Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA E96-0006 - OXBOW BRIDGE - PACIFIC HIGHWAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENTPACIFIC HIGHWAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PACIFIC HIGHWAY S. & DUWAMISH RIVER E96-0006 MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE FISHERIES DEPARTMENT Commander Thirteenth Coast Guard District Aids to Navigation and Waterways Management Branch 915 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98174-1067 3 September 1996 Attn: Mr.. Austin Pratt RE: PUBLIC NOTICE 96-N-09 BRIDGE (DUWAMISH RIVER RM 6.4) Dear Mr. Pratt: The Environmental Division of the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe has reviewed the Public Notice for a proposal to replace the Pacific Highway Bridge with a new bridge on a the same alignment and location at a slightly greater width. Actions associated with the replacement work have the potential to interfere with Treaty Fishing access, however judicious scheduling of work will diminish such potential. Members of the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe fish at the existing bridge. As the bridge will span the River without piers or piles, the replacement bridge should not directly impair Treaty fishing access. However, a fender system may impair the use of the Tribal nets. Therefore, if a fender system is added, the Environmental Division will need to review the design. The applicant should be made aware that Tribal fishing may occur at the site from early August to -January and -that Tribal members have the right to fish in the area and attach Tribal nets to any and all structures present. To prevent the actual construction of the bridge impairing Treaty fishing, construction between 1 February and 31 July needs to be closely coordinated with the Tribe. I thank you for your attention to our concerns. If you have any questions regarding this letter call me at 931-0652. RECEIVE SEP 0 5 1996 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 39015 172nd Avenue S.E. • Auburn, Washington 98092 • (206) 931-0652 • FAX (206) 931-0752 Roderick Malcom Habitat Biologist cc: MIT / Glen St. Amant US Army Corps of Engineers / Regulatory Branch US Fish and Wildlife Service DOE / Inter -Agency Operations Section WDFW City of Tukwila IMPLY TO ION OF Regulatory Branch DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SEATTLE DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. BOX 3755 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98124-2258 of ivkwiIU tz 6'500So j4icevfer .]ukevc&rcJ Tukwila, WA aS I R Dear MAY - 9 1996 Reference: E7 -(S -00(76 Itt✓)<o4er We recently_received copy of the following information from- - �/ concerning your proposed project. (/ Determination of Nonsignificance ( ) Shoreline Permit ( ) Environmental Checklist ( ) Other: Your project may require authorization from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under the following regulations. (X Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act ( ) Section 404 of the Clean Water Act A Section 10 permit is required for construction in or over any navigable waters of the United States..- A Section 404 permit is required for the discharge of dredge or fill material in waters of the United States, including wetlands. The term "discharge of dredged material" means the addition, including redeposition, of dredged material or excavated soils. These activities car: dude grading, mechanized iandclearing, ditching, channelization, and other excavation activities that destroy or degrade waters of the United States, including wetlands. The berm "discharge of fill material" means the addition of any material used for the primary purpose of creating dry land or of changing the elevation of water of the United States, including wetlands. The placement of piling constitutes a discharge of fill :material when such placement has or would have the effect of a discharge of fill material. Wetlands mean those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Please contact EvA ni L ki/ S , telephone (206 764-3495, ,concerning specific permit requirements. Enclosed for your use is our permit \pamphlet and necessary application materials. Sincerely, &ti,4 Ann R. Uhrich Chief, Processing and Environmental Section Enclosures ECEIV D MAY 1 3 1996 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AFFIDAVIT I, .\11--0 A /MC%tLLf Notice of Public Hearing fl Notice of Public Meeting flBoard of Adjustment Agenda Packet fl Board of Appeals Agenda Packet OPlanning Commission Agenda Packet fl Short Subdivision Agenda Packet O Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit 0 Shoreline Management Permit OF DISTRIBUTION hereby declare that: NDetermination of Non- significance 0 Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance ODetermination of Significance and Scoping Notice Notice of Action 0 Official Notice Other 0 Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on ApiziL c; tri a ►- Tu. Kw 11.n pu,,BL� c v.1oF.Kg tsiepT (o 300 So6:1-1-1C.nr - - I ukw t wA-- 121 S N�� • 13 LV c c Leri o Fi t,�. -v t FIRE tyGrrr% 1-14 1-1 , NDaJSP- Pk - Name of Project -IL 1--I I Y'( 612 mu+; Signature File Number \Ilo - 00010 CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188-2599 (206) 433-1800 CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188-2599 (206) 433-1800 CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188-2599 (206) 433-1800 TO: 13th Coast Guard District Federal Building 915 Second Avenue Seattle, •WA 98174-1067 Environmental Review Section Department of Ecology PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 TO: Phil Schneider, Habitate Biologist Wash. Dept. of Wildlife & Fisheries Habitate Program 600 Capital Way North Olympia, WA 98501-1091 >.r CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188-2599 (206) 433-1800 TO: DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE 207 SW 150th Renton, WA 98055 1 CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188-2599 (206) 433-1800 TO: US ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS 4735 East Marginal Way South Seattle, WA 98124-2255 CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188-2599 (206) 433-1800 TO: MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE 39015 172nd Avenue SE Aurburn, WA 98002 AFFIDAVIT I, Q , 59L'IA N,u1/4-LdE O Notice of Public Hearing O Notice of Public Meeting []Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet O Board of Appeals Agenda Packet []Planning Commission Agenda Packet ❑ Short Subdivision Agenda Packet []Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit fl Shoreline Management Permit • OF DISTRIBUTION hereby declare that: Determination of Non- significance fl Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance _ Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice fl Notice of Action 0 Official Notice 0 Other []Other was -ma-i+ed to each of the following addresses on I-1 NNp 1)...u.:e?-1 5,p irk -s LI (.0 - 2Sgz Name of Project i�A(�IFIC ��� Qi�l�)fa�� Signaturel File Number ,--671(49 ' 000(0 APRIL riA(. • CITY OF TU''KW'ILA DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING BRIDGE WHERE PACIFIC HIGHWAY SOUTH CROSSES THE DI'WAMISH RIVER IN THE CITY OF TUt::.WILA PROPONENT: LOCATION OF PROPOSAL. INCLUDING STREET ADDRE'S'S. IF ANY: ADDRESS: PARCEL NO: SEC!TWN/RNG: LEAD AGENCY: CITY OF TIU WILA FILE NO: E96-0006 The City has determined that the proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43. 1c.030(2) (c) . This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. k*•A kk:k•kk.kk•************k**•k*kA***k•k•h•kk•k•*At•*****k•k•k•k•k•k:!•k•*A***•***h• k•kk•k•k•***k;kk* This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2). comments must be submitted by AA44! __L91 a . The lead agency wi 11 not act on this nrono a? for 15 days from the date below. vvr .Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official City of Tukwila, (206) 431-3680 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Ar:1 Date You may appeal this determination to the City Clerk at City Hall, 6200 Southcent.er Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 no later than 10 days from the above signature date by written appeal stating the basis of the appeal for specific factual objections. You may be required to bear some of the expenses for an appeal. Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available wit:h the City Clerk and Department of Community Development. CHECKLIST: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW/SHORELINE �RHIT MAILINGS FEDERAL AGENCIES ju.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS/ ( )FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION ( )DEPT. OF INTERIOR -FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE WASHINGTON ( )U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ( )U.S. DEPARTMENT OF H.U.D. (REGION X) STATE AGENCIES ( )OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY ( )TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT ( )DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES ( )OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR -- ( )DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ( )DEPT. OF FISHERIES ( )K.C. PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEV. ( )BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD ( )FIRE DISTRICT #11 ( )FIRE DISTRICT #2 ( )SOUTH CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT ( )TUKWILA LIBRARIES ( )RENTON LIBRARY ( )KENT LIBRARY ( )CITY OF SEATTLE LIBRARY ( )US WEST ( )SEATTLE CITY LIGHT ( )WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS ( )WATER DISTRICT_#75 ( )SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT ( )GROUP W CABLE ( )OLYMPIA PIPELINE ( )KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT ( )TUKWILA CITY DEPARTMENTS:d. (PUBLIC WORKS/ (-) FIRE✓ ( )POLICE ( )FINANCE ( )PLANNING ( )BUILDING ( )PARKS AND ORECREATION ( )TUKWILA MAYOR ( )DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES ( )DEPT. OF ECOLOGY, SHORELANDS DIVISION le<IDEPT..OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DIVISION*✓ ( )DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE ( )OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL *SEND CHECKLIST WITH DETERMINATIONS AND *SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION KING COUNTY AGENCIES ( )KING COUNTY DEPT. OF PARKS ( )HEALTH DEPARTMENT ( )PORT OF SEATTLE ( )BUILDING & LAND DEV. DIV.