Technical Memorandum Pierce County Public Works

Technical Memorandum

Fox Island Bridge Replacement (Conceptual)

Pierce County Public Works

Pierce County, WA July 15, 2016

Technical Memorandum Pierce County Public Works

This page is intentionally left blank.

ii | July 15, 2016 Technical Memorandum Pierce County Public Works

Contents

1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Project Overview ...... 1 1.2 Existing Bridge Description ...... 2 1.3 References ...... 2 2 Roadway Design ...... 3 2.1 Horizontal Alignment ...... 3 2.2 Vertical Profile ...... 3 2.3 Roadway Cross-Section ...... 4 2.4 Gig Harbor Approach ...... 5 2.5 Fox Island Approach ...... 5 3 Bridge Alternatives Analysis ...... 7 3.1 Precast Prestressed Concrete Girder ...... 9 3.2 Precast Post-tensioned Spliced Concrete Girder ...... 10 3.3 Precast Concrete Segmental Box Girder ...... 12 3.4 Composite Steel Plate Girder ...... 14 4 Cost Estimates ...... 15 4.1 Environmental Mitigation Cost Discussion ...... 15 4.2 Right-of-Way Cost Discussion ...... 15 4.3 Approach Roadway Cost Discussion ...... 16 4.4 Bridge Cost Discussion ...... 16 4.5 Total Preliminary Project Costs ...... 17 List of Appendices Appendix A - Design Charrette Notes Appendix B - Bridge Conceptual Plans Appendix C - Preliminary Cost Estimates

July 15, 2016 | i Technical Memorandum Pierce County Public Works

This page is intentionally left blank.

ii | July 15, 2016

1 Introduction 1.1 Project Overview The Office of the County Engineer Division of Pierce County Public Works has retained HDR Engineering to provide a Type, Size, and Location (TS&L) study for the Fox Island Bridge connecting Gig Harbor to Fox Island. This complete study will identify alternatives for improvement, seismic retrofit, rehabilitation, and replacement of the existing Fox Island Bridge. The project has been broken into three phases: • Phase 1 is intended to provide preliminary engineering in the form of a technical memorandum that develops replacement bridge alternatives, seismic retrofit alternatives and rehabilitation opportunities. All analyses performed are approximate in nature and intended to capture the complexities (e.g. environmental, right-of-way, etc.) and determine preliminary cost estimates. • Phase 1A will further develop chosen retrofit and/or rehabilitation alternatives for plan, specification, and estimate documents. • Phase 2 will complete the TS&L study for a future new bridge alignment. This technical memorandum, meeting Phase 1 of the complete study, documents the development of replacement bridge alternatives. Replacement bridge alternatives are based on a single conceptual alignment, profile, and roadway cross-section. Additional conceptual alignments, profiles and roadway cross-sections will be investigated and evaluated as part of the Phase 2 TS&L study. Conceptual sketches and cost estimates for four feasible and practical bridge types are provided for a new Fox Island bridge. A specific bridge type or specific alignment is not recommended at this phase.

July 15, 2016 | 1

1.2 Existing Bridge Description The Fox Island Bridge was originally constructed in 1953 using cast-in-place concrete T- Beams, cast-in-place concrete I-Beams, and steel drop-in spans with a total bridge length of 1,949 feet across Hale Passage. The deck is 27 feet wide with one 11-foot lane in each direction, no shoulders, and a 4-foot sidewalk along the East side. Spans are typically 120 feet long in the center of the bridge and 65 feet at the approaches. The northernmost span is 50 feet in length. Water depths are greater than 60 feet at Mean High Water (MHW) in the center of the bridge, and currents are as high as 3 knots during tidal changes. The vertical clearance of the existing bridge is approximately 31.1 feet at Mean Higher High Water (MHHW).

Figure 1-1: Existing Fox Island Bridge, Looking Northeast 1.3 References Bridge alternatives have been developed using sound engineering practice based on the requirements of the following references: 1. AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design, 2nd Edition, 2011 2. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 7th Edition, 2014 3. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction Specifications, 3rd Edition, 2010 4. WSDOT Bridge Design Manual (M23-50.15) 5. WSDOT Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction, 2014 (M41-10) 6. WSDOT Contract Ad and Award Bid Tabulations

2 | July 15, 2016

2 Roadway Design

A conceptual roadway design was completed to support the development of bridge alternative costs, right-of-way costs, approach roadway construction costs, and identification of environmental impacts for comparison/contrast with rehabilitation/retrofit alternatives. The conceptual roadway design is schematic in nature and does not include detailed approach roadway design features. 2.1 Horizontal Alignment The horizontal alignment was developed based on a recommendation made by Pierce County. More specifically, the County provided an aerial view of the site indicating the general vicinity of a conceptual new alignment. The alignment provides ample clearance to the existing boat launch on Fox Island and minimizes right-of-way impacts, while allowing the new bridge to be built without closing or restricting traffic on the existing bridge. Horizontal curve radii used along the alignment were chosen to facilitate the range of bridge types investigated (e.g. chording with precast girders). The details of this particular alignment can be optimized after a preferred bridge type is selected, should it become the preferred alignment in the future, without significant cost difference. Figure 2-1 provides the horizontal alignment that was developed. Specific horizontal curve design parameters and tangent bearings are included with the plans for each of the four bridge alternatives in Appendix B.

Figure 2-1: Conceptual Horizontal Alignment 2.2 Vertical Profile The vertical profile was developed to provide a minimum navigational opening 180 feet wide and 60 feet in height at Mean High Water (MHW), the water surface used by the United States Coast Guard (USCG) for vertical clearance requirements, for the range of bridge alternatives investigated. Additionally, the profile was developed for a maximum grade of 5% on the structure to meet American with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements for the bicycle/pedestrian path.

July 15, 2016 | 3

Additional navigational clearance is provided for a number of the options in order to provide a common profile that worked for the range of bridge alternatives investigated. The details of this particular profile can be optimized after a preferred bridge type is selected, and discussions with the USCG and a survey of marine waterway users provide a better understanding of the required navigational clearance. The overall cost difference of such an optimization is anticipated to be relatively minor. Figure 2-2 illustrates the vertical profile that was developed. Specific vertical curve design parameters are included with the plans for each of the four bridge alternatives in Appendix B.

Figure 2-2: Conceptual Vertical Profile 2.3 Roadway Cross-Section The assumed roadway cross-section is 50 feet wide, out-to-out, and was provided by Pierce County. It consists of two 12-foot lanes, two 6-foot shoulders, a 10-foot bicycle/pedestrian path, and associated barriers. See Figure 2-3 for the roadway cross- section.

Figure 2-3: Conceptual Roadway Cross-Section

4 | July 15, 2016

2.4 Gig Harbor Approach As previously stated, the conceptual horizontal alignment was developed to minimize right-of-way impacts while allowing the new bridge to be built without closing or restricting traffic on the existing bridge during construction. As shown in Figure 2-4, this is accomplished on the Gig Harbor end of the bridge by constructing the new alignment, in its entirety, slightly west of the existing alignment and simply removing a temporary barrier when the new bridge is complete. The western edge of the new roadway approach can be supported by fill slopes or walls. Two parcels on the Gig Harbor approach are impacted by the proposed alignment, as discussed in Section 4 of this memorandum.

Figure 2-4: Conceptual Gig Harbor Approach 2.5 Fox Island Approach The Fox Island approach roadway is complicated by a number of intersecting roadways near the end of the bridge. Figures 2-5 and 2-6 illustrate two different concepts for the Fox Island approach. Figure 2-5 depicts a standard approach roadway concept with a complex intersection. Figure 2-6 depicts an approach roadway concept utilizing a roundabout to improve access, movement and safety for local traffic. Both concepts impact one parcel immediately west of the existing bridge approach and allow the new bridge to be built without closing or restricting traffic on the existing bridge. Both concepts require only minor fill slopes to support the new approach roadway.

July 15, 2016 | 5

Figure 2-5: Conceptual Fox Island Standard Approach Roadway

Figure 2-6: Conceptual Fox Island Roundabout Approach Roadway

6 | July 15, 2016

3 Bridge Alternatives Analysis

Four bridge alternatives were investigated. Each of the alternatives are common bridge types and considered practical alternatives for this location. Span lengths were reasonably maximized for each of the alternatives, with the goal of balancing long span cost premium with in-water construction cost premium and environmental impacts. The four bridge alternatives investigated are: • Precast Prestressed Concrete Girder • Precast Post-tensioned Spliced Concrete Girder • Precast Segmental Concrete Box Girder • Composite Steel Plate Girder Conceptual bridge plans for each of the four alternatives are provided in Appendix B. The span layouts and members sizes shown in Appendix B are conceptual in nature. Other potential span layouts are possible, and may be investigated further during the next phase of this project. Actual member sizes shown for columns, cap beams, drilled shafts, and other elements are also conceptual in nature and should be viewed accordingly. Each of the four alternatives are described and compared with regard to: • Local contractor familiarity • Maintenance • Service life • Number of in-water piers - related to short and long-term environmental impacts • Deck replacement capability - can be important over marine environments • Future widening capability • Aesthetics Costs for each of the four bridge alternatives are provided in Section 4 of this memorandum. Bridge construction is estimated to take 2 to 3 years, depending on bridge type, environmental work windows (e.g. fish windows, etc.) and work hours (e.g. hours/day allowed for pile driving), and other constraints. In general, alternatives with fewer in-water piers may offer shorter construction timelines. However, more study and coordination with other stakeholders is required, to gain a better understanding of all the factors that will affect the duration of construction, before more refined estimates can be made. Over-water construction and work access will be challenging for each of the four bridge alternatives. All four alternatives can be built without falsework to support superstructure construction. However, all four alternatives will require a work trestle and/or platforms for pier construction. The amount of trestle and/or platform required for each alternative is a function of the number of piers, and will vary accordingly, affecting cost and environmental impacts.

July 15, 2016 | 7

If work trestles are used, they will also require land access at both approaches leaving the navigational channel clear during construction. Current right-of-way (ROW) costs assume full acquisition of the impacted parcels at each approach. These parcels appear to provide sufficient land access for work trestles, provided they remain full acquisitions. If acquisition plans change in the future (e.g. to partial acquisitions), work trestle access may become more difficult or infeasible.

8 | July 15, 2016

3.1 Precast Prestressed Concrete Girder Precast prestressed concrete (PC) girders are one of the most common bridge type elements in Washington State. They are familiar to local contractors, low maintenance, and have a long service life. PC girder superstructures can be easily widened in the future and allow for future deck replacement if required due to deck corrosion. They are typically not used where aesthetics are considered important. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has developed a series of PC girders easily available in Washington State that are capable of spanning long distances. Figure 3-1 shows the WSDOT WF100G PC girder, WSDOT’s longest spanning PC girder, capable of spanning up to 205 feet. Figure 3-2 shows a typical WSDOT PC girder bridge spanning the Puyallup River near Orting, Figure 3-1: WF100G Girder Washington.

Figure 3-2: Precast Prestressed Concrete Girder Bridge over Puyallup River

Conceptual plans for a PC girder bridge, based on the WSDOT WF100G girder, are provided in Appendix B. Typical spans are assumed to be 207 feet (note that actual girder span is less than the distance between centerlines of piers), maximizing the use of the WF100G girder, resulting in a total of 18 spans. This option results in 17 in-water piers, the most of any alternative investigated.

July 15, 2016 | 9

3.2 Precast Post-tensioned Spliced Concrete Girder Precast post-tensioned spliced concrete (PC/PT) girders are less commonly built in Washington State than PC girders. Constant-depth PC/PT girders are familiar to local contractors, but variable-depth versions are less common. PC/PT girders are low maintenance and have a long service life. PC/PT girder superstructures can be widened in the future and allow for future deck replacement if required due to deck corrosion. They can be enhanced where a more aesthetic look is desired. The Manette Bridge, shown in Figure 3-4, included a number of aesthetic enhancements, such as parabolically haunched girders and pier soffits, locally-themed concrete embellishments, colored railings, and other items.

