161129 MAD (Hydrogeologic Report).pdfHydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
9300 236th Street SW
Edmonds, Washington
November 29, 2016
Submitted To:
Ms. Taine Wilton
Edmonds School District #15
20420 68th Avenue West
Lynnwood, Washington 98036
By:
Shannon & Wilson, Inc.
400 N 34th Street, Suite 100
Seattle, Washington 98103
21-1-22082-003
21-1-22082-003-R1f/wp/lkn 21-1-22082-003
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................1
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................2
2.1 Site Topography .........................................................................................................2
2.2 Site Drainage and Wetlands .......................................................................................2
3.0 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................2
3.1 Regional Geology and Hydrology ..............................................................................2
3.2 Local Geology and Hydrogeology .............................................................................4
4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND TESTING ..............................................................6
4.1 Drilling and Testing Program .....................................................................................6
4.2 Findings ......................................................................................................................7
4.2.1 Observed Geologic Conditions ....................................................................7
4.2.2 Groundwater Levels and Monitoring ...........................................................8
4.2.3 Aquifer Hydraulic Properties .......................................................................9
4.2.4 Groundwater Quality .................................................................................10
4.2.5 Pilot-scale Injection Well Testing ..............................................................10
4.2.6 Full-scale Injection Well Testing ...............................................................10
5.0 GROUNDWATER MODELING OF PLANNED INJECTION WELLFIELD ..................11
5.1 Overview ..................................................................................................................11
5.2 Conceptual Site Model (CSM) .................................................................................11
5.3 Model Development and Calibration .......................................................................12
5.4 Model Simulation (Base Case) .................................................................................12
5.5 Sensitivity Analysis ..................................................................................................13
6.0 STORMWATER QUALITY DISCUSSION .......................................................................13
7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...............................................................14
7.1 Injection Well Recommendations ............................................................................14
7.1.1 General .......................................................................................................14
7.1.2 Well Design Recommendations .................................................................15
7.1.3 Injection Well Materials ............................................................................17
7.2 Additional Recommendations ..................................................................................19
8.0 LIMITATIONS ....................................................................................................................20
9.0 REFERENCES .....................................................................................................................22
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
21-1-22082-003-R1f/wp/lkn 21-1-22082-003
ii
FIGURES
1 Vicinity Map
2 Site and Exploration Plan
3 Surficial Geologic Map
4 Deer Creek Water Supply Protection Area Map
5 Generalized Subsurface Profile A-A’
6 Generalized Subsurface Profile B-B’
7 Inflow Test Results at Pilot UIC Well IW-1
8 Inflow Test Results at UIC Well IW-2
9 Conceptual UIC Well Design
10 Proposed UIC Well Array Map
APPENDICES
A Subsurface Explorations
B Geotechnical Laboratory Testing
C Hydrogeologic Data and Analyses
D Groundwater Modeling
E Important Information About Your Geotechnical/Environmental Report
21-1-22082-003-R1f/wp/lkn 21-1-22082-003
1
HYDROGEOLOGIC REPORT
NEW MADRONA K-8 PROJECT
9300 236TH STREET SW
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Edmonds School District No. 15 (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
¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 36, Township 27 N, Range 4 E, Willamette Meridian, at 9300-236th
Street SW (Snohomish County tax parcel 27033600404600). The District plans to construct the
new Madrona K-8 School on the east portion of the approximately 40-acre property. New
stormwater management facilities will be required for approximately 13 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 15, 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-R1f/wp/lkn 21-1-22082-003
2
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-R1f/wp/lkn 21-1-22082-003
3
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-R1f/wp/lkn 21-1-22082-003
4
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 ¼-mile of the
portion of the site undergoing redevelopment. No municipal water supply wells are
reported to be within ¼-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 - 242nd Place SW, Edmonds) is within ¼-mile of the site,
cross-groundwater gradient to the project (Figure 4).
21-1-22082-003-R1f/wp/lkn 21-1-22082-003
5
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 8605-228th 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-R1f/wp/lkn 21-1-22082-003
6
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-1, 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-R1f/wp/lkn 21-1-22082-003
7
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 110 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, 114, 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-R1f/wp/lkn 21-1-22082-003
8
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 14 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 14 feet bgs in IW-1, and about 12 feet bgs at OW-2.
Similarly, we observed additional wet seams and layers within the Qvt/Qvd soils in the
OW-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
132.5 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-R1f/wp/lkn 21-1-22082-003
9
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 167.3 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 146.3 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 106 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, 2013). 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 C). 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 C). 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 11 feet/day (2.3 x 10-2 and 7.4 x 10-3
feet/minute), respectively.
21-1-22082-003-R1f/wp/lkn 21-1-22082-003
10
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 103 gpm), the water
column height in IW-1 ranged from approximately 2 to 18 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 126 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, 114, and
128 gpm), the peak water column heights in IW -2 ranged from approximately 12 to 17 feet (or
21-1-22082-003-R1f/wp/lkn 21-1-22082-003
11
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 167 feet bgs (elevations 384 to 278 feet).
21-1-22082-003-R1f/wp/lkn 21-1-22082-003
12
The regional Qva aquifer extends from 167 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 1 – 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:
16 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 102 to 130 gpm.
21-1-22082-003-R1f/wp/lkn 21-1-22082-003
13
The results indicate that the simulated storm event would temporarily raise water levels by up to
11 feet (to a peak elevation 310 feet) at the center of UIC Area 2 (135 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], 1994). 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-R1f/wp/lkn 21-1-22082-003
14
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,
2016b). 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-R1f/wp/lkn 21-1-22082-003
15
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 115 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-R1f/wp/lkn 21-1-22082-003
16
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 115 to
120 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 115 to 120 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 I.D 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-R1f/wp/lkn 21-1-22082-003
17
Use steel centralizers on the 8-inch I.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 to
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-R1f/wp/lkn 21-1-22082-003
18
transmission casing, screen, and bottom cap material is 8-inch I.D., 304 stainless
steel, with threaded or welded joints. 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 of
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 UIC
vertical observation pipe casing, screen, and bottom cap material is 2-inch I.D.,
Schedule 40 or Schedule 80 PVC with threaded joints. The recommended screen is
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 recommend that the PVC pipe be secured to the transmission casing centralizers.
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
installed in a borehole that is at least 4 inches larger in diameter than the nominal
surface casing diameter. We recommend seal materials meeting the WAC 173-160
Sealing Material Standard be placed in the annulus between the permanent steel
surface casing and the borehole wall. We recommend that the bottom of the annular
seal material consist of bentonite 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.
UIC Filter Sand. We recommend the UIC filter sand meet the Ecology (2005) sand
medium specification, with a recommended gradation of:
U.S. Standard Sieve Size Percent Passing
⅜ (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
UIC 4x8 Filter Sand. We recommend the UIC 4x8 filter sand consist of free-
draining, rounded, granular material, with a gradation of:
21-1-22082-003-R1f/wp/lkn 21-1-22082-003
19
U.S. Standard Sieve Size Percent Passing
⅜ (9.5 mm) 100
4 (4.75 mm) 60 to 95
8 (2.36 mm) 0 to 10
30 (0.60 mm) 0 to 2
200 (0.075 mm) 0 to 0.5
UIC Gravel. We recommend the UIC gravel consist of free-draining, rounded,
granular material, with a gradation of:
U.S. Standard Sieve Size Percent Passing
½ (12.5 mm) 100
⅜ (9.5 mm) 80 to 100
4 (4.75 mm) 5 to 15
8 (2.36 mm) 0 to 10
100 (0.15 mm) 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-R1f/wp/lkn 21-1-22082-003
20
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-R1f/wp/lkn 21-1-22082-003
22
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 A16, 1v., available:
https://pubs.usgs.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
#15, Lynnwood, Wash., August 4.
21-1-22082-003-R1f/wp/lkn 21-1-22082-003
23
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:
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/waterresources/map/WCLSWebMap/WaterResourcesExplorer.as
px , accessed November 17, 2016.
Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), 2016b, Washington State well log viewer:
Available: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/waterresources/map/WCLSWebMap/default.aspx ,
accessed November 17, 2016.
104
NE 205th St
238th St SW
236th St SW
240th St SW
Lake
Ballinger
PROJECT
LOCATION
99
5
VICINITY MAP
FIG. 1
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
Map adapted from aerial imagery provided by
Google Earth Pro, reproduced by permission
JUDQWHGE\*RRJOH(DUWK0DSSLQJ6HUYLFH
NOTE
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
Fi
l
e
n
a
m
e
:
J:
\
2
1
1
\
2
2
0
8
2
-
0
0
3
\
2
1
-
1
-
2
2
0
8
2
-
0
0
3
v
i
c
m
a
p
.
d
w
g
D
a
t
e
:
11
-
0
7
-
2
0
1
6
L
o
g
i
n
:
MJ
M
Seattle
Tacoma
Washington
Project
Location
90
5
MT
97
0 2,000 4,000
Approximate Scale in Feet
DP-6
DP-2
DP-7
DP-4
DP-5
DP-3
DP-1
OW-1
IW-1
A A'
OW-2
IW-2
B
B'
SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN
FIG. 2
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
Map adapted from aerial imagery provided by Google Earth Pro,
UHSURGXFHGE\SHUPLVVLRQJUDQWHGE\*RRJOH(DUWK0DSSLQJ6HUYLFH
NOTE November 2016 21-1-22082-003
Fi
l
e
n
a
m
e
:
J:
\
2
1
1
\
2
2
0
8
2
-
0
0
3
\
2
1
-
1
-
2
2
0
8
2
-
0
0
3
S
i
t
e
.
d
w
g
D
a
t
e
:
11
-
1
6
-
2
0
1
6
L
o
g
i
n
:
MJ
M
MT
0 200 400
Scale in Feet
Data Point and Designation
Wetland Boundary
Wetland Buffer
Observation Well Designation and
Approximate Location
Dry Well Designation and Approximate
Location
Generalized
Subsurface Profile
LEGEND
WETLAND A
CATEGORY IV
WETLAND C
CATEGORY IV
WETLAND B
CATEGORY III
DP-2
60 Foot Buffer
40 Foot Buffer
OW-1
IW-1
A
Map adapted from 1:24,000 USGS geologic map of
the Edmonds East and Part of the Edmonds West,
WA quadrangle, dated 1983.
NOTE
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
SURFICIAL GEOLOGIC MAP
FIG. 3
21-1-22082-003
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
November 2016
Fi
l
e
n
a
m
e
:
J:
\
2
1
1
\
2
2
0
8
2
-
0
0
3
\
2
1
-
1
-
2
2
0
8
2
-
0
0
3
G
e
o
m
a
p
.
d
w
g
D
a
t
e
:
11
-
1
6
-
2
0
1
6
L
o
g
i
n
:
MJ
M
0 2000 4000
Approximate Scale in Feet
-Modified Land
-Landslide Deposits
-Vashon RecessionalOutwash
-Vashon Till
-Vashon Advance Outwash
-Transitional Beds
-Whidbey Formation
LEGEND
ml
Qls
Qvr
Qvt
Qva
Qtb
Qw
PROJECT
SITE
Deer Creek
Treatment
Plant
Controlled
Watershed
Boundary
1 Year
Zone 5 Year
Zone
10
Year
Zone
Buffer
Zone
PROJECT
SITE
City of Edmonds
Observation Well
A-2 (BHR 847)
Domestic Well
Groundwater Right
Claim G1-163674CL
Olympic View
Water & Sewer District
Test Well BIY 700
FI
G
.
4
DEER CREEK WATER SUPPLY
PROTECTION AREA MAP
FIG. 4SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
Filename: J:\211\22082-003\21-1-22082-003 Fig 4.dwg Date: 11-18-2016 Login: SAC
21-1-22082-003
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
November 2016
LEGEND
Non-Project Well Designation
and Approximate Location
Approximate Aquifer
Gradient Direction
0 2000 4000
Approximate Scale in Feet
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.
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Ap
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
F
e
e
t
West
A
East
A'
200
250
Possible Perched Zone
(May be due to water
added during drilling)
300
350
400
450
500
Ap
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
F
e
e
t
Project Area
(Proj. 0')
OW-1
(Proj. 9' S)
IW-1 Wetland BWetland C
(Proj. 68' S)
Hf/Qvat/weathered Qvt
Qvt
Qvd/Qva
Qvd/Qva
Qva, unsaturated
Existing Ground
Surface
Qtb (Extrapolated from Non-Project
Deep Borings in Vicinity)
Qvd/Qvt
150150
Qva/Qvd
04-21-16
QV
D
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
T
QV
T
QV
T
QV
D
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
04-07-16
QV
A
T
QV
T
QV
T
QV
D
QV
D
QV
D
QV
A
QV
D
QV
A
QV
A
(Moved 50 E for Clarity)
DR
Y
Silty Sand Qva Layers
Qva, Saturated
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
Fi
l
e
n
a
m
e
:
J:
\
2
1
1
\
2
2
0
8
2
-
0
0
3
\
2
1
-
1
-
2
2
0
8
2
-
0
0
3
S
i
t
e
.
d
w
g
L
a
y
o
u
t
:
Pr
o
f
i
l
e
A
D
a
t
e
:
11
-
1
8
-
2
0
1
6
L
o
g
i
n
:
SA
C
GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE
PROFILE A-A'
FIG. 5
November 2016
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
21-1-22082-003
Vertical Exaggeration = 4X
Seep
Regional Groundwater Level
Perched Groundwater Level
LEGEND
(Proj. 9' S)
IW-1
Observation Well Designation
Dry Well Designation
Projection Distance and
Direction
Ground Surface
Possible Perched Zone
Approximate Geologic Contact
Vibrating Wire Piezometer
Filter Pack
Well Screen
Bottom of Well
??
Fill
Vashon Ablation Till
Vashon Lodgement Till
Vashon Till-like Deposits
Vashon Advance Outwash
Transitional Beds (Fine Grained)
Hf
Qvat
Qvt
Qvd
Qva
Qtb
OW-1
GEOLOGIC UNIT
0 50 100
Vertical Scale in Feet
0 200 400
Horizontal Scale in Feet
IW-1 IW-2OW-1 OW-2
North
B'
South
B
300
500
Qva, saturated
Qvt/Qvd
Hf/Qvat/weathered Qvt
Qvd/Qvt Qvd/Qva
Qva/Qvd
Qvd/Qva
Qva/Qvd
Qvd/Qva
Qva, unsaturated
Silty Sand Qva
Silty Sand Qva
Silty Sand Qva
Qtb, (Extrapolated from non-project deep borings in vicinity)
140
QV
A
T
QV
T
QV
T
QV
D
QV
D
QV
D
QV
A
QV
D
QV
A
QV
A
04-21-16
HF
QV
A
T
QV
T
QV
T
QV
D
QV
A
QV
D
QV
D
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
10-06-16
QV
A
T
QV
T
QV
T
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
04-07-16
HF
HF
QV
A
T
QV
T
QV
T
QV
D
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
D
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
QV
A
08-19-16
340
380
420
460
260
220
180
Ap
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
F
e
e
t
300
500
140
340
380
420
460
260
220
180
Ap
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
F
e
e
t
DR
Y
DR
Y
DR
Y
DR
Y
Possible Perched Zone
(May be due to water
added during drilling)
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
Fi
l
e
n
a
m
e
:
J:
\
2
1
1
\
2
2
0
8
2
-
0
0
3
\
2
1
-
1
-
2
2
0
8
2
-
0
0
3
S
i
t
e
.
d
w
g
L
a
y
o
u
t
:
Pr
o
f
i
l
e
B
D
a
t
e
:
11
-
1
8
-
2
0
1
6
L
o
g
i
n
:
SA
C
GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE
PROFILE B-B'
FIG. 6
November 2016
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
21-1-22082-003
Vertical Exaggeration = 2.5X
Seep
Regional Groundwater Level
Perched Groundwater Level
LEGEND
(Proj. 9' S)
IW-1
Observation Well Designation
Dry Well Designation
Projection Distance and
Direction
Ground Surface
Possible Perched Zone
Approximate Geologic Contact
Vibrating Wire Piezometer
Filter Pack
Well Screen
Bottom of Well
Fill
Vashon Ablation Till
Vashon Lodgement Till
Vashon Till-like Deposits
Vashon Advance Outwash
Transitional Beds (Fine Grained)
Hf
Qvat
Qvt
Qvd
Qva
Qtb
OW-1
GEOLOGIC UNIT
0 40 80
Vertical Scale in Feet
0 100 200
Horizontal Scale in Feet
IW-1-IW-1 Plot LL-11/22/2016-pvh
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
13061
66
71
76
81
86
91
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Ap
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
I
n
f
l
o
w
R
a
t
e
(
g
p
m
)
Wa
t
e
r
D
e
p
t
h
B
e
l
o
w
G
r
a
d
e
(
F
e
e
t
)
Elapsed Time (Minutes)
Top of Screen Depth
Bottom of Screen Depth
IW-1 Transducer Data
Approximate Inflow Rate
FI
G
.
7
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds,Washington
INFLOW TEST RESULTS AT
PILOT UIC WELL IW-1
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
FIG. 7SHANNON& WILSON, INC.
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
NOTES
1.The dry well injection test at test well IW -1 was performed from 10:03 to 18:34 on 4/25/2016.
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.
2. Tap water (44,107 gallons) was introduced at the top of the 6-inch-diameter PVC casing, using a fire hydrant.
3. gpm = gallons per minute
4. Fire hydrant flow became inconsistent late in test, possibly due to increased local water demand.
5. Black and white reproduction of this color original may lead to incorrect interpretation.
Approximate Infiltration Specific Capacity 4.6 gpm/ft
IW-2-IW-2 Plot LL-11/22/2016-pvh
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
16050
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Ap
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
I
n
f
l
o
w
R
a
t
e
(
g
p
m
)
Wa
t
e
r
D
e
p
t
h
B
e
l
o
w
G
r
a
d
e
(
F
e
e
t
)
Elapsed Time (Minutes)
Top of Exposed Screen Depth
Bottom of Screen Depth
IW-2 Transducer Data
IW-2 Manual Water Level Data
Approximate IW-2 Inflow Rate
FI
G
.
8
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds,Washington
INFLOW TEST RESULTS AT
FULL-SCALE UIC WELL IW-2
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
FIG. 8SHANNON& WILSON, INC.
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
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.
Approximate Infiltration Specific Capacity 6.7 gpm/ft
CONCEPTUAL UIC WELL DESIGN
FIG. 9SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
November 2016
NOTES
1.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.
3.3URYLGHVWHHOFHQWUDOL]HUVIRUFDVLQJDQGVFUHHQ
installed on approximately 20' spacing.
Fi
l
e
n
a
m
e
:
J:
\
2
1
1
\
2
2
0
8
2
-
0
0
3
\
2
1
-
1
-
2
2
0
8
2
-
0
0
3
F
i
g
9
.
d
w
g
D
a
t
e
:
11
-
2
2
-
2
0
1
6
L
o
g
i
n
:
BD
D
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
21-1-22082-003
Not to Scale
Minimum 5' *
Seasonal High Qva Aquifer Water Level
*(Required separation may be
greater depending on pre-treatment,
groundwater mounding potential,
vadose zone treatment capacity,
and pollutant loading.)
Unsaturated Qva
Deposits
Base of Qvt/Qvd or
Base of Perched
Qvd/Qva Aquifer,
Whichever is Deeper
Geologic Contact (Est. Depth 60-70', As
Identified by Engineer's Representative)
1-5' Below Contact
7KUHDGHG6FKRU6FK
80 PVC Blank Casing, Top Min.
$ERYH7RSRI&DVLQJ
Qva Aquifer
Temporary UIC Well Vault with Welded or
Locking Cover (To Be Replaced Later By Storm
Drain Manhole)
Stormwater from Distribution
Manifold, Pretreated As Appropriate
%RUHKROH0LQ/DUJHU7KDQ
Surface Casing
6WDLQOHVV6WHHO%ODQN
Casing, Threaded or Welded Joints
Quarry Spalls Pad
(~6" Thick)
UIC 4x8 Filter Sand, Washed, Rounded
a
RI&RQWLQXRXV6ORW
304 Stainless Steel Screen
(0.020" slots), Threaded or
Welded Joints.
UIC Filter Sand for
Supplementary Filtering
(Min. 6" Thick, To Replace
as Needed)
%RUHKROH
7KUHDGHGRU:HOGHG
304 Stainless Steel End Cap
UIC 4x8 Filter Sand,
Washed, Rounded
(Min. 6" Thick)
Bentonite, Neat Cement, or
Neat Cement Grout Seal
~115-120'
Bentonite Chip Seal (Min. 10' Thick)
UIC Gravel, Washed, Rounded
7KUHDGHG39&(QG&DS
a
RI7KUHDGHG0DFKLQH
Slotted, Sch. 40 or Sch. 80 PVC
Screen (0.020" Slots)
6WHHO6XUIDFH&DVLQJ
Wall Thickness)
OBS-1
OW-2
Fi
l
e
n
a
m
e
:
J:
\
2
1
1
\
2
2
0
8
2
-
0
0
3
\
2
1
-
1
-
2
2
0
8
2
-
0
0
3
F
i
g
1
0
-
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
W
e
l
l
A
r
r
a
y
M
a
p
.
d
w
g
L
a
y
o
u
t
:
La
y
o
u
t
D
a
t
e
:
11
-
2
9
-
2
0
1
6
L
o
g
i
n
:
BD
D
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
PROPOSED UIC WELL ARRAY MAP
FIG. 10
November 2016
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
21-1-22082-003
IW-2 Existing UIC Well Designation
and Approximate Location
Proposed UIC Well Designation
and Approximate Location
Proposed UIC Well Custer
Designation
LEGEND
NOTE
Figure adapted from client file received 11-4-16.
0 100 200
Approximate Scale in Feet
IW-2
(Inflow tested 10-11
to 10-12-2016)
Mounding Analysis Model Hypothetical
Observation Point Designation and
Approximate Location
Existing Observation Well Designation
and Approximate Location
OBS-1
OW-2
OBS-3
OBS-5
OBS-6
OBS-4
OBS-7
(220 Feet)
21-1-22082-003
APPENDIX A
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS
21-1-22082-003-R1f-AA/wp/lk 21-1-22082-003
A-i
APPENDIX A
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
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
TABLES
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-R1f-AA/wp/lk 21-1-22082-003
A-1
APPENDIX A
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS
A.1 GENERAL
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 17 and 19, 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-R1f-AA/wp/lk 21-1-22082-003
A-2
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 120.4 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 10 feet bgs the
21-1-22082-003-R1f-AA/wp/lk 21-1-22082-003
A-3
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-R1f-AA/wp/lk 21-1-22082-003
A-4
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.
