161129 MAD (Hydrogeologic Report).pdfExcellence. Innovation. Service, Value.
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
9300 236th Street SW
Edmonds, Washington
k1w=11 *��l
Submitted To:
Ms. Taine Wilton
Edmonds School District #15
20420 681h Avenue West
Lynnwood, Washington 98036
By:
Shannon & Wilson, Inc.
400 N 34th Street, Suite 100
Seattle, Washington 98103
21-1-22082-003
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION --------------------------------------1
2.0
SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................ 2
2]
Site Topography -----------------------------------2
2.2
Site Drainage and Wetlands .......................................................................................
2
3.0
GEOLOGIC
CONDITIONS --------------------------------..2
3.1
Regional Geology and -------------------------..2
3.2
Local Geology and Hydrogeology -------------------------.'4
4.0
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND TESTING ..............................................................
h
4.1
Drilling and Testing ----------------------------.h
4-2
Findings ---------------------------------------.7
4.2] Observed Geologic Conditions ....................................................................
7
4.2.2 Groundwater Levels and Monitoring -------------------..N
4.2.3 Aquifer Properties -----------------------..4
4-2/4 Groundwater Quality ---------------------------l0
4.2.5 Pilot -scale Injection Well Testing ..............................................................
0
4.2.6 Full-scale Injection Well ---------------------l0
5.0
GROUNDWATER
MODELING OF PLANNED INJECTION WELLPlELD..................
|l
5.1
Overview ..................................................................................................................
ll
5.2
Conceptual Site Model (CSM).................................................................................
}}
5.3
Model Development and Calibration .......................................................................
l2
5.4
Model Simulation (Base Case) .................................................................................
l2
5.5
Sensitivity Analysis --------------------------------.]3
6.0
STORMWATER QUALITY DlSC\JSSl()N.-----------------------]3
7.0
CONCLUSIONS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS ---------------------l4
7.1
Injection Well -------------------------]4
7l1 Geuecu1----------------------------------]4
7].2 Well Design ---------------------.]5
7.1.3 Injection Well Materials ............................................................................
l7
0.0 LIMITATIONS --------------------------------------.. 20
0.0 REFERENCES..................................................................................................................... 22
2/'/-22082-003'n/o°pmn 21'1-22082'883
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
FIGURES
Vicinity Map
Site and Exploration Plan
Surficial Geologic Map
Deer Creek Water Supply Protection Area Map
Generalized Subsurface Profile A -A'
Generalized Subsurface Profile B-B'
Inflow Test Results at Pilot UIC Well IW-1
Inflow Test Results at UIC Well IW-2
Conceptual UIC Well Design
Proposed UIC Well Array Map
APPENDICES
Subsurface Explorations
Geotechnical Laboratory Testing
Hydrogeologic Data and Analyses
Groundwater Modeling
Important Information About Your Geotechnical/Environmental Report
21-1-22082-003-Rlfwp/]kn 21-1-22082-003
11
SHANNON
, INC.
HYDROGEOLOGIC REPORT
NEW MADRONA K-8 PROJECT
9300 236TH STREET SW
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Edmonds School District No. 1.5 (the District) contracted Shannon & Wilson, Inc. (Shannon.
& Wilson) to conduct a preliminary hydrogeologic analysis for the new Madrona K-8 Project
(the project), located in Edmonds, Washington (Figure 1). The project is located within the NE
'/4 of the SE '/4 of Section 36, Township 27 N, Range 4 E, Willamette Meridian, at 9300-236tn
Street SW (Snohomish County tax parcel 27033600404600). The District plans to construct the
new M. adrona K-8 School on the east portion of the approximately 40-acre property. New
stormwater management facilities will be required for approximately 1.3 acres of the site. The
purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of using dry wells (or underground injection
control [UIC] wells) for project stormwater flow control. Our scope of services, presented in our
proposals to the District dated March 16, 2016, August 1.5, 2016, and September 27, 2016,.
included:
■ Observation well drilling, installation, and development at two location (designated
OW-1 and OW-2);
■ Observation well sampling and field hydraulic conductivity (slug) testing (well
OW-1);
■ Observation well groundwater level monitoring (wells OW-1 and OW-2);
■ Pilot and full-scale UIC well drilling, installation, and inflow testing (designated as
UIC wells IW-1 and IW-2, respectively);
■ Laboratory testing of selected soil samples for grain size analysis and moisture
content;
■ Groundwater modeling to evaluate the proposed UIC well spacing and layout,
groundwater mounding, and seepage potential for the nearby ravine slope;
■ Meetings with the District; and
■ Preparation of this report, which includes the results of our subsurface explorations,
field and laboratory testing, and hydrogeologic analyses.
Our scope of services was authorized by the District's Purchase Order No. 2001500281, dated
March 25, 2016; Purchase Order No. 2001500440, dated August 23, 2016; and Purchase Order
No. 2001600097, dated October 12, 2016.
21-1-22082-003-Rlfrwp/]kn 21-1-22082-003
1
SHANNON
MILSON, INC.
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
2.1 Site Topography
The approximately 40-acre property includes two steeply sloped wooded areas aligned north to
south; one is a ravine located along the eastern property boundary, and the other is a forested
incline located near the middle of the property (Figure 2). The existing Madrona Elementary
School is located in the northeast corner of the property, and the former Woodway Elementary
School is located in the opposite southwest corner of the property. We understand that the
planned new construction will occupy the east half of the property, where the existing grade
elevation is currently approximately 445 to 455 feet. The project's elevation datum is referenced
to the North American Vertical. Datum of 1988.(NAVD88). In addition to school buildings and
parking lots, the property currently includes a running track, a baseball field, and soccer fields.
The areas surrounding the property consist primarily of residential developments.
2.2 Site Drainage and Wetlands
A series of catch basin grates exist along the inside of the track. The project survey performed
by Penhallegon Associates Consulting Engineers, Inc. (PACE) shows that these storm drains,
along with storm drainage from the existing Madrona Elementary School, discharge to the top of
the steep wooded slope in the middle of the property. The survey also identified storm drain
discharges to the top of the wooded ravine located on the eastern property boundary. As
indicated in Figure 2, three wetland areas were identified in our recent Wetland and Stream
Delineation Report (Shannon & Wilson, 2016a). Wetlands A and C are on the wooded slope in
the middle of the property and are downgradient from the track storm drain discharges. Seepage
emerges within these wetlands, which were delineated between about elevations 410 and
398 feet on this slope. We concluded in our wetland report that these wetlands are supported
predominantly by groundwater seeps. Wetland B, which is within the wooded ravine located on
the eastern property boundary, is located downgradient of the storm drain outlets associated with
the existing Madrona Elementary School and the play fields. We concluded that Wetland B is
likely supported by surface flow from the surrounding ravine, the storm drain inputs from the
school, and a seasonally high groundwater table.
3.0 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
3.1 Regional Geology and Hydrology
The project site is located in the Puget Lowland, an elongated topographic and structural
depression filled with a sequence of glacial and nonglacial sediments that unconformably overlie
21-1-22082-003-Rlfrwp/]kn 21-1-22082-003
2
SHANNON
MILSON, INC.
bedrock. The area has been glaciated seven or more times in the past 2.4 million years. During
the last glacial advance, known as the Vashon stade, the ice was greater than 3,000 feet thick in
the project area. The Vashon ice sheet receded from the area about 16,500 years ago, leaving
topography characterized by low -rolling relief about 500 feet above sea level, with some deeply
cut ravines and broad valleys. Since then, present-day geologic processes, such as erosion and
deposition by streams, landslides, and human activities, have modified the ground surface.
The primary geologic units of significance for the project in the area are summarized as follows:
Vashon Ablation Till (Qvat). Ablation till soils were deposited by one of several
depositional processes that take place along the margins of glacial ice and have
variable characteristics. Qvat is commonly composed of stratified or irregular bodies,
including a heterogeneous mixture of loose to dense gravel, sand, silt, and clay. Qvat
may contain scattered cobbles and boulders. Qvat is commonly reworked or
modified through sediment slumping or stream action after initial deposition.
Seasonally perched groundwater is common near the base of this unit.
Vashon Lodgement Till (Qvt). Vashon lodgement till soils were deposited at the
base of an advancing glacial ice sheet and were subsequently overridden by the ice.
Qvt is typically a nonsorted diamict consisting of very dense, silty sand with gravel
and silty gravel with sand; fines are typically nonplastic to low -plasticity. Qvt has a
consistency and strength similar to very soft rock. Qvt may contain interbeds, dikes,
and lenses of cohesionless silt, sand, and gravel, as well as cohesive clay and silt.
This unit can also contain fractures, and cobbles and boulders are common. Perched
groundwater may be encountered within this unit.
Vashon Till -Like Deposits (Qvd). Vashon till -like deposits are nonsorted to poorly
sorted diamicts and are intermediate between glacial till and glacial outwash. These
sediments may have been reworked by subglacial streams flowing in channels
beneath the ice. Qvd soils have a similar grain size distribution to Qvt (although
generally lower fines content), but are generally more variable in composition.
Perched groundwater may occur within this unit.
Vashon Advance Outwash Deposits (Qva). Vashon advanced outwash consists of
glaciofluvial sediment deposited as the glacial ice advanced through the Puget
Lowland. Deposits of Qva consist of dense to very dense, poorly graded sand to
well -graded sand to silty sand, with varying amounts of gravel and scattered cobbles.
Saturated Qva deposits form a productive regional aquifer, and the formation is
known to heave when encountered during drilling. Layers of relatively coarse sand
within the unsaturated Qva tend to cave during drilling. Where layers of low -
permeability soil exist, localized perched groundwater may occur in the Qva above
the regional aquifer.
Transitional Bed Deposits (Qtb). Transitional bed deposits are transitional between.
Vashon glacial and pre-Vashon nonglacial deposits. They are typically fine-grained,
21-1-22082-003-Rlfwp/]kn 21-1-22082-003
SHANNON
MILSON, INC.
consisting mostly of thick or thin beds and laminae of clay, silt, and fine sand
(Minard, 1983).
The major surface water features in project area are Echo Lake and Lake Ballinger
(approximately 4,700 southeast and 6,000 feet east of the project, respectively), and Deer Creek,
about 5,500 feet northwest of the project.
3.2 Local Geology and Hydrogeology
The following summarizes the local surficial and subsurface geology based on published reports,
databases, and previous studies:
■ According to a published geologic map (Minard, 1983; Figure 3) and our previous 22
project test pits and 11 shallow soil borings (Shannon & Wilson, 2016b), the project
site is underlain at a shallow depth by glacial till. The top of the till was identified by
our previous test pits and shallow borings as starting at between ground surface and
10 feet deep.
■ The transition from glacial lodgement till (Qvt) to glacial advance outwash (Qva)
occurs at approximately elevation 380 to 400 feet on the steep wooded slope in the
middle of the property (Minard, 1983).
■ Boring logs for the nearby Brightwater Project (CDM, 2006) and other nearby wells
indicate that the Qva is laterally extensive in the area.
■ Based on Brightwater Project borings MW-4 and E-106 (drilled about 1,500 feet
south of the project site along 244th Street SW), transitional bed (Qtb) deposits
underlie the Qva soils locally at about elevation 201 feet (CDM, 2006).
The following summarizes the local groundwater conditions based on published reports, online
databases, and previous studies:
The online Washington. State Department of Ecology (Ecology) water resources and
well log databases (Ecology, 2016a and 2016b) identify multiple irrigation and
domestic wells in southwest Edmonds vicinity that are completed in the Qva aquifer.
With one possible exception, none of these wells appears to be within'/4-mile of the
portion of the site undergoing redevelopment. No municipal water supply wells are
reported to be within'/4-mile of the site. We identified one domestic use groundwater
right that has been registered for a well in the vicinity of Firdale Village (Ecology,
2016a). The well's location was not specified on the water right documentation, but
the owner's address (9619 - 242" d Place SW, Edmonds) is within'/4-mile of the site,
cross -groundwater gradient to the project (Figure 4).
21-1-22082-003-Rlfrwp/]kn 21-1-22082-003
4
SHANNON
MILSON, INC.
■ The top of the Qva aquifer occurs between elevations 288 and 278 feet in the vicinity
of Brightwater Project exploratory boring MW-4, in the Firdale Village area (CDM,
2006).
■ The groundwater level in the Qva aquifer is at approximately elevation 259 to
261 feet in City of Edmonds observation well A-2, located approximately 4,500 feet
west of the project site (Shannon & Wilson, 2013).
■ Prior to our current site work, we estimated the hydraulic gradient in the Qva aquifer
in the southwest Edmonds area to be to the west at about 0.008 foot per foot
(foot/foot). The expected annual groundwater level fluctuation in the Qva aquifer is
between about 2 and 5 feet (Shannon & Wilson, 2013; CDM, 2006).
■ The project site straddles the mapped ten-year time -of -travel zone for a Class A
municipal water supply protection area (Figure 4; PACE, 2002). This water source
consists of a spring that produces water from the basal Qva aquifer in the Deer Creek
ravine. Olympic View Water and Sewer District (Olympic View) owns the Deer
Creek water supply and treatment facility. Figure 4 indicates that the hydraulic
gradient for the Qva aquifer is approximately west/northwest in the project vicinity.
Thomas and others (1997).rated the Qva aquifer in the Project site and most of the
vicinity of southwest Edmonds as having a low sensitivity to contamination, based on
aquifer characteristics. However, the Deer Creek water supply protection plan states
that the Washington State Department of Health assigned the Deer Creek source a
high susceptibility rating and established a testing program. The Deer Creek source
susceptibility analysis included a review of both geologic and land use factors (PACE
2002). We understand from Robinson Noble, Inc. (Robinson Noble), Olympic
View's hydrogeologic consultant, that the Deer Creek source testing is currently
performed after the supply has been treated. Robinson Noble also stated that Deer
Creek has multiple monitoring wells located upgradient of the spring source, which
are currently not being sampled.
From our conversations with Olympic View and Robinson Noble, we understand that
Olympic View recently drilled a test well at 8605-2281h Street SW and that they are in
the process of developing a new water supply well in this vicinity (Figure 4). The test
well was reportedly drilled to about 700 feet deep, and it is located about 3,300 feet
northeast of the project site. As of the date of this report, its log was not yet available
on the online Ecology well log viewer. Mr. Max Wills of Robinson Noble stated that
the intake zone was revised (made more shallow) after the test well's initial
construction and testing. He said that the well is now screened within the Qva
aquifer. Olympic View personnel said it may soon be supplemented by a second new
well. Olympic View personnel stated that they are not currently using this or other
wells in the project vicinity. We suggested to Olympic View, via Robinson Noble,
the advantage of working together with them to obtain concurrent Qva aquifer water
level measurements at the test well and the Madrona K-8 Qva wells. These
measurements could assist in better defining the local Qva gradient. As of the date of
this report, we have not received a response from Olympic View.
21-1-22082-003-Rlfrwp/]kn 21-1-22082-003
5
SHANNON
MILSON, INC.
4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND TESTING
4.1 Drilling and Testing Program
Our drilling and testing program consisted of the following:
Subcontracted Holt Services, Inc. to drill three borings, including installation of two
observation wells and one pilot dry well. These were drilled using the sonic core
drilling method:
— Observation well OW-1, drilled to 185.5 feet below ground surface (bgs);
screened 175.4 to 185 feet bgs.
Pilot dry well IW-I, drilled to 91.2 feet bgs; screened 63.3 to 90.4 feet bgs.
IW-1 is located approximately 25 feet east of OW-1.
Observation well OW-2, drilled to 190 feet bgs; screened 179.2 to 183.9 feet
bgs; vibrating wire piezometers (VWPs) at 66.3 feet (VWP1) and 146.3 feet
(VWP2).
Subcontracted Malcolm Drilling Company, Inc. to complete one full-scale dry well,
using the auger drill method:
Full-scale dry well, IW-2, drilled to 120.4 feet bgs; screen exposed to formation
from about 62 to 119.7 feet bgs. IW-2 is located approximately 14 feet
northwest of OW-2.
■ Observed construction of observation wells OW-1 and OW-2 and pilot dry well
IW-1. Construction details for the wells and VWPs are presented in the boring logs
and in Tables A-1 and A-2 in Appendix A.
■ Observed construction of full-scale dry well IW-2. Well construction details are
presented in the boring log and in Table A-1 in Appendix A.
■ Logged and photographed the sonic core soil samples and logged the auger cuttings.
Collected sub -samples for laboratory geotechnical analysis.
■ Estimated the approximate well locations and reference elevations based on field
measurements.
■ Developed observation wells OW-1 and OW-2 using an inertial -style pump (Waterra)
equipped with a combination surge block and check valve. Measured groundwater
quality field parameters during well development at OW-1, and observed purge water
sediment content during well development at OW-2.
■ Collected groundwater samples from observation well OW-1 to establish baseline
groundwater quality in the Qva aquifer. Analyzed the sample for petroleum
hydrocarbon -related constituents and primary and secondary drinking water
parameters. Measured groundwater quality field parameters immediately before
sample collection.
21-1-22082-003-Rlfrwp/]kn 21-1-22082-003
6
SHANNON
MILSON, INC.
Performed a "slug" test in OW-1 to estimate the hydraulic conductivity of the Qva
aquifer.
■ Commenced long-term groundwater level monitoring in. OW-1 in. April 2016.by
installing a Levelogger and a data logging barometer (Barologger). Commenced
long-term groundwater level monitoring in the well at OW-2 in August 2016,.
installing a Levelogger. Performed periodic data downloads, coupled with manual
readings of the OW-2 VWPs and dry wells IW-1 and IW-2.
Performed an inflow test in pilot dry well IW-1 by adding water at known rates for a
selected time periods and monitoring water levels at IW-1 and OW-1 before, during,
and after the inflow test.
— Step testing —performed four inflow steps at approximately 14, 38, 72, and
103 gallons per minute (gpm), maintaining each rate for approximately 1 hour;
and
Short-term constant rate injection test, lasting about 4.3 hours, at an average rate
of about 11.0 gpm.
■ Performed an inflow test in full-scale dry well IW-2 by adding water at known rates
for a selected time periods and monitoring water levels at IW-2, OW-2, and OW-1.
before, during, and after the inflow test.
Step testing — performed four inflow steps at approximately 87, 11.4, and
128 gpm, maintaining each rate for approximately 39 to 99 minutes; and
Short-term constant rate injection test, lasting about 15.9 hours, at an average
rate of about 141 gpm.
4.2 Findings
4.2.1 Observed Geologic Conditions
Appendix A presents the exploration logs and includes a Soil Description and Log Key
that explains the terms used in the soil classifications and descriptions. Figures 5 and 6 present
in profile generalized illustrations of the subsurface conditions we observed at the four borings.
The results of these borings and hydrogeologic information interpreted from other studies in the
vicinity are summarized as follows:
■ Near -surface soils consisting primarily of Qvat and weathered Qvt extend to a depth
of about 10 and 14 feet. Some surficial fill is also present.
■ Interbedded Vashon lodgement till (Qvt) and till -like deposits (Qvd) occur beneath
the near -surface soils to about 38 to 50 feet bgs.
Interbedded Qva and Qvd layers are present below approximately 38 to 50 feet, to
about 60 to 72 feet bgs. Perched groundwater was observed to about 61 feet bgs in
these deposits.
21-1-22082-003-Rlfrwp/]kn 21-1-22082-003
7
SHANNON
MILSON, INC.
Below about 60 to 61 feet bgs, encountered soils consisted predominantly of Qva,
which are present to the maximum explored depth of 190 feet (approximately
elevation 255 feet). Scattered layers of silty sand are present within the unsaturated
Qva, particularly at and below about 134 to 147 feet (OW-1 and OW-2, respectively);
some of these layers appear to be intermediate between Qva and Qvd.
■ Transitional bed deposits (Qtb) were not encountered by the project borings, but they
may be present below the maximum exploration depth of 190 feet. Based on other
deep explorations in the vicinity, Qtb deposits might be expected to occur below
about 244 feet bgs (about elevation 201 feet).
Soil treatment capacities of the Qva between the target UIC depth of about 120 feet and
the top of the Qva regional aquifer are low to medium, as defined by the Guidance for UIC Wells
that Manage Stormwater (Ecology, 2006). These treatment capacity rankings are based on the
grain size analyses presented in Appendix B and summarized in Appendix C, Table C-4:
OW-1 vicinity: We observed approximately 10 cumulative feet of medium treatment
capacity soils between 120 feet bgs and the top of the Qva regional aquifer; the
remaining soils (about 37 feet cumulative thickness) have a low treatment capacity.
OW-2 vicinity: We observed approximately 1.4 cumulative feet of medium treatment
capacity soils between 120 feet bgs and the top of the Qva regional aquifer; the
remaining soils (about 33 feet cumulative thickness) have a low treatment capacity.
4.2.2 Groundwater Levels and Monitoring
As indicated in the boring logs in Appendix A, we observed shallow wet seams and
layers in the Qvat/weathered Qvt deposits at IW-1, OW-1, and OW-2. These were as shallow as
5.5 to 8.5 feet bgs in OW-1, about 9 to 1.4 feet bgs in IW-1, and about 1.2 feet bgs at OW-2.
Similarly, we observed additional wet seams and layers within the Qvt/Qvd soils in the
0W-2/IW-2 vicinity at about 23, 35, and 45 feet bgs. Perched groundwater may be feeding the
wetlands identified on the site slopes (Shannon & Wilson, 2016a).
We encountered a possible perched groundwater zone within the interbedded Qvd/Qva
soils, between about 48 and 57 feet bgs at IW-1 and at about 50 to 53 feet bgs at OW-1. Perched
water was present at IW-2 within the interbedded Qvd/upper Qva soils from about 49 to 61 feet
bgs. Soil within this zone caved during drilling at IW-2, necessitating the installation of
temporary surface casing. A possible zone of perched water was encountered at approximately
1.32.5 to 136.5 feet bgs at OW-1, associated with a silty sand Qva layer. However, this saturated
zone may also have been associated with residual water introduced during the drilling process.
21-1-22082-003-Rlfrwp/]kn 21-1-22082-003
8
SHANNON
MILSON, INC.
Hydrographs of the Qva aquifer groundwater levels measured to date at OW-1 and OW-2
are presented in Appendix C. The highest observed levels to date in the regional Qva aquifer at
the site are approximately 167.1 to 1.67.3 feet bgs (elevation 278.0 to 277.4 feet) at OW-1 and
OW-2, respectively. The range of fluctuation in the Qva aquifer water level observed to date is
about 1.8 feet (April to November 2016 at OW-1).
Apart from during and immediately after their respective injection well testing periods,
wells IW-1 and IW-2 have been dry to date. The VWP installed at 66.3 feet bgs at OW-2 has
also been dry, including during the IW-2 test. The VWP installed at 1.46.3 feet bgs at OW-2
measured water temporarily mounding at that depth during and immediately after the IW-2 test,
as shown in Appendix C.
The top of the unsaturated portion of the Qva unit is about 60 to 61 feet bgs (elevation.
385 or 384 feet) in the OW-1/OW-2 vicinity. The unsaturated thickness of the targeted Qva
infiltration receptor soils is about 72 feet (if perched water is present in the Qva at 132.5 feet bgs
at OW-1) or about 1.06 feet (based on the highest groundwater level measured to date at OW-1).
We estimated the Qva aquifer gradient by comparing groundwater elevations measured at
the project wells to the approximate groundwater elevation we measured during a previous study
at City of Edmonds observation well A-2 (Shannon & Wilson, 201.3). Well A-2 is located about
4,500 feet west of the site. Based on these data, the Qva aquifer gradient beneath the project site
is about 0.002 foot/foot to the west/northwest (Figure 4).
4.2.3 Aquifer Hydraulic Properties
We performed single -well "slug" tests in observation well OW-1 to determine the local
horizontal hydraulic conductivity (Kh) of the Qva aquifer (Appendix Q. The OW-1 test results
indicate a Kh of 55 feet/day (3.8 x 10-2 feet/minute).
We estimated the Kh for soil samples collected from project borings IW-2, OW-1, and
OW-2 using empirical methods (Table C-4, Appendix Q. The results indicated the following:
• The estimated Kh value for the till -like deposits (Qvd) sample from OW-1 was less than
0.01 foot/day.
The Kh estimates for the 21 Qva unit samples range from 0.05 to 626 feet/day (3 x 10-5 to
0.43 feet/minute). Excluding the highest value as an outlier, the arithmetic and geometric mean
Kh values of the remaining 20 samples are 38 and 1.1 feet/day (2.3 x 10-2 and 7.4 x 1.0-3
feet/minute), respectively.
21-1-22082-003-Rlfrwp/]kn 21-1-22082-003
9
SHANNON
MILSON, INC.
4.2.4 Groundwater Quality
In general, the OW-1 sample indicates that the groundwater quality of the Qva aquifer
groundwater quality is good beneath the project site. An exception is the relatively high
concentration of manganese, 344 parts per billion (ppb), which is almost seven times the
secondary (aesthetic) drinking water standard of 50 ppb. Manganese occurs naturally in soil and
groundwater. The extent to which manganese dissolves into groundwater depends on the amount
of oxygen in the water and, to a lesser extent, upon the pH of the water. If the oxygen content of
groundwater is low, manganese tends to dissolve more readily. The zone from which the OW-1
groundwater sample was collected contains scattered organics, the decomposition of which
depletes the oxygen content of the groundwater. This may contribute to the relatively high
groundwater manganese concentration.
Table C-1 in Appendix C summarizes the laboratory test results for the OW-1
groundwater sample and comparable drinking water standards. Appendix C also contains the
associated laboratory data report.
4.2.5 Pilot -scale Injection Well Testing
Figure 7 presents the results of the pilot -scale injection well test at IW-1. During the first
four injection steps (approximately 1 hour each, at about 14, 38, 72, and 1.03 gpm), the water
column height in IW-1 ranged from approximately 2 to 1.8 feet (89 to 72 feet bgs). However,
these four steps did not run long enough for the water level to stabilize. The fifth step lasted
approximately 4.3 hours. The inflow rate varied between about 107 and 1.26 gpm during this
step, with an average inflow rate of 110 gpm. At this inflow rate, the IW-1 water column height
stabilized at approximately 24 feet, which is 67 feet below grade and 4 feet below the top of the
well screen. Based on these data, and as summarized in Table C-3 (Appendix C):
■ The observed injection specific capacity of IW-1 is approximately 4.6 gpm/foot of
water level rise and the approximate K for the tested zone is 24 feet/day (1.7 x 10-2
feet/minute).
■ The test did not cause the groundwater level in nearby observation well OW-1 to
increase by a measurable amount.
4.2.6 Full-scale Injection Well Testing
Figure 8 presents the results of the full-scale injection well test at IW-2. During the first
three injection steps (which lasted between 39 and 99 minutes each at rates of 87, 1.1.4, and
128 gpm), the peak water column heights in IW-2 ranged from approximately 12 to 17 feet (or
21-1-22082-003-Rlfrwp/]kn 21-1-22082-003
10
SHANNON
MILSON, INC.
108 to 103 feet bgs). However, the water level did not stabilize during these steps. The fourth
step lasted for 15.9 hours, at an average inflow rate of about 141 gpm. At this inflow rate, the
IW-2 water level was relatively stable at about 99 feet below grade, representing a head rise
above the borehole bottom of about 21 feet. Based on these data, and as summarized in Table C-
3 (Appendix C):
The observed injection specific capacity of IW-2 is approximately 6.7 gpm/foot of
water level rise and the approximate K for the tested zone is 30 feet/day (2.0 x 10-2
feet/minute.
The test caused the groundwater level in OW-2 VWP2 to rise by 5 feet at the end of
the injection phase of the test. This rise fully dissipated during the subsequent
3.5 days. A small increase in the groundwater level (less than 0.3 foot) occurred in
observation well OW-2 in response to the test.
5.0 GROUNDWATER MODELING OF PLANNED INJECTION WELLFIELD
5.1 Overview
We performed groundwater modeling to determine the feasibility of the planned UIC wellfield.
In particular, the modeling was conducted to evaluate potential groundwater mounding, well
operational constraints, and the potential for seepage to occur at the slopes to the west of the UIC
wellfield. The modeling consisted of the following:
1. Establishing a detailed conceptual site model;
2. Developing and calibrating the numerical model;
3. Simulating the planned 16-well UIC wellfield for a specified storm event; and
4. Testing the sensitivity of the model results to parameter uncertainty.
Appendix D presents the full details of the modeling approach, results, and limitations.
5.2 Conceptual Site Model (CSM)
Based on the four deep borings and our understanding of the local hydrogeology, we have
developed the following CSM for the project site:
■ Relatively low permeability Qvt and Qvd soils are situated above a thick layer of
relatively permeable Qva sand.
■ The upper Qva deposits are interbedded with Qvd soils down to a depth of 60 to
72 feet (elevation 385 to 373 feet). The base of the perched zone observed within the
interbedded Qva/Qvd zone is 61 feet bgs (elevation 384 feet). The Qva is
predominantly unsaturated from 61 to 1.67 feet bgs (elevations 384 to 278 feet).
21-1-22082-003-Rlfrwp/]kn 21-1-22082-003
11
SHANNON
MILSON, INC.
■ The regional. Qva aquifer extends from 1.67 feet bgs (elevation 278 feet) to at least
244 feet bgs (elevation 201 feet)
■ Potentially perching layers of silty sand are scattered within the generally unsaturated
Qva. These layers occur primarily below 147 feet bgs (elevation 298 feet) at OW-1
and OW-2, and possibly as shallow as 134 feet bgs (elevation 311 feet) at OW-1.
At each deep UIC well, a surface casing and seal will be installed to isolate the
overlying Qvt, Qvd, and saturated upper Qva layers from the unsaturated underlying
Qva soils (Figure 9). Stormwater discharge to the UICs will be directed into the
unsaturated Qva soils to a maximum depth of about 120 feet (about elevation
325 feet).
5.3 Model Development and Calibration
The model uses the U.S. Geological Survey's numerical groundwater flow code MODFLOW-
2005 (Harbaugh, 2005) to simulate the unsaturated zone and groundwater flow system in the
project area. The model occupies an area 2,400 feet by 2,000 feet, and it extends from land
surface to elevation 225 feet. The model uses the following three layers to simulate the
subsurface soils described in the CSM:
■ Layer I — unsaturated Qva outwash (land surface to elevation 298 feet)
■ Layer 2 — a 5-foot thick, low permeability perching layer (from elevation 298 to
293 feet)
■ Layer 3 — saturated Qva outwash (elevation 293 to 225 feet)
We calibrated the model transiently to the full-scale injection test performed using UIC well
IW-2. This involved adjusting the material properties of the three layers to enable the model to
best reproduce the observed changes in groundwater levels. Table D-1 in Appendix D present
the final modeled material properties.
5.4 Model Simulation (Base Case)
We used the calibrated model to simulate the planned UIC wellfield for a specified storm event.
This Base Case involved the following:
■ 1.6 UIC wells, grouped in four areas (Areas 1 through 4), each with three to five wells
spaced at 30 to 50 feet (Figure 10);
■ The UIC wells inject water into model layer 1; and
■ The simulated injection was for a 100-year, 24-hour storm event. The peak hourly
injection rate for each well ranged from 1.02 to 130 gpm.
21-1-22082-003-Rlfrwp/]kn 21-1-22082-003
12
SHANNON
MILSON, INC.
The results indicate that the simulated storm event would temporarily raise water levels by up to
1.1 feet (to a peak elevation 310 feet) at the center of UIC Area 2 (1.35 feet bgs), and by up 7 feet
(to elevation 306 feet) at the center of the three other UIC areas (139 feet bgs). Although some
mounding interference would occur between adjacent UIC wells in each area, the operational
groundwater level would not be higher than the top of the designed well screens (at elevation 375
to 380 feet). The model also predicts that the groundwater would not increase to less than
70 feet below land surface at the slope to the west of the wellfield areas.
5.5 Sensitivity Analysis
To evaluate the effect on the Base Case results of key model parameter uncertainty, we
performed three sensitivity cases. These involved the re -simulating the 24-hour storm with
(a) the Qva aquifer Kh and Kv values reduced by a factor of 10, (b) the elevation of the 5-foot
thick perching layer increased by 15 feet, and (c) a combination of (a) and (b). The most
conservative case (c) results indicate that the induced perched water table would rise to a peak of
elevation 328 feet at the center of UIC Area 2, which is 117 feet bgs. The water would remain
more than 50 feet below the toe of the slope to the west of UIC Area 2.
6.0 STORMWATER QUALITY DISCUSSION
We understand that the District plans to employ source controls and to treat site stormwater
based on the expected pollutant loads, in accordance with the local stormwater code
requirements (City of Edmonds, 2010; Ecology, 2005 and 2006). We understand that the
District plans to incorporate bioretention for treatment and infiltration of some site stormwater,
with drainage from the bioretention being routed to some of the UIC wells. This best
management practice (BMP) will target shallow, unsaturated soils with moderate permeability,
e.g., Qvat, fill, and weathered Qvt. In areas where these soils have sufficient permeability, some
flow control benefit will be realized by this BMP. Additional flow control will be provided by
the proposed UIC wells.
The introduction of nutrients into UIC wells may contribute to biofouling of the wells, thereby
reducing their effective life span (National. Research Council [NRC], 1.994). To manage
phosphorus and nitrogen at the bioretention facilities, we recommend incorporating the following
elements into the bioretention facility BMP design, in accordance with the applicable
stormwater code (City of Edmonds, 2010).and as described in the Low Impact Development
Technical. Guidance Manual for Puget Sound (Puget Sound Action Team, 2005; Puget Sound
Partnership, 2012):
21-1-22082-003-Rlfrwp/]kn 21-1-22082-003
13
SHANNON
MILSON, INC.
Use only mature, stable compost, without biosolids or manure constituents.
Employ elevated under -drains to create a fluctuating anoxic/aerobic zone below the
drain pipes.
We contacted Ecology (Ms. Mary Shaleen-Hansen, Water Quality Section; Mr. Douglas Howie,
Senior Stormwater Engineer) to discuss UIC management and common reasons for UIC well
failure. Ms. Shaleen-Hansen recommended that the site UIC well management plan address
coliform, pesticides, and herbicides (i.e., through source control) to prevent introduction of these
contaminants into the UIC wells. Although Mr. Howie was not familiar with UIC well fouling
due to the introduction of nutrients, he stated that UIC well failures are typically due to the
introduction of total suspended solids (TSS).
In our experience, TSS-fouled UIC wells are challenging to redevelop, even more so than
biofouled wells. Therefore, sediment fouling should be avoided whenever possible. Part of an
effective TSS management policy is to prevent construction site runoff from entering UIC wells,
as it can have elevated TSS levels. UIC wells should be also protected from receiving runoff
from recently landscaped areas until those areas have stabilized, in accordance with the locally
applicable stormwater manual.