Similar to the PC girder alternative, the WSDOT has Figure 3-3: WF100PTG Girder developed a series of constant-depth PC/PT girders that are based on their PC girder shapes, and are easily available in Washington State. Figure 3-3 shows the WSDOT WF100PTG PC/PT girder, the WSDOT’s longest spanning PC/PT girder, capable of spanning up to 255 feet. Custom designed PC/PT girders are capable of spanning even longer distances. The most efficient long-span type of PC/PT girder is variable depth, being deepest at piers. The Manette Bridge, completed in 2011 and shown in Figure 3-4, is a recent example of a variable-depth PC/PT girder bridge constructed in Washington.

Figure 3-4: Manette Bridge, Bremerton, Washington

10 | July 15, 2016

Conceptual plans for a PC/PT girder bridge, based on the WSDOT WF100PTG girder, are provided in Appendix B. Typical spans are assumed to be 340 feet, resulting in a total of 12 spans. This option results in 11 in-water piers, among the least of all alternatives investigated. Using the WF100PTG girder as the basis for this alternative saves money by allowing a precast concrete fabricator to use available forms for the common WF100PTG girder for the majority of the girder segments, rather than building custom forms for all segments. If the PC/PT girder alternative is chosen, the 340-foot spans shown in Appendix B would be the longest of its type in the United States. Currently the longest span for a PC/PT girder bridge is 325 feet on Route 22 in Kentucky. Typically the span length for PC/PT girder bridges is limited by handling and transport of the large girder segments required for longer spans. The Fox Island Bridge location is ideal for this type of bridge. Its proximity to a qualified precast concrete fabricator, The Concrete Technology Corporation (CTC), with water access (i.e. barge transport to bridge site) make it an ideal candidate for long span lengths of this type. Additionally, CTC has experience with large girder segments for this type of bridge, including barge transport. CTC fabricated the girder segments for the Manette Bridge, which were transported via barge to the bridge site in Bremerton (Figure 3-4) and weighed as much as 305 kips. Current discussions with CTC reveal that although there is a typical segment working limit of approximately 280 kips (less than the 305-kip Manette segments), preliminary sizing of segments support that a 340-foot span is possible. A similar 12-span bridge is possible with 325-foot maximum spans. However, the back span to main span ratio is greater, resulting in a less efficient design.

July 15, 2016 | 11

3.3 Precast Concrete Segmental Box Girder Precast concrete segmental box girder (PC segmental) bridges are less commonly built in Washington State than PC girders. However, they are not unfamiliar to local contractors. A number of PC segmental bridges have been built in recent years for Sound Transit’s Link light rail lines. Figure 3-5 shows an example of a PC segmental bridge being built over the Duwamish River for Sound Transit. PC segmental bridges are considered low maintenance and have a long service life. However, they are not easily widened in the future due to the typical transverse post- tensioning in the deck slab. A completely new and separate box girder is required to widen in the future. They also do not allow for future deck replacement if required due to corrosion, because of the longitudinal post-tensioning over the full depth of section. They are generally considered the most aesthetically pleasing of all four alternatives considered.

Figure 3-5: Sound Transit PC Segmental Bridge Over Duwamish River – Crane Erection

Conceptual plans for a PC segmental bridge are provided in Appendix B. Typical spans are assumed to be 340 feet, resulting in a total of 12 spans. This option results in 11 in- water piers, among the least of all alternatives investigated. Unlike PC girders, standard designs are not easily available for PC segmental box girders in Washington State. Rather, the box girder design is custom tailored to the specific project needs. The girder depth for the PC segmental shown in Appendix B is based on practical span-to-depth ratios and prior local office experience.

12 | July 15, 2016

PC segmental bridges of the span lengths shown in Appendix B are built using balanced cantilever construction. The three most common methods for erecting the segments on a balanced cantilever bridge are with a crane, beam and winch, and erection gantry (overhead or underslung). Figure 3-5 depicts a crane erection method and Figure 3-6 depicts an overhead gantry erection method. Crane or beam and winch erection methods are anticipated for this site and are generally more cost effective when possible. Gantry erection methods are not anticipated for this site due to the relatively high cost of a gantry and the launching/landing area required at one or both ends of the bridge.

Figure 3-6: Bayonne Raise the Roadway Project, New York / New Jersey - Gantry Erection

July 15, 2016 | 13

3.4 Composite Steel Plate Girder Composite steel plate girder bridges are less commonly built in Washington State than PC girders; however, they are not unfamiliar to local contractors. Steel bridges are relatively higher maintenance than precast or post-tensioned concrete, but have a long service life when proper maintenance is performed. Section 6.1.2 of the WSDOT BDM recommends paint in lieu of weathering steel in this location due to the generally poor performance of weathering steel west of the Cascade Mountains. Maintenance typically consists of painting the steel girder elements after the first 30 years, and then every 20 years thereafter, for the life of the bridge. Figure 3-7 shows the construction of a composite steel plate girder bridge spanning the Pilchuck River in Washington State, which was completed in 2013. Composite steel plate girder bridges are easily widened in the future and allow for future deck replacement if required due to deck corrosion. They are generally considered to be among the least aesthetically pleasing of all four alternatives considered.

Figure 3-7: Composite Steel Plate Girder Bridge Spanning Pilchuck River

Conceptual plans for a composite steel plate girder bridge are provided in Appendix B. Typical spans are assumed to be 340 feet, resulting in a total of 12 spans. This option results in 11 in-water piers, among the least of all alternatives investigated. Unlike PC girders, standard designs are not developed for composite steel plate girders. Rather, the girder design is custom tailored to specific project needs. The girder depth and spacing shown in Appendix B are based on practical span-to-depth ratios and prior experience.

14 | July 15, 2016

4 Cost Estimates

All project costs included in this Memorandum are calculated on a July 2016 cost basis and have not been adjusted for escalation. 4.1 Environmental Mitigation Cost Discussion Construction of a new bridge will require environmental mitigation for the footprint (plan area) of new foundation and temporary construction elements (drilled shafts, piles, cofferdams, work trestles, etc.) in the marine environment, installation noise, turbidity, and operational noise. The majority of foundation elements will be founded below the intertidal zone (below MLLW), likely requiring a lower mitigation ratio than areas within the intertidal zone (between MLLW and MHW). Mitigation ratios within the intertidal zone could be as high as 5:1. Potential areas of mitigation credit include removal of existing bridge foundations and hardened shoreline elements, such as the rip rap surrounding the existing bridge approaches, and the bulkhead present at the impacted parcel on the Fox Island end of the bridge. It may be possible to completely mitigate the impacts of a new bridge on-site, depending on required mitigation ratios and the amount of mitigation credit earned. Note that mitigation credit may not be given if existing bridge foundations are not removed below mud line (i.e. cut off at mud line). Additional investigation and discussion is needed with the appropriate environmental agencies to establish this potential credit. Preliminary cost estimates for environmental mitigation have been developed, in the form of right-of-way purchase for off-site mitigation, based on the plan area of two drilled shafts at each pier multiplied by an assumed mitigation ratio. A mitigation ratio of 5:1 has been assumed for all impact zones (intertidal and below) since the exact ratios are not known and mitigation for temporary work bridges, installation noise, turbidity, and operational noise impacts are not being directly accounted for at this time. Additionally, it has conservatively been assumed that no credit is given for on-site mitigation since there has not been any investigation and decisions regarding on-site mitigation. ROW costs for mitigation are included with the other ROW costs, but can be seen separately in the ROW cost breakdown in Appendix C. Additional discussion of environmental, permitting, and mitigation aspects were discussed in the Design Charrette performed for this project. Design Charrette notes are included in Appendix A. 4.2 Right-of-Way Cost Discussion Right-of-Way cost estimates were developed using a GIS map-level review of the project footprint and impacted properties, both direct and indirect (e.g. view impacts). Market and replacement housing data was collected from available public resources and County assessment data. There was no site visit of the project area, impacted properties or replacement housing. Direct and staff costs were based on past project experience and a typical acquisition and relocation schedule. Total ROW costs are estimated to be $3,782,993, including mitigation ROW, but without contingency. A detailed breakdown of the ROW cost estimate is provided in Appendix C.

July 15, 2016 | 15

Additional ROW discussion occurred during the Design Charrette. Design Charrette notes are included in Appendix A. 4.3 Approach Roadway Cost Discussion An estimate was developed for the Gig Harbor and Fox Island approach roadways based on the conceptual roadway design and the roundabout concept for the Fox Island approach. The approach roadway cost estimate is $2,468,306, without contingency. A detailed breakdown of this cost estimate is included in Appendix C. 4.4 Bridge Cost Discussion Bridge cost estimates were developed for each of the four alternatives based on the associated span lengths, preliminary member sizes, and details shown in the Conceptual Bridge Plans in Appendix B. These estimates, without contingency, are as follows: Precast Prestressed Concrete Girder Bridge: $101,986,000 ($628/SF) Precast Post-tensioned Spliced Concrete Girder Bridge: $87,770,000 ($541/SF) Precast Concrete Segmental Box Girder Bridge: $118,445,000 ($730/SF) Composite Steel Plate Girder Bridge: $108,854,000 ($671/SF) These estimates include demolition of the existing bridge. A detailed breakdown of the cost estimate for each of the bridge type alternatives is included in Appendix C.

16 | July 15, 2016

4.5 Total Preliminary Project Costs Total project cost for each of the alternatives including ROW costs, approach roadway costs, bridge costs (including mobilization), contingency, and engineering are as follows: Precast Prestressed Concrete Girder Bridge: ROW $3,782,993 Approach $2,468,306 Bridge $101,986,000 Subtotal $108,237,299 Contingency (25%) $27,059,325 Engineering, Permitting, Coordination, Etc. (10%) $10,823,730 Total $146,120,354 Precast Post-tensioned Spliced Concrete Girder Bridge: ROW $3,782,993 Approach Roadway $2,468,306 Bridge $87,770,000 Subtotal $94,021,299 Contingency (25%) $23,505,325 Engineering, Permitting, Coordination, Etc. (10%) $9,402,130 Total $126,928,754 Precast Concrete Segmental Box Girder Bridge: ROW $3,782,993 Approach Roadway $2,468,306 Bridge $118,445,000 Subtotal $124,696,299 Contingency (25%) $31,174,075 Engineering, Permitting, Coordination, Etc. (10%) $12,469,630 Total $168,340,004 Composite Steel Plate Girder Bridge: ROW $3,782,993 Approach Roadway $2,468,306 Bridge $108,854,000 Subtotal $115,105,299 Contingency (25%) $28,776,325 Engineering, Permitting, Coordination, Etc. (10%) $11,510,530 Total $155,392,154

July 15, 2016 | 17 Technical Memorandum Pierce County Public Works

This page is intentionally left blank.

18 | July 15, 2016

A Design Charrette Notes

July 15, 2016

This page is intentionally left blank.

July 15, 2016

Meeting Minutes Project: Fox Island Bridge TS&L, Phase I – Preliminary Engineering and Rehabilitation/Retrofit Concept Study Subject: Design Charrette Date: Thursday, March 31, 2016 Location: Pierce County Public Works – Tacoma Mall Office Building, 4301 South Pine Street, Suite 446 - Conference Room 4A Attendees: Kraig Shaner (Pierce County) Rob Richardson (HDR) Brian Stacy (Pierce County) Tony Messmer (HDR) Jerry Bryant (Pierce County) Lee Andrews (HDR) Brian Johnston (Pierce County) Cameron French (HDR) Jeff Wong (Pierce County) Jim Prossick (HDR) Richard Dickman (Pierce County) Ed Heavey (Landau) Jessica Stokesberry (Pierce County) Calvin McCaughan (Landau) John Jolibois (Pierce County Council) Jeff Parsons (Herrera) Alyssa Edwards (Pierce County) George Ritchotte (Herrera) Bill Ott (Ott-Sakai) Overview

- The Fox Island Bridge is the longest bridge in the county. There is no alternate access to the island. In 2012 the underwater inspection rated the foundations a 4 (out of 10) and the overall bridge sufficiency rating was found to be 7.33 (out of 100). - The county then started to look at possible funding sources and began the process for the current Phase 1 – Preliminary Engineering and Rehabilitation/Retrofit Concept Study. - This Phase 1 Study is intended to be a high level look at potential retrofit options for the existing bridge, and potential bridge types to replace the existing bridge along a generalized horizontal alignment, proposed by the County at the project kickoff meeting, to the West of the existing bridge. - The conceptual alignment created is preliminary and intended to establish a baseline of general costs and design challenges. If there are risks/challenges/opportunities, everyone is asked to please identify them to help us move forward. - Phase 2 will be much more detailed with more refined analysis, evaluation of alternate alignment(s), survey, environmental, etc., and in conjunction with Phase 1 work, is intended complete a Type, Size, and Location Study. - The boat launch is located on the Fox Island side and is owned by the BLM; but at one time was maintained by Pierce County. It’s not part of this project, however, it is something to be cognizant of. Pierce County may assume ownership from BLM in near future – currently under discussion between Pierce County and BLM. The County has a lot to “figure out” regarding the disposition of the boat launch. - There will be a public outreach later this summer.

