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 AboutMisc, ... '. Federal Emerg~ncy Management Agency> Washillgtop., D.C. 20472 FEB 161007 RECEWE,Q FEB 2 S '?,~",: CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPTREQUES1ED . CIT~ or-Ri:NTON ltTiLlT~' S'tSTEMS . '. ' The Honorable Kathy KeoIker Mayor, Citj of Renton . · .1055Soirth Grady Way Renton, W A 98057 . Comin~ty: City of Renton, WA' Community No.: 530088 City Of .... Planninilsl}tOI} . fJ D,v,'s' IOn· . JUl·· '. . .. . '. . .... '. ..-32012 . . " DearMayor KeoIker:. .., . . ...... •. .' ... ' '. .' . . . '. '.. '. . .... /JjJ .... . •. · ·'This.responds to a Letter of Map ReVision(LO~~request ~ June.5, 2~06(Case NO.06-1~~IY'~11 .' . from Mr. Ronald StraICa, P.E., Surface Water Utilities Supemsor, Public Works J)epartment, CIty of, . 1!dJ .. · Renton., that the J)epartment ofHomeland secu.nty's Federal EoiergencyManitgementAgeri.cy (FEMA) evaiuate the effects that uPdated flood·iwzarodata.forthciCedar Rivet from thecorifluence with Lake · Washingtoilto just upstream of149tb. Avenue would have on th6 flood hazard infoirruitionshown on the' effective Flood InS\IiaDce RateMaP (FlRM). for your Community. The FI.R.M: panels aff~ted by the '. Updated data include the following: Panels 53033C<l664 F;53033C0977 F, 53033C0981 F, . . '. . 53033C0982 F, 53033C0983 F, and 53033C0984 F. This letter is based on the best available flood hazard infornlation and is intended to improve upon that shoWn on the effective FIRM. · We reViewed the submitted data enclosed mthe application package. entitled "Flood Insurance Mappmg i?tudy of the Cedai-River, Lake. Was!llngton to Renton CitY Limits," prepared for the City ofRenfon by . Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, dated April 2006, and the undated supporting report entitled "Techriical · Support DataNotebobk (TSDN) forCedar River, Renton Washington," also prepared by NorthweSt Hydraulic Consultants, We have determined that the Submitted data meet the minimum floodplain inanagementcriteria of the National Flood IuStirance Program (NFIP), but FEMA camiot issue a LOMR or Physical Map Revision at this time. ... . · Until such time as FEMA canphysicillly reviSe the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report and FIRM, we encourage your communitY to reasonably use the draft worlc map entitled "City of Renton Wolk Map," . · prepared by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, dated April}, 2006, as the !;lcit available data for floodplsin management purposes, inaccordancewith·Piuagraph6M(ll)(4)oftheNFlP.reguli1timis (copy enclosed} .. ·· and'F1oodplain Management Bulletin 1-98; entitled. "Use of Flood Insur3nce Study (FIS) Data as Available Data" (copy enclosed) .. Bulletin 1-98 provides guidance to communities on the use Of FEMA draft or .. ' . prelimiruiry FIS data as available data for regulating floodplain development . . . ' .. , . .' W ~ are preparing a reVise4 FIRM and FIS report fur King COunty; Washington and Incorporated Areas, Preliminary copies of the reVised countywide FIRM and FIS repoit will be distribut~ for reView in ': .approximately 8 mOnths. We will incorporate the modifications descn'bedin·theaforemention~ submitled data into the Preliminary coui;ttywide FIRM before it,is distn'bute<i" .. . . TIlls letler is based on mirIimum floodplain management criteria established under the NFlP. Your · . commUnity is responsible for approVing.all floodplain Ik:velopment and for 'ePsunng all necessmy permits lequited by l'edeIll1 or St1!telJi:w naveoeen receIVed: State, county, ana commUmtyofficlaIs, bas¢(! on . , ' ;', . 2 knowledge of local ronditionsand ~ the interest of safety,may set higher standards for co~tion in the " Special Flood HiIzard Area, the area ~bject to inundation by the base flood. If the State, coun,ty, or', ' . co=wiity has adopted more restrictive or cOmprehensive floodplain manageinent criteria, these criteria take precedence over the minimum NF1P criteria. ' , ' , , If you have' any qUeStions regarding fl~odplain lJllIilagOOlent reguJarloDS for your co=unityor the Nm in . , general, please contact the ConSultation Coordination Officer (CeO) for your community. Infopnation Oll . the CCO for yoUr commUnity may be obtained by calling the Dm;ctor, Federal InsuraIice and Mitigation pivision ofFE¥A in Bothell, Washington, at (425) 4874682.' If you haveanyquesdons regarding this ',' letter, please can our Map AssistanCe Center, toil free, at 1-877-FEMA MAP (1 ~77-336-2627). " , Sincerely, '."~c¥~"." , ",AIiyson Lichtenfels, Project Engineer, , Engineering Management Section Mitigation Division' , " Enclosures cc: The Honorable Larry Gossett Chair, King County Council Mr. Ronald Straka, P.R Surfuce Water Utilities Supervisor , 'Public Worlcs Department .. City of Renton ' ' Mr. Steve BJeifUJis ' Flood Haz~ Reduction SerVices Manager King County , Mr. Erik Rowland, P.E. ProjectEngineeL~,":' "',,,,,,,'" Northwest Hydraulic Consultants For. william R-BlaDton Jr.,CFM, Chief Engineering Management Section " Mitigation DiVision ' , , I ' .. . ~ ...... : ...... ;'-'.' ..... -~ .. :..::.-: ..... ,:.~. . NATIONAL FLOOD INSuRANCE PROGRAM Mr. Ronald Straka,l' .. E. -City of R.ettton .-. Public Works Department 1055 South·Qrady Way Renton, W A 98055 Dear Mr . .straka: FEMA NATIONAL SERVICE PROVIDER December 4, 2006 em' 9:~ ~EN,C:-J . UTiU1V S'.'SrEM3 IN REPLY REFER TO: Cas" No.: 0·6 clO-B569P CommUnity: City ofRent~n, VIA .. Community No.: 530088· · 316-ACK . This resp~ndS to your submittal dated November 17, 2006, ~ncerning.a June 5, 2006, request that the .. -Department of Homeland SecuritY's Fedeffil Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) issue a revisioil to the Flood msuranci: Rate Map (FIRM)fo.r King County, Washingtori and IncOJ:porated Areas .. Pertinent .. information about !he request is listedbelow._ . . . . Identifier: · COdar River LOMR Flooding So=: . · Cedar River ~. ',' .:..J. . FIRM Panel(s) Affected: _ ... 53033C0664F, 6977F, Om F, . 0982F, 0983 F· and 0984F . We ha.ve completed aninventoryofihe items you submitted. Our review ofthe subrnitted data indi~at~s we . have the minimum data required to perform a: detailed technical review of your request If additional data are . required or if delays are encoUntered, we will inform you within 60 days of the .date of this ietter. As you may know, FEMA has inlplemented a procedure to recover costs ';"sociated with reviewing and -processing requests. for modifications to published flood information and· maps. Howev~, because your. request is based on flood hcird infotmation meant to improveupon that shown on the flood map or within the flood study and doesnotparliaUyor ~holly incorporate manmade modificatioI1s withinihe Special Flood Hazard Area" no fees .will be assessed forourreview. Please direct que'stions concerning YOtH request to us at the address shown at the bottom of ibis page. For· identification plliposes; please include the case number referenced above on all correspondence. If you have general questions about your request, FEMA policy, or the National Flood Insurance Program, . please call the FEMA Map Assistance Center, toll free, at 1-877 -FEMA MAP ([ -877-336-2627). If you have specific questions concerning your request, please·call the Revisions CDordinator-for your State, Ms. Jell.Oifer- . Winters, who maybe reachedat (720) 514-1107. cc: Mr. Erik Rowland, P.E . • Project Engineer NorthweSt Hydraulic Consultants. · Sincerely, .. Sheila M. Norlin~ CFM National LOMC Manager Michael Baker Jr.; Inc. 3501 Eisenhower Avenue,. Alexl.lndri1!. V:", 22304-~25 PH:1...1Jn-FeMA" rIfAP. FX: 703.960.9125 The Mapping on Dema~d:TeamJ under contract ~ith the F9derafEmergency Ma~age~ent Agency, is the N ... tI ..... "~1 C: ... n..i ... "" Pr ....... irlar fM th.e. N",+i,..n::ol 1=1,.. .... tf !"'C::I'r;:;n~D Prnnr:tm I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I City of Renton Planning Division I OCT 1 8 1011 I ~~cc;~nw~[Q) I -1 Technical information Report (TIR) fOIl" Renton Municipal Airport Taxiway B System Rehabilitation Phase I and Phase II Owner: City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98057 October 2012 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Techn.ical Information Report (TIR) folt" Ren.ton Municipal Airpolt"t Taxiway B System Rehabilitation - North Portion Reconstruction & Airfield Sign age Modifications Phase I Owner: City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98057 October 2012 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II i I II 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. Renton Municipal Airport Benjamin Sommer, P.E. Project Engineer mtl~JmO!. 728 134th Street SW, Suite 200 Everett, W A 98204 425-741-3800 (Fax 425-741-3900) File No. 232010.007 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase I - i - Technical Information Report (TIR) October 2012 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Contents SECTION 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW ....................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................... 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................................................................. 1 PROJECT LOCATION ................................................................................................................................................... 1 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 1 PROPOSED CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................................................. 2 SOILS ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3 SECTION 2: CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY .................................... 14 CORE REQUIREMENT I: 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 I: 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 SECTION 3: OFF-SITE ANALySIS ........................................................................................ 18 STUDY AREA ........................................................................................................................................................... 18 RESOURCE REVIEW ................................................................................................................................................. 18 FIELD INSPECTION ................................................................................................................................................... 19 DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND PROBLEM DESCRIPTION ............................................................................. 20 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 ESC MEASURES ..................................................................................................................................................... .34 RECOMMENDED CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE (EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL) ................................................ 35 SWPPS PLAN DESIGN ............................................................................................................................................. 36 SECTION 9: BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT .......................................................................................................................... 37 BOND QUANTITIES WORKSHEET ............................................................................................................................. 37 Renton Municipal Airport TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase I Technical Infonnation Report (TIR) October 2012 -II - 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 SECTION 11: REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 39 List of Figures FIGURE 1-1. TIR WORKSHEET ................................................................................................. 4 FIGURE 1-2. VICINITY MAP ..................................................................................................... 9 I I I I I FIGURE 1-3. DRAINAGE BASIN & SITE CHARACTERISTICS .......................................... 10 I 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 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 TABLE 7-1. 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 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase I Technical Information Report (TIR) October 2012 -111 - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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 of2013. Phase II, the south end of the project, is scheduled to be constructed in late summer and early fall of2013 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 I-\. 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 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase I Technical Information Report (TIR) October 2012 -I - 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 1. 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 I-I 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 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase I Technical Information Report (TIR) -2- October 2012 ~I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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 corelhand 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 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase I Technical Information Report (TIR) October 2012 - 3 - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET FIGURE 1-1 Part 1 PROJECT OWNER AND PROJECT ENGINEER . Project Owner City of Renton Phone (425) 430-7471 Address 616 West Perimeter Road, Unit A; Renton, W A 98057 Project Engineer Benjamin Sommer, PE Company Reid Middleton, Inc. Phone (425) 741-3800 Part 3 TYPE OF PERMIT APPLICATION o Landuse Services Subdivison / Short SUbd. / UPD o Building Services M/F / Commerical I SFR IX! Clearing and Grading o Right-of-Way Use o Other Part 5 PLAN AND REPORT INFORMATION Technical Information Report Type of Drainage Review ~I Targeted (circle): arge Site Date (include revision dates): Date of Final: Part 6 .ADJUSTMENT APPROVALS I Part 2 PROJECT LOCATION.AND DESCRIPTION Project Name TW B Rehabilitation DDES Permit # _________ _ Location Township 23 North Range 5 East Section __ 7L-___ _ Site Address 289 West Perimeter Road Renton W A 98057 Part 4 OTHER REVIEWS AND PERMITS o DFWHPA o COE404 o DOE Dam Safety o FEMA Floodplain o COE Wetlands o Other . ~ Shoreline Management o Structural RockeryNaultl __ o ESA Section 7 Site Improvement Plan (Engr. Plans) Type (circle one): ~ / Modified I mall Site Date (include revision dates): Date of Final: Type (circle one): Standard / Complex / Preapplication I Experimental/Blanket Description: (include conditions in TIR Section 2) N/A Date of Approval: 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 119/2009 1 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 {XI River/Stream Cedar River !Xl Lake Lake Washington o Wetlands __________ _ D Closed Depression _______ _ (XI Floodplain Lake Washington/Cedar River IX! Other High Liquefaction Susceptibility Part 10 SOILS Soil Type Slopes Ur lXI High Groundwater Table (within 5 feet) o Other' D Additional Sheets Attached 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 2 D Steep Slope ________ _ o Erosion Hazard _______ _ o Landslide Hazard ______ _ D Coal Mine Hazard ______ _ IX! Seismic Hazard High Seismic Severity o Habitat Protection ______ _ 0 _________ _ Erosion Potential o Sole Source Aquifer D Seeps/Springs 119/2009 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 11 DRAINAGE DESIGN LIMITATIONS REFERENCE LIMITATION / SITE CONSTRAINT o Core 2 -Offsite Analysis IXIl Sensitive/Critical Areas ~ SEPA o Other 0 o Additional Sheets Attached Part 12 TIR SUMMARY SHEET (provide one TIR Summary Sheet per Threshold Discharge Area) Threshold Discharge Area: (name or descriptio,;) Core Requirements (all 8 apply) Discharge at Natural Location Number of Natural Discharge Locations: Offsite Analysis Level: (1)/2/3 dated: 06/04fl2 Flow Control N/A Level: 1 / 2 / 3 or Exemption Number (inc!. 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 I~ 1 DO-year Base Flood Elevation (or range): Datum: Flood Protection Facilities Describe: Flood Wall Source Control Describe landuse: Airport (comm.lindustriallanduse) Describe any structural controls: 2009 Surface Waler Design Manual 3 119/2009 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Oil Control High-use Site: Yes /~ Treatment BMP: Maintenance Agreement: Yes / ® with whom? Other DrainaQe Structures Describe: Part 13 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION AFTER CONSTRUCTION ~ Clearing Limits IX! Stabilize Exposed Surfaces !XI Cover Measures !XI Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities ~ Perimeter Protection j2g Clean and Remove All Silt and Debris, Ensure !XI Traffic Area Stabilization Operation of Permanent Facilities I2Q Sediment Retention o Flag Limits of SAO and open space IX! Surface Water Collection preservation areas o Other ~ Dewatering Control IX! Dust Control !XI Flow Control Part 14 STORMWATER FACILITY DESCRIPTIONS (Note: Include Facility Summary and Sketch) Flow Control Type/Description Water Quality Type/Description o Detention IX! Biofiltration Swale. Filter Strip o Infiltration o Wetpool o Regional Facility o Media Filtration D Shared Facility o Oil Control o Flow Control IX! Spill Control CBw/Tee BMPs ~ Flow Control BMPs OJ Other Basic Disl2ersion/ o Other Sheet Flow 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1/9/2009 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'I KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 15 EASEMENTSITRACTS Part 16 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS o Drainage Easement o Cast in Place Vault o Covenant o Retaining Wall o Native Growth Protection Covenant o Rockery > 4' High o Tract o Structural on Steep Slope o Other N/A D 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. Sianed/Date 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 5 1/9/2009 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CANADA -----------------USA VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 1-2 PROJECT SITE I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SPHALT _ (TAXIWAY B) , ,.~--- ~, I~ "":JI In , -----.. If OUTFAll PIPE TO RIVER PROPOSED ~ f / ~"" ., LW.·'7t,~.~-. DISCHARGE POINT I - - - --l "0" 'U~O,"" 0 f EXISTING SLOT -.l ' CO_ FOR SU .. BASIN A i_ I OUTFALL PIPE DRAIN EXISTING AND "" _ 1_ I TO RIVER OUTFALL PIPE PROPOSED I TO RIVER DISCHARGE POINT I EXISTING ASPHALT FOR SUB-8ASIN 0 PROPOSED (TIEDO'NN AREA) I DISCHARGE POINT I EXISTING AND FOR SUs.BASIN E OUTFALL PIPE TO RIVER _¢1mOlAfitD' 128 ll4l1i 5mI 51 ~ 2IJI [ .... tasIiI¢a D4 Pb:425141-ml I PROPOSED I OISCHARGE POINT ..J FOR SUB-8ASIN C I ----L----------~ PROPOSED PROJECT LIMITS lEllEND: - J REPLACED/NEW ASPH.4.I...T PAVEMENT ---,> . ---SWAlE ~ flOW DIRECTION --.... v-~ .. i!~_ ___ ""'" ~ roo ., o 00 .oj) DRAINAGE BASINS & SITE CHARACTERISTICS Figure 1-3 Renton Airport I I 47" 29' 48" I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 47" 29' 24" I I " t' ~, . ~ '(1 , I ~:'I , ' ',) ,fl, ,~ ~ 1 If' \ N A Soil Map-King County Area, Washington (FIGURE 1-4: TW B Soil Map) i, .'" I • I \ ~ \ \ , \ \ ., i \I \ I' I \ I:, \1 \ \ t=~·· ,=-0-_- Map Scale: 1:3.550 if printed on Asize (B.S" x 11") sheet =-., o ===============Meters o 30 60 120 180 ~=,;;.;=::;;.,.""'==,;;;:~==~; Feet a 100 200 400 600 v- f, / -r .1 USDA Nalural Resources ?-I Conservalion Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey " 5/30/2012 Page 1 of 3 47' 29' 48' 47' 29' 24" USDA c ' liM! ~ - Soil Map-King County Area, Washington (FIGURE 1-4: TW B Soil Map) MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) D Area of Interest (AOt) Soils 0 Soil Map Units Special Point Features '" Blowout IX! Borrow Pit * Clay Spot 9 Closed DepresSion X Gravel Pit ... Gravelly Spot @ Landfill A. Lava Flow .,. Marsh or swamp ~ Mine or Quarry ® Miscellaneous Water ® Perennial Water v Rock Outcrop + Saline Spot Sandy Spot ..... Severely Eroded Spot 0 Sinkhole 9 Slide or Slip Ii Sadie Spot ;: Spoil Area 0 Stony Spot Natural Resources Conservation Service __ IIfiiJ (Xl Very Stony Spot t Wet Spot .. other Special line Features ~ Gully B Short Steep Slope <;;0 oUr, Other Political Features 0 Cities Water Features .....-Streams and Canals Transportation """'" ~ Rails -Interstate Highways .--v US Routes ~ Major Roads ~ Local Roads Web Soil Survey Map Scale: 1 :3,550 if printed on A size (8.5" )( 11") sheet. The soil surveys that comprise your ADI were mapped at 1 :24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov Coordinate System: UTM Zone 10N NAD83 This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Survey Area Data: King County Area, Washington Version 6, Sep 22, 2009 Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 7/24/2006 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Ii!iIiJ IIilI!I National Cooperative SOil.SurveX-...- IIIIJ IIIil!iI ~ .. fiiiiJ IiiIiIiI!l IiM"J I!CJ 5/30/2012 ~.e2of3 ~ &J IBJ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Soil Map-King County Area, Washington Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Ur W Totals for Area of Interest Natural Resources Conservation Service King County Area, Washington (WA633) Map Unit Name Acres InAOI Urban land Water Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 25.8 0.1 25.9 FIGURE 1-4: TW B Soil Map Percent of AOI 99.7% 0.3% 100.0% 5/30/2012 Page 3 of 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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 ofthe 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.S. Core Requirement 4: Conveyance System The Rational Method and Manning's Equation were utilized to design and size the piping facilities. All new storm water conveyance systems were reviewed in relation to the 2S-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 .TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase I Technical Information Report (TIR) October 2012 -14 - 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 ofthe 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 (NPD ES) Phase II 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 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase I Technical Information Report (TIR) October 2012 -15 - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I· I I 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 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 anyon-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 I -16 - Technical Information Report (TIR) lillijJ?mh@!l!fj 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 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase I Technical Information Report (TiR) October 2012 -17 - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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 ilpstream and half a mile downstream of the site. The City of Renton's SWDM Amendment requires that the following reference materials are reviewed: o Sensitive Areas Folio o Adopted Basin PlanslBasin Reconnaissance Summary Reports o FloodplainiFloodway (FEMA) Maps o King County Soil Survey o Washington State Department of Ecology's (DOE) Polluted Waters List o City of Renton Erosion Maps and Landslide Maps o 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 I 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 steeIhead runs. Additionally, the plan recommends preventative measures for maintaining water quality standards, groundwater supplies, and natural habitat within the Renton Municipal Airport TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase I Technical Information Report (TIR) October 2012 -18 - 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 colifonn 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 infonnation 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 I 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 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 stonn drainage system was reviewed earlier in the design phase, on May II, 2012. The site's discharge piping extends east of Taxiway B to the outfall locations along Cedar River. All existing outfallsare 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 infonnation 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 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase I Technical Infonnation Report (TIR) October 2012 -19 - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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 haifa 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 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase I Technical Information Report (TIR) October 2012 -20- 0...1:: «8. ::i!~ en 5 en"E ~~ « z « w I- en LL LL o ------------------- -- Basin: Symbol see map A B 23-2010.007 June 2012 --- --------OFF-SITE ANALYSIS DRAINAGE SYSTEM TABLE .. SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL, CORE REQUIREMENT #2 FIGURE 3-2 Lower Cedar River Subbasin Name: Cedar Outfall Subbasin Number: Drainage Drainage Slope Distance Existing Potential Component Type, Component from site Prol,lems Problems Name, and Size Description dischare:e Type: sheet flow, swale, drainage basin, vegetation, % 1/4 mi -1.320 ft constrictions, under capacity. ponding, stream. channel, pipe, cover, depth, type of sensitive overtopping, flooding, habitat or oganism pond; Size: diameter, area, volume destruction. scouring, bank sloughing. surface area sedimentation. incision, other erosion Discharge Location 4' to 5' Depth of Channel N/A Oil None None River Channel/Lake Bed 10' Depth of Channel N/A 2000 ft None None - Page 1 ofl Renton Municipal Airport ---- Observation of field inspector, resource reviewer, or resident tributary area,. likelihood of problem, overflow pathways, potential impacts No evidence of erosion No evidence of erosion Offsite Drainage System City of Renton - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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 I-I. 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 ofthe 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 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase I Technical Information Report (TIR) October 2012 -23 - 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 perfonnance standards for the project is presented in Table 4-I. 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 Stann Event Manual Section 1.2.4.1 Basic Treatment of the 2-year Stann 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 Stonnwater 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 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase I Technical Infonnation Report (TIR) October 2012 -24- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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 of95 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 Wi) (eFS) (FT) (FT) (FT/FT) Subbasin C 100 20.0 4H:IV 0.005 0.56 Subbasin D 100 20.0 4H:IV 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 ofthe 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 (SF) (SF) Area Treated by Filter Strip 1,610 10,975 Untreated Target Area 1,850 2,725 Area Treated by Wet Bioswale 0 0 Total 3,460 13,700 *Includes non-target ImpervIOUS area bemg treated (66,790 SF) Renton Municipal Airport TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase I Technical Information Report (TIR) -25 - Subbasin C Subbasin D (SF) (SF) 17,700 7,470 0 0 85,290* 40,650 102,990 48,120 Subbasin E (SF) 3,170 0 0 3,170 October 2012 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. 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 4575 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 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase I Technical Information Report (TIR) October 2012 -26- o I I I I I ~ ~ .. II I I Ii II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ____ ~==--===-=I---_. I, --------==--~-------'---- SUB-BASlliA---'---------SliS-BASlNS--------------,---SUB'BASiN-C------------------------\-----------------------srJB-BASlNO-------- =~~=-~~::~~~;~=-=-=--~~~1~~v:--=-~~/ . c=<. ~, _ __, ,~ ~ 'J I --': ~-~' "-' .-___ \--..:.. ~ ___ ,. :!--=:_=_~ J::=-:":" _ _' ~~ ~---:-r-';;;":-;~' .~< -, ;~-':' ' ""'------' 1l. ____ .. } 4-_-:-:---J_/_ ~/ Z--~ -,' -.----" ----.,.. ~ ,'--" " ---', . -l~"----::: _____ . ..1 I ( =;;z: _ ~/'l/'l/////'l'l/ -/)//////////. '/ H " --". H ---• ~. -' 7T/77;,,~;l>~77-~.H'"~~- -:.... -=---'EXISTING 'l/'l/////'l!//'l/.I(';/./.(~j////.:; '//:.///~//////. /.////////////. --- WATER QUALITY lREATMENT BY SUB-BASIN SUB-BASIN A SUB-BASIN B SUB-BASIN C SUB-BASIN 0 TREATMENT TYPE (SF) (SF) (SF) (SF) AREA TREAT£O BY FILTER STRIP 1,610 10,975 17,700 7,470 UNTREATED TARGET AREA 1,850 2,725 0 0 AREA TREATED BY BlOSW.au: 0 0 85,290· "',650 roTAl 3,460 13,700 102,990 48,120 'l////0'l/////LL,Ly////-:;f/'l j """11 OUTFALL PIPE /. 'l / 'l / 'l /,'/ / / / / / / / / / /. / 'W""' ''''''''-''---'''''' T~R'l// 'l/'l/////f////////. :;j//j'l "=i~"""--"w 'l//.'l/'l/'l///'/////// :;/'l/'l/. SLOTORAm OUTFAlLP'P' //. 'l/ 'l/'l/. // // //// / /.///// /./. /.//., TO RIVER /. //. /. /EXISTlNGASPHALT / / :; //. /. / /. // /(TIEOOWN AREA) / / 'l / 'l /. /. / // /.////////////////'l/'l/':;/// / 'l / 'l// /',/ / / / / / / / / /. // / // / :; / // / 'l / 'l// /. ;';;SOUTH BIOFIL TRATION /:; / // / / /'l///. ///BASINAREA-1.96AC // ////// /////.///////./////////./ -' SUB-BASIN E (SF) 3,170 0 0 3,170 BASIN AREA TO WET BIOFILTRATION SWALE (TYP) .INCLUDES NON-TAACEr IMPERVIOUS AREA B[INC TREATED (66,790 SF). REFER TO FtC 4-2 FOR A VISUAL DEPICTION Of THE PROPOSED TfW)[ AREAS. [~eid, iddletunJ 7211 ll41 5n!I gj s.lt l[II UInIlII!IIiIjtzI(113)4 Ft Q5l(1-mI NORTH BIOFILTRATION BASIN AREA = 0,93 AC LEGEND: I I REPLACED/NEW ~. ;;:;;;;:;::;:;;;;;_ ASPHALT PAVEMENT ~I WATER QUALITY ~~;:;;:;:;:;,;;;;::. FILTER STRIP V///'//'///1 CONTRIBUTING AREA L~L.LCL.L.LCL.L.L" TO BIOSWM..E ~. SWALE fLOW DIRECTION SCAL£ IN FEET fDI'M&-. I 60 , '0 ,,0 WATER QUALITY BASIN MAP Figure 4-1 Renton Airport ------I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I B W .J------ ---_--..---I I¢ . 'I -_____ -.L/ __ SWALE -! '1= ------I -________ _ TO RIVER POLLUTION-GENERATING SURFACE TREATMENT TRADE DRAINAGE BASIN SUB BASIN A SUB BASIN 8 SUB-BASIN C TOTAl ,Reid iddleton£ 72lI1l4'Slnd~ ~2(1) &!nIL IIas!iIIpI 'JIlI4 It: 425141-BJJ TREA1ED NON-TARGEf AREA UNTREA1ED TARGEf AREA (SF) (SF) 0 1,850 0 2.725 66.790 0 66.790 4,575 I!J , SLOT DRAIN \ !!J \ \ \ \ o . --~-:-::---:-:~~_"1:':.. -=:-=....--=:...-----~. --',-': ~ .. ~~~~-~-:-. --............ OUTFALL PIPE TO RIVER OUTFALL FIPE TO RIVER OUTFALL PIPE TO RIVER SUB-BASIN E TREATED NON-TARGET AREA LEGEND: r--REPlACED/NEW ASPHAlT PAVEIo4ENT """ ~~EATID TARGET ~TREATED NON-TARGET AREA ~ .. --SWALE FlOW DIRECTION SCALE IN FEET 60 • POLLUTION-GENERATING SURFACE TREATMENT TRADES Renton Airport 60 - ". Figure 4-2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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 I OO-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 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase I Technical Information Report (TIR) October 2012 -29- 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 1 ~O-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 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase I Technical Information Report (TIR) October 2012 -30- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Shallow Pipe Loading Thickness design for DIP was performed on drainage lines crossing beneath Taxiway Bat shallow depths, typically less than 3 feet of cover. The method utilized for the design was obtained from ANSI! A WW A 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 I 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 I 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 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase I Technical Information Report (TIR) October 2012 -31 - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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. StudylReport Floodplain Delineation (Section 1.3.2) Flood Protection Facility Confonnance (Section 1.3.3) Critical Areas Analysis and Delineation GeotechnicaVSoils Groundwater Slope Protection/Stability Erosion and Deposition Geology Hydrology Fluvial Geomorphology Anadromous Fisheries Impacts Water Quality Structural Design Structural Fill Aquifer Protection Areas Renton Municipal Airport TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase I Technical Information Report (TIR) -32- Date Conducted N/A N/A N/A 04/27/12 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Appendix N/A N/A N/A Appendix A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A October 2012 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SECTION 7: OTHER PERMITS Table 7-1 summarizes other permits required for the project site. Table 7-1. Other Permits. Permit On-site Sewage Disposal Wen Permits Developer/Local Agency Agreement Hydraulic Project Approval Short-term Water Quality Modification Approval Dam Safety Permit NPDES Stormwater Permit Forest Practices Class IV Permit Sections 10, 40 I, and 404 Permits Renton Municipal Airport TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase I Technical Information Report (TIR) Required Regulating Agency No Seattle/King County Department of Public Health No SeattlelKing County Department of Public Health No Washington State Department of Transportation No Washington State Department ofFish and Wildlife No Washington State Department of Ecology No Washington State Department of Ecology Yes Washington State Department of Ecology No Washington State Department of Natural Resources No United States Army Corps of Engineers October 2012 -33 - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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 of2013. 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 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 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase I Technical Information Report (TIR) October 2012 -34- 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 perfonnance 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 stonn 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 stonnwater 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) I. 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 Infonnation Report (TIR) I I I I I , I I I I I I' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Install perimeter protection (silt fence, brush barrier, etc.). Construct surface water controls simultaneously with grading activities for project development. Maintain erosion control measures in accordance with King County Standards and manufacturer's recommendations. Relocate erosion control measures, or install new measures, so that changing site conditions continue to meet King County erosion and sediment control standards. 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. 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: (I) soil disturbance from site grading, storm installation, and pavement removal; and (2) use oflarge 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 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase I Technical Information Report (TIR) October 2012 -36- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I 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 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase I Technical Information Report (TIR) October 2012 -37 - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,. I I I I 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 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase I Technical Information Report (TIR) October 2012 -38 - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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/governmentldefault.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. HW A 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 Storm water Pollution Prevention Manual. King County Geographic Information Systems, 2012. King County iMap: Interactive Mapping Tool. 31 May 2012. http://www.kingcounty.gov/operations/GISlMaps/iMap.aspxl. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2012. Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington. Renton Municipal Airport TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase I Technical Information Report (TIR) October 2012 -39- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I 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 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. • Geotecllllical Engillceritlg • Hydrogeology • GeOCf11'irotllllcIltal Sen'ice.' · Inspection & Testing I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HWA GEOSCIENCES 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: Dear Randy: Final Geotechnical Engineering Repol·t Renton Municipal Airport Taxiway B Rehabilitation Renton, Washington As requested, HWA GeoSciences Inc. (HW A) has completed a geoteclmical engineering investigation to support design effOlis 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 rep011 summarizing the investigation results and our recommendations. We appreciate the opp011unity to provide geotechnical services on this project. Sincerely, HW A GEOSCIENCES INC. Steven E. Greene, 1.G., 1.E.G. Senior Engineering Geologist Enclosure: Final Geotechnical Report George Minassian, Ph.D., P.E. Pavement Engineer 2t312 30th Drive SE Suite 110 Bothell, WA 98021.7010 Tel:. 425.774.0106 Fax: 425.774.2714 www.hwageo.com I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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 Figure 2 Figure 3 ApPENDICES Project Site and Vicinity Map Site and Exploration Plan Geologic Map Appendix A: Field Exploration Figure A-I Figures A-2 -A-21 Figures A-22 -A-24 Legend of Terms and Symbols Used on Exploration Logs Logs of Cores Core-I through Core-20 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-1 0 -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 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1.1 GENERAL FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON, WASHINGTON 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the results of a geotechnical engineering investigation completed by HW A GeoSciences Inc. (HW A) 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 I. 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 sub grade 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 Agreementfor 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 TPcl through TP-3) and twenty pavement cores (designated Core-l 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 coreslhand borings were October 17,2012 HWA Project No. 2011-039-21 perfonned by HWA engineering geologist personnel. Pertinent infonnation 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 coreslhand 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 coreslhand borings were conducted on June 2, June 6, and June 7, 2011. Four (4) supplemental corelhand borings were conducted on July 11, 2012. The coreslhand borings were used to gather infonnation on the thickness of the existing pavement and strength of the underlying subgrade layers in the taxiway area. A legend of the tenns and symbols used on the exploration logs is presented in, Figure A-I, Appendix A. Summary test pit and core logs are presented in Figures A-2 through A-24, Appendix A. Oynamic cone penetration (OCP) testing was perfonned in most pavement core holes to check relative soil density/strength conditions. The OCP 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 (OJ 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 OCP is driven by repeatedly dropping an 8 kg (17.6 Ibs) 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 tenns of the DCP index. The OCP index is based on the average penetration depth resulting from 1 blow of the 8 kg hammer and is reported as millimeters per blow (mmlblow). 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 OCP 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 perfonned in general accordance with appropriate ASTM Standards, as outlined below. Final Report 2 HW A GEOSCIENCES INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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-IO through B-12, AppendixB. 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-I through TP- 3 were determined in general accordance with AS TM 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 HW A 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 o/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- afm). 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 offill 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 <I % to about 5%. The soil moisture content appears to increase with depth. Perched ground water was encountered in test pits TP-I, TP-2, and TP-3, at depth 00.8 feet, 3.5 feet and 3.6 feet, respectively. Ground water seepage was observed in corelhand 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-I, 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-I 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 HW A GEOSCIENCES INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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 I below: Table 1: SummaryofCBR Tests Sample Relative CBRValue Material Description Compaction Location (%) (%) Light olive brown, organic SILT (OH) TP-l 57.4' 0.4 Dark brown, organic SILT (OH) TP-2 65.6' 0.6 Dark olive gray, SILT with sand (ML) TP-3 85.5' 1.2 102.1' 53.8 I RelatIVe to Maximum Dry Denslfy determined wlfh Standard CompactlVe Effort (ASTM D698) 2 Relative to Maximum Dry Density determined with Modified Compactive Effort (ASTM D 1557) 3.5 EXISTING PAVEMENT STRUCTURE We completed twenty (20) corelhand 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-I) 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 HW A 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 ofCore-5, dredge fill consisting of silty medium sand with shell fragments, brick and glass fragments was encountered to a depth of2.5 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-I. Field DCP data obtained at location ofCore-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 of2.3 and 3.2 feet, respectively. These subgrade soils were similar to those encountered in test pit TP-l. Field DCP data obtained at location ofCore-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 ofCore-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-I 7 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 I O-inches of HMA without an underlying PCC layer. At the location ofCore-IO, 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-II, which is situated at the south end of Taxiway B, the pavement consisted of 8.5-inches ofHMA over 8-inches ofPCC. At the location of Core-I 9 within Taxiway K, the pavement consisted of 12.5 inches ofHMA over 7-inches ofPCC. No crushed gravel base was encountered beneath the pavement at any of Final Report 6 HW A GEOSCIENCES INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I October 17, 2012 HWA Project No. 2011-039-21 these locations except for Core-l 0, 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-I 7 and Core-20 in Appendix C). 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 0.7S 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 ofCore-6 through Core-l0 (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 S.6 feet below grade. At the location of Core-I 0, DCP testing encountered granular material with average CBR values above 40% to depths of 4.2 feet below grade. At the location of Core-II, DCP testing encountered granular material with average CBR values of 19% to a depth of 3.6 feet below grade. At the locations ofCore-17 through Core-20 (see Figures A-18 through A-21) field DCP data obtained below the granular fill, indicate in-place CBR values of3 to 4% in native subgrade from depths of3.0 to 6.0 feet below grade. Soutb Taxiway Connestor 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 O.S feet; these soils were similar to those encountered in our test pit explorations. Field DCP data obtained at the locations of Core-I 2 through Core-14 (See Figure A-13 through A-IS) 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-IS (See Figure A-16) indicate in-place CBR values averaging greater than SO% 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 HW A GEOSCIENCES INC. October 17, 2012 HWA Project No. 2011-039-21 below grade. Field DCP data obtained at the location of Core-I 6 (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-I 7 through Core-20) at depths ranging from 1.125 to 3.6 below the existing pavement surface. These native sub grade soils are weak exhibiting in- place CBR values ranging from I to 5%, and averaging about 3%. CBR values from laboratory samples obtained from TP-I and TP-2 and remolded at natural moisture content indicate CBR values less than I % 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 ofloose 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-I 0) and at the southern end of Taxiway B (Core-II) the pavement is underlain by granular fill and sandy alluvial soils. These sub grade 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 I % 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-I 2 through Core-I 4) the pavement is underlain by loose to medium stiff, silty sand to sandy silt aJluvial soils. These sub grade soils are relatively weak exhibiting in-place CBR values ranging from 2 to 6%, and averaging about 3%. At the locations of Core-I 5 and Core-I 6 (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-IS) 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 HW A GEOSCIENCES INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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 sub grade 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 of2013. 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: SeB 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 HW A GEOSCIENCES INC. October 17, 2012 HWAProjectNo.2011-039-21 cement base (SCB) layer that will serve to stabilize and reduce the potential for disturbance of the sub grade 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 ofthis 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 HW A GEOSCIENCES INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I • I I I I I I I I October 17, 2012 HWA Project No. 2011-039-21 -------------0·0------------ We appreciate the oppOliunity to be of service to you on this project. Sincerely, HW A GEOSCIENCES INC. STEVEN Ewon GREENE Steven E. Greene, L.G., L.E.G. Senior Engineering Geologist SEG:GM:seg Final Report 11 George Minassian, Ph.D., P.E. Pavement Engineer HW A GEOSCIENCES INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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-IOC. 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 Specificationsfor Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction, M 41-10, Washington State Department of Transportation. Final Report 12 HW A GEOSCIENCES INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ft\m iUlMa' 4. ''''-TNr " PtiIItfd from TOPO! 01))1 H'IIb'm.lOtopphil: Hckhnp (_tapa,com) HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. PROJECT SITE AND VICINITY MAP FIGURE NO. r---~==~==~~~--~ 1 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION T NAN PROJECT NO. 2011·039 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ ""'" 1 _;,,,,·· ... '.'" '"" ,. . Jt,", .!'. "-"" - ~-.::" ". .:.-_::::1 _ .. _-- ". --~; ,,.,.-.--;. ~?<o:fl --"""" I >.~, . " / "':'1 •• ' I ,~-.:>,/ .-,"-----I'<"~'.', ;"-,: i ( I ~,~~~;;,': CORE-16 ,'" .. \! ';(#~~\:\'::\~ORE'14 --:::-=c'>~:;F!~~ I, c "R~-13't, , ,<,,~[j, I'Hil ; I" '\,<-''.~~. -.;-~\' ~ Ii? / //1 ~ "", f)" I," "Y'\' ,:.CORE;l "r" './ ,,·1 I ~;-~ \"\:-o.~>.,'!\,;. (~ ~~I ,e'. ->1<",,\' ~'wr"" ,-'" <_"Z ",,~,::q;:'''~ 0/ \ _ "",L -'- I -t?'';1'" '';;f!J .\ \ \.~~--".c?~_~ __ ;"£:_ '~-~)j~G~~~~rr:------~I-' .. .....c.._~ I ",' V\iioz]' "~"' " .l)K~-lU " I 1::5J~~\rl\, \~;'~,~~I 1 '-, .• ~ .<'~/ if;:,"':" l"-"~ *ORE"l1";:;-~>~1 :.i>·"';~_~~:t~'/ .' ~ "'1~~~ '\~>,... "::, .. ___ ~ /f~ .... ,·-, I soile:'l"=)OO' """..:' '<." I "",_ ' _____ .-........ ~ _-'........J DETAIL A r ,c f,:c;----o"+ ·,.0 ' .. ', ' --,";;r;!'.dcp~f;P:it-}'1 ~ ~/, o:.., ________ -"'--=:--____ ..,;;;~~/--", i; I i~.y" -I ,_ -.. -t ~ _ -2'3-::: '~t~~ 11 .!-;: __________ :::/;.\t'I< __ _ C'ORE 8~'"! .. . .......' ":,.." -'" E"l CORE,Z'/ , -"'" : 01 I ~.~~:<~E?-7 !!!'S':" ,;!~_::->~/ " ,,:~~~~;~, .1 LJi,;"~ -~··:··,t-~~~~:~t ----~;{ :_u __ -',ICC/he. I I",: ,. ;":: ' , 'j";' I ~ , J i; I i~ t: ~-J1r = J~ c-I L SCALE: 1"=100" ,-I ____ '_Il-~ _ __ _ _____ --l DETAIL B , Renton Airport Taxiway B Exploration Locations Exploration Northing Westing 513 Core-1 47.49516 122.21492 44+09 Core-2 47.49447 122.21476 41+54 Core-3 47.49410 122.21459 40+17 Core-4 47.49306 122.21441 36+58 Core-S 47.49241 122.21439 34+25 Core-6 47,49008 122.21384 25+78 Core-7 47.48869 122.21350 20+54 Core-6 47.48836 122.21355 19+28 Core-9 47.48774 122.21357 16+94 Core-lO 47.48656 122.21362 12+54 Core-11 47.48649 122.21331 12+24 Core-12 47.48622 122.21394 11+39 Core-13 47.48608 122.21405 10+98 Core-14 47.48609 122.21412 10+94 Core-15 47.48624 122.21413 11+52 Core-16 47.48629 122.21425 11+73 Core-17 47.48854 122.21354 19+83 Core-18 47.48872 122.21332 20+43 Core-19 47.48921 122.21418 22+44 Core-2O 47.48932 122.21365 22+67 lP-1 47.49422 122.21481 40+63 lP-2 47.48969 122.21400 24+37 lP-3 47.48816 122.21381 18+62 Locations based on field GPS data. I,··. fi .• 0". ", ,·b· /,o_.·~ 'cm.""'<o---~~,'7"( ... o--~,.,_-· .. ,G~-,,: -, Ii -0"-; =[-Vrl . ;"!' ,v7C' .• ,:·if',;,7. _<'''''''---.. ,;-0:-_~~_'\ '<_, ,i" ~.. _~ ___ ~. l _-~I ~~ _____ "~'I!fr.; / (;;{/" "-"', 7:5">"-n' ' _, ..... ,:_ ... ~:\~~' 'cr~ ,: __ ~ -"" "-~:I t ,~.;;--~ " /-.. ?:~ '::'-:~~ I~ \' ....... ~---/' ,.-.--:.,--~, ~o ... -"'t~~.\ _.. <v', -< ., !f:,_~:.f:-L~ rr---'-', 7' ~ .. "'t" -,--/--",,;:-,. --- ------...c~_,: ..... ~-------__ ~_T'" l'~~ ~-!, '-<:>="'_''l~ -..... -_ .--_..-_~ ,., ),e[-, ,,~' .. , :"$q I ~co;-, ': __ ,. ,'t-~', /. >~ ~<>~----~-=..--~:~ .. 61:'--=...-,--/ - -.-'-.. -~ /#;' . \~.: Offset 275E 294 E 319 E 323 E 304E 350E 383E 356E 330E 278 E 3S5E 183 E 148 E 129 E 133 E 103 E 393 E 455 E 262 E 397 E 272 E 298E 298E -.1.--: -;..",~~.,..;:=I",.: 'r,,--\-~,~~c;;:;c;71'JP3,~Cc;;COR i.19-;I-\;·'·'i-"'TP-2/~ '-j/~F'=!",.\ ",·-T~"--''''.j!\~ ~" =:J;l;',..o..-:~ '''''e ""':PiIt -<CORE~"'·F;· ... '~ , 1-.>: *~~ ~.4: -~ ,:~-~~""-'_'_ ,' .. " ~ .. " _;../:(-;'\~ <~, :-'tif _/ ';:'~_~"':=L"-.w ':"--~~~-:~_:~~~_:--':-:"-~-'-~ .~~,. -.~ - --~ • -,f.,:ORE:l' .. __ ---=-_1-~'~~-'~;':;~--"~~-~ /;"~W r:~,\-~~~:':--'<-';YC?R.5~~~E:;~~-=;COt6~r~iitI:;i"ft::':::='::~5'if~='J~ . );;;S~-'c:: r-[1~ . I I ,,. ~ORE-'I"" "''.'''i<.§<?#E:3:~-:--T~,~L~, c'" <-Z~,~ __ ~o< ? i 'DIT "";'"c "~".:~~'. __ -"f-~fOR5'~'7= ..o..:-L'-~I~ . ± ' . ~'_J~' :'::~J, \:;,' ,-':::C:;~ ;:> ";, '~~:;,:f~.,r·;~;-,;~~: ~~~-'"'~:,~.:'y'C.~~ .. __ < ",;::C>'-"/~-' ,- I'~;" '" ..... " ,!~ "l " liG '~-"~ f! ~:! -f-~ ':; ~;-I ~'::tU~ , .. : < (( t~~' . .; . .;\ '.'%" ""--:-.,/J;" ~ r.:;" I. -" 1-, N~ -, ,;' .. -~-", ... -: --t--,,,""":i -:;-'':;';:'''' .""".--,.' ;, i7';",~,~':ili~'-:L-I':; ,;~ .: .. 1~N~'B "",_~ '.I~:~ '; ;1: Y'~-' ,~~C~fC_",:"j.A~'~,,~~:,j?,~,<-?:)~-c-;·f·'·;-l~~~'::";~~:~~=':' .. , -/_,~':C~"_"';:,;~~ .. ,_~_. LEGEND TP·3 ..... ~-~ 1200' '60~0''''''''''''''''''''1 O~~rl_~_~_~~_~O~:~' ~~~~ I -$-TEST PIT DESIGNATION AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION CORE-14 .. CORE HOLE DESIGNATION AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION <FIG 2 _I HWAGEOSCIENCES INC L SCALE: 1"=300' FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON, WASHINGTON SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN ORAWNBY m OlEO( BY .2i ~~ 2011-039-21 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Map Symbol af afm aac ait Geologic Description Artificial Fill Urban or Industrial land modified by widespread or discontinuous fill Alluvium -sand and gravel deposited by the Cedar River, and associated beds of silt, clay and peat. Kame Terrace Deposits -sand and pebble-to-cobble gravel in scattered terraces. Map taken from: D.R. Mullineaux, 1965 NORTH 11 GEOLOGIC MAP FIGURE NO ~------====~~----~ 3 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RON PROJECT NO 2011-039 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I RELATIVE DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY VERSUS SPT N-VALUE Density Very loose Loose Medium Dense Dense Very Dense Coarse Grained Soils More than 50% Retained on No. 200 Sie...a 51", Fine Grained Soils 50% or More Passing No. 200 Sieve Size COHESION LESS SOILS COHESIVE SOILS Approximate Approximate N (blows/ttl ReiatiYEI Oensily(%) Consistency N (blowslft) Undmined Shear Stmnglh (pst) 0 to 4 0 15 Very Soft 0 to , <250 4 to 10 15 35 Soft , to 4 250 SOO 10 to 30 35 65 Medium Stiff 4 to , 500 -1000 30 to SO 65 85 Stiff , to 15 1000 -2000 over 50 85 -100 Very Stiff 15 to 30 2000 -4000 Hard over 30 >4000 USCS SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MAJOR DIVISIONS Gravel and Gravelly Soils More than 50% of Coarse Fraction Retained on No.4 Sieve Sand and Sandy Soils 50% or More of Co arne Fraction Passing No.45;,,,,, Silt 00' Clay Silt 00' Clay Highly Organic Soils Cloan Gra...al (Iittlo or no fines) Gravel with Fines (appreciable amount of fines) Clean Sand (little or no fines) Sand with Fines (appreciable amount of fines) liquid Limit Less Ihan 50% Liquid Limit 50% or More GROUP DESCRIPTIONS ',!'IIGW WeU-gradedGRAVEl "':::. GP Poorty-graded GRAVEL GM Silty GRAVEL GC Clayey GRAVEL :::::: SW Well-gradedSAND (: .... ;-;-.. "." SP ..... :.,' .. :. Poorly-graded SAND .~r: 8M Silty SAND SC Clayey SAND ML SILT CL Lean CLAY ~fLl-O-L-+-O-"'-'-";-'-5-'L-T/-D-"'-OO-;'-C-LA-y--I MH Elas~c SILT CH Fat CLAY OH Organic SILT/Organic CLAY 1"-" PT PEAT %F AL caR eN DD OS GS K MD MR PID PP 5G TC lV UC ~ I G 0 ~ [] !2l TEST SYMBOLS Percent Fines Attert>erg Umits: PL'= Plastic Urnil LL = Uquid Urni! california Bearing Ratio Consolidation Dry Density (pcf) Dired Shear Grain Size Distribution Penneability Moisture/DenSity Relationship (Proctor) ResUlent Modulus Pholoionizalion Device Reading Pocket Penetrometer Approx. Compressiw Strength (tst) Specific Gravity Trialdal Compression T"",""" Approx. Shear Strength (Isf) Unconfined Compression SAMPLE TYPE SYMBOLS 2.0· 00 Split Spoon (SPT) (140 lb. hammer with 30 in. drop) Shelby Tube 3-1/4" 00 Spill Spoon with Brass Rings Small Bag Sample Large Bag (Bulk) Sample ""'"Run Non-standard Penetration Test (3.0" 00 splil spoon) GROUNDWATER SYMBOLS Groundwater level (measured at time of drilling) Groundwater Level (measured in well 01' open hole after water lew! stabilized) COMPONENT DEFINITIONS COMPONENT PROPORTIONS COMPONENT SIZE RANGE PROPORT1QN RANGE DESCRIPTIVE TERMS Boulders larger than 12in < 50/. aean Cobbles 3 in to 12 in Gravel 3 in to No 4 (4.5mm) Coarse gravel 3 in to 3/4 in 5-12% Slightly (Oayey, Silty, Sandy) Fine gravel 3/4 in to No 4 (4.Smm) 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. NOlES: Soil dassifications pres8f1ted on rocplora~on logs are based on "';sual and laOOr'atory observation. Soil descriptions are presented in the following general order: Density/consistency, color. modifier (if any) GROUP NAME, additions to group name (if any), moisture contant. Proporlion, gradation, and angularity of constituents, additional comments. (GEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION) Please refer to the discussion in the report text as well as the exploration logs for a more complete description of subsurface conditions. -FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION HWAGEoSCIENCES INc LEGEND 2011"()39.GPJ 9/28/12 RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: MOISTURE CONTENT DRY Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch. MOIST Damp but no wsible water. WET Visible free water, usually soil is below water table. LEGEND OF TERMS AND SYMBOLS USED ON EXPLORATION LOGS 2011-039 FIGURE: A-1 DRILLING COMPANY; Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DRILLING METHOD; 8-inch Diamond Core SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOCATION: See Figure 2. 5 DESCRIPTION j i Med.dense to dense, dark olive brown GRAVEL with sand and cobbles, moist. (FILL) Hand excavation terminated due 10 refusal on cobbles. No Ground water observed while conducting this hand boring. w a. ~ w -' a. :; « '" 0: W '" :; ::> z w -' a. :; « '" S-1 S-2 5-3 W U z_ «-~il Ci3 .5 ili~ ffi.2 a.e NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times andlor locations. ~ '" w I- 0: w :r I- 0 GS ., FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION HWAGEoScIENCES INc RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON. WASHINGTON DATE STARTED: 612/2011 DATE COMPLETED: 61212011 LOGGED BY: S. Greene SURFACE ELEVATION: 18.5 :tfeel 0: w I- ~ Z ::> fil " 0 o Dropweighl Cone Penetrometer (140 lb. weight, 30" drop) ll. Blows per foot 10 20 30 40 o 20 40 60 80 Water Content (%) Plastic Umit 1--0-1 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content PAVEMENT CORE CORE-01 PAGE: 1 of 1 PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FGURE: BORING-OSM 2011.(J39.GPJ 9/28112 50 100 I A-2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Oiamond Core SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOCATION: See Figure 2. 5 GP DESCRIPTION 4.5-inches (ASPHALTIC CONCRETE) Dense, gray, crushed rock. 2-inches of CSTC over 3-inches of eSBe. Medium dense, brown, poorly graded GRAVEL with sand and cobbles, moist. (Fill) ML Dark olive brown, sandy SILT. moist. Contains 1.2% organic matter by dry weight. IAllWlUM) 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. 0: w w () w '" z_ ::; ... 0. I-• ~ ::> "'~ z _u W (/J .;; w w'" -' -' o:~ 0. 0. ::; ::; d].2 .. .. "' "' 0.8- 5-1 5-2 5-3 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times anellor locations. "' I- "' W I- 0: W J: I- 0 Al GS -FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT HWAGEoSCIENCES INC. RENTON. WASHINGTON DATE STARTED: 6/212011 DATE COMPLETED: 6/212011 LOGGED BY: S. Greene SURFACE ELEVATION: 18.9 :t feet 0: w ~ Z ::> 0 0: '" 0 o Dropweight Cone Penetrometer 10 A A, i>-A, A A' .A: *' i A A 20 (140 lb. weight, 30 N drop) A Blows per foot 20 30 40 40 60 BO Water Conlent (%) Plastic Limit I " I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content PAVEMENT CORE CORE-02 PAGE: 1 of 1 PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FIGURE: BORING-DSM 2011-039.GPJ 9128112 z 0 i= .. 50 ~~ w'=- r-15 100 A-3 DRILLING COMPANY: Casacde Concrete Sawing and Drilling DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Diamond Core SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOCATION: See Figure 2. c: III ::; >-'" '" :5 (.) --' 5 '" '" U '" => DESCRIPTION 2.25-inches of HMA pavement. (ASPHALTIC CONCRETE) Dense, gray CSSC. fH#=,-hMedium stiff, grayish Loose to medium dense, brown, medium to fine, poorly graded SAND, moist. Medium dense to loose, grayish brown, Silly fine moist 10 wet. (ALUDISTURBEO NATIVE ALLUVIUM) S-1 S-2 S-3 "" '-------'----_----'n S4 _ (NATIVE ALLUVIUM) V 5 Hand boring terminated at an approximate depth of 2.8 feel. DCP testing conducted from 2.8 to 4.9 feet below the existing pavement surface. No ground water was observed while conducting this hand boring. w " z_ " . t-• ",-" _u (J) .5 w'" "'~ ~.2 C.e NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicatiw of other times andlor locations. ~ UJ w t- '" w J: t- 0 GS -FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON, WASHINGTON HWAGEOSCIENcEs INC DATE STARTED; 612/2011 DATE COMPLETED; 612/2011 LOGGED BY: S. Greene SURFACE ELEVATION: 18.3 :tfeet '" w ~ z => 0 '" '" Dropweight Cone Penetrometer (140 lb. weight, 30~ drop) ~ Blows per foot 0 10 20 30 40 o :0 '" '" "'~ .iii ;,. A !> 20 40 60 80 Water Content ('Yo) Plastic Limit I-G--I liquid limit Natural Water Content PAVEMENT CORE CORE-03 PAGE: 1 of 1 PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FGURE: BORING-DSM 2011-039.GPJ 9f28/12 Z 0 ~ ilj=- --'.ll 50 w_ 15 100 I A-4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DRILLING METHOD: 8·inch Diamond Core SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOCATION: See Figure 2. :I: h:::::-w· o~ '" ~ ~ o '" '" u '" :> DESCRIPTION • 1.&-inches HMA pavement. [ASPHALTIC CONCRETE] o-~~~~~ ., GW Gray, crushed rock CSTC. Layer 1-inch thick. 0 5-1 I!. [GRAVEL BASE] .,'. SM 1.75-inches HMA :.) ~.: \ [ASPHALTIC CONCRETE) ! . : " I Loose, brown, fine to coarse sandy, fine to coarse GRAVEL I ::.:::. ~:: \with trace silt, moist. I ,':" \ _________ 1F!!:Ll _________ l ~:.,1 ... ;\; ;H·· ~O-I, Medium dense, gray, silty SAND to sandy SILT with trace ",.':': SP 1\,g~~,..T~s~ ________________ / :ti?? ~~: ~~~:£:.;~~e~~i~~dium SAND wilh fine 10 _ OL -- Soft to medium stiff, brown organic SILT with gray sand seam, and occasional reeds, moist to wet. [ALLUVIUM] -=: 5- - 10- Core hole was terminated at 50-inches below grOUnd surface due. Ground water seepage was observed at 48-inches below ground surface during the exploration. o S-3 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only althe specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. .. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION HWAGEoSCIENCES INC. RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON, WASHINGTON DATESTARTED: 61612011 DATE COMPLETED: 6/612011 LOGGED BY: O. Coltrane SURFACE ELEVATION: 19.5 :t feet Dropweight Cone Penetrometer (17.6 lb. weight, 22.6" drop) .6. Blows per foot z o ~ ~i 0r--,--_1:::0--,_2~0'__,__~30~_,__-=4~0_,~50 w", o 20 40 60 80 Water Content (%) Plastic Limit I Ii I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content PAVEMENT CORE CORE-04 PAGE: 1 of 1 15 10 100 PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FIGURE: A-5 BORING-DSM 2011-039.GPJ 9/28/12 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Diamond Core SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOCATION: See Figure 2. DESCRIPTION (GRAVEL BASE) 0: W w '" a. ::; ~ :::> Z w w ~ ~ a. a. '" ~ <: "' "' 5-1 Medium dense, brown, poorly graded SAND with silt and S-2 ... ...... .... ... ... 5 SM gravel, moist. (DREDGE FILL) Handboring terminated at an approximate depth of 2.5 feet. Soils appeared saturated and borehole sidewalls began to collapse upon withdrawal of the auger. 5-3 W " z_ ;0$ "'~ _u (JJ .::: w'" ~l ~e NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times andlor locations. ~ "' w .... 0: w J: S GS -FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT HWAGEoScIENcEs INC RENTON, WASHINGTON DATESTARTED: 61212011 DATE COMPLETED: 61212011 LOGGED BY: S. Greene SURFACE ELEVATION: 19.5 ~f .. 1 0: Dropweight Cone Penetrometer w i (140 lb. weight, 30· drop) I:J. Blows per foot '" Z :::> 0 0: " 0 10 20 30 40 ·0,···· 0 20 40 60 80 WaterContent(%) Plastic Limit 1---0--1 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content PAVEMENT CORE CORE-05 PAGE: 1 of 1 PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 GURE: BORING-OSM 2011..o39.GPJ 9128/12 Z 0 i= <: ~;;' 50 UJ~ 15 100 I A-6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DRILLING METHOD: a-inch Diamond Core SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOCATION: See Figure 2. :r: .... -a.