instrument is 2003- 008_slope pipelines DR2.doc 7 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. January 17, 2008 HWA Project No. 2003 - 008 -21 capable of measuring relative concentrations of a variety of organic vapors with ionization potentials less than the energy of the ultraviolet source (in this case, 10.6 eV). The PID is useful for providing qualitative information with respect to the presence and relative concentration of organic vapors. The PID was calibrated with 100 parts per million isobutylene standard at the beginning of the day. Fifty to 100 milliliters of soil from a discrete depth were placed in a plastic bag, sealed, and permitted to sit at least 10 minutes prior to analyzing the vapor in the sample bag. The bag was then perforated by the PID sample tip to obtain the reading. Samples were screened with the PID when sufficient sample volume was available. Exact depths of field PID sample screening and concentration values were recorded on the boring logs. Elevated PID readings were not detected in any soil samples collected from the borings. HWA collected environmental soil samples from the selected depths within the borings (described below), and placed them in labeled, laboratory- supplied, precleaned, 4 -oz. sample jars. Samples were placed in a cooler with blue ice for transport to the laboratory under standard chain -of- custody protocols. Based on field screening and observations, HWA selected composite samples from boreholes B -238 and B -239 for laboratory analysis. Soils collected between ground surface and 18 feet bgs were collected for a composite sample from boring B -238, and soils from ground surface to nine feet bgs were collected from boring B -239. These sample intervals corresponded with soils containing debris and refuse (glass, plastic, paper, building materials, etc.). Trace refuse was also noted between ground surface and five feet bgs in boring B -240, but no environmental sampling was conducted on soil samples collected from that boring. Figure 2 shows the sampling locations. 3.7.1 Analytical Results Soil analytical results are summarized in Table 1. Fill soils encountered at the subject property were found to contain petroleum hydrocarbons and metals. Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) was performed in order to assess off site disposal options for excess or unsuitable soil. TCLP is a procedure in which a leached extract of the sample is analyzed, and is used to determine the tested material's Hazardous Waste (known as "Dangerous Waste" in Washington State) classification status, for regulatory compliance and disposal purposes. The total metals analyses measure all of the selected metal in the sample (via a strong acid digestion) whereas the TCLP analysis measures only the metals that are leachable under a weak acidic solution, intended to simulate natural conditions. Because the TCLP procedure involves a sample dilution factor of 20, there is a minimum concentration in soil that could theoretically 2003- 008_slopepipelines DR2.doc 8 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 January 17, 2008 HWA Project No. 2003 - 008 -21 result in a TCLP concentration exceeding the Dangerous Waste Criterion for each analyte (assuming 100% of the analyte was leachable). These Dangerous Waste screening levels are shown in Table 1. Of the metals detected, only lead exceed the screening levels, in two samples. HWA selected the sample with the highest lead concentration for TCLP analysis. TABLE 1 SOIL ANALYTICAL DATA (all results in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) except as noted) Mg /kg — milligrams per kilogram pg /kg — micrograms per kilogram < - not detected at listed reporting limit Bold — Analyte Detected 1 - Dangerous Waste screening levels shown for total metals results (i.e., 20 x TCLP criteria) (in italics), and Dangerous Waste limit shown for TCLP results, Chapter 173 -303 WAC, shown for reference only. 2 — Sample exceeded Dangerous Waste screening levels and was re- analyzed by TCLP methods. 2003- 008_slope _pipelines DR2.doc 9 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. Sample B-238 B-239 Dangerous Waste Composite Range (feet) 0 - 18 0 - 9 TPH — HCID Gasoline Range >20 <20 Diesel Range <50 <50 Lube Oil Range <100 <100 TPH - Gx Gasoline 16 Metals, Total Arsenic <10 30 100 Barium 136 245 2000 Cadmium 1.4 5 20 Chromium 49 75 100 Lead 345 1270 100 Mercury 0.13 0.10 Selenium <10 <30 Silver 2.4 <2 Metals, TCLP Lead (mg /L) 0.9 5.0 VOAs (pg /kg) Benzene <30 Toluene <30 Ethylbenzene <30 Total Xylenes <60 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 January 17, 2008 HWA Project No. 2003 - 008 -21 result in a TCLP concentration exceeding the Dangerous Waste Criterion for each analyte (assuming 100% of the analyte was leachable). These Dangerous Waste screening levels are shown in Table 1. Of the metals detected, only lead exceed the screening levels, in two samples. HWA selected the sample with the highest lead concentration for TCLP analysis. TABLE 1 SOIL ANALYTICAL DATA (all results in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) except as noted) Mg /kg — milligrams per kilogram pg /kg — micrograms per kilogram < - not detected at listed reporting limit Bold — Analyte Detected 1 - Dangerous Waste screening levels shown for total metals results (i.e., 20 x TCLP criteria) (in italics), and Dangerous Waste limit shown for TCLP results, Chapter 173 -303 WAC, shown for reference only. 2 — Sample exceeded Dangerous Waste screening levels and was re- analyzed by TCLP methods. 2003- 008_slope _pipelines DR2.doc 9 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. January 17, 2008 HWA Project No. 2003- 008 -21 3.7.2 Summary Organics Composite soil sample B -238 contained detectable concentrations of gasoline -range petroleum hydrocarbons by the semi - quantitative HCID screening method. Quantitation of the sample by the NWTPH -Gx analytical method indicated a low concentration of gasoline -range petroleum hydrocarbons (16 mg/kg). Based on laboratory chromatogram analysis, the result did not match a gasoline pattern. The sample was also analyzed for aromatic hydrocarbons. The aromatic hydrocarbons (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes) were not detected in the sample. This sample was collected in fill soils. The soils contained fill and landfill wastes (glass, plastic), which may have included petroleum products, which might contribute to the detection of petroleum. Metals Composite samples B -238 and B -239 contained some RCRA metals (see Table 1).Because sample B -239 contained the highest lead concentration, HWA requested TCLP analysis for lead in the sample in order to assess off -site disposal options for soils with regard to Dangerous Waste regulations. Lead was detected at 0.9 mg/L; below the Dangerous Waste criterion of 5 mg/L by the TCLP method in the B -239 sample. These samples were collected from fill soils observed between ground surface and nine feet bgs. By deduction, B -238 does not exceed Dangerous Waste criteria. Other selected analytes were either not detected, or the analyte concentrations were below cleanup levels. Summary Our environmental soil sample locations were selected at borings along the proposed pipeline route where fill soils or refuse were encountered. Elevated petroleum hydrocarbon and metals concentrations were detected in one or both of the borings (B- 238, B -239) in apparent fill material near the top of the slope on the east portion of the subject property. Fill was also observed in shallow soils in boring B -240, but environmental sampling was not conducted at that location. Borings located downhill of boring B -240 did not encounter obvious fill or refuse, and laboratory analyses were not performed on soil samples from these borings. Due to the compositing of all samples, higher or lower concentrations of detected analytes likely exist in discrete areas. 2003- 008_slopepipelines DR2.doc 10 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. January 17, 2008 HWA Project No. 2003 - 008 -21 Ground water was not sampled as part of this investigation, as it was not encountered during exploration. 3.7.3 Dangerous Waste Laboratory analytical data were compared to Dangerous Waste criteria in order to assess off site disposal options for excess or unsuitable soil. "Dangerous wastes" means those solid wastes designated in WAC 173- 303 -070 through 173- 303 -100 as dangerous, or extremely hazardous or mixed waste and requiring special handling, treatment, and disposal under those regulations. 4.1 GENERAL 2003- 008_slope_pipelines DR2.doe 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Slope stability assessment along the pipeline alignment indicates no signs of either incipient or on —going slides, and it is our view that the proposed pipelines can be installed as planned when the engineering recommendations as presented herein are adhered to. Steep gradient cuts are present along the lower slope as shown on Figure 2. These cuts should be regraded to flatten their slopes to 1 V: 1.5H for laying the proposed pipes. HDPE pipes are planned at the top of the hill and will traverse a 30 -foot plus thick refuse layer to the lower elevation where the refuse thins out. The rest of the alignment, on dense glacial soils, can be constructed of either steel or HDPE pipes. A pile foundation option for support of the pipes in the refuse area is not feasible, as the piles will be subject to considerable down drag and lateral loading, and the driving of these piles in this terrain will also be costly. As an option to rigidly supporting the pipelines, we recommend the pipes and manholes be floated in the refuse with due consideration being given to the anticipated settlements. Once the pipes are out of refuse, they can be laid on the ground. The pipes' anchor block foundations should be installed to tie -down or secure the pipes in native soils at the transition positions. In general, the core of the slope is stable with the exception that the surface is loosened due to plant root systems, surface drainage and weathering effects. The pipe foundations should be installed below the weathered zone, which ranges in depth from a few feet to 5 feet. The pipe anchor block or foundation locations should be examined individually to determine the adequacy of the existing soils for bearing and lateral loading capacity. Anchor blocks should be installed by pouring conventional concrete blocks, or constructing augered piles or driven micro- piles to serve as restraint elements. Helical screw piles or anchors may also be feasible as anchorage elements 11 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. January 17, 2008 HWA Project No. 2003 - 008 -21 provided that they can be installed in the dense native soils comprising the slopes along the lower sections of the pipeline alignments. 4.2 PIPE SUPPORT IN REFUSE AREAS At the top of the hill, the refuse deposit below the pipe alignment is very thick and it is considered impractical to excavate the refuse and replace it with competent granular materials. As an alternative, we recommend the pipes be supported on the refuse and, where trenched, be backfilled with light weight materials such as coal burn bottom ash. If the area is to be preloaded (e.g. for construction of the new perimeter road), pipe installation should be delayed as much as possible to allow settlements to occur and reduce future deformations. The manholes can also be floated in the refuse. Since the manholes and connecting pipes may settle differentially with respect to each other, some provisions should be made for this condition and the potential stresses that may be induced at the pipe - manhole connections. One method is to fabricate the pipe connections to the manholes with slip joints in the pipe segments. This will allow the buried pipes to slip in and out of the manholes (sleeves) and compensate somewhat for the tension induced by differential settlement of the pipes in the refuse. The pipe slip joints should be configured to accommodate at least a two —foot pull out. An alternative would be to provide a prefabricated flexible coupler system on the pipes entering and leaving each of the manholes. These manufactured units are likely to be more expensive, but may be more suitable for reduction of bending and shear stresses that may be induced at the manhole connections. Finally, sufficient pipe grades should be provided in the pipelines to allow for differential settlements and sags to develop without resulting in grade reversals and traps forming in the lines. 4.3 PIPE SUPPORT IN NON - REFUSE AREAS The flexible pipes can ideally be laid on the ground surface, on slopes steeper than 211:1 V, after shallow trimming and filling of shallow depressions with crushed rock. On flatter terrain, the onsite soils can be used to level the ground surface. The pipes should be anchored at a maximum of 50 -foot intervals horizontally using either spread footings or pin -piles for the anchor supports. The steel pipes can be supported on either pin -piles or conventional spread footings. Screw piles /anchors may also be feasible for support/restraint elements, as discussed above. 4.3.1 Spread Footings Spread footings can be used to support the proposed pipes along the alignment, with an allowable bearing capacity of 3,000 psf appropriate for design of footings on native glacial soils. The depth of the footings should be at least 3 feet to place the bearing surface on non - weathered soils below the slope profile. Footings should be rectangular 2003- 008_slopc pipelines DR2.doc 12 HWA GEOSC1ENCES INC. January 17, 2008 HWA Project No. 2003 - 008 -21 in shape and cast with long axis oriented down slope (i.e. parallel to the slope dip or fall line). We recommend the footings be dug for concrete pours without formwork for good contacts between concrete and the native soils so as to minimize backfilling and compaction. Sloughed soil should be cleaned out before the concrete pour. Formwork may be permitted in some cases, but the backfill should be thoroughly compacted to ensure proper load transfer to the slope soils. The passive resistance for cast -in -place concrete blocks should be taken as 300 pcf with a factor of safety of 1.5 recommended. However, the passive resistance for the upper 2 feet should be ignored to allow for potential slope creep and soil erosion effects. We recommend the allowable base friction between concrete and the foundation soil be taken as 0.4 for determination of design sliding resistance. We recommend that the footing foundation excavation bases be tilted towards the uphill by 30 percent from horizontal such that foundation heels gain support deeper into the hill. Since the foundation concrete should be poured without formwork, for optimum development of bearing and passive pressure, the concrete pour should be made immediately rather than allowing the passage of time and soil relaxation effects to take place. We recommend no more than 12 -hours between initial footing excavation and concreting. In some areas the footing excavations may accumulate perched water, which should be pumped out prior to the concrete pour. Minor seepage can be removed with the excavator bucket for immediate pours. In some cases, shoring may be necessary. However, in most cases, seepage can be displaced by the concrete pour, and the sidewalls should remain vertical and stable, if the concrete is poured immediately after excavation. 4.3.2 Shallow Auger Piles Shallow auger piles may be utilized for pile support/restraint in natural soil areas of the slope. A 10 -inch diameter pile with minimum 8 -foot depth can be designed for 10,000 pounds of vertical allowable capacity with a factor of safety two. The lateral pile capacities can be calculated by using L -pile design parameters presented in the subsequent section of this report. 4.3.3 Pin -Piles Pin - piles, comprising small diameter, heavy- walled, steel pipes driven with hydraulic hammers attached to a backhoe or bobcat, can be used to anchor or support either steel or HDPE pipes on slope. Alternatively, hand - operated pneumatically - powered jack hammers may be employed to drive the smaller pin pile sizes. This option minimizes the disturbance to the hill, although lateral capacities are very low compared to conventional concrete spread footings or auger pile types. The allowable vertical pile capacities for 2003- 008_slope pipelines DR2.doc 13 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. Pipe Sizes (inches) Hydraulic Breaker Hammer sizes (lbs) Refusal Criteria ( <1 -inch pen./X sec.) Allowable Pile Capacities (in kips with FS =4) 2 400 14 3 3 650 15 5 4 1100 10 10 6 2000 15 15 January 17, 2008 HWA Project No. 2003 - 008 -21 several alternative pipe sizes are provided in Table 2 below. The actual pile capacity should be determined by the hydraulic jack hammer weight or driving energy at practical driving refusal for each of the respective pile sizes, which can be normally measured in terms of driving time seconds per inch. The tabulated driving criteria vary among contractors and their documented field test results. Prior to the project initiation, driving criteria associated with hammer properties /characteristics should be submitted to the engineer for approval. At each foundation location, a minimum of two pin -piles are recommended to provide H frame type of restraint construction. Where large lateral load restraint is required, extra piles and/or battered pile arrangement may be necessary. The battered pile capacities should be reduced graphically using force polygon diagrams. A minimum batter 4V:1H is recommended. TABLE 2 PIN- PILES DRIVING CRITERIA/ALLOWABLE CAPACITIES Pipes should be driven until the refusal criteria are met to establish their load capacity. For estimating purposes, all pile lengths should be 20 feet minimum length on commencement of driving. If the refusal criteria are not met within the initial pile section, extra lengths may be added with butt - welded connections. No mechanical couplers are allowed unless approved by the geotechnical engineers of the record, since most couplers are compression fitting types which are not designed to carry lateral loads. When on the slopes are greater than 1 V:4H, a minimum 4 -inch diameter pipe should be used. Lateral capacities of piles can be calculated by using the computer software L -pile, employing the soil parameters presented in Table 3 below. The soil parameters for analyses were chosen conservatively so that loose spots on the slopes can be accounted for in general. At most locations, the actual parameters will be a lot higher than what is shown on the table. We did not observe liquefiable soils along the pipe alignment, and this is not a factor in the analyses. 2003- 008_slopeyipelines DR2.doc 14 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Soil Layer Depth, ft. L -pile Soil Type k pci y' , pci Friction Angle 0 -3 sand 5.0 0.125 30 3 -10 sand 60 0.125 30 10 or more sand 120 130 35 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 January 17, 2008 HWA Project No. 2003 - 008 -21 4.4 SLOPE REGRADING TABLE 3 - L -PILE DESIGN PARAMETERS Existing steep cut slopes which are presently standing nearly vertically, as noted on the slope profiles, should be graded for pipe installation, as follows: • 1 V:1.5H for the native glacially - consolidated dense soil slopes; and • 1V:2H for all other slopes consisting of other soil types. The exposed slopes should be covered with either crushed rock or jute netting, with hydroseeding and/or planting to reduce erosion potential. 4.5 BUTTRESS FILL AT THE TOE OF STEEP SLOPES Some steep slopes can be regraded by building up buttress fill at the slope toes. The buttress fill should be built with imported crushed rock or structural fill materials, or with site sand and gravelly till with near optimum moisture contents. The slope buttress fills should be hydroseeded, as necessary. 4.6 FILL SOIL HANDLING AND DISPOSAL 4.6.1 Construction Issues Construction bid documents (plans and specifications) should include all analytical results and provisions for contaminated soil and waste handling, treatment/disposal, and health and safety requirements. During soils excavation and handling, soils, including drill cuttings, should be field screened and observed for significant staining or odors. Prior to export, stockpiled soils should be sampled for characterization and handling, as required by the disposal facility. If excavated materials are disposed off -site (e.g., not at Cedar Hills Regional Landfill), property owners at the receiving site should be notified of the results of this study and any additional testing information available at that time. Criteria for unrestricted use of soils may be lower than some cleanup levels. Soils with contaminant concentrations 2003- 008_slope pipelines DR2.doc 15 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. January 17, 2008 HWA Project No. 2003- 008 -21 above detection limits but below cleanup levels should not be used as fill near surface or ground water. The contractor should be required to notify the Engineer or Owner's representative of suspected contaminated materials, with provisions in the specifications for assisting the Engineer with excavations for testing, segregating and stockpiling materials, sedimentation and erosion control, dust control, decontamination, and standby time or provisions for delays due to testing. The contractor should be required to submit waste characterization, waste management, spill prevention/control, and health and safety plans which address these issues. HWA recommends testing for any contractor unit rate pay items (e.g., contaminated soil disposal) be conducted by the Owner's representative. 4.6.2 Health and Safety HWA recommends that appropriate health and safety measures be taken during excavation in areas where refuse, contaminated soils, ground water, or vapors may be present. These measures may include, but are not limited to, preparation of a site specific health and safety plan, air monitoring, site control/access, protective and decontamination measures, worker training, certification, and medical monitoring. We recommend an industrial hygienist or health and safety specialist be consulted to determine the applicability of these requirements. Construction specifications should include all available analytical results including this and other available reports. 5.0 CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for R.W. Beck, King County Solid Waste Division, and their agents for use in design and construction of a portion of this project. This report should be provided in its entirety to prospective contractors for bidding and estimating purposes; however, the conclusions and interpretations presented in this report should not be construed as our warranty of actual subsurface conditions on site. Experience has shown that soil and ground water conditions can vary significantly over small distances. Inconsistent conditions can occur between explorations and may not be detected by a geotechnical study of this scope and nature. If, during future site operations, subsurface conditions are encountered which vary appreciably from those described herein, HWA should be notified for review of the recommendations of this report, and revision of such if necessary. We recommend HWA be retained to review the plans and specifications to verify that our recommendations have been interpreted and implemented as intended. Sufficient geotechnical monitoring, testing, and consultation should be provided by HWA during construction to confirm the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should conditions 2003- 008_slope_pipelines DR2.doc 16 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. January 17, 2008 HWA Project No. 2003 - 008 -21 revealed during construction differ from those anticipated, and to verify that the geotechnical aspects of construction comply with the contract plans and specifications. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, HWA executed these services in accordance with generally accepted professional principles and practices in the fields of geotechnical engineering and engineering geology in the area at the time the report was prepared. No warranty, express or implied, is made. HWA does not practice or consult in the field of safety engineering. We do not direct the contractor's operations, and cannot be responsible for the safety of personnel other than our own on the site. As such, the safety of others is the responsibility of the contractor. The contractor should notify the owner if any of the recommended actions presented herein are considered unsafe. We appreciate the opportunity to provide geotechnical services on this project. Should you have any questions or comments, or if we may be of further service, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. Brad W. Thurber, L.E.G. Sa H. Hong, P.E. Engineering Geologist Principal Geotechnical Engineer BWT:SHH:bwt 2003- 008_slope pipelines DR2.doc 17 0.0 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. January 17, 2008 HWA Project No. 2003 - 008 -21 Hong West & Associates, November 1993, Geotechnical Engineering Study, Bow Lake Transfer Station Improvements, Facilities Master Plan, King County, Washington, prepared for R.W. Beck and Associates. HWA GeoSciences Inc., January 2004, Draft Geotechnical Evaluation Report, WSDOT Property, Bow Lake Transfer Station /Recycling Facility, King County, Washington, prepared for R.W. Beck and Associates. HWA GeoSciences Inc., September 2007, Phase 1 & II Environmental Site Assessment, WSDOT Property, prepared for R.W. Beck and Associates. HWA GeoSciences Inc., May 2007, Draft Geotechnical Report, Bow Lake Transfer Station /Recycling Facility, King County, Washington, prepared for R.W. Beck and Associates. HWA GeoSciences Inc., July 2007, Environmental Site Investigation, Bow Lake Processing/ Transfer Station, prepared for R.W. Beck and Associates. HWA GeoSciences Inc., October 2007, Technical Memorandum, Geotechnical Issues for Slope Pipelines, King County, Washington, prepared for R.W. Beck and Associates. R.W. Beck, February 2007, 2006 Facility Master Plan Update, Bow Lake Transfer / Recycling Station. Waldron, H.H., 1962, Geology of the Des Moines Quadrangle, Washington, U.S. Geological Survey Quadrangle Map GQ -158. References from 1993 Report: ABAM Consulting Engineers, January 1986, Bow Lake Transfer Station, Engineering Report, Investigation of Concrete Distress, prepared for King County Solid Waste Division. ABAM Consulting Engineers, April 1986, Bow Lake Transfer Station, Development of Alternatives for Repair of Pit and Southeast Corner, prepared for King County Solid Waste Division. Dames & Moore, May 1965, Report of Soils Investigation, Bow Lake Transfer Station Site, King County, Washington, prepared for Johnston - Campanella & Co. 2003- 008_slope pipelines DR2.doc 6.0 REFERENCES 18 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. January 17, 2008 HWA Project No. 2003- 008 -21 Golder Associates, April 1992, Final Report, Results of Phase I — Geotechnical Site Investigation, Proposed Water Main Relocation Project, Bow Lake Transfer Station, prepared for King County Solid Waste Division. Hong Consulting Engineers, January 1986, Bow Lake Transfer Station Foundation Settlement Investigation, prepared for ABAM Consulting Engineers. Hong Consulting Engineers, April 1986, Subsurface Soil Investigation for Underpinning at the Bow Lake Transfer Station, King County, Washington, prepared for ABAM Consulting Engineers. Hong Consulting Engineers, November 1987, Bow Lake Transfer Station Underpinning Project, Report of Subsurface Investigations and Piling Inspection, King County, Washington, prepared for ABAM Consulting Engineers. Hong Consulting Engineers, December 1988, Geotechnical Soil Investigation, Bow Lake Transfer Station Improvement Project, King County, Washington, prepared for R.W. Beck and Associates. Hong West & Associates, December 1992, Geotechnical Investigation, 1 -5 HOV Lane Widening, Fife to Tukwila Interchange, King and Pierce Counties, Washington, prepared for WSDOT / ALPHA Engineering Group, Inc. King County, 1990, Sensitive Areas Map Folio, King County, Washington, King County Department of Parks, Planning and Resources. Shannon & Wilson, February 1976, Soil Engineering, Proposed Bow Lake Transfer Station, King County, Washington, prepared for King County Dept. of Community and Environmental Development, Architecture Division. Shannon & Wilson, January 1977, Soil Engineering, Proposed Bow Lake Transfer Station, King County, Washington, (Revision of February 1976 report), prepared for King County Dept. of Community and Environmental Development, Architecture Division. 2003 -008_slope pipelines DR2.doc 19 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. VICINITY MAP SLOPE PIPELINES BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILITY TUKVVILA, WASHINGTON FIGURE NO 1 PROJECT NO 2003-008 T-2300 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LEGEND BOREHOLE DESIGNATION AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION \1 11 /111 i ( if ■\wl\)) 1 1 I I l 1/ If /i �1jIf// II I / ' ! / /// 1 /11 1 � III�I /(/� (111 Il I I ( 1 1 11 1 I (llll( ((1 I I � ) 1 ) 1 1 1 l!IIIIII1 1111111 ri ( 111 1 1 1 I /I /( II II I 1 / I I(�( it (I /1 I 11 i1 11 J IIII I 6► BASE MAP PROVIDED BY: S \2003 PROJECTS\ 2003 - 008 -31 BOW LAKE TRANSFER STA11ON \CAD\ 2003 -008 T23110 \RWA 2003- 008- T2300. HWAGEOSCIENCES INC SLOPE PIPELINES BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILITY TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 25' SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN 50' MI Ede rZawir.,..w,irguaz 6411 SCALE: 1 " =50' 100' FIGURE NO., DRAWN BY EEK 2... CHECKED BY BL DATE 10.29.07 PROJECT NO. 2003 - 008 -2,1 T -2300 REV 00 EFK X/X/XX loozeimo att AVA 7ATAYAVAM' YAllk. A Per ils Q Flie1- IILVAMA AVA swim, /wavy w writ 010141BrAttik GLACIAL DEPOS TS LEGEND 50/3" BOTTOM OF BORING EXPLORATION DESIGNATION AND SITE PLAN SYMBOL N -VALUE - (BLOWS/FOOT) 20 STANDARD PENETRATION TEST WATER LEVEL AT TIME OF DRILLING WATER LEVEL MEASURED IN PIEZOMETER ON THE DATE INDICATED. INFERRED GEOLOGIC CONTACT 35 -9 SAND PACK AND SCREEN INTERVAL (WA VAVAVA FILL WITH REFUSE- 4 50/6' 50/6' • . • • . . . . . 280 270 260 250 H 240 W 230 — W 220 Z 210 — H Z 200 0 190 H Q 1 80 > 170 — W J 160 — W 150 — 140 — 130 — 120 — 110 100 The subsurface conditions shown are based on widely spaced borings and test pits and should be considered approximate. Further, the contact lines shown between units are interpretive in nature and may vary laterally or vertically over relatively short distances on site. HWAGEOSCIENCES INC HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1"=20' 10' 20' 40' 0' 10' 20' VERTICAL SCALE: 1"= 20' 40' SLOPE PIPELINES BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILITY TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 280 270 260 250 240 H Li 230 W 220 LL 210 Z ..... 200 z :::::— 190 H 180 Q — 170 > CROSS SECTION A -A' 160 1 150 140 130 120 110 100 W DRAWN BY FIGURE NO. CHECKED BY EL 3 A DATE PROJECT NO. 11.07.07 2003- 008 -21 T -2300 1. 1 1 1 1 1 1 220 210 200 190 180 Li 160 170 150 H 140 0 H 120 . > 110 1 130 100 90 80 70 60 50 50/4' 3 ..... • • • LEGEND 50/3" EXPLORATION DESIGNATION AND SITE PLAN SYMBOL N-VALUE - (BLOWS/FOOT) 20 STANDARD PENETRATION TEST WATER LEVEL AT TIME OF DRILLING WATER LEVEL MEASURED IN PIEZOMETER ON THE DATE INDICATED. ----?--- INFERRED GEOLOGIC CONTACT 35 SAND PACK AND SCREEN INTERVAL BOTTOM OF BORING 50 Lu Lt. 0 GLACIAL DEP • se 50/6' 50/6' z F— • Lu. u_ 0 ..... • • • • 0' 10' 20' HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1"=20' 0' 10' 20' 40' MUM', 21=6C;a4,11=1,4 ER-31.4e2 T.NOV.C.113ZrAalf1014304M70$11.1E 40' .... • ........ ........ ..... ..... z LL 50/6' 50/4' ..... • • • .... • • ... • • • .. • .. • ...... • • ... • The subsurface conditions shown are based on widely spaced borings and test pits and should be considered approximate. Further, the contact lines shown between units are interpretive in nature and may vary laterally or vertically over relatively short distances on site. HWAGEOSCIENCES INC VERTICAL SCALE: 1"=20' SLOPE PIPELINES BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER. FACILITY TUKWILA, WASHINGTON CROSS SECTION A-A' DRAWN BY EEK_ CHECKED BY BT DATE 1 1 .07.07 220 210 2010' 190 180 LI 160 Iw 7 1701 150 140 7 120' uJ 1 111 130 110 1001 90 810. 60' 501 MORE, NO., PROJECT NO. 2003-008-21 T-2300 1 1 1 1 1 160 140 130 120 110 90 80 70 50 40 30 20 10 0 LEGEND 50/3" 35 In EXPLORATION DESIGNATION AND SITE PLAN SYMBOL N -VALUE - (BLOWS/FOOT) 20 STANDARD PENETRATION TEST WATER LEVEL AT TIME OF DRILLING WATER LEVEL MEASURED IN PIEZOMETER ON THE DATE INDICATED. INFERRED GEOLOGIC CONTACT SAND PACK AND SCREEN INTERVAL BOTTOM OF BORING GLACIAL DEPO SITS 34 38 S7 68- 75- ;. • 0 N ILL- CEOLLU v IU�1 HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1 " =20' 0' 10' 20' 40' 0' 10' 20' GLACIU= ACUST DEPOSIT IN 40' - - 50/6' DITCH ; ; • • The subsurface conditions shown are based on widely spaced borings and test pits and should be considered approximate. Further, the contact lines shown between units are interpretive in nature and may vary laterally or vertically over relatively short distances on site. HWAGEOSCIENCES INC VERTICAL SCALE: 1"=20' SLOPE PIPELINES BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILITY TUKWILA, WASHINGTON CROSS SECTION A -A' DRAWN BY EEK CHECKED BY EL DAZE 11.07.07 150 150 140 130 120 W W 100 J 110 900 80 Z H 60 4 W J J 70 50 40 3 0 20 10 0 FIGURE NO. Z H PROJECT NO. 2003 - 008 -21 T -2300 1 APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION The subsurface exploration program consisted of 10 boreholes. Under subcontract to HWA, CN Drilling (CND), of Seattle, Washington, drilled the borings in September 2007. Drilling equipment was selected based on site access conditions, which resulted in use of a hand - portable drill equipment. CND employed an Acker Soil Mechanic, hand portable, drill rig with four -inch outer diameter hollow -stem auger and a two -inch split spoon sampling device to collect soil samples. A 140 -pound hammer with a 30 -inch drop was used to drive the sampler into the subsurface (a Standard Penetration Test). HWA field staff collected soil samples generally every 2.5 feet in each boring as was possible. HWA sampled soils to depths of up to 20.5 feet in the borings. Proposed exploration locations were staked in the field by DHA Surveyors, per locations chosen and plotted on the Master Plan survey by HWA and R.W. Beck. Upon completion of each borehole, the actual locations were staked and subsequently resurveyed by DHA, as many were moved to accommodate prevailing access constraints. The actual exploration locations are shown on the Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 2. Each of the explorations was completed under the full -time observation of an HWA environmental or engineering geologist. HWA personnel recorded pertinent information including soil sample depths, stratigraphy, soil engineering characteristics, PID readings from selected soil samples, and ground water occurrence as the explorations were excavated. Soils were classified in general accordance with the classification system described in Figure A -1, which also provides a key to the exploration log symbols. Where applicable, soil layers containing compressible, unburned, refuse are indicated with a cross - hatched pattern in the left -hand column for soil symbols. The summary logs of boreholes are presented on Figures A -2 through A -11. The stratigraphic contacts shown on the individual logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. The actual transitions may be more gradual. HWA collected a composite soil sample from each soil boring with evidence of refuse (municipal solid waste) for environmental analytical testing. Soil samples selected for composite analyses were collected from the top soil - refuse interface, throughout visibly refuse- contaminated soils, to the bottom soil- refuse interface. All samples were field screened using a photo ionization detector (PID). Environmental soil samples were placed in labeled laboratory- provided sample containers using nitrile gloves and clean stainless steel spoons. Samples were placed in a cooler and packed with "blue ice" for transport to the laboratory under chain -of- custody protocol. 2003- 008_slope_pipelines DR.doc A -1 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP DESCRIPTIONS Coarse Grained Soils More than 50% Retained on No. 200 Sieve Size Gravel and Gravelly Soils More than 50% d Coarse Fraction Retained on No. 4 Sieve Clean Gravel (little or no fines) Ns •' GW Well-graded GRAVEL V c Q GP Poorly-graded GRAVEL Gravel with Fines (appreciable amount of fines) GM Silty GRAVEL No. 4 (4.5 mm) to No. 10 (2.0 mm) GC Clayey GRAVEL Sand and Sandy Soria 50% or More of Coarse Fraction Passing No. 4 Sieve Clean Sand (tittle or no fines) ,• SW Well-graded SAND -• SP Poorty-graded SAND Sand with Fines (appreciable amount of fines) .' SM Silty SAND SC Clayey AND YeY Fine Grained Soils 50% or More Passing No. 200 Sieve She Silt and Uquid Limit Less than 50% Clay ML SILT CL Lean CLAY OL Organic SILT /Organic CLAY Silt Liquid Limit and 50% or More Clay MH Elastic SILT CH Fat CLAY OH Organic SILT /Organic CLAY Highly Organic Soils , er /, ,it PT PEAT COHESIONLESS SOILS COHESIVE SOILS Density Larger than 12 in Approximate dative' Density( %) Consistency N (blows/ft) Approximate Undrained Shear Strength (psf) Very Loose Loose Medium Dense Dense Very Dense 0 to 4 4 to 10 10 to 30 30 to 50 over 50 2 2 2 8 Very Soft Soft Medium Stiff Stiff Very Stiff Hard 0 to 2 2 to 4 4 to 8 8 to 15 15 to 30 over 30 <250 250 - 500 500 - 1000 1000 - 2000 2000 - 4000 >4000 COMPONENT SIZE RANGE Boulders Larger than 12 in Cobbles 3 into 12 in Gravel 3 in to No 4 (4.5mm) Coarse gravel 3 in to 3/4 in Fine gravel 3/4 in to No 4 (4.5mm) Sand No. 4 (4.5 mm) to No. 200 (0.074 mm) Coarse sand No. 4 (4.5 mm) to No. 10 (2.0 mm) Medium sand No. 10 (2.0 mm) to No. 40 (0.42 mm) Fine sand No. 40 (0.42 mm) to No. 200 (0.074 mm) Silt and Clay Smaller than No 200 (0.074mm) PROPORTION RANGE DESCRIPTIVE TERMS < 5% Clean 5 - 12% Slightly (Clayey, Silty, Sandy) 12 - 30% Clayey, Silty, Sandy, Gravelly 30 - 50% Very (Clayey, Silty, Sandy, Gravelly) Components are arranged In order of increasing quantities. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 RELATIVE DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY VERSUS SPT N -VALUE TEST SYMBOLS USCS SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM COMPONENT DEFINITIONS NOTES: Soil classifications presented on exploration logs are based on visual and laboratory observation. Soil descriptions are presented in the following general order. Density/consistency, color, modifier (if any) GROUP NAME, additions to group name (d any), moisture content Pmporfron, gradation, and angularity of constituents, additional comments. (GEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION) Please refer to the discussion in the report text as well as the exploration logs for a more complete description of subsurface conditions. %F Percent Fines AL Atterberg Umits: PL = Plastic Limit LL = Uquid Unlit CBR California Bearing Ratio CN Consolidation DD Dry Density (pd) DS Direct Shear GS Grain Size Distribution K Permeability MD Moisture/Density Relationship (Proctor) MR Resilient Modulus PID Photolonization Device Reading PP Pocket Penetrometer Approx. Compressive Strength (tsf) SG Specific Gravity TC TriaxIal Compression TV Torvane Approx Shear Strength (tsf) UC Unconfined Compression I O Z SAMPLE TYPE SYMBOLS 2.0" OD Split Spoon (SPT) (140 Ib. hammer with 30 in. drop) Shelby Tube 3-1/4" OD Split Spoon with Brass Rings Small Bag Sample Large Bag (Bulk) Sample Core Run Non - standard Penetration Test (3.0" OD split spoon) GROUNDWATER SYMBOLS Q Groundwater Level (measured at time of drilling) Groundwater Level (measured in well or open hole after water level stabilized) COMPONENT PROPORTIONS MOISTURE CONTENT DRY MOIST WET Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch. Damp but no visible water. Visible free water, usually soil is below water table. LEGEND OF TERMS AND BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILITY SYMBOLS USED ON HWAGFOSCIENCESINC TUKWILA, WASHINGTON EXPLORATION LOGS I LEGEND 2003008.GPJ 11/14/07 PROJECT NO.: 2003-008 FIGURE: A -1 nv. ;: : : :: .••• VA •t•� Loose, yellow brown, fine SAND, dry. Some organic material noted (rootlets). (FILL WITH REFUSE) Oxidized soil and metal noted at 3.25 ft bgs. Ref less than — � j1J ggO, VA .••4 .•■■•• : , : : : ::$ :10 iii! �i i d 4 4 5% of sam .- Loose, yellow brown to red brown, silty, fine SAN Refuse: less than 5% [100 °h non - compressible] ( tt wood, glass). Oxidized soil noted at 6.40 to 6.50 feet br ground surface (ft bgs). Refuse: 20% [100% non - compressible] (glass, brick, metal) Note trace recovery. (fine sand, wet, with broken s) Medium dense, red to red - brown, fine SAND, dry. Cuttings: plastic, paper, bock in fine sand matrbr. No recovery. Very dense, black and red, bum slag, dry. Note very similar I L.:3 N CJ 2 i 2 7 6 y E k _ |B _ ) $ aa ) 6 A/ $ - § z E Z /k % � 6 , Ea J ci / / % E c \ E ■ a 2 §7 2 _ e . k 5 1x \ \ \ D!% / $ 0 § § - f • 2 .f 2 { B ( . / « ■ a ' § { k X a ; ƒ z 2 \ z > CSS1 .. * * * **. 4 +: . ��i VA appearance to bum slag from WSDOT site. Drillers note very r J difficult drilling. At 20.5 ft bgs, dnlling auger stops and will not 1 ( start again. ( Drill became lodged in burn slag. DRILLING COMPANY: CN Drilling, Inc. DRILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger, Acker hand - portable rig SAMPLING METHOD: SPT w/ Cathead SURFACE ELEVATION: 221 t feet 0 0 5 10 15 20 DESCRIPTION Boring terminated at 20.5 feet below ground surface. No ground water observed during time of exploration. Composite environmental sample collected from sample. No PID readings above background levels noted during field screening of samples w v Q , r , H 0) co s m c w i p w w — 0. 5-1 1 -1 -2 S-2 4-8-8 S-3 4-3-2 GS S-4 1 -3-5 5-5 2 -2 -3 S-6 6-5-5 GS S-7 8-4-3 5-8 10- 50/3.5 S-9 15 -50/3 25 — For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. LOCATION: See Site Si Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 9/25/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 9/25/2007 LOGGED BY: J. Speck 0 10 Standard Penetration Test (140 Ib. weight, 30" drop) • Blows per foot 20 30 40 0 20 40 60 80 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit 1-0—I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content 50 0 • • • • • A »A 100 — — 10 —15 0 U.1 20 25 MI 1 BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILITY HWAGEOSCIENCESING TUKWILA, WASHINGTON BORING 2003008 GPJ 12/11/07 PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 BORING: B -238 PAGE: 1 of 1 FIGURE: A -2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 USCS SOIL CLASS GROUNDWATER OTHER TESTS - - - — - - — - _ _ _ - ;∎•.�.. •iii ••• . * ** * **�*1 ' :444 VA ,a t.:.:. ... vi VA W. , Sidi . • • � • " •••• ... � � � � � ! VA VA Six inches of medium dense, light red brown, fine SAND over 6 inches of dark red brown, fine SAND, dry. Note trace refuse [glass, plastic). (FILL WITH REFUSE) Loose, red brown, fine SAND, dry. Refuse is less than 10% by volume (100% non - compressible) (brick, glass). Loose, red brown, fine SAND, dry. Refuse is less than 10% by volume (100% non - compressible) (glass, porcelain). Loose, red brown, fine SAND, dry. Refuse is less than 5% by volume (100% non - compressible) (glass). A A 't r• I:1 PA ,' I 1 ' , . . • SM Approximately 1 to 2 inches, light yellow brown, fine SAND in tip of sampler. (ICE CONTACT STRATIFIED DRIFT) Very dense, light yellow brown, sandy SILT to silty SAND, dry. Trace gravel and coarse sand. Gravel is fine to coarse. sub- angular to rounded. Driller notes hard drilling (rig chatter) at approximately 12.0 feet below ground surface. Dense, light yellow brown, silty SAND, moist. Dense, yellow brown, silty SAND, moist. Note some rust mottling from 15.25 to 15.5 and from 16.0 to 16.25 feet below ground surface. i i i 1 1 i i 1 i 1 i 1 i i i i i 1 DRILLING COMPANY: CN Drilling, Inc. DRILLING METHOD: Hollow -Stem Auger, Acker hand - portable rig SAMPLING METHOD: SPT w/ Cathead SURFACE ELEVATION: 202 t feet 5 10 15 20 — 25 — O 2 co DESCRIPTION Boring terminated at 16.5 feel below ground surface. No ground water observed during time of exploration. Composite environmental sample collected from sample. No PID readings above background levels noted during field screening of samples. S-1 1 -5-5 S-2 1 -2 -2 S-3 2 -2 -3 S-4 2-4-2 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. 5-5 6-20 -50/5 S -6 9 -15-16 GS S -7 11 -18-24 For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. LOCATION: See Site 8 Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 9/25/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 9/25/2007 LOGGED BY: J. Speck 0 10 Standard Penetration Test (140 Ib. weight, 30" drop) • Blows per foot 20 30 40 50 0 20 40 60 80 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit 1-1111--1 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content 100 x HWAGEOSCIENCES INC BORING 2003008.GPJ 12/11/07 BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILITY TUKWILA, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 BORING: B -239 PAGE: 1 of 1 FIGURE: A -3 DRILLING COMPANY: CN Drilling, Inc. DRILLING METHOD: Hollow -Stem Auger, Acker hand - portable rig SAMPLING METHOD: SPT w/ Cathead SURFACE ELEVATION: 192 t feet x ay O� 0— 10 — 15 — 20 — 25 — J O m 2 m • •• • • • • • ••• • •• • ••• • • • ••• • ML SM ML SM DESCRIPTION Loose, light to dark red brown, fine slightly silty SAND, dry. Trace refuse [glass]. Note abundant organic material [rootlets]. (FILL WITH REFUSE) Loose, red, silty, fine SAND, dry. Note trace refuse [glass]. ® S-2 1 -1 -3 GS Medium dense, light yellow brown, fine silty SAND to sandy SILT, dry. Note trace organic material (rootlets). (ICE CONTACT STRATIFIED DRIFT) Dense, light yellow brown, slightly sandy SILT with gravel, moist. Gravel is fine to coarse, sub - angular to rounded. Note 'faint oxidation mottling_ Very dense, light yellow brown, sandy SILT to silty SAND with gravel, moist. gravel is fine to coarse, sub - angular to rounded. Note faint oxidation mottling. Driller notes tough drilling - very slow advancing. Boring terminated at 11.5 feet below ground surface at refusal in very dense silt. No ground water observed during time of exploration. S-3 5 -9-12 S-4 15 -21 -27 S-5 26 -29-33 GS For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. NOTE: Thus log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and /or locations. LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 9/25/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 9/25/2007 LOGGED BY: J. Speck 0 • Standard Penetration Test (140 lb. weight, 30" drop) A Blows per foot IJJ am 10 20 30 40 50 O • » 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit 1--4111--1 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content 0 — 10 —15 — 20 25 ON BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILITY HWAGEOSCIENCES INC TUKWILA, WASHINGTON BORING 2003008.GPJ 12/11/07 BORING: B -240 PAGE: 1 of 1 PROJECT NO 2003 -008 FIGURE; A-4 DRILLING COMPANY: CN Drilling, Inc. DRILLING METHOD: Hollow -Stem Auger. Acker hand - portable rig SAMPLING METHOD: SPT w/ Cathead SURFACE ELEVATION: 176 t feet 0. a ar o � 0 5— 10 — 15 — 20 — 25 — ML DESCRIPTION Dense, light yellow brown, sandy SILT, dry. Note trace gravel. Gravel is fine to coarse, sub - angular to rounded. (ICE CONTACT STRATIFIED DRIFT) Drillers note very tough drilling. Slow advancing. Very dense, yellow brown, sandy SILT with gravel, moist Gravel is fine to coarse, sub - angular to rounded. Till -like. Very dense, yellow brown, sandy SILT with gravel, moist. Gravel is fine to coarse. sub - angular to rounded. Trace rust \mottling at 5.25 to 5.35 feet below ground surface. Till -like. Boring terminated at 6.0 feet below ground surface at refusal in very dense silt No ground water observed during time of exploration. r w U H w co s N E w m re - z ; 0 a s S-1 5 -14-30 ® S-2 31 -50/6 S-3 29 -50/6 GS For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 9/25/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 9/26/2007 LOGGED BY: J. Speck 0 10 Standard Penetration Test (140 Ib. weight, 30" drop) • Blows per foot 20 30 40 0 20 40 60 80 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit 1--• --1 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content x O. 50 100 DITI BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILITY HWAGEOSCIENCES INC TUKWILA, WASHINGTON BORING 2003008.GPJ 12111/07 PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 BORING: B -241 PAGE: 1 of 1 FIGURE: A -5 DRILLING COMPANY: CN Dulling Inc. DRILLING METHOD: Hollow -Stem Auger, Acker hand - portable rig SAMPLING METHOD: SPT w/ Cathead SURFACE ELEVATION: 144 t feet 5 — 10 — 15 — 20 — 25 — O w DESCRIPTION SM Very dense, dark yellow brown, saty SAND with gravel, moist Gravel is fine to coarse, sub - angular to rounded. (ICE CONTACT STRATIFIED DRIFT) Very dense, dark yellow brown, silty SAND with gravel, moist Gravel is fine to coarse, sub - angular to rounded. No recovery. Boring terminated at 6.0 feet below ground surface at refusal in very dense silt. No ground water observed during time of exploration. w 0 w a 5-1 50/6 S-2 33-36 -50/4 GS 5-3 50/4 For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. LOCATION: See Site 8 Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 9/26/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 9/26/2007 LOGGED BY: J. Speck 0 10 Standard Penetration Test (140 Ib. weight, 30" drop) • Blows per foot 20 30 40 0 20 40 60 80 Water Content (%) Plastic Limit 1--111--1 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content 100 MT BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILITY HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. TUKWILA, WASHINGTON BORING 2003008.GPJ 12/11/07 PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 BORING: B -242 PAGE: 1 of 1 FIGURE; A -6 DRILLING COMPANY: CN Drilling, Inc. DRILLING METHOD: Hollow -Stem Auger, Acker hand - portable rig SAMPLING METHOD: SPT w/ Cathead SURFACE ELEVATION: 142 t feet 0. 0 5— 10 — 15 — 20 — O 2 w DESCRIPTION ML Very dense, yellow brown, sandy SILT with gravel, moist Gravel is fine to coarse, sub - angular to rounded. (ICE CONTACT STRATIFIED DRIFT) Driller notes hard drilling, very slow advancing. No recovery. Driller notes continued hard drilling. Boring terminated at 5.5 feet below ground surface at refusal in very dense silt. No ground water observed during time of exploration. w a -J a a N S-1 5-25 -50/3 GS S-2 50/3 25 — For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. LOCATION: See Site 8 Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 9/26/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 9/26/2007 LOGGED BY: J. Speck 0 10 Standard Penetration Test (140 Ib. weight, 30" drop) • Blows per foot 20 30 40 • » , 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit 1---• Liquid Limit Natural Water Content —5 —15 20 25 10 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC BORING 2003008.GPJ 12/11/07 BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILITY TUKWILA, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 2003-008 BORING: B -243 PAGE: 1 of 1 FIGURE: A -7 DRILLING COMPANY: CN Drilling, Inc. DRILLING METHOD: Hollow -Stem Auger, Acker hand - portable rig SAMPLING METHOD: SPTw /Cathead SURFACE ELEVATION: 113 * feet 10 — 15— 20 — 25 — ML SM SM ML SM DESCRIPTION Medium dense, light brown, sandy SILT, dry. Trace gravel. Gravel is fine to coarse, sub - angular to rounded. Some organic material (rootlets). (ICE CONTACT STRATIFIED DRIFT) Driller notes hard drilling_ Very dense, light yellow brown, silty SAND with gravel, dry. Gravel is fine to coarse, sub - angular to rounded. Note faint lamination of light and dark materials (less than 2 mm) from 3.25 to 3.50 feet below ground surface. Note coarser grained partings. Very dense, yellow brown, sandy SILT with gravel, dry. Gravel is fine to coarse, sub - angular to rounded. Very dense, yellow brown, sandy SILT with gravel, moist (driller added water). Gravel is fine to coarse, sub - angular to rounded. Trace rust mottling. Boring terminated at 8.5 feet below ground surface at refusal in very dense silt. No ground water observed during time of exploration. W a W J fl VI S-1 7-6-6 M S-2 24 -31 -31 GS S-3 21 -50/6 S-4 41 -50/6 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and /or locations. For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 9/26/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 9/26/2007 LOGGED BY: J. Speck Standard Penetration Test (140 Ib. weight, 30" drop) • Blows per foot 0 20 40 60 80 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit 1--.-1 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content 100 UN BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILITY HWAGEOSCIENCES INC TUKWILA, WASHINGTON BORING 2003008.GPJ 12/11/07 PROJECT NO.: 2003-008 BORING: B -244 PAGE: 1 of 1 FIGURE: A -8 DRILLING COMPANY: CN Drilling, Inc. DRILLING METHOD: Hollow -Stem Auger, Acker hand - portable rig SAMPLING METHOD: SPT w/ Cathead SURFACE ELEVATION: 81 * feet W N C 0 5— 10 — 15 — 20 — 25 — DESCRIPTION ML bM ML Dense, light brown to brown, sandy SILT with gravel, dry. Some organic material (rootlets). Gravel is fine to coarse, sub - angular to rounded. (ICE CONTACT STRATIFIED DRIFT) Very dense, yellow brown, sandy SILT with gravel, dry. :.Gravel is to, coarse, sub- angular to rounded. 2 inch Tens of fine to medium, silty SAND. Very dense, yellow brown, SILT with sand, dry. Driller notes hard drilling, very slow advancing. Boring terminated at 6.5 feet below ground surface at refusal in very dense silt. No ground water observed during time of exploration. re w W U (0 z rn c w w W t z Z a� 5-1 8 -20-22 N S-2 23 -50/6 N S-3 27 -39 -50/4 GS For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specked location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. LOCATION: See Site 8 Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 9/26/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 9/27/2007 LOGGED BY: J. Speck Standard Penetration Test (140 Ib. weight, 30" drop) A Blows per foot 10 20 30 40 50 0 .0 »A >>; 0 20 40 60 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit 1—•1 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content 80 100 —15 —20 — 0. o w 5 25 GM BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILITY HWAGEOSCIENCES INC TUKWILA, WASHINGTON BORING 2003008.GPJ 12/11/07 PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 BORING: B -245 PAGE: 1 of 1 FIGURE: A -9 DRILLING COMPANY: CN Drilling, Inc. DRILLING METHOD: Hollow -Stem Auger, Acker hand - portable rig SAMPLING METHOD: SPT w/ Cathead SURFACE ELEVATION: 78 t feet x cL 0 5 10 15 20 — 25 — O m 2 LC SM DESCRIPTION Boring terminated at 14.0 feet below ground surface at refusal in very dense silt. No ground water observed during time of exploration. w O -6 y c w '0 EC --a Z 3 w —o o. $ S-1 6-7 -14 S-2 10 -13-21 GS S-3 10 -18-20 S-4 16 -28-29 S-5 15 -22-46 GS S-6 17 -34-41 For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the speed location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 9/27/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 9/27/2007 LOGGED BY: J. Speck 0 10 20 30 40 50 • • Standard Penetration Test (140 Ib_ weight, 30" drop) • Blows per foot A • »A »; »A 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit I ---0 -1 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content 1-- 0- -6 w o 0 5 10 —15 — 20 25 UM BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILITY HWAGEOSCIENCES INC TUKWILA, WASHINGTON BORING 2003008.GPJ 12/11/07 PROJECT NO.: 2003-008 BORING: B -246 PAGE: 1 of 1 FIGURE: A -10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ML Medium dense, light brown to brown, sandy SILT with gravel, dry. Gravel is fine to coarse, sub - angular to rounded. - Abundant organic material (rootlets) in top 4 inches. (ICE CONTACT STRATIFIED DRIFT) ML Dense, light yellow brown, sandy SILT to silty fine SAND, dry. SM Note coarse grained partings. Note laminations of less than 1 mm from 3.0 to 3.5, oxidized red). /LI ML Dense, light brown, sandy SILT, dry. _ SM _ Grades to very dense. Faint oxidation laminations and coarse grained partings throughout. ML Very dense, light yellow brown, sandy SILT to silty SAND, dry. DRILLING COMPANY: CN Drilling, Inc. DRILLING METHOD: Hollow -Stem Auger, Acker hand - portable rig SAMPLING METHOD: SPT w/ Cathead SURFACE ELEVATION: 78 t feet x cL 0 5 10 15 20 — 25 — O m 2 LC SM DESCRIPTION Boring terminated at 14.0 feet below ground surface at refusal in very dense silt. No ground water observed during time of exploration. w O -6 y c w '0 EC --a Z 3 w —o o. $ S-1 6-7 -14 S-2 10 -13-21 GS S-3 10 -18-20 S-4 16 -28-29 S-5 15 -22-46 GS S-6 17 -34-41 For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the speed location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 9/27/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 9/27/2007 LOGGED BY: J. Speck 0 10 20 30 40 50 • • Standard Penetration Test (140 Ib_ weight, 30" drop) • Blows per foot A • »A »; »A 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit I ---0 -1 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content 1-- 0- -6 w o 0 5 10 —15 — 20 25 UM BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILITY HWAGEOSCIENCES INC TUKWILA, WASHINGTON BORING 2003008.GPJ 12/11/07 PROJECT NO.: 2003-008 BORING: B -246 PAGE: 1 of 1 FIGURE: A -10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -.-.-- SM • Medium dense, gray to dark brown, silty, fine to medium SAND to sandy SILT, moist. Note trace gravel. Gravel is fine to coarse, sub-angular to sub-rounded. Abundant organic material (rootlets) in top 3 inches below ground surface. (FILL) Loose. dark gray, silty. fine SAND, wet PT Loose, dark brown, PEAT. r ..t (BURIED TOPSOIL) . r SM Loose, dark brown, silty, fine SAND, wet (COLLUVIUM) ...„,:......,____ Loose, yellow brown. silty, fine SAND, wet. Less sift than above. .... . . . .... . . . r. SM . -:• . . Medium dense, yellow brown, silty, fine to medium SAND, - •• • • wet. '.---',7.--- • • SM ... Medium dense, yellow brown. silty, fine SAND, wet. •-"•-. -.-.'• Dense, yellow brown, silty, fine SAND, moist ML Hard, blue gray, SILT, moist. Non-plastic. (GLACIOLACUSTRINE) Hammer became lodged in silt. Driller needed to over-drill to pull sample from hole. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 DRILLING COMPANY: CN Drilling, Inc. DRILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger, Acker hand-portable rig SAMPLING METHOD: SPT w/ Cathead SURFACE ELEVATION: 38 I feet •di w 0 5- 10 — 15 — 20 — 25 — DESCRIPTION Boring terminated at 16.5 feet below ground surface at refusal in very dense silt. No ground water observed during time of exploration. w 3- uJ 0 r 2 S-1 5-11-12 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. S-3 2-2-1 Ig S-2 2-3-6 GS 4-6-8 GS 5-5 9-18-30 5-6 18-32-45 AL (xi S-7 12-50/6 For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 9/27/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 9/27/2007 LOGGED BY: J. Speck 0 A • A Standard Penetration Test (140 lb. weight, 30" drop) • Blows per foot 1— 0. V, Ill 10 20 30 40 50 0 • A > > >>. 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content (%) Plastic Limit I—•-1 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content —10 5 15 —20 25 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC I BORING 2003008.GPJ 12/11/07 BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILITY TUKWILA, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 2003-008 BORING: B-247 PAGE: 1 of 1 FIGURE: A-11 APPENDIX B LABORATORY INVESTIGATION APPENDIX B LABORATORY INVESTIGATION Representative soil samples obtained from the boreholes were returned to HWA's laboratory for further examination and testing. Laboratory tests were conducted on selected soil samples to characterize relevant engineering properties of the on -site materials. The laboratory testing program was performed in general accordance with appropriate ASTM Standards as outlined below. MOISTURE CONTENT (BY MASS): The moisture contents of selected soil samples were determined in general accordance with ASTM D 2216. The results are shown at the sampled intervals on the appropriate summary logs in Appendix A. LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT, AND PLASTICITY INDEX OF SOILS (ATTERBERG LIMITS): Selected samples were tested using method ASTM D 4318, multi -point method. The results are reported on the attached Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index reports, Figure B -1. PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS: Selected samples were tested to determine the particle distribution of material in general accordance with ASTM D422. The results are summarized on the attached Grain Size Distribution reports, Figures B -2 through B -6, which also provide information regarding the classification of the sample and the moisture content at the time of testing. 2003 -00S_slope_pipelines DR.doc B -1 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION % MC LL PL PI % Fines • B -247 S -6 12.5 - 14.0 (ML) Dark olive gray, SILT 31 42 28 14 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 LIQUID LIMIT (LL) UZI HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. HWAATTB 2003008.GPJ 12/11/07 BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILITY TUKWILA, WASHINGTON LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT AND PLASTICITY INDEX OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D4318 PROJECT NO.: 2003-008 FIGURE: B-1 CL CH • ML e CL -ML ) 20 40 60 RO 1nn 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 LIQUID LIMIT (LL) UZI HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. HWAATTB 2003008.GPJ 12/11/07 BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILITY TUKWILA, WASHINGTON LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT AND PLASTICITY INDEX OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D4318 PROJECT NO.: 2003-008 FIGURE: B-1 SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name % MC LL PL PI Gravel Sand Fines • • B -238 S -3 5.0 - 6.5 (SM) Grayish brown, silty SAND 8 1.5 83.1 15.3 B -238 S-6 12.5 - 13.5 (SM) Reddish brown, silty SAND 7 10.8 76.4 12.8 B -239 S-6 12.5 - 14.0 (SM) Brown, silty SAND 10 0.0 80.1 19.7 GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY Coarse Fine _ Coarse Medium I Fine HWAGEOSC[ENCES INC BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILITY TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 3/4" 3" 1 -1/2" 5/8" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 50 5 1 0 5 0 1 0.05 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005 PARTICLE -SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D422 PROJECT NO.: 2003-008 FIGURE: B-2 PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name % MC LL PL PI Gravel Sand Fines • B -240 S -2 2.5 - 3.0 (SM) Reddish brown, silty SAND wtih gravel 6 30.8 51.8 17.5 • B -240 S -5 10.0 - 11.5 (SM) Light olive brown, silty SAND wtih gravel 9 31.7 32.3 36.0 • B -241 S -3 5.0 - 6.0 (ML) Grayish brown, sandy SILT 13 10.7 33.4 56.0 GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 3/4" 3" 1 -1/2" • 5/8" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 50 10 5 1 0 5 0 1 0.05 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005 Y11fii HWAGEOSC[ENCES INC HWAGRSZ 2003008.GPJ 12/11/07 BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILITY TUKWILA, WASHINGTON PARTICLE -SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D422 PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 FIGURE: B-3 GRAVEL SAMPLE SAND CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name SILT CLAY Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name % MC LL PL PI Gravel Sand Fines • • • B -242 B -243 B-244 S -2 S -1 S-2 2.5 - 3.5 0.0 - 1.0 2.5 - 3.5 (SM) Grayish brown, silty SAND with gravel (GM) Grayish brown, silty GRAVEL with sand (SM) Olive brown, silty SAND 12 9 12 29.7 38.5 14.2 43.6 38.5 50.6 26.6 23.0 35.2 MT MNAGEOSCIENCFS INC BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILITY TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 3" 50 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 3/4" 1 -1/2" • 5/8" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 II T 10 5 1 0 5 0 1 0.05 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005 PARTICLE -SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D422 PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 FIC:I IRF• R-d (SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL - ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name % MC LL PL PI Gravel Sand Fines • • • B -245 S -3 5.0 - 6.5 (ML) Yellowish brown, SILT with sand 21 0.0 18.8 81.2 B -246 S -2 2.5 - 4.0 (ML) Light yellowish brown, SILT with sand 7 0.0 28.8 71.2 B -246 S -5 10.0 - 11.5 (ML) Yellowish brown, sandy SILT 13 0.0 46.3 53.7 GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 3/4" 3" 1 -1/2" ' 5/8" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 100 • 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 r I • 4 50 10 5 0 5 0 1 0.05 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005 Y Viii HWAGEOSC7ENCES INC HWAGRSZ 2003008.GPJ 12/11/07 BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILITY TUKWILA, WASHINGTON PARTICLE -SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D422 PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 FIGURE: B-5 PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT col and Name % MC LL PL PI Gravel Sand Fines % % % 57 9.1 54.3 36.6 30 0.0 51.0 49.0 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 GRAVEL Coarse Fine SAND Coarse Medium Fine SILT CLAY 3" 50 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 3/4" 1 -1/2" I 5/8" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 1 1 1 1 I ! 1 1 II II 10 5 SYMBOL SAMPLE B-247 B -247 S -2 S-4 DEPTH (ft) 2.5 - 3.0 7.5 -8.5 1 0 5 0 1 0.05 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Sym (SM) Dark brown, silty SAND (SM) Yellowish brown, silty SAND 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005 Y11f�� HWAGEUSQENCES INC HWAGRSZ 2oa3otw ( i »/1 vm BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILITY TUKWILA, WASHINGTON PARTICLE -SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D422 PROJECT NO.: 2003-008 FIGLIRF• R -R APPENDIX C ANALYTICAL LABORATORY DATA AND COC RE: Client Project: 2003 -008, Bow Lake Transfer Station ARI Job No: LR46 i s Analytical Resources, Incorporated Analytical Chemists and Consultants 11 October 2007 Vance Atkins HWA Geosciences 19730 64' Ave. W Suite 200 Lynnwood, WA • 98036 • Dear Vance: Please find enclosed the, original chain of custody record and the final results for the samples :from the . project referenced above. Two soil samples were received. on September 28, 2007. The samples were received intact and there were no .discrepancies in the paperwork. The samples were analyzed for NWTPH -HCID, NWTPH-G /BETX and total metals as requested. These analyses proceeded without incident of note. A copy of these reports and all raw data will be kept of file at ARI. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, ANALYTICAL RESOURCES, INC. Mark D. Harris Project Manager 206/695 -6210 <markh @arilabs. com> Enclosures cc: file LR46 MDH/mdh 4611 South 134th Place, Suite 100.• Tukwila. WA 98168 • 206=6954200 • 206 - 695.6201 fax B- Z rS oyz9'k /4 o 5 6 1( X X P. 706 bc m�4•cnvrJ Fv2 WO. 4 ?ur VI'A'' RwN B -zap X91 G /��0 5 b rwra. /kg) ia5 Arw &ate Porn C 11 1 611 1 — w/ VA/ A7 IA PRINT NAME SIGNATURE COMPANY DATE TIME REMARKS Relinquished by: ;/tar- 5, c. 7•1:-.- ..c'4--f # . x%6-+7 ayzj- /a Y Received by: 46 e d6 ca~ l t.A01 14 '0_3( f o S Relinquished by: Received by: LI UM Stec HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. 19730 64 Ave. W., Suite 200, Lynnwood, WA 98036 (425)774-0106 4500 Kruse Way. Suite 300, Lake Oswego, OR 97035 (503)675.2424 PROJECT NAME: §01.440 .6 71/An 474flVAJ #: Iva POT .SITE CODE: SAMPLERS NAME: IN `iPF PHONE: 4ZS 4 o F oj, SAMPLERS SIGNATURE,.y.4----- HWA CONTACT: 1410e.etrriNS PHONE: 42y. 0f olo HWA SAMPLE ID DATE TIME MATRIX LAB ID Chain of Custody and Laboratory Analysis Request # OF BOTTLE ANALYSIS REQUESTED DISTRIBUTION: WHITE - Retum to HWA; YELLOW - Retain by Lab; PINK - Retain by Sampler DATE: ?Z/a4 PAGE: / of REMARKS Inorganic Data Organic Data ARI Data Reporting Qualifiers Effective 11/22/04 U Indicates that the target analyte was not detected at the reported concentration • Duplicate RPD is not within established control limits B Reported value is less than the CRDL but >_ the Reporting Limit N Matrix Spike recovery not within established control limits NA Not Applicable, analyte not spiked H The natural concentration of the spiked element is so much greater than the concentration spiked that an accurate determination of spike recovery is not possible L Analyte concentration is 55 times the Reporting Limit and the replicate control limit defaults to ±1 RL instead of the normal 20% RPD U Indicates that the target analyte was not detected at the reported concentration • Flagged value is not within established control limits B Analyte detected in an associated Method Blank at a concentration greater than one -half of ARI's Reporting Limit or 5% of the regulatory limit or 5% of the analyte concentration in the sample. J Estimated concentration when the value is Tess than ARI's established reporting limits D The spiked compound was not detected due to sample extract dilution NR Spiked compound recovery is not reported due to chromatographic interference E Estimated concentration calculated for an analyte response above the valid instrument calibration range. A dilution is required to obtain an accurate quantification of the analyte. S Indicates an analyte response that has saturated the detector. The calculated concentration is not valid; a dilution is required to obtain valid quantification of the analyte NA The flagged analyte was•not analyzed for NS The flagged analyte was not spiked into the sample M Estimated value for an analyte detected and confirmed by an analyst but with low spectral match parameters. This flag is used only for GC -MS analyses N The analysis indicates the presence of an analyte for which there is presumptive evidence to make a "tentative identification" Y The analyte reporting limit is raised due to a positive chromatographic interference. The compound is not detected above the raised limit but may be present at or below the limit C The analyte was positively identified on only one of two chromatographic columns. Chromatographic interference prevented a positive identification on the second column P The analyte was detected on both chromatographic columns but the quantified values differ by >_40% RPD with no obvious chromatographic interference ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SKEET BETX by Method SW8021BMod Page 1 of 1 Lab Sample ID: MB- 100807 LIMS ID: 07 -20589 Matrix: Soil Data Release Authorized:0 Reported: 10/11/07 Date Analyzed: 10/08/07 12:39 Instrument /Analyst: PID1 /PKC CAS Number Analyte 71 -43 -2 108 -88 -3 100 -41 -4 95 -47 -.6 Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene m,p- Xylene o- Xylene Trifluorotoluene Bromobenzene Trifluorotoluene Bromobenzene Gasoline Range Hydrocarbons BETX Surrogate Recovery Gasoline Surrogate Recovery ANALrnCAL RESOURCES J INCORPORATED Sample IDs MB- 100807 METHOD BLANK QC Report No: LR46 -HWA GeoSciences, Inc. Project: Bow Lake Transfer Station Event: 2003 -008 Date Sampled: NA Date Received: NA FORM I Purge Volume: 5.0 mL Sample Amount: 100 mg- dry -wt 93.1% 93.8% 97.4% 95.2% RL 25 25 25 50 25 5.0 BETX values reported in µg /kg (ppb) Gasoline values reported in mg /kg (ppm) Result < 25 U < 25 U < 25 U < 50 U < 25 U GAS ID < 5.0 U - -- GAS: Indicates the presence of gasoline or weathered gasoline. GRO: Positive result that does not match an identifiable gasoline pattern. 1 1 ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET BETX by Method SW8021BMod Page 1 of 1 Lab Sample ID: LR46A LIMS ID: 07 -20589 Matrix: Soil Data Release Authorized: Reported: 10/11/07 j Date Analyzed: 10/08/07 16:08 Instrument /Analyst: PID1 /PKC CAS Number 71 -43 -2 108 -88 -3 100 -41 -4 9.5 -47 -6 Analyte Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene m,p- Xylene o- Xylene QC Report No: Project: Event: Date Sampled: Date Received: Gasoline Range Hydrocarbons BETX Surrogate Recovery Trifluorotoluene 100% Bromobenzene 102% Gasoline Surrogate Recovery Trifluorotoluene 108% Bromobenzene 111% RL 30 30 30 60 30 BETX values reported in µg /kg (ppb) Gasoline values reported in mg /kg (ppm) FORM I Sample ID: B -238 SAMPLE LR46-HWA GeoSciences, Inc. Bow Lake Transfer Station 2003 -008 09/27/07 09/28/07 Purge Volume: 5.0 mL Sample Amount: 84 mg- dry -wt Percent Moisture: 7.0% Result < 30 U < 30 U < 30 U < 60 U < 30 U 6.0 16 GAS: Indicates the presence of gasoline or weathered gasoline. GRO: Positive result that does not match an identifiable gasoline pattern. ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INCORPORATED GAS ID GRO ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET TPHG by Method NWTPHG Page 1 of 1 Lab Sample ID: LCS- 100807 LIMS ID: 07 -20589 Matrix: Soil Data Release Authorized: er Reported: 10/11/07 d Date Analyzed LCS: 10/08/07 11:41 LCSD: 10/08/07 12:10 Instrument /Analyst LCS: PID1 /PKC LCSD: PID1 /PKC Analyte Gasoline Range Hydrocarbons 45.0 50.0 90.0% Reported in mg /kg (ppm) RPD calculated using sample concentrations per SW846. TPHG Surrogate Recovery Trifluorotoluene Bromobenzene FORM III ANALYRCAL RESOURCES INCORPORATED Sample ID: LCS- 100807 LAB CONTROL SAMPLE QC Report No: LR46 -HWA GeoSciences, Inc. Project: Bow Lake Transfer Station Event: 2003 -008 Date Sampled: NA Date Received: NA Purge Volume: 5.0 mL Sample Amount LCS: 100 mg -dry -wt LCSD: 100 mg -dry-wt Spike LCS Spike LCSD LCS Added -LCS Recovery LCSD Added -LCSD Recovery RPD LCS LCSD 107% 110% 104% 105% 44.9 50.0 89.8% 0.2% 1 • 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 Analyte 1 RPD calculated 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 "ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET BETS by Method SW8021BMod "Page 1 of 1 Lab Sample ID: LCS- 100807 LIMB ID: 07 -20589 I Matrix: Soil Data Release Authorized: /yf Reported: 10/11/07 v Date Analyzed LCS: 10/08/07 11:41 LCSD: 10/08/07 12:10 Instrument /Analyst LCS: PID1 /PKC LCSD: PID1 /PKC I Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene m,p- Xylene o- Xylene Spike LCS Spike LCSD LCS Added -LCS Recovery LCSD Added -LCSD Recovery RPD 321 2460 648 2440 987 Trifluorotoluene Bromobenzene FORM III QC Report No: LR46 -HWA GeoSciences, Inc. Project: Bow Lake Transfer Station Event: 2003 -008 Date Sampled: NA Date Received: NA Sample Amount LCS: 100 mg- dry -wt LCSD: 100 mg- dry -wt 375 2790 665 2640 1050 Reported in µg /kg (ppb) using sample concentrations per SW846. BETS Surrogate Recovery Sample ID: LCS- 100807 LAB CONTROL SAMPLE Purge Volume: 5.0 mL 85.6% 88.2% 97.4% 92.4% 94.0% 334 2540 660 2490 1010 LCS LCSD 100% 104% 98.0% 101% 375 2790 665 2640 1050 ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INCORPORATED 89.1% 91.0% 99.2% 94.3% 96.2% 4.0% 3.2% 1.8% 2.0% 2.3% RT 8.884 16.235 RT ND ND ND ND ND ND RT 8.887 16.235 rata file 1: /chem3 /pidl.i /1008.b/1008.0006.d ?ata file 2: /chem3 /pidl.i /1008.b/1008b.0006.d tethod: /chem3 /pidl.i /1008.b /PIDB.m Instrument: pidl.i tas Ical Date: 28- SEP -07 1TX Ical Date: 30 -AUG -2007 WAGas (Tol -C12) 8015B (2MP -TMB) AKGas (nC6 -nC10) NWGas (Tol -Nap) Analytical Resources Inc. BETX /Gas Quantitation Report FID Surrogates Shift Height Area 0.004 15394 100659 0.004 11871 45132 PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS (FID) Range Total Area* 31623 38112 32310 34875 Surrogate areas are subtracted from Total Area PID Surrogates Shift Response %Rec 0.010 33823 93.1 0.005 83195 93.8 AROMATICS (PID) Shift Response Amount %Rec Compound 97.4 TFT(Surr) 95.2 BB(Surr) Amount ARI ID: MB100807S1 Client ID: Injection Date: 08 -OCT -2007 12:39 Matrix: WATER Dilution Factor: 1.000 0.026 (11.025 - 18.402) 0.016 (5.023 - 16.838) 0.018 (5.576 - 15.999) 0.028 (11.025- 19.552) Compound TFT(Surr) BB(Surr) Compound Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene M /P- Xylene O- Xylene MTBE Indicates Peak Area was used for quantitation instead of Height Indicates peak peak was manually integrated 1 1 1 1 2.6- 2.5- 2.4- 2.3- 2.2 2.1- 2.0- .. 1.9- a 1 1.8- } 1.7- 1.6- 1.5- n 1.4- 1.3- E 1.2- m • N 1.1- Data File: lohem3 /pidi.i11008.b11008.0006.d Date : 08 -OCT -2007 12:39 Client ID: Sample Info: MD10080751 Column phase: RTX 602 -2 FID 2 m a /ohem3/pidi.i/ 1008 .b /i008.0006.d/1008.0006.odf Instrument: pid1.i Operator: PC Column diameter: 0.18 Page 1 N CO 4 n 0 is 4 o 1 1 1 . _1'e .vial. . •. . .AWN ' 4 1 ' .4F -s AMIE , 9 ' A111111111g.. .mow • Amor • .mime '.. • :... 0.44 8.24 8.0 7,8; 7.64 7.4. 7.24 7.0. 6034 6.64 6.44 6.24 6.04 8,84 8.64 8.44 5.24 8.0= 4.84 4.64 4.4= 4,2: 4.04 3.84 3.64 3.44 3.24 3.0= 2.8. 2.64 2.4- 2.24 z.0= 1.8= 1.64 1.44 1.2= 1.0- 0.8- 0.64 Data File: / ohem3 /pidi.i /1008.b/1008b.0006.d Date : 08 -OCT -2007 12 :39 Client ID: Sample Info: MD10080751 Column phase: RTX 802 -2 PID • Instrument: pidi.i Operator: PC Column diameter: 0.18 / ohem3lpidl. i/ i008 .b/1008b.0006.d /1008b40006.odf w Page 1 • C. 4 A A 4A 44 4 � • 42 4 d 4 F 44 4 7 40 40 ., .,. nn n, ... Analytical Resources Inc. 1 Data file 1: / chem3 /pidl.i /1008.b/1008.0004.d Data file 2: /chem3 /pidl.i /1008.b /1008b.0004.d Method: /chem3 /pidl.i /1008.b /PIDB.m Instrument: pidl.i Gas Ical Date: 28- SEP -07 BETX Ical Date: 30 -AUG -2007 1 i i 1 1 ===========”=....--=== • 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 RT 8.882 16.230 RT 8.880 16.230 BETX /Gas Quantitation Report FID Surrogates Shift Height Area 0.000 16279 110856 -0.001 11836 49245 PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS (FID) Range Total Area* WAGas (Tol -C12) 1088904 8015B (2MP -TMB) 2231119 .AKGas (nC6 -nC10) 1609848 NWGas (Tol -Nap) 1135264 * Surrogate areas are subtracted from Total Area %Rec Compound TPT(Surr) BB(Surr) 107.3 103.9 Amount 0.899 (11.025- 18.402) 0.910 (5.023- 16.838) 0.907 (5.576- 15.999) 0.899 (11.025- 19.552) == = == PID Surrogates Shift Response %Rec 0.006 36519 100.5 0.001 86929 98.0 AROMATICS (PID) ARI ID: LCS10080751 Client ID: Injection Date: 08 -OCT -2007 11:41 Matrix: WATER Dilution Factor: 1.000 Compound TFT(Surr) BB(Surr) RT Shift Response Amount Compound 8.032 0.005 15073 6.421 Benzene 11.023 0.005 115987 49.136 Toluene 14.032 0.004 24141 12.952 Ethylbenzene 14.209 0.007 103875 48.790 M /P- Xylene 15.043 0.002 46557 19.738 O- Xylene 5.336 0.007 87668 105.151 MTBE Indicates Peak Area was used for quantitation instead of Height Indicates peak peak was manually integrated K: •. C m- —2-14ethylpentane(5.019) P I%) N N Al N N (4 41 (.4 C4 41 C4 (4 4.1 ca • A A A. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • N 43 01 CO V CD .%0 0 N 4.1 A 01 01 '4 CD 19 0 N (4 A 01 01 CO /37/ 0 1- N -nC7 (7.781) • D - • . - -nC8 (10.563) -nC9 (13.567) mriC10-Decane (16.998) -vC6 (5.573) -nC12-Dodecane (18.388) -nC13 (19.240) -Naphthalene (19.540) Y (ci°^4) - RA(Curr) (16,230) -TFT(Surr) (8.882) 1 Toluene (11.025) a 1• • 8 co • i,2,4-TrioethHlbenzene (16.837) a 0 o. ID 71 } 2. 