New Bridge Conceptual Alignment

- The preliminary alignment evaluated in this phase is based on the following key constraints, which are subject to change in Phase 2 o Intended to generally follow the baseline horizontal alignment identified during the project kickoff meeting held on January 28th, 2016 o Maintain 100-ft horizontal clearance to the existing boat launch o Have zero interference with the existing bridge structure to facilitate construction and minimize traffic impacts o Meet current ADA requirements o 5000 ft min. radius to facilitate a larger range of bridge superstructure types - Roundabout is possible on the Fox Island side which also facilitates boat trailer traffic movements back to the existing boat launch - Horizontal alignment and vertical profile developed to accommodate multiple options for bridge structure types, and can be adjusted in the future to more efficiently work with the preferred structure type. Overall cost difference is anticipated to be minor. - Vertical profile developed to accommodate a 180-foot-wide x 60-foot-tall navigational clearance envelope and can be adjusted in the future based on final clearance requirements.

Right-of-Way

- Developed an overview of potential costs with land value based primarily on assessed property values. - There is limited comparable (“comp”) data for the potentially impacted properties due to the small number of comparable home sales in the vicinity (and on the water) especially for land sales. - Using assessment data, land value appears to be $10-$12/SF if it has a “lower value view” or $12- $16/SF if it has a “high value view.” - There were 3 current property listings found that had good comparability with the one parcel currently identified as a full acquisition. Those listings asking prices ranged from $599,900 to $643,750 and offered some confirmation of the land values used. The listings were used to estimate relocation costs. - Also considered were view impacts for parcels that aren’t physically being impacted, but have impacts to their line of sight onto the water. This would impact the homeowner’s ability to sell their property. A preliminary value has been estimated based on the relative clearance between the house and the proposed bridge alignment utilizing a percentage of assessed value of the improvements. - County ROW agent, Jessica Stokesberry also suggested that low clearance areas may change current use of some properties from waterfront to non-waterfront increasing potential damages to those parcels. - Jeff Wong, Pierce County ROW supervisor requested a copy of the overview spreadsheet be sent to Jessica for her review. - Total right-of-way impacts estimated at $1.66M, based on assessed value (no markup for Market Value).

- Noise impacts are likely and mitigation may be necessary. These costs have not been assessed. The impacts need to be assessed after testing (if at all possible to assess the final noise impact). - Need to assess BLM’s and DNR’s underlying ownerships for rights that we might need for access/construction - There may be a need for the purchase of an off-site mitigation site. - Changes in sediment flows resulting from the project may cause compensable damages to docks or waterfront areas

Environmental

- A noise study will need to be conducted to determine how noise associated from the new bridge (in-service) is different from the noise associated with the existing in-service bridge. - Near Shore & Intertidal Zone (between MLLW and MHHW) impacts (e.g., disruption of nearshore transport) are readily apparent on the Gig Harbor (North) side due to the existing rock outcropping. - Intertidal zone impacts are usually more important than sub-tidal impacts - No matter where the new bridge goes, there will be some good opportunities for improvement because the new bridge will span the intertidal. - Sub-tidal impacts may be hard to mitigate on a like-for-like basis if existing piers are cut off at mudline. - There are bulkheads present on the Fox Island side that present a good opportunity for improvement if the current alignment is kept. - Nourishment plans are likely to be implemented, typically these are done by Washington DNR or other local restoration agencies or non-profits (e.g., South Puget Sound Salmon Enhancement Group). Will need to analyze potential impacts to adjacent properties. - There is a patchy eelgrass bed on the Fox Island side, west of the roadway between Towhead Island and Fox Island. The bed of eelgrass is not of high quality. The new bridge profile is high enough that these impacts will be reduced. Additionally, the bridge runs north south, so that also helps with sun exposure. - Discussion regarding the peregrine falcon nest on the existing bridge: o They are a species of local importance. Falcons and most other bird species are federally protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Peregrine falcons are a high-profile species that get a lot of attention from the local community. o Implementing timing restrictions can avoid impacts to falcons and the need for a permit. o Nesting falcons are extremely aggressive and are a safety concern for construction workers and inspectors o Don’t need to create a new and/or permanent nesting area – just need to avoid area during nesting o Only nests with eggs and/or chicks are protected. Projects can install barriers to prevent birds from nesting on the bridge; however, barrier installation is expensive, complicated, and not always effective. o Could get falconer to remove eggs or chicks (but long permitting process). Work windows no longer apply if nest is gone.

o Work window to avoid impacts to falcons is approximately August 1st – February 28th. - Fish window approximately July 15th – September 30th; 2 week extension on either side of those dates are likely possible - Discussion regarding the methods for removing the piers. Will have noise impacts and timing impacts - There are likely 3 tribes in the area (Nisqually, Squaxin, and Puyallup) that will have an opportunity to weigh in. - Need to establish/quantify volume/area of each impacted area. Helps to better understand and assess the mitigation efforts (e.g. will we have a net decrease or net increase of impact) - DNR permit necessary for new bridge among others, including Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (through the County), HPA (from WDFW), Section 401 (Ecology), Corps permits (Section 10 and 404), and Coast Guard permit. - Permitting a work bridge is suggested to allow non-marine contractors to compete with marine contractors, thereby driving down costs from all bidders (marine and non-marine contractors). The work bridge would not necessarily have to be built, but need to permit a conceptual work bridge design to give contractors flexibility. - A different bridge alignment was suggested during the “Environmental” discussion – see discussion of Alternate Bridge Alignment.

Alternate New Bridge Alignment*

- A shorter bridge alignment that touches down at Towhead Island, potentially near the existing boat launch was discussed. Major points: o May reduce overall project cost, but needs to be holistically investigated further. Structure is shorter, and therefore less expensive. Environmental mitigation is greater and mitigation costs may negate all or part of structural savings. Boat launch may also need to be re- located, depending on exact alignment, which would also reduce potential structural savings. o Boat launch access impacted during construction, even if not moved from its current location. o Boat launch access may be permanently impacted/reduced (less parking, more difficult to get to – worse roadway geometrics) after construction, depending on exact alignment. o BLM ownership on Towhead Island could change. This could profoundly affect alternate alignment options that would touch down on or near Towhead Island. o Likely adds significant fill between Towhead Island and Fox Island, in inter-tidal zone, to accommodate wider roadway width and maintenance of traffic. Inter-tidal zone mitigation is more difficult and harder to permit. There is likely not enough on-site mitigation available, requiring significant off-site mitigation. o Maintenance of traffic will be more difficult when trying to reduce overall fill requirements between Towhead Island and Fox Island – likely requiring staged construction (build half of bridge, move traffic, and build other half of bridge).

o Staged bridge construction, if needed, increases bridge costs over non-staged construction. Staged construction also eliminates some bridge type options (such as precast segmental box girders), and makes others more susceptible to construction issues (such as camber difference issues for prestressed girders and spliced girders). o May be difficult to keep 5% grade, for ADA compliance, depending on required vertical clearance (60 feet currently assumed for Phase 1 work). o The USACE will want to see an “Alternatives Analysis” that identifies the preferred alternative as the one with the least environmental impacts. This will be part of the Phase 2 TSL study.

Proposed New Bridge Structure Types

- Overall goal was to reduce number of in-water piers, by using reasonably long span lengths, for each of the structure types investigated. - All configurations assumed to have similar frame arrangements (three 1000-foot frames). - All shafts were assumed to be 12-foot diameter - All columns assumed to be 8-foot diameter, except the Precast Segmental Box Girder Alternative, which assumed a 15’-9” wide pier wall (same width as box soffit). - Precast shaft caps assumed, negating need for cofferdams. This reduces cost, construction risk associated with cofferdam construction in deep water and high current area, and environmental impact. - Precast Girder Bridge with 207-foot spans: o 19 piers (17 piers in water) o Low maintenance o In-water falsework not required for superstructure erection/construction o Girders would have to be barged in (which also makes sense given the proximity to Concrete Technology Corporation) - Spliced Concrete Girder Bridge with 340-foot spans: o 13 piers (11 piers in water) o Low maintenance o In-water falsework not required for superstructure erection/construction o Girder segments would have to be barged in (which also makes sense given the proximity to Concrete Technology Corporation) - Precast Segmental Box Girder Bridge with 340-foot spans: o 13 piers (11 piers in water) o Low maintenance o In-water falsework not required for superstructure erection/construction o Likely requires development of precasting yard o Segments can be delivered by truck or barge - Steel Plate Girder Bridge with 340-foot spans: o 13 piers (11 piers in water) o In-water falsework not required for superstructure erection/construction

o Higher life-cycle costs - needs paint every 20-30 years - A work bridge or work platforms are required for construction of foundations in all bridge types. Also see work bridge permitting discussion point under “Environmental” discussion. - A work bridge is likely the best way to get concrete delivered to the site. Floating batch plants, and concrete pumps on work platforms coupled with concrete trucks delivered by barge are also options, but less desirable from a constructability perspective. - Bubble curtains anticipated for impact pile driving. Impact driving may not be necessary and likely only required to “proof” piles for work bridges and/or platforms - “Bridge-only” costs estimated to range from $48M-$99M, depending on the option chosen

Existing Bridge Substructure Retrofit Concepts

Foundations

- The existing bridge consists of pile foundations at the approach spans and spread footings in the middle spans - Pile foundations will be very hard to retrofit without fully excavating (impractical) - The spread footings are unreinforced and undersized for a seismic event. Overturning is probable, especially in the longitudinal direction. - Two alternatives were presented at the pile foundation approach piers, one with smaller impacts to bridge traffic and one with larger impacts. Both alternatives utilize drilled shafts to provide supplemental support to the existing piers. A 3rd alternative was brought forward that could be constructed without the use of a cofferdam, by demolishing the exterior battered piles (after verifying that the bridge would still function for live loads without them) and installing a single shaft on either side of the bridge. The design team will examine this alternative and include it, if feasible, in the Retrofit Memorandum. - Two alternatives were presented for the spread footing piers. One with drilled shafts and a pile cap; and one with drilled shafts, ground anchors, and a pile cap. A 3rd alternative was brought forward that could be constructed without the use of a cofferdam, installing a single shaft on either side of the bridge. The design team will examine this alternative and include it, if feasible, in the Retrofit Memorandum.

Piers

- Seismic isolation is not a good retrofit option for this bridge due to the large mass of the substructure pier walls. Preliminary calculations show that overturning would still be probable with isolation bearings, especially in the longitudinal direction. - Two alternatives were presented for the main span piers. One includes enlarging the existing pier columns and infill walls to provide additional strength and ductility; and one utilized carbon fiber column jacketing at potential plastic hinging zones to provide the necessary ductility. Both of these alternatives require cofferdams to complete. A 3rd alternative was brought forward that could be constructed without the use of a cofferdam, installing a single large-diameter shaft on either side of

the bridge– extending al the way up to the (new) pier cap. The design team will examine this alternative and include it, if feasible, in the Retrofit Memorandum.