7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on our observations at the current borings and our previous site test pits and shallow
borings, the infiltration potential of the site's shallow native soils is generally low. Infiltration of
some stormwater at dispersed facilities is feasible on portions of the site (Shannon & Wilson,
201.6b). In general, shallow site soils are not feasible for the concentrated infiltration of large
volumes of stormwater, but infiltration into the underlying unsaturated, relatively low -fines -
content Qva soils is feasible.
7.1 Injection Well Recommendations
7.1.1 General
We recommend that the UIC well construction activities of the District's drilling
contractor be observed by the District's own hydrogeologic/geotechnical representative, under
separate contract to the District. We recommend that the selected drilling contractor submit a
drill plan and qualifications to the District's hydrogeologic/geotechnical representative for
approval prior to beginning work. During UIC well installation, we recommend that we provide
field observation of UIC well installation and field testing, as the District's representative, so that
timely adjustments to array layout can be made, if needed.
21-1-22082-003-Rlfrwp/]kn 21-1-22082-003
14
SHANNON
MILSON, INC.
Based on the IW-1 and IW-2 inflow tests, the use of UIC wells at the project site is
feasible for stormwater management. The top of the target infiltration zone (unsaturated, sandy
Qva soils with predominantly low fines content) is about 60 to 61 feet bgs at the locations
explored by OW-1, OW-2, IW-1, and IW-2. The depth to this contact may vary across the site.
Based on the OW-1 log, perched groundwater may be present in the Qva at about 132.5 feet bgs
in that area. The top of the regional Qva aquifer is at about 167 feet bgs. Ecology does not
allow stormwater to be discharged directly into an aquifer via UIC wells. We recommend that
the UIC well depths be limited to about 1.15 to 120 feet (approximately 330 to 325 feet), which
will allow for up to about 47 feet of separation between the UIC wells and the top of the Qva
aquifer.
We understand that the District proposes to install UIC wells in four array clusters, with.
UIC wells spaced approximately 30 to 50 feet apart (Figure 10). We recommend the wells be
spaced no closer than 30 feet on center in order to reduce interference between the wells.
Greater spacing creates less interference and results in more efficient UIC well operation. We
recommend that the newly installed UIC wells be flow tested shortly after installation in order to
confirm the expected UIC performance assumptions.
7.1.2 Well Design Recommendations
There are two general types of deep UIC well designs in common use locally. These
include: (a) large -diameter boreholes filled with sand and/or gravel infiltration media (with or
without a vertical transmission casing and screen), and (b) traditional screened wells, which have
a smaller filter -packed zone around the well screen or no artificial filter pack at all. Based on our
communication with the project team, we understand that the former, option a, is planned for the
project, and we have based our design recommendations on this understanding. Auger rigs are
commonly used to perform this type of drilling.
Auger drilling and installation techniques typically involve drilling a cased hole through
the zone through which a seal will be placed and an open or temporarily cased hole in the
infiltration receptor zone. Drilling is typically accomplished with a solid stem or bucket auger.
Unit cost estimates for drilling and installing this type of UIC well are roughly $30,000 to
$40,000, excluding surface vault and distribution system completion, spoils handling, well
development, and field testing. Unit well drilling costs are greater if few wells are installed.
Based on our explorations and testing and assuming similar conditions as encountered at
by the four deep site borings, the recommended full-scale UIC well short-term specific capacity
estimate is 6.7 gpm/foot of screen. Assuming good control over TSS and nutrients and relatively
21-1-22082-003-Rlfrwp/]kn 21-1-22082-003
15
SHANNON
MILSON, INC.
uniform site conditions, we recommend applying a divisive correction factor (CF) of 2 to this
UIC well capacity. Applying this CF results in a UIC well design specific capacity of about
3.3 gpm/foot of screen in the unsaturated Qva. This assumes the UICs will have similar
construction to IW-2, with a minimum diameter of 24 inches and total depth of about 1.1.5 to
1.20 feet.
Our UIC well design recommendations are presented below and are illustrated in
Figure 9. Figure 9 conceptually illustrates construction aspects of a hybrid UIC well that
combines infiltration media backfill with a vertical transmission casing and screen. The actual
well depths and construction methods and details may differ, based on encountered
hydrogeologic conditions and project goals. Construction steps include the following:
■ Drill a large -diameter hole (e.g., 36- to 40-inch) to facilitate construction of a surface
seal. This borehole should be drilled to about 1 to 5 feet below the base of the
Qvt/Qvd/saturated upper Qva soils (contact estimated to be about 60 to 65 feet bgs, or
about elevation 385 to 380 feet). Maintain an open borehole through this upper zone
using a temporary casing. The borehole diameter should be at least 4 inches larger
than the nominal diameter of the planned permanent surface casing. Drill a smaller
diameter hole (e.g., 24-inch) from the depth of the bottom of the planned permanent
surface casing to about 50 to 60 feet into the unsaturated Qva soils (total depth of
about 1.1.5 to 1.20 feet, or to about elevation 330 to 325 feet). Alternatively, temporary
casing may be used to drill to the bottom of the hole. No drilling additives should be
used, with the possible exception of water.
Install a permanent 30- to 36-inch inside diameter (I.D.) steel casing. This casing
should be installed to about 1 to 5 feet below the base of the larger diameter hole.
Construct a surface seal between the permanent casing and the borehole annulus. The
intent of the surface seal is to (a) protect the Qva infiltration receptor soils from direct
inflows of surface water and (b) prevent the draining of the overlying perched zones.
Depending on drilling approach, the permanent surface casing and seal may be placed
before or after the boring is drilled to its final depth and the vertical transmission
casing/screen assembly is installed. We recommend the lower portion of the surface
seal consist of bentonite chips (minimum 10 feet thick). Then place additional
sealing material (bentonite, neat cement, or neat cement grout, in accordance with
Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-160 sealing requirements) from the top
of the bentonite chip seal to the ground surface. The lower bentonite chip seal should
be installed in such a way so as to prevent the upper annular sealants from intruding
into the target infiltration soils or the interior of the permanent surface casing.
Install the vertical transmission casing. We recommend using 8-inch LD casing and
screen. Concurrently install to the same depth a polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
observation pipe casing and screen. (The purpose of the PVC pipe is to facilitate
measurement of the water level in the UIC well during periods of stormwater inflow
21-1-22082-003-Rlfrwp/]kn 21-1-22082-003
16
SHANNON
MILSON, INC.
Use steel centralizers on the 8-inch T.D. casing and screen, on about 20-foot centers,
and secure the PVC pipe to the centralizers. Backfill the 24-inch borehole around the
8-inch I.D. screen with washed, rounded, UIC 4x8 filter sand. If temporary casing
was not used to drill the lower borehole, it may be necessary to tremie the filter into
place in order to reduce borehole wall caving. Extend the UIC 4x8 filter sand to
about 5 feet above the depth of the permanent surface casing. Once the UIC 4x8
filter sand has been placed, we recommend using water to settle it around the
screened zone, topping off the UIC 4x8 sand as necessary to bring it back to about
5 feet inside the permanent casing. We recommend placing UIC gravel around the
pipes within the permanent surface casing, to approximately 4 feet below the planned
invert of the inlet pipe into the permanent storm drain manhole (SDMH). Perform
flow testing after the UIC gravel has been emplaced, topping off the gravel as
necessary.
During installation of the permanent SDMH, we recommend placing two layers
above the UIC gravel, consisting of a 6-inch minimum layer of UIC 4x8 filter sand
and a 6-inch minimum layer of UIC filter sand. The intent of the UIC filter sand is tc
provide supplementary filtering of low -quantity UIC inflows. The UIC filter sand
should be replaced as it becomes clogged. To protect the upper UIC filter sand from
erosion, we recommend placing a pad of quarry spalls (approximately 6 inches thick)
within the SDMH, with the top of the pad about 6 inches below the inlet pipe elbow.
The permanent steel surface casing should be cut off approximately 3 feet below the
invert of the inlet pipe to the SDMH.
To maintain UIC well function, it is critically important to protect the UIC wells from
TSS loading while the site is under construction, as well as during normal site use.
No construction -related stormwater should be discharged to the UICs, and the site
should be fully stabilized prior to bringing the UICs online. Accordingly, we
recommend that, while the site is under construction and not fully stabilized, and
prior to installation of the permanent SDMH over a UIC, the UIC's steel surface
casing be left temporarily slightly above grade. We recommend that the top of the
surface casing be temporarily protected with a welded top plate or a locking
monument until the permanent SDMH is installed. During UIC operation, we
recommend a combination of source control measures and pre-treatment to the site
stormwater to remove or reduce the expected types and quantities of pollutants prior
to its being discharged to the UIC arrays, in accordance with the local stormwater
code (City of Edmonds, 2010).and the UIC Guidance (Ecology, 2006).
7.1.3 Injection Well Materials
We recommend the following materials be used for UIC well construction:
■ UIC Vertical Transmission Casing, Screen, and Bottom Cap. Due to its high
durability and high open area relative to PVC machine -slotted screen, we recommend
using stainless steel screen in the UIC wells. The recommended UIC vertical
21-1-22082-003-Rlfrwp/]kn 21-1-22082-003
17
SHANNON MILSON, INC.
transmission casing, screen, and bottom cap material is 8-inch I.D., 304 stainless
steel, with threaded or welded • The recommended screen is continuous -slot
(0.020-inch slots), approximately 50 feet long. Steel centralizers on approximately
20-foot centers are recommended to facilitate placement of the casing in the center •
the borehole. We recommend that the screened interval be installed in a borehole
with a diameter of approximately 24 to 36 inches.
UIC Observation Pipe Casing, Screen, and Bottom Cap. The recommended Ul
vertical •• pipe casing, screen, and •i cap material is 2-inch I.D.,
Schedule 40 or Schedule 80 PVC with threaded joints. The recommended screen i
factory machine -slotted (0,020-inch slots), approximately 10 feet long. We
recommend that the top of the pipe be equipped with a removable watertight plug.
We • that the PVC pipe be •1 to the transmission casing centralize]
UIC Surface Casing and Seal. The recommended UIC surface casing is steel, 30- to
36-inch I.D., meeting ASTM International A53 A or B, with 0.375-inch wall
thickness and with welded or threaded joints. We recommend the surface casing be
-• in a borehole that is at least 4 inches larger in • than the nominal
surface casing diameter. We recommend seal materials meeting the WAC 173-160
Sealing Material Standard • placed in the annulus •' the permanent steel
surface casing and the borehole wall. We recommend that the bottom of the annular
seal material • of • chips (minimum 10 feet thick). Above the bentonite
chips, we recommend that the annular seal consist of neat cement, neat cement grout,
or bentonite, in accordance with WAC 173-160.
medium specification, with a recommended gradation of:
U.S. Standard Sieve Size Percent Passing
% (9.5 millimeter [mm])
100
4 (4.75 mm)
95 to 100
8 (2.36 mm)
70 to 100
16 (1.18 mm)
40 to 90
30 (0.60 mm)
25 to 75
50 (0.30 mm)
2 to 25
100 (0.15 mm)
<4
200 (0.075 mm)
<2
draining, rounded, granular material, with a gradation of:
21-1-22082-003-R] fwp/lkn 21-1-22082-003
18
SHANNON
MILSON, INC.
MT,
% (9.5 mm)
4 (4.75 mm)
8 (2.36 mm)
30 (0.60 mm)
200 (0.075 mm)
In UIC Gravel. We recommend the UIC gravel consist of free -draining, rounded,
granular material, with a gradation of.
1/2(1.2.5mm)
% (9.5 mm)
4 (4.75 mm)
8 (2.36 mm)
100 (0.1.5 mm)
Percent Passing
100
80 to 100
5 to 15
0 to 10
0 to 0.6
Filter materials used in UIC construction should be should be:
■ Free from organics, debris, or other deleterious material.
■ Stockpiled in such manner that they are protected from contamination by other site
materials (e.g., fine sediment) and from segregation by rainfall, as appropriate.
7.2 Additional Recommendations
We recommend that the performance of the UIC clusters be monitored so that UIC array
performance over time can be tracked and appropriate maintenance or UIC well rehabilitation
scheduled. We recommend the installation and monitoring of data logging transducers in some
or all of the wells, coupled with periodic manual water level measurements. We recommend that
a regular and perpetual maintenance program be performed for all of the site infiltration facilities
to reduce siltation and bio-fouling, in accordance with the local stormwater code requirements.
Groundwater observation wells should be protected through the facility construction process and
be used to facilitate measurement of facility performance. If the wells are damaged during
construction, they should be repaired or properly abandoned, in accordance with WAC 173-160.
If the District desires to monitor the downstream effects of the planned UIC array, then we would
recommend the installation of downgradient observation wells prior to the UIC arrays being
brought online. Such wells could function as monitoring points for measuring variations in Qva
aquifer water levels (and, if desired, for tracking aquifer water quality over time). Appropriate
locations for such wells are to the west/northwest of the planned UIC arrays. These might be
21-1-22082-003-Rlfrwp/]kn 21-1-22082-003
19
SHANNON
MILSON, INC.
drilled at or beyond the toe of the slope but still on the District property. If these wells are
installed, then an additional observation well installed upgradient (east) of the UIC array would
also be useful in measuring Qva aquifer water levels and possibly background water quality.
As indicated by Figure 4, the project site is within the mapped ten-year time -of. -travel zone of the
water supply protection area for the Deer Creek municipal water supply surface water source.
We recommend coordinating stormwater infiltration efforts in the project area with the Olympic
View to facilitate their compliance with Washington State Department of Health source water
protection requirements established under the Watershed Control Program. Olympic View's
water supply protection plan (plan) for Deer Creek (PACE, 2002) notes that Olympic View does
not maintain any authority over land use regulations and requirements. However, Olympic
View's plan recommends the following regulatory and protective measures be considered by
land use agencies (i.e., City of Edmonds), as applicable to the ten-year capture zone illustrated in
Figure 4:
■ Encourage public education as being critical to the overall effectiveness of protecting
the Deer Creek water supply.
■ Discourage use of chemical fertilizers.
■ Require that oil- and detergent -based waste materials be treated by the sanitary sewer
system, as appropriate.
■ Encourage protection of surface water bodies and groundwater wells through public
awareness.
■ Cooperate with land use and emergency response agencies (i.e., implement a spill
response plan, with accompanying notification of the proper authorities and Olympic
View of potential threats to the water supply system).
8.0 LIMITATIONS
The analyses, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report are based on site
conditions as they presently exist. We assume that the current field explorations are
representative of the subsurface conditions at the proposed infiltration facilities; i.e., the
subsurface conditions everywhere in the vicinity of the proposed infiltration facilities are not
significantly different from those disclosed by the field explorations. Within the limitations of
the scope, schedule, and budget, the analyses, conclusions, and recommendations presented in
this report were prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional geotechnical and
hydrogeologic principles and practice in this area at the time this report was prepared. We make
no other warranty, either express or implied. These conclusions and recommendations were
based on our understanding of the project as described in this report and the site conditions as
21-1-22082-003-Rlfrwp/]kn 21-1-22082-003
20
allANNON &WILSON, INC
interpreted from the field explorations. Regulatory agencies may reach different conclusions
than Shannon & Wilson.
Unanticipated soil conditions are commonly encountered and cannot be fully determined by
merely taking soil samples or completing test explorations. Such unexpected conditions
frequently require that additional expenditures be made to attain a properly constructed project.
Therefore, a contingency fund is recommended to accommodate such potential extra costs.
This report was prepared for the exclusive use of the District. It should be made available to
prospective contractors for information on factual data only, and not as a warranty of subsurface
conditions such as those interpreted from the exploration logs and presented in the discussions of
subsurface conditions included in this report.
Shannon & Wilson has prepared Appendix E, "Important Information About Your
Geotechnical/Environmental Deport," to help you understand the use and limitations of our
report. Apart from the baseline Qva aquifer groundwater sampling at well OW-1, the scope of
our services did not include an environmental assessment or evaluation regarding the presence or
absence of hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, surface water, groundwater, or air, on or
below or around the site, Shannon & Wilson has qualified personnel to assist you with these
services should they be necessary.
3030
ast
Paul L. Van Horne, LHG Martin Pages PE, LEG
Senior Hydrogeologist Vice President TM
Geotechnical Engineer, LEER, AP, DBIA
PV :SDT:MWP/pvh
Report elements related to hydrogeology, geology, and geologic unit designations and descriptions were prepared by
or under the direct supervision of Paul L. Van Horne, LHG.
General report quality assurance and report elements related to soil descriptions were provided by Martin W. Page,
PE, LEG.
21-1-22082-003-RIfiwpnkn 21-1-22082-003
21
SHANNON
MILSON, INC.
9.0 REFERENCES
CDM, 2006, Geotechnical data report, Brightwater conveyance system, west contract, Report
prepared for King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Wastewater
Treatment Division, by CDM, Bellevue, Wash., July.
City of Edmonds, 2010, Stormwater code supplement to Edmonds Community Development
Code Chapter 18.30: Edmonds, Wash., April 20.
Harbaugh, A.W., 2005, MODFLOW-2005: the U.S. Geological Survey modular ground -water
model -- the ground -water flow process: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water -
Resources Investigations :Book 6, Chapter A1.6, 1 v., available:
https-.//pubs,us s,gov/tm/2005/tm6A16/.
Minard, J.P., 1983, Geologic map of the Edmonds east and part of the Edmonds west
quadrangles, Washington: U.S. Geological Society MF-1541, 1:24,000 scale.
National Research Council (NRC), 1994, Ground water recharge using waters of impaired
quality: Committee on ground water recharge, Water science and technology board,
Commission on geosciences, environment, and resources: National Academy Press,
Washington, D.C., 304 p.
Penhallegon Associates Consulting Engineers, Inc. (PACE), 2002, Deer Creek water supply
protection plan: Report prepared by PACE, Kirkland, Wash., for Olympic View Water &
Sewer District, Edmonds, Wash.
Puget Sound Action Team, 2005, Low impact development technical guidance manual for Puget
Sound: Olympia, Wash., publication no. PSAT 05-03, May.
Puget Sound Partnership, 2012, Low impact development technical guidance manual for Puget
Sound: Tacoma, Wash., December.
Shannon & Wilson, Inc. (Shannon & Wilson), 2013, Final infiltration study report, SW Edmonds
basin study projects #1 and #3, Edmonds, Wash.: Report prepared by Shannon & Wilson,
Inc., Seattle, Wash., project no. 21-1-21768-001, for City of Edmonds, Edmonds, Wash.,
April 5.
Shannon & Wilson, Inc. (Shannon & Wilson), 2016a, Revised wetland and stream delineation
report, New Madrona .K-8 Project, City of Edmonds, Wash.: Report prepared by Shannon.
& Wilson, Inc., Seattle, Wash., project no. 21-1-22082-002, for Edmonds School District
#1.5, Lynnwood, Wash., August 4.
21-1-22082-003-Rlfrwp/]kn 21-1-22082-003
22
SHANNON
MILSON, INC.
Shannon & Wilson, Inc. (Shannon & Wilson), 2016b, Geotechnical engineering report, New
Madrona K-8 Project, 9300 236th Street SW, Edmonds, Wash.: Report prepared by Shannon
& Wilson, Inc., Seattle, Wash., project no. 21-1-22082-004, for Edmonds School District
#15, Lynnwood, Wash., October 31.
Thomas, B. E.; Wilkinson, J. M.; and Embrey, S. S., 1997, The ground -water system and ground-
water quality in western Snohomish County, Washington: U.S. Geological Survey Water -
Resources Investigations Report 96-4312, 218 p., 9 plates.
Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), 2005, Stormwater management in Western
Washington: Olympia, Wash., publication no. 05-10-31, 5 v., February.
Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), 2006, Guidance for UIC wells that manage
stormwater: Olympia, Wash., publication no. 05-10-067, December.
Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), 2016a, Washington State water resources
explorer: Available:
htts://fortress,wa,ovlec�lwaterresourceslmap/WCLSWebMa�lWaterResourcesExplorer.as
x , accessed November 17, 2016.
Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), 2016b, Washington State well log viewer:
Available: htt s:llfozess.wa. ovlec lwaterresourceslma 1WCLSWebMa /default.as x ,
accessed November 17, 2016.
21-1-22082-003-Rlfwp/]kn 21-1-22082-003
23
O
LEGEND 0 200 400
.. Data Point and Designation
Wetland Boundary Scale in Feet
Wetland Buffer
ow ® Observation Well Designation and
Approximate Location N
iw-j 0 Dry Well Designation and Approximate
Location
At
Generalized SITE A
Subsurface Profile
NOTE
Map adapted from aerial imagery provided by Google Earth Pro,
reproduced by permission granted by Google Earth TM Mapping Service.
0
0
J
O
0 2000 4000
Approximate Scale in Feet
LEGEND
MI
- Modified Land
QJg
- Landslide Deposits
QVr
- Vashon RecessionalOutwash
QVt
- Vashon Till
QVa
- Vashon Advance Outwash
Qtb
- Transitional Beds
QW
- Whidbey Formation
PROJECT
SITE
NOTE
Map adapted from 1:24,000 USGS geologic map of
the Edmonds East and Part of the Edmonds West,
WA quadrangle, dated 1983.
Filename: J:\211\22082-003\21-1-22082-003 Fig 4.dwg Date: 11-18-2016 Login: SAC
NOTES
1. Base map taken from Deer Creek Water Supply
Protection Plan, (PACE, 2002).
2. Aquifer gradient direction based on project wells
and City of Edmonds Well A-2. Approximate
gradient equals 0.002 feet/foot.
0 2000 4000
Approximate Scale in Feet
ONon -Project Well Designation
and Approximate Location
Approximate Aquifer
ww Gradient Direction
A
West
500
450
ME
m
m
LL
c
0
a � 350
w
m
co
E
X
0
Q
Q
Q
M
250
W11
150
Project Area
A'
East
500
450
400
m
m
ILL
c
0
350
w
m
E
X
0
is
CL
Q
M
WE
M
150
LEGEND
OW-1 —
Observation Well Designation
IW-1 —.
Dry Well Designation
(Proj. 9' S) —
Projection Distance and
nirartinn
Ground Surface
Possible Perched Zone
Approximate Geologic Contact
Vibrating Wire Piezometer
Filter Pack
Well Screen
Bottom of Well
--r-o Seep
1 Regional Groundwater Level
Perched Groundwater Level
GEOLOGIC UNIT
Hf Fill
Qvat Vashon Ablation Till
Qvt Vashon Lodgement Till
Qvd Vashon Till -like Deposits
Qva Vashon Advance Outwash
Qtb Transitional Beds (Fine Grained)
0 50 100
Vertical Scale in Feet
0 200 400
Horizontal Scale in Feet
Vertical Exaggeration = 4X
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE
PROFILE A -A'
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. 5
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
B
South
500
460
420
380
m
W 340
300
260
220
180
140
B'
North
500
460
420
:I
340 W
260
220
180
140
0
E
X
0
CL
0_
Q
LEGEND
OW-1
Observation Well Designation
JW_J ..
Dry Well Designation
(Proj. 9' S) —
Projection Distance and
nirarfinn
Ground Surface
Possible Perched Zone
Approximate Geologic Contact
Vibrating Wire Piezometer
Filter Pack
Well Screen
Bottom of Well
--r-o Seep
1 Regional Groundwater Level
Perched Groundwater Level
GEOLOGIC UNIT
Hf Fill
Qvat Vashon Ablation Till
Qvt Vashon Lodgement Till
Qvd Vashon Till -like Deposits
Qva Vashon Advance Outwash
Qtb Transitional Beds (Fine Grained)
0 40 80
7 -
Vertical Scale in Feet
0 100 200
Horizontal Scale in Feet
Vertical Exaggeration = 2.5X
61
E - - '
130
120
--` _ _ -'___- E i ;... j
-*- '----- - -'--- -" , r
fr yl t5},tilt i314j}jt}ir t{}}Yj {{ji�}4 i fkti£ft?ui �15,#,t{tFf}Z I}f�t+ri3£})}£7.Ft{4{l Slt{7E;3}tyff„Si�tZ tr> jf ,£IStY i{4r}t{tzk i...rf#, _-
y,
F. , + Fa
�f �l S � t 3 S �,
� ��tl i £ �Z
F} t rf�t S$�}•li���j4Yij�{�"'���j i�+ i� tt {' t
fl�
fr{ ' 66
tt2 /,ram 11 `tij
{R{ } i}£ tti tlY.F il,{
.- -
- ------ .. .... ._.
------ - - - --- - ------o e n Depth
Top of Screen
100
,
n
71 - - — — Bottom of Screen Depth
90
E
.J
o
Q-
a)
a,
- - ; IW-1 Transducer Data
80
76 Approximate Inflow Rate
70
c
o
_.
-
-
m-
-
m
60
E
Q
0
X
0
81 _ u u
50
CL
C
40
86 _ _ - -- - -
30
.. -,
91
10
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Elapsed Time (Minutes)
NOTES
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
1. The dry well injection test at test well IW-1 was performed from 10:03 to 18:34 on 4/25/2016.
Edmonds, Washington
IW-1 is screened at approximately 63.3 to 90.4 feet below grade, with filter pack from 59.2 to 91.2 feet deep.
Borehole diameter was approximately 10.5 inches, drilled to 91.2 feet.
INFLOW TEST
T RESULTS AT
2. Tap water (44,107 gallons) was introduced at the top of the 6-inch-diameter PVC casing, using a fire hydrant.
1gpm = gallons per minute
PLOT UIC WELL IW-1
-n
4. Fire hydrant flow became inconsistent late in test, possibly due to increased local water demand.
G)
5. Black and white reproduction of this color original may lead to incorrect interpretation.
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
y
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
FIG. 7
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
IW-1-IW-1 Plot LL-11/22/2016-pvh
50
M
go
a�
80
am
90
0
a)
m
s
100
m
is
110
120
140
120
100
a�
m
80 c
a�
m
E
60 0
CL
CL
Q
CIi]
20
130 W 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Elapsed Time (Minutes)
NOTES
1. The injection test at dry well IW-2 was performed from 10/11/2016 9:09 to to 4:09 on 10/12/2016.
IW-2 screen is approximately 28.3 to 119.7 feet below grade, with filter pack from about 3 to 120.4 feet deep.
Filter -packed hole diameter is 30 inches from 0 to about 44 feet and approximately 24 inches from 44
to 120.4 feet. Steel 30-inch-diameter surface casing was sealed in place to 60.5 feet deep.
The surface seal extends down to about 62 feet deep.
2. Tap water (153,933 gallons) was introduced at the top of the filter -packed borehole, using a fire hydrant.
8-inch stainless steel screen (20-slot) is exposed to the formation from about 62 to 119.7 feet.
3. gpm = gallons per minute
4. Black and white reproduction of this color original may lead to incorrect interpretation.
were
.fie
.fie
IW-2-IW-2 Plot LL-11/22/2016-pvh
W
0
N
N
N
N
(6
UIC Filter Sand for
Supplementary Filtering
(Min. 6" Thick, To Replace
as Needed) N
uarry Spalls Pad
(-6" Thick)
UIC 48 Filter Sand,
Washed, Rounded \
(Min. 6" Thick)
Base of QvVQvd or 2" 0 Threaded, Sch. 40 or Sch.
Base of Perched 80 PVC Blank Casing, Top Min.
Qvd/Qva Aquifer, 6" Above Top of 8" 0 Casing
Whichever is Deeper-
? Unsaturated Qva 1-5' Below Contact
Deposits
8" 0, 304 Stainless Steel Blank
Casing, Threaded or Welded Joints
i
Geologic Contact (Est. Depth 60-70', As
Identified by Engineer's Representative)
—10' of 2" 0, Threaded, Machine
Slotted, Sch. 40 or Sch. 80 PVC
Screen (0.020" Slots)
2" 0 Threaded PVC End Cap
Temporary UIC Well Vault with Welded or
Locking Cover (To Be Replaced Later By Storm
Drain Manhole)
Bentonite, Neat Cement, or
Neat Cement Grout Seal
8" 0 Threaded or Welded
304 Stainless Steel End Cap
Minimum 5'
—115-120'
Seasonal High Qva Aquifer Water Level—
Qva Aquifer
Not to Scale
NOTES
Surface casing and seal to conform to WAC 173-160.
2. Employ best management practices, as appropriate
and following approved stormwater manual, to provide
any required pre-treatment to water discharged to UIC
wells.
3. Provide steel centralizers for 8" 0 casing and screen,
installed on approximately 20' spacing.
Stormwater from Distribution
Manifold, Pretreated As Appropriate
36-40" 0 Borehole, Min. 4" Larger Than
Surface Casing
Bentonite Chip Seal (Min. 10' Thick)
Steel Surface Casing (30-36" 0, 0.375"
Wall Thickness)
UIC Gravel, Washed, Rounded
24"-36" 0 Borehole
UIC 4x8 Filter Sand, Washed, Rounded
—50' of 8" 0, Continuous -Slot,
304 Stainless Steel Screen
(0.020" slots), Threaded or
Welded Joints.
* (Required separation may be
greater depending on pre-treatment,
groundwater mounding potential,
vadose zone treatment capacity,
and pollutant loading.)
q2tAD AVIE
gi
E%X
77`5
.......
. ....... .... ..
.. ----- - - - - - ® - - - - - - - - -
g
so C
OBS-4
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
PROPOSED UIC WELL ARRAY MAP
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants I FIG. 10
SHANNON WLSON, INC
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS
21-1-22082-003
APPENDIX A
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS
• : a 0
Page
A.1 GENERAL...................................................................................................................... A-1.
A.2 SOIL BORINGS............................................................................................................. A-1
A.2.1 Sonic Core Borings........................................................................................... A-1.
A.2.2 Auger Boring.................................................................................................... A-2
A.3 SOIL SAMPLING AND LOGGING............................................................................. A-3
A.4 WELL AND VIBRATING WIRE PIEZOMETER (VWP) INSTALLATION ............. A-3
A-1 Summary of Well Installation Details
A-2 Summary of Vibrating Wire Piezometer Installation Details
FIGURES
A-1
Soil Description and Log Key (3 sheets)
A-2
Log of Sonic Core IW-1
A-3
Log of Boring IW-2
A-4
Log of Sonic Core OW-1
A-5
Log of Sonic Core OW-2
21-1-22082-003-Rlf-AA/wp/lk 21-1-22082-003
A-i
SHANNON WILSON,
APPENDIX A
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS
The subsurface exploration program for the project was conducted by Shannon & Wilson, Inc.
(Shannon & Wilson). The purpose of the exploration program was to evaluate the feasibility of
deep underground injection control (UIC) wells for use in project site stormwater management.
The subsurface exploration program consisted of three sonic core soil borings and one auger
boring. The sonic core borings included a pilot UIC well (IW-1) and two observation wells
(OW-1 and OW-2). Holt Services, Inc. (Holt) of Edgewood, Washington, completed the sonic
core borings between April 4 and 21, 2016 (OW-1, IW-1), and between August 1.7 and 1.9, 2016.
(OW-2), under subcontract to Shannon & Wilson. A full-scale UIC well (IW-2) was installed in
the auger boring. Malcolm Drilling Company, Inc. (Malcolm) of Kent, Washington, completed
IW-2 between October 5 and 6, 2016,.under subcontract to Shannon & Wilson.
We measured the approximate well locations in relation to previously mapped site features.
PACE Engineers, Inc. provided surveyed well monument lid elevations for OW-2 and IW-2, and
we measured the approximate monument and grade elevations at IW-1 and OW-1 based on the
data provided for OW-2.
Figure 2 shows the approximate exploration locations. Figure A-1 presents a Soil Description
and Log Key that explains the terms used in the soil classifications and descriptions. The logs of
the soil borings are presented as Figures A-2 through A-5. Approximate grade elevations are
presented on the logs.
A.2 SOIL BORINGS
A.2.1 Sonic Core Borings
Holt drilled the sonic core soil borings using a track -mounted, Terra Sonic International
150CC Compact Crawler sonic drill rig. Observation well boring OW-1 was completed on
April 7, 2016, to a depth of 185.5 feet below ground surface (bgs). The pilot UIC well boring
(IW-1) was completed on April 21, 2016, to 91.2 feet bgs. Observation well boring OW-2 was
completed on August 19, 2016, to 190 feet bgs.
Holt used the rotosonic (sonic) drilling method to drill the borings. Sonic drilling uses
high -frequency vibratory motion applied to the top of the drill column, along with down pressure
21-1-22082-003-Rlf-AA/wp/lk 21-1-22082-003
A-1.
SHANNON WILSON,
and rotation, to obtain nearly continuous core samples of soil. Soil samples were obtained using
a 4-inch inside diameter (I.D.) core barrel for the observation well installation and a 7-inch I.D.
core barrel for the pilot UIC well installation. As the drill column was advanced into the ground,
soil entered the core barrel. After advancing the core barrel (termed a core "run"), the core
barrel was removed from the borehole, and the soil core was extracted from the core barrel into
labelled plastic bags. Each core run was typically about 10 feet long, although shorter runs were
used in harder drilling situations. After retrieval of the soil core for a specific interval, a
temporary casing was vibrated to the bottom of the sampled interval. The casing was then
cleared of slough, and the drill column and core barrel were advanced, starting at the bottom of
the temporary casing.
Drilling and sampling progress was generally easier at the larger diameter sonic core
boring, IW-1, where the 7-inch core barrel was used, than at OW-1 and OW-2, where the 4-inch
core barrel was used. The fines content in some samples appeared to be lower in the
larger diameter IW-1 sonic core samples that in the smaller diameter sonic core samples
collected from OW-1 at the same depths. Holt's opinion was that the larger diameter tooling
used at IW-1 allowed coarse gravels and cobbles to more easily enter the core barrel during
sampling. When penetrating unsaturated soils, sonic core drilling and sampling were also easier
if water was added during the sampling runs. Generally, the sonic core runs were drilled without
adding water, so that the locations of perched groundwater zones, if any, could better be
estimated.
Holt drummed the sonic core drill cuttings and spoils, removing them for disposal after
the completion of each sonic core boring.
A.2.2 Auger Boring
Malcolm completed the full-scale UIC well IW-2 on October 6, 2016,.to 1.20.4 feet bgs.
