Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEX_04_27-RS_ BW_Design_Report_220107_v1
City of Renton
Burnett Ave S & Williams Ave S Water Quality Retrofit Project
Design Report
January 2022
BHC Consultants, LLC
1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 505-3400
www.bhcconsultants.com
This report has been prepared for the use of the client for the specific purposes identified in the report. The conclusions,
observations, and recommendations contained herein attributed to BHC Consultants constitute the opinions of BHC
Consultants. To the extent that statements, information, and opinions provided by the client or others have been used in the
preparation of this report, BHC Consultants has relied upon the same to be accurate, and for which no assurances are intended
and no representations or warranties are made. BHC Consultants makes no certification and gives no assurances except as
explicitly set forth in this report
Copyright 2020, BHC Consultants, LLC
All rights reserved.
City of Renton
Burnett Ave S & Williams Ave S Water Quality Retrofit Project
Design Report
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1
2. Basin Description ................................................................................................................................. 1
2.1 Historic Conditions .................................................................................................................... 1
2.2 Existing Conditions .................................................................................................................... 2
2.3 Proposed Conditions ................................................................................................................. 2
3. Site Description .................................................................................................................................... 3
3.1 Project Limits ............................................................................................................................. 3
3.2 Threshold Discharge Areas ....................................................................................................... 3
3.3 Current and Proposed Uses ...................................................................................................... 4
3.4 Existing Stormwater Facilities ................................................................................................... 4
3.5 Total Area ................................................................................................................................. 5
3.6 Vegetation ................................................................................................................................. 5
3.7 Wetlands ................................................................................................................................... 5
3.8 Topography ............................................................................................................................... 5
3.9 Geology and Soils ..................................................................................................................... 6
3.10 Groundwater ............................................................................................................................. 6
3.11 Access ...................................................................................................................................... 7
4. Core and Special Requirement Analysis .............................................................................................. 7
5. Alternatives Modeled and Considered ............................................................................................... 10
5.1 DUIP Baseline Model Results ................................................................................................. 10
5.2 Current Project Model Results ................................................................................................ 12
6. Design Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 13
6.1 Conveyance ............................................................................................................................ 13
6.2 Water Quality .......................................................................................................................... 14
7. Quantify the Water Quality Benefit ..................................................................................................... 15
8. Engineers Opinion of Probable Cost .................................................................................................. 16
9. Proposed Schedule ............................................................................................................................ 16
10. Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan ........................................................................... 16
11. Special Reports and Studies .............................................................................................................. 20
12. Other Permits ..................................................................................................................................... 20
13. Operation and Maintenance Manual .................................................................................................. 20
14. References ........................................................................................................................................ 20
City of Renton
Burnett Ave S & Williams Ave S Water Quality Retrofit Project
Design Report
ii
TABLES
Table 1 DUIP Study Area Basin Summary ................................................................................................... 4
Table 2 Threshold Discharge Areas ............................................................................................................. 8
Table 3 Cedar River– Outfall Boundary Conditions .................................................................................... 10
Table 4 DUIP Baseline Model Inputs .......................................................................................................... 11
Table 5 Current Project Model Inputs ......................................................................................................... 12
Table 6 Sub-basin Breakdown of Pervious and Impervious Areas ............................................................. 13
Table 7 Conveyance Modeling Summary ................................................................................................... 14
Table 8 Water Quality Treatment Design Flow Rates and BMPs ............................................................... 15
Table 9 Water Quality Benefit Calculation .................................................................................................. 16
FIGURES
Figure 1 – Vicinity Map
Figure 2 – Williams Drainage Basin
Figure 3 – Water Quality Sub-Basin Areas
Figure 4 – Reconnaissance and Delineation Sketch
Figure 5 – SWDM Minimum Requirements Flow Chart
Figure 6 – Existing System Deficiencies
Figure 7 – Alternative 1 Proposed Improvements
Figure 8 – Alternative 2 Proposed Improvements
Figure 9 – Alternative 3 Proposed Improvements
Figure 10 – Williams Ave S XP-SWMM Proposed Model Output for 100-year
Figure 11 – Burnett Ave S XP-SWMM Proposed Model Output for 100-year
SELECT DRAWINGS
G-1 Cover Sheet, Vicinity Map, and Index of Drawings
G-2 General and Surface Water Drainage Notes
G-3 Legend and Abbreviations
EC-1 Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control (ESC) Notes
C-1 Key Plan and Survey Control
C-2 Burnett Ave S – Plan and Profile STA 1+00 to 5+75
C-3 Burnett Ave S – Plan and Profile STA 5+75 to 11+00
C-4 Williams Ave S – Plan and Profile STA 20+00 to 24+50
C-5 Williams Ave S – Plan and Profile STA 24+50 to 29+50
C-6 Williams Ave S – Plan and Profile STA 29+50 to 31+00
C-7 S Tobin Street – Plan and Profile STA 40+00 to 43+50
C-8 Water Quality Treatment BMP Details – S Tobin Street
C-9 Water Quality Treatment BMP Details – Williams Ave S
City of Renton
Burnett Ave S & Williams Ave S Water Quality Retrofit Project
Design Report
iii
APPENDICES
Appendix A Cultural Resources Report
Appendix B Wetland Reconnaissance and Stream Delineation Report
Appendix C Geotechnical Report
Appendix D Water Quality Calculations
Appendix E 30 Percent Design Cost Estimate
Appendix F Operations and Maintenance Information
City of Renton
Burnett Ave S & Williams Ave S Water Quality Retrofit Project
Design Report
iv
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS LIST
ac Acres
ac-ft Acre-Feet
bgs Below Ground Surface
BMP Best Management Practice
CD Center-Downtown
CESCL Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead
cfs Cubic Feet per Second
City City of Renton
DHA Duane Hartman & Associates
DO Dissolved Oxygen
DUIP Downtown Utility Improvements Project
Ecology Department of Ecology
ESC Erosion and Sediment Controls
ft Feet
g Grams
GULD General Use Level Designation
hr Hour
lf Linear Feet
ModWet Modular Wetland Water Quality Treatment Device
NAD 83 North American Datum of 1983/91
NAVD 88 North American Vertical Datum of 1988
OHWM Ordinary High-Water Mark
Project Burnett Ave S and Williams Ave S Water Quality Retrofit Project
Report Stormwater Design Report
ROW Right-of-Way
SEPA State Environmental Policy Act
SMMWW Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington
SWDM Renton Surface Water Design Manual
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
SWPPS Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Spill Control
TDA Threshold Discharge Area
TSS Total Suspended Solids
WA Washington State
WQ Water Quality
City of Renton
Burnett Ave S & Williams Ave S Water Quality Retrofit Project
Design Report
1
1. Introduction
This Design Report was prepared for the City of Renton (City) Burnett Ave S & Williams Ave S Water
Quality Retrofit Project (project). This report was developed in accordance with the 2017 City of Renton
Surface Water Design Manual (Renton, 2017), which incorporates the 2016 King County Surface Water
Design Manual (King County, 2016) with Amendments. The King County manual has been approved by the
Washington State (WA) Department of Ecology (Ecology) as an equivalent manual to Ecology’s 2012
Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SMMWW) as amended in 2014 (Ecology,
2014). This report was also developed in accordance with the document entitled, Design Deliverables for
Stormwater Projects with Ecology Funding, updated September 2019 (Ecology, 2019).
The project is located in downtown Renton, south of the Cedar River and west of Interstate 405 (I-405) as
presented on Figure 1 (located at the end of the report). The project area includes Burnett Ave S and
Williams Ave S between 2nd Street S and the Cedar River; and also S Tobin Street between Burnett Ave S
and Williams Ave S.
The purpose of this project is to improve water quality in the Cedar River watershed by designing Runoff
Treatment best management practices (BMPs) for future construction on Burnett Ave S and Williams Ave
S. Once constructed, the BMPs designed by this project will provide water quality treatment for total
suspended solids (TSS), dissolved copper, dissolved zinc, and total phosphorous. The water quality
portion of the work is being funded through a Water Quality Combined Financial Assistance Agreement
between Ecology and the City (Agreement No. WQC-2020-Renton-00214).
The project also includes replacing existing undersized stormwater conveyance pipes with new, larger
pipes to minimize flooding, and will include removal and in-kind restoration of asphalt surfacing, concrete
sidewalks, grass, and other surface features as necessary to install the stormwater improvements.
2. Basin Description
This section describes the historic, existing, and proposed conditions of the basin in which the project is
located.
2.1 Historic Conditions
The project area is located in downtown Renton, within the floodplain of the Black River, near the historic
junction of the Cedar River and the Black River. The ground surface of the project area and surrounding
vicinity is generally flat and at an elevation of less than 40 feet (ft). A Cultural Resources Report was
prepared for this project by Cascadia Archaeology (Cascadia, 2020), included as Appendix A and briefly
summarized here.
Prior to the construction of the Lake Washington Ship Canal in 1917, Lake Washington drained from its
south end into the Black River, which flowed into the Duwamish River and then into Elliott Bay. The Cedar
River flowed into the Black River just under one-quarter mile west of the project area. When the Ship Canal
lowered the level of Lake Washington, the Black River ceased to flow, and the Cedar River was diverted
and channelized to flow into Lake Washington (Cascadia, 2020). The modern Cedar River channel forms
the northern boundary of the project.
