Final Geologysoils Tech RPT 060308 SM

SUNRISE PROJECT, I-205 TO ROCK CREEK
JUNCTION (HIGHWAY 212/224)
SOILS AND GEOLOGY TECHNICAL REPORT
October 2008
TO: Readers of the Sunrise Technical Reports

FROM: Sunrise Project Team
SUBJECT: Differences between Sunrise SDEIS and Technical Reports
The Sunrise Project: I-205 to Rock Creek Junction Supplemental Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (SDEIS) presents information summarized from numerous technical
documents. Most of these documents are discipline specific technical reports (e.g.,
cultural resources, noise, wetlands, etc.). These reports include a detailed explanation of
the data gathering and analytical methods used by each discipline team.
The technical reports are longer and more detailed than the SDEIS and should be referred
to for information beyond that which is presented in the SDEIS. Findings summarized in
the SDEIS are supported by analysis in the technical reports and their appendices.
References used to develop the reports and underlying data are presented in the technical
reports.
The draft technical reports were largely completed in late 2007. Since the technical
reports were completed, new information has been discovered that has been incorporated
into the SDEIS. Thus, the SDEIS reflects more recent public and agency input than is
included in the technical reports. For example, since the technical reports were
completed, additional work has been conducted for the cultural resource documentation
for Camp Withycombe and the RTP planning process has progressed with federal
approvals of local plans. Also, the cumulative effects section of the document was written
after reviewing all of the technical reports. No one technical report includes this
comprehensive analysis.
Please refer to the appropriate section of the SDEIS for the most current information.
SUMMARY
Table S1 provides a summary of environmental consequences for the alternatives.
Potential environmental consequences for the committed improvements for No-Build Alternative
could include slope instability, shallow groundwater, Shrink/swell soils, erosion of cut-and-fill
slopes during construction, ground settlement resulting from fill embankments that could have
negative impacts on adjacent structures and utilities, and seismically induced liquefaction of
near-surface saturated loose, cohesionless silt and sand. The committed improvements should be
studied further for geologic hazards prior to implementation.
Environmental impacts and possible mitigation measures for Alternative 2 and Alternative 3
areas include the following:
x
Because wetland areas and shallow groundwater ponding areas are present throughout the
proposed project corridor, soft, wet, and compressible soils should be anticipated. A local,
unstable roadway subgrade could develop as a result of construction traffic, causing soft,
weaving, and pumping subgrade. Subgrade exhibits soft, weaving, and pumping
characteristics is considered to be disturbed and temporary or permanent yielding under
traffic loads. Therefore, site preparation should include stabilization of the subgrade to
reduce construction traffic disturbance of these soils.
Shallow groundwater depths and/or the presence of groundwater springs/seeps are also likely
to have adverse effects on slope stability. Drainage improvements, such as slope drainage
and groundwater control (including possible construction dewatering), could be used to
control shallow groundwater and/or the presence of groundwater springs/seeps along the
slopes.
Benching or other excavations, especially steep, inclined cuts, would probably result in slope
instability in landslide areas and areas underlain by soft and weak Quaternary colluvium. A
more detailed assessment of the stability of these landslides should be conducted prior to
final design and before any earthwork activities are undertaken in this area. Some of the
mitigation measures that could be used to stabilize the Eastern Landslide and slope areas
include slope drainage (dewatering), excavation in short segments, installation of temporary
and permanent retaining structures, or rock buttresses.
Areas with Shrink/swell soils that have high plasticity indices could cause damage to
structures and pavements. The Shrink/well potential of the surficial soils could be reduced
by minimizing exposure times to moisture change, pre-wetting, soil removal and
replacement, adding chemical admixtures to the soil, and remolding and compaction control.
The Shrink/swell soil should be evaluated based on site-specific design considerations.
Areas susceptible to erosion of cut-and-fill slopes during construction could increase the
sediment load to surface runoff and adjacent streams. Erosion and sediment control devices
could include diversion berms and dikes, sediment stilling basins, drainage systems for
removal of sediment-laden runoff water to more suitable discharge locations, and installation
of geofabric filter (silt) fences, or grassing and mulching.
Sunrise Project, I-205 To Rock Creek Junction (Highway 212/224)

Geology and Soils Technical Report
Page 1 of 54
December 2007
Ground settlement due to fill embankments could have negative impacts on adjacent
structures and utilities. Site-specific geotechnical investigation should be performed to
estimate the potential damage and required mitigation resulting from embankment dead
loads.
Seismically induced liquefaction of near-surface, saturated, loose, cohesionless silt and sand
could cause the loss of bearing capacity of spread footings, settlement of the approach
embankment, lateral spreading of the embankment, post-earthquake slope instability, surface
manifestations, and downdrag and lateral loads on piles. Due to potential seismically
induced liquefaction, bridge and overpass structures underlain by potentially liquefactionsusceptible materials could be supported on piles extending into the underlying dense gravel.
Approach embankments should be evaluated for liquefaction-induced settlement, lateral
spreading, and post-earthquake slope instability. Some of the engineering mitigation
measures available to stabilize the approach embankments include rammed stone piers, stone
columns, closely spaced driven displacement piles, or removal and replacement of the soil in
the liquefaction zone. The application of these soil improvement methods should be
evaluated based on their cost-effectiveness, the thickness of the potential liquefaction zone,
the magnitude of the estimated deformation, and the configuration of the embankment.
The disadvantages of Design Options B-2 and C-3 when comparing to other design options are
significant cuts and benching into the landslide and slopes for these two alignments. Significant
impacts include slope instability due to excavation and benching into landslide and slopes;
excavation of rock; excavation and handling of boulders.

Page 2 of 54
December 2007
Table S1. Summary of Impacts *

Environmental Consequences
Alternative 1 (see Figure 2) consists of several improvements along the corridor. Potential
Alternative 1: NoBuild
environmental consequences for the committed improvements for No-Build Alternative

could include slope instability, shallow groundwater, Shrink/swell soils, erosion of cut-andfill slopes during construction, ground settlement resulting from fill embankments, and
seismically induced liquefaction of near-surface saturated loose, cohesionless silt and sand.
Alternative 2 (see Figure 3) is distinguished by the inclusion of a midpoint interchange in
the vicinity of SE 122nd Avenue, which would connect the expressway to the existing
Alternative 2: Build
Highway 212/224. Impacts include slope instability due to excavation and benching into
with Midpoint
landslide and slopes; excavation of rock; excavation and handling of boulders; soft and wet
Interchange
soils in wetlands and shallow groundwater areas; springs/seeps on slopes; shrink/swell

soils; erodible soils; settlement of foundation soils due to fill embankments; and localized,
seismically induced liquefaction.
Alternative 3: Build
with No Midpoint
Interchange
Alternative 3 (see Figure 4) would not have a midpoint interchange at SE 122nd Avenue,
resulting in no access to the expressway between I-205 and Rock Creek Junction. Impacts
are similar to those for Alternative 2 except at Zone B where no excavation up to 40 feet in
height into the landslide and local slope areas.
Design Option A-2 (see Figures 5, 6, and 7), located in Zone A, would extend SE
Design Option A-2:
Lawnfield Road west and south toward SE Clackamas Road. Design Option A-2 has
Modified 1996 Design
environmental impact issues similar to Zone A of Alternatives 2 and 3. No geotechnical

advantages.
Design Option B-2 (see Figures 5, 6, and 8), located in Zone B, would be applicable only to
Design Option B-2:
Alternative 2 for the midpoint interchange. This option would incorporate a modified split
1996 Split Interchange
interchange involving both SE 122nd Avenue and SE 135th Avenue. Impacts are similar to
(Modified)
those for Alternative 3. No excavation up to 40 feet in height into the landslide and local
slope areas compare to Design Option B of Alternative 2.
Design Option C-2 (see Figures 5, 6, and 9), located in Zone C, would adjust the corridor
Design Option C-2:

Central Alignment
alignment in the vicinity of Rock Creek closer to the existing Highway 212/224 alignment.
Design Option C-2 has environmental impact issues similar to the design for Zone C of
Alternatives 2 and 3. Less impacts to slope stability and excavation than Design Option C3.
Design Option C-3 (see Figures 5, 6, and 10), in contrast to Option C-2, this option would
Design Option C-3:
more closely follows the existing tree line to the north. Design Option C-3 has
Modified Follow Tree-
environmental impact issues similar to the design for Zone D (East End Area) of
Line Alignment
Alternatives 2 and 3, but significant impacts include slope instability due to excavation and
benching into the slopes, excavation of rock, and excavation and handling of boulders.
Design Option D-2:

Alignment through
Knoll (Folded
Diamond Interchange)
Design Option D-3:
Design Option D-2 (see Figures 5, 6, and 11) would place a folded diamond interchange
through the knoll. Design Option D-2 has environmental impact issues similar to the
design for Zone D of Alternatives 2 and 3.
Design Option D-3 (see Figures 5, 6, and 12) replaces the folded diamond interchange with

Page 3 of 54
December 2007
Single-Point Diamond
a single-point diamond- design interchange situated farther south in Zone D. The location
Interchange
of the westbound exit ramp of Design Option D-3 would probably require less excavation
into rock than Design Option D-2 and the design for Zone D of Alternatives 2 and 3.
*Refer to pages 5-7 for description of alternatives and design options.