Malcolm used a Bauer BG-24 track -mounted auger drill rig to drill IW-2. Malcolm initially
drilled open -hole to about 56 feet bgs. Some caving occurred at 51 to 56 feet, so Malcolm
proceeded to install temporary (one -meter diameter) casing to maintain an open borehole to
61 feet. Malcolm drilled the remainder of the boring open -hole with 24-inch auger. Malcolm
used a crane to install the permanent steel surface casing to 60.5 feet deep prior to completing the
drilling of the boring. Malcolm placed the 30-inch I.D. steel surface casing to 60.5 feet deep and
sealed it in place. Before placing the permanent surface casing, a bentonite chip seal was
installed at 59.5 to 62 feet. The 30-inch I.D. casing was then temporarily backfilled with cuttings
to 30 feet deep and cemented in place. The temporary one -meter diameter casing was then
removed, and the cement was allowed to cure overnight. The top of cement was 1.0 feet bgs the
21-1-22082-003-Rlf-AA/wp/lk 21-1-22082-003
A-2
SHANNON WILSON,
next morning, and bentonite chip seals were placed from 7 to 10 feet bgs and at 0 to 1 foot. The
temporary backfill placed at 1 to 7 feet consisted of filter sand. The upper 10 feet of temporary
annular backfill will be replaced when the project moves to construction. Cement was found to
have intruded the temporary spoils inside the 30-inch casing up to about 44 feet below grade; this
material was drilled out using a 24-inch solid stem auger and was separately stockpiled from the
other borehole cuttings.
Some caving was experienced during drilling at about 51 feet and again at about 99 feet;
these zones are identified on the boring log. Malcolm switched from a solid stem auger to a
bucket auger at 101.5 feet deep to reduce caving. Auger boring IW-2 was drilled without adding
water. We noted that the fines content of the auger cuttings appeared to be lower than that
observed in the samples collected from similar depths at adjacent the OW-2 sonic core boring
(Appendix B).
Most of the auger spoils from the IW-2 boring were disposed of by Clearcreek
Contractors, Inc., of Marysville, Washington. Auger spoils that were intruded by cement during
the installation of the permanent IW-2 surface casing seal were disposed of by Bravo
Environmental NW, Inc., of Seattle, Washington, under subcontract to Malcolm.
A.3 SOIL SAMPLING AND LOGGING
Shannon & Wilson representatives observed and logged the drilling operations at each of the
sonic core borings (IW-1, OW-1, and OW-2) and the auger boring (IW-2). We photographed
and collected sub -samples of the IW-1 and OW-2 soil cores in field, and also logged cuttings and
collected grab samples from the auger boring, IW-2. Shannon & Wilson geologists logged and
photographed the OW-1 soil cores in Shannon & Wilson's warehouse. Shannon & Wilson
geologists also reviewed the IW-1, IW-2, and OW-2 photographs and samples. We transferred
representative soil samples collected from the soil cores and auger cuttings to our Seattle,
Washington, laboratory for analysis (see Appendix B). The boring logs in this report represent
our interpretation of the field logs.
A.4 WELL AND VIBRATING WIRE PIEZOMETER (VWP) INSTALLATION
For the sonic core borings IW-1, OW-1, and OW-2, the wells were installed through the
temporary casing, which was withdrawn as the annular backfill was placed. The wells were
constructed of threaded Schedule 40 polyvinyl chloride (PVC) casing and machine -slotted
(0.020-inch) PVC screen. The PVC casing was 6-inch I.D. for IW-1 and 2-inch I.D. for OW-1.
and OW-2. The screened intervals were filter -packed with No. 10-20 Colorado silica sand. A
bentonite chip surface seal was placed above each well's filter -packed zone.
21-1-22082-003-Rlf-AA/wp/lk 21-1-22082-003
A-3
SHANNON WILSON,
In addition to the observation well, two VWPs were installed in OW-2. VWP1 was placed in a
zone suspected of potentially containing perched water (at 66.3 feet bgs). VWP2 was placed in a
zone where water might be expected to perch during an inflow test (at 146.3 feet bgs).
The vertical transmission casing for UIC well IW-2 was constructed of threaded, 304 stainless
steel, 8-inch I.D. blank casing and continuous -slot (0.020-inch) screen, with steel centralizers.
Malcolm used a crane to install the 8-inch I.D. casing and screen after the borehole was
completed to 120.4 feet bgs. The inside of the permanent 30-inch I.D. surface casing and the
borehole annulus below the surface casing were filled with CalPortland Product 8700 (4x8) filter
sand. A vertical observation pipe consisting of threaded, 2-inch I.D., PVC blank casing and
machine -slotted screen (0.020-inch slots) was placed in the same borehole as the 8-inch I.D.
casing and secured to the steel centralizers.
Well construction details are presented on the boring logs in (Figures A-2 through A-5) and in
Table A-1. Details of the VWP installations are presented in Table A-2. See Appendix C for
further groundwater -related discussions.
21-1-22082-003-Rlf-AA/wp/lk 21-1-22082-003
A-4
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
TABLE A-1
SUMMARY OF WELL INSTALLATION DETAILS
..
Olen
A porn � .
; �
�
� �
. ,
l?P rot;
anax
!n
t?
aln
A ro'
PP ,, .
.
AP' r x.
�
. "
ry ,
l} h
► ;
`. A r
Rc rl .
.
. ;
r o f d
tic u ;
M nuri ein
l .-
, ll mite
t c dr vt l
+ s' ° .
T of Otto T
B
3
Filer l'
creer
Screen
�
cr
r en :
:,
B.
e .
: W 1
and .
Ee Flo
Well
Su gee
Abo
Run
Bo a 0 e ,
,a C in
� � � . Be c►
�i 1n
� �� :, �
fftek�
A , ��
�nt
: � l�v�iti�� � ��
� � � �
l a>I
';'�o
+� tv
� le��tlt�n
� +cree
si�i
. �B�tto
burn
Well
T .
.:.
Inst llatxo
Fle tan
Grade
E e t a x
D Teter z
Male l
l l i a en El *allot z
�jR,0
e �
� Dept zt
P
o a '
Size-
l
1[ ,t
to
Ran e ,
:Len %
l
rz
Ele a on
.,
N
ate
eeh
et
(letnehes
ces)eel...
€eet) .
e
feet
feet
feet ,
£I chef}
, (feet}
(fet
fe et . ;
.{fet
(lel}
. Meet
(eet
lW-1
BJZ 272
4/21/2016
444.9
2.65
447.6
10.5
6; PVC
0.56
447.0
No. 10-20
59.2
91.2
385.7 - 353.7
0.020
63.3
90.4
381.6 - 354.5
27.1
93.0
354.1
0.45
8; Stainless
IW-2
None
10/6/2016
444.4
0.30
444.7
24
Steel3
0.93
443.8
No. 4-8
2.0
120.4
442.4 - 324.0
0.020
28.3
119.7
416.1 - 324.7
91.4
120.3
323.5
0.58
OW-1
BJZ 265
4/7/2016
445.1
3.04
448.2
6.0
2; PVC
0.38
447.8
No. 10-20
170.0
185.5
275.1 - 259.6
0.020
175.4
185.0
269.8 - 260.1
9.7
188.0
259.7
0.34
OW-2
BJX 262
8/19/2016
444.7
0.00 1
444.7
6.0
2; PVC
0.83
443.8
No. 10-20
174.8 1
184.0
269.9 - 260.7
0.020
179.2 1
183.9
265.4 - 260.8
4.6
184.1
1 259.8
0.20
Notes:
I Elevations based on client electronic survey file dated October 13, 2016, and on differential levels shot with reference to well OW-2 at north end of running track. The reference vertical datum is North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88).
2 Value shown was based on hand measurements during well construction. Unless otherwise noted, depths are referenced to ground surface.
3 At IW-2, a permanent surface casing (30-inch-diameter steel) was installed to 60.5 feet deep and cemented in place. The top of the 8-inch screen was extended up inside the 30-inch surface casing, and the interior of the 30-inch casing was filled with filter material.
A 2-inch polyvinyl chloride (PVC) observation pipe was also installed at IW-2 within the 30-inch surface casing to 120.4 feet deep, screened from 60.3 - 120.2 feet deep with a 0.2-foot sump.
Well OW-1 was developed on April 12, 2016, using a check valve -type inertial pump equipped with a surge block (Waterra); approximately 68 gallons of water were removed.
Well OW-2 was developed on August 24, 2016, using a check valve -type inertial pump equipped with a surge block (Waterra); approximately 37 gallons of water were removed.
Approx. = Approximate
Ecology = Washington State Department of Ecology
No. = Number
21-1-22082-003-R1 F TA-1 /wp/1k 21-1-22082-003
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
TABLE A-2
SUMMARY OF VIBRATING WIRE PIEZOMETER INSTALLATION DETAILS
"
Instrn�n+ent Inform Uyjm
:Px
t
Gr'ounil
"
Bottom
`ippi.
nrfr
b+ptf�
Top" of
itr
arYri
► ; :
Befa
. Pro .
Flits "
. 11t r ,
, 'Pu
L�ine�r
atnrate�
� � Ff �
end
VWP."
Monument
,Ground'
.';
l*aci;
�'ac.'
Eievatron
Pressure
Gage'
Tlir�rit`. ;
" fro
Info l
cio
Qin,
tunLI}
rrface
Eteaiio>Q
''
itiage,'
<
eer
Tmp?WP ature
,
"
D
"
"
j/digit}s
OW-2
VWP1
BJX 262
8/19/2016
444.7
66.3
378.4
64.2
68.5
380.5 - 376.2
1624163
50
-0.01636
-0.01331
8930.3
20.7
OW-2,
VWP2
BJX 262
8/19/2016
444.7
146.3
298.4
140.8
146.3
303.9 - 298.4
1624739
100
-0.02383
-0.002972
8879.9
20.9
Notes:
I VWP = vibrating wire piezometer
2 Based on electronic client file provided on October 20, 2016. The reference vertical datum is the North American Vertical Datum of 1988.
3 Value shown was based on hand measurements during VWP construction.
4 Instrument is Geokon Model 4500S.
'Celsius = degrees Celcius
/=per
Approx. = approximate
Ecology = Washington State Department of Ecology
No. = Number
psi = pounds per square inch
21a-22092-003-xtf TA-2/wpak 21-1-22082-003
PARTICLE SIZE DEFINITIONS
Shannon & Wilson, Inc. (S&W), uses a soil
identification system modified from the Unified
Soil Classification System (USCS). Elements of
the USCS and other definitions are provided on
this and the following pages. Soil descriptions
are based on visual -manual procedures (ASTM
D2488) and laboratory testing procedures
(ASTM D2487), if performed.
S&W INORGANIC SOIL CONSTITUENT DEFINITIONS
z
CONSTITUENT
Major
FINE-GRAINED SOILS
(50% or more fines)'
Silt, Lean Clay,
Elastic Silt, or
Fat Clay3
COARSE -GRAINED
SOILS
jless than 50% finest_
Sand or Gravel'
Modifying
(Secondary)
30% or more
More than 12%
Precedes major
coarse -grained:
fine-grained:
constituent
Sandy or Grave11y4
Silty or Clayey3
15% to 30%
5% to 12%
coarse -grained:
fine-grained:
Minor
with Sand or
with Silt or
Follows major
with Gravel4
with Clad
constituent
30 or more total
/o
coarse -grained and
15% or more of a
lesser coarse-
second coarse -
grained constituent
grained constituent:
is 15% or more:
with Sand or
with Sand or
with Gravel s
with Gravel s
'All percentages are by weight of total specimen passing a 3-inch sieve.
2The order of terms is: Modifying Major with Minor.
3Determined based on behavior.
4Determined based on which constituent comprises a larger percentage.
'Whichever is the lesser constituent.
MOISTURE CONTENT TERMS
Dry Absence of moisture, dusty, dry
to the touch
Moist Damp but no visible water
Wet Visible free water, from below
water table
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT)
SPECIFICATIONS
Hammer: 140 pounds with a 30-inch free fall.
Rope on 6- to 10-inch-diam. cathead
2-1/4 rope turns, > 100 rpm
NOTE: If automatic hammers are
used, blow counts shown on boring
logs should be adjusted to account for
efficiency of hammer.
Sampler: 10 to 30 inches long
Shoe I.D. = 1.375 inches
Barrel I.D. = 1.5 inches
Barrel O.D. = 2 inches
N-Value: Sum blow counts for second and third
6-inch increments.
Refusal: 50 blows for 6 inches or
less; 10 blows for 0 inches.
NOTE: Penetration resistances (N-values) shown on
boring logs are as recorded in the field and
have not been corrected for hammer
efficiency, overburden, or other factors.
DESCRIPTION
SIEVE NUMBER AND/OR APPROXIMATE SIZE
FINES
< #200 (0.075 mm = 0.003 in.)
-------------
SAND
-- ---------
Fine
#200 to #40 (0.075 to 0.4 mm; 0.003 to 0.02 in.)
Medium
#40 to #10 (0.4 to 2 mm; 0.02 to 0.08 in.)
Coarse
#10 to #4 (2 to 4.75 mm; 0.08 to 0.187 in.)
---------------
GRAVEL
Fine
#4 to 3/4 in. (4.75 to 19 mm; 0.187 to 0.75 in.)
Coarse
3/4 to 3 in. (19 to 76 mm)
COBBLES
3 to 12 in. (76 to 305 mm)
BOULDERS
> 12 in. (305 mm)
RELATIVE DENSITY / CONSISTENCY
COHESIONLESS SOILS
COHESIVE SOILS
-
N, SPT,
RELATIVE
N, SPT,
RELATIVE
BLOWS/FT.
DENSITY
BLOWS/FT.
CONSISTENCY
< 2
Very soft
< 4 Very loose
4-10
Loose
2-4
Soft
10-30
Medium dense
4-8
Medium stiff
30-50
Dense
8 - 15
Stiff
> 50
Very dense
15 - 30
Very stiff
> 30
Hard
WELL AND BACKFILL SYMBOLS
Bentonite
<>
Surface Cement
Cement Grout
>��.�
Seal
Bentonite Grout
Asphalt or Cap
Bentonite Chips
Slough
Silica Sand
11 r
Inclinometer or
l I
Non -perforated Casing
Perforated or
Screened Casing
m
Vibrating Wire
Piezometer
PERCENTAGES TERMS'' z
Trace
< 5%
Few
Little
5 to 10%
15 to 25%
Some
30 to 45%
Mostly
50 to 100%
'Gravel, sand, and fines estimated by mass. Other constituents, such as
organics, cobbles, and boulders, estimated by volume.
2Reprinted, with permission, from ASTM D2488 - 09a Standard Practice for
Description and Identification of Soils (Visual -Manual Procedure), copyright
ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428.
A copy of the complete standard may be obtained from ASTM International,
www.astm.org.
MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP/GRAPHIC
SYMBOL
TYPICAL IDENTIFICATIONS
GW
• 66
Well -Graded Gravel; Well -Graded
Gravel with Sand
Gravel
GP
o a°
Poorly Graded Gravel; Poorly Graded
Gravels
(less than 5%
fines)
(more than 50%
o D
Gravel with Sand
of coarse
fraction retained
on No. 4 sieve)
Silty or Clayey
GM
'
Silt Gravel; Silt Gravel with Sand
y y
Gravel
GC
Clayey Gravel; Clayey Gravel with
COARSE-
2/
(morethan fines) 1
Sand
SOILS
SW
Well -Graded Sand; Well -Graded Sand
(more than 50%
retained on No.
200 sieve)
Sand
with Gravel
(less than 5%
fines)
SP
Poorly Graded Sand; Poorly Graded
Sands
Sand with Gravel
(50% or more of
coarse fraction
passes the No. 4
Silty or
SM
Silty Sand; Silty Sand with Gravel
sieve
Clayey Sand
(more than 12%
fines)
SC
Clayey Sand; Clayey Sand with Gravel
ML
Silt; Silt with Sand or Gravel; Sandy or
Gravelly Silt
Inorganic
Silts and Clays
CL
Lean Clay; Lean Clay with Sand or
(liquid limit less
Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly Lean Clay
than 50)
Organic
OL
=—
Organic Silt or Clay; Organic Silt or
Clay with Sand or Gravel; Sandy or
FINE-GRAINED
SOILS
_ _
—
— —
Gravelly Organic Silt or Clay
(50% or more
passes the No.
200 sieve)
MH
Elastic Silt; Elastic Silt with Sand or
Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly Elastic Silt
Inorganic
CH
Fat Clay; Fat Clay with Sand or Gravel;
Silts and Clays
(liquid limit 50 or
Sandy or Gravelly Fat Clay
more)
Organic Silt or Clay; Organic Silt or
Organic
OH
/
Clay with Sand or Gravel; Sandy or
Gravelly Organic Silt or Clay
HIGHLY -
ORGANIC
Primarily organic matter, dark in
PT
Peat or other highly organic soils (see
SOILS
color, and organic odor
ASTM D4427)
NOTE: No. 4 size = 4.75 mm = 0.187 in.; No. 200 size = 0.075 mm = 0.003 in.
NOTES
1. Dual symbols (symbols separated by a hyphen, i.e., SP-SM, Sand
with Silt) are used for soils with between 5% and 12% fines or when
the liquid limit and plasticity index values plot in the CL-ML area of
the plasticity chart. Graphics shown on the logs for these soil types
are a combination of the two graphic symbols e.g., SP and SM).
2. Borderline symbols Lsymbols separated by a slash, i.e., CUML,
Lean Clay to $ilt; SP-SUW Sand with Silt to Silty Sand) indicate
that the soil properties are close to the defining boundary between
two groups.
Poorly Graded Narrow range of grain sizes present or, within
the range of grain sizes present, one or more
sizes are missing (Gap Graded). Meets
criteria in ASTM D2487, if tested.
Well -Graded Full range and even distribution of grain sizes
present. Meets criteria in ASTM D2487, if
tested.
CEMENTATION TERMS'
Weak Crumbles or breaks with handling or slight
finger pressure.
Moderate Crumbles or breaks with considerable finger
pressure.
Strong Will not crumble or break with finger
pressure.
DESCRIPTION
APPROX.
PLASITICITY
VISUAL -MANUAL CRITERIA INDEX
RANGE
Nonplastic
A 1/8-in. thread cannot be rolled
< 4
at any water content.
Low
A thread can barely be rolled and
4 to 10
a lump cannot be formed when
drier than the plastic limit.
Medium
A thread is easy to roll and not
10 to 20
much time is required to reach
the plastic limit. The thread
cannot be rerolled after reaching
the plastic limit. A lump
crumbles when drier than the
plastic limit.
High
It takes considerable time rolling
> 20
and kneading to reach the plastic
limit. A thread can be rerolled
several times after reaching the
plastic limit. A lump can be
formed without crumbling when
drier than the plastic limit.
Mottled Irregular patches of different colors.
Bioturbated Soil disturbance or mixing by plants or
animals.
Diamict Nonsorted sediment; sand and gravel in silt
and/or clay matrix.
Cuttings Material brought to surface by drilling.
Slough Material that caved from sides of borehole.
Sheared Disturbed texture, mix of strengths.
Angular Sharp edges and unpolished planar surfaces.
Subangular Similar to angular, but with rounded edges.
Subrounded Nearly planar sides with well-rounded edges.
Rounded Smoothly curved sides with no edges.
Flat Width/thickness ratio > 3.
Elongated Length/width ratio > 3.
ATD
At Time of Drilling
Diam.
Diameter
Elev.
Elevation
ft.
Feet
FeO
Iron Oxide
gal.
Gallons
Horiz.
Horizontal
HSA
Hollow Stem Auger
I.D.
Inside Diameter
in.
Inches
lbs.
Pounds
MgO
Magnesium Oxide
mm
Millimeter
MnO
Manganese Oxide
NA
Not Applicable or Not Available
NP
Nonplastic
O.D.
Outside Diameter
OW
Observation Well
pcf
Pounds per Cubic Foot
PID
Photo -Ionization Detector
PMT
Pressuremeter Test
ppm
Parts per Million
psi
Pounds per Square Inch
PVC
Polyvinyl Chloride
rpm
Rotations per Minute
SPT
Standard Penetration Test
USCS
Unified Soil Classification System
q�
Unconfined Compressive Strength
VWP
Vibrating Wire Piezometer
Vert.
Vertical
WOH
Weight of Hammer
WOR
Weight of Rods
Wt.
Weight
Interbedded
Alternating layers of varying material or
color with layers at least 1/4-inch thick;
singular: bed.
Laminated
Alternating layers of varying material or
color with layers less than 1/4-inch thick;
singular: lamination.
Fissured
Breaks along definite planes or fractures
with little resistance.
Slickensided
Fracture planes appear polished or
glossy; sometimes striated.
Blocky
Cohesive soil that can be broken down
into small angular lumps that resist further
breakdown.
Lensed
Inclusion of small pockets of different
soils, such as small lenses of sand
scattered through a mass of clay.
Homogeneous
Same color and appearance throughout.
'Reprinted, with permission, from ASTM D2488 - 09a Standard Practice for
Description and Identification of Soils (Visual -Manual Procedure), copyright ASTM
International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428. A copy of
the complete standard may be obtained from ASTM International, www.astm.org.
2Adapted, with permission, from ASTM D2488 - 09a Standard Practice for
Description and Identification of Soils (Visual -Manual Procedure), copyright ASTM
International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428. A copy of
the complete standard may be obtained from ASTM International, www.astm.org.
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
SOIL DESCRIPTION
AND LOG KEY
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
Total Depth: 912 ft.
mnnhing:
Drilling Method: Sonic Core Holooian.: 10, 5 io__�
ropElevauon:_— 4£4.92 ft^_
sas ng:
Drilling Company: nodoiam.: NIAL___
Vert. Datum: _�NAVQ 28
Station:
Drill Rig Equipment: Terrasonic Hammer Typo:NIA_____
I
U Hon�oomm:
Offset:
Other Comments:
Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the
(D
0 %Water Content
subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification
-5-
E
E
2 cz -5-
lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries
a)
r)
(1)
(0
U)
(D a)
0
between material types, and the transition may be gradual.
0 20 40 60
Gray -brown, Silty Sand Wht-h Gravel (SM);
fine to coarse sand; nonplastic fines; diamict.
...........
...
Hand -excavated to 1 foot. Standing water
...............
about 1 foot below IW-11 grade in adjacent
Gray -brown, Silty Sand with Gravel (SM); wet;
fine, subrounded to subangular gravel; fine to
coarse sand; diamict pockets.
Weathered Till (Qvt)
_�z
Perched groundwater at about 11 feet during
Y.,
.........
12
Gray -brown to gray, Silty Sand with Gravel
(SM); moist; fine to coarse, subrounded to
subangular gravel; fine to coarse sand;
. X
Iron oxide staining from 14 to 18 feet.
X.
18
LEGEND
Sample Not Recovered Well Screen and Sand Filter
[21 Soil Core (as in Sonic Core Borings) 7771 Bentonite-cement Grout
Bentonite Chips/Pellets
Bentonite Grout
* Ground Water Level ATD
Hydrogeologic Report
* Ground Water Level in Well
New Madrona K-8 Project
NOTES
Edmonds, Washington
1. Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and clefiniflom.
2. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary.
3. USCS designation is based on visual -manual classification and selected lab testing.
LOG OF SONIC CORE IWA
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Sheet 1 of 5
REV -ApprnvedfovSubnvitba
Total Depth: 912 ft.
mnnhing:
Drilling Method: Sonic Core Holooian.: 10, 5 io__�
ropElevauon:_— 4£4.92 ft^_
sas ng:
Drilling Company: nodoiam.: NIAL___
Vert. Datum: _�NAVQ 28
Station:
Drill Rig Equipment: Terrasonic Hammer Typo:NIA_____
I
U Hon�oomm:
Offset:
Other Comments:
Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the
(D
0 %Water Content
subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification
-5-
E
E
2 cz -5-
lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries
a)
r)
(1)
(0
U)
(D a)
0
between material types, and the transition may be gradual.
0
20 40 60
22
24
26
Gray to gray -brown, Silty Sand with Gravel and
...............
Cobbles (SM) to Silty Gravel with Sand (GM);
moist; fine to coarse, subrounded to
subangular gravel; fine to coarse sand; few
. W
Iron oxide staining from 31 to 32 feet.
32
34
36
Gray -brown, Silty Sand with Gravel and
Cobbles (SM) to Silty Gravel with Sand and
Cobbles (GM); moist; fine, subrounded to
....
.........
LEGEND
Sample Not Recovered Well Screen and Sand Filter
[21 Soil Core (as in Sonic Core Borings) 7771 Bentonite-cement Grout
Bentonite Chips/Pellets
Bentonite Grout
a Ground Water Level ATD
Hydrogeologic Report
Y Ground Water Level in Well
NOTES
Edmonds, Washington
IL
1. Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and clefiniflom.
2. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary.
3. USCS designation is based on visual -manual classification and selected lab testing.
LOG OF SONIC CORE IWA
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Sheet 2 of 5
REV -ApprnvedfovSubnvitba
Total Depth: 912 ft.
mnnhing:
Drilling Method: Sonic Core Holooian.: 10, 5 io__�
ropElevauon:_— 4£4.92 ft^_
sas ng:
Drilling Company: nodoiam.: NIAL___
Vert. Datum: _�NAVQ 28
Station:
Drill Rig Equipment: Terrasonic Hammer Typo:NIA_____
I
U Hon�oomm:
Offset:
Other Comments:
(D
Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the
-5-
E
cz -5-
0 %Water Content
subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification
E
2
lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries
a)
r)
(1)
(0
U)
(D a)
0
between material types, and the transition may be gradual.
0 20 40 60
subangular gravel; fine to coarse sand; trace
.........
.........
.....
to few subrounded cobbles; nonplastic fines;
44
Till -Like Deposits/Advance Outwash
Gray -brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and
Gravel (SP-SM) to Silty Sand with Gravel
...........
(SM); wet; fine to coarse, subrounded to
subangular gravel; fine to coarse sand;
nonplastic fines; few silty sand pockets.
Advance Outwash/Till-Like Deposits
52
54
56
57.5
58
Gray, Silty Sand with Gravel (SM); moist; fine,
subrounded to subangular gravel; fine to
Till -Like Deposits (Qvd)
LEGEND
Sample Not Recovered Well Screen and Sand Filter
[21 Soil Core (as in Sonic Core Borings) 770 Bentonite-Cement Grout
Bentonite Chips/Pellets
Bentonite Grout
a Ground Water Level ATD Hydrogeologic Report
Y Ground Water Level in Well
NOTES Edmonds, Washington
IL
1. Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and clefiniflom.
2. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary.
3. USCS designation is based on visual -manual classification and selected lab testing. LOG OF SONIC CORE IWA
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Sheet 3 of 5
REV -ApprnvedfovSubnvitba
Total Depth: 91.2 ft. Northing: Drilling Method:
Sonic Core Hole Diam.: 10,5 in.
Top Elevation: — 444.92 ft. Easting: Drilling Company:
Holt Services Inc. Rod Diam.: N/A
Vert. Datum: NAVD 88 Station: Drill Rig Equipment:
Terrasonic Hammer Type: N/A
Horiz. Datum: Offset: Other Comments:
SOIL DESCRIPTION
4�
o
-a
O % Fines (<0.075mm)
Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the
-Q
Q
L
C ( t
• % Water Content
subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification
Q
E
E
O cB 5-
lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries
�
U
(D
between material types, and the transition may be gradual.
0 20 40 60
Gray -browny Poorl Graded Sand with Gravel
Y � Y
61.0
(SP), Poorly Graded Sand (SP), and Poorly
62
Graded Sand with Silt (SP-SM); moist; fine,
suban ular raver fine to
subrounded to 9
9
coarse sand; nonplastic fines.
Advance Outwash (Ova)
64
...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:......:...:...:...:..............................................:...:...:...:...:...
:...:.
...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:......:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:......
:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...
:.•.
:..66
...............
:.....
68
....
......... ......
- Pockets of silty sand at 69 to 69.5 feet.
70
.... .... .... .... .... .... .... .......
:.
72
... .
:...... ...:....... ......
:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...
74
:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:......
:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...
:...:.
.................................................................................:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...
76
n
78
Layer of silty sand at 78 to 78.5 feet.
...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:......:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:......:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...
z
= Gray -brown, Poorly Graded Sand (SP) to
79.0
'
:.:
0
...
° Poorly Graded Sand with Silt SP-SM • moist;
........20.........40........60
CONTINUED NEXT SHEET
0
LEGEND
Sample Not Recovered Well Screen and Sand Filter
N[21 Soil Core (as in Sonic Core Borings) ® Bentonite-Cement Grout
® Bentonite Chips/Pellets
® Bentonite Grout
SZ Ground Water Level ATD
Hydrogeologic Report
Z S Ground Water Level in Well
New Madrona K-8 Project
$
U) NOTES
Edmonds, Washington
IL
1. Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions.
N
0 2. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary.
N 3. USCS designation is based on visual -manual classification and selected lab testing.
N
LOG OF SONIC CORE IWA
Lu
o
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
W
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
FIG. A-2
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
Sheet 4 of 5
REV 3 - Approved for Submittal
Total Depth: 91.2 ft. Northing: Drilling Method: Sonic Core Hole Diam.: 10,5 in.
Top Elevation: — 444.92 ft. Easting: Drilling Company: Holt Services Inc. Rod Diam.: N/A
Vert. Datum: NAVD 88 Station: Drill Rig Equipment: Terrasonic Hammer Type: N/A
Horiz. Datum: Offset: Other Comments:
SOIL DESCRIPTION
4�
o
-a
O % Fines (<0.075mm)
Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the
-Q
Q
L
C ( t
• % Water Content
subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification
Q
E
E
O cB -5-
lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries
�
U
(D
between material types, and the transition may be gradual.
0 20 40 60
fine to medium sand; trace subrounded gravel;
nonplastic fines.
P
::..
......................................................................................................
Advance Outwash (Qva)
- Last sample on 4/19/2016 was to 80 feet;
82
'
.......................
......... ...............
...
hole was cased to 70 feet. Dry to bottom of
open hole (80 feet) at start of day on
.....................................................................................................................
4/20/2016.
.....................................................................................................
84
.... .... .... .... .......
.... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .......
:.
86
:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:......
... .
- Trace cobbles below 87.5 feet.
88
:.•.
...............................
91.2
'
BOTTOM OF BORING
COMPLETED 04/20/2016
92
...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:......:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:......:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...
......................... .. .. ..
NOTE: Well installed on 4/21/2016. Bottom
of sump cap was perforated with 5
small holes for drainage;
approximately 1 inch of sediment
94
...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:..........:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:..........:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:.......
.....................................................................................................................
accumulated in the sump during
4/25/2016 injection test, plugging the
drain holes.
................... .... .... .... .... .......
.... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .......
J96
........
.........
.........
a
z
ll
...:...:...:...:...:.:.:.:.:.
r98
c
0
0
J
0 20 40 60
LEGEND
Sample Not Recovered Well Screen and Sand Filter
N[21 Soil Core (as in Sonic Core Borings) ® Bentonite-Cement Grout
® Bentonite Chips/Pellets
® Bentonite Grout
SZ Ground Water Level ATD Hydrogeologic Report
Z S Ground Water Level in Well
New Madrona K-8 Project
$
U) NOTES Edmonds, Washington
1. Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions.
N
0 2. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary.
N 3. USCS designation is based on visual -manual classification and selected lab testing. LOG OF SONIC CORE IWA
N
LU
o November 2016 21-1-22082-003
W
SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. A-2
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Sheet 5 of 5
REV 3 - Approved for Submittal
Total Depth: 120.4 ft,_
mnnhing:
Drilling Method:
Bucket Au er Holooian.: �4 in.
ropElevauon:_— 4£4.41 ft._
sas ng:
Drilling Company:
nodoiam.: NIAL___
U Vert. Datum: _�NAVQ 28
Station:
Drill Rig Equipment:
Hammer Typo:NIA_____ I
Horiz. Datum:
Offset:
Other Comments:
39-in. (1-m.) hole from 0 to 61 ft.
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Sheet 1 of 7
Total Depth: 120.4 ft. Northing:
Drilling Method:
Bucket Auger
Hole Diam.: 24 in.
Top Elevation: — 444.41 ft. Easting:
Drilling Company:
Malcolm Drilling
Rod Diam.: N/A
Vert. Datum: NAVD 88 Station:
Drill Rig Equipment:
Bauer BG-24
Hammer Type: N/A
Horiz. Datum: Offset:
Other Comments: 39-in. (1-m.) hole from 0 to 61 ft.
SOIL DESCRIPTION
4�
o
-a
O % Fines (<0.075mm)
Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the
-Q
Q
L
C t
• % Water Content
subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification
Q
E
E
O cB 5-
lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries
�
U
(D
between material types, and the transition may be gradual.
n
9n e n Fn
22
......... ......
:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...
.
Seepage from about 23 to 26 feet with trace
boulders to 15-inch-diameter.
;=
24
-
....... .......
........ .... .... .... .... .......
26
.
X.
28
..........................
:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:......
:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...
.
. ,.
30
32
:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:......
:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...
34
...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:......:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:......:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...
J
36
37.0
L Gray,Silt Sand with Gravel and Cobbles
Y
(SM); moist; fine to coarse, subrounded to
38
r subangular gravel; fine to coarse sand;
nonplastic more dense and
fines diamict� c
p ,
less sand than above .
a )
J
CONTINUED NEXT SHEET
0 20 40 60
LEGEND
Sample Not Recovered Well Screen and Sand Filter
® Grab Sample ® Bentonite-Cement Grout
® Bentonite Chips/Pellets
® Bentonite Grout
SZ Ground Water Level ATD
Hydrogeologic Report
Z S Ground Water Level in Well
$
New Madrona K-8 Project
NOTES
Edmonds, Washington
IL
1. Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions.
ni
2. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary.
3. USCS designation is based on visual -manual classification and selected lab testing.
v
LOG OF BORING IW-2
w
o
November
2016 21-1-22082-003
SHANNON & WILSON, INC. I FIG. A-3
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Sheet 2 of 7
REV 3 - Approved for Submittal
Total Depth: 120.4 ft,_
mnnhing:
Drilling Method:
Bucket Au er Holooian.: �4 in.
ropElevauon:_— 4£4.41 ft._
sas ng:
Drilling Company:
nodoiam.: NIAL___
U Vert. Datum: _�NAVQ 28
Station:
Drill Rig Equipment:
Hammer Typo:NIA_____ I
Horiz. Datum:
Offset:
Other Comments:
39-in. (1-m.) hole from 0 to 61 ft.
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Sheet 3 of 7
Total Depth: 120.4 ft. Northing: Drilling Method:
Bucket Auger Hole Diam.: 24 in.
Top Elevation: — 444.41 ft. Easting: Drilling Company:
Malcolm Drilling Rod Diam.: N/A
Vert. Datum: NAVD 88 Station: Drill Rig Equipment: Bauer BG-24 Hammer Type: N/A
Horiz. Datum: Offset: Other Comments:
39-in. (1-m.) hole from 0 to 61 ft.