City of Renton
Burnett Ave S & Williams Ave S Water Quality Retrofit Project
Design Report
2
Historically, the project area and surrounding floodplains had a high concentration of large villages and
large encampments, regional trails, and Native American Indian landmarks and place names. Permanent
Euro-American settlement of the project area began in 1865, including a dairy farm. The Northern Pacific
Railway ran along the western edge of the project area and was constructed by 1907. Urban and
residential development of the project area began around 1912. By 1936, all of the modern Renton
downtown streets existed in the project area except S Tobin Street and S Tillicum Street. Early
development of the project area was mostly residential. By 1968, about one-quarter to one-fifth of homes
were replaced by large buildings, suggesting more commercial and industrial uses. Since that time, some
redevelopment has occurred, and two large multi-residence buildings have been recently constructed
(Cascadia, 2020).
2.2 Existing Conditions
The project area is comprised of mixed urbanized land use consisting of commercial businesses,
multi-family apartments, and high-density single-family housing and has an estimated 90 percent effective
impervious area. Zoning within the project area is based on the Land Use Zoning map dated July 1, 2015
and includes center-downtown (CD) and right-of-way (ROW) zoning. Nearly three-quarters of the project
area is zoned as CD, and the remaining nearly one-quarter is zoned as ROW.
The existing roadways within the project area have concrete sidewalks, planters, and streets with curbs and
gutters. The existing storm drainage system consists of catch basins, manholes, and mostly 8-inch
diameter concrete conveyance pipes installed in the 1950s. A single 12-inch diameter concrete outfall
conveys drainage freely from the project area to the Cedar River. There are no water quality or flow control
facilities within the project area.
At the location of discharge, the Cedar River is listed in the Department of Ecology (Ecology)s 303(d)
impaired water bodies as a Category 5 for pH, temperature, and dissolved oxygen (DO) and a Category 2
for mercury. The project area lies within the City’s Aquifer Protection Area Zone 1 for one-year capture,
prohibiting infiltration as a water quality treatment option.
During large storms, there are known areas of flooding within the project area. A predecessor to this project
was the Renton Downtown Utility Improvements Project (DUIP) in 2018. During the DUIP, the entire
downtown Renton stormwater trunk line collection system was evaluated using XP-SWMM modeling
software, deficiencies were identified, alternative preliminary designs were modeled, and the City of Renton
Downtown Utility Improvements Conceptual Stormwater Design Report (BHC, 2018) was prepared. The
DUIP model results identified undersized conveyance pipes and areas of flooding within the project area,
called the Williams Basin in the DUIP. Additional information on the existing stormwater features is
presented in Section 3.4. Select modeling information from the DUIP are presented in Section 5.1.
2.3 Proposed Conditions
The project proposes to update the stormwater collection and conveyance system and install water quality
treatment facilities within the project area. Additional information on the proposed stormwater features is
provided in Section 3.5. Detailed design calculations are presented in Section 6.0. Proposed improvements
relate only to the underground stormwater conveyance and water quality facilities. No changes are
City of Renton
Burnett Ave S & Williams Ave S Water Quality Retrofit Project
Design Report
3
proposed to the basin characteristics. Surfaces disturbed during construction will be replaced to match
existing conditions.
The project proposes installing two MWS-Linear Modular Wetland (ModWet) water quality treatment
facilities – one in S Tobin Street, one in Williams Ave S – to improve the quality of stormwater runoff from
the basin. The preferred project alternative includes upsizing stormwater trunk lines within Burnett Ave S
and Williams Ave S and adding a stormwater trunk line through S Tobin Street, to reduce stormwater
overflows and flooding. The existing outfall to the Cedar River will remain intact.
3. Site Description
3.1 Project Limits
Project improvements are proposed along Burnett Ave S, Williams Ave S, and S Tobin Street between the
Cedar River to the north and S Second Street to the south as shown on Figure 2. Burnett Ave S, Williams
Ave S, and S Tobin Street are all paved, two-lane streets with concrete sidewalks, curb, and gutter on both
sides of the pavement. Improvements will be constructed within City-owned right-of-way.
Replacement of the existing outfall to the Cedar River was considered during Alternatives Analysis
(discussed further in Section 5.0) but it was determined that the outfall was in good condition and could
remain, while still providing adequate conveyance capacity to contain the 100-year return storm. Therefore,
all project work will occur above the Ordinary High-Water Mark (OHWM) of the Cedar River.
Some of the properties within the project area include IML Security Supply (Parcel No. 723150-2085),
Merrill Gardens at Renton Center (Parcel No. 723150-2030), Salvation Army Church (Parcel No. 000720-
0140), Parkside/95 Burnett Apartments (Parcel No. 000720-0073), Chateau De Ville Apartments (Parcel
No. 152910-0000), U.S. Bank (Parcel No. 723150-1979), and several single-family homes.
3.2 Threshold Discharge Areas
As part of the Renton DUIP project (BHC, 2018), all stormwater drainage basins within downtown Renton
were modeled using XP-SWMM to identify deficiencies and areas of flooding that did not meet the City’s
Surface Water Design Standards. Within downtown Renton, there are five drainage basins that outfall to
the Cedar River. The current project area consists of the Williams Basin, which is 15.61 acres in size and
combines into a single outfall to the Cedar River, as shown on Figure 2. The Williams Basin encompasses
Burnett Avenue S, Williams Avenue S, S Tillicum Street, and S Tobin Street, and is synonymous with the
Natural Discharge Area and the Threshold Discharge Area.
Stormwater within the Williams Basin outfalls to the Cedar River approximately 50-ft downstream of the
Williams Avenue S bridge where it crosses the Cedar River. As part of the DUIP, the Williams Basin was
divided into sub-basins, Williams-1, Williams-2, and Williams-3, for hydrologic and hydraulic modeling
purposes (BHC, 2018). Table 1 provides a summary of the Cedar River basins.
City of Renton
Burnett Ave S & Williams Ave S Water Quality Retrofit Project
Design Report
4
Table 1
DUIP Study Area Basin Summary
Receiving Water Basin Outfall Location Sub-basin Area (Ac)
Cedar River
68.72 acres
Logan
35.68 acres
Logan Ave S and
Cedar River
Logan-1 5.55
Logan-2 15.88
Logan-3 14.25
Williams
Williams Ave S and
Cedar River
Williams-1 2.02
15.61 acres Williams -2 8.56
Williams-3 5.03
Wells Wells Ave S and
Cedar River Wells 5.66 5.66 acres
Main Main Ave S and
Cedar River Main 3.69 3.69 acres
Old City Hall Bronson Way S/Mill
Ave S and Cedar
River
Old City Hall-1 3.41
8.08 acres Old City Hall-2 4.67
3.3 Current and Proposed Uses
Currently, the project drainage system within the ROW consists of constructed facilities, including curb and
gutter, catch basins, manholes, and pipes that collect and convey stormwater runoff to a single outfall to the
Cedar River.
The project proposes to replace existing facilities without changing the current use of the project area.
Larger stormwater trunks will be installed, aging stormwater catch basins and structures will be replaced,
and new water quality treatment facilities will be added to provide improved stormwater management in
accordance with current stormwater regulations.
Land disturbed during construction will be returned to its existing surface condition. Approximately 18,000
square feet (sf) of ground disturbance is anticipated.
3.4 Existing Stormwater Facilities
Existing stormwater collection and conveyance system in the project area consists of a series of catch
basins, 8-inch diameter concrete pipes routing north along Burnett Ave S, east along S Tillicum Street, and
north along Williams Ave S before connecting to a 12-inch concrete outfall to the Cedar River. There are
currently no water quality treatment facilities within the project area.
In 2017, the Parkside at 95 Burnett apartment building experienced damage due to flooding after a large
storm. The DUIP project hydrologic and hydraulic analysis of the existing system also indicated insufficient
City of Renton
Burnett Ave S & Williams Ave S Water Quality Retrofit Project
Design Report
5
capacity in the project area for the 10-year event, and flooding during the 25-year event. The existing
stormwater system was determined to be inadequate based on the City’s current Surface Water Design
Standards.
Video survey investigations of the outfall conducted by APS Survey and Mapping, LLC in 2014 indicated
that the outfall is in good condition. Video survey investigation of certain pipe sections along Burnett
Avenue S were also performed and the results indicated that several pipe sections had cracks, separated
joints, and roots growth in some joints. Certain pipe sections along Williams Avenue S were also inspected
and the results indicated that there were pipe sags and blockage, and joint offsets in some pipe sections.
Pipe collapse was observed at 72 Burnett Avenue.
Duane Hartman & Associates (DHA) Surveyors completed a topographic survey for this project which is
used as a base map for the design drawings (refer to Select Drawings included in this report). The survey
base map shows the existing stormwater facilities in the project area.
3.5 Total Area
The total project area is 15.61 acres. The breakdown of the of the sub-basins within the project area is
presented in Table 21 and shown on Figure 3.
3.6 Vegetation
The project area is located in the City of Renton’s downtown core which is fully developed with a mix of
commercial businesses, multi-family residents, single-family housing, asphalt roadways, and concrete
sidewalks. There are limited areas of lawn, ornamental trees, and vegetated planting strips adjacent to
sidewalks. The City’s Parks Department owns a walking path adjacent to the Cedar River that contains
additional grass and mature trees. The bank of the Cedar River is comprised of restoration plantings and
non-native vegetation.