TABLE A-1
SUMMARY OF WELL INSTALLATION DETAILS
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
21-1-22082-003-R1f-TA-1/wp/lk 21-1-22082-003
Boring
and
Well
No.
Ecology
Tag
No.
Well
Installation
Date
Approx.
Ground
Surface
Elevation1
(feet)
Open
Monument
Stickup
Above
Grade1,2
(feet)
Approx.
Open
Monument
Rim
Elevation1,2
(feet)
Borehole
Diameter2
(inches)
Diameter
and Casing
Material2
(inches)
Casing
Stickdown
Below
Monument2
(feet)
Approx.
Casing
Rim
Elevation1,2
(feet)
Filter
Type
Top of
Filter
Depth2
(feet)
Bottom of
Filter
Depth2
(feet)
Screen
Slot
Size
(Inches)
Screen
Top
Depth2
(feet)
Screen
Bottom
Depth2
(feet)
Screen
Length2
(feet)
Casing
Depth
Below
Casing
Rim1
(feet)
Approx.
Well
Bottom
Elevation1,2
(feet)
Sump
Length2
(feet)
IW-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
IW-2 None 10/6/2016 444.4 0.30 444.7 24
8; Stainless
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 0.00 444.7 6.0 2; PVC 0.83 443.8 No. 10-20 174.8 184.0 269.9 -260.7 0.020 179.2 183.9 265.4 -260.8 4.6 184.1 259.8 0.20
Notes:
1 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).
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
Approx.
Filter Pack
Elevation
Range1,2
(feet)
Approx.
Screen
Elevation
Range1,2
(feet)
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.
TABLE A-2
SUMMARY OF VIBRATING WIRE PIEZOMETER INSTALLATION DETAILS
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
21-1-22082-003-R1f-TA-2/wp/lk 21-1-22082-003
Boring
and
VWP
No.1
Ecology
Tag
VWP
Installation
Date
Approx.
Ground
Surface
and
Monument
Elevation2
(feet)
VWP
Depth
Below
Ground
Surface3
(feet)
Approx.
VWP
Elevation2,
3 (feet)
Top of
Filter
Pack
Depth3
(feet)
Bottom
of
Filter
Pack
Depth3
(feet)
Serial
No.
Pressure
Range
(psi)
Linear
Gage
Factor
(psi/digit)
Thermal
Factor
(psi/o Celsius)
Field
Saturated
Zero
Reading
(digits)
Field
Initial
Temperature
(o Celsius)
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:
3 Value shown was based on hand measurements during VWP construction.
4 Instrument is Geokon Model 4500S.
o Celsius = degrees Celcius
/ = per
Approx. = approximate
Ecology = Washington State Department of Ecology
No. = Number
Instrument Information4
psi = pounds per square inch
1 VWP = vibrating wire piezometer
Approx.
Filter
Pack
Elevation
Range2,3
(feet)
2 Based on electronic client file provided on October 20, 2016. The reference vertical datum is the North American Vertical Datum of 1988.
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
1Gravel, 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.
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.
10 to 30 inches long
Shoe I.D. = 1.375 inches
Barrel I.D. = 1.5 inches
Barrel O.D. = 2 inches
Sum blow counts for second and third
6-inch increments.
Refusal: 50 blows for 6 inches or
less; 10 blows for 0 inches.
RELATIVE
CONSISTENCY
N, SPT,
BLOWS/FT.5% to 12%
fine-grained:
with Silt or
with Clay 3
15% or more of a
second coarse-
grained constituent:
with Sand or
with Gravel 5
< 5%
5 to 10%
15 to 25%
30 to 45%
50 to 100%
Surface Cement
Seal
Asphalt or Cap
Slough
Inclinometer or
Non-perforated Casing
Vibrating Wire
Piezometer
N, SPT,
BLOWS/FT.
< 4
4 - 10
10 - 30
30 - 50
> 50
DESCRIPTION
< #200 (0.075 mm = 0.003 in.)
#200 to #40 (0.075 to 0.4 mm; 0.003 to 0.02 in.)
#40 to #10 (0.4 to 2 mm; 0.02 to 0.08 in.)
#10 to #4 (2 to 4.75 mm; 0.08 to 0.187 in.)
SIEVE NUMBER AND/OR APPROXIMATE SIZE
#4 to 3/4 in. (4.75 to 19 mm; 0.187 to 0.75 in.)
3/4 to 3 in. (19 to 76 mm)
3 to 12 in. (76 to 305 mm)
> 12 in. (305 mm)
Fine
Coarse
Fine
Medium
Coarse
BOULDERS
COBBLES
GRAVEL
FINES
SAND
Sheet 1 of 3
CONSTITUENT2
SOIL DESCRIPTION
AND LOG KEY
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
Absence of moisture, dusty, dry
to the touch
Damp but no visible water
Visible free water, from below
water table
FIG. A-1
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.
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT)
SPECIFICATIONS
Hammer:
Sampler:
N-Value:
Dry
Moist
Wet
MOISTURE CONTENT TERMS
Modifying
(Secondary)
Precedes major
constituent
Major
Minor
Follows major
constituent
1All 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.5Whichever is the lesser constituent.
COARSE-GRAINED
SOILS
(less than 50% fines)1
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.
PARTICLE SIZE DEFINITIONS
RELATIVE DENSITY / CONSISTENCY
Sand or Gravel 4
30% or more
coarse-grained:
Sandy or Gravelly 4
More than 12%
fine-grained:
Silty or Clayey 3
15% to 30%
coarse-grained:
with Sand or
with Gravel 4
30% or more total
coarse-grained and
lesser coarse-
grained constituent
is 15% or more:
with Sand or
with Gravel 5
Very soft
Soft
Medium stiff
Stiff
Very stiff
Hard
Very loose
Loose
Medium dense
Dense
Very dense
RELATIVE
DENSITY
FINE-GRAINED SOILS
(50% or more fines)1
COHESIVE SOILS
< 2
2 - 4
4 - 8
8 - 15
15 - 30
> 30
COHESIONLESS SOILS
Silt, Lean Clay,
Elastic Silt, or
Fat Clay 3
PERCENTAGES TERMS 1, 2
Trace
Few
Little
Some
Mostly
WELL AND BACKFILL SYMBOLS
Bentonite
Cement Grout
Bentonite Grout
Bentonite Chips
Silica Sand
Perforated or
Screened Casing
S&W INORGANIC SOIL CONSTITUENT DEFINITIONS
SO
I
L
_
C
L
A
S
S
_
K
E
Y
_
P
G
1
2
1
-
2
2
0
8
2
.
G
P
J
S
H
A
N
_
W
I
L
.
G
D
T
1
1
/
3
/
1
6
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
GC
SC
Inorganic
Organic
(more than 50%
of coarse
fraction retained
on No. 4 sieve)
MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP/GRAPHICSYMBOL
CH
OH
ML
CL
TYPICAL IDENTIFICATIONS
Gravel
Sand
Silty Sand; Silty Sand with Gravel
Clayey Sand; Clayey Sand with Gravel
Clayey Gravel; Clayey Gravel with
Sand
Sheet 2 of 3
Gravels
Primarily organic matter, dark incolor, and organic odor
SW
(more than 12%
fines)
Silts and Clays
Silts and Clays
(more than 50%
retained on No.
200 sieve)
(50% or more of
coarse fraction
passes the No. 4
sieve)
(liquid limit less
than 50)
(liquid limit 50 or
more)
Organic
Inorganic
FINE-GRAINEDSOILS
SM
Sands
Silty or ClayeyGravel
Silt; Silt with Sand or Gravel; Sandy or
Gravelly Silt
Organic Silt or Clay; Organic Silt or
Clay with Sand or Gravel; Sandy or
Gravelly Organic Silt or Clay
HIGHLY-ORGANICSOILS
COARSE-GRAINEDSOILS
OL
(less than 5%
fines)
GW
Geotechnical and Environmental ConsultantsSHANNON & WILSON, INC.
(less than 5%
fines)
PT
FIG. A-1
(more than 12%
fines)
MH
SP
GP
GM
Silty orClayey Sand
Silty Gravel; Silty Gravel with Sand
(50% or more
passes the No.
200 sieve)
SOIL DESCRIPTION
AND LOG KEY
Elastic Silt; Elastic Silt with Sand or
Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly Elastic Silt
Fat Clay; Fat Clay with Sand or Gravel;
Sandy or Gravelly Fat Clay
Organic Silt or Clay; Organic Silt or
Clay with Sand or Gravel; Sandy or
Gravelly Organic Silt or Clay
Poorly Graded Sand; Poorly Graded
Sand with Gravel
Well-Graded Sand; Well-Graded Sand
with Gravel
Well-Graded Gravel; Well-Graded
Gravel with Sand
Poorly Graded Gravel; Poorly Graded
Gravel with Sand
Lean Clay; Lean Clay with Sand or
Gravel; Sandy or Gravelly Lean Clay
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 (symbols separated by a slash, i.e., CL/ML,
Lean Clay to Silt; SP-SM/SM, Sand with Silt to Silty Sand) indicate
that the soil properties are close to the defining boundary between
two groups.
Peat or other highly organic soils (see
ASTM D4427)
SO
I
L
_
C
L
A
S
S
_
K
E
Y
_
P
G
2
2
1
-
2
2
0
8
2
.
G
P
J
S
H
A
N
_
W
I
L
.
G
D
T
1
1
/
3
/
1
6
NOTE: No. 4 size = 4.75 mm = 0.187 in.; No. 200 size = 0.075 mm = 0.003 in.
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (USCS)
(Modified From USACE Tech Memo 3-357, ASTM D2487, and ASTM D2488)
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants FIG. A-1
Sheet 3 of 3
SOIL DESCRIPTION
AND LOG KEY
1Reprinted, 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.
Interbedded
Laminated
Fissured
Slickensided
Blocky
Lensed
Homogeneous
ATD
Diam.
Elev.
ft.
FeO
gal.
Horiz.
HSA
I.D.
in.
lbs.
MgO
mm
MnO
NA
NP
O.D.
OW
pcf
PID
PMT
ppm
psi
PVC
rpm
SPT
USCS
qu
VWP
Vert.
WOH
WOR
Wt.
Crumbles or breaks with handling or slight
finger pressure.
Crumbles or breaks with considerable finger
pressure.
Will not crumble or break with finger
pressure.
PLASTICITY2
CEMENTATION TERMS1
GRADATION TERMS
STRUCTURE TERMS1
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Alternating layers of varying material or
color with layers at least 1/4-inch thick;
singular: bed.
Alternating layers of varying material or
color with layers less than 1/4-inch thick;
singular: lamination.
Breaks along definite planes or fractures
with little resistance.
Fracture planes appear polished or
glossy; sometimes striated.
Cohesive soil that can be broken down
into small angular lumps that resist further
breakdown.
Inclusion of small pockets of different
soils, such as small lenses of sand
scattered through a mass of clay.
Same color and appearance throughout.
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.
Full range and even distribution of grain sizes
present. Meets criteria in ASTM D2487, if
tested.
Poorly Graded
Well-Graded
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Irregular patches of different colors.
Soil disturbance or mixing by plants or
animals.
Nonsorted sediment; sand and gravel in silt
and/or clay matrix.
Material brought to surface by drilling.
Material that caved from sides of borehole.
Disturbed texture, mix of strengths.
VISUAL-MANUAL CRITERIA
A 1/8-in. thread cannot be rolled
at any water content.
A thread can barely be rolled and
a lump cannot be formed when
drier than the plastic limit.
A thread is easy to roll and not
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.
It takes considerable time rolling
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.
Sharp edges and unpolished planar surfaces.
Similar to angular, but with rounded edges.
Nearly planar sides with well-rounded edges.
Smoothly curved sides with no edges.
Width/thickness ratio > 3.
Length/width ratio > 3.
PARTICLE ANGULARITY AND SHAPE TERMS1
ADDITIONAL TERMS
Angular
Subangular
Subrounded
Rounded
Flat
Elongated
DESCRIPTION
Nonplastic
Low
Medium
High
At Time of Drilling
Diameter
Elevation
Feet
Iron Oxide
Gallons
Horizontal
Hollow Stem Auger
Inside Diameter
Inches
Pounds
Magnesium Oxide
Millimeter
Manganese Oxide
Not Applicable or Not Available
Nonplastic
Outside Diameter
Observation Well
Pounds per Cubic Foot
Photo-Ionization Detector
Pressuremeter Test
Parts per Million
Pounds per Square Inch
Polyvinyl Chloride
Rotations per Minute
Standard Penetration Test
Unified Soil Classification System
Unconfined Compressive Strength
Vibrating Wire Piezometer
Vertical
Weight of Hammer
Weight of Rods
Weight
Mottled
Bioturbated
Diamict
Cuttings
Slough
Sheared
APPROX.
PLASITICITY
INDEX
RANGE
< 4
4 to 10
10 to 20
> 20
SO
I
L
_
C
L
A
S
S
_
K
E
Y
_
P
G
3
2
1
-
2
2
0
8
2
.
G
P
J
S
H
A
N
_
W
I
L
.
G
D
T
1
1
/
3
/
1
6
9.0
14.0
Gray-brown, Silty Sand with Gravel (SM);
moist; fine, subrounded to subangular gravel;
fine to coarse sand; nonplastic fines; diamict.
Fill/Ablation Till/Weathered Till (Hf/Qvat/Qvt)
- Hand-excavated to 1 foot. Standing water
about 1 foot below IW-1 grade in adjacent
swale.
Gray-brown, Silty Sand with Gravel (SM); wet;
fine, subrounded to subangular gravel; fine to
coarse sand; diamict pockets.
Weathered Till (Qvt)
- Perched groundwater at about 11 feet during
well installation on 4/21/2016.
Gray-brown to gray, Silty Sand with Gravel
(SM); moist; fine to coarse, subrounded to
subangular gravel; fine to coarse sand;
nonplastic fines; diamict.
Till (Qvt)
- Iron oxide staining from 14 to 18 feet.
R1
R2
Du
r
i
n
g
D
r
i
l
l
i
n
g
De
p
t
h
,
f
t
.
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
De
p
t
h
,
f
t
.
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Well Screen and Sand Filter
Drilling Method:
Drilling Company:
Drill Rig Equipment:
Other Comments:
Lo
g
:
K
J
W
Northing:
Easting:
Station:
Offset:
SOIL DESCRIPTION
20 40 60
Sa
m
p
l
e
s
10.5 in.
N/A
N/A
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.
*
LOG OF SONIC CORE IW-1
0 60
0
Total Depth:
Top Elevation:
Vert. Datum:
Horiz. Datum:
Ground Water Level ATD
Gr
o
u
n
d
Wa
t
e
r
NOTES
CONTINUED NEXT SHEET
20 40
Soil Core (as in Sonic Core Borings)
Bentonite Chips/Pellets
Bentonite Grout
Hole Diam.:
Rod Diam.:
Hammer Type:
LEGEND
Sy
m
b
o
l
Ground Water Level in Well
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.
Sonic Core
Holt Services Inc.
Terrasonic
FIG. A-2SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
91.2 ft.
~ 444.92 ft.
NAVD 88
Sheet 1 of 5
Re
v
:
E
A
S
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
Ty
p
:
L
K
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
Sample Not Recovered
Bentonite-Cement Grout
REV 3 - Approved for Submittal
MA
S
T
E
R
_
L
O
G
_
E
2
1
-
2
2
0
8
2
.
G
P
J
S
H
A
N
_
W
I
L
.
G
D
T
1
1
/
2
2
/
1
6
% Water Content
% Fines (<0.075mm)
28.0
38.0
- Gray from 20 to 25 feet.
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
subrounded cobbles; nonplastic fines; diamict
pockets.
Till-Like Deposits/Till (Qvd/Qvt)
- Iron oxide staining from 31 to 32 feet.
Gray-brown, Silty Sand with Gravel and
Cobbles (SM) to Silty Gravel with Sand and
Cobbles (GM); moist; fine, subrounded to
R3
R4
R5
De
p
t
h
,
f
t
.
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
De
p
t
h
,
f
t
.
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
Well Screen and Sand Filter
Drilling Method:
Drilling Company:
Drill Rig Equipment:
Other Comments:
Lo
g
:
K
J
W
Northing:
Easting:
Station:
Offset:
SOIL DESCRIPTION
20 40 60
Sa
m
p
l
e
s
10.5 in.
N/A
N/A
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.
*
LOG OF SONIC CORE IW-1
0 60
0
Total Depth:
Top Elevation:
Vert. Datum:
Horiz. Datum:
Ground Water Level ATD
Gr
o
u
n
d
Wa
t
e
r
NOTES
CONTINUED NEXT SHEET
20 40
Soil Core (as in Sonic Core Borings)
Bentonite Chips/Pellets
Bentonite Grout
Hole Diam.:
Rod Diam.:
Hammer Type:
LEGEND
Sy
m
b
o
l
Ground Water Level in Well
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.
Sonic Core
Holt Services Inc.
Terrasonic
FIG. A-2SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
91.2 ft.
~ 444.92 ft.
NAVD 88
Sheet 2 of 5
Re
v
:
E
A
S
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
Ty
p
:
L
K
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
Sample Not Recovered
Bentonite-Cement Grout
REV 3 - Approved for Submittal
MA
S
T
E
R
_
L
O
G
_
E
2
1
-
2
2
0
8
2
.
G
P
J
S
H
A
N
_
W
I
L
.
G
D
T
1
1
/
2
2
/
1
6
% Water Content
% Fines (<0.075mm)
45.0
48.0
57.5
subangular gravel; fine to coarse sand; trace
to few subrounded cobbles; nonplastic fines;
diamict pockets.
Till-Like Deposits/Advance Outwash
(Qvd/Qva)
- Added water at 40 feet.
Gray-brown, Silty Sand (SM); moist to wet;
fine, subrounded to subangular gravel; fine to
coarse sand; nonplastic fines; diamict pockets.
Till-Like Deposits/Advance Outwash
(Qvd/Qva)
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
(Qva/Qvd)
Gray, Silty Sand with Gravel (SM); moist; fine,
subrounded to subangular gravel; fine to
coarse sand; nonplastic fines; diamict.
Till-Like Deposits (Qvd)
R6
R7
De
p
t
h
,
f
t
.
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
De
p
t
h
,
f
t
.
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
Well Screen and Sand Filter
Drilling Method:
Drilling Company:
Drill Rig Equipment:
Other Comments:
Lo
g
:
K
J
W
Northing:
Easting:
Station:
Offset:
SOIL DESCRIPTION
20 40 60
Sa
m
p
l
e
s
10.5 in.
N/A
N/A
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.
*
LOG OF SONIC CORE IW-1
0 60
0
Total Depth:
Top Elevation:
Vert. Datum:
Horiz. Datum:
Ground Water Level ATD
Gr
o
u
n
d
Wa
t
e
r
NOTES
CONTINUED NEXT SHEET
20 40
Soil Core (as in Sonic Core Borings)
Bentonite Chips/Pellets
Bentonite Grout
Hole Diam.:
Rod Diam.:
Hammer Type:
LEGEND
Sy
m
b
o
l
Ground Water Level in Well
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.
Sonic Core
Holt Services Inc.
Terrasonic
FIG. A-2SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
91.2 ft.
~ 444.92 ft.
NAVD 88
Sheet 3 of 5
Re
v
:
E
A
S
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
Ty
p
:
L
K
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
Sample Not Recovered
Bentonite-Cement Grout
REV 3 - Approved for Submittal
MA
S
T
E
R
_
L
O
G
_
E
2
1
-
2
2
0
8
2
.
G
P
J
S
H
A
N
_
W
I
L
.
G
D
T
1
1
/
2
2
/
1
6
% Water Content
% Fines (<0.075mm)
61.0
79.0 Dr
y
(
1
1
/
5
/
2
0
1
6
)
Gray-brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel
(SP), Poorly Graded Sand (SP), and Poorly
Graded Sand with Silt (SP-SM); moist; fine,
subrounded to subangular gravel; fine to
coarse sand; nonplastic fines.
Advance Outwash (Qva)
- Pockets of silty sand at 69 to 69.5 feet.
- Layer of silty sand at 78 to 78.5 feet.
Gray-brown, Poorly Graded Sand (SP) to
Poorly Graded Sand with Silt (SP-SM); moist;
R8
R9
De
p
t
h
,
f
t
.
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
De
p
t
h
,
f
t
.
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
78
Well Screen and Sand Filter
Drilling Method:
Drilling Company:
Drill Rig Equipment:
Other Comments:
Lo
g
:
K
J
W
Northing:
Easting:
Station:
Offset:
SOIL DESCRIPTION
20 40 60
Sa
m
p
l
e
s
10.5 in.
N/A
N/A
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.
*
LOG OF SONIC CORE IW-1
0 60
0
Total Depth:
Top Elevation:
Vert. Datum:
Horiz. Datum:
Ground Water Level ATD
Gr
o
u
n
d
Wa
t
e
r
NOTES
CONTINUED NEXT SHEET
20 40
Soil Core (as in Sonic Core Borings)
Bentonite Chips/Pellets
Bentonite Grout
Hole Diam.:
Rod Diam.:
Hammer Type:
LEGEND
Sy
m
b
o
l
Ground Water Level in Well
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.
Sonic Core
Holt Services Inc.
Terrasonic
FIG. A-2SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
91.2 ft.
~ 444.92 ft.
NAVD 88
Sheet 4 of 5
Re
v
:
E
A
S
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
Ty
p
:
L
K
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
Sample Not Recovered
Bentonite-Cement Grout
REV 3 - Approved for Submittal
MA
S
T
E
R
_
L
O
G
_
E
2
1
-
2
2
0
8
2
.
G
P
J
S
H
A
N
_
W
I
L
.
G
D
T
1
1
/
2
2
/
1
6
% Water Content
% Fines (<0.075mm)
91.2
fine to medium sand; trace subrounded gravel;
nonplastic fines.
Advance Outwash (Qva)
- Last sample on 4/19/2016 was to 80 feet;
hole was cased to 70 feet. Dry to bottom of
open hole (80 feet) at start of day on
4/20/2016.
- Trace cobbles below 87.5 feet.