SOIL DESCRIPTION
4
o
a
-a
O% Fines (<0.075mm)
Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the
-Q
Q
L
C ( t
• % Water Content
subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification
Q
E
E
O cB 5-
lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries
a)
�
(D
between material types, and the transition may be gradual.
0 20 40 60
Brown, Clayey Gravel with Sand (GC); wet;
6
G
fine to coarse, suban9 ular to subrounded
61.0
ravel fine to coarse sand medium lasticit
g p y
fines; diamict pockets.
62
'
Deposits
Till -Like Qvd)
p �
: :
0
Gray -brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel
(SP), • moist; trace silt; little fine to coarse
rounded to subrounded gravel; fine to coarse
::::
64
...:...:...:...:...:. :. :. :. :.
.....................................................................................................................
.........
........
sand; nonplastic fines.
' " '
.....................................................................................................................
Advance Outwash Qva
- Drilled 24-inch pilot hole from 61 to 91 feet.
Temporarily backfilled with cuttings from 62 to
66
...:...:...:...:...........:...:...:..............:...:...:...:...:...:...:..................:...:...:...:...:...:...
91 feet. Placed bentonite chip seal from 59.5
to 62 feet. Installed permanent 30-inch steel
surface casing to 60.5 feet. Temporarily filled
68
.
30-inch casingwith additional spoils to 30 feet
P
::.;.
deep, and grouted 30-inch casing in place.
::,
a
G
.....................................................................................................................
Grout intruded up through spoils to about 44
feet deep inside 30-inch casing.
:..
:.::.:
70
...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:......:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:......:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...
.........
.........
...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...............
.
- Interbedded with poorly graded sand with silt
72
and gravel from about 72 to 74 feet.
G9
:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...
76
a
................... .... .... .... .... .......
.... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .......
.... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ....
78
...
:...:...:...:...:...:..............
t.....................................................................................................................
0
0
CONTINUED NEXT SHEET
0 20 40 60
LEGEND
Sample Not Recovered Well Screen and Sand Filter
N® Grab Sample ® Bentonite-Cement Grout
® Bentonite Chips/Pellets
® Bentonite Grout
SZ Ground Water Level ATD
Hydrogeologic Report
Z S Ground Water Level in Well
New Madrona K-8 Project
$
U) NOTES
Edmonds, Washington
IL
1. Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions.
N
0 2. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary.
N 3. USCS designation is based on visual -manual classification and selected lab testing.
N
LOG OF BORING IW-2
Lu
o
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
W
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
FIG. A-3
aGeotechnical
and Environmental Consultants
Sheet 4 of 7
�
REV 3 - Approved for Submittal
Total Depth: 120.4 ft. Northing: Drilling Method:
Bucket Auger Hole Diam.: 24 in.
Top Elevation: — 444.41 ft. Easting: Drilling Company:
Malcolm Drilling Rod Diam.: N/A
Vert. Datum: NAVD 88 Station: Drill Rig Equipment:
Bauer BG-24 Hammer Type: N/A
Horiz. Datum: Offset: Other Comments:
39-in. (1-m.) hole from 0 to 61 ft.
SOIL DESCRIPTION
4�
o
-a 4�
O % Fines (<0.075mm)
Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the
-Q
Q
L
C ( t
• % Water Content
subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification
Q
E
E
O cB 5-
lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries
�
U
(D
between material types, and the transition may be gradual.
0 20 40 60
- Trace to little gravel and trace mica below
:..
10
..................................................................................................................
about 80 feet.
- Pocket -6-inch of black organic silt at
about 81 feet.
82
'
84
....
86.0
86
Gray brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel
SP to Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and
Gravel (SP-SM); moist; little, fine to coarse,
rounded to subrounded gravel; fine to coarse
88
'
sand; nonplastic fines, trace mica.
11 G
Advance Outwash (Qva)
90
...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:......:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:......:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...
- On 10/6/2016, continued drilling with 24-inch
auger, removing cuttings from 30-inch casing
:...
12G
N
and then continuing to bottom of hole (120.4
................ ....
.......................
feet). Drilled open hole below 60.5 feet.
::
z
o
- Trace cobbles below about 92 feet.
94
......................................................................................................
..:...:...:...:...:......:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...............
...
13�
5
96
98.0
•'
14 G
98
y
r Gray -brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel
........... .... .... .... .... .... ......
..
� SP •moist• some fine to coarse rounded to
.......................................
' subrounded gravel; fine to coarse sand;
.•:::
............ ...............
......
J..• :...
CONTINUED NEXT SHEET
0 20 40 60
LEGEND
Sample Not Recovered Well Screen and Sand Filter
® Grab Sample ® Bentonite-Cement Grout
® Bentonite Chips/Pellets
® Bentonite Grout
SZ Ground Water Level ATD
Hydrogeologic Report
Z S Ground Water Level in Well
$
New Madrona K-8 Project
NOTES
Edmonds, Washington
IL
1. Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions.
ni
2. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary.
3. USCS designation is based on visual -manual classification and selected lab testing.
v
LOG OF BORING IW-2
w
o
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
FIG. A-3
aGeotechnical
and Environmental Consultants
Sheet 5 of 7
�
REV 3 - Approved for Submittal
Total Depth: 120.4 ft. Northing: Drilling Method:
Bucket Auger Hole Diam.: 24 in.
Top Elevation: — 444.41 ft. Easting: Drilling Company:
Malcolm Drilling Rod Diam.: N/A
Vert. Datum: NAVD 88 Station: Drill Rig Equipment: Bauer BG-24 Hammer Type: N/A
Horiz. Datum: Offset: Other Comments:
39-in. (1-m.) hole from 0 to 61 ft.
SOIL DESCRIPTION
4�
o
-a 4�
O % Fines (<0.075mm)
Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the
-Q
Q
L
C ( t
• % Water Content
subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification
Q
E
E
O cB 5-
lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries
�
U
(D
between material types, and the transition may be gradual.
0 20 40 60
nonplastic fines.
Advance Outwash Qva
101.0
°
..........................................................................................................
- Caved during open -hole drilling.
°o
.....................................................................................................................
Gray -brown, Well Graded Sand with Silt and
0
o0 0
102
.........
.........
...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...............
.
Gravel (SW-SM) to Well Graded Sand with Silt
SW-SM; moist; few to little fine to coarse
.....................................................................................................................
rounded to subrounded gravel; fine to coarse
o0 0
...:...:...:...:..............................................:...:...:...:..............................:...:...:...
sand; nonplastic fines; trace seams of silty
o> >
104
...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:......:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:......:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...
.........
.........
sand; trace mica.
°o 0
.........
.....................................................................................................................
.........
.........
Advance Outwash Qva
c )
15
G
- Switched from solid stem auger to bucket
auger at 101.5 feet to reduce caving.106
au 9°
00
...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:..........:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:..........:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:.......
- Trace organics at about 105 feet.
9
0
..:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...
108
110
.......................................................
.... .... .... .... ....
.
16
G
0
112
°o 0
> o 0
114
o
17 G
J
116
...
....................
.......................
....
Q
o
o
...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:......:...:...:...
o
118
Y
...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:......:.......:...
t
0 0
..............................................................................
. . . . . . .
. . . . .
1
0
18G
J
CONTINUED NEXT SHEET
0 20 40 60
LEGEND
Sample Not Recovered Well Screen and Sand Filter
N® Grab Sample ® Bentonite-Cement Grout
® Bentonite Chips/Pellets
® Bentonite Grout
SZ Ground Water Level ATD
Hydrogeologic Report
Z S Ground Water Level in Well
New Madrona K-8 Project
$
U) NOTES
Edmonds, Washington
IL
1. Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions.
N
0 2. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary.
N 3. USCS designation is based on visual -manual classification and selected lab testing.
N
LOG OF BORING IW-2
Lu
o
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
W
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
FIG. A-3
aGeotechnical
and Environmental Consultants
Sheet 6 of 7
�
REV 3 - Approved for Submittal
Total Depth: 120.4 ft.
Northing:
Drilling Method:
Bucket Auger Hole Diam.: 24 in.
Top Elevation: — 444.41 ft.
Easting:
Drilling Company:
Malcolm Drilling Rod Diam.: N/A
Vert. Datum: NAVD 88
Station:
Drill Rig Equipment:
Bauer BG-24 Hammer Type: N/A
Horiz. Datum:
Offset:
Other Comments:
39-in. (1-m.) hole from 0 to 61 ft.
SOIL DESCRIPTION
4�
o
a
-a L _t�
O % Fines (<0.075mm)
Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the
Q
E
Q
t
co
• % Water Content
subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification
Q
E
5-
O
lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries
a)
(1)
(D
between material types, and the transition may be gradual.
0
20 40 60
120A
BOTTOM OF BORING
COMPLETED 10/6/2016
NOTE: Well casing and screen: 8-inch
122
threaded 304 stainless steel, with 4
centralizers on about 30-foot centers.
Surface casing: 30-inch steel to 60.5
feet deep. Well screen (0.020-inch
124
continuous -slot) from approximately
pp Y
28.3 feet deep (top is inside 30-inch
surface casing)to 119.7 feet deep,
P
with 0.6-foot sump. 24-inch borehole
126
...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:..........:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:..............................................
.....................................................................................................................
and interior of 30-inch casing
filter -packed with 4x8 sand.
Observation pipe (2-inch Schedule 40
PVC) installed in filter pack adjacent
128
...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:......:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:......:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...
.....................................................................................................................
to 8-inch casing and screen, with
0.020-inch machine -slotted screen
from approximately 60.3 to 120.2 feet
130
deep, and a 0.2-foot sump.
Approximately 1.2 feet of sediment
accumulated in the 8" sump and
screen during the 10/11-10/12/2016
132
injection test.
134
...
136
...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:......:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:......
...
138
...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:......:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:......
...
0
20 40 60
LEGEND
* Sample Not Recovered ( Well Screen and Sand Filter
® Grab Sample ® Bentonite-Cement Grout
® Bentonite Chips/Pellets
® Bentonite Grout
SZ Ground Water level ATD
S Ground Water Level in Well
NOTES
1. Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions.
2. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary.
3. USCS designation is based on visual -manual classification and selected lab testing.
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
LOG OF BORING IW-2
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
SHANNON & WILSON, INC. ( FIG. A-3
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Sheet 7 of 7
REV 3 - Approved for Submittal
Total Depth: 185.5 ft.
Northing:
Drilling Method:
Sonic Core Hole Diam.: 6 in.
Top Elevation: — 445.11 ft.
Easting:
Drilling Company:
Holt Services Inc. Rod Diam.: N/A
Vert. Datum: NAVD 88
Station:
Drill Rig Equipment:
Terrasonic Hammer Type: N/A
Horiz. Datum:
Offset:
Other Comments:
7-in. hole from 0 to 20 ft.
SOIL DESCRIPTION
4�
o
a
-a _t�
O % Fines (<0.075mm)
Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the
Q
(D
L
t
• % Water Content
subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification
Q
E
E
O cB 5-
lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries
a)
(1)(D
between material types, and the transition may be gradual.
0
20 40 60
Gray -brown, Silty Sand with Gravel (SM);
moist; subrounded to g
suban ular ravel; fine
9
to coarse sand; nonplastic fines; diamict
p ,
pockets; few poorly graded sand pockets.
2
'
Fill/Ablation Till/Weathered Till (Hf/QvaUQvt)
;
- Hand -excavated to 2 feet. Standing water
about 1 foot below OW-1 grade in adjacent
g J
Swale.
4
- Wet pocket at about 5.5 feet.
............... ....
................
.... .... .... .... .......
.... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .......
.... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ....
•
8:::i:::i:::i:::
- Wet below about 8.5 feet.
o
...............................................................
10.0
..
':
0 1
.................................................................................
.........
Gray brown, Silty Sand with Gravel (SM);
:.:
...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:.........:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:.........:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:......
moist; fine to coarse, subrounded to
suban ular ravel fine to coarse sand
g 9
nonplastic fines; diamict.
12
'
Till/Till-Like Deposits (Qvt/Qvd)
14
........
.
5
16
:::i::
n
a
u
18
19.0
= Gray, Silty Sand with Gravel and Cobbles
SM to Silty Gravel with Sand and Cobbles
........20.........40........60
CONTINUED NEXT SHEET
0
LEGEND
* Sample Not Recovered Well Screen and Sand Filter
[21 Soil Core (as in Sonic Core Borings) ® Bentonite-Cement Grout
® Bentonite Chips/Pellets
® Bentonite Grout
SZ Ground Water level ATD
S Ground Water Level in Well
NOTES
1. Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions.
2. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary.
3. USCS designation is based on visual -manual classification and selected lab testing.
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
LOG OF SONIC CORE OW-1
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
SHANNON & WILSON, INC. I FIG. A-4
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Sheet 1 of 10
REV 3 - Approved for Submittal
Total Depth: 185.5 ft.
Northing:
Drilling Method:
Sonic Core Hole Diam.: 6 in.
Top Elevation: — 445.11 ft.
Easting:
Drilling Company:
Holt Services Inc. Rod Diam.: N/A
Vert. Datum: NAVD 88
Station:
Drill Rig Equipment:
Terrasonic Hammer Type: N/A
Horiz. Datum:
Offset:
Other Comments:
7-in. hole from 0 to 20 ft.
SOIL DESCRIPTION
4�
o
a
-a
_t�
O % Fines (<0.075mm)
Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the
Q
(D
L
t
• % Water Content
subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification
Q
E
E
O cB
5-
lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries
a)
(1)
(D
between material types, and the transition may be gradual.
0
20 40 60
(GM); moist; trace to few subrounded cobbles;
fine to coarse, subrounded to suban9 ular
gravel; fine to coarse sand; nonplastic fines;
diamict.
22
'
Till (Qvt )
- Bottom of temporary 7-inch casing set at 20
.:
feet.
..
24
...:...:...:...:...:...:......
- gray Gray -brown to below 25 feet.
Y g Y
26
............... .... .... .... .... .......
.
28
...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:......:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:......:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...
.
30
...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:......
:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:......
....
,. .,..
32
......................
:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:......
34
...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:......
:...:...:...:..........................
5
36
n
a
u
38
39.0
'
= Gray -brown, Silt Sand with Gravel SM to
Y Y ( )
Silty Gravel with Sand (GM); moist; fine to
........20.........40........60
CONTINUED NEXT SHEET
0
LEGEND
* Sample Not Recovered Well Screen and Sand Filter
[21 Soil Core (as in Sonic Core Borings) ® Bentonite-Cement Grout
® Bentonite Chips/Pellets
® Bentonite Grout
SZ Ground Water level ATD
S Ground Water Level in Well
NOTES
1. Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions.
2. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary.
3. USCS designation is based on visual -manual classification and selected lab testing.
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
LOG OF SONIC CORE OW-1
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
SHANNON & WILSON, INC. I FIG. A-4
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Sheet 2 of 10
REV 3 - Approved for Submittal
Total Depth: 185.5ift,
mnnhing:
Drilling Method:
Sonic Core Holooian.: 6 in.
Top Elevation: _— 445. 11 ft._
sas ng:
Drilling Company:
nodoiam.: NIAL___
U Vert. Datum: NAUVD 88�_
Station:
Drill Rig Equipment:
Terrasonic Hammer Typo:NIA_____ I
Horiz. Datum:
Offset:
Other Comments:
7-in. hole from 0 to 20 ft.
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Sheet 3 of 10
Total Depth: 185.5 ft.
Northing:
Drilling Method:
Sonic Core Hole Diam.: 6 in.
Top Elevation: — 445.11 ft.
Easting:
Drilling Company:
Holt Services Inc. Rod Diam.: N/A
Vert. Datum: NAVD 88
Station:
Drill Rig Equipment:
Terrasonic Hammer Type: N/A
Horiz. Datum:
Offset:
Other Comments:
7-in. hole from 0 to 20 ft.
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the
subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification
lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries
between material types, and the transition may be gradual.
Gray -brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt
(SP-SM); moist; few fine to coarse,
subrounded to subangular gravel; fine to
medium sand; nonplastic fines.
Advance Outwash (Qva)
- Layer of poorly graded gravel with sand from
62.1 to 62.5 feet.
- Layer of silty sand with gravel from 62.5 to
63 feet.
Gray -brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel
and Cobbles (SP); moist; trace subrounded
cobbles; fine to coarse, subrounded to
subangular gravel; fine to coarse sand; trace
nonplastic fines.
Advance Outwash (Qva)
Gray -brown, Poorly Graded Sand (SP) to Silty
Sand (SM); moist; few fine, subrounded to
subangular gravel; fine to coarse sand;
nonplastic fines; few diamict pockets.
,Advance Outwash (Qva)
Gray -brown, Poorly Graded Gravel with Silt,
Sand, and Cobbles (GP -GM); moist; trace
subangular cobbles; fine to coarse,
subrounded to subangular gravel; fine to
coarse sand; nonplastic fines.
(Advance Outwash (Qva)
Gray -brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and
Gravel (SP-SM) to Silty Sand with Gravel
(SM); moist; fine to coarse, subrounded to
subangular gravel; fine to coarse sand;
nonplastic fines; fines content may be elevated
due to drilling method.
Advance Outwash (Qva)
- Hard drilling 77 to 80 feet.
- Added water during cleanout run at 70 to 80
feet. Drior to samDle run 10.
O % Fines (<0.075mm)
o
L
• % Water Content
Q
U)
0
65.0
68.5
70.0
72.5
CONTINUED NEXT SHEET
LEGEND
* Sample Not Recovered ( Well Screen and Sand Filter
[21 Soil Core (as in Sonic Core Borings) ® Bentonite-Cement Grout
® Bentonite Chips/Pellets
® Bentonite Grout
SZ Ground Water level ATD
S Ground Water Level in Well
NOTES
1. Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions.
2. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary.
3. USCS designation is based on visual -manual classification and selected lab testing.
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
LOG OF SONIC CORE OW-1
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
SHANNON & WILSON, INC. I FIG. A-4
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Sheet 4 of 10
REV 3 - Approved for Submittal
Total Depth: 185.5ift,
mnnhing:
Drilling Method:
Sonic Core Holooian.: 6 in.
Top Elevation: _— 445. 11 ft._
sas ng:
Drilling Company:
nodoiam.: NIAL___
U Vert. Datum: NAUVD 88�_
Station:
Drill Rig Equipment:
Terrasonic Hammer Typo:NIA_____ I
Horiz. Datum:
Offset:
Other Comments:
7-in. hole from 0 to 20 ft.
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Sheet 5 of 10
Total Depth: 185.5 ft.
Northing:
Drilling Method:
Sonic Core Hole Diam.: 6 in.
Top Elevation: — 445.11 ft.
Easting:
Drilling Company:
Holt Services Inc. Rod Diam.: N/A
Vert. Datum: NAVD 88
Station:
Drill Rig Equipment:
Terrasonic Hammer Type: N/A
Horiz. Datum:
Offset:
Other Comments:
7-in. hole from 0 to 20 ft.
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the
subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification
lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries
between material types, and the transition may be gradual.
Gray -brown, Silty Sand with Gravel and
Cobbles (SM); moist; trace subrounded
cobbles; fine to coarse, subrounded to
subangular gravel; fine to coarse sand;
nonplastic fines.
Advance Outwash (Qva)
Gray -brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and
Gravel (SP-SM) to Poorly Graded Sand (SP);
moist; fine subrounded to subangular gravel;
fine to coarse sand; nonplastic fines.
Advance Outwash (Qva)
Layer of silty sand from 101 to 101.3 feet.
Gray -brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel
(SP) to Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and
Gravel (SP-SM); moist; fine to coarse,
subrounded to subangular gravel; fine to
coarse sand; nonplastic fines.
(Advance Outwash (Qva)
Gray -brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and
Gravel (SP-SM) to Silty Sand (SM); moist;
trace to few, fine to coarse, subrounded to
subangular gravel; fine to coarse sand;
nonplastic fines; fines content may be elevated
due to drilling method.
Advance Outwash (Qva)
- Added water during cleanout run from 100 to
110 feet and during extraction of sample run
13.
Gray -brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and
Gravel (SP-SM) to Silty Sand with Gravel
(SM); moist; fine to coarse, subrounded to
subangular gravel; fine to coarse sand;
nonplastic fines; few silty sand pockets.
Advance Outwash (Qva)
O % Fines (<0.075mm)
o
L
• % Water Content
Q
U)
0
105.0 '•.
107.5
112.5
CONTINUED NEXT SHEET
LEGEND
* Sample Not Recovered ( Well Screen and Sand Filter
[21 Soil Core (as in Sonic Core Borings) ® Bentonite-Cement Grout
® Bentonite Chips/Pellets
® Bentonite Grout
SZ Ground Water level ATD
S Ground Water Level in Well
NOTES
1. Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions.
2. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary.
3. USCS designation is based on visual -manual classification and selected lab testing.
102
........
.....................................................................................................................
.........
.........
104
106
... ....
.... .... .... .......
.... .... .... ....
.... .... .... .... .......
108
...........................................................................
110
.... .... .... ....
.... .... .... .......
.... .... .... ....
.... .... .... .... .......
112
114
........
.....................................................................................................................
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
116
.....................................................................................................................
.........
.....................................................................................................................
.........
...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:......:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:......
.........
.........
.........
.........
118
........
.........
.........
0
20
40
60
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
LOG OF SONIC CORE OW-1
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
SHANNON & WILSON, INC. I FIG. A-4
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Sheet 6 of 10
REV 3 - Approved for Submittal
Total Depth: 185.5 ft.
Northing:
Drilling Method:
Sonic Core Hole Diam.: 6 in.
Top Elevation: — 445.11 ft.
Easting:
Drilling Company:
Holt Services Inc. Rod Diam.: N/A
Vert. Datum: NAVD 88
Station:
Drill Rig Equipment:
Terrasonic Hammer Type: N/A
Horiz. Datum:
Offset:
Other Comments:
7-in. hole from 0 to 20 ft.
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the
subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification
lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries
between material types, and the transition may be gradual.
- Tried adding second 10-foot core barrel so
could sample and clean out at same time.
Coring hard and slow. Added water during
extraction of sample run 14.
Gray -brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and
Gravel (SP-SM); moist; fine to coarse,
subrounded to subangular gravel; fine to
medium sand; nonplastic fines.
;Advance Outwash (Qva)
Gray -brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt
(SP-SM) to Poorly Graded Sand (SP); moist;
trace to few fine, subrounded to subangular
gravel; fine to medium sand; nonplastic fines;
few silty sand pockets from 123 to 125 feet.
Advance Outwash (Qva)
- Added water during cleanout run from 120 to
130 feet and during extraction of sample run
15.
Gray -brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt
(SP-SM) to Silty Sand (SM); moist; trace
subangular, fine gravel; fine to medium sand;
nonplastic fines; few silty sand clasts.
Advance Outwash (Qva)
- Last sample on 4/5/2016 was to 140 feet;
hole was cased to 130 feet. Possible
perched water measured at 132.5 feet at
start of day on 4/6/2016 (hole had caved to
133.5 feet).
Gray -brown, Silty Sand (SM); wet; trace fine,
subrounded to subangular gravel; fine to
coarse sand; nonplastic fines; slight diamict
texture.
(Advance Outwash (Qva)
Gray -brown, Silty Sand (SM) to Poorly Graded
Sand with Silt (SP-SM); moist; trace fine,
O % Fines (<0.075mm)
o
L
• % Water Content
Q
U)
0
122.0
1�3�7e�
130.0
LEGEND
* Sample Not Recovered Well Screen and Sand Filter
[21 Soil Core (as in Sonic Core Borings) ® Bentonite-Cement Grout
® Bentonite Chips/Pellets
® Bentonite Grout
SZ Ground Water level ATD
S Ground Water Level in Well
NOTES
1. Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions.
2. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary.
3. USCS designation is based on visual -manual classification and selected lab testing.
122
...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:......:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:......
.....................................................................................................................
.........
........
.........
.........
.........
.........
124
126
......................
.... ....
.... .... .......
... ....
.... .... .... .... ....
128
...
130
........
.........
.........
132
...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:......:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:......
134
...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:......:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:......
...:...:...:...:.:...:...:...:...:.....
136
......................
...................
.... ....
.... .... .......
.....................................................................................................................
.........
........
.........
.........
.........
.........
138
0
20
40
60
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
LOG OF SONIC CORE OW-1
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
SHANNON & WILSON, INC. I FIG. A-4
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Sheet 7 of 10
REV 3 - Approved for Submittal
Total Depth: 185.5 ft.
Northing:
Drilling Method:
Sonic Core Hole Diam.: 6 in.
Top Elevation: — 445.11 ft.
Easting:
Drilling Company:
Holt Services Inc. Rod Diam.: N/A
Vert. Datum: NAVD 88
Station:
Drill Rig Equipment:
Terrasonic Hammer Type: N/A
Horiz. Datum:
Offset:
Other Comments:
7-in. hole from 0 to 20 ft.
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the
subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification
lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries
between material types, and the transition may be gradual.
L
unded to subangular gravel; fine to
e sand; nonplastic fines; few silty sand
ce Outwash (Qva)
Gray -brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt
(SP-SM) to Poorly Graded Sand (SP); trace
fine, subrounded to subangular gravel; fine to
medium sand; nonplastic fines.
Advance Out
(Qva)
Gray -brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and
Gravel (SP-SM); moist; fine to coarse,
subrounded to subangular gravel; fine to
coarse sand; nonplastic fines.
dvance Outwash (Qva)
Gray -brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt
(SP-SM); moist; fine to medium sand;
nonplastic fines.
dvance Outwash (Qva)
Gray -brown, Silty Sand (SM); moist; fine sand;
nonplastic fines.
dvance Outwash (Qva)
Gray -brown to gray, Silty Sand with Gravel
(SM); moist; fine to coarse, subrounded to
subangular gravel; fine to coarse sand;
nonplastic fines; fines content may be elevated
due to drilling method.
dvance Outwash (Qva)
Gray -brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and
Gravel (SP-SM) to Poorly Graded Sand with
Gravel (SP); moist; fine subrounded to
subangular gravel; fine to medium sand;
u nonplastic fines.
y dvance Outwash (Qva)
Y
Gray -brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt
(SP-SM) to Poorly Graded Sand (SP); moist;
trace to few fine, subrounded to subangular
O % Fines (<0.075mm)
o
L
• % Water Content
Q
U)
0
157.0
LEGEND
* Sample Not Recovered Well Screen and Sand Filter
[21 Soil Core (as in Sonic Core Borings) ® Bentonite-Cement Grout
® Bentonite Chips/Pellets
® Bentonite Grout
SZ Ground Water level ATD
S Ground Water Level in Well
NOTES
1. Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions.
2. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary.
3. USCS designation is based on visual -manual classification and selected lab testing.
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
LOG OF SONIC CORE OW-1
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
SHANNON & WILSON, INC. I FIG. A-4
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Sheet 8 of 10
REV 3 - Approved for Submittal
Total Depth: 185.5ift,
mnnhing:
Drilling Method:
Sonic Core Holooian.: 6 in.
Top Elevation: _— 445. 11 ft._
sas ng:
Drilling Company:
nodoiam.: NIAL___
U Vert. Datum: NAUVD 88�_
Station:
Drill Rig Equipment:
Terrasonic Hammer Typo:NIA_____ I
Horiz. Datum:
Offset:
Other Comments:
7-in. hole from 0 to 20 ft.
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Sheet 9 of 10
Total Depth: 185.5 ft. Northing: Drilling Method: Sonic Core Hole Diam.: 6 in.
Top Elevation: — 445.11 ft. Easting: Drilling Company: Holt Services Inc. Rod Diam.: N/A
Vert. Datum: NAVD 88 Station: Drill Rig Equipment: Terrasonic Hammer Type: N/A
Horiz. Datum: Offset: Other Comments: 7-in. hole from 0 to 20 ft.
SOIL DESCRIPTION
4�
o
-a 4�
O % Fines (<0.075mm)
Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the
-Q
Q
L
C ( t
• % Water Content
subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification
Q
E
E
O cB 5-
lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries
�
U
(D
between material types, and the transition may be gradual.
0 20 40 60
- Pockets of silty sand with gravel from 173.5
to 175 feet.
- Seam of silty sand with gravel at 176.3 feet.
182
.........
................ ........
.........
...............................................................
.........
Brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and
Gravel (SP-SM) to Silty Sand with Gravel
( SM),; weft fine to coarse subrounded to
.....................................................................................................................
subangular gravel; fine to medium sand;
...:...:...:...:..............................................:...:...:...:..............................:...:...:...
.........
.........
nonplastic fines; trace organics and mica.
:•=
184
...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:.................................................................................
Advance Outwash (Qva)
- Last sample was to 179 feet on 4/6 2016;
casingwas at 168.5 feet. Caved to 168 feet
185.5
'
by start of day 4/7/2016; water level 166.5
186
feet. Added water during cleanout run prior
to sample run 21.
188
Brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and
Gravel SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand SP
and Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand (GP);
wet; fine to coarse, rounded to subangular
gravel; fine to coarse sand; trace to few
190
nonplastic fines.
Advance Outwash Qva
- Heaved 10 feet during retrieval of sample
run 21. Cased to 185 feet and added water
192
to wash out heave to 185.5 feet, prior to well
installation.
194
BOTTOM OF BORING
COMPLETED 4/7/2016
NOTE: Well installed on 4/7/2016.
196
a
z
ll
198
.........................................................................................:...:...:...:...:...:...:...
Y.....................................................................................................................
C
0
0
J
0 20 40 60
LEGEND
Sample Not Recovered Well Screen and Sand Filter
N[21 Soil Core (as in Sonic Core Borings) ® Bentonite-Cement Grout
® Bentonite Chips/Pellets
® Bentonite Grout
SZ Ground Water Level ATD Hydrogeologic Report
Z S Ground Water Level in Well
New Madrona K-8 Project
$
U) NOTES Edmonds, Washington
IL
1. Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions.
N
0 2. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary.
N 3. USCS designation is based on visual -manual classification and selected lab testing. LOG OF SONIC CORE OW-1
N
LU
o November 2016 21-1-22082-003
W
SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. A-4
aGeotechnical and Environmental Consultants
� Sheet 10 of 10
REV 3 - Approved for Submittal
Total Depth: 190 ft. Northing: Drilling Method: Sonic Core Hole Diam.: 6 in.
Top Elevation: — 444.67 ft. Easting: Drilling Company: Holt Services Inc. Rod Diam.: N/A
Vert. Datum: NAVD 88 Station: Drill Rig Equipment: TerraSonic Hammer Type: N/A
Horiz. Datum: Offset: Other Comments: 7-in. hole from 0 to 50 ft.
SOIL DESCRIPTION
4�
o
-a
O % Fines (<0.075mm)
Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the
-Q
Q
L
C t
• % Water Content
subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification
Q
E
E
O cB -5-
lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries
�
U
(D
between material types, and the transition may be gradual.
0 20 40 60
Grass and Topsoil Fill (Hf)
0.4
1.5
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
Brown, Silty Sand with Gravel (SM); moist;
fine, subrounded to subangular gravel; fine to
-
.........................................................................................................
.........
.........
.........
coarse sand; nonplastic fines; trace organics.
.........
.........
Fill (Hf)
:.
5
Gray -brown, Silty Sand with Gravel (SM);
moist; fine to coarse, subrounded to
5.5
subangular gravel; fine to coarse sand;
.........
.........
nonplastic fines; diamict.
:.'•:
.....
.........
Fill (Hf)
8.0
.........
.........
.........
With pockets of organics below 5 feet.
10
to red -brown, Silty Sand with Gravel
JBrown
SM); moist; fine to coarse, subrounded toubangular
gravel; fine to coarse sand;
onplastic to low plasticity fines; diamict.
:
........................................................................
blation Till/Weathered Till (Qvat/Qvt)
0
Gray -brown, Silty Sand with Gravel (SM) to
Silty Gravel with Sand (GM); moist; fine to
coarse, subrounded to subangular gravel; fine
15
.........
.........
.........
to coarse sand; nonplastic fines; diamict.
Weathered Till/Till/Till-Like Deposits (Qvt/Qvd)
- With scattered wet seams below 12 feet.
......................................................................................................
20
25.0
25
Gray, Silty Sand with Gravel and Cobbles
(SM) to Silty Gravel with Sand and Cobbles
.....................................................................................................................
(GM); moist; trace subrounded cobbles; fine to
Y'
;,
.....
.........
coarse, subrounded to subangular gravel; fine
to coarse sand; nonplastic fines; diamict.
......
Till (Qvt)
• :
�
CONTINUED NEXT SHEET 0 20 40 60
LEGEND
* Sample Not Recovered Well Screen and Sand Filter
[21 Soil Core (as in Sonic Core Borings) ® Bentonite-Cement Grout
® Bentonite Chips/Pellets
® Bentonite Grout
* Ground Water Level ATD Hydrogeologic Report
s Ground Water Level in Well New Madrona K-8 Project
Ground Water Level in VWP
NOTES Edmonds, Washington
1. Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions.
2. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary.
3. USCS designation is based on visual -manual classification and selected lab testing. LOG OF SONIC CORE OW-2
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. A-5
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Sheet 1 of 7
REV 3 - Approved for Submittal
Total Depth: 190!ft.
mnnhing:
Drilling Method:
Sonic Core Holooian.: 6 in.
ropElevauon:_— 444.67 ft,_
sas ng:
Drilling Company:
nodoiam.: NIAL___
U Vert. Datum: NAUVQ 88�_
Station:
Drill Rig Equipment:
TerraSonic Hammer Typo:NIA_____ I
Horiz. Datum:
Offset:
Other Comments:
7-in. hole from 0 to 50 ft.
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Sheet 2 of 7
Total Depth: 190!ft.
mnnhing:
Drilling Method:
Sonic Core Holooian.: 6 in.
ropElevauon:_— 444.67 ft, _
sas ng:
Drilling Company:
nodoiam.: NIAL___
I
U Vert. Datum: NAUVQ 88�_
Station:
Drill Rig Equipment:
TerraSonic Hammer Typo:NIA_____
Horiz. Datum:
Offset:
Other Comments:
7-in. hole from 0 to 50 ft.
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Sheet 3 of 7
Total Depth: 190 ft.
Northing:
Drilling Method:
Sonic Core Hole Diam.: 6 in.
Top Elevation: — 444.67 ft.