-w~ o'=- 0 5 10 (/) (/) :5 u --' --' 6 0 (/) CD (/) ::; U >-(/) (/) :::l DESCRIPTION 8.S-inches of HMA Pavement. IASPHAL TIC CONCRETE] Loose, gray, fine to coarse gravelly, to coarse SAND with cobbles and trace silt, moist. Becoming fine to medium SAND with gravel. IFILL) ~,~~---------------------Medium dense, gray, gravelly, silty fine to coarse SAND with pieces of brick and shell like material, moist. (DREDGE FILL) wale" seepaae Medium stiff. gray SILT with trace sand, reeds, and oxide mottling, moist. IALLUVlUM] ~,~'~~----------------------1"l;U1~Th Medium stiff 10 medium dense, gray, silty fine SAND to ... s~~~L.!:~o~I..!-O~e.!:. ____________ I OL Soft to medium stiff, brown organiC SILT with gray sand seams, wood debris and scattered1 reeds, moist to wet. u..Ju..!-"'-'-, .M:;ed~_:ium stiff to stiff, gray, SILT with wood debris and fine surface. Ground water seepage was during the exploration at 37.5-inches and B6-inches below ground surface. 0: W U W z_ W CD ::; ~ ~ a. r: :::l en" z -" W W til .E --' --' W<o a. a. o:~ ::; ::; iD.Q .. .. en en a.e- o S-l o S-2 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may nol necessarily be indicative of other limes and/or locations. en .... en W f- 0: UJ :r: .... 0 -FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION HWAGEoScIENCES INC. RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON, WASHINGTON DATE STARTED: 6/7/2011 DATE COMPLETED: 617/2011 LOGGED BY: D. Coltrane SURFACE ELEVATION; 19.5 :t feet 0: Dropweight Cone Penetrometer W f-~ Z :::l 0 0: '" 0 (17.6 lb. weight, 22.6" drop) A Blows per foot 10 J 1 1 . t bi t . A 20 · A: · A, . 30 · ... : .. .<lI ........... .. A: :,..6; l . ············lA ... : .... , ... . t: . A, 40 0 20 40 60 80 Water Content (%) Plastic Limit 1--0--1 liquid Limit Natural Waler Content PAVEMENT CORE CORE-06 PAGE: 1 of 1 PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FIGURE: BORING-OSM 2011.Q39.GPJ 9126/12 z 0 i= .. [jz-ml 50 15 10 100 A-7 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Diamond Core SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOCATION: See Figure 2. 5 10 DESCRIPTION [ASPHALTIC CONCRETE] 5-lnches Portland Cement GP Loose, gray, poorly graded GRAVEL with fine to coarse SAND with cobbles and trace silt, moist to weI. [FILL] "" .. "'._-'--- - - - -- - -------------- 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 exploration at 32-inches below ground surface. a: W W 0 W " ~"' Q. >i f-• ~ OJ "'~ Z _0 f/) .5 W W W<o ~ ~ a Q. Q. >i ~ « ~8. '" "' NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. '" f- '" W f-a: W :I: f- 0 .. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION HWAGEoScIENCES INC RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: BORING-OSM 2011-Q39.GPJ 9/28/12 DATE STARTED: 617/2011 DATE COMPLETED: 6/7/2011 LOGGED BY: D. Coltrane SURFACE ELEVATION: 19.7 :tfeet a: W ~ " z OJ 0 a: <!l 0 0 Dropweight Cone Penetrometer (17.6 lb. weight, 22.6" drop) 4 Blows per foot 10 o A if. ~ AAli ~~A t; 20 30 !i£i • li············· A A . A . 40 ............ ~ ............................. . . . . ~ ~i ;t:,.A . li' fA 20 40 60 80 Water Content (%) Plastic Limit t-O---f Liquid Limit Natural Water Content PAVEMENT CORE CORE-OJ PAGE: 1 of 1 2011-039 FG RE: Z 0 ~ [;z-m! 50 15 10 100 I A-a I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DRILLING METHOD: B-inch Diamond Core SAMPLJNG METHOD: Hand Tools LOCATION: See Figure 2. '" '" :s u ~ ~ 5 J: 0 '" t-_ OJ '" 0.;; " u w. >-'" ,,"'-'" :> ° DESCRIPTION CONCRETE) 6.5-inches Portland Concrete Cement [PCC[ Loose, gray, fine to coarse gravelly, fine to coarse SAND with cobbles and trace silt, moist. [FILL] dense, gray, gravelly sandy SILT 10 silty SAND. Medium stiff, gray, SILT with sand to sandy SILT, moist. [AlLUVIUM] '" W W OJ " 0. ~ :> z W W ~ ~ 0. 0. " " " " '" '" o S-2 wU-;=, Medlu;;; ;t;ff,"bro;'; ;iih g-;;'Ym-;;tt~9. ORGANIC SILT wlth- trace fine sand seams and reeds, moist. 0 5-3 5 10 ~~~----------------------ML Medium stiff, gray. fine sandy SILT with interbedds of fine sand and reeds, wet. Core hole was terminated at 79-inches below ground surface. Ground water seepage was observed during the exploration at 60 to 52-inches below ground surface. o S-4 W U z_ " . t-• ",= -" en .5 W<o "'~ ~.Q o.e- NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only al the specified location and on the dale indicated and therefore may nol necessarily be indicative of other times andlor locations. ~ '" W t- '" W J: t- 0 -FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION HWAGEoSclENCES INC RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON, WASHINGTON DATE STARTED: 617/2011 DATE COMPLETED: 617/2011 LOGGED BY: D. Coltrane SURFACE ELEVATION: 19.9 t feet '" W i " Z :> 0 '" Oropweight Cone Penetrometer (17.6 lb. weight, 22.6" drop) A Blows per foot z o ~ >-~i '" ° ;--:-_1:.0 --:_2::0=-----,-...:3::0_,--...:4:.0---,-;50 w ~ 'A: ............ .. A : .i ..... : .... ~ .. :. I/> it. A -15 L-~~~~~ __ ~~~~~-10 ° 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content (%) Plastic Limit I 18 I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content PAVEMENT CORE CORE-08 PAGE: 1 of 1 PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 A-9 BORING-DSM 2011-039.GPJ 9128/12 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Diamond Core SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOCATION: See Figure 2. 5 DESCRIPTION [ASPHALTIC CONCRETE] Loose, grayish brown, to coarse gravelly, fine to coarse SAND with cobbles and trace silt, moist. Becoming fine to medium SAND with gravel. [FILL) ~~~~----------------------Medium dense, Dark olive brown, silty, gravelly fine to medium SAND, moist sand, moist. [ALLWlUMl "".r=-t--- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---Medium stiff to medium dense, gray, silty fine SAND to SM sandy SILT, wet. Core hole was terminated at 9O-inches below ground surface. Ground water seepage was observed during the exploration at 65-inches below ground surface. 0: W W <J w OJ ~I 0. ::; ~ " !ilo z (/J .5 w w lji~ -' -' 0. 0. ::; ::; ~.2 " " '" '" o.e o S-3 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. '" l- '" W I- 0: W J: I- 0 -FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION HWAGEoScIENCES INC RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON, WASHINGTON DATESTARTED: 61712011 DATE COMPLETED: 6/7/2011 LOGGED BY: D. Coltrane SURFACE ELEVATION: 19.9 :t reet 0: Dropweight Cone Penetrometer w I-(17.61b. weight, 22.6-drop) ~ 11 Blows per foot Z " 0 0: (!J 0 10 20 30 40 : 0: t- .... : ... '" .............. . 50 f-15 L-~~~~~~~~~~-10 a 20 40 60 80 100 Water Content (%) Plastic Limit 1--0---1 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content PAVEMENT CORE CORE-09 PAGE: 1 of 1 PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FIGURE: A-1 BORIN~SM 2011-039.GPJ 9/28/12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Diamond Core SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOCATION: See Figure 2. '" '" :'i () -' -' 0 0 '" '" '" ::E () >-'" '" OJ DESCRIPTION -1-2.25-inches HMA Pavement. ;'6 GP \ [ASPHALTIC CONCRETE] Dense to very dense, gray fine to coarse sandy, fine angular o;t GRAVEL, moist. ,Cl [GRAVEL BASE) Dot 'Cl ,o~t Core hole was terminated at 26-inches below ground surface. No ground water seepage was observed during the exploration. 5 - 10 - 0: W W () W '" z_ ::E '" . a. >-• ~ OJ "'~ Z _0 en .5 w w Ww -' -' o:~ a. a. ::E ::E 55.2 '" '" '" '" a.e. r NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only al the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times anellor locations. ~ '" W f- 0: W I f- 0 .. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT HWAGEoScIENCES INC RENTON, WASHINGTON DATESTARTED: 61612011 DATE COMPLETED: 6/6/2011 LOGGED BY: O. Coltrane SURFACE ELEVATION: 19.1 ±feel 0: W i a z OJ 0 0: (!J 0 o Dropweight Cone Penetrometer (17.6 lb. weight, 22.6N drop) .4 Blows per foot 10 20 30 40 20 40 60 80 Water Conlent (%) Plastic Limit I • I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content PAVEMENT CORE CORE-10 PAGE: 1 of 1 PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FIGURE: BORING-DSM 2011-039.GPJ 9/28/12 z 0 ~ cu=-u:ll 50 15 10 100 A-11 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Diamond Core SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOCATION: See Figure 2. <Il <Il :5 " -' -' 0 I 0 <Il 6:Z' '" <Il :; " w~ >-<Il O'=-"' :> 0 .... ...... 5 10 DESCRIPTION 8.S-inches HMA Pavement. [ASPHALIC CONCRETE] 8-inches Portland Cement Concrete [PCC] Loose, grayish brown, fine 10 coarse gravelly, fine to coarse SAND with cobbles and trace sill, moist. ]ALL] dense. dark olive brown, silty fine to medium SAND with gravel. moist. Piece of wood at 35-inches BGS. recovered. Core hole was terminated at 45-inches below ground surface due to refusal on cobbles. No ground water seepage was observed during the exploration. 0: W W " w '" z_ 0. :; ;o~ ~ :> !!lu Z en .5 w w W'" -' -' o:~ 0. 0. :; :; ~..Q '" '" "' "' o.e NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicatilJO of other limes and/or locations. "' t- "' w t- 0: W i!: 0 -FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAX]WAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON, WASHINGTON lHWAGEoSCIENCES INC DATE STARTED: 617/2011 DATE COMPLETED: 617/2011 LOGGED BY: D. Coltrane SURFACE ELEVATION: 19.1 zfeet 0: Dropweight Cone Penetrometer W t-(17.6 lb. weight, 22.6" drop) ~ A Blows per foot O Z :> 0 0: '" 0 10 20 30 40 0 20 40 60 80 Water Content (%) 50 » 100 Plastic Limit ~ Liquid Limit Natural Water Content PAVEMENT CORE CORE-11 PAGE: 1 of 1 z 0 ~ >-, w. ulg 15 I PROJECT NO,: 2011-039 FIGURE: A-1 BORING-DSM 2011-039.GPJ 9f28112 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrele Sawing and Drilling DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Diamond COre SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOCATION: See Figure 2. 5 10 -' o '" ~ '" ~ -' B '" '" u '" => DESCRIPTION 7.S-inches HrvtA Pavement. [ASPHALTIC CONCRETE) ~inches Portland Concrete [PCC[ Loose, brown, fine to coarse gravelly, fine to coarse SAND with cobbles and trace silt, moist to wet. [FILLI hr-r:'!-.=f--- - - - - ---------------- Loose, grayish brown, silly fine to medium SAND with trace fine gravel. moist. ~~~r----------------------Piece of wood encountered. Light grayish brown, gravelly SAND with trace silt and rooUets, moist. Sand becomes coarser. Medium dense, interbedded gray, silty fine SAND with brown fine to medium SAND, moist. ~~-L __________________________ ~ Core hole was terminated at BS-inches below ground surface due to refusal on cobbles. No ground water seepage was observed during the exploration. o S-l 054 w u z_ '" . f-• "'~ _u (f) .5 iJ!'" .~ Z 0 w-a.e NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. -FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION HWAGEoSCIENCES INC RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON, WASHINGTON DATE STARTED: 61612011 DATE COMPLETED: 61612011 LOGGED BY: D. Coltrane SURFACE ELEVATION: 20.6 ~ feet 0: i z ~ " o o Dropweight Cone Penetrometer (17.6Ib. weight, 22.6" drop) .6 Blows per foot 10 20 30 40 20 40 60 80 Water Content (%) Plastic Umit I ., I liquid Limit Natural Water Content PAVEMENT CORE CORE-12 PAGE: 1 of 1 PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FIGURE: BORING-DSM 2011-039.GPJ 9/28/12 50 20 15 100 A-13 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Diamond Core SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOCATION: See Figure 2. "' "' :5 u -' -' i5 :I: 0 "' !i::::-'" "' :; u w~ >-"' o'=-"' => DESCRIPTION 0 HMA G-inches Portland Cement I!: w w '" :; a. /: => z w w -' -' a. a. :; :; '" '" "' "' Loose, brown, well graded GRAVEL with sand and cobbles 0 S-l and trace silt, moist to wet. 5 10 (ALL) Gray to Ught brown, sandy SILT, moist. Oxide mottling present. (ALLUVIUM) Becoming lighl brown medium SAND 10 gray silt. Interbeds/lenses of gray silt from 49-51 inches. ~~~--------------------------~ Core hole was terminated at 57-inches below ground surface due to refusal on cobbles. No ground water seepage was observed during the exploration. o S-3 w U z_ ",. ..... "'''' _0 en .5 w'" I!:~ ~.2 a.e- NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. f!! "' w .... I!: w :I: .... 0 -FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION lHWAGEoSCIENCES INC RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON, WASHINGTON DATE STARTED: 61612011 DATE COMPLETED: 61612011 LOGGED BY: D. Coltrane SURFACE ELEVATION: 21.4 ±feet I!: Dropweight Cone Penetrometer w i Z => 0 I!: " 0 (17.6 lb. weight, 22.6~ drop) A Blows per foot 10 20 A 0 AA . .A~ ~~a A. A· : ~ .. 30 40 50 A~A:"""""""""':"'" {!~ : . A, o 20 40 60 80 Water Content (%) Plastic Limit t-----o----I Liquid Limit Nalural Water Content PAVEMENT CORE CORE-13 PAGE: 1 of 1 100 I PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FIGURE: A-14 BORING-OSM 2011..Q39.GPJ 9/28f12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DRILLING METHOD: a..inch Diamond Core SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOCATION: See Figure 2. :I: h:i' w. """ ° 5 10 DESCRIPTION 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] SP ught ~o;n~ne SAND-with ;It;~ tra~ grawl~m~i~ -- SM (ALLUVIUM) 05-2 Interbeds/lenses of gray silt in sample. 0 5-3 Core hole was terminated at SO-inches below ground surface. No ground water seepage was observed during the exploration. NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT -HWAGEOSCIENCES INC RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON, WASHINGTON DATE STARTED: 61612011 DATE COMPLETED: 61612011 LOGGED BY: D. Coltrane SURFACE ELEVATION: 20.8 :t feet 0: w ~ z ~ Dropweight Cone Penetrometer (17.6 lb. weight, 22.6" drop) A Blows per foot z o ~ >-~1l '-" 0;-...,--,:10,---,-",2::0,-,.-..:3::0-,,-..:40,---,--,;,50 UJ ~ ° 20 40 60 80 Water Content (%) Plastic Limit I ., I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content PAVEMENT CORE CORE-14 PAGE: 1 of 1 20 15 100 PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FIGURE: A-15 BORING-OSM 2011.(139.GPJ 9128/12 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Diamond Core SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOCATION: See Figure 2. l: li::::-~! 0 '" '" ::'l () .... .... 5 0 '" '" '" " () >-'" '" " DESCRIPTION 6-inches HMA Pavement. [ASPHALTIC CONCRETE] 6-inches Portland Cement Concrete (PCC] angular GRAVEL with sand, Loose, brown, R+I=-,+, moist. L----,--l£~~~_--.J 0: W w '" "-" 1: " z w w .... .... "-a. " " '" '" '" '" o S-l Loose to medium dense, brown, silty, fine to coarse 0 I+:h:f=:-n gravelly, fine to coarse SAND, moist. S-2 5 10 _________ ~~~ _________ J b:.-fd""",~ Loose to very loose, light brown, fine to medium SAND with i;s;~;:~Sh ;o;n~;ri; waded GRAvEL ;ilh s-;nd. -' 0 S-3 moist. Piece of wood encountered. Light grayish brown, gravelly SAND with trace sill and rootlets. moist. (FILUDISTURBED NATIVE) Core hole was terminated at 64-inches below ground surface due to refusal on cobbles. No ground water seepaga was observed during the exploration. W () z_ iOll "'0 en .S l:!~ ~:ll 0._ NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the speCified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times andlor locations. ~ '" w l- 0: w l: b -FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION HWAGEoSaENCESINC BORING-OSM 2011..o39.GPJ 9128112 RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: DATE STARTED: 6/6/2011 DATE COMPLETED: 61612011 LOGGED BY: D. Coltrane SURFACE ELEVATION: 20.7 ±feel 0: Dropweight Cone Penetrometer w I-(17.6 lb. weight. 22.66 drop) ~ b. Blows per foot e Z " 0 0: c> 0 10 20 30 40 ° 0, 0, ... ~ •. 1, 0 20 40 60 80 Water Content ('Yo) Plastic Limit ~ Liquid Limit Natural Water Content PAVEMENT CORE CORE-15 PAGE: 1 of 1 2011-039 FGURE: z 0 ;: '" >_. ~- w! 50 20 100 I A-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrele Sawing and Drilling DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Diamond Core SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOCATION: See Figure 2. I b:Z" UJ' D~ 0 5 "' 5 u -' -' 0 0 "' en "' " U >-"' "' => DESCRIPTION 3.5~inches HMA Pavement. [ASPHALTIC CONCRETE] 7-inches Portland Cement Concrete [peC] Loose, brown. fine to coarse gravelly, fine to coarse SAND with silt, moist. [FILL] ----------------.--~---j dense. gray, silty fine to medium SAND to coarse gravel, moist. Pieces of brown silt present. ~~~r----------------------Loose to medium dense, light brown, fine to coarse gravelly, fine to coarse SAND with trace silt and cobbles, moist. 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. 0: UJ UJ U UJ en z_ " >0 ~ a. i= => "'~ z _u rn£ UJ UJ UJ<o -' -' o;~ a. a. " " ffi..5! '" '" "' "' a.e NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. "' f- "' UJ f- 0: UJ I b -FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION HWAGEoSCIENCES INC RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON, WASHINGTON DATE STARTED: 6/612011 DATE COMPLETED: 61612011 LOGGED BY: D. Coltrane SURFACE ELEVATION: 20.7 :t feet 0: UJ f- ~ a Z => 0 0: " 0 o Oropweight Cone Penetrometer (17.6Ib, weight, 22.6~ drop) A Blows per foot 10 20. 30 40 20 40 60 80 Water Content (%) Plastic Limit I .. I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content PAVEMENT CORE CORE-16 PAGE: 1 of 1 PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FIGURE: BORING-DSM 2011-039.GPJ 9128112 z 0 i= 50 '" [ij~ -'. UJ'" 20 100 A-17 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DRILLING METHOD: 12-inch Diamond Core SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOCATION: See Figure 2. J: b::Z-W.ll c_ 0 5 10 U) ~ U ~ ~ a 0 U) CD U) " u >-U) U) :> DESCRIPTION [ASPHALTIC CONCRETE] 8-inches Portland Cement Concrete [PCC] Medium dense, gray, sandy, cobbly, fine to coarse GRAVEL, moist to wet. [ALL] ~:~~----------------------Medium dense, dark gray, slightly silty, gravelly, fine to medium SAND, moist. Trace wood debris. Medium stiff, brown, ORGANIC SILT, moist. Core hole was terminated at 72-inches below ground surface due to refusal on cobbles. No ground water seepage was observed during the exploration. '" W W U W CD z_ " ,,-a. ~~ ~ :> z en .5 W W W<o ~ ~ "'j a. a. " ~ Z" " w~ U) U) 0._ ~ S-1 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the dale Indicated and therefore may nol necessarily be indicative of other limes and/or locations. U) .... U) W .... '" W J: .... 0 -FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION HWAGEoScIENCES INC BORING-OSM 2011.{l39.GPJ 9f28f12 RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: DATE STARTED: 711112012 DATE COMPLETED: 7/11/2012 LOGGED BY: D. Coltrane SURFACE ELEVATION: 19.7 :t feet '" Dropweight Cone Penetrometer W i (17.6Ib, weight, 22.6~ drop) 11 Blows per foot C z :> 0 '" '" 0 10 20 30 40 : 6; .... ; .... ;.6; ..... 1 ............ . o 20 40 60 80 Waler Conlent (%) 50 » DD » 100 Plastic Limit J--O----I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content PAVEMENT CORE CORE-17 PAGE: 1 of 1 2011-039 FGUR A-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DRILLING METHOD: 12-inch Diamond Core SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOCATION: See Figure 2. :I: h:=-w~ "'" 0 5 10 '" '" :5 u -' -' i5 0 '" '" '" :; u >-'" '" OJ DESCRIPTION 6-inches HMA (ASPHALTIC CONCRETE] 6-inches Portland Cement Concrete (PCC( Medium dense. gray, sandy, cobbly, fine to coarse GRAVEL, moist to wet. [ALL( Ground water seepage observed at 2.16 feet below ground surface. (BGS) ~~,~~---------------------Medium dense, dark gray, slightly gravelly, sandy SILT, moist to wet. Trace wood debris, i stiff. gray, to CLAY, moist. Organic debris and brown mottling observed. (ALLUVIUM] 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. 0: W W U W '" :/. 0. :; f-• ~ OJ ~-fi z en .5 W W W<o -' -' "'l 0. 0. :; :; Z-" « « ~e '" '" ~ S-1 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. f'! '" W f- '" W :I: f- 0 -FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT HWAGEoScIENCES INC RENTON, WASHINGTON DATE STARTED: 7/11/2012 DATE COMPLETED: 7/11/2012 LOGGED BY: O. Coltrane SURFACE ELEVATION: 19.6 z feet 0: W ~ " z OJ 0 0: '" 0 o "', "'. "'., .. "" Oropweight Cone Penetrometer (17.6 lb. weight. 22.6~ drop) .10 20 A Brows per foot 20 •• 40 ". <>, .. A 30 60 Waler Content (%) 40 80 Plastic Limit I • I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content PAVEMENT CORE CORE-18 PAGE: 1 of 1 PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FIGyRE: BORtNG-OSM 2011-039.GPJ 9{28{12 z 0 ~ [ij:::-ujl 50 15 10 100 A-19 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DRILLING METHOD: S-inch Diamond Core SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOCA nON: See Figure 2. oo oo :s u ~ is :I: 0 oo ~:::-OJ oo '" u ~l >-oo oo ::> 0 5 10 DESCRIPTION 12-inches HMA Pavement. [ASPHALTIC CONCRETE] [FILL) Medium stiff, gray, silty CLAY to clayey SILT, moist. Trace organics observed. Core hole was terminated at 66-inches BGS due to refusal on cobbles. No ground water seepage was observed during the exploration. '" UJ UJ U UJ OJ z_ :; ,,-.. t-' ~ ::> oo~ z -" rJ) .5 UJ UJ UJ", ~ ~ "'~ .. .. :; :; ~.2 " " oo oo .. e- ~ S-1 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. oo t-oo UJ t- '" UJ :I: t- O -FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION HWAGEoScIENCES INC RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON, WASHINGTON DATE STARTED: 7/11/2012 DATE COMPLETED: 7/11/2012 LOGGED BY: D. Coltrane SURFACE ELEVATION: 19.5 ±feet '" UJ t-~ " z ::> 0 '" '" 0 o Oropweight Cone Penetrometer (17.6 lb. weight, 22.6" drop) l:J. Blows per foot 10 20 30 40 ............ 20 40 60 80 Water Content (%) Plastic Limit ~ Liquid Limit Natural Water Content PAVEMENT CORE CORE-19 PAGE: 1 of 1 PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FGU E: BORINQ..OSM 2011-OJ9.GPJ 9128112 z 0 !;: (ij::-~$ 50 UJ"- f-15 -10 100 A-2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Diamond Core SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOCATION: See Figure 2. 5 10 -' o <D :; >-"' DESCRIPTION Pavement. [ASPHALTIC CONCRETE] 7-inches Portland Cement Concrete [pce] Medium dense, gray. sandy, cobbly, fine to coarse GRAVEL, moist to wet. [FILL] ML Medium stiff, gray, slightly sandy SILT, moist. [ALLUVIUM] ----------------~~~--~--I Medium stiff, gray to brown, SILT to ORGANIC , moist. Organic debris and brown mottling observed. ____ -L __________________________ ~ Core hole was terminated at 55-inches BGS due to refusal on cobbles. No ground water seepage was observed during the exploration. ~ 5-1 o 5-2 05 - 3 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the dale indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other limes and/or locations. .. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION HWAGEoScIENCES INC RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON, WASHINGTON DATE STARTED: 7/11/2012 DATE COMPLETED: 7/1112012 LOGGED BY: D. Coltrane SURFACE ELEVATION: 20.0 ± feel 0: w ~ Z ::J 5'! C!J o o Dropweight Cone Penetrometer (17.6 lb. weight, 22.6" drop) At. Blows per foot 10 20 30 40 20 40 60 80 Water Content ('Yo) Plastic Limit I a I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content PAVEMENT CORE CORE-20 PAGE: 1 of 1 PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FIGURE' BORrNG-OSM 2011"()39.GPJ 9128/12 15 100 A-21 IiIlIIim EXCAVATION COMPANY: Deeny Construction EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT: Case 590 Backhoe SURFACE ELEVATION: 19:t Feet 6- 8- 10- Test pit terminated at an approximate depth of 4 feel below the existing ground surface. Groundwater seepage was observed at an approximate depth of about 3.8 feet below the existing ground surface. 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. LOCATION: See Figure 2. DATE COMPLETED: 613111 LOGGED BY; S. Greene SKETCH OF SIDE OF prr ! F l ~ Q. : :: .•. 10 ~ HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (feet) 4 6 2 8 1--4 • • • • • • • • • • • • •• •••• •.•• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• _... I • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ... ........ ... .... . .. , ............................................ , ...•...••.•.••..• -. ................................................................................... : : : l-6 . ................................................................................. . • • •• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• I • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ····1····,····,····,····1 I : : : 11--8 ............ ····1······· .... ····1···· ........... ·1···· ........ ····1··················· • • •• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• I . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .................. . "-10 FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT LOG OF TEST PIT TP-1 PAGE: 1 of 1 TPIT10 2011-039.GPJ 9128112 I!I!!!!!I ~ .. - - EXCAVATION COMPANY: Deeny Construction EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT: Case 590 Backhoe SURFACE ELEVATION: I t ~ 0 CD '" >- <Ii '" :'i " ~ 5 '" '" " '" 19:1 Feet ---- - a: W W CD 0-'" * ~ ::> 2 W~ W W a:f-::>2 ~ ~ f-W 0-0-",f- '" '" 5~ .. .. --- a: '" W f-f- "' .. W ;;: f-0 a: z W ::> :I: 0 f-a: - -- LOCATION: See Figure 2. DATE COMPLETED: 613111 LOGGED BY: S. Greene SKETCH OF SIDE OF PIT HORIZONTAL DI5T ANCE (feet) --- I t W '" '" "'" 0 " 0 2 4 6 B 5-1 11 5-2 25 r-----:------:-I:::::::::::::::--j-:----:-:::I::::::::::::---,------j--:-::::::I:::: ::::~:::: ::::1:::: :~::: ::: ::::I:::~:::·rr~ '" ::> DESCRIPTION ~ o ~ .,:. 3-inches of grass and sod . ..... : : I \ Medium dense. gray silty SAND with trace fine gravel, moist. f .... ML ... < .. (FILL) ML I \Dense, gray, sandy SILT with fine-gravel, moist. r 2 4 6 8 10 Medium stiff, brownish gray SILT with fine sand, moist, low plastic. OH Soft, gray to dark brown, ORGANIC SILT, moist to wet, plastic. B-1 102 AL GS 5-3 213 MD In·place density of soil chunk = dry density of 48.7 pet@ 134.2% MC. (ALLUVIUM) CBR 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 ground surface. 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(wesl). 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 andlor loeations. - 'l 1········r········r········r········r········1 r-2 ::::::: ::: :::: :::: ::::::: :::: ::: :::: ::: :::: ::: :::::: :::: :::: :::::::::::: I"··:":" T r··: .... : .. ·:····I .. ·· ........ ···r" .......... 1 .... :·:-.. :·· .. 1 H ···················,····:····:····:····1····:····:····: .... , .................. . ···················,····:····:····;····1····:····.····: .... , .................. . ~~-7-+~~~+-7-~~~-7-7-r~~~lr6 l ···:····:···: 1 : : : 1 : :: . LOG OF TEST PIT TP-2 HWAGEoSCIENCES INc. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON, WASHINGTON PAGE: 1 of 1 PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FIGURE: A-23 TPIT10 i011--039.GPJ 9128112 iiiiil EXCAVATION COMPANY: Deeny Construction EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT: Case 590 Backhoe SURFACE ELEVATION: 20 :t Feet ! :I: I-a. W o o 2 4 ~ 0 '" " >-U> ). ~:. -- --- ui U> :5 u ~ 5 U> U> U U> => GP ;:' ML OL DESCRIPTION 3-inches of grass and sod. Medium dense, brown, sandy GRAVEL with silt, moist. \ (ALL) Medium dense, grayish brown, fine sandy SILT, mOist, non-plastic. Loose to medium stiff, olive gray, sandy SILT, moist, non plastic. Io-place density of soil chunk= dry density 98.0 pet@ 25% MC. Medium stiff to soft, gray to grayish brown, organic SILT, moist to wet, low plastic. (ALLUVIUM) 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 f 0: W 0: W '" a. " ~ => z W W ~ ~ a. a. " " -< -< U) w U> W ;;: l-I-~ W-W 0:1-W I-0 =>z Z I-W 0: => wI-W -z :I: 0 00 I-0: "u 0 '" 0 2 8 B-1 B-2 16 tfl B-1 25 GS MD CBR 0 54 , 51 .'l. 6 ground surface. t . . . I 8 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 andlor locations. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT TPIT1b -2011~39.GPJ 9/28112 LOCATION: See Figure 2. DATE COMPLETED: 613111 LOGGED BY: S. Greene SKETCH OF SIDE OF PIT HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (feet) 4 6 8 LOG OF TEST PIT TP-3 PAGE: 1 of 1 ! :I: I-a. W 10 0 ,0 ____ aa2I!!11!'1!!!!1 ___________ _ GRAVEL SAND Coarse I Fine Coarse I Medium I Fine U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 314" 3" 1-1/2" 5/8" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 . I • • . • • • • . 100 I I . I I I l' '" I I I I I I I I "-1\ I 90 I I I ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 80 I i l-I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I ! I I <.!) 70 iii I I I I I I I I I :§: I I ~ I I I I ~ ~ I 1\ >-60 I "\ I I I I I I I I I \ al I ~I I I I I I I 1\ 0:: I I I I I I I .. UJ 50 I I I I I I I I \ z u.. I I I I I I I I I I~ I I I I I ~ I I I I I-40 Z I I I I I I "I I I I ') \ UJ () I I I I I I N I I I \. 0:: 30 i 'l UJ I I I I I I 11\ I I [L I I I I I I I I I 20 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I ! I I I I ! I 10 I I I I I I I I '1---I I I ! I I I I ~ 0 i 50 10 5 0.5 0.1 0.05 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (It) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL-ASTM 02487 Group Symbol and Name ., CORE-Ol 5-3 III CORE-02 S-4 b-CORE-03 S-4 -HWAGEoSCIENCES INC I.-IW.ll.r:~<::7 ?n11.t1'Q r,PJ ql1A11? 0.6 -1.3 2.0 -2.5 2.3 -2.8 (GP) Dark olive brown. poorly graded GRAVEL with sand (ML) Dark olive to gray, sandy SILT with 1.2 % organic matter by dry weight (ML) Dark olive brown, SILT with 1.6% organic matter FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON. WASHINGTON SILT CLAY --<'~ " "r. .... 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005 %MC 5 25 39 LL PL PI G~vel S~d Fi~es 52.7 43.4 3.9 25 22 3 1.4 28.1 70.5 1.6 29.3 69.1 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D422 PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FIGURE: 8-1 ~ l- I (!) [jj 3: >-III a:: w Z u:: I-z w U a:: w c.. SYMBOL 0 D "- fiiiiiiI GRAVEL SAND Coarse Fine Coarse Medium I Fine U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 3/4' 3' 1-1/2' 5/S-318' #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 , I , , , , , , , , , 100 1\ ~ "\ I I I I I I I I N-.-I I I I I I I 90 I' I i i i I I I I I I I [ I i' itI I I I I I 80 I I I "'-I I I I I I I I ~. I I I I I 70 I I I,\: I ~l I I I I I I ~ I ~ ~ ~ I 60 I I I r---~ I I I I I I I I '---I ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I 50 I I I I I" ~l , I I I ~ I I I I '" I I I I I I I "" I I I I 40 I I ~ f', 'l'-I I I I I iII I I I I I I "'" I l"-I ~ I 30 I i "'-I i I I I I ~ I I ! I I I ----rh-20 I I I I I I ~ I I I I I ! I I I )l I ! I 10 I I I I I I I' i I I I I ! I I I I j 0 i 50 10 5 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS SAMPLE DEPlH (ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL-ASTM 02487 Group Symbol and Name CORE-05 S-3 CORE-06 S-2 CORE-07 S-1 1.0-2.4 2.9-3.1 1.3-1.6 (8M) Dark Gray, silty SAND with gravel, contains glass and shaH fragments. (SM) Dark grayish brown. silty SAND wilh gravel (GP) Gray, poorly graded GRAVEL wilh sand FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT SILT CLAY 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005 %MC 37 10 5 LL PL PI Gravel Sand Fines % % % 18.9 55.5 25.6 44.3 37.1 18.6 54.0 42.5 3.5 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D422 ------------------- GRAVEL SAND Coarse 1 Fine Coarse 1 Medium 1 Fine U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 3/4" 3" 1-112" 5/S" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 , I , , , , , , , , 100 1\ I i i i I I I I I I I I I I I I 90 ~ J .!. I I I I I I! I I r-... I ro-so l-I I I I I I l "---I ~ I I I I ! I I I J I Cl 70 iii I I I I I I I "f\ I I ~ I I i I I I I i 1\ i >-60 I I I I I I I I ~ I al (( I I I I I I I I I UJ 50 I I I I I I I I I Z I I I I I I I : I \ I LL I I I I I I I I I l-I I I I I I I I I I 40 I I I I z I I I I I I UJ (J I I I I I I I I I I (( 30 I i i UJ 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 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I J I I 0 50 10 5 0.5 0.1 0.05 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL-ASTM D24S7 Group Symbol and Name II CORE-OS iii CORE-OS S-3 A CORE-09 S-2 11m HWAGEoSCffiNCES INC. 4.2 -4.4 2.3 -2.7 (ML) Dark olive brown. SILT with sand . (OH) Dark grayish brown, organic SILT (SM) Dark olive brown, silty SAND with gravel FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON, WASHINGTON -... SILT CLAY l:\ \ 1\ '\ III "a 'a ~ 0.Q1 0.005 0.001 0.0005 %MC 23 114 15 LL PL PI Gr;;:e' Sand Fi~~s % 3.6 33.S 62.6 10S 74 34 3.8 10.8 S5.5 17.2 43.4 39.4 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM 0422. PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FIGURE: 8-3 f- I C!l W ~ >-aJ IX: W Z lL f- Z w u IX: w [L SYMBOL 0 .El I>. 1M! GRAVEL SAND Coarse I Fine Coarse I Medium I Fine U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 314" 3" 1-112" 5/S" 31S" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 . I • . • • • • • • . 100 ~ "" Ii\. ! I I I I I I I II~ I I I I I I 90 I I I I '" ~ I I I I I I I I I --.. ------< I I I I SO I \ I I 1 1 ~ ~ i I 1 I I 1 1 1 I :-f -". c-J ! 1 70 I \ 1 I 1 I I 1 1'1\ ~ 1 I ~d 1 I I 1 1 60 I 11\ 1 I I 1 I 1\ 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 50 I I I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I I \1 I 1 I 1\ I I 1 I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 40 1 1 : I 1 1 : : : 1 1 1 1 "I 1 I 1 I 1 30 I I 1 1 1 I 1 "'-.... I 1 1 I 1 1 I I ~ 1 I 1 I 1 20 1 I 1 1 1 ~ 1 I 1 I 1 1 I ! 1 1 1 ! ! 1 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 :--1. 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 -:-0 T 50 10 5 0.5 0.1 0.05 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS SAMPLE DEPTH (It) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL-ASTM D24S7 Group Symbol and Name CORE-11 5-2 CORE-12 5-2 CORE-13 5-1 3.0 -3.5 2.S -3.3 1.0-1.3 (SM) Dark olive brown. sil1y SAND (SM) Brown. sil1y SAND (GW) Dark olive brown, well graded GRAVEL with sand FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAAIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT SILT CLAY 0.D1 0.005 0.001 0.0005 %MC 16 14 3 LL PL PI G':!oVei Sand Fines % % 13.4 51.2 35.4 14.5 49.0 36.5 70.1 26.S 3.0 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM 0422 _!111!1 _________________ _ GRAVEL SAND Coarse Fine Coarse I Medium I Fine U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 3/4" 3" 1-112" 5/8" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 [\ "\ i I ··~I i i I I I I ~I I I I I I 90 1\ I i i i I I I r--..I I I I ! I I ~ ! I I 80 l-I \ I I I I I r--~ r\ ~ I I :x: I I i I I I I r--l I (!) 70 W I I I I I I I ~ !~ I S I H I I I I I >-60 CD I I I I I I I 1\ I a:: I I I I I I I I W 50 I I I I I I I I Z I I~ I I I I I I I LL I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I \ I I I-40 11\1 I ~ Z I I I I I W U I I I I I I I I I a:: 30 I I I 1\ w I I I I I I 0-I I I I I I I I I 20 II>--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 L 0 j 50 10 5 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL-ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name 0 CORE-13 8-2 IlIiI CORE-14 8-3 A CORE-IS 8-1 -HWAGEOSCIENCES INC .".i .r-D"'-~ ">no. _n'lO ,-,,0 Ian"".? 2.5 -2.9 4.4 -4.8 1.2-1.4 (ML) Brown. SILT with sand (SP-SM) Brown. poorly graded SAND wilh silt (GP) Olive brown, poorly graded GRAVEL with sand FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON, WASHINGTON SILT CLAY 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005 %MC 21 9 6 LL PL PI Gravel Sand Fines % % % 14.6 29.7 55.7 0.5 87.8 11.7 81.5 13.1 5.4 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D422 PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FIGURE: 8-5 l I I I I l- I Cl W s: >- [II IX: W Z u::: I- Z W () IX: w c.. SYMBOL 0 9 '" - GRAVEL SAND Coarse Fine Coarse Medium I Fine U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 3/4" 3" 1-112" 5/8" 3/S" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 . I • . • • • . • 100 ~ I ~ I 1\ I I I I I T I I I I I I I I I 90 \ i i '\ I II ........ I I I I I I I I I I I I "-80 I ~! I I I I I I I I I I il ! I I 70 I :[\ I I I :1\ I I I I I I I ~ ~ I 60 I I I "\ I I I I ~ I I I I I I I I I I 50 I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ I I I Nt I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ------...... I I I I 40 I I ----------~ ;""'---I I I I .. I I I I I I I I I 30 I i 11 i i I I I I [\ I 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 10 I I I I I I I I 'f'-..-I I I ! I I I I I ! 0 50 10 5 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS SAMPLE DEPTH (It) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL-ASTM 02487 Group Symbol and Name CORE-IS S-4 CORE-16 S-2 TP-l B-1 4.7 -5.2 1.5 -1.7 0.9 -2.5 (GP) Olive brown. poorly graded GRAVEL wilh sand (SM) Brownish gray. sJty SAND wilh gravel (OH) Ugh! olive brown. organic SILT with 3.5% organic matter FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT \ SILT CLAY \ \ l1 i\ III ): ~ ~ -n 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005 %MC LL PL PI G':nvel ~d Fi~~ 5 25 67 54.5 41.7 3.9 16.2 49.1 34.7 122 68 54 0.0 4.1 95.9 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D422 ------------------- GRAVEL SAND Coarse J Fine Coarse I Medium I Fine U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 3/4" 3" 1-1/2" SIS" 318" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 • • • • • . . 100 I r--o-I I I ~ I I I I I ~ r--.. I I ~ 90 I i 1-~\ 1\ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I \. SO l-I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I· I I i C9 70 W I I I I I I I I I I s: I I i I I I I i i I >-60 I I I I I· I I I I I III ~ 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 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 w U I I I I I I I I I I ~ 30 I I I I w I I I I I I [L 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 0.5 0.1 0.05 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL-ASTM D24S7 Group Symbol and Name E'l TP-2 5-2 III TP-2 B-1 Ii> TP-3 B-1 ilia HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. I-IWAGRSZ 2011-039.GPJ 9128112 1.1-2.0 2.0 -2.5 1.5-2.0 (ML) Brownish gray, SILT with sand (OH) Dark Brown. organic SILT (ML) Dark olive gray, SILT with sand FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON, WASHINGTON " -.. SILT CLAY I' '1m ~ lii1 '" .. ~ 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005 %MC 25 102 25 LL PL PI Gravel Sand Fines % % % 3.9 22.4 73.7 84 62 22 0.0 3.9 96.1 0.0 23.7 76.3 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM 0422 PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FIGURE: 8-7 GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 3/4" 3" 1-1/2" 5/8" 318" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 . • I • • • • • • 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'-I I I I I I I I I I 80 "" r-I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I ! ! I ~ (!) 70 W I I I I I I I I I I ~ :s: I I I I I I I L I I >-60 CD I I I I I I I I I I a:: 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 u::: I I I I I I I I I I 1\ r-40 I I I I I I I I I I '" Z I I : I I I I : I I 1\ w () I I I I I I I I I I "\. a:: 30 I I ~ w I I I I I I I I Il. I I I I I I I L ! I 20 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 0 50 10 5 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.Q1 0.005 0.001 0.0005 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL-ASlM 02487 Group Symbol and Name %MC LL PL PI Gr~~ S~~d Fi~:s (') lP-3 S-4 3.0 -4.0 (OH) Dark gray. organic SILT 51 55 31 24 0.0 11.6 88.4 -lHlWAGooSaENas [NC =w IIIi1 ! I FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D422 HWAGRSZ 2011-039.GPJ 9128112 .) ------------------- 60 50 Il. X 40 w 0 Z >-30 t- 0 t- (f) <t: 20 --l Il. 10 CL-ML 0 0 SYMBOL SAMPLE 0 CORE-02 S-4 fiiI CORE-06 S-3 '" CORE-08 S-3 0 TP-2 B-1 0 TP-3 S-4 -HWAGEoSCIENCES INC HWAATTB 201H)39.GPJ 9/28112 @ @ / ./ V / /' / O ./ /' 0 / ./ /' ® @ 0 20 40 60 80 LIQUID LIMIT (LL) DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION 2.0 -2.5 (ML) Dark olive to gray, sandy SILT with 1.2 % organic matter by dry weight 3.8 -4.3 (OH) Dark brONnish gray, organic SILT, contains 4.4% organic mattter. 4.2 -4.4 (OH) Dark grayish brown, organic SILT 2.0 -2.5 (OH) Dark Brown, organic SILT 3.0 -4.0 (OH) Dark gray, organic SILT FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON, WASHINGTON '" 100 %MC LL PL PI % Fines 25 25 22 3 70.5 ; 58 52 37 15 114 108 74 34 85.5 i 102 84 62 22 96.1 51 55 31 24 88.4 I LIQUID LIMIT. PLASTIC LIMIT AND PLASTICITY INDEX OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D4318 PROJECT NO.' 2011-039 FIGURE, 8-9 LABORATORY COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SOIL U~ CLIENT: Reid Middleton PROJECT: Renton Taxiway B PROJECT NO: 2011-039 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. SAMPLE 10: TP-1, B-1 Sampled By: SEG Tested By: JH Date Received' 61612011 Date Tested' 611''::4/:':2'''"07"11:---Date Sampled' 61612011 MATERIAL TYPE OR DESCRIPTION: Light grayish brown, organic SIL T JOH) MATERIAL SOURCE, SAMPLE LOCATION AND DEPTH: TP-1, 2 ft bgs Designation:[KjASTM 0698 DASTM 0 1557 Natural Moisture Content: 79.3 % Method: DA DB [Kjc Oversize: 0 % retained on: 314 in. Preparation: DOry [KjMoist Rammer:[KjAuto DManual Assumed S.G.: 2.4 Test Data Dry Density (pcf) 62.2 I 63.7 I 64.1 I 61.5 I Moisture Content (%) 24.6 I 26.8 I 29.3 I 31.4 I 70 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 o-------a Rock Corrected Curve I per ASTM D4718 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I 0---0 Lab Proctor Curve 1 1 1 1 1 : 1 I I I I _ . _ . _ .• 100% Saturation Line 65 , 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I----~I ~ ! I 1 I -=-I 1 1 1 !¥YI I 1 I" I I 1 u I 1 1 1 I 1 I I I 1 1 I LCD I I 1 1 1 .e Jl' I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I 1 .~ 60 I .. 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I c I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 ~ I I c 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I I I I 1 I I 1 55 I I I I I I 1 I I I I i I I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I , I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 50 I I 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I I I 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 Moisture Content (%) Data Summa " 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 (pel)" 64.4 64.4 66.3 68.3 70.4 72.7 75.1 77.7 ~ptimum Moisture ('!o)" 28.5 28.5 27.1 25.8 24.4 23.0 21.6 20.3 values correcuro or oversize rna enal per A~ M D4718, uSing assumed SpeCific Gravity shown and overSize mOisture content of 1% Reviewed By: Steven Greene FIGURE 8-10 This report applies only to the items tested, and may be reproduced in full, with written approval of HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LABORATORY COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SOIL U~ CLIENT: Reid Middleton PROJECT: Renton Taxiway 8 PROJECT NO: 2011-039 Date Sampled' 61612011 MATERIAL TYPE OR DESCRIPTION: Dark brown, orqanic SIL T (OH) HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. SAMPLE 10: TP-2, 8-1 Sampled By: SEG Tested By: ..:cJ-"H,.".-,--_ Date Received' 61612011 -===--"'D-ate Tested' 6113/2011 MATERIAL SOURCE, SAMPLE LOCATION AND DEPTH: TP-2, 2 ft bgs Designation:DASTM D 698 [RjASTM D 1557 Natural Moisture Content: 134.2 % Method: DA DB [Rjc Oversize: 0 % retained on: 314 in. Preparation: DDry [RjMoist Rammer:[RjAuto DManual Assumed S.G.: 2.4 Test Data Dry Density (pcl) I 55.2 I 58.9 I 59.8 I 58.2 I Moisture Content (%) I 55.9 I 57.7 I 59.0 I 62.0 I 70 I I I , I , I , I ~ ! , , , , I I I I I I I I Rock Corrected Curve , 0-0 per ASTM D4718 I i , I I , I : I I , i i I I I I I , I • 0------0 Lab Proctor Curve I I I I I I I I I I , I i , , I , I , 100% Saturation Line 65 _._._ .. I I , I I I I I , I , ! i I ! i I I I I I , I I , , , , I , I I I I I , I I I i I I I I , , I co " I I I I , I I i i I I I I i I I .e , I , ~ 1 , 1 1 , I I I 1 I 1 , , ! I I I I , , I I I I ~ 60 1 1 1 1 1 1 H'i ~I , , ~ , : Q ~ 1 I I I I , A'" I i , I~ 1 I Q I i I I I ;/1 I I I I I , I , , I I I I I iii I I I I I I , I 1 I 1 I 1 I" , i I I I 55 I i I , , , 1 I I I I I I 1 I , ! , i I , I I I I , I I , : I I , . 1 I , I I I I I i I i I I I I , , I I I I I I i I I I I , 1 I I I I I I I I , I I I I I I I I I • I I I : ! I I , 1 ! I I 1 : , I I , , 1 , i I 50 , , I I 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 Moisture Content (%) Data Summari' 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 (pcl)' 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 50.7 47.8 44.9 42.0 values corrected lor oversize matenal per A::i \11 • D4718, uSing assumed Specific Gravity shown and oversize mOisture content of 1 Yo Reviewed By: Steven Greene FIGURE 8-11 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 U~ CLIENT: Reid Middleton PROJECT: Renton Taxiway B PROJECT NO: 2011·039 Date Sampled' 61612011 MATERIAL TYPE OR DESCRIPTION: Dark gray, siltv SAND (SM) HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. SAMPLE 10: TP·3, B·1 Sampled By: SEG Tested By: JH Date Received' 61612011 ==--=D-ate Tested' 611'';Q:'::V2:;';0:"::1C::1-- MATERIAL SOURCE, SAMPLE LOCATION AND DEPTH: TP·3, 2 ft bgs Designation:DASTM D 698 !ZIASTM D 1557 Natural Moisture Content: 25 % Method: DA DB !ZIc Oversize: 0 % retained on: 314 in. Preparation: DDry !ZIMoist Rammer:!ZIAuto DManual Assumed S.G.: 2.4 Test Data Dry Density (pct) 101.9 I 108.6 106.3 I 102.3 I 110.4 Moisture Content (%) 10.7 I 13.0 18.6 I 20.7 I 15.4 120 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I I I I I I I Rock Corrected Curve I I I I 0---0 per ASTM 04718 I I I I I 115 I I I I I I I I I I I Lab Proctor Curve I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0------0 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 100% Saturation Line 1 I I I I I I I I 1 _._._ .. I I I I I 1 110 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I /1 I 1 I I I I 1 I "" I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I '" I 1 I 1 I I " I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I 1 I I I 1 1"-i I I I I I .eo I I I I 1 I 1 ),,1 I I I I ,n 1 I I I I I ~ I I I I 1 I I /1 I I I 1 I I I I .~ 105 I I I I " I I 1 .. 0 I I I I 1 "..1 . I I I I i:-I I I I y, 1 I I I 0 1 1 I 1 1 ,"" I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I , 100 I i I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I . I 1 1 I 95 1 I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I , I I 1 I " I I I 1 I I 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I 90 I I I I 1 I I 1 I 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 Moisture Content (%) Data Summa • 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 Densitv (pel)' 110,5 110.5 112.0 113.5 115.0 116.6 118.3 119.9 [Optimum Moisture ('fo)' 15.0 15.0 14.3 13.6 12.9 12.2 11.5 10.8 va ues correcteu or oversize ma ena per,,~ D4718, usin assumed Specific Gravity shown and oversize moisture content of 1% 9 Reviewed By: Steven Greene FIGURE 8·12 This report applies only to the items tested, and may be reproduced in full, with written approval of HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CBR (California Bearing Ratio) OF LAB COMPACTED SOILS (ASTM 0 1883) CLIENT: Reid Middleton u~, HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. SAMPLE 10: TP-1, B-1 PROJECT: Renton Taxiway B PROJECT NO: 2011-039-21 Date Sampled' 61212011 Sampled By: SEG Tested By: AACIJH Date Received' 61212011 ":::::":::""--=D-'ate Tested' 6120/2011 Material Description: Light olive brown, organic SIL T (OH) Sample Location: Test Pit TP-2 Sample B-1 Compaction Standard: 0D698 [QJD1557 Condition: o Soaked lor 96 hrs OUnsoaked Max. Dry Density: 64.4 pcl@ 28.5 %M.C. with 0 % scalped-off on the 3/4" sieve ~1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Dry , (pet) 57.4 Mn;d".<> ('., I (%j 118.2 Mn;"'",<> after :%) 131.9 I Swell (initial ht = 7" -3.5 after 1(%) 122.7 Top 1", after Soak 1%) 1 2 CBR at 0.1" I ,CBR at 0.2" ir.BR Value 12 10 . / / /-8 V .~ .----.e, /-~ 6· ~ i IY ~ I ~ , 4· I I. 2· /1 I A I I : I 0 I 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 I 4.0· I '" 3.0 ID I u 2.0 I 1.0 . 0 I 0.0· 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 % Compaction REVI EWE D BY: __ ....::St"'ec:.ve:::n.:.G=::re:.;:e::..:ne=--__ FIGURE: B-13 CBR (California Bearing Ratio) OF LAB COMPACTED SOILS (ASTM 0 1883) CLIENT: Reid Middleton um HWAGEOSCIENCES INC SAMPLE 10: TP-2, B-1 PROJECT: Renton Taxiway B PROJECT NO: 2011-039-21 Date Sampled' 612/2011 Sampted By: SEG Tested By: AACIJH Date Received' 612/2011 -=="::""--=O-'ate Tested' 6120/2011 Material Description: Dark brown, organic SIL T (OH) Sample Location: Test Pit TP-2 Sample 8-1 Compaction Standard: 00698 [KJ01557 Condition: [KJSoaked lor 96 hrs OUnsoaked Max. Dry Density: 59.9 pcl@ 59.5 %M.C. with 0 % scalped-off on the 3/4" sieve Trial 1 Tri<ll2 Trial 3 Dry (pet) 39.3 65.6 urA ,(, (%) 122.7 urA after (%) 111.3 Swell (initial nt = 7") -5.9 lirA alter I ("!o) 1 3 ~re. roo 1". after Soak 1%) 1 2 CBR at O. I" CBR at 0.2" 0.6 CBRValue 0.6 18 I 16 ..--- 14 >"'" ...-' V 12 ~ ! 10 ~ ~ ? ~ I!! 8 ~ V "' / 6· ./ V I I 4 y""" I ./ 2 V I I o· 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· III U 2.0 1.0 0 0.0 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 % Compaction REVIEWED BY: __ ....:::S~te~v~en"-.:::G::.:re::::e::.:n.:::.e __ FIGURE: B-14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CBR (California Bearing Ratio) OF LAB COMPACTED SOILS (ASTM 0 lSS3) CLIENT: Reid Middleton D~' HWAGEOSCIENCES INC SAMPLE 10: TP-3, B-1 PROJECT: Renton Taxiway B PROJECT NO: 2011-039-21 Date Sampled' 612/2011 Sampled By: SEG Tested By: AACIJH Date Received' 61212011 -==-=---;:::D--:ate Tested' 6120/2011 Material Description: Dark olive gray, SIL T with sand (ML) Sample Location: Test Pit TP-3 Sample 8-1 Compaction Standard: 00698 001557 Condition: o Soaked for 96 hrs OUnsoaked Max. Dry Density: 110.5 pcf@ 15 %M.C. with 0 % scalped-off on the 3/4" sieve Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 lOry Density (pet) 94.5 112.9 #N/A IC, 85.5 102.1 #N/A 1(%) i.4 . after :initial ht = ~ %) i.O I Swell -.5 0.0 after 1(%) 27.3 17.0 ~tr rc 1 n, after Soak (%) 25.5 19.4 In :BR at ,n CBRValue "UIVIUi 1600 I I -<>-85.5 1400· 1-0-102.1 V .........-' 1200 1000 ..-<~ .~ I ~ y .!O ~ 800 ~ V ! ,../ 600 V I 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· I A I ---r- 40 '" I --"' 30 --OJ 20 -r-- 10 --0 80 85 90 95 100 105 % Compaction REVIEWED BY: __ .....;:;S"'tec.:.ve;:,;n,;.,G.::.;,,:re""e""ne=---__ FIGURE: B-15 Bulk Density of Soil Chunk Samples Renton Airport Taxiway B B~ I HWA GEOSCIENCES INc Exploration Sample No. Depth Lenqth Diameter Volume Tare Wet+Tare Bulk Densitv Tare W+T D+T Me Drv Densitv TP-1 8-1 0.9 6 2.4 0.0157 248 849.83 84.6 8.32 191.5 110.51 79.3% 47.2 TP-2 8-1 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 8-16 _ _ _ .am _ .. IiiiiII 1IiIIiiIl· IiiiiIiII IiIiiiIiI IiiiiIiIiil ..-! IIilii'E Iiiiiiil IIiIiI IiliIIl IiiiiiiiiI Iiiiiiiil IIiIiiiiil I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0\'*'/;' HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B -Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Date Sampled: June 2, 20 II Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Task No: 100 Sampled by: SEG Sample Location: Northern Taxiway Connector (see Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-I Total Wearing Surface Depth: 2 inches Thickness Description of Material (inches). 2 .0 Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) 5 CSTC/CSBC Gravel with sand and -Cobbles Remarks: Lifts (inches) 2 - - 20\\-o3~ Co(e -! Condition Fair Dense Medium dense to dense U~ HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B -Renton Municipa l Airport Project No.: 20 11 -039 Date Sampled: June 2, 20 I I Core Bit Used: 8-inc h diameter Sa mple Location: North end of Taxiway B (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Co re-2 Total Wearing Surface Depth : 4.5 inches Task No: 100 Sampled by: SEG 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 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11m HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Proj ect: Taxiway B -Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: June 2,20 II Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sampled by: SEG Sample Location: North end of Tax iw ay B (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-3 Total Wearing Surface Deptb : 2.25 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) (inches) 2.25 HMA 2.25 1.5 CSBe - 2.25 Sandy silt - Remarks: The subgrade becomes sand to si lty sand with depth 2.0\1-03'\ Core-3 Condition Poor to fair Dense Medium stiff U~ 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: SEGIDRC Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sample Location: North end of Taxiway S (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-4 Total Wearing Surface Depth: 1.5 inches Tblckness Description of Material Lifts (inches) (incbes) 1.5 HMA 1.5 1.4 csse - 1.75 HMA 1.75 -Gravel - Remarks: 1.4 inches of crushed gravel between HMA layers Condition Poor Dense Good Loose I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11m HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middl eton Project: Taxiway B -Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: Jun e 2, 20 II Core Bit Used: 8-i nc h diameter Sampled b y: SEG Sample Location: North centra l portion of Taxiway B (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Co re-5 Total Wearing Surface Depth: 2 inch es Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) (inches) 2 HMA 2 6 CS Be - Condition Good Dense -Sand with s ilt and grave l -Medium den se Remarks : With depth subgrade appears to consist of dredge spoil s. U~ HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B -Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: June 7, 2011 Core Bit Used: 8-incb diameter Sampled by: ORC Sample Location: Central portion of Taxiway B (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-6 Total Wearing Surface Depth: 14.5 incbes Thickness Description of Material Lifts (Inches) (Inches) Condition 8.5 HMA 3,5 .5 Poor to good 6 PCC 6 -Sand with gravel and cobbles - Remarks: Tbe bottom 5.5 incbes ofHMA is oflower quality (ATB?) No crusbed gravel base course was encountered. Fair to good Loose I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IJ~ HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Midd let on Project: Taxiway B -Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: Jun e 7, 20 II Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sampled by: ORC Sample Location: So uth end of Taxiway B (See F igure 2) C ore Designation: Core-7 Total Wearing Surface Depth: 13.5 inches Thickness (inches) 8 .5 5 Description of Material HMA PCC Sand with grave l, cobb les and si lt Lifts (inches) 3 .5,5 5 Condition Very poor Very poor Loose R e marks : The bottom 5 inches of HMA is of lower quality (ATB?) and disintegrated coring a nd therefore does not appear in the above photo. No crushed gravel base course was encountered. IJ~ HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. C lient: Reid Middleton Project: Taxi way B -Ren ton Municipal Airport I)roject No.: 20 11 -039 Date Sampled: June 7, 2011 Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sample Location: South End of Taxiway B (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-8 Total Wearing Surface Depth: 12 inches Task No: 100 Sampled b y: DRC 2.11-031 Cort-8 Thickness Description of Material Lifts (Inches) Condition (Incbes) 5.5 HMA 2.5,3 Good 6.5 PCC 6.5 Good -Sand w ith gravel, cobb les -Loose and silt Remarks : A non-woven fabric layer is located between the two li fts of HMA No crus hed gravel base co ur se was encountered. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,------------ -------------------------------, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11m HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B -Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: June 7, 2011 Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sampled by: DRC Sample Location: South end of Taxiway B (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-9 Total Wearing Surface Depth: 10 inches Thickness (inches) 10 Description of Material HMA Sand with gravel, cobb les and s ilt 20 11 -03'\ Gx-t _ 9 Lifts (inches) 2.5,4.25,3.25 Condition Good to poor Loose Remarks : A non-woven fabric lay er is located between the [lrst two lifts of HMA The lower lift of HMA is of lower quality (ATB?) No crushed grave l base course was encountered. IJ~ HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. C li ent: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B -Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Tas k No: 100 Date Sampled: June 6, 2011 Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter S ampled b y: DRC Sample Location: Infield apron Soulb end of Taxiway B (See Figure 2) Core Designation : Core-IO T otal Wearing Surface Depth : 2.25 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) (incbes) 2.25 HMA 2.25 -Grave l wilb sand - Remarks : No crushed grave l base course was encountered. 201\ -O.3~ Core.. \ 0 Condition Good Dense to very dense I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IJ~ HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B -Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 20 I 1-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: June 7, 2011 Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sampled by: ORC Sample Location : South end of Taxiway B (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-II Total Wearing Surface Depth: 16.5 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) (inches) 8.5 HMA 2.5,2.5,3.5 8 PCC 8 -Sand with gravel and cob bl es - Condition Good to fair Fair to good Loose Remarks: A ooo-woven fabric lay er is located between the bottom lift of HMA and pce . The lower lift of HMA is of low er quality (ATB ?) No crushed grave l base course was encountered . U~ HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: R e id M iddl eton Project: Tax iway B -R e n ton Muni c ip a l A irp ort Project No .: 2011-0 39 T ask N o: l OO Date Sampled: Jun e 6, 20 II Core Bit Used: 8-inc h di a me ter S ample d b y: ORC Sample Location: So uth e rn Tax iway Connector (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-l 2 Total Wearing Surface Depth: 13.5 in c hes ThIckness Description of Material Lifts (Incbes) (Inches) 7.5 HMA 3 .5,2,2 6 PCC 6 -Sand w ith grave l and co bbl es - Remarks: No c ru sh ed gr ave l ba se co urse was e nco unter ed . Condition Good Fair Loose I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IJ~ HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B -Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 20 11-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: June 6, 2011 Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sampled by: DRC Sample Location: Southern Taxiway Connector (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-13 Total Wearing Surface Depth: 9 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) (inches) 3 HMA 3 6 PCC 6 -Sand with grave l and cobbles - 2oll.03~ G,rt. -13 Condition Fair to poor Fair Loose Remarks : A non-woven fabric layer is located between the bottom lift of HMA and PCC . No crushed grave l base course was encountered . U~ HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B -Renton Municipa l Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: June 6, 201 1 Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sampled by: DRC Sample Location: So uth ern Taxiway Connector (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-14 Total Wearing Surface Depth: 10.75 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) (inches) 4 .75 HMA 4.75 6 PCC 6 -Sand with gravel and cobb les - Remarks: No cru shed grave l base co urse was encountered. Condition Fair to good Good Loose I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I U~ HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B -Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 20 11 -039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: Jun e 6, 20 I I Core Bit Used: 8-i nc h di ameter Sampled by: DRC Sample Location: Southern Taxiway Connector (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Co re-I S Total Wearing Surface Depth: 12 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inch es) (inches) 6 HMA 4,2 6 PCC 6 4.5 CSBC - -Sand w ith si lt and grave l - Remarks : The lower lift of HMA is of lower quality (ATB?). Condition Good to poor Good Loose Loose to medium dense U~ HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. C lient: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B -Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 20 11 -039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: June 6, 20 II Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sampled by: DRC Sa mple Location: Southern Taxiway Connector (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-16 Total Wearing Surface Depth: 10.5 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) (Inches) 3.5 HMA 1.5,2 7 PCC 7 -Sand with si lt and gravel - Condition Fair to poor Poor Loose Remarks : A non-woven fahric layer is located between the lowest HMA and the PCC layers . T he PCC la yer is cracked through and sea led with asphalt sealant No crus hed gravel base course was encountered. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I um HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B -Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 20 11 -039 Date Sampled: Jul y II , 20 12 Core Bit Used: 12-in ch diameter Sample Location: So uth end of Taxiway B (See Figure 2) Core Designation : Co re-17 Total Wearing Surface Depth: 15 inch es Task No: 10 0 Sampled by: DR C Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) Condition (inches) 7 Hot Mix Aspha lt (HMA) 2 .5,4.5 Good to Fair 8 PCC 8 Fair -Grave l with sa nd and cobb les -Medium dense R e marks : T here is a 0.75 inch deep and 1.25 inch wide aspha lt seal in the middle of the co re coveri ng a crack in the upp e r HMA layer (see Photo above). 0\'+"·' HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B -Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 20 I 1-039 Date Sampled: July 11 ,20 12 Core Bit Used : 12 -inch diameter Sample Location : South end of Taxiway B (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-18 Total Wearing Surface Depth: 12.5 in c hes Task No: 100 Sampled by: ORC Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) Condition (incbes) 6 .5 HMA 2.75,3.75 Fair to good 6 PCC 6 Fair -Gravel with sand and cob bl es -Medium dense Remarks: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11m HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Midd leton Project: Taxiway B -Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Task No: lOO Date Sampled: July 11 ,2012 C ore Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sampled by: DRC Sample Location: Southern Tax iway Connector (See Figure 2) Core Designation : Core-19 20\l.o~1 CDu. let Total Wearing S urface Depth: 19 .5 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) (inches) 12 .5 HMA 3,2.5 ,3,4 7 PCC 7 -Grave l with sand and cobbles - Remarks : There is no bond between the 2nd and 3'd layers of HMA . There is no bond between the 3m and 4th layers ofHMA. Condition Fair to good Good Medium dense U~ HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B -Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Task 0: 100 Date Sampled: July 11,2012 Corc Bit Used: 8-incb diameter Samplcd by: DRC Sample Location: South end of Taxiway B (See Figure 2) Core Designation : Core-20 , Total Wearing Surface Depth : 13 .5 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) (inches) 6 HMA 3.5,2.5 7.5 PCC 7.5 -Grave l with sand and cobbles - Condition Poor Fair Medium Dense Rcmarks: There is a 0.5 incb deep and 0 .75 incb wide asphalt sea l in the middle of the core covering a crack in the upper HMA layer (see Pboto above). (..