- SEPA INFORMATION CENTER SCHOOLS/LIBRARIES ( )HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT ( )KING COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY ( )SEATTLE MUNICIPAL REFERENCE LIBRARY ( )SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICTS ( )RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT UTILITIES )PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT )VAL-VUE SEWER DISTRICT )WATER DISTRICT #20 )WATER DISTRICT #125 )CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS )RAINIER VISTA )SKYWAY CITY AGENCIES ( )RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT ( )CITY OF SEA -TAC ( )CITY OF SEATTLE ( )CITY OF BURIEN ( )TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ( )TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES ( )PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL ( )P.S. AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY ( )SW K.COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE (bMUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE ✓ (DQ,DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE✓ MEDIA ( )DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE ( )VALLEY DAILY NEWS ( )METRO ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING DIV. OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL.._5.,000 GSF OR MORE RESIDENTIAL 50 UNITS OR MORE RETAIL 30,000 GSF OR MORE ( ) HIGHLINE TIMES (N SEATTLE TIMES ✓ • • PUBLIC NOTICE MAILINGS FOR PERMIT'S SEPA MAILINGS Mail to: (comment period starts on date of mailing) Dept. of Ecology Environmental Review Section Applicant Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list) Include these documents: SEPA Determination (3 -part form from Sierra) Findings (staff report, usu. with MDNS) SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant) Drawings/Plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's) Affidavit of Dlstribution (notice was mailed & sent to newspaper). SHORELINE MAILINGS Notice of Application: Notice of application for a substantial development Permit must be mailed to owners and to property owners within 300 feet of subject property, prepare an affidavit of publication, and publish two consecutive weeks with deadline for comments due 30 days after last newspaper publication date. Shoreline Permit: Mail to: (within 8 days of decision; 30 -day appeal period -begins date received by DOE) Department of Ecology Shorelands Section State Attorney General Applicant Indian Tribes Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list). Include these documents: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (3 -part form from Sierra) Findings (staff report, if applicable) Shoreline Application Form (filled out by applicant) Drawings/Plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's) Site plan, with mean high water mark & improvements Cross-sections of site w/structures & shoreline -Grading plan _ Vicinity map SEPA Determination (3 -part form from Sierra) Findings (staff report, usu. with MDNS) SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant) Any background studies related to impacts on shoreline Notice of Application Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed & sent to newspaper) Affidavit of Publication (notice was published in newspaper). • • Memorandum TO: Diana Painter FROM: Nora Gierloff P`A'L RE: SEPA - Pacific Highway Bridge DATE: April 15, 1996 Project File No. E96-0006 Project Description: Demolition of existing Pacific Highway Bridge and construction of a new bridge. The new bridge will be widened to carry 5 lanes of traffic, sidewalks, and the River Trail. The roadway elevation will be raised to accommodate a deeper structure while maintaining the same clearance below the bridge. Approaching roadways will be revised to match existing grade to new bridge roadway elevation. The old bridge will be used to allow one lane of travel in each direction while the new bridge is being built. Agencies With Jurisdiction: Coast Guard, HPA, Corps of Engineers Comments to SEPA Checklist: The Tukwila Fire Department is concerned about the effect of the construction on emergency response times. Gary Shulz, Tukwila's urban environmentalist has comments as follows. I have reviewed the 60% design plan submittal and feel that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the final bridge configuration. The only comments I have are listed below. 1. The new bridge project will add impervious surface to the area. Proposed water quality improvements will attempt to use the existing bioswale on the north side of Pac Highway. South side improvements are not known with the 60% plan submittal. 2. The new discharge point (Sta.563+95) to Riverton Creek on the south side may need to be re- routed to an existing discharge point. 3. The undeveloped area remaining in the middle of the bike loop on the north side could be utilized for water quality improvement before surface water runoff discharges to the Duwamish River. Summary of Primary Impacts: 1. Earth - All construction will be in accordance with the recomendations contained in the Geotechnical report prepared by Anderson, Bjornstad, Kane and Jacobs, Inc. Temporary erosion • • control measures will be taken during construction as required. Following construction the site will either be impervious, vegetated or lined with rip -rap. 2. Air - Dust generated during construction will be controlled with water trucks. Exhaust emissions along Pacific Highway are not expected to increase as a result of this project. 3. Water - PS & E will include specific requirements to control water impacts during construction including a system to prevent materials from entering the river. No ground water impacts are expected. Water runoff will be controlled using pipes, ditches, swales and natural water courses as parts of a storm -water drainage system that meets King County Design Standards. • 4. Plants - No significant vegetation will be lost due to the project. Site will be planted according to the landscape plan. .5. Animals - No endangered or candidate species are known to be on site. 6. Energy and Natural Resources - The project will require energy for construction and for vehicles coming to the site. Electric street lighting will be installed along the bridge. 7. Environmental Health - No environmental health hazards are anticipated. Construction equipment operation will be restricted.to comply with Tukwila's noise ordinance. 8. Land and Shoreline Use - The proposed use is the same as the existing use. 9. Housing - The proposal will not result in a change to the housing supply. 10. Aesthetics - The project is not subject to BAR requirements. 11. Light and Glare - The proposal should not generate significant amounts of additional light and glare. Street lighting will be used to improve public safety in the area. 12. Recreation - The proposal will improve recreational facilities by providing a missing link in the River Trail system. 13. Historical and Cultural Preservation - The site is not known to have any historical or cultural significance. 14. Transportation - The proposal is not expected to result in more vehicular traffic. Pedestrian traffic is expected to increase with the addition to the trail system. 15. Public Services - The project is not likely to generate a substantial increase in demand for public services. One lane of traffic in each direction will be kept open at all times during the construction, so emergency response vehicles will not have to be rerouted around Pacific Highway. 16. Utilities - The project is not likely to increase demand on utility systems. • • Recommended Threshold Determination: Determination of non -significance. • • Control No. AGI' 6 - 000(e Epic File No. Fee: Receipt No. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Pacific Highway Bridge Replacement 2. Name of applicant: City of Tukwila. 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 433-0179; Leslie Tauzer. 4. Date checklist prepared: 3/15/96. 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Construction is planned to begin in the last quarter of 1996. Construction is expected to last approximately one year. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. This checklist. Page 1 RECEIVED MAR 1 9 1996 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • • ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. No. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. Coast Guard Permit, Shoreline Permit, HPA, possible Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit, authorization by Tukwila City Council and approval of Tukwila City Mayor. 11. Give brief, complete description, of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to. describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete description of the objectives and alternates of your proposal and should not be summarized here. The existing Pacific Highway Bridge will be removed, and a new one constructed. The new bridge will be widened to carry 5 lanes, sidewalks and will carry the River Trail. The roadway elevation will be raised to accommodate a deeper structure while maintaining the same clearance below the bridge. Approaching roadways will be revised to match existing grade to new bridge. roadway elevation. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to . duplicate„ maps or detailed plans submitted - with : any permit; applications related to this checklist. The project is, located in the, City of Tukwila, along Pacific Highway, over the.Duwamish:River.,,. The Bridge is in Section 9, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., City of Tukwila, King County, Washington. 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? There are class 2 slopes and watercourses in the vicinity of the project, as well as the Duwamish River. Page 2 • • ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: The terrain is a combination of flat and gently rolling. b.. What.is the'steepest,slope-on;the,site. (approximate.'percent slope)? The:maximumslope: is: approximately:100%.: c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. The foundation soils include sands with gravels at the upper soil levels and silty sands and silts at lower pile elevation levels. , GeoEngineers has completed borings to confirm foundation and roadway design. A copy of the "draft" soils report is attached. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicatesource offill. Cuts, and, fills. .will. -be made. to. accommodate. the newbridge, and revised approaching' roadways.- Permanent' unsupported, slopes -will -generally. .be limited to 2:1 maximum:. Permanent slopes utilizing'geogrid will be limited .to: 1:1.; maximum..`; .In', areas'.where: the slope :cannot be maintained, retaining walls -'will be used."-/ Approximately 15;000 yards of fill will be necessary for the roadway approaches and bridge abutments. Fill will consist of gravel borrow, gravel base, and lightweight foamed concrete fill. Some on-site material will be re -used. g. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Some erosion could result from the site preparation, including clearing and grubbing. Temporary erosion control techniques will'limit this to a minimum. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Approximately 65% of the site (R/W) will be asphalt or concrete. Page 3 • ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Temporary erosion control will be employed during construction as required. Following construction, the site will be either impervious, vegetated or lined with rip -rap. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (Le., dust, automobile odors, industrial wood, smoke) during. construction and when the project is completed?. If any,, generally. describe. and give approximate quantities' if. known..• There. will be: dust. and exhaust: emissions. during construction.. ° Exhaust emissions • along; this a • street are not expected to increase as a result of this project. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissionsor other impacts to air, if any: Water trucks will be used as standard dust suppression during construction. 3. Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? Ifyes, describe type and provide names..If. appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into., Watercourses' 9-1: and- 9-2; runnning:between SR. 599 and the 'Duwamish River, are adjacent to the roadwork to the south of the bridge. The new bridge will span the Duwamish River. Page 4 • • ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes. The existing bridge spanning the Duwamish River will be removed and replaced. PS&E will include specific requirements including a system to prevent materials from entering the river during construction. The roadway work adjacent to watercourses 9-1 and 9-2 is not expected to impact these areas. The river trail is planned to form a loop through the area at the southwest corner of the bridge requiring retaining wall construction parallel to the Duwamish River:: 3) ' Estimate the :amount 'offill and dredge'material that would be placed.'in'or F removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source offill material. None. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. No. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. The bridge is being constructed with a 6' clearance to the 100 yr. flood elevation of 12.9' 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type: of waste: and anticipated volume of discharge. No. Page 5 ! i ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. No. 2) Describe waste materials that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, . if any (for example:: Domestic sewage; . industrial, containing 7the following chemicals...; agricultural; "etc.) Describethe general size of 'the system, the number of such systems,,the.number. of houses to be served (if applicable); or the number of animals or humans the system(s)•are expected to serve. None. c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any. (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, .describe. The source of the runoff will be from the roadway. Pipes, ditches, swales and natural water courses will all be utilized as required design components to convey storm water. Page 6 • • ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Runoff from the existing roadway is likely to contain automobile oils and fuel. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: A storm -water drainage system that meets King County Design Standards is proposed. 4. Plants.. a., ' Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other X evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other X shrubs X grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Trees, brush and grass will be removed to accommodate the widened street section and the trail construction. c. List: threatenedor endangered species known to be on'or near the site. . None known.. Page 7 • • ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Property restoration will include seeding and planting of trees and shrubs. 5. Animals a. Circle any birds or animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds:. hawk, songbirds, migratory waterfowl, other: , Mammals: raccoons, squirrels, small rodents,_ other: , Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring; shellfish, other: Other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. No. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None proposed. Page 8 • • ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electric street lighting will be used. b.. Would your project: affect• the potential, use 'of•solar energy byadjacent properties?:If so, generally describe. No. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: None. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None. 2) Proposed measuresto reduce or control: environmental health' hazards, if any: Not applicable. Page 9 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLS T . Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affectyour project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Not applicable. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or long-term . basis (for example: traffic, . construction, operation, other)?.Indicate.: whathours-noise would come from the, site.. Noise generated bythe.construction equipment will occur on°a short term basis: 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Restrict hours of operation to comply with the City's noise ordinance. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site is currently a four -lane paved roadway & bridge. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. c. Describe any structures on the site. Theexisting, bridge carries;41anes and.sidewalks`and spans 'approximately 200'::, Page 10 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Yes, the existing bridge. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The adjacent properties are MIC/L and MIC/H. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? The plan, .designation.for:the „adjacent properties includes dight and heavy industrial,- and Shoreline.Zone. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Where applicable the designation is Urban. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. See item A. 13. L Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? None. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or -reduce displacement impacts, if any: None. 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: . A traffic study was prepard by Transpo. Traffic volumes were based on PSRC. Page 11 • ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing? None. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing: impacts, ?f any Not applicable. 10. Aesthetics a. What Ls the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what Ls the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? No buildings are planned. Retaining walls will be limited to minimum required. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? The view of the Holiday Inn at the northeast corner of the bridge will be,, improved. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: None. Page 12 • ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? The project will include standard street luminaires. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Theproposedsystem, is expected:to improve public safety. c.. Whatexisting-off-site:sources:of light .or•glare..may:affectyour proposal? ._ None. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None. 12. Recreation a. What designed and informal recreational opportunities-arein the•immediate vicinity? The River Trail. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities; to ibe: provided. by. the; project :or. applicant, ! f any:., The:projectwillprovide.amissingiinklto the'River.Trail:system: _, Page 13 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. None known. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural, importance .:known to be on or next to the site. None known. c.. Proposed measuresto reduce' or control impacts,if any: None. 14. Transportation a. Idents public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The proposal is a public street. b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Yes. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate?. Not applicable., Page 14 • ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity oj) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally. describe. %. No. How many vehicular.:1rips per'daywould be generated by the completed project?, If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. This project is not expected to result in more vehicular traffic; ped traffic is expected to increase with the addition of the trail construction. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No increase is expected. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None. Page 15 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 16. Utilities • a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. NA. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the generalconstruction_activities.:on.the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed... No ,new .utilities ' are ,.proposed iwithxthe`proj ect.: C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date Submitt Page 16 ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC • T • D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT PROPOSALS The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the objectives for a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the foregoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This information provides a general overall perspective of the proposed action in the context of the environmental information provided and the submitted plans, documents, supportive information, studies, etc. 1. What are the objectives of the proposal? Replace .the'.existing;:structurally{deficientand functionally inadequate bridge. 2. What are:the alternative, means= of.accomplishingithese objectives? The existing bridge could be repaired, however the existing width would remain deficient. 3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action: Due to the cost of renovating the existing bridge, it is more,economical to replace it. 4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? No. 5. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: None. Page 17 - _. .1' G e o E n g i n e e r s • DRAF1 g1\1 RECEIVED 1 1995 JAN 0 41996 DV; EEE _ s po PUBLIC WI ARKS AN NJACOBS.IN Report Geotechnical Engineering Services Proposed Improvements to Pacific Highway South Tukwila, Washington December 15, 1995 For City of Tukwila RECEIVED MAR 1 9 1996 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT File No. 0259-026-R01/121595 c1Q-o cco December 15, 1995 ABKJ, Inc. 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3800 Seattle, Washington 98104-3122 Attention: Mr. Adrian Arnold DRAFT GeoEngineers, Inc. is pleased to submit two copies of our draft report entitled, "Report, Geotechnical Engineering Services, Proposed Improvements to Pacific Highway South, Tukwila, Washington." The scope of our services is described in our scope and fee estimate dated May 3, 1995. Preliminary conclusions and recommendations have been discussed with you as information was developed. We have also prepared a separate draft report entitled, "Report, Geotechnical Engineering Services, Proposed Pacific Highway South Bridge, Tukwila, Washington," dated December 15, 1995 for the proposed new bridge over the Duwamish River. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this interesting project. We will call you on December 20, 1995 to discuss any questions you have concerning the contents of this report. Yours very truly, MSR:JKT:vvl Document ID: 0259026.R File No. 0259-026-R01 Tuttle, P.E. mcipal �. • • DRAFT CONTENTS Page No. INTRODUCTION 1 SCOPE 1 SITE CONDITIONS 2 SURFACE CONDITIONS 2 General 2 Pavements 2 General 2 Pavement Sections 3 Pavement Condition 3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 4 General 4 South of the Bridge 4 North of the Bridge 4 Ground Water 4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5 SITE PREPARATION AND EARTHWORK 5 Site Preparation 5 Earthwork 5 Structural Fill 5 General 5 Use of On -Site Material 5 Imported Fill Material 6 Recycled Material 6 Placement and Compaction 6 Embankments 6 General 6 Settlement 6 UTILITY TRENCHES 7 Trench Excavation and Dewatering 7 Trench Bedding and Backfill 8 PAVEMENT DESIGN 8 General 8 Overlay Design 9 Preparation of Existing Surface 9 Overlay Thickness 9 Other Considerations 9 New Pavement Design 9 USE OF THIS REPORT 10 G e o E n g i n e e r s 1 File No. 0259-026-R01/121595 • DRAFT CONTENTS (continued) TABLES Table No. Pavement Condition South of Bridge Northbound Lanes 1 . Pavement Condition South of Bridge Southbound Lanes 2 Pavement Condition North of Bridge Northbound Lanes 3 Pavement Condition North of Bridge Southbound Lanes 4 FIGURES Vicinity Map Site Plan APPENDICES Figure No. 1 2 Page No. Appendix A - Field Explorations and Laboratory Testing . A-1 Field Explorations A-1 Laboratory Testing A-1 APPENDIX A FIGURES Figure No. Soil Classification System A-1 Key to Boring Log Symbols A-2 Logs of Borings A-3 ... A-6 G e o E n g i n e e r s ll File No. 0259-026-R01/121595 * DRAFT REPORT GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO PACIFIC HIGHWAY SOUTH TUKWILA, WASHINGTON FOR CITY OF TUKWILA INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering services for the proposed improvements to Pacific Highway South in Tukwila, Washington. The roadway improvements extend from approximately 800 feet south of the Pacific Highway South Bridge over the Duwamish River to about 800 feet north of the bridge as shown on the Vicinity Map and Site Plan, Figures 1 and 2, respectively. We are currently providing geotechnical engineering services for the proposed new bridge and limited environmental services for the proposed roadway improvements. The existing roadway is a four to five lane -wide asphalt concrete -surfaced roadway. Portions of the existing roadway are underlain by an older pcc (portland cement concrete) pavement which does not extend across the full width of the existing road. We understand that the roadway will be widened to the west approximately 10 fee and that roadway grades at the bridge approaches will be raised up to 5 feet. In addition; a new storm drain will be installed which will be located 5 to 6 feet below roadway grades. - Specific recommendations for bridge approaches including retaining walls are included in the bridge report. SCOPE The purpose of our services is to explore the subsurface soil and ground water conditions at the project site and to develop geotechnical recommendations and design criteria for the proposed road improvements. Our specific scope of services includes the following: 1. Review available geotechnical information, geologic information, roadway plans and construction records for the project area. 2. Explore subsurface conditions by drilling four 9.5 -foot -deep borings with a truck -mounted drill rig along the alignment of Pacific Highway South. 