Easting:
Drilling Company:
Holt Services Inc. Rod Diam.: N/A
Vert. Datum: NAVD 88
Station:
Drill Rig Equipment:
TerraSonic Hammer Type: N/A
Horiz. Datum:
Offset:
Other Comments:
7-in. hole from 0 to 50 ft.
SOIL DESCRIPTION
4�
o
a
-a L _t�
O % Fines (<0.075mm)
Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the
Q
E
(D
t
cB
• % Water Content
subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification
Q
E
5-
O
lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries
a)
(1)
(D
between material types, and the transition may be gradual.
0 20 40 60
Gray -brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and
90.0
Gravel (SP-SM) to Silty Sand with Gravel
(SM); trace to little, fine to coarse, subrounded
to subangular gravel; fine to coarse sand;
nonplastic fines; fines content may be elevated
.....................................................................................................................
due to drilling method.
Advance Outwash (Qva)
:•
95
100.0
.
>'
f.1
J
100
...
Gray -brown, Well Graded Sand with Silt and
Gravel (SW-SM); moist; fine to coarse,
00
subrounded to subangular gravel; fine to
° °
00
coarse sand; nonplastic fines; few silty sand
seams; fines content may be elevated due to
....................................................................................
drilling method.
oXN
Advance Outwash (Qva)
xo
105
0 oo
° 00
o°
.....
0:..
:...:...:...:...:...
- With layers of poorly graded sand with silt
.......................................................
below 109 feet.
110
111.5
>° °
Gray -brown, Well Graded Sand with Silt,
Gravel, and Cobbles (SW-SM); moist; trace
M
.....................................................................................................................
subrounded cobbles; fine to coarse,
. ........
.........
.
subrounded to subangular gravel; fine to
...................................................................................
' coarse sand; nonplastic fines; fines content
00
115
may be elevated due to drilling method.
.........
.........
.........
Advance Outwash (Qva)
....................
Y
Layer of poorly graded sand with silt and
................................................................
gravel from approximately 118.3 to 119 feet.
00
CONTINUED NEXT SHEET 0 20 40 60
LEGEND
* Sample Not Recovered Well Screen and Sand Filter
[21 Soil Core (as in Sonic Core Borings) ® Bentonite-Cement Grout
® Bentonite Chips/Pellets
® Bentonite Grout
SZ Ground Water level ATD
S Ground Water Level in Well
-L Ground Water Level in VWP
NOTES
1. Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions.
2. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary.
3. USCS designation is based on visual -manual classification and selected lab testing.
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
LOG OF SONIC CORE OW-2
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
SHANNON & WILSON, INC. I FIG. A-5
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Sheet 4 of 7
REV 3 - Approved for Submittal
Total Depth: 190 ft. Northing: Drilling Method: Sonic Core Hole Diam.: 6 in.
Top Elevation: — 444.67 ft. Easting: Drilling Company: Holt Services Inc. Rod Diam.: N/A
Vert. Datum: NAVD 88 Station: Drill Rig Equipment: TerraSonic Hammer Type: N/A
Horiz. Datum: Offset: Other Comments: 7-in. hole from 0 to 50 ft.
SOIL DESCRIPTION
4�
o
-a 4�
O % Fines (<0,075mm)
Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the
-Q
Q
L
C ( t
• % Water Content
subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification
Q
E
E
O cB 5-
lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries
�
U
(D
between material types, and the transition may be gradual.
0 20 40 60
v
- Sampled to 126 feet and cased to 110 feet
on 8/17/2016. No recovery from 121 to 126
.........
.........
feet (sample fell out of core barrel). Hole
°°
was open and dry to 118 feet on morning of
°
8/18/2016.
o
125
- Added water prior to sample run 15 to assist
126.0
°
with sample retrieval.
.........
................................................................................
.........
Gray -brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt
(SP-SM) to Silty Sand (SM); moist; few fine,
.....
subrounded to subangular gravel; fine to
.....................................................................................................................
coarse sand; nonplastic fines; few poorly
130.0
,
130
, , :
.........
.........
.........
graded sand with silt seams; fines content may
.........
.........
be elevated due to drilling method.
.........................................................................................................
Advance Outwash (Qva)
.....................................................................................................................
Gray -brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt
(SP-SM) to Silty Sand (SM); moist; trace to
0
..................................................................................................
.....
few, fine to coarse, subrounded to subangular
135
gravel; fine to medium sand; nonplastic fines.
Advance Outwash (Qva)
.....................................................................................................................
- Layer of silty sand at 136.5 to 137 feet.
*�
140
142.0
.
; X.
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
Gray -brown, Silty Sand with Gravel (SM);
moist; fine to coarse, subrounded to
.....
..............................................................
.........
.........
subangular gravel; fine to medium sand;
nonplastic fines; fines content may be elevated
145
due to drilling method.
145.5
•'
, ; .
Advance Outwash (Qva)
.
Y.
o.....
......
.........
Gray, Silty Sand (SM); moist; few fine to
coarse, subrounded to subangular gravel; fine
..................................................................................................................
.........
.........
.........
to coarse sand; nonplastic fines; few baked,
silty, fine sand clasts- fines co may b
.
o
........20.........40........60
CONTINUED NEXT SHEET 0
LEGEND
* Sample Not Recovered Well Screen and Sand Filter
[21 Soil Core (as in Sonic Core Borings) ® Bentonite-Cement Grout
® Bentonite Chips/Pellets
® Bentonite Grout
* Ground Water Level ATD Hydrogeologic Report
s Ground Water Level in Well New Madrona K-8 Project
Ground Water Level in VWP
NOTES Edmonds, Washington
1. Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions.
2. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary.
3. USCS designation is based on visual -manual classification and selected lab testing. LOG OF SONIC CORE OW-2
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. A-5
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Sheet 5 of 7
REV 3 - Approved for Submittal
Total Depth: 190 ft. Northing: Drilling Method: Sonic Core Hole Diam.: 6 in.
Top Elevation: — 444.67 ft. Easting: Drilling Company: Holt Services Inc. Rod Diam.: N/A
Vert. Datum: NAVD 88 Station: Drill Rig Equipment: TerraSonic Hammer Type: N/A
Horiz. Datum: Offset: Other Comments: 7-in. hole from 0 to 50 ft.
SOIL DESCRIPTION
4�
o
-a 4�
O % Fines (<0.075mm)
Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the
-Q
Q
L
C ( t
• % Water Content
subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification
Q
E
E
O cB 5-
lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries
�
U
(D
between material types, and the transition may be gradual.
0 20 40 60
elevated due to drilling method.
Advance Outwash (Qva)
J,
''
................................................................
sed silt below 147 feet.
152.0
"
d water prior to sample run 19.
o
0
.........
.........
.......................
.........
.........
.......................................
.........
.........
....................... :...:...:...:...
own, Silty Sand with Gravel (SM);
ine to coarse, subrounded to
ular gravel; fine to coarse sand;
Lelevated
o
155
.........
.........
.........
o
.........
.........
.........
tic fines; diamict; fines content may be
156.5
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
d due to drilling method.
Deposits/Advance Outwash
va)
...................................................................................
-brown, Poorly Graded Gravel with Silt
Sand (GP -GM) to Poorly Graded Gravel
160.0
•'
160
, ; .
Sand (GP); moist; fine to coarse,
.........
.........
.........
unded to subangular gravel; fine to
.........
.........
.........
e sand; nonplastic fines.
nce Outwash (Qva)
................................................................
..................................
, Silty Sand with Gravel (SM); wet; fine,unded
to subangular gravel; fine to
.:•
165
e sand; nonplastic fines (possibly baked
..g
drilling); few diamict clasts; trace silts;
fines content may be elevated due to
...................................................................................
..................................
drilling method.
Advance Outwash/Till-Like Deposits
.....................................................................................................................
(Qva/Qvd)
170
.........
.........
.........
Gray -brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt
(SP-SM) to Silty Sand (SM); moist; few fine to
coarse, subrounded to subangular gravel; fine
172.5
.....................................................................................................................
to medium sand; nonplastic fines; few sandy
silt seams; trace mica.
Advance Outwash (Qva)
:
•.
175
- Saturated below about 169 feet, and drilled
.........
.........
.........
hard/tight from 170 to 172 feet.
X.
Gray -brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt
(SP-SM) to Poorly Graded Sand (SP); wet;
trace to few fine gravel; nonplastic fines; fine
CONTINUED NEXT SHEET 0 20 40 60
LEGEND
* Sample Not Recovered Well Screen and Sand Filter
[21 Soil Core (as in Sonic Core Borings) ® Bentonite-Cement Grout
® Bentonite Chips/Pellets
® Bentonite Grout
* Ground Water Level ATD Hydrogeologic Report
s Ground Water Level in Well New Madrona K-8 Project
Ground Water Level in VWP
NOTES Edmonds, Washington
1. Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions.
2. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary.
3. USCS designation is based on visual -manual classification and selected lab testing. LOG OF SONIC CORE OW-2
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. A-5
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Sheet 6 of 7
REV 3 - Approved for Submittal
Total Depth: 190 ft. Northing: Drilling Method: Sonic Core Hole Diam.: 6 in.
Top Elevation: — 444.67 ft. Easting: Drilling Company: Holt Services Inc. Rod Diam.: N/A
Vert. Datum: NAVD 88 Station: Drill Rig Equipment: TerraSonic Hammer Type: N/A
Horiz. Datum: Offset: Other Comments: 7-in. hole from 0 to 50 ft.
SOIL DESCRIPTION
4�
o
-a 4�
O % Fines (<0.075mm)
Refer to the report text for a proper understanding of the
-Q
Q
L
C ( t
• % Water Content
subsurface materials and drilling methods. The stratification
Q
E
E
2 cB 5-
lines indicated below represent the approximate boundaries
�
U
(D
between material types, and the transition may be gradual.
0 20 40 60
to coarse sand; trace mica.
180.0
Advance Outwash (Qva)
.........
.
- Layer of silty, fine to medium sand (SM)
:: "
.....................................................................................................................
from 175.5 to 176 feet.
- Cased to 180 feet before sample run 22.
:
N
Gray -brown, Poorly Graded Sand (SP); wet;
nonplastic fines; fine to coarse sand (trace to
185
few coarse sand); no to trace fine to coarse,
:..
.........
.....................................................................................................................
.....
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
subrounded gravel; trace mica.'
.........
.........
.........
Advance Outwash (Qva)
- Heaved to 172 feet after sample run 22.
.........
.........
.........
Cased to 185 feet and washed out heave
prior to well installation.
190.0
190
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
BOTTOM OF BORING
COMPLETED 8/19/2016
NOTE: Well installed on 8/19/2016.
195
200
205
:...:...:...:......:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...
i
:...:...:...:......:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...:...
Y
..................................................................
S
O
J
0 20 40 60
LEGEND
Sample Not Recovered Well Screen and Sand Filter
N[21 Soil Core (as in Sonic Core Borings) ® Bentonite-Cement Grout
® Bentonite Chips/Pellets
® Bentonite Grout
SZ Ground Water Level ATD Hydrogeologic Report
Z S Ground Water Level in Well
Q New Madrona K-8 Project
_ 7 Ground Water Level in VWP
� NOTES Edmonds, Washington
IL
1. Refer to KEY for explanation of symbols, codes, abbreviations and definitions.
N
0 2. Groundwater level, if indicated above, is for the date specified and may vary.
N 3. USCS designation is based on visual -manual classification and selected lab testing. LOG OF SONIC CORE OW-2
N
LU
o November 2016 21-1-22082-003
W
SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. A-5
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
Sheet 7 of 7
REV 3 - Approved for Submittal
I
21-1-22082-003
SHANNON 6WIUSON, ING
GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
B.1 VISUAL CLASSIFICATION ......................................................................................... B-1
B.2 WATER CONTENT DETERMINATION ...................................................................... B-I
B.3 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS .................................................................. B-1
BACONSIDERATIONS ....................................................................................................... B-2
B.5 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ B-2
Laboratory Terms
Sample Types
Laboratory Test Summary
TABLES
TESTS
Grain Size Distribution Plot, Boring IW-2
Grain Size Distribution Plot, Boring OW-1
Grain Size Distribution Plot, Boring OW-2
21-1-22082-003-R] f-ABiwp/lk 21-1-22082-003
B-i
ING
GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING
We performed geotechnical laboratory testing on selected soil samples retrieved from the three
borings completed for the New Madrona K-8 Project's Geotechnical Report. The laboratory
testing program included tests to classify the soil and provide data for hydrogeologic studies
related to underground injection control well feasibility and design. We performed visual
classification on retrieved samples. Our laboratory testing program included water content
determinations and grain size distribution analyses.
The following sections describe the laboratory test procedures.
B.1 VISUAL CLASSIFICATION
We visually classified soil samples retrieved from the borings using a system based on ASTM
International (ASTM) D2487-11, Standard Test Method for Classification of Soil for
Engineering Purposes (ASTM, 2011), and ASTM D2488-09a, Standard Recommended Practice
for Description of Soils (Visual -manual Procedure) (ASTM, 2009). Appendix A summarizes our
classification system. We assigned a Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) group name
and symbol, based on our visual classification of particles finer than 76.2 millimeters (3 inches).
We revised visual classifications using results of the index tests discussed below.
We tested the water content of selected samples in accordance with ASTM D221.6-10, Standard
Method for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil, Rock, and Soil -
aggregate Mixtures (ASTM, 2010). Comparison of the water content of a soil with its index
properties can be useful in characterizing soil unit weight, consistency, compressibility, and
strength. The tables in Appendix B and boring logs in Appendix A include the water content test
results.
B.3 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS
Grain size distribution analyses separate soil particles through mechanical or sedimentation
processes. Grain size distributions are used to classify the granular component of soils and can.
correlate with soil properties, including frost susceptibility, permeability, shear strength,
liquefaction potential, capillary action, and sensitivity to moisture. Appendix B includes grain.
size distribution analysis results in graphical format. Grain size distribution plots provide tabular
21-1-22082-003-R] f-ABiwpilk 21-1-22082-003
B-1
ING
information about each specimen, including: USCS group symbol and group name, water
content, constituent (i.e., cobble, gravel, sand, and fines) percentages, coefficients of uniformity
and curvature, if applicable, personnel initials, ASTM standard designation, and testing remarks.
Constituent percentages are presented in the Laboratory Test Summary in this appendix and fines
contents are plotted as data points in borings logs in Appendix A.
Sieve Analysis: We performed mechanical sieve analyses on selected soil specimens to
determine the grain size distribution of coarse -grained soil particles, in accordance with. ASTM
C136/C1.36M-1.4, Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates
(ASTM, 201.4).
BA CONSIDERATIONS
Drilling and sampling methodologies may affect the outcome of prescribed geotechnical
laboratory tests. Refer to the field exploration discussion in this report for a discussion of these
potential effects. Instances of limited recovery may have resulted in test samples not meeting
specified minimum mass requirements, per ASTM standards. Test plots show which samples do
not meet ASTM: specified minimum mass requirements.
B.5 REFERENCES
ASTM International (ASTM), 2009, Standard practice for description and identification of soils
(visual/manual procedure), D2488-09a: West Conshohocken, Pa., ASTM International,
Annual book of standards, v. 04.08, soil and rock (I): D420 - D5876, 11 p.,
available: www.astm.org.
ASTM International (ASTM), 2010, Standard test methods for laboratory determination of water
(moisture) content of soil and rock by mass, D2216-10: West Conshohocken, Pa., ASTM
International, Annual book of standards, v. 04.08, soil and rock (I): D420 - D5876, 7 p.,
available: www.astm.org.
ASTM International (ASTM), 2011, Standard practice for classification of soils for engineering
purposes (unified soil classification system), D2487-11: West Conshohocken, Pa., ASTM
International, Annual book of standards, v. 04.08, soil and rock (I): D420 - D5876, 12 p.,
available: www.astm.org.
ASTM International (ASTM), 2014, Standard test method for sieve analysis of fine and coarse
aggregates, C136-14: West Conshohocken, Pa., ASTM International, Annual book of
standards, v. 04.02, concrete and aggregates, 5 p., available: www.astrp ors.
21-1-22082-003-R] f-ABiwpilk 21-1-22082-003
B-2
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
ARNAMANUM
%
Percent
*
Sample specimen weight did not meet required minimum mass for the test method
ASTM Std.
ASTM International Standard
Ce
Coefficient of curvature
Cla -size
Soil particles finer than 0.002 millimeter
cm
Centimeter
cm
Square centimeter
Coarse -grained
Soil particles coarser than 0.075 min (cobble-, gravel- and sand -sized particles)
Cobbles
Soil particles finer than 305 min and coarser than 76.2 min
C
Coefficient of uniformity
CU
Consolidated Undrained
s
Axial strain
Fine-grained
Soil particles finer than 0.075 min (silt- and clay -sized articles)
ft
Feet
7m
Wet unit weight
Gravel
Soil particles finer than 76.2 min and coarser than 4.75 min
G,
Specific gravity of soil solids
H,,
Initial height
AH
Change in height
Alllead
End of load increment deformation
in
Inch
in
Cubic inch
LL
Liquid Limit
min
Minute
min
Millimeter
µm
Micrometer
MPa
Mega -Pascal
NP
Non -plastic
OC
Organic content
p
Total stress
p'
Effective stress
Pa
Pascal
pcf
Pounds per cubic foot
PI
Plasticity Index
PL
Plastic Limit
psf
Pounds per square foot
q
Deviatoric stress
Sand
Soil particles finer than 4.75 min and coarser than 0.075 min
sec
Second
Silt
Soil particles finer than 0.075 min and coarser than 0.002 min
t
Time to n% primary consolidation
tload
Duration of load increment
tsf
Short tons per square foot
USCS
Unified Soil Classification System
UU
Unconsolidated-Undrained
WC
Water content
21-1-22082-003-R1-AB-Lab Tables -Terms and Test Summary/wp/lk 21-1-22082-003
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
SAMPLE TYPES
2SS
2.5" O.D. Split Spoon Sample
2ST
2" O.D. Thin -Walled Tube
3HSA
3" CME HSA Sampler
3SS
3" O.D. Split Spoon Sample
4SS
Soil particles finer than 0.002 millimeter
6SS
6" LD. Split Spoon Sample
CA MC
Modified California Sampler
CA SPT
Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
CORE
Rock Core
DM
+ 3.25" O.D. Split Spoon Sample
DMR
3.25" Sampler With Internal Rings
GRAB
Grab Sample
GUS
3.0" O.D. GUS Sample
OSTER
3.0" O.D. Osterberg Sample
PITCHER
3" O.D. Pitcher Sample
PMT
Pressuremeter Test (f=failed)
PO
Porter Penetration Test Sam le
PT
2.5" O.D. Thin -Walled Tube
ROCK
Rock Core Sample
SCORE
Soil Core (as in Sonic Core Borings)
SHI
1" Plastic Sheath
SH2
2" Plastic Sheath with Soil Recovery
SH3
2" Plastic Sheath with no Soil Recovery
SPT
2.0" O.D. Split Spoon Sample
SS
Split Spoon
ST
3" O.D. Thin -Walled Tube
STW
3" O.D. Thin -Walled Tube
TEST
Sample Test Interval
TR
TR Test
TW
Thin Wall Sample
UNDIST
Undisturbed Sample
VANE
Vane Shear
WATER
Water sample for Probe Lous
21-1-22082-003-R1-AB-Lab Tables -Terms and Test Summary/wp/lk 21-1-22082-003
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
LABORATORY TEST SUMMARY
.
.................. .
F
Bc►ritx
ep# (feet
tIS
.. ' (�
°
"
° .Iz
trscripiici ".
IW-2
91
5-12
GRAB
SP
7.3
17*
78*
4.3*
4.0
0.8
Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel
IW-2
98
S-14
GRAB
SP
3.3
37*
62*
0.8*
8.5
0.5
Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel
IW-2
111
5-16
GRAB
SW-SM
5.1
21*
71*
8.6*
7.9
1.3
Well -graded Sand with Silt and Gravel
IW-2
119
S-18
GRAB
SW-SM
5.0
11
81
8.7
6.3
1.4
Well -graded Sand with Silt
OW-1
Soil particles finer than 0.002 millimeter
R-7
SCORE
SM
5.2
22
56
22
Silty Sand with Gravel
OW-1
63.5
R-8
SCORE
SP-SM
4.8
7*
84*
9.5*
4.8
2.2
Poorly Graded Sand with Silt
OW-1
87.5
R-10
SCORE
SP
9.1
34*
61*
4.5*
17.9
0.4
Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel
OW-1
108
R-11
SCORE
SM
4.7
7*
74*
19*
Silty Sand
OW-1
125
R-14
SCORE
SP-SM
6.5
2
90
8.1
3.8
1.6
Poorly Graded Sand with Silt
OW-1
135
R-15
SCORE
SM
9.2
4*
70*
26*
Silty Sand
OW-1
153
R-17
SCORE
SP-SM
5.0
4*
88*
8*
4.1
1.5
Poorly Graded Sand with Silt
OW-1
182
R-21
SCORE
SP-SM
18.6
7
88
5.1
2.3
1.2
Poorly Graded Sand with Silt
OW-2
12
R-2
SCORE
10.8
OW-2
56
R-7
SCORE
SP-SM
10.4
19*
74*
7.3*
5.6
0.8
Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and Gravel
OW-2
72
R-9
SCORE
SP-SM
15.2
2*
89*
9*
4.2
1.7
Poorly Graded Sand with Silt
OW-2
82
R-10
SCORE
SM
6.3
5*
78*
16*
Silty Sand
OW-2
91.5
R-11
SCORE
SM
8.8
12*
68*
20*
Silty Sand
OW-2
107
R-12
SCORE
SW-SM
3.8
26*
62*
12*
Well -graded Sand with Silt and Gravel
OW-2
128
R-15
SCORE
SM
4.7
14*
70*
16*
Silty Sand
OW-2
137.5
R-17
SCORE
SP-SM
4.3
5*
88*
7.4*
3.1
2.6
Poorly Graded Sand with Silt
OW-2
151.5
R-19
SCORE
SM
6.2
10*
56*
34*
Silty Sand
OW-2
154
R-19
SCORE
SP-SM
1.8
36*
58*
5.2*
15.3
0.5
Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and Gravel
OW-2
182.5
R-22
SCORE
SP
15.1
10*
87*
2.8*
3.0
1.0
Poorly Graded Sand
21-1-22082-003-RI-AB-Lab Tables -Terms and Test Suimnary/wp/lk 21-1-22082-003
.111 SHANNON FaWILSON, INC. GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION PLOT
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
BORING IW-2
Edmonds, Washington
Gravel
Sand
Fines
Coarse Fine
Coarse Medium
Fine
Silt Clay -Size
Mesh Opening in Inches
Mesh Openings per Inch, U.S. Standard
Grain Size in Millimeters
XV
W 1
O O O O O O O
O
MO 0�
^O ry0 p0
00 ,�00
�
O�
O� O�
100
0
95
5
90 „
.. .., , ..
........�... .. ......... .. ........
.... .......
........
. �. ......... , .
......... ............10
85
.... .... .....
...
....,
...... ._.
15
80„
..... ..... ...
.. ... ............. . ................
....... .......................
......
....................... ........ . ,
..........
..20
75
......
.........
_
, 25
70
........ .... ... ..........
..........., ..
.......... .......
.. '.
.... ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ...
...........
-"30
65
....
.... .. ..
...
,.
... .. ,
.... "
"" 35
0 60
40
CD
CD
55
. ...
...
...
....
... -
..48
c80,
.. ........ ....... .. ...........
..... .. .. ..........
.. .... .......
.....
........ ...
......... ........ ..,....... ....... ..
_. ..50
N
IL
N
G 45
... .. ...
....
...
... "
"" 55
40
......... ...... .. .. ....., ..
............
.�
...... ,,,,,,,
..
.............. ......... ...
... 60
�
v
N
35
_
-
_
.-65
30
..
...... ....
_
. ..
_,.
70
25
_..
75
20
.... ..... ..... ..... ..........,
......... ......... ............
.. .......
....
..... "...
.......
.. ......... ... ......, <.......,.
... .
.. 80
..... ..._ ......
...... _ ...
.......
..._ ...... .......
.....
10
..
._.
..... ..
_
90
5
95
p
— --
ry
o 0 0 0 o ro ¢i h a M ti ro <o a M
�° �` M ry p O O O O
ry
O
y ¢i
a M ry ro o a ry
100
^0•
o
o o o o o• o'
Grain Size (mm)
Sample
Depth
USCS Group
USCS
Gravel
Sand
Fines
< 20pm
< 2pm
WC
Tested
Review
ASTM
Identification
(ft)
Symbol
Group Name
%
%
%
%
%
%
By
By
Std.
0 IW-2, S-12*
91.0
SP
Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel
17
78
4.3
7.3
AKV
C136
N
0
■ IW-2, S-14'
98.0
SP
Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel
37
62
0.8
3.3
AKV
C136
IW-2, S-16'
111.0
SW-SM
Well -Graded Sand with Silt and Gravel
21
71
8.6
5.1
SAB
C136
N
�?
IW-2, S-18
119.0
SW-SM
Well -Graded Sand with Silt
11
81
8.7
5.0
AKV
C136
>J_
Test specimen did not meet minimum mass recommendations.
a
N
O
O
N
N
N
Z
<1
U)
v
0
0
N
O
O
N
N
N
SHANNON & WILSON, INC. - 400 NORTH 34TH STREET - SUITE 100 - SEATTLE, WASHINGTON - 98103 - MAIN (206) 632-8020 - FAX (206) 695-6777
.111 SHANNON FaWILSON, INC. GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION PLOT
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
BORING OW-1
Edmonds, Washington
Gravel
Sand
Fines
Coarse Fine
Coarse Medium
Fine
Silt Clay -Size
Mesh Opening in Inches
Mesh Openings per Inch, U.S. Standard
Grain Size in Millimeters
ti
o 0 0
0 00
00 0° oa
o' o� o oo� o00 00° ooM oory
o0
�a �ro
100
0
95
... _.,_._
5
90
....
.... .......
........
... ........ ..
......... ..........
.. 10
80
... ... ...... ...... ...
....
....... .............. .........,.
....... .......................
......
....................... ........ , . ,
..,,,,,,,,.
..20
75
�.
-25
70,
......
.......
... ............. ..... ,'
..........
......
..
.... ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ..
...........
-.30
65
..
.. �. �. ..
�.
..
...... -..
35
co 60
..
.._ ... ....
-..
N
' 40
CD
CD
55
... . ...
... ...
_ ...
....
... -..48
c80,
.. ........ ....... ..
...........
......... ...... .,
...
.. .......
......
.....
........ ...
......... ........ ..,....... ....... ..
.. .,,
p
50 N
IL
N
45
_
-55
U
_
`G
N40
......... ...... .. .. ...., ..
.....
.. ,.. .........
.......
..
........--- .........
....
60 �
d
�
�
N
35
.
.... .....
_ ...._. .
_,65
N
30
..
... -. .._
. ..
_,.
70
25
....... ......... ........
...................
......... ........ ......... ........
._. ...
s.
.... ......... ......... ........
......... .....
75
20
......... ..... .....
............
. .. ._ .. ............. ....
..
.....
..........
......... ... ...... , <......., .
... ...
80
15
..
_ .
!.. _ .
........
-85
10
-90
5
95
0
_
ry
o 0 0 0 o ro ¢i h a M N v cp a M
�° �` M ry '� p O Q, O O
ry
O O
y co
O^ o
a M ry ro o a ry
0 0 0 0 0-
100
^0•
o
o o o Z) o• o'
Grain Size (mm)
Sample
Depth
USCS Group
USCS
Gravel
Sand
Fines
< 20pm
< 2pm
WC
Tested
Review
ASTM
Identification
(ft)
Symbol
Group Name
%
%
%
%
%
%
By
By
Std.
OW-1, R-7
55.7
SM
Silty Sand with Gravel
22
56
22
5.2
JCS
JFL
D422
N
0
■ OW-1, R-8'
63.5
SP-SM
Poorly Graded Sand with Silt
7
84
9.5
4.8
AKV
JFL
C136
OW-1, R-10*
87.5
SP
Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel
34
61
4.5
9.1
JCS
JFL
C136
N
OW-1, R-11'
108.0
SM
Silty Sand
7
74
19
4.7
JCS
JFL
C136
>J_>
Z
O OW-1, R-14
125.0
SP-SM
Poorly Graded Sand with Silt
2
90
8.1
6.5
JCS
JFL
C136
x
n
El OW-1, R-15'
135.0
SM
Silty Sand
4
70
26
9.2
JCS
JFL
C136
a
0
OW-1, R-17'
153.0
SP-SM
Poorly Graded Sand with Silt
4
88
8.0
5.0
JCS
JFL
C136
N
V
OW-1, R-21
182.0
SP-SM
Poorly Graded Sand with Silt
7
88
5.1
18.6
JCS
JFL
C136
N
Z
Q
Test specimen did not meet minimum mass recommendations,
a
a�
v
0
0
N
O
O
N
N
N
SHANNON & WILSON, INC. - 400 NORTH 34TH STREET - SUITE 100 - SEATTLE, WASHINGTON - 98103 - MAIN (206) 632-8020 - FAX (206) 695-6777
.111 SHANNON FaWILSON, INC. GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION PLOT
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
BORING OW-2
Edmonds, Washington
Gravel
Sand
Fines
Coarse Fine
Coarse Medium Fine
Silt
Clay -Size
Mesh Opening in Inches
Mesh Openings per Inch, U.S. Standard
Grain Size in Millimeters
XV
W 1
O O O O O
O
O�
100
0
95
-
..5
.. ..
..
..
90
........... ........ ...
.. .... ......... .........
.......
. .
........
... ......... ...........................
......... ............10
85
.. ..�
..
..
--15
801,
... .....
..... .,... ........ .......
..............
..
......
......... .........
........ . ,
.,,,,,,,,,,
..20
75
..
..:�
...
-_ .
...
-25
70
...... ...... ...... .........
....... ....
..... .......
.. '.
.... ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ...
...........
-.30
65
_:
-
--
--.
....
- 35
co 60-
'40
CD
Z3
55
... ....
... .
...
....
... -..
45 0
= 50,
.. ........ .... ..... ....
...........
.. ....... ... . .. ....... ..
.. .... .......
.....
........
........
....
.. .„50
O
N
IL
�„
N
G 45
... ..
�.
�.
...
.. 55 a,
U
�
�
N40
......... ... ......
.......... ... ....� ...
,,,,
..
........---
.........
....
60 �
N
35
_ \�_...
_ ...._.
.
_.68
N
30
......
_ ... ........
....
. ..
_,.
70
25
_..
75
20
.... ..... ..... ..... ..........
............,
.. ... .......... ........ .. ...
.......
.. .......... ... ......,
<.......,.
... .
.. 80
15
..
--...
_ .
........
-85
10,
5
.-
_..
95
0
_
ry
o 0 0 0 o ro ¢i h a M N v <p a M ry
�° �` M ry '� p O O O O O
O
y m
O^ o
a ry ro o
0 0 0 o O- O-
a � ry
o� 1 oS Q5
100
^0•
o
o o
o Z) o• o'
Grain Size (mm)
Sample
Depth
USCS Group
USCS
Gravel
Sand
Fines
< 20pm
< 2pm
WC
Tested
Review
ASTM
Identification
(ft)
Symbol
Group Name
%
%
%
%
%
%
By
By
Std.
0 OW-2, R-7*
56.0
SP-SM
Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and Gravel
19
74
7.3
10.4
AKV
JFL
C136
N
0
■ OW-2, R-9'
72.0
SP-SM
Poorly Graded Sand with Silt
2
89
9.0
15.2
AKV
JFL
C136
OW-2, R-10*
82.0
SM
Silty Sand
5
78
16
6.3
AKV
JFL
C136
N
OW-2, R-11'
91.5
SM
Silty Sand
12
68
20
8.8
AKV
JFL
C136
>J_>
Z
O OW-2, R-12'
107.0
SW-SM
Well -Graded Sand with Silt and Gravel
26
62
12
3.8
AKV
JFL
C136
x
n
El OW-2, R-15'
128.0
SM
Silty Sand
14
70
16
4.7
AKV
JFL
C136
a
0
OW-2, R-17'
137.5
SP-SM
Poorly Graded Sand with Silt
5
88
7.4
4.3
AKV
JFL
C136
V
N
OW-2, R-19'
151.5
SM
Silty Sand
10
56
34
6.2
AKV
JFL
C136
Z
A OW-2, R-19'
154.0
SP-SM
Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and Gravel
36
58
5.2
1.8
AKV
JFL
C136
2
U*
OW-2, R-22'
182.5
SP
Poorly Graded Sand
10
87
2.8
15.1
AKV
JFL
C136
<
v
0
0
N
O
O
N
N
N
Test specimen did not meet minimum mass recommendations.
SHANNON & WILSON, INC. - 400 NORTH 34TH STREET - SUITE 100 - SEATTLE, WASHINGTON - 98103 - MAIN (206) 632-8020 - FAX (206) 695-6777
A
APPENDIX C
HYDROGEOLOGIC DATA AND ANALYSES
21-1-22282-003
APPENDIX C
HYDROGOLOGIC DATA AND ANALYSES
Page
C'4 GROUNDWATER LEVEL MONITORING ----------------------(�-3
(�/4.lMonitoring Wells andInstrumentation --------------------.C-3
C.4-2 Results ............................................................................................................... C-3
C.5 PILOT DRY WELL IVV-1FIELD TESTING ................................................................. C-4
C.5.1 Test Procedure ................................................................................................... C-4
C.6 FULL-SCALE DRY WELL lW-2 FIELD TESTING .-----------------.C-5
[.h.l Test Procedure ................................................................................................... C-5
C.7 GRAIN SIZE -BASED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY (K) ESTIMATES ................ C-6
C.8 REFERENCES................................................................................................................ (-7
C-1 Baan!inn(lW-l Groundwater Quality Data
C-2 Summary of OW-1 Slug Test n
C-3 Summary oflW-1 and lW-2 Inflow Test Results
C-4 Summary of Soil Analyses
2/'/-22082-003'n/f-Ariwvxk 21'1'22082'003
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
FIGURES
SHANNON , INC.
C-1 Slug Tests — Observation. Well OW-1.
C-2 Falling Head Slug Test 1 — Observation Well OW-1
C-3 Rising Head Slug Test 1 — Observation Well OW-1
C-4 Falling Head Slug Test 2 — Observation Well OW-1
C-5 Rising Head Slug Test 2 — Observation Well OW-1.
