Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutU120081 Technical Information Report (TIR) for Renton Municipal Airport Taxiway B System Rehabilitation Phase I and Phase II ;�� Owner: �cd City of Renton 1 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 0 V 1 Y October 2012 [M City of Renton Planninq Division OCT 18 N11 Technical Information Report (TIR) for Renton Municipal Airport Taxiway B System Rehabilitation — North Portion Reconstruction & Airfield Signage Modifications Phase I Owner: City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 October 2012 Technical Information Report (TIR) Renton Municipal Airport Taxiway B System Rehabilitation — North Portion Reconstruction & Airfield Signage Modifications Phase I October 2012 The engineering material and data contained in this report were prepared under the supervision and direction of the undersigned, whose seal as a registered professional engineer is affixed below. T. Q. 1�%V �1 /40/1 71t Z- 45$92 Benjamin Sommer, P.E. Project Engineer 728 134th Street SW, Suite 200 Everett, WA 98204 425-741-3800(Fax 425-741-3900) File No.232010.007 Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase I -i - Technical Information Report(TIR) ' ' 'I i1i Fr. 'I ' ' Contents SECTION 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW.......................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................................................I PROJECTDESCRIPTION..............................................................................................................................................I PROJECTLOCATION...................................................................................................................................................I EXISTINGSITE CONDITIONS......................................................................................................................................1 PROPOSEDCONDITIONS.............................................................................................................................................2 SOILS.........................................................................................................................................................................3 SECTION 2: CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY....................................14 CORE REQUIREMENT 1: DISCHARGE AT THE NATURAL LOCATION.........................................................................14 CORE REQUIREMENT 2: OFF-SITE ANALYSIS..........................................................................................................14 CORE REQUIREMENT 3: FLOW CONTROL................................................................................................................14 CORE REQUIREMENT 4: CONVEYANCE SYSTEM .....................................................................................................14 CORE REQUIREMENT 5: EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL..................................................................................14 CORE REQUIREMENT 6: MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS.....................................................................................14 CORE REQUIREMENT 7: FINANCIAL GUARANTEES AND LIABILITY.........................................................................15 CORE REQUIREMENT 8: WATER QUALITY..............................................................................................................15 SPECIAL REQUIREMENT 1: OTHER ADOPTED AREA-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS.......................................................15 SPECIAL REQUIREMENT 2: FLOOD HAZARD AREA DELINEATION...........................................................................15 SPECIAL REQUIREMENT 3: FLOOD PROTECTION FACILITIES...................................................................................16 SPECIAL REQUIREMENT 4: SOURCE CONTROL........................................................................................................16 SPECIAL REQUIREMENT 5: OIL CONTROL...............................................................................................................16 SPECIAL REQUIREMENT 6: AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA........................................................................................17 SECTION3: OFF-SITE ANALYSIS........................................................................................18 STUDYAREA...........................................................................................................................................................18 RESOURCEREVIEW.................................................................................................................................................18 FIELDINSPECTION...................................................................................................................................................19 DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND PROBLEM DESCRIPTION.............................................................................2.0 SECTION 4: FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN........................................................................................................................................23 PART A-EXISTING SITE HYDROLOGY....................................................................................................................23 PART B-DEVELOPED SITE HYDROLOGY................................................................................................................23 PART C-PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ....................................................................................................................24 PART D-FLOW CONTROL SYSTEM.........................................................................................................................24 PART E-WATER QUALITY SYSTEM .......................................................................................................................24 SECTION 5: CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN..................................29 EXISTING CONVEYANCE SYSTEM............................................................................................................................29 PROPOSED CONVEYANCE SYSTEM..........................................................................................................................29 SECTION 6: SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES..............................................................32 SECTION 7: OTHER PERMITS..............................................................................................33 SECTION 8: CSWPPP ANALYSIS AND DESIGN................................................................34 ESCMEASURES ......................................................................................................................................................34 RECOMMENDED CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE(EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL)................................................35 SWPPSPLAN DESIGN.............................................................................................................................................36 SECTION 9: BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATION OFCOVENANT..........................................................................................................................37 BOND QUANTITIES WORKSHEET.............................................................................................................................37 Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase I - ii - Technical Information Report (TIR) F ' 'I j,tr.R.I ' ' FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY SUMMARY SHEET AND SKETCH.................................................37 DECLARATION OF COVENANT FOR PRIVATELY MAINTAINED FLOW CONTROL AND WQ FACILITIES......................37 DECLARATION OF COVENANT FOR PRIVATELY MAINTAINED FLOW CONTROL BMPs............................................37 SECTION 10: OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL ......................................38 SECTION11: REFERENCES..................................................................................................39 List of Figures FIGURE 1-1. TIR WORKSHEET................................................................................................. 4 FIGURE1-2. VICINITY MAP. .................................................................................................... 9 FIGURE 1-3. DRAINAGE BASIN & SITE CHARACTERISTICS.......................................... 10 FIGURE1-4. TW B SOIL MAP. ................................................................................................ 11 FIGURE 3-1. OFFSITE ANALYSIS MAP................................................................................. 21 FIGURE 3-2. OFFSITE ANALYSIS DRAINAGE SYSTEM TABLE......................................22 FIGURE 4-1. WATER QUALITY BASIN MAP.......................................................................27 FIGURE 4-2. POLLUTION-GENERATING SURFACE TREATMENT TRADES. ...............28 List of Tables TABLE 1-1. PROJECT SITE LAND COVER DESIGNATION................................................. 2 TABLE 2-1. OTHER ADOPTED AREA-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS................................. 15 - TABLE 4-1. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.......................................................................... 24 TABLE 4-2. WET BIOFILTRATION SWALES. ...................................................................... 25 TABLE 4-3. WATER QUALITY TREATMENT AREAS........................................................ 25 TABLE 4-4. POLLUTION-GENERATING SURFACE TREATMENT TRADES.................. 26 TABLE 6-1. SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES. ................................................................. 32 TABLE7-1. OTHER PERMITS................................................................................................. 33 Appendices APPENDIX A—GEOTECHNICAL REPORT APPENDIX B — CITY OF RENTON SENSITIVE AREAS APPENDIX C—WATER QUALITY CALCULATIONS APPENDIX D—CONVEYANCE SYSTEM CALCULATIONS APPENDIX E—BOND QUANTITIES WORKSHEET APPENDIX F—FLOW CONTROL AND WATER FACILITY SUMMARY SHEET APPENDIX G—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase I - iii - Technical Information Report (TIR) SECTION 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW Introduction The Taxiway B System Rehabilitation project will be constructed in two phases. Phase I, the north end of the project, will be constructed during the spring and early summer of 2013. Phase II, the south end of the project, is scheduled to be constructed in late summer and early fall of 2013 due to Federal Aviation Administration(FAA) funding constraints. The following passages describe the project site area for Phase I. Project Description Phase I consists of reconstructing the portion of Taxiway B lying north of the"s-curve"jog, near the midway of Runway 16-34. This area of the project will include reconstruction of the taxiway to create a crowned surface, construction of new underdrains along both sides of the taxiway, upgrades to the storm drainage facilities, pavement striping, directional safety signage, and taxiway edge lighting. The upgrade to the storm drainage system includes the replacement of several failing concrete drainage lines beneath Taxiways B, M, and N with ductile iron pipe(DIP). New drainage structures will be constructed to facilitate capturing stormwater from the east crowned area of Runway 16-34, the east crowned area of Taxiway B, and the turf infield areas between Runway 16-34 and Taxiway B. The facilities for Phase I will be designed in accordance with the City of Renton's 2010 Amendment to King County's 2009 Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM). A Technical Information Report (TIR) Worksheet was developed for the project to describe the site area and summarize the proposed drainage features for Phase I. This document is included as Figure 1-1. Project Location The Renton Municipal Airport is located along the eastern side of Parcel Number 0723059007, within the jurisdiction of the City of Renton. The airport is bounded on the north by Lake Washington, on the east by Logan Avenue North, on the south by Airport Way, and on the west by Rainier Avenue North. The Public Land Survey System (PLSS) identifies the area as the Southwest and Northwest Quarter of Section 7, Township 23 North, Range 5 East. The physical address of the site is 289 Perimeter Road West, Renton, Washington. The site contains approximately 169 acres (AC). Figure 1-2 identifies the location of the project site. Existing Site Conditions The existing site is fully developed and generally flat across the airfield area. The steepest slope within the parcel is a 5 percent grade. The site consists of building structures and hangars, asphalt paving, and grass infield areas. In the area of the project, the taxiway and runway slope inward toward the grass infield area, where surface water is directed,through depressions or Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase I - 1 - Technical Information Report (TIR) t swales, toward catch basins near the western side of Taxiway B. The flow is collected in the catch basins, diverted through a series of pipes and catch basins, and then discharged through outfalls along the western side of Cedar River. Figure 1-3 breaks down the project area into five drainage subbasins and identifies the existing and proposed discharge locations. Proposed Conditions The project proposes to rehabilitate the Taxiway B area by removing the existing asphalt surface and importing fill materials to raise and crown the facility. It is anticipated that approximately 2,250 cubic yards of gravel import borrow material will be required to elevate the renovated taxiway for Phase I. The renovated taxiway will consist of new and replaced impervious surfacing. The total increase of impervious surfacing equates to roughly 0.5 percent over the existing impervious taxiway. Table 1-1 identifies the existing and proposed project site land cover areas. Table 1-1. Project Site Land Cover Designation. Area Land Cover Type (AC) Untreated Non-targeted Impervious Surfacing 5.47 Treated Non-targeted Impervious Surfacing 1.53 Replaced Impervious Surfacing 2.40 New Impervious Surfacing 0.01 Pervious Surfacing 8.09 Total 17.50 The proposed surface water drainage facilities consist of wet biofiltration swales, filter strips, catch basins, DIP, and high-density polyethylene(HDPE)pipe. Along the eastern side of the taxiway crown, surface water will typically be collected and conveyed through catch basins and sent to the western side of the taxiway, within the grass infield area. These concentrated flows will be discharged into a flow splitter device for water quality measures. The flow splitters have been sized to divert the required water flow/volume for treatment and send the remaining water through a bypass system. Water quality for the concentrated flows shall be conveyed through a wet biofiltration swale. The swale has been designed to meet the KCSWDM basic treatment criterion of removing 80 percent of the total suspended solids (TSS) for flows or volumes up to the water quality design flow/volume. After leaving the swale, the flow will be collected in a catch basin and diverted toward the east through a series of surface water facilities and discharged to Cedar River. Along the western side of the taxiway crown, all nonconcentrated flows will be treated by filter strips. The infield area will be graded to convey this surface flow to catch basins, where it will combine with the treated flow from the wet biofiltration swale. For additional information regarding the proposed development conditions, please refer to Sections 4 and 5 of this report. Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase I -2 - Technical Information Report (TIR) ' ' ' Soils According to the Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey for King County, the soil deposits in the vicinity of the airport are classified as Urban (Ur). Figure 1-4 identifies the location of the site for Phase I and its respective soil designation. A geotechnical report and amendment was prepared for this project as part of the design process. The final version of the geotechnical report was completed in October 2012. It appears from the investigation that the existing pavement subbase soils consist of fills ranging from 0.5 to 2.2 feet in depth below the existing surface. This material is composed of sandy gravel, sand to silty sand, and dredge fill. Underneath the fill material, the native soil consists of soft organic silt ranging from 1.2 to 3.2 feet in depth. The geotechnical exploration identified perched groundwater in 3 of the test pits, at depths of 3.8, 3.5, and 3.6 feet. Groundwater seepage was also observed in several core/hand borings, ranging from 2.7 to 5.5 feet below the existing ground surface. It is anticipated that the level of groundwater in this area will fluctuate depending on the season and water height of the adjacent Cedar River. For additional information regarding the subsurface layers, please refer to the Geotechnical Report in Appendix A. Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase I - 3 - Technical Information Report (TIR) KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET FIGURE 1-1 Part 1 PROJECT OWNER AND Part 2 PROJECT LOCATION AND PROJECT ENGINEER DESCRIPTION Project Owner City of Renton Project Name TW B Rehabilitation Phone (425) 430-7471 DDES Permit# Address 616 West Perimeter Road, Location Township 23 North Unit A; Renton, WA 98057 Range 5 East Project Engineer Benjamin Sommer, PE Section 7 Company Reid Middleton, Inc. Site Address 289 West Perimeter Road Phone 425 741-3800 Renton WA 98057 Part 3 TYPE OF PERMIT APPLICATION Part 4 OTHER REVIEWS AND PERMITS ❑ Landuse Services ❑ DFW HPA ® Shoreline Subdivison / Short Subd. / UPD ❑ COE 404 Management ❑ Building Services ❑ DOE Dam Safety ❑ Structural M/F/Commerical / SFR Rockery/Vault/ ❑ FEMA Floodplain ® Clearing and Grading ❑ ESA Section 7 ❑ Right-of-Way Use ❑ COE Wetlands ❑ Other ❑ Other Part 5 PLAN AND REPORT INFORMATION Technical Information Report Site Improvement Plan (Engr. Plans) Type of Drainage Review Full / Targeted / Type (circle one): Full / Modified / (circle): Large Site Small Site Date (include revision Date (include revision dates): dates): Date of Final: Date of Final: Part 6 ADJUSTMENT APPROVALS Type (circle one): Standard / Complex / Preapplication / Experimental/ Blanket Description: (include conditions in TIR Section 2) N/A Date of Approval: 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1/9/2009 I KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 7 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Monitoring Required: Yes / No Describe: Start Date: Completion Date: Part 8 SITE COMMUNITY AND DRAINAGE BASIN Community Plan : Special District Overlays: Drainage Basin:Lower Cedar River, Cedar Outfall Sub-basin Stormwater Requirements: Part 9 ONSITE AND ADJACENT SENSITIVE AREAS ® River/Stream Cedar River ❑ Steep Slope ® Lake Lake Washington ❑ Erosion Hazard ❑ Wetlands ❑ Landslide Hazard ❑ Closed Depression ❑ Coal Mine Hazard ® Floodplain Lake Washington/Cedar River ® Seismic Hazard High Seismic Severity ® Other High Liquefaction Susceptibility ❑ Habitat Protection Part 10 SOILS Soil Type Slopes Erosion Potential Ur ® High Groundwater Table (within 5 feet) ❑ Sole Source Aquifer ❑ Other ❑ Seeps/Springs ❑ Additional Sheets Attached 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1/9/2009 2 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 11 DRAINAGE DESIGN LIMITATIONS REFERENCE LIMITATION /SITE CONSTRAINT ❑ Core 2—Offsite Analysis ® Sensitive/Critical Areas ® SEPA ❑ Other LJ ❑ Additional Sheets Attached Part 12 TIR SUMMARY SHEET (provide one TIR Summary Sheet per Threshold Discharge Area Threshold Discharge Area: name or description) Core Requirements (all 8 apply) Discharge at Natural Location Number of Natural Discharge Locations: Offsite Analysis Level: 1 / 2 / 3 dated: 06/04/12 Flow Control N/A Level: 1 / 2 / 3 or Exemption Number Incl. facility summary sheet Small Site BMPs Conveyance System Spill containment located at: Erosion and Sediment Control ESC Site Supervisor: Contractor provide prior to construction. Contact Phone: Contractor will be selected by public bid. After Hours Phone: Maintenance and Operation Responsibility: Private / Public If Private, Maintenance Log Required: Yes /No Financial Guarantees and Provided: Yes / No Liability Water Quality Type: Basic / Sens. Lake / Enhanced Basicm / Bog (include facility summary sheet) or Exemption No. Landscape Management Plan: Yes / No Special Requirements as applicable) Area Specific Drainage Type: CDA/SDO/ MDP/ BP/ LMP/Shared Fac. / None Requirements Name: Floodplain/Floodway Delineation Type: Major / Minor / Exemption / None 100-year Base Flood Elevation (or range): Datum: Flood Protection Facilities Describe: Flood Wall Source Control Describe landuse: Airport (comm./industrial landuse) Describe any structural controls: 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1/9/2009 3 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Oil Control High-use Site: Yes / No Treatment BMP: Maintenance Agreement: Yes / No with whom? Other Drainage Structures Describe: Part 13 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION AFTER CONSTRUCTION ® Clearing Limits ® Stabilize Exposed Surfaces ® Cover Measures ® Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities ® Perimeter Protection ® Clean and Remove All Silt and Debris, Ensure ® Traffic Area Stabilization Operation of Permanent Facilities ® Sediment Retention ❑ Flag Limits of SAO and open space preservation areas Ell Surface Water Collection preservation ® Dewatering Control ® Dust Control ® Flow Control Part 14 STORMWATER FACILITY DESCRIPTIONS Note: Include Facility Su mary and Sketch Flow Control Type/Description Water Quality Type/Description ❑ Detention ® Biofiltration Swale, Filter Strip ❑ Infiltration ❑ Wetpool ❑ Regional Facility ❑ Media Filtration ❑ Shared Facility ❑ Oil Control ❑ Flow Control ® Spill Control CB w/Tee BMPs ® Flow Control BMPs Basic Dispersion/ ❑ Other ❑ Other Sheet Flow 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1/9/2009 4 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 15 EASEMENTS/TRACTS Part 16 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS ❑ Drainage Easement ❑ Cast in Place Vault ❑ Covenant ❑ Retaining Wall ❑ Native Growth Protection Covenant ❑ Rockery > 4' High ❑ Tract ❑ Structural on Steep Slope ❑ Other N/A ❑ Other N/A Part 17 SIGNATURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER I, or a civil engineer under my supervision, have visited the site. Actual site conditions as observed were incorporated into this worksheet and the attached Technical Information Report. To the best of my knowledge the information provided here is accurate. Signed/Date 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1/9/2009 5 CANADA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - USA ORCAS / ISLAND • BELLINGHAM SANIJUAN ISLAND <�Q� 20 � Q LOPEZ ISLAND 5 • PORT ANGELES EVERETT 101 2 0 SE TTLE RENTON 90 D o PROJECT TACOMA o Sl TE MCWTY MAP NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 1-2 -----_. ------ --------------- 'w EXISTING ASPHALT -------'—�-_..._._�� _-.._ -- (RUNWAY 16J4) -BASIN E SUB ABTA-Q,81 A I .. -ter - _._._�_ .......... ............ _ ,.� !''' ,.-.� UO UO ----� - SUWBASIN A ,�- SUB-BASIN B - �`� _SUB-BASIIJ C ^e- 1----- A`ItEA 1.3ZAC- EA 4.11 AREA=6.89 AG�---.._ �� ------ - i EXISTING AREA=4.32 AC ---' C -- EXISTINGCB -^--"-""`1 EXISTING �... �----"",� SWALE �(` �� PROPOSEDASPHALT g � �' �f I ✓' ,_- E -- �� REPLACEMENT, P�- Ins r� EXISTING mprilmr— SWALE EXISTING ASPHALT a - �_-.. yi (TAXIWAYS) r� .,._—�SWI G ALE y e • OUTFACE PIPE ———— — — — OUTFACE PIPE EXISTING AND % TO RIVER ... — TO RIVER PROPOSED 4 -- —— — I DISCHARGE POINT ;a I EXISTING SLOT EXISTING AND EXISTING AND — DRAIN FOR S PROPOSED — — SUB-BASIN B I OUTFACE PIPE OUTFALL PIPE PROPOSED DISCHARGE POINT EXISTING AND DISCHARGE POINT TO RIVER TO RIVER PROPOSED - - FOR SUB-BASIN A I I FOR SUB-BASIN D I DISCHARGE POINT EXISTING ASPHALT I FOR SUB-BASIN E(TIEDOWN AREA) EXISTING AND UTF PIPE I I PROPOSED O ACE FALL I DISCHARGE POINT TO RIVER __j FOR SUB-BASIN C PROPOSED PROJECT LIMITS LEGEND: REPLACED/NEW ASPHALT PAVEMENT > SWALE FLOW DIRECTION SCALE IN FEET 60 0 60 120 DRAINAGE BASINS & SITE CHARACTERISTICS Figure 1 -3 7261340StwtSN Sule20 Renton Airport Everell fthh lm 98204 k,425 741-3800 Soil Map—King County Area,Washington (FIGURE 1-4:TW B Soil Map) o ih � tV �2 N 558930 559020 559110 559200 559290 559380 47°29'48" 47°29'48" N o O N O ' O sy' t O N O g N 1p !" S" �33 O N Y 1 � � O M O M O O N V p; O O N N O O O N 1~ r p N N O N O N � O � O N � N N N d Y F o rA� o N N N N N y. O O m � 47°29'24" N N 47'29'24" uNi 558930 559020 559110 559200 559290 55180 vNi Map Scale:1:3,550 rf printed on Asize(8.5"x 11")sheet. fV N Meters ^ 0 30 60 120 180 N Feet 0 100 200 400 600 USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 5/30/2012 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3 Soil Map—King County Area,Washington (FIGURE 1-4:TW B Soil Map) MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest(AOI) { Very Stony Spot Map Scale: 1:3,550 if printed on A size(8.5"X 11")sheet. Area of Interest(AOI) Wet Spot The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Soils Other[ I Soil Map Units Warning:Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Special Point Features Special Line Features Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause Blowout Gully misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line �} Short Steep Slope placement.The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting ® Borrow Pit soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Other X Clay Spot Political Features Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map Closed Depression Cities measurements. X Gravel Pit Water Features Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Gravelly Spot Streams and Canals Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov Coordinate System: UTM Zone 1 ON NAD83 Landfill Transportation This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of A. Lava Flow +++ Rails the version date(s)listed below. 41& Marsh or swamp Interstate Highways Soil Survey Area: King County Area,Washington %I Mine or Quarry US Routes Survey Area Data: Version 6,Sep 22,2009 Miscellaneous Water Major Roads Date(s)aerial images were photographed: 7/24/2006 ® Perennial Water iv Local Roads The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background Rock Outcrop imagery displayed on these maps.As a result,some minor shifting + Saline Spot of map unit boundaries may be evident. Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot 4 Sinkhole ?> Slide or Slip Af Sodic Spot aye Spoil Area d Stony Spot tSDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 5/30/2012 �� Conservation Service National Coonerative Soil Survev Page 2 of 3 Soil Map—King County Area,Washington FIGURE 1-4:TW B Soil Map Map Unit Legend King County Area,Washington(WA633) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Ur Urban land 25.8 99.7% W Water 0.1 0.3% Totals for Area of Interest 25.9 100.0% USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 5/30/2012 ® Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 SECTION 2: CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY The following describes how the Core and Special Requirements from the City of Renton's 2010 SWDM Amendment apply to this project. Core Requirement 1: Discharge at the Natural Location The project will not change the stormwater discharge locations. For additional information on the discharge points, refer to Section 3, Off-site Analysis. Core Requirement 2: Off-site Analysis A Downstream Drainage Inventory is addressed in Section 3, Off-site Analysis. Core Requirement 3: Flow Control Flow control facilities are not proposed for this project. The project site discharges directly into Cedar River, downstream of the Taylor Creek confluence and within the backwater of Lake Washington. All new stormwater conveyance facilities have been designed to meet the discharge requirements as outlined in the "Direct Discharge Exemption" section of the City of Renton's SWDM Amendment. Best Management Practices (BMPs) for flow control are used on the project site. These measures typically consist of basic dispersion through sheet flow along the impervious taxiway surfacing. These measures shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of the KCSWDM, Appendix C.2.4.5. Core Requirement 4: Conveyance System The Rational Method and Manning's Equation were utilized to design and size the piping facilities. All new stormwater conveyance systems were reviewed in relation to the 25-year peak runoff event. For additional information on the conveyance system design, refer to Section 4, Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design. Core Requirement 5: Erosion and Sediment Control An Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) plan has been developed for this project. A detailed summary of the required ESC measures can be found in Section 8, CSWPPP Analysis and Design. Core Requirement 6: Maintenance and Operations Maintenance and operations of the proposed drainage facilities will be performed in compliance with King County's Appendix A, Maintenance Requirements for Flow Control, Conveyance, and WQ Facilities. Maintenance requirements for all applicable facilities have been included in Appendix G. Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase 1 - 14 - Technical Information Report (TIR) Core Requirement 7: Financial Guarantees and Liability The Bond Quantity Worksheet and Flow Control and Water Facility Summary Sheet are provided as part of Section 9, Bond Quantities, Facility Summaries, and Declaration of Covenant. However, Declarations of Covenants are not required for this project since the City of Renton owns and maintains the facilities. For additional information on these items, refer to Appendix E, Bond Quantity Worksheet, and Appendix F, Flow Control and Water Facility Summary Sheet. Core Requirement 8: Water Quality "Basic Water Quality" treatment standards apply to the project site. Wet biofiltration swales and filter strips will be used to meet these standards. A summary of the water quality design facilities can be found in Section 4, Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design. Special Requirement 1: Other Adopted Area-Specific Requirements A summary of other adopted area-specific requirements associated with the project site is presented in Table 2-1. Table 2-1. Other Adopted Area-Specific Requirements. Regulations Required Comment Master Drainage Plans(MDPs) No Basin Plans(BPs) Yes King County's Lower Cedar River Basin Plan Salmon Conservation Plans(SCPs) Yes WRIA 8 Cedar-Sammamish Stormwater Compliance Plans(SWCPs) Yes National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)Phase It Flood Hazard Reduction Plan Updates Yes City's Critical Area Code RMC IV-4-3-050 (FHRPs) Shared Facility Drainage Plans(SFDPs) No A review of the specific drainage requirements, mandated by the area-specific requirements, has been conducted. Any applicable regulations that were more stringent than the City of Renton's SWDM Amendment have been applied to the proposed facilities. From the review of the City of Renton 2009 Storm Water Management Program (SWMP) for the NPDES Phase II, it was identified that an evaluation by City of Renton staff determined the Renton Municipal Airport required an Industrial Facility NPDES Permit. It is our understanding, from discussions with Airport staff, that the specific NPDES Permit has not been completed for the facility at this time. However, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for construction activities will be developed as part of this overall project. Special Requirement 2: Flood Hazard Area Delineation The proposed project is not within the 100-year floodplain; therefore, delineation is not identified on the improvement plans. Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase 1 - 15 - Technical Information Report (TIR) DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY ® _Cirof�O� AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ' M E M O R A N D U M DATE: October 29, 2012 TO: Ron S. CC: Kayren Kittrick FROM: Arneta x7298 SUBJECT: TAXI B REHAB PHASE 1 AND PHASE 2 I need to explain a little about this project to clear up any confusion. Projects may and sometimes do submit plans for review prior to completion of the land use action (green folder). They do so at their own risk but it is allowed. That is what this project did so yes you have seen the project but not all of it. Now we have all of it Phase I and Phase 2 of the storm and all of the plans. There may be some duplication in the plans that I am sending but I wanted to make sure that you were seeing the entire project. Thank you! Call me if you have any questions. Arneta x7298 iAmemo.doc DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY City�f�O� AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: October 29, 2012 TO: Ron S. CC: Kayren Kittrick FROM: Arneta x7298 SUBJECT: TAXI B REHAB PHASE 1 AND PHASE 2 1 need to explain a little about this project to clear up any confusion. Projects may and sometimes do submit plans for review prior to completion of the land use action (green folder). They do so at their own risk but it is allowed. That is what this project did so yes you have seen the project but not all of it. Now we have all of it Phase I and Phase 2 of the storm and all of the plans. There may be some duplication in the plans that I am sending but I wanted to make sure that you were seeing the entire project. Thank you! Call me if you have any questions. Arneta x7298 iAmemo.doc Special Requirement 3: Flood Protection Facilities The site possesses an existing flood protection wall east of Taxiway B. The proposed improvements are not within the area of this facility nor do they include any upgrades to this structure. Special Requirement 4: Source Control This Special Requirement is not necessary, since the project does not require a commercial building or site development permit; however, it is included as part of this document. The ongoing and future source control measures proposed for the project will comply with the City of Renton's SWDM Amendment and King County's Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual. The following BMPs are specific to the proposed improvements: Structural Source Control Measures A-27: A Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) plan has been developed for the project site. TESC facilities shall be installed prior to any on-site grading activities. Excessive amounts of surface water will be collected and pumped to a flow dispersal system in order to prevent suspended sediments and potential oils from clogging the TESC measures or being conveyed downstream. All proposed measures are in conformance with the City of Renton's SWDM Amendment. The plan includes, but is not limited to: check dams, bio-filter bags, straw wattles, catch basin sediment traps, and covering of exposed soils. Nonstructural Source Control Measures A-17: Fueling operations for the construction equipment will occur on site. All fueling will be conducted away from standing surface water in order to prevent possible release into the drainage system. If a spill does occur during construction, the Contractor shall contain and expose of contaminated materials in accordance with local and state requirements. A-26: Landscaping activities will practice the following BMPs: Chemicals will not be applied directly to surface water, all manufacturers' recommendations and label directions will be followed, and vegetation will not be disposed of in waterways or drainage systems. Mulch or other erosion control measures will be utilized when soils are exposed for more than one week during the dry season and two days during the rainy season. Noxious plants will be avoided. The proposed operation and maintenance guidelines for the above facilities have been included in Appendix G, Operation and Maintenance Manual, in accordance with King County's Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual. Special Requirement 5: Oil Control The proposed improvements do not meet the definition of a high-use site requiring oil control. Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase 1 - 16 - Technical Information Report (TIR) Special Requirement 6: Aquifer Protection Area The project site is not located within an Aquifer Protection Zone; therefore, protection facilities will not be provided. Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase I - 17 - Technical Information Report (TIR) ' " ' SECTION 3: OFF-SITE ANALYSIS A quantitative downstream, or off-site analysis, survey was conducted at and adjacent to the project site. The analysis of the project area consisted of four main tasks: a review of the Study Area, a Resource Review, a Field Inspection, and a Drainage System Description and Problem Description write-up. Study Area A review of the project site was conducted, extending half a mile downstream of the natural discharge location and a quarter of a mile upstream. It was not feasible to extend the inspection to the required one mile downstream, since Cedar River discharges directly into Lake Washington in less than that distance. The purpose of this review is to identify the project site's impacts on the drainage area tributary flow path. For this particular site, the surface water is conveyed from the infield runway/taxiway area through swales to 12-inch-diameter pipe outfalls. The flow is discharged to Cedar River and carried to Lake Washington, less than half a mile downstream. Resource Review A review of the applicable reports and studies of the general project area was included in the off- site analysis. The coverage area consisted of the property a quarter of a mile upstream and half a mile downstream of the site. The City of Renton's SWDM Amendment requires that the following reference materials are reviewed: • Sensitive Areas Folio • Adopted Basin Plans/Basin Reconnaissance Summary Reports • Floodplain/Floodway (FEMA) Maps • King County Soil Survey • Washington State Department of Ecology's (DOE) Polluted Waters List • City of Renton Erosion Maps and Landslide Maps • Wetlands Inventory Maps From the evaluation of these reference materials, existing or potential issues were identified and noted for the field inspection. The research identified the following sensitive areas within the area of study: flood hazard, seismic hazard, and high liquefaction hazard. Upstream of the project site, the adjacent properties are within Aquifer Protection Zone 1 and possess a moderate to high susceptibility to liquefaction. Applicable maps of the City of Renton Sensitive Areas are included in Appendix B of this report. The Renton Municipal Airport is located within the Lower Cedar River Basin and Cedar Outfall Subbasin. King County has developed a Lower Cedar River Basin Plan that provides an overview of the area and proposes solutions to the issues of flooding,property damage, and declining salmon and steelhead runs. Additionally,the plan recommends preventative measures for maintaining water quality standards, groundwater supplies, and natural habitat within the Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase I - 18 - Technical Information Report (TIR) basin. From the review of this document, it was noted that damage occurred to public facilities at the airport during flood events in 1990 and 1995. The plan also identified that the overall water quality in the river is"generally very good";however, it stated that sporadic exceedances of the water standards have been recorded from fecal coliform bacteria generated by livestock and failing septic tanks. It does not appear that the airport is a major contributor to these pollutants within the river. A review of the DOE's list of polluted waters (Section 303d) was conducted for Cedar River and Lake Washington. This investigation identified that the project site discharges to a section of Cedar River labeled as Category 5 Waters, which conveys flow directly downstream to an area of Lake Washington marked as Category 2 Waters. A Category 2 label identifies water bodies that are areas of concern for the DOE. This typically indicates waters where there is some evidence of water quality issues but not enough to require a water quality improvements project. However, a Category 5 designation marks a waterway violating one or more pollutant standards. This information was considered when selecting water quality facilities for the project site. A review of the City of Renton's Erosion and Landslide Maps identified adjacent properties west of the airport property as carrying a potential for erosion hazards and landslide hazard designations ranging from moderate to very high. The airport itself is relatively flat and not directly impacted by the landslide hazard areas. An evaluation of the City of Renton's Wetland Inventory Map was conducted for the project. From the review, it did not appear that there were any documented wetlands on or within the vicinity of the airport facility. No wetland areas have been observed during previous visits to the site. Field Inspection A Level 1 field inspection was conducted at the project site on June 4, 2012. The weather was overcast during this observation. The inspection encompassed an evaluation of existing catch j basins near the flood wall (upstream of the outfalls) and downstream of the final discharge location. The downstream analysis extended from the final discharge location to a point less than half a mile downstream. The existing storm drainage system was reviewed earlier in the design phase, on May 11, 2012. The site's discharge piping extends east of Taxiway B to the outfall locations along Cedar River. All existing outfalls are corrugated metal pipe (CMP) and fitted with `duckbill' style check valves. From the discharge point, flow is conveyed to Lake Washington, less than half a mile downstream. No signs of erosion, overtopping, or scouring were uncovered during the inspection; however, dense vegetation covered the majority of the seawall area, obstructing a thorough visual inspection. Please see Figure 3-1 for additional information and a depiction of the off-site analysis area. From an evaluation of the existing conveyance system prior to arriving on site, it appeared that the existing outfall piping systems are undersized for the peak runoff events calculated by the Rational Method. This evaluation is documented in Section 5, Conveyance System Analysis and Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase I - 19 - Technical Information Report (TIR) ' ' Design. As identified above, a review of these facilities during the field inspection was conducted. It appeared that one catch basin near the flood wall, north side, exhibited a high level of backwater within the structure from the outfall. It was assumed that this event was due to the relatively flat slope of the outfall and the high water level of the river from seasonal runoff. The water level in the river appeared to be only 4 to 5 feet deep. Drainage System Description and Problem Description The drainage system is combined within one Threshold Discharge Area because the outfalls are located less than a quarter of a mile apart. Each outfall discharges to Cedar River, within Lake Washington's backwater. The flow is conveyed into Lake Washington, less than half a mile downstream. The field inspection did not identify any signs of problem areas within the existing drainage system. It was noted during discussions with Renton Municipal Airport staff that the site did not possess existing drainage issues. See Figure 3-2, Off-site Analysis Drainage System Table, for an outline of the items noted during the field inspection. Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase 1 - 20 - Technical Information Report (TIR) 1=111111011M ' R0 p • _ // FA } SyQ A ROFA ROFA — � TL lFp-- OFZ OFZ OF __ OFZ OF31 I --- OR ze ROFA �FA OFZ OFZ ' OFZ —.—�-F%D�--c OFZ _ , �` RSARSA lid RSA ---.-_.. _.__ .. ^.r. -.._____ �� .._- _.. -- _ - _ - _ � +- --•._ -3 "- __ - i`...)- -_ e'..'l<-��,T•-C _.. - ( , i -- RSA RSA __ RSA RSA -� - '€ ky RSA RSA __ __ RSA RSl1 - RSA RSA 1 34-18 i- RSA — _— r e RUMMY 34-18 — — _ RSA._y\ RSA RSA\ RSA r j - RSA __ RSA ,/-- RSA RSA RSA _- RSA RSA RSA RSA --- E — •' — PAVEMENT f,J ./� �f ,,,.•�' �, ..- :_ ?Fz oFz �` �- f REPLACEMENT 1# III ( O OFC --� OfZOFZ OFZ OFZ OR OF I _--EE -!ar E _ E- �—�;E————E Z Pa °a oFZ Q �oFA "eFPo� +'4 ROFA iOFA r;d---` GFA TGFA ROF TO ggqq��yyyyA TOFA / ROFA f ROP ROFA •• ROFA RO A Y B-�. � P ERTYLIN �� - � LAKE WX1, CEDAR RIVER �1 COINMERCtAC1!VATER vv t 7to , 1 :OUTF.AL,L.PIPE: • •b • J i IVER L BIA a 7 ------------------- .OUTFALC PIPEFn v r . SQ RIVER.' F A . TDRIYER: cn lip r I t } X , y Y7 I�13 OFFSITE ANALYSIS MAP Figure 3-1 Renton Airport 728 131ih led SW We 200 Everett wmm*m 9m Ph:425 741-3800 OFF-SITE ANALYSIS DRAINAGE SYSTEM TABLE SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL,CORE REQUIREMENT#2 FIGURE 3-2 Basin: Lower Cedar River Subbasin Name: Cedar Outfall Subbasin Number: Symbol Drainage Drainage Slope ` Distance Existing Potential Observation of field Component Type, Component from site Problems Problems inspector,resource Name,and Size Description discharge reviewer,or resident see map Type:sheet flow,Swale, drainage basin,vegetation, % 1/4 mi=1,320 ft, constrictions,under capacity,ponding, tributary area,likelihood of problem, stream,channel,pipe, cover,depth;type of sensitive overtopping,flooding,habitat or oganism overflow pathways,potential impacts pond,Size:diameter, area,volume destruction,scouring,bank sloughing, surface area sedimentation,incision,other erosion A Discharge Location 4'to 5'Depth of Channel VA 0 8 None None No evidence of erosion 13 River ChanneVLake Bed 10'Depth of Channel N/A 2000 ft None None No evidence of erosion 23-2010.007 Page 1 of 1 Offsite Drainage System June 2012 Renton Municipal Airport City of Renton SECTION 4: FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN The proposed site area is divided into five subbasins for the existing and developed site hydrology. The subbasins are divided according to the existing topography of the site. The following sections will discuss these subbasins in greater detail as they relate to the existing or developed site hydrology. Part A—Existing Site Hydrology The project area is located in the northeast region of the City of Renton's Municipal Airport. Taxiway B is bordered by Runway 16-34 to the west and hangar buildings on the east. The project site consists of approximately 17.5 AC of predominately developed land area. The project site area is broken into five subbasins for the design of the stormwater facilities. These subbasins were determined by reviewing the existing topography. A breakdown of the existing and proposed land cover within the area is presented in Table 1-1. The existing taxiway surface consists of impervious asphalt underlain by a compacted gravel subgrade. The Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey for King County identifies the soil deposits in the vicinity of the airport as Urban (Ur). From the geotechnical investigation conducted for this project, it appears that the subbase soils consist of fills ranging from 0.5 to 2.2 feet in depth. The material is composed of sandy gravel, sand to silty sand, and dredge fill material. Underlying the fill material, the native soil consists of soft organic silt ranging from 1.2 to 3.2 feet below the surface. Perched groundwater was observed in 3 test pits, at depths ranging from 3.5 to 3.8 feet. It is anticipated that the level of groundwater is dependent on the season and the height of the adjacent river. The site area is graded to drain to catch basins within the grassy infield area. An existing underdrain system runs along the eastern side of Runway 16-34 and discharges to the infield catch basins. Flow is conveyed from these basins to the 12-inch-diameter outfalls, along the eastern edge of the site, into Cedar River. Please refer to Figures 1-3 and 3-1 for more information on the delineation, flow path, and acreage of areas contributing runoff to the existing project site. Part B—Developed Site Hydrology The developed site hydrology consists of the same five subbasins as identified in the existing site hydrology review. All areas drain from the infield area through the outfalls along the eastern side of the site. A breakdown of the existing and proposed land cover within the area can be found in Table 1-1. Flow control facilities, as discussed previously, are not required for this project. Flow control BMPs will be used where appropriate or necessary. A discussion of these facilities can be found in Part D below. Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase I - 23 - Technical Information Report (TIR) ' ' ' ` ' ' The proposed water quality facilities consist of wet biofiltration swales, filter strips, and flow splitters. Flow splitters are required to divert the runoff into two flows: water quality and bypass flow. The bypasses account for flows greater than the calculated water quality flow/volume for the developed conditions. Water quality treatment will consist of a combination of filter strips and wet biofiltration swales. These facilities are further detailed in Part E below. Part C—Performance Standards A summary of flow control, conveyance, water quality, and source and oil control performance standards for the project is presented in Table 4-1. Calculation documents are provided in Appendices C and D for the applicable standards. Table 4-1. Performance Standards. Category Performance Standards Source Flow control facilities are not required. Flow Control Flow Control BMPs required. Manual Section 1.2.3.1 Conveyance System Capacity Developed 25-year Peak Storm Event Manual Section 1.2.4.1 Basic Treatment of the 2-year Storm Manual Section 1.2.8.1 Event for developed conditions Manual Section 6.2.1 Water Quality Treatment Wet Biofiltration Swales Manual Section 6.3.2 Basic Filter Strips Manual Section 6.3.4 Narrow Area Filter Strips Manual Section 6.3.5 Source Control Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual Section 1.3.4 Manual Oil Control N/A Manual Section 1.3.5 Part D—Flow Control System As discussed in Core Requirement 3, Flow Control, the project site is exempt from providing flow control facilities since the site discharges directly to a major receiving water body. Therefore, flow control design and analysis are not included as part of this report. Flow control BMPs will be installed where appropriate or necessary. These measures consist of "Basic Dispersion"through sheet flow. Part E—Water Quality System Proposed Treatment System The project site appears to fall within the category of"Basic Treatment" as defined by the KCSWDM. Properties subject to this type of treatment are areas draining outside the drainage basin of sensitive lakes or sphagnum bog wetlands. Basic Treatment criterion intends to remove 80 percent of the TSS for flows or volumes up to the water quality design flow or volume. The Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase I - 24 - Technical Information Report (TIR) " remaining flow quantity is diverted around water quality facilities and passes untreated through the system. The KCSWDM requires that all water quality measures treat a minimum of 95 percent of the annual average runoff volume in the 8-year time series, as determined by the King County Resource Time Series (KCRTS) model. The designs of the facilities at the site are based on treating 60 percent of the 2-year Peak Flow rates for a given targeted surface area. At this design flow rate, the system will successfully treat the minimum required volume. -- The project's surface water quality facilities consist of a combination of wet biofiltration swales and filter strips provided to treat surface runoff from targeted pollution-generating surfaces. Filter strips generally bound both sides of Taxiway B to treat sheet flow, while wet biofiltration swales provide treatment to concentrated flows from the eastern crowned sections of Subbasins C and D. The flow in this area is collected and conveyed from the eastern side of the crowned taxiway to the grass infield west of Taxiway B. Table 4-2 identifies the design information for the wet biofiltration swale. Table 4-2. Wet Biofiltration Swales. Basin Length Bottom Width Side Slope Longitudinal Slope Design Flow (FT) (FT) T (FT/FT) (CFS Subbasin C 100 20.0 4H:1 V 0.005 0.56 Subbasin D 100 20.0 4HA V 0.005 0.27 Flow splitters are proposed upstream of the wet biofiltration swales to control the rate of flow through the facilities. The flow splitters have been designed to allow the required water flow/volume for water treatment to pass through the wet biofiltration swales. The remaining water volume will be diverted through a bypass system that runs parallel to the swales in below- grade piping systems. The calculations for sizing the flow splitters have been included in Appendix F, Water Quality Calculations. A breakdown of the water quality areas within each Subbasin is defined in Table 4-3. Calculations and computer printouts for these facilities have been included as Appendix C, Water Quality Calculations. The locations of the water quality facilities are identified on Figure 4-1. Table 4-3. Water Quality Treatment Areas. Treatment Type Subbasin A Subbasin B Subbasin C Subbasin D Subbasin E (SF) (SF) SF (SF) (SF) Area Treated by Filter Strip 1,610 10,975 17,700 7,470 3,170 Untreated Target Area 1,850 2,725 0 0 0 Area Treated by Wet Bioswale 0 0 85,290* 40,650 0 Total 3,460 13,700 102,990 48,120 3,170 *Includes non-target impervious area being treated(66,790 SF) Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase I - 25 - Technical Information Report (TIR) Treatment Trades The City of Renton's SW)M Amendment, Section 1.2.8.2.C, identifies that runoff from pollution-generating surfaces may be released untreated if an existing non-targeted pollution- generating surface of equivalent size and pollutant characteristics within the same watershed or stream reach tributary area is treated on the project site. It is understood that this provision is included as part of the manual to allow the designer flexibility to trade regions of target areas that are not feasible to treat with water quality facilities. Runoff from the airplane tie-down area east of Taxiway B is included as impervious area in the water quality calculations for Subbasin C. This non-target surfacing area is not currently treated with the existing facilities. Table 4-4 identifies these proposed areas of pollution-generating surface treatment trades. Table 4-4. Pollution-Generating Surface Treatment Trades. Drainage Basin Treated Non-Target Area Untreated Target Area (SF) (SF) Subbasin A 0 1,850 Subbasin B 0 2,725 Subbasin C 66,790 0 Total 66,790 4,575 Please refer to Figure 4-2 for an illustration of these traded areas. Water quality BMPs will be provided in these locations of untreated target areas to the extent possible. Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase 1 - 26 - Technical Information Report (TIR) B-BASIN.A I SUB-BASIN B ( S�16 BASIN -- `"-" SUB-BASIN D SUB-BASIN E SU _._ - -._--- -- (RUNWAY( 1 .�. R 634) J '"' ---.r ._._•-- + �yo-. - -.. ......_ ... ...._UD \� LO--- .. —...._'_.—s- "" —yet UD •--` �_-lI`^ WET BIOFILTRATIO �/� 3 4._.._.�.-.._....e"J�~� \ ----------- I __._.__._......._.__-__.__.....--- �^ o I PROPOSED " I SWALE(20'x IM CONVEYANCE.,.._... — .... '� _. _ �"�''^,.,. `'+ .-_""'•� -_.% �_, SWAGE(TYP NORTH �� PAVEMENT / PAVEME_fr TO WET BIOFILTRATIGN sHEow AREATO �R -• — - t DIRECTION(TYP).--, _ �� -,:, SID � IP _ SWALE(20'x 100� FILTER STRIP —`' '• � AVEMEN1tAR TO A �•J �+ get ER STRIP77 - - _ - .EXISTING - ��`•,` kLL SWALE EXISTING ASPHALT / //// // (TAXIWAY B) 00 RNERPIPE / / / �//////1/ / / �.. .�rrirrrr tuu«s�c,:✓<r<r...� .r.�..�:... n.... >«i«�1.::. :ur<l� OUTFALL PIPE OUTFALL PIPE OUTFALL PIPE SLOT DRAIN TO RIVER TO RIVER TO RIVER FILTER STRIPjEXI T NG ASPHALT% %/ (TYP) ////////////(TIEDOWNAREA) ////////// NORTH BIOFILTRATION OUTFACE PIPE BASIN AREA=0.93 AC TO RIVER /OUTH I / /BASINAREA-1.6ACN BASIN AREA TO WET BIOFILTRATION SWALE (TYP) LEGEND: REPLACED/NEW ASPHALT PAVEMENT WATER QUALITY FILTER STRIP CONTRIBUTING AREA TO BIOSWALE > SWALE �WATER QUALITY TREATMENT BY SUB—BASIN FLOW DIRECTION TREATMENT TYPE (SF) A SUB-BASIN B SUB-BASIN C SUB-BASIN D SUB-BASIN E (SF) (SF) (SF) (SF) (SF) AREA TREATED BY FILTER STRIP 1,610 10,975 17,700 7.470 3,170 UNTREATED TARGET AREA 1,850 2,725 0 0 0 — AREA TREATED BY BIOSWALE 0 0 85,290* 40,650 0 TOTAL 3,460 13,700 102,990 48,120 3,170 -INCLUDES NON—TARGET IMPERVIOUS AREA BEING TREATED (66,790 SF). REFER TO FIG 4-2 FOR A VISUAL DEPICTION SCALE IN FEET OF THE PROPOSED TRADE AREAS. 60 0 60 120 WATER QUALITY BASIN MAP Figure 4-1 Renton Airport 720 1341Y Street SA We 200 Everett"on 98204 PE:425 741-M - SUB-BASIN B S�16-"�ASIN C----�—_—^—_—_—�—_-------- � "--�"---SUB-BASIN D --' sub-�Su�a- SUB-BASIN E -- __.__.....—_.. — _EXISTiNG P;SPFIALT"'--`"-- - -_ UNTREATED TARGET AREA i 1 �,,.•— —.--•.-.._,—J--..{ � -......__ 1 � fP ....—^.,...7 I "`� —_/—...fir L 6: m_. rn �{ v. ` I� •— ^-.. .EXISTING �b -_.� ` SWALE EXISTINGASPHALT (TAXIWAY B) OUTFACE PIPE V �''��LLLL.=-�- .<LL1 ll. / 11L"G'lLl1LL. l.:L!1[!G._.__/.l1LL.LlL(L(LLLLLL:<:�:lL1LLLL1Ll'.LLLLLLL1L4lL(! !{L(C% TO RIVER . OUTFACE PIPE 1 OUTFALL PIPE I. SLOT DRAIN OUTFALL PIPE iff TO RIVER TO RIVER TO RIVER — EXISTING ASPHALT !DOWN AREA) -_- OUTFALL PIPE TO RIVER TREATED NON-TARGET AREA LEGEND: REPLACED/NEW ASPHALT PAVEMENT UNTREATED TARGET AREA TREATED NON-TARGET AREA > SWALE �POLLUTION-GENERATING SURFACE TREATMENT TRADE FLOW DIRECTION DRAINAGE BASIN TREATED NON-TARGET AREA UNTREATED TARGET AREA (SF) (SF) SUB-BASIN A 0 1,850 SUB-BASIN 8 0 2,725 SUB-BASIN C 66,790 0 TOTAL 66,790 4,575 SCALE IN FEET 60 0 60 120 POLLUTION-GENERATING SURFACE TREATMENT TRADES Figure 4-2 Renton Airport 728 134t6 Street SW Sale 200 Everett.Wm)mgtm 98204 Po:425 741-30110 SECTION 5: CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN An evaluation of the existing and proposed conveyance systems was conducted for this project. This section provides an overview of the existing and proposed conveyance systems and outlines the criteria utilized in design of the drainage facilities. Existing Conveyance System The existing storm drainage conveyance system was analyzed for conveyance of the 10-, 25-, and 100-year peak storm runoff events. The Rational Method was used to identify the peak storm runoff events for the project site, while Manning's Equation was used to determine the capacity of the piping system. The calculations were reviewed to identify if the piping system could handle the peak flow demands without backwatering. It appeared from this evaluation that the existing conveyance system does not meet these requirements. Additional analysis was conducted on this issue and is discussed in the Proposed Conveyance System section below. The existing outfalls consist of 12-inch-diameter reinforced concrete pipelines that are relatively flat in nature and do not possess the overall required capacity to meet the runoff storm events. Sections of this system did pass the requirements of the peak storm runoff events;however, it appears the limitations to the downstream system inadvertently backwaters into these facilities. A meeting was held with the Renton Municipal Airport staff on June 4, 2012,to discuss the calculation findings. From the discussion, it was understood that the Airport is planning to develop a Capital Improvements Projects (CIP) program to address existing storm drainage facilities on the site. The staff explained that backwater from the outfalls to the infield area has not been observed from a storm event. However, the staff intends to include the replacement of the existing 12-inch-diameter outfalls to Cedar River as part of the CIP program in order to correct this potential issue from the peak runoff storm events. It was also noted that the invert elevations for the outfalls was pulled from an older base map, utilizing the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29),provided by the Renton Municipal Airport staff. The locations of the outfalls are outside the project area and were not surveyed as part of this project. It is possible that the outfall system possesses additional capacity than currently anticipated. Calculations for the existing and proposed conveyance systems have been included in Appendix C. Proposed Conveyance System Proposed System Review The proposed conveyance system intends to replace/relocate storm drainage facilities within the areas of excavation. As conducted in the review of the existing conveyance system,the Rational Method was used to determine the peak storm runoff events, while Manning's Equation was used to size the conveyance system. The proposed facilities are constrained by the invert elevations of the existing outfall system and the relatively flat terrain of the site. The piping system was designed to fit the site limitations and convey flow to the existing outfall elevations. Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase 1 - 29 - Technical Information Report(TIR) 1I.WUMIMM Following this design path, the proposed conveyance system did not appear to pass the 25-year peak runoff event as determined by the Rational Method. Upsizing the pipe diameter or steepening the slope of the facilities was not feasible due to the aforementioned site constraint and/or lack of cover over the pipes. It is understood that the Rational Method is a conservative approach to calculating runoff events, since this method does not factor in the attenuation effects of the existing storage features within a basin. Therefore, the Western Washington Hydrology Model (WWHM) was utilized to model the infield areas as a storage pond with a 12-inch- diameter orifice. From this evaluation, it does not appear that the proposed system will adversely impact the site. The maximum level of standing water was identified within Subbasin C, which possessed approximately 6 inches for the 25-year and 8 inches for the 100-year peak runoff events. At this level, potential ponding will be contained entirely within the infield areas, and the proposed system will adequately drain the site for the peak runoff events. It will require the use of hydraulic head from backwater to accomplish this task. Taking this approach, it is anticipated that the site will drain within 10 hours of a peak event. The conveyance system consists of pipes, culverts, catch basins,berms, and swales. Flow from the non-target impervious surfacing (Runway 16-34), along the western edge of the project site, will drain as sheet flow from the edge of the pavement and follow the sloped shoulder area toward the middle of the infield. The infield will be sloped to direct the runway flow away from the wet biofiltration swales. The flow will be routed to catch basins just west of these water quality facilities and conveyed through a series of pipes and catch basins before discharging through the outfalls. Flow from the western crowned taxiway surface will be conveyed in a manner similar to the flow from the runway surfacing. Runoff will travel above grade to the center of the infield area and be directed to catch basins. From there, the flow will be diverted through a series of pipes and catch basins before discharging through the outfalls. Flow from the eastern crowned area within Subbasins A, B, and E will be directed from the edge of the pavement to drainage swales, which will convey surface water to a series of catch basins and pipelines before being discharged through the outfalls. In Subbasin C, the eastern crowned taxiway surface will be graded and paved in a manner that directs surface water to catch basins. In Subbasin D, the eastern crowned taxiway surface will divert flow to a trench drain. These flows will be conveyed through pipelines and discharged to flow splitter catch basins. The flow splitters will divert the required flow/volume for water quality within each subbasin, while the remaining flow/volume will be diverted to a bypass system. The portion of the flow required for water quality will be conveyed within the biofiltration swales to collection catch basins. The bypass flow will travel parallel to the swales through a series of pipes and catch basins, then discharge to the same collection catch basins as the water quality flow. From these locations,the surface water will be conveyed through a series of pipes and catch basins and then discharged through the outfalls. For further information regarding these facilities,please refer to Appendix C and the project plans. Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase I - 30 - Technical Information Report (TIR) " ' ' Shallow Pipe Loading Thickness design for DIP was performed on drainage lines crossing beneath Taxiway B at shallow depths, typically less than 3 feet of cover. The method utilized for the design was obtained from ANSI/AWWA C150/A21.50-20, Thickness Design of Ductile Iron Pipe. There were four scenarios reviewed where the crossings possessed cover less than 3 feet: 8-inch DIP at 1 foot, 12-inch DIP at 1.5 feet, 6-inch DIP at 2 feet, and 12-inch DIP at 2 feet. The vehicle loading on the pipelines was based on the design vehicle,Aircraft Rescue Fire Fighting (ARFF) Truck,which weighs approximately 82,000 pounds. From the calculations performed, it appeared that at least a Special Class 51 DIP would be needed from the 8-inch pipe at a 1 foot depth scenario, while the remaining scenarios required only a Special Class 50 DIP. The design specifications for the project required a Special Class 52 for all ductile iron pipelines on the project. A Special Class 52 DIP is thicker than the 50 or 51 type; therefore, the design of the pipelines at shallow depths is adequate to sustain the loading from the design vehicle. Please refer to Appendix D for the thickness design calculations. Spill Control Measures Spill control measures, in accordance with the City of Renton's SWDM Amendment requirements,have been included as part of the storm drainage facilities. These measures include placing inverted tee or elbow sections in the final discharge catch basins within each subbasin. Locations and details of these facilities are identified in the project plan set. Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase 1 - 31 - Technical Information Report (TIR) ` ' ' SECTION 6: SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES Table 6-1 summarizes the Special Reports and Studies required for this project site. Table 6-1. Special Reports and Studies. Study/Report Date Conducted Appendix Floodplain Delineation(Section 1.3.2) N/A N/A Flood Protection Facility Conformance(Section 1.3.3) N/A N/A Critical Areas Analysis and Delineation N/A N/A Geotechnical/Soils 04/27/12 Appendix A Groundwater N/A N/A Slope Protection/Stability N/A N/A Erosion and Deposition N/A N/A Geology N/A N/A Hydrology N/A N/A Fluvial Geomorphology N/A N/A Anadromous Fisheries Impacts N/A N/A Water Quality N/A N/A Structural Design N/A N/A Structural Fill N/A N/A Aquifer Protection Areas N/A N/A Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase I - 32 - Technical Information Report (TIR) SECTION 7: OTHER PERMITS Table 7-1 summarizes other permits required for the project site. Table 7-1. Other Permits. Permit Required Regulating Agency _ On-site Sewage Disposal No Seattle/King County Department of Public Health Well Permits No Seattle/King County Department of Public Health Developer/Local Agency Agreement No Washington State Department of Transportation Hydraulic Project Approval No Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Short-term Water Quality Modification Approval No Washington State Department of Ecology Dam Safety Permit No Washington State Department of Ecology NPDES Stormwater Permit Yes Washington State Department of Ecology Forest Practices Class IV Permit No Washington State Department of Natural Resources Sections 10,401,and 404 Permits No United States Army Corps of Engineers Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase I - 33 - Technical Information Report (TIR) SECTION 8: CSWPPP ANALYSIS AND DESIGN A Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (CSWPPP) has been developed as an element of this report. This plan is composed of an Erosion Sediment Control (ESC) plan and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Spill (SWPPS) plan. ESC Measures Phase I of the project will be constructed during the spring and early summer of 2013. The site is relatively flat and the majority of the work is on or near asphalt surfacing; therefore, erosion potential is anticipated to be very low. Standard erosion control measures will be implemented to control sediment in the construction area. However, additional measures will be introduced to provide added protection against sediment transport due to the airport's close proximity to Cedar River and Lake Washington. The following is a description of the standard and nonstandard erosion control measures being implemented for Phase I of this project. ESC Requirement 1: Clearing Limits The limits of work are identified on the project plans. It is anticipated that the Contractor will physically mark the limits of work during construction. ESC Requirement 2: Cover Measures The Contractor will be required to cover any exposed soils by temporary or permanent means. Guidelines for cover measures are defined in the ESC Notes on the plans. ESC Requirement 3: Perimeter Protection Filter fabric fencing shall be installed down-gradient from any construction activity to prevent the transportation of sediment to Cedar River or Lake Washington. Fencing materials will be specified to meet the KCSWDM requirements. Typically, such structures consist of filter fabric, possess a wire mesh backing, and are buried approximately 8 inches below grade. The Contractor shall inspect the fence on a weekly basis. Any damage to the structure shall be repaired immediately. If soil near the barrier is roughly 6 inches high, the sediment shall be removed and stabilized on site. ESC Requirement 4: Traffic Area Stabilization Temporary construction entrances may be installed at various locations along the taxiway reconstruction to reduce sediment transport onto the adjacent paved surfaces. ESC Requirement S: Sediment Retention Check dams and bio-filter bags will be installed within existing swales and around certain catch basins to protect downstream conveyance systems from sediment accumulation. Straw wattles will also be used downstream of any soil disturbance that is tributary to existing catch basins. Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase I - 34 - Technical Information Report (TIR) ' ` ' " Catch basin sediment trap filters will be installed in existing and proposed catch basins to protect drain inlet structures and reduce sediment in downstream conveyance systems. All temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control BMPs shall be maintained and repaired as needed to ensure continued performance of their intended function. All maintenance and repair shall be conducted in accordance with BMPs. Sediment control BMPs shall be inspected weekly or after a runoff-producing storm event during the dry season and daily during the wet season. ESC Requirement 6: Surface Water Collection In addition to the traditional BMPs mentioned above, two of the existing catch basins that drain to the Cedar River will be equipped with a pump and flow dispersal system. The outlet pipes from the catch basins will be plugged and a temporary sump pump will be installed to convey runoff to a length of 6-inch perforated pipe placed on undisturbed vegetation. Sediment will settle in the catch basin and the runoff will be dispersed through the existing vegetation downstream. ESC Requirement 7: Dewatering Control The Contractor shall dewater excavated areas that exhibit excessive water levels from ground or surface water. Temporary pumping and dispersal equipment shall be used to disperse the flow to existing vegetation areas downstream of the excavations. Sediment transport shall not be allowed to bypass existing or proposed stormwater facilities that are fitted with sediment retention measures. ESC Requirement 8: Dust Control The Contractor shall control dust to prevent sediment transport from exposed, dry surfaces to the adjacent waterways. It is anticipated that the Contractor will use water in these areas; however, the KCSWDM also allows the Contractor to utilize calcium chloride, magnesium chloride, lignin derivatives, tree resin emulsions, and synthetic polymer emulsions as other means of suppressing dust from the project area. ESC Requirement 9: Flow Control The Contractor shall be responsible for drainage control at all times. The Contractor shall protect all work, existing facilities, and adjacent properties and water bodies from erosion and siltation transportation during construction. Recommended Construction Sequence (Erosion and Sediment Control) 1. Attend preconstruction meeting. 2. Post sign with name and phone number of ESC supervisor. 3. Grade and install construction entrance(s). Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase I - 35 - Technical Information Report (TIR) 4. Install perimeter protection (silt fence,brush barrier, etc.). 5. Construct surface water controls simultaneously with grading activities for project development. 6. Maintain erosion control measures in accordance with King County Standards and manufacturer's recommendations. 7. Relocate erosion control measures, or install new measures, so that changing site conditions continue to meet King County erosion and sediment control standards. 8. Cover all areas that will be unworked for more than seven days during the dry season or two days during the wet season with straw, wood fiber mulch, compost, plastic sheeting, or equivalent. 9. Seed or sod any areas to remain unworked for more than 30 days. 10. Upon completion of the project, all disturbed pervious areas must be stabilized and BMPs removed if appropriate. SWPPS Plan Design Construction activities that may generate pollutants include: (1) soil disturbance from site grading, storm installation, and pavement removal; and (2) use of large machinery required to install new asphalt and storm system components. Potential pollutants in construction runoff as a result of the operations include the following: oils and greases,nutrients,metals, suspended solids, and Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD). The major pollutants generated by the activities are suspended solids (from soil disturbance) and oils and greases from heavy machinery and asphalt placement. These pollutants will be controlled using a combination of inlet protection filter traps, filter bags, and straw wattles in or around the new and existing catch basins. An additional measure for water quality will be utilized by pumping runoff from existing catch basins to a dispersal system. These measures are described above in the ESC Measures section. Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase I - 36 - Technical Information Report (TIR) ' ` " ` ' ' SECTION 9: BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES,AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT Bond Quantities Worksheet A completed Bond Quantity Worksheet has been provided as part of this document. Please refer to Appendix E, Bond Quantity Worksheet. Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Summary Sheet and Sketch A summary of the water quality facilities is discussed in Section 4, Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design. As discussed previously, flow control facilities are not required. Flow control BMPs will be provided where necessary or applicable. Please see Appendix F for the completed Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Summary Sheet for this project. Declaration of Covenant for Privately Maintained Flow Control and WQ Facilities The Renton Municipal Airport is a public facility owned and operated by the City of Renton. All fees associated with maintenance work are budgeted by the Municipal Airport, and the Public Works staff maintains the facilities. Therefore, this project is exempt from providing a Declaration of Covenant for Privately Maintained Flow Control and WQ Facilities. Declaration of Covenant for Privately Maintained Flow Control BMPs The Renton Municipal Airport is a public facility owned and operated by the City of Renton. All fees associated with maintenance work are budgeted by the Municipal Airport, and the Public Works staff maintains the facilities. Therefore, this project is exempt from providing a Declaration of Covenant for Privately Maintained Flow Control BMPs. Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase I - 37 - Technical Information Report (TIR) ' SECTION 10: OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL The applicable maintenance requirements, provided from the KCSWDM, Appendix A, are provided in Appendix G of this document. Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase I - 38 - Technical Information Report (TIR) - ` ' . " ' SECTION 11: REFERENCES City of Renton, Washington, 2012. City of Renton Municipal Code, Section 4-6-030, Drainage (Surface Water) Standards. City of Renton, Washington, 2012. City of Renton COR Maps. 7 June 2012. http://rentonwa.gov/govemment/default.aspx?id=29886. City of Renton, Washington, Public Works Department, Surface Water Utility, 2010. City of Renton Amendments to the King County Surface Water Design Manual. HWA GeoSciences, Inc., 2012. Taxiway B North (General Aviation) Section Improvements, Renton Municipal Airport, Taxiway B Rehabilitation. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, 2009.King County Surface Water Design Manual. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Water and Land Resources Division, 2009.King County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual. King County Geographic Information Systems, 2012.King County iMap:Interactive Mapping Tool. 31 May 2012. http://www.kingcounty.gov/operations/GIS/Maps/iMap.aspx/. United States Department of Agriculture,Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2012. Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington. Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase 1 - 39 - Technical Information Report (TIR) Appendix A Geotechnical Report Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase I Technical Information Report (TIR) ' ' " ' ' FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT Renton Municipal Airport Taxiway B Rehabilitation Renton, Washington HWA Project No. 2011-039-21 Prepared for Reid Middleton, Inc. October 17, 2012 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. • C eorechnical Engineering • Hydro, Bolo y • Geoenvironmental Services • Inspection & Te4tin `Y OSCIEN + INC. October 17,2012 HWA Project No. 2011-039-21 Reid Middleton 728 134th Street SW, Suite 200 Everett, Washington 98204 Attention: -Mr. Randy Hall,P.E. SUBJECT: Final Geotechnical Engineering Report Renton Municipal Airport Taxiway B Rehabilitation Renton,Washington Dear Randy: As requested, HWA GeoSciences Inc. (HWA) has completed a geotechnical engineering investigation to support design efforts for the Taxiway B Rehabilitation Project at the Renton Municipal Airport in Renton, Washington. The objective of our investigation was to evaluate the existing pavement and subgrade conditions in the vicinity of the proposed improvements. Our scope of work included field reconnaissance, test pit logging,pavement coring, dynamic cone penetration testing(DCP), laboratory testing, SCBC mix design,engineering analyses,and preparation of the attached final report summarizing the investigation results and our recommendations. We appreciate the opportunity to provide geotechnical services on this project. Sincerely, HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. A""� � , Steven E. Greene,L.G., L.E.G. George Minassian,Ph.D.,P.E. Senior Engineering Geologist Pavement Engineer Enclosure: Final Geotechnical Report 21312 30th Drive SE Suite 110 Bothell,WA 98021.7010 Tel: 425.774.0106 Fax: 425.774.2714 www.11-.vageo.com TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................I 1.1 GENERAL.......................................................................................................1 1.2 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING............................................................................1 1.3 AUTHORIZATION AND SCOPE OF WORK.........................................................1 2.0 INVESTIGATION PROGRAM ........................................................................................1 2.1 SITE EXPLORATIONS......................................................................................1 2.2 LABORATORY TESTING .................................................................................2 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS......................................................................................................3 3.1 SITE DESCRIPTION.........................................................................................3 3.2 GENERAL GEOLOGY......................................................................................4 3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.............................................................................4 3.5 EXISTING PAVEMENT STRUCTURE.................................................................5 4.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................8 4.1 GENERAL ........................................................................................................8 4.2 NORTH TAXIWAY SECTION RECONSTRUCTION ...............................................9 4.3 SOUTH TAXIWAY SECTION REHABILITATION&RECONSTRUCTION................9 5.0 CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS.................................................................................10 LIST OF FIGURES (FOLLOWING TEXT Figure 1 Project Site and Vicinity Map Figure 2 Site and Exploration Plan Figure 3 Geologic Map APPENDICES Appendix A: Field Exploration Figure A-1 Legend of Terms and Symbols Used on Exploration Logs Figures A-2—A-21 Logs of Cores Core-1 through Core-20 Figures A-22—A-24 Logs of Test Pits TP-1 through TP-3 Appendix B: Laboratory Testing Figures B-1 —B-8 Particle Size Analysis of Soils Figure B-9 Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index of Soils Figures B-10—B-12 Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Figures B-13 —B-15 CBR of Laboratory Compacted Soil Figure B-16 Bulk Density of Soil-Drive Cylinder Method Appendix C: Core Photographs FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON,WASHINGTON 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 GENERAL This report summarizes the results of a geotechnical engineering investigation completed by HWA GeoSciences Inc. (HWA) to support design efforts for the Taxiway B Rehabilitation Project, at the Renton Municipal Airport, in Renton, Washington. The project location is indicated on the Project Site and Vicinity Map, Figure 1. 1.2 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING We understand that Taxiway B rehabilitation work involves resurfacing all of Taxiway B on the east side of the airfield. Currently, Taxiway B is composed of hot mix asphalt and Portland cement concrete pavement and is approximately 3,300 feet long and ranges from about 25 to 50 feet wide. The objective of our study was to provide field exploration and testing to evaluate the existing subsurface and pavement conditions, and provide recommendations regarding subgrade strength properties for pavement design for the taxiway rehabilitation. 1.3 AUTHORIZATION AND SCOPE OF WORK Authorization to proceed with our work was provided under Agreement for Subconsulting Services, dated August 2010,between HWA and Reid Middleton. Our work was undertaken in accordance with our original proposal dated August 7, 2010. The scope of work included field reconnaissance, test pit excavation, pavement coring and shallow hand-excavated explorations, DCP and laboratory testing, and preparation of this summary report. 2.0 INVESTIGATION PROGRAM 2.1 SITE EXPLORATIONS Subsurface conditions in the vicinity of the proposed improvements were investigated by means of three test pits (designated TP-1 through TP-3) and twenty pavement cores (designated Core-1 through Core-20). Shallow hand borings were performed within the core holes. The approximate locations of our explorations are shown in Figure 2, Site and Exploration Plan. The test pits were excavated on June 3, 2011, by an excavator under subcontract to HWA, to depths ranging from approximately 3.5 to 4 feet. The test pits and cores/hand borings were October 17, 2012 HWA Project No. 2011-039-21 performed by HWA engineering geologist personnel. Pertinent information including soil sample depths, stratigraphy, soil engineering characteristics, and ground water occurrence were recorded. The stratigraphic contacts shown on the individual 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 date and locations reported and, therefore, are not necessarily representative of other locations and times. Soil samples obtained from the excavations were classified in the field and representative portions were placed in plastic bags. These soil samples were then returned to our Bothell, Washington, laboratory for further examination and testing. The cores/hand borings were completed using coring equipment, hand augers, and other hand tools, to depths ranging from about 1.5 to 7.5 feet. The initial phase consisting of(16) sixteen cores/hand borings were conducted on June 2, June 6, and June 7, 2011. Four (4) supplemental core/hand borings were conducted on July 11, 2012. The cores/hand borings were used to gather information on the thickness of the existing pavement and strength of the underlying subgrade layers in the taxiway area. A legend of the terms and symbols used on the exploration logs is presented in, Figure A-1, Appendix A. Summary test pit and core logs are presented in Figures A-2 through A-24, Appendix A. Dynamic cone penetration (DCP) testing was performed in most pavement core holes to check relative soil density/strength conditions. The DCP consists of a steel extension shaft assembly, with a 60 degree hardened steel cone tip attached to one end, which is driven into the soil by means of a sliding drop hammer. The base diameter of the cone is 20 mm (0.8 in). The diameter of the shaft is 8 min (0.3 in) less than that of the cone to ensure that, at shallow penetration depths, the resistance to penetration is exerted on the cone alone. The DCP is driven by repeatedly dropping an 8 kg (17.6 lbs) sliding hammer from a height of 575 min (22.6 in). The depth of cone penetration was measured after each hammer drop and the soil shear strength is reported in terms of the DCP index. The DCP index is based on the average penetration depth resulting from 1 blow of the 8 kg hammer and is reported as millimeters per blow (mm/blow). The data obtained from the DCP testing was then correlated to approximate California Bearing Ratio (CBR) values, in order to evaluate the strength of the subgrade soils. It is important to note that CBR values derived from DCP data obtained from granular materials may be exaggerated. The calculated CBR values are plotted on the appropriate core logs in Appendix A. 2.2 LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were conducted on selected soil samples to characterize relevant properties of the on-site soils. The laboratory testing program was performed in general accordance with appropriate ASTM Standards, as outlined below. Final Report 2 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. October 17, 2012 HWA Project No. 2011-039-21 MOISTURE CONTENT OF SOIL: The moisture content of selected soil samples (percent by dry mass) was determined in accordance with ASTM D 2216. The test results are shown at the sampled intervals on the appropriate summary logs in Appendix A. PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS: Selected granular samples were tested to determine the particle size distribution of material in accordance with ASTM D 422 (wash sieve or wash sieve and hydrometer methods). The results are summarized on the attached Particle-Size Distribution reports (Figures B-1 through B-8, Appendix B), which also provide information regarding the classification of the samples and the moisture content at the time of testing. LIQUID LIMIT,PLASTIC LIMIT,AND PLASTICITY INDEX OF SOILS(ATTERBERG LIMITS): Selected fine-grained samples were tested using method ASTM D 4318, multi-point method. The results are reported on the attached Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index report on Figure B-9. LABORATORY COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SOIL(PROCTOR TEST): Selected bulk subgrade samples were tested using either method ASTM D 698 (Standard Proctor) Method C or ASTM D 1557 (Modified Proctor), as appropriate. The test results are summarized on the attached Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil reports, Figures B-10 through B-12, Appendix B. CBR(CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO)OF LABORATORY COMPACTED SOILS: Selected bulk subgrade samples were tested in accordance with method ASTM D 1883. The test results are summarized on the attached CBR of Laboratory Compacted Soils reports, Figures B-13 through B-15, Appendix B. BULK DENSITY OF SOIL DRIVE CYLINDER METHOD: The bulk density, dry density and moisture content of selected, relatively undisturbed soil samples obtained from test pits TP-1 through TP- 3 were determined in general accordance with ASTM D 2937 test method. The test results are summarized in the table on Figure B-16, Appendix B. 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS 3.1 SITE DESCRIPTION Renton Municipal Airport is located in King County, within the northwest portion of the City of Renton. The Airport has a single runway (Runway 16-34), which is approximately 5,400 feet long, 100 feet wide, and consists of Portland cement concrete panels overlain with an asphaltic concrete surface layer. The runway was resurfaced and realigned in the summer of 2009. Taxiway B extends along the southeast side of runway and is approximately 3,300 feet long, 25 to 50 feet wide, and consists of asphaltic concrete pavement in the general aviation area and Portland cement concrete panels overlain by asphaltic concrete in the area trafficked by large Final Report 3 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. October 17, 2012 HWA Project No. 2011-039-21 commercial aircraft. The ground surface in the vicinity of this project is predominantly flat, situated at approximately elevation 32 feet MSL and prior to industrial development consisted of a portion of the alluvial plain of the Cedar River. 3.2 GENERAL GEOLOGY Background geologic information was obtained from Geologic Map of the Renton Quadrangle, King County, Washington (D.R. Mullineaux, 1965). This map, a portion of which is reproduced herein as Figure 3, identifies the surficial deposits in the vicinity of the airport as urban or industrial land that has been modified by widespread or discontinuous artificial fill (map symbol- afin). Alluvial deposits consisting of material deposited by the Cedar River (map symbol—Qac) are mapped along the margins of this industrial land area and belie conditions prior to industrialization. 3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Locally, construction of pavement structure have been facilitated by the use of fill layers ranging from 0.6 feet in the general aviation area (north of the wind rose) to 2.25 to 4 feet plus in the commercial aviation area (central to south portion of Taxiway B). In general, the fill layers appear to be loose to medium dense and consist of various material types most predominately, slightly silty to silty, gravel with sand to relatively clean, sand with gravel. In the central area (between Core-5 and Core-6) material interpreted as dredge fill consisting of sand and gravel with shell fragments, glass and brick pieces underlies the pavement section at depth. Beneath the fill layer, the native subgrade soils consists predominately of medium stiff to soft, organic silt (OH), typically exhibiting estimated in-place CBR values ranging from <1%to about 5%. The soil moisture content appears to increase with depth. Perched ground water was encountered in test pits TP-1, TP-2, and TP-3, at depth of 3.8 feet, 3.5 feet and 3.6 feet, respectively. Ground water seepage was observed in core/hand borings Core-4, Core-6 through Core-9, and Core-18, ranging from about 2.2 to 5.5 feet below the existing ground surface at the time of our exploration. It is anticipated that the level of ground water in this area will change depending on the season and the height of the adjacent Cedar River. Three native soil samples were tested for laboratory CBR values. The tested samples were taken from Test Pits TP-1, TP-2 and TP-3, which are representative of the native soils encountered below granular fill along the length of existing Taxiway. The moisture-density curve for the sample from TP-1 was determined in general accordance with ASTM D 698, as required by FAA for airfields serving aircrafts with total weight less than 60,000 Lbs. The moisture-density curves for samples from TP-2 and TP-3 were determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557, as required by the FAA for areas serving aircraft with a total weight above 60,000 Lbs. The CBR value of each sample was determined at natural moisture content and maximum compaction effort. In addition, the sample obtained in TP-3 was dried back to optimum and compacted at Final Report 4 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. October 17, 2012 HWA Project No. 2011-039-21 maximum effort in an attempt to determine the potential strength gain available should the subgrade be allowed to dry out. The measured CBR test results are presented on Figures B-13 through 13-15, in Appendix B and are summarized in Table 1 below: Table 1: Summary of CBR Tests Sample Relative CBR Value Material Description Location Compaction o Light olive brown, organic SILT (OH) TP-1 57.4' 0.4 Dark brown, organic SILT (OH) TP-2 65.62 0.6 Dark olive gray, SILT with sand (ML) TP-3 85.52 1.2 102.12 53.8 'Relative to Maximum Dry Density determined with Standard Compactive Effort(ASTMD698) z Relative to Maximum Dry Density determined with Modified Compactive Effort(ASTM D 1557) 3.5 EXISTING PAVEMENT STRUCTURE We completed twenty (20) core/hand holes at locations selected by Reid Middleton along the taxiway alignment and on the existing north and south end connectors. Our shallow hand borings, performed within the core holes, were extended to 1.3 to 7.5 feet in depth using hand tools. Detailed logs of the core holes are located in Appendix A of this report. Photographs of pavement cores are presented in Appendix C. North Taxiway Connector Based on the exploration within the north taxiway connector(Core-1) the pavement section consists of an HMA surface of about 2-inches thick over 5-inches of crushed gravel base course. The existing pavement surface is in fair condition. Fill soils consisting of Gravel with sand and cobbles were encountered at depth of about 0.6 feet. No DCP test was conducted at this location due to refusal on cobbles. Taxiway B North - General Aviation Area Based on the explorations within the Taxiway B proper in general aviation area (Core-2 and Core-5) the taxiway pavement section consists of an HMA surface of about 2 to 4.5-inches thick and a base course layer ranging from 5 to 6 inches thick. The existing pavement surface is in fair to good condition. Final Report 5 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. October 17, 2012 HWA Project No. 2011-039-21 Fill soils consisting of poorly graded gravel with sand were encountered at depth of about 0.5 to 0.7 feet. At the location of Core-5, dredge fill consisting of silty medium sand with shell fragments, brick and glass fragments was encountered to a depth of 2.5 feet. Below the fill in Core-2 and Core-5, native alluvial soils consisting of sandy silt to organic silt were encountered. These soils were similar to those encountered in our test pit TP-1. Field DCP data obtained at location of Core-2 (See Figure A-3) indicate in-place CBR values of about 20% for the uppermost 0.7 of a foot of subgrade, then decreasing to about 3-5% for the last 1.1 feet or so to the termination depth of the test at about 4.3 feet below grade in native soils. Taxiway B North Apron Based on the explorations east on the Taxiway B in general aviation area within the apron adjacent to private hangers (Core-3 and Core 4) the taxiway pavement section consists of an HMA surface of about 1.5 to 2.25-inches thick. At the location of Core-4, a 1.5-inch thick layer of crushed aggregate was found sandwiched between the surface course of HMA and older 1.75- thick layer of HMA. A thin gravel base layer about 1.5 —inches thick was encountered under the pavement at Core-3. No gravel base was encountered below the lower HMA layer in Core-4. The existing pavement surface is in poor to fair condition. Fill soils consisting of well graded gravel, poorly graded sand or silty sand were encountered at depth of about 0.4 to 0.5 feet. At the location of Core-3, a silt layer was encountered immediately beneath a thin layer of CSBC. Below the fill in Core-3 and Core-4, native organic silt soils were encountered at depths of 2.3 and 3.2 feet, respectively. These subgrade soils were similar to those encountered in test pit TP-1. Field DCP data obtained at location of Core-3 (See Figure A-4) indicates in-place CBR values of 1-3% for alluvial subgrade from 2.8 to 4.9 feet below grade. Field DCP data obtained at location of Core-4 (See Figure A-5) indicates in-place CBR values of 1-5% for alluvial subgrade from 3.1 to 4.8 feet below grade. At both locations CBR values appear to increase slightly with depth. Taxiway B South-Commercial Aircraft Area Based on the explorations within the commercial aviation area the taxiway pavement section (Core-6 through Core-8, and Core-17 through Core-20) consists of an HMA surface of about 5.5 to 12-inches thick over a PCC section of 5 to 8 inches thick. At the location of Core-9, the taxiway pavement consisted on 10-inches of HMA without an underlying PCC layer. At the location of Core-10, which is situated in an infield cut-out (See Figure 2), the pavement consisted of only 2.25-inches of HMA. At the location of Core-11, which is situated at the south end of Taxiway B, the pavement consisted of 8.5-inches of HMA over 8-inches of PCC. At the location of Core-19 within Taxiway K, the pavement consisted of 12.5 inches of HMA over 7-inches of PCC. No crushed gravel base was encountered beneath the pavement at any of Final Report 6 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. October 17, 2012 HWA Project No. 2011-039-21 these locations except for Core-10, where at least 24-inches of gravel base consisting of fine crushed gravel with sand was encountered. The existing pavement surface at these locations is in very poor to good condition. At the locations of Core-17 and Core-20, the pavement surface is deeply gouged within the upper .HMA layer. The resulting gap had been sealed (See core photos for Core-17 and Core-20 in Appendix Q. It appears that the pavement in these areas had been subject to repeated stress by heavy wheel loads that plowed and furrowed the surface causing fractures to propagate into the pavement as much as 0.75 inches deep. At these locations, it is likely that the nose gear tires of commercial aircraft entering the taxiway from the hardstand are responsible for this damage. Fill soils consisting of gravelly sand to silty sand layers ranging from 1.0 to 2 feet thick were encountered directly underlying the pavement sections investigated in this area except at Core- 10 as noted above. Native soils consisting of sandy and organic silt were encountered at depths ranging from about 2.5 to 3.5 feet; these soils were similar to those encountered in our test pit explorations TP-2 and TP-3. Field DCP data obtained at the locations of Core-6 through Core-10 (See Figures A-7 through A- 10) indicate in-place CBR values ranging from 3 to 6% in native subgrade to depths of 4.4 to 5.6 feet below grade. At the location of Core-10, DCP testing encountered granular material with average CBR values above 40% to depths of 4.2 feet below grade. At the location of Core-11, DCP testing encountered granular material with average CBR values of 19%to a depth of 3.6 feet below grade. At the locations of Core-17 through Core-20 (see Figures A-18 through A-21) field DCP data obtained below the granular fill, indicate in-place CBR values of 3 to 4% in native subgrade from depths of 3.0 to 6.0 feet below grade. South Taxiway Connector Based on the explorations within the south taxiway connector (Core-12 through Core-16) the taxiway pavement section consists of an HMA surface of about 2 to 4 inches thick and a base course approximately 6 inches thick. The existing pavement surface is in fair condition. Native soils consisting of sandy silt and silt with sand were encountered at depth of about 0.5 feet; these soils were similar to those encountered in our test pit explorations. Field DCP data obtained at the locations of Core-12 through Core-14 (See Figure A-13 through A-15) indicates in-place CBR values ranging from 2 to 6% in native subgrade soils to depth ranging from 3.6 to 6.8 feet below grade. Field DCP data obtained at the location of Core-15 (See Figure A-16) indicate in-place CBR values averaging greater than 50% for two layers separated by a soft layer (CBR about 1- 5% ) about 1 foot thick situated between 3.3 and 4.4 feet Final Report 7 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. October 17, 2012 HWA Project No. 2011-039-21 below grade. Field DCP data obtained at the location of Core-16 (See Figure A-17) indicate in- place CBR values averaging greater than 100% for granular material encountered from 2.1 feet to the termination depth of 4.3 feet below existing grade. 4.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 4.1 GENERAL Our subsurface investigations reveal that the native soils consist predominately of soft to medium stiff organic or sandy silts within the northern and central portions of the project alignment (Core-I through Core-9 and Core-17 through Core-20) at depths ranging from 1.125 to 3.6 below the existing pavement surface. These native subgrade soils are weak exhibiting in- place CBR values ranging from 1 to 5%, and averaging about 3%. CBR values from laboratory samples obtained from TP-1 and TP-2 and remolded at natural moisture content indicate CBR values less than 1% for these soils. The in-place moisture contents of these soils ranged from about 50 to 75 percent over what is optimum for compaction. Typically, a layer of loose to medium dense, granular fill of varying quality ranging from 0.75 to 3.0 feet in thickness is present between the pavement and the underlying soft to medium stiff, native subgrade. Within the southernmost portion of the project alignment, in the infield cut-out area (Core-10) and at the southern end of Taxiway B (Core-11) the pavement is underlain by granular fill and sandy alluvial soils. These subgrade soils appear to be moderately strong exhibiting estimated in-place CBR values ranging from 19 to 40%. CBR values determined from laboratory samples obtained from TP-3 and remolded at natural and optimum moisture content indicate CBR values of about 1% to 54% for material with a moisture content difference of only 10%. It appears that considerable strength gain can be realized if these soils are allowed to dry prior to compaction. Along the main portion of southern taxiway connector (Core-12 through Core-14) the pavement is underlain by loose to medium stiff, silty sand to sandy silt alluvial soils. These subgrade soils are relatively weak exhibiting in-place CBR values ranging from 2 to 6%, and averaging about 3%. At the locations of Core-15 and Core-16 (situated within the inside turn radius on to Runway 16-34) the pavement is underlain by relatively thick section of strong granular fill and native material exhibiting estimated in-place CBR values ranging from 50 to 100% (these values should be considered in relative terms only as CBR values derived from DCP data from granular soils is often exaggerated due to presence of gravels). The local water table, or substantial seasonally perched ground water, was observed in all of our explorations located within the central portion of the Taxiway (Core-4, Core-6 through Core-9, and Core-18) and in the infield at all test pit locations at depths ranging from 2.2 to 5.4 feet below the existing ground surface at the time of our explorations. We anticipate that ground water levels in the area will be high; especially during the wet weather season and vary locally Final Report 8 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. October 17, 2012 HWA Project No. 2011-039-21 with the level of the adjacent Cedar River. This high ground water level will further decrease the already low infiltration potential of the subgrade soils. Because of the high fines and organic content in the native subgrade layer, we expect that water penetrating the surfacing could become trapped in the base layer. Therefore, we recommend that subsurface drainage be provided below the pavement and along the edge of the taxiways and apron pavement to intercept and prevent possible incursion of such infiltrated water beneath the pavement areas. Failure to maintain the subgrade in a positively drained condition could lead to localized softening and loss of support for the pavement structure, possibly resulting in premature pavement distress. Moreover, saturation of the subgrade with infiltrated moisture will exacerbate potential frost-heave effects and increase the rate of subgrade deterioration. 4.2 NORTH TAXIWAY SECTION RECONSTRUCTION We understand that the reconstruction of the northern portion of Taxiway B referred to herein as the General Aviation Area has already been designed and bid for construction commencing in the spring of 2013. We understand reconstruction will entail: removal of the existing HMA pavement, cement treatment of the underlying subgrade (SCB) for a depth of 8-inches, placement and compaction of a 6-inch thick layer of crushed base rock, followed by placement of a 4-inch thick HMA pavement layer. The use of SCB instead of traditional pavement re- construction methods is expected to save time and reduce the amount of imported materials required for re-construction by treating existing subgrade soils with cement. We understand that the construction will be conducted in three phases commencing from south to north. The SCB Mix design was completed by HWA in August, 2012 and our findings and recommendations are summarized in a laboratory report entitled: SCB Mix Design Report: Renton Airport Taxiway B Rehabilitation, General Aviation Area-Phases I through 3, Renton, Washington, prepared for Reid Middleton. 4.3 SOUTH TAXIWAY SECTION REHABILITATION&RECONSTRUCTION Currently, the design concept for rehabilitation and reconstruction of the southern portion of Taxiway B referred to herein as the Commercial Aviation Area is currently being developed. We understand that current consideration is being given to; total reconstruction of an area approximately 50 feet wide by about 1,500 long adjacent to the hardstand area, and a grind and overlay program for all other areas exhibiting surface deterioration. It is likely that this work will also be constructed in phases to minimize impact to airport operations. Currently, we understand that total reconstruction will consist of pavement (HMA & PCC) removal, followed by the placement of HMA for the full-depth of 11 to 13-inches. In these areas, the existing pavement section is supported by loose to medium dense, sand with gravel to gravel with sand fill directly underlain by soft to medium stiff, native sandy silt or organic silt. Consideration is being given to amend the upper 4 to 6 inches of the existing granular fill with Portland cement to create a soil Final Report 9 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. October 17, 2012 HWA Project No. 2011-039-21 cement base (SCB) layer that will serve to stabilize and reduce the potential for disturbance of the subgrade during construction and facilitate efficient HMA layer compaction. 5.0 CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS We have prepared this final report for the City of Renton and Reid Middleton. This report should be provided in its entirety to prospective contractors for bidding and estimating purposes; however, the conclusions and interpretations presented herein should not be construed as our warranty of the subsurface conditions. Experience has shown that soil and ground water conditions can vary significantly over small distances. Inconsistent conditions may occur between explorations that may not be detected by a geotechnical study of this scope and nature. If, during construction, 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. If there is a substantial lapse of time between submission of this report and the start of construction, or if conditions change due to construction operations, it is recommended that this report be reviewed to determine the applicability of the conclusions and recommendations considering the changed conditions and time lapse. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or the owners' representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the appropriate design team personnel and incorporated into the project plans and specifications, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. We recommend HWA GeoSciences Inc. be retained to monitor construction, evaluate subgrade soil and ground water conditions as they are exposed, and verify that subgrade preparation, backfilling, and compaction are accomplished in accordance with the 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 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 or toxic substances in the soil, surface water, or ground water at this site. HWA does not practice or consult in the field of safety engineering. We do not direct the contractor's operations, and cannot be responsible for the safety of personnel other than our own on the site. As such, the safety of others is the responsibility of the contractor. The contractor should notify the owner if any of the recommended actions presented herein are considered unsafe. Final Report 10 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. October 17, 2012 HWA Project No. 2011-039-21 O .O We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. Sincerely, HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. c'Waah 0 �? � f �� ® V-4 ski (► ticotopbt w `� �p 1704 �h$ed Gao��A ► �,`� f Z ��47 � STEVEN ELLIOTT GREENE `�Q1VAL Steven E. Greene, L.G.,L.E.G. George Minassian, Ph.D., P.E. Senior Engineering Geologist Pavement Engineer SEG:GM:seg Final Report 11 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. October 17, 2012 HWA Project No. 2011-039-21 REFERENCES Federal Aviation Administration, 2008,Airport Pavement Design and Evaluation Advisory Circular, AC 150/5320-6E. Federal Aviation Administration, 2007, Standards for Specifying Construction of Airports, AC 150/5370-10C. Mullineaux, D.R., 1965, Geologic Map of the Renton Quadrangle, King County, Washington. U.S.G.S Map QC-405. WSDOT, 1995, WSDOT Pavement Guide Volume 2 Pavement Notes, Washington State Department of Transportation. WSDOT, 2010,Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction, M 41-10, Washington State Department of Transportation. Final Repoit 12 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. I MULULL�rWAIUM FF" ■ �'+ .� �awn .>U 'kip 17 Project Site Lit Its-:. � ljii i! • MR,I14 ►�� AMIN a I In" ` ��' ,I N' ��•�4. ,III` PROJECT AND-VICINITY • REPORTGEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING • RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT •-. TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION • - - - - - - - - Renton Airport Taxiway B Exploration Locations I I o Exploration Northing Westing sta Offset Core-1 47,49516 122.21492 44+09 275 E I Core-2 47.49447 122.21476 41+54 294 E CORE-16 Core-3 47.49410 122.21459 40+17 319 E CORE-14 CORE 191� Core-4 47.49306 122.21441 36+58 323 E CORE-15 I I Core-5 47.49241 122.21439 34+25 304 E RE-13 ❑ I Core-6 47.49008 122.21384 25+78 350 E - TP-3 Core-7 47.48869 122.21350 20+54 383 E CORE-1 I I Core-8 47.48838 122.21355 19+28 356 E Core-9 47.48774 122.213,57 16+94 330 E Core-10 47.48656 122,21362 12+54 278 E CORE-8 Core-11 47.48649 122.21331 12+24 355 E -- I CORE ? CORE-7 CORE-21 Core-13 47.48608 122.21405 10+98 148 E CORE-10 L Core-14 47.48609 122.21412 10+94 129 E I I Core-15 47,48624 122.21413 11+52 133 E CORE-18 T Core-16 47.48629 122.21425 11+73 103 E I Core-17 47.48854 122.21354 19+83 393 E Core-18 47.48872 122.21332 20+43 455 E CORE-11 I I I Core-20 47.48932 122.21365 22+67 397 E 0' I SCALE: 1"=100' TP-1 47.48969 122.21400 40+37 278 E SCALE: 1"=100 JL I 1P-2 47.4969 122.214 24+ 298 E -J TP-3 47,48816 122.21381 18+62 298 E DETAIL A DETAIL B Locations based on field GPS data. - O / Al I o oPF,. COR 19� ® TP-2 � 3 j TP-1 n o - J Ea I ❑ TP-3 a - _ - - --- - �, - �- *CORE-� ORE-1 �-- - I CORE-9♦ � CORE-7 ♦ -� ! +CORE-4 CORE-3 ! J CORE-8♦ ♦ CORE-2 CORE-6 1 CORE-17 DET IL ^ ---- f DETAIL B LEGEND TP-3 0' 300' 600' 1200' TEST PIT DESIGNATION AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION CORE-14 SCALE: 1"=300' CORE HOLE DESIGNATION AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION FIGURE N0. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT DRAWN BY EFK w � RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT SITE AND DRAWN HWAGEOSCIENCESINC. TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION EXPLORATION CHECK BY SG PRO]ECr N0. RENTON, WASHINGTON PLAN SATE 2011-039-21 BASE MAP PROVIDED BY REID MIDDLETON fm 06.14.11 S:\2011 PROJECTS\2011-039-21 RENTON TAXIWAY B PRELIM ENGINEERING-PHASE 1\CAD\HWA 2011-039-21.DWG <FIG 2 CORE>Plotted:9/27/2012 5:53 AM sop, 4i sue« Qac l i �• _ QuJQit I Project Site , 2 M ►�:I• .-. Location Liz effi/ , 77 P _._ ll1V �j / Tta -(�`�iS � i ',11, tiI�i�'+, — S1 , ;i �f ` a _ P --- l. �;, �� of ` r s 7pif 43urr ' ` - i 4 7 14 � Qac F> 'c �~ Ik f .44 " — ,- —�— ;T a 1„ Map Symbol Geologic Description NORTH of Artificial Fill afm Urban or Industrial land modified by widespread or discontinuous fill Qac Alluvium—sand and gravel deposited by the Cedar River, and associated beds of silt, clay and peat. Qit Kame Terrace Deposits—sand and pebble—to-cobble gravel in scattered terraces. Map taken from: D.R. Mullineaux, 1965 GEOLOGIC MAP FIGURE No GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT 3 �1 RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT PROJECT No HWAGECISCIENCES INC. TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION 2011-039 RENTON WASHINGTON APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION RELATIVE DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY VERSUS SPT N-VALUE TEST SYMBOLS COHESIONLESS SOILS COHESIVE SOILS %F Percent Fines Approximate Approximate AL Atterberg Limits: PL=Plastic Limit Density N(blows/ft) pp Consistency N(blows/ft) Undrained Shear LL=Liquid Limit Relative Density(%) Strength(psf) CBR California Bearing Ratio Very Loose 0 to 4 0 - 15 Very Soft 0 to 2 <250 CN Consolidation Loose 4 to 10 15 - 35 Soft 2 to 4 250 - 500 DID Dry Density(pcf) Medium Dense 10 to 30 35 - 65 Medium Stiff 4 to 8 500 - 1000 DS Direct Shear Dense 30 to 50 65 - 85 Stiff 8 to 15 1000 - 2000 GS Grain Size Distribution Very Dense over 50 85 - 100 Very Stiff 15 to 30 2000 - 4000 K Permeability Hard over 30 >4000 MD Moisture/Density Relationship(Proctor) MR Resilient Modulus USCS SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM PID Photoionization Device Reading MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP DESCRIPTIONS PP Pocket Penetrometer Approx Compressive Strength(tsf) Gravel and �' GW Well-graded GRAVEL SG Specific Gravity Coarse Clean Gravel TIC Triaxial Compression Grained Gravelly Soils (little or no fines) GP Poorly-graded GRAVEL TV Torvane Soils ° Approx Shear Strength(tsf) More than 50%of Coarse Gravel with '41 GM Silty GRAVEL UC Unconfined Compression Fraction Retained Fines(appreciable on No.4Sieve amount of fines) GC Clayey GRAVEL SAMPLE TYPE SYMBOLS Sand and Clean Sand SW Well-graded SAND ® 2.0"OD Split Spoon(SPT) Sandy Soils (little or no fines) (140 lb.hammerwith 30 in.drop) More than SID Poorly-graded SAND 50%Retained Shelby Tube 50%or More on No. of Coarse Sand with r.' SM Silty SAND 200 Sieve Fines(appreciable 3-1/4"OD Split Spoon with Brass Rings Fraction Passing Size No.4 Sieve amount of fines) SC Clayey SAND O Small Bag Sample Fine Silt ML SILT Large Bag(Bulk)Sample Grained and Liquid Limit Less than 50% CL Lean CLAY � Core Run Soils Clay _ OL Organic SILT/Organic CLAY Non-standard Penetration Test (3.0"OD split spoon) MH Elastic SILT 50%or More Silt Liquid Limit Passing and 50%orMore CH Fat CLAY GROUNDWATER SYMBOLS No.200 Sieve Clay OH Organic SILT/Organic CLAY Groundwater Level(measured at Size time of drilling) 1 Highly Organic Soils PT PEAT Groundwater Level(measured in well or 110 open hole after water level stabilized) COMPONENT DEFINITIONS COMPONENT PROPORTIONS COMPONENT SIZE RANGE PROPORTION RANGE DESCRIPTIVE TERMS Boulders Larger than 12 in <5% Clean Cobbles 3 in to 12 in Gravel 3 in to No 4(4.5mm) 5-12% Slightly(Clayey,Silty,Sandy) Coarse gravel 3 in to 314 in Fine gravel 3/4 in to No 4(4.5mm) Sand No.4(4.5 mm)to No.200(0.074 mm) 12-30% Clayey,Silty,Sandy,Gravelly 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) 30-50% Very(Clayey,Silty,Sandy,Gravelly) Fine sand No.40(0.42 mm)to No.200(0.074 mm) Silt and Clay Smaller than No.200(0.074mm) 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. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT LEGEND OF TERMS AND 1 RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION SYMBOLS USED ON HMQ0SCRNCESINC RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT EXPLORATION LOGS RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FIGURE: A-1 LEGEND 2011-039.GPJ 9/28/12 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DATE STARTED: 6/2/2011 DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Diamond Core DATE COMPLETED: 6/2/2011 I SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOGGED BY: S.Greene LOCATION: See Figure 2. SURFACE ELEVATION: 18.5 *feet U) Ir W I m Z w Dropweight Cone Penetrometer U a ) Q (140 lb.weight,30"drop) Z = JO J w LU ° z ♦ Blows per foot I �^ m EL a W > >w z o x O W d } rn Q Q W — N J N o cn D DESCRIPTION U) rn a O 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 W 0 I 2-inches of HMA Pavement(ASPHALTIC CONCRETE) Dense,gray crushed rock consisting of 2-inches of CSTC S-1 " overlying 3-inches of CSBC. (GRAVEL BASE) S-2 GP Med.dense to dense,dark olive brown GRAVEL with sand S-3 GS ° and cobbles,moist. p (FILL) O I°Q :....:....:....:....:....:.............. O Q I Hand excavation terminated due to refusal on cobbles. No Ground water observed while conducting this hand boring. I I I I 15 I I 5 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content(%) Plastic Limit f— 0 Liquid Limit I NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated Natural Water Content and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PAVEMENT CORE RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION CORE-01 RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT PAGE: 1 of 1 ��N�$�C' RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.. 201 1-039 FIGURE: A-2 BORING-DSM 2011-039.GPJ 9128/12 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DATE STARTED: 6/2/2011 DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Diamond Core DATE COMPLETED: 6/2/2011 SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOGGED BY: S.Greene LOCATION: See Figure 2. SURFACE ELEVATION: 18.9 t feet w m Z w Dropweight Cone Penetrometer Ua N ) Q (140 lb.weight,30"drop) Z O w w w— p ♦ Blows per foot O m co W o o w n Q o m U Z o = O LL d } to Q Q w— H K o cn Z) DESCRIPTION rn U) o-: O O 0 10 20 30 40 50 Lu 0— riches of HMA Pavement. (ASPHALTIC CONCRETE) - Dense,gray,crushed rock.2-inches of CSTC over 3-inches S-1 "(fir of CSBC. GP (GRAVEL BASE) S-2 o Medium dense,brown,poorly graded GRAVEL with sand o and cobbles,moist. Q (FILL) o ML Dark olive brown,sandy SILT,moist.Contains 1.2%organic S-3 matter by dry weight. (ALLUVIUM) :....:..............:....:.... S-4 AL GS ♦: Hand boring terminated at an approximate depth of 2.5 feet below existing pavement surface. DCP testing conducted from 2.5 to 4.3 feet below the existing ground surface. No groundwater observed while conducting this hand boring. ♦ ♦ : 15 ♦:....:....:....:....:....:.... ....:....:.... ♦ ♦ 5 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content(%) Plastic Limit 1 0 Liquid Limit NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated Natural Water Content and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PAVEMENT CORE UWA RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION CORE-02 RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT PAGE: 1 of 1 HWAGEOSCIENCESINC RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 201 1-039 FIGURE: A-3 BORING-DSM 2011-039.GPJ 9/28/12 DRILLING COMPANY: Casacde Concrete Sawing and Drilling DATE STARTED: 6/2/2011 DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Diamond Core DATE COMPLETED: 6/2/2011 I SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOGGED BY: S.Greene LOCATION: See Figure 2. SURFACE ELEVATION: 18.3 *feet U) of w I g m a N w Dropweight Cone Penetrometer w U a r F_ 2 (140 lb.weight,30"drop) Z O J J w F z ♦ Blows per foot I Co U) a s w Z) > o 2 U 2 2 Z o = O w a } rn Q Q w— H 0Y Lu ❑ cn DESCRIPTION U) U) a O O 0 10 20 30 40 50 w 0 I 2.25-inches of HMA pavement.(ASPHALTIC CONCRETE) Dense,gray CSBC.Layer 1.5-inches thick. S-1 ML (GRAVEL BASE) S-2 Medium stiff,grayish brown,sandy SILT,non-plastic. ' SP (FILL) S-3 Loose to medium dense,brown,medium to fine,poorly graded SAND,moist. SM Medium dense to loose,grayish brown,Silty fine SAND, moist to wet. (FILLIDISTURBED NATIVE ALLUVIUM) I I ML Soft,sandy SILT to SILT with fine sand with 1.6%organic S-4 GS matter by dry weight,wet,slightly plastic. (NATIVE ALLUVIUM) I I 15 Hand boring terminated at an approximate depth of 2.8 feet. DCP testing conducted from 2.8 to 4.9 feet below the existing pavement surface. No ground water was observed I while conducting this hand boring. I I 5 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content(%) Plastic Limit I--0 Liquid Limit I NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated Natural Water Content and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PAVEMENT CORE UWA RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION CORE-03 HMGEOSCIENCES INC. RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT PAGE: 1 of 1 RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 201 1-039 FIGURE: A-4 BORING-DSM 2011-039.GPJ 9/28/12 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DATE STARTED: 6/6/2011 DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Diamond Core DATE COMPLETED: 6/6/2011 SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOGGED BY: D.Coltrane LOCATION: See Figure 2. SURFACE ELEVATION: 19.5 *feet W M Z - w Dropweight Cone Penetrometer v a r N Q (17.6 Ib.weight,22.6"drop) Z w w w e o ♦ Blows per foot O x0 rn J J Z o 2 U 2 z x O W } to Q Q W o 0 F- d' J a) 0 rn x DESCRIPTION U) W a'° O 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 w 0 1.5-inches HMA pavement. [ASPHALTIC CONCRETE] GW Gray,crushed rock CSTC.Layer 1-inch thick. O S-1 [GRAVEL BASE] 1.75-inches HMA SM I [ASPHALTIC CONCRETE) :.. I Loose,brown,fine to coarse sandy,fine to coarse GRAVEL r (with trace silt,moist. I O S-2 I [FILL] ----------- ---------� Medium dense,gray,silty SAND to sandy SILT with trace SP gravel,moist. ______ ____ -----� Medium dense,gray,fine to medium SAND with fine to coarse gravel,trace silt,moist. Cobble at 29 inches. 19 OL Soft to medium stiff,brown organic SILT with gray sand _ seam,and occasional reeds,moist to wet. 0 S-3 _ [ALLUVIUM] ♦ : Q A. .... ....:....:....:....:..............:.... Core hole was terminated at 50-inches below ground ♦: 15 surface due.Ground water seepage was observed at A' 5 48-inches below ground surface during the exploration. ♦ ...... ................. .. ;♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦: ♦: ♦: ♦: 10 10— 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content(%) Plastic Limit 1 0 Liquid Limit NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated Natural Water Content and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PAVEMENT CORE 1 RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION CORE-04 HIMIGEOSCUENCESINC RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT PAGE: 1 of 1 RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 201 1-039 FIGURE: A-5 BORING-DSM 2011-039.GPJ 9128/12 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DATE STARTED: 6/2/2011 DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Diamond Core DATE COMPLETED: 6/2/2011 I SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOGGED BY: S.Greene LOCATION: See Figure 2. SURFACE ELEVATION: 19.5 t feet rn of W Q M z w Dropweight Cone Penetrometer U } r Q (140 Ib.weight,30"drop) Z = JO 0 w W � \ o ♦ Blows per foot Of z F- m U) o- o- w W > > o-a, U 2 z x O W a) )_ rn Q Q W o— H OfJ � o rn > DESCRIPTION U) U) a g O O 0 10 20 30 40 50 W 0 I 2-inches of HN1A pavement.(ASPHALTIC CONCRETE) Dense, gray,crushed rock,6-inches of CSBC,moist. S-1 (GRAVEL BASE) SP Medium dense,brown,poorly graded SAND with silt and S-2 SM gravel,moist. (FILL) SM Medium dense,dark gray,silty medium SAND with S-3 GS gravel-contains,pieces of brick,glass,and shell fragments. (DREDGE FILL) I I I I Handboring terminated at an approximate depth of 2.5 feet. Soils appeared saturated and borehole sidewalls began to I collapse upon withdrawal of the auger. I 15 I 5 I 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content(%) Plastic Limit I-01 Liquid Limit I NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated Natural Water Content and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PAVEMENT CORE RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION CORE-05 RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT PAGE: 1 of 1 �A��C' RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 201 1-039 FIGURE: A-6 BORING-DSM 2011-039.GPJ 9/28/12 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DATE STARTED: 6/7/2011 DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Diamond Core DATE COMPLETED: 6/7/2011 SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOGGED BY: D.Coltrane LOCATION: See Figure 2. SURFACE ELEVATION: 19.5 *feet w Q m z w Dropweight Cone Penetrometer U } i t Q (17.6 lb.weight,22.6"drop) Z JO 0 J J .\ p ♦ Blows per foot z �� m rn a d 3 w D j- w ai } cUn Q Q w 5 ~ � 2 o N > DESCRIPTION U U) a O c9 0 10 20 30 40 50 w 0 8.5-inches of HMA Pavement. [ASPHALTIC CONCRETE] r: .:• 6-inches Portland Cement Concrete ....:....:....:....:....:... Loose,gray,fine to coarse gravelly,fine to coarse SAND .•. with cobbles and trace silt,moist.Becoming fine to medium SAND with gravel. O S-1 ' o.. [FILL) o. • --------- -- SM Medium dense,gray,gravelly,silty fine to coarse SAND with S-2 pieces of brick and shell like material,moist. (DREDGE FILL) ML Ground water Seepage is encountered from upper fill layer At is perching on silty sand fill layer. A: OS3 Medium stiff,gray SILT with trace sand,reeds,and oxide mottling,moist. [ALLUVIUM] 15 '. ML Medium stiff to medium dense,gray,silty fine SAND to . 5 — SM sandy SILT,moist to wet. ___________ —/ OL Soft to medium stiff,brown organic SILT with gray sand S 4 _ seams,wood debris and scatteredl reeds,moist to wet. 0 1 ML Medium stiff to stiff,gray,SILT with wood debris and fine sand seams,wet. Core hole was terminated at 76-inches below ground A surface.Ground water seepage was observed during the A: exploration at 37.5-inches and 66-inches below ground surface. A: :A A : A 10 10— 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content(%) Plastic Limit a —I Liquid Limit NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated Natural Water Content and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PAVEMENT CORE 1 RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION CORE-06 HMGEOSCIENCES INC RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT PAGE: 1 of 1 RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 201 1-039 FIGURE: A-7 BORING-DSM 2011-039.GPJ 9/28/12 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DATE STARTED: 6/7/2011 DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Diamond Core DATE COMPLETED: 6/7/2011 I SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOGGED BY: D.Coltrane LOCATION: See Figure 2. SURFACE ELEVATION: 19.7 t feet of W I Q m Z w Dropweight Cone Penetrometer U r 2 _ C (17.6 lb.weight,22.6"drop) Z O J J w .S p ♦ Blows per foot o I eD m m a a- W > z o x z > O Wz W d } U) Q Q W— H J � o W Z) DESCRIPTION U) N a o 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 W 0 I 8.5-inches HMA Pavement. [ASPHALTIC CONCRETE] "9=• 5-inches Portland Cement Concrete ....:....:....:....:....:....:... I GP Loose,gray,poorly graded GRAVEL with fine to coarse O S-1 ° SAND with cobbles and trace silt,moist to wet. O [FILL] °(SC ....:....:....:....:....:....:.... .. .. I 0 Q Medium stiff,gray,gravelly,sandy SILT,moist to wet. I Core hole was terminated at 39-inches below ground I surface due to refusal on cobbles.Ground water seepage was observed during the exploration at 32-inches below - ground surface. 15 I 5 .... ....:....:....:....:....:....:....:....:.... I ....:... ..................:.... .. r : I :....:....:.. .............. .. I 10 10 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content(%) Plastic Limit 1 0 Liquid Limit NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated Natural Water Content and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PAVEMENT CORE 1 RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION CORE-07 HMIGEOSCIENCESINC RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT PAGE: 1 of 1 RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FIGURE: A-$ BORING-DSM 2011-039.GPJ 9/28/12 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DATE STARTED: 6/7/2011 DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Diamond Core DATE COMPLETED: 6/7/2011 SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOGGED BY: D.Coltrane LOCATION: See Figure 2. SURFACE ELEVATION: 19.9 *feet w Q m z w cc Dropweight Cone Penetrometer U a 2 L Q (17.6 lb.weight,22.6"drop) Z J ~ Z cn .E H p ♦ Blows per foot O 2 J O i J W � Z Q m U) a a_ w > >� O W } to Q Q W 0 F J � o cn DESCRIPTION a) N a O c7 0 10 20 30 40 50 w 0 5.5-inches HMA Pavement. [ASPHALTIC CONCRETE) ^= 6.5-inches Portland Concrete Cement a'%• [PCC] Ri•h::. Loose,gray,fine to coarse gravelly,fine to coarse SAND .•, with cobbles and trace silt,moist. [FILL] d.' O 3-1 .� o. A' _______________ SM Medium dense,gray,gravelly sandy SILT to silty SAND, moist. O S 2 :.... .... .... ...: .. Medium stiff,gray,SILT with sand to sandy SILT,moist. [ALLUVIUM] ♦ : " ------- ......... OH Medium stiff,brown with gray mottling,ORGANIC SILT with - trace fine sand seams and reeds,moist. O S-3 - 5 ——————— SZ .............:....:....:.... .. 15 ML Medium stiff,gray,fine sandy SILT with interbedds of fine sand and reeds,wet. •OS-4 .... ....:....:.... ....: .. Core hole was terminated at 79-inches below ground ....:....:....r.. .. surface.Ground water seepage was observed during the exploration at 60 to 62-inches below ground surface. :....:....♦.. ....:....:.........:....:.... ♦: 10 10 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content(%) Plastic Limit 1— 0—i Liquid Limit NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated Natural Water Content and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PAVEMENT CORE 1 RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION CORE-08 HMGEOSCIENCESINC RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT PAGE: 1 of 1 RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 201 1-039 FIGURE: A-9 BORING-DSM 2011-039.GPJ 9/28/12 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DATE STARTED: 6/7/2011 DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Diamond Core DATE COMPLETED: 6/7/2011 I SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOGGED BY: D.Coltrane LOCATION: See Figure 2. SURFACE ELEVATION: 19.9 *feet rn [if W I Q M Z - w Dropweight Cone Penetrometer U } 2 ) Q (17.6 lb.weight,22.6"drop) Z = o w W uj z ♦ Blows per foot ¢ I �^ m a a W > >w 2 2 z = O W N Y (n Q Q W 0 o H K � � o u> > DESCRIPTION U) rn a O O 0 10 20 30 40 50 W 0 I 10-inches HMA Pavement. [ASPHALTIC CONCRETE] Loose,grayish brown,fine to coarse gravelly,fine to coarse ....:....:....:....:....:....:.... �. . SAND with cobbles and trace silt,moist.Becoming fine to I medium SAND with gravel. [FILL) Q;Q O S-1 SM Medium dense,Dark olive brown,silty,gravelly fine to medium SAND,moist O S-2 I ML Medium stiff,gray,SILT to CLAY with trace fine sand, "". . "" moist. OS-3 [ALLUVIUM] I 5 ' 15 ML Medium stiff to medium dense,gray,silty fine SAND to ' SM sandy SILT,wet. A:.... S-4 I 0 ♦ - I :♦ ♦ : Core hole was terminated at 90-inches below ground surface.Ground water seepage was observed during the I exploration at 65-inches below ground surface. 10 I 10 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content(%) Plastic Limit m 0 Liquid Limit I NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated Natural Water Content and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PAVEMENT CORE RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION CORE-09 RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT PAGE: 1 of 1 HWAGEOSQENCESINC. RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 201 1-039 FIGURE: A-1 BORING-DSM 2011-039.GPJ 9/28/12 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DATE STARTED: 6/6/2011 DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Diamond Core DATE COMPLETED: 6/6/2011 SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOGGED BY: D.Coltrane LOCATION: See Figure 2. SURFACE ELEVATION: 19.1 *feet rn of W Q m Q Of Z w Dropweight Cone Penetrometer U a_ D Q (17.6 Ib.weight,22.6"drop) Z J ~ z rn p ♦ Blows per foot O VJ J J W Z H m U) d a u > >w 0_ U z p x O W a) } rq Q Q W— � JR 0=w cn Z) DESCRIPTION rn rn a_ O (9 0 10 20 30 40 50 W 0 2.25-inches HMA Pavement. Q GP [ASPHALTIC CONCRETE] 0 Dense to very dense,gray fine to coarse sandy,fine angular GRAVEL,moist. C) [GRAVEL BASE] 0 0 S-1 o Q Q - ♦ 33 Core hole was terminated at 26-inches below ground surface.No ground water seepage was observed during the exploration. " A: 15 5 ....:...................:....:....:....:....:.... ........................:..............:......... 