3.7 Wetlands
The Watershed Company performed a wetland reconnaissance and OHWM delineation study of the Cedar
River in the vicinity of the proposed project improvements, identifying any critical areas located either within
the project area or within 200 ft of the project area. Two wetlands in or adjacent to the project area were
identified during this investigation (see Figure 4) and classified as Category III wetlands with low habitat
function. These wetlands and their associated buffers are not anticipated to impact the proposed project
since the project construction will occur only within existing paved ROWs, which do not currently provide
functional buffers. The findings and conclusions of this investigation are detailed in the Wetland
Reconnaissance and Stream Delineation Report included as Appendix D.
3.8 Topography
A topographic survey was prepared for the project site by DHA in 2020. The vertical datum for the project
site is based on the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88). The horizontal datum is based on
the Washington State Plane Coordinate System, North Zone, North American Datum of 1983/91 (NAD 83).
Site topography is shown on the Select Drawings provided with this report.
City of Renton
Burnett Ave S & Williams Ave S Water Quality Retrofit Project
Design Report
6
The topography is relatively flat ranging from elevation 40 to 35, with the exception of the banks of the
Cedar River, which slope down to an elevation of approximately 25 near the outfall to the Cedar River.
3.9 Geology and Soils
The project site is located in the central portion of the Puget Lowlands, where a variety of soils are present.
Fine-grained and coarse-grained alluvium and flood plain deposits, volcanic mudflows, and landslide
materials are all present in the general project vicinity.
Kleinfelder performed a geotechnical investigation (Kleinfelder, 2021) in the project area starting with a
preliminary field investigation in September 2020. This included selecting and drilling three different borings
in the project area. The drilling program was completed in February 2021. Boring KB-1, located in Williams
Avenue S near the Cedar River outfall, was advanced to 30 ft below ground surface (bgs). Borings KB-2
and KB-3, located in S Tobin Street and Williams Avenue S, respectively, were both advanced to 20 ft bgs.
A prior Kleinfelder boring for the DUIP project (KB-04) located in the southeast corner of the project area in
the alley south of Williams Avenue S was also used in the geotechnical engineering analysis.
Kleinfelder’s review of existing geotechnical data and data collected from the borings indicated that the
soils in the project area are variable, and that historical events, such as the 1912 Cedar River diversion
project, had a significant impact on the subsurface conditions observed during the geotechnical
investigation. In 1911, a major flood along the lower Cedar River prompted the City to divert the river
directly into Lake Washington, which created the channel location observed in the project area today. The
former channel of the Cedar River underlies the northeast portion of the project area, where all three
borings are located. Boring KB-1, located near the outfall, encountered buried timber or logs at
approximately 25 to 30 ft bgs.
The soils encountered in the borings are characterized as follows: loose to medium stiff silty fill, and loose
to dense granular fill, was observed just below the pavement sections and generally ranged from about 7½
to 15 ft thick. Borings KB-1, KB-2, and KB-3, encountered a mix of silts and sands with varying amounts
gravel, likely placed to fill the Cedar River channel during the diversion project. Boring KB-4 encountered
gravel with varying amounts of silt and sand, likely placed more recently as backfill for the below grade
portion of nearby apartment complexes. Medium dense to dense alluvium soils comprised of a mix of fine
to coarse sands and gravels with varying silt contents were encountered below the fill layer in each of the
four borings and extended to the boring termination depth.
Additional information is provided in the Geotechnical Report included as Appendix C.
3.10 Groundwater
During the geotechnical drilling process, groundwater levels were generally observed at approximately 15 ft
bgs. As part of the DUIP project, groundwater monitoring well (MW-5) was installed in the southwestern
corner of the project area on Burnett Avenue S. Sampling was conducted at this location once a month
from April 2019 to January 2020, with groundwater levels ranging from 14.3 ft bgs in January 2020 to 17.8
ft bgs in August 2019. The groundwater conditions are anticipated to vary depending on the season, rate
and duration of recent precipitation, local subsurface conditions, and the level of the Cedar River, amongst
City of Renton
Burnett Ave S & Williams Ave S Water Quality Retrofit Project
Design Report
7
other factors. A review of available data for the downtown Renton area indicates that groundwater levels
range from as shallow as 4 ft bgs to up to 20 ft bgs.
More information regarding groundwater monitoring and observed conditions is provided in the
Geotechnical Report included as Appendix C.
3.11 Access
Construction will occur within existing asphalt paved ROWs. Maintenance access to the two proposed
water quality treatment facilities will be from Williams Avenue S and S Tobin Street.
4. Core and Special Requirement Analysis
The project has received Ecology funding and so must use the Ecology Stormwater Management Manual
for Western Washington, or equivalent manual, to determine applicable stormwater requirements and size
stormwater facilities. The King County Surface Water Design Manual has been acknowledged as an
equivalent manual by Ecology, and the City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual is based upon the
King County Manual with several additions. The following guidance documents are applicable to the
project:
2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual (SWDM)
Ecology Design Deliverables for Stormwater Projects with Ecology funding, Revised September
2019.
Construction of the proposed water quality BMPs and associated conveyance piping will disturb
approximately 18,000 sf of existing asphalt roadways, concrete curbs and gutters, and potentially some
sidewalks and curb ramps. Approximately 3,000 linear feet (lf) of stormwater trunk lines will be replaced,
with a minimum trench width of 4 ft; lateral and catch basin replacements will require an additional 6,000 sf
of replaced surface, for a total of approximately 18,000 sf of disturbed area. The project will restore
disturbed areas with in-kind material once work has been completed. No permanent changes to existing
pervious or impervious surfaces are anticipated.
The definition of Replaced Impervious Surface in Chapter 1 of the Renton SWDM states that: replaced
impervious surface means any existing impervious surface on the project site that is proposed to be
removed and re-established as impervious surface, excluding impervious surface removed for the sole
purpose of installing utilities or performing maintenance on underground infrastructure. The project serves
to install new stormwater utilities and improve upon the existing stormwater utilities, so is therefore a retrofit
project negating the replaced impervious surface area. This allows the project to undergo a Category 1 and
2 Targeted Drainage Review. However, in cooperation with Ecology and the funding agreement, the City
desires the project to exceed the minimum requirements and will evaluate Core Requirement #8 for water
quality and #9 for On-Site BMPs for compliance with the Ecology 2019 SWWMM within reasonable means.
The Flow Chart for Determining Requirements for Redevelopment is included as Figure 5. The impervious
and pervious areas for the project are provided in the Table 2 below.
City of Renton
Burnett Ave S & Williams Ave S Water Quality Retrofit Project
Design Report
8
Table 2
Threshold Discharge Areas
Location
Area of
Proposed
Work Limits
(sf)
Existing
Pervious
Area
(sf)
Existing
Impervious
Area
(sf)
Replaced
Pervious
Area
(sf)
New
Impervious
Area
(sf)
Replaced
Impervious
Area 1
(sf)
Project Work Area 18,000 1,000 17,000 1,000 0 17,000
Notes:
1) Replaced impervious surfaces are part of an underground utility project
Core Requirement #1: Discharge at the Natural Location. The project is exempt from Core Requirement
#1 as the proposed improvements will not alter the existing drainage patterns in the project area, nor
change the existing outfall discharge pipe or location to the Cedar River.
Core Requirement #2: Offsite Analysis. A Level 1 downstream analysis was completed to meet Core
Requirement #2. The project discharges directly to the Cedar River via manmade piped conveyance. No
downstream flooding, erosion, ponding, or other stormwater problems have been observed or will be
aggravated as it may relate to this project. The project will not modify the outfall or significantly change the
outfall discharge. The Cedar River has existing levee protection along both banks between the project site
and Lake Washington.
At the location of discharge, the Cedar River is listed in the Department of Ecology (DOE)s 303(d) impaired
water bodies as a Category 5 for pH, temperature, and dissolved oxygen (DO) and a Category 2 for
mercury which qualifies as a downstream water quality problem requiring special attention according to
Section 1.2.2.1.2 in the Renton SWDM. The water quality problem impact mitigation defined in Section
1.2.2.3 of the Renton SWDM do not apply or are met on this project, as the project is exempt from Core
Requirement #8, does not include a wetvault or wetpond, open drainage features, use of leachable heavy
metals, is not a subdivision, and does not include a concrete vault stormwater control structures that would
not be treated to prevent alteration of pH. However, enhanced water quality treatment is proposed to treat
the project drainage area and improve downstream water quality problems, as described in Core
Requirement #8, exceeding the current minimum requirements.
Core Requirement #4: Conveyance System. The existing conveyance system is known to have capacity
deficiencies and a significant portion will be replaced. The proposed conveyance system improvements
have been designed using an appropriately defined runoff computation as specified in Section 3.2 of the
Renton SWDM and Section 5.0 of this report. The model shows the improvements create sufficient
capacity to convey and contain the 25-year peak flow. Additionally, the proposed conveyance system
improvements convey the 100-year peak flow within the roadway and not cause a severe flood or erosion
problem. New sections of conveyance pipe in S Tobin Street and Williams Ave S were designed to
accommodate the water quality facilities described in Core Requirement #8.