C-6 Falling Head Slug Test 3 — Observation Well OW-1
C-7 Rising Head Slug Test 3 — Observation Well OW-1
C-8 Observation Well OW-1 Groundwater Depth with Precipitation Data
C-9 Observation Well OW-1 Groundwater Depth with Barometric Pressure Data
C-10 Observation Well OW-2 Groundwater Depth with Precipitation Data
C-11 Observation Well OW-2 Groundwater Depth with Barometric Pressure Data
C-12 Barometric Efficiency Estimate for Observation Well OW-1
C-13 Barometric Efficiency Estimate for Observation Well. OW-2
C-14 Observation Well OW-1 Response to IW-1 Test
C-15 OW-2 Observation Well and VWP2 Response to IW-2 Test
LABORATORY REPORT
Fremont Analytical, Inc. Report, Lab ID: 1604140, dated April 21, 2016 (29 pages)
21-1-22082-003-Rlf-AC/wp/lk 21-1-22082-003
C-ii
SHANNON WILSON,
HYDROGEOLOGIC DATA AND ANALYSES
C.1 OBSERVATION WELL DEVELOPMENT
We developed observation wells OW-1 and OW-2 on April 12 and August 24, 2016,
respectively. We developed each well to remove sediment from the screened zone and filter
pack and to improve hydraulic connection to the Vashon advance outwash (Qva) aquifer soils.
We developed both wells using an inertial -style pump (Waterra) equipped with a clean, acetal
combination surge block and check valve that was attached to high -density polyethylene tubing.
We measured field parameters (pH, specific conductance, temperature, and turbidity) during
development of OW-1 using a YSI model 556 multi -parameter meter and an HF Scientific, Inc.
turbidity meter. We measured sediment content of the discharged water during development of
OW-2. We surge -blocked the screened intervals, purging approximately 68 (OW-1) and
37 gallons (OW-2) during development. A smaller volume was purged from OW-2 due to its
shorter screen length (4.6 versus 9.7 feet at OW-1). Measured field parameters stabilized during
development, and the screens were cleared of sediment.
C.2 OBSERVATION WELL SAMPLING
On April 14, 2016, we collected a groundwater sample from observation well OW-1 to measure
baseline groundwater quality in the regional. Qva aquifer before performing infiltration testing.
We sampled well OW-1 using the same equipment that we used during development, with the
exception that a clean, stainless steel check valve was used instead of the Acetal combination
surge block/check valve. We purged OW-1 before sampling and collected the groundwater
sample after field parameters had stabilized. We purged approximately 1.2.5 gallons of water
(about 4.5 well casing volumes) from well OW-1 prior to sample collection.
We delivered the groundwater sample under chain -of -custody procedures to a subcontracted
laboratory, Fremont Analytical in Seattle. The sample was tested for petroleum hydrocarbon -
related constituents and primary and secondary drinking water parameters. Table C-1 presents
the field parameters measured immediately before sample collection and a summary of the
laboratory test results. Table C-1 also provides a comparison to Washington State groundwater
quality standards. The laboratory data report is also presented in this appendix.
In general, the OW-1 sample results indicate that the Qva aquifer groundwater quality onsite is
good. An exception was the relatively high concentration of manganese, 344 parts per billion
21-1-22082-003-Rlf-AC/wp/lk 21-1-22082-003
C-1
SHANNON WILSON,
(ppb), which is almost seven times higher than the secondary (aesthetic) drinking water standard
of 50 ppb. Manganese occurs naturally in soil and groundwater in the Puget Sound region. The
extent to which manganese dissolves into groundwater depends on the amount of oxygen in the
water and, to a lesser extent, upon the pH of the water. If the oxygen content of groundwater is
low, manganese tends to dissolve more readily. The zone from which the OW-1 groundwater
sample was collected contains scattered organics, the decomposition of which depletes the
oxygen content of the groundwater. This may contribute to the relatively high groundwater
manganese concentration.
C.3 OBSERVATION WELL SLUG TESTING
On. April 1.4, 2016,.we performed single -well field "slug" tests in observation well. OW-1 to
estimate the horizontal hydraulic conductivity (Kh) of the Qva aquifer. A slug test estimates the
Kh of the saturated sediments immediately surrounding the screened zone of a well. The testing
involved inducing a rapid change in water level in the well by introducing or removing a sealed,
internally weighted, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) slug. Raising the water level was achieved by
lowering the slug below the static water level to displace water within the well casing. This
procedure is termed a "falling head test" because the water level falls with time back to the static
level. Lowering the water level was achieved by quickly removing the slug from the well. This
is termed a "rising head test" because the water level rises back to the static level after the slug is
removed. We measured the water level recovery rate back to static using a data logging pressure
transducer (Levelogger), supplemented by manual readings.
Figure C-1 presents the slug test data for the three falling head and three rising head tests for well
OW-1. We analyzed the slug test data using the method developed by Bouwer and Rice (1976),
as modified by Bouwer (1989). We used the computer modeling software program AQTESOLV
for Windows (HydroSOLVE, Inc., 2010) to plot and interpret the six test data sets. Figures C-2
through C-7 present the slug test interpretation plots and Table C-2 summarizes the slug test
results. The Kh results range between 52 and 77 feet per day (feet/day), or 3.2 x 10-2 to
5.4 x 10-2 feet/minute; the average Kh is 55 feet/day (3.8 x 10-2 feet/minute). This range is
towards the low end of the Kh estimated from grain size data for two Qva aquifer soil samples
collected at 182 and 182.5 feet deep at OW-1 and OW-2, respectively (64 and 92 feet/day,
Table C-4).
21-1-22082-003-Rlf-AC/wp/lk 21-1-22082-003
C-2
SHANNON WILSON,
CA GROUNDWATER LEVEL MONITORING
C.4.1 Monitoring Wells and Instrumentation
We have performed groundwater level monitoring in observation wells OW-1 and OW-2
since shortly after their installation. We deployed data logging transducers (Leveloggers) in
wells OW-1 and OW-2 to collect frequent groundwater level data, and we installed a barometer
(Barologger) in well OW-1 to collected barometric pressure data. The Leveloggers measure
absolute pressure (atmospheric plus water pressure); we used the Barologger data to remove the
atmospheric pressure contribution to the Levelogger readings. The data logging transducers
continue to measure groundwater levels in wells OW-1 and OW-2.
C.4.2 Results
Figures C-8 through G11 are groundwater level, barometric pressure, and local
precipitation hydrographs for the period up to November 5, 2016.
Figures C-9 and C-I I show that the groundwater levels in wells OW-1 and OW-2
responded to barometric pressure changes. We evaluated the barometric efficiencies of wells
OW-1 and OW-2 by comparing well water level variations to changes in atmospheric pressure.
We calculated the barometric efficiencies of wells OW-1 and OW-2 to be approximately 90 and
86 percent, respectively (Figures C-12 and C-13). This means that when the atmospheric
pressure increases, the well water level decreases by a similar amount. Conversely, when the
atmospheric pressure decreases, the well water level increases.
During the April 12 to November 5, 2016, monitoring period, the measured groundwater
level in well OW-1 ranged from 167.1 to 168.9 feet below grade, or Elevation 277.0 to
276.2 feet, representing a fluctuation range of about 1.8 feet (Figures C-8 and C-9). During the
August 24 to November 5, 2016, monitoring period, the measured groundwater level in well
OW-2 ranged from 167.3 to 168.9 feet below grade or Elevation 277.4 to 275.8 feet, representing
a fluctuation range of about 1.6 feet (Figures C-10 and C-11).
Two vibrating wire piezometers (VWPs) were installed in boring OW-2 at depths of
approximately 66.3 (VWPI) and 146.3 feet (VWP2). The shallow VWPI was dry throughout
the monitoring period (August 24 to November 5, 2016). The deeper VWP2 was also dry during
part of the monitoring period. However, VWP2 occasionally measured water about %2-inch
above the sensor tip. In our experience, this is consistent of a VWP installed above the water
table, and the occasional "wet" reading does not necessarily indicate the presence of perched
21-1-22082-003-Rlf-AC/wp/lk 21-1-22082-003
C-3
SHANNON WILSON,
groundwater. Alternatively, it may indicate a passing wetting front or the effects of varying
barometric pressure on the VWP readings.
We also collected occasional manual readings at dry wells IW-1 and IW-2. Both wells
have been dry to date, except during and immediately following their respective inflow tests (see
sections C.5 and C.6). Air blows audibly from the IW-1 and IW-2 well casings at times, in
response to changing atmospheric pressure. These wells sometimes also develop slight suction,
also in response to changing atmospheric pressure.
C.4.3 Local Groundwater Flow and Gradient
We estimated the local Qva aquifer gradient by comparing August 26, 2016, groundwater
elevations measured at the project wells to the approximate groundwater elevation we measured
during a previous study at City of Edmonds observation well A-2 (Shannon & Wilson, Inc.,
2013). Observation well A-2 is located about 4,500 feet west of the site (Figure 4). The on -site
groundwater elevations on August 26, 2016, were approximately 277.30 and 276.46 feet (OW-1
and OW-2, respectively). On October 2, 2012, the A-2 well groundwater elevation was
approximately 259.46 feet, based on an approximate A-2 grade elevation of 31.5 feet. Based on
these data, the Qva aquifer gradient beneath the project site is about 0.002 foot/foot to the
west/northwest (Figure 4).
C.5 PILOT DRY WELL IW-1 FIELD TESTING
C.5.1 Test Procedure
We performed an inflow test in pilot underground injection control (UIC) well IW-1 on
April 25, 2016. This test consisted of directing water from a hydrant through a 2.5-inch-diameter
fire hose and 2-inch-diameter PVC pipe into the dry well. We conducted the inflow testing for a
period of 8.5 hours. We measured the inflow to the well using an inline flow meter. We
measured the water level in IW-1 manually through a stilling pipe and by using Leveloggers
installed at the well bottom. We also measured the groundwater level in OW-1 before, during,
and after the IW-1 inflow test, both manually and using a Levelogger.
We conducted the IW-1 inflow test as a series of steps, with each step representing a
higher average flow rate into the well. We performed the first four inflow steps at approximately
14, 38, 72, and 103 gallons per minute (gpm); we maintained these inflow rates for
approximately 1 hour each (Figure 7). However, these four steps did not run long enough for the
water level to stabilize. The fifth step lasted for 4.3 hours. The fifth step's inflow rate was more
variable, initially reaching a maximum of approximately 126 gpm, which was sufficient to
21-1-22082-003-Rlf-AGwp/lk 21-1-22082-003
C-4
SHANNON WILSON,
completely submerge the screened interval of the well. However, the flow rate from the hydrant
began to fluctuate and drop off, possibly due to late afternoon increased domestic use of water at
the adjacent apartment complex. The fifth step stabilized between 1.1.6 and 107 gpm, averaging
1.1.0 gpm over the last hour of the test. At this inflow rate, the IW-1 water level was
approximately 67 feet below grade, or 4 feet below the top of the well screen, representing a
head rise above the borehole bottom of 24 feet.
C.5.2 Results
We used the calculated OW-1 barometric efficiency to filter the OW-1 groundwater level
data so that the OW-1 well response to the IW-1 inflow test could be analyzed (Figure C-1.4).
Based on these data, the observed specific capacity of IW-1 is approximately 4.6 gpm/foot, and
the Kh for the tested zone is 24 feet/day (1.7 x 10-2 feet/minute) (Table C-3).
The groundwater level measured in well. OW -I did not immediately respond to the inflow
test performed in IW-1. After adjusting the raw OW-1 groundwater level data for barometric
efficiency, it was apparent that there was a slight antecedent rising trend in the OW-1.
groundwater level during the test. This rising trend continued for a day after the IW-1 test and
served to mask any effect of the IW-1 test on the groundwater level measured in OW-l. The
OW-1 groundwater level rose again slightly (0.1 foot), starting about four days after the test and
peaking six days after the test; in our opinion, this change is too small to definitely attribute to
the inflow test. Based on these observations, the interbedded silty sand layers within the Qva
unit (e.g., between about 134 and 160 feet deep) likely delayed the vertical infiltration of water
into the Qva regional aquifer in the IW-1 test area.
C.6 FULL-SCALE DRY WELL IW-2 FIELD TESTING
C.6.1 Test Procedure
We performed an inflow test in full-scale UIC well IW-2 on October 11 to 12, 2016
(Figure 8). This test consisted of directing water from a hydrant through a 2.5-inch-diameter fire
hose and 2-inch-diameter PVC pipe into the dry well for 19 hours. We measured the inflow to
the well using an inline flow meter. We measured the water level in IW-2 manually through the
2-inch-diameter observation pipe installed in the filter pack and electronically using Leveloggers
installed at the bottom of the 2- and 8-inch-diameter casings. We also manually and
electronically measured the groundwater level in wells OW-2 and OW-1 before, during, and
after the IW-2 inflow test. We recorded VWP readings at OW-2 using data loggers during and
after the inflow test period.
21-1-22082-003-Rlf-AGwp/lk 21-1-22082-003
C-5
SHANNON WILSON,
C.6.2 Results
We used OW-1 water levels measured during and after the IW-2 inflow test to filter out
the effects of barometric pressure changes and other trends from the water levels measured at
observation well OW-2 (Figure C-15). This enabled us to analyze the OW-2 well response to the
IW-2 test. OW-2 is located approximately 1.4 feet from IW-2. Little change in groundwater
level occurred in observation well. OW-2 (an increase in water level of about 0.3-foot during the
three days following the IW-2 test).
The shallow VWP1 installed 66.3 feet below grade at OW-2 has remained dry to date.
During and immediately after the IW-2 inflow test, water temporarily mounded at the interval
measured by the deep V WP2 (installed at 146.3 feet deep at OW-2). This mound dissipated and
VWP2 was dry again three and a half days after the end of the IW-2 test (Figure C-1.5).
Based on these observations, the interbedded silty sand layers within the Qva (e.g.,
between about 147 and 160 feet deep) likely delay the vertical infiltration of water into the Qva
regional aquifer in the IW-2 test area.
C.7 GRAIN SIZE -BASED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY (K) ESTIMATES
We performed grain size analyses (Appendix B) on selected soil samples from IW-2, OW-1, and
OW-2. Table C-4 presents grain size -based estimated K values for selected soil samples, based
on the Hazen (1893) approach.
The estimated K value for the tested till -like deposits (Qvd) sample from OW-1 (at
55.7 feet deep) was less than 0.01 foot/day.
The grain size -based K estimates for the 21 Qva unit samples range from 0.05 to
626 feet/day (3 x 10-5 to 0.43 feet/minute), which is a variation of over four orders of
magnitude.
If the highest value is considered an outlier and is excluded, the arithmetic and
geometric mean K values of the remaining 20 Qva samples are 38 and 11 feet/day
(2.3 x 10-2 and 7.4 x 10-3 feet/minute), respectively.
We suspect that the process of driving the sonic core barrel through unsaturated granular Qva
soils resulted in some degree of sample pulverization, thereby increasing the fines content of
some of the samples above their natural state. We have identified on the logs presented in
Appendix A those sample cores where portions of the sample appeared dusty, indicating
potential sample degradation due to the sampling process. We observed less apparent sample
degradation in the larger diameter core samples collected at IW-1, as well as where samples were
21-1-22082-003-R1 f-AC/wp/lk 21-1-22082-003
C-6
SHANNON WILSON,
collected within saturated zones and where water was added during the drilling process. A
comparison of sample grain size distributions for samples collected from auger boring IW-2 and
those from similar depths collected from adjacent sonic core OW-2 indicates that the fines
content of the auger samples was typically lower than that of the sonic core samples
(Appendix B and Table C-4).
C.8 REFERENCES
Bouwer, Herman, 1989,.The Bouwer and Rice slug test — an update: Ground Water, v. 27, no. 3,
p. 304-309.
Bouwer, Herman, and Rice, RC., 1976. A slug test method for determining hydraulic
conductivity of unconfined aquifers with completely or partially penetrating wells: Water
Resources Research, v. 12, no. 3, p. 423-428.
Hazen, A., 1893, Some physical properties of sands and gravels, with special reference to their
use in filtration: Massachusetts State Board of Health 24th Annual Report, pub. doc. no. 34,
p. 539-556.
HydroSOLVE, Inc., 2010,.AQTESOLV/Pro!, v. 4.50.002: Reston, Va., HydroSOLVE, Inc.
Shannon & Wilson, Inc., 2013, Final infiltration study report, SW Edmonds basin study projects
#1 and #3, Edmonds, Wash.: Report prepared by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., Seattle, Wash.,
21-1-21.768-001, for City of Edmonds, Edmonds, Wash., April 5.
21-1-22082-003-Rlf-AGwp/lk 21-1-22082-003
C-7
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
TABLE C-1
BASELINE OW-1 GROUNDWATER QUALITY DATA
G4bstiktterit
.,
3eihud :'I
", per,
17 " 0
At a
r96 296'
MICA Metlibd
A Cfommli,EvVet
par 1fii3
, .�i 1
Sample No.
Cl Y.:
1- 04141 ; !
(Cattieted,
414/k rE j .
Field Parameters
PH
Field
6.5-8.5
7.1
Temperature IT)
Field
10.9
Specific Conductance (uS/em)
Field
700
330
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Field
4.1
Turbidity (NTU)
Field
1.5
Total Metals (ug/L)
Antimony
EPA Method 200.8
6
ND<0.2
Arsenic
EPA Method 200.8
0.05
5
ND<I
Barium
EPA Method 200.8
1,000
28.6
Beryllium
EPA Method 200.8
4
ND<0.2
Cadmium
EPA Method 200.8
5
5
ND<0.2
Chromium
EPA Method 200.8
50
50
1.67
Copper
EPA Method 200.8
1,000
ND<0.5
Iron
EPA Method 200.8
300
ND<100
Lead
EPA Method 200.8
AL=15
15
ND<I
Manganese
EPA Method 200.8
50
344
Mercury
EPA Mehod 245.1
2
2
ND<0.1
Nickel
EPA Method 200.8
100
2.94
Selenium
EPA Method 200.8
10
ND<l
Silver
EPA Method 200.8
50
ND<0.2
Sodium
EPA Method 200.8
RL=20,000
12,900
Thallium
EPA Method 200.8
2
ND<0.2
Zinc
EPA Method 200.8
5,000
27.3
Anions (mg/L)
Chloride
EPA Method 300.0
250
6.38
Cyanide, Total
SM 4500-CN C, E
0.2
ND<0.05
Fluoride
EPA Method 300.0
2 or 4
ND<0.1
Nitrite-N
EPA Method 300.0
1
0.159
Nitrate-N
EPA Method 300.0
10
1.01
Total Nitrate and Nitrite
EPA Method 300.0
10
1.17
Ortho-phosphate
EPA Method 300.0
ND<0.2
Sulfate
EPA Method 300.0
250
22.6
Phosphorous, Total (as P)
EPA Method 365.3
ND<0.2
Other
Color (Color Units)
SM 2120B
15
ND
Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L)
SM 2540C
500
182
Petroleum Hydrocarbons (ug/L)
Diesel (Fuel Oil)
NWTPH-Dx/Dx Ext.
500
ND<50
Heavy Oil
NWTPH-Dx/Dx Ext,
500
ND<100
Gasoline
NWTPH-Gx
1,000
ND<50
Volatile Organic Compounds (ug/L)
Benzene
EPA Method 8260C
1
5
ND<1
Toluene
EPA Method 8260C
1,000
ND<1
Ethylbenzene
EPA Method 8260C
700
ND<I
m,p-Xylene
EPA Method 8260C
1,000 (Total
Xylenes)
ND<I
o-X lene
EPA Method 8260C
ND<1
Notes:
bold = constituent exceeded regulatory standard
<= less than
AL = action level established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for water distribution system
C = Celsius
cm = centimeters
L = liter
MCI., = maximum contaminant level
mg = milligrams
MTCA=Model Taxies Control Act
NTU = Nephelometric turbidity units
NWTPH-Dx/Dx Ext. =Northwest Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons-Diesel/Diese-extended
NWTPH-Gx = Northwest Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons -Gasoline
ND = not detected
RL = EPA -recommended level for those on a sodium -restrict diet
SM = Standard Method
ug = micrograms
US = nicroSiemens
WAC= Washington Administrative Code
21-1-22082-003-RIf-TC-I/wp/ik 21-1-22082-003
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
TABLE C-2
SUMMARY OF OW-1 SLUG TEST ANALYSES
"'Predominant-
CJb er iion
t ti t': ter
d tlnlie auclu+ rir it (far ii atropil+.
oil Type
nterpr t
?eli .aie
1 e..
L1le1
Gtse;/Th--01Sereete
Gertoge
Number = '
. Tested `
Number
= :fet b s}
fetlda
+
fel/mir
11t F?ell
1Tiit Tested
Falling Head Test 1
45
1.6E-02
3.2E-02
Rising Head Test 1
50
1.8E-02
3.5E-02
Falling Head Test 2
54
1.9E-02
3.7E-02
OW-1
4/14/2016
Rising Head Test 2
168.3
52
1.8E-02
3.6E-02
SP-SM/SP
Qva
Falling Head Test 3
55
2.0E-02
3.8E-02
Rising Head Test 3
77
2.7E-02
5.4E-02
Geomean
55
1.9E-02
3.8E-02
Notes:
bgs = below ground surface
cm/sec = centimeters per second
Kh = horizontal hydraulic conductivity
K, = vertical hydraulic conductivity
min = minute
21-1-22082-003-R1 f TC-2/wp/lk 21-1-22082-003
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
TABLE C-3
SUMMARY OF IW-1 AND IW-2 INFLOW TEST RESULTS
plrrurluuate
A trroxlrttaIle'
op ofTest
- Bottom nY .
approximate:.'
T est Soe iitE .
ter''
'
hydraulic;
Fl draidicdraidie•:
Approximate,
liseltar e,
Itt charge
Specific ,
seelion
legit eetron
.Test Section,
Betlom
TessScetien
; Colmun
-Borehole
Uoirtlttetivityt Cant�netivi y,;z
irutiuetisity;t Tntrrpreted
Fell ''
Grl e Efewat eau
Dates,
Raul .
Ratet
paeitj--
l)e h
- . 7epth.
Top,F�luwat%u-
of
Leis `
-Iteig6t, h Radius; r
e+llag a„
tunbet
fcit'NA8S}i,Tegted.(gitrn)
;:(cuday)'gpm/fbat}'
`,{feei) ,.`feed
.:fee."#eet)
ttoe ":'.Ecetl
iegt),.(foffdal
..:,entlsec}fectlrain)
. Uuit�"estecl
IW-1
444.9
4/25/2016
110
21174
4.6
67.4
91.2
377.5
353.7
23.8
23.9
0.44
24
8.4E-03
1.7E-02
Qva
IW-2
444.4
10/11-10/12/2016
141
27141
6.7
99.3
120.4
345.1
324.0
21.1
21.1
1.00
30
LOE-02
2.0E-02
va
Notes:
I Discharge to well (q) is the average measured over the last approximately one hour of the test period.
2 Equation for K estimation is from U.S. Department of the Interior, 1990. Procedure for constant head hydraulic conductivity tests in single drill holes, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 7310-89, in Earth Manual, Part 2, 3rd ed.
p. 1255, Equation 2 (for L> 1Or).
L= Water Column Height (H), which is the approximately stabilized water height in the well above the total drilled depth.
cm/sec centimeters per second
cu ft = cubic feet
gpm gallons per minute
min = minute
NAVD 88 — North American Vertical Datum of 1988
k In r, where L E I Or (2)
or
— H sink-r 2r where lOr� r (3)
where:
hydraulic conducriviry, ft/yr or cm/s
9 `— ccuistant rate of flow into the test. interval,
fr3/yr or cm3✓s
Llength of the LeSL interval, It or Cin
1-1„ differential 'heard cxf water at test interval, ft or
cm
r rodi ss of the borcholc, ft or crli
In — natural logarithm, log,
shah i — inverse hyt!rlrolic sure:
sinksx9n(x4 x3-I-])
21-1-22082-003-R1t=TC 3nvpnk 21-1-22082-003
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
TABLE C-4
SUMMARY OF SOIL ANALYSES
.
..Pprux
male Gamuiativa
;.
�S
.' .
Slcve 3cksielts
ierceut i5uer;
Appruximale
Hydrauli c Gnaductie
ity, T `:
p t ftxte 124 &
Slevlsrds T'
P
u
.'
Fltpl$#3'
Yadyser nc.
irerpretetl
. .And Dee s A'ui%i.
Rnz3ng
a �di
tjkg ru
a>
urrr er '
Yeet ,
Drllliu 4cthrrd
Grxtx el lu.; '
Sand
!tierce °fo , •
` ", 98 S n
lQ"l
l rtlrrtated? ; '
,friday '
'emhsec} '
{[eet m1a)
urltal,
1 a aci
[ alttsted
{iset)
IW-2
91
Auger
17
79
4.3
0.46
0.17
82
2.9E.-02
5.7E-02
SP
Low
Qva
IW-2
98
Auger
37
62
0.8
2.10
0.47
626
22E-01
43E Ol
SP
Low
Qva
IW-2
III
Auger
21
71
8.6
0.56
0.099
28
9.8E-03
1 9R-02
SW SM
Medmm
Qva
IW-2
119
Auger
1l
81
8.7
n 44
0.094
25
8.8E-03
1.7E-02
SW-SM
Low
va
55.7
Sonic Cora.
22I
56
22
0.95':
0.0015
+. Yes
0.0064
2.3E-06
4.4E 06
SM
Medium
Qvd
OW-1
635
Sonic Core
7
84
9.5
033
0.080
18
6AE-03
1.3E-02
SP-SM
Medium
Qva
OW-1
87.5
Sonic Core
34
62
4.5
1.4
0.17
82
2.9E-02
57E-02
SP
Low
Qva
OW I
108
Sonic Core
7
74
19
0 33
O o21
Yes
1.3
4 4E 04
8 7E 04
SM
Medium
Qva
10
OW-1
125
Sonic Core
2
90
8.1
030
0.088
22
7.7E-03
1.5E-02
SP-SM
Low
Qva
OW-1
135
Sonic Core
4
70
26
028
OA080
Yes
018
6AE-05
1.3E-04
SM
Medium
Qva
OW-1
153
Soon Corz
5
88
8.0
0.33
0.092
24
8.5E-03
17E-02
SP-SM
L.ow
Qva
OW-1
182
Sonic Core
7
88
5.1
0 32
2 L5
Yes
64
23E-02
4.4E-02
SP SM
Below water table
Qva
OW-2
56
Sonic Core
19
74
7.3
0.58
0.15
64
2.3E.-02
4.4E-02
SP-SM
Low
Qva
OW-2
72
Sonic Core
2
89
9.0
030
OA83
20
6.9E-03
1.4E-02
SP-SM
Low
Qva
OW-2
82
Sonic Core
5
78
17
0.30
0.029
Yes
2.4
8AE-04
1 7E-03
SM
Medium
Qva
OW-2
9L5
Sonic Core
12
68
20
031
0.014
Yes
0.6
2.0E-04
39E-04
SM
Medium
Qva
OW-2
107
Sonic Core
26
62
12
1.2
0.047
Yes
6.3
2.2F. 03
4 3E 03
SW SM
Medium
Qva
14
OW-2
128
Sonic Core
W
70
16
O42
11024
Yes
1.6
5.8E-04
1.1E-03
SM
Medium
Qva
OW-2
137.5
Sonic Core
5
88
7.4
0.36
0.13
48
1.7E-02
3 3E-02
SP SM
Low
Qva
OW-2
151.5
Sonic Core
10
56
34
0.27
OB040
Yes
0.045
L6E-05
3.1E-05
SM
Medium
Qva/Qvd
OW-2
154
Sonic Core
37
58
5.2
2.2
0.25
177
6.3E-02
1 2E 0I
SP SM
Low
Qva
OW-2
182.5
Sonic Core
to
87
2.8
041
0.18
1
92
32E-02
6.4E-02
SP
Below water table
Qva
Geomean of Qva Samples 1
13
4.6E-03
9.0E-03
Notes;
' Treatment capacity classification from Table 5.2: Vadose Zone Treatment Capacity, in Guidance for UIC Wells that Manage Stormwater (Washington State Department of Ecology, 2006).
Hazen, A, 1893, Sonic physical properties of sands and gravels: Massachusetts State Board of Health, 24th Annual Report.
% = percent
ASTM = ASTM International
cm/sec = centimeters per second
man minute
mm = millhnetcrs
UIC = undergr-rd injection control
USCS = Unified Soil Classification System
21-1-22082-003-Rif-TC-4/wp/lk 21-1-22082-003
LEGEND
A---- Falling Head Test #1
Rising Head Test #1
—Falling Head Test #2
Rising Head Test #2
Falling Head Test #3
.. Rising Head Test #3
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Time (Seconds)
OW-1 Slug Analysis-OW-1 Slug Test Plot-11/23/2016-pvh
OW-1 Slug Analysis-OW-1 FH1 -1 1/23/2016-pvh
OW-1 Slug Analysis-OW-1 RH 1 -1 1/23/2016-pvh
OW-1 Slug Analysis-OW-1 FH2-11/23/2016-pvh
OW-1 Slug Analysis-OW-1 RH2-11/23/2016-pvh
OW-1 Slug Analysis-OW-1 FH3-11/23/2016-pvh
OW-1 Slug Analysis-OW-1 RH3-11/23/2016-pvh
167.0
— -
-- - -
-- -
- - -- - - -
2.0
167.2
- OW-1 Transducer Data
1.8
■ OW-1 Manual Data
167.4
- —
- IW-1 Testing — n _ -
— — — —
_
1.6
-
-
alloness-lW-2 Testing
s
167 6
— ■ Brugger's Bog Daily Precipitation'-
1'�
in
167�8
__ ___ w _
w _�_�_�:
o
__
-
c
(�
I
o
0 168.0
- -
- _ LL.
- -
1.0
-
--
_Q
m
_ .. . . .-- ....
—
._... . ... ■. ...
U
168�2
0.8
0
� is
co
168.4
- — - -- -
� I —
0.6
o
;t -4
:
m .
....
t
168.E
1�`
_
_
-
y
0,4
...
� i
j
�■ - _ - -_ _
3F 4
_ S
�f f i ; �l
; j [ it
_ _ -
168 8
r i`
0.2
< I sm
�t� 4
t1 p i q i
at_
169.0 -!
0.0
4/11/16 4/25/16 5/9/16
5/23/16 6/6/16 6/20/16 7/4/16 7/18/16 8/1/16 8/15/16
8/29/16 9/12/16 9/26/16 10/10/16 10/24/16 11/7/16
Date (Local Time)
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
NOTES
Edmonds, Washington
1.
The screen in observation well OW-1 is approximately 175.4 to 185.0 feet below ground surface,
(approximately elevation 269.8 to 260.1 feet NAVD88).
OBSERVATION WELL OW-1
2.
Brugger's Bog precipitation data are from
GROUNDWATER DEPTH WITH
-n
htt :// reen.kin count
. ov/wlr/waterres/h drolo 1®ataDownload.as x
PRECIPITATION DATA
n
3.
Black and white reproduction
of this color original may lead to incorrect interpretation.
'
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
n
co
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
FIG. C-8
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
OW-1 Water Levels -Figure C-8 - OW-1 Precip-11/23/2016-pvh
166.5
34
33.8
" 167.0
33.6
U
.' i
N
33.4 �
a
0 167.5
--- - - - - -
o
- - m
-
- - 33.2
o
co-
- -
to
to
33
p 168.0
_ _ _ ! _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ .-_-_ _ _ - _ _ _
a�
CU
32.8 E
m
_
0
- OW-1 Transducer Data
-
(D
. 32.6
168.5
® OW-1 Manual Data
® - -IW-1 Testing
IW-2 Testing
32.4
Barometric Pressure
169.0
y -L- + . _ _ - - - - . _ - - w +_-w
_ - . L w L -- w- 32.2
4/11/16 5/2/16 5/23/16 6/13/16 7/4/16 7/25/16 8/15/16
9/5/16 9/26/16 10/17/16 11/7/16
Date (Local Time)
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
NOTES
Edmonds, Washington
1.
The screen in observation well OW-1 is approximately 175.4 to 185.0 feet below ground surface,
OBSERVATION WELL OW-1
(approximately elevation 269.8 to 260.1 feet NAVD88).
GROUNDWATER DEPTH WITH
-n
2.
Black and white reproduction of this color original may lead to incorrect interpretation.
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE DATA
i
G
'
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
n
�p
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
FIG. C-9
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
OW-1 Water Levels -Figure C-9 - OW-1 BP-11/23/2016-pvh
OW-2 Water Levels -Figure C-10 - OW-2 Precip-11/23/2016-pvh
167.0
34.0
167.2
._ _._ ,
— w _ _ :. a rt _ , _ u . _ _ ._ _:r
. ....
.... .. .... . .... .... . .... ... ....
- - 33.8
167.4
33.6
167.E
33.4
,2
co
167.8
. ._. , , ,-
33.2
o
- - - - -
168.0
33.0
�aoi
rn..............
. , a , , . , ..... _. ........ ....
p 168.2
L
_
32.8
ai
i_hco
_
°
L
-0 168.4
_ __ �
32 6 cc
Alk
168.E
_ , a __ _ __ �:
- - -' - 32.4
168.8
-T
T T--
OW-2 Well Transducer Data ® OW-2 Manual Data
-
32.2
I
AIIW-2 Testing Period Barometric Pressure
169.0
32.0
8/22/16 8/29/16 9/5/16 9/12/16 9/19/16 9/26/16 10/3/16 10/10/16
10/17/16 10/24/16 10/31/16 11/7/16
Date (Local Time)
Hydrogeologic Report
NOTES
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
1. The screen in observation well OW-2 is approximately 179.2 to 183.9 feet below ground surface,
(approximately elevation 265.4 to 260.8 feet (NAVD88)).
OBSERVATION WELL OW-2
2. Groundwater level data for the OW-2 well were filtered using OW-1 data to remove the effects of regional
GROUNDWATER DEPTH WITH
77
aquifer trends during and after the IW-2 test period.
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE
Gi
3. Black and white reproduction of this color original may lead to incorrect interpretation.
n
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
0
SHANNON $ WILSON, INC.
FIG. C-11
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
OW-2 Water Levels -Figure C-11 - OW-2 BP-11/23/2016-pvh
0.3
0.2
-0.2
-0.3
-0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Change in Barometric Pressure (Feet of water)
NOTES
1. The screen in observation well OW-1 is approximately 175.4 to 185.0 feet below ground surface,
(approximately elevation 269.8 to 260.1 feet (NAVD88)).
2. Barometric efficiency estimate of approximately 90% based on data collected between 5/6/16 and 5/10/16.
OW-1 Water Levels -Figure C-12 - OW-1 BE Plot-11/23/2016-pvh
0.2
0.2
0.1
SIV
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1
Change in Barometric Pressure (Feet of water)
NOTES
The screen in observation well OW-2 is approximately 179.2 to 183.9 feet below ground surface,
(approximately elevation 265.4 to 260.8 feet (NAVD88)).