BOTTOM OF BORING
COMPLETED 04/20/2016
NOTE: Well installed on 4/21/2016. Bottom
of sump cap was perforated with 5
small holes for drainage;
approximately 1 inch of sediment
accumulated in the sump during
4/25/2016 injection test, plugging the
drain holes.
R1
0
R1
1
De
p
t
h
,
f
t
.
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
De
p
t
h
,
f
t
.
82
84
86
88
90
92
94
96
98
Well Screen and Sand Filter
Drilling Method:
Drilling Company:
Drill Rig Equipment:
Other Comments:
Lo
g
:
K
J
W
Northing:
Easting:
Station:
Offset:
SOIL DESCRIPTION
20 40 60
Sa
m
p
l
e
s
10.5 in.
N/A
N/A
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.
*
LOG OF SONIC CORE IW-1
0 60
0
Total Depth:
Top Elevation:
Vert. Datum:
Horiz. Datum:
Ground Water Level ATD
Gr
o
u
n
d
Wa
t
e
r
NOTES
20 40
Soil Core (as in Sonic Core Borings)
Bentonite Chips/Pellets
Bentonite Grout
Hole Diam.:
Rod Diam.:
Hammer Type:
LEGEND
Sy
m
b
o
l
Ground Water Level in Well
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.
Sonic Core
Holt Services Inc.
Terrasonic
FIG. A-2SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
91.2 ft.
~ 444.92 ft.
NAVD 88
Sheet 5 of 5
Re
v
:
E
A
S
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
Ty
p
:
L
K
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
Sample Not Recovered
Bentonite-Cement Grout
REV 3 - Approved for Submittal
MA
S
T
E
R
_
L
O
G
_
E
2
1
-
2
2
0
8
2
.
G
P
J
S
H
A
N
_
W
I
L
.
G
D
T
1
1
/
2
2
/
1
6
% Water Content
% Fines (<0.075mm)
6.0
10.0
Brown to gray-brown, Silty Sand with Gravel
(SM); moist; fine to coarse, subrounded to
subangular gravel; fine to coarse sand;
nonplastic fines; (contact depth based on
adjacent explorations).
Fill (Hf)
- Top 10 feet of surface seal is temporary and
will be replaced when project moves to
construction.
Brown to gray-brown, Silty Sand with Gravel
(SM); moist; fine to coarse, subrounded to
subangular gravel; fine to coarse sand;
nonplastic fines; diamict pockets.
Ablation Till/Weathered Till (Qvat/Qvt)
Gray-brown to gray, Silty Sand with Gravel and
Cobbles (SM); moist; fine to coarse,
subrounded to subangular gravel; fine to
coarse sand; nonplastic fines; diamict.
Till (Qvt)
De
p
t
h
,
f
t
.
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
De
p
t
h
,
f
t
.
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Well Screen and Sand Filter
Drilling Method:
Drilling Company:
Drill Rig Equipment:
Other Comments:
Lo
g
:
P
V
H
Northing:
Easting:
Station:
Offset:
SOIL DESCRIPTION
20 40 60
Sa
m
p
l
e
s
24 in.
N/A
N/A
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.
*
LOG OF BORING IW-2
0 60
0
Total Depth:
Top Elevation:
Vert. Datum:
Horiz. Datum:
Ground Water Level ATD
Gr
o
u
n
d
Wa
t
e
r
NOTES
CONTINUED NEXT SHEET
20 40
Grab Sample
Bentonite Chips/Pellets
Bentonite Grout
Hole Diam.:
Rod Diam.:
Hammer Type:
LEGEND
Sy
m
b
o
l
Ground Water Level in Well
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.
Bucket Auger
Malcolm Drilling
Bauer BG-24
39-in. (1-m.) hole from 0 to 61 ft.
FIG. A-3SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
120.4 ft.
~ 444.41 ft.
NAVD 88
Sheet 1 of 7
Re
v
:
J
K
P
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
Ty
p
:
L
K
N
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
Sample Not Recovered
Bentonite-Cement Grout
REV 3 - Approved for Submittal
MA
S
T
E
R
_
L
O
G
_
E
2
1
-
2
2
0
8
2
.
G
P
J
S
H
A
N
_
W
I
L
.
G
D
T
1
1
/
2
2
/
1
6
% Water Content
% Fines (<0.075mm)
37.0
- Seepage from about 23 to 26 feet, with trace
boulders to 15-inch-diameter.
Gray, Silty Sand with Gravel and Cobbles
(SM); moist; fine to coarse, subrounded to
subangular gravel; fine to coarse sand;
nonplastic fines; diamict; (more dense and
less sand than above).
Du
r
i
n
g
D
r
i
l
l
i
n
g
De
p
t
h
,
f
t
.
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
De
p
t
h
,
f
t
.
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
Well Screen and Sand Filter
Drilling Method:
Drilling Company:
Drill Rig Equipment:
Other Comments:
Lo
g
:
P
V
H
Northing:
Easting:
Station:
Offset:
SOIL DESCRIPTION
20 40 60
Sa
m
p
l
e
s
24 in.
N/A
N/A
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.
*
LOG OF BORING IW-2
0 60
0
Total Depth:
Top Elevation:
Vert. Datum:
Horiz. Datum:
Ground Water Level ATD
Gr
o
u
n
d
Wa
t
e
r
NOTES
CONTINUED NEXT SHEET
20 40
Grab Sample
Bentonite Chips/Pellets
Bentonite Grout
Hole Diam.:
Rod Diam.:
Hammer Type:
LEGEND
Sy
m
b
o
l
Ground Water Level in Well
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.
Bucket Auger
Malcolm Drilling
Bauer BG-24
39-in. (1-m.) hole from 0 to 61 ft.
FIG. A-3SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
120.4 ft.
~ 444.41 ft.
NAVD 88
Sheet 2 of 7
Re
v
:
J
K
P
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
Ty
p
:
L
K
N
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
Sample Not Recovered
Bentonite-Cement Grout
REV 3 - Approved for Submittal
MA
S
T
E
R
_
L
O
G
_
E
2
1
-
2
2
0
8
2
.
G
P
J
S
H
A
N
_
W
I
L
.
G
D
T
1
1
/
2
2
/
1
6
% Water Content
% Fines (<0.075mm)
47.0
49.0
55.0
1
2
3
4
5
Till (Qvt)
Gray-brown, Silty Sand with Gravel (SM); wet;
fine to coarse, subrounded to subangular
gravel; fine to coarse sand; low plasticity fines;
diamict pockets.
Till-Like Deposits (Qvd)
Gray-brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt
(SP-SM); wet; trace to few, fine to coarse,
rounded to subrounded gravel; fine to coarse
sand; seepage and caving during open-hole
drilling.
Advance Outwash (Qva)
- With cobbles from about 52 to 54 feet.
- Drilled open hole from 0 to 54 feet; caved to
52 feet after auger pass from 51 to 54 feet;
set 1 m. casing to 61 feet to control caving.
Brown-gray, Silty Gravel with Sand (GM); wet;
fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded
gravel; fine to coarse sand; nonplastic to low
plasticity fines; diamict pockets.
Till-Like Deposits/Advance Outwash
(Qvd/Qva)
De
p
t
h
,
f
t
.
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
De
p
t
h
,
f
t
.
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
Well Screen and Sand Filter
Drilling Method:
Drilling Company:
Drill Rig Equipment:
Other Comments:
Lo
g
:
P
V
H
Northing:
Easting:
Station:
Offset:
SOIL DESCRIPTION
20 40 60
Sa
m
p
l
e
s
24 in.
N/A
N/A
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.
*
LOG OF BORING IW-2
0 60
0
Total Depth:
Top Elevation:
Vert. Datum:
Horiz. Datum:
Ground Water Level ATD
Gr
o
u
n
d
Wa
t
e
r
NOTES
CONTINUED NEXT SHEET
20 40
Grab Sample
Bentonite Chips/Pellets
Bentonite Grout
Hole Diam.:
Rod Diam.:
Hammer Type:
LEGEND
Sy
m
b
o
l
Ground Water Level in Well
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.
Bucket Auger
Malcolm Drilling
Bauer BG-24
39-in. (1-m.) hole from 0 to 61 ft.
FIG. A-3SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
120.4 ft.
~ 444.41 ft.
NAVD 88
Sheet 3 of 7
Re
v
:
J
K
P
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
Ty
p
:
L
K
N
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
Sample Not Recovered
Bentonite-Cement Grout
REV 3 - Approved for Submittal
MA
S
T
E
R
_
L
O
G
_
E
2
1
-
2
2
0
8
2
.
G
P
J
S
H
A
N
_
W
I
L
.
G
D
T
1
1
/
2
2
/
1
6
% Water Content
% Fines (<0.075mm)
60.0
61.0
6
7
8
9
Brown, Clayey Gravel with Sand (GC); wet;
fine to coarse, subangular to subrounded
gravel; fine to coarse sand; medium plasticity
fines; diamict pockets.
Till-Like Deposits (Qvd)
Gray-brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel
(SP); moist; trace silt; little, fine to coarse,
rounded to subrounded gravel; fine to coarse
sand; nonplastic fines.
Advance Outwash (Qva)
- Drilled 24-inch pilot hole from 61 to 91 feet.
Temporarily backfilled with cuttings from 62 to
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
30-inch casing with additional spoils to 30 feet
deep, and grouted 30-inch casing in place.
Grout intruded up through spoils to about 44
feet deep inside 30-inch casing.
- Interbedded with poorly graded sand with silt
and gravel from about 72 to 74 feet.
De
p
t
h
,
f
t
.
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
De
p
t
h
,
f
t
.
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
78
Well Screen and Sand Filter
Drilling Method:
Drilling Company:
Drill Rig Equipment:
Other Comments:
Lo
g
:
P
V
H
Northing:
Easting:
Station:
Offset:
SOIL DESCRIPTION
20 40 60
Sa
m
p
l
e
s
24 in.
N/A
N/A
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.
*
LOG OF BORING IW-2
0 60
0
Total Depth:
Top Elevation:
Vert. Datum:
Horiz. Datum:
Ground Water Level ATD
Gr
o
u
n
d
Wa
t
e
r
NOTES
CONTINUED NEXT SHEET
20 40
Grab Sample
Bentonite Chips/Pellets
Bentonite Grout
Hole Diam.:
Rod Diam.:
Hammer Type:
LEGEND
Sy
m
b
o
l
Ground Water Level in Well
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.
Bucket Auger
Malcolm Drilling
Bauer BG-24
39-in. (1-m.) hole from 0 to 61 ft.
FIG. A-3SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
120.4 ft.
~ 444.41 ft.
NAVD 88
Sheet 4 of 7
Re
v
:
J
K
P
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
Ty
p
:
L
K
N
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
Sample Not Recovered
Bentonite-Cement Grout
REV 3 - Approved for Submittal
MA
S
T
E
R
_
L
O
G
_
E
2
1
-
2
2
0
8
2
.
G
P
J
S
H
A
N
_
W
I
L
.
G
D
T
1
1
/
2
2
/
1
6
% Water Content
% Fines (<0.075mm)
86.0
98.0
10
11
12
13
14
Dr
y
(
1
1
/
5
/
2
0
1
6
)
- Trace to little gravel and trace mica below
about 80 feet.
- Pocket (~6-inch) of black, organic silt at
about 81 feet.
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
sand; nonplastic fines; trace mica.
Advance Outwash (Qva)
- On 10/6/2016, continued drilling with 24-inch
auger, removing cuttings from 30-inch casing
and then continuing to bottom of hole (120.4
feet). Drilled open hole below 60.5 feet.
- Trace cobbles below about 92 feet.
Gray-brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel
(SP); moist; some, fine to coarse, rounded to
subrounded gravel; fine to coarse sand;
De
p
t
h
,
f
t
.
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
De
p
t
h
,
f
t
.
82
84
86
88
90
92
94
96
98
Well Screen and Sand Filter
Drilling Method:
Drilling Company:
Drill Rig Equipment:
Other Comments:
Lo
g
:
P
V
H
Northing:
Easting:
Station:
Offset:
SOIL DESCRIPTION
20 40 60
Sa
m
p
l
e
s
24 in.
N/A
N/A
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.
*
LOG OF BORING IW-2
0 60
0
Total Depth:
Top Elevation:
Vert. Datum:
Horiz. Datum:
Ground Water Level ATD
Gr
o
u
n
d
Wa
t
e
r
NOTES
CONTINUED NEXT SHEET
20 40
Grab Sample
Bentonite Chips/Pellets
Bentonite Grout
Hole Diam.:
Rod Diam.:
Hammer Type:
LEGEND
Sy
m
b
o
l
Ground Water Level in Well
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.
Bucket Auger
Malcolm Drilling
Bauer BG-24
39-in. (1-m.) hole from 0 to 61 ft.
FIG. A-3SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
120.4 ft.
~ 444.41 ft.
NAVD 88
Sheet 5 of 7
Re
v
:
J
K
P
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
Ty
p
:
L
K
N
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
Sample Not Recovered
Bentonite-Cement Grout
REV 3 - Approved for Submittal
MA
S
T
E
R
_
L
O
G
_
E
2
1
-
2
2
0
8
2
.
G
P
J
S
H
A
N
_
W
I
L
.
G
D
T
1
1
/
2
2
/
1
6
% Water Content
% Fines (<0.075mm)
101.0
15
16
17
18
nonplastic fines.
Advance Outwash (Qva)
- Caved during open-hole drilling.
Gray-brown, Well Graded Sand with Silt and
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
sand; nonplastic fines; trace seams of silty
sand; trace mica.
Advance Outwash (Qva)
- Switched from solid stem auger to bucket
auger at 101.5 feet to reduce caving.
- Trace organics at about 105 feet.
De
p
t
h
,
f
t
.
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
De
p
t
h
,
f
t
.
102
104
106
108
110
112
114
116
118
Well Screen and Sand Filter
Drilling Method:
Drilling Company:
Drill Rig Equipment:
Other Comments:
Lo
g
:
P
V
H
Northing:
Easting:
Station:
Offset:
SOIL DESCRIPTION
20 40 60
Sa
m
p
l
e
s
24 in.
N/A
N/A
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.
*
LOG OF BORING IW-2
0 60
0
Total Depth:
Top Elevation:
Vert. Datum:
Horiz. Datum:
Ground Water Level ATD
Gr
o
u
n
d
Wa
t
e
r
NOTES
CONTINUED NEXT SHEET
20 40
Grab Sample
Bentonite Chips/Pellets
Bentonite Grout
Hole Diam.:
Rod Diam.:
Hammer Type:
LEGEND
Sy
m
b
o
l
Ground Water Level in Well
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.
Bucket Auger
Malcolm Drilling
Bauer BG-24
39-in. (1-m.) hole from 0 to 61 ft.
FIG. A-3SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
120.4 ft.
~ 444.41 ft.
NAVD 88
Sheet 6 of 7
Re
v
:
J
K
P
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
Ty
p
:
L
K
N
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
Sample Not Recovered
Bentonite-Cement Grout
REV 3 - Approved for Submittal
MA
S
T
E
R
_
L
O
G
_
E
2
1
-
2
2
0
8
2
.
G
P
J
S
H
A
N
_
W
I
L
.
G
D
T
1
1
/
2
2
/
1
6
% Water Content
% Fines (<0.075mm)
120.4BOTTOM OF BORING
COMPLETED 10/6/2016
NOTE: Well casing and screen: 8-inch
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
continuous-slot) from approximately
28.3 feet deep (top is inside 30-inch
surface casing) to 119.7 feet deep,
with 0.6-foot sump. 24-inch borehole
and interior of 30-inch casing
filter-packed with 4x8 sand.
Observation pipe (2-inch Schedule 40
PVC) installed in filter pack adjacent
to 8-inch casing and screen, with
0.020-inch machine-slotted screen
from approximately 60.3 to 120.2 feet
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
injection test.
De
p
t
h
,
f
t
.
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
De
p
t
h
,
f
t
.
122
124
126
128
130
132
134
136
138
Well Screen and Sand Filter
Drilling Method:
Drilling Company:
Drill Rig Equipment:
Other Comments:
Lo
g
:
P
V
H
Northing:
Easting:
Station:
Offset:
SOIL DESCRIPTION
20 40 60
Sa
m
p
l
e
s
24 in.
N/A
N/A
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.
*
LOG OF BORING IW-2
0 60
0
Total Depth:
Top Elevation:
Vert. Datum:
Horiz. Datum:
Ground Water Level ATD
Gr
o
u
n
d
Wa
t
e
r
NOTES
20 40
Grab Sample
Bentonite Chips/Pellets
Bentonite Grout
Hole Diam.:
Rod Diam.:
Hammer Type:
LEGEND
Sy
m
b
o
l
Ground Water Level in Well
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.
Bucket Auger
Malcolm Drilling
Bauer BG-24
39-in. (1-m.) hole from 0 to 61 ft.
FIG. A-3SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
120.4 ft.
~ 444.41 ft.
NAVD 88
Sheet 7 of 7
Re
v
:
J
K
P
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
Ty
p
:
L
K
N
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
Sample Not Recovered
Bentonite-Cement Grout
REV 3 - Approved for Submittal
MA
S
T
E
R
_
L
O
G
_
E
2
1
-
2
2
0
8
2
.
G
P
J
S
H
A
N
_
W
I
L
.
G
D
T
1
1
/
2
2
/
1
6
% Water Content
% Fines (<0.075mm)
10.0
19.0
Gray-brown, Silty Sand with Gravel (SM);
moist; subrounded to subangular gravel; fine
to coarse sand; nonplastic fines; diamict
pockets; few poorly graded sand pockets.
Fill/Ablation Till/Weathered Till (Hf/Qvat/Qvt)
- Hand-excavated to 2 feet. Standing water
about 1 foot below OW-1 grade in adjacent
swale.
- Wet pocket at about 5.5 feet.
- Wet below about 8.5 feet.
Gray-brown, Silty Sand with Gravel (SM);
moist; fine to coarse, subrounded to
subangular gravel; fine to coarse sand;
nonplastic fines; diamict.
Till/Till-Like Deposits (Qvt/Qvd)
Gray, Silty Sand with Gravel and Cobbles
(SM) to Silty Gravel with Sand and Cobbles
R1
R2
Du
r
i
n
g
D
r
i
l
l
i
n
g
De
p
t
h
,
f
t
.
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
De
p
t
h
,
f
t
.
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Well Screen and Sand Filter
Drilling Method:
Drilling Company:
Drill Rig Equipment:
Other Comments:
Lo
g
:
K
J
W
Northing:
Easting:
Station:
Offset:
SOIL DESCRIPTION
20 40 60
Sa
m
p
l
e
s
6 in.
N/A
N/A
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.
*
LOG OF SONIC CORE OW-1
0 60
0
Total Depth:
Top Elevation:
Vert. Datum:
Horiz. Datum:
Ground Water Level ATD
Gr
o
u
n
d
Wa
t
e
r
NOTES
CONTINUED NEXT SHEET
20 40
Soil Core (as in Sonic Core Borings)
Bentonite Chips/Pellets
Bentonite Grout
Hole Diam.:
Rod Diam.:
Hammer Type:
LEGEND
Sy
m
b
o
l
Ground Water Level in Well
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.
Sonic Core
Holt Services Inc.
Terrasonic
7-in. hole from 0 to 20 ft.
FIG. A-4SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
185.5 ft.
~ 445.11 ft.
NAVD 88
Sheet 1 of 10
Re
v
:
E
A
S
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
Ty
p
:
L
K
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
Sample Not Recovered
Bentonite-Cement Grout
REV 3 - Approved for Submittal
MA
S
T
E
R
_
L
O
G
_
E
2
1
-
2
2
0
8
2
.
G
P
J
S
H
A
N
_
W
I
L
.
G
D
T
1
1
/
2
2
/
1
6
% Water Content
% Fines (<0.075mm)
39.0
(GM); moist; trace to few subrounded cobbles;
fine to coarse, subrounded to subangular
gravel; fine to coarse sand; nonplastic fines;
diamict.
Till (Qvt)
- Bottom of temporary 7-inch casing set at 20
feet.
- Gray-brown to gray below 25 feet.
Gray-brown, Silty Sand with Gravel (SM) to
Silty Gravel with Sand (GM); moist; fine to
R3
R4
R5
De
p
t
h
,
f
t
.
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
De
p
t
h
,
f
t
.
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
Well Screen and Sand Filter
Drilling Method:
Drilling Company:
Drill Rig Equipment:
Other Comments:
Lo
g
:
K
J
W
Northing:
Easting:
Station:
Offset:
SOIL DESCRIPTION
20 40 60
Sa
m
p
l
e
s
6 in.
N/A
N/A
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.
*
LOG OF SONIC CORE OW-1
0 60
0
Total Depth:
Top Elevation:
Vert. Datum:
Horiz. Datum:
Ground Water Level ATD
Gr
o
u
n
d
Wa
t
e
r
NOTES
CONTINUED NEXT SHEET
20 40
Soil Core (as in Sonic Core Borings)
Bentonite Chips/Pellets
Bentonite Grout
Hole Diam.:
Rod Diam.:
Hammer Type:
LEGEND
Sy
m
b
o
l
Ground Water Level in Well
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.
Sonic Core
Holt Services Inc.
Terrasonic
7-in. hole from 0 to 20 ft.
FIG. A-4SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
185.5 ft.
~ 445.11 ft.
NAVD 88
Sheet 2 of 10
Re
v
:
E
A
S
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
Ty
p
:
L
K
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
Sample Not Recovered
Bentonite-Cement Grout
REV 3 - Approved for Submittal
MA
S
T
E
R
_
L
O
G
_
E
2
1
-
2
2
0
8
2
.
G
P
J
S
H
A
N
_
W
I
L
.
G
D
T
1
1
/
2
2
/
1
6
% Water Content
% Fines (<0.075mm)
50.0
55.5
coarse, subrounded to subangular gravel; fine
to coarse sand; nonplastic fines; diamict.
Till-Like Deposits/Till (Qvd/Qvt)
- Drilled tight and sticky from 40 to 50 feet.
- Stopped on 4/4/2016 after sampling to 50
feet. Added water during cleanout run from
40 to 50 feet, prior to sample run 7.
Gray-brown, Silty Sand with Gravel (SM) to
Silty Gravel with Sand (GM); moist to wet; fine
to coarse, subrounded to subangular gravel;
fine to coarse sand; nonplastic fines; diamict
pockets.
Advance Outwash/Till-Like Deposits
(Qva/Qvd)
- Moist below 53 feet.