-20 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I o WASHINGTON '0,' ' -_ .... n "', ~ -> ,! , \ '\ ~-,~ .Ie; -'-' " " .~: . ,.'j"-- 1 . ".' ~ ~,\j! , ' '1-I, J I ~<: 1',1 -~ :~.: ',""1, "~"'J" ~', , ':1: " ',I ,> r!', II'"", ' :"". ~. :', ~': '" I ,il '1 I "I :1, ',1 ' ~, 'P" ,. ::':..' ~ ". l '" ~ .... " .. ~, "" '~I ,I II _ 1', ':1 ;11 .,', ;1 , l I " ,~~ll ' 'I ~"-,,,W . "',', 11'-- ,," \ " , , ". 5,,"", ,1" "'jl ,I ", ,!, '.-" ',~, ".' ' ii"~ I,' ',I ;;1, " , :',', " ,,~, '''''' (--t. "I' :11 :.' :~-, ",,""" " ' ~ : ," , " I, '" "',1 , ,'" I'·" -,I, " J' :' ~: ;'(,1-------: I L __ ] \"--7~-,,--\ ;, ,-.,: ,",Jp ,1"",[11 ~;'i.'f.,$·;::·\'!\1 ,,~)L·H '''" / /; \:1, ',"j' i ~I, h"" " ';,}'-' "". ,,-"'I;. " <> " I.: , .: " ~-' '!'" ~--'I : 1 II "" ':'1 I , .' ' ,.1 ,'~!I ':il . .," .1, ,1 -",. "'I '10,) .' , . ~)' ,11, ' ~,--------., I" ,. " '" ~ ":\ , " ':' . ~ ~, " , ., ,> \ j'W \' , ( I , ,-('.2: __ "'j' ~, "',I'"'' il· i' _'I --I 1~, ~'~ '.'" j "-,, ,'iI 'r',1 ';', ;1, " , , !i '" ,1; :-" '" 'I,' ", I, ;'1' ""\' 'I~' , 'v. l'" _i' " ',',' i" ~~' , '\' ""'''''' I fC' \\ ~ ,,' ~, it """\": " ""-.. .,-, " , ,', l~ ~ 'i , ", ,<., , >("",,; ", .'" '-:', , •••• '-, " ,." ~ .' I" ,':',":' :' ,-, .. >:":, "',~, 'i , , I, " .,:'- .e', " ,,' '\',~;:'" , , " ,,' \ , ' :1 L ,;,1' d:,,',\ ~'" ""'~ " .' ,: I: " ,; ,I 'J :: i' ,~, "~L ""~'." -CAKJ3~YQl/~9S~~ _~ ____ .? 6000 ; ) \- AQUIFER PROTECTION ZONES Technical Services Planning/Building/Public Works R. MacOnie, D, Visneski January 22, 2008 Renton Municipal Code I, ,'I Zone 1 ~ Zone 1 Modified L __ J Zone2 Cilv Limits ---.. - -- ---- --- - City of Renton Sensitive Areas Flood Hazard Public Works Department G. Zimmerman, Administrator Technical Services R. MacOnie, OVisneski Printed on May 21, 2009 Data Source: Public Works, Utilities Systems, Technical Services o 1,400 2,800 . , , ! , " ! I , .. , .,,,: .. .,.n' .. , g"pOt< r __ .. _. "'" 9""ro"'000 '" , .. ,.0, OOOIo'""'y .• n<I .. """"" 00 tn ..... 'nfor..,.''''' •••• 1.00 ••• of' ... <Io .. ""0,.n Th,.map .. ,n .. """.fo, C,y.,.pl.y~'II<I"''''''Y . ..1'-' • : Renton City L,m,ts L. __ Hazard Condition o Flood Hazard --.. - Critical Infrastructure Police Oepartment Fire Stations Valley Medical Center Schools ---- - ---- - - - - - ----City of Renton Sensitive Areas Liquefaction Hazards Public Works Department G. Zimmerman, Administrator Technical Services R. MacOnie, D. Visneski Printed on May 20, 2009 Data Source: Public Works, UWities Systems, Technical Services; Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Geology and Earth Resources DiviSion Th •• "<>cumoot" • g"pole r.pro",olal"n, not goa'MI .. d 1O," .. o,"",",ooy onO"b •• &<I"" ",obo",mom"""" .. .,,.tII ••• of , .. d .... nown Tn .. mop" ;nl&<>"'" fer City d"ploy purpo ... only , .. l..I" Renlon City Limits HAZARD CONDITION Liquefaction Susceptibility o high c'_ L-.-/ moderate to high low to moderate Critical Infrastructure * Police Department -'~_ Fire Stations Gil Valley Medical Center ~ Schools ----- -- -- --- ---C~ty of Renton Sensitive Areas Seismic Hazards Public Works Department G. Zimmerman, Administrator Technical Services R. MacOnie, D. Visneski Printed on May 21, 2009 Data Source: Public Works, Utilities Systems, Technical Services o 1,500 3,000 ' I , , , I, ,I Th<,daOumonll •• g'Oi>/1t< .. p", •• nll',Of1, "",~u.r.n' .. d lc,u<wy"",",tc), ."".bal@donthobo,l,nle,m.,''''' ovo"_ •• 01,,,",,,,, •• "",,,, Thlo map II ,ollr><led 'or Cllyd"plaYp<Jrp<l···O'"I Hazard Condition C3 High Seismic Severity ---- Critical Infrastructure Pol,,,, Doparlmenl (RI \/all.y Mud".1 C.nL., c5 ","0," I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I King County ~unoq Ti.JtI,e Seri.es Prograll . Version S.OO 11 files vill be read/written in the Vorking Directory' ~orkin~' pirectory:C:~kc_5Vda'output KCRTS Conand CREATE a new Time Series Product ion of RunOff Tille Series Project Location·,: Sea-Tac Computing series. : SBASIN. tsf egional Scale Factor.: . 1 .. 00 . ,. Data Type ,: Reduced reating 15-m.inute Time Series File ., . !.=ding Time Seri= File':C:'>I<C_SVDH'>I<C_DATA'STEI15R.rnf 8 Imperv'{ous .:1; 96 acres Scaling. ,Yr: "8 Total Area 1.96 acres '6': 30 ·'on 'Jan, 9 i"n Year 8 St,¥ing Ti,me seri~ File:SBA.SIH. tsf .eak.DisCh~rge: 2.31 CFS at 8. Tiae Series Co.puted I-"'----------~ KCRTS Coa"and Enter the Analysis TOOlS Module I-~~---------------- Ani'l ysi~'" T60i~ Conn~rid', ' ----------~-------Co,.~~te PEAKS and Flow Frequencies loading Stage/Discharge curve:sbasin.tsf Flov Frequency Analysis -------------------------------T'ime Seri~ Fi:l'~(;~'~i~",'t~f' .. , ' n· , Profect Location':Se,a-:rac -project-r.ocation:sea.;n,c ---,.,.,.,.--_._----- ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.933 0.652 1.77 0.7.51. 0.989 1.04 1.27 2.31 6 8/27/01 18:00 8 9/17/02 17:45 2 12/08/02 17:15 7 9(23/04 14:30 5· 10/28/.04 16:00 410/27/05 10:45 3 10/25/06 22 :,45 1 1/09/08 6:30 -----'Flow Frequenoy Analysis--- - -Peaks Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period 2.31 1 100.00 1.77 2 25.·00 1.27 3 10,00 1, 04 4 5.00 0.989 5 3.00 0.933 .6 2,00 0.751 7 1.30 0.652 B 1,10 0.990 0.960 0.900 0,800 0.667 0,500 0.231 0.091 South Bio-filtration Basin Area (See Figure 4-1) -Sub-basin C Water Quality flow rate = 60% of2-year storm 0.933 cfs * 0.6 = 0.56 cfs KCRTS Coamand CREATE e nev Tine Series Production of Runoff Time Series Project Location ; Sea-Tae Computing Series: NBASIN.tsf R .... ion41 Scale Fector: 1. 00 Dat .. Type : Reduced :reating lS-ninute Tiae Series File Loading Time Series File:C:,KC_SVDM'KC_DATA'5TEI15R.rnf Im:pervious 0,93 acres Scaling Yr: 8 Total Area: 0.93 acres ~eak Discharge: 1.10 CFS at 6:30 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Storing Time Series File:NBASIN.tsf lias Series Computed -- KCRTS CoaJoand Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module 8 B --------._-------- Analysis Tools Command Compute PEAKS and Flov Frequencies Loading Stage/Discharge curve:nhasin.tsf Flow Frequency analysis Time Series File:nbasin,tsf Project Localion:Sea-Tac Project Location:5ea-Tac ---------_._- --Annual Peak Flow Rates-----Flov Freqllency Analysis---- ·Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak -Peaks -Rank (CFS) (CFS) 0.443 6 8/27/01 18:00 1.10 1 0.309 8 9/17/02 17:45 0.838 2 0.838 2 12/08/02 17:15 0.602 3 0.356 7 8/23/04 14:30 0.495 4 0.469 5 10/28/04 16:00 0.469 5 0.495 4 10/27/05 10:45 0.443 6 0.602 3 10/25/06 22:45 0.356 7 1.10 1 1/09/08 6:30 0.309 8 North Bio-filtration Basin Area (See Figure 4-1) -Sub-basin D Water Quality flow rate = 60% of2-year stonn 0.443 cfs * 0.6 = 0.27 cfs Return ?rob Period 100.00 0.990 25.00 0.960 10.00 0.900 5.00 0.800 3.00 0.667 2.00 0.500 1.30 0.231 1.10 0.091 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I BIOFlLTRATION 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 = 0.17 (mowed frequently) 0.33 (infrequent mowing) n = 0.2 s = slope z = side slope b=Q*n11.49*yA1.67*sA0.5 b (ft) 12.4 Use 20-ft width to meet 5:11ength to width ratio Solve for flow Velocity Z = side slope A = cross-sectional area v (fils) 0.18 Solve swale length L (ft) = 540 * v Meet criteria for high flow 98.9 Min. 100' North WQ Basin (Sub-basin D) Q = 0.27 cfs (KCRTS) -0.93 ac impervious 3.1 b (ft) 5.6 Use 20-ft width to meet 5:1 length to width ratio A (ftA2) 1.6 v (fils) 0.17 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. y 0.23 n 0.2 Q 0.56 s 0.005 Z 4 Y 0.24 n 0.2 Q 0.27 s 0.005 Z 4 I I I I I 1 I 1 I I' 1 I I~ I I I I I 6.3.5 NARROW AREA FILTER STRIPS FIGURE 6.3.S.A FILTER STRIP LENGTHS FOR NARROW RIGHT-OF-WAY 20.0 -....................... -.-................... _ ..... . -·-·.-.-r..· ...... . 15.0 et 5.0 0% 5% 10% 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) ofthe.current Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction, 1994compacted to 90 percent standard proctor. . 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1/912009 6-67 I I I FLOW SPLITTER CALCULATIONS PROJECT: Renton Municipal Airport, Taxiway S, Phase I PRO} NO.: 23-2010-007 DATE: 812312012 FILE: H,\OOC\23ApIIO\OO7 Renton 1W B &. Signagc\Dcsign\Orainag~Flo'" Sphttcr_ Phase 1.:dnIFlov. Splinu 'Soulh Biofillralion Swale (Sub-basin C) Calculated by: BTS Checked by: Date Checked: I Pipe Capacity Manning Pipe Capacity I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I No. Diameter Slope Lenglh Capacity Used (inch) (%) (feel) (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 Known: Q1= 0.56 cfs n C o = 0.6 IEoutlet = 20.1 ft Lenglh Head Head (ft) (ft) (in1 I 0.3122 3.7466 411-· 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 I-ft weir shall be placed at 20.42 (20.1+0.31). Norlh Biofiltralion Swale (Sub-basin D) Pipe Capacity Manning Pipe Capacity No. Diameter Slope Lenglh Capacity Used (inch) (%) (feel) (cfs) (%) 0.014 8 0.10 10 0.35 76 0.014 12 0.10 10 1.05 26 E Head determined by sharp-crested weir equation 0.463 Known: Length (ft) 1 4 6 Q2= Co = IEoutiet = Head (ft) 0.1920 0.0762 0.0581 0.27 cfs 0.6 19.9 ft Head (in) 2.3037 ~ 0.9142 0.6977 n Conclusion: A 12-inch diameter pipe shall be utilized for the outlet to the biofiltration swale. The top of the I-ft weir shall be placed at 20.09 (19.9+0.19). Page 1 of 1 -- PRO): WOo DATE: - --- Renlon Municipal Airport, Taxiway B 23-2012-2012 6120/2012 --.. ~ IiIIIIII:I !lJlI!!!!II - PIPE SIZING (Runoff by Rational Method) (Pipe Capacity by Manning's Eqn.) - FILE: H:\OOC\23Ap\1CN:07 R.MO" TW B & s, .. " ..... \O."lIn\O,.,na".\[20120629_P,p., SO.,ng .... ]Ru .. "" Co ... ,,"' ...... c~ c~ O. 9 I nper vi ous 0.25 LalMl Inc. Inc. Area (sf) Area (51) From To (lmperv) (Perv) ~ub Hasm" iNo analysIs provIded. I Sub Basm U .Lul I<..B26 126041 0 CB26 CB25 0 0 clIn IClI2, 626 0 CB25 C".,4 IIlL9 0 CB24 ClI23 0 0 ClI2j CH2L 0 0 CB22 IClI" 0 0 CB21 CB20 161YY2 85598 lell20 leH" 0 0 CBI9 IE7 0 0 EI Eo 0 0 E6 OUT 0 0 Sub 88sm C leH9 CHIO 30" 0 ICBIO lell" 14 .. 16 0 CHII CBI2 0 0 CBI2 lellu 0 0 Inc. Ana Runoff (ac) Cod. A*C 0.60 O.YO 0.54 0.00 0.'8 0.00 0.18 0 .• 0 0.16 0.16 O .• v 0.15 0.00 0.'8 0.00 0.00 0.,8 0.00 O.vO v.,8 0.00 BY 0.'2 1.77 0.00 0.,8 0.00 0.00 0." 0.00 O.vO 0.,8 0.00 o.uo 0.'8 0.00 0.83 0.90 0.75 1.12 V.90 1.01 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.,8 0.00 Stonn: Renton 25 Year d, 2.66 (see KCSWDM pg 3-13) U, 0.65 (see KCSWDM pg 3-13) r, 3.4 (see KCSWDM pg 3 24-Hour Isopluvials Time of Rain Sum Cone Intens Runoff n Diam Slope Length A'C (min) (inlhr) (ds) Value (inch) (-;0) (fed) 0.54 10.00 2.02 1.09 0.014 t2 0.10 550 0.54 16.88 1.44 0.78 0.014 t2 0.83 108 0.16 10.00 2.02 0.32 0.014 12 0.34 88 0.84 17.35 1.42 1.19 0.014 12 0.50 100 0.84 24.23 l.l4 0.96 0.014 12 0.53 19 0.84 24.70 l.l2 0.95 0.014 12 0.53 19 0.84 24.80 1.12 0.95 0.014 12 0.41 110 2.61 25.48 l.l0 2.88 0.014 12 0.55 19 2.61 25.59 1.10 2.88 0.014 12 0.53 47 2.62 25.84 1.09 2.86 0.014 12 0.50 48 2.62 25.84 1.09 2.86 0.014 12 0.10 42 2.62 26.37 1.08 2.82 0.014 12 0.50 114 0.75 10.00 2.02 1.52 0.014 12 0.40 85 1.16 10.53 1.96 3.45 0.014 12 0.34 104 1.76 11.24 1.88 3.31 0.014 12 0.30 49 1.76 11.59 1.84 3.24 0.014 12 0.50 8 Page 1 of 2 - Pipe Capac (cCs) 1.05 3.01 1.93 2.34 2.41 2.41 2.12 2.45 2.41 2.34 1.05 2.34 2.09 1.93 1.81 2.34 - - - - Calculated by: U Checked by: Date Checked: % Veloe Flow Capac Full Time Used (ft/sec) (min) 104 1.33 6.88 26 3.84 0.47 17 2.46 0.60 51 2.98 0.56 40 3.07 0.10 39 3.07 0.10 45 2.70 0.68 117 3.12 0.10 119 3.07 0.26 122 2.98 0.27 273 1.J3 0.53 121 2.98 0.64 73 2.66 0.53 179 2.46 0.71 182 2.31 0.35 139 2.98 0.Q4 Remarks Existing Existing PRO}: WO: DATE: Renton Municipal Airport, Taxiway B 23-2012-2012 6/20/2012 PIPE SIZING (Runoff by Rational Method) (Pipe Capacity by Manning's Eqn.) FILE: H:\DOC\23A p \10\007 R ... t"", TW B & s.1I .... g~\D .. , ... n\D,6,,'"".\[2012OG29_Rp. s.."n ..... ,.JR ... norr Co.'fI~I@"" fIIIiI!E} c~ c~ O. 9 Ill]ler vi OUS O. 25 LaVlfl Inc. Inc. Area (sf) Area (sf) From To (Imperv) (Perv) ;U'U '-'~14 10 ,",6 83359 1'--"" '--" ,6 0 1'-'1<16 '-'I< ,., 0 1'--" 1/ '--" ,. ,,0)5 38760 1'-'1< " h4 10 0 It. tJ IV 0 ,hJ h2 0 It" OuT 0 SUD Basin IS CB4 C~5 0,4 5U ,--B) <.B6 2)"8 )5,v LI<O CB7 26)80 4183) CB7 ,--B8 3",'3 "70011 CB8 hi 3J29 11,.0 bl OUT 0 0 ISub Basm A I NO analYSIS provlQea -- Inc. Area Runoff (ac) Corf. 3.4i 0.>4 0-"" 0." 0.00 0." .. qO 0." 0.00 0." u.Ov D.,. 0.00 0.)' 0.00 0.)' O.OJ 0.62 0.10 0 . ., lSI 0.)0 I.jf 0.60 0.3. DAD 0.00 0.5. Iiiliil IIIIIiIE !iiiiJ I!BD IMJ A'C 1.88 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.08 0.79 0.82 0.14 0.00 I&J Stonn: Renton 25 Year ., 2.66 (see KCSWDM pg 3-13) U, 0.65 (see KCSWDM pg 3-13) r. 3.4 (see KCSWDM pg 324-Hour Isopluvials Timl! of Rain Sum Cone: IDtens Runoff n Diam Slope Length A'C (min) (inlhr) (cr,) Value (inch) (-/.) (feet) 3.64 11.64 1.83 6.68 0.014 12 0.34 116 3.64 12.42 1.76 6.40 0.014 12 0.33 30 3.64 13.21 1.69 6.15 0.014 12 0.32 124 4.38 14.08 1.62 7.10 0.014 12 0.32 95 4.38 14.74 1.57 6.89 0.014 12 0.01 43.0 4.38 16.44 1.47 6.42 0.014 12 0.50 40.0 4.38 16.67 1.45 6.36 0.014 12 0.20 42.0 4.38 17.04 1.43 6.27 0.014 12 1.30 68.0 0.01 10.00 2.02 0.02 0.014 12 0.34 99.0 0.09 10.67 1.94 0.18 0.014 12 0.39 82.0 0.88 11.19 1.88 1.66 0.014 12 0.33 281.0 1.71 13.13 1.70 2.90 0.014 12 1.80 95.0 1.84 13.41 1.67 3.08 0.014 12 1.80 155.0 1.84 13.86 1.64 3.02 0.014 12 1.10 127.0 Page 2 of 2 IiiiIiil IIiiii!!iI IiIIii£J ~ fMl ~ IiIiiil Pipe: Capac (crs) 1.93 1.90 1.87 1.87 0.33 2.34 1.48 3.77 1.93 2.07 1.90 4.44 4.44 3.47 .. Calculated by: U Checked by: Date Checked: % Velot Capac Full Used (ft/sec) 346 2.46 337 2.42 329 2.38 380 2.38 2083 0.42 274 2.98 430 1.88 166 4.80 I 2.46 9 2.63 88 2.42 65 5.65 69 5.65 87 4.42 .. - Flow Time Remarks (min) 0.79 0.21 0.87 0.66 Existing 1.70 Existing 0.22 Existing 0.37 Existing 0.24 Existing 0.67 0.52 1.94 0.28 0.46 0.48 EXlstmg - .. - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Runoff Coefficients for Rational Method Source: King County Surface Water Design Manual 2009, Table 3.2.I.A Land Cover Dense forest Light forest Pasture Lawns Playgrounds Gravel areas Pavement and roofs General Land Covers Open water (pond, lakes, wetlands) . Single Family Residential Areas Land Cover Density 0.20 DU/GA (I unit per 5 ac.) 0.40 DU/GA (I unit per 2.5 ac.) 0.80 DU/GA (I unit per 1.25 ac.) 1.00 DU/GA 1.50 DU/GA 2.00 DU/GA 2.50 DU/GA 3.00 DU/GA 3.50 DU/GA 4.00 DU/GA 4.50 DU/GA 5.00 DU/GA 5.50 DU/GA 6.00 DU/GA C 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.80 0.90 1.00 C 0.17 0.20 0.27 0.30 0.33 0.36 0.39 0.42 0.45 0.48 0.51 0.54 0.57 0.60 Source: King County Surface Water Design Manual 2009, Table 3.2.1.B Coefficients for the Rational Method Design Storm aR b R 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 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SECTION 3.2 RUNOFF COMPUTATION AND ANALYSIS METHODS FIGURE 3.2.1.A 2-YEAR 24-HOUR ISOPLUVIALS WESTERN KING COUNTY 2-Year 24-Hour Precipitation in Inches 1/912009 o 2 4 Miles : ! 1 3-14 .. ----3.5 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 3.2.1 RATIONAL METHOD FIGURE 3.2.1.8 10-YEAR24-HOUR ISOPLUVIALS ~ WESTIERN KING COUNTY 10-Year 24-Hour 1 Precipitation T in Inches ? ~ 1 M; •• 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 3-15 4.0 .. 1/9/2009 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SECTION 3.2 RUNOFF COMPUTATION AND ANALYSIS METHODS FIGURE 3.2. I.e 25-YEAR 24-HOUR ISOPLUVIALS WESTERN KING COUNTY 25-Year 24-Hour Precipitation in Inches 11912009 o 3-\6 2009 Surface Water Design Manual FIGURE 3.2.1.0 IOO-YEAR 24-HOUR ISOPLUVIALS WESTIERN K~NG COUNTY 100-Year 24-Hour Precipitation in Inches 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 2 4 M~os , ; 3·17 3.2.1 RATIONAL METHOD 1/912009 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - .. .. - .. .. .. .. :-', .~ H ! tl A.,.,...-" ct: ' ~ <:: ~ .svl!~ Ii> III .Jl I\l'\J> !~ ~.- -~ ~WAY 34-16 Il ! 3Z,IQ3 SF II'GP I 6'7,6/6 $'" IMI" • : • "'.''\1a ~F 1M.. J 2~ ~ IT': /.ApI" ~ SlI,lJ6't ~p I.AW1>I i as,!S'lS SF 1.1i>-.J I --... --... --... ---... ---... -- -----",II-----------, "'----"'-----.-,-.... -""----"'----'" --I ~ 0 :-~-----:t!!~;61:~ ------ ------... ------~ ~--ia;~~fr SF I~P ---- ---------.....--_. JI C~~ ~ Ii.. I, '-_. __ ~ ... ~ ..... ~ i -... '" ---",,-~ , ~--, ~ C~ , !J' ~i'IW' • ~ ~, I iil • iil --1-"'-,-t 1111 ~ ~ J. I I I I I"IW L ' I I I I ;1~--~~~11~mL~~~~~~~cd r .. Ii! f> I I !I. . . 1~k,U. sPi 1"J,g6l' ~ I. I 749B • I, 0 l 3,uq ~' l,qp I,' j' I I I I -----rr-=._ ,. ,I I-,. j .. I I r-=' --~-=_-_"-'-::..__.g..-----__;__' ~ , , ~' -~ ;;ltaa 8' rSl, I I I 'I. I. I .. -~ Iii! ~ ~ I I I I 11.1 I I I I ,I R .Ix ... tI$. I _ _ I t. I. I 1\ ../.1 . w.:: ' I!.':II. _ ~~ ~ ~~"'.-t---:,' _--_--"-..:.--' .. ' " " .' .' .' .' .. ...,..: .. ' 7;6&6 srz IptP ___ --I ", ____ 110 fL . '(SI:Vi1:'~'~'.'. ,-/",,""r-~ { '-':'-------•• ' i " .• ,. • .' / . r . -_........-:::::'... . ' '. '. . '. ---..,":" ..... ".. . '=' . . . : . . . . j .. ~~. I ~I 7211J1D1 snct 51 56 2111 --""' fit 425141-111 7.lg~ SF IPiP ~ := a; --I:;:::::,.. SCALE IN FEET I ~ 0 ro 1~ Tributary Area/Collection I Figure 1 Renton Airport I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I, I I THICKNESS DESIGN FOR DUCTILE IRON PIPE PROJECT: Renton Municipal Airport, Taxiway B, Phase I Calculated by: BTS Checked by: PROJ NO,: 23-2010-007 DATE: 9119/2012 Date Checked: FILE: H:ID0C\23Ap\IOl007 Renton TW B lit Signll!,'CIDcsign\Dralnagc\[Pipe Loading -Ph ... LxlsxlThicknm Cal~s 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 @ I ft, 12 in @ \,5 ft, 6 in @ 2 ft, and 12 in @ 2 ft, The methods set forth by ANSI/A WWA C 150/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, ANSIIAWWA CI50/A21.50-02 Solve: Design Vehicle (ARFF Truck) ~ 82,000 pounds Percent of Load ~ 95 % No, of Wheels ~ 4 P (truck load) ~ 19475 pounds w~ a~ 120 144 Ib/ft3 in'lft' R~ Road Reduction Factor for cover < 4 ft and pipe diameter between 3-12 in (Table 4, ANSI/AWWA CI50/A2L50-02) F~ L5 Impact factor (ASCE Manual No, 37) Step 1-Design/or 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/or trench load a,) Earth Load Table 1: Earth Load Depth, H (ft) 1.0 1.5 2,0 b,) Truck Load Earth Pressure (psi) 0,8333 1.2500 1.6667 wH a C-I-~Sin-l[H A' +H' +1,5' ]+~( 1,5AH I I +----.,-I---,-J -7T (A' +H')(J,S' +H') 7T JA' +H' +1,5' A' +H' 1,5' +H' 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 L5 12 0,55 0.3770 2.0 6 0.29 0.1423 2.0 12 0.55 0.2624 Page 1 of 4 Depth, H (ft) 1.0 I.S 2.0 2.0 c.) Trench Load Depth, H (ft) 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.0 Nominal Pipe Diameter (in) 8 12 6 12 Table 3: Truck Load ODofPipe, D Effective Length of Pipe, b (ft) (in) 9.0S 36.00 13.20 36.00 6.90 36.00 13.20 36.00 Table 4: Trench Load Nominal Pipe Trench Load, P v I~ Diameter (in) (£sil 8 38.S6 12 24.42 6 18.41 12 17.80 d.) Net Thickness for Bending Stress Design CP bD Truck Load, P t (psi) 37.72 23.17 16.74 16.13 Note: Refer to Table 10 of A WW A C ISOI A21.S0-02 for diameter-thickness ratios for Type 4 laying conditions. Round up the trench loads to the next highest corresponding bending -stress design figure. It D = Table 5: Net Thickness ( D Nominal Pipe Thickness Ratio, / t ) Net Depth, H Diameter OD of Pipe, D Trench Load, P v Dlt Thickness (ft) (in) (ft) (£si) (inl 1.0 8 9.0S 38.56 S8 0.16 I.S 12 13.20 24.42 90 O.IS 2.0 6 6.90 18.41 130 O.OS 2.0 12 13.20 17.80 136 0.10 Page 2 of 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I, I I Step 3 -Selection a/Net Thickness and Addition a/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 = Service Allowance = Min Manufacturing Thickness = 0.16 in 0.08 in 0.24 in b.) Minimum Manufacturing Thickness -H = 1.5 ft; D = 12 in Net Thickness = Service Allowance = Min Manufacturing Thickness = 0.15 in 0.08 in 0.23 in c.) Minimum Manufacturing Thickness -H = 2.0 ft; D = 6 in Net Thickness = Service Allowance = Min Manufacturing Thickness = 0.05 in 0.08 in 0.13 in d.) Minimum Manufacturing Thickness - H = 2.0 ft; D = 12 in Net Thickness = Service Allowance = Min Manufacturing Thickness = 0.10 in 0.08 in 0.18 in Note: a service allowance of 0.08 inches is added to the net thickness per Section 4.I.3.b of ANSI/AWWA CI50/A21.50-02. Step 4 -Check Deflection a/the Pipe Note: Refer to Table 10 of ANSII A WW A C 1501 A21.50-02 for diameter-thickness ratios for Type 4 laying conditions. Round up the trench loads to the next highest corresponding deflection check. Table 6: Pipe Deneclion Depth, H Nominal Pipe OD of Pipe, D Trench Load, P, Diameter (ft) (in) (ft) (psi) 1.0 8 9.05 38.56 1.5 12 13.20 24.42 2.0 6 6.90 18.41 2.0 12 13.20 17.80 Minimum Manufacturing Thickness> Deflection D Thickness Ratio, Thickness Dlt 56 70 83 85 (in) 0.16 0.19 0.08 0.16 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 infonnation was derived from Table 3 of ANSI! A WW A C 150/ A2I.50-02 a. ) Total Thickness -H = 1 ft; 0 = 8 in Min Manufacturing Thickness = Casting Tolerance = Total Thickness = Total Thickness> Class 50 0.24 in 0.05 in 0.29 in Therefore, the minimum Special Class pipe required for this scenario is Class 51 b.) Total Thickness -H = I.S ft; 0 = 12 in Min Manufacturing Thickness = Casting Tolerance = Total Thickness = Total Thickness < Class 50 0.23 in 0.06 in 0.29 in Therefore, the minimum Special Class pipe required for this scenario is Class 50 c.) Total Thickness -H = 2.0 ft; 0 = 6 in Min Manufacturing Thickness = Casting Tolerance = Total Thickness = Total Thickness < Class 50 0.13 in 0.05 in 0.18 in Therefore, the minimum Special Class pipe required for this scenario is Class 50 d.) Total Thickness -H = 2.0 ft; 0 = 12 in Min Manufacturing Thickness = Casting Tolerance = Total Thickness = Total Thickness < Class 50 0.18 in 0.06 in 0.24 in 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 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PROJECT: Renton Municipal Airport, Taxiway B, Phase I PROJ NO.: 23-2010-007 DATE: 911912012 FILE: H:\DOC\23Ap\JOI007 Renton TW B & Signage\Oeslgn\Drainagc\[Pipc Loading -Phase I.xlsx]Pipc Xings Pipe Sections "From" "To" CB5 CB6 CB7 CB8 CB9 CBlO CB10 CBll CB16 CB17 CB17 CB18 CB19 E7 CB25 CB24 CB26 CB25 CB27 CB25 CB28 CB29 IE = Invert Elevation CB = Catch Basin EOA = Edge of Asphalt CL = Centerline Approx. = Approximate No. = Number CB "From" IE Pipe Diameter Approx. ( ft) (in) Stationing 2l.25 12 30+78 19.91 12 33+76 21.05 8 37+15 20.6 12 36+48 19.7 12 38+85 19.1 12 39+66 19 12 42+85.5 20.4 12 44+49.5 21.3 12 43+41.5 21 8 45+22.4 20 6 46+83 Pipe Slope 0.34% 1.80% 0.40% 0.34% 0.32% 0.32% 0.50% 0.50% 0.85% 0.34% 0.20% DEPTH OF PIPE COVER Length of Pipe to Asphalt Crown of Pipe EOA CL EOA EOA CL EOA 14 28 44 22.20 22.15 22.10 39 51 63 20.208 19.99 19.78 0.00 ----21.72 ---- 0.00 51 63 21.60 21.43 21.39 25 48 71 20.62 20.55 20.47 37 52 95 19.98 19.93 19.80 0 13 48 20.00 19.94 19.76 0 47 65 21.40 21.17 21.08 0 ----22.3 ---- 0 ----21.67 ---- 23 53 83 20.45 20.39 20.33 Page 1 of 1 Top of Asphalt EOA CL EOA 24.55 24.74 24.55 24.26 24.45 24.26 22.7 ---- 23.5 24.1 23.91 23.89 24.08 23.89 23.86 23.91 23.85 23.6 23.89 23.17 22.8 23.71 23.52 23.3 ---- 22.7 ---- 22.66 22.96 22.66 EOA 2.3 4.1 1.0 1.9 3.3 3.9 3.6 1.4 1.0 1.0 2.2 Calculated by: BTS Checked by: Date Checked: Depth to Cover CL EOA 2.6 2.4 4.5 4.5 ---- 2.7 2.5 3.5 3.4 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.4 2.5 2.4 ---- ---- 2.6 2.3 ---- Original bond computations prepared by: --------,--Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet Name: Benjamin Sommer PE Registration Number: 45892 Finn Name: Reid Middleton, Inc. Address: 728 134th Street SW, Suite 200, Everett, WA 98204 -- -- D,te, 06.26.12 TeL" (425) 741-3800 Project No: 232010.007 ROAD IMPROVEMENTS & DRAINAGE FACILITIES FINANCIAL GUARANTEE REQUIREMENTS Stabilization/Erosion Sediment Control (ESC) (A) Existing Right~f-Way Improvements (B) Future Public Road Improvements & Drainage Facilities (e) Private Improvements (0) Performance Bond· Amount (A+B+C+D) TOTAL (T) Maintenance/Defect Bond· Total NAME OF PERSON PREPARING BOND" REDUCTION: $ $ $ $ PERFORMANCE BOND·,''' AMOUNT NA'" 1,566,901.7 1,566,901.7 Minimum bond· amount is $1000. • NOTE: The word "bond" as used in this documenl means any financial guarantee acceptable 10 the City of Renton. -NOTE: AD prices Indude labor. equipment. materials, overhead and profit: Prices are from RS Means data adjusted for the Seattle area or from local sources if not induded in the RS Means dalabase. "** NOTE: SlabilizationlErosion Sediment Control (ESC) worksheet is nol induded in the City of Renton 2009 Surface Water Design Manual Amendment, Reference 8-H. REQUIRED BOND· AMOUNTS ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEWANO MODIFICATION BY ROSO Page 1 of7 Bond Quantities Worksheel.xlsx PUBLIC ROAD & DRAINAGE MAINTENANCE/DEFECT (B+G) x 0.20= $ BOND·,·· 313,380.3 Date: Un~ prices updated: 02112102 Version: 4/22/02 Report Date: 7/212012 - GENERAL ITEMS Backfill & Compaction-embankment Backfill & Comp.action-trench Clear/Remove Brush, by hand ClearingiGrubbingiTree Removal Excavation -bulk Excavation -Trench Fencing, cedar, 6' high Fencing. chain link, vinyl coated, S' high Fencing, chain Unk, !Jete, vinvl coated, 20' Fencing, split raD, 3' high Fill & compact· common barrow FiR & compact -gravel base Fill & compact· screened topsoil Gabion, 12-deep, stone filled mesh Gabion, 18-deep, stone filled mesh Gabion, 36-deep, stone filled mesh Grading, fine, bv hand Grading, fine, with !=!rader Monuments, 3' lo~.G Sensitive Areas Sign Sodding, 1ft deep. sloped ground Surveying, line & grade Su~ing, lot Iocationllines TraffIC control crew ( 2 naggers) Trail, 4-chipped wood Trail, 4-crushed cinder Trail, 4-too course WaD, retaining. concrete WaD, rockery Page20f7 Bond Quantities Worksheet.:dsx .. .. .. - Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet Existing Future Public Private Right-of-Way Road Improvements Improvements & Dralnaae FacUlties I Number Unit Price Unit Quant. I Cost Quant I Cosl Quant 1 Cosl GI-1 $ 5.62 CY 0.00 0.00 GI-2 $ 8.53 CY 0.00 0,00 GI-3 $ 0,36 SY 0,00 0,00 GI-4 $ 8,876.16 Acre 0,00 0.00 GI-5 $ 1.50 CY 0.00 5030 7,545.00 GI-6 $ 4.06 CY 0.00 0.00 GI-7 $ 18.55 LF 0,00 0.00 GI-8 $ 13.44 LF 0.00 32 430.08 GI-9 $ 1,271.81 Each 0.00 I 1,271.81 GI-10 $ 12.12 LF 0.00 0.00 GJ ·11 $ 22.57 CY 0.00 2250 50.782.50 GI·12 $ 25.48 CY 0.00 0.00 GI·13 $ 37.85 CY 0.00 150 5,677.50 GI·14 $ 54.31 SY 0.00 0.00 GI-15 $ 74.85 SY 0.00 0.00 GI-16 $ 132.48 SY 0.00 0.00 GI-17 $ 2.02 SY 0.00 0.00 GI-18 $ 0.95 SY 0.00 32000 30.400.00 GI·19 $ 135.13 Each 0.00 0.00 GI·20 $ 2.88 Each 0.00 0.00 GI-21 $ 7.46 SY 0.00 0.00 GI-22 $ 788.26 Day 0.00 0.00 GI-23 $ 1,556.64 ""'a 0.00 10.5 16,344.72 GI·24 $ 85.18 HR 0.00 0.00 GI-25 $ 7.59 SY 0.00 0.00 GI-26 $ 8.33 SY 0.00 0.00 GI-27 $ 8.19 SY 0.00 0.00 GI-28 $ 44.16 SF 0.00 0.00 GI-29 $ 9.49 SF 0.00 0.00 -- SUBTOTAL 0.00 112.451.61 .. -alii 1IIIIIl_ .. --.. ,-- 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quantity Completed (Bond Reduction)" Quanl ComDlete Cost 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Unit prices updated: 02/12102 Version: 4122102 Report Date: 71212012 .. .. --.. -.--- ROAD IMPROVEMENT AC Grinding, 4' wide machine < 100Dsv AC Grindina, 4' wide machine 1000-200DSy AC Grinding, 4' wide machine> 200Dsy C Removal/Disposal/Repair Barricade, type I Barricade, type III Permanent) Curb & Gutter, rolled Curb & Gutter, vertical Curb and Gutter, demolition and disposal Curb, extruded asphalt Curb, extruded concrete Sawcut, asphalt, 3~ depth Sawcut, concrete, per '" depth Sealant, asphalt Shoulder, AC, see AC road unit P!ice ) Shoulder, gravel, 4~ thick Sidewalk, 4~ thick Sidewalk, 4" thick, demolition and disposal Sidewalk, 5~ thick. Sidewalk, 5~ thick., demolition and di~sal Sign. handicap Striping, per stall Striping, thennoplastic, (for crosswalk) Striping, 4~ refJectorized line Page 3 of 7 Bond Quantities WoriIsneet.xlsx --------.--Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet Existing Future Public Private Right-of-way Road Improvements Improvements & Dralnaae-FacllfUfS I Number Unit Price Unit Quant. I Cost Quant. Cost Quant. Cost RI-1 $ 23.00 SY 0.00 450 10,350.00 RI-2 $ 5.75 SY 0.00 0.00 RI-3 $ 1.38 SY 0,00 0.00 RI-4 $ 41.14 SY 0,00 11200 460,768.00 RI-5 $ 30,03 LF 0,00 0.00 RI-6 $ 45.05 LF 0,00 0.00 RI-7 $ 13.27 LF 0,00 0.00 RI-8 $ 9.69 LF 0.00 0.00 RI-9 $ 13.58 LF 0.00 0.00 RI-10 $ 2.44 LF 0.00 0.00 RI -11 $ 2.56 LF 0.00 0.00 RI-12 $ 1.85 LF 0,00 850 1,572.50 RI-13 $ 1.69 LF 0.00 0.00 RI-14 $ 0.99 LF 0,00 0.00 RI-15 $ -SY 0.00 0.00 RI-16 $ 7.53 SY 0.00 0.00 RI-17 $ 30.52 SY 0,00 0.00 RI -18 $ 27.73 SY 0.00 0.00 RI-19 $ 34.94 SY 0,00 0.00 RI-20 $ 34.65 SY 0.00 0.00 RI-21 $ 85.28 Each 0.00 0.00 RI-22 $ 5.82 Each 0,00 0.00 RI-23 $ 2.38 SF 0.00 4350 10,353.00 RI-24 $ 0.25 LF 0.00 0.00 SUBTOTAL 0.00 483,043.50 -- -- Bond Reductlon* Quant. Complete 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cost 0.00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 -- 0.00 Unit prices updated: 02/12/02 Version: 4122102 Report Date: 71212012 - Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet Existing Future PubUc Private Rlght~f-way Road Improvements Improvements & Dralnaa. Facilities I Number Unit Price Un' Quant. 1 co .. t Quant. I Cost Quanl I Cost ROAD SURFACING W Rock = 2.5 base & loS" top course) For '93 KCRS (SS Rock= 5" base & lS top course) For KCRS '93, (additional 2.5" base) add: RS-1 $ 3.60 SY 0.00 0.00 AC Overiav, 1.5" AC RS-2 $ 7.39 SY 0.00 0.00 C Overlav. 2" AC RS-3 $ 8.75 SY 0.00 0.00 C Road, 2". 4" rock, First 2500 SY RS-4 $ 17.24 SY 0.00 0.00 AC Road, 2", 4" rock, Qty, over 2500SY RS-5 $ 13.36 SY 0.00 0.00 AC Road, 3",4" rock, First 2500 SY RS-S $ 19.69 SY 0.00 0.00 C Road, 3",4" rock, Otv. over 2500 SY RS-7 $ 15.81 SY 0.00 0.00 C Road,S", First 2500 SY RS-8 $ 14.57 SY 0,00 0.00 C Road, 5", Qty. Over 2500 SY RS-9 $ 13.94 SY 0.00 0.00 e Road, 6 ft , First 2500 SY RS-10 $ 16.76 SY 0.00 0.00 e Road, 6", Qty. Over 2500 SY RS-11 $ 16.12 SY 0.00 0.00 sphalt Treated Base, 4M thick RS-12 $ 9.21 SY 0.00 0.00 Gravel Road, 4M rock, First 2500 SY RS-13 $ 11.41 SY 0.00 0.00 Gravel Road. 4" rock, aty. over 2500 SY RS-14 $ 7.53 SY 0.00 0.00 pee Road. 5", no base, over 2500 SY RS-15 $ 21.51 SY 0.00 0.00 pee Road, 6-, no base, over 2500 SY RS-16 $ 21.87 SY 0.00 0.00 Thickened Edge RS-17 $ 6.89 IF 0.00 0.00 Page 4 of 7 SUBTOTAL 0,00 0.00 Bond Quantities Worksheet.K1sx --.. .. --ail BEl ---.. -- Bond Reduction· Quant Comnlete 0.00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0,00 - Cost 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Unit prices updated: 02112/02 Version: 4122102 Report Date: 71212012 .. .. -.. -- -- ----------Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet Existing Future Public Private Right-of-way Road Improvements Improvements & Draln.a. Facilities I Number Unit Price Unit Quanl Cost Quant Cost Quant. I Cost -- -- Bond Raduction~ Quant. 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, RID 0-1 $ 16.74 Bollards -fixed 0-2 $ 240.74 Bollards -removable 0-3 $ 452.34 • (CBs include frame and lid) CB Type' 0-' $ 1,257.64 CB Type IL 0-' $ 1,433,59 CB Type II, 48ft diameter 0-" $ 2,033.57 for additional depth over 4' 0-7 $ 436.52 CB Tvpe II, 54M diameter 0-8 $ 2,192.54 for additional depth over 4' 0-' $ 486.53 CB Type II, 60~ diameter 0-10 $ 2,351.52 for additional depth over 4' 0-11 $ 536.54 CB Type II. 72~ diameter 0-12 $ 3,212.64 for additional depth over 4' 0-13 $ 692.21 Through~urb Inlet Framewor~ (Add) 0-14 $ 366.09 Cleanout, PVC, 4 6 0-15 $ 130.55 Cleanout, PVC, 6" 0-16 $ 174.90 Cleanout, PVC, 8" 0-17 $ 224.19 Culvert, PVC, 4" 0-18 $ 8.64 Culvert, PVC, 6" 0-19 $ 12.60 Culvert, PVC, 8M 0-20 $ 13.33 Culvert, PVC, 12" 0-21 $ 21.77 Culvert, CMP, 8" 0-22 $ 17.25 Culvert, CMP, 12" 0-23 $ 26.45 Culvert, CMP, 15" 0-24 $ 32.73 Culvert, CMP, 186 0-25 $ 37.74 Culvert, CMP, 24M 0-26 $ 53.33 Culvert, CMP, 30" 0-27 $ 71.45 Culvert, CMP, 36" 0-28 $ 112.11 Culvert, CMP, 48" 0-29 $ 140.83 Culvert, CMP, 60" D -30 $ 235.45 Culvert, CMP, 72" 0-31 $ 302.58 Page 5 of7 SUBTOTAL Bond Quantities Worksheet.xlsx SY 0.00 12. Each 0.00 Each 0.00 Each 0.00 17 Each 0.00 2 Each 0.00 11 FT 0.00 Each 0.00 FT 0.00 Each 0.00 FT 0.00 Each 0.00 FT 0.00 Ea'" 0,00 Ea'" 0,00 Each 0.00 21 Each 0.00 LF 0.00 LF 0.00 2625 LF 0.00 LF 0.00 LF 0.00 LF 0.00 LF 0,00 LF 0,00 55. LF 0.00 LF 0.00 LF 0.00 LF 0.00 LF 0.00 LF 0.00 0.00 2,008.80 0.00 0.00 21,379.88 2,867.18 22,369.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 3,672.90 0.00 0.00 33,075.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 20,757,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 106,130.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Unit prices updated: 02112/02 Version: 4/22102 Report Date: 7/212012 - Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet Existing Future Public Private Right-of-way Road Improvements Improvements DRAINAGE CONTINUED & Orainage Facilities Number Unit Price Unit Quant Cost Quant Cost Quant. Cost Culvert, Concrete, 8~ 0-32 $ 21.02 LF 0 0 Culvert, Concrete, 12~ 0-33 $ 30.05 LF 0 0 Culvert, Concrete, 15~ 0-34 $ 37.34 LF 0 0 Culvert. Concrete, 18~ 0-35 $ 44.51 LF 0 0 Culvert, Concrete. 24" 0-36 $ 61.07 LF 0 0 Cufvert, Concrete. 30" D-37 $ 104.18 LF 0 0 Culvert, Concrete, 36~ 0-38 $ 137.63 LF 0 0 Culvert, Concrete, 42" 0-39 $ 158.42 LF 0 0 Culvert, Conccete, 4S" 0-40 $ 175.94 LF 0 0 Culvert. CPP, 6" 0-41 $ 10.70 LF 0 370 3959 Culvert. CPP, 8" 0-42 $ 16.10 LF 0 0 Culvert. CPP, 12" 0-43 $ 20.70 LF 0 450 9315 Culvert, CPP. IS" 0-44 $ 23.00 LF 0 0 Culvert, CPP. IS" 0-45 $ 27.60 LF 0 0 Culvert, CPP, 24" 0-46 $ 36.BO LF 0 0 Culvert, CPP. 30" 0-47 $ 48.30 LF 0 0 Culvert, CPP, 36" 0-48 $ 55.20 LF 0 0 Ditching 0-49 $ 8.08 CY 0 0 Flow Dispersal Trench 1,436 base+ D -50 $ 25.99 LF 0 0 French Drain (3' depth) D -51 $ 22.60 LF 0 0 Geotextile, laid in trench, polypropylene D-52 $ 2.40 SY 0 225 540 Infiltration pond testing D -53 $ 74.75 HR 0 0 Mid-tank Access Riser, 48~ dia, 6' deep 0-54 $ 1,605.40 Each 0 0 Pond Overflow Spillway D -55 $ 14.01 SY 0 0 Restrictor/Oij Separator, 12~ D -56 $ 1,045.19 Each 0 0 Restfictor/Oil Separator, 15M D -57 $ 1,095.56 Each 0 0 Restrictor/Oil Separator, 18~ D -58 $ 1,146.16 Each 0 0 ~'p!aced D -59 $ 39.08 CY 0 0 Tank End Reducer (36M diameter) D -60 $ 1,000.50 Each 0 0 Trash Rack, 12M D -61 $ 211.97 Each 0 4 847.88 Trash Rack, 15 M D-62 $ 237.27 Ea'" 0 0 Trash Rack, 18" D -63 $ 268.89 Each 0 0 Trash Rack, 21~ 0-64 $ 306.84 Each 0 0 Page 6 of 7 SUBTOTAL 0_00 14661.88 Bond Quantities Worksheet.xlsx .. ---~ &81 -.. --RiJ -IiIIiIl aJ Bond Reduction-- Quant. Complete 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 IBIiI Cost 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---" 0.00 Unit prices updated: 02112102 Version: 4122102 Report Date: 71212012 -8E -- -- - -----------Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet Existing Future Public Private Right-of-way Road Improvements Improvements & Drainage Facilities I Number Unit Price Unit Quant. Price Quant_ I Cost Quant I. Cost PARKING LOT SURFACING 2ft AC, 2" top course rock & 4" borrow PL-1 $ 15.84 SY 0 0 2" AG, 1,5" top Course & 2.5" base course PL-2 $ 17.24 SY 0 0 4" select borrow PL-3 $ 4.55 SY 0 0 1.5" top course rock & 2.5" base course PL -4 $ 11.41 SY 0 0 WRiTE-IN-IIEMS (Such as detentioniwater quality vaults.) Yard Drain WI -1 $ 250.00 EA 0 10 2,500.00 Siotled Drain System WI -2 $ 250.00 LF 0 550 137,500.00 Culvert, DIP, 8" WI-3 $ 40.00 LF 0 90 3,600.00 Culvert, DIP, 12" WI-4 $ 90.00 LF 0 776 69,840.00 Asphalt Surface Course 4", 2" Te, 12" Be WI-5 $ 22.00 SF 0 11627 255,794.00 Biofiltration Swale WI-6 $ 60.00 LF 0 200 12,000.00 Thermoplastic Pavement Markino WI-7 $ 22,00 SF 0 354 7.788.00 SF 0 0.00 LF 0 0.00 LF 0 0.00 SUBTOTAL 0.00 489,022.00 SUBTOTAL (SUM ALL PAGES): 0.00 1,205,309.02 30'1. CONTINGENCY & MOBILIZATION: 0,00 361,592,71 GRANDTOTAL: 0,00 1,566,901,73 COLUMN: B C D Page 7 of 7 Bond Quantities Worksheet.xlsx - --- Bond Reduction· Quant. Commete 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 Cost 0 0 0 0 0,00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0,00 E Unit prices updated: 02/12/02 Version: 4122102 Report Date: 7/2/2012 - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL STORMW A TER FACILITY SUMMARY SHEET DOES Permit Number PRE12-012 (provide one Stormwater Facility Summary Sheet per Natural Discharge Location) Overview: Project Name ..:C::.:i~ty~o::.:f:...:Rc::e:::n:::to:::n=-T.::a::x::.iw=aYc...=B-=S:.<y-.:::s=te::.:m=-R:.::.:eh::.:a::::b::.:il::.:ita=t::.:io:::n~(~P::.:h=as::e-=IL) ___ Date June 18, 2002 Downstream Drainage Basins Major Basin Name Lake Washington Immediate Basin Name ___________ _ Flow Control: Flow Control Facility NamelNumber -,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: TypelNumber of detention facilities: TypelNumber of infiltration facilities: ___ ponds ponds ___ vaults tanks ___ tanks trenches Control Structure Location N/A Type of Control Structure ---'-N;::/A'-.:-__________ _ Size of Orifice/Restriction: No.1 No.2 ______ _ No.3 ______ _ No.4 _____ _ Number of OrificeslRestrictions Flow Control Performance Standard ______________ _ 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1 1/9/2009 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL Live Storage Volume ________ Depth _______ Volume Factor of Safety Number of Acres Served NI A ~~------------ Number of Lots N/A ~~------------ Dam Safety Regulations (Washington State Department of Ecology) Reservoir Volume above natural grade ...:N=I A..O-____ _ Depth of Reservoir above natural grade --'N'"'-Iu.A-'-____ _ Facility Summary Sheet Sketch All detention, infiltration and water quality facilities must include a detailed sketch. (11 "x 17" reduced size plan sheets may be used) N/A 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 119/2009 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL Water Quality: TypelNumber of water quality facilities/BMPs: X biofiltration swale large) (regula@0r continuous inflow) combined detentionlwetpond large) (wetpond portion basic or large) combined detentionlwetvault X filter strip flow dispersion farm management plan landscape management plan oil/water separator above (baffle or coalescing plate) Liner? catch basin inserts: --- ___ sand filter (basic or large) ___ sand filter, linear (basic or ___ sand filter vault (basic or sand bed depth. ___ (inches) ___ storm water wetland ___ storm filter ___ wetpond (basic or large) ___ wetvault ___ Is facility Lined? If so, what marker is used 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 3 1/9/2009 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL All detention, infiltration and water quality facilities must include a detailed sketch. (II "xI7" reduced size plan sheets may be used) Please refer to Figure 4-1 for more infonnation regarding the water quality types and locations. 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 4 1/912009 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES I NO.4 -CONTROL STRUCTURE/FLOW RESTRICTOR Maintenance Defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected Whan Component Maintenance is Performed I Structure Trash and debris Trash or debris of more than Ya 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. I more than 10%. Trash or debris in the structure that exceeds 1/3 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. I Deposits of garbage exceeding 1 cubic foot in No condition present which would volume. attract or support the breeding of insects or rodents. I 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 I 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. andlor top slab curb face into the street (If applicable). I Top slab has holes larger than 2 square inches or Top slab is free of holes and cracks. cracks wider than Y4 inch. Frame not sitting flush on top slab, i.e., Frame is sitting flush on top slab. I separation of more than % inch of the frame from the top slab. Cracks in walls or Cracks wider than Y2 inch and longer than 3 feet, Structure is sealed and structurally bottom any evidence of soil particles entering structure sound. I through cracks, or maintenance person judges that structure is unsound. Cracks wider than Y2 inch and longer than 1 foot No cracks more than 1/4 inch wide at at the jOint of any inleVoutlet pipe or any evidence the joint of inleVouUet pipe. I of soil particles entering structure through cracks. SeltlemenV 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. I Damaged pipe joints Cracks wider than Y2-inch at the joint of the No cracks more than 'X-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. I 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. I 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. I 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. I 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 I and works as designed. Any holes-other than designed holes-in the Structure has no holes other than structure. designed holes. I Cleanout Gate Damaged or missing Cleanout gate is missing. Replace cleanout gate. 2009 Surface Water Design Manual-Appendix A t/9/2009 I A-7 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ F ACILlTIES I NO.4 -CONTROL STRUCTURE/FLOW RESTRICTOR Maintenance Defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance Is Needed Results Expected When I Component Maintenance Is Performed Clean out gate is not watertight. Gate is watertight and works as designed. I 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 I 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. I 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. I Deformed or damaged Lip of overflow pipe is bent or deformed. Overflow pipe does not allow lip overflow at an elevation lower than design I InleVOutiet Pipe Sediment Sediment filling 20% or more of the pipe. InleUoutiet pipes clear of sediment. accumulation Trash and debris Trash and debris accumulated in inleUoutiet No trash or debris in pipes. pipes (includes f10atables and non-floatables). I Damaged Cracks wider than %-inch at the joint of the No cracks more than X-inch wide at inleUoutlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering the joint of the inleUoutiet pipe. at the joints of the inleUoutlet pipes. I 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. I 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. I Manhole Cover/Lid Cover/lid not in place Cover/lid is missing or only partially in place. Coverllid protects opening to Any open structure requires urgent structure. maintenance. Locking mechanism Mechanism cannot be opened by one Mechanism opens with proper tools. I Not Working maintenance person with proper tools. Bolts cannot be seated. Self-locking coverllid does not work. Coverflid difficult to One maintenance person cannot remove Coverflid can be removed and I Remove cover/lid after applying 80 Ibs. of lift. reinstalled by one maintenance person. I I I I I 1/9/2009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual-Appendix A A-8 I I APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES I NO.5 -CATCH BASINS AND MANHOLES Maintenance Defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is Performed I 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 I 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 I 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 I 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. I 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. I 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 (tf appticable). Top slab has holes larger than 2 square inches or Top slab is free of holes and cracks. I cracks wider than X inch. Frame not sitting flush on top slab, i.e., Frame is silting flush on top slab. separation of more than % inch of the frame from the top slab. I Cracks in walls or Cracks wider than ~ inch and longer than 3 feet, Catch basin is seated and bottom any evidence of soil particles entering catch structurally sound. basin through cracks, or maintenance person judges that catch basin is unsound. I 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 I cracks. SettlemenV 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. I Damaged pipe joints Cracks wider than ~-inch at the jOint of the No cracks more than X-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. I 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 %-inch at the joint of the No cracks more than X-inch wide at inlet/outlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering the joint of the inlet/outlet pipe. I at the joints of the inlet/outlet pipes. I 2009 Surface Water Design Manual-Appendix A 119/2009 I A-9 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES I NO.5 -CATCH BASINS AND MANHOLES I 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. I 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 I 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. I maintenance. Locking mechanism Mechanism cannot be opened by one Mechanism opens with proper tools. Not Working maintenance person with proper tools. Bolts I cannot be seated. Self-locking cover/lid does not work. Cover/lid difficult to One maintenance person cannot remove Coverllid can be removed and Remove coverllid after applying 80 Ibs. of lift. reinstalled by one maintenance I person. I I I I I I I I I I I 1/9/2009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual-Appendix A A·IO I I APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES I NO, 6 -CONVEYANCE PIPES AND DITCHES Maintenance Defect or Problem Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is Performed I 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. I 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. I 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. I 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 I 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. I 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 I 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. I 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. I 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. I 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 I Applicable) soil. I I I I I 2009 Surface Water Design Manual-Appendix A 1/9/2009 I A-II APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES I NO.7 -DEBRIS BARRIERS (E.G., TRASH RACKS) Maintenance Defect or Problem Condition When Malntanance Is Needed Results Expected When I 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. I 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 I 100SB 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. I 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. I Bars are loose and rust is causing 50% Repair or replace barrier to design deterioration to any part of barrier. standards. I I I I I I I I I I I I 1/9/2009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Appendix A A·I2 I I APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES I NO. 11 -GROUNDS (LANDSCAPING) Maintenance Defect or Problem Conditions When Maintenance Is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is Performed I 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, I 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 I 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 I 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. I 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. I patential ta fall and cause praperty damage ar threaten human life. A hazard tree identified by a qualified arborist must be removed as soon as possible. I 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 1 knocked over. knocked over vegetation. Trees or shrubs free of injury. Trees or shrubs which are not adequately Tree or shrub in place and I supported or are leaning over, causing exposure adequately supported;·dead or of the roots. diseased trees removed. I 1 I I I ,I 1 1/9/2009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual-Appendix A I A-t6 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES I NO. 13 -BASIC BIOFILTRATION SWALE (GRASS) Maintenance Defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When I Component Maintenance is Performad Site Trash and debris Any trash andlor debris accumulated on the No trash or debris on the bioswale bioswale site. site. I 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 I present other than a surface oil film. Swate Section Sediment Sediment depth exceeds 2 inches in 10% of the No sediment deposits in grass accumulation swate treatment area. treatment area af the biaswale, I 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 I 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 I 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 taU, grass is thin or nuisance weeds and other thick and healthy. No clippings left vegetation has taken over. in swale. No nuisance vegetation I present. Excessive shade Grass growth is poor because sunlight does not Health grass growth or swale reach swale. converted to a wet bioswale. I Constant baseflow Continuous flow through the swale, even when it Baseflow removed from swate 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. I Standing water Water pools in the swale between storms or does Swate freely drains and there is no not drain freely. standing water in swale between storms. I 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. I InleVDutlet 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. I pipes (includes floatables and non-f1oatables). Damaged Cracks wider than Yz-inch at the joint of the No cracks more than X-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 I I I I 119/2009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual-Appendix A A·18 I I APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES I NO. 15 -FILTER STRIP Maintenance Defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance Is Performed I 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 I pollution as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint. according to applicable regulations. Source control 8M?s implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surtace oil film. I 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 I 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 I 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 I (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. I 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 inleUoutlet No trash or debris in pipes. I pipes (includes f10atables and non-floatables). Damaged Cracks wider than %-inch at the joint of the No cracks more than X-inch wide at inleUoutiet pipes or any evidence of soil entering the joint of the inleUoutlet pipe. at the joints of the inleUoutlet pipes. I I I I I I I I 1/9/2009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Appendix A I A-20 I I I I I I I I I I I 'I I I I I I I I 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. Storm water runofffrom fueling areas may be contaminated with toxic hydrocarbons, oils and greases, and metals. ~ ~ 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. qr 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. " 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. <7 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. ~ R. equired 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. • January 2009 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. King County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual Fueling Operations (continued) [fyou 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 lOin Chapter 5 for more information. For more infonnation or assistance in implementing these best management practices, contact the King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Water aud Laud 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 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Landscaping Activities and Vegetation Management This broad activity encompasses all aspects oflandscaping 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. January 2009 MIN)MUr.n~t;QUIR~MEt:if$. The following BMPs, or equivaleut 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 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 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/environmentianimalsandplants/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. crt"" 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 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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 infonnation 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 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Clearing and Grading of Land for Small Construction Projects This activity applies if you clear, grade or prepare land for projects. Storm water 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 infonnation or assistance in implementing these best management practices, contact the King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Stonnwater 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 stann drainage system you will be asked to take additional measures to correct the continued pollution discharges. January 2009 King County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Technical Information Report (TIR) for Renton Municipal Airport Taxiway B System Rehabilitation Phase II Owner: City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98057 October 2012 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Technical Information Report (TIR) Renton Municipal Airport Taxiway B System Rehabilitation 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. Renton Municipal Airport Benjamin Somriler, P.E. Project Engineer 728 134th Street SW, Suite 200 Everett, W A 98204 . 425-741-3800 (Fax 425-741-3900) File No~ 232010.007 TW B System Rehilbilitation, Phase II Technical Information Report (TIR) - 1 - October 2012 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Contents SECTION 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW ....................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................... 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................................................................. 1 PROJECT LOCATION ................................................................................................................................................... 1 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 1 PROPOSED CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................................................. 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 OPERA TIONS ..................................................................................... 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 DELINEA TION ........................................................................... 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 STUDY AREA ........................................................................................................................................................... 18 RESOURCE REVIEW ................................................................................................................................................. 18 FIELD OBSERVATION ............................................................................................................................................... 19 DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND PROBLEM DESCRIPTION ............................................................................. 20 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 PARTD-FLOW CONTROL SySTEM ......................................................................................................................... 24 PART E-WATER QUALITY SYSTEM ....................................................................................................................... 24 SECTION 5: CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN .•.....................•.......... 28 EXISTING CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ............................................................................................................................ 28 PROPOSED CONVEYANCE SYSTEM .......................................................................................................................... 28 SECTION 6: SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES .............................................................. 31 SECTION 7: OTHER PERMITS .............................................................................................. 32 SECTION 8: CSWPPP ANALYSIS AND DESiGN ................................................................ 33 ESC MEASURES ...................................................................................................................................................... 33 RECOMMENDED CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE (EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL) ................................................ 34 SWPPS PLAN DESIGN ............................................................................................................................................. 35 SECTION 9: BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT .......................................................................................................................... 36 BOND QUANTITIES WORKSHEET ............................................................................................................................. 36 Renton Municipal Airport TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase II Technical Infonnation Report (TIR) October 2012 -II - FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY SUMMARY SHEET AND SKETCH ................................................. 36 DEC LARA nON 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 I-I. 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. OFF SITE ANALYSIS DRAINAGE SYSTEM TABLE ...................................... 22 FIGURE 4-1. WATER QUALITY BASIN MAP ....................................................................... 27 List of Tables TABLE I-I. PROJECT SITE LAND COVER DESIGNATION ................................................. 2 I I I I I I I I I TABLE 2-1. OTHER ADOPTED AREA-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS ................................. lsi TABLE 4-1. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS .......................................................................... 24 TABLE 4-2. BASIC BIOFILTRATION SWALES .................................................................... 25 I TABLE 4-3. WATER QUALITY TREATMENT AREAS ........................................................ 25 TABLE 4-4. POLLUTION-GENERATING SURFACE TREATMENT TRADES .................. 26 I 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 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase II Technical Infonnation Report (TIR) October 2012 -III - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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 of2013. Phase II, 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 storm water 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 II. This document is included as Figure I-I. 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 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase II Technical Information Report (TIR) October 2012 - 1 - Proposed Conditions As discussed previously, Phase II 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 I-I 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 1l.20 SurfacinR Treated Non-targeted Impervious Surfacing 0.49 Replaced Impervious Surfacing 5.42 New Impervious Surfacing 0.05 Pervious Surfacing 7.27 Total 24.43 The proposed surface water drainage facilities consist of basic biofiltration swales, filter strips, catch basins, ductile iron pipe (DIP), and high-density polyethylene (HOPE) 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 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase II Technical Information Report (TIR) October 2012 -2- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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 corelhand 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 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase II Technical Information Report (TlR) October 2012 - 3 - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET FIGURE 1-1 Part 1 PROJECT OWNER AND PROJECT ENGINEER Project Owner City of Renton Phone (425)430-7471 Address 616 West Perimeter Road, Unit A; Renton, WA 98057 Project Engineer Benjamin Sommer, PE Company Reid Middleton, Inc, Phone (425) 741-3800 Part 3 TYPE OF PERMIT APPLICATION D Landuse Services Subdivison I Short SUbd. I UPD o Building Services M/F I Commerical I SFR !XI Clearing and Grading o Right-ol-Way Use o Other Part 5 PLAN AND REPORT INFORMATION Technical Information Report Type 01 Drainage Review ~I Targeted (circle): arge Site Date (include revision dates): Date 01 Final: Part 6 ADJUSTMENT APPROVALS I Part 2 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION Project Name TW B Rehabilitation DDES Permit # _________ _ Location Township' 23 North Range 5 East Section __ 7"'-___ _ Site Address 289 West Perimeter Road Renton W A 98057 Part 4 OTHER REVIEWS AND PERMITS o DFWHPA o COE404 o DOE Dam Safety o FEMA Floodplain o CaE Wetlands o Other IXl Shoreline Management o Structural RockeryNaultl __ o ESA Section 7 Site Improvement Plan (Engr. Plans) Type (circle one): ~ I Modified I mall Site Date (include revision dates): Date 01 Final: Type (circle one): Standard I Complex I Preapplication I Experimental! Blanket Description: (include conditions in TIR Section 2) N/A Date 01 Approval: 2009 Surface Waler Design Manual 1 1/912009 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 ON SITE AND ADJACENT SENSITIVE AREAS IX) River/Stream Cedar River !XI Lake Lake Washington o Wetlands __________ _ o Closed Depression _______ _ [ID Floodplain Lake Washington/Cedar River ~ Other High Liquefaction Susceptibility Part 10 SOILS Soil Type Slopes Ur ~ High Groundwater Table (within 5 feet) D Other D Additional Sheets Attached 2009 Surface Waler Design Manual 2 o Steep Slope ________ _ o Erosion Hazard _______ _ o Landslide Hazard ______ _ D Coal Mine Hazard ______ _ IX! Seismic Hazard High Seismic Severity o Habitat Protection ______ _ 0 _________ _ Erosion Potential o Sole Source Aquifer D Seeps/Springs 1/912009 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 11 DRAINAGE DESIGN LIMITATIONS REFERENCE LIMITATION / SITE CONSTRAINT o Core 2 Offsite Analysis !XI Sensitive/Critical Areas IZJ SEPA o Other 0 o Additional Sheets Attached Part 12 TIR SUMMARY SHEET (orovide one TIR Summarv Sheet oer Threshold Discharae Areal Threshold Discharge Area: (name or descriotion) Core Requirements (all 8 apply) Discharae at Natural Location Number of Natural Discharae Locations: Offsite Analysis Level: @/ 2 / 3 dated: 09/10112 Flow Control N/A Level: 1/2/3 or Exemption Number (incl. facilitv summarv 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 Loa Reauired: Yes / No Financial Guarantees and Provided: Yes / No Liabilitv Water Quality Type: (Basic)/ Sens. Lake / Enhanced Basicm / Bog (include facility summary sheet) or Exemption No. LandscaDe Manaaement Plan: Yes / No §Decial Renuirementslas aoolicablel Area Specific Drainage Type: CDA / SDO / MDP / BP / LMP / Shared Fac. / None Renuirements Name: Floodplain/Floodway Delineation Type: Major / Minor / Exemption /(fJon0 100-year Base Flood Elevation (or range): Datum: Flood Protection Facilities Describe: Flood Wall Source Control Describe land use: Airport (comm.lindustriallanduse) Describe any structural controls: 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 3 119/2009 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Oil Control High-use Site: Yes j~i Treatment BMP: Existin iI/Water Separator Maintenance Agreement: Yes /@ with whom? Other Drainage Structures Describe: Part 13 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION AFTER CONSTRUCTION 1:8! Clearing Limits !Xl Stabilize Exposed Surfaces IX! Cover Measures IX! Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities IX! Perimeter Protection Qg Clean and Remove All Silt and Debris, Ensure !XI Traffic Area Stabilization Operation of Permanent Facilities 1:8! Sediment Retention D Flag Limits of SAO and open space IX! Surface Water Collection preservation areas o Other IX) Dewatering Control IX! Dust Control IX! Flow Control Part 14 STORMWATER FACILITY DESCRIPTIONS (Note: Include Facilitv Summary and Sketch) Flow Control Type/Description Water Quality Type/Description o Detention IX! Biofiltration Swale. Filter Strip o Infiltration o Wetpool o Regional Facility o Media Filtration CJ Shared Facility o Oil Control o Flow Control !XI Spill Control CB wi Tee BMPs IXl Flow Control BMPs D Other Basic DisQersion/ o Other Sheet Flow 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 119/2009 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 15 EASEMENTSfTRACTS Part 16 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS o Drainage Easement o Cast in Place Vault o Covenant o Retaining Wall o Native Growth Protection Covenant o Rockery > 4' High o Tract o Structural on Steep Slope o Other N/A o 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. SianedlDate 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 5 119/2009 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I II CANADA -----------------USA TACOMA VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 1-2 PROJECT SITE I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I---------------------------------------SUB-BASIN A-1 I SUB-BASIN A-2 I '---I I 1 '-="='-' ! -==~ r-' 21 ,--------=:::--~--.. , , , , .. --RSo\ ~--,q...-----~ , p . '\ '. I' ," :c...\"----,sr;-... ---.... " --. ':0'-1. ~ --1 _..-" '~~ ~ --~---.. -', ---. -I~~"-SJ \"----t::::::::::-- "'., ::..~ 0:->; " .,'(.-J , ~''''j ----W '!;-": .,..,,"_ /~ .~j -~:,-:=--::.--::.:':>.,--;-.:............ , , . . -~ .-, '(-.• , ~-. w -~ ...--,.:; -w-_~,L:: \ .. ;." D---:":'77'-,~':: ~ -:-:';'t ___ ._ -',i-',S "''';-i-,,;'-r1"~''f-;;.; -?"_~,e~~~_:~·· ?'_-:Sl::. __ -.: .. ' 7~"---=-O';;':-~~'~;_';/'~--: : ~ t ''''-.~~- ;; "'?'" r,.:+""':.~ -''':'''':";;,-'--.~"'-J~ -.:: i8ei(\ iddlcton; 7l81l41115R1i1 Slib2111 fd. I::di¢I (D4 I\: 425 W-lQ) -. '.- • - -.-~--..... --~ --:-------; ~'~ _____ -C..._ * ~ -. .. oiY~ ~ , --";" .. ~ ~ -~ ~-'~-"'--..... -- EXISTING ASPHALT _ B) -r ';-"" -""''''''''-"'''''''''''"",---.-.---~ ~-.-..... -~.,.---<:I~~-'--' ,. n " 1:1'-"'"" .. ,. CONCRETE I ' ..... Aen STANDS) L.J • • * o ~:::±::: • J" I l ~ ~ ~-~--_.J_---U-/' I I' ;. -EXISTING'AND / .- LEGEND: -, REPLACED/NEW ASPHAlT PAVEMENT --;> ---'WALE ~ flOW DIRECTION SCOLE • m:r ki" ''r.e..... e i 00 0 ~ 100 DRAINAGE BASINS & SITE CHARACTERISTICS Renton Airport Figure 1-3 • • 47' 29' 28" • I • • I I I I • I I • I • I 47" 29' 6" I ,. ~ [ ] C=-.J " ! Soil Map-King County Area, Washington (FIGURE 1-4: TW B Soil Map) 20 , I, I \', :...~ \ \ I I II ': ,..-,. "~. , '\ I' \\ " I' \' '" , " r I"~ , -' '~.1 ~:. c::J ,". -- I' ,.--, \, -=-=~ 20 Map Scale: 1:3,210 if printed on Asize (8,5" )( 11") sheet. N A !==~==:o:====""'~====,:,!IMeters o 30 60 120 180 ==""'====== .... ===='=>Feel o 100 200 400 600 USDA Natural Resources f: ,59 Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey (, j.,;.> I', (:~J I"~ r ,\ 1" \" , -.- ,', 9/11/2012 Page 1 of 3 47" 29' 28" 47" 29'6" iiIiI -USQ.\ = - Soil Map-King County Area, Washington (FIGURE 1-4: TW B Soil Map) MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) D Area of Interest (AOI) Soils 0 Soil Map Units Special Point Features <v Blowout 181 Borrow Pit * Clay Spot 0 Closed Depression X Gravel Pit ... Gravelly Spot @ Landfill "-Lava Flow .,. Marsh or swamp ~ Mine or Quarry @ Miscellaneous Water @ Perennial Water v Rock Outcrop + Saline Spot Sandy Spot -s Severely Eroded Spot ~ Sinkhole l> Slide or Slip pi Sodic Spot a Spoil Area 0 Stony Spot Natural Resources Conservation Service --8jJ til Very Stony Spot t Wet Spot .. Other Special line Features ~ Gully ~ Short Steep Slope = Other ~ Political Features 0 Cities Water Features ....-Streams and Canals Transportation a Rails -Interstate Highways ,A; US Routes ~ Major Roads ~ Local Roads Web Soil Survey Map Scale: 1 :3,21 0 if printed on A size (8.5-x 11-) sheet. The soil surveys that comprise your ACI were mapped at 1 :24,000. Waming: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov Coordinate System: UTM Zone 10N NAD83 This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Survey Area Data: King County Area, Washington Version 7, Ju12, 2012 Oate(s) aerial images were photographed: 7/24/2006 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. -IiiiiiiJ National cooUerative Soil Surv~. . Ii!iIl Iififil ~ iiiiI iiiiiiJ &i'iIiil iiiil 9/11/2012 Page 2 of 3 IiiiiJ IIiiiikI IiiiiiiiJ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I Soil Ma~ing County Area, Washington Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Ur Totals for Area of Interest USDA Natural Resources =' Conservation Service King County Area, Washington (WA633) Map Unit Name Acres InAOI Urban land Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil SUivey 19.4 19.4 FIGURE 1-4: TW B Soil Map Percent of AOI 100.0% 100.0% 9/11/2012 Page 3 of3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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 storm water 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.S. Core Requirement 4: Conveyance System The Rational Method and Manning's Equation were utilized to design and size the piping facilities. All new storm water 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 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase II Technical Information Report (TIR) October 2012 -14 - 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. 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 fNPDES) Phase II 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 Storm water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for construction activities wilJ be developed as part of this overall project. Renton Municipal Airport TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase II Technical Information Report (TIR) October 2012 -15 - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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 ofthis 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 shaH be installed prior to anyon-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 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase II Technical Information Report (TIR) October 2012 -16 - 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. Renton Municipal Airport TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase II Technical Information Report (TIR) October 2012 -17 - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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 ofa 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 ofa mile downstream of the site. The City of Renton's SWDM Amendment requires that the following reference materials are reviewed: o Sensitive Areas Folio o Adopted Basin Plans/Basin Reconnaissance Summary Reports o FloodplainiFloodway (FEMA) Maps o King County Soil Survey o Washington State Department of Ecology's (DOE) Polluted Waters List o City of Renton Erosion Maps and Landslide Maps o 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 I 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 Infonnation Report (TIR) _@H!rn!i!i1l 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 l2-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 ofthe 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 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase II Technical Information Report (TIR) October 2012 -19 - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I 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 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase II Technical Information Report (TIR) October 2012 -20- 1 I I I 1 I I' 1 I I I 1 I I I' 1 I I 1 , • .. j · ._,. ~'M."'~ ~ V i~~, ~ __ .. COO:~,,,,~ .. , _~~. "'.. " 'I· _ .' . "~a -{ l.~~_.~ g ~i '"" ";I; <;.... . ~~_ ' . ". . -'~#. --1-'" \,~ . ~-a:;C:SB\:W_ \ PAVEMEN'I REPlACEMENT !:.Reid iildleton] mll+Di~iI Sa1r:JD E..a.1tIsIIiIjra !E!I4 I'll: CS741-lm /-~p I c-' =~;. ! V x-""'" Elt ---;/\~' I . I-XI . <1 Q \), r· n Q, ,j l G co °l· "'r-=:\ ~ -. . CEDAR RIVER COMMERC~LWATERWAY LEGEND: OFFSITE ANALYSIS MAP Renton Airport \~ \ REPLACED/NEW ASPHAlT PAVEMENT fLOW DIRECTION Figure 3-1 -- Basin: Symbol see map A B 23-2010.007 June 20]2 --,-_i ---_.,--_.-OFF-SITE ANALYSIS DRAINAGE SYSTEM TABLE SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL, CORE REQUIREMENT #2 FIGURE 3-2 Lower Cedar River Subbasin Name: Cedar Outfall Subbasin Number: Drainage Drainage Slope Distance Existing Potential Component Type, Component from site Problems Problems Name, and Size Description dischare:e Type: sheet flow. swale, drainage basin, vegetation, % 1/4 mi -1,320 ft. constrictions, under capacity, ponding, stream, channel, pipe, cover, depth, type of sensitive overtopping. flooding, habitat Of oganism pond: Size: diameter, area. volume destruction. scouring, bank sloughing, surface area sedimentation incision other erosion Discharge Location I' to 2' Depth of Channel N/A Oft None None River ChanneVLake Bed 5' to 6' Depth of Channel N/A 2000 ft None None -. - Page lofl Renton Municipal Airport -, --- Observation of field inspector, resource reviewer, or resident tributary area, likelihood of problem, overflow pathways, potential impacts No evidence of erosion No evidence of erosion Offsite Drainage System City of Renton - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I' I I 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 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. Part 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 ofa 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 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase II Technical Information Report (TIR) October 2012 -23 - 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 Stonn Event Manual Section 1.2.4.1 Basic Treatment of the 2-year Stonn Manual Section 1.2.8.1 Event for developed conditions Manual Section 6.2.1 Water Quality Treatment Basic Biofiltration Swales Manual Section 6.3.1 Basic Filter Strips Manual Section 6.3.4 Source Control Stonnwater 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 oftreatment 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 of95 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 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase II Technical Information Report (TIR) October 2012 -24- I- " - I' I I I , I I I 'I I I I I I I I I I I I I I • • I I I I I I I I I II I I 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-I. 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) (FTIFT) (CFS) South 100 10.0 4H:IV 0.010 0.29 Bioswale North 100 10.0 4H:IV 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-I 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 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase II Technical Information Report (TIR) October 2012 -25- 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 II. 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 II (both A-I 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 of26,500 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-I 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-\ 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 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase II Technical Infonnation Report (TIR) October 2012 -26- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I. I I, I I I I I I' I I /' /"" \ , , ", "'-, /' _k_ .r '7' ~_""'"'= -"""". AREA BOUNDARY.J (TYP) WATER QUAUTY TREAlMENT BY SUB-BASIN TREATMENT TYPE SUB-BASIN A-l SUB-BASIN A-2 (SF) (SF) AREA TREATED BY FlLTER STRIP ltO,875 3,990 UNTREATED TARGET AREA 34.520 22,620 AR£). TREATEO BY IOOSWAlE 87,500· 0 TOTAl 232,895 26,610 • AREA INCLUDES NON-TARGET TRlBUTAA'f AREA (21.370 SF). WATER QUAlITY FlOW RATES AND SIZING CAlCULATIONS INCLUOED IN APPENDIX C. !Reiil iddletonj 7lI134119nB!I !'dI2111 &mI.~D fill: 4Zi 741-. !L-,,:::,::JJ~ ___ _ ~~ ~--' SOUTI< BIOFlLTRATION SWALE (10' x 100') I , I 6 ,0 EXISTING ASPHALT (RUNWAY 16-34) r--,o-I---~r ---SI'--- -,0-----Sl}----l' --(-SI}----:: ". ~ CROWNED TAXIWAY CENTERUNE NON-TARGET TRIBUTARY IMPERVIOUS = 21.370 EXISTING CONCRETE (HARD STANDS) SLOT DRAIN POLLUTION-GENERATING SURFACE TREAlMENT TRADE TREATED NON-TARGET AREA UNTREATED TARGET AREA DRAINAGE BASIN (SF) (SF) SUB BASIN A 1 21,370 34,520 SUB-B&SlN A-2 0 22,620 TOTAl... FROM PHASE 1 PROJECT 66.790-4,575- TOT"-88,160 61,715 ----- • SEE FIG. 4-2 OF ~E 1 TlR . [] / SUB-BASIN A-l / / / / / o 50----SD-- \ \ \ \ SUB-BASIN A-2 , i \ -0_--~;""'_-"""':;;'~'-- \ i ~ \ i : [. \ : : \ ~ I S!},-+,-" ---'-30- --.~' '-\-, ,7/ ~--:,::;; """--OUTFAll. PIPE TO RIVER "Z..,' Ou:rFALL! -"tel> 'IPE ' ,oc~----' \ \ LEGEND: ~~ WATER QUALITY ~~ FILTER STRIP ~~~~~~~~ :~TED NON-TARGET ~. SW.eu - - - - -SUB-BASIN BOUNDARY ~ flOW DIRECTION ARROW - SCALE IN F!Ef 60 , 60 >2, WATER QUALITY BASIN MAP Figure 4-1 Renton Airport I I I I I' I I I I I I I I I I I' I I I 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 I ~O-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 I, 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 I ~O-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 ofthe facilities was not feasible due to the site constraints and lack of cover over the pipes. As is the case in Phase I, the proposed drainage system will require the use of hydraulic head from backwatering into upstream structures to completely 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 ofthe infield. The infield will be sloped to direct the runway flow away from Renton Municipal Airport TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase II Technical Information Report (TIR) October 2012 -28- 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 CISO/A2I.S0-20, Thickness Design of Ductile Iron Pipe. There were 4 scenarios reviewed where the crossings possessed cover less than 3 feet: 12-inch DIP at I foot, IS-inch DIP at I foot, 12-inch DIP at 1.5 feet, and IS-inch DIP at 2 feet. The vehicle loading on the pipelines was based on the design vehicle, a 737-S00 aircraft weighing approximately 130,000 pounds. From the calculations performed, the following conclusions were made: o 12-inch DIP at I foot: a minimum Special Class 54 is required o IS-inch DIP at I foot: a minimum Special Class 55 is required o 12-inch DIP at 1.5 feet: a minimum Special Class 52 is required o IS-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 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase II Technical Information Report (TIR) October 2012 -29- I I I I I I I I I •• I I I -I I I I I I I I I I I I, I I I I I I I placing inverted tee or elbow sections in the final discharge catch basins within the project site. Locations and details ofthese facilities are identified in the project plan set. Renton Municipal Airport TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase II Technical Information Report (TIR) October 2012 -30- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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. StudylReport Floodplain Delineation (Section 1.3.2) Flood Protection Facility Confonnance (Section 1.3.3) Critical Areas Analysis and Delineation GeotechnicaVSoils Groundwater Slope Protection/Stability Erosion and Deposition Geology Hydrology Fluvial Geomorphology Anadromous Fisheries Impacts Water Quality Structural Design Structural Fill Aquifer Protection Areas Renton Municipal Airport TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase II Technical Infonnation Report (TIR) -31 - Date Conducted N/A N/A N/A 04/27112 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Appendix N/A N/A N/A Appendix A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A October 2012 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SECTiON 7: OTHER PERMITS Table 7-1 summarizes other permits required for the project site. Table 7-1. Other Permits. Permit On-site Sewage Disposal Wen Pennits DeveloperlLocal Agency Agreement Hydraulic Project Approval Short-tenn Water Quality Modification Approval Dam Safety Pennit NPDES Stonnwater Pennit Forest Practices Class IV Pennit Sections 10,401, and 404 Pennits Renton Municipal Airport TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase II Technical Information Report (TIR) Required Regulating Agency No SeattlelKing County Department of Public Health No SeattlelKing County Department of Public Health No Washington State Department of Transportation No Washington State Department ofFish and Wildlife No Washington State Department of Ecology No Washington State Department of Ecology Yes Washington State Department of Ecology No Washington State Department ofNatoral Resources No United States Anny Corps of Engineers October 2012 -32- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SECTION 8: CSWPPP ANALYSIS AND DESIGN A Construction Stonnwater 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 Stonnwater Pollution Prevention and Spill (SWPPS) plan. ESC Measures Phase II of the project will be constructed during the summer and early fall of2013. 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 pennanent 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 Infonnation Report (TIR) 1G!II¢@N!t!I!l!fiI 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 of6-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. 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) I. Attend preconstruction meeting. 2. Post sign with name and phone number of ESC supervisor. 3. Grade and install construction entrance(s). Renton Municipal Airport TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase II Technical Information Report (TIR) -34- October 2012 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Install perimeter protection (silt fence, brush barrier, etc.). Construct surface water controls simultaneously with grading activities for project development. Maintain erosion control measures in accordance with King County Standards and manufacturer's recommendations. Relocate erosion control measures, or install new measures, so that changing site conditions continue to meet King County erosion and sediment control standards. 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. 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: (I) soil disturbance from site grading, storm installation, and pavement removal; and (2) use oflarge 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 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase II Technical Information Report (TIR) October 2012 -35 - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase II Technical Information Report (TIR) October 2012 -36 - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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 TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase II Technical Information Report (TIR) October 2012 -37- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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. HW A 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 Storm water Pollution Prevention Manual. King County Geographic Information Systems, 2012. King County iMap: Interactive Mapping Tool. 10 September 2012. hup:llwww.kingcounty.gov/operations/GIS/Maps/iMap.aspxl. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2012. Soil Survey of King County Area. Washington. sah\23\IO\007\reports\drainage report (tir)\tir renton tw b phase ii.doc\bts Renton Municipal Airport TW B System Rehabilitation, Phase II Technical Information Report (TIR) -38 - October 2012 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I 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 ~m HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. · Geotec/lIIiClil Ellgillccring • Hydrogeology • Geocrlvirolllllcmai Service> • I f1>pectiol1 & Te>ting I I I~~ HWA GEOSCIENCES INC I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I October 17,2012 HWA Project No. 2011-039-21 Reid Middleton 728 134th Street SW, Suite 200 Everett, Washington 98204 Attention: SUBJECT: Dear Randy: -Mr. Randy Hall, P.E. Final Geotechnical Engineering Report Renton Muuicipal Airport Taxiway B Rehabilitation Renton, Washington 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 AiJ1)01i 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 repOli sUlmnarizing the investigation results and our recommendations. We appreciate the opportunity to provide geoteclmical services on this project. Sincerely, HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. Steven E. Greene, L.G., L.E.G. Senior Engineering Geologist Enclosure: Final Geotechnical RepOlt ~ A.1><5-,.-;;>---- George Minassian, Ph.D., P.E. Pavement Engineer 2131230th Drive SE Suite 110 Bothell, WA 9802l.7010 Tel; 425.774.0106 Fax; 425.774.2714 ww, .... Jlwugeo.com I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 GENERAL ....................................................................................................... 1 1.2 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING ............................................................................ 1 1.3 AUTHORIZATION AND SCOPE OF WORK ......................................................... I 2.0 INYESTlGA TION 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 PA YEMENT 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 ................................................................................. I 0 LIST OF FIGURES (FOLLOWING TEXT) Figure I Figure 2 Figure 3 ApPENDICES Project Site and Vicinity Map Site and Exploration Plan Geologic Map Appendix A: Field Exploration Figure A-I Figures A-2 -A-21 Figures A-22 -A-24 Legend of Tenns and Symbols Used on Exploration Logs Logs of Cores Core-I through Core-20 Logs of Test Pits TP-l through TP-3 Appendix B: Laboratory Testing Figures B-1 -B-8 Figure B-9 Figures B-l0 -B-12 Figures B-13 -B-15 Figure B-16 Particle Size Analysis of Soils Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index of Soils Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil CBR of Laboratory Compacted Soil Bulk Density of Soil-Drive Cylinder Method Appendix C: Core Photographs I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1.1 GENERAL FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON, WASHINGTON 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the results of a geotechnical engineering investigation completed by HW A GeoSciences Inc. (HW A) 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 I. 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, OCP 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-l through TP-3) and twenty pavement cores (designated Core-l 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 coreslhand borings were October 17, 2012 HWA Project No. 2011-039-21 performed by HW A 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 coreslhand 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 coreslhand borings were conducted on June 2, June 6, and June 7, 2011. Four (4) supplemental corelhand borings were conducted on July 11,2012. The coreslhand 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-I, 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 diameier 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 (17.6Ibs) 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 I blow of the 8 kg hammer and is reported as millimeters per blow (mmlhlow). 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 sub grade 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 HW A GEOSCIENCES INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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 sub grade 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-1 0 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-l 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 of2009. 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 HW A 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- afrn). Alluvial deposits consisting of material deposited by the Cedar River (map symbol-Qac) are mapped along the margins ofthis industrial land area and belie conditions prior to industrialization. 3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Locally, construction of pavement structure have been facilitated by the use offill 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-l, TP-2, and TP-3, at depth of3.8 feet, 3.5 feet and 3.6 feet, respectively. Ground water seepage was observed in corelhand 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 ofthe adjacent Cedar River. Three native soil samples were tested for laboratory CBR values. The tested samples were taken from Test Pits TP-l, 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-l 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 HW A GEOSCIENCES INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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 ofCBR Tests Sample Relative CBRValue Materil!l Description Compaction Location (%) (%) Light olive brown, organic SILT (OH) TP-I 57.4' 0.4 Dark brown, organic SILT (OH) TP-2 65.6' 0.6 Dark olive gray, SILT with sand (ML) TP-3 85.5' 1.2 102.1' 53.8 J RelatIve to MaxImum Dry Density determmed with Standard Compactlve Effort (ASTM D698) 2 Relative to Maximum Dry Density determined with Modified Compactive Effort (ASTM D 1557) 3.5 EXISTING PAVEMENT STRUCTURE We completed twenty (20) corelhand 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 ofthe 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-I) 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 HW A 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-l. Field DCP data obtained at location ofCore-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 l.l 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 ofHMA. 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 ofCore-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 of2.3 and 3.2 feet, respectively. These subgrade soils were similar to those encountered in test pit TP-I. Field DCP data obtained at location of Core-3 (See Figure A-4) indicates in-place CBR values of 1-3% for alluvial sub grade 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-I 7 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-I 0, 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-II, which is situated at the south end of Taxiway B, the pavement consisted of 8.5-inches ofHMA over 8-inches ofPCC. At the location of Core-19 within Taxiway K, the pavement consisted of 12.5 inches of HMA over 7-inches ofPCC. No crushed gravel base was encountered beneath the pavement at any of Final Report 6 HW A GEOSCIENCES INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I October 17, 2012 HW A Project No. 2011-039-21 these locations except for Core-I 0, 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-I 7 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-I 7 and Core-20 in Appendix C). 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 ofCore-6 through Core-I 0 (See Figures A-7 through A- 10) indicate in-place CBR values ranging from 3 to 6% in native sub grade to depths of 4.4 to 5.6 feet below grade. At the location of Core-I 0, DCP testing encountered granular material with average CBR values above 40% to depths of 4.2 feet below grade. At the location of Core-II, 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-I 7 through Core-20 (see Figures A-IS through A-21) field DCP data obtained below the granular fill, indicate in-place CBR values of3 to 4% in native subgrade from depths of3.0 to 6.0 feet below grade. SQuth Taxiway Counesto[ Based on the explorations within the south taxiway connector (Core-I 2 through Core-I 6) 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-I 2 through Core-14 (See Figure A-13 through A-IS) indicates in-place CBR values ranging from 2 to 6% in native subgrade soils to depth ranging from 3.6 to 6.S feet below grade. Field DCP data obtained at the location of Core-I 5 (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 HW A GEOSCIENCES INC. October 17, 2012 HWA Project No. 2011-039-21 below grade. Field DCP data obtained at the location of Core-I 6 (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-I 7 through Core-20) at depths ranging from 1.125 to 3.6 below the existing pavement surface. These native sub grade soils are weak exhibiting in- place CBR values ranging from I to 5%, and averaging about 3%. CBR values from laboratory samples obtained from TP-I and TP-2 and remolded at natural moisture content indicate CBR values less than I % 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 ofloose 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-lO) and at the southern end of Taxiway B (Core-II) 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 I % to 54% for material with a moisture content difference of only 10%. It appears that considerable strength gain can be realized ifthese soils are allowed to dry prior to compaction. Along the main portion of southern taxiway connector (Core-I 2 through Core-I 4) the pavement is underlain by loose to medium stiff, silty sand to sandy silt alluvial soils. These sub grade soils are relatively weak exhibiting in-place CBR values ranging from 2 to 6%, and averaging about 3%. At the locations of Core-I 5 and Core-I 6 (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-I 8) 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 HW A GEOSCIENCES INC. 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 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 sub grade 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 sub grade 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 of2013. 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: SeB 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 ofthe 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 & PC C) removal, followed by the placement ofHMA for the full-depth of II 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 HW A GEOSCIENCES INC. October 17, 2012 HWA Project No. 2011-039-21 cement base (SC8) 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, HW A 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, HW A 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 HW A GEOSCIENCES INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I October 17, 2012 HWA Project No. 2011-039-21 ------------0·0------------ We appreciate the 0ppoliunity to be of service to you on this project. Sincerely, HW A GEOSCIENCES INC. Steven E. Greene, L.G., L.E.G. Senior Engineering Geologist SEG:GM:seg Finnl Report 11 George Minassian, Ph.D., P.E. Pavement Engineer HW A GEOSCIENCES INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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 Specificationsfor Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction, M 41-10, Washington State Department of Transportation. Final Report 12 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TOPOl map printed on 06/01/11 from "wlIshlngton.tpo" ~~'W 'Willi_ TNt /,MN V11'1l 0 Prilt.ledftoll!. TOPOl C>alOI Nm-lOqrlphll: Hck:lqll (wwwlopo.-) W WGS84 'W PROJECT SITE AND VICINITY MAP FlGUREND. ~--~==~==~~~--~ 1 UWi, HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION R NTON WA HINGTON PROJECT NO 2011-039 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I, I I I I r;-.. -"..---- L 'r*" '_"'.',;'~~>'"_'~-'_ / "-~'--' / /,/ L .. / ..... --"~ .. ~; ';':, ".- -.,......., ~;~_,~~-•• '.nJ I ,> .. / I ;;.~:::::::?,-::.::o-~ )1 /?:S· ., I~~-. =-,--~--." .. -'---- , '>C." CORE-14' -"' ~-"" ." -" --.' -0--e. \ '->-.4':::-\ -, ..-,.-/' _,~ --~ ~ "/~ CORE-16 I,' ·i<·, \. "'"'-!1iCORE-iS>:' -' "":"1 .. 1" Y I // (";1"" ! \, ~ ~t-13___ ! -j;-? ---f'7.>L£y 1\;;-: I '1" \~. ~\' '.f ," • ',,': '.' '0';' '\ ", "ACORE,l >,.., , ... ' .".1 'J: \ "" \. ~ ,,~} . .%\ . ." I : . , .... ¥ -""7-'>C. ~. ' , -s"-"-I \Y' -, .. --"':-1 ",. ''''''\'' ~y A .¥ .--'-'<-~:.:>" ~-:.0~'~ ~,_, ~<\¢~/\ ~ '\ .\ ,;"" _ ~L .. ", I ', .\ <::?-·;t'+, ~,. \ \, .\;;:. .m._· ' .. >-",--' .-:~; ~. ~-> '-~';~ \ ;;;:~u;L'-. ----,-....,..~ I '''''\, -:J<~; ";:-.l~~ \ '~-<t0RE-lO I L)'f33Y,~~I\;~ \~i~ _" 'I r' . ~ .. ·r';/' ~'f:0"" r·''%, *OR~-ll<o/"'-:;(.;·;' '''1 ~/~:¢_~!~;;~~ ]~f" ~-, .. ,_~ .. "~~,~,:~~;"" "/7/"" I SCA.!'E:·l"=!~O' ." '"'''''' \. '/' ','" I ' _______ -_'"_---.J DETAIL A r· >2 --:--:-~>~ -:'~-~--':J~I r~ ~+'>~~ {,O ____ -~lit )1 i'="'I" '--,lP::::-'3 ____ .~' -=:--__ ."c. :(.1Y-, . i: 0 1 I~;~:;;~~:,=.:;~~~:~~~'~~J~ ·t~ot~1 I, .-: _. -' --. _-""CORE,] /.,/ "CC)RE=20 I =;" " CORE-7 V" 'li //' J -"'~ ." . ..-~':,,...,'<_. -~~~S-l.7' ~ .. ~_. _ -',~)' ' _,*;,;;;r.~ I....:w, '.{ CORE-it 1 ,"q.,,< I L :r":" ~.' ,J ; I f:! Ii 'g '~I .~ ::0-1 I !:' ~ :_;-~-I :;i~i .,~ :~I ~_~ 1;1~i )~ ~ L SCAL_E_: 1"_=_10_0'. 0 _ __ _'_:_. --.J DETAIL B Renton Airport Taxiway B Exploration Locations Exploration Northing Westing Sla Offset Core-1 47.49516 122.21492 44+09 275E Core-2 47.49447 122.21476 41+54 294E Core-3 47.49410 122.21459 40+17 319E Core-4 47.49306 122.21441 36+58 323E Core-5 47.49241 122.21439 34+25 304E Core-6 47.49008 122.21384 25+78 350E Core-7 47.48869 122.21350 20+54 363E Core-6 47.48836 122.21355 19+28 356 E Core-9 47.48774 122.21357 16+94 330E Core-10 47.48656 122.21382 12+54 278 E Core-11 47.48649 122.21331 12+24 355E Core-12 47:48622 122.21394 11+39 183 E Core-13 47.48608 122.21405 10+98 148 E Core-14 47.48609 122.21412 10+94 129 E Core-15 47.48624 122.21413 11+52 133 E Core-16 47.48629 122.21425 11+73 103 E Core-17 47.48854 122.21354 19+83 393 E Core-18 47.48872 122.21332 20+43 455 E Core-19 47.48921 122.21418 22+44 262 E Core-2O 47.48932 122.21365 22+67 397E lP-1 47.49422 122:21481 40+83 272 E lP-2 47.48969 122.21400 24+37 296E lP-3 47.48816 122.21381 18+62 296 E Locations based on field GPS data. , -~;:tt~C~;~iC::-~_~,:::;,;:"::"~~1'~; H;:c-~~ ;,}~~~~~;"~:} ==-~::::...~-,": -::~t·; ,>,,:: ~~ ._~' ___ ~~ ~?3_-'~'.-- ":.~ ./,,"7. -----~';-~' ... ~ __ ~. 7~_::"?~-~-;~~-~D_ _. __ ,";:. -,-....~~~"--~f:-:-~ 3:--r-----~-~ =-:-;~.";~D~·;"-~, --~>,:_ -_ /y~'r-=-7J -_-=:?-::'" -_~~."~-----~~~-.. -~---,'< ~ ~c---::: ff .. ~7"'··-//" ~~\ -_.. , ..... '" ~,'"S<, .,'1 \ ... ~:v,.~~.-_/ -'",--.-.... -'-) '</..i' -'2-"---~D I _' l·~ '11 f·" " / • t-" _:-',,:. 'CII"" 'r 1~:C 1 I • ,/ \:: ~~, \~. ~" I~-""~''''\'-1'-",,. --,--_ .. 'c. ,~"",,,, "" --rr, ,. '" --~" ~ ... ;-t...:.:c-!= ,-.. ~ ---~,"",--' .. I /"Y,-, 'c,· __ -.:-~_ .~ .. :-\.:\,~~ !'; __ ,-.----~~-;....' / ,a-, ___ "-,,, .. E .. ~ _.*~~' __ r -::.:+.,1 ~_~.' ~/ ~ >;,.'>{.~~---~p;!:""~--=-;--=f!l;!--c~-~r-~TP-l/ ....... :-~_\,,.;=-./jj :/' --... ~\:_o,., " ~ . -<.f.~,.,... ... -. ;" . .. .. , ,->. / I lP 3'~COR -19 '1" .. }_TP 2/1 ,;: !1'~'''\ >""-' '"'-'" "'~~~RE 5 \' 3 ~ * 'CORE~'"" 'O" .. <~~, / K , .-'i-.*;:.$J<·~-'\~~Q::--''=-~~'--~-o_:_.:..;.~-~ -' __ $~.~~\1·~~ .;.-' ~--~':;';~~=r...,-_~ ...... -. ---~ .. -,(j,~E;l __ .. -:::~:_~,.~_:-~~ ... ~::.~:- / ;c~~r-:E~ -~RE-9~~,' & CORE ~1~ -'CORE:7;';;~ ':..~ -~';;L~-r¥c'~-=-t "-. ;',' :: " ~. ~ It,,"l-.,. , ''/' ~9R~-;!~.-£O~-3:~"'-rl~ '7,:.;:,;,;5.-::.-.---c-,-.;c2L.:~~c :~~~;:j~~'i~~' , __ c;' '/ ,!,~=--+~~0R~7:.~~~~;-:('-iT '.:' cr:',:c( \~:~'.--. {~~);! l{.-t~:Cl~, .. :r::~~fi~~~~,~~:·"-;~~·:>"~~."·~;~~.r-·-· --' / ·F'· .. .:..'" I 0 •• ' 4~ ! j" ,I •. 0 'I ··'fL·'" ,II" ,U, 'j: I,. ra·~·· 1" '''-' "'O<:,.,JJ""" .. .' 0'" • :.:1 ',,, "".~~"", '.' U 'c~.~; \ ,~~·~-l1t}· j ~ '" ,,' . ~L,_+ _ ; :,; bET. AILJ~ ); ,! )~:.J( ;}:":~ f, .. : ,\L '~<'-c· '-: " ,. ~~~~;~~~~ :,c <-J;~ ",,":S;:~'};:: .~ .".... -, \., '"'' ';';,;;,~~ 0 ,.-• ---.. LEGEND ~~~ 1200' ~~'~ .................. ... 0' 300' I O~I~"~~"~~.~~~~. lP-3 --L.. SCALE: 1" 300' -$-TEST PIT DESIGNATION AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION CORE-14 • CORE HOLE DESIGNATION AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION DRAWN BV Sf! -~ FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT SITE AND RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION EXPLORATION """"~ RENTON WASHINGTON PLAN M~ 2011-039-21 BASE """ PROVIDED BY REID MIDDLETON / J' 06.14.11 _I HWAGEOSCIENCES INC OiECKBV ~ 5:\2011 PROJECTS\2011.o39--21 RENTON TM.rwAY B PRELIM ENGINEER1NG -PHASE l\CAO\HWA 2Ql1.o39--21.OWG <FIG 2 CORE> Plotted: 912712012 5.53 AM I' I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I, I I Map Symbol af afm Qac ail Geologic Description Artificial Fill Urban or Industrial land modified by widespread or discontinuous fill Alluvium -sand and gravel deposited by the Cedar River, and associated beds of silt, clay and peat. Kame Terrace Deposits -sand and pebble-to-cobble gravel in scattered terraces. Map taken from: D.R. Mullineaux, 1965 UMa, I HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. GEOLOGIC MAP GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION N WA HING 0 NORTH D FIGURE NO. 3 PROJECT NO 2011-039 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I RELATIVE DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY VERSUS SPT N-VALUE Density Very Loose Loose Medium Dense Dense Very Dense CoaB8 Grained Soils More than 50% Retained on No. 200 Sieve Size Fine Grained Soils 50% or More Passing No. 200 Sieve Size COHESION LESS SOILS COHESIVE SOilS Approllimale ApproKimate N (blowslft) Relative Danslly(%) Consistency N (blowslft) Undrained Sheaf Strength (pst) 0 10 4 0 15 Very Soft 0 10 2 <250 4 to 10 15 35 Soft 2 to 4 250 -500 10 to 30 35 65 Medium Stiff 4 to • 500 1000 30 to 50 65 " Stiff • to 15 1000 2000 over 50 " 100 Very Stiff 15 to 30 2000 4000 H," oYer 30 '4000 USCS SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MAJOR OMSIONS Gravel end Gmwl1ySolis More than 50% 01 Coarse Fraction Retained on No.4 Sieve Sand and Sandy Soils 50% or More of Coarse Fraction Passing No.45i'''' Silt ,,' Clay Silt ,,' Clay Highly Organic Soils Clean Gravel (liltle or no fines) Gravel with Fines (appreciable emounloffines) Clean Sand (little or no fines) Sand with Fines (apprecleble amounl of fines) Liquid limit Less than 50% Liquid Limil 50% or More GROUP DESCRIPTIONS l~.,JI ",,,,,,,tvl Well..graded GRAVEL GP Poorty-graded GRAVEL GM Silty GRAVEL GC Clayey GRAVEL ~:::: SW Well-graded SAND [:.:.)/ SP PooriYilraded SAND .{. 8M Silty SAND 8C Clayey SAND ML SILT CL Lean CLAY [--:--OL Organic SILT/Organic CLAY MH Elastic SILT CH Fat CLAY OH Organic Sil TIOrganic CLAY I"" PT PEAT %1' AL TEST SYMBOLS Percent Fines Atterberg Umlts: PL = Plastic Urnlt LL = Uquld Urnl! CBR california Bearing Ratio eN Consolidation DO Dry Density (pet) OS Direct Shear GS Grain Size Distribution K Permeability MO MoisturelDensity Relationship (Proctor) MR Resilient Modulus PIC Photoionization Device Reading PP 5G TC 1V uc ~ I B o ~ [] o Pocket Penetrometer Approx. Compressi'JII Strength (tst) Specific GriMty T ri8>lial Compression T~"" Approx. Shear Strength (tsf) Unconfined COmpression SAMPLE TYPE SYMBOLS 2.0" 00 Split Spoon (SPl) (140 lb. hammer with 30 In. drop) Shelby Tube 3-1/4" 00 Split Spoon with Brass Rings Small Bag Sample Large Bag (Bulk) Sample Core Run Non-standard Penetration Test (3.0· 00 split spoon) GROUNDWATER SYMBOLS Groundwaler Level (measured at time of drilling) Groundwater Level (measured in well or open hole after water level stabilized) COMPONENT DEFINITIONS COMPONENT PROPORTIONS COMPONENT SIZE RANGE PROPORTION RANGE DESCRIPTIVE lERMS Boulders Largerlhan 12 in <5% a", Cobblas 3inl0121n Goa"" 31n 10 No 4 (4.5mm) Coarse gravel 3 in 10 3/4 In 5-12% Slightly (aayey, Silty. Sandy) Fine gravel 314 In to No 4 (4.5mm) Sand No. 4 (4.5 mm)lo No. 200 (0.074 mm) 12-30% Oayey, Silty, Sandy, Gmvelly Coarse sand No.4 (4.5 mm) to No. 10 (2.0 mm) Madium santi No. 10 (2.0 mm) to No. 40 (0.42 mm) 30-50% Very (aayey, Silty, Sandy, Gravslly) Fine sand No. 40 (0.42 mm) to No. 200 (0.074 mm) Slit and Clay Smallorthan No. 200 (0.074mm) Components are arranged in order of incrnaslng quantities. NOlES: Soil classifications presented on e~oratlon logs are based on 'oisuaJ and labofatofy observation. Soil deSCriptions are presented in the folJowillQ general order. Density/consistency, color. modifier (if any) GROUP NAME. additions to group name (if any). moisture content. Proporlion, gradalion, and angularity of constituents, additional comments. (GEOLOGIC INTERPRET A nON) Please refer to the discussion in the report 1Bld as well es the e>:ploration logs for a more completa description of subsurface conditions. -FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION lHWAGEoScIENCES INC LEGEND 2011.Q39.GPJ 9126112 RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: MOISTURE CONTENT DRY MOIST Absence of moisture, dusty, dry 10 the louch. Damp but no visible waler. WET Visible lree water, usuelly soil is below water table. LEGEND OF TERMS AND SYMBOLS USED ON EXPLORATION LOGS 2011-039 FIGURE' A-1 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DRILLING METHOD: B-inch Diamond Core SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOCATION: See Figure 2. 5 DESCRIPTION 9rn y overlying 3-inches of esse. (GRAVEL BASE) and cobbles. moist. (ALL) Hand excavation terminated due to refusal on cobbles. No Ground water observed while conducting this hand boring. 5-1 5-2 5-3 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only al the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be IndIcative of other times and/or locations. E I- 0: W I b GS -FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION HWAGEoSCIENCES INc RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON, WASHINGTON DATE STARTED: 61212011 DATE COMPLETED: 612/2011 LOGGED BY: S. Greene SURFACE ELEVATION: 18.5 :t feet o 0: Oropweight Cone Penetrometer (140 lb. weight, 30~ drop) I:J. Blows per foot 20 40 60 80 Water Content (%) Plastic Limit I---O-i Liquid Limit Natural Water Content PAVEMENT CORE CORE-01 PAGE: 1 of 1 PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FIGURS' BORING-DSM 2011..o39.GPJ 9128112 15 100 A-2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DATE STARTED: 61212011 DRILLING METHOD: S-inch Diamond Core DATE COMPLETED: 61212011 I SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOGGED BY: S. Greene LOCATION: See Figure 2. SURFACE ELEVATION: 18.9 :t feet I "' 0: W "' W " 0: Dropweigh1 Cone Penetrometer :5 w '" z_ "' w "o " 0. " f-• f-i (140 lb. weight, 30· drop) ~ ~ :> "'~ "' z Z -" w ~ i5 CI) .5 f-" b. Blows per foot 0 w w w~ ~ I 0 "' ~ ~ 0: Z I ~Z' '" "' 0. 0. ~1 w :> >-" " :; ~ I 0 ~il w~ >-U) ." w~ f-0: ,,"-"' :> DESCRIPTION "' U) 0._ 0 t!) 0 10 20 30 40 50 w"- 0 4.5-inches of Hr.AA Pavement. I (ASPHALTIC CONCRETE) Dense, gray, crushed rock. 2-inches of CSTC over 3-inches 5-1 ofCSBC, I S-2 Medium dense, brown, poorly graded GRAVEL with sand and cobbles, moist. (FILL) I () ML Dark olive brown, sandy SILT, moist. Contains 1.2% organic 5-3 matter by dry weight. I (ALLUVIUM) • ~5-4 AL :/0> GS I A A, A, : A, i I, : A: Hand boring terminated at an approximate depth of 2.5 feet .. 'l>'. it below existing pavement surface. DCP testing conducted a from 2.5 to 4.3 feet below the existing ground surface. No A I groundwater observed while conducting this hand boring. A, i>. A: I A A, 15 A' .. i. I A t A I 5 0 20 40 60 80 100 I Water Content (%) Plastic Limit J--O--I liquid Umit NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the dale indicated Natural Water Content I and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. PAVEMENT CORE -FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT I RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION CORE-02 HWAGEoSCIENCES INC RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT PAGE: 1 of 1 RENTON. WASHINGTON I PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 EI9YB5: A-3 BORING-OSM 2011-039.GPJ 9128112 DRILLING COMPANY: Casacde Concrete Sawing and Drilling DRILLING METHOD: a-inch Diamond Core SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOCATION: See Figure 2. DESCRIPTION (ASPHALTIC CONCRETE) , non-plastic. loose to medium dense, brown, medium to fine. poorly graded SAND, moist. Medium dense to loose, grayish brown. Silty fine SAND, moist to wet. (FIWDlSTURBED NATIVE ALLUVIUM) S-1 S-2 5-3 '-'-U~M_L-,-_S_O_ft_'S_a_nd_Y_S_IL_T_t_O ____ W_jt_h_fi_ne_~ __ n_d_~_'th __ "_6._~_o_~_a_nj_C __ ~~S-4 matter by dry weight, wei, slightly plastic. (NATIVE ALLUVIUM) 5 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 waler was observed while conducting this hand boring. NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the data indicated and therefore may not necessarily be Indicative of other times andlor locations. GS -FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION HWAGEoScIENcEs INC BORING-OSM 2011"'()39.GPJ 9128112 RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: DATE STARTED: 61212011 DATE COMPLETED: 61212011 LOGGED BY: S, Greene SURFACE ELEVATION: 18.3 z feet 0: i ~ Dropweight Cone Penetrometer (140 lb. weight, 30-drop) 4 Blows per foot o 10 20 30 40 o " " ", ~ o *' * p. 20 40 60 80 Water Content (%) Plastic Limit t--O--J Liquid Limit Natural Water Content PAVEMENT CORE CORE-03 PAGE: 1 of 1 2011-039 FIGURE' I I I I I I I I I I 15 I I I 100 I I I A-4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRILLING COMPANY: cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DRILLING METHOD: a-inch Diamond Core SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOCATION: See Figure 2. l: h:0 :g! 0 -, 5- 10- oo 5 u =' .... 0 0 oo '" oo :. u >-oo oo :::> ·il GW <> DESCRIPTION 1.5-inches HMA pavement. [ASPHALTIC CONCRETE[ Gray, crushed rock CSTC. Layer 1-inch thick. [GRAVEL BASE[ 1.75.inches HMA I [ASPHALTIC CONCRETE) ! .:. ::. :: \ Loose, brown, fine to coarse sandy, fine to coarse GRAVEL I : .. :.: ::. \with trace silt, moist. I ..... I _________ JF!!:Y. _________ I f!::"",~",;'+. =ch Medium dense, gray, silty SAND to sandy SILT with trace \~/ SP ~~;:;~;.gr;y,fin-; t~ ~iu; SAND ~th ~;to-_I : .::.:. coarse gravel, trace slit. moist. :~:).~.. Cobble at 29 inches. _ OL ~'-- I-~= Soft to medium stiff, brown organic SILT with gray sand seam, and occasional reeds, moist to wet. [ALLUVIUM] Core hole was terminated at 50·inches below ground surface due. Ground water seepage was observed at 4&.inches below ground surface during the exploration. 0: W W U W '" z_ :. " . a. Iii~ ~ "" z Ul .5 w W ~se .... .... a. a. :d :. :. " ;:; WoO oo a._ o Sot O~2 o S-3 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times andlor locations. oo f-oo W f- 0: W l: b -FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION HWAGEoSclENCES INC RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON, WASHINGTON DATESTARTED: 6/6/2011 DATE COMPLETED: 61612011 LOGGED BY: D. Coltrane SURFACE ELEVATION: 19.5 t feet 0: W f-~ " Z :::> 0 0: '" 0 o Oropweight Cone Penetrometer (17.6 lb. weight, 22.6" drop) A Blows per foot 10 20 30 40 0: :tS .... a 20 40 60 80 Water Content (%) Plastic Limit I e I Uquid Umit Natural Water Content PAVEMENT CORE CORE-04 PAGE: 1 of 1 PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FIGURE: BORING-OSM 2011-039.GPJ 9/28112 z 0 ~ Gj=-.... ~ 50 w,," 15 10 100 A-5 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Diamond Core SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOCATION: See Figure 2. DESCRIPTION Dense, gray, crushed rock, 6-inches of eSBe, moist. 5 (GRAVEL BASE) Medium dense, brown, 8M gravel, moist. (FILL) dense. dark gray. i gravel-contains. pieces of (DREDGE FILL) with sill and Handboring terminated at an approximate depth of 2.5 feel. Soils appeared saturated and borehole sidewalls began to collapse upon withdrawal of the auger. 5-1 5-2 5-3 NOTE: This Jog 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. G5 -FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT HWAGEoSCIENCES INC RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: BORIN~SM 2011..(}J9.GPJ 9f28112 DATE STARTED: 61212011 DATE COMPLETED: 61212011 LOGGED BY: S. Greene SURFACE ELEVATION: 19.5 :I: feel o Dropweight Cone Penetrometer (140 lb. weight, 30~ drop) A Blows per foot ·0,.·· 20 40 60 80 Water Content (%) Plastic Limit I--O----f Liquid limit Natural Water Content PAVEMENT CORE CORE-OS PAGE: 1 of 1 2011-039 FIGURE: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 15 I 100 I I I A-6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Diamond Core SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOCATION: See Figure 2. 5 10 '" :5 o -' 5 '" '" o ~ DESCRIPTION 8.5-inches of HMA Pavement. (ASPHALTIC CONCRETE( Loose, gray, fine to COarse gravelly, fine to coarse with cobbles and trace silt, moist. Becoming fine to medium SAND with gravel. (FILL) ~:~~---------------------Medium dense, gray, gravelly, silty fine to coarse SAND with pieces of brick and shell like material, moist. (DREDGE FILL) f'fi"i-t-:-::-M G",und .,,"or s"e,'an, is encountered from upper fill layer sand 1 Medium stiff, gray SILT with trace sand, reeds, and oxide mottling, moist. (ALLUVIUM] hll~.~~--------------------~!-'+~rh Medium stiff to medium dense, gray, silty fine SAND to ... s~~§!L!,,!!Io~tJ..o.!e~ ____________ I Soft to medium stiff, brown organic SILT with gray sand seams, wood debris and scatteredl reeds, moist to wet. LU-Ll-=:.J, Medium stiff to stiff, gray, SILT with wood debris and fine ,wet. was surface. Ground water seepage was observed during the exploration' at 37.S-inches and 66-inches below ground surface. 0: W W 0 W '" ~'iil "-" f-• 1: :> "'~ z _0 en .5 W W Ww -' -' n:-"-"-z~ " " '" '" w~ '" '" "-- o S-1 o S-2 O~3 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. '" f- '" W f- 0: W :I: b -FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON, WASHINGTON HWAGEoSCIENCES INc DATESTARTED: 617/2011 DATE COMPLETED: Bnl2011 LOGGED BY: D. Coltrane SURFACE ELEVATION: 19.5 :tfeet 0: Oropweight Cone Penetrometer W f-(17.6 lb. weight, 22.6 M drop) ~ A Blows per foot z :> 0 0: '" 0 10 20 30 40 0 20 40 60 80 Water Content (%) Plastic Limit l---€>---I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content PAVEMENT CORE CORE-06 PAGE: 1 of 1 PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FIGURE: BORING-OSM 2011'()39.GPJ 9128112 z g '" (ijz-m! 50 15 10 100 A-7 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Oiamond Core SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOCATION: See Figure 2. :I: !i:z-~! 0 5 10 oo oo :s () d ~ a 0 oo '" oo ::; () >-oo oo ::> DESCRIPTION (ASPHALTIC CONCRETE] 5-inches Portland Loose, gray, poorty graded GRAVEL with fine to coarse SAND with cobbles and trace sill, moist to wet. [FILL] "".->'-_-1-____________________ _ Medium stiff, gray, gravelly, sandy SILT, moist to wet. Core hole was terminated at 39-lnches below ground surface due to refusal on cobbles. Ground water seepage was observed during the exploration at 32-inches below ground surface. '" w w () w '" z_ ::; "'0 "-~~ 1: ::> z W W oo ._ ~ ~ ~1 "-"-::; ::; ;)i ;)i w~ "-- NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. oo >-oo w >- '" w :I: b -FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT HWAGEoSCIENCES INC RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: BORING-DSM 2011-039.GPJ 9128/12 DATE 5T ARTED: 61712011 DATE COMPLETED: 61712011 LOGGED BY: D. Coltrane SURFACE ELEVATION: 19.7 :tfeet '" w >-~ z ::> 0 '" '" Dropweighl Cone Penetrometer (17.6 lb. weight, 22.S-drop) .6. Blows per foot 0 10 20 30 40 o 0' ... 1>. . .". ..... . J. U : '6 0 ':"~A 1 ~~ . ~u : ~i A A A ... ~ ........... . 20 : ~ . I>. j: :,..1>. . . . ft· rl>. 40 60 Water Content (%) 80 Plastic limit t--------O-----Liquid Limit Natural Water Content PAVEMENT CORE CORE-O? PAGE: 1 of 1 2011-039 FIGURE: I I I z a ~ I iii=- 50 ul! I I I I I 15 I I I I I 10 I 100 I I I A-8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Diamond Core SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOCATION: See Figure 2. U) U) :s (J ~ ~ 0 :I: 0 U) 1--III U) 0.-::;; (J w~ >-U) o'=-U) :> DESCRIPTION 5.~nches HMA 6.s.-inches Portland Concrete Cement [PCCI Loose, gray, fine to coarse gravelly, fine to coarse with 'cobbles and trace silt, moist. [FILL] dense, gray, gravelly sandy SILT to silty SAND, '" W W III 0. ::;; ~ :> z W W ~ ~ 0. 0. ::;; ::;; " " U) U) O~l ~r-~~~--~~~--~~~-10~2 Medium stiff, gray, SILT with sand to sandy SILT, moist. 5 10 IALLUVIUMI ~~~----------------------OH Medium stiff, brown with gray mottling, ORGANIC SILT with trace fine sand seams and reeds, moist. ~~~--------------------Medium stiff, gray, fine sandy SILT with interbedds of fine sand and reeds, wet. Core hole was terminated al 79-inches below ground surface. Ground water seepage was observed during the elq)loration at 60 to 62-lnches below ground surface. 08-4 W (J z_ ~! U) .S Ww "'-z~ ~e NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. U) I- U) W l- '" W :I: I- 0 FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT HWAGEoScIENCES INC RENTON, WASHINGTON DATE STARTED: 617/2011 DATE COMPLETED: 617/2011 LOGGED BY: O. Coltrane SURFACE ELEVATION: 19.9 t feet '" W ~ e z :> 0 '" "' 0 o Dropweight Cone Penetrometer (17.6 lb. weight, 22.6" drop) 10 /). i. '" A Blows per foot 20 30 ... ~ ... : A: : A: 20 40 60 Waler Content (%) 40 80 ···:t1 Plastic Limit I-----<ir--I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content PAVEMENT CORE CORE-DB PAGE: 1 of 1 PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FIGURE: BORING-DSM 2011-039.GPJ 9128112 z ~ " ifi= ujg 50 15 10 100 A-9 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DR[LLING METHOD: B-inch Diamond Core SAMPLING METHOD: Hand T oo[s LOCAT[ON: See Figure 2. J: .... -a.-w~ 0::- 0 5 10 '" '" :s u ~ ~ i3 0 '" .. '" " U >-'" '" :> DESCRIPTION 1O-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) K~~~---------------------Medium dense, Dark olive brown, Silty, gravelly fine to medium SAND, moist moist. [ALLUVIUM] ~,~'~~~--------------------Medium stiff to medium dense, gray, silty fine SAND to SM sandy SILT, wet. Core hole was tennlnated at gO-inches below ground surface. Ground water seepage was observed during the exploration at 55-Inches below ground surface. 0: W W U w .. z_ " <-a. ~~ /: :> z w w '" .-w'" ~ ~ 0:-"-"-:i~ " " < < w" '" '" "-- o S-3 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be Indicative of other times and/or locations. i!! '" w .... 0: w J: .... 0 -FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHAB[LlTATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT HWAGEoSCIENCES INC RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: BORJN~SM 2011-039.GPJ 9/28112 DATE STARTED: 61712011 DATE COMPLETED: 61712011 LOGGED BY: 0, Coltrane SURFACE ELEVAT[ON: 19,9 :l:feet 0: w .... ~ 0 Z :> 0 0: '" 0 o Dropweight Cone Penetrometer (17,6 [b, weight, 22.6" drop) A Blows per foot 10 20 30 40 0: 20 40 60 80 Water Content (%) Plastic Limit 1-0---1 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content PAVEMENT CORE CORE-09 PAGE: 1 of 1 2011-039 FIGURE' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Diamond Core SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOCATION: See Figure 2. w w :5 () -' -' (; 0 W <Xl W '" () >-w w :> DESCRIPTION -1-2.25-inches HMA Pavement. o() GP \ [ASPHALTIC CONCRETE[ Do Dense to very dense, gray fine to coarse sandy, fine angular pO GRAVEL, moist. 00, [GRAVEL BASE[ ° 0 00, .°0 S Core hole was terminated at 26-inches below ground surface. No ground water seepage was observed during the exploration. 5 - 10 - 0: w w () w <Xl ~'in "-'" f-• ~ :> w£ z en .; w w W'" -' -' 0:-"-"-z~ '" '" « « w~ w w "-- f 08-1 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. w f-w w f- 0: w I f- 0 -FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT HWAGEoScIENCES INC RENTON, WASHINGTON DATE STARTED; 61612011 DATE COMPLETED: 6/612011 LOGGED BY: D. Coltrane SURFACE ELEVATION: 19.1 :I: feet 0: w f- i Z :> 0 0: (!) 0 o Dropweight Cone Penetrometer (17.6 lb. weight, 22.6~ drop) A Blows per foot 10 20 30 40 Water Content (%) Plastic Limit 1---€>--1 Liquid Urnit Natural Water Content PAVEMENT CORE CORE-10 PAGE: 1 of 1 PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 fiGURE: BORING-DSM 2011-039.GPJ 9128112 z ~ « ~=-rd! 50 15 10 100 A-11 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Diamond Core SAMPLING METHOD: Hand T oors LOCATION: Sea Figure 2. J: b:=-w~ o'=- 0 5 10 Ul Ul :5 " ~ ~ (5 a Ul '" Ul ::; " >-Ul Ul :J DESCRIPTION 8,S-inches HMA Pavement. [ASPHAUC CONCRETE] B-inches Portland Cement Concrete [FCC] ,I to coarse gravelly, cobbles and trace slit, moist. [FILL] coarse ~~~-~~--------------------i dense, dark olive brown, silty fine to medium SAND with gravel. moist. Piece of wood at 35-inches BGS, Core hole was terminated at 45-lnches below ground surface due to refusal on cobbles. No ground water seepage was observed during the exploration. 0: W W " w '" ~~ "-::; ~ :J z en .5 w w W'" ~ ~ ~~ "-"-~ ::; « w~ Ul Ul "-- 0$01 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be Indicative of other times and/or locations. Ul l- Ul w I- 0: W J: b -FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION lHWAGEoScIENcEs INc RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON, WASHINGTON DATESTARTED: Bn/2011 DATE COMPLETED: 617/2011 LOGGED BY; D. Coltrane SURFACE ELEVATION: 19.1 :tfest 0: Dropweighl Cone Penetrometer W I-(17.6 lb. weight, 22.6" drop) i ' A Blows per foot Z :J 0 0: (!) 0 10 20 30 40 ·0, :~. : : ': ~< ··A·O,····:·· .* ·",A 0 20 40 60 80 Water Content ('Yo) 50 » 100 Plastic Limit 1-0-----1 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content PAVEMENT CORE CORE-11 PAGE: 1 of 1 z Q I-« [j=-m! 15 10 PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FIGURE: A-12 BORING-QSM 2011~39.GPJ 9128112 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I '. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DRILLING METHOD: B-inch Diamond Core SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOCATION: See Figure 2. o 5 10 DESCRIPTION .S-inches HMA Pavement. [ASPHALTIC CONCRETE) Concrete [PCC[ fine to coarse gravelly, coarse SAND with cobbles and trace silt, moist to wet. [FILL] rr-r:1"c=r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---Loose, gra~sh brown, silty fine to medium SANO with trace fine gravel, moist. .... 8hr-+----------------------Piece of wood encountered. light grayish brown, gravelly SAND with trace silt and rootlets, moist. Sand becomes coarser. Medium dense, gray, brown fine to medium SAND, moist. Core hole was terminated at S6-inches below ground surface due to refusal on cobbles. No ground water seepage was observed during the exploration. 05-3 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and On the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times andlor locations. f!! ffl t- o: w I b -FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION HWAGEoScIENCES INC RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON, WASHINGTON DATE STARTED: 61612011 DATE COMPLETED: 61612011 LOGGED BY: D. Coltrane SURFACE ELEVATION: 20.6 ~ feet 0::: Oropweight Cone Penetrometer ;:c~ (17.B lb. weight, 22.6" drop) z A Blows per foot Q z ~ ~ >-~ ~i C,!) 0 10 20 30 40 50 LU ~ r-~~~~~~~~-. o ~ .•.• 1>1 . ,tJt A ..•.... I> A • i ... ~ .. '" 60 Water Content (%) 80 Plastic Limit I 6:) I liquid Umit Natural Water Content PAVEMENT CORE CORE-12 PAGE: 1 of 1 100 20 15 PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FIGURE: A-13 BORING-OSM 2011"()39.GPJ 9128112 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DRilLING METHOD: B-inch Diamond Core SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOCATION: See Figure 2. DESCRIPTION a: W w '" " c. ~ ::J z w w -' -' 0. 0. " ~ '" 00 00 Loose, brown, well graded GRAVEL with sand and cobbles 0 5-1 and trace silt, moist to wet. 5 10 [FILL] ML Gray to light brown. sandy SILT, moist. Oxide mottling present. (ALLUVIUM) Becoming light brown medium SAND to gray silt. fnlerbedsllenses of gray sitt from 49-51 inches. ~L-L-__________________ ~ Core hole was terminated at 57-inches below ground surface due to refusal on cobbles. No ground water seepage was observed during the exploration. 05-2 0 5 -3 w <J z_ '" . ~-5 00 .S ~i W" 0._ NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be Indicative of other times and/or locations. oo I- 00 w I-a: W J: I- 0 -FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT HWAGEoScIENCES INC RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: BORING-QSM 2011-039.GPJ 9/26/12 DATE STARTED: 6/6/2011 DATE COMPLETED: 6/612011 LOGGED BY: D. Coltrane SURFACE ELEVATION: 21.4 :l:feet a: ~ ~ z ::J 0 a: OJ 0 o Oropweight Cone Penetrometer (17.6 lb. weight, 22.6" drop) 10 20 A Blows per foot 20 40 30 40 :0:, ... /). 1 .. ~. 60 A, ... ,.A, 80 Waler Content (%) Plastic Limit 1---0--1 Liquid Limit Natural Waler Content PAVEMENT CORE CORE-13 PAGE: 1 of 1 2011-039 FIGURE' I I I z 0 >= '" I iii=- 50 m! I 20 I I I I I I 15 I I I I 100 I I I A-14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DRILLING METHOD: B-inch Diamond Core SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOCATION: See Figure 2. 5 10 DESCRIPTION 4.75-inches 6--inches Portland Cement Concrete [pCG] Loose, brown, I with cobbles and trace silt, moi,tt" """. [FILL] coarse Light brown, fine SAND with silt and trace gravel, moist. (ALLUVIUM) InterbedsJIenses of gray silt in sample. Core hole was terminated at GO-inches below ground surface. No ground water seepage was observed during the exploration. NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be Indicative of other times and/or locations. -FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION HWAGEOScIENCES INC RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON, WASHINGTON DATE STARTED: 61612011 DATE COMPLETED: 61612011 LOGGED BY: D. Coltrane SURFACE ELEVATION: 20.8 :tfeet a:: Dropweight Cone Penetrometer ~,,~ (17.6 lb. weight, 22.6" drop) Zo I:J. Blows per foot Z ~ ~ >-~ ~m <.!) 0 10 20 30 40 50 w ~ r-~~~~~~~~~ o 20 80 Water Content (%) Plastic Limit r-e-----I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content PAVEMENT CORE CORE-14 PAGE: 1 of 1 20 15 100 PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FIGURE· A-15 BORING-DSM 2011·039.GPJ 9128112 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DRILLING METHOD; 8-inch Diamond Core SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOCATION: See Figure 2. :r: b::z-:g~ 0 5 10 <1) ~ U ~ ~ i5 a <1) "' <1) " u >-<1) <1) => DESCRIPTION B-inches HMA Pavement. [ASPHALTIC CONCRETE[ Loose to medium dense, brown, silty, fine to coarse "'.:,:-~+",;_h gravelly, fine to coarse SAND, moist. _________ JFI!:Ll _________ / ~+,\..",;_h Loose to very loose, light brown, fine to medium SAND with ~i~ ~o~t:..... _________________ I Loose, grayish brown, poorly graded GRAVEL with sand, moist. Piece of wood Light grayish brown, gravelly SAND with trace silt and rootlets, moist. (FILUOrSTURBEO NATIVE) Core hole was terminated at 64-lnches below ground surface due to refusal on cobbles. No ground water seepage was observed during the exploration. 