10 10— 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content(%) Plastic Limit m 0 Liquid Limit NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated Natural Water Content and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PAVEMENT CORE 1 RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION CORE-10 H M IGEOSCIE rCES INC RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT PAGE: 1 of 1 RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FIGURE: A'1 1 BORING-DSM 2011-039.GPJ 9/28/12 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DATE STARTED: 6/7/2011 DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Diamond Core DATE COMPLETED: 6/7/2011 I SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOGGED BY: D.Coltrane LOCATION: See Figure 2. SURFACE ELEVATION: 19.1 t feet (n 0_ W I gW m z N w Dropweight Cone Penetrometer U a L N ~¢ (17.6 lb.weight,22.6"drop) z O J J w e o ♦ Blows per foot O I z m rn o_ o- 3 W > > o-�, O z o x OLU W >- (n Q Q W— H J � o� 0 > DESCRIPTION C0 rn o-a O O 0 10 20 30 40 50 W' 0 I 8.5-inches HMA Pavement. [ASPHALIC CONCRETE] 8-inches Portland Cement Concrete [PCC] Loose,grayish brown,fine to coarse gravelly,fine to coarse : . SAND with cobbles and trace silt,moist. . . [FILL] o. O S-1 .Q SM Medium dense,dark olive brown,silty fine to medium SAND I with gravel,moist. S-2 A. :....'....:.... .. Piece of wood at 35-inches BGS. O A. ---- » I Probably gravelly SAND fill,no samples recovered. Core hole was terminated at 45-inches below ground 15 surface due to refusal on cobbles.No ground water seepage was observed during the exploration. I 5 ....:....:....:....:....:.... I I I I 10 I 10 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content(%) Plastic Limit I--0 Liquid Limit I NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated Natural Water Content and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PAVEMENT CORE RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION CORE-11 RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT PAGE: 1 of 1 ��$�C' RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FIGURE: A—1,e BORING-DSM 2011-039.GPJ 9/28/12 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DATE STARTED: 6/6/2011 DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Diamond Core DATE COMPLETED: 6/6/2011 SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOGGED BY: D.Coltrane LOCATION: See Figure 2. SURFACE ELEVATION: 20.6 *feet w Q m Z w Dropweight Cone Penetrometer v d � r N ¢ (17.6 lb.weight,22.6"drop) Z J 1-- Z c 5 F p ♦ Blows per foot O J O J J wCO Z co a s � � w Z) >w a 2 U z o T O w a) } (n Q Q w— 1-- J 0 tt, W T DESCRIPTION N rn a O c9 0 10 20 30 40 50 w 0 ches HMA Pavement. [ASPHALTIC CONCRETE) 20 IE7 es Portland Cement Concrete [PCC]oose,brown,fine to coarse gravelly,fine to coarse SAND ,•, with cobbles and trace silt,moist to wet. [FILL] O S-1 o.• . . . �.. ....:....:...... .. °:. SM Loose,grayish brown,silty fine to medium SAND with trace fine gravel,moist. O S-2 A: ♦: a: Piece of wood encountered. Light grayish brown,gravelly SAND with trace silt and O S-3 5 rootlets,moist. p:•,. ♦: p'© 15 d'• Sand becomes coarser. Medium dense,interbedded gray,silty fine SAND with A: brown fine to medium SAND,moist. A: S-4 ♦: 4: Core hole was terminated at 86-inches below ground surface due to refusal on cobbles.No ground water seepage was observed during the exploration. ................................................. 10 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content(%) Plastic Limit a —i Liquid Limit NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated Natural Water Content and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PAVEMENT CORE 1 RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION CORE-12 HMGEOSCIENCESINC. RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT PAGE: 1 of 1 RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 201 1-039 FIGURE: A-1 3 BORING-DSM 2011-039.GPJ 9/28/12 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DATE STARTED: 6/6/2011 DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Diamond Core DATE COMPLETED: 6/6/2011 I SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOGGED BY: D.Coltrane LOCATION: See Figure 2. SURFACE ELEVATION: 21.4 t feet W w I w CO z w Dropweight Cone Penetrometer U a t Q (17.6 lb.weight,22.6"drop) z = OJ 00 W J p ♦ Blows per foot I Ld co z F- m o- o- w D >w o_ U Z o 2 O W a) } V) Q Q W — H (D " o m Z) DESCRIPTION V) U) o- O c7 0 10 20 30 40 50 w 0 3-inches HMA Pavement. I [ASPHALTIC CONCRETE] 6-inches Portland Cement Concrete [PCC] .' GW Loose,brown,well graded GRAVEL with sand and cobbles O S-1 I and trace silt,moist to wet. [FILL] 20 ....:....:....:....:....:.........:.. .:.. .:.. . I .' ML Gray to light brown,sandy SILT,moist.Oxide mottling S-2 present. 0 l i (ALLUVIUM) :....:.♦:..............:. Becoming light brown medium SAND to gray silt. Interbeds/lenses of gray silt from 49-51 inches. A. I O S-3 5 ....:....:....:....:....:...� Core hole was terminated at 57-inches below ground :>> surface due to refusal on cobbles.No ground water I seepage was observed during the exploration. >> ♦ : 15 I :....:....:....:.A .. ;V I 10 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content(%) Plastic Limit m is Liquid Limit ' NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated Natural Water Content and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. =A FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PAVEMENT CORE RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION CORE-13 RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT PAGE: 1 of 1 HWAGEOSCIENCESINC RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 201 1-039 FIGURE: A-14 BORING-DSM 2011-039.GPJ 9/28/12 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DATE STARTED: 6/6/2011 DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Diamond Core DATE COMPLETED: 6/6/2011 SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOGGED BY: D.Coltrane LOCATION: See Figure 2. SURFACE ELEVATION: 20.8 *feet w Q m Z w Dropweight Cone Penetrometer U } ) Q (17.6 lb.weight,22.6"drop) z Z cn 0 w p ♦ Blows per foot O �� m � o o w > > a — 2 U O w IL Z u1 Q w oa DESCRIPTIONn n n 0 10 20 30 40 50 w 0 4.75-inches HMA Pavement. [ASPHALTIC CONCRETE] yg: 6-inches Portland Cement Concrete 20 O.•. Loose,brown,fine to coarse gravelly,fine to coarse SAND ....:....:....:....:....:....:....:....:....:.... y. . with cobbles and trace silt,moist to wet. [FILL] d. u. 0 . . . SP Light brown,fine SAND with silt and trace gravel,moist. SM (ALLUVIUM) + 0 S-2 ............................. ♦: Interbeds/lenses of gray silt in sample. S-3 ♦40 L 0 ♦ 5 ♦ ... .... ....:....:....:....:....:....:.... ♦ : Core hole was terminated at 60-inches below ground surface.No ground water seepage was observed during the exploration. 15 .... .... .........:....:....:....:....:.... 10 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content(%) Plastic Limit 2 0 Liquid Limit NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated Natural Water Content and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PAVEMENT CORE 1 RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION CORE-14 HMGEOSCIENCESINC RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT PAGE: 1 of 1 RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 201 1-039 FIGURE: A-1 5 BORING-DSM 2011-039.GPJ 9/28/12 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DATE STARTED: 6/6/2011 DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Diamond Core DATE COMPLETED: 6/6/2011 I SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOGGED BY: D.Coltrane LOCATION: See Figure 2. SURFACE ELEVATION: 20.7 t feet U) of W I Q m z w Dropweight Cone Penetrometer U a F-L Q (17.6 lb.weight,22.6"drop) Z J O w w w e o ♦ Blows per foot I x U) J J � Z m U) a a w IL a, 2 U 2 2z o x O W N Y U) Q Q W— H Of o rn x DESCRIPTION U) N a O O 0 10 20 30 40 50 W 0 I 6-inches HMA Pavement. [ASPHALTIC CONCRETE] 1r, 6-inches Portland Cement Concrete [PCC] 20 GP Loose,brown,poorly graded angular GRAVEL with sand, O �. ° moist. S-1 SW [CRUSHED GRAVEL BASE] Loose to medium dense,brown,silty,fine to coarse 0 S-2 �' I 'i. gravelly,fine to coarse SAND,moist. .................. .. SP %————————— [FILL] ---------� Loose to very loose,light brown,fine to medium SAND with GP silt,moist. / `--------------------- O S-3 � ' I o Loose,grayish brown,poorly graded GRAVEL with sand, Q moist. .... ..:....:....:....:....:....:....:. .: A : o� � Q I Q p:.:. Piece of wood encountered. A: » I Light grayish brown,gravelly SAND with trace silt and S-4 O rootlets,moist. :p.:•. (FILUDISTURBED NATIVE) : Core hole was terminated at 64-inches below ground 15 I surface due to refusal on cobbles.No ground water seepage was observed during the exploration. I I I I 10 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content(%) Plastic Limit 1--0 Liquid Limit I NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated Natural Water Content and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PAVEMENT CORE RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION CORE-15 HMIGEOSCIENCESllNC RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT PAGE: 1 of 1 RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 201 1-039 FIGURE: A-1 E BORING-DSM 2011-039.GPJ 9/28/12 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DATE STARTED: 6/6/2011 DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Diamond Core DATE COMPLETED: 6/6/2011 SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOGGED BY: D.Coltrane LOCATION: See Figure 2. SURFACE ELEVATION: 20.7 *feet w Q m Z w Dropweight Cone Penetrometer J V a r ¢ (17.6 Ib.weight,22.6"drop) Z J O w w w e w p ♦ Blows per foot O x O d d w j ¢ F m rn a c> z o x O w �, r cn ¢ ¢ w— W wd 0 cn D DESCRIPTION U) rn a O O 0 10 20 30 40 50 w 0 3.5-inches HMA Pavement. [ASPHALTIC CONCRETE] 7-inches Portland Cement Concrete [PCC] 20 Ai 4 • ••• SW Loose,brown,fine to coarse gravelly,fine to coarse SAND with silt,moist. O S-1 [FILL] SM Medium dense,gray,silty fine to medium SAND with fine to coarse gravel,moist.Pieces of brown silt present. ---------------------- •,•,• SW Loose to medium dense,light brown,fine to coarse gravelly, ....:....:....:....:....:....:....:....:....:.... fine to coarse SAND with trace silt and cobbles,moist. O S-3 3 �3 �3 33 Core hole was terminated at 36.5-inches below ground surface due to refusal on cobbles.No ground water seepage was observed during the exploration. 3 3 :33 5 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content(%) Plastic Limit 1--0—i Liquid Limit NOTE. This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated Natural Water Content and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PAVEMENT CORE 1 RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION CORE-16 HMGEOSMCESINC. RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT PAGE: 1 of 1 RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 201 1-039 FIGURE: /4-1 7 BORING-DSM 2011-039.GPJ 9/28/12 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DATE STARTED: 7/11/2012 DRILLING METHOD: 12-inch Diamond Core DATE COMPLETED: 7/11/2012 I SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOGGED BY: D.Coltrane LOCATION: See Figure 2. SURFACE ELEVATION: 19.7 t feet w W 0 J w m Q N w Dropweight Cone Penetrometer U a- N t Q (17.6 lb.weight,22.6"drop) Z 0 ~ Z 0 .� p ♦ Blows per foot O I r) w ° z Q m rn a a-w w a N w > >� = o w w a) } rn Q Q w — H J 0 cn D DESCRIPTION N 0 a O 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 w' 0 7-inches HMA Pavement. I [ASPHALTIC CONCRETE] i; 8-inches Portland Cement Concrete a%• [PCC]:.•.. ....:....:....:....:... GW Medium dense,gray,sandy,cobbly,fine to coarse S-1 >> •' GRAVEL,moist to wet. ! A Ii [FILL] ♦. ' • SM Medium dense,dark gray,slightly silty, •,• ;; g y, g y gravelly,fine to 0 S-2 ♦ medium SAND,moist.Trace wood debris. A:.... .. MIL Medium stiff,gray,slightly sandy,SILT,moist.Organic I debris and brown mottling observed. ♦: [ALLUVIUM] O S-3 ♦ : 15______________________ ♦ I OL Medium stiff,brown,ORGANIC SILT,moist. 5 — ♦.:....:....:....:....:....:....:....:....:.... = O S-4 ♦_ I I ........................... A A. Core hole was terminated at 72-inches below ground & I surface due to refusal on cobbles.No ground water A seepage was observed during the exploration. r » I .A . I i 10 I 10 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content(%) Plastic Limit 1--0 Liquid Limit I NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated Natural Water Content and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PAVEMENT CORE RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION CORE-17 RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT PAGE: 1 of 1 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FIGURE: A- f BORING-DSM 2011-039.GPJ 9/28/12 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DATE STARTED: 7/11/2012 DRILLING METHOD: 12-inch Diamond Core DATE COMPLETED: 7/11/2012 SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOGGED BY: D.Coltrane LOCATION: See Figure 2. SURFACE ELEVATION: 19.6 *feet w Q Lu m z W Dropweight Cone Penetrometer cJj a- 2 N t Q (17.6 lb.weight,22.6"drop) Z o w w w Z ♦ Blows per foot o w Z) Q m U) o- CL a�, o z x o W } (n Q Q W —o N JN o ttl u> > DESCRIPTION U) U) o- o c7 0 10 20 30 40 50 w 0— -nc es HMA Pavement. [ASPHALTIC CONCRETE] ? 6-inches Portland Cement Concrete [PCC] GW Medium dense,gray,sandy,cobbly,fine to coarse • GRAVEL,moist to wet. S-1 • [FILL] Ground water seepage observed at 2.16 feet below ground .' surface.(BGS) -- SM Medium dense,dark gray,slightly gravelly,sandy SILT, moist to wet.Trace wood debris. O S-2 • ♦. ML Medium stiff,gray,SILT to CLAY,moist.Organic debris and brown mottling observed. [ALLUVIUM] 0 S-3 ♦ 15 5 ♦.:....:....:....:....:....:....:....:....:.... OL Medium stiff,brown,ORGANIC SILT,moist.Lenses of gray fine sand observed. Core hole was terminated at 72-inches BGS due to refusal on cobbles.Ground water seepage was observed at 2.16 feet BGS during the exploration. 10 10— 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content(%) Plastic Limit I--0 Liquid Limit NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated Natural Water Content and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PAVEMENT CORE RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION CORE-18 HMGEOSCIENCESINC RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT PAGE: 1 of 1 RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FIGURE: A'1 9 BORING-DSM 2011-039.GPJ 9/28/12 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DATE STARTED: 7/11/2012 DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Diamond Core DATE COMPLETED: 7/11/2012 SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOGGED BY: D.Coltrane LOCATION: See Figure 2. SURFACE ELEVATION: 19.5 t feet Cf w I gM zQ N w Dropweight Cone Penetrometer J a- a) Q (17.6 lb.weight,22.6"drop) Z J O z v5 .S p ♦ Blows per foot O = N J J c w Z H F. m rn a s N j 1. p 2 O Wa) W } (n Q Q W — H J � o v> > DESCRIPTION rn rn a O cD 0 10 20 30 40 50 w 0 I 12-inches HMA Pavement. [ASPHALTIC CONCRETE] 7-inches Portland Cement Concrete Ai? [PCC] rg.•,, i I GW Medium dense,gray,sandy,cobbly,fine to coarseAA •' GRAVEL,moist to wet. S-1 ♦: I [FILL] ML Medium stiff,gray to brown,SILT,moist.Organic debris I and brown mottling observed. [ALLUVIUM] O S-2 OS3 ♦ : ♦ 15 I --------------- — 5 — OL Medium stiff,gray,silty CLAY to clayey SILT,moist.Trace O S 4 organics observed. Core hole was terminated at 66-inches BGS due to refusal on cobbles.No ground water seepage was observed during the exploration. I I I 10 10 I 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content(%) Plastic Limit I--0 Liquid Limit I NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated Natural Water Content and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PAVEMENT CORE =A RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION CORE-19 RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT PAGE: 1 of 1 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 201 1-039 FIGURE: A-2( BORING-DSM 2011-039.GPJ 9/28/12 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DATE STARTED: 7/11/2012 DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Diamond Core DATE COMPLETED: 7/11/2012 SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOGGED BY: D.Coltrane LOCATION: See Figure 2. SURFACE ELEVATION: 20.0 t feet w 2 m Z w Dropweight Cone Penetrometer U a- F-- Q (17.6 lb.weight,22.6"drop) Z Lu J O w w w e o ♦ Blows per foot F- m d a- W = Q 0_ U Z o 2 O W y } (n Q Q W— t- J_N o rn D DESCRIPTION rn U) o O 0 10 20 30 40 50 w 0- 6-inches HMA Pavement. [ASPHALTIC CONCRETE] �= 7-inches Portland Cement Concrete .Aa .,.; [PCC] a-, GW Medium dense,gray,sandy,cobbly,fine to coarse S-1 ♦ ' • GRAVEL,moist to wet. [FILL] • • ML Medium stiff,gray,slightly sandy SILT,moist. O S-2 "A .... [ALLUVIUM] OL Medium stiff,gray to brown,SILT to ORGANIC SILT,moist. A _ Organic debris and brown mottling observed. � S-3 A 0 5 — ...:....:....:.........:....:....:....:.... 15 Core hole was terminated at 66-inches BGS due to refusal on cobbles.No ground water seepage was observed during the exploration. 10 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content(%) Plastic Limit 1 0 { Liquid Limit NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated Natural Water Content and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PAVEMENT CORE RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION CORE-20 RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT PAGE: 1 of 1 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 201 1-039 FIGURE: A-21 BORING-DSM 2011-039.GPJ 9/28/12 EXCAVATION COMPANY: Deeny Construction LOCATION: See Figure 2. EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT: Case 590 Backhoe DATE COMPLETED: 6/3/11 SURFACE ELEVATION: 19 t Feet LOGGED BY: S.Greene (1i Of U) w Of w °0 _ rn LU U d o H Q o W W z o SKETCH OF SIDE OF PIT w 0- 2 � g g z = O HORIZONTAL DISTANCE(feet) ~a 0 U) D DESCRIPTION (0 2 0 O (D 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 0 a r SP 3-inch layer of grass and sod. 0 Medium dense,brown,poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel, S-1 22 .........:....:.... .... ..... ............. SM moist. OH B-1 67 AL ..:....:....:.... ....:....:....:.... ....:....:.... .. .. (FILL) :.. . . .:....:.. .:.. . . .:. .:.. . Medium stiff,grayish brown,ORGANIC SILT,with 3.5%organic GS - .. . matter,moist,plastic. In-place density of soil chunk=Dry density MD - 2 of 56.7 pcf @ 79.3%MC. CBR 2 (ALLUVIUM) :....:....:.... ....:.... .. .:.. .:.... . ..:.. . OL Soft,gray to grayish brown,organic SILT,plastic. Contains thin S-3 layers of highly organic material,moist to wet. . ..... .... ...... .. .... . — SZ 4 4 Test pit terminated at an approximate depth of 4 feet below the existing ground surface. Groundwater seepage was observed at an ...•:••••:....:.... ....:....:....:.... ....:.... .. .. approximate depth of about 3.8 feet below the existing ground 6 surface. 6 8 8 10 10 NOTE: For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions,this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT LOG OF TEST PIT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION TP-1 HMGEDSQENCES INC. RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT PAGE: 1 of 1 RENTON, WASHINGTON _ _ JEC ZO� J -39 F � ^r TPIT10 2011-039.GPJ 9/2872_ EXCAVATION COMPANY: Deeny Construction LOCATION: See Figure 2. EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT: Case 590 Backhoe DATE COMPLETED: 6/3/11 SURFACE ELEVATION: 19 t Feet LOGGED BY: S.Greene w Of a- m H c� o ¢ J } U-1 (n Jo 0 � w w Z SKETCH OF SIDE OF PIT a Co U 2 2 O z _ 0 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE(feet) w o M > DESCRIPTION can can 2 0 O C7 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 0 a r 3-inches of grass and sod. 0 Medium dense,gray silty SAND with trace fine gravel,moist. ML :.... S-1 11 �•• •�•• • (FILL) ML Dense,gray,sandy SILT with fine gravel,moist. S-2 25 Medium stiff,brownish gray SILT with fine sand,moist,law plastic. ....:....:....:.... ....:....:....:.... ....:....:....:.... ................... ................... 2 OH Soft,gray to dark brown,ORGANIC SILT,moist to wet,plastic. B-1 102 AL 2 In-place density of soil chunk=dry density of 48.7 pcf @ 134.2% S-3 213 GS •••.....•.........• ••••.......•••.•••• •• •• •• MC. MD (ALLUVIUM) CBR :....:....:.... ....:....:....:.... ....:....:....:.... .... 4 4 Test pit excavation terminated at an approximate depth of 4 feet below the existing ground surface. Ground water seepage was •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• ••••'•••• •••• ••••:•••• •• observed at an approximate depth of 3.5 feet below the existing 6 ground surface. 6 Buried concrete storm drain pipe exposed within south sidewall of test pit excavation between depths of 1.5 to 2.5 feet below the •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• existing ground surface. Based upon position of pipe bell flow direction appears to be toward taxiway infield(west). .... """' .... """' .... "" .. 8 8 10 10 NOTE: For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions,this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT LOG OF TEST PIT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION TP-2 HmaosC was INC RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT PAGE: 1 of 1 RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 201 1-039 FIGURE: A-23 TPIT10 2011-039.GPJ 9/28/12 EXCAVATION COMPANY: Deeny Construction LOCATION: See Figure 2. EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT: Case 590 Backhoe DATE COMPLETED: 6/3/11 SURFACE ELEVATION: 20 t Feet LOGGED BY: S.Greene (i W U) w Of w C0 cn W w = o 0 W W W SKETCH OF SIDE OF PIT w a 2 0 2 2 z 0 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE(feet) a M U) Z) DESCRIPTION W u¢i :5 0 O O 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 0 a r.• 3-inches of grass and sod. 0 GP S-1 Medium dense,brown,sandy GRAVEL with silt,moist. .. .. .. '• GM ML (FILL) S-2 16 ................... ................... ............ .... Medium dense,grayish brown,fine sandy SILT,moist,non-plastic. ....:....:....:.... ....:....:......... ....:.... MIL Loose to medium stiff,olive gray,sandy SILT,moist,non plastic. B-1 25 GS 2 In-place density of soil chunk=dry density 98.0 pcf @ 25%MC. MD 2 CBR OL Medium stiff to soft,gray to grayish brown,organic SILT,moist to O S4 51 wet,low plastic. ....:....:.... ....:....:....: .. .. .. 4 (ALLUVIUM) 4 ... .... . .. ...... Test pit excavation terminated at an approximate depth of 4 feet below the existing ground surface. Ground water seepage was ...•:••••:.••.:.... ...•:•.••:•..•:.... ....:•••• . observed at an approximate depth of 3.6 feet below the existing : 6 ground surface. 6 8 8 10 10 NOTE: For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions,this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT LOG OF TEST PIT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION TP-3 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT PAGE: 1 of 1 RENTON, WASHINGTON JEC ZO� � 19 F E TPIT10 2011-039.GPJ 9/28/12 - -- - - - - -- -- APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 314" 3" 1-1/2" 15/8" 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 90 I 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 70 w I I I I I 1 1 I I m so I I I I I I I I I I w 50 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 Z 40 LLI I I I I I I I I I I U I I I I I I I I I 30 w I I I I I I I I I I 20 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 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 SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH(ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL-ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name %MC LL PL pl Gravel Sand Fines • CORE-01 S-3 0.6-1.3 (GP)Dark olive brown,poorly graded GRAVEL with sand 5 52.7 43.4 3.9 ■ CORE-02 S-4 2.0-2.5 (ML)Dark olive to gray,sandy SILT with 1.2%organic matter by dry weight 25 25 22 3 1.4 28.1 70.5 A CORE-03 S-4 2.3-2.8 (ML)Dark olive brown,SILT with 1.6%organic matter 39 1.6 29.3 69.1 FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION OF SOILS fwaoSCIms INC. RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT METHOD ASTM D422 RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 201 1-039 FIGURE: B-1 HWAGRSZ 2011-039.GPJ 9/28/12 GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 3/4" 3" 1-1/2" 15/8" 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 90 I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I 80 = I I t I I 1 I I I I 70 w I I I I I I I I I 60 I I I I I I I m I I I I I I I I I tY I I I I I I I I I I w 50 z I I I I I I I I I w I I I I I I I I I Z 40 w I I I I I I I I I U I I I I I I I I 30 w I I I I I I I I 20 I I I I I I I I I I 10 I I I I I ILL I 0 50 10 5 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH(ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL-ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name %MC LL PL PI Gravel Sand Fines • CORE-05 S-3 1.0-2.4 (SM)Dark Gray,silty SAND with gravel,contains glass and shell fragments. 37 18.9 55.5 25.6 ■ CORE-06 S-2 2.9-3.1 (SM)Dark grayish brown,silty SAND with gravel 10 44.3 37.1 18.6 A CORE-07 S-1 1.3-1.6 (GP)Gray,poorly graded GRAVEL with sand 5 54.0 42.5 3.5 FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION OF SOILS tMGEOsaENCES INC. RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT METHOD ASTM D422 RENTON, WASHINGTON JEC ZO 19 F C� .- Nwar.R97 �mi_ns4t;p.i anan9 - — - GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY Coarse Fine Coarse I Medium Fine U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 3/4" 3" 1-1/2" 15/8" 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 1 zl- 90 I I I I I I I I I I 80 = I I I I I I I I I I LD 70 w I I I I I I I I I 6o I I I I I I I I I m I I I I I I I I I W I I I I I I I I I I w 50 I I I I I I I I I I Z I I I I I I I I I I w I I I I I I I I I I Z 40 W I I I I I I I I I I of 30 W I I I I I I I I I I 20 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 I 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 SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH(ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL-ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name %MC LL PL PI Gravel Sand Fines • CORE-08 (ML)Dark olive brown,SILT with sand 23 3.6 33.8 62.6 ■ CORE-08 S-3 4.2-4.4 (OH)Dark grayish brown,organic SILT 114 108 74 34 3.8 10.8 85.5 A CORE-09 S-2 2.3-2.7 (SM)Dark olive brown,silty SAND with gravel 15 17.2 43.4 39.4 FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION OF SOILS HMGEOSC was INC RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT METHOD ASTM D422 RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FIGURE: B-3 HWAGRSZ 2011-039.GPJ 9128112 GRAVEL I SAND SILT CLAY Coarse Fine I Coarse Medium Fine U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 3/4" 3" 1-1/2" 15/8" 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 I 11 I I I I I 80 = I I I I I I I I I 70 w I I I 1 I I I I I } 60 I I I I I I I I I m I I I I I I I I I w 50 I I I I I I I I I I z I I I I I I I I I w I I I I I I I I I Z 40 w I I I I I I I I I I 30 w I I I I I I I I I I 20 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 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 SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH(ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL-ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name %MC LL PL PI Gravel Sand Fines • CORE-11 S-2 3.0-3.5 (SM)Dark olive brown,silty SAND 16 13.4 51.2 35.4 ■ CORE-12 S-2 2.8-3.3 (SM)Brown,silty SAND 14 14.5 49.0 36.5 A CORE-13 S-1 1.0-1.3 (GW)Dark olive brown,well graded GRAVEL with sand 3 70.1 26.8 3.0 FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION OF SOILS IMGEOsaENCES INC RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT METHOD ASTM D422 RENTON, WASHINGTON UEC 2C"" -39 i f HWA R7 2011-039C;P.l 9/29/17 GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 3/4" 3" 1-1/2" 5/8" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 I "0� I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I 90 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 70 w I I I I I I I I I I 60 I I I I I I I I I co I I I I I I I I I Z 50 I I I I I I I I I LL I I I I I I I I I I Z 40 W I I I I I I I I I I U I I I I I I I I I � 30 LU I I I I I I I I I I a I I I I I I I I I I 20 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10 I I I 1 I I I I I I I 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 SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH(ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL-ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name %MC LL PL PI Gravel Sand Fines • CORE-13 S-2 2.5-2.9 (ML)Brown,SILT with sand 21 14.6 29.7 55.7 ■ CORE-14 S-3 4.4-4.8 (SP-SM)Brown,poorly graded SAND with silt 9 0.5 87.8 11.7 A CORE-15 S-1 1.2-1.4 (GP)Olive brown,poorly graded GRAVEL with sand 6 81.5 13.1 5.4 FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION OF SOILS imaoSCIms INC. RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT METHOD ASTM D422 RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 201 1-039 FIGURE: B-5 HWAGRSZ 2011-039.GPJ 9/28/12 GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 3/4" 3" 1-1/2" 15/8" 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 80 = 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 I I I } 60 I I I I I I I I I I co I I I I I I I I W 50 I I I 1 I I I I I I Z 1 I I I I I I I I LL I I I I I I I I I Z 40 W I I I I I I I I U I I I I I I I I I Of 30 20 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10 I I I L-L0 I I I I 50 10 5 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH(ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL-ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name %MC LL PL PI Gravel Sand Fines • CORE-15 S-4 4.7-5.2 (GP)Olive brown,poorly graded GRAVEL with sand 5 54.5 41.7 3.9 ■ CORE-16 S-2 1.5-1.7 (SM)Brownish gray,silty SAND with gravel 25 16.2 49.1 34.7 A TP-1 B-1 0.9-2.5 (OH)Light olive brown,organic SILT with 3.5%organic matter 67 122 68 54 0.0 4.1 95.9 FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION OF SOILS IMGEOsaENCESINC. RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT METHOD ASTM D422 RENTON, WASHINGTON UEc 2C -39 1 F- HWAGRSZ 2011-039.GPJ 9/28/12 - - - - - --- -- ---- _ - GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 3/4" 3" 1-1/2" 5/8" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 100 I II I I 90 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 80 = I I I I I I 1 I I 70 w I I I I I I I I I I 60 I I I I I I I I I I m I I I I I I I I I I W 50 I I I I I I I I I I Z I I I I I I I I I I W I I I I I I I I I I Z 40 W I I I I I I I I I I C) I I I I I I I I I I 30 W I I I I I I I I I I 20 I I I I I I I I I I 10 I I I I I I 0 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 50 10 5 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH(ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL-ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name %MC LL PL PI Gravel Sand Fines • TP-2 S-2 1.1 -2.0 (ML)Brownish gray,SILT with sand 25 3.9 22.4 73.7 ■ TP-2 B-1 2.0-2.5 (OH)Dark Brown,organic SILT 102 84 62 22 0.0 3.9 96.1 A TP-3 B-1 1.5-2.0 (ML)Dark olive gray,SILT with sand 25 0.0 23.7 76.3 FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS BOA RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION OF SOILS HmaosC was INC. RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT METHOD ASTM D422 RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 201 1-039 FIGURE: B-7 HWAGRSZ 2011-039.GPJ 9/28/12 GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 3/4" 3" 1-1/2" 1 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 I 90 I 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 L2 70 w I I I I I I I I I I 60 I I I I I I I I I I m I I I I I I I I I I w 50 I I I I 1 I I I I I z I I I I I I I I I 1 w I I I I I I I I I I Z 40 w I I I I I I I I I I U I I I I I I I I I I W 30 w I I I I I I I I I I a I I I I I I I I I I 20 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 I 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 SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH(ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL-ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name %MC LL PL PI Gravel Sand Fines o a o • TP-3 S-4 3.0-4.0 (OH)Dark gray,organic SILT 51 55 31 24 0.0 11.6 88.4 FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION OF SOILS twaoSCImasiNC. RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT METHOD ASTM D422 RENTON. WASHINGTON jEc 20 9 F F HWAGRSZ 2011-039.GPJ 9/28/12 60 CL CH 50 X 40 W 0 Z_ A >- 30 _H U F- Q 20 J 10 0 -M -- CLL ML MH • 0 20 40 60 80 100 LIQUID LIMIT (LL) SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH(ft) CLASSIFICATION %MC LL PL PI %Fines • CORE-02 S-4 2.0-2.5 (ML)Dark olive to gray,sandy SILT with 1.2%organic matter by dry weight 25 25 22 3 70.5 ■ CORE-06 S-3 3.8-4.3 (OH)Dark brownish gray,organic SILT,contains 4.4%organic mattter. 58 52 37 15 A CORE-08 S-3 4.2-4.4 (OH)Dark grayish brown,organic SILT 114 108 74 34 85.5 O TP-2 B-1 2.0-2.5 (OH)Dark Brown,organic SILT 102 84 62 22 96.1 ❑ TP-3 S-4 3.0-4.0 (OH)Dark gray,organic SILT 51 55 31 24 88.4 I I I I I I __j FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT AND �■■� RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION PLASTICITY INDEX OF SOILS HmaosaENCES INC. RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT METHOD ASTM D4318 RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECTNO.: 2011-039 FIGURE: B-9 HWAATTB 2011-039.GPJ 9/28/12 LABORATORY COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SOIL U01 CLIENT: Reid Middleton HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. PROJECT: Renton Taxiway B SAMPLE ID: TP-1, B-1 PROJECT NO: 2011-039 Sampled By: SEG Tested By: JH Date Sampled: 61612011 Date Received: 61612011 Date Tested: 611412011 MATERIAL TYPE OR DESCRIPTION: Light grayish brown, organic SILT OH MATERIAL SOURCE, SAMPLE LOCATION AND DEPTH: TP-1, 2 ft b s Designation:�X ASTM D 698 F�ASTM D 1557 Natural Moisture Content: 79.3 % Method: F-]A F-1B �X C Oversize: 0 % retained on: 3/4 in. Preparation:0 Dry �X Moist Rammer:[ Auto Manual Assumed S.G.: 2.4 Test Data Dry Density (pcf) 62.2 63.7 64.1 61.5 Moisture Content (%) 24.6 26.8 29.3 31.4 70 Rock Corrected Curve per ASTM D4718 Lab Proctor Curve 65 _._._._ 100%Saturation Line s~ a 60 o ' 0 55 50 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 Moisture Content(%) Data Summary* Test Values At Other Oversize Percentages Percent Oversize <5% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.00o Max. Dry Density(pcf)* 64.4 64.4 66.3 68.3 70.4 72.7 75.1 77.7 Optimum Moisture(%)* 28.5 28.5 27.1 25.8 24.4 23.0 21.6 20.3 values corrected or oversize material per ASTIVI D4718,using assumed Specific Gravity shown and oversize moisture content of 1% Reviewed By: Steven Greene FIGURE B-10 This report applies only to the items tested,and may be reproduced in full,with written approval of HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. LABORATORY COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SOIL U01 CLIENT: Reid Middleton HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. PROJECT: Renton Taxiway B SAMPLE ID: TP-2, B-1 PROJECT NO: 2011-039 Sampled By: SEG Tested By: JH Date Sampled: 61612011 Date Received: 61612011 Date Tested: 611312011 MATERIAL TYPE OR DESCRIPTION: Dark brown, organic SILT OH MATERIAL SOURCE, SAMPLE LOCATION AND DEPTH: TP-2, 2 ft b s Designation:F�ASTM D 698 �X ASTM D 1557 Natural Moisture Content: 134.2 % Method: F]A F-]B �X C Oversize: 0 % retained on: 314 in. Preparation: Dry �X Moist Rammer:�X Auto Manual Assumed S.G.: 2.4 Test Data Dry Density (pcf) 1 55.2 58.9 59.8 1 58.2 Moisture Content(%) 55.9 57.7 59.0 62.0 70 _ Rock Corrected Curve per ASTM D4718 Lab Proctor Curve 65 ....... 100%Saturation Line a 60 77W- � I 55 50 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 Moisture Content(%) Data Summary* Test Values At Other Oversize Percentages Percent Oversize <5% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% Max. Dry Density(pcf)* 59.9 59.9 61.8 63.7 65.8 68.1 70.5 73.1 Optimum Moisture(%)* 59.5 59.5 56.6 1 53.7 50.7 47.8 44.9 42.0 values corrected or oversize ma eria per D4718,using assumed Specific Gravity shown and oversize moisture content of 1% Reviewed By: Steven Greene FIGURE B-11 This report applies only to the items tested,and may be reproduced in full,with written approval of HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. LABORATORY COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SOIL ,Rt�Al CLIENT: Reid Middleton HWAGECISCIENCES INC. PROJECT: Renton Taxiway B SAMPLE ID: TP-3, B-1 PROJECT NO: 2011-039 Sampled By: SEG Tested By: JH Date Sampled: 61612011 Date Received: 61612011 Date Tested: 611012011 MATERIAL TYPE OR DESCRIPTION: Dark gray, silty SAND SM MATERIAL SOURCE, SAMPLE LOCATION AND DEPTH: TP-3, 2 ft b s Designation:F-]ASTM D 698 ❑X ASTM D 1557 Natural Moisture Content: 25 % Method: F-]A F-�B �X C Oversize: 0 % retained on: 314 in. Preparation:0 Dry Moist Rammer:[ Auto Omanual Assumed S.G.: 2.4 Test Data Dry Density (pcf) 101.9 1 108.6 106.3 1 102.3 110.4 Moisture Content (%) 10.7 13.0 18.6 20.7 15.4 120 _ Rock Corrected Curve per ASTM D4718 115 Lab Proctor Curve 100%Saturation Line 110 U a 105 o - 100 -- 95 90 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 Moisture Content(%) Data Summary* Test Values At Other Oversize Percentages Percent Oversize <5% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% Max. Dry Density(pcf)* 110.5 110.5 112.0 113.5 115.0 116.6 118.3 119.9 Optimum Moisture(%)* 15.0 15.0 14.3 13.6 1 12.9 12.2 11.5 10.8 values corrected or oversize material per ASTIM D4718,using assumed Specific Gravity shown and oversize moisture content of 1% Reviewed By: Steven Greene FIGURE B-12 This report applies only to the items tested,and may be reproduced in full,with written approval of HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. CBR(California Bearing Ratio) OF LAB COMPACTED SOILS .R�/;� (ASTM D 1883) CLIENT: Reid Middleton HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. PROJECT: Renton Taxiway B SAMPLE ID: TP-1, B-1 PROJECT NO: 2011-039-21 Sampled By: SEG Tested By: AAC/JH Date Sampled: 61212011 Date Received: 61212011 Date Tested: 612012011 Material Description: Light olive brown, organic SILT(OH) Sample Location: Test Pit TP-2 Sample B-1 Compaction Standard: �X D698 QO D1557 Condition: QX Soaked for 96 hrs OUnsoaked Max. Dry Density: 64.4 pcf @ 28.5 % M.C. with 0 % scalped-off on the 3/4" sieve Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Dry Density c 37.0 Percent Compaction 57.4 Moisture before Compaction % 118.2 Moisture after Compaction % 131.9 Percent Swell initial ht= 7" -3.5 Moisture, after Soaking (%) 122.7 Moisture To 1" after Soak % 109.2 CBR at 0.1" Penetration 0.4 CBR at 0.2" Penetration 0.4 CBR Value 0.4 12 10 8 --- Q y 6 L 4 2 L�0 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 Displacement(in) 5.0 4.0 3.0 m v 2.0 1.0 0.0 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 %Compaction REVIEWED BY: Steven Greene FIGURE: B-13 CBR(California Bearing Ratio) OF LAB COMPACTED SOILS (ASTM D 1883) Y CLIENT: Reid Middleton HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. PROJECT: Renton Taxiway B SAMPLE ID: TP-2, B-1 PROJECT NO: 2011-039-21 Sampled By: SEG Tested By: AAC/JH Date Sampled: 61212011 Date Received: 61212011 Date Tested: 612012011 Material Description: Dark brown, organic SILT(OH) Sample Location: Test Pit TP-2 Sample B-1 Compaction Standard: F_�D698 ❑X D1557 Condition: ❑X Soaked for 96 hrs �Unsoaked Max. Dry Density: 59.9 pcf @ 59.5 % M.C. with 0 % scalped-off on the 3/4" sieve Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Dry Density c 39.3 Percent Compaction 65.6 Moisture before Compaction % 122.7 Moisture after Compaction % 111.3 Percent Swell initial ht= 7") -5.9 Moisture, after Soaking % 109.3 Moisture To 1" after Soak % 100.2 CBR at 0.1" Penetration 0.5 CBR at 0.2" Penetration 0.6 CBR Value 0.6 18 16 14 12 0 10 N N 8 6 4 2 0 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 Displacement(in) 5.0 4.0 3.0 in U 2.0 1.0 0.0 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 %Compaction REVIEWED BY: Steven Greene FIGURE: B-14 CBR(California Bearing Ratio) OF LAB COMPACTED SOILS ffir V (ASTM D 1883) CLIENT: Reid Middleton HWAGEOSCI ENCES INC. PROJECT: Renton Taxiway B SAMPLE ID: TP-3, B-1 PROJECT NO: 2011-039-21 Sampled By: SEG Tested By: AAC/JH Date Sampled: 61212011 Date Received: 61212011 Date Tested: 612012011 Material Description: Dark olive gray, SILT with sand(ML) Sample Location: Test Pit TP-3 Sample B-1 Compaction Standard: F-1D698 ❑X D1557 Condition: ❑X Soaked for 96 hrs ❑Unsoaked Max. Dry Density: 110.5 pcf @ 15 % M.C. with 0 % scalped-off on the 3/4" sieve Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Dry Density c 94.5 112.9 #N/A Percent Compaction 85.5 102.1 #N/A Moisture before Compaction % 25.5 15.4 #DIV/0! Moisture after Compaction % 25.2 15.0 #DIV/0! Percent Swell (initial ht = 7") -0.1 0.5 0.0 Moisture, after Soaking (%) 27.3 17.0 #DIV/0! Moisture Top 1" after Soak % 25.5 19.4 #DIV/0! CBR at 0.1" Penetration 0.9 51.4 #DIV/0! CBR at 0.2" Penetration 1.2 53.8 #DIV/0! CBR Value 1.2 53.8 #DIV/0! 1600 -_ ♦-85.5 1400 -�102.1 1200 1000 N a. y 800 d in 600 400 200 --- 0 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 Displacement(in) - 60 -- 50 40 - m 30 U 20 10 0 80 85 90 95 100 105 %Compaction REVIEWED BY: Steven Greene FIGURE: B-15 Bulk Density of Soil Chunk Samples Renton Airport Taxiway B , HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. Exploration Sample No. Depth Length Diameter Volume Tare Wet+Tare Bulk Density Tare W+T D+T MC Dry Densitv TP-1 B-1 0.9 6 2.4 0.0157 248 849.83 84.6 8.32 191.5 110.51 79.3% 47.2 TP-2 B-1 2 6 2.4 0.0157 248 924.15 95.1 8.13 183.73 83.11 134.2% 40.6 TP-3 B-1 1.5 6 2.4 0.0157 248 973.92 102.1 8.48 198.17 160.22 25.0% 81.6 HWA Project No. 2011-039 FIGURE B-16 APPENDIX C CORE PHOTOGRAPHS HWVAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B - Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: June 2, 2011 Sampled by: SEG Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sample Location: Northern Taxiway Connector(see Figure 2) _ Core Designation: Core-1 -� 2 o l 1 _ o lore - PRI Total Wearing Surface Depth: 2 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) Condition (inches) 2.0 Hot Mix Asphalt(HMA) 2 Fair 5 CSTC/CSBC - Dense Gravel with sand and _ Medium dense to dense Cobbles Remarks: HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B - Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: June 2, 2011 Sampled by: SEG Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sample Location: North end of Taxiway B (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-2 03g " (ore- Total Wearing Surface Depth: 4.5 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) Condition (inches) 4.5 HMA 4.5 Fair to good 5.0 CSTC/CSBC - Dense - Sand with gravel - Medium dense to dense Remarks: i U HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B - Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: June 2, 2011 Sampled by: SEG Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sample Location: North end of Taxiway B (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-3 2 o _ o39 � i Core - 3 Total Wearing Surface Depth: 2.25 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) Condition (inches) 2.25 HMA 2.25 Poor to fair 1.5 CSBC - Dense 2.25 Sandy silt - Medium stiff Remarks: The subgrade becomes sand to silty sand with depth ULWAV HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B —Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: June 2 and June 8, 2011 Sampled by: SEG/DRC Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sample Location: North end of Taxiway B (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-4 2011 _ 039 Total Wearing Surface Depth: 1.5 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) Condition (inches) 1.5 HMA 1.5 Poor 1.4 CSBC - Dense 1.75 HMA 1.75 Good - Gravel - Loose Remarks: 1.4 inches of crushed gravel between HMA layers HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B - Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: June 2, 2011 Sampled by: SEG Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sample Location: North central portion of Taxiway B (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-5 2oII . 03 � Total Wearing Surface Depth: 2 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) Condition (inches) 2 HMA 2 Good 6 CSBC - Dense - Sand with silt and gravel - Medium dense Remarks: With depth subgrade appears to consist of dredge spoils. HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B —Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: June 7, 2011 Sampled by: DRC Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sample Location: Central portion of Taxiway B (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-6 is 4= Zail- 039 �oM-G Total Wearing Surface Depth: 14.5 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) Condition (inches) 8.5 HMA 3, 5.5 Poor to good 6 PCC 6 Fair to good - Sand with gravel and cobbles - Loose Remarks: The bottom 5.5 inches of HMA is of lower quality(ATB?) No crushed gravel base course was encountered. 00 1 1 1 MA 'I HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B—Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: June 7, 2011 Sampled by: DRC Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sample Location: South end of Taxiway B (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-7 Core J Total Wearing Surface Depth: 13.5 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) Condition (inches) 8.5 HMA 3.5, 5 Very poor 5 PCC 5 Very poor _ Sand with gravel, cobbles and silt - Loose Remarks: The bottom 5 inches of HMA is of lower quality(ATB?) and disintegrated coring and therefore does not appear in the above photo. No crushed gravel base course was encountered. HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B —Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: June 7, 2011 Sampled by: DRC Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sample Location: South End of Taxiway B (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-8 F Zola _039 Core_ B Total Wearing Surface Depth: 12 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) Condition (inches) 5.5 HMA 2.5, 3 Good 6.5 PCC 6.5 Good Sand with gravel, cobbles - Loose and silt Remarks: A non-woven fabric layer is located between the two lifts of HMA No crushed gravel base course was encountered. rip U =1 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B —Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: June 7, 2011 Sampled by: DRC Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sample Location: South end of Taxiway B (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-9 2oli- 039 are _ Total Wearing Surface Depth: 10 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) Condition (inches) 10 HMA 2.5, 4.25, 3.25 Good to poor Sand with gravel, cobbles - Loose and silt Remarks: A non-woven fabric layer is located between the first two lifts of HMA The lower lift of HMA is of lower quality (ATB?) No crushed gravel base course was encountered. U HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B —Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: June 6, 2011 Sampled by: DRC Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sample Location: Infield apron South end of Taxiway B (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-10 i -- a zo ►i - o39 Core o y Total Wearing Surface Depth: 2.25 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) Condition (inches) 2.25 HMA 2.25 Good - Gravel with sand - Dense to very dense Remarks: No crushed gravel base course was encountered. ff,LWA I Mu HWAGEOSCI ENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B—Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: June 7, 2011 Sampled by: DRC Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sample Location: South end of Taxiway B (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-11 2on.o39 �oce_\1 Total Wearing Surface Depth: 16.5 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) Condition (inches) 8.5 HMA 2.5, 2.5, 3.5 Good to fair 8 PCC 8 Fair to good - Sand with gravel and cobbles - Loose Remarks: A non-woven fabric layer is located between the bottom lift of HMA and PCC. The lower lift of HMA is of lower quality (ATB?) No crushed gravel base course was encountered. U � HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B—Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: June 6, 2011 Sampled by: DRC Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sample Location: Southern Taxiway Connector(See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-12 f - 2011-039 Cope-IZ Total Wearing Surface Depth: 13.5 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) Condition (inches) 7.5 HMA 3.5, 2 , 2 Good 6 PCC 6 Fair - Sand with gravel and cobbles - Loose Remarks: No crushed gravel base course was encountered. II I AAR it HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B —Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: June 6, 2011 Sampled by: DRC Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sample Location: Southern Taxiway Connector(See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-13 low .J 31 • • .Mtn .. � i • 3 2-011_ 0 - 13 _1 Total Wearing Surface Depth: 9 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) Condition (inches) 3 HMA 3 Fair to poor 6 PCC 6 Fair - Sand with gravel and cobbles - Loose Remarks: A non-woven fabric layer is located between the bottom lift of HMA and PCC. No crushed gravel base course was encountered. HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B—Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: June 6, 2011 Sampled by: DRC Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sample Location: Southern Taxiway Connector(See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-14 2011_ o3q Total Wearing Surface Depth: 10.75 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) Condition (inches) 4.75 HMA 4.75 Fair to good 6 PCC 6 Good - Sand with gravel and cobbles - Loose Remarks: No crushed gravel base course was encountered. u i=,, HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B—Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: June 6, 2011 Sampled by: DRC Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sample Location: Southern Taxiway Connector(See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-15 �cN ri.r} _ 2oli_ 039 .tom Total Wearing Surface Depth: 12 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) Condition (inches) 6 HMA 4, 2 Good to poor 6 PCC 6 Good 4.5 CSBC - Loose - Sand with silt and gravel - Loose to medium dense Remarks: The lower lift of HMA is of lower quality(ATB?). HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B—Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: June 6, 2011 Sampled by: DRC Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sample Location: Southern Taxiway Connector(See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-16 s- - r dire 16 Total Wearing Surface Depth: 10.5 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) Condition (inches) 3.5 HMA 1.5, 2 Fair to poor 7 PCC 7 Poor - Sand with silt and gravel - Loose Remarks: A non-woven fabric layer is located between the lowest HMA and the PCC layers. The PCC layer is cracked through and sealed with asphalt sealant No crushed gravel base course was encountered. ULWA I HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B - Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: July 11, 2012 Sampled by: DRC Core Bit Used: 12-inch diameter Sample Location: South end of Taxiway B (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-17 2011-03q r . 1-7 2011-03� . G,Qf ti�- Total Wearing Surface Depth: 15 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) Condition (inches) 7 Hot Mix Asphalt(HMA) 2.5, 4.5 Good to Fair 8 PCC 8 Fair - Gravel with sand and cobbles - Medium dense Remarks: There is a 0.75 inch deep and 1.25 inch wide asphalt seal in the middle of the core covering a crack in the upper HMA layer(see Photo above). HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B - Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: July 11, 2012 Sampled by: DRC Core Bit Used: 12-inch diameter Sample Location: South end of Taxiway B (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-18 ► 2oit_o3q Total Wearing Surface Depth: 12.5 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) Condition (inches) 6.5 HMA 2.75, 3.75 Fair to good 6 PCC 6 Fair - Gravel with sand and cobbles - Medium dense Remarks: Ek I JAR,'$ HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B - Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: July 11, 2012 Sampled by: DRC Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sample Location: Southern Taxiway Connector(See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-19 k, 9 s 1 t y, ^ �►e 2olt_o3q Total Wearing Surface Depth: 19.5 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) Condition (inches) 12.5 HMA 3, 2.5, 3, 4 Fair to good 7 PCC 7 Good - Gravel with sand and cobbles - Medium dense Remarks: There is no bond between the 2nd and 3rd layers of HMA. There is no bond between the 3rd and 4th layers of HMA. HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B —Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: July 11, 2012 Sampled by: DRC Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sample Location: South end of Taxiway B (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-20 2DII — p3 a1 C Z.O i* ,xY Costs-20 . Total Wearing Surface Depth: 13.5 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) Condition (inches) 6 HMA 3.5, 2.5 Poor 7.5 PCC 7.5 Fair - Gravel with sand and cobbles - Medium Dense Remarks: There is a 0.5 inch deep and 0.75 inch wide asphalt seal in the middle of the core covering a crack in the upper HMA layer(see Photo above). Appendix B City of Renton Sensitive Areas Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase I Technical Information Report(TIR) _ I I e I , ' J AKE WASHINGTON / g CD , ❑ 1 i ` char n 'var . . .. r � � I i .......:..., d �I { g , a, PANTHER LAKE Q LAKE YOUNGS 0 3000 6000 AQUIFER PROTECTION ZONES s � Renton Municipal Code G1�Y o� Technical Services Zone 1 • + Planning/Building/Public Works ® Zone 1 Modified `` R.MacOnie,D.Visneski Zone 2 IV IV January 22,2008 Citv Limits City of Renton Sensitive Areas Flood Hazard ses. as rer. f -_J!-_.�"`' ' Il �9 yk!%'�° S; °�o '- --'I y - [ � se —^. �a -ilk as 11 aN er _ �' IF � sy 'i �F>w�s� T_ CL —�L—'I 'n' - -1 71-�i `� � 4l " a i wanes,.)J +`! I'_ C a�_� °. ',. 5 Lam:j _ (� , - W 1�31 a �1L ~ I ` r� ,i �\ ca G� J�a —__ - . .-_ ,� Ir ►�� i� .d1 . �_�. �� I,_ �� 1 dlr- ;IL i ]r J Y J g �I �� ,I �LLj �pin �r �u�—. +/1" ill \ , cam.. Li. // ��3 ' 1 9 wr \! I .,a. ? -some ses. V = sUUU �« °till — _• ^I r/ - arrr w.Js/,�'� °la. \ ( `� i .� ��2��r I( cC] '71:.J wtir �J ,� {1 i \ )� :«. I � I ��1 �[_ s..�% '� c IT �� n C� / may/ I iLer,r �° It�Lll �` .° 5 � �rL ? 7( `— Q qg- °� _— \ l�`I�mr-/ate I f�,•IV'�_ �! i�`,\,r �/'�ru,.r ( l��lx I sLc�-:_�Lu'�Iw.r I' --� 3;Ji I �U�xj J �iI I � c� seves. 0/ iar. \% 1 '�t� ) '>LJLJ� ,r raw:�� - w,r if��='a"' ��L-Ir �'�tU \ C� �e`> • �,�e. _ ��4 roar ".�Wly 0° .ssw« 1111u �vL�) Z � IW 1 r � .� � I Ceti,. ' '►„+ �v L Era:r Caen« f__��JI��LJt-_il_ Iil W \ / \�,�j� wse,w �2 awn � l �L senes. fil ��\> s mar - �� u' iIi,� —j �+ a 1� � '`� .) '�I g(I jCl� r / ^a°a�r] I _. L lasseas 141 J, I ;7A-)` r� I_ A II � WeLa k ,J�,�J �i� I Public Works Department Administrator G. Zimmerman Technical Services 0 1,400 2,800 Hazard Condition Critical Infrastructure R. MacOnie, D.Visneski ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' Printed on May 21, 2009 Flood Hazard Police Department This tlocu—ni a graphic representation,not p mabon b survey accuracy,ata is Dasetl b,Ne p at i tende f,, ty displ es of the data shown.Thie map is inlerMetl/ar Oily display W rpases only. -Data Source: Public Works,Utilities Systems,Technical Services - � Fire Stations Renton City Limits D City of �� ® Valley Medical Center 5e Ij Schools City of Renton Sensitive Areas Liquefaction- Hazards >. 71 \,\ ♦� � . T L_ I' a: L AIL— fi��f�\ `PRaa 'ram 11 1, ♦ fir_ 7Lax � '' a'' pl t Itil a A II , h';ad'n;£ F.. 1 _ 1s,ae��l�J.t 4�.l ul.. l 1\ •_�- � I�, tr .e��Oi `I—�d 7 cI,a _J„ �frjf=I�I I�F I ai �J/��'��I w -'L 9L )�( ay€s) 1 r ma 14 all b. w L.JL�; .^�\ =�J'�� C w €,nn 4�1 L 'T � �, �C t l JI iii�l '�171 _ , C%� 7 DlIF V�R� k ":. j ✓'l .z � 4' I L LJ�t� If C �`-jr �[I>m IC �� '� ��i �,.- •arwn U c \ � L-� .JJU"a '' \q �aa J b C 11 L I ��♦J�eya 1 Z €I r>�I C ( o� �' \'" ; p IIII�IH�,MXILII7' / �Lp5Lr1J ew J.: �.��r-.:.` i �'��Cl J� t 1 ''�r rT• l �'��`� �� LIh—� G r € �I ', �/ S �E �,rbJ Tsarae 1 < ♦1: ., 1�)_ .��'m►rr i '®'ter 1� 1 `\��r� �� . / • �I��l ��` �--_ •_---�-�-��-fie Si m..ill J jrf`�C I`11 �^�\Q;.,�p ILj �N '' +a.w ILJL�� l 1'f�Ji�� l� '"lA �e �': I I —ter —�1-'� w w. III— Fill �1 €l t €ll 4 �i� ,ass �L I j -, IIRI F II_._�r �R\�� I w'■I rp�\ °" ..i n �r �l I `s.ko _o ,.x 'T'A, _ oil Jl Afir: ill 1 IIr r fI, �� f g �t Cam I �— \• r lafsr✓r�?—w. 4 !— ~' € w� ,. ,�.nm�� n ,I I 'ae�'°�ae,nwv,r CAI Ji 1 1 1t�L >Mw � � It �1 Ln n § ( F�IO f ` i JAI, I� I� I ; =il fit/ / Jt a'Wa ?! II w �r �. lI ll�� I _I� . -`e1a'._-- 1` ��Jr,w w �' �� 'a>naa:- ((( it II !� �� L-.__h, J w �I war FZT, S �� I aI��— � �� III am n g wr b1F F tl r ll � �i�7r yj ( o t 1,400 2,800 I— III \5� 1 — woes_ a:w ,l l` + t t r t t tt Public Works Department This Eocument,sagraphicrepresenWI0 n,notgua,ante 1 ro w ey acwrecy,aM is based on the beet irM°nn140n G. Zimmerman,Administrator a�anabro aemm-a 1now nie nap is inlenaea ror Gly°�ep�ay parpoeee°nly HAZARD CONDITION Critical Infrastructure Technical Services R. MacOnie, D. Visneski Renton City Limits Liquefaction Susceptibility Police Department Printed on May 20 2009 S, _ Data Source:Public Works,Utilities Systems,Technical Services; high _ Washington State Department of Natural Resources,Geology and Earth Resources Division __- Fire Stations moderate to high W low to moderate Valley Medical Center Schools City of Renton Sensitive Areas Seismic Hazards sent11 J N it <r sE„wp. �* I —r , I Y 71 �z ' ;;; ! �J�= \"ass 1`� ,�i r�z xrxx '� ��`cs��`�`\ r f xrw. ,.s„r I J f rer Y r all \� xrrJJ (— q �,CL aavn 1 `i r II ra.w rant ~ Zx+ as ON \ Cr�E, -( - i Y v4 - (�lr,r ��. r7 �t A-, J (� nn r\anr, A / 1 4 xsr I t/ I 1c �, } i 1as "� I � ��'��` �� Y jl� 5 �JiJL.�LJ�_UU� �== �� r- S~,r._-._ 11;r 'i \�°Cq eana�t_�-�`•\ <��S( �\ ��—�UL •: �'�'x i�r FM^Ili-�' f I;lE`a 7M— Z\\\`� I—� li Ter . �l__�L t�^ L ��j�jl�l�u� ,.�I�� 1 ,I Is t �1 °.— as \ IJ�g�l �rK.TM=1�»CL� r �IC �� a Agi r..rrIIit �� A— \'YC � n�� lit �v;J ! �" ` x 1 I -\ I \ •uMr \ l\ 36 N l 2 L ;a[ — r _�1�r L _ � t_r t i � iK • `! ±, rna,x. �� ` `�-----,, �l53 ' itr� �� I ]�_�Jl3:l;'a.� � ` �,� I / � p � C�✓�'� �, E � C�> � �1 � ,.. � .k!I1iC LJ� Y � --I _Isis--�,,r_,an � •e,anw�� - �'� � / ICJ r I �'.S y wa ...��w�.♦ �F 'I N� "�-� as PI I _teaA. LJL_ mr i� L.lSif�JIJJ d_1 � ��°qw •l i I, ! � "l ufl; i 17/ I rl asat�� sr.�,�a.�� /�'/ �'•i�� i \_—�\ �1!�r:��' ��=. 4,y%!11 ��_zf_��'�I ..v.. r,rL� L1 [� '1`\ .) �j ae s w f !`� �`- Z r aa9 1 , 5,1!1,II ;J.ii 1� - \ rarJC `� ei( e, Pf jLJ rr \ I 1 s \\r r �\ arn°r .-�� - &� n \�/ ` � ~ l Y Y h�-jl ✓ lI ` III` a \;1� E' al as =lli �`� `,�� I: ;��/ !' j �� c ^zrrJf ! !II r,.,■ \," 11lr''7I 1n C �\',,� �\ btl ,!! 'v � L ' �� I s.r .J nwr YpL� ( Y rxx 4J 7 (�\JC—\_� ^!.a,n.•-. j�� ` � 'i .€' an 1. is sa.a. its : my : lr �I ,jr,rwr r r nwr J / �-1 rJ L� 7 rw � .. 51n t _. u,. �w,x it r,r,w ,A . � � s ! rn ,I i—i��,.�, ?•�I �� I � as � assis y 14 l J[E� seneal � I CC9 11 �j� IIIr as Fj;� �,�I Public Works Department G. Zimmerman,Administrator 3. °' Hazard Condition Critical Infrastructure ittti � lli ls,j Technical Services R. MacOnie, D. Visneski This documenth agnphic repmsenlation,not guaraNeed High Seismic Severity Police Department b survey axur,oy a,d o based on this best information vail,ble as of the dale shown This map is intended for Printed on May 21, 2009 city display puryoasa only _ Fire Stations Data Source: Public Works, Utilities Systems,Technical Services r City ofK'r7 ��(�-��■ - Valley-e Centar Schools Appendix C Water Quality Calculations Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase I Technical Information Report (TIR) ' ' ' King County Runoff Time Series Program Version 6,00 All files will be read/written in the Working Directory Working Directory:C:Nkc_swdm`,output -----M-- KCRTS Command ------------- CREATE a new Time Series Production of Runoff Time Series Project Location : Sea-Tac Computing Series SBASIN.tsf Regional Scale Factor 1.00 Data Type Reduced Creating 15-minute Time Series File Loading Time Series File:C:\KC_SVDM\KC DATA`STE115R'.rnf 8 Impervious 1.96 acres Scaling Yr: 8 Total Area 1.96 acres Peak Discharge: 2.31 CFS at 6:30 on .Ian 9 in Year 8 Storing Time Series File:SBASIN.tsf 8 Time Series Computed -------------------------------------- KCRTS Command Enter the Analysis TOOLS Nodule Analysis Tools Command Compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies Loading Stage/Discharge curve:sbasin.tsf Flow Frequency Analysis ------------------------------------------------ Time Series File:sbasin.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac Project location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flou Rates--- -----Flow Frequency Analysis----._- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - - Beaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) Period 0.933 6 8/27/O1 18:00 2,31 1 100.00 0,990 0,652 8 9/17/02 17:45 1 ,77 2 25.00 0,960 1.77 2 12/08/02 17:16 1, 27 3 10.00 0,900 0.7S1 7 8/23/04 14:30 1,04 4 S.OD 0,800 0,989 S 10/28/04 16:00 0,989 55 3.00 0.667 1.04 4 10/27/OS 10:45 0.933' 6 2.00 O.SOO 1.27 3 10/2S/O6 22.4E 0.751 7 1,30 0.231 2.31 1 1/09/08 6:30 0.652 8 1.10 0,091 South Bio-filtration Basin Area (See Figure 4-1) — Sub-basin C Water Quality flow rate= 60% of 2-year storm 0.933 cfs * 0.6 = 0.56 cfs KCRTS Command CREATE a nee Time Series ---------------------- Production of Runoff Time Series Project Location : Sea-Tac Computing Series NBASIN.tsf Regional Scale Factor 1,00 Data Type Reduced :renting 15-xinute Time Series File Loading Time Series File:C:\KC�_SVDM\KC�_DATA\STE115R.rnf Impervious 0.93 acres Scaling Yr. 8 -------- -----Total Area 0,93 acres Peak Discharge: 1.10 CFS at 6:30 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Storing Time Series File:NBASIX,tsf 8 Time Series Computed ----- -------- ---------- ------- KCRTS Command Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module --------—-——----------- ---------------------------------------------------- -------- Analysis Tools Command -------—-——------- Compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies ----------————---------------- Loading Stage/Discharge curve:nbasin.tsf Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:nbasin.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac Project Location:Sea-Tac --Annual Peak Flow Rates— -----Flow Frequency Analysis----- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak Peaks Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) Period 0,443 6 8/27/01 18:00 1.10 1 100.00 0-990 0,309 8 9/17/02 17:45 0.638 2 25.00 0-960 0,838 2 12/06/02 17:15 0,602 3 10.00 0.900 0,356 7 6/23/04 14:30 0,495 4 5,00 0,800 0,469 5 10/28/04 16,00 0.469 5 3,00 0,667 0,496 4 10/27/06 10:45 0,443 6 2,00 0,500 0,602 3 10/25/06 22:45 0,366 7 IAO 0.231 1.10 1 1/09/08 6:30 0.309 8 1.10 0-091 North Bio-filtration Basin Area (See Figure 4-1)— Sub-basin D Water Quality flow rate= 60% of 2-year storm 0.443 cfs * 0.6 = 0.27 efs BIOFILTRATION CALCULATION Based on KCSWDM,pg 6-40 South WQ Basin (Sub-basin C) Solve for bottom width(b) Q=0.56 cfs (KCRTS) - 1.96 ac impervious y 0.23 y=0.17 (mowed frequently) 0.33 (infrequent mowing) n 0.2 n=0.2 s= slope z= side slope Q 0.56 b=Q*n/1.49*y^1.67*s^0.5 s 0.005 b (ft) 12.4 Use 20-ft width to meet 5:1 length to width ratio Z 4 Solve for flow Velocity Z= side slope A=cross-sectional area A(ft^2) 3.1 v(ft/s) 0.18 Solve swale length L(ft)= 540 * v 98.9 Min. 100' Meet criteria for high flow North WQ Basin (Sub-basin D) y 0.24 Q=0.27 cfs (KCRTS) - 0.93 ac impervious n 0.2 b (ft) 5.6 Use 20-ft width to meet 5:1 length to width ratio Q 0.27 A(ft-2) 1.6 s 0.005 v(ft/s) 0.17 Z 4 L (ft) 93.2 Min. 100' Narrow Filter Strip Calculation Per KCSWDM Section 6, pg 6-66 Flowpath length= 12.5 feet(West side of crown section) Average slope= 12% Required Filter Strip Length based on Figure 6.3.5.A attached. =Approx. 8 feet(interpolation) Approximately 35 feet of vegetation provided. 6.3.5 NARROW AREA FILTER STRIPS FIGURE 6.3.5.A FILTER STRIP LENGTHS FOR NARROW RIGHT-OF-WAY 20.0 15.0 w w Flowpath = 30 feet wo 10:0 _ a, 20 feet L L 10 et G. 5.0 E i j t i a 0.0 0% 5% 10% 1 15% 20% Filter Strip Slope Note: minimum allowable filter strip length is 4 feet 6.3.5.2 DESIGN CRITERIA Required and recommended design criteria for narrow area filter strips are the same as specified for basic filter strips. Note that for roadway applications, gravel spreaders must meet the specification for shoulder ballast given in Section 9-03.9(2)of the current Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction, 1994compacted to 90 percent standard proctor. 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 6-67 1/9/2009 FLOW SPLITTER CALCULATIONS PROJECT: Renton Municipal Airport,Taxiway B,Phase I Calculated by: BTS PROJ NO.: 23-2010-007 Checked by: DATE: 8/23/2012 Date Checked: FILE: H\D0023Ap\I0\007 Renton TV B&Signage\Desip\Drainne\[Flow Splitter—Phase LrJmfbw Splimr South Biofiltration Swale(Sub-basin C) Pipe Capacity Manning Pipe Capacity No. Diameter Slope Length Capacity Used (inch) (%) (feet) (cfs) (%) 0.014 8 0.10 10 0.35 158 0.014 12 0.10 10 1.05 54 Head determined by sharp-crested weir equation 0.463 s Q = D 3 S r� Known: Q1= 0.56 cfs n CD= 0.6 IEout[et= 20.1 ft Length Head Head 2 3 (ft) (ft) (in) QK�, = C, 2gLH 1 0.3122 3.7466 F 4 0.1239 1.4868 6 0.0946 1.1347 Conclusion: A 12-inch diameter pipe shall be utilized for the outlet to the biofiltration swale. The top of the 1-ft weir shall be placed at 20.42(20.1+0.31). North Biofiltration Swale(Sub-basin D) Pipe Capacity Manning Pipe Capacity No. Diameter Slope Length Capacity Used (inch) (%) (feet) (cfs) (%) 0.014 8 0.10 10 0.35 76 0.014 12 0.10 10 1.05 26 F Head determined by sharp-crested weir equation 0.463 $ Q = D 3 S II Known: Q2= 0.27 cfs n CD= 0.6 IEoutlet= 19.9 ft Length Head Head 2 3 (ft) (ft) (in) Qwg = 3 CD V2gLH 2 1 0.1920 2.3037 4 0.0762 0.9142 6 0.0581 0.6977 Conclusion: A 12-inch diameter pipe shall be utilized for the outlet to the biofiltration swale. The top of the 1-ft weir shall be placed at 20.09(19.9+0.19). Page 1 of 1 Appendix D Conveyance System Calculations Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase I Technical Information Report (TIR) ` ' ' " ` ' PROD: Renton Municipal Airport,Taxiway B PIPE SIZING WO: 23-2012-2012 (Runoff by Rational Method) Calculated by: U DATE: 6/20/2012 (Pipe Capacity by Manning's Eqn.) Checked by: FILE: H.\DOC\23A,\10\007 Ra -TW B& S g„aye\De g,.\D ge\[20120629_P pP S, g..sJR „o„Coe,. ,e„« Date Checked: Storm: Renton 25 Year c 0. 9 1 rrper vi ous a 2.66 (see KCSWDM pg3-13) c- 0. 