Page 4 of 54
December 2007
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................7
PROJECT LOCATION ...................................................................................................................................................7
PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED ....................................................................................................................................7
PROPOSED ACTION ....................................................................................................................................................7
ALTERNATIVES........................................................................................................................................................8
ALTERNATIVE 1: NO-BUILD ......................................................................................................................................8
ALTERNATIVE 2: BUILD WITH MIDPOINT INTERCHANGE ...........................................................................................8
ALTERNATIVE 3: BUILD WITH NO MIDPOINT INTERCHANGE .....................................................................................8
DESIGN OPTIONS .......................................................................................................................................................8
Design Option A-2: Modified 1996 Design..........................................................................................................9
Design Option B-2: 1996 Split Interchange (Modified).......................................................................................9
Design Option C-2: Central Alignment ...............................................................................................................9
Design Option C-3: Modified Follow Tree-Line Alignment ................................................................................9
Design Option D-2: Alignment through Knoll (Folded Diamond Interchange) ..................................................9
Design Option D-3: Single-Point Diamond Interchange .....................................................................................9
METHODOLOGY AND DATA SOURCES...........................................................................................................33
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT................................................................................................................................33
GEOLOGIC SETTING .................................................................................................................................................33
Regional Geology...............................................................................................................................................33
Local Geology ....................................................................................................................................................34
Landslide Areas..................................................................................................................................................34
SUBSURFACE SOILS .................................................................................................................................................35
SURFICIAL SOILS .....................................................................................................................................................37
GROUNDWATER SETTING ........................................................................................................................................37
SEISMIC SETTING .....................................................................................................................................................38
Seismicity ...........................................................................................................................................................38
Design Earthquake.............................................................................................................................................40
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...............................................................................................................41
Alternative 1: No Build ......................................................................................................................................41
Alternative 2: Build with Midpoint Interchange ................................................................................................41
Alternative 3: Build with No Midpoint Interchange...........................................................................................44
Design Options...................................................................................................................................................44
Indirect Effects ...................................................................................................................................................46
Cumulative Effects .............................................................................................................................................46
Summary of Permits Required ...........................................................................................................................46
Mitigation Measures ..........................................................................................................................................46
Enhancement Opportunities...............................................................................................................................49
REFERENCES AND AGENCY CONSULTATIONS ...........................................................................................50
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS..................................................................................................................51
LIST OF PREPARERS.............................................................................................................................................52

Page 5 of 54
December 2007
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP ..............................................................................................................................................10
FIGURE 2 ALTERNATIVE 1: NO-BUILD .........................................................................................................................11
FIGURE 3 ALTERNATIVE 2 WITH DESIGN OPTIONS .......................................................................................................13
FIGURE 4 ALTERNATIVE 2 ............................................................................................................................................15
FIGURE 5 ALTERNATIVE 3 WITH DESIGN OPTIONS .......................................................................................................17
FIGURE 6 ALTERNATIVE 3 ............................................................................................................................................19
FIGURE 7 OPTION A2: LAWNFIELD 82ND CONNECTION ...............................................................................................21
FIGURE 8 OPTION B2: SPLIT INTERCHANGE .................................................................................................................23
FIGURE 9 OPTION C2: CENTRAL ALIGNMENT...............................................................................................................25
FIGURE 10 OPTION C3: MODIFIED FOLLOW TREE-LINE ALIGNMENT ..........................................................................27
FIGURE 11 OPTION D2: ALIGNMENT THROUGH KNOLL FOLDED DIAMOND INTERCHANGE .........................................29
FIGURE 12 OPTION D3: ALIGNMENT NORTH OF KNOLL - SINGLE POINT DIAMOND INTERCHANGE .............................31
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE S1. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS * .............................................................................................................................3
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF MAPPED SURFACIAL SOILS WITHIN PROJECT AREA................................................................37
TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL RELATED PERMITS REQUIRED ......................................................................46

Page 6 of 54
December 2007
INTRODUCTION
Project Location
The proposed project is located in the western, urbanized portion of Clackamas County in the
vicinity of State Highway 212/224 (see Figure 1, Project Vicinity). The project limits extend
approximately 4.9 miles from approximately 1,000 feet west of SE Johnson Road to SE 172nd
Avenue, just beyond Rock Creek Junction where Highways 212 and 224 diverge.
Project Purpose and Need

The purpose of this project is to effectively address congestion and safety problems in the
Highway 212/224 corridor between its interchange with Interstate 205 (I-205) and Rock Creek
Junction, and to serve the growing demand for regional travel and access to the state highway
system.
The need for the project is generated by the following factors:
x
Highway 212/224 between I-205 and Rock Creek Junction is currently experiencing
unacceptable levels of congestion and delay during the peak travel periods. By 2030, the
projected traffic volume will exceed the volume that the existing four-lane arterial can be
expected to handle at an acceptable level of service.
By 2030, the numbers of households and jobs in the area served by this section of Highway
212/224 are expected to increase by 136 percent and 85 percent, respectively.
Both the north and southbound weave sections of I-205 between SE 82nd Avenue and
Highway 212/224 are approaching capacity, resulting in frequent stop-and-go movements,
difficulty in changing lanes, and long queues forming because of minor incidents. By 2015,
this section of I-205 is expected to exceed its design capacity and the extent of these stopand-go movements may continue to grow if no action is taken. Some traffic traveling on the
Milwaukie Expressway (Highway 224) heading east on Highway 212/224, as well as the
reverse direction, may have to use either the above section of I-205 or the currently
congested SE 82nd Avenue.
Highway 212/224 near I-205 is ranked in the top 10 percent of state routes for vehicle crash
rate. A vehicle crash rate of 3.10 was reported for this area during the 5-year period from
1998 through 2002. The comparable statewide facility rate is 2.47. The high crash rate is
attributed to severe congestion and roadway deficiencies. Inadequate bicycle and pedestrian
facilities reduce the safety and connectivity for these modes of travel in the project area.
Proposed Action
The proposed action would provide a new limited-access expressway between I-205 and the
Rock Creek Junction. The facility would be comprised of six lanes, plus auxiliary lanes, and
would include an improved interchange at I-205. This new expressway would become the
designated State Highway 212/224, with the existing route reverting to a county arterial.

Page 7 of 54
December 2007
ALTERNATIVES
A no-build alternative and two build alternatives are being evaluated. Design options within each
of the build alternatives are also being considered. Both build alternatives and all design options
would incorporate an improved interchange at I-205 and an interchange at Rock Creek Junction.
The alignment of the facility would generally follow a natural bluff-line that extends from Mt.
Talbert east to Rock Creek on the north side of Highway 212/224. Associated improvements to
address local circulation are also included.
Alternative 1: No-Build
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Oregon Department of Transportation
(ODOT), and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines require that a no-build
option be evaluated. The No-Build Alternative (see Figure 2) would maintain the existing
roadway except for committed improvements scheduled in ODOTs four-year Statewide
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and Metros Financially Constrained Projects
listed in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). These listed projects include the following:
x
Widen SE 82nd Avenue between Lawnfield Road and Highway 212/224.
Improve the Highway 212 connection to Mather Road via SE 102nd Avenue and Industrial
Way.
Construct a new northerly extension of Highway 224 at Rock Creek Junction that curves east
to connect to SE 162nd and SE 172nd Avenues.
Create a climbing lane on Highway 212 between Rock Creek Junction and SE 172nd
Avenue.
Widen SE 172nd Avenue between Foster Road and Highway 212.
Widen Highway 224 between Rock Creek Junction and the Carver Bridge.
Widen the Carver Bridge to five lanes.
Alternative 2: Build with Midpoint Interchange

This alternative is distinguished by the inclusion of a midpoint interchange in the vicinity of SE
122nd Avenue, which would connect the expressway to the existing Highway 212/224 (see
Figure 3).
Alternative 3: Build with No Midpoint Interchange

In contrast to Alternative 2, this alternative would not have a midpoint interchange, resulting in
no access to the expressway between I-205 and Rock Creek Junction (see Figure 4).
Design Options
In addition to the two build alternatives described above, a number of design options are under
consideration. These options are organized by geographic zones, as described below.

