No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWWP273162 (7)-- - - City of Renton Sunset Interceptor, Phase 3 Preliminary Engineering Technical Memorandum .a Prepared By RothH111 %11.� Roth Hill Engineering Parters, LLC 2600 116th Avenue NE #100 Bellevue, WA 98004 425.869.9448 ' � Roth Hill Engineering Partners, LLC o t h H i l l 2600 116'h Avenue NE, Suite 100 ' Bellevue, Washington 98004 Tel. 425.869.9448 MEMORANDUM 800.835.0292 ' Fax 425.869.1190 TO: John Hobson, P.E., Dave Christensen, P.E., City of Renton ' FROM: Kevin � P.E. RE: Sunset Interceptor, Phase 3 Addendum to Preliminary Engineering Technical Memorandum COPIES: Greg Hill, P.E., Lara Kammereck, P.E. Project No: 15-011 DATE: January 27, 2005 Page 1 of 2 The attached report (Preliminary Engineering Technical Memorandum, Sunset Interceptor, Phase 3) addresses improvements to the sanitary sewer system in the upper (easterly) reaches of the Sunset Interceptor and tributary sewer systems. The need for these improvements stems in part from growth in the associated basins and gradually increasing inflow and infiltration (1&1) as a result of aging sewers. The schedule for portions of the improvements is related to two ' transportation projects, one on Duvall Ave NE and one at the intersection of Duvall Ave NE and NE Sunset Boulevard. The Technical Memorandum evaluated existing and projected future conditions in this system from Union Ave NE to ' the east. Recommendations developed as a result of the study include improvements to the sewers in NE Sunset Boulevard starting at Union Avenue, even though the proposed transportation projects extend only a portion of the way from Duvall Ave NE toward Union Ave NE. Subsequent to the preparation of the final draft of the attached Technical Memorandum, the City of Renton notified Roth Hill of its intent to limit the scope of the sewer construction generally to the ' limits of the transportation projects. At approximately the same time, additional information about proposed roadway and storm drainage improvements under the transportation projects was provided to Roth Hill. Together, these factors altered the scope of and anticipated approach to upsizing the sanitary sewer system within the study area. The vast majority of the Preliminary Engineering Technical Memorandum is still relevant to the proposed project and contributes to the subsequent design effort. After discussion with City staff, it was determined that the Technical Memorandum should be issued essentially as it had been prepared and this cover memo prepared to address the more recent changes. Under the transportation projects, full -width surface improvements are proposed to start on NE Sunset Boulevard at approximately station 169+00 and end at approximately station 180+00 (see drawing sheets 5-7 in Appendix A of the Technical Memorandum). They continue northward on Duvall Ave NE to well beyond the existing or possible future limits of a gravity sewer system. Accordingly, the reasonable western, downstream limit of the sewer improvements should be a connection to existing manhole #90 just east of Anacortes Ave NE. This is the last (upstream ' end) of a series of existing manholes within the traveled lane. It is also the junction point for significant flows from both the north and east. Currently, it appears that the best route for the new FA0015\00011\Design\ReportsUH-DC_012705_KRG memo_report-cover.doc City of Renton January 27, 2005 Page 2 sewer is eastward parallel to the roadway. Previously, we had proposed that the existing sewers east of this point (on the roadway shoulder to the south) be replaced by pipe bursting. However, a new curb line with catch basins is proposed in close proximity for much of this alignment. This presents a possible conflict with the relatively shallow sewer and presents a choice as to whether to leave the sewer at its existing alignment and replace it by pipe bursting or to move the sewer into the roadway north of the proposed storm system. The current storm plans show a series of proposed storm water vaults in the logical eastward path of the sewer between Anacortes Ave NE and Duvall Ave NE. There are other areas within the right-of-way that may be appropriate, or even superior, for those vaults. One of these is the current sewer alignment, which would become available if the sewer were relocated into the roadway. This could prove to be a better location for the storm water vaults; although open cut sewer construction within the traveled lane would be more expensive. If the sewer must be constructed within the roadway, the alignment should continue eastward across Duvall Ave NE to the point where it intersects the existing sewers already in the roadway. This could be accomplished at approximately station 179+50, which is near the eastern limit of the roadway project. While this alignment is superior hydraulically, that may be more than offset by the increased construction cost and added maintenance costs associated with accessing manholes located within a major roadway. The original analysis indicates it is necessary replace the lower reaches of the Duvall Ave NE system as it approaches NE Sunset Boulevard. The final location of this connection will be determined upon further review of and coordination with the developing roadway plans. The proposed crossing of Duvall Ave NE at NE 216t Street (see Appendix A of the Technical Memorandum, drawing sheet 17) is entirely within the roadway project, as is the extension of the 8-inch gravity system northward from NE 23`d Street to NE 24t" Street (sheet 18). This memo does not recommend any changes to the attached report with respect to these two improvements on Duvall Ave NE. Addendum No. 1 to the professional services contract (January 2005) is based upon the foregoing project limits and approach. The proposed alignment will, of course, need to be coordinated with the transportation department and their engineer and there will be a variety of details for the sewer construction to be worked -out. We appreciate this opportunity to work with you on this project. We are looking forward to the design phase and the construction of this critical infrastructure. FA0015\00011\Design\ReportsV H-DC_012705_KRG_memo_report-cover.doc CERTIFICATION The Preliminary Engineering Technical Memorandum for the Sunset Interceptor, Phase 3 was prepared by Roth Hill Engineering Partners, LLC, under the direction of the following Registered Professional Engineer: EXPIRES 4/0= Roth Hill Engineering Partners, LLC RO t h H 1 I I 2600 1161h Avenue NE, Suite 100 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Tel. 425.869.9448 800.835.0292 MEMORANDUM Fax 425.869.11190 1 TO: John Hobson, P.E., Dave Christensen, P.E., City of Renton FROM: Kevin Goss, P.E., Erik Alt, P.E., Melanie Arnold, P.E., Brian Wolf, E.I.T. RE: Sunset Interceptor, Phase 3 Preliminary Engineering Technical Memorandum COPIES: Lara Kammereck, P.E. DATE:, January 27, 2005 Project No: 15-011 This memo presents the results of the preliminary engineering study and preliminary design for sewer improvements at the upper end of the Sunset Interceptor system. Backaround One area of rapid growth in the City of Renton is the Renton Highlands in the northeast corner of the City. The sewers in this area have generally been constructed through a series of extensions to serve the respective developments as they occurred. Portions of this system are approaching their capacity and are aging. As growth continues, they are projected to be seriously undersized. The City of Renton is currently working with King County and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) for improvements to Duvall Avenue NE and its intersection with NE Sunset Boulevard, also known as State Route 900. These two projects will involve significant storm drainage work and surface restoration and paving. The City's resources are best used if any necessary sewer work is completed prior to the reconstruction of the roadway surfaces. As an extension of the sewer modeling Roth Hill Engineering was already doing for the Wastewater Utility, an evaluation of sewer capacity in the vicinity of the roadway projects was added. City staff and Roth Hill developed a scope of services for a preliminary engineering study of the sewers in this portion of the City to be summarized in a technical memorandum. The study involved research and review of available records, topographic survey to supplement that from the roadway projects, geotechnical investigation and recommendations, coordination with the project team for the roadway projects, hydraulic modeling of the adjacent sewer basins, evaluation of possible construction methods (including pipe bursting), and a preliminary opinion of probable construction costs. Figure 1 is a map of the general vicinity of the study area. This technical memorandum is the summary of that study. FA0015\00011\Des1gn\Reports\Tech Memo Draft 012605.doc 1 of 17 Nm 148TH AVE NE ��_ 2 of 17 F7 ' John Hobson, Dave Christensen January 27, 2005 Page 3 Research Roth Hill researched a variety of records in the preparation of the base project drawings. The City provided a comprehensive set of record drawings for water, sewer, and stormwater facilities within the project limits. We requested from the respective utilities the record drawings and/or base ' maps from the numerous utilities identified by the One -Call locating service as having facilities in the area of this project. Records were received from Qwest, Comcast, Puget Sound Energy, and 360 Networks. Seattle Public Utilities did not provide record drawings, but did provide a field location for its facilities. Roth Hill also subcontracted with CNI Locates, Inc. to have them field locate underground water, gas, power, cable, telephone, and fiber-optic utilities prior to our topographic survey, which covered the portions of NE Sunset Boulevard generally west and east of the limits of the topographic survey performed by the transportation project team. CNI Locates did not locate any underground utilities within the limits of the roadway projects. We did not receive data from WSDOT. After several iterations of request, they informed us that we'had to go to their office in order to review the files. Our experience with WSDOT records for this general area is that they consist of fairly old plan sets with primarily roadway and. storm drainage information. We have surveyed all visible stormwater facilities and collected measurements thereof, or have shown similar information provided by Berger/Abam. We have shown the information gathered from these sources on our project drawings within the limits of our survey work, and have used it to verify, and, in places update the information provided by ' Berger/Abam on their drawings. As such, we did not find it necessary to further research WSDOT records. We reviewed utility map information against the transportation project base drawings, checked the ' information in the field, and made limited updates on our drawings to the utility information provided by the transportation project team. The information is approximate and described as such on the drawings. ' City staff cleaned the majority of the sewer lines within the study area and performed video inspection thereof. The video inspections were conducted on live sewers and therefore were not ' able to document pipe conditions below the fluid surface. The sewers ranged from approximately 20% full to above the camera lens, depending upon the pipe segment, time of day, weather, and other factors. There are limited portions of the system that were not included in the video ' inspections and other areas where the images are incomplete or obscured. On the whole, the data was very valuable. It was generally the most reliable source of data on side sewers. In reviewing the records for the existing sewers, it was noted that conflicting information existed between the various sources (topographic survey, base maps, record drawings, and video inspections). Following review of additional information received from the City in these areas, we ' generally reflected on the drawings and in the modeling the data from the video inspections or topographic survey. I3 of 17 F:\0015\00011\Design\Reports\Tech Memo Draft 012605.dx John Hobson, Dave Christensen January 27, 2005 Page 4 Appendix A is the preliminary project drawings, which are referenced by project stationing or manhole numbers in the discussion below. We were not able to locate the following sanitary sewer manholes during our survey of the project area. We request that the City investigate and expose these manholes early in the design phase to allow for their survey. • Manholes 214, 340, 823, 824, on Duvall Avenue NE in the northeast portion of the project area. • Manhole 243 on the north side of NE Sunset Boulevard to the west of Anacortes Avenue NE. • Manhole 280 on NE Sunset Boulevard to the northeast of manhole 278. • Manhole 328, east of Anacortes Avenue NE on private property. • Manhole 215 and the pipes tributary to it. There does not appear to be a need to address piping improvements in this area, but the manholes could pose conflicts with the proposed roadway improvements and as such should be exposed, surveyed, and added to the project drawings. We did not receive complete record drawing information for the following sanitary sewers tributary to the system under study. We request that the City check for the availability of records for these portions of the system and provide copies to us where available. • On NE Sunset Blvd — The pipes between manholes 100-99, 221-218, 279-280-278 (entering the Sunset system from the north at approximately station 189+00), and 274-275. • On Duvall Ave NE — The pipes between manholes 158-166, 75-74, 71-72, and 823-340- 214-215 (series of manholes and cleanouts east of the Duvall Ave NE mainline at approximately station 199+00). We request that the City arrange for potholing of the following buried facilities. Prior to potholing, we need to discuss whether the survey crews should be onsite or if permanent reference markers can be placed on the surface and measurements to the buried facility be made relative to this marker. • Existing storm culverts at NE Sunset Boulevard and Honey Creek. (approximately station 156+50) • Utility vaults directly adjacent to the existing sanitary sewer and NE Sunset Boulevard. (approximately station 155+90, 40 feet right and 174+15, 40 feet right) • All locations of proposed sewers which may conflict with the existing fiber-optic conduits. (we have tentatively identified 169+00, 35 feet left, 175+85, 32 feet left and 184+40, 40 feet left) • Gas line over/parallel to existing sanitary sewer on Duvall Avenue NE • Sewer casings across NE Sunset Boulevard between Anacortes Ave NE and Duvall Ave NE. • Due to the density of utilities in proximity to the sewers, especially west of Whitman Court NE, this area should be thoroughly reviewed with the respective utility providers prior to bidding, possibly leading to additional potholing. FA0015\00011\Design\Heports\Tech Memo Draft 012605.doc 4 of 17 ' John Hobson, Dave Christensen January 27, 2005 Page 5 We recommend further evaluation be made of the following either to directl y support final design ' or to reduce uncertainties during the construction phase and thus reduce the risk of additional costs: • Verify size of existing pipes, due to conflicting information from various data sources. We ' request that the City review available information on these pipes and provide input as to the existing pipe sizes and, where possible, pipe materials. Pipe section As -built Model Base map Video Current RH Plans MH 87-89 8" 8" 12" 8" 8" MH 89-90 No AB 8" 12" No video n/a MH 90-91 No AB 12" 12" 8" 12" MH 101-99 8" 12" 15" 12" 12" MH 101-104 8" 15" 15" 15" 15" • Verify diameter of existing manholes to be reused. ' • We request that the City investigate the source of a non -recorded pipe into MH 87 from the east at NE Sunset Blvd and Duvall Ave NE. • Perform video, dye -test, or other to 'determine location/source of unidentified sewers ' entering manhole 92. • Determine status of water line on west side of Duvall Avenue NE. During a site review, a City water crew working in the area indicated that it is not abandoned, as stated on record ' drawings. Might there be an additional water line in the area that is not shown on the current project drawings? • Perform property research on parcels adjacent to proposed sewer facilities outside of the ' right-of-way or sufficiently close that construction may impact private property. Following identification of these areas, City staff is requested to identify the need for permanent-' easements and/or temporary construction permits from the property owners. • Conduct topographic survey to collect locations of the facilities identified by the above ' additional research. • The pipe sections tributary to manhole 215 may be in the right-of-way and may need to be adjusted (or at least checked) as part of the roadway project. We have no topographic data on these manholes/cleanouts. FA0015\00011\Design\Reports\Tech Mena Draft 012605.doc 5 of 17 John Hobson, Dave Christensen January 27, 2005 Page 6 Topographic Survey The project team for the two transportation projects collected a significant amount of topographic detail for the area within their project limits. Roth Hill collected topographic data for the areas beyond their project limits as well as collecting all sewer manholes and invert elevations throughout the entire project. We received topographic drawings and preliminary transportation design drawings for NE Sunset Boulevard, between stations 162+60 (just west of Anacortes Avenue NE} and 189+75 (just east of Field Avenue NE), and on Duvall Avenue NE between stations 174+00 and 200+00 from the City's transportation project consultant, Berger/Abam, via the City's FTP site. The drawings we received contained property boundaries for the majority of the limits of the sewer study. No further research was completed by Roth Hill to verify property boundaries. Roth Hill surveyed NE Sunset Boulevard generally west of station 162+60 and east of station 189+75, including locations and measure -downs of existing manholes and catch basins. Additional site trips were made to pick up items that were not accessible during the initial survey trips. Several items still require topographic survey prior to final design, as described above. Roth Hill's topographic survey was based upon City -published coordinates of monuments throughout the project area. When the drawings were plotted against the transportation project drawings, a horizontal shift of approximately 33 feet was noted. Upon discussion with the transportation engineer and with the concurrence from City staff, Roth Hill adjusted our topographic survey to the project datum, as described by the transportation engineer. There are a few areas on the project drawings where buildings appear to cross property lines. These could indicate construction across property boundaries, misrecorded property boundaries, or shifted project data. These factors are not relevant to the sewer design, but could be a factor for portions of the transportation project and may require further investigation. F:\0015\00011\Design\Reports\Tech Memo Draft 012605.doc 6 of 17 John Hobson, Dave Christensen January 27, 2005 Page 7 Geotechnical Enaineerina Evaluation and Report We secured the services of a geotechnical engineering consultant to evaluate soil and groundwater conditions throughout the project. HWA Geosciences reviewed the report prepared by GeoEngineers for the transportation project along Duvall Avenue NE and recommended limited additional investigation on Duvall Ave NE, as well as investigation along NE Sunset Boulevard. In addition to conducting borings generally along the proposed project alignment, HWA drilled into the existing trenchlines in several locations throughout the project. From this, they were able to determine the level of compaction in the existing sewer trenches and make more informed ' recommendations with respect to the pipe bursting technologies under consideration for portions of this project. HWA's report, titled Final Geotechnical Engineering Report, NE Sunset Boulevard Interceptor, Phase III Improvements, dated October 25, 2004, is included as Appendix B. The HWA report describes the general geologic conditions as Vashon glacial till, which is very dense. It may be overlain by a layer of recessional outwash consisting of loose to medium dense sand and gravel and underlain by advance outwash consisting of dense gravelly sand. In general, the report found that existing sewer trenches were backfilled with native trench spoil materials. The report notes that open -cut trenching methods could be used for sewer installation and provides recommendations for both sloped open -cut excavations and shored excavations as well as for trench backfill materials and compaction. With respect to groundwater, the report states that seepage can be expected in the glacial till soils. Groundwater was noted during drilling in only a few of the bore holes: at 11 feet in BH-8 on NE Sunset Boulevard between Anacortes Ave NE and Duvall Ave NE; at 11.5 feet in BH-2 on Duvall Ave NE just north of NE 19th St; and at 8 feet in, BH-3 on Duvall Ave NE at NE le St. The report states that dewatering can be accomplished in these soils using sumps as required. However, rapid groundwater seepage can be expected in trenches excavated below the groundwater table in outwash soils and the use of wells or well points to draw the water table down in advance of trench excavation is recommended as required. The report states that pipe bursting is feasible along both Duvall Avenue NE and NE Sunset Boulevard. However, variation in local fill soil conditions and the presence of groundwater will affect the amount of force required to burst and pull replacement pipe. Some ground displacement should be expected. For pipe bursting shallower than 8 to 10 feet, pipe bursting may distort the ground surface and could require the rehabilitation of the existing road surface if surface heaving results. In general, however, HWA found that the trench lines throughout the project limits would accept upsizing with pipe bursting for the sizes of existing and proposed sewers described herein. F:\0015\00011\Design\Reports\Tech Memo Draft 012605.doc 7 of 17 John Hobson, Dave Christensen January 27, 2005 Page 8 Sewer Hydraulic Modeling and Preliminary Design Model Setup We conducted hydraulic modeling of the existing sewer system and a number of possible future scenarios to evaluate the most effective way to address sewage conveyance not only within Duvall Avenue NE and NE Sunset Boulevard, but throughout the sewage basins tributary to the sewer mains in those streets (King County Mini -Basins 20, 21, 22, and 35 (see Figure 2). The framework of the model itself and planning data to develop future sewage flows was developed for these basins. Starting with the City database of information for the Sunset Basins, the model was constructed. A number of corrections were made to this data with the City's assistance. Non -essential dead-end runs with missing, incomplete, or errant data were eliminated from the model, as were privately owned piping with missing information. Data problems included manholes with duplicate labels, missing and incorrect rim and invert elevations, large unrealistic drop connections, and pipes with incorrect or missing slopes, material, or diameter. A datum shift was performed and checked to convert inconsistent elevations from the City's database to NAVD '88. Surveyed manhole invert elevations were used for the piping in NE Sunset Blvd and Duvall Ave NE. No significant differences were noted between the NAVD '88 elevations and manhole invert elevations measured in the project datum. The physical piping system along NE Sunset Boulevard and Duvall Avenue NE was updated to match the best information available through the research described above. In addition to the City's sewer base map book and electronic database, discussions with the City staff, survey information from Roth Hill, and sewer video information were used to construct the best model representation of the existing system. The pipe configuration modeled is shown as the existing system on the Preliminary Project Drawings in Appendix A. Population was assigned to the model grouped into four main categories: single-family residential, multi -family residential, employment, and schools, using Renton RTAZ data. Population was assigned for 2001 with the corresponding sewer system piping and configuration. Sewage flow assignment and calibration was performed using King County flow monitoring data. Wet weather calibration was performed using a large storm event from November of 2001, which established & I parameters. All current piping and sewer system configurations were then applied to the model, and ultimate populations were assigned. The ultimate populations were based on 2030 RTAZ populations within the anticipated growth area, increased by a City -specified factor of 25 percent. Some of the Sunset Basins included substantial growth, both in area and population. These include the 6-acre parcel south of SR900 (between the City limit and 148th Ave SE) zoned by King County at R-48, as well as large portions of unincorporated King County east of the City (currently unsewered) anticipated to be annexed by the City. In addition to the population increasing, I & I was assumed to increase at a rate of 7% per decade through 2030. Using King County methodology, rainfall causing 20-year flows for the system was used as the design storm event. FA0015\00011\Design\Reports\Tech Memo Draft 012605.doc 8 Of 17 LL106 11 N el on Ave NE 10 rn ion Ave NE (}7 1 N Q Union Ave NE m Vashon:'— Ct NE � Vash t z OStlO ND Ct NE Vas on o rn rn o - z 4 : n Whitman N c" NF o o P aco tes S91JODDUV Anocortes NE m 3N any Sa}JDDpUd ��N rn p rn z z z z 138TH Ave SE S OD _ NE rn rn co`D �' N NJDuvall a rZr7 w N N z A l rt N -v a rt, o N D voll Ave NE z rn i Field Ave NE 23- Hoquiann NE u_N m N 146th Ave SE m cn c.N rn S C1) S 152nd Ave SE m z 142nd Ave SE N z _o V N a _O I 2A OODMII z■. m N . rTt N N W N N a p s rt 0 F11 147th Ave o- 148th Ave SE a m 0 "A S 35 and �s1,5� A ve Nile Ave m John Hobson, Dave Christensen January 27, 2005 Page 10 Evaluation of Existing System The 2001 and 2030 (ultimate) models were run with the 20-year design flow storm event to determine current and projected deficiencies in the existing system. The terms 2030 model and ultimate model are used interchangeably herein. The 2001 model results demonstrated that the main problem areas were Duvall Ave NE and a portion of the Anacortes Ave NE system. None of the capacity issues with the design storm in 2001 appeared to be extreme, but it was evident that these problems will become more significant in the near future. After the preliminary model run, the pumping rates at each of the existing lift stations were increased such that the pumps were able to match the peak inflow during the design storm event, which prevented the stations from overtopping and allowed a more representative study of downstream capacity issues. Please see Appendix C for a plan view of the model results color - coded for ratio of flow to pipe capacity and for selected profiles of the existing piping system showing the projected hydraulic gradeline with the design storm in both 2001 and 2030. The most significant capacity issues in 2030 appeared along NE Sunset Boulevard, Duvall Avenue NE, and Anacortes Avenue NE. The design capacity selected by the City for these improvements is that the pipes should not be more than 80% full as defined by Manning's Equation. In addition to ensuring that piping improvements did not exceed 80% of the capacity based on flow rate, we also made sure that pipes would not be surcharging due to backwater effects. Evaluation of Alternative Solutions Various configurations of the sewer system were analyzed to determine the most feasible solution to meet the current and future capacity needs. For all of the future scenarios, we assumed that Summer Wind Lift Station (L-24) was removed from service by installing gravity piping to route sewage flows to Stone Gate Lift Station (L-27). The pumps within Stone Gate were upsized to match the peak flow rates during the design storm flow for the year 2030. Two options were considered for Stone Gate lift station force main discharge. The first was the current location for the Summer Wind lift station discharge (routed to Duvall Ave NE) and the second consisted of a new force main discharging to the upper end of the Field Avenue NE piping (routed to NE Sunset Boulevard). We also analyzed two different options for the discharge from Long Lift Station. The first was to leave the current routing of flows unchanged (routed southward along Anacortes Ave NE). The second option redirected the discharge to Duvall Avenue NE, which could be accomplished by intercepting the southbound flow along Anacortes Ave NE at the west end of NE 23`d St and routing it east. The latter option, coupled with Stone Gate Lift Station continuing to discharge to Duvall Ave NE would combine and isolate all the flows in Duvall Avenue NE to bypass capacity problems within Anacortes Avenue NE. We ran the first few iterations of the proposed system in order to determine the appropriate size of the mdinline sewers within NE Sunset Boulevard and Duvall Avenue NE. While initial model runs of. the proposed system did not include R-48 zoning applied to one parcel south of SR900 between the City limits and 14e Ave SE, final iterations of the proposed system do include flows from this potential development. Given the depths of the sewers and currently -anticipated soil conditions, we expect that the sewer inverts following pipe bursting would be fairly close to the existing inverts. For preliminary modeling, we assumed the pipe stays on the same line and grade, except where we specifically proposed realignment. Piping realignments that were incorporated into future model runs added some additional, but limited, flexibility. In several locations, we have proposed short realignments to reduce the severity of bends in the flow -path, which were reviewed with the City staff to verify alignment preferences. We checked the need for F:\0015W00111DesignWeports\Tech Memo Draft 012605.doc 10 of 17 ' John Hobson, Dave Christensen January 27, 2005 Page 11 upsizing of laterals sewers that connect into the main line within the right-of-way. We also looked at and incorporated other "cleanup" or "straightening" of the flow path that would be best accomplished as part of this project within the project limits. In a number of these scenarios, we upsized lateral sewers tributary to NE Sunset Boulevard and Duvall Ave NE as necessary .to eliminate surcharging in those systems. Including these potential future improvements eliminates ' any upstream "storage" effect that would lead to lower flows in the main lines and potentially undersized proposed improvements. Model results are not included in this report for every scenario modeled. Several sets of results were conveyed to City staff electronically as the modeling progressed. All results are available upon request. Evaluation of Proposed System Configuration After discussing the various alternatives with the City staff, the preferred alternative was selected. A general description of the proposed improvements follows. In the future, Summer Wind Lift Station will be removed from service, with the sewage flows directed to Stone Gate Lift Station. The Stone Gate Lift Station will be upgraded to accommodate the flows tributary to Summer Wind Lift Station in addition to growth within the mini -basin. The force main for Stone Gate Lift Station will be upsized and rerouted to discharge to Field Avenue NE. For modeling purposes, the piping from the force main discharge to the proposed improvements on NE Sunset Boulevard was upsized to eliminate capacity problems within Field Ave NE and the "storage" effect described