City of Renton
Burnett Ave S & Williams Ave S Water Quality Retrofit Project
Design Report
9
Core Requirement #5: Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention. A Construction Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) has been prepared for this project to address necessary Erosion and Sediment
Controls (ESC) and identify BMPs to be used during construction. The Construction SWPPP is included in
Section 10.0 of this report.
Core Requirement #6: Maintenance and Operations. The City will assume maintenance and operations
responsibility of the facilities constructed for this project. Maintenance requirements are included in Section
13.0 of this report.
Core Requirement #7: Financial Guarantees and Liability. The contractor shall post with the City of
Renton a bond, assignment of funds, or certified check. The contractor shall also maintain liability
insurance as described in Section 1.2.7 of the Renton SWDM.
Core Requirement #8: Water Quality. The project is exempt from providing water quality facilities under
the surface area exemption under Section 1.2.8 of the Renton SWDM. However, this project will include the
installation of two new water quality facilities – MWS-Linear Modular Wetlands (ModWet) in both S Tobin
Street and Williams Ave S and designed based on the Ecology’s 2019 SMMWW. The proprietary ModWet
units have been approved for General Use Level Designation (GULD) through Ecology’s TAPE program.
They have been sized to provide enhanced treatment of the water quality flows from the contributing areas.
ModWet units can also accommodate bypassing of runoff flows greater than the water quality flows. The
ModWet units are designed to significantly improve water quality from existing conditions on the project
site. Detailed design and treatment information is described in Section 6.2.
Core Requirement #9: On-site BMPs. After construction, the project area will be restored to its existing
condition. Within the vegetated areas, BMP T5.13: Post Construction Soil Quality and Depth will be
required. BMP T5.13 defines minimum soil quality and depth requirements to support plant growth and
improve on-site management of stormwater flow and water quality. Urban Road Improvement Project
BMPs described in Section 1.2.9 of the Renton SWDM – full dispersion, full infiltration, limited infiltration,
bioretention, permeable pavement, and basic dispersion – are not feasible due to the urban nature of the
site, with limited pervious areas for dispersion. In addition, the project site falls within the City’s Zone 1
Aquifer Protection Area, which prohibits infiltration BMPs.
Special Requirement #1: Other Adopted Area-Specific Requirements. This project aligns with the goals of
the WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan, the Lower Cedar River Basin Plan, and the City’s Hazard
Mitigation Plan.
Special Requirement #2: Flood Hazard Area Delineation. Most of the project area falls within a floodplain
with an annual chance of flood of 0.2% (1 in 500) to 1% (1 in 100). The 100-year floodplain boundary is
delineated on the site improvement plans.
Special Requirement #3: Flood Protection Facilities. The project will rely on existing flood protection
facilities, specifically the Lower Cedar River levee maintained by the King County Flood Control District.
The existing levees meet the relevant standards as defined in the Lower Cedar River Maintenance
Dredging Project – 2016.
City of Renton
Burnett Ave S & Williams Ave S Water Quality Retrofit Project
Design Report
10
Special Requirement #4: Source Control. The project site will be restored to existing conditions following
construction, and no new sources of pollution will be created.
Special Requirement #6: Aquifer Protection Area. The project falls within the City’s Zone 1 Aquifer
Protection Area; therefore, no open facilities, open conveyance systems, or infiltration BMPs shall be used
as part of this project.
5. Alternatives Modeled and Considered
During the DUIP project (BHC, 2018), a baseline model of the entire existing downtown conveyance
system was created in XP-SWMM. The DUIP model identified areas of flooding and capacity constraints
throughout downtown Renton. Three preliminary design alternatives were modeled for the DUIP to address
flooding and capacity. Two of those alternatives for the Williams Basin were carried forward to this project;
the model was further refined, and a final preferred alternative was selected, which has become the basis
for the current project design.
Table 3 presents the fixed backwater elevations of the Cedar River at the project outfall for the 10-year,
25-year, and 100-year storms. These elevations were used in both the DUIP baseline model, and the
current project model.
Table 3
Cedar River – Outfall Boundary Conditions
Basin Location
(XPSWMM Node)
HEC-RAS Cross Section
and Location
Fixed Backwater Elevation at
Outfall (feet) 1, 2 Tide
gate?
(yes/no) 10-year
storm
25-
year
storm
100-
year
storm
Williams
Williams Ave S
Outfall
(Node O_1)
CX 6502 downstream face
of Williams Ave S Bridge 27.86 30.05 30.94 no
Notes:
1) Fixed backwater elevations at Cedar River outfall boundary conditions for the 10-, 25-, and
100-year storms correlate to modeled river water surface elevations for the 2-, 10-, and 25-
year flows, respectively. River water surface elevations are based on the City of Renton’s 2008
Cedar River HEC-RAS Sediment Model.
2) Elevations are based on the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88).
5.1 DUIP Baseline Model Results
Model geometry, presented in Figure 6, was set up using geospatial referencing and is based on the City’s
GIS system inventory. Several data sources were reviewed to determine existing conveyance elements
and confirm flow routes. Stormwater system information was downloaded from the City’s GIS database,
reviewed, and compared to available City record drawings. Several historic drainage reports, hydrologic
City of Renton
Burnett Ave S & Williams Ave S Water Quality Retrofit Project
Design Report
11
and hydraulic models, and design reports provided by the City were reviewed. Data gaps and
inconsistencies were reconciled through review of record drawings, drainage studies, site visits, and limited
field survey. Where record drawings and survey data were used to fill gaps in the GIS data, a note was
made in the XP-SWMM file describing the change.
A summary of model inputs is shown in Table 4. Complete model inputs, details, and results can be found
in the Renton Downtown Utility Improvements Project Conceptual Stormwater Design Report (BHC, 2018).
Table 4
Baseline Model Inputs
Williams Basin
Zoning Center Downtown and Right-of-Way
Effective Impervious Area 90%
SBUH Precipitation Data
2-year, 10-year, 25-year, 100-year
2.0, 2.9, 3.4, 3.9 inches
Runoff Curve Number 98
Time of Concentration 6 minutes
Number of Hydrologic Input Nodes 4
Pipe Roughness (Reinforced Concrete) 0.013
The baseline model showed several nodes in the Williams Basin overtopping the rim at the 10-year and 25-
year storms, indicating capacity and flooding issues that do not meet the City’s Surface Water Design
Standards. Specifically, there is a lack of capacity along Burnett Ave S and S Tillicum Street in an
undersized 8-inch trunk and isolated flooding in low areas, and a lack of capacity along Willimas Ave S in
an undersized 8-inch trunk. See Figure 6 for Existing System Deficiencies; green pipes do not have
adequate capacity to convey the 10-year storm; orange pipes do not have adequate capacity to convey the
25-year storm; and purple pipes do not have adequate capacity to convey the 100-year storm. Black pipes
have adequate capacity for the 100-year storm.
Three Alternatives were modeled to address the deficiencies of the Williams Basin:
Alternative 1 (shown on Figure 7) proposed upsizing the stormwater trunk lines in the same
locations, but not replacing the outfall to the Cedar River. Alternative 1 addressed much, but not all,
of the flooding from the DUIP model. A 24-inch diameter trunk line was evaluated in S Tillicum
Street but was found to be difficult to install due to the narrow roadway, existing utility conflicts, and
that S Tillicum Street is the only access point to the underground garage of a multi-family
residential building. These impacts were considered too great, and Alternative 1 was not selected.
Alternative 2 (shown on Figure 8) also proposed upsizing the stormwater trunk lines, and not
replacing the outfall to the Cedar River. Instead of working within S Tillicum Street, Alternative 2
proposed installing a new 36-inch diameter trunk line along S Tobin Street, to act as an informal
City of Renton
Burnett Ave S & Williams Ave S Water Quality Retrofit Project
Design Report
12
detention pipe that would attenuate flows prior to the outfall. This alternative reduced the impacts of
Alternative 1 and addressed much, but not all, of the flooding reported in the model.
Alternative 3 (shown on Figure 9) proposed upsizing the stormwater trunk lines and upsizing and
replacing the outfall to the Cedar River. Alternative 3 also included installing a new trunk line along
S Tobin Street, but trunk lines could be smaller if a new, larger diameter outfall was installed.
Replacing the outfall would have significant environmental, permitting, schedule, and cost impacts.
5.2 Current Project Model Results
Alternative 1 was not pursued, due to the narrow ROW, existing utility conflicts, and limited access for
residents. Both Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 were further evaluated. The environmental, permitting,
schedule, and cost impacts of replacing the outfall in Alternative 3 could be eliminated if the outfall were in
good condition, and if the conveyance system upstream could be enlarged to convey and contain both the
25-year and 100-year peak flows.
Video survey investigations of the outfall conducted by APS Survey and Mapping, LLC in 2014 indicated
that the outfall is in good condition and will not need to be replaced as part of this project. Model results
shown in Figures 10 and 11 demonstrate the feasibility of Alternative 3.
The XP-SWMM model was refined for this project in several ways: geometry was revised based on the
project-specific topographic survey; sub-basin areas were delineated more precisely based on the project-
specific topographic survey and actual location of catch basins; hydrology was refined based upon real-
world historic storms rather than SBUH runoff files; and additional hydrologic input nodes were used to get
more granular results. Table 5 presents the current project model inputs.