1- 1.0- 0.9- 0.8- y 0.6- 0.4- 0.3- 0.2- 0.1- Data File: lchem3 /pid1.i/1008.b/10086.0004.d Date S 08-OCT -2007 11241 Client ID: Sample Info: LC810080781 Column phase: RTX 502-2 PID 0 ai v 1 E '1 Instrument: pidi.i Operator: PC Column diameter: 0.18 /ohem3/pidi.1/ 1008 .b /10086.0004.d/10086.0004.odf �b v v m ^ Page 1 AllANLJJ L4111. 7 14 49 liMill• . - 11111111 . • ._ imora `. • ANEW -. 111111l . . Analytical Resources Inc. BETX /Gas Quantitation Report )ata file 1: / chem3 /pidl.i /1008.b/1008.0005.d )ata file 2: / chem3 /pidl.i /1008.b /1008b.0005.d 4ethod: /chem3 /pidl.i /1008.b /PIDB.m Instrument: pidl.i ;as Ical Date: 28- SEP -07 3ETX Ical Date: 30 -AUG -2007 FID Surrogates RT Shift Height Area %Rec Compound 8.885 0.002 16901 113958 110.3 TFT(Surr) 16.233 0.002 12594 49727 104.9 BB(Surr) PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS (FID) Range Total Area* Amount WAGas (Tol -C12) 1085850 0.897 (11.025- 18.402) 8015B (2MP -TMB) 2228978 0.909 (5.023- 16.838) AKGas (nC6 -nC10) 1599352 0.901 (5.576- 15.999) NWGas (Tol -Nap) 1133869 0.898 (11.025 - 19.552) Surrogate areas are subtracted from Total Area PID Surrogates RT Shift Response %Rec Compound 8.883 0.008 37882 104.3 TFT(Surr) 16.233 0.003 89735 101.2 BB(Surr) AROMATICS (PID) RT Shift Response Amount Compound 8.034 0.007 15679 6.679 Benzene 11.026 0.008 119836 50.767 Toluene 14.035 0.007 24601 13.199 Ethylbenzene 14.212 0.010 106129 49.849 M /P- Xylene 15.046 0.005 47846 20.284 O- Xylene 5.338 0.009 89610 107.480 MTBE Indicates Peak Area was used for quantitation instead of Height Indicates peak peak was manually integrated ARI ID: LCSD10080751 Client ID: Injection Date: 08 -OCT -2007 12:10 Matrix: WATER Dilution Factor: 1.000 4.3; 4.2: 4.11 4.0; 3.8; 3.6- 3.64 3.4- 3.3; 3.2. 3,0- 2,94 2.8i 2.7- 2.64 2.5- 2.4- 2.3; 2.24 2.1 2.0; 1.94 1.84 1.7: 1.6; i.s, 1.4; 1.34 1.24 1.1 Data File: /chem3 Date : 08-OCT-2007 12:10 Client /D: Sample Info: LCSD10080761 Column phase: RT)( 302-2 FID 6 8 F JJLJ Awl( Jutli 7 8 9 10 11 4 11111111 11111110.. 111011.. IMO /ohem3/pid1.1/1008.1,11008.0003.&1008.0003.04f 0 1 MIN Instrument: pid1.i Operator: PC Column diameter: 0.18 JL ,,,JA,u) A 14 16 16 • • 17 Page 1 0.8- m • r 0.5- 0.4 0.3- 0.2- Data File: / chem3 1pidi.i /1008.b/1008b.0005.d Date : 08-OC7 -2007 12:10 Client ID: Sample Info: LCSD10080751 Column phase: RTX 502-2 PID 2 Instrument: pid1.1 Operator: PC Column diameter: 0.18 /chem3/pI di. i/ 1008 .b /1008b.0005.d/i008b.0005.odf 0 �G Analytical Resources Inc. BETX /Gas Quantitation Report ` ' Data file 1: / chem3 /pidl.i /1008.b/1008.0010.d ARI ID: LR46A Data file 2: /chem3 /pidl.i /1008.b /1008b.0010.d Client ID: B -238 Method: /chem3 /pidl.i /1008.b /PIDB.m Injection Date: 08 -OCT -2007 16:08 I Instrument: pidl.i Matrix: SOIL Gas Ical Date: 28- SEP -07 Dilution Factor: 1.000 BETX Ical Date: 30 -AUG -2007 1 I FID Surrogates RT Shift Height Area %Rec Compound li 8.887 0.005 16834 111565 108.0 TFT(Surr) 16.233 0.002 12922 52685 111.1 BB(Surr) I PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS (FID) Range Total Area* Amount ' WAGas (Tol -C12) 261886 0.216 (11.025 - 18.402) 6015B (2MP -TMB) 149695 0.061 (5.023- 16.838) AKGas (nC6 -nC10) 88736 0.050 (5.576 - 15.999) NWGas (Tol -Nap) 337454 0.267 (11.025-19.552)4/U * Surrogate areas are subtracted from Total Area PID Surrogates I RT Shift Response %Rec Compound 8.885 0.010 36492 100.5 TFT(Surr) 16.235 0.005 90059 101.6 BB(Surr) I AROMATICS (PID) RT Shift Response Amount Compound ND Benzene ND Toluene ND Ethylbenzene ND M /P- Xylene ND O- Xylene ND MTBE lb Indicates Peak Area was used for quantitation instead of Height Indicates peak peak was manually integrated 1 1 Data File: lahem3 /pidl.i /i008.b/1008.0010.d Date ; 08-OCT -2007 16208 Client ID: B -238 Sample Info; LR46A Column phase: RTX 502 -2 FID /ohem3lpidl.i/ 1008 .b /1008,00i0.d/1008,0010.odf . ^ n m 2.7- . Q 2.6- 2.5- m m 2.4: I 2.3 Instrument; pidl.i Operator: PC Column diameter; 0.18 8 8 c Page 1. Data File: /ohem3/pidi.1/1008.b/1008b.0010.d Date 1 08 -OCT -2007 16108 Client ID: B-238 Sample Info: LR46A Column phase: RTX 502-2 PID ' •-• • •,' ; • Instrument: pidi.i Operator: PC Column diameter: 0.18 Page 1 9,24 9.0: 8.8: 8.64 8.4- 13.2: 8.0- 7.8- 7.6; 7.4: 7.2 7.04 6.8 6.6: 6.44 6.2 6.0- 5.8- 5.64 5.44 5.2: 0.04 4.84 4.61 4.4 4.2 4.04 3.8i 3.6: 3.4: 3.2: 2.6- 2.41 2.24 2.0- 1.8-; 1.6 1.4- 1.2- 1.0: oal- 0,6 • 4 lohem3lpid1.il1008.b/1008b.0010.d/i008b.001.0.odf 77 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 • • • • • • 1 • • • • Mi 1111•81111-• MOW. 1.111•••• 11111111M. 11111.11.4 01111111111... NEM - 11111111. MI= ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET NWTPH -ACID Method by GC /FID Page 1 of 1 Matrix: Soil Data Release Authorized Reported: 10/02/07 Reported in mg /kg (ppm) Gas value based on total peaks in the range from Toluene to C12. Diesel value based on the total peaks in the range from C12 to C24. Oil value based on the total peaks in the range from C24 to C38. FORM I ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INCORPORATED QC Report No: LR46 -HWA GeoSciences, Inc. Project: Bow Lake Transfer Station 2003 -008 Extraction Analysis ARI ID Sample ID Date Date DL Range Result MB- 100107 Method Blank 10/01/07 10/01/07 1.0 Gas < 20 U 07 -20589 Diesel < 50 U Oil < 100 U o- Terphenyl 81.9% LR46A B -238 10/01/07 10/01/07 1.0 Gas > 20 07 -20589 HC ID: GRO Diesel < 50 U Oil < 100 U o- Terphenyl 88.2% LR46B B -239 10/01/07 10/01/07 1.0 Gas < 32 U 07 -20590 HC ID: - -- Diesel < 81 U Oil < 160 U o- Terphenyl 82.7% :=a r.;; h';5 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 INORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET TOTAL METALS Page 1 of 1 Lab Sample ID: LR46MB LIMS ID: 07 -20589 Matrix: Soil Data Release Authorized Reported: 10/05/07 Percent Total Solids: NA Prep Meth 3050B 30508 3050B 3050B 3050B CLP 3050B 3050B Prep Analysis Analysis Date Method Date CAS Number Analyte 10/01/07 10/01/07 10/01/07 10/01/07 10/01/07 10/01/07 10/01/07 10/01/07 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 7471A 6010B 6010B 10/03/07 10/03/07 10/03/07 10/03/07 10/03/07 10/04/07 10/03/07 10/03/07 U- Analyte undetected at given RL RL- Reporting Limit QC Report No: LR46 -HWA GeoSciences, Inc. Project: Bow Lake Transfer Station 2003 -008 Date Sampled: NA Date Received: NA 7440 -38 -2 7440 -39 -3 7440 -43 -9 7440 -47 -3 7439 -92 -1 7439 -97 -6 7782 -49 -2 7440 -22 -4 Sample ID: METHOD BLANK Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Lead Mercury Selenium Silver 5 0.3 0.2 0.5 2 0.05 5 0.3 ANALrnCAL RESOURCES INCORPORATED RL mg /kg-dry Q 5 U 0.3 U 0.2 U 0.5 U 2 U 0.05 U 5 U 0.3 U INORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET TOTAL METALS Page 1 of 1 Lab Sample ID: LR46A LIMS ID: 07 -20589 Matrix: Soil Data Release Authorize Reported: 10/05/07 Percent Total Solids: 92.1% Prep Meth 3050B 3050B 3050B 3050B 3050B CLP 3050B 3050B Prep Analysis Analysis Date Method Date CAS Number Analyte 10/01/07 10/01/07 10/01/07 10/01/07 10/01/07 10/01/07 10/01/07 10/01/07 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 7471A 6010B 6010B 10/03/07 10/03/07 10/03/07 10/03/07 10/03/07 10/04/07 10/03/07 10/03/07 U- Analyte undetected at given RL RL- Reporting Limit QC Report No: LR46 -HWA GeoSciences, Inc. Project: Bow Lake Transfer Station 2003 -008 Date Sampled: 09/27/07 Date Received: 09/28/07 7440 -38 -2 7440 -39 -3 7440 -43 -9 7440 -47 -3 7439 -92 -1 7439 -97 -6 7782 - 49 - 2 7440 -22 -4 Sample ID: B -238 SAMPLE Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Lead Mercury Selenium Silver RL mg /kg-dry Q 10 0.8 0.5 1 5 0.05 10 0.8 ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INCORPORATED 10 U 136 1.4 49 345 0.13 10 U 2.4 1 1 INORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET TOTAL METALS Page 1 of 1 Lab Sample ID: LR46B LIMS ID: 07 -20590 Matrix: Soil Data Release Authorized Reported: 10/05/07 Percent Total Solids: 91.8% Prep Meth 3050B 10/01/07 6010B 3050B 10/01/07 6010B 3050B 10/01/07 6010B 3050B 10/01/07 6010B 3050B 10/01/07 6010B CLP 10/01/07 7471A 3050B 10/01/07 6010B 3050B 10/01/07 6010B U- Analyte undetected RL- Reporting Limit Prep Analysis Analysis Date Method Date CAS Number Analyte 10/04/07 10/04/07 10/04/07 10/04/07 10/04/07 10/04/07 10/04/07 10/04/07 at given RL QC Report No: LR46 -HWA GeoSciences, Inc. Project: Bow Lake Transfer Station 2003 -008 Date Sampled: 09/27/07 Date Received: 09/28/07 7440 -38 -2 7440 -39 -3 7440 -43 -9 7440 -47 -3 7439 -92 -1 7439 -97 -6 7782 -49 -2 7440 -22 -4 Sample ID: B -239 SAMPLE Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Lead Mercury Selenium Silver ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INCORPORATED RL mg /kg -dry Q 30 2 1 3 10 0.04 30 2 30 245 5 75 1,270 0.10 30 U 2 U ... .....:.... INORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET TOTAL METALS Page 1 of 1 Lab Sample ID: LR46LCS LIMS ID: 07 -20589 Matrix: Soil Data Release Authorized Reported: 10/05/07 Analyte Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Lead Mercury Selenium Silver Reported in mg /kg -dry N- Control limit not met Control Limits: 80 -120% Analysis Method 6010B 6010B 6010B 6010B 60108 7471A 6010B 60108 QC Report No: LR46 -HWA GeoSciences, Inc. Project: Bow Lake Transfer Station 2003 -008 Date Sampled: NA Date Received: NA BLANK SPIKE QUALITY CONTROL REPORT Spike Found 201 185 49.1 47.7 196 1.04 205 50.0 Sample ID: LAB CONTROL Spike Added 200 200 50.0 50.0 200 1.00 200 50.0 ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INCORPORATED Recovery 100% 92.5% 98.2% 95.4% 98.0% 104% 102% 100% Q 1 4 Analytic R, rporated Analytical al Chemists esources andConsulta 18 October 2007 Vance Atkins HWA Geosciences 19730 64 Ave. W Suite 200 Lynnwood, WA 98036 RE: Client Project: 2003 -008, Bow Lake Transfer Station ARI Job No: LT74 Dear Vance: Please find enclosed the final results for the sample from the project referenced above. Sample B -239 was analyzed TCLP lead as requested on 10/15/07. This analysis proceeded without incident of note. A copy of these reports and all raw data will be kept of file at ARI. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, ANALYTICAL RESOURCES, INC. (-)eQ 4 wj Mark D. Harris Project Manager 206/695 -6210 <markh @arilabs.com> Enclosures cc: file LT74 MDH /mdh • 4611 South 134th Place, Suite 100 • Tukwila WA 98168 • 206 - 695 -6200 • 206- 695 -6201 fax Prep Meth INORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET TCLP METALS Page 1 of 1 Lab Sample ID: LT74MB LIMS ID: 07 -21859 Matrix: Soil Data Release Authorized Reported: 10/18/07 Prep Analysis Analysis Date Method Date CAS Number Analyte 1311 10/16/07 6010B 10/17/07 7439 -92 -1 U- Analyte undetected at given RL RL- Reporting Limit Sample ID: METHOD BLANK QC Report No: LT74 -HWA GeoSciences, Inc. Project: Bow Lake Transfer Station 2003 -008 Date Sampled: NA Date Received: NA Lead RL 0.1 ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INCORPORATED mg /L Q 0.1 U I 1 1 1 r 1 1 1 1 i r i 1 1 1 r 1 1 DRAFT GEOTECHNICAL REPORT BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION KING COUNTY SOLID WASTE DIVISION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON HWA Project No. 2003- 008 -21 Contract No. E23001E May 21, 2007 Prepared for: R.W. Beck HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. May 21, 2007 HWA Project No. 2003 - 008 -21 R.W. Beck 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2500 Seattle, WA 98154 -1004 Attention: Mr. Karl Hufnagel, P.E. SUBJECT: Draft Geotechnical Report Bow Lake Transfer / Recycling Station Tukwila, Washington Dear Sir: Sa H. Hong, P.E. Principal BWT:SHH:bwt As authorized, HWA GeoSciences Inc. (HWA) has completed a design level geotechnical engineering study for redevelopment of the Bow Lake Transfer Station. Results of our investigation and geotechnical recommendations pertinent to the proposed improvements are provided in the accompanying draft geotechnical report. Please review and comment on the attached draft report, so that we may finalize it at the earliest opportunity. We appreciate the opportunity to provide geotechnical services on this project. Sincerely, HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 GENERAL 1 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 1.3 SCOPE OF SERVICES AND AUTHORIZATION 3 2.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION 3 2.1 FIELD INVESTIGATION 3 2.2 LABORATORY TESTING 4 3.0 GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS 4 3.1 SITE DESCRIPTION 4 3.1.1 King County Parcel 5 3.1.2 WSDOT Parcel 6 3.2 GENERAL GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS 7 3.3 SITE HISTORY 8 3.4 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 8 3.4.1 Fill Soil 9 3.4.2 Fill with Refuse 9 3.4.3 Refuse 10 3.4.4 Bum Fill 10 3.4.5 Glacial Deposits 10 3.5 GROUND WATER 10 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 11 4.1 GENERAL 11 4.2 SEISMICITY 12 4.3 SEISMIC DESIGN 13 4.4 REFUSE COMPRESSIBILITY 14 4.4.1 Compressibility of Refuse 14 4.4.2 Primary Settlement 16 4.4.3 Secondary Settlement 16 4.4.4 Bio- degradation Settlement 16 4.5 PRELOAD CONSIDERATIONS 17 4.5.1 Preloading Time Required 17 4.5.2 Preload Monitoring 17 4.5.3 Estimated Refuse Settlement under Fills Without Preload Treatment 18 4.5.4 Proposed Improvements Built on Refuse Area 18 4.5.5 Existing Utilities in the Refuse Area Impacted by the Added Fill 19 4.5.6 New Road Fill East of the Trailer Parking 19 4.6 RETAINING WALL ALONG 1 -5 19 4.7 RETAINING WALLS ALONG THE NORTH AND EAST ACCESS ROAD 21 2003 -008 DR.doc i HWA GEOScmrCEs INC. 4.8 LONG WALL WEST OF TRAILER PARKING 21 4.8.1 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls 22 4,8.2 Soldier Pile Retaining Wall Options 24 4.9 REFUSE SETTLEMENT NEAR THE LONG WALL 25 4.10 EXISTING FOUNDATIONS 26 4.11 SOUTH SCALE FACILITY 26 4.12 NORTH SCALE FACILITY 27 4.13 FUTURE HHW FACILITIES 27 4.14 NEW TRANSFER STATION BUILDING 27 4.14.1 Foundations 27 4.14.2 Concrete Retaining Walls 28 4.14.3 Lateral Earth Pressures Acting on Yielding Concrete Retaining Walls 29 4.14.4 Lateral Earth Pressures Acting on Restrained (unyielding) Concrete Retaining Walls 30 4.14.5 Passive Earth Pressures 32 4.14.6 Base Friction under Foundations 32 4.14.7 Compaction of Wall Backfill 32 4.14.8 Allowable Bearing Pressures for Retaining Wall Shallow Foundation Design 32 4.15 MAINTENANCE BUILDING 34 4.16 STORM RETENTION VAULT 34 4.17 EARTH WORK AT THE EXISTING TRANSFER STATION 34 4.18 OVER - EXCAVATION OF REFUSE OR UNSUITABLE SOILS 35 4.18.1 Geotechnical Considerations 35 4.18.2 Environmental Considerations 35 4.19 STRUCTURAL FILL AND COMPACTION 35 4.20 PILE FOUNDATIONS 36 4.21 PAVEMENT SUPPORT 37 4.21.1 Subgrade Preparation for Roads 37 4.21.2 Pavement Subgrade Preparation 38 4.22 SLOPE STABILITY AND CRITICAL AREA REQUIREMENTS 38 4.22.1 King County Parcel 38 4.22.2 WSDOT Parcel 39 4.23 STABILITY OF TEMPORARY CUT SLOPES AND EXCAVATIONS 39 4.24 SOIL CORROSIVENESS 40 4.25 PIPE BEDDING AND TRENCH BACKFILL 40 4.25.1 Pipe Support Through Refuse Areas 40 4.25.2 Pipe Support Through Non - Refuse Areas 41 4.26 GAS VENTING ON ALL BUILDINGS AND VAULTS 41 5.0 CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS 42 6.0 REFERENCES 44 2003 -008 DR.doc ii HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. LIST OF FIGURES (FOLLOWING TEXT) Figure 1 Figure 2A Figure 2B Figure 3A — 3K Figure 4 Figures 5A — 5I APPENDICES Appendix A: Field Investigation Figure A -1 Figures A -2 to A -38 Figures A -39 to A -49 Vicinity Map Site and Exploration Plan Slope Map Cross Sections A -A' through K -K' Refuse Settlement Calculations Retaining Wall Diagrams Legend of Terms and Symbols on Exploration Logs Logs of Boreholes B -201 through B -237 Logs of Test Pits TP -1 through TP -11 Appendix B: Laboratory Investigation Figures B -1 to B -2 Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index Figures B -3 to B -20 Particle -Size Analysis Appendix C: Logs from Previous Geotechnical Investigations 2003 -008 DR.doc iii HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. 1.1 GENERAL DRAFT GEOTECHNICAL REPORT BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION KING COUNTY SOLID WASTE DIVISION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of a geotechnical engineering investigation performed by HWA GeoSciences Inc. (HWA) for the proposed redevelopment of the Bow Lake Transfer / Recycling Station in Tukwila, Washington. Per the 2006 Facility Master Plan Update, King County Solid Waste Division (SWD) plans to construct a new transfer building on WSDOT property north of the existing transfer station, demolish the existing station, and construct scale facilities, a maintenance building, roadways, and trailer parking. The project location is shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. Existing and proposed features, topography, and exploration locations are shown on the Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 2A. Topography of the slopes down to the valley floor is shown on Figure 2B. The purpose of our investigation was to evaluate the subsurface conditions in areas of proposed improvements and provide geotechnical recommendations for design and construction. 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Our understanding of the project is based on preliminary designs, as developed for the 2006 Master Plan, and our involvement since 1986 for remedial measures to the existing building and since 1993 for master planning. The existing transfer station, built in 1977, will be replaced with a new facility that will serve a number of purposes, including preparation for waste export following closure of Cedar Hills Regional Landfill. The Master Plan preliminary design calls for a three- phased construction approach, in order to maintain transfer station operations at all times. Key preliminary design elevations were 265 feet for the tipping floor and roadways to it, and 245 feet for the compactor pit floor, maintenance building, and trailer parking. These preliminary design elevations have been raised 3%2 feet to correspond to the NAVD88 datum used in the new survey by Duane Hartman Associates (DHA), which is 3.53 feet higher than the NGVD29 datum of the previous survey utilized for master plan preliminary design. Proposed design elevations will, however, likely be adjusted further during final design. May 21, 2007 , HWA Project No, 2003 -008 New facilities will be constructed in three phases, as follows: 1) Construction of a new 68,000 square foot transfer building, north scale facility, and 2,500 square foot maintenance building on the WSDOT parcel. Construction of the new permanent access road parallel to I -5 would be the first task, followed by site grading (predominantly excavation) and facility construction. Particular elements include the following: • An 1,100 -foot long retaining wall adjacent to I -5, up to 15 feet high, for the north access road; • New transfer building, to be constructed on perimeter column footings with a slab -on- grade floor. Retaining walls approximately 20 feet high will be constructed for the refuse compactor pit and yard waste pit at the south end of the building (see Figure 2A); • Equipment maintenance building, with a 20 -foot high retaining wall to support a roadway above; • A retaining wall for the northeastern portion of the perimeter road; • North Scale Facility, with two scales, and a retaining wall separating it from the perimeter road; • An underground stormwater detention vault, beneath a paved trailer maneuvering area and limited parking; and • Associated access drives and parking areas, including temporary trailer parking west of the new transfer station. 2) Demolition of the existing 33,000 square foot transfer shed, scales, and roadways, following start of operations in the new transfer building. New features will include the following: • South Scale Facility, with three scales, expandable to four; • Trailer parking, with a 385 -foot long retaining wall up to 15 feet high with 2H:1 V backfill along the western side; • Access drives and a paved area for pay recycling and yard waste tipping, supported on new fill west of the trailer parking wall; • An eastern perimeter access drive, to be partly supported on new fill; and 2003 -008 DR.doc 2 }BATA GEOSCIENCBS INC. May 21, 2007 HWA Project No. 2003 -008 • A future facilities area, for collection of Household Hazardous Waste (111-1W) or other uses, to be supported mostly on new fill. 3) Construction of new parking stalls west of the new transfer station. 1.3 SCOPE OF SERVICES AND AUTHORIZATION A preliminary scope of services and cost estimate for the geotechnical and environmental investigation was submitted to Karl Hufnagel, of R.W. Beck, on August 24, 2006. Subsequent revisions to scope and budget, based on updates to project understanding, were made on September 26 and December 8, 2006, and January 3 and 26, 2007. Written authorization to proceed was given in an email January 23, 2007, by Karl Hufnagel, for the scope defined in Amendment No. 3, Phase 2A, Exhibit A Scope of Work, dated February 19, 2007. The design review and specification writing scope was set aside for Amendment No. 5. The need for out-of- scope work for the subsurface exploration program (additional cost for drilling at night, and additional boreholes) was identified and proposed costs were submitted February 16, 2007. This additional scope was verbally approved by Karl Hufnagel and, subsequently, included in Amendment No. 4 dated March 2, 2007. Our scope of work for this project includes a combined geotechnical and environmental subsurface exploration program; performing analytical laboratory tests; performing geotechnical laboratory tests and engineering analyses; and preparing draft and final geotechnical reports. Environmental analyses performed under this scope of work are reported separately, as follows: • Draft Phase I & II Environmental Site Assessment, WSDOT Property, March 30, 2007. • Hazardous Materials Report, Bow Lake Transfer Station Property, May 11, 2007. 2.1 FIELD INVESTIGATION 2.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION The fieldwork consisted of geologic reconnaissance of the site (King county parcel and WSDOT parcel) and adjacent slopes, and a subsurface exploration program that included 37 borings (designated B -201 through B -237) and 11 test pits (designated TP -1 through TP -11). The surveyed exploration locations are plotted on the Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 2A. These subsurface explorations were performed to obtain both geotechnical and environmental data, particularly regarding the character of fill and refuse on the site. Geotechnical data obtained in previous investigations (see Appendix C) since 1965 in the vicinity of the existing transfer station were utilized in planning our subsurface investigation, as well as for developing geotechnical recommendations in this report. 2003 -008 DR.doc 3 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. May 21, 2007 HWA Project No. 2003 -008 Borehole drilling was conducted with four different drill rigs by three subcontracted drilling companies from February 12 through March 6, 2007. Drilling equipment was selected based on site access conditions, and included a truck - mounted drill rig, a large track- mounted drill rig, a small track- mounted drill rig, and a hand - portable drill rig. The boreholes were advanced to depths ranging from 101/2 to 711/2 feet below the ground surface. Standpipe piezometers were installed in five of the boreholes. The test pits were excavated on February 21 through 23, 2007, with a large trackhoe to depths of up to 26 feet below the ground surface. Each of the explorations was advanced under full -time HWA supervision, and were logged by an environmental or engineering geologist. During the field investigation, soil samples were classified in the field and pertinent information, including sample depths, stratigraphy, soil engineering characteristics and ground water occurrence was recorded. HWA collected a composite soil sample from each soil boring and each test pit for environmental analytical testing. Soil samples selected for composite analyses were collected from the top soil - refuse interface, and throughout visibly refuse- contaminated soil to the bottom soil - refuse interface. Representative soil samples were obtained from the explorations and taken to our laboratory for further examination and geotechnical testing. All samples were field screened using a photo ionization detector (PID). Field exploration methods are described in detail and logs of the explorations are presented in Appendix A. 2.2 LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were conducted on selected samples obtained from the explorations to characterize relevant engineering and index properties of the soils encountered. Laboratory tests included in -situ moisture content, grain size distribution, pH and resistivity, and Atterberg Limits. The tests were conducted in general accordance with appropriate American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards. The test results and a discussion of laboratory test methodology are presented in Appendix B, or displayed on the exploration logs in Appendix A, as appropriate. 3.1 SITE DESCRIPTION The existing Bow Lake Transfer Station is located on the site of a closed landfill, adjacent to the east side of I -5, north of the South 188 Street interchange (see Figure 1). The WSDOT parcel is located immediately north of the existing transfer station. The project site, consisting of both properties, is situated near the top of the west slope above the Duwamish Valley. The topography of the general site area has been extensively modified by previous landfill operations, construction of I -5, and subsequent stockpiling of fill on the WSDOT parcel (see Section 3.3, Site History). 2003 -008 DR.doc 3.0 GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS 4 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. May 21.,.2007 HWA Project No. 2003 -008 3.1.1 King County Parcel The King County property ranges in elevation from 290 feet at the top of the slope on the 1 -5 (west) side to 140 feet on the Duwamish River Valley (east) side. The portion of the site containing the transfer station ranges in elevation from approximately 245 to 265 feet (see Figure 2A). The transfer station site is relatively flat, with access roads and ramps for the delivery and removal of solid waste. East of the existing transfer station, the ground slopes generally at about 3H: 1V (Horizontal:Vertical) within the former landfill, presently vegetated with blackberry brambles and isolated deciduous trees. A 20- to 25 -foot high cut at the slope toe on the downslope La Pianta property is retained by an ecology block gravity wall. Elevations of the eastern slope vary from approximately 245 to 255 feet at the transfer station perimeter road, down to 80 feet at the southeastern property corner. Along most of the southern property line, the slope is traversed in an easterly direction by a 50 -foot wide bench, which then traverses northeast and northward along contour and gently slopes to a 100 -foot, or so, wide cut bench at the northeastern property corner. A narrow dirt access road (grown over) descends the slope from the north (crossing the La Pianta property from the WSDOT parcel) to the wide bench area at the northeast corner. The slopes above the bench and old road are covered with blackberries, and the surficial soil consists of brown silty sand, with some scattered refuse on the ground surface, consisting of old bottles, tin cans, and other metal and glass debris. Slope inclinations vary from approximately 10 to 48 percent along short distances down the slope, indicative of modified land. Historical aerial photos indicate this was the main area of landfilling. The slope below the wide bench is more consistent, with gradients ranging from 40 to 45 percent. Scattered trees present in this lower slope consisted of 8- to 12 -inch maples, 12- to 18 -inch cottonwoods, and 6- to 8 -inch alders, the latter of which had died. The lower trunks of the trees are bent or pistol -butt shaped, indicative of soil creep. The toe of the slope east of the King County parcel, on the La Pianta property, consists of a 25- foot or so high cut slope at about a 1 /2H:1V (Horizontal:Vertical) inclination. This steep cut is buttressed by an Ecology Block wall, four blocks high, backfilled with sand and gravel, at the edge of a paved lay -down yard on the Green River valley floor. The soils exposed at the top of the cut appear to be glacially over- consolidated silty sand with gravel. Two 12 -inch storm pipelines are visible on the landfill slope: a corrugated plastic pipe along the upslope edge of the southern property line bench, and a 12 -inch concrete -to- corrugated metal pipe located due east of the north end of the existing transfer building. In late October 2006, we observed no water flow at the culvert outlets on the slope, despite heavy rainfalls. However, according to site utility plans and visual observations, stormwater is discharged to the top of the fill slope, to the southeast of the transfer building. Surface expressions of the stormwater discharge consisted of fresh green grass, remains of wet -soil plants (Queen Anne's Lace) not seen elsewhere on the slope, and soft ground underfoot. No surface water was observed. 2003 -008 DR.doc 5 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. 1VIay 21, 2007 HWA Project No. 2003 -008 The slopes south and east of the King County parcel, on the La Pianta property, were modified by surface mining of sand and gravel as shown in a 1969 aerial photo and confirmed by our recent observations. Escarpments between terraces were approximately 15 to 20 feet tall, with the terraces on the order of 30 to 50 feet wide. Second - growth deciduous trees up to approximately 18 inches in diameter were observed on the cut benches and escarpments. 3.1.2 WSDOT Parcel The WSDOT parcel is dominated by two ages and types of soil stockpiles, one on top of the other; a steep ravine to the north with an east- flowing stream; and a complex east- facing slope descending to the valley floor. The dimensions of the top of the stockpile are about 300 feet by 220 feet. A small roadway provides access from 1 -5 to the mostly- flattened top of the stockpile, at an elevation of approximately 308 feet. A small additional mounded stockpile reaches an elevation of 317 feet. This upper fill stockpile is covered with generally young vegetation consisting of grass, Scots Broom, and emergent Himalayan Blackberry. The upper fill stockpile is setback from the crest of the lower fill stockpile along the eastern and southern sides. The lower stockpile is densely vegetated with a continuous blackberry thicket along the southern and southeastern sides, transitioning to wooded with mature maples along the northeastern and northern sides. The side slopes of the WSDOT stockpile on the north side are inclined at about 20 percent in the upper half and about 30 percent in the lower half. The eastern slope of the WSDOT stockpile varies in inclination between gradients of 20 to 100 percent with the shallowest slope occurring on a bench at the base of the most recent fill stockpile, approximately twenty feet lower than the top of the'stockpile. The southern slope is similar to the eastern as it descends toward the transfer station property. No evidence of recent fill instability was observed, even along the slope crests where sloughing typically occurs in uncompacted fills. However, erosional rilling, up to 2 feet deep and 5 feet wide, was observed along the northern lower slope of the WSDOT stockpile. The stockpile is set back from the natural slopes to the north and east, and there is a gently - sloping bench at the toe of the fill leading to the steeper natural slopes. The surficial soils along the bench are gravelly and very dense. This bench ranges from 20 to 50 feet wide along the north side and a minimum of 100 feet on the east side, inclined at approximately 20 %. The natural ravine slope to the north descends at gradients of approximately 55 to 60 percent in the upper portion, steepening to 75 to 80 percent for the remainder of the slope to the ravine bottom. Contours on the north side of the ravine show a similar gradient. Side ravines are locally steeper near the crest of the main ravine. The side ravine approximately 45 feet north of borehole B -237 is inclined at about 200 percent (1 /2H:1 V) in the upper 20 feet or so (see Figure 2A). The slope soils consist of loose sand (colluvium) over very dense, clean, sand. The slope surface was probed with a 3 -foot long, %z -inch diameter, steel rod. The thickness of loose sand was observed to be as little as 1 /2 to 1 foot in the erosional side ravine, and 2%z feet to more than 3 feet along most of the slope. Many of the trees on the ravine slope have straight trunks indicating 2003 -008 DR.doc 6 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. May 21,2007 HWA Project No. 2003 -008 that slope creep is minimal. However, we observed evidence of at least two recent shallow slides in the 15- to 20 -foot high escarpment near the ravine head (west end) by a culvert outlet that evidently drains stormwater from I -5. The outfall is likely causing erosion that is contributing to retreat of the escarpment. Ground water seepage was observed at the western end of the ravine in very dense sand, at about 100 feet east of the head and a few feet above the stream, and at the heads of two side ravines approximately 100 feet higher than the stream. The presence and location of the main ravine and side ravines can be attributed primarily to progressive slope retreat caused by ground water seepage. The eastern slope of the WSDOT parcel consists of the soil stockpile in the upper approximately 65 feet. The east property line fence is at or within 10 feet of the stockpile toe. Eastward from the toe is the gently - sloped bench, contiguous with the bench on the north side of the stockpile, inclined at approximately 20% and just over 100 feet in width. The outer edge of the bench forms the crest of the steep natural slope inclined at approximately 85% in the upper 40 feet or so, then sloping more gently into a bowl - shaped area, with a second bowl down slope from it. Such bowls are a typical geomorphic expression of landsliding. The slope beneath the second bowl consists of a shallow ravine down to the Green River valley, with a small stream fed by ground water seepage on the slope. The upper bowl was vegetated with blackberry brambles, an indicator of ground disturbance (such as by land clearing or grading activities, or by sliding). Another small ravine is present to the north. 3.2 GENERAL GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS The geology of the Puget Sound region includes a thick sequence of over - consolidated glacial and unconsolidated non - glacial soils overlying bedrock. Glacial deposits were formed by ice originating in the mountains of British Columbia (Cordilleran Ice Sheet) and from alpine glaciers which descended from the Olympic and Cascade Mountains. These ice sheets invaded the Puget Lowland at least four times during the early to late Pleistocene Epoch (approximately 150,000 to 10,000 years before present). The southern extent of these glacial advances was near Olympia, Washington. During periods between these glacial advances and after the last glaciation, portions of the Puget Lowland filled with alluvial sediments deposited by rivers draining the western slopes of the Cascades and the eastern slopes of the Olympics. The most recent glacial advance, the Fraser Glaciation, included the Vashon Stade, during which the Puget Lobe of the Cordilleran Ice Sheet advanced and retreated through the Puget Sound Basin. Existing topography, surficial geology and hydrogeology in the project area were heavily influenced by the advance and retreat of the Vashon Ice Sheet. Surficial geological information for the site area was obtained partly from the published geological map; "Geologic Map of the Des Moines Quadrangle, King County, Washington." (Waldron, 1962). The map indicates that the plateau west of the site, upon which SeaTac International Airport, and the cities of SeaTac, Burien, and Des Moines lie, is predominantly 2003 -008 DR.doc 7 HWA GJ OSCIENCES INC. May 21, 2007 HWA Project No. 2003 -008 mantled by Vashon till. This material was deposited as a discontinuous mantle of ground moraine beneath glacial ice on the eroded surface of older deposits. Soils defined as Vashon till consist of an unsorted, heterogeneous, mass of silt, gravel, and sand in varied proportions. The till is of high density /strength due to glacial over - consolidation, and typically has low permeability. The surficial geology of the slope forming the side of the river valley, which includes the subject site, is mapped as kame- terrace deposits. This material consists of stratified sand and gravel that was deposited by meltwater streams flowing from receding glacial ice, and is deposited against or close to the ice as Ice - Contact Stratified Drift. Inclusions of till are common, typically discontinuous and of limited thickness. In the past, these kame- terrace deposits were frequently mined for sand and gravel pits. 3.3 SITE HISTORY Based on a report entitled Abandoned Landfill Study in King County, produced by the Seattle -King County Department of Health (SKCDPH) in 1985, the subject property was used as a landfill from 1943 to the late 1950's when construction of Interstate 5 began (SKCDPH, 1985). According to the report, the Bow Lake Landfill was the largest in the county during the 1950's. An incinerator was installed in 1955 and was used for a short time before being shut down. Interpretations of site history from aerial photographs are included in the Phase I and II report of the WSDOT parcel (HWA, 2007). Newspaper retrieved from one of our explorations (TP -10) had dates which indicated landfilling continued until at least 1961. Construction of I -5 displaced a portion of the landfill, and material consisting of burned refuse and soil was stockpiled eastward onto the WSDOT parcel (evidently obtained by the highway department for this purpose). The original transfer station was constructed in 1961, but was closed down by the Washington Department of Labor and Industries in 1970. The current transfer station was built in 1978 and continues to serve the area around Tukwila, Washington. The transfer building was constructed above refuse, and is supported on driven timber piles, but has suffered distress from settlement due to some of the supporting piles encountering refusal in fill above deeper refuse (Hong Consulting Engineers, 1986, 1987, and 1988). Settlement of paved areas above refuse has also occurred, as is normal for landfill materials. Placement of the upper fill stockpile on the WSDOT site began sometime after BH -1 was drilled by HWA in February 1994, and ended in 2002 based on air photos and our site experience. 3.4 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The current and previous soil investigations at the project site have encountered five general material types: Fill soil, Fill with Refuse, Refuse, Bum Fill, and Glacial Deposits, as summarized below. Most of the developed portion of the site has fill soil, evidently placed as a cap over the 2003 -008 DR.doc 8 HWA GEOSCIENCRS INC. May 21, 2007 HWA Project No. 2003 -008 refuse for construction of the existing transfer station. The stockpile area of the WSDOT parcel typically consists of fill soil over burn fill. However, in the southeastern portion of the WSDOT parcel, unburned refuse was encountered beneath the bum fill in two of the explorations. The extent of the particular types of fill, as interpreted from the current and previous explorations, are delineated on the Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 2A. Ten geologic cross - sections through the project site, presented in Figures 3A through 3K, are based on the current and previous exploration logs, recent topographic survey by DHA, and ground surface observations. The first five cross - sections are the same designations and locations as developed for the 1993 Hong West report, with F -F' extended onto the WSDOT parcel. However, cross - section C -C' has been omitted, as it constituted a short section of A -A'. It is to be noted that, due to the interpretive nature of cross - sections, only the exploration logs should be relied upon for subsurface data at particular locations. On the exploration logs, soil layers containing compressible, unburned refuse are indicated with a cross - hatched pattern in the left -hand column for soil symbols. A similar hatching on the cross sections also indicates the presence of compressible refuse. 3.4.1 Fill Soil Sand with variable silt content (Unified Soil Classification SP to SM) was encountered beneath pavement and lawn areas and is typically around 10 feet thick. The fill was thicker in portions of the transfer station, up to 30 feet thick beneath the transfer shed. On the WSDOT site, the upper 20 to 30 feet or so of the stockpile ( "WSDOT Fill ") is thought to have been placed during construction of recent road projects. The upper several feet of the flat portion of the stockpile consists of loose to medium dense, brown, fine to medium sand, with gravel and silt. Plastic and non - plastic silt was generally encountered below the upper granular fill. Some road construction debris was observed in the recent test pits. 3.4.2 Fill with Refuse A stratified mixture of silty sand fill and municipal solid waste (MSW) is present beneath the surface fill in many areas of the transfer station site. The refuse content observed in recent explorations consists of from approximately 10 to 50 percent by volume. This layer varied from approximately 10 to 20 feet thick in the recent explorations. Fill with burned and non -burned refuse was encountered adjacent to 1 -5 along the western portion of the King County parcel. High lead levels were detected in samples from borehole B -202, strong creosote odors were detected in test pit TP -7, and a strong diesel to gasoline odor was noted in test pit TP -8. 2003-008 DR.doc 9 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. .May.21,`2007. HWA Project No..2003 -008 • 3.4.3 Refuse Unburned refuse (municipal solid waste) was encountered in most of the explorations on the existing transfer station site, and in two explorations in the southeast portion of the WSDOT site. In recent explorations, it was observed to consist of household waste with glass and bottles, tin cans, assorted metal, plastic, porcelain, newspaper, etc. The type and labeling of food and beverage packaging, as well as a 1961 date on a newspaper, indicated the refuse dates from the late 1950's to early 1960's. The thickness varied from approximately 10 to 30 feet, and extended to depths of approximately 15 to 40 feet below the ground surface. 3.4.4 Burn Fill This fill consisted of reddish -brown and blackish - brown, gravelly, silty sand (Unified Soil Classification SM) with variable amounts (typically about 10 to 30 percent by volume) of glass, metal, porcelain, brick, slag, burned wood, and some plastic. Based on our review of stereo pairs of historical aerial photos, this material was displaced by I -5 construction and stockpiled on the WSDOT parcel. The burn fill is exposed at the ground surface of the lower WSDOT stockpile, and was observed in the recent and previous boreholes to range in thickness from approximately 10 to 30 feet, thickening to the east and south before tapering down to the stockpile toe. Burn fill along the southeastern portion of the old stockpile was observed overlapping early 1960's refuse in two explorations (borehole B -229 and test pit TP -11). Burn fill -like material was also encountered in test pits TP -7 and TP -8 along the west side of the transfer station property. 3.4.5 Glacial Deposits Each of the borings was advanced into native glacial soils, generally consisting of massive to stratified clean sand (Unified Soil Classification of SP), and silty sand or sandy silt (Unified Soil Classification of SM to ML), of variable density ranging from medium dense to very .dense. The stratified character, varied texture, and variable density are consistent with an ice - marginal origin; i.e., kame- terrace deposits at the edge of an ice -filled valley during glacial retreat. Although classified in general as kame - terrace deposits, the soils are interpreted on the exploration logs as particular depositional facies, e.g. outwash, till, and ice - contact stratified drift. Native glacial soils were encountered at the ground surface in explorations along the base of the western slope, the north end of the King County property, and the western portion of the WSDOT parcel. Very dense, clean to silty sand was observed in a few soil exposures within the steep ravine on the north side of the WSDOT parcel, and in cuts in the slope on the property down slope from the WSDOT parcel. 3.5 GROUND WATER Ground water was observed in some of the explorations along the western side of the site, in the vicinity of the proposed retaining wall for the north access road. Perched ground water was 2003 -008 DRdoc 10 HWA GEOSCIBNCES INC. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 May 21, 2007 HWA Project No. 2003 -008 observed in fill exposed in test pits TP -7 and TP -8. Perched ground water was observed in test pit TP -6 silt seams within outwash sand, and ground water was observed in boreholes B -202 and B -203 .during drilling. Standpipe piezometers were installed in boreholes 13-202, B -203, and B -204 along the proposed access road retaining wall by I -5. Ground water was also encountered in boreholes B -206 and B -209 during drilling, and piezometers were installed. Subsequent water level measurements are indicated in Table 1. 2003 -008 DR.doc Table 1— Ground Water Levels, March 9, 2007 Of the two piezometers installed by HWA in 2003, BH-4 had about one foot of ground water, at a depth of 32.2 feet, and BH -3 was dry to a depth of 30 feet. Measurements obtained November 4, 2004, indicated BH -3 was dry and BH-4 had 'A-inch of water on the probe tip, possibly due to condensation collecting from the well casing. 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 GENERAL Our investigations have included the existing transfer station site and newly acquired WSDOT site. There are two distinctive characteristics between these two sites: the existing transfer station site contains municipal refuse which is very compressible in many places, and the WSDOT site contains bumt refuse which is predominantly soil, and is less compressible than the refuse fills. The upper, recent fill on the WSDOT site contains large inclusions of construction debris like concrete chunks, wood and steel beams. All of these materials are underlain by dense glacial deposits. To assist in development of an understanding of the site subsurface conditions, and the design of the proposed facility, we have attempted to delineate the extent of soil fill, refuse, and glacial deposits such as outwash sand beneath the site. Accordingly, extensive geotechnical soil profiles were developed throughout the site. However, despite many exploration test holes, the 11 HWA GEOSCEENCES INC. * �y 3 g roun d water GC N dwatec1 A = �El eva fl on a , T G .- - 0 19 - BH-3 280 DRY to 30 Deeper than 250 BH-4 290 32.22 258 B -202 290.35 20.26 270.09 B -203 290.46 DRY to 51.5 Deeper than 249 B -204 282.46 DRY to 60.5 Deeper than 251 B -206 250.04 22.68 227.36 B -209 222.34 33.72 188.62 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 May 21, 2007 HWA Project No. 2003 -008 observed in fill exposed in test pits TP -7 and TP -8. Perched ground water was observed in test pit TP -6 silt seams within outwash sand, and ground water was observed in boreholes B -202 and B -203 .during drilling. Standpipe piezometers were installed in boreholes 13-202, B -203, and B -204 along the proposed access road retaining wall by I -5. Ground water was also encountered in boreholes B -206 and B -209 during drilling, and piezometers were installed. Subsequent water level measurements are indicated in Table 1. 2003 -008 DR.doc Table 1— Ground Water Levels, March 9, 2007 Of the two piezometers installed by HWA in 2003, BH-4 had about one foot of ground water, at a depth of 32.2 feet, and BH -3 was dry to a depth of 30 feet. Measurements obtained November 4, 2004, indicated BH -3 was dry and BH-4 had 'A-inch of water on the probe tip, possibly due to condensation collecting from the well casing. 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 GENERAL Our investigations have included the existing transfer station site and newly acquired WSDOT site. There are two distinctive characteristics between these two sites: the existing transfer station site contains municipal refuse which is very compressible in many places, and the WSDOT site contains bumt refuse which is predominantly soil, and is less compressible than the refuse fills. The upper, recent fill on the WSDOT site contains large inclusions of construction debris like concrete chunks, wood and steel beams. All of these materials are underlain by dense glacial deposits. To assist in development of an understanding of the site subsurface conditions, and the design of the proposed facility, we have attempted to delineate the extent of soil fill, refuse, and glacial deposits such as outwash sand beneath the site. Accordingly, extensive geotechnical soil profiles were developed throughout the site. However, despite many exploration test holes, the 11 HWA GEOSCEENCES INC. May 21, 2007 H-IWA Project No. 2003 -008 boundaries of refuse and fill layers delineated on the Site and Exploration Plan (Figure 2A) and the cross- sections should be considered approximate, as conditions in modified ground typically vary considerably within short distances both horizontally and vertically. The cross - sections suggest that the refuse layers are found practically in all areas of the existing King County transfer station site, including the southeast portion of the WSDOT site. Any filling above the present ground level in areas underlain by refuse will result in significant total and differential settlement, which will necessitate periodic long -term maintenances to the facility, particularly for pavement surfaces and any drainage structures. The design and construction of the facilities should take into account these uncertainties, and the associated costs for long -term maintenance should be included for the future operations of the facility. Adequate field settlement monitoring stations should be established during construction such that the maintenance of the structures in the future can be scheduled and orderly operations can be ensured. The WSDOT site is surcharged with the recent and 1960's stock piling up to 50 feet above the proposed tipping floor EL 268.5 feet. In the stockpile area, foundations can be designed based on the preloading or surcharge effect provided by the stockpile. However, any area surcharged less than 10 feet should be preloaded by moving soils from higher ground to the area in need, such that the building loads can be supported on spread footings. 4.2 SEISMICITY As most public buildings are designed based on International Building Code (IBC) requirements, adequate seismic risk assessment should be incorporated into the structural design. The Puget Sound area is known to be seismically active, as evidenced by recent significant seismic events including the 1949 Olympia (magnitude 7.2), the 1965 Seattle (magnitude 6.5), and the 2001 Nisqually (magnitude 6.8) Earthquakes. The seismic hazard in the area comes from three main sources: (1) subduction zone (interplate), (2) Benioff zone (intraslab), and (3) shallow crustal earthquakes. Subduction zone earthquakes occur locally when the interface between the North American tectonic plate and the subducting Juan de Fuca plate ruptures. In contrast to similar geologic regimes having subducting plates, such as Alaska or Chile, no earthquakes have been recorded in the Pacific Northwest from thrust fault deformation between plates. However, seismologists believe that the local subduction zone has created great interplate earthquakes (Magnitude > 8) in the past, and is likely to produce earthquakes with magnitudes up to 9. Significant ground accelerations would occur at the site in the event of a large subduction zone earthquake; however, the long distance to the rupture area would reduce the intensity of shaking. The duration of the shaking could last several minutes. Benioff zone or intraslab events occur due to tensional rupture within the subducting Juan de Fuca plate at depths of 28 to 38 miles. This is the source of the largest historical local 2003 -008 DR.doc 12 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. May 21, 2007 HWA Project No. 2003 -008 earthquakes - 1949 Olympia, 1965 Seattle, and 2001 Nisqually. This source has the potential for events with magnitudes of approximately 7.5. Shaking from a Benioff zone event could be significant. Shallow crustal earthquakes occur on shallow faults due to tectonic stresses. Minor (magnitude 2) events occur frequently in the Puget Sound region on shallow faults. The Puget Sound area is underlain by several shallow faults. The most notable fault, capable of producing a strong event in the area, is the Seattle Fault, which is an east -west trending zone of thrust or reverse faults that strikes through downtown Seattle. Recent research indicates that these faults are capable of producing events with magnitudes of 6.5 to 7, which could cause severe damage to the Seattle area. The Bow Lake transfer station is located within 5 miles of the Seattle Fault Zone. 4.3 SEISMIC DESIGN At the present time, seismic design in King County follows the 2003 IBC. The IBC requires structures be designed for the inertial forces induced by a "Maximum Considered Earthquake" (MCE), which corresponds to an earthquake event with a 2% probability of exceedance (PE) in 50 years (approximately 2,500 -year return period). The IBC accounts for the effects of site - specific subsurface ground conditions on the response of structures in term of site classes. Site classes are defined by the average density and stiffness of the soil profile underlying the site. The IBC Site Class can be correlated to the average standard penetration resistance (NspT) in the upper 100 feet of the soil profile. Based on our characterization of the subsurface conditions at the Bow Lake Transfer Station site, IBC Site Class D applies to this site. However, along I -5, the soils put the site class into Class C. Though not addressed in the 2003 IBC methodology, it may be desirable to use a two -level design criteria in which a structure is designed to withstand a low -level (expected) earthquake with negligible damage and sustain considerable amounts of damage without collapse in a higher -level earthquake (such as the maximum considered earthquake). This criteria is presented in the MCEER/ATC (2003) Recommended LRFD Guidelines for the Seismic Design of Highway Bridges. For a solid waste facility like Bow Lake, which does receive domestic refuse, but not hazardous materials, it may be appropriate to design the retaining walls for a 10% PE in 50 years event (approximately 475 -year return period). Earthquake pressures based on the 2,500 -year return period maximum considered earthquake approximately double the magnitudes calculated for the 475 -year return period. It is ultimately the decision of the owner (within the limits of the code) to determine the appropriate design earthquake levels. Table 2.provides the parameters needed for use with the 2003 IBC design procedures for four earthquake levels, which were based on data from the United States Geologic Survey Hazard Mapping Project (2002). 2003.008 DR.doc 13 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. Probability of Exceedance Return Period Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) 0.2 sec Spectral Response Acceleration 1.0 sec Spectral Response Acceleration 50% in 75 years 108 year 0.16 0.36 0.11 10% in 50 years 475 year 0.32 0.72 0.24 2% in 50 years 2,475 year 0.61 1.38 0.47 1% in 50 years 4,975 year 0.76 1.73 0.61 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 May 21, 2007 HWA Project No. 2003 -008 Table 2 — Probabilistic Ground Acceleration Parameters 4.4 REFUSE COMPRESSIBILITY The Bow Lake transfer station site is extensively underlain by refuse which was deposited over the years as it operated as a landfill. The extent of the landfill stretches from the western boundary along I -5 to the eastern slopes of the site. The WSDOT property to be acquired for the project also has refuse in the southeastern portion. If any structures or fills are built on the refuse, significant post construction settlement should be expected and, consequently, settlements could induce various levels of damage associated with cracking and deformation to the structures. To reduce potentially severe damage to the improvements, ordinarily, sites such as this are treated by preloading with a large surcharge fill to preconsolidate the refuse. The purpose of preloading is to generate levels of primary settlement that will sufficiently exceed the level of combined primary and most, if not all, of the design -life secondary settlement that would be developed solely by any new site grading fill and structures. For the trailer parking area, our experience suggests that this can be accomplished by designing a preload thickness at least 10 + S feet higher than the proposed final grade, where S is the estimated settlement of the design grade plus preload. For the long wall between the recycle yard and trailer parking, a preload fill of 15 + S feet above the finished grade is considered necessary. After the preload period is deemed to be sufficiently complete, the surcharge will be removed prior to construction of the facility to final design grades, resulting in a pre - consolidation effect in the underlying compressible deposits. Typically, future settlements will be markedly reduced, and will take the form of some additional long -term secondary compression effects and, in the case of refuse, biodegradation settlement. 4.4.1 Compressibility of Refuse The compressibility of refuse or municipal solid waste (MSW) depends on several factors including: 2003 -008 DR.doc 14 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. May 21, 2007 HWA Project No. 2003 -008 • Age and composition of the refuse; • Nature and amount of daily cover soil; • How the refuse and daily cover were placed; • Leachate level; • Moisture content and temperature of the refuse; and • Amount of landfill gas. Researchers describe landfill settlement as three phases: immediate, instant, and delayed compression. Immediate compression occurs at the moment the load is applied. Instant compression is analogous to consolidation settlement in mineral soils, but for refuse this takes place rapidly. The combined immediate and instant compression is also termed primary settlement. In our experience on other preloaded landfill sites, the primary settlement typically occurs within about 10 days of completion of fill placement, and comprises most (about two - thirds) of the total settlement induced by the preload. Delayed compression includes: a) plastic creep; b) raveling; and c) decomposition/degradation, and occurs over long time periods (i.e. many months to years). Delayed compression is also termed secondary settlement. The purpose of the preload is to generate settlements that exceed the combined primary and most of the design -life secondary settlement that would be developed by the new facilities. Because of the variability of refuse, differential settlement is impossible to predict with a high degree of certainty on landfills. For natural (mineral) soils, observations show that differential settlement is a fraction, typically ranging from 40 to 70 percent, of the total settlement. Observed case histories of landfill preloading' have indicated differential settlements up to 50 percent of the total estimated settlement. However, for highly variable deposits such as landfill refuse, it is conservative to assume that differential settlement could equal total settlement. Differential settlements are also influenced by non- geotechnical factors such as the uniformity and rate of application of the loading. When considering differential settlement, it is necessary to also consider the distance between points of maximum and minimum settlement. Using a conventional consolidation theory approach, the landfill settlement is normally calculated in a very approximate way which needs to be verified in the field by physical settlement station monitoring. 1 Three such case histories are: 41' Street Overcrossing Project in Everett, Washington, a new roadway embankment on the closed Everett Landfill; Preload Monitoring at Greenhouse and West Truck Scales area in Tacoma, Washington, and the Pacific Reach Business Park, in Vancouver, B.C., a series of office buildings constructed over the reclaimed Leeder Landfill. These preloaded landfill sites were monitored with settlement plates. 2003 -008 DR.doc 15 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. May 21, 2007 HWA Project No. 2003 -008 4.4.2 Primary Settlement The primary settlement of the refuse can be estimated as: S HC + day 6v• • S is the primary settlement of the refuse. • H is the original refuse layer thickness. • C is the coefficient of the primary consolidation. Based on our local experience, it ranges from 0.17 to 0.23. This value is highly variable from one landfill to another. For design purposes, we recommend 0.23 at Bow Lake Transfer Station. However, it should be used with great care and comprehensive field monitoring performed for verification. • oc, is the original vertical effective stress at the midpoint in the refuse layer. • da is the increase in the original vertical effective stress at the midpoint in the layer. 4.4.3 Secondary Settlement The secondary settlement coefficient can be estimated using the following equation: 2003 -008 DR.doc dH Cae log At 11 • AH is the long -term or secondary settlement. • Cae is the coefficient of the secondary consolidation. Based on our experience locally in Puget Sound, Cae ranges from 0.024 to 0.030. This value is highly variable from one landfill to another. At the project site, we recommend 0.030 for design purposes. However, it should be used with great care and a comprehensive field monitoring performed for verification. • At is the time over which the long -term settlement occurs in years. • H is the initial thickness of the compressive layer. 4.4.4 Bio degradation Settlement Bio - degradation of organic matter within the refuse results in long -term settlements that cannot be mitigated by preloading. The rate of biodegradation settlement is very difficult to predict, because it is sensitive to the nature of the waste stream, which is variable in composition and distribution in the landfill mass. Moreover, the age of the landfill also has an influence on the 16 HWA GEOSC1ENCFS INC. May 21, 2007 HWA Project No. 2003 -008 biodegradation rates; older refuse materials having already experienced substantial degradation exhibit reduced degradation rates. For other landfill reclamation projects, we have used average biodegradation settlement rates of 0.2 to 0.4 percent of refuse thickness per year as design estimates. Little quantitative data, however, is available to corroborate the appropriateness of this estimate, and lesser or greater settlement due to biodegradation should be viewed as possible. Notwithstanding, some short-term survey monitoring information on another landfill site with which we are familiar with (Pacific Reach, Vancouver, B.C.), suggests that this is a reasonable range of values to use for estimating such settlement. 4.5 PRELOAD CONSIDERATIONS Any structures built in an area underlain by refuse without preload treatment will settle significantly for an extended period of time. This settlement will damage the structures built on the refuse as well as the connecting underground utilities. To reduce the settlement damage to structures on the compressible refuse, it is necessary to surcharge the area with weight greater than the foundation load of the structures. 4.5.1 Preloading Time Required For the backfill and recycle area behind the long (trailer parking) wall, the fill thickness averages about 15 + S feet above the proposed finished grade. The estimated preload fill will be approximately 30,000 cubic yards. At the trailer pad area, the preload thickness averages about 10 + S feet above the proposed finished grade. We estimate approximately 64,000 cubic yards of fill will be required to construct this preload. The time required to place the fill will vary depending on the equipment and personnel assigned to the job. Assuming an average fill placement rate of 1,000 cubic yards per day, we estimate that preload construction will take approximately 94 working days for the two areas. Based on our preloading experience on other landfills, we anticipate a preload duration period of the order of three to six months (following completion of filling) will be required. However, we recommend that the preload fill should be left in place at least three months and the actual timing should be determined in the field by comprehensive settlement monitoring. 4.5.2 Preload Monitoring Time - settlement monitoring of preload treatment of any site is essential to allow assessment of the effectiveness and progression of the procedure. We recommend settlement monitoring plates be installed at multiple locations. Settlement plates should be surveyed to indicate the initial elevations of the top of the plate, top of riser pipe, and ground level adjoining the plate riser to the nearest 0.01 foot accuracy, employing a benchmark not influenced by current landfill nor future site filling operations. During the course of fill placement, the settlement monitoring plates should be surveyed not less than once weekly, and on each occasion a riser pipe is added. On days when fill is being placed within 50 feet of a settlement plate(s), the. settlement plate(s) 2003 -008 DR.doc 17 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. May 21, 2007 HWA Project No. 20.03 -008 should be surveyed daily. On conclusion of the preload placement, the survey frequency may be reduced to biweekly for the following two months, and monthly thereafter. We recommend HWA be retained to review preload design and evaluate the settlement plate locations and data as it is acquired. It is our experience that municipal solid waste settles quickly when loaded. However, a preload period of not less than three months (following completion of filling) should be anticipated. Moreover, the substantial thickness of refuse present, and the reduced preload surcharge thickness to refuse thickness ratio that will be operative for these sites, could result in a greater time period being required to effect the degree of settlement considered desirable, prior to preload surcharge removal. 4.5.3 Estimated Refuse Settlement under Fills Without Preload Treatment Using available published compressibility parameters for landfill refuse, as well as recently acquired data from a preload- monitoring program at the Everett Landfill, a fill height of 10 feet of backfill or 15 feet of fill on a 15 feet refuse layer will generate estimated settlements of 3.5 feet and 3.9 feet, respectively, which include the primary, secondary and biodegradation settlement. In addition, the west entrance access road will be filled up to EL 268.5 feet from the current approximate ground level EL 250 feet, and will also cause similar settlements over the years in the absence of preload treatment. Figure 4, Refuse Settlement Calculations, shows more detailed settlement calculation results for various refuse thickness and new fill heights. These results should be adopted with caution rather than taking the numbers blindly, because errors associated with academic exercises such as this can come with large margins of 50 to 100 percent. The calculated settlements are only intended to demonstrate to the facility designers, the owner and contractors that the potential settlements for the long -term are very large (i.e., feet rather than by inches). All fill areas should be monitored with settlement plates whenever fill is added for grading purposes, even though the fill may not be intended for the preload treatment purposes. 4.5.4 Proposed Improvements Built on Refuse Area When the refuse area is loaded with new fill, the additional load will compress the refuse and any utilities embedded in or supported above the refuse will experience a change in pipe grades. In some cases, gradients may become reversed and hydraulic flow can be interrupted by the excessive settlement, or pipe joints may get separated from sagging. Structures built above refuse may also settle severely and display tilting and cracking of the walls, floors and foundations. Pavements or slabs built above refuse often experience abrupt bumps or depressions ( "bird baths ") in their surfaces. Drainage manholes or vaults that may be supported on firm ground or piles below the refuse can protrude in the middle of pavement areas as the rest of the area settles. Periodic leveling of such facilities is required. Preloading treatment can alleviate or reduce the problems described above in most cases. 2003 -008 DR.doc 18 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. , .May 21, 2007 HWA Project No. 2003 -008 4.5.5 Existing Utilities in the Refuse Area Impacted by the Added Fill The existing transfer station site is underlain by drainage and sanitary sewers. The drainage system will undoubtedly be impacted (caused to settle) by any added fill in the areas that are underlain by refuse. If large deflections of pipes form in the collection system due to differential settlement, then hydraulic gradients on the drainage system may be disrupted. All existing utilities under proposed fill areas should be reconstructed as the existing utilities will be damaged due to settlement. Preferably, reconstruction should be preceded by appropriate preloading along pipe corridors. 4.5.6 New Road Fill East of the Trailer Parking The road will be expanded easterly as shown on the site plan, Figure 2A. The maximum proposed road fill height in the area ranges from a few feet to 23 feet where Future Facilities (e.g. Household Hazardous Waste) are planned. At the proposed Future Facilities area, boring B -209 encountered 31 feet of refuse. The existing east access road area is underlain by extensive amounts of refuse, with up to 40 feet in thickness encountered in some borings. Any fill added to the existing refuse will cause settlement, which could reach as much as 1/3 the height of the added fill over the long -term. To reduce post - construction settlements, the areas should be preloaded by using excess fill from the WSDOT fill stockpile and kept there for an extended period of time. The total preload height should be at least one times the total height of the final fill. Only 1/3 of the total height of the final fill should be placed at a time. To contain the fill from spilling down the slope, a shallow toe wall (see Figure 5I) should be constructed on a bench cut. The fill above the wall should be inclined no steeper than 1.5H:1 V and should be compacted in horizontal lifts. Before placing the fill, the area should be bench -cut into the existing slope to key in the initial lifts. All preloaded areas should be monitored in accordance with Section 4.5.2 of this report. 4.6 RETAINING WALL ALONG I -5 The north access road will be constructed along a cut parallel to I -5. After cutting out the higher ground along I -5, to approximately the existing highway road grade, the required retaining wall height would vary from approximately 12 feet at the south end, 15 feet along most of the wall, and gradually drop to 13 feet at the north end. Our test borings and test pits conducted in the area revealed that much of the proposed wall and roadway along the King County parcel is underlain by fill with refuse for the upper .7 feet. High levels of lead or hydrocarbons were detected in three of the explorations. However, the extent of the refuse is not presently clearly defined. Based on our explorations, the fill with refuse extends below the top of the proposed wall in some locations. Although a soil nail wall would be the most economical wall type, it is not feasible to install soil nails into refuse. 2003 -008 DR.doc 19 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. May 21, 2007 I-IWA Project No. 2003 -008 The cut along the highway can be supported by building cast -in -place concrete retaining walls, soldier pile walls with or without tieback or MSE gravity walls. MSE walls can be built economically at this location if an excavation easement is obtained. Any walls requiring excavation or drilling into WSDOT property would require an easement from the agency. Alternatively, cantilever soldier pile walls can be erected readily without the need for an easement. Detailed design parameters for a cantilever soldier pile wall along I -5 are shown on Figure 5A, Earth Pressure Diagram. Since the wall will be parallel to and in proximity to the freeway, loading conditions on the wall, as might be envisioned by WSDOT for future freeway widening, should be included in active earth pressure calculations. The minimum recommended embedment depths of the soldier piles should be 1.25 times the height of the wall. The WSDOT geotechnical design manual (GDM) stipulates that all critical transportation structures shall be designed based on a seismic event with a risk level of 2 percent Probability of Exceedance (PE) in 50 years. Accordingly, this condition requires that the peak ground acceleration (PGA) at the Bow Lake site be taken as 0.61g, which is very high. Non - critical structures, however, shall be designed based on 10 percent PE in 50 years. In our opinion, the proposed cut wall is considered a non - critical structure. Accordingly, it is our opinion that the wall along I -5 at this site should be designed for a PGA 1/2 of 0.32g, which is the maximum bedrock acceleration for this site with a 10% PE in 50 years. With reference to the WSDOT GDM, Table 6 -3, the site amplification factor for the bedrock PGA should be taken as 1, since dense glacial deposits should be considered as Site Class C. As the foundation soil below the excavation level consists of dense glacial deposits (generally outwash sand), the factor of safety for global slope stability through the base of the wall is much higher than 1.5. The vertical bearing capacity at the tip of the piles will be much larger than the vertical load imposed by the retaining wall system. Drill holes (shafts) that are commonly employed for setting of the soldier piles are expected to experience caving since the area is underlain by outwash sand that may, in part, be below the localized ground water table. The shafts should, therefore, be either cased or filled with chemical drilling mud to prevent sloughing or caving. Concrete pours should be tremied after a soldier pile is lowered into the hole. Southern portions of the wall along I -5 will encounter ground water within the excavation. The wall should, therefore, be constructed with a drainage composite mat to relieve any seepage pressures behind it. The seepage should be collected at the base of the entire I -5 wall by installing a gravel trench with drain outlet off to the east. We found no ground water along the north end despite the fact that the subsurface soil is mainly outwash deposits, which should 2003-008 DR.doc 20 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. May 21, 2007 HWA Project No. 2003 -008 conduct the seepage water as good as the south end. We suspect that the wet area might have been contributed from the I -5 storm drainage discharge system. Although wall drainage is recommended, parts of the proposed access road subgrade at the toe of the wall are expected to be wet, and should be improved by placing sufficient amount of clean crushed rock over unwoven geotextile Mirafi S800, or equivalent material, as a separator. At least 18 inches of crushed rock should be placed to accommodate any drainage seeping out from the toe of the wall. The subgrade should be sloped away from the entire I -5 wall. Transverse gravel trenches perpendicular to the road direction at every 50 feet on center should also be installed and tied to an east shoulder trench. Contaminated water needs to be discharged to sanitary sewer. Alternatively, to avoid the sanitary sewer connections, we recommend that all refuse behind the wall be dug out to expose clean soils. 4.7 RETAINING WALLS ALONG THE NORTH AND EAST ACCESS ROAD Road fills will be required along the north and east perimeter access roads where the existing fill slopes are as steep as 1H:1V. The area is mostly underlain by bum fill over native glacial soils. Our slope stability analyses indicate that any new road fill built on the bum fill slope will be unstable and that we need a retaining structure to support the proposed road fill safely. These walls could be built as a gravity wall on geopiers (Figure 5B); however, the geopier installation would cause much disturbance to the slopes in this area. Therefore, we recommend that soldier pile walls, as shown on Figure 5C, be built to retain the access road fill with minor disturbance to the slopes. 4.8 LONG WALL WEST OF TRAILER PARKING Considerable refuse exists under the proposed long wall west of the trailer parking area, especially toward the south, and the refuse was found to be deep. Replacement of such extensive refuse is not practical due mainly to refuse disposal costs. In addition, the refuse thickness varies significantly over the length of the wall. The current ground is at approximate EL 247 feet and the proposed trailer parking will be at EL 248.5 feet. The long wall will retain up to 20 feet of backfill to support an access driveway, bus parking and recycle yard at EL 268.5 feet. The 20 feet of backfill placed over refuse presents considerable engineering challenges due to the anticipated large induced settlements, as presented in Section 4.4.1. The total settlement is calculated to be 4 feet in 50 years although the actual magnitude would be expected to be somewhat less. Our experience suggests that the settlement would likely vary from about 1 to 3 feet. Preloading the entire area would reduce the post construction settlement down to a manageable level; likely good enough to build gravity walls. The preload thickness should be at least 20 feet plus anticipated settlement. The preload should be left in place 3 to 6 months depending upon the actual measured field performance. The purpose is to realize at least the primary consolidation under the weight of the preload prior to removal for wall construction. 