above. The Anacortes Ave NE system was upsized in the same way. The piping. within NE Sunset Boulevard will be upsized by a combination of pipe -bursting and open -cut trenching. Based upon approximate internal diameters, the proposed improvements along NE Sunset ' Boulevard from west -to -east will include 18-inch from Union through Whitman Court, 15-inch through Duvall Avenue NE and 12-inch through Field Avenue NE one manhole to the east. Several alignment adjustments are also proposed along the route of NE Sunset Boulevard to ' improve the sewage flow hydraulics. Without any lift stations discharging to Duvall Avenue NE in the future, the only improvements necessary within Duvall Avenue NE are. upsizing of the two lowest runs in order to avoid surcharging caused by the junction with the mainline flow on NE Sunset Boulevard. The lowest two will be upsized to 15-inch. To reduce head losses, the current gravity piping system below ' Summer Wind Lift Station discharge to Duvall Avenue NE, at NE 21st Street, will be piped directly across Duvall Avenue NE with one 90-degree bend on Duvall Avenue NE instead of the current three 90-degree bends at this location. The main advantage of leaving the majority of the existing piping in Duvall Ave NE is that this busy street is largely undisturbed, except for the few pipes mentioned above. Some of the pipes on Duvall Avenue NE may still be very slightly over 80% full in Duvall Avenue NE during the design storm in 2030, but this is not anticipated to be a concern since none of the pipes would be surcharging under this relatively rare condition and because these pipes are relatively deep. Aside from capacity issues, the existing 8-inch gravity system will be extended northward from NE 23`d Street to NE 20 Street to serve additional properties. This last improvement was not modeled, although the increased flow from the expanded basin boundary was captured at the northernmost existing manhole in Duvall Ave NE. The only other piping improvements associated with the Sunset Interceptor Phase III project are ' lateral connections to NE Sunset Boulevard, including upsizing to 12-inch for one run of pipe south on Whitman Court NE, upsizing/replacing the crossing at Anacortes Ave NE to 15-inch R\0015=011\Design\Reports\Tech Memo Draft 012605.doc 11 of 17 John Hobson, Dave Christensen January 27, 2005 Page 12 diameter for one run to the north, and upsizing the crossing at Field Avenue NE to 12-inch for one run of pipe to the north. The proposed piping configuration is shown in the preliminary project , drawings in Appendix A. We completed a final model run with all of the proposed improvements to verify the expected system performance, the results of which are presented in Appendix D. Again, a color -coded plan view is presented along with selected piping profiles. , Additional Piping Improvements Identified In addition to the piping proposed for the Sunset Interceptor Phase III project, additional required improvements were identified for the future. The piping along Field Avenue NE from NE Sunset Boulevard north past NE 19th Court would need to be upsized to 12-inch diameter (probably by open -cut) .to accommodate the proposed discharge location from Stone Gate Lift Station. The majority of the piping downstream of Long Lift Station would also need to be upsized (most likely to 12-inch diameter), especially along Anacortes Avenue NE. The model results are based upon parameters established within the concurrent sewer system model development project with the City. Specific parameters developed for this analysis, including the tributary basins, are included in this technical memorandum. Growth patterns, storm and/or flow events, or sewer construction differing from that modeled herein will reduce the applicability of these results into the future. Appropriate engineering judgment is required to apply these results to other scenarios than those modeled. F:\0015\00011\Design\Reports\Tech Memo Draft 012605.doc 12 Of 17 John Hobson, Dave Christensen January 27, 2005 Page 13 Coordination with Transportation Desian Consultant (Beraer/Abam As part of the preliminary engineering study, Roth Hill reviewed plans for the transportation projects and attended one meeting between the transportation and wastewater departments with their respective consultants for the purpose of coordinating between the transportation and sewer ' projects. As of the preparation of this report, Roth Hill has received only preliminary plans for the roadway and storm drainage improvements. At one point, we received tabulated storm drainage pipe and catch basin ;information, but the data appeared to be inconsistent with the project datum and not useable to determine potential conflicts with. the existing or proposed sewers. Given the intent to ' replace the existing sewers at the same line and grade, City staff conveyed their expectation that the transportation project team would need to design their proposed improvements to avoid the existing sewers, thus minimizing the need to reroute sewer due to conflicts with the proposed ' storm system. At the same time, uncertainty about status of the proposed storm design, along with possible schedule complications related to right-of-way acquisition, City staff directed. Roth Hill to proceed with the preliminary engineering study without waiting for a complete design submittal from the transportation project team. As such, this report does not provide a detailed list of potential conflicts between the proposed road and storm improvements and the existing or proposed -sewer improvements. However, we note that the proposed storm system includes new collection systems on both Duvall Avenue NE and NE Sunset Boulevard that are to be routed to a common detention system and then conveyed southward on Duvall Avenue NE and thence westward on NE Sunset Boulevard to a point several hundred feet west of Duvall Ave NE, connecting to an existing storm drainage system south of the right-of-way for NE Sunset Boulevard. There are numerous possibilities for potential conflicts between the proposed road and storm improvements and the existing sewers, especially where the proposed storm lines will cross Duvall Ave NE. Likewise, the proposed conveyance system downstream of the storm detention system could conflict with the existing and proposed sewers on the southern portions of Duvall Avenue NE and on NE Sunset Boulevard west of Duvall Ave NE. No specific conflicts have yet been identified. Thorough coordination and detailed review of both plan sets will be an important part of the design phase as these projects move forward. F:\0015\00011\Design\Reports\Tech Memo Draft 012605.doc 13 of 17 John Hobson, Dave Christensen January 27, 2005 Page 14 Evaluation of Possible Construction Methods. The construction of new and replacement sanitary sewer systems can be accomplished by a number of methods. Each has its advantages and disadvantages for a particular project/situation. Several were considered for this project, but only open -cut, bored and jacked casings, and pipe bursting were evaluated seriously for this project. Open Cut Construction Open -cut construction of sewers is still the most common method because it offers the greatest control of line, grade, and backfill conditions, but it increases the potential risks related to dewatering conditions, material quantities, and damage to utilities, to name only a few. Open -cut construction generally has the greatest impact to:traffic, a particularly relevant point on these busy roadways. Bored and Jacked Casings Bored and jacked casings are commonly used to cross major roadways and streams. In this method, an oversized steel casing in pushed through the soil on grade as an auger head pulls excess soil back into the launching pit. The carrier pipe is then placed inside the casing, on line and at grade, if necessary. This method generally eliminates the need to shut down portions of the roadway or to divert stream or ditches, but at a relatively high cost compared to open cutting. The availability of space for the receiving pit and especially the launching pit must be considered with this method. Slip Lining Relining existing pipes can improve their structural integrity, reduce leaks and extend their life span, but at some cost to capacity. Pipe Bursting Where existing pipes need to replaced at the same or a larger size, pipe bursting can be utilized, which pulls a new pipe through the existing pipe, fracturing the existing pipe into the surrounding soil. The line and grade will be similar, but potentially offset slightly based upon the conditions of surrounding soils and trench backfill. The amount of excavation is reduced, which reduces the risks for high dewatering costs. This method is very expensive on a linear foot basis, but can prove to be less expensive overall if savings are realized for dewatering, backfill materials, and surface restoration. In general, pipe bursting becomes more economical in more developed and high -traffic areas and for deeper pipelines. Pipe bursting technology must be utilized under license from Advantica, the British Gas corporation that holds the patent. Construction contracts that include this method should specify that the contractor provide documentation that they have satisfied the requirements of the patent holder prior to using the technology. Local construction companies using this technology are using either a static pull only or vibratory bursting heads. Both methods pose the risk of heave and potential damage to adjacent facilities or surface improvements. The later methods adds the potential risk of induced ground vibrations damaging nearby facilities. Both methods use the void created by the existing pipe to guide the bursting head. High and low points along the alignment, as well as horizontal bends will be followed by the new pipe. The new pipe may "cut corners" and .tend to straighten out some bends; but irregularities in adjacent native soils or backfill will also affect the alignment. This method does not provide the same level of control for line and grade as does the open cut method and would not be appropriate where flow conditions require high levels of accuracy. Minor bellies in the F:\0015\00011\1)esign\Repons\Tech Memo Draft 012605.doc 14 of 17 John Hobson, Dave Christensen January 27, 2005 Page 15 ' pipeline and somewhat mismatched invert elevations are not significant enough risks to preclude the use of this technology for this project. Pipe bursting is an appropriate method for the construction of many of the sewer segments within this project. M Directional Drilling Directional drilling involves a guided drilling head pulling the carrier pipe behind. This method does not require that an existing pipeline be followed. As with pipe bursting, it reduces excavation and restoration costs, but is very expensive. It is also more economical for developed areas and deeper pipelines. The advantages of directional drilling were not considered to outweigh the costs for this project and the method was not considered further. Recommended Construction Method Ultimately, the contractor should select the methods of construction. The contract , can be prepared in such a way as to suggest a particular method that offers advantages for this project and to provide specifications for that method if the contractor chooses it. Explicitly presenting this choice to. the contractor gives the City the benefit of the contractor choosing the most effective and least expensive method for the particular situation. For this project, the plans and specifications should be prepared to allow the contractor such a choice with specific provisions made for either pipe bursting or open cutting portions of the pipeline, recognizing that only open cut construction is appropriate for portions of the alignment. Proposed Svstem Configuration In general, the results of the model and consultation lead to the pipe sizes selected. Consideration of the feasibility of pipe bursting and the relative costs and reduced traffic impact of this method as compared to open -cut construction lead us to recommend this technology for a considerable portion of the alignment. Constructability considerations and the fact that the storm drainage work is conducting numerous open -cut crossings through the intersection of NE. Sunset 1 Boulevard and Duvall Avenue NE, as well as the reduced cost of open -cut as compared to bored crossings lead us to recommend open -cut crossings of both NE Sunset Boulevard (east of Anacortes Ave NE and west of Duvall Ave NE}and Duvall Ave NE (south of NE Sunset Blvd). Several manholes are shown as 60-inch diameter. These are required where several larger pipes come together or where high flows traverse sharp bends. Numerous design details, including ' manhole sizing and configuration, should be reviewed with City staff as the design progresses. The preliminary project drawings in Appendix A include the entire project limits for the preliminary ' phase, including those areas where no work is currently proposed. At the very least, the City will have a record of the information and topographic survey conducted for these areas. The sheets are laid out, however, so that the sheets not needed for the subsequent design phase can simply be dropped out of the set and the remaining sheets will be properly laid out for the design phase. The pipe segments proposed to be replaced by pipe bursting are shown as HDPE pipe on these plans. PVC pipe is shown for segments anticipated to be open -cut. ' F:\0015\00011\DesignlReports\Tech Memo Draft 012605.doc 15 of 17 John Hobson, Dave Christensen January 27, 2005 Page 16 Opinion of Probable Construction Costs We developed information on possible construction costs at two levels. Unit Costs Prior to knowing the required piping configuration and limits of the improvements, and to allow for consideration of costs in the evaluation of alternative configurations, we evaluated likely "per -foot' costs for both pipe bursting and conventional open -cut construction. These were developed for two "average" sections of pipeline; one on NE Sunset Boulevard and one on Duvall Ave NE. The purpose was to get a snapshot of the relative costs of pipe bursting vs. open -cut construction for each of the two conditions, recognizing that differences in both existing and proposed surface improvements for the two streets might suggest different construction techniques for different portions of the project. As these costs were developed prior to final decisions on project limits, pipe sizes, or construction methods, they could not be extrapolated to reflect to total scope or cost of the project. A summary of the engineer's opinion of probable unit costs developed for the four scenarios is presented in Appendix E. We anticipated that open -cut construction on NE Sunset Boulevard would average approximately $634 per lineal foot as compared to $441 per lineal foot for pipe bursting in the same area. Similar analyses for Duvall Avenue NE showed an anticipated open - cut cost of $424 per lineal foot and $310 per lineal foot for pipe bursting. These are based upon initial pipe sizes and reflect general consideration of the extent of surface improvements and utility conflicts on the two streets as well as the expected restoration costs (including the anticipated complete reconstruction of the road prism on Duvall Avenue NE as part of the transportation project). Further explanation of the assumptions related to unit costs are included in Appendix E. Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Following decisions on final pipe sizes, configurations, and anticipated construction methods, an Opinion of Probable Construction Cost was developed to approximately the 30% level, consistent with the level of detail on the plans. The costs utilized information from prior sewer projects we have administered, Means construction data, project information from other local jurisdictions with current or recent pipe bursting projects, and input from experienced pipe bursting contractors. In that the preparation of the preliminary plans and the preparation of this report proceeded without concurrent detailed.review of the transportation plans, the opinion of probable construction cost was prepared with the very conservative assumption that complete restoration of NE Sunset Blvd would be part of the work, while Duvall Ave NE was anticipated to be restored under the transportation project(s). This is, of course, a significant overestimate of the likely project costs, but represents an upper limit to the likely costs provided the assumptions made are consistent with the final scope and approach to the project. Many of the bid items included in the opinion are specific (such as paving costs), or can easily be adjusted to reflect those costs being covered as part of the transportation projects. Based on the current scope of the project, our opinion of the probable construction cost is $1,597,000, which includes a 15% contingency and 8.8% sales tax applied to the contingency as well. Additional detail on the Engineer's Preliminary Opinion of Probable Construction Cost is attached as Appendix F. It includes additional explanations of the assumptions used in its development. FA001 5\0001 1\Design\Reports\Tech Mena Draft 012605.doc 16 of 17 John Hobson, Dave Christensen January 27, 2005 Page 17 Conclusion The above sections summarize the analyses conducted as the preliminary plans were prepared for this project. Each of the elements herein are developed to the approximately 30% design level and most will require additional refinement as the design progresses in parallel to the transportation project plans. This technical memorandum is, by its nature, a summary; copies of the more detailed information developed in this study in preparation of the respective sections above is available upon request. City staff, specifically John Hobson and Dave Christensen, contributed significantly to the development of this study. They collected records of the existing system, coordinated the collection of additional information from other City staff, contributed information on their personal experiences with sewer construction within the project limits, and commented on . drafts of this memo. They worked with us on the development of the hydraulic model and scenarios by providing their insight into the operation of the existing system and their preferences for the configuration and operation of the future system. This report includes the results of the iterative evaluation of the proposed sewer system by both the City and Roth Hill. We appreciate the opportunity to assist the City with this preliminary engineering study. We are prepared to assist with the design and bidding of the project and to assist with construction administration. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions. F:\0015\00011\Design\Reports\Tech Mena Draft 012605.doc 17 of 17 Appendix A Preliminary Project Drawings CITY OF RENTON ="R SUNSET INTER(�EPTOR, PHASE 3 SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS GENERAL SCOPE OF WORK UPSIZE EXISTING SANITARY SEWER ON NE SUNSET BOULEVARD FROM UNION AVENUE NE TO FIELD AVENUE NE, AND MISCELLANEOUS SANITARY SEWER MODIFICATIONS ON DUVALL AVENUE NE FROM NE SUNSET BOULEVARD TO SEE 100TH STREET. 30% DESIGN SUBMITTAL Roth Hill Engineering Partners, LLC 2600 116th Avenue NE #100 RothHill Bellevue, Washington 98004 Tel 425.869.9448 Fax 425.869.1190 CITY OF RENTON 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY RENTON, W.ASHINGTON 98055 CITY OF RENTON CONTACT PERSONNEL CITY COUNCIL MAYOR JOHN HOBSON, PE PROJECT ENGINEER (425)430-7279 DON PEZSSON, PRESIDENT KATHY KEOLKER-WHEELER DAVE CHRISTENSEN, PE WASTEWATER UTILITY (425)430-7212 TERRY BRIERE, PRESIDENT PRO TEM CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER MANAGER TONI NELSON JAY COVINGTON SEATTLE PUBLIC UTILITIES DAN CLAWSON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC PUGET SOUND ENERGY RANDY CORMAN WORKS ADMINISTRATOR COMCAS r CABLE DENIS LAW GREGG ZIMMERMAN QWEST MARCIE PALMER 360 NETWORKS UTILITY SYSTEMS DIRECTOR LEVEL 3 LYS HORNSBY TIME WARNER XO COMMUNICATIONS EMERGE14CY 911 ONE CALL 1-800-424-5555 HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL CONTROL: PROJECT DATUM PER BERGER/ABAM w w 0 it SHEET3 Roth Hill Engineering Partners, LLC w 2600116th Avenue NE#100 _ Bellevue. Was"ton 98004 R o_t h H i l l Tel 425.869.9448 V Fax 425.869.1190 NO —NE24TMST— — _ .......... _.. _.. _.. _.. _.. _.. _.. _.. _.... 00 I I uj I LLI I i;co I ' LU Lu j L -I NE 19TH ST _ _.. .._.._.._.._ Ir --- - �Ilillllll IIII �r NOT TO SCALE w LLI 2 ! Ia i T - wcx MJl BPW nFpBPW REVISION BY DATE APPR ,, CITY 0E -� RENTCN — DATUM sc..c Krwn� Planning/Building/Public Works Dept. sy� SUNSET INTERCEPTOR PHASE 3 INDEX SHEET e 1/27/2005 2 p18 EX.SSMH 113 tj RIM=3b9.i2 - IE=376.33 E E=376E=376-10 .45 S 11 IW �f TL/f042305 {I pl % II �,N. ItX j� ��'GT TING / ^; I I1 INDUCTION 1 V(t % !mI i£ I I 1 „ '(RPFFIC i00P5 µPNO µOL�i I'll 111 6'.X6'(TYP) ADa \ 9II 11 111 I v IIII,' EXCB FIBFR1 RIM-6.70 '. 11{ H2O ELEV=38 "AD �1 A� '� \P� t R 1�dF1%®\FIBER EX. CATV \L �Ap A EX.SSMH 229 1 � S .pOIII ,N 1 INDUCTION LOOP5 6' DIA (TYPP) III III \•\ \` ( 1 - o0 on EX SSMH 107 1 1 I I IE=388.55 i2" NW �b1'r EX.SSMH 106 RIM 393.10 \ IE-386.52 W IE-386.61 NE TRAFFIC IE=387.10 5 CNTL PNL TLy042305-9329 O FIBER - I�11F�, �o �,. TRAFFIC 1 I 11 HI �: u\ - 2- -- ......... ...... ................ THESE DRAWIH r$ WERE R ARED FROM BOTH A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY CONDUCTED BY ROTH HILL ENGWEERING (BASED UPON A PROJECT DATUM WHOSE COORRwATES WERE PROVIDED BY BERGERIABAAI ENGINEERS. IKC ) AND A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PERFORMED BY BERGERIABAM ENGWEFRS, WC OR ITS CONSIILTMT ROTH HILL'S SURVEY LIMITS ARE GENERALLY WEST OF STATION 162-M AND FAST OF STATION 1B9.75014 SUNSET BOULEVARD, BUT INCLUDE THE SANITARY SEWER MANHCAESBETWEENSTATIONSM6 AND189.75ONSUNSETBOULEVARDMDBETWEENSTATIONS 174.00 AND 2D0.00 ON DWALL AVENUE. THE DRAWINGS RECEIVED FROM BERGERIMM MUM RIGHTOFWAY MD PROPERTY BOUKOlWES FOR THE ENURE PROTECT LBUTS, YMICII ROTH HILL M REFLECTING 011 T11ESE DRAWINGS. UTILITIES INFORMATION SMDiVN IS BASED UPON RECORDS RECEIVED FROM THE RESPECTIVE UTILITY PROVIDERS, FIELD LOCATING OF IDENTIFIABLE PORTIONS OF THOSE UTILITIES, ESTIMATES OF TIC EXPECTED LOCATONS OF THE UTIUTIES WHERE HELD LOCATING WAS NOT POSS®LE, MD UPON LOCATIONS PROVIDED w THE TOPIX RNFIR C SURVEY FILES FRpA BERGERIABNA ENGINEERS, INC. AS DE BED ABOVE, IN GENERAL. LATERAL AND SERVILE LOCAr'ANS ARE NOT SHOWN. EXCEPT WHERE THEY COIILD BE IDENTIFIED. THERE MAY BE ADDITgNAI UTIMIES WITHw THE ROADIYAY, EITHER LIVE OR ABMDONED, THAT ARE NOT SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS. ............. 111 .......................................... ................. ....... ...... ­­ ............... ­­ ............ I-- ............ - .............. . THE DEPTHS OF STORM PEE CROSSwGS SHOWN IN THE PROFI E ME CALCUATED BASED UPON FIELD SURVEY OF INVERT ELEVATIONS FOR AD.NCENT CATCH BAWLS, WHERE THAT NFORMATION IS AVAILABLE. SOME STORM GRAIN CROSSINGS ARE SHOWN AT ASUMED DEPRIS ALL OTHER UTILITY CROSSINGS w THE PROFILE ARE SHOWN AT ASSIMED DEPTTIS ACTUAL DEPTH OF TTIESE UTILITY CRDSSWGS IS NOT MOAW AT TINS TIME THE CONTRACTOR MIALL BE RESPONS1WE FOR VERIFYING THE ELEVATIONS OF UTRfTY CROSSINGS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTgN TL#032305-9264 TL(i032305-9011 ��; EX.CB RIM=392.83 CRAP CULVERT IE=388.3 VC N (2.5'HXI.;5'W) OUTH END OF CULLT_R TS IE=388.1 12" CRAP FSNOT LOCATED. APPROXIMATE VERT LOCATIONS SHOWN-V[WpY-v (2s'Hx3'W) x - ,Nq1 _ — — — NE SUNSET BLVD — SIGN F tiNG Ex.C9 TYPE o SIGN- 'p F 9LtGµ RIM-393 52 "q � y.�` _ : - _ - - 92 _°rt a _ IE 388.62 i5 CONC E LE - - � � x �� '{ �� IE 366 IS" COyS W F10��4'� � � FIBER _ f0__,�.- �l ' 'i •'4'�;` II I L FIBER-OPTIC DUCTS LCVLL 1 � � 105 % i _. _."_ - -EXCB �1 _.. ' III \ \ I I Jam. EX.SSMH 185 RIM 391 1 - - - -' �` 7 �_ IE-386 5 CTR SE NW \ 5 % :I �I \I \I�� - _- _- r cy W .o y� - 4 , t.._=A� AND. 4�.AC 4/ (APPRox qND a 1 EX.SSMH 104 C EX.CB T`vE 1 PRD 5"S! SOLID LID-392. 71 \ CDC\ Im �I`a G_ `-3b9.41 12 E 1 A m \TRAFf __ __ �_ I• EX 4 ", TRAFFIC EX -G LIGHT ;i RIM 392.70 - �"• ��� - - - jam. _11DCA.II ..-L I v-- j JDUCTION I I K o vENTs � _., PROP SSMH 185A o: - Irmo= 14 ��� TELE ' Ll LI_ _ -� - �_ -_ DRIVEWAY PWF" iRAFF�LIGHTIN�_P P_ OOPS IIII ,' JII E%. DRIVEWAY L„_ HAND HOLE+••• - I} JLllyl ABANO, LIFT STATION (APPROX. LOC.) - I\RIM=„9385 EX. EX. o��'•, EX.SSMH 103 h� EX.SSMH 108 RIM �, ) EX.MH TLj/032305-c,gt LIU-392.70 - y IE=405 56 N ! GOES TO 'M"0, IE=390.] 8 NE �O E=405.75 W FILLED 1M TH SOIL EX.SSMH 101 i RIM=3939 7��•,• DRIVEW PY OR G 1 E% CATV TELE SAME TRENCH CH �_ PWR E SSX MH 102 OUTLET TL#032305-9037 DRYER TL#C,32305-9049 _ ....._ .. .._.._... ................ __.._....__, ___...__. _ Roth Hill Engineering Partners, LLC - ^ 26DO116thAvenue NE#1D0 SCALE 20 0 20 406PW/KRG Bellevue, Washington 98004 IrTrlll� �-� R o t h H i I I Tel425.869.9446 1 INCH FEE20) FT F.425.869.1190 .. __.......... ...:........_.._.. :....._.._ _. __I ..... _.. ___:_.. .____.. -i .. - ....._____. _._ ..__.__ ___..__. _. .._...... .... ._i..... ....___ ITM L t•=2o' _�"` ` DATUM >� CITY OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public WDI'Ks Dept. SUNSET INTERCEPTOR PHASE 3 SEWER PLAN AND PROFILE NE SUNSET BOULEVARD R at/27/zoos �� BPW � � � � COROxC' N0. REVISION By DATE APPR u. e�. 3 '18 SW 3-23-5 ......... ........ _ ......... _- THESE DRAWINGS WERE PREPARED FROM BOTH A TOPOCNAPIIIC SURVEY CONDUCTED BY ROTH HEL ....... _. ...... - ......._........ ..........- ---__-............-.. - ENGWEERNBAS GIED UPON PROTECT DATUM WHOSE COORDINATESWE RE PROVIDDBY THE DEPTHS OF STORK PIPE CROSSINGS SHOWN IN THE PROFILE ARE CALCULATED BASED UPON FIELD BERGER/ASAM ENGNEERS,NC.) AND A TOPOGRAPHC SURVEY PERFORMED BY BERGERIABMt :SURVEY OF INVERT ELEVATIONS FOR ADJACENT CATCH INS. WHERE THAT NFORIMTIDN IS ENGINEERS, INC OR RS CONSULTANT. ROTH HILLS SURVEY OMITS ARE GENERALLY WEST OF STATION AVAILABLE SOME STORM DRAIN CROSSINGS ARE SHOWN AT ASSUMED DEP H& ALL OTHER UTILITY 16N68 AND EAST OF STATION 16 75 ON SUNSET BOULEVARD BUT INCLUDE THE SANDARY SEWER ;CROSSINGS IN THE PROFlIE ARE SHOWN AT ASSUMED DEPTHS. ACTUPL DEPTH OF THESE UTILITYMANHOLES BETWEEN STATIONS 162� AND 16 75 ON SUNSET BOULEVARD AND BETWEEN STATIONS CROSSINGS IS NOT KNOWN AT THIS TIME. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING 1T4� MID 21T8�08 ON DUVALL AVENUE. THE DRAWNGS RECEIVED FROM BERGERJARAM NCIUDE THE ELEVATIONS OF UTILITY CROSSINGS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION T-0/ RIGHF WAY AND PROPERTY BOUNDARIES FOR THE ENTIRE PROJECT LIMITS WHIGI ROTH HILL IS REFLECTNG ON THESE DRAWINGS. i EX.SSMH 118 ye UrPUTIES IN RMATION SHOWN IS BASED UPON RECORDS RECEIVED FROM THE RESPECTIVE UTILITY RIM=395.44 IE=386.25 S IE=387.47 C TR / PROVIDERS, FIELD LOCATING OF IDENTIFIABLE PORTIONS OF THOSE UTILITIES, ESTWATE3 OF THE EXPECTED LOCATIONS OF THE UT4RIES WHERE FIELD LOCATING WAS NOT POSME. ACD UPON LOCATONS FRONDED N THE TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY FILES MOM BERGERIABAM ENGNEERS, INC, AS (SHALLOW) - DESCR®ED ABOVE N GENERAL, LATERAL AND SERVICE LOCATIONS ARE NOT SHOWN, EXCEPT WHERE \ r \ / EX. CB TYPE II DRLLUIBfiIES WITHIN THE RDADNAY, EITHER LIVE OR ABANDONED. THAT ARE NOT SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS. WN ON OR ABANAOBE IDENTIFIED.THERESHOWN RIM=397.89 E=}96,79a 4 PVC EIE-390.2 ,... ..... .,. O £�b >'i►= 12"SW TLi7229o0-0000IE=390.a9 'C \_- ��.� rf �`">�FO _ -_ _ � � w IE=396 9 4" PVC W EX.SSMH 119 RI M 397.38 g44 _ - IE -392 38 CTR ��y " "Al NE SUNSET BLVD 41� -Zf -IR--�_�-f0-_�0�0-4 X. 10 _. OCf 'nyC=-`-__�: F� RIVEWAY {0 -- 0 _lrhZ i cp---0--x---Fo- x--ip-- �O ---- -Ep---- �Ox j ---p- x --gyp-- 0 ---- -TO- ---Lp- -EO----FO- O- .e•-...-Tp—�. - STR4E STREET LICH TI NG EX.CB TYPE I - L -_ y __ _. - ____ _v - ,r __F=_ _ p , ; r•b'- _� -- �_ l RIM-395 24 __//GhrJNG_ IE=390.39 12 NE IE=390.19 t5"-W- -- - - - __ - _ E% 12_DI W- . ABAND_ 4" AC W (APPROX. X:CB_TYPE. I- LOC)-3 __. - _. -.__ _ 6 AT ___-_- EIM 393.�6 2 E 1 / Ex CD TYPE I �_ _ .-__ _ — 16Q-f00 '- - - —.-_ __ �, IE-393.06 12 INC W . DOUBLE YELLOW R.P.M. / RIM=395.87 -1 - — _ — _ IE-387.59 2a"W _ _ _ 161+00 _ 162+00 IE=388.12 12" SW EX.C8 TYPE -397 - E 98 BORINGS RI 8E 588 �397 5I" N EIM350.a8812" E EX SSMH EX.SSMH 191�c_��� - -- -i.--- LOCAnorv\ __.� 04-------------------- - ---_--..---_--- ----__.�_--_--- --. M _. _ - g SrRffr \cam �c — �P - XTRUDED CONC CURB _. _ r S 9 �t - -. - - __- SMH - C - 4 [; /� I d 4 1 W =-388.18`24" SW AP P FOX. LOC. EX. SO — - - —cam �r�c_ / �riiy�c— yG a' cAS�G; TL/(032305-9037 / MATCH LINE SHEET 9 EX. CATV PER F'0 AS BUILT �i APPROX. LOC. []? ExyM � , I EX-_=4SMH 1211 1„ RIM DO 56 P IE 39a 63 CiR I �° by 0 I RNEWAY II I —G c4— G Tr Alt ._— ER TLy032305-9024 EX. CATV $ TELEJ SAME TRENCH 163+00 �—_ 164'00 P ( x_-APPROX.LOC'-r CATV y-- - -- EX 4" CAS --- C C G �—C G ac G O P--�— - po --- s CLF Ex. CATV & IELE b SAME TRENCH 4 (� .o (APPROX. LOC,) ry 4 / EX.SSMH 9E� i > RIM 396.30 TL/J032305-BOSS ry" ! f IE-393. 20 IE=393.29 5 / e) IE=393..,2 SERNCF $E / 4 ! htia ;? EX. SSMH 95 0 X P g Ot NE SUNSET BLVD POSSIBLE BURIED TEL. CROSSING PER RECORD DRAWINGS tiz 1 12- DI W _ -µ' _____ _... ___ W — _ _ A; ..h.__..'--- —YA—I - .� ABIANO. 4 AC..W {APPROX._LOC) IC 1 5+00 1661 18 Lu U> _ - - -- INDUCTION O li I SSMH 95 - LOCATION EX.SSMH 94 LOOPS BORING fi' DIA (TYP) —' Q p.--= *_=--------------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - --_--- --- -71-1 r _ --_ _- g�� -- J -. — i �� �j I— ice= -- --'➢�- �, T ., P �. T -- P 3 77- --y�--R = E% 4' GAS G ru C� G G L G G G GG —�G —GO G ( •— Ct — / (APPRUX. L_C.) =p 1', - - - - - - - - - EX. SS a `O I„OZ EX. POWER /• PAP F- hY5 �h°2 (APPROX. LOC.) EX CATV & TELE SAME TRENCH `< (APPROX. LOC.) TLg032305-9093 •S'\� I I I i I .. �\ TL#032305 9097 SW 3-23-5 �z'i1 QP INDUCTION LOOPS 20 (6' DIAM) TYPICAL t I ` ' OPr e,L ti SSMH 24�° II I APO%ILO EE _ ,�`E�Mr1328 / =�P AP7R'OX. 130' N aQeTE TL#032305 9282 °� ' l ,6F .tx SSMH 92 �° /� /(ry0T SURVEYED) iPRORMH9 ;- .� @ © EX. SS y q0 yo Q I (APPROX. LOC ti '. , - 1 I P I 3 193E ._•---.-- .... __. "__ - _I iE=39389 NW' ~ AND F CHANNEL) �pROFILE�I 2 -DIRECTIONAL DRILLED -SEWER IN ( I CASING ' ffT�Al � ---- X% DMA. CASING 166}00 1 - -—�1POSSIBLE BUIED ( APPft - GABANO.6W TEL. CROSSIN PER' - ---- (APPROX. LOC) -' RECORD DRA iNGS 11 : L I 91 �EX.SSMH 90I•--------------- ------- II ( Q pR91P-. MH190A 1L.)WO.0 --------------#— \ - EX SSMH 89 n PROP. 4 I �f o EX. SS 'SSMH 906 -(APPROX. LOC.) h - O II ...........................................__........__. _._....__._ _ .____... ____....._____.. THESE DRAWINGS WERE PREPARED FROM BOTH A TOPOCiWP9C SURVEY CONOMCTED BY ROTH H0.L ENGINEERING (BASED UPON A PROTECT DATUM WHOSE COORDINATES WERE PROVIDED BY BERGERIABAM ENGINEERS INCI AND A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PERFORMED BY BERGERTABAM ENGINEERS, INC OR ITS WNSIILTAM. ROTH HRLS SURVEY LIMITS ARE GENERALLY WEST OF STATION 1E2� AND EAST OF STATION 1B9•75 ON SUNSET BOULEVARD, BUT INCLUDE THE SANITARY SEWER MANHOES BETWEEN BTATIONS 16N60 MA 189�T5 ON SUNSET BOULEVARD AHD BETWEEN STATIONS 174-20DpBONDWALL AVElNE. TIEOMWINGS RECENED FROM BERGERIABAM INOIDE RIGHT-0i-WAYAND PROPERTY BOUNDARIES FOR THE ENTIRE PROJECT EMUS, WHICH FOUR HILLS REFLECTING ON THESE DRAWINGS. MBJTIES WFORMATION SHOWN IS BASED WON RECORDS RECENED FROM THE RESPECTNE M"MY PRWIOER$• FIELD LOCATING OF DEN➢FIABLE PORTIONS OF THOSE MIMES, ESTIMATES OF THE E%PECTED LOCATIONS W THE UTILITIES WHERE FIELD UO IING WAS NOT POSSIBLE. AND UPON LOGRMD ABOVDEDINTHETOPOGRAPHICSURVEY EU FROMBERGE NOT SHENGINEERS.INC.AS DESCROUL ABOVE. W GENERAL, LATERAL AND SERVICE LOCATIONS ARE NOT SHOWN, IXCEPL WHERE THEY COULD BE IDENTIFIED. THERE MAY ADDITIONAL ITTIUTIES WITHIN THE ROADWAY. EITHER LIVEAB OR ANDONED. THAT ME NOT SHORN ONN THESE DRAWINGS. THE DEPTHS OF STORM PPE CROSSINGS SHOWN IN THE PROFILE ARE CALCULATED BASED UPON FIEED .WFIVEYOFINVERTELEVATIONSFORADJACENTGTC-ASWS,WHERETHATWFOR-13061S AVARABLE. SOME STORM DRAIN CROSSINGS ME SHOWN AT ASSUMED DEPOTS. ALLOTHER UTLITY CROSSINGS IN THE PROFILE ME SHOWN AT ASSUMED DEPTHS. ACTUAL DEPTH OF THESE MllfiY CROSSINGS O NOT KNOWN AT THIS TIME. THE COMPACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING THE ELEVATIONS OF UTILITY CROSSINGS PROM TO CONSTRUCTION SW 3-23-5 TL#51 69 70- ()IT 5 lmle.