0: W W U w "' ~m Cl. " f-O ~ => <1)~ z -" w w 00 .5 Ww ~ ~ a Cl. Cl. " " ;)i ;)i ~e 05-1 o S-2 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. <1) f- <1) w f- 0: W :r: f-a .. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON, WASHINGTON HWAGEoScIENCES INC DATE STARTED: 6/6/2011 DATE COMPLETED: 61612011 LOGGED BY: D. Coltrane SURFACE ELEVATION: 20,7 :tfeet 0: w f-~ C z => a 0: '" 0 o Dropweight Cone Penetrometer (17.6 lb. weight, 22.6" drop) I:J. Blows per foot 10 20 30 40 0: 0: 80 Water Content (%) Plastic Limit 1----0--1 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content PAVEMENT CORE CORE-15 PAGE: 1 of 1 PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FIGURE: BORING-DSM 2011.Q39.GPJ 9128112 I I I z ~ I ~z-~$ 50 w,," 20 I I I I I I 15 I I I I 100 I I A-16 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRILLING COMPANY: cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Diamond Core SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOCATION: See Figure 2, 5 DESCRIPTION [ASPHALTIC CONCRETE] Loose, brown, fine to coarse gravelly, fine to coarse SAND with silt, moist. [fiLL] h.~,~~~----------------------Medium dense, gray, silly fine to medium SAND with fine to coarse gravel, moist. Pieces of brown silt present. ~~;~~----------------------Loose 10 medium dense, lighl brown, fine to coarse gravelly, fine to coarse SAND with trace silt and cobbles, moist. 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. 05-1 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be Indicative of other times and/or locations. ~ ifl t- o: W I b -FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION HWAGEoSCIENCES INC RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON, WASHINGTON DATE STARTED: 61612011 DATE COMPLETED: 616/2011 LOGGED BY: D. Coltrane SURFACE ELEVATION: 20.7 zfeet 0::: Dropweight Cone Penetrometer ~c~ (17.6Ib. weight, 22.S" drop) Zo A Blows per foot z ~ 9 ~= -~~ (,!) 0 10 20 30 40 50 w ~ i=--:--'.::..--,-=-.,.......::::'---,-~-,--;. o .. ~ .. 20 40 60 80 Water Content (%) Plastic Umit I--G---I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content PAVEMENT CORE CORE-16 PAGE: 1 of 1 20 100 PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FIGURE· A-17 BORING-DSM 2011-039.GPJ 9f28/12 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DRILLING METHOD: 12-inch Diamond Core SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOCATION: See Figure 2. :z: fbj c_ 0 10 00 ~ u ~ ~ (5 0 00 <D 00 " U >-00 oo " DESCRIPTION 7-inches HMA Pavement. [ASPHALTIC CONCRETE] B-inches Portland Cement Concrete [PCC[ Medium dense, gray, sandy, cobbly, fine to coarse GRAVEL, moist to wet. [AlL[ ~1~----------------------Medium dense, dark gray. slightly silty, gravelly, fine to medium SAND, moist. Trace wood debris. Medium stiff, gray, slightly sandy. SILT. moist. Organic debris and brown mottling observed. [AlLUVIUM] r---'o-t-=--r-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---Medium stiff. brown. ORGANIC SILT. moist. Core hole was tenninated at 72-inches below ground surface due to refusal on cobbles. No ground water seepage was observed during the exploration. W U z_ " . ~.1J If) .6 Ww ~~ ~e O~2 O~3 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the data indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times andlor locations. oo >-00 W >- 0: W :z: >-0 -FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT HWAGEoSclENCES INC RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: BORIN<x)SM 2011-o39.GPJ 9128'12 DATE STARTED: 711112012 DATE COMPLETED: 7/1112012 LOGGED BY: O. Coltrane SURFACE ELEVATION: 19.7 :tfeet 0: ~ ~ Z " 0 0: '" 0 o Dropweight Cone Penetrometer (17.6 lb. weight, 22,6 6 drop) A Blows per foot 10 20 30 40 Water Content (%) Plastic Limit 1-0-----1 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content PAVEMENT CORE CORE-17 PAGE: 1 of 1 2011-039 FIGURE' I I z I ~ " I [ij=- 50 m~ I I I I I 15 I I I I I 10 I 100 I I I A-1B I I I I I I I I o I I I I I I I I I I I DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DRILLING METHOD: 12·inch Diamond Core SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOCATION: See Figure 2. 5 10 ML DESCRIPTION IASPHIIlTIC CONCRETE] Portland Cement Concrete [PCC] Medium dense, gray, sandy, cobbly, fine to coarse GRAVEL, moist to wet. [FILLj Ground water seepage observed at 2.16 feet below ground surface. (BGS) dark gray, slightly gravelly, sandy SILT, moist to wet. Trace wood debris. Medium stiff, gray, SILT to CLAY, moist. Organic debris and brown mottling observed. [ALLUVlUM[ t-=.="l-=-I-----------------------tv\edium stiff, brown, ORGANIC SILT, moist. Lenses of gray fine sand observed. Core hole was tenninated at 72·inches BGS due to refusal on cobbles. Ground water seepage was observed at 2.16 feet BGS during the exploration, O~2 O~3 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the dale indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. -FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT HWAGEoScIENCES INc. RENTON, WASHINGTON DATE STARTED: 7/1112012 DATE COMPLETED: 7/1112012 LOGGED BY; D. Coltrane SURFACE ELEVATION: 19.6 :t: feet o b.: b.~ b..: .. b.: Dropweight Cone Penetrometer (17.6 lb. weight, 22.6~ drop) A Blows per foot 10 20 30 40 : ~: o 20 40 60 80 Water Content (%) Plastic limit 1---0-----1 liquid Umit Natural Water Content PAVEMENT CORE CORE-18 PAGE: 1 of 1 PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FIGURS' BORING-OSM 2011-039.GPJ 9128112 50 100 z o !;i ~I 15 10 A-19 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DRILLING METHOD: a-inch Diamond Core SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOCATION: See Figure 2. r h::z-~! 0 5 10 Ul Ul :s () =' -' 0 0 Ul III Ul ::; () >-Ul Ul :> DESCRIPTION 12-inches HMA Pavement. [ASPHALTIC CONCRETE] Concrete [PCC[ Medium dense, gray, sandy, cobbly. fine to coarse GRAVEL, moist to wet. [FILL] Medium stiff, gray to brown, SILT. moist. and brown mottling obse~. [ALLUVIUM] 1""-"" r;;-c--r ----------------------Medium stiff, gray, silty CLAY to clayey SILT, moist. Traee organics observed. Core hole was terminated at 66-inches BGS due to refusal on cobbles. No ground water seepage was observed during the exploration. 0: W W () W III ~~ "-::; ~~ ~ :> Z W W -' -' ~] "-"-::; ::; " " WoO Ul '" "-- NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefme may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. Ul .... Ul W .... 0: W r .... 0 -FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT HWAGEoScIENCEs INc RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: BORING-QSM 2011-039.GPJ 9128/12 DATE STARTED: 7/11/2012 DATE COMPLETED: 7/11/2012 LOGGED BY: D. Coltrane SURFACE ELEVATION: 19.5 :I: feet 0: W .... ~ Z :> 0 0: '" 0 o Dropweight Cone Penetrometer (17.6 lb. weight, 22.6~ drop) .6. Blows per foot 10 20 30 40 ~A ..... ~ .... 20 80 Water Content (%) Plastic Limit I-------G-J Liquid Umit Natural Water Content PAVEMENT CORE CORE-19 PAGE: 1 of 1 2011-039 FIGURE' I I I z ~ " I iii=- 50 m! I I I I I 15 I I I I I 10 I 100 I I I A-20 I I DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DATE STARTED: 7/11/2012 DRILLING METHOD: B-inch Diamond Core DATE COMPLETED: 7/11/2012 I SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOGGED BY: D. Coltrane LOCATION: See Figure 2. SURFACE ELEVATION: 20.0 ~fee( I <J) 0: UJ S UJ <.l 0: Dropweight Cone Penetrometer UJ " ~'iii" <J) UJ '" .... <.l Cl. .... 0 .... ~ (17.6 lb. weight. 22.6" drop) ~ /: ::> <J)£ <J) z 0 z (i) .f; UJ Ii. Blows per foot Q ~ UJ UJ .... J: 0 <J) ~ ~ UJ", 0: Z .... I 0:-'" Ii:~ " <J) Cl. Cl. z~ UJ ::> '" <.l '" '" J: 0 Gj'" ~~ >-<J) '" '" UJ~ .... 0: rn! <J) ::> DESCRIPTION <J) <J) Cl._ 0 (!) 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 &'inches HMA Pavement. I [ASPHALTIC CONCRETE} Concrete [PCC) I to coarse ~~1 A ~. [FILL) I : A: A, r A * ~ I Medium stiff, gray, slightly sandy SILT, moist. O~2 A [ALLUVIUM) I ----------------------.;:.:" Medium sllff, gray to brown, SILT to ORGANIC SILT, moist. />., Organic debris and brown mottling observed. />.: O~3 />., A: I 5 l 15 I 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 I 10 0 20 40 60 80 100 I Water Content (%) Plastic Limit 1--0--1 Liquid Limit NOTE: This tog of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated Natural Water Content I and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times anellor locations. PAVEMENT CORE -FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT I RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION CORE-20 HWAGEoSCIENCES INC RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT PAGE: 1 of 1 RENTON, WASHINGTON I PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 ~I~URE: A-21 BORING-DSM 2011-OJ9.GPJ 9f28f12 IiiIiIil EXCAVATION COMPANY: Deeny Construction EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT: Case 590 Backhoe SURFACE ElEVATION: 19:1: Feet 1;; ~ ~ w o o 2 4 6 8 10 oj '" S u -' -' 6 0 '" CD '" " u >-'" '" " DESCRIPTION a: w w CD '" a. " * >-~ " w-'" 2 a:>-w w W ,,2 >- -' -' >-w a: a. a. ",>-w " " -2 J: .. .. 00 >-'" '" "u 0 81 3-inch layer of grass and sod. i:; 5P Medium dense, brown, poor1y graded SAND with silt and gravel, (I 5-1 22 : .•... SM moist. OH I \ (FILL) 8-1 67 AL Medium stiff, grayish brown, ORGANIC SILT, with 3.5% organic maHer, moist, plastic. In-place density of soil chunk = Dry density of 56.7 pet@ 79.3% MG. GS MD CaR -OL (AllWlUMj Soft, gray to grayish brown, organic SILT, plastic. Contains thin s.3 -layers of highly organic material, moist to wel - -- 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 surface. 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. a: w ~ 0 2 " 0 a: Cl 'Sl 0 LOCATION: See Figure 2. DATE COMPLETED: 613111 LOGGED BY: S. Greene SKETCH OF SIDE OF PIT I . I ' ... : .... : .... ' ......... : .... ' .... ; .... 1 .... : ........... 1.. I ' , , '1'~ .: .................. : .... : .... : .. .. HORIZONTAl DISTANCE (feet) 2 4 6 8 I .............. I· .. ·· ........ ,. "r .. ~ ... :: :::::::: l::::::::': ::::::::1 ::::i:::: i ::::::::: I f-2 ::::;···TT·· ···T··:···~···· ···T: ~ ':: ... . . : ,1-6 -HWAGlEOSCIENCES INc. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON, WASHINGTON LOG OF TEST PIT TP-1 PAGE: 1 of 1 PROJECT NO., 2011-039 FIGURE, A-22 lPIT10 j011'()39;GPJ iBl12~ .. ~ IiIIil ~ -IiIIJ .. -.. ____ IiIIiI ~ -IB5 I!I!I!I!I !II!!!! M!II !!II!! ----- EXCAVATION COMPANY: Deeny Construction EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT: Case 590 Backhoe SURFACE ELEVATION: 19 i Feet u; '" :'i () ~ ~ 01'. ~ 6 I 0 '" >-a> '" "-" () W >-'" 0 '" ::> DESCRIPTION 0-1 1'0.:. 3--lnches of grass and sod. ,,', : I \ f..1edium dense, gray silty SAND with trace fine gravel, moist. 111I ML ···0 .. (FILL) -;,: I\oense, gray, sandy SILT with fine gravel, moist 2-j11111 Medium stiff, brownish gray SILT with fine sand, moist, low plastic. IXt:I OH Soft, gray 10 dark brown, ORGANIC SILT, moist to wet, plastic. In-place density of soil chunk = dry density of 48.7 pet @ 134.2% MC. (ALLUVIUM) I 4- l Test pit excavation terminated at an approximate depth of 4 feet below the eJdsting ground surface. Ground water seepage was 6-1 observed at an approximate depth of 3.5 feel below the existing ground surface. Buried concrete storm drain pipe exposed within south sidewall of test pit excavation between depths of 1.5 to 2.5 feet belOYI the existing ground surface. Based upon position of pipe bell flow direction appears to be to\ovard taxiway infietd(west). 8- 10- 0: W w a> '" " "-;f< >-~ ::> w-'" Z 0:>-W W w ::>z >- ~ ~ >-w a: "-"-",>-w :i " -z I « 00 >- '" '" "() 0 ~Q 5-1 11 5-2 25 ~ B-1 102 AL GS 5-3 213 MO CBR 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. 0: w >-i z ::> 0 a: C> "Sl -- -- - LOCATION: See Figure 2. DATE COMPLETED: 6/3/11 LOGGED BY: S. Greene SKETCH OF SIDE OF PIT HORIZONTAL OIST ANCE (1001) -- - l I li: w a r-:-~-:-t~ __ ~~+-~~~~r-~~~~~ ____ ~10 0 .... : .... : .... L ...... L .. : .... :.... .... .... .... . ... : .... : .... L ... 1 0 2 4 6 B • •••••••••••••••••• j •••••••••••••••••• .j.... .... .... .... .... . ....... j ••••••••• .... ~ .... ~ .... : ........ ~ .... ~ ............... .. ~~~-t~~~+-~~-+~~~~~~~~2 ...... , ... : .... : .... : ........ ~ .... : .... ::::: 1::::::::::: ... . ::::;::::;:::::':::;::::;::::;::: ... : .... : ... : .. ···~(T··· ~ : : H .......... , .................. , .. : .... ::::::::: : :::::::. ::::.:: ::':::.::: ........ . :i::::::;:::':::!·~-:-:-:··(··:·!: :: 6 ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~::::~::::~::::I::::~::::j::::~:::::: ::::::::::::::::: 1·:::·-:-·~:·l:::::::·I·:· :: .... ···1·· .......... ·-1--·:···-:-.. : .... 1 . .. ... . . . ~8 , ............. , ,.... ...... . : . ............ , ............. , ....... ·····r:::::::::::::::1 :::;···rr····:···:···: .... .... .... .... .... : : : '-10 --HWAGEoSCIENCES INC. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON, WASHINGTON LOG OF TEST PIT TP-2 PAGE: 1 of 1 2011-039 A-23 PROJECT NO.: FIGURE: WIT10 2011~39.GPJ 9128112 Ial EXCAVATION COMPANY: Deeny Construction EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT: Case 590 Backhoe SURFACE ELEVATION: 20:1:: Feet 00 ~ 0 ~ ~ 15 '" w w OJ "-::. ~ " z w w LOCATION: See Figure 2. DATE COMPLETED: 613111 LOGGED BY: S. Greene '" ! '" W ;f'. .... ~ w-'" "' .... w SKETCH OF SIDE OF PIT .... 0 ! ~ w o 0 OJ ::. >-U> U> ~ ~ "-"-::. ::. U> 0 " " '" '" U> " DESCRIPTION o I ~ ":. 3-inches of grass and sod 8 . 5-1 ~ Medium dense, brown, sandyGRAVELwilh silt. moist. r II ~~ "\ (All.) S-2 Medium dense, grayish brown. fine sandy SILT, moist. non-plastic. "z .... w "' .... -z 00 ::'0 16 '" z w " I 0 HORIZONTAl DISTANCE (feet) .... '" 0 '" 0 2 4 6 8 I '" I ::::.::::~::::·::::I::::::::::::: ::::1::: :: :::: ::::1:::: ::::.::::.::::I:::::::::~::::·::::IIO . . ~ 8-1 2- Ml I Loose to medium stiff, olive gray. sandy Sn. T. moist, non plastic. In-place density of soil chunk= dry density 98.0 pet @ 25% MC. r-.1edium stiff to soft, gray to grayish brown, organic SILT, moist to 0 S-4 wet, low plastic. 4 ---I (ALlUVIUM) ~ ....................................... : .................. "'" 25 GS MD C8R 51 'Sl- 6- Test pit excavation tenninated 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 ground surface. ~~-7-r~~~+-~~-+~~~+-~~~lr6 8- .... : .... : .... \.... : . . 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 andlor locations. -HWAGlEOSCIENCES INC FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON, WASHINGTON _011~_912811_ ~ -IIiIIiJ ---IIIIl -- LOG OF TEST PIT TP-3 PAGE: 1 of 1 PROJECT NO.; 2011-039 FIGURE; ---_ .. A-24 - __ "_!lIIIIIIII~I!'!II!!~I!!!I!!!III!!!!!!I ________ _ GRAVEL SAND Coarse I Fine Coarse I Medium I Fine U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 314" 3" 1-112" 5/S" 3IS" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 . I • . • . . . . . 100 I I ~ I I I l' 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 SO l-I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I C> 70 UJ I I I I I I I I ~ I I I I I I ! ! I 1\ >-60 '\ I I I I I I I I I 1\1\ OJ ~I I I I I I I 0:: I I I I I I I'.. UJ 50 I I I I I I I 1\ z u::: I I I I I I I I I I I I ....... I I I I I-40 I I I I \ z I I I "I I UJ () I I I I I 1I I I I 0:: 30 I i i i UJ I I I 11\ I c.. I I I I I I I I 20 ~ 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 ! ! 0 50 10 5 0.5 0.1 0.05 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL-ASTM D24S7 Group Symbol and Name Q CORE-01 S-3 I'll CORE-02 s-4 A CORE-03 s-4 -HWAGEoSCIENCES INC HWAGRSZ: 2011-039.GPJ 9/28112 0.6 -1.3 2.0 -2.5 2.3 -2.S (GP) Dark olive brown, poorly graded GRAVEL with sand (ML) Dark olive 10 gray, sandy SILT with 1.2 % organic matter by dry weight (ML) Dark olive brown, SILT with 1.6% organic matter FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON. WASHINGTON ~ \ '\ ') SILT CLAY [!\ ~~ ~ "r. --u 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005 %MC 5 25 39 LL PL PI Gr:e' s.:~ Fines '1~ 52.7 43.4 3.9 25 22 3 1.4 2S.1 70.5 1.6 29.3 69.1 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D422 PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FIGURE: B-1 "\ rii'iIiiil GRAVEL SAND Coarse I Fine Coarse I Medium I Fine U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 314" 3" . 1·1/2" 5/8" 3If5' #4 #10 #20 #40 #tiD #100 #200 , 1 , , , , , , , , , 100 1\ ~ " I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 P--i-.e. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 90 [\ 1 I I i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 j:, 1 1 1 1 1 80 t-1 r\ 1 1 ""-1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 ~ 1 1 ! ! (!) 70 iIi 1 11,\ 1 ~i 1 1 1 :s: 1 1 : 1 1 : : >-60 1 1 1 1 1 1 aJ ",-c:: 1 1 1 1 ........ 1 ~i 1 1 w 50 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Z 1 1 1 1 "Ij>." ~i i'" 1 1 LL 1 1 1 1 1 1 t-40 1 1 1 1 1 "'-1 1 Z 1 1 I 1 1 ~ 1 I'll 1"'-I w ~ N. 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 '" 1 c:: 30 1 I "I i-i w 1 1 1 1 0.. 1 1 1 1 1 1 hb.. 20 1 1 1 1 1 1 f'-I 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 ! 1 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ..., 1 1 1 1 : 1 1 1 : i 0 50 10 5 0.5 0.1 0.05 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS SYMBOL SAMPlE DEPlH (ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL· ASlM 02487 Gruup Symbol and Name 0 0 " CORE-05 CORE-06 CORE-07 n\~ UJ~;j 5-3 5-2 5-1 HWAGEoSCIENas INC 1.0-2.4 2.9-3.1 1.3 -1.6 HWAGRSZ 2011...o39.GPJ 9128112 ---IIE_ (SM) Dark Gray, silty SAND with gravel, contains gfass and shell fragments. (SM) Dark grayish brcmn, silty SAND with gravel (GP) Gray, poorly graded GRAVEL wilh sand FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON, WASHINGTON ------- 'I SILT CLAY 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005 %MC 37 10 5 LL Pl PI Gr~ ~ Fi~:s 18.9 55.5 25.6 44.3 37.1 18.6 54.0 42.5 3.5 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D422 PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FIGURE: 8-2 ------ ------------------- GRAVEL SAND Coarse I Fine Coarse I Medium I Fine U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 314" 3" 101/2" 5IS" 3IS" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 , I , , , , , , , , 100 ~ I i i i I I I I I I I I I I I I 90 't.-: .!. I I I I t--I I I I I I C!!!- SO l-I I I I I I ~ ""-I ~ I I I I ! I I I ,! I " 70 W I I I I I I I "f\ I I ~ I I : I I I : I\, : >-60 j !D I I I I I I I 1\ I 0:: I I I I I I I I W 50 I I I I I I I I Z I I I I I I I I I u::: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I-40 I ! i i z I I I I I I w U I I I I I I I I I 0:: 30 I ! i i W I I I I I I D.. 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 I I I I I I I I I i I I I I i i I 0 50 10 5 0.5 0.1 0.05 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPlH (ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL-ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name e CORE-oS III CORE-oS 5-3 "-CORE-09 5-2 -HWAGEoSCIENCES INC HWAGRSZ 2011-039.GPJ 9128112 4.2 -4.4 2.3-2.7 (ML) Dark olive brown, SILT with sand (OH) Dark grayish brown, organic SILT (SM) Dark olive brown, silty SAND with gravel FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON, WASHINGTON SILT CLAY "\ \ \ III!! Il 'e. ~ 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005 %MC 23 114 15 LL PL PI Gravel ~d Fi~:S % 3.6 33.S 62.6 108 74 34 3.8 10.S 85.5 17.2 43.4 39.4 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D422 PROJECT NO., 2011-039 FIGURE: B-3 1 - GRAVEL SAND Coarse I Fine Coarse I Medium I Fine U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 3/4" 3" 1-112" 518" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 1100 #100 #200 , I , , , , , , , , , 100 K ""-III : I i i I I I I II~ I I I I I I 90 I i i i I I I I I I I I I ~ t---. I I I I 80 \ l-I I I I I '""-~ I I I I I I I I I I I I C> 70 r-.t W I \ I I I I I I If :i I ~ I ltd I I I I I >-60 III I 11\ I I I I I 1\ I 0::: I I I I I I I I I w 50 I I I . I I I I I I Z I I I \1 I I I I \\ I u: 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 i w () I I I I I I I I I I 0::: 30 i w I I I I I ~ I I I I [L 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 L ! I 10 I I I I I I '1~ I I I I I i I I I .., T 0 50 10 5 0.5 0.1 0.05 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICA nON OF SOIL-ASTM D2487 Groop Symbol and Name 0 CORE-11 8-2 3.0 -3.5 0 CORE-12 8-2 2.8 -3.3 " CORE-13 8-1 1.0 -1.3 -HWAGEoScIENCES INC. _Z 2O_PJ 91. _ _ (SM) Dark olive brown, silty SAND (SM) Brown, silty SAND (GW) Dark olive brown. well graded GRAVEL with sand FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON, WASHINGTON ------- SILT CLAY 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005 %MC 16 14 3 LL PL PI Gr~veI Sand F~es .,- 13.4 51.2 35.4 14.5 49.0 36.5 70.1 26.8 3.0 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM 0422 PROJECT NO., 2011-039 FIGURE, B-4 ------ ------------------- l- I C> W ~ ~ 0:: w Z u: I- Z W U 0:: w 0.. GRAVEL CLAY SAND SILT Medium Coarse Coarse Fine Fine u.s. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 314" ~" 1-1/2" I 5!8" 318" ~ #~O #~O ~O 1I1!0 #1,00 #2,00 100 11 I I l\ ""\ I I I ~ I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I II I I I I I N-o-I I ~ I I I I 90 I 1\ I i I I Iii I 114" I I [)j I I I 80 I \ I I I I I '"-~~ I I I I I II I I I II\~~ 1111 I I 1111111 I I 111111 70 . I I I I I I I I\! i~ I III I .11 I I Il • l I I I I Uli l I -' Ll I I I UJ J I I I I II II II 60 11 I I I !~I I I I I 1\ I . I I I I I I I I I 50" I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I II I I I I III I I ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 40 I I I I I I I I I 1\ I I I I I I I III I I I I I I II I I I I I II I I 'A I I I I I \ I I .11 I I I I I \1 I I I I 'Ii. I I I I I I 11111 I I I I 1111I I 30 II I I Ii I i I I I I i 1\ I I III I I I I I I I I I I I !\ I 20 I I I I 11'-____. I I I I I 10 I I I I I I ! ! I I I I I I I ! o I I I I I I I ! ! 50 10 5 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005 SYMBOL t!I ill A SAMPLE CORE-13 CORE-14 CORE-15 - 5-2 5-3 5-1 HWAGooSOENCES INC HWAGRSZ 2011..(l39.GPJ 9128112 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL-ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name 2.5 -2.9 (ML) Brown. SILT with sand 4.4 -4.8 (SP-SM) Brown. poorly graded SAND with silt 1.2 -1.4 (GP) Olive brown. poorly graded GRAVEL with sand FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON, WASHINGTON % MC I LL I PL I PI I Gravell Sand I Fines Din Gin 0/" 21 9 6 14.6 I 29.7 I 55.7 0.5 I 87.81 11.7 81.5 I 13.1 I 5.4 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D422 PROJECT NO., 2011-039 FIGURE: 8-5 .. f- I <.!l jjJ ~ ~ III ct: UJ Z LL f- Z UJ c..> ct: UJ 0.. SYMBOLI CLAY GRAVEL SAND SILT Medium Coarse Fine Coarse Fine U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 314" '0 ~. 1-1/Z' I 5!Er 3I!f" ~ #10 #: I • I • 100 11 I I , -til \' i " '" T I I I I 1111 I I I I I 1111 I I , ,\" " '" , ,~ 90 , \" ~ , , ii, I" , " , , , , , , 1"\ 80 , ~I I' 1'-' , , , 1\ .11' '" 'II!! ! ' 11\ III I I I I I III I I I 70" I I, ,~ I' "\' , , 1 1 I' .11 ' 'f\" "I I' 1\" "" I I " " " 60, , , , "\. " " ,," \ ' ,,\, "" soli , , , , '" " I I I I I I I I II I I I I '11 , 'I , f... , '" " » I' , " , I "ill-'" 11\ i, - 40 II , " , , ---I""----, , 'I 'l.lJ.' 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I '11 , ,i I' --..--.. iii "---- ., , " I' , 1'-' , , , I I I I I I I I I 30 , , ,i " ,r; ii, "- .'1 ' 'I " "\' , , I'll I "II I I 20 '11 , " " " l'i' , "-., ' " " " I! ~~ , ['t..t---II I I I I 10 "' , " " '" 't'----' )!l. oLlI J' 'I I' "i J II I I 1 I 50 10 5 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.G1 0.005 0.001 0.0005 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS SAMPLE DEPlH (ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL-ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name %Mci LL I PL I PI IGr~I~IFi~_es a CORE-15 o CORE-16 5-4 &.2 B-1 4.7 -5.2 I (GP) Olive brown. poorly graded GRAVEL with sand 1.5 -1.7 (SM) Brownish gray. silty SAND with gravel 5 25 54.5 141.71 3.9 16.2 1 49.1 1 34.7 b. Tl'-1 -HWAGEoSOENCES iNc 0.9 -2.5 I (OH) Light olive brown, organic SILT with 3.5% organic matter FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON. WASHINGTON WZ 20.' 912. _ _ ------- 67 1 122 1 68 1 54 1 0.0 1 4.1 1 95.9 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D422 PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FIGURE: 8-6 ------ -______________ lII!!!!Il!!I!!I!!!Jl!I!!!!!!!!!IJB! GRAVEL SAND Coarse I Fine Coarse I Medium I Fine U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 314" 3" 1-1/2" 5/S" 31S" #4 #10 #20 #40 miO #100 #200 , , , , , , , 100 I y-o-I I I ~ I I I I I -e; I I 90 i ~\ .'\ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I '\ so l-I I I I I I I I I :c I I I I I I I ! ! (9 70 W I I I I I I I I I I :s: I I i I I I I ! i I >-60 I I I I I I I I I I CD 0:: 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 I I I I I I I I I I LL I I I I I I I I I I I-40 I I I I z I I I I I I w () I I I I I I I I I I 0:: 30 i i w I I I I I I I I 0.. 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 0 50 10 5 0.5 0.1 0.05 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) ClASSIFICATION OF SOIL-ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name €) lP-2 &2 El lP-2 B-1 '" lP-3 B-1 -HWAGEoSCIENCES INC. HwAGRSZ 2011-039.GPJ 9128112 1.1-2.0 2.0 -2.5 1.5-2.0 (ML) Brownish gray, SILT with sand (OH) Dark Brown, organic SILT (ML) Dark olive gray, SILT with sand FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON, WASHINGTON I" SILT CLAY , ". ~ l!q '" I'm ~ 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005 %MC 25 102 25 LL PL PI Gravel Sand Fi~:S % % 3.9 22.4 73.7 84 62 22 0.0 3.9 96.1 0.0 23.7 76.3 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM 0422 PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FIGURE: B-7 , - . -----. - GRAVEL SAND Coarse I Fine Coarse I Medium I Fine U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 314" 3" 1-1/2" 5/B" 3/B" #4 #10 #20 #40 tIl;O #100 #200 . . I • • . . • . 100 I I ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 90 I i i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I BO I i ~ l-I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I ! ! I (!) 70 lij I I 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 III 0:: I I I 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 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 U I I I I I I I I I I 0:: 30 I i i w I I I I I I I [L 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 i I 0 50 10 5 0.5 0.1 0.05 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS SYMBOL SAMPlE DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL-ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name 0 TJP-3 &4 Dim HWAGEoSOENCES INc. 3.0 -4.0 (OH) Dar!< gr~, organic SILT FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON. WASHINGTON ~ W' 2°8J 912. ...-J IiIIIII _ _ IiIliIiI _ ..al _ _ SILT CLAY ~ \ \ I\.. ~ ~ 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005 %MC LL Pl PI Gravel ~ Fines % %. 51 55 31 24 0.0 11.6 88.4 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D422 PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FIGURE: 8-8 _ _ IiIIIIil _ ~ fiIIiiI ------------------- 60 50 ~ 0... ~ 40 X w 0 Z >-30 l- U I- (/) « 20 -l 0... 10 CL-ML 0 0 SYMBOL SAMPLE 0 CORE-02 S-4 !;l CORE-06 S-3 '" CORE-08 S-3 0 TP-2 B-1 0 TP-3 S-4 -HWAGEoSCIENCES INC HWAATTB 2011-039.GPJ 9/28/12 @ @) V / V / / ./ V 0 V El / V /' @ 0 ® 20 40 60 80 LIQUID LIMIT (LL) DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION 2.0 -2.5 (ML) Dark olive to gray, sandy SILT with 1.2 % organic matter by dry weight 3.8 -4.3 (OH) Dark brownish gray, organic SILT, contains 4.4% organic mattter. 4.2 -4.4 (OH) Dark grayish brown, organic SILT 2.0 -2.5 (OH) Dark Brown, organic SILT 3.0 -4.0 (OH) Dark gray, organic SILT FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON, WASHINGTON '" 100 %MC LL PL PI % Fines 25 25 22 3 70.5 58 52 37 15 114 108 74 34 85.5 102 84 62 22 96.1 51 55 31 24 88.4 LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT AND PLASTICITY INDEX OF SOILS METHOD ASTM 04318 PROJECT NO., 2011-039 FIGURE, 8-9 LABORATORY COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SOIL om CLIENT: Reid Middleton PROJECT: Renton Taxiway 8 PROJECT NO: 2011-039 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. SAMPLE 10: TP-1,8-1 Sampled By: SEG Tested By: JH Date Received' 61612011 -'="==--=Da-:te Tested' 611·.0,4/'"'2"'0"""11:---Date Sampled' 61612011 MATERIAL TYPE OR DESCRIPTION: Light grayish brown, organic SIL T (OH) MATERIAL SOURCE, SAMPLE LOCATION AND DEPTH: TP-1, 2 ft bqs Designation:I]]ASTM 0698 DASTM D 1557 Natural Moisture Content: 79.3 % Method: DA DB I]]c Oversize: 0 % retained on: 314 in. Preparation: DOry I]] Moist Rammer:I]]Auto DManual Assumed S.G.: 2.4 Test Data Dry Density (pct) I 62.2 I 63.7 I 64.1 I 61.5 I Moisture Content (%) 24.6 I 26.8 I 29.3 I 31.4 I 70 I I I I I I I , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I o----a Rock Corrected Curve I I I I I I I I per ASTM 04718 I I I I I I I I 0----0 Lab Proctor Curve 65 I I I I I I I I I I I I I _._._ .. 100% Saturation Line I I I I +++ I 1 I I I I <i' I I I.-fll I I "I I 1 I I I I ~ I I I I'{ I 1 I I I r: I I I I I ltD I I I u .s 1 1 1 1:' I I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 I , 1 I 1 .~ 60 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .. 0 I I I I I I I I I I i I I I ~ 0 I I I I I I I I ; I I I I I , 55 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , 1 I I +H-I , I I I 50 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 Moisture Content (%) Data Summar • 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 (pel)" 64.4 64.4 66.3 68.3 70.4 72.7 75.1 77.7 Optimum Moisture ('!o)" 28.5 28.5 27.1 25.8 24.4 23.0 21.6 20.3 vatues correctea ror oversize malenal per A~ I M 04718, usmg assumed Specific Gravity shown and oversize mOisture cohtenl of 1% Reviewed By: Steven Greene FIGURE 8-10 This report applies only to the items tested, and may be reproduced in full, with written approval of HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LABORATORY COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SOIL B~ CLIENT: Reid Middleton PROJECT: Renton Taxiway 8 PROJECT NO: 2011-039 Date Sampled' 61612011 MATERIAL TYPE OR DESCRIPTION: Dark brown, organic SIL T (OH) HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. SAMPLE 10: TP-2, 8-1 Sampled By: SEG Tested By: JH Date Received' 61612011 ":::'=':::""--=D-:ate Tested' 611:::3/'::'2"'07"11:--- MATERIAL SOURCE, SAMPLE LOCATION AND DEPTH: TP-2, 2 ft bas Designation:DASTM 0 698 [RlASTM 0 1557 Natural Moisture Content: 134.2 % Method: DA DB [Rlc Oversize: 0 % retained on: 314 in. Preparation: DOry [RlMoist Rammer:[RlAuto DManual Assumed S.G.: 2.4 Test Data Dry Density (pct) I 55.2 I 58.9 I 59.8 I 58.2 I Moisture Content (%) I 55.9 I 57.7 I 59.0 I 62.0 I 70 1 1 i I I I 1 I ! 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I I I I I ! I I I I i I I I I I : I I I Rock Corrected Curve , iii----[] per ASTM 04718 I I ! I I -4l-! 1 I 1 I 1 I -I 1 ! I : I • I I I 0----0 Lab Proctor Curve I I 1 I I I [ I I 1 I 1 I : I i I : I I I 65 100% Saturation Line _._._ .. I ! I I I I I i I I I I ! I I I , I I I I 1 I I 1 I 1 I , 1 I 1 I I 1 , , I i I I I , , i 1 , ! , I , 1 I 1 1 I I . I I I I : I "" I . , , , u I [ I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I ,!!, , I , I , i I l:' I , 1 I : I I I I I I I I , , I .~ 60 I I I 1 I , I 1 I I I 1 I I I , I I I vfi' ~I I I I I 1 ~ Q I , ~ I I I I I I ! I/i'" I I I I"> ! I I I I I I Q I I I I • I ' 1;1 ! I 1 I I 1 1 [ I ttt I I I I I ; f I I I • 1 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I i Q I , I ! I I I I I i 55 I , I , I I IJ +++ +++ ~ I I l' I ' I I I I L ' I : * I , 1 I I ! +H-I 1 I I 1 1 I I 1 I ' I : I 1 1 1 , I I I ! , I ' I i I : I I I i I I 1 , I ill I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I I I , I I I ' 1 I I I 1 I I i I 1 1 I 1 , 50 I I 1 , 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 Moisture Content (%) Data Summar • 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 (pet)' 59.9 59.9 61.8 63.7 65.8 68.1 70.5 73.1 pptimum Moisture (%j" 59.5 59.5 56.6 53.7 50.7 47.8 44.9 42.0 va ues correCleU lor oversize matenal per A::; Vl • 04718, usmg assumed Specific Gravity shown and oversize mOisture content of 1 Yo Reviewed By: Steven Greene FIGURE 8-11 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 U~ CLIENT: Reid Middleton PROJECT: Renton Taxiway 8 PROJECT NO: 2011-039 -=c:=.,...,..---Date Sampled' 61612011 MATERIAL TYPE OR DESCRIPTION: Dark grav, siltv SAND (SM) HWAGEOSCIENCES INC SAMPLE 10: TP-3, 8-1 Sampled By: SEG Tested By: JH Date Received' 61612011 -===--=-Da-:te Tested' 611:::a"'V2'""'0'"""'1-:"1-- MATERIAL SOURCE, SAMPLE LOCATION AND DEPTH: TP-3, 2 ft bgs Designation:DASTM 0 698 [KJASTM 0 1557 Natural Moisture Content: 25 % Method: DA DB [KJc Oversize: 0 % retained on: 314 in. Preparation: DOry [KJMoist Rammer:[KJAuto DManual Assumed S.G.: 2.4 Test Data Dry Density (pcl) 101.9 I 108.6 106.3 I 102.3 I 110.4 Moisture Content (%) 10.7 I 13.0 18.6 ~ 20.7 I 15.4 120 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 I 1 1 I I I 1 I Rock Corrected Curve L I 1 I I [J----[] per ASTM D4718 I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I 115 1 1 1 1 L I~ 1 1 Lab Proctor Curve 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0----0 I 1 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I 100% Saturation Line I I I I 1 I I I I I I I _._._ .. 1 I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I , I I I I I I 110 1 1 1 1 1 YI 1 1 "-, 1 1 "'" I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 '-.!. 1 1 u 1 I I I I I I I I'{ I I I I I 1"-I I I I I oS 1 1 1'1 I I 1 'm I 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1/1 I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I ~ 105 I I I I 1 I I I 1 I 1 I I '-. I I I .. c 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 . '-1 I 1 1 i!-I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 'G I I I I c I 1 1 I I I I ,";:'" 1 I I I 1 I I I I , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I I , , 1 1 I 100 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I i I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I I 1 I , I 1 1 I I , I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 I 95 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 , I I I L I I I UI 1 I I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 , I 1 I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 I I I 90 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 Moisture Content (%) Data Summar ' 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 (pet)' 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 12.9 12.2 11.5 10.8 values correcteCllor oversize rna enal per A::; 1.1 , 04718, uSing assumed Specific Gravity shown and overSIZe mOisture content of 1 *' Reviewed By: Steven Greene FIGURE 8-12 This report applies only to the items tested, and may be reproduced in full, with written approval of HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CBR (California Bearing Ratio) OF LAB COMPACTED SOILS (ASTM D 1883) CLIENT: Reid Middleton mm HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. SAMPLE 10: TP-1,8-1 PROJECT: Renton Taxiway 8 PROJECT NO: 2011-039-21 Date Sampled' 612/2011 Sampled By: SEG Tested By: AACIJH Date Received' 612/2011 ..:::.:::.:::.....-=Da-t·e Tested' 6120/2011 Material Description: Light olive brown, organic SIL T (OH) Sample Location: Test Pit TP-2 Sample 8-1 Compaction Standard: [RJD698 I]]D1557 Condition: [RJSoaked for 96 hrs DUnsoaked 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 lOry , (pcfl .0 ToJ.i%) 1 after ,) 9 : Swell ~ ht = 7") -; ,afterSOa ing ("to) 1, £.7 Top 1" after Soak (%) 109.2 CBR at 0.1" 1.4 CBR at 0.2" 1.4 CBRValue 1.4 12 10 . / .;> V I 8 ~---+/ .~ .!O ./ ~ 6 ~ VV l: II) 4· ~ / I 2· V ../ 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 I I I 4.0 I I ~ 3.0 '" I <J 2.0 1.0 . 0.0 0 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 % Compaction REVIEWED BY: __ ~St::::ec:;ve:::n.:..G:::.:..::re::::e~ne::..... __ FIGURE: B-13 CBR (California Bearing Ratio) OF LAB COMPACTED SOILS (ASTM 0 1883) CLIENT: Reid Middleton B~ HWAGEOSCIENCES INC SAMPLE 10: TP-2, 8-1 PROJECT: Renton Taxiway 8 PROJECT NO: 2011-039-21 Date Sampled' 612/2011 Sampled By: SEG Tested By: AACIJH Date Received' 612/2011 ==--"""'O=-a""'te Tesled' 6120/2011 Material Description: Dark brown, organic SIL T (OH) Sample Location: Test Pit TP-2 Sample 8-1 Compaction Standard: 00698 1]]01557 Condition: I]]Soaked for 96 hrs OUnsoaked 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 (pet) 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 Top 1" after Soak (%) 100.2 CBR at 0.1" Penetration 0.5 CBR at 0.2" Penetration 0.6 CBRValue 0.6 18 I 16 .,..--- 14 / ~ 12 ~ ! 10 V .. / .. " 8 ~ V 6 u-' ? ?' 4 ./ -r'" 2 V 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 ., <.J 2.0 1.0 <> 0.0 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 % Compaction REV I EWE 0 BY: __ ......;S;.;te"'v"'e"'n"'G"'rc.:e..;;e;..:ne=--__ FIGURE: B-14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CBR (California Bearing Ratio) OF LAB COMPACTED SOILS (ASTM D 1663) CLIENT: Reid Middleton mm HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. SAMPLE 10: TP-3, B-1 PROJECT: Renton Taxiway B PROJECT NO: 2011-039-21 Oale Sampled' 612/2011 Sampled By: SEG Tesled By: AACIJH Oale Received' 612/2011 "';;';;'-='--"""""O-ale Tesled' 6120/2011 Malerial Oescriplion: Dark olive gray, SIL T with sand (ML) Sample Location: Test Pit TP-3 Sample 8-1 Compaction Standard: 00698 [RJ01557 Condition: [RJSoaked for 96 hrs OUnsoaked Max. Ory Oensily: 110.5 pcf@ 15 %M.C. with 0 % scalped-off on the 3/4" sieve Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Drv Densitv (Dcl) 94.5 112.9 #N/A Percent ComDaction 85.5 102.1 #N/A Moisture before Compaction (%) 25.5 15.4 #DIV/O! Moisture after Compaction (%J 25.2 15.0 #DIV/O! Percent Swell (initial ht = 7") -0.1 0.5 0.0 Moisture, after Soaking (%) 27.3 17.0 #DIV/O! Moisture Top 1" after Soak (%J 25.5 19.4 #DIV/O! CBR at 0.1" Penetration 0.9 51.4 #DIV/O! CBR at 0.2" Penetration 1.2 53.8 #DIVlO! CBRValue 1.2 53.8 #DIV/O! 1600 I I 1400· 1-<>-855 1-0-102.1 ~ / 1200· ~ 1000 'iii ~ y---- I ,!; '" 800 '" / g ./ '" 600 V 400· ./ V / 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· '" 1 ----'" 30· ----<.> 20· -r 1 10 o· ----80 85 90 95 100 105 % Compaction REV I EWEO BY: __ --'S:..;cle=.v:..;:e"'n""G"'r..=e-=e:..;,ne=---__ FIGURE: B-15 Bulk Density of Soil Chunk Samples Renton Airport Taxiway B Exploration Sample No. Depth Length Diameter Volume Tare Wet+Tare TP-l 8-1 0.9 6 2.4 0.0157 248 849.83 TP-2 8-1 2 6 2.4 0.0157 248 924.15 TP-3 B-1 1.5 6 2.4 0.0157 248 973.92 HWA Project No. 2011-039 nm M~IJ Bulk Density 84.6 95.1 102.1 HWA GEOSCIENCES INc Tare W+T D+T Me Dry Density 8.32 191.5 110.51 79.3% 47.2 8.13 183.73 83.11 134.2% 40.6 8.48 198.17 160.22 25.0% 81.6 FIGURE 8-16 IaI IiiiiIIiI _ _ 8iiJ _ .. _. II1II ~ ~ _ II1II _ iIiIiiI _ IIiIiIiI _ _ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I um HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B -Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 20 11-0 39 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: June 2, 20 II Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sampled by: SEG Sample Location: Northern Taxiway Connector (see Figure 2) Core Designation : Core-I Total Wearing Surface Depth: 2 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) (inches) 2.0 Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) 2 5 CSTC/CSBC - Grav e l with sand and --Cobb les Remarks: Condition Fair Dense Medium dense to dense U~ HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B -Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Date Sampled: June 2, 2011 Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sample Location: North end of Taxiway B (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-2 Total Wearing Surface Depth: 4.5 inches Task No: 100 Sampled by: SEG 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 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0\'+'/;, HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B -Renton Muni ci pal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: June 2, 20 II Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sampled by: SEG Sample Location: North end of T ax iway B (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Co re-3 Total Wearing Surface Depth: 2.25 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) (inches) 2 .25 HMA 2.25 1.5 CSBC - 2.25 Sandy s ilt - Remarks: The subgrade becom es san d to s ilty sand with depth 20\\.03'\ C'ore-3 Condition Poor to fair Dense Medium stiff U~ 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 Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sampled b y: SEGIDRC Sample Location: North end ofTaltiway B (See Figure 2) Core De signation: Core-4 Total Wearing Surface Deptb: 1.5 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (Inches) (Inches) 1.5 HMA 1.5 1.4 CSBC - 1.75 HMA 1.75 -Gravel - Remarks: 1.4 inches of crushed grave l between HMA layers Condition Poor Den se Good Loo se I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0\'*'/;1 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B -Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: June 2, 20 I I Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sa mpled by: SEG Sample Location: North centra l portion of Taxiway B (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-5 Total Wearing Surface Depth : 2 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) (inches) 2 HMA 2 6 CSBC - Condition Good Dense -Sand with si lt and grave l -Medium dense Remarks: With depth subgrade appears to consist of dredge spoils. IJ~ HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B -Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 20 1l-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: June 7, 20 II Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sampled by: OR C Sample Location: Central portion of Taxiway B (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-6 Total Wearing Surface Deptb: 14 .5 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) (inches) Condition 8.5 HMA 3,5.5 Poor to good 6 PCC 6 -Sand with gravel and cobble s - Remarks: The bottom 5.5 inches ofHMA is of lower quality (ATB?) No crushed grave l base course was encountered. Fair to good Loose I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I U~ HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B -Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Task No: 100 Date Sa mpled: June 7, 20 11 Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sampled by: DRC Sample Location: So uth end of Taxiway B (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-7 Total Wearing Surface Depth: 13.5 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) (inches) 8.5 HMA 3.5,5 5 PCC 5 Sand with gravel, cobbles --and silt Condition Very poor Very poor Loose Remarks: The bottom 5 inche s of HMA is of lower quality (ATB?) and disintegrated coring and therefore does not appear in the above photo . No crushed grave l ba se course was encountered . U~ HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B -Renton Municipal Airport Project N o.: 2011-039 Date Sampled: Jun e 7, 2011 Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sample L ocation: South End of Taxiway B (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-8 Total Wearing Surface Depth: 12 inches Task No : 100 Sampled by: DRC 2.11_031 Cort-g Thickness Description of Material Lifts (Inches) Condition (Inches) 5.5 HMA 2.5,3 Good 6.5 PCC 6.5 Good -Sand with grave l, cobb les -Loose and si lt Remarks : A non-woven fabric layer is located between the two lifts of HMA No crushed grave l base course was encountered. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I D\,*,/;, HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B -Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 20 11 -039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: June 7, 20 I I Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sampled by : ORC Sample Location: South end of Taxiway B (See Figure 2) Core Designation : Core-9 Total Wearing Surface Depth: 10 inches Thickness Description of Material (inches) 10 HMA Sand with grave l, cobb les -and s ilt 2011-039 {k_'l Lifts (inches) 2.5 ,4 .25,3.25 - Condition Good to poor Loose Remarks: A non-woven fabric layer is located between the first two Ii fts of HMA The lower lift of HMA is of lower quality (ATB?) No crushed grave l ba se course was encountered. l IJ~ HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B -Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: June 6, 20 II Core Bit Vsed: 8-inch diameter Sampled b y: DRC Sample Location: lnfield apron South end of Taxiway B (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-I 0 Total Wearing Surface Depth: 2 .25 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) (inches) 2.25 HMA 2.25 -Gravel with sand - Remarks: No crushed grave l base course was encountered. lOI\.D3Q Coft.. \ 0 Condition Good Dense to very dense I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0\'+'1;1 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B -Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: June 7, 20 II Sampled by: ORC Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sample Location: South end of Taxiway B (See Figure 2) Core Designation : Core-II Total Wearing Surface Depth: 16.5 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) (inches) 8.5 HMA 2.5,2.5,3.5 8 PCC 8 -Sand with gravel and cobb le s - Condition Good to fair Fair to good Loo se Remarks : A non-woven fabric layer is located between the bottom lift of HMA and PCe. The lower lift of HMA is of lower quality (ATB?) No crushed grave l ba se course was encountered. U~ HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway 8 -Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: Jun e 6, 20 II Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sampled b y : ORC Sample Location: Southern Taxiway Connector (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-12 Total Wearing Surface Depth: 13 .5 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (Inches) (Inches) 7.5 HMA 3.5,2,2 6 pee 6 -Sand with gravel and cobbles - Remarks: No crushed gravel base course was encountered. Condition Good Fair Loose I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IJ~ HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. C lient: Reid Middl eton Proj ect: Taxiway B -Renton Municipal Airport Project No .: 20 11-0 39 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: Jun e 6, 20 II Core Bit Used: 8-inch diam e ter Sampled by: DR C Sa mple Location: So uth ern Taxiway Connec tor (See Figure 2) Core Des ignation: Core-13 Total Wearing Surface Depth: 9 inche s Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) (inches) 3 HMA 3 6 PCC 6 -Sand with grave l and cobbles - 2oll_03~ ~(e-13 Condition Fair to poor Fair Loose Remarks : A non-woven fabric layer is located between th e bottom li ft of HMA and PCC . No crushed gravel base course was encountered. 0\'6'1., HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B -Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 20 1l-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: June 6, 20 II Core Bit Used: 8-ioch diameter Sampled by: ORC Sample Location: Southern Taxiway Connector (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-14 Total Wearing Surface Depth: 10 .75 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (Inches) (Inches) 4.75 HMA 4 .75 6 PCC 6 -Sand with gravel and cobb les - Remarks: No crushed gravel base course was encountered. Condition Fair to good Good Loose I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I U~ HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project : Taxiway B -Renton Muni c ipal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Task N o: 100 Date Sa mpled: Jun e 6, 20 11 Core Bit Used: 8-i nch diameter Sampled by: ORC Sample Location: Southern Taxiway Connector (See Figure 2) Core De sig nation: Core-IS Total Wearing Surface Depth: 12 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) (inches) 6 HMA 4 ,2 6 PCC 6 4 .S CSBC - -Sand with s il t and g ravel - Remarks : The lower Ii ft of HMA is of lower quality (ATB ?). Condition Good to poor Good Loos e Loo se to medium den se IJ~ HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B -Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: June 6 , 2011 Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sampled by: ORC Sample Location: Southern Taxiway Connector (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-16 Total Wearing Surface Depth: 10.5 inches Thickness DescriptIon of Material Lifts (Inches) (Inches) 3.5 HMA 1.5,2 7 PCC 7 -Sand with silt and gravel - Condition Fair to poor Poor Loose Remarks: A non-woven fabric layer is located between the lowest HMA and the PCC layers. The PCC layer is cracked tbrougb and sealed with asphalt sea lant No crushed gravel base course was encountered . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I um HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B -Renton Municipa l A irp ort Project No.: 2011-039 Date Sampled: Jul y 11 , 2012 Core Bit Used: 12-inch diameter Sample Location: South end of Taxiway B (See F igure 2) Core Designation: Core-17 Total Wearing Surface Depth: 15 inches Task No: 10 0 Sampled by: DRC Tbickness Description of Material Lifts (incbes) Condition (inches) 7 Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) 2 .5,4 .5 Good to Fair 8 pee 8 Fair -Grave l w ith sand and cobb les -Medium den se Re marks : There is a 0 .75 inch deep and 1.25 inch w id e aspha lt sea l in the middle of the core covering a crack in the upper HMA la yer (see Photo above). U~ 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: ORC Core Bit Used: 12-inch diameter Sample Location: South end of Taxiway B (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-IS Total Wearing Surface Depth: 12 .5 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) (inches) 6.5 HMA 2.75,3.75 6 PCC 6 -Gravel with sand and cobbles - Remarks: Condition Fair to good Fair Medium dense I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I U~ HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Re id Middl eto n Project: Tax iway B -Re nt o n Muni c ip al Airp o rt Project No .: 2011-0 39 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: Jul y 11 ,201 2 Core Bit Used: 8-in ch diameter Sampled by : DR C Sample Location: South ern T ax iw ay Connec tor (See Figure 2) Core Designation : Co re-19 Total Wearing Surface Depth: 19.5 in c hes Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) (inches) 12 .5 HMA 3,2.5 ,3 ,4 7 PCC 7 -G ra ve l with sand and co bbl es - Remarks : T he re is no bo nd be twee n th e 2nd a nd 3rd laye rs o f HMA. T he re is no bo nd betwee n th e 3rd and 4 th la ye rs ofHMA . Condition Fair to goo d Good Medium de nse U~ HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Re id Middl eton Project: Tniway B -Renton Muni cip a l Airp ort Project No.: 201 1-039 Tas k No: 100 Date Sampled : Ju ly 11,20 12 Core Bit Used: 8-inc h di amete r Sampl ed by : ORe Sample Location: So uth end of Taxiway B (See Figure 2) Core Des ignation: Core-2 0 • • Total Wearing Surface Depth: 13.5 in ches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) (inches) 6 HMA 3 .5,2.5 7.5 pee 7.5 -Grave l wi th san d an d co bbl es - Condition Poor Fair Medium Dense Remarks: There is a 0 .5 inc h dee p an d 0.75 inc h wid e as ph a lt sea l in the midd le of the co re cove rin g a c rack in th e upp er HMA layer (see Ph oto above). c-20 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I WASHINGTON . ~ ',. o " "'-,.,..-' :::..>---::- /. ,-; , "" ......... '0 ---.. L , '~ I "'I ' . I,:.jl " " . . . . -. , ~". --'- \. _ I, ~ ,!~~ ; i, \' .,11 " • J<' " I:; ,\' ,I' ~ ',-'., "~,' 'i ~'i • _i \': , " ~ co 'J" ,," ",," :, I'" t' :,'_1_,:\ "I' ;1 ", ,II" ,"r " ,,:1 ' ;', -'i ,.,,' ;, 'I" , J'" ".,' I, •• , , ':'1, :,'1 r,':""'"" . ",., -"l ') , " " , , / , I, 'T, ", t " I ," \ ,<I /'1 ~,\. -c •. I~~' _" " A", ::~\" "0, ' , 'f. \'8 ''': '\," "", '\ '~:'-';,' " I ",' II • .~ ,,, '" ' .. "-' "', .' '--.": 'I ,"11 __ 'I, ~I r----____ l ""I 1 1 L ___ ... ,1, 1 I I I I, ~ ~ ) V .:. ~-1" t •. ,""" '" ~I: I' \. I' '. I,," '", : .~: ;;' "1 ,r -h L1, "",; ." "H,'I "'1' :'1,L-.- ~I yil ~Ii :> ,'I " _!l! ~i ,~, '1 .- i, ':1 :;1 ,~, ;I' .. (' " '\ . ,'~ \ ~ ~<~.~,' ~:"" -" 1 -'::::'.-" '~ :; '.1' ': ',~ ,i -,,', j .. , . -.~ . "I;" ~', ~ ~ ] .? 'I). w . "" .~ ., ----- 'y D'~ '-'I,i I, I p I' , ", , -'-:..;.;; 'i. <, ~: 'i' V':,'I§' 60100 AQUIFER PROTECTION ZONES Technical Services Planning/Building/Public Works R. MacOnie, D, Visneski January 22, 2008 Renton Municipal Code e I Zone 1 f%%%%j Zone 1 Modified L __ .. _' .1 Zone 2 City Limits Sl004:1S "luo .... odmdJOjd.'pJIQ lQl_ullldo",.,<u ""''''IIa,ep041IO"oIQelle"" OlDIIOUI-'I!jLOlleq ... "" poooq .. """ '",""""",A •• "",,,, p..,,,.,O<>!i IOU ''''''I''''''''''*'' "Ltd .. ~ •• ' I"O"'''''OP''U Iii Iii i i ,009'Z OOp't 0 pJezeH POOl=! 6001: '~1: ilBV'J UO P9lUPd I~S9USII\'O '9IU08BV'J "~ S981AJ9S IB8!U489.L JOIBJjSIU!WP'<f 'UBWJ9WW!Z "8 juawj.Jedao s>tJOM :J!lqnd N SeaJV 8AH!SU8S uOlUa~ JO Al~8 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. - --- Sl004::)S .d J8tua8 je::>fpaV\l Aau e/\ 1m 8jeJ8pOW OJ MOl 45!4 OJ 8jeJ8pOW 45!4 luaw~edao aO!IOd.l:f. ~J!I!ql'da:>sns UOI':>elanbn aJnJ:>nJJseJIUI le:>!J!J!) NOlllaNO:> m:I'VZ'VH ,009'(: AI""··"ldJnd,.,d,,p,(m >OJ popU",",", <I!!uJ "LU U""'~I"'P"1ll j<I ,. 0IQ"I'''" ""~"""O,"' ,.oq 041 OO!lO'Bq '! pull 'A""""""AoIUfflO\ PMlu..,.n510U 'OOiI.,u ... 'O'" o,~d.,~ • '" \UOWn,"p "41 UO!S!II!O sa:JJnosa~ I.lIJE!3 pue A60loa£l 'sa::lJnosa~ IE!JnlE!N 10 luawl·lI~daa alelS uo)BulllSeM :S8JIN8S le:J!U4:J81 'SW81SAS S8!l!I!ln 'S)jJOM :J!lqnd :a:::IJf1os elea 600c 'Dc !leV\l uo pajUPd !~saUS!1\ ·0 'a!UO:JeV\l .tj sa~!AJas le~!U4~al JOleJ1S!UIWP'lf 'ueWJaWWIZ ·8 luaWjJedao S~JOM ~lIqnd N spJezeH UO!l~eJanb~l SeaJ'q 8A!l!SU8S uOlua~ JO Al~J ----- - -- - - - - - - ---- - ',uo •• ,""'od,.,d·,O''':> JOjpOOUO"I,ldow"41 ""'°4""·P"41jO' •• ,qol,o,. lKMI""''''I"ll'OQ"4\ uo IM"'IIG ~ pUO '''''OJO:>:lO ~."'".O) p.",u.,.O~ ,Ou ·uo~",u._d., "'4d1lJB ... \"o"""op '141 Iii Iii i I • OOO'C OOS' L 0 SpJeZ8H ~!WSlas 600Z: '~Z: A2V'J UO paluPd !~Sausll\ "0 'a!UO~2V'J "OJ Sa~IAJas 12~!U~~al JOI2JIS!UIWPV 'U2WJaWW!Z "8 juawjJedao s>tJOM O!lqnd seaJV aA~l!suas UOlua~ JO Al~J --• -.. .. .. ---- - .. - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I King County Runoff TibO Series Program Version 6.00 ~ll files will be read/written in the Working Directory Vorking Directory:C:'kc_swdm~utput KCRTS Command CREATE a new Time Series Production of Runoff Time Series Project Location Sea-Tae Computing Series NB!SIN.tsf Regional Scale Factor 1.00 Data Type Reduced Creating is-minute Time Series File loading Time Series File C:,KC_SWDM'KC_DATA'STEI15R rnf 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 8 Storing Time Series Filo:NBASIN.tsf Time Series Computed J(CRTS 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 ~Gnlt\ilOOOW .~ 'po ProJect .Locatlon:=>ea-lac 8 8 ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--------Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak --Peaks Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) Period 0.476 6 8/27/01 18 :00 1.18 1 100.00 O. 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 0.532 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 BiD-filtration Basin Area (See Figure 4-1) Water Quality flow rate = 60% of 2-year storm 0.476 efs * 0.6 = 0.29 efs Same rate for the South Bio-filtration Basin J I ®ooIlm .. , ,,,,., eaK u1scnarge: Tiae Series COMputed KCRTS Command Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module Analysis Tools eoa.and 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 Coamand RETURN to Previous Menu KCRTS Command CREATE a nev Time Series Production of Runoff Time Series Project Location Sea-Tac Computing Series FLT.tsf Regional Scale Factor 1.00 Data Type Reduced Creating 1S-minute Time Series File Loading Time Series File C:'KC_SVDM'KC_DATA'STEI15R.rnf Impervious 0.61 acres Scaling Yr: e 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 Time Series Computed Tlme :ienes nle:tlt.tst Project location:Sea-Tac 8 8 8 ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--------Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak -Peaks (CFS) (CFS) 0.291 6 8/27/01 18:00 0.719 0.203 8 9/17/02 17:45 0.549 0.549 2 12/08/02 17:15 0.394 0.234 7 8/23/04 14: 30 0.325 0.308 5 10/28/04 16:00 0.308 0.325 4 10/27/05 10:45 0.291 0.394 3 10/25/06 22:45 0.234 0.719 1 1/09/08 6:30 0.203 Computed Peaks 0.663 South Filter Strip Area (See Figure 4-1) Water Quality flow rate = 60% of 2-year stonn 0.291 efs * 0.6 = 0.17 cfs Rank Return Prob Period 1 100.00 0.990 2 25.00 0.960 3 10.00 0.900 4 5.00 0.800 5 3.00 0.667 6 2.00 0.500 7 1.30 0.231 8 1.10 0.091 50.00 0.980 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I eaR U>scharge' U. nu c,·~ at b, JU on oan , m Year " Storing Time Series File:FLT.tsf 8 Time Series Computed KeRTS COJlmsnd Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module Analysis Tools CO~Rand Compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies Loading Stage/Discharge curve:flt.ts£ Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:flt.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac Frequencies & Peaks saved to File:FLT.pks Analysis Tools Com.and RETURN to Previous Menu ~------------------------------------------------------------------------------KeRTS Command CREATE a new Time Series Production of Runoff Tifte Series Sea-Tae Project Location Computing Series Regional Scale Factor Data Type Creating is-minute Time 187M. tsf 1. 00 Reduced Series File Loading Time Series File:C 'KC_SVDM'KC_DATA'STEllSR.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 ~_OIJ!l];B .I:mm . il.me Oerl.es .t'l.le: tO/n.ts! Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--------Flow Frequency Analysis------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak -Peaks (CFS) (CFS) 0.162 6 8/27/01 18,00 0.401 0.113 8 9/17/02 17:45 0.306 0.306 2 12/08/02 17:15 0.220 0.130 7 8/23/04 14:30 0.181 0.172 5 10/28/04 16:00 0.172 0.181 4 10/27/05 10:45 0.162 0.220 3 10/25/06 22:45 0.130 0.401 1 1/09/08 6,30 0.113 Computed Peaks 0.369 Taxiway 87 (N) Area (See Figure 4-1) Water Quality flow rate = 60% of2-year storm 0.162 cfs * 0.6 = 0.10 cfs Rank Return Prob Period 1 100.00 0.990 2 25.00 0.%0 3 10.00 0.900 4 5.00 0.800 5 3.00 0.667 6 2.00 0.500 7 1. 30 0.231 8 1 .10 0.091 50. 00 0.980 I ". ';"1 I 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. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I BIOFILTRA nON CALCULA nON 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 (mowed frequently) 0.33 (infrequent mowing) n = 0.2 s = slope z = side slope b=Q*nll.49*yA 1.67*sA0.5 b (ft) 7.5 Use 10-ft width in design Solve for flow Velocity Z = side slope A = cross-sectional area v (ftls) 0.21 Solve swale length L (ft) = 540 * v Meet criteria for high flow North WQ Basin A (ftA2) 112.5 86ft with b=lOft Q = 0.29 cfs (KCRTS) -1.00 ac impervious b (ft) 7.5 Use 10-ft width in design A (ftA2) v (ftls) 0.21 1.4 Min. 100' in design 1.4 L (ft) 112.5 86ft with b=l Oft Min. 100' in design y n Q s Z y n Q s Z 0.17 0.2 0.29 0.01 4 0.17 0.2 0.29 om 4 Basic Filter Strip Calculation Per KCSWDM Section 6.3.4, pg 6-59 Sonth Filter Strip Q = 0.17 cfs (KCRTS) -0.61 ac impervions n = 0.35 or 0.45 s = slope W = longitndinallength of imperv. Design depth (Dt) = (Q*n11.49*W*s AO.sYO.6 Df (ft) 0.013022 Solve for Velocity V=Q/W*Df V (fils) 0.047128 Solve for Filter length L (ft) = 540 * V 25.44898 Taxiway B7(N) Filter Strip Q = 0.10 cfs (KCRTS) -0.34 ac impervious Use 26ft in design n = 0.35 or 0.45 s = slope W = longitudinal length of imperv. Design depth (Dt) = (Q*n11.49*W*s AO.sYO.6 Df (ft) 0.012476 Solve for Velocity V=Q/w*Df V (ftls) 0.045801 Solve for Filter length L (ft) = 540 * V 24.73247 Taxiway B7(S) Filter Strip Q = 0.05 cfs (KCRTS) -0.17 ac impervious Use 26ft in design n = 0.35 or 0.45 s = slope W = longitudinal length of imperv. Design depth (Dt) = (Q*n11.49*W*SAO.5)AO.6 Df (ft) 0.013685 Solve for Velocity V=Q/W*Df V (fils) 0.024357 Solve for Filter length L (ft) = 540 * V 13.15274 Use 14ft in design n W s Q n W s Q n W s Q 0.35 277 0.04 0.17 0.35 175 0.04 0.1 0.35 150 0.01 0.05 I I I I I I I I I ~ III I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Taxiway B Filter Strip Q = 0.19 cfs (KCRTS) -0.65 ac impervious n = 0.35 or 0.45 s = slope W = longitudinal length of imperv. Design depth (Dt) = (Q*n!1.49*W*s"0.5)A0.6 Df (ft) 0.008543 Solve for Velocity V=Q/W*Df V (ftls) 0.035583 Solve for Filter length L (ft) = 540 * V 19.21463 Taxiway B6(S) Filter Strip Q = 0.07 cfs (KCRTS) -0.24 ac impervious Use 26ft in design n = 0.35 or 0.45 s = slope W = longitudinal length of imperv. Design depth (Dt) = (Q*n!1.49*W*s"0.5)A0.6 Df (ft) 0.009904 Solve for Velocity V=Q/W*Df V (ft/s) 0.039266 Solve for Filter length L (ft) = 540 * V 21.20376 Taxiway B6(N) Filter Strip Q = 0.1 cfs (KCRTS) -0.36 ac impervious Use 26ft in design n = 0.35 or 0.45 s = slope W = longitudinal length of imperv. Design depth (Dt) = (Q*n!1.49*W*s"0.5)"0.6 Df (ft) 0.011876 Solve for Velocity V=Q/W*Df V (ftls) 0.044319 Solve for Filter length L (ft) = 540 * V 23.93212 Use 26ft in design n W s Q n W s Q n W s Q 0.35 625 0.04 0.19 0.35 180 0.04 0.07 0.35 190 0.04 0.1 FLOW SPLITTER CALCULATIONS PROJECT: PROJ NO.: DATE: FILE: Renton Municipal Airport, Taxiway B, Phase II 23-20 I 0-007 10115/2012 H:\DOC\23ApIiOI007 Renlon TW B & S,gnage\DosignlDroin.gellFlow Splitter -Pllasc bJ.x]Flow Splitter South Biofiltration Swale Pipe Capacity Manning Pipe Capacity No. Diameter Slope Length Capacity Used (inch) (%) (feet) (cfs) (%) 0.014 8 0.10 10 0.014 12 0.10 10 Head determined by sharp-crested weir equation 0.463 Known: QJ ~ 0.29 cfs n CD~ 0.6 IEoutlet = 25.5 ft Calculated by: BIS Checked by: Date Checked: Length Head Head IQWQ = ~ Cv.J2gLH~1 (ft) (ft) (in) I 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 I-ft weir shall be placed at 25.7 (25.5+0.20). North Bioflltration 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 IQ 0.463 D~F,;I Known: Q2~ 0.29 cfs n CD~ 0.6 IEoutiet = 23.0 ft Length Head Head IQWQ = ~ Cv.J2gLH~1 (ft) (ft) (in) 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 I-ft weir shall be placed at 23.2 (23.0+0.20). Page 1 of 1 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 , n ~ ~UB-BASIN A-I I SUB-BASIN A-2 I ',T / I~-/: --// \ - / '\==~=V ~ '/7-_-":--I \ -:---/ -______ --\' 1 _______ --'9 ",,---" ... -./: .,.,./ \ ",,,,,/ ~ ~ --.. /.r/ ..__--EX.ISnNGASPHAlT -\-------------I I --------- 21,889 SF IMP :r' /1/ ;// _,/ ' I-===:; //'-// /// (RUNWA~!.6,34j/ ___ ----_--------------------------,--______ ~--I 7,500 SF LAWN ~ -/ 1 -/ // \ // \==7'/ // // //---I _1-----_________ ---I I _/--------,I .',~-\--~ 11 /// -/ \ // ? -\~ /// // ~-//-__ --1- 1 --I -/-------,1--------------------1------,ili!.