General

- Widening of the bridge could be possible with new (larger) substructure elements. However, it would need to be accounted for when the new substructure elements are being designed. - A work bridge or work platforms should be required for construction of foundations. Also see work bridge permitting discussion point under “Environmental” discussion. - Environmental mitigation – could look at removing some rock at boat launch without affecting abutment, but will not be enough if need to retrofit all the piers. - Will need to document if all piers need to be retrofitted as part of process. - Could also look at creating “pocket beaches” in the embankment between Towhead Island and Fox Island. Amount of mitigation (mitigation ratio) is a risk, and should consider off-site mitigation if want to “play it safe” with regard to mitigation ratio and reducing schedule risk due to permits.

Existing Bridge Superstructure Rehabilitation Concepts

- The existing bridge has several deficiencies that currently limit its live load carrying capacity. - Even if this bridge is to be demolished and a new bridge is to be constructed, it makes sense to upgrade the bridge superstructure to get construction vehicles across this bridge (thus reducing the need for barges) - Based on the recent load rating report, many of these deficiencies are due to insufficient shear capacity in the superstructure. Additionally, there are 2 locations that are lacking sufficient moment capacity. - Most critical span is Span 20 at the Gig Harbor side. Currently it is the limiting factor for the load rating and is what the posting is based on. - The dapped ends at each steel drop-in span are the second most critical item and would significantly reduce the superstructure capacity. - Concrete strengthening and FRP strengthening concepts have been developed as potential upgrades to remove the bridge posting and were presented. The charrette team agreed that the FRP strengthening concepts were more feasible with fewer impacts. - Recommend in-situ testing of FRP samples prior to design to verify capacity of existing concrete substrate. - The dapped ends supporting the steel drop-in spans are particularly complex. Two rehabilitation concepts were presented. One is intended to be used as a short term solution for getting construction trucks across for construction of a new bridge only. The second alternative is a more robust rehabilitation that would increase the bridge’s service life by many years. The charrette team agreed that the more robust concept provided much better value and supported a more realistic comparison of rehabilitation costs for comparison to a new bridge. - There was discussion regarding whether or not deck rehabilitation is desirable. Pierce County indicated that if rehabilitation is the preferred alternative, deck rehabilitation is desired and should be included. Polyester or micro-silica concrete overlay were discussed as options.

- There was discussion regarding whether or not bridge barrier replacement is desirable. Pierce County indicated that new barriers would be desirable; but they are probably not practical at this time. These will not be included in the rehabilitation project at this time. - The County also indicated that the rehabilitation project should also include repair of all items indicated for repair in the most recent inspection report. This would include spall repairs, epoxy crack injection, spot painting, and other minor items. Pierce County will supply approximate crack mapping to facilitate estimating LF of crack repair per SF. - There was discussion regarding retrofit and rehabilitation costs. Bill Ott’s initial “gut feeling” estimate was around $25 million; however more refinement is necessary as the retrofit and rehabilitation concepts are developed with the direction received during the charrette.

B Bridge Conceptual Plans

July 15, 2016

This page is intentionally left blank.

July 15, 2016 Drawing: C:\PWWORKING\SEA\D1747974\XXXXBR01.DWG Layout Tab: PRESTRESSED - 1 Xrefs: FOXISLAND_C3D.DWG / FOXISLAND_EG.DWG / FOXISLANDBRIDGEBASE.DWG / DMS_DELETED.GRAPHICS_GROUND.DWG Date: 10/05/2016 Time: 10:22:55 AM Plotted by: SCOUTURE

APPROACH SLAB CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DESIGNED BY: PAV'T SEAT S. COUTURE A. MESSMER TO FOX ISLAND ALONG C LINE MEASURED BACK OF VERTICAL DATUM - N.A.V.D. OF 1988 HORIZONTAL DATUM - N.G.V.D. OF 1983 CURVE

C STA. 6+55.00

BACK OF PAV'T SEAT 2 1 DATUM ISAINRDU EGHTNETDLABK. TANGENT BRG. DELTA TANGENT LENGTH RADIUS PI STATION 25'-0" 31.950.0 9.9 346.90' 692.69' 5000.00' 13+19.89 +28 500'765'358'1°90"R N00°39'58"E 16°39'08" RT 365.87' 726.59' 2500.00' 4+62.81 DATE PLOTTED: DATE SURVEYED: SURVEYED BY: JUNE 2, 2016

C PIER 1

L -4.00%

6'-2"

C STA. 6+61.17 C PIER 1 L C LINE CURVE DATA E

MEASURED ALONG C LINE 445.00 VC

7+00 PVI C STA. 4+73.07

PVI EL. 15.62' 128'-10"

+5.00% CURVE 1

C PIER 2 L 7°56'15" RT

8+00

C STA. 7+90.00 C PIER 2 L

F NO.

DATE PT C STA. 8+23.53 STA. C PT N17°19'06"E

MEASURED ALONG C LINE

N17°19'06"E 207'-0"

9+00 REFERENCE EL. -55.00' REVISION

C STA. 9+97.00 C PIER 3 L PC C STA. 9+72.99 STA. C PC

C PIER 3 L

10+00 F BY

MLLW -3.94'

MEASURED ALONG C LINE APPROVED

207'-0"

11+00

3270'-0" - BACK TO BACK OF PAVEMENT SEAT T. 21 N., R. 1 E., W. M. GRADE ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE FINISH GRADES AT TOP OF ROADWAY ON C LINE AND ARE EQUAL TO PROFILE GRADE.

MEASURED ALONG C LINE BEARING OF ALL PIERS NORMAL TO C LINE

SW C STA. 12+04.00 STA. C C PIER 4 L

SEC. 26 Pierce County Public Works Office of the County Engineer 4301 South Pine Street, Suite 628 Tacoma, Washington 98409 Tacoma Mall Office Building 1 4 SW ELEVATION An APWA Accredited Agency

12+00 PLAN 1

C PIER 4 L 4 F C LINE

MLW -0.99'

MEASURED ALONG C LINE (APPROXIMATE) EXISTING GROUND LINE TRAFFIC BARRIER

13+00 REVIEWED BY: CHECKED BY:

207'-0"

PROFILE GRADE AND PIVOT POINT

C STA. 14+11.00 STA. C C PIER 5 PIER C L

14+00 BRIAN D. STACY, P.E. APPROVED BY:

EBB C PIER 5

F HALE PASSAGE Office of the County Engineer

MEASURED ALONG C LINE

15+00

MHW 8.46'

207'-0" DATE LOADING: HL93 REGION NO. P.C. GIRDERS

C PIER 6 PIER C C STA. 16+18.00 STA. C L CURVE 2 TT EEA I RJC O HE O TOTAL SHEETS SHEET NO. FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. STATE WASH.

16+00 PRESTRESSED CONCRETE GIRDER (1 OF 3) HALE PASSAGE - FOX ISLAND BRIDGE

C PIER 6 L F MEASURED ALONG C LINE 129'-0" TO C PIER 7

BRIDGE NO 26211-A PT C STA. 16+65.68 STA. C PT

L CONCEPT NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

+5.00% 17+00 40 1300.00 VC

PVI C STA. 22+52.09

PVI EL. 104.57' -5.00% SCALE IN FEET 0 MATCH LINE C STA. 17+30.00 SHEET 2 MATCH LINE C STA. 17+30.00 SHEET 2 1 080 40 Know what's Call before you dig. 16 below. R REGION NO. STATE FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS T. 21 N., R. 1 E., W. M. 10 WASH. 2 16 1 1 SW 4 SW 4

SEC. 26 R

Know what's below. Call before you dig.

129'-0" TO CL PIER 14 129'-0" TO CL PIER 6 MEASURED ALONG C LINE MEASURED ALONG C LINE 3270'-0" - BACK TO BACK OF PAVEMENT SEAT MEASURED ALONG C LINE CL PIER 7 C PIER 8 CL PIER 9 C PIER 10 C PIER 11 CL PIER 12 CL PIER 13 129'-0" L 207'-0" 207'-0" L 207'-0" L 207'-0" 129'-0" MEASURED ALONG C LINE MEASURED ALONG C LINE MEASURED ALONG C LINE MEASURED ALONG C LINE MEASURED ALONG C LINE MEASURED ALONG C LINE

18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00 C LINE 24+00 25+00 26+00 27+00 28+00 N25°15'22"E

C STA. 23+93.50 CL NAVIGATION CHANNEL PROFILE GRADE AND PIVOT POINT 188'-0" NAVIGATION CHANNEL MATCH LINE C STA. 17+30.00 SHEET C STA. 17+30.00 MATCH LINE 1 MATCH LINE C STA. 28+65.00 SHEET 3 EBB PLAN BEARING OF ALL PIERS NORMAL TO C LINE HALE PASSAGE PVI EL. 104.57' PVI C STA. 22+52.09 +5.00% -5.00% 1300.00 VC

C PIER 10 L C PIER 11 C STA. 22+90.00 L CL PIER 9 C STA. 24+97.00 CL PIER 8 C PIER 7 C STA. 20+83.00 CL PIER 12 L C STA. 18+76.00 C STA. 27+04.00 CL PIER 13 C STA. 17+47.00 C NAVIGATION CHANNEL L TRAFFIC BARRIER C STA. 28+33.00

F F F F E F

E E E TBD VERT. CLEARANCE MHW 8.46' MLLW -3.94' MLW -0.99'

EXISTING GROUND LINE (APPROXIMATE) 94'-0" 94'-0" MATCH LINE C STA. 17+30.00 SHEET C STA. 17+30.00 MATCH LINE 1 MATCH LINE C STA. 28+65.00 SHEET 3 REFERENCE EL. -55.00' ELEVATION DATUM GRADE ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE FINISH GRADES AT TOP OF 20 0 20 40 HORIZONTAL DATUM - N.G.V.D. OF 1983 ROADWAY ON C LINE AND ARE EQUAL TO PROFILE GRADE. VERTICAL DATUM - N.A.V.D. OF 1988 SCALE IN FEET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

CHECKED BY: Office of the County Engineer Pierce County APPROVED BY: BRIDGE NO. 26211-A Public Works HALE PASSAGE - FOX ISLAND BRIDGE DESIGNED BY: SURVEYED BY: REVIEWED BY: A. MESSMER Office of the County Engineer Tacoma Mall Office Building DRAWN BY: DATE SURVEYED: PRESTRESSED CONCRETE GIRDER (2 OF 3) S. COUTURE 4301 South Pine Street, Suite 628 BRIAN D. STACY, P.E. DATE Tacoma, Washington 98409 CHECKED BY: DATE PLOTTED: NO. DATE REVISION BY APPROVED An APWA Accredited Agency JUNE 2, 2016 CONCEPT REGION NO. STATE FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS T. 21 N., R. 1 E., W. M. 10 WASH. 3 16 C LINE CURVE DATA 1 1 SW 4 SW 4 CURVE PI STATION RADIUS LENGTH TANGENT DELTA BK. TANGENT BRG. SEC. 26 R 3 42+97.61 375.00' 609.63' 396.17' 93°08'39" RT N25°15'22"E

Know what's below. Call before you dig.