�4 328 TL #516 9 7 0 - 0 11 o Ai'7�GX, 130' N 6F SSMH 92 r ------ - TL#516970-0119 "4 (VT SURVE)j:D) V TL#51611 121 C S BOX LOC. EX 5' DI W ---------------- ----- ------- ------- 50- APP il ------ ---- - ---- - NE SUNSET BLVD j F— EX SS _---�-�(APPROX. LOC.) DRIVEWAY -I LET` -- - — ------- - --- --------- -------- ------ 117— E X-- 127 -D! IT i 1".. 9wwww. 1z - �­ I— - - - - ­ --- - -,-- - - AB ND. 4" AC IN (APPROX. LOC) ABAND, 4' AC W CAtPPROX. LCC) BURIED TEL. 6 CROSSING PER RECORD DRAWINGS DOUBLE DOUBLE YELLOW R.P.M. — ------------- - PCs B" --- ------- 171+00 172+00 173+ 174+00 f-00 170+00 1 to -F-- - f — - — - — - — -- — - — - 4� > DOUBLE YELLOW POSSIBLE BURIED TELr -CROSSING PER -------- RECORD DRAWINGS BORING— DASHED WHITE LINE W1 . ......... r LOCATION EX. CA TV de TELL EX. CATV TELE Uj SAME TRENCH SAME TRENCH m (APPROX.C (APPROX. LOC.) — —T T I — T T T P, ------ T T � �T— T­ 'k m % P C) �P—� — — — — — — 7 — — — — — — — — r r Nb4 88 X�� �p - - - - - - - - - - - - - - '�­EX. DWAF-W*Y -4 PROP. P.-MH 8M VAULT SSMH 90B ------ T]RM"17I.R.Ell EX. DRIVEWAY—-' V ---------------------- --- QE�Lxosji7147143V -- --- -- (APPR ------- -------- EX. CATV TELE LZt: SAME TRENCH (AP PROX LOC.) % 11 , TL#516970-0092 - — -- — -- — -- — >\ TL#576970-0040 ........ .. -SE DRAWINGS WERE PREPARED FROM BOTH A TOPOGRAPHIC S� CONDUCTED BY BOTH HIUL ENGINEERING (BASED UPON A PROJECT DATUM WHOSE COORDINATES WERE PROVIDED BY URLTnES INFORMATION SHOWN IS BASED UPON RECORDS RECEIVED FROM THE RESPECTIVE UTB­ THE DEPTHS OF STOW PIPE CROSSINGS SHOWN IN THE PROFILE ME CALCULATED BASED UPON FIELD BERGERIABAM ENGINEERS, INC) AND A TCPC�C SURVEY PERFORMED BY BERGERIABAM PRONDERS,FIEUDLOCATI OF IDENTIFIABLE PORTIONS OF THOSE UTILITIES, ES—TESOF SURVEY OF INVERT ELEVATIONS FOR ADJACENT CAT� 11ASI WHERE THAT INFO-KRON IS ENGINEERS We OR ITS CONSULTANT. ROTH HILLS SURVEY UNITS ME GENERALLY WEST OF STATION EXPECTED LOCATIONS OF THE L'I WHERE FIELD LOCATING WAS HOT FOSS� AND UPON AVNI-ABI.E. SOME STOW DRAW C� ARE SHI AT ASSUMED M�. ALL OTHER UTIURY tf 162� AND EAST OF STATION ISH75 ON SUNSET �ARD. BUT IHOLUDE THE SANITTARY SEWER LOCATIONS PROVIDED IN THE T�IC SURVEY HUE FROM BER(1ENJ� ENGINEEIRS,INC.AS IN THE PNoEjUE ME SHOWN AT ASSUMED DEPTHS. ACTUAL DEPTH OF THESE U`nUTY STATICINS 162�AND 1&H,75ON SUNSET BOULEVARD MD BETWEEN STATIONS DESCRIBED ABOVE. IN GENERAL, LATERAL AND SERVICE LOCATIONS ARE HOT SHOWN. EXCEPT MERE CROSSINGS 6 NOT � AT THIS TIME. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING 174� AND � ON DUVALL AVENUE THE DRAWINGS RECEIVED FROM BERGERIABAM INCLUDE THEY COULD BE IDEXTTIFED. THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL "LITTIES WITHIN THE ROADWAY, FRIER LIVE THE ELEVATIONS OF UTIUM CROSSINGS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION RIGHT-OF-WAY AND PROPERTY BOUNDARIES FOR THE ENTIRE PROJECT UNITS. WHICH ROTH HALL IS OR ABANDONED. THAT ARE HOT SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS. REFLECTING ON THESE DRAWINGS �(AP,PROX LOC -4 W, APPROX. LOC .. . . . . . C, . . . . . . . . . . . 405 405 7 q . . . . . . . . . . L 235 LF 400 77 F t SL=0.0100/ ijI . . . . IIX� �SIUI �IWIR . . . . . .. . . . . .. ... . . 9 . : : ...... I . . . . . � r . : . . . . 1 0 . : 1 r . - . . . 1 . 9 . . - , I - r . . : : r r . I =RT6AAP-M� . . . . . . . . . MEN=, �SD "i PROP. .16* PE 32i 6: SIDE . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395 -4— EK '[PVC PRO PROJ SSMH M -/I RIN 16" HUFt . . . . . . . , i � 9 9 : . . . . . . . . A 4 06.80 - . . . . . . . . . . . . IN VER t IN 399�70 (E) EX 15. SD C) INVIR OUT �99 W) E X: Z%ROP� SSMH 8 390 R 3.30 390 . . . ........ -7 7. 7 I N VE R T.. OUT 397.1 1W)— q 385 385, INVERT IN $93.31 (SE) q . . . . . . . . ....... INVMT :OU11 . . . . . . . . . . T 4—:7 EXr POWER (APPROX. LO EXCEPT AS CROSSINGS -------------- L1". R111 . . . . . . . . . . . 380 . . ........ . ......... ....... . . ... . ... Roth Hill Engineering Partners, LLC WE 2600 116th Avenue NE #100 SCALE ­11 1 "=20' ­11 — ­/1111 CITY OF SUNSET INTERCEPTOR 1j27/2005 20 0 20 40 BPW/KRG PHASE 6Pw nun Bellevue, Washington 9M I I I - - R E N T O N RothHill Tel 42'SA69.9,48 ( FEET ) u.I'lanning/Building/Public Works DeDATUM pt. SEWER PLAN AND PROFILE I INCH = 20 FT Fax 425.869.1190 NO. REVISION BY DATE APPR NE SUNSET BOULEVARD SW 3-23-5 _ ..........................__ ... ........... _._ - ... THESE DRAWINGS WERE PREPARED FROM BORN A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY CONDUCTED BY ROTH HILL -... ....._..__ ............. _..... ._.. .,. .._..._ .. _....... lfnLInES WFORMAnON SHOWN IS RECORDS RECEIVED FROM THE RESPECTIVE UTIDTY / ENGINEERING (BASED UPON A PROJECT DATUM WHOSE COORDINATES WERE PNOVIDED BY PROVIDERS, FlEID LOGnNG OF Ip FVZLE PORnG OF THOSE UnLMES, ESTw TES OF NNE THE DEPTHS OF STORM PINE CROSSINGS SHOWN IN THE PROFlLE ARE CALCULATED BASED UPON FIELD BERGER/ABAM ENGINEERS,WC) AND A TOWGRAPHC SURVEY PERFORMED BY BERGEA/ABAM E%PECTED LOCATIONS OF THE 11TIL1TIE5 WM�RE FELD IOGnNG WAS NOT POSSIBLE, AND IWON SURVEY OF INVERT ELEVATIONS FOR ADJACENT CATCH BASINS, WHERE T TINFORMATION IS ., ENGINEERS, ING OR RS CONSULTANT. ROTH HLLS SURVEY LIMITS ARE GENERALLY WEST OF STATION LOGTIONS FROVIDEp IN THE TOPOGRAPHC SURVEY FllES FROM BERGEAIABAM ENGINEERS. INC. A", AVAILABLE. SOME STORM DRAIN CROSSINGS ARE SHOWN ATASSUMED DEPTHS, ALL OTHER UTILITY 182.80 AND EAST OF STATION 189.750N SUNSET BOUIEVARO, BUT INCLUDE THE SA1MST F ST A I DESCRIBED ABOVE IN GENERAL, LITERAL AND SERVICE LOCATHDHS ARE NOT SHOWN, EXCEPT WHERE :CROSSINGS IN THE PROFIE ARE GMgNN AT ASSUMED DEPTHS. AC111AL OEF'M OF THESE URITY MN:MgIESBETWEENSTATKIN51U-ODMD185.75ONSLJWETBOIAEVA MDBETWEEASTA NS iIEY COULD BE DEHnFTEO. THERE MAY BE ADDIfNINAL UnLITIES WITHIN THE RDAOWAV, EITHER LIVE CROSSINGS IS NOT MOWN AT THIS TIME THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING THE ELEVATIONS OF UnIItt CROSSINGS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION 17—Iu D2o DON oUVI.L VCHOPERTYBOU � DRIWIEEMIRERECEIVEDFROM MERS,IWIABAM INCUD IS RIGHT-OOR ABANDONED, THAT ARE NOT SHOWM ON THESE TMAWRJGS. REFLECTING ON THESE DRAWINGS. MATCH UBINIE SHEET 93 r i POWER TRANSFORMER i ? j/ Vr / C L C G 4 6Q NE SUNSET BLVD i as D `_, ❑°� �� § a 00� ---- / /�^ T 1 _ �' i TLsr — ._ _ I — — — — — --- z s f/ - — /( IO--P �: jA yyl 'F m T_ REfT10NAl DRILL _ Pi ___ -CONCRETE WA r(GJy _ - O �� _-._ -_ SWAL _- �\ L r CROS �_ l X Kt ZFO �lb=-E(ia— ( --FO- -- �` 9'.:' T_s- -.-.-_ \ ®-y- Cry red; \2' ___ ___- ---gF --__y ::-- -� - - -__ ,.-_ -.,f-- 4 - - -�- i -- - - -- - '--�`��-Fo--io---- CJ L�.r�,l � h14,. _ .... ABAND, 4" \ (APPROX-tE/CJ- _.__..f _ ._ i� � 5 � �A . C- _- -- - o---FO-\•\ � -_` / // � C. W l r --FO-_ ry \ E% CAiV SEWER 4 �r(APPROX. ROC.) IN f / ,'/. T--__- - OR/ - �T ---_. / ��-' - - P A�=- yr p� ` %X DIA CASING C DOUBLE YELLOW R.P.M. -` _� -F \� q ' �1- _IV�EWAYELfDOUBLE ELLOW E sMH 17' LC�� A'PM. APPROX3f 1PPRO '_�la' -O./L� ��aEx 1 LOC -�♦ ZL/177 r DASHED WHITE LINE W/ R.P.M. _ ' SEWER IN f _ / j ► �! �- J ! L_ jam'= �_�_ __�___ ` £ -r_F�_ r —py_ �- - a EX CATV & TELL xX DIA. CASING f ��-_ - -- _ L / •� �;' }� ISAME TRENCH (APPROX.ROC)................ �78+ �.( siNc[E -� .. LLWRpM --PROPSSMH 173r � T i a RP J LU ZELS-- 4SBT M-- i I - �@ i _•.. �C•`i �= r/�� --_— Y o -__ _- - a- x .1 ., L OAS _ g QJ P S!! O _ a _ ,T{{-- _ �_._ V _Pt _ __ i�� HED WHE LIN �- 'a a �_�� <' __ _� /�-'___ t m �a-Y�� G I' G-': W/RPM --•.1lE �___ ---_J -- EX.S%B7 Ji- .r` P+� _�P�RO SS w P__ _-__ _ .`� ,; r {� �['_.__--� r'.� -�_�� � ! __=_- _� _ _ EX.SSMH 216� Q O ��. AL7� -' \., " - a 1 fl1 !Sl PROP.SSMH 88 m r - _ - Pam- .. Z.b - -rn-_� =( a �- __ ram+ g+ TRANSFO00 i(r♦ / \\I1 ___ _P iP V P __—P / RMER VAULT G ) L11- �— _ `a 'r= (o ` �F+'_2-P5�1471 a3 ` P`�O \ -�"� I �' F �'__- i -�V' J F P._- -�- ____ T 'a ___\\\\\\111 �___�_ / 1 ATV &TELE (APPROx. L>DC.}— ` a`aa % g 'N- —� ;__, PROP. I \ ,1�. / cRA55 - �P - r ../ -111 _ !_ _ .t _- -1 a i - r�7 TRENCH - _ _ g 1ox Loc.) �Q.' SSMH 87A \ Ex POWER ///7 /\ ear // PROP.SSMH 174A TL 576970- >a-�` �y i 0092 (APPROX. LOC,) �1}r / J� �O PG �� \ y-r/r�ry `•.�^�T�__��i= :' as / 1 'R. �// / O bx 4� Ge CPpINOI -_ - i 11 NOS \ EX ,' _ ' _SINGLE a a O P ORI P WHITE .JC, A j O`er L _ I L'EW ,i -' P. M. • � JF�`: �a_. �G O e \ � /�4 �<- �a. i - -_ \ I �• _ G, - P- � � �i� _._ 2° _, � `P �- - _.___ •�� :P \\',,1 G N0�1_- '/ O 0 - ' POKER n7�P� • `V (APPX ,� x �: `�. / Ly �/ _\\ _1 �I r f•X3n LDG.) - DON Q �- SSMH -•\ \\ -JOG' ) `h.y '+ PO cDGE °� _ „^ k \ \l \ �/ �/ `�♦\ ''li I ,t. OSV r e;,S�p I \ /r'll C\\�e. ♦ I i �r ¢' oQ \ LH576970_0 oG: j/ Gp ` J� 1z ; 08j Q? YQ s r \ o O 5 ? e •i 4O rE a a . %l516970_00/ a' O %1`� e % .� , f N��r '•ogyh4% o,`P Q �omac mr 5 .c°,$,�T o I - 415 I. � 415 ' 410 : . .:: : .....:: : ... - ... : : - - - EX 21 ^D : .: Ex.l 12' WATER - � - I Ex: e" SD - - EX(IEUNKNOWN) I .EX, PWR - APPRD%. - E %. 12 50 - :.: - - - �� - � ...I EX. PWR : AP R X - j - - - Ex. TELE EX, -TELE APPRON : C APPROX. .. ; -.. ! - I .. _ ... - . ... _ : :. OG I ..- - - - - ... .. ..... ... .. -- ----i - .. -. .. ... I.. I .. .' - 1 i . . I--_--__ iI ... - - ... . . ... ----. I. 05 . i.. I I 0 I: i (: 405 . ... :. . I I . .. i.-. I. � - ..L. I' ..-...i I - � 102 LF . :. ... -� ... - EX: B' PVC I ....... ...... ....... I:.. .... ... I. .206 LF� .-.. .. ....... ... ..:: .. :... ..-. ....-. ... .. .... 1.. .. ..-... ...... I.. -..- -- I.:...... .... -.-.. .........!: .....: .... ... -...... .t00LF - .. -.. ... I- ..-..... ..... PROP_13 316'HOPE .... .-- .. ... .....- .-...-. .... .- _ I-.... PROP. ... L,0.0033 ... 12' PVC. - ..- ... SL=0.0061 � - ... .... -- .. ..... . -:400 j:.. :-...I I . - . : ...... :........i.....-1...-..95 LF :.--... .......-.,......... .....--..�: ......: �. _ ::. .:..SL�0 - 32: :::.: :': ..I:. :I:. _ ---- - ....:I ...... I:..... -. .-� I -.... ...:I I:. .... ... - -- is :. �: 400 ... .. _...... V 1 ....... - ... SL=0.0024!15'PVC....... !__ _._.._...,_ � s� _ _ I: I . .......I . ...... ........ ....... .I ...... - .I -- -. I.. .. ..-; .. -:I:. ... -..... 1 ...... ..-- .. -. -... ..- -. ... I .. ..... .. -...- ...... ... ..... i. cIM. 410 SSM j 06 IN 463.69 _ .. 395 ..... ...I........I 1 :!. - ... 1 ... .. .,.. ' I .. !..... I .. :. .........I.. I - - � �..- I.. ..-.. .. : PROL SSMH-173A:..- .. ... .. — .. �! ..-...- .-. :..... .. PROP.: SSMH: :174A o RIM 40_ 70 NVERT I (E) . 395 .. .. I _. :: .:. - ..'.......RIM1406:80...1.-.. .... i.... PROP.: -..... ..!c SSMH. 88A!.,SMH_87A-I.. ' ..I. .-.....I: - - . .. .. -- 60 Di. -'RIM.4 :....... :: ::.... .......I.. .... ! ::. .... ::::.. ! .. PROA_. :::6p y:.-::. RIM4C7.30. - __ ISSMH 167A 1.:. :..::!. �.:-....I. I. -.....!. !�. : ...... ... .... .. .. -..., 4 ... _.�-.. INVERT:O 4011. E.. .. .....IN VERT.OUT-401.84 .(SW) :::..:.:: ........I........ ... ......- __ __ _ : ...- ....... ........I :::::... i.:::: : - ..-. ...... -.. ... INVERT IN h02172. :...:::INVERT OUT _402E2(SW).:I: - -- .. 1 EAi..:.OU (E) ...�_: - - .. .... 02 99 ..... ... (SE)..:. I_........ .. . -:.. - -. -- ..I i..-.... ..-.,-. :.::.......INVERT-OUT-39EI INVERT.IN: 399.70-E ( ) :: :.: .I .- ...I:.... C6,60::.�..: INVERT] :. .:::: IN 400.48 :(NE, S) .... .. 39 . _. ..I .... 60.(W). _ :: -_ .: IN VERTj IN 400.03 (£',N) -.. INVERT.. OUT 399:93' W :. I: :... - :. : :I - INVERT ...�- OUT 400:3&. W): ( I -- .:: II390 ... :..:-.-- : _ .. ..�I-. ... - .. .. I... .:I I: .. ... .. 385: I:..-... -1 _ .I::::.. �....... - _.... - I - i ........ I:.. .. I: I': I :....... ..... �:....-.. - ... I.--. ;. I ( 1 385:: Roth Hill Engineering Partners, LLC d1/27/2005 2600 1161h Avenue NE #100 20 SCALE" o zo 40 L%'�' CITY O F SUNSET INTERCEPTOR PHASE 3 BPW/KRG R o t • h H l l Bellevue, Washington 980D4------`J---� l Tel (FEET) DATUM R C I \; EN PIDFlN;n9/eDildiFlg/PDbIiO IN TO I v Works Dept. SEWER PLAN AND PROFILE ° aPW �-.� ��� V / Fax 425.969.1190 1 INCH = 20 Fr NO. APPR I .�Bo.:�.� NE SUNSET BOULEVARD REVISION BY DATE T " 7 '18 �����IIIIIII SW 3 23-5 ........ ....... - ......... _ ........ THESE DRAWINGS WERE PREPARED FROM BOTH A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY CONDUCTED BY ROM HLL UTILITIES INFORMATION SIgWN IS BASED UPON RECORDS RECEIVED FROM THE RESPECTIVE UTBJTY THE DEPTHS OF STORM PIPE CROSSINGS SHOWN W THE PROFILE ARE CALCL ATED BASED UPON FIELD ENGINEERING (BASED UPON APROIECT DATUM WHOSE COORDINATES WERE PROVIDED BY PROVIDERS FIELD LOCATING OF IOENIIFIABIE PORTIONS OF TMOIE UTILITIES, ESTIMATES OF THE SURVEY OF INVERT ELEVATIONS FOR ADJACENT CATCH BASINS. WHERE THAT INFORMATION IS BERGEIUAB,W ENGINEERS WC.tANDATOi'Of'RAPHIC SURVEY PERFORMED BY BERGEWABAM EXPECTED LOCATIONS OF THE UTILWHERE ITIES FIELD LOCATING WAS NOT POSSWUE. AND UPON AVAIIABLE, SOME STORM DRAIN CROSSINGS ARE SIpWLL IIR N AT ASSUMED DEPTHS. AOTHER UTY AN GINEERS INCINS O RS CONSULTANT. N SUNSET BO SURVEY UNITS M UDE MESA WEST S STATION LOCATIONS PROVIDED IN THE TOPOGRA➢H C SURVEY ALES FROM BERGERIABAN F INEERS M. AS _ CROSSINGS IN ME PROFLE ARE SHOWN AT ASSUMED DEPTHS. ACTUAL DEPTH OF THESE UTILTTY IS]�60 AND EAST OF STATION iSB.I50N SUNSET BOULEVARD, BUT WCllIOETIE SANRARY SEWER DESCRIBEDABOVE-WGENERAL.LATERAL AJm SERVICE LOCATIONS ARE NOTSHGWN, EXCEPTWHERE CROSSINGS IS NOT XHONW AT THIS TIME. THE CONITiACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING / MANHOLES BETWEEN STATgN518] 6D N1D 189/]S OH SUNSET 801AFVARD MiD BETWEEN STATM]NS THEY COULD BE IDENTIFIED. THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL UTILTIIES WITHIN THE ROADWAY, EITHER LIVE THE EIMIAT10NS OF UTILITY CROSSINGS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION I]N00 AND 2Yp•pD ON DUVALLAVENUE. THE DRAWINGS RECEIVED FROM BERGEP/ABAM INCLUDE OR ABANDONED, THAT ARE NOT SHOON THESE DRAWINGS. RIGHi21FVAY AND PROPERTY BOUNDARIES FOR THE ENTIRE PROTECT LIMITS, WHICH ROMHBL IS WN ' REFLECTING ON THESE DRAWINGS. .. - . EX.SSMH RIM=413.71 IE=405.50-ERVICE NW IE=405.41 f✓ IE=405.26 5 IE=405.40 )51 Z`� I T`#8p7903-0480 I I Lu TL//855190-8888 -`,.. LL a -._ Ex IEEE. I I NE SUNSET 8L-UD EXU RI __-_ (A. PPROX LOC.) F�l! I, O. `JEV/AY �(APPROX. T 0 -F0 _T-_�0 - _i0 1 ��` gal - 1 a 1 x _ - - -- - - ,. .. ..... ......_.. .................r.. ... __....._ . ....._..._ 1.. - n5�r�--�r��n=�TJ=ter _I.... �_ — I Ex 12' DI t! �n ;.. --- -- - -- - --- -- - - - - �4Lnno - -- ..... _ _(: - - _ -_ ... , Ex Iz DI w 1 I,, A. _ .... _ - .... - --- .. _. ._ .. . _ 1 I 1 1 - - - _ - _ _ ABAND 3" AC W (APPROX. LOC).... ABAND. 3 AC W (APPROX.LOC)r 7 BORING 1 I A EX.SSMH 218 __ - 1 _ 1 1 EX.SSMH 21 = - - Ex CATV—_ Q o EX.SSMH 217A ? _� EX.SSMH 217 ]- -- -- -� PER RECORD DWGS _ _ r% V (APPRpXG) (TIE MH) 180+00 7+00 / :. t 82+00 t 83+00 t E4+00 E%. CATV & TELE a SAME TRENCH EX EL'� E%. CATV & TEL4 -- (APPROX. LOC PER RECORD DWGS SAME �NCkL_-. ---.- ...--- ...__... __ ____/ r EX.SSMH 174 _.-_ --- "�PPROx. LOG)'- _ (APPROX. LOCAL _.-- 4" AS Ex 4" GAS OC -r-G— G G— �G- G G - G —G G—G-.--a->. G G G( PROX. l - .-__.___.--_- —IL (APPRO%. LOfC�}- CATV AP 1 T T T T T T TT _T1T_T T—i����\\//�-\\��T�.' ,,�. T -> T T_T _TTTT T—T T— T i— b p —P P P �p —P a P p p-- _p _ P— p - rvkp P �� SW,SE 3-23-5 +( lillll uj O EX.SSMH 221 I Z !� PROFILE Q 3 PPRO i, ---o y�TMgN c zi I %Ai, .........................._....._.... THESE DRAWINGS WERE PREPARED FROM DOM A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY CONDUCTED BY ROM HILL ENGINEERING (BASED UPON A PROJECT DATUM VRDSE COORDINATES WERE PROVIDED BY BERGERIABAM ENGINEERS, M.)AND A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PERFORMED BY BERGERIASAM ENGINEERS, WCORITSCONSULTANT. ROTHHILL'SSURVEYLIMBSAREGENE YWESTOFSTATION 162r60 AND EAST OF STATION 1B9r15 ON SUNSET BOUIEVAfm, BUt INCLUDE THE SANITARY SEWER MANHOLES BETWEEN STATONS 1U-W AND 10I-T5 ON SUNSET BWLEVARD AND BETWEEN STATIONS 174,W AND M.00 ON DUVAL, AVENUE. THE DRAWINGS RECEIVED FROM BERGEWABAM INCLUDE RIGHT-O-AND PROPERTY BOUMIDARIES FOR THE ENTITE PROJECT LIMITS, WHICH BOTH MILL IS REFLECTING ON THESE DRAWINGS. UTILITIES WFORMATTON SHOAW IS BASED UPON RECORDS RECEIVED FROM THE RESPECTIVE UTILITY PROVIDERS. FIELD LOCATING OF IDENTIFIABLE PORTIONS OF THOSE UTILITIES, ESTIMATES OF THE EXPECTED LOCATIONS OF THE UTILITIES WHERE FIELD LOCATING WAS NOT POSSIBLE, AND UPON LOCATIONS PROVIDED IN THE TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY FRES FROM BERGETUABAM ENGINEERS, INC. AS DESCRIBED ABOVE. IN GENERAL, LATERAL AND SERWCE LOCATIONS ARE NOT SHOWN, EXCEPT WHERE THEY COULD BE IDENTIFIED. THEREI BEADDITIONALUTIUTIESWITHWTHEROMAY.EITHERLIVE OR ABANDONED, MAT ARE HOT SIIOINN ON THESE ORAWINGS. ... . ............. -.- . ............ --- ................ ---- ........................ --- ....... . .... . ............................. --- --- THE DEPTHS OF STORM PIPE CROSSINGS SHOWN IN THE PROFILE ARE CALCULATED BASED UPON FIELD SURVEY OF INVERT ELEVATIONS FOR ADNCENT CATCH BASINS WHERE THAT INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE. SOME STORM DRAIN CROSSINGS ARE SFIOWN ATASSUMED DEPTHS. ALL OTTER UTILITY CROSSINGS W THE PROFILE ARE SHOWN AT ASSUMED DEPTHS. ACTUAL DEPTH OF THESE UTILITY CROSSINGS IS NOT XNOIYN AT THIS TIME. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING THE ELEVATIONS OF UTILITY CROSSINGS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION SE 3-23-5 THESE DRAWINGS WERE PREPARED FROM BOTH A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY CONDUCTED BY ROTH HILL ...... ........- --- ENGINEERING (BASED UPON A PROJECT DATUM WHOSE COORDINATES WERE PROVIDED BY UTILITIES INFORMATION SHOWN IS BASED UPON RECORDS RECEIVED FROM THE RESPECTIVE UTILITY BERGER/ABAM ENGINEERS, INC.) AND A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PERFORMED BY BERGERIABAM PROVIDERS, FIELD LOCATING OF IDENTIFIABLE PORTIONS OF THOSE UTILITIES, ESTIMATES OF THE ENGINEERS, INC OR ITS CONSULTANT. ROTH HILLS SURVEY LIMITS ARE GENERALLY WEST OF STATION i EXPECTED LOCATIONS OF THE UTILITIES WHERE FIELD LOCATING WAS NOT POSSIBLE, AND UPON 162+60 AND EAST OF STATION 189,75 ON SUNSET BOULEVARD, BUT INCLUDE THE SANITARY SEWER LOCATIONS PROVIDED IN THE TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY FILES FROM BERGER/ABAM ENGINEERS, INC. AS MANHOLES BETWEEN STATIONS 162+60 AND 189+75 ON SUNSET BOULEVARD AND BETWEEN STATIONS DESCRIBED ABOVE. IN GENERAL, LATERAL AND SERVICE LOCATIONS ARE NOT SHOWN, EXCEPT WHERE 174+00 AND 200+00 ON DWALL AVENUE. THE DRAWINGS RECEIVED FROM BERGER/ABAM INCLUDE THEY COULD BE IDENTIFIED. THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL UTILITIES WITHIN THE ROADWAY, EITHER LIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND PROPERTY BOUNDARIES FOR THE ENTIRE PROJECT LIMITS, WHICH ROTH HILL IS OR ABANDONED, THAT ARE NOT SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS. REFLECTING ON THESE DRAWINGS. EX.CB\ - RIM=417.61 I E =415.06 12"CMP N I� E-414, 91 12"CMP W \ IE=415.06 12-CDS NE ( EX.SSMH 192 i ---\\ ` TL//80'7904-0140 , - RIM=:-427 IE=428.28 N cHaN 211 IE-4ta.60 10- N IE DROP TL#807904-0120 TL 807904-0130 \ \ IE= 418.64 5 Ex.ce RIM-4 IE-42 i% i .._. __ . ___.... ...__......___ .... _._ __....__ _ .....___._ .__. _..., THE DEPTHS OF STORM PIPE CROSSINGS $MOAN IN THE PROFILE ARE GL TED BASED L'FON FIELD SURVEY OF NVERT ELEVATIONS FOR ADIACEM GTCH BASiN5. W1ERE THAT RSORMAT1pN S AVAILABLE SOME STORM ORAN CROSSINGS ME SHORN AT ASSUMED DEPTHS. ALL OTHEF UTRM CROSSNGS IN THE PROFILE ARE SHOWN AT ASSUMED DEPMS. ACTILIL DEPTH OF THESE DIL" CROSSNGS S NOT KNDVIN AT THIS TIME. THE CONTRACTOR S1 BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING TIE ElEVATgNS OF UiIRY CROSSNGS PPoOR TO CMSTRUCTgN \ \ \ \ IE=424.86 i2'ADs E 7Ly032305-9185 EX. CB TYPE I }I� - P14�'l �I IE=429.76 12"ADS W RIM=435.36 ` - APPEARS TO DE 12"TEE W-E-N NE SUNSET BLVD \`\ 1 �0 0` ' IE=4}2.59 ,2 ADS N IE=432. 31 12"ADS E IN CON x '. )-,1- -FO-- -FO--_ -Fp- -TOE- (t---=E6 —.1� 9- �J:4-'-elf F4--- ' FD --- O13ORING...Y OCATI �I .. _ - - - - - - - - - - - ----- ,�__- i—EX.SSMH 277 L__------190+00 -- 191+00 EX SSMH 278 - EX a" GAS c —c 0 C _C C II-- TL#032305-9078 IE-432. 12 ADS V!\ e = `- S'�'-x:-:.� �-_ .>_-3'.a-=�i.-�tl--:...c. _rr.'-Fm`-+!-.'*o~• ,'—a--. --- - - - - - - - - - - - -.- _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -0 __- aesl 192+00_ �1934-00-- — m I � EX.SSMH 274 RIM=466.74 IE-454.94 NW 1' IE=a5a.84 5 144' NE OF EX. 55MH 275 ' EX.GB TYPE I II I I I RIM=445.4g 1 G IE=442.86 12"ADS N IE=442. 71 12'AD5 W _ 3' 6' TALL ROCKERY �0 -4'0 -FO -FO- -FO- Fp- 4 _ D- LAJ--•Fv-.�YEl3eER D -a'ja -ro -s0 _ I..f i- Do----------------------------------------------- --- _ _ EX�SMH_ 276_ __ \ — — — — — Lu — —_--- -- EX.SSMH 275 495+00 SE 3-23-5 ...._... _ .___ ..... ____....... _____._ .......... ____. .. ___.. THESE DRAWINGS WERE PREPARED FROM BOTH A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY CONDUCTED BY ROTH HILL - --- --- - -- [NGINFJ1iIN01BI5Ep UPON APROIECT DATUM NMOSECWimINATE5 N4RE PROVIDED BY U161TES INFORMATION EHOYM IS BASED UPON RECORDS RECEIVED FROM THE RESPECTIVE UTILITY BERGERIABAN ENGILffERS, INC.)ANDATOfOGRl�PIOG SURVEY PERFORMED BY BERGFAIABAM PROVIDERS. FIELD LOCATING OF IDENTIFIABLE PORTIONS OF THOSE UTILITES, ESTIMATES OF THE ENGBNEERS, INC OR ITS CONSULTANT. ROTA HRLS SURVEY UNITS ARE GENERALLY WEST OF STATION EXPECTED LOCATIONS O- THE UTILITIES WHERE FIELD LOCATING WAS NOT POSSIBLE. AND UPON 162�60 AND FAST OF STATION 18975 ON SUNSET BOULEVARD, BUT INCLUDE THE SANITARY SEWER LOCATIONS PROVIDED IN THE TOPIX'aRAPL1IC $UR RLES MOM MRGER/ABNA ENG WERS.INC. AS MANHOLESBETWEEN STATIONS162�AND1�75ONSUNSETBDIAEVARDA BETWEENSTATIONS DESCRIBED ABOVE, IN GENERAL. LATERAL AND SERVICE LOCATIONS ARE NOT SHOWN, EXCEPT WHERE 1740 AND � ON DUVALL AVENUE. THE DRAWINGS RECEIVED FROM BERGERIABAM INCLUDE THEY COULD BE IDENTIMD. THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL UTATIES WITHIN THE ROApWAY. EITHER LIVE RIOFR{ -WAY AND PROPERTY BOUNDARIES FOR THE ENTIRE PROJECT LIMITS, WHICH ROTH HILL IS - OR ABANDONED. THAT ARE NOT SHOWN ON THESE DRAWNGS. REFLECTING ON THESE DRAWINGS G ZT 1�P1� THE DEPTHS OF STORM PIPE CROSSINGS SHIAVN IN TIE PROFBE ARE CMCULATED BASED UPON FIELD G�OC' SURVEY OF WVERT ELEVATIONS FOR ADACENT CATCH BASINS. WHERE THAT INFORMATION IS l �O� AVNLABIE SOME STORM DRAW CROSSINGS ME SHOWN AT ASSUMED DEPTHS. ALL OTHER UTILITY CROSSNGS IN THE PROFILE ME SHOWN AT ASSUMED DEPTHS. ACTUAL DEPTH OF THESE UTILITY <� CROSSNGS IS NOT KNOVN AT THIS TIME. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FM V10aFY THE ELEVATIONS OF UHJTY CROSSINGS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTBJN `QUA/O—_ VD CATION EX.CB TYPE I =450.22 12"CMP E EX.CB IE=449-70 12 CMP 5 IE=449. 61 12'CMP W 7:7 00 I- 77�: 'FX.SSMH 290 <.__ _ 1 i� I Roth Hill Engineering Partners, LLC 260011691 Avenue NE#100 SCALE WL 1"=zo' °"' °°^°'� CITY 0E SUNSET INTERCEPTOR IV�/z7/zoos �1 20 0 20 40 srs BPW/KRG PHASE 3 • Bellevue, WashingtDn 98004 ��-� ... DAY -� R E N I O N R o t h H l l l - DATUM / Tel (FEET) r Planning/Building/Public Works Dept. SEWER PLAN AND PROFILE V FaX425.869.1190 1 INCH = 20 FT o v"„�„a„ NO. REVISION BY DATE APPR NE SUNSET BOULEVARD D sI 12 618 SW 3-23-5 ' THESE DRAWINGS WERE PREPARED FROM BOTH A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY CONDUCTED BY ROTH HILL """"" - � �'- .........----- -� - "''''" "" ---- """ "............ ENGINEERING (BASED UPON A PROJECT DATUM WHOSE COORDINATES WERE PROVIDED BY UTILITIES INFORMATION SHOWN IS BASED UPON RECORDS RECEIVED FROM THE RESPECTIVE UTILITY --'-"'--' ' ........... - "'""""" """"' - """ """"' """""" = BERGERIABAM ENGINEERS, INC.) AND A70POGRAPNIC SURVEY PERFORMED BY BERGERIABAM PROVIDERS, FIELD LOCATING OF IDENTIFIABLE PORTIONS OF THOSE UTILITIES, ESTIMATES OF THE THE DEPTNS OF STORM PIPE CROSSINGS SHOWN eI THE PRORUE ARE CALCIAATED BASED UPON FIELD ENGINEERS, INC OR ITS CONSULTANT. ROTH HILL'S SURVEY LIMITS ARE GENERALLY WEST OF STATION EXPECTED LOCATIONS OF THE UTILITIES WHERE FIELD LOCATING WAS NOT POSSIBLE, AND UPON0WASURVEY of INvear EL>=vAnoNs Fae eD.ucENr urcH enslNs, wHEaE rw,rwraw.unoN Is -- OEFMS. ALL OTHER UTILITY 162+60 AND EAST OF STATION 189+75 ON SUNSET BOULEVARD, BUT INCLUDE THE SANITARY SEWER LOCATIONS PROVIDED IN THE TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY FILES FROM BERGERIABAM ENGINEERS, INC. AS ''. CROOSSSSINNGS IE. NTHE ME GPROFILE ARE TORM DRAIN SHOMI AT ISUMIED DESM&AACTTUALARE SHOWN AT D DEPTH OF TITESE UTLITY — MANHOLES BETWEEN STATIONS 162+60 AND 189+75 ON SUNSET BOULEVARD AND BETWEEN STA1 IONS ! DESCRIBED ABOVE. IN GENERAL, LATERAL AND SERNCE LOCATIONS ARE NOT SHOWN, EXCEPT WHERE CROSSINGS IS NOT KNOWN AT THIS TIME. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBIe FOR VERIFYING 174+00 AND 200+00 ON DUVALL AVENUE. THE DRAWINGS RECEIVED FROM BERGERIABAM INCLUDE THEY COULD BE IDENTIFIED. THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL UTILITIES WITHIN THE ROADWAY, EITHER LIVE THE ELEVATIONS of UTIIRY CROSSINGS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION RIGHT-OF-WAY AND PROPERTY BOUNDARIES FOR THE ENTIRE PROJECT LIMITS, WHICH ROTH HILL IS OR ABANDONED, THAT ARE NOT SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS. o = REFLECTING ON THESE DRAWINGS. L.. CRCU;:O � `` ` ff�� \x Yf/� PO�:n: �•., � �\\ �` � V OP / p n A TL#516970-0123 a I I II L TL 516970 17729 _ # TLN516970 0127_ $$MLu PROP 1 6b ) 3\ CHAINLINK W/ SSMH 84A ASPHALT x x r A ♦ ' J , \Q�=`_ I BARBED WIRE I I {{^,�2 STORY; >.I I� v1� ----------- _-_-_ \�BLOG ♦.y 3'I \ "A I DUVALL AVE NEB CR J Li/St6970-0\ 2 OSSWAur \11.1;�� /-I - - -= ' 1T BRICK GE "CCt �1—__-_ 10 i '0 Pi—,_ O¢ �� CRASS Ex. rELE EX.SSMH 84 AL c .a� I \\ (AP--- LOG) \ .� _ ___ __ ______ .' \ T'T __________ _ ___________ __ _____ L �\ __ stce _ f--STAIRS _ LANDSCAPING_ - (TYPICAL) x - - '' -_ N - .. ,, ______•r, ......... __5._, \ _ ... ��_ !!! 'r, DRIVEWAY ❑ 5,9 - 1T� Il =�fA - - - __ _ �. M. ; SINGLE WHITE R.P. �� _ Y- _�i __�_--� (� -� -�� - -__ ~ - - 0 DASHED WHITE LINE W/ R_RM. BAND. 3". AC W (APPROX \\\EX. TELL I T \`\ 1 I I (APPROX. LOC \ �\ `' DOUBLE M?II7E R.P.M. '-- BOODLE YELLOW R.P.M.) '4 '• ----------------------------.::.179 - - - `780+00_==- g DE iEL TLR LOOPS ,00 �., 1 6+00\ T 15 \ \ J7+00% / 178+90 \ a I. _ w-n` 4 -- _- = I -_ NN f '.. '\ _.` DOUBLE YELLOW I'. P.M. y N. I' 1 'r M-. '4. I Y \ Tt z u^ r_'.: \\ \ •... �',r! \ \ \ OZ��� `Z :. \ BASHED WHITE W/ R_P.M_ yEX. iEUE '�-_� __ --_-.._-____-EX,SS-- �T Lill J f- p5 i ` ` \ a. q`\ i _. _ . -. .,..,. ' ry,/.-_P .._ r (AFP40X_ LOC) �E%-'CANt . _ (APPROX LOC ,•`� .•.- \ BUS STOP Bp (APPROX. LOG.) / '. ° fi S ,'�of - err \ T srl€LT€Tt—_ 1 I _ 1lL __ —A_T___ ❑rsra T-- __ \� 7:•. n - -.\'. \ \ / CONCRETE WALP _ -_' - - - ___ _______ .`_..-.v.-P - p p 4_p� \ - 1 r �P _ \ I _ _ CONCRE 7E WALK CRASS GJ u , t> ��^� SRC'- E"• s \yF'X.ME T775T I .- - Tn -_ - _ -- y ., f'... / FL,;-'; / G yCROSS WALK ASPHALT - sm GAS /ENTS-- N \ \ ��. \\, \ -(}�' - / �`••'•. ,0 J'DIA. q -J°-°STEEL EX. CATV L__' _ ___ �_ EXTRUDED --T LANDSCAPING j \ (APPROX. DC) 4- SOOARE\\ \ J ` �as� UNIO 7G SIGN ti, ;\� vi�J\\q\'v ` CURB da QO�A �r[v () /9.2 HIGH �y �\ �( O \�q'\ _ - .'40 F STEEL POST `..'>r, Y" 'i N `U \ \ I a, Q " ..:v-4J () U,?a {(�T"Ilf o •VU I m11 I11 1� S tx\ / 52 LONG PAD t `\ N \ ,PE ,. ( G S45 q O ' f` affl x CONC. PAB �': N .o �\ �J\� \ -. \ a`5 /% .. r ,:. ,l-., r. YIII IIr TI-1FOVn_nnr.t 1.'1. T� ��-.--,. -.. ..,..,. I — .. 420 .. : Svc I _.:I 420 - ...... ---- .... —_ .... _ ..I I. III — _ ... EX.'WT Svc...... x wTa � j: .. . -1-- ... - III .. 415 ...: _'I.:III. _ , .. i, � _:i: E%.FIBER- QPTIC-: (APPROX: LOG.)' !� __ .. ____ ... .. .. _ _ .. .. is .... j ....... .... :.. 415. _ I........ ._ _ _ 1 ..... ..... _ APPROX. _ ( IOC. .. ). I:... ..I..: . . . . . . . Ex.' _ 12 WATER .. ....... . . . _.. .... _ . . ..... ____ _ _ .. _ _ . . _ .. . . _ .. . . .. .. . . .1 D EX.. CATCH I .....I BASIN __.... __ ... __.... .._ __.. .. ... I .... .... .. .. .. _ _.. .. ...I.. ..... 410: :::: _.... ::::: ... .(APPFCOX_ I.. __ LOG_) _ ,.. ... .. I::: .. ..... I .. ...._ _ :_ __ I. ... _ .... _ .._ .. .: .. I. ... ■ :: .... ... .. I .. .. I. I .. I. .' .. .. ..... .... ..... TIE-UNKNOi4N) ... :::: :. ... I- __ .. _ _ .. j .. _ _ .. ....... :410 _...._ ..... .:. • I j ::._ :.::::: .... ... ......:: .. .... ,- ....._-I-. 405 .. .... :::: .: .. . -::: .... .... .: .:. .... :.::.- ... .. _.. _.. .... EX. B-PVC ... ..I:... -:i:.......:1 .. _.. ....... .I:..-.115 LF .... .._____ ...... . .... ....... w. _. ...........1230 .: :. _. LF :.:.. MEN _ 0.0042� ..... .. ..: __.... ..-:: .: .. ..__.._.. .. .... ... .... .. _._... _1___ __..._..__ I: ...... .. .I. ... .. .. _ _____ ....__ ...._ .. _ _ ..... . ___ .._p... .. _.. .. ... __-_. _ _ __ ..._ _ - _ __....__ ..I:::_ _ ..... ____ _.l__ _ .. _ ... ...... . __.... _-_-_-_-_-.-301F- 1221F. ... SL_.. ROP. 15 WC .. T .... . O.B29. ... __ ■......:.....m.■7....■ SL=:..:. - 0.0210 ... - . ' ...__ - . X. SIDE- SEriER I_ _ ..... R I SiUB:(CAPPED)i _ _.._ E%_ _ _ �.�.�.�.-�_�.■_ _ _ sE :000Bs _ ..SE'AER 9DE SEW£R. STUB ■ N...........L............... ... .... .. .. .. : _...... ... .. ._.____ STUB (CAPPED) I _______ _ :.... ! _ .... ____......... ... __.._____ __i_.._ I .... .. _ _ _ .__ ......L___ Ex 9DE SEM£R- .. .... ....... _..____1._ ....... ... _ : __.____!BE ....... .... _ ... _ :.... ....... _. ! _ .. - _ _ _ -... .. .. . -... : (CAPPEO)I .. ..... : .. .. i... ..... ...... ... .... ........I....... ... _ ....... .... __ .... _..I..-... :. .. ___. ._... ........ ........ ........ ... L :....... .. __..__ •_._ __ _.... ..... ! ......... ... _ __.::. _ I... ... �.........: 395... .. .: - •-PVG. OP. 15 .. PROP: ......._ ..... ...... ...... .. .. .. �....._1...._.. I _.. .... ... : ....... .... :I... .::::.. ..... ....... :::: :::I:::..:.'�,... ......_ ..... ..... .. .. .. .......... .. .. .. - ... ...... ... :_L_ .... I......_ __-_II._. ... _. ..-.:I:::.:PROP r_:_: _ ..._..; __-_- - -i. ..:...I..... :..I _ _,:....: II_ ....... ...--........ - ... ... _... SSMH 86A ._:..- ... _ .. ...:.......I.. r ... PROP:-SSMH IM .... l(; \tER .. .._.__ "84A aI2 64a T. IN ..O - 4.39: OUT: 404.29: _.___. � - I.. .. .. ... .:�:....... .. .. .. ( NE) - (SW) _......_ _�__ .. ... ..... .. .. ..�RM _. ..__.., ___. ____ ..... _ 4541084 .INVERT. IN 4 D4o0 I. INVERT -IN- 404 404.79 ......._ .. .. ..... ..... N ( ) .. ..6 (E) (W): ____. �, .....__._ . .. .. ... .. _...... .... ..... � I, _. _ ....... .. (: __ ---1'_._ i-:-. :I:::..... .. .: .. _... _..... .... _.__. �I: .. ....... :...... ..... I " ____. ..... .._ �: .. _. ..... _. ....... _. ....._...... .... .. _... - ..... ... ____- ... .. ... _.. ... _ _ ____ .. ...._ .. .. .. ..... ..... .:'.....__ __ __ __„-X .. ..: .. .....iN .... _._ __.q _ -55MH_.:8.� RIM .a1.7..71.. INVERT IN4C5.84.(N INVERT IN INVERT IN 4q5.83 NVERT OUT-a05.7:(S)- I - - _ ) . W): _.� ) ........ ... .- .... ....., ....:...: ....... : __.____ ....... ... I _. __. �_.:. ....... ... .. ... . .. .. . _. . ....... I - - - - - ... 1 - - - 1 RIM a,+0.00 - -- ,.::::::INERT: 1 .. I . ....... ...... .INMERT-IN - -- .. ...._ .... .. .__-_.... - ' _ ....... _ ....... ... _______ _... .. ....... -.. I . . ....__:' -_-)-_-. _ . .. _ I - -:j- _:: .395 --- -. .... .... ..... .. ...... . I . ..... ....... :. .... .. PROP, .55MH.O7A... ...... ..... .. .. _ ... ... I_._...... ... _ ___I__... I - - - .. INVERT: IN 403.761(NE).... I .... .... ..... ... ... I'.... .. _ _..... _ .... INSERT. OUT-4tl4�70.-(5)-..- ....... ...... .. - - - - . .. .. ....... I: :.-:....... .. ....... _....__ _ ..... .... .:I:... ....... .. .... ...-- I.... ... ..... ..._.. ..... ..... _ _ . _.. . ,... ..... ... .I.. .... ::::.I: :::: .- RIM : 406.60 :: INVERT IN-400.03.(E.N)-... :::::... .:::... ::::..::: .::..:::. .... ...... ..:::INVER :OUT:403.66" ...... ..... SW:::. ... ..._ ___ ..___ .. ... .... ... .. ..... ..I.