25 Lawn ", 0.65 (see KCSWDM pg 3-13) r 3.4 (see KCSWDM pg 3 24-Hour Isopluvials Inc. Inc. Inc. Time of Rain Pipe % Veloc Flow Area(sf) Area(so Area Runoff Sum Cone Intens Runoff n Diam Slope Length Capac Capac Full Time Remarks From To (Imperv) (Perv) (ac) Coef. A*C A*C (min) (in/hr) (cfs) Value (inch) (%) (feet) (cfs) Used (ft/sec) (min) Sub Basin E No analysis provided. Sub Basin D LOT B 6 260 1 0 0.60 0.90 0.54 0.54 10.00 2.02 1.09 0.014 12 0.10 550 1.05 104 1.33 6.88 CB26 CB25 0 0 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.54 16.88 1.44 0.78 0.014 12 0.83 108 3.01 26 3.84 0.47 CB27 CB25 7626 0 0.18 0.90 0.16 0.16 10.00 2.02 0.32 0.014 12 0.34 88 1.93 17 2.46 0.60 CB25 CB24 7129 0 0.16 0.90 0.15 0.84 17.35 1.42 1.19 0.014 12 0.50 100 2.34 51 2.98 0.56 7B2 CB23 0 0 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.84 24.23 1.14 0.96 0.014 12 0.53 19 2.41 40 3.07 0.10 CB23 CB22 0 0 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.84 24.70 1.12 0.95 0.014 12 0.53 19 2.41 39 3.07 0.10 CB22 CB21 0 0 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.84 24.80 1.12 0.95 0.014 12 0.41 110 2.12 45 2.70 0.68 CB2 CB20 61992 85598 3.39 0.52 177 2.61 25.48 1.10 2.88 0.014 12 0.55 19 2.45 117 3.12 0.10 CB20 CB 19 0 0 0.00 0.58 0.00 2.61 25.59 1.10 2.88 0.014 12 0.53 47 2.41 119 3.07 0.26 CB 19 E7 0 0 0.00 0.58 0.00 2.62 25.84 1.09 2.86 0.014 12 0.50 48 2.34 122 2.98 0.27 E7 E6 0 0 0.00 0.58 0.00 2.62 25.84 1.09 2.86 0.014 12 0.10 42 1.05 273 1.33 0.53 Existing E6 OUT 0 0 0.00 0.58 0.00 2.62 26.37 1.08 2.82 0.014 12 0.50 114 2.34 121 2.98 0.64 Existing Sub Basin C C139 CB 10 36344 0 0.83 0.90 0.75 0.75 10.00 2.02 1.52 0.014 12 0.40 85 2.09 73 2.66 0.53 CB10 CB11 48916 0 1.12 0.90 1.01 1.76 M53 1.96 3.45 0.014 12 0.34 104 L93 179 2.46 0.71 C1311 CB12 0 0 0.00 0.25 0.00 1.76 11.24 1.88 3.31 0.014 12 0.30 49 1.81 182 2.31 0.35 CB12 CB13 0 0 0.00 0.58 1 0.00 1.76 11.59 1.84 3.24 0.014 12 0.50 8 2.34 139 2.98 0.04 Page 1 of 2 PROJ: Renton Municipal Airport,Taxiway B PIPE SIZING WO: 23-2012-2012 (Runoff by Rational Method) Calculated by: I J DATE: 6/20/2012 (Pipe Capacity by Manning's Eqn.) Checked by: FILE: H:\DOC\23A,\10\007 P--TW B& Sig age\Dez gn\D a,.age\[20120629_P, e S= g.=SJR „oF C., 'o e„, Dale Checked: Storm: Renton 25 Year c 0. 9 1 rrper v i ous a' 2.66 (see KCSWDM pg 3-13) c- 0. 25 Lawn 0.65 (see KCSWDM pg 3-13) r 3.4 (see KCSWDM pg 3 24-Hour Isopluvials Inc. Inc. Inc. Time of Rain Pipe % Veloc Flow Area(so Area(so Area Runoff Sum Cone Intens Runoff n Diam Slope Length Capac Capac Full Time Remarks From To (Imperv) (Perv) (ac) Coef. A*C A*C (min) (in/hr) (cfs) Value (inch) (%) (feet) (cfs) Used (ft/sec) (rain) B 3 B 67 7 6 83359 7 0. 1.88 3.64 11.64 1.83 6.68 0.014 12 0.34 116 1.93 346 2.46 0.79 CB CB 6 0 0 0.00 0.58 0.00 3.64 12.42 1.76 6.40 0.014 12 0.33 30 1.90 337 2.42 0.21 CB 6 C1317 0 0 0.00 0.58 0.00 3.64 13.21 1.69 6.15 0.014 12 0.32 124 1.87 329 2.38 0.87 C 7 5055 38760 I. 6 0.51 0.74 4.38 14.08 1.62 7.10 0.014 12 0.32 95 1.87 380 2.38 0.66 Existing CB 8 0 0 0.00 0.58 0.00 4.38 14.74 1.57 6.89 0.014 12 0.01 43.0 0.33 2083 0.42 1.70 Existing E E 0 0 0.00 0.58 0.00 4.38 16.44 1.47 6.42 0.014 12 0.50 40.0 2.34 274 2.98 0.22 Existing E E 0 0 0.00 0.58 0.00 4.38 16.67 1.45 6.36 0.014 12 0.20 42.0 1.48 430 1.88 0.37 Existing E2 joul, 0 0 0.00 0.58 0.00 4.38 17.04 1.43 6.27 0.014 12 1.30 68.0 3.77 166 4.80 0.24 Existing Sub Basin B C134 C135 674 513 0.03 0.62 0.02 0.01 10.00 2.02 0.02 0.014 12 0.34 99.0 1.93 1 2.46 0.67 C135 C136 2528 5510 0.18 0.45 0.08 0.09 10.67 1.94 0.18 0.014 12 0.39 82.0 2.07 9 2.63 0.52 C136 C137 26586 41935 1.57 0.50 0.79 0.88 11.19 1.88 1.66 0.014 12 0.33 281.0 1.90 88 2.42 1.94 C137 C138 32193 27660 1.37 0.60 0.82 1.71 13.13 L70 2.90 0.014 12 1.80 95.0 4.44 65 5.65 0.28 C138 El 3329 11580 0.34 0.40 0.14 1.84 13.41 1,67 3.08 0.014 12 1.80 155.0 4.44 69 5.65 0.46 El OUP 0 0 0.00 0.58 0.00 1.84 13.86 1.64 3.02 0.014 12 1.10 127.0 3.47 87 4.42 0.48 Existing Sub Basin A No analysis provided Page 2 of 2 Runoff Coefficients for Rational Method Source:King County Surface Water Design Manual 2009,Table 3.2.1.A General Land Covers Land Cover C Dense forest 0.10 Light forest 0.15 Pasture 0.20 Lawns 0.25 Playgrounds 0.30 Gravel areas 0.80 Pavement and roofs 0.90 Open water(pond,lakes,wetlands) 1.00 Single Family Residential Areas Land Cover Density C 0.20 DU/GA(1 unit per 5 ac.) 0.17 0.40 DU/GA(1 unit per 2.5 ac.) 0.20 0.80 DU/GA(1 unit per 1.25 ac.) 0.27 1.00 DU/GA 0.30 1.50 DU/GA 0.33 2.00 DU/GA 0.36 2.50 DU/GA 0.39 3.00 DU/GA 0.42 3.50 DU/GA 0.45 4.00 DU/GA 0.48 4.50 DU/GA 0.51 5.00 DU/GA 0.54 5.50 DU/GA 0.57 6.00 DU/GA 0.60 Source: King County Surface Water Design Manual 2009,Table 3.2.1.13 Coefficients for the Rational Method Design Storm aR bR 2 Year 1.58 0.58 5 Year 2.33 0.63 10 Year 2.44 0.64 25 Year 2.66 0.65 50 Year 2.75 0.65 100 Year 2.61 0.63 SECTION 3.2 RUNOFF COMPUTATION AND ANALYSIS METHODS FIGURE 3.2.1.A 2-YEAR 24-HOUR ISOPLUVIALS SNON_OMISH COUNTY KING COUNTY I r.Li 7 1 N N 2. l i .7 .I� r ry 0 fiia°y suuru■ T/I/ \` f I 1 -( J ,1AUBURX -- f [YM( Yt \\ uo _ — en,tlro+, 1r I �• ...lyl _ _ _KING COUNTY 0 n PIERCE COUNTY N WESTERN KING COUNTY {� 3.5 2-Year 24-Hour Precipitation ti in Inches Q Miles r., 1/9/2009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 3-14 I 3.2.1 RATIONAL METHOD FIGURE 3.2.1.13 10-YEAR 24-HOUR ISOPLUVIALS 7711 2S ,�,/ �SI -Nlll Ir ;a Ie '3 1• !NOC4.0 UNTY S10 ...... UNTY • tl �4 N.J. ?,8 /r lip 1 b� f�0 1 •f" N. ttfYY1 3 r IT -t-- _J' L. 0 l7� 1J. W.M. •' / 'J .MR ) N Y}I 1 e P {.. ,.. !,Y. ll.Y a 41 1St �: ., •YW.Y � / AY lI. Y• I q. *•r � LO - • j'KING COUNTY PIERCE COUNTY WESTERN KING COUNTY �,Y r` ,.Y.a.� 4.5 N 1 __ 1 10-Year 24-Hour �'b* 4.0 Precipitation rbry'b N.-� in Inches Miles `� �°2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1/9/2009 3-15 ' SECTION 3.2 RUNOFF COMPUTATION AND ANALYSIS METHODS FIGURE 3.2.1.0 25-YEAR 24-HOUR ISOPLUVIALS _!N HOMISN COUNTY y VINO COUNTY 0 - [.uN Fa ^ I 1 4 o 1 a b t'. i 5.0 ' 1 n � 1 wu[o •Y � i ou Cb M _NINo eouwrr �. PIERCE COUNTY ' WESTERN a KING COUNTY (\ s.s d 25-Year 24-Hour `' ` 4.5 Precipitation in Inches Miles 1/9/2009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 3-16 3.2.1 RATIONAL METHOD FIGURE 3.2.1.D 100-YEAR 24-HOUR ISOPLUVIALS 3p i N O COUNTY 3? ..0.[li� N COUNTY 4 ,. 4, 11 • � UA � 45 J ' 6 'K O COUNTY- PIE CE COUNTY WESTERN 6.5 1 KING COUNTY aC4 .�, ... ... 6.0 N b -- 5.5 100-Year 24-Hour Precipitation in Inches z """"es ' E— by 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 3-17 1/9/2009 , i 6 C Stl�$AsnvOIL _ 13Mi1 WAY 34-16 32.1113 sF rtv 67,91(. Sr im#a RUNWAY 34-16 ZT,bi0 s� Lt�W 83,3x9 Sf LAWN 611 U SR IMP — — — 85,5g8 SF I.A%W 26,586 sF IM - - -- _ ____ _-_ -__` I Q - ----- N El �„ 120,oss SP Irlf G rw Si k^VAH f O 1 --- ari ai —yfz-•-^ --- on __ prz _..` On OR _— on OR am CIS ` I ..` . ....�...-.ems. , L2 so -�4---- ----s cd 7 Ca Ica Q0 AP 10. I CB Z - I y t9 y96st ss ' ° ,� 1 � s51 c ..„. Ica IV 749A - - - ° 1 4711 sF Imptt SD---�-SID-- -- �- 7- I 513 sR /NP ! ib i I i I i i ! ► 1 J __D 11 ! I I I I 3,1Z9 SF i fNl i i 4dt�4/L SIR' VVft 1 ib 7496 , 2s2a 1f + tb tb if ' I I I ALL 761&i Sir IMP '` --- 7,12q SP /MFFP J . 1110 I SCALE IN FEET 80 0 60 120 Tributary Area/Collection Figure 1 72 1 Renton Airport EMA%&*91GD1 &10 741-M THICKNESS DESIGN FOR DUCTILE IRON PIPE PROJECT: Renton Municipal Airport,Taxiway B,Phase I Calculated by: BTS PROJ NO.: 23-2010-007 Checked by: DATE: 9/19/2012 Date Checked: FILE: HAD0C\23Ap\M007 Renton TW B&Signage\Design\Drainage\[Pipe Loading—Phase Lx1sx-jThickness Calcs Define: Determine the required pipe thickness to withstand truck loads at shallow depths. There are 4 scenarios where DIP possess<3 ft of cover: 8 in @ 1 ft, 12 in @ 1.5 ft,6 in @ 2 ft,and 12 in @ 2 ft. The methods set forth by ANSUAWWA C I50/A21.50-02(Thickness Design of Ductile-Iron Pipe)shall be utilized in the design of the appropriate pipe thickness. Known: Type 4 pipe laying conditions per Table 2,ANSUAWWA C I 50/A21.50-02 Design Vehicle(ARFF Truck)= 82,000 pounds Percent of Load= 95 % No. of Wheels= 4 P(truck load)= 19475 pounds w= 120 lb/ft' a= 144 in2/ft2 R= 1 Road Reduction Factor for cover<4 ft and pipe diameter between 3-12 in (Table 4,ANSUAWWA C 150/A21.50-02) F= 1.5 Impact factor(ASCE Manual No. 37) Solve: Step 1—Design for internal pressure For ordinary conditions, storm drain pipes shall be sized on the assumption that they will flow full,or practically full,under the design discharge,but will not be placed under pressure head. Therefore,internal pressure will be assumed to be 0 psi for the design of the storm system. Step 2—Design for trench load a.)Earth Load Table 1: Earth Load Depth,H Earth Pressure wH (ft) (psi) P e = 1.0 0.8333 a 1.5 1.2500 2.0 1.6667 b.)Truck Load 2 AZ+H2+1.52 2 1.5AH 1 + 1 C=1--sin_, H +— l rr (A2+HZ)0.52+HZ) �( AZ+H2+1.52 L +HZ 1.52+HZ J Table 2: Surface Load Factor Depth,H Nominal Pipe Pipe Outside Surface Load Diameter Radius Factor,C (ft) (in) (ft) 1.0 8 0.38 0.4207 1.5 12 0.55 0.3770 2.0 6 0.29 0.1423 2.0 12 0.55 0.2624 Page 1 of 4 Pt = RF, CP bD Table 3: Truck Load Depth,H Nominal Pipe OD of Pipe,D Effective Length of Truck Load,P, Diameter Pipe,b (ft) (in) (ft) (in) (psi) 1.0 8 9.05 36.00 37.72 1.5 12 13.20 36.00 23.17 2.0 6 6.90 36.00 16.74 2.0 12 13.20 36.00 16.13 c.)Trench Load Table 4: Trench Load Depth,H Nominal Pipe Trench Load,Pv �7V _ ]fie �7 Diameter l l l t (ft) (in) (psi) 1.0 8 38.56 1.5 12 24.42 2.0 6 18.41 2.0 12 17.80 d.)Net Thickness for Bending Stress Design Note: Refer to Table 10 of AWWA C 150/A21.50-02 for diameter-thickness ratios for Type 4 laying conditions. Round up the trench loads to the next highest corresponding bending-stress design figure. D t = ( D /Table 5: Net Thickness t Nominal Pipe Thickness Ratio, Net Depth,H Diameter OD of Pipe,D Trench Load,P� D/t Thickness (ft) (in) (ft) (psi) (in) 1.0 8 9.05 38.56 58 0.16 1.5 12 13.20 24.42 90 0.15 2.0 6 6.90 18.41 130 0.05 2.0 12 13.20 17.80 136 0.10 Page 2 of 4 Step 3-Selection of Net Thickness and Addition of Service Allowances Note:the thicknesses calculated in Step 2 were selected due to the assumption that the internal pressure within the storm pipes are 0 psi. a.)Minimum Manufacturing Thickness-H=1 ft;D=8 in Net Thickness= 0.16 in Service Allowance= 0.08 in Min Manufacturing Thickness= 0.24 in b.)Minimum Manufacturing Thickness-H=1.5 ft;D=12 in Net Thickness= 0.15 in Service Allowance= 0.08 in Min Manufacturing Thickness= 0.23 in c.)Minimum Manufacturing Thickness-H=2.0 ft;D=6 in Net Thickness= 0.05 in Service Allowance= 0.08 in Min Manufacturing Thickness= 0.13 in d.)Minimum Manufacturing Thickness-H=2.0 ft;D=12 in Net Thickness= 0.10 in Service Allowance= 0.08 in Min Manufacturing Thickness= 0.18 in Note:a service allowance of 0.08 inches is added to the net thickness per Section 4.1.3.b of ANSI/AW WA C 150/A21.50-02. Step 4-Check Deflection of the Pipe Note:Refer to Table 10 of ANSI/AWWA C150/A21.50-02 for diameter-thickness ratios for Type 4 laying conditions.Round up the trench loads to the next highest corresponding deflection check. t = D ( D / ti ) Table 6: Pipe Deflection Nominal Pipe Thickness Ratio Depth,H OD of Pipe,D Trench Load,P`. Thickness Diameter D/t (ft) (in) (ft) (psi) (in) 1.0 8 9.05 38.56 56 0.16 1.5 12 13.20 24.42 70 0.19 2.0 6 6.90 18.41 83 0.08 2.0 12 13.20 17.80 85 0.16 Minimum Manufacturing Thickness>Deflection Therefore,Minimum Manufacturing Thickness Controls for all pipe configurations and depths Page 3 of 4 Step 5—Add the Casting Tolerance Table 7: Allowance for Casting Tolerance Size Casting Allowance (in) (in) 3-8 0.05 10-12 0.06 *Note:the table information was derived from Table 3 of ANSUAWWA C150/A21.50-02 a.)Total Thickness—H=1 ft; D=8 in Min Manufacturing Thickness= 0.24 in — Casting Tolerance= 0.05 in Total Thickness= 0.29 in Total Thickness>Class 50 Therefore,the minimum Special Class pipe required for this scenario is Class 51 b.)Total Thickness—H=1.5 ft; D=12 in Min Manufacturing Thickness= 0.23 in Casting Tolerance= 0.06 in Total Thickness= 0.29 in Total Thickness<Class 50 Therefore,the minimum Special Class pipe required for this scenario is Class 50s c.)Total Thickness—H=2.0 ft; D=6 in Min Manufacturing Thickness= 0.13 in Casting Tolerance= 0.05 in Total Thickness= 0.18 in Total Thickness<Class 50 Therefore,the minimum Special Class pipe required for this scenario is Class 50 d.)Total Thickness—H=2.0 ft; D=12 in Min Manufacturing Thickness= 0.18 in Casting Tolerance= 0.06 in Total Thickness= 0.24 in Total Thickness<Class 50 Therefore,the minimum Special Class pipe required for this scenario is Class 50 ^�^' NOTE:the project specification requires Class 52 ductile iron pipe beneath taxiway crossing areas. Page 4 of 4 PROJECT: Renton Municipal Airport,Taxiway B,Phase I DEPTH OF PIPE COVER PROJ NO.: 23-2010-007 Calculated by: BTS DATE: 9/19/2012 Checked by: FILE: H:\DOC\23Ap\10\007 Renton TW B&Signage\Design\Drainage\[Pipe Loading-Pbase I.xlsx]Pipe Xings Date Checked: Pipe Sections CB "From" IE Pipe Diameter Approx. Pipe Length of Pipe to Asphalt Crown of Pipe Top of Asphalt Depth to Cover "From" "To" (ft) (in) Stationing Slope EOA CL EOA EOA CL EOA EOA CL EOA EOA CL EOA CB5 CB6 21.25 12 30+78 0.34% 14 28 44 22.20 22.15 22.10 24.55 24.74 24.55 2.3 2.6 2.4 CB7 CB8 19.91 12 33+76 1.80% 39 51 63 20.208 19.99 19.78 24.26 24.45 24.26 4.1 4.5 4.5 C139 CB10 21.05 8 37+15 0.40% 0.00 -- -- 21.72 -- -- 22.7 -- -- 1.0 -- -- CB10 CB11 20.6 12 36+48 0.34% 0.00 51 63 21.60 21.43 21.39 23.5 24.1 23.91 1.9 2.7 2.5 CB16 CB17 19.7 12 38+85 0.32% 25 48 71 20.62 20.55 20.47 23.89 24.08 23.89 3.3 3.5 3.4 CB 17 CB 18 19.1 12 39+66 0.32% 3 7 52 95 19.98 19.93 19.80 23.86 23.91 23.85 3.9 4.0 4.1 CB 19 E7 19 12 42+85.5 0.50% 0 13 48 20.00 19.94 19.76 23.6 23.89 23.17 3.6 4.0 3.4 CB25 CB24 20.4 12 44+49.5 0.50% 0 47 65 21.40 21.17 21.08 22.8 23.71 23.52 1.4 2.5 2.4 CB26 CB25 21.3 12 43+41.5 0.85% 0 -- -- 22.3 -- -- 23.3 -- -- 1.0 -- -- - CB27 CB25 21 8 45+22.4 0.34% 0 -- -- 21.67 -- -- 22.7 -- -- 1.0 -- -- CB28 CB29 20 6 46+83 0.20% 23 53 83 20.45 20.39 20.33 22.66 22.96 22.66 2.2 2.6 2.3 IE=Invert Elevation CB=Catch Basin EOA=Edge of Asphalt CL=Centerline Approx.=Approximate No.=Number Page 1 of 1 Appendix E Bond Quantities Worksheet Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase I Technical Information Report (TIR) Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet Original bond computations prepared by: Name: Benjamin Sommer Date: 06.26.12 PE Registration Number: 45892 Tel.#: (425)741-3800 Firm Name: Reid Middleton, Inc. Address: 728 134th Street SW,Suite 200,Everett,WA 98204 Project No: 232010.007 ROAD IMPROVEMENTS&DRAINAGE FACILITIES FINANCIAL GUARANTEE REQUIREMENTS PERFORMANCE BOND*,** PUBLIC ROAD&DRAINAGE MAINTENANCE/DEFECT AMOUNT BOND- ,'-Stabilization/Erosion Sediment Control(ESC) (A) NA*** Existing Right-of-Way Improvements (B) $ Future Public Road Improvements&Drainage Facilities (C) $ 1,566,901.7 Private Improvements (D) $ Performance Bond*Amount (A+B+C+D) = TOTAL (T) $ 1,566,901.7 Minimum bond*amount is$1000. (B+C)x 0.20= $ 313,380.3 Maintenance/Defect Bond*Total NAME OF PERSON PREPARING BOND*REDUCTION: Dale: *NOTE:The word"bond"as used in this document means any financial guarantee acceptable to the City of Renton. **NOTE:All prices include labor,equipment,materials,overhead and profit. Prices are from RS Means data adjusted for the Seattle area or from local sources if not included in the RS Means database. ***NOTE: Stabilization/Erosion Sediment Control(ESC)worksheet is not included in the City of Renton 2009 Surface Water Design Manual Amendment,Reference 8-H. REQUIRED BOND*AMOUNTS ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND MODIFICATION BY RDSD Page 1 of 7 Unit prices updated: 02/12/02 Version: 4/22/02 Bond Quantities Worksheet.xlsx Report Date:7/2/2012 Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet Existing Future Public Private Quantity Completed Right-of-Way Road Improvements Improvements (Bond Reduction)' &Drainage Facilities Quant. Number Unit Price Unit Quant. Cost Quant. Cost Quant, Cost Complete Cost GENERAL ITEMS Backfill&Compaction-embankment GI-1 $ 5.62 CY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Backfill&Compaction-trench GI-2 $ 8.53 CY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Clear/Remove Brush,by hand GI-3 $ 0.36 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Clearing/Grubbing/Tree Removal GI-4 $ 8,876,16 Acre 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Excavation-bulk GI-5 $ 1.50 CY 0.00 5030 7,545.00 0.00 0.00 Excavation-Trench GI-6 $ 4.06 CY 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fencing,cedar,6'high GI-7 $ 18.55 LF 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 Fencing,chain link,vinyl coated, 6'high GI-8 $ 13.44 LF 0.00 32 430.08 0.00 0.00 Fencing,chain link,gate,vinyl coated, 20' GI-9 $ 1,271.81 Each 0.00 1 1,271.81 0.00 0.00 Fencing,split rail,3'high GI-10 $ 12.12 LF 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fill&compact-common barrow GI-11 $ 22.57 CY 0.00 2250 50,782.50 0.00 0.00 Fill&compact-gravel base GI-12 $ 25.48 CY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fill&compact-screened topsoil GI-13 $ 37.85 CY 0.00 150 5,677.50 1 0.00 0.00 Gabion,12"deep,stone filled mesh GI-14 $ 54.31 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Gabion, 18"deep,stone filled mesh GI-15 $ 74.85 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Gabion,36"deep,stone filled mesh GI-16 $ 132.48 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Grading,fine,by hand GI-17 $ 2.02 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Grading,fine,with grader GI-18 $ 0.95 SY 0.00 32000 30,400.00 0.00 0.00 Monuments,3'long GI-19 $ 135.13 Each 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sensitive Areas Sign GI-20 $ 2.88 Each 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 Sodding,1"deep,sloped ground GI-21 $ 7.46 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Surveying,line&grade GI-22 $ 788.26 Day 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 Surveying,lot location/lines GI-23 $ 1,556.64 Acre 1 0.00 10.5 16,344.72 0.00 0.00 Traffic control crew(2 flaggers) GI-24 $ 85.18 HR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Trail,4"chipped wood GI-25 $ 7.59 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Trail,4"crushed cinder GI-26 $ 8.33 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Trail,4"top course GI-27 $ 8.19 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Wall,retaining,concrete GI-28 $ 44.16 SF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Wall,rockery GI-29 $ 9.49 SF 0.00 1 0.001 1 0.00 0.00 Page 2 of 7 SUBTOTAL 0.00 112,451.61 0.00 0.00 Unit prices updated: 02/12/02 Version: 4/22/02 Bond Quantities Worksheet.xlsx Report Date:7/2/2012 Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet Existing Future Public Private Bond Reduction` Right-of-way Road Improvements Improvements &Drainage Facilities Quant. Number Unit Price Unit Quant. Cost Quant. Cost Quant. Cost Complete Cost ROADIMPROVEMENT AC Grinding,4'wide machine<1000sy RI-1 $ 23.00 SY 0.00 450 10,350.00 0.00 0.00 AC Grinding,4'wide machine 1000-2000sy RI-2 $ 5.75 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AC Grinding,4'wide machine>2000sy RI-3 $ 1.38 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AC Removal/Disposal/Repair RI-4 $ 41.14 SY 0.00 11200 460,768.00 0.00 0.00 Barricade,type I RI-5 $ 30.03 LF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Barricade,type III(Permanent) RI-6 $ 45.05 LF 0.00 0.00 0.00 D.00 Curb&Gutter,rolled RI-7 $ 13.27 LF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Curb&Gutter,vertical RI-8 $ 9.69 LF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Curb and Gutter,demolition and disposal RI-9 $ 13.58 LF 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 Curb,extruded asphalt RI-10 $ 2.44 LF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Curb,extruded concrete RI-11 $ 2.56 LF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sawcut,asphalt,3"depth RI-12 $ 1.85 LF 0.00 850 1,572.50 0.00 0.00 Sawcut,concrete,per 1"depth RI-13 $ 1.69 LF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sealant,asphalt RI-14 $ 0.99 LF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Shoulder,AC, (see AC road unit price) RI-15 $ - SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Shoulder,gravel,4"thick RI-16 $ 7.53 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sidewalk,4"thick RI-17 $ 30.52 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 Sidewalk,4"thick,demolition and disposal RI-18 $ 27.73 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sidewalk,5"thick RI-19 $ 34.94 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sidewalk,5"thick,demolition and disposal RI-20 $ 34.65 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sign,handicap RI-21 $ 85.28 Each 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Striping,per stall RI-22 $ 5.82 Each 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Striping,thermoplastic,(for crosswalk) RI-23 $ 2.38 SF 0.00 4350 10,353.00 0.00 0.00 Striping,4"reflectorized line RI-24 $ 0.25 LF 0.o0j 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page 3 of 7 SUBTOTAL 0.00 483,043.50 0.00 0.00 Unit prices updated: 02/12/02 Version: 4/22/02 Bond Quantities Worksheet.xlsx Report Date:7/2/2012 Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet Existing Future Public Private Bond Reduction" Right-of-way Road Improvements Improvements &Drainage Facilities Quant, Number Unit Price Unit I Quant. Cost Quant. Cost Quant. Cost Complete Cost ROAD SURFACING (4"Rock=2.5 base&1.5"top course) For'93 KCRS(6.5"Rock=5"base&1.5"top course) For KC RS'93,(additional 2.5"base)add: RS-1 $ 3.60 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AC Overlay,1.5"AC RS-2 $ 7.39 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AC Overlay,2"AC RS-3 $ 8.75 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AC Road,2",4"rock,First 2500 SY RS-4 $ 17.24 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AC Road,2",4"rock,Qty.over 2500SY RS-5 $ 13.36 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AC Road,3",4"rock,First 2500 SY RS-6 $ 19.69 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AC Road,3",4"rock,Qty.over 2500 SY RS-7 $ 15.81 SY 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AC Road,5",First 2500 SY RS-8 $ 14.57 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AC Road,5",Qty.Over 2500 SY RS-9 $ 13.94 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AC Road,6",First 2500 SY RS-10 $ 16.76 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AC Road,6",Qty.Over 2500 SY RS-11 $ 16.12 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Treated Base,4"thick RS-12 $ 9.21 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Gravel Road,4"rock,First 2500 SY RS-13 $ 11.41 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Gravel Road,4"rock.Qty.over 2500 SY RS-14 $ 7.53 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PCC Road.5",no base,over 2500 SY RS-15 $ 21.51 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PCC Road, 6",no base,over 2500 SY RS-16 $ 21.87 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Thickened Edge RS-17 $ 6.89 LF 0.00 0.00 0.001 1 0.00 Page 4 of 7 SUBTOTAL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Unit prices updated: 02/12/02 Version: 4/22/02 Bond Quantities VVorksheet.xlsx Report Date:7/2/2012 Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet Existing Future Public Private Bond Reduction` Right-of-way Road Improvements Improvements &Drainage Facilities Quant. Number Unit Price Unit Quant. Cost Ouant. Cost Quant. Cost Complete Cost DRAINAGE (CPP=Corrugated Plastic Pipe,N12 or Equivalent) For Culvert prices, Average of 4'cover was assumed.Assume perforated PVC is same price as solid pipe. Access Road,R/D D-1 $ 16.74 1 SY 0.00 120 2,008.80 0.00 0.00 Bollards-fixed D-2 1 $ 240.74 1 Each I 1 0.00 0.001 1 0.00 0.00 Bollards-removable D-3 1 $ 452.34 1 Each I 1 0.001 0.001 1 0.00 0.00 (CBs include frame and lid) CB Type I D-4 S 1,257.64 Each 0.00 17 21,379.88 0.00 0.00 CB Type IL D-5 $ 1,433.59 Each 0.00 2 2,867.18 0.00 0.00 CB Type II,48"diameter D-6 $ 2,033.57 Each 0.00 11 22,369.27 0.00 0.00 for additional depth over 4' D-7 $ 436.52 FT 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 CB Type 11.54"diameter D-8 $ 2,192.54 Each 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 for additional depth over 4' D-9 $ 486.53 FT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CB Type 11,60"diameter D-10 $ 2,351.52 Each 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 for additional depth over 4' D-11 $ 536.54 FT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CB Type 11,72"diameter D-12 $ 3,212.64 Each 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 for additional depth over 4' D-13 $ 692.21 FT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Through-curb Inlet Framework(Add) D-14 $ 366.09 Each 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cleanout,PVC,4" D-15 $ 130.55 Each 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cleanout,PVC.6" D-16 $ 174.90 Each 0.00 21 3,672.90 0.00 0.00 Cleanout,PVC,8" D-17 $ 224.19 Each 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Culvert,PVC,4" D-18 $ 8.64 LF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Culvert,PVC,6" D-19 $ 12.60 LF 0.00 2625 33.075.00 0.00 0.00 Culvert,PVC, 8" D-20 $ 13.33 LF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Culvert,PVC,12" D-21 $ 21.77 LF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Culvert,CMP,8" D-22 $ 17.25 LF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Culvert,CMP, 12" D-23 $ 26.45 LF 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 Culvert,CMP,15" D-24 $ 32.73 LF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Culvert,CMP, 18" D-25 $ 37.74 LF 0.00 550 20,757.00 0.00 0.00 Culvert,CMP,24" D-26 $ 53.33 LF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Culvert,CMP,30" D-27 $ 71.45 LF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Culvert,CMP,36" D-28 $ 112.11 LF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Culvert,CMP,48" D-29 $ 140.83 LF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Culvert,CMP,60" D-30 $ 235.45 LF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Culvert,CMP,72" D-31 $ 302.58 LF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page 5 of 7 SUBTOTAL 0.00 106,130.03 0.00 0.00 Unit prices updated: 02/12/02 Version: 4/22/02 Bond Quantities Worksheet.xlsx Report Date:7/2/2012 Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet Existing Future Public Private Bond Reduction" Right-of-way Road Improvements Improvements DRAINAGE CONTINUED &Drainage Facilities Quant. Number Unit Price Unit Quant. Cost Quant. Cost Quant. Cost Complete Cost Culvert,Concrete,8" D-32 $ 21.02 ILE 0 0 0 0 Culvert,Concrete,12" D-33 $ 30.05 0 0 0 0 Culvert,Concrete,15" D-34 $ 37.34 0 0 0 0 Culvert,Concrete,18" D-35 $ 44.51 0 0 0 0 Culvert,Concrete,24" D-36 $ 61.07 0 0 0 0 Culvert,Concrete,30" D-37 $ 104.18 LF 0 0 0 0 Culvert,Concrete,36" D-38 $ 137.63 LF 0 0 0 0 Culvert,Concrete,42" D-39 $ 158.42 LF 0 0 0 0 Culvert,Concrete,48" D-40 $ 175.94 LF 0 0 0 0 Culvert,CPP,6" D-41 $ 10.70 LF 0 370 3959 0 0 Culvert,CPP,8" D-42 $ 16.10 LF 0 0 0 0 Culvert,CPP,12" D-43 $ 20.70 LF 0 450 9315 0 0 Culvert,CPP,15" D-44 $ 23.00 LF 0 1 0 0 0 Culvert,CPP,18" D-45 $ 27.60 LF 0 0 0 0 Culvert,CPP,24" D-46 $ 36.80 LF 0 0 0 0 Culvert,CPP,30" D-47 $ 48.30 LF 0 0 0 0 Culvert,CPP,36" D-48 $ 55.20 LF 0 0 0 0 Ditching D-49 $ 8.08 CY 0 0 1 0 0 Flow Dispersal Trench (1,436 base+) D-50 $ 25.99 LF 0 0 0 0 French Drain (T depth) D-51 $ 22.60 LF 0 1 0 0 0 Geotextile,laid in trench,polypropylene D-52 $ 2.40 SY 0 225 540 0 0 Infiltration pond testing D-53 $ 74.75 HR 0 0 0 0 Mid-tank Access Riser,48"dia, 6-deep D-54 $ 1,605.40 Each 0 0 0 0 Pond Overflow Spillway D-55 $ 14.01 SY 0 0 0 0 Restrictor/Oil Separator,12" D-56 $ 1,045.19 Each 0 0 0 0 Restrictor/Oil Separator,15" D-57 $ 1,095.56 Each 0 0 1 0 0 Restrictor/Oil Separator, 18" D-58 $ 11146.16 Each 0 1 0 0 0 Riprap,placed D-59 $ 39.08 CY 0 0 0 0 Tank End Reducer(36"diameter) D-60 $ 1,000.50 Each 0 0 0 0 Trash Rack,12" D-61 $ 211.97 Each 0 4 847.88 0 0 Trash Rack,15" D-62 $ 237.27 Each 0 0 0 0 Trash Rack,18" D-63 $ 268.89 Each 0 0 0 0 Trash Rack,21" D-64 $ 306.84 Each 0 1 0 0 0 Page 6 of 7 SUBTOTAL 0.00 14661.88 0.00 0.00 Unit prices updated: 02/12/02 Version: 4/22/02 Bond Quantities Worksheet.xlsx Report Date:7/2/2012 Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet Existing Future Public Private Bond Reduction' Right-of-way Road Improvements Improvements &Drainage Facilities Quant. Number Unit Price Unit Quant. Price Quant, Cost Quant. Cost Complete Cost PARKING LOT SURFACING 2"AC,2"top course rock&4"borrow PL-1 $ 15.84 1 SY I 1 01 1 01 1 0 0 2"AC, 1.5" top course& 2.5"base course PL-2 $ 17.24 SY 0 0 01 1 0 4"select borrow PL-3 $ 4.55 SY 0 0 01 0 1.5 top course rock&2.5 base course PL-4 $ 11.41 SY 0 1 0 01 1 0 WRITE-IN-ITEMS (Such as detention/water quality vaults.) Yard Drain WI-1 $ 250.00 EA. 0 10 2,500.00 0.00 0.00 Slotted Drain System WI-2 $ 250.00 LF 0 550 137,500.00 0.00 0.00 Culvert,DIP,8" WI-3 $ 40.00 LF 0 90 3,600.00 0.00 0.00 Culvert,DIP,12" WI-4 $ Woo LF 0 776 69,840.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Surface Course 4",2"TC.12"BC WI-5 $ 22.00 SF 0 11627 255,794.00 0.00 0.00 Biofiltration Swale WI-6 $ 60.00 LF 0 200 12,000.00 0.00 0.00 Thermoplastic Pavement Marking WI-7 $ 22.00 SF 0 354 7,788.00 0.00 0.00 SF 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 LF 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 LF 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 SUBTOTAL 0.00 489,022.00 0.00 0.00 SUBTOTAL(SUM ALL PAGES): 0.00 1,205,309.02 0.00 0,00 30%CONTINGENCY&MOBILIZATION: 0.00 361,592.71 0.00 0.00 GRANDTOTAL: 0.00 1,566,901.73 0.00 0.00 COLUMN: B C D E Page 7 of 7 Unit prices updated: 02/12/02 Version: 4/22/02 Bond Quantities Worksheet.xlsx Report Date:7/2/2012 Appendix F Flow Control and Water Facility Summary Sheet Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase I Technical Information Report (TIR) KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL STORMWATER FACILITY SUMMARY SHEET DDES Permit Number PRE 12-012 (provide one Stormwater Facility Summary Sheet per Natural Discharge Location) Overview: Project Name City of Renton Taxiway B System Rehabilitation (Phase I) Date June 18, 2002 Downstream Drainage Basins Major Basin Name Lake Washington Immediate Basin Name Flow Control: Flow Control Facility Name/Number N/A Facility Location N/A If none, Flow control provided in regional/shared facility (give location) N/A No flow control required N/A Exemption number Cedar River General Facility Information: Type/Number of detention facilities: Type/Number of infiltration facilities: ponds ponds vaults tanks tanks trenches Control Structure Location N/A Type of Control Structure N/A Number of Orifices/Restrictions Size of Orifice/Restriction: No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 No. 4 Flow Control Performance Standard 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1/9/2009 1 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL Live Storage Volume Depth Volume Factor of Safety Number of Acres Served N/A Number of Lots N/A Dam Safety Regulations (Washington State Department of Ecology) Reservoir Volume above natural grade N/A Depth of Reservoir above natural grade N/A Facility Summary Sheet Sketch All detention, infiltration and water quality facilities must include a detailed sketch. (11 11x17" reduced size plan sheets may be used) N/A 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1/9/2009 2 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL Water Quality: Type/Number of water quality facilities/BMPs: X biofiltration swale sand filter(basic or large) (regula we or continuous inflow) sand filter, linear(basic or large) combined detention/wetpond sand filter vault (basic or large) (wetpond portion basic or large) sand bed depth (inches) combined detention/wetvault stormwater wetland X filter strip storm filter flow dispersion wetpond (basic or large) farm management plan wetvault landscape management plan Is facility Lined? oil/water separator If so, what marker is used above (baffle or coalescing plate) Liner? catch basin inserts: Manufacturer pre-settling pond pre-settling structure: Manufacturer high flow bypass structure (e.g., flow-splitter catch basin) source controls Design Information Wet Biofiltration Swales Sub-basin C: 0.56 cfs Water Quality design flow Sub-basin D: 0.27 cfs Water Quality treated volume (sandfilter) Water Quality storage volume(wetpool) Facility Summary Sheet Sketch 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1/9/2009 3 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL All detention, infiltration and water quality facilities must include a detailed sketch. (11"x17" reduced size plan sheets may be used) Please refer to Figure 4-1 for more information regarding the water quality types and locations. i, 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1/9/2009 4 Appendix G Operation and Maintenance Manual Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase I Technical Information Report (TIR) ` ' 'R. PA ' APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR FLOW CONTROL,CONVEYANCE,AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 4- CONTROL STRUCTURE/FLOW RESTRICTOR Maintenance Defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is Performed Structure Trash and debris Trash or debris of more than'%cubic foot which No Trash or debris blocking or is located immediately in front of the structure potentially blocking entrance to opening or is blocking capacity of the structure by structure. more than 10%. Trash or debris in the structure that exceeds'/3 No trash or debris in the structure. the depth from the bottom of basin to invert the lowest pipe into or out of the basin. Deposits of garbage exceeding 1 cubic foot in No condition present which would volume. attract or support the breeding of insects or rodents. Sediment Sediment exceeds 60%of the depth from the Sump of structure contains no bottom of the structure to the invert of the lowest sediment. pipe into or out of the structure or the bottom of the FROP-T section or is within 6 inches of the invert of the lowest pipe into or out of the structure or the bottom of the FROP-T section. Damage to frame Corner of frame extends more than%inch past Frame is even with curb. and/or top slab curb face into the street(If applicable). Top slab has holes larger than 2 square inches or Top slab is free of holes and cracks. cracks wider than'%inch. Frame not sitting flush on top slab, i.e., Frame is sitting flush on top slab. separation of more than%inch of the frame from the top slab. Cracks in walls or Cracks wider than'%inch and longer than 3 feet, Structure is sealed and structurally bottom any evidence of soil particles entering structure sound. through cracks,or maintenance person judges that structure is unsound. Cracks wider than'%inch and longer than 1 foot No cracks more than 1/4 inch wide at at the joint of any inlet/outlet pipe or any evidence the joint of inlet/outlet pipe. of soil particles entering structure through cracks. Settlement/ Structure has settled more than 1 inch or has Basin replaced or repaired to design misalignment rotated more than 2 inches out of alignment. standards. Damaged pipe joints Cracks wider than'/2-inch at the joint of the No cracks more than %-inch wide at inlet/outlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering the joint of inlet/outlet pipes. the structure at the joint of the inlet/outlet pipes. Contaminants and Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such Materials removed and disposed of pollution as oil,gasoline,concrete slurries or paint. according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Ladder rungs missing Ladder is unsafe due to missing rungs, Ladder meets design standards and or unsafe misalignment, rust,cracks,or sharp edges. allows maintenance person safe access. FROP-T Section Damage T section is not securely attached to structure T section securely attached to wall wall and outlet pipe structure should support at and outlet pipe. least 1,000 Ibs of up or down pressure. Structure is not in upright position(allow up to Structure in correct position. 10%from plumb). Connections to outlet pipe are not watertight or Connections to outlet pipe are water show signs of deteriorated grout. tight;structure repaired or replaced and works as designed. Any holes—other than designed holes—in the Structure has no holes other than structure. designed holes. Cleanout Gate Damaged or missing Cleanout gate is missing. Replace cleanout gate. 2009 Surface Water Design Manual—Appendix A 1/9/2009 A-7 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FLOW CONTROL,CONVEYANCE,AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 4- CONTROL STRUCTURE/FLOW RESTRICTOR Maintenance Defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is Performed Cleanout gate is not watertight. Gate is watertight and works as designed. Gate cannot be moved up and down by one Gate moves up and down easily and maintenance person. is watertight. Chair/rod leading to gate is missing or damaged. Chain is in place and works as designed. Orifice Plate Damaged or missing Control device is not working properly due to Plate is in place and works as missing, out of place,or bent orifice plate. designed. Obstructions Any trash,debris, sediment,or vegetation Plate is free of all obstructions and blocking the plate, works as designed. Overflow Pipe Obstructions Any trash or debris blocking (or having the Pipe is free of all obstructions and potential of blocking)the overflow pipe. works as designed. Deformed or damaged Lip of overflow pipe is bent or deformed. Overflow pipe does not allow lip overflow at an elevation lower than design Inlet/Outlet Pipe Sediment Sediment filling 20%or more of the pipe. Inlet/outlet pipes clear of sediment. accumulation Trash and debris Trash and debris accumulated in inlet/outlet No trash or debris in pipes. pipes(includes floatables and non-floatables). Damaged Cracks wider than'%-inch at the joint of the No cracks more than '/,inch wide at inlet/outlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering the joint of the inlet/outlet pipe. at the joints of the inlet/outlet pipes. Metal Grates Unsafe grate opening Grate with opening wider than 7/8 inch. Grate opening meets design (If Applicable) standards. Trash and debris Trash and debris that is blocking more than 20% Grate free of trash and debris. of grate surface. footnote to guidelines for disposal Damaged or missing Grate missing or broken member(s)of the grate. Grate is in place and meets design standards. Manhole Cover/Lid Cover/lid not in place Cover/lid is missing or only partially in place. Cover/lid protects opening to Any open structure requires urgent structure. maintenance. Locking mechanism Mechanism cannot be opened by one Mechanism opens with proper tools. Not Working maintenance person with proper tools. Bolts cannot be seated. Self-locking cover/lid does not work. Cover/lid difficult to One maintenance person cannot remove Cover/lid can be removed and Remove cover/lid after applying 80 lbs. of lift. reinstalled by one maintenance person. 1/9/2009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual—Appendix A A-8 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR FLOW CONTROL,CONVEYANCE,AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 5-CATCH BASINS AND MANHOLES Maintenance Defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is Performed Structure Sediment Sediment exceeds 60%of the depth from the Sump of catch basin contains no bottom of the catch basin to the invert of the sediment. lowest pipe into or out of the catch basin or is within 6 inches of the invert of the lowest pipe into or out of the catch basin. Trash and debris Trash or debris of more than%cubic foot which No Trash or debris blocking or is located immediately in front of the catch basin potentially blocking entrance to opening or is blocking capacity of the catch basin catch basin. by more than 10%. Trash or debris in the catch basin that exceeds No trash or debris in the catch basin. 1/3 the depth from the bottom of basin to invert the lowest pipe into or out of the basin. Dead animals or vegetation that could generate No dead animals or vegetation odors that could cause complaints or dangerous present within catch basin. gases(e.g., methane). Deposits of garbage exceeding 1 cubic foot in No condition present which would volume. attract or support the breeding of insects or rodents. Damage to frame Corner of frame extends more than%inch past Frame is even with curb. and/or top slab curb face into the street(If applicable). Top slab has holes larger than 2 square inches or Top slab is free of holes and cracks. cracks wider than'%inch. Frame not sitting flush on top slab,i.e., Frame is sitting flush on top slab. separation of more than%inch of the frame from the top slab. Cracks in walls or Cracks wider than'%inch and longer than 3 feet, Catch basin is sealed and bottom any evidence of soil particles entering catch structurally sound. basin through cracks,or maintenance person judges that catch basin is unsound. Cracks wider than'/=inch and longer than 1 foot No cracks more than'/,inch wide at at the joint of any inlet/outlet pipe or any evidence the joint of inlet/outlet pipe. of soil particles entering catch basin through cracks. Settlement/ Catch basin has settled more than 1 inch or has Basin replaced or repaired to design misalignment rotated more than 2 inches out of alignment. standards. Damaged pipe joints Cracks wider than 1/2-inch at the joint of the No cracks more than '/<-inch wide at inlet/outlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering the joint of inlet/outlet pipes. the catch basin at the joint of the inlet/outlet pipes. Contaminants and Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such Materials removed and disposed of pollution as oil,gasoline,concrete slurries or paint. according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Inlet/Outlet Pipe Sediment Sediment filling 20%or more of the pipe. Inlet/outlet pipes clear of sediment. accumulation Trash and debris Trash and debris accumulated in inlet/outlet No trash or debris in pipes. pipes(includes floatables and non-floatables). Damaged Cracks wider than'/2-inch at the joint of the No cracks more than '%-inch wide at inlet/outlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering the joint of the inlet/outlet pipe. at the joints of the inlet/outlet pipes. 2009 Surface Water Design Manual—Appendix A 1/9/2009 A-9 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FLOW CONTROL,CONVEYANCE,AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 5-CATCH BASINS AND MANHOLES Maintenance Defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is Performed Metal Grates Unsafe grate opening Grate with opening wider than 7/8 inch. Grate opening meets design (Catch Basins) standards. Trash and debris Trash and debris that is blocking more than 20% Grate free of trash and debris. of grate surface. footnote to guidelines for disposal Damaged or missing Grate missing or broken member(s)of the grate. Grate is in place and meets design Any open structure requires urgent standards. maintenance. Manhole Cover/Lid Cover/lid not in place Cover/lid is missing or only partially in place. Cover/lid protects opening to Any open structure requires urgent structure. maintenance. Locking mechanism Mechanism cannot be opened by one Mechanism opens with proper tools. Not Working maintenance person with proper tools. Bolts cannot be seated. Self-locking cover/lid does not work. Cover/lid difficult to One maintenance person cannot remove Cover/lid can be removed and Remove cover/lid after applying 80 lbs. of lift. reinstalled by one maintenance person. I 1/9/2009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual—Appendix A A-10 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR FLOW CONTROL,CONVEYANCE,AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 6-CONVEYANCE PIPES AND DITCHES Maintenance Defect or Problem Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is Performed Pipes Sediment&debris Accumulated sediment or debris that exceeds Water flows freely through pipes. accumulation 20%of the diameter of the pipe. Vegetation/roots Vegetation/roots that reduce free movement of Water flows freely through pipes. water through pipes. Contaminants and Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such Materials removed and disposed of pollution as oil,gasoline,concrete slurries or paint. according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Damage to protective Protective coating is damaged; rust or corrosion Pipe repaired or replaced. coating or corrosion is weakening the structural integrity of any part of pipe. Damaged Any dent that decreases the cross section area of Pipe repaired or replaced. pipe by more than 20%or is determined to have weakened structural integrity of the pipe. Ditches Trash and debris Trash and debris exceeds 1 cubic foot per 1,000 Trash and debris cleared from square feet of ditch and slopes. ditches. Sediment Accumulated sediment that exceeds 20%of the Ditch cleaned/flushed of all sediment accumulation design depth. and debris so that it matches design. Noxious weeds Any noxious or nuisance vegetation which may Noxious and nuisance vegetation constitute a hazard to County personnel or the removed according to applicable public. regulations. No danger of noxious vegetation where County personnel or the public might normally be. Contaminants and Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such Materials removed and disposed of pollution as oil,gasoline,concrete slurries or paint. according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Vegetation Vegetation that reduces free movement of water Water flows freely through ditches. through ditches. Erosion damage to Any erosion observed on a ditch slope. Slopes are not eroding. slopes Rock lining out of One layer or less of rock exists above native soil Replace rocks to design standards. place or missing(If area 5 square feet or more,any exposed native Applicable) soil. 2009 Surface Water Design Manual—Appendix A 1/9/2009 A-I I APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FLOW CONTROL,CONVEYANCE,AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 7- DEBRIS BARRIERS (E.G., TRASH RACKS) Maintenance Defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is Performed. Site Trash and debris Trash or debris plugging more than 20%of the Barrier clear to receive capacity flow. area of the barrier. Sediment Sediment accumulation of greater than 20%of Barrier clear to receive capacity flow. accumulation the area of the barrier Structure Cracked broken or Structure which bars attached to is damaged- Structure barrier attached to is loose pipe is loose or cracked or concrete structure is sound. cracked, broken of loose. Bars Bar spacing Bar spacing exceeds 6 inches. Bars have at most 6 inche spacing. Damaged or missing Bars are bent out of shape more than 3 inches. Bars in place with no bends more bars than%inch. Bars are missing or entire barrier missing. Bars in place according to design. Bars are loose and rust is causing 50% Repair or replace barrier to design deterioration to any part of barrier. standards. 1/9/2009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual—Appendix A A-12 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FLOW CONTROL,CONVEYANCE,AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 11 - GROUNDS (LANDSCAPING) Maintenance Defect or Problem Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is Performed Site Trash or litter Any trash and debris which exceed 1 cubic foot Trash and debris cleared from site. per 1,000 square feet(this is about equal to the amount of trash it would take to fill up one standard size office garbage can). In general, there should be no visual evidence of dumping. Noxious weeds Any noxious or nuisance vegetation which may Noxious and nuisance vegetation constitute a hazard to County personnel or the removed according to applicable public. regulations. No danger of noxious vegetation where County personnel or the public might normally be. Contaminants and Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such Materials removed and disposed of pollution as oil,gasoline,concrete slurries or paint. according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Grass/groundcover Grass or groundcover exceeds 18 inches in Grass or groundcover mowed to a height. height no greater than 6 inches. Trees and Shrubs Hazard Any tree or limb of a tree identified as having a No hazard trees in facility. potential to fall and cause property damage or threaten human life. A hazard tree identified by a qualified arborist must be removed as soon as possible. Damaged Limbs or parts of trees or shrubs that are split or Trees and shrubs with less than 5% broken which affect more than 25%of the total of total foliage with split or broken foliage of the tree or shrub. limbs. Trees or shrubs that have been blown down or No blown down vegetation or knocked over. knocked over vegetation. Trees or shrubs free of injury. Trees or shrubs which are not adequately Tree or shrub in place and supported or are leaning over,causing exposure adequately supported;dead or of the roots. diseased trees removed. 1/9/2009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual—Appendix A A-16 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FLOW CONTROL,CONVEYANCE,AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 13- BASIC BIOFILTRATION SWALE (GRASS) Maintenance Defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is Performed Site Trash and debris Any trash and/or debris accumulated on the No trash or debris on the bioswale bioswale site. site. Contaminants and Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such Materials removed and disposed of pollution as oil,gasoline,concrete slurries or paint. according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Swale Section Sediment Sediment depth exceeds 2 inches in 10%of the No sediment deposits in grass accumulation swale treatment area. treatment area of the bioswale. Sediment inhibits grass growth over 10%of Grass growth not inhibited by swale length. sediment. Sediment inhibits even spreading of flow. Flow spreads evenly through swale Erosion/scouring Eroded or scoured swale bottom due to No eroded or scoured areas in channelization or high flows. bioswale. Cause of erosion or scour addressed. Poor vegetation Grass is sparse or bare or eroded patches occur Swale has no bare spots and grass coverage in more than 10%of the swale bottom, is thick and healthy. Grass too tall Grass excessively tall(greater than 10 inches), Grass is between 3 and 4 inches tall, grass is thin or nuisance weeds and other thick and healthy. No clippings left vegetation has taken over. in swale. No nuisance vegetation present. Excessive shade Grass growth is poor because sunlight does not Health grass growth or swale reach swale. converted to a wet bioswale. Constant baseflow Continuous flow through the swale,even when it Baseflow removed from swale by a has been dry for weeks or an eroded, muddy low-flow pea-gravel drain or channel has formed in the swale bottom. bypassed around the swale. Standing water Water pools in the swale between storms or does Swale freely drains and there is no not drain freely. standing water in swale between storms. Channelization Flow concentrates and erodes channel through No flow channels in swale. swale. Flow Spreader Concentrated flow Flow from spreader not uniformly distributed Flows are spread evenly over entire across entire swale width. swale width. Inlet/Outlet Pipe Sediment Sediment filling 20%or more of the pipe. Iniet/outlet pipes clear of sediment. accumulation Trash and debris Trash and debris accumulated in inlet/outlet No trash or debris in pipes. pipes(includes floatables and non-floatables). Damaged Cracks wider than'%-inch at the joint of the No cracks more than %-inch wide at inlet/outlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering the joint of the inlet/outlet pipe. at the joints of the inlet/outlet pipes. i 1/9/2009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual—Appendix A A-18 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FLOW CONTROL,CONVEYANCE,AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 15- FILTER STRIP Maintenance Defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance Is Performed Site Trash and debris Any trash and debris accumulated on the filter Filter strip site free of any trash or strip site. debris Contaminants and Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such Materials removed and disposed of pollution as oil,gasoline,concrete slurries or paint. according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Grass Strip Sediment Sediment accumulation on grass exceeds 2 No sediment deposits in treatment accumulation inches depth. area. Erosion/scouring Eroded or scoured swale bottom due to No eroded or scoured areas in channelization or high flows. bioswale. Cause of erosion or scour addressed. Grass too tall Grass excessively tall(greater than 10 inches), Grass is between 3 and 4 inches tall, grass is thin or nuisance weeds and other thick and healthy. No clippings left vegetation has taken over. in swale. No nuisance vegetation present. Vegetation ineffective Grass has died out,become excessively tall Grass is healthy, less than 9 inches (greater than 10 inches)or nuisance vegetation is high and no nuisance vegetation taking over. present. Flow Spreader Concentrated flow Flow from spreader not uniformly distributed Flows are spread evenly over entire across entire swale width. swale width. Inlet/Outlet Pipe Sediment Sediment filling 20%or more of the pipe. Inlet/outlet pipes clear of sediment. accumulation Trash and debris Trash and debris accumulated in inlet/outlet No trash or debris in pipes. pipes(includes floatables and non-floatables). Damaged Cracks wider than'/-inch at the joint of the No cracks more than'%-inch wide at inlet/outlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering the joint of the inlet/outlet pipe. at the joints of the inlet/outlet pipes. 1/9/2009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual—Appendix A A-20 Fueling Operations This activity applies if you refuel vehicles on the premises, whether a large sized gas station or a single pump maintenance yard installation. It also covers mobile fueling operations. Stormwater runoff from fueling areas may be contaminated with toxic hydrocarbons, oils and greases, and metals. e The following BMPs, or equivalent measures, methods, or practices, are required if you are engaged in dedicated permanent fueling operations: Cover the fueling area with an overhanging roof structure or canopy so that precipitation cannot come in contact with the fueling area. See BMP Info Sheet 3 in Chapter 5 for information on covering options. An exception to this requirement is granted for mobile fueling equipment, floating fuel islands on water, and oversized vehicles that can not maneuver under a roof. Pave the fueling area with Portland cement concrete and contain the area to prevent uncontaminated stormwater from running into the fueling area and carrying pollutants to the onsite storm drainage system or adjacent surface water or conveyance systems. 1�- See BMP Info Sheet 5 in Chapter 5 for information on containment. Install and maintain an oil or spill control device in the appropriate catch basin(s) to treat runoff from the fueling area. See the King County Surface Water Design Manual for various designs and the BMP Info Sheet 9 in Chapter 5 for further information on oil/water separators. Never hose down the fueling area to the storm drains. Contaminated runoff must be collected for proper disposal. Required Routine Maintenance: • Post signs to remind employees and customers not to top off the fuel tank when filling. Post signs that ban customers and employees from changing engine oil or other fluids at that location. • Store and maintain appropriate spill cleanup materials in a location known to all. Ensure that employees are familiar with the site's spill control plan and/or proper spill cleanup procedures. January 2009 King County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual Fueling Operations(continued) If you cannot implement the above requirements on your site, consider ceasing your on-site fueling activities and take your vehicles to a fueling station that meets these requirements. The following BMPs, or equivalent measures, methods, or practices, are required if you are engaged in mobile fueling operations: Locate the fueling operation to ensure leaks or spills will not discharge, flow, or be washed into the storm drainage system, surface water, or groundwater. Use drip pans or absorbent pads to capture drips or spills during fueling operations. If fueling is done during evening hours, lighting must be provided. Required Routine Maintenance: • Store and maintain appropriate spill cleanup materials in the mobile fueling vehicle. Ensure that employees are familiar with proper spill control and cleanup procedures. � � � • . The following BMPs are optional unless the above minimum required BMPs do not provide adequate source control. Use absorbent pillows or similar absorbent materials in or around storm drain inlets on the property to filter oily runoff. These require frequent maintenance and close attention,but can be useful in short-term situations. Used absorbent materials containing oil must be picked up by a qualified disposal contractor. A catch basin insert configured for oil removal may remove some of the pollutants in runoff from this activity. Catch basin inserts require frequent maintenance to be effective. Carefully consider this when evaluating your options. The oil absorbent filter media must retain absorbed oil during future storm events. See Chapter 6.6.1 of the King County Surface Water Design Manual for more information regarding which filter media provide acceptable oil retention. I--#- See BMP Info Sheet 10 in Chapter 5 for more information. For more information or assistance in implementing these best management practices,contact the King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Water and Land Resources Division at 206-296-1900. Reader Note: The above requirements are the minimum required BMPs. If these BMPs fail to prevent discharges to the storm drainage system,you will be asked to take additional measures to correct the continued pollution discharges. King County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual January 2009 Landscaping Activities and Vegetation Management This broad activity encompasses all aspects of landscaping and vegetation management, from small- scale yard maintenance to large-scale commercial landscaping businesses and vegetation management programs. It includes vegetation removal, herbicide and insecticide application, fertilizer application,watering, and other gardening and lawn care practices. Stormwater runoff from areas that have been subject to pesticide or fertilizer application or extensive clearing, grading or cutting may be contaminated with pesticides and other toxic organic compounds,metals, oils, suspended solids, nutrients from fertilizer, and coliform bacteria, and may cause biochemical oxygen demand. While not required,consider using the Integrated Pest Management(IPM) approach for pest control. IPM is an approach that uses an array of methods to manage pest damage with the least possible hazard to people and the environment. IPM uses a combination of biological, cultural, and physical practices that can significantly reduce or eliminate the use of pesticides. See Activity Sheets A-5, "Storage of Pesticides and Fertilizers" and A-3, "Storage of Liquid Materials in Portable Containers."Landscaping activities related to golf courses should refer to King County's Golf Course BMP Manual (see Chapter 6 of this manual for more information). Note: The term pesticide includes insecticides, herbicides,fungicides, rodenticides, etc. The following BMPs,or equivalent measures, methods,or practices are required if you are engaged in landscaping activities: Do not apply any pesticides directly to surface waters,unless the application is approved and permitted by the Washington State Department of Ecology. Mix pesticides so that spilled material will not be washed to surface waters, the storm drainage system, or onto the ground. Clean up any spills immediately. Ensure employees are trained on the proper use of pesticides and in pesticide application techniques to prevent pollution. Washington pesticide law requires most businesses that commercially apply pesticides to the property of another to be licensed as a Commercial Applicator. Follow manufacturers' recommendations and label directions. Pesticides and fertilizers must never be applied if it is raining or about to rain. Do not apply pesticides within 100 feet of surface waters such as lakes,ponds, wetlands, and streams. This also can include stormwater conveyance ditches. Remove weeds/vegetation in stormwater ditches by hand or other January 2009 King County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual Landscaping Activities and Vegetation Management(continued) mechanical means. Chemicals should be used as a last resort. Dispose of grass clippings, leaves,branches, sticks, or other collected vegetation, by recycling, composting, or burning (if allowed). Do not dispose of collected vegetation into storm drainage systems, conveyance ditches, stormwater ponds, or surface water. Use mulch or other erosion control measures when soils are exposed for more than one week during the dry season or two days during the rainy season. Implement water conservation practices to assure sprinkler systems do not 44overspray"vegetated areas and discharge to hard surfaces such as sidewalks, driveways, and parking lots. Adjust sprinkler heads accordingly. Minimize water use so runoff does not occur or enter storm drainage systems. Use approaches to reduce water use such as those described in the Natural Yardcare program. http://your.kingcounty.gov/solidwaste/naturalyardcare/watering.asp The King County Noxious Weed Control Program provides best management practices for the removal of typical noxious weeds such as blackberry and purple loosestrife. Call 206-296-0290 or see http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/animalsandplants/noxious- weeds/weed-control-practices.aspx for more information. The following BMPs are optional unless the above minimum required BMPs do not provide adequate source control: Integrated pest management (IPM), a comprehensive approach to the use of pesticides is the most effective BMP measure that can be taken for herbicide, insecticide, and fungicide use. See BMP Info Sheet 6 in Chapter 5 for information on IPM. Fertilizers should be worked into the soil rather than dumped or broadcast onto the surface. Determine the proper fertilizer application for the types of soil and vegetation involved. Soil should be tested for the correct fertilizer usage. Use mechanical methods of vegetation removal rather than applying herbicides. King County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual January 2009 Landscaping Activities and Vegetation Management(continued) An effective measure that can be taken to reduce pesticide use, excessive watering, and removal of dead vegetation involves careful soil mixing and layering prior to planting. A topsoil mix or composted organic material should be rototilled into the soil to create a transition layer that encourages deeper root systems and drought-resistant plants. This practice can improve the health of planted vegetation, resulting in better disease resistance and reduced watering requirements. Use native plants in landscaping.Native plants do not require extensive fertilizer or pesticide applications. For more information or assistance in implementing these best management practices,contact the King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Water and Land Resources Division at 206-296-1900. Reader Note: The above requirements are the minimum required BMPs.If these BMPs fail to prevent discharges to the storm drainage system,you will be asked to take additional measures to correct the continued pollution discharges. January 2009 King County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual x. _. Clearing and Grading of Land for Small Construction Projects This activity applies if you clear, grade or prepare land for projects. Stormwater runoff from cleared and graded sites can be loaded with suspended sediments and attached pollutants such as oils and greases, toxic hydrocarbon and herbicide compounds,metals, and nutrients. Control of this runoff at the source can prevent large pollutant loadings from entering and degrading receiving waters. Prior to clearing, grading, and preparation activities for construction sites greater than 2,000 square feet, the King County Department of Development and Environmental Services (DDES)must be contacted. You may need to follow the procedures for construction site erosion and sediment control outlined in the King County Surface Water Design Manual, Appendix D. King County DDES coordinates the clearing, grading, and erosion control requirements on individual sites. The King County Surface Water Design Manual has requirements for erosion and sediment control measures. Appendix D (Erosion and Sediment Control Standards) outlines requirements that all sites must implement. The King County Surface Water Design Manual Appendix C (Small Project Drainage Requirements) addresses small project developments. Even if your site does not require a permit, erosion control measures are still required to prevent turbid water from entering drainage systems or surface waters. King County uses the authority of K.C.C. 9.12 and this manual to develop erosion control requirements for those activities not covered by the King County Surface Water Design Manual. For more information or assistance in implementing these best management practices,contact the King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Stormwater Services Section at 206-296-1900. Reader Note: The above requirements are the minimum required BMPs.If these BMPs fail to prevent discharges to the storm drainage system you will be asked to take additional measures to correct the continued pollution discharges. January 2009 King County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual Technical Information Report (TIR) for Renton Municipal Airport Taxiway B System Rehabilitation Phase II Owner: City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 October 2012 V D , i Technical Information Report (TIR) Renton Municipal Airport Taxiway B System Rehabilitation Phase II October 2012 The engineering material and data contained in this report were prepared under the supervision and direction of the undersigned,whose seal as a registered professional engineer is affixed below. SIN T. S0 Of w�sy��rlr 92 R a �fQNAL�� Benjamin Sommer,P.E. Project Engineer � 1 1 11 rim 728 134th Street SW,Suite 200 Everett,WA 98204 425-741-3800(Fax 425-741-3900) File No.232010.007 Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase II - i - Technical Information Report (TIR) ' 1 Contents SECTION1: PROJECT OVERVIEW.......................