Table 5
Current Project Model Inputs
Williams Basin
Zoning Center Downtown and Right-of-Way
Effective Impervious Area 90%
Continuous Runoff 25-year storm 03-03-1950 from MGSFlood
Continuous Runoff 25-year long storm 10-06-1981 from MGSFlood
Continuous Runoff 100-year storm 11-04-1998 from MGSFlood
Number of Hydrologic Input Nodes 7
Pipe Roughness (PVC) 0.012
City of Renton
Burnett Ave S & Williams Ave S Water Quality Retrofit Project
Design Report
13
Table 6 presents the sub-basin land use breakdown input into MGSFlood to determine the hydrology for
the three modeled storms. Select hydrology results are presented in Appendix D.
Table 6
Sub-basin Breakdown of Pervious and Impervious Areas
Sub-basin ID Area (Ac) Percent Impervious Impervious Pervious Total
Williams-1 1.82 0.20 2.02 90%
Williams-2 7.70 0.86 8.56 90%
Williams-3 4.53 0.50 5.03 90%
Total 14.05 1.56 15.61 90%
The XP-SWMM model for the Williams Basin was iteratively updated to meet the City’s SWDM
requirements until a preferred alternative was achieved. The preferred alternative is similar to Alternative 2
– it includes upsizing the stormwater trunk lines, including a new 36-inch diameter trunk line along S Tobin
Street, and leaving the existing outfall to the Cedar River in place. Select model results for the preferred
design, as refined during this project, are included in Figures 10 and 11. Results from the model show that
both the 25-year storm, the 25-year long storm, and the 100-year storm peak flows can be conveyed and
contained in the proposed conveyance design.
6. Design Analysis
6.1 Conveyance
Existing storm drainage collection and conveyance network within the project area were modeled using the
MGSFlood continuous simulation hydrologic model (MGSFlood) and XP-SWMM. Hydrology and XP-
SWMM model results for each sub-basin is summarized in Table 7. Although the Renton SWDM does not
require the 100-year storm to be contained within the conveyance system, it was a priority to improve public
health by reducing the possibility of flooding in the project area.
City of Renton
Burnett Ave S & Williams Ave S Water Quality Retrofit Project
Design Report
14
Table 7
Conveyance Modeling Summary
Sub-basin Areas Design Storm Peak
Flow Rates
100-year Flooding in
XP-SWMM
Sub-basin
Total
Area
(ac)
Pervious
(ac)
Impervious1
(ac)
Treated Area2
(ac)
25-yr
(cfs)
100-yr
(cfs)
Flood
Volume
(ac-ft)
Flood
Duration
(min)
Williams-1 2.02 0.20 1.82 - 1.15 1.83 0.0 0.0
Williams-2 8.56 0.86 7.70 8.56 4.87 7.77 0.0 0.0
Williams-3 5.03 0.50 4.53 4.15 2.86 4.57 0.0 0.0
Total 15.61 1.56 14.05 12.71
Notes:
1) Percent impervious = 90%
2) Existing geometry, utility conflicts, and access limitations along S Tillicum Street did not allow for the routing of
runoff from Williams 1 and a portion of Williams 2 to the water quality facilities
6.2 Water Quality
To meet the requirement in the Ecology funding agreement for water quality treatment, enhanced water
quality treatment facilities are included in the proposed design. To provide enhanced water quality
treatment, three different water quality treatment BMPs were considered, including Contech’s BioScape,
Oldcastle’s BioPod, and Bio Clean’s MWS-Linear Modular Wetlands (ModWet). All options have Ecology’s
GULD approval for enhanced treatment. After evaluating the three alternatives, the ModWet facilities were
selected for the 30 percent design. The ModWet requires minimal hydraulic drop across each unit due to its
horizontal flow treatment system, is the only facility that incorporates a pretreatment chamber, and can
accommodate internal bypass flows in excess of 2 cfs. Additionally, the ModWet units do not require
plantings. Instead, a traffic rated hatch can be placed over the biofiltration chamber, thus simplifying
maintenance requirements.
The MGS Flood continuous simulation hydrologic model was used to determine the flow rates for which the
water quality treatment facilities should be sized for in each sub-basin. The 15-minute water quality flow
rates for off- and on-line facilities, as well as the 25- and 100-year flow rates for each proposed water
quality treatment facility are summarized in Table 8
City of Renton
Burnett Ave S & Williams Ave S Water Quality Retrofit Project
Design Report
15
Table 8
Water Quality Treatment Design Flow Rates and BMPs
Facility
Treated
Area
(ac)
Off-line Water
Quality Flow
Rate of
Treated Area
(cfs)
On-line Water
Quality Flow
Rate of
Treated Area
(cfs)
25-Year
Flow
Rate
(cfs)
100-Year
Flow
Rate
(cfs)
Water Quality
Treatment
Facility
(ModWet)
Allowable
Treatment
Flow Rate
(cfs)
Williams-1 - - - 1.15 1.83 - -
Williams-2 8.56 0.52 0.95 4.87 7.77 8-ft x 20-ft 0.577
Williams-3 4.15 0.25 0.46 2.86 4.57 8-ft x 12-ft 0.346
For the proposed design, two ModWet facilities will treat the runoff generated within the Williams-2 and
Williams-3 subbasins. The 8-ft x 12-ft ModWet facility has an allowable design treatment flow rate of 0.346
cfs, and the 8-ft x 20-ft ModWet facility has an allowable design treatment flow rate of 0.577 cfs, so they
can provide adequate treatment for the contributing areas. Each facility also has a maximum internal
bypass flowrate of 10 cfs, so can provide adequate bypass for each sub-basin.
The Williams-2 ModWet facility will treat runoff that enters the conveyance system along Tobin Street,
Burnett Ave S, and a small portion of the Williams Ave S and S Tobin Street intersection. The Williams-3
ModWet facility will treat runoff that enters the conveyance system along Williams Ave upstream of the
ModWet facility. Due to space limitations and utility conflicts, the Williams-1 sub-basin along S Tillicum
Street, and the northern-most portion of the Williams-3 sub-basin, will not be treated before it discharges to
the Cedar River. The design layouts for these proposed facilities are shown on the drawings.
7. Quantify the Water Quality Benefit
The project is exempt from flow control under the Direct Discharge exemption, as it discharges directly to
the major receiving water of the Cedar River downstream of the Taylor Creek confluence.
The water quality benefit is shown in Table 9. For each sub-basin, Table 9 details the total basin area and
the off-line water quality design flow rate if the entire sub-basin were a new/redevelopment project. Each
ModWet facility’s water quality treatment flow rate capacity is also shown. Ratios of retrofit to
new/redeveloped are calculated, and the resulting equivalent new/redeveloped area is 15.30ac.
City of Renton
Burnett Ave S & Williams Ave S Water Quality Retrofit Project
Design Report
16
Table 9
Water Quality Benefit Calculation
Sub-basin
Total Basin
Area
(ac)
Off-line Water
Quality Design
Flow Rate (cfs)
to Meet New/
Redeveloped
Criteria
Water Quality BMP
Capable Flow Rate
(cfs) for Proposed
Retrofit
Ratio of
Retrofit to
New Flow
Rate
Equivalent New/
Redeveloped
Area (ac)
Williams-1 2.02 0.12 - 0% 0.0
Williams-2 8.56 0.52 0.577 111% 9.50
Williams-3 5.03 0.30 0.346 115% 5.80
Total 15.61 0.94 0.923 98% 15.30
8. Engineers Opinion of Probable Cost
The 30 Percent Design Opinion of Probable Construction Cost for the entire project is $3.244 Million. The
30 Percent Design Opinion of Probably Construction Cost for the water quality elements only is $1,118,000.
The water quality cost includes the ModWet facilities (bid items B06 and B07); 18 percent of the applicable
bid items relevant to installing the ModWet facilities, i.e. bid items A01-A10, and B01-B05; and the bid items
related to the installation of the conveyance system downstream of SDMH #B9 and SDMH #W10 to the
outfall (bid items B08-B17), since this section of the conveyance system was added or relocated to
accommodate the ModWet facilities. A detailed cost estimate is attached as Appendix E.
9. Proposed Schedule
The City plans to advertise for construction in the spring of 2022 and complete the construction of the
stormwater improvements during the summer and early fall of 2022. The City is also planning to apply for
an Ecology grant in October 2021 to fund the water quality treatment portion of the construction project.
10. Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
Per Appendix D of the SWDM, a project-specific Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(CSWPPP) is required to minimize the potential for construction activities from polluting stormwater via
sediment erosion and onsite construction-related activities and materials storage. The CSWPPP is
comprised of two main components: the Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) Plan that targets erosion and
sediment control requirements; and the Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Spill (SWPPS) Measures to
address the best practices for management of onsite activities and materials to mitigate pollution risk. Upon
award of construction and prior to earthwork activities, the Contractor will be required to prepare an update
to this CSWPPP under a separate cover.
The City’s SWDM outlines ESC measures required to both minimize erosion and sediment transport from
an active construction site as well as protect areas with existing and proposed stormwater facilities. These
measures are considered Best Management Practices (BMPs) for erosion and sediment control related to
construction activities. Appendix D of the SWDM organizes these ESC measures into 13 categories, one of
City of Renton
Burnett Ave S & Williams Ave S Water Quality Retrofit Project
Design Report
17
which includes requirements related to SWPPS measures to prevent the discharge of pollutants to onsite or
adjacent stormwater systems and waterbodies. The CSWPPP must satisfy the requirements included in
each category unless site conditions render the category unnecessary and the exemption from that
category is clearly justified in the narrative of the CSWPPP. The 13 categories and the selected BMPs are
described below. The ESC and SWPPS requirements are described on Drawing EC-1 and will be included
on the plan view drawings at 60 percent.