-------~--~ ... / // ................ , -.. ~ //'~ ~/ -"'.... -~-- -------------_ ------:;-\ -.......-~r = /~ !L --",,---:fulr;~. ~-*1--~' -, ,,~. w~ , . 0(-\==9::: c. '"7~ /1" --.', ~;-;:'/ ~--O~ -~=="~ __ 0=-'-~ L-" _ r' '~"'~":--' G=-_ I -~-, .-.;; ./' ."." .. -. ,--8 f'-J \ J .---/ I / \ 01 /-"' \ ::., v-_._, / ----.....--I _./ :\'" ·'1 ~.' ' '. '. 35239 SF IMP --"'f --I -/---I ".. ~-.,., ~-,.. '/ .,/,6------m C":--"---1---.., m ---J \ • / ~ /''--I/"'" \ '''' \~' I . ~ ~ -7 • '-~ I ./ / \ \ \ ," -, -" r-C ," • 4,,21,578_SF.I:AWN \ I 59.299 SF IM~P /4 I __ .70,623 SF IMP " • /' '»..fl---~" I ,---.:::... __ ----- J ,11. , ,44,167 SF IMP J / ( ~8 7' SF [AWN 1') ~--58540 SF LAWN • /' I ---" I .31,417 SF_IMP I \, '~ . '11,1\:,21.658 SF 1.AWI'r. // - \ " 1. ~-". ~ \' \' :", if ' {f /"..'-57,682 SF.JMP "", ( 53,603 SF ~ I 7,935 SF IMP . \-: ,',:\9) L f~-~\ / • ~/ ( ",\1 \ -'--7~ \, &!/, _L 'r'll f1:,44,030SFrA-:m\ \ ! /---;-----____., '------ 28,279SFLAWNI.,/!:;bo ~~~ ~ \ -,~ t ___ -.c::--_L--__ (;;-----=---r--( (,! "-4t-e--.. so 'so ~'~~" ----'. \-.... ~ .. ~~_ ~t~~'---~ ~ /' .:t----. \ -~ -.4\\ "_ ~ ~ . --__ -""'~r:~ so ~.·~b~='~;....-!!§.-'_'" ___ I--+" _::,-=-, ~~~l,:?.fJ'f: __ ·_ .. ;SD r~!jF~~ .. 71\'/ "1_daJ1'i,, I 1 \ /~ ~'O~ ... -, .. ~, ,"-·~_~,_·."d,..:..-"\--·~-~~· .' ";>w so .' ¥." t:t --'7, --,. , JD '" .J.. .,'.~_"-,I , ',,,/~~\\~/-t'\~~¥·->-!.%: -'-.~ //1~;:~ -.~\'-,:---r-~~ "'--'~'-rt-_/ ----\r 3-~_ ~'.'f1;I'.: ~'--._. ___ J/ "I._--:.:·\--~_:_--/~~-:::--: 1 so" ~L <! V '~', '" / '. ' --..::1:'i1:; ~::::--l!J -'-----"-_ o· -----------=--=-~-I .' ---~; -I ' \ . l. , . -,,' '\ I '------~' ~c.~ ~t" ~,., ". ~.~ .j ___ ........ --..::::::._ _..c~ _ ... -.., _ • • __ ~ __ .'k-' '_W'l-7-:Y'~"--" ---""'-'----'-/"--j--.. -"""1-'-" ''''.-, '-;. _-=-_c,--::.,, ,:o,_~.: :-.-.• , ·.·~--::1.----;;;·--·;,;:.··--I;: .. '··-'c---~~-:;-1!l--1&::=~:"-;~ .. 'c.-; '-,'Y .....-r'-::~. , \.../,,/1 ./,/ .~ I '" 'I ~,.;--.=-~.-"--..::.~.,.--"-...::.-"r-=':"'::::=':'~ ._....:."""..:L1..:....-',"'--=-.-'-~.=-r~-·--:~--~--~ ~ .-'>. / --, 1 ~ -\'----,-1 ',:;J -=-~~ . ''7----/. l' ' ., ': .. ---.' -.. ' '.~" --,\.,.. '. I --' ",:;-'. -' -1 -=.~-= =. ~ " = --= -, 1:' 4'" '. ' .. ~ ,-• • '-, ;;;.--"---,~ • .:: '''': :;;.: .---____. 1 /\ 18,398SFIMP /,/ /' '-::. \'\ •• = -I '. l!rr ' '!1fl I'! , .-.' m _ -:; ~. ~.. L' ~/ \"" ~'--/-----___ l ~, -_. -..L --~ --I'! ·1 -"'.'---. --~ ---.--;. ' -1----~,.---' .. '·-~'-I, _. -----,.---"-, ~ 1 . ~ r . -.. ''%., ~. r 32.834 SF IMP,," , 1 ' • EXlSnNGASPHAlT_, • 1 "~_~. ;l "'f:.:ro, ? ..r ,..,.; 19 ---1, /~ • 29,330 SF IMP,' I, -:-",~ ~ ._(TAAlWAYB' ·-:,-,.~7~·-" __ ' ..........:=..·I~-_·_~-·-~'''"~-·~,--',~I!l~,-~31,l1F-IMP~~J-/ 1a -, 1 ---~-/~ 51-----. ...~.... ~ .-~"'-.• -------,----:;:-+ ~----....-...." -----~ ~ ..,. -,~, .' '-,:. Itt 840 SF LA\NN ~ _ ,.<l J ! j7~'~1i~' <, --------...:. =----, " ,,' m'~' T--d '-1 , .r,: -... I ' ----.~ :H'~.:J--I __ 1/ I' • -\) 't----; -1-r -.' • ! • I ' ~ II '., I 1 I -",,' -/ I~.__ I TRIBUTARY AREA I -166,735 SF IMP I / ~'I --, \ I 1 BOUNDARY (TVP) / .' , 1 L -------/ I .J .\~mnlmm mlJ4111~gt!5cil2IXI E __ ~9S2D4 AI: Q5 7(J-JDI TO RIVER ~~-I TOR"'ER ~'"lliii -1-.. } 1 '(/~ ~ , ~q / ' t'$.r".t • LEGEND: l REPLACED/NEW ASPHAlT PAVEMENT -----'> ' --SWAlE --flOW DIRECTION -~ Tributary Area/Collection Renton AirpDrt Figure 1 .:I PRO): WO: DATE: -ta:I I:!I!!I ~ Renton Municipal Airport, Taxiway R 23-2012-2012 10/2/2012 !!!iI!!!!' -I!!!!!!!!!!!I .. -- PIPE SIZING (Runoff by Rational Method) (Pipe Capacity by Manning's Eqn.) - FILE: H:\D0C\2JAD\IO\OO1 Rcnton TW B" Sil!nue\Dcsit> .. \Drainuc\f;!0121002 Pioc Siz:illl' I Ph.., lI.xislPioc: Siunl! 100vr BASIN c~ c~ F,om 0.9 I rrpervi OUS 0.25 LalMl I ~e. I n~. Are. (.,) A ••• ( ... ) To (I m p .. ,~) (P."I uo-basm AI I" I "' 1'''' 0 I"' L"I ,,,5 28279 I"' t4 1""0 0 1"4 C"I IU 0 IC"I C"J ILl"" 7500 IC "2 CB3 44167 21658 IL"3 c"4 0 IC"4 CB7 352J" 21578 IC"5 CB6 2834 0 ICBb Ltl7 0 0 ICB7 B9 0 0 IL"" cBI4 592'1'1 81787 IL"II BI2 106735 0 IC "12 C"IJ 0 0 ICBI3 BI4 10 0 IC"14 BI6 0 0 Ic"16 cBI' 700L3 58540 IC"18 CBIN 57682 44030 ICBI ' ,,5 0 0 Inc. A, ... Runor- (.,1 Co .. , A'C 0.42 U.YU 0.38 OM 0." 0.33 0.07 0."" 0.61 U.UU U.L5 0.00 u.07 u.73 0.50 1.51 0.0" 1.04 0.00 0.25 0.00 1.30 0.05 0.85 u.75 0.90 0.68 o.ou 0.25 0.00 0.00 U.25 0.00 3.24 0.5, 1.69 3.83 U.90 3.44 0.0 0.25 0.00 O.UU 0.25 0.00 O.Ou 0.25 0.00 2.'17 0.01 1.80 '.J3 u.62 1.44 0.0 0.25 0.00 Stann: Renton 25 Year a, 2.66 (see KCSWDM ~9 3·13) U, 0.65 (sa. KCSWOM ~g 3-13) c. 3.4 (,~~ KCSWDM ~o 3 24-Hour lsopluvials T'm. or R.,,, 5"_ Coo, I ",.n 0 Runo," . D'.m $.0". L.ngt~ A'C (m In) (,n/n.) (,,"1 V .,~ .. ('"chj (%1 h .... ) 0.38 10.00 2.02 0.77 0,014 6 0.76 145 0.71 11.04 1.90 1.34 0.014 8 1.02 96 1.31 10.00 2.02 2.66 0.014 12 0.39 107 1.31 10.68 1.94 2.55 0.014 10 0.27 84 2.51 12.94 1.71 4.31 0.014 18 0.42 266 1.04 10.00 2.02 2.10 0.014 12 0.63 23 3.55 14.29 1.61 5.70 0.014 18 0.83 125 4.40 14.71 1.58 6.94 0.014 18 0.59 130 0.68 10.00 2.02 1.37 0.014 12 0.55 181 0.68 10.97 1.91 1.29 0.014 12 1.00 9 5.08 16.22 1.48 7.51 0.014 18 0.61 135 6.78 16.74 1.45 9.81 0.014 18 0.31 240 3.44 10.00 2.02 6.97 0.014 12 2.38 8 3.44 10.01 2.02 6.97 0.014 18 0.49 166 3.44 10.73 1.93 6.66 0.014 18 2.08 12 10.22 18.76 1.35 13.75 0.014 18 0.31 148 12.02 19.56 1.31 15.73 0.014 18 0.47 199 13.46 20.44 1.27 10.28 0.014 18 0.20 298 0.00 20.44 1.27 6.85 0.014 12 1.29 210 Page 1 of 2 - ---.. -- C.'cul~t~d b~: BTS CnOCKOd by: D.t"CM~e'~.;· P'p .. % V .Ioe F,o"" C.po., C .p.~ Full T'm. Room •• " (cr.) U ... " (,,1 • .,1 (.,.1 OA5 169 2.31 1.04 Existing No change in flow characteristic 1.13 118 3.25 0.49 Existing -No change in flow characteristic 2.07 129 2.63 0.68 Existing No change in flow characteristic 1.06 241 1.94 0.72 Existing -No change in flow characteristic 6.32 68 3.58 1.24 2.62 80 3.33 0.12 8.89 64 5.03 0.41 7.49 93 4.24 0.51 2.45 56 3.12 0.97 Slot Drain 3.31 39 4.21 0.04 Swale 7.62 99 4.31 0.52 Bypass 5.43 181 3.07 1.30 10.20 68 12.98 0.01 Parallel 12" SD Lines 6.83 102 3.86 0.72 14.07 47 7.96 0.03 5.43 25J 3.07 0.80 6.69 235 3.78 0.88 4.41 233 2.49 1.99 Assumed 60% of Iota I flow to Sub-basin A2 3.76 182 4.78 0.73 Assumed 40% of Iota 1 flow to Sub-basin Al - PRO): WO: DATE: Renton Municipal Airport, Taxiway B 23-2012-2012 1012/2012 PIPE SIZING (Runoff by Rational Method) (Pipe Capacity by Manning's Eqn.) FILE: H:\D0C\2JAo\10'1007 ReAtOIl TW B a: Sinut\Desifll\DraillUe\l20121002 Pipe Sizinfl Phase lI.xblPioc Sizia. lOOvr BASIN c~ c~ F,o_ L"" I"' I"" 0.9 I rrper vi OUS 0.25 La"", I "c. I "C, A,.. (~) A ••• ( •• ) To (1 ..... ..-v) (P ... ) I"' 1 m " 0 1"° 0 Iuur IU 0 'Sub-basm Az L"" IL"'N IL"'" I"' E7 E, E' I"' E' IUu, fiiEI IBii:i 1'°'" I"" , 4m2 1,,711 IU - 840 53603 0 0 0 40% 60% Iii!liiil I"". A .... R~norr $"_ ( .. ) Co." A"C A"C ." v.,v 1.22 1.22 v.vc v." 0.00 1.22 U.UU U.25 0.00 1.22 V.OL V.M 0.54 0.54 ,.,5 v." 0.96 14.42 U.,' U." 0.88 15.30 U." v.,O 0.88 16.18 u.uu U.s. 0.00 16.18 I:iiiiiIiJ ~; liiliiiI Storm: Renton 25 Year -. u. 2.66 (.ge KCSWDM pg 3·13) 0.65 (ua KCSWOM Pg 3·13) r. 3.4 (.n KCSWDM Pg 3 24*Hour Isopluvials T,,,,. o. RBI" CO". I n'"n. Runo .. " O,.m 50 p • L.ng'" (-'") (,n/", ) (Ch) V.tu. (,".") (%) {r._l 20.44 1.27 1.56 0.014 12 0.75 265 22.38 1.20 0.59 0.014 12 0.33 255 24.14 1.14 0.56 0.014 12 0.33 23 10.00 2.02 1.10 0.014 12 0.68 104 22.93 1.18 10.21 0.014 I' 0.42 157 23.66 1.16 10.62 0.014 I' 0.42 34 23.82 1.15 11.18 0.014 I' 0.42 203 24.77 1.12 10.90 0.014 I' 0.43 61 Page 2 of 2 IiiiiiiI IiiiiI liiiiiiil iIiiiiI IiiiiiI C.'CY'Gt8<1 by: BTS C" .. ok .. " by: D.,u Ch9Ck~": Pip. % V.'oe F,ow c ..... , C ... o" Full T'm. R.m.,,,. (Ch) U •• " (,J ••• ) (""n) 2.87 54 3.65 1.21 Slol Drain 1.90 3I 2.42 1.76 Existing -No change in flow characteristic 1.90 2. 2.42 0.16 Existing No change in flow characteristic 2.73 40 3.47 0.50 6.31 162 3.57 0.73 Existing No change in flow characteristic 6.32 168 3.58 0.16 Existing -No change in flow characteristic 6.32 177 3.58 0.95 Existing No change in flow characteristic 6.37 171 3.60 0.28 Existing -No change in flow characteri~tic __ UiI 'ail .-I iIiiI .. .. - lIB! PROJ: WO: DATE: -!!I!I l'!!!!!!I I!!!!!!!!I Renton Municipal Airport, Taxiway 8 23-2012-2012 10/212012 I!!I!!!I I!!!!!I!!I ---- PIPE SIZING (Runoff by Rational Method) (Pipe Capacity by Manning's Eqn.) - FILE: H:\D0C\2JAo\10\007 Rnloo TW B 6; SilrllU"c\De$ilro\Drai""e\l20121002 PiocSiziliP I Phuc: 1I.J:lslPioc Sit.iol! WOvr BASIN c~ c~ Fe"'", 0.9 I nper vi OUS 0.25 LaWl Inc. Inc. A,., ( •• 1 A, .. (Sf) T. (I m p.,~) (P ... I I~Ub-baslD AI It' "' I,m 0 I"" C"' ,.,5 28279 I"J "4 ImJU 0 IE4 BI 0 IC"I C"' I'" 7500 IC"' CB3 44107 21658 I CB ' C"4 0 0 ICB4 B7 35'" 21578 le"5 IcB6 32834 0 IC"O ILB7 0 0 IC"7 IcB, 0 0 IC"~ ICBI4 59m 81787 ILBII CBI2 1667j5 0 ICBll CBi3 0 0 Ic"13 BI. 0 ICBI4 Blo 0 0 IC "16 cBI, 7u623 58540 le"18 Bl" 57682 44030 IC"18 E5 0 0 I n~. Area Run"" ( .. I Coer NC v." V.,v 0.38 U." U.J~ 0.33 v.O' V.~v 0.61 U.UU U." 0.00 U." u.7J 0.50 1.51 0.b9 1.04 0.0 0.25 0,00 I.3U 0.65 0.85 0,75 0.9u 0.68 O.vv 0.L5 0.00 O.OU 0.25 0.00 3.L4 0.5L 1.69 3.oJ 0.9v 3.44 O.uu 0.25 0.00 V.vv 0."' 0.00 O.UU 0.25 0.00 2.'J7 0.01 1.80 l,33 U.02 1.44 O.UU 0." 0.00 $,_ A'C 038 0.71 1.31 1.31 2.51 1.04 3.55 4.40 0.68 0.68 5.08 6.78 ].44 ].44 ],44 10.22 12.02 13.46 0.00 Stonn: Renton 10 Year ". u, 2.44 (,~ .. KCSWDM pg 3-13) 0.64 (." .. KCSWDM pg 3-13) r. 2.9 ('~9 KC$WDM ~Q 3 24-Hour lsopluvials T'm.o, R.'n C."' I n'.n. Rynor< " D'sm Soop. L .... g<h (-"I (,n/he) (,,,I V _'u .. ('nch) (%1 (.·.1 10.00 1.62 0.62 0.014 6 0.76 145 11.04 1.52 1.07 0.014 8 1.02 96 \0.00 1.62 2.13 0.014 12 0.39 107 10,68 1.55 2.04 0.014 iO 0.27 84 12.94 1.37 3.46 0.014 18 0,42 266 10.00 1.62 1.68 0.014 12 0.63 23 14.29 1.29 4.58 0,014 18 0.83 125 14.71 1.27 5.58 0.014 18 0.59 130 10.00 1.62 1.10 0.014 12 0.55 181 10.97 1.53 1.04 0.014 12 1.00 9 16.22 1.19 6.04 0.014 18 0.61 135 16.74 1.17 7.90 0.014 18 0.31 240 10.00 1.62 5.58 0.014 12 2.]8 8 10.01 1.62 5.58 0.014 18 0.49 166 10.73 1.55 5.34 0.014 18 2.08 12 18.76 1.08 11.08 0.014 18 0.31 148 19.56 1.06 12.68 0.014 18 0.47 199 20.44 1.0] 8.29 0.014 18 0.20 29' 20.44 1.03 5.52 0.014 12 1.29 210 Page 1 of 2 - P'P" C.poe (,,,I 0.45 1.13 2.07 1.06 6.32 2.62 8.89 7.49 2.45 3.31 7.62 5.43 10.20 6.8] 14.07 5.4] 6.69 4.41 ].76 -- Cd'~y'atQd <>y: 8TS C,"".o " D.,. ChQ~ ... a: % Val"~ C .. " • ., FyOl U ... a (,,/ ••• 1 136 2.3\ 95 3.25 103 2.63 193 1.94 55 3.58 64 3.33 52 5.03 74 4.24 45 3,12 31 4.21 79 4.31 145 3.07 55 12.98 82 ].86 38 7.96 204 3.07 190 ].78 188 2.49 147 4.78 F, ....... T,,,,. (-"I 1.04 0,49 0.68 0.72 1.24 0.12 0,41 0.51 0,97 0.04 0,52 1.30 0.01 0.72 0.0] 0.80 0.88 1.99 0.7] .. - - - Romuk. Existing No change in flow characteristic Existing -No change in flow characteristic Existing -No change in flow characteristic Existing No change in flow characteristic Slot Drain Swale Bypass Parallel 12" SO Lines Assumed 60"10 oflotal flow to Sub-basin A2 Assumed 40% oftotaillow to Sub-basin Al PRO): WO: DATE: Renton Municipal Airport, Taxiway B 23-2012-2012 1012/2012 PIPE SIZING (Runoff by Rational Method) (Pipe Capacity by Manning's Eqn.) FILE: H:\D0C\23AD\l0'lD01 Rento.ll TW B &. Si~nU'e\Dcaitll.\Dr&iD_e\l20121002 Pioc Silillt I Phue I1.llslPiuc SiDlI1!' 100vr BASIN c~ c~ Fro ... LH" "' eo 0.9 I rrpervi aus 0.25 Lav.n Inc. Inc. Aru ( ... ) A, •• ( ... ) T. (I m._.) (p_.) "' 1''''' 0 I"' 0 IUUI IU 0 '.". ... m Al CB2N LD.N I""" 840 CBIN "' I"''' 53603 E7 "' 1 4m2 0 E8 IE9 1 4 .::711 0 E. luuT 0 :==:J~ 40% 60% I'l1iiil fjjji:l lBJ IiiiiiiU Inc. A, •• Runo'f (oo) C ....... A'C Uo u .• U 1.22 u.uu u." 0.00 v.~ v."' 0.00 v." U." 0.54 .. , VA • 0.96 0.9' U.90 0.88 0.9 U."" 0.88 U.OO U." 0.00 IiiiiiI iiiiii;I\ 5..m A'C 1.22 1.22 1.22 0.54 14.42 15.30 16.18 16.18 Iiiiiil Stonn: Renton 10 Year a. u. 2.44 ( .... KCSWDM P9 3-13) 0.64 ( ••• KCSWDM.o 3·13) r. 2.9 (.8<0 KCSWDM I>IiI 3 24-Hour Isopluvials T,meo, R.'n C ••• I nt.no Runorr . D'em Soop. L _ng'" (m .. ) ('n/". ) (cto) V.'u .. (.ncn) (%) (r .. «) 20.44 1.03 1.25 0.014 12 0.75 265 22.38 0.97 0.47 0.014 12 0.33 255 24.14 0.92 0.45 0.014 12 0.33 23 10.00 ].62 0.88 0.014 12 0.68 104 22.93 0.95 8.24 0.014 18 0.42 157 23.66 0.93 8.58 0.014 18 0.42 34 23.82 0.93 9.03 0.014 18 0.42 203 24.77 0.91 8.81 0.014 18 0.43 61 Page 2 of 2 IiiiiiiI Mil Iiliiiiiil -raJ c .. ,cu,""~ .. by: STS C"'''C''-Sd by: D ... C ..... c .... : P,,,. % V.,,,,, F,o .... C .... e C ..... '" Full T'me Rame .... (G'.) U .... ( .. I ... ) (m .. ) 2.87 44 3.65 1.21 Slot Drain 1.90 25 2.42 1.76 Existing -No change in flow characteristic 1.90 24 2.42 0.16 Existing No change in flow characteristic 2.73 32 3.47 0.50 6.31 131 3.57 0.73 Existing -No change in flow characteristic 6.32 136 3.58 0.16 Existing No change in flow characteristic 6.32 143 3.58 0.95 Existing -No change in flow characteristic 6.37 138 3.60 0.28 Existing No change in flow characteristic - IIIiIIIiI IiiiiiI IiiiIiI ---- - PROJ: WO: DATE: - - -... Renton Municipal Airport, Taxiway B 23-2012-2012 1012/2012 - -- --- PIPE SIZING (Runofl by Rational Method) (Pipe Capacity by Manning's Eqn.) - FILE: H:\D0C\23AD\10\001 R~to .. TW B &. Sif:nU"e\Deairn\Drainue\f20121002 PiDe Sizill. I Phase 1I.:dsIPioe Sizing I()()o.iy-BASIN c~ c~ F'<>m 0.9 I rrper vi ous 0.25 LalM1 Inc. I"", A.". (or) A,.o (.) T. (I mp." .. ) (P.,) un-baSin Al El t, 1,,,, 0 tL eel "" 28279 t, t4 2",v 0 M CBl IU 0 eel eB' Ill". 7500 eeL eB' 44107 21658 eB, eB' 0 0 B4 B7 352JY 21578 eB' ICB6 ,"'3' 0 B, leB7 0 0 Ltl7 B, 0 0 eB. eB14 1'·299 81787 Ltll ee12 1.,7,5 0 cBlL CB13 0 0 Bl, ILBl 0 0 Bl ILB1, 0 0 Lel. leBl' 706Li 58540 cBI, ICBIN 57682 44030 cBl, ES 0 0 J "e. Ar ... Ru "orr ( .. ) Co.,. A'C V,.L v,'v 0.38 U," U,,, 0.33 v,.7 V .• V 0.61 U,UU U.25 0.00 U,bI u,n 0.50 1.51 UM 1.04 u,uO U,L) 0.00 1.30 0,65 0.85 U,75 U,YU 0.68 v,OO v,L5 0.00 O,vv V.LS 0.00 ',L4 U,>L 1.69 ,." V,W 3.44 0.00 U,L) 0.00 0.00 v.,S 0.00 0,00 0.25 0.00 2.'J7 v .• l 1.80 Ljj U,62 1.44 O.OU U,LS 0.00 Stann: Renton 100 Year <I, 2.61 (,~" KCSWOM Pg 3-13) u, 0.63 (,~. KCSWOM ~~ 3-13) r, 3.9 (~~" KCSWDM 1'9 3 24-Hour Isopluvials Time or Rain So. C.o. I nc.n. RunOH 0 O'.m s.op. Len 9'" A'C (min) (,n/", ) (cr.) V .Iu .. (,nc .. ) (%) (fa_) 0.38 10.00 2.39 0.91 0.014 6 0.76 1'5 0.71 11.04 2.24 1.58 0.014 8 1.02 96 1.31 10.00 2.39 3. i3 0.014 12 0.39 107 1.31 10.68 2.29 3.00 0.014 10 0.27 84 2.51 12.94 2.03 5.10 0.014 18 0.42 266 1.04 10.00 2.39 2.47 0.014 12 0.63 23 3.55 14.29 1.91 6.77 0.014 18 0.83 125 4.40 14.71 1.87 8.24 0.014 18 0.59 130 0.68 10.00 2.39 1.62 0.014 12 0.55 181 0.68 10.97 2.25 1.53 0.014 12 1.00 9 5.08 16.22 1.76 8.94 0.014 18 0.6\ 135 6.78 16.74 1.71 11.69 0.014 18 0.31 240 3.44 10.00 2.39 8.22 0.014 12 2.38 8 3.44 10.01 2.38 8.21 0.014 18 0.49 166 3.44 10.73 2.28 7.87 0.014 18 2.08 12 10.22 18.76 1.61 16.41 0.014 18 0.31 148 12.02 19.56 1.56 18.79 0.014 18 0.47 199 13.46 20.44 1.52 12.28 0.014 18 0.20 298 0.00 20.44 1.52 8.19 0.014 12 1.29 210 Page 1 of 2 ------- C.'cu'"'~d 1>y: BTS ["H.ed I>y: D.tcC~~e.~<" Pip. % V _'ot: F,o"" C.P.c C .pac F ~" T'm" Rem •••• ( ... ) U • .,d ("I ... ) (.'0) 0.45 200 2.31 1.04 Existing -No change in flow characteristic 1.13 1'0 3.25 0.49 Existing -No change in flow characteristic 2.07 152 2.63 0.68 Existing -No change in flow characteristic 1.06 284 1.94 0.72 Existing No change in flow characteristic 6.32 81 3.58 1.24 2.62 95 3.33 0.12 8.89 76 5.03 0.41 7.49 110 4.24 0.51 2.45 66 3.12 0.97 Slot Drain 3.31 46 4.21 0.04 Swale 7.62 117 4.31 0.52 Bypass 5.43 215 3.07 1.30 10.20 81 12.98 0.01 Parallel 12" SD Lines 6.83 120 3.86 0.72 14.07 56 7.96 0.03 5.43 302 3.07 0.80 6.69 281 3.78 0.88 4.41 279 2.49 1.99 Assumed 60% of total now to Sub-basin A2 3.76 218 4.78 0.73 Assumed 40% of Iota 1 flow to Sub-basin Al PRO): WO: DATE: FILE: c~ c~ From Ltlll "' E6 Renton Municipal Airport, Taxiway B 23-2012-2012 10/2/2012 PIPE SIZING (Runoff by Rational Method) (Pipe Capacity by Manning's Eqn.) H:\D0C\23AuUOID01 Rmlotl TW B A Sja.aue\DcsillPa\Draia.eV10121002 Piue Sidu I PiuoK lI.xblPioc SinDIIP lOOvr BASIN Stonn: Renton 100 Year 0.9 I rrpervi ous 0.25 LaW) -, u, 2.61 (~U KCSWDM p~ 3-13) 0.63 I, •• KCSWDM "" 3·13) r, 3.9 (.n KCSWDM pg 3 24-Hour Isopluvials I ne. I ne. j nco TI '" .. o. R.'n A, •• ( ... ) Aco, I.) A,,,. R .. no" S.m C ••• Int ..... R .. " .... . D,.m Soo .. a L.ngth T. (1m ••• ) (P •• ) (,.) Co .... A'C A'C ( ... In) (,,,/h' ) (cr.) V., ..... (.n cn ) (%) ( .. 01 "' ,ym 0 130 U.9U 1.22 1.22 20.44 1.52 1.86 0.014 12 0.75 265 "b 0 U.UU U.2> 0.00 1.22 22.38 1.44 0.70 0.014 12 0.33 255 UUT 0 U.U" ".L' 0.00 1.22 24.14 1.37 0.67 0.014 12 0.33 23 Sub-baslD AI CtlLN c"" LbU, Ltl'N "' .. " E7 "' 42712 E, "' 4.L711 109 UUT 0 Iiiiliiiil IiiiiiI IIiIiI 840 53603 0 0 0 40% 60% 151 U .• 2 U." 0.54 .. y, UM 0.96 v." u.'u 0.88 v.y, U.YU 0.88 O.~ v.," 0.00 -IIiIiIiil 0.54 to.OO 2.39 1.30 0.014 12 0.68 104 14.42 22.93 1.41 12.24 0.014 18 0.42 157 15.30 23.66 1.39 12.73 0.014 18 0.42 34 16.18 23.82 1.38 13.41 0.014 18 0.42 203 16.18 24.77 1.35 13.08 0.014 18 0.43 61 Page 2 of 2 &iJ IiiiiiiI IIiiilil iiiiiI &iiEJ filiiil Ca'cu'ata" by: 8TS Chac •• " by: Oa<~ Ch.C .... : P,,,. % V.'"e F,o_ C ...... C.pac Full T, .... R"",u •• (cr.) U ..... (nf".) (m,.1 2.87 6S 3.65 \.21 Slot Drain 1.90 37 2.42 1.76 Existing No change in flow characteristic 1.90 35 2.42 0.16 Existing -No change in flow characteristic 2.73 48 3.47 0.50 6.31 194 3.57 0.73 Existing -No change in flow characteristic 6.32 201 3.58 0.16 Existing -No change in flow characteristic 6.32 212 3.58 0.95 Existing -No change in flow characteristic 6.37 206 3.60 0.28 Existing No change in flow characteristic ~ ~ iiiiJ IiiiiiiiiJ Iiiiiid iiiiiiI iiiiiiiiil I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Runoff Coefficients for Rational Method Source: King County Surface Water Design Manual 2009, Table 3.2.1.A Land Cover Dense forest Light forest Pasture Lawns Playgrounds Gravel areas Pavement and roofs General Land Covers Open water (pond, lakes, wetlands) Single Family Residential Areas Land Cover Density 0.20 DUiGA (I unit per 5 ac.) 0.40 DUiGA (! unit per 2.5 ac.) 0.80 DU/GA (I unit per 1.25 ac.) 1.00 DUiGA 1.50 DU/GA 2.00 DUiGA 2.50 DUiGA 3.00 DUiGA 3.50 DU/GA 4.00 DU/GA 4.50 DU/GA 5.00 DUiGA 5.50 DUiGA 6.00 DU/GA C 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.80 0.90 1.00 C 0.17 0.20 0.27 0.30 0.33 0.36 0.39 0.42 0.45 0.48 0.51 0.54 0.57 0.60 Source: King County Surface Water Design Manual 2009, Table 3.2.1.B Coefficients for the Rational Method Design Storm aR bR 2 Year 1.58 0.58 5 Year 2.33 0.63 10 Yea, 2.44 0.64 25 Year 2.66 0.65 50 Yea, 2.75 0.65 100 Yea, 2.61 0.63 I I I I I fi I I I I I I I I I I I I II SECTION 3.2 RUNOFF COMPUTATION AND ANALYSIS METHODS FIGURE 3.2.I.A 2-YEAR 24-HOUR ISOPLUVIALS WESTERN KING COUNTY 2-Year 24-Hour Precipitation in Inches 1/912009 o 2 4 Miles , , ! 3·14 .. 2009 Surface Water Design Manual FIGURE 3.2.I.B IO-YEAR24-HOUR ISOPLUVIALS WESTERN KING COUNTY 10-Year 24-Hour Precipitation in Inches 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 9 2 4 Miles , , 3-15 3.2.1 RATIONAL METHOD 4.0 .. 4.5 1'-4.0 11912009 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I M I I I I I I I I I I I I SECTION 3.2 RUNOFF COMPUTATION AND ANALYSIS METHODS FIGURE 3.2.I.C 2S-YEAR 24-HOUR ISOPLUVIALS WESTERN KING COUNTY 25-Year 24-Hour Precipitation in Inches 119/2009 o 2 4M~e, , , 3-16 .. 2009 Surface Water Design Manual FIGURE 3.2.1.0 IOO-YEAR 24-HOUR ISOPLUVIALS WIESTIERN il{~NG COIUlNTY 100-Year 24-Hour Precipitation in Inches 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 0i.:' =,lo~ ...",,,,j1 Mil08 3-17 3.2.1 RATIONAL METHOD 119/2009 I I I I I I I I I I ~ 00 m I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .' I I I I PROJECT: Renton Municipal Airport, Taxiway B, Phase II PROJ NO.: 23-2010-007 DATE: 10112/2012 FILE: H:\DOC\23Ap\IOl007 Renton TW B & Signage',Dc,ign\Drainage\[Pipc Loading -Phase lI.xJsx)Thicknes> Cales Pipe Sections "From" "To" CBI CB3 CB5 CB6 CBll CB12 CBI2 CB13 CB18 E5 CB1N E8 IE = Invert Elevation CB = Catcb Basin EOA = Edge of Asphalt CL = Centerline Approx. = Approximate No. = Number CB "From" IE Pipe Diameter Approx. (ft) (in) Stationing 26.34 18 12+38 26.64 12 17+69 24.1 12 21+51 23.81 18 21+51 21.01 12 25+08 20.3 18 28+30 Pipe Slope 0.42% 0.55% 1.10% 0.49% 1.29% 0.42% DEPTH OF PIPE COVER Length of Pipe to Asphalt Crown of Pipe EOA CL EOA EOA CL EOA 0 59 126 27.84 27.59 27.31 0 69 115 27.64 27.26 27.01 0 ----25.10 -- -- 0 57 106 25.31 25.03 24.79 56 101 210 21.2876 20.71 19.30 49 63 189 21.59 21.54 21.01 Page 1 of 1 Top of Asphalt EOA CL EOA 30.2 31.06 30.77 28.64 29.36 28.71 26.2 ---- 26.33 26.93 26.28 24.9 25.56 24.84 24.86 25.17 -- EOA 2.4 1.0 1.1 1.0 3.6 3.3 Calculated by: BTS Checked by: Date Checked: Depth to Cover CL EOA 3.5 3.5 2.1 1.7 ---- 1.9 1.5 4.9 5.5 3.6 -- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I THICKNESS DESIGN FOR DUCTILE IRON PIPE PROJECT: Renton Municipal Airport, Taxiway B, Phase II Calculated by: BTS PRO] NO.: 23-2010-007 Checked by: DATE: 1011212012 Date Checked: FILE: H,\DOCU3i\pI\O\{)01 Renlon 1W B &: Sj~'Ulgc\De.i(l.ll\DIail\a~c\[pi~. Lu.tdm& -Ptw. IblsxJThidneu ClIlo:o Define: Detennine the required pipe thickness to withstand truck loads at shallow depths. There are 4 scenarios where DIP possess < 3 ft of cover: 12 in @ I ft, 18 in @ 1.0 ft, 12 in @ 1.5 ft, and 18 in @ 2 ft. The methods set forth by ANSIIAWWA CI50/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, ANSIIAWWA CI50/A21.50-02 Solve: Design Vehicle (737-800) = 130,000 pounds Percent of Load = 46.79 % No. of Wheels = P (truck load) = w= 120 a= 144 R= R= 0.85 F= 1.5 Iblft' in'lft' 2 30413.5 pounds Road Reduction Factor for cover < 4 ft and pipe diameter between 3-12 in (Table 4, ANSII A WW A CI501 A21.50-02) Road Reduction Factor for cover < 4 ft and pipe diameter between 18 in (Table 4, ANSII A WW A C 150/ A21.50-02) Impact factor (ASCE Manual No. 37) Step I -Design fa,. internal pressure For ordinary conditions, stonn 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 stonn system. Step 2 -Designfor trench load a.) Earth Load Table 1: Earth Load Depth, H (ft) 1.0 1.5 2.0 b.) Truck Load Earth Pressure (psi) 0.8333 1.2500 1.6667 wH a C-I-~Sirfl[HI A'+H'+1.5' ]+~( 1.5AH I I +---:-'.I---.,.J -:r 'V (A' +H')(I.5' +H') :r ~A' +H' +1.5' A' +H' 1.5' +H' 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 I CbD'P I P, -RF . Table 3: Truck Load Depth, H (ft) 1.0 1.0 1.5 2.0 c.) Trench Load Depth, H !ft! 1.0 1.0 1.5 2.0 Nominal Pipe Diameter (in) 12 18 12 18 OD of Pipe, D (ft) 13.20 19.50 13.20 19.50 Table 4: Trencb Load Nominal Pipe Trench Load, Pv Diameter !in2 !psi) 12 54.80 18 39.97 12 37.44 18 21.87 d.) Net Thickness for Bending Stress Design Effective Length of Truck Load, P t Pipe, b (in) (psi) 36.00 53.96 36.00 39.14 36.00 36.19 36.00 20.21 I~ Nole: Refer to Table 10 of AWWA C J50/A2 1.50-02 for diameter-thickness ratios for Type 4 laying conditions. Round up the trench loads to the next highest corresponding bending ·stress design figure. D (D / t ) Table 5: Net Thickness Depth, H Nominal Pipe Diameter OD ofPipe,D Trench Load, P v Thickness Ratio, Net 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 2 014 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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 = Service Allowance = Min Manufacturing Thickness = 0.29 in 0.08 in 0.37 in b.) Minimum Manufacturing Thickness - H = 1.0 ft; D = 18 in Net Thickness = Service Allowance = Min Manufacturing Thickness = 0.34 in 0.08 in 0.42 in c.) Minimum Manufacturing Thickness - H = 1.5 ft; D = 12 in Net Thickness = Service Allowance = Min Manufacturing Thickness = 0.22 in 0.08 in 0.30 in d.) Minimum Manufacturing Thickness -H = 2.0 ft; D = 18 in Net Thickness = Service Allowance = Min Manufacturing Thickness = 0.19 in 0.08 in 0.27 in Note: a service allowance of 0.08 inches is added to the net thickness per Section 4.1.3.b of ANSII A WW A C150IA21.50-02. Step 4 -Check Deflection oj the Pipe Note: Refer to Table 10 of ANSIIAWWA C1501A21.50-02 for diameter-thicknessratios for Type 4 laying conditions. Round up the trench loads to the next highest corresponding deflection check. Table 6: Pipe Deflection Depth, H Nominal Pipe OD of Pipe, D Trench Load, P v Diameter (ft) (in) (ft) (psi) 1.0 12 13.20 54.80 1.0 18 19.50 39.97 1.5 12 13.20 37.44 2.0 18 19.50 21.87 Minimum Manufacturing Thickness> Deflection D (D / t 1 ) Thickness Ratio, Thickness Dlt 48 55 57 75 (in) 0.28 0.35 0.23 0.26 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 (in) 10 -12 14 -42 Casting Allowance (in) 0.06 0.07 "Note: the table information was derived from Table 3 of ANSI/A WW A CI50/A21.50-02 a.J Total Thickness -H ~ 1 ft; D ~ 12 in Min Manufacturing Thickness = Casting Tolerance = Total Thickness = Total Thickness = Class 54 (0.43 inches) 0.37 in 0.06 in 0.43 in 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 = Casting Tolerance = Total Thickness = Total Thickness < Class 55 (0.50 inches) 0.42 in 0.07 in 0.49 in Therefore, the minimum Special Class pipe required for this scenario is Class 55 c.) Total Thickness -H ~ I.S ft; D = 12 in Min Manufacturing Thickness = Casting Tolerance = Total Thickness = Total Thickness < Class 52 (0.37 inches) 0.30 in 0.06 in 0.36 in 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 = Casting Tolerance = Total Thickness = Total Thickness < Class 50 (0.35 inches) 0.27 in 0.07 in 0.34 in Therefore, the minimum Special Class pipe required for this scenario is Class 50 Page 4 of 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ., ~ I!!!!!!!!I - Original bond computations prepared by: ----------Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet Name: Benjamin Sommer PE Registration Number: 45892 Finn Name: Reid Middleton, Inc. Address: 728 134th Street SW, Suite 200, I;v~rett, WA 98204 -- -- Date: 10.16.12 To'.#, (425) 741-3800 Project No: 232010.007 ROAD IMPROVEMENTS & DRAINAGE FACILITIES FINANCIAL GUARANTEE REQUIREMENTS Stabilization/Erosion Sediment Control (ESC) (A) Existlng Right-of·Way Improvements (8) Future Public Road Improvements & Drainage Facilities (e) Private Improvements (D) Performance Bond· Amount (A+B+C+D) TOTAL (T) Maintenance/Defect Bond· Total NAME OF PERSON PREPARING BOND' REDUCTION: $ $ $ $ PERFORMANCE BOND",U AMOUNT NA"*", 8,687,968.7 8,687,968.7 Minimum bond· amount is $1000. * NOTE: The word ~bond" as used in this document means any financial guarantee acceptable to the City of Renton . ... NOTE: AD prices include tabor, equipment, materials, overhead and profit. Prices are from RS Means data adjusted for the Seattle area or from local sources if nol included in the RS Means database . ..... NOTE: SlabilizationiErosion Sediment Control (ESC) worksheet is not included in the City of Renlon 2009 Surtace Water Design Manual Amendment, Reference 8-H. REQUIRED BOND" AMOUNTS ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND MODIFICATION BY RDSO Page 1 of 7 Bond Quantities Worksheet PUBLIC ROAD & DRAINAGE MAINTENANCEJDEFECT (B+C) x 0.20 = $ BONO",- 1,737,593.7 Dale: Unit prices updated: 02112102 Version: 4/22/02 Report Date: 1011612012 - GENERAL ITEMS 8ackfiD & Compaction-embankment BackfiD & Compaction-trench Clear/Remove Brush, by hand Clearing/GrubbingITree Removal Excavation -bulk Excavation -Trench Fencing, cedar, 6' high Fencing, chain link, vinyl coated, S' high Fencing, chain link, Qate, vinyl coated, 20' FencinIJ, split rail, 3' hiIJh FiB & compact· common barrow FiB & compact· gravel base FiB & compact -screened topsoil Gabion, 12N deep, stone filled mesh Gabion, 18N deep, stone fiDed mesh Gabion, 36~ deep, slone tiDed mesh Grading, fine, by hand Grading, fine, with grader Monuments, 3' long Sensitive Areas Sign Sodding, 1" deep, sloped ground Surveying. ~ne & grade Surveying. lot Iocationl\ines Traffic control crew {2 ftaaaers Trail, 4" chipped wood Trail, 4" crushed cinder Trail, 4-top course Wan, retainina, concrete Wan, rockery Page 2 of 7 Bond Quantities Worksheet fiiiiiiIliil ~ fiiiiiliiil !Mil Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet Existing Future Public Private Right-of-Way Road Improvements Improvements & Drainage FacllltJes I Number Unit Price Unit Quant I Coo Quant. I Cost Quant. Cost GI-1 $ 5.62 CY 0.00 0.00 0,00 GI-2 $ 8.53 CY 0.00. 0.00 0.00 GI-3 $ 0,36 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 GI-4 $ 6,876.16 Acre 0.00 0.00 0.00 GI-5 $ 1.50 CY 0.00 8800 13,200.00 0.00 GI-6 $ 4.06 CY 0.00 0.00 0.00 GI-7 $ 18.55 LF 0.00 0.00 0.00 GI-8 $ 13.44 LF 0.00 50 672.00 0.00 GI-9 $ 1,271.B1 Each 0.00 1 1,271.81 0.00 GI·10 $ 12.12 LF 0.00 0.00 0.00 GI·l1 $ 22.57 CY 0.00 6700 151,219.00 0.00 GI·12 $ 25.48 CY 0.00 0.00 0.00 GI·13 $ 37.85 CY 0.00 1000 37,850.00 0.00 GI·14 $ 54.31 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 GI·15 $ 74.85 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 GI·16 $ 132.48 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 GI-17 $ 2.02 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 GI·18 $ 0.95 SY 0.00 12000 11,400.00 0.00 GI·19 $ 135.13 Each 0.00 0.00 0.00 GI-20 $ 2.88 Each 0.00 0.00 0.00 GI-21 $ 7.46 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 GI-22 $ 788.26 Day 0.00 0.00 0.00 GI·23 $ 1,556.64 Acre 0.00 24.4 37,982.02 0.00 GI·24 $ 85.18 HR 0.00 0.00 0.00 GI-25 $ 7.59 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 GI-26 $ 8.33 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 GI·27 $ 8.19 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 GI-28 $ 44.16 SF 0.00 0.00 0.00 GI-29 $ 9.49 SF 0.00 0.00 0.00 -------- SUBTOTAL 0.00 253,594.83 0.00 -.. ---8iJ .. Iiiiiil fI!iiiIiiI IiiiiiJ Quantfty Completed : (Bond Reduction)· Quant Comdete - - IIiiiiiiJ I Cost 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Unit prices updated: 02/12/02 Version: 4122102 Report Date: 10/16/2012 IiIiiiiil IilIIiiI IIIiiiil IiiiiJ -- -- ----------Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet Existing Fufure Public Private Right-of-way Road Improvements Improvements & Drainage Facilities Number Unit Price Unit Quant I Cost Quant. Cost Quant I Cost ROAD IMPROVEMENT AC Grindina. 4' wide machine <: 1000sy RI-1 $ 23.00 SY 0.00 45. 10,350.00 AC Grindina, 4' wide machine 1000-2000sv RI-2 $ 5.75 SY 0.00 0.00 AC Grinding, 4' wide machine> 2000sv RI-3 $ 1.38 SY 0.00 0.00 AC RemovaVDisposaVRepair RI-4 $ 41.14 SY 0,00 11200 460,768.00 Barricade, type I RI-5 $ 30.03 LF 0.00 0.00 Barricade, type III ( Permanen~) RI - 6 $ 45.05 LF 0.00 0.00 Curb & Gutter, roled RI-7 $ 13.27 LF 0,00 0.00 Curb & Gutter, vertical RI-8 $ 9.69 LF 0.00 0.00 Curb and Gutter, demolition and disposal RI-9 $ 13.56 LF 0.00 0.00 Curb, extruded asphalt RI-10 $ 2.44 LF 0.00 0.00 Curb, extruded concrete RI-11 $ 2.56 LF 0.00 0.00 Sawcul asphalt, 3" depth RI-12 $ 1.65 LF 0.00 85. 1,572.50 Sawcul concrete, per 1~ depth RI-13 $ 1.69 LF 0.00 0.00 Sealant, asphalt RI-14 $ 0.99 LF 0.00 0.00 Shoulder, AC, (see AC road unit price) RI-15 $ -SY 0.00 0.00 Shoulder, aravel, 4~ thick RI-16 $ 7.53 SY 0.00 0.00 Sidewalk, 4" thick RI-17 $ 30.52 SY 0.00 0.00 Sidewalk, 4" thick, demolition and di~osal RI-18 $ 27.73 SY 0.00 0.00 Sidewalk, 5" thick RI-19 $ 34.94 SY 0.00 0.00 Sidewalk, 5" thick, demolition and disposal RI-20 $ 34.65 SY 0.00 0.00 Sign, handicap RI-21 $ 85.26 Each 0.00 0.00 Striping, per stan RI-22 $ 5.82 Each 0.00 0.00 Striping, thermoplastic, l for crosswalk) RI-23 $ 2.38 SF 0.00 0.00 Stripi!lg,~~ reflectorized line -RI-24 $ 0.25 LF -0.00 0.00 - - Page 3 of7 SUBTOTAL 0.00 472,690.50 Bond Quantities Worksheet 0.00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- -- Bond Reduction· Quant. Complete Cost 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Unit prices updated: 02112102 Version: 4/22102 Report Date: 10116/2012 - Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet Existing Future Public Private Right-of-way Road Improvements Improvements & Drainage Facilities Number Unit Price Unit Quant. Cost Quant I Cost Quant. Cost ROAD SURFACING (4" Rock = 2.5 base & 1.5" top course) For '93 KCRS (6.5" Rock-5" base & 1S top course) For KCRS '93, (additional 2.5" base) add: RS-1 $ 3.80 SY 0,00 0.00 0.00 AC Overlay, 1.5" AC RS-2 S 7.39 SY 0.00 0.00 0,00 AC Overtav, 2" AC RS-3 $ 8.75 SY 0,00 0.00 0.00 AC Road, 2", 4" rock, First 2500 SY R54 $ 17.24 SY 0.00 0.00 0,00 AC Road, 2", ." rock, Qty. over 2500SY RS-S S 13.36 SY 0.00 0,00 0,00 AC Road, 3", 4" rock, First 2500 SY RS-<; $ 19.69 SY 0,00 0.00 0.00 AC Road, 3", 4" rock, Qty. over 2500 SY RS-7 S 15.81 SY 0,00 0.00 0.00 AC Road, 5", First 2500 SY RS-<; S 14.57 SY 0.00 0.00 0,00 AC Road, 5H , Qty. Over 2500 SY RS-9 S 13.94 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 AC Road, 6", First 2500 SY RS-10 $ 16.76 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 AC Road, 6", Qty. Over 2500 SY RS-11 $ 16.12 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Treated Base, 4"thick RS-12 $ 9.21 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 Gravel Road, 4" rock, First 2500 SY RS-13 $ 11.41 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 Gravel Road, 4" rock, Oty. over 2500 SY RS-14 $ 7.53 SY 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 PCC Road, 6", no base, over 2500 SY RS-1S S 21.67 SY 0.00 0.00 0.00 Thickened Edge RS-17 S 6.69 LF 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page 4 of 7 SUBTOTAL 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bond Quantities Worksheet ----.. --Mil lIE -IliIIiIJ Iii!IiiJ Iiiiiiiiil iiiiiiiiI Bond Reduction* Quant Complete IiiiiiiiJ Cost 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Unit prices updated: 02112102 Version: 4/22102 Report Date: 1011612012 IiiiIIiiJ IiiIIJ IiIlIlIIiI Il&J IIIl!!!!J ~ ------------Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet Existing Future Public Private Right-of.way Road Improvements Improvements & Drainage Facilities Number Unit Price Unit Quant Cost Quant I Cost Quant. I Cost - - -- Bond Reduction~ Quant. Comclete Cost DRAINAGE (CPP'" Corrugated Plastic Pipe" N12 or Equivalent) For Culvert prices, AveraQe of 4' cover was asstnled. Assume perforated PVC Is same price as solid pine. Access Road, RID D - 1 $ 16.74 Bollards -fixed D-2 $ 240.74 Bollards -removable D-3 $ 452.34 • (CBs indude frame and lid) CS Type I D-' S 1,257.64 CS Type IL D-S S 1,433.59 CB Type II, 48" diameter D-6 $ 2,033.57 for additional depth over 4' D-7 $ 436.52 CB Type II, 54" diameter D-' $ 2,192.54 for additional depth over 4' D-. $ 486.53 CB Type II, 60" diameter 0-10 $ 2,351.52 for additional depth over 4' 0-11 $ 536.54 CB Type II, 72" diameter 0-12 $ 3,212.64 for additional depth over 4' 0-13 $ 692.21 Throuah<urb Inlet Framework (Add) 0-14 $ 366.09 Cleanout, PVC, 4" 0-15 $ 130.55 Cleanout, PVC, 6" 0-16 $ 174.90 Cleanout, PVC, B" 0-17 $ 224.19 Culvert, PVC, 4~ 0-18 $ 8.64 Culvert, PVC, 6" 0-19 $ 12.60 Culvert, PVC, 8" 0-20 $ 13.33 Culvert, PVC, 12" 0-21 $ 21.77 Culvert, CMP, 8" 0-22 $ 17.25 Culvert, CMP, 12" 0-23 $ 26.45 Culvert, CMP, 15" 0-24 $ 32.73 Culvert, CMP, 18" 0-25 $ 37.74 Culvert, CMP, 24" 0-26 $ 53.33 Culvert, CMP, 30" 0-27 $ 71.45 Culvert, CMP, 36" 0-28 $ 112.11 Culvert, CMP, 48" 0-29 $ 140.83 Culvert, CMP, 60" 0-30 $ 235.45 Culvert, CMP, 72" 0-31 $ 302.58 Page 5 of 7 SUBTOTAL Bood Quantities Worksheet SY 0,00 250 Each 0,00 Each 0.00 Each 0.00 6 Each 0,00 2 Each 0,00 • FT 0.00 Each 0.00 FT 0.00 Each 0.00 1 FT 0.00 Each 0.00 FT 0.00 Each 0.00 Each 0.00 Each 0.00 20 Each 0.00 LF 0.00 LF 0.00 3000 LF 0.00 LF 0.00 LF 0.00 LF 0.00 LF 0.00 LF 0.00 LF 0.00 LF 0.00 LF 0.00 LF 0.00 LF 0.00 LF 0.00 0.00 4,185.00 0,00 0.00 7,545.84 2,867.18 18,302.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,351.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,498.00 0.00 0.00 37,800.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 76,549.67 0,00 0,00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Unit prices updated: 02112102 Version: 4/22102 Report Date: 10/16/2012 - DRAINAGE CONTINUED Culvert. Concrete, 8H Culvert, Concrete, 12" Culvert, Concrete, 15" Culvert, Concrete, 18" Culvert. Concrete, 24" Culvert, Concrete, 30" Culvert, Concrete, 3S" Culvert, Concrete, 42" Culvert, Concrete, 48" Culvert, CPP, 6" Culvert, CPP, 8" Culvert, CPP, 12~ Culvert, CPP, 15" Culvert, CPP, 18" Culvert, CPP. 24" Culvert, CPP. 30~ Culvert, CPP, 3S" Ditching Flow Dispersal Trench (1,436 base+) French Drain (3' depth) Geotextile, laid in trench, polypropylene Infiltration pond testing Mid-tank Access Riser, 48" dis, 6' deep Pond Overflow Spilway Restrictor/Oil Separator, 12" Restrictor/Oil Separator, 15" Restrictor/Oil Separator, 18" Rip",P. placed Tank End Reducer 36" diameter) Trash Rack, 12" Trash Rack, 15" Trash Rack, 18" Trash Rack, 21ft Page6of7 Bond Quantities Worksheet iIiiIIiI ~ .-I - Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet Existing Future Public Private Right-of-way Road Improvements lmprovemltnts & Drainage Facilitie. Number Unit Price Unit Quant Cost Quanl Cost Quant. Cost 0-32 $ 21.02 LF 0 0 0 0-33 $ 30.05 LF 0 0 0 D-34 $ 37.34 LF 0 0 0 0-35 $ 44.51 LF 0 0 0 0-36 $ 61.07 LF 0 0 0 0-37 $ 104.18 LF 0 0 0 0-38 $ 137.63 LF 0 0 0 0-39 $ 158.42 LF 0 0 0 0-40 $ 175.94 LF 0 0 0 0-41 $ 10.70 LF 0 0 0 0-42 $ 16.10 LF 0 0 0 0-43 $ 20.70 LF 0 0 0 0-44 $ 23,00 LF 0 0 0 0-45 $ 27.60 LF 0 0 0 0-46 $ 36.80 LF 0 0 0 0-47 $ 48,30 LF 0 0 0 0-48 $ 55.20 LF 0 0 0 0-49 $ B,08 CY 0 0 0 0-50 $ 25.99 LF 0 0 0 0-51 $ 22.60 LF 0 0 0 0-52 $ 2.40 SY 0 0 0 0-53 $ 74.75 HR 0 0 0 0-54 $ 1,605.40 Each 0 0 0 0-55 $ 14.01 SY 0 0 0 0-56 $ 1,045,19 Ea'" 0 0 0 0-57 $ 1,095.56 Each 0 0 0 0-58 $ 1,146.16 Ea'" 0 0 0 0-59 $ 39.08 CY 0 0 0 0-60 $ 1,000.50 Ea'" 0 0 0 0-61 $ 211.97 Ea'" 0 4 847.88 0 0-62 $ 237.27 Ea'" 0 0 0 0-63 $ 268.89 Ea'" 0 0 0 0-64 $ 306.84 Ea'" 0 0 0 SUBTOTAL 0.00 847.88 0.00 .. --~ ~ .. -Ii!IIiiI Iiiiiiiil Iili'iiI Bond ReducUon* Quant Complete iiiiiI Cost 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 Unit prices updated: 02112102 Version: 4/22102 Report Date: 10/16/2012 IiiiiiiiiII IIlllilW ~ IiiiiiiJ I!!!!!!!!!I -- -----------Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet Existing Future Publie Privabt Rlght~f-way Road Improvements Improvements & Drainage Facilities J.Number Unit Price Unit Quant. I Price Quant. I Cost Quant. I Cost PARKING LOT SURFACING 2" AG, 2" top course rock & 4" borrow PL-1 $ 15.84 SY 0 0 2" AG, 1.5" top course & 2.5" base course Pl-2 $ 17.24 SY 0 0 4" select borrow PL - 3 $ 4.55 SY 0 0 1.5" top course rock & 2.5~ base course PL - 4 $ 11.41 SY 0 0 WRITE·IN·ITEMS (Such as detention/water quality vaults.) Slotted Drain System WI-1 $ 250.00 LF 0 1150 287,500.00 Culvert, DIP, 12" WI-2 $ 90.00 LF 0 50. 45,810,00 Culvert, DIP. 18" WI-3 $ 105.00 LF 0 1614 169,470.00 Asphalt Surface Course 4", 2" Te, 12" Be WI-4 $ 22.00 SF 0 235645 5,164,190.00 Biofittration Swale WI ·5 $ 60,00 LF 0 200 12,000.00 Thermoplastic Pavement Marking WI·6 $ 22.00 SF 0 8200 180,400.00 SF 0 0.00 LF 0 0.00 LF 0 0.00 --._--- SUBTOTAL 0.00 5.879.370.00 SUBTOTAL (SUM ALL PAGES): 0.00 6,683,052.88 JOY. CONTINGENCY & MOBILIZATION: 0.00 2,004.915.86 GRANDTOTAL: 0.00 8,667.968.74 COLUMN: B C D Page 7 of 7 Bond Quantities Worksheet 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ---- Bond Reduction" Quant. Comolete - - Cost 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 E Unit prices updated: 02/12102 Version: 4122102 Report Date: 10/16/2012 - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL STORMW ATER FACILITY SUMMARY SHEET DOES Permit Number PRE12-012 (provide one Stormwater Facility Summary Sheet per Natural Discharge Location) Overview: Project Name _C-.:i",ly,-o.;.cf,-,R,-,-"en",t-,-o",n-.:T--,-a-,--x-,iw-,--a""Y,-B::::....:S,-"Y-"s.;..:te-"m;;;....:-R-'-e_ha--'b:..:i"'li=ta"'ti'--o.;...n...,(_Ph_a_s_e_I--<I)c-__ .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'----____________________________ _ Ifnone, Flow control provided in regional/shared facility (give location)--'Nc:/c:.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 OrificeslRestrictions Size of Orifice/Restriction: No. I No.2 _____ _ No.3 No.4 _____ _ Flow Control Performance Standard ______________ _ 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1 1/9/2009 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"-I'-'-A.!-_____ _ Dam Safety Regulations (Washington State Department of Ecology) Reservoir Volume above natural grade --,N:...::..:I A-=-____ _ Depth of Reservoir above natural grade _N=I A'"'-____ _ Facility Summary Sheet Sketch All detention, infiltration and water quality facilities must include a detailed sketch. (II "xI7" reduced size plan sheets may be used) N/A 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I • 1/912009 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL Water Quality: Type/Number of water quality facilities/BMPs: large) above X biofiltration swale @gul~etl or continuous inflow) large) ___ combined detentionlwetpond --- (wetpond portion basic or large) combined detentionlwetvault X filter strip ___ flow dispersion ___ farm management plan ___ landscape management plan ___ oil/water separator (baffle or coalescing plate) Liner? --------------- ___ catch basin inserts: ___ sand filter (basic or large) ___ sand filter, linear (basic or ___ sand filter vault (basic or sand bed depth ___ (inches) ___ storm water wetland ___ storm filter ___ wetpond (basic or large) ___ wetvault ___ Is facility Lined? If so, what marker is used ~anufacrurer ______________________________________ ___ ___ pre-settling pond ___ pre-settling strucrure: ~anufucrurer ______________________________________ _ ___ 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 -!N.:.;0"'rt""h"-'.,F"'ac"'i"-!li-'.ltv"':"'0"'.2""9:...:c"'f""s ____ _ Water Quality treated volume (sandfilter) ________ _ Water Quality storage volume (wetpool) _______ _ Facility Summary Sheet Sketch 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 3 1/9/2009 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL All detention, infiltration and water quality facilities must include a detailed sketch. (II "xI7" 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 4 1/9/2009 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES I NO.4 -CONTROL STRUCTURE/FLOW RESTRICTOR Maintenance Defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is Performed I 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. I 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. I Deposits of garbage exceeding 1 cubic foot in No condition present which would volume. attract or support the breeding of insects or rodents. I 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 I 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 inlo Ihe slreel (If applicable). I Top slab has holes larger than 2 square inches or Top slab is free of holes and cracks. cracks wider than X inch. Frame not siUing flush on top slab, i.e., Frame is sitting flush on top slab. I separation of more than % inch of the frame from Ihe lop 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. I 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 inleVoutlet pipe or any evidence the joint of inleVoutlet pipe. I of soil particles entering structure through cracks. SettlemenV 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. I Damaged pipe joints Cracks wider than %-inch at the joint of the No cracks more than X-inch wide at inleVoutlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering the joint of inleUoutlet pipes. Ihe slruclure allhe joinl of Ihe inleUouliel pipes. I 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. I 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. I FROP-T Seclion 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 I and works as designed. Any holes-other than designed holes-in the Structure has no holes other than structure. designed holes. I Cleanout Gate Damaged or missing Cleanout gate is missing. Replace cleanoul gate. 2009 Surface Water Design Manual-Appendix A 1/9/2009 I 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. I 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 I 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. I Deformed or damaged Lip of overflow pipe is bent or deformed. Overflow pipe does not allow lip overflow at an elevation lower than design I Inlet/Outlet Pipe Sediment Sediment filling 20% or more of the pipe. InleUoutlet 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). I Oamaged Cracks wider than 'l-S-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 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. I 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. I Manhole Cover/Lid Cover/lid not in place Cover/lid is missing or only partially in place. Coverllid protects opening to Any open structure requires urgent structure. maintenance. Locking mechanism Mechanism cannot be opened by one Mechanism opens with proper tools. I Not Working maintenance person with proper tools. Bolts cannot be seated. Self·locking coverllid does not work. Cover/lid difficult to One maintenance person cannot remove Cover/lid can be removed and I Remove cover/lid after applying 80 Ibs. of lift. reinstalled by one maintenance person. I I I I 119/2009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual-Appendix A A-8 I APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES I NO.5 -CATCH BASINS AND MANHOLES Maintenance Defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance Is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is Performed I 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 I 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 Yz cubic foot which No Trash or debris blocking or is located immediately in front of the catch basin potentially blocking entrance to I 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 I 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. I 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. I Damage to frame Corner of frame extends more than % inch past Frame is even with curb. andlor 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. I cracks wider than % inch. Frame not siUing 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. I 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. I Cracks wider than Yz inch and longer than 1 foot No cracks more than 1/• inch wide at at the joint of any inleVoutlet pipe or any evidence the joint of inlet/outlet pipe. of soil particles entering catch basin through I cracks. SettiemenV Catch basin has seUled more than 1 inch or has Basin replaced or repaired to design misalignment rotated more than 2 inches out of alignment. standards. I Damaged pipe joints Cracks wider than Y:z. .. inch at the joint of the No cracks more than %-inch wide at inleVoutlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering the joint of inleVoutlet pipes. the catch basin at the joint of the inlet/outlet pipes. I 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 I present other than a surface oil film. InleVQutlet 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 inleVoutlet No trash or debris in pipes. I pipes (includes fioatables and non-fioatables). Damaged Cracks wider than Y:z.-inch at the joint of the No cracks more than X-inch wide at inleVoutlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering the joint of the inleVoutlet pipe. I at the joints of the inleVoutlet pipes. I 2009 Surface Water Design Manual-Appendix A 1/9/2009 I 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. I 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 I Any open structure requires urgent standards. maintenance. Manhole Cover/Lid Coverllid not in place Cover/lid is missing or only partially in place. Coverllid protects opening to Any open structure requires urgent structure. I 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 coverllid does not I work. Coverllid difficult to One maintenance person cannot remove Cover/lid can be removed and Remove coverllid after applying 80 Ibs. of lift. reinstalled by one maintenance person. I I I I I I I I I I 1/9/2009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual-Appendix A A·!O I I APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES I NO.6 -CONVEYANCE PIPES AND DITCHES Maintenance Defect or Problem Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is Performed I 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. I 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. I Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a suliace oil film. Damage to protective Protective coating is damaged; rust or corrosion Pipe repaired or replaced. I 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 I 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. I Sediment Accumulated sediment that exceeds 20% of the Ditch cleanedlflushed 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 I 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, I 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 suliace oil film, I 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. I 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 I Applicable) soil. I I I I I 2009 Surface Water Design Manual-Appendix A 1/9/2009 I A-II APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES I 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. I 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 I 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. I 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. I Bars are loose and rust is causing 50% Repair or replace barrier to design deterioration to any part of barrier. standards. I I I I I I I I I I 1/9/2009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual-Appendix A A-12 I I APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES I NO. 11 -GROUNDS (LANDSCAPING) Maintenance Defect or Problem Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance Is Performed I 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 I 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 I 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 I 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. I Grasslgroundcover 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. I potential to fall and cause property damage or threaten human life. A hazard tree identified by a qualified arborlst must be removed as soon as possible. I 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 I knocked over. knocked over vegetation. Trees or shrubs free of injury. Trees or shrubs which are not adequately Tree or shrub in place and I supported or are leaning over, causing exposure adequately supported; dead or of the roots. diseased trees removed. I I I I I 1/9/2009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Appendix A I A-16 APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREM ENTS 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 andlor debris accumulated on the No trash or debris on the bioswale bioswale site. site. I 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 I 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. I 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 swate I Erosion/scouring Eroded or scoured swate 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 Swate has no bare spots and grass I coverage in more than 10% of the swale bottom. is thick and healthy. Grass too tall Grass excessively taU (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. I Inlet/Outlet Pipe Sediment Sediment filJing 20% or more of the pipe. Inlet/outlet pipes clear of sediment. accumulation Trash and debris Trash and debris accumulated in inleUoutlet No trash or debris in pipes. I pipes (includes floatables and non-floatables). Damaged Cracks wider than 'XI-inch at the joint of the No cracks more than X-inch wide at inlet/outlet pipes or any evidence of soil entering the joint of the inlet/outlet pipe. I at the joints of the inlet/outlet pipes. I I I I 119/2009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual-Appendix A A-I8 I I APPENDIX A MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES I NO. 15 -FILTER STRIP Maintenance Defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance Is Performed I 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 I 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 oit film. I Grass Strip Sediment Sediment accumulation on grass exceeds 2 No sediment deposits in treatment accumulation inches depth. area. Erosion/scouring Eroded or scoured swale boHom due to No eroded or scoured areas in I 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 I 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 I (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. I 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. I pipes (includes floatables and non-floatables). Damaged Cracks wider than Y,·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/outiet pipes. I I I I I I I I 119/2009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual-Appendix A I A·20 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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. Stonnwater runoff from fueling areas may be contaminated with toxic hydrocarbons, oils and greases, and metals. The following BMPs, or equivalent measures, methods, or practices, are •.... ~. ........... required if you are eng~ged in dedicat.ed permanent fueling operations: lII_. Cov~r the. fuelmg area Wlt~ an overhan~mg roof s~cture or canopy so that , " preCipitatIOn cannot come m contact With the fuelmg area. January 2009 <Jr See BMP Info Sheet 3 in Chapter 5 for infonnation 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 stonnwater from running into the fueling area and carrying pollutants to the onsite stonn drainage system or adjacent surface water or conveyance systems. or See BMP Info Sheet 5 in Chapter 5 for infonnation on containment. Install and maintain an oil or spill control device in the appropriate catch basin(s) to treat runoff from the fueling area. W See the King County Surface Water Design Manual for various designs and the BMP Info Sheet 9 in Chapter 5 for further infonnation on oil/water separators. Never hose down the fueling area to the stonn drains. Contaminated runoff must be collected for proper disposal. Required Routine Maintenance: o Post signs io 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. o 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. 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: o 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. or See BMP Info Sheet lOin 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 Storm water Pollution Prevention Manual January 2009 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Landscaping Activities and Vegetation Management This broad activity encompasses all aspects oflandscaping 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. rPM 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. ~ ~1J;>.'~ .•. '·'a'':\!·' , . ~'J~.;"'" "'"'" >' ,._' January 2009 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 King County Storm water Pollution Prevention Manual Landscaping Activities and Vegetation Management (continued) • 'k .' . , ,-",' '; -- 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 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/environmentlanimalsandplants/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 (!PM), a comprehensive approach to the use of pesticides is the most effective BMP measure that can be taken for herbicide, insecticide, and fungicide use. or 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 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Clearing and Grading of Land for Small Construction Projects This activity applies if you clear, grade or prepare land for projects. Stonnwater 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 pennit, 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 infonnation or assistance in implementing these best management practices, contact the King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Stonnwater 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 stonn drainage system you will be asked to take additional measures to correct the continued pollution discharges. January 2009 King County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual " • • I • I I I i I I I I I I I I City of Renton Planning Division I OCT 1 B lO12 I lPJ~({;~DW~[Q) I 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 ~ HWAGEOSClENCESINC. • Genter/lllir,,1 fllgillcerillg • Hydrogr%gy • Ge(.el1l'inmmelltl,1 Servj(t!.' • 11lspectioTl & '/i'H;IIS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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: Dear Randy: Final Geotechnical Engineering Report Renton Mnnicipal Airport Taxiway B Rehabilitation Renton, Washington As requested, HWA GeoSciences Inc. (HW A) has completed a geotechnical engineering investigation to support design effOlts 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 Oil this project. Sincerely, HW A GEOSCIENCES INC. Steven E. Greene, L.G., L.E.G. Senior Engineering Geologist Enclosure: Final Geotechnical Report ~~A'15"D7--__ -~ George Minassian, Ph.D., P .E. Pavement Engineer 21312 30th Drive SE Sliite ~lO Bothell, WA 98021.7010 Tel: 425.774.0106 Fax: 425.774;2714 www.hwageo.com I I I I I I I I I I I I I .1 I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 GENERAL ....................................................................................................... 1 1.2 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING ............................................................................ 1 1.3 AUTHORIZATION AND SCOPE OF WORK ......................................................... I 2.0 INVESTIGATION PROGRAM ........................................................................................ 1 2.1 SITE EXPLORA TIONS ...................................................................................... I 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 ................................................................................. I 0 LIST OF FIGURES (FOLLOWING TEXT) Figure I Figure 2 Figure 3 ApPENDICES Project Site and Vicinity Map Site and Exploration Plan Geologic Map Appendix A: Field Exploration Figure A-I Legend of Tenns and Symbols Used on Exploration Logs Figures A-2 -A-21 Logs of Cores Core-l 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-1 0 -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 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1.1 GENERAL FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT T AXIW AY B REHABILITATION RENTON, WASHINGTON 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the results of a geotechnical engineering investigation completed by HW A GeoSciences Inc. (HW A) 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 HW A 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-l through TP-3) and twenty pavement cores (designated Core-l 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 HW A, 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 HW A 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 coresihand 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 coresihand borings were conducted on June 2, June 6, and June 7, 2011. Four (4) supplemental coreihand borings were conducted on July 11,2012. The cores/hand borings were used to gather infonnation 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-I, Appendix A. Summary test pit and core logs are presented in Figures A-2 through A-24, Appendix A. Dynamic cone penetration (OCP) testing was performed in most pavement core holes to check relative soil density/strength conditions. The OCP 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 OCP is driven by repeatedly dropping an 8 kg (17.6 Ibs) 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 OCP index. The OCP index is based on the average penetration depth resulting from I blow of the 8 kg hammer and is reported as millimeters per blow (mmlblow). The data obtained from the OCP 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 OCP 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 HW A GEOSCIENCES INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'I 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 detennine 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 (ATIERBERG 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-IO through B-12, AppendixB. 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-I 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 HW A GEOSCIENCES INC. October 17, 2012 HW A 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- afm). 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 <I % 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 of3.8 feet, 3.5 feet and 3.6 feet, respectively. Ground water seepage was observed in corelhand borings Core-4, Core-6 through Core-9, and Core-I 8, 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-I, 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-I was determined in general accordance with ASTM 0 698, 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 0 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 HW A GEOSCIENCES INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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 I below: . Table 1: Summary ofCBR Tests Sample Relative CBRValue Material Description Compaction Location (%) (%) Light olive brown, organic SILT (OH) TP-I 57.41 0.4 Dark brown, organic SILT (OH) TP-2 65.6' 0.6 Dark olive gray, SILT with sand (ML) TP-3 85.5' 1.2 102.1' 53.8 J Relat,ve to Max,mum Dry Density determmed w,th Standard Compact,ve Effort (ASTM D698) 2 Relative to Maximum Dry Density determined with Modified Compactive Effort (ASTM D J 557) 3.5 EXISTING PAVEMENT STRUCTURE We completed twenty (20) corelhand 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 Counector Based on the exploration within the north taxiway connector (Core-I) 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 HW A 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 O.S to 0.7 feet. At the location of Core-S, dredge fill consisting of silty medium sand with shell fragments, brick and glass fragments was encountered to a depth of 2.S feet. Below the fill in Core-2 and Core-S, native alluvial soils consisting of sandy silt to organic silt were encountered. These soils were similar to those encountered in our test pit TP-I. Field OCP 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-S% for the last l.l 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 I.S to 2.2S-inches thick. At the location of Core-4, a I.S-inch thick layer of crushed aggregate was found sandwiched between the surface course of HMA and older 1.7S- 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 O.S 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 of2.3 and 3.2 feet, respectively. These subgrade soils were similar to those encountered in test pit TP-I. Field OCP data obtained at location ofCore-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 OCP data obtained at location ofCore-4 (See Figure A-S) indicates in-place CBR values of I-S% 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 S.S to 12-inches thick over a PCC section of S to 8 inches thick. At the location of Core-9, the taxiway pavement consisted on IO-inches ofHMA 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 2.2S-inches of HMA. At the location of Core-II, which is situated at the south end of Taxiway B, the pavement consisted of8.S-inches ofHMA over 8-inches ofPCC. At the location ofCore-19 within Taxiway K, the pavement consisted of 12.S inches ofHMA over 7-inches ofPCC. No crushed gravel base was encountered beneath the pavement at any of final Report 6 HW A GEOSCIENCES INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I October 17,2012 HWA Project No. 2011-039-21 these locations except for Core-I 0, where at least 24-inches of gravel base consisting of fme 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-I 7 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-I 7 and Core-20 in Appendix C). 