Page 8 of 54
December 2007
Zone A is the westernmost portion of the corridor and represents the I-205 Interchange Area
and the Lawnfield Business Area, with a western terminus aligned with SE Johnson Road
and an eastern terminus bisecting Camp Withycombe. The north and south boundaries
extend from Clackamas Town Center to south of SE Jennifer Street.
Zone B is the Midpoint Area and extends from Camp Withycombe to SE 135th Avenue,
north to Clackamas High School and south to SE Jennifer Street.
Zone C has the same north and south boundaries as Zone B and extends from SE 135th
Avenue east to the Rock Creek area.
Zone D represents the eastern end of the corridor and stretches east to SE 172nd Avenue with
the same north and south boundaries as Zones B and C.
Many design options were considered, but only a few were carried forward for study. The
design options described below retain their original numbering system.
Design Option A-2: Modified 1996 Design
This design option, located in Zone A, would extend SE Lawnfield Road west and south toward
SE Clackamas Road (see Figures 5, 6 and 7). A further change would be to route SE Mather
Road west to the SE Lawnfield Road extension, instead of south along SE Industrial Way.
Design Option B-2: 1996 Split Interchange (Modified)
Located in Zone B, this design option for the midpoint interchange would incorporate a modified
split interchange involving both SE 122nd Avenue and SE 135th Avenue. This option would be
applicable only to Alternative 2, as displayed in Figures 5, 6, and 8.
Design Option C-2: Central Alignment
This design option, located in Zone C and displayed in Figures 5, 6, and 9, would adjust the
corridor alignment in the vicinity of Rock Creek closer to the existing Highway 212/224
alignment.
Design Option C-3: Modified Follow Tree-Line Alignment
In contrast to Option C-2, this option would more closely follow the existing tree line to the
north, as shown in Figures 5, 6, and 10.
Design Option D-2: Alignment through Knoll (Folded Diamond Interchange)
Instead of incorporating a folded diamond interchange north of a natural knoll in Zone D, this
option would place the alignment through the knoll, as depicted in Figures 5, 6, and 11.
Design Option D-3: Single-Point Diamond Interchange
This design option replaces the folded diamond interchange with a single-point diamond- design
interchange situated farther south in Zone D, as shown in Figures 5, 6, and 12.

Page 9 of 54
December 2007
Project
Vicinity
VANCOUVER
Riv
O R E G O N
205
er
WAS
HING
TON
ORE
GON
CAMAS
99E
Ri ve r
PORTLAND
84
84
405
WOOD TROUTDALE
VILLAGE
26
Multnomah Co.
Washington Co.
BEAVERTON
217
GRESHAM
26
Foster Road
Multnomah Co.
Clackamas Co.
HAPPY
VALLEY
MILWAUKIE
Multnomah Co.
Clackamas Co.
224
LAKE
OSWEGO
Road
Clackamas
212 224
r Road
Foste
172nd Avenue
TIGARD
26
205
Damascus
Boring
to
212
Mo
un
tH
Carver
211
205
WEST
LINN
OREGON
CITY
Project
Location
99E
224
213
Riv
er
ESTACADA
211
99E
213
Clackamas Co.
Marion Co.
MOLALLA
Legend
INCORPORATED CITY
County Boundary
Unincorporated Community
Project Location
Rivers
26
State Boundary
Urban Growth
Boundary
Interstate
211
U.S. Highway
State Highway
Other Major Roads
Figure 1
Project Vicinity
SANDY
224
GLADSTONE
oo
5 Miles
METHODOLOGY AND DATA SOURCES

Information for the following sections of this report was obtained from several sources that
include published documents describing geology, soils, groundwater, and seismology; available
previous EIS reports completed by Dames & Moore; a Preliminary Geotechnical Report, dated
April 25, 2006, prepared by Kleinfelder; and field reconnaissance between January 29 and
February 3, 2006. The references of available documents are provided in the References section
of this report.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Geologic Setting
Regional Geology
The Sunrise Project area is located in the Puget Lowland, a structural depression that extends
northward from approximately Eugene, Oregon, to the Fraser River in southern British
Columbia. Two major basins, separated by bedrock highland areas, make up the lowland: (1) the
Puget Sound Lowland, located in southwestern British Columbia and Washington; and (2) the
Willamette Lowland, located in southwestern Washington and Oregon. In general, the
Willamette Lowland is a broad alluvial basin bordered on the west by Tertiary marine
sedimentary and volcanic rocks of the Coast Ranges and on the east by the Tertiary and
Quaternary volcanic and volcaniclastic (derived from volcanic sources) rocks of the Cascade
Range.
Four separate basins are generally recognized in the Willamette Lowland: (1) the southern
Willamette Valley, (2) the central Willamette Valley, (3) the Tualatin Basin, and (4) the Portland
Basin. The proposed project corridor is located in the southeastern portion of the Portland Basin.
In general, narrow ridges underlain by the Columbia River Basalt Group separate the basins.
Basins and tributary valleys are generally filled with more than 1,600 feet of unconsolidated
alluvial deposits derived from surrounding highland areas and the Columbia River Basin. These
deposits unconformably rest upon bedrock composed principally of the Columbia River Basalt
Group. Fine-grained Miocene and Pliocene fluvial-lacustrine deposits occur near the bottom of
the basin-fill deposits; coarse-grained fluvial deposits derived from the Cascade Range and the
Missoula Floods generally constitute the upper 300 feet of the basin-fill deposits.
The Missoula Floods, a series of glacial outburst floods that originated in Montana approximately 12,000 to 15,000 years ago, had significant impacts on the geomorphology and
depositional history of the basins in the Willamette Valley. Widespread inundation of the valley
occurred during these floods. Up to 250 feet of silt, sand, and gravel were deposited in the
Portland Basin, and up to 130 feet of silt, known as the Willamette Silt, were deposited
elsewhere in the valley.