Category 1: Clearing Limits
o Clearing limits will be marked/flagged or delineated with a high-visibility fence prior to any site
clearing or grading as indicated on Drawing EC-1.
Category 2: Cover Measures
o Temporary and permanent cover measures will be provided to protect all disturbed areas
during construction.
o All exposed and unworked soils will be stabilized by suitable application of appropriate BMPs.
From October 1 through April 30, in areas where construction has been completed or will not
undergo additional disturbance for a period of 30 days or greater, no soils will remain
unstabilized for more than 2 days. From May 1 through September 30, in areas where
construction has been completed or will not undergo additional disturbance for a period of 30
days or greater, no soils will remain unstabilized for more than 7 days. Soils will be stabilized
using temporary and permanent seeding and mulching.
o Sloped areas will be covered with biodegradable erosion control blanket per Figure D.2.1.2.C
of the SWDM, and straw wattles will be placed perpendicular to flow at regular intervals to
control erosion per Figure D.2.1.2.E of the SWDM.
o Stockpiles will be covered with plastic covering when they are not in use per Figure D.2.1.2.D
of the SWDM.
Category 3: Perimeter Protection
o Silt fencing will be installed downslope of all disturbed areas to prevent transport of sediment
generated on-site to adjacent properties and reduce velocity of runoff generated on-site per
Figure D.2.1.3.A of the SWDM and Drawing EC-1.
Category 4: Traffic Area Stabilization
o A stabilized construction entrance is not required because the project site is paved and is
located within the City’s ROW. Impacted roads and parking areas will be immediately stabilized
after initial grading. All damaged pavement will be restored to match existing conditions in
accordance with the Contract Documents. If necessary, a wheel wash facility will be utilized to
prevent sediment from being tracked onto pavement by construction vehicles.
Category 5: Sediment Retention
o Sediment retention facilities will include silt fencing and storm drain inlet protection to remove
sediment from the runoff generated from areas disturbed during construction. The design of
storm drain inlet protection facilities shall comply with Section D.2.1.5.3 of the SWDM.
City of Renton
Burnett Ave S & Williams Ave S Water Quality Retrofit Project
Design Report
18
o The Contractor will be required to monitor the implemented sediment retention BMPs on a
regular basis and immediately following a storm event. If BMPs are found to require
maintenance or replacement, these activities will be scheduled immediately after the issues
are observed.
Category 6: Surface Water Collection
o Implementation of a temporary surface water collection system by the Contractor will be
required to bypass the existing surface water collection system during construction. The
temporary system will consist of interceptor dikes, pipe slope drains, and outlet protection.
Category 7: Dewatering Control
o While project construction will occur during the dry season, it is possible that dewatering may
be required if groundwater is encountered during project construction. A review of available
data for the downtown Renton area indicates that groundwater levels range from as shallow as
4 ft bgs to up to 20 ft bgs. The dewatering water will be conveyed to a sediment trap located
onsite to collect and treat the water as necessary prior to discharging at an approved location.
Temporary stormwater tanks will be installed to control stormwater within the construction
areas.
Category 8: Dust Control
o Dust control will be implemented as needed during project construction. All landscaped and
vegetated areas that are disturbed during construction will be vegetated or mulch will be
installed for permanent stabilization. Water will be sprayed daily to limit blowing dust from
leaving the site or creating a nuisance to adjacent properties. Tracked vehicle use on paved
surfaces will be limited, wheel washing construction vehicles will be employed as needed, and
vacuum street sweepers will be used to sweep the paved areas when necessary. Mud and
other dirt will be promptly removed so it does not dry and then turn into dust. Dust-causing
work will be limited to the extent practicable on windy days.
Category 9: Flow Control
o Flow control facilities are not required since no changes to the speed, volume, or quantity of
stormwater discharges are anticipated. In addition, the Cedar River is a flow-control exempt
receiving water.
Category 10: Control Pollutants
o Stormwater pollution prevention (SWPP) measures will be implemented to minimize the
discharge of pollutants generated from on-site construction activities.
o All pollutants will be handled in a manner that does not cause stormwater contamination.
o The Contractor will provide cover, containment, and protection from vandalism for all
chemicals, liquid products, petroleum products, and other materials that have the potential to
pose a threat to human health or the environment. On-site fueling tanks will include secondary
containment. Secondary containment means placing tanks or containers within an impervious
structure capable of containing 110% of the volume contained in the largest tank within the
containment structure. Double walled tanks do not require additional secondary containment.
City of Renton
Burnett Ave S & Williams Ave S Water Quality Retrofit Project
Design Report
19
o Spill prevention and control measures will be used while conducting maintenance, fueling, and
repair of heavy equipment and vehicles. Contaminated surfaces will be cleaned immediately
following any spill incident.
o Fertilizers and pesticides will be applied in a manner and at application rates that will not result
in loss of chemical to stormwater runoff. Manufacturers’ label requirements will be followed for
application rates and procedures.
o BMPs will be used to prevent contamination of stormwater runoff by pH-modifying sources.
The sources for this contamination include, but are not limited to: bulk cement, cement kiln
dust, fly ash, new concrete washing and curing waters, waste streams generated from
concrete grinding and sawing, exposed aggregate processes, dewatering concrete vaults,
concrete pumping and mixer washout waters.
o The pH of stormwater will be adjusted if necessary, to control potential violations of the water
quality standards.
o Washout of concrete trucks will be performed offsite or in designated concrete washout areas
only. Concrete trucks will not be washed out onto the ground, or into storm drains, open
ditches, streets, or streams. Concrete spillage or concrete discharge to surface waters of the
State is prohibited.
o Written approval from Ecology is required before using chemical treatment other than CO2 or
dry ice to adjust pH.
Category 11: Protect Existing and Proposed Stormwater Facilities and Onsite BMPs
o Protection from sediment and compaction will be provided for all existing and proposed BMPs
installed for the permanent control of stormwater. BMPs that are to remain in place following
completion of construction shall be examined and restored to full operating condition. If
sediment enters these BMPs during construction, the sediment shall be removed, and the
facility shall be returned to conditions specified in the Contract Documents.
Category 12: Maintain Protective BMPs
o BMPs will be maintained throughout construction and left in place until permanent seeding and
final restoration is complete. The Contractor will be required to keep ESC materials on hand to
be used, as necessary. The Contractor will also be required to appoint a Certified Erosion and
Sediment Control Lead (CESCL).
Category 13: Manage the Project
o All BMPs will be inspected, maintained, and repaired as needed to assure continued
performance of their intended function. Site inspections and monitoring will be conducted in
accordance with the Construction Stormwater General Permit or local plan approval authority.
o The CSWPPP will be maintained, updated, and implemented by the Contractor and the
Contractor’s CESCL. As the project progresses, the CSWPPP will be modified routinely to
reflect changing site conditions. The CSWPPP will be reviewed routinely to ensure the content
is current.
City of Renton
Burnett Ave S & Williams Ave S Water Quality Retrofit Project
Design Report
20
11. Special Reports and Studies
Multiple reports and studies were completed under the scope of this project to inform the design process
and satisfy various state regulations. They are included in the appendix of this report as follows:
Cultural Resources Report is included as Appendix A.
Wetland Reconnaissance and Stream Delineation Report is included as Appendix B.
Geotechnical Report is included as Appendix C.
12. Other Permits
The following additional documents have been prepared to satisfy the permit requirements for the project:
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Permit Checklist. A project specific SEPA has been
prepared under a separate cover.
City of Renton Permits – A Right-of-Way (ROW) Permit will be required due to work occurring in
the right-of-way and will be administered by the City. An Environmental Review, Shoreline
Exemption Permit, and Land Use Permit will also be required for this project, both of which will be
administered by the City’s Planning Department.
13. Operation and Maintenance Manual
Properly maintained stormwater systems are important to prolong the life and effectiveness of the facilities.
Site stormwater facilities will be maintained by the City. Operation and maintenance requirements and
maintenance observation instructions for the stormwater conveyance system and water quality treatment
facilities within the project area are presented in Appendix F. This appendix is comprised of operation and
maintenance material obtained from both the SWDM and the ModWet manufacturer.
14. References
Cascadia. (2021). Cutural Resources Assessment for the Burnett Ave S and Williams Ave S Water Quality
Retrofit Project. Seattle: Cascadia Archaeology.
City of Renton. (2017). Surface Water Design Manual. Renton: City of Renton (City).
Ecology. (2014). Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, Amended 2014. Olympia:
Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology).
Kleinfelder. (2021). Geotechnical Engineering Report, Burnett Ave S and Williams Ave S Water Quality
Retrofit Project. Redmond: Kleinfelder.
Watershed. (2020). City of Renton - Burnet Ave S & Williams Ave S Water Quality Retrofit Project SWP-27-
4088, Wetland Reconnaissance and Stream Delineation Report. Kirkland: The Watershed Company
(Watershed).