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 OCP data obtained at the locations of Core-6 through Core-I 0 (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-l 0, OCP testing encountered granular material with average CBR values above 40% to depths of 4.2 feet below grade. At the location of Core-II, OCP testing encountered granular material with average CBR values of 19% to a depth of 3.6 feet below grade. At the locations ofCore-17 through Core-20 (see Figures A-18 through A-21) field OCP data obtained below the granular fill, indicate in,place CBR values of 3 to 4% in . native subgrade from depths of3.0 to 6.0 feet below grade. Soutb Taxiway Connector Based on the explorations within the south taxiway connector (Core-l 2 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 OCP data obtained at the locations ofCore-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 OCP data obtained at the location ofCore-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 HW A GEOSCIENCES INC. October 17, 2012 HW A 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 I to 5%, and averaging about 3%. CBR values from laboratory samples obtained from TP-I and TP-2 and remolded at natural moisture content indicate CBR values less than I % 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-lO) and at the southern end of Taxiway B (Core-II) 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 I % 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-I 4) 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-I S and Core-16 (situated within the inside tum 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-I 8) 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. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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 sub grade 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 sub grade with infiltrated moisture will exacerbate potential frost-heave effects and increase the rate of sub grade 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 of2013. 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: SeB Mix Design Report: Renton Airport Taxiway B Rehabilitation, General Aviation Area-Phases 1 through3, 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 ofHMA for the full-depth of II 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 HW A 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 sub grade 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, HW A 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 HW A GeoSciences Inc. be retained to monitor construction, evaluate subgrade soil and ground water conditions as they are exposed, and verify that sub grade preparation, backfilling, and compaction are accomplished in accordance with the specifications. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, HW A 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. HW A 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 HW A GEOSCIENCES INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I October 17, 2012 HWA Project No. 2011-039-21 -------------,0·0------------ We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. Sincerely, . HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. I!TI'VI'N ELUOTI GREENE Steven E. Greene, l.G., l.E.G. Senior Engineering Geologist SEG:GM:seg Final Report II . George Minassian, Ph.D., P.E. Pavement Engineer HW A GEOSCIENCES INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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-IOC. 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 PavementNotes, Washington State Department of Transportation. WSDOT, 2010, Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction, M 41-10, Washington State Department of Transportation. Final Report 12 HW A GEOSCIENCES INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I z .. w WGS84 w k--i'" TNT~ V 11%0 l'rmleo:Iflo ... TOPOl 0lXl1 NIllIO"'~ HoIcIIr9 C--tapa,COM) [f~ I HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. PROJECT SITE AND VICINITY MAP FIGURE NO. ~--~~~~~~~--~ 1 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION PROJECT NO. 2011-039 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I r---,---.--", IF=~' ;~;;>-;;::;-::.:r I _.," / / ---" II I"~ -.. -,.-,,/ i .. --' / .. " .... /' /'~"'-, .""" .. --' • -jl I ', "t.", " --c -CORE·16 I' 1'1 "'..... ,. .--> ==--"'r-~ -~. - I ,::t-' , -, ORE·14--. ' " ,,-;;:.:' -, -'- j' ,RE.13. !" 1ifORE·15 ,'-,C :-::--OO,-",-;;i~~~ \ ; --. "" ! -.;:/ ' /',' •• I , .. ' y'--' :" : %. ,\' .''--.". 'r \ .1 '" ',," ~'\ I ..... "' .. ~>.IIIr·'. 'NI I '-" \ S ' '-ACORE·1 .--". 0.' p.' -• ",.'" ~ " ~ . / ". / ".' ....... ",.;, _, ~ .p 1.(:>, ~ I I .,:, :,~?;~~ .. ~,\~~~'. ~ ---c-=~ "". .'$>~~ ?S-:\. \~ __ c.,.. fJ I \. .':i\J@"; \~~f, .. -=~=--::~ =.: I . ,/X"'.' ,.....-t, ;('",1, \ .... ',. <: \ ..!j.CORE'lO ~"'v:., \ _/::.._~: \. v'" ~,~ ,. '.' ~;' . '1 , •• ". ,.-,r .... /~ 'I ". v, _'0" I :', :._~...'" ,.;/'li,.,.,.i.''-:\.'' ';""'.\y, -I ,-• (,_,....~ <_~: ';"'"":"i'/'&"~"->-' .. \':~'" "';, ~~lI;;"~ --'I y '''~,;/,,'iVf;/ ~i"" ""~ i:; ~,., ... 'J.'._ - E ,y;'>,i '. ·"c7." .CORE"l1~"" soi" , ' 11"" '.' -~. ,t;." .. - . tE:'1"=100' ..... ~. ""'" ,"', '" 'I ~ .. -'-' '-:;'\' '<--:~ ,;;/ . _ ......• -..I/.·:.j ---~'" -'--'~.~ DETAIL A r=-:;< --71 C'c ii~' 7 C -\ ~"~ ~r-;;~f:--~;~~::'-. .- ." ,). ';"w '-'.,,!( <::~~:J9?T'--'" .. .;-f ,,~,. ::1.. '1' f-t/ L~:~~/ ;~_/ f Tp·3 '-. af/.· ... /,," I~L~t-~~~~:f>:~,,;-t,i: I ~ 'm'" ",~}E~~C"TC~,~cO~'~cJ /. .. ,;~!~~~~I I J----~~.-~j". . \i1.. -" 3. I ;-=:\ ",t, -' __ . i .* -----;-'rr--,----""".,-, I... ;;,.1~ CORE·18 -' :"'> . '" f D 1:;0;,1 'i:' "' I I·~: >'Ic ~!~! ~ 3 I ". J ".' I "I -,.. , ,~ . -s f ~I _:I -'-'-,~_ f': '---- L SCALE: 1''~100' c ,.', ~ -I" ---------------- 1--. _ ._, -'>_, .~ . "-- DETAIL B Renton Airport Taxiway B Exploration Locations Exploration Northing Westing Sla OfI's8t Core-l 47.49516 122.21492 44+09 275 E Core-2 47.49447 122.21476 41+54 294 E Core-3 47.49410 122,21459 40+17 319E Core-4 47.49306 122.21441 36+58 323 E Core-5 47.49241 122.21439 34+25 304 E Cor!Hl 47.49008 '122.21384 25+78 350 E Core-7 47.48869 122.21350 20+54 383 E Core-8 47.48838 122.21355 19+28 356 E Core-9 47.48774 122.21357 16+94 330 E Core-l0 47.48656 122.21362 12+54 278 E Core-ll 47.48649 122.21331 12+24 355 E Core-12 47.48622 122.21394 11+39 183 E Core-13 47.48608 122.21405 10+98 148 E Core-14 47,48609 122.21412 10+94 129 E Core-IS 47.48624 122;21413 11+52 133 E Core-16 47.48629 122.21425 11+73 103 E Core-17 47.48854 122.21354 19+83 393 E Core-IS 47.48872 122.21332 20+43 455 E Core-19 47.48921 122.21418 22+44 262 E Core-20· 47.48932 122.21365 22+67 397 E lP·l 47.49422 122,21481 40+63 272 E lP·2 47.48969 122.21400 24+37 298 E lP·3 47,48816 122.21381 18+62 298 E Locations based on field GPS data. ":t "~~D:~,_, __ ~:',"~~i.;f;l~: . __ " .. '::~~c _ ... ;;[~ ...... . ,'i""/'--="3 c'_.:"',c.,---" 'D' ,.".c -o'~ +~. , '.--c ~ ,,-~.: 0-" .L._,:.......l/.;"'~=,~L .. -__ ..... ~·~,.".,.-.. ,c:; .. --k_ .. 1 . ___ ' (0, .. ."'.'1,')../" ... , J f7 ___ ~~~ '-" .... -.~--g<I+I'Erf'. , ,'/ -~'F/ I_-!;:J t ~ .. ' >i-y ~. ~ ,. -=-~~ ->'0. ~ '-.::C.'"' ::;:<.J -::.,- !:i!F~;r~:j _EL__ ,,','\ ",;:;,'" AfH';: ."0: .;~-__ ~.<t~!':' -== -<.;i:,.,-~(~~----==-. _ L~"_:':',....""5f.J~" .. ".... "-"'cL.o~L -_ ..... --;c ;, .•• _ ',c' .----:0-' _I~' :"<"-::, .... ~.-':\:.\~--~--.. ,,~',-....-.,"'""".., I .,._'~ ,; illl' ",' ;-., , . .rJ!'.rr , -," " .. " 1 -i _ •• .-" ,__ _ __ _ $ _ ,,/'. \~,r:' ----,.~?~\,.,.;;"":I!',;; ","r~~:::'''c::pl-;iP.3,:~cCOR i19~ll'wt.·f-i2/r~") ~r,,,5;\ l,,~;7re--=~ ~,~. ~~F,;r ,'~. ~~C6RE'~i/t'0¥~~~::-" '-".')-:, ~---d:","_ ;,SJ~,,"', --{ \~._! _ ' ..... '. ,: .. o. --::.~ ". ~ __ ';' ", "~ :'2\ t -\\ r {~ :.t.~ . ..:::::=--~-~ --~~ . ~-_ ~-> 1" ~---.: ' --,. -~---y~, : ~ . ____ ... ------.... ----;;;. :(,f~-~'" .~ ~-EI"""_--:;W~CORE'9.'9=~. ;jIj"'" . ~CO~RE .. ;-7 .. ''''.·~ ~:--=-" r''''-::·.~ ~'-. -. _. h:>"L "'ORE" .rOR+ 3 ~OR':. ,1 ---,--.. ----~1·'0~/'L:Z . ',' "i .... ". ". -. or_ .' .• ". '" rORE' '... . "Tilt! -, ... ~ vrO' RE" '. -,,,i' '--.,.' -. Il.o~-, -. ,,:I; ~~" ~'E. ~ ,r;::;~_ ----, ,".k-' -= , __ . ~i,:,"_, ,._ ~"-~t . I.;. -!i~ .'CORE-'~I-r----::----;:;~ -0-.---_'/"r>·-"."~\_' ,", -"'-~ ~ !~ -r --~ .-;,--J.I' n"'.·----~: ____ -~---" 00 ____ ' __ '; .. DEC 'C-W~.-t I r t fr:1~.;~~ \.~ :~.~ 1 ,!:'~~~~; ,,,"r[?~;'~~Jk~J~ji:~:i?~~Y:~~?;:"~:~~:.,:~;,~, ; !' -~.~, -o,-_L, - LEGEND Ja>-~~ 1200' lP-3 -$-TEST PIT DESIGNATION AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION CORE·14 4-CORE HOLE DESIGNATION AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION _I HWAGEOScIENCES INC 1-039--21 BPREUM 5:53AM ~~O .................... .. 0~rl~~~3~00~' ~~~~I ! --« ,. - SCALE: 1"=300' FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON, WASHINGTON SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN sv,m. 1 1 ~,~~ ~~ 2011-039·21 4,11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Map Symbol af afm Oac Oit Geologic Description Artificial Fill Urban or Industrial land modified by widespread or discontinuous fill Alluvium -sand and gravel deposited by the Cedar River, and associated beds of silt, clay and peat. Kame Terrace Deposits -sand and pebble-to· cobble gravel in scattered terraces. Map taken from: DR Mullineaux, 1965 NORTH 11 GEOLOGIC MAP FIGURE NO. r-------====~------~ 3 D'~ I HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION PROJECT NO. 2011-039 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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 (blowsJft) Relative Density(%) Consistency N (bJows/ft) Undrained Shear LL = Liquid limit Strength (psf) eBR Galifomia Bearing Ratio Very Loose 0 to 4 0 15 Very Soft 0 to 2 <250 eN Consolidation Loose 4 to to t5 35 So, 2 to 4 250 -500 DO Dry Density (pet) Medium Dense to to 30 35 65 Medium Stiff 4 to 8 500 -1000 DS Direct Shear Dense 30 to 50 65 85 Stiff B to t5 1000 2000 GS Grain Size Distribution Very Dense oYer 50 85 too Very Stiff 15 to 30 2000 -4000 K Penneability H," over 30 >4000 MD Moisture/Density Relationship (Proctor) USCS SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MR Resilient Modulus PID PhOloionization Device Reading MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP DESCRIPTIONS PP Pocket Penetrometer Approx. Compressive Strength (tst) Gravel and ~.i; GW Wellilreded GRAVEL SG Specific Grn",ty Coarse Clean Gravel TC Triaxial Compression GraveUy Soils Grained (little or no fines) GP Poorly-graded GRAVEL TV T,,,",,,,,. Soils Appmx. Shear Strer.gth (tsf) More than 50% of Coarse Gravel with GM Silty GRAVEL ue Unconfined Compression Fraction Retained Fines (appreciable on No.4 Sieve amount of fines) GC Clayey GRAVEL SAMPLE TYPE SYMBOLS Sand and Clean Sand :::::: SW Well-graded SAND ~ 2.0" OD Split Spoon (SPD Sandy Soils Oitlla or no lines) :::{\ SP (140 lb. hammer with 30 in. drop) More than Poorly-graded SAND I 50% Retained Shelby Tube 50% or More on No. Sand with ..( SM Silty SAND G ofC08ll1e 3-114" 00 Spilt Spoon with Brass Rings 200 Sieve Fines (appreciable SI~ Fraction Passing amounl of fines) a SC Clayey SAND 0 NO.4 51." Small Bag Sample IML SILT ~ Large Bag (Bulk) Sample Fine Sill Grained ,,' Liquid limit CL [J Less than 50% Lean CLAY Core Run Soils Clay -=-.-OL Organic SILT/Organic CLAY 0 Non-standard Penetration Test (3.0· 00 split spoon) ~MH Elastic SILT Sill 50% or More Liquid Limit Passing '"' CH Fat CLAY GROUNDWATER SYMBOLS 50% or More No. 200 Sieve Clay $..l OH :g Organic SIL TJOrganic CLAY Groundwater Level (measured at Size time of drilling) Highly Organic Soils >!.!! PT PEAT "4-Groundwater Level (measured in well or open hole after water lew! stabilized) COMPONENT DEFINITIONS COMPONENT PROPORTIONS COMPONENT SIZE RANGE PROPORTION RANGE DESCRIPTIVE TERMS Boulders largerthan 12 in <5% aean Cobbles 31nl0121n Gravel 3 in to No 4 (4.5mm) 5-12% Coarse gravel 3 in to 314 In Slightly (aayey, Silty, Sanely) Fine gravel 314 In to No 4 (4.5mm) 12-30% Oayey, Silty, Sanely, Gravelly Sand No.4 (4.5 mm) 10 No. 200 (0.074 mm) Coarse sand No.4 (4.5 mm) 10 No. 10 (2.0 mm) Medium sand No. 10 (2.0 mm) to No. 40 (0.42 mm) 30-50% Very (Oayey, Silty, Sandy, C3r.ro.dly) Fine sand No. 40 (0.42 mm) 10 No. 200 (0.074 mm) Silt and Clay Smeller than No. 200 (0.074mm) Components are arranged in order of increasing quantities. NOTES: Soil dassifications presented on eJQJIoration logs are based on visual and labomtory obs&r.ration. SoIl descriptions are presented in the following general order: Density/consistency, color, modifier (if any) GROUP NAME, additions to group name (If any), moisture content. Proportion, {JT7!JdBlion, and angularity of constituents, BddiIion8l comments. (GEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION) Please refer 10 the discussion in the report text as well as the E»qJioration logs fOf a more complete descriplion of subsurface conditions. -FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT HWAGEoScIENCES INC RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: LEGEND 2011-o39.GPJ 9128112 MOISTURE CONTENT DRY Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the Iouch. MOIST Damp but no v;sible waler. WET Visible free waler, usually soli is below water table. LEGEND OF TERMS AND SYMBOLS USED ON EXPLORATION LOGS 2011-039 FIGURE' A-1 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DRILLING METHOD: B-inch Diamond Core SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOCATION: See Figure 2. 5 '" ~ -' is '" '" ~ DESCRIPTION crushed 3-inches of CSBC. (GRAVEL BASE) Med.dense to dense. dark oliw brown GRAVEL with sand and cobbles. moist. (FILL) Hand excavation terminated due to refusal on cobbles. No Ground water observed while conducting this hand boring. 5-1 5-2 5-3 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. GS -FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT HWAGEoScIENcEs INC. RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: BORINGoQSM 2011-039.GPJ 9128112 DATE STARTED: 612/2011 DATE COMPLETED: 61212011 LOGGED BY: S. Greene SURFACE ELEVATION: 18.5 :t feet o o Dropweight Cone Penetrometer (140 lb. weight. 30· drop) o Blows per foot 10 20 30 40 20 80 Water Content (%) Plastic Limit 1---0--1 Liquid Umit Nalural Water Content PAVEMENT CORE CORE-01 PAGE: 1 of 1 2011-039 FIGURE: I I I I I I I I I 15 I I I I 100 I I I A-2 I I DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DATE STARTED: 61212011 DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Diamond Core DATE COMPLETED: 61212011 I SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOGGED BY: S. Greene LOCATION: See Figure 2. SURFACE ELEVATION: 18.9 :i: feel I '" 0: W '" W () 0: Dropweight Cone Penetrometer ::s W <D ~Ui '" W () Il. " 1-.1! I-~ (140 lb. weight, 30~ drop) -' ~ => !!I 0 '" z 5 z en .5 W A Blows per foot Q -' W W l- I 0 '" -' -' w<D 0: Z < I 1--<D '" Il. Il. ~1 w => Ibi " () " " I 0 [ijz- >-'" ;:i ;:i w~ I-0: -,t c'=-'" => DESCRIPTION Il._ 0 " 0 10 20 30 40 w'=-50 0 4.5-inches of HMA Pavement. I (ASPHALTIC CONCRETE) Dense, gray, crushed rock. 2-inches of CSTC over 3-inches S-l ofeSSe. I S-2 Medium dense, brown, poorly graded GRAVEL with sand and cobbles, moist. (FILL) I 0 Dark olive brown, sandy SIL ,moist. 5-3 matter by dry weight. I (ALLUVIUM) I r AL ,1$, GS I A A, . A, A, 1 I A: Hand boring terminated at an approximate depth of 2.5 feet ':6. .. ·,·lI,· below existing pavement surface. DCP testing conducted 8 from 2.5 10 4.3 feet beiOlN the existing ground surface. No I groundwater observed while conducting this hand boring. A: A A, A I A: 15 .A '" I A ~ A I 5 0 20 40 60 80 100 I Water Content (%) Plastic Limit I------G---I Liquid Limit NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated Natural Water Content I and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. PAVEMENT CORE -FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT I RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION CORE-02 HWAGEoSCIENCES INC RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT PAGE: 1 of 1 RENTON, WASHINGTON I PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 EI GUR5' A-3 BORING-DSM 2011-039.GPJ 9128112 DRILLING COMPANY: Casacde Concrete Sawing and Drilling DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Diamond Core SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOCATION: See Figure 2. ~ o '" " ~ ,'. '," ,'. .... ,'. .', , " SM DESCRIPTION Dense. Loose to medium dense, brown, medium to fine, poorly graded SAND, moist. ; moist to wet. (FIWDlSTURBED NATIVE ALLUVIUM) 5-1 5-2 5-3 U~~~ __ S_Oft_'_S_an_d_Y_S_IL_T_IO __ S_'L_T_~_'_h_fin_e_s_a_nd_~_'_'h_l_'6_~_._o,_g_an_;c __ -"~S4 matter by dry weight, wet. slightly plastic. (NATIVE ALl.UVIUM) 5 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 while conducting this hand boring. NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be Indicative of other times and/or locations. GS -FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT HWAGEoScIENCES INc RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: BORIN~SM 2011'{)39.GPJ 9/281'2 DATE STARTED: 6J2J2011 DATE COMPLETED: 61212011 LOGGED BY: S. Greene SURFACE ELEVATION: 18.3 :tfeet Oropweight Cone Penetrometer (140 lb. weight, 30· drop) 6 Blows par foot o 10 20 30 40 o t;., t;.: t;.' .0; -I> '> o * 20 Weter Content (%) Plastic Limit f-O---I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content PAVEMENT CORE CORE-03 PAGE: 1 of 1 2011-039 FIGURE· I I I I I I I I I I I 15 I I I I 100 I I I A-4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Diamond Core SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOCATION: See Figure 2. '" 5 0 -' -' 5 0 '" '" '" '" 0 >-'" '" => DESCRIPTION -1.>inches HMA pawment. [ASPHALTIC CONCRETE] ":: GW Gray, crushed rock CSTC. La}'er 1-inch thicl<. .~ p .. [GRAVEL BASE] 1.75.inches HMA I :::::~(: SM I [ASPHALTIC CONCRETE) I ,.,', \ Loose, brown, fine to coarse sandy, fine to coarse GRAVEL I .:.:} :.: (with trace silt, moist. J . .' " \ _________ ~~l _________ J .:".~ ;', Medium dense, gray, silty SAND to sandy SILT with trace :\~}. SP ...g~~.~~s~ ________________ I .. Medium dense, gray. fine to medium SAND with fine to :.:\.~:. coarse gravel, trace silt, moist. . :.:::.::;: Cobble at 29 inches . --OL Soft to medium stiff, brown organiC SILT with gray sand --seam, and occasional reeds, moist to wet. r_-[ALLUVIUM] -..:.-- Core hole was terminated at 50-inches below ground surface due. Ground water seepage was obs.erved at 5 -48-inches below ground surface during the exploration. 10 - '" W W 0 W '" z_ '" <:0 "->-• ~ => "'il z (i.i .5 W W WID -' -' ~] "-"-~ '" ;jj ~e '" 05-1 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified iocation and on the date indicated and therefOfe may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. '" >-'" W >- '" W :I: b -FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT HWAGEoScIENCES INC RENTON, WASHINGTON DATE STARTED: 61612011 DATE COMPLETED: 616/2011 LOGGED BY: D. Coltrane SURFACE ELEVATION: 19.5 :i:feet '" W ~ z => 0 '" " 0 o Dropweight Cone Penetrometer (17.6 lb. weight, 22.6-drop) A Blows per foot 10 20 30 40 0: "': "': "': 20 40 Water Content (%) Plastic Limit I GI I Liquid umit Natural Water Content PAVEMENT CORE CORE-04 PAGE: 1 of 1 PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FIGURE: BORING-OSM 2011'()39.GPJ 9/28f12 z g <: >-~i 50 w'=- 15 10 100 A-5 DRILLING COMPANY: cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Diamond Core SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOCATION: See Figure 2. DESCRIPTION (GRAVEL BASE) , :.' (DREDGE FILL) .. : , moist. Handboring terminated at en approximate depth of 2.5 feet. Soils appeared saturated and borehole sidewalls began to collapse upon withdrawal of the auger. . 5 5-1 5-2 5-3 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be Indicative of other times andJOI" locations. GS -FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT HWAGEoScIENCES INC RENTON, WASHINGTON DATE STARTED: 61212011 DATE COMPLETED: 6/212011 LOGGED BY: S, Greene SURFACE ELEVATION: 19.5 :tfeet o o Dropweight Cone Penetrometer (140 lb. weight, 30" drop) 6. Blows per foot 10 20 30 40 80 Water Content (%) Plastic Limit 1--0-1 Liquid Urni! Natural Water Content PAVEMENT CORE CORE-OS PAGE: 1 of 1 PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FIGURE' BORING-DSM 2011-039.GPJ 9128112 I I I I I I I I I I I I 15 I 100 • I A-6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DRILLING METHOD: a-inch Diamond Core SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOCATION: See Figure 2. J: h:if UJ. o'=- 0 5 10 '" ~ " 2 ~ 0 0 '" '" '" " " >-'" '" ::J DESCRIPTION ofHMA (ASPHALTIC CONCRETE] , gray, coarse gravelly, fine to coarse SAND with cobbles and trace silt, moist. Becoming fine to medium SAND with gravel. (ALL) ~,~~----------------------SM 'Medium dense, gray, gravelly, silty fine to coarse SAND with pieces of brick and shell like material, moist. (DREDGE FILL) h'i'i+=-hGround water seepage is encountered from upper fill layer I Medium stiff, gray SilT with trace sand, reeds, and oxide mottling, moist. (ALLUVIUM] Medium stiff to medium dense, gray, silty fine SAND to ... s~~~L.!,~o~t-.!.o~.!:. ____________ I Soft to medium stiff, brown organic StL T with gray sand seams, wood debris and scattered! reeds, moist to wet. ~~~---------------------stiff to stiff, gray, SILT with wood debris and fine ,wet. surface. Ground water seepage was observed during the exploration at 37.5-lnches and 66-inches below ground surface. a: w UJ " w '" ~Ul c. " ..... ~ ::J "'~ Z -" r.n .5 w W W<o ~ ~ ~~ c. c. " " '" '" w- '" '" C.e 05-1 o S-2 05-4 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be Indicative of other times and/or locations. '" .... '" UJ .... a: UJ J: 6 -FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON, WASHINGTON HWAGEoSCIENCES INC DATE STARTED: 617/2011 DATE COMPLETED: 617/2011 LOGGED BY: D. Coltrane SURFACE ELEVATION: 19.5 :tfeet a: w .... ~ e z ::J ~ " 0 o o Dropweight Cone Penetrometer (17.6Ib. weight, 22.6~ drop) A Blows per foot 10 20 30 40 20 40 60 80 Water Content (%) Plastic Limit I-Q------I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content PAVEMENT CORE CORE-06 PAGE: 1 of 1 PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FIGURE: BOR1N(7[)SM 2011-039.GPJ 9126112 Z E '" G,j-~ii 50 w'=- 15 10 100 A-7 DRILLING COMPANY: cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DRILLING METHOD: 8--inch Diamond Core SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOCATION: See Figure 2. J: ~z- UJO og 0 5 10 oo oo :5 " -' -' 5 a oo '" CI) " " >-oo oo OJ DESCRIPTION 8.S-inches HMA Pawment. [ASPHALTIC CONCRETE) 5-lnches Portland loose, gray, poorly graded GRAVEL with fine to coarse SAND with cobbles and trace silt, moist to wet. [FILL[ ~I~~t--r---------------------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 e>lploration at 32·lnches below ground surface. a: UJ UJ " UJ '" z_ " ",. a. >-! ~ OJ !!lo Z VJ .5 UJ UJ UJ w -' -' ~l a. a. ~ " '" ~e en 0$01 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times andlor locations. oo >-oo UJ >-a: UJ J: >-a -FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT HWAGEoSCIENCES INC RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: BORING-OSM 2011-039.GPJ 9128112 DATE STARTED: Bnl2011 DATE COMPLETED: 617/2011 LOGGED BY: D. Coltrane SURFACE ELEVATION: 19.7 :tfeet a: I!! ~ " z OJ 0 a: OJ 0 o Dropweight Cone Penetrometer (17.6 lb. weight, 22.6" drop) A Blows per foot 10 20 30 40 o 20 40 60 .80 Water Content (%) Plastic Limit 1--0--1 liquid Limit Natural Water Content PAVEMENT CORE CORE-OJ PAGE: 1 of 1 2011-039 FIGURE' I I I z Q >-'" I ili=- 50 m! I I I I I 15 I I I I I 10 I 100 I I I A-8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DRILLING METHOD: 8·inch Diamond Core SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOCATION: See Figure 2. DESCRIPTION Loose, gray, fine to coarse gravelly, fine to coarse SAND with cobbles and trace silt, moist. [FILL] ~:'~~----------------------fv',e,Hum dense, gray, gravelly sandy SILT to silty SAND, a: W W <D 0. ::; ~ :J z W W ~ ~ 0. 0. ::; ::; « « <n <n 1tit.t--t"Med~~'U'-m-s-lI-ff,-g-ra-y-, S-I-L T-wl-th-s-a-n-d -to-s-a-nd-y-S-'L-T-, -m-o'-s1-. -7J 0 $·2 5 10 [ALLUVIUM] ="-"=~ ----------------------Medium stiff, brown with gray mottling, ORGANIC SILT with trace fine sand seams and reeds, moist. stiff, gray. fine sandy SILT with interbedds of fine sand and reeds, wet. Core hole was terminated at 7g...inches below ground surface. Ground water seepage was observed during the exploration at 60 to 62-inches below ground surface. o S-3 o S-4 W " ~u; f-• <n{i en .5 Ww a:-d ~a NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. <n t-<n W t- a: W J: f- 0 -FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION HWAGEoSCIENCES INC RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON, WASHINGTON DATE STARTED: 617/2011 DATE COMPLETED: 617/2011 LOGGED BY: D. Coltrane SURFACE ELEVATION: 19.9 ±feet a: W t- ~ z :J 0 a: " Dropweight Cone Penetrometer (17.6 lb. weight, 22.S" drop) A. Blows per foot 0 10 20 .:6. ..... : .... : .... : A.,t,: A: ·&111 At.. • A. I: ~. All A'" 1 A .lil} • A~ : o A ... ~ ... .: ... : .... 1> .. * h. · A. · A. 20 40 30 60 Water Content (%) 40 80 Plastic Limit I " I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content PAVEMENT CORE CORE-DB PAGE: 1 of 1 PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FIGURE' BORfNG-DSM 2011·039.GPJ 9128112 z ~ « ilj=-m! 50 15 10 100 A-9 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DRILLING METHOD: B-inch Diamond Core SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOCATION: See Figure 2. 5 10 DESCRIPTION [ASPHALTIC CONCRETE] ,I to coarse cobbles and trace slit, moist. Becoming fine to medium SAND with gravel. [FILL) ~~~----------------------Medium dense, Dark olive brown, silty, gravelly fine to ML medium SAND, moist j moist. [ALLUVIUM] ~~.r;~7=-------------------stiff to medium dense, gray, silty fine SAND 10 SM sandy SILT, wet. Core hole was terminated at 90-Inches below ground surface. Ground water seepage was observed during the exploration at 65-inches below ground surface, '" w w () w ., z_ '" "'-"-I;;~ /: " z en: .!O! w w w'" ~ ~ "'-"-"-:d :t '" '" ~e 00 00 05-3 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be Indicative of other times andlor locations. oo >-00 w >- '" w :I: >-0 ., FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT HWAGEoScIENCES INC RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: BORING-OSM 2011-039.GPJ 9/213/12 DATE STARTED: 617/2011 DATE COMPLETED: 617/2011 LOGGED BY: D. Coltrane SURFACE ELEVATION: 19.9 :tfeet '" w ~ z " 0 '" CJ 0 o Dropweight Cone Penetrometer (17.6 lb. weight, 22.6" drop) b. Blows per foot 10 20 30 40 0: .~ ... 20 40 60 80 Water Content (%) Plastic Umit 1---0--1 Liquid Umit Natural Water Content PAVEMENT CORE CORE-09 PAGE: 1 of 1 2011-039 FIGURE· I I I I I I I I I DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DRILLING METHOD: f3..inch Diamond Core SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOCATION: See Figure 2. (f) ~ u =! ~ 0 0 (f) "' (f) " U >-<f) (f) ::> DESCRIPTION - 2.2~inches HMA Pavement. 'G GP 1\ [ASPHALTIC CONCRETE[ it Dense to wry dense, gray fine to coarse sandy, fine angular GRAVEL, moist. ·G [GRAVEL BASE[ i"t 'G ,'0 t Core hole was terminated al2S-inches below ground surface. No ground water seepage was observed during the exploration. 0: W W U W "' z~ (f) " " . a. in-lj f- /: ::> (f) z til .5 W W W Woo f- ~ ~ 0: a. a. ~l W ~ " J: " WoO f- <f) <f) 0.-0 ! I 5 - I I I I I I I I 10 - NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. -FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT HWAGEoScIENCES INC RENTON, WASHINGTON DATE STARTED: 6/612011 DATE COMPLETED: 6/612011 LOGGED BY: D. Coltrane SURFACE ELEVATION: 19.1 :t feet 0: W f-~ 0 Z :> 0 0: '" 0 o Dropweight Cone Penetrometer (17.6 lb. weight, 22.6-drop) 6. Blows per fool 10 it> "" 6, 20 30 : 6: :<1. : . i:. I> 6 f 40 : .... : .... : .... : .... ···6··· 20 40 60 80 Waler Content (%) Plastic Limit 1---0----1 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content PAVEMENT CORE CORE-10 PAGE: 1 of 1 I PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FIGURE· BORING-OSM 2011-039.GPJ 9128112 z 0 i= " (ijz-~f 50 w" 15 10 100 A-11 DRILLiNG COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DRILLING METHOD: a-inch Diamond Core SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOCATION: See Figure 2. J: b:~ w. """ 0 5 10 '" '" :5 u d -' 0 0 '" '" '" :; U >-'" '" => DESCRIPTION 8.S-inches HMA Pavement. [ASPHALIC CONCRETE] B-Inches Portland Cement Concrete [FCC] Loose, gra~sh brown, fine to coarse gravelly, fine to coarse SAND with cobbles and trace slit, moist. [FILL] ~~~~--------------------Medium dense, dark olive brown, silty fine to medium SAND with gravel, moist. Piece of wood at 35-inches BGS. Core hole was terminated al 45-lnches below ground surface due to refusal on cobbles. No ground water seepage was observed during the exploration. 0: w w U w '" U 11. :; ~ => Z w w '" .- -' -' ~l 11. 11. :; ~ ()i w" 11._ o S-1 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the dale indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. '" .... '" w .... 0: W J: .... 0 ., FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT lHWAGEoScIENCES INc RENTON, WASHINGTON DATESTARTED; 61712011 DATE COMPLETED: 61712011 LOGGED BY: O. Coltrane SURFACE ELEVATION: 19.1 :t feet 0: Dropweight Cone Penetrometer W ~ (17.6 lb. weight, 22.S" drop) ~ Blows per foot " z => " 0: '" 0 10 20 30 40 50 :» ' o ........... 20 40 60 80 Water Content (%) Plastic Limit 1---0-1 Liquid Umit Natural Water Content PAVEMENT CORE CORE-11 PAGE: 1 of 1 100 z 0 i= <: (jj::.-Lclg 15 10 PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FIGURE' A-12 BORING-DSM 2011-039.GPJ 9/28/12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DRILLING METHOD: a-inch Diamond Core SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOCA nON: See Figure 2. :I: t-_ 0.-w~ 0"- 0 5 10 00 00 :5 <J -' -' 5 0 00 '" 00 " <J >-00 00 ::> DESCRIPTION 7.S-inches HMA Pavement. [ASPHALTIC CONCRETE) &.inches Portland Cement Concrete [PCC[ Loose, brown, fine to coarse gravelly, fine to coarse SAND with cobbles and trace silt, moist to wet. [ALL[ ~~~~~---------------------,gra~sh brown, silty fine to medium SAND with trace fine gravel, moist. ~~,~~---------------------Piece of wood encountered. Light grayish brown, gravelly SAND with trace slit and roollets, moist. Sand becomes coarser. Medium dense, interbedded gray, silty fine SAND with brown fine to medium SAND, moist. ~~-L ________________________ ~ Core hole was terminated at 86-inches below ground surface due to refusal on cobbles. No ground water seepage was observed during the exploration. W <J z_ " . t-• oo~ _ 0 en .5 wm 0:-.~ r5..2 o.e 0 501 o~ NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the dale indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. oo t- 00 W t- 0: w :I: t- 0 -FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT HWAGEoScIENCES INC RENTON, WASHINGTON DATE STARTED: 61612011 DATE COMPLETED: 61612011 LOGGED BY: D. Coltrane SURFACE ELEVATION: 20.6 :i:feet 0: Oropweight Cone Penetrometer W t- ~ (1~.6Ib. weight, 22.S-drop) O A Blows per foot Z ::> 0 o: (!) 0 10 20 30 40 50 ....... ~ .... lJ. ·····1····:····:;;' o A 20 40 60 80 Water Content {%} Plastic Umit 1------0----1 Liquid Umit Natural Water Content PAVEMENT CORE CORE-12 PAGE: 1 of 1 100 z 0 >= " (ijz--'~ w"- 20 15 PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FIGURE: A-13 BORING-DSM 2011-039.GPJ 9128112 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DRILLING METHOD: a-inch Diamond Core SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOCATION: See Figure 2. 00 ~ ~ 5 00 00 (.) 00 :> 3-inches HM.A. DESCRIPTION 6-inches Portland Cement '" w w '" :; a. ~ :> z w w ~ ~ a. a. :; :; " " 00 00 Loose, brown, well graded GRAVEL with sand and cobbles 0 5-1 and trace silt, moist to wet. 5 10 [FILL] Gray t;lighib~w;. ~;;dySiLT :-m-;;i;L Oxide -;'~I;g-- - present. (ALLUVIUM) Becoming light brown medium SAND to gray sill. Interbeds/lenses of gray slit from 49-51 Inches. UllL-L-____________________ ~ Core hole was terminated at 57-Inches below ground surface due to refusal on cobbles. No ground water seepage was observed during the exploration. 05-2 05-3 w (.) z_ " . .... ! !!2 u r.n .5 w~ "'-:i~ w~ 0._ NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. oo .... 00 w .... '" w J: b -FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT HWAGEOScIENCES INc RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: BORING-OSM 20tt-039.GPJ 9/28112 DATE STARTED: 616/2011 DATE COMPLETED: 61612011 LOGGED BY: D. Coltrane SURFACE ELEVATION: 21.4 :tfeet '" w ~ c z :> a '" C> 0 o Oropweight Cone Penetrometer (17.6 lb. weight, 22.6" drop) A Blows per foot 10 20 30 40 :.A .... ti. . ... ~ ......... . ft 20 Water Content (%) Plastic Limit 1-------0--1 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content PAVEMENT CORE CORE-13 PAGE: 1 of 1 2011-039 FIGURE· I I I z a >= " I it=-~~ 50 w'=- I 20 I I I B I I 15 I I I I 100 I I I A-14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Diamond Core SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOCATION: See Figure 2. 5 10 DESCRIPTION 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[ ':""'-'---'-- ------ - - - - - -- - -- - - ---SP Light brown, fine SAND with slit and trace gravel, moist. 8M (ALLUVIUM) Interbeds/lenses of gray silt in sample. Core hole was terminated at SO·inches below ground surface. No ground water seepage was observed during the e>q>loration. 05-1 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT om RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION HWAGEoScIENCES INC RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON, WASHINGTON DATE ST ARlED; 61612011 DATE COMPLETED: 61612011 LOGGED BY: D. Coltrane SURFACE ELEVATION: 20.8 :t feet a Oropweight Cone Penetrometer (17.6 lb. weight, 22.6" drop) A Blows per foot 40 60 60 Water Content (%) Plastic Umit I Q I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content PAVEMENT CORE CORE-14 PAGE: 1 of 1 PROJECT NO., 2011-039 FIGURE· BORING-DSM 2011-039.GPJ 9128112 20 15 100 A-15 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DRILLING METHOD: 8·inch Diamond Core SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOCATION: See Figure 2. <J) <J) :s " -' 5 I 0 <J) 5::z-CD <J) ::; " ~~ >-<J) <J) :J 0 5 10 DESCRIPTION 6-inches HMA Pavement. [ASPHALTIC CONCRETE] sand. GRAVEL very loose. light brown, fine to medium SAND with I.!!!,o,!!t:-________________ _ Loose, gra~sh brown, poorly graded GRAVEL with sand, moist. Piece of wood Light grayish brown. graYelly SAND with trace silt and rootlets, moist. (FILUDISTURBED NATIVE) Core hole was terminated at 64-lnches below ground surface due to refusal on cobbles. No ground water seepage was observed during the exploration. '" w w " w CD ~Ui' a. ::; ~~ ~ :J z w ~ <J) ._ -' W'" a. a. ~1 ::; ::; '" '" w" <J) <J) 0._ o S-1 08-2 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. <J) t- <J) w t- '" w I 0 -FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION HWAGEoScIENCES INC RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON, WASHINGTON DATESTARTED: 616/2011 DATE COMPLETED: 61612011 LOGGED BY: D. Coltrane SURFACE ELEVATION: 20.7 :tfes! '" w t-~ z :J 0 '" Cl 0 o Dropweigh! Cone Penetrometer (17.6 lb. weight. 22.6-drop) I:J. Blows per foot 10 20 30 40 o 0: .... ~ . 20 40 60 80 Water Content (%) Plastic Limit ~ Liquid Umi! Natural Water Content PAVEMENT CORE CORE-15 PAGE: 1 of 1 PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FIGURE' BORING-DSM 2011"'()39.GPJ 9/28/12 I I I 100 I I I A-16 I I DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DATESTARTED: 6/6f2011 DRILLING METHOD: a-inch Diamond Core DATE COMPLETED: 6/612011 I SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOGGED BY: D. Coltrane LOCATION: See Figure 2, SURFACE ELEVATION: 20.7 :l::feet I <n a: w <n w " a: Dropweight Cone Penetrometer :5 w '" ~'iii' <n w " a. " t-~ t-~ (17.6 lb. weight, 22.6" drop) ~ I:: ::> <nu <n z 5 z (ij .5 w 15 A Blows per foot 0 ~ w W t- J: 0 <n ~ ~ ~se a: z ~ I ful '" <n a. a. :d w ::> " " " " J: 0 jijz- > <n <: <: ~e t-a: ~~ c"" <n ::> DESCRIPTION <n <n 0 '" w"" 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 3.5-inches I IASPHAL TIC CONCRETE] (PCC] I 20 coarse SAND 05-1 I (FILL] ----------------------Medium dense, gray, silty fine to medium SAND with fine to coarse gravel. moist. Pieces of brown silt present. I 05-2 61: ----------------------I Loose to medium dense, light brown, fine to coarse gravelly, fine to coarse, SAND with trace silt and cobbles, moist. I 05-3 I I 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, I I I 5 0 20 40 60 80 100 I Waler Content (0/0) Plastic Limit 1------0----1 Liquid Umit NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated Natural Water Content I and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. -FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PAVEMENT CORE I RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION CORE-16 HWAGEoSCIENCES INC RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT PAGE: 1 of 1 RENTON, WASHINGTON I PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 EIGUB,' A-17 BORING-DSM 2011-039.GPJ 9128112 I DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DRILLING METHOD: 12-inch Diamond Core SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOCATION: See Figure 2. 5 10 DESCRIPTION 7-jnches HMA Pavement. [ASPHALTIC CONCRETE] 6-lnches Portland Cement Concrete [PCC] ,I to coarse [FILL[ ~'hur---------------------lv\edium dense, dark gray, slightly silty, gra\o'elly, fine to medium SAND, moist. Trace wood debris. ~r~--------------------Medium stiff, brown, ORGANIC SilT, moist. Core hole was terminated at 72-inches below ground surface due to refusal on cobbles. No ground water seepage was observed during the exploration. ~ S-1 O~2 O~3 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. -FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION HWAGEoScIENCES INC RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: BORING-OSM 2011-039.GPJ 9128112 DATE STARTED: 7/11/2012 DATE COMPLETED: 7/1112012 LOGGED BY: D. Coltrane SURFACEELEVATtON: 19.7 ~feet a Oropweighl Cone Penetrometer (17.6 lb. weight, 22.6M drop) i:J. Blows per foot 10 20 30 " ·1· . ..... :.A: .... :. : · . . . · . . . · . . . Water Content ('Yo) Plastic limit 1---0--1 liquid limit Natural Water Content PAVEMENT CORE CORE-17 PAGE: 1 of 1 2011-039 FIGURE: I I I I I I I I I 15 I I I I I 10 I 100 I I I A-18 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DRILLING METHOD: 12-inch Diamond Core SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOCATION: See Figure 2. J: b:=-w~ c'=- 5 U) U) :5 () -' -' 5 0 U) "' U) " () >-U) U) ::> DESCRIPTION 6-inches HMA Pavement. (ASPHALTIC CONCRETE] Cement Concrete (PCC] Medium dense, gray, sandy, cobbly, fine to coarse GRAVEL, moist to wet. (FILL] Ground water seepage observed at 2.16 feet below ground surface, (eGS) ~~,~~--------------------SM Medium dense, dark gray, slightly gravelly, sandy SilT, moist to wet. Trace wood debris. ML Medium stiff, CLAY, moist. Organic debris and brown mottling OD,;e~~d. (ALLUVIUM] '"""'c-t--c~·-------------------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. 0: W W () w "' z_ " "" . "-.... . ~ ::> U)~ z _ 0 V'J .5 w w w~ -' -' 0:-"-"-z~ " " <C <C ~s. U) U) 05-3 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other limes and/or locations. U) .... U) w .... 0: w :I: b -FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT lHWAGEoScIENCES INC RENTON, WASHINGTON DATE STARTED: 7/1112012 DATE COMPLETED: 7/11/2012 LOGGED BY; D. Coltrane SURFACE ELEVATION: 19.6 :t feet 0: w .... ~ Z ::> 0 0: '" 0 A, A, A., A, o Dropweight Cone Penetrometer (17.6 lb. weight, 22.6" drop) A Blows per foot 10 20 30 40 20 40 60 80 Water Content (%) Plastic Limit I I'll I Liquid Limit Natural Water Content PAVEMENT CORE CORE-18 PAGE: 1 of 1 PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 BORIN(7[)SM 2011-039.GPJ 9/28112 z 0 >= "" G;= -'* 50 w'=- 15 10 100 A-19 DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DRILLING METHOD: a-inch Diamond Core SAMPLING METHOD: Hand Tools LOCATION: See Figure 2. " ~Z" w$ c'=- 0 5 10 U) S " ~ ~ 0 0 U) <D U) '" " >-U) U) ::> DESCRIPTION HMA [ASPHALTIC CONCRETE] Medium dense, gray, sandy, cobbly, fine to coarse GRAVEL, moist to wet. [FILL] Medium stiff, gray to brown, , moist. Organic debris and brown mottling observed. [ALLUVIUM] r=.=·tc~l-----------------------Medium stiff, gray, silty CLAY to clayey SILT, moist. Trace organIcs observed. Core hole was terminated at 66-inches BGS due to refusal on cobbles. No ground water seepage was observed during the exploration. w " z_ ~gf U)ij en .S wm ~1 w" 0._ 05-3 05-4 NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. U) .... U) w .... a: w " b -FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION HWAGEoScIENCES INC BORING-QSM 2011..o39.GPJ 9128112 RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.: DATE STARTED: 7/11/2012 DATE COMPLETED: 7/11/2012 LOGGED BY: D. Coltrane SURFACE ELEVATION: 19.5 zfeet a: w .... ~ c z ::> 0 a: (!) 0 o Dropweight Cone Penetrometer (17.6 lb. weight, 22.6" drop) A Blows per foot 10 20 30 40 11.: .. l\:. 60 80 Water Content (%) Plastic limit 1----0--1 Liquid Limit Natural Water Content PAVEMENT CORE CORE-19 PAGE: 1 of 1 2011-039 FIGURE: I I I z ~ " I Gi-~1i 50 w'=- I I I I I 15 I I I I I 10 I 100 I I I A-20 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRILLING COMPANY: Cascade Concrete Sawing and Drilling DRILLING METHOD: 8-inch Diamond Core SAMPliNG METHOD: Hand Tools LOCATION: See Figure 2. UJ UJ S " -' -' 5 :I: 0 UJ !i:~ '" UJ " " ~! iii UJ :> 0 DESCRIPTION 6-inches HMA Pavement. [ASPHALTIC CONCRETE) Medium dense. gray, sandy, cobbly, fine to coarse GRAVEL, moist to wet. [FILL] tv'edium sllff, gray, slightly sandy SILT, moist. [ALLUVIUM] rv1edium stiff, gray to brown, SILT to ORGANIC SILT, moist. Organic debris and brown mottling observed. a: W W '" " "-~ :> z W W -' -' "-"-~ " ;); 05-2 5 L.........L_L-_______________ ---'° 5-3 10 Core hole was tenninaled al 66-inches BGS due to refusal on cobbles. No ground water seepage was observed during the exploration. W " z_ " . !!i~ en .5 wm ~1 w D "-- NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. UJ f- UJ W f- a: w :I: f- 0 -FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT HWAGEoScIENCES INC RENTON, WASHINGTON DATE STARTED: 7/11/2012 DATE COMPLETED: 711112012 LOGGED BY: D. Coltrane SURFACE ELEVATION: 20.0 t feet a: W ~ z :> 0 a: " 0 o Dropweight Cone Penetrometer (17.6Ib. weight, 22.6" drop) A Blows per fool 10 20 30 40 A .: .t. A A.:": .. 'A' .............. . 20 40 60 80 Water Content (%) Plastic Limit I---G--f Liquid Umit Natural Water Content PAVEMENT CORE CORE-20 PAGE: 1 of 1 PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FIGURE' BORING-DSM 2011-Q39.GPJ 9128112 z 0 ~ ~'" u:l! 50 15 100 A-21 .. EXCAVATION CO~ANY: DeenyConstructlon EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT: Case 590 Backhoe SURFACE ELEVATION: 19:1: Feet en S 'if 0 .... ~ .... 5 w "-~ W '" w '" '" " '" I-" w-'" Z ",I-W W l- '" W ~ e LOCATION: See Figure 2. DATE COMPLETED: 6/3/11 LOGGED BY: S. Greene SKETCH OF SIDE OF PIT ! I 0 '" I-'" '" "-" 0 w >-'" e '" " DESCRIPTION "z .... .... I-W 0: Z "-"-Ull-W " ~ " -z I 0 0( 00 I-'" Ul '" "0 0 (!) 0 ~ I ' , ,--r i!: I . "- 2 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (feet) 4 6 8 o .. 3-inch layer of grass and sod . - 2 4 6 8 10 5-1 22 B-1 67 Al GS MD CBR ... : SP Medium dense, brown, poor1y graded SAND with silt and gravel, ::.: •. SM moist. OH \ (FILL) f Medium stiff, grayish brown, ORGANIC SILT, with 3.5% organic matter, moist, plastic. In-place density of soil chunk = Dry density of 56.7 pet@ 79.3% Me. _ OL (ALLUVIUM) Soft, gray to grayish broINn, organic SILT, plastic. Contains thin 5-3 -layers of highty organic material, moist 10 weL ...:.--- Test pit terminated al 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 surface. 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. - "l HWAGEoSCIENCESlNC· FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON. WASHINGTON .ol1-<Jiliil'I28/,,_ --------.. . . : --1!-6 LOG OF TEST PIT TP-1 PAGE: 1 of 1 PROJECT NO., 2011-039 FIGURE, _ _ IIIIiIiI IIIIiIiI _ A-22 IIiiIiIIIII ------ -- --- EXCAVATION COMPANY: Deeny Construction EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT: Case 590 Backhoe SURFACE ELEVATION: 19 :I: Feet ! I Ii: ~ 0- 2- 4- 6- 8- 10- ui Vl ~ W " ~ ~ is 0 Vl "-~ w ~ '" Vl " " >-Vl Vl ::> DESCRIPTION "-" " Vl '?: .1 I 3-inches of grass and sod . •• I'~ -Medium dense, gray silty SAND with trace fine grawl. moist. r :H~ :~ I \ (FILL) ML Dense. gray, sandy SILT with fine gravel, moist. Medium stiff, brownish gray SILT with fine sand, moist, low plastic. OH I Soft, gray to dark brown, ORGANIC SILT, moist to wet, plastic. !:;ilace density of soil chunk = dry density of 48.7 pet@ 134.2% 10 (ALLWIUM) 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 ground surface. 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). 0: W '" " ::> z w ~ "-" " Vl S·l S·2 B·l 5-3 ;fi w- 0:>-::>z .... w Vl>--z 00 "" 11 25 102 213 Vl >-Vl W >- 0: W I >-0 AL GS MD CBR 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 andlor locations. 0: W >-~ Z ::> 0 0: '" Yl - -- -- LOCATION: See Figure 2. DATE COMPLETED: 6/3111 LOGGED BY: S. Greene SKETCH OF SIDE OF PIT HORIZONTAL DI5T ANCE (feet) --- £ ~ 0 ~:-~~-t--:-:--:-t~--:-~-t~ __ ~~~~~~~10 0 I IrO 2 4 6 8 1 ·········1······ .......... ···1···· ........ ····1··· ........ ····1···············1 ................ , ................. , .............................. , ................. . ............................................................................ ; 12 ............................ f-4 ··················l .. · ...... · .. ·· .. I ............ I ............ ··f·· .. ··· .. ··· .. ......................................................................................... · .. ... . . . ; :: :;: : : : · .. ... . . . · .. ... . . . f-6 ........... ········1···················1···· ........ ····1··· ........ ····1· ................. . ................ ·.·1·· ... ··············1···· ............................ 1 .................. . .... ~ .... ~ .. 'T'" .... ~ .... ~ .... ~ ........................................ ~ .... ~ .... ~ ... . · .. ... . . . f-8 ··············1··············· ····1···· ........ ····1···· ........ ····1··················· • • •• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• •••• 1 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .................................................................... ; .... ; .... ; .... .... :::: ::: :::1::::::::::::::::::::····· I . . . I . . . I .... :····;: ;;. . ···;····;···1···;····;··:·1 .. ··;···l· .. ;· ; ; ; ; 'LlO -HWAGEoSCIENCES INC. FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TfV<IWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON, WASHINGTON LOG OF TEST PIT TP-2 PAGE: 1 of 1 2011-039 A-23 PROJECT NO.: FIGURE: TPITtO 2011-039.GPJ 9/28112 -.J EXCAVATION COMPANY: DeenyConstruction EXCAVATING EQUIPMENT: Case 590 Backhoe SURFACE ELEVATION: 20 :I: Feet ! ~ ~ a <D :; en '" ~ " ~ i5 '" '" " 0: w W <D "-:; ?:: :J Z W W ~ ~ "-"-:; :; '" ;f'. >- w-'" 0:>-W :Jz >- >-w 0: ",>-w -z :I: 0: W ~ Z :J a LOCATION: See Figure 2. DATE COMPLETED: 6/3111 LOGGED BY: S. Greene SKETCH OF SIDE OF PIT ! ~ w o o >-'" '" :J ~: . DESCRIPTION '" '" '" '" 3-inches of grass and sod. 8 5-1 00 >-0: :;" a '" 0 I : :: _ _ 10 ~ 2 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE (feet) 4 6 8 2 4 6 8 10 GP Medium dense, brown, sandy GRAVEL with silt, moist. I~~ ! \ (All.) Medium dense, grayish brown, fine sandy SILT, moist, non-plastic. 5-2 16 ~ B-1 25 GS MD ML Loose to medium stiff, olive gray, sandy SilT, moist, non plastic. In-place density of soil chunk= dry density 98.0 pcf @ 25% MC. CBR ~ 54 51 _ OL Medium stiff to soft, gray to grayish brown, organic SILT, moist to -wet, low plastic. -(ALLUVIUM) Test pit excavation tenninated 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 ground surface. 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. - 'l HWAGroSCIENCES INc FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON, WASHINGTON _011-OIii/"8I12_ - - - -----.. LOG OF TEST PIT TP-3 PAGE: 1 of 1 PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FIGURE: _ _ .. MI iiI!!ID A-24 IIiiiJ ------------------- - GRAVEL SAND Coarse Fine Coarse 1 Medium 1 Fine U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 314" 3" 1-112" 518" 318" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 • I • . . . . . . • 100 < I I I I I T' I I I I I I I I I 90 ;~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 80 l-I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I " 70 u::i I I I I I I I I I s: I I 1 I I I I I I I \ >-60 I '\ I I I I I I I I I \1\ aJ I IN-e.-I I I I I I I a:: I I I I I I I .. W 50 Z I I I I I I I I 1\ 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 \ z I I I I i' I I w 0 I I I I I I \I I I I a:: 30 I i w I I I I 11\ I I I 0.. 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 I I I I I 1-I I 'L I I I I I 0 50 10 5 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) CLASSifiCATION Of SOIL-ASTM 02487 Group Symbol and Name G CORE·01 8-3 Ii!I CORE.Q2 8-4 b. CORE.Q3 8-4 -HWAGEoSCIENas INC HWAGRSZ 2011-039.GPJ 9128112 0.6-1.3 2.0 -2.5 2.3 -2.8 (GP) Dark olive brown, poorly graded GRAVEL with sand (ML) Dark olive to gray, sandy SILT with 1.2 % organic matter by dry weight (ML) Oark olive brOlNn, SILT with 1.6% organic matter FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON. WASHINGTON ~ \ \ \. ------ SILT CLAY . ~ ,,~ ~ "1111 ~ 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005 %MC 5 25 39 LL PL PI Gr~ ~d Fi~:S 52.7 43.4 3.9 25 22 3 1.4 28.1 70.5 1.6 29.3 69.1 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM 0422 PROJECT NO., 2011-039 FIGURE, B-1 .. l- I (!) W ~ >-tIl a:: UJ Z u. I- Z UJ <.) a:: UJ a. GRAVEL Fine SAND SILT CLAY Medium T Coarse Fine Coarse U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 3/4" ~. 1-1/2" I 5!8-3/,S-~ #~o #~o ~o ~o #1.00 #2.00 100 11 I I\l\ "i I I I Iii I I I I I I III I I I I I I III I I I II I !!il ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I 1111 I I I I I 1111 I I 90 III I ~Ii I I I Iii 1111 I I 1111111 I 111111 II I I I \; I I I I'~ I I I I I I I I I I _I~I U L I I i ~J 80 ~ I I i"--I I I I I I 1.1 I I III I 70 1 ~ I I D. I I ! ! I I 1111 I I ~J I I II);." I ~ I I I I 1111 I III I I II I II I I I Ii" I '" I I ! i I I I I I I 1111 I I I I i _LLILJ I 60 I I I I I'll. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I"" I I I I I 50 1 I I I I I I::::::: I "I I I I I I I I I I I ~J I I I I I I' I t"----... I II! I I I I I I I I I, I I I I I I I I I I I I I ___ I I I I I 40 II I I I I I I rr I' Ii" I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I _I II I I I I II I I I I i I I "" I I'l'. I 'l"-i I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I L::::, I I ' '" I N I I I I I I I I I I liiJ 30 II I I I I I "I I fi--i I I I I I 1111 I I I II I I I I1111 II I I I I~ 20 II I I I I I I I' I I I II I I I I I I I'l ! I I I I I II I I ...LLll..l.J 10 11 I I I I I I I 'f-,L I I I I I I I I I I III I I 011 I I I 11 I I I I ! T I I I IJ.Ll J. i .l.LU..LI 50 10 5 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005 SYMBOLI SAMPLE o I CORE-05 I S-3 D CORE-06 S-2 " CORE-07 S-1 -HWAGEoSCIENCES INC. _SZ 2O_PJ 91,. _ GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS DEPTH (ft) I CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL-ASTM 02467 Group Symbol and Name 1.0 -2.4 (SM) Dark Gray, silty SAND with gravel, contains glass and shell fragments. 2.9 -3.1 (SM) Dark grayish brown, silty SAND with gravel 1.3 -1.6 (GP) Gray, poortygraded GRAVEL with sand - FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON, WASHINGTON -____ ..-JIMII %MCI LL I PL PI I Gravell Sand I Fines % % ..?&I. 37 10 5 18.9 55.5 25.6 44.3 37.1 18.6 54.0 42.5 3.5 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM 0422 PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FIGURE: IiIIIIiiJ ~ IIiiI IiiiiiII iiIfiJ 8-2 Iiiiiil ------------------- GRAVEL SAND Coarse 1 Fine Coarse I Medium I Fine U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 314" 3" H/2" 5/8" 318" #4 #10 #20 #40 000 #100 #200 , I , , , , , , , , 100 l\ 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 r--.. I '8. 80 i ~ f-I I I I I I i', I I I I I I I I I J I (!) 70 W I I I I I I I 1" I I :s: I I 1 I I I I i \1 >-60 I I I I I I I I 1\ I 00 0:: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I w 50 I I I I I I I I I I Z u: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I f-40 I : : : z I I I I I I w II I I I I I I I I I I 0:: 30 I 1 i i W I I I I I I Cl. 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 1 I I I I i i I 0 50 10 5 0.5 0.1 0.05 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL-ASTM 02487 Group Symbol and Name 49 CORE-08 m CORE-08 8-3 I!o. CORE-09 8-2 -HWAGEoScIENCES INC HWAGRsZ 2011-039.GPJ 9128/12 4.2 -4.4 2.3 -2.7 (ML) Dark clive brown, SILT with sand (OH) Dark grayish brown. organic SILT (SM) Dark clive brown. silly SAND with gravel FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON, WASHINGTON SILT CLAY It\' \ 1\ Iii ') 'm ~ 0.Q1 0.005 0.001 0.0005 %MC 23 114 15 LL PL PI Gr~:e' S~2d Fines % 3.6 33.8 62.6 108 74 34 3.8 10.8 85.5 17.2 43.4 39.4 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D422 PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FIGURE: B-3 - GRAVEL SAND Coarse I Fine Coarse I Medium 1 Fine U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 314" 3" 1-112" 51S" 3IS" #4 #10 #20 #40 1100 #100 #200 . I • . • • . . . . . 100 ~ "-.. : I I I I I I I I II~ I I I I I I 90 I I I I I I I I I I I I I r-----...; I I I I SO 1\ ~ l-I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I -", I I (!) 70 ~ [jj I \ I I I I I I ~ N I $: I ~i I I I I I >-60 I 11\ I I I I I 1\ I al c:: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I w 50 I I I \1 I I I I l\ I z u::: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I-40 I I I I z I I I I I w 0 I I I I I I I I I I c:: 30 I i w I I I I If'-... I I I 11-I 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 I I I 11 r--1 I I I I i I I I ... 0 T 50 10 5 0.5 0.1 0.05 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL-ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name 0 CORE-11 5-2 3.0 -3.5 0 CORE-12 5-2 2.8 -3.3 l>. CORE-13 5-1 1.0 -1.3 om HWAGEoSCIENCES INc. WZ 201.J 912. _ _ (SM) Dark olive brown, silly SAND (SM) Brown, silly SAND (GW) Dark olive brown. well graded GRAVEL with sand FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON, WASHINGTON ------- SILT CLAY 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005 %MC 16 14 3 LL PL PI Gravel Sand Fines % .%. ..% 13.4 51.2 35.4 14.5 49.0 36.5 70.1 26.8 3.0 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D422 PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FIGURE: 8-4 1 .. IIIiII _ II'Iil Bm IIiIIliiI ------------------- GRAVEL SAND Coarse I Fine Coarse I Medium I Fine U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 3/4" 3" 1-1/2" 5/S" 3/S" #4 #10 #20 #40 #<;0 #100 #200 , I , , , , , , , , 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 SO l-I \ I I I I I ~ -\ ~ I I I I I ! I I I r---l I (!) 70 W I I I I I I ~ f"" I s: I i I I I i I >-60 I I~ I I I I 1\ I OJ 0::: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I UJ 50 I I~ I I I I I I I Z I I I I I I I I LI. I I I I I I I I I I I-40 ,Ii' I I ~ Z I I I I UJ <.) I I I I I I I I I 0::: 30 1\ UJ I I I I I I I I I a. I I I I I I I I I 20 I I I I t--t-----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 0.5 0.1 0.05 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) ClASSIFICATION OF SOIL-ASTM 02487 Group Symbol and Name III CORE-13 8-2 [J CORE-14 8-3 ... CORE-15 8-1 -HWAGOOScIENCES INC. HWAGRSZ 2011-039.GPJ 9128112 2.5 -2.9 4.4 -4.8 1.2-1.4 (ML) Br<>Nl1, SILT with sand (SP-SM) Brown. poorly gradad SAND with silt (GP) Olive brown, poorly graded GRAVEL with sand FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON, WASHINGTON SILT CLAY 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005 %MC 21 9 6 LL PL PI Gr~ ~/~d Fines Ok 14.6 29.7 55.7 0.5 87.8 11.7 Sl.5 13.1 5.4 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D422 PROJECT NO.' 2011-039 FIGURE: 6-5 , IiiIiil!Il GRAVEL SAND Coarse I Fine Coarse I Medium I Fine U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 314" 3" 1-1/2" 5/S" 3IS" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 , I , , , , , , , 100 1""1! I i I ,\ I I I I I T I I I I I I I I I i'--90 I \ I 1--I I i i I 1'\ I I I I I I I I I ,"-SO f-I ~i I I ..... 1 I I I I I I I I III ! ! I C> 70 Ui I I I I I i\ I I I 3: I I \ I I I i i I >-60 I I I "\ I I I I ~ I I aJ c::: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I w 50 I I I I ~ I I I I\L z I I I I I I I I u::: I I I I I -...... r--. I I I I f-40 Z I I i I I -----. I i i"----w (.) I I I I I I ..... 1 I I c::: 30 I i III i i w I I I . I '\ I Cl. I I I I I I I I I I 20 'c 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 y-........ I I I i I I I I i i 0 50 10 5 0.5 0.1 0.05 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL-ASTM 02487 Group Symbol and Name 0 CORE-15 S4 D CORE-16 S-2 b. TP-l B-1 -HWAGlEOSClENCES INc. 4.7 -5.2 1.5-1.7 0.9 -2.5 (GP) Olive brown. poorly graded GRAVEL with sand (8M) BrO\oVnish gray, silty SAND with gravel (OH) light olive brown, organic SILT with 3.5% organic matter FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON, WASHINGTON \ 'iIiF 20'.PJ 912. Iii1IIiiiiI IiiIiiJ IiIIIiiI IiiIiiI Iiiiil IilIiiii1 IiliI IiiilIiiiI IIiiiiiil SILT CLAY \ \ .l! r\ I'l! '1 ~ r-.... 't> 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005 %MC LL PL PI Gravel Sand Fines % % % 5 25 67 54.5 41.7 3.9 16.2 49.1 34.7 122 6S 54 0.0 4.1 95.9 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM 0422 PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FIGURE: B-6 iiIiiiI IiiiiiI iiiiiiI IiiiI iiiiil Iiiiiiliiil ------------------- ---~ GRAVEL SAND Coarse Fine Coarse Medium I Fine U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 314" 3" 1·112" 5/8" 318" #4 #10 #20 #40 #SO #100 #200 , , , , , , , 100 I r-e-I . I I ~ I I I I I r-c I I 90 I i i ~\ '\ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1\ 80 l-I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I Cl 70 W I I I I I I I I I I s: I I i I I I i i i I >-60 I I I I I I I I CD I I I I I I I I [( I I I I I I I I w 50 I I I I I I I I Z u:: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I-40 I : : : : z I I I w () I I I I I I I I [( 30 I i w I I I I I I 0.. I I I I I I I I 20 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 0 50 10 5 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL· ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name Ii) 11'·2 S-2 I!] 11'·2 B-1 A 11'·3 B-1 -HWAGEoSCIENCES INC HWAGRSZ 2011-039.GPJ 9/28112 1.1-2.0 2.0 -2.5 1.5-2.0 (ML) Brownish gray, SILT with sand (OH) Dark Brown, organic SILT (ML) Dark olive gray, SILT with sand FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON, WASHINGTON I, -- SILT CLAY " \ ~. lit "-'r-r---.. 0.Q1 0.005 0.001 0.0005 %MC 25 102 25 LL PL PI Gravel Sand Fi~~ % % 3.9 22.4 73.7 84 62 22 0.0 3.9 96.1 0.0 23.7 76.3 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM 0422 PROJECT NO.: 2011-039 FIGURE: B-7 'I Ilil!iil GRAVEL SAND Coarse I Fine Coarse I Medium I Fine U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 314" 3" 1-1/2" 5/8" 318" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 , , I , , , , , , 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 II'-I I I I I I I I I 80 l-I I I I I I I I I I l"-I I 11 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 i I >-60 (]) I I I I I I I I I I 0:: 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 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 w t) I I I I I I I I I I 0:: 30 i i w I I I I I I I I 0-I I I I I I I I I I 20 I I I I I I I I I I I IJ 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 0.5 0.1 0.05 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL-ASTM 02487 Group Symbol and Name G TP-3 &4 om HWAGIEOSCIENCES INC 3.0 -4.0 (OH) Dark gray, organic SILT FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TAXIWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON, WASHINGTON ~ ." 2O_r J ". _ i!IIIiW E!iJ IIIIiiI IItiII!iiJ IiliIIE IE IiiiIIIiI IiIiliiI l SILT CLAY I ~ I\;: f\ ("; ~ '"'0 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005 %MC 51 LL PL PI Gravel Sand Fines .'?& .'?& ."f.. 55 31 24 0.0 11.6 88.4 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS METHOD ASTM 0422 PROJECT NO.' 2011-039 FIGURE, IiIIiIiI IIIiIIiI ~ IIIIiiiE IIII'iiIEI B-8 IIilIiJ ------------------- 60 50 c... ~ 40 X w 0 Z >-30 I- U I-en <t: 20 ....J c... 10 CL-ML 0 0 SYMBOL SAMPLE 0 CORE-{)2 S-4 Cl CORE-06 S-3 " CORE-08 S-3 a TP-2 B-1 0 TP-3 S-4 -HWAGEOSOENCES INC HWAATTB 2011-=oJ9.GPJ 9128112 @ @ V /" V /' V ,/ a ./ /' liZ! / V @ 8 ./ III 20 40 60 80 LIQUID LIMIT (LL) DEPTH (ft) ClASSlFICAnON 2.0 -2.5 (ML) Dark olive to gray, sandy SILT with 1.2 % organic matter by dry weight 3.8 -4.3 (OH) Dark brownish gray, organic SILT, contains 4.4% organic mattter. 4.2 -4.4 (OH) Dark grayish brO'Nn, organic SILT 2.0 -2.5 (OH) Dark Brown, organic SILT 3.0 -4.0 (OH) Dark gray, organic SILT FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RENTON AIRPORT TN<IWAY B REHABILITATION RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RENTON, WASHINGTON " 100 %MC LL PL PI % Fines 25 25 22 3 70.5 58 52 37 15 114 108 74 34 85.5 102 84 62 22 96.1 51 55 31 24 88.4 LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT AND PLASTICITY INDEX OF SOILS METHOD ASTM D4318 PROJECT NO.' 2011-039 FICURE, 8-9 LABORATORY COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SOIL D'~ CLIENT: Reid Middleton PROJECT: Renton Taxiway 8 PROJECT NO: 2011·039 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC SAMPLE 10: TP·1, 8·1 Sampled By: SEG Tested By: JH Date Received' 6/6/2011 -==--""'D=-a""'te Tested' 6/1'""'4"'12'"'0""1"':'1--Date Sampled' 6/6/2011 MATERIAL TYPE OR DESCRIPTION: Liqht grayish brown, orqanic SIL T (OH) MATERIAL SOURCE, SAMPLE LOCATION AND DEPTH: TP·1, 2 ft bgs Designation:[RjASTM D 698 OASTM D 1557 Natural Moisture Content: 79.3 % Method: OA OB [Rjc Oversize: 0 % retained on: 3/4 in. Preparation: 0 Dry [RjMoist Rammer:[RjAuto OManual Assumed S.G.: 2.4 Test Data Dry Density (PCI) I 62.2 I 63.7 I 64.1 I 61.5 I Moisture Content (%) I 24.6 26.8 I 29.3 I 31.4 70 , I I , 1 , 1 , I , I I I I , I ! , , 1 o-c Rock Corrected GUive , per ASTM D4718 1 I I I I 1 I , I I , I I , 0----0 Lab Proctor Curve I , I I I , I , I I 1 I , I I 1 , , _. _._ .. 100% Saturation Une 65 I I I I 1 ! , I 1 1 I 1 , I , I , i V"I ",I i I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I I I :.,.y; , i I'\, 1 I 1 I r;-u I I I !~ 1 I I 1 I .20 I , I , ~ I 1 1 , , I I , 1 I 1 .