2003 -008 DR.doc 21 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. Soil Properties Backfill Soil Retained Soil Foundation Bearing Soil Gravel Borrow' Gravel Backfill for Walls Gravel Borrow' Compacted Fil1 Dense Outwash Unit Weight Oct) 135 135 135 135 138 Friction Angle (degrees) 36 38 36 36 38 Cohesion 0 0 0 0 0 Allowable Bearing Pressure (psf) 3,000 3,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 1 I May 21, 2007 HWA Project No. 2003 -008 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4.8.1 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls Mechanically stabilized earth retaining walls are often a cost - effective method for support of fill embankments. Design of such a wall system must be based on refuse conditions and applicable geotechnical parameters. Pre-cast concrete members (panels or blocks) are widely used as facing elements. Principal advantages of MSE walls include relatively low unit cost and tolerance of relatively large differential settlements. Aesthetics, however, are somewhat compromised by evidence of differential settlement effects being readily visually apparent, and this should be taken into consideration with respect to wall selection decisions. Reinforced soil retaining walls consist of alternating layers of backfill soil and reinforcing material with facing elements. Commonly used reinforcing elements include steel strips and various geosynthetic products such as geogrid and geotextile sheets. The vertical spacing of the reinforcing elements is typically on the order of 1 to 3 feet, depending on the reinforcing material specified, block or facing dimensions, and other parameters. If geosynthetic products are selected, long term creep characteristics should be taken into consideration in product selection. We recommend the design parameters summarized in Table 3 be used in design of MSE walls. The values shown in Table 3 assume the backfill soil and the retained soil are compacted in accordance with applicable portions of the WSDOT Standard Specifications (WSDOT, 2006). Table 3. Recommended Design Parameters for MSE Walls 1 WSDOT 9- 03.14. 2 WSDOT 9- 03.12(2). 3 Medium dense weathered glacial till or properly compacted structural fill. 4 For transient loading, the allowable bearing pressure should be increased by one - third. 2003 -008 DR.doc 22 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. May 21, 2007 HWA Project No. 2003 -008 MSE walls should be designed for a minimum factor of safety of 1.5 with respect to sliding and pullout of reinforcing elements and 2.0 against overturning. Global slope stability should have a minimum static factor of safety of 1.5. If proprietary wall systems are used, the wall supplier is responsible to design the wall for adequate internal stability. However, we recommend that proprietary wall system designs be reviewed by a qualified geotechnical engineer, to verify that valid assumptions were made relative to material properties and other factors. The construction should be supervised by a geotechnical engineer. If the walls will be subjected to the influence of surcharge loading (for example, traffic loading) within a horizontal distance equal to the height of the wall, the walls should be designed for the additional horizontal pressure using an appropriate design method. A common practice is to assume a surcharge loading equivalent to 2 feet of additional fill to simulate traffic loading; we consider this method appropriate for typical situations. Where large surcharge loads such as from heavy trucks, cranes, or other construction equipment are anticipated in close proximity to the retaining walls, the walls should also be designed to accommodate the additional lateral pressures resulting from these concentrated loads. 4.8.1.1 MSE Wall on Geogrid Foundation after Total Removal of Refuse For this condition, the refuse encountered under the areas of the long wall should be totally removed to expose glacial outwash. Then, structural fill should be placed with a geogrid (Miragrid 7T, Tensor UX1100HS, or equivalent, having a long -term tensile strength of at least 1,000 lbs /ft) layer at every 24 inches vertically, with the final layer at 2 feet below the ground surface. The reason for using geogrid for the structural fill is to limit the widths of the excavation such that the refuse disposal can be reduced. We estimate that the width of the bottom geogrid foundation base, as shown on Figure 5D, should be a minimum 40 feet. The geogrid - reinforced (MSE) wall with concrete block facings can be constructed on the top of the geogrid foundation fill. The geogrid should be installed at every 12 inches below the top of the wall. Settlement of this wall should be very minimal, however, the area underlain by the refuse will settle and create surface irregularities periodically. The geogrid long -term tensile strengths should be 2,000 lbs /ft. Miragrid BXT, Tensor UX1500HS, or equivalent product listed on the WSDOT Qualified Product List (QPL) should be used. This option provides stable support for the upper areas although the cost for removal is somewhat high. Differential settlement between the wall backfill and the area underlain by refuse will be visible during the lifetime of the structure. We did not encounter ground water in our test borings in the vicinity of the proposed wall, although the contractor should always provide sump pumps for such a potential occurrence. 2003 -008 DR.doc 23 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. May 21, 2007 HWA Project No. 2003 -008 4.8.1,2 MSE Wall on Geopiers As an alternative to over - excavation and refuse fill replacement, the wall foundation area can be treated with compacted aggregate columns; proprietarily named Geopiers. The aggregate columns can be installed by drilling out refuse, then filling and compacting aggregate into the open holes. Our conceptual design of Geopier treatment indicates that 400 columns up to 25 feet in depth will be required under the gravity wall. The depths of the piers will vary from one location to another and the payment should be contracted on a per foot installation basis regardless of the volume of aggregate used in the holes. The actual drill hole diameter will be approximately 30 inches and the actual compacted column diameters will be enlarged depending on the compressibility of the refuse. MSE walls with lock - blocks or key stones can be built on the columns. The rock columns should be capped with 5 -foot thick granular mat prior to building a gravity wall. One drawback to the system is that when the refuse around the column settles, the columns will tend to deform, but settlements that might accompany such deformations will be to a much lesser degree than compared to the situation with walls built on untreated refuse. The conceptual design drawing is shown on Figure 5E. 4.8.2 Soldier Pile Retaining Wall Options 4.8.2.1 Soldier Pile Retaining Wall with Deadman One classical solution is to build a soldier pile wall with deadman anchors to support up to a 20 -foot height of backfill. The design earth pressure diagram is presented in Figure 5F. The area should be filled with soil up to proposed design level above the wall plus a few feet to allow for the expected settlement. The fill should be in place at least three months so that the trailer parking area settles out at the proposed toe of the wall. Then, soldier piles can be installed through the fill, followed by excavation down to the trailer parking level. Timber lagging should be fastened to the soldier piles spaced at 6 to 8 feet on center, as the excavation proceeds. Ordinarily, timber laggings are installed between the piles but in this case the timber lagging should be fastened to the piles so that future down drag of the backfill will not move the lagging. The tie -rods between soldier piles and deadman anchors will be vulnerable to long -term future backfill settlement behind the wall. The anchor rod is often made of a high strength steel with a high carbon content, which makes the rods brittle. This type of steel can easily break due to bending and stress - corrosion effects. Rod connections at the pile face should, therefore, be protected with slotted polystyrene blocks (geofoam) to allow fill settlement around each rod without building up excessive stress on the rod. The slotted blocks will enclose the rods, but will still allow the rods to pass through the slot as fill settles. The block heights should be 4 feet. The rods should be protected from corrosion. 2003 -008 DR.doc 24 HWA GP.QSCIENCES IraC. May.21, 2007 •HWA Project No. 2003 -008 4.8.2.2 Independent Geogrid Wall Behind the Soldier Piles The anchor system can be entirely eliminated if a geogrid wall, Figure 5G, is built behind the soldier pile wall and the geogrid is independently supporting the fill, such that the long -term settlement will also occur independently behind the wall. The soldier pile wall face provides protection to the geogrid -faced wall standing behind. A potential problem of this independent wall is that it might lean against the soldier pile wall and apply lateral load should it tilt due to differential settlement of the refuse. 4.8.2.3 Independent Geofoam Backfrll Behind the Soldier Piles Another option is to build the wall with geofoam, as illustrated by Figure 5H, by stacking blocks immediately behind the soldier pile wall to reduce the backfill weight on the refuse. In this case, the soldier pile wall also acts as facing to the geofoam and also provides stability to the geofoam wall in the event of earthquake or other temporary lateral movements. The top of the geofoam should be covered with a membrane to protect the blocks from accidental fuel spill, and should be covered with a granular mat to support pavement or landscape. 4.9 REFUSE SETTLEMENT NEAR THE LONG WALL Based on our review of available geotechnical information, the proposed trailer parking area is underlain by up to about 15 feet of landfill refuse, over dense glacial deposits. Current development plans call for the trailer parking area to be built at EL 248.5 feet and the recycle yards, access drive and bus parking at EL 265.5 feet and 268.5 feet, respectively. Due to backfill placement of up to 20 feet, significant settlement is anticipated if the recycle area is not treated with a preload. As discussed above, the load magnitude exerted by the backfill will generate significant settlement at the bus parking and recycle yard. The backfill load at the top of the fill supported by the long retaining wall will settle up to 3 feet or so for the next 50 years and the anticipated settlements will not be uniform along the wall. The trailer parking area, 20 feet lower than the top of the retained fill, will settle without additional fill due to long -term secondary and biodegradation settlements. At the trailer pad, the ground will settle concurrently as the 20 -foot thick backfill settles by compression of the refuse. The range of these settlement estimates will vary, because of varying thickness of the refuse layer or layers and the inconsistent characteristics of municipal solid waste, but it will be at least 1/3 of the backfill settlement, or an estimated 0.5 to 1 foot near the wall, and will diminish away from the wall gradually. If it is not treated with preload, the area will suffer gradually from differential settlements which could cause cracks in concrete trailer landing pads or pavements and even altering surface drainage on the parking lot. 2003 -008 DR.doc 25 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. May 21, 2007. HWA Project No. 2003 -008 To minimize the settlement, the front of the wall should be backfilled up to EL 268.5 feet. The fill should be left there at least three months and should be monitored in accordance with Section 4.5.2 of this report. 4.10 EXISTING FOUNDATIONS Walls at the existing transfer station are mostly supported on spread footings. In some places, they are supported on timber piles. The east tipping area slabs settled about 12 inches and were repaired structurally in the mid- 1980's to rectify the settlement problems. HWA conducted a settlement investigation at the southeast column vicinity and reported that the timber foundation piles were driven into the compacted fill above the refuse, but had not penetrated into glacial deposits. Steel piles were installed to underpin the structures by drilling through the dense fill. Existing foundation concrete and pile locations should be identified and should be noted in the plans such that the known objects can be removed for the upper 7 feet during new construction. Trailer parking pads constructed over the existing foundations without near - surface foundation removal will suffer from acute differential settlements over the life time of the new facility. 4.11 SOUTH SCALE FACILITY The fill and refuse thicknesses in this area varied in the explorations from zero at the west to about 18 feet at the north east. The south scale facility will be built at EL 268.5 feet by adding up to about 12 feet of fill. Preloading for the new foundations is not recommended at this location because the refuse thicknesses vary significantly from east to west. However, preloading outside of the scale facility is recommended to reduce the differential settlement. Since the greatest depth to bottom of solid waste is 18 feet, we anticipate that total replacement with structural fill may be feasible by digging out the portions of the scale facility site. The excavation should expose the native glacial outwash as deep as approximate EL 239 feet at the east, and only a couple of feet at the west edge of the existing perimeter road. The excavation depth and bearing conditions of the base should be inspected by a geotechnical engineer at the time of excavation. The contractor should excavate the bottom flat or in benches such that fill can be placed in horizontal lifts with no significant inclination. The side slopes should be a maximum of 1.5 H:1V and the footprint of the excavated hole should be extended beyond the edge of the scale facility by the distance equivalent to the depth of the excavation. As indicated by current and previous explorations, and as depicted on Figure 3B, the refuse — glacial soil contact is relatively flat eastward from the proposed scale facility. We anticipate that there will be no significant ground water during the excavation, although contractors should always prepare to pump out potential surface water accumulation or some perched water seepage running into the excavation which was not discovered by our explorations. The placement of structural fill over the sloped excavation sidewalls will cause settlement of the refuse, and result in differential settlement of pavement and utilities near the scale facility. This could be alleviated by preloading, per the recommendations in Sections 4.4 and 4.5. 2003 -008 DR.doc 26 HWA GEOSC1ENCES INC. 1Vlay 21, 2007 HWA Project No. 2003 -008 The scale facility foundation should be designed based on an allowable bearing capacity of 4,000 psf. Under this design loading, the estimated total settlement will be approximately 0.5 inches. Differential settlement will be approximately 1/4 inch. 4.12 NORTH SCALE FACILITY Current elevations at the proposed North Scale location range from approximately 282 to 300 feet and the facility will be built at EL 268.5 feet. This means that the area has been surcharged in the past by at least 13 feet of overburden pressure or 1,500 psf. Conventional spread footings can be used to support the structures in the area by using an allowable bearing pressure of 1,500 psf for design. The scale facility area should be over - excavated by another two feet from the foundation level and backfilled with granular structural fill to provide a suitable foundation working surface. Any soft or yielding materials exposed in the over - excavation should be additionally dug out before backfilling with structural fill conforming to the requirements of Section 4.19 of this report. 4.13 FUTURE HHW FACILITIES The proposed Future Facilities for Household Hazardous Waste is located in a steeply sloping area underlain by extensive refuse (31 feet at borehole B -209). Driven steel piles should be used in the area to support the facility per Section 4.20 of this report. Structures to be located within the Future Facilities area may need batter piles to counteract the lateral shifting of refuse on the slope. When detailed plans and locations are known, additional borings may be necessary, due to thick refuse deposits on sloping ground. 4.14 NEW TRANSFER STATION BUILDING 4.14.1 Foundations Based on the new topographic survey plan (Duane Hartman Associates), soil at the proposed footprint elevations for the new transfer building has received surcharge loads ranging from about 10 to 59 feet of fill due to the stockpiling undertaken in this area in the past. Therefore, the foundation soils have been preloaded such that conventional spread footings can be used to support the building. Based on proposed floor elevations of 248.5 feet for the compactor pit and yard waste bay, 268.5 feet for the commercial tipping floor, and 271.5 feet for the self -haul tipping floor, foundations will be placed either on native glacial material or on bum fill. For example, at BH -3 (HWA, 2003), burn fill about 8 feet thick will remain after excavation to the final design grade, and 20 feet thick in the vicinity of B -230. The allowable bearing pressures of footings should be decided based on the effective preloading applied by the thickness of fill removed. Where the detailed survey reveals that some areas were not preloaded, or not to a sufficient degree, these portions of the building should be supported either by piles or structural 2003 -008 DR.doc 27 HWA GEOSCIBNCES INC. May 21, 2007 HWA Project No. 2003 -008 fill built on the competent native soils. Alternatively, the area should be preloaded additionally by adding a minimum of 15 feet of fill monitored at least three to six months. All foundation areas including floor slabs should be over - excavated by two feet and then replaced by clean structural fill to provide a good working pad that will not deteriorate during wet site conditions. Foundations on Native Glacial Materials: Structures located on medium dense to dense native glacial materials should be founded on shallow pad and strip footings designed for allowable bearing pressures of 5,000 psf, subject to minimum dimensions of 3 feet and 1.5 feet for pad and strip footings, respectively. External footings should be placed at least 1.5 feet below final adjoining ground surface for frost protection. Foundations on Burn Fill Material where at least 10 feet of Fill is to be Removed: Structures located on burn fill, where at least 10 feet of overlying fill (preload) is to be removed, may be founded on shallow pad and strip footings. The footings should be supported on a 3 -foot thick pad of compacted structural fill placed over the excavated fill surface. The footings should be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 1,500 psf, subject to minimum dimensions of 3 feet and 1.5 feet for pad and strip footings, respectively. External footings should be placed at least 1.5 feet below final ground for frost protection. Foundations on Burn Fill Material where less than 10 feet of Fill is to be Removed: Based on the survey plan fumished to us, there are no areas of the transfer building that support fill less than 10 feet thick. If such areas exist, however, foundation preparation would consist of excavation and replacement of burn fill with structural fill, or supporting the building on piles. The Yard Waste area and the entire south east corner area need total replacement, due to the presence of compressible refuse beneath burn fill. Based on the depth of refuse encountered in one borehole, B -229, the total depth of over - excavation is expected to be on the order of 14.5 feet below the floor level, e.g. to EL 234 feet. This over - excavation should be conducted under a geotechnical engineer's supervision during construction. Because the boundaries of these different subsurface conditions, as described above are not well defined from our investigation, we recommend that the entire foundation at the new transfer station be designed with an allowable bearing capacity of 1500 psf. Differential settlement of footings designed as recommended above is not expected to exceed 1 -inch over 90 feet. 4.14.2 Concrete Retaining Walls Retaining walls which can move laterally or rotate sufficiently to develop minimum active and/or maximum passive earth pressures are referred to as yielding walls. The dynamic lateral earth pressures acting on yielding walls are typically estimated by the pseudostatic procedure known as 2003.008 DR.doc 28 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. May 21, 2007 HWA Project No. 2003 -008 the Mononobe -Okabe (M -O) method. In an M -O analysis, pseudostatic accelerations are integrated into the Coulomb earth pressure equations. Based on USGS Seismic Hazard Maps, we recommend the peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.32 g should be used for the Bow Lake Transfer Station Site, consistent with an earthquake event with a 10% PE in 50 years. Pseudostatic coefficient kh used for the calculation of lateral earth pressures should be taken as one -half of the PGA, or 0.16g. Retaining walls such as the pit walls braced at both the top and bottom do not move sufficiently to mobilize the shear strength of the backfill. These walls are referred to as unyielding walls or rigid walls. The increase in dynamic lateral earth pressure acting on an unyielding wall can be estimated by Wood's method with the equation: 4Peq= yH /g, where kh is one times PGA (0.32), not one -half of PGA, based on Wood's research. By comparison, the WSDOT GDM uses kh =1.5 PGA, and the AASHTO manual recommends one times PGA. The parameter y is the unit weight of the retained soils. The recommended pseudostatic coefficient kh used for unyielding walls varies significantly between many geotechnical engineers. However, for Bow Lake Transfer Station the proposed walls will be somewhat less rigid than the theoretical perfectly rigid case and, therefore, we recommend pseudostatic coefficient kh used for the calculation of lateral earth pressures should be taken as one -half of the PGA. For both yielding and unyielding walls, that are not provided with positive drainage systems at their base, the water pressure should be added for the wall design. We estimate an approximate dynamic water pressure acting on any walls during an earthquake will equal the static water pressure times 1.5. Note that all walls designed for this project should include a drainage system to prevent water build -up behind the wall. Hence, this design requirement should be applied to the retention tanks and other similar structures where drainage is not feasible. 4.14.3 Lateral Earth Pressures Acting on Yielding Concrete Retaining Walls We consider cantilever walls generally the most feasible type of retaining walls for the proposed transfer station building. The lateral earth pressures against these retaining walls depend upon the inclination of the back - slope, degree of wall restraint, type of backfill, method of backfill placement, degree of backfill compaction, drainage provisions, and magnitude and location of any surcharge loads. When retaining walls are unrestrained, or free to rotate at the top, the active earth pressure should be used in design. Preliminary design parameters are provided in Table 4, and include parameters for slope of grade at the top of the wall, and the presence of dense, compacted, granular fill behind the wall. The design parameters presented in the table are based on the assumption that open cut excavations will be used to facilitate construction of the concrete retaining walls. As such, the design lateral pressure is highly dependent on the characteristics of the backfill material, and less on the in-situ 2003.008 DR.doo 29 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. Loading Conditions Without Ground Water Equivalent Fluid Density for Active Earth Pressures (Earthquake condition) Equivalent Fluid Density for Passive Earth Pressures (Earthquake condition) Level Backslope Ascending Backslope (2H:1V) Level at Toe Static loading Dense Granular Compacted Backf 111 + Earthquake Loading 35 pcf + (6.5H) (psf) 50 pcf + (24H) 614 350 pcf (10 percent reduction) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 May 21; 2007 . I3WA Project No. 2003 -008 soil conditions. The active lateral earth pressures recommended in the table were determined assuming a backfill material with a friction angle of 36 degrees, zero cohesion, and a unit weight of 135 pcf. Table 4. Yielding Retaining Wall Design Lateral Earth Pressures Using the Mononobe -Okabe Seismic Approach Notes: 1 Resultant force for static loading is applied at 0.33 *H 2 Resultant force for earthquake loading is applied at 0.5 *H For area surcharge loads, we recommend adding a lateral earth pressure equal to 0.26 times the uniform load for static and 0.13 times the uniform load for dynamic loading conditions. Point or small area loads should be evaluated individually and can be converted into an equivalent uniform loading. Live loads are normally ignored in seismic analyses for the wall design. 4.14.4 Lateral Earth Pressures Acting on Restrained (unyielding) Concrete Retaining Walls Buried walls of the structures such as the storm water vaults, or walls where the top is restrained from moving, should be designed for an equivalent fluid pressure of 55 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) above the design ground water elevation and 90 pcf below the design ground water elevation. For earthquake loading conditions, the uniform lateral pressure should be added to the static pressure as shown in Table 5. 2003 -008 DR.doo 30 HWA Gu0SC1ENCEs INC. Loading Conditions Without Ground Water Equivalent Fluid Density for At Rest Earth Pressures (Earthquake condition) Equivalent Fluid Density for Passive Earth Pressures (Earthquake condition) -! Static Loading, Dense Granular Compacted Backfi111 + Earthquake Loading 55 pcf + (2014) (ps, f) 350 pcf (10 percent reduction) Static Loading for Surcharge + Earthquake Loading 0.41 *Surcharge + 0.16 *Surcharge loading 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 May 21, 2007. HWA Project No. 2003 -008 Table 5. Equivalent Fluid Density for Design of Unyielding Walls Using Wood's Seismic Approach, but Converted to a Uniform Load for Simplicity of Structural Calculations Notes: 1 Resultant force for static loading is applied at 0.33H 2 Resultant force for earthquake loading is applied at 0.5H The above recommendations regarding at -rest earth pressures assume the backfill behind the subsurface walls will consist of properly compacted structural fill, a horizontal ground surface adjacent to the structure, and no adjacent surcharge loads. If the below -grade structures or walls will be subjected to the influence of surcharge, loading within a horizontal distance equal to or less than the height of the walls, the walls should be designed for the additional horizontal pressure. Lateral earth pressures for area surcharge loads should equal the uniform load times 0.41 for static loading and 0.16 for the dynamic loading. Point or small area loads should be evaluated individually and can be converted into an equivalent uniform loading. Live loads are normally ignored for the seismic analyses for the wall design. The values given above assume that the backfill around the structure consists of compacted structural fill and that the foundations extend at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. 2003-008 DR.doc 31 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. May.21, 2007 HWA Project No. 2003 -008 4.14.5 Passive Earth Pressures The passive pressure at the toe of any retaining walls should not be considered in evaluating resistance to lateral loading unless the backfill at the toe of the wall is carefully placed and adequately compacted or supported by floor slabs or pavement. if the designer is unsure whether the soil will be densely compacted, it is best to ignore the passive resistance provided by soils at the toe. Where the toe of the wall is cast directly against undisturbed glacial soils or properly compacted fill materials, lateral loads may be evaluated in design using passive pressures, based on the equivalent fluid density values tabulated in Tables 4 and 5. The values passive earth pressure listed in each table incorporates a factor of safety of approximately 1.5. Lateral forces would be resisted by passive earth pressure against buried portions of structures and by friction against bottom of footings and slabs. Passive earth pressures in backfill should be estimated using an equivalent fluid pressure of 350 pcf above the design water table and 180 pcf (includes hydrostatic fluid pressure) below the design water table. For the earthquake loading condition, the passive earth pressure should be reduced by 10 percent. A horizontal distance of B should be maintained between the outside edge of the retaining wall footing and its nearest approach to any slope face, where B is the wall footing width or 7 feet, whichever is greater. 4.14.6 Base Friction under Foundations A sliding coefficient of 0.45 may be used for determining friction at the base of footings. An appropriate factor of safety of at least 1.5 and 1.1 for static and seismic loading conditions, respectively, should be used to compute sliding resistance. Base friction should not be considered beneath pile supported structures. 4.14.7 Compaction of Wall Backfill Only small hand operated equipment should be used within 3 feet of the wall. Compaction of the wall backfill should be conducted using a small mechanical roller with a drum diameter no greater than 1.5 feet. Each lift should be no greater than 6 inches in compacted thickness. The lifts should be level and uniform with no apparent inclination. All backfill materials should be free draining granular fill. 4.14.8 Allowable Bearing Pressures for Retaining Wall Shallow Foundation Design For use in design of concrete footings for support of retaining walls, an allowable bearing pressure of 4,000 psf is recommended for spread footings bearing on compacted structural fill on the native ground as is shown on Table 6. For wall foundations on dense, undisturbed, glacial 2003 -008 DR.doc 32 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. Foundation Soil Conditions (With no refuse below any footings.) Allowable Bearing Pressure (PSF) With FS =3 Min. footing widths = 1.5' strip or 3'sq. footings. For seismic, increase Potential Area of Application 1/3 13 feet preloading at 1,500 New transfer station WSDOT site with an Or other areas with over - excavation 2 feet for working pad. 13 feet preloading 13 feet preloading at 1,500 North scale facility WSDOT site with an over - excavation 2 feet for working pad Structural fill on native 4,000 S. Scale Facility glacial deposits Maintenance Bldg. Retention Vault Glacial Deposits 5,000 Along 1 -5, West side of New Transfer Building 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I May 21, 2007 HWA Project No. 2003 -008 materials, an allowable bearing pressure of 5,000 psf may be utilized. If the area is .underlain by preloaded fill of at least 10 feet thickness, an allowable bearing pressure of 1,500 psf should be used. Table 6. Allowable Bearing Capacities Site preparation for foundations should begin with excavation of all unsuitable materials below foundation levels. Foundation excavation should be inspected by a geotechnical engineer to determine if the depth of excavation is sufficient. Pockets of unsuitable materials such as soft burn fill or refuse may be present, and should be over - excavated entirely and replaced with structural fill. At the foundation areas of the WSDOT site, we recommend over - excavation of existing burn fill areas by an additional two feet from the foundation invert level and backfilling with structural fill to provide a suitable working pad and reduce the swelling and recompression effects of any 2003 -008 DRdoo 33 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. May 21, 2007 HWA Project No. 2003 -008 inclusions of unburned refuse below. Any refuse exposed should be dug out and replaced with structural fill under a geotechnical engineer's supervision. The exposed subgrade should be thoroughly proof - rolled with a heavy roller. All loose or soft areas that exhibit yielding should be replaced with structural fill materials, and compacted to a dense and unyielding condition in accordance with Section 2- 03.3(14)C (Compacting Earth Embankments) and/or Section 2- 06.3(1) ( Subgrade for Surfacing) of the 2006 WSDOT Standard Specifications. 4.15 MAINTENANCE BUILDING Since MSW was found in one boring (B -229) at the northwest corner, and farther east at test pit TP -11, we anticipate that refuse underlies approximately half of the proposed building footprint. We recommend that total replacement be conducted by digging out refuse and replacing with structural fill in accordance with Section 4.18 and 4.19 of this report. We expect the total replacement will be approximately 13 feet below the finish grade EL 248.5 feet. The Maintenance Building foundation should be designed based on allowable bearing capacity of 4,000 psf on structural fill as prepared per Section 4.19. 4.16 STORM RETENTION VAULT The vault will be excavated at about EL 235 feet, which is 13.5 feet below the proposed finished grade in the trailer maneuvering area. Refuse was found at the foundation level (see test pit TP -11 and Figure 3G), which needs to be dug out and replaced with structural fill in accordance with removal of unsuitable materials as described in Sections 4.18 and 4.19. The excavation should expose the native glacial outwash, encountered at EL 221 feet in test pit TP -11 just east of the proposed east end of the vault. No seepage was noted in test pit TP -11, though perched ground water was encountered at EL 252 feet in borehole B -234. The walls should be designed on the basis of the lateral earth pressures depicted in Table 4 of Section 4.14.4. Refuse around the vault will settle whereas the vault itself supported on native soil and structural fill will settle very little. If the structure is covered, a surficial bump will be generated above the structure over the years, which need to be leveled periodically. 4.17 EARTH WORK AT THE EXISTING TRANSFER STATION We anticipate that all existing transfer station structures will be demolished to accommodate the new trailer parking area and other facilities. All existing foundation structures where differential settlement effects would be objectionable should be removed in the upper 7 feet from proposed final subgrade. This process is necessary to reduce the anticipated differential settlement which would result in surficial bumps in the trailer parking area. It appears that the dump pit at the center of the existing building and the bottom portions of the trailer loading ramp do not have refuse, based on previous borings. This area also has the potential of generating surficial bumps or differential settlements with surrounding refuse areas. 2003 -008 DR.doc 34 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. May 21 2007 HWA Project No. 2003 -008 It is rather difficult to mitigate these differential settlements because the locations of the refuse boundary are not well defined. Preloading the entire area will reduce the height of surficial bumps during service life of the facility. 4.18 OVER - EXCAVATION OF REFUSE OR UNSUITABLE SOILS 4.18.1 Geotechnical Considerations The total replacement of the refuse requires separation of clean soils from above the refuse so that disposal volume can be minimized. The excavation bottoms should be inspected by a geotechnical engineer at the time of excavation. Excavation side slopes should be inclined no steeper than 1.5H:1 V. Contractors should be prepared to pump out potential seepage and surface water accumulation running into all excavation areas. The limit of all excavations should be extended to lateral distances equivalent to the depth of the excavation for the replacement fill. Following removal of the refuse or fill, the areas should be backfilled with structural fill as is specified in Section 4.19. 4.18.2 Environmental Considerations Based on the findings of this study, soils and waste excavated for site improvements are likely to contain elevated concentrations of TPH, VOCs, and metals. The recommendations presented in Section 8.0 of the Hazardous Materials Report (HWA, 2007) should be followed in design and construction. 4.19 STRUCTURAL FILL AND COMPACTION For the purposes of this report, material used to raise site grades, placed directly under structures for support, or used as backfill behind below -grade structures such as catch basins or pipes, is classified as structural fill. Imported structural fill should consist of clean, non - plastic, free - draining, sand and gravel free from organic matter or other deleterious materials. Such materials should contain particles of less than 3 inches maximum dimension, with less than 5% fines (based on the 3 /4 -inch fraction) as described in Section 9- 03.14(1) or 9.03.17 (Class B) of' the 2006 WSDOT Standard Specifications. Structural fill should be placed in loose, horizontal lifts of not more than 8 inches in thickness and compacted to at least 95% of the maximum dry density, as determined using test method ASTM D 1557 (Modified Proctor). At the time of placement, the moisture content of structural fill should be at or near optimum. The procedures required to achieve the specified minimum relative compaction depends on the size and type of compaction equipment, the number of passes, thickness of the layer being compacted, and the soil moisture - density properties. When the first fill is placed in a given area, and/or anytime the fill material changes, the area should be considered a test section. The test section should be used to establish fill placement 2003 -008 DR.doc 35 HWA GBOSCIENCES INC. HP Pile Sections (inches) Allowable Pile Capacities (Tons) 8 50 10 70 12 100 14 130 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 May 21, 2007 HWA Project No. 2003 -008 and compaction procedures required to achieve proper compaction, The geotechnical consultant should observe placement and compaction of the test section to assist in establishing an appropriate compaction procedure. Once a placement and compaction procedure is established, the contractor's operations should be monitored and periodic density tests performed to verify that proper compaction is being achieved. Backfill compaction in any confined areas such as trenches, retaining walls or excavated confines should be performed on each layer no greater 6 to 12 inches in thickness, depending upon the types of equipment employed. 4.20 PILE FOUNDATIONS Pile foundations can be used to penetrate refuse or loose uncontrolled fill and to transmit structural loads down to dense glacial deposits. Piles can be used wherever the preload or spread footing options become impractical. Driven piles are the preferred alternative to drilled, because the auger operations will bring up refuse to the surface and create safety and disposal issues. In addition, grout filling for auger cast piles could take a large cement grout volume occasionally and produce greater down drag forces on the piles than usual. Steel H -piles can be used to support structures in lieu of preloading or spread footings. Allowable bearing capacities are listed in Table 7 for the various H -pile sizes. Table 7. Pile Capacities • The pile capacities make allowance for the down drag forces from consolidation of the refuse around the piles. • All piles should be driven to refusal by using a driving hammer with an energy of at least 36,000 foot pounds. • The estimated pile lengths vary from 15 feet at the east side and 50 feet at the west side of the area. The pile depths will vary significantly over very short distances, which would result In significant pile length variations. • To account for the erratic pile lengths required, we recommend that, before ordering entire production piles, six test piles should be driven in one given area to test pile penetration and determine production pile lengths accordingly. • The variations should be plotted and interpreted by a geotechnical engineer for the final material order. Pile section thicknesses should be heavy duty t= 0.4" or better to provide potential corrosion prevention. One sixteenth of an inch (0.0625 ") should be added to the pile wall thickness for corrosion provisions. 2003 -008 DR.doc 36 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. May 21, 2007 HWA Project No. 2003 -008 4.21 PAVEMENT SUPPORT 4.21.1 Subgrade Preparation for Roads The native glacial material will provide a suitable subgrade for roads, but in areas of the existing WSDOT fill or fill over refuse, the road structure should be supported on at least 18 inches of structural fill placed over the existing fill. In areas where the subgrade is soft and yielding such as refuse areas, the depth of structural fill should be increased to at least 48 inches and supported on woven separation grade geotextile (Clause 9.33.2 Table 3, WSDOT Specifications). This requirement may prove difficult to comply with due to the fact that the existing fill thicknesses over the refuse under the pavement area are not well defined from our explorations. However, areas that do not meet the fill thickness requirements over refuse may suffer premature failure of the pavement structure, and other special measures may need to be adopted. The design thickness of the overlying pavement and surfacing layers is dependent on design traffic and road performance requirements. Based on estimated trip generation data provided in the 2006 Master Plan, an average of 1,050 customer vehicle trips per day and 46 transfer trailer trips per day (27 tons each) will occur by the year 2030 at the transfer station facility. Per the project SEPA checklist (December 2006),we understand that an estimated 29% of the customer traffic will comprise commercial trucks, including garbage packer trucks and roll-off trucks. Pavements in the trailer maneuvering area will also need to accommodate top - picker forklifts, for maneuvering and stacking intermodal containers. For a 15 -year design life, and an assumed 5% annual traffic growth rate, the design traffic loading amounts to less than 1,700,000 ESALs (equivalent 18 -kip single axle loads), which we have assumed for design purposes. For our pavement section design, we also assumed a subgrade resilient modulus of 12,000 psi (or a CBR of about 8), for sandy landfill cover soil. Where pavements will be placed over preloaded areas, the subgrade will consist of gravel borrow over landfill cover soil, which will have a higher subgrade modulus, which we have assumed to be 20,000 psi. Frequent stops and tum lane areas should be paved with concrete with a minimum thickness of 10 inches to prevent the asphalt shifting. The site is settlement sensitive, so the concrete pavement area should be selected where refuse is not present, such as the WSDOT site and other non -refuse bearing areas. Our analyses indicate that 8 inches HMA over 12 inches of crushed surfacing is sufficient for the anticipated traffic at the truck lanes. Where the pavement subgrade transitions from either native glacial deposits or structural fill to landfill cover soil, or from a preloaded area to a non- preloaded area, a geogrid - reinforced sub -base layer may help reduce pavement distress due to potential differential settlement. 2003 -008 DRdoc 37 HWA GEOSCJENCES WC. May 21, 2007 HWA Project No. 2003 -008 For light vehicle and bus parking, the design section should be comprised of 4 inches of HMA underlain by a 12 inch thickness of CSBC. Based on the climate in Western Washington and WSDOT recommendations, the HMA mix should be made of Superpave Performance Grade binder PG 58 -22. 4.21.2 Pavement Subgrade Preparation For paved areas lying within the limits of the preload area, the exposed subgrade material should consist of gravel borrow, and subgrade preparation should be non - problematic. However, if yielding areas are encountered they should be sub - excavated and replaced with additional compacted structural fill. For paved areas lying outside of the preload limits, subgrade preparation should begin with the removal of any vegetation and topsoil. If fill is required to raise pavement subgrade levels, we recommend it meet the requirements for Gravel Borrow, as specified in Section 9- 03.14(1) of the 2006 Standard Specifications. The subgrade should then be compacted to at least 95% of its Modified Proctor maximum dry density, and proof rolled. If soft, wet, or yielding areas are identified during the proof - rolling operation, they should be evaluated on a case -by -case basis by a representative of our office and a King County Solid Waste engineer. This is because over - excavation and replacement may not be suitable where the subgrade in question is part of the landfill cover system. 4.22 SLOPE STABILITY AND CRITICAL AREA REQUIREMENTS The slopes on the eastern and southern sides of the King County parcel were observed to be Class 2 and 3 per the City of Tukwila Municipal Code sensitive areas designation (TMC 18.45.120 A.). The northern and eastern sides of the WSDOT parcel were observed to be Class 2, 3, and 4. The slopes also are mapped by the City as an erosion hazard area. 4.22.1 King County Parcel No evidence of recent deep - seated sliding is evident on these slopes, and none has been documented in the past 20 years of our experience with the site. We did not observe any signs of erosion on the slopes. Some past surficial soil creep is evident on a portion of the lower slopes within the property. The cut at the slope toe (on La Pianta property) does not show evidence of sliding, and the buttress wall appears to have supported the toe for many years. Any future sliding below the King County property should not affect the proposed development. Redevelopment of the existing transfer station will result in placement of additional fill over refuse along the east perimeter road at the crest of the landfill slope. The refuse slope will remain stable assuming the recommendations in this report are followed in design and construction, particularly Sections 4.5 and 4.19. Buried refuse has a high shear strength with large deformations due to its interlayered and fibrous nature, and therefore is not prone to slope failure. 2003 -008 DR.doc 38 HWA GEOSC1ENCES INC. May 21, 2007 HWA Project No. 2003 -008 Proper temporary erosion and sedimentation control practices will need to be implemented during construction in order to prevent concentration of stormwater onto the slopes. We understand that stormwater will be piped eastward to an appropriate discharge point on the Green River Valley floor, and the sanitary sewer will be piped along the same route to connect to an existing sewer at the valley floor. A geotechnical slope stability evaluation will be conducted soon to determine an appropriate route and geotechnical parameters for construction of the stormwater and sanitary sewer pipelines. The pipelines could be installed in a trench, or be laid on the ground surface and anchored to the slope with ground anchors such as helical piles. 4.22.2 WSDOT Parcel No evidence of deep- seated sliding is evident on these slopes, only surficial soil creep and isolated shallow sliding. Such shallow slope movement will occur periodically over time as the underlying very dense sand mechanically weathers. Most of this movement will occur in the steep lower portions of the slopes, and along side ravines, in relation to where ground water seepage occurs. The natural processes of soil creep and skin sliding will continue whether or not the redevelopment takes place. However, present runoff to the slopes that could contribute to creep and shallow sliding will be reduced by the capture of stormwater and re- direction from proposed impervious surfaces. The proposed removal of approximately 40 to 60 feet of the existing fill stockpile from the WSDOT parcel will eliminate long -term issues of erosion and slope stability for the fill portion of the slopes. Stormwater runoff to the remaining fill and bench slopes will be significantly reduced by capture and tight - lining of stormwater from graded areas during construction, and over the long -term from proposed impervious surfaces (roofs and pavements). The fill removal on the WSDOT parcel will also result in a net reduction of load at the top of the slopes. This fill removal will generally improve overall global (deep - seated) stability of the natural slopes below, though the lack of evidence for deep - seated sliding indicates it is not necessary to this end. We recommend a minimum horizontal setback of 40 feet from the crest of steep slopes, with inclinations of 40 percent or greater, to proposed site features such as new fill, retaining walls, and foundations. The preliminary design layout as shown on Figure 2B incorporates this recommendation. We recommend the road be supported with a soldier pile wall along the section with the minimum buffer in order to protect the road from unprecedented deeper sliding or a faster rate of creep and erosion. 4.23 STABILITY OF TEMPORARY CUT SLOPES AND EXCAVATIONS Maintenance of safe working conditions, including temporary excavation stability, is the responsibility of the contractor. Any excavations in excess of 4 feet in depth should be sloped in accordance with Part N of WAC (Washington Administrative Code) 296 -155, or be suitably shored. The loose to medium dense fill classifies as Type C Soil. Temporary excavations in Type C Soils may be inclined as steep as 1 /AH:1 V. In lieu of excavations sloped to these 2003 -008 DR.doc 39 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. May 21, 2007 HWA Project No. 2003 -008 requirements, trench boxes or other suitable shoring means may be used to permit work in excavations or trenches in excess of 4 feet in depth. Heavy construction equipment, construction materials, excavated soil, and vehicular traffic should not be allowed within a horizontal distance half the depth of the excavation, measured from the edge of the excavation, unless the shoring system has been designed for the additional lateral pressure. With time and the presence of precipitation, the stability of temporary unsupported cut slopes can be significantly reduced. Therefore, all temporary slopes should be protected from erosion by installing a surface water diversion ditch or berm at the top of the slope, and by covering the cut face with well- anchored plastic sheeting. In addition, the contractor should monitor the stability of the temporary cut slopes and adjust the construction schedule and slope inclination accordingly. For long -term stability, permanent slopes should be cut no steeper than 2H:1 V. 4.24 SOIL CORROSIVENESS The resistivity results given in Appendix B provide an indicator of the potential for soil corrosion of buried steel and concrete. Non - corrosive soils typically have a resistivity in excess of 5,000 ohm -cm, and potentially corrosive soils have a resistivity of less than 2,000 ohm -cm. Soils with resistivities below 5,000 ohm -cm should be subject to more detailed chemical testing to evaluate the potential for corrosion. The results show the resistivity of the burn fill is usually lower than the underlying glacial materials, and therefore more corrosive. The resistivity of fill with refuse was found to be significantly lower than that of the glacial soils. We anticipate that all buried concrete and steel within refuse, bum fill, and the upper portion of native glacial deposits (beneath refuse or burn fill) should be designed assuming corrosive conditions. 4.25 PIPE BEDDING AND TRENCH BACKFILL 4.25.1 Pipe Support Through Refuse Areas Pipe support at Bow Lake Transfer Station is subject to significant challenges due to on -going settlement of refuse, as well as the new settlement that may occur after site grading takes place for the new facility. Also, the differential settlement between the pipe sections supported on firm ground and on refuse will subject pipes to large bending stresses over the life time of this facility. These pipes should be designed to accommodate potential future maintenance in mind; i.e., locate the pipes where future excavation can be facilitated. Pipe connections to structures supported on firm ground and then extended into the refuse area will be highly vulnerable to settlement and bending stress damages. Flexible joints should be used to accommodate differential settlement effects. Traditional pipe bedding and backfill consisting of graded sand 2003 -008 DR.doc 40 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. May 21, 2007 HWA Project No. 2003 -008 and gravel will increase load on the compressible refuse; light weight backfill such as coal bum or fly ash will somewhat reduce the settlement but not totally. In general, we recommend that new pipelines be routed to avoid refuse areas as much as possible. In the event that re- routing of a pipeline is not possible, the area underlain by extensive refuse should be removed from beneath the pipeline route to a depth of 2 feet below the bedding and then replaced with a properly compacted light weight fill. In some cases, over - excavation to remove all refuse from beneath the proposed pipeline may be necessary and the trench width should extend to either side of the pipe a distance equal to the depth of over - excavation beneath the pipe. 4.25.2 Pipe Support Through Non - Refuse Areas Conventional pipe bedding and backfill can be used in areas where refuse is not present. Should unsuitable soils be encountered, they should be over- excavated and replaced with clean sand or crushed rock. Normal bedding should provide a firm, uniform, cradle for support of the pipe. We recommend that the pipe be bedded in clean coarse sand such as traction sand or fine concrete aggregate. Except on steep slopes, we suggest that material meeting the 2006 WSDOT Specification for fine concrete aggregate, 9- 03.1(2)B , Class 1 or 2, be used for pipe bedding. Pipe bedding material should be used as trench backfill to at least 12 inches over the top of the pipe, for the full width of the trench. Wherever muddy conditions occur in the bottom of the pipe trench, the soft or disturbed soils should be removed and replaced with pipe bedding material. In wet conditions, 1-1/4-inch minus crushed rock (WSS 9- 03.9(3) (Crushed Surfacing)), may be used to backfill the over - excavated portion of the trench and as pipe bedding material. All trench backfill around and over the pipe should be placed in 6 -inch (maximum) thick lifts and each lift should be compacted to a dense and unyielding condition. Where a trench box is used, we recommend that pipe restraint in the form of a cable and winch system be used inside the pipe so that pipe already laid is kept in compression as the trench box is advanced. 4.26 GAS VENTING ON ALL BUILDINGS AND VAULTS All buildings and vaults should be provided with landfill gas venting systems below the slabs or floors. All footing and retaining wall drains should also be vented, along with any other below - slab duct work, to prevent gas trapping under structures. Depending upon applicable building code requirements, either passive or active gas venting systems may be employed. 2003 -008 DR.doc 41 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. May 21, 2007 HWA Project No. 2003 -008 5.0 CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for R.W. Beck, King County Solid Waste Division, and their agents for use in design and construction of a portion of this project. This report should be provided in its entirety to prospective contractors for bidding and estimating purposes; however, the conclusions and interpretations presented in this report should not be construed as our warranty of the subsurface conditions. Experience has shown that soil and ground water conditions can vary significantly over small distances. Inconsistent conditions can occur between explorations and may not be detected by a geotechnical study of this scope. If, during future site operations, subsurface conditions are encountered which vary appreciably from those described herein, HWA should be notified for review of the recommendations of this report, and revision of such if necessary. We recommend HWA be retained to review the plans and specifications to verify that our recommendations have been interpreted and implemented as intended. Sufficient geotechnical monitoring, testing, and consultation should be provided by HWA during construction to confirm the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should conditions revealed during construction differ from those anticipated, and to verify that the geotechnical aspects of construction comply with the contract plans and specifications. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, HWA executed these services in accordance with generally accepted professional principles and practices in the fields of geotechnical engineering and engineering geology in the area at the time the report was prepared. No warranty, express or implied, is made. HWA does not practice or consult in the field of safety engineering. We do not direct the contractor's operations, and cannot be responsible for the safety of personnel other than our own on the site. As such, the safety of others is the responsibility of the contractor. The contractor should notify the owner if any of the recommended actions presented herein are considered unsafe. 2003.008 DR.doc O. 0 42 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. May 21,:2007 HWA: Project: No. 2003 -008 We appreciate the opportunity to provide geotechnical services on this project. Should you have any questions or comments, or if we may be of further service, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. Brad W. Thurber, L.E.G. Sa H. Hong, P.E. Engineering Geologist Principal Geotechnical Engineer BWT: SHH:bwt 2003 -008 DR.doc 43 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. May 21; HWA Project No. 2003 -008 6.0 REFERENCES Hong West & Associates, November 1993, Geotechnical Engineering Study, Bow Lake Transfer Station Improvements, Facilities Master Plan, King County, Washington, prepared for R.W. Beck and Associates. HWA GeoSciences Inc., January 2004, Draft Geotechnical Evaluation Report, WSDOT Property, Bow Lake Transfer Station / Recycling Facility, King County, Washington, prepared for R.W. Beck and Associates. HWA GeoSciences Inc., March 2007, Draft Phase I & II Environmental Site Assessment, WSDOT Property, prepared for R.W. Beck and Associates. HWA GeoSciences Inc., May 2007, Hazardous Materials Report, Bow Lake Transfer Station Property, prepared for R.W. Beck and Associates. R.W. Beck, February 2007, 2006 Facility Master Plan Update, Bow Lake Transfer / Recycling Station. Aerial photographs of the site and the surrounding area, 1936, 1946, 1948, 1958, 1960, 1965, 1969, 1974, 1977, 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, 2000, 2002, and 2004 obtained from Aero - Metric and King County SWD. Waldron, H.H., 1962, Geology of the Des Moines Quadrangle, Washington, U.S. Geological Survey Quadrangle Map GQ -158. References from 1993 report: ABAM Consulting Engineers, January 1986, Bow Lake Transfer Station, Engineering Report, Investigation of Concrete Distress, prepared for King County Solid Waste Division. ABAM Consulting Engineers, April 1986, Bow Lake Transfer Station, Development of Alternatives for Repair of Pit and Southeast Corner, prepared for King County Solid Waste Division. Dames & Moore, May 1965, Report of Soils Investigation, Bow Lake Transfer Station Site, King County, Washington, prepared for Johnston - Campanella & Co. Golder Associates, April 1992, Final Report, Results of Phase I — Geotechnical Site Investigation, Proposed Water Main Relocation Project, Bow Lake Transfer Station, prepared for King County Solid Waste Division. 2003 -008 DR.doc 44 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. May 21, 2007 HWA Project No. 2003 -008 Hong Consulting Engineers, January 1986, Bow Lake Transfer Station Foundation Settlement Investigation, prepared for ABAM Consulting Engineers. Hong Consulting Engineers, April 1986, Subsurface Soil Investigation for Underpinning at the Bow Lake Transfer Station, King County, Washington, prepared for ABAM Consulting Engineers. Hong Consulting Engineers, November 1987, Bow Lake Transfer Station Underpinning Project, Report of Subsutface Investigations and Piling Inspection, King County, Washington, prepared for ABAM Consulting Engineers. Hong Consulting Engineers, December 1988, Geotechnical Soil Investigation, Bow Lake Transfer Station Improvement Project, King County, Washington, prepared for R.W. Beck and Associates. Hong West & Associates, December 1992, Geotechnical Investigation, 1-5 HOV Lane Widening, Fife to Tukwila Interchange, King and Pierce Counties, Washington, prepared for WSDOT / ALPHA Engineering Group, Inc. King County, 1990, Sensitive Areas Map Folio, King County, Washington, King County Department of Parks, Planning and Resources. Shannon & Wilson, February 1976, Soil Engineering, Proposed Bow Lake Transfer Station, King County, Washington, prepared for King County Dept. of Community and Environmental Development, Architecture Division. Shannon & Wilson, January 1977, Soil Engineering, Proposed Bow Lake Transfer Station, King County, Washington, (Revision of February 1976 report), prepared for King County Dept. of Community and Environmental Development, Architecture Division. 2003-008 DR.doc 45 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. Base Map Provided by King County GIS Center -IMAP HWAGEOSCIENCES INC PROJECT SITE VICINITY MAP BOW LAKE TRANSFER /RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA,WASHINGTON 11 NOT TO SCALE DRAWN BY _SEE CHECKED BY _@L DATE 05.15.07 FIGURE P40. 1 PROJECT NO. 2003 - 008 -21 TASK 2100 H: \1 PROJECTS\2003 PROJECTS\2003 -008-21 \TASK 2100 \CAD \VM.DWG REV 00 KLS X/X/XX J \:\:\ L \:� s ,/,%" C \ pas G.TRANFE' YA 41761 n i 1 =�\ LEGEND - 237 - BOREHOLE DESIGNATION AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION I -i 1 TEST PIT DESIGNATION AND APPROXIMATE' LOCATION I BH-5 -- APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF HWA BORING' (2003) (BH -2 THRU BH -5) ! BH - I G_5 I DM -5 - - APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF HONG WEST BORING (1994) (BH - 1) APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF GOLDER ASSOCIATES TEST PIT (1992) (TR -1 THRU TR5) I G -3 - - APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF GOLDER ASSOCIATES HAND AUGER BORING1(1992): (HA -1 THRU HA -3)' ICE -5 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF'HONG CONSULTING ENGINEERS BORING (1988) (BH -1 THRU BH -5) ICE-3 S APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF HONG CONSULTING ENGINEERS BORING(1987) (BH -101 THRU BH -103) ICE-4A APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF HONG CONSULTING ENGINEERS BORING (1986) (BH -1 THRU BH -4). 1 07— - APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF SHANNONI& WILSON BORING (1976) (B -101' THRU B -107) APPROXIMATE LOCATIONIOF DAMES & MOORE BORING (1965) (B -1 THRU'B -5) I BASE MAP PROVIDED BY: DUANE HARTMAN ASSOC 05/09/07 A H: \1PROJECTS\2003 PROJECTS\2003 -008 -21 Bow Lake Transfer Station \CAD \CAD 9 -11 -06 \HWA BH PLAN DWG 0 50 100 150 SCALE IN FEET 1 ff121 HWAGEOSCI:ENCES INC f � GR �BGl1ND_ E� \A\ BOW LAKE TRANSFER/RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON. N11�11�1; -A- R = 3IA 5-1-Th 1S -S SOUTH B Lw Kai — APPROXIMATE EXTENT' OF FILL SOILS WSDOT' FILL FILL, WITHI REFUSE, BURNT FILL REF'S S E PROPOSED RETAINING; WALLS FIGURE. NC. 2) PROJECT NO', SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN DRAWNI BY' F'K, CHECKED BY; BT DATE 05'.115 2003- 008 -211 REV- 00, EF <,XIXIXX: Mt- I / I / 1 / 1 / I / 1 / l i 1 / I / I / 0 1010111000111001121.0,...01.L.T.70 BOW LM(E 011OVER VAR. 1,01.10M, " 00. •O.011ow AND ASSOCURS, WIC 0%/col /IV> tri 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 10 300 — 290 — 2 Fa: CD LJ LJ 0 — 2' 6 — HH 0 Z 2 4o — 2 30 — 2. 2 CD LLJ 2 1 CD Lij 2 CD CD 1 9 0 1 Fa 0 1 7 0 1 6 0 1 0 1. -4- 0 1 3 0 1 0 — 110 100 PAVEMENT- \ PAVATAINERIAL, EEO EFIVALTY GLACI DEPOS TS • 1. _ _•__,_:,_.___,_, _ , • REFUSE,‘ - l iii,.. o- - 7 . la PILL' • • • • ' • 465} !_■AlkAkirlr. AAVATALIA. /-?--- Vo 1, • - . 4 A AWAIMIZer&IFIWAVAIVAII2VA r4 - . E0- • ...... • • ......... • • • • • • • • • ......... • ....... • • ......... • ...... • • • ......... • • • • • • .................. ...... • • ........ ........ The subsurface conditiOns, shown are based on widely spaced borings and test pits and should be considered approximate. Further; the contact lines shown between units are interpretive in nature and may vary laterally or vertically over relatively short distances on site. S: \2003 PROJECTS V003-008-21 BOW LAKE TRANSFER STATION \CADVASK 2100 \BOW LAKE XSEC A-E\BOW LAKE XSEC A-E.DWG HWAGEOSCIENCES INC HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1"=30' 0' 115 30' 60' I■1 um.o.v.mAnq, 340 0' 115' 30' 60' VERTICAL SCALE: 1"-= WOO ONMAIN fAktil • . ■ 4 4 • • FILL WSDOT FILL REFUSE BURN FILL BOW LAKE TRANSFER/RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON LEGEND 6 29 50/3"' 35 cI BORINGDESIGNATIONI AND' APPROXIMATEILOCATION N-VALUE IFROMISTANDARDI P EN ETRATION TEST (pLows/Foo-01 WATER LEVELATT1MEOF DRILLING WATER' LEVEL M EASCI RE a iNIPIEZOMETER ON TH E DATE, IN D ICATED! INFERRED GEOLOGIC CONTACT SAND PACK ANGSCREEI+ INTERVAL BOTTOM! OF BORING1 EXISTING GRAD E, PROPOSED GRADE CROSS SECTION ArA'' DRAWN, BY EEK 3A _ 1, CHECKED) BY,' BE DATEi 05.14.07' 0 w 1 1 FIGURE NO., PROJECT NO., 2003-008-211 TASK-211001 REV 00 KLS1XJX/XX, EFUSE 1 LEGEND 0 CV m BORING DESIGNATION AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION 6 N VALUE FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TEST' 29 (BLOWS /FOOT) 50/3" 35 WATER LEVELAT TIME OF DRILLING WATER LEVEL MEASURED IN PIEZOMETER' ON THE DATE INDICATED: -__- INFERRED GEOLOGIC CONTACT SAND PACKANDSCREEN INTERVAL BOTTOM OF' BORING' EXISTING GRADE PROPOSED GRADE •AIA• :WATAW. .■SWAY +' FILL. WSDOT FILL REFUSE BURNT F'I'LL The subsurface conditions shown are based on widely spaced' borings and test pits and should be considered approximate. Further, the contact lines shown between units are interpretive in nature and may vary laterally or vertically over relatively shot ' distances on site. S: \2003 PROJECTS V003-008-21: BOW LAKE TRANSFER STATION \CAD\TASK 2100\BOW - LAKE XSEC - A -E\BOW LAKE XSEC A -E.DWG HORIZONTAL SCALE: 11 " =30' 0' 15' 30' 60' 0' 15' 30' 60' VERTICAL SCALE: 1"=30'' SimiZtld HWAGEOSCIENCES INC BOW LAKE TRANSFER /RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHIIN'GTONI EXISTING GROUND SURFACE CROSS SECTION A -A'' 3 3: 0 0 9 9 O' 2' 9 0 2' 7 0 216 0 940 930 3'10 90o 1 9 0: 1.8: 0 1 7 0 160 1 S'0 140 130 190 1 1 0: 1. 0 0 DRAWN, BY EEK CHECKED BY EL DATE' 05.14.07' Z, f=1J n LJI _1I w FIGURE NO :, 3,49 PROJECT NO :' 2003' - 008411 TASK - 2'10;0) REV 00'1KLSlX1X/XX 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 310 300 - 290 - 6 0 8S0 40 30 88 21 00 190 180 1 - 7'0 160 1 S 0 140 130 180 110 100 B The subsurface conditions shown are based on widely spaced borings and test pits and should be considered approximate. Further, the contact lines shown between units are interpretive in nature and may vary laterally or vertically over relatively short distances on site. S: \2003 PROJECTS \2003 - 608 -21 BOW LAKE TRANSFER STATION \CAD \TASK 2100 \BOW LAKE XSEC A -E\BOW LAKE XSEC A -E.DWG • B' E: 1"=30' 60' 60' : 1"=30' an.* V* u...a , 4 FILL WSDOT FILL REFUSE BURN FILL BOW LAKE TRANSFER /RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON R5 CROSS SECTION B -B' EXISTING GRADE PROPOSED GRADE DRAWN BY EEK CHECKED BY BL DATE 05.14.07 LEGEND 0 N CO 6 N -VALUE FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TEST 29 (BLOWS /FOOT) 50/3" BORING DESIGNATION AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION WATER LEVEL AT TIME OF DRILLING WATER LEVEL MEASURED IN PIEZOMETER ON THE DATE INDICATED. INFERRED GEOLOGIC CONTACT 35 SAND PACK AND SCREEN INTERVAL BOTTOM OF BORING FIGURE NO. 3B ... 1 PROJECT NO. 2003 - 008 -21 TASK -2100 50/ 4+ . 50/.4: :: 4MAYTAA. TATAWAWA%TATA�p'A`6.t� ATATATAT,a ,VATATATa' TAWAATAT ATT•►TATST►TAA1ATATATAAAA TATTAVAwA' ;�.. WAVATATATATATATA. VAVATAF;�/,�TiIN VAVAT/► =-�' TTA7CTATATATATATATAT AT�i�IA AIMINIUMNIMIIKONNIMUTANIML AVA TA7,. ►VATATO ATAT �. {{� iAa�A�ATAT � � YuiI1L`ra.%. 4 ' c ATATATAT, VarANT TATITA • _.•3'/TTYATATATf: ,ATATATATAAZ►TATATAT AWAY W AT,I 'CLrA' 0A..... MVO' ATAVAVA IVATAI ALVATAMA' YAVADBMIWAVATAV IS IT " . REF.0 HORIZONTAL SCAL 0' 15' 30' 0' 15' 30' VERTICAL SCALE HWAGEOSCJENCES INC REV 00 KLS X/X/XX : EXISTING FILL GLACIAL • BUILDING ACCESS: DEP ❑SITS • . . . 55 15 - • • . . :28. • • 2Q- .3 32 - . . . . . (58) •(140) (95> '•GLACIAL ••DEPOSITS EXISTINC GROUND. SURFACE G ACIAL• DEPOSITS 35- .55 •50 • 50/6.' J 50/5' LEGEND C V 6 N -VALUE FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TEST 29 (BLOWS /FOOT) 50/3" 35 BORING DESIGNATION AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION WATER LEVEL AT TIME OF DRILLING WATER LEVEL MEASURED IN PIEZOMETER ON THE DATE INDICATED. INFERRED GEOLOGIC CONTACT SAND PACK AND SCREEN INTERVAL BOTTOM OF BORING EXISTING GRADE PROPOSED GRADE O W Ej efATiU ....•.. FILL WSDOT FILL REFUSE BURN FILL The subsurface conditions shown are based on widely spaced borings and test pits and should be considered approximate. Further, the contact lines shown between units are interpretive in nature and may vary laterally or vertically over relatively short distances on site. S: \2003 PROJECTS \2003 - 005 -21 BOW LAKE TRANSFER STA11ON\CAD\TASK 2100\BOW LAKE XSEC A -E\BOW LAKE XSEC A -E.DWG HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1 " =30' 0' 15' 30' 60' 0' 15' 30' 60' VERTICAL SCALE: 1"=30' HWAGEOSCIENCES INC 50/6' • 50/6.' BOW LAKE TRANSFER /RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON CROSS SECTION B -B' B" 31 0 300 2 9 O 280 2 7 O 2 60 2 S O 4 O 3 0 2 2 O 10 00 1 9 0 180 1 7 0 1 6 O 1 0 1 4 0 130 1 0 100 DRAWN BY EEK CHECKED BY BL DATE 05.14.07 LLJ W z H FIGURE NO. 3B -2 PROJECT NO. 2003 - 008 -21 TASK -2100 PR ATD I REV 00 KLS X/X/XX i 11 11 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Intentionally Blank HWA GEO SCIE NC E S INC. BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON FIGURE NO. 3C PROJECT NO. 2003 -008 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 310 300 90 B O 7 O 60 zs 40 30 zoo 10 0 0 190 1 8 0 170 160 1 0 140 130 1 2 0 110 100 D 1z ... 51 ... ..� , TAM 6 . , ..► • FILL >/�'/►VOVAG,VVIWIA 2 D' r -�r• . 7� A t\ Al WAWA MIK%P. '► Pi VAV REFUSE ATATAVYANDVdVVOVARMTJ►Vr LIMY AVv VAVATATIMPAV �TA rAg ri► ' � 30 Y�� 35 . AST CCESS : ... DAD TRAILER 'LEAD:ING: P EXIT RAMP . ...GLAC ... DEPLJ A ► 1► ` J , I ►7� 7 7 �` ri AteeArAMTAT TATAr to rAvAvAvA IV Pr YeLA%TA AVATA LEGEND 50/3" - -?- -- 35 6 N -VALUE FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TEST 29 (BLOWS /FOOT) BORING DESIGNATION AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION WATER LEVEL AT TIME OF DRILLING WATER LEVEL MEASURED IN PIEZOMETER ON THE DATE INDICATED. INFERRED GEOLOGIC CONTACT SAND PACK AND SCREEN INTERVAL BOTTOM OF BORING EXISTING GRADE PROPOSED GRADE BOW LAKE TRANSFER /RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON CROSS SECTION D -D' DRAWN BY EDS 05.14.07 The subsurface conditions shown are based on widely spaced borings and test pits and should be considered approximate. Further, the contact lines shown between units are interpretive in nature and may vary laterally or vertically over relatively short distances on site. S: \2003 PROJECTS\2003- 008 -21 BOW LAKE TRANSFER STATION \CAD\TASK =VOW - CAKE XSEC A -E\BOW LAKE XSEC A -E.DWG HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1 " =30' 0' 15' 30' 60' 0' 15' 30' 60' VERTICAL SCALE: 1 " =30' HWAGEOSC,IENCES INC ?AVIVI VAVAVA !A IWO VA FILL WSDOT FILL REFUSE BURN FILL FIGURE NO. CHECKED. BY BL 3D-1 PROJECT NO. 2003 - 008 -21 TASK -2100 REV 00 KLS X/X/XX 1 C) z m I I 0 Lf) W I- f W Fdic) ... : • :' :: • R:E:T:A:I N G' : ° : :.. . • WALL T ... .'...... MkAVA .AV FATATATA►Y�►F'-' ,.�7A TVA" �' 6- ' (1J Lila . . . . . . . . . 4 Z U) FILL: : REFUSE: 4U 45 • • ..... •.•• •••• 511 . . . . . . . . . • LEGEND 50/3" 35 N m BORING' DESIGNATION' AND APPROXIMATE, LOCATION 6 -1 N -VALUE F ROMI STANDARD PENETRATION TEST 29 (BLOWS /FOOT) 2- WATER LEVEL AT TIME OF DRILLING WATER LEVEL MEASURED IN PIEZOMETER' ON THE DATE INDICATED. INFERRED GEOLOGIC CONTACT SAND PACK'AND SCREEN INTERVAL BOTTOM OF BORING EXISTING' GRADE' PROPOSED GRADE S AILER.... . 'ADIING• PIT • (TRANCE .. MP' - GLACIAL •, : DEPISITS :.: OAlin MUYA FILL WSDOT FILL REFUSE BURN' FILL • 50/6'- • 64•= 1 - . . . . . . . . . 22- The subsurface conditions shown are based on widely spaced borings and test pits and should be considered approximate. Further, the contact lines shown between units are interpretive in nature and may vary laterally or vertically over relatively short distances on site. MENEM S: \2003 PROJECTS\ 2003 - 008 -21 BOW LAKE TRANSFER STATTONVADVASK 2100 \BOW LAKE XSEC'A -E\BOW LAKE (SEC A -E.DWG •RI]AD • BOW LAKE TRANSFER /RECYCLING STATION TUKWIILA, WASHINGTON CROSS SECTION( D -D'' 3 1 O' 3 O 0 2'9 0 810 — z "7 0' 6 01 01 4 01 310 10 00 1 910 - 1 8 1 "0 160 - 1�I0' = 1 4 01 1.3' 01 1.2 01 1. 1. 0 1 0 01 FIGURE'. NO:, ?RAWNI 3D-2 CHECKED( BYr BL DATE; 05.114.07 z PROJECT HO: 1 2003-G0'8; -211 TASK; 211 :01 1 :E X:ISTIN • • GROUND s CCESS` HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1 " =30' 0' 115' 30' 60' 0' 1 30' 60' VERTICAL SCALE: 1 " =30' GEOSCLENCES INC REV 00,K'LSIXJX/XX 8' W LLJ z 01 L_ z 11 \ 2 2' LLJ' _J 3 1 0 3 0 0 9 0 0 2 S O W O O 1.9 0 18 ;0 1 '7 0 1 .6 O 1 S 0 1.4 0 1.3 0 1 z'0 1.1 0 1 , 01 0 of fATa VA !WA FR 'TjT,►T�i1,i�'T AVATA' . `IATA t SWAT 'WAWA IR Wil a 16 V ►TATATATONTAT®TAIMICiPAYAY , , IFA , :. O VA A 4J►TAVAT1►Tt►M . rAVAVAAaFAI &TTY; f�� r►�'�►TATATAIliVAT�1T�T la OFATereT,e,�s, ATSTsvi► IF € �.vw - ... . * 3 35 I • • ..... GLACIAL • •50/3' :' :' ::: : u EPOSITS : : 77 85 • • •EXISTING' BUILDING ........ FILL • •REFU GLACIAL: . . DEPOSITS: (25 . . (49 • • (90) • • • (10b) . 1 •DRY ' 1/29'/75 L: CHECKED' BY BL DATE, 05.14.,07' The subsurface conditions shown are based on widely spaced borings and test pits and should be considered approximate, Further; the contact lines shown between units are interpretive in nature and may vary laterally or vertically over relatively short distances on. site. S: A2003 PROJECTS\ 2003 - 008 -21 BOW LAKE TRANSFER STATION \CAD \TASK 2100 \BOW LAKE RSEC A —E\BBW LAKE X ES C': A —E.DWG HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1 " =30' 0' 115" 30' 60' 0' 115" 30' 60' VERTICAL SCALE: 1 " =30' HMGEOSCIENCES INC FILL, WSDOT FILL rAvAvAl REFUSE flaUvAt BURN RILL. BOW' LAKE'. TRANSFER/RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHIINGTON LEGEND 6� 291 50/31 351 INFERRED GEOLOGIC CONTACT ' CROSS'', SECTION E -E'' BORING DESIGNATION) AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION) N- VALUE' FROM) STANDARD' PEN ETRATION', TEST (BLOWS /FOOT)) WATER' LEVEL AT TIME OF DRILLING' WATER LEVEL MEASURED IN.PIEZOMETE} ON)THE', DATE INDICATED . SAND) PACK AND SCREEN) INTERVAL BOTTOM OF BORING) EXISTING GRADE PROPOSED GRADE, FIGURE NO:, DRAWN BY' EEK PROJECT NO 2003 - 008' -2.1. TASK- 21100) REV 00 KL'S'1X/X/XX' 1\ LEGEND N 6 -1 N -VALUE' FROM STANDARD -I I I PENETRATIONITEST 29, (BLOWS /FOOT) 50/3" 35 a BORING DESIGNATION AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION WATER LEVEL AT TIME OF DRILLING' WATER LEVEL MEASURED IN PIEZOMETER' ON THE DATE INDICATED. 3 /9/07 _ —_-?-__ INFERRED GEOLOGIC CONTACT SAND' PACK AND SCREEN INTERVAL BOTTOM OF BORING EXISTING GRADE, PROPOSED GRADE - ieham rATATiITATAI AAMIYib AMMEMI . j atik FATATA Mige ST T AvA111Er 11J ct CV-3 ti O cv (� d r YL • ., . . . . . . . . .NDRT TRAILER PARKIN AREA . .. .. .. . .. .. ..... . • NORTH, • ., . • .. ...... . :,ACCESS .:. .:.' .:.. . TRAILER• LOADING PI . . . .GLACIA . . . .DEPOS[ ® , . . off` • YATATANBWAYASTATAyATATAWAVAlliiff TALTO if • The subsurface conditions shown are based) on widely spaced borings and test pits and should be considered approximate. Further, the contact lines shown between units are interpretive in, nature and may vary laterally or vertically over relatively short , distances on site. �� A� •. :. " FILL WSDOT FILL REFUSE BURN FILL XSEC'A -E\BOW LAKE XSEC A -E.DWG HORIZONTAL SCALE 11 " =30" 0' 15' 30' 60' ax. o a. 0' 15' 30' 60' VERTICAIL. SCALE: 1 " =30'' HWAGEOSCIENCES'INC BOW LAKE TRANSFER /RECYCLING' STATION TU'KWIILA, WASHINGTON 'S : 311 0 31010 910 Et 7' 0 2 6 0 310 211 z�010� 1.9101 1. 8101 1. T of 1 O 1 4 0 1 3 0 1. 0 1,1 .0 1 0 CROSS SECTION E - E LLJI L1J 1 z F Hl 4. Z MI >' L,J J W' DRAWNI BY' EEK CHECKED) BY? BL DATE 05.14.07, FIGURE NO: 3E PROJECT NO. 2003- 008' -211 TASK - 211001 J REV 00 KLS'X/X/XX', 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 310 300 290 80 270 2260 0 40 2 3 0 220 1 0 2 0 0 190 180 1 160 1 S 0 140 130 1 2 0 110 100 F w E C! N N 0 CC cl- UJ ICOMMIIM LEGEND N 6 N -VALUE FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TEST Z9 (BLOWS /FOOT) 50/3" BORING DESIGNATION AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION WATER LEVEL AT TIME OF DRILLING WATER LEVEL MEASURED IN PIEZOMETER ON THE DATE INDICATED. _— INFERRED GEOLOGIC CONTACT 35 - 8 SAND PACK AND SCREEN INTERVAL BOTTOM OF BORING EXISTING GRADE PROPOSED GRADE CROSS SECTION F -F' DRAWN BY MK_ CHECKED BY BL DATE 05.14.07 PROJECT NO. N LiJ z 1 < 2 FIGURE N0. 3F -1 2003 - 008 -211 TASK -2100 N N 03 im AkviakvAvAlk -"4411111E11111111111111.Prior �ta,ts� ... � ... ._ .�.= bKsT .... ^, ATAVATAYAVATABIWAVAVA - - FIL:L;UUITH REFUSE v �� i -�- A � I , GLACIAL 0�i f DEPOSITS ..... T - ; i — �►7 A..c.o , . r1 The subsurface conditions shown are based on widely spaced borings and test pits and should be considered approximate. Further, the contact lines shown between units are interpretive in nature and may vary laterally or vertically over relatively short distances on site. 1 S: \2003 PROJECTS\f0O3 -008 21 BOW LAKE MANS STA11ON \CAD\TASK 2100 \BOW LAKE XSEC A —E \BOW LAKE XSEC A E.DWG 0' 15' 30' VERTICAL SCALE: 1 " =30' HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1 " =30' 0' 15' 30' 60' HWAGEOSCIENCES INC 60' OriTin WOO 18 3D 48 44 37 43 TVa9 /76 FILL WSDOT FILL REFUSE BURN FILL • • 31 a BOW LAKE TRANSFER /RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON REV 00 KLS X/X/XX 2-2 E %I TRAAN 5 101 31 T cc f3LJILDING AN" Ter �aaceeeee ere,_ ;STA eeeel►eeeeeee , '�Weeeeeel�s ee ALveTA►eev Aeeeeee: . 3 17 • • 3 :FELL 1MTH ;REFUSE LEGEND 6 29 50/3" 35 BORING DESIGNATION AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION N -VALUE FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (BLOWS/FOOT) WATER LEVEL AT TIME OF DRILLING WATER LEVEL MEASURED IN PIEZOMETER ON THE DATE INDICATED. —_�_- INFERRED GEOLOGIC CONTACT SAND PACK AND SCREEN INTERVAL BOTTOM OF BORING EXISTING GRADE PROPOSED GRADE GLACIAL DEPOSITS ...... . ........ ......... ......... IAV j.A. ►YArAV1 • . . .51 FILL WSDOT FILL REFUSE BURN FILL The subsurface conditions shown are based on. widely spaced borings and test pits and should be considered approximate. Further, the contact lines shown between units are interpretive in nature and may vary laterally or vertically over relatively short distances on site. 0/ YAW ( 3 - S: \2003 PROJECTS \2003-008-21 BOW LAKE TRANSFER - ON \CAD \TASK 2100 \B0W LAKE XSEC A -E\BOW LAKE XSEC A -E.DWG FILL 75 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57.- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93- T 1/29/76. HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1"=30' 0' 15' 30' 60' 0' 15' 30' 60' VERTICAL SCALE: 1"=30' . . . . . 0 CO U) T.H REFUSE • „_, - - 8 80 4 .. 94 6101'. • • FILL • • • • HWAGEOSCIENCES INC _ . .... .. . . . . . .24 BUILDING ... . . .... . ..... . 51 PROPOSFn MAIN 1 .