3270'-0" - BACK TO BACK OF PAVEMENT SEAT BACK OF PAV'T SEAT MEASURED ALONG C LINE CL PIER 14 CL PIER 16 CL PIER 17 129'-0" TO C PIER 13 207'-0" 207'-0" 207'-0" 207'-0" 128'-10" L 25'-0" APPROACH SLAB MEASURED ALONG C LINE MEASURED ALONG C LINE MEASURED ALONG C LINE MEASURED ALONG C LINE MEASURED ALONG C LINE MEASURED ALONG C LINE 6'-2" MEASURED C LINE ALONG C LINE

29+00 30+00 31+00 32+00 33+00 34+00 C LINE 35+00 36+00 37+00 38+00 39+00 N25°15'22"E TO GIG HARBOR

PROFILE GRADE AND PIVOT POINT PC C STA. 39+01.44 CURVE 3 MATCH LINE C STA. 28+65.00 SHEET C STA. 28+65.00 MATCH LINE 2 PLAN EBB BEARING OF ALL PIERS NORMAL TO C LINE HALE PASSAGE PVI EL. 104.57' PVI C STA. 22+52.09 +5.00% -5.00% PVI EL. 18.16' 1300.00 VC PVI C STA. 39+79.68 -5.00% +6.00%

540.00 VC

CL PIER 14 C STA. 29+62.00 CL PIER 15 TRAFFIC BARRIER C STA. 31+69.00 CL PIER 16 C STA. 33+76.00 CL PIER 17 C STA. 35+83.00 C PIER 18 L CL PIER 19 BACK OF PAV'T SEAT C STA. 37+90.00 F C STA. 39+18.83 C STA. 39+25.00 F F F MHW 8.46' F MLLW -3.94' MLW -0.99' E

EXISTING GROUND LINE (APPROXIMATE)

MATCH LINE C STA. 28+65.00 SHEET C STA. 28+65.00 MATCH LINE 2 ELEVATION REFERENCE EL. -55.00' DATUM GRADE ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE FINISH GRADES AT TOP OF 20 0 20 40 HORIZONTAL DATUM - N.G.V.D. OF 1983 ROADWAY ON C LINE AND ARE EQUAL TO PROFILE GRADE. VERTICAL DATUM - N.A.V.D. OF 1988 SCALE IN FEET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

CHECKED BY: Office of the County Engineer Pierce County #### APPROVED BY: BRIDGE NO. 26211-A

DESIGNED BY: SURVEYED BY: Public Works HALE PASSAGE - FOX ISLAND BRIDGE Office of the County Engineer REVIEWED BY: A. MESSMER #### Tacoma Mall Office Building DRAWN BY: DATE SURVEYED: PRESTRESSED CONCRETE GIRDER (3 OF 3) S. COUTURE 4301 South Pine Street, Suite 628 BRIAN D. STACY, P.E. DATE Tacoma, Washington 98409 CHECKED BY: DATE PLOTTED: NO. DATE REVISION BY APPROVED An APWA Accredited Agency #### CONCEPT JUNE 2, 2016 #### REGION NO. STATE FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS 50'-0" OUT-TO-OUT 10 WASH. 4 16 30'-8" 19'-4" 49'-7 1/2"

BRIDGE RAILING PEDESTRIAN TYPE BP (TYP.) Know what's below. RAILING Call before you dig. TRAFFIC BARRIER (TYP.)

11 1/2" 7 1 5'-6 8" TO 3'-5 8" (IN CURVE) 4'-6" (IN TANGENT) 8'-4" 8'-4"

WF100G (TYP.)

8' DIA. COLUMN (TYP.)

12' DIA. DRILLED SHAFT (TYP.)

CL COLUMN & SHAFT CL COLUMN & SHAFT

TYPICAL SECTION AT FIXED PIERS PRESTRESSED CONCRETE GIRDER NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

CHECKED BY: Office of the County Engineer Pierce County APPROVED BY: BRIDGE NO 26211-A Public Works HALE PASSAGE - FOX ISLAND BRIDGE DESIGNED BY: SURVEYED BY: REVIEWED BY: A. MESSMER Office of the County Engineer Tacoma Mall Office Building DRAWN BY: DATE SURVEYED: TYPICAL SECTIONS - PRESTRESSED CONCRETE GIRDER S. COUTURE 4301 South Pine Street, Suite 628 BRIAN D. STACY, P.E. DATE Tacoma, Washington 98409 CHECKED BY: DATE PLOTTED: NO. DATE REVISION BY APPROVED An APWA Accredited Agency JUNE 2, 2016 CONCEPT Drawing: C:\PWWORKING\SEA\D1747974\XXXXBR02.DWG Layout Tab: SPLICED GIRDER - 1 Xrefs: FOXISLAND_C3D.DWG / FOXISLAND_EG.DWG / FOXISLANDBRIDGEBASE.DWG / DMS_DELETED.GRAPHICS_GROUND.DWG Date: 10/05/2016 Time: 10:30:13 AM Plotted by: SCOUTURE

APPROACH SLAB CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DESIGNED BY: PAV'T SEAT S. COUTURE A.MESSMER ALONG C LINE TO FOX ISLAND MEASURED BACK OF VERTICAL DATUM - N.A.V.D. OF 1988 HORIZONTAL DATUM - N.G.V.D. OF 1983 CURVE

C STA. 6+55.00

C PIER 1

L -4.00%

6'-2"

C PIER 1 C STA. 6+61.17

L C LINE CURVE DATA E 445.00 VC

7+00 PVI C STA. 4+73.07 PVI EL. 15.62'

MEASURED ALONG C LINE

+5.00%

198'-10" CURVE 1 7°56'15" RT

8+00 NO.

DATE PT C STA. 8+23.53 STA. C PT N17°19'06"E

C PIER 2 L REFERENCE EL. -55.00'

N17°19'06"E

9+00 REVISION

(APPROXIMATE) EXISTING GROUND LINE PC C STA. 9+72.99 STA. C PC

MEASURED ALONG C LINE

10+00

340'-0"

MLLW -3.94' BY APPROVED

11+00

3270'-0" - BACK TO BACK OF PAVEMENT SEAT T. 21 N., R. 1 E., W. M. GRADE ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE FINISH GRADES AT TOP OF ROADWAY ON C LINE AND ARE EQUAL TO PROFILE GRADE.

MEASURED ALONG C LINE BEARING OF ALL PIERS NORMAL TO C LINE SW

SEC. 26 Pierce County Public Works Office of the County Engineer 4301 South Pine Street, Suite 628 Tacoma, Washington 98409 Tacoma Mall Office Building 1 4 SW ELEVATION An APWA Accredited Agency

12+00

C PIER 3 PLAN L 1 4 H C LINE

MLW -0.99' TRAFFIC BARRIER

13+00 REVIEWED BY: CHECKED BY:

MEASURED ALONG C LINE

340'-0" PROFILE GRADE AND PIVOT POINT EBB

HALE PASSAGE

14+00 BRIAN D. STACY, P.E. APPROVED BY: Office of the County Engineer

15+00 P.C. / P.T. GIRDERS DATE LOADING: HL93 REGION NO.

C PIER 4

L 10

H CURVE 2 TT EEA I RJC O HE O TOTAL SHEETS SHEET NO. FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. STATE WASH.

16+00 HALE PASSAGE - FOX ISLAND BRIDGE

MEASURED ALONG C LINE

MHW 8.46' SPLICED CONCRETE GIRDER (1 OF 3)

205'-0" TO C PIER 5

BRIDGE NO 26211-A

L PT C STA. 16+65.68 STA. C PT CONCEPT NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

+5.00% 17+00 40 1300.00 VC

PVI C STA. 22+52.09 PVI EL. 104.57' SCALE IN FEET 0 MATCH LINE C STA. 17+30.00 SHEET 6 -5.00% MATCH LINE C STA. 17+30.00 SHEET 6 5 080 40 Know what's Call before you dig. 16 below. R REGION NO. STATE FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS T. 21 N., R. 1 E., W. M. 10 WASH. 6 16 1 1 SW 4 SW 4

SEC. 26 R

Know what's below. Call before you dig.

205'-0" TO CL PIER 10 205'-0" TO CL PIER 4 MEASURED ALONG C LINE MEASURED ALONG C LINE 3270'-0" - BACK TO BACK OF PAVEMENT SEAT MEASURED ALONG C LINE C PIER 9 CL PIER 5 C PIER 6 C PIER 7 CL PIER 8 L 205'-0" L 340'-0" L 340'-0" 205'-0" MEASURED ALONG C LINE MEASURED ALONG C LINE MEASURED ALONG C LINE MEASURED ALONG C LINE

18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00 C LINE 24+00 25+00 26+00 27+00 28+00 N25°15'22"E

C STA. 24+60.00 CL NAVIGATION CHANNEL PROFILE GRADE AND PIVOT POINT 321'-0" NAVIGATION CHANNEL MATCH LINE C STA. 17+30.00 SHEET C STA. 17+30.00 MATCH LINE 5 PLAN MATCH LINE C STA. 28+65.00 SHEET 7 BEARING OF ALL PIERS NORMAL TO C LINE EBB HALE PASSAGE PVI EL. 104.57' PVI C STA. 22+52.09 +5.00% -5.00% 1300.00 VC

CL PIER 7 CL PIER 6 C STA. 22+90.00 L C PIER 5 L C STA. 19+50.00 C PIER 9 C STA. 17+45.00 CL NAVIGATION CHANNEL L C STA. 28+35.00 TRAFFIC BARRIER

E E H H H E E TBD VERT. CLEARANCE MHW 8.46' MLLW -3.94' MLW -0.99'

EXISTING GROUND LINE (APPROXIMATE) 160'-6" 160'-6" MATCH LINE c STA. 17+30.00 SHEET c STA. 17+30.00 MATCH LINE 5 MATCH LINE C STA. 28+65.00 SHEET 7 REFERENCE EL. -55.00' DATUM ELEVATION 20 0 20 40 GRADE ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE FINISH GRADES AT TOP OF HORIZONTAL DATUM - N.G.V.D. OF 1983 ROADWAY ON C LINE AND ARE EQUAL TO PROFILE GRADE. VERTICAL DATUM - N.A.V.D. OF 1988 SCALE IN FEET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

CHECKED BY: Office of the County Engineer Pierce County APPROVED BY: BRIDGE NO. 26211-A Public Works HALE PASSAGE - FOX ISLAND BRIDGE DESIGNED BY: SURVEYED BY: REVIEWED BY: A. MESSMER Office of the County Engineer Tacoma Mall Office Building DRAWN BY: DATE SURVEYED: SPLICED CONCRETE GIRDER (2 OF 3) S. COUTURE 4301 South Pine Street, Suite 628 BRIAN D. STACY, P.E. DATE Tacoma, Washington 98409 CHECKED BY: DATE PLOTTED: NO. DATE REVISION BY APPROVED An APWA Accredited Agency JUNE 2, 2016 CONCEPT REGION NO. STATE FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS T. 21 N., R. 1 E., W. M. 10 WASH. 7 16 C LINE CURVE DATA 1 1 SW 4 SW 4 CURVE PI STATION RADIUS LENGTH TANGENT DELTA BK. TANGENT BRG. SEC. 26 R 3 42+97.61 375.00' 609.63' 396.17' 93°08'39" RT N25°15'22"E

Know what's below. Call before you dig.