~ 60 I I I I , I 1 I 1 I , 1 1 I I I 1 m I , Q I I i ; I I ~ , Q I I I I , I , I ! , I I I i I . I I I i I 1 I I 1 1 1 I I , I 1 1 1 55 , i I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 , I I 1 I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i , I I I I I I I ! I I I I , I , , I I : I I , I I , I I I i I I I I I I I I 50 , , I 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 Moisture Content (%) Data Summar " 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 (pel)" 64.4 64.4 66.3 68.3 70.4 72.7 75.1 77.7 Optimum Moisture ('!o)" 28.5 28.5 27.1 25.8 24.4 23.0 21.6 20.3 values corrected fOr oversIZe rna ena per A::; M • 04718, uSing assumed Specific GraVIty shown and oversIZe mOisture content of 1 Va Reviewed By: Steven Greene FIGURE 8·10 This report applies only to the items tested, and may be reproduced in full, with written approval of HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. 1'1,',' II I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LABORATORY COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SOIL B~ CLIENT: Reid Middleton PROJECT: Renton Taxiway B PROJECT NO: 2011-039 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC SAMPLE 10: TP-2, B-1 Date Sampled' 61612011 Sampled By: SEG Tested By: JH Date Received' 6/6/2011 -==----=D-:ate Tested' 611'';;3:;;/2~0:-;1-::1-- MATERIAL TYPE OR DESCRIPTION: Dark brown, organic SIL T (OH) MATERIAL SOURCE, SAMPLE LOCATION AND DEPTH: TP-2. 2 ft bgs Designation:DASTM D 698 [KjASTM D 1557 Natural Moisture Content: 134.2 % Method: DA DB [Kjc Oversize: 0 % retained on: 314 in. Preparation: o Dry [KjMoist Rammer:[KjAuto DManual Assumed S.G.: 2.4 Test Data ~ Density (pet) I 55.2 I 58.9 I 59.8 I 58.2 1 Moisture Content (%) 55.9 I 57.7 59.0 I 62.0 I 70 I I I 1 I I , I ~ IJ , , , , I , , I , ! i I I Rock Corrected Curve I ! []-----<l per ASTM D4718 ; I I . I - ! =rtf 1-\ Lab Proctor Curve - , 0---0 I 1 1--+ I I I - 65 I I _._.-. 100% Saturation Line I I I I , I I I ! , I I I I I I I I I I I I I i , , I I I ;t-1 I 1 1 I 1 I I I 1 I 'ii I I 1 I I I 1 1 I 1 I .e I I ~ , , ! I , I I I I : , I , 1 I I , I , ~ 60 I I , I Vi ~ I I I I , ! I , 0 I I I ; 0 I)'"' 1 1 .., I 1 , 1 i:' I , 0 , Ii I 1 I I . I ! / I ' I : , I I I I I , I I I I I I I I 1 55 I , , I I , 1 I 1 ! I , I ! I I , , 1 I I + I , , , : , I I ! , ! I 1 I 1 I 1 I I I I 1 I I I , I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 1 I , I I I I , 50 I I : I I 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 Moisture Content (%) Data Summar * 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 (pef)* 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 50.7 47.8 44.9 42.0 varues correctea lOr oversize marenal per At; M 04718, using assumed Specific Gravity shown and oversize moisture content of 1% Reviewed By: Sleven Greene FIGURE B-11 This report applies only to the items lested, and may be reproduced in full, with written approval of HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. LABORATORY COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SOIL U~ CLIENT: Reid Middleton PROJECT: Renton Taxiway 8 PROJECT NO: ..:;:2",,°1;,;1::::-°=73;-9 __ _ Date Sampled' 61612011 MATERIAL TYPE OR DESCRIPTION: Darkgray, silty SAND (SM) HWAGEOSCIENCES INC SAMPLE 10: TP-3,8-1 Sampled By: SEG Tested By: JH Date Received' 616/2011 "::::::':::""-=-Da-:te Tested' 611';;'0/7.:2""01"'1:--- MATERIAL SOURCE, SAMPLE LOCATION AND DEPTH: TP-3, 2 ft bas Designation:OASTM D 698 [RjASTM D 1557 Natural Moisture Content: 25 % Method: OA DB [Rjc Oversize: 0 % retained on: 3/4 in. Preparation: 0 Dry [RjMoist Rammer:[RjAuto OManual Assumed S.G.: 2.4 Test Data Dry Density (pet) I 101.9 I 108.6 106.3 J 102.3 110.4 Moisture Content (%) I 10.7 I 13.0 18.6 I 20.7 15.4 120 I : , , , I I I I I I I , I I , I , , I Rock Corrected Curve I I ' I I I []----{] per ASTM 04718 I I , I ; , I I I I I I , I I I I I I 115 , I I I I I 0----0 Lab Proctor Curve I I I I I I I I I I ; I - I I I I I I I , , I I : I I I I _ . _ . _ .. 100% Saturation Line I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I , I , I I I I , I I I I I 110 I I I I I I I I I I , I ~ I I I : I I I I I I I i , I " I I I I I I 'if I • I I ~ I I I ! I I I I ,2, I I I , I , I I I I I I ~ , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ 105 I I I I I / I I I I I I I I I I I I m Q I I I I I I I : I I I I I ! I I I ~ I I , i I I I '[; I I I I I I Q : , :u : I I : I I , 100 I ! I I ! , I I I I I , I I , I I I ! I I I I i I I I ; I , i I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I I I I I I I 95 I , I I I I I I I I I , , , I I I I I ! I : I I I I . I , I I I I I I I I 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 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 Moisture Content (%) Data Summa • 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 (pel)· 110.5 110.5 112.0 113.5 115.0 116.6 118.3 119.9 Optimum Moisture ('10). 15.0 15.0 14.3 13.6 12.9 12.2 11.5 10.8 va ues correctea 'or oversize ma enal per A::; M D4718, using assumed Specific Gravity shown and oversize moisture content of 1% Reviewed By: Steven Greene FIGURE 8-12 This report applies only to the items tested, and may be reproduced In full, with written approval of HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CBR (California Bearing Ratio) OF LAB COMPACTED SOILS (ASTM 0 1883) CLIENT: Reid Middleton U~, HWAGEOSCIENCES INC SAMPLE 10: TP·I, 8·1 PROJECT: Renton Taxiway 8 PROJECT NO: 2011·039·21 Date Sampled' 612/2011 Sampled By: SEG Tested By: MCIJH Date Received' 612/2011 ':::;~--=D"'ate Tested' 6/2012011 Material Description: Light olive brown, organic SfL T (OH) Sample Location: Test Pit TP-2 Sample 8-1 Compaction Standard: [KjD698 []]D1557 Max. Dry Density: 64.4 pcl @ 28.5 % M.C. DiV 'IDefl ;r ,1%1 ,after %1 is\NeiT~ afl9r ,I%) r'D '" "ft .. , Soak 1%1 C:BR "I '" C:BR "I '" ~V"IU" ~1 3 0 .: 7.' :2 9 1 "f 1 .2 Condition: with 0 [KjSoaked lor 96 hrs DUnsoaked % scalped-off on the 3/4" sieve Trial 2 Trial 3 12~----~----~-----r-----T----~------~----~----~----~----~ 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··r-----~----,-----,_----,_----~----~----_r----_.----_r----- 4.0 +------I------I------I------I------+-----+------+------+-----!------I ~ 3.ol· ----_+-----+-----+----~----~------~----~----~----l---- III u 2.0 .1------+-----+_----+_-----1-------1------1-------1-------1-------1------ 1.0 +-----.J-----~--__I----~----_+----+----+----+----+_-- o 0.0 +-~~_I_~~+_~~+_~~-I--~~-I-~~-I-~~--I-~~.0....1-~~--1-~~~ 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 % Compaction REVIEWED BY: ___ .....::S~te::!v:o:e~n_=G~re~e:!.n!!:e'--__ _ FIGURE: B-13 CBR (California Bearing Ralio) OF LAB COMPACTED SOILS (ASTM 0 1883) U~ CLIENT: Reid Middleton PROJECT: Renton Tax/way B PROJECT NO: 2011·039·21 Date Sampled' 6/2/2011 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC SAMPLE 10: TP·2, B·1 Sampled By:..::S:.::E:.::G'--__ Tested By: AACIJH Date Received' 6/2/2011 Date Tested' 6120/2011 Material Description: Dark brown, organic SIL T (OH) Sample Location: Test Pit Tp·2 Sample 8·1 Compaction Standard: DD698 0D1557 Condition: 0Soaked for 96 hrs DUnsoaked Max. Dry Density: 59.9 pcf@ 59.5 % M.C. with 0 % scalped·off on the 3/4" sieve IDrv .IDefl 11%1 1 after %1 • Swell (Inilial hi = 7 . after (%~ rOD I"~ after Soak 1%1 ~a I" ~a !" :BRValue Trial 1 39. 65.6 12: .7 l' .3 9 11 3 IDe 2 Trial 2 Trial 3 18r---,---_r---,--~--_,r_--r_--~--,_--_r--_, 16t---~--~---+--_4--~~--t_--+_--4_--~-~~ 1_.--'(""'- 14t_--~---r---+--_+---~---~---+_--~~----_r----~ --V 12t_----4_----_r-----+----_+----~-----~~ __ ~~-----4------~--~ !10t-----~----~----_+----_4----~~~~--~---_+----_4------~--__i = ,...;-V ! 8r---_1----~--~--+~~~-'-----+_--_1----~----+_--~----~ 6t-----~--_4-7~_+----~----4_----+_----~--_4-----+----~ .?~ 4t-----~~_4----_+----~----4_----+_----~--_4----_+----~ /~ 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0~30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0~50 Displacement (In) 5.0r----r----~--,_----,_--,_--,_--_r--_r--_r--_, 4.0~--t_--+_--+_--4_---4_--4_---_r---~--_+--~ '" 3.0 ~--t_--+_--+_---4_---4_--4_----_+_--~---_+--~ III o 2.0 ~--t_--+_--+_--4_---4_--4_---_+_----~--_+----~ 1.0t_--t-----+_--+----~---4_--_+_----_+_--~----_+--~ <> 0.0~~~~~~~~_4~~_+~~_+~~_+_~~4_~~+_~~+_~~ 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 % Compaction REVIEWED BY: __ ~St!::e:.:.ve:::n.!.G=re:::e:!.!n~e __ _ FIGURE: B-14 - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CBR (California Bearing Ratio) OF LAB COMPACTED SOILS (ASTM D 1883) CLIENT: Reid Middleton D~ HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. SAMPLE 10: TP·3, B·1 PROJECT: Renton Taxiway B PROJECT NO: 2011·039·21 Date Sampled' 61212011 Sampled By: SEG Tested By: AACIJH Date Received' 61212011 ==--=D-:ate Tested' 6120/2011 Material Description: Dark olive gray, SIL T with sand (ML) Sample Location: Test Pit TP-3 Sample 8-1 Compaction Standard: 00698 0001557 Condition: 00 Soaked for 96 hrs OUnsoaked Max. Dry Density: 110.5 pcf@ 15 %M.C. with 0 % scalped-off on the 3/4" sieve Tri,,1 1 'ria Trial 3 lorv , toefl 94.5 ~N IA 85.5 '2 IN IA ~-:r ~ 5.-4 , after 15.1 ]! IV/O! : Swell initial ht = 7 ") I.~ 1.0 . after 1(%1 27. ~Oai<i%l "2 5. 9. r ,:9 51.4 ~~2" 1.2 53.8 ~:~:~: ~ Value .2 53.8 1600 ~85.5 1400 l~102.1 ~ "....-1200 ~ 1000 V "iii l-/ So ~ 800 ~ V g ./ "' 600 V ./ 400 V ) 200 V 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 a: ----OJ 30 ~ (,) 20 .-~ 10 ---0 80 85 90 95 100 105 % Compaction REVIEWED BY: __ .....::S:!:te",v",e:..:.n ..::G"'re"'e:::.n"'e'--__ FIGURE: B-15 Bulk Density of Soil Chunk Samples Renton Airport Taxiway B Exploration Sample No. Depth Length Diameter Volume Tare Wet+Tare TP-1 B-1 0.9 6 2.4 0.0157 248 849.83 TP-2 B-1 2 6 2.4 0.0157 248 924.15 TP-3 B-1 1.5 6 2.4 0.0157 248 973.92 HWA Project No. 2011-039 n\m UIl.Wll~ Bulk Density 84.6 95.1 102.1 HWA GEOSCIENCES INc Tare W+T D+T Me Drv Density 8.32 191.5 110.51 79.3% 47.2 8.13 183.73 83.11 134.2% 40.6 8.48 198.17 160.22 25.0% 81.6 FIGURE B-16 liiiiiiililliiiiWliiiiiiliiiEl~~liiiidliiiiiJliiiiiWliiiiilliiiiiiiiliiiiiiiliiiiiilliiiiiiiilfiiiiiilliiiiiiilliiiiiiiJiliiiiiIliiiiiiI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I U~ HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Re id Middl eto n Project: T ax iway B -Rent o n Muni c ip a l A irp o rt Project No.: 20 11 -039 Date Sampled: Jun e 2, 20 II Core Bit Used: 8-in c h diam ete r Task No : 100 Sampled by: SEG S ample Location: N o rth ern Tax iw ay Co nn ec to r (see Fi gure 2) Core Designation : Co re-I Total Wearing Surface Depth: 2 in c hes Thickness Description of Material (inches) 2 .0 Hot Mi x As ph a lt (HM A) 5 CSTC/CS BC Grave l w ith sand and -Co bbl es Remarks: Lifts (inches) 2 - - 20 11-03'\ Co(e -! Condition Fa ir De nse Medium dense to de nse U~ HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B -Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Date Sampled: June 2, 20 II Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sample Location: North end of Taxiway B (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-2 Total Wearing Surface Depth: 4.5 inches Task No: 100 Sampled by: SEG 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 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0\'*'/;1 HWAGEOSClENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B -Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 20 11 -039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: Jun e 2, 20 II Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sampled by: SEG Sample Location: North end of Taxiway B (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-3 Total Wearing Surface Depth : 2.25 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) (inches) 2.25 HMA 2.25 1.5 CSBC - 2.25 Sandy silt - Remarks: The subgrade becomes sand to si lty sand with depth 2011-03'\ Core-3 Condition Poor to fair Den se Medium stiff U~ 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, 20 II Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sampled by : SEGIDRC Sample Location: North end of Taxiway B (See Figure 2) Core Designation: CoreA Total Wearing Surface Depth: 1.5 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) (inches) 1.5 HMA 1.5 1.4 CSBC - 1.75 HMA 1.75 -Gravel - Remarks: 1.4 inches of crushed gravel between HMA layers Condition Poor Den se Good Loose I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I U~ HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Re id Middl e ton Project: Tax iway B -Re nt on Muni ci pa l Airport Project No.: 20 11-039 Date Sampled: Jun e 2, 20 II C ore Bit Used: 8-in c h diame ter Task No : 10 0 Sampled by : SEG Sample Loc ation : No rth ce ntra l portion o f Taxiway S (See Figure 2) C ore Designation: Co re-5 Total Wearing Surface Depth: 2 in ches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) (inches) 2 HMA 2 6 CS S C - Condition Good Den se -Sand with silt a nd grave l -Medium dense Remarks: With depth sub gra de app ea r s to co nsist of dredge s poil s. mm 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: ORC Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sample Location: Central portion of Taxiway B (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-6 Total Wearing Surface Depth : 14.5 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (incbes) (incbes) Condition 8.5 HMA 3,5.5 Poor to good 6 PCC 6 -Sand with gravel and cobbles - Remarks: The bottom 5.5 inches of HMA is of lower quality (ATB?) No crushed gravel base course was encountered. Fair to good Loose I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I um HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B -Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 20 11-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: Jun e 7, 20 11 Sampled by: DRC I Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter ~---------------------------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Sample Location: South e nd of Taxiway B (See Figure 2) Core Designation : Co re-7 Total Wearing Surface Depth: 13.5 in c he s Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) (incbes) 8.5 HMA 3.5 ,5 5 PCC 5 Sand with gravel , co bbl es --and silt Condition Very poor Very poor Loose Remarks: The bottom 5 in c hes of HMA is of lower quality (A TB?) and disintegrated coring and there fo re does not appear in the above photo. No crus hed grave l base course was e ncount e red . U~ HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B -Renton Municipal Airport Project No .: 2011-039 Date Sampled: June 7, 20 II Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sample Location: South End of Taxiway B (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-8 Total Wearing Surface Deptb : 12 in c hes Task No: 100 Sampled by: ORC 2,11 _ 031 Core. 8 Tbickness Description of Material Lifts (incbes) Condition (incbes) 5.5 HMA 2.5,3 Good 6.5 PCC 6.5 Good -Sand with gravel , cob bles -Loose and silt Remarks: A non-woven fabric layer is located between the two lifts of HMA No crushed gravel ba se course was encountered. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I U,,*,I;, HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B -Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 20 11 -039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: June 7, 20 II Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sampled by: DRC Sample Location: South end of Taxiw ay B (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-9 Total Wearing Surface Depth : 10 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) (inches) 10 HMA 2.5, 4.25, 3.25 Sand with grave l, cobbles -and silt - Condition Good to poor Loose Remarks: A non-woven fabric layer is located between the first two lifts of HMA The lower lift of HMA is of lower quality (A TB?) No crushed gravel base course was encountered. U~ HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B -Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 20 11-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: June 6, 20 II Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sampled by : DRC Sample Location: Infield apron South end of Taxiway B (See Figure 2) Core Designation : Core-I 0 Total Wearing Surface Depth: 2.25 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) (inches) 2.25 HMA 2.25 -Gravel with san d - Remarks: No crushed gravel base course was encountered . 2.0 II -D.3~ Core.. \ 0 Condition Good Dense to very dense I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I U~ HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B -Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: Jun e 7 , 20 11 Sampled by: OR C Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sample Location: South end of Taxiway B (See Figure 2) Core Designation : Core-II Total Wearing Surface Depth: 16 .5 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) (inches) 8.5 HMA 2.5,2.5,3.5 8 PCC 8 -Sand w ith gravel and cobb les - Condition Good to fair Fair to good Loose Remarks: A non-woven fabric layer is located between the bottom lift ofHMA and PCe. T he lower lift ofHMA is oflower quality (ATB?) No crushed gravel base course was enco untered . ue HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B -Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: June 6, 20 II Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sampled by: DRC Sample Location: Southern Taxiway Connector (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-12 Total Wearing Surface Depth: 13.5 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) (inches) 7.5 HMA 3.5,2 ,2 6 PCC 6 -Sand with gravel and cobbles - Remarks: No crushed gravel base course was encountered . Condition Good Fair Loose I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I U~ HWAGEOSClENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B -Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: June 6, 20 I I Core Bit Used: 8-inc h diameter Sampled b y: DRC Sample Location: Southern Taxiway Connector (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-13 Total Wearing Surface Depth: 9 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) (inches) 3 HMA 3 6 pee 6 -Sand with grave l and cobbles - Condition Fair to poor Fair Loose Remarks : A non-woven fabric layer is located between the bottom lift ofHMA and pee. 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, 20 II Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sampled by: DRC Sample Location : Southern Taxiway Connector (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-14 Total Wearing Surface Depth: 10.75 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) (inches) 4 .75 HMA 4.75 6 PCC 6 -Sand with gravel and cobbles - Remarks: No crushed gravel base course was encountered . Condition Fair to good Good Loose I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I U~ HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B -Renton Municipal A irp ort Project No.: 20 11-039 I Task No: 100 Date Sampled: June 6, 2011 I Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter ~------------------------------------ Sampled by: ORC I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Sample Location: Southern Taxiway Connector (See Figure 2) Core Designation : Core-IS Total Wearing Surface Depth: 12 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) (inches) 6 HMA 4,2 6 PCC 6 4.5 CSBC - -Sand with si lt and g ravel - Remarks: The lower lift of HMA is of lowe r qu a lity (A TB?). Condition Good to poor Good Loose Loose to medium dense mm HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B -Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: June 6, 20 II Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sampled by: ORC Sample Location: Southern Taxiway Connector (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-16 Total Wearing Surface Depth: 10 .5 inches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (incbes) (incbes) 3.5 HMA 1.5,2 7 PCC 7 -Sand with silt and gravel - Condition Fair to poor Poor Loose Remarks: A non-woven fabric layer is located between the lowest HMA and the pee layers . The pee layer is cracked through and sealed with asphalt sealant No crushed gravel base course was encountered. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0\'6'1;1 HWAGEOSClENCES INC. C lient: Re id Middl e to n Project: Taxiway B -Re nto n Muni c ip al Airp o rt Project No.: 20 11 -039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: Jul y 11 ,20 12 Core Bit Used : 12-in ch di ameter Sampled b y: DR C S amp le Location: So uth end of T axiway B (See Figure 2) C ore Designation: Core -17 Total Weari ng Surface Depth : 15 inc hes Thickness Description of Material Lifts (inches) (inches) 7 Hot Mix As ph alt (HMA ) 2.5,4.5 8 pee 8 -Grave l w ith sa nd and co bbl es - Condition Goo d to Fa ir Fair Medium dense Remarks: T here is a 0 .75 inc h deep and 1.25 inch wid e as p ha lt sea l in t he mi dd le of th e co re coveri ng a crac k in th e upp er HMA laye r (see Ph oto above). U~ 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: ORC Core Bit Used: 12-inch diameter Sample Location: South end of Taxiway B (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-IS Total Wearing Surface Depth: 12 .5 in ches Thickness Description of Material Lifts (Inches) (Inches) 6.5 HMA 2.75,3.75 6 PCC 6 -Gravel with sand and cobbles - Remarks: Condition Fair to good Fair Medium dense I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I U~ HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B -Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: July 11 ,20 12 Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sampled by: DRC Sample Location: Southern Taxiway Connector (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-19 Total Wearing Surface Depth: 19.5 inches Thickness (inches) 12.5 7 Description of Material HMA PCC Gravel with sand and cobbles Lifts (inches) 3,2.5,3,4 7 Remarks: There is no bond between the 2nd and 3m layers of HMA . There is no bond between the 3m and 4th layers of HMA. Condition Fair to good Good Medium dense U~ HWAGEOSClENCES INC. Client: Reid Middleton Project: Taxiway B -Renton Municipal Airport Project No.: 2011-039 Task No: 100 Date Sampled: July II, 2012 Core Bit Used: 8-inch diameter Sampled by: DRC Sample Location: South end of Taxiway B (See Figure 2) Core Designation: Core-20 201l-()J't Total Wearing Surface Depth: 13 .5 inches Tbickness Description of Material Lifts (incbes) Condition (incbes) 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). (.-20 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ... ~, .. ,:: ..... .: ..... ::' r .:-: :.:::::: :;. ":~:'~::.---.,:, ... '."". ... ::';" ~( DESCRIPTION ei6nc HORTHWCsz.~--TJ;U· CtMAliY :1lt.7A (:(lW""1IJ£N,t" SCH£DUlC A,·.CRO£R HO. J2.J290 ~.::. Th(" LNIIO fIU~O 70 IN 1HIff··ea....w,7lICNT IS Sl1I.IA1£O IN JH[ COUHn' (7 KING. STAfF ~,,: (7 WA5HHC~. ANO ~ AS Fn.L0WS: POIInoHS-·;j;:. S£CTION 7.ito 'I. 101WSHf> 23 NORTH. RANCe 5 CAST. W:"' .. IN KIHC COl1H~·-WASHlHCTCW. U6R£ PARTlWlARI..Y OCSCR«O AS FCUO~ B£~ AT A POr9{ON TJil:~:kR 'HMBOR l/1<£ OF LAKE WASHlHGTCW AS $HOIII/H vPOH SHiE r 125 OF ~.7'l.Ar O!:I..N<£ W~SJtIitGTOH.SI;IORC LMIOS SiJ'N£Y "21. AS SA.IO PLAr /liAS FJlCD .TN .ff;c. AUlJroR OF KIN!i.'C()'J!'ffY, ~'SI-m1CrON, SD"rrjlBCR 19, 1921 UNIXR ~ .. ~ .. R£COROINC NWIi£R 15:)2504 iIHCH SlOfI'It a£J.RS N~1H • .35' oct ~T 92.62 mT F1K)II .' 1HE ANGU.T IN SAIO WH£1t HAR90R lINE OCSCRJBEO'-:Ml· ON SAIO PLAT: 7HCNCe ${¥1m J5-C1f 00· CAsr, .Alot.ly. SAlD INNCR NARtlOR UN£. 91.62 ~£T TO $All M4C POINT;:1HCHCC CA,!f. AlONC'~AJO iNNER HAR,BOR I.JH(. 4ta 70 FUT; TNC!f6.l: SOUTH 1.,-'J' 2"" CItST g2 •. 67 FUT; THeNce _Si'UT'H ]ri' 06' ~z.",iK ~r ;itkoo feET. THl:NC£ SOUJ'H.'(J-5.1' 18" CASI ."1115 TEH: rH£HCf~sOOlH 14' cjN •.••• . u.·· 2"" CAS7 J,U9 OO Ten: .~cc soum'-I5-12' SO"'iAST 99,n'rrCT; .•••.. 1HCNCC SOIb!f)I 16' 16' 2!1' CAS T loo.OJ:·FrH: TNOitt sov;W 2" J9' 45 · CAST .:. 100.'" ~T: TH£NC[ S()UTH 24' JI'.J,5 · CAST lcU.6a F[£'T; TI-I£HCC SOUrH 15' IJ' .- ZO° CAsf: 100.79 fEct;' TH~CC SOUTH .11' I,' 4"" CA$i··IOO21 raT; JhtWcr .~TH .14' '''' .JtP":("fST 'fI!'.02 I"££T.' ~ SOU"n!:3r 1(.':05-CAST II?9:tI'5 FEeT; :,: THCHCC SOUTH·",O:.1)J' 10" CASf.100.3J r Cf!: THCH(.Jt SOUTH "2:~' JO " CA!!'r .'. = ::c...T;~ce:~3ui.~· :-Jr-'[A~~';;~ rc:TL~r-.S~~;: ~~:::~ RC/i' CSTArr co.'s 1ST MJOlTlON T(1""tt£NTOH;-~ SOUTH oc]' Jt~ "1" ~ST_~UWG SNO .'-' PRCD..ICCD UN£ AND mf CAST LWt.' rF iors 2.1 AND Ia. &00(-• OF $lJo Pl.A T. 2Si.b"2 TITr TO lH( 1N1£RS£CnoN OF 1Hf NORTH UNC Of".bt.lCl'C At.£NlIi·.4S"WOIII LOCAl"CD ~o ...(/' ..... "'::.~:.-... ): R£FEBENCES <coNTINUED) 12. PLAT OF SlR\IE"Y OF PORTIONS OF" BlOCKS 15-21 L.AnWCRS LAKC PARI< AOOI'1IOH. HAMAIOHO. CCIUJ£R. WAD£-UwtCS1tW( Assoc.. INC._ 8OCJI( .J8 OF ~ PACE Tl2. RCC(R)S OF K1HC CWN TY, WA.. OCTOBER 20. 19&1 1.1 RCCCRl OF Sl.I\"o£l" TOR ~GORY /JItCPHCRSON, ASSOCIA res lAND SlJR\o£tINC AND O£\fiOProtCNT_ BOO« fa OF SURII£~ PAGE 1.l5. ReCORDS OF KING CtJtJNTY, WA.. ",AY 21. 199-4. 14. RECCRl OF SURII£Y rOR 900NC CCMoIEROAl NRPtAN£ DI\.fSlOH, HORra-J DCNNIS ~ ASSOC.. INC.. 80()11( 2J OF SLI't~rs. PAGe Il2. Rf"COROS or KWG COUNTt'. WA.. APRN. II. 19ao. 15.. £WeER'S ADDITION TO EJR'fH AlAM. ROl.lJHS • SHORn. ow. eNG.. Kl.WE 17 OF PlATS. PACE 5J. ~cOROS OF IOHG COUNTY, WA,. T£8Rt)ARY 8. '909. 16. sr~ 1£ OF WASH/NCTON, CCM.IAIISSJON(R or PVBUC UJIIos. IJAPS OF LAI([ WASHIt-IGTON SHORe LANOS. EDw. C. OOHAI. STA T[ nnD CNG.. Fl.£D IN 1HC OI'FJC£ OF 1)1( COIofWlSSlOHER OF PU9UC LAHOS, SCPT£IJB£R Ig. 192/ • " ....... ~ •• ::.. 11. STAT[ OF WIoSHlHGTOH CCi/J IJISSIOHCR OF PtIBUC L.ANO$. SCCCHO SUPPlE/JENIAL MAPS OF ,~) RCfoJTOH SHORE: LANDS, IJ.C. BOMtLR. CNG. • Pt.s, RED IN 7He OFfl CC OF rHE COMMI SSIONCR OF ~~.' PU8UC lANOS. /JA Y 10. 1!J6.l. .. ~ .. ,;-.:::., 18. STATC OF WA SHING TON. 8OARO (7 STAn: I..AHD COAI/JI SSIONCRS. AlAP OF ROITOH SHalf UNO$, .:C" •••••• ".h .... ~:.. CDW. e. I)(HU, CNG.. I"lL£D IN 'HE OFF/CC or INC COIJ6MSSONCR OF PU8UC LUoIOS, JUNE 12. 1!II14--..... .-..... ..~~... ~.~:.. .' .-::=~ _~~,.,:~>~ /.F .~~··::·.:: __ '9_ STArr or WA~TOfII'. (:(lW/J/SSIONCR« PlIfIJC LAHO$, St.IPPl.£AI£HIAL IrIAP OF R£NTON SHOR£ . ;,:- __ ' _:. .. ... :.,:.. .:. ·.'.cAHOS, /JAR\IfN BOMLR. P.L .S., TIlED IN IH£ orFJc:t; OF THC COIJIJISSIOHER CF p uBLIC LAHOS, _.::.~ .. -~:~.: .. ~~~.. .-t. . .{. ./·SEPT£U8£R 29. 195/J. ~ ~~~r:: ~~~~ ~,,;O~~ A~~N:~~~i 1Cr.· .. ~·· 1.4M."" IttT TO rH(" II£ST /.INC OF lAJ(C SlRffT: fH£WCs:fr(£RTH 00' JI' f~ EAST. ALCWG SAD ~S"T LINE. 10.00 FITT; THCNce NORTH B8",)4' .(j--\E.il,-.cLtWC THE ;:.' ~:~-•• ,. ..(.... ":: •••. :., 20. STArr OF WA5I-IIHOTON (:(lWIMSS7ON£R OF PUBUC LMlDS, MRD SUPPlDoICHTAL wAP OF LAKe •• ::'-• .:;--<:t' ~~":'. '.' WASHfNCTON 5HOR£ L.ANOs, ",.c. ~. CNG.P.Ls., TIlED IN 1J£ OFTJCC OF TH£ C'OAIUtSSIOH£R .'-' '.:-.' .<'~ .-.... ~ '!:;,. OF PUBt/C tNIIDs, SCPTE"1I8CR '''. 1955. NORTH L.JHC OF SAID OtXJE A\-£,."I£.. 225.49 ITCT TO .AN .ANCLE POINT IN SAJO UHC; .:. ..' n4£Hce NORTH 71' 29' 12· IlE:ST. AlONe s.uo NORTH UH£. "2.56 ruT, "'ORE .:" .~" OR LEss. 10 'THE EASTCRlY RJQ4T OF WAY UNC OF P'RJUARY STArr HIGHWA Y 15 A~)90W ,--- ~~Lr~~~~:~s:::~~~~~~!~~~ ..... ::::.'· .:':-... ,~.: ..... ~:;..' :.'~''-.-.~'-~. 21. ASS£SSOQS OUARTCR seCTION MAPS, KING COt..WTt' OCPARniF:HT or ASSCSSUCNTS -\-.... .~' HE 7-23-3 L.AST R£"\tSlOH '0./86. SC 1-~5 LAST R£\tSIOH 10/156; ~::-~~. ..,--.. -SY''''::}.).I.!i.y.s1 RC\.fSIOH 4/11/91: NI(-)':1.J~ lAST RC\.fS1OH 1/21/97: .: .• , .~~ .... J'-~ HE 18 -2.J--5·cA$T R£\fSION ~/JI/91; .se 15-2J":$:.LAST REIIfSKJN "/2"/97. .~... .-.:' .::' ._-.• , SW 1lJ-2J-5 lAST'~1ofSJ(W 7/21/97: .'~" IlJ-2J~~ u.sr R£"\ISI(W 6/J7/96 PLoIr OF BRYN WAM't lONG COLWn'. WASHiNCn::w. PRODUC£D CASrrR/.Y. AC'C'QIDNC ro rH£ Pl.'" 1HCR(OF R(CORDfD IN \Q.INoIC 5 C'F PlMS. PAGE sa. IN KJNC COt..WIr; WASHlHCTCW; 1HfNa SOOTH lJtf' 21' 28· CAST. ALCWC 5AIO PARAUEl. 1..INf. 89.13 .' :',' :-,. .... .::-':-' ::::. <'.~' ::--. .-:' .:' ''-'' .,'--~ ·iI)J.:,or PORTtOHS·.()F SCCT/Otol .. '1_" Ill! rOtwSHP 2J NORTH. RANCE .5 CASr. W:",. • --". .-:--.~... :--:: -.. ··N.W. RU~ORD. CN(/.. APRIL f94 .l·~O OCTOBCR 1944. UNRf.CORO£o. ITU 10 A POINT ~ IS 540.00 F"C(T IIt£ST, "'U.SURf.D ALa«:" SAl) PAAAtiD.. UN!. FRO&I TI-I£ II£ST tJ'I£ OF BlACK RfIl(R WA 1I"RWA Y AS SH01IH IPOI4 SHUT 1!5 PRCPAR!D BY uDO NCS"Sr. C()(JffT COiIIJI$SI(W£1i. AND TILeD IN KJNG COUNTY ~OR COURT CAuse /156J1I; THeNCE NQltTH 0;5' 16' .51 4 CAST. "J/190 raT TO AN IN1CRSl:CTIOH .TH A UHf \tHOf IS 2 fe(T SOU~ OF AHD PAAAU£l: -J1J THE I..IM: BCT'oIIfIN Lars I AHiJ 2. BLOOC 17 OF SAID PlAT OF BRYN "'AIloR. ~:tASTCRlY. SAID POIHI 01" 1N1£RSCCTION BEINC 520.00 F"ffr lI£ST • .wcAStJRED AlcWG'~ PARALLfi UHC OF 1H£ ~ST UNC OF SAID WATE"RWAY; THEHC! NQItTH .f0-Og' .r 0,5], 188.55 rrcr; rH~C£ NORTH 60.00 ITCT: 1HfNa NMTH 19' 90' 40" M£ST. 197.07 ftti:1D A POINT OH A .. ' ,., "i;":' ""'. ,;: ... :.,.,. :.( ;.~:i~ ~' .... ~,'.~""" ",~, ,,::.:.:!''-'., ,:' :.;/,. ,,-:;.::::: ••.. '~.:: ~:','::~""" "'" ,;,.,;;'" ,. ',,/., ':;'. '.:. B~--ti-8£ARI,,;is IS N.·49·~;" crnENl£O Jtf TH£ '';:A'~JM;TOH '~AT[" -M IDI .,:::' J'~' UN( ,,"Of IS JOO FITT NORTH. lI£A~ A7 RlCHT ANGUs' rHER£1('., or AND PARALLCl ro 1HE NORTH UH£ OF BOlfIUNG STRUT (rORJ,lCRL Y .(WCRSOH A'-'£NV() ~ CAST£RU': Tl-lfNCE SOUTH M' 27 la-CAST. ACQHC SAJO PAR~t11.'I..-lJHC. J.S!I .OO Ft{1 TO THE POINT OF 8CCfHNING. •.•• .-:.' .::. .' ALSO rHA T PORTION or m e ~'~WCST OUAR.ct;; OF sccn~ 7. TO'AN~ 2J NORn!. RNlGC!5 CA ST. "'",., W KIND-COtWTY, WASHlto'CTCW. "'ORE PMJJCUlARlY OCSCRl8(l) AS rOLlOIiI'$; ..... : .. ':'-.. :'-.:.-' BC~ OH INN(R ~ UHC OF ~.~ WASHlNCrOH"-'~T AN ANaE,:;;-;" D£SICNA1£D "~2 " ON PAGC. 16 (Jr LAKC WASHWGfON srIOR£ 1.»Ie!": ACC"ORaNG G1 THE: Pt.A T .1W8feOf"". R£CQIIO£.O SCPTE"M~ 19. 1921 ~ RCCORDING.WAlecR 1~:R£~'rJ-tonG -"'-: ~TY, WA$HINt;JrCw; Tl-lCNCC NORJJ-t J5' 00' C?9~·I'(ST. ALONG ~ INN£I( HARBOR UHC. 92.61 rr.cr TO THe TRUC pc*rDr,8£~'N1Hc:: TNOICC /lltlRm W'oo' 00· II£ST, AlOHG s,W'.!NN£R HARBOR f..K. "9.79 FrET TO A ~t '0.06 FCf1 NOR~Y .. • •• U£A5l.RfD AT RfQH ·.4IIyuS TO. 1H£ NORTHfRty UN£: OF.,.' TRIoC].-.oT L.AHO 0£CQ{'!1 ro "~-. ~ PlANT CORPOR!r1tOl( BY DaD RCCORDfD IJIIOfR"R£CORf)II9G MJUBCR ,:U;'579. ::.-RfCOROS OF' KING COUNTY, ~TOH: THQK"£ 1!CPf'k 66-27:."2"" III£ST, P.!oRALLD.. .-__ ~':::':~~~UHE.~ 1R":~i'~A~~t~/If:':.ICI'~~:~~"-:'- OtrcH SCARS SOOrH 0" J1' J2· 1Ii£sr; TH£HCC SOOTH 0I'J1'~ IICST 'O.OV F£CT ,:~ .-: TO SAID IHTCRSCCTIOH; rH£NCC SOUTH &9 ' 27 28· CAsr. Al.0I'fC NQRTH£Rl.f'-tJN&.QIf /., .-: ::, =S :A:' ~~4-r::o FrrT ~N~"':W; ~;=TCH SHCWE lAAOS. ,,~~-.... ::.~- AS SHOWN CW 1HC f.JF"FJaAL IJAP TH£R£OF OH ntE IN rHC Clf"FIa: or·-&K.~I'· or PUOUC L,fJrC)$ AT Oll'WPlA, WASHNGTOH. "'" ...... -~., ;" -.. ,. '.~,. ,~. --. '-:. '-'"'::. .f":.'· .• ,., ". '\"" ····",ii' REfERENCES :""" "." , ..... ' •...•... ~ .... ::::;.,. I . PlAT or R£NtON RfAl CStATE CO'S 1ST AOOfnON TO R£NTOH, C. L DIXON, PRCSI'OCNT RCNTCW ReAL CSTArr: co .• \Q.UN[ 11 or PlATS. PAGe 50. RCCCRf)S OF 1(/NC COONTY. w ...... ('(8. III. 1"". 2. SRl'N ",A\/off. AUJRO GARDl-lEIt O\fl CNG., \OlUAlC!I, OF PlATS, PAC€. 5ll. R£COIfOS OF KING COUHTY, W ..... APRIl I." 1890. J, ,."N. LATlWER's lAKC wASHIHCrON PLAT. N_H. L.,UIIoIER. \Q.lM£ II OF PLoIrs. PAGE 71:1. RfCQllOS OF ICJHC COI.WIY. W ...... OCroB£R 4. 1890. ". LA rJ/Jon lAKE PARK. AOOInOH. O. BRA/THWAIrr. ow. [Hc'. \Q./ME" 18 OF Pl.A rs. PAG£ 63. RCCOROS OF KING CCUHIY. WA . OCCOIBER 7. 1i09. 5. SEArn..c TO RCNTON. STATE" OF WASHlNCTCW. OCPAIWKNT OF' .... GHWA~ $H£CT 7 ... 7B. "-7 OF' 7. FlB'/'UARY 6. '9.fQ. tl. arr OF RCNTON SI-Ol1 PLAT (lUA-96-090--SHPl) (~-20-01 97). 7ICON. tHe.. NARlJst;N • Assoc.. 80()( II. OF Sl'l\£~ PACe 7. RECORDS OF «IHC CQ./HrY. IVA. jlAROf 20. '991. 1. C.N AOSITS lAKE WASHHCTOH PlAT. C.H. ADSIT, \Q.UM£ 5 OF PLATS, PAGC. 711. RCCORDS OF' KJNC COl.WTY, III ...... TUlRUARY 1.5, '493. 8. lAKnANO All ADaOON 10 JH[ OTY OF su. rn..c. CARONCR, GAROHCIf • F1SOO. JHC.. [HC.. IQ.tJNC JO or PlATS, PACC JI, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, IVA.. APRIl ., 1917 9. RCCCRO OF SUIl'JEY TOR S 1[)(" HARER. BRYN MAM PROP£"Rn£S. 1(fHNf1H .I. 0'l1.ER. e.c .... LS.. BOOK 98 OF SUR\-(l'S ON PAce 99. RECORDS OF 1<1N(i COUNTY, irA. • .wA Y 12. 1954- 10. s.wtSBDfRY B£Aaf mACrs, PAMER . H4.J.... \Q.UMC J2 OF P!.A (5, PAGC H . Rt-CQROS OF KIHC COUNTY. WA • .JI4"'UARY 28. 1929. " ReCORD OF' Sl.R\IE"Y F"OR 8O£ING COIJ"'CRCJAl A.JRf't.ANC (II\oIISH;W. HORra-J OCNHfS ... ASSOOAI£S, INC.. BOOK 2J OF SUR'o'[~ PACC 52-A. R£COROS OF KIHG COUNTY, WA.. APRIL II, 1950. . .... ":".,., ••• _J.MO 8J (1 9fl1J-:-HORTH l~··Al.OHC TJE''(.(rilllRt6lt"-u'"fJi&.$f]i"1'OH AJRPORT:·RuNWAY. .~~., ..... AS CSI~ BY ~"f'-tJBUC ~ OCPAR ru~r RENTON ",tHQPAL ~T. ../. ../ .. ::::-'.-. "-.:.;: :,,:-~':" : :".~' '-. ~~. F1£LD .a:A~Nrs «JR THIS liAr> II£R£ Pe¥'ORJI£li 'M7H: 11lfJJBL£ ~ CPS JttCa'o£RS •. ~" "NO M.D TCloio:rq1-'L STAn"",:INSmtJUCN)'S. AND MCcr~'iJR DCCffD .t~LIHEAR ~'6suRc or tds..ooo AND THE l.£AST SCUARCS ADJUSfl.l£Nl 't1fib6. ~ R9-A~'I( ACClJRACY ltD CRCArd" THAN 0.08:_' AT A 99 COtIrJOCNCC 1.£\0.. R!~TlI£ TO nlt'"r:oNlROlUHG I.fQ'Mf(HTS (N .... m-JHAl (;!000It; SUR'o("Y PDlNTS HAlT, PT B '962. RHT~. H2. RHTA AND WASHINGTON f/lPARTUCII'f U JR AH smRrATlDH PClHT GPf7l67-1a· vAUCY"). .;.... ..-" .':' _.' .-.- AU PRfAIARY IlEASUR(JJ£Nr COUIPU(NT ~~~·~t..!'~:aN caiP~ .-;r; ADJUS1ED''-;~ ~ NATIONAl. GCoocnc SI../R'o£Y CAUflllfArrD BASCUN£. .,..., I)£.~ .• ~~. .:'-' :.'-' ,,-:(-.... : .. :-~:.: . .--:. SURIiFYOR'S CfRllflCA IE :~':: ~~~~~c=/.rc~~/~~~ ~/ g;rgrwOrIN~:'~lJ 199& -' ".: ':.:: ., ... ,.:).': ............. ,:. AVO/TOR'S RECORDING CfRl1/;lCATV .:.: ,',' ............ / .... " .: .. .. . ..... .-'-:: -.:--.... . '-:,.:' --.- rlID roR ReCORD AT rHC R£OOCST OF w.tH PAOne. 1HC.:.:7HtS ~ 'DAY'uf --'8-., A= ([> .:' :: .'-'" '-'., ~Ar :19 _ ... PIoST g :o Q '::il:".. """ R£~~;~'I'/ .. ::,..: .) I ';)1, d~ ON PACES 113 A -E ''':;;;;;';;~";;''~ING ~.oi;;TY, WA~~;OH. ...-:: .... ::.:. : .. -.... _:-.:.;. _:.:,-,:- WQ.lt \Jc., I L +d= "-' :.(' A/JOtT()f?, KING COUHT'Y -..J " ...... ::-- INDeX IN seCTION 7 de 18, T2JN, RSE, W.M. ~ to ~ ~ C ~ od~ ~ '" z<O ~~ I-li ).. 0:: ~ ~ liJ 0 0:>0.. I-It ",.. ~ =>-liJCI)- Itu..o:( 8 u..0 ~ o c ~ .b ).. It 0 ti l!5 I-OL z _ _ r-.... I (J(J_~'" liJ co. 0 It UJ ~ " ~ ~~ ~o 0:: ~I ~ <: :2 ~I~ "'~ ~ ~ e~ .~~ I! '" c " ," ~.:. ~."·,;~I ·.r ~ :~ -·:·j:fl : o~~ /I ~ i..':. ... ,,~ 0 '."'.5 ~ :: .:~. .'. :': ~ ":'''''''l 1\·.1/6 )' . ..... .' ••. ity of Renton fanning Division . ..... -... ~:. Jl;{'~ 3 1012 --.:', :~:~: ., ~tb~~,¥,~1Q) ~' ...... )/' ,:. '.".". ':""., "" ..... , ...... , ... , i:"" \'\," "b " ...... "" " •• ~ ,'I .. ... :': . .... :: . LAKE WASHINGTON . ;-'t.. v":. . ~' ... ~ . .: ~ :. ... : •..•. ... : ........ . -, ... ~ ......... +,H 1217 WSOH COHCR£r£ IIOHIJIJCN T IN CASe MflH BRASS OISK AND PUNCH 0.,"' snow SURFACE '4 ~. H(}s ',PCMIT: STAnOH 5J+82$7 ....... ~~. ,~ .:' rmT (;t. END RWY "" " "" -(\.:. NAJL ijJM,l.SPHAL T .:. .. ~.~ ..... ....:.., ':'., ... ~ .•.... "'::' . "': .. , i:)'",::' , " .' HORTHlHG:1 JI.M ~A-. ~ ,," ,-CASTING 1~46.IO -'q>~ ......... I,' LATINO! .. r'w'OI 7OJ'-N ~~.. 1\.' LONQ71JDC 122i:h~H57!11· IV a-HH A\£. s. .. S. 1121'H NORTHING 't16+6'IU" lASTING 'ZP5aJ7.M 'OUNO J/96 " ..... ,. ::. ..,',.: .. ::..... ::: 1 ~I " ~I ~, I 1 I i + I/Z' REBAR .t LS IJJ7" NORTHING re5zl7.PJ CASn~ 12977"".09 rOUND 10/97 "'~ • I F'OVNO IOft7 ~.:. <~ I _ I ":. .:. , .' ,'.: __ ':":'.' ~ENO RWY STAnON 'J+7P.OO , ~ "<,IJONUtlDlT IN CAS[ . . '.. • ''-t/ORI'HING ,,,552a.JJ D'~C 12iI ...... ".4O L.ATmJDf "7'JO·01 .6641 " N lONG/ruDE '22·'J·00,66" .. " IV SET t'199 2'" ..... ~ ~f>.o' .: ••••• :...." ", ~ /I" ' .. AIRPOI!T ,1/'",'" PI f{ \::::\ REBAR .t CAP NORTHING 1e5I71.n EASTING 121118Z,,0.79 STATION ""+44.87 Z"Z.8$· LOT • " 7~~~.' .. , ...... , .. , .. : .... , .... ,", .. , LAn1UD£ .. T29 ·,57.'aoa· N U:WGl1UOC 'ZZ1J'OJ.,5 .. ,.... w IJOM.II.ICNT IN CASe '11 \ \' .,.... .-':\_ 0.,5 .. ' BflOW RfU \ I -- NORI'HING 18 .... 96.5 .. EA.SJJHC '2~'90.7" 51A f1GW .. Z+ 7Z.8" J.50.00· Lur LAnTlJO£ .. 77t'50, .. .,554' H LOHGrIlJO( I2.2U·04.Of.5j· It CONCA£I£ UONUIJ£.NT IN CAse *7H J/8" BRASS PluG 0.5.5' Snow SURf"Ac£' aflH A\o£. s. • I20TH ST. NORrHfNC ISleJU7 CASrwo 12957."98 F'OUNO J'/p6 : ...... '''\~ -';, I -;:,.. . .. ,.\'-. SCAL;"'\ 500 ""-. .. , ....... ::.) .:~,':' , '. , . J&Tr: AHNuJ,l .... CIi/4NCC OO"().t'19" ,:' i\---'.: .... '::::"'" .:-....... :::.... . ,'. ~\\...y ~l"'''·'' "".. .." .... " .. ". ,12 E!'f; w/ PUHCIt ... CAS< .,. • ilARKal GCtIo£nc ~moc. WARK " "". ~I .•• d,' snOW"'" .,. .... '". NORmlNe "J761.17 "".. . .... , C"STING 12~8iJJ.6J ",:. ~~~ ~;;:.~ .• e """:": .. . lAJlnJOC r.~V'''J.J2ga· N ..... . lCWGrJ"UO£~12'2'SJ,088g· It' ..... . "':'} ~ ~.:: .',' ~.>' ... ::" .' .. . ...•. ~ '.: ~T :::r:tZ~Y~~~'~T '-l FOUND 10,:' 7 ' ........ " .Y I '::',. '::., ,' ........ :.:., :.' .... ... TNf t1~SlS OF BEARINGS IS NA08J/p1 ALONG THE CCN1CRUN£ OF 1'Hf'RUNWAY. NORTHING ',,2P44.J7$ ': Ivl\ Me-;;: HeS.<!fP •••• , •• ,""'" .......... ' ALl cq:IRDINATES $HO~ NAOlJJ/pI. ~, Ii • ~ ~, \ CAS7lNG 11M572. 18,5 STAJlCW 26+88 • .50 LATl1UD£ .. np·J$.uJO" H L(wGlTUOl 'ZZ12'5U7ZI' IV -,":., HORTHlNt;. Jen40.<f6 , •... ~ -'j. ..~ [ASTIHC ft9~J." " .. ~~ .:f,TAncw 2a4-Ugl y. ': ~6i' RlCHr ·,~... .of .: unnlOE" .. rn'.n',aI,r N ~. ,', :':,', ::. j,~\ 1 :: LONGJ~ 12212',4:1-,?JZ" It' :"~. MATCH UNE SHEET 3 .,' ..... ,..."' ~_r ...... ,. ;:. . .... " TCH UN~ SH""T J .' 'RHr~"CAG liZ" "~... '~~'" .'. MA I ' 1:.,;1:. ... : II J" 8RA~ OtSK w/ PHOto P~ .~,'.:-. HGS • T o.~' A80\6 GROfJND ".'~ ..... :. '. ·RHT~.CN n·...... HORrHlHC '~l9J'.Z. .. ... :......~ SURl'AC! OISK nI:.:;r't1J7J" ,., 'J. .' '.~A.S1WC .,nap",,:~z ...... ":.. NOR7fdHC ta2.f}"46 .•.. U \" .... 'TA~ .21+<45.50... "::,.., £ASflHG mSJto.50 .~:~ ~ ::: .. , t!~~~:J5./~ . .H ::'.:.. ';::.~::: StA_~ 2.2+<45.iH ·.·.9 I ~ \ .,'. lONGlTlJOC IZZ1).",2.OVJ'.W .:' .:' ':... • .Ja1 .02 I.D'T -. .:. \J •. ,' F'OUHO 10 .... 7... '''~ .:' .:' ":> .. LAp1UD£ .. ne·JO:'t .... • N O ' ~ .,. '.. ".~" .:;. loHg.~ 'ZZlJ·0(.a.~lO" w II ,':.~''''''~'':' ':. . .,'.: .~. UOHUUCN., IN CASE ".... \.! ;. ".::. ... ':"',,'. ,' .. ,"'.9-"~' fJ£lOW'.R)U • ..... ~ "'~' .... : ..... :. .' CASTING 129 ..... ts.OZ '. • • .',' RfIMlt M. CAP : :: NORTHING 'al' .. 1. ... a7 W '~-AlRPO/f'f .. AIRCR~.n· :: STATKW.12+"O.JI ':. :' .' NORTHING. ,.san7.'. *-:: J$O.OO' ar.T ':.:.' EASnHC,,'lm'8a.,J ':'. lAlHlJOE' "7'2Q·20.W'"·~. ill I~ STAJb,J,'H2 .... 7 M 12 7 • ". ·.l.ONGHtJDE IZZ'~·$9.s.sBZ ·W .. :: oJ JOf:66 1 RiGHT :: -------.-.---"-___ ., I t.J.IfTUOC .. np·I:lJJ"," N IJ la S&!I J I , .. , Z48J.~.~. '+"'-"-" .--... -I~ . lrClTUO£ 12~:u·.a5660 " It' COHCR£J£ UOMIilCNT IN CA.$f.... ..~.)f ... " COHCREr(' i ". '~'. .'. IIUH BRASS OISK .' ':'.. ~T III1H .,'. ~ Ie \'::. '."":'.~:::' STAAIF'£O: .... BRASS "'SK . uU I \ , , otG co. SU'fIlEY .' •••••• ....... .:. ... .... • •• OH ..... n,AC[· • \ • It 0000 co. CNG..: .::. IJARKCO '"df,'!f.7 .' , r ':'., '''J7 lZ.LL .... ...... M .' \, .... "'iJTiT ...... "'N08rtftfiG "rt26.'Sof " , •. : ..... 0.84' snow SURFAC[ "':. E);$AAG Ina2QO,04 ':' .. ... m AIo£. So • So IUrH ST. ...... F'OOHO 10/p7 ~ I ~ ::: IIO~ .... 1IPl£ PVHC>l£S 01/ CAP. ". , \ .,. • '" NORTHING ""510.64' .... R!""" .. CAP : I .... 6R~G l.!kl.lt"'" ~~ .: 'i: 5 ", ...• ~\ .. :.: 'dc/NUY MAP NOT TO SCALE II(A9JIIro TO CDlltA """'" """"",r AJRCtVn I . ~""'OO_.IH CAS< CAS7IHC 129'717.,)' ....... NOR~ 'tIO"7eO '~ASnNG ,nHfJ,51 rWHO Jj'H ' ..... EASTIHt; '2I~At.:05 STAl1QN -01+,)10.27 I ~ ";1111 5T:~".", _ ... ,_,_ ....•. ":'. 5TA~ '+!t.-oe '08J. •. ,RIGH'f·· "" .. :.¥l ............ ":. . ... ~4l.', lEFT· ~ -LAn1VOt··If.l·'j'oa.27n" N :. lAnTUOf "7'8·r~6.l5t1-N 1 (0 LONGITIJOC ~2lZ'J8.72Jj -It' '~:. LONGtJlIO£ 122,1Z·$7.0271" It' .' .. : ........ :.. '::. :. t: :,'. ",'.. .. •• NORDlING , .... 2 .. ,.27 ~ STATION J+4000 • '., NORTHING 'tIOZ54 .. 2;· .'£ASnNG IZPj26an .:. "':'.. ··(4.STIHG '~~$550"$ _I Off"S£T 0+00 '::'CASTING IZ9M9f1,/'.= "STATION -Oof.,,~aO .',' .:, St),flON·O+OZ.J2 :t '. 'l'~TITUOC "7'29'0ik8~' N :: JUtlJ' R'GI-4T .. '. J~O~·i..£H ::":'. LCWCITUD£ 12212'5~:a75" V(: LAnTt.lOC "7'29·oa.4O",-N ~ • 120TH ST.H-t I IQIII II I~ < \LAnruoc "1"29'045Z81 " N .,' '.:. SET ~/'pp :: lONGlTUDC IZ212·.7.Z8,e" It' ~ •••• • "., .' J.IONtJIJCNT '!fA.cAS[ ." 1 Ot5A.ACC) THI'K'SHOlO Jj.~'~~~' _ ~ r '{ONGHl/'OC IZ21Z',7.7"fKI " W .: ". • .,'.. .:. ... .{ "':'.1ws ~}.::.. ..:::.~,' ~U .P\ ~II\~~ ~I'TH Sf. 7"~ :'.: .... ~ ...... : .. .' ':'. :.:' ; .. ~ .•. ;::.:. ••.• :. 'R!lJf a. OO ·/ht'¥.:;j" .... NA/C.·V( ASPHALT .: '" STA 11dN • .q+OOZJ ':'. 0.05 lU,. •. • ....• HORT'HIHG I.Z646$ 'f;t'SJWfi 12986i".IZ Ul"pn..u-.. 77t'r£IPsg" H ~tvor IZZ12'5l.Jaz .. • It .~~" .. , ..... ".~:(> ~ ~ < i! ~ ~ .,.~~.2ND ~ ........ INDEX IN SECTION 7 &: IB, T2JN, RSE, W.M . \) o '0 o l0 -< ..D o o o o -..... '. "- .. :.,'.!!". ~~RVtYED av,. TBW_ c.' CITY OF RENTON 33.0 JlONTE \IIW PK'KY (N •. ~ 0 __ BY ~,. _RO"'O B" RECORD OF SURVEY BOTHEu.. W. 9802J " I\) DATr·~'·~.. ::. CHeCKCO B Y: "11' 0'" •••. ~y '''''., RE"gON 'D RENTON AIRPORT WASHINGTON '"' \.<o,.w.a~ ...... ~. 0) -.... .. , REN rON INC WWW.It.HPAClf.I C.COli .......... ...... • ~':-"",' SCAle! PR()'£C J NO. DRAIIoING rllC ",,,,MC: CI... " ... ;' ".,. I" = 500' 3-1086-2203 SOB6RSOI.OWG ':b .: J-' :J 0'iifJ => ~ © \., .. _ .;" .. J2. cb "'''',:' '<8. .... ..,. ~. O~ "l <;' t'/) iif :;, g'g ......... q,~ .... "'0\,. LAKE: WA SHIN GTON / .. *" v(\/ "It- "'0\, .... .~" ~ ':"JO 7 vat,.: ,,\ ''''~~4 :~\'0J"<~ \ " '" "'-t. f"( 1 \~:"""' ... ". \ .' " \l\. \ ""'-""" :/.'" . ,,, ':::o'. ':":"" .....•. "' .. :? r ~.:; .. :.:. ~"""":: ...... : ..... .... - ...... .... , ... ....... \ ...... "'" ".~ ......• ...... , .. : . ".~. .. ..... :.: i,'" ::':,'::' ',:::',:::,' ,::' ", :" ..... :: ~ :. ..... : ~~\.,.:: ':'" j~NOf HAk~···~':.,-__ . 'ff'='ih-lr.=~ J-BRASS OfSk -;j PCJH04 ~ --' ..... IN PHO TO PAH£L ~. .... ,- 5O.OC)' N06'"22'f6 "C .50.12' 1/2" R£8AR .. CNJ LS IJJ". ""' FOtJHO 10",. r~~~ £SlJf129 .t 581'21'J I'£ sao1 r of'·W'5.00· '. \~ NOi'of Z'I9"-»00' N3Cnr.,"C J"'" U \ J ..-. , { :.': ..... ........ \ , \ , \ , \ I"~ , :: . ~\l \\ ~ FlUSH w/ SURf'ACf". ~. ~ FOOHO l O/»7 '_ ...... .~ '-.. ~ ......... : ... :.~.: " ,.,.:'~':~::" ... ",.''''::':';:;.",,~ _ S::LE _ 'y""~ I I .. ':....... 'i,:, (IN FErT ) ""',:. . •••.• J Inc h -200 t L " " ':. THE 8ASlS ';;' BCARHGS 15 N".o~/i l AL OHa JH( CCH TERUH£ OF THe RUNWAY. ",AU ~S SWIW NANJ'/.D I . .. ·:··· ........ :t .. ··\;;fHi() 1 ~ ..J:.~ ~ HAR80R LIHf •• '..... BOUNDAR rUN! to, '~., INTER-PARcel UN( ~ ----CENT£R UNf RUNWAY --',---(ASEW£Nf I,/HC ..... '~"I • ---~-----LEASE UHf .:.... ..\.... $':.., .~ GIS 8 ASO/AP fROll AeRIAl. PHOro .... . •.. ':.~: ~;, SCT ~ PAOFIC R!~AJf .. CAP l5/11 .22 .;: 5 • FOUNO R£BAIt '" CAP .. ~~.. .~ G FOtJHO MOHt.IWCNT '." .: 4 FOUHO PI( NAI. :':'.'\:"'1, ": • S£T Pte HAll.. ,:.,~~'. )" ~ :::OON~:::;N:C~ ~C~ " .. ~.'.:':, .. ::, + FOUNO SCCnoN CORNCR NOT[: AU CA50fCNr. RrQirs. ANO ORDINANCE NUW8£RS SHOMoI R£FC~ TO liST ON SH££T fJ 0". ~D "",.-\-., t il I PP8O£/HC I \ 1 \ I ~ •• \.1 ,. r L .·::::··A-O'j~'40' ... :::.,. 'S6n1 ,J.'''t '>..,c 1'* ::,:' R-~~ '.. ,._ .'. :','. :'. iqC''''J9'59"W ":', . ' . ........ '--... :::/" //<.:~. :: ". • .::',' H2of "06 ·,a~: .. ,..or~ .,' ...... : ... '. ,<> .......... ,.," ':"""'>.. .."' ...... ,... .. .. ·,,'·· ... ,...0.-----''''' """" ..... ".,.>,." ... ;;.'.: • ... ~':.-~~':' '. .::y.,'''., """""""-'" "'" .... " .... ".' ,,: ~. ,10.:1 CHCCMCO BY: APPROveD BY: .:'.-~::. -~ SUlMYro.·/li, 'Taw ~'. :. OR'A'MJ BY~ , ~ I ·tM7L ~ I~'~"'" Br "~" RC",SlCW (0 ~ ~ (E:jj ". .... \ ::-r:: .. , '.~' '-~ I "" ..... "" I<:! f'~· JQ p.~ 0·g 88' :;, Ic~'o ( \ \ 'R RE:NTON 'lNG SCALE: I" 200 ' 1\\ \( ..... "..1 I :.,........ ("""" "'., \ "", "" .. ".,.' \ \ ) .\ ........ ........ LEAsc/n It I J2 CITY OF RENTON RECORD OF SURVEY REN TON AIRPORT INDE:X IN SE:CnON 7 4< 18, T2JN, R5E, w'M . WASHINGTON PRO.£CT NO. ORAIlfHG nu HAIlI(: J-IOB6-220J SOB6RSOI.OWG o o o :Y ;: '::=. :.: . ..... ".::: .:.:., ... ~ .. ' ::.' .•.. :.:::; :;, ... ;:":" ,': I I tLASCI6!i I ./J2 I -.~--~'f-. ] __ -+11-\\\ l l~ ,,' •.. ,:::.~:: .. : .. ,:" .• "" ... J. •• -. o -.- I ~ c::::::J I ~ .S;·I.·" ... ~:.~~~ .. I:. ...... . i.~.: ;:.- :./ -r;;;:: w~ttR""Y ... ) .. ._.: ..... ,:~.(~:/r '1 '''''::.: .. " II Cl GRAPHIC SCALE ( IN YEET ) ir.ch _ 200 fL 1Nf' BASIS OF f1£ARJHc;:S IS HJ.D&Jj'J1 ALOHC JH£ aJ111Uft..W£ OF 1J£ ~WA Y. ALL CCJ()IIDIrM J£S SH(}IrIfN HAOaJ/'II. i/",,:'C)::,~; ~.f-:" .;-' .. ~ •. , QS BASElJAP f'RCM ACRIAI.. PHOTO .:: :~ ••. -................... • SCT IIH PAone RCBAR, 01: CAP lSllf421 ,<C::,:,i~'C:?'~~:C,)~~!~~ oj ~fl-l . R-2~OO·. L_J41.14 · 0._015-:5.5'00· NOO"J7'04~f IIJ.21 · 12 IJ ----Cl ,~~~~ IIOH ::.'11111'1 BRAS!'<WIiIC OH StWAC£" "'.:. MARKeD: "a9' jjf . :. 'WHO ~1 ~ . ';-'. .'.'''' ~9.t'~t.t. .: ,,:::: ", ~'" . ) (D .:: ...... , .......... -.:: ~ .. ·,HU~ SHO~ Rf:f1R TO LIST ON SH£CT a o ~ ,< ... ", .. :::" ... ?". :: :\ .. ""--r i · -/A' -l -J --l .'. . ~; ~: £"'~17 ..•.. alDIHAilcc .:. fxcv>r 1\1£51 I -._.".,;,,-\ \~ . .yq ",. "., ... ···~o..Jfx , l -~~~~.L .. -.7 \;,.:Ot~~ / 9\~' . J'" .' ..... / .:.:;=......... ,f' ... ,./<' ,;/.,,/ \. \ ."'" ..... -b", .... , .. ;;: .. L/' .;'~~ ......... : .. : ... . :., ,_0 NM'57'...,·W 15.15~ o .. -"" Cl . :::":" .. :: ..... ,. ",. .. ,Id'\~ L \·' .. · .' ..... ' .. ' .. ~ .' ". LEASe /l,,~: {c:: \ ~ '>;"",-,---t Z£~ ',~ . o t ~~:?. I ~ -\;;;r--==~..±:t "",""1' 2''<-' ~ --''', I / ... -~ W~T =-;;. ~ - o J ",,~ ~ ... -"'~'., .:' :: '.;' NC$ ~ MARK:: . .lIS" _ASS DISK:: .~. wARJ<ro: R 462 J.13 .;· n£Y._..a..5!I' H,A.t.o'&f" rfNHO IOft1" .'.~ .. , .... --" ....... , ...... . /1' IN"'", ~....... -= 4-...JL.. -"I '" ".~ _ .. -' ''''-±' o n~ -, "."" ~= ~fP, I :mffl~ n --=--E!!!14' -. ___ -=-~r/l1 p'~<-..J ---..L,/.l~·:~·::" ok;i"" ,. SRASS 0tSIC wI PUHOI KJHG COUNTY ~ ~. £H-1IO 11173 F'WSH wI rROCJHO • aJllrER OF SIO('WALJ( 'OUHO 10/'11 4-" ,.. (',,(JIICR£r£ WCtt«MEHT 'II/ Bf;,>ASS PlUG 'III PUNQ-I o.4Ct snow SlJRFACE FOt.WO 101" .: 0."-'" ac.OW SURFA« ···· ...... :::~OIJNO 1.~7 .. : ...... .. -----," x ," c:aICJorn: -_/ ~"( 1/4· SRASS ~ :::;.: o.J" mow ~. ." 0-0: ,.;0. fOtlHD IOjD1 .• :.:, ..• , ....... ,.... _'. .: ::". : ...•.. : .::,,: ...... : ...... :. .~:~:.~# .. . .•....... :: .~ .• .:: '., :: INDDI IN SECTION 7 &: lB. T2JN. RSE. W.AI. 13(. 113<!- _OIlO~ ~~~O ~g;i T:S 5:....::;:;;;;;: ""~2!.2!.C3 ~ • .non"'ll; o-3CVN~ =-(;J.:!.~iII: O~.:J "k ~~~~~ :z e <:J ~ \i o ~ <5 ~~ .<0 I- )..0:: ~1lI0 O::'n. ~1I:0:: ~=> IlI C1l -II: Il. « ~~ ~ ! :3 ~ Il.O OO~ ).. II: 0 ~0l-~~ O~~ II:lU 0:: ~I " " I ~"" l c 0 '" Jlt :d ~ II ~ ~ <m mQ 5~ d 'f'f1~ntOI} .f)illision .:.:~ .. ~: <' /O ll '.' .~CT ...... ~ raa'~1 '\ 41(!i( ~~~/Q) • ...... .'J ":'. , , , \ \ " , \ \ \ '0 , \ \ \ , , \ \ , , , , \ \ , \ \ \ \ \ \ , \ , , \ GPS CON TROL DIA GRA M :: ..... :'.:.~.:. •..... ,,-:::' .... : :.: •.•. ':':::', ..... ,':." )' § ,:', ':,',"" .... .: .... : ............... : ... .. ~ .. ....... , ................ . '. ' .••.. " ':'" "', -"', , :,'-'::. '\. . ... ".: : ....• :: ~TA1'IC CPS NETWORK WAS RUN i;:'NO~~~R:'Bt IP:;"':~~Pf)NAL G£OO~'~~"'S\J,qV["y POINrs OPT B '962". "HArr". AND WASHJHc,ON STAll otp~IjTt.lCNr '!Y.. JRANSPOR'A n()IV:~. POINT "VALUY" (GPI7I67-2B) WEHf HlLD' mwBtf 4000Ssi:~ RfCCIVE.ffS ~R( /,ISlO .,~ AND {.l ArA WAS COl.lCcrro M.5 SCCONO £PbcHs. DATA I'o'A$ G"OUECTro Ot'/ THf J CON"JROt. POINTS c~mNuouSLy' M4II.E A FOURTH R£CElo,l~:n[O 8 MOH/,IM(ffrs ON Sffr/ .. THE DArA ' • WAS PROCfSsro IN GPSURI/(Y AND ,t{).A)Srro WITH' rn;!JNCT pt,us. SIJ(t1 7RII,IBCt... :.'. \ " '2,'\\ ./, , \ , , NAIitGAnON PROGRiU/5. '::'~"::'''':'''' ....... :\ .:.::.... .. •• M ...... :.: .. ~., .. \ \. \ , , .. r.OU"~ ~~.:\~""'" WIDiD. : ....•. : . ... ::. •..•. : ........ :..... ;~ .... ~ .... :: ; , \ \ " , \ \ " , \ \ " \ , \ \ " '\ 0' \ '0 0 , \ \ " , \ \ '0 '\V . , . , " & FOUND PI( NAil .... . ... :.. .... ~~:,"~:(" ,'.t·::;" ~ ,./ ...... • ~.-FOUND pt( NAII,:',' --............ ~., "'. .... ':.: •• I'II rH A£RIAI::~AHCl '" ': .... .'::0'.:.,'.1\....! ' '.~ ... :.<~ '. ....... ......... . ....... \. . .......... : .... :.: . .,:: '. \1, I -....... :.............. ":. \ .. ".... r'~: ---..... -.......... .:' ... : ...................... :.... . '. , ....... : :,,,/,,,: I \~Lr '., :.:' ...... ' . .,: ............ " ..... : .. \ '.. \ ........ .', ......... , .•.• \ ' ::. .,..,:........... """'" .1'-'.>,10 .. ::::J' ............. , : ;\ ""< .... :' v'., .. :,~~ ~." .. " ':"' ... J .... f' '0 1'10. ~o., J ....... ,," \ ".. " H(;$ ~~ ... ,' •• :---... '~" --......... \ . , :~I~"" " '.., '.' '::. :'. ~ \ \" \ ~ lfk/rif~i4~CHcr:.,$~SCM ~" ............ .... , ... • FOUND MOHUUE:NT ---BOUNDARY UN£ •• ,: ~ ~ ••••• ' • ---Q'S BASCw;.p FROM'AERIAL PHrSJ». ----CPS 'o£CTOR ::<.,. ..: ....... . '. . .' . ~. \ \ ~..,. , '. I \ -.. , . .''\\:::.. .... :, (f n~-:J '. Il :. '. ...... , .. :: •. ::. ... : ...... ....... .. ~\\,' . ' ".:. \ ~ 1\ L o.e.".8£lOW RI M "':. 'J. .......... '. ~:. $! '0 , ! :::', .. , ... : .... , .. , ... ·.:: ... ,./ ... :,::·:·~;:'./::t.,.)" ....... , ,," .. , I \ ' .' '.. ....... .... .. '".': ',I . ,: .. :.".... '~. . ... :....... ": ....... ..... \ rOUND NA~".4 ·WAsHp! \: \11;'\.;:1 :', '::"":" \: \ .\ GS POINT "':'.. ...................... .... ;-;.;... \ J IjRM-r;A gcAG liZ":'. '~" ...... '. . \f\ I J" ~SS DISK ~~~pTO'fI~EL ./.·.' •............... ; . ,i' ri;·~,~:.',:;:,~:p .~.~ ~ B --J" I ti :.:.............. ,,,,'-.,, ""~". ' O 1 .. '" . ~. \ I: '... .. ~'~i ." .. __ ~.~~;:.-i(. , 'I " \"-=-" ".' '~,,""-n I I ' "'" , , I \ ~.., --........ --~ ... I \ ., ... __ " __ ... __ , '. ':::·'·M.'~ ,-0Wl> NAIt • WA?O d~t . \\$ ':": ....... . .. :: ...... . :':' .. . ••... ....... ....... .. ....... , ....... , , ....... ....... ....... ....... "".:, ". \ \ " '\ .. \) ..... ::'':' --:: --...... ~ --I ' .... y" .-". I \::'.~..... 0.::::: :.Y --~ ___ ... __ ...... -=:::: ... __ ... ; .......... .. ".:. 'i. I " ,,:'\ . d!S. .:' "' .... -""---'" I ' :. II . . . '.. . .. '. . ."""" ----"" ---I """,~" ... ".... ------" "\: I ...... :..:.\~ ....... --- ... : ..... : ......• "':. ., ...... : ..... ;. ..... : .... '. ; ..... ~.:: '~. p" ~" ':::'" ':'.'.:'.: , '. . . . ...... ." .....•. : .. , .......... : ...• '::.:' :.' ., .. ;.:. ':, ".:: .' .... . .. .' .' '':'.:: '.:' , :. o a ~ 'I " . o I " I' '::':"":"''''''~' \\: .. I I I .;. oS,. o I' I " I' .c· ........ '0. r \ ... • ". .M •••• .' .... ~ •• ~. , , o i ! ' '''. ~I: i ::' _ ,t.. " 'oK~ I' I :".. , ,.'. "'f : 'j':' I .. ····~ "'::'. I' ..... ~ 0/.--'\ • I \-J' I LL..!1. 'I I I ••••••. I" I I I I .... '.:.j L F~~:·"(>/IJ.£HT '" CASE ' I: I ....... 0. ... 8flO" R1i1 I 'I I I I ...... , :: i3 I I ' ".: ... / : ,! :: :! I ~ I I I' :/ ,: ,I I .. " x .. -CONCRE Te POS T /HSH>£ CAse IIU H 1 12~ BRASS PlUG »UH PuNcH O.Ja' BElOW GROUND '------ It! 'I' : INDEX IN SE C n ON 7 '" 18. T2 3N. R5E. W.M. I '.::'.:1\". ~~RVEYEO Bf;. TBW .c· CITY OF RENTON I " " ~ OR-),~ BY: ~." ,l,PPROVfD BY: 3350 JlON7'£ VlUA :1 0. ".. .. ... 5/99 CH[O<[O OY, RECORD OF SURVEY BOTHELL WA 98021 :.:-......... TE'" ", ~~. ••••.. RfVlSlON CX'O PPR TEL : (426)961 -4800 ~:, .. ~,.,. . . ....... RENTON KING REN TON AIRPORT WASHINGTON FAJ(, (425)9"-4 808 '- . :·~.':7·.. sc .... l-C: PRO.£CT NO. DRAMI'NG mr NAM!; WWW .WHPACIFIC .CO M ........... '. .... '''::; I" = 500' 3-1086-2203 S086RSOl.DWG lu " ~ .::... ::s . 0 <::> c;;? .'. .. CO .... ~ ~. :c'" • '! u U '" 'y •• ,:. S?:~ ft:2j ." .. '-' OJ' .. ': O. -.I ~O" :, s .::::.:':' .;:. ':::". ~'::"., p .: ..... ':'.:. . ::.:: ... :~ .. -~. :"'~"" ' ...... : •. ~ . EASEMENTS \ AGRITMfNTS \ RIGHTS \ RESTRICnONS \ LEA SES' PER PACIFIC NORDiWEST nILE COMPA NY ORDER NO. 323290 "', .:' """':' 1"',: I. nrC/RIC TRA NSMISSION CASEMENT CRANT[£:CHICAGa. MILWAUKEE AND ST. PAW,.. R.R. RECOROINC NUUBfR: '296381. APRIL 3. 1919 LOCA.TlON PeR R(F!RENC! 1 22. ,,"om 1'101 KNOI4l4 . 2 . CI fCTRlC rRANSJ,jISSlON lINf fASCIJCNr GRAN If!:: CHICAGO. IJIL.WAUKff ANI) ST. PAUL R.R. RrCORDlNG NUMBfR:IJ251H9 • ..u.Y 16, 1919 1tPPR0X1UA TC LOCA new SHO....,.,. J . elecTRIC 1RAHSUISSION EASDlENr GRANTEC:PUCCT SOUND POIt(R Ie UGHT COMPANY, RrCOROING NUiJBfR:2 400095. SEPTfiJBCR I. 1927 C)(PIRro. NOT SHOIWf. 4 el£CTRlC rRAHSJJISSlON EASCM(Nr GRANr£E:PUC£T SOUND POWCR Ic UGHT COUPANY, RECORDING NUMBfR:2400102. S£Pr£J.lBER I . 1927 APPROX lOCATION !>HOlloN. I'IIOTH NOT KNOI\oN. S . elEC rRlC rRANSlJISSION OHfJmANC£. IN FAVOR or arr OF SEATTlE ORDINANCC NUM8fR:S9599 • .AJNC 9. 1930. 200' !MOE STRIP AS SHOI'tN. 29. SCI<I£R EASEMENT GRANTCE:BRYN MAim LAK£RIDGC 5(II£R DlSTRlcr ReCOROJNG NUJ.l8fR:7!1021OO757. ffBHtJAHY 20. '9 711. 51. MATTERS WlIIOf /,lAY Be DlmOSCD BY OUR REVIEW Of ~~Lt.~:S$lONCR·S PLAT NO. 1~J71 . SAJD PtAr IS : ..... :. • $8. .wA nERS 10IHICH lolA Y Be DlSCl.OSED BY A ReVIew OF .': 30. SCI<R "'SCAlCNr :.... ANY CITY OR COONTY OROINANce \WI/CIt ARC Nor RecOROCD:: AS SHOI'IN GRAN ICE: BRYN-WAI'm-LAI(CRlDGC SfW(R-0I5'TRJCT IN THE OFFlCC Of THE COONTY AU~TOR. ,'. '-···'t,. ""~" . • •••• "'" .".,: ••. , •.•• J .....• : .... : ... ReCORDING NUIJOCR:79CSle09!11. UAY .It. Ifmi~.·~ ".~. AS SHO~. .:',' ~"""'" ~'T~~~f:l"~~x'1~~'~:E~~':}O A TAXAIU EN~fr. •• JI. BRIDGe. row PATH PfRIoIIT .7 ••••• ".:. GRANTEE: TIlE DOCING COMPANY .. ...... 60. PROPERTY rA'lf/072J05-9001-0!l IS ExeMPr,. • •••• RECOR~NG NUIJBER 9209171S!l J ••• ~/211/69 Ie 9/11/92. .:..... BUT 'M'JUlD acCOOE rAXABLE" IF TRANSFCRR£D TO A TA • .rA!I~~ ENTITY. • ..... AS SHOI'IN. ~: :.... ~"""~ 61 . LEASE" :.' ".::. '. J2 lrASf ARCA .ACRCE/JCNT ~ .:' .... ~ ':L£S5££: EK.IflNG AIRPt.ANC COMPANY " ':" B£MCH BRUCE: J. Lf \lfN AND BOEING EIoIP.lO'fCc·il:'t1NG ASSOC ~~CHNC NUUSER: 461718 '. SCPTCIoIBeR 16, 19~!I ':'., .•.• ::. RECORDING NU.w8fR: 88062oo~~1. JJNC 2~. 1988. '.:. . R(~DfNG NUMBER: 54295251 APRIL t. 1962. .••• • .•••• lrCAl DeSCRITPTION oars NOnCLOSE. AS.SHOI'IN. ...... l111.E ~~PAHY COULD Nor PROII/OE UAP DOCUMENr. NO"'· ;;tiOWN. • .'. ','.:' JJ .• RAJ! EAS("UCNr.t ACRCCM(.,.,T'" ".:..... 62. lEA;C::. '>. BCTM"£N TH£ BOtINe COMPANY).NCJ rH£ OTT. Of R£NTON. "~~. L(sste; NC*.rn....r:ST AIotONICS C()4fPANY. A WASHINC;TOtJ •. cpRPORA~ RCCOROINC NUMBER: 9209111541:. AUGUST '''. 111~2 ••.•.. RCCOROING:~UM8CR. 7~)2 40"51. MARCH 2" •• 9}:,··'····: :'. . .•• RECOR/JING NUM8CR 960(1110217. ·OE"tt'M8(R. /(5 .1,11 4 .~ RECORD/Ne' NU.wBCR: lti09270.542. SEPTEMBER .~:} 19lti • ':'. • . .. : ..•. :~, ..•...•. :. .... '<.>:': ':'~" .. "';:'. . ...... : ... :.:' 6 . WA TCR EASOIEHT ReCORDING NUIJ8fH 960904076!1. A~sr .30. 1990':" .''''' R£CClRDlN ... NUWBER : 6209926 • ..uL Y 21. 1967:·' . • .... ':'. .' TRAJI. SHOIIoH WHCRE IT IS ADJACENT [0 PROPERTY cM'I': .~. ReCORDING Nu.w8eR: 6217822. Aucusr II •• lt57 ...., " .' ~.. ,"",'.:'. '.:' AS SHOP.fI. :: ..' ••• ' RES£R\I£D BY J. f . HA l'[S AND MusrrTE HA l'E"S RECORDING NUMBCR;2e597el. UMOt ... 19J/. PORTION OF PROPERry Nor SPEOFIfD. AS SHOI'IN. J". WA1l"R UN£ CASfMa.'"{'.·.·... .:. ~' ~. • ... .. CRANTE'f THC SOCING. CoMPANY"· :'., ".~ 8J. r..r .... sc ;,' .:' ..... : .. 7. elECTRIC rRANSlJISS/ON eASCM(Nr GRA.HTfC;OTY OF S£AHlE. A MUN IOPAl, CORP. RfCORDING NUMBfR:2664861. APRIt ... 19JI AS SHOI'IN. APPROx.. LOCA TlON BtACK RI\£R. RECORDING NUIoI8£"~9J080"0"08. AcJ~T 4, ",,993 l£SstE"; atRNEtl CUTHi.lllLCR AND mOOA$ .AJOC£ Q~A A'RP~t RECOR~NC NUIoI8E(f' 9JO!117l621. FCBROIrRY 16·;./99J, Sf?{ttAOIES, A PARTNERSHIP ~. ". AS SHOIW .:' .... • .. ~. .'fft/JRofNG NUMBER . 7810060073. ocrooci 6. '9 18~. " .7 '. ..: ••.• , •••. : 'RECORDING NUIJ8CR 7tf '0060079. ocr08£R'·12. 1975 ", ~ J!I. SOIfR UNf :!ASfWEHT. ~JQf:R 1Iol(C WAsfflNGrON. "': 7.·.· .. ·· .. ' loS SHO~. ~ •.•••• 8. elECTRIC TRANSUISSION CASEMENT CRANT[E:orr or S(,HILE. A MUNICIPAL CORP. RECORDING NUIoIBER:26704'9 • .wAY 1. "'J' RCCORDING NUtftR: .545D~02. Jl.U.y 10. 1962," ' .. , .,~. APPROXlMAre ~ loTION ~lO"""'. WAP,.,?OCU.wC N'l,NOT L£~BLC. ~:Sit:;~NTON WATCRfRONT ReSTAURANr C~ORATION ":' .. ::.,'.:. 36. IoGReEMCNf .. RClfAst;;. OF DAMACCli:-RCCARQINC tHE RECOROlNC Nu.wBeR: llt0605086J. ...-we 6 . li18. ',,~ AS ~0 1'tN. lOI't'fRWG OF L.qc WASHI~rON 7 ff:cr,· AS SHO~ .' '.' ••.• 8E;rW(CN C£RtRU(Jf UMAR. t1.'fo,A BRAIIU'Y, U.S.A .; .' '., ....... . 9. HccrRIC TRANSlJISStON CASCMCNT CRANTEE~ fUe OTY or SfArn.£. A MUNICIPAl, CORP. ReCORDING NUIJBCR:19 .. S728, /JAY '2. 19'1. RCCORDING NU.w~ 4"5J611, FJ5,CFMBfft: I .. , 19od. 65. lCAse .: ':'.. • ••.•• ;. Nor SlI014N. M.. • ..... " .• ~. ~ LlSSEC: PLANE SPAa: INVCS1/,lt.hrs. INC. "" ••. : ........ :: " .... &<!" .... ~"' .... ~ .. "c ...... ,,~ ........ uJ ., nr"<'C""cco .. b· ..• ",,~ •••••• AS SHOI\oN. 10. SlOPE EASEMENr GRANTCC: STA TE OF WASHINGTON RECOROINC NUMB£R: JIOO" 78, 1.1,1. Y 9. AS" SHOIIN II. DRAIN PI~ CASEMENT GRANTEE :STATC OF W~SHINGrON RECORDING NUAlBCR:JlOO .. 7i, /JAY 9. AS SHOIIN. 12. SLOPC EASEMeNT GRJoNTEe : STATE OF WASHINGTON ReCORDING NUI.IBCR:JIOO-480. /.lAY 9. AS SHO~. 19 .. 0. /9"0 19 40. J1. AGRUMCNT-Rllt'A,S£ OF DAMACES-REGA{IDINC mE' l O~RING.(:W". ~ WA$7'MjGrON 7 rrn .. 8ETK£E/oI ~BR'r'N·I:IA ~ LAND· .. C'OIoIPANY AND u.fA RCCCfDINC NUIoI8£R:~?O. lk~~8CR I 4,.. lrW6·. HOt $HOlloN. ": ~. • ". ' •• ,'. '. ' .•• J&' AGRfC.wCNr-R£LCASC Cf> DAWACCS-ReGARDING THE LtlW(RlNG QI','/.AKC WASHIHGT~ 7 fEfT. otT'\ftrEN:.I,MMY'IiIt;scS ANO U.S.A. /1£COROINfi NUM8t#-! .... 48800. ~U8eR 26. 1906. IIOT SHOI\tl. ". ' 1. ANNej'f}F 'ERRH~Y, \ =01' fWNrON " ~ NAN NO.: 2988.' : RE . Wc NU.wB£R : 77.0,10 4061'-':"'UGUST". 19n. ... IJ. SlOP( EIoSCAl!NT GRAlHee; STATE OF WASHINGTON ReCORDING NUMBER:JIO .... n, JUNE J. AS SHOI'IN. AS 5r(QIItN. :: .. , ~ .' : •••••• ' •• 40. R£~TRlC7IONS"::'~0 BOA r HrI;SCS .. ' CR~ It£: MCNrA~. SClCNCC CC\tfCf 19 40. " Rf'e~OI.NG NUM~R: 68IJ"~.:UAY 5, 1910. AS 1'fO.'f' .... ~;~~~ '," ... ' H . StOP( CASEMENr '942. " " 41 . DCCO tf". REL£ASC-IN ellCRGENCY U.s.A. CAN lAKC POsseSSION 'fS AIRPORT. CRJ.NTCE: SIATC Of WASHINGION RECORDINC NUA/8ER: .J2~02.J' • ..tJl. Y 7, loS SHOMI. • .. RrCORDING NuMOCIf: .1121523. SCPTflI8£R 2~. 'lin • ,'. ·"Ri.t)pRDING NUMat'R>;,.,OBJJ7. F"EBRUARY IJ. 19~I. .' "'M ~ .' R!CoRoING NUMB£R : 1~"2005i6, APRIL 20. III1J. I~. St.0P£ (ASfW£NT GRANTEE: STATE or wASHINGrON RCCOR~NG NUW8€R: J2!KJ2J2 • .A.II. Y 1. AS SHOIIN. "., !: RCcoRohtc HUU8£R : 1m160!lH • .wA Y Ie. 1912. " 1942.:: 16. SlOPC EASEMCNr "':' .. GRANTEE: STATC OF WASHING rON .' CHTIR£ AlMQRT ~TY. \· ..... 2. R£SrRtC~~.ST ~.wf AS ABO~ ,"I. • "f£CQROjNG NUMBrIt:,?20~'60!ll ", MAY 16. 1912 E~~f NRPORT pRQP£Rry. .. J, iI/),tlfAl RlGHrs " " 00; LlO,..X • ........ '. u;"6SEE: ~NG ~MP.I.O"l'fES F1. 't'ING ASSOOA nON. INC. RfCOROlNG:~UMBt.R:~11.JOOO19. 't/O'iOlBCR Jd.·:~981 .:'. :~C=: NUMBER: J2502J4 • .JJNC 7. I.~~ .•. ,..... FOR THc·sr,ATE' Of WASHINGTON •• RECOROING'tW.wOCR: 2480918. JJ/.. Y 21. 1928. .-_. __ .. _. -. \ .•.. :~~.: . " 17. SLOPe CASEwCNT CRANrLc :srArL OF WASH/NGrON RCCOROING NUAJBeR :J2502J.5. MY 1: .. '9"2. AS SHOIlfol. • ....... '3. SLOPe CASCMCNT .~:. GRANrrc:srATC Of WASHINGrON ".: RCCOR~NG NUM8£R: J250236 • .JJJ.,Y 1. 1942. ".:. AS SHQIIfoI ..... ". 19. Sl..OPC ·CASCIofCNT :.': .......... ~. ":', GRA}lT£E:S TATE OF WASHING1'ON ...... • RECORDiNG NUMOCR:J2502J7:· . .J.!lY 1. 19 .. 2.·:·... .: AS SHOI4tI. • ••• :.. • ••.••.• ~,.~,:: ~~A:~f"A:~~ASHlNGrON . ".: ~. RECORDING NUMB£R:J250'2~ JUlY '. '9"t. AS SHO~. .' ••••• • ••• ':IoS SHO II'N ':'. ~~: '.u!NERAl Ri~rs FOR m[ 5r ... ·1£ OF WASHING ION RfCOROl f.J{i..~UIof8£R. 2652458. JANUARY I ... '9JI. .~~ SHOI\'N: 45.: 'lA1~CRAJ.. RIGHTS FOR THe.srArt OF WASHlHGTOH ~~a: NUMOCR: 266"25". APRil. :*~ J.I!NfRAt RIGHTS ·r.OIt:-f/1r srATE Of WASHING rON I. IliJI. RfC'OROlHG NUMBER: 6IHB/H. ,JJNf 12. 1967. A~ SHOlW>l . ,,1.: .w!NeRAl RIGUTS fOR THe srATE or WASHING rON RtCOROING NUMBER: 6J6uO!I. ,JJNe 18, 1968. • • .. S SltOlm. 'NUMB ER:8801'11!J!I!I, J./.NUARY 29. 1988 :~~~=m:;:: :r&iZcig~o 88062005 .7 ItIUI.IBER;-i§BOI21170!l, ((ANUARY 21. 198e ".co .. ,~ .',' . .. ~. .. : .... ',. ~,,:,r;;sf:ffM~~i,NGT~:···· •.•••••• .. .' RECORDING NU WBER: J~6!1J. AUGUST' 6,· . .1.942 ..... '.::'.: '.' 48. RlGIIT-()('-WA Y DUD , , , AS SHOIIN. . ......... . .'.: :',': 22. SlOP! EASCIJ£NT ':. CRANfEe:srATf OF .WIt?,i!NGTON •••• R£COROING NUM~61t1 .'~.5./51t9~·."UGUsr . .6. 19"2. AS SHOMoN •• ' ....... •• 2J. Sl.0P£' CA~~CNT ":~":: •.•••••• : •••• ' '.: CRANTCe:srAtr OF WASHINGTON '. ' ••• ' ~~~: ~'tJIJOCR:~t.~.u~. MAY 29. I.~o. 2". DRAIN ~/Pe rAsi~eNr .... :.: GRANTCC:S7,ATE Of ~jSHINCrt>N :. RECORDING NU"'8CR:jt66~ MAY7. '941. NOT ON ~R1Y. •• ~T .: ~~::. ,~ 25. neCT#tjC 7RANSMISS!()H CXti~T ~. CRAt(lff,PUGCr·'St1UND .E'O~R "'UGHT " RCCl;1ROItJt;-.M11,181!R: 2970090, OCTOBfR JI. :'9J7 E~~T LOCA~~ AS '.rf~' TorAl P~L SHO~. 2p, DREDGING RIGHT '.:~. • • (fI(A",Tff: ('YJ.wUCRf::ML WA~Y.Q/S'lRtCI NO. 2 RECOI't~~G NU4fB£R;ji94160, OCro8tR J. 1941. R1GHr r'O'JJREDGC PROP!1ffY IU.wmA TflY .: ... ~~:::~':;::.w:~~'~~:,., :' • (;RAHTCr: THC PACrf'l(; TELePHONE AND TElEGRAPH . R(~DIr/C NUU9CR:~J799o, SfP,ttlolB£R 26. '9"J, .AS SUO¥N. :..' ..•• : •. , 28. WA~~W"Y CA~ENT~~:"M ••••• ::: ".,(fRAHTEr:COMI.i(JfGWt It'Am<'WA'l" ~StR!cr NO. 2 'Rf1:;OROING MJMOCR:Jl06I1;~ JUlY ,e, 194 1. FOR TIIC srATf OF WASH/NGTON ~. • ReCORD/NG NUMBER: 662 410. AlA Y. II. 1910. .~. ",o' ~ OUTSIDe PROPeRTY. Nor SHOIW-I. .~". 411. RESERVATIONS CONTAINCD /1'1 THE PLAr oF'. " " M.: •••• ~ ~~i:~¥jll;~i:~r~;~"":·,::., REAL £STA1£ co. AND A$lCNS . "'S SHOIW,' ...... . •.• :. 50. nru RCPORr OUCSTIONS THE LOCAf~ OF ~ •• :..w"TH£~~'~ ..... " 800NDARYor AlRPORr WAY AS Dl5a.OY/,;,Q BY INfORMA'-'1ON ':',ol~ !iI"IQ"" IN OlCD R£U:ASC RECOROED UNOCR /(ING··tQ!JNrr RCCORDtrJG ..... ~ •• ~. NUM8£R 120~'eo!I'" RCGARCMNG 'MDCHING « . .,$AID ROADW,.(Y... 74. tEAS( • ". • ':" LESSCC: NORTH1'£ST SEAPLANES. IHC. 51. nTl( R(PORT OUESnONS THE tXAcr lOCATlOH •. QF THE ·M •• RECORDING NUMBCR: 92010911IJ, JANUARY 9, 1992 CAST£If!.Y 90VNDARY OF RAINIER AOJ; N. (STArr Hlc:.iotW.~Y No.~). ····.',IECORDING Nu.w8£R: 920/0$11112. NO'of:/JOCR I ... li91 " .(.$. SHO\'.N ~. RIGHTS Of TH£ PUBUC AND/OR LCSSECS ro THC U~:OF :.,~ PlJ8t.IC PORTION or THC A/RPORr INaUDlNG RUNWAY AND ....... 7!1. ~L£ASE OTHeR PUBliC rAeJunES. •••••• lCSSE:c:' .. ~IGHT $lXrY BUILDlNC, l .P. • .••• R£CORDINO','JW/JBER : 9~072JOl68, .AJL Y 21. IIIII~ 5.J. RIGHTS Of TH£ PU8t1C IN 10M) TO TH£ ROADWAt$ lOCAT£"D ~··.·ft£COROING NVf.l8£R: 9!101210167. JULY 19. III9~ WlTH,'N THE SU8LCT PRfUlS(5. ~ ,SHc»IN •• :' 5-4. OUCSTION OF LOCATION or LATERAL 90UHDARIES Of SAID 76:·[·c...~ :.:' seCOND CLASS TlOC (OR $lIORE) LANDS, LfSS£E: ·tlf(C. INc;. !l5. RlGHr or mE STATE 01' WASHING TON IN ANO ro THA.r PORnOH. IF ANY, OF THC PROPERTY HCREIN OfSCRIBCO MHla-I LIES Bf'LDW "I( llolf OF ORDINARY HIGH WA TrR . ReCORDING NUI.I8fR: 9JI20lloo!l, DCC£A.l3ER I. 199J R£COROING NUA.lB£R: IIJI201l006. NO\OlBER 16. 199J AS SHOilN' . n. UNRCCDROfD LCASEH otDS. If' ANY; RIGHTS or VCNOOOS AND HOt.O£RS OF SECURITY INTeRESTS ON peRSONAL PROPCRIY INsrALLeD UPON SAID PROPCRTY AND RIGHTS OF TrNANTS 10 ROJOI,£ rRADC nxTURfS ", '.~. '~":"" :: /.$,.,,11(. U 4d AS S1IOIW. . ':' .. !WI. ANY PRQHIBI1JON OF OR LIMITATION Of USf. OCCUPANCY OR IlrIPROVCAlCNT or TH£ I..ANO RESt/UING fROM THe RlGI-ITS OF me PUBUC OR RJPARtAN O\IINERS 1"0 USC ANY PORTfON WI/ICH IS NOW OR HAS 8fCN FORJ,fCRl. Y COVCReD BY WA fER AT D1E EXPIRATION or THC TER.w. INDE X IN SECTION 7 de 18. T23N, RSE, W.M. CHECKED BY: APPROveD B~ RC'VISJON ,." ','1: ~ ~ "<." ,;j'; 0 -', .... "...., ..... '",~ ,'.,., ...... ;.., ~ •.• ,.~o' ~~./(;' (;5 .;:) §c; ;:) lac'D i4PPR RENTON/KING SCALE : ," = 200 ' CITY OF RENTON RECORD OF SURVEY REN TON AIRPORT WASHINGTON PRo..£CT NO. DRAlltNG fltC NAME: 3-1086-2203 S086RS01,OWG 3350 MONTE VILLA nOTHE:LL, WA 98021 (425)951 -4800 (425)951 -4808 . WHPAClFIC .COAI o o o o I"" " ----u.., '" J