� FILL WITH REFUSE • GLACIAL • • . • • • DEPOSITS • • FNANCE M CV w CV 0 cc CROSS SECTION F -F' DRAWN BY EEK CHECKED BY BL DATE 05.14.07 FIGURE NO 3F -2 PROJECT N0. 2003 - 008 -21 TASK -2100 ; •. BOW LAKE TRANSFER /RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON • • A Teeeeei REV DO KLS' X/XDCX r 1 1 1 it i .. w • • .... • j j • ... ...... .......... 1 1 1 1 1 1 PROPOSED TRANSFER BUILDING GLACI DEPDS ........ ........ ....... ......... ......... ........ ........ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... LEGEND 6 29 50/3" 35 a BORING DESIGNATION AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION N -VALUE FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (BLOWS /FOOT) WATER LEVEL AT TIME OF DRILLING WATER LEVEL MEASURED IN PIEZOMETER ON THE DATE INDICATED. INFERRED GEOLOGIC CONTACT SAND PACK AND SCREEN INTERVAL BOTTOM OF BORING EXISTING GRADE PROPOSED GRADE erovi 1 1 m FILL WSDOT FILL REFUSE BURN FILL The subsurface conditions shown are based on widely spaced borings and test pits and should be considered approximate. Further, the contact lines shown between units are interpretive in nature and may vary laterally or vertically over relatively short distances on site. . ........ ......... ... .............. S: \2003 PROJECTS \2003 X08 -21 BOW LAKE STATION \CAD\TASK 2100\BOW LAKE XSEC A —E \BOW LAKE XSEC A E.DWG N m w 0 a_ .................. .•, .. BURN FILL .. :....: �..' ;�:•.! L�•.•iLi„•tt.' • {s_L•i aa�1�• • E •• • ' •�• ' 1 •' i i '•• i i i ♦ •'? _56 � HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1 " =30' 0' 15' 30' 60' 0' 15' 30' 60' VERTICAL SCALE: 1"=30' HWAGEOS(NCES INC CROSS SECTION F- F' F DRAWN BY EEK CHECKED BY HL DATE 05. 310 0 0 2 9 O o 27O 60 � S O 4 23 O 1 0 00 1 9 0 1 B o 1 7 O 1 S O 1 0 1 40 130 120 110 100 FIGURE NO. 3F -3 PROJECT NO. 2003 -008 -21 TASK -2100 1— bJ LL z J BOW LAKE TRANSFER /RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON REV DO KLS XJX/XX LLJ L- z I-1 310 3 0 0: 2 9 0 2 8'0I 2 7 0: 2 6 0. 2 0 2 4 O 2 3:0: 2 2 0' 210: 20'0 190 180 170 1.6 0 1 S10 140 0 . . The subsurface conditions shown: are based on widely spaced borings and test pits and should be considered: approximate. Further,, the contact lines shown between units are interpretive in nature and may vary laterally or vertically over relatively short distances on: site. S: \2003 PROJECTS \2003- 008 -21 BOW LAKE TRANSFER STATION \CAD \TASK 2100 \BOW LAKE XSEC A -E \BOW LAKE X ES C A -E.DWG i V)I HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1"=30' 0' 15' 30' 60' ===n 0' 15' 30' 60' VERTICAL SCALE: 1 " =30' HWAGEOSCIENCESINC I'M WAWA FA& . , 50/5' �_ _ • L T r 7\ RFEUS ADVANCE OUTWASH ••• • 1 • • • FILL WSDOT FILL. REFUSE BURN FILL in Ili I (4) LEGEND! O (V 61 N- VALUE 'FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TEST' 29 (BLOWS /FOOT) 50/3" a BORING' DESIGNATION AND' APPROXIMATE LOCATION WATER' LEVEL AT TIME' OF DRILLING WATiER'LEVEL,MEASURED IN PIEZOMETER' ON THE, DATE INDICATED!, INFERRED GEOLOGIC CONTACT' 35 _ SAND: PACK' AND SCREENIINTERVALI BOTTOM OF BORING EXISTING GRADE PROPOSED GRADE CROSS SECTION. G -G' DRAWN BY, EEK CHECKED) BY' E DATE{ 05.�1'I�4.07' J FIGURE NOS 3Gi -�1 PROJECT( NOL 2003 - 00;8' -2 TAS K= 21100; .�.��. "f ::::: ::� �PRDPOSEDI:DETENTION BOW LAKE TRANSFER/RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON REV'00 KLSI X X/XX, ::::I::: • tt * . • 1:iii, 1 co • • • • tt . t. i < - r t . LEGEND 6 29 50/3" 35 N 07 BORING DESIGNATION AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION N -VALUE FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TEST {BLOWS /FOOT) WATER LEVEL AT TIME OF DRILLING WATER LEVEL MEASURED IN.PIEZOMETER ON THE DATE INDICATED. INFERRED GEOLOGIC CONTACT SAND PACK AND SCREEN INTERVAL BOTTOM OF BORING EXISTI N G' GRADE PROPOSED GRADE z . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .R. N . .. ' cE ' • ..... N ',� PROPO, ED TRANSF BUIL • • - . .. .N ce . .... . i ..'. .... . .. , . . DING: , • : . _ ..... . . . . + . ....... , . .,,,-,., ...... ..... +. .... . . ........ 7 P:4 ' ..... 1... ... lo.— . . a _ 5 _!__._�._._._._= __S L: . WSDOTFLL. - _ w_ ... *r ';:BURN FILL,- " j ,t .. veroe GLAC DEPO O piltfmr ••■•••• Immo "-ell00—.11.11r" I .. • ••• .. 4P- 0/6''= •7o ITS Z' The subsurface conditions shown are based on widely spaced borings and test pits and should be considered approximate. Further; the contact lines shown between units are interpretive in nature andl may vary laterally or vertically over relatively short distances on site. FILL WSDOT FILL REFUSE BURN FILL S: \2003 PROJECTS \2003- 008 -21 BOW LAKE TRANSFER STATTON\CAD\TASK 2100 \SOW LAKE XSEC, A -E\BOW LAKE XSEC' A-E.DWG z '6' • • o1111•111•11 • NEI . . . . . . GLACIAL. DEPO . HWAGEOSCIENCES INC • HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1"=30' 0' 15' 30' 60' 0' 15' 30' 60' VERTICAL SCALE: 1' " =30' J. _: — • .....32.- . . . . . 46•— : . : 5 66•— • • • • • • • • • • ......... •••...... • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • W.Z. /6'. /6' ' - • 50/4'' • — 50/3' • 50/6' • = _1 • • • BOW LAKE TRANSFER /RECYCLING STATION TUKWIILA, WASHIINGTON • .GLACIAL :DEPOSITS CROSS SECTION — 311, 0. . , — 310'0 9. 0 2;81 7' 01 0. ,5101 81 • 01 21 0' x'1 OI 01 1,9)0 1,8101 1, 7' 0' 1, 1, 1 HECKEDI B' U_ Alt 05'14.07' FIGURE NO DRAWN' BY' EEK REV 00 KLS'X/XIXX] J 3G-2 PROJECT PROJECT NOL 2003-008,-2.11 TASK = 2111001' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 H W I-1 31 0 300 290 280 270 2 6 O O 40 230 220 210 200 190 18 0 170 160 1 0 1 • 0 130 z co '.0 The subsurface conditions shown are based on widely spaced borings and test pits and should be considered approximate. Further, the contact lines shown between units are interpretive in nature and may vary laterally or vertically over relatively short distances on site. S: \2003 PROJECTS \2003 - 008 -21 BOW LAKE TRANSFER STATION \CAD \TASK 2100 \BOW LAKE XSEC A —E \BOW LAKE XSEC A —E.DWG pal HWAGEOSCIENCES INC 00 BOW LAKE TRANSFER /RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON CROSS SECTION H -H' DRAWN BY EEK CHECKED BY BL DATE 05.14.07 PROJECT N0. 2003 - 008 -21 TASK -2100 FIGURE NO. 3H -1 REV 00 KLS'XJX,XX ELEVATION v Q .... .... ......... 3NI1 : 'raid 9E2 -E PDNd) :::E -dl :rD *d PROPOSED RANSFER B ILOING• • • •TP -4 - :. ::(PRDJ: :: :1 : :::: _MGR :::;:•:••••:•:::::•:•:• Ei. -PROPER PR ❑P❑SI : �: V '.l • . •a•. ..1 :: .'..2_ . •••••••;50/ .�.t.•a♦.. .. 27 f ♦ ♦.'fn. • • f *f'f'a'..•I ftf` ... ♦. .I.tf'a': 'f�•tf`f•4' . ;BURN + FI :::•:•a': ;4:• • .. • • t�t i •``` + ............„...,:+.::•••• 4 'f'V • • Y •� • •*'. ' .• :: • •0•f f' . +•♦l +Y I .t ' '' :sue_ • ' 4 ' f V + f + l'•• • • 1. . '' •••..••••�• • ♦` 1 t ' • . . f • ;.; ill A .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 . .. • 0/3 - • '+' +• +• + ■ ♦ : =j =ice- •0/S .. • '. '.:. + +' a• • • • • •t' �� GLACIAL' • • • • + • . . y"' w . . + • . r .• -sue -- . • ADVANCE.0UTWASH ..... .. . . . . . . DEPOSfTS • LEGEND 6 29 50/3" - -----?-__ __ 35 p BORING N AND APPROXIMATE N -VALUE PENETRATION (BLOWS a WATER — WATER M ON THE _____ INFERRED SAND PACK BOTTOM DESIGNATION LOCATION. FROM STANDARD TEST /FOOT) LEVEL AT TIME OF DRILLING LEVEL MEASURED IN PIEZOMETE,R DATE INDICATED. GEOLOGIC CONTACT AND SCREEN INTERVAL OF BORING . . . . • • • • . • . . ' . . FILL WSDOT FILL V...ii REFUSE ..•.... HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1 " " "'" =30' 0' 15' 30' 60' .'.' BURN FILL �'I ° EXISTING GRADE 0' 15' 30' 60' � ' — PROPOSED GRADE VERTICAL SCALE: 1"=30' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 H W I-1 31 0 300 290 280 270 2 6 O O 40 230 220 210 200 190 18 0 170 160 1 0 1 • 0 130 z co '.0 The subsurface conditions shown are based on widely spaced borings and test pits and should be considered approximate. Further, the contact lines shown between units are interpretive in nature and may vary laterally or vertically over relatively short distances on site. S: \2003 PROJECTS \2003 - 008 -21 BOW LAKE TRANSFER STATION \CAD \TASK 2100 \BOW LAKE XSEC A —E \BOW LAKE XSEC A —E.DWG pal HWAGEOSCIENCES INC 00 BOW LAKE TRANSFER /RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON CROSS SECTION H -H' DRAWN BY EEK CHECKED BY BL DATE 05.14.07 PROJECT N0. 2003 - 008 -21 TASK -2100 FIGURE NO. 3H -1 REV 00 KLS'XJX,XX ELEVATION Z' m w 2• SDOTFILL : • 111■1=113 111•11•1•141 LEGEND 0 CV 6 N -VALUE FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TEST 29 (BLOWS /FOOT) 50/3" 35 BORING DESIGNATION AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION WATER LEVEL AT TIME OF DRILLING WATER LEVEL MEASURED IN PIEZOMETER ON THE DATE INDICATED. INFERRED GEOLOGIC CONTACT SAND PACK AND SCREEN INTERVAL BOTTOM OF BORING EXISTING GRADE PROPOSED GRADE ter• ♦ .'lZi r -• GLACIAL DEPOSITS VAS'S.' iVa • • + h FILL WSDOT FILL REFUSE BURN FILL 3 z n The subsurface conditions shown are based on widely spaced borings and test pits and should be considered approximate. Further, the contact lines shown between units are interpretive in nature and may vary laterally or vertically over relatively short distances on site. S: \2003 PROJECTS \2003- 008 -21 - BOW LAKE TRANSFER STA11ON \CAD \TASK 00 \BOW LAKE XSEC A -E \BOW LAKE XSEC A -E.DWG WSDCr.FILL z C) CT o MI■1•11l HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1 " =30' 0' 15' 30' 60' 0' 15' 30' 60' VERTICAL SCALE: 1 " =30' Y31 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC 16- 27- 61- 33- 36- 52- v) u 5 ' - 5C •5C /6' /6' GLACIAL •_ 5C/6' /4'........ /3'. . . . . . . DEPOSITS . • . BOW LAKE TRANSFER /RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON - 3010 29 310 220 2 7 0 26O 2s 0 240 230 220 210 0 0 1 9 0 1 2 0 1 7 0 160 1 0 140 130 CROSS SECTION H -H' DRAWN BY EEK CHECKED BY DATE 05.14.07 FIGURE NO. 3H -2 PROJECT NO. 2003 - 008 -21 TASK -2100 REV 00 KLS XJXiXX LU W LL z 1-1 3' 0 O0 9'0 z g O ' 2'. 7 O 6 0 01 2140 3 01 211 0 0 0' 1.9 0 180 1 7 0i 1.6 0 I CIAL : : POSITS • .. .ADVAN.0 N800T:FILL moo'..... LdCZ ....... PROPOSED ;TRANSFER ;:BUILDING : : : I . : The subsurface conditions shown are based on widely spaced borings and test pits and should be considered approximate. Further, the contact lines shown between' units are interpretive in nature and may vary laterally or vertically over relatively short distances on site. S: \2003 PROJECTS\ 2063- 00S -21i BOW LAKE TRANSFER STA11ON \CAD\TASK 100 \BOW LAKE XSEC A -E\BOW LAKE XSEC A -E.DWG HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1"=30! 0' 15' 30' 60' ik:rz 0' 15' 30' 60' VERTICAL SCALE: 11 " =30' HWAGEOSCIENCES'INC. woo • voo p FILL WSDOT FILL REFUSE' BURN FILL BOW LAKE TRANSFER /RECYC LING STATIION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON LEGEND N 6 N- VALU FROM I STAN DAR D' P EN ETRATi ION I TEST' 29 (BLOWS /FOOTI) 50/3 "• 35 BO R]NGIDESIGNATIONI AND' AP P ROXIMATELOCATION I WATER' LEVEL AT TIME OFDRILLINGI WATER, LEVEL, MEASUREDI INI PIEZOMETER ONITHEI DATE' INDICATED:. ___ __ INFERRED GEOLOGIC CONTACT' SAN DI PACK AND SCREENI INTERVAL BOTTOMI OE BORING'. EXISTINGIGRADE PROPOSED' GRADE CROSS SECTION T II DRAWN BY EEK CHECKED BYFHL DATE 0514.07' FIGURE NOS 31 -11 PROJECT NOL 2003- 0;0a -21 TASK-210G REV 00'KLS'XJXJXX' J 1 -I. � 1 LEGEND I o N 0] 6 29 50/3" 35 BORING DESIGNATION AND APPROXIMATE LOCATIONI N -VALUE FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TEST' (BLOWS /FOOT)1 WATER LEVEL AT TIME OF DRILLING WATER LEVEL MEASURED IN PIEZOMETER' ON THE DATE: INDICATED. INFERRED GEOLOGIC CONTACT SAND PACK AND SCREEN INTERVAL BOTTOM OF BORING EXISTING GRADE PROPOSED GRADE W . n w .. 40 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31 -. . . .. .... .. .. ... ,. 3 ' =.. 11 !O■• Wave AIWA ♦ 4 4 4 4 FILL WSDOT FILL REFUSE. BURN FILL. SDO.TFILL I. - J • The subsurface conditions shown are based on widely' spaced borings and test pits and should be considered approximate. Further, the contact lines shown between' units are interpretive in nature and may vary laterally or vertically over relatively short distances on site. B: \2003 PROJECTS \2003 - 008 -21 BOW - LAKE 'TRANSFER STATION \CAD\TASK 2100 \BOW LAKE XSEC A -E\BOW LAKE, XSEC C' A -E.DWG 34 43 1 L,J HORIZONTAL SCALE: 11 " =30' 0 15' 30' 60' 0' 15' 30' 60' VERTICAL SCALE: 1"=30' HWAGEOSCIENCESIINC • WS - DOT FILL •• • GLACIAL • DEPOSITS• BOW LAKE TRANSFER /RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTONI - 31 Oi - -4 O z 2130 2'.2O 211 0 2'010 1 9 0 ' 1 8'10 1.7 0 1601 CROSS SECTION L,JI LLII LL_ z DRAWN BY' Eft( CHECKEDI BY BL DATE' 05.114'.07 FIGURE NOS 31'1 =12, PROJECT' NO: 2003- 008' -211 TASK - 2100) REV 00KLS,X/XJXXC 310 300 - 290 — L 2 g: ° — : :...... . L� ie'- 97 0 H - • • • • • ADVANCE OUTWASH' o. z 24-0 — ~ 930 — Q X2 W 2 J _ I 1 200 1 9 0 Igo 1 7 0 16 1 S 0 14-0 1.3:0 HORIZONTAL SCALE: 11 " =30' 0' 15' 30' 60' 0' 115' 30' 60' VERTICAL SCALE: 11 " =30'' j Ui o 0 cv ° LL ..— .era'. ®.: _r. a . v.. ......... ......... The subsurface conditions shown are based on widely spaced borings', and test pits and should be considered approximate. Further, the' contact lines shown between' units are interpretive in nature and may vary laterally or vertically over relatively short distances on 1 , site. S:. \2003 PROJECTS \2003- 00B- 21:BOW LAKE TRANSFER STATTON\CAD\TASK 2100 \BOW LAKE XSEC A -E\BOW LAKE XSEC C A -E.DWG R.1 -7 (11 ° LEAD'S terAirAl LVATAIN FILL: WSDOT FILL. REFUSE'. BURN. FILL BOW LAKE TRANSFER /RECYCLING'' STATION TUKWILA,, WASHINGTON LEGEND 50/3r 35 O' m BORINGIDESIGNATION! AND AP P R OXIMATE' LOCATION 6 N—VALUEI FROM' STANDARD PENETRATION TEST 29' (BLOWS /FOOT) WATER, LEVEL AT'TIME,OF DRILLING) WATER' LEVEL.MEASUREDI INI PIEZOMETER ON THE DATE' INDICATED., _ _— INFERRED'. GEOLOGIC CONTACT' SAND'PACK'AND SCREEN INTERVAL BOTTOM OF BORING EXISTINGGRADE': P ROPOSED'GRADE CROSS SECTION 3—j FIGURE NO. DRAWNIBY' EEK 3 1 CHECKED' BY BT DATE 05.114!.07 PROJECT NO 2003- 008' -211 TASK - 2100 1 - — v I M .moo HWAGEOSCIENCES INC REV 00 KLS,X/X/XX: LEGEND 0 N 6 N -VALUE FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TEST 29 (BLOWS /FOOT) 50/3" 35 BORING DESIGNATION AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION WATER LEVEL AT TIME OF DRILLING WATER LEVEL MEASURED IN PIEZOMETER ON THE DATE INDICATED. INFERRED GEOLOGIC CONTACT SAND PACK AND SCREEN INTERVAL BOTTOM OF BORING EXISTING GRADE PROPOSED GRADE , 047.10 IVAY. : • 0 • • FILL WSDOT FILL REFUSE BURN FILL in M M -5 o N c I i��r�r "�� S`IS�ISel�dO�e�'�i► 0- 41 -• 58. -. 44._. . . . 48 0 • DRY 9/9/07 The subsurface conditions shown are based on widely spaced borings and test pits and should be considered approximate. Further, the contact lines shown between units are interpretive in nature and may vary laterally or vertically over relatively short distances on site. 5: \2003 PROJECTS \2003 - 008 -21 BOW LAKE TRANSFER STATION \CAD \TASK 2100 \BOW LAKE XSEC 7C \BOW LAKE XSEC A -E.DWG ADVANCE 'OUTWRSH w 00 N co —5 I p HWAGEOSCIENCES INC 64 BO - • - 5d A 52 54 60 78 50/5' 72 50/6" • • • ADVANCE OUTNASH • DRY 3/9/07 . BOW LAKE TRANSFER /RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON • CROSS SECTION HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1 " =30' 0' 15' 3D' 60' 0' 15' 30' 60' VERTICAL SCALE: 1" =30' DRAWN BY Ea. CHECKED BY BL DATE 05.14.07 FIGURE N0. 3J -2 PROJECT N0. 2003 - 008 -21 TASK -2100 REV D0 KLS XXX/XX LEGEND 0 CV m 6 N- VALUE, FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TEST 29 (BLOWS /FOOT) 50/3 35 BORING DESIGNATION AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION WATER' LEVEL ATI TIME OF DRILLING WATER LEVEL MEASURED IN PIEZOMETER' ON THE' DATE' INDICATED. INFERRED GEOLOGIC CONTACT SAND PACK ANDI SCREENI INTERVAL BOTTOMIOF BORING EXISTINGIGRADE' PROPOSED GRADE FILL WSDOT FILL REFUSE BURN FILL 50/6' • • 50/6' • - . � . 50/4' . 50/3' • • 50/6' • s LACIAL • • T' — 1TpOra I- 1 t The subsurface conditions shown are based onI widely spaced) borings and test pits and should be considered approxirnate. Further, the contact lines shown between units are interpretive in' nature and may vary laterally or vertically over relatively short distances on site. S: \2003 PROJECTS V003-008-211 BOW LAKE TRANSFER STKTION\CAD \TASK 2100 \BOW LAKE, XSEC k -E`BOW LAKE, )(SEC A -E.DWG HWAGEOSC'IENCES INC BOW LAKE TRANSFER /RECYCLING STATION' TUKWILA, WASHINGTON CROSS SECTION WI LJ 1 z 1: 1 z H I Li J LLI HORIZONTAL SCALE: 11 " =30'' 0" 1 30' 60'' Yrr+r�• eamaa€�cay — Ii 0'' 15' 30'' 50!' VERTICAL SCALE r=307' DRAWN or EEK CHECKED': BY B[. DATE 05.14.07 .FIGURE; NO:, 31j -3 PROJECT' NO., 2003' - 005,21 TASK' 2'1100 REV 'DO'KLS,XJ)CXX. W W LL_ 7 33O 320 31 0 300 290 280 2 7 0 260 2S0 240 230 220 210 2 0 0 190 1 8 O 17 16 w N M N DK PZI .�. LEGEND 35 N m 50/3" BORING DESIGNATION AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION 6 -1 N -VALUE FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TEST 29 (BLOWS /FOOT) WATER LEVEL AT TIME OF DRILLING WATER LEVEL MEASURED IN PIEZOMETER ON THE DATE INDICATED. INFERRED GEOLOGIC CONTACT SAND PACK AND SCREEN INTERVAL BOTTOM OF BORING EXISTING GRADE PROPOSED GRADE HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1 " =30' 0' 15' 30' 60' 0' 15' 30' 60' VERTICAL SCALE: 1"=30' S: \2003 PROJECTS \2003- 05B -21 BOW LAKE TRANSFER STA11ON\CAD \TASK 2100 \BOW LAKE XSEC A -E\BOW LAKE XSEC A E.DWG NOTE: The subsurface conditions shown are based on widely spaced borings and test pits and should be considered approximate. Further, the contact lines shown between units are interpretive in nature and may vary laterally or vertically over relatively short distances on site. HWAGEOSCIENCES INC WIMP • FILL WSDOT FILL REFUSE BURN FILL BOW LAKE TRANSFER /RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON K — 330 — 320 3 1 0 — 3 0 O - 290 2 8 0 — 270 — 2 6 O 0 .4 O — 23O 22 21 0 0 19 1 80 1 7 0 — 1 6 0 CROSS SECTION K -K' W W LL_ 7 H DRAWN BY EEK CHECKED BY ET_ DATE 05.14.07 FIGURE NO. 3K PROJECT NO. 2003 - 008 -21 TASK -2100 REV DO KLS XJX/XX Refuse Settlement Calculations Primary Settlement S p = HC vo , . tier)/ a ,,o) Bow Lake Transfer / Recycling Station Secondary Settlement ilH= Cae log zit H 1 Biodegradation BID S = H 1 002) 4 30) Settlement = Primary+Secondary+ Biodegradation Unit Wt. (pcf) Primary consol coeff. Secondary coeff. Biodegrade tion= 0.2 percent Newly Added Fill 120.000 Landfill cover soil 120.000 Refuse 1 93.000 0.250 0.030 0.002 Glacial Deposits 138.000 Primary days 0.300 yrs Long term 50.000 yrs I nitial Height of Refuse (ft) Unit Wt. (pct) Land fill cover (ft) Unit Wt. (pct) Newly Added Fill Height (ft) Unit Wt. (pct) Overburden (psi) Stress due to New Fill (pst) Primary settlement (ft) Secondary (ft) Biodegradat ion (f0 Total Settlement (ft) 5.000 '-: • 93.000 ' ` -5.000 ' 120:000 ';' . , ' 10:000 ' .120.000 832.500 1200.000 0.485 0.333 0.476 1.294 6.000 93.000 5.000 120.000 10.000 120.000 879.000 1200.000 0.561 0.400 0.572 1.532 8.000 93.000 5.000 120.000 10.000 120.000 972.000 1200.000 0.698 0.533 0.762 1.994 9.000 93.000 5.000 120.000 10.000 120.000 1018.500 1200.000 0.761 0.600 0.857 2.218 10.000 -- - 93.000 5.000 120:000 10:000 " - : 120.000 1065.000 1200.000 0.819 0.687 0.953 2.438 11.000 93.000 5.000 120.000 10.000 120.000 1111.500 1200.000 0.874 0.733 1.048 2.655 12.000 93.000 5.000 120.000 10.000 120.000 1158.000 1200.000 0.927 0.800 1.143 2.869 13.000 93.000 5.000 120.000 10.000 120.000 1204.500 1200.000 0.976 0.867 1.238 3.081 14.000 93.000 5.000 120.000 10.000 120.000 1251.000 1200.000 1.022 0.933 1.334 3.289 15.000 93.000 5,000 1 ' ` 10.000 .:120.000 1297.500 1200.000 1.066 1.000 1:429 3.495 20.000 93.000 5.000 120.000 10.000 120.000 1530.000 1200.000 1.257 1.333 1.905 4.496 25.000 93.000 5.000 120.000 10.000 120.000 1762.500 1200.000 1.410 1.668 2.381 5.457 30.000 ?''" :93.000 "'::5:000 .120.000 =i'' :10:000 . 120.000 1995.000 1200.000 1.534 ' 2.000 2.858 6.391 5.000 93.000 5.000 120.000 20.000 120.000 832.500 2400.000 0.736 0.333 0.476 1.546 6.000 93.000 5.000 120.000 20.000 120.000 879.000 2400.000 0.858 0.400 0.572 1.829 8.000 93.000 5.000 120.000 20.000 120.000 972.000 2400.000 1.080 0.533 0.762 2.376 9.000 93.000 5.000 120.000 20.000 120.000 1018.500 2400.000 1.183 0.600 0.857 2.640 10.000 93.000 " : ' 5.000 120 :000 . . • . 20.000. 120.000 1065:000 2400.000 1.281 . 0.667. 0.953 2.900 11.000 93.000 5.000 120.000 20.000 120.000 1111.500 2400.000 1.374 0.733 1.048 3.155 12.000 93.000 5.000 120.000 20.000 120.000 1158.000 2400.000 1.462 0.800 1.143 3.405 13.000 93.000 5.000 120.000 20.000 120.000 1204.500 2400.000 1.547 0.867 1.238, 3.652 14.000 93.000 5.000 120.000 20.000 120.000 1251.000 2400.000 1.628 0.933 1.334 3.895 15:000 . 93.000 5.000 120.000 • 20.000 120.000 1297.500 2400.000 1.706 1:000 1.429 . 4.134 20.000 93.000 5.000 120.000 20.000 120.000 1530.000 2400.000 2.049 1.333 1.905 5.287 25.000 93.000 5.000 120.000 20.000 120.000 1762.500 2400.000 2.333 1.666 2.381 6.380 30.000 ' 93.000 . - . 5 :000 120.000 20:000 120.000 1995.000 2400.000 2.573 2.000 2.858 7.430 NOTE: The refuse settlement calculations should be adopted with caution due to large margins of error, 50 to 100 percent. HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. REFUSE SETTLEMENT CALCULATIONS BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON =IGURE NO. 4 PROJECT NO. 2003 -008 I -5 CANTILEVER SOLDIER PILE WALL H= 10' to 15' CI BOW LAKE TRANSFER STATION PARAMETERS SOIL UNIT WEIGHT, y I -5 VALUES 135 pcf SOIL FRICTIONAL ANGLE, ¢ 36' ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE COEFFICIENT, Kae 0.26 PASSIVE PRESSURE COEFFICIENT , Kp, FS =1.5 3.85 SEISMIC EARTH PRESSURE COEFFICIENT, Kae 0.35 DESIGN EARTHQUAKE ACCELERATION Q X PGA) 0.16 EFW: EQUIVALENT FLUID UNIT WEIGHT, pcf ADD 1 -5 TRAFFIC LOADING MINIMUM EMBEDMENT d =1.25H 3 — EFW = 47 OVER PILE SPACING EFW = 230 OVER 3D EFW = 25.4 OVER 1D NOT TO SCALE H WAGE0SCIENC s INC EARTH PRESSURE DIAGRAM BOW LAKE TRANSFER STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON DRAWN BY £EK CHECKED BY SH- DATE 05.03.07 FIGURE NO. 5A PROJECT N0. 2003 -008 -21 TASK 2100 I S: \2003 PROJECTS\2003- 008 -21 BOW LAKE TRANSFER STATION \CAD \TASK 2100 \HWA EARTH PRESSURLDWG REV 00 KLS XO=DOC GLACIAL DEP ❑SIT EAST ACCESS ROAD GE ❑PIERS NOT TO SCALE FIGURE NO. 5B H <L GEOSCIEN S INC PROJECT N0. 2003-008-21 TASK 2100 MSE WALL ON GEOPIERS BOW LAKE TRANSFER STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON DRAWN BY EEK CHECKED BY _SH_ DATE 05.04.07 I H: 1 PROJECTS12003 PROJECTSU003-008-21 Bow Lake Transfer StationlCADlhwa mse waII.DWG REV 00 KLS XIX/JO( W. HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. EARTH PRESSURE DIAGRAM DRAWN BY EFK FIGURE NO. 5 C BOW LAKE TRANSFER STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON CHECKED BY 3H_ DATE 05.04.07 PROJECT NO 2003 - 008 - 21 TASK 2100 1 1 1 DEADMAN CANTILEVER - SOLDIER PILE WALL ON SLOPE AT EAST ACCESS ROAD 0 L (45' - O /Z) OUTWASH OR GLACIAL DEPOSIT 37CR+6H 32PCF +6H NCHOR ROD • F 120 PCF �STIN s< � \ F \F 2 • sal 240 PCF • 1t__- • NOT TO SCALE 5' H = 10' to 15' 2' TO 5' 5' to 15' LIGHT WT BACKFILL LONG WALL AT TRAILER PARKING ECOLOGY OR LOCK BLOCKS PROVIDE SWALE 1 10 11 NOTE MINIMUM BATTER = 1/10 X x X X X x X x x x x X x x x x x x x x X Y X X X x X X x 20 to 40' depends on refuse thickness TOTAL REMOVAL OF REFUSE 0.8H GE❑GRID) LONG TERM STRENGTH, 20001bs /ft. @ 12' LIFT STRUCTURAL FILL RECYCLE 3' LIGHT WT FILL BACKFILL REFUSE GEOGRID) LONG TERM STRENGTH, 10001bs /ft. @ 24' LIFT NOT TO SCALE HWAGEoscIENc S INC TYPICAL MSE WALL SECTION BOW LAKE TRANSFER STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON DRAWN or _EEK CNECICED BY _S.1L DATE 05.04.07 FlOURE NO. 5D PROJECT Na 2003 -008 -21 TASK 2100 I H:11 PROJECTS12003 PROJECTS12003- 008-21 Bow Lake Transfer Station CAD1hwa mse waII.DWG REV OD IQ.S XIX/70( i AT TRAILER PARKING x GE❑GRIDI LONG TERM STRENGTH, 20001bs /ft. • ❑ 15' NULAR MAT -= :_------= - - - =._ MPACTED K BLOCK WALL @ 12' LIFT GRANULAR BACKFILL 30' REFUSE GE ❑PIERS GLACIAL DEPOSIT NOT TO SCALE MSE WALL ON GEOPIERS SECTION BOW LAKE TRANSFER STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON DRAWN or _EEK CHECKED BY _StL DATE 05.04.07 5E PROJECT NO. 2003 -008 -21 TASK 2100 .1 FIGURE NO. NOTE MINIMUM BATTER = 1/10 H =10' ❑ 15' 5' T 3' LONG WALL 1 2. __ -_ _ - - GRA LOC HWAGEOSCIENCES INC PROJECTS12003 PROJECTS12003- 008-21 Bow Lake Transfer Station\CADthwa rose waILDWG REV 00 IO.S X 1X ( I 5' to 15' 10' KIN 10' ti 12' ZVXWAVANt%<V: 2' 2' to 5' Existing fill t EFW =200 pcf Acting over 2D REFUSE EFW =80 pcf (Reduced due to large deformation of refuse.) Acting over ID GLACIAL DEPOSI EFW =440 pcf Acting over 3D SOLDIER PILE WALL WITH DEADMAN 24H 3• 411.- -OF 4... +NI niform Load 14.&= 2/3h X 135 BUS PARKING AND ACCESS RAMP NexcexceAvAce. I (Kae • COMPACTED BACKFILL y=135 pcf 0 =36 ° EFW - 48 or convert to rectangular (24H) Kae 0.35 Acting over 8' PILE spacing ANCHOR ROD (Kae 111 sob) Elting ;l11 LONG WALL AT TRAILER PARKING RECYCLE YARD 300 pc f y=110 pcf 0=30° Kae - 0.44 EFW =48.5 pcf Acting over 12 1----(Kne • I .) REFUSE y=93 pcf 0 =26 ° Kae = 0.51 EFW =47 pcf Acting over 12 (Kae • r...) GLACIAL DEPOSIT y-- 140 pcf 0 = 42 ° Kae = 0.28 EFW =39 pcf Acting over ID MINIMUM DEPTH OF PENETRATION INTO GLACIAL DEPOSIT = 10' Kae = COEFFICIENT OF LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE INCLUDING EARTH QUAKE LOADING CONDITIONS. EFW = EQUIVALENT FLUID UNIT WEIGHT, pcf NOT TO SCALE HWAGEOSCENCES INC EARTH PRESSURE DIAGRAM BOW LAKE TRANSFER STATION TUKVVILA, WASHINGTON DRAWN BY EEK CHECKED BY DATE 05.04.07 FIGURE NO. 5F PROJECT NO. 2003-008-21 TASK 2100 S \2003 PROJECTS V003-008-21 BOW LAKE TRANSFER STAMON\CADVASK 2100\HWA EARN PRESSIJRE.DWG REV 0010.8 X/X00( I l 12 T TRAILER PARKING T WALL FACING WITH ALL IN THE BACK GRANULAR FILL GEOGRID WALL T= 2,0001bs GEOGRID WALL WITH SOLDIER PILE BOW LAKE TRANSFER STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON NOT TO SCALE DRAWN BY _EEK CHECKED BY .H DATE 05.04.07 FIGURE NO. 5G PROJECT NO. 2003 -008 -21 TASK 2100 J LONG WALL A SOLDIER PILE WITH TIMBER LAGGING H= 10' T ❑ 15' 2' TO 5' FILL 5' TO 15' REFUSE GLACIAL DEPOSI SOLDIER PILE GEOGRID W HWAGEOSCENCES INC. 003 PROJECTS\2003- 008-21 BOW LAKE TRANSFER STATION \CAD \TASK 2100\HWA EARTH PRESSURE.DWG REV 00 KLS XDUXX LONG WALL AT TRAILER PARKING 20' SOLDIER PILE I 1 I I 1 1 WITH TIMBER - \1 1 1 1 1 1 LAGGING 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I FILL REFUSE GLACIAL DEPOSIT SOLDIER PILE WITH GEOFOAM WALL GRANULAR FILL(2') GE ❑F ❑AM BLOCKS NOT TO SCALE J ffal 1 HWAGEOSCLENCES INC GEOFOAM WALL BOW LAKE TRANSFER STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON DRAWN or _EEK CHECKED BY _al_ DATE 05.04.07 FIGURE NO. 5H PROJECT No. 2003 -008 -21 TASK 2100 I S \2003 PROJECTS V003-008-21 BOW LAKE TRANSFER STATION \CAD \TASK 2100\HWA EARTH PRESSUREDWG REV 00 IO.a ww)ot i i x GE ❑GRID REINFORCED GEOBAG WALL TOE WALL, ON EAST SLOPE SEEDS AND PLANTS x x x x x 1 EACH BAG STACKS ON SPIKES APPROVED BY DESIGN ENGINEER. 6 HEIGHT VARIES MIN. 2 FEET NOT TO SCALE FIGURE NO 51 HWAGEOSCIENCFS INC GEOBAG WALL BOW LAKE TRANSFER STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON DRAWN BY _EEK CHECKED BY DATE 05.04.07 PROJECT NO. 2003 -008 -21 TASK 2100 H:11 PROJECTS12003 PROJECTS�2003- 008-21 Bow Lake Transfer StatioMCADthwa mse waILDWG i RsrpowLSMnOt FIELD INVESTIGATION APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION The subsurface exploration program consisted of 37 boreholes and 11 test pits. Drilling equipment was selected based on site access conditions, and included a truck- mounted drill rig, a large track - mounted drill rig, a small track - mounted drill rig, and a hand - portable drill rig. Proposed exploration locations were staked in the field by DHA Surveyors, per locations chosen and plotted on the Master Plan survey by HWA and R.W. Beck. Upon completion of each borehole and test pit, the actual locations were staked and subsequently resurveyed by DHA, as many were moved to accommodate local rig access conditions. The exploration locations are shown on the Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 2A. Each of the explorations was completed under the full -time observation of an HWA environmental or engineering geologist. HWA personnel recorded pertinent information including soil sample depths, stratigraphy, soil engineering characteristics, PID readings from soil samples, and ground water occurrence as the explorations were excavated. Soils were classified in general accordance with the classification system described in Figure A -1, which also provides a key to the exploration log symbols. Soil layers containing compressible, unburned refuse are indicated with a cross - hatched pattern in the left -hand column for soil symbols. The summary logs of boreholes are presented on Figures A -2 through A -38, and logs of test pits on Figures A -39 through A -49. The stratigraphic contacts shown on the individual logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. The actual transitions may be more gradual. Under subcontract to HWA, Cascade Drilling, Inc. (CDI), of Woodinville, Washington, drilled 27 soil borings in February 2007. In addition, under subcontract to HWA, Environmental Drilling, Inc. (EDI), of Snohomish, Washington, drilled six borings in February and March, 2007. Also under subcontract to HWA, CN Drilling (CND), of Seattle, Washington, drilled four soil borings in March 2007. Test Pits were excavated by King County Solid Waste Division (KCSWD) employees with a track - mounted backhoe. HWA sampled soils to depths of up to 71.5 feet in the borings, and up to 26 feet in the test pits. CDI employed both a truck- mounted and a track mounted CME 75 drill rig, with eight - inch outer diameter hollow stem augers, and utilized three -inch Dames & Moore split - spoon sampling devices to collect soil samples. A 300 -pound hammer with a 30 -inch drop was used to drive the Dames & Moore sampler into the subsurface at selected 2003 -008 DR.doc A -1 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. intervals. This test correlates approximately with the Standard Penetration Test. Soil samples were then retrieved from the sampler. EDI employed a track mounted Simco 4000 drill rig with six -inch outer diameter hollow stem auger and a two -inch split spoon sampling device to collect soil samples. A 140 -pound hammer with a 30 -inch drop was used to drive the sampler into the subsurface (Standard Penetration Test). Soil samples were then retrieved from the sampler. CND employed an Acker Soil Mechanic hand portable drill rig with four -inch outer diameter hollow stem auger and a two -inch split spoon sampling device to collect soil samples. A 140 -pound hammer with a 30 -inch drop was used to drive the sampler into the subsurface (Standard Penetration Test). Soil samples were then retrieved from the sampler. HWA field staff collected soil samples generally every 2.5 feet in the upper ten feet of each boring and then every five feet until boring completion. The test pits were excavated by an KCSWD operator with a Hitachi 330 trackhoe rented for this purpose. Grab samples were taken out of the bucket from locations where the stratigraphy changed or at regular intervals. After termination of each test pit, they were abandoned and backfilled with excavated material. HWA collected a composite soil sample from each soil boring and each test pit for environmental analytical testing. Soil samples selected for composite analyses were collected from the top soil - refuse interface, throughout visibly refuse - contaminated soil, to the bottom soil - refuse interface. All samples were field screened using a photo ionization detector (PD). Environmental soil samples were placed in labeled laboratory- provided sample containers using nitrile gloves and clean stainless steel spoons. Samples were placed in a cooler with "blue ice" for transport to the laboratory under chain -of- custody protocol. To prevent potential cross - contamination of samples, each of the drillers steam cleaned augers and drilling rods between each exploration. All other sampling equipment was decontaminated prior to use with detergent solution, potable water, and deionized water. Investigation- derived waste included soil boring cuttings, decontamination water, and disposable personal protective equipment (PPE). Soil boring cuttings were placed in sealed drums, labeled appropriately, and stored on site pending laboratory analysis. Disposable personal protective equipment (e.g., nitrile gloves) was discarded off -site as ordinary solid waste. Decontamination water was placed in sealed drums, labeled appropriately, and stored on site pending laboratory analysis. 2003 -008 DR.doc A -2 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. At the completion of five of the boreholes, a 2 -inch monitoring well, consisting of PVC pipe with a machine- slotted lower ten foot section, was placed in the borehole. Sand filter pack was placed to two feet above the slotted pipe section. The remainder was backfilled with bentonite chips. Stand -up monuments were set at the surface, in ready - mix concrete. 2003 -008 DR.doc A -3 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP DESCRIPTIONS Coarse Grained Soils More than 50% Retained on No. 200 Sieve Size Gravel and Gravelly Soils More than 50% of Coarse Fraction Retained on No. 4 Sieve Clean Gravel (little or no fines) • ' GW Well- graded GRAVEL • U u ( . GP Poorly-graded GRAVEL Gravel with Fines (appreciable amount of fines) • r • GM Silty GRAVEL QQLQL GC Clayey GRAVEL Sand and Sandy Soils 50% or More of Coarse Fraction Passing No 4 Sieve Clean Sand (lithe or no fines) Medium Dense SW Well -graded SAND Medium Stiff SP Poorly-graded SAND Sand with Fines (appreciable amount of fines) 30 to 50 SM Silty SAND 8 to 15 SC Clayey SAND Fine Grained Soils 50% or More Passing No. 200 Sieve Size Silt and Liquid Limit Less than 50% Clay Very Stiff ML SILT CL Lean CLAY Hard OL Organic SILT /Organic CLAY Silt Liquid Limit and 50% or More Clay MH Elastic SILT CH Fat CLAY Wr/ �/w OH Organic SILT/Organic CLAY Highly Organic Soils k r Ar PT PEAT COHESIONLESS SOILS COHESIVE SOILS Density N (blows/ft) Approximate Relative Density( %) Consistency N (blows/ft) Undrained Shear Strength (psq Very Loose 0 to 4 0 - 15 Very Soft 0 to 2 <250 Loose 4 to 10 15 - 35 Soft 2 to 4 250 - 500 Medium Dense 10 to 30 35 - 65 Medium Stiff 4 to 8 500 - 1000 Dense 30 to 50 65 - 85 Stiff 8 to 15 1000 - 2000 Very Dense over 50 85 - 100 Very Stiff 15 to 30 2000 - 4000 Hard over 30 >4000 COMPONENT SIZE RANGE Boulders Larger than 12 in Cobbles 3 in to 12 in Gravel 3 in to No 4 (4.5mm) Coarse gravel 3 in to 3/4 in Fine gravel 3/4 in to No 4 (4.5mm) Sand No. 4 (4.5 mm) to No. 200 (0.074 mm) Coarse sand No. 4 (4.5 mm) to No. 10 (2.0 mm) Medium sand No. 10 (2.0 mm) to No. 40 (0.42 mm) Fine sand No. 40 (0.42 mm) to No. 200 (0.074 mm) Silt and Clay Smaller than No. 200 (0.074mm) PROPORTION RANGE DESCRIPTIVE TERMS < 5% Clean 5 - 12% Slightly (Clayey, Silty, Sandy) 12 - 30% Clayey, Silty, Sandy, Gravelly 30 - 50% Very (Clayey, Silty, Sandy, Gravelly) Components are arranged in order of increasing quantities. i i i i i i i 1 i i i i i RELATIVE DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY VERSUS SPT N -VALUE TEST SYMBOLS USCS SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM COMPONENT DEFINITIONS NOTES: Soil classifications presented on exploration logs are based on visual and aboratory observation. Soil descriptions are presented in the following general order. Density /consistency, color, modifier (1 any) GROUP NAME, additions to group name (if any), moisture content Proportion, gradation, and angularity of constituents, additional comments. (GEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION) Please refer to the discussion in the report text as well as the exploration logs for a more complete description of subsurface conditions. %F Percent Fines AL Atterberg Limits: PL = Plastic Limit LL = Liquid Limit CBR California Bearing Ratio CN Consolidation DD Dry Density (pcf) DS Direct Shear GS Grain Size Distribution K Permeability MD Moisture/Density Relationship (Proctor) MR Resilient Modulus PID Photolonization Device Reading PP Pocket Penetrometer Approx. Compressive Strength (tsf) SG Specific Gravity TC Triaxial Compression TV Torvane Approx. Shear Strength (tsf) UC Unconfined Compression I I ■ 3-1/4^ OD Split Spoon with Brass Rings O Small Bag Sample Large Bag (Bulk) Sample Core Run 7 SAMPLE TYPE SYMBOLS 2.0" OD Split Spoon (SPT) (140 lb. hammer with 30 in. drop) Shelby Tube Non - standard Penetration Test (3.0" OD split spoon) GROUNDWATER SYMBOLS 2 Groundwater Level (measured at time of drilling) Groundwater Level (measured in well or open hole after water level stabilized) COMPONENT PROPORTIONS MOISTURE CONTENT DRY MOIST WET Absence of moisture, dusty, dry' to the touch. Damp but no visible water. Visible free water, usually soil is below water table. LEGEND 2003008.GPJ 5/13/07 OM BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION HWAGEOSCIENCES INC TUKWILA, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 LEGEND OF TERMS AND SYMBOLS USED ON EXPLORATION LOGS FIGURE: A -1 /DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Drilling, Inc. DRIWNG METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger, CME 75 tracked rig SAMPLING METHOD: Dames and Moore, 3001b Autohammer SURFACE ELEVATION: 280 t feet am 0 5— 10 — 15 — 25 — 30 — 35 — 40 — DESCRIPTION SM SM SM SP SM Medium dense, yellow brown, silty, fine to coarse gravelly, fine to medium SAND, moist with fine to coarse gravel. Gravel is sub-angular to sub - rounded. (FILL) Medium dense, light yellow brown (with oxidation stains), silty, fine to coarse gravelly, fine to medium SAND, moist. Trace organics (roots). Vague stratification of rust layers- sub - horizontal angle. (DISTURBED NATIVE) Medium dense, light yellow brown (with oxidation stains), silty, fine to medium SAND with fine to coarse gravel, moist. Gravel is sub - angular to sub-rounded. Loose, yellow brown, silty, fine to medium SAND, moist Sub - horizontal stratification (vague with darker colored sand • in < 1mm lamination). (GLACIAL OUTWASH) Medium dense, yellow brown to brown, silty, fine to medium SAND, moist Minor stratification, subhorizontal. Grades very dense. Very dense, olive gray, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND, wet No stratification noted. BORING 2003008.GPJ 5/15/07 Boring terminated at 26.5 feet HWAGEOSCIENCES INC Ground water observed at a depth of 22 feet below the ground surface. Gas readings: carbon monoxide =0 ppm, hydrogen sulfide ppm, combustible gas 0% LEL No environmental sample collected from B -201. 7 V / / / 7 w U z — H m co s La z 3 w - ° S -5 4 -7 -14 S-6 10 -20 -34 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and /or locations. S-1 8 -7 -7 S -2 5 -7 -9 pH S -3 13 -11 -7 S-4 4-4-5 GS S -7 8 -16 -20 GS For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 2/15 /2007 DATE COMPLETED: 2/15 /2007 LOGGED BY: J. Speck Q 0 Non-Standard Penetration Resistance (300 lb. weight, 30' drop) • Blows per foot 10 20 30 A • : : • : • . • A . ♦: . : A a>; 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit I • I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content BORING: B -201 PAGE: 1 of 1 FIGURE: 40 I— W a 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 A -2 40 J ( DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Drilling, Inc. SURFACE ELEVATION: 290.35 * feet DRIWNG METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger, CME 75 tracked rig SAMPLING METHOD: Dames and Moore, 3001b Autohammer LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 W 0 0 — 5— 10 — 15 — J 0 co 2 } co PZO 2003008.GPJ 5/15/07 Grades yellow brown. DESCRIPTION Loose, brown, silty, fine to coarse gravelly, fine to medium SAND, moist. LILLL Loose, dark gray, silty, fine to medium SAND, moist Refuse 90 % by volume (20 % comp. 80% non-compressible.) [wood, clay, metal] Note: black staining and hydrocarbon odor in soil and refuse. (REFUSE) Cuttings: Black stained silty SAND and refuse. Medium dense, gray (with rust mottling and black product ~ staining), silty, fine to coarse gravelly, fine to medium / ;SAND moist. JFILL) / Dense, yellow -brown, slightly silty, fine to coarse gravelly, fine to medium SAND, moist (GLACIAL OUTWASH) Dense, light brown, silty, fine to coarse gravelly, fine to medium SAND, moist Faint horizontal stratification noted SP bydifferential coloration in sand. / SM Grades wet Faint (single) horizontal stratification noted by rust coloration in sand at 20.5 feet below ground surface. Groundwater noted at 23.0 feet below ground surface. Very dense, dark yellow- brown, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND, wet. Approximately 1 to 2 feet of heave. E S -1 S -2 w 0 z � H w W cr z 3 W — o- a 344 4 -5-7 S -3 5 -11 -14 S-4 8 -14 -24 GS S-5 9 -12 -23 S-6 5 -15-20 S -7 8 -26-29 S-8 10 -20 -30 S-9 18 -50/6' GS NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. DATE STARTED: 2/16/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 2/16/2007 LOGGED BY: J. Speck Non-Standard Penetration Resistance cc w U (300 lb. weight, 30' drop) - Q • Blows per foot o U W � CL y 10 20 30 40 50 0 PROJECT NO.: 2003-008 • BORING: G l iM BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION B -202 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC TUKWILA, WASHINGTON PAGE: 1 of 2 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit 1--1111--I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content FIGURE: ar. 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 ) • -40 A -3 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Drilling, Inc. SURFACE ELEVATION: 290.35 t feet DRILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger, CME 75 tracked rig SAMPLING METHOD: Dames and Moore, 3001b Autohammer LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan. Figure 2 CL W m � 40 45 — 50 — 55 — 60-- 65 — 70 — 75 — 80 — J 0 m co Boring terminated at 51.5 feet DESCRIPTION SP SM Approximately 5 feet of heave. Trace gravel in sample. Gravel is fine to coarse, sub-angular to sub - rounded. Very dense, gray, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND, wet Approximately 5 feet of heave. Trace organic material (wood) in sample. Approximately 5 feet of heave. Ground water observed at 23.0 feet below ground surface during drilling. Ground water measured at 20.26 feet below ground surface on 03/09/07. Gas readings: carbon monoxide=0 ppm, hydrogen sutfide =0 ppm, combustible gas 0% LEL. Environmental sample B -202 -C collected from samples S -1 through S-4. 2-inch PVC piezometer installed to 51.5 feet with 10 foot slotted screen. S -10 5-50/5" S -11 50/6' Q S -12 50/6" NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. DATE STARTED: 2/16/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 2/16/2007 LOGGED BY: J. Speck w v O a- C Non-Standard Penetration Resistance (300 lb. weight, 30' drop) • Blows per foot 10 • • a> ar 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit --•- - -1 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content 45 50 55 60 —65 —70 75 80 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC I PZO 2003008.GPJ 5/15/07 BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 BORING: B -202 PAGE: 2 of 2 FIGURE: A -3 - _ - — - - - - _ - - _ - - = - - SP Loose, brown, silty, fine to medium SAND with gravel, moist. SM Loose, dark brown, silty, fine to medium SAND with gravel, moist Gravel is fine to coarse, sub - angular to sub - rounded. (FILL) Grades medium dense and light yellow -brown. Some rust mottling. Faint sub - horizontal stratification. I � ML Medium dense, light yellow -brown, slightly sandy SILT, SM 1 moist /r 1 LGLACIAL OUTWASH1 / Medium dense, yellow brown (rust mottling), silty, fine to medium SAND, moist Trave gravel. Gravel is fine to coarse, sub-angular to rounded. Faint sub - horizontal stratification. Coarse grained partings with rust staining. Some sillier sections noted in sample. Cuttings: Yellow brown, silty SAND with gravel, moist Grades to very dense and dark yellow brown. Three to six inches of slightly sandy SILT with gravel in very disturbed sub - horizontal laminations. Cuttings: dark yellow brown silty SAND with gravel, moist Some sandy SILT inclusions. Grades olive gray. Trace coarse sand. No gravel noted. Driller notes ground water at 23 feet below ground surface - possible perched. SP SM Dense, yellow brown to olive gray, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND, moist Faint stratification sub - horizontal to very high angle. Very dense, olive gray, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND, moist Gravel in discrete layer 30 to 30.25. Gravel is fine to coarse, sub - angular to rounded. Cuttings: yellow brown slightly silty SAND, moist. Dense, olive gray, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND, moist i i i i i i i i i i i i i i DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Drilling, Inc. SURFACE ELEVATION: 290.46 t feet DRILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger, CME 75 tracked rig SAMPLING METHOD: Dames and Moore, 300lb Autohammer LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 am o t. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 rn DESCRIPTION V L 7 L / Q L S -1 5-4-4 S -2 1-4 -7 S -3 3 -9-16 S-4 11 -26 -50/6 S -5 7 -26-44 S-6 10 -20-36 GS pH S -7 20 -15-26 S-8 17 -22 -36 S -9 10 -20-24 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. DATE STARTED: 2/19/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 2/19/2007 LOGGED BY: J. Speck x 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 •• Nonstandard Penetration Resistance (300 lb. weight, 30' drop) • Blows per foot A • • ♦ ♦ A —5 0 >>11/./ 15 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit I--•— I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content a >L► - 20 — ns•■— 30 35 >a• -40 OM BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION HWAGEOSCIENCES INC TUKWILA, WASHINGTON PZO 2003008.GPJ 5/15/07 PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 BORING: B -203 PAGE: 1 of 2 FIGURE: A-4 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Drilling, Inc. SURFACE ELEVATION: 290.46 t feet DRILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger, CME 75 tracked rig SAMPLING METHOD: Dames and Moore, 3001b Autohammer LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 40 — 45 — 50 — 55 — 60 — 65 — 70 — 75 — 80 — Grades very dense. Some rust staining from 40 to 40.25 feet below ground surface. Faint sub - horizontal stratification. Boring terminated at 51.5 feet. DESCRIPTION Possible perched ground water observed at 23 feet during drilling. No groundwater observed during measurement on 03/09/07. Gas readings: carbon monoxide =0 ppm, hydrogen sulfide =0 ppm, combustible gas 0% LEL No environmental samples collected from boring. 2-inch PVC piezometer installed to 51.5 feet with 10 foot slotted screen. Z 7 S -10 10 -24-50 S -11 10 -20-28 S -12 10 -20-30 GS NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. DATE STARTED: 2/19/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 2/19/2007 LOGGED BY: J. Speck Non-Standard Penetration Resistance (300 lb. weight. 30" drop) • Blows per foot 10 20 30 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit 1---110--I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 1 BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION HWAGEOSCIENCES INC TUKWILA, WASHINGTON PZO 2003008.GPJ 5/15/07 PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 BORING: B -203 PAGE: 2 of 2 FIGURE: A-4 i e I i i i i i l i s i DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Drilling, Inc. SURFACE ELEVATION: 282.46 ± feet DRIWNG METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger, CME 85 truck rig SAMPLING METHOD: California Split Spoon w/ Autohammer LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 0 W 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 H 40 -J 0 m en DESCRIPTION 7 Z S -3 24 -50/6" L 7 / S -1 15 -27 -37 S-2 12 -38-42 GS S-4 10 -20-32 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. S -5 15 -22 -32 S-6 21 -28-32 GS S-7 25 -38-40 DATE STARTED: 2/13/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 2/13/2007 LOGGED BY: P. Pearson `' Non-Standard Penetration Resistance (300 lb. weight, 30" drop) • Blows per foot • 10 20 30 40 50 n >v-10 »,►r 15 »*/-20 ».46,-25 »40-30 »•/-35 »•-40 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit I---41—I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content 8121 1 BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION HWAGEOSCIENCES INC TUKWILA, WASHINGTON PZO 2003008.GPJ 5/15/07 PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 BORING: B -204 PAGE 1 of 2 FIGURE: A -5 USCS SOIL CLASS SAMPLE NUMBER OTHER TESTS SAMPLE TYPE SP Surface consists of grass and quarry spalls. Cuttings consist of brown, fine to medium SAND, moist (WEATHERED DRIFT) Dense, reddish -brown, fine to medium SAND, moist. SM Very dense, light brown, silty gravelly SAND, moist. (GLACIAL TILL) Very dense, olive gray, silty gravelly SAND, moist Some thin laminations of fine to medium sand. Very dense, brownish -gray, silty gravelly SAND, moist to very moist SM Very dense, light brown, silty, fine to coarse SAND, moist to very moist. (ICE CONTACT STRATIFIED DRIFT) SP Very dense, light brownish -gray, fine to medium SAND, moist. Trace silt. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) •. SP SM Very dense, light brownish -gray, slightly silty, fine SAND, moist SP Very dense, light brownish -gray, fine SAND, moist Some gravel below 36 feet P.Yof GP i e I i i i i i l i s i DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Drilling, Inc. SURFACE ELEVATION: 282.46 ± feet DRIWNG METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger, CME 85 truck rig SAMPLING METHOD: California Split Spoon w/ Autohammer LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 0 W 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 H 40 -J 0 m en DESCRIPTION 7 Z S -3 24 -50/6" L 7 / S -1 15 -27 -37 S-2 12 -38-42 GS S-4 10 -20-32 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. S -5 15 -22 -32 S-6 21 -28-32 GS S-7 25 -38-40 DATE STARTED: 2/13/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 2/13/2007 LOGGED BY: P. Pearson `' Non-Standard Penetration Resistance (300 lb. weight, 30" drop) • Blows per foot • 10 20 30 40 50 n >v-10 »,►r 15 »*/-20 ».46,-25 »40-30 »•/-35 »•-40 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit I---41—I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content 8121 1 BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION HWAGEOSCIENCES INC TUKWILA, WASHINGTON PZO 2003008.GPJ 5/15/07 PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 BORING: B -204 PAGE 1 of 2 FIGURE: A -5 USCS SOIL CLASS SAMPLE NUMBER OTHER TESTS SAMPLE TYPE DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Drilling, Inc. SURFACE ELEVATION: 282.46 ± feet DRILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger, CME 85 truck rig SAMPLING METHOD: California Split Spoon w/ Autohammer LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 LLI am o� 40 45 — 50 — 55 — 60-- 65 — 70 — 75 — 80 — DESCRIPTION Very dense, brown to gray, sandy, fine to medium GRAVEL, moist. Trace silt Very dense, light brownish -gray, clean, fine SAND, with fine to medium gravel, moist. L L w U z m N w re Ig z 3 w as S-8 50/5' S-9 16 -32-40 Very dense, light brownish -gray, clean fine SAND, with fine r EIS-10 50/6" to medium gravel, moist. f Boring terminated at 51.5 feet No ground water observed during drilling. No ground water observed in piezometer during measurement on 03/09/07. No gas readings collected at B -204. No environmental sample collected from B -204. 2 -inch PVC piezometer installed to 50 feet with 10 foot slotted screen. NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and /or locations. DATE STARTED: 2/13/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 2/13/2007 LOGGED BY: P. Pearson Non-Standard Penetration Resistance w O (300 lb. weight, 30' drop) Cj a • Blows per foot r O r.r w i .. Ni wm CL rn 0 10 20 30 40 sa• 40 50 � ar, 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content (%) Plastic Limit I--• --I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 8311 1 BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION HWAGEOSCIENCES INC TUKWILA, WASHINGTON PZO 2003008.GPJ 5/15/07 PROJECT NO.: 2003-008 BORING: B -204 PAGE: 2 of 2 FIGURE: A -5 /* DRIWNG COMPANY: Cascade Drilling, Inc. DRILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger, CME 85 truck rig SAMPLING METHOD: California Split Spoon w/ Autohammer SURFACE ELEVATION: 281 ± feet S 0. CI 0— 15 5 — 10 — 25 — J 0 m >- co DESCRIPTION 3V o Q Y ) . 3 o Q� C GP SM GM SP SM Cuttings consist of brown, sandy GRAVEL, moist from 0 to 2 feet. (FILL) Cuttings consist of brown silty SAND from 2 feet to 5 feet. Very dense, olive gray, gravelly, silty, fine to medium SAND, moist. (GLACIAL TILL) Very dense, olive gray, gravelly, silty, fine to coarse SAND, moist. Hard, olive gray, silty, sandy, GRAVEL, moist. Very dense, brown, medium SAND, moist. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) Very dense, light brown, silty, medium to coarse SAND, moist. ` Very dense, light brown, gravelly, silty, fine to medium SAND, moist. Boring terminated at 25.5 feet. No ground water observed at time of exploration. No environmental sampling or monitoring performed. NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. HWAGEOSCIENCES INC TUKWILA, WASHINGTON BORING 2003008.GPJ 5/15/07 Z S-2 50/6" 10 S-4 14 -35 -50/3" Z S -5 50/6" Z S -1 24 -50/6' GS 0 S -3 25 -50/4" GS pH For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. OM BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 2/13/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 2/13/2007 LOGGED BY: P. Pearson • - • • PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 Non-Standard Penetration Resistance (300 lb. weight, 30' drop) • Blows per foot L 0 10 20 30 40 50 • BORING: B -205 PAGE 1 of 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content (%) Plastic Limit I-- S I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content FIGURE: 0 >• -10 a >-au-- 15 » >•,— 20 a ••— 25 30 35 40 A-6 'DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Drilling, Inc. SURFACE ELEVATION: 250.04 t feet DRILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger, CME 75 tracked rig SAMPLING METHOD: Dames and Moore. 300lb Autohammer LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 10 — 15-- 20 5 — 40 — O CO CO PZO 2003008.GPJ 5/15/07 DESCRIPTION SM SM SP SM ML Brown, silty fine to medium SAND, gravel, moist, leaf litter. (FILL) Very loose, rust mottled brown, silty fine to medium SAND, moist Organic trace refuse (< 5 % by volume), burnt wood. Loose, brown with traces of rust mottling, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND, moist, roots and rootlets. No refuse. (GLACIAL OUTWASH) Loose, yellow brown, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND. moist No stratification. Medium dense, light yellow -brown to yellow brown, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND, moist. No stratification. Rust staining at 10.75 feet below ground surface. Less than 1 mm thickness. Medium dense, light yellow brown, silty fine to medium SAND, moist Some fine horizontal layers of rust at about 20.5 feet below ground surface. Driller notes: Pounding on a rock. Very dense, rust mottled, gray, silty fine to medium SAND, wet Some small horizontal layers of rust at about 20.5. 2 inches inclusion of diamict -like (till -like) sandy silt with •.gravel. Hard, gray, slightly fine sandy SILT, dry. Some fine to coarse gravel. Gravel is sub - angular to sub - rounded. Driller notes: Rough drilling. Boring terminated at 31.5 feet Ground water observed at 25.0 feet below ground surface. Gas readings: carbon monoxide =0 ppm, hydrogen sulfide l ppm, combustible gas 0% LEL Environmental sample B- 206 -C collected from samples S -1 through S-4. 2-inch PVC piezometer installed to 31.5 feet with 10 foot slotted screen. / Z / 7 7 7 7 S -1 1 -2 -1 S -2 1 -3-4 S -3 3-4 -5 S-4 2 -5-5 S -5 3-6 -7 GS S-6 4-6-9 S -7 50/5 S-8 8 -36-38 GS NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. OM BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION HWAGEOSCIENCES INC TUKWILA, WASHINGTON DATE STARTED: 2/13/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 2/13/2007 LOGGED BY: J. Speck re Ow aai PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 Non-Standard Penetration Resistance (300 lb. weight, 30' drop) • Blows per foot 10 20 30 BORING: B -206 PAGE: 1 of 1 40 0 20 40 60 80 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit --•- --1 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content FIGURE: A -7 'DRIWNG COMPANY: Cascade Drilling, Inc. DRILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger, CME 75 tracked rig SAMPLING METHOD: Dames and Moore, 3001b Autohammer SURFACE ELEVATION: 238 t feet 10 15 — 0— 5— 30 — 35 40 — J 0 m 2 >- N DESCRIPTION Cuttings consist of loose, dark brown, silty, fine to medium SAND, organics, moist. ITOPSOILL /^ Very loose, rust mottled, yellow brown, silty, fine to medium SAND, moist trace scattered refuse. (FILL WITH REFUSE) Grades to dark brown, silty, fine to medium SAND. with plastic debris. Very loose, rust -red to brown, silty, fine to medium SAND, moist. Refuse: glass, burnt wood, rubber (less than 10 % by volume). Refuse: metal, glass, burnt wood (less than 10 % by j 1 volume). 1 Color changes to dark brown - dark gray, with strong refuse � !odor. � Very loose, gray sandy SILT, moist. More than 80 % refuse (60 % compressible, 40% non compressible) Grades to dark gray. Less than 10 % refuse (100 % non compressible). Hard to drill. ML Very stiff, gray, fine sandy SILT, dry. No refuse. Some stratification. 1 -2 mm bedding, almost laminated. (ICE- CONTACT STRATIFIED DRIFT) • ML SM Driller notes change in drilling action at 23 feet below the ground surface. Hard, gray, dilatant, non - plastic, fine sandy SILT to silty SAND, dry to very moist. Coarse silty partings, sub - horizontal angles. BORING 2003008.GPJ 5/15/07 Boring terminated at 31.5 feet No ground water observed at during drilling. Gas readings: carbon monoxide =0 ppm, hydrogen sulfide =0 ppm, combustible gas 0% LEL L L 7 7 7 / w U Z Q F u co as S -1 2 -1 -1 S -2 1 -1 -1 S -3 2 -2 -2 S-4 S -5 1 -2 -3 S-6 4-8 -16 S -7 8 -15 -18 S-8 12 -16-22 Environmental sample B-207-C collected from samples S-1 through S-6. For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. MT BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 0 10 PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 2/12/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 2/12/2007 LOGGED BY: J. Speck & B. Thurber Non-Standard Penetration Resistance (300 lb. weight, 30' drop) • Blows per foot 20 30 • - : : • : : A: : A: : 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit 1--41--1 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content BORING: B -207 PAGE: 1 of 1 FIGURE: 40 50 0 —5 —10 O. = m o � 15 20 25 30 35 40 A -8 I / COMPANY: Cascade Drilling, Inc. DRILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger, CME 75 tracked rig SAMPLING METHOD: Dames and Moore, 3001b Autohammer SURFACE ELEVATION: 227 3 feet H� We c 0 — 10— 15 — 5— 25 — J 0 > - co DESCRIPTION SM ML ML Grass, loose, brown, silty, fine to medium SAND, moist, leaf t litter. ITOPSOILL /^ Loose, red -brown, silty fine to medium SAND, moist. Refuse 30 % by volume (10 % comp. 90% non-comp.) (REFUSE) Perched water noted at 6.5 feet below ground surface. Loose, gray, silty, fine to medium SAND, moist Refuse 40 % by volume (10 % comp. 90% non - comp.) Cuttings wet Loose, olive- brown, silty, fine to medium SAND, moist. Refuse 50 % by volume (10 % comp. 90% non-comp.) Very soft, black to dark gray, slightly sandy, SILT, moist to wet Refuse 40 % by volume (100 non-comp.) Grades from very soft to stiff, olive gray to gray, slightly sandy SILT, moist Sub - horizontal rust mottled, coarse grained partings. Non - laminated or stratified. (GLACIAL OUTWASH) Hard, gray, slightly sandy SILT, moist Non - laminated or stratified. 1 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC BORING 2003008.GPJ 5/15/07 Boring terminated at 26.5 feet No ground water observed at during drilling. Gas readings: carbon monoxide =0 ppm, hydrogen sulfide =0 ppm, combustible gas 0% LEL. Environmental sample B- 208 -C collected from samples S -1 through S -5. 7 L Z Q 7 L S -1 2 -3-1 S -2 2 -1 -2 S-4 2 -1 -1 S -5 0-0-1 S-6 3-6-9 S -7 8 -14-22 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. S -3 1 -1 -1 OC For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 2/13/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 2/13/2007 LOGGED BY: J. Speck 0 Non-Standard Penetration Resistance (300 lb. weight, 30" drop) • Blows per foot 10 A. • • : • : : : 1•: : • • PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 20 30 0 20 40 60 80 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit Liquid Limit Natural Water Content BORING: B -208 PAGE: 1 of 1 FIGURE: 40 50 0 —5 — 10 — 15 —20 —25 F w m O 30 35 40 100 A -9 I DRILLING COMPANY: Environmental Drilling Inc. SURFACE ELEVATION: 222.34 t feet DRIWNG METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger, Simcoe 4000 tracked rig SAMPLING METHOD: SPT w/ Autohammer LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 I 0- 5 10 — 15 — 20 — 30— 35 — 40 — J 0 m 2 En DESCRIPTION Surface vegetated with blackberries, some trees. JTOPSOIL) Cuttings consist of silty SAND, with refuse (paper, plastic, glass). (FILL WITH REFUSE) No sample recovery. Loose, brown, silty SAND, moist. Refuse: glass - 5% by volume, organics - 10% by volume, plastic - 2% by volume. Trace gravel. Loose, reddish - brown, silty SAND, with gravel, moist Refuse: glass - 5% by volume, organics and charred organics - 2% by volume. Loose, reddish -brown to brownish -gray to dark gray, silty SAND, with gravel, moist Refuse: wood - 5% by volume, paper - 2% by volume, glass - 2% by volume. Hydrocarbon -like odor. Loose, dark brownish -gray, silty SAND. moist Refuse: paper - 10% by volume, glass - 2% by volume, metal - 2% by volume, organics - 5% by volume. Slight hydrocarbon -like odor. Soft, brown to gray, sandy SILT, moist Refuse: paper - 20%, organics - 5 %, glass - 2 %. Hydrocarbon -like odor. Medium dense, dark to light gray, silty SAND, with gravel, moist. Refuse: organics - 2% [rubber] J J M Dense, gray, gravelly, silty, SAND, moist Trace organics. (GLACIAL OUTWASH) 1 -1/12 ® S -1 2 -1 -2 ® S -2 1 -2 -2 ® S -3 2 -1 -3 S -5 4 -2 -2 S-6 4-7-8 S -7 17 -21 -13 Very dense, gray to olive gray, gravelly, silty, SAND. moist. ® S-8 23 -50/4 NOTE This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and /or locations. w S-4 0-2-4 OC DATE STARTED: 3/2/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 3/2/2007 LOGGED BY: P. Pearson • Z m 0 10 20 30 40 50 A • Standard Penetration Test (140 lb. weight, 30' drop) A Blows per foot • A 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit I --1- -I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content 0 5 10 15 20 25 35 A 40 BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION HWAGEOSCENCES INC TUKWILA, WASHINGTON PZO 2003008.GPJ 5/15/07 PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 BORING: B -209 PAGE: 1 of 2 FIGURE: A -10 ( DRILLING COMPANY: Environmental Drilling Inc. SURFACE ELEVATION: 222.34 ± feet DRILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger, Simcoe 4000 tracked rig SAMPLING METHOD: SPT w/ Autohammer LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 40 45 50 — 55 — 60 — 65 70 — 75 — 80 — DESCRIPTION No sample recovery. Boring terminated at 40 feet. Ground water observed at 30 feet during drilling Ground water measured at 33.72 feet below ground surface on 03/09/07. Gas readings: carbon monoxide =21 ppm, hydrogen sulfide =0 ppm, combustible gas 0% LEL. Environmental sample B-209-C collected from samples S -1 through S -7. 2 -inch PVC piezometer installed to 41.55 feet with 10 foot slotted screen. w 0 w J o. 2 26 -50/4 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. PZO 2003008.GPJ 5/15/07 MT BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION HWAGEOSCIENCES INC TUKWILA, WASHINGTON DATE STARTED: 3/2/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 3/2/2007 LOGGED BY: P. Pearson W Ow w 0- CO 0 10 PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 Standard Penetration Test (140 lb. weight, 30' drop) • Blows per foot 20 30 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit Liquid Limit Natural Water Content BORING: B -209 PAGE 2 of 2 FIGURE: 40 o tr. 50 40 —45 —50 — 55 — 60 —65 —70 —75 80 A -10 i i i i i i i i 'DRIWNG COMPANY: Cascade Drilling, Inc. DRILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger, CME 75 tracked rig SAMPLING METHOD: Dames and Moore, 3001b Autohammer SURFACE ELEVATION: 242 t feet W 0- 5— 10 — 15 — 20 — 25 — DESCRIPTION Loose, brown, silty, fine to medium SAND, moist (FILL) Medium dense, rust mottled, dark brown, silty, fine to medium SAND with fine to coarse gravel, moist Gravel - sub-angular to angular. Refuse: 20% by volume. (10% compressible, 90% non-compressible). Refuse includes, brick, wood and plastic. (FILL with REFUSE) Rough drilling noted at about 5 feet below the ground surface. Becomes dark brown to black. Refuse: 20% by volume (100% non- compressible). Includes brick and wood. Cuttings: similar. Medium dense, dark brown to black, silty, fine to medium SAND with fine to coarse gravel, moist Refuse: Less than ( 10% by volume, (100% non-compressible). Cuttings: similar. (Becomes loose Refuse: 30% by volume (10% ]compressible, 90% non - compressible). Refuse includes Lorick and wood. Medium dense, dark brown to black, silty, fine to medium SAND with gravel, moist. Refuse: 90% by volume, (20% compressible, 80% non - compressible). Includes plastic, wood, metal, construction debris. Cuttings : similar. Medium dense, gray, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND, moist Traces of coarse rounded gravel. Refuse: 80% by volume (30% compressible, 70% non - compressible) Refuse includes rubber, wood, tile, metal. Cuttings: 70 - 90% refuse (50% compressible, 50% non - compressible). Medium dense, dark gray, silty, fine to medium SAND, moist. Refuse 50% by volume (50% compressible, 50% non - compressible). Refuse includes plastic, wood, metal. Medium dense, dark brown to black, silty, fine to medium SAND, moist Refuse 80% by volume, (40% compressible, 60% non-compressible). Refuse includes plastic, fabric, wood, metal. Dark gray silty SAND with refuse. Loose, gray to brown, silty, fine to medium SAND, moist Refuse 70% by volume, (40% compressible, 60% non-compressible). [plastic, wood, metal] Dark gray, silty SAND with refuse. BORING 2003008.GPJ 5/15/07 L L 7 / / 7 S -1 3-4-9 S -2 6-8-8 S -3 10 -13-7 S-4 2 -2 -2 S -5 5 -18-10 S-6 4-6-4 S -7 5-5-5 S-8 4-5-6 S -9 3-4-3 For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. OM BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION HWAGEOSCIENCES INC TUKWILA, WASHINGTON LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 2/14/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 2/14/2007 LOGGED BY: J. Speck 0 PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 Non - Standard Penetration Resistance (300 lb. weight. 30' drop) • Blows per foot 10 20 30 40 A . A A A. :A : : A : A : : A. 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit 1--110—I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content BORING: B -210 PAGE 1 of 2 FIGURE: 50 0 0 5 —10 —15 20 25 —30 40 A -11 1 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Drilling, Inc. DRILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger, CME 75 tracked rig SAMPLING METHOD: Dames and Moore, 3001b Autohammer SURFACE ELEVATION: 242 t feet wm o w 40 — 45 50 — 55 — 60 — 65 — 70 — 75 — 80 — J 0 2 to SP ML DESCRIPTION Medium dense, gray, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND, moist. No refuse, possible product staining (black) (GLACIAL OUTWASH) Hard, gray, fine sandy, SILT with gravel, moist (GLACIAL TILL) ML Hard, gray to light yellow brown, slightly sandy, non- stratified SILT, moist Some coarse- grained partings 'with rust mottling - sub - horizontal. (GLACIAL DRIFT) Boring terminated at 51.5 feet. No ground water observed at B -210. Gas readings: carbon monoxide =0 ppm, hydrogen sulfide =0 ppm, combustible gas 0% LEL. Environmental sample B- 210 -C collected from samples S -1 through S -10. 7 oe w w U m N Z c (7) J wio o. 0 co • a c S -10 9 -10-13 S -11 9 -19-24 S -12 5 -11 -18 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. LOCATION: See Site 8 Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 2/14/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 2/14/2007 LOGGED BY: J. Speck 0 Non-Standard Penetration Resistance (300 lb. weight, 30' drop) A Blows per foot 10 20 30 40 • 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit I •---I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content 2 w 50 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 —75 80 OM BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION HWAGEOSCIENCES INC TUKWILA, WASHINGTON BORING 2003008.GPJ 5/15/07 PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 BORING: B -210 PAGE: 2 of 2 FIGURE: A -11 i i i 1 i i i I I i I DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Drilling, Inc. DRILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger, CME 75 tracked rig SAMPUNG METHOD: Dames and Moore, 300lb Autohammer SURFACE ELEVATION: 249 ± feet I- 0 0 0 15 5 10 20 — 25 — 30 35 — 40 J 0 u) DESCRIPTION 7 / L L L 7 7 Z S -1 4-5-7 S -2 3-3-3 S -3 5-7 -3 S-4 1-4-3 S -5 3-3-4 S-6 2 -2 -2 S -7 3-3-4 S-8 3-3-3 S -9 8 -12 -13 For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 2/14/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 2/14/2007 LOGGED BY: J. Speck 0 Non-Standard Penetration Resistance (300 lb. weight, 30' drop) • Blows per foot 10 20 30 40 A • A :A •A : : i• : 0 20 40 60 80 Water Content ( %) Plastic Umit I--111--] Liquid Umit Natural Water Content I 50 0 —5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 100 O I LT BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION HWAGEOSCIENCESING TUKWILA, WASHINGTON BORING 2003008.GPJ 5/15/07 PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 BORING: B -211 PAGE: 1 of 2 FIGURE: A -12 SM Grass, loose, brown, silty, fine to medium SAND, moist. : Scattered refuse. • SM (TOPSOIL) • Medium dense, brown, silty, fine to medium SAND with fine to coarse gravel, moist Gravel is sub-angular to rounded, moist • (FILL) Loose, rust mottled, dark yellow brown to dark gray, silty, fine to medium SAND with gravel, moist %iii• Medium dense, dark gray to black, silty, fine to medium 'AV. '••• SAND, with gravel, moist. Refuse: 10 % by volume (10 % ••�•i compressible, 90 % non-compressible). Slight hydrocarbon '.••••! odor. SM (FILL WITH REFUSE) f III Loose, dark gray to black, silty, fine to medium SAND with fine to coarse gravel, moist Gravel is sub-angular to sub - rounded. (FILL) VA Loose, dark gray, silty, fine to medium SAND, with fine to MA, caorse gravel, moist Gravel is sub-angular to sub - rounded. ■••• ∎•�•i Refuse: 30 % by volume (100 % non - compressible). [glass] n; : ;•�•�•4, ;: _(FILL WITH REFUSE) i Dark gray, silty sand with plastic, metal and glass refuse. t (REFUSE) g* :•f Loose, dark gray, silty, fine to medium SAND. Refuse: 80 % • ••• by volume (30 % compressible, 70 % non - compressible). VA. Refuse includes, glass wood and metal. VA .•••••� g•:•: 4 Refuse: 80 % by volume (80 % compressible, 20 % . VA •• iii non - compressible). [wood, metal and plastic] V•• VA Refuse: 50 % by volume (50 % compressible, 50 % a•f t �• non - compressible). Dark gray silty sand with less refuse. SP Medium dense, rust mottled, yellow brown to olive gray, silty, fine to medium SAND, moist Banded rust staining, approximately 3 inches, sub - horizontal. (GLACIAL OUTWASH) i i i 1 i i i I I i I DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Drilling, Inc. DRILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger, CME 75 tracked rig SAMPUNG METHOD: Dames and Moore, 300lb Autohammer SURFACE ELEVATION: 249 ± feet I- 0 0 0 15 5 10 20 — 25 — 30 35 — 40 J 0 u) DESCRIPTION 7 / L L L 7 7 Z S -1 4-5-7 S -2 3-3-3 S -3 5-7 -3 S-4 1-4-3 S -5 3-3-4 S-6 2 -2 -2 S -7 3-3-4 S-8 3-3-3 S -9 8 -12 -13 For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 2/14/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 2/14/2007 LOGGED BY: J. Speck 0 Non-Standard Penetration Resistance (300 lb. weight, 30' drop) • Blows per foot 10 20 30 40 A • A :A •A : : i• : 0 20 40 60 80 Water Content ( %) Plastic Umit I--111--] Liquid Umit Natural Water Content I 50 0 —5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 100 O I LT BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION HWAGEOSCIENCESING TUKWILA, WASHINGTON BORING 2003008.GPJ 5/15/07 PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 BORING: B -211 PAGE: 1 of 2 FIGURE: A -12 'DRIWNG COMPANY: Cascade Drilling, Inc. DRIWNG METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger, CME 75 tracked rig SAMPLING METHOD: Dames and Moore, 3001b Autohammer SURFACE ELEVATION: 249 t feet I v 40 — 45 — 50 — 55 — 60-- 65 — 70 — 75 — 80 — J 0 m U) DESCRIPTION Medium dense, light yellow brown to gray, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND, moist. Dense, light yellow brown to gray, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND, moist. BORING 2003008.GPJ 5/15/07 Boring terminated at 46.5 feet No ground water observed during drilling. Gas readings: carbon monoxide =0 ppm, hydrogen sulfide =0 ppm, combustible gas 0% LEL. Environmental sample B- 211 -C collected from samples S-2 through S -9. w U z H m U co w •E ox w a $ v s-lo 7-8-13 5-11 7 -16-19 For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. NOTE This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. 831 1 BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION HWAGEOSCIENCES INC TUKWILA, WASHINGTON LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 2/14/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 2/14/2007 LOGGED BY: J. Speck 0 10 PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 Non-Standard Penetration Resistance (300 lb. weight, 30' drop) • Blows per foot 20 30 • . ♦ A. . 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit I--• I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content BORING: B -211 PAGE: 2 of 2 FIGURE: 40 I we 50 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 —75 80 A -12 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Drilling, Inc. DRILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger, CME 75 tracked rig SAMPLING METHOD: Dames and Moore, 300lb Autohammer SURFACE ELEVATION: 257 t feet o. o � 0— 5— 10 15 — 25 — 30 — 35 — 40 — f . .• • � • • • • i • f f • 4 • •■ • • tat t • • r� • '' 4 • � * • . • • • •• • • ■� • .• i �� • •• '� f Boring terminated at 31.5 feet DESCRIPTION '•.3 inche of asphalt. Medium dense, gray silty fine to medium SAND with gravel, moist (FILL) Medium dense, dark gray to black, silty, fine to medium SAND, moist Refuse: 30 % by volume (50 % compressible, 50% non- cmpressible). Refuse includes wood, metal and glass. (FILL WITH REFUSE) Loose, dark gray, silty fine to medium SAND, moist to wet Refuse: 10-20% by volume (50% compressible, 50% non-compressible). [wood, metal, glass] Cuttings: similar Medium dense, dark gray to black, silty, fine to medium SAND, moist Refuse: 30 - 40 % by volume (20 % compressible, 80% non - compressible). Refuse includes etal, fabrics and glass. Loose, dark gray to black, silty, fine to medium SAND, moist. Refuse: 60 % by volume (10 % compressible, 90% non- compressible). Refuse includes rubber, plastic and metal. (REFUSE) Loose, dark gray to yellow brown, silty, fine to medium SAND, moist Refuse: 80 % by volume (70 % compressible, 30% non-compressible). Refuse includes wood and metal. Loose, dark gray, silty, fine to medium SAND, moist Refuse: 90 % by volume (50 % compressible, 50% non- compressible). Refuse includes wood, metal, plastic, paper and glass. Cuttings: Dark gray to black silty SAND with refuse. Less refuse noted. Dense, light yellowish brown, silty, fine to medium SAND, moist. Black staining in top 3 inches of sampler. (GLACIAL OUTWASH) No ground water observed during drilling. Gas readings: carbon monoxide =0 ppm, hydrogen sulfide =0 ppm, combustible gas 0% LEL. Environmental sample B- 212 -C collected from samples S -2 through S-7. Z 7 7 L w U z � I- 0 U w CL z O w— -° S -1 4 -7-6 S -2 3-3-2 S -3 4-6-7 S-4 2-3-3 S -5 3 -3-3 S-6 3-3-5 S -7 8 -16-17 S-8 5 -13-19 GS For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. NOTE This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 2/14/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 2/14/2007 LOGGED BY: J. Speck 0 Non-Standard Penetration Resistance (300 lb. weight, 30' drop) • Blows per foot 10 20 30 40 A : : •: : 0 20 40 60 80 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit 1--110-1 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content 50 0 5 10 — 15 40 100 I- 20 25 30 35 ON BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON HWAGEOSCIENCES INC I BORING 2003008.GPJ 5/15/07 PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 BORING: B -212 PAGE 1 of 1 FIGURE A -13 'DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Drilling, Inc. DRILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger, CME 85 truck rig SAMPLING METHOD: California Split Spoon w/ Autohammer SURFACE ELEVATION: 259 t feet O. 0 � 0 5— 10 — 15 — J 0 CO r CO 4 inchgs 9f asphalt at surface. Cuttings consist of silty, gravelly SAND, moist. Some refuse SP ncluding textile fragment and organics. (FILL) Medium dense, gray, fine to medium SAND, moist No refuse. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) Dense, alternating light brown and gray, fine to medium SAND, moist. Trace silt. 1 -inch thick native deposit of silty SAND with evenly distributed charred organic fragments at 5 feet (possible volcanic deposit). Dense, light brown, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND, moist Medium dense, gray, silty, fine SAND, moist. Trace horizontal laminations. M BORING 2003008.GPJ 5/15/07 DESCRIPTION Dense, gray to light brown alternating layers, fine to medium M S -5 9 -15-16 SAND, moist. Trace silt Dense, gray, fine to medium SAND, moist Trace silt. Very dense, gray, fine to medium SAND, moist. Trace horizontal laminations. Boring terminated at 26.5 feet. No ground water observed at time of exploration. Gas readings: carbon monoxide =0 ppm, hydrogen sulfide =0 ppm, combustible gas 0% LEL Composite environmental sample, B -213-C, collected from samples S -1 through S -7. f S w .0 z � s co y c re -a 3 w w ° 8 -14-14 S -2 8 -14-16 S-3 9 -14-18 S-4 9 -12 -13 GS N S-6 16 -18 -18 S -7 15 -26-33 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. OM BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION HWAGEOSCIENCES INC TUKWILA, WASHINGTON LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 2/13/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 2/13/2007 LOGGED BY: P. Pearson -• • Non-Standard Penetration Resistance (300 lb. weight, 30" drop) A Blows per foot • PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 10 20 30 40 50 •: • • • : : 0 20 40 60 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit 1--(1--1 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content BORING: B -213 PAGE 1 of 1 A A. FIGURE: 100 0 5 10 15 25 30 35 A -14 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Drilling, Inc. DRILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger, CME 85 truck rig SAMPLING METHOD: California Split Spoon w/ Autohammer SURFACE ELEVATION: 255 t feet w 0 5 — 10 — 15 — 20 — 25 — 30 — 35 — J 0 m co co DESCRIPTION 5 inches of asphalt at surface. Cuttings consist of gray, sandy, fine to medium GRAVEL, moist from 0.5 to 2 feet. L ILLL Medium dense, gray to brown, silty, fine to coarse SAND, with gravel, moist. Loose, gray, silty SAND, with gravel, moist Trace refuse (plastic and brick fragments - 1 percent of sample by volume) (FILL WITH REFUSE) Loose, grayish -brown with red and tan discoloration, silty SAND, moist Some refuse (plastic and brick fragments - 5 r' \to 10 percent of sample byvolume)_ J Very stiff, gray to black, REFUSE (plastic bags - 30 percent by volume, paper - 30 percent by volume, charred organics and organics - 20 percent by volume), with sand and silt, moist. ,jREFUSEL Very dense, gray, silty, fine to medium SAND, with gravel and refuse (metal - 5 percent by volume, tire fragments - 5 percent by volume, organics - 5 percent by volume), moist (FILL WITH REFUSE) Very dense, gray, fine to medium SAND, moist. Trace silt. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) Very dense, gray, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND, moist Some reddish grains in sand. Very dense, gray, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND, moist Boring terminated at 31.5 feet No ground water observed at time of exploration. Gas readings: carbon monoxide =0 ppm, hydrogen sulfide =0 ppm, combustible gas 0% LEL Composite environmental sample, B- 214 -C, collected from samples S -1 through S-6. w U z -. H a • U w re w ° ▪ - ® S -1 10 -14-8 ® S -2 3-4-5 ® S -3 2 -2 -3 ® S-4 2 -9-20 ® S -5 14 -25-30 NI S-6 22 -27 -30 GS xi S -7 22 -27 -30 S-8 22 -22 -25 40 — For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. NOTE This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and /or locations. LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 2/13/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 2/13/2007 LOGGED BY: P. Pearson 0 Non-Standard Penetration Resistance (300 lb. weight, 30' drop) A Blows per foot 10 20 30 40 50 ♦ : • W e 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 O 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit r Liquid Limit Natural Water Content OZI 1 BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION HWAGEOSCIENCES INC TUKWILA, WASHINGTON BORING 2003008.GPJ 5/15/07 PROJECT NO.: 2003-008 BORING: B -214 PAGE: 1 of 1 FIGURE; A -15 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Drilling, Inc. DRILLING METHOD: Hollow -Stem Auger, CME 85 truck rig SAMPLING METHOD: California Split Spoon w/ Autohammer SURFACE ELEVATION: 308 ± feet I- 0. W . 0 10- 15- 20- 25- 30- 35— -J 0 to 2 co tiF SM ML M ML SM DESCRIPTION - .Gravel paving and quarry ;pall; at the surface Gray, silty SAND, with gravel, moist. (WSDOT FILL) Dense, dark gray, silty, fine to medium SAND with gravel, moist Trace refuse (brick fragments -1 percent by volume, organics - 3 percent by volume). Medium stiff, olive gray, lean CLAY with sand, moist Trace gravel and organics. Loose, dark gray, silty SAND, with gravel, moist Trace organics. Medium stiff, dark gray, sandy SILT, with gravel, moist Some organics. Medium stiff, dark gray, sandy SILT, with gravel, moist. Some organics. Trace refuse (brick fragments - 1 percent by volume). Some greenish coloration. Very dense, brown to red with mottled coloration, silty SAND, with gravel, moist. Abundant refuse (glass - 5 percent by volume, brick - 5 percent by volume, organics - 10 percent by volume, off - white, unknown material - 2 percent by volume). (BURN FILL) Medium dense, reddish -brown, gray and black, silty SAND with gravel, moist Abundant refuse (glass - 5 percent by volume, organics and charred organics - 5 percent by volume, copper - 2 percent by volume, brick and off -white unknown material - 2 percent by volume). L / / 7 L S -1 14-20 -22 S -2 1 -2 -3 AL S -3 2 -3-4 S-4 2 -3-3 S -5 2 -3-5 S-6 18 -35 -50 S -7 5 -9 -9 40 — For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 2/14/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 2/14 /2007 LOGGED BY: P. Pearson Non-Standard Penetration Resistance (300 lb. weight, 30° drop) • Blows per foot 0 10 20 . r A • • 20 40 60 80 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit Liquid Limit Natural Water Content ar W 50 O 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 40 g iT BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON HWAGEOSCIENCES INC BORING 2003008.GPJ 5/15/07 PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 BORING: B -215 PAGE: 1 of 2 FIGURE: A -16 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Drilling, Inc. DRILLING METHOD: Hollow -Stem Auger, CME 85 truck rig SAMPLING METHOD: California Split Spoon w/ Autohammer SURFACE ELEVATION: 308 t feet F a. m 40 45 — 50 — 60 — 70 — 75 — J O 2 y DESCRIPTION Medium dense, reddish -brown to dark gray, silty SAND with gravel, moist. Abundant refuse (glass and ceramics - 5 percent by volume, organics and charred organics - 5 percent by volume). Medium dense, dark brownish -gray, silty SAND with gravel, moist. Abundant refuse (glass - 5 percent by volume, organics and charred organics - 5 percent by volume, 7 s \unknown material - 2 percent by volume). BORING 2003008.GPJ 5/15/07 Dense, light grayish -brown, slightly silty, fine SAND, moist. Trace horizontal laminations. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) Very dense, light grayish - brown, fine SAND, moist. Trace horizontal laminations. Very dense, light grayish- brown, fine SAND, moist. Trace slightly silty, horizontal laminations. Very dense, light grayish -brown, fine SAND. moist Trace slightly silty, horizontal laminations. Boring terminated at 66.5 feet. No ground water observed at time of exploration. Gas readings: carbon monoxide =0 ppm, hydrogen sulfide =0 ppm, combustible gas 0% LEL Composite environmental samples, B-215 -C1, collected from samples S -1 through S -5, and B- 215 -C2, collected from samples S-5 through S -10. 7 7 / S-8 5-7-8 S -9 5-7 -7 OC S -10 10 -20 -22 S -11 12 -25-25 S -12 13 -22 -28 S -13 16 -25-29 For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. GITI 1 BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION HWAGEOSCIENCES INC TUKWILA, WASHINGTON LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 2/14/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 2/14/2007 LOGGED BY: P. Pearson •• • 10 20 30 • PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 Non-Standard Penetration Resistance" (300 lb. weight, 30' drop) • Blows per foot ••• 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit Liquid Limit Natural Water Content BORING: B -215 PAGE: 2 of 2 FIGURE: • 50 40 45 50 AP— 55 •-60 arm 65 70 75 80 W O w A -16 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Drilling, Inc. DRILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger, CME 85 truck rig SAMPLING METHOD: California Split Spoon w/ Autohammer SURFACE ELEVATION: 309 ± feet O. o� 0 — 5— 10 — 15 — 20 — 25 — 30 — 35 — J O 2 cn DESCRIPTION SM ML SP SM ML . SP SM Grass at surface. Cuttings consist of brown silty SAND, moist. Loose, dark brown, silty, fine to medium SAND, with gravel, moist Trace organics. (WSDOT FILL) Soft, brown to gray, sandy, plastic SILT, with gravel, moist. Some organics. Some discoloration. Stiff, dark olive gray, sandy, plastic SILT, with gravel, moist Some organics. Loose, to medium dense, fine to medium, slightly silty, SAND, moist Stiff, gray, sandy SILT, with gravel, moist. Trace organics. Some discoloration. P Loose, gray, silty SAND, moist Trace organics. Some clumps of gray, plastic SILT, moist Some gravel. Dense, light brown, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND, moist Thin silty lamination at 35.5 feet. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) / L 7 / 7 / S -1 2 -3-4 GS S -2 2 -1 -2 S -3 3-4 -5 AL S-4 2 -4-5 S -5 3 -5-6 S-6 2-4-4 S -7 12 -15-17 40 — For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. LOCATION: See Site 8 Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 2/14/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 2/14/2007 LOGGED BY: P. Pearson 0 Non - Standard Penetration Resistance (300 lb. weight, 30" drop) • Blows per foot 10 20 30 40 -•A :r H : A .••A : • • :• • 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit I--S I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 OM BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION HWAGEOSCIENCESINC TUKWILA, WASHINGTON BORING 2003008.GPJ 5/15/07 PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 BORING: B -216 PAGE 1 of 2 FIGURE: A -17 D� RILLING COMPANY: Cascade Drilling, Inc. DRILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger, CME 85 truck rig SAMPLING METHOD: California Split Spoon w/ Autohammer SURFACE ELEVATION: 309 ± feet I w 4o— _ 45 — 50 — 55 — 60 — 65 70 — 75 80 — J 0 m 2 } rn DESCRIPTION Dense, light brown, silty, fine to medium SAND, moist Thin silty laminations at 40 feet and 40.5 feet Dense, light brown, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND, moist Dense, light grayish - brown, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND, moist. Thin, silty, organic lamination at 50.5 feet Boring terminated at 51.5 feet No ground water observed at time of exploration. Gas readings: carbon monoxide =0 ppm, hydrogen sutfide =0 ppm, combustible gas 0% LEL. Composite environmental samples, B- 216 -C, collected from samples S -1 through S -7. 7 S-8 10 -21 -25 GS S -9 11 -15-16 S -10 10 -17 -18 For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and /or locations. LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 2/14/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 2/14/2007 LOGGED BY: P. Pearson 0 Non-Standard Penetration Resistance (300 lb. weight, 30' drop) • Blows per foot 10 20 30 40 • A : A 0 20 40 60 80 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit I---•— I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content w 50 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 100 O l iT BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON HWWGEOSCIENCES INC. BORING 2003008.GPJ 5/15/07 PROJECT NO.: 2003-008 BORING: B -216 PAGE: 2 of 2 FIGURE: A -17 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Drilling, Inc. DRILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger, CME 85 truck rig SAMPUNG METHOD: California Split Spoon w/ Autohammer SURFACE ELEVATION: 311 t feet 10 — 15 — 20 — 25 — J 0 2 Y y BORING 2003008.GPJ 5/15/07 DESCRIPTION Grass, blackberry bushes and gravel at surface. (TOPSOIL) Cuttings consist of brown, silty SAND, with gravel, moist. Loose, olive brown, silty, fine to medium SAND, with gravel, moist Some iron oxide staining. (WSDOT FILL) Soft, brown and gray to dark gray, sandy, lean CLAY with gravel, moist Some gravel. Trace organics and discoloration. Soft, dark olive gray, sandy, lean CLAY with gravel, moist. Trace organics and discoloration. Soft, gray, sandy, sandy, lean CLAY with gravel, moist Some organics (rotten wood). 3 -inch thick, silty, fine to medium SAND layer at 20.5 feet Cobble in sampler tip surrounded by gray sandy CLAY, moist. Some wood debris. Medium dense, bluish to greenish-gray, silty SAND, with gravel, moist Some organics and charred organics. Dense, light grayish - brown, slightly silty, fine SAND, moist. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) 7 7 L w U z -. H m W • c w co IL' w — o. S -1 2 -2-4 GS S -2 2 -2 -2 S -3 1 -1 -2 AL S-4 1 -2 -2 0 S -5 4-4-5 Q Q S-6 3-6-7 S -7 10 -16-18 For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. 8311 1 BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION HWAGEOSCIENCES INC TUKWILA, WASHINGTON LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 2/14 /2007 DATE COMPLETED: 2/14/2007 LOGGED BY: P. Pearson 0 10 PROJECT NO.: 2003-008 Non - Standard Penetration Resistance (300 lb. weight, 30" drop) • Blows per foot 20 30 BORING: B -217 PAGE: 1 of 2 FIGURE: 40 A• • A •• • . . A: • O 20 40 60 80 Water Content ( %) Plastic Umit Uquid Limit Natural Water Content I•- W e 50 100 0 —5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 I A -18 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Drilling, Inc. DRIWNG METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger, CME 85 truck rig SAMPLING METHOD: California Split Spoon w/ Autohammer SURFACE ELEVATION: 311 t feet o • 40 — 45 — 50 — 55 — 60 — 65 — 70 — 75 — 80 — DESCRIPTION Dense, light grayish - brown, slightly silty, fine SAND, moist. Trace horizontal laminations. Medium dense, light grayish -brown, slightly silty, fine SAND, moist 2-inch layer of pinkish -gray, silty, fine SAND. with evenly distributed flecks of charred material at 46 feet (possible volcanic deposit). Very dense, light grayish - brown, slightly silty, fine SAND, moist. Boring terminated at 51.5 feet No ground water observed at time of exploration. Gas readings: carbon monoxide =0 ppm, hydrogen sulfide ppm, combustible gas 0% LEL. Composite environmental samples, B- 217 -C, collected from samples S -1 through S -7. 7 7 L w U z � F a . cn U w rE o S-8 10 -18-25 S -10 18 -23-28 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. S -9 5-6-8 GS For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 2/14/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 2/14/2007 LOGGED BY: P. Pearson Non-Standard Penetration Resistance (300 lb. weight, 30' drop) • Blows per foot 0 10 —• AL--- 40 :• m 20 30 40 50 ` gym 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit I-411-1 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 ON BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION HWAGEOSCIENCES INC TUKWILA, WASHINGTON BORING 2003008.GPJ 5/15/07 PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 BORING: B-21 7 PAGE: 2 of 2 FIGURE: A-18 / DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Drilling, Inc. DRILLING METHOD: Hollow -Stem Auger, CME 75 tracked rig SAMPLING METHOD: Dames and Moore, 3001b Autohammer SURFACE ELEVATION: 244 t feet W m Ow 0 5— 10 — 15 — 25 — J 0 2 cn Loose, brown to dark brown, silty, fine to medium SAND with gravel, moist. Gravel is fine to coarse, sub - angular to rounded. Organic soil - rootlets. (FILL) Loose, brown to dark brown, silty, fine to medium SAND with gravel, moist. Gravel is fine to coarse, sub - angular to rounded. Refuse is less than 10% by volume. 100% compressible. [burnt wood] FILL WITH REFUSEL Low recovery. Loose, brown to dark brown, silty, fine to medium SAND with gravel, moist. Gravel is fine to coarse, sub-angular to rounded. Loose, brown to red brown, silty, fine to medium SAND, moist. Refuse is 80% by volume. 100% compressible. [wood, burnt wood] (REFUSE) Loose, brown to black, silty, fine to medium SAND, moist. Black staining. Slight hydrocarbon odor. Refuse is 60% by volume. 50% compressible and 50% non - compressible. [metal, plastic, wood] Loose, gray to black (product staining), silty, fine to medium SAND, moist. Product odor. Refuse is 60% by volume. 50% compressible and 50% non- compressible. [wood, burnt wood, metal] Loose, dark gray to black, silty, fine to medium SAND, moist. Product staining. Slight product odor. Refuse is 60% by volume. 10% compressible and 90% non-compressible. [metal, glass] Loose, dark gray to black, silty, fine to medium SAND, moist. Slight product odor. Refuse is 40% by volume. 50% compressible and 50% non-compressible. [metal, wood] Bottom of sample: 1 to 2 inches dark gray, soft sandy SILT to silty SAND. HWAGEOSCIENCES INC BORING 2003008.GPJ 5/15/07 DESCRIPTION Medium dense, gray to light yellow brown, silty, fine to medium SAND. moist Some burnt wood near top of sample (possible slough). (GLACIAL OUTWASH) L 7 L 7 L Z TUKWILA, WASHINGTON S-1 6-4-2 S -2 2 -3-2 S -3 3-2 -3 S-4 2 -1-4 S -5 4-4-4 S-6 5-4-3 S -7 6-4-4 S-8 3-1 -3 S -9 20 -15 -13 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 2/15/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 2/15/2007 LOGGED BY: J. Speck 0 Non-Standard Penetration Resistance (300 lb. weight, 30' drop) • Blows per foot 10 20 30 ♦ : : • : A : : •: : 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit I-111--1 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content BORING: B -218 PAGE: 1 of 2 FIGURE: 40 50 0 —5 X10 40 W O 15 20 25 30 35 l A -19 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Drilling, Inc. DRILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger, CME 75 tracked rig SAMPLING METHOD: Dames and Moore, 300lb Autohammer SURFACE ELEVATION: 244 t feet a= o � 40 — 45 — 50-- 55 — 60 — 65 — 70 — 75 — 80 — J m 2 } co DESCRIPTION Medium dense to dense, light yellow brown, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND. moist. Boring terminated at 46.5 feet. No ground water observed during drilling. Gas readings: carbon monoxide =0 ppm, hydrogen sulfide =0 ppm, combustible gas 0% LEL Composite environmental sample B -218-C collected from samples S -1 through S -9. / w 0 z I- y � rn _ , ct w n.� S-10 12 -13-15 S -11 16 -15-20 For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 2/15/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 2/15/2007 LOGGED BY: J. Speck 0 Non-Standard Penetration Resistance (300 lb. weight, 30' drop) • Blows per foot 10 20 30 40 20 40 60 80 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit E ---• —I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content S 50 100 40 —45 —50 55 60 65 70 75 80 OM BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION HWAGEOSCIENCES INC TUKWILA, WASHINGTON BORING 2003008.GPJ 5/15/07 PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 BORING: B -218 PAGE: 2 of 2 FIGURE: A -19 DRIWNG COMPANY: Cascade Drilling, Inc. DRIWNG METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger, CME 75 tracked rig SAMPLING METHOD: Dames and Moore, 300lb Autohammer SURFACE ELEVATION: 285 3 feet w m ot. 0— 30 5— 10— 15 — 20 — 25 — 35 — 40 — J 0 C13 y DESCRIPTION SM ML SM Grass on yellow brown, silty, fine to medium SAND with gravel, moist. Gravel is fine to coarse, sub-angular to rounded. Medium dense, yellow brown, silty, fine to medium SAND, moist. Trace gravel. Gravel is fine to coarse, sub-angular to rounded. Loose, grayish brown, silty, fine to medium SAND, moist. Trace gravel. Gravel is fine to coarse, sub-angular to rounded. (WSDOT FILL) Soft, dark gray, sandy, clayey, SILT with gravel, moist. Gravel is fine to coarse, sub - angular to sub - rounded. Medium stiff, olive gray, sandy, clayey, SILT, moist Trace clay. Trace gravel. Gravel is fine to coarse, sub-angular to sub - rounded. Soft, dark gray, sandy, clayey SILT, moist. Trace gravel. Gravel is fine to coarse, sub - angular to rounded. Decomposing wood at bottom of sample. Soft, dark gray, sandy, clayey SILT, moist. Trace gravel. Gravel is fine to coarse, sub-angular to sub - rounded. Last inch of sample: yellow brown, silty, fine to medium SAND, moist Possible native. Loose, olive brown, silty, fine to medium SAND, moist. Trace gravel. Gravel is fine to coarse, sub - rounded to rounded. Some water staining. • SP Dense, yellow brown, slightly silty, fine to coarse SAND, ` moist (ADVANCE OUTWASH) Boring terminated at 31.5 feel No ground water observed during drilling. L / / L L 7 w U Z -. a h w cL w - a S -1 7 -7-6 S -2 2-4-5 GS S -3 1 -1 -2 S-4 3-4-2 AL S -5 1 -1 -2 S-6 2 -2 -2 S -7 2 -2 -3 GS S-8 7 -14-16 No environmental sample collected from B -219. Periodic gas monitoring near borehole showed no detections of carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide or combustible gas in the air at the time of exploration. For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and /or locations. LOCATION: See Site 8 Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 2/20/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 2/20 /2007 LOGGED BY: J. Speck 0 Non-Standard Penetration Resistance (140 lb. weight, 30" drop) • Blows per foot 10 20 . 30 40 A: • •A • . • L• : • • 0 20 40 60 80 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit )—•— I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content F- Lu 50 0 5 10 15 20 —25 30 35 40 100 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC BORING 2003008.GPJ 5/15/07 BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 2003-008 BORING: B -219 PAGE: 1 of 1 FIGURE: A -20 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Drilling, Inc. DRILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger, CME 75 tracked rig SAMPLING METHOD: Dames and Moore, 300Ib Autohammer SURFACE ELEVATION: 308 ± feet 10 — 15 — 25 — 20 — 30 35 — J 0 2 } SM CL ML SM SM DESCRIPTION Grass on loose, brown, silty, fine to medium SAND with gravel, moist. Medium dense, brown, silty, fine to medium SAND with gravel, moist. Gravel is fine to coarse, sub - angular to rounded. (WSDOT FILL) Loose, dark brown, silty, fine to medium SAND with gravel, moist Some rust staining. Loose, brown to dark gray, silty, fine to medium SAND with gravel, moist Some rust staining. Loose, dark gray, slightly sandy, lean CLAY, moist Trace gravel. Gravel is fine to coarse, sub - angular to sub - rounded. Trace wood. Medium dense, dark olive gray, sandy, lean CLAY with gravel, moist. Trace wood. Driller notes rough drilling. Dense, dark gray, sandy, lean CLAY, moist. Trace gravel. Gravel is coarse, sub - angular. Broken cobble in sampler. Driller notes rough drilling. Dense, dark gray, sandy, lean CLAY with gravel, moist. Gravel is fine to coarse, sub - angular to rounded. Wood in sample. Faint odor- decomposing wood/refuse. Broken cobble in sample. Driller notes rough drilling. Medium dense, black, sandy SILT to silty SAND with gravel, moist Bum refuse is 70% by volume (brick, glass, asphalt). (BURN FILL) L Z 7 / 7 S -1 5-5-5 S -2 1 -1 -1 GS S -3 1 -1 -1 S-4 3-4-4 S -5 5 -5-10 AL 0 S-6 18 -25 -20 m S -7 18 -24 -21 Z S-8 2 -10-9 Very dense, red brown, silty, fine to medium SAND with m S -9 50/5" gravel, moist Broken cobble in sample. Bum refuse is 30% by volume (brick, glass). 40 For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 2/19/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 2/19/2007 LOGGED BY: J. Speck 0 10 A Non-Standard Penetration Resistance (140 lb. weight, 30" drop) • Blows per foot • A 1 -• I- -�-� O . 20 30 40 50 0 M • . A f A 0 20 40 60 80 Water Content ( %) Plastic Umit 1- -0-- -1 Liquid Umit Natural Water Content a>; 100 5 10 —15 20 25 30 35 40 021 1 BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION HWAGEOSCIENCES INC TUKWILA, WASHINGTON BORING 2003008.GPJ 5115/07 PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 BORING: B -220 PAGE 1 of 2 FIGURE; A -21 - - - ML Medium dense, dark brown to red brown, sandy SILT and / silty, fine to medium SAND with gravel, moist Gravel is fine _ to coarse, sub - angular to sub - rounded. Bum refuse is 60% by volume (brick, glass, bum slag). SM Medium dense, silty, fine to coarse SAND with gravel, moist. - Gravel is fine to coarse, sub - angular to sub - rounded. L - • Bum refuse is 70% by volume (brick, glass, wood, metal). No recovery. Driller notes hammer may be pounding on a O - cobble during sampling. No recovery. Hammer bouncing off rock or wood. - No recovery. Driller notes probable mass being pushed in O front of auger during drilling. Object cleared. SP Driller broke mass. / ' SM Dense, dark gray, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND, moist _ - (ADVANCE OUTWASH) Dense, olive gray, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND, moist. 7 - Faint rust staining from 71.0 to 71.5. / i I I I i I i i i i i i i 1 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Drilling, Inc. DRILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger. CME 75 tracked rig SAMPLING METHOD: Dames and Moore, 300lb Autohammer SURFACE ELEVATION: 308 t feet 40 45 55 60 65 70 75 — DESCRIPTION BORING 2003008.GPJ 5/15107 Boring terminated at 71.5 feet. No ground water observed during drilling. Composite environmental sample. B- 220 -C, collected from samples S -7 through S -14. Periodic gas monitoring near borehole showed no detections of carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide or combustible gas in the air at the time of exploration. w z a H F m U w 5. g S -10 5 -7 -12 S -11 4-6-6 S -12 50/3" S -13 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. S -14 16 -17 -18 S -15 14 -22 -23 GS S -16 13 -20-31 80 — For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. ga l BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION HWAGEOSCIENCES INC TUKWILA, WASHINGTON LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 2/19/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 2/19/2007 LOGGED BY: J. Speck Non-Standard Penetration Resistance (140 lb. weight, 30" drop) • Blows per foot 010 20 PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit I S I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content BORING: B -220 PAGE: 2 of 2 FIGURE: nr a> 50 40 —45 —55 am o� 50 60 65 70 75 80 A -21 I DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Drilling, Inc. DRILLING METHOD: Hollow -Stem Auger, CME 75 tracked rig SAMPLING METHOD: Dames and Moore, 3001b Autohammer SURFACE ELEVATION: 306 ± feet 10 — 15 — 20 — 25 — 35 — SM DESCRIPTION Grass on loose, dark brown, silty, fine to medium SAND with gravel, moist Loose, brown to dark brown, silly, fine to medium SAND with gravel, moist. Gravel is fine to coarse, sub-angular to sub - rounded. Some sandy silty lobes. (WSDOT FILL) ML Soft, dark gray, sandy SILT with gravel, moist. Gravel is fine to coarse, sub- angular to sub - rounded. Some wood. Soft, dark gray, sandy SILT with gravel, moist Some wood. Soft, olive gray, sandy SILT with gravel, moist. Loose, dark gray, slightly sandy SILT, moist. Trace gravel. Loose, dark gray, sandy SILT to silty, fine to medium SAND, moist. Trace gravel. SM Loose, dark brown, silty, fine to medium SAND, moist. Wood debris is 90% by volume. SM P Dense, red brown, silty, fine to medium SAND with gravel, moist Gravel is fine to coarse, sub-angular to sub - rounded. Bum refuse is 80% by volume (glass, brick, wood). (BURN FILL) 7 / 7 L 7 7 / Medium dense, red brown, silty, fine to medium SAND with / S -9 3-4-8 gravel, moist. Gravel is fine to coarse, sub - angular to sub - rounded. urn refuse is 60% by volume (glass, brick, wood). Medium dense grading to dense, light yellow brown, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND, moist 40 w U Z -. a N I- m rn c w, rt z 3 w n.� 5-1 3-5-3 GS S -2 2 -1 -2 S -3 1 -2 -2 S-4 1 -2 -2 AL S -5 1 -2 -3 S-6 2 -2 -3 S -7 3 -3-4 S-8 26 -50/6" For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 2/20 /2007 DATE COMPLETED: 2/20/2007 LOGGED BY: J. Speck 0 10 20 30 40 • • .4, Y :• Standard Penetration Test (140 lb. weight. 30" drop) A Blows per foot •. : • : a >; 50 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit I-410-1 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 OM BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION HWAGEOSCIENCES INC TUKWILA, WASHINGTON I BORING 2003008.GPJ 5/15/07 PROJECT NO.: 2003-008 BORING: B -221 PAGE: 1 of 2 FIGURE: A -22 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Drilling, Inc. DRILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger, CME 75 tracked rig SAMPLING METHOD: Dames and Moore, 300lb Autohammer SURFACE ELEVATION: 306 t feet 0 40 — 45 — 50 — 55 — 60 — 65 — 70 — 75 — 80 DESCRIPTION SM (ADVANCE OUTWASH) Dense, light yellow brown,silty, fine to medium SAND, moist. Very dense, light yellow brown, fine to medium SAND, moist. Very dense, light yellow brown, fine to medium SAND, moist Very dense, light yellow brown, fine to medium SAND, moist. Very dense, light yellow brown, silty SAND, moist. Boring terminated at 61.5 feet No ground water observed during drilling. Composite environmental sample, B- 221 -C, collected from samples S-6 through S -10. Periodic gas monitoring near borehole showed no detections of carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide or combustible gas in the air at the time of exploration. / / 7 / S -10 10 -16-18 GS S -11 5 -20-28 S-12 20 -31 -50/6' S -13 18 -31 -39 S -14 12 -31 -36 GS For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 2/20/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 2/20/2007 LOGGED BY: J. Speck Standard Penetration Test (140 lb. weight, 30' drop) • Blows per foot 0 10 20 30 40 • • : • : 0 20 40 60 80 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit I--I I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content • nr. m 0 v 50 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 100 OW BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION HWAGE0SCIENCES INC TUKWILA, WASHINGTON BORING 2003008.GPJ 5/15/07 PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 BORING: B -221 PAGE: 2 of 2 FIGURE; A -22 / DRIWNG COMPANY: Cascade Drilling, Inc. DRIWNG METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger. CME 75 tracked rig SAMPLING METHOD: Dames and Moore, 3001b Autohammer SURFACE ELEVATION: 302 t feet 0 5 25 10 — 15 — 30 — J O ft1 2 } CO DESCRIPTION SM CL ML SM • Grass on dark brown, silty SAND with gravel, moist. Medium dense, olive gray, silty, fine to medium SAND with gravel, moist. Gravel is fine to coarse, sub - angular to sub - rounded. (WSDOT FILL) Loose, dark gray, sandy, silty CLAY, moist Trace gravel. Gravel is fine to coarse, sub-angular to sub- rounded. Loose, gray, sandy silty CLAY, moist. Trace gravel. Gravel is fine to coarse, sub - angular to sub - rounded. Loose, dark gray, sandy, silty CLAY, moist Trace gravel. Gravel is fine to coarse, sub-angular to sub - rounded. Some sandier sections (not stratified) Loose, dark gray, sandy, silty CLAY with gravel, moist Gravel is fine to coarse, sub-angular to sub- rounded. Loose, dark gray, silty, fine to medium SAND with gravel, moist. Gravel is fine to coarse, sub - angular to rounded. BORING 2003008.GPJ 5/15/07 SM Dense, yellow brown to gray, silty, fine to medium SAND with gravel, moist. Gravel is fine to coarse, sub - angular to rounded. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) Medium dense, yellow brown, silty, fine to medium SAND, moist Faint sub - horizontal bedding, possible water staining. Medium dense, yellow brown, silty, fine to medium SAND, moist. Faint sub - horizontal bedding, possible water staining. 7 Q L 7 / Z and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and /or locations. S -1 3-6-5 GS S -2 2-3-4 S -3 2 -2 -3 AL S-4 1 -2-4 S -5 1 -2-4 S-6 1 -1 -1 S -7 10 -50/6 A s-8 10 -22 -38 S -9 6-8-9 GS For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated OM BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION HWAGEOSCIENCES INC TUKWILA, WASHINGTON LOCATION: See Site 8 Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 2/20/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 2/20/2007 LOGGED BY: J. Speck 0 10 20 30 40 ♦ : : • : : PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 Standard Penetration Test (140 lb. weight, 30" drop) • Blows per foot :• A : : ♦ }N : • .A. ar ar. • 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit I --•- -I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content BORING: B -222 PAGE: 1 of 2 FIGURE: 0 tr. 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 A -23 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Drilling, Inc. DRILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger, CME 75 tracked rig SAMPLING METHOD: Dames and Moore, 300lb Autohammer SURFACE ELEVATION: 302 ± feet wm o 40 45 — 50 — 55 — 60 — 65 — 70 — 75 — 80 — 0 m DESCRIPTION Medium dense, olive brown, silty, fine to medium SAND, moist. Faint high -angle bedding possible water staining. Boring terminated at 41.5 feet. No ground water observed during drilling. No environmental sample collected from B -222. Periodic gas monitoring near borehole showed no detections of carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide or combustible gas in the air at the time of exploration. S-10 6 -8-14 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 2/20/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 2/20/2007 LOGGED BY: J. Speck 0 10 Standard Penetration Test (140 lb. weight, 30 drop) • Blows per foot 20 30 40 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content (%) Plastic Limit F-111-1 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content x W 50 w r -40 45 50 55 60 65 70 —75 80 017 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC BORING 2003008.GPJ 5/15/07 BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 2003-008 BORING: B -222 PAGE: 2 of 2 FIGURE: A -23 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Drilling, Inc. DRIWNG METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger, CME 85 truck rig SAMPLING METHOD: California Split Spoon w/ Autohammer SURFACE ELEVATION: 256 ± feet 0 5 10-- 15 — 20 — 25 — 30 — 35 — •• • • •• ii •• •••• • V • • • • • ii• •• • ••••• •••• ••• •••• •••• •••• •• •••• •• ••• •• •• • • SM SP Grass at the surface. Medium dense, dark brownish -gray, silty SAND, moist. . Some wood debris (10% by volume). Medium stiff, dark gray, silty REFUSE, moist. Paper - 90% by volume, glass - 2% by volume. (REFUSE) Medium dense, dark gray, slightly silty, fine to medium . .SAND, moist. No refuse or organics observed Medium stiff, dark gray to black, sandy SILT, moist. Refuse: organics - 10% by volume, paper - 5% by volume, glass - 5% by volume. Slight hydrocarbon -like odor. (FILL WITH REFUSE) Medium stiff, dark gray, sandy SILT, moist. Refuse: . .organics - 10% by volume,. glass - 5% by volume Medium dense, dark gray, silty, fine to medium SAND, moist. Refuse: metal - 2% by volume. Medium dense, dark gray, silty SAND, moist Refuse: organics - 30% by volume, metal - 2% by volume. No recovery - cobble in sampler tip. SP DESCRIPTION Dense, olive gray, slightly silty, fine SAND, moist (ADVANCE OUTWASH) Dense, dark gray, fine SAND, moist Dense, dark gray, fine SAND, moist. Thin, silty lamination at 31 feet. Dense, dark gray, slightly silty, fine SAND, moist m S -1 13-8 -6 ira S -2 6-6 -7 7 S-4 2 -3-3 OC pH S -5 2 -3-5 S-6 6 -5-4 n/ S -7 7 -5-10 OC S-8 6-6-6 Z L 7 S -3 4-6-6 S -9 6 -10-13 GS S -10 8 -13-15 S -11 12 -15-16 S -12 10 -13-15 pH 40 — For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. NOTE This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and /or locations. LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 2/24/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 2/24/2007 LOGGED BY: P. Pearson 0 • • • A. : • • • : • : : ♦ : . ♦: : A A. 0 Non-Standard Penetration Resistance (300 lb. weight, 30" drop) A Blows per foot 10 20 30 40 20 40 60 80 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit 1-11-1 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content I w as 50 0 100 5 10 — 15 20 —25 30 35 40 OM BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION FIWAGEOSCIENCES INC. TUKWILA, WASHINGTON BORING 2003008.GPJ 5/15/07 PROJECT NO.: 2003-008 BORING: B -223 PAGE: 1 of 2 FIGURE: A -24 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Drilling, Inc. DRILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger, CME 85 truck rig SAMPLING METHOD: California Split Spoon w/ Autohammer SURFACE ELEVATION: 256 t feet z 0 40 45 — 50 — 55 60 — 65 — 70 — 75 — 80 — DESCRIPTION Dense, gray, slightly silty, fine SAND, moist Boring terminated at 41.5 feet. No ground water observed at time of exploration. Composite environmental sample, B- 223 -C, collected from samples S -1 through S -9. Periodic gas monitoring near borehole showed a peak detection of 2% of the LEL for combustible gas, and no detections of carbon monoxide or hydrogen sulfide in the air at the time of exploration. w U 2 Hai co U w cc t�f Z w— a8 S -13 12 -17 -17 GS For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 2/24/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 2/24/2007 LOGGED BY: P. Pearson 0 Non-Standard Penetration Resistance (300 lb. weight, 30° drop) • Blows per foot 10 20 30 40 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit I--• I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content am 50 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC BORING 2003008.GPJ 5/15/07 BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 BORING: B -223 PAGE: 2 of 2 FIGURE: A -24 DRIWNG COMPANY: Cascade Drilling, Inc. DRIWNG METHOD: Hollow -Stem Auger, CME 85 truck rig SAMPLING METHOD: California Split Spoon w/ Autohammer SURFACE ELEVATION: 250 ± feet 0— 5— 10 — 15 — 20-- 25 — 30 — 35 — 40 — o v 0 GP ML GP SM P DESCRIPTION Surface consists of 4 inches of asphalt Cuttings consist of brown, sandy GRAVEL with cobbles. and drilling. (FILL) Hard, light brownish -gray, sandy SILT, with gravel and :cobbles, moist Slightly rust - mottled. (ICE -CONTACT STRATIFIED DRIFT) Very dense, light brownish -gray, silty, fine sandy GRAVEL, moist. Some rust - mottling. No recovery. Medium dense, light olive brown, silty, fine SAND, moist. Medium dense, light brownish -gray, slightly silty, fine SAND, moist. (GLACIAL OUTWASH) Medium dense, light grayish -brown, fine SAND, moist. Boring terminated at 16.5 feet. No ground water observed at time of exploration. Gas readings: carbon monoxide =0 ppm, hydrogen sulfide =0 ppm, combustible gas 0% LEL. No environmental samples collected. 7 L I w U z 1_w U w CG as S -1 16 -50/6 S -2 16 -32 -32 17 -28-26 S-3 8-9-10 S-4 5 -10-11 S -5 8 -10-12 For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. NOTE This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 2/24/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 2/24/2007 LOGGED BY: P. Pearson Non-Standard Penetration Resistance (300 lb. weight, 30' drop) ♦ Blows per foot 10 20 30 40 » : 0 20 40 60 80 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit I • Liquid Limit Natural Water Content W Ti; 50 O 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 100 ga l BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON HWAGEOSCIENCES INC BORING 2003008.GPJ 5/15/07 PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 BORING: B -224 PAGE 1 of 1 FIGURE: A -25 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Drilling, Inc. DRILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger, CME 85 truck rig SAMPLING METHOD: California Split Spoon w/ Autohammer SURFACE ELEVATION: 246 ± feet 4 inches of asphalt at surface. DESCRIPTION Hard drilling near surface. Cuttings consist of sandy :GRAVEL moist. (FILL) Very dense, light grayish -brown to dark brown, gravelly SAND, with silt, moist. Dense, dark gray, gravelly, fine to coarse SAND, moist .Slag-like material with black flecks. Very loose, grayish - brown, silty SAND, with gravel, moist Refuse: glass - 10% by volume, wood debris - 5% by volume. (FILL WITH REFUSE) Very loose, grayish -brown, silty SAND, moist Refuse: organics - 2% by volume, glass - 1% by volume. No recovery Loose, gray, silty, fine to medium SAND, moist to wet Organics - 5 % by volume. Slight hydrocarbon -like odor. Loose, gray, silty, fine to medium SAND, moist. Organics - ,5% by volume. Slight hydrocarbon -like odor. Dense, grayish brown, silty, fine SAND, moist 1 -inch thick lamination of silty SAND at 23 feet. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) Dense, brownish -gray, silty, fine SAND, moist Dense, brownish -gray, fine SAND, moist. Trace silty laminations. Very dense, gray, fine SAND, moist Boring terminated at 36.5 feet No ground water observed at time of exploration. S -1 50/5 m S -2 10 -20-2 L z 7 Medium stiff, brownish -gray, sandy SILT, moist to wet. Z S -5 Refuse: 50% wood debris by volume, 2% glass by volume. ..Slight hydrocarbon -like odor. • S-6 / / / w U Z CO co c w e: -a z 3 w ° S -3 1 -2 -1 S-4 1 -2 -1 3-4-4 2 -3-3 5-5-4 OC pH S -7 5 -3-3 OC pH S-8 14 -21 -25 GS S -9 15 -20-20 S -10 15 -20-25 S -11 15 -26-25 For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 2/24/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 2/24/2007 LOGGED BY: P. Pearson 0 Non-Standard Penetration Resistance (300 lb. weight, 30" drop) • Blows per foot 10 20 30 40 A: •• A A : A w e 50 0 ` 0 A L 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit I--• I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content 5 10 15 20 —25 30 35 40 BM BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION HWAGEOSCIENCES INC TUKWILA, WASHINGTON BORING 2003008.GPJ 5/15/07 PROJECT NO.: 2003-008 BORING: B -225 PAGE: 1 of 2 FIGURE: A -26 CDRILLNG COMPANY: Cascade Drilling, Inc. DRILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger, CME 85 truck rig SAMPLING METHOD: California Split Spoon w/ Autohammer SURFACE ELEVATION: 246 ± feet 40 45 — 50 — 55 — 60 — 65 — 70 — 75 — 80 — DESCRIPTION Gas readings: carbon monoxide0 ppm, hydrogen sulfide =0 ppm, combustible gas 0% LEL Environmental sample, B- 225 -C. collected from samples S -1 through S-8. NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and /or locations. For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 2/24/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 2/24/2007 LOGGED BY: P. Pearson 0 Non-Standard Penetration Resistance (300 lb. weight, 30' drop) • Blows per foot 10 20 30 40 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit I --•- -- I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content i 50 O � 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. BORING 2003008.GPJ 5115107 BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 2003-008 BORING: B -225 PAGE: 2 of 2 FIGURE; A -26 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Drilling, Inc. DRILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger, CME 85 truck rig SAMPLING METHOD: California Split Spoon w/ Autohammer SURFACE ELEVATION: 247 t feet 2 o m 0 — 5— 10 — 15 — 20 — 25 — 30 — 35 — 40 — DESCRIPTION aV � Qc GP SP SM 4 inches of asphalt at surface. \ Cuttings consist of sandy GRAVEL, moist to 2 feet. (FILL) Medium dense, gray, slightly silty, fine SAND, moist. (GLACIAL OUTWASH) Dense, gray, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND, moist. Very dense, gray, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND, moist Gravelly from 8 to 9 feet. Dense, olive gray, slightly silty, fine SAND, moist. Dense, gray, slightly silty, fine SAND, moist 1-inch silty layer at 16.5 feet Very dense, gray, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND, moist Boring terminated at 21.5 feet. No ground water observed at time of exploration. Gas readings: carbon monoxide =0 ppm, hydrogen sulfide ppm, combustible gas 0% LEL. No environmental samples collected. w U z in 0 r o w cc z 3 w ° D S -1 8 -12 -12 S -2 12 -15 -16 S -3 10 -25 -26 s-4 12 -18-20 GS pH S5 12 -18 -21 S-6 16 -25-26 For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. LOCATION: See Site 8, Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 2/24/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 2/24/2007 LOGGED BY: P. Pearson Non-Standard Penetration Resistance (300 lb. weight, 30° drop) • Blows per foot 0 10 • 2 30 40 50 • : : • 40 60 80 100 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit I— •-- I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content 0 —5 — 10 — 15 20 25 30 35 40 OM BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON HWAGEOSCIENCES INC BORING 2003008.GPJ 5/15/07 PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 BORING: B -226 PAGE 1 of 1 FIGURE: A -27 DRIWNG COMPANY: Cascade Drilling, Inc. DRILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger, CME 85 truck rig SAMPLING METHOD: California Split Spoon w/ Autohammer SURFACE ELEVATION: 246 t feet w :�. 0— 5— 10 — 15 — 25 — 30 — 35 — 40 — • DESCRIPTION 4 inches of asphalt at surface. Cuttings consist of brownish -gray, sandy GRAVEL, moist .to 2 feet (FILL) Medium dense, dark brownish -gray, silty SAND, moist. Refuse: wood debris - 10-15% by volume. Slight hydrocarbon -like odor. (FILL WITH REFUSE) Medium dense, dark brownish -gray, silty SAND, with gravel and refuse, moist. Refuse: glass - 1% by volume, paper - 5% by volume, wood - 3% by volume, metal - 3% by volume. Hydrocarbon -like odor. Medium dense, dark brownish -gray, silty SAND with gravel. Organics - 5% by volume. Trace glass and paper. Hydrocarbon -like odor. Medium dense, dark brown, silty SAND, with gravel, moist Refuse: wood/organics - 10% by volume, paper /unknown - 1.Q% by volume. Hydrocarbon -like odor Medium dense, dark brown, silty, sandy REFUSE: paper, organics, unknown refuse - 50% by volume, moist (REFUSE) Loose, dark brown, silty sandy REFUSE: paper - 60% by volume, metal - 10% by volume, moist Slight hydrocarbon -like odor. Medium dense, dark brown, silty, sandy REFUSE: paper - 30% by volume, moist. No recovery - organics, paper, trace glass in sampler tip. Medium dense, dark brown REFUSE: metal 80% by - volume, moist / J 0 2 Co rn GP SP Very dense, light grayish -brown, fine to medium SAND, moist (ADVANCE OUTWASH) Dense, light grayish -brown, fine SAND, moist Trace silty \laminations. Boring terminated at 26.5 feet No ground water observed at time of exploration. Gas readings: carbon monoxide =0 ppm, hydrogen sulfide =0 ppm, combustible gas 4% LEL. Environmental sample, B- 227 -C, collected from samples S -1 through S -10. S -1 4-5-5 S -2 8 -12 -10 S -3 4-5-7 OC ® S-4 20-4-4 ® S -5 6-7 -7 ®S 6 4 -3-4 OC ® S -7 8-6-6 7-4 -3 S-8 S -9 12 -19 -21 S -10 u / U Z i- co y W C rc z 3 w — ° o_ a S -11 12 -18 -19 For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 2/24/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 2/24/2007 LOGGED BY: P. Pearson 0 Non-Standard Penetration Resistance (300 lb. weight, 30' drop) A Blows per foot 10 20 30 40 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit I --r --1 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content S 0 d 50 0 —5 — 10 — 15 — 20 —25 —30 — 35 40 ON I BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON HWAGEOSCIENNCES INC BORING 2003008.GPJ 5/15/07 PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 BORING: B -227 PAGE 1 of 1 FIGURE A -28 DRILLING COMPANY: CN Drilling, Inc. DRILLING METHOD: Hollow -Stem Auger, Acker limited access rig SAMPLING METHOD: SPT w/ Cathead SURFACE ELEVATION: 227 ± feet 10 5— 15 — 20 — 25 — 30 — 35 — 40 — DESCRIPTION SM ML I SM Loose, brown, orange and black, silty SAND, moist Trace gravel and organics. Thin charred layer at 1.5 feet. (BURN FILL) Loose, brown to gray, silty SAND, moist. Glass - 5% by volume. Some charred organics. Loose, light to dark brown, silty SAND, moist. Organics - 20% by volume. Stiff, light brown, gravelly, sandy, lean CLAY, moist Trace organics. Some rust mottling. AVery dense, light brown, silty SAND, with gravel, moist (GLACIAL TILL) Boring terminated at 10.5 feet due to refusal on dense native soil. No ground water observed at time of exploration. Periodic gas monitoring showed a peak of carbon monoxide at 139 ppm (due to exhaust from the acker rig) and 1% LEL of combustible gas with no detections of hydrogen sulfide. No environmental sample was collected due to insufficient sample volume. w U Z m L a W c Q' 7b Z O w S -1 1 -1 -1 NOTE This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. ® S -2 3-3-2 ® S -3 1 -1 -1 OC VI S-4 4-4-12 AL ® S -5 50/5 For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 3/5/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 3/5/2007 LOGGED BY: P. Pearson 0 10 Standard Penetration Test (140 lb. weight, 30' drop) • Blows per foot •: i► 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit F-411--I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 40 MT BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION HWAGEOSCIENCES INC TUKWILA, WASHINGTON BORING 2003008.GPJ 5 /15/07 PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 BORING: B -228 PAGE: 1 of 1 FIGURE: A -29 DRIWNG COMPANY: Environmental Drilling Inc. DRIWNG METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger, Simco tracked rig SAMPLING METHOD: SPT w/ Cathead SURFACE ELEVATION: .269 ± feet 5— 10 — 15 — 20 — 25 — 30 35 40 — SP DESCRIPTION SM Surface: Blackberry Vines. Dark brown, silty, fine to medium SAND, moist. Cuttings: Dark brown, silty SAND with gravel, moist. Driller notes hard drilling at 5 feet Medium dense, dark brown to black, silty, fine to medium SAND, with gravel, moist. Bum refuse 40% by volume (brick, glass, wood). (BURN FILL) Cuttings: Dark brown, silty SAND with gravel, moist. Driller notes hammer bouncing on debris during sampling. Medium dense, dark brown, silty, fine to medium SAND with gravel, moist. Gravel is fine to coarse, sub - angular to sub - rounded. Bum refuse 30% by volume. (brick, glass, tile). Faint hydrocarbon odor. Black staining in soils. Medium dense, brown, silty, gravelly, fine to medium SAND, moist. Gravel is fine to coarse, sub - angular to rounded. Bum refuse 20% by volume (brick, glass). Cuttings: Dark brown, silty SAND with gravel, moist. Medium dense, red brown, silty, fine to medium SAND with gravel, moist. Gravel is fine to coarse, sub - angular to rounded. Bum refuse less than 10% by volume (brick, metal). Driller notes hard drilling at 22 ft bgs. Cuttings: Dark to red brown, silty SAND with gravel, moist. Visible contact in the sample at 25.75 ft bgs. Soft, black, sandy SILT, moist. Refuse: 50% by volume (20% compressible, 80% non - compressible: glass, plastic, wood). (REFUSE) Cuttings: Black, sandy, SILT, moist Faint hydrocarbon odor. Some refuse. Refuse: 40% by volume (10% compressible, 90% metal, plastic). Cuttings: Black, sandy, SILT, moist Faint hydrocarbon odor. Some refuse. Dense to very dense, dark gray, fine to medium SAND, moist. Faint hydrocarbon odor. Black staining. (GLACIAL OUTWASH) w U z ., m � 0 co w w 0 S-1 6-7 -9 N S -2 20/6 -20/3 S -3 9-6-6 GS pH S-4 4 -6-12 S -5 2 -2 -2 El S-6 3-3-3 S-7 11 -22 -20 For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 2/28/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 2/28/2007 LOGGED BY: J. Speck 0 10 Standard Penetration Test (140 lb. weight, 30" drop) • Blows per foot 20 30 40 0 20 40 60 80 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit 1-111-1 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content HWAGEOSCIENCES INC BORING 2003008.GPJ 5/15/07 BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 BORING: B -229 PAGE 1 of 2 FIGURE: A -30 DRILLING COMPANY: Environmental Drilling Inc. DRILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger. Simco tracked rig SAMPLING METHOD: SPT w/ Cathead SURFACE ELEVATION: 269 ± feet war o 40 — 45 — 50 — 55 — 60 — 65 — 70 — 75 — 80 — J 0 CO 2 i DESCRIPTION Boring terminated at 41.5 feet. No ground water observed at time of exploration. Environmental sample, B- 229 -C, collected from samples S -1 through S -7. Periodic gas monitoring near borehole showed no detections of carbon monoxide or combustible gas, and no hydrogen sulfide in the air at the time of exploration. w U z < � U w cc w o_ S-8 12 -27 -35 For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 2/28/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 2/28/2007 LOGGED BY: J. Speck 0 10 Standard Penetration Test (140 lb. weight, 30' drop) • Blows per foot 30 40 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content ( %) Plastic Umit I --S--) Liquid Umit Natural Water Content 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 —75 80 DMI HWAGEOSCIENCES INC BORING 2003008.GPJ 5/15/07 BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 BORING: B -229 PAGE 2 of 2 FIGURE: A -30 DRIWNG COMPANY: Environmental Drilling Inc. DRILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger, Simco 4000 tracked rig SAMPLING METHOD: SPT w/ Cathead SURFACE ELEVATION: 284 t feet a = to 0 — 5 — 10 15 — 20 — 25 — 30 — 35 — J 0 m 3- y DESCRIPTION SM SM SM Surface: Loose, brown, silty SAND with gravel, moist, branches, blackberry. (BURN FILL) Cuttings: same as surface. Medium dense, brown, silty, fine to medium SAND with fine to coarse gravel, moist. Gravel is sub - angular to sub- rounded. Broken gravel, cobble in tip. Medium dense, brown, silty, fine to medium SAND, moist. Traces of coarse gravel. Gravel is sub-angular to sub - rounded. Medium dense, dark gray to dark brown, silty, fine to medium SAND, moist, traces of fine gravel. Gravel is %subangular to rounded. Faint prpduct odor and staining. Medium dense, brown to dark yellow brown, silty, fine to medium SAND, with fine to coarse gravel, moist Gravel is sub-angular to sub - rounded. Bum refuse is 20% by volume (glass, brick, concrete). Slight hydrocarbon -like odor. Medium dense, dark gray to black, silty, fine to coarse gravelly, fine to medium SAND, moist. Bum refuse is 80 % by volume (brick, glass, rubber, wood). Gravel is sub - angular to sub - rounded. Slight hydrocarbon -like odor. Very dense, dark brown, silty, fine gravelly, fine to medium SAND, moist. Gravel is sub - angular to rounded. 90 % bum refuse (brick). Driller notes refusal, flat object - no catch with auger bit. Borehole moved 3 feet east, drilled down to 25 feet below ground surface to continue. Dense, red -brown to black, silty, fine to medium SAND with fine to coarse gravel. Gravel is sub - rounded to rounded. 80 % bum refuse - brick, wood, glass. Slight hydrocarbon -like odor. Medium dense, dark brown to red, silty, fine to medium SAND with fine to coarse gravel. Gravel is sub-angular to sub - rounded. 70 % bum refuse (brick, wood, glass). Medium dense, dark gray, silty, fine to medium SAND with fine to coarse gravel. Gravel is sub - angular to sub - rounded. \40 % construction debris (brick, glass). r 1 -2 inches of light yellow brown, silty, fine to medium SAND with fine gravel. Gravel is sub - angular to rounded. No bum refuse. N S -1 2-4-24 GS N S -2 8 -50/6' N S -3 14 -12 -17 N S-4 5 -13-14 N S -5 10 -11 -13 GS N S-6 26-25 -50/3' N S -7 22 -23-15 N S-8 7 -10 -16 OC N S-9 5-7 -7 40 — For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. NOTE This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 2/26/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 2/26/2007 LOGGED BY: J. Speck 0 10 Standard Penetration Test (140 lb. weight, 30" drop) • Blows per foot 20 30 40 • • • • A : : ♦: A A. A . • 80 0 20 40 60 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit I—Ij Liquid Limit Natural Water Content 100 10 15 a>*/--20 25 30 35 —40 HWWGEOSCIENCES INC BORING 2003008.GPJ 5/15/07 BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 2003-008 BORING: B -230 PAGE 1 of 2 FIGURE: A -31 DRILLING COMPANY: Environmental Drilling Inc. DRILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger, Simco 4000 tracked rig SAMPLING METHOD: SPT w/ Cathead SURFACE ELEVATION: 284 t feet x a m o� 40 — 45 — 50 — 55 — 60 — 65 — 70 — BO 75 — J 0 m 2 r DESCRIPTION (ADVANCE OUTWASH) Driller notes drilling smoothed out at about 37 feet blow the ground surface. Very dense, light yellow brown, silty, fine SAND with fine to rse gravel. Gravel is sub - angular to rounded. Boring terminated at 41.5 feet. No ground water observed at time of exploration. Composite environmental sample, B- 230 -C, collected from samples S -3 to S-10. Periodic gas monitoring near borehole showed no detections of carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide or combustible gas in the air at the time of exploration. w U z .. • a o W c w, ro� z _ - S -10 17 -24-32 For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 2/26/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 2/26/2007 LOGGED BY: J. Speck 0 10 Standard Penetration Test (140 lb. weight, 30' drop) • Blows per foot 20 30 40 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit I--111— I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content 50 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 ON BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION HWAGEOSCIENCES INC TUKWILA, WASHINGTON BORING 2003008.GPJ 5/15/07 PROJECT NO.: 2003-008 BORING: B -230 PAGE: 2 of 2 FIGURE: A -31 DRILLING COMPANY: Environmental Drilling Inc. DRILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger, Simco 4000 tracked rig SAMPLING METHOD: SPT w/ Cathead SURFACE ELEVATION: 297 t feet am o� 0 5— 10 15 — 20 — 25 — 30 — 35 — 40 — J 0 2 co DESCRIPTION ML SM SM ML Loose, brown, silty, sandy SILT with gravel, moist. Gravel is fine to coarse, sub - angular to rounded. (WSDOT FILL) Loose, dark grayish brown, sandy SILT with gravel, moist. Gravel is fine to coarse, sub - angular to rounded. Loose, dark brown to olive gray, sandy SILT, moist Trace gravel. Gravel is fine to coarse, sub-angular to rounded. One inch of decomposing wood at 9.25. Medium dense, dark brown, silty, fine to medium SAND with gravel, moist Gravel is fine to coarse, sub - angular to sub - rounded. Burn refuse 10% by volume (glass, burnt wood). (BURN FILL) Medium dense, dark gray to black, silty, fine to medium SAND, moist. Trace gravel. Gravel is fine to coarse. sub-angular to sub - rounded. Burn refuse 30% by volume (glass, burnt wood). Faint creosote odor. Black staining. Medium dense, gray to olive gray, slightly sandy SILT with gravel, moist Gravel is fine to coarse, sub - angular to rounded. (ICE - CONTACT STRATIFIED DRIFT) Boring terminated at 29.5 feet. No ground water observed during drilling. Composite environmental sample, B- 231 -C, collected from samples S -2 to S -6. Periodic gas monitoring near borehole showed no detections of carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide or combustible gas in the air at the time of exploration. S -1 6-2 -2 S -2 6-5-4 GS S -3 1 -2 -2 S-4 6 -10-7 El S -5 3-7 -7 S-6 8 -9-10 S -7 12 -50/6" For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and /or locations. LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 2/27/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 2/27/2007 LOGGED BY: J. Speck 0 10 Standard Penetration Test (140 lb. weight, 30" drop) • Blows per foot 20 30 40 50 : r : :♦ : : : I� •1 : : w 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit I ---I I Liquid Umit Natural Water Content MT BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. BORING 2003008.GPJ 5/15/07 PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 BORING: B -231 PAGE: 1 of 1 FIGURE: A -32 / DRILLING COMPANY: Environmental Drilling Inc. DRILLING METHOD: Hollow -Stem Auger, Simco 4000 tracked rig SAMPLING METHOD: SPT w/ Cathead SURFACE ELEVATION: 297 ± feet 5— 10 — 15 — 20 25 — 30 — 35 — J 0 2 } rn DESCRIPTION SM SM SM ML SM Medium dense, brown, silty, fine to medium SAND with gravel, moist Gravel is fine to coarse, sub - angular to rounded. (WSDOT FILL) Medium dense, olive gray to dark gray, sandy SILT, moist Trace gravel. Gravel is fine to coarse, sub - angular to rounded. Medium dense, gray to dark gray, sandy SILT, moist. Trace gravel and wood. Gravel is fine to coarse, sub-angular to rounded. Two 1 inch pockets of silty, fine to medium sand at 12.75 and 13.00 feet below ground surface. Medium dense, dark gray to black sandy SILT to silty, fine to medium SAND, moist Some gravel. Gravel is fine to coarse, sub-angular to rounded. Construction debris is less than 10% by volume (nail, decomposing wood). Faint odor and black staining. Medium dense, dark brown to black, silty, fine to medium SAND with gravel, moist. Gravel is fine to coarse, sub - angular to rounded. Bum refuse 30% by volume (glass, tile). Slight odor and black staining. (BURN FILL) Driller notes rough drilling. Medium dense, dark brown to black, silty, fine to medium SAND, moist. Bum refuse 70% by volume (glass, wood). Bum refuse 50% by volume (glass, wood). Medium dense, yellow brown to dark yellow brown, silty to slightly silty, fine to medium SAND with gravel, moist Gravel is fine to coarse, sub - angular to rounded. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) No gravel in cuttings. No gravel in sample. HWAGEOSCIENCES INC BORING 2003008.GPJ 5/15/07 w U Z Q m cot co -5 co G w m w • 8 S -1 6-8-7 S -2 7-8 -11 GS VI S -3 7 -7 -10 S-4 4-5-6 S -5 7 -10-9 S-6 6-8 -14 S -7 7 -7-8 S-8 6 -8-13 GS 40 _ For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and /or locations. BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan. Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 2/28/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 2/28/2007 LOGGED BY: J. Speck 0 10 PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 Standard Penetration Test (140 lb. weight, 30' drop) A Blows per foot 20 30 • : :♦ : : • • • : A 0 20 40 60 80 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit I- --0- -1 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content BORING: B -232 PAGE: 1 of 2 FIGURE: 40 o 50 0 100 —5 —10 — 15 20 25 30 35 40 A -33 DRILLING COMPANY: Environmental Drilling Inc. DRILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger, Simco 4000 tracked rig SAMPLWG METHOD: SPT w/ Cathead SURFACE ELEVATION: 297 t feet x w .gy m . 40 45 — 50 — 55 — 60 — 65 — 70 — 75 — J 0 m Co DESCRIPTION Boring terminated at 38.5 feet. Perched ground water observed in boring at 10 feet below ground surface. Water transient. Composite environmental sample, B- 232 -C, collected from samples S -5 to S-8. Periodic gas monitoring near borehole showed no detections of carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide or combustible gas in the air at the time of exploration. W U z r. r co co U y C W , w ° o_ -c 80 — For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 2/28 /2007 DATE COMPLETED: 2/28/2007 LOGGED BY: J. Speck 0 10 Standard Penetration Test (140 lb. weight, 30' drop) A Blows per foot 20 30 40 0 20 40 60 80 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit I---• I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content W 50 0� 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 100 HWWGEOSCIENCES INC BORING 2003008.GPJ 5/15/07 BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 BORING: B -232 PAGE: 2 of 2 FIGURE: A -33 DRILLING COMPANY: Environmental Drilling Inc. DRILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger, Simcoe 4000 tracked rig SAMPLING METHOD: SPT w/ Autohammer SURFACE ELEVATION: 303 ± feet I— O 0— 5— 15 30 35 10 — 20 -- 25 — 40 — J 0 2 } co SM SM SM ML M DESCRIPTION Cuttings consist of brown, silty sand, moist. Soft, gray, silty CLAY, moist. Some brown and dark gray discoloration. Trace organics. (WSDOT FILL) Medium stiff, gray, sandy, silty CLAY, with gravel, moist Trace organics. Medium dense, gray, silty SAND, with gravel, moist. Trace organics. Dense, gray, silty SAND, moist Organics. 0.5 -inch thick charred layer at 18.5 feet. (BURN FILL) Medium dense, brownish-gray to black, silty SAND, with gravel, moist 4-inch thick charred layer at 22.5 feet. Mottled discoloration. Some organics. Medium dense, brown to gray to black, silty SAND and sandy SILT, with gravel, moist Charred organics - 10% by volume, glass - 2% by volume. ® S -1 2 -1 -3 AL 1g S -2 2 -3-5 S -3 8-6-6 GS S-4 7 -13-14 S -5 5 -10-12 GS S-6 5-4-4 Stiff, brownish -gray to black, sandy SILT, with gravel, moist. i S -7 7 -12 -19 Charred organics - 5% by volume, glass - 2% by volume. Medium dense, brown, silty, fine SAND, with gravel, moist M S-8 6-7 -7 Wood waste, organics and charred organics - 15% by volume. For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. LOCATION: See Site 8 Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 3/1 /2007 DATE COMPLETED: 3/1/2007 LOGGED BY: P. Pearson Standard Penetration Test (140 lb. weight, 30' drop) • Blows per foot 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit F--111--I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content 021 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC BORING 2003008.GPJ 5/15/07 BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 BORING: B -233 PAGE 1 of 2 FIGURE: A -34 i i i i i i i i DRILLING COMPANY: Environmental Drilling Inc. DRILLING METHOD: Hollow -Stem Auger, Simcoe 4000 tracked rig SAMPLING METHOD: SPT w/ Autohammer SURFACE ELEVATION: 303 t feet x W 40 45 50 — 55 — 60 = 65 — 70 — 75 — 80 J 0 m 2 } u) DESCRIPTION Boring terminated at 49 feet. No ground water observed at time of exploration. Environmental sample, B- 233 -C, collected from samples S -1 to S -9. Periodic gas monitoring near borehole showed no detections of carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide or combustible gas in the air at the time of exploration. S -9 7 -9 -11 GS N S-10 10 -10-19 For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 3/1/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 3/1/2007 LOGGED BY: P. Pearson 0 10 Standard Penetration Test (140 lb. weight, 30' drop) • Blows per foot 20 30 40 • • • 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit I--0-1 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content a m e 50 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC BORING 2003005.GPJ 5/15/07 BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 BORING: B -233 PAGE: 2 of 2 FIGURE: A -34 SM Medium dense, light brown, silty, fine SAND, moist. Laminations of silt and medium to coarse sand. Trace organics. .. (WEATHERED DRIFT) Dense, light brown, slightly silty, fine SAND, moist. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) Sp i i i i i i i i DRILLING COMPANY: Environmental Drilling Inc. DRILLING METHOD: Hollow -Stem Auger, Simcoe 4000 tracked rig SAMPLING METHOD: SPT w/ Autohammer SURFACE ELEVATION: 303 t feet x W 40 45 50 — 55 — 60 = 65 — 70 — 75 — 80 J 0 m 2 } u) DESCRIPTION Boring terminated at 49 feet. No ground water observed at time of exploration. Environmental sample, B- 233 -C, collected from samples S -1 to S -9. Periodic gas monitoring near borehole showed no detections of carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide or combustible gas in the air at the time of exploration. S -9 7 -9 -11 GS N S-10 10 -10-19 For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 3/1/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 3/1/2007 LOGGED BY: P. Pearson 0 10 Standard Penetration Test (140 lb. weight, 30' drop) • Blows per foot 20 30 40 • • • 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit I--0-1 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content a m e 50 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC BORING 2003005.GPJ 5/15/07 BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 BORING: B -233 PAGE: 2 of 2 FIGURE: A -34 DRILLING COMPANY: Environmental Drilling Inc. DRIWNG METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger, Simcoe 4000 tracked rig SAMPLING METHOD: SPT w/ Autohammer SURFACE ELEVATION: 278 ± feet 0 10 — 15 — 20 — 25 — 30 — 35 — 40 — J 0 2 } rn SM SM DESCRIPTION Cuttings consist of brown silty SAND, moist Medium dense, brown, silty SAND with gravel, moist. Some rust mottling. Organics - 10% by volume. Medium dense, reddish- brown, silty, fine to medium SAND, with gravel, moist Some black orange and red discoloration. Glass - 5% by volume. Trace organics. (BURN FILL) Medium dense, reddish- brown, silty SAND, with gravel, moist. Glass - 5% by volume, charred organics - 1% by volume. Medium dense, brownish -gray to reddish -brown to dark gray, silty SAND, with gravel, moist Glass - 5% by volume, organics and charred organics - 1% by volume. Meidum dense, reddish -brown to brownish -gray, silty fine to medium SAND, with gravel, moist. Glass - 2% by volume, charred organics - 2% by volume. Medium dense, gray, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND, moist. Some silty laminations. Dense, gray, silty, fine SAND, moist. Some silty laminations. (GLACIAL OUTWASH) w U Z ,... Diu 5 en sa w- a$ ® S -1 4-4-5 S -2 4-7 -9 N S -3 6 -8-12 N S-4 7-8-10 Medium dense, dark brownish -gray, to reddish -brown, silty, El S -5 14 -12 -15 GS gravelly, SAND, moist Glass - 10% by volume, organics - 10% by volume. S-6 5-5-8 Medium dense, reddish brown, silty SAND, with gravel, wet S -7 4-5-6 ' 7 SM \Charred organics - 3% by volume, glass - 2% by volume. l' S43 Medium dense, dark gray, slightly silty, fine SAND, with gravel, moist to wet. (WEATHERED DRIFT) S -9 11 -9-13 8-10 12 -14-17 GS For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 3/1 /2007 DATE COMPLETED: 3/1/2007 LOGGED BY: P. Pearson 0 10 Standard Penetration Test (140 lb. weight, 30' drop) • Blows per foot 20 30 40 •: • • : : : :♦ : A A : :• : : • : • A : • w. 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit 1--111--I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content n i a l BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON HWAGEOSCIENCES INC BORING 2003008.GPJ 5/15/07 PROJECT NO.: 2003-008 BORING: B -234 PAGE 1 of 2 FIGURE: A -35 C DT — RILLING COMPANY: Environmental Drilling Inc. DRIWNG METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger, Sirncoe 4000 tracked rig SAMPLING METHOD: SPT w! Autohammer SURFACE ELEVATION: 278 ± feet W ov 40 45 50 — 55 — 60 — 65 — 70 — 75 — 80 — J 0 2 N DESCRIPTION I Dense, gray, silty, fine SAND, moist. Boring terminated at 41 feet. Ground water observed at 25 feet Environmental sample, B- 234 -C, collected from samples S-1 through S-8. Periodic gas monitoring near borehole showed no detections of carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide or combustible gas in the air at the time of exploration. ® S-11 12 -17 -26 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. LOCATION: See Site 8 Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 3/1/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 3/1/2007 LOGGED BY: P. Pearson 0 10 Standard Penetration Test (140 lb. weight, 30' drop) • Blows per foot 20 30 40 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit 1-111-4 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content CL W 50 0 40 —45 — 50 — 55 — 60 —65 — 70 — 75 80 02 BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION HWAGEOSCIENCES INC TUKWILA, WASHINGTON BORING 2003008.GPJ 5/15/07 PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 BORING: B -234 PAGE 2 of 2 FIGURE: A -35 DI: COMPANY: CN Drilling, Inc. DRIWNG METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger, Acker limited access rig SAMPUNG METHOD: SPT w/ Cathead SURFACE ELEVATION: 240 t feet S o� 0 10 15 — 20 — 25 — 30 — 35 — 40 — J 0 m r co ML SM SM w U z m F y U W C ;p DESCRIPTION rn cn a a Loose, dark brown, sandy SILT, with organics, moist Glass IS S -1 2 -3-6 - 2% by volume. (BURN FILL) Medium dense, dark brown, silty SAND, with gravel, moist. ® S -2 3-7 -10 Some organics. Trace glass. Medium dense, olive gray, silty SAND, with gravel, moist. i S -3 2 -7 -7 1-inch thick organics layer at 8.25 feet. Dense, light yellowish brown, silty fine SAND, with gravel, M S-4 11 -16-15 GS moist. (ICE - CONTACT STRATIFIED DRIFT) Driller indicates hard drilling at 8.5 feet . r ® S -5 50/5* Very dense, brownish -gray, silty GRAVEL, with sand, moist./ Boring terminated at 10.5 feet. No ground water observed at time of exploration. Gas monitor showed no detections of carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide or combustible gas during exploration. No environmental sample collected due to insufficient sample volume. NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. GS pH For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 3/5/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 3/5/2007 LOGGED BY: P. Pearson 0 10 :A: O. a 0 20 Standard Penetration Test (140 lb. weight, 30' drop) A Blows per foot •: A : . aa; 40 60 80 100 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit I---S I Uquid Limit Natural Water Content F W m 50 0 5 10 15 20 30 35 OM BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON HWWGEOSCIENCES INC BORING 2003008.GPJ 5/15107 PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 BORING: B -235 PAGE: 1 of 1 FIGURE: A -36 DRILLING COMPANY: CN Drilling, Inc. DRILLING METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger, Acker limited access rig SAMPLING METHOD: SPT w/ Cathead SURFACE ELEVATION: 243 * feet x ott-- 0 5 — 10 — 15 — 20 — 25 — 30 — 35 — 40 — 0 y 3 '- o Q� ,O ( SM GP ML Loose, dark brown, silty SAND, moist. Some gravel and organics. Glass - 3% by volume. (BURN FILL) Dense, reddish -brown, silty SAND, with gravel, moist. Trace organics. Dense to very dense, gray, brown and black, silty SAND with gravel, moist Some refuse: glass - 5% by volume, organics - 5% by volume, other refuse - 5% by volume. Very dense, gray, sandy GRAVEL, with silt, moist Some rust mottling. (ICE -CONTACT STRATIFIED DRIFT) Boring location shifted 10 feet to east and 6 feet lower in elevation due to excessive angle of auger caused by .obstruction. Stiff, brownish-gray, gravelly SILT, with sand, moist. Some rust mottling. Boring terminated at 14 feet. DESCRIPTION No ground water observed at time of exploration. Gas monitor showed a detection of carbon monoxide of 11 ppm (due to exhaust from the drill rig), and no detections of hydrogen sulfide or combustible gas during exploration. No environmental sample collected due to insufficient sample volume. ® S -1 1 -2 -14 ® S -2 21 -50/3 S -3 9 -30-29 GS pH S-4 29 -50/6 SS 4 -5-8 GS ® S-6 2 -15-24 S 7 50/5 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. LOCATION: See Site 8 Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 3/5/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 3/5/2007 LOGGED BY: P. Pearson 0 10 : • Standard Penetration Test (140 lb. weight, 30° drop) • Blows per foot •A. Z 0 cp 20 30 40 50 0 20 40 60 80 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit I • it Liquid Limit Natural Water Content : 0 Ar- 10 15 20 25 — 30 35 40 100 OM BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION HWAGEOSCIENCESING TUKWILA, WASHINGTON BORING 2003008.GPJ 5/15/07 PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 BORING: B -236 PAGE 1 of 1 FIGURE: A -37 DRILLING COMPANY: CN Drilling, Inc. DRIWNG METHOD: Hollow-Stem Auger, Acker limited access rig SAMPUNG METHOD: SPT w/ Cathead SURFACE ELEVATION: 257 t feet o � 0— 5 - 10 15 — 25 — J 0 r0 2 co DESCRIPTION SM SM nn GP Loose, brownish -gray, silty SAND, with gravel, moist. Some organics. (BURN FILL) Loose, brownish -gray, silty SAND, with gravel, moist. Organics and wood debris - 25 by volume. Trace brick fragments. Medium dense, brown, silty SAND, with gravel, moist. Trace organics and charred organics. Medium dense, olive brown, rust- mottled, silty SAND with gravel, moist. Organics - 5% by volume. Very dense, light brownish-gray, silty SAND, with gravel, moist (ICE - CONTACT STRATIFIED DRIFT) Very dense, light brownish -gray, silty GRAVEL, with sand, \moist. r Boring terminated at 13.5 feet. BORING 2003008.GPJ 5/15/07 No ground water observed at time of exploration. Gas monitor showed a detection of carbon monoxide of 41 ppm (likely due to exhaust from the drill rig), and no detections of hydrogen sulfide or combustible gas during exploration. No environmental sample collected due to insufficient sample volume. S -1 2 -2-4 ® S -2 2-4-2 ® S -3 8 -14-19 w U z w 0 e L V c 3-7 -7 pH M S -5 7 -20 -32 GS S-6 50-30-41 For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. NOTE This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. OM BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION HWAGEOSCIENCES INC TUKWILA, WASHINGTON LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE STARTED: 3/6/2007 DATE COMPLETED: 3/6/2007 LOGGED BY: P. Pearson 0 10 PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 Standard Penetration Test (140 lb. weight, 30' drop) • Blows per foot 20 30 A: 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit I-- -0-- -I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content BORING: B -237 PAGE 1 of 1 FIGURE: 40 a m 50 0 - 10 — 15 20 25 30 35 40 A -38 EXCAVATION COMPANY: King County SWD EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT: Hitachi 330 Trackhoe SURFACE ELEVATION: 317 t Feet 5— 10— 15— 20 — DESCRIPTION SP SM SM SM Loose to medium dense, olive- brown, slightly silty, gravelly, fine to medium SAND, moist. Scattered cobbles, quarry spall, and asphalt chunks. (WSDOT FILL) Grades to gray with olive- brown, silty, fine to medium SAND, wet. Medium dense, gray, silty, gravelly, fine to medium SAND, moist, with very dense chunks of same (Till fill). Scattered cobbles. Scattered lumber debris at 15.5 feet. Test pit terminated at 16.5 feet. Moderate caving from surface to 7 feet, south side, when digging at 8 feet. Minor ground water seepage at 9.5 feet, discontinuous. S -5 S - 0 S -2 O S -3 O S4 NOTE: For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read In conjunction with the text of the geotechnical' report. This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and /or locations. Q 0 LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE COMPLETED: 2/21/07 LOGGED BY: B. Thurber & P. Pearson SKETCH OF NORTH SIDE OF PIT HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (feet) 5 10 15 20 D O • a a 0 U n 5 10 15 20 Y 1'L'f�i HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON LOG OF TEST PIT TP- 1 PAGE: 1 of 1 PROJECT NO.: 2003-008 FIGURE: A-39 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON EXCAVATION COMPANY: King County SWD EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT: Hitachi 330 Trackhoe SURFACE ELEVATION: 309 * Feet 15 5— 10— 20— DESCRIPTION SP SM SM SM Loose, olive brown, slightly silty to silty, fine to coarse gravelly, fine to medium SAND, moist. Scattered concrete rubble, rebar, and wire. Orange traffic cone. (WSDOT FILL) Loose to medium dense, brown, silty, gravelly, fine to coarse SAND, moist. Scattered fine organics. Scattered concrete rubble. One 2 -foot boulder. Loose to medium dense, gray, very silty, gravelly, fine to medium SAND, moist to wet. Silt is plastic. Scattered lumber, plastic bags, chain link fencing. Level concrete slab at 15 feet, entire length (approx. 8 feet) of test pit bottom. Test pit terminated at 15 feet due to concrete slab. Heavy caving from surface to 12 feet, west side. No ground water seepage. 0 0 S -1 S -2 O s -3 NOTE: For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical'report. This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and /or locations. 0 LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE COMPLETED: 2/21/07 LOGGED BY: B. Thurber & P. Pearson SKETCH OF EAST SIDE OF PIT HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (feet) 5 10 15 20 • v 0 5 10 15 20 LOG OF TEST PIT TP- 2 PAGE: 1 of 1 PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 FIGURE: A -40 N. • j. . • • ,.%. • • EXCAVATION COMPANY: King County SVVD EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT: Hitachi 330 Trackhoe SURFACE 5— 10— 15— 20 — 0 m ti DESCRIPTION SM SM Loose, brown, silty, fine to coarse gravelly, fine to medium SAND, moist. Broken glass, 5% by volume. (BURN FILL) Medium dense, variegated brown, light brown, reddish - brown, and dark gray, silty, gravelly, fine to medium SAND, moist. 5 to 15% non- compressible refuse by volume: glass, china, steel. At approx. 6 feet becomes dark gray. Test pit terminated at 14 feet (full reach downhill with trackhoe). No caving. Minor ground water seepage at 3.5 to 4 feet, downhill end; at 6 feet on uphill end. w 0 w a O S1 0 s2 O s -3 ir z N z 00 NOTE: For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical :report. This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and /or locations. 