Gray, Silty Sand with Gravel (SM); moist; fine
to coarse, subrounded to subangular gravel;
fine to coarse sand; nonplastic fines; diamict
pockets; easier drilling than above.
Till-Like Deposit/Advance Outwash (Qvd/Qva)
R6
R7
De
p
t
h
,
f
t
.
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
De
p
t
h
,
f
t
.
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
Well Screen and Sand Filter
Drilling Method:
Drilling Company:
Drill Rig Equipment:
Other Comments:
Lo
g
:
K
J
W
Northing:
Easting:
Station:
Offset:
SOIL DESCRIPTION
20 40 60
Sa
m
p
l
e
s
6 in.
N/A
N/A
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.
*
LOG OF SONIC CORE OW-1
0 60
0
Total Depth:
Top Elevation:
Vert. Datum:
Horiz. Datum:
Ground Water Level ATD
Gr
o
u
n
d
Wa
t
e
r
NOTES
CONTINUED NEXT SHEET
20 40
Soil Core (as in Sonic Core Borings)
Bentonite Chips/Pellets
Bentonite Grout
Hole Diam.:
Rod Diam.:
Hammer Type:
LEGEND
Sy
m
b
o
l
Ground Water Level in Well
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.
Sonic Core
Holt Services Inc.
Terrasonic
7-in. hole from 0 to 20 ft.
FIG. A-4SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
185.5 ft.
~ 445.11 ft.
NAVD 88
Sheet 3 of 10
Re
v
:
E
A
S
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
Ty
p
:
L
K
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
Sample Not Recovered
Bentonite-Cement Grout
REV 3 - Approved for Submittal
MA
S
T
E
R
_
L
O
G
_
E
2
1
-
2
2
0
8
2
.
G
P
J
S
H
A
N
_
W
I
L
.
G
D
T
1
1
/
2
2
/
1
6
% Water Content
% Fines (<0.075mm)
60.0
65.0
68.5
70.0
72.5
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, prior to sample run 10.
R8
R9
De
p
t
h
,
f
t
.
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
De
p
t
h
,
f
t
.
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
78
Well Screen and Sand Filter
Drilling Method:
Drilling Company:
Drill Rig Equipment:
Other Comments:
Lo
g
:
K
J
W
Northing:
Easting:
Station:
Offset:
SOIL DESCRIPTION
20 40 60
Sa
m
p
l
e
s
6 in.
N/A
N/A
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.
*
LOG OF SONIC CORE OW-1
0 60
0
Total Depth:
Top Elevation:
Vert. Datum:
Horiz. Datum:
Ground Water Level ATD
Gr
o
u
n
d
Wa
t
e
r
NOTES
CONTINUED NEXT SHEET
20 40
Soil Core (as in Sonic Core Borings)
Bentonite Chips/Pellets
Bentonite Grout
Hole Diam.:
Rod Diam.:
Hammer Type:
LEGEND
Sy
m
b
o
l
Ground Water Level in Well
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.
Sonic Core
Holt Services Inc.
Terrasonic
7-in. hole from 0 to 20 ft.
FIG. A-4SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
185.5 ft.
~ 445.11 ft.
NAVD 88
Sheet 4 of 10
Re
v
:
E
A
S
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
Ty
p
:
L
K
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
Sample Not Recovered
Bentonite-Cement Grout
REV 3 - Approved for Submittal
MA
S
T
E
R
_
L
O
G
_
E
2
1
-
2
2
0
8
2
.
G
P
J
S
H
A
N
_
W
I
L
.
G
D
T
1
1
/
2
2
/
1
6
% Water Content
% Fines (<0.075mm)
80.0
86.7
93.5
96.0
98.5
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.
Advance Outwash (Qva)
Gray-brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel
(SP) to Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand (GP);
moist; fine to coarse, subrounded to
subangular gravel; fine to coarse sand;
nonplastic fines.
Advance Outwash (Qva)
- Added water during cleanout run from 80 to
90 feet, prior to sample run 11.
Gray-brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt,
Gravel, and Cobbles (SP-SM) to Silty Sand
with Gravel and Cobbles (SM); 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 Gravel
(SP); moist; fine subrounded to subangular
gravel; fine to coarse sand; trace nonplastic
fines.
Advance Outwash (Qva)
R1
0
R1
1
De
p
t
h
,
f
t
.
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
De
p
t
h
,
f
t
.
82
84
86
88
90
92
94
96
98
Well Screen and Sand Filter
Drilling Method:
Drilling Company:
Drill Rig Equipment:
Other Comments:
Lo
g
:
K
J
W
Northing:
Easting:
Station:
Offset:
SOIL DESCRIPTION
20 40 60
Sa
m
p
l
e
s
6 in.
N/A
N/A
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.
*
LOG OF SONIC CORE OW-1
0 60
0
Total Depth:
Top Elevation:
Vert. Datum:
Horiz. Datum:
Ground Water Level ATD
Gr
o
u
n
d
Wa
t
e
r
NOTES
CONTINUED NEXT SHEET
20 40
Soil Core (as in Sonic Core Borings)
Bentonite Chips/Pellets
Bentonite Grout
Hole Diam.:
Rod Diam.:
Hammer Type:
LEGEND
Sy
m
b
o
l
Ground Water Level in Well
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.
Sonic Core
Holt Services Inc.
Terrasonic
7-in. hole from 0 to 20 ft.
FIG. A-4SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
185.5 ft.
~ 445.11 ft.
NAVD 88
Sheet 5 of 10
Re
v
:
E
A
S
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
Ty
p
:
L
K
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
Sample Not Recovered
Bentonite-Cement Grout
REV 3 - Approved for Submittal
MA
S
T
E
R
_
L
O
G
_
E
2
1
-
2
2
0
8
2
.
G
P
J
S
H
A
N
_
W
I
L
.
G
D
T
1
1
/
2
2
/
1
6
% Water Content
% Fines (<0.075mm)
100.0
105.0
107.5
112.5
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)
R1
2
R1
3
De
p
t
h
,
f
t
.
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
De
p
t
h
,
f
t
.
102
104
106
108
110
112
114
116
118
Well Screen and Sand Filter
Drilling Method:
Drilling Company:
Drill Rig Equipment:
Other Comments:
Lo
g
:
K
J
W
Northing:
Easting:
Station:
Offset:
SOIL DESCRIPTION
20 40 60
Sa
m
p
l
e
s
6 in.
N/A
N/A
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.
*
LOG OF SONIC CORE OW-1
0 60
0
Total Depth:
Top Elevation:
Vert. Datum:
Horiz. Datum:
Ground Water Level ATD
Gr
o
u
n
d
Wa
t
e
r
NOTES
CONTINUED NEXT SHEET
20 40
Soil Core (as in Sonic Core Borings)
Bentonite Chips/Pellets
Bentonite Grout
Hole Diam.:
Rod Diam.:
Hammer Type:
LEGEND
Sy
m
b
o
l
Ground Water Level in Well
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.
Sonic Core
Holt Services Inc.
Terrasonic
7-in. hole from 0 to 20 ft.
FIG. A-4SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
185.5 ft.
~ 445.11 ft.
NAVD 88
Sheet 6 of 10
Re
v
:
E
A
S
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
Ty
p
:
L
K
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
Sample Not Recovered
Bentonite-Cement Grout
REV 3 - Approved for Submittal
MA
S
T
E
R
_
L
O
G
_
E
2
1
-
2
2
0
8
2
.
G
P
J
S
H
A
N
_
W
I
L
.
G
D
T
1
1
/
2
2
/
1
6
% Water Content
% Fines (<0.075mm)
122.0
123.0
130.0
134.3
136.5
138.5
- 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,
R1
4
R1
5
De
p
t
h
,
f
t
.
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
De
p
t
h
,
f
t
.
122
124
126
128
130
132
134
136
138
Well Screen and Sand Filter
Drilling Method:
Drilling Company:
Drill Rig Equipment:
Other Comments:
Lo
g
:
K
J
W
Northing:
Easting:
Station:
Offset:
SOIL DESCRIPTION
20 40 60
Sa
m
p
l
e
s
6 in.
N/A
N/A
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.
*
LOG OF SONIC CORE OW-1
0 60
0
Total Depth:
Top Elevation:
Vert. Datum:
Horiz. Datum:
Ground Water Level ATD
Gr
o
u
n
d
Wa
t
e
r
NOTES
CONTINUED NEXT SHEET
20 40
Soil Core (as in Sonic Core Borings)
Bentonite Chips/Pellets
Bentonite Grout
Hole Diam.:
Rod Diam.:
Hammer Type:
LEGEND
Sy
m
b
o
l
Ground Water Level in Well
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.
Sonic Core
Holt Services Inc.
Terrasonic
7-in. hole from 0 to 20 ft.
FIG. A-4SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
185.5 ft.
~ 445.11 ft.
NAVD 88
Sheet 7 of 10
Re
v
:
E
A
S
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
Ty
p
:
L
K
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
Sample Not Recovered
Bentonite-Cement Grout
REV 3 - Approved for Submittal
MA
S
T
E
R
_
L
O
G
_
E
2
1
-
2
2
0
8
2
.
G
P
J
S
H
A
N
_
W
I
L
.
G
D
T
1
1
/
2
2
/
1
6
% Water Content
% Fines (<0.075mm)
143.0
145.0
146.8
148.0
150.0
151.8
157.0
subrounded to subangular gravel; fine to
coarse sand; nonplastic fines; few silty sand
clasts.
Advance 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 Outwash (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.
Advance Outwash (Qva)
Gray-brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt
(SP-SM); moist; fine to medium sand;
nonplastic fines.
Advance Outwash (Qva)
Gray-brown, Silty Sand (SM); moist; fine sand;
nonplastic fines.
Advance 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.
Advance 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;
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
R1
6
R1
7
De
p
t
h
,
f
t
.
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
De
p
t
h
,
f
t
.
142
144
146
148
150
152
154
156
158
Well Screen and Sand Filter
Drilling Method:
Drilling Company:
Drill Rig Equipment:
Other Comments:
Lo
g
:
K
J
W
Northing:
Easting:
Station:
Offset:
SOIL DESCRIPTION
20 40 60
Sa
m
p
l
e
s
6 in.
N/A
N/A
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.
*
LOG OF SONIC CORE OW-1
0 60
0
Total Depth:
Top Elevation:
Vert. Datum:
Horiz. Datum:
Ground Water Level ATD
Gr
o
u
n
d
Wa
t
e
r
NOTES
CONTINUED NEXT SHEET
20 40
Soil Core (as in Sonic Core Borings)
Bentonite Chips/Pellets
Bentonite Grout
Hole Diam.:
Rod Diam.:
Hammer Type:
LEGEND
Sy
m
b
o
l
Ground Water Level in Well
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.
Sonic Core
Holt Services Inc.
Terrasonic
7-in. hole from 0 to 20 ft.
FIG. A-4SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
185.5 ft.
~ 445.11 ft.
NAVD 88
Sheet 8 of 10
Re
v
:
E
A
S
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
Ty
p
:
L
K
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
Sample Not Recovered
Bentonite-Cement Grout
REV 3 - Approved for Submittal
MA
S
T
E
R
_
L
O
G
_
E
2
1
-
2
2
0
8
2
.
G
P
J
S
H
A
N
_
W
I
L
.
G
D
T
1
1
/
2
2
/
1
6
% Water Content
% Fines (<0.075mm)
160.0
165.0
170.5
172.4
177.0
179.0
11
/
5
/
2
0
1
6
gravel; fine to medium sand; nonplastic fines;
few silty sand pockets.
Advance Outwash (Qva)
Gray to gray-brown, 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)
Gray-brown, Poorly Graded Sand (SP) to
Poorly Graded Sand with Silt (SP-SM); moist;
fine to medium sand; trace nonplastic fines.
Advance Outwash (Qva)
- Layers and seams of silty sand at 162 to
162.5, 163 feet, and 164.7 to 165 feet.
Gray-brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt
(SP-SM) to Poorly Graded Sand (SP) ; moist
to wet; trace fine, subrounded to subangular
gravel; fine to medium sand; nonplastic fines.
Advance Outwash (Qva)
- Layer of silty, fine sand from 167.3 to 167.7
feet.
- Layer of poorly graded sand with silt and
gravel from 169 to 169.5 feet.
Gray-brown, Silty Sand with Gravel (SM); wet;
fine to coarse, subrounded to subangular
gravel; fine to coarse sand; nonplastic fines.
Advance Outwash (Qva)
- Diamict layer of silty sand with gravel at 172
feet.
Gray-brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt
(SP-SM) to Poorly Graded Sand (SP); wet; few
fine, subrounded to subangular gravel; fine to
medium sand; nonplastic fines.
Advance Outwash (Qva)
R1
8
R1
9
R2
0
De
p
t
h
,
f
t
.
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
De
p
t
h
,
f
t
.
162
164
166
168
170
172
174
176
178
Well Screen and Sand Filter
Drilling Method:
Drilling Company:
Drill Rig Equipment:
Other Comments:
Lo
g
:
K
J
W
Northing:
Easting:
Station:
Offset:
SOIL DESCRIPTION
20 40 60
Sa
m
p
l
e
s
6 in.
N/A
N/A
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.
*
LOG OF SONIC CORE OW-1
0 60
0
Total Depth:
Top Elevation:
Vert. Datum:
Horiz. Datum:
Ground Water Level ATD
Gr
o
u
n
d
Wa
t
e
r
NOTES
CONTINUED NEXT SHEET
20 40
Soil Core (as in Sonic Core Borings)
Bentonite Chips/Pellets
Bentonite Grout
Hole Diam.:
Rod Diam.:
Hammer Type:
LEGEND
Sy
m
b
o
l
Ground Water Level in Well
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.
Sonic Core
Holt Services Inc.
Terrasonic
7-in. hole from 0 to 20 ft.
FIG. A-4SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
185.5 ft.
~ 445.11 ft.
NAVD 88
Sheet 9 of 10
Re
v
:
E
A
S
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
Ty
p
:
L
K
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
Sample Not Recovered
Bentonite-Cement Grout
REV 3 - Approved for Submittal
MA
S
T
E
R
_
L
O
G
_
E
2
1
-
2
2
0
8
2
.
G
P
J
S
H
A
N
_
W
I
L
.
G
D
T
1
1
/
2
2
/
1
6
% Water Content
% Fines (<0.075mm)
185.5
- Pockets of silty sand with gravel from 173.5
to 175 feet.
- Seam of silty sand with gravel at 176.3 feet.
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 medium sand;
nonplastic fines; trace organics and mica.
Advance Outwash (Qva)
- Last sample was to 179 feet on 4/6/2016;
casing was at 168.5 feet. Caved to 168 feet
by start of day 4/7/2016; water level 166.5
feet. Added water during cleanout run prior
to sample run 21.
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
nonplastic fines.
Advance Outwash (Qva)
- Heaved 10 feet during retrieval of sample
run 21. Cased to 185 feet and added water
to wash out heave to 185.5 feet, prior to well
installation.
BOTTOM OF BORING
COMPLETED 4/7/2016
NOTE: Well installed on 4/7/2016.
R2
1
De
p
t
h
,
f
t
.
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
De
p
t
h
,
f
t
.
182
184
186
188
190
192
194
196
198
Well Screen and Sand Filter
Drilling Method:
Drilling Company:
Drill Rig Equipment:
Other Comments:
Lo
g
:
K
J
W
Northing:
Easting:
Station:
Offset:
SOIL DESCRIPTION
20 40 60
Sa
m
p
l
e
s
6 in.
N/A
N/A
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.
*
LOG OF SONIC CORE OW-1
0 60
0
Total Depth:
Top Elevation:
Vert. Datum:
Horiz. Datum:
Ground Water Level ATD
Gr
o
u
n
d
Wa
t
e
r
NOTES
20 40
Soil Core (as in Sonic Core Borings)
Bentonite Chips/Pellets
Bentonite Grout
Hole Diam.:
Rod Diam.:
Hammer Type:
LEGEND
Sy
m
b
o
l
Ground Water Level in Well
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.
Sonic Core
Holt Services Inc.
Terrasonic
7-in. hole from 0 to 20 ft.
FIG. A-4SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
185.5 ft.
~ 445.11 ft.
NAVD 88
Sheet 10 of 10
Re
v
:
E
A
S
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
Ty
p
:
L
K
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
Sample Not Recovered
Bentonite-Cement Grout
REV 3 - Approved for Submittal
MA
S
T
E
R
_
L
O
G
_
E
2
1
-
2
2
0
8
2
.
G
P
J
S
H
A
N
_
W
I
L
.
G
D
T
1
1
/
2
2
/
1
6
% Water Content
% Fines (<0.075mm)
0.4
1.5
5.5
8.0
25.0
Grass and Topsoil Fill (Hf)
Brown, Silty Sand with Gravel (SM); moist;
fine, subrounded to subangular gravel; fine to
coarse sand; nonplastic fines; trace organics.
Fill (Hf)
Gray-brown, Silty Sand with Gravel (SM);
moist; fine to coarse, subrounded to
subangular gravel; fine to coarse sand;
nonplastic fines; diamict.
Fill (Hf)
- With pockets of organics below 5 feet.
Brown to red-brown, Silty Sand with Gravel
(SM); moist; fine to coarse, subrounded to
subangular gravel; fine to coarse sand;
nonplastic to low plasticity fines; diamict.
Ablation Till/Weathered Till (Qvat/Qvt)
Gray-brown, Silty Sand with Gravel (SM) to
Silty Gravel with Sand (GM); moist; fine to
coarse, subrounded to subangular gravel; fine
to coarse sand; nonplastic fines; diamict.
Weathered Till/Till/Till-Like Deposits (Qvt/Qvd)
- With scattered wet seams below 12 feet.
Gray, Silty Sand with Gravel and Cobbles
(SM) to Silty Gravel with Sand and Cobbles
(GM); moist; trace subrounded cobbles; fine to
coarse, subrounded to subangular gravel; fine
to coarse sand; nonplastic fines; diamict.
Till (Qvt)
R-
1
R-
2
R-
3
R-
4
Du
r
i
n
g
D
r
i
l
l
i
n
g
De
p
t
h
,
f
t
.
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
De
p
t
h
,
f
t
.
5
10
15
20
25
Well Screen and Sand Filter
Drilling Method:
Drilling Company:
Drill Rig Equipment:
Other Comments:
Lo
g
:
E
A
S
Northing:
Easting:
Station:
Offset:
SOIL DESCRIPTION
20 40 60
Sa
m
p
l
e
s
6 in.
N/A
N/A
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.
*
LOG OF SONIC CORE OW-2
0 60
0
Total Depth:
Top Elevation:
Vert. Datum:
Horiz. Datum:
Ground Water Level ATD
Gr
o
u
n
d
Wa
t
e
r
NOTES
CONTINUED NEXT SHEET
20 40
Soil Core (as in Sonic Core Borings)
Bentonite Chips/Pellets
Bentonite Grout
Hole Diam.:
Rod Diam.:
Hammer Type:
LEGEND
Sy
m
b
o
l
Ground Water Level in VWP
Ground Water Level in Well
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.
Sonic Core
Holt Services Inc.
TerraSonic
7-in. hole from 0 to 50 ft.
FIG. A-5SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
190 ft.
~ 444.67 ft.
NAVD 88
Sheet 1 of 7
Re
v
:
P
V
H
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
Ty
p
:
L
K
N
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
Sample Not Recovered
Bentonite-Cement Grout
REV 3 - Approved for Submittal
MA
S
T
E
R
_
L
O
G
_
E
2
1
-
2
2
0
8
2
.
G
P
J
S
H
A
N
_
W
I
L
.
G
D
T
1
1
/
2
2
/
1
6
% Water Content
% Fines (<0.075mm)
45.5
50.0
- Brown to gray-brown from 30 to 31 feet.
- Wet from approximately 35 to 35.5 feet.
Gray-brown, Silty Sand with Gravel (SM); wet;
fine to coarse, subrounded to subangular
gravel; fine to coarse sand; nonplastic fines;
diamict pockets.
Till-Like Deposits (Qvd/Qva)
- Advanced below 50 feet with 6-inch casing.
Gray-brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and
Gravel (SP-SM) to Poorly Graded Gravel with
Silt and Sand (GP-GM); wet; fine to coarse,
subrounded to angular gravel; fine to coarse
sand; nonplastic fines.
Advance Outwash/Till-Like Deposits
(Qva/Qvd)
R-
5
R-
6
R-
7
De
p
t
h
,
f
t
.
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
De
p
t
h
,
f
t
.
35
40
45
50
55
Well Screen and Sand Filter
Drilling Method:
Drilling Company:
Drill Rig Equipment:
Other Comments:
Lo
g
:
E
A
S
Northing:
Easting:
Station:
Offset:
SOIL DESCRIPTION
20 40 60
Sa
m
p
l
e
s
6 in.
N/A
N/A
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.
*
LOG OF SONIC CORE OW-2
0 60
0
Total Depth:
Top Elevation:
Vert. Datum:
Horiz. Datum:
Ground Water Level ATD
Gr
o
u
n
d
Wa
t
e
r
NOTES
CONTINUED NEXT SHEET
20 40
Soil Core (as in Sonic Core Borings)
Bentonite Chips/Pellets
Bentonite Grout
Hole Diam.:
Rod Diam.:
Hammer Type:
LEGEND
Sy
m
b
o
l
Ground Water Level in VWP
Ground Water Level in Well
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.
Sonic Core
Holt Services Inc.
TerraSonic
7-in. hole from 0 to 50 ft.
FIG. A-5SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
190 ft.
~ 444.67 ft.
NAVD 88
Sheet 2 of 7
Re
v
:
P
V
H
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
Ty
p
:
L
K
N
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
Sample Not Recovered
Bentonite-Cement Grout
REV 3 - Approved for Submittal
MA
S
T
E
R
_
L
O
G
_
E
2
1
-
2
2
0
8
2
.
G
P
J
S
H
A
N
_
W
I
L
.
G
D
T
1
1
/
2
2
/
1
6
% Water Content
% Fines (<0.075mm)
70.0
72.0
73.5
76.0
Dr
y
(
1
1
/
5
/
2
0
1
6
)
- Moist below about 60 feet.
- Diamict layer of silty sand with gravel from
64.5 to 65 feet.
- Diamict layer of silty sand with gravel from
67.5 to 68.3 feet.
Gray-brown, Silty Sand with Gravel (SM);
moist; fine to coarse, subrounded to
subangular gravel; fine to coarse sand;
nonplastic fines; diamict pockets.