Barometric efficiency estimate of approximately 86% based on data collected between 9/6/16 and 9/18/16.
OW-2 Water Levels -Figure C-13 - OW-2 BE-11/23/2016-pvh
OW-1 Water Levels -Figure C-14 - OW-1 IW-1 Test-11/23/2016-pvh
140.0
145.0
a�
c>
150.0
c
0
..__ _. _ _._ IW-2 Testing Period
0
—�°� 155.0 OW-2 VWP2 Data
m
Q - . OW-2 VWP2 Sensor Depth
m
0
OW-2 Well Transducer Data, Unadjusted for Regional Aquifer
160.0 Trends
OW-2 Well Transducer Data, Adjusted for Regional Aquifer Trends
0
0
165.0
1. The screen in observation well OW-2 is approximately 179.2 to 183.9 feet below ground surface,
(approximately elevation 265.4 to 260.8 feet (NAVD88)).
2. Dry well IW-2 was completed at 120.4 feet deep (approximately elevation 324.0 feet).
The IW-2 Infiltration test was performed from 10/11/16 9:09 to 10/12/16 4:09.
3. Groundwater level data for the OW-2 well were filtered using OW-1 data to remove the effects of regional
aquifer trends during and after the IW-2 test period.
4. The OW-2 VWP2 sensor is approximately 146.3 feet deep (approximately elevation 298.4 feet).
5. The OW-2 VWP1 sensor is approximately 66.3 feet deep (approximately elevation 378.4 feet).
It has remained dry during the monitoring period to date (8/24-11/5/16).
6. Black and white reproduction of this color original may lead to incorrect interpretation.
OW-2 Water Levels -Figure C-15 - OW-2 Test-11/23/2016-pvh
3600 Fremont Ave. N.
Seattle, WA 98103
T: (206) 352-3790
F: (206) 352-7178
info fremontanalytical.com
Shannon & Wilson
Paul Van Horne
400 N. 34th Street, Suite 100
Seattle, WA 98103
RE: Madrona K-8 School
Lab ID: 1604140
April 21, 2016
Attention Paul Van Horne:
Fremont Analytical, Inc. received 2 sample(s) on 4/14/2016 for the analyses presented in the
following report.
Color by SM2120
Cyanide by SM 4500-CN C, E
Diesel and Heavy Oil by NWTPH-Dx/Dx Ext.
Gasoline by NWTPH-Gx
ton Chromatography by EPA Method 300.0
Mercury by EPA Method 245.1
Total Metals by EPA Method 200.8
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) by SM 2540C
Total Phosphorous by EPA Method 365.3
Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA Method 8260C
This report consists of the following:
- Case Narrative
- Analytical Results
- Applicable Quality Control Summary Reports
- Chain of Custody
All analyses were performed consistent with the Quality Assurance program of Fremont Analytical,
Inc. Please contact the laboratory if you should have any questions about the results.
Thank you for using Fremont Analytical.
Sincerely,
DoD/ELAP Certification #L2371, /SOACC 17025:2005
ORELAP Certification: WA 100009-007 (NELAP Recognized)
Revision v1 www.fremontanalvtical.com
Mike Ridgeway
President
DOD/FLAP Certification #L2371, ISO11CC 17025:2005
ORELAP Certification: WA 100009-007 (NELAP Recognized)
Revision vl www.f rem p nta nal�,lb-calIx-om
CLIENT:
Project:
Lab Order:
Lab Sample ID
1604140-001
1604140-002
Shannon & Wilson
Madrona K-8 School
1604140
Client Sample ID
OW-1-041416
Trip Blank
Date: 0510512016
Work Order Sample Summary
Date/Time Collected
04/14/2016 11:18 AM
04/13/2016 12:48 PM
Date/Time Received
04/14/2016 4:07 PM
04/14/2016 4:07 PM
Revision v1 Note: If no "Time Collected" is supplied, a default of 12:00AIVI is assigned
t=- 1-11aa,
CLIENT: Shannon & Wilson
Project: Madrona K-8 School
I. SAMPLE RECEIPT:
Samples receipt information is recorded on the attached Sample Receipt Checklist.
Case Narrative
W O#: 1604140
Date: 4/21 /2016
11. GENERAL REPORTING COMMENTS:
Results are reported on a wet weight basis unless dry -weight correction is denoted in the units field on the
analytical report ("mg/kg-dry" or "ug/kg-dry").
Matrix Spike (MS) and MS Duplicate (MSD) samples are tested from an analytical batch of "like" matrix to
check for possible matrix effect. The MS and MSD will provide site specific matrix data only for those
samples which are spiked by the laboratory. The sample chosen for spike purposes may or may not have
been a sample submitted in this sample delivery group. The validity of the analytical procedures for which
data is reported in this analytical report is determined by the Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) and the
Method Blank (MB). The LCS and the MB are processed with the samples and the MS/MSD to ensure
method criteria are achieved throughout the entire analytical process.
III. ANALYSES AND EXCEPTIONS:
Exceptions associated with this report will be footnoted in the analytical results page(s) or the quality
control summary page(s) and/or noted below.
1604140-001 E
C-COLOR has been Sub Contracted.
Revision v1
Qualifiers & Acronyms
W O#: 1604140
Date Reported: 4/21/2016
Qualifiers:
* - Flagged value is not within established control limits
B - Analyte detected in the associated Method Blank
D - Dilution was required
E - Value above quantitation range
H - Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded
I - Analyte with an internal standard that does not meet established acceptance criteria
J - Analyte detected below Reporting Limit
N - Tentatively Identified Compound (TIC)
Q - Analyte with an initial or continuing calibration that does not meet established acceptance criteria
(<20%RSD, <20% Drift or minimum RRF)
S - Spike recovery outside accepted recovery limits
ND - Not detected at the Reporting Limit
R - High relative percent difference observed
Acronyms:
%Rec - Percent Recovery
CCB - Continued Calibration Blank
CCV - Continued Calibration Verification
DF - Dilution Factor
HEM - Hexane Extractable Material
ICV - Initial Calibration Verification
LCS/LCSD - Laboratory Control Sample / Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate
MB or MBLANK - Method Blank
MDL - Method Detection Limit
MS/MSD - Matrix Spike / Matrix Spike Duplicate
PDS - Post Digestion Spike
Ref Val - Reference Value
RL - Reporting Limit
RPD - Relative Percent Difference
SD - Serial Dilution
SGT - Silica Gel Treatment
SPK - Spike
Surr - Surrogate
Revision v1
__ wfre ntar al i alm
0fremont
U ; r
Analytical Report
W O#: 1604140
Date Reported: 4/21/2016
Client: Shannon & Wilson
Collection Date:4/14/2016 11:18:00 AM
Project: Madrona K-8 School
Lab ID: 1604140-001
Matrix: Groundwater
Client Sample ID: OW-1-041416
Analyses
Result
RL
Qual Units
DF
Date Analyzed
Diesel and Heavy Oil by NWTPH-Dx/Dx Ext.
Batch ID:
13481 Analyst: CM
Diesel (Fuel Oil)
ND
50.0
pg/L
1
4/19/2016 11:45:00 PM
Heavy Oil
ND
100
pg/L
1
4/19/2016 11:45:00 PM
Surr: 2-Fluorobiphenyl
73.5
50-150
%Rec
1
4/19/2016 11:45:00 PM
Surr: o-Terphenyl
77.5
50-150
%Rec
1
4/19/2016 11:45:00 PM
Gasoline bV NWTPH-Gx
Batch
ID:
R28812 Analyst: NG
Gasoline
ND
50.0
pg/L
1
4/15/2016 4:35:49 AM
Surr: 4-Bromofluorobenzene
99.4
65-135
%Rec
1
4/15/2016 4:35:49 AM
Surr: Toluene-d8
98.8
65-135
%Rec
1
4/15/2016 4:35:49 AM
Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA Method 8260C
Batch
ID:
R28811 Analyst: NG
Benzene
ND
1.00
pg/L
1
4/15/2016 4:35:49 AM
Toluene
ND
1.00
pg/L
1
4/15/2016 4:35:49 AM
Ethylbenzene
ND
1.00
pg/L
1
4/15/2016 4:35:49 AM
m,p-Xylene
ND
1.00
pg/L
1
4/15/2016 4:35:49 AM
o-Xylene
ND
1.00
pg/L
1
4/15/2016 4:35:49 AM
Surr: Dibromofluoromethane
102
45.4-152
%Rec
1
4/15/2016 4:35:49 AM
Surr: Toluene-d8
94.3
40.1-139
%Rec
1
4/15/2016 4:35:49 AM
Surr: 1-Bromo-4-fluorobenzene
97.2
64.2-128
%Rec
1
4/15/2016 4:35:49 AM
Ion Chromatography by EPA Method 300.0
Batch
ID:
R28832 Analyst: MW
Fluoride
ND
0.100
mg/L
1
4/15/2016 12:09:00 PM
Chloride
6.38
0.100
mg/L
1
4/15/2016 12:09:00 PM
Nitrite
0.159
0.100
mg/L
1
4/15/2016 12:09:00 PM
Nitrate
1.01
0.100
mg/L
1
4/15/2016 12:09:00 PM
Nitrate+Nitrite
1.17
0.100
mg/L
1
4/15/2016 12:09:00 PM
Ortho-Phosphate
ND
0.200
mg/L
1
4/15/2016 12:09:00 PM
Sulfate
22.6
0.300
mg/L
1
4/15/2016 12:09:00 PM
Mercury by EPA Method 245.1
Batch
ID:
13469 Analyst: MW
Mercury
ND
0.100
pg/L
1
4/18/2016 3:00:59 PM
Total Metals by EPA Method 200.8
Batch
ID:
13468 Analyst: TN
Antimony
ND
0.200
pg/L
1
4/15/2016 2:29:17 PM
Revision v1
Ofremont
U ; r
Analytical Report
W O#: 1604140
Date Reported: 4/21/2016
Client: Shannon & Wilson
Collection Date:4/14/2016 11:18:00 AM
Project: Madrona K-8 School
Lab ID: 1604140-001
Matrix: Groundwater
Client Sample ID: OW-1-041416
Analyses
Result
RL
Qual Units
DF
Date Analyzed
Total Metals by EPA Method 200.8
Batch ID:
13468 Analyst: TN
Arsenic
ND
1.00
pg/L
1
4/15/2016 2:29:17 PM
Barium
28.6
0.500
pg/L
1
4/15/2016 2:29:17 PM
Beryllium
ND
0.200
pg/L
1
4/15/2016 2:29:17 PM
Cadmium
ND
0.200
pg/L
1
4/15/2016 2:29:17 PM
Chromium
1.67
0.500
pg/L
1
4/15/2016 2:29:17 PM
Copper
ND
0.500
pg/L
1
4/15/2016 2:29:17 PM
Iron
ND
100
pg/L
1
4/15/2016 2:29:17 PM
Lead
ND
1.00
pg/L
1
4/15/2016 2:29:17 PM
Manganese
344
2.00
pg/L
1
4/15/2016 2:29:17 PM
Nickel
2.94
0.500
pg/L
1
4/15/2016 2:29:17 PM
Selenium
ND
1.00
pg/L
1
4/15/2016 2:29:17 PM
Silver
ND
0.200
pg/L
1
4/15/2016 2:29:17 PM
Sodium
12,900
100
pg/L
1
4/15/2016 2:29:17 PM
Thallium
ND
0.200
pg/L
1
4/15/2016 2:29:17 PM
Zinc
27.3
1.50
pg/L
1
4/15/2016 2:29:17 PM
Cyanide by SM 4500-CN C, E
Batch
ID:
13500 Analyst: NG
Cyanide, Total
ND
0.0500
mg/L
1
4/21/2016 10:03:00 AM
Total Phosphorous by EPA Method 365.3
Batch
ID:
13510 Analyst: KT
Phosphorus, Total (As P)
ND
0.200
mg/L
1
4/21/2016 2:25:00 PM
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) by SM 2540C
Batch
ID:
R28863 Analyst: KT
Total Dissolved Solids
182
5.00
mg/L
1
4/19/2016 4:04:00 PM
Revision v1
11
SPECTRA Laboratories
......... .... .. ....... . ....
2221Rcuss Waye 0 TaconiaWA98421 a (253)272-4850 'N' Fax(253)572-9838 0 www,spectra-lab.co
in
05/05/2016
Fremont Analytical
0
Seattle, WA 98103
Attn: Mike Ridgeway
SPECTRA LABORATORIES
Steve Hibbs. Laborat'+-c,1Lwow n
M VA
Client ID:
1604140-001 E
Sample Matrix:
Groundwater
Date Sampled:
04/14/2016
Date Received:
04/18/2016
i'opectra Project:
2016040430
Spectra Number: I
Result its Method
ND Color Units SM 2120B
Page I of I
10 rammuffm 1-lu-vu'q VIV 1- u n I VV Y HECURD L_!!wg! COM 233 PAGE; i
OF.
soon&M, IMMA
SUB CON7RATOP- Spectra COMPANY.
-ZD�RUSS -
2221 as Way
CrrY. STATE, ap: TRc0ma, WA 98421
PHONE, (253) 272-4950 FAX (253) 572-9838
ACCO1W#.-
rrEM 0 SAMPLE ID
1604140-DOIE
C-COLOR mfiKh
qA t U-10%fob un b
SPECTRA Laboratories SPECUL INFIWOTTONs / comMEM:
Please cmail resUlts to Nficfiaef Fidgeway and Chelso if
CLIENT SAMPLE n) BOTTLE TYPE MATRIX DATE COLLECTED NUMBER OF
CONTAINERS
ARDRESS
FremontAnalyncal, Inc.
360OFFemontAve. N.
Seattle, WA 98103
TEL: 206-352-3 790
FU.• 206352-7178
Webme: www.fremontanalyttcal.com
COMMENTS-, MeLhanof dWeWft
HOT Sany*Nofvho Addmomf Sample D..1ptmm.
Date: 412112016
QC SUMMARY REPORT
Cyanide by SM 4500-CN C, E
Sample ID: MB-13500
SampType: MBLK
Units: mg/L Prep Date: 4/20/2016
RunNo: 28891
Client ID: MBLKW
Batch ID: 13500
Analysis Date: 4/21/2016
SegNo: 543216
Analyte
Result
RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val
%RPD RPDLimit Qual
Cyanide, Total ND 0.0500
Sample ID: LCS-13500
SampType: LCS
Units: mg/L Prep Date: 4/20/2016
RunNo: 28891
Client ID: LCSW
Batch ID: 13500
Analysis Date: 4/21/2016
SegNo: 543205
Analyte
Result
RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val
%RPD RPDLimit Qual
Cyanide, Total 0.250 0.0500 0.2500 0 99.8 80 120
Sample ID: 1604152-001ADUP
SampType: DUP
Units: mg/L Prep Date: 4/20/2016
RunNo: 28891
Client ID: BATCH
Batch ID: 13500
Analysis Date: 4/21/2016
SegNo: 543209
Analyte
Result
RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val
%RPD RPDLimit Qual
Cyanide, Total ND 0.0500 0 20
Sample ID: 1604152-001AMS
SampType: MS
Units: mg/L Prep Date: 4/20/2016
RunNo: 28891
Client ID: BATCH
Batch ID: 13500
Analysis Date: 4/21/2016
SegNo: 543210
Analyte
Result
RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val
%RPD RPDLimit Qual
Cyanide, Total 0.274 0.0500 0.2500 0.02350 100 80 120
Sample ID: 1604152-001AMSD
SampType: MSD
Units: mg/L Prep Date: 4/20/2016
RunNo: 28891
Client ID: BATCH
Batch ID: 13500
Analysis Date: 4/21/2016
SegNo: 543211
Analyte
Result
RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val
%RPD RPDLimit Qual
Cyanide, Total 0.205 0.0500 0.2500 0.02350 72.6 80 120 0.2741 28.8 30 S
NOTES:
S - Outlying spike recovery(ies) observed. A duplicate analysis was performed and recovered within range.
Revision v1
Page 11 of 29
Date: 412112016
QC SUMMARY REPORT
Ion Chromatography by EPA Method 300.0
Sample ID: MB-R28832
SampType: MBLK
Units: mg/L Prep Date: 4/15/2016
RunNo: 28832
Client ID: MBLKW
Batch ID: R28832
Analysis Date: 4/15/2016
SegNo: 541986
Analyte
Result
RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val
%RPD RPDLimit Qua[
Fluoride
ND
0.100
Chloride
ND
0.100
Nitrite
ND
0.100
Nitrate
ND
0.100
Nitrate+Nitrite
ND
0.100
Sulfate
ND
0.300
Sample ID: LCS-R28832
SampType: LCS
Units: mg/L Prep Date: 4/15/2016
RunNo: 28832
Client ID: LCSW
Batch ID: R28832
Analysis Date: 4/15/2016
SegNo: 541987
Analyte
Result
RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val
%RPD RPDLimit Qual
Fluoride
2.09
0.100
2.000
0
105
90
110
Chloride
2.88
0.100
3.000
0
96.0
90
110
Nitrite
2.97
0.100
3.000
0
98.9
90
110
Nitrate
3.03
0.100
3.000
0
101
90
110
Nitrate+Nitrite
6.00
0.100
6.000
0
100
90
110
Sulfate
15.6
0.300
15.00
0
104
90
110
Sample ID: 1604140-001DDUP
SampType: DUP
Units: mg/L Prep Date: 4/15/2016
RunNo: 28832
Client ID: OW-1-041416
Batch ID: R28832
Analysis Date: 4/15/2016
SegNo: 541989
Analyte
Result
RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val
%RPD RPDLimit Qual
Fluoride
ND
0.100
0
20
Chloride
6.37
0.100
6.376
0.133
20
Nitrite
0.161
0.100
0.1594
0.874
20
Nitrate
1.02
0.100
1.011
0.709
20
Nitrate+Nitrite
1.18
0.100
1.171
0.732
20
Sulfate
22.6
0.300
22.62
0.142
20
Revision v1
Page 12 of 29
Date: 412112016
QC SUMMARY REPORT
Ion Chromatography by EPA Method 300.0
Sample ID: 1604140-001DMS
SampType: MS
Units: mg/L Prep Date: 4/15/2016
RunNo: 28832
Client ID: OW-1-041416
Batch ID: R28832
Analysis Date: 4/15/2016
SegNo: 541990
Analyte
Result
RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val
%RPD RPDLimit Qua[
Fluoride
2.08
0.100
2.000
0.06680
101
80
120
Chloride
8.98
0.100
3.000
6.376
86.7
80
120
Nitrite
3.05
0.100
3.000
0.1594
96.5
80
120
Nitrate
3.95
0.100
3.000
1.011
98.1
80
120
Nitrate+Nitrite
7.01
0.100
6.000
1.171
97.3
80
120
Sulfate
37.2
0.300
15.00
22.62
97.3
80
120
Sample ID: 1604140-001DMSD
SampType: MSD
Units: mg/L Prep Date: 4/15/2016
RunNo: 28832
Client ID: OW-1-041416
Batch ID: R28832
Analysis Date: 4/15/2016
SegNo: 541991
Analyte
Result
RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val
%RPD RPDLimit Qual
Fluoride
2.09
0.100
2.000
0.06680
101
80
120
2.084
0.161
20
Chloride
8.97
0.100
3.000
6.376
86.3
80
120
8.978
0.136
20
Nitrite
3.04
0.100
3.000
0.1594
96.2
80
120
3.053
0.286
20
Nitrate
3.92
0.100
3.000
1.011
97.0
80
120
3.953
0.792
20
Nitrate+Nitrite
6.97
0.100
6.000
1.171
96.6
80
120
7.006
0.571
20
Sulfate
37.0
0.300
15.00
22.62
95.8
80
120
37.22
0.623
20
Revision v1
Page 13 of 29
Date: 412112016
QC SUMMARY REPORT
Total Phosphorous by EPA Method 365.3
Sample ID: MB-13510
SampType: MBLK
Units: mg/L Prep Date: 4/21/2016
RunNo: 28899
Client ID: MBLKW
Batch ID: 13510
Analysis Date: 4/21/2016
SegNo: 543434
Analyte
Result
RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val
%RPD RPDLimit Qua[
Phosphorus, Total (As P) ND 0.200
Sample ID: LCS-13510
SampType: LCS
Units: mg/L Prep Date: 4/21/2016
RunNo: 28899
Client ID: LCSW
Batch ID: 13510
Analysis Date: 4/21/2016
SegNo: 543435
Analyte
Result
RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val
%RPD RPDLimit Qual
Phosphorus, Total (As P) 2.17 0.200 2.000 0 109 65 135
Sample ID: 1604140-001HDUP
SampType: DUP
Units: mg/L Prep Date: 4/21/2016
RunNo: 28899
Client ID: OW-1-041416
Batch ID: 13510
Analysis Date: 4/21/2016
SegNo: 543437
Analyte
Result
RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val
%RPD RPDLimit Qual
Phosphorus, Total (As P) ND 0.200 0 30
Sample ID: 1604140-001HMS
SampType: MS
Units: mg/L Prep Date: 4/21/2016
RunNo: 28899
Client ID: OW-1-041416
Batch ID: 13510
Analysis Date: 4/21/2016
SegNo: 543438
Analyte
Result
RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val
%RPD RPDLimit Qua[
Phosphorus, Total (As P) 1.90 0.200 2.000 0.01800 94.2 65 135
Sample ID: 1604140-001HMSD
SampType: MSD
Units: mg/L Prep Date: 4/21/2016
RunNo: 28899
Client ID: OW-1-041416
Batch ID: 13510
Analysis Date: 4/21/2016
SegNo: 543439
Analyte
Result
RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val
%RPD RPDLimit Qual
Phosphorus, Total (As P) 2.18 0.200 2.000 0.01800 108 65 135 1.902 13.5 30
Revision v1
Page 14 of 29
Date: 412112016
QC SUMMARY REPORT
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) by SM 2540C
Sample ID: MB-R28863
SampType: MBLK
Units: mg/L Prep Date: 4/19/2016
RunNo: 28863
Client ID: MBLKW
Batch ID: R28863
Analysis Date: 4/19/2016
SegNo: 542617
Analyte
Result
RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val
%RPD RPDLimit Qua[
Total Dissolved Solids ND 5.00
Sample ID: LCS-R28863
SampType: LCS
Units: mg/L Prep Date: 4/19/2016
RunNo: 28863
Client ID: LCSW
Batch ID: R28863
Analysis Date: 4/19/2016
SegNo: 542618
Analyte
Result
RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val
%RPD RPDLimit Qual
Total Dissolved Solids 304 10.0 300.0 0 101 65 135
Sample ID: 1604140-001DDUP
SampType: DUP
Units: mg/L Prep Date: 4/19/2016
RunNo: 28863
Client ID: OW-1-041416
Batch ID: R28863
Analysis Date: 4/19/2016
SegNo: 542620
Analyte
Result
RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val
%RPD RPDLimit Qual
Total Dissolved Solids
203 5.00
182.0 10.9 30
Revision v1
Page 15 of 29
Date: 412112016
QC SUMMARY REPORT
Total Metals by EPA Method 200.8
Sample ID: MB-13468
SampType: MBLK
Units: pg/L Prep Date: 4/15/2016
RunNo: 28822
Client ID: MBLKW
Batch ID: 13468
Analysis Date: 4/15/2016
SegNo: 541791
Analyte
Result
RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val
%RPD RPDLimit Qua[
Antimony
ND
0.200
Arsenic
ND
1.00
Barium
ND
0.500
Beryllium
ND
0.200
Cadmium
ND
0.200
Chromium
ND
0.500
Copper
ND
0.500
Iron
ND
100
Lead
ND
1.00
Manganese
ND
2.00
Nickel
ND
0.500
Selenium
ND
1.00
Silver
ND
0.200
Sodium
ND
100
Thallium
ND
0.200
Zinc
ND
1.50
Sample ID: LCS-13468
SampType: LCS
Units: pg/L Prep Date: 4/15/2016
RunNo: 28822
Client ID: LCSW
Batch ID: 13468
Analysis Date: 4/15/2016
SegNo: 541792
Analyte
Result
RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val
%RPD RPDLimit Qual
Antimony
4.52
0.200
5.000
0
90.4
85
115
Arsenic
101
1.00
100.0
0
101
85
115
Barium
99.3
0.500
100.0
0
99.3
85
115
Beryllium
5.16
0.200
5.000
0
103
85
115
Cadmium
5.70
0.200
5.000
0
114
85
115
Chromium
92.5
0.500
100.0
0
92.5
85
115
Copper
96.2
0.500
100.0
0
96.2
85
115
Iron
1,090
100
1,000
0
109
50
150
Lead
45.3
1.00
50.00
0
90.7
85
115
Revision v1
Page 16 of 29
Date: 412112016
QC SUMMARY REPORT
Total Metals by EPA Method 200.8
Sample ID: LCS-13468
SampType: LCS
Units: pg/L Prep Date: 4/15/2016
RunNo: 28822
Client ID: LCSW
Batch ID: 13468
Analysis Date: 4/15/2016
SegNo: 541792
Analyte
Result
RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val
%RPD RPDLimit Qual
Manganese
100
2.00
100.0
0
100
85
115
Nickel
95.5
0.500
100.0
0
95.5
85
115
Selenium
9.94
1.00
10.00
0
99.4
85
115
Silver
4.66
0.200
5.000
0
93.2
85
115
Sodium
991
100
1,000
0
99.1
50
150
Thallium
2.27
0.200
2.500
0
90.7
85
115
Zinc
100
1.50
100.0
0
100
85
115
Sample ID: 1604116-001CDUP
SampType: DUP
Units: pg/L Prep Date: 4/15/2016
RunNo: 28822
Client ID: BATCH
Batch ID: 13468
Analysis Date: 4/15/2016
SegNo: 541794
Analyte
Result
RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val
%RPD RPDLimit Qual
Antimony
0.202
0.200
Arsenic
ND
1.00
Barium
38.1
0.500
Beryllium
ND
0.200
Cadmium
ND
0.200
Chromium
0.722
0.500
Copper
ND
0.500
Iron
ND
100
Lead
ND
1.00
Manganese
5.17
2.00
Nickel
0.939
0.500
Selenium
ND
1.00
Silver
ND
0.200
Sodium
54,300
100
Thallium
ND
0.200
Zinc
2.95
1.50
NOTES:
R - High RPD observed. The
method is in control as indicated by the LCS.
0.4710
80.1
30 R
0
30
37.74
0.955
30
0
30
0
30
0.5610
25.1
30
0.5540
10.9
30
0
30
0
30
5.155
0.320
30
0.7520
22.1
30
0
30
0
30
57,370
5.44
30
0
30
2.528
15.5
30
Revision v1
Page 17 of 29
Date: 412112016
QC SUMMARY REPORT
Total Metals by EPA Method 200.8
Sample ID: 1604116-001CMS
SampType: MS
Units: pg/L Prep Date: 4/15/2016
RunNo: 28822
Client ID: BATCH
Batch ID: 13468
Analysis Date: 4/15/2016
SegNo: 541795
Analyte
Result
RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val
%RPD RPDLimit Qua[
Antimony
22.8
0.200
25.00
0.4710
89.3
70
130
Arsenic
532
1.00
500.0
0.8205
106
70
130
Barium
530
0.500
500.0
37.74
98.5
70
130
Beryllium
24.9
0.200
25.00
0
99.7
70
130
Cadmium
28.0
0.200
25.00
0.01600
112
70
130
Chromium
517
0.500
500.0
0.5610
103
70
130
Copper
489
0.500
500.0
0.5540
97.8
70
130
Iron
5,250
100
5,000
45.56
104
50
150
Lead
220
1.00
250.0
0.07550
87.9
70
130
Manganese
508
2.00
500.0
5.155
100
70
130
Nickel
492
0.500
500.0
0.7520
98.3
70
130
Selenium
51.5
1.00
50.00
0
103
70
130
Silver
17.0
0.200
25.00
0
67.8
70
130 S
Sodium
60,500
100
5,000
57,370
62.9
50
150
Thallium
11.2
0.200
12.50
0.006500
89.4
70
130
Zinc
508
1.50
500.0
2.528
101
70
130
NOTES:
S - Outlying spike recovery(ies)
observed. A duplicate analysis was performed and recovered within range.
Sample ID: 1604116-001CMSD
SampType: MSD
Units: pg/L Prep Date: 4/15/2016
RunNo: 28822
Client ID: BATCH
Batch ID: 13468
Analysis Date: 4/15/2016
SegNo: 541796
Analyte
Result
RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val
%RPD RPDLimit Qua[
Antimony
22.7
0.200
25.00
0.4710
89.1
70
130
22.79
0.171
30
Arsenic
525
1.00
500.0
0.8205
105
70
130
531.7
1.30
30
Barium
522
0.500
500.0
37.74
96.9
70
130
530.4
1.55
30
Beryllium
24.0
0.200
25.00
0
96.0
70
130
24.92
3.79
30
Cadmium
27.9
0.200
25.00
0.01600
111
70
130
28.03
0.560
30
Chromium
497
0.500
500.0
0.5610
99.4
70
130
516.6
3.79
30
Copper
482
0.500
500.0
0.5540
96.3
70
130
489.4
1.55
30
Iron
5,310
100
5,000
45.56
105
50
150
5,246
1.13
30
Revision v1
Page 18 of 29
Date: 412112016
QC SUMMARY REPORT
Total Metals by EPA Method 200.8
Sample ID: 1604116-001CMSD
SampType: MSD
Units: pg/L Prep Date: 4/15/2016
RunNo: 28822
Client ID: BATCH
Batch ID: 13468
Analysis Date: 4/15/2016
SegNo: 541796
Analyte
Result
RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit Hight-imit RPD Ref Val
%RPD RPDLimit Qua[
Lead
216
1.00
250.0
0.07550
86.4
70
130
219.8
1.76
30
Manganese
507
2.00
500.0
5.155
100
70
130
507.5
0.177
30
Nickel
493
0.500
500.0
0.7520
98.4
70
130
492.2
0.156
30
Selenium
49.2
1.00
50.00
0
98.3
70
130
51.48
4.62
30
Silver
18.7
0.200
25.00
0
75.0
70
130
16.96
10.0
30
Sodium
60,100
100
5,000
57,370
54.7
50
150
60,510
0.679
30
Thallium
11.1
0.200
12.50
0.006500
88.5
70
130
11.18
1.03
30
Zinc
507
1.50
500.0
2.528
101
70
130
508.0
0.150
30
Revision v1
Page 19 of 29
Date: 412112016
QC SUMMARY REPORT
Mercury by EPA Method 245.1
Sample ID: MB-13469
SampType: MBLK
Units: lag/L Prep Date: 4/18/2016
RunNo: 28842
Client ID: MBLKW
Batch ID: 13469
Analysis Date: 4/18/2016
SegNo: 542145
Analyte
Result
RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit Hight-imit RPD Ref Val
%RPD RPDLimit Qua[
Mercury ND 0.100
Sample ID: LCS-13469
SampType: LCS
Units: lag/L Prep Date: 4/18/2016
RunNo: 28842
Client ID: LCSW
Batch ID: 13469
Analysis Date: 4/18/2016
SegNo: 542146
Analyte
Result
RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val
%RPD RPDLimit Qual
Mercury 2.27 0.100 2.500 0 90.8 85 115
Sample ID: 1604092-001ADUP
SampType: DUP
Units: lag/L Prep Date: 4/18/2016
RunNo: 28842
Client ID: BATCH
Batch ID: 13469
Analysis Date: 4/18/2016
SegNo: 542148
Analyte
Result
RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val
%RPD RPDLimit Qual
Mercury ND 0.100 0 20
Sample ID: 1604092-001AMS
SampType: MS
Units: lag/L Prep Date: 4/18/2016
RunNo: 28842
Client ID: BATCH
Batch ID: 13469
Analysis Date: 4/18/2016
SegNo: 542149
Analyte
Result
RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val
%RPD RPDLimit Qua[
Mercury 2.41 0.100 2.500 0 96.4 80 120
Sample ID: 1604092-001AMSD
SampType: MSD
Units: lag/L Prep Date: 4/18/2016
RunNo: 28842
Client ID: BATCH
Batch ID: 13469
Analysis Date: 4/18/2016
SegNo: 542150
Analyte
Result
RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val
%RPD RPDLimit Qual
Mercury 2.40 0.100 2.500 0 96.0 80 120 2.410 0.416 20
Revision v1
Page 20 of 29
Date: 412112016
QC SUMMARY REPORT
Diesel and Heavy Oil by NWTPH-Dx/Dx Ext.
Sample ID: MB-13481
SampType: MBLK
Units: pg/L Prep Date: 4/18/2016
RunNo: 28866
Client ID: MBLKW
Batch ID: 13481
Analysis Date: 4/19/2016
SegNo: 542740
Analyte
Result
RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val
%RPD RPDLimit Qual
Diesel (Fuel Oil) ND 50.0
Heavy Oil ND 100
Sum 2-Fluorobiphenyl 50.6 80.00 63.3 50 150
Sum o-Terphenyl 53.8 80.00 67.3 50 150
Sample ID: LCS-13481
SampType: LCS
Units: pg/L Prep Date: 4/18/2016
RunNo: 28866
Client ID: LCSW
Batch ID: 13481
Analysis Date: 4/19/2016
SegNo: 542739
Analyte
Result
RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val
%RPD RPDLimit Qual
Diesel (Fuel Oil)
676
50.0 1,000
0 67.6
65
135
Sum 2-Fluorobiphenyl
58.8
80.00
73.5
50
150
Sum o-Terphenyl
60.5
80.00
75.6
50
150
Sample ID: 1604132-002BDUP
SampType: DUP
Units: pg/L Prep Date: 4/18/2016
RunNo: 28866
Client ID: BATCH
Batch ID: 13481
Analysis Date: 4/19/2016
SegNo: 542716
Analyte
Result
RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val
%RPD RPDLimit Qual
Diesel (Fuel Oil) ND 51.8
Diesel Range Organics (C12-C24) 559 51.8
Heavy Oil 2,270 104
Sum 2-Fluorobiphenyl 65.9 82.88 79.6
Sum o-Terphenyl 59.4 82.88 71.6
NOTES:
R - High RPD observed. The method is in control as indicated by the LCS.
DRO - Indicates the presence of unresolved compounds eluting from dodecane through tetracosane (C12-C24).
0 30
459.7 19.5 30
878.6 88.5 30 R
50 150 0
50 150 0
Revision v1
Page 21 of 29
Date: 412112016
QC SUMMARY REPORT
Diesel and Heavy Oil by NWTPH-Dx/Dx Ext.