3. Perform a visual survey of the existing pavement. 4. Obtain four pavement cores in the existing right-of-way to evaluate existing pavement thickness. 5. Conduct limited laboratory tests on soil samples obtained from the borings to evaluate pertinent engineering characteristics of the subsurface soils. G e o E n g i n e e r s 1 File No. 0259-026-RO1/121595 i • DRAFT 6. Provide recommendations for earthwork including site preparation, compaction requirements, suitability of excavated soils for use as structural fill for pavement support and utility trench backfill, and criteria for imported fill material. 7. Provide design pavement sections for overlays and new pavements. 8. Provide recommendations for construction of utility trenches including excavation, shoring and dewatering as necessary. 9. Provide recommendations for embankments including sideslope inclinations, settlement and 'placement of sliver fills on existing embankments. 10. Prepare a written report containing our conclusion and recommendations along with our supporting field and laboratory data. SITE CONDITIONS SURFACE CONDITIONS General The project area extends approximately 1,600 lineal feet along Pacific Highway South. The roadway improvements extend from approximately 800 feet south of the Pacific Highway South Bridge over the Duwamish River to about 800 feet north of the bridge. The roadway in the project area is relatively flat with roadway grades ranging from approximate Elevation 20 feet to 24 feet. Commercial and industrial developments are located along the roadway north of the bridge. South of the bridge, the roadway is bordered by an office park on the east. Other areas adjacent to the roadway south of the bridge include open spaces vegetated with grasses and brush and highway ramps associated with the SR 599 interchange. Highway SR 599 crosses over Pacific Highway South approximately 550 feet south of the south end of the bridge. Embankments up to about 12 feet in height with side slopes of approximately 2H:1V (horizontal:vertical) support portions of •the roadway south of the bridge. Pavements General. Cores were obtained from four borings located in the roadway to evaluate the existing pavement sections. In addition, a limited pavement condition survey was completed in four segments as follows: • South of the bridge, northbound travel lanes. • South of the bridge, southbound travel lanes. • North of the bridge, northbound travel lanes. • North of the bridge, southbound travel lanes. 1 The results of our pavement condition survey are presented in Tables 1 through 4. The distress types and severity ratings presented in the tables are in general accordance with the guidelines in the 1993 Guide for Design of Pavement Structures. G e o E n g i n e e r s 2 File No. 0259-026-R01/121595 • • DRAF1 Pavement Sections. Two cores were obtained south of the bridge. Boring RB -1 was located in the southbound lane approximately 175 feet south of the south bridge abutment, 5 feet inside the fog line. The pavement section observed in RB -1 consists of 6 inches of AC over .12 inches .of base course consisting of medium dense fine to medium sand. The base course overlies 9 inches of pcc. Boring RB -2 was located approximately 625 feet south of the bridge in the center of the right turn lane. The pavement section at this location consists of 6 inches of AC over 6 inches of base course consisting of medium dense fine to medium sand. The other two cores were obtained north of the bridge. Boring RB -3 was located in the northbound lane approximately 225 feet north of the north bridge abutment and 5 feet inside the fog line. The pavement section encountered in RB -3 consists of7.5 inches of AC over 7 inches of .pcc. over. 7 inches of base course consisting of medium dense silty gravel. Boring RB -4 was located approximately 625 feet north of the bridge 5 feet inside the fog line. The pavement section at this location consists of 6 inches of AC over 6 inches of base course consisting of medium dense silty gravel. Based on our observations and our understanding of roadway construction history in the project area, we anticipate that the roadway was originally constructed as a pcc pavement. When the roadway was subsequently widened, the widened portion of the roadway was constructed as an asphalt concrete pavement. At the same time, an asphalt concrete overlay was constructed over the original pcc pavement. South of the bridge, it appears that it was necessary and/or desirable to raise the roadway grades at the time that the widening was accomplished. As a result, a base course layer was placed over the pcc pavement and an asphalt concrete pavement was constructed over the base to provide a wearing course and achieve the required finished grades. The edge of the pcc pavement south of the bridge is difficult to identify from visual observations of the roadway surface due to the presence of the base course layer which acts as a "cushion course" distributing strains concentrated at the pcc pavement joints and pavement edge. North of the bridge, the edges of the pcc pavement are fairly well defined by longitudinal cracks. Further, transverse cracks present north of the bridge are reflection cracks through the AC overlay of the underlying pcc pavement joints. Pavement Condition South of Bridge, Northbound Lanes - The primary distress observed in this segment of the road is low to moderate longitudinal cracking in the outside lane. South of Bridge, Southbound Lanes - We observed occasional low severity fatigue cracking in the outside lane within approximately 400 feet of the south bridge abutment. From 400 to 700 feet from the bridge abutment, longitudinal cracks were observed on the inside edge of the inside lane and along the edge of the right turn lane. Transverse cracks were observed at approximate. 30 and 50 -foot spacing from 300 to 400 and from 700 to 800 feet from, the bridge abutment, respectively. G e o E n g i n e e r s 3 File No. 0259-026-R01/121595 • • DRAF1 North of Bridge, Northbound Lanes - The primary distress observed in this segment is low to moderate severity transverse cracks spaced 20 to 100 feet apart. We also observed moderate to high severity fatigue cracking in the outer lane in the outer wheelpath from 200 to 500 feet from the bridge. Longitudinal cracks are present in the outer lane in the wheelpaths from 400 to 500 feet from the bridge. North of Bridge, Southbound Lanes - Moderate to high severity fatigue cracking was observed over the entire segment in the outer lane. Low to high severity longitudinal cracks are present along the outer edge of the underlying pcc pavement from 300 to 600 feet from the bridge. Low to high severity transverse cracks spaced from 25 to 100 feet apart were observed up to 500 feet from the bridge. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS General Subsurface soil and ground water conditions were evaluated by drilling four machine borings in the existing traffic lanes of the roadway. As indicated previously, borings RB -1 and RB -2 were drilled south of the bridge and borings RB -3 and RB -4 were drilled north of the . bridge. Each of the borings was drilled to a depth of 9.5 feet below the ground surface. The approximate locations of the explorations are shown in Figure 2. Descriptions of the subsurface exploration program, laboratory testing program and the exploration logs for this study are presented in the Appendix. South of the Bridge In general, the subsurface soils encountered in the borings beneath the pavement structure consist of alluvium comprised of silty sand and sandy silt. Boring RB -1 encountered medium stiff td soft sandy silt to the bottom of the boring. Boring RB -2 encountered about 1.5 feet of soft sandy silt over dense silty sand with gravel extending to a depth of about 8 feet. Soft sandy silt was encountered below the silty sand with gravel. North of the Bridge The subsurface soils encountered north of the bridge were generally consistent with those encountered to the south. Boring RB -3 encountered loose sand with varying amounts of silt and gravel to the bottom of the boring. Boring RB -4 encountered approximately 2 feet of loose sand with silt and gravel over about 5 feet of medium stiff sandy silt. The boring was terminated in loose fine sand with silt. Ground Water We did not encounter ground water in any of our borings completed in the roadway during drilling. We expect that ground water levels will fluctuate in response to the rise and fall of the Duwamish River, and as a function of season, precipitation and other factors. G e o E n g i n e e r s 4 File No. 0259-026-R01/121595 • • DRAFT CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS SITE PREPARATION AND EARTHWORK Site Preparation The site preparation for the roadway improvements will generally consist of removal of portions of existing pavements, shoulders, sidewalks and landscape areas. Where landscaping is present, all plant material, sod and organic matter should be stripped from construction areas prior to beginning earthwork. Earthwork Grading will be required in areas where new pavements and embankments will be constructed for the roadway widening. The majority of soils in the upper few feet beneath the existing roadway and shoulder areas consist of sandy silt and silty sand. In general, these soils are susceptible to disturbance when wet. We recommend that the subgrade for the widened roadway be proofrolled when the subgrade is dry. During wet weather or wet subgrade conditions, we recommend that the subgrade be probed to expose any areas of soft or loose material. Any areas of soft or loose material should be excavated to firm bearing soils or to a depth of at least 2 feet below proposed subgrade elevations. We recommend that excavations • required to remove existing soft or loose subgrade soils from beneath the widened roadway areas be filled with select borrow as described in the section on Structural Fill. Structural Fill General. All new fill for the widened roadway, utility trenches and embankments should be placed as compacted structural fill. Structural fill should be free of debris, organic contaminants and fragments larger than 6 inches. The suitability of soil for use as structural fill will depend on its gradation (grain size distribution) and moisture content. As the amount of fines (portion passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve) increases, soil becomes increasingly sensitive to small changes in moisture content and adequate compaction becomes more difficult to achieve. Granular soils with less than about 5 percent fines will be suitable for use as structural fill in most weather conditions. Use of On -Site Material. On-site soils generally consist of silty sand and sandy silt. These soils will only be suitable for use as structural fill during extended periods of dry weather. If the soils are more than 2 to 3 percent above the optimum moisture content, discing or other methods of aeration will be required to reduce the moisture content of the soils to near -optimum. As the fines content and moisture content relative to the optimum moisture content increase, aeration becomes more labor-intensive and time consuming. We recommend that a contingency budget be provided for alternate sources of borrow materials for structural fill if the excavated silty sand and sandy silt materials cannot be used. G e o E n g i n e e r s 5 File No. 0259-026-R01/121595 • • DRAF7 Imported Fill Material. During periods of extended dry weather, we recommend that imported fill material conform to the requirements for common borrow outlined in Section 2-03.3(13) of the 1994 WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation) Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction. During