Advance Outwash/Till-Like Deposits
(Qva/Qvd)
Gray-brown, Silty Sand (SM); moist; trace fine,
subrounded to subangular gravel; fine to
medium sand; nonplastic fines.
Advance Outwash (Qva)
Gray-brown, Silty Gravel with Sand (GM) to
Silty Sand with Gravel (SM); moist; fine to
coarse, subrounded to subangular gravel; fine
to coarse sand; nonplastic fines.
Advance Outwash/Till-Like Deposits
(Qva/Qvd)
Brown to gray-brown, Poorly Graded Sand
with Silt (SP-SM) to Silty Sand (SM); moist;
few fine, subrounded to angular gravel; fine to
coarse sand; nonplastic fines; fines content
may be elevated due to drilling method.
Advance Outwash (Qva)
R-
8
R-
9
R-
1
0
De
p
t
h
,
f
t
.
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
De
p
t
h
,
f
t
.
65
70
75
80
85
Well Screen and Sand Filter
Drilling Method:
Drilling Company:
Drill Rig Equipment:
Other Comments:
Lo
g
:
E
A
S
Northing:
Easting:
Station:
Offset:
SOIL DESCRIPTION
20 40 60
Sa
m
p
l
e
s
6 in.
N/A
N/A
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.
*
LOG OF SONIC CORE OW-2
0 60
0
Total Depth:
Top Elevation:
Vert. Datum:
Horiz. Datum:
Ground Water Level ATD
Gr
o
u
n
d
Wa
t
e
r
NOTES
CONTINUED NEXT SHEET
20 40
Soil Core (as in Sonic Core Borings)
Bentonite Chips/Pellets
Bentonite Grout
Hole Diam.:
Rod Diam.:
Hammer Type:
LEGEND
Sy
m
b
o
l
Ground Water Level in VWP
Ground Water Level in Well
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.
Sonic Core
Holt Services Inc.
TerraSonic
7-in. hole from 0 to 50 ft.
FIG. A-5SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
190 ft.
~ 444.67 ft.
NAVD 88
Sheet 3 of 7
Re
v
:
P
V
H
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
Ty
p
:
L
K
N
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
Sample Not Recovered
Bentonite-Cement Grout
REV 3 - Approved for Submittal
MA
S
T
E
R
_
L
O
G
_
E
2
1
-
2
2
0
8
2
.
G
P
J
S
H
A
N
_
W
I
L
.
G
D
T
1
1
/
2
2
/
1
6
% Water Content
% Fines (<0.075mm)
90.0
100.0
111.5
Gray-brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and
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)
Gray-brown, Well Graded Sand with Silt and
Gravel (SW-SM); moist; fine to coarse,
subrounded to subangular gravel; fine to
coarse sand; nonplastic fines; few silty sand
seams; fines content may be elevated due to
drilling method.
Advance Outwash (Qva)
- With layers of poorly graded sand with silt
below 109 feet.
Gray-brown, Well Graded Sand with Silt,
Gravel, and Cobbles (SW-SM); moist; trace
subrounded cobbles; 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)
- Layer of poorly graded sand with silt and
gravel from approximately 118.3 to 119 feet.
R-
1
1
R-
1
2
R-
1
3
De
p
t
h
,
f
t
.
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
De
p
t
h
,
f
t
.
95
100
105
110
115
Well Screen and Sand Filter
Drilling Method:
Drilling Company:
Drill Rig Equipment:
Other Comments:
Lo
g
:
E
A
S
Northing:
Easting:
Station:
Offset:
SOIL DESCRIPTION
20 40 60
Sa
m
p
l
e
s
6 in.
N/A
N/A
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.
*
LOG OF SONIC CORE OW-2
0 60
0
Total Depth:
Top Elevation:
Vert. Datum:
Horiz. Datum:
Ground Water Level ATD
Gr
o
u
n
d
Wa
t
e
r
NOTES
CONTINUED NEXT SHEET
20 40
Soil Core (as in Sonic Core Borings)
Bentonite Chips/Pellets
Bentonite Grout
Hole Diam.:
Rod Diam.:
Hammer Type:
LEGEND
Sy
m
b
o
l
Ground Water Level in VWP
Ground Water Level in Well
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.
Sonic Core
Holt Services Inc.
TerraSonic
7-in. hole from 0 to 50 ft.
FIG. A-5SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
190 ft.
~ 444.67 ft.
NAVD 88
Sheet 4 of 7
Re
v
:
P
V
H
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
Ty
p
:
L
K
N
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
Sample Not Recovered
Bentonite-Cement Grout
REV 3 - Approved for Submittal
MA
S
T
E
R
_
L
O
G
_
E
2
1
-
2
2
0
8
2
.
G
P
J
S
H
A
N
_
W
I
L
.
G
D
T
1
1
/
2
2
/
1
6
% Water Content
% Fines (<0.075mm)
126.0
130.0
142.0
145.5
Dr
y
(
1
1
/
5
/
2
0
1
6
)
- 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.
- Added water prior to sample run 15 to assist
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
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
few, fine to coarse, subrounded to subangular
gravel; fine to medium sand; nonplastic fines.
Advance Outwash (Qva)
- Layer of silty sand at 136.5 to 137 feet.
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
due to drilling method.
Advance Outwash (Qva)
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 content may be
R-
1
4
R-
1
5
R-
1
6
R-
1
7
R-
1
8
De
p
t
h
,
f
t
.
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
De
p
t
h
,
f
t
.
125
130
135
140
145
Well Screen and Sand Filter
Drilling Method:
Drilling Company:
Drill Rig Equipment:
Other Comments:
Lo
g
:
E
A
S
Northing:
Easting:
Station:
Offset:
SOIL DESCRIPTION
20 40 60
Sa
m
p
l
e
s
6 in.
N/A
N/A
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.
*
LOG OF SONIC CORE OW-2
0 60
0
Total Depth:
Top Elevation:
Vert. Datum:
Horiz. Datum:
Ground Water Level ATD
Gr
o
u
n
d
Wa
t
e
r
NOTES
CONTINUED NEXT SHEET
20 40
Soil Core (as in Sonic Core Borings)
Bentonite Chips/Pellets
Bentonite Grout
Hole Diam.:
Rod Diam.:
Hammer Type:
LEGEND
Sy
m
b
o
l
Ground Water Level in VWP
Ground Water Level in Well
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.
Sonic Core
Holt Services Inc.
TerraSonic
7-in. hole from 0 to 50 ft.
FIG. A-5SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
190 ft.
~ 444.67 ft.
NAVD 88
Sheet 5 of 7
Re
v
:
P
V
H
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
Ty
p
:
L
K
N
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
Sample Not Recovered
Bentonite-Cement Grout
REV 3 - Approved for Submittal
MA
S
T
E
R
_
L
O
G
_
E
2
1
-
2
2
0
8
2
.
G
P
J
S
H
A
N
_
W
I
L
.
G
D
T
1
1
/
2
2
/
1
6
% Water Content
% Fines (<0.075mm)
150.0
152.0
156.5
160.0
172.5
11
/
5
/
2
0
1
6
elevated due to drilling method.
Advance Outwash (Qva)
- Increased silt below 147 feet.
- Added water prior to sample run 19.
Gray-brown, Silty Sand with Gravel (SM);
moist; fine to coarse, subrounded to
subangular gravel; fine to coarse sand;
nonplastic fines; diamict; fines content may be
elevated due to drilling method.
Till-Like Deposits/Advance Outwash
(Qvd/Qva)
Gray-brown, Poorly Graded Gravel with Silt
and Sand (GP-GM) to Poorly Graded Gravel
with Sand (GP); moist; fine to coarse,
subrounded to subangular gravel; fine to
coarse sand; nonplastic fines.
Advance Outwash (Qva)
Gray, Silty Sand with Gravel (SM); wet; fine,
subrounded to subangular gravel; fine to
coarse sand; nonplastic fines (possibly baked
during drilling); few diamict clasts; trace silt
seams; fines content may be elevated due to
drilling method.
Advance Outwash/Till-Like Deposits
(Qva/Qvd)
Gray-brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt
(SP-SM) to Silty Sand (SM); moist; few fine to
coarse, subrounded to subangular gravel; fine
to medium sand; nonplastic fines; few sandy
silt seams; trace mica.
Advance Outwash (Qva)
- Saturated below about 169 feet, and drilled
hard/tight from 170 to 172 feet.
Gray-brown, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt
(SP-SM) to Poorly Graded Sand (SP); wet;
trace to few fine gravel; nonplastic fines; fine
R-
1
9
R-
2
0
R-
2
1
De
p
t
h
,
f
t
.
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
De
p
t
h
,
f
t
.
155
160
165
170
175
Well Screen and Sand Filter
Drilling Method:
Drilling Company:
Drill Rig Equipment:
Other Comments:
Lo
g
:
E
A
S
Northing:
Easting:
Station:
Offset:
SOIL DESCRIPTION
20 40 60
Sa
m
p
l
e
s
6 in.
N/A
N/A
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.
*
LOG OF SONIC CORE OW-2
0 60
0
Total Depth:
Top Elevation:
Vert. Datum:
Horiz. Datum:
Ground Water Level ATD
Gr
o
u
n
d
Wa
t
e
r
NOTES
CONTINUED NEXT SHEET
20 40
Soil Core (as in Sonic Core Borings)
Bentonite Chips/Pellets
Bentonite Grout
Hole Diam.:
Rod Diam.:
Hammer Type:
LEGEND
Sy
m
b
o
l
Ground Water Level in VWP
Ground Water Level in Well
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.
Sonic Core
Holt Services Inc.
TerraSonic
7-in. hole from 0 to 50 ft.
FIG. A-5SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
190 ft.
~ 444.67 ft.
NAVD 88
Sheet 6 of 7
Re
v
:
P
V
H
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
Ty
p
:
L
K
N
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
Sample Not Recovered
Bentonite-Cement Grout
REV 3 - Approved for Submittal
MA
S
T
E
R
_
L
O
G
_
E
2
1
-
2
2
0
8
2
.
G
P
J
S
H
A
N
_
W
I
L
.
G
D
T
1
1
/
2
2
/
1
6
% Water Content
% Fines (<0.075mm)
180.0
190.0
to coarse sand; trace mica.
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.
Gray-brown, Poorly Graded Sand (SP); wet;
nonplastic fines; fine to coarse sand (trace to
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.
BOTTOM OF BORING
COMPLETED 8/19/2016
NOTE: Well installed on 8/19/2016.
R-
2
2
De
p
t
h
,
f
t
.
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
De
p
t
h
,
f
t
.
185
190
195
200
205
Well Screen and Sand Filter
Drilling Method:
Drilling Company:
Drill Rig Equipment:
Other Comments:
Lo
g
:
E
A
S
Northing:
Easting:
Station:
Offset:
SOIL DESCRIPTION
20 40 60
Sa
m
p
l
e
s
6 in.
N/A
N/A
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.
*
LOG OF SONIC CORE OW-2
0 60
0
Total Depth:
Top Elevation:
Vert. Datum:
Horiz. Datum:
Ground Water Level ATD
Gr
o
u
n
d
Wa
t
e
r
NOTES
20 40
Soil Core (as in Sonic Core Borings)
Bentonite Chips/Pellets
Bentonite Grout
Hole Diam.:
Rod Diam.:
Hammer Type:
LEGEND
Sy
m
b
o
l
Ground Water Level in VWP
Ground Water Level in Well
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.
Sonic Core
Holt Services Inc.
TerraSonic
7-in. hole from 0 to 50 ft.
FIG. A-5SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
190 ft.
~ 444.67 ft.
NAVD 88
Sheet 7 of 7
Re
v
:
P
V
H
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
Ty
p
:
L
K
N
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
Sample Not Recovered
Bentonite-Cement Grout
REV 3 - Approved for Submittal
MA
S
T
E
R
_
L
O
G
_
E
2
1
-
2
2
0
8
2
.
G
P
J
S
H
A
N
_
W
I
L
.
G
D
T
1
1
/
2
2
/
1
6
% Water Content
% Fines (<0.075mm)
21-1-22082-003
APPENDIX B
GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING
21-1-22082-003-R1f-AB/wp/lk 21-1-22082-003
B-i
APPENDIX B
GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
B.1 VISUAL CLASSIFICATION .........................................................................................B-1
B.2 WATER CONTENT DETERMINATION ......................................................................B-1
B.3 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS ..................................................................B-1
B.4 CONSIDERATIONS .......................................................................................................B-2
B.5 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................B-2
TABLES
Laboratory Terms
Sample Types
Laboratory Test Summary
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-R1f-AB/wp/lk 21-1-22082-003
B-1
APPENDIX B
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.
B.2 WATER CONTENT DETERMINATION
We tested the water content of selected samples in accordance with ASTM D2216-10, 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-R1f-AB/wp/lk 21-1-22082-003
B-2
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/C136M-14, Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates
(ASTM, 2014).
B.4 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.astm.org.
LABORATORY TERMS
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
21-1-22082-003-R1-AB-Lab Tables-Terms and Test Summary/wp/lk 21-1-22082-003
Abbreviations,
Symbols, and Terms Descriptions
%Percent
*Sample specimen weight did not meet required minimum mass for the test method
ASTM Std.ASTM International Standard
Cc Coefficient of curvature
Clay-size Soil particles finer than 0.002 millimeter
cm Centimeter
cm2 Square centimeter
Coarse-grained Soil particles coarser than 0.075 mm (cobble-, gravel- and sand-sized particles)
Cobbles Soil particles finer than 305 mm and coarser than 76.2 mm
Cu Coefficient of uniformity
CU Consolidated Undrained
ε Axial strain
Fine-grained Soil particles finer than 0.075 mm (silt- and clay-sized particles)
ft Feet
γm Wet unit weight
Gravel Soil particles finer than 76.2 mm and coarser than 4.75 mm
Gs Specific gravity of soil solids
Ho Initial height
∆H Change in height
∆Ηload End of load increment deformation
in Inch
in3 Cubic inch
LL Liquid Limit
min Minute
mm 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 mm and coarser than 0.075 mm
sec Second
Silt Soil particles finer than 0.075 mm and coarser than 0.002 mm
tn 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
SAMPLE TYPES
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
21-1-22082-003-R1-AB-Lab Tables-Terms and Test Summary/wp/lk 21-1-22082-003
Abbreviations,
Symbols, and Terms Descriptions
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" I.D. 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 Sample
PT 2.5" O.D. Thin-Walled Tube
ROCK Rock Core Sample
SCORE Soil Core (as in Sonic Core Borings)
SH1 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 Logs
XCORE Core Sample
LABORATORY TEST SUMMARY
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
21-1-22082-003-R1-AB-Lab Tables-Terms and Test Summary/wp/lk 21-1-22082-003
Boring Top Depth (feet)Sa
m
p
l
e
N
u
m
b
e
r
Sa
m
p
l
e
T
y
p
e
USCS WC (%)%
G
r
a
v
e
l
%
S
a
n
d
%
F
i
n
e
s
Cu Cc Soil Description
IW-2 91 S-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 S-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
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
4.7
5
8
Depth
(ft)
Sample
Identification
91.0
98.0
111.0
119.0
Fines
%
Tested
ByllGravel
%
Sand
%
AKV
AKV
SAB
AKV
7.3
3.3
5.1
5.0
4.3
0.8
8.6
8.7
78
62
71
81
17
37
21
11
Fine
Mesh Opening in Inches Grain Size in Millimeters
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION PLOT
SiltCoarse
Mesh Openings per Inch, U.S. Standard
2 10 0.0
6
0.0
4
0.0
0
3
0.0
0
1
0.0
0
2
0.0
0
3
0.0
0
8
0.0
1
0.0
7
50.10.2136204060
76.
2
Grain Size (mm)
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
C
o
a
r
s
e
r
b
y
M
a
s
s
1 1/2 3/8 4 20
USCSGroupSymbol
SP
SP
SW-SM
SW-SM
3 100
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel
Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel
Well-Graded Sand with Silt and Gravel
Well-Graded Sand with Silt
USCS
Group Name
C136
C136
C136
C136
0.0
0
1
0.0
0
4
0.0
0
6
0.0
4
0.0
60.3
0.0
2
0.0
3
FinesSand
2410
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
F
i
n
e
r
b
y
M
a
s
s
200 0.0
2
0.0
0
2
SHANNON & WILSON, INC. • 400 NORTH 34TH STREET • SUITE 100 • SEATTLE, WASHINGTON • 98103 • MAIN (206) 632-8020 • FAX (206) 695-6777
BORING IW-2
WC
%
60
Review
By
ASTM
Std.
< 2um
%
< 20um
%
0.6
40
30 0.4
Gravel
Clay-SizeMediumFineCoarse
1 1
/
2
3/4 0.0
3
0.0
1
0.0
0
8
0.0
0
6
0.0
0
4
0.8
IW-2, S-12*
IW-2, S-14*
IW-2, S-16*
IW-2, S-18
21
-
1
-
2
2
0
8
2
-
0
0
4
A
_
G
S
A
_
M
A
I
N
2
1
-
2
2
0
8
2
.
G
P
J
S
H
A
N
_
W
I
L
.
G
D
T
1
0
/
2
8
/
1
6
* Test specimen did not meet minimum mass recommendations.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
4.7
5
8
Depth
(ft)
Sample
Identification
55.7
63.5
87.5
108.0
125.0
135.0
153.0
182.0
Fines
%
Tested
ByllGravel
%
Sand
%
JFL
JFL
JFL
JFL
JFL
JFL
JFL
JFL
JCS
AKV
JCS
JCS
JCS
JCS
JCS
JCS
5.2
4.8
9.1
4.7
6.5
9.2
5.0
18.6
22
9.5
4.5
19
8.1
26
8.0
5.1
56
84
61
74
90
70
88
88
22
7
34
7
2
4
4
7
Fine
Mesh Opening in Inches Grain Size in Millimeters
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION PLOT
SiltCoarse
Mesh Openings per Inch, U.S. Standard
2 10 0.0
6
0.0
4
0.0
0
3
0.0
0
1
0.0
0
2
0.0
0
3
0.0
0
8
0.0
1
0.0
7
50.10.2136204060
76.
2
Grain Size (mm)
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
C
o
a
r
s
e
r
b
y
M
a
s
s
1 1/2 3/8 4 20
USCSGroupSymbol
SM
SP-SM
SP
SM
SP-SM
SM
SP-SM
SP-SM
3 100
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Silty Sand with Gravel
Poorly Graded Sand with Silt
Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel
Silty Sand
Poorly Graded Sand with Silt
Silty Sand
Poorly Graded Sand with Silt
Poorly Graded Sand with Silt
USCS
Group Name
D422
C136
C136
C136
C136
C136
C136
C136
0.0
0
1
0.0
0
4
0.0
0
6
0.0
4
0.0
60.3
0.0
2
0.0
3
FinesSand
2410
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
F
i
n
e
r
b
y
M
a
s
s
200 0.0
2
0.0
0
2
SHANNON & WILSON, INC. • 400 NORTH 34TH STREET • SUITE 100 • SEATTLE, WASHINGTON • 98103 • MAIN (206) 632-8020 • FAX (206) 695-6777
BORING OW-1
WC
%
60
Review
By
ASTM
Std.
< 2um
%
< 20um
%
0.6
40
30 0.4
Gravel
Clay-SizeMediumFineCoarse
1 1
/
2
3/4 0.0
3
0.0
1
0.0
0
8
0.0
0
6
0.0
0
4
0.8
OW-1, R-7
OW-1, R-8*
OW-1, R-10*
OW-1, R-11*
OW-1, R-14
OW-1, R-15*
OW-1, R-17*
OW-1, R-21
21
-
1
-
2
2
0
8
2
-
0
0
4
A
_
G
S
A
_
M
A
I
N
2
1
-
2
2
0
8
2
.
G
P
J
S
H
A
N
_
W
I
L
.
G
D
T
1
0
/
2
8
/
1
6
* Test specimen did not meet minimum mass recommendations.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
4.7
5
8
Depth
(ft)
Sample
Identification
56.0
72.0
82.0
91.5
107.0
128.0
137.5
151.5
154.0
182.5
Fines
%
Tested
ByllGravel
%
Sand
%
JFL
JFL
JFL
JFL
JFL
JFL
JFL
JFL
JFL
JFL
AKV
AKV
AKV
AKV
AKV
AKV
AKV
AKV
AKV
AKV
10.4
15.2
6.3
8.8
3.8
4.7
4.3
6.2
1.8
15.1
7.3
9.0
16
20
12
16
7.4
34
5.2
2.8
74
89
78
68
62
70
88
56
58
87
19
2
5
12
26
14
5
10
36
10
Fine
Mesh Opening in Inches Grain Size in Millimeters
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION PLOT
SiltCoarse
Mesh Openings per Inch, U.S. Standard
2 10 0.0
6
0.0
4
0.0
0
3
0.0
0
1
0.0
0
2
0.0
0
3
0.0
0
8
0.0
1
0.0
7
50.10.2136204060
76.
2
Grain Size (mm)
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
C
o
a
r
s
e
r
b
y
M
a
s
s
1 1/2 3/8 4 20
USCSGroupSymbol
SP-SM
SP-SM
SM
SM
SW-SM
SM
SP-SM
SM
SP-SM
SP
3 100
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and Gravel
Poorly Graded Sand with Silt
Silty Sand
Silty Sand
Well-Graded Sand with Silt and Gravel
Silty Sand
Poorly Graded Sand with Silt
Silty Sand
Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and Gravel
Poorly Graded Sand
USCS
Group Name
C136
C136
C136
C136
C136
C136
C136
C136
C136
C136
0.0
0
1
0.0
0
4
0.0
0
6
0.0
4
0.0
60.3
0.0
2
0.0
3
FinesSand
2410
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
F
i
n
e
r
b
y
M
a
s
s
200 0.0
2
0.0
0
2
SHANNON & WILSON, INC. • 400 NORTH 34TH STREET • SUITE 100 • SEATTLE, WASHINGTON • 98103 • MAIN (206) 632-8020 • FAX (206) 695-6777
BORING OW-2
WC
%
60
Review
By
ASTM
Std.