Page 33 of 54
December 2007
Local Geology
Figure 13 illustrates the footprint of Alternative 2 right-of-way plotted on a geologic map. The
footprint of Alternative 3 is similar to Alternative 2 except at the mid-point interchange. The
project area is located in the Boring Lavas Field, a Pliocene-Pleistocene age volcanic field that
includes numerous cinder cones, small shield volcanoes, and other eruptive features in the
regional area of the proposed corridor. Age-dating of rock samples indicates the volcanoes and
vents were probably active from at least 2.7 million to less than 500,000 years ago. Volcanoes
and vents in the lava field are inactive, with most of the eruptive history occurring before
approximately 300,000 years ago. Northwest of Boring, over 20 eruptive vents have been
identified within a radius of less than 40 miles. Vents in this area typically average less than
approximately 1.5 miles in diameter and less than 1,000 feet high. Lava erupted from these
volcanoes and vents to form widespread, gently sloping plains. Figure 13 illustrates the mapped
extent of the Boring Lavas in the project area for Alternatives 2 and 3. Boring Lavas (locally
covered by Quarternary and Pleistocene surficial deposits) underlie the highland area
immediately north of the corridor. The Clackamas River has eroded its channel and floodplain
through the project area; most of the proposed corridor is located in the floodplain.
Two bedrock units, consisting of Boring Lavas and Sandy River Mudstone, underlie the project
area (see Figure 13). Boring Lavas consist of hard basalt, volcaniclastic sediments, and
weathered zones that consist of basalt rock fragments (gravel- to boulder-size) in a matrix of clay
to sand. Large remnant fragments of relatively hard basalt (corestones) exceeding 20 feet in
size have been reported in weathered zones of the Boring Lavas. The thickness of the flows,
based on regional well logs, indicates that Boring Lavas flows generally range from 100- to 200feet thick.
The Pliocene Sandy River Mudstone typically consists of mudstone, siltstone, and fine- to
medium-grained sandstone with some interbedded gravel to pebble conglomerate. The Sandy
River Mudstone is interpreted as a fine-grained, over-bank facies of the ancestral Columbia
River, with an estimated maximum regional thickness of approximately 900 feet.
Both bedrock units are overlain by surficial deposits consisting of (in order of relatively
increasing age) constructed fill, both engineered and non-engineered (random), Quarternary
alluvium (associated with erosion/deposition of the Clackamas River and its local tributaries),
Quaternary landslide deposits, Quaternary colluvium, and Pleistocene terrace deposits. Much of
the alignment is underlain by and would be constructed in these surficial deposits. Both bedrock
units would also be locally encountered, particularly in areas where the corridor alignment
encroaches on the southerly-descending slopes flanking most of the corridor. Bedrock is likely
to be encountered in the eastern portion of the corridor and during construction of deep
foundations.
Landslide Areas
Two landslides have been mapped by Schlicker and Finlayson (1979) in the slope area near this
corridor segment (see Figure 13). One landslide (referred to hereafter as the Camp Withycombe
Landslide) is located in the northeastern portion of Camp Withycombe and extends from Camp
Withycombe to approximately SE 115th Avenue. The other landslide (referred to as the Eastern
Landslide) is located approximately between SE 115th Avenue and SE 119th Avenue. A site
Page 34 of 54
December 2007
reconnaissance to observe these two landslides was performed on January 2006 by two certified
engineering geologists from Kleinfelder.
Camp Withycombe Landslide
The Camp Withycombe Landslide appears to be located within 50 feet in a northerly direction of
the proposed corridor alignment (see Figures 3, 4, and 13). It is up to approximately 2,000 feet
in width and approximately 1,500 feet long. Dames & Moore (1990) estimated the landslide to
be approximately 120 to 150 feet thick. Relatively youthful geomorphic features, such as closed
depressions, steep scarps, and hummocky topography, are characteristic features of the landslide.
Steep lateral scarps define the eastern flank of the landslide, and a relatively abrupt break in
slope occurs along the toe of the landslide. Dames & Moore (1990) reported observing numerous
springs and seeps within the body of the landslide. Dames & Moore (1990) also reported
evidence of recent landslide activity near the southeastern corner of the landslide, where cracking
and partial failure of a cut slope at the toe of the landslide were observed.
Eastern Landslide
The Eastern Landslide is located approximately 1,400 feet north of Highway 212 and
approximately between SE 115th Avenue and SE 119th Avenue (see Figures 3, 4, and 13). The
proposed corridor alignment appears to traverse the toe of the Eastern Landslide and would
require earthwork construction within the mapped limits of the toe area of the landslide (see
Figures 3 and 4). Based on the extent of the landslide mapped by Schlicker and Finlyason
(1979), the landslide is up to approximately 500 feet wide and is approximately 600 feet long.
Field observations suggest the landslide is relatively shallow, estimated to be less than 20 feet
thick.
With the exception of the abrupt break in slope at the toe of the landslide, no distinct geomorphic
features typically found on landslides were observed on the Eastern Landslide. The lower
portion and the toe area of the Eastern Landslide are relatively steep, with near-vertical to
vertical slopes up to at least 10 feet high. Local exposures of landslide debris consist of a chaotic
mixture of large, angular Boring Lavas basalt cobbles and boulders in a clay, silt, and sand
matrix. Dames & Moore (1990) reported observing bent tree trunks on the landslide, indicating
that some instability could exist or that soil creep was occurring. Numerous groundwater seeps
were also observed in this landslide. Several seeps were observed along the toe of the landslide
originating from what appeared to be the basal failure surface of the landslide. The failure
surface separates overlying landslide deposits from the underlying Sandy River Mudstone.
No evidence of recent activity at the Eastern Landslide was observed on January 2006.
However, because of the steep nature of the landslide and the weak nature of its deposits, it is
highly likely that construction activities that are nearby or encroach on the landslide will cause
reactivation. Ground shaking during an earthquake could also result in movement of the
landslide.
Subsurface Soils
The corridor is underlain by eight geologic units. These units consist of (in order of increasing
age) of the following: (1) Constructed Fill, (2) a combination unit consisting of Constructed Fill
and Quaternary alluvium, (3) Quaternary alluvium, (4) Quaternary landslide deposits, (5)
Page 35 of 54
December 2007
Quaternary colluvium, (6) Quaternary Boring Lavas, (7) Pleistocene terrace deposits, and (8)
Pliocene Sandy River Mudstone. The geologic units are described below.
x Constructed Fill. Fill materials, both engineered and non-engineered (random), are present
locally throughout the corridor and are approximately 3 to 5 feet thick. Fill materials consist
of brown sandy silt and black sandy gravel. The fill materials are more prevalent in the
corridor segment west of Rock Creek; however, local areas underlain by fill also occur east
of Rock Creek.
x
Constructed Fill and Quaternary Alluvium. This combined geologic unit is used to
designate materials with physical similarities that make it difficult to differentiate the soils as
fill or Quaternary alluvium. This unit is present on relatively flat ground west of Rock Creek
where land development and/or improvements have occurred. This unit generally consists of
variable amounts of clay, silt, and sand. This unit is also likely to occur locally underlying
agricultural fields and former livestock pastures east of Rock Creek where land leveling may
have occurred. This combined geologic unit may be up to approximately 20 feet thick.
Quaternary Alluvium. These deposits generally consist of black clay, gray to brown silt,
and gray to brown gravel mixed with various amounts of silt and sand. These deposits
typically occur in the corridor segment west of Rock Creek. The thickness of the Quaternary
alluvium is at least 45 feet.
Quaternary Landslide Deposits. A large landslide is located north of Camp Withycombe

(see Figure 13). The toe of the southwesterly descending landslide is located north of the
proposed corridor. Based on site reconnaissance on January 2006, the landslide debris is
likely to consist of materials derived from Quaternary colluvium, Pleistocene terrace
deposits, and Boring Lavas. The smaller Eastern Landslide is located east of Camp
Withycombe and north of the corridor. This landslide occurs on a relatively steep slope.
Groundwater seeps were observed in the landslide body and near the toe portion. The
landslide probably consists of materials derived from Quaternary colluvium and Boring
Lavas. No evidence of recent activity of the Eastern Landslide was observed.
Quaternary Colluvium. Quaternary colluvium occurs as a surficial deposit that mantles

approximately the lower half of the slopes along the northern side of the corridor. The
colluvium consists of slope wash materials derived from weathered Boring Lavas basalt. It
typically consists of subangular Boring Lavas basalt gravels and boulders, locally exceeding
5 feet in maximum dimension, enclosed in a brown red-brown matrix of clay, silt, and sand.
Groundwater seeps and springs discharging from the colluvium are present at several
locations in the slopes along the proposed corridor.
Quaternary Boring Lavas. Boring Lavas in the project area are anticipated to occur as hard
intact basalt, volcaniclastic deposits, and weathered zones consisting of basalt fragments
(ranging from gravel to boulders; larger boulders up to 20 feet in dimension exist in the
region and are known as corestones) enveloped in a matrix of silt to clay. Boring Lavas
generally occur immediately north of the proposed project where they underlie much of the
slope areas west of Rock Creek. It is overlain by Quaternary alluvium and colluvium, and
Pleistocene terrace deposits.

Page 36 of 54
December 2007
Pleistocene Terrace Deposits. Pleistocene terrace deposits underlie the ground surface in
the eastern portion of the project area. This unit consists of clay, silt, sand, and gravel
interlayers, and ranges from approximately 1 to 5 feet thick.
Pliocene Sandy River Mudstone. Interbedded claystone and siltstone of the Sandy River
Mudstone were observed underlying Boring Lavas along the toe of the Eastern Landslide.
The claystone and siltstone are generally thinly bedded and pervasively fractured.
Groundwater seeps were observed in the Sandy River Mudstone during the geologic
reconnaissance.
Surficial Soils
Figure 13 illustrates the footprint of Alternative 2 right-of-way plotted on a surficial soils map.
The footprint of Alternative 3 is similar to Alternative 2 except at the mid-point interchange.
The major surficial soil units mapped by the Natural Resources Conservation Services (formerly
Soil Conservation Services) within the project area are also summarized in Table 1 below.
Table 1. Summary of Mapped Surfacial Soils within Project Area
Map
Symbol
Soil Series
AASHTO* Soil
Classifcation
Comments
1A
Aloha silt loam, 0-3 percent

slopes
A-4
Severe wetness and erodes easily.
8B, C,
and D
Bornstedt silt loam, 0-30

percent slopes
A-4, A-6, and A-7
Moderate wetness, percolates slowly,

and low strength.
17
Clackamas silt loam
A-4 and A-6
Severe wetness.
25
Cove silty clay loam
A-6 and A-7
Severe wetness, percolates slowly,

shrink-swell potential, and low strength.
41
Huberly silt loam
A-4 and A-6
Severe wetness and erodes easily.
53B
Latourell loam, 3-8 percent

slopes
A-1 and A-4
Moderate dusty and erodes easily.
76B
Salem silt loam, 0-7 percent

slopes
A-1, A-2, A-4, A-6, and

A-7
Moderate dusty.
84
Wapato silty clay loam
A-6 and A-7
Severe ponding, flooding, and low

strength.
91A and B
Woodburn silt loam, 0-8

percent slopes
A-4 and A-6
Moderate wetness, dusty, and low

strength.
92F
Xerochrepts and haploxerolls,

very steep
N/A
None
*American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

Source: Natural Resources Conservation Services, U.S. Department of Agriculture (1985)
Groundwater Setting
The groundwater conditions are similar for both Alternatives 2 and 3. The following discussion
applies to both alternatives. Soils underlying Alternatives 2 and 3 generally consist of an upper
unit of cohesive soils overlying gravels. The cohesive soils are generally shallow and are not
typically water-bearing. Several wetland areas exist in the project area and shallow groundwater
levels should be anticipated at those locations. The underlying gravels contain groundwater at