- ..._._ _. I I _. .... _ .... ... .. _.._ .... .. __... _. ..... ... _.. .. .: .. ... IN RT ::INVERT OUT T 399.:93 �� ... ... _.....' ........: .:::::::: .;:. .... .. .. .. I -L390 I :......:. _..I..;:....::. ...:.-- —� _.. ._:_.:_:. I _:i�_.. 1-- �__ _...:: —._: ::.;... ..__.........:.. .:.... -_ _... : -- 390 1 .._..... ... Roth Hill Engineering Partners, 2600116th LLC AVenue NE#100 20 SCALE o 20 MJL v, t"=zo' `�"�""w'°"�'"' @'► CITY OF SLINSETINTERCEPTOR PHASE d 8/16/2004 R h H I Bellevue, I Washington 98004 '�_ - 40 ,...,,. BPW/KRG ••n R E N TON 3 1 INCH FEET � � = 20 FT B� b o t i / Tel425.669.9448 DATUM PlOnnin Buildin 9/ 9/ Public Works De t. SEWER PLAN AND PROFILE REVISION HY DATE �^ P V Fax 425.869.1190 N0. APPR """"�ROta` DUVALL AVE NE n il��1UL\1�1\` 5 jT{ TL#345000-0010 I s :, I 8 c� { EX SSMH 83 c9) BORING { LOCATION ui OUBLE YELLOW P M. LLI i 1.`T T P l4 — —P 2• CHAIN'INK k III 1 ` 9A 48'F y~--I TLry516970-0137 \ B. . Ir' � O 2 � I I•I"N is � �-y y � �.., �J61AP �: DUVALL AVE NEB. I r, 44 EXSSMFi 82 �_- G�---."--C �---- -L --------a - - T-- APPROX. LOCj ._..... C caLELLµ I PVMT CUT { POoSSI CATBILEION DOUBLE YELLOW RPM 182+00 UTILITY { :I P,,. - _ P_,.........., T P iu P vTl __ �,aY1— l ASPHALT PATCH t0 CURB /'_i �Vcv SMEfi< Iv/; RIM 4191418 1 olce `7' 408.21 NW Ex. CATV ILL IE 42 N 08.2E j 2L- _ T may.- IE 40818 Vr" (APPROX.LOC) 7- '( � 170' E OF Ex. SfMH 81 SW 3-23-5 i - y r / TLi/516970-0142 , K BORING I Ui /—F POWERLNCATOePxOC W�CAPPROASIN CMANL I I — I 183+00 DASHED YELLOW LINE W/ R.P.M. Ei�A3,3 Oaf, DOUBLE H'HI7E R.P.M. I � 4 FOG LI _ J -i 7 r i ------------- `—T DRIVEWAY (APPRLOi P_ (ST—O— P B. P { ASPHALT' 04 WOOD'•w J_. IGATE POST AND + d { II NO PARKING SIGN _ t, co { EX.MH 2O3 f' 3• WOOD hT, Z`) RIM�42D 61 ENo • E=411.25 E THESE DRAWINGS WERE PREPARED FROM BOTH A TOPOGRAPHIC SONEY CONDUCTED BY RON HILL ENGINEERWG IBlSED UPON A PROJECT DATUM WHOSE CODFUNATES WERE PROVIDED BY SERGEWABAM ENGINEERS INC.) AND A TOPOGRAPHC SURVEY PERFORMED BY BERGEWABNM ENGINEERS. INC OR ITS CONSULTANT, ROM HILLS SURVEY LIMITS ARE GENERALLY WEST OF STATION 162. AND EAST OF STATON lN9 750N SUNSET 80UlEVARD, BUT INCLUDE THE SMITARY S6—R MANHOLES BETWEEN STATIONS A2H60 AND 199.75 ON SUNSET BOULEVARD AND BETWEEN STATIONS 174-WMD21pONONAJLAVENUE. THEDRAWINGSRECEIVEDFROMBERGERIABA lI UDE RIGHT-0FIIAY AND PROPERTY BOJNDARJES FOR THE ENTIRE PROJECT LIMITS. WHICH ROTH HILL IS REFLECTING ON THESE DHANINGS. UTILITIES INFORMATION SHOWN IS BASED UPON REC S RECEIVED FROM THE RESPECTIVE UTILJTY PROVIDERS FIELD LOCATNG OF IDENTPLARLE PORTIONS OF T EUTILITIES ESFIMATES OF THE EXPECTED LOCATIONS OF THE UTILITIES WHERE FIELD LOCATING WAS NOT POSSIBLE, AND UPON LOCATION$ PROVIDED W THE TOPOGRAPHC SURVEY FILES FROM BERGS WABAY ENGWEERS, WC. AS DESC DABOJE. W GENERAL LATERAL AND SERVICE LOCATIONS ME NOT SNOYN, EXCEPT WlERE THEY COULD BE IDENTIFIED. THERE MAY BE AUORIONAL URJTIES WITHIN THE ROADWAY. EITHER LINE OR PBPNOONED.TWIT ARE NOT SHOWN ON TPSE DRAWINGS. THE DEPTHS OF STORM PPE CROSSINGS SHOWN IN THE PROFILE ARE CALCULATED BASED UPON FIELD SURVEY OF INVERT ELEVATIONS FOR ADJACENT CATCH BASINS, WHERE THAT IbOftMATgN IS AVAILABLE. SOME STORM DRAW CROSSINGS APE SHOAT! ATASSUMED DEPTHS. ALL OTHER UTBJTY CROSSPIGB W THE PROFILE ARE SHOWN AT ASSUMED DEPTHS, ACTWL DEPTH OF THESE UTILITY CROSSINGS M NOT IDJpWN AT THIS — THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONS®LE FOR VERIFYING THE ELEVATIONS OF VTILTTY MOSSNGS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION SW 3-23-5 ................... ... ..... . . ........ . .... . .... . .... .................... .................. UTILITIES WFORIMTION SHOWN S BASED UMIN RECORDS RECENED FROM THE RESPECTNE UTIHY PRMDERS, FIELD LOCATING OF DENPFIAB E PORTIONS OF THOSE UTIUTIES. ESTIMATES OF THE EXPECTED LOCATIONS OF ME UTRMES WHERE FIELD LOCATING WAS NOT POSSSE, AND UPON LOCATIONS PROVIDED N THE TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY FILES FROM BERGERMBAM ENGINEERS, INC. AS DESCRIBEDABOVE. W GENERAL• LATERAL AID SEANCE LOCATIONS ARE NOT SHOMJ• EXCEPT WHERE THEY COUD BE IDENTIFIED. THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL UfRMES WNW ME ROADWAY. ERHER LIVE OR /BMOOHED• THAT ME NOT SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS. TNESE ORAWWGS WERE PREPARED FROM BOTH A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY CONDUCTED BY ROM HILL ENGINEERING (BISFO UPON A PROJECT DATUM WHOSE COORDWATES WERE PROVIDED BY BERGERIABAM FNGWi ENS. WC) AND A TOPOGRAPHIC MI PERFORMED BY BERGERIABAM ENG WEERS, WC OR ITS CONSULTANT. ROTN MILLS SURVEY LIMITS ME GENERALLY NEST OF STATION 162N AND EAST OF STATION 18975 ON SUNSET BOULEVARD, BUT WCLUDE THE SANITARY SEWER MANHOLESBETWEEN STATIONS 182 AND 1BB•25ON SUNSET BOIAF/ARD AND BETWEEN STATIONS —00AND2L10M0 ONOWAt1AVENUE. WEDRAWINGSRECENEDMOM BERGEWMAMINUME RIGHT-OF-WAY AND PROPERTY BOUNDARIES FOR THE ENTIRE PROJECT OMITS. WHICH ROM HU IS REFLECTING ON THESE DRAWINGS. _. _................... ... ..................... _..... ..__... ME DEPTHS OF STORM PIPE CROSSINGS SHOWN N THE PROFBE ARE CALCULATED BASED UPON FEW SURVEY OF INVERT ELEVATIONS FOR ADJACENT CATCH BASINS, WHERE THAT WFORIMTION IS A—IABIE. SOME STORM DRAW CROSSINGS ARE SHOWN AT ASSUMED DEPTHS. ALL OTHER UMTY CROSSINGS W ME PROFILE ARE SHOWN AT ASSUMED DEPTHS. ACTUAL DEPTH OF THESE UTILITY CROBSWGS S NOT KNOWN AT THIS TIME. THE COIRRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR WERIFYWG ME ELEVATIONS OF UTLITY CROSSINGS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION STORM MANHOLE Roth Hill Engineering Partners, LLC 26001161h Avenue NE #100 SCALE 20 0 20 40 • Begevue• WasNngtDO 98004 — --� —i: RothHill -- = / Tel (FEET) V Fax 425.969.1190 1 INCH = 20 FT = A.T MJL 1•'=zo' _ T onruM @'1j CITY 0� .0 R E N TON Planning/Building/Public Wor'cs De i. P SUNSET INTERCEPTOR PHASE 3 SEWER PLAN AND PROFILE DUVALL AVE NE �1 2� 2oos / / �° @BPW/KRG �,B� I ,,* �+u �+u I r«+o.�, N0. REVISION BY DATE APPR o � - D zx 15 -18 SW 3-23-5 THESE DRAWINGS WERE PREPARED FROM BOTH A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY CONDUCTED BY ROM HILL ENGINEERING (BASED UPON A PROJECT DATUM WHOSE COORDINATES WERE PROVIDED BY BERGERIABAM ENGINEERS. INC.) AND A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PERFORMED BY BERGERIABAM ENGINEERS, MC OR ITS CONSULTANT. RON HILL'S SURVEY LIMITS ARE GENERALLY WEST OF STATION 162+60 AND EAST OF STATION 169.15 ON SUNSET B010.EVAR0, BUT INCLUDE THE SANITARY SEWER MANHOLES BETWEEN STATIONS 162.W AND 11-75 Gi SUNSET BOULEVARD AND BETWEEN STATIONS 174.00AND200 ONOWALLAVENUE THEDRAWINGSRECEIVEDFROMBERGERIABAMINCLUDE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND PROPERTY BOUNDARIES FOR THE ENTIRE PROJECT UMITS. WHICH ROTH HILL IS REFLECTING ON THESE DRAWINGS. .........--- .......... ............_.. .................. _........._.. ............ ......_ UTILITIES INFORMATION SHOWN IS BASED UPON RECORDS RECEIVED FROM THE RESPECTIVE UTBTIY PROVIDERS FIELD LOCATING OF IDENTIFIABLE PORTIONS OF THOSE UTILITIES ESTIMATES OF THE EXPECTED LOCATIONS OF THE UTILRIES WHERE FIELD LOCATING WAS NOT POSSIBLE. AND UPON LOCATIONS PRO 1DED IN THE TOPOGRAPHC SURVEY FILES FROM BERGEWABNA ENGINEERS. INC. AS DESCRIBED ABOVE IN GENERAL. LATERAL AND SERVICE LOCATIONS ARE NOT SHOWN. EXCEPT WHERE THEY COULD BE IDENTIFIED. THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL UTINTIES WITHIN THE ROADWAY, EITHER LIVE OR ABANDONED. THAT ARE NOT SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS. ....................... . ........ THE DEPTHS OF STORM PIPE CROSSINGS SHOWN IN THE PROFILE ARE CALCULATE➢BASED UPON FlELD SURVEY OF INVERT ELEVATIONS FOR ADIACENT CATCH BASINS, WHERE THAT INFO —'ON I$ AVAILABLE SOME STORM DRAIN CROSSINGS ARE SHOAT ASSUMED DEPTHS. AJL OTHER UHUTY CROSSINGS W THE PROFILE ARE SHOWN AT ASSUMED DEPTHS. ACTUAL DEPTH OF THESE UTILTY CROSSINGS IS NOT KNOWN AT T HIS TIME TIHE CONTMCTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING THE ELEVATIONS OF UTILITY CROSSINGS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION T IEXMH1158 12 'I tY ✓. IM 424 U3 " -1: r \ i t,. " / TLy104130-0120 TLy+04730-77 7 jel SLATEt \ ^�/TL//522650-0270 E=41t 22 E �T � ����������.....�..�..�.�� y v 4130-0130 E=a11 8a s �. — ____.____—_-_____-_-__-___-,RTWA�Fa x 472_......._.. .... .... ......... PA n° TL#32 50-0260 6-v P 1J ;I = ICE-41118 o w 1 dJ�1VU� Y II= 6' WOOD' rn al — rLfls16c7o-a1e1 r it ...... D Il ryL x— a W mI I CONCRETE I lac la _ e _ 13 _la_ %r x N \ 7'P x x e� i ' Z I DRIVEWAY I - ! IO ' �l" vur I \ ` I `'�� CHAINLINK GATE I SPI I 6 Y' ________ __________�_ S�[P I: : PDUVALL AVE NE c __ _______________________ _________________ 5T P BAR I '' 'a � W000 LANDSCAPE BORDER __. I -03 _ _ 5 __ �_�____ \ x :-'i-/ : I ASPHALT ._. ... .... .. - - - .. \�. --_ I ___ ___ __- __CONCRETE WALK __ ___ ___ - __ - - --.__-.----- _.rl __--_- - ____ __-_-_ T - - _ _ -- --__ _-- -_- _- __ - -_ -- - -- ____ ----- ------ o-_ y, 4. a-- - - - 11 _ -..--x --__-_.-----..--------------".:------43--------------I --=-L----- ESMH 79___----- --- 9�' _. EX.SSMH 80"I -_-.v Kl+-�- E�1--__.�.� - -- - ------------r�---___.-y-------r-L--.i--- IO••L----- Jx I r 1� - -'-- --- ){COILING G G G G G G EX.SSMH �� 1 ! LOCATION EX. GA5 (APPROX. LOG) EX. ._. o_' - C S7NGr-1MatrC-FP,a, c G 'i G�B- �i A�AND N rA5 PRC�— --;y_.--_ -_ - -- - G GT�� n Tsyr - ...'G... _.y -.r SSM (APPROX LOG) - - - -- -- -- _ -- ALTAND. -2" AC W (APPROX L( -- o I 73 (APPF120 DOUBLE YELLOW RPM. DOUBLE WHITE R.P.M. _DOUBLEI H DOUBLE WHOW R-P.M --= - 189+I -- _ 90+ �Ex. TELE t9t _----- - --- - ---- ---- I - --_ - � � DOUBLE YELL h `� (APPRO%. LOC.) ._ J" „„ L192+Op �;� t93i 00 ti+0++�H t— j DOUBLE WHITE R.P.M. I T DOUBLE YELLOW R.P.M. - L 1 ,'! �R DOUR E Y R P.M. ^ RF>C.SS MH26 S B6 JE IM 412.Dfi_y' S v -' _ .. _ 2,38 SINGLE WHITE ft. P. M. ., _-.... __- _..._ __ - SINGLE WHITE R.P.M. OB3�:! IE=41224 NE I _ -. -. ...... ,_- �. ,rc.; ._..t .. ... / SINGLE ERRII,LE �) WHITE LA. .. 7 - /Y ... GLE WHITE T ITE RPM 32 PHONE T APPRO%. LOC1J T-' C= ' r r T r T r v .. --r r � I - T v �y - - CONDUi1• " _ T � t t!�� E,- - - � 7 _ �. __a. --- --- -- -- - CROSS"" ------- CONCRETE -- - ----_-_---- - " s �➢ -;__- cDNCRE rE WALK --- _ - '�- ----------------- CS, Nusr nav I r--- =--- --.... � c cE rcr � _..,. .. ..:. <--�',,� I ' .............. - ------------- ------ alcHr- _ _-- -- --- --- CONCRETE WALK "CEDARS x6JYOCD - - - _-� �x ^\. z "-5 W000 .�- - - x —___. ____-TTGRAVELI—_A`T_-_.- _r Ii x x �.,x _ _ -.. IF /(`j.'` _ POWER/ pus `T DRIVEWAY k r� K I-F„sro -: '_ 4.H' HIGH x `� _'i ' �ymEcr i .7 ONDUIT 6 WOOD r If ' / a- CONCRE 7t BLOCK ' ..--- .p ryM1 '�:_ x ! - - - - tee,-.T-� e., g:'-y i - ei r.�] x ;' ^ 1 BRICK WALL F EX.SSMH 292 c - _ RETAINING WALL ROW OF 21 ORNAMENTAL CEDARS kA "c R ` x.,\ ROW OF 12r ORNAMENTAL III ,jar , _ _ - .. .��� f� 15 xCEDARS 'I TO 4 DIAM DRIP LI / ^ J / BR i i 4' CHAINLINK - r' - RAVE iJ IE-414.30 N 18 GRIP LINE ' -� te-F I TER 1 IE=414.59 SEA 1 N POST CONCRETE `�/,�15.9' -�- O 11 -BRICK PLAN . ..\ ,,,. RIM 5426F7913 .y .. CONCRETEPI �.s-o '�"` R 4 4 7 WOOD Y I c - PSI V4TE 'Y < ASPHALT IE-412.42 NW rt nz ONE STORY III DRIVEWAY !" CONCRETE --- F�- " HOUSE ( -� IE=41250 S ie-r ORIVEwA- T _ __ am HOUSE va 2o1e TL$109131-0010 'I II .,\ I --svu1 Pnr '. I 6 W000 NW 3-23-5 - ...... ........- -...._... ......... THESE DRAWINGSWERE PREPARED FROM BOTH A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY CONOHCTED BY R07111H.1 --.... .. .. ......._.... -____ ...__..._- .. ....... -.--. UTILITIES INFORMATION SHOWN IS BASED UPON RECORDS RECEIVED FROM THE RESPECTIVE UTILRY ENGINEERING (BASED UPON A PROJECT DATUM WHOSE COORDINATES WERE PROVIDED BY : PROVIDERS, FIELD LOCATING OF IDENTIFIABLE PORTIONS OF THOSE UTILITIES, ESTIMATES OF THE THE DEPTHS OF STORM PPE CROSSINGS SHOWN IN IN THE PROFILE ARE CALCULATED BASED UPON FIELD BERGERIABAM ENGINEERS.PNC.I AND ATOPOGRAPNIL SURVEY PERFORMED BY BERGER/ABAM SURVEY OF INVERT ELEVATIONS FOR ADWA CATCH BASINS. MERE THAT INFORMATION IS EXPECTED LOCATIONS OF THE UTILITIES WHERE FIELD LOCATING WAS NOT POSSIBLE. AND IRON ENGINEERS, HNC OR ITS CONSULTANT. ROTH HILL'S SURVEY LIMITS ARE GENERALLY WEST OF STATION LOCATIONS PROVIDED IN THE TOFOGRAPIIIC SURVEY FILES FROM BERGER/ABAM ENGINEERS, INC. AS AVAILABLE. SOME STORM GRAIN CROSSINGS ARE SHOWN AT ASSUMED DEPTHS. ALL OTHER UTILITY 162.6D AND FAST OF STATION 189•75 ON SUNSET BOULEVARD, BUT INCLUDE THE SANITARY SEWER LESCWBFD ABODE. WGENERAI, LATERAL AND SEFNICE LOGTxINS ARE NOT SHONRJ, EXCEPT WHERE ETNS CROSSINGS IN THE PROFILE ARE SHOWN AT ASSUMED DEPTHS. ACTUAL DEPTH OF THESE UULHY MANHOLES BWEEN STATIO162.60 AND, 1B9.75 ON SUNSET MIL T BOULEVARD D BETWEEN STATIONS CROSSINGS IS HOT KtIOWN AT THIS TIME. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESP)NSIBLE FOR VERIFYING UT THEY LOAD BE IDENII 174MB AND 2BB.00 ON DWALL AVENUE. THE DRAWINGS RECEIVED FROM BFRC£WABAM INCLUDE FlEDTH . ERE MAY BE AODfTIONAUTILITIESWITHIN THE ROADWAY,EITHER LIVE THE ELEVATIONS OF UTILITY CROSSINGS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OR ABANDONED, THAT ARE HOT SHOWN ON THESE DRAW WGS. MI AND PROPERTY BOUNDARIES FOR THE ENTNE PROJECT LIMNS. WHICH ROTH HILL Is REFLECTING ON THESE DRAWINGS. EX.MH 75 b 22 W' TL J/032305-9266 TL//221600-0190 �• 1 �I r�; �(r IEa2t 32IE= / q ZO IE=422.08 NE ! } RIHII4 4289 \ T IE=422.26 SE I• 0 I �: 2205 DUVAL \ 'III 1, o y 1 i �` :� r ` 1 E4SSMH �� HOUSE 1 \ J" o°Rn ­11 Ij a NO. N , 104130-0130 .I TL'248241-0010 w Z vsi I �\ t\uVV\1VVV,y,1�y1�11Uyz°ro -- - - - - - _ ,4 'I TL((XXXXXX-XXXXII� CINO R BLOCK WALL + X i ^ 3 ! N f 6 SR✓A'" CORJL�fK$ - ( �% 1 I I ',l5'C < c L c 8'c.)"c `s c �s c c - 4, i` II 1 T fi .;S d I w R ,- \PE �U fl�� "% u .. ^�r \ •i ,o ,r-: �N: ASPHALT DRIVEWAY --r J KEYSTONEROPE / SC 1 1^:C✓ ie�.,,11 RE7. WALL Imo/_-..... ..� 1..� I I( E t - 1 r i tYSY �I Di 1x .. x all ry00Dx _ _ - r _ ��- 6 IIf. x •Rs..: 10 I - - _ - -.�•� _T. P ( B OR SOAP c `e DER E O, -= �--r _______ i ` _ _ rR DUVA LL r: 6v P AVE NE ` KEYSTONE ... rc �7`c .. I I li IY PET. WAIL,' 1 / - Je}-j '< IBOf21 CI j _:. J `_7� nDONE (APPROX. L 4:(AP DOC)11 1 srcv 1 1 0 4' 4 t� _ LO A I N D - r _o-SSMH 215 I � I b i, EIJ ._ _` -_- -������_����_��� U- PROP_ MH 73 - ��.�-�� �.�- - - - -� - C r. __ -- �1. -_. . 14.. .. L b �I+ P ABANDONED M EX.~ -e --_ X-WALK SIGNAL EX.SSMH 73 - E%. CAS (APPRO%. LOG.) FOG LIN- - -Yr- - - r0-BAyD,--��C-'.: .»- G'•5. -G _- - .��- —�. - - -_ - - - _ i 1 Ix., A A 3 AL _ .. Ryp GO,x - ___ - _G. _.:_•,.. ABF,NDQYED MH I - : - _ - _I.•r - Ij I�- - - -•• _ - - - - _ _ _ •• APP1`iOX. LOC ) 2 O <i 1- .�I -�yI - _y ( APPRO%- COC - EI _ APfTROX LO„ - c-J+ir- C —_) L -FOG LINE c i�% 'yg 1 Y a " '\\ F<... .-.'•tea !� -i EX- CATV :.- .A 1 I DOUBLE YELLOW R.P.M.T M1.d•. 1 SINGLE WHITE R.P.M. ��� 196+00 I i �(APPROX. LOG) .. 1 I I E%. IELE� ABANDONED Irk 95+00 : t97+00 _ ---_----._,__—_ t98+90_ 199+00 (AP FOX, LOC A P R 0 LO . _.. - I�Q r 4 -. __-_ -_-_----- PROFILE -�I I 'T, f�"�' I ¢3 .. .-,-,- ---__I 1 SEE SHT 18 ''. .M x . ... �.,, 1 C` - 1 . ."•r'-'-.. --'_., __ - is ....... ..... ..... __:^. __. ---'a;r-_.--••'-- ___.Y__.-m---...I....... - -- q WHITE LANE LIN��_ I O I f) n: _ _.... _ 1 _ N «� I_ p-_ .I a ___— — I -- r { EX.SSMH 805 _ - _....—y __- _ - II�' DOUBLE YELLOW R.P.M. I RIM 425.80 CLEANOUT a I I 1 4 E a2s Te cgaPEo I( 1 I —'<..- -Y•..___ _...... I;. .... ..... ..._0 _ _ .✓i STEEL POST FOG LINE _ SPEED B P/--IT --- EX. CLOUT 2 DIAM —__ _..-_.—_.—. -- -- -FOG ONE ,4 O :.. . , .....:. IX R,.: ___....._ 5• ..._ _ - ._ ��/ � — J � � ...---_ ..._:: -_:_ _ - -. / ✓ _-.... <//- i WATER l NNE _. -_ Y DRIVEWAY �_�;� .. - MF.. - of EX.SSMH 283 '�- i -. - _ ii'r�--_ .. __- - _ �S•F,. _-.- ..... - =T �.•=nf1 _ I -. ._- _. -T_--��]G..G �r7— &sµ�- 1� T _ _ 'T_�-z�-xi Yi RAV'1__ CONCRE 7E WALK ..•_ r -,\�—T-1-'T— _I �; CONCRf TE WALK : ji �G __________ _ E ..-) —T ,•,'=T �i-`�N X L CRO WALK `:.' >. _.� -' P f'E,• A i 1' - L 1 t�.r EX. CATV 1 `..n.OS _T -�,Il (,,x zs•v y .SSMH 214 /< `< - � rg EX. TILE RIM=423.E8 D L%- C _ _ - I'u / (A?PRO%. LOG) J;:. 6' WOOD 2 VI F 41 / •� L X. CLEANOUT ASPH. L7. � 1 (':\'_ r. 7J5,!•' APPROX- LOG. -4 WOOD _ .-_ _ `-�� � � 6" ,I ' ❑IN (APPROX. LOG) jm, �{ 9zrr .= EX SSMH 121 ✓ 1< / _F LL IE U.66 NE (APPRO% LOG) GRPV , , I of `m5H38RW ✓C L_ TL O WOOD F WOOD 2305-9083 1 L1032305-9299' 'x ROW OF 12 ORNAMENTAL ,RIM 22-55 -_ sFCufir CT X WALK SIGNAL CEDARS 7 70 a DIAM DRIP a' 1 IE=41 E �/ jLINE (� 1 IE= t 4 w X c S * 'C` ,�J� ° .........,� TELEI+>�T I .+/f'`�. -, d J 2A ! a. ?-�„. ••,/ / tr ' TL j�032305-9240 ` -:1-.. r / ....=„e o y^cx -1 / TL//032305 9158 `y,r'�' .. _. OP CONCRETE 1 I - - ;<<7 `cn 77a QLL 5' W000 �Rn<<Rnht� v I I .....................� n .. BRICK PLANTER ` a F\ BLDG. N0. 4700 ! 430 - ---- I - -- - ------ -------'-- - - - ILx: wrR sVC. I - -�- -------- -- P APPRox LOc .. - - - - - - - - Ex GAS - - - - E., GAS .. ! APPROS.. LOG. - --- _J .. I . . EX: 18-:50 ; --- - I - q 3 - APPROX LOC: IE-APPRO% 425 I I I - i i i -- .. .�. is . _ ' . .. I .. . .. ........ ... .. 1 425:... I ■: 420 -- ■... ■ ■: -- -' - ---- - - -- I:. j........ --- ..... -- -.. .-- - - -- ■::...:j:... ■ ■:: - - - (: I'.. -- ■ ..... ■ ..... - — - ---- - -- -- -�- - - ---- .. :: 420:... I:....... .......:i I I 415 - ... :: . .. . 410 �.:..... I:■:..... ■.EX. B'.PVC : ■ ■ ■ ■ .,. .....i - _..----- ... . ..::: '::::::::: ...... ......:........ .: I ... ■ ■ i.- ..... -..... I --. ___-_ :. ::.i:--.._-:: ..... I......... ------ -___. .._......_. -.. .. . 94 LF EX: 6' PVC . ... .SL=0.0032. .. ......: _..n._.. ::.. ::. .::.... .__.. .._...._. _......_ :...::::: ::::::.. .. ...... ..::I:-.....::'::..::.: SIDE sew R _. .____.__ ..... .. ___- .... :::.: 1 ..- _____ _.... ._....__. ;.-.. -�:: :::::.: I: .. ._... ... ..... ..:.... i ■ . ...--------____.---- .... ::i198LF:::■ ...... SL=0.0032 .....:. :..: I .... ------ EX. B'PVC: : I'. ... - _._..__.. --. .-:..:. __ - ... -.. .--I :-... ..: 1..... .. - _ ...'I .._ _. .. ..:: .. i �::. 1 ___ Exr6' PVC--.. ....... ■ ■ ■ -:.:: .. .. Il: .....: ..... ------ ----- ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ - -. .. -... II: . -. .. .. -_-- ■�■ ■ ■ ■ .. .': .... ... 1._. - __. I ■ ■ ■ ■.■!■ ■ ■ ■ ■ - - -:... -:.. .... --- ::I.... :::: .... - - ■ ■ ■ ■:■ ■ '::. .. .. .... l ::-is7 .I 1----- ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ :.. - . -.-- :::: .. .... �I -__. 415 -- -I .. .... ::: ..... ....... 410 .... ! I I - I I I I I - -. I .: I I ... EX: SSMH 74 .......... ...... - ... -. I EX.I SSMH. 215. ...... .. .. .. is !:::. EX :SSM -.. ...RIM: 42414:: ... .: : . �I, ;- .. I. -... 405 .... .. - .... ... !- - ...... X..SSMH _73. --RJM 42653 INVERT 1N :41:1,9,6 ... .. ..I_PROP. .. SSN)::: : SSMH J3A,.. ...) ,- -,. 60- © - z RIM 426.5., - I ......... N (N.E) .. ... ....... .. -, ... ...... .... :::. . - - j - ... - :.:.:. ......... .. :... ........ ..... I :.... :::...:: ---. ... .. .... _ :. .. . - .... i... RIM 425,22 INVERT IN 413:10 NJ 1 .,1NVRT INV•: nT.-1N 41 S.(79 : ...... ..... .. _ .. CHAN -- -.-. _. - - .. . _ �.. ... INVERT _ _ ......:INV SN 413..5I (N) J{1-413,613 (E}....... ..._. .. RT.OUT;4Y3.S4 (S),..:. .. �:.::: ! ...I. ._. I .... f .. .. .... I:.. .. ......_. .. - TIN INVER - - INVERT :IN:414.12 _. _.. _ _ _ _ 'INVERT iN' : '414.22' N ( :(W�, 4P7':70- W ..{ )I".... 414.12 (S) ..... :. ...... CHANNEL - I .. ___ _ _ _ _ 'DROP' - -I -.... . ......... I,. ..... 405 .... . _....... .._ _ ... .... :.:... ... .-:: :: INVERT IN 412-.119 :: ::INVERT. OUT. 41i.91 lE)'-:INV`cRT : (5): .INVERT .412.26 IN IAi2:i6: S I-. ( ) ..... _..... - .. .... . . ........ ---!-...... .... ........: ...... ..... i........ ..... ... .. ;:.-.. : ...... .......-.- :... .::. 519:12 (W' :INVERT: OUT _12. 89: -.::. S)ROP .... -.-...-::....... ---.. ......I. .. ... ... .... .. ..... ..... .. ... ... -.... .... i:- ---- !.. - - ..---.I.. ........ .... .I:--..... - - ..:INVERT:OUT ...-... I .. ..... .. :!:. ...... .... -....... �:...I:: ... ... .. 1 ._..... ....I..... .... - ------I- - - ----- ---- _.._..:.1 -- - 1 - -..... - --- - ---- - - ....... I - ---- I::::: -- -- - - .: ( L- ---- --- ::: 400 - Roth Hill Engineering Partners, LLC �,T.�MJL R m1/z7/zoos 2600116N Avenue NE #100 20 SCALE 0 20 40 K awn=%,9a, c'h CITY OF SUNSET INTERCEPTOR PHASE 3 uvcnl BPW/KRG R • Bellevue, h H l l Washington 98004 R E N T N (FEET) B� o. o t l Tel � � DATUM PIDnn;r,9/el,ildir,g/PI,bIiG wDrKS Dept. SEWER PLAN AND PROFILE P �-. � REVISION BY DATE V / Fax 425.869.1190 1 INCH = 20 FT N0. APPR sal .ccoAo.:a: DUVALL AVE NE N� �o - -18 17 NW 3-23-5 s jl�"- WOOD� SSMH 1I,l AS L 'C 1 lSTOREITY RPWfS.HOUSEIDPROP SC uj nLLZ8- HIGH MNEY5DUVALL AVE NE--�P t:Tui DaK "47 SSMH 72 Q rfl __c _ _ __ . _�. - _ _ SSMH 72f ABAND 3 AC- __ ..... _... . - FOG LINE ( ROX. (GC) ALL-- EE Q 60RING-�' "����BLE LOCATION E%. GAS '�AS.._—C Loc5 2KOOp06 MOONED 201+00 I TOcnLI 202+00 ( ) I 203+00 ABANDONED 7A DOUBLE YELLOW LINE EX. CAS APPRO%. LOC L' - 6 IE-a17.3A 5 IE=4i 7.38 SW I �EX. TELL CAHN N= NO INVERT 2 c F^ V :(APPROX. LOC) .42C /9 EDO LINE —j r __ pry E T1-r.- - I T _ i•P-�w '7 —.—i _i ..� �_ r r �- � T XPROX L..J.Ia APLOG. f _II- - , _ - ' EX TELE v,f _ TLy807900-7777iJ (APPRox. LOC)' vT' w GRAVEL DRIVEWAY ' 1299� e' woOD 1') '`.y? ^x => _ U '- ;, %� .Q o� a �y TL#032305 924A6 TL!/032305-9245 SCIF z u I 6, `7 svcrrEr ! 44L[j ~ o a x. 1 PATIO CANOPY TLp'032305-9089 ............... THESE DRAWINGS WERE PREPARED FROM BOTH A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY CONDUCTED BY ROTH HILL ENGINEERING (BASED UPON A PROJECT DATUM WHOSE COORDINATES WERE PROVIDED BY BERGERIABAM ENGINEERS, INC.) AND A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PERFORMED BY BERGEPJABAM ENGINEERS, INC OR ITS CONSULTANT. ROTH HILL'S SURVEY LIMITS ARE GENERALLY WEST OF STATION 162+60 AND EAST OF STATION 189+75 ON SUNSET BOULEVARD, BUT INCLUDE THE SANITARY SEWER MANHOLES BETWEEN S',ATIONS 162+60 AND 189+75 ON SUNSET BOULEVARD AND BETWEEN STATIONS 174+DO AND 200+00 ON E WALL AVENUE. THE DRAWINGS RECEIVED FROM BERGER/ABAM INCLUDE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND PROPERTY BOUNDARIES FOR THE ENTIRE PROJECT LIMITS, WHICH ROTH HILL IS REFLECTING ON THESE DRAWINGS. UTILITIES INFORMATION SHOWN IS BASED UPON RECORDS RECEIVED FROM THE RESPECTIVE UTILITY PROVIDERS, FIELD LOCATING OF IDENTIFIABLE PORTIONS OF THOSE UTILITIES, ESTIMATES OF THE EXPECTED LOCATIONS 017 THE UTILITIES WHERE FIELD LOCATING WAS NOT POSSIBLE, AND UPON LOCATIONS PROVIDED IN THE TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY FILES FROM BERGERIABAM ENGINEERS, INC. AS DESCRIBED ABOVE IN GENERAL, LATERAL AND SERVICE LOCATIONS ARE NOT SHOWN EXCEPT WHERE THEY COULD BE IDENTIFIED THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL UTILITIES WITHIN THE ROADWAY EITHER LIVE OR ABANDONED THAT ARE NOT SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS. THE DEPTHS OF STORM PL'E CROSSINGS SHOWN IN THE PROFRE ARE CALCULATED BASED UPON MUD SURVEY OF INVERT ELEVADONS FOR ADJACENT CATCH BASINS WHERE THAT INFORIMTION IS AVA4ABLE SOME STORM DRAIN CROSSMS ARE SHOWN AT ASSUMED DEPTHS ALL OTHER UTUTY CROSSINGS IN THE PROFIE ARE SHOWN AT ASSUMED DEPTHS. ACTUAL OEPM Oi THESE Uf U Y CROSSINGS IS NOT NNOW'II AT THIS ME. THE CONTRACTOR SI SE RESPONS®LF FOR VERFYP THE EIEVAl1pN$ OF LRBJIY CROSSINGS RtgR TOCONSTRUCTgN ' Appendix B Final Geotechnical Engineering Report ' Prepared by: . GeoSciences, Inc. October 25, 2004 FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT NE Sunset Boulevard Interceptor Phase III Improvements Renton, Washington HWA Project No. 2004-052-21 Prepared for Roth Hill Engineering Partners October 25, 2004 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. • Geotechnical Engineering • Hydrogeology • Geoenvironinental Services • Inspection & Testing (OSCIENCES INC. Engineering • Hydrogeology • Geoenvironmental Services • Inspection 6 Testing . 04 ,,To. 2004-052-21 agineering Partners, Inc. _ avenue NE, Suite 100 Bellevue, WA 98004 Attention: Mr. Kevin Goss, P.E. Subject: FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT NE Sunset Boulevard Interceptor -Phase III Improvements Dear Kevin: In accordance with Roth Hill Engineering Partners's request, HWA GeoSciences Inc. completed a design level geotechnical engineering study for the proposed conveyance piping of the proposed NE Sunset Boulevard Interceptor Phase III Improvements in Renton; Washington. The results of our study are presented in the accompanying draft report, which is presented for your review and commentary. We appreciate the opportunity to provide geotechnical services for this project. Should you have any questions or comments concerning our enclosed report, or if we may be of further service, please call. Sincerely, HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. OCT 2 7 2004 Lorne A. Balanko, P.E. Vice President TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................1 1.1 GENERAL.......................................................................................................1 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION..................................................................................1 1.3 SCOPE OF SERVICES AND AUTHORIZATION....................................................2 2.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY PROGRAMS.......................................................................2 2.1 FIELD PROGRAM.............................................................................................2 2.2 LABORATORY TESTING..................................................................................3 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS......................................................................................................3 3.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS...................................................................................3 3.2 GENERAL GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS.................................................................4 3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS............................................................................4 3.3.1 Soils...............................................................................................4 3.3.2 Duvall Avenue NE........................................................................4 3.3.3 NE Sunset Boulevard....................................................................6 3.3.4 Ground Water - Duvall Avenue NE..............................................7 3.3.5 Ground Water - NE Sunset Boulevard...........................................8 3.3.6 Summary of Soil Conditions..........................................................8 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................10 4.1 GENERAL..............................................................................................:........10 4.2 PIPE BURSTING...............................................................................................10 4.3 OPEN -CUT TRENCHING.....................................:............................................13 4:3.1 Soil Excavation Characteristics.....................................................13 4.3.2 Sloped Open -Cut Excavations.......................................................13 4.3.3 Shored Excavations................................................:......................13 4.3.4 Ground Water and Construction Dewatering................................14 4.3.5 Pipeline and Manhole Settlement..................................................15 4.3.6 Pipeline Support and Bedding ........................................ :.............. 15 4.3.7 Trench Backfill Materials and Compaction..................................16 4.3.8 Pipeline and Buried Structure Design Considerations ..................17 4.3.9 Jacking and Insertion Pits..............................................................18 4.4 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS............................................................................19 4.5 WET WEATHER EARTHWORK........................................................................20 4.6 DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONSIDERATIONS..................................................20 5.0 CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS.................................................................................20 6.0 REFERENCES..............................................................................................................23 Table of Contents (continued) LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Summary of Anticipated Soil Conditions............................................................. 9 LIST OF FIGURES (FOLLOWING TEXT) Figure 1. Vicinity Map Figures 2 —17. Site Plan and Profile Figure 18. Lateral Pressures for Temporary Braced Shoring Figure 19. Simplified Method for Estimating Surcharge Loads Figure 20. Compaction Criteria for Trench Backfill Appendices Appendix A: Field Exploration Figure A- 1. Legend of Terms and Symbols Used on Exploration Logs Figures A-2 - A-14. Logs of Borings BH-1 through BH-12 Appendix B: Laboratory Testing Figures B-1 — B-3. Grain Size Distribution Test Results Figure B-4. Compaction Characteristics of Soils Data Plot Appendix C: Compilation of Pre -Existing Borings Figures C-1 — C-6. GeoEngineers Inc. -Duvall Avenue NE Improvements, 2004 2004-05 2-21 FinalReport 11 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL REPORT ' NE SUNSET BOULEVARD INTERCEPTOR -PHASE III IMPROVEMENTS RENTON, WASHINGTON 1.0 INTRODUCTION ' 1.1 GENERAL ' This report presents the results of a geotechnical engineering study completed by HWA GeoSciences Inc. (HWA) for the proposed NE Sunset Boulevard Interceptor - Phase III Improvements in Renton, Washington. The proposed improvements include construction ' of nearly 1.5 miles of gravity main sanitary sewer lines. Included within this conveyance piping system are sewer facilities described further herein. ' The location of the project and conveyance piping is shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. The general layout of the proposed pipeline system is shown on the Site Plan and Profile, Figures 2 through 17, inclusive. The purpose of this stud was to explore and evaluate surface and subsurface conditions Pmp y p e ' along the proposed pipeline alignments, and provide geotechnical recommendations for design and construction of the project. ' 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is situated along NE Sunset Boulevard, from Union Ave NE to Ilwaco Ave NE ' (about 4,800 feet in length), and along Duvall Ave NE from Sunset Boulevard to SE 100'h Street (about 3,000 feet in length). The project lies within Sections 3 and 4, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M., in the City of Renton, as shown on Figure 1. The project will include design and construction of sewer pipeline improvements consisting of replacing and upsizing the system, and extending the system northward on Duvall Ave NE; a total length in excess of 7,800 lineal feet. The pipeline will be installed under the existing roadways, at ' depths below existing grades of between 4 to 15 feet along Sunset Boulevard, and from 9 to 16 feet along Duvall Ave NE. ' All project locations are situated on busy streets having anywhere from 2 to 5 traffic lanes. Open excavation for the new sewer installation poses issues with traffic control, surface restoration costs and dewatering. To reduce these impacts, trenchless technologies such as ' pipe -bursting, directional drilling, and pipe jacking are seriously being considered. In addition, we understand that some of the streets may be comprised of Portland Cement ' Concrete (PCC) pavement that is now overlain by asphaltic concrete. Damage to the existing pavement needs to be minimized during construction of the new sewer improvements. October 25, 2004 HWA Project No. 2004-052-21 1.3 SCOPE OF SERVICES AND AUTHORIZATION The purpose of the geotechnical investigation work tasks was to characterize the subsurface conditions along the project alignments so that recommendations for design and construction of the proposed sewer pipeline improvements could be made in support of the Roth Hill design team. Our work tasks were performed in general accordance with the scope of work, as described in our Subconsultant Agreement executed,on May 3`d, 2004. Our scope of work did not include environmental assessment of the project alignments. 