< 2um
%
< 20um
%
0.6
40
30 0.4
Gravel
Clay-SizeMediumFineCoarse
1 1
/
2
3/4 0.0
3
0.0
1
0.0
0
8
0.0
0
6
0.0
0
4
0.8
OW-2, R-7*
OW-2, R-9*
OW-2, R-10*
OW-2, R-11*
OW-2, R-12*
OW-2, R-15*
OW-2, R-17*
OW-2, R-19*
OW-2, R-19*
OW-2, R-22*
21
-
1
-
2
2
0
8
2
-
0
0
4
A
_
G
S
A
_
M
A
I
N
2
1
-
2
2
0
8
2
.
G
P
J
S
H
A
N
_
W
I
L
.
G
D
T
1
0
/
2
8
/
1
6
* Test specimen did not meet minimum mass recommendations.
21-1-22282-003
APPENDIX C
HYDROGEOLOGIC DATA AND ANALYSES
21-1-22082-003-R1f-AC/wp/lk 21-1-22082-003
C-i
APPENDIX C
HYDROGOLOGIC DATA AND ANALYSES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
C.1 OBSERVATION WELL DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................C-1
C.2 OBSERVATION WELL SAMPLING ............................................................................C-1
C.3 OBSERVATION WELL SLUG TESTING ....................................................................C-2
C.4 GROUNDWATER LEVEL MONITORING ..................................................................C-3
C.4.1 Monitoring Wells and Instrumentation .............................................................C-3
C.4.2 Results ...............................................................................................................C-3
C.4.3 Local Groundwater Flow and Gradient .............................................................C-4
C.5 PILOT DRY WELL IW-1 FIELD TESTING .................................................................C-4
C.5.1 Test Procedure ...................................................................................................C-4
C.5.2 Results ...............................................................................................................C-5
C.6 FULL-SCALE DRY WELL IW-2 FIELD TESTING.....................................................C-5
C.6.1 Test Procedure ...................................................................................................C-5
C.6.2 Results ...............................................................................................................C-6
C.7 GRAIN SIZE-BASED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY (K) ESTIMATES ................C-6
C.8 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................C-7
TABLES
C-1 Baseline OW-1 Groundwater Quality Data
C-2 Summary of OW-1 Slug Test Analyses
C-3 Summary of IW-1 and IW-2 Inflow Test Results
C-4 Summary of Soil Analyses
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
21-1-22082-003-R1f-AC/wp/lk 21-1-22082-003
C-ii
FIGURES
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-R1f-AC/wp/lk 21-1-22082-003
C-1
APPENDIX C
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 12.5 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-R1f-AC/wp/lk 21-1-22082-003
C-2
(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 14, 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-R1f-AC/wp/lk 21-1-22082-003
C-3
C.4 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 C-11 are groundwater level, barometric pressure, and local
precipitation hydrographs for the period up to November 5, 2016.
Figures C-9 and C-11 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 (VWP1) and 146.3 feet (VWP2). The shallow VWP1 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 ½-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-R1f-AC/wp/lk 21-1-22082-003
C-4
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 315 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-R1f-AC/wp/lk 21-1-22082-003
C-5
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 116 and 107 gpm, averaging
110 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-14).
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-1 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-1. 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-R1f-AC/wp/lk 21-1-22082-003
C-6
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 14 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 VWP2 (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-15).
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-R1f-AC/wp/lk 21-1-22082-003
C-7
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, R.C., 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.,
21-1-21768-001, for City of Edmonds, Edmonds, Wash., April 5.
TABLE C-1
BASELINE OW-1 GROUNDWATER QUALITY DATA
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
21-1-22082-003-R1f-TC-1/wp/lk 21-1-22082-003
Constituent Method
MCL per
173-200
WAC and
246-290
WAC
MTCA Method
A Cleanup Level
per 173-340
WAC
Sample No.
OW-1-
041416
(Collected
4/14/2016)
Field Parameters
pH Field 6.5-8.5 7.1
Temperature (oC)Field 10.9
Specific Conductance (uS/cm)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<1
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<1
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<1
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<1
m,p-Xylene EPA Method 8260C ND<1
o-Xylene 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
MCL = maximum contaminant level
mg = milligrams
MTCA = Model Toxics 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 = microSiemens
WAC = Washington Administrative Code
1,000 (Total
Xylenes)
TABLE C-2
SUMMARY OF OW-1 SLUG TEST ANALYSES
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
21-1-22082-003-R1f-TC-2/wp/lk 21-1-22082-003
feet/day cm/sec feet/min
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
Rising Head Test 2 52 1.8E-02 3.6E-02
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
Kv = vertical hydraulic conductivity
min = minute
Predominant
Soil Type
Screened
By Well
Interpreted
Geologic
Unit Tested
OW-1 4/14/2016 168.3 SP-SM/SP Qva
Observation
Well
Number
Date
Tested
Test
Number
Static Water
Level Depth
(feet bgs)
Hydraulic Conductivity (for Anisotropic
Case, Kv/Kh=0.1)
TABLE C-3
SUMMARY OF IW-1 AND IW-2 INFLOW TEST RESULTS
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
21-1-22082-003-R1f-TC-3/wp/lk 21-1-22082-003
Well
Number
Approximate
Grade Elevation
(feet NAVD 88)
Dates
Tested
Discharge
Rate1
(gpm)
Discharge
Rate1
(cu ft/day)
Approximate
Specific
Capacity
(gpm/foot)
Top of Test
Section
Depth
(feet)
Bottom of
Test Section
Depth
(feet)
Approximate
Test Section
Top Elevation
(feet)
Approximate
Test Section
Bottom
Elevation
(feet)
Test Section
Length, L
(feet)
Water
Column
Height, H
(feet)
Borehole
Radius, r
(feet)
Hydraulic
Conductivity,2
K
(feet/day)
Hydraulic
Conductivity,2
K
(cm/sec)
Hydraulic
Conductivity,2
K
(feet/min)
Interpreted
Geologic
Unit Tested
IW-1 444.9 4/25/2016 110 21174 4.6 67.4 91.2 377.5 353.7 23.8 23.8 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 1.0E-02 2.0E-02 Qva
Notes:
1 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 > = 10r).
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
TABLE C-4
SUMMARY OF SOIL ANALYSES
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
21-1-22082-003-R1f-TC-4/wp/lk 21-1-22082-003
Approximate Cumulative
Thickness of Soil Layers
With Medium Treatment
Capacity Between 120 feet
and Deep Qva Aquifer
Gravel %Sand %Fines %50%10%(feet/day)(cm/sec)(feet/min)(feet)
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 2.2E-01 4.3E-01 SP Low Qva
IW-2 111 Auger 21 71 8.6 0.56 0.099 28 9.8E-03 1.9E-02 SW-SM Medium Qva
IW-2 119 Auger 11 81 8.7 0.44 0.094 25 8.8E-03 1.7E-02 SW-SM Low Qva
OW-1 55.7 Sonic Core 22 56 22 0.95 0.0015 Yes 0.0064 2.3E-06 4.4E-06 SM Medium Qvd
OW-1 63.5 Sonic Core 7 84 9.5 0.33 0.080 18 6.4E-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 5.7E-02 SP Low Qva
OW-1 108 Sonic Core 7 74 19 0.33 0.021 Yes 1.3 4.4E-04 8.7E-04 SM Medium Qva
OW-1 125 Sonic Core 2 90 8.1 0.30 0.088 22 7.7E-03 1.5E-02 SP-SM Low Qva
OW-1 135 Sonic Core 4 70 26 0.28 0.0080 Yes 0.18 6.4E-05 1.3E-04 SM Medium Qva
OW-1 153 Sonic Core 5 88 8.0 0.33 0.092 24 8.5E-03 1.7E-02 SP-SM Low Qva
OW-1 182 Sonic Core 7 88 5.1 0.32 0.15 Yes 64 2.3E-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 0.30 0.083 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 8.4E-04 1.7E-03 SM Medium Qva
OW-2 91.5 Sonic Core 12 68 20 0.31 0.014 Yes 0.6 2.0E-04 3.9E-04 SM Medium Qva
OW-2 107 Sonic Core 26 62 12 1.2 0.047 Yes 6.3 2.2E-03 4.3E-03 SW-SM Medium Qva
OW-2 128 Sonic Core 14 70 16 0.42 0.024 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 0.0040 Yes 0.045 1.6E-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-01 SP-SM Low Qva
OW-2 182.5 Sonic Core 10 87 2.8 0.41 0.18 92 3.2E-02 6.4E-02 SP Below water table Qva
13 4.6E-03 9.0E-03
Notes:
1 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, Some physical properties of sands and gravels: Massachusetts State Board of Health, 24th Annual Report.
% = percent
ASTM = ASTM International
cm/sec = centimeters per second
min = minute
mm = millimeters
UIC = underground injection control
USCS = Unified Soil Classification System
Geomean of Qva Samples
Boring
Number
Depth
(feet)Drilling Method
Sieve Results (percent finer,
mm)USCS Group
Symbol
Vadose Zone
Treatment
Capacity1
Approximate Hydraulic Conductivity, K
(Hazen, 1893)Sieve Results (ASTM Percent Passing)Was 10% Size
Estimated?
Interpreted
Geologic
Unit Tested
10
14
OW-1 Slug Analysis-OW-1 Slug Test Plot-11/23/2016-pvh
0.01
0.1
1
10
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Ch
a
n
g
e
i
n
H
e
a
d
,
Y
t
(F
e
e
t
)
Time (Seconds)
Falling Head Test #1
Rising Head Test #1
Falling Head Test #2
Rising Head Test #2
Falling Head Test #3
Rising Head Test #3
LEGEND
FI
G
.
C
-1
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds,Washington
SLUG TESTS
OBSERVATION WELL OW-1
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
FIG. C-1 SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
OW-1 Slug Analysis-OW-1 FH1-11/23/2016-pvh
FI
G
.
C
-2
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds,Washington
FALLING HEAD SLUG TEST 1
OBSERVATION WELL OW-1
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
FIG. C-2 SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
OW-1 Slug Analysis-OW-1 RH1-11/23/2016-pvh
FI
G
.
C
-3
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds,Washington
RISING HEAD SLUG TEST 1
OBSERVATION WELL OW-1
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
FIG. C-3 SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
OW-1 Slug Analysis-OW-1 FH2-11/23/2016-pvh
FI
G
.
C
-4
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds,Washington
FALLING HEAD SLUG TEST 2
OBSERVATION WELL OW-1
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
FIG. C-4 SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
OW-1 Slug Analysis-OW-1 RH2-11/23/2016-pvh
FI
G
.
C
-5
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds,Washington
RISING HEAD SLUG TEST 2
OBSERVATION WELL OW-1
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
FIG. C-5 SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
OW-1 Slug Analysis-OW-1 FH3-11/23/2016-pvh
FI
G
.
C
-6
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds,Washington
FALLING HEAD SLUG TEST 3
OBSERVATION WELL OW-1
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
FIG. C-6 SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
OW-1 Slug Analysis-OW-1 RH3-11/23/2016-pvh
FI
G
.
C
-7
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds,Washington
RISING HEAD SLUG TEST 3
OBSERVATION WELL OW-1
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
FIG. C-7 SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
OW-1 Water Levels-Figure C-8 - OW-1 Precip-11/23/2016-pvh
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0167.0
167.2
167.4
167.6
167.8
168.0
168.2
168.4
168.6
168.8
169.0
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
Ho
u
r
l
y
P
r
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
I
n
c
h
e
s
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
D
e
p
t
h
B
e
l
o
w
G
r
o
u
n
d
S
u
r
f
a
c
e
(
F
e
e
t
)
Date (Local Time)
OW-1 Transducer Data
OW-1 Manual Data
IW-1 Testing
IW-2 Testing
Brugger's Bog Daily Precipitation
FI
G
.
C
-8
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds,Washington
OBSERVATION WELL OW-1
GROUNDWATER DEPTH WITH
PRECIPITATION DATA
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
FIG. C-8SHANNON& WILSON, INC.
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
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. Brugger's Bog precipitation data are from
http://green.kingcounty.gov/wlr/waterres/hydrology/DataDownload.aspx
3. Black and white reproduction of this color original may lead to incorrect interpretation.
OW-1 Water Levels-Figure C-9 - OW-1 BP-11/23/2016-pvh
32.2
32.4
32.6
32.8
33
33.2
33.4
33.6
33.8
34166.5
167.0
167.5
168.0
168.5
169.0
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
Ba
r
o
m
e
t
r
i
c
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
F
e
e
t
o
f
W
a
t
e
r
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
D
e
p
t
h
B
e
l
o
w
G
r
o
u
n
d
S
u
r
f
a
c
e
(
F
e
e
t
)
Date (Local Time)
OW-1 Transducer Data
OW-1 Manual Data
IW-1 Testing
IW-2 Testing
Barometric Pressure
FI
G
.
C
-9
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds,Washington
OBSERVATION WELL OW-1
GROUNDWATER DEPTH WITH
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE DATA
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
FIG. C-9SHANNON& WILSON, INC.
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
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. Black and white reproduction of this color original may lead to incorrect interpretation.
OW-2 Water Levels-Figure C-10 - OW-2 Precip-11/23/2016-pvh
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2167.0
167.2
167.4
167.6
167.8
168.0
168.2
168.4
168.6
168.8
169.0
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
Ba
r
o
m
e
t
r
i
c
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
F
e
e
t
o
f
W
a
t
e
r
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
D
e
p
t
h
B
e
l
o
w
G
r
o
u
n
d
S
u
r
f
a
c
e
(
F
e
e
t
)
Date (Local Time)
OW-2 Well Transducer Data
OW-2 Manual Data
IW-2 Testing Period
Brugger's Bog Daily Precipitation
FI
G
.
C
-10
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds,Washington
OBSERVATION WELL OW-2
GROUNDWATER DEPTH WITH
PRECIPITATION DATA
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
FIG. C-10SHANNON& WILSON, INC.
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
NOTES
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. Black and white reproduction of this color original may lead to incorrect interpretation.
OW-2 Water Levels-Figure C-11 - OW-2 BP-11/23/2016-pvh
32.0
32.2
32.4
32.6
32.8
33.0
33.2
33.4
33.6
33.8
34.0167.0
167.2
167.4
167.6
167.8
168.0
168.2
168.4
168.6
168.8
169.0
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
Ba
r
o
m
e
t
r
i
c
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
F
e
e
t
o
f
W
a
t
e
r
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
D
e
p
t
h
B
e
l
o
w
G
r
o
u
n
d
S
u
r
f
a
c
e
(
F
e
e
t
)
Date (Local Time)
OW-2 Well Transducer Data OW-2 Manual Data
IW-2 Testing Period Barometric Pressure
FI
G
.
C
-11
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds,Washington
OBSERVATION WELL OW-2
GROUNDWATER DEPTH WITH
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
FIG. C-11SHANNON& WILSON, INC.
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
NOTES
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. 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.
3. Black and white reproduction of this color original may lead to incorrect interpretation.
OW-1 Water Levels-Figure C-12 - OW-1 BE Plot-11/23/2016-pvh
y = 0.9012x -0.025
R² = 0.9878
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
-0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Ch
a
n
g
e
i
n
G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
L
e
v
e
l
(
F
e
e
t
)
Change in Barometric Pressure (Feet of water)
FI
G
.
C
-12
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds,Washington
BAROMETRIC EFFICIENCY
ESTIMATE FOR
OBSERVATION WELL OW-1
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
FIG. C-12SHANNON& WILSON, INC.
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
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-2 Water Levels-Figure C-13 - OW-2 BE-11/23/2016-pvh
y = 0.8588x + 0.1323
R² = 0.8886
-0.3
-0.2
-0.2
-0.1
-0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1
Ch
a
n
g
e
i
n
G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
L
e
v
e
l
(
F
e
e
t
)
Change in Barometric Pressure (Feet of water)
FI
G
.
C
-13
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds,Washington
BAROMETRIC EFFICIENCY
ESTIMATE FOR
OBSERVATION WELL OW-2
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
FIG. C-13SHANNON& WILSON, INC.
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
NOTES
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. Barometric efficiency estimate of approximately 86% based on data collected between 9/6/16 and 9/18/16.
OW-1 Water Levels-Figure C-14 - OW-1 IW-1 Test-11/23/2016-pvh
32.9
33
33.1
33.2
33.3
33.4
33.5
33.6
33.7
33.8
33.9168.0
168.1
168.2
168.3
168.4
168.5
168.6
168.7
168.8
168.9
169.0
4/22/16 4/24/16 4/26/16 4/28/16 4/30/16 5/2/16 5/4/16 5/6/16
Ba
r
o
m
e
t
r
i
c
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
F
e
e
t
o
f
W
a
t
e
r
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
D
e
p
t
h
B
e
l
o
w
G
r
o
u
n
d
S
u
r
f
a
c
e
(
F
e
e
t
)
Date (Local Time)
OW-1 Transducer Data
OW-1 Manual Data
IW-1 Testing
OW-1 Transducer Data Adjusted for Barometric Efficiency
Barometric Pressure
FI
G
.
C
-14
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds,Washington
OBSERVATION WELL OW-1
RESPONSE TO IW-1 TEST
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
FIG. C-14SHANNON& WILSON, INC.
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
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. Pilot dry well IW -1 was completed on 4/21/16 to 91.2 feet deep (approximately elevation 353.7 feet NAVD88).
IW -1 infiltration test was performed on 4/25/16 from 10:03-18:34.
3. 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
140.0
145.0
150.0
155.0
160.0
165.0
170.0
10/11/16 10/12/16 10/13/16 10/14/16 10/15/16 10/16/16 10/17/16 10/18/16
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
D
e
p
t
h
B
e
l
o
w
G
r
o
u
n
d
S
u
r
f
a
c
e
(
F
e
e
t
)
Date (Local Time)
IW-2 Testing Period
OW-2 VWP2 Data
OW-2 VWP2 Sensor Depth
OW-2 Well Transducer Data, Unadjusted for Regional Aquifer
Trends
OW-2 Well Transducer Data, Adjusted for Regional Aquifer Trends
FI
G
.
C
-15
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 Project
Edmonds,Washington
OW-2 OBSERVATION WELL AND VWP2
RESPONSE TO IW-2 TEST
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
FIG. C-15SHANNON& WILSON, INC.
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
NOTES
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.
April 21, 2016
Shannon & Wilson
Paul Van Horne
Attention Paul Van Horne:
RE:Madrona K-8 School
Lab ID:1604140
400 N. 34th Street, Suite 100
Seattle, WA 98103
3600 Fremont Ave. N.
Seattle, WA 98103
T: (206) 352-3790
F: (206) 352-7178
info@fremontanalytical.com
Fremont Analytical, Inc. received 2 sample(s) on 4/14/2016 for the analyses presented in the
following report.
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,
Color by SM2120
Cyanide by SM 4500-CN C, E
Diesel and Heavy Oil by NWTPH-Dx/Dx Ext.
Gasoline by NWTPH-Gx
Ion 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
www.fremontanalytical.com Revision v1
DoD/ELAP Certification #L2371, ISO/ICC 17025:2005
ORELAP Certification: WA 100009-007 (NELAP Recognized)
Page 1 of 29
Mike Ridgeway
President
www.fremontanalytical.com Revision v1
DoD/ELAP Certification #L2371, ISO/ICC 17025:2005
ORELAP Certification: WA 100009-007 (NELAP Recognized)
Page 2 of 29
05/05/2016Date:
Project:Madrona K-8 School
CLIENT:Shannon & Wilson
Lab Order:1604140
Work Order Sample Summary
Lab Sample ID Client Sample ID Date/Time ReceivedDate/Time Collected
1604140-001 OW-1-041416 04/14/2016 11:18 AM 04/14/2016 4:07 PM
1604140-002 Trip Blank 04/13/2016 12:48 PM 04/14/2016 4:07 PM
Note: If no "Time Collected" is supplied, a default of 12:00AM is assignedRevision v1
Page 3 of 29
Project:Madrona K-8 School
CLIENT:Shannon & Wilson
4/21/2016
Case Narrative
1604140
Date:
WO#:
I. SAMPLE RECEIPT:
Samples receipt information is recorded on the attached Sample Receipt Checklist.
II. 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.
1604140-001E
C-COLOR has been Sub Contracted.