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................................................1 PROJECTDESCRIPTION..............................................................................................................................................I PROJECTLOCATION...................................................................................................................................................I EXISTINGSITE CONDITIONS......................................................................................................................................1 PROPOSEDCONDITIONS.............................................................................................................................................2 SOILS.........................................................................................................................................................................2 SECTION 2: CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY....................................14 CORE REQUIREMENT 1: DISCHARGE AT THE NATURAL LOCATION.........................................................................14 CORE REQUIREMENT 2: OFF-SITE ANALYSIS..........................................................................................................14 CORE REQUIREMENT 3: FLOW CONTROL................................................................................................................14 CORE REQUIREMENT 4: CONVEYANCE SYSTEM.....................................................................................................14 CORE REQUIREMENT 5: EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL..................................................................................14 CORE REQUIREMENT 6: MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS.....................................................................................14 CORE REQUIREMENT 7: FINANCIAL GUARANTEES AND LIABILITY.........................................................................15 CORE REQUIREMENT 8: WATER QUALITY..............................................................................................................15 SPECIAL REQUIREMENT 1: OTHER ADOPTED AREA-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS.......................................................15 SPECIAL REQUIREMENT 2: FLOOD HAZARD AREA DELINEATION...........................................................................16 SPECIAL REQUIREMENT 3: FLOOD PROTECTION FACILITIES...................................................................................16 SPECIAL REQUIREMENT 4: SOURCE CONTROL........................................................................................................16 SPECIAL REQUIREMENT 5: OIL CONTROL...............................................................................................................17 SPECIAL REQUIREMENT 6: AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA........................................................................................17 SECTION 3: OFF-SITE ANALYSIS........................................................................................18 STUDYAREA...........................................................................................................................................................18 RESOURCE REVIEW .........................................................18 FIELDOBSERVATION...............................................................................................................................................19 DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND PROBLEM DESCRIPTION.............................................................................20 SECTION 4: FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN........................................................................................................................................23 PARTA-EXISTING SITE HYDROLOGY....................................................................................................................23 PARTB-DEVELOPED SITE HYDROLOGY................................................................................................................23 PART C-PERFORMANCE STANDARDS....................................................................................................................24 PARTD-FLOW CONTROL SYSTEM.........................................................................................................................24 PARTE-WATER QUALITY SYSTEM.......................................................................................................................24 SECTION 5: CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN..................................28 EXISTINGCONVEYANCE SYSTEM............................................................................................................................28 PROPOSED CONVEYANCE SYSTEM 28 SECTION 6: SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES..............................................................31 SECTION7: OTHER PERMITS..............................................................................................32 SECTION 8: CSWPPP ANALYSIS AND DESIGN................................................................33 ESCMEASURES......................................................................................................................................................33 RECOMMENDED CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE(EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL)................................................34 SWPPSPLAN DESIGN.............................................................................................................................................35 SECTION 9: BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES,AND DECLARATION OFCOVENANT..........................................................................................................................36 BONDQUANTITIES WORKSHEET.............................................................................................................................36 Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase II - ii - Technical Information Report (TIR) FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY SUMMARY SHEET AND SKETCH.................................................36 DECLARATION OF COVENANT FOR PRIVATELY MAINTAINED FLOW CONTROL AND WQ FACILITIES......................36 DECLARATION OF COVENANT FOR PRIVATELY MAINTAINED FLOW CONTROL BMPS............................................36 SECTION 10: OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL ......................................37 SECTION 11: REFERENCES..................................................................................................38 List of Figures FIGURE 1-1. TIR WORKSHEET................................................................................................. 4 FIGURE 1-2. VICINITY MAP. .................................................................................................... 9 FIGURE 1-3. DRAINAGE BASIN & SITE CHARACTERISTICS.......................................... 10 FIGURE 1-4. TW B SOIL MAP. ................................................................................................ 11 FIGURE 3-1. OFFSITE ANALYSIS MAP................................................................................. 21 FIGURE 3-2. OFFSITE ANALYSIS DRAINAGE SYSTEM TABLE...................................... 22 FIGURE 4-1. WATER QUALITY BASIN MAP....................................................................... 27 List of Tables TABLE 1-1. PROJECT SITE LAND COVER DESIGNATION. ................................................ 2 TABLE 2-1. OTHER ADOPTED AREA-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS................................. 15 TABLE 4-1. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.......................................................................... 24 TABLE 4-2. BASIC BIOFILTRATION SWALES.................................................................... 25 TABLE 4-3. WATER QUALITY TREATMENT AREAS........................................................ 25 TABLE 4-4. POLLUTION-GENERATING SURFACE TREATMENT TRADES..................26 TABLE 6-1. SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES. ................................................................. 31 TABLE 7-1. OTHER PERMITS................................................................................................. 32 Appendices APPENDIX A—GEOTECHNICAL REPORT APPENDIX B — CITY OF RENTON SENSITIVE AREAS APPENDIX C—WATER QUALITY CALCULATIONS APPENDIX D—CONVEYANCE SYSTEM CALCULATIONS APPENDIX E—BOND QUANTITIES WORKSHEET APPENDIX F— FLOW CONTROL AND WATER FACILITY SUMMARY SHEET APPENDIX G—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase II - iii - Technical Information Report (TIR) SECTION 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW Introduction The Taxiway B System Rehabilitation project will be constructed in two phases. Phase I,the north end of the project, will be constructed during the spring and early summer of 2013. Phase 11, the south end of the project, is scheduled to be constructed in the summer and early fall of 2013. The following passages describe the project site area for Phase II of the project. Project Description Phase II of the project, to rehabilitate and reconstruct the south end of Taxiway B, will employ various partial or full-depth reconstruction methods. This includes the installation of hot mix asphalt and Portland Cement Concrete,milling of the existing asphalt pavement surface, and subsequent overlaying with new asphalt surfacing. New drainage facilities will be constructed to capture and convey stormwater from the east crowned area of Taxiway B, the apron area east of Taxiway B,the east crowned area of Runway 16-34, and the turf infield areas between Runway 16-34 and Taxiway B. The facilities for Phase II will be designed in accordance with the City of Renton's 2010 Amendment to King County's 2009 Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM). A Technical Information Report (TIR) Worksheet was developed for the project to describe the site area and summarize the proposed drainage features for Phase H. This document is included as Figure 1-1. Project Location The Renton Municipal Airport is located along the eastern side of Parcel Number 0723059007, within the jurisdiction of the City of Renton. The airport is bounded on the north by Lake Washington, on the east by Logan Avenue North, on the south by Airport Way, and on the west by Rainier Avenue North. The Public Land Survey System (PLSS) identifies the area as the Southwest and Northwest Quarter of Section 7, Township 23 North, Range 5 East. The physical address of the site is 289 Perimeter Road West, Renton, Washington. The site contains approximately 169 acres. Figure 1-2 identifies the location of the project site. Existing Site Conditions The existing site is fully developed and generally flat across the airfield area. The steepest slope within the parcel is a 5 percent grade. The site consists of building structures and hangars, asphalt paving, and grass infield areas. In the area of the project,the taxiway and runway slope inward toward the grass infield, where surface water is directed, through depressions or swales, toward catch basins near the western side of Taxiway B. The flow is collected in the catch basins, diverted through a series of pipes and catch basins, and then discharged through outfalls along the western side of Cedar River. Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase II - 1 - Technical Information Report(TIR) ' ' ' ' ' ' Proposed Conditions As discussed previously, Phase I1 of the project proposes to rehabilitate and reconstruct the southern portion of Taxiway B by employing various partial-depth or full-depth reconstruction methods. It is anticipated that approximately 6,700 cubic yards of gravel import borrow material will be required to elevate the renovated taxiway for Phase II. Table 1-1 below identifies the existing and proposed project site land cover areas. Table 1-1. Project Site Land Cover Designation. Area , Land Cover Type (AC) Untreated Non-targeted Impervious 11.20 Surfacing Treated Non-targeted Impervious Surfacing 0.49 Replaced Impervious Surfacing 5.42 New Impervious Surfacing 0.05 Pervious Surfacing 7.27 Total 24.43 I The proposed surface water drainage facilities consist of basic biofiltration swales, filter strips, catch basins, ductile iron pipe (DIP), and high-density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe. Along the western side of the crowned taxiway, surface water will drain as sheet flow into the grass infield area, while runoff from the eastern side of the crowned taxiway is collected in slot drains and discharged to catch basins. DIP will be used for all instances where storm drainage piping is required beneath the taxiway surface. For additional information regarding the proposed development conditions, please refer to Sections 4 and 5 of this report. Soils According to the Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey for King County, the soil deposits in the vicinity of the airport are classified as Urban (Ur). Figure 1-4 identifies the location of the site for Phase II and its respective soil designation. A geotechnical report was prepared for this project as part of the design process. The final version of the report was completed in October 2012, encompassing both Phase I and II work areas. It appears from the geotechnical exploration that the native subgrade consists predominately of medium stiff to soft organic silt. The construction of the pavement structure in the Phase II area was facilitated by the use of fill, ranging from 2.25 to greater than 4 feet in some localized areas. In general, the fill layers appear to be loose to medium dense and consist of various material types that are predominately slightly silty to silty gravel with sand to relatively clean sand with gravel. In the central area of the taxiway, the material appeared to be dredge fill consisting of sand and gravel with shell fragments, glass, and brick pieces underlying the pavement section at depth. Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase II - 2 - Technical Information Report (TIR) The geotechnical exploration identified perched groundwater in 2 of the test pits in the Phase II work area, ranging from depths of 3.5 to 3.8 feet below the existing ground surface. Groundwater seepage was observed in several core/hand borings, ranging from 2.7 to 5.5 feet below the existing ground surface. It is anticipated that the level of groundwater in this area will fluctuate depending on the season and water height of the adjacent Cedar River. For additional information regarding the subsurface layers, please refer to the Geotechnical Report in Appendix A. Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase II - 3 - Technical Information Report (TIR) ` ' ' KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET FIGURE 1-1 Part 1 PROJECT OWNER AND Part 2 PROJECT LOCATION AND PROJECT ENGINEER DESCRIPTION Project Owner City of Renton Project Name TW B Rehabilitation Phone (425) 430-7471 DDES Permit# Address 616 West Perimeter Road, Location Township 23 North Unit A; Renton, WA 98057 Range 5 East Project Engineer Benjamin Sommer, PE Section 7 Company Reid Middleton, Inc. Site Address 289 West Perimeter Road Phone 425 741-3800 Renton WA 98057 Part 3 TYPE OF PERMIT APPLICATION Part 4 OTHER REVIEWS AND PERMITS ❑ Landuse Services ❑ DFW HPA ® Shoreline Subdivison / Short Subd. / UPD ❑ COE 404 Management ❑ Building Services ❑ DOE Dam Safety ❑ Structural M/F/Commerical / SFR Rockery/Vault/ El Clearing and Grading ❑ FEMA Floodplain❑ COE Wetlands ❑ ESA Section 7 ❑ Right-of-Way Use ❑ Other ❑ Other Part 5 PLAN AND REPORT INFORMATION Technical Information Report Site Improvement Plan (Engr. Plans) Type of Drainage Review Full / Targeted / Type (circle one): Full / Modified / (circle): Large Site Small Site Date (include revision Date (include revision dates): dates): Date of Final: Date of Final: Part 6 ADJUSTMENT APPROVALS Type (circle one): Standard / Complex / Preapplication / Experimental/ Blanket Description: (include conditions in TIR Section 2) N/A Date of Approval: 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1/9/2009 1 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL i TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 7 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Monitoring Required: Yes / No Describe: Start Date: Completion Date: Part 8 SITE COMMUNITY AND DRAINAGE BASIN Community Plan Special District Overlays: Drainage Basin:Lower Cedar River, Cedar Outfall Sub-basin Stormwater Requirements: Part 9 ONSITE AND ADJACENT SENSITIVE AREAS ® River/Stream Cedar River ❑ Steep Slope ® Lake Lake Washington ❑ Erosion Hazard ❑ Wetlands ❑ Landslide Hazard ❑ Closed Depression ❑ Coal Mine Hazard ® Floodplain Lake Washington/Cedar River ® Seismic Hazard High Seismic Severity ® Other High Liquefaction Susceptibility ❑ Habitat Protection Part 10 SOILS Soil Type Slopes Erosion Potential Ur ® High Groundwater Table (within 5 feet) ❑ Sole Source Aquifer ❑ Other ❑ Seeps/Springs ❑ Additional Sheets Attached 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1/9i2009 2 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part l l DRAINAGE DESIGN LIMITATIONS REFERENCE LIMITATION /SITE CONSTRAINT ❑ Core 2—Offsite Analysis ® Sensitive/Critical Areas ® SEPA ❑ Other LJ ❑ Additional Sheets Attached Part 12 TIR SUMMARY SHEET provide one TIR Summary'Sheet per Threshold Discharge Area Threshold Discharge Area: name or description) Core Requirements (all 8 apply) Discharge at Natural Location Number of Natural Discharge Locations: Offsite Analysis Level: 1 / 2 / 3 dated: 09/10/12 Flow Control N/A Level: 1 / 2 / 3 or Exemption Number (incl. facility summary sheet) Small Site BMPs Conveyance System Spill containment located at: Erosion and Sediment Control ESC Site Supervisor: Contractor provide prior to construction. Contact Phone: Contractor will be selected by public bid. After Hours Phone: Maintenance and Operation Responsibility: Private / Public If Private, Maintenance Log Required: Yes /No Financial Guarantees and Provided: Yes / No Liability Water Quality Type: Basic)/ Sens. Lake / Enhanced Basicm / Bog (include facility summary sheet) or Exemption No. Landscape Management Plan: Yes / No Special Requirements as applicable Area Specific Drainage Type: CDA/ SDO/MDP/BP/ LMP /Shared Fac. / None Requirements Name: Floodplain/Floodway Delineation Type: Major / Minor / Exemption / None 100-year Base Flood Elevation (or range): Datum: Flood Protection Facilities Describe: Flood Wall Source Control Describe landuse: Airport (comm./industrial landuse) Describe any structural controls: 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1/9/2009 3 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Oil Control High-use Site: Yes / No Treatment BMP: Existin Oil/Water Separator Maintenance Agreement: Yes / No with whom? Other Drainage Structures Describe: Part 13 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION AFTER CONSTRUCTION ® Clearing Limits ® Stabilize Exposed Surfaces ® Cover Measures ® Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities ® Perimeter Protection ® Clean and Remove All Silt and Debris, Ensure ® Traffic Area Stabilization Operation of Permanent Facilities ® Sediment Retention ❑ Flag Limits of SAO and open space preservation areas ® Surface Water Collection Other ® Dewatering Control ® Dust Control ® Flow Control Part 14 STORMWATER FACILITY DESCRIPTIONS Note: Include Facility Su mary and Sketch Flow Control Type/Description Water Quality Type/Description ❑ Detention ® Biofiltration Swale, Filter Strip ❑ Infiltration ❑ Wetpool ❑ Regional Facility ❑ Media Filtration ❑ Shared Facility ❑ Oil Control ❑ Flow Control ® Spill Control CB w/ Tee BMPs ® Flow Control BMPs Basic Dispersion/ ❑ Other ❑ Other Sheet Flow 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1/9/2009 4 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 15 EASEMENTS/TRACTS Part 16 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS ❑ Drainage Easement ❑ Cast in Place Vault ❑ Covenant ❑ Retaining Wall ❑ Native Growth Protection Covenant ❑ Rockery > 4' High ❑ Tract ❑ Structural on Steep Slope ❑ Other N/A ❑ Other N/A Part 17 SIGNATURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER I, or a civil engineer under my supervision, have visited the site. Actual site conditions as observed were incorporated into this worksheet and the attached Technical Information Report. To the best of my knowledge the information provided here is accurate. Signed/Date 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1/9/2009 5 CANADA USA ORCAS' ISLAND • BELLINGHAM SAN I J UAN ISLAND c� <:�7 Q 20 � Q LOPEZ f ISLAND 5 • PORT ANGELES EVERETT 101 2 0 SE TTLE RENTON 90 o ' PROJECT TACOMA a Sl TE MCHTY MAP NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 1-2 _SUB—BASIN A-1 SUB—BASIN A-2 i 1 i �`� .--�// ��•- �_.�. �°_�' �. r EXISTING ASPH)LT (RUNWAY 1 'RSA �� . RM �--�'— ._. xs� —_�, rts� rts� f�--- -.xs�-. - ...._ - - 17 ?�I I iwB R , '- rJ Lr 5� J ' ~- ♦ Q I (I ( J p 'EXISTING.11 f �.'`� } � �y""'�^,..�^ I J / r �. �. -...,.•. ' � i I swALE { r— -BASIN A r- m 'rOTALAREA=24.43 AC I °' PROPOSED IT REPLACEMENT,TYP 4 / �•-- W✓ -- - - - --- se C- w o ,__..._..-_.._. 0 ......... C' - -s ( _... _.Sp _...._ SO....-._ ,.. "W--� i 1 EXISTING ASPHALT I p ( ! ' ,mac L"1'ar..� •y, 'L"-.. (TAXIWAY B) 1 ` � .. ING SLOT DXST RAIN A (HARD STAMyW EXISTING CONC E NOS) 3 IJ m gg�pc i I t 3 I __ _ —— ————— — — �•w T 7 ——— v ,( � - .;r ————— —— ——— —�� — T^ .I ( ti EXISTING AND - - r4 E - I'X--- -W-1.. ._ _.. --.•4r- V-- T "'-e`[ -- -- �_-- --=r '.1. i _ a Ii .a v' PROPOSED DISCHARGE POINT.. oCONTRIBUTINGAREA . __ _ -- _ _-- OUTFALL PIPE PAD I --- -- W---� - - OR A=2 ( O PROJECT SITE W _-- `L — W rna RIVER p ( I ti _ -._.._ ' •,w race •ar sa•c ----fi C '�ax*m;w''� w� _ TO RFJkf.- 1PE-�"-`� x x { To i k EXISTING AND - ' PROPOSED -- DISCHARGE POINT FOR SUB-BASIN A-1 LEGEND: PA P ASPHALT PAVEMENT SWALE i FLOW DIRECTION SCALE IN FEET 80 0 80 160 DRAINAGE BASINS & SITE CHARACTERISTICS Figure 1 -3 128 134th Street A We 20) Renton Airport Evened.WoshuItm 98204 Ph:425 141-3870 Soil Map—King County Area,Washington (FIGURE 1-4:TW B Soil Map) N M N N N I 558960 559040 559120 559200 559280 559360 559440 47'29'28" z 47'29'28" o 6 o 0 0 o sy o 0 0 N � N N N i O O N N m G rn L u�Ni O N O n m N tf O p c0 �p N N N N � N O N � � N 1 � N N � � N a' m 0 0 v v 0 0 N � N N i 470 29'6" _ .. 47"29'6" 558960 559040 559120 559200 559280 559360 559440 M Map Scale:1:3,210 if printed on Asize(8.5"x 11")sheet. � <V N Meters n 0 30 60 120 180 v N Feet 0 100 200 400 600 USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 9/11/2012 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3 Soil Map—King County Area,Washington (FIGURE 1-4:TW B Soil Map) MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest(AOI) Very Stony Spot Map Scale: 1:3,210 if printed on A size(8.5"X 11")sheet. Area of Interest(AOI) Wet Spot The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Soils Soil Map Units Other Warning:Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Special Point Features Special Line Features= Gully Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause Blowout misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line Short Steep slope placement.The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting ® Borrow Pit soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Other �( Clay Spot Political Features Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map Closed Depression 0 Cities measurements. ,X Gravel Pit Water Features Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Gravelly Spot Streams and Canals Web Soil Survey URL: hftp://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov Coordinate System: UTM Zone 1ON NAD83 ® Landfill Transportation This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of A. Lava Flow +++ Rails the version date(s)listed below. A& Marsh or swamp Interstate Highways Soil Survey Area: King County Area,Washington 'X Mine or Quarry iv US Routes Survey Area Data: Version 7,Jul 2,2012 ® Miscellaneous Water Major Roads Date(s)aerial images were photographed: 7/24/2006 ® Perennial Water N Local Roads The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background Rock Outcrop imagery displayed on these maps.As a result,some minor shifting + Saline Spot of map unit boundaries may be evident. Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot 0 Sinkhole 3> Slide or Slip Ar Sodic Spot 11 Spoil Area d Stony Spot I;SDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 9/11/2012 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survev Page 2 of 3 Soil Map—King County Area,Washington FIGURE 1-4:TW B Soil Map Map Unit Legend King County Area,Washington(WA633) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Ur Urban land 19.4 100.0% Totals for Area of Interest 19.4 100.0% USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 9/11/2012 '� Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 SECTION 2: CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY The following describes how the Core and Special Requirements from the City of Renton's 2010 SWDM Amendment apply to this project. Core Requirement 1: Discharge at the Natural Location The project will not alter the stormwater discharge locations. For additional information on the discharge points, refer to Section 3, Off-site Analysis. Core Requirement 2: Off-site Analysis A Downstream Drainage Inventory is addressed in Section 3, Off-site Analysis. Core Requirement 3: Flow Control Flow control facilities are not proposed for this project. The project site discharges directly into Cedar River, downstream of the Taylor Creek confluence and within the backwater of Lake Washington. All new stormwater conveyance facilities have been designed to meet the discharge requirements as outlined in the "Direct Discharge Exemption" section of the City of Renton's SWDM Amendment. Best Management Practices (BMPs) for flow control are used on the project site. These measures typically consist of basic dispersion through sheet flow along the impervious taxiway surfacing. These measures shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of the KCSWDM, Appendix C.2.4.5. Core Requirement 4: Conveyance System The Rational Method and Manning's Equation were utilized to design and size the piping facilities. All new stormwater conveyance systems were reviewed in relation to the 25- and 100- year peak runoff events. For additional information on the conveyance system design, refer to Section 4, Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design. Core Requirement 5: Erosion and Sediment Control An Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) plan has been developed for this project. A detailed summary of the required ESC measures can be found in Section 8, CSWPPP Analysis and Design. Core Requirement 6: Maintenance and Operations Maintenance and operations of the proposed drainage facilities will be performed in compliance with King County's Appendix A, Maintenance Requirements for Flow Control, Conveyance, and WQ Facilities. Maintenance requirements for all applicable facilities have been included in Appendix G. Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase II - 14 - Technical Information Report (TIR) Core Requirement 7: Financial Guarantees and Liability The Bond Quantity Worksheet and Flow Control and Water Facility Summary Sheet are provided as part of Section 9, Bond Quantities, Facility Summaries, and Declaration of Covenant. However, Declarations of Covenants are not required for this project since the City of Renton owns and maintains the facilities. For additional information on these items, refer to Appendix E, Bond Quantity Worksheet, and Appendix F, Flow Control and Water Facility Summary Sheet. I Core Requirement 8: Water Quality 1 "Basic Water Quality"treatment standards apply to the project site. In order to meet these standard requirements,basic biofiltration swales and filter strips will be used. A summary of the water quality design facilities can be found in Section 4, Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design. Special Requirement 1: Other Adopted Area-Specific Requirements A summary of other adopted area-specific requirements associated with the project site is - presented in Table 2-1. Table 2-1. Other Adopted Area-Specific Requirements. Regulations Required Comment Master Drainage Plans(MDPs) No Basin Plans(BPs) Yes King County's Lower Cedar River Basin Plan Salmon Conservation Plans(SCPs) Yes WRIA 8 Cedar-Sammamish Stormwater Compliance Plans(SWCPs) Yes National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System DES Phase II Flood Hazard Reduction Plan Updates FHRPs yes City's Critical Area Code RMC 1V-4-3-050 Shared Facility Drainage Plans(SFDPs) No A review of the specific drainage requirements, mandated by the area-specific requirements, has been conducted. Any applicable regulations that were more stringent than the City of Renton's SWDM Amendment have been applied to the proposed facilities. From the review of the City of Renton 2009 Storm Water Management Program (SWMP) for the NPDES Phase II, it was identified that an evaluation by City of Renton staff determined the Renton Municipal Airport required an Industrial Facility NPDES Permit. It is our understanding, from discussions with Airport staff,that the specific NPDES Permit has not been completed for the facility at this time. However, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for construction activities will be developed as part of this overall project. Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase II - 15 - Technical Information Report (TIR) Special Requirement 2: Flood Hazard Area Delineation The proposed project is not within the 100-year floodplain; therefore, delineation is not identified on the improvement plans. Special Requirement 3: Flood Protection Facilities The site possesses an existing flood protection wall east of Taxiway B. The proposed improvements are not within the area of this facility nor do they include any upgrades to this structure. Special Requirement 4: Source Control This Special Requirement is not necessary, since the project does not require a commercial building or site development permit; however, it is included as part of this document. The ongoing and future source control measures proposed for the project will comply with the City of Renton's SWDM Amendment and King County's Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual. The following BMPs are specific to the proposed improvements: Structural Source Control Measures A-27: A Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESL) plan has been developed for the project site. TESC facilities shall be installed prior to any on-site grading activities. Excessive amounts of surface water will be collected and pumped to a flow dispersal system in order to prevent suspended sediments and potential oils from clogging the TESC measures or being conveyed downstream. All proposed measures are in conformance with the City of Renton's SWDM Amendment. The plan includes,but is not limited to: check dams, bio-filter bags, straw wattles, catch basin sediment traps, and covering of exposed soils. Nonstructural Source Control Measures A-17: Fueling operations for the construction equipment will occur on site. All fueling will be conducted away from standing surface water in order to prevent possible release into the drainage system. If a spill does occur during construction, the Contractor shall contain and expose of contaminated materials in accordance with local and state requirements. A-26: Landscaping activities will practice the following BMPs: Chemicals will not be applied directly to surface water, all manufacturers' recommendations and label directions will be followed, and vegetation will not be disposed of in waterways or drainage systems. Mulch or other erosion control measures will be utilized when soils are exposed for more than one week during the dry season and two days during the rainy season. Noxious plants will be avoided. Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase II - 16 - Technical Information Report (TIR) 1.'Mr.17 ir, 'I ` ' The proposed operation and maintenance guidelines for the above facilities have been included in Appendix G, Operation and Maintenance Manual, in accordance with King County's Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual. Special Requirement 5: Oil Control The proposed improvements do not meet the definition of a high-use site requiring oil control; however, within the project construction area, an existing oil/water separator is currently utilized. At this time, it is anticipated that the existing structure will be left in place and continue to provide treatment for flows through an existing 12-inch-diameter outfall. Special Requirement 6: Aquifer Protection Area The project site is not located within an Aquifer Protection Zone; therefore, protection facilities will not be provided. i Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase II - 17 - Technical Information Report (TIR) ' ' ' SECTION 3: OFF-SITE ANALYSIS A quantitative downstream, or off-site analysis, survey was conducted at and adjacent to the project site. The analysis of the project area consisted of four main tasks: a review of the Study Area, a Resource Review, a Field Inspection, and a Drainage System Description and Problem Description write-up. Study Area A review of the project site was conducted, extending three-quarters of a mile downstream of the natural discharge location and a quarter of a mile upstream. It was not feasible to extend the inspection to the required one mile downstream, since Cedar River discharges directly into Lake Washington in less than that distance. The purpose of this review is to identify the project site's impacts on the drainage area tributary flow path. For this particular site, the surface water is conveyed from the infield runway/taxiway area through catch basins to 12- and 18-inch-diameter pipe outfalls. The flow is discharged to Cedar River and carried to Lake Washington, less than three-quarters of a mile downstream. Resource Review A review of the applicable reports and studies of the general project area was included in the off-site analysis. The coverage area consisted of the property a quarter of a mile upstream and three-quarters of a mile downstream of the site. The City of Renton's SWDM Amendment requires that the following reference materials are reviewed: • Sensitive Areas Folio • Adopted Basin Plans/Basin Reconnaissance Summary Reports • Floodplain/Floodway (FEMA) Maps • King County Soil Survey • Washington State Department of Ecology's (DOE) Polluted Waters List • City of Renton Erosion Maps and Landslide Maps • Wetlands Inventory Maps From the evaluation of these reference materials, existing or potential issues were identified and noted for the field inspection. The research identified the following sensitive areas within the area of study: flood hazard, seismic hazard, and high liquefaction hazard. Upstream of the project site, the adjacent properties are within Aquifer Protection Zone 1 and possess a moderate to high susceptibility to liquefaction. Applicable maps of the City of Renton Sensitive Areas are included in Appendix B of this report. The Renton Municipal Airport is located within the Lower Cedar River Basin and Cedar Outfall Subbasin. King County has developed a Lower Cedar River Basin Plan that provides an overview of the area and proposes solutions to the issues of flooding, property damage, and declining salmon and steelhead runs. Additionally, the plan recommends preventative measures for maintaining water quality standards, groundwater supplies, and natural habitat within the Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase II - 18 - Technical Information Report (TIR) ` ' ' I basin. From the review of this document, it was noted that damage occurred to public facilities at the airport during flood events in 1990 and 1995. The plan also identified that the overall water quality in the river is"generally very good"; however, it stated that sporadic exceedances of the water standards have been recorded from fecal coliform bacteria generated by livestock and failing septic tanks. It does not appear that the airport is a major contributor to these pollutants within the river. A review of the DOE's list of polluted waters (Section 303d) was conducted for Cedar River and Lake Washington. This investigation identified that the project site discharges to a section of Cedar River labeled as Category 5 Waters, which conveys flow directly downstream to an area of Lake Washington marked as Category 2 Waters. A Category 2 label identifies water bodies that are areas of concern for the DOE. This typically indicates waters where there is some evidence of water quality issues but not enough to require a water quality improvements project. However, a Category 5 designation marks a waterway violating one or more pollutant standards. This information was considered when selecting water quality facilities for the project site. A review of the City of Renton's Erosion and Landslide Maps identified adjacent properties west of the airport property as carrying a potential for erosion hazards and landslide hazard designations ranging from moderate to very high. The airport itself is relatively flat and not directly impacted by the landslide hazard areas. An evaluation of the City of Renton's Wetland Inventory Map was conducted for the project. From the review, it did not appear that there were any documented wetlands on or within the vicinity of the airport facility. No wetland areas have been observed during previous visits to the site. Field Observation A Level 1 field observation was conducted at the project site on September 10 and 12, 2012. The weather was clear and sunny during this observation. The observation encompassed an evaluation of existing catch basins within the proposed project area and near the flood wall (upstream of the outfalls), as well as the existing outfalls. The downstream analysis extended from the final discharge location to a point less than three-quarters of a mile downstream. The site's discharge piping extends east of Taxiway B to the outfall locations along Cedar River. All existing outfalls are corrugated metal pipe (CMP) and fitted with `duckbill' style check valves. The location of the 18-inch-diameter outfall was uncovered within Cedar River; however, the 12-inch-diameter outfall from the on-site oil/water separator was not found. No signs of erosion, overtopping, or scouring were observed in the general vicinity of the outfalls or in the upstream catch basins. Please see Figure 3-1 for additional information and a depiction of the off-site analysis area. As is the case for Phase I of the project, the existing conveyance system and outfall piping are undersized for the peak runoff events as calculated by the Rational Method. This evaluation is documented in Section 5, Conveyance System Analysis and Design. Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase II - 19 - Technical Information Report (TIR) Drainage System Description and Problem Description The drainage system is combined within one Threshold Discharge Area due to the outfalls being located less than a quarter of a mile apart. The flow is conveyed into Lake Washington, less than three-quarters of a mile downstream. The field observation did not uncover signs of existing drainage system issues. See Figure 3-2, Off-site Analysis Drainage System Table, for an outline of the items noted during the field observation. Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase II - 20 - Technical Information Report (TIR) E= ' ' ' ' i 1 . Ll W - - p u.. f, � `� • • Q3 4r, _. +^.,_^.A.._ ,=C —ksa _._. . ;": ....:..� °xsns..� — _— .a„ _-_.i _,;——.. -.>...•:... _ a-.. _ .�.:e1a—"'r xs ......rev .�<__,�.�•, - -_-- !__ �. ___,r 1.. ..ID�LL v _... '=-r- - _rG.-., •-—c;: _ CONTRIBUTING AREA ' TO PROJECT SITE ? �•' „� --,--.�.� . vc ;��-.__ _- _- - �1� .ate—� ..,cr®air-�- �c*�= - -- _ _ --� -- - - - - - - - t \ - , • PAVEMENT ®� CEDAR RIVER a \ 5 REPLACEMENT ✓%" I ra �' r COMMERCIAL WATERWAY- _p "" -1=77 WPcSHINGTAN -jI - - 3a — —— ——— IL .�� _�•._.•..-._' _x wF ORIVER: •' � ��-� 1... OUTFACE P. a t -TO RIVER.: . t _ ,r-- <,•r I aS , � t { t . I LEGEND: REPLACED/NEW ASPHALT PAVEMENT FLOW DIRECTION l OFFSITE ANALYSIS MAP Figure 3-1 Renton Airport 723 134th Stint SR Silt 200 Evmt J� on 9M4 Po:425 741-3800 w� w rw it r rw w r r� r r r r� r r r r r rr OFF-SITE ANALYSIS DRAINAGE SYSTEM TABLE SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL, CORE REQUIREMENT#2 FIGURE 3-2 Basin: Lower Cedar River Subbasin Name: Cedar Outfall Subbasin Number: Symbol Drainage Drainage Slope Distance Existing Potential Observation of field Component Type, Component from site Problems Problems inspector,resource Name,and Size Description discharge reviewer,or resident see map Type sheet flow,Swale, drainage basin,vegetation, % 1/4 rni=1,320 lt, constrictions,under capacity,ponding, tributary area,likelihood of problem, stream,channel,pipe, cover,depth,type of sensitive overtopping,flooding,habitat or oganism overflow pathways,potential impacts pond,Size:diameter, area,volume destruction,scouring,bank sloughing, surface area sedimentation incision,other erosion A Discharge Location 1'to 2'Depth of Channel N/A U it None None No evidence of erosion B River Channel/Lake Bed 5'to 6'Depth ol'Channel N/A 2000 ft None None No evidence of erosion 23-2010.007 Page 1 of 1 Offsite Drainage System June 2012 Renton Municipal Airport City of Renton ' SECTION 4: FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN The proposed site area consists of one subbasin broken into two parts for the existing and 1 developed site hydrology. The subbasin is defined according to the existing topography and on- site drainage facilities. The following sections will discuss areas in greater detail as they relate to the existing or developed site hydrology. ' Part A—Existing Site Hydrology The project area is located in the southeast region of the City of Renton's Municipal Airport. Taxiway B is bordered by Runway 16-34 to the west and Boeing's aircraft manufacturing stations (concrete hardstands) on the east. The project site consists of approximately 24 acres of predominately developed land area. The project site consists of one subbasin for the design of the stormwater facilities,but is broken into two areas due to an existing catch basin splitting flow between two outfalls. The subbasin area was determined by reviewing the existing topography and drainage facilities. A breakdown of the existing and proposed land cover within the area is presented in Table 1-1. The existing taxiway surface consists of impervious asphalt underlain by a compacted gravel subgrade. From the geotechnical investigation conducted for this project, it appears that the native subgrade consists predominately of medium stiff to soft organic silt. Please refer to ' Section 1 for a detailed explanation of the geotechnical exploration. The site area is graded to drain to catch basins within the grassy infield area. Flow is conveyed from these basins to the 12- and 18-inch-diameter outfalls, along the eastern edge of the site, into Cedar River. Please refer to Figures 1-3 and 3-1 for more information on the delineation, flow path, and acreage of areas contributing runoff to the existing project site. iPart B—Developed Site Hydrology The developed site hydrology consists of one subbasin broken into two areas, as identified in the existing site hydrology review. All areas drain from the infield grass surface through the outfalls along the eastern side of the site. The proposed water quality facilities consist of basic biofiltration swales, filter strips, and flow splitters. Flow splitters are required to divert the runoff into two flows: water quality and bypass flow. The bypasses account for flows greater than the calculated water quality flow/volume for the developed conditions. Water quality treatment will consist of a combination of filter strips and basic biofiltration swales. These facilities are further detailed in Part E below. ' Flow control facilities, as discussed previously, are not required for this project. Flow control BMPs will be used where appropriate or necessary. A discussion of these facilities can be found in Part D below. Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase Il - 23 - Technical Information Report (TIR) ' ' ' Part C —Performance Standards A summary of flow control, conveyance, water quality, and source and oil control performance , standards for the project is presented in Table 4-1. Calculation documents are provided in Appendices C and D for the applicable standards. Table 4-1. Performance Standards. Category Performance Standards Source , Flow Control Flow control facilities are not required. Manual Section 1.2.3.1 Flow Control BMPs required. Conveyance System Capacity Developed 25-year Peak Storm Event Manual Section 1.2.4.1 Basic Treatment of the 2-year Storm Manual Section 1.2.8.1 Event for developed conditions Manual Section 6.2.1 Water Quality Treatment i Basic Biofiltration Swales Manual Section 6.3.1 Basic Filter Strips Manual Section 6.3.4 ' Source Control Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual Manual Section 1.3.4 Oil Control N/A Manual Section 1.3.5 Part D—Flow Control System As discussed in Core Requirement 3, Flow Control, the project site is exempt from providing flow control facilities since the site discharges directly to a major receiving water body. Therefore, flow control design and analysis are not included as part of this report. Flow control BMPs will be installed where appropriate or necessary. These measures typically consist of"Basic Dispersion"through sheet flow. Part E—Water Quality System Proposed Treatment System ' The project site appears to fall within the description of"Basic Treatment" as defined by KCSWDM. Properties subject to this type of treatment are areas draining outside the drainage , basin of sensitive lakes or sphagnum bog wetlands. The Basic Treatment standard intends to remove 80 percent of the TSS for flows or volumes up to the water quality design flow or volume. The remaining flow quantity is diverted around water quality facilities and passes ' untreated through the system. The KCSWDM requires that all water quality measures treat a minimum of 95 percent of the , annual average runoff volume in the 8-year time series, as determined by the King County Resource Time Series (KCRTS) model. The designs of the facilities at the site are based on treating 60 percent of the 2-year Peak Flow rates for a given targeted surface area. At this design flow rate, the system will successfully treat the minimum required volume. Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 ' TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase II - 24 - Technical Information Report(TIR) E= ' ' ' ' The project's surface water quality facilities consist of a combination of basic biofiltration swales and filter strips. Filter strips generally bound the western side of Taxiway B to treat sheet flow, while biofiltration swales are provided to treat the concentrated flows from the eastern crowned sections of Subbasin A-1. The flow in this area is collected and conveyed from the eastern side of the (crowned) taxiway to the grass infield west of Taxiway B. Table 4-2 identifies the design information for the basic biofiltration swale. Table 4-2. Basic Biofiltration Swales. Area Length Bottom Width Side Slope Longitudinal Slope Design Flow (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT/FT) (CFS) South 100 10.0 4H:1 V 0.010 0.29 Bioswale North 100 10.0 4H:1 V 0.010 0.29 Bioswale Flow splitters are proposed upstream of the basic biofiltration swales to control the rate of flow through the facilities. The flow splitters have been designed to allow the required water flow/volume for water treatment to pass through the basic biofiltration swales. The remaining water volume will be diverted through a bypass system that runs parallel to the swales in below- grade piping systems. The calculations for sizing the flow splitters have been included in Appendix F, Water Quality Calculations. A breakdown of the water quality areas within each section of the subbasin is defined in Table 4-3. Calculations and computer printouts for these facilities have been included as Appendix C, Water Quality Calculations. The locations of the water quality facilities are identified on Figure 4-1 and on the construction plans. Table 4-3. Water Quality Treatment Areas. Treatment Type Subbasin A-1 Subbasin A-2 (SF) (SF) Area Treated by Filter Strip 110,875 3,990 Untreated Target Area 34,520 22,620 Area Treated by Basic Biofiltration Swales 87,500* 0 Total 232,895 26,610 *Area includes Non-Target Tributary Area being treated(21,370 SF) Treatment Trades The City of Renton's SWDM Amendment, Section 1.2.8.2.C, identifies that runoff from pollution-generating surfaces may be released untreated if an existing non-targeted pollution- generating surface of equivalent size and pollutant characteristics within the same watershed or stream reach tributary area is treated on the project site. It is understood that this provision is included as part of the manual to allow the designer flexibility to trade regions of target areas that are not feasible to treat with water quality facilities. Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase II - 25 - Technical Information Report (TIR) In Phase II of the project, there are three target areas where it is not feasible to treat surface runoff. In order to offset these untreated target areas, additional area east of Taxiway B, within Boeing's concrete hardstand area, has been added to the two basic biofiltration swales in Phase lI. This hardstand area is not currently being treated. From Phase I of the project, the water quality measures treated an additional 62,200 square feet of non-target surfacing (Subbasin C). The outfalls from Phase 11 (both A-1 and A-2) and the outfall for Subbasin C in Phase I are all within a single threshold discharge area. Therefore, the overall project proposes to treat a total net of 26,500 square feet of non-target areas. Table 4-4 breaks down the total non-target pollution-generating surfaces proposed for treatment trades by the individual subbasin areas. Table 4-4. Pollution-Generating Surface Treatment Trades. Drainage Basin Treated Non-Target Area Untreated Target Area (SF) (SF) Subbasin A-1 0 34,520 Subbasin A-2 21,370 22,620 Phase I Total 66,790 4,575 Total 88,160 61,715 Please refer to Figure 4-1 for the proposed treatment traded areas for Phase II. Water quality BMPs will be provided in these locations of untreated target areas to the extent possible. Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase 11 - 26 - Technical Information Report (TIR) ' " ' I EXISTING ASPHALT (RUNWAY 16-34) -" SUB-BASIN A-1 - - I SUB-BASIN A-2 TAXIWAY B7 (N) AREA. - n IMPERVIOUS = 14,750 S y� SOUTHfi BIOFILTRATION TAXIWAY 87 (S) AREA SWALE(10'x 100') NORTH IMPERVIOUS = 7,220 SF ' SWALE(10'x on)WET N / SOUTH FILTER STRIP AREA IMPERVIOUS - 26,215 SF u TAXIWAY B6( 'TAXIWAY B6 N 10,650 SF -TAXIWA Y 1 r =_ -- � .TAXIWAY B FILTER STRIP.AREA - 15,710 SF ( >., 3,990 SF r IMPERVIOUS = 28.100 SF I UNTREATED TARGET AREA -- AREA IMPERVIOUS = 14,480 SF TAXIWAY 8 rn GET AREA SOUTH BIOSWALE AREA NORTH BIOSWALE AREA UNTREATED TARGET AREA 22,620 SF IMPERVIOUS 43,680 SF IMPERVIOUS 43.820 SF _ -IMPERVIOUS 20,040 SF- OUTFALL PIPE TO RIVER IPE I / TO RIVER AREA BOUNDARY J CROWNED TAXIWAY J NON—TARGET TRIBUTARY AREA SLOT DRAIN (NP) CENTERLINE IMPERVIOUS = 21,370 SF i EXISTING CONCRETE (HARD STANDS) LEGEND: WATER QUALITY FILTER STRIP TREATED NON-TARGET AREA —� SWALE SUB-BASIN BOUNDARY �— FLOW DIRECTION ARROW WATER QUALITY TREATMENT BY SUB—BASIN POLLUTION—GENERATING SURFACE TREATMENT TRADE SUB—BASIN A-1 SUB—BASIN A-2 TREATED NON—TARGET AREA UNTREATED TARGET AREA TREATMENT TYPE (SF) (SF) DRAINAGE BASIN (SF) (SF) AREA TREATED BY FILTER STRIP 110,875 3,990 SUB-BASIN A-1 21,370 34,520 UNTREATED TARGET AREA 34,520 22,620 SUB-BASIN A-2 0 22,620 Amw AREA TREATED BY BIOSWALE 87,500- 0 TOTAL FROM PHASE 1 PROJECT 66,790• 4,575• TOTAL 232.895 26,610 TOTAL 88,160 61,715 • AREA INCLUDES NON-TARGET TRIBUTARY AREA (21,370 SF). ' SEE FIG. 4-2 OF PHASE 1 TIR. SCALE IN FEET WATER QUALITY FLOW RATES AND SIZING CALCULATIONS INCLUDED IN APPENDIX C. 60 0 60 120 WATER QUALITY BASIN MAP Figure 4-1 228 1341h Wee(Sl Sub 200 Renton Airport EwdL Wm*tm 9M Ph 425 741-M SECTION 5: CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN An evaluation of the existing and proposed conveyance systems was conducted for this project. This section provides an overview of the existing and proposed conveyance systems and outlines the criteria utilized in design of the drainage facilities. Existing Conveyance System The existing storm drainage conveyance system was analyzed for conveyance of the 25- and 100-year peak storm runoff events for instances where the flow characteristics were changed due to the proposed project. The existing conveyance system consists of swales, depressions, catch basins, outfalls, and various types of storm piping. The outfalls are 12- and 18-inch-diameter, reinforced concrete and corrugated steel pipelines that are relatively flat in nature. These structures inhibit the capacity of the entire system, requiring the use of hydraulic head to adequately drain the site after large storm events. As discussed in the TIR for Phase 1, the Airport is planning to develop a Capital Improvements Projects (CIP) program to address existing storm drainage facilities on the site. The staff intends to include the replacement of the existing outfalls to Cedar River as part of the CIP program in order to correct this potential issue from the peak runoff storm events. Calculations for the existing and proposed conveyance systems have been included in Appendix C. Proposed Conveyance System Proposed System Review The proposed conveyance system intends to replace/relocate storm drainage facilities within the areas of excavation. The Rational Method was used to determine the peak storm runoff events, while Manning's Equation was utilized to size the conveyance system. The proposed facilities are constrained by the invert elevations of the existing outfall system and the relatively flat terrain of the site. The piping system was designed to fit the site limitations and convey flow to the existing outfall elevations. Following this design path, the proposed conveyance system does not appear to pass the 25- and 100-year peak runoff event through a portion of the system, as determined by the Rational Method. The existing drainage piping in the infield area was upsized to 18-inch-diameter piping to alleviate the potential of overtopping structures from the peak event. However, upsizing beyond this diameter or steepening the slope of the facilities was not feasible due to the site constraints and lack of cover over the pipes. As is the case in Phase 1, the proposed drainage system will require the use of hydraulic head from backwatering into upstream structures to ecompletely drain the area. The conveyance system consists of pipes, culverts, catch basins, berms, and swales. Flow from the non-target impervious surfacing (Runway 16-34), along the western edge of the project site, will drain as sheet flow from the edge of the pavement and follow the sloped shoulder area toward the middle of the infield. The infield will be sloped to direct the runway flow away from Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase II - 28 - �� Technical Information Report (TIR) '+'�`;+�i[ ' ' . ' the basic biofiltration swales, which treat the concentrated flows from the eastern side of the crowned taxiway. The flow from the runway non-target impervious area will be routed to catch basins just north of these water quality facilities and conveyed through a series of pipes and catch basins before discharging through the outfalls. Flow from the western crowned taxiway surface will generally drain as sheet flow into the infield area. Basic filter strips are proposed along the entire length of the infield along the western edge of Taxiway B. The runoff will travel above grade to the center of the infield area and be directed to catch basins. From there, the flow will be diverted through a series of pipes and catch basins before discharging through the outfalls. The eastern crowned taxiway surface will be graded and paved in a manner that directs surface water to a slot drain along the eastern edge of the project area. The flow will be conveyed through the slot drains and pipelines to flow splitter catch basins. The flow splitters will divert the required flow/volume for water quality within each subbasin, while the remaining flow/volume will be diverted to a bypass system. The portion of the flow required for water quality will be conveyed within the biofiltration swales to a collection catch basin. The bypass flow will travel parallel to the swales through a series of pipes and catch basins. The flow will be combined in a collection catch basin north of each basic biofiltration swale. From this location, the flow will be conveyed through a series of pipes and catch basins and then discharged through the outfalls. For further information regarding these facilities,please refer to Appendix C and the project plans. Shallow Pipe Loading Thickness design for DIP was performed on drainage lines crossing beneath Taxiway B at shallow depths, typically less than 3 feet of cover. The method used for the design was obtained from ANSI/AWWA C I 50/A21.50-20, Thickness Design of Ductile Iron Pipe. There were 4 scenarios reviewed where the crossings possessed cover less than 3 feet: 12-inch DIP at 1 foot, 18-inch DIP at 1 foot, 12-inch DIP at 1.5 feet, and 18-inch DIP at 2 feet. The vehicle loading on the pipelines was based on the design vehicle, a 737-800 aircraft weighing approximately 130,000 pounds. From the calculations performed, the following conclusions were made: • 12-inch DIP at 1 foot: a minimum Special Class 54 is required • 18-inch DIP at 1 foot: a minimum Special Class 55 is required • 12-inch DIP at 1.5 feet: a minimum Special Class 52 is required • 18-inch DIP at 2 feet: a minimum Special Class 50 is required The design specifications for the project will reflect these requirements for any instances where they may occur. Please refer to Appendix D for the thickness design calculations. Spill Control Measures Spill control measures, in accordance with the City of Renton's SWDM Amendment requirements, have been included as part of the storm drainage facilities. These measures include Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase II - 29 - Technical Information Report (TIR) ' ' ' placing inverted tee or elbow sections in the final discharge catch basins within the project site. Locations and details of these facilities are identified in the project plan set. Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase II - 30 - Technical Information Report (TIR) ' ` SECTION 6: SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES Table 6-1 summarizes the Special Reports and Studies required for this project site. Table 6-1. Special Reports and Studies. Study/Report Date Conducted Appendix Floodplain Delineation(Section 1.3.2) N/A N/A Flood Protection Facility Conformance(Section 1.3.3) N/A N/A Critical Areas Analysis and Delineation N/A N/A Geotechnical/Soils 04/27/12 Appendix A Groundwater N/A N/A Slope Protection/Stability N/A N/A Erosion and Deposition N/A N/A Geology N/A N/A Hydrology N/A N/A Fluvial Geomorphology N/A N/A Anadromous Fisheries Impacts N/A N/A Water Quality N/A N/A Structural Design N/A N/A Structural Fill N/A N/A Aquifer Protection Areas N/A N/A Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase II - 31 - Technical Information Report (TIR) LX4,T, ' 'I ' ' SECTION 7: OTHER PERMITS Table 7-1 summarizes other permits required for the project site. Table 7-1. Other Permits. Permit Required Regulating Agency On-site Sewage Disposal No Seattle/King County Department of Public Health Well Permits No Seattle/King County Department of Public Health Developer/Local Agency Agreement No Washington State Department of Transportation Hydraulic Project Approval No Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Short-term Water Quality Modification Approval No Washington State Department of Ecology Dam Safety Permit No Washington State Department of Ecology NPDES Stormwater Permit Yes Washington State Department of Ecology Forest Practices Class IV Permit No Washington State Department of Natural Resources Sections 10,401,and 404 Permits No United States Army Corps of Engineers Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase II - 32 - Technical Information Report (TIR) SECTION 8: CSWPPP ANALYSIS AND DESIGN A Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (CSWPPP) has been developed as an element of this report. This plan is composed of an Erosion Sediment Control (ESC) plan and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Spill (SWPPS) plan. ESC Measures Phase II of the project will be constructed during the summer and early fall of 2013. Rainfall accumulation during this period of the year is minimal. The site is relatively flat and the majority of the work is on or near asphalt surfacing; therefore, erosion potential is anticipated to be very low. Standard erosion control measures will be implemented to control sediment in the construction area. However, additional measures will be introduced to provide added protection against sediment transport due to the airport's close proximity to Cedar River and Lake Washington. The following is a description of the standard and nonstandard erosion control measures being implemented for Phase II of this project. ESC Requirement 1: Clearing Limits The limits of work are identified on the project plans. It is anticipated that the Contractor will physically mark the limits of work during construction. ESC Requirement 2: Cover Measures The Contractor will be required to cover any exposed soils by temporary or permanent means. Guidelines for cover measures are defined in the ESC Notes on the plans. ESC Requirement 3: Perimeter Protection Filter fabric fencing shall be installed down-gradient from any construction activity to prevent the transportation of sediment to Cedar River or Lake Washington. Fencing materials will be specified to meet the KCSWDM requirements. Typically, such structures consist of filter fabric, possess a wire mesh backing, and are buried approximately 8 inches below grade. The Contractor shall inspect the fence on a weekly basis. Any damage to the structure shall be repaired immediately. If soil near the barrier is roughly 6 inches high, the sediment shall be removed and stabilized on site. ESC Requirement 4: Traffic Area Stabilization Temporary construction entrances may be installed at various locations along the taxiway reconstruction to reduce sediment transport onto the adjacent paved surfaces. ESC Requirement 5: Sediment Retention Check dams and bio-filter bags will be installed within existing swales and around certain catch basins to protect downstream conveyance systems from sediment accumulation. Straw wattles will also be used downstream of any soil disturbance that is tributary to existing catch basins. Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase II - 33 - Technical Information Report (TIR) Catch basin sediment trap filters will be installed in existing and proposed catch basins to protect drain inlet structures and reduce sediment in downstream conveyance systems. All temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control BMPs shall be maintained and repaired as needed to ensure continued performance of their intended function. All maintenance and repair shall be conducted in accordance with BMPs. Sediment control BMPs shall be inspected weekly or after a runoff-producing storm event during the dry season and daily during the wet season. ESC Requirement 6: Sui face Water Collection In addition to the traditional BMPs mentioned above, two of the existing catch basins that drain to the Cedar River will be equipped with a pump and flow dispersal system. The outlet pipes from the catch basins will be plugged and a temporary sump pump will be installed to convey runoff to a length of 6-inch perforated pipe placed on undisturbed vegetation. Sediment will settle in the catch basin and the runoff will be dispersed through the existing vegetation downstream. ESCRequirement 7: Dewatering Control The Contractor shall dewater excavated areas that exhibit excessive water levels from ground or surface water. Temporary pumping and dispersal equipment shall be used to disperse the flow to existing vegetation areas downstream of the excavations. Sediment transport shall not be allowed to bypass existing or proposed stormwater facilities that are fitted with sediment retention measures. ESCRequirement 8: Dust Control The Contractor shall control dust to prevent sediment transport from exposed, dry surfaces to the adjacent waterways. It is anticipated that the Contractor will use water in these areas; however, the KCSWDM also allows the Contractor to utilize calcium chloride, magnesium chloride, lignin derivatives, tree resin emulsions, and synthetic polymer emulsions as other means of suppressing dust from the project. ESC Requirement 9: Flow Control The Contractor shall be responsible for drainage control at all times. The Contractor shall protect all work, existing facilities, and adjacent properties and water bodies from erosion and siltation transportation during construction. Recommended Construction Sequence (Erosion and Sediment Control) 1. Attend preconstruction meeting. 2. Post sign with name and phone number of ESC supervisor. 3. Grade and install construction entrance(s). Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase 11 - 34 - Technical Information Report (TIR) '`'' 4. Install perimeter protection (silt fence, brush barrier, etc.). 5. Construct surface water controls simultaneously with grading activities for project development. 6. Maintain erosion control measures in accordance with King County Standards and manufacturer's recommendations. 7. Relocate erosion control measures, or install new measures, so that changing site conditions continue to meet King County erosion and sediment control standards. 8. Cover all areas that will be unworked for more than seven days during the dry season or two days during the wet season with straw, wood fiber mulch, compost, plastic sheeting, or equivalent. 9. Seed or sod any areas to remain unworked for more than 30 days. 10. Upon completion of the project, all disturbed pervious areas must be stabilized and BMPs removed if appropriate. SWPPS Plan Design Construction activities that may generate pollutants include: (1) soil disturbance from site grading, storm installation, and pavement removal; and (2) use of large machinery required to install new asphalt, stormwater, and water system components. Potential pollutants in construction runoff as a result of the operations include the following: oils and greases, nutrients, metals, suspended solids, and Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD). The major pollutants generated by the activities are suspended solids (from soil disturbance) and oils and greases from heavy machinery and asphalt placement. These pollutants will be controlled using a combination of inlet protection filter traps, filter bags, and straw wattles in or around the new and existing catch basins. An additional measure for water quality will be utilized by pumping runoff from existing catch basins to a dispersal system. These measures are described above in the ESC Measures section. Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase 11 - 35 - Technical Information Report (TIR) 1.1mro I Ill 1V"I M' SECTION 9: BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES,AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT Bond Quantities Worksheet A completed Bond Quantity Worksheet is provided in Appendix E of this document. Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Summary Sheet and Sketch A summary of the water quality facilities is discussed in Section 4, Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design. As discussed previously, flow control facilities are not required. Flow control BMPs will be provided where necessary or applicable. Please see Appendix F for the completed Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Summary Sheet for this project. Declaration of Covenant for Privately Maintained Flow Control and WQ Facilities The Renton Municipal Airport is a public facility owned and operated by the City of Renton. All fees associated with maintenance work are budgeted by the Municipal Airport, and the Public Works staff maintains the facilities. Therefore, this project is exempt from providing a Declaration of Covenant for Privately Maintained Flow Control and WQ Facilities. Declaration of Covenant for Privately Maintained Flow Control BMPs The Renton Municipal Airport is a public facility owned and operated by the City of Renton. All fees associated with maintenance work are budgeted by the Municipal Airport, and the Public Works staff maintains the facilities. Therefore, this project is exempt from providing a Declaration of Covenant for Privately Maintained Flow Control BMPs. Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase II - 36 - Technical Information Report (TIR) SECTION 10: OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL The applicable maintenance requirements, supplied from the KCSWDM, Appendix A, are provided in Appendix G of this document. Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase II - 37 - Technical Information Report (TIR) SECTION 11: REFERENCES City of Renton, Washington, 2012. City of Renton Municipal Code, Section 4-6-030, Drainage (Surface Water) Standards. i City of Renton, Washington, 2012. City of Renton COR Maps. 7 June 2012. http://rentonwa.gov/govemment/default.aspx?id=29886. City of Renton, Washington, Public Works Department, Surface Water Utility, 2010. City of Renton Amendments to the King County Surface Water Design Manual. HWA GeoSciences, Inc., 2012. Taxiway B North (General Aviation) Section Improvements, Renton Municipal Airport, Taxiway B Rehabilitation. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, 2009.King County Surface Water Design Manual. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Water and Land Resources Division, 2009.King County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual. King County Geographic Information Systems, 2012.King County iMap:Interactive Mapping Tool. 10 September 2012. http://www.kingcounty.gov/operations/GIS/Maps/iMap.aspx/. United States Department of Agriculture,Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2012. Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington. sah\23\10\007\reports\drainage report(tir)\tir renton tw b phase ii.doc\bts Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase II - 38 - Technical Information Report (TIR) Appendix A Geotechnical Report Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase II � Technical Information Report (TIR) FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT Renton Municipal Airport Taxiway B Rehabilitation Renton, Washington " HWA Project No. 2011-039-21 i Prepared for Reid Middleton, Inc. October 17, 2012 { � i ( I --1 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. • Geotechnical En�1'14'0'111 - Hydrogeology Geoenvironmental Servl*"'':- • In.yection & Testing IFL A GEOSCIENCES IBC. October 17,2012. HWA Project No. 2011-039-21 Reid Middleton 728 134th Street SW, Suite 200 Everett, Washington 98204 Attention: -Mr.Randy Hall, P.E. SUBJECT: Final Geotechnical Engineering Report Renton Municipal Airport Taxiway B Rehabilitation Renton, Washington Dear Randy: As requested, HWA GeoSciences Inc. (HWA) has completed a geotechnical engineering investigation to support design efforts for the Taxiway B Rehabilitation Project at the Renton Municipal Airport in Renton, Washington. The objective of our investigation was to evaluate the existing pavement and subgrade conditions in the vicinity of the proposed improvements. Our scope of work included field reconnaissance, test pit logging,pavement coring, dynamic cone penetration testing(DCP), laboratory testing, SCBC mix design, engineering analyses, and preparation of the attached final report summarizing the investigation results and our recommendations. We appreciate the opportunity to provide geotechnical services on this project. Sincerely, HWA GEQSC.IENCES INC. Steven E. Greene,L.G.,L.E.G. George Minassian,Ph.D.,P.E. Senior Engineering Geologist Pavement Engineer Enclosure: Hiai Geoteclmical Report 21312 30th Drive SE Suite 110 Bothell,WA 98021.7010 'rel: 425.774.0106 Fax: 425.774,2714 www.hwageoxom TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................1 1.1 GENERAL.......................................................................................................1 1.2 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING............................................................................1 1.3 AUTHORIZATION AND SCOPE OF WORK.........................................................1 2.0 INVESTIGATION PROGRAM ........................................................................................1 2.1 SITE EXPLORATIONS......................................................................................1 2.2 LABORATORY TESTING .................................................................................2 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS......................................................................................................3 3.1 SITE DESCRIPTION.........................................................................................3 3.2 GENERAL GEOLOGY......................................................................................4 3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.............................................................................4 3.5 EXISTING PAVEMENT STRUCTURE.................................................................5 4.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................8 4.1 GENERAL ........................................................................................................8 4.2 NORTH TAXIWAY SECTION RECONSTRUCTION ...............................................9 4.3 SOUTH TAXIWAY SECTION REHABILITATION&RECONSTRUCTION................9 5.0 CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS.................................................................................10 LIST OF FIGURES(FOLLOWING TEXT Figure I Project Site and Vicinity Map Figure 2 Site and Exploration Plan Figure 3 Geologic Map APPENDICES Appendix A: Field Exploration Figure A-1 Legend of Terms and Symbols Used on Exploration Logs Figures A-2—A-21 Logs of Cores Core-I through Core-20 Figures A-22—A-24 Logs of Test Pits TP-I through TP-3 Appendix B: Laboratory Testing - Figures B-1 —B-8 Particle Size Analysis of Soils Figure B-9 Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index of Soils Figures B-10—B-12 Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Figures B-13 —B-15 CBR of Laboratory Compacted Soil Figure B-16 Bulk Density of Soil-Drive Cylinder Method Appendix C: Core Photographs FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON, WASHINGTON 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 GENERAL This report summarizes the results of a geotechnical engineering investigation completed by HWA GeoSciences Inc. (HWA) to support design efforts for the Taxiway B Rehabilitation Project, at the Renton Municipal Airport, in Renton, Washington. The project location is indicated on the Project Site and Vicinity Map, Figure 1. 1.2 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING We understand that Taxiway B rehabilitation work involves resurfacing all of Taxiway B on the east side of the airfield. Currently, Taxiway B is composed of hot mix asphalt and Portland cement concrete pavement and is approximately 3,300 feet long and ranges from about 25 to 50 feet wide. The objective of our study was to provide field exploration and testing to evaluate the existing subsurface and pavement conditions, and provide recommendations regarding subgrade strength properties for pavement design for the taxiway rehabilitation. 1.3 AUTHORIZATION AND SCOPE OF WORK Authorization to proceed with our work was provided under Agreement for Subconsulting Services, dated August 2010,between HWA and Reid Middleton. Our work was undertaken in accordance with our original proposal dated August 7, 2010. The scope of work included field reconnaissance, test pit excavation, pavement coring and shallow hand-excavated explorations, DCP and laboratory testing, and preparation of this summary report. 2.0 INVESTIGATION PROGRAM 2.1 SITE EXPLORATIONS Subsurface conditions in the vicinity of the proposed improvements were investigated by means of three test pits (designated TP-1 through TP-3) and twenty pavement cores (designated Core-1 through Core-20). Shallow hand borings were performed within the core holes. The approximate locations of our explorations are shown in Figure 2, Site and Exploration Plan. The test pits were excavated on June 3, 2011, by an excavator under subcontract to HWA, to depths ranging from approximately 3.5 to 4 feet. The test pits and cores/hand borings were October 17, 2012 HWA Project No. 2011-039-21 performed by HWA engineering geologist personnel. Pertinent information including soil sample depths, stratigraphy, soil engineering characteristics, and ground water occurrence were recorded. The stratigraphic contacts shown on the individual 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 date and locations reported and, therefore, are not necessarily representative of other locations and times. Soil samples obtained from the excavations were classified in the field and representative portions were placed in plastic bags. These soil samples were then returned to our Bothell, Washington, laboratory for further examination and testing. The cores/hand borings were completed using coring equipment, hand augers, and other hand tools, to depths ranging from about 1.5 to 7.5 feet. The initial phase consisting of(16) sixteen cores/hand borings were conducted on June 2, June 6, and June 7, 2011. Four (4) supplemental core/hand borings were conducted on July 11, 2012. The cores/hand borings were used to gather information on the thickness of the existing pavement and strength of the underlying subgrade layers in the taxiway area. A legend of the terms and symbols used on the exploration logs is presented in, Figure A-1, Appendix A. Summary test pit and core logs are presented in Figures A-2 through A-24, Appendix A. Dynamic cone penetration (DCP) testing was performed in most pavement core holes to check relative soil density/strength conditions. The DCP consists of a steel extension shaft assembly, with a 60 degree hardened steel cone tip attached to one end, which is driven into the soil by means of a sliding drop hammer. The base diameter of the cone is 20 mm (0.8 in). The diameter of the shaft is 8 mm (0.3 in) less than that of the cone to ensure that, at shallow penetration depths, the resistance to penetration is exerted on the cone alone. The DCP is driven by repeatedly dropping an 8 kg (17.6 lbs) sliding hammer from a height of 575 mm (22.6 in). The depth of cone penetration was measured after each hammer drop and the soil shear strength is reported in terms of the DCP index. The DCP index is based on the average penetration depth resulting from 1 blow of the 8 kg hammer and is reported as millimeters per blow (mm/blow). The data obtained from the DCP testing was then correlated to approximate California Bearing Ratio (CBR) values, in order to evaluate the strength of the subgrade soils. It is important to note that CBR values derived from DCP data obtained from granular materials may be exaggerated. The calculated CBR values are plotted on the appropriate core logs in Appendix A. 2.2 LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were conducted on selected soil samples to characterize relevant properties of the on-site soils. The laboratory testing program was performed in general accordance with appropriate ASTM Standards, as outlined below. Final Report 2 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. I October 17, 2012 HWA Project No. 2011-039-21 MOISTURE CONTENT OF SOIL: The moisture content of selected soil samples (percent by dry mass) was determined in accordance with ASTM D 2216. The test results are shown at the sampled intervals on the appropriate summary logs in Appendix A. PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS: Selected granular samples were tested to determine the particle size distribution of material in accordance with ASTM D 422 (wash sieve or wash sieve and hydrometer methods). The results are summarized on the attached Particle-Size Distribution reports (Figures B-1 through B-8, Appendix B), which also provide information regarding the classification of the samples and the moisture content at the time of testing. LIQUID LIMIT,PLASTIC LIMIT,AND PLASTICITY INDEX OF SOILS(ATTERBERG LIMITS): Selected fine-grained samples were tested using method ASTM D 4318, multi-point method. The results are reported on the attached Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index report on Figure B-9. LABORATORY COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SOIL(PROCTOR TEST): Selected bulk subgrade samples were tested using either method ASTM D 698 (Standard Proctor) Method C or ASTM D 1557 (Modified Proctor), as appropriate. The test results are summarized on the attached Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil reports, Figures B-10 through B-12, Appendix B. CBR(CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO)OF LABORATORY COMPACTED SOILS: Selected bulk subgrade samples were tested in accordance with method ASTM D 1883. The test results are summarized on the attached CBR of Laboratory Compacted Soils reports, Figures B-13 through 13-15, Appendix B. BULK DENSITY OF SOIL DRIVE CYLINDER METHOD: The bulk density, dry density and moisture content of selected, relatively undisturbed soil samples obtained from test pits TP-1 through TP- 3 were determined in general accordance with ASTM D 2937 test method. The test results are summarized in the table on Figure B-16, Appendix B. 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS 3.1 SITE DESCRIPTION Renton Municipal Airport is located in King County, within the northwest portion of the City of Renton. The Airport has a single runway (Runway 16-34), which is approximately 5,400 feet long, 100 feet wide, and consists of Portland cement concrete panels overlain with an asphaltic concrete surface layer. The runway was resurfaced and realigned in the summer of 2009. Taxiway B extends along the southeast side of runway and is approximately 3,300 feet long, 25 to 50 feet wide, and consists of asphaltic concrete pavement in the general aviation area and Portland cement concrete panels overlain by asphaltic concrete in the area trafficked by large Final Report 3 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. r October 17, 2012 HWA Project No. 2011-039-21 commercial aircraft. The ground surface in the vicinity of this project is predominantly flat, situated at approximately elevation 32 feet MSL and prior to industrial development consisted of a portion of the alluvial plain of the Cedar River. 3.2 GENERAL GEOLOGY Background geologic information was obtained from Geologic Map of the Renton Quadrangle, King County, Washington (D.R. Mullineaux, 1965). This map, a portion of which is reproduced herein as Figure 3, identifies the surficial deposits in the vicinity of the airport as urban or industrial land that has been modified by widespread or discontinuous artificial fill (map symbol- afire). Alluvial deposits consisting of material deposited by the Cedar River(map symbol—Qac) are mapped along the margins of this industrial land area and belie conditions prior to industrialization. 3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Locally, construction of pavement structure have been facilitated by the use of fill layers ranging from 0.6 feet in the general aviation area (north of the wind rose) to 2.25 to 4 feet plus in the commercial aviation area(central to south portion of Taxiway B). In general, the fill layers appear to be loose to medium dense and consist of various material types most predominately, slightly silty to silty, gravel with sand to relatively clean, sand with gravel. In the central area (between Core-5 and Core-6) material interpreted as dredge fill consisting of sand and gravel with shell fragments, glass and brick pieces underlies the pavement section at depth. Beneath the fill layer, the native subgrade soils consists predominately of medium stiff to soft, organic silt (OH), typically exhibiting estimated in-place CBR values ranging from<1%to about 5%. The soil moisture content appears to increase with depth. Perched ground water was encountered in test pits TP-1, TP-2, and TP-3, at depth of 3.8 feet, 3.5 feet and 3.6 feet,respectively. Ground water seepage was observed in core/hand borings Core-4, Core-6 through Core-9, and Core-18, ranging from about 2.2 to 5.5 feet below the existing ground surface at the time of our exploration. It is anticipated that the level of ground water in this area will change depending on the season and the height of the adjacent Cedar River. Three native soil samples were tested for laboratory CBR values. The tested samples were taken from Test Pits TP-1, TP-2 and TP-3, which are representative of the native soils encountered below granular fill along the length of existing Taxiway. The moisture-density curve for the sample from TP-1 was determined in general accordance with ASTM D 698, as required by FAA for airfields serving aircrafts with total weight less than 60,000 Lbs. The moisture-density curves for samples from TP-2 and TP-3 were determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557, as required by the FAA for areas serving aircraft with a total weight above 60,000 Lbs. The CBR value of each sample was determined at natural moisture content and maximum compaction effort. In addition,the sample obtained in TP-3 was dried back to optimum and compacted at Final Report 4 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. October 17, 2012 HWA Project No. 2011-039-21 maximum effort in an attempt to determine the potential strength gain available should the subgrade be allowed to dry out. The measured CBR test results are presented on Figures B-13 through B-15, in Appendix B and are summarized in Table 1 below: Table 1: Summary of CBR Tests Sample Relative CBR Value Material Description Location Compaction o Light olive brown, organic SILT (OH) TP-1 57.4' 0.4 Dark brown, organic SILT (OH) TP-2 65.62 0.6 Dark olive gray, SILT with sand (ML) TP-3 85.5' 1.2 t 02.V 53.8 'Relative to Maximum Dry Density determined with Standard Compactive Effort(ASTMD698) Relative to Maximum Dry Density determined with Modified Compactive Effort(ASTMD 1557) 3.5 EXISTING PAVEMENT STRUCTURE We completed twenty (20) core/hand holes at locations selected by Reid Middleton along the taxiway alignment and on the existing north and south end connectors. Our shallow hand borings, performed within the core holes, were extended to 1.3 to 7.5 feet in depth using hand tools. Detailed logs of the core holes are located in Appendix A of this report. Photographs of pavement cores are presented in Appendix C. North Taxiway Connector Based on the exploration within the north taxiway connector(Core-1) the pavement section consists of an HMA surface of about 2-inches thick over 5-inches of crushed gravel base course. The existing pavement surface is in fair condition. Fill soils consisting of Gravel with sand and cobbles were encountered at depth of about 0.6 feet. No DCP test was conducted at this location due to refusal on cobbles. Taxiway B North - General Aviation Area Based on the explorations within the Taxiway B proper in general aviation area (Core-2 and Core-5) the taxiway pavement section consists of an HMA surface of about 2 to 4.5-inches thick and a base course layer ranging from 5 to 6 inches thick. The existing pavement surface is in fair to good condition. Final Report 5 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. i October 17, 2012 HWA Project No. 2011-039-21 Fill soils consisting of poorly graded gravel with sand were encountered at depth of about 0.5 to 0.7 feet. At the location of Core-5, dredge fill consisting of silty medium sand with shell fragments, brick and glass fragments was encountered to a depth of 2.5 feet. Below the fill in Core-2 and Core-5, native alluvial soils consisting of sandy silt to organic silt were encountered. These soils were similar to those encountered in our test pit TP-1. Field DCP data obtained at location of Core-2 (See Figure A-3) indicate in-place CBR values of about 20% for the uppermost 0.7 of a foot of subgrade, then decreasing to about 3-5% for the last 1.1 feet or so to the termination depth of the test at about 4.3 feet below grade in native soils. Taxiway B North Apron Based on the explorations east on the Taxiway B in general aviation area within the apron adjacent to private hangers (Core-3 and Core 4) the taxiway pavement section consists of an HMA surface of about 1.5 to 2.25-inches thick. At the location of Core-4, a 1.5-inch thick layer of crushed aggregate was found sandwiched between the surface course of HMA and older 1.75- thick layer of HMA. A thin gravel base layer about 1.5 —inches thick was encountered under the pavement at Core-3. No gravel base was encountered below the lower HMA layer in Core-4. The existing pavement surface is in poor to fair condition. Fill soils consisting of well graded gravel, poorly graded sand or silty sand were encountered at depth of about 0.4 to 0.5 feet. At the location of Core-3, a silt layer was encountered immediately beneath a thin layer of CSBC. Below the fill in Core-3 and Core-4, native organic silt soils were encountered at depths of 2.3 and 3.2 feet, respectively. These subgrade soils were similar to those encountered in test pit TP-1. Field DCP data obtained at location of Core-3 (See Figure A-4) indicates in-place CBR values of 1-3% for alluvial subgrade from 2.8 to 4.9 feet below grade. Field DCP data obtained at location of Core-4 (See Figure A-5) indicates in-place CBR values of 1-5% for alluvial subgrade from 3.1 to 4.8 feet below grade. At both locations CBR values appear to increase slightly with depth. Taxiway B South -Commercial Aircraft Area Based on the explorations within the commercial aviation area the taxiway pavement section (Core-6 through Core-8, and Core-17 through Core-20) consists of an HMA surface of about 5.5 to 12-inches thick over a PCC section of 5 to 8 inches thick. At the location of Core-9, the taxiway pavement consisted on 10-inches of HMA without an underlying PCC layer. At the location of Core-10, which is situated in an infield cut-out (See Figure 2), the pavement consisted of only 2.25-inches of HMA. At the location of Core-11, which is situated at the south end of Taxiway B, the pavement consisted of 8.5-inches of HMA over 8-inches of PCC. At the location of Core-19 within Taxiway K, the pavement consisted of 12.5 inches of HMA over 7-inches of PCC. No crushed gravel base was encountered beneath the pavement at any of Final Report 6 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. October 17, 2012 HWA Project No. 2011-039-21 these locations except for Core-10, where at least 24-inches of gravel base consisting of fine crushed gravel with sand was encountered. The existing pavement surface at these locations is in very poor to good condition. At the locations of Core-17 and Core-20, the pavement surface is deeply gouged within the upper .HMA layer. The resulting gap had been sealed (See core photos for Core-17 and Core-20 in Appendix Q. It appears that the pavement in these areas had been subject to repeated stress by heavy wheel loads that plowed and furrowed the surface causing fractures to propagate into the pavement as much as 0.75 inches deep. At these locations, it is likely that the nose gear tires of commercial aircraft entering the taxiway from the hardstand are responsible for this damage. Fill soils consisting of gravelly sand to silty sand layers ranging from 1.0 to 2 feet thick were encountered directly underlying the pavement sections investigated in this area except at Core- 10 as noted above. Native soils consisting of sandy and organic silt were encountered at depths ranging from about 2.5 to 3.5 feet; these soils were similar to those encountered in our test pit explorations TP-2 and TP-3. Field DCP data obtained at the locations of Core-6 through Core-10 (See Figures A-7 through A- 10) indicate in-place CBR values ranging from 3 to 6% in native subgrade to depths of 4.4 to 5.6 feet below grade. At the location of Core-10, DCP testing encountered granular material with average CBR values above 40%to depths of 4.2 feet below grade. At the location of Core-11, DCP testing encountered granular material with average CBR values of 19% to a depth of 3.6 feet below grade. At the locations of Core-17 through Core-20 (see Figures A-18 through A-21) field DCP data obtained below the granular fill, indicate in-place CBR values of 3 to 4% in native subgrade from depths of 3.0 to 6.0 feet below grade. South Taxiway Connector Based on the explorations within the south taxiway connector (Core-12 through Core-16) the taxiway pavement section consists of an HMA surface of about 2 to 4 inches thick and a base course approximately 6 inches thick. The existing pavement surface is in fair condition. Native soils consisting of sandy silt and silt with sand were encountered at depth of about 0.5 feet; these soils were similar to those encountered in our test pit explorations. Field DCP data obtained at the locations of Core-12 through Core-14 (See Figure A-13 through A-15) indicates in-place CBR values ranging from 2 to 6% in native subgrade soils to depth ranging from 3.6 to 6.8 feet below grade. Field DCP data obtained at the location of Core-15 (See Figure A-16) indicate in-place CBR values averaging greater than 50% for two layers separated by a soft layer (CBR about 1- 5% ) about I foot thick situated between 3.3 and 4.4 feet Final Report 7 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. October 17, 2012 HWA Project No. 2011-039-21 below grade. Field DCP data obtained at the location of Core-16 (See Figure A-17) indicate in- place CBR values averaging greater than 100% for granular material encountered from 2.1 feet to the termination depth of 4.3 feet below existing grade. 4.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 4.1 GENERAL Our subsurface investigations reveal that the native soils consist predominately of soft to medium stiff organic or sandy silts within the northern and central portions of the project alignment (Core-1 through Core-9 and Core-17 through Core-20) at depths ranging from 1.125 to 3.6 below the existing pavement surface. These native subgrade soils are weak exhibiting in- place CBR values ranging from 1 to 5%, and averaging about 3%. CBR values from laboratory samples obtained from TP-1 and TP-2 and remolded at natural moisture content indicate CBR values less than 1% for these soils. The in-place moisture contents of these soils ranged from about 50 to 75 percent over what is optimum for compaction. Typically, a layer of loose to medium dense, granular fill of varying quality ranging from 0.75 to 3.0 feet in thickness is present between the pavement and the underlying soft to medium stiff, native subgrade. Within the southernmost portion of the project alignment, in the infield cut-out area (Core-10) and at the southern end of Taxiway B (Core-11) the pavement is underlain by granular fill and sandy alluvial soils. These subgrade soils appear to be moderately strong exhibiting estimated in-place CBR values ranging from 19 to 40%. CBR values determined from laboratory samples obtained from TP-3 and remolded at natural and optimum moisture content indicate CBR values of about 1% to 54% for material with a moisture content difference of only 10%. It appears that considerable strength gain can be realized if these soils are allowed to dry prior to compaction. Along the main portion of southern taxiway connector(Core-12 through Core-14) the pavement is underlain by loose to medium stiff, silty sand to sandy silt alluvial soils. These subgrade soils are relatively weak exhibiting in-place CBR values ranging from 2 to 6%, and averaging about 3%. At the locations of Core-15 and Core-16 (situated within the inside turn radius on to Runway 16-34) the pavement is underlain by relatively thick section of strong granular fill and native material exhibiting estimated in-place CBR values ranging from 50 to 100% (these values should be considered in relative terms only as CBR values derived from DCP data from granular soils is often exaggerated due to presence of gravels). The local water table, or substantial seasonally perched ground water, was observed in all of our explorations located within the central portion of the Taxiway (Core-4, Core-6 through Core-9, and Core-18) and in the infield at all test pit locations at depths ranging from 2.2 to 5.4 feet below the existing ground surface at the time of our explorations. We anticipate that ground I water levels in the area will be high; especially during the wet weather season and vary locally Final Report 8 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. October 17, 2012 HWA Project No. 2011-039-21 with the level of the adjacent Cedar River. This high ground water level will further decrease the already low infiltration potential of the subgrade soils. Because of the high fines and organic content in the native subgrade layer, we expect that water penetrating the surfacing could become trapped in the base layer. Therefore, we recommend that subsurface drainage be provided below the pavement and along the edge of the taxiways and apron pavement to intercept and prevent possible incursion of such infiltrated water beneath the pavement areas. Failure to maintain the subgrade in a positively drained condition could lead to localized softening and loss of support for the pavement structure, possibly resulting in premature pavement distress. Moreover, saturation of the subgrade with infiltrated moisture will exacerbate potential frost-heave effects and increase the rate of subgrade deterioration. 4.2 NORTH TAXIWAY SECTION RECONSTRUCTION We understand that the reconstruction of the northern portion of Taxiway B referred to herein as the General Aviation Area has already been designed and bid for construction commencing in the spring of 2013. We understand reconstruction will entail: removal of the existing HMA pavement, cement treatment of the underlying subgrade (SCB) for a depth of 8-inches, placement and compaction of a 6-inch thick layer of crushed base rock, followed by placement of a 4-inch thick HMA pavement layer. The use of SCB instead of traditional pavement re- construction methods is expected to save time and reduce the amount of imported materials required for re-construction by treating existing subgrade soils with cement. We understand that the construction will be conducted in three phases commencing from south to north. The SCB Mix design was completed by HWA in August, 2012 and our findings and recommendations are summarized in a laboratory report entitled: SCB Mix Design Report: Renton Airport Taxiway B Rehabilitation, General Aviation Area-Phases 1 through 3, Renton, Washington, prepared for Reid Middleton. 4.3 SOUTH TAXIWAY SECTION REHABILITATION&RECONSTRUCTION Currently, the design concept for rehabilitation and reconstruction of the southern portion of Taxiway B referred to herein as the Commercial Aviation Area is currently being developed. We understand that current consideration is being given to; total reconstruction of an area approximately 50 feet wide by about 1,500 long adjacent to the hardstand area, and a grind and overlay program for all other areas exhibiting surface deterioration. It is likely that this work will also be constructed in phases to minimize impact to airport operations. Currently, we understand that total reconstruction will consist of pavement (HMA & PCC) removal, followed by the placement of HMA for the full-depth of 11 to 13-inches. In these areas, the existing pavement section is supported by loose to medium dense, sand with gravel to gravel with sand fill directly underlain by soft to medium stiff, native sandy silt or organic silt. Consideration is being given to amend the upper 4 to 6 inches of the existing granular fill with Portland cement to create a soil Final Report 9 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. October 17, 2012 HWA Project No. 2011-039-21 cement base (SCB) layer that will serve to stabilize and reduce the potential for disturbance of ! the subgrade during construction and facilitate efficient HMA layer compaction. 5.0 CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS We have prepared this final report for the City of Renton and Reid Middleton. This report should be provided in its entirety to prospective contractors for bidding and estimating purposes; however, the conclusions and interpretations presented herein should not be construed as our warranty of the subsurface conditions. Experience has shown that soil and ground water conditions can vary significantly over small distances. Inconsistent conditions may occur between explorations that may not be detected by a geotechnical study of this scope and nature. If, during construction, 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. If there is a substantial lapse of time between submission of this report and the start of construction, or if conditions change due to construction operations, it is recommended that this report be reviewed to determine the applicability of the conclusions and recommendations considering the changed conditions and time lapse. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or the owners' representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the appropriate design team personnel and incorporated into the project plans and specifications, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. We recommend HWA GeoSciences Inc. be retained to monitor construction, evaluate subgrade soil and ground water conditions as they are exposed, and verify that subgrade preparation, backfilling, and compaction are accomplished in accordance with the 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 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 or toxic substances in the soil, surface water, or ground water at this site. HWA does not practice or consult in the field of safety engineering. We do not direct the contractor's operations, and cannot be responsible for the safety of personnel other than our own on the site. As such, the safety of others is the responsibility of the contractor. The contractor should notify the owner if any of the recommended actions presented herein are considered unsafe. Final Report 10 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. October 17, 2012 HWA Project No. 2011-039-21 O.O We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. Sincerely, HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. Wash � f M • c� � w ti a 01, 1704 y , eased 1;8 8TEVEN M=TT GREENE D" Steven E. Greene, L.G.,L.E.G. George Minassian, Ph.D., P.E. Senior Engineering Geologist Pavement Engineer SEG:GM:seg y Final Report 11 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. October 17, 2012 HWA Project No. 2011-039-21 REFERENCES Federal Aviation Administration, 2008,Airport Pavement Design and Evaluation Advisory Circular, AC 150/5320-6E. Federal Aviation Administration, 2007, Standards for Specifying Construction of Airports, AC 150/5370-10C. Mullineaux, D.R., 1965, Geologic Map of the Renton Quadrangle, King County, Washington. U.S.G.S Map QC-405. WSDOT, 1995, WSDOT Pavement Guide Volume 2 Pavement Notes, Washington State Department of Transportation. WSDOT, 2010, Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction, M 41-10, Washington State Department of Transportation. i i Final Report 12 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. \ 5 IN POP Project Site ' _�� ':� �nwl. �a :.'►fir �/'� � � � � +'�f l oil115. .ice t R-vmk--A- q, rat , i, iL IM �M3 w� !11'I �� . a� ,':\r��/�717�.*.!!(Tr•`, !�i�tZ!//�L�I�T��.�ii� ---------- PROJECT SITE AND VICINITY MAP • REPORTGEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION 1 1 • - - - - - - - - Renton Airport Taxiway B IExploration Locations Exploration Northing Westing Sta Offset Core-1 47.49516 122.21492 44+09 275 E Core-2 47.49447 122.21476 41+54 294 E CORE-16 Core-3 47.49410 122.21459 40+17 319 E CORE-14 CORE 19 Core-4 47.49306 122.21441 36+58 323 E ORE-15 C 5 I I I Core-6 47.49008 122.21384 +78 350 E RE 13� :VP-3 Care-7 47.48869 122.21350 20+54 383 E 1 CORE-1 I I Core-8 47.48838 122.21355 19+28 356 E t Core-9 47.48774 122.21357 16+94 330 E II I Core-10 47.48656 122.21362 12+54 278 E CORE-8 Core-11 47.48649 122.21331 12+24 355 E CORE-7 CORE-20-tI Core-12 47.48622 122.21394 11+39 183 E CORE+ Core-13 47.48608 122.21405 10+98 148 E CORE-10 I Core-14 47.48609 122.21412 10+94 129 E I Core-15 47.48624 122.21413 11+52 133 E CORE-18'f Core-16 47.48629 122.21425 11+73 103 E Core-17 47.48854 122,21354 19+83 393 E i Core-18 47.48872 122.21332 20+43 455 E CORE-11 I I I Core-20 47.48932 122.21365 22+67 397 E TP-1 47,49422 122.21481 40+63 272 E SCALE: 1"=100' LSCALE: 1"=100' I TP-2 47.48969 122.21400 24+37 298 E J TP-3 47.48816 122.213-81 18+62 298 E DETAIL A DETAIL B Locations based on field GPS data. ® I a a ,< rl 4? �\\ ( TP-1 TP-3 COR 19 TP-2 - - . _ __ _ \�. �- CORE-2 ° - * I - * ♦ CORE-1 LE, I CORE 9 F ♦ CORE-7 I ♦CORE-4 CORE-3 i J CORE-8 ♦ CORE-2 CORE-6 'CORE-17 DET' IL DETAIL B LEGEND TP-3 0' 300' 600' 1200' -$- TEST PIT DESIGNATION AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION CORE-14 SCALE: 1"=300' CORE HOLE DESIGNATION AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT FlGU0.E NO. A fm RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT SITE AND DRAWN BY EFK L] HWAGEOSQENCES INC. TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION EXPLORATION CHECK BY SG P0.0]ECT N0. DATE BASE MAP PROVIDED BY REID MIDDLETON RENTON, WASHINGTON PLAN 06.14.11 2011-039-21 S:\2011 PROJECTS\2011-039-21 RENTON TAXIWAY B PRELIM ENGINEERING-PHASE 1\CAD\HWA 2011-039-21.DWG <FIG 2 CORE>Plotted:9/27/2012 5:53 AM -�- : I,` + It r _ .—�1 � , _ s � ,•��"' `'cif— . l S'� .i Qac QItiI�1 • ' y1 rim Project Site + .••� �■I. r. �� Location ^e . • afm s Ttl r + t > , I to s t ,. � '•'1 of Tr <_ f afm if Tr fur:: . 7 - 1 - aC 1ik Map Symbol Geologic Description NORTH of Artificial Fill afm Urban or Industrial land modified by widespread or discontinuous fill Qac Alluvium—sand and gravel deposited by the Cedar River, and associated beds of silt, clay and peat. Qit Kame Terrace Deposits—sand and pebble—to-cobble gravel in scattered terraces. Map taken from: D.R. Mullineaux, 1965 GEOLOGIC MAP FIGURE No GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT 3 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC., RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT PROJECT NO `� TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION 2011-039 RENTON WASHINGTON APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION RELATIVE DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY VERSUS SPT N-VALUE TEST SYMBOLS COHESIONLESS SOILS COHESIVE SOILS %F Percent Fines Apprommate AL Atterberg Limits: PL=Plastic Limit Appro>amate LL=Li quid Limit Density N(blows/ft) Relative Density(%) Consistency N(blows/ft) Untrained Shear Strength(psf) CBR California Bearing Ratio Very Loose 0 to 4 0 - 15 Very Soft 0 to 2 <250 CN Consolidation Loose 4 to 10 15 - 35 Soft 2 to 4 250 - 500 DID Dry Density(pcf) Medium Dense 10 to 30 35 - 65 Medium Stiff 4 to 8 500 - 1000 DS Direct Shear Dense 30 to 50 65 - 85 Stiff 8 to 15 1000 - 2000 GS Grain Size Distribution Very Dense over 50 85 - 100 Very Stiff 15 to 30 2000 - 4000 K Permeability Hard over 30 >4000 MD Moisture/Density Relationship(Proctor) MR Resilient Modulus USCS SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM PID Photoionization Device Reading MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP DESCRIPTIONS PP Pocket Penetrometer Approx Compressive Strength(tsf) Gravel and �,�GW Well-graded GRAVEL SG Specific Gravity Coarse Clean Gravel TC Triaxtal Compression Grained Gravelly Soils (little or no fines) GP Poorly-graded GRAVEL TV Torvane Soils ° Approx Shear Strength(tsf) More than 50%of Coarse Gravel with ° GM Silty GRAVEL UC Unconfined Compression Fraction Retained Fines(appreciable on No.4 Sieve amount of fines) GC Clayey GRAVEL SAMPLE TYPE SYMBOLS Sand and Cl SW Well-graded SAND ® 2.0"OD Split Spoon(SPT) Clean Sand Sandy Soils (little or no fines) (140 lb.hammer with 30 in.drop) More than SP Poorly-graded SAND T 50%Retained 1 Shelby Tube 50%or More on No. of Coarse Sand with :' SM Silty SAND 3 1/4"OD Split Spoon with Brass Rings 200 Sieve Fines(appreciable Fraction Passing Size No.4 Sieve amount of fines) SC Clayey SAND O Small Bag Sample Fine Silt ML SILT Large Bag(Bulk)Sample Grained and Liquid Limit CL Lean CLAY Soils Clay Less than 50% n Core Run i QL Organic SILT/Organic CLAY Non-standard Penetration Test (3.0"OD split spoon) MH Elastic SILT 50%or More SiltLiquid Limit Passing and 50%orMore CH Fat CLAY GROUNDWATER SYMBOLS No.200 Sieve ClaySizeQH Organic SILT/Organic CLAY Groundwater Level(measured at time of drilling) Highly Organic Soils PT PEAT T Groundwater Level(measured in well or open hole after water level stabilized) COMPONENT DEFINITIONS COMPONENT PROPORTIONS COMPONENT SIZE RANGE PROPORTION RANGE DESCRIPTIVE TERMS Boulders Larger than 12 in <5% Clean Cobbles 3 in to 12 in Gravel 3 in to No 4(4.5mm) 5-12% Slightly(Clayey,Silty,Sandy) 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) 12-30% Clayey,Silty,Sandy,Gravelly 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) 30-50% Very(Clayey,Silty,Sandy,Gravelly) Fine sand No.40(0.42 mm)to No.200(0.074 mm) Silt and Clay Smaller than No.200(0.074mm) Components are arranged in order of increasing quantities. NOTES: Soil classifications presented on a)ploration 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 a)ploration logs for a more WET Visible free water,usually complete description of subsurface conditions. soil is below water table. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT LEGEND OF TERMS AND RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION SYMBOLS USED ON FMQ0SCMNCH1NC RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT EXPLORATION LOGS RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 201 1-039 FIGURE: A-1 LEGEND 2011-039.GPJ 9128/12 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DATE STARTED: 6/2/2011 DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Diamond Core DATE COMPLETED: 6/2/2011 SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOGGED BY: S.Greene LOCATION: See Figure 2. SURFACE ELEVATION: 18.5 :it feet U) Of W U) m z w Dropweight Cone Penetrometer 0 a. Z L N ¢ (140 lb.weight,30"drop) Z J O Z cn.5 w p A Blows per foot O 2 In J J � W' Q F m rn a_ W N W Z) W y (n Q Q W H K W y o" (n Z) DESCRIPTION m (n o- O O 0 10 20 30 40 50 W 0 2-inches of HMA Pavement(ASPHALTIC CONCRETE) Dense,gray crushed rock consisting of 2-inches of CSTC S-1 "P overlying 3-inches of CSBC. (GRAVEL BASE) S-2 GP Med.dense to dense,dark olive brown GRAVEL with sand S-3 GS ' ° and cobbles,moist. Q (FILL) 0 O Q Hand excavation terminated due to refusal on cobbles. No Ground water observed while conducting this hand boring. 15 5 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content(%) Plastic Limit [—" Liquid Limit NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated Natural Water Content and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PAVEMENT CORE 1 RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION CORE-01 HMGEOSCIENCESINC. RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT PAGE: 1 of 1 RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 201 1-039 FIGURE: A-Z BORING-DSM 2011-039.GPJ 9128/12 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DATE STARTED: 6/2/2011 DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Diamond Core DATE COMPLETED: 6/2/2011 SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOGGED BY: S.Greene LOCATION: See Figure 2. SURFACE ELEVATION: 18.9 t feet U) Of w U) m z w Dropweight Cone Penetrometer g a L Q (140 lb.weight,30"drop) z J o W w e W o ♦ Blows per foot O _ z — m CO a Jo- y w d, U Z o 2 O W m W } (n Q Q W— H of J W o 0 > DESCRIPTION 0 U) a O O 0 10 20 30 40 50 W 0 4.5-inches of HMA Pavement. (ASPHALTIC CONCRETE) Dense,gray,crushed rock.2-inches of CSTC over 3-inches S-1 of CSBC. GP (GRAVEL BASE) S-2 o 3C Medium dense,brown,poorly graded GRAVEL with sand o and cobbles,moist. Q (FILL) o ML Dark olive brown,sandy SILT,moist.Contains 1.2%organic S-3 matter by dry weight. (ALLUVIUM) S-4 AL ' GS :.� . Hand boring terminated at an approximate depth of 2.5 feet below exsting pavement surface. DCP testing conducted from 2.5 to 4.3 feet below the existing ground surface. No 1 groundwater observed while conducting this hand boring. ♦ ♦ 15 ♦:....:....:.... ....:....:....:....:....:.... 5 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content Plastic Limit 1 0 Liquid Limit NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated Natural Water Content and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PAVEMENT CORE RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION CORE-02 RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT PAGE: 1 of 1 ��N�$�C' RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FIGURE: A-3 BORING-DSM 2011-039.GPJ 9/28/12 DRILLING COMPANY: Casacde Concrete Sawing and Drilling DATE STARTED: 6/2/2011 DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Diamond Core DATE COMPLETED: 6/2/2011 SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOGGED BY: S.Greene LOCATION: See Figure 2. SURFACE ELEVATION: 18.3 t feet U W Lu m z — w Dropweight Cone Penetrometer U D r ¢ (140 lb.weight,30"drop) Z J p W w w.5 F o ♦ Blows per foot LD FF--� m V) a ELK y W > >^ 3 W d >- rn Q Q W F 2' Jd o m D DESCRIPTION (n 0 a O 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 W 0 2.25-inches of HMA pavement.(ASPHALTIC CONCRETE) Dense,gray CSBC.Layer 1.5-inches thick. S-1 ML (GRAVEL BASE) 3-2 Medium stiff,grayish brown,sandy SILT,non-plastic. SP (FILL) S-3 Loose to medium dense,brown,medium to fine,poorly graded SAND,moist. SM Medium dense to loose,grayish brown,Silty fine SAND, moist to wet. (FILL1DISTURBED NATIVE ALLUVIUM) ML Soft,sandy SILT to SILT with fine sand with 1.6%organic S-4 GS matter by dry weight,wet,slightly plastic. (NATIVE ALLUVIUM) ..... 15 Hand boring terminated at an approximate depth of 2.8 feet. DCP testing conducted from 2.8 to 4.9 feet below the ebsting pavement surface. No ground water was observed while conducting this hand boring. ................................................. At ♦ ♦ 5 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content(%) Plastic Limit I--1 Liquid Limit NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated Natural Water Content and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PAVEMENT CORE RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION CORE-03 HMGEOSCIENCESINC. RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT PAGE: 1 of 1 RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 201 1-039 FIGURE: /q-4 BORING-DSM 2011-039.GPJ 9/28112 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DATE STARTED: 6/6/2011 DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Diamond Core DATE COMPLETED: 6/6/2011 SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOGGED BY: D.Coltrane LOCATION: See Figure 2. SURFACE ELEVATION: 19.5 t feet w M Z w Dropweight Cone Penetrometer Ua- 2 t G (17.6 lb.weight,22.6"drop) Z o w w w � Z ♦ Blows per foot m o o- 3 w > >: W } (n Q Q W� H 0' J d o (n D DESCRIPTION CD U) o- O O 0 10 20 30 40 50 w 0 1.5-inches HMA pavement. [ASPHALTIC CONCRETE] GW Gray,crushed rock CSTC.Layer 1-inch thick. O S-1 [GRAVEL BASE] 1.75 inches HMA SM I [ASPHALTIC CONCRETE) ♦: :.'.: I Loose,brown,fine to coarse sandy,fine to coarse GRAVEL '•..::• Iwith trace silt,moist. OS2 --------- [FILL] ---------) Medium dense,gray,silty SAND to sandy SILT with trace A: gravel,moist. ---------------------/ : Medium dense,gray,fine to medium SAND with fine to coarse gravel,trace silt,moist. iL Cobble at 29 inches. OL Soft to medium stiff,brown organic SILT with gray sand 197 _ seam,and occasional reeds,moist to wet. O S-3 [ALLUVIUM] SZ A. .... .... ....:....:....:....:....:....:.... ♦: Core hole was terminated at 50-inches below ground ♦: 15 surface due.Ground water seepage was observed at ♦' 5 48-inches below ground surface during the exploration. �A AA ♦: ♦: ♦: ♦: ♦: 10 10 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content(%) Plastic Limit 1 0 Liquid Limit NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated Natural Water Content and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PAVEMENT CORE RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION CORE-04 IMGEOSCIENCESINC RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT PAGE: 1 of 1 RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 201 1-039 FIGURE: A-5 BORING-DSM 2011-039.GPJ 9/28/12 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DATE STARTED: 6/2/2011 DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Diamond Core DATE COMPLETED: 6/2/2011 SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOGGED BY: S.Greene LOCATION: See Figure 2. SURFACE ELEVATION: 19.5 t feet rn Of w m z w Dropweight Cone Penetrometer U a D U Q (140 lb.weight,30"drop) Z J p Z 0r p ♦ Blows per foot O x p co -j � `° x Z Q I-�. m cn o- o- w > o z o x o LU o t-Q of DESCRIPTION Cn U)i d O w 0 w 0 10 20 30 40 50 — 7 2-inches of HMA pavement.(ASPHALTIC CONCRETE) Dense, gray,crushed rock,6-inches of CSBC,moist. S-1 (GRAVEL BASE) . SP Medium dense,brown,poorly graded SAND with silt and S-2 SM gravel,moist. (FILL) SM Medium dense,dark gray,silty medium SAND with S-3 GS gravel-contains,pieces of brick,glass,and shell fragments. (DREDGE FILL) ................................................. Handboring terminated at an appropmate depth of 2.5 feet. Soils appeared saturated and borehole sidewalls began to collapse upon withdrawal of the auger. 15 5 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content(%) Plastic Limit m 0 Liquid Limit NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated Natural Water Content and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PAVEMENT CORE RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION CORE-05 HMGEOSMCESINC. RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT PAGE: 1 of 1 RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 201 1-039 FIGURE: /q-6 BORING-DSM 2011-039.GPJ 9/28/12 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DATE STARTED: 6/7/2011 DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Diamond Core DATE COMPLETED: 6/7/2011 SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOGGED BY: D.Coltrane LOCATION: See Figure 2. SURFACE ELEVATION: 19.5 *feet w C0 m z w Dropweight Cone Penetrometer va_ 2 � t N ~¢ (17.6 lb.weight,22.6"drop) Z J o W W w z ♦ Blows per foot O x co m a EL w >� EL c> z a x O W y } (n Q Q W — H W J N o N x DESCRIPTION W (n a 0 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 W 0 8.5-inches of HMA Pavement. [ASPHALTIC CONCRETE] Y 6-inches Portland Cement Concrete [pG•C] .. .. .. .. Loose,gray,fine to coarse gravelly,fine to coarse SAND with cobbles and trace silt,moist.Becoming fine to medium SAND with gravel. •••• [FILL) O S 1 o. —————————————————————— •. SM Medium dense,gray,gravelly,silty fine to coarse SAND with 0 S-2 pieces of brick and shell like material,moist. (DREDGE FILL) ML Ground water seepage is encountered from upper fill layer _ that is perching on silty sand fill layer. S-3 t :: : ~� Medium stiff,gray SILT with trace sand,reeds,and oxide "' .... """ "' mottling,moist. O [ALLUVIUM] 15 I'••: ML Medium stiff to medium dense,gray,silty fine SAND to ♦. 5 — SM sand_y SILT,moist to wet. ____________ "' OL Soft to medium stiff,brown organic SILT with gray sand S-4 _ seams,wood debris and scatteredl reeds,moist to wet. 0 1 7. ML Medium stiff to stiff,gray,SILT with wood debris and fine sand seams,wet. Core hole was terminated at 76-inches below ground surface.Ground water seepage was observed during the ♦: exploration at 37.5-inches and 66-inches below ground .... , ;• surface. .... .... ... ♦ : ♦ : 10 ♦ : 10 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content(%) Plastic Limit 1 —0 Liquid Limit NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated Natural Water Content and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PAVEMENT CORE RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION CORE-06 HMQ0SMNCESINC RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT PAGE: 1 of 1 RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FIGURE: A'7 BORING-DSM 2011-039.GPJ 9/28/12 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DATE STARTED: 6/7/2011 DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Diamond Core DATE COMPLETED: 6/7/2011 SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOGGED BY: D.Coltrane LOCATION: See Figure 2. SURFACE ELEVATION: 19.7 t feet Un o_ W m Z — w Dropweight Cone Penetrometer g a- r coo ¢ (17.6 Ib.weight,22.6"drop) Z J O Z Un.� H p ♦ Blows per foot O x N J J o of Z Q m cn o o W > >- d U z a x O W y } U) Q Q W— F of Jd 0 Un x DESCRIPTION m m a U O 0 10 20 30 40 50 W` 0 8.5-inches HMA Pavement. [ASPHALTIC CONCRETE] 5-inches Portland Cement Concrete a' [PCC] ....:.... GP Loose,gray,poorly graded GRAVEL with fine to coarse O S-1 ° SAND with cobbles and trace silt,moist to wet. oO [FILL] 0 ---------------------- Medium stiff,gray,gravelly,sandy SILT,moist to wet. Core hole was terminated at 39-inches below ground surface due to refusal on cobbles.Ground water seepage was observed during the a)ploration at 32-inches below ♦: ground surface. 15 5 .... ....:....:....:....:....:....:....:....:.... ..................:.... .. 10 10 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content Plastic Limit 1 0 Liquid Limit NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated Natural Water Content and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PAVEMENT CORE 1 RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION CORE-07 HMGEOSCIENCES INC RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT PAGE: 1 of 1 RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FIGURE: /q'$ BORING-DSM 2011-039.GPJ 9/28/12 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DATE STARTED: 6/7/2011 DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Diamond Core DATE COMPLETED: 6/7/2011 SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOGGED BY: D.Coltrane LOCATION: See Figure 2. SURFACE ELEVATION: 19.9 *feet co w U m z Cn w Dropweight Cone Penetrometer g � N r ¢ (17.6 lb.weight,22.6"drop) z O w w w m o ♦ Blows per foot O _ w z H.--, U) d d L� o- 2 O z x O W y } U) Q Q W 2 H of J y o cn x DESCRIPTION U) U) 1L O O 0 10 20 30 40 50 W 0 5.5-inches HMA Pavement. [ASPHALTIC CONCRETE) 6.5-inches Portland Concrete Cement [PCC] ki4 N. Loose,gray,fine to coarse gravelly,fine to coarse SAND <•. with cobbles and trace silt,moist. [FILL] OS1 '.Q o. �•� ----- SM Medium dense,gray,gravelly sandy SILT to silty SAND, moist. O S 2 ♦:.... .... .... ....: Medium stiff,gray,SILT with sand to sandy SILT,moist. ♦ ♦; [ALLUVIUM] ♦ ; ————————————————-- ............. .. OH Medium stiff,brown with gray mottling,ORGANIC SILT with 11 trace fine sand seams and reeds,moist. O S-3 5 ---------------------- 15 ML Medium stiff,gray,fine sandy SILT with interbedds of fine sand and reeds,wet. OS-4 ....• ....:....:....:.... ♦: Core hole was terminated at 79-inches below ground surface.Ground water seepage was observed during the exploration at 60 to 62-inches below ground surface. ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦: 10 10 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content(%) Plastic Limit 1 0 Liquid Limit NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated Natural Water Content and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PAVEMENT CORE RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION CORE-08 HMGEOSCIENCESINC RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT PAGE: 1 of 1 RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 201 1-039 FIGURE: A-9 BORING-DSM 2011-039.GPJ 9/28/12 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DATE STARTED: 6/7/2011 DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Diamond Core DATE COMPLETED: 6/7/2011 SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOGGED BY: D.Coltrane LOCATION: See Figure 2. SURFACE ELEVATION: 19.9 t feet U) of W g m zQ n w 0 of w Dropweight Cone Penetrometer U r Cn Q (17.6 lb.weight,22.6"drop) z J O Z cn w p ♦ Blows per foot O x N J J 0' z Q m In a. d N W Z) < ..^� Wa, 2 0 z o x O Wm Q, } (n Q Q W— H JN O ti Z) DESCRIPTION U) Cn a O O 0 10 20 30 40 50 w'" 0 10-inches HMA Pavement. [ASPHALTIC CONCRETE] Loose,grayish brown,fine to coarse gravelly,fine to coarse ....:....:....:....:....:....:....:....:....:... .•. SAND with cobbles and trace silt,moist.Becoming fine to medium SAND with gravel. �. [FILL) .Q O S-1 .. SM Medium dense,Dark olive brown,silty,gravelly fine to medium SAND,moist 0 S-2 ML Medium stiff,gray,SILT to CLAY with trace fine sand, moist. 0 S-3 4 [ALLUVIUM] s � 15 5 � ML Medium stiff to medium dense,gray,siltyfine SAND to SM sandy SILT,wet. ♦: A:.... S-4 0 :♦ :♦ :♦ Core hole was terminated at 90-inches below ground surface.Ground water seepage was observed during the e)ploration at 65-inches below ground surface. 1 10 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content(%) Plastic Limit 1--0 Liquid Limit NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated Natural Water Content and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PAVEMENT CORE RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION CORE-09 RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT PAGE: 1 of 1 HWAGEOSCIENCESINC RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 201 1-039 FIGURE: A-1 0 BORING-DSM 2011-039.GPJ 9/28112 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DATE STARTED: 6/6/2011 DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Diamond Core DATE COMPLETED: 6/6/2011 SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOGGED BY: D.Coltrane LOCATION: See Figure 2. SURFACE ELEVATION: 19.1 t feet U) Of w U) m Z - w Dropweight Cone Penetrometer g a F r ¢ (17.6 lb.weight,22.6"drop) Z J O :ZD w w .5 p ♦ Blows per foot LD r cD m ° o_ w o U z o x O wm w r rn ¢ ¢ w— F � m O E v> > DESCRIPTION U) N CL O O 0 10 20 30 40 50 w 0 2.25-inches HMA Pavement. Q GP [ASPHALTIC CONCRETE] 0 Dense to very dense,gray fine to coarse sandy,fine angular O GRAVEL,moist. Q [GRAVEL BASE] ....:....:....:....:....:......... O O S-1 Q o Q Q Core hole was terminated at 26-inches below ground surface.No ground water seepage was observed during the exploration. . ♦c A: 15 5 ....:....:....:....:....:....:....:....:....:.... 10 10 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content(%) Plastic Limit I--0 Liquid Limit NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated Natural Water Content and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PAVEMENT CORE RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION CORE-10 RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT PAGE: 1 of 1 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 201 1-039 FIGURE: A-1 1 BORING-DSM 2011-039.GPJ 9/28/12 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DATE STARTED: 6/7/2011 DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Diamond Core DATE COMPLETED: 6/7/2011 SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOGGED BY: D.Coltrane LOCATION: See Figure 2. SURFACE ELEVATION: 19.1 t feet w N m Z w Dropweight Cone Penetrometer Cn U a- 2 1 s ¢ (17.6 lb.weight,22.6"drop) Z J O w w F o ♦ Blows per foot O CD 2N W U Q Q w° K -i o cn D DESCRIPTION (n m o- O O 0 10 20 30 40 50 w 0 8.5-inches HMA Pavement. [ASPHALIC CONCRETE] : Y 8-inches Portland Cement Concrete [PCC] ....:....:....:....:....:.... ............. Loose,grayish brown,fine to coarse gravelly,fine to coarse .•. SAND with cobbles and trace silt,moist. [FILL] ct.• O S-1 �. '.Q SM Medium dense,dark olive brown,silty fine to medium SAND with gravel,moist. S 2 O Piece of wood at 35-inches BGS. ---- —————— ———— :> Probably gravelly SAND fill,no samples recovered. ....:..... ........:....:.............. Core hole was terminated at 45-inches below ground 15 surface due to refusal on cobbles.No ground water seepage was observed during the exploration. 5 :....:....:....:....:....:....:....:....:.... ....:....:....:....:....:....:....:....:....:.... 10 10 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content(%) Plastic Limit 1 0 Liquid Limit NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated Natural Water Content and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PAVEMENT CORE RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION CORE-11 RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT PAGE: 1 of 1 �A��INC RENTON WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 201 1-039 FIGURE: A-1 2 BORING-DSM 2011-039.GPJ 9/28/12 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DATE STARTED: 6/6/2011 DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Diamond Core DATE COMPLETED: 6/6/2011 SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOGGED BY: D.Coltrane LOCATION: See Figure 2. SURFACE ELEVATION: 20.6 t feet w U co Z w Dropweight Cone Penetrometer UCL 2 �r Q (17.6 lb.weight,22.6"drop) Z O w w w u o ♦ Blows per foot x `° O ii a N w Z x 2 L) z o x O a� Cn wm UJ } cn ¢ ¢ w— Of �d o cn x DESCRIPTION Cn (n o-a O O 0 10 20 30 40 50 w 0 7.5-inches HMA Pavement. [ASPHALTIC CONCRETE) 20 6-inches Portland Cement Concrete [PCC] Loose,brown,fine to coarse gravelly,fine to coarse SAND :•: with cobbles and trace silt,moist to wet. • [FILL] O S-1 iS:• SM Loose,grayish brown,silty fine to medium SAND with trace fine gravel,moist. O S-2 . ♦: ♦: p:•;. Piece of wood encountered. Light grayish brown,gravelly SAND with trace silt and 0 S-3 . . rootlets,moist. - 5 ♦: G•Q �! 15 AA..:...................:.... ............... Sand becomes coarser. Medium dense,interbedded gray,silty fine SAND with brown fine to medium SAND,moist. S-4 ........... ... .. Core hole was terminated at 86-inches below ground surface due to refusal on cobbles.No ground water seepage was observed during the exploration. ....:....................................... :.... 10 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content(%) Plastic Limit m 0 Liquid Limit NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated Natural Water Content and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PAVEMENT CORE RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION CORE-12 RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT PAGE: 1 of 1 ��S�C' RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FIGURE: A-1 3 BORING-DSM 2011-039.GPJ 9/28/12 ii DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DATE STARTED: 6/6/2011 DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Diamond Core DATE COMPLETED: 6/6/2011 SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOGGED BY: D.Coltrane LOCATION: See Figure 2. SURFACE ELEVATION: 21.4 t feet U) of W g W of m ¢N w Dropweight Cone Penetrometer U a - �t N Q (17.6 lb.weight,22.6"drop) Z J p Z (n C p ♦ Blows per foot O x0 !n -.1 J W Z Q F- m !n a a N W > a U z a x O W } (n Q Q W— H J_d o W x DESCRIPTION (n a O O 0 10 20 30 40 50 W 0 3-inches HMA Pavement. [ASPHALTIC CONCRETE] 6-inches Portland Cement Concrete GW [PCC] •' Loose,brown,well graded GRAVEL with sand and cobbles 0 S 1 and trace silt,moist to wet. [FILL] 20 • •' ML Gray to light brown,sandy SILT,moist.Oxide mottling S-2 present. 0 (ALLUVIUM) !' A: ' . :....:. Becoming light brown medium SAND to gray silt. ♦: Interbeds/lenses of gray silt from 49-51 inches. ' O S-3 5 . .... .... .... ........�...:... ... Core hole was terminated at 57-inches below ground >> surface due to refusal on cobbles.No ground water seepage was observed during the exploration. a 3 15 iZ> 10 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content Plastic Limit 1 0 Liquid Limit NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated Natural Water Content and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PAVEMENT CORE RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION CORE-13 RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT PAGE: 1 of 1 HWAGEOSCIENCESINC RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 201 1-039 FIGURE: A-14 BORING-DSM 2011-039.GPJ 9/28/12 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DATE STARTED: 6/6/2011 DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Diamond Core DATE COMPLETED: 6/6/2011 SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOGGED BY: D.Coltrane LOCATION: See Figure 2. SURFACE ELEVATION: 20.8 t feet w U co Z w Dropweight Cone Penetrometer UL F ¢ (17.6 lb.weight,22.6"drop) Z J O W w w r of z ♦ Blows per foot m U D_ 0_ of y W = Q o 2 O W m W d } (D Q Q W.2 H 0' J_R o v) > DESCRIPTION (n U) o- O (D 0 10 20 30 40 50 w 0 4.75-inches HMA Pavement. [ASPHALTIC CONCRETE] Ra: ?; 6-inches Portland Cement Concrete A; [PCC] 20 Loose,brown,fine to coarse gravelly,fine to coarse SAND .... b• , with cobbles and trace silt,moist to wet. [FILL] d. c Q O S-1 �.. . . SP Light brown,fine SAND with silt and trace gravel,moist. ., SM (ALLUVIUM) + �: O S-2 ♦ ♦ : ♦ .... .... ....:....:.... ....:....:....:.... Interbeds/lenses of gray silt in sample. 0 S-3 5 ♦ ... .... ....:....:....:....:....:....:.... ♦ : Core hole was terminated at 60-inches below ground surface.No ground water seepage was observed during the exploration. 15 ♦.j... .... ....:.... .... ....:....:....:....:....:.... . 10 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content(%) Plastic Limit n 0 Liquid Limit NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated Natural Water Content and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PAVEMENT CORE RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION CORE-14 RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT PAGE: 1 of 1 �A��INC RENTON WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FIGURE: A-1 5 BORING-DSM 2011-039.GPJ 9/28/12 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DATE STARTED: 6/6/2011 DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Diamond Core DATE COMPLETED: 6/6/2011 SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOGGED BY: D.Coltrane LOCATION. See Figure 2. SURFACE ELEVATION: 20.7 3 feet W m W m z w Dropweight Cone Penetrometer U a L ¢ (17.6lb.weight,22.6"drop) Z J O Z En p ♦ Blows per foot O w W W�_ Z m cn a a y W >� O W y } U) Q Q W o 0 H J_N o cn :S DESCRIPTION W m a O 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 W 0 6-inches HMA Pavement. [ASPHALTIC CONCRETE] 5 6-inches Portland Cement Concrete aa�'. 20 [PCC] GP Loose,brown,poorly graded angular GRAVEL with sand, O ° moist. S-1 SW [CRUSHED GRAVEL BASE] • • • Loose to medium dense,brown,silty,fine to coarse O S-2 ��. gravelly,fine to coarse SAND,moist. ................................................. SP ----- [FILL] ---------/ Loose to very loose,light brown,fine to medium SAND with GP silt,moist. / oQ `--------------------- OS-3 �: o Loose,grayish brown,poorly graded GRAVEL with sand, Q moist. ....:....:....:....:....:....:....: o Q O Q °Q ....:....:....:....:....:....:....:....:... O Q 0::•;. Piece of wood encountered. "' Light grayish brown,gravelly SAND with trace silt and S-4 . O .o: ....� rootlets,moist. : .:• (FILUDISTURBED NATIVE) } i Core hole was terminated at 64-inches below ground 15 surface due to refusal on cobbles.No ground water seepage was observed during the exploration. I 10 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content(%) Plastic Limit 1 0--I Liquid Limit NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated Natural Water Content and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PAVEMENT CORE RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION CORE-15 RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT PAGE: 1 of 1 HWAGEOSSCIENCESINC RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 201 1-039 FIGURE: A-1 6 BORING-DSM 2011-039.GPJ 9128/12 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DATE STARTED: 6/6/2011 DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Diamond Core DATE COMPLETED: 6/6/2011 SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOGGED BY: D.Coltrane LOCATION: See Figure 2. SURFACE ELEVATION: 20.7 t feet U) of w rn ui m z w Dropweight Cone Penetrometer Um t 1-- (17.6 lb.weight,22.6"drop) z J O w w w o ♦ Blows per foot _ z m a a y w x a 2 c> 2 z o x O wy } (n Q Q W— H 2 JN o cn x DESCRIPTION rn m a 8 O C7 0 10 20 30 40 50 w 0 3.5-inches HMA Pavement. [ASPHALTIC CONCRETE] iw 7-inches Portland Cement Concrete as. [PCC] >;w. 20 ••4:iI�. i F•:b • SW Loose,brown,fine to coarse gravelly,fine to coarse SAND with silt,moist. O S-1 [FILL] SM Medium dense,gray,silty fine to medium SAND with fine to coarse gravel,moist.Pieces of brown silt present. OS2 . : ---------------------- .