3270'-0" - BACK TO BACK OF PAVEMENT SEAT BACK OF PAV'T SEAT MEASURED ALONG C LINE CL PIER 10 CL PIER 11 205'-0" TO C PIER 9 340'-0" 340'-0" 198'-10" 25'-0" L APPROACH SLAB MEASURED ALONG C LINE MEASURED ALONG C LINE MEASURED ALONG C LINE MEASURED ALONG C LINE 6'-2" MEASURED ALONG C LINE

29+00 30+00 31+00 32+00 33+00 34+00 C LINE 35+00 36+00 37+00 38+00 39+00 N25°15'22"E TO GIG HARBOR

PROFILE GRADE AND PIVOT POINT PC C STA. 39+01.44 CURVE 3 MATCH LINE C STA. 28+65.00 SHEET C STA. 28+65.00 MATCH LINE 6 PLAN BEARING OF ALL PIERS NORMAL TO C LINE EBB HALE PASSAGE PVI EL. 104.57' PVI C STA. 22+52.09 +5.00% -5.00% PVI EL. 18.16' 1300.00 VC -5.00% PVI C STA. 39+79.68 +6.00%

540.00 VC

CL PIER 10 C STA. 30+40.00 CL PIER 11 TRAFFIC BARRIER C STA. 33+80.00 CL PIER 12 C STA. 37+20.00 CL PIER 13 BACK OF PAV'T SEAT C STA. 39+18.83 C STA. 39+25.00 H

MHW 8.46' H MLLW -3.94' MLW -0.99' E

EXISTING GROUND LINE (APPROXIMATE)

MATCH LINE C STA. 28+65.00 SHEET C STA. 28+65.00 MATCH LINE 6 REFERENCE EL. -55.00' DATUM ELEVATION 20 0 20 40 HORIZONTAL DATUM - N.G.V.D. OF 1983 GRADE ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE FINISH GRADES AT TOP OF VERTICAL DATUM - N.A.V.D. OF 1988 ROADWAY ON C LINE AND ARE EQUAL TO PROFILE GRADE. SCALE IN FEET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

CHECKED BY: Office of the County Engineer Pierce County APPROVED BY: BRIDGE NO. 26211-A Public Works HALE PASSAGE - FOX ISLAND BRIDGE DESIGNED BY: SURVEYED BY: REVIEWED BY: A. MESSMER Office of the County Engineer Tacoma Mall Office Building DRAWN BY: DATE SURVEYED: SPLICED CONCRETE GIRDER (3 OF 3) S. COUTURE 4301 South Pine Street, Suite 628 BRIAN D. STACY, P.E. DATE Tacoma, Washington 98409 CHECKED BY: DATE PLOTTED: NO. DATE REVISION BY APPROVED An APWA Accredited Agency JUNE 2, 2016 CONCEPT 50'-0" OUT-TO-OUT REGION NO. STATE FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS 30'-8" 19'-4" 10 WASH. 8 16 49'-7 1/2" 6'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0"

BRIDGE RAILING R PEDESTRIAN TYPE BP (TYP.) 1'-4" RAILING C LINE TRAFFIC BARRIER (TYP.) C LINE Know what's below. Call before you dig. 3"

11 1/2" 5'-8 3/8" TO 3'-6 5/8" (IN CURVE) 4'-7 1/2" (IN TANGENT)

1'-0" 15'-9"

TYPICAL SECTION SPLICED CONCRETE GIRDER HIGH LOAD MULTI- ROTATIONAL (HLMR)

7'-0" DISC BEARING (TYP.)

8' DIA. COLUMN (TYP.)

CL COLUMN & SHAFT CL COLUMN & SHAFT

TYPICAL SECTION AT HINGE PIERS SPLICED CONCRETE GIRDER NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

CHECKED BY: Office of the County Engineer Pierce County APPROVED BY: BRIDGE NO 26211-A Public Works HALE PASSAGE - FOX ISLAND BRIDGE DESIGNED BY: SURVEYED BY: REVIEWED BY: A. MESSMER Office of the County Engineer Tacoma Mall Office Building DRAWN BY: DATE SURVEYED: TYPICAL SECTIONS - SPLICED CONCRETE GIRDER S. COUTURE 4301 South Pine Street, Suite 628 BRIAN D. STACY, P.E. DATE Tacoma, Washington 98409 CHECKED BY: DATE PLOTTED: NO. DATE REVISION BY APPROVED An APWA Accredited Agency JUNE 2, 2016 CONCEPT Drawing: C:\PWWORKING\SEA\D1747974\XXXXBR03.DWG Layout Tab: BOXED GIRDER - 1 Xrefs: FOXISLAND_C3D.DWG / FOXISLAND_EG.DWG / FOXISLANDBRIDGEBASE.DWG / DMS_DELETED.GRAPHICS_GROUND.DWG Date: 10/05/2016 Time: 10:32:00 AM Plotted by: SCOUTURE

APPROACH SLAB CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DESIGNED BY: PAV'T SEAT S. COUTURE A. MESSMER ALONG C LINE TO FOX ISLAND MEASURED BACK OF VERTICAL DATUM - N.A.V.D. OF 1988 HORIZONTAL DATUM - N.G.V.D. OF 1983 CURVE

C STA. 6+55.00

C PIER 1

L -4.00%

6'-2"

C PIER 1 C STA. 6+61.17

L C LINE CURVE DATA E 445.00 VC

7+00 PVI C STA. 4+73.07 PVI EL. 15.62'

MEASURED ALONG C LINE

+5.00%

198'-10" CURVE 1 7°56'15" RT

8+00 NO.

REFERENCE EL. -55.00'

DATE PT C STA. 8+23.53 STA. C PT N17°19'06"E

C PIER 2 L F

N17°19'06"E

9+00

REVISION PC C STA. 9+72.99 STA. C PC

MEASURED ALONG C LINE

10+00

340'-0"

MLLW -3.94' BY APPROVED

11+00

3270'-0" - BACK TO BACK OF PAVEMENT SEAT T. 21 N., R. 1 E., W. M. GRADE ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE FINISH GRADES AT TOP OF ROADWAY ON C LINE AND ARE EQUAL TO PROFILE GRADE.

MEASURED ALONG C LINE BEARING OF ALL PIERS NORMAL TO C LINE SW

SEC. 26 Pierce County Public Works Office of the County Engineer 4301 South Pine Street, Suite 628 Tacoma, Washington 98409 Tacoma Mall Office Building 1 4 SW ELEVATION An APWA Accredited Agency

12+00

C PIER 3 PLAN L 1 4 F (APPROXIMATE) EXISTING GROUND LINE C LINE

MLW -0.99' TRAFFIC BARRIER

13+00 REVIEWED BY: CHECKED BY:

MEASURED ALONG C LINE

340'-0"

EBB PROFILE GRADE AND PIVOT POINT

HALE PASSAGE

14+00 BRIAN D. STACY, P.E. APPROVED BY: Office of the County Engineer

15+00 P.C. SEGMENTAL BOX DATE LOADING: HL93 REGION NO.

C PIER 4

L 10

F CURVE 2 TT EEA I RJC O HE O TOTAL SHEETS SHEET NO. FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. STATE WASH.

16+00 HALE PASSAGE - FOX ISLAND BRIDGE

MEASURED ALONG C LINE

MHW 8.46'

205'-0" TO C PIER 5 CONCRETE BOX GIRDER (1 OF 3)

BRIDGE NO 26211-A

L PT C STA. 16+65.68 STA. C PT CONCEPT NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

+5.00% 17+00 40 1300.00 VC

PVI C STA. 22+52.09

PVI EL. 104.57' -5.00% SCALE IN FEET 0 MATCH LINE C STA. 17+30.00 SHEET 10 MATCH LINE C STA. 17+30.00 SHEET 10 9 080 40 Know what's Call before you dig. 16 below. R REGION NO. STATE FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS T. 21 N., R. 1 E., W. M. 10 WASH. 10 16 1 1 SW 4 SW 4

SEC. 26 R

Know what's below. Call before you dig.

18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00 C LINE 24+00 25+00 26+00 27+00 28+00 N25°15'22"E

C STA. 24+60.00 CL NAVIGATION CHANNEL PROFILE GRADE AND PIVOT POINT 321'-0" NAVIGATION CHANNEL MATCH LINE C STA. 17+30.00 SHEET C STA. 17+30.00 MATCH LINE 9

PLAN MATCH LINE C STA. 28+65.00 SHEET 11 BEARING OF ALL PIERS NORMAL TO C LINE EBB HALE PASSAGE PVI EL. 104.57' PVI C STA. 22+52.09 +5.00% -5.00% 1300.00 VC

CL PIER 7 CL PIER 6 C STA. 22+90.00 L C PIER 5 L C STA. 19+50.00 C PIER 9 C STA. 17+45.00 CL NAVIGATION CHANNEL L C STA. 28+35.00 TRAFFIC BARRIER

E E F F F E E TBD VERT. CLEARANCE MHW 8.46' MLLW -3.94' MLW -0.99'

EXISTING GROUND LINE (APPROXIMATE) 160'-6" 160'-6" MATCH LINE C STA. 17+30.00 SHEET C STA. 17+30.00 MATCH LINE 9

REFERENCE EL. -55.00' MATCH LINE C STA. 28+65.00 SHEET 11 DATUM ELEVATION 20 0 20 40 GRADE ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE FINISH GRADES AT TOP OF HORIZONTAL DATUM - N.G.V.D. OF 1983 ROADWAY ON C LINE AND ARE EQUAL TO PROFILE GRADE. VERTICAL DATUM - N.A.V.D. OF 1988 SCALE IN FEET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

CHECKED BY: Office of the County Engineer Pierce County APPROVED BY: BRIDGE NO. 26211-A Public Works HALE PASSAGE - FOX ISLAND BRIDGE DESIGNED BY: SURVEYED BY: REVIEWED BY: A. MESSMER Office of the County Engineer Tacoma Mall Office Building DRAWN BY: DATE SURVEYED: CONCRETE BOX GIRDER (2 OF 3) S. COUTURE 4301 South Pine Street, Suite 628 BRIAN D. STACY, P.E. DATE Tacoma, Washington 98409 CHECKED BY: DATE PLOTTED: NO. DATE REVISION BY APPROVED An APWA Accredited Agency JUNE 2, 2016 CONCEPT REGION NO. STATE FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS T. 21 N., R. 1 E., W. M. 10 WASH. 11 16 C LINE CURVE DATA 1 1 SW 4 SW 4 CURVE PI STATION RADIUS LENGTH TANGENT DELTA BK. TANGENT BRG. SEC. 26 R 3 42+97.61 375.00' 609.63' 396.17' 93°08'39" RT N25°15'22"E

Know what's below. Call before you dig.

3270'-0" - BACK TO BACK OF PAVEMENT SEAT BACK OF PAV'T SEAT MEASURED ALONG C LINE CL PIER 10 CL PIER 11 205'-0" TO C PIER 9 340'-0" 340'-0" 25'-0" L 198'-10" APPROACH SLAB MEASURED ALONG C LINE MEASURED ALONG C LINE MEASURED ALONG C LINE MEASURED ALONG C LINE 6'-2" MEASURED ALONG C LINE

29+00 30+00 31+00 32+00 33+00 34+00 C LINE 35+00 36+00 37+00 38+00 39+00 N25°15'22"E TO GIG HARBOR

PROFILE GRADE AND PIVOT POINT

PC C STA. 39+01.44 CURVE 3

MATCH LINE C STA. 28+65.00 SHEET C STA. 28+65.00 MATCH LINE 10 PLAN BEARING OF ALL PIERS NORMAL TO C LINE EBB HALE PASSAGE PVI EL. 104.57' PVI C STA. 22+52.09 +5.00% -5.00% PVI EL. 18.16' 1300.00 VC -5.00% PVI C STA. 39+79.68 +6.00%

540.00 VC

CL PIER 10 C STA. 30+40.00 CL PIER 11 TRAFFIC BARRIER C STA. 33+80.00 CL PIER 12 C STA. 37+20.00 CL PIER 13 BACK OF PAV'T SEAT C STA. 39+18.83 C STA. 39+25.00

F MHW 8.46' MLLW -3.94' MLW -0.99' F E

EXISTING GROUND LINE (APPROXIMATE)

MATCH LINE C STA. 28+65.00 SHEET C STA. 28+65.00 MATCH LINE 10 REFERENCE EL. -55.00' DATUM ELEVATION 20 0 20 40 HORIZONTAL DATUM - N.G.V.D. OF 1983 GRADE ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE FINISH GRADES AT TOP OF VERTICAL DATUM - N.A.V.D. OF 1988 ROADWAY ON C LINE AND ARE EQUAL TO PROFILE GRADE. SCALE IN FEET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

CHECKED BY: Office of the County Engineer Pierce County APPROVED BY: BRIDGE NO. 26211-A Public Works HALE PASSAGE - FOX ISLAND BRIDGE DESIGNED BY: SURVEYED BY: REVIEWED BY: A. MESSMER Office of the County Engineer Tacoma Mall Office Building DRAWN BY: DATE SURVEYED: CONCRETE BOX GIRDER (3 OF 3) S. COUTURE 4301 South Pine Street, Suite 628 BRIAN D. STACY, P.E. DATE Tacoma, Washington 98409 CHECKED BY: DATE PLOTTED: NO. DATE REVISION BY APPROVED An APWA Accredited Agency JUNE 2, 2016 CONCEPT 50'-0" OUT-TO-OUT REGION NO. STATE FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS 30'-8" 19'-4" 10 WASH. 12 16 49'-7 1/2"

BRIDGE RAILING R PEDESTRIAN TYPE BP (TYP.) RAILING C LINE Know what's below. TRAFFIC BARRIER (TYP.) Call before you dig.