Revision v1
Page 4 of 29
4/21/2016
Qualifiers & Acronyms
1604140
Date Reported:
WO#:
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
www.fremontanalytical.com
Page 5 of 29
Project:Madrona K-8 School
Client Sample ID:OW-1-041416
Collection Date:4/14/2016 11:18:00 AM
Matrix:Groundwater
Client:Shannon & Wilson
Lab ID:1604140-001
Analyses Result Qual Units Date AnalyzedDFRL
Analytical Report
4/21/2016
1604140
Date Reported:
WO#:
Diesel and Heavy Oil by NWTPH-Dx/Dx Ext.Analyst:CMBatch ID: 13481
Diesel (Fuel Oil)4/19/2016 11:45:00 PM50.0 µg/L 1ND
Heavy Oil 4/19/2016 11:45:00 PM100µg/L 1ND
Surr: 2-Fluorobiphenyl 4/19/2016 11:45:00 PM50-150 %Rec 173.5
Surr: o-Terphenyl 4/19/2016 11:45:00 PM50-150 %Rec 177.5
Gasoline by NWTPH-Gx Analyst:NGBatch ID: R28812
Gasoline 4/15/2016 4:35:49 AM50.0 µg/L 1ND
Surr: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 4/15/2016 4:35:49 AM65-135 %Rec 199.4
Surr: Toluene-d8 4/15/2016 4:35:49 AM65-135 %Rec 198.8
Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA Method 8260C Analyst:NGBatch ID: R28811
Benzene 4/15/2016 4:35:49 AM1.00 µg/L 1ND
Toluene 4/15/2016 4:35:49 AM1.00 µg/L 1ND
Ethylbenzene 4/15/2016 4:35:49 AM1.00 µg/L 1ND
m,p-Xylene 4/15/2016 4:35:49 AM1.00 µg/L 1ND
o-Xylene 4/15/2016 4:35:49 AM1.00 µg/L 1ND
Surr: Dibromofluoromethane 4/15/2016 4:35:49 AM45.4-152 %Rec 1102
Surr: Toluene-d8 4/15/2016 4:35:49 AM40.1-139 %Rec 194.3
Surr: 1-Bromo-4-fluorobenzene 4/15/2016 4:35:49 AM64.2-128 %Rec 197.2
Ion Chromatography by EPA Method 300.0 Analyst:MWBatch ID: R28832
Fluoride 4/15/2016 12:09:00 PM0.100 mg/L 1ND
Chloride 4/15/2016 12:09:00 PM0.100 mg/L 16.38
Nitrite 4/15/2016 12:09:00 PM0.100 mg/L 10.159
Nitrate 4/15/2016 12:09:00 PM0.100 mg/L 11.01
Nitrate+Nitrite 4/15/2016 12:09:00 PM0.100 mg/L 11.17
Ortho-Phosphate 4/15/2016 12:09:00 PM0.200 mg/L 1ND
Sulfate 4/15/2016 12:09:00 PM0.300 mg/L 122.6
Mercury by EPA Method 245.1 Analyst:MWBatch ID: 13469
Mercury 4/18/2016 3:00:59 PM0.100 µg/L 1ND
Total Metals by EPA Method 200.8 Analyst:TNBatch ID: 13468
Antimony 4/15/2016 2:29:17 PM0.200 µg/L 1ND
Revision v1
Page 6 of 29
Project:Madrona K-8 School
Client Sample ID:OW-1-041416
Collection Date:4/14/2016 11:18:00 AM
Matrix:Groundwater
Client:Shannon & Wilson
Lab ID:1604140-001
Analyses Result Qual Units Date AnalyzedDFRL
Analytical Report
4/21/2016
1604140
Date Reported:
WO#:
Total Metals by EPA Method 200.8 Analyst:TNBatch ID: 13468
Arsenic 4/15/2016 2:29:17 PM1.00 µg/L 1ND
Barium 4/15/2016 2:29:17 PM0.500 µg/L 128.6
Beryllium 4/15/2016 2:29:17 PM0.200 µg/L 1ND
Cadmium 4/15/2016 2:29:17 PM0.200 µg/L 1ND
Chromium 4/15/2016 2:29:17 PM0.500 µg/L 11.67
Copper 4/15/2016 2:29:17 PM0.500 µg/L 1ND
Iron 4/15/2016 2:29:17 PM100µg/L 1ND
Lead 4/15/2016 2:29:17 PM1.00 µg/L 1ND
Manganese 4/15/2016 2:29:17 PM2.00 µg/L 1344
Nickel 4/15/2016 2:29:17 PM0.500 µg/L 12.94
Selenium 4/15/2016 2:29:17 PM1.00 µg/L 1ND
Silver 4/15/2016 2:29:17 PM0.200 µg/L 1ND
Sodium 4/15/2016 2:29:17 PM100µg/L 112,900
Thallium 4/15/2016 2:29:17 PM0.200 µg/L 1ND
Zinc 4/15/2016 2:29:17 PM1.50 µg/L 127.3
Cyanide by SM 4500-CN C, E Analyst:NGBatch ID: 13500
Cyanide, Total 4/21/2016 10:03:00 AM0.0500 mg/L 1ND
Total Phosphorous by EPA Method 365.3 Analyst:KTBatch ID: 13510
Phosphorus, Total (As P)4/21/2016 2:25:00 PM0.200 mg/L 1ND
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) by SM 2540C Analyst:KTBatch ID: R28863
Total Dissolved Solids 4/19/2016 4:04:00 PM5.00 mg/L 1182
Revision v1
Page 7 of 29
Page 8 of 29
Page 9 of 29
Page 10 of 29
Project:Madrona K-8 School
CLIENT:Shannon & Wilson
Work Order:1604140 QC SUMMARY REPORT
Cyanide by SM 4500-CN C, E
4/21/2016Date:
Sample ID:MB-13500
Batch ID:13500 Analysis Date:4/21/2016
Prep Date:4/20/2016
Analyte Result SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC RPD Ref Val %RPDLowLimitHighLimit RPDLimit Qual
Units:mg/L
RL
Client ID:MBLKW
RunNo:28891
SeqNo:543216
MBLKSampType:
Cyanide, Total 0.0500ND
Sample ID:LCS-13500
Batch ID:13500 Analysis Date:4/21/2016
Prep Date:4/20/2016
Analyte Result SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC RPD Ref Val %RPDLowLimitHighLimit RPDLimit Qual
Units:mg/L
RL
Client ID:LCSW
RunNo:28891
SeqNo:543205
LCSSampType:
Cyanide, Total 0.2500 99.8 80 1200.0500 00.250
Sample ID:1604152-001ADUP
Batch ID:13500 Analysis Date:4/21/2016
Prep Date:4/20/2016
Analyte Result SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC RPD Ref Val %RPDLowLimitHighLimit RPDLimit Qual
Units:mg/L
RL
Client ID:BATCH
RunNo:28891
SeqNo:543209
DUPSampType:
Cyanide, Total 200.0500 0ND
Sample ID:1604152-001AMS
Batch ID:13500 Analysis Date:4/21/2016
Prep Date:4/20/2016
Analyte Result SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC RPD Ref Val %RPDLowLimitHighLimit RPDLimit Qual
Units:mg/L
RL
Client ID:BATCH
RunNo:28891
SeqNo:543210
MSSampType:
Cyanide, Total 0.2500 100 80 1200.0500 0.023500.274
Sample ID:1604152-001AMSD
Batch ID:13500 Analysis Date:4/21/2016
Prep Date:4/20/2016
Analyte Result SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC RPD Ref Val %RPDLowLimitHighLimit RPDLimit Qual
Units:mg/L
RL
Client ID:BATCH
RunNo:28891
SeqNo:543211
MSDSampType:
Cyanide, Total 0.2500 72.6 80 120 30 S0.0500 0.02350 0.2741 28.80.205
NOTES:
S - Outlying spike recovery(ies) observed. A duplicate analysis was performed and recovered within range.
Revision v1 Page 11 of 29
Project:Madrona K-8 School
CLIENT:Shannon & Wilson
Work Order:1604140 QC SUMMARY REPORT
Ion Chromatography by EPA Method 300.0
4/21/2016Date:
Sample ID:MB-R28832
Batch ID:R28832 Analysis Date:4/15/2016
Prep Date:4/15/2016
Analyte Result SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC RPD Ref Val %RPDLowLimitHighLimit RPDLimit Qual
Units:mg/L
RL
Client ID:MBLKW
RunNo:28832
SeqNo:541986
MBLKSampType:
Fluoride 0.100ND
Chloride 0.100ND
Nitrite 0.100ND
Nitrate 0.100ND
Nitrate+Nitrite 0.100ND
Sulfate 0.300ND
Sample ID:LCS-R28832
Batch ID:R28832 Analysis Date:4/15/2016
Prep Date:4/15/2016
Analyte Result SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC RPD Ref Val %RPDLowLimitHighLimit RPDLimit Qual
Units:mg/L
RL
Client ID:LCSW
RunNo:28832
SeqNo:541987
LCSSampType:
Fluoride 2.000 105 90 1100.100 02.09
Chloride 3.000 96.0 90 1100.100 02.88
Nitrite 3.000 98.9 90 1100.100 02.97
Nitrate 3.000 101 90 1100.100 03.03
Nitrate+Nitrite 6.000 100 90 1100.100 06.00
Sulfate 15.00 104 90 1100.300 015.6
Sample ID:1604140-001DDUP
Batch ID:R28832 Analysis Date:4/15/2016
Prep Date:4/15/2016
Analyte Result SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC RPD Ref Val %RPDLowLimitHighLimit RPDLimit Qual
Units:mg/L
RL
Client ID:OW-1-041416
RunNo:28832
SeqNo:541989
DUPSampType:
Fluoride 200.100 0ND
Chloride 200.100 6.376 0.1336.37
Nitrite 200.100 0.1594 0.8740.161
Nitrate 200.100 1.011 0.7091.02
Nitrate+Nitrite 200.100 1.171 0.7321.18
Sulfate 200.300 22.62 0.14222.6
Revision v1 Page 12 of 29
Project:Madrona K-8 School
CLIENT:Shannon & Wilson
Work Order:1604140 QC SUMMARY REPORT
Ion Chromatography by EPA Method 300.0
4/21/2016Date:
Sample ID:1604140-001DMS
Batch ID:R28832 Analysis Date:4/15/2016
Prep Date:4/15/2016
Analyte Result SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC RPD Ref Val %RPDLowLimitHighLimit RPDLimit Qual
Units:mg/L
RL
Client ID:OW-1-041416
RunNo:28832
SeqNo:541990
MSSampType:
Fluoride 2.000 101 80 1200.100 0.066802.08
Chloride 3.000 86.7 80 1200.100 6.3768.98
Nitrite 3.000 96.5 80 1200.100 0.15943.05
Nitrate 3.000 98.1 80 1200.100 1.0113.95
Nitrate+Nitrite 6.000 97.3 80 1200.100 1.1717.01
Sulfate 15.00 97.3 80 1200.300 22.6237.2
Sample ID:1604140-001DMSD
Batch ID:R28832 Analysis Date:4/15/2016
Prep Date:4/15/2016
Analyte Result SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC RPD Ref Val %RPDLowLimitHighLimit RPDLimit Qual
Units:mg/L
RL
Client ID:OW-1-041416
RunNo:28832
SeqNo:541991
MSDSampType:
Fluoride 2.000 101 80 120 200.100 0.06680 2.084 0.1612.09
Chloride 3.000 86.3 80 120 200.100 6.376 8.978 0.1368.97
Nitrite 3.000 96.2 80 120 200.100 0.1594 3.053 0.2863.04
Nitrate 3.000 97.0 80 120 200.100 1.011 3.953 0.7923.92
Nitrate+Nitrite 6.000 96.6 80 120 200.100 1.171 7.006 0.5716.97
Sulfate 15.00 95.8 80 120 200.300 22.62 37.22 0.62337.0
Revision v1 Page 13 of 29
Project:Madrona K-8 School
CLIENT:Shannon & Wilson
Work Order:1604140 QC SUMMARY REPORT
Total Phosphorous by EPA Method 365.3
4/21/2016Date:
Sample ID:MB-13510
Batch ID:13510 Analysis Date:4/21/2016
Prep Date:4/21/2016
Analyte Result SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC RPD Ref Val %RPDLowLimitHighLimit RPDLimit Qual
Units:mg/L
RL
Client ID:MBLKW
RunNo:28899
SeqNo:543434
MBLKSampType:
Phosphorus, Total (As P)0.200ND
Sample ID:LCS-13510
Batch ID:13510 Analysis Date:4/21/2016
Prep Date:4/21/2016
Analyte Result SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC RPD Ref Val %RPDLowLimitHighLimit RPDLimit Qual
Units:mg/L
RL
Client ID:LCSW
RunNo:28899
SeqNo:543435
LCSSampType:
Phosphorus, Total (As P)2.000 109 65 1350.200 02.17
Sample ID:1604140-001HDUP
Batch ID:13510 Analysis Date:4/21/2016
Prep Date:4/21/2016
Analyte Result SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC RPD Ref Val %RPDLowLimitHighLimit RPDLimit Qual
Units:mg/L
RL
Client ID:OW-1-041416
RunNo:28899
SeqNo:543437
DUPSampType:
Phosphorus, Total (As P)300.200 0ND
Sample ID:1604140-001HMS
Batch ID:13510 Analysis Date:4/21/2016
Prep Date:4/21/2016
Analyte Result SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC RPD Ref Val %RPDLowLimitHighLimit RPDLimit Qual
Units:mg/L
RL
Client ID:OW-1-041416
RunNo:28899
SeqNo:543438
MSSampType:
Phosphorus, Total (As P)2.000 94.2 65 1350.200 0.018001.90
Sample ID:1604140-001HMSD
Batch ID:13510 Analysis Date:4/21/2016
Prep Date:4/21/2016
Analyte Result SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC RPD Ref Val %RPDLowLimitHighLimit RPDLimit Qual
Units:mg/L
RL
Client ID:OW-1-041416
RunNo:28899
SeqNo:543439
MSDSampType:
Phosphorus, Total (As P)2.000 108 65 135 300.200 0.01800 1.902 13.52.18
Revision v1 Page 14 of 29
Project:Madrona K-8 School
CLIENT:Shannon & Wilson
Work Order:1604140 QC SUMMARY REPORT
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) by SM 2540C
4/21/2016Date:
Sample ID:MB-R28863
Batch ID:R28863 Analysis Date:4/19/2016
Prep Date:4/19/2016
Analyte Result SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC RPD Ref Val %RPDLowLimitHighLimit RPDLimit Qual
Units:mg/L
RL
Client ID:MBLKW
RunNo:28863
SeqNo:542617
MBLKSampType:
Total Dissolved Solids 5.00ND
Sample ID:LCS-R28863
Batch ID:R28863 Analysis Date:4/19/2016
Prep Date:4/19/2016
Analyte Result SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC RPD Ref Val %RPDLowLimitHighLimit RPDLimit Qual
Units:mg/L
RL
Client ID:LCSW
RunNo:28863
SeqNo:542618
LCSSampType:
Total Dissolved Solids 300.0 101 65 13510.0 0304
Sample ID:1604140-001DDUP
Batch ID:R28863 Analysis Date:4/19/2016
Prep Date:4/19/2016
Analyte Result SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC RPD Ref Val %RPDLowLimitHighLimit RPDLimit Qual
Units:mg/L
RL
Client ID:OW-1-041416
RunNo:28863
SeqNo:542620
DUPSampType:
Total Dissolved Solids 305.00 182.0 10.9203
Revision v1 Page 15 of 29
Project:Madrona K-8 School
CLIENT:Shannon & Wilson
Work Order:1604140 QC SUMMARY REPORT
Total Metals by EPA Method 200.8
4/21/2016Date:
Sample ID:MB-13468
Batch ID:13468 Analysis Date:4/15/2016
Prep Date:4/15/2016
Analyte Result SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC RPD Ref Val %RPDLowLimitHighLimit RPDLimit Qual
Units:µg/L
RL
Client ID:MBLKW
RunNo:28822
SeqNo:541791
MBLKSampType:
Antimony 0.200ND
Arsenic 1.00ND
Barium 0.500ND
Beryllium 0.200ND
Cadmium 0.200ND
Chromium 0.500ND
Copper 0.500ND
Iron 100ND
Lead 1.00ND
Manganese 2.00ND
Nickel 0.500ND
Selenium 1.00ND
Silver 0.200ND
Sodium 100ND
Thallium 0.200ND
Zinc 1.50ND
Sample ID:LCS-13468
Batch ID:13468 Analysis Date:4/15/2016
Prep Date:4/15/2016
Analyte Result SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC RPD Ref Val %RPDLowLimitHighLimit RPDLimit Qual
Units:µg/L
RL
Client ID:LCSW
RunNo:28822
SeqNo:541792
LCSSampType:
Antimony 5.000 90.4 85 1150.200 04.52
Arsenic 100.0 101 85 1151.00 0101
Barium 100.0 99.3 85 1150.500 099.3
Beryllium 5.000 103 85 1150.200 05.16
Cadmium 5.000 114 85 1150.200 05.70
Chromium 100.0 92.5 85 1150.500 092.5
Copper 100.0 96.2 85 1150.500 096.2
Iron 1,000 109 50 15010001,090
Lead 50.00 90.7 85 1151.00 045.3
Revision v1 Page 16 of 29
Project:Madrona K-8 School
CLIENT:Shannon & Wilson
Work Order:1604140 QC SUMMARY REPORT
Total Metals by EPA Method 200.8
4/21/2016Date:
Sample ID:LCS-13468
Batch ID:13468 Analysis Date:4/15/2016
Prep Date:4/15/2016
Analyte Result SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC RPD Ref Val %RPDLowLimitHighLimit RPDLimit Qual
Units:µg/L
RL
Client ID:LCSW
RunNo:28822
SeqNo:541792
LCSSampType:
Manganese 100.0 100 85 1152.00 0100
Nickel 100.0 95.5 85 1150.500 095.5
Selenium 10.00 99.4 85 1151.00 09.94
Silver 5.000 93.2 85 1150.200 04.66
Sodium 1,000 99.1 50 1501000991
Thallium 2.500 90.7 85 1150.200 02.27
Zinc 100.0 100 85 1151.50 0100
Sample ID:1604116-001CDUP
Batch ID:13468 Analysis Date:4/15/2016
Prep Date:4/15/2016
Analyte Result SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC RPD Ref Val %RPDLowLimitHighLimit RPDLimit Qual
Units:µg/L
RL
Client ID:BATCH
RunNo:28822
SeqNo:541794
DUPSampType:
Antimony 30 R0.200 0.4710 80.10.202
Arsenic 301.00 0ND
Barium 300.500 37.74 0.95538.1
Beryllium 300.200 0ND
Cadmium 300.200 0ND
Chromium 300.500 0.5610 25.10.722
Copper 300.500 0.5540 10.9ND
Iron 301000ND
Lead 301.00 0ND
Manganese 302.00 5.155 0.3205.17
Nickel 300.500 0.7520 22.10.939
Selenium 301.00 0ND
Silver 300.200 0ND
Sodium 3010057,370 5.4454,300
Thallium 300.200 0ND
Zinc 301.50 2.528 15.52.95
NOTES:
R - High RPD observed. The method is in control as indicated by the LCS.
Revision v1 Page 17 of 29
Project:Madrona K-8 School
CLIENT:Shannon & Wilson
Work Order:1604140 QC SUMMARY REPORT
Total Metals by EPA Method 200.8
4/21/2016Date:
Sample ID:1604116-001CMS
Batch ID:13468 Analysis Date:4/15/2016
Prep Date:4/15/2016
Analyte Result SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC RPD Ref Val %RPDLowLimitHighLimit RPDLimit Qual
Units:µg/L
RL
Client ID:BATCH
RunNo:28822
SeqNo:541795
MSSampType:
Antimony 25.00 89.3 70 1300.200 0.471022.8
Arsenic 500.0 106 70 1301.00 0.8205532
Barium 500.0 98.5 70 1300.500 37.74530
Beryllium 25.00 99.7 70 1300.200 024.9
Cadmium 25.00 112 70 1300.200 0.0160028.0
Chromium 500.0 103 70 1300.500 0.5610517
Copper 500.0 97.8 70 1300.500 0.5540489
Iron 5,000 104 50 15010045.565,250
Lead 250.0 87.9 70 1301.00 0.07550220
Manganese 500.0 100 70 1302.00 5.155508
Nickel 500.0 98.3 70 1300.500 0.7520492
Selenium 50.00 103 70 1301.00 051.5
Silver 25.00 67.8 70 130 S0.200 017.0
Sodium 5,000 62.9 50 15010057,37060,500
Thallium 12.50 89.4 70 1300.200 0.00650011.2
Zinc 500.0 101 70 1301.50 2.528508
NOTES:
S - Outlying spike recovery(ies) observed. A duplicate analysis was performed and recovered within range.
Sample ID:1604116-001CMSD
Batch ID:13468 Analysis Date:4/15/2016
Prep Date:4/15/2016
Analyte Result SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC RPD Ref Val %RPDLowLimitHighLimit RPDLimit Qual
Units:µg/L
RL
Client ID:BATCH
RunNo:28822
SeqNo:541796
MSDSampType:
Antimony 25.00 89.1 70 130 300.200 0.4710 22.79 0.17122.7
Arsenic 500.0 105 70 130 301.00 0.8205 531.7 1.30525
Barium 500.0 96.9 70 130 300.500 37.74 530.4 1.55522
Beryllium 25.00 96.0 70 130 300.200 0 24.92 3.7924.0
Cadmium 25.00 111 70 130 300.200 0.01600 28.03 0.56027.9
Chromium 500.0 99.4 70 130 300.500 0.5610 516.6 3.79497
Copper 500.0 96.3 70 130 300.500 0.5540 489.4 1.55482
Iron 5,000 105 50 150 3010045.56 5,246 1.135,310
Revision v1 Page 18 of 29
Project:Madrona K-8 School
CLIENT:Shannon & Wilson
Work Order:1604140 QC SUMMARY REPORT
Total Metals by EPA Method 200.8
4/21/2016Date:
Sample ID:1604116-001CMSD
Batch ID:13468 Analysis Date:4/15/2016
Prep Date:4/15/2016
Analyte Result SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC RPD Ref Val %RPDLowLimitHighLimit RPDLimit Qual
Units:µg/L
RL
Client ID:BATCH
RunNo:28822
SeqNo:541796
MSDSampType:
Lead 250.0 86.4 70 130 301.00 0.07550 219.8 1.76216
Manganese 500.0 100 70 130 302.00 5.155 507.5 0.177507
Nickel 500.0 98.4 70 130 300.500 0.7520 492.2 0.156493
Selenium 50.00 98.3 70 130 301.00 0 51.48 4.6249.2
Silver 25.00 75.0 70 130 300.200 0 16.96 10.018.7
Sodium 5,000 54.7 50 150 3010057,370 60,510 0.67960,100
Thallium 12.50 88.5 70 130 300.200 0.006500 11.18 1.0311.1
Zinc 500.0 101 70 130 301.50 2.528 508.0 0.150507
Revision v1 Page 19 of 29
Project:Madrona K-8 School
CLIENT:Shannon & Wilson
Work Order:1604140 QC SUMMARY REPORT
Mercury by EPA Method 245.1
4/21/2016Date:
Sample ID:MB-13469
Batch ID:13469 Analysis Date:4/18/2016
Prep Date:4/18/2016
Analyte Result SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC RPD Ref Val %RPDLowLimitHighLimit RPDLimit Qual
Units:µg/L
RL
Client ID:MBLKW
RunNo:28842
SeqNo:542145
MBLKSampType:
Mercury 0.100ND
Sample ID:LCS-13469
Batch ID:13469 Analysis Date:4/18/2016
Prep Date:4/18/2016
Analyte Result SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC RPD Ref Val %RPDLowLimitHighLimit RPDLimit Qual
Units:µg/L
RL
Client ID:LCSW
RunNo:28842
SeqNo:542146
LCSSampType:
Mercury 2.500 90.8 85 1150.100 02.27
Sample ID:1604092-001ADUP
Batch ID:13469 Analysis Date:4/18/2016
Prep Date:4/18/2016
Analyte Result SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC RPD Ref Val %RPDLowLimitHighLimit RPDLimit Qual
Units:µg/L
RL
Client ID:BATCH
RunNo:28842
SeqNo:542148
DUPSampType:
Mercury 200.100 0ND
Sample ID:1604092-001AMS
Batch ID:13469 Analysis Date:4/18/2016
Prep Date:4/18/2016
Analyte Result SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC RPD Ref Val %RPDLowLimitHighLimit RPDLimit Qual
Units:µg/L
RL
Client ID:BATCH
RunNo:28842
SeqNo:542149
MSSampType:
Mercury 2.500 96.4 80 1200.100 02.41
Sample ID:1604092-001AMSD
Batch ID:13469 Analysis Date:4/18/2016
Prep Date:4/18/2016
Analyte Result SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC RPD Ref Val %RPDLowLimitHighLimit RPDLimit Qual
Units:µg/L
RL
Client ID:BATCH
RunNo:28842
SeqNo:542150
MSDSampType:
Mercury 2.500 96.0 80 120 200.100 0 2.410 0.4162.40
Revision v1 Page 20 of 29
Project:Madrona K-8 School
CLIENT:Shannon & Wilson
Work Order:1604140 QC SUMMARY REPORT
Diesel and Heavy Oil by NWTPH-Dx/Dx Ext.