0 LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE COMPLETED: 2/21/07 LOGGED BY: B. Thurber & P. Pearson SKETCH OF NORTH SIDE OF PIT HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (feet) 5 10 15 20 x a w 0 5 10 15 20 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. roirnn ennanne no , m•• on, BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON LOG OF TEST PIT TP- 3 PAGE: 1 of 1 PROJECT NO.: 2003-008 FIGURE: A -41 USCS SOIL CLASS. c DEPTH (feet) SAMPLE NUMBER GROUNDWATER OTHER TESTS EXCAVATION COMPANY: King County SWD EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT: Hitachi 330 Trackhoe SURFACE ELEVATION: 308 ± Feet -J m 0 0 0 — 10 5— 15— 20 — 25 — DESCRIPTION SP SM SM SM ML SM ML SM Loose, olive brown with 6 -inch layer of yellow brown, slightly silty, fine gravelly, fine to medium SAND, moist to . wet. (WSDOT FILL) Medium dense, gray, silty, fine to coarse gravelly, fine to medium SAND, moist. Medium dense, dark brown, organic, gravelly, silty, fine to medium SAND, moist. Scattered roots. Organic odor. Medium dense, gray, fine to coarse gravelly, fine sandy SILT, moist. Scattered organics (roots and stems). Stiff to very stiff, gray, plastic SILT, and medium dense, fine sandy SILT, moist. Scattered gravel and branch wood. Test pit terminated at 23 feet. Heavy caving, 0 -10 feet, moderate to 15 feet. Minor ground water seepage at 1.5 feet. 0 s -t S -2 16 GS 0 S -3 O S-4 O S -5 NOTE: For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and /or locations. SZ 0 5 LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE COMPLETED: 2/21/07 LOGGED BY: B. Thurber & P. Pearson SKETCH OF WEST SIDE OF PIT HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (feet) 10 15 20 • 3 w I- a- 25 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON LOG OF TEST PIT TP- 4 PAGE: 1 of 1 PROJECT NO.: 2003-008 FIGURE: A-42 EXCAVATION COMPANY: King County SWD EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT: Hitachi 330 Trackhoe SURFACE ELEVATION: 271 t Feet i-i x a 0 3 6 9 12— 15- o m co DESCRIPTION Test pit terminated at 11 feet. No caving. No ground water seepage observed during excavation. OS.1 O s -3 S -2 S -4 QS5 17 GS NOTE: For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical; report. This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and /or locations. SKETCH OF EAST SIDE OF PIT HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (feet) 0 3 6 9 LOCATION: See Slte & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE COMPLETED: 2/22/07 LOGGED BY: B. Thurber & P. Pearson 12 3 6 9 12 15 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON LOG OF TEST PIT TP- 5 PAGE: 1 of 1 PROJECT NO.: 2003-008 FIGURE: A-43 SM Loose, dark brown, silty, fine to coarse gravelly, fine to medium SM '. SAND, moist. _ . (TOPSOIL / FILL) - — Medium dense, brown and reddish brown with lenses of dark gray, silty, fine gravelly, fine to medium SAND, moist. With 10-20% refuse, by volume, non - compressible: Glass (with some intact bottles), steel, bum slag, brick, ceramic, wire, burnt wood. 4 -oz. glass jar with congealed white substance. White fiberglass( ?) fibers around steel _ tank. _ (BURN FILL) EXCAVATION COMPANY: King County SWD EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT: Hitachi 330 Trackhoe SURFACE ELEVATION: 271 t Feet i-i x a 0 3 6 9 12— 15- o m co DESCRIPTION Test pit terminated at 11 feet. No caving. No ground water seepage observed during excavation. OS.1 O s -3 S -2 S -4 QS5 17 GS NOTE: For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical; report. This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and /or locations. SKETCH OF EAST SIDE OF PIT HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (feet) 0 3 6 9 LOCATION: See Slte & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE COMPLETED: 2/22/07 LOGGED BY: B. Thurber & P. Pearson 12 3 6 9 12 15 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON LOG OF TEST PIT TP- 5 PAGE: 1 of 1 PROJECT NO.: 2003-008 FIGURE: A-43 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON EXCAVATION COMPANY: King County SWD EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT: Hitachi 330 Trackhoe SURFACE ELEVATION: 284 ± Feet x 0 w 0 0 5 — 10— 15— 20— 25— 0 m DESCRIPTION SP SM SM SM SP Loose, dark brown, slightly silty, slightly gravelly, fine to medium SAND, moist. Scattered roots. (TOPSOIL) Medium dense, olive brown, silty, fine to coarse gravelly, fine to medium SAND, moist. Scattered glass, <1% by (volume. (FILL) I Medium dense, rust - mottled gray and yellow brown, silty, Ifine to coarse gravelly, fine to medium SAND, moist. I 1WEATHERED DRIFTL Dense, olive brown, silty, fine to medium SAND, moist. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) At approx. 13 feet becomes clean, wet. r O S - 9 O S -2 19 0 S -3 15 GS Test pit terminated at 21 feet. Perched ground water at approximately 13 to 15 feet below ground surface. No caving. NOTE: For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnicalreport. This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and /or locations. Q 0 5 LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE COMPLETED: 2/22/07 LOGGED BY: B. Thurber & P. Pearson SKETCH OF EAST SIDE OF PIT HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (feet) 10 15 20 d • e • y 0 • e. \ 0 0 \ • C 0 a 25 0 0 • 5 10 15 20 25 LOG OF TEST PIT TP- 6 PAGE: 1 of 1 PROJECT NO.: 2003-008 FIGURE: A -44 Y SM Loose, yellow brown, silty, fine to medium SAND, moist. ... (FILL) Medium dense, reddish brown, slightly gravelly, silty, fine to medium SAND with refuse, moist. 10 to 30% refuse by volume: steel (including wire and metal straps) glass, ceramics, asphalt chunks; minor plastic. Abundant burnt wood. (FILL with REFUSE) Becomes blackish -gray. Becomes wet below 6 feet. Strong creosote -like odor downwind from pit, when digging from approximately 7 to 11 feet below ground surface. SM SP SM Very dense, olive gray, slightly silty, fine to coarse gravelly, fine to medium SAND, moist. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) Y — _ — - 0 ° • a , F I 0 0 e R 0 +. - + — ■ EXCAVATION COMPANY: King County SWD EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT: Hitachi 330 Trackhoe SURFACE ELEVATION: 294 t Feet 5— 10— 15— 20 J 0 2 N DESCRIPTION Test pit terminated at 16 feet. Perched ground water at 6 feet. No caving. w 0 w J CL V) O s1 O 5 -2 O S -3 O S -4 10 GS pH NOTE: For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical'report. This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and /or locations. 0 LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE COMPLETED: 2/22/07 LOGGED BY: B. Thurber & P. Pearson SKETCH OF SOUTH SIDE OF PIT HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (feet) 5 10 15 20 I- a w 0 0 5 10 15 20 Y 11f�� HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON LOG OF TEST PIT TP- 7 PAGE: 1 of 1 PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 FIGURE: A -45 • • 4 D • • a • I . 1 L • a `: O • o ` . ' - • • 1 • I • f • ■ EXCAVATION COMPANY: King County SWD EXCAVATING SURFACE ELEVATION: 285 Feet 5— 10— 15— 20— 0 to DESCRIPTION SP SM SM SM SP SM Loose to medium dense, olive brown, slightly silty, gravelly, fine to medium SAND, moist. Lens of crushed rock and asphalt/concrete debris at east end of pit. (FILL) Medium dense, dark brown and dark gray, silty, gravelly, fine to medium SAND, moist. With trace glass, metal, and clinker. (FILL with REFUSE / BURN FILL) Medium dense grading to dense, yellow brown grading to olive brown, slightly gravelly, silty, fine to medium SAND, moist. With bed of reddish brown burn fill. Strong odor of diesel/ gasoline noted from spoils. Very dense, olive brown, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND, moist. Scattered gravel. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) Test pit terminated at 16.5 feet. Perched ground water seepage from north corner (lens of crushed rock and asphalt/concrete debris above 2.5 feet below ground surface). No caving. w a w a. O s -1 0 5 -2 O S -3 15 O s-4 cc I— F w Z 2 0 0 pH 12 GS NOTE: For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. Q 0 LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE COMPLETED: 2/22/07 LOGGED BY: B. Thurber & P. Pearson SKETCH OF SW SIDE OF PIT HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (feet) 5 10 15 a 20 O 0 5 10 15 20 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON LOG OF TEST PIT TP- 8 PAGE: 1 of 1 PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 FIGURE: A-46 USCS SOIL CLASS. DEPTH (feet) GROUNDWATER SAMPLE NUMBER OTHER TESTS EXCAVATION COMPANY: King County SWD EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT: Hitachi 330 Trackhoe SURFACE ELEVATION: 258 t Feet I w w 0 0 — 5 — 10— 15— 20 0 m 2 co DESCRIPTION SM SP SM SP Loose, brown, silty, fine to medium SAND, moist. (FILL) Medium dense, grayish brown, silty, fine gravelly, fine to medium SAND, moist. Medium dense, yellow brown, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND, moist. (WEATHERED DRIFT) Dense, gray, clean, fine to medium SAND with lenses of silty sand, moist. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) Test pit terminated at 11 feet. No ground water seepage observed during excavation. No caving. O s -1 O S -2 14 GS 0 s-3 12 NOTE: For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnicall report. This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and /or locations. 0 LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE COMPLETED: 2/23/07 LOGGED BY: B. Thurber & P. Pearson SKETCH OF EAST SIDE OF PIT HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (feet) 5 10 15 *al F- n. 20 0 0 5 10 15 20 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON LOG OF TEST PIT TP- 9 PAGE: 1 of 1 PROJECT NO.: 2003-008 FIGURE: A-47 EXCAVATION COMPANY: King County SWD EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT: Hitachi 330 Trackhoe SURFACE ELEVATION: 255 ± Feet 5— 10— 15— 20— 25— 0 co DESCRIPTION Test pit terminated at 23 feet. Minor ground water seepage at 2.5 feet. No caving. 0 s -1 0 S_2 0 S-3 O s - O S -5 W Z 0 0 0 NOTE: For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnica[ report. This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and /or locations. SKETCH OF EAST SIDE OF PIT HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (feet) 0 5 10 15 LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE COMPLETED: 2/23/07 LOGGED BY: B. Thurber & P. Pearson '� ,,1, + �`' A >r P . : ` ==a y1 i7 20 d 0 25 0 —0 5 10 15 20 25 OIAM HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON LOG OF TEST PIT TP -10 PAGE: 1 of 1 PROJECT NO.: 2003-008 FIGURE: A-48 SP SM .. Loose, dark brown, organic, silty SAND, moist. (TOPSOIL) Loose, olive brown, gravelly, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND, moist. (FILL) Medium dense, brownish gray and dark gray, silty, fine to gravelly, fine to medium SAND with scattered refuse, moist. Refuse 5 to 10% by volume: Glass, metal, some plastic. (FILL with REFUSE) Medium dense, gray, silty, fine to coarse gravelly, fine to medium SAND, moist. REFUSE: By volume approx. 40 to 60% paper, cardboard; 25% glass bottles; 20% tin cans; <5% plastic bags. (REFUSE) Loose to medium dense, gray, silty, fine to medium SAND, moist, with 50% Refuse, in proportions as above. (FILL with REFUSE) %iii ■ clo ❖.• • coarse •• •••� •"•••••i � j .• . • • • . 4 ...di IEI, Loose A • A A •• • %i ii; $ •i VA VA SP Dense to very dense, gray, clean, fine to medium SAND, moist. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) EXCAVATION COMPANY: King County SWD EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT: Hitachi 330 Trackhoe SURFACE ELEVATION: 255 ± Feet 5— 10— 15— 20— 25— 0 co DESCRIPTION Test pit terminated at 23 feet. Minor ground water seepage at 2.5 feet. No caving. 0 s -1 0 S_2 0 S-3 O s - O S -5 W Z 0 0 0 NOTE: For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnica[ report. This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and /or locations. SKETCH OF EAST SIDE OF PIT HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (feet) 0 5 10 15 LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE COMPLETED: 2/23/07 LOGGED BY: B. Thurber & P. Pearson '� ,,1, + �`' A >r P . : ` ==a y1 i7 20 d 0 25 0 —0 5 10 15 20 25 OIAM HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON LOG OF TEST PIT TP -10 PAGE: 1 of 1 PROJECT NO.: 2003-008 FIGURE: A-48 - - _ - — SM Loose, dark brown, silty, gravelly, fine to medium SAND, '..moist. With 10% refuse: glass and metal. (TOPSOIL I BURN FILL) Medium dense, reddish brown, silty, fine to coarse gravelly, fine to medium SAND, moist. Refuse 10 to 15% by volume: Glass, metal, ceramics (including electrical insulators), brick. SM (BURN FILL) - V, ••• Interbedded gray, silty SAND, moist, and black REFUSE ( approx. 50% by volume): Plastic bags, glass and plastic ■- ∎•••• bottles, partly decomposed lumber, paper. Petroluem - ••••• ■ odor from test pit when in refuse. Decomposable refuse - � iv 2% or less, by volume. — ��:• (FILL with REFUSE) - ∎•••• ••••• Ve Vii••• - SP Dense, gray, clean to slightly silty, fine to medium SAND, moist. - (ADVANCE OUTWASH) EXCAVATION COMPANY: King County SWD EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT: Hitachi 330 Trackhoe SURFACE ELEVATION: 242 ± Feet I a w 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 2 U7 DESCRIPTION 0 0 0 S- S -2 S -3 0 5 -4 NOTE: For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical' report. This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and /or locations. 0 LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE COMPLETED: 2/23/07 LOGGED BY: B. Thurber & P. Pearson SKETCH OF NORTH SIDE OF PIT HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (feet) 10 15 20 5 15 20 25 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON LOG OF TEST PIT TP -11 PAGE: 1 of 2 PROJECT NO.: 2003-008 FIGURE: A-49 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON EXCAVATION COMPANY: King County SWD EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT: Hitachi 330 Trackhoe SURFACE ELEVATION: 242 ± Feet 8 I- o_ w 0 25— 30— 35— 40— 45— 50— (73 m } y DESCRIPTION Test pit terminated at 26 feet (uphill side). No caving. No ground water seepage observed during excavation. w 0 a. 0 S -5 NOTE: For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and /or locations. 0 5 LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 DATE COMPLETED: 2/23/07 LOGGED BY: B. Thurber & P. Pearson SKETCH OF NORTH SIDE OF PIT HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (feet) 10 15 29 25 5, x H o_ w 0 25 30 35 40 45 50 LOG OF TEST PIT TP -11 PAGE: 2 of 2 PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 FIGURE: A -49 APPENDIX B LABORATORY INVESTIGATION APPENDIX B LABORATORY INVESTIGATION Representative soil samples obtained from the boreholes and test pits were returned to the HWA laboratory for further examination and testing. Laboratory tests were conducted on selected soil samples to characterize relevant engineering properties of the on -site materials. The laboratory testing program was performed in general accordance with appropriate ASTM Standards as outlined below. MOISTURE CONTENT (BY MASS): The moisture contents of selected soil samples were determined in general accordance with ASTM D 2216. The results are shown at the sampled intervals on the appropriate summary logs in Appendix A. LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT, AND PLASTICITY INDEX OF SOILS (ATTERBERG LIMITS): Selected samples were tested using method ASTM D 4318, multi -point method. The results are reported on the attached Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index reports, Figures B -1 through B -2. PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS: Selected samples were tested to determine the particle distribution of material in general accordance with ASTM D422. The results are summarized on the attached Grain Size Distribution reports, Figures B -3 through B -20, which also provide information regarding the classification of the sample and the moisture content at the time of testing. 2003 -008 DR.doc B -1 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. I pH and Resistivity Sample Soil Type pH Minimum Resistivity (ohm - cm) TP -7, S -4 Outwash 7.8 5,000 TP -8, S -2 Fill with Refuse 6.9 4,800 B -201, S -7 Outwash 6.2 27,000 B -203, S -6 Outwash 6.5 16,000 B -223, S -7 Fill with Refuse 5.6 2,500 B -225, S -6, 7 Fill with Refuse 6.8 2,200 B -226, S -4 Outwash 7.8 6,300 B -229, S -3 Fill with Refuse 7.6 1,600 B -235, S -3 Bum Fill 7.6 4,300 B -236, S -1, 2, 3 Bum Fill 7.7 3,500 B -237, S-4 Burn Fill 5.8 14,000 i i i i 1 1 i i CORROSION POTENTIAL: An indication of corrosion potential of typical soils along the two force main alignments was evaluated by measuring the pH and resistivity of a number of samples using method WSDOT 417. The indicated pH and minimum resistivity of the samples are tabulated as follows: 2003 -008 DR.doc B -2 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. Moisture Content, Ash, and Organic Matter Sample Soil Type Moisture Content ( %) Ash Content ( %) Organic Content ( %) B -208, S -3 Refuse 21.1 5.3 5.3 B -209, S-4 Fill with Refuse 25.1 5.9 5.9 B -215, S -9 Burn Fill 18.5 8.3 8.35 B -223, S -4 Fill with Refuse 42.9 18.17 18.17 B -223, S -7 Fill with Refuse 19.9 3.70 3.70 B -225, S -5 Fill with Refuse 53.4 13.82 13.82 B -225, S -7 Fill with Refuse 14.2 2.53 2.53 B -227, S -3 Fill with Refuse 20.7 8.22 8.22 B -227, S -6 Refuse 55.2 40.0 40.0 B -228, S -3 Burn Fill 23.0 5.55 5.55 B -230, S -8 Burn Fill 14.3 3.60 3.60 B -233, S -5 Burn Fill 20.6 4.77 4.77 i i i i i i i i 1 i i MOISTURE CONTENT, ASH, AND ORGANIC MATTER: Selected samples were tested in general accordance with method ASTM D 2974, using moisture content method `A' (oven dried at 105 C) and ash content method `C' (burned at 440 C). The test results are summarized below. The results are percent by weight of dry soil. 2003 -008 DR.doc B -3 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. !SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION % MC LL PL PI % Fines • • • 0 ❑ 4 B -215 S -2 10.0 - 11.5 (CL) Olive gray, lean CLAY with sand 28 35 20 15 B -216 S -3 15.0 - 16.5 (ML) Dark olive gray, SILT with sand 15 29 25 4 B -217 S -3 15.0 - 16.5 (CL) Dark olive gray, lean CLAY with sand 21 25 16 9 B -219 S-4 10.0 - 11.5 (CL -ML) Olive gray, clayey SILT with sand 21 23 17 6 B -220 S -5 15.0 - 16.5 (CL) Olive gray, lean CLAY 23 31 22 9 B -221 S-4 10.0 - 11.5 (ML) Olive gray, SILT 24 30 23 7 60 50 9 " : " 40 W 0 Z_ 30 Cn 1— 20 a 10 0 20 40 60 LIQUID LIMIT (LL) 80 100 Y Viii HWAGEOSCIENCES INC uau •TT0 •fnnenno not uu ixr BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT AND PLASTICITY INDEX OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D4318 PROJECT NO.: 2003-008 FIGURE: B-1 CL CH • A ML M© CL -ML o , 60 50 9 " : " 40 W 0 Z_ 30 Cn 1— 20 a 10 0 20 40 60 LIQUID LIMIT (LL) 80 100 Y Viii HWAGEOSCIENCES INC uau •TT0 •fnnenno not uu ixr BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT AND PLASTICITY INDEX OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D4318 PROJECT NO.: 2003-008 FIGURE: B-1 I SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION % MC LL PL PI % Fines • • • B -222 S -3 7.5 - 9.0 (CL -ML) Gray, silty CLAY 24 25 20 5 B -228 S-4 7.5 - 9.0 (CL) Grayish brown, lean CLAY 17 26 17 9 B -233 S -1 2.5 - 3.5 (CL) Olive gray, lean CLAY 17 28 19 9 60 50 0 X 40 W a Z_ 30 U H 20 10 0 LIQUID LIMIT (LL) HWAGEOSCIENCES INC BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT AND PLASTICITY INDEX OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D4318 PRO.IFCT An • 2nn:3 -nnR Mal ID . R_9 CL CH ML© CL -ML IV ) 20 40 An An I nn 60 50 0 X 40 W a Z_ 30 U H 20 10 0 LIQUID LIMIT (LL) HWAGEOSCIENCES INC BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT AND PLASTICITY INDEX OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D4318 PRO.IFCT An • 2nn:3 -nnR Mal ID . R_9 SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name % MC LL PL PI Gravel /n Sand /o Fines /" • • • B -201 S-4 10.0 - 11.5 (SM) Brown, silty SAND 21 0.0 85.5 14.5 B -201 S -7 25.0 - 26.5 (SP -SM) Olive gray, poorly graded SAND with silt 21 0.0 93.5 6.5 B -202 S-4 10.0 - 11.0 (SM) Light brown, silty SAND with gravel 13 25.1 60.0 15.0 GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 3/4" 3" 1 -1/2" i 5/8" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 I I 1 50 10 5 #200 N 1 0 5 0 1 0.05 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON PARTICLE -SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D422 pan 'pen- Kin • 7M3_(1fR nr_i 10C. R_ •t PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name % MC LL PL PI Gravel Sand Fines • • • B -202 S -9 35.0 - 36.0 (SP -SM) Gray, poorly graded SAND with slit 17 I I I I I I 0.0 91.8 8.2 B -203 S -6 20.0 - 21.5 (SM) Olive gray, silty SAND 14 0.0 71.2 28.8 B -203 S -12 50.0 - 51.5 (SP -SM) Gray, poorly graded SAND with silt 7 I I I I I I I I 0.0 88.7 11.3 GRAVEL #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 1 SAND SILT CLAY Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine r 1 -1/2" i 5/8" 3/8" #4 #10 ++ #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 1 1 I I I I I I I I T I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I . I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1+ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 1 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 11 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I iiI T I I I I 11 I i 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 11 I I I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 50 10 5 1 05 01 nn5 nn1 nnn5 nnnl nnr 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 3/4" U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS HWAGEOSCIENCES INC BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON PARTICLE -SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D422 con I t'T 1dn • 9nng_nna P_A PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT GRAVEL ' 5/8" 3/8" #4 #10 1 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 . I . 1 I SAND CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name SILT CLAY Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine j.. 1 -vz' ' 5/8" 3/8" #4 #10 1 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 . I . 1 I DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name % MC i I I PL PI I I Floes T I I B -204 S -2 10.0 - 11.5 I 1 9 I I I I I I 56.1 I I I • B -204 S -6 30.0 - 31.5 (SP -SM) Gray, poorly graded SAND with silt 10 0.0 91.3 8.7 • B -205 S -1 5.0 - 6.0 (SM) Brownish gray, silty SAND with gravel 7 21.0 I 24.6 t I 4 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 50 10 5 1 05 n1 nos n ni nnng n 1111 ., ,,r SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name % MC LL PL PI Gravel Sand Floes • B -204 S -2 10.0 - 11.5 (SM) Olive gray, silty SAND 9 14.5 56.1 29.5 • B -204 S -6 30.0 - 31.5 (SP -SM) Gray, poorly graded SAND with silt 10 0.0 91.3 8.7 • B -205 S -1 5.0 - 6.0 (SM) Brownish gray, silty SAND with gravel 7 21.0 54.4 24.6 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 3/4" U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS • PARTICLE -SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D422 rno n SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name % MC LL PL PI Gravel °�n Sand % Fines • B -205 S -3 15.0 - 16.0 (GM) Olive gray, silty GRAVEL with sand 6 I I 1 I I 41.3 35.3 23.4 • B -206 S -5 15.0 - 16.5 (SM) Brown, silty SAND 17 0.0 79.8 20.2 • B -206 S -8 30.0 - 31.5 (ML) Gray, sandy SILT 14 7.6 29.0 63.5 GRAVEL SAND I I SILT CLAY Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 3/4" 3" 1 -1/2" 5(8" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 01T1 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON oon irr- yin • 7r PARTICLE -SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D422 R_R I I T I I I I I i T I -11\ I I i I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 i t I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I II I I i I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 i I I I I I I I 1 I t 11 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I ` I I t l I I I I t I I t I I t I I t I f 1 I 1 I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I 1 I I I I 11 I t I L I 1 I I I 50 10 5 1 05 01 0. n ni nnns n nni n nr 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 3/4" 3" 1 -1/2" 5(8" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 01T1 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON oon irr- yin • 7r PARTICLE -SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D422 R_R SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name % MC LL PL PI Gravel Sand Fines • • • 1 B -212 S -8 30.0 - 31.5 (SP -SM) Light yellowish brown, poorly graded SAND with silt 10 t I t I I I 0.0 87.9 12.1 B -213 S-4 10.0 - 11.5 (SM) Gray, silty SAND 14 0.0 84.2 15.8 B -214 S -6 20.0 - 21.5 (SP -SM) Light yellowish brown, poorly graded SAND with silt 10 1 I I I 0.0 88.6 11.4 GRAVEL #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 00 90 SAND SILT CLAY Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine 3" 1 -1/2" • 5/8" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 00 90 I I I I I I I I III I • I ,, 1 t I t I I I 80 I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I 1 I I I t I I I I� I I 1 I 70 I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I " I t I I I I I I I I 60 I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 50 I I 1 1 i t i I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 40 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 30 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 20 I I I t I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10 I I 11 I I I I I I I I I 1 � i1 0 I i 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - I 50 10 5 1 0 5 0 1 0.05 0 n n nnR n nni n nr 1 3/4" U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS HWAGEOSCIENC@S INC BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON PARTICLE -SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D422 AAA.] AAA n PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name % MC LL PL PI Gravel ��n Sand Flo Fines �ln • • • I B -216 S -1 5.0 - 6.5 (SM) Dark brown, silty SAND with gravel 9 I I I I 32.7 48.5 18.8 B -216 S -8 40.0 - 41.5 (SM) Light yellowish brown, silty SAND 11 0.0 86.7 13,3 B -217 S -1 5.0 - 6.5 (SM) Olive brown, silty SAND with gravel 12 I I 15.1 52.0 32.9 GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 3/4" 3" 1 -1/2" i 5/8" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS HWAGEOSQENCES INC BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON PARTICLE -SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D422 D PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT I I I I 1 I 1 • I 1 I I I I I t t 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I II I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 . I I I 1 I I. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 50 10 5 1 05 0 0.05 001 nnn5 nnni nnr 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 3/4" 3" 1 -1/2" i 5/8" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS HWAGEOSQENCES INC BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON PARTICLE -SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D422 D PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name % MC LL PL PI Gravel In Sand % Fines % • • • B -217 S -9 45.0 - 46.5 (SM) Light grayish brown, silty SAND 17 0.0 82.1 , 17.9 B -219 S -2 5.0 - 6.5 (SM) Grayish brown, silty SAND 16 10.3 72.1 17.6 B -219 S -7 25.0 - 26.5 (SM) Olive brown, silty SAND 15 1.5 82.7 15.8 GRAVEL I I J/r{.0 W1 1 V I SAND SILT CLAY Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine 1 I I I J/r{.0 W1 1 V I I }fG I 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1 1/2 3/4" 10 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 5 # 6 0 #100 I 1 0 5 0 1 0.05 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON PARTICLE -SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D422 PROJECT NO.: 2003-008 FIGURE: B -9 PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name % MC LL PL PI Gravel Sa nd Fines • • • B -220 S -2 5.0 - 6.5 (SM) Dark brown, silty SAND with gravel 14 16.2 55.1 28.7 B -220 S -15 65.0 - 66.5 (SP-SM) Olive gray, poorly graded SAND with silt 12 0.0 92.2 7.8 B -221 S -1 2.5 - 4.0 (SM) Dark grayish brown, silty SAND with gravel 9 30.8 50.3 18.9 GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY Coarse Fine _ Coarse I Medium Fine 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 3/4" 3" 1 -1/2" 5/8" 3/8" #4 H #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 1 1 I 1 I I\ J 1 50 10 5 1 0 5 0 1 0.05 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005 Yllfii HWAGEOSCIENCES INC BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON PARTICLE -SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D422 PRr),IFCT Ain • 7nnS -lf1R c'r_' ioc. R_1 fl PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name % MC LL PL PI Gravel Sand Fines • B -221 S -10 40.0 - 41.5 (SM) Olive gray, silty SAND 12 I I 1 0.0 81.6 18.4 • B -221 S -14 60.0 - 61.5 (SM) Olive gray, silty SAND 8 0.0 85.9 14.1 • B -222 S -1 2.5 - 4.0 (SM) Olive gray, silty SAND 13 13.7 60.2 26.1 GRAVEL a 1 • SAND SILT CLAY Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine • 4 a 1 • 1 I I I I, II I 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I 11 I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I 1 I \ I I I 1 1 I I I I 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 11 I 1 1 I I 1 I' I I I 1 1 I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I �I T I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _ I I I I I I I I I 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 3/4" 3" 1 -1/2" 5/8" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 10 1 05 01 0.05 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON PARTICLE -SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D422 PRA I ('T min • 9f ng_nri Gll�l IBC. R_1 1 SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name % MC LL PL PI Gravel Sand Fines • • 4 B -222 S -10 40.0 - 41.5 (SM) Olive brown, silty SAND 18 f I 0.0 64.3 35.7 B -223 S -9 22.5 - 24.0 (SM) Olive gray, silty SAND 22 0.0 85.5 14.5 B -223 S -13 40.0 - 41.5 (SP -SM) Gray, poorly graded SAND with silt 11 1 I I I I I I I I 0.0 90.1 9.9 GRAVEL 1 -1/2" � 5/8" 3/8" #4 #10 I #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 I I SAND SILT CLAY Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine 3" 00 I 90 1 -1/2" � 5/8" 3/8" #4 #10 I #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I I f I I I 1 I BO 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 70 1 I 11 1 1 I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I `I I I I I I 60 I I I 11 I I I I I I i I I I I I I 50 I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I ( I I I I I I I I I I 4o I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 30 i I I I 1 I I I I I 20 I I I I I I I 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I nr 50 10 5 1 0 5 0 1 0.05 n n1 n nns n nnl n HWAGEOSCiENCES INC uwArpc7 Inevantin !SO I FH 11/17 BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 3/4" U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS PARTICLE -SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D422 PROJECT NO.: 2003-008 FIGURE: B-12 PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name % MC LL PL PI Gravel /" Sand /" /" Fines • • B -225 S -8 22.5 - 24.0 (SM) Grayish brown, silty SAND 9 0.0 87.1 12.9 B -226 S-4 10.0 - 11.5 (SP -SM) Olive gray, poorly graded SAND with silt 7 0.8 91.6 7.6 B -229 S -3 15.0 - 16.5 (SM) Brown, silty SAND with gravel 13 31.9 44.5 23.7 GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY Coarse Fine Coarse Medium I Fine Y 1'1'fa� HWAGEOSC[EtQCES INC U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 3/4" 3" 1 -1/2" • 5/8" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 50 10 5 1 05 01 0.05 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005 BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON PARTICLE -SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D422 Dan icrr Ain • 7nnn_nnFt corn ioc• R -1 PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name % MC LL PL PI Gravel % Sand % Fines /n • • • B -230 S -1 2.5 - 4.0 (SM) Brown, silty SAND with gravel 16 I 14.3 52.4 33.4 B -230 S -5 15.0 - 16.5 (SM) Brown, silty SAND with gravel 16 22.7 49.3 28.0 B -231 S -2 3.0 - 4.5 (ML) Dark grayish brown, sandy SILT 21 1 I I 9.1 31.4 59.6 GRAVEL SAND 1 SILT CLAY Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 50 10 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 3/4" 3" 1 -1/2" i5/8" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 1 , 5 #200 1 0 5 0 1 0.05 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 2003-008 PARTICLE -SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D422 FIGURE: B-14 PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT 1 I 1 1 I I 1 I I I I 1 I I 1 I I i t t t I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I 1 1 I i 1 1 I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I ■ I I I I I 1 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I 11 I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 T I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 50 10 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 3/4" 3" 1 -1/2" i5/8" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 1 , 5 #200 1 0 5 0 1 0.05 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 2003-008 PARTICLE -SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D422 FIGURE: B-14 PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name % MC LL PL PI Gravel Sand Fi • • • 1 8 -232 S -2 7.0 - 8.5 (ML) Dark olive gray, sandy SILT 20 14.2 31.4 54.4 B -232 S -8 37.0 - 38.5 (SM) Yellowish brown, sllty SAND 13 0.0 82.9 17.1 B -233 S -3 12.5 - 14.0 (SM) Gray, silty SAND with gravel 13 20.6 40.1 39.3 GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 3/4" 3" 1 -1/2" . 5(8" 3/8" #4. #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 100 I \ I I 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 I I `NL 4 50 10 5 #200 1 0.5 0 1 0.05 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON PARTICLE -SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D422 PRf.IFCT NA • 2003 -0O8 FIri R-15 PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name % MC LL PL PI Gravel Sand Fi • • • B -233 S -5 22.5 - 24.0 (SM) Olive brown, silty SAND with gravel (4.8% organics) 20 17.5 52.2 30.3 B -233 S -9 42.5 - 44.0 (SM) Light brown, silty SAND 10 1.0 77,4 21.6 B -234 S -5 15.0 - 16.5 (SM) Brown, silty SAND with gravel 14 34.8 45.2 20.0 GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine HWAGEOSCIENCES INC BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON PARTICLE -SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM. D422 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 3/4" 3" 1 -1/2" i 5/8" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 1 N 50 10 5 1 0 5 0 1 0.05 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005 PRO.IFCT NO 2003 -Ona FIr:IIRF• R -1 A PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name % MC LL PL PI Gravel Sand Fi • • • B -234 S -10 35.0 - 36.5 (SM) Gray, silty SAND 11 0.0 86.9 13.1 B -235 S -3 5.0 - 6.5 (SM) Olive gray, silty SAND with gravel 19 16.5 40.4 43.1 B -235 S-4 7.5 - 9.0 (SM) Light yellowish brown, silty SAND with gravel 15 24.7 50.3 25.0 GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY Coarse Fine Coarse Medium I Fine HWAGEOSCIENCES INC BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 3/4" 3" 1 -1/2" ' 5/8" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 T J 50 10 5 I , I 1 0 5 0 1 0.05 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005 PARTICLE -SIZE ANALYSIS' OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D422 PRAJFCT WA • 2nnR -nnR Gici 1RF• R -17 PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name % MC LL PL PI Gravel % Sand % Fines le • • • B -236 S -3 5.0 - 6.5 (SM) Dark brown, silty SAND with gravel 16 36.1 46.7 17.2 B -236 S -5 8.5 - 10.0 (SM) Brown, silty SAND 21 6.9 50.4 42.7 B -237 S-4 7.5 - 9.0 (SM) Olive brown, silty SAND 12 10.6 48.5 40.8 GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 3/4" 3" 1 -1/2" • 5/8" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 1 100 ON 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 50 1 5 1 0 5 0 1 0.05 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005 HWAGEOSCCIENNCES INC BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON PARTICLE -SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D422 rift" IG,T ,„ . ')nnR_nnR R_1 R PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name % MC LL PL PI Gravel % Sand % Fines In • • d TP- 4 S -2 8.0 - 9.0 (ML) Gray, sandy SILT with gravel 16 16.3 28.9 54.7 TP- 5 S -5 10.0 - 11.0 (SM) Brown, silty SAND with gravel 17 30.6 45.7 23.7 TP- 6 S -3 - 14.5 - 15.5 (SP -SM) Dark brown, poorly graded SAND with silt 15 0.7. 94.1 5.2 GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 3/4" 3" 1 -1/2" i 5/8" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 100 1 1 A g0 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 I� 50 10 5 1 05 01 0.05 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005 BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON PARTICLE -SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D422 - _.. ')nn') nnn 13 di n PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name % MC LL PL PI Gravel %" Sand o/" Fines ,% • • • TP- 7 S-4 15.5 - 16.0 (SM) Olive gray, silty SAND with gravel 10 24.2 54.1 21.7 TP- 8 S-4 16.0 - 16.5 (SM) Olive brown, silty SAND with gravel 12 29.2 46.6 24.2 TP- 9 S -2 5.0 - 6.0 (SP -SM) Yellowish brown, poorly graded SAND with silt 14 0.0 89.6 10.4 GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 3/4" 3" 1 -1/2" i 5/8" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 j II II II II I I II II II II a 50 10 5 1 0 5 0 1 0.05 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005 M HWAGEOSQENCES INC. BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON PARTICLE -SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D422 ')nn) nnn onn PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT APPENDIX C LOGS FROM PREVIOUS GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS DAMES &Moog (1965) 255 250 245 240 235 17.0%-103 230 13.7% -103 225 220 250 245 240 235 230 16.6%- 99 225 74 %-99 220 NOTES: 30 • 100/4• 100/ 0 16 • 140 • B2 BO • 40 • 32 • 10 • 40 50 • 95 • BORING B -I P SP SP SP S SP • SP ELEVATION 251 BROWN, FINE TO MEDIUM SANO (FILL) (MODERATELY LOOSE) MISCELLANEOUS GARBAGE } DEBRIS OBSTRUCTIONS GRAY, FINE TO MEDIUM SAND (FILL) (MODERATELY LOOSE) GARBAGE GRAY, FINE TO MEDIUM SAND (COMPACT) BORING COMPLETED 3 -5 -65 NO GROUND WATER ENCOUNTERED BORING B -2 ELEVATION 250 BROWN SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL B GARBAGE (FILL) (MODERATELY LOOSE) MISCELLANEOUS GARBAGE BROWN SAND WITH GARBAGE(FILL) (MODERATELY LOOSE I- MISCELLANEOUS GARBAGE GRAY, FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GARBAGE (FILL) MODERATELY LOOSE) GRAY, FINE TO MEDIUM SAND (COMPACT) I wATER LEVEL, 3-8-65 BORING COMPLETED 3 -8-65 t. THESE BORINGS WERE MADE BY DAMES 8 'MORE IN 1965 AS PART OF A PREVIOUS FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION FOR THE PROPOSED BON LAKE TRANSFER STATION. 2. ELEVATIONS REFER TO WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS DATUM. 250 245 240 235 230 192% -104 15.9% -108 225 220 I6.4 % -99 215 210 76 • 50 58 60 ■ 58 • 140 • 95 • LEGEND: BORING B-3 G? SP ELEVATION 248' GRAY, SANDY GRAVEL w /OCC. ORGANIC MATTER 8 GARBAGE (FILL) (MODERATELY LOOSE) MISCELLANEOUS GARBAGE WITH OCCASIONAL SANDY GRAVEL GRAY, FINE TO MEDIUM SAND (MODERATELY COMPACT) GRADES TO COMPACT BORING COMPLETED 3-6-65 NO GROUND WATER ENCOUNTERED J I. BLOWS REQUIRED TO DRIVE SAMPLER ONE FOOT MOISTURE U' W EIGHT a 260 LBS., STROKE s 24 INCHES. CONTENT 7 95 192% 104 IND:CATES DEPTH AT WHICH UNDISTURBED SAMPLE WAS EXTRACTED. DRY J o INDICATES SAMPLING ATTEMPT WITH NO DENSITY RECOVERY. PROPOSED BOW LAKE TRANSFER STATION KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON LOG OF BORINGS B -1, B-2 & 8 -3 FEBRUARY, 1976 W- 2974 -01 SHANNON i IILSON,INC- GtottCrrlCAL Corsutt►rts BORING 8 -4 2 260 260 255 250 245 240 235 230 225 220 215 210 NOTES: 32 8 5 50 TO ■ 65 ■ 60 ■ 60 ELEVATION 2585 GM 12 ASPHALTIC PAVEMENT GRAVEL WITH BROWN -GRAY SAND AND OCCASIONAL GARBAGE (FILL) (MODERATELY COMPACT) BROWN, FINE TO MEDIUM SAND •.PITH GRAVEL (FILL) ( MODERATELY LOOSE) GRADES TO COMPACT PARTIALLY DECOMPOSED GARBAGE WITH SAND (SOFT) BLACK, SILTY, SANDY GRAVEL( FILL) ( COMPACT) `PARTIALLY DECOMPOSED GARBAGE (SOFT) 3. REFER TO FIG. A-8 FOR LEGEND. GRAY, FINE TO MEDIUM SAND (COMPACT) BORING COMPLETED 3 -22-65 NO GROUND WATER ENCOUNTERED I. THESE BORINGS WERE MADE BY DAMES a MOORE IN 1965 AS PART OF A PREVIOUS FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION FOR THE PROPOSED BOW LAKE TRANSFER STATION. 2. ELEVATIONS REFER TO WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS DATUM. 255 250 245 240 235 230 225 220 215 26 ■ II ■ 25 ■ 48 48 90 100 BORING B -5 ELEVATION 258± GP SP SP ASPHALTIC PAVEMENT BROWN -GRAY, SANDY GRAVEL (MODERATELY LOOSE TO MODERATELY COMPACT ) GRAY - BROWN, FINE TO MEDIUM SAND ( FILL ) ( MODERATELY LOOSE ) GRADES MORE COMPACT J J GRAY, FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (COMPACT) • • BORI COMPLETED 3 -23-63 NO GROUND WAVER ENCOUNTERED PROPOSED BOW LAKE TRANSFER STATION KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON LOG OF BORINGS B -4 8( B -5 FEBRUARY, 1976 W- 2974 -0I SHANNON i ■ILSON.INC. • c[ottcNRICAL coM:ULTIN t SHANNON & WILSON (1976) 3sn SOIL OESCRIPTICN = Surface Elevation: APPROX. 265 FT. .. J s - a ` "' _ • 1 I 'HId30' 1131TI nNnfH9 STANOARO PENETRATION RESISTANCE (140 lb. weight. 30 drop) Al, Blows par toot 0 20 40 5' MEDIUM DENSE, GRAY, MOIST, SLIGHTLY SILTY TO SILTY, GRAVELLY, FINE TO MEDIUM SAND;( FILL) 0 I 4 5 6 I I I I I .... : : 1 MEDIUM DENSE, GRAY, MOIST, SLIGHTLY SILTY, FINE TO MEDIUM SAND DENSE TO VERY DENSE, GRAY —BROWN TO GRAY, MOIST TO WET, CLEAN TO SLIGHTLY SILTY, FINE TO MEDIUM SAND - .. .. : .. . . • • .. • SLOTTED 4'4 PVC DURING DRILLING c 0 U .. :: : . .:.::63— 90-- • .. • , 99-- 94— BOTTOM OF BORING COMPLETED 1/12/76 LF(S111 0 20 40 6( i i i I i i i i t I i i i I 2' 0.0. split spoon sample II 3 0.0. thin -wall sample • Sample not recovered Atterberg Limits: I Liquid limit Natural l mater content Plastic limit Impervious seal later level Piezometer tip Sample pushed USC Unified Soil Classification NOTE: The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries • S later content PROPOSED BOW LAKE TRANSFER STATION KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON LOG OF BORING B -I01 FEBRUARY,1976 W- 2974 -0: SNIUON I IIISON. INC. Gin if AI rnMSLX TANT C osn SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: APPROX. 244 FT. — i ..., n GROUND RATER DEPTH. ft. STANOARO PENETRATION RESISTANCE (140 lb. weight. 30" drop) Blois per foot 0 20 40 6r • -1 BLACKTOP ROAD SURFACING /— 0.3 1 . 5 1 S 4 I " " 12 13 36 14 19 191 I Ir I I I PERCHED 'NI ZONE W N 0 U 5 O (r O .... — MEDIUM DENSE, GRAY, SANDY GRAVEL;(FlLLV MEDIUM DENSE, GRAY, MOIST, LAYERED, SLIGHTLY SILTY TO SILTY, FINE TO MEDIUM SAND;WITH \SCATTERED GARBAGE FRAGMENTS ( FILL) r GARBAGE :MIXED WITH SOME LOOSE, . . - . • . __ _ • GRAY, FINE TO MEDIUM SAND :INTERVALS CONTAINS A FEW THIN SAND LAYERS ( FILL) :!: • :: . k .. " . .. . . : . . LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, DARK GRAY, MOIST TO WET, SLIGHTLY SILTY TO SILTY, FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH TRACES OF GARBAGE .. . FRAGMENTS ( FILL) . . 1 ' ' .. HARD, GRAY BROWN TO GRAY, MOIST TO WET, NON- PLASTIC TO CLAYEY SILT; GENERALLY NON- PLASTIC • BELIEVED • 0 TT RBANC i - 1 . 7777. j . 105 --• i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i LEGE I 2' 0.0. split spoon sample 1[3" 0.0. thin —wall sample • Sample not recovered Atterberg Limits: 1� 1— Liquid limit Natural water content Plastic limit Impervious seal later level Pietometer tip Sample pushed USC Unified Soil Classification NOTE: The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries 20 40 • s later content 6C PROPOSED BOW LAKE TRANSFER STATION KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON LOG OF BORING B -102 FEBRUARY, 1976 W- 2974 -0I SHANNON 11I1SON, INC. SOIL DESCRIPTION SAME AS ABOVE BOTTOM OF BORING COMPLETED 1/13/76 W d 20 21 I 54 o CC CC x. -- o 50 55 LEGEND I 2" O.D. split spoon sample 1[3' O.D. thin –wall sample • Sample not recovered AtterberZ limits: f Liquid limit Natural water content Plastic limit laper.rous Seal later level hexameter tip P Sample pushed USC Unified Soil Classification 0 NOTE: The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries STANDARD PENETRATION MISTAKE (140 lb. wei[rt. 30' drop) A Blows per foot 20 40 . • i 0 20 40 • % later content 91— SIIIMMON I Iltsoe, IIC. 88 .. ........ 6C PROPOSED BOW LAKE TRANSFER STATION KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON LOG OF BORING B -102 FEBRUARY, 1976 W-2974 -01 [ osn SOIL OESCRIPTIG4 Surface Elevation: APPROX. 247 FT. '' a "' l ' GRDUNU IATER DEPTH. I1. STINOARO PENETRATION RESISTANCE (140 lb. weight. 30' drop) A (Meyer foot 0 20 40 LOOSE, GRAY -BROWN TO GRAY, MOIST TO WET, CLEAN TO SLIGHTLY SILTY, FINE TO MEDIUM SAND'WITH LAYERS OF GARBAGE; I T I I I 5 I 6 I I I I ;.. 10 I I 1 3 I I : 15 ::: ' `' "' .. 168.7— - OCCASIONAL METAL FRAGMENTS ( FILL ) — ! - • • MEDIUM DENSE, GRAY -BROWN TO GRAY, MOIST TO WET, CLEAN TO SLIGHTLY SILTY, FINE TO MEDIUM SAND ..:. .. :•. ....... DENSE, GRAY -BROWN TO GRAY, MOIST, CLEAN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND; /21 �+ w w I/29/76 ro o v+ o t . OCCASIONALLY SLIGHTLY SILTY :::.. : I - • ..... �. BOTTOM OF BORING COMPLETED I/ 12/ 76 f I I I i i i i i i I i i LEGEND I 2' 0.0. split spoon sample Ur 0.0. thin —mall sample • Sample not recovered Atterberl limits: liquid limit Natural eater content Plastic limit Impervious seal 2 later level Pietometer tip P Sample pushed USC Unified Soil Classification NOTE: The stratification lines represent the aooroiimate boundaries 0 20 40 • S later content PROPOSED BOW LAKE TRANSFER STAT)O" KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON LOG OF BORING B -I03 FEBRUARY, 1976 W- 2974 -( Sxieeo* t WILSON. INC. SOIL DESCRIPT Surf ace Elevation: APPROX. 246 FT. LOOSE, GRAY, MOIST, SILTY GRAVELLY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND;WITH SCATTERED CONCRETE RUBBLE AND LAYERS OF GARBAGE ( FILL) LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, GRAY TO BROWN, MOIST, CLEAN TO SILTY, FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SCATTERED LAYERS OF GARBAGE TO ABOUT I FT. THICK) INCLUDING BROKEN GLASS ( FILL ) MEDIUM DENSE, GRAY, MOIST, CLEAN, FINE TO MEDIUM SAND;WITH SCATTERED SILTY LAMINATIONS DENSE TO VERY DENSE, GRAY, MOIST, CLEAN, FINE TO MEDIUM SAND;WITH SCATTERED SILTY LAMINATIONS BOTTOM OF BORING COMPLETED 1/12/76 d xs N 5 I S 23 39 II 2 I 3I 4I 5I 6 I 7I 8 I 9I 10 I II I 12 13 I 14 I 15I oK x � u a- 0 5 I0 I5 20 25 30 35 40 LEGEND I 2' 0.0. split spoon sample II 3' 0.0. thin —■all sample • Sample not recovered Atterberg Limits: �� I _ Liquid limit Natural eater content Plastic limit Impervious seal later level hexameter tip P Sample pushed USC Unified Soil Classification NOTE: The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries betteen soil t vdes and the [taniitInn nfar hp oraAual 0 STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTAkCE (140 lb. merit. 30 (Hop,) AL Blocs. per foot 20 40 • F 0 20 40 6; • s later content PROPOSED BOW LAKE TRANSFER STATIO" KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON LOG OF BORING B -104 FEBRUARY, 1976 W- 2974 -0 SUMMON I tlitOc. Irc. GEOTEcHNICAL. CONSULTANTS SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: APPROX.250 FT. LOOSE, GRAY, MOIST, SILTY SAND • ( FILL) LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, GRAY TO BROWN, MOIST, SLIGHTLY SILTY, FINE TO MEDIUM SAND;WITH LAYERS OF GARBAGE AND A LAYER OF SILTY, SANDY GRAVEL NEAR 16 FT. DEPT H MEDIUM DENSE, GRAY, CLEAN TO SLIGHTLY SILTY, FINE TO MEDIUM SAND DENSE TO VERY DENSE, GRAY-BROWN TO GRAY, CLEAN TO SLIGHTLY SILTY, FINE TO MEDIUM SAND :WITH A MEDIUM CENSE LAYER NEAR 39 FT. DEPTH BOTTOM OF BORING COMPLETED 1/9/76 an a .. 16 24 49 4 I I 5 6 7 I I 8 I 9I 1° I II I 12 1 13I 16 17 I 18 19 I D OS = W CC a- 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 5 0 LEGEND I 2' 0.0. split spoon sample 1[3' 0.0. thin-wall sample • Sample not recovered Atterbere limits: Liquid limit Natural water content Plastic limit Impervious seal 4 later level Pietometer tip P Sample pushed USC Unified Soil Classification NOTE: The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries 0 STANOARO PENETRATION RESIST1)CE (140 lb. ■ettht. 30 drop) AL Blots per loot 20 I 40 .9, 79 84—• 0 20 40 6i • s later content PROPOSED BOW LAKE TRANSFER STATION KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON LOG OF BORING B -105 FEBRUARY, 1976 W- 2974 -01 sulefol 1 WILSON, M. f asn SOIL OESCRIPTI0.4 - Surface Elevation: APPROX. 249 FT. W a. 1." GROUND WATER DEPTH, I L STANOARO PENETRATION RESISTANCE (140 lb. weight. 30" drop) A Blocs per foot 0 20 40 E VERY LOOSE TO LOOSE, GRAY, MOIST, SLIGHTLY SILTY TO SILTY, FINE $AND ;WITH LAYERS OF GARBAGE TO 2 FT. THICK AND GRAVEL IN SOME LAYERS 12 3 8 9 11 14 r 1 T I I I I :. I I I I 94 /I I I I . , .. i MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, GRAY, MOIST, CLEAN TO SLIGHTLY SILTY, FINE SAND : i ::• VERY DENSE, GRAY TO DARK GRAY, MOIST TO WET, CLEAN TO SLIGHTLY SILTY, FINE SAND ;WITH A FEW LAMINATIONS OF SILT • • • • - i • 7I— i . 80-- : " ::: - : I : :: SLOTTED 3 /4 PVC DRILLING W ()I N Cn 0 U� r - 76—. :: • e 93-- BOTTOM OF BORING COMPLETED I/ /76 i i I i i i i i I i I i i i 1 2' 0.D. split spoon sample I[3' 0.0. thin—mall sample • Sample not recovered Atterberg limits: LEGEND Liquid limit Natural water content Plastic limit USC Impervious seal later level Pietometer tip Sample pushed Unified Soil Classification NOTE: The stratification lines represent the approsimate boundaries 20 40 • % Tater content 6: PROPOSED BOW LAKE TRANSFER STATIOr KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON LOG OF BORING B -I06 FEBRUARY, 1976 W- 2974 -0 DI MMON L WILSON. INC. nen Wre, rnue I asn I SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: APPROX. 244 FT. - _ ; t. GROUND LATER DEPTH, Tl. STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (140 lb. eelent, 30' drop) AL Blows per font 0 20 1 40 f. BLACKTOP DRIVE SURFACING (SEVERAL LAYERS) 0 1.5 7 3 15 12 31.5 I SLOTTED 3 /4" PVC DRY (/21/76, 1/29/76 U W to 0 5 5 U 0 - - MEDIUM DENSE, GRAY, MOIST, CLEAN TO SLIGH- TLY SILTY, FINE TO MEDIUM SAND -W /TRACES OF GARBAGE FRAGMENTS ::: . . . I GARBAGE;MIXED WITH SOME SILTY SAND 1 ! -- 0 ... DENSE TO VERY DENSE, GRAY, MOIST, CLEAN TO SLIGHTLY SILTY, FINE TO MEDIUM SAND; : : � �:�:: . I WITH A FEW GRAVELLY LENSES BOTTOM OF BORING COMPLETED 1/13/75 i i i i i I i i i i i I i i i LEGEND I 2' 0.0. split spoon sample I[3' 0.0. thin —salt sample • Sample not recovered Atterberg limits: I Liquid limit Natural l eater content Plastic limit Impervious seal later level Piezometer tip P Sample pushed USC Unified Soil Classification MOTE: The stratification lines represent the approalmate boundaries between :eel tvn.c In rn. rrin,.t.n.. M2W h. .r.e...I 0 20 40 • % later content PROPOSED BOW LAKE TRANSFER STATION KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON LOG OF BORING B -107 FEBRUARY, 1976 W- 2974-0( SMAMMON [ ellSOe, IMC. GEOTECNNICAL CONSULTANTS HONG CONSULTING ENGINEERS (19g6) i BOREHOLE LOG DEPTH (feet) • - '2 - 4 - - 6 -- - 8 - - 10- - 12 - - 14- - 16 - 18 - - 20 - - 22 - - 24 - - 26 - - 28 - 30 - - 32 - Figur SOIL DESCRIPTION -I 4 a GROUND MOISTURE CONTENT °/° • WATER CONDITION SPT RESISTANCE • 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 12" Concrete slab, reinforced -.3" void 2" - 3" •ravel levellin Compacted, gray, fine SAND (FILL trace silt Hit on rock, slight difficulties of augering Clean, some coarse sand -4" piece of wood Garbage; tin metal, cloth, glass some silt and sand, rotten paper No recovery Medium dense to dense gray, fine SAND, clean (NATIVE SAND) PROJECT Bow Lake Transfer Station e 2 King Co. Washington No Groundwater Brass Ring Samples DATE 3 -3 -86 LOGGED BY SH ELEVATION 250 ± DEPTH 44' HI ROCK AS LE NO 1 140 BH - SHEET 1 of 2 BOREHOLE LOG DEPTH (feet) SOIL DESCRIPTION —.36- - 38 — — 40 — — 42 — — 44 — Gray, fine to medium SAND END OF HOLE Figure 2A PROJECT Bow Lake Transfer Station King Co., Washington W J a 4 B 7 GROUND WATER CONDITION 2.5 ring samples DATE 3-3 -86 LOGGED BY SH ELEVATION 250 ± DEPTH, 44' MOISTURE CONTENT °/° • SPT RESISTANCE • 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 • • SHEET 2 of 2 HOLE NO. BH - 1 DEPTH (feet) SOIL DESCRIPTION J a. 4 GROUND WATER CONDITION MOISTURE CONTENT °/° • SPT RESISTANCE • 10 20 30 40 so 60 70 12" concrete slab FI U El gli • 11, I '2 -"� — 4 — — 6 — — 10— - 12 — - 14— 16 — 18 — 20 — — 22— No settlement under slab 2" gravel base Compacted, gray, fine SAND (fill clean Trace of pea - gravel Slightly silty 1" piece of wood „ 3/4 piece of wood 1 I 1111 1111 1 111111 1 1 1111" 1111, Loose to medium dense, gray silty fine sand with gravel, mostly inorganic soil smell, messy GARBAGE wood 1:1 ,, ■ '' - No ground water 111, - 24 —26 — 28 — - 30 — - 32 — Medium dense, gray to brown, fine to medium SAND, clean (NATIVE SAND) ■ I IIuIII ■ "U 1 • • 1:1 U /1 Figure 3 PROJECT Bow Lake Transfer Station DATE 3 -3 -86 HOLE NO. BH - 2 LOGGED BY SH King Co., Washington ELEVATION 250± SHEET 1 of 2 DEPTH 39 ' i i e i i I i i i i I I i i BOREHOLE LOG DEPTH (fee SOIL DESCRIPTION a 4 in GROUND WATER CONDITION MOISTURE CONTENT °/° • SPT RESISTANCE • 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 36 — 38 - Same as above _411 _7 g — ` • ' — 40 ~ _ END OF HOLE Figure 3A PROJECT Bow Lake Transfer Station DATE 3 -3 -86 HOLE NO BH - 2 LOGGED BY SH King Co., Washington ELEVATION 250 - SHEET 2 of 2 DEPTH 39 1 1 i i r i I i i BOREHOLE LOG DEPTH (feet) SOIL DESCRIPTION la a 0 GROUND WATER CONDITION MOISTURE CONTENT °/° • SPT RESISTANCE • 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 V 2" Asphalt concrete pavement — 2 — — , — 4 — — Loose, gray, fine SAND, moist; AI , — 6 _ -- 2 7 : with brick fragments, cloth and tin metal -- 8 — — — 10 - Loose, gray, fine SAND with —7 gravel, wet — 12— — — 14— — GARBAGE — 16 — Plastic wire, sod, paper _X • — 18— 4" thick newspaper — Z 4" thick gray, fine sand 20 — gray fine sand with glass 7 fragment, newspaper — 22— — Glass, newspaper — 24— —Z — 26 — Auger grinding on hard material* —X 5L/2" d END OF HOLE — 28— — ** Auger hit hard material at 26.5' and met refusal, -- 30 — boring prematurally terminated PROJECT DATE 3 -3 -86 HOLE NO Bow Lake Transfer Station LOGGED BY SH BH - 3 Figure 4 King Co., Washington ELEVATION 249 SHEET DEPTH 26.5' 1 of 1 i i i i i i i i i i i BOREHOLE LOG BOREHOLE LOG DEPTH (feet) GROUND WATER CONDITION MOISTURE CONTENT % • SPT RESISTANCE • 10 20 30 40 60 60 TO SOIL DESCRIPTION —.2 .-, — 4 — 6 — — 8 — - 10 — — 12- - 14 — 16 — — 18 — — 20 — _ 22 — — 24 — — 26 — — 28— — 30 - 32 — 2" asphalt concrete GARBAGE No samples taken This is relocated hole due to premature termination of BH -3 Ht. 26.5'. New hole was drilled 3' north of BH -3 — Small rubble hampered drilling for 10 minutes. Finally penetrated Figure 5 W a 2 a Dense, gray, fine SAND with gravel Dense, silty fine SAND with broken cobble (till like) PROJECT Bow Lake Transfer Station King Co., Washington difficult to drill due to cob bl e DATE 3 -3 -R6 LOGGED BY SH ELEVATION 2491: DEPTH 59' \NN\ • HOLE NO. BH -4 SHEET 1 of 2 83/ DEPTH (feet) SOIL DESCRIPTION SAMPLE I GROUND WATER IDITION MOISTURE CONTENT % • , SPT RESISTANCE • 10 20 30 40 50 6070 — 36 - - 38 - - 40 - 42 - - 44 - Naminated -' 46 - - 48- - 50 - - 52 - - 54 -- - 56- -58- - 60- Dense, gray, fine to medium clean, moist Native sand 2" organic seam volcanic ash ./2 prrnirvii PVC Pi ezometeell< ' I • \ Very dense, gray gravelly 5 (till) Difficulty of drilling due _i to cobble. E!, i9215- \ 5C 3' Very hard, gray clayey SIL laminated silt -2 - 6 85'' End of hole Figure 5A PROJECT Bow Lake Transfer Station DATE 3 -3 -86 HOLE NO. BH -4 LOGGED BY SH King Co., Washington ELEVATION 249 SHEET 2 of 2 DEPTH 59 ' i i i i I i I i i i i BOREHOLE HONG CONSULTING ENGINEERS (1987) DEPTH (feet) SOIL DESCRIPTION a a 0 GROUND WATER CONDITION MOISTURE CONTENT ° /o 0 SPT RESISTANCE A 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 DPfrfarpg, u" in'L1:_ g _ nneta,01.cema. 4") ) C 4.' J r ) I fpnidu.bm I F7 __.. I0 — )Y — ! � — D Is — a, _ 30- 3Z— cee-,•wz gvn.ei' j r ) 5 ) ae,„,,v sue, �- ) - . . L 4 4 G ,PROJECT �p 3 y 1,a.1_e• T.�L1 "`�'">`' �� . - DATE / B HOLE H N O. t O r fl9 wr L LOGGED BY ELEVATION DEPTH -7771 • (/ SHEET r of a2 Q AMP') c OD• i i I i i i i i DEPTH (feet) F19 .L4 SOIL DESCRIPTION p if2,S J sa- a d .mat:2z PROJE- SZ- �4 Shrr1 w -J a 4 F GROUND WATER CONDITION MOISTURE CONTENT °4 0 SPT RESISTANCE A 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 DATE - 7 NOLE NO. LOGGED BY , i / • aH " + O 7 r ELEVATION a o SHEET DEPTH UU• 5 a of �/ f D u1 ) 3 Dom, � ) .e.c.� s '. O.H' &itLtU &) 4t1 ;L S a.►L6) 4 SOIL DESCRIPTION GROUND WATER CONDITION DATE —f 5 —$7 LOGGED BY T� ELEVATION ° DEPTH 20/ MOISTURE CONTENT ° /o SPT RESISTANCE A 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 HOLE B H - I Qa SHEET /otcZ NO IEPTH ot) i i i 1`1 2 30 3'' DEPTH (feet) D , M r SOIL DESCRIPTION t 71 1 ) P OJECT Ah /f') J a N GROUND WATER CONDITION DATE 4 ? - ')5 - 'g7 LOGGED BY T01 ELEVATION o2 1 10 DEPTH 2 01 MOISTURE CONTENT °/° SPT RESISTANCE A 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 HOLE NO. 13 H- ioa SHEET of DEPTH (feet) SOIL DESCRIPTION SAMPLE I GROUND WATER CONDITION MOISTURE CONTENT °/° SPT RESISTANCE b. 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 - a - — —l1_ 18 - - O a -J __.2 —q — —3, — S G: — . 12.2 rd . F ,,,,, Sa... € 6, ,,t,,c,<"d/t _ - 2. DQ.e,, ray-) Ste, - cialm., , ,,4Z r \ ,5 , _ cia444. 4 ,616 / 4/ , )-t4:64. 1 _ — - F/9a L , � PROJEC . ett .T�c�� (.5 DATE f ? Iv 87 HOLE NO. LOGGED BY Tom• 8H ELEVATION ° 5 SHEET 1 of a 4DnMI DEPTH � • �• i i i i I I I i i DEPTH (feet) SOIL DESCRIPTION I sue, 48A! 1 GROUND WATER CONDITION Flywre- MOISTURE CONTENT °/° SPT RESISTANCE • 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 HOLE NO. aH -103 • SHEET of a HONG CONSULTING ENGINEERS (1988) DEPTH (feet) — 24 —26 — Figure 2 SOIL DESCRIPTION 2" asphalt, 6" crushed rock Dense gray, fine to medium SAND: some silt; trace gravel; damp; SW (Fill) Loose to medium dense, gray, fine to medium SAND and REFUSE: some silt; trace gravel; paper, plastic, metal, fiberous waste; moist (Solid Waste Fill) "10 12 Dense, gray, silty fine SAND: laminated; damp; non - plastic; 14 — SP /ML (Glacial Outwash) — 16 -- — 18 — — 20 — - 22 — END OF HOLE PROJECT Trans. Stn. ‘Improvements Bow Lake Trans. Stn. Seattle, WA. PROJECT #88110 BORE HOLE LOG _ MEM W a. 2 4 N GROUND WATER CONDITION No water encountered during drilling DATE 10 -24 -88 LOGGED BY SHE ELEVATION 243' DEPTH 24' HONG CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. MOISTURE CONTENT •/. • SPT RESISTANCE • 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 • 50,'5" HOLE NO. BH -1 SHEET 1 of 1 SOIL DESCRIPTION W J a. 4 GROUND WATER CONDITION MOISTURE CONTENT •/. • SPT RESISTANCE • 10 20 30 40 50 6070 mum inn" 111 „U" M ME" M ‚liii" iiiii MEM ill501111 DEPTH (feet) 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 Figure 3 " asphalt, brown, sandy GRAVEL (Fill) Loose to medium dense, gray to dark gray, REFUSE and silty fine SAND: damp; paper, metal, nylon, cloth, fiberous waste, glass (Solid Waste Fill) Dense to very dense, silty fine to medium SAND: damp; laminated occasional gravel; NP,SP (Glacial Outwash) END OF HOLE PROJECT Trans. Stn. Improvements Bow Lake Trans. Stn Seattle, WA. PROJECT #88110 BORE HOLE LOG DATE 10 -24 -88 SHE LOGGED BY ELEVATION DEPTH 29' 243' HONE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. HOLE N0. BH -2 SHEET 1 of 1 (feet) H SOIL DESCRIPTION W a H CONDITION GROUND WATER MOISTURE CONTENT •/. S SPT RESISTANCE • 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Rip -rap quarry spa yi j ■ '. 2 • a ei '' :� ' • 2 4 Medium dense, brown, silty fine SAND: moist; some gravel; NP,SP (Fill) 6 8 10 Loose to medium dense, dark brown REFUSE and sandy gravelly SILT; moist (Solid Waste Fill) 111111111 11 , AIIIIII IIII III 1 2 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 14 Loose to medium dense, gray, silty fine SAND: some gravel; moist to wet at base (Fill) 1 111111 1 flhlifli Medium dense, b rown and gray, REFUSE and silty fine SAND: some gravel; glass, fiber, plastic; moist to wet (Solid Waste Fill) • '�, ►I 1 ill Figure 4 PROJECT Trans. Stn. Improvements DATE 10 -24 -88 HOLE NO. BH -3 LOGGED BY SHE Bow Lake Trans. Stn. ELEVATION 246' SHEET 1 of 2 Seattle, WA. DEPTH 49 ' i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i PROJECT #88110 BORE HOLE LOG HONG CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. DEPTH (fet) SOIL DESCRIPTION SAMPLE GROUND WATER CONDITION MOISTURE CONTENT •/. S SPT RESISTANCE • 10 20 30 4050 60 70 1 - 36 38 4 0 42 44 46 48 50 '' A • • III III II III ill Dense, gray, silty fine SAND: laminated; moist; SP (Glacial Outwash) 11111111 END OF HOLE • ,1111" 1 1 -111111 Figure 4A PROJECT Trans. Stn. Improvements DATE 10 -24 -88 HOLE NO. BH -3 LOGGED BY SHE Bow Lake Trans. Stn. ELEVATION X46 SHEET 2 of 2 Seattle, WA. DEPTH 49� e i i i i I i i i i i i 1 i i PROJECT #88110 BORE HOLE LOG HONG CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. DEPTH (feet) SOIL DESCRIPTION SAMPLE GROUND WATER CONDITION MOISTURE CONTENT •/. • SPT RESISTANCE • 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 — 2 — 3" asphalt, 6" sandy gravel I ., 1 • Very dense, brown, sandy fine — GRAVEL: moist GW (Fill) 6 — - • 8- Dense, brown, silty fine SAND: gravelly at top; moist to _ saturated; SP (Fill) - — 10— — 12 — — 14— — 16— -- 18— -20— -- 22— — 24 — — 26— — 28 — — 30 — — 32 _ 14 Loose to gray, moist; . to medium dense, brown REFUSE and sandy SILT: glass, metal, fiber, brick (Solid Waste Fill) — — — — , Al Al _. I - 141 1 I _ , — — — A NM 111■ E . Medium dense, gray, SILT: moist; gravel layers; peaty organics at top; plastic (Fill) • Figure 5 PROJECT Trans. Stn. Improvements DATE 10 -24 -88 HOLE NO. BH -4 LOGGED ELEVATION DEPTH BY SHE Bow Lake Trans. Stn. 244' SHEET 1 of 2 Seattle, WA. 39 i I i i i i i I i i i i I i i i i PROJECT #88110 BORE HOLE LOG HONG CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. r DEPTH (feet) SOIL DESCRIPTION SAMPLE 1 GROUND WATER CONDITION MOISTURE CONTENT •/. • SPT RESISTANCE • 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 _.36 — 38 — -- 40 — Dense, brown, silty, fine SAND: laminated with silt laminates SP -ML (Glacial Outwash) _R . END OF HOLE — Figure 5A PROJECT Trans. Stn. Improvements DATE 10 -24 -88 HOLE NO. BH-4 LOGGED BY SHE Bow Lake Trans. Stn. ELEVATION 244 SHEET 2 of 2 Seattle, WA. DEPTH i I i i i i i i i i i i i PROJECT #88110 BORE HOLE LOG HONG CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. DEPTH (feet) SOIL DESCRIPTION SAMPLE I GROUND WATER CONDITION MOISTURE CONTENT y. • SPT RESISTANCE • 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 2 — 6 — 8 — 10 12 -- 14 -- 16 -- 18 --20 - 22 —24 --26 --28 --30 --32 34 Dark brown, sandy gravelly SILT (Fill) • . ∎ t ■ rj ■ 1:1 @ 10- 25 -88* 1 0845 4 Q Medium dense, dark gray to gray, silty fine SAND: slightly plastic at top; SP; refuse, wood, glass, etc.; moist (Fill) Loose to dense, brown to gray REFUSE: mucky, saturated in places; glass, plastic, etc. (Solid Waste Fill) Medium dense to dense, gray, silty fine SAND: saturated with refuse glass, wood, cloth, plastic; garbage odor (Solid Waste Fill) .11( III r U ', 10- 25 -88* 1, 0915 _7___ ' . ', • • Very dense, gray, mottled, gravelly SILT: moderately plastic; 2 interbed of fine to medium sand (Till) • Figure 6 PROJECT Trans. Stn. Improvements DATE 10 -25 -88 HOLE NO. BH -5 LOGGED BY SHE Bow Lake Trans. Stn. ELEVATION 245' SHEET 1 of 2 Seattle, WA. DEPTH 44' i i i i i i I i i i i i i i i i i i i PROJECT #88110 BORE HOLE LOG HONG CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. DEPTH (feet) SOIL DESCRIPTION SAMPLE 1 GROUND WATER CONDITION MOISTURE CONTENT •1. • SPT RESISTANCE • 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 --36- - 38 - -40 - - 42 -" • .- Very dense, gray, mottled, gravelly SILT: moderately plastic; 2" interbed of fine to medium sand (Till) • A 50/5" 55/6" -44 - -46 - - - *Perched water tables penetrated while drilling - • Figure 6A PROJECT Trans. Stn. Improvements DATE 10 -25 -88 HOLE NO. BH -5 LOGGED BY SHE Bow Lake Trans. Stn. ELEVATION 245' SHEET 2 of 2 Seattle, WA. DEPTH � 4 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i I PROJECT #88110 BORE HOLE LOG HONG CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. GOLDER ASSOCIATES (1992) i SUMMARY TEST PIT LOGS ' TP -1 10 FT SW OF FIRE HYDRANT - 2/19/92 ' 0.0 - 33 ft. Compact, olive brown, coarse to fine SAND and coarse to fine GRAVEL, some Clayey Silt, little Cobbles, SM (SOIL FILL). I 3.5 - 7.0 ft. Loose, gray SAND and. mixed with Refuse - rags, plastic and wood debris, SM (SOIL FILL). I Sample at 1.0 feet. Side -walls caving at six feet 1.5 -inch metal water -line encountered at 7.0 ft. Water -line did not show I any signs of damage. Test pit terminated at 7.0 ft. TP -2 W 55 FT SW OF FIRE HYDRANT - 2119/92 ' 0.0 - 8.0 ft. Loose, brown, Silty coarse to fine SAND and GRAVEL mixed with Refuse - primarily wood debris consisting of tree roots, limbs and logs. Occasional plastic ' and paper debris, SM (SOIL FILL). 8.0 - 11.5 ft. Compact, gray, fine to coarse SAND, some Gravel, trace Silt (NATIVE OUTWASH SAND). ' 4 -inch thick asphalt slabs encountered near surface 0.5 ft) pit terminated at 11.5 ft surface ( 0.5 ' TP -3 SOUTH OF EMPLOYEE PARKING LOT - 2/19/92 0.0 - 2.0 ft. Loose, brown, Silty coarse to fine SAND, some fine Gravel, SM -SP (SOIL FILL)._ I 2.0 - 8.0 ft. Loose, dark gray, Silty SAND, some medium to fine Gravel mixed with Refuse - wood, plastic and paper debris (REFUSE FILL). ' 8.0 - 13.5 ft. Loose REFUSE - paper, cans, glass bottles etc. Very little soil mixed with the refuse (REFUSE FILL). 13.5 - 15.0 ft. Loose, dark gray, Silty coarse to fine SAND, little Gravel, occasional glass and plastic fragments, mixed with pockets of clean, gray, medium to fine SAND (BOTTOM OF REFUSE FILL). i i TP-4 NORTH OF EMPLOYEE PARKING LOT - 2/19/92 0.0 - 3.0 ft. Loose, brown to grayish olive green, coarse to fine SAND, little to some coarse to fine Gravel, trace to some Silt, SM (SOIL FILL). 3.0 - 6.0 ft. Very dense, dark gray, Silty SAND and GRAVEL with occasional glass, metal and plastic fragments. Soil is very difficult to excavate with a backhoe (REFUSE FILL). 6.0 - 13 ft. Loose, dark gray, Silty, medium to fine SAND mixed with Refuse - abundant metal cans, glass, plastic and paper debris (REFUSE FILL). Refuse appears to be supported in a soil matrix. 13.0 - 15.0 ft. Compact to dense, gray, medium to fine SAND (NATIVE OUTWASH SAND) Sample at 2.0 feet. Slight water seepage at 3.0 ft. Moderate water seepage and minor caving at 13.0 ft. Test pit terminated at 15.0 'ft. TP -5 WEST EDGE OF SITE - 2/19/92 0.0 - 3.0 ft. Loose, brown, Silty coarse to fine SAND, trace Gravel. Occasional glass fragments (SOIL FILL). 3.0 - 5.0 ft. Dense, gray to olive brown, medium to fine SAND, SP (NATIVE OUTWASH SAND). Sample at 4.0 feet. Test pit terminated at 5.0 ft. SUMMARY HAND -AUGER LOGS HA -1 NORTHWEST CORNER OF SITE - 2/19/92 0.0 - 2.5 ft. Loose, brown, coarse to fine SAND, little Silt, little Gravel, SM (SOIL FILL). 2.5 - 4.5 ft. Dense, brownish -gray, coarse to fine SAND, little to fine Gravel, SP (NATIVE OUTWASH SANDS). Gravel prevents further advancement of auger at 4.5 ft. Hand auger hole terminated at 4.5 ft HA -2 50 FEET WEST OF THE GATE VALVE - 3/9/92 0.0 - 2.0 ft. Loose, brown, Silty, coarse to fine SAND, little medium to fine Gravel, SM (SOIL FILL). Obstructions (cobbles ?) prevent further advancement of auger beyond 2.0 feet. Three separate attempts were made. HA -3 WEST OF THE ACCESS ROAD - 3/9/92 0.0 - 1.5 ft. Compact, brown, coarse to fine SAND, trace Silt, SP (SOIL FILL). 1.5 - 3.0 ft. Compact, gray, coarse to fine SAND, SP (NATIVE OUTWASH SAND). Soil is becoming wet at 2.0 feet Hand -auger hole terminated at 3.0 ft. HONG WEST & ASSOCIATES (1994) HONG WEST & ASSOCIATES , INC. DRILLING COMPANY: DRILLING METHOD: SAMPLING METHOD: BORING LOG TOTAL DEPTH: Feet SURFACE ELEVATION: Feet MEASURING POINT EL.: Feet DESCRIPTION Poorly Graded Sand with Sat Poorly Graded Sand with Sat and Gravel Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel • DISTURBED_ (SPT) Sample Location Sample with recorded blows per foot obtained using a split spoon sampler and the Standard Penetration Test (SPT). NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date Indicated. • Moist. Cont. (t) Pen. Resistance (blows /toot! 0 20 40 eo 80 PROJECT: BOW LAKE TRANSFER STA. BORING: LEGEND LOCATION: King County. Washington PROJECT NUMBER: 93112 -2 DATE COMPLETED: LOGGED BY: PAGE: 1 OF I Figure 2 HONG WEST E ASSOCIATES, INC. BORING LOG DRILLING COMPANY: Pacific Testing Laboratories DRILLING METHOD: 4 -inch I.D. CFHS Auger SAMPLING METHOD: SPT TOTAL DEPTH: 44.0 Feet SURFACE ELEVATION: ±273 Feet MEASURING POINT EL.: Feet o- 5— ta- 15— 20— 25— 11 -ie-10 28 1H2-50/V 11 -10-16 26 20-25 -29 51 � 40. 01C ;0. • :o • :c :o.D :c ' 0 40 :C 0 .1.A :O. D:C :o. o:C :QO:c :Qp:c :0 :Qp :C C.O. o :C D: 0. ' :o.o:C A.: a.' :o.o:C :o.D:c a c;a DESCRIPTION Loose to medium dense, brown, gravelly SAND: moist. Contains glass, slag, concrete and brick fragments. bstruction at 2 feet. Pulled auger and moved 2 feet east. Obstructions between 3.5 and 8.5 feeL Refusal. Pulled auger and moved. east 2 feet. (FILL) Artifically high blow count. Soil is dark gray below 110 feet with higher . percent of fine gravel. Cobbles @ 10.5 feet. Medium dense, gray, poorly graded, fine to medium SAND with silt and gravel: moist. Numerous pieces of glass. Also wire. ashes, wood and a nail. (FILL) Soil is similar but color varies from light to dark gray, slightly higher gravel content. Obstruction @ 20 feet. Soil sample is brown. Gravelly from 24.5 to 28.0 feet. NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date Indicated. • Moist. Cont. (X) I Pen. Resistance (blows /toot) 0 20 40 BO 80 L A A A PROJECT: BOW LAKE TRANSFER STA_ BORING: BH -1. LOCATION: North WSOOT Fill Area DATE COMPLETED: 02/21/94 LOGGED BY: Rod Faubion PROJECT NUMBER: 93112 -2 PAGE: 1 OF 2 Figure 3 25 35 40 45 50 W U ;, 4 . r (.1 (11s VI m ao U.1 UJ J Q = CL O W N a- 20 -50/8" 5 -9-15 24 5 -5 -15 30 5 -22-45 87 10 -10-10 20 0 Y 0 HONG WEST & ASSOCIATES , INC BORING LOG DESCRIPTION At 28 feet. sampler bounces: wood in shoe of sampler. Artifically high blow count. Mediums dense, gray, poorly graded. fine to medium SAND with silt and gravel: moist. Few large (s![- incch) roots in upper part of sample. (fro 1ZriN — oM°-Mr) Sand with scattered r beds of silty sand. Becomes dense to very dense. Becomes medium dense. Bottom of Boring at 44.0 feet. SPT samples taken with free falling 140 lb. hammer dropping 30 inches. • Moist. Cont. (X) ► Pen. Resistance (blows /foot) 0 20 40 BO 80 PROJECT: BOW LAKE TRANSFER ST& BORING: BH -1 LOCATION: North WSDOT Fill Area DATE COMPLETED: 02/21/94 LOGGED BY: Rod Faubion PROJECT NUMBER: 93112 -2 PAGE: 2 OF 2 Figure 4 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. (2003) DRILLING COMPANY: Holocene Drilling SURFACE ELEVATION: 279.00 ± feet DRILLING METHOD: Hollow -Stem Auger, Mobile B -61 truck rig SAMPLING METHOD: SPT w/ Autohammer LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 I - 0 a 0 — 5 — 15 10 — 20 — 25 — DESCRIPTION O c o 1w' GM 0 0 3 0 GM SM 0 SM Medium dense, olive -brown, silty, sandy, fine to coarse GRAVEL, moist. (RECENT FILL) Cuttings: orange- brown, silty, fine to medium SAND, dry. Medium dense, rust- and gray- mottled light brown, silty, gravelly, fine to medium SAND, damp. (WEATHERED TILL) Gravelly drill action, 7 to 15 feet. Very dense, olive- brown, silty, fine to coarse sandy, fine to coarse GRAVEL, moist to wet. (TILL) Dense, olive- brown, silty, gravelly, fine to coarse SAND, moist; with approx. 2 -inch stratified sand bed at 16 feet. (ICE -CONTACT STRATIFIED DRIFT) Dense, olive- brown, silty to clean, fine gravelly, fine to medium SAND, moist. Stratified. SP Dense, light olive -brown to gray, clean, fine to medium SAND. damp. Dense, light gray, clean, fine to medium SAND, damp to moist. S -1 5 -7 -10 ® S -2 30 -50/2` S-4 10 -17 -21 S -3 8 -17 -25 GS pH /R S -5 10 -21 -25 GS pH /R 30 — For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and /or locations. DATE STARTED: 10/9/2003 DATE COMPLETED: 10/9/2003 LOGGED BY: B. Thurber • 0 20 Standard Penetration Test (140 lb. weight, 30" drop) • Blows per foot 10 20 30 40 1 A W 50 0 —5 >>A 10 — 15 20 —25 �— 30 40 60 80 100 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit I - - I • Liquid Limit Natural Water Content BOW LAKE TRANSFER STATION FMP UPDATE AND IMPLEMENTATION HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. TUKWILA, WASHINGTON BORING 2003008.GPJ 1/9/04 BORING: BH -2 PAGE: 1 of 2 PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 FIGURE: A2 DRILLING COMPANY: Holocene Drilling SURFACE ELEVATION: 279.00 ± feet DRILLING METHOD: Hollow -Stem Auger, Mobile B -61 truck rig SAMPLING METHOD: SPT w/ Autohammer LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 -J S 0 CO o� co 30 — 35 — 40 — 45 — 50 — 55 — 60 — DESCRIPTION Dense, light gray, clean to slightly silty, fine to medium SAND, moist. Minor silty sand lenses, 1 -5 mm thick. Dense, light gray, clean, fine to medium SAND, damp. Appears massive. Very dense, light gray, clean, fine to medium SAND, damp. With lenses of slightly silty sand, 3 -5 mm thick. Borehole terminated at 41.5 feet. No ground water seepage encountered during drilling. Borehole abandoned with bentonite chips. S-6 10 -18 -19 S -7 14 -24 -26 S -8 12 -27 -39 For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and /or locations. DATE STARTED: 10/9/2003 DATE COMPLETED: 10/9/2003 LOGGED BY: B. Thurber 0 20 Standard Penetration Test (140 lb. weight, 30" drop) ♦ Blows per foot I — a m 0 10 20 30 40 50 W e A »A —45 — 55 30 35 40 50 60 40 60 80 100 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit —• I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content BOW LAKE TRANSFER STATION FMP UPDATE AND IMPLEMENTATION HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. TUKWILA, WASHINGTON BORING 2003008.GPJ 1/9/04 PROJECT NO.: 2003-008 BORING: BH -2 PAGE: 2 of 2 FIGURE: A2 DRILLING COMPANY: Holocene Drilling SURFACE ELEVATION: 275.00 ± feet DRILLING METHOD: Hollow -Stem Auger, Simcoe 4000 tracked rig SAMPLING METHOD: SPT w/ Cathead LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 0 0 O m 2 r GM GM DESCRIPTION Cuttings: Light gray, silty, sandy GRAVEL, dry. Medium dense, light yellow- brown, silty, sandy, fine to coarse GRAVEL, dry. (RECENT ALL) Glass in cuttings at 7 feet. Gravelly drill action, to 19.5 feet. Very dense, stratified dark brown, yellow -brown, gray- brown, and reddish -brown (2 -3 inch layers), silty, sandy, fine to coarse GRAVEL, moist. Glass fragments (clear) at 9 feet, in 2 inch layer of abundant glass; one piece of plastic sheeting. (OLDER FILL with REFUSE) 6 -inch long, 1/2 -inch metal pipe in cuttings from approx. 10 feet. Drove rock; blow counts overstated. Dense, dark brown, silty, sandy, fine to coarse GRAVEL, wet. Trace broken glass and partly decomposed, blackened wood. Peaty odor. Medium dense, reddish -dark brown, silty, sandy, fine to coarse GRAVEL, wet. With a 1/2 -inch black cinder. Fast, smooth drill action from 19.5 to 35 feet. Medium dense, dark brown -gray, silty, sandy, fine GRAVEL, wet. One piece of packing tape. Loose, dark brown, silty, fine gravelly, fine to coarse SAND, wet, over rust - mottled brown and gray grading to blue -gray, silty fine to medium SAND, wet. Trace broken glass, hard w U z ,.., ¢ � I— f, cc 42 W • E z o w — o--c S -1 6 -10 -11 GS S -2 21 -27 -30 S -3 50/5" S-4 8 -7 -7 S -5 4 -5-6 pH/R N S-6 2-4 -5 GS pH/ OC For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and /or locations. DATE STARTED: 10/10/2003 DATE COMPLETED: 10/10/2003 LOGGED BY: B. Thurber W U _ W H w Q Ow uy = am sd Nt u • • Standard Penetration Test (140 lb. weight, 30" drop) • Blows per foot H� w 0 1 0 20 30 40 50 0 A A 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit I ♦—I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content — 5 0 — 10 —15 — 20 25 30 BOW LAKE TRANSFER STATION FMP UPDATE AND IMPLEMENTATION HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. TUKWILA, WASHINGTON PZO 2003008.GPJ 1/9/04 PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 BORING: BH -3 PAGE: 1 of 2 FIGURE: A3 DRILLING COMPANY: Holocene Drilling SURFACE ELEVATION: 275.00 ± feet DRILLING METHOD: Hollow -Stem Auger, Simcoe 4000 tracked rig SAMPLING METHOD: SPT w/ Cathead LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 CL 1 W 0 30 35 40 — 45 — 50 — 55 — O m 2 U) DESCRIPTION SP plastic, partly decomposed wood. Loose to medium dense, stratified gray, dark brown, and blackish -brown, silty, fine gravelly, fine to medium SAND, wet. Trace broken glass and mostly decomposed paper fiber in lower 6 inches, partly decomposed wood. Minor gravelly drill action below 35 feet. Slough on top of sample: Blackish -brown soil as above, with 1/2 -inch thick layer of plastic bags. Dense, gray, clean, fine to medium SAND, moist. (ICE CONTACT STRATIFIED DRIFT) Very dense, gray, clean, fine to medium SAND, moist. Massive. Borehole terminated at 44.5 feet. Minor ground water seepage encountered between 13 and 35 feet. Piezometer installed to 30 feet (1 -inch schedule 40 PVC). S -7 2 -2-8 GS OC S -8 7 -20 -21 S -9 20 -31 -46 60 — For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and /or locations. DATE STARTED: 10/10/2003 DATE COMPLETED: 10/10/2003 LOGGED BY: B. Thurber W _O W r_ Q Ow W = E ci) OaVb jf8+1' i ctia b �•. r1. 1• rL • Standard Penetration Test (140 lb. weight, 30" drop) A Blows per foot 10 20 30 1 »A 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit I- —S Liquid Limit Natural Water Content 50 30 —35 —40 —55 45 50 60 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. TUKWILA, WASHINGTON PZO 2003008.GPJ 1/9/04 BOW LAKE TRANSFER STATION FMP UPDATE AND IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 BORING: BH -3 PAGE: 2 of 2 FIGURE: A3 i i i i i i i i i DRILLING COMPANY: Holocene Drilling SURFACE ELEVATION: 286.00 ± feet DRILLING METHOD: Hollow -Stem Auger, Simcoe 4000 tracked rig SAMPLING METHOD: SPT w/ Cathead LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 W °) 0— 5— 10 — 15 — 20 — 25 — l 0 m 2 co ° 0 �1 7 . , I 1 o•( o � l c 5 0• 1 0 C o• I � - j 1l • o• ( C o • ( o • ( j l I o • ( 1► 1 . I c c c C GM GM DESCRIPTION Cuttings and drill action: Loose, brown, silty, sandy, fine to coarse GRAVEL, moist Gravel subrounded. '_RECENT FILL._.) At 2 feet cuttings become dark brown. Drill action generally gravelly, from 2 to 33 feet. Dense, gray- brown, silty, fine to medium sandy, fine to coarse GRAVEL, moist. Trace wood fibers. (OLDER FILL with REFUSE) Hard, gravelly drill action at 3 -3.5 and 6 -6.5 feet. Dense, dark brown to blackish- brown, with minor light brown, organic, silty, fine to medium sandy, fine to coarse GRAVEL, moist. Mild peaty odor. Hard, gravelly drill action at 10 to 11 feet. Medium dense, stratified blackish -brown to dark gray, silty, sandy, fine to coarse GRAVEL, moist. Partly decomposed wood fragments in 1 -inch layer at 14 feet. Medium dense, reddish brown and gray -brown grading to blackish- brown, silty, sandy, fine to coarse GRAVEL, moist. Mild peaty odor. Trace broken glass, brick, and plastic sheeting in blackish -brown portion (18.5 -19.5 feet). 2-inch thick partly decomposed wood. Medium dense, stratified blackish- brown, blue -gray, and brown, organic, silty, sandy, fine to coarse GRAVEL, moist grading to wet. Trace broken glass and porcelain. Medium dense, dark brown with some blackish -brown, silty, sandy, fine GRAVEL, wet. Trace broken glass, brick fragments, partly decomposed wood fragments. X w 0 z 0) "&3 s w oc , w W — S -1 24 -17 -19 N S -2 11 -17 -19 S -3 11 -8 -5 S-4 4-8 -10 S -5 7 -10 -12 S-6 7 -10-12 GS pH/ 30 — For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and /or locations. DATE STARTED: 10/9/2003 DATE COMPLETED: 10/10/2003 LOGGED BY: B. Thurber W 0, 0 10 20 30 40 50 CI • • • • Standard Penetration Test (140 lb. weight, 30" drop) • Blows per foot • • • A • • — 10 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit I-0-1 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content 0 5 15 20 —25 30 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. TUKWILA, WASHINGTON PZO 2003008.GPJ 1/9/04 BOW LAKE TRANSFER STATION FMP UPDATE AND IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 BORING: BH-4 PAGE: 1 of 2 FIGURE: A4 ^ - - 0 "- 0 Cy ti � ) o 3C o Cy l. c D ( Medium dense, dark brown, silty, gravelly SAND, wet. Trace glass fragments, including melted amber and green glass; trace partly decomposed wood fragments. \/ - - - - SM Loose, light gray and olive- brown, very silty, fine to medium SAND, moist. Rootlets at 39 feet. Massive appearance. (WEATHERED DRIFT / COLLUVIUM) SP Medium dense, yellow- brown, clean, fine to medium SAND, damp to moist. 