Page 37 of 54
December 2007
levels that would fluctuate according to river levels in the Clackamas River and the amount of
rainfall infiltration.
Wetland areas and shallow groundwater ponding areas are present locally throughout the project
area. Shallow groundwater and/or groundwater springs/seeps are present locally along the slopes
located to the north of the alignment.
Groundwater is anticipated to occur at relatively shallow depths along the project area. Based on
information obtained during Kleinfelders subsurface exploration and, geologic reconnaissance,
as well as published documents, estimated groundwater depths probably range from
approximately 5 to 30 feet below the ground surface, except in designated wetland areas. The
depth to the groundwater is generally shallower at the western portion of the project area than at
the eastern portion.
Groundwater seeps and areas of ponded water were noted at several locations on the slope areas
north of the project area during the geologic reconnaissance. Based on observations, the seepage
rates were estimated as less than 1 to 2 gallons per minute. A small waterfall was observed in
the slope approximately 700 feet west and above the grade of SE 135th Avenue. The water flow
rate was estimated to exceed 50 gallons per minute during the geologic reconnaissance in
February 2006.
Seismic Setting
The Pacific Northwest is located at a plate boundary known as the Cascadia Subduction Zone
where two crustal plates converge. The tectonics (folding and faulting of the earths crust) of
western Oregon and Washington are complex and reflect active subduction of the offshore
oceanic plate beneath the North American plate. This subduction process is part of the
movement of the earth's crustal plates.
The Portland region is susceptible to the effects of earthquakes from the following three sources:
(1) Crustal earthquakes (generally within depths of 10 miles below the surface); (2) intraplate
earthquakes that occur at depths of approximately 50 miles within the Juan de Fuca plate as it is
subducted beneath the North America plate; and (3) subduction zone earthquakes within the zone
where the Juan de Fuca plate begins subducting beneath the North America plate near the
coastline.
Seismicity
Crustal earthquakes are the most common and are the source of the few moderate earthquakes
that have originated in the Portland-Vancouver area in recorded history. Seismic hazard analyses
of the Portland-Vancouver metropolitan area are limited by the lack of Quaternary rupture on
local faults. Past seismic hazard analyses have generally assumed that an earthquake of
magnitude (M) 6.5 can occur within approximately 8 to 15 miles of the Portland-Vancouver
metropolitan area. Shallow faults have been mapped or are inferred to exist beneath the Portland
Basin based on data obtained from geophysical surveys. The more prominent of these faults
include the Portland Hills, Oatfield, and East Bank faults. Although the seismic potential of
these faults is uncertain, historic seismicity in the Portland-Vancouver area suggests that some of
the shallow faults could be active. Seven earthquakes are reported to have occurred in the area
Page 38 of 54
December 2007
between 1877 and 1957; seven other earthquakes occurred between 1961 and 1981; and the
M5.6 Scott Mills earthquake occurred south of Portland in 1993.
Several earthquakes have occurred in Oregon since the M5.6 Scotts Mills earthquake on March
25, 1993. A M6.0 earthquake occurred in the Klamath Falls area on September 21, 1993 that
included two (2) fatalities. In 2003 and 2004, two earthquakes of M6.3 and M4.9, respectively,
occurred in the offshore region of Oregon. The most recent earthquake occurred in the Portland
metropolitan area occurred on July 12, 2007. It was a M2.9 event and was centered near Barlow,
Oregon, approximately 10 miles southwest of Oregon City.
Several significant Quaternary (within the past 2 million years) faults are located within
approximately 25 miles of the project area. These include the Damascus-Tickle Creek, Mount
Angel, Canby-Molalla, Portland Hills, Oatfield, and East Bank faults. Review of available
geologic information indicates that the Mount Angel, Canby-Molalla, and East Bank faults are
believed to have undergone fault movement within the last 15,000 years. No historic ground
rupture has been reported for these faults. For the remaining faults, it is reported that the most
recent age of movement occurred within approximately the last 1.6 million years. A summary of
each of these faults is provided below.
Damascus-Tickle Creek Fault Zone. The Damascus-Tickle Creek fault is a northeast-trending
fault zone consisting of short northeast- and northwest-trending faults located less than
approximately 1 mile from the east end of the project area. Rocks of the Pliocene Troutdale
Formation, Pliocene-Pleistocene Springwater Formation, and Pleistocene Boring Lavas are offset
and folded by these faults. Some eruptive vents of the Boring Lavas may have been localized
along faults in the zone. Most faults in the zone are buried beneath Missoula flood deposits;
however, at least one fault strand may have deformed these deposits. Most of these faults are
thought to be near-vertical reverse faults with a significant component of right-lateral strike-slip.
Mount Angel Fault. This northwest-trending fault, estimated to be approximately 15 to 20
miles long, is located approximately 24 miles southwest of the project area. It is a northeastdipping, oblique slip fault with left-reverse sense of displacement. It is interpreted to be the
southernmost segment of the northwest-trending Gales Creek-Mount Angel structural zone,
which also includes the Newberg and Gales Creek faults. Identification of the Mount Angel fault
has been based principally on subsurface data. It has little geomorphic expression, and no fault
scarps on surficial Quaternary deposits have been reported along the fault trace.
In 1990, several small earthquakes occurred near Woodburn. These events may have been
precursors of the M5.6 earthquake that occurred in 1993 at Scott Mills. The 1993 earthquake
reportedly was centered approximately 5 miles south of the mapped trace of the Mount Angel
fault. The surface projection of the fault that ruptured during the 1993 earthquake is located less
than a couple of miles east of the projected trace of the Mount Angel fault. Consequently, it is
not certain whether the earthquake occurred on an extension of the Mount Angel fault or on a
parallel fault. Based on historic seismicity and possible deformation of latest Pleistocene or
Holocene sediments, it is estimated that the most recent age of movement along the fault
occurred less than 15,000 years ago.

Page 39 of 54
December 2007
Canby-Molalla Fault. The Canby-Molalla fault, located approximately 8 miles west of the
project area, is a north/northwest-striking fault suspected of Holocene deformation. It has been
mapped based on linearly discontinuous, aeromagnetic anomalies that may indicate offset of
basement rock (Columbia River Basalt Group) beneath the valley-fill deposits. High-resolution
seismic profiling also indicates deformation of probable Missoula Flood deposits east of Canby.
Geomorphic expression of the fault is poor; however, a small berm reportedly associated with
the fault may provide evidence of young deformation. Data for other faults in the area and the
lack of geomorphic expression along the fault trace suggest that the Canby-Molalla fault is
probably a right-lateral strike-slip fault with lesser amounts of reverse movement. It was
estimated that the most recent age of disruption along the fault occurred within the last 15,000
years.
Portland Hills Fault. The project area is located approximately 1 mile east of the southern end
of the Portland Hills fault. It is a northwest-striking fault that forms the linear northeast margin
of the Tualatin Mountains and the southwestern margin of the Portland Basin. The fault disrupts
the Columbia River Basalt Group and Miocene to Pliocene sedimentary rocks that make up the
basement of the basin. Although no fault scarps have been identified on Quaternary sediments,
geomorphic features (including anomalous benches, triangular facets, oversteepened valleys, and
tributary knickpoints) have been noted along the fault trace. Missoula Flood deposits typically
conceal the fault trace; however, recent seismic profiling across the fault trace suggests possible
deformation of these deposits. Liberty and others (2003) reported that their geophysical surveys
suggest the fault is active and that at least two major earthquakes have occurred on the fault
within approximately the last 12,000 to 15,000 years.
Oatfield Fault. The Oatfield fault, located approximately 2 miles west of the corridor, is a
northwest-striking, northeast-dipping fault that may be part of the Portland Hills-Clackamas
River structural zone. It disrupts volcanic rocks of the Columbia River Basalt Group and forms
linear magnetic anomalies in the Tualatin Mountains and Northern Willamette Valley. However,
no Quaternary scarps on Quaternary deposits have been identified. It was reported that the
estimated age of most recent movement along the fault occurred within the last 1.6 million years.
East Bank Fault. The northwest-striking East Bank fault is located approximately 6 miles
northwest of the project area. It has been mapped as a high-angle northeast-dipping normal fault
that offsets the Columbia River Basalt Group and Miocene to Pliocene sedimentary rocks. No
fault scarps have been reported on Quaternary deposits. Recent seismic profiling of the fault
suggests probable offset of Missoula Flood deposits and sedimentary structures (e.g.,
unconformities and paleochannels). This suggests that the age of most recent movement along
the East Bank fault might have occurred within the last 15,000 years.
Design Earthquake
The ODOT Bridge Foundation Design Practice and Procedures (2004) manual requires
evaluation of the response and performance of the bridge/overpass and foundation materials
under both the 500- and 1,000-year-return seismic events. ODOT recommends that peak ground
acceleration (PGA) and other seismic ground motion be obtained from the 2002 U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) Seismic Hazard Maps for the Pacific Northwest Region. That document
recommends a crustal earthquake of M6.7 (horizontal distance, R, from earthquake source to