FIGURES
Figure 1 – Vicinity Map
Figure 2 – Williams Drainage Basin
Figure 3 – Water Quality Sub-Basin Areas
Figure 4 – Reconnaissance and Delineation Sketch
Figure 5 – SWDM Minimum Requirements Flow Chart
Figure 6 – Existing System Deficiencies
Figure 7 – Alternative 1 Proposed Improvements
Figure 8 – Alternative 2 Proposed Improvements
Figure 9 – Alternative 3 Proposed Improvements
Figure 10 – Williams Ave S XP-SWMM Proposed Model Output for 100-year
Figure 11 – Burnett Ave S XP-SWMM Proposed Model Output for 100-year
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK.
k
k
k
k
k
k
!(
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
!(
")
!(
!(
")
")
!(
")
")")
")
")
!(")
")
")
")
!(
")
")
!(
")
!(!(")")
")!(
")
!(
")")
")
!(
")
!(
")
")
!(
!(
!(
")
!(
")
")
")
!(
!(
")
!(
!(
!(
")
")
")
")
!(
")
!(")
")
")
")
!(
")
!(
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
!(
")
")
")
!(
")
")
")
!(
!(
")
")
!(
")
")
")
")
")
")
!(
")
")
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
GF
Burnett Ave SWilliams Ave SS 2nd StLogan Ave SBurnett Pl SWells Ave SS Tobin St
S Ri
ver
side
Dr
N
Ri
ve
rside Dr±
§¨¦405
Lake Washington
C
e
d
a
r
R
i
v
e
r
Legend
Subbasin
")CB - Type 1
!(CB - Type 2 MH
k Storm Outfall
Storm Pipe
GF
Potential locations
for Water Quality
Treatment facility
Flow Direction
0 1,250 2,500625
Feet
014028070
Feet
Burnett Ave S
and Williams Ave S
Water Quality
Retrofit
Figure 6
Vicnity Map
Project Area
Figure 1
COPYRIGHT © 2021 BHC CONSULTANTS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
This map is a geographic representation based oninformation available. No warranty is made concerningthe accuracy, currency, or completeness of datadepicted on this map.
2
FigureWater Qu ality R etrofit ProjectCity of R enton, WashingtonNovember 2021
Williams Drainage Basin
!;
!;
!;
!;
!;
!;
!;!;
!;
!;
g?B
g?B
&S2
g?B
g?B
g?B
g?B g?B
g?B
g?B
g?B
g?B
g?B g?B
g?B
g?B
g?B
g?B
"T
g?B
g?B
"T
g?B
g?B
&S2&S2g?Bg?B
g?B
g?B g?B
g?B
g?B
g?B
g?B
g?B
g?B
g?Bg?Bg?B
g?B
g?B
g?B
g?B g?B
g?B
g?B
g?B
g?B
g?B
g?B
g?B
g?B
g?B
g?B
&S2g?B
g?B &S2
&S2g?B
g?B
g?B
g?B
g?B
g?B&S2
&S2
g?B
g?B
g?B
&S2
g?B
&S2
&S2
&S2
g?B
g?B
g?B
g?B
g?B
&S2
g?B
g?B g?B
g?B
g?B
&S2g?B
g?Bg?B
&S2
g?Bg?B
g?B
g?B
g?B
g?B
g?B
g?B
g?B
g?B
g?B
g?B
&S2
g?B
g?Bg?B
&S2
g?B
&S2
g?B
g?B
g?B
g?B
g?B
&S2
g?B
&S2
g?B
g?B
g?B
g?B
g?B
g?B
g?B
&S2
&S2
g?B
&S2
g?B
g?B
g?Bg?B
g?B
g?B
&S2g?B
g?B
&S2
g?B
g?B
g?B
g?B
&S2
g?B
g?B
&S2
g?B
g?B g?B
&S2
g?B
g?B
&S2
&S2
&S2
g?B
&S2
g?B
&S2
g?B
"T"T
&S2
&S2
&S2
g?B
&S2
&S2
g?B
"T
g?B
&S2
g?B &S2
&S2
g?B
&S2
&S2
"T
&S2
&S2
g?B
g?B
&S2
g?B
&S2
g?B
&S2
g?B
g?B
&S2
&S2
g?B
g?B
g?Bg?B
&S2
g?B
&S2
g?B
g?B
g?B
g?B
g?B
g?B
g?B
g?B g?B
g?B
g?B
g?B
&S2
g?B
g?B
g?B
g?B
g?B
&S2
g?B
g?B
&S2
g?B
g?B
g?B
g?B
&S2
&S2
g?B
g?B
&S2
g?B
g?B
g?B
&S2
g?B
&S2
&S2
&S2
g?B
g?Bg?B
g?B
g?B
g?B g?B
&S2
g?B
g?B
g?B
g?B
g?B
g?B
g?B
g?B
&S2
g?B
g?B
g?B
Burnett Ave SAccess Rd
S 2nd St Bronson Way SMain Ave SLoganAveSWells Aly NN 1st St Wells Ave NS Tobin St
E
PerimeterDr
Main Aly SS Riverside Dr
Wells Aly SWilliams Ave SN 2nd St
Wells Ave SN Riverside DrWilliams Ave NRenton TC AcRd
S Tillicum St
Airport Way
E Perimeter Rd
Williams Aly SCedar River Trail
Burnett Pl
SPedestrian Walk
#P:\Mapping\Maps_Generated\Renton\20-10723.00\400\1.10\maps\Fig 2 Williams Drainage Basin 8.5x11.mxd 11/29/2021 ctolentino0 200100Feet
Legend
City of R enton SurfaceWater System
g?B Inlet
&S2 Manhole
"?Utility Vault
"T Unknown Structure
!;Discharge Point
Pipe
Private Surface WaterSystem
g?B Inlet
&S2 Manhole
"?Utility Vault
"T Unknown Structure
Private Pipe
Williams DrainageBasin
Right-of-way (ROW)
Cedar River
Ex istingOutfallProject Ex tents/Drainage Basin
Right-of-way wherewater quality andconveyanceimprovements ma ybe installe d
COPYRIGHT © 2021 BHC CONSULTANTS LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
This map is a geographic representation based oninformation available. No warranty is made concerningthe accuracy, currency, or completeness of datadepicted on this map.
3
FigureWater Quality Retrofit ProjectCity of Renton, WashingtonDecember 2021
Water Quality Sub-Basin Areas
Williams 2
Williams 3
Williams 1
Access Rd
S 2nd St Bronson Way SEPerimeterRdMain Ave SWilliams Ave SLogan Ave SBurnett Ave SN 1st St
S Tobin St S Riverside Dr
N 2nd St
Wells Ave NWells Ave SE
P
erim
eterDr Logan Ave NN Riverside DrWilliams Ave NAirport Way
S Tillicum St Wells Aly NWilliams Aly SCedar River Trail
Burnett Pl
SPedestrian Walk
#S:\Projects\Renton\20-10723.00 Burnett and Williams\5_Design\Water Quality\Fig 3 Water Quality Sub-Basin Areas 8.5x11.mxd 12/14/2021 spalmerton0 200100Feet
Legend
Sub-Basins
Treated
Untreated
Cedar River
Total Area - 2.02 ac / 87,991 sfUntreated - 2.02 ac / 87,991 sf
Total Area - 8.56 ac / 372,874 sfTreated - 8.56 ac / 372,874 sf
Total Area - 5.03 ac / 219,107 sfUntreated - 0.88 ac / 38,368 sfTreated - 4.15 ac / 180,774
Williams 1
Williams 2
Williams 3
Page 1 of 1
RR e c o n n a i s s a n c e a n d DD e l i n e a t i o n S k e t c h –– BB u r n e t t & W i l l i a m s S t o r m w a t e r R e t r o f i t
Project area: Renton, WA; City Center Prepared for: BHC Consultants
Site Visit Date: November 13, 2020 TWC Ref. No.: 200903
Wetland A
Note: Field sketch only. Features depicted are approximate and not to scale. OHWM is marked with blue- and white-
striped flags. Data points are marked with yellow- and black-striped flags.
LEGEND
Wetland Area
Non-delineated Wetland Boundary
Delineated OHWM
Non-delineated OHWM
Project Extents
Data Point (DP)
Potential
Wetland B
(private property)
DP-1
DP-2
Stream A OHWM
(Cedar River)
Flags WMA-1L to
WMA-23L
Figure 4
SECTION 1.1 DRAINAGE REVIEW
12/12/2016 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual
1-14
FIGURE 1.1.2.A FLOW CHART FOR DETERMINING TYPE OF DRAINAGE REVIEW REQUIRED
Figure 5
Figure 5
Figure 5
&ŝŐƵƌĞϭϬʹtŝůůŝĂŵƐǀĞ^yWͲ^tDDWƌŽƉŽƐĞĚDŽĚĞůKƵƚƉƵƚĨŽƌϭϬϬͲLJĞĂƌ
Ground Surface
Hydraulic Grade Line
&ŝŐƵƌĞϭϭʹƵƌŶĞƚƚǀĞ^yWͲ^tDDWƌŽƉŽƐĞĚDŽĚĞůKƵƚƉƵƚĨŽƌϭϬϬͲLJĞĂƌ
Ground Surface
Hydraulic Grade Line
SELECT DRAWINGS
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK.