wet weather or in wet subgrade conditions, we recommend that imported fill material conform to the specifications for gravel borrow outlined in Section 9-03.14 of the WSDOT Specifications. If construction is done during periods of extended wet weather, the gravel borrow should contain not more than 5 percent fines by weight based on the minus No. 4 sieve portion of the borrow. Recycled Material. Recycled concrete rubble can be used as is or blended with borrow material for structural fill for the widened roadway base or as backfill in utility trenches in. accordance with Section 9-03.11 of the WSDOT Specifications. A maximum of 10 percent by weight of recycled asphalt pavement may be used in a blended product. Placement and Compaction. All structural fill for the new roadway, utility trenches and embankments should be placed in horizontal lifts and compacted in accordance with Method C of Section 2-03.3(14) of the 1994 WSDOT Specifications. An exception is the initial lift of structural fill placed over pipes or ducts in utility trenches which may be as thick as 18 inches to adequately protect the pipe during compaction of this fill. Embankments General. Limited information was available regarding the location of the new roadway at the time this report was prepared. We anticipate that new embankments up to about 5 feet in height and sliver fills up to about 5 feet high placed to widen existing embankments may be required. The existing ground surface should be cleared and grubbed of all vegetation and topsoil where new fill will be placed to construct embankments. We recommend that the side slopes of new embankments generally be inclined no steeper than 2H:1V. Where new fill embankments are to be placed to raise or widen existing fill embankments, the new fill must be effectively keyed into the existing embankment. This should be done by cutting a series of horizontal benches with a minimum width of about 4 feet into the existing embankment slope. New fill must then be placed in lifts on these benches and compacted as described above. Settlement. The amount of settlement experienced by roadway embankments will be a ) function of the height of fill placed and the characteristics of the underlying soils. About one-half of the settlement is expected to occur elastically over a short period of time as fill placement occurs. The remainder of the settlements are expected to occur over an extended period of time as a result of consolidation of underlying soft compressible soils. We estimate that total settlements on the order of 1 to 2 inches could occur for fill thicicnesses of about 5 feet. We GeoEngineers 6 File No. 0259-026-801/121595 • • DRAFT recommend that the time between placement of embankment fill and construction of the roadway be as long as practical to reduce the potential for settlement of the roadway due to consolidation of the underlying soils. Consideration should been to:,surcharging :areas where new embanlanents will be constructed to reduce postconstruction differential settlements between the widened roadway section and the old roadway as well as at the juncture between the embankment and the bridge abutments. We can provide further recommendations regarding surcharging once the extent and location of embankments have been identified. UTILITY TRENCHES Trench Excavation and Dewatering Utility trench excavations within the roadway areas will generally be within sand, silty sand and sandy silt. Although ground water was not encountered in the explorations for this study, there is a possibility that ground water could be encountered during trench excavations. The possibility of encountering ground water will depend on seasonal fluctuations in ground water and the water level in the Duwamish River at this location. We anticipate that ground water seepage • encountered in utility trenches willbe limited and can probably be handled by collection and pumping from sumps at the base of the trench. Stability of trench excavations is governed by excavation height, slope inclination, soil type, ground water seepage conditions and surcharge conditions along the top of the excavation. For planning purposes, we recommend that temporary excavations for trenches in the soils encountered in our explorations be sloped at 1H:1V (horizontal:vertical). The slope inclination should be modified by the contractor if seepage or sloughing occurs. The slope inclination recommendations presented above assume that traffic, construction equipment, or construction materials will be located no closer to the top of the cut slope than a distance equal to one-half the depth of the cut. Trench excavations should be completed in conformance with Section 740.3(7) of the 1994 WSDOT Specifications. We understand that it will be necessary for travel lanes in both directions on the roadway to remain open during construction of the storm drainage system. As a result, open sloped cuts may not be feasible in some locations. Where open cuts are not feasible, shoring should be used where the depth of the excavation exceeds 3 to 4 feet. Trench boxes may be used to shore the excavation. Where trench boxes are not suitable for use, internally braced flexible shoring should be provided. A uniform lateral pressure of 35H psf (pounds per square foot) should be used in the design of flexible shoring, where H is the distance from the ground surface to the base of the excavation in feet. The effects of surcharge loads should be considered in design. Loss of support of the roadway and adjacent utilities could occur if sloughing of the sidewalls of the trench excavations occurs. The contractor should be responsible for maintaining adequate support of adjacent structures during trenching operations. The contractor has control of the construction operations and, therefore, should be made responsible for stability of cut slopes as well as the safety of the excavations. All shoring and temporary slopes should conform to applicable local, state and federal safety regulations. GeoEngineers 7 File No. 0259-026-R01/121595 • • DRAFT Trench Bedding and Backfill Our explorations indicate that subgrade soils below expected invert elevations of the storm drainage system consist of soft to medium stiff silt and loose sand. We recommend that bedding material be placed below the invert of the storm drain pipes. The required thickness of the bedding material will be on the order of 6 to 12 inches depending on the size of the pipe. The bedding material should be placed as soon as possible after preparation of the bottom of the trench excavation. The bedding material should conform to Section 9-03.15 of the 1994 WSDOT Specifications. Catch basin structures should be supported on medium dense sand or structural fill. The thickness of the structural fill should be evaluated by a qualified individual during construction. The structural fill should consist of gravel borrow at least 12 inches thick compacted to a firm unyielding condition. Backfill in utility trenches should conform to Section 9-03.19 of the WSDOT Specifications. The initial lift of fill over the bedding material should be thick enough to preclude damage to the pipe during compaction but should not be greater than about 18 inches. All fill in trenches should be placed in lifts of appropriate thickness to achieve the recommended levels of compaction presented in the section in the report entitled Structural Fill. We recommend that a qualified individual monitor trench excavation and backfill operations on a sufficiently frequent basis to evaluate whether the recommendations outlined in this section are being met. PAVEMENT DESIGN General At this time, a decision has not been made as to whether the existing roadway will be overlaid or fully reconstructed. Based on discussions with ABKJ and the City of Tukwila we have used the following design periods for design of new pavements and overlays: New pavements Overlays south of the bridge Overlays north of the bridge 15 years 15 years 10 years The directional ADT (average daily traffic) provided by the City of Tukwila for Pacific Highway South for the year 1991 is as follows: Northbound Southbound 11,665 14,820 We have assumed an average traffic growth rate of 2 percent per year and 10 percent trucks for design of the pavement sections. The average ESALs (equivalent single axle loads) per truck was assumed to be 1.00 based on data collected by WSDOT for arterials in urban areas. A lane distribution factor of 90 percent was assumed for design. A subgrade resilient modulus of 3,000 G e o E n g i n e e r s 8 File No. 0259-026-RO1/121595 • • DRAFT psi (pounds per square inch) was used for design of all new pavements and overlays. The pavement sections were designed using the methods presented in the 1993 AASHTO Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures. Overlay Design Preparation of Existing Surface. Deteriorated areas in existing pavements should be repaired prior to construction of overlays. Areas that are badly cracked or otherwise deteriorated should be removed and replaced prior to constructing an overlay. Longitudinal and transverse cracks that are not severely deteriorated may be cleaned and filled with joint sealant material conforming to Section 9-04.2(2). The surface of the existing pavement should be leveled and a tack coat should be applied to the prepared surface immediately prior to constructing the overlay. Reflection cracks at joints in the pcc pavement are present north of the bridge. Reflection cracks can be expected to occur in new overlays in this area. Several methods have been used to reduce the potential for reflection cracking in overlays. These methods include cracking and seating the existing pcc pavement; placing a synthetic fabric, stress -absorbing interlayer, or placing an asphalt -stabilized granular layer below the new overlay; sawing and sealing joints in the AC overlay at locations coinciding with reflection cracks; and increasing the overlay thickness. Limited success has been achieved with all of these techniques. The overlay design thicknesses presented here have been increased to account for reflection cracking. Overlay Thickness. We recommend that overlays constructed over pavements consisting of AC over pcc north of the bridge and AC over a base course layer over pcc south of the bridge consist of Class A asphalt concrete at least 3 inches thick. The Class A AC should conform to the specifications for materials, placement and compaction outlined in Sections 5-04 and 9-02 and 9-03.8 of the 1994 WSDOT Specifications. Other Considerations. The pavement consisting of AC over a base course layer along the edges. of the roadway north of the bridge is generally in poor condition. We completed an overlay design for the portion of the pavement consisting of AC over a base course layer south of the bridge. The required thickness of the overlay for the existing pavement condition is 9.5 inches. This overlay thickness cannot be accommodated given the existing grades. Therefore, we recommend that this portion of the roadway be removed and reconstructed. New Pavement Design The subgrade in areas where new pavements will be constructed should be prepared as described in the Earthwork section of the report. Where new pavements are required adjacent to existing pcc/AC pavements to widen the roadway or for full reconstruction of the roadway, we recommend the following pavement section: G e o E n g i n e e r s 9 File No. 0259-026-RO1/121595 • • DRAF7 Surfacing 3 inches of Class A AC over 4 inches of Class E AC Base 8 inches of ATB (asphalt -treated base) Subbase 12 inches of Gravel Borrow • The gravel borrow subbase should conform to Section 9-03.14 of the 1994 WSDOT Specifications and be compacted in accordance with Method C of Section 2-03.3(14). The materials, placement methods and compaction of ATB should be in accordance with Section 4-06 and 9-03.6 of the WSDOT Specifications. The Class A and Class E AC should conform to Sections 5-04, 9-02 and 9-03.8 of the WSDOT Specifications. USE OF THIS REPORT We have prepared this report for use by the City of Tukwila, ABKJ and other members of the project team in the design of a portion of the project. The data and report should be provided to prospective contractors for bidding or estimating purposes, but our report, conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. If there are significant changes in the loads, grades, configurations or types of facilities to be constructed, the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report may not be fully applicable. When the design has been finalized, we recommend that we be retained to review those portions of the specifications and drawings which relate to geotechnical considerations to see that our recommendations have been interpreted and implemented as intended. There are possible variations in pavement conditions and subsurface conditions between the locations of the explorations and also with time. Some contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in the project budget and schedule. Sufficient monitoring, testing and consultation should be provided by our firm during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether or not earthwork and foundation installation activities comply with the contract plans and specifications. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with generally accepted practices in this area at the time the report was prepared. No warranty, express or implied, should be understood. GeoEngineers 10 File No. 0259-026-RO1/121595 • • DRAFT We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If there are any questions concerning this report or if we can provide additional services, please call. Respectfully submitted, GeoEngineers, Inc. Mary S. Rutherford, P.E. Senior Engineer Jack K. Tuttle, P.E. Principal MSR:JKT:vvl Document ID: 0259026.R GeoEngineers 11 File No. 0259-026-R01/121595 • DRAF1 TABLE 1 PAVEMENT CONDITION SOUTH OF BRIDGE NORTHBOUND LANES Approximate Distance from Bridge Abutment (feet) Distress Type Extent Severity' 0 - 100 Longitudinal cracks Outside lane, both wheelpaths Moderate 100 - 200 Longitudinal cracks Outside lane, both wheelpaths Moderate 200 - 300 Longitudinal cracks Outside lane, both wheelpaths Moderate. 300 - 400 Longitudinal cracks Patch Both lanes, both wheelpaths Outside lane, 20' by 15' Moderate 400 - 500 Longitudinal crack Outside lane, outer wheelpath Moderate to High 500 - 600 Longitudinal cracks Outside lane, occasional Low 600 - 700 Longitudinal cracks Outside lane, occasional Low to Moderate 700 - 800 'The severity has been evaluated based on guidelines in the 1993 AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures. • • DRAFT TABLE 2 PAVEMENT CONDITION SOUTH OF BRIDGE SOUTHBOUND LANES Approximate Distance from Bridge Abutment (feet) Distress Type Extent Severity' 0 - 100 Rutting Fatigue cracking Outside lane Outside lane, occasional Low Low 100 - 200 Fatigue cracking Outside lane, occasional Low 200 - 300 Fatigue cracking Outside lane, occasional Low 300 - 400 Transverse cracks Fatigue cracking Approximate 50' spacing Outside lane Moderate Moderate 400 - 500 Longitudinal cracks Inside edge of inside lane Low 500 - 600 Longitudinal cracks Inside edge of inside lane Low 600 - 700 Fatigue cracking Patch Right turn lane, occasional Right turn lane, 2' by 2' Low 700 - 800 Transverse cracks Approximate 30'. spacing Moderate 'The severity has been evaluated based on guidelines in the 1993 AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures. • • DRAF1 TABLE 3 PAVEMENT CONDITION NORTH OF BRIDGE NORTHBOUND LANES Approximate Distance from Bridge Abutment (feet) . Distress Type Extent Severity' 0 - 100 Transverse cracks Approximate 20' to 30' spacing Low 100 - 200 Transverse cracks Approximate 40' spacing Moderate 200 - 300 Transverse cracks Fatigue cracking Approximate 30' spacing Outer lane, approximately 50 percent of outer wheelpath area • Moderate Moderate to High 300 - 400 Transverse cracks Fatigue cracking Approximate 100' spacing Outer lane, approximately 50 percent of outer wheelpath area High Moderate 400 - 500 Transverse cracks Longitudinal crack Approximate 50' spacing, outer lane Outer lane in wheelpaths Moderate to High Low 500 - 600 Transverse cracks Approximate 40' spacing Moderate 600 - 700 Transverse cracks Approximate 100' spacing Moderate 700 - 800 Transverse cracks Approximate 100' spacing Moderate 'The severity has been evaluated based on guidelines in the 1993 AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures. • DRAF1 TABLE 4 PAVEMENT CONDITION NORTH OF BRIDGE SOUTHBOUND LANES Approximate Distance from Bridge Abutment (feet) Distress Type Extent Severity' 0 - 100 Transverse cracks One location High 100 - 200 Transverse cracks Fatigue cracking, potholes Approximate 25' spacing Outer lane beyond edge of pcc Low High 200 - 300 Transverse cracks Fatigue cracking, potholes Approximate 30' spacing Outer lane beyond edge of pcc Low to moderate High 300 - 400 Transverse cracks Longitudinal crack Approximate 30' spacing Edge of pcc Low Low 400 - 500 Transverse cracks Fatigue cracking Longitudinal crack Approximate 100' spacing Outer lane approximately 10 percent of outer wheelpath area Edge of pcc Moderate Moderate to high High 500 - 600 Fatigue cracking Longitudinal cracks Outer lane, approximately 10 percent of outer wheelpath area Edge of pcc Low High 600 - 700 Fatigue cracking Outer lane, approximately 30 to 40 percent of both wheelpaths Moderate 700 - 800 Fatigue cracking Outer lane 'The severity has been evaluated based on guidelines in the 1993 AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures. 025f. DZ t • kL / CIA/1-1301/ /.!////;5 Geo Engineers ' } 17tH AY S - 12TH Ay 14TH !` AY '. [70 , = 14TH CS AY S 1 //i1 NZilb „,- 'a 1MI 34 i'` N - .. C2 16TH S AV CtS (� N 4� "lll 8 N I$ Ar S 4T 8800 4 F'�I Oa12000 C S �1dQa���11:0_i "'-vim`+. ;t 17TH c'AVS 161 V, yWu 6TH AY Ov. Ao 16TH II 1718 .fv. AYTD AY S Z5' S f O.mil • . A 20TH AVS„ 19TH Ar S 6 SQ` J ./ 1 I tn AY _ _ / • • '' ' ... ° a mix Ar $ �1_ •INfS- S �/ N 10100 5��� 1� ' �' 1 btl111114 s 1 ! _ S as ^D 14%* tea o/' ti W ,� , 1119t IT ...--:-.11 i' /iC .d r 0 I Z ai91 0 2000 4000 \ . ----. \ \ \ .� t 1BOEI G,A 1 i :'` ACC ,._'`i I11.! — Sro_ -.. Art — FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP e► " 1• •t. �,M _ tn tyle , g L__1 '" L. 'n311111 AV s • 37TH 1x� 78TH .. 8405-x' �.. I i / - ti AY n -.�AV Sf S rN lb P. % / y"'! ^ ^ - PARK f fK t' 1 •21:::,1 `/ �/ Jig 1- 31 AY S OR 'J' 4210 AY S AY S N hII, ..—_. m f t y ri• • ,, 47TH "AV rll —... 1 ------ - ASTM_AY S- _ 4fl .- aV_3 �i I� N nf �_ 48TH 5 " AV 5 I' p7dj: i'" •six ;Ars 4 'CO �' �sra-.� '� , FS 46TH r g. 2 p 0 /�`z it, i " '� AY 10700 r STH 4y 8 r «r• .I t N 1 48TH AY S 49tH Al S �‘ N c, — o -- m - 47TH i -- o c 48 Ay A" Os 1// N 4 51ST' p N Ar t SOTH �,a AV $ �tl g �% � - 50TH 49TH Al co %` r°M to An 10300 sn 10000 _ AV `$� r ._._� i 0068 8 '1 ,4",e in ' y t0 �a A• .� s ill AY fj ` �� H Ar o • 55Th Ay 5 •, _ 53RD 54TH —F—ti. 521ai av Ay $ H S AV z' —?. smut �" ■.�Sl.f L1A.... 0 (n S c, z •4a I .. g moo `a �_ 10500 t �" rut 55TH._ - Ay 5 . 8 ''� +:" ✓ 1 4 ti ti 5� i.o m e �° '� A 56TH 10600 Ay 5 v . IJ U '�" S N 56TM . - _,-AV S M• 1r• i cP raY41 .• 1 .v I •_ • • Hi r 1 . I OZ5i- 02_4 kOI ' ..." / ... ....• .... //e AET. WALk •••• • •.• ••• • ... • LINE -7 IA •• - • = • 77- • • •••••••*".:.- •'• Fr• • ...;;;::". / / .• • • /It/ //I/ 220.-10" BACK TO BACK OF PAVEMENT SEATS El BIKE PATH ea BB -1 v /3 New Abutment WIDEN t WOW EXISI. PIER 2 REF. WALL rn •.• .1. 0 0 Proposed Widening \ 569 /- Limits of SG9 17=1- —Existing Bridge --77- EXISI. PIER I !WING t•I WALL Reference: Drawing entitled "Pacific Highway Bridge — Duwamish River, Preliminary Plan," by Andersen Bjornstad Kane Jacobs, Inc., dated 11/95. EXISI. PIER 2 mum New and Existing --- Abutment BB -4 4; !VW PACIFIC 7c HIGHWAY SOUTH 569 \r,1:1IRAUE PIVOT POINT BB -3 • .*•S • x7.7 • • mwm••••••=01 V. 16,••••• ••••• • • ,.›,...._,..„. .7f.-......... .......„__ '...... ......., ... .."...‹........_:" ..r.,....... -........,„........_ -"...... ,.... • '.. ti "....- **. •••. ' N......_ ‘t.... .. .;"....', ',.. .... . 1 ,.... N. —••••••,......... •••.......... "!......... ... I 1 0 40 ' 80 SCALE IN FEET EXPLANATION: BB -1+ BORING Note: The locations of all features shown are approximate. G 0 NO Engineers SITE PLAN FIGURE 2 DRAFT APPENDIX A • • DRAFT APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTING FIELD EXPLORATIONS Subsurface soil and ground water conditions at the project area were explored by drilling four borings in the existing lanes of the roadway. The borings were drilled on October 31, 1995. The boring locations were determined in the field by taping distances from existing site features and are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 1. The borings were completed by coring through the existing asphalt and concrete pavement and advancing the borings using a truck -mounted hollow -stem auger drill rig. Each of the borings was drilled to a depth of 9.5 feet below the ground surface. Representative soil samples were obtained from the borings using a 2.4 -inch -inside -diameter split -barrel sampler driven into the soil using a 300 -pound hammer free -falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the last 12 inches, or other indicated distance, is recorded on the boring logs. The borings were continuously monitored by a geotechnical engineer from our firm who examined and classified the soils encountered, obtained representative soil samples, and observed ground water conditions. Soils were classified in general accordance with the classification system described in Figure A-1. A key to the boring log symbols is presented as Figure A-2, and the logs of the borings are included as Figures A-3 through A-6. The logs are based on our interpretation of the field and laboratory data and indicate the various types of soils encountered. They also indicate the depths at which the soils change, although the change might actually be gradual. If the change occurred between samples, it was interpreted. ' LABORATORY TESTING Soil samples obtained from the borings were brought to our laboratory for further examination and testing. Selected samples were tested to determine their moisture content and dry density. Results of the moisture content and dry density determinations are presented on the boring logs. G e o E n g i n e e r s A - 1 File No. 0259-026-R01/121595 GEI 85-85 Rev. 05/93 DRAF1 SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP SYMBOL GROUP NAME COARSE GRAINED SOILS More Than 50% Retained on No. 200 Sieve GRAVEL More Than 50% of Coarse Fraction Retained on Na. 4 Sieve CLEAN GRAVEL. GW WELL -GRADED GRAVEL, FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL GP POORLY -GRADED GRAVEL GRAVEL WITH FINES GM • SILTY GRAVEL GC , CLAYEY GRAVEL • SAND More Than 50% of Coarse Fraction Passes No. 4 Sieve CLEAN SAND SW WELL -GRADED SAND, FINE TO COARSE SAND SP POORLY -GRADED SAND SAND WITH FINES SM SILTY SAND SC CLAYEY SAND FINE GRAINED SOILS SILT AND CLAY Liquid Limit Less Than 50 INORGANIC ML - SILT CL CLAY ORGANIC OL ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC CLAY More Than 50% Passes No. 200 Sieve SILT AND CLAY Liquid INORGANIC MH SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY, ELASTIC SILT CH CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAY Limit 50 or More ORGANIC OH ORGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC SILT HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT NOTES: SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS: 1. Field classification is based on visual examination of soil Dry - Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch in general accordance with ASTM D2488-90. Moist - Damp, but no visible water 2. Soil classification using laboratory tests is based on ASTM D2487-90. Wet - Visible free water or saturated, usually soil is obtained from below water table 3. Descriptions of soil density or consistency are based on interpretation of blow count data, visual appearance of soils, and/or test data. �1 • GeoEngineers SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM . FIGURE A-1 LABORATORY TESTS: AL CP CS DS GS %F HA SK SM MD SP TX UC CA Atterberg limits Compaction Consolidation Direct shear Grain -size Percent fines Hydrometer analysis Permeability Moisture content Moisture and density Swelling pressure Triaxial compression Unconfined compression Chemical analysis BLOW COUNT/SAMPLE DATA: Blows required to drive a 2.4 -inch I.D. split -barrel sampler 12 inches or other indicated distances using a 300 -pound hammer falling 30 inches. Blows required to drive a 1.5 -inch I.D. (SPT) split -barrel sampler 12 inches or other indicated distances using a 140 -pound hammer falling 30 inches. "P" indicates sampler pushed with weight of hammer or against weight of drill rig. NOTES: SOIL GRAPH: DRAFT SM Soil Group Symbol (See Note 2) Distinct Contact Between • Soil Strata Gradual or Approximate Location of Change Between Soil Strata 7 Water Level Bottom of Boring 22 1 Location of relatively undisturbed sample 12 ® Location of disturbed sample 17 ❑ Location of sampling attempt with no recovery 10 0 Location of sample obtained in general accordance with Standard Penetration Test (ASTM D 1586) procedures 26 m Location of SPT sampling attempt with no recovery ® Location of grab sample 1. The reader must refer to the discussion in the report text, the Key to Boring Log Symbols and the exploration logs for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. 