2.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY PROGRAMS 2.1 FIELD PROGRAM ' Thirteen borings were completed along the project alignment, consisting of four borings (BH-1 through BH-4) along Duvall Avenue, and nine borings (BH-5 through BH-12) along Sunset Blvd. Drilling was performed by Holocene Drilling, Inc. of Pacific, Washington, under subcontract to HWA. The borings were performed on May 13th, May 27th and 28`h, and June 1 st, 2004, using a truck -mounted Mobile B-51 drill rig equipped with a hollow -stem auger. Borehole locations were determined from existing features, and their approximate locations are shown on the Site Plan and Profile, Figures 2 through 17. The soils were classified in accordance with the classification system described in Appendix A, ' Figure A-1, which also provides a key to the exploration logs of the borings, which are presented on Figures A-2 through A-14. In addition, borings conducted previously for road improvements planned for. Duvall Avenue are shown approximately on the Site Plan and ' Profile drawings, Figures 12 through 16, and are labeled B-11 through B-15 (GeoEngineers, 2004). The logs of these boring are compiled in Appendix C. Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs) were performed at 5 and/or 2%-foot intervals in each of the borings in general accordance with ASTM D-1586. The SPT consists of driving a 2- inch O.D. split -spoon sampler a distance of 18 inches into the bottom of the borehole with a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler each of three 6-inch increments was recorded, and the number of blows required to cause the last 12 inches of penetration was termed the SPT (N-value). This value is an indicator of the relative density or consistency of the soils. Piezometers for measuring ground water levels were installed in borings BH74 and BH-8. They consist of slotted, 2-inch PVC, standpipes installed to near the bottom of the boring. The annulus around the slotted portions of the pipes was backfilled with No. 10-20 Colorado Sand, and a. cement seal and locking monument casing was placed at the ground surface to prevent inflow of surface water. The piezometer installations are shown on the boring logs, as appropriate. 2004-052Final Report 2 HWA GEOSCIENCES, INC. October 25, 2004 HWA Project No. 2004-052-21 ' The strati graphic contacts shown on the boring logs represent the approximate boundaries ' between soil types; actual transitions may be more gradual. The soil and ground water conditions depicted are.only for the specific dates and locations reported and, therefore, are not necessarily representative of other locations and times. 2.2 LABORATORY TESTING Soil samples obtained from the borings were classified in the field, placed in relatively airtight plastic bags, and returned to our Lynnwood, Washington, laboratory for further examination and testing. Laboratory testing included determination of moisture content (ASTM D-2216), grain size distribution (ASTM D-422), and Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil (Proctor ASTM D 1557). Results of moisture content testing are displayed on the boring logs in Appendix A, Figures A-2 through A-14. Results of grain size analyses and Proctor tests are compiled in Appendix B and are shown on Figures B-1 through B-3, and B-4 and B-5, respectively. 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS . 3.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS Duvall Avenue NE - This project segment is located along Duvall Avenue NE between SE 100" Street and NE Sunset Boulevard. The roadway consists of two paved traffic lanes with center -turn lanes, which combine to form a road surface ranging from 34 to 60 feet wide. The road shoulders are generally paved and may be flanked by concrete sidewalks or unlined drainage ditches. The existing sanitary sewer line is situated within the roadway right-of-way, either beneath the western most lane or western road shoulder of Duvall Avenue NE. The alignment is oriented approximately north to south. The majority of the property adjacent to the alignment is residential or currently undeveloped. Within this segment of the project, the roadway surface grade ranges in elevation from 427 feet to about 406 feet above mean sea level (MSL) from north to south, respectively. The existing 8-inch sewer line invert ranges in elevation from approximately 414 feet to about 400.5 feet MSL, from north to south, respectively. NE Sunset Boulevard - This project segment is located along NE Sunset Boulevard between Union Avenue NE east to a point just east of Ilwaco at the Renton City Limits. The roadway consists of two to four paved traffic lanes with center -turn lanes, which combine to form a road surface ranging from 34 to 60 feet wide. The road shoulders are generally paved and flanked by concrete sidewalks. The alignment is situated along the nor -them flank of Honey Creek and it appears that the road was likely constructed by cut and fill methods. Honey Creek has been diverted beneath the alignment via 48-inch diameter culverts east of Union Avenue NE towards Duvall Avenue NE. The creek emerges south of the project alignment east of Duvall Avenue NE and continues to parallel the project (on the south) to the Renton City Limits. The existing sewer line is situated 2004-052Final Report 3 HWA GEOSCIENCES, INC. October 25, 2004 HWA Project No. 2004-052-21 within the roadway right-of-way, either in the southern most lane or southern road shoulder, of NE Sunset Boulevard from Union Avenue NE to Duvall Avenue NE. East of Duvall Avenue NE, the sewer line is situated along the road centerline until 142nd Avenue SE, beyond which the alignment travels through the northern lane and converges with the sidewalk. The alignment is oriented approximately west to east. The majority of the property adjacent to the alignment is commercial, residential or currently undeveloped. Within this segment of the project, the roadway surface grade ranges in elevation from 390 feet to about 455 feet MSL from west to east, respectively. The existing 8-inch sewer line invert ranges in elevation from approximately 380 feet to about 439.1 feet MSL, from west to east, respectively. 3.2 GENERAL GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS Geologic information for the project area was obtained from the map titled Preliminary Geologic Map of Seattle and Vicinity, Washington (Waldron et al, 1962) published by the U.S. Geological Survey. Near -surface deposits in the project vicinity are mapped as Vashon glacial till. Vashon till generally consists of a very compact unsorted mixture of clay, silt, sand, and gravel, deposited directly by the Puget Lobe of the Cordilleran Ice Sheet. It was over -ridden by glacial ice and, therefore, is over -consolidated and very dense. Locally, the Vashon till may be overlain by a layer recessional 'outwash, consisting of loose to medium dense sand and gravel that was deposited by glacial meltwater emanating from the receding glacial front. Similarly, the Vashon till may be underlain by advance outwash, consisting of dense gravelly sand. Advance outwash was deposited by meltwater flowing from the advancing glacial front and, consequently, was over -ridden and consolidated by the weight of the glacial ice. 3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3.3.1 Soils Our interpretations of subsurface conditions are based on the results of our field explorations, review of previously conducted roadway investigations (GeoEngineers, 2004), review of available published geologic data, and our general experience in similar geologic settings. For purposes of this report, the soil conditions are described for the Duvall Avenue NE and NE Sunset Boulevard alignments separately. 3.3.2 Duvall Avenue NE Due to the availability of recently developed subsurface information for roadway expansion along Duvall Avenue (GeoEngineers, 2004), our exploration borings were located within the existing sewer trench limits so that the engineering properties of the existing.trench backfill could be characterized. In general, the Duvall Avenue alignment is underlain by 2004-052Final Report 4 HWA GEOSCIENCES, INC. October 25, 2004 HWA Project No. 2004-052-21 ' native subsoil predominatel y y consisting of very dense glacial till soils that locally are overlain by native fills of varying thickness. North of NE 23rd Street, glaciolacustrine silts underlie the till. South of 18`h Street, recessional outwash sandy gravels may overlie the till. The existing sewer trenches appear to have been backfilled with native trench spoil materials comprised predominately of glacial till. The soil units encountered in our borings, or anticipated outside of the existing sewer alignment along Duvall Avenue, are described below, with materials interpreted as being youngest in origin and nearest the surface described first. ' • ACP Surfacing — ACP (asphaltic concrete pavement) was encountered at the surface at BH-2 and BH-3, where it was 0.5 and 0.33 feet thick, respectively. ' • Fill — Immediately beneath the existing ACPsurfacing, or at the surface where ACP was absent, roadway fill consisting of medium dense, brown to olive brown, silty gravelly sand to silty gravel was encountered. Apparently, this material was placed during construction of Duvall Avenue. The fill ranged from 1.5 to 4.5 feet in thickness. • Trench Backfill — Existing sewer trench backfill, consisting of trench spoils comprised predominately of medium dense to very loose, olive brown, silty sand with gravel to silty gravel with sand, was encountered in all borings conducted by HWA along Duvall Avenue NE. The trench backfill ranged from 7 to 10.5 feet in thickness. For the purposes of this investigation, all borings were terminated in the trench backfill a least 1-foot above the existing sewer pipe crown; therefore, this material was not fully ' penetrated by our borings. Evaluation of natural soil moisture content, Proctor moisture -density characteristics, and SPT data for this material indicates that is was probably placed loosely and wet of what is optimum for adequate compaction. These ' soils will, accordingly, be relatively easy to displace during pipe -bursting operations. • Recessional Outwash — This unit consists of stratified, medium dense, clean to silty, sandy gravel, and was encountered in the borings for the roadway improvements (GeoEngineers, 2004) near the southern portion of Duvall Avenue NE. ' • Vashon Till — In general, native glacial till, consisting of dense to very dense, gray, silty sand with gravel to silty gravel with sand, was encountered in the borings for the ' roadway improvements, and constitutes the most widespread native soil unit that will be encountered during construction (GeoEngineers, 2004). Glaciolacustrine Deposits — In the vicinity of 24' Street and north, borings for the roadway improvements encountered hard silts, of apparent glaciolacustrine origin, below the till (GeoEngineers, 2004). 2004-052Fina1 Report 5 HWA GEOSCIENCES, INC. October 25, 2004 HWA Project No. 2004-052-21 3.3.3 NE Sunset Boulevard Along this portion of the alignment, our exploration borings were located within and outside of the existing sewer trench, so that the engineering properties of the existing trench fill and the surrounding native soils could be characterized for engineering purposes. In general, the NE Sunset Boulevard alignment is underlain by native subsoils consisting of very dense glacial till soils that locally are overlain by fills of varying thickness. Near the intersection of NE Sunset Boulevard and Duvall Avenue NE, the relatively uniform native glacial till plain appears to have been incised by a glacial melt -water stream creating a channel that was subsequently filled in with sandy gravel outwash. Further to the east, borings penetrated the glacial till and encountered very dense advance outwash sand. The soil units encountered in our borings along NE Sunset Blvd are described below, with materials interpreted as being youngest in origin and nearest the surface described first. ACP Surfacing — At the surface in all the borings conducted along NE Sunset Boulevard, ACP was encountered. The ACP ranged from 3-inches to 24-inches thick. Where the ACP was the thickest, it typically had been placed over compacted .native fill. Areas containing the thinnest ACP layers were underlain by Portland Cement concrete (PCC) pavement. • PCC Pavement — At the locations of BH-10 and BH-11, a layer of PCC was encountered beneath the existing ACP. At these locations, the PCC was approximately 7 inches and 4 inches thick, respectively. The PCC in these areas may possibly be remnants of the original highway pavement and was cast neat over dense native till. • Fill — Immediately beneath the existing ACP at the locations of BH-5 and BH-8, fill consisting of dense to very dense, brown, silty gravelly sand to silty gravel was encountered. Apparently, this material had been placed during construction of NE Sunset Boulevard. The fill ranged from 3.0 to 3.5 feet in thickness. Trench Backfill — Existing sewer trench backfill consisting of trench spoils, comprised predominately of medium dense to loose, brown to olive brown, silty fine sand with gravel to sandy gravel with silt, was encountered in HWA borings BH-6, BH-6a, BH-7 and BH-9 conducted along the existing NE Sunset Boulevard. The trench backfill ranged from 4 to 10.5 feet in thickness. For the purposes of this investigation, all borings were terminated in the trench backfill a least 1-foot above the existing sewer pipe crown; therefore, this material was not fully penetrated by our borings. Evaluation of soils moisture content and SPT data for this material indicates that is was probably moderately compacted at or near what is optimum for adequate compaction. These soils will be moderately difficult to displace during pipe -bursting operations. • Recessional Outwash — Just west of the intersection with Duvall Avenue NE, at the location of BH-8, a 17-foot thick layer of medium dense, clean, sandy, well -graded 2004-052Fina1 Report 6 HWA GEOSCIENCES, INC. October 25, 2004 HWA Project No. 2004-052-21 gravel was encountered. The deposit was underlain by glacial till and was saturated below an approximate depth of 11 feet below the.existing ground surface. This soil unit is interpreted to be gravel deposited within a channel cut by a glacial melt -water stream emanating from a receding glacial front. This deposit was not over -ridden by glacial ice and is typically loose to medium dense. Review of previously conducted environmental studies at a gas station, located at the SE corner of the intersection of NE Sunset Boulevard and Duvall Avenue NE, indicate that outwash soils should be anticipated ' along the alignment for some distance east of Duvall Avenue NE (WDOE, on-line well logs). ' • Vashon Till — In general, native glacial till, consisting of dense to very dense, gray, silty sand with gravel to silty gravel with sand, was encountered in all the borings conducted by HWA east of Duvall Avenue NE, except BH-9. The glacial till ranged ' from 2.5 to 12 feet in thickness where encountered, but was only fully penetrated in BH-10 and BH-11 where'it was 11 and 12 feet thick, respectively. These deposits have been over -ridden by glacial ice and typically are dense to very dense. • Advance Outwash — Very dense, clean to slightly silty, sand with gravel was encountered beneath the glacial till in BH-10 and BH-11. This soil layer was the deepest (oldest) stratigraphic unit encountered and, consequently, was not fully penetrated by the borings. Where encountered, the advance outwash sand ranged from ' 10 to 13.5 feet thick. This soil unit is interpreted to be gravelly sand deposited by a glacial melt -water stream emanating from an advancing glacial front. Subsequent to ' deposition, these deposits were over -ridden by glacial ice and became very dense. 3.3.4 Ground Water - Duvall Avenue NE Ground water seepage was encountered at approximate depths of 8 to 11 feet during drilling in BH-2, and BH-3 and BH-4, respectively, within the central to southern portion of the alignment. HWA installed a standpipe piezometer at the location of BH-4 to allow future ground water levels to be monitored. ' Shallow perched ground water was also noted on the logs of roadway borings number B-11, B-12, and B-15 (GeoEngineers, 2004). Previous environmental studies conducted in 1989 at a convenience store site, located at the NE corner of the intersection of Duvall Avenue ' NE and NE Sunset Boulevard, indicated that ground water was present below glacial till at some unknown level (WDOE, on-line). Based upon our understanding of the local subsurface conditions, we expect that local ground water seepage is being transmitted seasonally and, during periods of wet weather, through the sandy recessional outwash deposits or loose fill soils that overlie relatively less permeable glacial till along the southern portion of this alignment. Consequently, the loose fill in the existing trenches locally serves as a conduit for intercepted ground water seepage as seen at the locations for BH-2, BH-3 and BH-4. We expect that the water found in the 2004-052Fina1 Report 7 HWA GEOSCIENCES, INC. October 25, 2004 HWA Project No. 2004-052-21 existing trenches was most likely intercepted from seepage in fill perched over dense Vashon till proximal to Station ±196+00, or from saturated native recessional outwash sands and gravels located between approximately Station 190+00 to 182+00. In these areas, sufficient water will occur to destabilize the upper layer of recessional outwash sands and gravel along the upper trench wall, in the absence of dewatering. The effectiveness of any dewatering program, however, will likely hinge on material variability and well spacing. The permeability difference between materials such as trench fill, recessional outwash, and Vashon till will limit drawdown. Consequently, sump pumping and perimeter drains will be required in addition to well or wellpoint systems. In areas where the contractor uses closely spaced wells to control the water, advance pumping of a few hours to a few days may be required to achieve sufficient drawdown prior to excavation. 3.3.5 Ground Water - NE Sunset Boulevard Ground water was encountered at an approximate depth of 11 feet during the drilling of BH-8 just west of Duvall Avenue NE. At that location, ground water was encountered within what appeared to be a buried channel filled with recessional outwash sandy gravel. Previous environmental studies conducted in 1991 and 1992 at a gas station site, located at the SE corner of the intersection of Duvall Avenue NE and NE Sunset Boulevard, also indicated that ground water was present within sandy gravels at depths of 11 to 18 feet (WDOE, on-line). During exploration, HWA installed a standpipe piezometer at the location of BH-8 so that the local ground water levels could be measured periodically. At the time of our exploration, the ground water level was about 5 feet below the existing sewer invert. We expect that perched ground water may also be encountered seasonally and during periods of wet weather above the glacial till in fills. We expect ground water levels will vary depending on location, season, and the relative abundance of precipitation. 3.3.6 Summary of Soil Conditions Based upon soil conditions encountered in our explorations, a summary of soil conditions anticipated with depth along the alignments is presented in Table 1. 2004-052Fina1 Report 8 HWA GEoSCIENCES, INC. October 25, 2004 HWA Project No. 2004-052-21 Table 1: Summary of Explored Soil Conditions Duvall Avenue NE (Alignment from North to South) �200+00 to 198+00 Recessional Outwash�Vashon Medium dense to loose, silty Till=:>Glaciolacustrine sandy GRAVEL to silty gravelly SAND, moist. Fill=:>Weathered Ti11=>Vashon Medium dense to loose, silty 198+00 to 190+00 Till sandy GRAVEL to silty gravelly SAND, wet. Recessional Outwash=:>Vashon Medium dense to loose, silty 190+00 to 182+00 Till. sandy GRAVEL to silty gravelly SAND, wet. �182+00 to Sunset Fi11=>Weathered Ti11=:>Vashon Loose to very loose, silty sandy Blvd Till GRAVEL, moist to wet. NE Sunset Boulevard (Alignment West to East) Union Ave to Fi11=:>Weathered Till=>Vashon Dense to medium dense, slightly 169+00 Till silty sandy GRAVEL to gravelly SAND. z169+00 to 179+00 Fill=>Drift=>Recessional Outwash=:>Vashon Till Medium dense, slightly silty, sandy GRAVEL. �L-179+00 to 185+00 Vashon Till=:>Advance Medium dense to loose, slightly Outwash silty, gravelly SAND �185+00 to Renton Weathered Ti11=>Vashon Till Medium dense to loose, silty City Limits SAND with gravel. 2004-052Fina1 Report 9 HWA GEOSCIENCES, INC. October 25, 2004 HWA Project No. 2004-052-21 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 GENERAL We understand that the proposed new conveyance pipelines will be installed at the existing pipe locations and will include side sewers. At most locations the existing sewer pipes need to be upsized using either conventional trenching installation methods or in situ pipe bursting technologies. Pipe bursting is an economically feasible alternative to conventional open -cut replacement methods due to the potentially timesaving, cost effective, and less disruptive methodology inherent in the procedure. We understand that pipe bursting is being considered for use along the NE Sunset Boulevard and Duvall Avenue NE alignments, where traffic disruptions due to construction are to be minimized. We also understand that Duvall Avenue NE is scheduled for pavement reconstruction and, therefore, the sewers in the area could be reconstructed using open -cut trench methods that employ conventional excavating equipment and pipe installation procedures prior to roadway rehabilitation, if so desired by the owner. 4.2 PIPE BURSTING The pipe bursting process consists of in -situ fragmentation, displacement, and replacement of the existing pipes with new polyethylene pipes of equal or larger diameter. Typically, the existing pipe is split by a hydraulic or pneumatic bursting -head or nosecone to which the new polyethylene pipe is attached. As the existing pipe is burst; the new polyethylene pipe is pulled along the alignment of the old pipe. A chain or cable towline attached to a hydraulic jacking or winch system is used to advance the bursting head. Typically, the polyethylene pipe installed during the pipe bursting process consists of 20 to 40 foot sections that are welded together on site. Pipe bursting is conducted between two points of access; i.e., station —to -station with stations consisting of existing manholes, or insertion and extraction pits. The project engineer of Roth Hill Engineering Partners estimates that the existing pipes (8 inches to 15 inches in diameter) will be up -sized to 12 to 20 inches, respectively, to handle the future sewage flows. Typically, the most common type of pipe bursting is size -for -size; however, upsizing the diameter up to three sizes (e.g. 8-inch to 12-inch) is ' fairly routine (TTC, 2001). For pipe bursting to be successful, information regarding the density of the existing soil ' backfill and adjoining native materials is required. Accordingly, during our exploration program, several of our borings were conducted within the existing sewer trenches in order to characterize the engineering properties of the existing trench backfill. The results of our ' borings indicate that the backfill in the vicinity of the existing pipes along NE Sunset Boulevard is generally medium dense; whereas, the trench fill along Duvall Avenue in the vicinity of the existing sewer is typically loose. 2004-052Final Report 10 HWA GEOSCIENCES, INC. October 25, 2004 HWA Project No. 2004-052-21 Information regarding the proximity of other service lines or underground structures, and the location of any documented service repairs that reinforce the existing pipe should be evaluated. Such information is utilized to select the most appropriate pipe bursting methods and tools, and to evaluate the potential effects of vibrations and ground displacements, associated with the bursting operations. Studies have shown that the vibrations caused by pipe bursting tend to have a frequency range well above the natural frequency of buildings (TTC, 2001). However, in areas of concern or at the beginning of the project, we recommend that vibration monitoring be conducted to verify that pipe bursting efforts are not generating damaging levels of ground vibration. In general, pipe bursting should not be used when the bursting head will pass within 2.5 feet of other buried pipes and within 8 feet of sensitive surface structures (TTC, 2001). Where distances are less than those mentioned above, special provision should be made to protect the existing structures, such as excavating (daylighting) at the crossing point to relieve stress on the existing pipe (TTC, 2001). Favorable ground conditions for pipe bursting are reportedly within soils that can be moderately compacted such that the enlarged hole behind the bursting head does not cave in before the replacement pipe is installed. This scenario results in minimal lateral extent of outward ground movement because the volume change is accommodated by the local soils. In addition, the lack of caving behind the bursting head will result in lower drag and reduced tensile stress on the pipe during installation (TTC, 2001). Less favorable ground conditions include densely compacted soils or fills, and soils below the water table. These ground conditions tend to increase the force required for the bursting operation and, therefore, may increase the zone of influence of any associated ground movements (TTC, 2001). Our borings indicate that the backfill in the vicinity of the existing pipe is relatively loose. It is our opinion, therefore, that pipe upsizing by means of pipe bursting is feasible along both Duvall Avenue NE and NE Sunset Boulevard. However, the contractor should anticipate that variation in local fill soil conditions, and the presence or absence of ground water, will affect the amount of force required to burst and pull replacement pipe.. Some ground displacement should be expected as a result of the pipe bursting procedure. Displacements tend to be localized, and develop in the direction of least resistance. The magnitude and orientation of the displaced soil is largely dependent upon the degree of pipe upsizing, the type and compaction level of the soil surrounding the pipe, and the depth of the pipe. Typically, loose soils will undergo uniform displacement where more densely compacted soils at the same depth will most likely exhibit vertical (heave) expansion. The localized restraining effect of strong soils along trench sides and bottom also serves to direct ground movement upward above the pipe. Conversely, if the existing pipes were founded on weak soil, displacement would be directed downward. 2004-052Fina1 Repoli 1 1 HWA GEOSCIENCES, INC. ' October 25, 2004 HWA Project No. 2004-052-21 We understand that some of the existing pipes along the project alignment are as shallow as 5 feet below the existing ground surface. Pipe bursting conducted on pipes shallower than 8 ' to 10 feet may cause ground movement (heaving) that may distort the existing road surface. We recommend that some contingency provision be made to accommodate the ' rehabilitation of the existing road surface where pipes are shallow and surface heaving results. Bursting of pipes located deeper than 10 feet does not typically cause surface heaving problems. Invariably, some surface disturbance along the existing alignment is necessary for the excavation of jacking/receiving pits. These excavations can require an area on the order of ' 16 feet by 8 feet. Side sewers, however, can be installed from a jacking pit as small as 6 by 4 feet. Service connections to the pipeline being burst are typically dug prior to bursting so ' that the connections are not damaged and temporary bypass service can be provided during construction. These excavations can induce localized upward movement of the replacement pipe as it passes the area creating a slight hump in the pipeline profile. This problem can be ' minimized by excavating beneath the pipe, as well as above the pipe at the service connection location (TTC, 2001). ' As with any gravity system, maintaining the established grade is very important. As previously described, the replacement pipe follows the alignment of the original pipe under most conditions. However, because the bursting head has a larger diameter than the ' replacement pipe, a cavity is developed in the soil, allowing the replacement pipe to take up different positions within the cavity. Depending upon the local soil conditions, site conditions, and installation procedures the following outcomes are anticipated. 1. If soil displacements are predominately P new upward then a larger pipe will most likely be P g P Y situated with its centerline higher than the original pipe, but with a matching invert ' elevation. I 2. If the soil displaces uniformly, then the larger new pipe will be match the centerline of the original pipe. ' 3. If the soil displacements are predominately downward then the larger new pipe will most likely be situated with its crown matching the original pipe crown position, but with a lower invert elevation. ' 4. Asymmetrical soil displacement, resulting Y p g from the restraining effects of adjacent buried ' structures, can result in a lateral shift in new pipe position relative to the original. Case histories suggest that, with careful planning, maintenance of the existing pipe grades is ' achievable when close attention and frequent surveys are conducted. Sometimes, the presence of unforeseen'large boulders, and existing concrete pipe collars, CDF backfill, adjacent utilities and such, will prevent the advancement of the pipe bursting head or cause 2004-052Fina1 Report 12 HWA GEOSCIENCES, INC. October 25, 2004 HWA Project No. 2004-052-21 it to deflect above or below the design invert level. These types of obstructions occur quite ' commonly despite the amount of available subsurface data, and it is recommended that contingencies be provided in the contract to deal with such problems if they occur. 4.3 OPEN -CUT TRENCHING Presently, roadway improvements are planned for Duvall Avenue NE; consequently, future sewer upgrades may be installed in conjunction with roadway improvement operations by using open -cut trenching methods. Open -cut trenching techniques may also used in support of pipe bursting to allow for the construction of insertion pits, manholes or the removal of any existing pipe sections that are reinforced or concrete encased. The following sections describe the methodology and outline our recommendations for excavation, shoring, dewatering, pipe placement and trench backfilling. 4.3.1 Soil Excavation Characteristics Excavations for the pipelines can be accomplished with conventional excavation equipment such as backhoes and tackhoes. 