3 lenses of rust- brown, slightly silty sand. (ICE CONTACT STRATIFIED DRIFT) Medium dense, light gray, clean, fine to medium SAND, moist. Stratified, with 3 -5 mm lenses of slightly silty sand. i i i i i i i i i i i i DRILLING COMPANY: Holocene Drilling SURFACE ELEVATION: 286.00 ± feet DRILLING METHOD: Hollow -Stem Auger, Simcoe 4000 tracked rig SAMPLING METHOD: SPT w/ Cathead LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 x W N ° 30 35 40 45 50 — 55 — 0 } DESCRIPTION Borehole terminated at 49.5 feet Minor ground water seepage encountered between 25 and 35 feet. Piezometer installed to 33 feet (1 -inch schedule 40 PVC). S -8 W 0 < 0 cn a E- v U Cl) c W C Z 3 111 a_ -c) S -9 7 -12 -11 S -10 7 -11 -16 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. S -7 OC 3-4 -5 AL pH/ 60 — For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. DATE STARTED: 10/9/2003 DATE COMPLETED: 10/10/2003 LOGGED BY: B. Thurber Standard Penetration Test cr w U (140 lb. weight, 30" drop) w ¢ • Blows per foot O W I---- 0 5 CL, U 111 d CL `/3 0 10 20 30 40 50 ° • • 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit )--•I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content 30 — 35 —40 — 50 45 —55 60 BOW LAKE TRANSFER STATION FMP UPDATE AND IMPLEMENTATION HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. TUKWILA, WASHINGTON PZO 2003008.GPJ 1/9/04 PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 BORING: BH -4 PAGE: 2 of 2 FIGURE: A4 DRILLING COMPANY: Holocene Drilling SURFACE ELEVATION: 279.00 ± feet DRILLING METHOD: Hollow -Stem Auger, Mobile 0-61 truck rig SAMPLING METHOD: SPT w/ Autohammer LOCATION: See Site & Exploration Plan, Figure 2 LLI 0 � 0 5— 10 15 — 20 — 25 — 30 — SM 6 inches sawdust (next to small pile) over quarry spoil over loose to medium dense, olive- brown, silty SAND, damp. (RECENT FILL) SP SM DESCRIPTION Medium dense, olive- brown, clean to slightly silty, fine to medium SAND, moist. (ICE CONTACT STRATIFIED DRIFT) Medium dense, light olive- brown, clean, fine to medium SAND. moist. Minor silty sand lenses, 1 -10 mm thick. Medium dense, light olive- brown, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND, moist. Very dense, light gray, clean, fine to medium SAND, damp. Dense, light gray, clean, fine to medium SAND, dry to damp. Stratified, 1- to 8 -inch thick beds. w 0 z H co co c w cc w 3 w ° o N/ S -1 5 -7 -9 S -2 8 -13 -14 S-4 14 -26 -35 X i S -3 8 -13 -14 GS pH /R S -5 15 -15 -18 GS pH /R For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and /or locations. DATE STARTED: 10/9/2003 DATE COMPLETED: 10/9/2003 LOGGED BY: B. Thurber 0 10 20 30 40 • • • • •• Standard Penetration Test (140 lb. weight, 30" drop) • Blows per foot A.. 50 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content ( %) Plastic Limit I-0-1 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content —5 —10 — 15 —20 — 25 H Lu 0 0 30 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. BORING 2003008.GPJ 1/9/04 BOW LAKE TRANSFER STATION FMP UPDATE AND IMPLEMENTATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 BORING: BH -5 PAGE: 1 of 2 FIGURE: A5 DRILLING COMPANY: Holocene Drilling SURFACE ELEVATION: 279.00 ± feet DRILLING METHOD: Hollow -Stem Auger, Mobile B-61 truck rig SAMPLING METHOD: SPT w/ Autohammer LOCATION: See Site 8 Exploration Plan, Figure 2 I— W � 30 35 — 40 — 45 — 50 — 55 — 60 — DESCRIPTION Medium dense, light gray, clean, fine to medium SAND, damp. Massive. Dense, light gray, clean, fine to medium SAND, damp. Stratified, beds 1- to 6- inches thick, with 4 mm silty sand lens. Very dense, light gray, clean, fine to medium SAND, dry to damp. Massive. Borehole terminated at 41.5 feet. No ground water seepage encountered during drilling. Borehole abandoned with bentonite chips. W U z Q c (r) w c CO Cr Z g W L S-6 8 -12 -15 S -7 9 -16 -20 z S-8 15 -26 -26 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and /or locations. For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. DATE STARTED: 10/9/2003 DATE COMPLETED: 10/9/2003 LOGGED BY: B. Thurber 0 10 20 30 40 Standard Penetration Test (140 lb. weight, 30" drop) • Blows per foot A 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content (%) Plastic Limit I--0 -1 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content 35 40 45 50 — 55 60 UZI HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. BORING 2003008.GPJ 1/9/04 BOW LAKE TRANSFER STATION FMP UPDATE AND IMPLEMENTATION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 2003 -008 BORING: BH -5 PAGE: 2 of 2 FIGURE: A5 I 5 • BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILITY KING COUNTY OFFICIALS: KING COUNTY EXECUTIVE RON SIMS COUNCIL MEMBERS KATHY LAMBERT LARRY PHILLIPS PETE VON REICHBAUER DOW CONSTANTINE LARRY GOSSETT JANE HAGUE JULIA PATTERSON BOB FERGUSON REAGAN DUNN La King County LOCATION MAP Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division (4) VICINITY MAP (4) DRAWING INDEX UUP1 - COVER SHEET, VICINITY AND LOCATION MAPS UUP2 - GENERAL ARRANGEMENT SITE PLAN UUP3 - SITE PLAN UUP4 - SITE DETAILS WP5 - OVERALL SITE LANDSCAPE PLAN UUP6.1 UUP6.2 UUP6.3 UUP6.4 UUP6.5 UUP6.6 UUP7.1 UUP7.2 UUP7.3 UUP7.4 UUP7.5 UUP8.1 UUP8.2 UUP8.3 UUP8.4 UUP8.5 UUP8.6 UUP9.1 UUP9.2 - TREE REMOVAL PLAN SHEET 2 UUP9.3 - TREE REMOVAL PLAN SHEET 3 UUP9.4 - TREE REMOVAL PLAN SHEET 4 UUP9.5 - TREE REMOVAL SCHEDULE SHEET 1 UUP9.6 - TREE REMOVAL SCHEDULE SHEET 2 UUP9.7 - TREE REMOVAL SCHEDULE SHEET 3 UUP9.8 - TREE REMOVAL SCHEDULE SHEET 4 UUP10.1 UUP10.2 UUP10.3 UUP 10.4 UUP11.1 UUP11.2 UUP12.1 UUP12.2 UUP12.3 UUP13.1 UUP13.2 UUP13.3 UUP14.1 UUP 14.2 UUPI5.1 UUP 15.2 UUP 15.3 UUP 15.4 UUP15.5 UUP16.1 UUP 16.2 UUP17.1 UUP 17.2 UUP 17.3 UUP17.4 UUP 17.5 - LANDSCAPE PLAN SHEET 1 - LANDSCAPE PLAN SHEET 2 - LANDSCAPE PLAN SHEET 3 - LANDSCAPE PLAN SHEET 4 - LANDSCAPE PLAN SHEET 5 - LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE AND DETAILS - EXISTING TREE PLAN SHEET 1 - EXISTING TREE PLAN SHEET 2 - EXISTING TREE PLAN SHEET 3 - EXISTING TREE PLAN SHEET 4 - EXISTING TREE PLAN SHEET 5 - EXISTING TREE SCHEDULE SHEET 1 - EXISTING TREE SCHEDULE SHEET 2 - EXISTING TREE SCHEDULE SHEET 3 - EXISTING TREE SCHEDULE SHEET 4 - EXISTING TREE SCHEDULE SHEET 5 - EXISTING TREE SCHEDULE SHEET 6 - TREE REMOVAL PLAN SHEET 1 - TREE REPLACEMENT PLAN SHEET 1 - TREE REPLACEMENT PLAN SHEET 2 - TREE REPLACEMENT PLAN SHEET 3 - TREE REPLACEMENT PLAN SHEET 4 - SENSITIVE AREAS PLAN SHEET 1 - SENSITVE AREAS PLAN SHEET 2 - CONCEPTUAL MTRGATION PLAN SHEET - CONCEPTUAL MRIGATION PLAN SHEET - CONCEPTUAL MRIGATION PLAN SHEET - TRANSFER/TS0 BUILDING SOUTH AND - TRANSFER/TS0 BUILDING NORTH AND - SOUTH SCALE HOUSE, SCALE BOOTH, AND MAINTENANCE BLDG ELEVATIONS - EXISTING CONDIRONS AND SURVEY CONTROL - SITE GRADING PLAN - SITE UTILITY SYSTEMS PLAN - SITE WATER SYSTEM PLAN - SITE WASTEWATER SYSTEM PLAN - SURFACE WATER SYSTEM PLAN SHEET 1 - SURFACE WATER SmILM PLAN SHEET 2 - ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN - LIGHTING - ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN - POWER AND SIGNAL - SIGNING PLAN - SIGNING DETAILS SHEET 1 - SIGNING DETAILS SHEET 2 - SIGNING DETAILS SHEET 3 - SIGNING DETAILS SHEET 4 1 2 3 EAST ELEVATIONS WEST ELEVATIONS SCALE BREAK AREA UUP1 DRAWN VERIFY SCALE BAR 6 ONE INCH ON ANSI /r DRAWING A REV CH1CD OCT 07 DATE APP'D UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT REVISION DESCRIPTION King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division R.W. Beds, Inc. 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2500 Seattle, WA 98154-1004 (206) 695 -4700 BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILITY COVER SHEET, VICINITY AND LOCATION MAPS PRCUEIa NUNBflC 11- 00839 -2000 SHL OR DRAfOG NUI®EIC I UUP2 1 � 220 —' \ j C Z I pOt ° \ PERIMETER / ( , ROAD GENERAL NOTES 1. ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY OF TUKWIUA ENGINEERING STANDARDS, KING COUNTY ENGINEERING DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, AND HIGHUNE WATER DISTRICT FOR WATER AND SEWER SYSTEMS. REFER TO SPECIFICATION SECTION 01095 FOR ORDER OF PRECEDENCE. 2. ALL WORK PERTAINING TO THIS PROJECT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO INSPECTION BY THE COUNTY INSPECTOR OR DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE. PRIOR TO ANY SITE WORK, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE OWNER'S SITE REPRESENTATIVE AT (206) 263 -6476 TO SCHEDULE A PRECONSTRJCTON CONFERENCE 3. PRIOR TO ANY SITE DISTURBING ACTIVITY INCLUDING CLEARING, LOGGING OR GRADING, THE SITE CLEARING UMTTS AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS SHALL BE LOCATED AND FIELD IDENTIFIED BY THE COUNTY'S PROJECT SURVEYOR. THE OWNER'S SITE REPRESENTATIVE'S NAME AND TELEPHONE NUMBER ARE NAME: TOM CREEGAN, KING COUNTY PHONE (206) 263 -6476 4. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROTECTING SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER QUALITY. A SURFACE WATER MONITORING PROGRAM SHALL BE ESTABLISHED BY THE OWNER'S SITE REPRESENTATIVE NE OWNER'S SITE REPRESENTATIVE'S NAME AND PHONE NUMBER ARE NAME TOM CREEGAN, KING COUNTY PHONE: (206) 263 -6476 DESIGNED DRAWN I S BAR IS ONE INCH ON ANSI 'D DRAWING 0� A REV PROPERTY LINE OCT 07 DATE APP'D PLAN \ \ 0 \ k \ \ \ 1 � N 1, ' \ \` 1 \ 1 e .\ EAST SLOPE 1 \ \ \ �' ' -FILL AREA SITE GRADING SCALE: 1' = 80' CHK'D I UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT REVISION DESCRIPTION SITE ENTRANCE TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ACCESS EASEMENT CELL TOWER ACCESS ROAD �- - --`� ENTRarcE ROAD N - —`� COMMERCIAL q, _ " au � 1, 220 - 1 198 • , 1 90- a UTILITY \ / — j j j )// I i { 1 J oo • La King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division 2.10 SELF -HAUL ENTRANCE/DOT ROAD xso �� -22.0 • • CONSTRUCTION UMIT zoo EASElAENf � 30 7 DRNING RANGE V C Of \- ?U� c i \ - ,„, { 1 1 i`i � , t I I b� ! , 1 \\ ' r te - /! r , , RETAINING _% / % / ..7, ( , \ (,(0, , , , , � . � � )1 wA� rm � �j � 1 1 v 0 , . ,� , rj�j , . j� (0/.,, ,._ , j .,,. ) r . 1 . / ../ 1 j --//„.---,7 iij j -- r ) ) . a --1—,,, SME4,4 E R.W. Bedc, Inc. 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2500 Seattle, WA 98154-1004 (206)695 -4700 'NORTH S FACILITY \ 1,P 200 NORTH NORTH PERIMETER ROAD /Nr NORTH SCALE FACILITY ( 1 / � j ( r 200— ( 5 2001 BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILITY GENERAL ARRANGEMENT SITE PLAN PROJECT NURSER 11-00839-2000 . cr: 6 OROS= w,Y9oC G17 z PERSONNEL GATE RETAINING WALL A HOT LOAD PAD RETAINING WALL G 42- 12'Wx40'L TRANSFER TRAILER PARKING SPACES TRANSFER TRAILER YARD RETAINING WALL F EXISTING TRANSFER BUILDING PERSONNEL GATE UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT PLAN SITE PLAN SCALE: 1 = MAINTENANCE BUILDING RETAINING WALL E FREE RECYCLING AREA PROPERTY UNE PROJECT NUMBER 1 1-00839 -2000 i N- I (1\— PROPERT\ \ \\ LINE UUP3 / a.., 3-2O- U} CELL TOWER ACCESS ROAD _ VERIFY SCALE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ANSI DRAWING 0� REV DATE CHKD I MERSTAT 5 APP'D REVISION DESCRIPTION / CONSTRUCTION • LIMITS, TYP PLAN SITE PLAN 7 SCALE: 1' = 50' x r-'.. UNE, TIP La King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division Y E[6 RETAINING WALL C (...N-, RAMP 5 R.W. Beck, Inc. 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2500 Seattle, WA 98154-1004 (206) 695-4700 RETAINING WALL A ACCESS / GATE/ / SITE PLAN GENERAL NOTES BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILITY 1. FIRE DEPARTMENT HAS ACCESS TO ALL BUILDINGS VIA ON -SITE ROADS WHICH PROVIDE A FULL LOOP AROUND THE SRE. 2. NO PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS ARE PROVIDED ALONG THE PROPERTY FRONTAGE TO DISCOURAGE PEDESTRIAN ACTMTY. IN ORDER TO HELP KEEP CUSTOMERS AND VISITORS SAFE WHILE ON -SITE, UNITED PEDESTRIAN ACCESS IS PROVIDED ON -SITE. 3. THE PROJECT PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE CITY OF TUKWILA'S TUKWILA VALLEY SOUTH ZONING DESIGNATION WHICH REQUIRES SETBACKS OF 25 FEET AT THE FRONT, 5 FEET ON THE SIDES, AND 5 FEET AT THE REAR. SETBACKS HAVE NOT BEEN SHOWN DUE TO DRAWING SCALE. 4. THE SITE IS A DROP -OFF AND LOAD -OUT FACILITY DESIGNATING ALL ACTIVE AREAS AS LOADING AND SERVICE AREAS. ��..� �,� o �LINIW ILOU 9 0 AON 03A133 50 0 50 1'= 50' -0' Scale Feet 100 a nvfmc NURSER z O h- c 0 U cc 0 LI_ 1- O CL 1- Iz w 0 w ww LL ci) 0 DETAIL NUMBER OF STALLS A — PARKING ANGLE B — STALL WIDTH C — STALL DEPTH (PERP) D — STALL DEPTH (ALIGN) E — CURB LENGTH 1 /UUP3 4 + 1 HC 60' 9' 23.6' 20' 10.4' 2/UUP3 3 90' 9' 22' 20' 9' 3 /UUP3 3 90' 9' 22' 20' 9' 4/UUP3 1 HC 90' 12' 22' 20' 12' 5 /UUP3 10 + 1 BUS 45' 9' 21.9' 20' 12.7' DETAIL 1 v / /o7- SOUTH SCALE FACILITY PARKING SCALE: 1' = 10' PEDESTRIAN ACCESS 15' DETAIL DETAIL MAINTENANCE BLDG PARKING SCALE: 1' = 10' WEST OF TRANSFER/TS0 BLDG SCALE: 1 • = 10' TRANSFER/TS0 BLDG PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TRANSFER/TS0 BLDG DETAIL SE CORNER OF TRANSER/TSO BLDG SCALE: 1' = 10' GENERAL NOTES 1. THE SOUTH SCALE FACILITY PARKING PROVIDES 4 STANDARD PARKING SPACES AND 1 HANDICAPPED PARKING SPACE. 2. ADDITIONAL HANDICAPPED PARKING SPACE PROVIDED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE TRANSFER/1S0 BUILDING. 3. PARKING STALL DIMENSIONS EXCEED MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS PER TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE 18.56.040 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FIGURE 18 -6. 4. HANDICAPPED STALL DIMENSIONS EXCEED MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS PER TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE 18.56.080 PARKING FOR THE HANDICAPPED FIGURE 18 -8. HANDICAPPED PARKING AT SW CORNER OF TRANSFER/TS0 BLDG SCALE: 1' = 10' Scale RECEIVED Nov 0 5 20011 COMMUNITY DEVELOPpp . 10 5 0 10 20 Feet UUP4 1 - DESIGNED VERIFY SCALE BAR 6 ONE INCH ON ANSI •D' DRAWING 0 1' A REV CHK'D OCT 07 DATE UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT APP'D REVISION DESCRIPTION La King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division 6 �V' IE[I( R.W. Beck, Inc. 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2500 Seattle, WA 98154 -1004 (206) 695-4700 BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILITY SITE DETAILS PROJECT NIWBER: I1 -00839 -2000 SNT. OF: ORATING NUI®ETt A I e I 000eobob 606 :._., : ;.•;�, \,�• � \, :�. :> � <:' ;: \;�� " ;�. \ :':•`:. .O'O. .0000 `• �•:`. �.� \ \\ \,.\•�.` \•.�.`:` 000000 0 � `• 0 ��. \• .. `�� `. •\ ,'. • •• � • , .\ . 00000 \.�:. • \ \\\ 0 0000 0000j000000000\ Opp 0000000000p \. \�..�` `. 1 1 :` �•�' • �c`��' • -- • �� jy -��. "� . —___ v Ci SEE SHEET L106 FOR PLANTING SCHEDULE AND DETAILS RECEIVED NOV 0 5 2001 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STATE OF WASHINGTON REGISTERED ARCHITECT CERT KATE NO. 538 UUP5 DESTINED CRAWN VERIFY SCALE BAR IS ON INCH ON ANSI D DRAWING 0 - I A R EV OCT 07 DATE CHILD APP UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT REVISI DESCRIPTION IA King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division KPG- Architecture Landarapa Architecture civil Engin Urban Deulgn 753 9th Avenue North S WA 99109 (208) 280 -1640 BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACIUTY OVERALL SITE LANDSCAPE PLAN PRO.JFE.T NUMBER GE. 11 - -2000 l7RAIMOEG NIAI9OL L100 55 5 p � MATCH LINE ,/� %� /�,■ivM STA 6 +00 SHEET L10 2 MATCH LINE STA 2 +50 THIS SHEET Scale Feet SEE SHEET L106 FOR PLANTING SCHEDULE AND DETAILS RECEIVED NOV 0 5 2001 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT KEY MAP STATE OF WASH NGTaN REGISTERED ARCHITECT UUP6.1 DESCRIED DRAWN VERIFY SCALE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ANSI 'D' DRAWING A REV OCT 07 DATE CHICD APP') UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT REVISION DESCRIPTION King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division Architecture Landscape Architecture Civil Engineering Urban Design 753 9th Avenue North Seattle. WA 98109 (208) 288 -1840 BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILITY LANDSCAPE PLAN SHEET 1 POW= NUIS9D: 11 - 00839 -2000 SIR. OF: DAMMING WARIElC L101 1 A 1 MATCH LINE STA 9+ L103 00 S HEET p ' i. 4ift 4 ` / O 4 " o %O I N tge , Rc,11111111 • / • 20 c _ _ Scale 0 20 Feet 40 SEE SHEET L106 FOR PLANTING SCHEDULE AND DETAILS RECEIVED 0E5 2007 DEVELOPMENT MENT PLANT QUANTITY KEY MAP STATE OF WASHINGTON REGISTERED ARCHITECT ELI • :ra' 7.7-• E CERT COTE NO. 538 OTT UUP6.2 DESIGNED DRAWN VERIFY SCALE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ANSI ' 0 DRAWING 0� A REV OCT 07 DATE CHK'D APP'D UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT REVISION DESCRIPTION King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division Architecture Landscape Architecture Urban Engineering 753 9th Avenue North Seattle, WA 98109 (206) 286 -1640 BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILRY LANDSCAPE PLAN SHEET 2 PROJECT NUMBER: 11- 00839 -2000 SWT. OF: DRAWING NUMBER Li 02 Of / MATCH LINE • 9 +00 SHEET L102 PLAN LAN PLAN (I` 20 0 20 40 Scale Feet PLANT SYMBOL PLANT QUANTITY SEE SHEET L106 FOR PLANTING \ SCHEDULE AND DETAILS RECEIV Nov 0 5 20 ARCHITECT KEY MAP UUP6.3 asi King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division DESIGNED DRAWN VERIFY SCALE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ANSI DRAWING 0 1• A REV OCT 07 DATE CHK'D APP'D UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT REVISION DESCRIPTION IEEPQ Architecture Landscape Architecture Civil Engineering Urban Design 769 9th Avenue North SeatUe. WA 98109 (208) 288 -1940 BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILITY LANDSCAPE PLAN SHEET 3 PROJECT NI111BE1t 11-00839-2000 SHE. OF: WAVING NU/BER L103 0 8 0 3 3 A E X MATCH LINE STA 15 +00 SHEET L105 IP ■ SO U O � ,A■ Lei ie. 44 ► v IA ■ eOt /o'hif4 ■ i /G I PO O ' IO 0 LINE de PA MATCH STA 12 +00 SHEET L103 PLAN LANDSCAPE PLAN 20 Scale 0 20 Feet 40 FUELING FACILITY SEE SHEET 1106 FOR PLANTING SCHEDULE AND DETAILS RECEI PLANT SYMBOL NOV 0 COMM PLANT OUAN KEY MAP STATE OF TON I. ARCHITECT • `•. - :� . - • TE N0. •TT 538 UUP6.4 DESIGNED DRAWN VERIFY SCALE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ANSI .. DRAWING 0� A REV OCT 07 DATE CHK'D APP'° UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT REVISION DESCRIPTION La King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division KPQ Architecture Landscape Architecture Civil Engineering Urban Design 753 9th Avenue North Seattle, WA 981.09 (206) 288 -1840 BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILITY LANDSCAPE PLAN SHEET 4 PRGIFf.T NW/3M 11- 00839 -2000 SNE OF: ORI■ING NUM:Mk L104 I 1 // de . %N. STA M 4If ATCH LINE 15 +00 ! 4 SHEET L104 PLAN LANDSCAPE PLAN 20 Scale 0 20 Feet 40 SEE SHEET L106 FOR PLANTING SCHEDULE AND DETAILS ( I NEd Nov o K 200 PLANT QUANTITY. 1 , , KEY MAP STATE OF INGTON WASH GISTERED RE ARCH UUP6.5 DESIGNED VERIFY SCALE BAR 6 ONE INCH ON ANSI 0 DRAWIN 0� 1" A REV DATE CHICO OCT 07 APP UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT REVISION DESCRIPTION La King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division HPQ Archi tecture Imdacape Archltecture Urban Deslgn 753 9th Avenue North SeaWe, WA 98109 (206) 286 -1640 BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACIl1TY LANDSCAPE PLAN SHEET 5 FYtGIDCr NU BEit 11- 00839 -2000 9/T. OF: DR�WD/C NUMBER L105 SYMBOL I BOTANICAL NAME/ COMMON NAME I SIZE I QT( I REMARKS TREES O T1 ACER CIRCINATUM/ VINE MAPLE 7' -8' HT. 106 B&B 3 -5 CANES MIN. T2 PHYSOCARPUS CAPITATUS/ PACIFIC NINEBARK 7' -8' HT. 52 B&B 3 -5 CANES MIN. (1) T3 BETULA JACOUE110NTII/ JACQUEMONTII BIRCH 2" CAL 10' -12' HT 40 B&B %ELL- BRANCHED 14 BA PAPYRIFERA/ PAPER BARK BIRCH ETUL 2" CAL 10' -12' HT 12 B&B WELL- BRANCHED T5 FRA)ONUS OXYCARPA/ RAYWOOD ASH 2' CAL 0'-12' HT 13 B&B WELL - BRANCHED 0 T6 PRUNUS SAGENTII 'COLUMNARIS'/ COLUMNAR SARGENT FLOWERING CHERRY 2" CAL 10' -12' HT 4 B&B WELL- BRANCHED T7 MAGNOLIA GALAXY/ GALAXY MAGNOLIA 2 CAL 10' -12' HT 5 B&B WELL- BRANCHED TB ZELKOVA SERRATA/ SAWTOOTH ZELKOVA 0' -12 HT 33 B&B WELL- BRANCHED IPA -Mr T PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII/ DOUGLAS RR 6' -7' HT. 67 B&B WELL- BRANCHED T10 THUJA PUCATA/ WESTERN RED CEDAR 6' -7' HT. 57 B&B WELL- BRANCHED T11 CALOCEDRUS DECURRENS/ INCENSE CEDAR 6' -7' HT. 95 B&B WELL- BRANCHED SHRUBS 0 S1 EUONYMUS ALATA 'COMPACTA'/ DWARF BURNING BUSH 18 " -24" HT. 139 CONT. FULL AND BUSHY S2 ESCALLONIA LANGLEYENSIS/ APPLE BLOSSOM ESCALLONIA 18 " -24" HT. 179 CONT. FULL AND BUSHY S3 RIBES SANGUINEUM/ RED FLOWERING CURRANT 18 "-24" HT. 122 CONT. FULL AND BUSHY S4 PHILADELPHUS LEWISII/ MOCK ORANGE 18 " -24" HT. 107 CONT. FULL AND BUSHY S5 OSMANTHUS DELAVAY1I/ DELAVAY OSMANTHUS 18 " -24" HT. 62 CONT. FULL AND BUSHY ® S6 ABEUA GRANDIFLORA/ EDWARD GOUCHER ABEUA 15 " -18" HT. 21 CONT. FULL AND BUSHY 37 CISIUS HYBRIDUS/ WHITE ROCK ROSE 15 " -18" HT. 109 CONT. FULL AND BUSHY S8 CISTUS PUPUREUS/ PURPLE ROCK ROSE 15 " -18" HT. 127 CONT. FULL AND BUSHY S9 ROSA PISOCARPA/ WILD CLUSTERED ROSE 15 " -18' HT. 137 S10 VIBURNUM OPULUS 'NANUM'/ DWARF EUROPEAN CRANBERRY BUSH 15 " -18" HT. 89 CONT. FULL AND BUSHY + NOTE G1+ LAVANDULA AUGUSTIFOUA/ ENGLISH LAVENDER 1 GALLON CONT 30 ONE PLANT 02+ DESCHAMPSIA CAESPITOSA/ TUFTED HAIR GRASS 1 GALLON CONT 54 SYMBOL LQUALS G3+ ELYMUS GLAUCUS/ BLUE WILD RYE 1 GALLON CONT 60 TWO G4+ POLYSTICHUM MUNITUM/ SWORD FERN 1 GALLON CONT 235 PLANTS GROUNDCOVERS %%%i GS EUONYMUS FORTUNE' 'COLORATUS'/ WINTERCREEPER EUONYMUS 1 GALLON CONT 10,200 30" OC TRI. SP TIP. WSDOT SCREENING BUFFER I' I' I I ': POTENTIAL ART INSTALLATIONS, LANDSCAPING TO BE MODIFIED PER ARTIST'S DESIGN PLANT SCHEDULE 0 00 NOTES: 1. TREE PIT SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN (2) TIMES ROOT BALL DIAMETER. 2. CUT ALL TIES AND FOLD BACK BURLAP FROM UPPER 1/3 OF ROOT BALL 3. REMOVE ALL PLASTIC AND WANE REMOVE BURLAP & d d d TWINE OFF TOP 1/3 - 2' MULCH OF ROOTBALL FINISH GRADE %+ d IMPORTED TOPSOIL RECOMPACT SUBGRADE BELOW ROOT BALL TO ENSURE THAT ROOT FLARE WILL NOT SETTLE BELOW GROUND UNE TYPICAL TREE PLANTING DETAIL NTS SHRUBIGROUNDCOVER PLANTING DETAIL NTS BREAK SIDES & BOTTOMS OF PLANTING TO ALLOW FOR ROOT PENETRATION TREE SPECIMEN, NEVER CUT CENTRAL LEADER INTERLOCKING PLASTIC TIES, TIE AT 2/3 TREE HEIGHT. DO NOT OVERTIGHTEN 2'0 DOUG -FIR STAKE OR METAL FENCE POST, STAKES SHOULD BE LOCATED OUTSIDE OF ROOTBALL ROOT FLARE SHALL BE LOCATED ABOVE GROUND LINE 2" MULCH, KEEP AWAY FROM TREE TRUNK CONC SIDEWALK IMPORTED TOPSOIL SCARIFYS SIDE & BOTTOM OF PLANTING PIT TO ALLOW FOR ROOT PENETRATION RECOMPACT SUBGRADE TO PREVENT SETTLING ' 1= . 461 .1\\41 :% j1 : l' il, ' .11/1 I ih W. _ i ii i v 1 il 0 ,,,. ii it 1 r fL (lL1111` \r *,,rrmtlCi to PREVAILING WIND TREE STAKE ROOTBALL TRUNK TREE STAKE alq GENERAL LANDSCAPE NOTES 1. ALL PLANT MATERIALS SHALL MEET THE AMERICAN STANDARDS FOR NURSERY STOCK. ANSI Z60.1 OR MOST CURRENT VERSION. 2. PLANT. MAINTAIN AND WARRANTY AS PER SPECIAL PROVISIONS. TYPICAL EVERGREEN TREE PLANTING DETAIL NTS 3. DO NOT SUBSTITUTE SPECIES WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER. 4. ALL NEW PLANTINGS SHALL RECEIVE 6" DEPTH OF IMPORTED TOPSOIL AND 2" BARK MULCH. RECEIVED NOV 05 MMUNITY E` cERT UCV eLOPMENT NOTE PLANT TREES 1" HIGHER THAN DEPTH GROWN IN NURSERY TREE PIT SHALL BE NOT LESS THAN 3 TIMES ROOTBALL DIAMETER, WATER THROUGHLY AFTER PLANTING TREE STAKES PERPENDICULAR TO PREVAILING WIND PLASTIC TREE TIE 2"0 WOOD TREE STAKE CUT All TIES & FOLD BACK BURLAP & BASKET FROM UPPER 1/3 OF ROOTBALL REMOVE ALL PLASTIC & TWINE 2" DEPTH MULCH LAYER FINISH GRADE SCARIFY SIDES & BOTTOM OF PLANTING PIT TO ALLOW ROOT PENETRATION STATE OF WASH NGTON REGISTERED ARCHITECT - '", -. .TT CATE NO. 538 UUP6.6 DESIGNED DRAWN VERIFY SCALE BAR IS OE INCH ANSI b DRAWING N 0� A REV OCT 07 DATE CHK'D APP UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT REVISION DESCRIPTION King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division Landscape Architecture Civil Engineering Urban Design 753 9th Avenue North Seattle, WA 98109 (206) 288 -1640 BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILITY LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE AND DETAILS PROJECT NUMBER: 11- 00839 -2000 S/9. oR DRAWING NUMBER: L106 Z 0 I- 0 cc I- Z O 0 0 LL I- O 0 I— w 0 W W LL .\ N NEW FENCE, TYP z x x—/ FREE RECYCLING AREA PLAN --., \ \ • \ \ -, \ \ \ �,,, , ' \ \ \ \ \ \ \ �� STfE PLAN SCALE: 1 = 30' \ \� INTERSTATE � ON RAMP CONSTRUCTION UMITS, TYP - x - -_--x= \ -\ -------- \ ` • \ ` \ �� \ \ ` ` , „ 11 ■ W OSTATE N N N d I I Z 2 i GENERAL NOTES 1. SEE THE UUP8 DWGS FOR THE EXISTING TREE SCHEDULE FOR TREES SHOWN ON THIS DWG. 2. SEE THE UUP9 AND UUP10 DWGS FOR TREE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT. KEY MAP RE NOV 0 5 2007 DCaVELOP TY 30 60 Scale Feet UUP7.1 DRAWN VERIFY SCALE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ANSI b” DRAWING 0 1• A REV OCT 07 DATE CHICD APP UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT REVISION DESCRIPTION King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division R.W. Beck, Inc. 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2500 Seattle, WA 98154-1004 (206) 695 -4700 BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILITY EXISTING TREES PLAN SHEET 1 PROJECT NUMBER 11- 00839 -2000 SHE OF: DRAM ° NUMBETC g s .8 t X E 0 % 151 #5]9 C 1523 1520 0 1521 0. 152 15290 01527 1532 531 o_ 1533 0 35 NEW FENCE. 4534 1 6 PROPERTY UNE. TYP CONSTRUCTION OMITS, TYP 0 1539 01 8 0 0 1545 1546 e •••' PROPERTY r � � 1 _ 0 ♦ ♦.,♦��♦q♦♦ ♦♦ # 544 544 CELL TOWER' --__ ACCESS ROAD / 0 28 "CW to . j 54° 1 01541 1 0 1 4 I, FUTURE PROCESSING FACILITY MATCH LINE DWG UUP7A PLAN SITE PUN SCALE: 1" = 30' EXISTING -TRAG TRANSFER IMMO 110•111 # 636 GENERAL NOTES 1. SEE NE UUP8 DWGS FOR EXIS11NG TREE SCHEDULE FOR TREES SHOWN ON THIS DWG. 2. SEE NE UUP9 AND UUPIO DWGS FOR TREE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT. NOV 0 5 2007 c TIED 60 • _ %• Scale 30 rti Feet UUP7.2 DESIGNED DRAWN VERIFY SCALE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ANSI DRAWING A REV OCT 07 DATE CHk'D APP'D UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT REVISION DESCRIPTION King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division R.W. Bedc, Inc. 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2500 Seattle, WA 98154-1004 (206) 695-4700 BOW LAKE PROC SSING/TRANSFER FACILITY EXISTING TREES PLAN SHEET 2 PROJECT NUMBER 1I 00839 - 2000 sir. OF: DRAFPNG NUYBEFG UUP7.3 TRANSFER/TS0 BLDG UNCLASSIFIED REVISION DESCRIPTION USE PERMIT King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division R.W. Bedc, Inc. 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2500 Seattle, WA 98154 -1004 (206) 695-4700 BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILITY EXISTING TREES PLAN SHEET 3 DRAWING NUMBER F A ....."y;. 58 r ►' p, 9� 0 0 0 1957 1956 1971 /879 .1 1971 t! -941 b�9�!,�; 3 39 1940 -- :� .a O i / 32• & 18 "M 0 .. X X�X -X1 X_X _ _ _ X 2 070 0769 833. 0 0/771 0,7 776. 1 772 ?73 7 1779 d784 x01781 78 82/778 18748 S 1785 7 ...... #882 1 92 0/788 0 17930 • /7 o /70174787 8 . _/955 as s O 7 94 . YRRRL 1 .. Q as /791 1 9 + _ NEW FENCE, TYP 747 746 757 0/760 64761 0/756 1762 1805 6 0 it 810 7(:811 0/ 19 0 820 /764 2 1 ' /766 #765 (11 0 831 /Q8 P LAN PLAN SCALE: 1' = 30' /723,n 17240/ /� 1 1 727 / CS4728 01730 736 729 0 42 3 CONSTRUCTION / • I I # 71 , 6 Q I /7176 ( 4712 /718 0 nI713 /719 ci714 0 /711 /70 01708 11220 /720 0 11718 725 }1721 0/748 LIMITS, 1YP 005 #70401701 /706p0 8/702 /7 7 /703 0/709 GENERAL NOTES 1. SEE THE UUP8 DNS FOR EXISTING TREE SCHEDULE FOR TREES SHOWN ON THIS DWG. 2. SEE THE UUP9 AND UUP10 DWGS FOR TREE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT. 30 1'= 30' -0" Gi Scale NOV 0 5 2007 COMMIJ 11/F1 nD 60 Feet PROJECT rIAMM 11_00839_2000 8 1 PROPERTY LINE, TYP 1 550 6'DEC 15520 1551 0 1 5550 /557 LI554 155 '01561 o 1564 1565 1562 0 0 0 01571 0 15660 567°570 1563 1570 (� 0 cp#578 1573 1 1577 /575 0 1576 0 14 DEC 0 1579 0 14'CW MATCH UNE DWG UUP7.2 0 24 - DEC 8 0 0 1582 1583 0 MATCH UNE DWG UUP7.5 � 26DEC 16'DECx2 30 327 NEW FENCE, 1YP 3280325 3230322 30 ../ 321 3 0 5 32 0 307 d / . 3200 30 3760 .C'' 311 • 09 PLAN 316 SITE PLAN SCALE: 1' = 30' 310 311 O O O 313 312 377 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION 1 EASEMENT L CONSTRUCTION LIMITS, TYP / - TRANSFER TRAILER YARD / 6'FRT 0 0 8'& 12' MAD 0 8"FRTx2 / 18 - DEC 4' ^ 0� 6' Mx2 1 1N Q 2 GENERAL NOTES 1. SEE THE UUP8 DWGS FOR EXISTING TREE SCHEDULE FOR TREES SHOWN ON THIS DWG. 2. SEE THE UUP9 AND UUP10 DWGS FOR TREE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT. KEY MAP REc NOV 0 5 2007 30 60 Scale AI Feet UUP7.4 DESIGNED DRAM VERIFY SCALE BAR 5 ONE INCH ON ANSI 'O DRAWING 0 1' A REV OCT 07 DATE CHK'D APP UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT REVISION DESCRIPTION t King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division R.W. Beck, Inc. 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2500 Seattle, WA 981541004 (206) 695 -4700 BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILITY EXISTING TREES PLAN SHEET 4 PROJECT NNIYBEFC 1 1- 00839 -2000 91T. or, DRAIO ND NUVRE1C A 0 =MI MIMI 370 335 333 0 0 332 33,0 f 337 336 32x0338 342 39 90343 0 345 0 328 351 35263 1 59Z 5969 5`35 364 . 365 367 w 383. 362 • 9 (23 36 (1w 360 2 36 710 3 372( 374 366e 3 61 MATCH LINE DWG UUP7.4 350 353 0 0f 355 I 384 39 07 0 3 7r 38 V "365 357 8 82 358 591 �0 381 PLAN 0589 SITE PLAN SCALE: 1' = 30' 395 586 — 8 896 SO 5C° 5 • / 8 • 390 391 392 398 339 {9 4000 688 cz 689 690 687 IS0 '. 6 695 _892 . 8697 7' 64 —60\ 1 . 591 MIN IM1=1 592 5939 A 94 0 GENERAL NOTES 1. SEE THE UUP8 DWGS FOR EXISTING TREE SCHEDULE FOR TREES SHOWN ON THIS DWG. 2. SEE THE UUP9 AND UUP10 DWGS FOR TREE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT. 1 30' -0' NOV 0 5 2001 3o CO 30 60 T Scale Feet UUP7.5 DESIGNED DRAWN VERIFY SCALE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ANSI 'D' DRAWING 0�1 A REV OCT 07 DATE CHK APP'D UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT REVISION DESCRIPTION WI King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division R.W. Beck, Inc. 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2500 Seattle, WA 98154-1004 (206) 695-4700 BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILITY EXISTING TREES PLAN SHEET 5 PROJECT INMEIEIt 1 1- 00839 -2000 SNT. or. DRAfN/G NUL8Elt TREE B SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME DIAMETER AT STANDARD HEIGHT CONDTTION DRIPLINE RADIUS NOTES 554 ROBINIA PSUEDOACACIA BLACK LOCUST 7 DEAD 1 SNAG 555 ROBINIA PSUEDOACACIA BLACK LOCUST 10 + 8 FAIR 7 CODOMINANT STEM 556 ROBINIA PSUEDOACACIA BLACK LOCUST 4 FAIR 15 MULTIPLE STEM 557 ROBINIA PSUEDOACACIA BLACK LOCUST 8 FAIR 4 CLUSTER 558 ROBINIA PSUEDOACACIA BLACK LOCUST 7 FAIR 4 CLUSTER 559 ROBINIA PSUEDOACACIA BLACK LOCUST 8 FAIR 5 CLUSTER 560 ROBINIA PSUEDOACACIA BLACK LOCUST 6 POOR 2 CLUSTER 561 ROBINIA PSUEDOACACIA BLACK LOCUST 14 FAIR 7 CLUSTER 562 ROBINIA PSUEDOACACIA BLACK LOCUST 12 POOR 7 CLUSTER 563 ROBINIA PSUEDOACACIA BLACK LOCUST 10 POOR 4 CODOMINANAT STEM, SOIL HEAVE 564 ROBINIA PSUEDOACACIA BLACK LOCUST 5 POOR 2 STANDING GREEN SNAG 565 ROBINIA PSUEDOACACIA BLACK LOCUST 6 POOR 2 FAILING 566 ROBINIA PSUEDOACACIA BLACK LOCUST 8 POOR 2 FAILING 567 ROBINLA PSUEDOACACIA BLACK LOCUST 8 POOR 3 SNAGGED FROM FAILURE 568 ROBINIA PSUEDOACACIA BLACK LOCUST 4 DEAD 1 SNAG 569 ROBINIA PSUEDOACACIA BLACK LOCUST 7 +6 +6 +5 FAIR 10 FOUR STEM CLUSTER 570 ROBINIA PSUEDOACACIA BLACK LOCUST 12 GOOD 10 CODOMINANT STEM 571 ROBINIA PSUEDOACACIA BLACK LOCUST 5 GOOD 6 CLUSTER, TWO SNAGS 572 ROBINIA PSUEDOACACIA BLACK LOCUST 6 + 6 POOR 3 LEANING SLOW GROW 573 ROBINIA PSUEDOACACIA BLACK LOCUST 8 +8 +6 FAIR 9 THREE STEMS 574 ROBINIA PSUEDOACACIA BLACK LOCUST 6 POOR 2 DAMAGED BY FAILURE 575 ROBINIA PSUEDOACACIA BLACK LOCUST 12 + 6 GOOD 10 ENGLISH IVY COVERED 576 ROBINIA PSUEDOACACIA BLACK LOCUST 8 FAIR 6 577 ROBINIA PSUEDOACACIA BLACK LOCUST 10 GOOD 6 578 ROBINIA PSUEDOACACIA BLACK LOCUST 8 GOOD 4 SNAG 579 ROBINIA PSUEDOACACIA BLACK LOCUST 8 +6+6 +4 +4 GOOD 10 STUMP SPROUTS 580 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK COTTONWOOD 10 GOOD 10 NO TAG DUE TO DIFFICULT ACCESS 581 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK COTTONWOOD 21 GOOD 15 NO TAG DUE TO DIFFICULT ACCESS, DAMAGE TO MAJOR SCAFFOLDS 582 ROBINIA PSUEDOACACIA BLACK LOCUST 18 +18 +17 +8 GOOD 17 OPEN GROWN, GOOD FORM 583 ROBINIA PSUEDOACACIA BLACK LOCUST 9 +8 +8 +6 GOOD 10 584 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK COTTONWOOD 14 GOOD 11 NO TAG, 30 FEET NE OF 583 531 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 10 FAIR 7 B ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 16 +9 +8 FAIR 10 533 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 9+6+4 FAIR 8 601 THUJA PLICATA WESTERN RED CEDAR 5 DEAD 3 NEAR ENTRY GATE BEETLE HOLES 602 THUJA PUCATA WESTERN RED CEDAR 6 POOR 3 TOPPED, NEARLY DEAD 603 PSUEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII DOUGLAS -FIR 8 GOOD 5 BELOW WIRES, WILL NEED TO BE CUT 604 THUJA PLICATA WESTERN RED CEDAR 5 POOR 4 BELOW WIRES, WILL NEED TO BE CUT 605 THUJA PUCATA WESTERN RED CEDAR 5 POOR 4 BELOW WIRES, WILL NEED TO BE CUT 606 11-IUJA PUCATA WESTERN RED CEDAR 4 FAIR 4 607 ? ?? BLACK COTTONWOOD 7 + 6 GOOD 10 ORNAMENTAL LANDSCAPE TREE 608 X CUPPRESSOCYPARIS LEYLANDII LEYLAND CYPRESS 24 GOOD 12 NO TAG, ADJACENT WITH 540A 609 X CUPPRESSOCYPARIS LEYLANDII LEYLAND CYPRESS 11 + 6 GOOD 10 SNAG 610 X CUPPRESSOCYPARIS LEYLANDII LEYLAND CYPRESS 15 FAIR 13 DAMAGED LEAD 611 X CUPPRESSOCYPARIS LEYLANDII LEYLAND CYPRESS 10 +10 +7 +4 FAIR 8 SOCKET FAILURE 612 X CUPPRESSOCYPARIS LEYLANDII LEYLAND CYPRESS 16 FAIR 10 LEAD FAILURE 613 X CUPPRESSOCYPARIS LEYLANDII LEYLAND CYPRESS 5 GOOD 7 BUSHY FORM, TAGGED S BRANCH 614 PLATANUS OCCIDENTAUS AMERICAN SYCAMORE 11 GOOD 10 615 X CUPPRESSOCYPARIS LEYLANDII LEYLAND CYPRESS 12 +4 +4 FAIR 8 TREE I SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME DIAMETER AT STANDARD HEIGHT CONDTTTON DRIPUNE RADIUS NOTES A 501 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 24 +10 +10+12+8 FAIR 15 MULTIPLE STEM 502 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 30 +24 FAIR 20 MULTIPLE STEM 503 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 8 FAIR 3 CLUSTER 504 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 6 FAIR 3 CLUSTER 505 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 5 FAIR 3 CLUSTER 506 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 6 FAIR 3 CLUSTER 507 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 8 FAIR 3 CLUSTER 508 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 10 FAIR 3 CLUSTER 509 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 8 FAIR 6 CLUSTER 510 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 8 FAIR 4 CLUSTER 511 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 6 FAIR 4 CLUSTER 512 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 6 POOR 4 CLUSTER 513 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 8 FAIR 4 CLUSTER 514 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 7 FAIR 4 CLUSTER 515 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 18+14 +10 +10 FAIR 20 MULTIPLE STEM 516 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 6 FAIR 4 CODOMINANT STEM 517 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK COTTONWOOD 20 +20 +18 +7 +7 DEAD 5 CLUSTER, TWO SNAGS 518 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK COTTONWOOD 20+13 POOR 12 CODOMINANT STEM, BASAL DAMAGE, ARMILL4RIA 519 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 22+20 POOR 12 STEM FAILURE, BASAL DECAY 520 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 15 +12+10 +8 FAIR 13 CLUSTER 521 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 18 FAIR 6 ENGLISH IVY COVERED 522 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 7 POOR 2 523 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 9 FAIR 6 524 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 5 DEAD 3 SNAG 525 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 14 +12 DEAD 3 STUMP SPROUTS 526 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK COTTONWOOD 21 +17 DEAD 10 SMALL TOPPED SNAG 527 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 12 FAIR 8 528 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 5 DEAD 2 SNAG 529 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 14 +12 FAIR 10 530 VOID DROPPED TAG 531 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 10 FAIR 7 532 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 16 +9 +8 FAIR 10 533 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 9+6+4 FAIR 8 534 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 10 DEAD 5 SNAG 535 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 14 +12 DEAD 8 SNAG 536 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 22 FAIR 6 537 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 10 DEAD 9 HOLLOW 538 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 14 FAIR 12 539 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 26 FAIR 14 540A POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK COTTONWOOD 20 GOOD 15 ADJACENT WITH 540B 5408 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK COTTONWOOD 18 FAIR 15 NO TAG, ADJACENT WITH 540A 541 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK COTTONWOOD 27 DEAD 17 SNAG 542 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK COTTONWOOD 36 FAIR 15 543 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK COTTONWOOD 6 FAIR 7 544 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK COTTONWOOD 22 GOOD 17 545 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK COTTONWOOD 19 GOOD 15 546 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK COTTONWOOD 19 GOOD 15 547 ROBINIA PSUEDOACACIA BLACK LOCUST 5 GOOD 4 548 ROBINIA PSUEDOACACIA BLACK LOCUST 7+4 +7 GOOD 7 549 ROBINIA PSUEDOACACIA BLACK LOCUST 4 GOOD 3 550 ROBINIA PSUEDOACACIA BLACK LOCUST 12 FAIR 8 551 ROBINIA PSUEDOACACIA BLACK LOCUST 9 + 8 FAIR 8 552 ROBINIA PSUEDOACACIA BLACK LOCUST 4 + 4 GOOD 9 SUCKER TO FORM LEAD STEMS 553 ROBINIA PSUEDOACACIA BLACK LOCUST 4 GOOD 2 SUCKER TO FORM LEAD STEMS GENERAL NOTES 1. CONDITION GOOD: NO APPARENT PROBLEM FAIR: MINOR PROBLEMS POOR: MAJOR PROBLEMS, LOW POTENTIAL TO REGAIN DEAD: NO POTENTIAL TO REGAIN VIGOR RECEIVED NOV 0 5 2007 COMMONS Ty DEVELOPYIENT UUP8.1 DESIGNED DRAWN VERIFY SCALE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ANSI b' DRAWING 0�1 A REV OCT 07 DATE CHKO APP UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT REVISION DESCRIPTION La King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division D R.W. Beds, Inc. 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2500 Seattle, WA 98154-1004 (206) 695-4700 BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILITY EXISTING TREE SCHEDULE SHEET 1 PROJECT NUMBOt 11- 00839 -2000 I ST. COMING NURSER TREE 1# SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME DIAMETER AT STANDARD HEIGHT CONDITION DRIPLINE RADIUS NOTES C X CUPPRESSOCYPARIS LEYLAND'' LEYLAND CYPRESS 7 FAIR 8 617 X CUPPRESSOCYPARIS LEYLANDII LEYLAND CYPRESS 8 + 8 GOOD 12 653 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK COTTONWOOD 19 GOOD 12 WEST EDGE 654 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 11+11 +10 GOOD 12 655 ARBUTUS MENZIESII PACIFIC MADRONA 12 GOOD 7 656 PSUEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII DOUGLAS -FIR 6 POOR 4 MECHANICAL DAMAGE 657 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK COTTONWOOD 20 FAIR 15 ON SLOPE 658 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK COTTONWOOD 28 GOOD 16 TAG ON UMB TO WEST 659 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 28+24 GOOD 20 660 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 14 +13 POOR 15 TAG ON CURB 661 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 12 GOOD 12 TAG ON CURB 662 ROBINIA PSUEDOACACIA BLACK LOCUST 15 +14 GOOD 10 TAG ON CURB 663 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 13 +13 +12 GOOD 12 TAG ON UMB TO WEST 664 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 5 + 5 FAIR 3 TAG ON CURB 665 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 5 +5+4 GOOD 8 666 ROBINIA PSUEDOACACIA BLACK LOCUST 6 GOOD 10 WET AREA 667 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 10 FAIR 7 BASAL WOUND 668 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK COTTONWOOD 12 FAIR 7 POOR CARE, INCLUDED WIRES FROM STAKING, BURIED FLARE 669 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 6 + 4 FAIR 4 POOR CARE, INCLUDED WIRES FROM STAKING, BURIED FLARE 670 ROBINIA PSUEDOACACIA BLACK LOCUST 15+14+9 +8 +6 FAIR 12 EAST OF 661 IN DENSE BLACK BERRY 671 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 13 +12 GOOD 9 WEST OF 648 672 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 12 GOOD 10 WEST OF 650 673 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 5 DEAD 6 WEST OF 651 674 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 6 +5 +5 FAIR 6 WEST OF 652 675 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 13 POOR 5 TAG ON DETACHED BRANCH 676 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 14 FAIR 7 IVY COVERED 677 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK COTTONWOOD 15 FAIR 10 IVY COVERED WEST OF 676 678 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 8 POOR 6 IVY COVERED 679 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 9 + 4 FAIR 8 POOR CARE, INCLUDED WIRES FROM STAKING, BURIED FLARE 680 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 10 GOOD 11 POOR CARE, INCLUDED WIRES FROM STAKING, BURIED FLARE 681 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 8 +7 +7 GOOD 10 POOR CARE, INCLUDED WIRES FROM STAKING, BURIED FLARE 682 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 8 GOOD 7 WEST EDGE 683 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 4 GOOD 3 WEST EDGE 684 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 10 POOR 6 WEST EDGE 685 ROBINIA PSUEDOACACIA BLACK LOCUST 12 GOOD 12 WEST EDGE 651 X CUPPRESSOCYPARIS LEYLAND'' LEYLAND CYPRESS 6 GOOD 7 WEST EDGE D X CUPPRESSOCYPARIS LEYLAND'' LEYLAND CYPRESS 6 GOOD 2 WEST EDGE 701 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK COTTONWOOD 15 GOOD 7 702 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 4 GOOD 4 703 ARBUTUS MENZIESII PACIFIC MADRONA 5 GOOD 5 704 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 6 + 5 GOOD 6 705 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 7 + 4 GOOD 6 706 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 7 GOOD 7 707 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 4 GOOD 5 708 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 18 +8 +5 FAIR 12 709 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 14 +13 +13 +13 +12+ 11 +11 +8 +7 GOOD 20 710 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 7 +5 +4 FAIR 6 711 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 6 POOR 4 712 CORNUS NUTTAWI PACIFIC DOGWOOD 4 GOOD 4 713 CORNUS NUTTAWI PACIFIC DOGWOOD 4 GOOD 4 714 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 9 FAIR 5 715 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 16 GOOD 10 716 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 14 +12 GOOD 10 717 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 24 FAIR 8 POOR STRUCTURE, INCLUDED BARK CODOMINANT TREE i# SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME DIAMETER AT STANDARD HEIGHT CONDITION DRIPUNE RADIUS NOTES 616 X CUPPRESSOCYPARIS LEYLAND'' LEYLAND CYPRESS 7 FAIR 8 617 X CUPPRESSOCYPARIS LEYLANDII LEYLAND CYPRESS 8 + 8 GOOD 12 618 PLATANUS OCCIDENTAUS AMERICAN SYCAMORE 12 + 10 FAIR 8 619 X CUPPRESSOCYPARIS LEYLANDII LEYLAND CYPRESS 13 GOOD 15 620 PLATANUS OCCIDENTAL'S AMERICAN SYCAMORE 19 GOOD 15 621 X CUPPRESSOCYPARIS LEYLAND'' LEYLAND CYPRESS 10 GOOD 10 MECHANICAL DAMAGE 622 PRUNUS LAUROCERASUS CHERRY LAUREL 12 + 8 GOOD 6 623 PRUNUS LAUROCERASUS CHERRY LAUREL 10 + 6 GOOD 6 624 PRUNUS LAUROCERASUS CHERRY LAUREL 6 GOOD 6 625 PRUNUS LAUROCERASUS CHERRY LAUREL 5 GOOD 5 TAG ON CURB 626 PRUNUS LAUROCERASUS CHERRY LAUREL 6 GOOD 5 TAG ON CURB 627 PRUNUS LAUROCERASUS CHERRY LAUREL 6 GOOD 5 TAG ON CURB 628 PRUNUS LAUROCERASUS CHERRY LAUREL 5 GOOD 5 TAG ON CURB 629 PRUNUS LAUROCERASUS CHERRY LAUREL 6 GOOD 5 TAG ON CURB 630 X CUPPRESSOCYPARIS LEYLANDII LEYLAND CYPRESS 12 + 9 GOOD 4 631 X CUPPRESSOCYPARIS LEYLANDII LEYLAND CYPRESS 28 +7 +7 +6 GOOD 8 MULTIPLE STEM 632 X CUPPRESSOCYPARIS LEYLAND'' LEYLAND CYPRESS 9 GOOD 6 POOR CARE, INCLUDED WIRES FROM STAKING, BURIED FLARE 633 X CUPPRESSOCYPARIS LEYLAND'' LEYLAND CYPRESS 10 + 4 FAIR 6 POOR CARE, INCLUDED WIRES FROM STAKING, BURIED FLARE 634 X CUPPRESSOCYPARIS LEYLANDII LEYLAND CYPRESS 6 +6+5 GOOD 7 POOR CARE, INCLUDED WIRES FROM STAKING, BURIED FLARE 635 X CUPPRESSOCYPARIS LEYLAND'' LEYLAND CYPRESS 12 + 9 FAIR 8 POOR CARE, INCLUDED WIRES FROM STAKING, BURIED FLARE 636 X CUPPRESSOCYPARIS LEYLAND!' LEYLAND CYPRESS 8 DEAD 4 POOR CARE, INCLUDED WIRES FROM STAKING, BURIED FLARE HAZARD TREE 637 X CUPPRESSOCYPARIS LEYLANDII LEYLAND CYPRESS 6 FAIR 3 POOR CARE. INCLUDED WIRES FROM STAKING, BURIED FLARE 638 X CUPPRESSOCYPARIS LEYLAND'' LEYLAND CYPRESS 10 FAIR 7 POOR CARE, INCLUDED WIRES FROM STAKING, BURIED FLARE 639 X CUPPRESSOCYPARIS LEYLANDII LEYLAND CYPRESS 6 FAIR 3 POOR CARE, INCLUDED WIRES FROM STAKING, BURIED FLARE 640 X CUPPRESSOCYPARIS LEYLAND'' LEYLAND CYPRESS 4 POOR 1 POOR CARE, INCLUDED WIRES FROM STAKING, BURIED FLARE 641 X CUPPRESSOCYPARIS LEYLAND'' LEYLAND CYPRESS 8 + 7 FAIR 6 POOR CARE. INCLUDED WIRES FROM STAKING, BURIED FLARE 642 X CUPPRESSOCYPARIS LEYLAND'' LEYLAND CYPRESS 10 +7 +7 FAIR 8 POOR CARE, INCLUDED WIRES FROM STAKING, BURIED FLARE 643 X CUPPRESSOCYPARIS LEYLAND'' LEYLAND CYPRESS 10 + 10 POOR 8 POOR CARE, INCLUDED WIRES FROM STAKING, BURIED FLARE, CODOMINANT FAILURE, HAZARD TREE 644 X CUPPRESSOCYPARIS LEYLAND'' LEYLAND CYPRESS 8 + 4 FAIR 5 POOR CARE, INCLUDED WIRES FROM STAKING, BURIED FLARE 645 X CUPPRESSOCYPARIS LEYLAND'' LEYLAND CYPRESS 12 POOR 2 POOR CARE, INCLUDED WIRES FROM STAKING, BURIED FLARE 646 X CUPPRESSOCYPARIS LEYLAND'' LEYLAND CYPRESS 13 FAIR 9 POOR CARE, INCLUDED WIRES FROM STAKING, BURIED FLARE 647 X CUPPRESSOCYPARIS LEYLAND'' LEYLAND CYPRESS 5 + 4 GOOD 8 WEST EDGE 648 X CUPPRESSOCYPARIS LEYLAND'' LEYLAND CYPRESS 6 GOOD 7 WEST EDGE 649 X CUPPRESSOCYPARIS LEYLAND'' LEYLAND CYPRESS 5 + 5 GOOD 6 WEST EDGE 650 X CUPPRESSOCYPARIS LEYLAND'' LEYLAND CYPRESS 6 GOOD 6 WEST EDGE 651 X CUPPRESSOCYPARIS LEYLAND'' LEYLAND CYPRESS 6 GOOD 7 WEST EDGE 652 X CUPPRESSOCYPARIS LEYLAND'' LEYLAND CYPRESS 6 GOOD 2 WEST EDGE A A E GENERAL NOTES 1. CONDITION GOOD: NO APPARENT PROBLEM FAIR MINOR PROBLEMS POOR: MAJOR PROBLEMS, LOW POTENTIAL TO REGAIN DEAD: NO POTENTIAL TO REGAIN VIGOR RECEIVED NOV 0 5 2001 DE ELO N Ptaff 1 UUP8.2 DESIGNED DRAWN VERIFY SCALE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ANSI 'D" DRAWING 0� A REV OCT 07 DATE CHK'D APP'D UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT REVISION DESCRIPTION IA King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division fl ELK R.W. Beck, Inc. 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2500 Seattle, WA 98154 -1004 (206) 695 -4700 BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILITY EXISTING TREE SCHEDULE SHEET 2 PROJECT NU1SOL 11_00839 - 2000 SHE OaMIwO NUMBER TREE # SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STDIAMETER ANDARD A HEIGHT CONDITION RADIUS E NOTES 718 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 6 DEAD 1 SNAG WITH IVY 719 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 17 GOOD 10 720 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 5 GOOD 7 721 CORNUS NUTTAWI PACIFIC DOGWOOD 24 +17+16+12+9+ 7 GOOD 25 EDGE BUFFER 722 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 10 GOOD 9 723 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 30 +25 +12 +10 GOOD 20 INTERNAL HOLLOW, MATURE, WILDLIFE USE 724 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 24 GOOD 12 725 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK COTTONWOOD 5 GOOD 5 726 THUJA PUCATA WESTERN RED CEDAR 5 GOOD 5 727 THUJA PUCATA WESTERN RED CEDAR 7+4 GOOD 6 728 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 6 DEAD 4 729 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 21 DEAD 1 SNAG 730 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 14 GOOD 1 SNAG 731 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 6 GOOD 6 732 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 5 GOOD 5 733 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 5 GOOD 5 734 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 6 GOOD 6 STUMP SPROUT, DECAY AT BASE 735 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 9 GOOD 9 736 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 11 GOOD 9 737 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 10 GOOD 10 738 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 4 GOOD 5 739 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK COTTONWOOD 7 GOOD 8 740 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 5 GOOD 3 741 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 6 GOOD 4 UP SLOPE IN CLUSTER OF SMALL TREES 742 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 4 GOOD 2 743 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 5 GOOD 10 744 ARBUTUS MENZIESII PACIFIC MADRONA 9 GOOD 6 OFF BALANCE 745 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 6 GOOD 7 746 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 4 GOOD 3 747 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 4 GOOD 2 748 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 25 +19 +18 +10 GOOD 15 INTERNAL DECAY, BUFFER 749 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 10 GOOD 8 750 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 4 GOOD 4 751 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 8 GOOD 4 SNAG 752 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 8 POOR 6 753 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 4 FAIR 3 SNAG 754 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 5 DEAD 1 SNAG 755 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 6 DEAD 1 SNAG 756 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 5 FAIR 3 757 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 5 FAIR 4 758 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 5 FAIR 4 759 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 5 FAIR 4 760 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 4 FAIR 4 761 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 8 GOOD 7 762 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 4 FAIR 2 763 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 22 +17 GOOD 15 764 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 12 +8 +8 +8 +7 +7 +6 +6 GOOD 20 765 PRUNUS EMARGINATTA BITTER CHERRY 7 FAIR 6 SNAG 766 PRUNUS EMARGINATTA BIIILN CHERRY 5 DEAD 1 SNAG 767 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK COTTONWOOD 8 GOOD 8 768 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK COTTONWOOD 24 GOOD 20 769 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 5 GOOD 5 770 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 5 GOOD 4 771 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK COTTONWOOD 25 GOOD 10 SNAG 772 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 9 GOOD 8 TREE # SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME DIAMETER AT STANDARD HEIGHT CONDITION DRIPUNE RADIUS NOTES 773 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 6 GOOD 7 774 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 10 GOOD 7 775 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 6 GOOD 6 776 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 8 GOOD 7 777 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 8 GOOD 7 778 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 8 GOOD 7 779 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 10 GOOD 9 780 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 11 FAIR 5 781 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 4 FAIR 3 782 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 4 FAIR 3 783 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 7 FAIR 6 784 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 4 FAIR 4 785 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 8 FAIR 7 786 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 8 GOOD 9 787 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 23 GOOD 11 788 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 57 POOR 5 789 TSUGA HETEROPHYLLA WESTERN HEMLOCK 13 FAIR 9 STUMP SPROUT, DECAY AT BASE 790 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 4 FAIR 3 791 POPUWS TRICHOCARPA BLACK COTTONWOOD 4 GOOD 4 792 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 12 POOR 4 793 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 6 FAIR 4 794 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 11+4 GOOD 7 795 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 7 FAIR 4 801 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK COTTONWOOD 4 GOOD 4 UP SLOPE IN CLUSTER OF SMALL TREES 802 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 5 GOOD 4 803 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 10 GOOD 6 804 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 6 GOOD 4 805 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 6 GOOD 4 806 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 6 GOOD 4 807 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 8 GOOD 6 808 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK COTTONWOOD 18 GOOD 12 809 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 10 GOOD 6 810 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 8 FAIR 4 811 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 7 DEAD 1 SNAG 812 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 10 GOOD 6 813 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 7 DEAD 1 SNAG 814 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 12 GOOD 10 815 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 9 GOOD 7 816 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK COTTONWOOD 24 GOOD 12 817 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 7 POOR 1 818 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 10 GOOD 8 819 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 11 GOOD 8 820 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 6 POOR 2 821 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 8 GOOD 8 822 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 4 FAIR 4 823 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 7 POOR 3 824 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 7 POOR 3 825 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 14 GOOD 10 SNAG 826 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 8 GOOD 6 827 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 7 GOOD 5 828 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 10 FAIR 9 829 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 8 POOR 4 830 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 13 FAIR 6 831 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 6 POOR 2 SNAG 832 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 8 FAIR 5 UUP8.3 DESIGNED VERIFY SCALE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ANSI lD" DRAWING 0� A REV OCT 07 DATE CHK'D APP'D UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT REVISION DESCRIPTION King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division R.W. Beck, Inc. 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2500 Seattle, WA 98154 -1004 (206) 695-4700 GENERAL NOTES 1. CONDITION BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACIUTY EXISTING TREE SCHEDULE SHEET 3 GOOD: NO APPARENT PROBLEM FAIR: MINOR PROBLEMS POOR: MAJOR PROBLEMS, LOW POTENTIAL TO REGAIN DEAD: NO POTENTIAL TO REGAIN VIGOR RECEIVED NOV 0 5 2007 DEVELOP PROJECT NUISBEct 11 -00839 -2000 DF: MOWING lawaat TREE fi SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME DIAMETER AT STANDARD HEIGHT CONDITION DRIPUNE RADIUS NOTES 889 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 10 POOR 5 SW #859 - ORANGE FLAG TO NE 901 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 13 POOR 5 SNAG 902 PSUEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII DOUGLAS -RR 7 GOOD 4 WEST OF 836 - ORANGE FLAG ON STICK 903 PSUEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII DOUGLAS -FIR 6 GOOD 3 904 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 8 GOOD 6 S # 903, ORANGE FLAG TO N 905 PSUEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII DOUGLAS -FIR 12 GOOD 6 906 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 13 GOOD 8 907 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 12 +11 +7 GOOD 12 CLUSTER 908 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK COTTONWOOD 5 GOOD 3 NOT ON SLOPE. DO NOT COUNT 909 SAUX SCOULERIANA SCOULERS WILLOW 4 +4 GOOD 4 MULTIPLE STEM 910 ARBUTUS MENZIESII PACIFIC MADRONA 10 GOOD 5 911 SAUX SCOULERIANA SCOULERS WILLOW 5 +4 +4 POOR 5 DISEASED 912 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 6 +7 GOOD 5 CODOMINANT STEM 913 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 4 +5 FAIR 3 CODOMINANT STEM 914 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 10 +10 FAIR 6 DECAY, CODOMINANT STEM 915 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 4+6 FAIR 6 TOP DAMAGE, CODOMINANT STEM 916 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 6+5 GOOD 5 CODOMINANT STEM 917 ARBUTUS MENZIESII PACIFIC MADRONA 9+4 GOOD 6 918 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 4 FAIR 6 MULTIPLE STEM 919 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 10 +9 FAIR 9 TWO STEMS 920 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 5 +5 +4 FAIR 4 CLUSTER 921 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 8 FAIR 4 922 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 10 +6 FAIR 5 SLOW GROW 923 SAUX SCOULERIANA SCOULERS WILLOW 5 +4 +4 GOOD 5 CLUSTER 924 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 14 GOOD 7 925 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 6 +5 +4 FAIR 10 S 1 924 926 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 9 GOOD 6 927 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 12 FAIR 5 928 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 8 FAIR 3 NE #927 929 SAUX SCOULERIANA SCOULERS WILLOW 4 +4 FAIR 6 SE PROP BH 'T", FLAG AT BASE 930 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 10 GOOD 6 NO TAG, LOCATE ON SURVEY 931 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 4 FAIR 2 NO TAG, LOCATE ON SURVEY 932 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 7 GOOD 5 NO TAG, LOCATE ON SURVEY 933 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 6 +4 FAIR 5 NO TAG, LOCATE ON SURVEY 934 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 12 GOOD 5 935 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 16 FAIR 9 WOUND AT BASE 936 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK COTTONWOOD 28 GOOD 12 937 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 7 POOR 4 DISEASED 938 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 6 FAIR 5 TOP DAMAGED 939 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 13 DEAD 1 940 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 11 GOOD 6 SWEEP 941 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 13 FAIR 6 942 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 12 FAIR 7 943 SAUX SCOULERIANA SCOULERS WILLOW 8 POOR 5 ORANGE FLAG TO EAST ON BLACK BERRY 944 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 26 FAIR 10 POOR STUCTURE 945 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 11 POOR 12 CANOPY DIEBACK 946 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 13 FAIR 7 SWEEP 947 SAUX SCOULERIANA SCOULERS WILLOW 10 DEAD 1 SNAG 948 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 10 GOOD 5 SWEEP 949 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 12 DEAD 7 SEAM 950 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 8 POOR 2 CLUSTER 951 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 7 DEAD 1 CLUSTER 952 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 6 POOR 2 CLUSTER TREE fi SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME DIAMETER AT STANDARD HEIGHT CONDITION DRIPUNE RADIUS NOTES 833 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK COTTONWOOD 16 DEAD 10 SNAG 834 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 7 DEAD 6 SNAG 835 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 8 GOOD 1 WEST OF 836 - ORANGE FLAG ON STICK 836 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 8 GOOD 1 837 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK COTTONWOOD 18 DEAD 12 SNAG 838 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 9 GOOD 6 839 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK COTTONWOOD 10 GOOD 1 840 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 6 GOOD 6 841 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 7 GOOD 7 842 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK COTTONWOOD 24 GOOD 12 843 SAUX SCOULERIANA SCOULERS WILLOW 4 +3 GOOD 6 844 PSUEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII DOUGLAS -FIR 13 GOOD 7 845 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 8 DEAD 1 846 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK COTTONWOOD 10 GOOD 8 847 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 6 GOOD 7 848 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 7 GOOD 7 849 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 4 GOOD 5 850 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 7 FAIR 7 851 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 5 GOOD 4 852 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 5 DEAD 1 853 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 9 DEAD 1 854 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 9 GOOD 8 855 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 10 FAIR 8 856 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 6 DEAD 1 857 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 6 DEAD 1 858 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 12 FAIR 10 859 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK COTTONWOOD 21 GOOD 11 860 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 14 GOOD 10 861 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 5 POOR 4 SPROUT ON STUMP 862 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 10 GOOD 7 863 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 6 DEAD 1 864 PRUNUS EMARGINATTA BITTER CHERRY 5 DEAD 1 865 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 8 GOOD 10 866 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 5 FAIR 3 867 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK COTTONWOOD 23 GOOD 12 868 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK COTTONWOOD 16 GOOD 15 869 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 5 POOR 5 870 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 5 FAIR 5 871 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK COTTONWOOD 23 FAIR 10 872 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 12 GOOD 10 873 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 8 POOR 2 874 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 10 GOOD 8 875 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 6 GOOD 6 876 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 7 DEAD 1 877 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK COTTONWOOD 27 POOR 15 878 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 8 FAIR 6 879 ACER MACROPHY LUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 8 GOOD 8 880 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 6 DEAD 3 881 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 7 GOOD 5 882 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK COTTONWOOD 21 GOOD 16 883 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 5 GOOD 5 884 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 4 GOOD 4 885 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 5 DEAD 1 886 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK COTTONWOOD 11 DEAD 1 887 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 5 POOR 3 888 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 5 FAIR 4 GENERAL NOTES 1. CONDITION GOOD: NO APPARENT PROBLEM FAIR: MINOR PROBLEMS POOR: MAJOR PROBLEMS, WW POTENTIAL TO REGAIN DEAD: NO POTENTIAL TO REGAIN VIGOR RECEIVED NOV 0 5 2007 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT UUP8.4 DRAWN VERIFY SCALE B AR IS ONE INCH ON ANSI "0' DRAWING 0 1" A REV OCT 07 DATE CHK'D APP'D UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT REVISION DESCRIPTION King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division RAE CI R.W. Beck, Inc. 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2500 Seattle, WA 98154 -1004 (206) 695 -4700 BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILITY EXISTING TREE SCHEDULE SHEET 4 PROJECT MA®Elt 11 - 008,39 - 2000 ST. OF: DIMING HUMBER TREE # SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME DIAMETER AT STANDARD HEIGHT CONDITION DRIPUNE RADIUS NOTES 324 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 22 GOOD 20 325 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 16 GOOD 9 326 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 9 GOOD 8 WOUND AT BASE 327 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 10 DEAD 0 WOUND AT BASE 328 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK POPLAR 12 GOOD 6 329 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 8+9 +4 FAIR 10 DISEASED 330 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 8 +6 +6 +5 +5 GOOD 10 DECLINING 331 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK POPLAR 20 GOOD 11 WOUND AT BASE 332 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK POPLAR 9 DEAD 0 NO TAG, LOCATE ON SURVEY 333 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK POPLAR 6 +9 GOOD 10 NO TAG, LOCATE ON SURVEY 334 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK POPLAR 21 +10 GOOD 15 NO TAG, LOCATE ON SURVEY 335 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK POPLAR 18 GOOD 10 NO TAG, LOCATE ON SURVEY 336 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK POPLAR 12 GOOD B NO TAG, LOCATE ON SURVEY 337 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK POPLAR 19 POOR 10 338 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 7 FAIR 5 339 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 4 POOR 3 340 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 11 +5 GOOD 9 341 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK POPLAR 24 GOOD 20 342 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK POPLAR 18 GOOD 10 MAJOR WOUND, DISEASE 343 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 5 FAIR 2 MAJOR WOUND, DISEASE 344 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 6 FAIR 4 345 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK POPLAR 12 GOOD 8 CODOMINANT STEM, INCLUDED BARK 346 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK POPLAR 13 +11 GOOD 8 N 345, NO TAG, CO DOMINANT 347 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK POPLAR 13 FAIR 7 348 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK POPLAR 14 GOOD 7 349 PRUNUS EMARGINATTA BITTER CHERRY 7 +4 +10 GOOD 11 E 332, NO TAG 350 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 10 DEAD 0 SNAG 351 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 12 GOOD 10 NO TAG, S #978 352 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 11 +9 FAIR 1 NO TAG, LOCATE ON SURVEY MULTIPLE STEM 353 SAUX SR WILLOW 12 +5 FAIR 8 NO TAG, S PROP BH "P" 354 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 7 DEAD 0 N 353, NO TAG 355 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 7 GOOD 7 356 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 9 GOOD 7 357 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 17 GOOD 9 358 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 11 POOR 4 359 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK POPLAR 24 +20 GOOD 17 360 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 5 GOOD 6 361 ARBUTUS MENZIESII PACIFIC MADRONA 6 GOOD 4 362 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 6 GOOD 6 363 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 9 GOOD 12 364 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 5 POOR 3 365 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 8 GOOD 7 366 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 10 DEAD 0 367 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 8 GOOD 9 368 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK POPLAR 11 DEAD 0 369 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK POPLAR 17 GOOD 10 370 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 6 FAIR 2 SW TREE 314, NO TAG 371 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 6 GOOD 3 W TREE 310, NO TAG 372 POPUUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK POPLAR 13 FAIR 7 373 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK POPLAR 9 FAIR 4 374 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK POPLAR 18 GOOD 9 375 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 14 +11 +12 GOOD 16 376 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 11 FAIR 4 377 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 8 GOOD 8 378 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 9 GOOD 7 379 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 9 DEAD 0 380 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 9 DEAD 0 381 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 5 DEAD 0 TREE # SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME DIAMETER AT STANDARD HEIGHT CONDTTION DRIPLINE RADIUS NOTES 953 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 5 DEAD 1 954 ARBUTUS MENZIESII PACIFIC MADRONA 5 GOOD 4 955 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 11 FAIR 6 WOUND AT BASE 956 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 8 FAIR 5 WOUND AT BASE 957 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 6 POOR 3 958 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 8 POOR 4 DISEASED 959 SAUX SCOULERIANA SCOULERS WILLOW 9 POOR 4 DECLINING 960 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 11 FAIR 7 WOUND AT BASE 961 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 10 FAIR 6 NO TAG, LOCATE ON SURVEY 962 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 6 +6 FAIR 7 NO TAG, LOCATE ON SURVEY 963 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 6 FAIR 4 NO TAG, LOCATE ON SURVEY 964 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 7 +6 GOOD 7 NO TAG, LOCATE ON SURVEY 965 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 8+7 FAIR 6 NO TAG, LOCATE ON SURVEY 966 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 7 GOOD 6 967 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 6 POOR 1 968 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 4 FAIR 6 969 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 8 +6 POOR 7 970 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 7 GOOD 7 971 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 13 POOR 9 MAJOR WOUND, DISEASE 972 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 12 +11 FAIR 8 MAJOR WOUND, DISEASE 973 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 12 +7 +6 POOR 8 974 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 12 +10 FAIR 8 CODOMINANT STEM, INCLUDED BARK 975 SAUX SCOULERIANA SCOULERS WILLOW 12+11 POOR 6 ORANGE FLAG, 95$ DEAD 976 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 12 GOOD 9 977 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 8 +7 FAIR 7 978 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 13 POOR 12 MAJOR WOUND, DISEASE 979 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 4 +4 FAIR 6 MULTIPLE STEM 980 ARBUTUS MENZIESII PACIFIC MADRONA 9 +8+4 GOOD 11 NO TAG, S #978 981 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 6 GOOD 8 NO TAG, LOCATE ON SURVEY MULTIPLE STEM 982 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLE 5 GOOD 8 NO TAG, S PROP BH "P" E 301 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 22 +24 +10 GOOD 17 302 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK POPLAR 26 GOOD 15 303 JUGLANDS NIGRA BLACK WALNUT 26 GOOD 20 304 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 12 FAIR 6 305 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 17 GOOD 13 306 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 17 POOR 7 307 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 12 GOOD 6 308 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 4 POOR 0 309 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 15 +12 +4 FAIR 7 310 MALUS SP. APPLE 4 GOOD 3 311 PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII DOUGLAS -FIR 4 GOOD 4 312 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 7 GOOD 6 313 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 5 +4 GOOD 6 314 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 6 GOOD 8 SW TREE 314, NO TAG 315 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 5 GOOD 5 W TREE 310, NO TAG 316 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 25 +4 +5 FAIR 10 317 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 19 +7 FAIR 10 318 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 14 POOR 2 319 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 12 FAIR 5 320 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 11 +6 +9 FAIR 8 321 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 12 POOR 7 322 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 5 FAIR 6 323 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 13 FAIR 10 Ll 5 a z GENERAL NOTES 1. CONDITION GOOD: NO APPARENT PROBLEM FAIR: MINOR PROBLEMS POOR: MAJOR PROBLEMS, LOW POTENTIAL TO REGAIN DEAD: NO POTENTIAL TO REGAIN VIGOR RECEIVE() NOV 0 5 2007 COMMUIWTY DEVELOP /4W UUP8.5 DESIGNED DANA VERIFY SCALE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ANSI 'D" DRAWING 0�1 A REV OCT 07 DATE CHK'D APP'D UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT REVISION DESCRIPTION L King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division liti E[K R.W. Beck, Inc. 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2500 Seattle, WA 98154 -1004 (206) 695-4700 BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILITY EXISTING TREE SCHEDULE SHEET 5 PROJECT N1A413ER: 11- 00839 -2000 SHE. oc: CANNING NUMBER 8 E a RI 8 2 TREE B SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME DIAMETER AT STANDARD HEIGHT CONDITION DRIPUNE RADIUS NOTES A 20 40 13 11 84 B 382 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 5 DEAD 0 17 383 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 4 FAIR 4 66 384 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 5 GOOD 5 13 385 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 5 GOOD 5 53 386 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 6 GOOD 5 387 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 7 GOOD 7 388 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 5 FAR 3 389 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 6 FAIR 5 390 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 9 FAIR 5 391 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 9 FAIR 5 392 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 8 POOR 4 393 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 11 FAIR 6 394 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 7 FAIR 6 395 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 8 FAIR 4 396 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 5 GOOD 7 397 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 10 FAIR 5 398 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 14 POOR 3 399 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 7 +5+5 POOR 4 400 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 9 POOR 5 686 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 5 GOOD 6 687 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 7 GOOD 6 688 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 4 FAIR 4 689 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 6 GOOD 5 690 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 6 GOOD 5 691 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 8 FAIR 9 692 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 8 GOOD 6 693 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 16 GOOD 9 694 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 10 +9 FAIR 6 695 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 10 GOOD 4 696 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 6 FAIR 3 697 ACER MACROPHYLLUM MG LEAF MAPLE 5 GOOD 5 698 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 7 FAIR 3 699 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 4 GOOD 4 700 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 5 GOOD 5 890 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 6 DEAD 0 891 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 9 GOOD 5 892 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 7 GOOD 3 893 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 4 GOOD 5 894 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 6 GOOD 6 895 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 4 GOOD 4 896 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 18 GOOD 10 897 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 6 GOOD 8 898 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 7 GOOD 4 899 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 4 GOOD 4 900 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 4 GOOD 4 584 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 5 DEAD 0 585 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 10 +9 +6 +4 GOOD 12 586 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 11 GOOD 7 587 ALNUS RUBRA RED ALDER 9 GOOD 5 588 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 4 POOR 6 589 ACER MACROPHYLLUM SIG LEAF MAPLE 16 GOOD 12 590 POPULUS TRICHOCARPA BLACK POPLAR 23 GOOD 15 591 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 19 +16 +15 GOOD 20 592 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 15 GOOD 8 593 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 20 +8 GOOD 15 594 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 16 +17 +13 +8 +10 GOOD 20 595 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 6 FAIR 5 596 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 12 GOOD 7 597 ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIG LEAF MAPLE 6 FAIR 5 QUALITY OF TREES TREE ZONE GOOD FAIR POOR DEAD TOTAL A 20 40 13 11 84 B 28 16 6 2 52 C 17 10 5 1 33 D 142 66 31 27 266 E 80 35 13 12 140 TOTAL 287 167 68 53 575 GENERAL NOTES 1 _ CONDITION GOOD: NO APPARENT PROBLEM FAIR: MINOR PROBLEMS POOR: MAJOR PROBLEMS, LOW POTENTIAL TO REGAIN DEAD: NO POTENTIAL TO REGAIN VIGOR RECEIVED NOV 0 5 2007 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT UUP8.6 DEIGNED DRAWN VERIFY SCALE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ANSI DRAWING 0 � A REV OCT 07 DATE CHK'D APP UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT REVISION DESCRIPTION King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division fi\k' Ii IE[F R.W. Beck, Inc. 