•.• SW Loose to medium dense,light brown,fine to coarse gravelly, :....:....:....:....:....:....:....:.... fine to coarse SAND with trace silt and cobbles,moist. 0 S-3 • a a3333 33 :99 . .. :?> 33 Core hole was terminated at 36.5-inches below ground 33 surface due to refusal on cobbles.No ground water seepage was observed during the exploration. 33 5 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content(%) Plastic Limit m 0 Liquid Limit NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated Natural Water Content and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PAVEMENT CORE RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION CORE-16 HMIGEOSCIENCESINC RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT PAGE: 1 of 1 RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 201 1-039 FIGURE: A-1 7 BORING-DSM 2011-039.GPJ 9128/12 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DATE STARTED: 7/11/2012 DRILLING METHOD: 12-inch Diamond Core DATE COMPLETED: 7/11/2012 SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOGGED BY: D.Coltrane LOCATION: See Figure 2. SURFACE ELEVATION: 19.7 t feet rn w W co Z w Dropweight Cone Penetrometer ¢ � U D N r W Q (17.6 Ib.weight,22.6"drop) Z J O w w w p Blows per foot O H F r of z m o- o_ of 3 w > W Q, to Q G w H 2 J N o" (n Z) DESCRIPTION Cn rn o- O O 0 10 20 30 40 50 W 0 7-inches HMA Pavement. [ASPHALTIC CONCRETE] '• 8-inches Portland Cement Concrete ;p.. [PCC] p GW Medium dense,gray,sandy,cobbly,fine to coarse S-1 _; » •' GRAVEL,moist to wet. ! • [FILL] • • SM Medium dense,dark gray,slightly silty,gravelly,fine to O S-2 medium SAND,moist.Trace wood debris. 33 �:....:. :....:....:....:.... 40 ML Medium stiff,gray,slightly sandy,SILT,moist.Organic A debris and brown mottling observed. [ALLUVIUM] O S-3 A A A 15 OL Medium stiff,brown,ORGANIC SILT,moist. 5 — .:........................:....:....:....:.... = O S-4 �: A. Core hole was terminated at 72-inches below ground surface due to refusal on cobbles.No ground water seepage was observed during the e)Jloration. 10 10 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content(%) Plastic Limit I--0 Liquid Limit NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated Natural Water Content and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PAVEMENT CORE RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION CORE-17 RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT PAGE: 1 of 1 HWAGEOSQENCES INC RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 201 1-039 FIGURE: A-1 8 BORING-DSM 2011-039.GPJ 9/28/12 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DATE STARTED: 7/11/2012 DRILLING METHOD: 12-inch Diamond Core DATE COMPLETED: 7/11/2012 SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOGGED BY: D.Coltrane LOCATION: See Figure 2. SURFACE ELEVATION: 19.6 t feet w U) ui m Z w Dropweight Cone Penetrometer v � t ¢ (17.6 lb.weight,22.6"drop) Z O w w w CO- o ♦ Blows per foot LD F- m (n o o- 3 w Z) > w � >- U) Q Q W H �u�i o cn D DESCRIPTION U) U) o- O O 0 10 20 30 40 50 w 0- 6-inches HMA Pavement. [ASPHALTIC CONCRETE] ?'> 6-inches Portland Cement Concrete a a GW Medium dense,gray,sandy,cobbly,fine to coarse •' GRAVEL,moist to wet. S-1 [FILL] ....:.. .:.. .:.. . Ground water seepage observed at 2.16 feet below ground •' surface.(BGS) -- SM Medium dense,dark gray,slightly gravelly,sandy SILT, moist to wet.Trace wood debris. S-2 ML Medium stiff,gray,SILT to CLAY,moist.Organic debris and brown mottling observed. [ALLUVIUM] O S-3 ♦ 15 ♦ : 5 ♦.:....:....:....:....:....:....:....:....:.... OL Medium stiff,brown,ORGANIC SILT,moist.Lenses of gray fine sand observed. Core hole was terminated at 72-inches BGS due to refusal on cobbles.Ground water seepage was observed at 2.16 feet BGS during the exploration. 10 10 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content(%) Plastic Limit [---" Liquid Limit NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated Natural Water Content and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PAVEMENT CORE =A RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION CORE-18 RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT PAGE: 1 of 1 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 201 1-039 FIGURE: A-1 9 BORING-DSM 2011-039.GPJ 9/28/12 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DATE STARTED: 7/11/2012 DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Diamond Core DATE COMPLETED: 7/11/2012 SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOGGED BY: D.Coltrane LOCATION: See Figure 2. SURFACE ELEVATION: 19.5 t feet rn of W g m Z w Dropweight Cone Penetrometer W Q n W U Q �--L F Q (17.6 lb.weight,22.6"drop) Z J O Z W .5 W p ♦ Blows per foot O = m U a a y w Z Q 3 W N (n Q Q W H W J (D o W D DESCRIPTION W rn a O O 0 10 20 30 40 50 W 0 12-inches HMA Pavement. [ASPHALTIC CONCRETE] ................................................. 7-inches Portland Cement Concrete pa [PCC] a:•�. GW Medium dense,gray,sandy,cobbly,fine to coarse •' GRAVEL,moist to wet. S-1 "- ♦: [FILL] •' ML Medium stiff,gray to brown,SILT,moist.Organic debris and brown mottling observed. •••• •••• • [ALLUVIUM] 0 S-2 0S3 ♦ 15 --- ------------- 5 — OL Medium stiff,gray,silty CLAY to clayey SILT,moist.Trace O S 4 organics observed. ♦ Core hole was terminated at 66-inches BGS due to refusal on cobbles.No ground water seepage was observed during the exploration. 10 10 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content(%) Plastic Limit a—i Liquid Limit NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated Natural Water Content and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PAVEMENT CORE RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION CORE-19 RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT PAGE: 1 of 1 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FIGURE: A-20 BORINGDSM 2011-039.GPJ 9128/12 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DATE STARTED: 7/11/2012 DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Diamond Core DATE COMPLETED: 7/11/2012 SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOGGED BY: D.Coltrane LOCATION: See Figure 2. SURFACE ELEVATION: 20.0 t feet W Of U) m Z w Dropweight Cone Penetrometer V � r N C (17.6 lb.weight,22.6"drop) Z J O w w Cn w .5 O ♦ Blows per foot z I=— m Cn D, ELK y W Q 2 V 2 2 z o x O w m W } (n Q Q W— H JN o w 7) DESCRIPTION o O O 0 10 20 30 40 50 W 0- 6-inches HMA Pavement. [ASPHALTIC CONCRETE] ?" 7-inches Portland Cement Concrete apt a GW Medium dense,gray,sandy,cobbly,fine to coarse S-1 •' GRAVEL,moist to wet. [FILL] ML Medium stiff,gray,slightly sandy SILT,moist. 0 S-2 ""' '♦'•"""' """""""':"" [ALLUVIUM] . ....:....:....:.........:....:....:....:.... OL Medium stiff,gray to brown,SILT to ORGANIC SILT,moist. Organic debris and brown mottling observed. A 0s3 5 — 15 Core hole was terminated at 66-inches BGS due to refusal on cobbles.No ground water seepage was observed during the exploration. 10 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content(%) Plastic Limit a 0 Liquid Limit NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated Natural Water Content and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PAVEMENT CORE RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION CORE-20 RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT PAGE: 1 of 1 HWAGEOSCIENCESINC RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 201 1-039 FIGURE: A-21 BORING-DSM 2011-039.GPJ 9/28/12 EXCAVATION COMPANY: Deeny Construction LOCATION: See Figure 2. EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT: Case 590 Backhoe DATE COMPLETED: 6/3/11 SURFACE ELEVATION: 19 t Feet LOGGED BY: S.Greene ui g w a- W m U o_ w o W W ~5 z o SKETCH OF SIDE OF PIT � � = Oa- U z _ HORIZONTAL DISTANCE(feet) a o DESCRIPTION U) vai 2 OU 0 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 0 3-inch layer of grass and sod. 0 SP S-1 22 Medium dense,brown,poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel, ............. :'.•' SM moist. : : : : : : OH (FILL) B-1 67 AL ................... ................... ..............:.... ....:... : Medium stiff,grayish brown,ORGANIC SILT,with 3.5%organic GS ,,,,;,,,,;,,,,;,,,, ,,,, , matter,moist,plastic. In-place density of soil chunk=Dry density MD : 2 of 56.7 pcf Q 79.3%MC. CBR 2 (ALLUVIUM) :....:....:.... ....:....:.... OL Soft,gray to grayish brown,organic SILT,plastic. Contains thin S-3 layers of highly organic material,moist to wet. Q 4 : : 4 .......... .............. Test pit terminated at an approximate depth of 4 feet below the - existing ground surface. Groundwater seepage was observed at an :••••:•••• ••••:•••• approximate depth of about 3.8 feet below the existing ground 6 surface. 6 8 8 10 10 NOTE: For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions,this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT LOG OF TEST PIT MAL RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION TP-1 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT PAGE: 1 Of 1 RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 201 1-039 FIGURE: A-22 EXCAVATION COMPANY: Deeny Construction LOCATION: See Figure 2. EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT: Case 590 Backhoe DATE COMPLETED: 6/3111 SURFACE ELEVATION: 19 t Feet LOGGED BY: S.Greene C6 of g co W w U o- uJ Q w 0 W w W Z SKETCH OF SIDE OF PIT 0 a U z = o HORIZONTAL DISTANCE(feet) (L O (n 7) DESCRIPTION uai uai m o O (3 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 0 >_• 3-inches of grass and sod. 0 ML Medium dense,gray silty SAND with trace fine gravel,moist. S-1 11 . (FILL) :....:....:.... ....:....:....:.... ....:... .......... ML Dense,gray,sandy SILT with fine gravel,moist. S-2 25 Medium stiff,brownish gray SILT with fine sand,moist,low plastic. .... """' .... """' .... "="" 2 OH Soft,gray to dark brown,ORGANIC SILT,moist to wet,plastic. B-1 102 AL 2 In-place density of soil chunk=dry density of 48.7 pcf @ 134.2% S-3 213 MD (ALLUVIUM) CBR :....:....:.... ....:....:....:.... ....:... 4 4 :....:.... ....:.............. ......... Test pit excavation terminated at an approximate depth of 4 feet below the existing ground surface. Ground water seepage was •••• .... •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• observed at an approximate depth of 3.5 feet below the existing 6 ground surface. 6 .......... ...... Buried concrete storm drain pipe exposed within south sidewall of test pit excavation between depths of 1.5 to 2.5 feet below the •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• existing ground surface. Based upon position of pipe bell flow direction appears to be toward taxiway infield(west). .... """' .... """' .... """' .. "" 8 8 10 10 NOTE: For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions,this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT LOG OF TEST PIT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION TP-2 HWAGEOSQENCES INC. RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT PAGE: 1 of 1 RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 201 1-039 FIGURE: A-23 TPIT10 2011-039.GPJ 9/28/12 EXCAVATION COMPANY: Deeny Construction LOCATION: See Figure 2. EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT: Case 590 Backhoe DATE COMPLETED: 6/3/11 SURFACE ELEVATION: 20 t Feet LOGGED BY: S.Greene of w LU m U r � Q o ° J J 5 P.W °z SKETCH OF SIDE OF PIT n~. Co 0 2 2i O o F 0 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE(feet) d 0 Y) D DESCRIPTION CO uai �0 O c7 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 0 �' 3-inches of grass and sod. 0 GP S-1 Medium dense,brown,sandy GRAVEL with silt,moist. ME (FILL) 8 S-2 16 ................... ................... ................... ................... Medium dense,grayish brown,fine sandy SILT,moist,non-plastic. ....:....:....:.... ....:....:....:.... ....:.... ML Loose to medium stiff,olive gray,sandy SILT,moist,non plastic. B-1 25 GS 2 In-place density of soil chunk=dry density 98.0 pcf @ 25%MC. 11 MD 2 GBR ....:....:....:.... ....:....:....:.... ....:.... :.... ....:.... OL Medium stiff to soft,gray to grayish brown,organic SILT,moist to O S-4 51 wet,low plastic. 57 ....:....:.... ....:....:... 4 (ALLUVIUM) 4 ....:....:....:.... ....:....:....:.... ....:....:....:.... ....:....:....:.... ....:....:....:.... Test pit excavation terminated at an approximate depth of 4 feet below the existing ground surface. Ground water seepage was .... -•••:••• .... ... ....:....:.... ....:....:.... observed at an approximate depth of 3.6 feet below the existing 6 ground surface. 6 8 8 10 10 NOTE: For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions,this exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the geotechnical report. This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT LOG OF TEST PIT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION TP-3 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT PAGE: 1 of 1 RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 201 1-039 FIGURE: A-24 Torn+n 1011-01n -/28/12. APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY Coarse Fine I Coarse Medium Fine U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 3/4" 3" 1-1/2" 15/8" 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 90 I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I 80 = I I I I 1 I I I I I 70 LU I I I I I I I I I p}p 60 I I I I I I I I I I Lu 50 I I I I I I I Z I I I I I I I I ILL I I I I I I I I I H 40 1 I I I I I I I I Z LU I I I I I I I I I 30 Lu I I I I I I I 1 I I 20 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 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 SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH(ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL-ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name %MC LL PL PI Gravel Sand Fines o " o • CORE-01 S-3 0.6-1.3 (GP)Dark olive brown,poorly graded GRAVEL with sand 5 52.7 43.4 3.9 ■ CORE-02 S-4 2.0-2.5 (ML)Dark olive to gray,sandy SILT with 1.2%organic matter by dry weight 25 25 22 3 1.4 28.1 70.5 A CORE-03 S-4 2.3-2.8 (ML)Dark olive brown,SILT with 1.6%organic matter 39 1.6 29.3 69.1 FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION OF SOILS fMGE0saENCES INC RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT METHOD ASTM D422 RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 201 1-039 FIGURE: B-1 HWAGRSZ 2011-039.GPJ 9128/12 GRAVEL I SAND SILT CLAY Coarse Fine I Coarse Medium Fine U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 3/4" 3" 1-1/2" 5/8" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 100 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 1 1 I 1 I I I I 80 = I I I I I I I I I I 70 w I I I I I I I I I 00 60 w 50 I I I I I I I I I I Z I II I I I I I LL I I I I I I I I I F- 40 I I I I I I I I I Z I I I I 1 I I I I 0 w I I I I I I I 1 30 w I I I I I 1 I I 20 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10 1 1 1 I I I I I I i I 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 SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH(ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL-ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name %MC LL PL PI Gravel Sand Fines 0 o a • CORE-05 S-3 1.0-2.4 (SM)Dark Gray,silty SAND with gravel,contains glass and shell fragments. 37 18.9 55.5 25.6 ■ CORE-06 S-2 2.9-3.1 (SM)Dark grayish brown,silty SAND with gravel 10 44.3 37.1 18.6 CORE-07 S-1 1.3-1.6 (GP)Gray,poorly graded GRAVEL with sand 5 54.0 42.5 3.5 FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS got, RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION OF SOILS HWAaosams INC. RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT METHOD ASTM D422 RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 201 1-039 FIGURE: B-2 "'"'"^^SZ 20""""^PJ 9/"""" GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY ] Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 3/4" 3" 1-1/2" 15/8" 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 1 I I I I I I 80 = I I I I I I I I I I 70 w 1 I I I I I I I I 60 I I I I I I I I I m I 1 1 I I I I I I W i I I I I I I I I I Z 50 LL H 40 1 1 1 I I I I I I I z I I I I I I I I I I W I I I I I I I I I I 30 LU I I I I I I I I I I a I I I I I 1 I I I I 20 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 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 0 50 10 5 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH(ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL-ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name %MC LL PL PI Gravel Sand Fines o " • CORE-08 (ML)Dark olive brown,SILT with sand 23 3.6 33.8 62.6 ■ CORE-08 S-3 4.2-4.4 (OH)Dark grayish brown,organic SILT 114 108 74 34 3.8 10.8 85.5 A CORE-09 S-2 2.3-2.7 1 (SM)Dark olive brown,silty SAND with gravel 15 17.2 43.4 39.4 FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION OF SOILS HmaosaEwES INC. RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT METHOD ASTM D422 RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 201 1-039 FIGURE: B-3 HWAGRSZ 2011-039.GPJ 9/28/12 GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 3/4" 3" 1-1/2" 15/8" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 100 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 80 = I I I I I I I I I CD 70 W I I I I I I I I I pip 60 I I I I I I I I I z 50 I I I I I I I I I I LL I I I I I I I I I H 40 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 w I I I I I I I I I I 20 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 10 I I I I I I I I I 1 I 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 SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH(ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL-ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name %MC LL PL PI Gravel Sand Fines • CORE-11 S-2 3.0-3.5 (SM)Dark olive brown,silty SAND 16 13.4 51.2 35.4 ■ CORE-12 S-2 2.8-3.3 ISM)Brown,silty SAND 14 14.5 49.0 36.5 CORE-13 S-1 1.0-1.3 (GW)Dark olive brown,well graded GRAVEL with sand 3 70.1 26.8 1 3.0 FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS 90,11 RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION OF SOILS IMGEOSCIENCES INC. RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT METHOD ASTM D422 RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 201 1-039 FIGURE: B-4 NInier_ocZ 201'-mo r_PJ 9/2n111 GRAVEL I SAND Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine SILT CLAY U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 3/4" 3" 1-1/2" 15/8" 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 90 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 70 w I I I I I I I I I I r 60 I I I I I I I 1 I ca I I I I I I I I I LU 50 I I I I I I I I I Z I I I I I I I I I I LL I I I I I I I I I I z ao w I I I I I I I I I I C) I I I I 1 I I I I rr_l 30 w I I I I I I I I I I 20 I 1 1 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 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 SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH(ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL-ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name %MC LL PL PI Gravel Sand Fio es • CORE-13 S-2 2.5-2.9 (ML)Brown,SILT with sand 21 14.6 29.7 55.7 ■ CORE-14 S-3 4.4-4.8 (SP-SM)Brown,poorly graded SAND with silt 9 0.5 87.8 11.7 A CORE-15 S-1 1.2-1.4 (GP)Olive brown,poorly graded GRAVEL with sand 6 81.5 13.1 5.4 FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION OF SOILS 15%GEOSCIENCES INC. RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT METHOD ASTM D422 RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 201 1-039 FIGURE: B-rJ HWAGRSZ 2011-039.GPJ 9/28/12 GRAVEL I SAND SILT CLAY Coarse Fine I Coarse Medium Fine U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 3/4" 3" 1-1/2" 1 5/8" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 100� I I I I I IIT 71, I 1 I I 90 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 80 = I I I I I 1 I I I U 70 LU I I I I I I I I I 3: I 1 I I I 1 1 1 I m 60 I 1 1 I I I I I I I W 50 I I I I I I I I I Z I I I I I I I I I I LL I I I I I I I I I I— 40 I I I I I I I I I Z I I I I I I I I w I I I I I I I I I 30 Uj d I I I I I I I I I I 20 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 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 SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH(ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL-ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name %MC LL PL PI Gravel Sand Fines " o 0 • CORE-15 S-4 4.7-5.2 (GP)Olive brown,poorly graded GRAVEL with sand 5 54.5 41.7 3.9 ■ CORE-16 S-2 1.5-1.7 (SM)Brownish gray,silty SAND with gravel 25 16.2 49.1 34.7 A TP-1 B-1 0.9-2.5 (OH)Light olive brown,organic SILT with 3.5%organic matter 67 122 68 54 0.0 4.1 95.9 FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION OF SOILS Hmaosamas INC RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT METHOD ASTM D422 RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FIGURE: B-6 Nminr_PSZ 201 tnao r_PJ 9/121" GRAVEL I SAND Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine SILT CLAY U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 3/4" 3" 1-112" 5/8" 3/8'. #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 100 1 II I I I I I I I I I I 90 I I I I I I I I I 80 F- T_ I I I I I I I I 70 LU I I I I I I I I I I m 60 I I I I I I I I I I w 5o I I I I I I I I 1 I z � I I I I I I I I I I I 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 I I I I I w I I I I I I I I I I 30 w I I I I I I I I I I w 1 I I I I I I I I I 20 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 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 SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH(ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL-ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name %MC LL PL PI t3.922.4 Fines • TP-2 S-2 1.1 -2.0 (ML)Brownish gray,SILT with sand 25 73.7 ■ TP-2 B-1 2.0-2.5 (OH)Dark Brown,organic SILT 102 84 62 22 96.1 A TP-3 B-1 1.5-2.0 (ML)Dark olive gray,SILT with sand 25 0.0 23.7 76.3 FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION OF SOILS fMGE0saENCES INC. RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT METHOD ASTM D422 RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 201 1-039 FIGURE: B-7 HWAGRSZ 2011-039.GPJ 9/28112 GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 3/4" 3" 1-1/2" 5/8" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 100 I 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 I ao = I I I I I I I I I I 2 70 w I I I I I I I I I I m 6o I I I I I I I I I I w 50 Z I I I I I I I 1 I I U_ I I I I I I I I I I I— 40 I I I I I I I I I I z I I I I I I I I I I w I I I I I I I I I I 30 w I I I I I I I I I I w I I I I I I I I I I 20 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10 0 Tf F I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I 1—t I I 50 10 5 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH(ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL-ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name %MC LL PL PI Gravel Sand Fines 0 o a • TP-3 S-4 3.0-4.0 (OH)Dark gray,organic SILT 51 55 31 24 0.0 11.6 88.4 FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION OF SOILS tmuoSCImu INC. RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT METHOD ASTM D422 RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 201 1-039 FIGURE: B-H NInIenacZ 201'-neon-oJ 9/2A"O 60 CL CH 50 CL X 40 W 0 Z_ � 30 01 H U H Q 20 J 10 CL-ML 1 ML MH • 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 LIQUID LIMIT (LL) SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH(ft) CLASSIFICATION %MC LL PL PI %Fines • CORE-02 S-4 2.0-2.5 (ML)Dark olive to gray,sandy SILT with 1.2%organic matter by dry weight 25 25 22 3 70.5 ■ CORE-06 S-3 3.8-4.3 (OH)Dark brownish gray,organic SILT,contains 4.4%organic mattter. 58 52 37 15 A CORE-08 S-3 4.2-4.4 (OH)Dark grayish brown,organic SILT 114 108 74 34 85.5 O TP-2 B-1 2.0-2.5 (OH)Dark Brown,organic SILT 102 84 62 22 96.1 ❑ TP-3 S-4 3.0-4.0 (OH)Dark gray,organic SILT 51 55 31 24 88.4 FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT AND RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION PLASTICITY INDEX OF SOILS HMGEOSCIENCES INC. RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT METHOD ASTM D4318 RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FIGURE: B-g HWAATTB 2011-039.GPJ 9/28/12 LABORATORY COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SOIL U0 CLIENT: Reid Middleton HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. PROJECT: Renton Taxiway B SAMPLE ID: TP-1, B-1 PROJECT NO: 2011-039 Sampled By: SEG Tested By: JH Date Sampled: 61612011 Date Received: 61612011 Date Tested: 611412011 MATERIAL TYPE OR DESCRIPTION: Light grayish brown, organic SILT OH MATERIAL SOURCE, SAMPLE LOCATION AND DEPTH: TP-1, 2 ft b s Designation:�X ASTM D 698 F-]ASTM D 1557 Natural Moisture Content: 79.3 % Method: F-]A F-]B ❑X C Oversize: 0 % retained on: 3/4 in. Preparation: Dry EE Moist Rammer:�X Auto Manual Assumed S.G.: 2.4 Test Data Dry Density (pcf) 62.2 63.7 1 64.1 1 61.5 Moisture Content (%) 24.6 26.8 29.3 31.4 70 _ Rock Corrected Curve per ASTM D4718 Lab Proctor Curve 65 _._._.. 100%Saturation Line C;- - u a 60 m 55 50 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 Moisture Content(%) Data Summary* Test Values At Other Oversize Percentages Percent Oversize <5% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% Max. Dry Density(pcfl* 64.4 64.4 66.3 68.3 1 70.4 72.7 75.1 77.7 Optimum Moisture(%)* 28.5 28.5 27.1 25.8 1 24.4 23.0 21.6 20.3 values corrected or oversize matenaFper-AM D4718,using assumed Specific Gravity shown and oversize moisture content of 1% Reviewed By: Steven Greene FIGURE B-10 This report applies only to the items tested,and may be reproduced in full,with written approval of HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. LABORATORY COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SOIL ir"n CLIENT: Reid Middleton HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. PROJECT: Renton Taxiway B SAMPLE ID: TP-2, B-1 PROJECT NO: 2011-039 Sampled By: SEG Tested By: JH Date Sampled: 61612011 Date Received: 61612011 Date Tested: 611312011 MATERIAL TYPE OR DESCRIPTION: Dark brown, organic SILT OH MATERIAL SOURCE, SAMPLE LOCATION AND DEPTH: TP-2, 2 ft b s Designation:❑ASTM D 698 �X ASTM D 1557 Natural Moisture Content: 134.2 % Method: F-]A F-1B QX C Oversize: 0 % retained on: 314 in. Preparation:0 Dry �X Moist Rammer:�X Auto 0manual Assumed S.G.: 2.4 Test Data Dry Density (pcf) 1 55.2 11 58.9 1 59.8 1 58.2 Moisture Content (%) 55.9 57.7 59.0 62.0 70 Rock Corrected Curve r per ASTM D4718 Lab Proctor Curve 65 1 77T _._._.. 100%Saturation Line c a 60 m o - 0 55 50 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 Moisture Content(%) Data Summary* Test Values At Other Oversize Percentages Percent Oversize <5% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% Max. Dry Density (pcf)* 59.9 59.9 61.8 63.7 65.8 68.1 70.5 73.1 Optimum Moisture (%)* 59.5 59.5 56.6 53.7 1 50.7 47.8 44.9 42.0 values corrected or oversize ma ena per D4718,using assumed Specific Gravity shown and oversize moisture content of 1% Reviewed By: Steven Greene FIGURE B-11 This report applies only to the items tested,and may be reproduced in full,with written approval of HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. LABORATORY COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SOIL KFW CLIENT: Reid Middleton HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. PROJECT: Renton Taxiway B SAMPLE ID: TP-3, B-1 PROJECT NO: 2011-039 Sampled By: SEG Tested By: JH Date Sampled: 61612011 Date Received: 61612011 Date Tested: 611012011 MATERIAL TYPE OR DESCRIPTION: Dark gray, silty SAND SM MATERIAL SOURCE, SAMPLE LOCATION AND DEPTH: TP-3, 2 ft b s Designation:F-]ASTM D 698 �X ASTM D 1557 Natural Moisture Content: 25 % Method: F-]A [--]B �X C Oversize: 0 % retained on: 314 in. Preparation: Dry �X Moist Rammer:EAuto Omanual Assumed S.G.: 2.4 Test Data Dry Density (pcf) 1 101.9 1 108.6 1 106.3 1 102.3 1 110.4 Moisture Content (%) 10.7 1 13.0 18.6 20.7 15.4 120 Rock Corrected Curve per ASTM D4718 115 ------ Lab Proctor Curve --- 100%Saturation Line 110 --- u a 105 100 95 90 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 Moisture Content(%) Data Summary* Test Values At Other Oversize Percentages Percent Oversize <5% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% Max. Dry Density(pcf)* 110.5 110.5 112.0 113.5 1 115.0 116.6 118.3 119.9 Optimum Moisture (%)* 15.0 15.0 14.3 13.6 1 12.9 12.2 11.5 10.8 values corrected or oversize material per ASTIVI D4718,using assumed Specific Gravity shown and oversize moisture content of 1% Reviewed By: Steven Greene FIGURE B-12 This report applies only to the items tested,and may be reproduced in full,with written approval of HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. CBR(California Bearing Ratio) OF LAB COMPACTED SOILS (ASTM D 1883) Y CLIENT: Reid Middleton HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. PROJECT: Renton Taxiway B SAMPLE ID: TP-1, B-1 PROJECT NO: 2011-039-21 Sampled By: SEG Tested By: AAC/JH Date Sampled: 61212011 Date Received: 61212011 Date Tested: 612012011 Material Description: Light olive brown, organic SILT(OH) Sample Location: Test Pit TP-2 Sample B-1 Compaction Standard: �X D698 EflD1557 Condition: �X Soaked for 96 hrs F]Unsoaked Max. Dry Density: 64.4 pcf @ 28.5 % M.C. with 0 % scalped-off on the 3/4" sieve Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Dry Density c 37.0 Percent Compaction 57.4 Moisture before Compaction % 118.2 Moisture after Compaction % 131.9 Percent Swell (initial ht=7") -3.5 Moisture, after Soaking % 122.7 Moisture Top 1" after Soak % 109.2 CBR at 0.1" Penetration 0.4 CBR at 0.2" Penetration 0.4 CBR Value 0.4 12 10 8 y G N 6 4 2 LZ i 0 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 Displacement(in) 5.0 4.0 3.0 m V 2.0 -- i 1.0 L fl 0.0 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 %Compaction REVIEWED BY: Steven Greene FIGURE: B-13 CBR(California Bearing Ratio) OF LAB COMPACTED SOILS (ASTM D 1883) �YYii CLIENT: Reid Middleton HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. PROJECT: Renton Taxiway B SAMPLE ID: TP-2, B-1 PROJECT NO: 2011-039-21 Sampled By: SEG Tested By: AAC/JH Date Sampled: 61212011 Date Received: 61212011 Date Tested: 612012011 Material Description: Dark brown, organic SILT(OH) Sample Location: Test Pit TP-2 Sample B-1 Compaction Standard: F-]D698 �X D1557 Condition: ❑X Soaked for 96 hrs F]Unsoaked Max. Dry Density: 59.9 pcf @ 59.5 % M.C. with 0 % scalped-off on the 3/4" sieve Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Dry Density c 39.3 Percent Compaction 65.6 Moisture before Compaction % 122.7 Moisture after Compaction % 111.3 Percent Swell initial ht=7" -5.9 Moisture, after Soaking % 109.3 Moisture To 1" after Soak % 100.2 CBR at 0.1" Penetration 0.5 CBR at 0.2" Penetration 0.6 CBR Value 0.6 18 16 14 12 - a 10 a _ y 8 N 6 - 4 2 0 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 Displacement(in) 5.0 _ 4.0 a 3.0 m v 2.0 1.0 0.0 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 %Compaction REVIEWED BY: Steven Greene FIGURE: B-14 CBR(California Bearing Ratio) OF LAB COMPACTED SOILS (ASTM D 1883) Y CLIENT: Reid Middleton HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. PROJECT: Renton Taxiway B SAMPLE ID: TP-3, B-1 PROJECT NO: 2011-039-21 Sampled By: SEG Tested By: AAC/JH Date Sampled: 61212011 Date Received: 61212011 Date Tested: 612012011 Material Description: Dark olive gray, SILT with sand(ML) Sample Location: Test Pit TP-3 Sample B-1 Compaction Standard: F]D698 �X D1557 Condition: �X Soaked for 96 hrs F]Unsoaked Max. Dry Density: 110.5 pcf @ 15 % M.C. with 0 % scalped-off on the 3/4" sieve Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Dry Density c 94.5 112.9 #N/A Percent Compaction 85.5 102.1 #N/A Moisture before Compaction % 25.5 15.4 #DIV/0! Moisture after Compaction % 25.2 15.0 #DIV/0! Percent Swell initial ht= 7") -0.1 0.5 0.0 Moisture, after Soaking (%) 27.3 17.0 #DIV/0! Moisture Top 1" after Soak % 25.5 19.4 #DIV/0! CBR at 0.1" Penetration 0.9 51.4 #DIV/0! CBR at 0.2" Penetration 1.2 53.8 #DIV/0! CBR Value 1.2 53.8 #DIV/0! 1600 --0-85.5 1400 102.1 1200 1000 Q in 800 N 600 400 200 0 - 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 Displacement(in) 60 50 40 v 30 20 -- 10 0 80 85 90 95 100 105 %Compaction REVIEWED BY: Steven Greene FIGURE: B-15 i Bulk Density of Soil Chunk Samples Renton Airport Taxiway B vial HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. Exploration Sample No. Depth Length Diameter Volume Tare Wet+Tare Bulk Density Tare W+T D+T MC Dry Density TP-1 B-1 0.9 6 2.4 0.0157 248 849.83 84.6 8.32 191.5 110.51 79.3% 47.2 TP-2 B-1 2 6 2.4 0.0157 248 924.15 95.1 8.13 183.73 83.11 134.2% 40.6 TP-3 B-1 1.5 6 2.4 0.0157 248 973.92 102.1 8.48 198.17 160.22 25.0% 81.6 HWA Project No. 2011-039 FIGURE B-16 APPENDIX C CORE PHOTOGRAPHS ULWA I HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B - Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: June 2, 2011 Sampled by: SEG Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sample Location: Northern Taxiway Connector(see Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-1 Ili l� -� 2 cM - 0 I � Total Wearing Surface Depth: 2 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) Condition (inches) 2.0 Hot Mix Asphalt(HMA) 2 Fair 5 CSTC/CSBC - Dense Gravel with sand and _ Medium dense to dense Cobbles Remarks: MIMI HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B - Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: June 2, 2011 Sampled by: SEG Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sample Location: North end of Taxiway B (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-2 f 03q Co 2 re .1 4{: .-�;l•_ ,.y: . Y'w!,�' ♦per •� Total Wearing Surface Depth: 4.5 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) Condition (inches) 4.5 HMA 4.5 Fair to good 5.0 CSTC/CSBC - Dense - Sand with gravel - Medium dense to dense Remarks: HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. rClient: Reid Middleton ' Project: Taxiway B - Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: June 2, 2011 Sampled by: SEG Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter rSample Location: North end of Taxiway B (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-3 r r = ._ t = 2n� 1 _ Oil Fore- 3 i r r 1 rTotal Wearing Surface Depth: 2.25 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) Condition (inches) ' 2.25 HMA 2.25 Poor to fair 1.5 CSBC - Dense 2.25 Sandy silt - Medium stiff Remarks: The subgrade becomes sand to silty sand with depth r JLWA I I HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton ' Project: Taxiway B —Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: June 2 and June 8, 2011 Sampled by: SEG/DRC Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sample Location: North end of Taxiway B (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-4 039 cof e y Js Total Wearing Surface Depth: 1.5 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts inches Condition (inches) p ) 1.5 HMA 1.5 Poor ' 1.4 CSBC - Dense 1.75 HMA 1.75 Good Gravel - Loose Remarks: 1.4 inches of crushed gravel between HMA layers HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B - Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: June 2, 2011 Sampled by: SEG Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sample Location: North central portion of Taxiway B (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-5 Total Wearing Surface Depth: 2 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) Condition (inches) 2 HMA 2 Good 6 CSBC - Dense - Sand with silt and gravel - Medium dense Remarks: With depth subgrade appears to consist of dredge spoils. [rLWA, HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton i Project: Taxiway B—Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: June 7, 2011 Sampled by: DRC Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sample Location: Central portion of Taxiway B (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-6 t_ • r ZGn- 039 Total Wearing Surface Depth: 14.5 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) Condition (inches) 8.5 HMA 3, 5.5 Poor to good 6 PCC 6 Fair to good - Sand with gravel and cobbles - Loose i Remarks: The bottom 5.5 inches of HMA is of lower quality(ATB?) No crushed gravel base course was encountered. ' HWAGEOSCI ENCES INC. ' Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B —Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: June 7, 2011 Sampled by: DRC Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sample Location: South end of Taxiway B (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-7 cb 2oi�_ 03� Core_- Total Wearing Surface Depth: 13.5 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) Condition (inches) ' 8.5 HMA 3.5, 5 Very poor 5 PCC 5 Very poor ' Sand with gravel, cobbles - and silt Loose Remarks: The bottom 5 inches of HMA is of lower quality (ATB?) and disintegrated coring and therefore does not appear in the above photo. No crushed gravel base course was encountered. U � HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B —Renton Municipal Airport , Project No.: 2011-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: June 7, 2011 Sampled by: DRC Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sample Location: South End of Taxiway B (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-8 r Zoll _D39 ' Core- 8 Total Wearing Surface Depth: t2 inches Thickness (inches) Description of Material Lifts (inches) Condition 5.5 HMA 2.5, 3 Good 6.5 PCC 6.5 Good Sand with gravel, cobbles - Loose and silt Remarks: A non-woven fabric layer is located between the two lifts of HMA No crushed gravel base course was encountered. � M HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B —Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: June 7, 2011 Sampled by: DRC Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sample Location: South end of Taxiway B (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-9 i 20n_ 039 (ore -9 Total Wearing Surface Depth: 10 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) Condition (inches) 10 HMA 2.5, 4.25, 3.25 Good to poor - Sand with gravel, cobbles _ Loose and silt Remarks: A non-woven fabric layer is located between the first two lifts of HMA The lower lift of HMA is of lower quality(ATB?) No crushed gravel base course was encountered. i HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B —Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: June 6, 2011 Sampled by: DRC Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sample Location: Infield apron South end of Taxiway B (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-10 i core Total Wearing Surface Depth: 2.25 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) Condition (inches) 2.25 HMA 2.25 Good F-- Gravel with sand - Dense to very dense Remarks: No crushed gravel base course was encountered. JLTI HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B —Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: June 7, 2011 Sampled by: DRC Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sample Location: South end of Taxiway B (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-11 i 039 Coco-1\ Total Wearing Surface Depth: 16.5 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) Condition (inches) 8.5 HMA 2.5, 2.5, 3.5 Good to fair ' 8 PCC 8 Fair to good - Sand with gravel and cobbles - Loose Remarks: A non-woven fabric layer is located between the bottom lift of HMA and PCC. The lower lift of HMA is of lower quality (ATB?) �' No crushed gravel base course was encountered. 1 J LWA, HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. r Client: Reid Middleton r Project: Taxiway B —Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: June 6, 2011 Sampled by: DRC Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sample Location: Southern Taxiway Connector(See Figure 2) ' Core Designation: Core-12 r f i e ri ,H t ' s . r r 2011_039 Copt-IZ r r Total Wearing Surface Depth: 13.5 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) Condition (inches) 7.5 HMA 3.5, 2 , 2 Good 6 PCC 6 Fair , - Sand with gravel and cobbles - Loose r Remarks: No crushed gravel base course was encountered. r HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton ' Project: Taxiway B—Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: June 6, 2011 Sampled by: DRC Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sample Location: Southern Taxiway Connector(See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-13 zo L v, 2.011_ n39 13 1 Total Wearing Surface Depth: 9 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) Condition (inches) 3 HMA 3 Fair to poor 6 PCC 6 Fair - Sand with gravel and cobbles - Loose Remarks: A non-woven fabric layer is located between the bottom lift of HMA and ' PCC. No crushed gravel base course was encountered. JLWA HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B —Renton Municipal Airport , Project No.: 2011-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: June 6, 2011 Sampled by: DRC Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sample Location: Southern Taxiway Connector(See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-14 ' oh- 03q , Coct-1� 1 Total Wearing Surface Depth: 10.75 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) Condition (inches) 4.75 HMA 4.75 Fair to good 6 PCC 6 Good - Sand with gravel and cobbles - Loose Remarks: No crushed gravel base course was encountered. U -e HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B —Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: June 6, 2011 Sampled by: DRC Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sample Location: Southern Taxiway Connector(See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-15 t t ,y1 „y. 201�- p39 Core_IS Total Wearing Surface Depth: 12 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) Condition (inches) 6 HMA 4, 2 Good to poor 6 PCC 6 Good 4.5 CSBC - Loose - Sand with silt and gravel - Loose to medium dense Remarks: The lower lift of HMA is of lower quality (ATB?). U M HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B—Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: June 6, 2011 Sampled by: DRC Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter i Sample Location: Southern Taxiway Connector(See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-16 w Core_ 16 Total Wearing Surface Depth: 10.5 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) Condition (inches) 3.5 HMA 1.5, 2 Fair to poor 7 PCC 7 Poor Sand with silt and gravel - Loose Remarks: A non-woven fabric layer is located between the lowest HMA and the PCC layers. The PCC layer is cracked through and sealed with asphalt sealant No crushed gravel base course was encountered. UWA HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B - Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: July 11, 2012 Sampled by: DRC Core Bit Used: 12-inch diameter Sample Location: South end of Taxiway B (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-17 i I i i ry s a ! i i ZOtI-p39 ' ' 2011-03q Total Wearing Surface Depth: 15 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) Condition (inches) 7 Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) 2.5, 4.5 Good to Fair 8 PCC 8 Fair - Gravel with sand and cobbles - Medium dense Remarks: There is a 0.75 inch deep and 1.25 inch wide asphalt seal in the middle of the core covering a crack in the upper HMA layer(see Photo above). moil & I HWAGEOSCI ENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B - Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: July 11, 2012 Sampled by: DRC Core Bit Used: 12-inch diameter Sample Location: South end of Taxiway B (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-18 c ,µ 4� 2oit-o3a Total Wearing Surface Depth: 12.5 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) Condition (inches) 6.5 HMA 2.75, 3.75 Fair to good 6 PCC 6 Fair - Gravel with sand and cobbles - Medium dense Remarks: HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B - Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: July 11, 2012 Sampled by: DRC Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sample Location: Southern Taxiway Connector(See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-19 i i I � 2oli-o3q CORE- 19 Total Wearing Surface Depth: 19.5 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) Condition (inches) 12.5 HMA 3, 2.5, 3, 4 Fair to good 7 PCC 7 Good - Gravel with sand and cobbles - Medium dense Remarks: There is no bond between the 2nd and 3rd layers of HMA. There is no bond between the 3rd and 4`h layers of HMA. HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B—Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: July 11, 2012 Sampled by: DRC Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sample Location: South end of Taxiway B (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-20 ' 03i01 r ,t`•' fir` 6 -2-0 fia 40 , f CORE-20 Total Wearing Surface Depth: 13.5 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) Condition (inches) 6 HMA 3.5, 2.5 Poor 7.5 PCC 7.5 Fair - Gravel with sand and cobbles - Medium Dense Remarks: There is a 0.5 inch deep and 0.75 inch wide asphalt seal in the middle of the core covering a crack in the upper HMA layer(see Photo above). Appendix B City of Renton Sensitive Areas Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase II Technical Information Report (TIR) ' I ;I AKE WASHINGTON 4� CR < F 1 1. V y l s 1 i Ln 0 I PANTgI� LAKE' — . - LAKE-YOtTNGS 0 3000 6000 to ----- 6o AQUIFER PROTECTION ZONES Renton Municipal Code Y Technical Services Zone 1 + • Planning/Building/Public WorksT� Zone 1 Modified `` R.MacOnie,D.Visneski _ Zone 2 AN If January 22,2008 Citv Limits City of Renton Sensitive Areas Flood Hazard ' 1�J N `,y��+ �f ►! ! yl �!I gal 11 } yeti W� io F 71-1 LL I a mnj I= T xar \i�15 `�I�� yet i ,;�� ' / x '.3p fsz , � � Li �.i�t��vA�"�;�� i �� I��Il�i ��I P = ��;�y re,wi6�� !�'7y�Ji � :��,✓ x �� a rr++,,.�i J (J L - o - {(�_.00 "il,/.,�, a C-1� "� �LM /pelf �4 ® q '��It�^. �i. xex a -\ _yxa \JJr �� ar,.na-9 ICJ IL i. - 1, ,.�V K,L) l` ,', f'/1 �� I.��•,i '= IL t w.�J_� - l�llil�`. AF `tl ��\�` ��f- �3 a if,L N !(_� I-x.■JI -1\\�i'1i1 �I Jl, 4 �LJL� �,F„,° ( n�I r�JUm L;I� 1 C` � �l s I *. AMU �\—i iIt"I,o`��`(�\��"�b,jr ie%1J/�w>,• . 3_V �•o.; ,R\$\I,.-vit YLL � �s`,`I_{��-I.1 °'f1/' �i,�Lt^_-hyam-+.__ arJ/I/,�Ir-F'fl��1(L C�;L�,IL j / t\ /(:•ti[r1amp/ �;I�,t1 lC'M1C ij. ��=t�T --x-LT��J��„.'�—(1I�L=l 1 S eI;�`\�I\ °�]� N I L 1r � U NLF . -F tI�-T ' L—.20 �I�1Irl --_ � ' 11 "y1,1 Ly' „o 01) \" 1T LAWW " ..r a !i A� Ij{.vs�: I i- tl \ } 1 70 y iL sis�.(seaes�i �. _J �-- , / `,;` •�1 i ��\�1 ��8 e�/l '\��\�''� "' ''._- \� F�..., 41 L — +A 1' ;ice '•; a a 1�� li � .�/ � ��(�.� c•+s�r-I) n��-+l�a„� qi� # srr,��v AA\� 1 2 n _ „ ',' — „--_�i�r eae \�h t 1 (Wii� \��_ i�� —� ` s I �� ram►`_ a �/�!—�=�IL�� I" •. IJ�L ��''�i—,�' a,...a rr�' 'I V�uhtx_)1.��s�(`�- �� i�-_-I ��°`-. _ - -_ ��I �--� _ � � W+ ��,r A �+0► !�I� w �r-. i I i fff4, Ilk s n - Mawt IL—JL� 11 I� i� i'�( � y�;l �y Ily11l "� i_ W d "(.,�,,,�!'\�"w. � '►lg��i� 5�� JY -ill �I� �C z' IL AL I , i Public Works Department G. Zimmerman,Administrator Hazard Condition Technical Services 0 1,400 2,800' Critical Infrastructure R. MacOnie, D.Visneski ' t t ' ' ' 'I' Printed on May 21, 2009 This do—entisa hicre .i°n,not teed Flood Hazard p 9raa preen 9xaran Police Department b survey accuracy,antl a basetl on Ne best inlorme4on vailable as of the date shown This map is Inbnded for C'ty die purposes only. Data Source: Public Works, Utilities Systems,Technical Services Fire Stations Renton City Limits City of Valley Medical Center jj Schools City of Renton Sensitive Areas Liquefaction Hazards 1 � J � 'y.311 s"' `s_ R E L, Wiz'-""",✓i.,'�-�'J, 4n'7. r. 31 All ICJ �I ' ~\ � 1- ��` \\\�' �.W ��;\�\ f�`✓ I c�,'f JILS l,- W I !_�` La•_',a. ,t ,+ �q ��.E�._ �5� � i !E ^� 5`^x'e. fq i N .I,, ir1; '�. J ii fsr�d g 1 Cam_ t r nl;` -.- '" 'A -- 8ti. �f iL 71�1 $l�1�,xas �v r W' ... �ICza.l� .7^ i a 1 \\ FI S\` L� V\i�i°jr�J L'f°o' �a g � r--�\ 1 1,,, �..,j \ , (�1.1W� ws' L m l I 1a 0, N nw � U� (— L .° �' _! YLI 1 y .. �_,---- � AF I�,�' — / � lS �r ( r ��C JL�� 4 ` _ w'1��•— -- .. ��; i( .Y ull r�r- XI1.'��'�I I�,� &q -�`�: �4\t al �i ♦; � �__ � C— �� 'I I. I—' °�.y ``�� L------"�.J�rl s � � I� �_,� sa�rQ�a I � - _ \ �a\"-� % �.;^�yd f �`� �� rr S �/� fi• _%;5�. L� t � I � � � �i ,j ,. s <' �u € �7�"y��,�V� ��' i� 41�- >i � •,�*.�� )J � 1A 1 � t�+y �� r � �"-,,,.,,��\� . lt ''~LjL" " 11111 1...v a eve V� o I �°r .°"_^_,—' 31 it i �,'L°I � L -� �.a F �� ... it I D� +dL. " _, ' �I' W '._ - r- - 'r c 1 iyAi ` "�13 31I I �r aI ; � I �1,� r1S\� r I IRif �, � � +� ♦ r t�r 1 & I,l i W.W I r ��L� C� �lM. ".; )I �I J r� r 1 r 1 \\ l = " 11 wit ' i-. I €(I. `� � 7r d III ' 1 , w �J � 7 r�—''sl� ��r '1.... t � ?' 0 1,400 2,800 qZ , Public Works Department nad°��,^raaeraeh°rear°-oars ^°9°a,.^.� to survey accuracy,and Is based on 0,best ln1°nna0on G. Zimmerman,Administrator a°°"°"°°'° " °'°'"°w^ '"'°�° "°^°°°'°` G,ytpl.yp °'°^'y HAZARD CONDITION Critical Infrastructure Technical Services R. MacOnie, D. Visneski e_� Renton City Limits Liquefaction Susceptibility Police Department Printed on May 20, 2009 Data Source:Public Works,Utilities Systems,Technical Services; S high Washington State Department of Natural Resources,Geology and Earth Resources Division '-_- Fire Stations moderate to high D City of S low to moderate M Valley Medical Center rSchools City of Renton Sensitive Areas Seismic Hazards I� I _ —` Ali 4q 401 73 I�x�!l rR ��`��, ,n.. � �1 K r� f��JI dIU� ([�.rw � •��•��1 f �� l'��l��l 'x I��U/��I rF��I �_ �i\` +1�11 . 1�`��\�`�C' I fJU>�� i ill �!>•'I`�J� �;m� �' �! 1C�`�,� � ' �� '� �_ �`. \� L._L'�_ �1� \ L[ L �� 1 � ��n fly ! WJmm IT k \,\t "-jlri��k!? �� "1��— �-M� a i I `� �1� ��—�,. ��f��K�'�� ,.s � •�I � C � i- G4 PClJ: L� '� 'il��•�\Jf�i—\., t 3. �1 FY � �tJ#IJtl��,l � 1�1 I � �lT� �`-�U I ,r I �� t! r: � �✓i' � _ t, t[ 7} dlWLfIILJ� [� ..........��,�—= L_ _ a . l� \ill/rI��LIJLI�� !��+1i ( .... o. l .I\�,.: �+/! � � LITJ b,`j\, �i '`a0•��'�.Y V �3�WLLJ If / rL �` ! ��►/ n % � (,, i', �(i�l� ,� F'� A Ar !j� I ,` v v,v ✓ ® ,� � � �/ s,.- ,�. _mac Nss . NNI ,. r A--O �ll0l `� 11 � ,�� 1i /rV �l F J�'\ J ,� S l� t s# r, _ I `� J` {�` x {I f r xli emna+ \ {I 4 ernwr .wsrw `wr C, �v _� IL1I Mal \ ! f� � �tl t :�: \� `j`'; �'� •�3�r�+a- '.P :�t 5N, -Z�� { i r'`, �I / /��)•E..�°�:�- J f_ �Ii� ._ IrI� ,end A�� I \ 1r� �A�� 1�`�� II It s v/r— o ��ti_l lr.F�K sc ia,Nv ��1`_i%�I� � `�Z.`\," CI \•\rr`, it 1 � I _MY. i: �1� t % I _�—tom ILJL t h� iI \ 1 r eY t \t '(y►g .�w 1� f!,_rF � I� g�IJf_ =— Public Works Department ,,500 t3,000 Hazard Condition G. Zimmerman,Administrator , , , Critical Infrastructure Technical Services R. MacOnie, D. Visneski Thsdocumentlsag,ph,,pns nWbon rolguNanlead High Seismic Severity Pol-N-ronent b,u,,y accuracy,and is cased on 0,Deal info—to. evairabla as of the dale sho Tho map is inter ded for Printed on May 21, 2009 Gtydlspleypurpo—only Fire Stations Data Source:Public Works,Utilities Systems,Technical Services _ � Valley Medical Center City of �\l■\JAI��f��■i ,� � Appendix C Water Quality Calculations Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase II Technical Information Report (TIR) '` ' KCRTS King County Runoff Time Series Program Version 6.00 All files will be read/written in the Working Directory Working Directory:C:\kc-swdm\output ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ KCRTS Command CREATE a new Time Series --------------------- Production of Runoff Time Series Project Location : Sea-Tac Computing Series NBASIN.tsf Regional Scale Factor 1.00 Data Type Reduced Creating 15-minute Time Series File Loading Time Series File:C:\KC-SWDM\KC-DATA\STEI15R.rnf 8 Impervious 1.00 acres Scaling Yr: 8 -------------- Total Area 1.00 acres Peak Discharge: 1.18 CFS at 6:30 on Jan 9 in Year B Storing Time Series File:NBASIN.tsf 8 Time Series Computed ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KCRTS Command Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module -------------------- ----------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- Analysis Tools Command ------------- --- Compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies Loading Stage/Discharge curve:nbasin.tsf Flow Frequency Analysis ---------------------------- ---------------------------- Time Series File:nbasin.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac -rooect ocation: ea- ac Annual Peak Flow Rates--- -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- FlowRate Rank Time of Peak - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) Period 0.476 6 8/27/01 18:00 1.18 1 100.00 0.990 0.332 8 9/17/02 17:45 0.901 2 25.00 0.960 0.901 2 12/08/02 17:15 0.646 3 10.00 0.900 0.383 7 8/23/04 14:30 0.532 4 5.00 0.800 0.505 5 10/28/04 16:00 0.505 5 3.00 0.667 0.632 4 10/27/05 10:45 0.476 6 2.00 0.500 0.646 3 10/25/06 22:45 0.383 7 1.30 0.231 1.18 1 1/09/08 6:30 0.332 8 1.10 0.091 North Bio-filtration Basin Area(See Figure 4-1) Water Quality flow rate=60%of 2-year storm 0.476 ds * 0.6 = 0.29 ds Same rate for the South Bio-filtration Basin ea isc arge: 1.18 CFS at on Jan V in Year Storing Time Series File:NBASIN.tsf 8 Time Series Computed KCRTS Command Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module ------------------------------ ------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- Analysis Tools Command ------------- --- Compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies ---------------------------------- Loading Stage/Discharge curve:nbasin.tsf Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:nbasin.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac Frequencies & Peaks saved to File:NBASIN.pks Analysis Tools Command ------------- --- RETURN to Previous Menu --------------------------------------------------------------------------- KCRTS Command CREATE a new Time Series Production of Runoff Time Series Project Location Sea-Tac Computing Series FLT.tsf Regional Scale Factor 1.00 Data Type Reduced Creating 15-minute Time Series File Loading Time Series File:C:\KC-SWDM\KC-DATA\STEI15R.rnf 8 Impervious 0.61 acres Scaling Yr: 8 -------------- Total Area 0.61 acres Peak Discharge: 0.720 CFS at 6:30 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Storing Time Series File:FLT.tsf 8 Time Series Computed ime eries i Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- FlowRate Rank Time of Peak - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) Period 0.291 6 8/27/01 18:00 0.719 1 100.00 0.990 0.203 8 9/17/02 17:45 0.549 2 25.00 0.960 0.549 2 12/08/02 17:15 0.394 3 10.00 0.900 0.234 7 8/23/04 14:30 0.325 4 5.00 0.800 0.308 5 10/28/04 16:00 0.308 5 3.00 0.667 0.325 4 10/27/05 10:45 0.291 6 2.00 0.500 0.394 3 10/25/06 22:45 0.234 7 1.30 0.231 0.719 1 1/09/08 6:30 0.203 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 0.663 50.00 0.980 16 South Filter Strip Area(See Figure 4-1) Water Quality flow rate=60% of 2-year storm 0.291 cfs * 0.6=0.17 cfs KCRTS ea Discharge: I ear Storing Time Series File:FLT.tsf 8 Time Series Computed ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KCRTS Command Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ----------------------------------------- Analysis Tools Command ---------------------- Compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies ---------------------------------- loading Stage/Discharge curve:flt.tsf Flow Frequency Analysis -------------------------------------------------------- Time Series File:flt.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac Frequencies & Peaks saved to File:FLT.pks ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Analysis Tools Command ------------ --- RETURN to Previous Menu ----------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KCRTS Command CREATE a new Time Series ----------------------- Production of Runoff Time Series Project Location : Sea-Tac Computing Series TB7N.tsf Regional Scale Factor 1.00 Data Type Reduced Creating 15-minute Time Series File Loading Time Series File:C:\KC-SWDM\KC_DATA\STEI15R.rnf 8 Impervious 0.34 acres Scaling Yr: 8 Total Area 0.34 acres Peak Discharge: 0.401 CFS at 6:30 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Storing Time Series File:TB7N.tsf 8 Time Series Computed Heli r ime eries i e:t n.ts Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) Period 0.162 6 8/27/01 18:00 0.401 1 100.00 0.990 0.113 8 9/17/02 17:45 0.306 2 25.00 0.960 0.306 2 12/06/02 17:15 0.220 3 10.00. 0.900 0.130 7 8/23/04 14:30 0.181 4 5.00 0.800 0.172 5 10/28/04 16:00 0.172 5 3.00 0.667 0.181 4 10/27/05 10:45 0.162 6 2.00 0.500 0.220 3 10/25/06 22:45 0.130 7 1.30 0.231 0.401 1 1/09/08 6:30 0.113 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 0.369 50.00 0.980 Taxiway B7 (N) Area(See Figure 4-1) Water Quality flow rate=60% of 2-year storm 0.162 cfs * 0.6=0.10 cfs Water quality flow rates for other areas referenced in the Bio-filtration calculations and shown in Figure 4-1 are interpolated from the above rates generated with the KCRTS program. BIOFILTRATION CALCULATION Based on KCSWDM,pg 6-40 South WQ Basin Solve for bottom width(b) Q=0.29 cfs (KCRTS) - 1.00 ac impervious y 0.17 y=0.17 (mowed frequently) 0.33 (infrequent mowing) n 0.2 n=0.2 s=slope z=side slope Q 0.29 b=Q*n/1.49*y^1.67*s^0.5 s 0.01 b(ft) 7.5 Use 10-ft width in design Z 4 Solve for flow Velocity Z=side slope A=cross-sectional area A(ft-2) 1.4 v(ft/s) 0.21 Solve swale length L(ft)=540 * v 112.5 86ft with b=10ft Min. 100' in design Meet criteria for high flow North WQ Basin y 0.17 Q=0.29 cfs (KCRTS)- 1.00 ac impervious n 0.2 b (ft) 7.5 Use 10-ft width in design Q 0.29 A(ft-2) 1.4 s 0.01 v(ft/s) 0.21 Z 4 L (ft) 112.5 86ft with b=10ft Min. 100' in design Basic Filter Strip Calculation Per KCSWDM Section 6.3.4,pg 6-59 South Filter Strip Q=0.17 cfs (KCRTS)-0.61 ac impervious n 0.35 n=0.35 or 0.45 s=slope W=longitudinal length of imperv. W 277 Design depth(Df)= (Q*n/1.49*W*s^0.5)110.6 s 0.04 Df(ft) 0.013022 Q 0.17 Solve for Velocity V=Q/W*Df V(ft/s) 0.047128 Solve for Filter length L(ft)=540 * V 25.44898 Use 26ft in design Taxiway B7(N)Filter Strip Q=0.10 cfs (KCRTS)-0.34 ac impervious n 0.35 n=0.35 or 0.45 s=slope W=longitudinal length of imperv. W 175 Design depth(Df)=(Q*n/1.49*W*s^0.5)^0.6 s 0.04 Df(ft) 0.012476 Q 0.1 Solve for Velocity V=Q/W*Df V(ft/s) 0.045801 Solve for Filter length L (ft)=540 * V 24.73247 Use 26ft in design Taxiway B7(S) Filter Strip Q=0.05 cfs (KCRTS)-0.17 ac impervious n 0.35 n=0.35 or 0.45 s=slope W=longitudinal length of imperv. W 150 Design depth(Df)=(Q*n/1.49*W*s^0.5)^0.6 s 0.01 Df(ft) 0.013685 Q 0.05 Solve for Velocity V=Q/W*Df V(ft/s) 0.024357 Solve for Filter length L (ft)= 540 * V 13.15274 Use 14ft in design Taxiway B Filter Strip Q=0.19 cfs(KCRTS)-0.65 ac impervious n 0.35 n=0.35 or 0.45 s=slope W=longitudinal length of imperv. W 625 Design depth(Df)=(Q*n/1.49*W*s^0.5)^0.6 s 0.04 Df(ft) 0.008543 Q 0.19 Solve for Velocity V=Q/W*Df V(ft/s) 0.035583 Solve for Filter length L(ft)=540 * V 19.21463 Use 26ft in design Taxiway B6(S)Filter Strip Q=0.07 cfs(KCRTS)-0.24 ac impervious n 0.35 n=0.35 or 0.45 s=slope W=longitudinal length of imperv. W 180 Design depth(Df)=(Q*n/1.49*W*s^0.5)^0.6 s 0.04 Df(ft) 0.009904 Q 0.07 Solve for Velocity V=Q/W*Df V(ft/s) 0.039266 ' Solve for Filter length L(ft)=540 * V 21.20376 Use 26ft in design Taxiway B6(N)Filter Strip Q=0.1 cfs (KCRTS)-0.36 ac impervious n 0.35 n=0.35 or 0.45 s=slope W=longitudinal length of imperv. W 190 Design depth(Df)=(Q*n/1.49*W*s^0.5)^0.6 s 0.04 Df(ft) 0.011876 Q 0.1 Solve for Velocity V=Q/W*Df V(ft/s) 0.044319 Solve for Filter length L(ft)=540 * V 23.93212 Use 26ft in design FLOW SPLITTER CALCULATIONS PROJECT: Renton Municipal Airport,Taxiway B,Phase II Calculated by: BTS PROJ NO.: 23-2010-007 Checked by: DATE: 10/15/2012 Date Checked: FILE: H:\D0C\23Ap\10\007 Renton TW B&Signage0esign0minageff1m Splitta—Phase 1.x6x]F1m Spliw South Biofiltration Swale Pipe Capacity Manning Pipe Capacity No. Diameter Slope Length Capacity Used (inch) (%) (feet) (cfs) (%) 0.014 8 0.10 10 0.35 82 0.014 12 0.10 10 1.05 28 Head determined by sharp-crested weir equation 0.463 s O = D ' JS, Known: Q1= 0.29 cfs JZ CD= 0.6 IlEoutlet= 25.5 ft Length Head Head 3 (ft) (ft) (in) QwQ = 3 CD 2gLH 2 1 0.2013 2.4161 4— 4 0.0799 0.9588 - 6 0.0610 0.7317 i Conclusion: A 12-inch diameter pipe shall be utilized for the outlet to the biofiltration swale. The top of the 1-ft weir shall be placed at 25.7(25.5+0.20). North Biofiitration Swale Pipe Capacity Manning Pipe Capacity No. Diameter Slope Length Capacity Used (inch) (%) (feet) (cfs) (%) 0.014 8 0.10 10 0.35 82 0.014 12 0.10 10 1.05 28 Head determined by sharp-crested weir equation _ 0.463 s Q — D 3 IS, Known: Q2= 0.29 cfs n CD= 0.6 IIE.utld= 23.0 ft Length Head Head 2 3 (ft) (ft) (in) 3 Cn 2gLH 2 1 0.2013 2.4161 - ^- 4 0.0799 0.9588 6 0.0610 0.7317 Conclusion: A 12-inch diameter pipe shall be utilized for the outlet to the biofiltration swale. The top of the 1-ft weir shall be placed at 23.2(23.0+0.20). Page 1 of 1 Appendix D Conveyance System Calculations Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase II Technical Information Report (TIR) ' ' ' ` ' ' SUB—BASIN A-1 SUB—BASIN A-2� 21,889 SF IMP\\ fr �!T� l ` — FJ(ISTING ASF LT — _ __ -------- _--- �— _ — — r--- ._- _.-__._ —' �� {1J r (RLINWAY I6- I ' — --._-------- 7,500 SF LA1NN ` Jr _r---- ----------- f r r f r SF IMP - t � 1,578 SF-LIWV_N 7fl;623 SF IMP 44r167 SF IMP ' 9,299 SF IMP/ ' ; /81,78ySF C�WN r 58,540 SF LAWN 2,1,658 SF Wit / j �°" � 53,803 SF LA 7,935 SF IMP �� J -" - ! 44,030 SF �� ( , —' t� 7 ' ( 28,279 SF LAWN ` � . ! ;- - SD- -- M `� SD 99 -- Sp .. 1". S ^n ....... p -..--_-- ---_.. ——�`6 �- - / ....._.._._.gip ti / _ f ' Fa , — -- -��---- _--- ---- ----- —�- ---- ------ -- � 18,398 SF IMP' y 1 _ �w; ` � T c t �. 32,834 SF IMP ( ` i 29,330 SF4hT (TAXIWAY ASPHALT TAxlwav a) 26,131 SF IMP 840 SF LAWN --) fi NEW SLOT DRAIN EXISTING SLOTDRAIN � .. TRIBUTARY AREA 59,198 SF 1 85,423 SF IMP BOUNDARY (TYP) 166,735 SF IMP ---- ----- - - i OUTFALL PIPE �"�'"• _r OUTFALL PIPE TO RIVER TO RIVER !!! LEGEND: REPLACED/NEW ASPHALT PAVEMENT -� SWALE FLOW DIRECTION Tributary Area/Collection Figure 1 72B130 9nd3W wle100 Renton Airport EmdL Wmhin tm 98204 Pk 425 741-3800 PROJ: Renton Municipal Airport,Taxiway B PIPE SIZING WO: 23-2012-2012 (Runoff by Rational Method) C by: BTS DATE: 1 01212 01 2 (Pipe Capacity by Manning's Eqn.) C.ey: FILE: H:\DOC\23Ao\10\007 Renton TW B&Sienaee\Desien\Draina c\120121002 Pine Sizine I Phase II.x1sIPioe Sizine 100vr BASIN D. Ch-k. : Storm: Renton 25 Year c= 0.9 1 rrper vi ous ° 2.66 (,..KCSWDM pp 3-13) c= 0.25 Lawn " 0.65 (,,.KCSWDM py 3-13) 3.4 (_„KCSWDM pg 3 24-Hour Isopluvials I Tim.o P. PIP % V.- F1,w A-(.,) A...(..) A,.. R S.- Cp°p 11-1 Ru°orr St.- L-g- C.P.. C.P F.1. F T, (I mP., (P.1 C.- _ A'C (mi„) (i°/nr) (pr.) V.I.. ub-basin Al E 1 39 0 0.4 0. 0 0.38 0.38 10.00 2.02 0.77 0.014 6 0.76 145 0.45 169 2.31 1.04 Existing-No change in flow characteristic B 1 5 28279 0.33 0.71 11.04 1.90 1.34 0.014 8 1.02 96 1.13 118 3.25 0.49 Existing-No change in flow characteristic 30 0 "'' 0. 0.61 1.31 10.00 2.02 2.66 0.014 12 0.39 107 2.07 129 2.63 0.68 Existing-No change in flow characteristic 1 )'I�j 0.00 1.31 10.68 1.94 2.55 0.014 10 0.27 84 1.06 241 1.94 0.72 Existing-No change in flow characteristic CB3 218897500 11.73 0.50 2.51 12.94 1.71 4.31 0.014 18 0.42 266 6.32 68 3.59 1.24 B B3 44167 �058 '1 0.69 1.04 1.04 10.00 2.02 2.10 0.014 12 0.63 23 2.62 80 3.33 0.12 B3 0 0 0.00 0.2 0.00 3.55 14.29 1.61 5.70 0.014 18 0.83 125 8.89 64 5.03 0.41 134 " 21578 1.30 0.65 0.85 1 4.40 14.71 1.58 6.94 0.014 18 0.59 130 7.49 1 93 4.24 1 0.51 5 CB6 32834 0.75 0.90 0.68 0.68 10.00 2.02 1.37 0.014 12 0.55 181 2.45 56 3.12 0.97 Slot Drain 7 0 0. 0.25 0.00 0.68 10.97 1.91 1.29 0.014 12 1.00 9 3.31 39 4.21 0.04 Swale B7 CB9 0 T 25 0.00 5.08 16.22 1.48 7.51 0.014 18 0.61 1 135 7.62 99 4.31 0.52 Bypass B9 B1 5 2 81787 3. 52 1.69 6.78 1 16.74 1.45 1 9.81 0.014 1 18 0.31 240 5.43 1 181 3,07 1.30 CB11 BI 1 735 0 3 3.44 3.44 10.00 2.02 6.97 0.014 12 2.38 8 10.20 68 12.98 0.01 Parallel 12"SD Lines 1312 71313 0 0. 5 0.00 3.44 10.01 2.02 6.97 0.014 18 0.49 166 6.83 102 3.86 0.72 7B13 CB14 0 0. 0.25 0.00 3.44 10.73 1.93 6.66 0.014 18 2.08 12 14.07 47 1 7.96 0.03 CB14 CB16 0 „ 0. 0.25 0.00 10.22 1 18.76 1.35 1 13.75 1 0.014 1 18 0.31 148 5.43 253 3.07 0.80 516 CBl 70623 ,, 2.97 1 1.80 12.02 19.56 1.31 15.73 1 0.014 18 0.47 199 6.69 2' 3.78 0.88 B1 CB IN 57 ? _7= 1.44 13.46 20.44 1.27 0,014 18 0.20 298 4.41 233 2.49 1.99 Assumed 60%of total flow to Sub-basin A2 E5 u „ 0,00 0.21 1 0.00 0.00 20.44 1.27 6.85 0.014 12 1.29 210 3.76 182 4.?fl 0.73 Assumed 40%of total flow to Sub-basin Al Page 1 of 2 PROJ: Renton Municipal Airport,Taxiway B PIPE SIZING WO: 23-2012-2012 (Runoff by Rational Method) C......-by: BTS DATE: 1 01212 01 2 (Pipe Capacity by Manning's Eqn.) Ch--d by: FILE: H-OOC123Au\10\007 Renton TW B&Sienaee\Desien\DrainweV20121002 Pioe Sizine I Phase ILzlalPioe Sizine 100vr BASIN D.t.Cn-..d: Storm: Renton 25 Year c= 0.9 1 rrper vi ous "' 2.66 (,..KCSWDM pg 3-13) c- 0.25 Lawn °' 0.65 (,..KCSWDM pg 3-13) r 3.4 (...KCSWDM pg 3 24-Hour Isopluvials Ino. Ino. I o. Tim.or R..., P.p. % V.... F- A-(.r) A...(..) A- R.n.1 Sim C... I n R....orr D..m S.P. L.,.- C.p . C.p.. F- T- P,.,,,.,,.. F. ,. To (Imp., (P., ) (.0 C.- A'C A"C (oin) (ib/br) (.r.) V.- (loon) (%) (r.-) ( r.) U- (Id... (.ate) 1.3 7 0 1.22 1.22 20.44 1.27 1.56 0.014 12 0.75 265 2.87 54 3.65 1.21 Slot Drain 5 E6 0.00 0.25 0.00 1.22 22.38 1.20 0.59 0.014 12 0.33 255 1.90 31 2.42 1.76 Existing-No change in flow characteristic l;"1 0.00 0.00 1.22 24.14 1.14 0.56 0.014 12 0.33 23 1.90 29 2.42 0.16 Existing-No change in flow characteristic Tub-basin A2 B 1 N 2 l 31 440 0.54 0.54 10.00 2.02 1.10 0.014 12 0.68 104 2.73 40 3.47 0.50 53603 0.96 14.42 22.93 1.18 10.21 0.014 18 0.42 157 6.31 162 3.57 0.73 Existing-No change in flow characteristic RE 4 712 0. 0.88 15.30 23.66 1.16 10.62 0.014 18 0.42 34 6.32 168 3.58 0.16 Existing-No change in flow characteristic F9 42711 0 0. 0.90 0.88 16.18 23.82 1.15 11.18 0.014 18 0.42 203 6.32 177 3.58 0.95 Existing-No change in flow characteristic tHIT ri 0 0.58 0.00 16.18 24.77 1.12 10.90 0.014 18 0.43 61 6.37 171 3.60 0.28 Existing-No change in flow characteristic 4u' Page 2 of 2 PROJ: Renton Municipal Airport,Taxiway B PIPE SIZING WO: 23-2012-2012 (Runoff by Rational Method) C.1 1-a ey: BTS DATE: 10/2/2012 (Pipe Capacity by Manning's Eqn.) Ch.,k.<ey: FILE: H:\DOC\23Ao\IO\007 Renton TW B&Sienaee\Desien\Drainaee\120121002 Pioe Sizine 1 Phase II.xIslPioe Sizine 100vr BASIN D. Cnk Storm: Renton 10 Year c- 0.9 1 rrper vi ous ° 2.44 (_..KCSWDM pe 3-13) c- 0.25 Lawn ° 0.64 (...KCSWDM p.3-13) r, 2.9 (=ee KCSWDM P9 3 24-Hour Isopluvials I I T. R.,° Pip. % V.- F A-(.r) Ar..(.r) Ar.. R.-, S.- C.- I° R non D,.. Si L.,,otn C.p.. Cap.. Feu Ti R.-k. 0mP-) (P.r A`C A'C (M ) (i°/-) (cr. V.- °) (i.,�n) (/o) (r.ec) (er.) Ussa tiu6-basin AI JE2 1 398 0 0,47 0.90 0.38 0.38 10.00 1.62 0.62 0.014 6 0.76 145 0.45 136 2.31 1.04 Existing-No change in flow characteristic JCBI 7 5 28279 0.83 0.39 0.33 0.71 11.04 1.52 1.07 0.014 8 1.02 96 1.13 95 3.25 0.49 Existing-No change in flow characteristic 3 0 .67 0.61 1.31 10.00 1.62 2.13 0.014 12 0.39 107 2.07 103 2.63 0.68 Existing-No change in flow characteristic Il! CB 1 0 0.0 5 0.00 1.31 10.68 1.55 2.04 0.014 10 0.27 84 1.06 193 1.94 0.72 Existing-No change in flow characteristic It CB3 21889 7500 0.67 0.50 2.51 12.94 1.37 3.46 0.014 18 0.42 266 6.32 55 3.58 1.24 CB-1 CB3 441 7 21658 1.51 1.04 1.04 10.00 1.62 1.68 0.014 12 0.63 23 2.62 64 3.33 0.12 11; CB4 0 0 5 0.00 3.55 14.29 1.29 4.58 0.014 18 0.83 125 8.89 51 5.03 0.41 Elsa CB7 35239 21578 1. 