4.3.2 Sloped Open -Cut Excavations Maintenance of safe working conditions, including temporary excavation wall stability, ' should be the responsibility of the contractor. All temporary cuts in excess of 4 feet in height should be sloped in accordance with Part N of WAC (Washington Administrative ' Code) 296-155, or should be temporarily shored. The fill, alluvial, and outwash deposits generally classify as Type C soil, per WAC 296-155, and should be sloped no steeper than 1'/2H: l V (horizontal:vertical). The glaciolacustrine and glacial till soils in the project area ' generally classify as Type.A soil, and should be sloped no steeper than 3/4H:IV. These recommended allowable cut slope inclinations are applicable to excavations above the water table only, and for conditions where seepage is not occurring. Dewatering or flatter cut ' slopes will be required where ground water seepage is encountered. Additionally, excavation spoil and fill materials should not be stockpiled nearer than the depth of excavation from the slope crest for these recommendations to remain applicable. Vibrations created by traffic and construction equipment may cause some caving and ' raveling of excavation walls, especially in sands and gravels. If this occurs (including excavations shallower than 4 feet), temporary lateral support for the excavation walls should be provided by the contractor to prevent loss of ground support. ' 4.3.3 Shored Excavations Where space or ground water conditions do not permit sloped excavations, lateral support for the trench walls should be provided by the contractor to ensure adequate worker safety and prevent loss of ground and possible distress to the nearby sevices or roads. General 2004-052Fina1 Report 13 HWA GEOSCIENCES, INC. October 25, 2004 HWA Project No. 2004-052-21 recommendations for design and implementation of shoring and bracing systems are presented below. Recommended lateral earth pressure diagrams for temporary braced shoring are presented on Figure 18. • Shoring should be designed and constructed to support lateral loads exerted by the supported soil mass. In addition, any surcharge from construction equipment, construction materials, excavated soils, or vehicular traffic on adjacent roadways ' should be included in the shoring design. We recommend that the contractor be required to submit shoring/excavation plans for review and approval prior to construction. The plans should be required to contain specific measures for temporary support and protection of the existing utilities and structures. ' • Conventional trench boxes should provide suitable worker safety for trench excavations in fill, lacustrine, outwash and till soils provided the ground water level is lowered to at least 2 feet below the base of the excavation, and settlement ' sensitive structures or utilities are not situated near the excavation. • Where a trench box is used to provide for worker safety in an excavation in the fill ' or recessional outwash soils, one or both.sides of the trench walls are likely to cave against the box. The caving may extend out on either or both sides of the trench for a distance approximately equal to the depth of the trench. This potential for caving ' of trench walls and loss of adjoining soils, should be taken into account with regard to the integrity of the roadway and adjoining services/properties. For the jacking/insertion pits required for trenchless installation methods, soldier piles and lagging may be suitable depending on the conditions and equipment used by the contractor. Jacking pits will likely require internal bracing. The recommended lateral pressures for the design of temporary shoring of such pits is also provided on Figure 18. The contractor should be responsible for control of ground and surface water and should employ sloping, slope protection, ditching, sumps, dewatering, and other measures as necessary to prevent sloughing of soils. Precautions should be taken during removal of the shoring to minimize disturbance of the pipe, underlying bedding materials, and native soils. 4.3.4 Ground Water and Construction Dewatering It should be the responsibility of the contractor to provide dewatering of trench excavations to maintain sufficiently dry conditions during construction. The ground water levels and seepage conditions reported on the Site Plan and Profile, Figures 2 through 17, and on the exploration logs in Appendix A, should be used for preliminary dewatering design and estimating purposes. Although, most of the explorations encountered little or no ground 2004-052Final Report 14 HWA GEOSCIENCES, INC. ' October 25, 2004 HWA Project No. 2004-052-21 water within the proposed trench base elevations, the contractor should field -verify actual ground water conditions encountered during construction and adjust dewatering requirements/methods as appropriate. In general, low to moderate ground water seepage can be expected in trenches excavated in glacial till soils and dewatering can likely be accomplished in these soils using sumps, as required. However, rapid ground water seepage can be expected in trenches excavated ' below the ground water table in outwash soils. We recommend the use of wells or well points to draw the water table down in advance of trench excavation and reduce seepage inflows into trenches within outwash soils, as appropriate. Because the trench subgrade ' may be at or near the interface with the less permeable glacial till soils, in some instances, sumps may be required in addition to wells in order to collect seepage at the trench bottoms. ' We recommend HWA review the dewatering plans and specifications, if included in the bid documents. Alternatively, HWA is available to assist in design of a dewatering plan. ' 4.3.5 Pipeline and Manhole Settlement Typically, sewer installations result in little to no change in effective loading of underlying foundation soils. However, settlement of trench backfill is commonplace and occasionally settlements also occur in the pipe installations. Where such settlements are encountered in ' pipeline components in the absence of load changes to the soils, it is usually associated with disturbance to the trench base and/or poor compaction in the pipe bedding and pipe zone backfill soils. Therefore, it is imperative that good construction practices be employed in ' pipeline trench excavation and preparation of the trench base, bedding and pipe zone backfill to prevent unacceptable deformations in the completed pipelines. If good ' construction practices are employed, we expect that post -construction total and differential settlements will be negligible to small and acceptable. 4.3.6 Pipeline Support and Bedding Based on our field explorations, we anticipate subgrade conditions generally adequate for ' pipe support at proposed pipe invert elevations. General recommendations for the support of the proposed pipelines are presented below: ' Excavation of the trench subgrade should be undertaken to design depth with care to minimize disturbance to the subgrade and reduction of soil support. Where loose material results from the excavation operations, it should be recompacted to provide for a smooth and unyielding surface. In the event very soft subgrade soils are encountered, it may be necessary to over -excavate the unsuitable material and ' backfill with additional pipe bedding material. In wet conditions, I V4-inch minus crushed rock should be used to backfill the over -excavated portion of the trench. Over -excavation to remove unsuitable soils from below the pipeline should extend for the full depth on both sides of the pipe a distance which is equal to the depth of 2004-052Fina1 Report 15 HWA GEOSCIENCES, INC. ' October 25, 2004 HWA Project No. 2004-052-21 i the over -excavation, or one pipe diameter, whichever is less. Where over - excavation and replacement with crushed rock is required, we recommend utilizing a low cost, non -woven, geotextile on the excavation base to act as a soil separator. This will prevent intrusion of fines into the crushed gravel and will reduce pumping, ' thus, facilitating compaction to a higher level than can normally be attained without the separator in place. Once crushed rock has been placed, and compacted in layers back to design trench base elevation, pipe bedding can be placed as described below. ' • Where the native subgrade soils are firm and do not require over -excavation gT q bedding material should be placed directly on undisturbed native soils. Trench bottoms should be free of debris and standing water. If subgrade soils are disturbed, the disturbed material should be removed and replaced with additional compacted bedding material. • Pipe bedding material, placement, compaction, and shaping should be in accordance ' with the project specifications and the pipe manufacturer's recommendations. Pipe bedding should provide a firm uniform cradle for support of the pipes. A minimum bedding thickness of 6 inches should be placed beneath the pipe and should extend to a minimum of 12 inches above the pipe. Pipe bedding material around the pipe should be placed in layers and tamped around the pipe and under the haunches to i obtain complete contact and support for the pipe. Pipe bedding material and any required areas of over -excavation should be compacted to achieve 90% of the maximum dry density (MDD) as determined by test method ASTM D1557 I' (Modified Proctor). 4.3.7 Trench Backfill Materials and Compaction ' Trench backfill material should consist of granular sand and gravel soils less than 3 inches in diameter, with no more than 30 percent fines (passing the U.S. No. 200 standard sieve), ' and moisture content within 3 percent of optimum. Based on our laboratory tests, a majority of the native sand and gravel soils will be suitable for use as trench backfill in dry weather conditions. Native fine-grained soils, very silty granular soils, and granular soils ' excavated from below the water table will be difficult to properly compact and are, therefore, not recommended for use as trench backfill. ' . Ultimately, the suitability of on -site soils for use as trench backfill will vary depending on the compaction requirements, which are a function of whether the trench backfill will comprise subgrade for non-structural, non -paved, areas or comprise roadway embankments or areas to be paved. In non-structural, non -paved, areas where trench backfill settlement is not a concern, backfill above the pipe zone should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density (MDD), as determined per ASTM D 1557 (Modified Proctor). Beneath roadway embankments, areas to be paved or areas where settlement is a concern, backfill placed above the pipe zone and to within 2 feet of the ground surface should be 2004-052Final Report 16 HWA GEOSCIENCES, INC. ' October 25, 2004 HWA Project No. 2004-052-21 compacted to at least 90 percent of the Modified Proctor MDD, and backfill placed within 2 feet of the ground surface should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the Modified Proctor MDD. Figure 20 presents a graphical depiction of the recommended compaction requirements. In some instances, relatively wet or silty soils may be compactible to 90 percent of the Modified Proctor MDD and, therefore, may be used in non-structural, non -paved, areas or ' as depths of more than 2 feet below the ground surface. Approval of such soils should be provided, on a case by case basis, by the geotechnical engineer. Soils that do not meet the gradation and moisture content requirements provided in the previous paragraphs and that cannot be compacted to 90 percent of their Modified Proctor MDD are unsuitable and should be exported from the site. Imported backfill material should meet the gradation and moisture requirements provided in the previous paragraphs. All trench backfill and compaction should be performed in a systematic manner and should be monitored by a representative of the geotechnical engineer. During placement of the initial lifts, the trench backfill material should not be bulldozed into the trench or dropped directly on the pipe. Furthermore, heavy vibratory equipment should not be permitted to operate directly over the pipe until a minimum of 2 feet of backfill has been placed over the pipe. Trench backfill materials should be placed in maximum 12-inch thick loose lifts and compacted to the required density using vibratory mechanical equipment. In areas where compaction equipment size is limited to a walk -behind roller or jumping jack compactor, lift thicknesses should be limited to 4 to 6 inches. Trench backfill placed and compacted as recommended should be anticipated to settle approximately 1 to 2 percent of its total thickness. If 1 to 2 percent of post -construction settlement is not acceptable, then the trench area should either be graded higher (mounded) during final grading to account for the potential settlement, or the trench should be backfilled with imported material consisting of 1'/4-inch minus crushed rock, with less than 5 percent fines, compacted to at least 95 percent of its Modified Proctor MDD. 4.3.8 Pipeline and Buried Structure Design Considerations Vertical loading on buried pipes is a function of the weight of the soil prism above the pipe and the rigidityof the pipe element. For design purposes, we recommend that the weight of the soil prism be determined from: WSp = YS(H + 0.11D.)Do Where: WSP = Soil prism load, lbs/ft. yS = Unit weight of soil; lbs/cu.ft.; or pcf. H = Depth of fill over top of pipe, feet. Do = Outside diameter of pipe, feet. I2004-052Final Report 17 . HWA GEOSCIENCES, INC. October 25, 2004 HWA Project No. 2004-052-21 The load on the pipe may be determined from: WP= VAF xW,p Where: WP = Load on the pipe, lbs/ft. VAF = Vertical arching factor. The VAF for rigid pipe, installed under typical embankment construction conditions is almost always approximately 1.4; whereas, most flexible pipes are designed for a VAF of 1.0. The unit weight of the backfill soils will vary with the type of soil backfill utilized and degree of compaction attained. However, for the soil types existing along the project alignment and likely to be used for trench backfill we recommend a compacted unit weight of 130 pcf be used for design purposes. For design of flexible pipes, we recommend that the subgrade soil stiffness or modulus of soil reaction, E', be taken as 500 psi for medium stiff to stiff lacustrine clay and silty alluvial and outwash deposits (more than 12% fines) and 1500 psi for coarse sandy and gravelly deposits. For dense to very dense glacial till deposits, we recommend a modulus of 2000 psi. Specific reference should be made to the logs and Table 1 in assessing the appropriate soil subgrade conditions and design modulus. Where uncertainty in soil conditions exists, we recommend use of the lower value. For design of foundations for structures such as manholes and buried vaults, we recommend a net allowable bearing pressure of 2000 psf for structures founded on fill and medium dense.recessional outwash soils. We recommend a net allowable bearing pressure of 6000 psf for structures founded on dense to very dense advance outwash and glacial till deposits. We recommend an at -rest lateral earth pressure equivalent to that generated by a fluid with a unit weight of 60 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for portions of structures above the ground water table. For design of buried structures below the ground water table, we recommend an at -rest lateral earth pressure equal to that generated by a fluid with a unit weight of 95 pcf. Lateral bearing pressures for design of thrust blocks may be taken as 1000 psf for recessional outwash and 3000 psf for advance outwash and till deposits. 4.3.9 Jacking and Insertion Pits Soldier piles and lagging may be suitable for shoring depending on the conditions and equipment used by the contractor. Jacking pits will likely require internal bracing. The insertion pit must be large enough to allow the pipe to be inserted from the surface into the pipe alignment without over -stressing the pipe by excessive bending. Manufacturer guidelines on minimum bending radius need to be closely adhered to. 2004-052Fina1 Report 18 HWA GEOSCIENCES, INC. ' October 25, 2004 HWA Project No. 2004-052-21 Soldier piles generally consist of steel 'H' sections embedded in vertical, predrilled, concrete -filled, holes. They are typically installed 6- to 12-feet on center around the perimeter of the proposed excavation. As the excavation proceeds from the top down, lagging is placed to retain the soil between soldier piles, and cross braces are installed to ' provide lateral support. Typically, large steel sheets are used for lagging, although wooden timbers or pre -cast concrete panels can also be used. Temporary shoring is generally designed by the contractor; however, we have provided recommended earth pressures for preliminary planning and design of shored excavations on Figures 18 and 19. Because of the potential presence of water above or near the bases of pit excavations, dewatering of some of the excavations will be required. Dewatering. wells should be located at least 5 feet outside the perimeter of the shored excavation. Soldier piles should penetrate at least 6 feet below the bottom of the excavation, but should be deeper as necessary to provide adequate kick -out resistance. Recovery of the soldier piles should be possible if they are set in lean concrete. Lagging should be installed as the excavation proceeds, and not more than 4 feet of unsupported excavation (measured vertically) should be exposed at one time. Space behind the lagging should be filled with freely draining material. 4.4 SEISNIIC CONSIDERATIONS ' The project site lies within Seismic Zone 3, as defined in the Uniform Building Code (UBC, 1997). Zone 3 includes all of western Washington, and represents an area of moderate seismic ' risk. Consequently, moderate levels of earthquake shaking should be anticipated during the design life of the proposed improvements, and the facilities should be designed to resist earthquake loading in accordance with applicable local and state requirements. Based on the subsurface conditions observed during our exploration program along the proposed sewer pipeline alignment, 2003 IBC Site Class D may be assumed for the project. The generalized procedure outlined in the IBC should be utilized in determining the appropriate response spectra for the project alignment. ' Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon wherein saturated soil deposits temporarily lose strength and behave as a liquid in response to moderate to severe earthquake shaking. Soil liquefaction is generally limited to loose granular soils located below the water table. Our ' evaluation of liquefaction potential indicates isolated lenses of loose saturated granular material may liquefy during a seismic event. However, we anticipate potential liquefaction ' of lenses of soil above the sewer line will be mitigated due to the backfill over the trench being compacted and less prone to liquefaction than the existing soil. Seismic landslide and ground surface rupture hazards were evaluated for the alignment and are considered to be low. 2004-052Fina1 Report 19 HWA GEOSCIENCES, INC. October 25, 2004 HWA Project No. 2004-052-21 4.5 WET WEATHER EARTHWORK Although silty glacial soils are moisture sensitive and wet weather earthwork is not recommended when such soils are involved, such as within this project, general recommendations relative to earthwork performed in wet weather or in wet conditions are presented below. These recommendations should be incorporated into the contract specifications. Earthwork should be performed in small areas to minimize exposure to wet weather. Excavation or the removal of unsuitable soil should be followed promptly by the placement and compaction of clean trench backfill. The size and type of construction equipment used may need to be limited to prevent soil disturbance. • Material used as trench backfill fill should consist of clean granular soil with less than 5 percent fines, which is a restriction on the trench backfill specification presented in Section 4.2.8. The fines should be non -plastic. Native soils that do not meet these requirements may be stockpiled for use in dry conditions or replaced with imported material. • Surface water should be prevented from draining into the trench. Excavation and placement of structural fill material during wet weather should be observed by a representative of the geotechnical engineer, to determine that the work is being accomplished in accordance with the project specifications and the recommendations contained herein. 4.6 DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONSIDERATIONS The native soils are easily erodible when exposed and subjected to surface water flow. Surface water runoff can be controlled during construction by careful grading practices. Typically, these include the construction of shallow earthen berms and the use of temporary sumps to collect runoff and prevent water from damaging exposed subgrades. All collected water should be directed under control to a suitable discharge system. Erosion can also be limited through the judicious use of silt fences and straw bales. The contractor should be responsible for control of ground and surface water and should employ sloping, slope protection, ditching, sumps, dewatering, and other measures as necessary to prevent erosion of soils. In this regard, grading, ditching, sumps,.dewatering, and other measures should be employed as necessary to permit proper completion of the work. 5.0 CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for the City of Renton and Roth Hill Engineering Partners for use in design of this project. This report should be provided in its entirety to prospective 2004-052Fina1 Report 20 HWA GEOSCIENCES, INC. 1 October 25, 2004 HWA Project No. 2004-052-21 contractors for bidding and estimating purposes; however, the conclusions and interpretations presented in this report should not be construed as a warranty of existing subsurface conditions. Experience has shown that soil and ground water conditions can vary significantly over small distances. Inconsistent conditions can occur between exploration locations and may not be detected by a geotechnical study of this nature. If, during future site operations, subsurface conditions are encountered which vary appreciably from those described herein, HWA should be notified for review of the recommendations of this report, and revision of such if necessary. The piezometers installed during our investigation are the property of the City and should be eventually decommissioned in accordance with DOE regulations. This can be effectively achieved during project construction, by grouting the installations under the direction of a geotechnical professional. Decommissioning of piezometers is, however, not included in our present scope of the work. Sufficient geotechnical monitoring, testing, and consultation should be provided during construction to confirm that the actual conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should conditions revealed during construction differ from those anticipated, and to verify that geotechnical aspects of construction comply with the contract plans and specifications. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, HWA attempted to execute these ' services in accordance with generally accepted professional principles and practices in the fields of geotechnical engineering and engineering geology in the area at the time the report ' was prepared. No warranty, express or implied, is made. The scope of our work did not include environmental assessments or evaluations regarding the presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous substances in the soil, surface water, or ground water at this site. This firm does not practice or consult in the field of safety engineering. We do not direct the contractor's operations, and cannot be responsible for the safety of personnel other than our own on the site. As such, the safety of others is the responsibility of the contractor. The contractor should notify the owner if he considers any of the recommended actions presented herein unsafe. 1 2004-052Final Report 21 HWA GEOSCIENCES, INC. October 25, 2004 HWA Project No. 2004-052-21 O.O We appreciate the opportunity to provide geotechnical services on this project. Should you have any questions or comments, or if we may be of further service, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, HWA GeoSciences Inc. STEVEN ELUOTT GREENE Steven E. Greene, L.E.G. Senior Engineering Geologist SEG:shh:lab:seg EXPIRES 08 / 24 / Lorne A. Balanko, P.E. Vice President 2004-052Fina1 Report 22 HWA GEOSCIENCES, INC. October 25, 2004 HWA Project No. 2004-052-21 6.0 REFERENCES Cording, E.J. and Hansmire, W.H., 1975, Displacements Around Soft Ground Tunnels, Proceedings, Fifth Pan-American Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 4, Buenos Aires, Argentina, pp. 571-633. ' GeoEngineers, 2004, Draft Report- Geotechnical Engineering Services, Duvall Avenue Northeast Improvements, Renton, Washington, prepared for City of Renton and Berger/ABAM. Peck, R.B., 1969, Deep Excavations and Tunneling in Soft Ground, Proceedings, ICSMFE XII, State -of -the -Art Volume, Mexico City, 225-290. Trenchless Technology Center (TTC), 2001, Guidelines for Pipe Bursting, Prepared by TTC for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers -Engineering Research and Development Center (ERDC), Vicksburg, MS, 47 p. Waldron, 1962, Preliminary Geologic Map of Seattle and Vicinity, Washington, USGS WSDOT, 2004, 2004 Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction, Washington State Department of Transportation and American Public Works Association. 2004-052Final Report 23 HWA GEOSCLENCES, INC. BASE MAP PROVIDED BY: MICROSOFT STREETS & TRIPS, 2003 HNAGEOSCUENCES INC SUNSET INTERCEPTOR DRAWN BY t PHASE III VICINITY MAP CHECKED BY ATE RENTON, WASHINGTON 6.09.04 1 PROJECT NO. 2004-052 "1111"'�� A ^f-, 19- FY E� -X n9EP.- . . ... ........... _x. ly—p ExI EX. 3' W, zu Ln co EX. 12 W­,ER cx C3s F., _ 9 7 i. • L L_4__ M DENSE SA ACP TO MEDIUM DY GRA DENSE EL (FILL) S I 91 PiPE 762.61 SLOPE 0.4T% DIA NA i� "T, PIPE LEN 108-G7 SLOPE DIA 18' PVC .3 -0 L Mr _5 1, -Z 'o > z > > 3 7 L 0 z z > LEGEND BH-1 HWA (2004) BOREHOLE DESIGNATION AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION B- 14 GEOENGINEERS (2004) BOREHOLE DESIGNATION AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION P BASE P PROVIDED BY: ROTH HILL ENGINEERING PARTNERS, LLC 01 20' 40' 80, "m milli HMGEOSCTNaS INC SCALE: 1 "=40' SUNSET INTERCEPTOR NE SUNSET BLVD RENTON, WASHINGTON PLAN AND PROFILE %WN BY KS FIGURE NO. --CKED BY 5a 2— 'E PROJECT NO. 8.13.04 2004-052 'ro "r In -------------- --t-2-AC? uENSE-TO-ME ROVM,- SLIGHTLY FIN N TO COARSE SANDY, %G E V (TRENCH !BACKFILL, GP -GM 9 'D lum I DENSE, OLIVE BRO�VN, SILTY, t SM Fv� LEN =06 PP a EtJ,&i.T7 PEE FI qE GRAVE E LY, SANE) T ----------- -T-1 luc -z 01 rn vi jl. 91 A > > zzz . . . .. ............ . . .. . . .... LEGEND , �.. �.. �.. _..I I.. BH-1 HWA (2004) BOREHOLE DESIGNATION AND SUNSET INTERCEPTOR DRAWN ey KS FIGURE NO. APPROXIMATE LOCATION PLAN AND 3B-14 CHECKED eY SL- 0' 20' 40' 80' =I HMGEoCMaSjNC NE SUNSET BLVD GEOENGINEERS (2004) BOREHOLE PROFILE DATE PROJECT NO. DESIGNATION AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION SCALE: 1 "=40' 8.13.04 2004-052 BASEE�P PROVIDED BY! ROTH HILL ENGINEERING PARTNERS, LLC RENTON, WASHINGTON HAIPROJECTSU004 PROJECTS\2004-052-21 SUNSET INTERCEPTOR\CAD\DRAFF SEWER PLAN-HWA.DWG ML V UU NLJ 011 JiU4 ........... < `2'015-1202 A C.D zz C) U j! I N&SUNSET BLVD X ` f -z h; ---------------------- A v -F �vz 3 r-Roy, ------- W 2 q5 165+00 166+00 168+00 If 6.10 iv E)I.M 94 BH-7 RIP I =9-- A 7e x LU ------- - ---- IE�392 "'D2.37 E m2.5j E jj V7 r ,M.q J -6 4D, LCC.� 4,f D 4 CAry /Y -q Eli i I Aj if F1 #0 2 LEGEND BH-1 HWA (2004) BOREHOL APPROXIMATE LOCAT B-14 I - m%-. GE �APPROXIMATEENGINEERS (2004) BOREHOLE DMimi u 11ai DESIGNATION AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION SCALE: 1 "=40' BASE P`PROVIDED B� ENGINEERING PARTNERS, LLC i )52-21 SUNSET INTERCEPTOR\CADUDRAFT SEWER PLAN-HWA,DWG ;URE NO. 4 OJECT NO. 2004-052 :V nO KI s Ail -,ijn4 LEGEND H-1 HWA (2004) BOREHOLE DESIGNATI APPROXIMATE LOCATION B-14 GEOENGINEERS (2004) BOREHOLE DESIGNATION AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION BASE P PROVIDED BY: ROTH HILL ENGINEERING PARTNERS, LLC c{ u Zu 4u bu JV UVA m I hWA(WSCffNaS INCIVL JVIVJLI uL-vv PROFILE SCALE: 1"=40' RFniTnNi \A/ArWNir_-rnni URE NO. 5 - )JECT NO. 2004-052 H 4 3 D -i 7 r m r m m �. GpS ..�P_ 41 , a e c�l�' !',J O IA 1Y _.—"_—. _ I I PIPE 'tIN 117.47 I - SL'.�Fc p� — t)fA 8' PJC _ P1PE___ - I I I SLOPE i., _— .—.- _—__—.L— ._—. `Y — Ca Cj J - ' z r _ , MP i LEGEND H-1 HWA (2004) BOREHOLE DESIGNATION AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION B-14 GEOENGINEERS (2004) BOREHOLE DESIGNATION AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION BASE P PROVIDED BY: ROTH HILL ENGINEERING PARTNERS, LLC 0' 20' 40' 80' , M%GEOCU rCES INC'. SCALE: 1 "=40'. -6 PROJECT N0. 2004-052 HMPROJECTS12004 PROJECTSQ004-052-21 SUNSET INTERCEPTORICADIDRF i ii yj ':vk, AT no- - 'o. /3- Al. 3"PpRoA 4 216 > ;i' _f77 F 1: 179+00 178+00 fZ oc'jEil.- r-1 CHAN iy/ a.o.� j _ _._ 5.=;?'1/�1 ; I I• ' 4- �4 - C9 EX. F'MYER-1 -4 GRASS yr- co 41— .1 'Ki , x Ei LL cl 'A Ln 7i < Tj •A51 c;a .0- -lk; 7i A7 .0 J LEGEND BH-1 HWA (2004) B APPROXIMATE LOCATION B-14 0' 20' 40' 80' 1, FMGR)SCIENCES NC GEOENGINEERS (2004) BOREHOLE DESIGNATION AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION SCALE: 1 "=40' BASE P PROVIDED BY: ROTH HILL ENGINEERING PARTNERS, LLC HAl PROJECTSM04 PROJECTS\2004-052-21 SUNSET INTERCEPTORkCAD\DRAFF SEWER PLAN-HWA.DWG 7 )JECT NO. 2004-052 V 00 KLS 8/13/04 7 TL i- C 7 5 P-lo Z 'Z';7 L J, j P IV �fq ',NE�tfNSEtBLVD-_ 5 _. Ua v" c r 2 A/4 i EX. 12- --------------- -4/4 ;X ' —4 4 I.RA.If-. 3- �C i -A! f > E�!N,i 21 PH 217 IL—G-1.05 s _7� BH-9 T X_ 4, "j-1 01-114--t-1.1's 181+00 180+00 �15.. N 182+00 rr, 17�y.7X. CA- TELE­ SAME TRC�CH . .................. . . . .. . . . m LI; E-12 LL IE C2 E EN0 OF AN EY� A' CAS __Z=t E)" 4:L-1;L/ —I Q G, OWK x.t_ er p ci _: - ----- ------------------- - P —7t—, , L --------------- 2 3 qn— ;'T 'N A \t A Ex' 'AS co 4 MEDIUM DENSE TO LOOSE, OLIVE BROWN, SLIGHTLY sp-Sm SILTY, FINE, GRAVELLY, SAND (TRENCH BACKFILL) a . . E PIPE 4-11-D E;• PIP LEN,3b.34 % L"E 152.21 SLOPE 0 W�% C,IA. S. Pvc SLOP`- O� 15 CIA S' PVC StOPE 0.77, P"Ir LEN ig.47 ........ . .. 40 0 It -0 z Z�] Z' 0 [JZ 4 z z LEGEND -7 c- BH-1 DRAWN By Ks FIGURE NO. --1c Y LSP HWA (2004) BOREHOLE DESIGNATION AND SUNSET INTERCEPTOR APPROXIMATE LOCATION o' 20' 40 80 NE SUNSET BLVD PLAN AND ZHECKED By S 8 B-14 GE w, I fMCIOCENCHINC PROFILE DATE PROJECT NO. S�ENGINEERS (2004) BOREHOLE DESIGNATION AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION SCALE: 1 "=40' 8.13.04 2004-052 BASE �P_'PROVIDED BY. ROTH HILL ENGINEERING PARTNERS, LLC RENTON, WASHINGTON P.AlPR�OJECTS\� 04 PROJECM2004-052-21 SUNSET INTERCEPTORkCADORAFr SEWER PLAN-HWA.DWG REV 00 KLS 8/13104 "A 1 C� 3 2 0 Q et- TLjC, U5 TL 1;807 0 , NE-- 'SUNSET BLVDJ--` I �v Nr� j1% t ;1 41M.44 ' I}i: x I V '�• -kN -4- —4- x "S M Ma,-4 z KN Ex..w z BH''� ,�� - :fi , .''" -lC 4 5 o' 7:— I' -4 u.: Lr, x4 'X G A S uJ Ll- -u.,z'—�2Y0S- 909-0 m x 2 I NE SUNSET BLVD RENTON, WASHINGTON DRAWN BY KS '' -- .— PLAN AND CHECKED -- BY m 5Q- PROFILE DATE PROJECT NO. 8.13.04 1 2004-052 REV 00 KLS 8/13/( 43 4 r/ 1LU 41 41 4 ail;-, '19J H-1 HWA (2004) BOREHOLE DESIGNATION AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION B-14 GEOENGINEERS (2004) BOREHOLE DESIGNATION AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION BASE P PROVIDED BY: ROTH HILL ENGINEERING PARTNERS, LLC PRO - - -- uual I nrlltltJ�V�R.�tl1Vl.�J 11V1r. - - - -- -- - PROFILE r8.1 PR SCALE: 1"=40' RENTON, WASHINGTON s.o4 10 NO. 2004-052 . ..... ..... . ..... . .. ...... ... . . ...... .. . ..... . ... . ...... . .. . . ...... ............ . . . ....... .. . ....... . ........ . 4") 0-'- -AeF-(-i:lT ---------------- 4 MEDIUM!DENSE, GRAVEL�Y, YELLOW SILTY, BROWN ROWN, I 4 4 f': - - ---------- AND (W. I'ELL) 4 4­ -------- DENSE, OLIVE B BRAWN, SILTY, 4 A S GRAVEL (VASHO�, , FINE TO TILL) MEDIUM SAND Oix LtN 4 A 0 43 4,3 4 w z ', Z 4 > 4 2 5 4 2C' 4- :7- T 4 �7, 41 BH-1 HWA (2004) BOREHOLE DESIGNATION AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION B-14 GEOENGINEERS (2004) BOREHOLE DESIGNATION AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION BASEP PROVIDED BY: ROTH HILL ENGINEERING PARTNERS, LLC -1\ o' 20' 40' 80' SCALE: 1 "=40' UWA I HMGWSCRNaSlNC 11 - )JECT NO. 2004-052 evri:, ', ONfdU-I ri :o \ :I �\ 23(.,-31 .41 - I I :;II :wz'rvrivsnv <h�.