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2500 Seattle, WA 98154 -1004 (206) 695-4700 BOW LAKE PROCESSING /TRANSFER FACILITY EXISTING TREE SCHEDULE SHEET 6 PROJECT NUMBER: 11 -00839 -2000 4T. oc: DRAWwC NIA®FiC 0 ce z 0 U cx 0 I- 0 z 0 I N � / cx uJ a ' LU W vI 5 Z PRELIMINARY TREE TABLE TYPE NUMBER Retained 92* Removed" 417 Replaced per Tree ordinance 1,160 a v J a Pal n. D i a 8 a c 0 0 C- c 0 c a • ,155z46 • I ._c r� —71 t - . • MATCH LINE DWG UUP9 3 PLAN SfFE PLAN SCALE: 1' = 30' NNW MEIN 16 46 164 164 1 GENERAL NOTES Tree survey does not appear to have included every tree onsite, so this number may be larger. **Does not include trees within the existing transfer stotion footprint NOV 0 5 2007 30 ni0�;� lilt f 30 1 —0' It _ Scale 60 Feet UUP9.1 DESIGNED BKS DRAWN BKS VERIFY SCALE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ANSI • D • DRAWING 0� 1' REV DATE CHK'D APP'D UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT REVISION DESCRIPTION La King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division r ESAAdolfson 5309 Shllshole Ave. NW Seattle, WA 98107 P: (206) 789 -9658 F: (206) 789 -9684 BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILITY TREE REMOVAL PLAN SHEET 1 PROJECT /UMBER 1 1- 00839 -2000 SHT. OF: 13 DRAWING NUMBER f 00 0 0 n 0 0 0 0 N 0 11:2 a z UUP9.2 tk \.> f646 DESIGNED BKS DRAWN BKS VERIFY SCALE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ANSI /r DRAWING i• REV • ' • I; : I 7 • ; • • ' ' 1 • : • : • . . . .1— • . V. . " -• • , • • •. DATE I I!. de • f • f • 1=,; :1 I 4 • .' I • . . .: — ■ i; ■ " • i 1 I I ■ . I • I ■ . , . I . 1 : , i' ; • / • ' , ; • • . . e • , , ' ' ' • / i ' ' • • . • . — — — .—. ' --- ' ' " '-. / / / i —, --- V : • ; • 1 ■ 4 .• , . . ., , e ..,...... • • , • CHK'D APP _ '-‘:•• • . / ------ 1 " • 1- • . • ' 1 /,(7 , 1 ' 7 ,t ; • - T4 EG-- • ••• PLAN 0 • , — • — • . _ SITE PLAN SCALE 1 = 30' UNCLASSIFIED USE PERSAIT REVISION DESCRIPTION sr- se- 18.71,1 _ 0 -1_ La King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division -4859 f8 " — 7•—•••.7 • , _ " 8 : 1 84T - - Z — ‘ •--• • • 18 • / 191E 182 11 ' / 4 8 .6 174 7:7 1743 • f75 ' -• IT '181 , 1,3 r ESA Adolfson 5309 Shilshole Ave. NW Seattle, WA 98107 P: (206) 789-9658 F: (206) 789-9684 # 7 66 1765 787,' 0 ° 836 ' /48 0, ' R8 • 835 32 • • 770, • ; - _ _ , _, c 7 hl 72 3 • / 9 • p ,0 ' ft7 787 , ' - - 7:< / • 141-06- ;17 9 , :41 4795' 4191 / • '7., ' , • ; ••. I tit7 • 1 , 1 722 • , 7244) • & 717 L 1 7z8 9 42 " 74/ , . 5 c4; 10 7 4 5 7 7 6o 64 • .7 ' 5 0/756 /1762 c 763 • `" 20 ' #764', 784 . 1781. , • •, -7, • BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILITY TREE REMOVAL PLAN SHEET 2 KEY MAP E ED NOV 0 5 2001 30 60 1'=-30' -0' 11 Scale Feet PROJECt NUMBEIt 11-00839-2000 SHT. OF: 13 °ROARING NUMMI° teatterthwoite Nov 02. 2007 — 12:09 m — R: \Seattle \11 - 00839 -20000 Bow UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT (UUP) - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION a TRS Expansion Project \Data and Analytical \CADD \UUP \UUP9_TREEREMOVALdwa C C (0 m n S t R a 2 1 0 z z I w E N <D X O —. aoco0 c Da COCno 6 r g 0 va C ' <_' z c , ) a 0 u , _ Nc O R m A E Z I Cit Lak 7. M ' 0 0 1Uo m rn� ° V i 8 0 MATCH LINE DWG UUP9.2 ifeatheretone Nov 02. 2007 — 1:57pm — \ \Seadata3 \prolecte \11- 00839 -20000 Bow Lake TRS Expansion Prolect\Data and AnaIvticol \CADD \UUP \UUP9_TREEREMOVALdwq O g"' Ln do O m Z 0 zi i z 0 O v 0 2 6 co 73 ci x O N —. 0co_ ° ��z C S. M• R- m ,.. C L cr 0 a Mi mg O o N 4 8 0 8 0 0 I3 O 0 z ingilip Mg 3 f401 gR 9 AS 0 0 h 5 m m - og2V� OW >0I OD0p; O ±r Om Z KZ > Z c o o �tnomm m m r- z r - 5 , r� -10 N � N CnmoV vD� %� • c r'1_O73 D -1 73 -Im m o- m v o�moo c z � z_ to m D o -Z1 w o m- m � D 0 = r 0 A > m- m m o o,yo o o Z-4 � Z m m 02I mi oz m� o : : �Cm W Dm Z v zO m� m z AV �oxc n2 0 Zro mt Z r n 0 m z v v Z -1 °L4F ov°,�o -,m m our, -1 ,,m Z- D D '1 m 0 M 30Z UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT (UUP) - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION NO11af1211SN0a 2JOd ION - (dflfl) II1%13d 3Sf1 a3IHISSV13Nfl a N W N W � LLI o f 2 z U 2 W 0 8 N w 2 c ilkg Qa^ � o NP "L cn W L N n 9 I 0 0 a 0 Y U g oc 5 N — 2 0 6 +W'aPWaWS w.owea — r6dnn\enn\aa 3\ID waw Dao opoa \) a ald uoisuccIrj TREE REMOVAL SCHEDULE EL El S 61 1 1 SF131S 33681 3801101 A8 030581.7'', NO TAO CUE TO DCULT I WFI ACCESS NO TAG DUE TO DIFFICULT ACCESS, DAMAGE TO 110.IOR SCAFFOLDS 191W 0000 '14MO89 N3d0 NO TAG. 30 FEET NE OF 583 81/15118 19V1IVO WSW 11315 1f1VN110003 533101 311338 310 ulna! N 1013 38 01 03311 1119 '5381* 580138 0130 A18V31 103dd01 1113 38 01 033N TllM 63819 MO738 1113 38 01 033N T119 'EDDA NOES 1 ip f 911 03dd08O i 3601181 OY31 38111V1 136305 I3N8a8 S 030011 1WW AHS08 8009 11101 11133011V i :gi 39.7W0 1V30nH3311 sans NO 981 Gals NO 9V1 Gals NO 9V1 Gals NO 9V1 Gars NO 9V1 E 1 MINT NithigigNfilgigighfiglo § 11 11 11 11111 PPM 11 11 11 TPA 11 11 1181 —9—.9 ON Sll Oil LI 1 fl Zl n n N f f 01 I Ell 01 EL O Dl B IS B 01 L co El Sl 01 St co O O U n n YI In v O O O r O f n r n . O O O 8nl 112111 1 1111 0830 883, 11 1 800d UNA 1100d 0009 1 1 8181 and 8183 1 arm', 0000, 0009 X3 1 1 0009 8181 1 111111111 0000 883 1 1 1 8103 1 8183 1 803 and 8114 1 8113 8153] 1 I 1HOEDFI 08105815 lY 831311010 9 +9+9 9 +E1 9 02.q 0+1+9+9+9 01 1Z 9+9+8+6 9 +L1 +81 +81 01 L1 +11 11+91 n O O YI N 9 + L 0 Z 9 EL 91 1+L+01+Ol VI Ili +Z1, lt' r 9 + 91 El L Ol + lt 01 6l 9 +01 9 + Z1 O In O CO In O 6 + Zl� 9 +L +L+BZ al 1 +01 5+9+9 6 + Z1 CO O 01 O f L + 8� L +L+OII 01 + 011 318,5 50119903 I 1S1s01 )0118 111111 2!2222 e � K 2 I 00058501100 63V18 111 HI 0005850/103 )13/18 i 15130 038 511315531 ate —m9no0 11139 038 5831539 1 111633 038 19831S39 18033 038 0931638, 18030 036 58315311 8 101 e K C iii Hi 2 lin SS31k1.3 GNY1A3T SS38d13 05111311 / I S538dA.1018.31 i 1 i iniiiiiiiiifilil 150307 MOM 111 122222122 2 2 iiii ilifill WWI of i 5538113 0511131 i iiiiii vd8V30143111 SrrlrldOd 58908 581538 i 001 Vd*V3019181 SlTIOdOd lii 1110?51555 Vd8y10113181 SrlUldOd V1VJfld 80541 5530X35 sonst00f13f6d rand 801141 V1Y3fld WOO V.YJfld 80101 51YJfld 111541 hbb b BONVIAll SRWdA33SS3a6d113 x 50511 9lYd105S3addf0 x Ix1NVU31 slndA3o5538ddr0 x Envi 01330 SWV1YId SRfAILIOSS3LIdd113 x _ -- SSn dAOOSS3add 3 oa5ru3 x 7 50511131 SI6VdAOOSS36dd00 x W5Y1A31 S9ndA30SS36ddf 3 508111301330 SON81Yld SIBMA ISS3addr13 01 5[111530030 smirk' "R H 111111111 i 1 1 1 50511/31 S9JVd1ODSS338da113 X 1 - - BONY1 S918d1130SS3a3d00 x 1 1 MN/1131 SW8dADOSS36dd00 x ' mi l fLS Sts 1LS LIS 9LS Er, 1 55gi 9ZS LES N Ill m 109 5 g 5 g 109 1 5 0191 119 119 619 019 fl9 9191 1 L L9I 819 819 119 OZ9 55 SZ9 119 LZ9 919 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 919 5 5 5 5 a Z19 3 NO11af1211SN0a 2JOd ION - (dflfl) II1%13d 3Sf1 a3IHISSV13Nfl a N W N W � LLI o f 2 z U 2 W 0 8 N w 2 c ilkg Qa^ � o NP "L cn W L N n 9 I 0 0 a 0 Y U g oc 5 N — 2 0 6 +W'aPWaWS w.owea — r6dnn\enn\aa 3\ID waw Dao opoa \) a ald uoisuccIrj TREE REMOVAL SCHEDULE EL El 1 E 1111111 IELLSM3 11315 311111(711 E SOYNS OMl 11315013 (131S 1N8N510003 81/15118 19V1IVO WSW 11315 1f1VN110003 63151119 18330 1/S113 '360101 9531S 0363103.1 160983 11 1 f 911 03dd08O IX 1 8009 11101 11133011V i :gi 51131$ 0131 1103 01 8311315, 5,531$ O/31 IW03 01 83x3061 E 1 3A83H 1105 11315 115115010009 9110183 9.7S (43319 9NOtt1S 38(1584 11081 0309155 958183 1 4 Ell, Z fl Zl Ot 01 L S 01 I EL S l Ll EL SL NO810L103 8184 8183 818J 0830 883, 883, 8181 0000 883 I 119@1 GZ80IV1S1 18 8313)1110 9+z1+01+01+1Z 9 01+0f O Yl O O - 0 0 0 0 0 01+01 +01+91 L L +1 +91+0Z+OZ 9 f1+131 9+01 +11+51 0Z +ZZ 5 L1 +11 11+91 v. Zl+1l 9+6+91 Ol Ol 0 +9 +6 ZZ 11+91 9f LZ 61 61 1+0+1 S 1 + 9 +6 9 + 0l 01 ZL 6+9+9+11 9+9+9 9 + 9 1 i 8305 036 310.71 1131018 0,K00000 8` e K 2 8 K 8 8 K K 8 e � K K e � 8 � K K 311111 31,31018 83018 0'36 e � K 2 I i i i iin i xy7 m i 31d00 58!'558 ii ii 83018 038 37d1R 5831318 8 101 e K C i l 2 0001001103 )19818 0000501100 33V•5 000150/103 x9818 000MNO= x9118 12222 I 1 2 150307 MOM 111 122222122 2 2 22112/11 of i YL8fla WNW 1 SINTW vd8V30143111 SrrlrldOd 58908 581538 i 001 5 1110?51555 H11 iiiiiiiiiii i 1111111111 111111111 i 1 YI YI N N YI N N VI M 116 016 CIS ZLS SLS 1LS LIS 9LS r 9LS OZS 61S US lZS *ZS LEE 9ZS SZS 9ZS LES N Ill 5 N �lnf 5 1lf a Yf f I N 005 f0S off 5 R R E N ZSS tSS R A N 5 N 5 M VI N g R i N 5 R N R 115 OLS fLE US NO11af1211SN0a 2JOd ION - (dflfl) II1%13d 3Sf1 a3IHISSV13Nfl a N W N W � LLI o f 2 z U 2 W 0 8 N w 2 c ilkg Qa^ � o NP "L cn W L N n 9 I 0 0 a 0 Y U g oc 5 N — 2 0 6 +W'aPWaWS w.owea — r6dnn\enn\aa 3\ID waw Dao opoa \) a ald uoisuccIrj TREE REMOVAL SCHEDULE 719 720 717 718 715 716 713 714 711 712 1 7°9 710 m m 1 781 782 O g O J 1 775 776 t 4 771 772 1769 770 _ 679 680 1677 678 675 676 673 674 1671 6 1670 _ 668 669 1666 667 1752 753 662 663 660 661 1748 747 74 745 1742 743_ 1 74 741 N P 651 652 g g 1649 730 731 1647 V 0 N g 643 i TREE Ign 1111 i i i i n i CORNUS NUTTAWI ACER MACROPHYLWM ALNUS RUBRA CORNUS NUTTALI 11 i MEV! i ggg 11 gg nn gg 11 POPUWS TRICFWC/RPA ACER IUICR0PHY1IIIM ALNUS RUBRA ACER WCROPHYLWM '.. iii �� ggggegeg I tHIIHHU IHI!I ANN PSJDONACIA POPUWS TRICHOCARPA ALNUS RUBRA ROBINS PSI. ACACIA ALNUS RUBRA i i i ACER MACROPHrIWM ALNUS RUBRA POPULUS RBO4OCARPA ACER MACROPNYIWM PSUEUDOISUCA MEASOESII POPUWS TRICHOCARPA pi 1 11 riniiir X CIIPPRESSOCYPARE LEYLAIOXI X CUPPWESSOL1'PARIS LEYIANDII di A A X CUPPRESSOCYPARE LEYIANDO ni A A I. 1 fl RM BIGLEAF MAPLE BIGLEAF MAPLE MI BKXFAF MAPLE BLACK COTTONW0OO RED ALDER PACIFIC DOGWOOD U 'n'n MUlq _.5 1 8I(WFAF MAPLE RED ALDER 1111111111 MMW BLACK LOCUST MMq 81ACK COTTONW00O BLACK COTTONWOOD RED ALDER BIGLEAF MAPLE 11 BIGLEAF MAPLE RED ALDER BUCK LOCUST Nil 1 BIGtFAF MAPLE E1GLFAF MAPLE {�Qj X fi MCLEAF MAPLE RED ALDER 155 ql V BLACK COTTONWOOD 1i 1 1 LEYLAND CYPRESS LEYLAND CYPRESS LEYLAND CYPRESS (LEYLAND CYPRESS ii H LEYLAND CYPRESS LEDAH0 CYPRESS i 1 1 + V P N 16 14+12 b♦♦ P 14 +13 +13 +13+12+' 11 +11+8+7 7 +5+4 4 18+8 +5 7 + 4 7 5 6 + 5 O 12 4 10 8 +7 +7 8 9 + 4 10 m 13 14 5 6+5+5 13+12 12 15+14 +9+8 +6 12 6 + 4 6 10 5 +5 5+5 +4 15+14 13+13 +12 14+13 12 28 28 +24 25+19 +18 +10 10 11 +11 +10 12 19 N♦ P V♦ 5 +5 P 5 + 4 13 8 +4 12 10 + 10 DIAMETER AT STANDARD HEIGHT 11 FAIR DEAD 11E111E1 El POOR FAIR IE E1111111 111E FAIR FAIR EEE11111111111111E1 11111 FAIR GOOD lEElEgll FAIR EE GOOD FAIR IEME GOOD 111111E1111 11 POOR FAIR 110 1110 1111111111111111111111 111111 FAIR 1 FAIR POOR 11 V 0 + m 10 N ♦ ♦♦ P N 5 12 V P P N♦ V P 12 P U V D 11 P p V N P P 9 10 12 ♦ V V p P 4 10 15 12 N 4 15 V N 12 N U N V P P V P b N N m ♦ P U1 l it tii i I� b N �9 I SIUNP SPROUT, DECAY AT BASE M' COVERED WEST OF 676 IVY COVERED TAG ON DETACHED BRANCH IVY COVERED WEST OF 651 WEST OF 652 WEST OF 648 -- — - - - WEST OF 650 EAST OF 661 IN DENSE BLACK BERT' I WET AREA BASAL WOUND TAG ON LAMB TO WEST TAD ON LIMB TO WEST ON SLOPE WEST EDGE INTERNAL DECAY, BUFFER WEST EDGE WEST EDGE WEST EDGE WEST EDGE WEST EDGE WEST ECGE 11 p ii gm POOR CARE. INCLUDED WIRES FROM STAKPLC. BURIED FLARE POOR CARE, INCLINED WIRES FROM STAKdG. BURIED FLARE Igii mr Ai 1 1 NOTES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O Hi N N ++ U N U + ♦ ♦♦ U O N P N N N+ U N Q m N m g O P+ N P P 12 1 -� -� + N - N N N N N + O + g g 4 N 1790 791 1 789 1787 788 g N m m 1 781 782 O g O J 1 775 776 t 4 771 772 1769 770 _ 1767 768 P P 1764 1762 163 1760 761 g N 756 757 g N 1752 753 750 751 1 718 749 1748 747 74 745 1742 743_ 1 74 741 N P 1736 737 g g U N 730 731 g O V 0 N g 4 1721 in I1REE i gg i ALNUS RUBRA ACER MACROPHYWAI ACER YACROPHYLLUM POPULUS IRICHOCARPA g 1 gg i =_ ggggg lama MICRORODUM ANUS RUBRA ggg gg POPUWS TRICHOCARPA ACER MACROPHYWIM gg 11 POPULUS 1R1CHOCRRPA POPUWS TRICHOCARPA PRUNUS EMARGINATU PRUNUS EMARGINATTA g i ggggegeg I tHIIHHU IHI!I a gglet !VII Imams MDEDE50 ACER YACROPEIri1I1M gggg 111111111111 ggIggggiiggiligg el 1 1 A BIGLEAF MAPLE BIGLEAF MAPLE RED ALDER WIDE MAPLE BKXFAF MAPLE BLACK COTTONW0OO i 11111111 UUU U 1 8I(WFAF MAPLE RED ALDER 1111111111 MMW 81ACK COTTONW00O BLACK COTTONWOOD 1 BiTTER CHERRY BM CHERRY BIGLEAF MAPLE MMMMMAAAWATMM 11111!1111 e 1 BIGLEAF WAS U q I COMMON NAME 11 +4 7 N ♦ 1 13 23 57 Ga m♦ J♦ O m P m P 10 b N to N 8 24 N J 12 +8+8+8 +7 +7 +61 +6 1 4 22 +17 m i In to N N P N♦ P m♦ 25+19 +18 +10 10 ♦♦ o b N♦ P u, V♦ 11 10 b P UI Y. P w 6 21 V N t N 30+25+12 +10 24+17 +16+1219+ 7 10 f� Q h _ r El POOR FAIR IE 1 FAR 111E FAIR FAIR EEE11111111111111E1 1E FAIR GOOD FAIR FAIR FAIR I FAIR 11 POOR FAIR 110 1110 1111111111111111111111 11 ♦ V ♦ ♦♦ U b ca b J♦ P U U N b J V V P J J W 0♦ N I� m+ P 15 V ♦ ♦ ♦♦ U+ U P♦♦ m N N U V P 10 ♦ U m M 10 b P In N P+ ♦ P U1 N N I� b N �9 I SIUNP SPROUT, DECAY AT BASE I El INTERNAL DECAY, BUFFER OFF BALANCE U INTERNIL HOLLOW, MATURE. W9.OUFE USE EDGE BUFFER 1 000000 O O O O + + + O O N O O + + + O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000000r + “.+ 0 0 + + + N N N + O + + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O a 0 1 button Nov 2007 — 1: — R \ Seattle \ 139-20 co 9 O u N m 9 �p rn f n pp U' UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT (UUP) - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION N ♦ 4 N 960 96t El 956 1957 U♦ 1952 1953 950 951 _ L4 9 49 !46 947 944 945 L 1941 942 1939 940 938 935 936 J' 4 1931 932 EE 1927 92 1925 926 1923 924 1921 922 1919 920 917 918 _ J 1915 916 913 914 1911 912 Ell V 01 11 ♦ 902 903 RE ERIE ER m ES TREE gggggg 111111 1 ACER MACROPHYLWM SAUX SODUIERUNA ACER MACROPHYLWAI ACERMACROPHYl111R1 ARBUTUS MENZIF59 ACFR mammal 1 ALNUS RUBRA ALMS RUBRA iigggigg "HIT SAUX SCOUIERIANA gggigg HMI ACER WLROPHYLIUM POPULLIS 1R010CARPA gggggl 111111 gggg HD SAUX SCOULERUNA ACER MACROPHYLLUM ggg 111 ARBUTUS MENZIES! ACER MACROPHYLLUM gg Hinhi ggglill gg ii NNUS RUBRA PSUEWOISUGA MFHIDESO ligi i g 1 ILNUS RUDD, F POPUIUS TRICEGOCARPA ging 11111 1 A haw MAPLE SCOULERS WU10W ' RED ALDER RED ALDER RED ALDER RED ALDER RED ALDER SCOULERS WILLOW 1 RED ALDER BIGLFAF MAPLE I BLACK COTTONWOOD RED ALDER DOUGLAS -F1R RED ALDER BI L&F MAPLE BXXEAF MAPLE BIGLEAF MAPLE RED ALDER BLACK COTTONWOOD 1 8 +7 a 01 11 10 10 a O1 a U U O1 V a 10 12 13 10 N a 13 12 4 01 V 16 28 6 +4 12 V! 4+4 10 a N 6 +5+4 9 5+4+4 14 10+6 10+9 5 +5 +4 9 +4 4 4+6 6 +5 445 10+10 5+4+4 6 +7 4+4 10 U 13 12 +11 +7 B 12 O1 V 10 13 U U U! U 7 21 01 a DIAMETER AT STANDARD HEIGHT i O O FAIR FAIR A A A 8 l OA g A l O g E POOR O l POOR FAIR O i O i FAIR GOOD C FAIR FAIR O O O FAIR FAIR I FAIR FAIR GOOD FAIR O i' Milli 1111 O O . 9 POOR FAIR g v O O O O l O 10 12 12 12 18 NO TAG, LOCATE ON SURVEY NO TAG. LOCATE ON SURVEY NO TAG. LOCATE ON SURVEY NO TAG. LOCATE ON SURVEY WOUND AT BASE NO TAG. LOCATE ON SURVEY DISEASED DECUNING WOUND AT BASE WOUND AT BASE 111 ORANGE FLAG TO FAST ON BLACK BERRY N 8 WOUND AT BASE NO TAG, LOCATE ON SURVEY A3AB115 NO 31Y301 '0V1 ON A3ABns NO 31 'DV1 ON SE PROP BH Y, FLAG AT BASE NO TAG, LOCATE ON SURVEY NE #927 S / 924 1 SLOW GROW TWO STEMS CLUSTER MULTIPLE STEM l'i 0300ADNANT STEM DECAY, CODOMNANT STOW 1 MULTIPLE STEM NOT ON SLOPE, DO NOT COUNT i S / 903. ORANGE FLAG TO SW `859 - ORANGE FLAG TO HE m N N+ N N N N + ++ N+ O+ O+ O N O! N a + N N N O ++ a! N N ++ N N+ N N 4! 4 4+ N !+ 4 N N! N N 4 N N + U! N + + +! N ++ O O ++ 01 + O + Istrtton Na TO P7 — 1:41om — It\Seattle\11-00839-20000 Bow lake IRS Expansion Piv a and k s Z a 0 <'Dw 0 0 Y/ T �• C W 342 co a I p c • s :. N E 7 N 1 A a 5 i U 6 01 A 3 a CD Fj CD 1 A O I i 01 5 i 6 01 A a 1 V • 2 r. 8 O • 5 1 a3 O a N b a 1 • i 1 • 1 1 8 1 8 a a O 1<I 1 6 1 6 1 O 1 1 O g I CO CO 1 1 O CD a N 1 Of • CO • A U O 9 A CD b 01 1 O 1 4 Q 4 ij • • Q A CO 1 a A A a co a A O b a Of V 1 a i • 1 T 5 2 b V 1 O L CO • 5 • cn cn • • • al c° co UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT (UUP) - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION UUP9.8 I 1 35, 352 1349 350 1342 343 1 332 333 1328 329 1326 327 1324 325 1 322 323 3320 321 1318 319 316 317 314 315 312 313 310 311 980 981 982 E 974 '975 1 976 1 97 970 971 972 973 968 �aA9 1 966 997 ACER AUCROPHYLLUM ANUS RUBRA POPULUS 1OcHOCARPA F ACER MASGTPHYLLUM AMR MACROPNYl1UM PRUNUS EMARGINATTA A1NUS RUBRA -.. I POPUUIS T93CHOCARPA ALNUS RUBRA AIRUS RUBRA POPUUJS TRICHOCARPA 1 POPULUS TPoOIOCARPA POPUUJS TRCHOCARPA POPULUS TRCHOCARPA POPULUS TRCHOCARPA ALMA RUBRA ANUS RUBRA ALMS RUBRA POPULUS TPoCHOCARPA ACER IIACROPHYLWM IPLUS SP. ACER MACROPHrilUM POPUUJS TRCHOCARPA SGENRFIC NAME gg 1 WILLOW RED ALDER MG LEAF UARE BC LEAF MARE ; BC LEAF MAPLE BC LEAF MAPLE lggg ill! 5"55gg65555 0 1 BLACK POPLAR BLACK POPLAR g5ggEgggggg 515 ;;;;;;;;;;; RED ALDER RED ALDER BIG LEAF MAPLE BIG LEAF MAPLE BIG LEAF MAPLE RE r0 T ; ; MM ;; BLACK POPLAR BLACK WALNUT BIG LEAF MAPLE 1111111 U IMO 11111 UMM BAR IS ONE INCH ON ANSI D DRAWING 0 1' D 17 11 24 +20 r9 12 11 +9 13 14 7 +4 +10 10 113+11 5 6 12 11 +5 18 12 6 +9 21 +10 20 9 8+9 +4 8 +6 +6 +5 +5 9 10 12 5 13 11 +6 +9 12 14 12 25 +4 +5 19+7 .. 4 15+12+4 i7 12 12 17 26 26 22 +24 +10 12 +10 12 +11 12 8 +7 13 4+4 7 13 12 +11 12 +7 +6 _ I a DIAMETER AT STANDARD HEIGHT 1111111 1111E1 GOOD FAIR IE 1 GOOD G000 1 1 !!!!! CsCs GOOD DEAD GOOD POOR I ,FAIR FAIR FAIR �I FAIR POOR GOOD FAIR P ' DATE 11 10 11 10 8 11 0 8 0 6 N 0 0 0♦ 4 V O 0 V 13 J N 17 6 0 0 0 D V V O+ 0 N 353, NO TAG E 332, NO TAG SNAG IN 345, NO TAG, CO IOWOHNrr SW TREE 314, NO TAG W TREE 310, NO TAG V T _ i COOOLINAIR STEM, INCLUDED BARK ORANGE FLAG. 95S DEAD MAJOR WOUND, DISEASE MULTIPLE STEM H 1 S UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT REVISION DESCRIPTION + N N a N+ O lw lw N a O O a 0+ 0 0 0 O O O O O T m U 0 0 O a 0 N N a N a+ N In N a V m— N+ O+ V+ N a a N a a,, 14 — + a N a IV a s ♦♦ a a+ N + ++ 597 1593 594 1 699 700 695 696 693 694 691 692 396 397 378 37 374 375 370 371 TREE - - !VIII POPULUS TRCHOCARPA ACER MACROPHtt1UM ACER MACROPHYLLUM 1 . 1 ALNUS RUBRA _. ANUS RUBRA 1111 L ACER MACROPHft1UM ANUS RUBRA I ACD2 YMROPHYLLUM ANUS RUBRA ! AMR MACROPHYLWM AGES MACROPIIYIIUM I ALNUS RUBRA ANUS RUBRA ANUS RUBRA ANUS RUBRA ANUS RUBRA ACER MACROPMILUM ANUS RUBRA ACER MAGROPHYWJM ACER MACROPHYLLUM ANUS RUBRA NAILS RUBRA ANUS RUBRA Mill ANUS RUBRA ANUS RUBRA ALMS RUBRA AJ9JS RUBRA ANUS RUBRA ACER MACROPIIYTLUM ANUS RUBRA ANUS RUBRA _ AGED MACROPHYllUM ANUS RUBRA ACER MACROPHYLLUM ACER MACROPIMWM ANUS RUBRA A AUS RUBRA ANUS RUBRA ANUS RUBRA 1111 POPULUS TRCHOCARPA POPULUS TRCHOCARPA POPULUS TRCHOCARPA ALMA RUBRA ANUS RUBRA ACER MACROPHYLLUM POPULUS TRCHOCARPA POPLRUS TRCHOCARPA 11 ACER MACROPHffUM ACER MACROPHYLLUM &NUS RUBRA ARBUTUS MENZIESI ANUS RUBRA ACER MACRO NGLUU ANUS RUBRA Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division 1BIG LEAF MAPLE I BIG LEAF MAPLE BIG LEAF MAPLE _. -. I BIG LEAF MAPLE BIG LEAF MAPLE BIG LEAF MAPLE BLACK POPLAR BIG LEAF MAPLE BIG LEAF MAPLE BIG LEAF MAPLE RED ALDER RED ALDER I BC LEAF MAPLE BC LEAF MAPLE U 1 813 LEAF MAPLE RED ALDER 1 191G LEAF MAPLE RED ALDER SIC LEAF MAPLE BC LEAF MAPLE F RED ALDER RED ALDER 51 RED ALDER BIG LEAF MAPLE RED ALDER BC LEAF MAPLE BIG LEAF MAPLE RED ALDER RED ALDER RED ALDER BC LEAF MAPLE BIG LEAF MAPLE BIG LEAF MAPLE en LEAF MAPLE N BC LEAF MAPLE BIG LEAF MAPLE RED ALDER RED ALDER F RED ALDER RED ALDER RED ALDER BC LEAF MAPLE RED ALDER BC LEAF MAPLE RED ALDER RED ALDER RED ALDER RED ALDER BIG LEAF MAPLE RED ALDER BC LEAF MANE 8C LEAF MAPLE On LEA- MAPLE BC LEAF MAPLE R ED ALDER RED ALDER RED OLDER RED ALDER BC LEAF MAPLE BC LEAF MAPLE BC LEAF MAPLE BE LEAF MARE 11 RED ALDER RED ALDER BIG LEAF MAPLE BLACK POPLAR BUCK POPLAR BIG LEAF MAPLE RED ALDER BIG LEAF MAPLE 8C LEAF MAPLE 5g 1 RED ALDER COMMON C 9 15 20+8 16 +17 +13+8 +10 23 19 +16+15 4 16 5 10+9 +6 ++4 a s 4 18 A a V 0 N U a V 10 +9 10 8 16 O] O, Ol a 7 +5 +5 9 10 14 U O) V m m O O1 N V OC N N a U U b b 14 +11 +12 II 13 9 9 18 6 6 8 11 17 8 10 N CO O. OI DW4lER ATAT STANDARD HDGHI FAIR GOOD 1111 O 1111111111111M FAIR GOOD FAIR GOOD G E v v O v E O O 1 1 FAIR I POOR 1 O E FAIR FAIR FAIR POOR E E E O O O FAIR GOOD g 1 1 1 O O E G E FAIR FAIR GOOD O E O §1111111I OONORIDN II Y1 V N N 8 15 20 N U 6 12 N V 0 12 a a a m 4 10 P U U Cs 0 Ui a Cs N W a OC b O, CO N N a O, T (0 a G Cn V a T O1 a N U U U V lr U Cs a 0 0 0 0 V m a .O a V u N p O M O V 4 N a, a a, 1 ESAAdoI 5309 Sh SeE P: F: I TOTAL TREES rn 0 n >24 12 -18 1 8. -12- 4 - • I TREE sal l 427 176 74 TO BE REMOVED D&NT VALUES DERIVED FROM SEC 0 a N + A 1160 E g 261 I RERACEIENT NUMBER 1 I 1 TO BE REMOVED BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILITY TREE REMOVAL SCHEDULE SHEET 4 cp C fn O I Tat /.D °® SAT. OF: 13 MIE1CT MAIM 1 1- 00839 -2000 UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT (UUP) - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PLAN SITE PLAN SCALE: 1 = 30' AA vdr MATCH LINE DWG UUP10.3 GENERAL NOTES 1 1RFF RFPI ACFMFNT ARFAS ON —SITE AREA: 280,660 s.f. = 450 TREES (per 18.54.130.3.o) 2. TREE REPLACEMENT CALCULATION TREE REPLACEMENT REQUIRED: 1,160 TREES TREE REPLACEMENT PROVIDED: 450 TREES TREES REQUIRED, NOT PROVIDED: 710 TREES 3. PROPOSED PERMIT EXCEPTIONS a) Smaller —sized replacement trees (1 gal. plants). b) Trees planted at greater density (140 trees per acre, or approx. 12' o.c.). c) Off —site tree replacement or fee —in —lieu for remianing required trees. TREE REPLACEMENT LEGEND 0 I r v, V7 V7 TREE REPLACEMENT AREA — ON—SITE OPEN DOUGLAS FIR — 80% BIG —LEAF MAPLE — 20% TREE REPLACEMENT AREA — ON—SITE UNDERPLANTING DOUGLAS FIR — 40% W. RED CEDAR — 40% BIG —LEAF MAPLE — 20% KEY MAP „� REC NOV 0 5 2007 30 60 1'= 30' -0' Scale HT Feet UUP 10.1 DESIGNED BKS DRAWN BKS VERIFY SCALE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ANSI b' DRAWING 0a 1• REV DATE CHKO APP'° UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT REVISION DESCRIPTION La King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division r ESAAdolfson 5309 Shllshole Ave. NW Seattle, WA 98107 P: (206) 789 -9658 F: (206) 789 -9684 BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACIUTY TREE REPLACEMENT PLAN SHEET 1 PROJECT IIIMBER: 11- 00839 -2000 S4T. Cf: DOMING NU1®ER: 13 8 5 0 z UUP 10.2 VERIFY SCALE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ANSI - D" DRAWING 0 1* REV DATE CHO) APP UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT REVISION DESCRIPTION PLAN CONSTRUCTION LIMITS SITE PLAN SCALE: 1 = 30' 'PROPERTY BOUNDARY - Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division Seattle, WA 98107 P: (206) 789-9658 F: (206) 789-9684 • CONSTRUCTION I- • . TREE REPLACEMENT LEGEND 0 0 0 I V V 0 V7 V7 1 BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILITY TREE REPLACEMENT PLAN SHEET 2 TREE REPLACEMENT AREA — OPEN DOUGLAS FIR — 80% BIG—LEAF MAPLE — 20% TREE REPLACEMENT AREA — FORESTED UNDERPLAN TIN C DOUGLAS FIR — 40% W. RED CEDAR — 40% BIG—LEAF MAPLE — 20% REIMIV,3` : NOV 0 21071 COMMUNITY 30 DEVELOPMENT Scale PROJECT 1411103Ot 11-00839-2000 MOOING NUMBER: Feet 60 13 teptterThwalte Nov 02. 2007 — 12:20pm — R: \Seattle \11 -00839 -20000 Bow Lake IRS Expansion Protect \Data and Analytical \CADD \UUP \UUP10 TREEREPLACEMENT,dwa C C Zia m p 0 U) Z R w o m 0 — f/» aO ) C. C <. - 0 co a ca 0 2%4C H � Get V) m Col N 7 5 8 A;p:d: AAA . p p - p.d.. A A - L 0 . 0 p o;�00 0;As,2Aao 4 0.`p ,.A p'p :� p- p ..A. p'p • A' 4:414 p;.p 1 /4 , CS ' p: 4` p p • pp p 4,4',:A /4G1 ;p• p A /4' AAAA - - oa , .OA A 4-4 p p;,�p . 0p`p`. p`',A b 0 0 0 A A yw�4 4 p ''p0, LS 4 ' ._ -A.4 Q p 4i,„ tra %j V r„ I! - i : of. 3 J a a a. MATCH LINE DWG UUP10.2 )O 0 ) O ao o m aO c D Dv N > Am � IZ I 0 et xi 0 D 0 O z mt0 Pl 0 m N 2m5 r r D tA z m Z m A O 0 2 O UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT (UUP) - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION „ MATCH LINE DWG UUPIO.3 • • • ' `‘•\‘ ” „' •:•7'.."77 \ \‘' \"•' _ _ . _ • , • _ . • ct / • •-•-• , • • \`„'•; ' • / - "; • -----,' • • - , • '7" : • - - • PLAN SITE PLAN SCALE: 1" = 30' RECEIVED t4o4 0 5 20(11. COMMUN oeveLoPteatg GENERAL NOTES 1. NO TREES WILL BE PLANTED WITHIN 30' PERMANENT SEWER UNE EASEMENT TREE REPLACEMENT LEGEND TREE REPLACEMENT AREA — OFF—SITE SEWER EASEMENT DOUGLAS FIR — 80% BIG—LEAF MAPLE — 20% 30 1"--30'-0" Scale KEY MAP 'LN381..t 0 30 60 Feet UUP 10.4 DESIGNED BKS DRAWN BKS VERIFY SCALE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ANSI "D" DRAWING UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT La King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks r ESA Adolf son 5309 Shilshole Ave. NW Seattle, WA 98107 P: (206) 789-9658 F: (206) 789-9684 BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILITY TREE REPLACEMENT PLAN SHEET 4 PROJECT NUMBER 1 1-00839 -2000 SHT. OF. 13 DRAWING NUMBER 1 • RFV MVP' CHIC% APP REVISION DESCRIPTION Solid Waste Division z 4 t 1 8 1 6 5 18 S co PERSONNEL GAT€ \ \ FUfA TURE IUTY `. PROCESSING N \• \ ` 3 EXISTING TRANSFER BUILDING NOV 0 5 2007 COMMUNITY 1"=60 D. DEVELOPMENT let4t `w, `► STREAM G \ \ • \ - PLAN SENSITIVE AREAS SCALE: 1' = 60' 80 PROPERTY UNE "., '3J 24 CONSTRUCT10N / +e - -- uMRS_TYP FAO PROPERTY TYP } � / r e` % —= / — / % / - -\ \. . e,\ \ \ \ \ ,.\ ,, ~ \ \ -- MATCH LINE DWG UUP11 ��I GENERAL NOTES 1. PER FEMA'S FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAPS (F1RM) = 53033C0967F (MAY 16. 1995) AND 53033C0959F (MAY 16, - 1995), THE PROJECT SITE IS IN A ZONE X AREA WHICH 6 CONSIDERED MODERATE TO LOW .RISK FOR FLOODING. 2. BUFFER OFFSETS ARE FROM SURVEYED WETLAND AND STREAM. .ORDINARY .HIGH WATER MARKS -WHERE APPLICABLE... . BUFFERS SHOWN AN 01)-TER LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE;. SEE NOTE 2 60 Scale 0 \1''1 , • \ \v r ss\' :fir' \ ' \ !�n 60 120 Feet • UUP11.1 DESIGNED DRAWN VERIFY SCALE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ANSI 'D DRAWING 0� REV DATE OCT 07 A UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT CH APP'D REVISION DESCRIPTION La King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division �irfl R.W. Bede, Inc. 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2500 Seattle, WA 98154-1004 (206) 695-4700 BOW LAKE PROCESSING /TRANSFER FACILITY SENSITIVE AREAS PLAN SHEET 1 vao = NUMBER: 11- 00839 -2000 OF: DRAWING NUMBEIC Z 0 z 0 0 O LL 0 1— Z 0 w 0_ w 0 w LL C/3 Z BUFFER REQUIREMENTS DESCRIPTION WETLAND CATEGORY BUFFER (FT) WETLAND A TYPE 2 80 WETLAND B TYPE 3 50 WATERWARD OF OHWM - 80 IN STREAM El, E2, C WATERWARD OF OHWM - 100 IN STREAM E r 1 4C \\ J I I UNITS, TYP 0 >>G � 1L--- - 140 0 OPERTY UNE.° , \ Ao o � —`\ �t —•20 -� PR \ 110 MOD ,. \ —1 WETLAND \� ` y L 8O • 1 G / / �, \N \\ \ ` \\ •• T T CONSTRUCTION 90-- .� \ \ j, yam • • EXISTING SOUTHCENTER PKW \ • \ \ \\ GOLF FACILITY '• \, \ \ \ -- PARKING LOT \, \'\(APPROXIMATE LOCATION) •\ \ \ ` •'\ . \ \ \ • ' \' \ . \ ` \ .�� SEE NOTE/2 PLAN MATCH LINE DWG UUP11.1 SENSITIVE AREAS SCALE: 1' = 50' 9 ) 7:-) o _� 0 i / / \'— / f / \\ / ____ , • z ---. N \ \:N \-- -j-- -/ N \ C k DRMNG RANGE c 2. BUFFER 01 - I - W, ARE FROM SURVEYED WETLAND AND ,�� 9 STREAM ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARKS WHERE APPUCABLE BUrrtft, SHOWN IN OTHER LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE RECEIVED NOV 0 5 2007 GENERAL NOTES 1. PER FEMA'S FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAPS (FIRM) 53033C0967F (MAY 16, 1995) AND 5303300959F (MAY 16, 1995), THE PROJECT SITE IS IN A ZONE X AREA WHICH IS CONSIDERED MODERATE TO LOW RISK FOR FLOODING. COMMUNITY 50 DEVELOPMENT 1'= 50' -0' 0 50 100 Scale Feet UUP1 1.2 COSIGNED DRAWN VERIFY SCALE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ANSI 'D' DRAWING 0� A REV OCT 07 DATE CHICD APP'D UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT REVISION DESCRIPTION La King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division R.W. Beck, Inc. 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2500 Seattle, WA 98154-1004 (206) 695 -4700 BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILITY SENSITIVE AREAS PLAN SHEET 2 PROJECT NUY®FJC 11 9R. OF: wwmc NUMBER A 1 I O I— z O U 0 1--- 0 3- I— w a w w_ LEGEND RECEIVED NOV 0 5 2007 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT CALULATIONS TYPE OF IMPACT SQ FT TEMPORARY WETLAND 948 PERMANENT WETLAND 110 TEMPORARY STREAM 280 TEMPORARY 12,208 WETLAND AND STREAM BUFFER Permanent Wetland Impacts Temporary Wetland Impacts Temporary Stream Impacts Temporary Wetland and Stream Buffer Impacts UUP12.1 9KS ORMIN BKS vERiu srL E IVOGN 0� 1• 9KS 11/1/07 DATE DOM 3aE4 USE PERMIT REVLON DESCRIPTION La King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division r ESAAdolfson 5309 Shilshole Ave. NW Seattle, WA 98107 P: (206) 789 -9658 F: (206) 789 -9684 80 LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FAWN CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN SHEET 1 MELT OMER 1I — OO1339 - 2000 OIL OR ORURo Null MO PROI?OSE 11111F1 PERMANENT :3U';FASEMEi±lTT / / /1��.. 50' i ?L¢ P B I N GE ' IPE': H BASIN (50'!. )PiNU.O EN � > + emu ; � � CHANNEL lat 6 ;SF) J •EMPOR m 5 0 ' SaMENT II IT OF CO CTli / / refisS tUcVI S PLANTING SCHEDULE SCIENTIFIC NAME Trees: Acer macrophyilum Fraxinus latifo is Pseudotsuga menziesii Salix lasiandra Salix sitchensis Thuja plicate Shrubs: Acer circinotum Cornus stolonifera Corylus cornuta Holodiscus discolor Lonicera involucrata Physocarpus capitatus Rosa nutkana Rubus spectobilis Sambucus racemosa Symphoricarpos olbus Habitat features: Large Woody Debris Brushpile Y'6) PIN Feet COMMON NAME QUANTITY SIZE SPACING Big Leaf Maple Oregon Ash Douglas Fir Pacific Willow Sitka Willow Western Red Cedar Vine Maple Red —osier Dogwood Hazelnut Ocean Spray Black Twinberry Pacific Ninebark Nootka Rose Salmonberry Red Elderberry Common Snowberry 5 1 gal. 9' O.C. 5 1 gal. 9, O.C. 3 1 gal. 9 O.C. 50 live cutting 6" O.C. 50 live cutting 6" O.C. 11 1 gal. 9' O.C. 25 1 gal. 9' O.C. 20 1 gal. 4' O.C. 25 1 gal. 4' O.C. 25 1 gal. 4' O.C. 15 1 gal. 4' O.C. 10 1 gal. 4' O.C. 30 1 gal. 4' O.C. 15 1 gal. 4' O.C. 12 1 gal. 4' O.C. 30 1 gal. 4' 0.C. w/ rootwad 3 40'x 18" min. as shown (see Brushpile Detail) 2 10'x 10'x 8'min. as shown MITIGATION AREAS WETLAND ENHANCEMENT 948 BUFFER RESTORATION LEGEND " Large Woody Debris TYPE SQ FT Habitat Brushpile RECEIVED NOV 0 51001 COMMUNt1Y DEVELOPMENT 12,208 Wetland Enhancement Wetland Restoration Buffer Restoration UUP12.2 lwa aE ORD BKS MWM BKS vEBE s A= 541E D IS DG H ON 0 1" REV BKS 11/1/07 DATE a+MO APPV UNCLASSIFIED USE MOST RMSION DEAN la King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division r ESAAdolfson J 5309 Shilshole Ave. NW Seattle, WA 98107 P: (206) 789 -9658 F: (206) 789 -9684 BOW LAKE PROCESSING/IRMSFER F11CLITY CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN SHEET 2 RIDER RIINERs 11.00839 -2000 NG OR a11M�o 11101rOb C F- L F— u C- a u C n F- n u a C u Li (J (J C SMI PLANT LIVE, DORMANT STAKES BETWEEN 0.5 AND 1 INCH IN DIAMETER SCARIFY ROOTBALL AND SPREAD ROOTS EROSION CONTROL BLANKET, SLIT FOR PLANT INSTALLATION CONSTRUCT 3" WATERING BASIN* 1.5 X ROOTB ALL DEPTH *NOTE: ON SLOPES, CONSTRUCT WATERING BASIN ON DOENHILL SIDE OF PLANTING HOLE ONLY. SCARIFY ROOTBALL AND SPREAD ROOTS 1.5 X ROOTBALL DEPTH . 11:: -11 .11.- 11- 11- 11 .11 -11 ;If- 11:- I1 =-11 11 .lI '11=11= ;11 11.= 1 =11 =11= 11 =11 -11 1 =11- 11 =II =11 =11= =11 =1 -11 =11 :11 =11= 11 =11 -11 -11 :11 =11 11- 11 -11: 11 =11: 11 =11 1 =11 =11 =11 = =11 = 1 =11 =11 =11 =11 =11= =11 =1 =11 =11 :11 =11 =11 =11 =11 =II ;11= 11 =11 =11: =.11: =1 III :11. =11 � _1 . 11.- 11- 11.- 11.- _. -11. -1 4" LAYER OF MULCH F n C. SPACING s n C SPACING (TYPICAL) l (TYPICAL) LIVE STAKE DETAIL NOT TO SCALE I_ 2X a ROOTBALL DIAMETER SECTION TREE/SHRUB SLOPE PLANTING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE ROOTBALL DIAMETER SECTION TREE/SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE FINISH GRADE SQUARE CUT MINIMUM OF 2 BUDS EXPOSED MAKE PILOT HOLES IN EXISTING SOIL WITH REBAR. TAMP SOIL AROUND LIVE STAKES. ANGLE CUT AT 45 DEGREES 4" LAYER OF BARK MULCH IN 30" CIRCLE AROUND TREES & SHRUBS FINISH GRADE BACKFILL TO BE 2/3 SOIL EXCAVATED FROM PLANTING PIT AND 1/3 CEDAR GROVE COMPOST OR EQUAL SCARIFY EDGES OF PLANTING HOLE TO ALLOW FOR ROOT PENETRATION COMPACT SOIL UNDER ROOTBALL 3" LAYER OF MULCH IN 30" CIRCLE AROUND TREES & SHRUBS- KEEP MULCH AWAY FROM STEMS CONSTRUCT 3" WATERING BASIN BACKFILL WITH NATIVE TOPSOIL SCARIFY EDGES OF PLANTING HOLE TO ALLOW FOR ROOT PENETRATION COMPACT SOIL UNDER ROOTBALL BRUSH TOP 2'- 4' HIGH LOG BASE 4' HEIG CEDAR OR FIR LOG 36" CEDAR 2x4, TYP. 45' ANGLE CUT, TYP. GRADE GENERAL NOTES BRUSH SHOULD BE DENSE AND INTEGRATED INTO BASE CONSTRUCTION FOR MAXIMUM STABILITY AND COVERAGE Z %/ / / / /Ai // / /i %/.arA \ ■\ YT:Y Z hZLZ %I' I -" I- 11= II- II= V=II=II= 1I= II-�I-�I-�I -II -II=I it �I- �I -II =u= it =n =n- n l a =u- n= n- n -n -n= a =u- n- iln -n 10' MIN BRUSH PILE BASE- SECTION VIEW NOT TO SCALE 1. BASE LOGS AND BRUSH SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH DOWNED MATERIALS OR BY- PRODUCTS OF FOREST CLEARING, THINNING OR LOGGING 2. USE CEDAR, OAK AND OTHER ROT RESISTANT HARDWOODS FOR BASE LOGS 3. USE HARDWOOD BRUSH FOR TOP OF PILE WHEN PRACTICABLE 4. FINAL BRUSH PILE SHALL BE MIN 10' WIDE AND 6' -8' TALL BRUSH PILE NOT TO SCALE 6" MIN DIAMETER BASE LOGS STACKED LOG CABIN STYLE 6 "- 10" APART SECTION WILDLIFE LOG NOT TO SCALE , tl!I ■ III 1111 iIa Nam in I on I II U 11i 1111 l: ii E IIIII1II ■II' ■IIII VIII. IN.6�I. I. III III111 ii. Il niln nll I I I 1 111 ■ 1111.11111111111119 W1.111E111= 01 lHi II 11111 ,1111111111111'111111111114 I III " -10" . 11111 :1111111111111 f uillibIll BRUSH PILE BASE- PLAN VIEW NOT TO SCALE 5. BASE LOGS SHALL BE 6" MIN DIAMETER AND MIN 4' LONG 6. BASE SHALL BE MIN 4' HIGH 7. BRUSH TOP SHALL BE MIN 2' HIGH 8. SPACE PILES 100 -150 FT APART OR 4 -8 PER ACRE 9. LOCATE NO MORE THAN 10' FROM WOODLAND EDGE 10. BRUSH PILES SHALL NOT BE LOCATED WITHIN 100' OF STRUCTURES 11. NEW BRUSH SHOULD BE ADDED TO PILE ANNUALLY TO MAINTAIN HEIGHT AND INTEGRITY OF STRUCTURE MIN " STEEL NAIL, TYP. (NOT GALVANIZED) 10' -20' DIAMETER BRUSH TOP 12" MIN. RECEIVED NOV 0 5 2007 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT UUP12.3 MOOED BKS ORION BKS INCH ON N 6�E DRAWING 0 1" REV APPTI UPICLASSwIEO USE PERMIT REVISION DESCRIPTION ill King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division r ESAAdolfson 5309 Shilshole Ave. NW Seattle, WA 98107 P: (206) 789-9658 F: (206) 789 -9684 BON L4JE PRDCESSIWTRM6FFR FACLnY CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN SHEET 3 MASA NORM 11 - 2000 011•11 MOM TVS HEIGHT ALLOWED: 115' NOW I— N LOWEST BUILDING GROUND PLANE 42" PARAPET SOUTH ELEVATION TRANSFER BUILDING SCALE: 1/16" =1' - EAST ELEVATION TRANSFER BUILDING SCALE: 1/16 =1' -0 TRANSFER BUILDING ROOFTOP FANS SLOPE 2:12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 1/15 =1' -0" 5 0 10 20 30 40 Scale Feet TSO Wall Panel, Type 1 TS Wall Panel, Type 2 TS & TSO Wall Panel, Type 3 TS Roof Panel Maintenance Building Wall Pan( Exposed Structure & Gutters Processing Wall TS Daylight Panel Water Tank Concrete BUILDING HEIGHT RECEIVED TVS HEIGHT ALLOWED: 115' PROPOSED MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT TO BE GREATER T IR 955 -b e07, BELOW TVS HEIGHT ALLOWED. D LOPMENT UUP13.1 DLSCN D G. HARRY DRAWN S. FISCHER VERIFY SCALE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ANSI 1:1" DRAWING 0 1' REV DATE CHK'D APP'D REVISION DESCRIPTION lig King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division KPQ Architecture OCT Engineering Architecture Urban Design 753 9th Avenue North SeatUe. WA 98109 (208) 288 -1840 X11 GREGORY S. HARRY R ATI Or CAMOTOI BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILITY TRANSFER/TSO BUILDING SOUTH AND EAST ELEVATIONS PROJECT NUltBEFt 11 -00839 -2000 940. OF: Nwoll DRAWING NUMIEFt Al 11 1/16' =1' -0' 5 0 10 20 30 40 Scale Feet lO TSO Wall Panel O TS Wall Panel, Type 2 O TS & TSO Wall Panel, Type 3 � TS Roof Panel O Maintenance Building Wall Panel 0 Exposed Structure & Gutters O Processing Wall O TS Daylight Panel O Water Tank 0 Concrete UUP13.2 DESIGNED G. HARRY DRAM S. FISCHER VERIFY SCALE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ANSI D DRAWING REV DATE CHN'D APP'D REVISION DESCRIPTION NORTH ELEVATION TRANSFER BUILDING SCALE: 1/16' =1' -0' WEST ELEVATION TRANSFER BUILDING SCALE 1/16' =1' -0' King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division KPG Architecture Landscape Architecture Civil Engineering Urban Design 753 9th Avenue North Seattle, WA 98109 (208) 288 -1840 � \I GREGORY S. HARRY IT ATE OP WAIRMOIOR TRANSFER BUILDING ROOFTOP FANS BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILITY TRANSFER/TSO BUILDING NORTH AND WEST ELEVATIONS RECEIVED NOV 0 5 2007. COMMUN(Ty DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NUMBER SST 11 -00839 -2000 OF ORAMNG NURSER: A112 8 10 1/16 " =1' -0" 10 20 30 40 Scale Feet 0 TSO & SH Wall Panel, Type 1 0 TS Wall Panel, Type 2 O TS, TSO & SH Wall Panel, Type 3 0 TS & SH Roof Panel O Maintenance Building Wall Panel C I Exposed Structure & Gutters O Processing Wall O TS & SH Daylight Panel O Water Tank 10 Concrete , ;!1111111 ! ll i 11111111111 •1■ ��I�IrT • II p1101i ti €, f 4 1 J� WEST WEST ■III 1111111111 !!I!flhl111111IIIItiiiiliifil JLUIII!H 'I I 12I CEIBMEIBEINgt O EAST EAST EAST BUILDING HEIGHT TVS HEIGHT ALLOWED: 115' PROPOSED MAINTENAUCE BUILDING HEIGHT PROPOSED SCALEHOUSE HEIGHT: < 25' -0" PROPOSED SCALE BOOTH HEIGHT: < 25' -0 PROPOSED SCALE BREAK AREA HEIGHT: < PROPOSED PORTAL FRAMEWORK HEIGHT: < 0 — NORTH SCALEHOUSE & BOOTH SOUTH SCALE FACILITY ELEVATIONS SCALE: 1/16" = 1' -O" WEST SOUTH EAST NORTH SCALE BREAK AREA SOUTH SCALE FACILITY ELEVATIONS SCALE: 1/16" = 1' -0" MAINTENANCE BUILDING LEVEL 1 ELEVATIONS SCALE: 1/16" = 1 -0" < 30' -0" RECEIVED 12' -V 0 5 20071 ' {r�'bMMUNtTY 2 5 D ELOPNIENT UUP13.3 OESIGNEO G. HARRY J. PALMER VERIFY SC1�LE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ANSI 'D' DRAWING 0 r REV DATE CHK'D APP REVISION DESCRIPTION King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division Architecture landscape Architecture CtvU Engineering Urban 753 9th Avenue North Seattle, WA 98109 (208) 288 -1840 X11 GREGORY S HARRY n/1 II Of sneromN BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACIUTY SOUTH SCALE HOUSE, SCALE BOOTH, SCALE BREAK AREA, & MAINTENANCE BLDG ELEVATIONS PROJECT MAIM 11- 00839 -2000 SIT. OF: ORAWING NUIOXF: A212 13J11J111 j, t< 0 - ,5Z 1 2 !kil Ii 1 _EMI D0O 0 0 ICI 8 10 1/16 " =1' -0" 10 20 30 40 Scale Feet 0 TSO & SH Wall Panel, Type 1 0 TS Wall Panel, Type 2 O TS, TSO & SH Wall Panel, Type 3 0 TS & SH Roof Panel O Maintenance Building Wall Panel C I Exposed Structure & Gutters O Processing Wall O TS & SH Daylight Panel O Water Tank 10 Concrete , ;!1111111 ! ll i 11111111111 •1■ ��I�IrT • II p1101i ti €, f 4 1 J� WEST WEST ■III 1111111111 !!I!flhl111111IIIItiiiiliifil JLUIII!H 'I I 12I CEIBMEIBEINgt O EAST EAST EAST BUILDING HEIGHT TVS HEIGHT ALLOWED: 115' PROPOSED MAINTENAUCE BUILDING HEIGHT PROPOSED SCALEHOUSE HEIGHT: < 25' -0" PROPOSED SCALE BOOTH HEIGHT: < 25' -0 PROPOSED SCALE BREAK AREA HEIGHT: < PROPOSED PORTAL FRAMEWORK HEIGHT: < 0 — NORTH SCALEHOUSE & BOOTH SOUTH SCALE FACILITY ELEVATIONS SCALE: 1/16" = 1' -O" WEST SOUTH EAST NORTH SCALE BREAK AREA SOUTH SCALE FACILITY ELEVATIONS SCALE: 1/16" = 1' -0" MAINTENANCE BUILDING LEVEL 1 ELEVATIONS SCALE: 1/16" = 1 -0" < 30' -0" RECEIVED 12' -V 0 5 20071 ' {r�'bMMUNtTY 2 5 D ELOPNIENT UUP13.3 OESIGNEO G. HARRY J. PALMER VERIFY SC1�LE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ANSI 'D' DRAWING 0 r REV DATE CHK'D APP REVISION DESCRIPTION King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division Architecture landscape Architecture CtvU Engineering Urban 753 9th Avenue North Seattle, WA 98109 (208) 288 -1840 X11 GREGORY S HARRY n/1 II Of sneromN BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACIUTY SOUTH SCALE HOUSE, SCALE BOOTH, SCALE BREAK AREA, & MAINTENANCE BLDG ELEVATIONS PROJECT MAIM 11- 00839 -2000 SIT. OF: ORAWING NUIOXF: A212 c c o o"' z = '00 2 0 0 z rr 25, O CD a o v =• A) WCD 4ali CI tl) Da H 5. 6. R. N G cu a z f 0 r 0 — ) / / o ti /i//•, ,,,/ / I / J • - -- --\ /' - . � V-]i VI "� D i // / / r / ,./// / / r / //i / (UP // 1)I / �f1'1 // / /y , 1 ' I r ; 1i 1/1, 1 /I I f,/ / 1 / I� 1( r I / /1. /i r' / / i r1 / ' // / 1 ' /n ! (r U I 1 `` /(/1/ 11 ' // 1 (' \ \ It ' , 11 , r,, I f ' , ' 11 , x , llifil Ill 1 1:1110i' i / ;;, /� � f� /� /, r / ; \ \ \ I/ 1 i << (I ill , , \ \ \ \ � II ' 1 Ifa i!�l1 ! 1 I i \' t � .v ! v I i \ t i / - -\ 4 �.. , / /7/ ' , 7 7d 1 I I I 'Ilt I n \ 1 1 / � 1 ' / /. \\''s\ \ !r 1 , I �, II ,,� I �, � // /,,,, //i1 -�z' 1 I 1 I ' \ \ N , i e7' I I I' 11 `_% p \ / / 1 1 1 I , ,r .,, ( , � \, \ \ \ , . \ , \\ \W 111.\ ,A 1 � r 1 / ( f r 1I 1 c y ,. \ ` \� \ , \ \ \ `: 0 \ \ II l I/ 1I1I) ) I. ` �� I 1 � � f Pi VI( I I \ . r' , \ \ ` \ , \ \\ \\„:---..-_-,.. \ ) ` \ \ � ' 1 I ( / � { / ,,,� II ( I f v- \ \ \ I / jT —� /11 \ \ \ ;� \l\.)\11 t \\\ A \\:\ \ i r � \` `�\•\. .\ \ \`��."\��\��". ;\ _ �, 1 ` ,,,.„.....,:,.,....„.„ .,..‘,____,.. „.„,,,:•,„,,,,„,,,„ , \ n, I) \ _ __.,„...„........_.„...._...„, ,\, \\ ., ,...„, ... ....,.......„..,„,..., \ ,_ ._ „...,,, \ , ,,...,, _,..• 1 ':., ( l� 11 , � ;I . r E -\ \ I , I ,;''! I/I , • \ ,..\',t (1` 1,1( I// / ///-C (11 -- - "- - - " - -- - ) ‘, it i �W i�l � -"- - - " -- \ ; , ti;l { . � ) I � II{ I r , - - -- 7 ,,., '- I ' I, N ', - < \ � `�' r j�111li /r', /4,;, - , 7,,,/,/; - PI )/ ; -----",//// / / / / t, l i / , i, i I(t �/ ;111 %lit I `11, � \ 1 / 1 111' 111r, 1! I 1 � i 3 n 0� o rn C:3 rn g 1 'N 1 A \` j MATCH LINE ABOVE RIGHT 2Q // ( \V i l ) 17,-,,, \\ 1 / /7 ////h, .,,,,4. \‘..),4,////,'///://% ,';-/i ,t,‘;(,/,,, /' i / ,, / / / / /; / �/ /�/ ///;/ 6.,, %/�l //� // 1 , f ' 1, 1 /1111 ;, 111 � / nl,IlJII 1�11f1 ;111,rj,,,I U I -13'''' '11 111, '1, �111 I � � I\\I II �+ + II , II I I d 1 11 1 1 111 \' x,11:1 I 11 I � i �1�h�ll; III 1%))111111 i 11 +)1 1 1 \ 1 1,� III " } )l i► 1•I N�j111 ( ;'/�; l[[ ///1/111//(//// ' I'll/oil/11'i 1 IA'ww.iri :r � o' ri /l0 1 �1�� ( + 1 11 11 1 I l ii \il 71 // J I / �g g m� z o 2 MATCH LINE BELOW LEFT v gg N N A p i, 8 0 0 i i cn 8 dnupcaaroen Oct 2007 - 7:52am - R: \SeatUe \11- 00839 -20000 Bow Lake IRS Expansion Pw]ect \Data end MetytIcal\CADD \UUP\UUP14.I -Ex Cond and Sun Contdwo UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT (UUP) - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 8 DESIGNED VERIFY SCALE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ANSI 'D' DRAWING 0� REVISION DESCRIPTION ` rMERSTgTE 5 PLAN SITE GRADING SCALE: 1' = 50 RETAINING WALL A r �� I La King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division PROPERTY UNE R.W. Beds, Inc. 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2500 Seattle, WA 98154-1004 (206) 695 -4700 ✓j r • • '�- 4 _ .__ • r , l\ •� `\ �, '1_. _ � ' � i I J _/ . 'i \ ; \\ \ /� --- / / /, � ) J ' r �r . �rd�_�_ \ ' � 1 \ � — �. '�I�� % / /----- i18Q:\ \;. `:�- •.� %�- 'c'`��,ib' :, � �i ilV /�in�l. r r. • C \ _ .. /'; i 1, �-- --_ - =_. \� �- --.-- ._��__� � r /r \\\ ` li � \ \ � i 1 –_.__ �\ � ' �� —�\ '\ /t ( /✓ ,te I :' • �\ i \_ ---� RETAINING - -! /__� _ _---__ , Q' - � - -._ -r � l � \ \ \ , : % I • Jj - ��'�` \•�\ ` \ \ ��wau G �� --- -�'�j'' _� ✓�-� __ � , / (�' , �i__-'�� -- _\ , / ... / _ ` • \� 1 \: � -1� -/ • - / //. � �� 1/ I ; f r l • \'.. r \ \`. \ . � �. .,j f�. r r ` - �� -=.7 h(lc - -__ —` n =�� n--. r 1. � / 1 \ ` .I I', i � ..__, J // . (, {, h i.. i. 1'= 50' -O' Scale BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FAC1LfIY SITE GRADING PLAN TOTAL EXPECTED CUT 333,000 CY TOTAL EXPECTED FILL 250,000 CY NET 83,000 CY CUT RECEIVED Novo 5 2007 COMMUNITY 50 EFVELOPIMENT I DO GI PROJECT NUMBER 11 - 00839 -2000 WT. OF: DRAIRIC NUMBER C13 Feet gl CONSTRUCTION LIMITS, TYP WATER METER AND BACKFLOW PREVENTION ASSEMBUES FUTURE PROCESSING FACIUrl FUTURE FACILITY STUBOUTS ELL TOWER ACCESS ROAD / COSTING PUMP STATION EXISTING 1012 RETAINING WALL EXISTING WASTEWATER PIPE -VAULT MATCH LINE DWG UUP15.5 SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 23N, RANGE 4E / / HIGHUNE WATER / • DISTRICT ! CONNECTION /I PLAN • UTILITY SYSTEMS SCALE: 1 = 50' FREE RECYCUNG AREA \ . — . Q 2 GENERAL NOTES 1. THE SITE WATER AND WASTEWATER SYSTEMS WILL BE CONSTRUCTED IN TWO PHASES TO PROVIDE FOR CONTINUOUS OPERATION DURING PROJECT CONSTRUCTION. SEE DINGS C5X AND C5X. O 2. THE SITE WATER SYSTEM IS LOCATED WITHIN THE HIGHUNE WATER DISTRICT. W 3. THE SITE WASTEWATER SYSTEM IS LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY Z OF TUKWILA JURISDICTION. I= 50 1'= 50' -0" Scale RECEIVED pov o 100k cow/ IT\ ee l DEVELOPMENT UUP15.1 I c. 3 - 2 O- 0 1 DESIGNED DRAWN VERIFY SCALE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ANSI 'D' DRAWING 0� A REV CHK'D OCT 07 DATE UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT APP REVISION DESCRIPTION King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division KIWI\ R.W. Beds, Inc. 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2500 Seattle, WA 98154-1004 (206) 695-4700 BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILITY SITE UTILITY SYSTEMS PLAN PROJECT NUMBER 11 -00E139 -2000 SHT - OP OPPRI1P NUIBE7t C50 1 e .5 9 0 t W . ear, Z•, � + �s CELL TOWER ACCESS ROAD „ W7... ...,.. RETAINING WALL • FUTURE - FACILITY STUBOUT FUTURE PROCESSING FACILITY il FUTURE FACIUTY STUBOUT W8 • SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 23N, RANGE 4E P+►��W____ PYµ� �� — HIGHUNE DISTRICT OONNECTION W1 =-1 PW' 1'N FIRE DEPARTMENT PC AND PW ASSEMBUES FOR MAINTENANCE BLDG WI8 — FIRE DEPARTMENT PC AND PTV ASSEMBLIES f`OR TRANSFER/ISO BLDG \ • �`� PW, FREE l _ _ . — RECYCLING AREA PLAN WATER SYSTEM SCALE: 1 = 40' CONSTRUCTION LIMITS TYP BPA1 CELL TOWER ACCESS ROAD • • CONSTRUCTION UNITS, TYP F1-4A.3 GENERAL NOTES 1. NO EXISTING HYDRANTS HAVE BEEN SHOWN AS THESE HYDRANTS WILL BE REMOVED AND REPLACED BY THE NEW FACILITY HYDRANTS SHOWN. 40 1 =40' -0 • — Scale RECEIVED 1IOV 0 - COMM Nl1 ITY e�1 DEVEEOPM UUP15.2 , DESIGNED VERIFY SCALE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ANSI "D" DRAWING 0� A REV OCT 07 DATE CHKO APP'D UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT REVISION DESCRIPTION La King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division IECK R.W. Beck, Inc. 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2500 Seattle, WA 98154-1004 (206) 695-4700 BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILITY SITE WATER SYSTEM PLAN PRE:OE:CT NUMBER Ii- 00839 -2000 OF: MIMING N 5 C55 g S 8 CO3 _ . SS5'` FEE RECYCLING DROP BOX AREA J/ FEE RECYCLING AREA BUILDING 4, / L O FEE RECYCLING AREA • N , �i MH1 SS12 ISOLATION VALVE AND VAULT &% - ___UTH SCALE FACILITY FUTURE 1 PROCESSING • FACILITY EXISTING PUMP STATION HOT LOAD PAD EXISTING MH2 TRANSFER TRAILER TRUCK PAD 1 EXISTING WASTEWATER PIPE —VAULT 49,800 GALLONS (5 FT DIA. X 339 IF) ___%1 —�' t �-= a 55 Vii; • ; �j�l .�� -� `_ CONNECTION TO ABOVE GROUND HDPE WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PIPING / 1 MATCH LINE DWG UUP15.5 55 5 S51 8A EXISTING MH1 SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 23N, RANGE 4E PLAN CONSTRUCTION LIMITS, TYP WASTEWATER SYSTEM SCALE: 1 = 40' / GENERAL NOTES 1. THE SITE WASTEWATER SYSTEM WILL BE CONSTRUCTED IN TWO PHASES TO PROVIDE FOR CONTINUOUS OPERATION DURING PROJECT CONSTRUCTION. 2. SEE DWGS C61 AND C62 FOR WASTEWATER SYSTEM PIPE PROFILES. 3. INSTALL CATCH BASIN STRAINER INSERTS PER DWG SX IN CATCH BASINS LCB1 THRU LCB7 AND AT THE HOT LOAD PAD. 4. PIPING FROM CATCH BASINS LCB1 THRU LCB5 AND PIPE L4 SHALL BE DUCTILE IRON W/ COATING PER SPECIFICATIONS. 5. MAINTAIN 10 —FOOT LATERAL AND 18 —INCH VERTICAL SEPARATION BETWEEN SEWER AND WATER UNES PER LOCAL AND STATE STANDARDS. KEYED NOTES FEE RECYCUNG AREA BUILDING WILL DRAIN TO MH1. LEACHATE WET VAULT FOR DISCHARGE RETENTION FOR THE TRANSFER/TSO BUILDING AND PUMP OUT. DISCHARGE ISOLATION DRY MANHOLE FOR PNEUMATIC KNIFE VALVE AND MANUAL VALVE. FUELING FACILITY WILL DRAIN TO TRANSFER/TS0 BUILDING WASTEWATER SYSTEM, AND WILL THEN DISCHARGE THROUGH THE LEACHATE WET VAULT/VALVE /OWS SYSTEM. PIPE SECTION FROM MI TO EXISTING MH1 WILL BE REMOVED ALONG WITH OTHER EXISTING UTILITY ELEMENTS DURING PHASE 2 CONSTRUCTION. HOT LOAD PAD WILL NORMALLY DRAIN TO THE STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM. SEE DWG C70 FOR SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE SYSTEM. 70 MH1 IS AN OUTSIDE DROP MANHOLE PER CITY OF TUKWILA STANDARD DETAIL SS -10. © TRANSFER TRAILER TRUCK PAD DRAINAGE CAN BE DIRECTED TO THE SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE SYSTEM OR TO THE SITE WASTEWATER SYSTEM. SEE DWG C7X FOR SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE SYSTEM. 90 SEE DWG C71 FOR ABOVE GROUND HDPE DISCHARGE PIPE ALIGNMENT. 1 =40' -0' RECEIVED NOV 0 5 2007 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 40 0 40 80 Scale Feet UUP1 5.3 mom }20-0 I VERIFY SCALE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ANSI 'D' DRAWING 0 1" A REV CHK'D OCT 07 DATE APP'D UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT REVISION DESCRIPTION La King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division ECK R.W. Beck, Inc. 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2500 Seattle, WA 98154-1004 (206) 695 -4700 BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILITY SITE WASTEWATER SYSTEM PLAN PROJECT HUMBER 11- 00839 -2000 SFR. oc: COOING ram C61 E .r .SEE NOTE 3, TRAILER YARD TRUCK PADS OIL/WATER SEPARATOR VAULT FLOW \ SPUTTER/ HIGH FLOW BYPASS FEE RECYCLING AREA DROP Bi' P7IT4REk— TRENCH DRAIN TRANSFER/TS0 BIULDING RAINWATER COLLECTION TANK 1 TRUCK WHEEL WASH UUP15.4 6 FUTURE PROCESSING FACILITY a VERIFY SCALE BAR IS ONE INCH ON /�. ANSI 0 DRAWING 1 3-20-0) 1 0 1 A REV TRAILER YARD TRUCK PADS. SEE NOTE 1 CATCH BASIN WITH PIPE ANCHOR SYSTEM HDPE DISCHARGE PIPE MATCH LINE DWG UUP15.5 7 OCT 07 DATE CHK'0 APP'0 UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT REVISION DESCRIPTION PLAN SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 23N, RANGE 4E k SURFACE WATER SYSTEM SCALE: 1' = 50' _J2) ZQWx115Lx 12D STORMWATtR • • — • DETENTION VAULTS FLOW SPLITTER 16x32 WATER QUALITY TREATMENT VAULT kg1 King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division SHRFACL ATER SYSTEM SCALE 1 =0' HIER R.W. Beds, Inc. 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2500 Seattle, WA 98154-1004 (206) 695 -4700 ORTH . SCALE / FACILITY / FLQ6 SPUTTER/ HIGH FLOW BYPASS • OIL/WATER / SEPARATOR VAULT GENERAL NOTES 1. TRUCK TRAILER PADS CONSTRUCTED TO DRAIN TO EITHER STORM OR WASTEWATER SYSTEM. WHEN TRAILERS ARE PARKED IN THE YARD. RUNOFF TO DRAIN TO WASTEWATER SYSTEM. 2. HOT LOAD PAD TO HAVE DRAINS TO THE STORM AND WASTEWATER SYSTEMS FNItD WITH VALVES. VALVE TO STORM SYSTEM TO BE NORMALLY OPEN. IN EVENT OF HOT LOAD, VALVE TO STORM DRAIN WOULD BE CLOSED AND WASTEWATER VALVE WOULD OPEN TO DIVERT FLOW TO WASTEWATER SYSTEM. 3. VALVE MAY BE CLOSED TO DIVERT FLOW TO WASTEWATER SYSTEM. 1 50' -0' RECEIVED NOV 0 5 2001 50 EAlE8 L" • 5O 100 Scale Feet BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILITY SURFACE WATER SYSTEM PLAN SHEET 1 MOWER: PROJECT 11 -00839 -2000 SNT. OF: 10 OWNING NUMBER C70 NOIIOf12:11SN00 210.J ION - (dflfl) II1Al213d 3Sl 03I3ISSTION11 2 8 z LU 0 x 6W o i9 I I g s 0, W °y 0 `)\. . r �� `�,\ \N,.\ 2([S ` ` (-1 - , � ' - l� i -- . i / --.�- / 1/ i i' '' \ )( f) \ v ; ..\ � \ \ \\� \ I , - _ - � i ' 1 iiiii/ti )w .....__ , .. :, . N,,,,..: , ,,, .,,,, ,,, ,... „.., - , ...f.--::-. , ::.,. ,,, , ,, -..:.:. : —..:::: :: :------ i\ „\\,\\, ;;,-\.....,., 4 , ..,/,''' ' kl ,�: 7)l)'il?`);�l)1.:��l1 i) ) ;` OP( 1 ,` 1 �� I ) \ \y).)9/:‘,/,,,,,// /; �r� / ��f i / ii / /v//7,0111ii /fill ll / 2 o .JJi)yi /) \, i ' l /, ; %;: /.,.: %� � � ;:,LJ . 5 ; /,.... II� 4 Ef c ,;;',.':,'.;/.,7/ iz, p /7/;', / g - ( 3 \ ,.:\,.,\, , \ ' N-, \)) '''' V j / .1 : / / / l'i l li , : Iii 1, /,,- , ,f / .. 1) N\ \ )) . ' ) ) 1 r (t( ,,,,/,,,,, .) ; )., , -,4,_ -....:„..... ,, , • .... • „:„..,..„,,,_, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,_ , i , ;),„•\\,\'‘;\:•\\\),\\•1\,,,'\\,')\,`Icji,/,),'•,,',/,\("i" t , ) ., ,./.....,, , :-...;,,,,,,_,,•-____-„,.4-----„5:;-,,s,,,,,(,) i 404, ,f ,, 7 ,„,,.-,..,„:„.-,...,,,,,,•,,,,, , i lir '--\ 1 ?\ 17/f( (//9,,%, --. - ---, y„ - 1'1\c(( , iil (0) . i '\--../.,7 / ( 7 " / p ,, c r .,,,,, \,\,,,, _,-‘, ,/„,,,K \ \\ \16 ) I\,\\1 , k', y . I \,,‘„';,,,‘ D . B (,(\ ((- , ') -,3 "bli, ) .'ci : 3 8 ,.1.&. ,,,, \ \ \ ‘ .\ \ \‘ ‘ 1 \ 1,,:i) h \ \ .r_ j \ ,_, , , .,..":■(:\ L. ,,,„..,._, \\ \ ( )) 0 .., 4 a. 3 \ 7: .. , \ 4'11. . i) 11)\ \A- 6 ti i cl 0..) ' I it )1 i Mt an iht: 4wriAtlid. T ,,,,N,-.4 b (----,4 - 4'\ \ \''''!..::, \' !11 5 , '11,if i: „,,,;/,,y,,/,//://:/...,-,,,,,,, /,' ) .i, \,,-. '4,))1)!!)- •,.. ...„ ,,, ,..___ i II-\' . W ---- ) 0, -...\ -',017,-;,:::4'4'.'4.' i - 8 0 0 N I ; z a A 5 n. N CC I LLj 3 W Q V) c 4g ?., Co H s z a- ..>. c o Co - an .g 0 to 2 -0 c co 0 ci..= he 8�a 3 'w I N U n O Z 0 6 N 0 a 0 0 V DP•t°o3 - uca we 3FS JoWM paolMS S'Sldrlll\df1f1 \OOYOuoo4ow Pup oW0 \W°TOrd uo!auodx3 SN1 %W1 ro9 OOOOL 6f9OO tl \°a1°'$ \41 - 1 LDS56 - LO& ACN uoWV! g o 8 2 UUP1 6.1 i DESIGNED DRAWN SITE PLAN ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN UGH11NC 1'= 50' -0' SL RL VERIFY SCALE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ANSI b' DRAWING UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT 0 1• REV DATE CHK'D APP REVISION DESCRIPTION FILE UUP16. 1- ELECTRICALSITEPLANUGNTING.DWC - LAYOUTI 1 EDIT: 10/24/2007 9:31 AM BY SOPNIEL I PLOT: 10/25/2007 8:28 AM BY La King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division .01 Contact Nick Rich Project 2007 -0185 .01 I N TER FACE ENGINEERING Consulting Engineers 12020 113th Ave.NE, Suite 200 Kirldand, WA 98034 425.820.1542 OFFICE 425.820.1628 FAX .0 1 .01 .01 .01 .0 1 LIGHTING .01 SITE PLAN ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN UGHTING 1'= 50'-0' 5o 1'= 50' -0' BOW LAKE PROCESSING /TRANSFER FACILITY ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN — .01 .1 .01 RECEIVED NOV 0 5 2007 CQMMUNiTY DEVELOPMENT Scale 0 .01 cr. DRXRDIG NUMBER .01 E12 01 SHEET KEYNOTES O CONTOUR ONES REPRENT THE HORIZONTAL ILLUMINATION IN FOOT— CANDLES AT THE GROUND LEVEL 50 1 00 Feet PROJECT NUMBEFD 11- 00839 -2000 13 8 0 5 g 6 5' II • W cz) 4 ==rte (2) 2" C. - CAN COMM HANDHOLE COM -2v f .�;f. • (2) 4" C. - PWR (2) 4" C. - COMM l'. (2) 4" C. - CAN / C OMIA °? / /I•IAN t Y 1 (1)4 "C. -PWR 1 (1) 4" C. - COMM , (1) 2" C. - CAN (1)4 "C. -PWR (1) 4' C. - COMM (1)2 "C. -CAN COMM HANDHOLE COM -3 ® TO UTILITY POINT OF CONNECTION (1) 4 "C. -PWR (1) 4" C. - TEL (1) 2' C. - CAN CO HANDHOLE \,COM -1 ® POWER HANDHOLE PWR -1 (2) 4" C. - -PWR (2) 4" C. - TEL (1)2 "C. -CAN CAN VAULT® CA -1 POWER VAULT® PV -1 (2)4 "C. -PWR (2) 4" C. - TEL (1) 2" C. - CAN (1) 4' C. - PWR (1) 4"C. - TEL (1) 2' C. - CAN (1)2'C. -CAN gal (1) 4" C. MAI ® (1) 2" C. - CAN COMM HANDHOLE ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN POWER & SIGNAL 1'= 50' -0" CAN VAULT ® CA -2 POWER VAULT PV -2 ®COMM VAULT CV -3 ®COMM VAULT CA -3 (2) 4" C. - PWR (2) 4" C. - TEL (1)2 "C. -CAN PAD -MOUNT TRANSFORMER (PSE) GENERATOR n 5 4" C. - PWR 2 4' C. - TEL 1 2' C. - CAN POWER HANOHOLE,. SHEET KEYNOTES lO PROVIDE TYPE 504 -LA POWER VAULT BY UTILITY VAULT OR APPROVED. SEE 1/EI6. ® PROVIDE TYPE 25 -TA TELEPHONE VAULT BY UTILITY VAULT OR APPROVED. SEE 2/E16. ® PROVIDE TYPE 233 -1A POWER HANDHOLE BY UTILITY VAULT OR ' APPROVED. SEE 3/E16. --- �___ ✓\ \ �, l I I I V J - I i ' (1) 4" C. - PWR (1) 4' C. - COMM !l % (1) 2" c. - CAN i' 1 "= 50 -0" RECEIVED NOV 0 5 2007 COMMUNITY OE E1 OP V T 50 0 50 100 Gi Scale Feet UUP1 6.2 DESCRIER SL DRAWN RL VERIFY SCALE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ANSI ' D DRAWING 0 1' REV DATE CHK APP'D UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT REVISION DESCRIPTION La King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division INTERFACE ENGINEERING Consulting Engineers 12020 113th Ave.NE, Contact Suite 200 Nick Rich Kirkland, WA 98034 Project 425.820.1542 OFFICE 2007 -0185 425.820.1628 FAA BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILITY ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN — POWER & SIGNAL PROJECT NUMBER 11 -00839 -2000 SIR. Or: DW1WMa NUMBER E13 13 s C F1LE: UUP16 .2- ELECTRICALSITEPLANPOWER.OWG - LAYOUTI I EDIT: 10/24/2007 9:30 AM BY SOPHIEL I PLOT: 10/25/2007 8:31 AM BY A 8 x SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 23N, RANGE 4E 5o Scale RECEIVED NOV 0 5 2007 QQMMUNIT o DEVELOP NT Feet UUP17.1 DESIGNED DRAWN VERIFY SCALE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ANSI D' DRAWING 0 1- A REV OCT 07 DATE CHK'D APP'D UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT REVISION DESCRIPTION IA King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division J1'\Jj) IE ft R.W. Beck, Inc. 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2500 Seattle, WA 98154 -1004 (206) 695-4700 BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACIUTY SIGNING PLAN PROJECT NUMBER 11 -00839 -2000 94T. OP: OWNING NWecFt 3 A 0 S 1 G N A G E I N V E N T O , R ' Y (pa g Sign No. 4 6 7 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 Sign type . custom custom 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Material Ref. Pa9e Verbiage . Bow Lake TrantiferfProcessing Facility [phis :address, phone: nuniber and King County iogo DEAD END • . . Noacoess to 15 (plu s Interstate 1-5 shield symbol) Free Recyding :Area [plus 90' left arrow] Corrugated Cardboard Newspaper Mixed Paper Aluminum Metal LANE 1 Commercial Account Haulers [plus 0' arrow] LANE 2 Self Haulers Commercial Non - account Haulers [plus 45' arrow) LANE 3 Self Haulers Commercial Non - account Haulers Overflow [plus 45' right arrow) LANE 4 Bypass Return to 1-5 keep right [plus 45' right arrow) LANE 5 Employees only [plus 45' right arrow) 1 2 3 4 5 LANE 1 Commercial Account Haulers [plus 0' arrow] Special notes secondary site sign overhead sign on pavement on pavement on pavement on pavement on pavement overhead sign 007 UUP1 7.2 DESIGNED DRAWN VERIFY SCALE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ANSI DRAWING 0 1 A REV OCT 07 DATE CHK'D APP'D UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT REVISION DESCRIPTION L King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division R.W. Beck, Inc. 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2500 Seattle, WA 98154 -1004 (206) 695-4700 BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILITY SIGNING DETAILS SHEET 1 PROJECT NUMBER 11 00839 - 2000 SYR. or DRAWING ra■ent S - 1 G N •, A G.::E . :1 N V E N T .O R'Y (`p a g .e 2 ') Sign .: No. Sign.. -. type Qty _ • Material • Ref. • Ra ge Verbiage .. Special • .notes 17:: :custom 1 LANE 2 Self Haulers • • Commerciel Non-account 'Haulers - (per 45' arrow] LANE 3 . Se1T Haulers Commercial Non - account Haulers • Wedlow (plus 45• right arrow] LANE 4 Bypass [plus 45` right arrow) LANE 5 Employees only (plus 45' right arrow) overhead sign 18 1 2 on pavement 19 1 3 on pavement 20 1 4 on pavement 21 1 Bow Lake TrensferfProcessing Facility [plus address, phone number and tang County logo) main site sign 22 custom 1 LANE 2 Sett Haulers Commercial Non- account Haulers [plus 45' arrow] LANE 3 Sett Haulers Commercial Non-account Haulers Overflow [plus 45' right arrow] LANE 4 Bypass Return to 1-5 . [plus 45' fight arrow] overhead sign 23 custom [alternating lane electronic directional light] 24 1 Bypass [plus 45' right arrow] 25 1 [description of facility rates and procedures] 26 1 A budding identification 27 1 Fee Recyling Area [plus 0' arrow] Commercial Non - account Haulers [plus 45' right arrow] 28 1 B building identification � � E 1V 29 1 [description of recycle rates] 30 1 [description of recycle procedures] NOV 0 5 • DEVELQPA9[ S 1 G N A G E I N V E N T O , R ' Y (pa g Sign No. 4 6 7 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 Sign type . custom custom 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Material Ref. Pa9e Verbiage . Bow Lake TrantiferfProcessing Facility [phis :address, phone: nuniber and King County iogo DEAD END • . . Noacoess to 15 (plu s Interstate 1-5 shield symbol) Free Recyding :Area [plus 90' left arrow] Corrugated Cardboard Newspaper Mixed Paper Aluminum Metal LANE 1 Commercial Account Haulers [plus 0' arrow] LANE 2 Self Haulers Commercial Non - account Haulers [plus 45' arrow) LANE 3 Self Haulers Commercial Non - account Haulers Overflow [plus 45' right arrow) LANE 4 Bypass Return to 1-5 keep right [plus 45' right arrow) LANE 5 Employees only [plus 45' right arrow) 1 2 3 4 5 LANE 1 Commercial Account Haulers [plus 0' arrow] Special notes secondary site sign overhead sign on pavement on pavement on pavement on pavement on pavement overhead sign 007 UUP1 7.2 DESIGNED DRAWN VERIFY SCALE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ANSI DRAWING 0 1 A REV OCT 07 DATE CHK'D APP'D UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT REVISION DESCRIPTION L King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division R.W. Beck, Inc. 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2500 Seattle, WA 98154 -1004 (206) 695-4700 BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILITY SIGNING DETAILS SHEET 1 PROJECT NUMBER 11 00839 - 2000 SYR. or DRAWING ra■ent I N V E N T O R . 9 3 ) Sign 37 -39 40 41 42 43 47 48 49 50 51 -52 53 54 55 56 57 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 Material Ref. page C«mugated cardboard : Milted Paper Aluminum Metal Yard Waste Transfer Station (plus 90' right arrow) Scales (plus 90' left arrow) Maintenance STOP Wait for attendant ( description of safety regulations) Administrative Offices Men (plus men icon) Women (plus female icon) D Wash Down Station (please conserve water) (description of scale use] Problem? Use call button Commercial Non - account Haulers Return to Scale (plus 90' left turn] Return to Scale (plus 90' left turn] Scales [plus 901eft arrow] Bypass . (phis 90' right arrow Special notes building identification building identification S I . G N A N E N R Y Sign No. 58-59 Sign type` Material Ref: page .eedt . tot -5 • . (plus 90' left arrow] Thanks for recycling Special notes RECEI\ NOV 0 5 com oEVELD Tv ED 2007 UUP1 7.3 DESIGNED MANN VERIFY SCALE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ANSI b' DRAWING 0� A REV OCT 07 DATE CHK'D APP':) UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT REVISION DESCRIPTION La King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division n R.W. Bede, Inc. 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2500 Seattle, WA 98154 -1004 (206) 6954700 BOW LAKE PROCESSING /TRANSFER FACILITY SIGNING DETAILS SHEET 2 PROJECT ranmE 1I - 00839 - 2000 SFR. or COMING raamat • a !educates.facility users about various aspects . .'.. =of the waste.treatrrientprooess anek usually takes - 4heforin of signage - ).11, lisc ellaneous .., conveys messages that are not described by any • = ..:of the above categories (A) Identification (D) Instructional 4b' 12 (E) Prohibitive (B) Directional (F) Safety x 24' Caution Water . over road • (C) Informational 1e' 24' INNd d636 (G) Miscellaneous 18' 24 for Reduci g), . teuidng and Recy RECEIVED NOV 0 5 2007 Y )FVELOPMENT UUP17.4 DESIGNED DRAWN VERIFY 5CA1, BAR IS ONE INCH ON ANSI '0' DRAWING D ' A OCT 07 REV DATE CHK • D APP'D UNCLASSIFIED USE PERM T REVISION DESCRIPTION La King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division R.W. Beck, Inc. 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2500 Seattle, WA 98154 -1004 (206) 695-4700 BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILITY SIGNING DETAILS SHEET 3 PRO ECW NUMBER: 11- 00839 -2000 OF DRAINING N AMM 4 5 s I Z O F U Cn Z O 0 0 F Z 2 H w IZ w C!) W _ ea L. e E UUP1 7.5 DETAIL ENTRANCE SIGN SCALE: NTS VERIFY SCALE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ANSI DRAWING 0 REV UUP17.1 UUP17.1 DATE CHI( APP REVISION DESCRIPTION King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Solid Waste Division DETAIL 10 OVERHEAD LANES SIGN UUP17.1 SCALE: NTS R.W. Beds, Inc. 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2500 Seattle, WA 98154-1004 (206) 695 -4700 BOW LAKE PROCESSING/TRANSFER FACILRY SIGNING DETAILS SHEET 4 RscEivED NOV 0 5 2007 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT aa.aG wax STY REVISION BY APPROVED DATE STN REMO Dr APPROVED DATE DUANE HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. S - Fes` FJ ` tc� •...N� + ACCEPTABILITY 6 DEPT. are d DATE 17 - 'SUPPLEMENTAL TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY ah +o n 07 COVE - - APPRO+m er °°I BOW LAKE TRANSFER 1 RECYCLING STATION CRY OF TUN 14/y ICING COIMIY WASHINGTON �° 16928 W'OODO LLLE- REDY01m ROW. 8 -107 ( {TS) 485 -5155 900094VLL1E rrA9HNGfON 98072 FAX (425) 483 -4850 07 -1266 APPROVED 07 12661opoVN: /PRIMED AN a P Cc 1P- B- O DECIDUOUS TREE FH SURVEY CONTROL wv00 WATER VALVE CHAIN UNK FENCE STORM DRAINAGE CATCH BASIN SIGN ss SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE WETLAND RAG W/ IDENTIFYING NUMBER ® STORM DRAINAGE MANHOLE SOW ROCKERY p YARD DRAIN STORM SEWER UNE TEST PIT WI IDENTIFYING NUMBER SANITARY SEWER UNE BORE HOLE W/ IDENTIFYING NUMBER FF= RNISH FLOOR ELEVATION 1P-C TEST PIT W/ IDENTIFYING NUMBER EVERGREEN TREE ARE HYDRANT WATER METER WATER VAULT LEGEND: DATUM NOTES. HORIZONTAL DATUM : WASHINGTON COORDINATE SYSTEM, NORTH ZONE NAD83(91) PROJECT CONTROL ESTABLISHED USING GLOBAL POSITIONING FAST - STATIC (GPS) METHODS. CONTROL WAS EXTENDED THROUGH THE PROJECT . REACH BY WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SURVEY CONTROL MONUMENTS. VERTICAL DATUM : NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM 1988, NAVD88. VERTICAL CONTROL WAS EXTENDED THROUGH THE PROJECT REACH USING PUBLISHED BENCHMARKS FROM THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. (VIA ELECTRONIC LEVELING) CONTOUR INTERVAL(S): TRANSFER STATION SITE: I ' CONTOURS CALCULATED BY AERIAL & DHA SUPPLEMENTAL GROUND SURVEY. STORMWATER DISCHARGE CORRIDOR: 2' CONTOURS CALCULATED BY DHA SUPPLEMENTAL GROUND SURVEY. NON DESIGN AREA: 5' CONTOURS CALCULATED BY AERIAL SURVEY. BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON COVER SHEET PVC POLYVINYL CHLORIDE PIPE CMP CORRUGATED METAL PIPE CONC CONCRETE ABS A TYPE OF PLASTIC PIPE PIPE KEY MAP SCALE: NONE FPCEIVE) NOV 0 5 2001 COMNIUNIT/ OEVELOPBS 1T s A 2 00 CJI o � \ \\\ \ \ \\ \� \\\\\ g \ \ \ \ 0 \ k, \ \`` \`Ia ■ °: 2 • \ -�4 \ l ill( \ � \ \\ \ \ \ \ \\\ \ \ \ l\\ 1 \\ \\\\ '\ \\\ \., \\ \ \\ /0/ / / \ \\� \ \ \\\ \\\ \ \\\ \ \\\ \ \ \\ l/ r �, jai 1 \ � ti� \ \ �� \ �\ \ ��\ \\ N \ MATCH UNE - FOR CONTINUATION SEE SHEET 2 \ . . . \ \ . . \ . . \ ` . ` ` `. \ . A . . . . k ` \ ` N. \ N. \ ` A.3 \ . \ ` � \ \ N. N. N. N. \ N. N. \ \ / , / y , i / /, / / / / x / / / / /, /, / / / / / / , // / / // / �/ / / , / -x(� ,' . , G . i , / ,' 4' , / y / / b / / / / e o GJ MATCH UNE — FOR CONTINUATION SEE SHEET 4 SCALE IN FEET: 1 ° =20' REVE4011 SYR en APPROVED er APPROVED RATE DATE DUANE HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. — Surveyors — 16928 WOODINVLLUE— RFDYOND ROAD. 9 -107 (425) 483-5355 WOODINVRIE WASHINGTON 98072 FAX (425) 483 -4650 GN EN CHECKED ACCEPTABILITY DRS DE510R Arm/dR sP¢sTrwTOR Rs APmOVID APPROVED Bt DEPT. DATE APPROVED APPROVED 10/17/07 101707 SARTRE SUPPLEMENTAL TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY TIRE BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION my OF TUKNRA, KING COIBIIY WASHINGTON F7 ;Jr:i) N o 0 5 11 GO MNIUYiTT U5T r $Y RBl1L DAIS 2 R0 o7 -1z66 07— I266Eopo.G G 2 OF 16 / / / ® I / , ]02760 I / / / / / ' / 7D77 I / / / / / / / t // / / f / / / 7479 // 0 7 / / / / / ( / / / / / / / / / / / ' / /// / ,/ '' /// /, // / // // Ins x x g 1 7765 MATCH UNE - FOR CONTINUATION SEE SHEET 4 / /, / / / / / /// 0/,,/////1 /,, / / „ =` _ - /�i„ y ST�, �___�- / //i I om _ -__ _- _�;��,` MATCH UNE - FOR CONTINUATION SEE SHEET 1 r. N 0 51001 PIA REVISION BY APPROVED DATE Sri REVISION BY APPROVED DATE ��' DUANE HARTMAN &ASSOCIATES, INC. — Surveyors — 16928 1YOOWlV41E- REDMOND ROAD. B -107 (475) 183 -5155 NWDIM'LLlE WASHINGTON 96072 FAX (425) 183 -1650 ,•: �• ACC EPTABILITY DRAWN BY ON DUE 10/17/07 SUBTITLE u 2°: R(VOADDL DATE 1 ►, R'. n ;.; T" THIS Dom`I AND/OR svooF,uTgN a Awnwm PPRO DA 10/17/07 SUPPLEMENTAL TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY a 5 OVED BY owr aTE 'Ewaa nRE '' I = .,.n ¢ ' ;..,.:... .- CHECKED BOW LAKE TRANSFER I RECYCLING STATION 07 -1266 APPROVED APPROVED CM OF IUXW AA KING COUNTY WASHINGTON ov. w. 07- 1266topaDWO m BY APPROVED sR REVISION APPROVm BY DATE DATE MATCH UNE — FOR CONTINUATION SEE SHEET 5 MATCH UNE — FOR CONTINUATION SEE SHEET 2 DUANE HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. — Surveyors - 16928 WOODOMLLE- REDUOND ROAD. B -107 (425) 483 -5355 WOODINVILlE. WASHINGTON 98072 FAR (425) 483 -4650 ACCEPTABWTY 119S DESIGN OAO,OR SPECIFICATION 6 APiROIED APPROVED BY SEPT. DATE 1 94 bY C CAN EM IL DIECICED APPROVED APPROVED X10117/079aR1E SUPPLEMENTAL TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY 10/I7/07 BOW LAKE TRANSFER I RECYCLING STATION FM OF FORMA. RING WUNIY 07 -1266 DWG. NO. 8ASTANGTON 07 1286topoDWG LIST REV90I (ST . 4 o or 16 sa l / / k� ///// /i i / // / / / / / / / / / / /j // / /// / /_ ,.... / / / / j / / / /// ////// �� iii�i t a7 T iii - /ice J / ii ii / / '°� l / / / / /// / / i i/ 7/.> GTE APPROVED By SN APPROVED Bl Oslo MATCH UNE — FOR CONTINUATION SEE SHEET 7 MATCH UNE — FOR CONTINUATION SEE SHEET 5 DUANE HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. — Surveyors — 16928 W00DDMLLE- REDY07lD ROAD, B -107 WOOODNBIE, WASHINGTON 98072 (425) 483 -5355 FAX (425) 483 -4650 ACCEPTABILITY TRS 0E901 AND/OR SPEpErwlou 6 APPROVED APPROVED BY DEPT. GTE CRAM OM WI Ew D 569 DATE 0/17/07 10/17/07 CHECKED APPROVED APPROVED SUBTITLE TRUE SUPPLEMENTAL TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION CITY OF TUKWOq K003 COUNTY DEVELOP: -, 11=111 G TE 5 OF 16 JOB 110. DWG WD. 07 -1266 07- 1266tapoNO m laJ W 200 10 H W N 0 a z F 0 U W z 5 MATCH UNE - FOR CON71NUA71ON SEE SHEET 8 i / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /// // / / //� / // ' " /////7/ ///% // / / / / l 1 / l / / /i�� /� /1 / /� /ii //;//// //� / (/ / // /iii �i //, / / / / / 1 l I / / I I /�, / / / / /// /// / /// /// / I 1 7,_.;;, / / / / /// / / /� /// / / / / / / / • / / / /// • / ////;"--/ i 11 11 ////,// / / //: /// / / / / / /// / / /// / /// / , 1 %� / / //// // // j ; /// / /// /// / / // // / j /// / � i : 1 -- � _�/ / / / /%/ /// / / /// / / // �/ ///, /// / j %/� �7� /��j / /j / /// / / / / // //'//,‘,7 % / //j i'��i %j / //i /jam /// // / // /^ i i' iii / %ii / //i -7,- / /.' / j j� / / % / /� / „:„... -, — //i /// // // // -- / , , j/ / / / / // /// j / /, // / /, i/ / //// / /// ( j / / / (� \� ,� 7// / / / TREES ) I \ ; /h4 IN FEET: 40' NOV 0 5 2001 svr REVISION By APPROVED STY REVISION APPROVED WV DUANE HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. — Surveyors - 16928 WOODRMLLE- REDMOND ROAD, 8 -107 (425) 483 -5355 W00DINVIL E. WASHINGTON 98072 FAX (425) 483 -4650 ACCEPTABILJTY DESO CR APPROVED BY are ORMAN BY GN nAH ENCR. CHECKED APPROVED APPROVED EWE 10 10/17/07 1 0/ 17 /07 SOMME SUPPLEMENTAL TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION COY OF TUKWILA, KING COUNTY WASHINGTON us , ',mac. 46Th1B06 aF swIET 6 JOB NO. 07 - 1266 Me NO. 07- 1266topo.DWG 16 I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I / I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 1 I I I I 1 I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I KING CO. TRANSFER /RECYCLING STATION RIM 2 IE IE £ IE .02 51.27 251.32 251.32 249.82 251.27 RIM 25.188 IE N 247.58 lE E 247.38 IE W 247. 87M 245. 247. IM 243.28 IE 5 239.58 87M 238.08 W5 239.58 ONA -111 RE84R CONTROL GAP N 1.14 9. 9 E 1285330.2216 ELEV =250.42 IPES RIM 22 &58 N I.1 1285330. L£V =250.4 M 228.66 REVISION DOE APPROVED sv REVERO1 Br APPROVED DOE MATCH UNE - FOR CON11NUATION SEE SHEET 10 MATCH UNE - FOR CONTINUATION SEE SHEET 5 DUANE HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. — Surveyors — 16928 W00DIMNLE -REDMOND ROW. B -107 (425) 483 -5355 9/001306RIE, 94,A9l0G101l 98072 FAX (425) 483 -4650 ACCEPTABILITY THIS DE9 . Alm/OR ¢savDR B AiF�m+ED APPROVED BY OCR. CHECKED APPROVED APPROVED arz DRUB TAY w CHECKED DAN - DAE 10/ 10/17/07 SUTURE ❑RE SUPPLEMENTAL TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION cry 0< NXWWA KING 0750Y WASHINGTON — RO 07 -1266 NOV (1 6111 OF 16 07- 1266tepo.DWG n H 6 2 MATCH UNE — FOR CONTINU SEE S HEET 11 \\ \ \11II III % 111 1 111 1 1 11 I / II Il liillllliilllllll l� , \11(I1 / 111 / / /11/4/////111111111111111 1111111111Iillligll /1/ \ \\1(1f1 I I II ) il ll /111 1 11111 I \ \1 I I I 1 I1 j 11 \(I 1 111 1 1 1 / _ 1 1111 1 1 11 / / / / 1 1 1 l llI l/Ijlllll111 �� - 111 1 II \ \ \ \\ \\11/111 i 1 / // / / / / I / / / /Ij1 `� � °' i I VIII III llllll \11 /// III IIII I I j 11111 1111�11I 1 \\ \\\\ 11 / 1 1IIII IIII jI 11111 1�i � � I �0� n illll ll// ///1 / / / / > >j l \�\ \\ \ I 1 \ \ \ \ \� l1IlllH111i l l �l \ 1 \ i,, llll�IIi1 1 11 \\ 1111 IIIIIIIIi WENDED m APPROVED RONSON DATE MATCH UNE — FOR CONTINUATION SEE SHEET 6 DUANE HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES, MC. — Surveyors - 16928 WOOD11MU.E OmM0N0 ROM). 6 -107 (425) 483 -5355 w0001NV4LE. 8891840106 98072 FAX (425) 483 -4650 ACCEPTABIUTY 6 /OR spc nc 1 B s APPROVED ABBY DEPT. DATE DRAWN BY cN DECKED CHECKED APPROVED io17/07 A a ATE SUPPLEMENTAL TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY 10/17/07 CRY BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION OF IUKWU.A KING COUNTY LAST REVISICA1 • "°. 07-1268 I 8 o MC w. 07- 1266to00DWG DATE 8 OF 16 MATCH LINE - FOR CONTINUATION SEE SHEET 12 2 0' SCALE IN FEET: 1' =20' S~ DATE Err APPRONA sv RONSON APPROVED Wr DATE DUANE HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. - Surveyors - 16928 W00001V01E- RFDYOND ROAD, 8 -107 (425) 483 -5355 WOODINVLLIE, WAS1m1GION 98072 FAIT (425) 483 -4650 ACCEPTABILITY 11.16 DESIGN AND/76 SPECIFICATION 6 APPNONED APPROVED NY DRAWN Or DATE GM 10/17/07 CHECKED 10/17/0? EMS CHEESED APPROVED APPROVED DATE SUPPLEMENTAL TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY 1111E BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION CITY OF 1180 KING ccIOfY WASKNGIOH IAST REVISION ] -VN1EL DATE SIEET 9 JOB ND. DAG NO. 07 -1266 07- 1266topo.DIIG 9 OF 16 STY 1 4 / 1 1 i 1 1 / 1 1 / / I I 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 / I I I 1 I I I I / I l 1 I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I X I I 1 I maw I I 1 1 1 I / I I I I 1 1 I I j 1 1 1 1 , I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 26 1 / 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I 1 1 I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I his I I I -I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 1 I I 1 I / I I 1 I I I I 2812 1 X 1 1 1 ! I X / / 261.6 X • y WSOOT HC17 -8 BRASS MON I =290.71' N 161774. 278 276 274 268 266 264 282 .0320 . HA -1 HUB/ RIM 245.45 IE SE 241.85 BIM 237.55 WS 241.85 SCALE I PAINT e'u 64.2 AND 241.6 DH4 -114 X REBAR CONTROL CAP 1.1:46.1 8 E 1285244.2363 ELEV =248.70' RIM 244.52 BM 540.32 WS 241.77 PAVED PARKING DATE APPROVED BY m APPROVED 61 DATE MATCH UNE — FOR CONT1NUAT1ON SEE SHEET 13 MATCH UNE — FOR CON11NUAT1ON SEE SHEET 7 DUANE HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES. INC. — Surveyors — 16928 WOODO 61E- REDYOIID ROAM 8 -107 w00DOEV9EE. WASHINGTON 98072 (425) 483 -5355 FAX (425) 483 -4650 ACCEPTABILITY 716 o s 261 A10/OR SPEC6ttYd1oN 4 APPROVED APPROVED BY DATE mwa BY 9w CHECKED RAH CHECKED APPROVED APPROVED DATE 10/17/07 suanitG DIRE SUPPLEMENTAL TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY BOW LAKE TRANSFER I RECYCLING STATION ROY OF TORW9A KM COweTY WASl606lcN DWG. RDA 07- 1268tDpapB tt01 I �Y Xe KD. 07 -1266 . 1.4 . . C MATCH UNE - FOR CONTINUATION SEE SHEET 11 • • <1) . . . . ... MOWN* 1 • 1 It (08/18/O2i . ..,, ..... . ?11° SCALEINFEET:r=20' X 2 ' h Oil ' MATCH UNE — FOR CONTINUATION SEE SHEET 9 STIA - — __ REVISION BY APPROVED DATE 5 REVSIOR BY APPROVED DATE ACCEPTABIUTY /IR BY mae 10/17/07 SUOMI SUPPLEME NTAL TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY us! Natsood Imam UTE )111 - 11):p DUANE HARTMAN lc ASSOCIATES, INC. — Surveyors — tom WOODMILLE-REDVOND ROAD, 8-107 (425) 483-5355 WOODINVILLE WASHINGTON 98072 FAX (425)483-4650 1 1 spegnun' ou EZZED CHECKED OM 10/17/07 s"aT 12 12 OF 1 6 :, APPROVED BY DEPT. DATE 8‘7R. -- BOW LAKE TRANSFER/RECYCLING STATION CITY OF TUKWILA KING COUNlY WOSHINGTON ,. OTEDIED .. 07-1288 APPROVED APPROVED 0wm NO. 07-12668.0.0M „„ 0 94 Sm 16. 63.25 E 12 , .345.718 18.28' HENSON n APPROVED Sri OY APPROVED DATE MATCH UNE — FOR CONTINUATION SEE SHEET 15 MATCH UNE — FOR CONTINUATION SEE SHEET 10 DUANE HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. — Surveyors - 16928 W0000MLLE- D11OND ROAD. 9 -107 (425) 483 -5355 NwOOOOIVOIF. O&9G929CN 88072 FAX (425) 483 --4650 ACCEPTABIUTY TNS O DC „m On �FLFrwTtlr 6 APPROVED BY OEPT. DATE DRAWN BY w CHECKED DAM CHECIOLD APPROVED OPPOO+ED DATE SUBTITLE 10/17/0 10/17/07 TITLE SUPPLEMENTAL TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY BOW LAKE TRANSFER I RECYCLING STATION COY OF NO MA SONG COUNTY N W W Cl) z 0 Q D z F z 0 0 0 La- i W z x 0 Q 07- 12661000.DNC APPRMEO DA rn BY APPROVED DATE MATCH UNE — FOR CONTINUATION SEE SHEET 16 MATCH UNE — FOR CONIINUA1 ON SEE SHEET 11 DUANE HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. — Surveyors - 16928 WOODI V01F- RED1109D ROAD, B -107 (425) 483-5355 W00DIX81IE. WASMNG ON 98072 FAX (425) 483 -4650 ACCEPTABIUTY DES aslu �TAVIOH 6 APPROVED BY DEPT DATE DRAM BY GN DAM DIG& CHECKED APPROVED 0/17/07 10/17/07 SUPPLEMENTAL TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION CRY OF TUKWIIA KING CORM WASHINGTON LAST 66DEi1ON , SHABOL SHEET JOB HD. Mc. HO. 14 07 -1266 07- 1266topoDWG C DAT 14 OF 16 1 I I I 1 I I I I I �: I I I I I I' 1; I I I I! I 1 + 1 + 4d 1 I + I , I I I I I I I =n.> ; 1 1 1 I MATCH UNE - FOR CONTINUATION SEE SHEET 16 1 II 1 n 1 i l r I 11111 ! 1 11 m I ! 11111 I I I I I I I I I 1 l 1 1 I I l 1 I 1' 1 1 1 t i 1 i i 1 1 1 // I ;I I I i ; I 2 770 I1 ;I X ; 1 ® 1 I ; I I 1 ; ; ; 1 ' III I I 1 1 1 I 1 ; ; ; 277.5 I 11 I i ' i 1 I I I I I ! 1/ 1 1 i! / / / ! / ! ; \ I ► 1 / /c \\ \\ \ \ 11 I / I 1 j i — \1 III/ !lI \ , , , 1/ 111 / , ! , , , ! / /,( \ \t\ 1 � I / I l! 1 I 11 111 I I \ \ / II 1 1 III/ I I \ I III / 1 I 1 ► / 1' 1 , 1 111/ / / /II 11 1 r ` 1 \ II / // II I IIll�11 1 # \� 111 // 1 f1 1 11/ �/ / ` v / 4 / / , I 1� 1 Q' ; ,' ; ; 1 ` v ll l ! ! ! 1 1 1 /I j //j 1 1 ' ; 1 1 , \ � Ill l / / l Ill / / % ► ,' iI I / I I II -� I I I 1 , 1 , 1 1 .d • c / 1 7D3 J1"� ',1l},;1 / I 1 1 , i nluu 1 I I ; I C) 1 + I znd I 277.1 1 *MR , &4511 1 1 I 1 , 1 � 1 1 ' li I l I I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I ' I I IV 1 I 9 �1 `��: 1 CO 1 I 1C 1 I 278.8 1 •� I 1 1 1 OH4 -403 722 I 1 1 1 HUB ACK 1 , 1.249 .1 I I , �" E 1285255.215 721 �;eyt ,� _ • 1 1 I / I I I ELEV =285.83 2788 x A �� MATCH UNE — FOR CONT1NUAT1ON SEE SHEET 13 svw AeAsom BY APPROVED .GATE S REV REVISION BY APPROVED DATE b): DUANE HARIMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Il:�t — Surveyors — 16928 W0000NRLE- Rf0103/l) ROAD, 8 -107 (425) 483 -5355 W0000ME, IIIA40WT1»1 96072 FAY (425) 483 -4650 i � >, ACCEPTA81L1T a °r M ° ii 17/07 SUBMIE SUPPLEMENTAL TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY I r � �, 1 ' , � ^ `� „z ^ � I � A ; �^ " 1 r , I nos DES �� ' SPEL4swTgR 6 APPROVED ° DM 1 0,17,07 s 1 6 APPROVED e. DEPT. GALE "”` BOW LAKE TRANSFER I RECYCLING STATION COY Or 11164/1A, COMITY WA9DNGI07! aaaaD AD .3. 07 - 1266 , . APPROVE DISC. RTE 07 -12661 o. SYR KNOW APPROVED BY DATE Sri BY *AFMam ODE MATCH LINE — FOR CONTINUATION SEE SHEET 14 DUANE HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. — Surveyors — 16928 W0000MUE- RFIDIOND R0M. 8 -107 (425) 483 -5355 WOOOOMLLE. WASHINGTON 98072 FAX (425) 483 -4650 ACCEPTABIUTY na olscn wm oa �Eti1G110N 6 APPROVED BY OEM MR DRUM BY GM DAH OCR APPROVED APPROVED IDATE 10/17/07 10/17/07 suonux SUPPLEMENTAL TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY BOW LAKE TRANSFER / RECYCLING STATION COY OF 1UKWLLA, KING COUNTY WA99NGION ROPOON Imam 16 No. 07 -1268 07- 1266topoDWO DDE 16 OF 16