11 1/2"

4 9'-0"

4 20'-0" 21'-3" 1

TYPICAL SECTION CONCRETE BOX GIRDER

15'-9"

CL COLUMN & SHAFT CL COLUMN & SHAFT

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

CHECKED BY: Office of the County Engineer Pierce County APPROVED BY: BRIDGE NO 26211-A Public Works HALE PASSAGE - FOX ISLAND BRIDGE DESIGNED BY: SURVEYED BY: REVIEWED BY: A. MESSMER Office of the County Engineer Tacoma Mall Office Building DRAWN BY: DATE SURVEYED: TYPICAL SECTIONS - CONCRETE BOX GIRDER S. COUTURE 4301 South Pine Street, Suite 628 BRIAN D. STACY, P.E. DATE Tacoma, Washington 98409 CHECKED BY: DATE PLOTTED: NO. DATE REVISION BY APPROVED An APWA Accredited Agency JUNE 2, 2016 CONCEPT Drawing: C:\PWWORKING\SEA\D1747974\XXXXBR04.DWG Layout Tab: STEEL GIRDER - 1 Xrefs: FOXISLAND_C3D.DWG / FOXISLAND_EG.DWG / FOXISLANDBRIDGEBASE.DWG / DMS_DELETED.GRAPHICS_GROUND.DWG Date: 10/05/2016 Time: 12:47:56 PM Plotted by: SCOUTURE

APPROACH SLAB CHECKED BY: DRAWN BY: DESIGNED BY: PAV'T SEAT S. COUTURE A. MESSMER ALONG C LINE TO FOX ISLAND MEASURED BACK OF VERTICAL DATUM - N.A.V.D. OF 1988 HORIZONTAL DATUM - N.G.V.D. OF 1983 CURVE

C STA. 6+55.00

C PIER 1

L -4.00%

6'-2"

C PIER 1 C STA. 6+61.17

L C LINE CURVE DATA E 445.00 VC

7+00 PVI C STA. 4+73.07 PVI EL. 15.62'

MEASURED ALONG C LINE

+5.00%

198'-10" CURVE 1 7°56'15" RT

8+00 NO.

DATE PT C STA. 8+23.53 STA. C PT N17°19'06"E

C PIER 2 L REFERENCE EL. -55.00' H

N17°19'06"E

9+00 REVISION

(APPROXIMATE) EXISTING GROUND LINE PC C STA. 9+72.99 STA. C PC

MEASURED ALONG C LINE

10+00

340'-0"

MLLW -3.94' BY APPROVED

11+00

3270'-0" - BACK TO BACK OF PAVEMENT SEAT T. 21 N., R. 1 E., W. M. GRADE ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE FINISH GRADES AT TOP OF ROADWAY ON C LINE AND ARE EQUAL TO PROFILE GRADE.

MEASURED ALONG C LINE BEARING OF ALL PIERS NORMAL TO C LINE SW

SEC. 26 Pierce County Public Works Office of the County Engineer 4301 South Pine Street, Suite 628 Tacoma, Washington 98409 Tacoma Mall Office Building 1 4 SW ELEVATION An APWA Accredited Agency

12+00

C PIER 3 PLAN L 1 4

H C LINE

MLW -0.99' TRAFFIC BARRIER

13+00 REVIEWED BY: CHECKED BY:

MEASURED ALONG C LINE

340'-0" PROFILE GRADE AND PIVOT POINT EBB

HALE PASSAGE

14+00 BRIAN D. STACY, P.E. APPROVED BY: Office of the County Engineer COMPOSITE STEEL PLATE GIRDERS LOADING: HL93

15+00 DATE REGION NO.

C PIER 4

L 10

H CURVE 2 TT EEA I RJC O HE O TOTAL SHEETS SHEET NO. FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. STATE WASH.

16+00 COMPOSITE STEEL PLATE GIRDER (1 OF 3) HALE PASSAGE - FOX ISLAND BRIDGE

MEASURED ALONG C LINE

MHW 8.46'

205'-0" TO C PIER 5

BRIDGE NO 26211-A

L PT C STA. 16+65.68 STA. C PT CONCEPT NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

+5.00% 17+00 40 1300.00 VC

PVI C STA. 22+52.09 PVI EL. 104.57' SCALE IN FEET 0 MATCH LINE C STA. 17+30.00 SHEET 14 -5.00% MATCH LINE C STA. 17+30.00 SHEET 14 13 080 40 Know what's Call before you dig. 16 below. R REGION NO. STATE FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS T. 21 N., R. 1 E., W. M. 10 WASH. 14 16 1 1 SW 4 SW 4

SEC. 26 R

Know what's below. Call before you dig.

18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00 C LINE 24+00 25+00 26+00 27+00 28+00 N25°15'22"E

C STA. 24+60.00 CL NAVIGATION CHANNEL PROFILE GRADE AND PIVOT POINT 321'-0" NAVIGATION CHANNEL MATCH LINE C STA. 17+30.00 SHEET C STA. 17+30.00 MATCH LINE 13 PLAN MATCH LINE C STA. 28+65.00 SHEET 15 BEARING OF ALL PIERS NORMAL TO C LINE EBB HALE PASSAGE PVI EL. 104.57' PVI C STA. 22+52.09 +5.00% -5.00% 1300.00 VC

CL PIER 7 CL PIER 6 C STA. 22+90.00 L C PIER 5 L C STA. 19+50.00 C PIER 9 C STA. 17+45.00 CL NAVIGATION CHANNEL L C STA. 28+35.00 TRAFFIC BARRIER

H H H E E E E TBD VERT. CLEARANCE MHW 8.46' MLLW -3.94' MLW -0.99'

EXISTING GROUND LINE 160'-6" 160'-6" (APPROXIMATE) MATCH LINE C STA. 17+30.00 SHEET C STA. 17+30.00 MATCH LINE 13

REFERENCE EL. -55.00' MATCH LINE C STA. 28+65.00 SHEET 15 DATUM ELEVATION 20 0 20 40 GRADE ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE FINISH GRADES AT TOP OF HORIZONTAL DATUM - N.G.V.D. OF 1983 ROADWAY ON C LINE AND ARE EQUAL TO PROFILE GRADE. VERTICAL DATUM - N.A.V.D. OF 1988 SCALE IN FEET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

CHECKED BY: Office of the County Engineer Pierce County APPROVED BY: BRIDGE NO. 26211-A Public Works HALE PASSAGE - FOX ISLAND BRIDGE DESIGNED BY: SURVEYED BY: REVIEWED BY: A. MESSMER Office of the County Engineer Tacoma Mall Office Building DRAWN BY: DATE SURVEYED: COMPOSITE STEEL PLATE GIRDER (2 OF 3) S. COUTURE 4301 South Pine Street, Suite 628 BRIAN D. STACY, P.E. DATE Tacoma, Washington 98409 CHECKED BY: DATE PLOTTED: NO. DATE REVISION BY APPROVED An APWA Accredited Agency JUNE 2, 2016 CONCEPT REGION NO. STATE FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS T. 21 N., R. 1 E., W. M. 10 WASH. 15 16 C LINE CURVE DATA 1 1 SW 4 SW 4 CURVE PI STATION RADIUS LENGTH TANGENT DELTA BK. TANGENT BRG. SEC. 26 R 3 42+97.61 375.00' 609.63' 396.17' 93°08'39" RT N25°15'22"E

Know what's below. Call before you dig.

3270'-0" - BACK TO BACK OF PAVEMENT SEAT BACK OF PAV'T SEAT MEASURED ALONG C LINE CL PIER 10 CL PIER 11 205'-0" TO C PIER 9 340'-0" 340'-0" 198'-10" L 25'-0" APPROACH SLAB MEASURED ALONG C LINE MEASURED ALONG C LINE MEASURED ALONG C LINE MEASURED ALONG C LINE 6'-2" MEASURED ALONG C LINE

29+00 30+00 31+00 32+00 33+00 34+00 C LINE 35+00 36+00 37+00 38+00 39+00 N25°15'22"E TO GIG HARBOR

PROFILE GRADE AND PIVOT POINT CURVE 3

PC C STA. 39+01.44

MATCH LINE C STA. 28+65.00 SHEET C STA. 28+65.00 MATCH LINE 14 PLAN

BEARING OF ALL PIERS NORMAL TO C LINE EBB HALE PASSAGE PVI EL. 104.57' PVI C STA. 22+52.09 +5.00% -5.00% PVI EL. 18.16' 1300.00 VC -5.00% PVI C STA. 39+79.68 +6.00%

540.00 VC

CL PIER 10 C STA. 30+40.00 CL PIER 11 C STA. 33+80.00 TRAFFIC BARRIER CL PIER 12 C STA. 37+20.00 CL PIER 13 BACK OF PAV'T SEAT C STA. 39+18.83 C STA. 39+25.00 H

MHW 8.46' H MLLW -3.94' MLW -0.99' E

EXISTING GROUND LINE (APPROXIMATE)

MATCH LINE C STA. 28+65.00 SHEET C STA. 28+65.00 MATCH LINE 14 REFERENCE EL. -55.00' DATUM ELEVATION 20 0 20 40 HORIZONTAL DATUM - N.G.V.D. OF 1983 GRADE ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE FINISH GRADES AT TOP OF VERTICAL DATUM - N.A.V.D. OF 1988 ROADWAY ON C LINE AND ARE EQUAL TO PROFILE GRADE. SCALE IN FEET NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

CHECKED BY: Office of the County Engineer Pierce County APPROVED BY: BRIDGE NO. 26211-A Public Works HALE PASSAGE - FOX ISLAND BRIDGE DESIGNED BY: SURVEYED BY: REVIEWED BY: A. MESSMER Office of the County Engineer Tacoma Mall Office Building DRAWN BY: DATE SURVEYED: COMPOSITE STEEL PLATE GIRDER (3 OF 3) S. COUTURE 4301 South Pine Street, Suite 628 BRIAN D. STACY, P.E. DATE Tacoma, Washington 98409 CHECKED BY: DATE PLOTTED: NO. DATE REVISION BY APPROVED An APWA Accredited Agency JUNE 2, 2016 CONCEPT 50'-0" OUT-TO-OUT REGION NO. STATE FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. SHEET NO. TOTAL SHEETS 30'-8" 19'-4" 10 WASH. 16 16 49'-7 1/2" 6'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0"

BRIDGE RAILING R PEDESTRIAN 1'-4" TYPE BP (TYP.) RAILING C LINE Know what's below. TRAFFIC BARRIER (TYP.) C LINE Call before you dig. 3"

11 1/2" 5'-8 3/8" TO 3'-6 5/8" (IN CURVE) 4'-7 1/2" (IN TANGENT) 1'-0" 12'-0"

HIGH LOAD MULTI ROTATIONAL (HLMR) 5'-0" DISC. BEARING (TYP.) 8'-0"

8' DIA. COLUMN (TYP.)

CL COLUMN & SHAFT CL COLUMN & SHAFT TYPICAL SECTION AT PIERS COMPOSITE STEEL PLATE GIRDER NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

C Preliminary Cost Estimates

July 15, 2016

This page is intentionally left blank.