Page 40 of 54
December 2007
project site, of approximately 35 kilometers) to generate PGAs of 0.18 g and 0.25 g for 500-year
and 1,000-year return events, respectively (g = standard unit of acceleration).
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Alternative 1: No Build
Potential environmental consequences for the No-Build Alternative could include impacts
resulting from the committed improvements outlined in the Alternatives section of this report.
The committed improvements should be studied further for geologic hazards prior to
implementation.
Typical environmental impacts for this area include:
x
Slope instability in areas underlain by soft and weak Quarternary colluvium.
Dewatering of below-grade cut slopes in areas with shallow groundwater.
Shrink/swell soils with high plasticity indices that could cause damage to structures and
pavements.
Areas susceptible to erosion of cut-and-fill slopes during construction that could increase the
sediment load to surface runoff and adjacent streams.
Ground settlement resulting from fill embankments that could have negative impacts on
adjacent structures and utilities.
Seismically induced liquefaction of near-surface saturated loose, cohesionless silt and sand,
which could cause the loss of bearing capacity of spread footings, settlement of the approach
embankment, lateral spreading of the embankment, post-earthquake slope instability, surface
manifestations, and downdrag and lateral loads on piles.
Alternative 2: Build with Midpoint Interchange

See Figure 5 for Alternative 2 alignment and the design options.
Stability of Cut Slopes and Excavation
Landslide areas (i.e., Camp Withycombe Landslide and the Eastern Landslide) and local slope
areas underlain by soft and weak Quaternary colluvium in Zones B and C may affect
improvements, depending on the proposed grading and earthwork. Benching or other
excavations, especially steep, inclined cuts would probably result in slope instability, especially
of the Eastern Landslide. Additionally, cuts made in the toe area of the Camp Withycombe
Landfill may also reactivate this landslide. With the interchange design for Zone B of this
alternative, the northern ramps would require benching and a cut up to 40 feet high into the
Eastern Landslide and local slope areas. This cut would have significant impacts on the stability
of the slopes. Excavations or cuts into the slopes may require temporary shoring or prestabilization and installation of retaining structures to support the cut slope. Landslide areas are
shown on Figure 13.
Page 41 of 54
December 2007
Benching of slopes underlain by colluvium during fill placement could also potentially affect the
temporary stability of slopes. In addition, slope areas underlain by Quarternary alluvium (or
similar materials) may be subject to localized slope failures/slumps if cut slopes made during
earthwork construction are too steeply inclined. Slope cuts might be excavated in Boring Lavas
basalt that underlies the upper portion of the slopes. The basalt is generally dense to vesicular
and fresh to moderately weathered. It is capable of supporting near vertical slopes. Local
occurrences of weathered basalt could also be encountered in Boring Lavas basalt. Severely
weathered zones of the basalt are known to underlie unstable slopes in the region.
Fill embankments in Zones B and C that encroach on the slope areas probably would require
excavation of colluvium to the necessary depth required to encounter suitable subgrade soils for
fill placement. Earthwork construction could locally encounter cobbles, boulders, and hard
intact Boring Lavas basalt.
At the Rock Creek Interchange (Zone D), up to 40 and 60 feet of cut would be required for the
eastbound entrance ramp and westbound exit ramp located east of Rock Creek, respectively. The
entrance and ramp alignments could be underlain by silt and sand overlying gravel, cobbles, and
boulders. The gravel, cobbles, and boulders also could be underlain by bedrock consisting of
Sandy River Mudstone and/or Boring Lavas. Lithologic units of the Boring Lavas are widely
variable, ranging from residual soil to rock (basalt with estimated unconfined compression rock
strength up to 16,000 pounds per square inch.). Large boulders (i.e., corestones) are known to
exist in the region within deeply weathered zones and residual soil of the Boring Lavas. Rock
excavation should be anticipated for the entrance and exit ramps. In addition, excavation in
gravel, cobbles, and boulders should be anticipated for the entrance and exit ramps.
Construction groundwater control (dewatering) may be required by the potential presence of
shallow groundwater within the upper 10 to 30 feet in the Rock Creek area (Zone D). Negative
impacts due to construction dewatering, including settlement of adjacent structures and drying
adjacent wetlands, and adjacent groundwater production facilities should be considered. The
slope gradient for the cut slopes in this segment would be varied, depending on soil types, depth
to bedrock if present, bedrock strengths and jointing, and depth to groundwater.
Earthwork construction may encounter large boulders throughout the project corridor that could
require removal prior to fill placement and special handling.
Groundwater
Wetland areas and shallow groundwater ponding areas are present locally throughout the project
corridor. In these areas, soft, wet, and compressible soils should be anticipated. A local,
unstable roadway subgrade could develop due to construction traffic, causing soft, weaving and
pumping subgrade. In addition, trenches or below-grade cut slopes in areas of shallow
groundwater may require dewatering. The excavation at the Rock Creek junction (Zone D) may
require dewatering, as discussed above.
Shallow groundwater and/or groundwater springs/seeps are present locally along the slopes in
Zones B through C, located to the north of the alignment. Shallow groundwater depths and/or
the presence of groundwater springs/seeps are also likely to have adverse effects on slope
Page 42 of 54
December 2007
stability. Earthwork construction of cut slopes, both temporary and permanent, should anticipate
encountering shallow groundwater springs and/or seeps in the cut slope face(s).
Shrink/Swell Soils
Surficial soils, typically the upper 5 feet, are primarily clayey with moderate to high plasticity
indices that are susceptible to changes in volume (shrinking and swelling) under changing
moisture content. Shrinking and swelling usually occurs in an uneven pattern and is of sufficient
magnitude to damage structures and pavements resting on or embedded in the soil. The
designation for this surficial soil is Cove silty clay loam (see Figure 14). Area by SE Johnson
Road and majority of the area northwest of Camp Withycombe and east of I-205 are identified
with this designation.
Erodible Soils
The Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) map of Clackamas County indicates that
the surficial soils, typically upper 3 to 6 feet in depth, along the project corridor are susceptible
to erosion (see Figure 14). Erosion of cut-and-fill slopes during construction could greatly
increase the sediment load being carried by surface runoff water into adjacent streams or lakes,
thus causing subsequent environmental degradation. Development of deep gullies from
continued long-term erosion could result in excessive maintenance costs associated with shallow
cut or fill slope instability.
Fill Embankments
Up to 50 feet of fill is proposed along the corridor for roadway and bridge approach
embankments. The fill and the bridge approach embankments will cause consolidation
settlement in the underlying near-surface fine-grained soils. Appropriately designed
embankment slopes should be relatively stable. However, the low to highly plastic silt and clay
may undergo settlements ranging between 1 and 8 inches, depending on the thickness of the
underlying silt and clay soils and the embankment height. The majority of soil settlement
underlying structural fill should occur as the fill is being placed. The result would be that more
borrow material than originally anticipated could be required if the settlement was ignored.
Ground settlements resulting from fill embankments could have negative impacts on adjacent
structures and utilities. When structures and utilities sensitive to settlement are located within
the influence zones imposed by vertical stresses from the dead weights of the fill embankments,
a site-specific geotechnical investigation should be performed to estimate the potential damage
due to embankment dead loads and to recommend mitigation procedures.
Seismically Induced Liquefaction
A combination of near-surface saturated, loose, cohesionless silt and sand at depths ranging
between 5 and 20 feet is susceptible to seismically induced liquefaction due to shallow
groundwater. The potential for liquefaction depends on several factors, including relative
density and depth of the cohesionless silt and sand, depth to groundwater, and design earthquake
(see Design Earthquake subsection). The potentially liquefiable sediments are present locally
throughout the project corridor.