4/21/2016Date:
Sample ID:MB-13481
Batch ID:13481 Analysis Date:4/19/2016
Prep Date:4/18/2016
Analyte Result SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC RPD Ref Val %RPDLowLimitHighLimit RPDLimit Qual
Units:µg/L
RL
Client ID:MBLKW
RunNo:28866
SeqNo:542740
MBLKSampType:
Diesel (Fuel Oil)50.0ND
Heavy Oil 100ND
Surr: 2-Fluorobiphenyl 80.00 63.3 50 15050.6
Surr: o-Terphenyl 80.00 67.3 50 15053.8
Sample ID:LCS-13481
Batch ID:13481 Analysis Date:4/19/2016
Prep Date:4/18/2016
Analyte Result SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC RPD Ref Val %RPDLowLimitHighLimit RPDLimit Qual
Units:µg/L
RL
Client ID:LCSW
RunNo:28866
SeqNo:542739
LCSSampType:
Diesel (Fuel Oil)1,000 67.6 65 13550.0 0676
Surr: 2-Fluorobiphenyl 80.00 73.5 50 15058.8
Surr: o-Terphenyl 80.00 75.6 50 15060.5
Sample ID:1604132-002BDUP
Batch ID:13481 Analysis Date:4/19/2016
Prep Date:4/18/2016
Analyte Result SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC RPD Ref Val %RPDLowLimitHighLimit RPDLimit Qual
Units:µg/L
RL
Client ID:BATCH
RunNo:28866
SeqNo:542716
DUPSampType:
Diesel (Fuel Oil)3051.8 0ND
Diesel Range Organics (C12-C24)3051.8 459.7 19.5559
Heavy Oil 30 R104878.6 88.52,270
Surr: 2-Fluorobiphenyl 82.88 79.6 50 150 065.9
Surr: o-Terphenyl 82.88 71.6 50 150 059.4
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).
Revision v1 Page 21 of 29
Project:Madrona K-8 School
CLIENT:Shannon & Wilson
Work Order:1604140 QC SUMMARY REPORT
Diesel and Heavy Oil by NWTPH-Dx/Dx Ext.
4/21/2016Date:
Sample ID:1604140-001BMS
Batch ID:13481 Analysis Date:4/20/2016
Prep Date:4/18/2016
Analyte Result SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC RPD Ref Val %RPDLowLimitHighLimit RPDLimit Qual
Units:µg/L
RL
Client ID:OW-1-041416
RunNo:28866
SeqNo:542718
MSSampType:
Diesel (Fuel Oil)998.9 63.2 65 135 S49.9 37.33668
Surr: 2-Fluorobiphenyl 79.91 73.8 50 15059.0
Surr: o-Terphenyl 79.91 73.7 50 15058.9
NOTES:
S - Outlying spike recovery(ies) observed. A duplicate analysis was performed and recovered within range.
Sample ID:1604140-001BMSD
Batch ID:13481 Analysis Date:4/20/2016
Prep Date:4/18/2016
Analyte Result SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC RPD Ref Val %RPDLowLimitHighLimit RPDLimit Qual
Units:µg/L
RL
Client ID:OW-1-041416
RunNo:28866
SeqNo:542719
MSDSampType:
Diesel (Fuel Oil)996.3 67.9 65 135 3049.8 37.33 668.4 6.56714
Surr: 2-Fluorobiphenyl 79.71 75.1 50 150 0059.8
Surr: o-Terphenyl 79.71 77.2 50 150 0061.5
Sample ID:1604155-005EDUP
Batch ID:13481 Analysis Date:4/20/2016
Prep Date:4/18/2016
Analyte Result SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC RPD Ref Val %RPDLowLimitHighLimit RPDLimit Qual
Units:µg/L
RL
Client ID:BATCH
RunNo:28866
SeqNo:542729
DUPSampType:
Diesel (Fuel Oil)3050.0 0ND
Heavy Oil 301000ND
Surr: 2-Fluorobiphenyl 79.97 69.0 50 150 055.2
Surr: o-Terphenyl 79.97 70.9 50 150 056.7
Revision v1 Page 22 of 29
Project:Madrona K-8 School
CLIENT:Shannon & Wilson
Work Order:1604140 QC SUMMARY REPORT
Gasoline by NWTPH-Gx
4/21/2016Date:
Sample ID:LCS-R28812
Batch ID:R28812 Analysis Date:4/14/2016
Prep Date:4/14/2016
Analyte Result SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC RPD Ref Val %RPDLowLimitHighLimit RPDLimit Qual
Units:µg/L
RL
Client ID:LCSW
RunNo:28812
SeqNo:541564
LCSSampType:
Gasoline 500.0 100 65 13550.0 0502
Surr: Toluene-d8 25.00 97.8 65 13524.4
Surr: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 25.00 99.9 65 13525.0
Sample ID:MB-R28812
Batch ID:R28812 Analysis Date:4/14/2016
Prep Date:4/14/2016
Analyte Result SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC RPD Ref Val %RPDLowLimitHighLimit RPDLimit Qual
Units:µg/L
RL
Client ID:MBLKW
RunNo:28812
SeqNo:541565
MBLKSampType:
Gasoline 50.0ND
Surr: Toluene-d8 25.00 99.8 65 13524.9
Surr: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 25.00 99.7 65 13524.9
Sample ID:1602099-051AMS
Batch ID:R28812 Analysis Date:4/15/2016
Prep Date:4/15/2016
Analyte Result SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC RPD Ref Val %RPDLowLimitHighLimit RPDLimit Qual
Units:µg/L
RL
Client ID:BATCH
RunNo:28812
SeqNo:541555
MSSampType:
Gasoline 500.0 108 65 135 H50.0 0540
Surr: Toluene-d8 25.00 101 65 135 H25.2
Surr: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 25.00 101 65 135 H25.4
Sample ID:1602099-051AMSD
Batch ID:R28812 Analysis Date:4/15/2016
Prep Date:4/15/2016
Analyte Result SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC RPD Ref Val %RPDLowLimitHighLimit RPDLimit Qual
Units:µg/L
RL
Client ID:BATCH
RunNo:28812
SeqNo:541556
MSDSampType:
Gasoline 500.0 111 65 135 30 H50.0 0 540.1 3.07557
Surr: Toluene-d8 25.00 98.2 65 135 0 H024.6
Surr: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 25.00 98.6 65 135 0 H024.6
Revision v1 Page 23 of 29
Project:Madrona K-8 School
CLIENT:Shannon & Wilson
Work Order:1604140 QC SUMMARY REPORT
Gasoline by NWTPH-Gx
4/21/2016Date:
Sample ID:1604115-005ADUP
Batch ID:R28812 Analysis Date:4/15/2016
Prep Date:4/15/2016
Analyte Result SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC RPD Ref Val %RPDLowLimitHighLimit RPDLimit Qual
Units:µg/L
RL
Client ID:BATCH
RunNo:28812
SeqNo:541558
DUPSampType:
Gasoline 3050.0 0ND
Surr: Toluene-d8 25.00 99.8 65 135 0025.0
Surr: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 25.00 101 65 135 0025.4
Revision v1 Page 24 of 29
Project:Madrona K-8 School
CLIENT:Shannon & Wilson
Work Order:1604140 QC SUMMARY REPORT
Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA Method 8260C
4/21/2016Date:
Sample ID:LCS-R28811
Batch ID:R28811 Analysis Date:4/14/2016
Prep Date:4/14/2016
Analyte Result SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC RPD Ref Val %RPDLowLimitHighLimit RPDLimit Qual
Units:µg/L
RL
Client ID:LCSW
RunNo:28811
SeqNo:541551
LCSSampType:
Benzene 20.00 86.1 69.3 1321.00 017.2
Toluene 20.00 96.4 61.3 1451.00 019.3
Ethylbenzene 20.00 91.1 72 1301.00 018.2
m,p-Xylene 40.00 92.6 70.3 1341.00 037.0
o-Xylene 20.00 93.0 72.1 1311.00 018.6
Surr: Dibromofluoromethane 25.00 92.2 45.4 15223.1
Surr: Toluene-d8 25.00 110 40.1 13927.4
Surr: 1-Bromo-4-fluorobenzene 25.00 102 64.2 12825.6
Sample ID:MB-R28811
Batch ID:R28811 Analysis Date:4/14/2016
Prep Date:4/14/2016
Analyte Result SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC RPD Ref Val %RPDLowLimitHighLimit RPDLimit Qual
Units:µg/L
RL
Client ID:MBLKW
RunNo:28811
SeqNo:541552
MBLKSampType:
Benzene 1.00ND
Toluene 1.00ND
Ethylbenzene 1.00ND
m,p-Xylene 1.00ND
o-Xylene 1.00ND
Surr: Dibromofluoromethane 25.00 104 45.4 15226.0
Surr: Toluene-d8 25.00 94.9 40.1 13923.7
Surr: 1-Bromo-4-fluorobenzene 25.00 98.3 64.2 12824.6
Sample ID:1602099-051AMS
Batch ID:R28811 Analysis Date:4/14/2016
Prep Date:4/14/2016
Analyte Result SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC RPD Ref Val %RPDLowLimitHighLimit RPDLimit Qual
Units:µg/L
RL
Client ID:BATCH
RunNo:28811
SeqNo:541536
MSSampType:
Benzene 20.00 101 65.4 138 H1.00 020.1
Toluene 20.00 91.8 64 139 H1.00 018.4
Ethylbenzene 20.00 97.4 64.5 136 H1.00 019.5
m,p-Xylene 40.00 99.8 63.3 135 H1.00 039.9
Revision v1 Page 25 of 29
Project:Madrona K-8 School
CLIENT:Shannon & Wilson
Work Order:1604140 QC SUMMARY REPORT
Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA Method 8260C
4/21/2016Date:
Sample ID:1602099-051AMS
Batch ID:R28811 Analysis Date:4/14/2016
Prep Date:4/14/2016
Analyte Result SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC RPD Ref Val %RPDLowLimitHighLimit RPDLimit Qual
Units:µg/L
RL
Client ID:BATCH
RunNo:28811
SeqNo:541536
MSSampType:
o-Xylene 20.00 100 65.4 134 H1.00 020.0
Surr: Dibromofluoromethane 25.00 105 45.4 152 H26.3
Surr: Toluene-d8 25.00 96.4 40.1 139 H24.1
Surr: 1-Bromo-4-fluorobenzene 25.00 99.8 64.2 128 H24.9
Sample ID:1602099-051AMSD
Batch ID:R28811 Analysis Date:4/14/2016
Prep Date:4/14/2016
Analyte Result SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC RPD Ref Val %RPDLowLimitHighLimit RPDLimit Qual
Units:µg/L
RL
Client ID:BATCH
RunNo:28811
SeqNo:541537
MSDSampType:
Benzene 20.00 101 65.4 138 30 H1.00 0 20.12 0.69320.3
Toluene 20.00 92.0 64 139 30 H1.00 0 18.36 0.21818.4
Ethylbenzene 20.00 104 64.5 136 30 H1.00 0 19.48 6.4120.8
m,p-Xylene 40.00 104 63.3 135 30 H1.00 0 39.90 3.8841.5
o-Xylene 20.00 104 65.4 134 30 H1.00 0 20.02 3.9220.8
Surr: Dibromofluoromethane 25.00 104 45.4 152 0 H025.9
Surr: Toluene-d8 25.00 95.1 40.1 139 0 H023.8
Surr: 1-Bromo-4-fluorobenzene 25.00 102 64.2 128 0 H025.5
Sample ID:1604115-005ADUP
Batch ID:R28811 Analysis Date:4/15/2016
Prep Date:4/15/2016
Analyte Result SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC RPD Ref Val %RPDLowLimitHighLimit RPDLimit Qual
Units:µg/L
RL
Client ID:BATCH
RunNo:28811
SeqNo:541544
DUPSampType:
Benzene 301.00 0ND
Toluene 301.00 0ND
Ethylbenzene 301.00 0ND
m,p-Xylene 301.00 0ND
o-Xylene 301.00 0ND
Surr: Dibromofluoromethane 25.00 102 45.4 152 025.5
Surr: Toluene-d8 25.00 92.4 40.1 139 023.1
Surr: 1-Bromo-4-fluorobenzene 25.00 99.4 64.2 128 024.9
Revision v1 Page 26 of 29
Project:Madrona K-8 School
CLIENT:Shannon & Wilson
Work Order:1604140 QC SUMMARY REPORT
Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA Method 8260C
4/21/2016Date:
Sample ID:1604115-005ADUP
Batch ID:R28811 Analysis Date:4/15/2016
Prep Date:4/15/2016
Analyte Result SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC RPD Ref Val %RPDLowLimitHighLimit RPDLimit Qual
Units:µg/L
RL
Client ID:BATCH
RunNo:28811
SeqNo:541544
DUPSampType:
Revision v1 Page 27 of 29
Date Received:4/14/2016 4:07:00 PM
Client Name:SW Work Order Number:1604140
Sample Log-In Check List
Erica SilvaLogged by:
Item Information
How was the sample delivered?Client
Is Chain of Custody complete?Yes No Not Present
Was an attempt made to cool the samples?Yes No NA
Are samples properly preserved?Yes No
Was preservative added to bottles?Yes No NA
Did all samples containers arrive in good condition(unbroken)?Yes No
Does paperwork match bottle labels?Yes No
Are matrices correctly identified on Chain of Custody?Yes No
Is it clear what analyses were requested?Yes No
Is there headspace in the VOA vials?Yes No NA
1.
2.
6.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.Were all holding times able to be met?Yes No
Chain of Custody
Log In
7.Were all items received at a temperature of >0°C to 10.0°C Yes No NA
8.Sample(s) in proper container(s)?Yes No
9.Sufficient sample volume for indicated test(s)?Yes No
H2SO4 to 001H
Special Handling (if applicable)
18.
19.
Was client notified of all discrepancies with this order?Yes No NA
Person Notified:Date:
Regarding:
Via:eMail Phone Fax In Person
Additional remarks:
Client Instructions:
By Whom:
Coolers are present?Yes No NA3.
Shipping container/cooler in good condition?Yes No4.
Custody Seals present on shipping container/cooler?
(Refer to comments for Custody Seals not intact)
Yes No Not Required5.
*
Item #Temp ºC
Cooler 5.0
Sample 4.2
Temp Blank 2.4
Page 1 of 1Note: DoD/ELAP and TNI require items to be received at 4°C +/- 2°C*
Revision v1
Page 28 of 29
Page 29 of 29
21-1-22082-003
APPENDIX D
GROUNDWATER MODELING
21-1-22082-003-R1f-AD/wp/lk 21-1-22082-003
D-i
APPENDIX D
GROUNDWATER MODELING
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
D.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... D-1
D.2 MODELING APPROACH ............................................................................................. D-1
D.3 MODEL STRUCTURE AND LAYERING ................................................................... D-2
D.4 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-R1f-AD/wp/lk 21-1-22082-003
D-1
APPENDIX D
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-R1f-AD/wp/lk 21-1-22082-003
D-2
D.3 MODEL STRUCTURE AND LAYERING
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.
D.4 HYDRAULIC PARAMETERS
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
Model
Layer
Horizontal
Hydraulic
Conductivity
(feet per day)
Vertical
Hydraulic
Conductivity
(feet per day)
Specific
Yield,
Storativity
Layer
Elevation
Range
(feet)
Model Layer
Thickness (feet) Unit Description
1 30 3
0.1, 1 x 10-5
Greater
than 350 to
298.
52 to 162 Unsaturated Qva
outwash.
2 0.1 0.01 298 to 293 5
Low permeability
perching layer within
Qva.
3 30 3 293 to 225 68 Qva outwash aquifer.
D.5 BOUNDARY CONDITIONS AND INITIAL GROUNDWATER LEVELS
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-R1f-AD/wp/lk 21-1-22082-003
D-3
(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
100-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 310 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 117 feet below ground surface. As with the Base
21-1-22082-003-R1f-AD/wp/lk 21-1-22082-003
D-4
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
11 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 10 and increasing the elevation of the perching unit by
15 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 100 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.usgs.gov/tm/2005/tm6A16/.
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K‐8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
MODEL DOMAIN AND BOUNDARIES
November 2016 21‐1‐22082‐003
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants FIG. D‐1
250 5000
OW‐2
OW‐1
Northern Constant Head boundary
(elev. 299 ft)
Southern Constant Head boundary
(elev. 300 ft)FI
G
.
D‐1
Observation well
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K‐8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
PLANNED UIC WELLS
November 2016 21‐1‐22082‐003
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants FIG. D‐2
250 5000
UIC Area 1
UIC Area 4
UIC Area 3
UIC Area 2
Mo
d
e
l
Do
m
a
i
n
FI
G
.
D‐2
Planned UIC Well
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K‐8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
MODEL MESH IN NORTHERN UIC
WELLFIELD AREA
November 2016 21‐1‐22082‐003
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants FIG. D‐3
100 2000
UIC Area 1
UIC Area 2
UIC Area 3
FI
G
.
D‐3
Planned UIC Well
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K‐8 Project
Edmonds, Washington
MODEL SECTIONS NORTH‐SOUTH &
WEST‐EAST THROUGH WELL IW‐2
November 2016 21‐1‐22082‐003
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants FIG. D‐4
Northern Constant
Head boundary
(elev. 299 ft)
Southern Constant
Head boundary
(elev. 300 ft)
Well OW‐2
250 5000
Low K layer
Low K layer
Qva aquifer
Qva aquifer
Vertical exaggeration = x2
Unsaturated Qva unit
Unsaturated Qva unit
Well OW‐2
FI
G
.
D‐4
South North
EastWest
225’
225’
293’
293’
455’
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
400’
Madrona Model App D tables and figures - sdt 11-16-16 11/23/2016
1. Observation point locations shown on Figure 10
2. Input hydrograph provided by KPFF
FI
G
.
D
-
5
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
FIG. D-5
Notes:
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 School
Edmonds, Washington
MODEL INPUT HYDROGRAPH &
PREDICTED GROUNDWATER LEVELS AT
UIC AREAS - BASE CASE
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
0
500
1000
1500
2000
295
300
305
310
315
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48
Ho
u
r
l
y
F
l
o
w
I
n
p
u
t
R
a
t
e
(
g
p
m
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
f
t
)
Time (hours)
Input Hydrograph OBS-1 (UIC Area 1)OW-2 (UIC Area 2)
OBS-3 (UIC Area 3)OBS-4 (UIC Area 4)
Madrona Model App D tables and figures - sdt 11-16-16 11/23/2016
1. Observation point locations shown on Figure 10
2. Input hydrograph provided by KPFF
3. OW-2 elev = 445 feet; OBS-5 = elev. 444 ft; OBS-6 = elev. 450 ft; OBS-7 = elev. 370 ft
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 School
Edmonds, Washington
Notes:
PREDICTED GROUNDWATER LEVELS
ALONG TRANSECT
THROUGH UIC AREA 2 - BASE CASEFI
G
.
D
-
6
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
FIG. D-6SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
0
500
1000
1500
2000
295
300
305
310
315
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48
Ho
u
r
l
y
F
l
o
w
I
n
p
u
t
R
a
t
e
(
g
p
m
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
f
t
)
Time (hours)
Input Hydrograph
OW-2 (UIC Area 2)
OBS-5 (70 ft west of OW-2)
OBS-6 (100 ft west of OW-2)
OBS-7 (400 ft west of OW-2)
Madrona Model App D tables and figures - sdt 11-16-16 11/23/2016
1. Observation point locations shown on Figure 10
2. Input hydrograph provided by KPFF
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 School
Edmonds, Washington
Notes:
MODEL INPUT HYDROGRAPH &
PREDICTED GROUNDWATER LEVELS AT
UIC AREA 2 - SENSITIVITY CASESFI
G
.
D
-
7
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
FIG. D-7SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
0
400
800
1200
1600
2000
290
300
310
320
330
340
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48
Ho
u
r
l
y
F
l
o
w
I
n
p
u
t
R
a
t
e
(
g
p
m
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
f
t
)
Time (hours)
Input Hydrograph Base Case (OW-2)Sensitivity Case 1
Sensitivity Case 2 Sensitivity Case 3
Madrona Model App D tables and figures - sdt 11-16-16 11/23/2016
1. Observation point locations shown on Figure 10
2. Input hydrograph provided by KPFF
3. OW-2 elev = 445 feet; OBS-5 = elev. 444 ft; OBS-6 = elev. 450 ft; OBS-7 = elev. 370 ft
Hydrogeologic Report
New Madrona K-8 School
Edmonds, Washington
Notes:
PREDICTED GROUNDWATER LEVELS ALONG
TRANSECT
THROUGH UIC AREA 2 - SENSITIVITY CASE 3FI
G
.
D
-
8
November 2016 21-1-22082-003
FIG. D-8SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
0
500
1000
1500
2000
310
315
320
325
330
335
340
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48
Ho
u
r
l
y
F
l
o
w
I
n
p
u
t
R
a
t
e
(
g
p
m
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
f
t
)
Time (hours)
Input Hydrograph
OW-2 (UIC Area 2)
OBS-5 (70 ft west of OW-2)
OBS-6 (100 ft west of OW-2)
OBS-7 (400 ft west of OW-2)
21-1-22082-003
APPENDIX E
IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR
GEOTECHNICAL/ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
Page 1 of 2 1/2016
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
Attachment to and part of Report 21-1-22082-003
Date: November 29, 2016
To: Ms. Taine Wilton
Edmonds School District #15
IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAL/ENVIRONMENTAL
REPORT
CONSULTING SERVICES ARE PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES AND FOR SPECIFIC CLIENTS.
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 geotechnical/environmental report. The consultant should be kept
apprised of any such events, and should be consulted to determine if additional tests are necessary.
MOST RECOMMENDATIONS ARE PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENTS.
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 2 of 2 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 Geosciences, Silver Spring, Maryland