$+ma�r^nerm ._ 4 Ex -F1f ;. TLn.W(681. :7 I .. .... ..s .,�.......:.t ��_—_ liu+Pltv,c ;��.,al' _, / ,.,,� % • : f ` T`'g 1�;., z „ ' £- 14� /-6 ; ?> rr �I fJr: R c e a ! ,�r_ w.:i: '�hrpJ. v.. . .,v .,., \.—�- ,:. '-x�.. -' ., .. - r.. ., .7•� --�v—.-12/�-- � J.TM�•--__— �t i•. ___ref>� �T:,: —[�—!.=_.ei-�:�•_ }-:.� r, . II J.N2•'.Ihf - s-^ j.arc•_ 0 �Fl - >' !7C f, r �. / V-Z4 > N� ), I rr ._ �..a --. d a Z - r' I N r0/! "b; I „ iS JJ 'Y cNF OO+iOZ QtZ - I 0+10 f}H I N, OOZ i.� +661 \ 1¢ a+ G Ti 4: f1..�_/'/ I ..._N.y Jry.. .o/ nBA,:: i_<: y_ 1^J JN07'I Zl I "$ (APPROX. � :i1T+--=__r>Y_�__--__..._ _—_ L�r�.�__.>-- _�- —___-_ 1!✓_-=_ — __ _ ___ _ I:_ m 11 / / ._.•'�'--;�\ .—..__._ _ .._---"[r r sl..( a�r,=u, / �.1 -' --- - - r`� ----- `a;.ra -z� 10 -• /,-�'= _ 4\ _ _ i / \ I -1 ^: —^`` - 7,' j (y. -e.>= -' / �..:r ,r••rmj:)V.zI�J ��\ I _ i ;�`ri. .z�_ `e.nae'�I_ - a _+vc� _zr =:_..� �) / �a . t I .i ,\G�.: ::w,i.^..71 f", r.:Gx .9�.� •�'+1,z'\lr: taZ„�.. 'x - � , I % ,�'�• I !`• w>dt-:�s.'a :'�� - It I� \ / 2 / I DUVALL AVE NE ] .�rr�..,,.,. II i IIJ I'' I i' I ;1 !, �'•-',_— II \.it=.+"-pT'���':;riir :w*-%��'�'i aT I �I y�l�l, T / '"' d ,t^` 'Ai 1s'C94G7-;:C'.- \ ,zc> ON, s... 'Z ^� 17- 12L't6^, �< I I I I I I N, av xcycor l i ti armoas:n Z.--' i W 11 `I—_' - li �._ Z M N r--I cc 3" ACP GP -GM MEDIUM DENSE, BROWN, FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL WIT, SAND AND TRACE SILT (RECESSIONAL OUTWASH) DENSE, GRAY BROWN, SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL SM (GLACIAL TILL) HARD, GRAY SILT WITH SILTY SAND (GLACIOLUCSUTRINE) ML LEGEND MEDIUM DENSE, GRAY, SILTY FINE SAND (GLACIAL SM OUTWASH) BH-1 HWA (2004) BOREHOLE DESIGNATION AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION 0' 20' 40' 80' SUNSET INTERCEPTOR B 1 GEOENGINEERS (2004) BOREHOLE DESIGNATION AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION SCALE: 1 "=40' �J�f��(� �+����{�j� T/-+ NaS fNC DUVALL AVE NE l l�U1Vi+VJ4L BASE MAP PROVIDED BY: ROTH HILL ENGINEERING PARTNERS, LLC RENTON, WASHING ON H:1IPROJECTS\2004 PROJECTS\2004-052-21 SUNSET INTERCEPTOR\CADIDRAFT SEWER PLAN-HWA.DWG 12 PROJECT NO. 2004-052 RFV 00 KI S A/13/04 MEDIUM DENSE, BROWN, SILTY, co Fx BARK MULCH— T MEDIUM DENSE,jOLIVE BROWN, S14NDY GRAVEL SILTY (FILL) DENSE SAND TO VER� WITH WI TH GRAVEL (FILL) DENSE, RAY BROWN, WEATHERED LL DENSE TO VE DENSE, GRAY BROWN SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEU-1 41 405 ZZZ ����14 Ld 8H-1 nvw\(2o04)BOREHOLE DESIGNATION AND --- APPROXIMATE LOCATION . . OO' �� INC 2O 4O ��z�` �1 �� ~~E'`~'~-S`^~.BOREHOLE �~ DESIGNATION AND ApPRO�nATELOCATION SCALE: 1^=40' 1 | o*sc*upPROVIDED BY- ROTH HILL ENGINEERING PARTNERS, uu � f BASEt - -_....... ....... - ............... _ ._......__._. ._...._ . .-..-.-...-" - — ....... _......... .. ._ - z roa v!s _cwa II „ t CL '3ceoa II I h,IS lip, }A+ ;0-. C?;�P r'-:co LLJ `�Y I ' Z_� =g '}=�;• Sd°. ://" �i'7jI I' ZIIi y ',s_ II,�-4. n.}~ n..77 .. C_-' nY_•', / r' '�'F-- - f_ �:sri - a �F, i.,,L�'.;e%✓;yt.Mc'�w�'�v,'s,:Faad r ,.�. - R l: IMX:'A✓ -' >wf aa'' r;w� �.. 1' _.... - y'' I i a —_'---— - ' - — t - > v - _ [ j iL is---- T ,a L t -i _ _.L_- _ :.k- �,�rr'S --- _ - I I� -- - - - - ---- - -- �1 - — > 'y. B '15 00+62t ,.�.._ `�/ 60+991_.=s: - OO+L9 +- �c 00 98l �: a - l - -' .ate a . __.. ..--==T--a-=•=-_-_h_.- f I EXAM ?4 `'t_, A. 'JQD bg - — — -- -- - — — BH .3 _ --�< u E - c fL w 11 uy„ ^ -� � :]y r1 ,E_4 _ -` - - { _ J L/ - 4tL---`/-� I .�_�-c-•------ter• o ., GAS : r.4:,a;a_ 'da red r /X f % -1 - °'-- 1.I �/ oJd _ZI v] Cli �: 1 �.G. ., ca I . " rv!x,... :I. fid 5 Ya:l .n'1Y ,.:X� t . i _ _,.r' Ike ,� \•) •! j, - - - - "� t - rite_ x a, II ' az Zy'4( i' y< , y I �• <�\ 4 z: r T l:: I j i I tiUVALL AVE NE` IL- - L '., ....{ I ✓ L h ... JvJ III iL,c 1 r. ,J., I e•,r it ��?Sm�J22�� C I �i � � I �� __ � 7.._1 x9.S1 , -J l {, , ., r._`•J .,e.,:0 ;�C�Csraxa irs I. TL s'5-70-;'52 I sw 6?n eunci vrasdr �' orrCa.Wzs -:J'Ji3?S"1'?rRGi" ;!M'1":B V.i i9MfJV LYawm� as.mzs�rs C, T2.J MEDIUM DENSE, I (BROWN SLIGHTLY f GP -GM I � I I I ACI p I- (4L \�` ( 4:% � I I ---�; �-� � - — -- -- --- __ _ -- -- _ I, fWEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, BROWN, GM I li MEDIUM DENSE TO LOOSE, ALIVE GM COARSE GRAVEL WITH SAND AND SILT, I, I j 1 J BROWN, SILTY FINE TO MEDIU�1 SANDY I MOISTITO WET (j2ECESSIONAL O - ASH) G ZA EtIT I I I LOO�E TO VERY LOOSE, OLIVE GRAY SILTY �M I VERY DENSE GRAY, SILTY SAND WITH — FINE SAND ---. WIT�I,R�pVEL r G.._ ENCH LLB I I GRAV i L, MOIST (VASHON TILL) SMPIPE I j 5 PIPE LEN +5Q OS - I SLOPE G.367. 1 D r T tlQ ^ I � I ! I � I� �- In 6;; s V' Y C. (I U: C =+* In 1 I llZ I J- K_s�= I j LEGEND ;H-1 HWA (2004) BOREHOLE DESIGNATION AND 'i APPROXIMATE LOCATION SUNSET INTERCEPTOR PLAN AND DRAWN sY KS FIGURE NO, 1 5 o' 20' 40' so' 1-14 ���T /�� HWACEOSVIENC S INC DUVALL AVE NE CHECKED BY SZ GEOENGINEERS (2004) BOREHOLE PROFILE DATE PROJECT NO. DESIGNATION AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION SCALE: 1 "=40' PROVIDED BY: ROTH HILL ENGINEERING PARTNERS, LLC RENTON, WASHINGTON 8.13.04 2004-052 :TS\2004 PROJECTS\2004-052-21 SUNSET INTERCEPTOR\CAD\DRAFT SEWER PLAN-HWA.DWG KCV UU I4LJ 0/1.5/U4 E o ? r'fJfill -5 5 > - I i 'e'•J rlDPYl:b9[5 II c ilzl a _F. co R I o �. s r I -- �._ _ r - 1 v ti II 4.�e y I q/I\ - I 1 Y nr; I+r- _ ram_-��'^rPT J_'11 �,•r'.-,"h+r A}:r x�r _---c �,"v- -- -�� -A � � � i y_—�? '. •. 3' f-x-rr �TTTLL --- � _+ _ — r` y i_ — �_ _y �.�— � • -`_ ` _ _ L _ - --= n ===Y-- - _ -- I wr e..,,.,,t 0o+£Bt M_ § 1 <:? - T ---- I di 4- coo.,.<. _ \ i / xe'._»----------------- -'-- -- _--..._._. _ -' J `l.. } I r s____,_ _ - _ _ _ --- Z _ -_ --may- , - ___-•.cv _`�� f _ _ _ _ _ // I _. -y__'_--a ::v r w I-' _ TT/---- 5ia r _ '' — _ —I _.__ m 3ANp '-'1I � Y� c J +H'i i� ` - _._ c,,.o-;•.! 1 ;�,r�-r-,r___ _—_.;;t] _. _-�` ___ — r \ -'. I _ _- _ �S;,.r'-`.c: ��.' r-n r--_---- v ! I \7� M. d I --T• rr aim! —� I �� -- m.r....., >s �.:.Tnti: .y 4 �w e-J - - - ' !u \'�\ ' I? . DUVALL AVE NE '„ _ \ �, I �� `! :vIN ' S LG-Zri r 3) i I I: I �I o •Xy ' 1 r. 3o L,/ I q I ( 'a '•tea > 7i N I I � .s. � s I u a I I ,46 .7 {iEI 'l ••CC -�� s •j / _ I ` II' N it i se K N - ' = I O TLri_:cg7n_J•a; / I 7 �•�'II O` I`tlal� /~ r 5 69?0-.Il.,• I Z���C"C :7O;D . >-I W uj raa,�,mae'ta+rsuaaI nestraarrum'x3ts - aroal5su it II Y xrlr-•.:>.� z -ram`\ I \\-\ \•� I Ir'� it aw\�\ 1 ' ra ste<xr i LEGEND H-1 HWA (2004) BOREHOLE DESIGNATION AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION B-14 GEOENGINEERS (2004) BOREHOLE DESIGNATION AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION BASE P PROVIDED BY: ROTH HILL ENGINEERING PARTNERS, LLC 0' 20' 40' 80' , HAG' VSQ NCB INC- SCALE: 1 "=40' SUNSET INTERCEPTOR DUVALL AVE NE RENTON, WASHINGTON PLAN AND PROFILE -1 6 ECKkwN BY KS ECK BY BY IE PROJECT NO. 8.13.04 2004-052 xl < 41 L — — — Z1. — — — — — — — — — - — — — — — — —L —41tr — — -7 GL 21 ;0� -"AS 53 W d /m 13'mo x, f"w Vc'7ic 6e.g',- FT ri 3A '7',�oc it a-*Q Z' .5 00+ At: ..... . . . .. . ... D Y Aa x 'AP-ROX. LC-::) '2s'eo 'T7 ,.V,r Fx — — — — — --- — — — — 3 III IE .05.83 'S� ,79 vZ z 21 DUVALL AVE NE* -TN J f= 4�4.7^ Ll641.17 E-04 17 NE -'od i 7n SI-MCNd L,45 Ol 2 3 t V ssV57w�o 18 ' In % % L3 Ly-'d 1p" wn xTr- rry.l� E .9,9 3� 3&AI amiaw kl sg 7E7 --az 99 gY eY Q V, t4-in 2, dk: LEGEND BH-1 HWA (2004) BOREHOLE DESIGNATION AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION B-14 GEOENGINEERS (2004) BOREHOLE DESIGNATION AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION BASE AP PROVIDED BY, ROTH HILL FN('�INFFRiNC PARTNERS.r, I I A, o' 20' 40' 80' HMGWSCffN(U INC SCALE: 1 "=40' 17 )JECT NO. 2004-052 H:\1PROJECTS\2004 PROJECTS\2004-052-21 SUNSET INTERCEPTOR\CAD\DR) 63H2 ' HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE 41 H 1 +21(H2 —2+D) 220D ACTIVE PRESSURE PASSIVE PRESSURE ASSUMPTIONS: Ka = 0.31 (Active earth pressure coefficient - for level backslope) Kp = 3.25 (Passive earth pressure coefficient) ' 0 = 32' (Angle of internal friction) Zf = 130 pcf (Total unit Weight) li= 68 pcf (Buoyant unit Weight) t NOTES: 1. Resultant earth pressure values are in units of pounds per square foot. 2. D, H, H, and H2 are in units of feet. 3. A factor of safety has not been applied to the recommended earth pressure values. ' 4. The pressure values shown behind the shoring are additive. 5. Embedment (D) should be determined by summation of moments below the lowest brace. 6. Contractor should field verify depth to ground water (Hi). ' 7. Surcharge loads should be accounted for by adding lateral pressures as determined using figure 19. LATERAL PRESSURES FOR — nomm m =A I - TEMPORARY BRACED SHORING CHECKED er MBB 18 �A�OS��� INC SUNSET INTERCEPTOR PHASE III 07.15.02 2004-52 RENTON, WASHINGTON 1015\45\2001 1 H BOTTOM OF EXCAVATION X LOAD = q ET' X 1 .5B LEGEND OF SYMBOLS 0. H = WALL HEIGHT IN FEET q = UNIFORM SURCHARGE IN PSF Influence Factor (i) for Surcharge Loads For: x?H i=0 H>x>H/2 i=0.5 H/2>x>H/4 i=0.75 H/4 >x i=1.0 NOTES 1 1) THIS METHOD IS SUITABLE FOR TEMPORARY LOADING DUE TO CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT. FOR BUILDING SURCHARGE LOADS, HWA SHOULD BE CONSULTED TO PROVIDE APPROPRIATE SURCHARGE VALUES. ' 2) THIS METHOD ASSUMES THE SURCHARGE WIDTH B,X. fMGEOSaENCES INC ' H1CAD\1PROJECTS\20010001015\45\20010154505.DWG SIMPLIFIED METHOD FOR ESTIMATING SURCHARGE LOADS SUNSET INTERCEPTOR PHASE III RENTON, WASHINGTON DRAWN BY Sm FIGURE N0.� w CHECKED BY _SEG DATE PROJECT NO. 10.20.04 2004-052 L NOT TO SCALE LEGEND EXTENT OF LIKELY MAXIMUM POTENTIAL CAVING 95 FILL BELOW NON—STRUCTURAL OR NON —PAVED AREAS: RECOMMENDED MINIMUM PERCENTAGE OF MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AS DETERMINED BY TEST METHOD ASTM D 1557 (MODIFIED PROCTOR) 95 FILL BELOW EMBANKMENTS, STRUCTURAL OR PAVED AREAS: RECOMMENDED MINIMUM PERCENTAGE OF MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY. AS DETERMINED BY TEST METHOD ASTM D 1557 (MODIFIED PROCTOR) =u J PIPE BEDDING TRENCH BACKFILL Y L'Ifi� HwAGEosccENas we COMPACTION CRITERIA FOR TRENCH BACKFILL SUNSET INTERCEPTOR PHASE III RENTON, WASHINGTON 2 0 :cm � �s� E ►ROJEGT 110. 07.15.02 20004-052 C:IIPROJECTS12001\2001015\45\200 APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION The geotechnical subsurface exploration was conducted under the full-time supervision of anHWA engineering geologist on May 13�', May 27 h, 28 h,, and June 1 ", 2004. The field investigation consisted of drilling and sampling 13 boreholes (1311-1 through BH-12) at selected locations along the pipeline alignments. The exploration locations were chosen based on the site survey plans, and are shown on the Site Plan and Profile, Figures 2 —17. A legend of terms and symbols used on the exploration logs is presented on Figure A-1. Logs of the borings and test pits are presented on Figures A-2 through A-14. Holocene Drilling, Inc. of Graham, Washington drilled the boreholes while under subcontract to HWA. Borings BH-1 through BH-4, and BH-5 through BH-12 were drilled on May 131h, 2004, and May 27ffi, 28`' and June 1", 2004, respectively. A truck - mounted Mobile B-61 drill rig advancing 4%-inch inside -diameter, continuous -flight hollow -stem augers, was used to accomplish the borings. The borings were advanced to depths of 5 to 26'/2 feet and were abandoned, except for those completed as piezometers (BH-4 and BH-8), with bentonite chips when drilling was completed. Soil samples were collected at 2'/2 to 5-foot intervals using Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampling in general accordance with ASTM D-1586. SPT sampling consisted of using a 2-inch outside diameter, split -spoon sampler driven with a standard 140-pound automatic hammer. During the test, a sample is obtained by driving the sampler 18 inches into the soil with the hammer free -falling 30 inches per stroke. The number of blows required for each 6 inches of penetration is recorded. The Standard Penetration Test ("N-value") of the soil is calculated as the number of blows required for the final 12 inches of penetration. If a total of 50 blows are recorded within a single 6-inch interval, the test is terminated, and the blow count is recorded as 50 blows for the number of inches of penetration. This N-value provides an indication of the relative density of granular soils and the relative consistency of cohesive soils. Soil samples obtained from the borings were classified in the field and representative portions were placed in plastic bags. These soil samples were then returned to our Lynnwood, Washington, laboratory for further examination and testing. Pertinent information including soil sample depths, stratigraphy, soil engineering characteristics, and ground water occurrence was recorded. The stratigraphic contacts shown on the individual logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types; actual transitions may be more gradual. The soil and ground water conditions depicted are only for the specific dates and locations reported and, therefore, are not necessarily representative of other locations and times. 2004-052-21Report A-1 HWA GEO SCIENCES, INC. RELATIVE DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY VERSUS SPT N-VALUE COHESIONLESS SOILS COHESIVE SOILS Approximate Approximate Density N (blows/ft) Consistency IN(blows/ft) Undrained Shear Relative Densith y(,) Strength (psf) Very Loose 0 to 4 0 - 15 Very Soft 0 to 2 <250 Loose 4 to 10 15 - 35 Soft 2 to 4 250 - 500 Medium Dense 10 to 30 35 - 65 Medium Stiff 4 to 8 500 - 1000 Dense 30 to 50 65 - 85 Stiff 8 to 15 1000 - 2000 Very Dense over 50 85 - 100 Very Stiff 15 to 30 2000 - 4000 Hard over 30 >4000 USCS SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP DESCRIPTIONS Gravel and GW Well -graded GRAVEL Coarse Gravelly Soils Clean Gravel •. Grained (little or no fines) Qc GP Poody-graded GRAVEL Soils o More than 50% of Coarse Gravel with p GM Silty GRAVEL Fraction Retained Fines (appreciable on No. 4 Sieve amount of fines) GC Clayey GRAVEL Sand and Clean Sand ' SW Well -graded SAND More than Sandy Soils (little or no fines) ' SP Poody-graded SAND 50% Retained 50% or More on No. of Coarse Sand with SM Silty SAND 200 Sieve Fines (appreciable Fraction Passing Size amount of fines) SC Clayey SAND No. 4 Sieve ML SILT Fine Silt Grained and Liquid Limit CL Lean CLAY Soils Less than 50% .Clay _ - OL Organic SILT/Organic CLAY MH Elastic SILT 50% or More Silt Liquid Limit Passing an 50 % or More CH Fat CLAY No. 200 Sieve Clay Size OH Organic SILT/Organic CLAY Highly Organic Soils PT PEAT COMPONENT DEFINITIONS COMPONENT SIZE RANGE Boulders Larger than 12 in Cobbles 3 in to 12 in Gravel 3 in to No 4 (4.5mm) Coarse gravel 3 in to 3/4 in Fine gravel 3/4 in to No 4 (4.5mm) Sand No. 4 (4.5 mm) to No. 200 (0.074 mm) Coarse sand No. 4 (4.5 mm) to No. 10 (2.0 mm) Medium sand No. 10 (2.0 mm) to No. 40 (0.42 mm) Fine sand No. 40 (0.42 mm) to No. 200 (0.074 mm) Silt and Clay Smaller than No. 200 (0.074mm) TEST SYMBOLS %F Percent Fines AL Atterberg Limits: PL = Plastic Limit LL = Liquid Limit CBR California Bearing Ratio CN Consolidation DD Dry Density.(pcf) DS Direct Shear GS Grain Size Distribution K Permeability MD Moisture/Density Relationship (Proctor) MR Resilient Modulus PID Photoionization Device Reading PP Pocket Penetrometer Approx. Compressive Strength (tsf) SG Specific Gravity TC Triaxial Compression TV Torvane Approx. Shear Strength (tsf) UC Unconfined Compression SAMPLE TYPE SYMBOLS ® 2.0" OD Split Spoon (SPT) (140 Ib. hammer with 30 in. drop) IShelby Tube 3-1/4" OD Split Spoon with Brass Rings OSmall Bag Sample 0 Large Bag (Bulk) Sample nCore Run Non-standard Penetration Test (3.0" OD split spoon) GROUNDWATER SYMBOLS Q_ Groundwater Level (measured at time of drilling) T Groundwater Level (measured in well or open hole after water level stabilized) COMPONENT PROPORTIONS PROPORTION RANGE DESCRIPTIVE TERMS < 5% Clean 5 - 12% Slightly (Clayey, Silly, Sandy) 12 - 30% Clayey, Silty, Sandy, Gravelly 30-50% Very (Clayey, Silty, Sandy, Gravelly) Components are arranged in order of increasing quantities. NOTES: Soil classifications presented on exploration logs are based on visual and laboratory observation. Soil descriptions are presented in the following general order. MOISTURE CONTENT Density/consistency, color, modifier (if any) GROUP NAME, additions to group name (if any), moisture DRY Absence of moisture, dusty, content. Proportion, gradation, and angularity of constituents, additional comments. dry to the touch. (GEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION) MOIST Damp but no visible water. Please refer to the discussion in the report text as well as the exploration logs for a more WET Visible free water, usually complete description of subsurface conditions. soil is below water table. LEGEND OF TERMS AND ULWA SUNSET INTERCEPTOR PHASE III SYMBOLS USED ON HMGEOSCIENCES INC. RENTON, WASHINGTON EXPLORATION LOGS PROJECT NO.: 2004-052 FIGURE A-1 LEGEND 2004052.GPJ 8117/04 SM Medium dense, brown, silty, gravelly SAND, moist. (FILL) o GM Medium dense, olive brown, silty, sandy GRAVEL, moist. (FILL) SM Loose to very loose, olive brown, silty, fine to coarse SAND with gravel, moist to wet. (TRENCH BACKFILL) BORING: SUNSET INTERCEPTOR PHASE III BH- 1 HMGEOSCIENCES INC. RENTON, WASHINGTON PAGE: 1 of 1 ' PROJECT NO.: 2004-052 FIGURE A-2 BORING 2004052.GPJ 9114/04 Asphaltic Concrete Pavement SM Medium dense, dark brown, silty, gravelly SAND, moist. Contains some debris and wood fragments. (Fill) GP Dense to loose, gray to olive brown, slightly silty, sandy ° GM_ GRAVEL, moist to wet. 0 0 (TRENCH BACKFILL) O 0 O ° SM Very loose, olive gray, silty, gravelly, fine to medium SAND, moist to wet. (TRENCH BACKFILL) BORING: SUNSET INTERCEPTOR PHASE III BH- 2 HWAGEOSCIENCES INCRENTON, WASHINGTON PAGE: 1 of 1 PROJECT NO.: 2004-052 FIGURE: A-3 BORING 2004052.GPJ 9/14104 ic Concrete Pavement dense, brown, slightly silty, sandy GRAVEL, moist. 77GM (FILL) 0 O O GM Medium dense to loose, olive brown, silty fine to medium ° sandy GRAVEL, moist to wet. 0 0 0 (TRENCH BACKFILL) SM Loose to very loose, olive gray, silty fine SAND with gravel, wet. (TRENCH BACKFILL) ULWA I BORING: SUNSET INTERCEPTOR PHASE III BH- 3 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC RENTON, WASHINGTON PAGE: 1 of 1 PROJECT NO.: 2004-052 FIGURE: A-4 BORING 2004052.GPJ 9/14104 DRILLING COMPANY: Holocene Drilling SURFACE ELEVATION: 419.00 t feet DATE STARTED: 5/13/2004 DRILLING METHOD: Mobile B-51, HSA DATE COMPLETED: 5/13/2004 SAMPLING METHOD: SPT with Autohammer LOGGED BY: B. Thurber LOCATION: See Figure 16. (n V) a U O F= m U) m 0zt:l U) D 0 1 5 I 10 15 20 DESCRIPTION X W U W coZ — W 2 ~ }a W F Z m f— W < a o' y w w ii Z o = O W M U) w a n O d vi 0 GP Medium dense, slightly silty, fine to coarse sandy, GRAVEL, ° GM moist. O 0 (Fill) O 0 O 0 SM Loose to very loose, brown to olive brown, silty SAND with fine to coarse gravel, moist to wet. (TRENCH BACKFILL) Boring terminated at an approximate depth of 11.5 feet below the existing ground surface. Very wet soils were encountered for the last 2 feet of drilled depth. A piezometer was installed with five feet of screen from 9.5 to 4.5 feet below the existing ground surface. S-1 10-6-5 S-2 3-3-6 S-3 3-3-4 B-4 GS S-4 2-2-1 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. . Standard Penetration Test (140 lb. weight, 30" drop) Blows per foot 2 C 10 20 30 40 50 O w r0 -5 -10 1 -15 1 ' L-- 20 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content (%) Plastic Limit 1 —0 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content BORING: U01 SUNSET INTERCEPTOR PHASE III BH- 4 fMGEOSCIENCES INC. RENTON, WASHINGTON PAGE: 1 of 1 PROJECT NO.: 2004-052 FIGURE: A-5 PZO 2004052.GPJ 9/14/04 DRILLING COMPANY: Holocene Drilling SURFACE ELEVATION: 394.00 f feet DATE STARTED: 5/27/2004 DRILLING METHOD: Mobile B-51, HSA DATE COMPLETED: 5/27/2004 SAMPLING METHOD: SPT with Autohammer LOGGED BY: B. Thurber LOCATION: See Figure 2. 5- 1 10- 1 15- 1 20 - DESCRIPTION 24 inches of A.C.P. it W O m Z w W D I— F Q (n L U co r W C ~ W W a a cD y w Z) 0 0 0- O 00 0 GM Dense grading to medium dense, brown, silty, sandy, fine to S-1 coarse GRAVEL, moist. (FILL) No recovery from sampler, pounded into 48-inch CMP culvert for Honey Creek (location not marked). Hole in pipe ® S-2 50/6 patched by city thereafter. Borehole terminated at top of culvert (5.5 feet). No additional attempt made to drill a borehole near this location due to congestion of utilities and dificulty of locating multiple stream culverts. 0 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specked location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. Standard Penetration Test (140 lb. weight, 30" drop) A Blows per foot x w 10 20 30 40 50 0 d-T 15 1 L--20 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content (%) Plastic Limit 1 0 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content BORING: WWI SUNSET INTERCEPTOR PHASE III BH— 5 FMGEOSCIENCES INC RENTON, WASHINGTON PAGE: 1 of 1 PROJECT NO.: 2004-052 FIGURE: A-6 BORING 2004052.GPJ 9/14/04 DRILLING COMPANY: Holocene Drilling SURFACE ELEVATION: 397.00, t feet DATE STARTED: 5/27/2004 DRILLING METHOD: Mobile B-51, HSA DATE COMPLETED: 5/27/2004 SAMPLING METHOD: SPT with Autohammer LOGGED BY: B. Thurber LOCATION: See Figure 3. U J J 0 O w M w w U 0� Standard Penetration Test w a F m � < (140 lb. weight, 30" drop) r e W o A Blows per foot w w w se W D _ a- a w ° w I- F- � uJ a DESCRIPTION rn rn o_ z O 0 11 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 12 inches of A.C.P. r 0 GP Dense, brown, slightly silty to silty, fine to coarse sandy, fine S-1 12-16-18 GM to coarse GRAVEL, moist. (TRENCH BACKFILL) 5- Hard, flat object reported by driller at 7.5 feet. At nearest storm catch basin, observed top of concrete pipe at 7.5 feel Abandoned borehole at 7.5 feet. Moved drill rig over 2 feet and drilled BH-6a in sanitary sewer line trench. 1 10- 1 15- 20 - S-2 11-16-15 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. ....:...................:....:....:... -5 -10 1 -15 1 L--20 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content (%) Plastic Limit 1 —0 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content BORING: SUNSET INTERCEPTOR PHASE III BH- 6 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC RENTON, WASHINGTON PAGE: 1 of 1 PROJECT NO.: 2004-052 FIGURE: A-7 BORING 2004052.GPJ 9/14/04 DRILLING COMPANY: Holocene Drilling SURFACE ELEVATION: 397.00 t feet DATE STARTED: 5/27/2004 DRILLING METHOD: Mobile B-51, HSA DATE COMPLETED: 5/27/2004 SAMPLING METHOD: SPT with Autohammer LOGGED BY: B. Thurber LOCATION: See Figure 3. DESCRIPTION 1 5- 1 10- Boring terminated at an approximate depth of 10.5 feet below the existing ground surface. No ground water seepage was observed while conducting this exploration boring. 1 15- 1 20 - X w O Standard Penetration Test a t (n Q (140 Ib. weight, 30" drop) F- o A Blows per foot ui w a wFn N w _ a 2 i Z o = O a N U) a` O O LLJ 09 0 10 20 30 40 50 S-3 5-13-8 S-4 6-9-12 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. r-0 -5 -10 1 -15 L 20 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content (%) Plastic Limit 1 0 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content BORING: ULTA SUNSET INTERCEPTOR PHASE III BH- 6a HWAGEOSCIENCES INC RENTON, WASHINGTON PAGE: 1 of 1 PROJECT NO.: 2004-052 FIGURE: A-8 BORING 2004052.GPJ 9/14/04 i r i 1 1 1 t i 1 i� 1 BORING: SUNSET INTERCEPTOR PHASE III BH— 7 ' MAGEOSCIENCES INC RENTON, WASHINGTON PAGE: 1 of 1 PROJECT NO.: 2004-052 FIGURE• A-9 �� BORING 2004052.GPJ 9114/04 DRILLING COMPANY: Holocene Drilling SURFACE ELEVATION: 403.00 t feet DATE STARTED: 5/28/2004 DRILLING METHOD: Mobile B-51, HSA DATE COMPLETED: 5/28/2004 SAMPLING METHOD: SPT with Autohammer LOGGED BY: B. Thurber LOCATION: See Figure 5. Lu U w U ' Standard Penetration Test Lu CO v rL 2 F L w v (140 lb. weight, 30" drop) p z rn C F w~ A Blows per foot r m cn d aof w O w x W Z o 2 W S d y o Uj U DESCRIPTION ai CO a Z O a 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 0 14 inches of A.C.P. 0 1 SM Very dense, brown and dark brown, silty, fine gravelly, fine to medium SAND, moist. S-1 17-25-31 (FILL) GM Loose, strong brown, silty, fine to coarse sandy, fine to ° coarse GRAVEL, moist. 5 (WEATHERED DRIFT) i S-2 2-2-3 �.... ....:.... .... ....:........:.... 5 0 GW Loose, brown, fine to medium sandy, fine to coarse GRAVEL with a trace of silt, moist. S-3 2-1-3 (RECESSIONAL OUTWASH) . ' • 10 •' �.... ...... ....... 10 Grades to medium dense, wet. S-4 3-5-9 .s 15 •, Sample appears washed, e.g. sand heave. S-5 4-6-14 15 • • 20 20 0 20 40 60 -80 100 Water Content (%) Plastic Limit 1 --0 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content NOTE: This I log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. BORING: SUNSET INTERCEPTOR PHASE III BH— 8 HWAGEOSCIENCES I RENTON, WASHINGTON PAGE: 1 of 2 NC PROJECT NO.: 2004-0552 FIGURE' A-10 PZO 2004052.GPJ 9114104 DRILLING COMPANY: Holocene Drilling SURFACE ELEVATION: 403.00 t feet DATE STARTED: 5/28/2004 DRILLING METHOD: Mobile B-51, HSA DATE COMPLETED: 5/28/2004 SAMPLING METHOD: SPT with Autohammer LOGGED BY: B. Thurber LOCATION: See Figure 5. U O a � M U Cn 0 Cn Z) 20 . ' 1 25- 1 30- 1 35 - 1 40 - GP GM DESCRIPTION Sampler overfilled; top 10 inches appears heaved. e: W U W 4. D HL ti u~i cc WU z U rA ._ W F 1­_ F W a sX O Z o W M w N 2:W w U) a- O , iK Co 0 S-6 4-5-8 SM Harder drill action at 24 feet. Very dense, olive -brown, silty, gravelly, fine to medium SAND, moist to wet. Minor rust -mottling. Two lenses of S-7 22-27-24 clean, fine to medium SAND at 26 feet, approx. 1/2 inch thick. (VASHON TILL) Very dense, light olive -brown, slightly silty, fine sandy, fine Boring terminated at an approximate depth of 26.5 feet below the existing ground surface. Heavy ground water seepage observed at 11 feet during drilling (water on rods to 11 foot depth during sampling at intervals from 10 to 25 feet). 2-inch diameter piezometer installed to 22 feet. NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated l\ and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. Standard Penetration Test (140 lb. weight, 30" drop) ♦ Blows per foot 20 30 40 0 20 40 60 80 Water Content (%) Plastic Limit i • Liquid Limit Natural Water Content 2 W 50 0 I r- 20 25 30 1 35 1 -j L-- 40 100 BORING: SUNSET INTERCEPTOR PHASE III BH- 8 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC RENTON, WASHINGTON PAGE: 2 of 2 PROJECT NO.: 2004-052 FIGURE: A-1 O PZO 2004052.GPJ 9/14/04 13 inches of A.C.P. 1 SP Medium dense, rust -mottled olive brown, slightly silty, fine SM gravelly, fine SAND, moist. (TRENCH BACKFILL) Grades to very loose; yellow -brown and olive brown. BORING: SUNSET INTERCEPTOR PHASE III BFi- 9 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC RENTON, WASHINGTON PAGE: 1 of 1 PROJECT NO.: 2004-052 FIGURE A-1 1 BORING 2D04052.GPJ 9/14/04 10 inches A.C.P. 7 inches concrete. SM Very dense, olive -brown, slightly fine gravelly, silty, fine SAND, moist. Minor rust -mottling. (VASHON TILL) ---------------------- Very dense, olive -brown, silty, fine sandy, fine to coarse GM °3, 0 0 GRAVEL, moist. 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Very dense, olive -brown, silty, fine gravelly, fine to medium . .. SM SAND, moist. With a few clean sand lenses, < 1/2-inch thick. Very dense, olive -brown, slightly silty, fine to coarse SP SM gravelly, fine SAND, moist. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) BORING: SUNSET INTERCEPTOR PHASE III BH-10 HWAGEOSCIENCESINC RENTON, WASHINGTON PAGE: 1 of 2 PROJECT NO.: 2004-0552 FIGURE: A-1 2 BORING 2004052.GPJ 9/14/04 - BORING: 901 SUNSET INTERCEPTOR PHASE III BH-10 - F WAGEOSCIENCES INC RENTON, WASHINGTON PAGE: 2 of 2 PROJECT NO.: 2004-052 FIGURE• A-12 BORING 2004052.GPJ 9/14/04 DRILLING COMPANY: Holocene Drilling SURFACE ELEVATION: 427.00 t feet DATE STARTED: 6/1/2004 DRILLING METHOD: Mobile B-51, HSA DATE COMPLETED: 6/1/2004 SAMPLING METHOD: SPT with Autohammer LOGGED BY: B. Thurber LOCATION: See Figure 10. of CO W Ox z Standard Penetration Test a. 2 H t � I­_(140 lb. weight, 30" drop) w w e o ♦ Blows per foot a a w N ofZ = I_ Z>� Q Q Z 3 w 2 I- O cl: W iu . o W Z) DESCRIPTION rn rn a O O 0 10 20 30 40 50 w 0 0 3 inches of A.C.P., over 4 inches concrete, over 2 inches of crushed rock. SM Dense, strong brown grading to olive -brown, silty, fine to :� ; • • .. • • • ... .... ... . coarse gravelly, fine SAND, moist. S-1 13-16-18 (WEATHERED TILL grading to VASHON TILL) d7. - ) 10- S4 17-21-31 1 15 - S-5a' 12-16-32 lsm:M�PLT Dense, olive -brown, non -plastic SILT with laminations of S-5b cl1ey SILT,moist. Stratified_ — _ — — _ — _ _ — — 20 — NOTE: 'This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. ................................................. �...:.... .... .... .... .... .... .....>> 10 �..:.... .... .... ......... .... .... ..� 15 L1 20 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content (%) Plastic Limit f 41 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content BORING: ULM SUNSET INTERCEPTOR PHASE III BH-11 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC RENTON, WASHINGTON PAGE: 1 of 2 PROJECT NO.: 2004-052 FIGURE: A-13 BORING 2004052.GPJ 9/14/04 BORING: SUNSET INTERCEPTOR PHASE III BH-11 ' HWAGEOSCIENCES INC RENTON, WASHINGTON PAGE: z or 2 PROJECT NO.: 2004-052 FIGURE: A'13 BORING 2004052.GPJ 9/14104 DRILLING COMPANY: Holocene Drilling SURFACE ELEVATION: 449.00 t feet DATE STARTED: 6/1/2004 DRILLING METHOD: Mobile B-51, HSA DATE COMPLETED: 6/1/2004 SAMPLING METHOD: SPT with Autohammer LOGGED BY: B. Thurber LOCATION: See Figure 11. U) W U O 2 O co r m rn m o� U) � 0 --1 ommir- 5- 1 10- 1 15- 1 20 - & Lu w V 0-1 Standard Penetration Test Hs co Q (1401b. weight, 30' drop) c WoA Blows per foot w w a a IlJ `N Of z _ a a zo w— i I-_ O a cr w DESCRIPTION N U) o- a O O 0 10 20 30 40 50 O Approx. 12 inches of A.C.P. Medium dense, yellow -brown, silty, gravelly, fine to medium S-1 9-7-12 SAND, moist. Sand mostly fine. (WEATHERED TILL) SM Dense, olive -brown, silty, fine to coarse gravelly, fine to medium SAND, moist. Sand mostly fine. Diamicton; but crumbles easily with finger pressure. (VASHON TILL) Boring terminated at an approximate depth of 10 feet below the existing ground surface. No ground water seepage was observed while conducting this exploration boring. S-2 15-26-16 S-3 16-18-20 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated l\ and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. • A r-0 -5 -10 1 -15 1 L 20 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content (%) Plastic Limit 1 — 0 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content BORING: ULM SUNSET INTERCEPTOR PHASE III BH-12 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC RENTON, WASHINGTON PAGE: , of , PROJECT NO.: 2004-052 FIGURE: A-14 BORING 2004052.GPJ 9/14/04 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were conducted on selected soil samples to characterize relevant engineering and index properties of the site soils. Laboratory testing, as described below,. consisted of determining moisture content, grains size distribution and Laboratory Compaction Characteristics (Proctor) testing. All laboratory testing was completed in general accordance with ASTM (American Society of Testing Materials) specifications. Moisture Content Testing The moisture content for select samples collected from the explorations was determined in general accordance withASTMD 2216. The results are shown at the sampled interval on the appropriate logs in Appendix A. Grain Size Distribution Grain size distribution was determined for selected samples in general accordance with ASTM D-422. Results of these analyses are plotted on Figures B-1 through B-3. Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil (Proctor Test) Selected samples were tested using method ASTM D 1557 (Modified Proctor) Method C. The test was performed on the portion of the sample passing 1/4", as required by the test procedure. The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content result have been corrected for the amount of over -sized material using method ASTM 4718. The test results are summarized on the attached Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil plot on Figure B-4. 