Page 43 of 54
December 2007
The impacts of seismically induced liquefaction are primarily the loss of bearing capacity for
spread footings; settlement of the approach embankment; lateral spreading of the embankment;
potential post-earthquake slope instability; surface manifestations (e.g., sand boils, ground
fissures); and downdrag and lateral loads on piles.
Due to the liquefaction-susceptible soil conditions present locally in this corridor, the foundation
types for structures will depend on the depths to the dense gravel soil and the thickness of the
potentially liquefiable zone. These structures should be supported on shallow spread footings
and/or piles extending into the underlying dense gravel. However, shallow spread foundations
may not be cost-effective compared to pile foundations because the construction of the shallow
spread foundations may require excavation, temporary shoring, and possibly construction
dewatering. Potential negative impacts from construction dewatering, including settlement of
adjacent structures, drying adjacent wetlands, groundwater production facilities, and
contamination plume migration, should be considered.
Soil improvements may or may not be required to stabilize the approach embankments.
However, in areas where the fill approach embankments may be underlain by potentially
liquefiable zone(s), liquefaction-induced hazards should be evaluated during the design phase to
determine if engineered mitigation measures (discussed in the Mitigation Measures subsection)
are required.
Borrow and Disposal Sites
Our current understanding is that the cuts and fills are unbalanced. The proposed project
probably will require more fills than cuts; consequently, imported soil and aggregate fill
materials would be required.
Alternative 3: Build with No Midpoint Interchange
See Figure 6 for Alternative 3 alignment and the design options.
The environmental impact issues associated with Alternative 3 are similar to those for
Alternative 2, except at Zone B. Zone B (No Midpoint Interchange) of Alternative 3 would
require benching into the Eastern Landslide and local slope areas for fill placements. Because
Zone B of this alternative does not have the northern ramps and therefore, would not require
significant cutting up to 40 feet into the Eastern Landslide as does alternative 2 and local slope
areas. Alternative 3 would have less impact on the stability of the slopes compared to
Alternative 2. In addition, Alternative 3 may not require temporary shoring and retaining
structures to retain the cut slopes.
Design Options
Option A-2: Modified 1996 Design
Design Option A-2 as shown on Figure 7 has environmental impact issues similar to Zone A (I205 Interchange Area) of Alternatives 2 and 3. There does not appear to be a geotechnical
advantage in selecting either Design Option A-2 or the design for Zone A of Alternatives 2 and
3.

Page 44 of 54
December 2007
Option B-2: 1996 Split Interchange

Design Option B-2 as shown on Figure 8 has environmental impact issues similar to the design
for Zone B (without Midpoint Interchange) of Alternative 3.
Design Option B-2 would require benching into the Eastern Landslide and local slope areas for
fill placements. Because Design Option B-2 does not have the northern ramps and therefore,
would not require a significant cut up to 40 feet into the Eastern Landslide and local slope areas
for the northern ramps. Design Option B-2 would have less impact on the stability of the slopes
compared to the design for Zone B of Alternative 2. In addition, Design Option B-2 may not
require temporary shoring and retaining structures to retain the cut slopes.
Option C-2: Central Alignment
Design Option C-2 as shown on Figure 9 has environmental impact issues similar to the design
for Zone C (135th Avenue to Rock Creek Area) of Alternatives 2 and 3. There appears to be no
geotechnical advantage in selecting either Design Option C-2 or the design for Zone C of
Alternatives 2 and 3.
Option C-3: Modified Follow Tree-Line Alignment
Design Option C-3 as shown on Figure 10 would require cutting into the slopes north of this
area. The slope areas along this design option alignment generally appear to be stable.
However, there is a groundwater spring and seeps located along the re-alignment west of SE
142nd Avenue. East of SE 135th Avenue, a permanent cut slope is proposed that extends to the
residential area at the top of the hillside overlooking this corridor. Excavation through
Pleistocene terrace deposits, Quaternary colluvium, and Boring Lavas basalt rock probably
would be required to complete this cut slope. The proposed slope inclination of 2 horizontal:1
vertical is anticipated to be stable; rock excavation should be anticipated to complete the cut
slope through Boring Lavas basalt. Local unstable conditions could be encountered during
excavation of the Quaternary colluvium. Groundwater seeps and shallow groundwater should
also be anticipated during construction of this cut slope, which would most likely require
groundwater drainage control. Excavation and special handling of large boulders should be
anticipated.
The spoils from the cut into the slopes could be used for fill embankments along the corridor.
The spoils may require processes such as screening and/or crushing prior to use as fill materials
for embankments.
Option D-2
Design Option D-2 as shown on Figure 11 has environmental impact issues similar to the design
for Zone D (East End Area) of Alternatives 2 and 3. There appears to be no geotechnical
advantage in selecting between Design Option D-2 and the design for Zone D of Alternatives 2
and 3.
Option D-3
Design Option D-3 as shown on Figure 12 has environmental impact issues similar to the design
for Zone D (East End Area) of Alternatives 2 and 3 except for a slight advantage related to the
Page 45 of 54
December 2007
westbound exit ramps. There is a basalt knoll to the northwest of the proposed westbound exit
ramp. The westbound exit ramp of Design Option D-3 is located south of Design Option D-2
and the design for Zone D of Alternatives 2 and 3, away from the basalt knoll located to the
north. The location of the westbound exit ramp of Design Option D-3 would probably require
less excavation of rock than Design Option D-2 and the design for Zone D of Alternatives 2 and
3.
In summary, shallow groundwater, erosion, settlement of foundation soils due to fill
embankments, and localized areas underlain by potential seismically induced liquefactionsusceptible materials are present throughout this area. There appears to be no advantage in
selecting one design alternative and/or option over another.
The environmental impacts resulting from excavation into the Eastern Landslide and slope areas
and stability of the slope could be reduced by selecting an alternative design that does not
encroach into the Eastern Landslide and bluff line. Design Option B-2 of Alternative 2 and
Alternative 3 appears to present the fewest environmental impacts to the Eastern Landslide and
bluff line compared to the other design options and alternatives.
Indirect Effects
The large-scale nature of the earthwork and construction operations would result in a significant
increase in truck traffic from hauling of fill materials to and from the project site. This would
likely result in congestion on local streets, pavement damage, noise and air pollution, and
aggregate fill extraction (borrow pits). These indirect effects are temporary during construction.
Cumulative Effects
Cumulative impacts resulting from other planned actions, including those transportation projects
included under the No Build Alternatives, in combination with Alternatives 2 or 3 would likely
be minimal. Implementation of the build alternatives and other planned transportation and land
development actions would consume and relocate non-renewable soils and geologic materials
(rocks and gravel). Potential cumulative effects to landslide-prone areas also need to be
considered in association with any of the project alternatives.
Summary of Permits Required
Table 2 lists the anticipated earthwork and geotechnical construction permits related to geology
and soils:
Table 2. Summary of Geotechnical Related Permits Required
Permit Name
Construction Activities
Agency with Jurisdiction
Site Grading Permit
Grading, erosion, blasting, air

and noise pollution
Department of Environmental Quality,

Oregon Department of Transportation,
and City and County
Pre-Construction Assessment
In-water work
Department of State Land and US Army