2. Soil classification system is summarized in Figure A-1. -gyp. Geo Engineers KEY TO BORING LOG SYMBOLS FIGURE A-2 :MWS:DJM:CMS 12/15/95 0259-026-R01 TEST DATA Lab Tests 0— 5— 10- • Moisture Dry Content Density Blow Group (%) (pcf) Count Samples Symbol BORING RB -1 • DRAF DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation (ft.): MD 21 105 27 0 5 ■ ASPHALT 6 inches asphalt concrete SP Brown fine to medium sand with gravel (medium dense, moist) CONCRETE (fill) ML 9 inches portland cement concrete Brown fine sandy silt (stiff, moist) Becomes soft Boring completed at 9.5 feet on 10/31/95 No ground water observed during drilling 0 —5 —10 15— —15 —20 25 — — 25 30— —30 35— —35 40 — —40 Note: See Figure A-2 for explanation of symbols Geo ,Engineers LOG OF BORING FIGURE A-3 M:CMS 1 2/1 6/95 a N 0 { TEST DATA Moisture Dry Content Density Blow Group Lab Tests (%) (pcf) Count Samples Symbol BORING RB -2 DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation (ft.): DRAFT 10- 15- 1- w w - V_ z_ - x w 20- 25 0- 25 — 30- 35- 40- 14 119 33 ASPHALT SP ML SM Note: See Figure A-2 for explanation of symbols 6 inches asphalt concrete Brown fine to medium sand with gravel (medium dense, moist) (fill) Brown fine sandy silt with occasional coarse sand (soft, moist) Brown silty fine to medium sand with fine to coarse gravel (dense, moist) Brown fine sandy silt with occasional fine gravel (soft, moist) Boring completed at 9.5 feet on 10/31/95 No ground water observed during drilling —5 —10 —15 — 20 — 25 — 30 — 35 40 Geo Engineers LOG OF BORING FIGURE A-4 • :MWS:DJM:CMS 12/15/95 0259-028-R01 TEST DATA Moisture Dry Content Density Blow Group 0 r Lab Tests (%) (pcf) Count Samples Symbol 10- 1 5 — 0 15— 25 — 30- 35 0- 35 — 40 — 17 103 •10 1 1 BORING RB -3 • DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation (ft.): DRAFT ASPHALT 7.5 inches asphalt concrete CONCRETE 7 inches portland cement concrete GM Brown silty fine gravel with sand (medium dense, moist) (fill) SM Brown silty fine to medium sand with fine gravel and occasional coarse sand (loose, moist) SP Black fine to medium sand (loose, moist) Boring completed at 9.5 feet on 10/31/95 No ground water observed during drilling Note: See Figure A-2 for explanation of symbols —5 —10 —15 — 20 — 25 — 30 —35 — 40 - Geo � Engineers LOG OF BORING FIGURE A-5 • • :MWS:DJM:CMS 12/15/95 0259-026-R01 0 TEST DATA Moisture Content Lab Tests (%) • Density Blow Group (pcf) Count Samples Symbol BORING RB -4 • DRAF DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation (ft.): 10- 15- 25 — 30- 35 — 40 — 33 86 7 8 ASPHALT . (GM ■ ::: SP -SM ML SP -SM Note: See Figure A-2 for explanation of symbols 6 inches asphalt concrete Gray silty fine gravel with sand (medium dense, moist) (fill) Brown fine to medium sand with silt and occasional fine gravel (loose, moist) Brown fine sandy silt (medium stiff, moist) Brown fine sand with silt (loose, moist) Boring completed at 9.5 feet on 10/31/95 No ground water observed during drilling —5 —10 —15 — 20 — 25 , 30 —35 — 40 Geo� Engineers LOG OF BORING FIGURE A-6 CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD TUKWILA. WASHINGTON 98188 TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY ADMINISTRATION Pam Carter, President Steve Mullet Jim Hoggerton Joe H. Duffie Allan Ekberg Joan Hernandez Pamela Linder John W. Rants, Mayor John McFarland, City Administrator Jane Cantu, City Clerk Ross A Earnst, P.E., Director of Public Works Ron Comeron, P.E., City Engineer PACIFIC HIGHWAY BRIDGE - DUWAMISH. RIVER TUKWILA S 112 st IEND OF PROJECT I STA, 577+20 116 S SITE St N 0 5 120 PL BEGINNING OF PROJECTI ° STA. 560+70 VICINITY MAP O N.T.S. RECEIVED MAR - 5 1996 PUBLIC WORKS c��t9�•;i��33 MAR 0'5 "5 60% SUBMITTAL Pacific *Way BIS* Replacement NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION F.burory 23, 1996 MOM! TEAI�R: sERNC. •ENGINEERING •STREETS •WATER •SEWER •PARKS •BUILDING• sao rrn, .wu• VAR MOO 5.1712. WASMINICION r... 306.340.21•• PACIFIC HIGHWAY BRIDGE — DUWAMISH RIVER COVER SHEET & VICINITY MAP MO OM REMOVE Mm RELOCATE r i � _i_E%SUING SIGN - PACIFIC HIGHWAY SOUTH 565. 566 • .............._.......... } AVAVf a em�sBUILDING TlK• oAPPRSIN KaNtJACOIRSACSWILL a. 206.140.2255 PACIFIC HIGHWAY BRIDGE - DUWAMISH RIVER SITE PREPARATION & EXISTING UTILITY PLAN MOCKS 95,9" S PPCP.0A'G • 6 W Q7 CD RIGHT OF WAY 5 569 �u�� we�MPARKSCT.RIGII N 20"09',5" %iiiii e•� .. _ _� \ �e0 REYOVE ' AY AND :•�• VEWAY -._� ` •i 8 PACIFIC HIGHWAY SOUTH 572 81 EXISTING RAISED TRAFFIC�, ' 1 AND Ta BE REMOVED 6S • 2 • ,z CM -o uo.rmw •re PP m 4MOO TL. vmSwwTw 10104-,122 TU. 100.4.0.2255 fm: 2041..122M PACIFIC. HIGHWAY BRIDGE — DUWAMISH RIVER SITE PREPARATION & EXISTING UTILITY PLAN 60% SUBMRTAL paifie Ific,.oy Bridge Re-Wurnesd NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Faborary 23, 1998 tat tat NVISMWS SCRI CMS 1/96 . 5 I I 235 F -4-- a 7 574 EXIST1NG RAISED TRAFFIC ISLAND BE REMOVED 575 <0'091 c 7/77 .,\ \ \ \ \ /M\ ‘ \ ...------ r...../r_____------1-t--------A \ \ -------- _____--- NOTES: 1. IT IS letBEERIBIE 'NAT TELEPHCNE AND POWER WILL NOT BE INTERRUPTED FOR THE BOEING COMPANY FACILITES NUNN THE PROJECT AREA. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DEPOSE FYTIVMF CAUTON WHEN WORKING NEAR ELECTRIC AND TELEPHCNE UTILITIES AND SHALL INFORM LARRY E. ALLEN AT THE BOEING COMPANY (206) 544-1644. (206) 944-6161 (PAGER) IF SUCH WIDRK HAS TO BE PERFORMED. 06 eel Pr. SMS,1115.7-V---61.— C.51.r . -A77 ci>" ;47 fl 60% SUBMITTAL Pacific ifighway Bridge Replacement NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Feburary 23. 1996 6 191611210ewe • ENGINEERING • STREETS .WATER • SEWER • PARKS • BUILDING• 13 MCORP 11.101INSTAD li•••[ IWO TM .0.14C SUM MOO 104114. -TON 911101,3132 PACIFIC HIGHWAY BRIDGE — DUWAMISH RIVER SITE PREPARATION & EXISTING UTILITY PLAN • /MONS RAISE RAMP GRADE AND INSTALL TEMP PAVEMENT STAGE IA WORK AREA STAGE IA 4?*fr ��..I�I TEMPORARY�� A I . WALL START: r - 20' ..44 i ' • • •.* dt 1 7 8. 1144 . iti#+\/ 444 "it 4 •Pti\* . . . . . . . . '''' taklPNYFArtr.11P•Vlkiktt::4C""r . TE1APO�����// '•••A- )A .ETNNING WITH STAGESIRETAINING A IE IFACE BARRIER J 565 W�IFIC HIGHWAY SOUTH 566 567 5¢4 - �- - -�- -- _ WITH SINGLET FACEBARRIER �_- - STAGE 1A TEMP SINGLE FACE BARRIERS TEMP SINGLE FACE BARRIER TEMP. RETNNNG WALL AoraiipAh, „T." - i � "I(I . P GRADE AND ,y INSTALL PERMANENT ALLeb '. Aj": 9T6RK NEA PAVEMENT IN STAGE 1A BEGIN TAPER AND STAGED ��►"� i STAGE 1A EXTEND TO STA 558+6422°N SMILDEN CONSTRUCTION AT STA 560+7(1 MENDS To ^` -.j7•��II/I �`��9� _. _..._ _. __ TEMP SINGLE FACE BARRIER - - - - STA 555+6422 CONSTRUCI1ON AREA TABLE S'I TEMPORARY ROADWAY REQU I REMENTS ITEM: MAX IEUTA GRADE ALLOWABLE MINIMUM LENGTH SAG CURVE MINIMUM . LENGTH GEST CURVE TEMPORARY DETOUR ROUTE SR 99 IQ OFF-R*OP SR 599 NB ON -RASP SIT 599 NB OFF -IMP 5x ex 6x 6x 140 LF 100 LF 100 LF 100 LF 100 LF 100 LF 100 LF 100 LF 7 _ 7� i AND TEMP SINGLE FACE aue16Te wemMe DBAT. • ENGINEERING • STREETS •WATER •SERVER • PARKS • BUILDING• STAGING NOTES STAG RIGHT OFWAAY 1. MOVE 1RAMOC TO THEE EASTERN LANES CN TICE EOSINS moat. 2. MAW PIER 2. ELTEND PIER 1 AND BAUD REST SCE CT NEW BRCS N TEMPORARY LOCATION. 3. BUILD 111.0RAR' TRESTLES CCW4001C TO NEw BRIDGE N TEMPORARY LOCATION A. SURD TEMPORARY WESTERN DETOUR APPROACHES NCLI.O'NG TEMPORARY 50EPAUR. 010 1EMP1RARY ROADWORK USE GRADE GAD0IIIES CMN N TABLE 51. FOR 1111IP PAVEMENT SECTION SEE SEC003 A -A SHEET 5T-2. 5. ALL 11L USED FOR TEMPCRARY 30003030 50.1 BE GRAVEL BORROW AND SHALL BE REUSED LATER FOR PERMANENT CONSTRUCTSI. STAGING NOTES STAG TA CLOSE SA 599. NB CN RAMP 3240 THE AD,MCE41 SR 99 NB C0T RAMP (WEST 50E RANDS). INSTALL PERMANENT RAMP PAVEMENT ON MESION PORTO( 0P THESE RAMPS INSTALL TEMPORARY RAMP PAVEMENT TO MATCH RAMPS TO 0EVAION O TEMPORARY RESTERN DETOUR ROUTE. 2. CONSTRUCT TEMPORARY ME51E. DETOUR RW7E N SIR 599. NB ON AND SR 99 NB OFT RAMP AREA, 3BURS 5R 599. NB 01T RAMP (EAST SIDE RAMP) TO PERMANENT PROBE GRADE AND INSTALL PERMANENT PAVDENT. ROUTE RAMP TRAFFIC ONTO SMOULDER. 60% SUBMITTAL Pacifc Ifefnay Bridge Replacement NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION March 5. 1996 1- PACIFIC HIGHWAY BRIDGE — DUWAMISH RIVER CONSTRUCTION STAGING PLAN - STAGE 1, 1A 0. TEMPORARY PEDESTRIAN RPUNG TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT — Ali LL STAGES STAGE 1 CF NEW BRIDGE TEMP. SIDEWALK OF T. 23 N., R. 5 E., W.M. TH WORK AREA CON .TART SEE TABLE S1 \ STAGE 1 FOR • RADE REQUIREMENTS ;44.44.44, TRESTLE .TEMP. ATB SIDEWALK 1D1PORARY WESTERN DETOUR ROU1E TEMP RETAINING STRUCTURE AT BACKIT {705 L I AL{ TO CK TOM TFMP iLL TEMP SINGLE FACE BARRIER 005T RETAINING WALL n NOT TO BE DISTURBED . grrrg" 294E.1122 �.s. i..s�i_� - _-�.�.-� 4..04.444• %y'ririis�r�.�.:s i �.riri.•_., a TEMP. GRADE CHANGE — REWIREIIEHIS TABLE Si, SHEET ST -1 • FACE BBMRIER TEMP SINGLE ..-FACE BARRIER. ; TEMP RETAP@IC Y/U.10 EFFECT . :.:TDP. RET/NNING WAL1-AND�-! CRADE CHANCE. SEE SECTION A—A.SINGLE FACE BARRIER .:. LENGTH AS REQUIRED 558 559 4- 570 5 PACIFIC HIGHWAY SOUTH 4- ♦. ASPHALT TREATED BASE (ATB) 1.5• 12•— BORROW TEMP. SINGLE FACE BARRIER -TEMP. RETAINING WALL J E 1r 'TRAFFIC LANES r12' 12. 1r —1 CONSTRUCTION AREA 1 DR InNG LANES --I SECTION A — A Sta 570}10 " STAGE 1 (LOOKING NORTH) NOT TO SCALE NOTES: 1. SEE SHEET ST -1 FOR TABLE S1 2. SEE SHEET ST -1 FOR LEGEND March 5. 1996 Auenore weAee NEAT. • ENGINEERING • STREETS •WATER • SEWER • PARKS • BUILDING• ..Dorso. OJORNSTAD 000 mw nE44 MATE NDO 1101.-3/22 ..M: SOC .O.iSH PACIFIC HIGHWAY BRIDGE - DUWAMISH RIVER CONSTRUCTION STAGING PLAN - STAGE 1, 1A 14,130.0 r� s A to Tfii[ t -.SO R t/96 60% SUBMITTAL Pacific Ifghway Eirickp NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 4 T. 23 N., R. 5 E., W.M. TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASMENT EXIST RETAINING WALL NOT TO BE DISTURBED WORK AREA STAGE 1 MATCH EXIST SIDEWALK . ��-VV �•.ifililil rtif .t(.ti.fYltrt/4 ` — — — - rFYP� Baa cry........ -- a ------�p--- 574 4••PACIFIC 111G .Y S�TTTFI 1W 2 N 444444iiiiii — .4 061e6NE BEAT. • ENGINEERING • STREETS •WATER •SEWER • PARKS • BUILDING• '1" u 1M W RIGHT OF WAY Caen PACIFIC HIGHWAY BRIDGE — DUWAMISH RIVER CONSTRUCTION STAGING PLAN — STAGE 1, 1A I m 40 1' NOTE$: 1. SEE SHEET 5T-1 FOR TABLE S1 2. SEE SHEET ST -1 FOR LEGEND 60% SUBMITTAL Pacific ay BA* Replacement NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION March 5. 1996 PIJE IMMSted 210. EXIST BMOC( TO BE REMOVED 220' PRETTOSEO ,TET. WEDGE a=1111LWRIk lirril iiiim MIIIIIMMIIIIMIIIMIE11111 _ - -... L..- RDA0vED TO BOA WEER ' EXIST PER 10 BE I 11 I CP RIDE RAISED EIRCEVAT 71010 701. WU. \ caw. P00 PARANA RELOCATED Alava %IF --''LM"."1ZL700010 '''''"— DaST 71107170 PACIFIFTUGHWAY SOUTH • 0.VE001 TO BE CLOSED - EXIST WALL TO BE REMOVED 8(10801. 