Sample ID: 1604140-001BMS
SampType: MS
Units: pg/L Prep Date: 4/18/2016
RunNo: 28866
Client ID: OW-1-041416
Batch ID: 13481
Analysis Date: 4/20/2016
SegNo: 542718
Analyte
Result
RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val
%RPD RPDLimit Qua[
Diesel (Fuel Oil) 668 49.9 998.9 37.33 63.2 65 135 S
Surr:2-Fluorobiphenyl 59.0 79.91 73.8 50 150
Surr: o-Terphenyl 58.9 79.91 73.7 50 150
NOTES:
S - Outlying spike recovery(ies) observed. A duplicate analysis was performed and recovered within range.
Sample ID: 1604140-001BMSD
SampType: MSD
Units: pg/L Prep Date: 4/18/2016
RunNo: 28866
Client ID: OW-1-041416
Batch ID: 13481
Analysis Date: 4/20/2016
SegNo: 542719
Analyte
Result
RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val
%RPD RPDLimit Qual
Diesel (Fuel Oil)
714
49.8 996.3
37.33 67.9
65
135 668.4
6.56
30
Sum 2-Fluorobiphenyl
59.8
79.71
75.1
50
150
0
0
Surr: o-Terphenyl
61.5
79.71
77.2
50
150
0
0
Sample ID: 1604155-005EDUP
SampType: DUP
Units: pg/L Prep Date: 4/18/2016
RunNo: 28866
Client ID: BATCH
Batch ID: 13481
Analysis Date: 4/20/2016
SegNo: 542729
Analyte
Result
RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val
%RPD RPDLimit Qual
Diesel (Fuel Oil) ND 50.0 0 30
Heavy Oil ND 100 0 30
Surr:2-Fluorobiphenyl 55.2 79.97 69.0 50 150 0
Surr: o-Terphenyl 56.7 79.97 70.9 50 150 0
Revision v1
Page 22 of 29
Date: 412112016
QC SUMMARY REPORT
Gasoline by NWTPH-Gx
Sample ID: LCS-R28812
SampType: LCS
Units: lag/L Prep Date: 4/14/2016
RunNo: 28812
Client ID: LCSW
Batch ID: R28812
Analysis Date: 4/14/2016
SegNo: 541564
Analyte
Result
RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit Hight-imit RPD Ref Val
%RPD RPDLimit Qua[
Gasoline
502
50.0 500.0
0 100
65
135
Surr: Toluene-d8
24.4
25.00
97.8
65
135
Surr:4-Bromofluorobenzene
25.0
25.00
99.9
65
135
Sample ID: MB-R28812
SampType: MBLK
Units: lag/L Prep Date: 4/14/2016
RunNo: 28812
Client ID: MBLKW
Batch ID: R28812
Analysis Date: 4/14/2016
SegNo: 541565
Analyte
Result
RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val
%RPD RPDLimit Qual
Gasoline ND 50.0
Surr: Toluene-d8 24.9 25.00 99.8 65 135
Sum 4-Bromofluorobenzene 24.9 25.00 99.7 65 135
Sample ID: 1602099-051AMS
SampType: MS
Units: lag/L Prep Date: 4/15/2016
RunNo: 28812
Client ID: BATCH
Batch ID: R28812
Analysis Date: 4/15/2016
SegNo: 541555
Analyte
Result
RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val
%RPD RPDLimit Qual
Gasoline
540
50.0 500.0
0 108
65
135
H
Surr: Toluene-d8
25.2
25.00
101
65
135
H
Surr: 4-Bromofluorobenzene
25.4
25.00
101
65
135
H
Sample ID: 1602099-051AMSD
SampType: MSD
Units: lag/L Prep Date: 4/15/2016
RunNo: 28812
Client ID: BATCH
Batch ID: R28812
Analysis Date: 4/15/2016
SegNo: 541556
Analyte
Result
RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val
%RPD RPDLimit Qual
Gasoline 557 50.0 500.0 0 111 65 135 540.1 3.07 30 H
Surr: Toluene-d8 24.6 25.00 98.2 65 135 0 0 H
Surr:4-Bromofluorobenzene 24.6 25.00 98.6 65 135 0 0 H
Revision v1
Page 23 of 29
Date: 412112016
QC SUMMARY REPORT
Gasoline by NWTPH-Gx
Sample ID: 1604115-005ADUP
SampType: DUP
Units: pg/L Prep Date: 4/15/2016
RunNo: 28812
Client ID: BATCH
Batch ID: R28812
Analysis Date: 4/15/2016
SegNo: 541558
Analyte
Result
RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit Hight-imit RPD Ref Val
%RPD RPDLimit Qua[
Gasoline ND 50.0 0 30
Surr: Toluene-d8 25.0 25.00 99.8 65 135 0 0
Surr:4-Bromofluorobenzene 25.4 25.00 101 65 135 0 0
Revision v1
Page 24 of 29
Date: 412112016
QC SUMMARY REPORT
Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA Method 8260C
Sample ID: LCS-R28811
SampType: LCS
Units: pg/L Prep Date: 4/14/2016
RunNo: 28811
Client ID: LCSW
Batch ID: R28811
Analysis Date: 4/14/2016
SegNo: 541551
Analyte
Result
RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit Hight-imit RPD Ref Val
%RPD RPDLimit Qua[
Benzene
17.2
1.00
20.00
0
86.1
69.3
132
Toluene
19.3
1.00
20.00
0
96.4
61.3
145
Ethylbenzene
18.2
1.00
20.00
0
91.1
72
130
m,p-Xylene
37.0
1.00
40.00
0
92.6
70.3
134
o-Xylene
18.6
1.00
20.00
0
93.0
72.1
131
Surr: Dibromofluoromethane
23.1
25.00
92.2
45.4
152
Surr: Toluene-d8
27.4
25.00
110
40.1
139
Sum 1-Bromo-4-fluorobenzene
25.6
25.00
102
64.2
128
Sample ID: MB-R28811
SampType: MBLK
Units: pg/L Prep Date: 4/14/2016
RunNo: 28811
Client ID: MBLKW
Batch ID: R28811
Analysis Date: 4/14/2016
SegNo: 541552
Analyte
Result
RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val
%RPD RPDLimit Qual
Benzene
ND
1.00
Toluene
ND
1.00
Ethylbenzene
ND
1.00
m,p-Xylene
ND
1.00
o-Xylene
ND
1.00
Surr: Dibromofluoromethane
26.0
25.00 104 45.4 152
Surr: Toluene-d8
23.7
25.00 94.9 40.1 139
Surr:1-Bromo-4-fluorobenzene
24.6
25.00 98.3 64.2 128
Sample ID: 1602099-051AMS
SampType: MS
Units: pg/L Prep Date: 4/14/2016
RunNo: 28811
Client ID: BATCH
Batch ID: R28811
Analysis Date: 4/14/2016
SegNo: 541536
Analyte
Result
RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val
%RPD RPDLimit Qual
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
m,p-Xylene
20.1
1.00
20.00
0
101
65.4
138
18.4
1.00
20.00
0
91.8
64
139
19.5
1.00
20.00
0
97.4
64.5
136
39.9
1.00
40.00
0
99.8
63.3
135
Revision v1
Page 25 of 29
Date: 412112016
QC SUMMARY REPORT
Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA Method 8260C
Sample ID: 1602099-051AMS
SampType: MS
Units: pg/L Prep Date: 4/14/2016
RunNo: 28811
Client ID: BATCH
Batch ID: R28811
Analysis Date: 4/14/2016
SegNo: 541536
Analyte
Result
RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit Hight-imit RPD Ref Val
%RPD RPDLimit Qua[
o-Xylene
20.0
1.00 20.00
0 100
65.4
134
H
Surr: Dibromofluoromethane
26.3
25.00
105
45.4
152
H
Surr: Toluene-d8
24.1
25.00
96.4
40.1
139
H
Sum 1-Bromo-4-fluorobenzene
24.9
25.00
99.8
64.2
128
H
Sample ID: 1602099-051AMSD
SampType: MSD
Units: pg/L Prep Date: 4/14/2016
RunNo: 28811
Client ID: BATCH
Batch ID: R28811
Analysis Date: 4/14/2016
SegNo: 541537
Analyte
Result
RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val
%RPD RPDLimit Qual
Benzene
20.3
1.00
20.00
0
101
65.4
138
20.12
0.693
30
H
Toluene
18.4
1.00
20.00
0
92.0
64
139
18.36
0.218
30
H
Ethylbenzene
20.8
1.00
20.00
0
104
64.5
136
19.48
6.41
30
H
m,p-Xylene
41.5
1.00
40.00
0
104
63.3
135
39.90
3.88
30
H
o-Xylene
20.8
1.00
20.00
0
104
65.4
134
20.02
3.92
30
H
Surr: Dibromofluoromethane
25.9
25.00
104
45.4
152
0
0
H
Surr: Toluene-d8
23.8
25.00
95.1
40.1
139
0
0
H
Surr:1-Bromo-4-fluorobenzene
25.5
25.00
102
64.2
128
0
0
H
Sample ID: 1604115-005ADUP
SampType: DUP
Units: pg/L Prep Date: 4/15/2016
RunNo: 28811
Client ID: BATCH
Batch ID: R28811
Analysis Date: 4/15/2016
SegNo: 541544
Analyte
Result
RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowl-imit HighLimit RPD Ref Val
%RPD RPDLimit Qual
Benzene
ND
1.00
0
30
Toluene
ND
1.00
0
30
Ethylbenzene
ND
1.00
0
30
m,p-Xylene
ND
1.00
0
30
o-Xylene
ND
1.00
0
30
Surr: Dibromofluoromethane
25.5
25.00
102 45.4 152
0
Surr: Toluene-d8
23.1
25.00
92.4 40.1 139
0
Sum 1-Bromo-4-fluorobenzene
24.9
25.00
99.4 64.2 128
0
Revision v1
Page 26 of 29
Date: 412112016
QC SUMMARY REPORT
Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA Method 8260C
iample ID: 1604115-005ADUP
SampType: DUP
Units: pg/L Prep Date: 4/15/2016
RunNo: 28811
'Iient ID: BATCH
Batch ID: R28811
Analysis Date: 4/15/2016
SegNo: 541544
knalyte
Result
RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit Hight-imit RPD Ref Val
%RPD RPDLimit Qual
Revision v1
Page 27 of 29
7 {p
Sample Log -In Check List
Client Name: Sw Work Order Number: 1604140
Logged by: Erica Silva Date Received: 4/14/2016 4:07:00 PM
Chain of Custod
1. Is Chain of Custody complete?
Yes
]
No
Not Present
2. How was the sample delivered?
Client
Lop In
3. Coolers are present?
Yes
lv4
No
❑
NA ❑
4. Shipping container/cooler in good condition?
Yes
1,01�
No
❑
5. Custody Seals present on shipping container/cooler?
Yes
❑
No
❑
Not Required
(Refer to comments for Custody Seals not intact)
6. Was an attempt made to cool the samples?
Yes
No
❑
NA ❑
7. Were all items received at a temperature of >0°C to 10.0°C *
Yes
EV]
No
❑
NA �❑
8. Sample(s) in proper container(s)?
Yes
V
No
El
9. Sufficient sample volume for indicated test(s)?
Yes
No
❑
10. Are samples properly preserved?
Yes
IV]
No
❑
11. Was preservative added to bottles?
Yes
d❑
No
❑
NA ❑
H2SO4 to 001 H
12. Is there headspace in the VOA vials?
Yes
_
No
NA _.
13. Did all samples containers arrive in good condition (unbroken)?
Yes
d❑
No
❑
14. Does paperwork match bottle labels?
Yes
IV
No
15. Are matrices correctly identified on Chain of Custody?
Yes
1
No
❑
16. Is it clear what analyses were requested?
Yes
IV
No
❑
17. Were all holding times able to be met?
Yes
❑
No
❑
Special Handling (if applicable)
18. Was client notified of all discrepancies with this order?
Yes
❑
No
❑
NA
Person Notified:— Date:
--- --- --- -----
By Whom: Via: ❑ eMail ❑ Phone ❑ Fax ❑ In Person
Regarding:
Client Instructions:
19. Additional remarks:
Item Information
Item # Temp °C
Cooler 5.0
ISample 4.2
(Temp Blank 2.4
* Note: DoD/FLAP and TNI require items to be received at 4°C +/- 2°C
Revision v1
N
6
w
ar
Chain of Custody Record
OFremont
F _
S
e
C" C t
Uftded
zjw
ROPWIt Tim
1 e . 7 I: -
`bAWN madam6s Ali, , =Agaa = walk, r, F- Prradu , S a Sa'vl, S� di K- 5011 , W - al . D = : laxg , W-GrowdWates, SW storm Water. Ww= Ic Wafer
-y'`"
Sample sardol* Tw
Swnple e Date Time (Ma ')
g
"
'i
y
,
G
d'
£
"Metalla Anallysis 9 dej; - RCR" TAIL
ImdIw k 9 p 1 Cr Cu-pl� Mg N Mg M , I, p " r i I
'A o ), w4r1w larlde . if tZAd� R��sp#�al.� Iku #rMqNlIFAt Turn -wound . - fariamples Specia emad a:
Y l bytab (f v a an tke fohoWng busftwn daV -
F
a¢
Re clWs te/nme
R imed @ate rite
_.. " TAT 4 SvrncNVI IdeaOW �[). � Y F�
APPENDIX D
GROUNDWATER MODELING
21-1-22082-003
GROUNDWATER MODELING
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
D.1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................... D-l.
D.2 MODELING APPROACH............................................................................................. D-1
D.3 MODEL STRUCTURE AND LAYERING................................................................... D-2
DA HYDRAULIC PARAMETERS..................................................................................... D-2
D.5 BOUNDARY CONDITIONS AND INITIAL GROUNDWATER LEVELS ............... D-2
D.6 UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL WELL RECHARGE SIMULATIONS.. D-3
D.7 SUMMARY.................................................................................................................... D-4
D.8 REFERENCES............................................................................................................... D-4
TABLE
D-1 Modeled Hydrostratigraphic Layers and Hydraulic Properties .......................... D-2
FIGURES
D-1 Model Domain and Boundaries
D-2 Planned UIC Wells
D-3 Model Mesh in Northern UIC Wellfield Area
D-4 Model Sections North -South and West -East Through Well IW-2
D-5 Model Input Hydrograph & Predicted Groundwater Levels at UIC Areas — Base
Case
D-6 Predicted Groundwater Levels Along Transect Through UIC Area 2 — Base Case
D-7 Model Input Hydrograph & Predicted Groundwater Levels at UIC Area 2 —
Sensitivity Cases
D-8 Predicted Groundwater Levels Along Transect Through UIC Area 2 — Sensitivity
Case 3
21-1-22082-003-R] f-AD/wpnk 21-1-22082-003
D-i
• 1 1
GROUNDWATER MODELING
D.1 INTRODUCTION
We developed a three-dimensional groundwater model (model) based on the site explorations
and our conceptual hydrogeologic model. The objective of the model was to predict the likely
groundwater response to the planned underground injection control (UIC) wellfield operation. In
particular, the model was used to evaluate water mounding above potential perching layers and
the potential for seepage to occur at the slopes to the west and east of the school property. This
appendix provides a description of the model setup and a summary of the modeling results.
The proposed UIC wellfield consisting of 16 wells in 4 clusters of either 3 or 5 wells each. The
UIC well spacing within the clusters ranged from 30 to 50 feet, based on the proposed layout
provided by KPFF Consulting Engineers. We simulated the recharge occurring into the
unsaturated zone of the Vashon advance outwash (Qva) unit that overlies a 5-foot-thick perching
layer and a deeper, saturated Qva aquifer.
D.2 MODELING APPROACH
The model was constructed using numerical modeling techniques to simulate unsaturated zone
and groundwater flow conditions for the project area. The model approach included:
■ Selecting an appropriate numerical model and the supporting software.
■ Constructing a three-dimensional representation of the model area that includes the
hydrogeologic framework, hydraulic properties, and boundary conditions.
■ Performing simulations for one base and three sensitivity case scenarios.
■ Evaluating model results.
We used the U.S. Geological Survey's numerical groundwater flow code MODFLOW-2005
(Harbaugh, 2005) to simulate the groundwater flow system in the project area. We used the
graphical interface program Groundwater Vistas version 6 (Environmental Simulations
Incorporated, 2016) as a pre- and post -processor to create and manage model input and output
files for MODFLOW-2005.
21-1-22082-003-R] f-AD/wpnk 21-1-22082-003
D-1
1 1IM11IRKI
Figure D-1 shows the model domain which has dimensions 2,400 feet by 2,000 feet. The model
grid consists of computational cells with dimensions ranging from 30 feet by 30 feet to 2.5 feet
by 2.5 feet in plan view, with the smallest cells assigned at and near the planned UIC wells
(Figure D-2). The model's upper surface (top of layer 1) was established by interpolating a
digital elevation map dataset for the area to the model grid (Figure D-3). Vertically, the model
thickness ranges from about 230 feet thick beneath the school property to 125 feet in the valley
area west of the school (Figure D-4). The model base is at Elevation 225 feet. The vertical
thickness of the model is divided into three layers based on the conceptual hydrogeologic
profiles.
The main hydraulic parameters in the model are hydraulic conductivity (horizontal and vertical)
and storage coefficients (unconfined and confined). We assigned the model hydraulic
conductivity values based on empirical correlations with grain size test results from samples
collected during Shannon & Wilson, Inc.'s subsurface explorations at the site, slug test results,
and the two pilot -scale recharge tests. As no formal testing was performed to estimate the
storage coefficients, we used professional judgment to assign parameter values. Table D-1
presents the modeled parameters for each layer.
TABLE D-1
MODELED HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC LAYERS AND HYDRAULIC PROPERTIES
The model uses MODFLOW Constant Head boundary conditions along the northern and
southern limits of the domain to simulate groundwater inflow and outflow, and to establish initial
21-1-22082-003-R] f-AD/wpnk 21-1-22082-003
D-2
(existing) groundwater conditions. For the purpose of this evaluation, these heads were
Elevations 299 and 300 feet, respectively. Therefore, the existing groundwater levels are slightly
above the base of layer 1.
D.6 UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL WELL RECHARGE SIMULATIONS
For the Base Case model run, we simulated a total stormwater recharge hydrograph that we were
provided by the design engineers KPFF Consulting Engineers. This hydrograph represents a
1.00-year, 24-hour storm event. We distributed this flux between the 16 wells that are part of the
four clusters of UIC wells (Areas 1, 2, 3, and 4; Figure D-2). The recharge flux was assigned to
model layer 1. We used 24 hourly model stress periods to simulate the storm event. The peak
hourly recharge rate per well ranged from 102 to 130 gallons per minute.
Figure D-5 shows the model -predicted water level response to the 24-hour storm event at the
centers of the four UIC Areas and the total input hourly hydrograph. These modeled responses
represent the anticipated temporary perching of infiltrating water above the lower permeability
silty sand layer that is situated above the regional aquifer. The results indicate that the storm
event would temporarily raise water levels to a peak of Elevation 31.0 feet at the center of UIC
Area 2 (which has five UIC wells), and to below Elevation 306 feet at the center of the three
other UIC areas. Figure D-6 shows the predicted hydrograph for four points along a
400-foot-Long east -west transect extending from the center of UIC Area 2 (OW-2) to the bottom
of the ravine located west of the UIC arrays (which is at about Elevation 370 feet). The results
indicate that the mounding effect of the storm would diminish to the west of OW-2, and the
temporarily perched water table would come within 70 feet of the slope surface.
To evaluate the effect that uncertainty of key model parameters on the Base Case results, we
performed three sensitivity cases. These involved the re -simulating the 24-hour storm with the
following changes to the Base Case model:
■ Sensitivity Case 1 — lower the Qva aquifer Kh and Kv to 3 and 0.3 feet per day,
respectively;
Sensitivity Case 2 — increase the elevation of the 5-foot-thick perching layer by
15 feet; and
■ Sensitivity Case 3 — combination of Cases 1 and 2.
Figure D-7 shows the predicted results for the three sensitivity cases and the Base Case at the
center of UIC Area 2 (OW-2), and Figure D-8 shows the predicted hydrographs for four points
along the east -west transect from OW-2. The results indicate that the induced perched water
table would rise to a peak of Elevation 328 feet at the center of UIC Area 2 (for the most
conservative Sensitivity Case 3), which is 1.17 feet below ground surface. As with the Base
21-1-22082-003-R] f-AD/wpnk 21-1-22082-003
D-3
Case, the water would remain more than 50 feet below the toe of the slope to the west of UIC
Area 2 for Sensitivity Case 3.
D.7 SUMMARY
For the Base Case scenario, the model predicts that the water table will rise by between 7 and
II feet at the center of the four UIC areas during a 100-year, 24-hour storm event. The resulting
mound would be 70 feet or more below the surface of the nearby ravine slope.
We ran a limited sensitivity analysis of the Base Case involving reducing the hydraulic
conductivity of the Qva unit by a factor of 1.0 and increasing the elevation of the perching unit by
1.5 feet. The most conservative sensitivity case resulted in the peak rise in the water table at the
UIC area of up to 14 feet, to a maximum elevation of 328 feet (which is 117 feet below ground
surface). The resulting mound would be 50 feet or more below the surface of the nearby ravine
slope for the most conservative sensitivity case.
Our model provides a framework for estimating how much groundwater mounding may result
during the given storm assuming the UIC wells are 1.00 percent efficient. The Base Case
modeling predicted an operating water level of up to about 18 feet inside the UIC wells during
the design storm event. However, depending on the well drilling method, development, and
maintenance practices, the actual initial. UIC well efficiencies will be less (e.g., 50 to 75 percent).
Additionally, UIC well efficiency typically decreases with time of operation, depending on the
degree of inflow water quality control and well maintenance frequency. Therefore, we would
expect the operating water level in the UIC wells to increase in the future. For example, at
50 percent well efficiency, the operating water level inside the UIC wells might be closer to
about 36 feet for the modeled storm.
D.8 REFERENCES
Environmental Simulations Incorporated (ESI), 2012,.Groundwater Vistas, v. 6: Reinholds, Pa.,
Environmental Simulations Incorporated.
Harbaugh, A. W., 2005, MODFLOW-2005: the U.S. Geological Survey modular ground -water
model --the ground -water flow process3: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water -
Resources Investigations Book 6, Chapter A16, 1 v., available:
https-.//pubs.usZs. gov/tin/2005/tm6A 16/.
21-1-22082-003-R] f-AD/wpnk 21-1-22082-003
D-4
Southern Constant Northern Constant
Head boundary Head boundary
(elev. 300ft) (elev. 299ft)
South Well OW-2 North
455'
0
> Unsaturated Qva unit
Q)
293' Low K layer
Qva aquifer
225' H 1111
West Well OW-2 East
400'--
Unsaturated Qva unit
293 - Low K layer
225fl..J. Qva aquifer
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
0 250 500 Edmonds, Washington
MODEL SECTIONS NORTH -SOUTH &
Scale in Feet WEST -EAST THROUGH WELL IW-2
Vertical exaggeration = x2
2016 21-1-22082 November -003
4. SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. D-4
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
ffi
315
2000
Input Hydrograph OBS-1 (UIC Areal) OW-2 (UIC Area 2)
OBS-3 (UIC Area 3) OBS-4 (UIC Area 4)
310
1500
a
c
Va
o
M
M
,,,, {
Uj
305
_ ... 1000 Q-
v
�
0
3
c
W
�
��. _
0
L
�. m L
C7
0
300
.............. ................ . ......... ............... ....... ......... ......... ......... .............................. 500
295
—--------- 0
-I N m d' Ln 1,0 r, 00 0) O r-i N ro d' Ln to r\ 00 M O r-I N m lzr Ln 1,0 r- 00 Ol O rH N ro d' Ln to r, oo of O rH N m d. Ln to r, oo
`-I r-i rH r-1 rH r4 i H rH �H i H N N N N N N N N N N m m m m m m m m m m d' d- d' d' zT d' 'zr d' d'
Time (hours)
Hydrogeologic Report
Notes:
New Madrona K-8 School
Edmonds, Washington
1. Observation point locations shown on Fiqure 10
MODEL INPUT HYDROGRAPH &
2. Input hydrograph provided by KPFF
PREDICTED GROUNDWATER LEVELS AT
-n
UIC AREAS - BASE CASE
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
v
SHANNON & WILSON, INC-
FG
FIG. D-5eotechnical
and Environmental Consultants
ffi
315
2000
Input Hydrograph
OW-2 (UIC Area 2)
71t OBS-5 (70 ft west of OW-2)
OBS-6 (100 ft west of OW-2)
310
OBS-7 (400 ft west of OW-2) 1500
a
an
o
a,
41
M
>
41
a,
+1
305
..__._..
1000
io
Ji{{%
� x�t}t
3
-o
o
C.w
..,u.. _.
(�
O
r r'
300
------------ ------
500
295
0
.-I N M Ch Ln lD r- 00 0) O -4 N M 1t Ln lD r, 00 Ol O r-4 N M CP Ln tD t\ 00 M O r-j N M CP Ln lD r, oo M O c-I N M ch Ln ID n 00
r-i ri c-1 r-I ci 1-4 -1 r-i r-i r-1 N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M CO M ct d' dt .1' Ct ct' d'
Time (hours)
Hydrogeologic Report
Notes:
New Madrona K-8 School
Edmonds, Washington
1. Observation point locations shown on Fiqure 10
PREDICTED GROUNDWATER LEVELS
2. Input hydrograph provided by KPFF
ALONG TRANSECT
-n
3. OW-2 elev = 445 feet; OBS-5 = elev. 444 ft; OBS-6 = elev. 450 ft; OBS-7 = elev. 370 ft
THROUGH UIC AREA 2 - BASE CASE
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
v
SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. D-6
FG
eotechnical and Environmental Consultants
ffi
340
2000
Input Hydrograph
Base Case (OW-2) Sensitivity Case 1
Sensitivity Case 2
Sensitivity Case 3
330
1600
4� i�r S3
R
CL
0
320
qi
1200
41
M
W
r'
CL
N
C
_
3
2
310
....................... ............. .......
..................... 800 LA.,
O
i
C7
0
300
-___________________________________________________________________________
400
290
0
,4 N M 'It L l 1,0 r� oo a) O —I N M d" Ln l0 r, oo a) O r H N M-�t m lD I, co m O r i N M-;t m w r� oo m O r H N Mzt m Lo r, oo
ci 14 ci rH ci N N N N N N N N m M m M m M m M m M d' -;t d- IzT '-
Time (hours)
Hydrogeologic Report
Notes:
New Madrona K-8 School
Edmonds, Washington
1. Observation point locations shown on Fiqure 10
MODEL INPUT HYDROGRAPH &
2. Input hydrograph provided by KPFF
PREDICTED GROUNDWATER LEVELS AT
-n
UIC AREA 2 - SENSITIVITY CASES
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
v
44
FeSHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. D-7
otechnical and Environmental Consultants
Madrona
Model
Aoo D tables and ffizures11-16-
340
2000
E= Input Hydrograph
--Ar— OW-2 (U IC Area 2)
335
OBS-5 (70 ft west of OW-2)
0 BS-6 (100 ft west of OW-2)
--*—OBS-7 (400 ft west of OW-2)
1500
330
E
CL
.2
4a
M
4,
M
Uj
325
1000 CL
41
M
.2
U.
0
320
. .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
...................... 0
. ...... .... 500
315
310
-
0
-4 N m ct Ln to r, oo a) c) r-i (N ro t Ln .o r, oo a) c) ci N m -;t m CO n m m c) rH
rH 1-4 rH r-i 4 rH rH rH r-i r-1 N r4 N C4 N CN (N (N N C4 rn M
N m � Ln i.D r, oo cy) o —i cN rn � Ln to r, oo
M rn M M M rn rn ro 't -t It 1;T d' dt �
Time (hours)
Hydrogeologic Report
Notes:
New Madrona K-8 School
Edmonds, Washington
1. Observation point locations shown on Fiqure 10
2. Input hVdroqraph provided by KPFF
PREDICTED GROUNDWATER LEVELS ALONG
TRANSECT
-n
3. OW-2 elev = 445 feet; OBS-5 = elev. 444 ft; OBS-6 = elev. 450 ft; OBS-7 = elev. 370 ft
THROUGH UIC AREA 2 - SENSITIVITY CASE 3
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
zo
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
Feotechnical
FIG. D-8
G and Environmental Consultants
APPENDIX E
IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR
GEOTECHNICAL/ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
21-1-22082-003
SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Attachment to and part of Report 21-1-22082-003
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
Date: November 29, 2016
To: Ms. Taine Wilton
Edmonds School District #15
IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAL/ENVIRONMENTAL
REPORT
.%7►1;��1711r1 [014:1Z41TA 3*3_\:I=11111:24OVUM,14111MO 44:2X9311101allNaGM*3_1►INJMs]:IMax911•[«ZS"I=IZ11&1
Consultants prepare reports to meet the specific needs of specific individuals. A report prepared for a civil engineer may not be
adequate for a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Unless indicated otherwise, your consultant prepared your report
expressly for you and expressly for the purposes you indicated. No one other than you should apply this report for its intended
purpose without first conferring with the consultant. No party should apply this report for any purpose other than that originally
contemplated without first conferring with the consultant.
THE CONSULTANT'S REPORT IS BASED ON PROJECT -SPECIFIC FACTORS.
A geotechnical/environmental report is based on a subsurface exploration plan designed to consider a unique set of project -specific
factors. Depending on the project, these may include: the general nature of the structure and property involved; its size and
configuration; its historical use and practice; the location of the structure on the site and its orientation; other improvements such as
access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities; and the additional risk created by scope -of -service limitations imposed by the
client. To help avoid costly problems, ask the consultant to evaluate how any factors that change subsequent to the date of the report
may affect the recommendations. Unless your consultant indicates otherwise, your report should not be used: (1) when the nature of
the proposed project is changed (for example, if an office building will be erected instead of a parking garage, or if a refrigerated
warehouse will be built instead of an unrefrigerated one, or chemicals are discovered on or near the site); (2) when the size, elevation,
or configuration of the proposed project is altered; (3) when the location or orientation of the proposed project is modified; (4) when
there is a change of ownership; or (5) for application to an adjacent site. Consultants cannot accept responsibility for problems that
may occur if they are not consulted after factors which were considered in the development of the report have changed.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE.
Subsurface conditions may be affected as a result of natural processes or human activity. Because a geotechnical/environmental report
is based on conditions that existed at the time of subsurface exploration, construction decisions should not be based on a report whose
adequacy may have been affected by time. Ask the consultant to advise if additional tests are desirable before construction starts; for
example, groundwater conditions commonly vary seasonally.
Construction operations at or adjacent to the site and natural events such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations may also
affect subsurface conditions and, thus, the continuing adequacy of a geotechnieal/environmental report. The consultant should be kept
apprised of any such events, and should be consulted to determine if additional tests are necessary.
IllJ� hJd• ki117_N I Mki6T-13N=1:J ael;y_-l�LZr]J� 1 • L1 11 &IJ
Site exploration and testing identifies actual surface and subsurface conditions only at those points where samples are taken. The data
were extrapolated by your consultant, who then applied judgment to render an opinion about overall subsurface conditions. The actual
interface between materials may be far more gradual or abrupt than your report indicates. Actual conditions in areas not sampled may
differ from those predicted in your report. While nothing can be done to prevent such situations, you and your consultant can work
together to help reduce their impacts. Retaining your consultant to observe subsurface construction operations can be particularly
beneficial in this respect.
Page 1 of 1/2016
A REPORT'S CONCLUSIONS ARE PRELIMINARY.
The conclusions contained in your consultant's report are preliminary because they must be based on the assumption that conditions
revealed through selective exploratory sampling are indicative of actual conditions throughout a site. Actual subsurface conditions can
be discerned only during earthwork; therefore, you should retain your consultant to observe actual conditions and to provide
conclusions. Only the consultant who prepared the report is fully familiar with the background information needed to determine
whether or not the report's recommendations based on those conclusions are valid and whether or not the contractor is abiding by
applicable recommendations. The consultant who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the adequacy of
the report's recommendations if another party is retained to observe construction.
THE CONSULTANT'S REPORT IS SUBJECT TO MISINTERPRETATION.
Costly problems can occur when other design professionals develop their plans based on misinterpretation of a
geotechnical/environmental report. To help avoid these problems, the consultant should be retained to work with other project design
professionals to explain relevant geotechnical, geological, hydrogeological, and environmental findings, and to review the adequacy of
their plans and specifications relative to these issues.
BORING LOGS AND/OR MONITORING WELL DATA SHOULD NOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE REPORT.
Final boring logs developed by the consultant are based upon interpretation of field logs (assembled by site personnel), field test
results, and laboratory and/or office evaluation of field samples and data. Only final boring logs and data are customarily included in
geotechnical/environmental reports. These final logs should not, under any circumstances, be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or
other design drawings, because drafters may commit errors or omissions in the transfer process.
To reduce the likelihood of boring log or monitoring well misinterpretation, contractors should be given ready access to the complete
geotechnical engineering/environmental report prepared or authorized for their use. If access is provided only to the report prepared
for you, you should advise contractors of the report's limitations, assuming that a contractor was not one of the specific persons for
whom the report was prepared, and that developing construction cost estimates was not one of the specific purposes for which it was
prepared. While a contractor may gain important knowledge from a report prepared for another party, the contractor should discuss
the report with your consultant and perform the additional or alternative work believed necessary to obtain the data specifically
appropriate for construction cost estimating purposes. Some clients hold the mistaken impression that simply disclaiming
responsibility for the accuracy of subsurface information always insulates them from attendant liability. Providing the best available
information to contractors helps prevent costly construction problems and the adversarial attitudes that aggravate them to a
disproportionate scale.
READ RESPONSIBILITY CLAUSES CLOSELY.
Because geotechnical/environmental engineering is based extensively on judgment and opinion, it is far less exact than other design
disciplines. This situation has resulted in wholly unwarranted claims being lodged against consultants. To help prevent this problem,
consultants have developed a number of clauses for use in their contracts, reports, and other documents. These responsibility clauses
are not exculpatory clauses designed to transfer the consultant's liabilities to other parties; rather, they are definitive clauses that
identify where the consultant's responsibilities begin and end. Their use helps all parties involved recognize their individual
responsibilities and take appropriate action. Some of these definitive clauses are likely to appear in your report, and you are
encouraged to read them closely. Your consultant will be pleased to give full and frank answers to your questions.
The preceding paragraphs are based on information provided by the
ASFE/Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in the Geoseienees, Silver Spring, Maryland
Page 2 of 2 1 /2016