Corps of Engineers
Mitigation Measures

Page 46 of 54
December 2007
The possible mitigation approaches described below are to be considered for preliminary
evaluation of the design alternatives. They would be subject to further considerations upon
design refinements, site-specific subsurface explorations, and geotechnical analyses.
Stability of Cut Slopes and Excavation
Landslide areas (i.e., the Camp Withycombe and Eastern landslides) and local slope areas
underlain by soft and weak Quaternary colluvium in Zones B and C are anticipated to become
unstable during corridor earthwork construction without appropriate mitigation. A more detailed
assessment of the stability of these landslides should be conducted prior to final design and
initiation of any earthwork in this area. Some of the mitigation measures that might be
appropriate to stabilize the Eastern Landslide and slope areas include slope drainage
(dewatering), excavation in short segments, installation of temporary and permanent retaining
structures, or rock buttresses.
For benching in landslide debris or colluvium, temporary, low vertical cuts (i.e., less than
approximately 3 feet high per bench) are likely to be required during fill placement on slopes
steeper than about 4 horizontal:1 vertical.
Due to the existing grades at the Rock Creek Interchange (Zone D), up to 40 and 60 feet of cut
will be required for the eastbound entrance ramp and westbound exit ramp located east of Rock
Creek, respectively. Currently, there is no design option being considered to reduce the
excavation depths and thus reduce excavation into rock or dewatering (if required) in this area.
Groundwater
Soft, wet, and compressible soils should be anticipated in wetland areas and shallow
groundwater ponding areas. The soft, wet, and compressible soils should be preloaded or
removed and replaced with engineered fills prior to placement of structural fill and/or structures
to control post-construction settlement and fill embankment stability. Much of the corridor has
relatively shallow groundwater. Therefore, site preparation should include stabilization of the
subgrade to reduce the construction traffic disturbance of these soils, causing soft, weaving, and
pumping subgrade.
Drainage improvements, such as slope drainage and groundwater control (including possible
construction dewatering), could be used to control shallow groundwater and/or the presence of
groundwater springs/seeps along the slopes.
Shrink/Swell Soils
The Shrink/well potential of the Cove silty clay loam surficial soils could be reduced by
minimizing exposure times to moisture change, pre-wetting, remove and replace, add chemical
admixtures to the soil, and remolding and compaction control. The Shrink/swell soil should be
evaluated based on site-specific design considerations.
Erodible Soils
Much of the proposed corridor is underlain by surficial soils susceptible to erosion. Temporary
and permanent erosion measures should be used to reduce the potential environmental degradation. Two measures that could be used to mitigate erosion during construction are (1) planning
Page 47 of 54
December 2007
earthwork operations to limit the duration and areal exposure of erodible soils, and (2) the use of
erosion and sediment control devices during earthwork construction. Limiting the areal exposure
of erodible soils could entail clearing only those areas along the alignment required for
development. Erosion and sediment control devices could include diversion berms and dikes,
sediment stilling basins, drainage systems for removal of sediment-laden runoff water to more
suitable discharge locations, and installation of geofabric filter (silt) fences, or grassing and
mulching.
Concerns about long-term cut or fill slope instability resulting from erosion gullies could be
reduced by cultivating vegetation on slopes as soon as possible after grading, as well as
construction of V-ditches, roadway curbs and gutters, and other surface runoff collection systems
to prevent the flow of water over cut and fill slopes. The surface water should be directed off
site in a closed storm drainage system and/or concrete-lined ditches.
Fill Embankments
The fill embankments would cause consolidation settlement in the underlying near- surface finegrained soils. However, the majority of settlement within the soil underlying structural fill
would most likely occur as the fill is being placed. The result would be that more borrow
material would be required than anticipated if the settlement were ignored.
Site-specific geotechnical investigation should be performed to estimate the potential damage
and required mitigation resulting from embankment dead loads. However, current understanding
is that placement of settlement sensitive structures and utilities is not anticipated within the
alignment area. Therefore, the effects of ground settlement due to embankment loads are not
considered significant at this time and should not adversely affect the construction of the
alignment.
Seismically Induced Liquefaction
A combination of near-surface saturated, loose, cohesionless silt and sand at depths ranging
between 5 and 20 feet is susceptible to seismically induced liquefaction. The potential for
liquefaction depends on several factors, including relative density and depth of the cohesionless
silt and sand, depth to groundwater, and the design earthquakes. The liquefaction issues should
be further evaluated based on site-specific analysis during the design phase.
In general, bridge and overpass structures underlain by potential liquefactionsusceptible
materials could be supported on piles extending into the underlying dense gravel. However,
approach embankments should be evaluated for liquefaction-induced settlement, lateral
spreading, and post-earthquake slope instability. Some of the engineered mitigation measures
available to stabilize the approach embankments include rammed stone piers, stone columns,
closely spaced driven, displacement piles, or removal and replacement of the soil in the
liquefaction zone. The application of these soil improvement methods should be evaluated based
on cost-effectiveness, the thickness of the potential liquefaction zone, the magnitude of the
estimated deformation, and the configuration of the embankment.

Page 48 of 54
December 2007
Borrow and Disposal Sites

More than 20 commercial borrow sources are currently operating in or around Clackamas
County. Capacity, location, and quality and durability of the aggregate fill materials should be
evaluated prior to construction by the contractor.
Enhancement Opportunities
Geotechnically there are currently no enhancement opportunities.

Page 49 of 54
December 2007
REFERENCES AND AGENCY CONSULTATIONS

Dames & Moore, 1990, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Sunrise Corridor Geotechnical
Study: Dames & Moore File No. 4117-032-020, October 15, 1990.
Dames & Moore, 1991, Final Environmental Inventory Report, Environmental Hazardous
Materials, Geotechnical Reconnaissance, Sunrise Corridor Unit 1: Dames & Moore File
No. 4117-027-020, October 15, 1991.
Federal Highway Administration and Oregon Department of Transportation, 1998, Final
Environmental Impact Statement Sunrise Corridor Highway 212/224 (I-205 to 172nd
Street): FHWA-OR-EIS-93-1-F, March 1998.
Gannett, M.W. and Caldwell, R.R., 1998, Geologic Framework of the Willamette Lowland and
Aquifer System, Oregon and Washington: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper
1424-A, 32 p.
Kleinfelder, 2006, Preliminary Geotechnical Report: Sunrise Project: I-205 to Rock Creek
Junction, Clackamas County, Oregon: Kleinfelder File No. 43973-4.5, April 2006.
Liberty, L., Hemphill-Haley, M.A., and Madin, I.P., 2003, The Portland Hills Fault: Uncovering
a Hidden Fault in Portland, Oregon Using High-Resolution Geophysical Methods:
Tectonophysics, Vol. 368, p. 89-103.
OConnor, J.E., Sarna-Wojcicki, A., Wozniak, K.C., Polette, D.J., and Fleck, R.J., 2001, Origin,
Extent, and Thickness of Quarternary Geologic Units in the Willamette Valley, Oregon:
U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1620, 52 p.
Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), 2004, Bridge Foundation Design Practice and
Procedures.
Schlicker, H.G., and C.T. Finlayson, 1979, Geology and Geologic Hazards of Northwest Clackamas
County: Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Bulletin 99.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2002, Seismic Hazard Maps for the Pacific Northwest Region.

Page 50 of 54
December 2007
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AASHTO
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials?
DEQ
Department of Environmental Quality
DOGAMI
Department of Geology and Mineral Industries
EIS
Environmental Impact Statement
FHWA
Federal Highway Administration
Moment of earthquake
NEPA
National Environmental Policy Act
NRCS
Natural Resources Conservation Services
ODOT
Oregon Department of Transportation
PGA
Peak ground acceleration
Horizontal distance from earthquake sources to project site
RTP
Regional Transportation Plan
STIP
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program
USGS
United States Geological Survey

Page 51 of 54
December 2007
LIST OF PREPARERS
Travis T. Nguyen, P.E.
______________________
Primary Author
_______________________
Date
Arlan H. Rippe, P.E.
______________________
Senior Peer Reviewer
_______________________
Date

Page 52 of 54
December 2007

Final Geologysoils Tech RPT 060308 SM

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Geologysoils Tech RPT 060308 SM

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUNRISE PROJECT, I-205 TO ROCK CREEK

JUNCTION (HIGHWAY 212/224)

SOILS AND GEOLOGY TECHNICAL REPORT

TO: Readers of the Sunrise Technical Reports

Sunrise Project, I-205 To Rock Creek Junction (Highway 212/224)

Sunrise Project, I-205 To Rock Creek Junction (Highway 212/224)

Table S1. Summary of Impacts *

environmental consequences for the committed improvements for No-Build Alternative

soils in wetlands and shallow groundwater areas; springs/seeps on slopes; shrink/swell

Design Option A-2:

Modified 1996 Design

environmental impact issues similar to Zone A of Alternatives 2 and 3. No geotechnical

Design Option B-2:

1996 Split Interchange

Design Option C-2:

Design Option C-3:

Modified Follow Tree-

Design Option D-2:

Sunrise Project, I-205 To Rock Creek Junction (Highway 212/224)

*Refer to pages 5-7 for description of alternatives and design options.

Sunrise Project, I-205 To Rock Creek Junction (Highway 212/224)

Sunrise Project, I-205 To Rock Creek Junction (Highway 212/224)

Sunrise Project, I-205 To Rock Creek Junction (Highway 212/224)

Project Purpose and Need

Sunrise Project, I-205 To Rock Creek Junction (Highway 212/224)

Widen SE 82nd Avenue between Lawnfield Road and Highway 212/224.

Widen SE 172nd Avenue between Foster Road and Highway 212.

Widen the Carver Bridge to five lanes.

Alternative 2: Build with Midpoint Interchange

Alternative 3: Build with No Midpoint Interchange

Sunrise Project, I-205 To Rock Creek Junction (Highway 212/224)

Sunrise Project, I-205 To Rock Creek Junction (Highway 212/224)

METHODOLOGY AND DATA SOURCES

Sunrise Project, I-205 To Rock Creek Junction (Highway 212/224)

Quaternary Landslide Deposits. A large landslide is located north of Camp Withycombe

Quaternary Colluvium. Quaternary colluvium occurs as a surficial deposit that mantles

Sunrise Project, I-205 To Rock Creek Junction (Highway 212/224)

Aloha silt loam, 0-3 percent

Severe wetness and erodes easily.

Bornstedt silt loam, 0-30

A-4, A-6, and A-7

Moderate wetness, percolates slowly,

Clackamas silt loam

A-4 and A-6

Cove silty clay loam

A-6 and A-7

Severe wetness, percolates slowly,

Huberly silt loam

A-4 and A-6

Severe wetness and erodes easily.

Latourell loam, 3-8 percent

A-1 and A-4

Moderate dusty and erodes easily.

Salem silt loam, 0-7 percent

A-1, A-2, A-4, A-6, and

Wapato silty clay loam

A-6 and A-7

Severe ponding, flooding, and low

Woodburn silt loam, 0-8

A-4 and A-6

Moderate wetness, dusty, and low

Xerochrepts and haploxerolls,

*American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.