064* 10 01051. 82.08*1 IATSTREAR NAVD 1988 MVO 1988 PROPOSED GRADE lig 7-71_, 4 00.(—PmeowalnyLeut-- I I —,LOH. MEWL CLEARANCE SITE PLAN SCALD r EXIST. CRAM 0 co. 2..101 _ --Jar BEL_ CLEO DCOPTL. SLOCATN-4- , - --RAT-or:j \ -30 JCL__ --4— APPROX. HIGH TIDE ‘—.."'3.3. 15T'OIRMCL a.a ELEVATION A SCALD =37 COST. ORME • CL JEL 2*788 05i07ITEOLSTE,ReIMI METAL aaa.• - ... _12.1-(100-1R-EL000) ===.:7111 _Y-L4174A3.7.1-9; J • 0- SA —APPROX. CROWD U;,E APPROX. 78317 7100 3.1. RT OF O. —, RAI. VERTICAL CLEAPMICE ELEVATION B SCALE ••• 196111611. RAP19111M0 • ENGINEERING • STREETS .WATER • SEWER • PARKS • BUILDING• DATE /96 l/86 /96 —I1 r.4 ANDERS. ILEMISTA6 KANE .04-011.11.1C. 900 Sr VONA WIVE MO DICArri-L vA...1961134 96104-3112! .1106.346.112.1 rAxra06.3.14...66 202.06. PACIFIC HIGHWAY BRIDGE - DUWAMISH RIVER SHORELINE MANAGINENT, SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERIM' SITE PLAN AND ELEVATIONS newliala DATE 1/96 A NOTES: 1. Io FILL SLOPES ARE ACHENED BY USING A GEOGRIO __,Z "'"•••••.. 10LONG ASPHALT RAMPS PACIFIC HIGHWAY S N 7.70? T20. i0!2 SCAM r 30 20 10 150' VC I LOW POSIT UV ., 23.83 I 1 —1- WM POOR STA .. 412.02.57 P,A RA - ass.1543 I I 1 PA MY - MS • I 1 I I I -- BEG@ PROFILE ICRAICE STA 561+95.4.5 MEET easmc d 2 562+00 1 • I I I -4 1 .1--- I 11 I 1 •ei 4 d d d 1 d d e e2 2 2 2 563+00 - 1 S g g I .--4-- 300' VC 1SCH POINT LILY . 211.32 'I li q FION STA ...i somass• I I _ POW i .f_ WA srA -. 585.3•43 1 ..1_ 4 -1.- 1 r.i iite - as./2" • 1 I I ! 1 I k FINISHED GRAD COMING GROUND 1 -1- P-RO ILE -I-- 1' - 217 HOT/Z. 1' - 10' SEEM H- I 2 2 2 1 COSTING BRIDGE, d d d d d d d d d id d 2 e e e 2 2 e 2 2 ie e 566+00 564+00 565+00 60% SUBMITTAL _11/41.1:15c_lf_gtr#y Bridge RepHorprtF,, NOT FOR. CONSTRUCTION- ; Minch 5, 199B _... . :. .. g g g g ii d d d d I: e 12 e e ..r 567+00 - .. 19611261e weNIM • ENGINEERING • STREETS •WATER •SEWA.R • PARKS • BUILDING. [4 WPM'. 1404 WO FIRM MD. WM MOO SUrn..f. moSralC101.1 1110.-3122 it.3'.1154 PACIFIC HIGHWAY BRIDGE — DUWAMISH RIVER ROADWAY PLAN AND PROFILE ' 1-1-1 ''(f):-. .. Ill( .. ;1', k, , • . 1, Guviry Ep.,..ocuu_ rs.E7r, T. 23 1 1 N., R' 5 t., Wiell . z it..,4\,,s,./.2___,.._....__ . [IL: 111 4C 7 . _-- S ____ 011 _____________ ____ CC- • \ in .... __________L._—_,__,0.••____ _ . 0 , •\. . . ...... N RIGHT OF WAY ,-1- ILL- — . _ _ _ ___ gi I yr SOMA / Ew6 PAM .\.‘, \ .-V -- __ ..... - -----.... .__ - _ tr IN sI;An. pax-- \ --;;---- '.. t' • _ _________ 25. .--- "_ ..._.. ..-..-. .... —.- \ 1 \ 518 569 i --. ..-. -- 570 9 2ov.-••16" E „., PACIFIC HIGHWAY SOUTH 572 \ 1 ) 1 — .113. — — — — — T BE= NEW 1r CURS STA 569+62.50 --'-in 111 e• ASPHALT PEDESTIRAN PATH MI tif7441.1... -.:4,1_TICZ: Mil FAVallagnaMMENOW/MMR6116 ''' . .14,;,',":•7 \ ,•••••.: MP. ..,,,..:, m -..------7.----.7' 4_ , ., lil . . — 110' _-- ...._ ....._ ----- — - - - RIGHT0rWAY-. -. •------ A 11_ • \ 11,11(11''s- - , - i :\ \'• 0. -.. N.. 7.0,4, \ )kvi -4 . • 4° ,--,.. . -- / _ \\\ scipt r \ ) .........-- \, ' \ ,,\ \ ,,, \ i r7n 1 L----1--- 4EW IMO MIDGE ., . 4$ • i PA 4TA MELLY 320' VC •• 571440.03 ,. 71410 : . F1NISI-I ED a •U . W — _____ - ------ -- r ------- r ----------------- EXISTING ND I : POFL RIE i ji i r - LO' VIM — ----5— -- .4 d 566+00 d I: 569+00 d e A A 4 A A d d @ It d @ d e d @ e d 570+00 g A A A 4 i-1 A 11 4 g d d e d d d e d 222 d 2 d e 2 2 d 571+00 672i-00. .--- 5 A d , e d e e d 4 NOTES LEGEND PROPOSED SHEET PILE RETAINING WALL PROPOSED CCHCRETE WALL' PROPOSED EMBANICIIDIT WE or kit TOP CC air PROPOSED CUT 60% SUBMITTAL Pacific *May Mile Replacement NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Md h 5, 1996 1911.11116111!! 111,19,11111:111 15111113T. • ENGINEERING • STREETS .WATER .SEWER • PARKS •131.11LINKG• - 10.100.1ST.60 1(.04 .1.600014010. 000 IWT.....004 SUCTE 3000 SEAM. staa.miCTOM 10104-31M TEL 20034.0.2235 r•z: 200.3.0.2204 PACIFIC HIGHWAY BRIDGE - DUWAMISH RIVER ROADWAY PLAN AND PROFILE 11 r C-2 20.02 DM I /06 V 0 8 8 —J---= -7-1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 \I_L-171 1 1 1 W.M. q! FigHT-OF—WAY—_. FAL- L_ 7 ------- WPM OPOCRell RNSED SIDEVINA • e-Srat_STO. ING SIDEWALK r CURB • NEW CURB . AND ISLAND RIGHe0;1AV r, REGRADE ANL -REPAVE DRIVEWAY - SEE SHUT, C -B FOR DETAILS ,' \ N 2 709 '1 6- . relen 1 FINISHED GRADE STINE GlirUND 1 ------- PROFILE -2918029. r1orvuL END PRG- FILE CHNJGE - STA 5741-48.70 MEET EATING d d e e 573+00 50 40 30 20 10 I e 574+00 575+00 1911•11111dE WEIMMO • ENGINEERING • STREETS • WATER • SEWER • PARKS • BUILDING • re IttSS RIKIFIC HIGHWAY SOUTH 57_t_ SS RUN eueree ce_L•+.4_ SCAL& .• 20' • PACIFIC HIGHWAY BRIDGE — DUWAMISH RIVER NOTES LEWD_ PROPOSED SHEET PILE RETAINING WALL PROPOSED CONCRETE WALL El PROPOSED EMBANKMENT ME OF FILL TOP or CUT PROPOSED CUT ROADWAY PLAN AND PROFILE 60% SUBMITTAL Peak lighway Bridge Rent NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION March 5. 1996 Mai fewSIONS earl 0,41t 1/S. 609. SUBMITTAL Pacific *Nay Bridge RepSeameld NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Faburary 23. 1996 AUAV�e WSNIME SEAT. • ENGINEERING • STREETS • WATER • SEWER • PARKS • BUILDING• BY IMR 0 • ..aura SJOONSTvera BOO BB, ABCPPX StAU 3000 S PACIFIC HIGHWAY BRIDGE — DUWAMISH RIVER DRAINAGE PLAN >z., r-20 1/95 LEGEND 0 =MO CS IMPOSED COSMO !a - .eIPOIRD 111,111 v.. 1911a12611E WemIMe SEPT. • ENGINEERING • STREETS • WATER • SEWER • PARKS • BUILDING• DATE OCP® CAA WSJ DC err •.brsz 205 22e• S JOISESTAO K ANE WAITE 3000 041.04-3122 T. 204 NO 2255 PACIFIC HIGHWAY BRIDGE — DUWAMISH RIVER DRAINAGE PLAN 60% SUBMITTAL . *away Bridge Replacement NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Febuwry 23, 1998 03 ars Kvrsma 5 LEGEND 0 DEM 0 RCP= 0 X0001 1010.050 000 PM .07101 V - —7T1tF[C a 60% SUBMITTAL Pacific FSghvq Bridge Replacement NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Faburvry 23, 1998 auA6�. WISMIN Ke�a•. 10 YR M IL 1,000 P RY ▪ 0 00 1, CM w6]o9M smuau9 0004 000 Mw 600 SUM 3000 3000 00010000 u: ]06,340.306 PACIFIC HIGHWAY BRIDGE — DUWAMISH RIVER DRAINAGE PLAN Mit 4015105 C-14 0 03 Ctr[ r -1,U• OMC 1/96 TOE t1FwALL \11 \ �FRL 227+0 BADS TO RACK OF PAVEMENT SEATS O RAMP. TIP. SHEET PILE RE T. WALL SP -2 0 o BINE PATH. O SEE SALT. C6 O • STUB• �!{.6 CM RYPJ P 11 kt EXIST, BFICGE TO BE REMOIED G•i0 CONGO.? PIPES IN SI)EITALX 294 APPROACH SLAB (I1P. 2 LCCATIKSI 20 SHEET PILE RET. WALL SPI �mN1- un• l n' _11 N 2.096E WUT£R LNVEO --- GFUTUREAS E80 -\\_ ---c _ �=-G 1mpi - PA IFC HIG III/ SOUTH . \- PROFILE GRADE PROVIDE CASING PIPE 0 BRIDGE ENDS STUB OUT 6 CAP (TYPJ Z WIDENING FOR GUARDRAIL CNN EXIST. PIER I EXIST. PIER 2 FOOTING OHP — 0HP FOOTING 011P CON;, RET. WALL TYPE 3 PLAN SCALE. T$7 BEARING OF PIERS NORMAL TOC RAI 2190 CTR TD CTR BEARINGS EXIST. GRAVE 0 _03 PEDESTRIAN BP RAIL BARRIER CMG. RET, TYPE I REF. ELEVATION 00 EL. 12 7 DATUM PAID 1910 (NAV0 I9 ) • 00/0 1929}160 , . EL Is+ HJY. EL 129 (RS YR FLOOD) /'11 I 1IKCIEAN i/ I! EL U/ `APPROX. GROUND UNE APPROX, NCH TILE —BMN. VERTCAL CLEARANCE ELEVATION SCALE12•27 35'RT TOE OF FILL T. 23 N.. R 5 E.. W.M. CITY OF TUKWILA SR' 99 GENERAL NOTES hP/CF.0 NOWAY SOUTH BP RAIL PEDESTRIAN BARRIER 11120 WATER LOPE (FUTURE) C 80 GAS LINE (FUTURE) T,u • FINAL POSITION OF GRDERS AFTER BEING MIMED 12 RT. TYPICAL SECTION SCALEaNO (LOCKING NORTH) 607. SUBMITTAL STEEL PLATE GIRDER LOADING HS -25 OR T 24 K AXLES ® 4' CTR S. 3 TWO S. S1 . ro ENGINEERINGPARKS LONG • lyrt MIMED AN Mar a Kiel [RC 01010.1 01 uY. PACIFIC HGHWAY BRIDGE - DUWAMISH RIV8 LAYOUT PK OAR / T 7,;/7 • / // / I I /I / / / 1911.11111.411! NUP1914111:111 SEPT. • ENGINEERING • STREETS • WATER • SEWER • PARKS • BUILDING• 12110 Jr WTI 1.111 WIC Del K A▪ . rv,“ ;WINN SUM 38a1 SEATTLE VAIMPIGIMer 1.11104-3I22 20/.140.22.3 Mx. 201/3.22•4 • Parraervb1:717.4: •••••• ••••=11:•rdo Mel (1•111=IMI 1.119110/I •131.121 1111101 -MIS 04:• 20 40 SCALE IN rEET Arrqfme...r. ,;,C;Arr. DC.4,1.111, r CrIaN,;)1.4110. RC.; rrF WAY A7 Cm C`r C;R:IWIrr 0 .1,1; Mr 0 4: \I 11A tio " 111 .111/ 1.11.1 t4 4 - 6%1SUBMITTAL MOM Bridge RePixeramt NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 10 p,,,. N, '1* S. 1906 Ief AVE gDVAAX • ma PAIN BFACCE PACIFIC HIGHWAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PARTIAL LANDSCAPE PLAN AllertneS na ;131.11 /WA ..1111. MATCHUNE 1+50 T. 23 N., R. 4 E., W.M. "--E.SMNlON MERG AUSTRIANNIGRAPu1C \� a • ('61 CORNUS STOION6ERA 'HYIE'6 ---REO NIG 0006000 EXISTING VEGETATION` TO RD1AN \1 / METING/ VEGETA**, TD RDAleN 3 6' C"NESS TGR Porta . 131:717S. Area wraFetli EMI oar yRm..omxT LINEA NMENARIEI 0 20 <0 .0 GLE IN FEET MATCHLINE 572+50 60% SUBMITTAL Pacific Highway Bridge R-D(oxrtenl NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION March 5. 1996 l9GIERI.4E WISMINE SEPT. • ENGINEERING • STREETS - WATER SEWER • PARKS •BUILDING• -13 ©. ANDERSEN EJOb4TAR IGANE NCO TWIN AVENUE SC ELLvAHaNCTON n. OE -3122 eoai.aeea TAN ED43•612246 PACIFIC HIGHWAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PARTIAL LANDSCAPE PLAN DATE RERTSIETTS T. 23 N., R. 4 E., W.M. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � �n `` ► /r .I U O E0SaIr1MG 1 11E�ESo111\,I 'p , .,. igh ode-�,��b* o p:my�e 0 0 l� 4 410-2 O O — yr Pliffi NEW �` .rtei t� ' —��. .r�►w�iw �wf . -- err " E0S00G 00Ww0 sllDulnw r. r UP PEDERE KEW 'Iww- ^S I Iwas Nr . 111009.16'E Lt� :D _ SS.E // I PACIFIC HIGHWAY SOUTH N PErrr"P""\ %_--.1','- 1 \ \Q, i� - \\ \\ %��� / r��-\moi I I 11 The nPey 9..l..dOs coraFa nti GROUNDGDJER LEGEND VINE NOM NEM GwLTMERI. 9041011 wrR EROS . Mersa. SEED 0 20 <0 SCALE IN FEET 60% SUBMITTAL Pacific *bray Bridge Replxerneid NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION March 5 1996 Aue6se weANg • ENGINEERING • STREETS • WATER • SEWER • PARKS •BUILDING• 12/10 JT WI" 12/10 O C .E1DIST•11 IOW em Em.l .vnAR: SUITE SEATTLE W VINGrvl MOM.. • Ei wem ▪ ....0aa.0Exw PACIFIC HIGHWAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PARTIAL LANDSCAPE PLAN rt 1712 a .w Y.1E1 DATE DETtialAIL APPLE* To REES. SWAZIS AMv aloawcam PLANTS* OPLAN TING DETAIL 1 SCALL Nr • AUAR4e weAMs • ENGINEERING • STREETS • WATER •SEWER • PARKS • BUILDING• OTREE GUYING Bute. lir • r -o" Orri :t f3 . soRtscrAn SLL siD1G TIM P.nwr.wF PS Seed•roa NSW ORN AVGMc SMITE AO, SATTLc NeWSKPOTON VIIIN -Wirt» rut. SOLS•assu. 31591 LAmINom, PLANT LIST GOtwIGAL NMC / GPSON NNC SIS GMMarr9 TEEM LIRIWDORCN TULIPIPDU / TULIP TM s• CALIPER IMTOCD swear num PIMA NISRA / AUSTRIAN PDC MCIal, AS toner/ ON RAN PGPLLA ALBA •PYRAMIDALIS• / BO LER. POPLAR 9' CALIPER COOS STaONIPISIA •CMILLYI I • / tMIIO OGMCOG a1PMI S ALATA •COMPACTA / POW NI MOM B.OYMA M MO4IA ACL/IPLIUN .GOPACTA• / COMPACT CRE/ON MIME SROLSOWYERS A.ARTMQIA .KWAI / 9ALAL 1 AALLCN 36' O.G. WAGIIM MCDe4 MQIx 44444.9• / 604 S IW I MMM Si' O.G. SPAGIN9 LAM SSG APGIP1cATIPe pp9101.1 GOWMMROL dRA6SC SEG SM.GIPIGArtoe (MO 11=0.1.tl PACIFIC HIGHWAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PLANT LIST & DETAILS 60% SUBMITTAL Poo& Highway Bridge RepbaeJI NOT FOR CONSTRUCT March S. 1996 rR r®s CO`+ER.Dw: CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Pam Carter, President Steve Mullet Jim Haggerton Joe H. Duffie Allan Ekberg Joan Hernandez Pamela Linder CITY ADMINISTRATION John W. Rants, Mayor John McFarland, City Administrator Jane Cantu, City Clerk Ross A Earnst, P.E., Director of Public Works Ron Cameron, P.E., City Engineer PACIFIC HIGHWAY BRIDGE DUWAMISH RIVER ®6?U 'Ur eA�� e111a1,. • ENGINEERING • STREETS • WATER •SEWER • PARKS • BUILDING• 0) U a S 112 S WI » v TUKWILA END OF PROJECT STA. 577+20 11 \S 116 S SITE BEGINNING OF PROJECT STA. 560+70 VICINITY MAP N.T.S. RECEIVED MAR .-I 5 1996 TPUBLIC WORKS rilNir r. 60% SUBMITTAL Pacific Highway Bridge Replacement NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Feburary 23, 1996 IME MI Mr1 =I =En MINI =I= IN IIIII PROD OIR ■_ A p ANDERSEN U &IORNSTAO ©I KANE J JACOBS.INC. 800 FIFTH AVENUE SUITE 3800 SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98104-3122 TEL. 206.340 2255 FAX: 206.340.2266 PACIFIC HIGHWAY BRIDGE - DUWAMISH RIVER COVER SHEET & VICINITY' MAP FILE NO. SCALE WE 1/96