5 0.85 4.40 14.71 1.27 5.58 0.014 18 0.59 130 7.49 1 74 4.24 0.51 CB5 CB6 32834 0 0.75 0 0.68 0.68 10.00 1.62 1.10 0.014 12 0.55 181 2.45 45 3.12 0.97 Slot Drain B6 B7 0 0. � 5 0.00 0.68 10.97 1.53 1.04 0.014 12 1.00 9 3.31 31 4.21 0.04 Swale CB9 0 0 700 0.25 0.00 5.08 16.22 1.19 6.04 0.014 18 0.61 135 7.62 79 4.31 0.52 Bypass B14 5 299 81787 3.24 0.52 1.69 6.78 16.74 1.17 7.90 0.014 18 0.31 1 240 5.43 1 145 3.07 1.30 CB11 CB12 1 735 0 0. 3.44 3.44 10.00 1.62 5.58 0.014 12 2.38 8 10.20 55 12.98 0.01 Parallel 12"SD Lines B1 0 .00 0.25 0.00 3.44 10.01 1.62 5.58 0.014 18 0.49 166 6.83 82 3.86 0.72 rTIT CB14 0 0 0.00 0.25 0.00 3.44 10.73 1.55 5.34 0.014 18 2.08 12 14.07 38 7.96 0.03 B1 B16 0 0 0.00 0.25 0.00 10.22 18.H, 1.03 11.08 0.014 18 0.31 148 5.43 204 3.07 0.80 B1 CBI 70623 58540 2.97 1 1.80 12.02 19. 12.68 0.014 18 0.47 199 6.69 90 3.78 0.88 B1 B1N 57 44030 2717 • 2 1.44 13.46 20. 0.014 18 0.20 298 4.41 188 2.49 1.99 Assumed 60%of total flow to Sub-basin A2 CB 18 E5 0 0 .0 5 0.00 0.00 20. 0.014 12 1.29 210 3.76 147 4.78 0.73 jAssumed 40%of total flow to Sub-basin Al Page 1 of 2 PROJ: Renton Municipal Airport,Taxiway B PIPE SIZING WO: 23-2012-2012 (Runoff by Rational Method) C---d.y: BTS DATE: 1 01212 01 2 (Pipe Capacity by Manning's Eqn.) C--- FILE: HA00CUMM10\007 Renton TW B&Sienaee\Desien\Drainaee\I20121002 Pioc Sizine I Phase II.x1slPioe Sizine IOOw BASIN D-Ch-k.d. Storm: Renton 10 Year C= 0.9 1 riper vi ous a, 2.44 ( ..KCSWDM pfl 3-13) c- 0.25 Lawn U, 0.64 ( ..KCSWDM pfl 3-13) r, 2.9 (,..KCSWDM pfl 3 24-Hour Isopluvials I. I... I Tim..r R- Pip. % V.- F- A-(.r) A...(.r) A,.. R S.m C.- 1-.. R...- Di- Si- L-oth C.P.. C.p.P F- Tim. R.m - T. 0 P.,0 (P.,1) Cam A'C A'C (-) (i l-) (ter.) \:.,I_. (i-n) (%) (I-) (Cr.) U..d (red..=) (-) 7B17 E5 5 1 1.36 0.90 1.22 1.22 20.44 1.03 0.014 12 0.75 265 2.87 44 3.65 1.21 Slat Drain 0.00 1.22 22.38 0.97 0.47 0.014 C 0.33 255 1.90 25 2.42 1.76 Existing-No change in flow characteristic 0.00 1.22 24.14 0.92 0.45 0.014 12 0.33 23 1.90 24 2.42 0.16 Existing-No change in flow characteristic u asm:12 CBI 131 840 0.54 0.54 10.00 1.62 0.88 0.014 12 0.68 104 2.73 32 3.47 0.50 7 31417 53603 0.96 14.42 22.93 0.95 8.24 0.014 18 0.42 157 6.31 131 3.57 0.73 Existing-No change in flow characteristic I 8 4 712 0 0. 0.90 0.88 15.30 23.66 0.93 8.58 0.014 18 0.42 34 6.32 136 3.58 0.16 Existing-No change in flow characteristic I E9 42711 0 0 0.88 16.18 23.82 0.93 9.03 0.014 18 0.42 203 6.32 143 3.58 0.95 Existing-No change in flow characteristic � OUT 0 00. 6 .5 0.00 16.18 24.77 0.91 8.81 0.014 18 0.43 61 6.37 138 3.60 0.28 Existing-No change in flow characteristic 40% 60% Page 2 of 2 PROD: Renton Municipal Airport,Taxiway B PIPE SIZING WO: 23-2012-2012 (Runoff by Rational Method) C. BTS DATE: 1 01212 01 2 (Pipe Capacity by Manning's Eqn.) Ch-k-ey: FILE: H:\DOC\23Ao\I0\007 Renton TW B a Sienaec\Deaien\Draina¢eV20121002 Pine Sizine I Phaw II.xlslPioe Sizine 100w BASIN D.c.Cn.d: Storm: Renton 100 Year c= 0.9 1 rrper vi ous a, 2.61 (...KCSWDM pg 3-13) c= 0.25 Lawn " 0.63 (...KCSWDM pg 3-13) r, 3.9 (. KCSWDM pg 3 24-Hour Isopluvials IPp. I g. T,-.or R., P.P. % V.I.. F.- Ar.. (.) Ar..(.r) Are. R..., S. Coy,. I.,c Pff Di.- S-P. L.,, C.P.. C.P.. F.,n Tim. R.m.r.. (I m (P.r C.- A`C A'C (,..�) (ice/er) (�r.) V.- (Iope) (%) (r..c) (ter.) U..a dub-basin AI E I 1' 18399 0 0.42 0.90 0.38 0.38 10.00 2.39 0.91 0.014 6 0.76 145 0.45 200 2.31 1.04 Existing-No change in flow characteristic 2 (131 935 2g2,9 . 3 0.33 0.71 11.04 2.24 1.58 0.014 8 1.02 96 1.13 140 3.25 0.49 Existing-No change in flow characteristic 3 - 293_ 0 7 0.61 1.31 10.00 2.39 3.13 0.014 12 0.39 107 2.07 152 2.63 0.68 Existing-No change in flow characteristic 4 I I 0 0.00 1.31 10.68 2.29 3.00 0.014 10 0.27 84 1.06 284 1.94 0.72 Existing-No change in flow characteristic CBI CB3 21889 7500 0.670.730.50 2.51 12.94 2.03 5.10 0.014 18 0.42 266 6.32 1 81 3.58 1,24 B B 44167 1658 1.51 0. 9 1.04 1.04 10.00 2.39 2.47 0.014 12 0.63 23 2.62 95 3.33 0.12 7B3 B li 0. 25 0.00 3.55 1 14.29 1.91 6.77 0.014 18 0.83 1 125 8.89 76 5.03 1 0.41 CB4 CB7 35239 21578 1.30 0.65 0.85 4.40 14.71 1.87 8.24 0.014 18 0.59 130 7.49 110 4.24 0.51 5 7B6 704 0.75 0 0.68 0.68 10.00 2.39 1.62 0.014 12 0.55 181 2.45 66 3.12 0.97 Slot Drain rF 57 0 0.0 5 0.00 0.68 10.97 2.25 1.53 0.014 12 1.00 9 3.31 46 4.21 0.04 Swale B7 CB9 1, 0.00 0.25 0.00 5.08 1 16.22 1.76 8.94 0.014 18 0.61 1 135 7.62 117 4.31 0.52 Bypass B9 7B14 59299 81787 3.24 0.52 1.69 6.78 16.74 1.72 11.69 0.014 18 0.31 240 5.43 215 3.07 1.30 B11 B1 166735 0 3.83 .9 3.44 3.44 10.00 2.39 8.22 0.014 12 2.38 8 10.20 81 12.98 0.01 Parallel 12"SD Lines B12 B1 0 0.25 0.00 3.44 10.01 2.38 8.21 0.014 18 0.49 166 6.83 120 3.86 0.72 B13 CB14 0 0 0.00 0.25 0.00 3.44 10.73 2.28 7.87 0.014 18 2.08 12 14.07 56 7.96 0.03 B14 71 0 . 0 0.25 0.00 10.22 18.76 1.61 16.41 0.014 18 0.31 148 5.43 302 3.07 0.80 B1 Bl 70 58540 7 0. 1 1.80 12.02 19.56 1.56 18.79 0.014 18 0.47 199 6.69 281 3.78 0.88 B 1 Bl 57 44030 33 1.44 13.46 20.44 1.52 12.28 0.014 18 0.20 298 4.41 279 2.49 1.99 Assumed 60%of total flow to Sub-basin A2 B1 ES 0 .00 0. 5 0.00 0.00 20.44 1.52 8.19 0.014 12 1.29 210 3.76 218 4.78 0.73 1 Assumed 40%of total flow to Sub-basin AI Page 1 of 2 PROD: Renton Municipal Airport,Taxiway B PIPE SIZING WO: 23-2012-2012 (Runoff by Rational Method) Cad--by: BTS DATE: 10/2/2012 (Pipe Capacity by Manning's Eqn.) Ch- by: FILE: H:VDOC\23Ao\1OW07 Renton TW B&Sienaee\Desien\Drainaee\120121002 Pioe Sizine 1 Phaae II.z131Pioe Sizin¢IOOvr BASIN D.-Cn. -: Storm: Renton 100 Year c 0.9 1 rTper VI OUS a' 2.61 (_..KCSWDM pe 3-13) C- 0.25 Lawn "' 0.63 ( ..KCSWDM py 3-13) r, 3.9 (...KCSWDM p9 3 24-Hour Isopluvials Ids. I d. Ind. Timor R., RP. % V.tp. F..- Ar..(e) A-(.r) A- R-rr S,.m C. p I - R, ,. D- S.P. L..o- C.p.. C.p.. Fro Ti.. R.�,, . . F,:, T. (ImP-) (P.r1) (..) C.-I. A'C A'C U..d (re/...) (mtd) B17 5 0 `�" 1.22 1.22 20.44 1.52 1.86 0.014 0.75 265 ?.87 65 3.65 1.21 Slot Dram S E6 0 11 n 00 025 0.00 1.22 22.38 1.44 0.70 0,014 12 0.33 255 37 2.42 1.76 Existing-No change in flow characteristic U I o "" 0.2 0.00 1.22 24.14 1.37 0.67 0.014 _ 0.33 23 35 2.42 0.16 Existing-No change in flow characteristic Eub-basin A 1N 1 840 0. 2 0.54 0.54 10.00 2.39 1.30 0.014 0.68 104 2.73 48 3.47 0.50 17 53603 1.95 49, 0.96 14.42 22.93 1.41 12.24 0.014 0.42 157 6.31 194 3.57 0.73 Existing-No change in flow characteristic 7 4 712 0 0 0.88 15.30 23.66 1.39 12.73 0.014 18 0.42 34 6.32 201 3.58 0.16 Existing-No change in flow characteristic E -ET--42711 0 0. 0.88 16.18 23.82 1.38 13.41 0.014 18 0.42 203 6.32 212 3.58 0.95 Existing-No change in flow characteristic E OC T 0 0 0.00 .5 0.00 16.18 24.77 1.35 13.09 0.014 18 0.43 61 6.37 206 3.60 0.28 Existing-No change in flow characteristic l0% ,0% Page 2 of 2 - Runoff Coefficients for Rational Method Source: King County Surface Water Design Manual 2009,Table 3.2.LA General Land Covers Land Cover C Dense forest 0.10 Light forest 0.15 Pasture 0.20 Lawns 0.25 Playgrounds 0.30 Gravel areas 0.80 Pavement and roofs 0.90 Open water(pond,lakes,wetlands) 1.00 Single Family Residential Areas Land Cover Density C 0.20 DU/GA(1 unit per 5 ac.) 0.17 0.40 DU/GA(1 unit per 2.5 ac.) 0.20 0.80 DU/GA(1 unit per 1.25 ac.) 0.27 1.00 DU/GA 0.30 1.50 DU/GA 0.33 2.00 DU/GA 0.36 - 2.50 DU/GA 0.39 3.00 DU/GA 0.42 3.50 DU/GA 0.45 4.00 DU/GA 0.48 4.50 DU/GA 0.51 5.00 DU/GA 0.54 5.50 DU/GA 0.57 6.00 DU/GA 0.60 Source:King County Surface Water Design Manual 2009,Table 3.2.1.13 Coefficients for the Rational Method Design Storm aR bR 2 Year 1.58 0.58 5 Year 2.33 0.63 10 Year 2.44 0.64 25 Year 2.66 0.65 50 Year 2.75 0.65 100 Year 2.61 0.63 SECTION 3.2 RUNOFF COMPUTATION AND ANALYSIS METHODS FIGURE 3.2.1.A 2-YEAR 24-HOUR ISOPLUVIALS —�— SNONOMIEN COUNTY ` � -- _---- — ---- -�--— — — — — — KING COUNTY i 1 r'• � .�j. N N N 2• 9 -- shrq, - 44 (V 4z) A.It 01xi'. /i llltlV Vl l� I ` tltI - i; 1 � � ! xoatlYlxr � IYo •fox � l[ lVl1� ART x[xT v 3 i' w c1 1 f - -v ry. lNAY - xtV ( \ N �• .�.f � _ '—KING COUNTY ^Q „ PIERCE COUNTY WESTERN KING COUNTY Z 3.5 2-Year 24-Hour Precipitation Iti in Inches Miles 1/9/2009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 3-14 3.2.1 RATIONAL METHOD FIGURE3.2.1.B 10-YEAR 24-HOUR ISOPLUVIALS LNO� MIIL�COUNTy KING COUNTY N-.4 d C4.0 O -j Ij I-A I A Al N V y PIERCE COUNTY0U N;m -',. WESTERN KING COUNTY I-Z Al;, 4.5 N 10-Year 24-Hour 1b, 4.0 Precipitation 411b 0 2 4 Miles Ib IbIl in Inches 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1/9/2009 3-15 SECTION3.2 RUNOFF COMPUTATION AND ANALYSIS METHODS FIGURE 3.2.1.0 25-YEAR 24-HOUR ISOPLUVIALS nnani-OVIT—Y KING COUNTY 9 d .0 A 5.0 -w 171- Ay 17 C9 N 'KING COUNTY 03* PIERCE COUNTY WESTERN o. KING COUNTY N 5.0 26-Year 24-Hour 4.5 b* Precipitation P 1b 112* , n 0 2 4 Miles in Incheso 1/9/2009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 3-16 3.2.1 RATIONAL METHOD FIGURE 3.2.1.D 100-YEAR 24-HOUR ISOPLUVIALS `�0 _ _ N G COUNTY 3? ..o.[u� • — \ --Nees •[.( -_ s — - --- — N COUNTY if Q A 0 s.o.d• �3 ID .` 1 oou• I i .[Ile r / F S Q eyb�` r IA ..:�: -- - � Y.Y.• \ � _ \ ® 1 K G COUNTY PiE CC COUNTY WESTERN �° � '--., KING COUNTY Qj .1 11 5 •.. s. N b 5.5 100-Year 24-Hour a• ltl.`� Precipitation p' in Inches 0-- 2-- 4"""es 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1/9/2009 3-17 ' _ DEPTH OF PIPE COVER PROJECT: Renton Municipal Airport,Taxiway B,Phase II PROJ NO.: 23-2010-007 Calculated by: BTS DATE: 10/12/2012 Checked by: - FILE: H:00023Ap\10\007 Renton TW B&Signage\Design\Dramage\[Pipe Loading-Phase II.x1sx]Thickness Calcs Date Checked: Pipe Sections CB "From" IE Pipe Diameter Approx. Pipe Length of Pipe to Asphalt Crown of Pipe Top of Asphalt Depth to Cover "From" "To" (ft) (in) Stationing Slope EOA CL EOA EOA CL EOA EOA CL EOA EOA CL EOA CB 1 CB3 26.34 18 12+38 0.42% 0 59 126 27.84 27.59 27.31 30.2 31.06 30.77 2.4 3.5 3. CB5 CB6 26.64 12 17+69 0.55% (1 69 115 27.64 27.26 27.01 28.64 29.36 28.71 1.0 2.1 1.7 CB 11 CB 12 24.1 12 21+51 1.10% 0 -- -- 25.10 -- -- 26.2 -- -- 1.1 -- -- CB12 CB13 23.81 18 21+51 0.49% 0 57 106 25.31 25.03 24.79 26.33 26.93 26.28 1.0 1.9 1.5 CB18 E5 21.01 12 25+08 1.29% 5(I 101 210 21.2876 20.71 19.30 24.9 25.56 24.84 3.6 4.9 5.5 CB1N E8 20.3 18 28+30 0.42% 49 63 189 21.59 2 1.54 21.01 24.86 25.17 -- 3.3 3.6 -- IE=Invert Elevation CB=Catch Basin EOA=Edge of Asphalt CL=Centerline Approx.=Approximate No.=Number Page 1 of 1 THICKNESS DESIGN FOR DUCTILE IRON PIPE PROJECT: Renton Municipal Airport,Taxiway B,Phase II Calculated by: BTS PROJ NO.: 23-2010-007 Checked by: DATE: 10/12/2012 Date Checked: FILE: H:\D0C\23ApU0\007 Renton TW B&Signageocsign\Drainage\[Pipe Loading-Phase r1.x1sxlnuckness Coles Define: Determine the required pipe thickness to withstand truck loads at shallow depths.There are 4 scenarios where DIP possess<3 ft of cover: 12 in @ 1 ft, 18 in @ 1.0 ft, 12 in @ 1.5 ft,and 18 in @ 2 ft.The methods set forth by ANSI/AWWA C150/A21.50-02(Thickness Design of Ductile-Iron Pipe)shall be utilized in the design of the appropriate pipe thickness. Known: Type 4 pipe laying conditions per Table 2,ANSFAWWA C150/A21.50-02 Design Vehicle(737-800)= 130,000 pounds Percent of Load= 46.79 % No.of Wheels= 2 P(truck load)= 30413.5 pounds w= 120 lb/ft' a= 144 in2/ft2 R= 1 Road Reduction Factor for cover<4 ft and pipe diameter between 3-12 in (Table 4,ANSFAWWA C150/A21.50-02) R= 0.85 Road Reduction Factor for cover<4 ft and pipe diameter between 18 in (Table 4,ANSFAWWA C150/A21.50-02) F= 1.5 Impact factor(ASCE Manual No.37) Solve: Step 1-Design for internal pressure For ordinary conditions,storm drain pipes shall be sized on the assumption that they will flow full,or practically full,under the design discharge,but will not be placed under pressure head.Therefore,internal pressure will be assumed to be 0 psi for the design of the storm system. Step 2-Design for trench load a.)Earth Load Table 1:Earth Load wH Depth,H Earth Pressure P e (ft) (psi) a 1.0 0.8333 1.5 1.2500 2.0 1.6667 b.)Truck Load C=1--sin 2 _, AZ+HZ+1.52 2 1.5AH 1 1 H +- + (A2+H2)0.52+H2) ;r( A2+HZ+1.52J�+H' 1.52+HZ Table 2:Surface Load Factor Depth,H Nominal Pipe Pipe Outside Surface Load Diameter Radius Factor,C (ft) (in) (ft) 1.0 12 0.55 0.5621 1.0 18 0.81 0.7086 1.5 12 0.55 0.3770 2.0 18 0.81 0.3658 Page 1 of 4 P, = RF CP bD Table 3:Truck Load Depth,H Nominal Pipe OD of Pipe,D Effective Length of Truck Load,Pt Diameter Pipe,b (it) (in) (it) (in) (psi) 1.0 12 13.20 36.00 53.96 1.0 18 19.50 36.00 39.14 1.5 12 13.20 36.00 36.19 2.0 18 19.50 36.00 20.21 c.)Trench Load Table 4:Trench Load � - T Depth,H Nominal Pipe Trench Load,P, V e t Diameter (ft) (in) (psi) 1.0 12 54.80 1.0 18 39.97 1.5 12 37.44 2.0 18 21.87 d.)Net Thickness for Bending Stress Design Note:Refer to Table 10 of AWWA C150/A21.50-02 for diameter-thickness ratios for Type 4 laying conditions.Round up the trench loads to the next highest corresponding bending-stress design figure. D t = ( D / t ) Table 5:Net Thickness Nominal Pipe Thickness Ratio, Net Depth,H OD of Pipe,D Trench Load,P, Diameter D/t Thickness (ft) (in) (ft) (psi) (in) 1.0 12 13.20 54.80 46 0.29 1.0 18 19.50 39.97 57 0.34 1.5 12 13.20 37.44 60 0.22 2.0 18 19.50 21.87 103 0.19 Page 2 of 4 Step 3-Selection of Net Thickness and Addition of Service Allowances Note:the thicknesses calculated in Step 2 were selected due to the assumption that the internal pressure within the storm pipes are 0 psi. a.)Minimum Manufacturing Thickness-H=1 ft;D=12 in Net Thickness= 0.29 in Service Allowance= 0.08 in Min Manufacturing Thickness= 0.37 in b.)Minimum Manufacturing Thickness-H=1.0 ft; D=18 in Net Thickness= 0.34 in Service Allowance= 0.08 in Min Manufacturing Thickness= 0.42 in c.)Minimum Manufacturing Thickness-H=1.5 ft;D=12 in Net Thickness= 0.22 in Service Allowance= 0.08 in Min Manufacturing Thickness= 0.30 in d.)Minimum Manufacturing Thickness-H=2.0 ft;D=18 in Net Thickness= 0.19 in Service Allowance= 0.08 in Min Manufacturing Thickness= 0.27 in Note:a service allowance of 0.08 inches is added to the net thickness per Section 4.1.3.b of ANSUAWWA C 150/A21.50-02. Step 4-Check Deflection of the Pipe Note:Refer to Table 10 of ANSI/AWWA C 1 50/A21.50-02 for diameter-thickness ratios for Type 4 laying conditions.Round up the trench loads to the next highest corresponding deflection check. D t = ( D / t, ) Table 6:Pipe Deflection Nominal Pipe Thickness Ratio Depth,H OD of Pipe,D Trench Load,P, Thickness Diameter D/t (ft) (in) (ft) (psi) (in) 1.0 12 13.20 54.80 48 0.28 1.0 18 19.50 39.97 55 0.35 1.5 12 13.20 37.44 57 0.23 2.0 18 19.50 21.87 75 0.26 Minimum Manufacturing Thickness>Deflection Therefore,Minimum Manufacturing Thickness Controls for all pipe configurations and depths Page 3 of 4 Step 5—Add the Casting Tolerance Table 7:Allowance for Casting Tolerance* Size Casting Allowance (in) (in) 10- 12 0.06 1442 0.07 *Note:the table information was derived from Table 3 of ANSUAWWA C150/A21.50-02 a.)Total Thickness—H=1 ft;D=12 in Min Manufacturing Thickness= 0.37 in Casting Tolerance= 0.06 in Total Thickness= 0.43 in Total Thickness=Class 54(0.43 inches) Therefore,the minimum Special Class pipe required for this scenario is Class 54 b.)Total Thickness—H=1.0 ft;D=18 in Min Manufacturing Thickness= 0.42 in Casting Tolerance= 0.07 in Total Thickness= 0.49 in Total Thickness<Class 55(0.50 inches) Therefore,the minimum Special Class pipe required for this scenario is Class 55 E— c.)Total Thickness—H=1.5 ft;D=12 in Min Manufacturing Thickness= 0.30 in Casting Tolerance= 0.06 in Total Thickness= 0.36 in Total Thickness<Class 52(0.37 inches) Therefore,the minimum Special Class pipe required for this scenario is Class 52 d.)Total Thickness—H=2.0 ft;D=18 in Min Manufacturing Thickness= 0.27 in Casting Tolerance= 0.07 in Total Thickness= 0.34 in Total Thickness<Class 50(0.35 inches) Therefore,the minimum Special Class pipe required for this scenario is Class 50 Page 4 of 4 Appendix E Bond Quantities Worksheet Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase II Technical Information Report (TIR) Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet Original bond computations prepared by: Name: Benjamin Sommer Date: 10.16.12 PE Registration Number: 45892 Tel.#: (425)741-3800 Firm Name: Reid Middleton, Inc. Address: 728 134th Street SW,Suite 200, Everett,WA 98204 Project No: 232010.007 ROAD IMPROVEMENTS&DRAINAGE FACILITIES FINANCIAL GUARANTEE REQUIREMENTS PERFORMANCE BOND','* PUBLIC ROAD&DRAINAGE MAINTENANCE/DEFECT AMOUNT BOND','* Stabilization/Erosion Sediment Control(ESC) (A) NA— Existing Right-of-Way Improvements (B) $ Future Public Road Improvements&Drainage Facilities (C) $ 8,687,968.7 Private Improvements (D) $ Performance Bond*Amount (A+B+C+D) = TOTAL (T) $ 8,687,968.7 Minimum bond'amount is$1000. (B+C)x 0.20= $ 1,737,593.7 Maintenance/Defect Bond*Total NAME OF PERSON PREPARING BOND*REDUCTION: Date: 'NOTE: The word"bond"as used in this document means any financial guarantee acceptable to the City of Renton. **NOTE:All prices include labor,equipment,materials,overhead and profit. Prices are from IRS Means data adjusted for the Seattle area or from local sources if not included in the RS Means database. ***NOTE: Stabilization/Erosion Sediment Control(ESC)worksheet is not included in the City of Renton 2009 Surface Water Design Manual Amendment,Reference 8-H. REQUIRED BOND*AMOUNTS ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND MODIFICATION BY RDSD Page 1 of 7 Unit prices updated: 02/12/02 Version: 4/22/02 Bond Quantities Worksheet Report Date: 10/16/2012 Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet Existing Future Public Private Quantity Completed Right-of-Way Road Improvements Improvements (Bond Reduction)" &Drainage Facilities Quant. Number Unit Price Unit Quant. Cost Quant. Cost Quant. Cost Com _e Cost GENERAL ITEMS Backfill&Compaction-embankment GI-1 $ 5.62 CY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Backfill&Compaction-trench GI-2 $ 8.53 CY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Clear/Remove Brush,by hand GI-3 $ 0.36 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Clearing/Grubbing/Tree Removal GI-4 $ 8,876.16 Acre 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Excavation-bulk GI-5 $ 1.50 CY 0.00 8300 13,200.00 0.00 0.00 Excavation-Trench GI-6 $ 4.06 CY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fencing,cedar,6'high GI-7 $ 18.55 LF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fencing,chain link,vinyl coated, 6'high GI-8 $ 13.44 LF 0.00 50 672.00 0.00 0.00 Fencing,chain link,gate,vinyl coated, 20' GI-9 $ 1,271.81 Each 0.00 1 1,271.81 0.00 0.00 Fencing,split rail,3'high GI-10 $ 12.12 LF 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fill&compact-common barrow GI-11 $ 22.57 CY 0.00 6700 151.219.00 0.00 0.00 Fill&compact-gravel base GI-12 $ 25.48 CY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fill&compact-screened topsoil GI-13 $ 37.85 CY 0.00 1000 37.850.00 1 0.00 0.00 Gabion,12"deep,stone filled mesh GI-14 $ 54.31 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Gabion,18"deep,stone filled mesh GI-15 $ 74.85 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Gabion,36"deep,stone filled mesh GI-16 $ 132.48 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Grading,fine,by hand GI-17 $ 2.02 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Grading,fine,with grader GI-18 $ 0.95 SY 0.00 12000 11,400.00 0.00 0.00 Monuments,3'long GI-19 $ 135.13 Each 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sensitive Areas Sign GI-20 $ 2.88 Each 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 Sodding,1"deep,sloped ground GI-21 $ 7.46 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Surveying,line&grade GI-22 $ 788.26 Day 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Surveying,lot location/lines GI-23 $ 1,556,64 Acre 0.00 24.41 37,982.02 0.00 0.00 Traffic control crew 2 flaggers) GI-24 $ 85.18 HR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Trail,4"chipped wood GI-25 $ 7.59 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 Trail,4"crushed cinder GI-26 $ 8.33 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Trail,4"top course GI-27 $ 8.19 SY 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 Wall,retaining,concrete GI-28 $ 44.16 SF 0.00 0.00 0.001 1 0.00 Wall,rockery GI-29 $ 9.49 SF 0.00 0.00 o.001 0.00 Page 2 of 7 SUBTOTAL 0.00 253,594.83 0.00 0.00 Unit prices updated: 02/12/02 Version: 4/22/02 Bond Quantities Worksheet Report Date: 10/16/2012 Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet Existing Future Public Private Bond Reduction' Right-of-way Road Improvements Improvements &Drainage Facilities Quant. Number Unit Price Unit Quant Cost Quant. Cost Quant. Cost Com fete Cost ROADIMPROVEMENT AC Grinding,4'wide machine<1000sy RI-1 $ 23.00 SY 0.00 450 10,350.00 0.00 0.00 AC Grinding,4'wide machine 1000-2000sy RI-2 $ 5.75 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AC Grinding,4'wide machine>2000sy RI-3 $ 1.38 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AC Removal/Disposal/Repair RI-4 $ 41.14 SY 0.00 11200 460,768.00 0.00 0.00 Barricade,type I RI-5 $ 30.03 LF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Barricade,type III(Permanent) RI-6 $ 45.05 LF 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Curb&Gutter,rolled RI-7 $ 13.27 LF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Curb&Gutter,vertical RI-8 $ 9.69 LF 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 Curb and Gutter,demolition and disposal RI-9 $ 13.58 LF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Curb,extruded asphalt RI-10 $ 2.44 LF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Curb,extruded concrete RI-11 $ 2.56 LF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sawcut,asphalt,3"depth RI-12 $ 1.85 LF 0.00 850 1,572.50 0.00 0.00 Sawcut,concrete,per 1"depth RI-13 $ 1.69 LF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sealant,asphalt RI-14 $ 0.99 LF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Shoulder,AC, (see AC road unit price) RI-15 $ - SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Shoulder,gravel,4"thick RI-16 $ 7.53 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sidewalk,4"thick RI-17 $ 30.52 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sidewalk,4"thick,demolition and disposal RI-18 $ 27.73 SY 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 Sidewalk,5"thick RI-19 $ 34.94 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sidewalk,5"thick,demolition and disposal RI-20 $ 34.65 SY 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 Sign,handicap RI-21 $ 85.28 Each 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Striping,per stall RI-22 $ 5.82 Each 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Striping,thermoplastic,(for crosswalk) RI-23 $ 2.38 SF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Striping,4"reflectorized line RI-24 $ 0.25 LF 0.001 1 0.00 1 0.001 1 0.00 Page 3 of 7 SUBTOTAL 0.00 472,690.50 0.00 0.00 Unit prices updated: 02/12/02 Version: 4/22/02 Bond Quantities Worksheet Report Date: 10/16/2012 Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet Existing Future Public Private Bond Reduction* Right-of-way Road Improvements Improvements &Drainage Facilities Quant. Number Unit Price Unit Quant Cost Quant. Cost OuantT Cost Com fete Cost ROAD SURFACING (4"Rock=2.5 base&1.5"top course) For'93 KCRS(6.5"Rock=5"base&1.5"top course) For KCRS'93,(additional 2.5"base)add: RS-1 1 $ 3.60 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AC Overlay,1.5"AC RS-2 $ 7.39 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AC Overlay,2"AC RS-3 $ 8.75 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AC Road,2",4"rock,First 2500 SY RS-4 $ 17.24 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AC Road,2",4"rock,Qty,over 2500SY RS-5 $ 13.36 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AC Road,3",4"rock,First 2500 SY RS-6 $ 19.69 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AC Road,3",4"rock,Qty.over 2500 SY RS-7 $ 15.81 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AC Road,5",First 2500 SY RS-8 $ 14.57 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AC Road,5",Qty.Over 2500 SY RS-9 $ 13.94 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AC Road,6",First 2500 SY RS-10 $ 16.76 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AC Road,6",Qty.Over 2500 SY RS-11 $ 16.12 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Treated Base,4"thick RS-12 $ 9.21 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Gravel Road,4"rock,First 2500 SY RS-13 $ 11.41 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Gravel Road,4"rock,Qty.over 2500 SY RS-14 $ 7.53 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PCC Road,5",no base,over 2500 SY RS-15 $ 21,51 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PCC Road, 6",no base,over 2500 SY RS-16 $ 21.87 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Thickened Edge RS-17 $ 6.89 LF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page 4 of 7 SUBTOTAL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Unit prices updated: 02/12/02 Version: 4/22/02 Bond Quantities Worksheet Report Date: 10/16/2012 Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet Existing Future Public Private Bond Reduction` Right-of-way Road Improvements Improvements &Draina a Facilities Quant. Number Unit Price Unit Quant. Cost Quant: I Cost Quant. Cost Com fete Cost DRAINAGE (CPP=Corrugated Plastic Pipe,N12 or Equivalent) For Culvert prices, Average of 4'cover was assumed.Assume perforated PVC is same price as solid pipe. Access Road,R/D D-1 $ 16.74 SY 0.00 250 4,185.00 1 0.001 0.00 Bollards-fixed D-2 $ 240.74 Each 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 Bollards-removable D-3 $ 452.34 Each 0.001 1 0.001 1 0.001 0.00 (CBs include frame and lid) CB Type I D-4 $ 1,257.64 Each 0,00 6 7,545.84 0.00 0.00 CB Type IL D-5 $ 1,433.59 Each 0.00 2 2,867.18 0.00 0.00 CB Type II,48"diameter D-6 $ 2,033.57 Each 0.00 9 18,302.13 0.00 0.00 for additional depth over 4' D-7 $ 436.52 FT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CB Type II,54"diameter D-8 $ 2,192.54 Each 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 for additional depth over 4' D-9 $ 486.53 FT 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 CB Type II,60"diameter D-10 $ 2,351.52 Each 0.00 1 2,351.52 0.00 0.00 for additional depth over 4' D-11 $ 536.54 FT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CB Type II,72"diameter D-12 $ 3,212.64 Each 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 for additional depth over 4' D-13 $ 692.21 FT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Through-curb Inlet Framework(Add) D-14 $ 366.09 Each 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cleanout,PVC,4" D-15 $ 130.55 Each 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 Cleanout,PVC,6" D-16 $ 174.90 Each 0.00 20 3,498.00 0.00 0.00 Cleanout,PVC,8" D-17 $ 224.19 Each 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 Culvert,PVC,4" D-18 $ 8.64 LF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Culvert,PVC,6" D-19 $ 12.60 LF 0.00 3000 37.800.00 0.00 0.00 Culvert,PVC, 8" D-20 $ 13.33 LF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Culvert,PVC, 12" D-21 $ 21.77 LF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Culvert,CMP,8" D-22 $ 17.25 LF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Culvert,CMP, 12" D-23 $ 26.45 LF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Culvert,CMP, 15" D-24 $ 32.73 LF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Culvert,CMP, 18" D-25 $ 37.74 LF 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 Culvert,CMP,24" D-26 $ 53.33 LF 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Culvert.CMP,30" D-27 $ 71.45 LF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Culvert,CMP,36" D-28 $ 112.11 LF 0.001 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 Culvert,CMP,48" D-29 $ 140.83 LF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Culvert,CMP,60" D-30 $ 235.45 LF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Culvert,CMP,72" D-31 $ 302.58 LF 0.001 1 0.001 1 0.00 0.00 Page 5 of 7 SUBTOTAL 0.00 76,549.67 0.00 0.00 Unit prices updated: 02/12/02 Version: 4/22/02 Bond Quantities Worksheet Report Date: 10/16/2012 Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet Existing Future Public Private Bond Reduction' Right-of-way Road Improvements Improvements DRAINAGE CONTINUED &Drainage Facilities Quant. Number Unit Price Unit Quant. Cost Quant. Cost Quant. Cost CornpleteF Cost Culvert,Concrete,8" D-32 $ 21.02 LF 0 0 0 0 Culvert,Concrete, 12" D-33 $ 30.05 LF 0 0 0 0 Culvert,Concrete, 15" D-34 $ 37.34 LF 0 0 0 0 Culvert,Concrete, 18" D-35 $ 44.51 LF 0 0 0 0 Culvert,Concrete,24" D-36 $ 61.07 LF 0 0 0 0 Culvert,Concrete,30" D-37 $ 104.18 LF 0 0 0 0 Culvert,Concrete,36" D-38 $ 137.63 LF 0 0 0 1 0 Culvert,Concrete,42" D-39 $ 158.42 LF 0 0 0 0 Culvert,Concrete,48" D-40 $ 175.94 LF 0 0 0 0 Culvert,CPP,6" D-41 $ 10.70 LF 0 0 0 0 Culvert,CPP,8" D-42 $ 16.10 LF 0 0 0 0 Culvert,CPP,12" D-43 $ 20.70 LF 0 0 0 0 Culvert,CPP,15" D-44 $ 23.00 LF 0 0 0 0 Culvert,CPP,1 B" D-45 $ 27.60 LF 0 0 0 0 Culvert,CPP,24" D-46 $ 36.80 LF 0 0 0 0 Culvert,CPP,30" D-47 $ 48.30 LF 0 0 0 0 Culvert,CPP,36" D-48 $ 55.20 LF 0 0 0 1 0 Ditching D-49 $ 8.08 CY 0 0 0 0 Flow Dispersal Trench (1,436 base+) D-50 $ 25.99 LF 0 0 0 0 French Drain (3'depth) D-51 $ 22.60 LF 0 0 0 0 Geotextile,laid in trench,polypropylene D-52 $ 2.40 SY 0 0 0 0 Infiltration pond testing D-53 $ 74.75 HR 0 0 0 0 Mid-tank Access Riser.48"dia, 6'deep D-54 $ 1,605.40 Each 0 0 0 0 Pond Overflow Spillway D-55 $ 14.01 SY 0 0 0 0 Restrictor/Oil Separator.12" D-56 $ 1,045.19 Each 0 1 0 0 0 Restrictor/Oil Separator.15" D-57 $ 1,095.56 Each 0 0 0 0 Restrictor/Oil Separator,18" D-58 $ 1,146.16 Each 0 0 0 0 Riprap,placed D-59 $ 39.08 CY 0 0 0 0 Tank End Reducer 36"diameter D-60 $ 1,000.50 Each 0 0 0 0 Trash Rack,12" D-61 $ 211.97 Each 0 4 847.88 0 0 Trash Rack, 15" D-62 $ 237.27 Each 0 0 0 0 Trash Rack,18" D-63 1 $ 268.89 Each 01 0 0 0 Trash Rack,21" D-64 1 $ 306.84 Each 01 01 0 0 Page 6 of 7 SUBTOTAL 0.00 847.88 0.00 0.00 Unit prices updated: 02/12/02 Version: 4/22/02 Bond Quantities Worksheet Report Date: 10/16/2012 Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet Existing Future Public Private Bond Reduction* Right-of-way Road Improvements Improvements &Drainage Facilities Quant. Number Unit Price Unit Quant. Price Quant. Cost Quant. Cast Com fete Cost PARKING LOT SURFACING 2"AC,2"top course rock&4"borrow PL-1 $ 15.84 SY 0 0 0 0 2"AC, 1.5 top course& 2.5 base course PL-2 $ 17.24 SY 0 0 0 0 4"select borrow PL-3 $ 4.55 SY 0 0 0 0 1.5"top course rock&2.5"base course PL-4 $ 11.41 SY 0 0 0 0 WRITE-IN-ITEMS (Such as detention/water quality vaults.) Slotted Drain System WI-1 $ 250.00 LF 0 1150 287,500.00 0.00 0.00 Culvert,DIP, 12" WI-2 $ 90.00 LF 0 509 45,810.00 0.00 0.00 Culvert,DIP, 18" WI-3 $ 105.00 LF 0 1614 169,470.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Surface Course 4",2"TC, 12"BC WI-4 $ 22.00 SF 0 235645 5,184,190.00 0.00 0.00 Biofiltration Swale WI-5 $ 60.00 LF 0 200 12,000.00 0.00 0.00 Thermoplastic Pavement Marking WI-6 $ 22.00 SF 01 82001 180,400.00 0.001 0.00 SF 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 LF 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 LF 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 SUBTOTAL 0.00 5,879,370.00 0.00 0.00 SUBTOTAL(SUM ALL PAGES): 0.00 6,683,052.88 0.00 0.00 30%CONTINGENCY&MOBILIZATION: 0.00 2,004,915.86 0.00 0.00 GRANDTOTAL: 0.00 8,687,968.74 0.00 0.00 COLUMN: B C D E Page 7 of 7 Unit prices updated: 02/12/02 Version: 4/22/02 Bond Quantities Worksheet Report Date: 10/16/2012 Appendix F Flow Control and Water Facility Summary Sheet Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase II Technical Information Report (TIR) ' ` KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL STORMWATER FACILITY SUMMARY SHEET DDES Permit Number PRE12-012 (provide one Stormwater Facility Summary Sheet per Natural Discharge Location) Overview: Project Name City of Renton Taxiway B System Rehabilitation (Phase II) Date October 16, 2012 Downstream Drainage Basins Major Basin Name Lake Washington Immediate Basin Name Flow Control: Flow Control Facility Name/Number N/A Facility Location N/A If none, Flow control provided in regional/shared facility (give location) N/A No flow control required N/A Exemption number Cedar River General Facility Information: Type/Number of detention facilities: Type/Number of infiltration facilities: ponds ponds vaults tanks tanks trenches Control Structure Location N/A Type of Control Structure N/A Number of Orifices/Restrictions Size of Orifice/Restriction: No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 No. 4 Flow Control Performance Standard 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1/9/2009 1 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL Live Storage Volume Depth Volume Factor of Safety Number of Acres Served N/A Number of Lots N/A Dam Safety Regulations (Washington State Department of Ecology) Reservoir Volume above natural grade N/A Depth of Reservoir above natural grade N/A Facility Summary Sheet Sketch - i All detention, infiltration and water quality facilities must include a detailed sketch. (11"xl7" reduced size plan sheets may be used) N/A 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1/9/2009 2 ` I KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL Water Quality: Type/Number of water quality facilities/BMPs: X biofiltration swale sand filter (basic or large) regular wet/or continuous inflow) sand filter, linear (basic or large) combined detention/wetpond sand filter vault (basic or large) (wetpond portion basic or large) sand bed depth (inches) combined detention/wetvault stormwater wetland X filter strip storm filter flow dispersion wetpond (basic or large) farm management plan wetvault landscape management plan Is facility Lined? oil/water separator If so, what marker is used above i (baffle or coalescing plate) Liner? catch basin inserts: Manufacturer pre-settling pond pre-settling structure: Manufacturer high flow bypass structure (e.g., flow-splitter catch basin) source controls Design Information Wet Biofiltration Swales South Facility: 0.29 cfs Water Quality design flow North Facility: 0.29 cfs Water Quality treated volume (sandfilter) Water Quality storage volume(wetpool) Facility Summary Sheet Sketch 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1/9/2009 3 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL All detention, infiltration and water quality facilities must include a detailed sketch. (11 11xl7" reduced size plan sheets may be used) Please refer to Figure 4-1 for more information regarding the water quality types and locations. 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1/9/2009 4 Appendix G Operation and Maintenance Manual Renton Municipal Airport October 2012 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase II Technical Information Report (TIR) 'R. APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR FLOW CONTROL,CONVEYANCE,AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 4-CONTROL STRUCTURE/FLOW RESTRICTOR Maintenance Defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is Performed Structure Trash and debris Trash or debris of more than'%cubic foot which No Trash or debris blocking or is located immediately in front of the structure potentially blocking entrance to opening or is blocking capacity of the structure by structure. more than 10%. Trash or debris in the structure that exceeds'/3 No trash or debris in the structure. the depth from the bottom of basin to invert the lowest pipe into or out of the basin. Deposits of garbage exceeding 1 cubic foot in No condition present which would volume. attract or support the breeding of insects or rodents. Sediment Sediment exceeds 60%of the depth from the Sump of structure contains no bottom of the structure to the invert of the lowest sediment. pipe into or out of the structure or the bottom of the FROP-T section or is within 6 inches of the invert of the lowest pipe into or out of the structure or the bottom of the FROP-T section. Damage to frame Corner of frame extends more than%inch past Frame is even with curb. and/or top slab curb face into the street(If applicable). Top slab has holes larger than 2 square inches or Top slab is free of holes and cracks. cracks wider than'%inch. Frame not sitting flush on top slab, i.e., Frame is sitting flush on top slab. separation of more than%inch of the frame from the top slab. Cracks in walls or Cracks wider than'/2 inch and longer than 3 feet, Structure is sealed and structurally bottom any evidence of soil particles entering structure sound. through cracks,or maintenance person judges that structure is unsound. Cracks wider than%inch and longer than 1 foot No cracks more than 1/4 inch wide at at the joint of any inlet/outlet pipe or any evidence the joint of inlet/outlet pipe. of soil particles entering structure through cracks. Settlement/ Structure has settled more than 1 inch or has Basin replaced or repaired to design misalignment rotated more than 2 inches out of alignment. standards. Damaged pipe joints Cracks wider than 1/2-inch at the joint of the No cracks more than '%-inch wide at inlet/outlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering the joint of inlet/outlet pipes. the structure at the joint of the inlet/outlet pipes. Contaminants and Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such Materials removed and disposed of pollution as oil,gasoline,concrete slurries or paint. according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Ladder rungs missing Ladder is unsafe due to missing rungs, Ladder meets design standards and or unsafe misalignment, rust,cracks,or sharp edges. allows maintenance person safe access. FROP-T Section Damage T section is not securely attached to structure T section securely attached to wall wall and outlet pipe structure should support at and outlet pipe. least 1,000 Ibs of up or down pressure. Structure is not in upright position(allow up to Structure in correct position. 10%from plumb). Connections to outlet pipe are not watertight or Connections to outlet pipe are water show signs of deteriorated grout. tight;structure repaired or replaced and works as designed. Any holes—other than designed holes—in the Structure has no holes other than structure. designed holes. Cleanout Gate Damaged or missing Cleanout gate is missing. Replace cleanout gate. 2009 Surface Water Design Manual—Appendix A 1/9/2009 A-7 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FLOW CONTROL,CONVEYANCE,AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 4- CONTROL STRUCTURE/FLOW RESTRICTOR Maintenance Defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is Performed Cleanout gate is not watertight. Gate is watertight and works as designed. Gate cannot be moved up and down by one Gate moves up and down easily and maintenance person. is watertight. Chain/rod leading to gate is missing or damaged. Chain is in place and works as designed. Orifice Plate Damaged or missing Control device is not working properly due to Plate is in place and works as missing,out of place,or bent orifice plate. designed. Obstructions Any trash,debris,sediment,or vegetation Plate is free of all obstructions and blocking the plate. works as designed. Overflow Pipe Obstructions Any trash or debris blocking(or having the Pipe is free of all obstructions and potential of blocking)the overflow pipe. works as designed. Deformed or damaged Lip of overflow pipe is bent or deformed. Overflow pipe does not allow lip overflow at an elevation lower than design Inlet/Outlet Pipe Sediment Sediment filling 20%or more of the pipe. Inlet/outlet pipes clear of sediment. accumulation Trash and debris Trash and debris accumulated in inlet/outlet No trash or debris in pipes. pipes(includes floatables and non-floatables). Damaged Cracks wider than'/z-inch at the joint of the No cracks more than Y<-inch wide at inlet/outlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering the joint of the inlet/outlet pipe. at the joints of the inlet/outlet pipes. Metal Grates Unsafe grate opening Grate with opening wider than 7/8 inch. Grate opening meets design (If Applicable) standards. Trash and debris Trash and debris that is blocking more than 20% Grate free of trash and debris. of grate surface. footnote to guidelines for disposal Damaged or missing Grate missing or broken member(s)of the grate. Grate is in place and meets design standards. Manhole Cover/Lid Cover/lid not in place Cover/lid is missing or only partially in place. Cover/lid protects opening to Any open structure requires urgent structure. maintenance. Locking mechanism Mechanism cannot be opened by one Mechanism opens with proper tools. Not Working maintenance person with proper tools. Bolts cannot be seated. Self-locking cover/lid does not work. Cover/lid difficult to One maintenance person cannot remove Cover/lid can be removed and Remove cover/lid after applying 80 lbs.of lift. reinstalled by one maintenance person. 1/9/2009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual—Appendix A A-8 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR FLOW CONTROL,CONVEYANCE,AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 5-CATCH BASINS AND MANHOLES Maintenance Defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is Performed Structure Sediment Sediment exceeds 60%of the depth from the Sump of catch basin contains no bottom of the catch basin to the invert of the sediment. lowest pipe into or out of the catch basin or is within 6 inches of the invert of the lowest pipe into or out of the catch basin. Trash and debris Trash or debris of more than'/2 cubic foot which No Trash or debris blocking or is located immediately in front of the catch basin potentially blocking entrance to opening or is blocking capacity of the catch basin catch basin. by more than 10%. Trash or debris in the catch basin that exceeds No trash or debris in the catch basin. 1/3 the depth from the bottom of basin to invert the lowest pipe into or out of the basin. Dead animals or vegetation that could generate No dead animals or vegetation odors that could cause complaints or dangerous present within catch basin. gases(e.g.,methane). Deposits of garbage exceeding 1 cubic foot in No condition present which would volume. attract or support the breeding of insects or rodents. Damage to frame Corner of frame extends more than%inch past Frame is even with curb. and/or top slab curb face into the street(If applicable). Top slab has holes larger than 2 square inches or Top slab is free of holes and cracks. cracks wider than%inch. Frame not sitting flush on top slab,i.e., Frame is sitting flush on top slab. separation of more than%inch of the frame from the top slab. Cracks in walls or Cracks wider than Yz inch and longer than 3 feet, Catch basin is sealed and bottom any evidence of soil particles entering catch structurally sound. basin through cracks,or maintenance person judges that catch basin is unsound. Cracks wider than'/=inch and longer than 1 foot No cracks more than 1/4 inch wide at at the joint of any inlet/outlet pipe or any evidence the joint of inlet/outlet pipe. of soil particles entering catch basin through cracks. Settlement/ Catch basin has settled more than 1 inch or has Basin replaced or repaired to design misalignment rotated more than 2 inches out of alignment. standards. Damaged pipe joints Cracks wider than'/z-inch at the joint of the No cracks more than Y<inch wide at inlet/outlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering the joint of inlet/outlet pipes. the catch basin at the joint of the inlet/outlet pipes. Contaminants and Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such Materials removed and disposed of pollution as oil,gasoline,concrete slurries or paint. according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Inlet/Outlet Pipe Sediment Sediment filling 20%or more of the pipe. Inlet/outlet pipes clear of sediment. accumulation Trash and debris Trash and debris accumulated in inlet/outlet No trash or debris in pipes. pipes(includes floatables and non-floatables). Damaged Cracks wider than'/z-inch at the joint of the No cracks more than'%-inch wide at inlet/outlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering the joint of the inlet/outlet pipe. at the joints of the inlet/outlet pipes. 2009 Surface Water Design Manual—Appendix A 1/9/2009 A-9 I APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FLOW CONTROL,CONVEYANCE,AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 5-CATCH BASINS AND MANHOLES Maintenance Defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is Performed Metal Grates Unsafe grate opening Grate with opening wider than 7/8 inch. Grate opening meets design (Catch Basins) standards. Trash and debris Trash and debris that is blocking more than 20% Grate free of trash and debris. of grate surface. footnote to guidelines for disposal Damaged or missing Grate missing or broken member(s)of the grate. Grate is in place and meets design Any open structure requires urgent standards. maintenance. Manhole Cover/Lid Cover/lid not in place Cover/lid is missing or only partially in place. Cover/lid protects opening to Any open structure requires urgent structure. maintenance. Locking mechanism Mechanism cannot be opened by one Mechanism opens with proper tools. Not Working maintenance person with proper tools. Bolts cannot be seated. Self-locking cover/lid does not work. I Cover/lid difficult to One maintenance person cannot remove Cover/lid can be removed and Remove cover/lid after applying 80 lbs.of lift. reinstalled by one maintenance person. I I 1/9/2009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual—Appendix A A-10 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR FLOW CONTROL,CONVEYANCE,AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 6-CONVEYANCE PIPES AND DITCHES Maintenance Defect or Problem Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is Performed Pipes Sediment&debris Accumulated sediment or debris that exceeds Water flows freely through pipes. accumulation 20%of the diameter of the pipe. Vegetation/roots Vegetation/roots that reduce free movement of Water flows freely through pipes. water through pipes. Contaminants and Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such Materials removed and disposed of pollution as oil,gasoline,concrete slurries or paint. according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Damage to protective Protective coating is damaged;rust or corrosion Pipe repaired or replaced. coating or corrosion is weakening the structural integrity of any part of pipe. Damaged Any dent that decreases the cross section area of Pipe repaired or replaced. pipe by more than 20%or is determined to have weakened structural integrity of the pipe. Ditches Trash and debris Trash and debris exceeds 1 cubic foot per 1,000 Trash and debris cleared from square feet of ditch and slopes. ditches. Sediment Accumulated sediment that exceeds 20%of the Ditch cleaned/flushed of all sediment accumulation design depth. and debris so that it matches design. Noxious weeds Any noxious or nuisance vegetation which may Noxious and nuisance vegetation constitute a hazard to County personnel or the removed according to applicable public. regulations. No danger of noxious vegetation where County personnel or the public might normally be. Contaminants and Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such Materials removed and disposed of pollution as oil,gasoline,concrete slurries or paint. according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Vegetation Vegetation that reduces free movement of water Water flows freely through ditches. through ditches. Erosion damage to Any erosion observed on a ditch slope. Slopes are not eroding. slopes Rock lining out of One layer or less of rock exists above native soil Replace rocks to design standards. place or missing(If area 5 square feet or more,any exposed native Applicable) soil. 2009 Surface Water Design Manual—Appendix A 1/9/2009 A-11 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FLOW CONTROL,CONVEYANCE,AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 7- DEBRIS BARRIERS (E.G., TRASH RACKS) Maintenance Defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is Performed. Site Trash and debris Trash or debris plugging more than 20%of the Barrier clear to receive capacity flow. area of the barrier. Sediment Sediment accumulation of greater than 20%of Barrier clear to receive capacity flow. accumulation the area of the barrier Structure Cracked broken or Structure which bars attached to is damaged- Structure barrier attached to is loose pipe is loose or cracked or concrete structure is sound. cracked, broken of loose. Bars Bar spacing Bar spacing exceeds 6 inches. Bars have at most 6 inche spacing. Damaged or missing Bars are bent out of shape more than 3 inches. Bars in place with no bends more bars than 3%inch. Bars are missing or entire barrier missing. Bars in place according to design. Bars are loose and rust is causing 50% Repair or replace barrier to design deterioration to any part of barrier. standards. I 1/9/2009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual—Appendix A A-12 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FLOW CONTROL,CONVEYANCE,AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 11 -GROUNDS (LANDSCAPING) Maintenance Defect or Problem Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is Performed Site Trash or litter Any trash and debris which exceed 1 cubic foot Trash and debris cleared from site. per 1,000 square feet(this is about equal to the amount of trash it would take to fill up one standard size office garbage can). In general, there should be no visual evidence of dumping. Noxious weeds Any noxious or nuisance vegetation which may Noxious and nuisance vegetation constitute a hazard to County personnel or the removed according to applicable public. regulations. No danger of noxious vegetation where County personnel or the public might normally be. Contaminants and Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such Materials removed and disposed of pollution as oil,gasoline,concrete slurries or paint, according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Grass/groundcover Grass or groundcover exceeds 18 inches in Grass or groundcover mowed to a height. height no greater than 6 inches. Trees and Shrubs Hazard Any tree or limb of a tree identified as having a No hazard trees in facility. potential to fall and cause property damage or threaten human life. A hazard tree identified by a qualified arborist must be removed as soon as possible. Damaged Limbs or parts of trees or shrubs that are split or Trees and shrubs with less than 5% broken which affect more than 25%of the total of total foliage with split or broken foliage of the tree or shrub. limbs. Trees or shrubs that have been blown down or No blown down vegetation or knocked over. knocked over vegetation. Trees or shrubs free of injury. Trees or shrubs which are not adequately Tree or shrub in place and supported or are leaning over,causing exposure adequately supported;dead or of the roots. diseased trees removed. 1/9/2009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual—Appendix A A-16 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FLOW CONTROL,CONVEYANCE,AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 13- BASIC BIOFILTRATION SWALE (GRASS) i Maintenance Defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is Performed Site Trash and debris Any trash and/or debris accumulated on the No trash or debris on the bioswale bioswale site. site. Contaminants and Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such Materials removed and disposed of pollution as oil,gasoline,concrete slurries or paint. according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Swale Section Sediment Sediment depth exceeds 2 inches in 10%of the No sediment deposits in grass accumulation swale treatment area. treatment area of the bioswale. Sediment inhibits grass growth over 10%of Grass growth not inhibited by Swale length. sediment. Sediment inhibits even spreading of flow. Flow spreads evenly through swale Erosion/scouring Eroded or scoured swale bottom due to No eroded or scoured areas in channelization or high flows. bioswale. Cause of erosion or scour addressed. Poor vegetation Grass is sparse or bare or eroded patches occur Swale has no bare spots and grass coverage in more than 10%of the swale bottom. is thick and healthy. Grass too tall Grass excessively tall(greater than 10 inches), Grass is between 3 and 4 inches tall, grass is thin or nuisance weeds and other thick and healthy. No clippings left vegetation has taken over. in swale. No nuisance vegetation present. Excessive shade Grass growth is poor because sunlight does not Health grass growth or swale reach swale. converted to a wet bioswale. Constant baseflow Continuous flow through the swale,even when it Baseflow removed from swale by a has been dry for weeks or an eroded,muddy low-flow pea-gravel drain or channel has formed in the Swale bottom. bypassed around the swale. Standing water Water pools in the swale between storms or does Swale freely drains and there is no not drain freely. standing water in swale between storms. Channelization Flow concentrates and erodes channel through No flow channels in swale. swale. Flow Spreader Concentrated flow Flow from spreader not uniformly distributed Flows are spread evenly over entire across entire swale width. swale width. Inlet/Outlet Pipe Sediment Sediment filling 20%or more of the pipe. Inlet/outlet pipes clear of sediment. accumulation Trash and debris Trash and debris accumulated in inlet/outlet No trash or debris in pipes. pipes(includes floatables and non-floatables). Damaged Cracks wider than%-inch at the joint of the No cracks more than %-inch wide at inlet/outlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering the joint of the inlet/outlet pipe. at the joints of the inlet/outlet pipes. 1/9/2009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual—Appendix A A-18 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FLOW CONTROL,CONVEYANCE,AND WQ FACILITIES NO. 15- FILTER STRIP Maintenance Defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance Is Performed Site Trash and debris Any trash and debris accumulated on the filter Filter strip site free of any trash or strip site. debris Contaminants and Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such Materials removed and disposed of pollution as oil,gasoline,concrete slurries or paint. according to applicable regulations. Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Grass Strip Sediment Sediment accumulation on grass exceeds 2 No sediment deposits in treatment accumulation inches depth. area. Erosion/scouring Eroded or scoured swale bottom due to No eroded or scoured areas in channelization or high flows. bioswale. Cause of erosion or scour addressed. Grass too tall Grass excessively tall(greater than 10 inches), Grass is between 3 and 4 inches tall, grass is thin or nuisance weeds and other thick and healthy. No clippings left vegetation has taken over. in swale. No nuisance vegetation present. Vegetation ineffective Grass has died out,become excessively tall Grass is healthy,less than 9 inches (greater than 10 inches)or nuisance vegetation is high and no nuisance vegetation taking over. present. Flow Spreader Concentrated flow Flow from spreader not uniformly distributed Flows are spread evenly over entire across entire swale width. swale width. Inlet/Outlet Pipe Sediment Sediment filling 20%or more of the pipe. Inlet/outlet pipes clear of sediment. accumulation Trash and debris Trash and debris accumulated in inlet/outlet No trash or debris in pipes. pipes(includes floatables and non-floatables). Damaged Cracks wider than Yz-inch at the joint of the No cracks more than%-inch wide at inlet/outlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering the joint of the inlet/outlet pipe. at the joints of the inlet/outlet pipes. 1/9/2009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual—Appendix A A-20 Fueling Operations This activity applies if you refuel vehicles on the premises, whether a large sized gas station or a single pump maintenance yard installation. It also covers mobile fueling operations. Stormwater runoff from fueling areas may be contaminated with toxic hydrocarbons, oils and greases, and metals. e The following BMPs,or equivalent measures,methods, or practices, are required if you are engaged in dedicated permanent fueling operations: Cover the fueling area with an overhanging roof structure or canopy so that precipitation cannot come in contact with the fueling area. See BMP Info Sheet 3 in Chapter 5 for information on covering options. An exception to this requirement is granted for mobile fueling equipment, floating fuel islands on water, and oversized vehicles that can not maneuver under a roof. Pave the fueling area with Portland cement concrete and contain the area to prevent uncontaminated stormwater from running into the fueling area and carrying pollutants to the onsite storm drainage system or adjacent surface water or conveyance systems. I-,r- See BMP Info Sheet 5 in Chapter 5 for information on containment. Install and maintain an oil or spill control device in the appropriate catch basin(s)to treat runoff from the fueling area. See the King County Surface Water Design Manual for various designs and the BUT Info Sheet 9 in Chapter 5 for further information on oil/water separators. Never hose down the fueling area to the storm drains. Contaminated runoff - must be collected for proper disposal. Required Routine Maintenance: • Post signs to remind employees and customers not to top off the fuel tank when filling. Post signs that ban customers and employees from changing engine oil or other fluids at that location. • Store and maintain appropriate spill cleanup materials in a location known to all. Ensure that employees are familiar with the site's spill control plan and/or proper spill cleanup procedures. January 2009 King County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual Fueling Operations(continued) If you cannot implement the above requirements on your site, consider ceasing your on-site fueling activities and take your vehicles to a fueling station that meets these requirements. The following BMPs, or equivalent measures, methods, or practices,are required if you are engaged in mobile fueling operations: Locate the fueling operation to ensure leaks or spills will not discharge, flow, or be washed into the storm drainage system, surface water, or groundwater. Use drip pans or absorbent pads to capture drips or spills during fueling operations. If fueling is done during evening hours, lighting must be provided. Required Routine Maintenance: • Store and maintain appropriate spill cleanup materials in the mobile fueling vehicle. Ensure that employees are familiar with proper spill control and cleanup procedures. The following BMPs are optional unless the above minimum required BMPs do not provide adequate source control. Use absorbent pillows or similar absorbent materials in or around storm drain inlets on the property to filter oily runoff. These require frequent maintenance and close attention,but can be useful in short-term situations. - Used absorbent materials containing oil must be picked up by a qualified disposal contractor. A catch basin insert configured for oil removal may remove some of the pollutants in runoff from this activity. Catch basin inserts require frequent maintenance to be effective. Carefully consider this when evaluating your options. The oil absorbent filter media must retain absorbed oil during future storm events. See Chapter 6.6.1 of the King County Surface Water Design Manual for more information regarding which filter media provide acceptable oil retention. See BMP Info Sheet 10 in Chapter 5 for more information. For more information or assistance in implementing these best management practices,contact the King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Water and Land Resources Division at 206-296-1900. Reader Note:The above requirements are the minimum required BMPs.If these BMPs fail to prevent discharges to the storm drainage system,you will be asked to take additional measures to correct the continued pollution discharges. King County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual January 2009 I + • Landscaping Activities and Vegetation Management This broad activity encompasses all aspects of landscaping and vegetation management, from small- scale yard maintenance to large-scale commercial landscaping businesses and vegetation management programs. It includes vegetation removal, herbicide and insecticide application, fertilizer application,watering, and other gardening and lawn care practices. Stormwater runoff from areas that have been subject to pesticide or fertilizer application or extensive clearing, grading or cutting may be contaminated with pesticides and other toxic organic compounds,metals, oils, suspended solids,nutrients from fertilizer, and coliform bacteria, and may cause biochemical oxygen demand. While not required, consider using the Integrated Pest Management(IPM) approach for pest control. IPM is an approach that uses an array of methods to manage pest damage with the least possible hazard to people and the environment. IPM uses a combination of biological, cultural, and physical practices that can significantly reduce or eliminate the use of pesticides. See Activity Sheets A-5,"Storage of Pesticides and Fertilizers" and A-3, "Storage of Liquid Materials in Portable Containers."Landscaping activities related to golf courses should refer to King County's Golf Course BMP Manual(see Chapter 6 of this manual for more information). Note: The term pesticide includes insecticides, herbicides,fungicides, rodenticides, etc. The following BMPs,or equivalent measures,methods, or practices are required if you are engaged in landscaping activities: Do not apply any pesticides directly to surface waters,unless the application is approved and permitted by the Washington State Department of Ecology. Mix pesticides so that spilled material will not be washed to surface waters, the storm drainage system, or onto the ground. Clean up any spills immediately. Ensure employees are trained on the proper use of pesticides and in pesticide application techniques to prevent pollution. Washington pesticide law requires most businesses that commercially apply pesticides to the property of another to be licensed as a Commercial Applicator. Follow manufacturers' recommendations and label directions. Pesticides and fertilizers must never be applied if it is raining or about to rain. Do not apply pesticides within 100 feet of surface waters such as lakes,ponds, wetlands, and streams. This also can include stormwater conveyance ditches. Remove weeds/vegetation in stormwater ditches by hand or other January 2009 King County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual Landscaping Activities and Vegetation Management(continued) mechanical means. Chemicals should be used as a last resort. Dispose of grass clippings, leaves,branches, sticks, or other collected vegetation, by recycling, composting, or burning (if allowed). Do not dispose of collected vegetation into storm drainage systems, conveyance ditches, stormwater ponds, or surface water. Use mulch or other erosion control measures when soils are exposed for more than one week during the dry season or two days during the rainy season. Implement water conservation practices to assure sprinkler systems do not "overspray"vegetated areas and discharge to hard surfaces such as sidewalks, driveways, and parking lots. Adjust sprinkler heads accordingly. Minimize water use so runoff does not occur or enter storm drainage systems. Use approaches to reduce water use such as those described in the Natural Yardcare program. http://your.kingcounty.gov/solidwaste/naturalyardcare/watering.asp I The King County Noxious Weed Control Program provides best management practices for the removal of typical noxious weeds such as blackberry and purple loosestrife. Call 206-296-0290 or see http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/animal sandplants/noxious- weeds/weed-control-practices.aspx for more information. � � � • . The following BMPs are optional unless the above minimum required BMPs do not provide adequate source control: Integrated pest management (IPM), a comprehensive approach to the use of pesticides is the most effective BMP measure that can be taken for herbicide, insecticide, and fungicide use. See BMP Info Sheet 6 in Chapter 5 for information on IPM. J* "A,- Fertilizers should be worked into the soil rather than dumped or broadcast onto the surface. Determine the proper fertilizer application for the types of soil and vegetation involved. Soil should be tested for the correct fertilizer usage. Use mechanical methods of vegetation removal rather than applying herbicides. King County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual January 2009 Landscaping Activities and Vegetation Management(continued) An effective measure that can be taken to reduce pesticide use, excessive watering, and removal of dead vegetation involves careful soil mixing and layering prior to planting. A topsoil mix or composted organic material should be rototilled into the soil to create a transition layer that encourages deeper root systems and drought-resistant plants. This practice can improve the health of planted vegetation, resulting in better disease resistance and reduced watering requirements. Use native plants in landscaping.Native plants do not require extensive fertilizer or pesticide applications. For more information or assistance in implementing these best management practices,contact the King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Water and Land Resources Division at 206-296-1900. Reader Note: The above requirements are the minimum required BMPs.If these BMPs fail to prevent discharges to the storm drainage system,you will be asked to take additional measures to correct the continued pollution discharges. January 2009 King County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual r 0 r gala Clearing and Grading of Land for Small Construction Projects This activity applies if you clear, grade or prepare land for projects. Stormwater runoff from cleared and graded sites can be loaded with suspended sediments and attached pollutants such as oils and greases,toxic hydrocarbon and herbicide compounds,metals, and nutrients. Control of this runoff at the source can prevent large pollutant loadings from entering and degrading receiving waters. Prior to clearing, grading, and preparation activities for construction sites greater than 2,000 square feet, the King County Department of Development and Environmental Services (DDES)must be contacted. You may need to follow the procedures for construction site erosion and sediment control outlined in the King County Surface Water Design Manual, Appendix D. King County DDES coordinates the clearing, grading, and erosion control requirements on individual sites. The King County Surface Water Design Manual has requirements for erosion and sediment control measures. Appendix D (Erosion and Sediment Control Standards) outlines requirements that all sites must implement. The King County Surface Water Design Manual Appendix C (Small Project Drainage Requirements) addresses small project developments. Even if your site does not require a permit, erosion control measures are still required to prevent turbid water from entering drainage systems or surface waters. King County uses the authority of K.C.C. 9.12 and this manual to develop erosion control requirements for those activities not covered by the King County Surface Water Design Manual. For more information or assistance in implementing these best management practices,contact the King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Stormwater Services Section at 206-296-1900. Reader Note: The above requirements are the minimum required BMPs.If these BMPs fail to prevent discharges to the storm drainage system you will be asked to take additional measures to correct the continued pollution discharges. January 2009 King County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual 1 r--� -I ,I