2004-052-21Report B-1 HWA GEOSCIENCES, INC.. U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 3/4" 3" 1-1/2" 5/8" 3/8-1#4 410 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 100 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 90 I I I I I I I I I I 80 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 70 W I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 60 M I I I I I I I I W 50 I I I I I I I I z I I I I I I I I I LL I I I I I I I I I F— 40 Z W I I I I I I I I I U 30 I I I I I I I 1 I W I I I I I I I I I CL I I I I I I I I I I 20 I 1 1 I I I I I I I 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t 0 50 10 5 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name % MC LL PL PI Gravel 0 Sand 0 Fines 0 A BH- 1 B-1 8.0 - 11.0 (SM) Olive Brown, silty SAND with gravel 18 18.5 51.4 30.1 ■ BH- 2 B-2 10.5 - 13.0 (SM) Olive gray, silty SAND with gravel 15 20.8 47.9 31.3 ♦ BH- 3 B-3 10.0 - 12.0 (SM) Olive gray, silty SAND with gravel 10 26.5 46.3 27.2 PARTICLE -SIZE ANALYSIS 90 SUNSET INTERCEPTOR PHASE III OF SOILS HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. RENTON, WASHINGTON METHOD ASTM D422 PROJECTNO.: 2004-052 FIGURE: B-1 IIWAGRSZ 2004052.GPJ 8(17/04 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 3/4" 3" 1-1/2" 5/8" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 100 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 90 I I I I I I I I I 80 1 I I I I I I I I = I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 70 W I I I I I I I I I 60 m I I I I I I I I I W 5o Z I I I I I I I I I � I I I I I 1 I I I F— 40 Z W I I I I I I I I I I C) 30 I I I I I I I I 1 I W I I I I I I I I I I IL 1 I I I I I I 1 I 20 I I I I I I I I I 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 0 50 10 5 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name % MC LL PL PI Gravel Sand Fines • BH- 4 B-4 8.0 - 11.5 (SM) Brown, silty SAND with gravel 10 24.9 43.2 32.0 ■ BH- 7 B-1 4.0 - 8.0 (SM) Dark olive gray, silty SAND with gravel 11 18.8 49.2 32.0 ♦ BH- 8 S-5 15.0 - 16.5 (GW) Grayish brown, sandy, fine to coarse GRAVEL 16 59.9 37.7 2.4 PARTICLE -SIZE ANALYSIS . =1 SUNSET INTERCEPTOR PHASE III OF SOILS RENTON, WASHINGTON METHOD ASTM D422 PROJECT NO.: 2004-052 FIGURE: B-2 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. uWnr_pc7 onnnngo r_o i 0117rnn U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 3/4" 3" 1-1/2" 5/8" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 100 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 90 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 80 = I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 70 W I I I I I I I I I }� 60 I I I I I I I I I W 50. Z I I I I I I I I I f— 40 I I I I I I I I I I Z I I I I I 1 I I I W I I I I I I I I I I 30 1 W I I I I I I I I I I W I I I I 1 I I I I I 20 H I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 0 50 10 5 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS GRAVEL GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH ft CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name % MC LL PL pl Gravel Sand Fines () P o 0 0 • BH-11 S-3 7.5 - 9.0 (SM) Gray, silty SAND with gravel 10 45.2 36.9 PARTICLE -SIZE ANALYSIS goo SUNSET INTERCEPTOR PHASE III OF SOILS RENTON, WASHINGTON METHOD ASTM D422 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. PROJECT NO.: 2004-052 FIGURE: B-3 PARTICLE -SIZE ANALYSIS goo SUNSET INTERCEPTOR PHASE III OF SOILS RENTON, WASHINGTON METHOD ASTM D422 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. PROJECT NO.: 2004-052 FIGURE: B-3 LABORATORY COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SOIL I", CLIENT: Rothhfill Engineering Partners, L.LC. HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. PROJECT: Sunset Interceptor Phase Ill SAMPLE ID: C-1 PROJECT NO: 2004-052 Sampled By: BWT Tested By: EJB Date Sampled: 512512004 Date Received: 512512004 Date Tested: 61712004 MATERIAL TYPE OR DESCRIPTION: Olive brown, silty SAND with gravel SM MATERIAL -SOURCE, SAMPLE LOCATION AND DEPTH: Existing Sewer Trench Backfill sampled at locations: BH-1, BH-2, BH-3, and BH-4. Designation: F_]ASTM D 698 QX ASTM D 1557 Natural Moisture Content: 0 % Method: 7A F-]B [_X-1C Oversize: 6.3 % retained on: 3/4 in. Preparation: QDry OMoist Ram mer:QAuto Manual Assumed S.G.: 2.65 Test Data Dry Density (pcf) 134.3 138.3 137.2 135.0 Moisture Content (%) 1 5.7 6.6 7.3 8.0 Data Summary* Percent Oversize 6.3% Max. Dry Density (pcf)* 139.7 Optimum Moisture (%)* 6.2 Test Values At Other Oversize Percentages 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25,0% 1 30..0% 138.3 139.4 140.6 141.8 143.0 144.2 145.5 6.6 6.3 6.0 A8 5.5 5.2 1 4.9 vawes correctea for oversize matenal per AS t M D4718, using assumed Specific Gravity shown o rsi e o sture tAtent of 1 % Reviewed By: FIGURE B-4 This report applies only to the items tested, and may be reproduced in full, with written approval of HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. APPENDIX C COMPILATION OF 1 ' PRE-ExisTiNG BORINGS Logs compiled from: Geotechnical Engineering Services -Duvall Avenue Northeast Improvements, Renton, Washington, March 22, 2004, prepared by GeoEngineers, Inc., provided courtesy of Berger/ABAM and the City of Renton. c Date(s) Drilled O 1 /22/04 Logged By MAM Checked MAM By Drilling Contractor Holt Drilling Drilling Method Hollow stem Auger Sampling SPT Methods Auger Data 4-inch ID Hammer Data 140 (lb)Drilling hammer/ 30in { � drop B-59 Truck Equipment Total Depth (ft) 21 5 Surface Elevation (ft) 423 Groundwater Level (ft. bgs) 2 Datum/ System SAMPLES D o c ° > MATERIAL DESCRIPTION OTHER TESTS > _ a) °0 .�AND NOTES 0N L O _w M (9 O0�C0 m CDC C7tn �U 0� o AC 5 inches a halt o� GP -GM Brown fine to coarse gravel with sand and trace silt o i (medium dense, moist to wet) (recessional outwash) 420 1 4 22 i° of I 13 %F=8 5-1 SM Gray/brown silty sand with gravel (dense, moist) 2 12 46 (glacial till) 415 3 8 62 Orange mottling 10 4 8 40 NIL Gray silt with lenses of silty sand (hard, moist) (giaciolacustrine deposits) 410 4.15 Y i3 5 18 30 NO t 405 M Gray silty fine sand (mediiirn dense, moist) 20:� 6 18 25 Note: See Figure A -I for explanation of symbols n ll LOG OF BORING B-11 7 Project: Duvall Avenue NE Improvements GEO E N G I N E E R5 Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure: A-12 Project Number: 0693-058-00 sneer 1 or 1 Date(s) 01 /26/04 Logged MAM Checked By MAM Drilled By Drilling Geologic Drill Drilling Hollow -stem Auger Sampling SPT Contractor Method Methods Auger 225-inch ID Hammer 140 (lb) hammer/ 30 (in) drop Drilling Acker Limited Access Data Data Equipment Total 8.5 Surface 426 Groundwater 3.5 Depth (ft) Elevation (ft) Level (ft. bgs) Datum/ System SAMPLES C v o c o > > MATERIAL DESCRIPTION OTHER TESTS L _ AND NOTES co > _ N O 6 U Z > O J Ul U a _ O �� C c C L _a) W w w 7 N O (D @ OI �_ O T (0 O 3:6 _m ` N Z x m 3 CAW O?>> 0 TS 8 inches mass/to soil 425 SM Dark brown silty sand with gravel and root matter Sloose mois�lLfiIII ————— — — — — —_ SM Gray brown with orange mottling silty sand with. ravel 1 4 .5 = loose moist 24 % F = 25 Gray brown silty sand with gravel (dense to very dense, Stvi 5 moist to wet) (glacial till). 420 2 10 33 3 1 10 50/4" - a LOG OF BORING B-12 Project: Duvall Avenue NE Improvements GM E N G I N E E R S Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure: A-13 Project Number: 0693-058-00 Sheet t of I -Date 5) V 01 20. 04' Logged MAM Checked MAM J �t�4w - Drilled.- - By By Dr _Cg Holt A Dulling.: � ol16w �ten Abqe Sampling SpT 'Contractor .Methc Methods -Auger, 4�in'ch ID Hammer P, 140 (Jb�'�bmn hammer/ 30 in dro Drilling B-59 Truck r�i. Data. Equipment 21.5 427N Groundwater, None observed Depth (ft) Elevation (ft) Level (ft. bgs) . .... . . A * S MPLES -b A) 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION OTHER TESTS Cp 8 2 AND NOTES > U -0 E , 0 — 0 0 0__0 C 22 :D cn FU 0— — .=) 1)) 0 S F= (� C'n C 0 �,Z J11-, WD Bark mulch Gray brown with orange mottling silty sand with gravel SM —425 (dense, rnoist)'(weathered glacial till) 1 12 32 —_ —sil—ty —sand.—wit—h 8 SM &—ay—br—ow—n gavel dens_ e,m­oi_st)_ 5— (glacialfiLl) 2 14 76 —420 10 3 11 50/5" —415 W 15— 4 12 50/6" �B, TA_ Q —410 NEW,, a As. Note: See Figure A-1 for explanafion of symbols - LOG :O.F.BORING B., GEO' EN' G I NEER Project- _u v a venu(�..Improvements.. NE ":D 11. k ject ocation.-, e" iniq_on`. L Pro R ntori,, Washington Figbre A-14 8-0` Frojec't Nurh 069M5 'Sheet- 1 oi j ;(s) ed 01/22/04r` '.Logged' By: MANE' Checked' By, MAM in g Tractor Noft:'Drillrrig: Drilling ` Method" Hollow stein` -Auger. Sampling. Methods SPT. er 4 incH & +.Hammer 140 (Ib)-.bamrner/`30 (in) drop Drilling; B-59:2Truck 3 Data' Equipment: 31' . 20.5 Surface 426 Groundwat er None observed 'tn'(fj Elevation (ft) Level.(ft'. bgs) err;/ tern SAMPLES C- MATERIAL DESCRIPTION _� : OTHER TESTS °' AND NOTES Q) N.Q1 .p.. ��. cL CL 0 0 . Z CU 'tr m ... ,�. CO � to 3 U 03: AC 4 inches asphalt - 425 sm Dark brown silty fine to coarse sand with gravel (loose, . SM moist fill - ' Gray/brown with orange mottling silty sand with gravel 1 8 24 (medium dense, moist) (weathered glacial till) SM Gray silty sand with gravel (very dense, moist) (glacial 5 2 8 ' 50/6" till) 8 SA 420 10. 3 12 50/6" 415 15 4 6 50/6" ,� ' A �-T JIL 20 5 6 1 50/2" Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols LOG OF BORING B-14 Project: Duvall Avenue NE Improvements G EO ENGINEERS 5 Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure: A=15.. Project Number. 069M58-00 Sheet 1 of Dale(s) -...._... Drilled - _._ :.. 01/22/04 Logged By MAM Checked ; MAM BY DrillingDrilling Contiador Holt Drilling :.. g Method Hollow stem Auger g Sampling SPT -: _.. _ ..Methods auger Data 4 inch.ID - Hammer Data 140 Ib hammer/ 30 r dro ( P Drilling B-59 Truck .. Equipment Total Depth.(ft) 14 Surface Elevation (ft) 422' Groundwater Level (ft. bgs) 4 Datum/ _ .. System SAMPLES. C =' . c MATERIAL DESCRIPTION OTHER TESTS aim ° n�°' � �L AND NOTES a 111 02 N m cn .0; z .Q7 z :T O m : m .:c� J. . c3 � 0 O N .o 0 3 ' AC ` 4. inches a halt GM Brown fine to coarse gravel with sand and silt (medium 420 , dense to dense, moist to .wet) (recessional outwash) _ ol—G( 1 4 21 _ 10 %F = 13 5 2 4 34 (P - 415 o Gray silty sand with gravel (very dense, moist) (glacial SM — 3 7 50/51, till) - r . 1031 4 4 50/5" _... �i Note: See Figure A -I for explanation of symbols GEOENGINEERS Figure: A-16 Sheet 1 of 1 :Date(s) 02/03/ . 04 Logged MAM Checked By MAM Drilled By Drilling Holt Drilling Drilling :Hollo.w�stern Auger Method Sampling Methods SPT Contractor 0 Auger 4-inch ID * . . b.) h6mrner/ 30 (in) drop Hammer 14oJIE Drilling Equipment B-59 Truck Data Data Surface Groundwater None observed Total 18 .4:18 Elevation (ft) Level (ft. bgs) Depth (ft) Datum/ System ------------------------------- I SAMPLES In OTHERJESTS -6 > MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND NOTES .0 Z6 > a) - '2 a) > -C- CL 7t_- Q) a) a) a) > .0 0 0- E u 0 cu 0) CD :3 E 2 0 3: 7 z 0� Fn �q _0J 0 U) AC l­-1 4 inches asphalt L_ GP base co e 4 inches base e inches Brown silty sand with gravel (loose to medium dense, 0 silty _tl gravel ('.o S(01 —415 1 10 11 SM SM OiSt) I moist)-ffill) - — — — — — — — J 12 �d h gravel e I 1�ed brown silty sand with gavel (loose, moist to wet) Red �70_ silty t 5— SM Gray brown silty sand with gravel (very dense, moist) 17 2 10 50/4" (glacial till) 410 3 10 50/4" 10— . . . . . . . . . . . —405 4 6 50(2" Becomes gray 'VW� 15 FA % —400 4 50/4" rr Z LL O O OI O O Note: See Figure A- I for explanation of symbols :z LOG OF BORING .B1 6 Project: -Duvall Avenue. NE Improvements Project Location-. Renton, Washington Figure: A-17 Project Number: 0693-058-00. Sheet 1 of 1 Appendix C Existing System Hydraulic Model Results IExisting System Evaluation The "existing system" evaluated herein consists of the piping network described in the City's database and includes updated piping through the end of the year 2003 with corrections based upon communication with City staff and topographic surrey for the preliminary engineering study. The only significant modification to the existing physical system for this version of the model was that the pumping capacity was upgraded for all three lift stations to match the peak inflows in order to avoid the stations surcharging in the model. Although future plans by the City include abandoning Summer Wind Lift Station and rerouting the flow by gravity to Stone Gate Lift Station, the peak flows that would be tributary to Duvall Ave NE are still represented using this methodology. The 2030 design flow storm event along with sewage flows from the ultimate built -out population (2030 ' population + 25 percent) was routed through this system with the MOUSE model. The following exhibits summarize the results. The plan view (labeled "Q / Q-manning — Maximum Sunset 2030.prP') shows the piping ' network color -coded based upon the ratios of calculated peak flow over Manning's pipe capacity, as further described in the legend. The hydraulic profile of NE Sunset Boulevard shows the maximum hydraulic gradeline (red) for 20-year flows reached during the modeled period well above the pipe cross section for a significant portion of the alignment. The hydraulic profile of Duvall Ave NE shows the entirety of the system significantly surcharged. [feet] Q / Q-manning - Maximum Sunset 2030.PRF 191500.0 191000.0 LoNv l_S 9 190500.0 sZpwE CARTE -o cfX 190000.0 0� ._,,� �,.,,,,, a.,, S u"K E2 L-. S 189500.0 189000.0 07 188500.0 a 188000.0 �.+'� -� o a 187500.0 187000.0 0 p SJ 186500.0 - t 186000.0 0 185500.0 185000.0 184500.0 -rT- f I i- I I F -F--T �. T__,r-T_1-T- I I r r-T-T- T T--T-T--T--T7-T-.I i. TrTrT1TrrZ`T T-T- --l- I -iTT-rTT i 1 -TTTI-f- 1306000.0 1307000.0 1308000.0 1309000.0 1310000.0 1311000.0 1312000.0 1313000.0 1314000.0 1315000.0 1316000.0 1317000.0 [feet] WATER LEVEL BRANCHES - 7-1-1990 00:00:00 Sunset 2030.PRF Discharge I 110.00010.000 0.0001 10.0001 10.0001 110.000 10.000 0.000110.0001 10.00010.0001 0.000 0.000 0.000 cfs o '� o a rx ,' � � `�o� 1 1 1P x '0 o V N N �No �N ��o boo �00 �boo �o°, , �o� �o� �N �'`� �`L� �`L� �0 4 '�o �O �O �O �O �O mac` �O ,�O �O �O [feet] �O �O 4O 455.0 450.0 I 445.0 - W 440.0 W Q 435.0 p 430.0 l� 425.0 420.0 2 d Z 415.0 410.0 v�i 1 405.0 m 400.0 Y 395.0 390.0 385.0 380.0 - NE SvrJSEi Z�.,1 D 0.0 500.0 1000.0 1500.0 Ground Lev. 0 M M r- CD � c6 r-- c o 0 0 M M M co M M M � V Invert lev. N 0-) 1-� O O O r- 00 co C6 cNo cMo coo � 00 0000 a) am M co M M c) co M M M M Length 182.27 303.06 201.47 Diameter 1,25 1.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 Slope o/oo 14.74 4.27 5.32 6.83 9.68 351.54 0.67 13.17 O M M O Q 0o r; rn M 2000.0 323.86 0.67 10.04 2500.0 1:0 M N 00 00 c0 uO r-� 6 ai V V r-- 00 L LO o O 0 0 V - 290.17 0.67'' 0.67 3.29I 3.34 3000.0 00 C0 ai o 0 O co O 00 0 0 0 219.62 0.67 0.67 0.67 3.87 1.46 3.15 3500.0 4000.0 4500.0 M CO O O a) 00 O N L6 L6 6 r N M IT " 00 O O � 0 M co O 0 O O O N M 265.42 279.12 220.99 252.00 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 40.80 39.80 40.91 4.33 [feet] [m] [m] [m] [m] WATER LEVEL BRANCHES - 7-1-1990 00:00:00 Sunset 2030.PRF Discharge 0.000 0.000 0.000 77FOE-0-00-1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 cfs p1 Opp ppp �p pp0 ppp pp0 [feet] pp`1' p„ pp`L p„�p pp'\ ppp Opp/ ppp 426.0 424.0 422.0 A 420.0 v7 418.0 O co 416.0 _. 2 F 414.0 412.0 Z 410.0 408.0 406.0 404.0 402.0 400.0 0.0 200.0 400.0 600.0 800.0 1000.0 Ground Lev. mc� i v CD v � o o o o Invert lev. "' co Q O rll� 1- r- N "' O N 0D ov � v � Length 97.20 151.32 230.99 115.64 244.59 150.08 170.46 Diameter 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 Slope o/oo 36.21 3.50 3.94 4.15 3.35 3.46 3.64 T�TrTTTT 7-TT�T--- F-T-T TTT I._T-'. _T-7-T7 T-TT?--TT� TrT 1. T -I...T ; T7r_- 1200.0 1400.0 1600.0 1800.0 2000.0 2200.0 2400.0 1:0 [feet] c0 ►� o 7 co N r N U� N N "i 04 It � LO w to Ui � [m] qt LO cfl � O c? O rn CR � ao of o [m] v v v 't v v 164.56 166.44 181.35 191.40 292.60 1109.36 157.63 ' [m] 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 [m] 4.38 4.75 3.80 3.50 3.18 4.02 3.55 Appendix D Proposed System Hydraulic Model Results Proposed System Evaluation The "proposed system" evaluated herein consists of the proposed piping network described on the plans in Appendix A. It also includes improvements not shown on those plans, including likely future upsizing of the Anacortes Ave NE and Field Ave NE systems to eliminate surcharging and "storage" effects on those tributary sewers. It is important to note that Anacortes Ave NE and Field Ave NE therefore do not show up as problem areas in these model results, although they would experience significant surcharging under this flow scheme without being upsized. The 20-year design flow storm event, along with sewage flows from the ultimate built -out population (2030 population + 25 percent), was routed through this system with the MOUSE model. The following exhibits summarize the results. The plan view (labeled "Q / 0-manning — Maximum Sunset Prop Improve.p F' shows the piping network color coded based upon the ratios of calculated peak flow over Manning's pipe capacity, as further described in the legend. Note that several portions of the piping system approach 80% capacity, and a few exceed it slightly. Checking the corresponding pipe segments on the profiles demonstrates that none of the proposed piping improvements are over capacity in this extreme flow event. The hydraulic profile of NE Sunset Boulevard shows the hydraulic gradeline (red) completely within the pipe. The hydraulic profile of Duvall Ave NE shows that for the portions of the piping where the capacity was slightly exceeded (see plan view), the maximum hydraulic gradeline is still completely contained within the piping. [feet] Q / Q-manning - M 191500.0 191000.0 190500.0 190000.0 O 189500.0 189000.0 188500.0 c 188000.0 187500.0 {, U o Q 187000.0 �? 186500.0 0- i 186000.0 185500.0 185000.0 184500.0 _rTr--rTr Tr1-T r-rr-r7�rTTT-t��r -r- �T7--T--r-r-r 1306000.0 1307000.0 1308000.0 1309000.0 1310000.0 1311000.0 aximum Sunset Prop Improve.PRF OU u �o r• Q °b d N E GATE LS -r �-T-T--T -r I I I T TT-T-r-,--r--F-r-7- 7 _ 1312000.0 1313000.0 1314000.0 1315000.0 1316000.0 1317000.0 [feet] cn o p 6 0 3CD CD r CD ca E G) <CD o a < r o CD 378.26 391.30 378.94 391.36 382.79 394.39 383.41 394.17 A � o 384.03 396.10 c co w N N O N V 385.00 397.57 385.95 398.23 0) o � 1 w w CO TOT V/ 388.10 400.47 C0 O rn co o 1" V 390.77 400.92 391.85 400.74 1 W � N O � O O O 397.18 403.30 N C') V O � GO O O 399.64 407.20 400.03 407.80 - 400.38 406.50 j 0 401.84 409.60 N) O N O co Cfl ) O O O O 402.52 409.70 W O N co Cfl V CO W N 403.90 410.11 w o 00 co 404.38 410.76 w o CA 00 404.88 410.76 405.66 411.35 - 406.05 412.61 406.54 414.01 406.88 417.04 o o NJ rn O CDN m A 417.73 425.97 W O O N w CDV W -' N 428.92 435.54 -P.- C) O N O O V O CO c0 N 437.98 445.88 w w w w A � 4�:- _;�, A A ? A A A A A o0 00 Cfl co O O N IV W W A A cn Cn o Cn O cn o cn o cn o cn o p O p o Cn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C o� o s"�O ur, Auc 8 s,9 0 o v'j O� CDC) s000 0 0 7 °7 O O C) O 0 O 0 N O O O M N cn O O O w O 0 0 w 0 0 O .A O O O O -A. O Cn � cn W W fV O W V O O O S� 00"'p S o C CD oo D O -� sue, m 00 �u S, 09� frfl CD m O6 O � O ZI D s° Z O (� 0000 0o m O (n s � u, -1 ss °ss ' 9 ' s� N° c�0 o o �O p � O O s, C) O o (n O O fn S � T 0 o s�° 00 sv' 9 .0 � TI Ste, �'O O0 O 07 'r',O O 0 O C� 0 >> O O O 0 Ste, O �6, O O O sue, O o O O O Ste, c�9 O WATER LEVEL BRANCHES - 7-1-1990 00:00:00 Sunset Prop Improve.PRF Discharge 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 I 0.000 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000 I 0.000 j 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 cfs OAP „ �O 3� ,��, ,gyp feet ,�O ,�� 00 00 00 „�O 00 „�O 00 00 ,�O 00 00 00 „�O ,�O [ ] � h-h � � h � � � h h � h � h 00 � � 426.0 424.0 422.0 420.0 418.0 416.0 414.0 412.0 410.0 408.0 406.0 404.0 1 402.0 400.0 4 TT-T- i T-1 TT-fT-F-T-T-i--T T rT�r T-i-7 T--7-7-----i T-lTT--J- T-T-r TTrT-T-T -T r T-T T- i_.T.T- I -r TI T -r-T r-rT-7-1T--r -T -T 1-1 1 i- 1 i T r� r-1--1-1--T-T ice r -T T rT r---r-T.. -T F7 T r , T T- ' r r 1 , 1 - I T 1 - I ,- •-• , r -i . 0.0 200.0 400.0 600.0 800.0 1000.0 1200.0 1400.0 1600.0 1800.0 2000.0 2200.0 2400.0 1:0 [feet] Ground Lev. O 0 O 0 0 7 cfl O co C4 O T7 cM N N c`') Un O O N N � N t` 0 o - r r- co o N N M N v N Uri N co N co N co N LO N LO N [m] Invert lev. ce) 0 0 O ^ N c� O N O LO O � M O 7 cq � o 0 cri 0 v 0 Sri 0 co 0 0 r` 0 0 0 6i 0 0 N N M [m] It v v It q v �r v v v v v v Length 122.00 151.32 230.99 115.64 244.59 150.08 170.46 164.56 166.44 181.35 191.40 100.29 230.12 109.36 157.63 [m] Diameter 1.20 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 [m] Slope o/oo 30.57 ! 2.58 3.94 4.15 3.35 3.46 3.64 4.38 4.75 3.80 3.50 2.19 3.09 4.02 3.55 Appendix E Unit Cost Comparison Unit Cost for Trench & Excavation Method on Sunset City of Renton Sunset Interceptor Project 9/8/2004 MKA Item # Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost 1 Mobilization 1 LS $11,500 $11,500 2 TESC Facilities 1 LS $1,000 $1,000 3 Trench Shoring 435 LF $2.00 $870 4 Dewatering Installation & Operation 1 LS $12,000 $12,000 5 Traffic Control 1 LS $10,000 $10,000 6 15" PVC Sewer Pipe 105 LF $100 $10,500 7 18' PVC Sewer Pipe 330 LF $130 $42,900 8 48" Diameter Manhole (including extra depth) 2 EA $2,500 $5,000 9 60" Diameter Manhole (including extra depth) 1 EA $4,000 $4,000 10 Shrinkable Manhole Liner 3 EA $1,000 $3,000 11 Sewer Stub Services 3 EA $2,000 $6,000 12 Abandon Existing Manholes 3 EA $1,000 $3,000 13 Connection to Existing System 3 EA $2,000 $6,000 14 Foundation Gravel 110 ton $25.00 $2,750 15 Bank Run Gravel, Class A 1900 ton $15.00 $28,500 16 Crushed Surfacing 1525 ton $18.00 $27,450 17 CDF for pipe abandonment 10 CY $75.00 $750 18 Asphalt Patch 535 ton $60.00 $32,100 19 Asphalt Grinding 1200 SY $3.75 $4,500 20 Asphalt Overlay (2 lanes) 140 ton $70.00 $9,800 21 Pavement Striping 1350 LF $1.00 $1,350 22 Concrete Curb & Gutter 225 LF $25.00 $5,625 23 Concrete Sidewalk Restoration 140 SY $28.00 $3,920 24 Concrete Driveway Restoration 45 SY $48.00 $2,160 25 Surface Restoration 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 Subtotal Contingency Total Cost for 435 feet of pipe Total Cost per lineal foot of pipe $239,675 15% $35,951 $275,626 $634 Assumptions Installation of 435' pipe to take 15 construction days w/3 traffic control flaggers Pipe Cost includes excavation, bedding, laying & joining of pipe, haul & disposal of excess, & sawcutting of existing pavement Trench boxes only will be used for trench shoring Typical trench section is 6' wide by 12' deep Assume 3 side sewers for 435' pipe, 2 short sides (30' length) and 1 long side (90' length) Assume 3 existing manholes to be abandoned by removing lid & filling with crushed surfacing, then asphalt patch Removal of lids for abandoned manholes included in cost of pipe 100% fill material will be required and will consist of Class A bank run gravel with 6" crushed surfacing 100% fill material will be required for side sewers and will be crushed surfacing Assume 12" AC patch depth and 12' width Assume 2-24' lanes to require 2' asphalt overlay Connection to existing system includes temporary sewage bypass pumping/piping F:\0015\00011\Design\Costs\QTO-PAY EST template.xls Unit Cost for Pipe Bursting Method on Sunset City of Renton Sunset Interceptor Project 9/8/2004 MKA Item # Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost 1 Mobilization 1 LS $8,000 $8,000 2 TESC Facilities 1 LS $500 $500 3 Trench Shoring 120 LF $2.00 $240 4 Dewatering Installation & Operation 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 5 Traffic Control 1 LS $7,000 $7,000 6 16" HDPE Sewer Pipe 105 LF $105 $11,025 7 20" HDPE Sewer Pipe 330 LF $155 $51,150 8 48" Diameter Manhole (Including extra depth) 2 EA $2,500 $5,000 9 60" Diameter Manhole (including extra depth) 1 EA $4,000 $4,000 10 Shrinkable Manhole Liner 3 EA $1,000 $3,000 11 Sewer Stub Services 3 EA $1,500 $4,500 12 Foundation Gravel 40 ton $25.00 $1,000 13 Bank Run Gravel, Class A 400 ton $15.00 $6,000 14 Crushed Surfacing 1375 ton $18.00 $24,750 15 CDF for pipe abandonment 0 CY $75.00 $0 16 Asphalt Patch 210 ton $60.00 $12,600 17 Asphalt Grinding 1200 SY $3.75 $4,500 18 Asphalt Overlay (2 lanes) 140 ton $70.00 $9,800 19 Pavement Striping 1350 LF $1.00 $1,350 20 Concrete Curb & Gutter 180 LF $15.00 $2.700 21 Concrete Sidewalk Restoration 75 SY $28.00 $2,100 22 Concrete Driveway Restoration 0 SY $48.00 $0 23 Surface Restoration 1 LS $2,500 $2,500 Subtotal $166,715 Contingency 15 % $25,007 Total Cost for 435 feet of pipe $191,722 Total Cost per lineal foot of pipe $441 Assumptions Installation of 435' pipe to take 15 construction days w/3 traffic control flaggers Pipe Cost includes pit excavation, fusing pipe, bursting & pulling pipe Trench boxes only will be used for trench shoring Typical trench section Is 6' wide by 12' deep Assume 3 side sewers for 435' pipe, 2 short sides (30' length) and 1 long side (90' length) Removal of lids for abandoned manholes Included in cost of pipe 100% fill material will be required and will consist of Class A bank run gravel with 6" crushed surfacing 100% fill material will be required for side sewers and will be crushed surfacing Assume 12" AC patch depth and 12' width Assume 2-24' lanes to require 2" asphalt overlay Connection to existing system Includes temporary sewage bypass pumping/piping F:\0015\00011\Design\Costs\QTO-PAY EST template.xfs Unit Cost for Trench & Excavation Method on Duvall City of Renton Sunset Interceptor Project 9/8/2004 MKA Item # Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost 1 Mobilization 1 LS $8,500 $8,500 2 TESC Facilities 1 LS $1,000 $1,000 3 Trench Shoring 485 LF $2.00 $970 4 Dewatering Installation & Operation 1 LS $12,000 $12,000 5 Traffic Control 1 LS $10,000 $10,000 6 12" PVC Sewer Pipe 485 LF $90 $43,650 7 48' Diameter Manhole (including extra depth) 2 EA $2,500 $5,000 8 60" Diameter Manhole (Including extra depth) 1 EA $4,000 $4,000 9 Shrinkable Manhole Liner 3 EA $1,000 $3,000 10 Sewer Stub Services 3 EA $2,000 $6,000 11 Connection to Existing System 2 EA $2,000 $4,000 12 Foundation Gravel 125 ton $25.00 $3,125 13 Bank Run Gravel, Class A 3050 ton $15.00 $45,750 14 Crushed Surfacing 1450 ton $18.00 $26,100 15 CDF for pipe abandonment 10 CY $75.00 $750 16 Asphalt Patch 60 ton $60.00 $3,600 17 Asphalt Grinding 0 SY $3.75 $0 18 Asphalt Overlay (2 lanes) 0 ton $70.00 $0 19 Pavement Striping 250 LF $1.00 $250 20 Concrete Curb & Gutter 0 LF $15.00 $0 21 Concrete Sidewalk Restoration 0 SY $28.00 $0 22 Concrete Driveway Restoration 0 SY $48.00 $0 23 Surface Restoration 1 LS $1,000 $1,000 Subtotal $178,695 Contingency 15% $26,804 Total Cost for 435 feet of pipe $205,499 Total Cost per lineal foot of pipe $424 Assumptions Installation of 485' pipe to take 15 construction days w/3 traffic control flaggers Pipe Cost includes excavation, bedding, laying & joining of pipe, haul & disposal of unsuitable material, & sawcutting of existing pavement Trench boxes only will be used for trench shoring Typical trench section is 6' wide by 1 V deep Assume 3 side sewers for 485' pipe, 2 short sides (20' length) and 1 long side (60' length) Assume 3 existing manholes to be abandoned by removing lid & filling with crushed surfacing, then asphalt patch 100% fill material will be required and will consist of Class A bank run gravel with 6" crushed surfacing 100% fill material will be required for side sewers and will be crushed surfacing Assume 2" AC patch depth and 8' width Assume no asphalt overlay required Connection to existing system includes temporary sewage bypass pumping/piping F:\0015\00011\Design\Costs\QTO-PAY EST template.xls Unit Cost for Pipe Bursting Method on Duvall City of Renton Sunset Interceptor Project 9/8/2004 MKA Item # Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost 1 Mobilization 1 LS $6,250 $6,250 2 TESC Facilities 1 LS $500 $500 3 Trench Shoring 75 LF $2.00 $150 4 Dewatering Installation & Operation 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 5 Traffic Control 1 LS $7,000 $7,000 6 12"HDPE Sewer Pipe 485 LF $100 $48,500 7 48" Diameter Manhole (including extra depth) 2 EA $2,500 $5,000 8 60" Diameter Manhole (including extra depth) 1 EA $4,000 $4,000 9 Shrinkable Manhole Liner 3 EA $1,000 $3,000 10 Sewer Stub Services 3 EA $2,000 $6,000 12 Foundation Gravel 40 ton $25.00 $1,000 13 Bank Run Gravel, Class A 500 ton $15.00 $7,500 14 Crushed Surfacing 1875 ton $18.00 $33,750 15 CDF for pipe abandonment 0 CY $75.00 $0 16 Asphalt Patch 30 ton $60.00 $1,800 17 Asphalt Grinding 0 SY $3.75 $0 18 Asphalt Overlay (2 lanes) 0 ton $70.00 $0 19 Pavement Striping 250 LF $1.00 $250 20 Concrete Curb & Gutter 0 LF $15.00 $0 21 Concrete Sidewalk Restoration 0 SY $28.00 $0 22 Concrete Driveway Restoration 0 SY $48.00 $0 23 Surface Restoration 1 LS $1,000 $1,000 Subtotal $130,700 Contingency 15% $19,605 Total Cost for 485 feet of pipe $150,305 Total Cost per lineal foot of pipe $310 Assumptions Installation of 485' pipe to take 15 construction days w/3 traffic control flaggers Pipe Cost includes pit excavation, fusing pipe, bursting & pulling of pipe Trench boxes only will be used for trench shoring Typical trench section is 6' wide by 15' deep Assume 3 side sewers for 485' pipe, 2 short sides (20' length) and 1 long side (60' length) 100% fill material will be required and will consist of Class A bank run gravel with 6" crushed surfacing 100% fill material will be required for side sewers and will be crushed surfacing Assume 2" AC patch depth and 8' width Assume no asphalt overlay required Connection to existing system includes temporary sewage bypass pumping/piping F:\0015\00011\Design\Costs\QTO-PAY EST template.xls Appendix F Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost 1 30% Design Costs City of Renton Sunset Interceptor Project 11/2/2004 MICA Item # Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost 1 Mobilization 1 LS $95,000 $95,000 2 TESC Facilities 1 LS $2,500 $2,500 3 Trench Shoring 1590 LF $2.00 $3,180 4 Dewatering Installation 1 LS $75,000 $75,000 5 Dewatering Operation 1 LS $12,500 $12,500 6 Traffic Control Devices 1 LS $25,000 $25,000 7 Traffic Control Labor 1 LS $120,000 $120,000 8 8" PVC Sewer Pipe 435 LF $60 $26,100 9 12" PVC Sewer Pipe 44 LF $100 1$4,400 10 15" PVC Sewer Pipe 592 LF $120 $71,040 11 18" PVC Sewer Pipe 70 LF $130 $9,100 12 13-3/8" HDPE Sewer Pipe 1020 LF $85 $86,700 13 16" HDPE Sewer Pipe 1317 LF $105 $138,285 14 20" HDPE Sewer Pipe 531 LF $155 $82,305 15 48" Diameter Manhole 26 EA $2,500 $65,000 16 60" Diameter Manhole 4 EA $4,000 $16,000 17 Shrinkable Manhole Liner 30 EA $1,000 $30,000 18 Reconnect Existing Side Sewer 7 EA $2,000 $14,000 19 Connection to Existing System 12 EA $2,500 $30,000 20 Foundation Gravel 850 ton $25.00 $21,250 21 Bank Run Gravel 4900 ton $15.00 $73,500 22 Crushed Surfacing 2500 ton $18.00 $45,000 23 CDF for pipe abandonment 135 CY $75.00 $10,125 24 Asphalt Concrete Grinding 8325 SY $3.75 $31,219 25 Asphalt Concrete Patch 1100 ton $60.00 $66,000 26 Asphalt Concrete Overlay (2 lanes) 1300 ton $70.00 $91,000 27 Raised Pavement Markings 9180 LF $1.00 $9,180 28 Painted Pavement Markings 325 SF $2.50 $813 29 Cement Concrete Curb & Gutter 240 LF $25.00 $6,000 30 Cement Concrete Sidewalk Restoration 140 SY $28.00 $3,920 31 Cement Concrete Driveway Restoration 0 SY $48.00 $0 32 Surface Restoration 1 LS $12,000 $12,000 Subtotal $1,276,116 Contingency 15% $191,417 Subtotal $1,467,534 Sales Tax 8.8% $129,143 Total $1,596,677 Mobilization 8% of sum of other bid items Trench boxes only will be used for trench shoring Typical trench section is 5-foot wide 100% fill material will be required and will consist of Class A bank run gravel with 6-inch crushed surfacing 100% fill material will be required for transverse crossings and will be crushed surfacing Assume 12-inch AC patch depth and 12-foot width Assume 2-24-foot lanes to require grind and 2-inch asphalt overlay Connection to existing system includes temporary sewage bypass pumping/piping F:\0015\00011 \Design\Costs\30% Costs_012005_KRG.xIs