July 15, 2016 APPROACH ROADWAY COST ESTIMATE BREAKDOWN Roadway Approach Items Item No. Description Unit Measure Quantity Unit Price Price Notes 2 Clearing and Grubbing ACRE 1 9000 $9,000 3 Roadway Excavation Incl.Haul CY 2,830 35 $99,050 4 Pond Excavation CY 1,300 35 $45,500 5 Removal Structures and Obstructions LS 1 $0 6 Gravel Borrow Incl. Haul CY 10,380 30 $311,400 7 Embankment Compaction CY 10,380 5 $51,900 8 Catch Basin Type 1 EA 16 1000 $16,000 9 Catch Basin Type 2 EA 0 3000 $0 10 Manhole 48 in Diam.-Type 1 EA 0 4000 $0 11 Testing Storm Drain Pipe LF 1,000 3.5 $3,500 12 Storm Sewer Pipe 12 in Pipe LF 1,000 50 $50,000 13 Sewer Main- 12" Diam. LF 0 60 $0 14 Plug Existing Pipe EA 0 200 $0 15 Water Main 12" Diam. LF 0 120 $0 16 Shoring LF 1,000 2 $2,000 17 Bank Run Gravel CY 389 20 $7,780 18 Structure Excavation Class A CY 4,608 24 $110,592 19 Gravel Backfill for Wall TN 25 $0 20 Traffic Barrier LF 125 $0 21 Noise Barrier Wall SF 50 $0 22 Structural Earth Wall SF 40 $0 23 CSBC TN 8,340 25 $208,500 24 CSTC TN 2,670 32 $85,440 25 Quarry Spalls TN 50 $0 26 HMA CL 1/2" PG 64-22 TN 1,430 100 $143,000 27 Silt Fence LF 3,170 6 $19,020 28 High Visibility Fence LF 3,170 4.5 $14,265 29 Inlet Protection EA 18 150 $2,700 30 ESC Lead Day 500 200 $100,000 31 Standard Construction Entrance SY 45 30 $1,350 32 Seeding, Fetilizing, and Mulching ACRE 1 8500 $8,500 33 Erosion Pollution Control LS 1 $21,975.66 1% of Direct Construction Costs 34 Topsoil Type A CY 130 50 $6,500 35 Irrigation System SF 2 $0 36 Landscaping SF 4 $0 37 Bark or Wood Chip Mulch CY 50 $0 38 Landscape Plantings SF 4 $0 39 Cement Concrete Traffic Curb and Gutter LF 1,255 30 $37,650 40 Cement Concrete Traffic Curb LF 460 25 $11,500 41 Roundabout Central Island Cement Concrete Curb LF 110 55 $6,050 42 Roundabout Truck Apron Cement Concrete Curb and Gutter SY 170 30 $5,100 43 Patterned Cement Conc.Splitter Island and Truck Apron SY 2,800 130 $364,000 44 Paint Line LF 9,280 0.3 $2,784 45 Plastic Wide Line LF 160 2 $320 46 Plastic Traffic Arrow EA 100 $0 47 Plastic Bicycle Symbol EA 10 145 $1,450 48 Plastic-Yield Line Symbol EA 20 20 $400 49 Plastic Crosswalk Line SF 288 288 $82,944 50 Plastic Stop Line LF 50 50 $2,500 51 Raised Pavement Marker Type 1 HUND 6 5.8 $34 52 Raised Pavement Marker Type 2 HUND 3 2.9 $8 53 Temporary Pavement Marking LF 9,440 0.35 $3,304 54 Illumination System LS 1 250,000 $250,000 55 Pedestrian Signal System LS 1 50,000 $50,000 56 Other Temporary Traffic Control LS 1 57 Other Traffic Control Labor HR 300 3% of Direct Construction Costs- All $65,927 58 Traffic Control Supervisor LS 1 Traffic Control 59 Flaggers and Spotters HR 3,500 60 Construction Signs Class A SF 400 10 $4,000 61 Portable Chargable Message Sign HR 1,000 15 $15,000 62 Imported Pipe Zone Bedding TN 275 20 $5,500 63 Water MGAL 50 5 $250 64 Surface Monument EA 4 500 $2,000 65 Monument Case and Cover EA 4 500 $2,000 66 Adjust Monument Case and Cover EA 3 300 $900 67 Cement Concrete Sidewalk SY 805 55 $44,275 68 Cement Concrete Curb Ramp Type EA 8 1200 $9,600 69 New Sign Post and Base LS 1 $0 70 Connection to Drainage Structure EA 1000 $0 71 Connection to Sewer Force Main EA 3000 $0 72 Standard Valve Box EA 500 $0 73 Adjust Gas Valve Box EA 400 $0 74 Adjust Catch Basin EA 400 $0 75 Adjust Manhole EA 600 $0 76 Adjust Manhole-By Others EA 600 $0 77 Adjust Valve Box EA 400 $0 78 Adjust Water Meter EA 300 $0 79 Adjust Junction Box EA 300 $0 80 Joint Utility Trench LF 40 $0 81 Service Utility Trench LF 25 $0 82 Utility Undergrounding LF 20 $0

Subtotal $2,285,469 8% Mobilization $182,837.50 Total $2,468,306 Precast Prestressed Concrete Girders Cost Estimate Item Unit Quantity $/Unit $ Girder LF 25,429 800 20,343,467 Elastomeric Bearings EA 48 3000 144,000 Deck Concrete CY 4,968 1400 6,955,491 Deck Rebar LB 1,001,690 1.35 1,352,281 Column Concrete CY 2,382 900 2,144,164 Column Rebar LB 630,384 1.35 851,019 Barrier LF 6,540 175 1,144,500 BP Railing LF 3,270 100 327,000 Pedestrian Railing LF 3,270 150 490,500 Cap Beam Concrete CY 4,522 900 4,069,965 Cap Beam Rebar LB 904,437 1.35 1,220,990 Abutment Concrete CY 511 750 383,056 Abutment Rebar LB 153,222 1.35 206,850 Shaft Cap Concrete CY 7,556 2000 15,111,111 Shaft Cap Rebar LB 3,022,222 1.35 4,080,000 Shaft LF 2,952 5,900 17,416,588 Diaphragm Concrete CY 476 900 428,750 Diaphragm Rebar LB 71,458 1.35 96,469 Fire Protection LF 3,270 50 163,500 Illumination LF 3,270 100 327,000 Drainage LF 6,540 100 654,000 Expansion Joints EA 4 75,000 300,000 Work Access LS 1 12,399,000 12,399,000 Demolition SF 52,623 40 2,104,920 Mobilization % 10 9,271,462 Total ($) = 101,986,000 $ / SF = 628 Precast Post-tensioned Spliced Concrete Girders Cost Estimate Item Unit Quantity $/Unit $ Drop-in Girder Segment LF 9,928 800 7,942,667 Pier Segment Girder LF 6,120 1,400 8,568,000 Post Tensioning LB 915,762 7.00 6,410,335 HLMR Bearings EA 75 15,500 1,162,500 Deck Concrete CY 4,614 1,400 6,458,935 Deck Rebar LB 1,001,690 1.35 1,352,281 Column Concrete CY 1,274 900 1,146,423 Column Rebar LB 337,048 1.35 455,015 Barrier LF 6,540 175 1,144,500 BP Railing LF 3,270 100 327,000 Pedestrian Railing LF 3,270 150 490,500 Cap Beam Concrete CY 1,405 900 1,264,083 Cap Beam Rebar LB 561,815 1.35 758,450 Abutment Concrete CY 511 750 383,056 Abutment Rebar LB 102,148 1.35 137,900 Shaft Cap Concrete CY 4,889 2,000 9,777,778 Shaft Cap Rebar LB 1,955,556 1.35 2,640,000 Shaft LF 2,277 5,900 13,436,377 Diaphragm Concrete CY 1,207 900 1,085,961 Diaphragm Rebar LB 281,532 1.35 380,069 Fire Protection LF 3,270 50 163,500 Illumination LF 3,270 100 327,000 Drainage LF 6,540 100 654,000 Expansion Joints EA 4 75,000 300,000 Work Access LS 1 10,920,000 10,920,000 Demolition SF 52,623 40 2,104,920 Mobilization % 10 7,979,125 Total ($) = 87,770,000 $ / SF = 541 Precast Concrete Segmental Box Girder Cost Estimate Item Unit Quantity $/Unit $ Box Concrete CY 13,526 2,000 27,051,534 Box Rebar LB 2,705,153 1.20 3,246,184 HLMR Bearings EA 12 20,000 240,000 Longitudinal PT LB 1,135,916 8.00 9,087,330 Transverse PT LB 239,647 8.00 1,917,174 Column Concrete CY 1,747 900 1,572,456 Column Rebar LB 924,604 1.35 1,248,216 Barrier LF 6,540 175 1,144,500 BP Railing LF 3,270 100 327,000 Pedestrian Railing LF 3,270 150 490,500 Diaphragm Concrete CY 13,857 1,000 13,856,751 Diaphragm Rebar LB 5,542,700 1.20 6,651,240 Abutment Concrete CY 511 750 383,056 Abutment Rebar LB 102,148 1.35 137,900 Shaft Cap Concrete CY 4,889 2,000 9,777,778 Shaft Cap Rebar LB 1,955,556 1.35 2,640,000 Shaft LF 2,277 5,900 13,436,377 Fire Protection LF 3,270 50 163,500 Illumination LF 3,270 100 327,000 Drainage LF 6,540 100 654,000 Expansion Joints EA 4 75,000 300,000 Work Access LS 1 10,920,000 10,920,000 Demolition SF 52,623 40 2,104,920 Mobilization % 10 10,767,742 Total ($) = 118,445,000 $ / SF = 730 Composite Steel Plate Girder Cost Estimate Item Unit Quantity $/Unit $ Structural Steel LB 10,547,794 4.00 42,191,175 HLMR Bearings EA 45 15,500 697,500 Deck Concrete CY 5,406 1,400 7,567,886 Deck Rebar LB 1,283,415 1.35 1,732,610 Column Concrete CY 1,313 900 1,181,902 Column Rebar LB 347,479 1.35 469,097 Barrier LF 6,540 175 1,144,500 BP Railing LF 3,270 100 327,000 Pedestrian Railing LF 3,270 150 490,500 Cap Beam Concrete CY 1,605 900 1,444,667 Cap Beam Rebar LB 642,074 1.35 866,800 Abutment Concrete CY 511 750 383,056 Abutment Rebar LB 102,148 1.35 137,900 Shaft Cap Concrete CY 4,889 2,000 9,777,778 Shaft Cap Rebar LB 1,955,556 1.35 2,640,000 Shaft LF 2,277 5,900 13,436,377 Fire Protection LF 3,270 50 163,500 Illumination LF 3,270 100 327,000 Drainage LF 6,540 100 654,000 Expansion Joints EA 4 75,000 300,000 Work Access LS 1 10,920,000 10,920,000 Demolition SF 52,623 40 2,104,920 Mobilization % 10 9,895,817 Total ($) = 108,854,000 $ / SF = 671

This page is intentionally left blank.

July 15, 2016 Pierce County Fox Island Bridge ROW Cost Estimate Summary and Assumptions – New Bridge

The ROW cost estimate was developed using a GIS map level review of the project footprint and impacted properties. Market and replacement housing data was collected from available public resources and County assessment data. There was no site visit of the project area, impacted properties or replacement housing. The direct and staff costs were based on past project experience and a typical acquisition and relocation schedule.

A summary of the findings of this cost estimate and the assumptions used are as follows:

Pierce County Fox Island Bridge New Build Preliminary PFE Total Estimated ROW Costs = $3,782,993.20

Assumptions

• This is a high-level ROW cost estimate done at map level and meant for planning and budgetary use only. • No site inspection of the project, subject properties, comparable sales or relocation replacement housing was done as part of this estimate. • Land values were based on limited unverified comparable sales, on-line property listings and assessment data. • Replacement housing payments were based on available on-line property listings. • View damages were estimated using a judgment based percentage of land and improvement values. • ROW staff acquisition costs are based on a typical acquisition schedule of 6-8 months and relocation schedule of 12 months. • Sedimentation controls will be utilized during construction to prevent any landowner impacts • The significant waterfront impacts to parcels 0121262105 and 0121262108 will result in relocations. • Demolition costs for the three residential relocations are located in the engineering estimate. • BLM and DNR land values are estimated at 50% of fee land value since only easement acquisitions are anticipated. • Staff costs, but no other acquisition costs, were estimated for the Pierce County parcel since any ROW needed will likely be an internal County process. • A SF area was estimated for mitigation purposes at 20,000 SF for the new bridge.

RIGHT-OF-WAY PARCEL MAPS

Fox Island Approach

0121262112 0121262105 0121262117

Gig Harbor Approach

This page is intentionally left blank.

July 15, 2016