APPENDIX A
Cultural Resources Report
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK.
King
CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT COVER SHEET
DAHP Project Number: 2019-10-07833-ECY (Please contact the lead agency for the
project number. If associated to SEPA, please contact
SEPA@dahp.wa.gov to obtain the project number before
creating a new project.)
Author: Teresa Trost and Jana Boersema
Title of Report: Cultural Resources Assessment for the Burnett Ave S and Williams
Ave S Water Quality Retrofit Project, City of Renton, Washington
Date of Report: March 4, 2021
County(ies): King Section: 17, 18 Township: 23 Range: 5 E
Quad: Renton, WA (1994) Acres: 17
PDF of report submitted (REQUIRED) Yes
Historic Property Inventory Forms to be Approved Online? Yes No
Archaeological Site(s)/Isolate(s) Found or Amended? Yes No
TCP(s) found? Yes No
Replace a draft? Yes No
Satisfy a DAHP Archaeological Excavation Permit requirement? Yes # No
Were Human Remains Found? Yes DAHP Case # No
DAHP Archaeological Site #:
• Submission of PDFs is required.
• Please be sure that any PDF submitted to
DAHP has its cover sheet, figures,
graphics, appendices, attachments,
correspondence, etc., compiled into one
single PDF file.
• Please check that the PDF displays
correctly when opened.
Cultural Resources Assessment for the
Burnett Ave S and Williams Ave S Water Quality Retrofit Project,
City of Renton, Washington
Prepared by:
Teresa Trost, Principal Investigator
and
Jana Boersema, M.A.
Prepared for:
BHC Consultants
1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98101
Lead Regulatory Agency:
Washington State Department of Ecology
DAHP Project No. 2020-12-07541
CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
NOT FOR GENERAL DISTRIBUTION
March 4, 2021
P.O. Box 51058
Seattle, WA 98115
Cascadia Archaeology, LLC i Burnett Ave S and Williams Ave S
Water Quality Retrofit Cultural Resources Survey
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
The City of Renton (City) plans to install water quality facilities to improve the quality of
stormwater runoff in the vicinity of Burnett Avenue South and Williams Avenue South
between South 2nd Street and the Cedar River (the Project). The City has received a
Stormwater Financial Assistance Program grant managed by the Washington State
Department of Ecology (Ecology) – Agreement No. WQC-2020-Renton-00214. The
Project is thus subject to the Governor’s Executive Order (GEO) 05-05 because of the use
of capital funds, and Ecology is the lead regulatory agency. BHC Consultants, LLC
(BHC), on behalf of the City, retained Cascadia Archaeology, LLC to conduct a cultural
resources assessment prior to ground disturbing activities associated with the Project.
The cultural resource assessment consisted of archival research of the Study Area, which
encompasses the Project's Area of Potential Impacts (AI) and near vicinity, and
archaeological field work that was the monitoring of four geotechnical borings and
archaeological excavation of nine trenches and three shovel-and-auger probes. Field
work occurred February 4, 8, 9, and 10, 2021.
No archaeological material or historic buildings or structures were identified within the
AI. Ten of the 16 borings, trenches, and probes contained manufactured objects from the
modern or historic eras. Only two artifacts could be attributed a specific date or date
range, which were less than 50 years old. In general the AI is underlain by a depositional
sequence that consists of gravelly coarse sand found at variable depths; overlain by
deposits of bedded sand; bedded silt and very fine sand; a layer of massive silt or silty
sand that sometimes contained traces of organic material, rootlets, and charcoal; and a
surface layer of gravelly fill. Several of the trenches and boreholes contained traces of
roots and organic matter in the low energy alluvium, typically within the upper 4.9 ft (1.5
m) of the deposit. While the organic material suggests possible stable surfaces on which
vegetation grew, no other evidence of soil development or any artifacts were observed.
It is recommended that the Project be allowed to proceed with only the requirement that it
be carried out subject to the Inadvertent Discovery Plan that has been approved for the
Project.
While no heritage register-eligible cultural resources were observed within the AI, it is
possible that cultural materials not discovered during this investigation could be exposed
during construction. In all likelihood, further historic/modern scattered debris will be
exposed. Should pre-contact archaeological materials (e.g. bones, shell, stone tools,
beads, ceramics, hearths, etc.) be observed during project activities, all work in the
immediate vicinity should stop and a Professional Archaeologist should be contacted to
verify the find and the protocols in the Inadvertent Discovery Plan followed. Compliance
with all applicable laws pertaining to archaeological resources (RCW 27.53, 27.44 and
WAC 25- 48) and human remains (RCW 68.50) is required.
Cascadia Archaeology, LLC ii Burnett Ave S and Williams Ave S
Water Quality Retrofit Cultural Resources Survey
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ........................................................................................... i
TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................... ii
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... iii
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. iii
1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Description................................................................................................... 1
1.1 AI Location and Description .................................................................................... 4
1.3 Regulatory Context .................................................................................................. 4
2.0 CONSULTATION ....................................................................................................... 5
3.0 PHYSIOGRAPHIC CONTEXT AND SOILS ............................................................ 5
4.0 CULTURAL CONTEXT............................................................................................. 8
5.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT ............................................................................. 9
5.1 Previous Investigations ............................................................................................ 9
5.2 Inventoried and Recorded Resources..................................................................... 11
6.0 INVENTORIED HISTORIC PROPERTIES, TCPS, AND CEMETERIES............. 13
7.0 RESEARCH DESIGN ............................................................................................... 13
7.1 Research Objectives ............................................................................................... 13
7.2 Archaeological Survey Expectations ..................................................................... 13
7.3 Survey Design ........................................................................................................ 14
7.3.1 Archival research ............................................................................................ 14
7.3.2 Field research ................................................................................................. 14
8.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS ........................................................... 15
8.1 Field Methods ........................................................................................................ 15
8.2 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................. 18
8.3 Sediments ............................................................................................................... 19
9.0 DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................ 22
10.0 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................... 22
11.0 REFERENCES CITED ............................................................................................ 24
APPENDIX A – DESCRIPTION OF PROBES ................................................................. 1
Cascadia Archaeology, LLC iii Burnett Ave S and Williams Ave S
Water Quality Retrofit Cultural Resources Survey
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. The Study Area shown on 7.5’ USGS quadrangle Renton, WA (1994), T. 23
N, R. 5 E., Sections 17 and 18 ............................................................................................ 2
Figure 2. Study Area and AI shown on aerial view of Renton street map ........................ 3
Figure 3. Study Area mapped on the 1983 USGS map showing location of the Cedar
River in 1907....................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 4. Excerpt from a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 1907 map of the
Black and Cedar rivers' confluence .................................................................................... 7
Figure 5. Survey map showing borings (KB-#), trenches (T#), and probes (SP#) ........... 17
Figure 6. Objects found in T9 ........................................................................................... 18
Figure 7. T2, with sand at bottom, underlying low energy alluvium................................ 20
Figure 8. T8 at 3 m ............................................................................................................ 21
Figure 9. T9 showing coal ash fill layer .......................................................................... 21
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Archaeological Investigations Nearest or Within the Study Area ..................... 10
Table 2. Inventoried Archaeological Resources in or within One Mile of the Study Area
........................................................................................................................................... 12
Cascadia Archaeology, LLC 1 Burnett Ave S and Williams Ave S
Water Quality Retrofit Cultural Resources Survey
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The City of Renton (City) plans to install water quality facilities to improve the quality of
stormwater runoff in the vicinity of Burnett Avenue South and Williams Avenue South
between South 2nd Street and the Cedar River (the Project). The City has received a
Stormwater Financial Assistance Program grant managed by the Washington State
Department of Ecology (Ecology) – Agreement No. WQC-2020-Renton-00214. The
Project is thus subject to the Governor’s Executive Order (GEO) 05-05 because of the use
of capital funds, and Ecology is the lead regulatory agency. BHC Consultants, LLC
(BHC), on behalf of the City, retained Cascadia Archaeology, LLC to conduct a cultural
resources assessment prior to ground disturbing activities associated with the Project.
A preliminary assessment (Trost 2020) that identified Historic Properties within the
Study Area and developed a probability model for where unidentified Historic Properties
and prehistoric archaeological material could be present within that area was completed
prior to any ground disturbing work associated with the Project. Stemming from that
assessment, the City funded archaeological monitoring of geotechnical borings and
archaeological survey of the Project's Area of Potential Impacts (AI). The bulk of the
2020 report is copied in this report sections on context (Sections 3.0 Physiographic
Context and Soils, 4.0 Cultural Context, and 5.0 Archaeological Context).
This report includes the following sections: descriptions of the Project and AI; an
overview of the regulatory context; a summary of consultation; the cultural context of the
AI; the research objectives; the survey expectations, methods, and results; and
conclusions and management recommendations.
1.1 Project Description
The City desires to improve the storm water management system in the vicinity of
Burnett Avenue South and Williams Avenue South between South 2nd Street and the
Cedar River (Figures 1 and 2). The Project will install new water quality treatment
facilities and improve the existing stormwater conveyance infrastructure. At the time of
this report, the design of improvements was preliminary, but the following had been
proposed:
1. Installation of a water quality facility within Tobin Street that would likely have a
basal depth of 10 ft (3 m) below existing grade.
2. Replacement of main lines in the same location as the existing line, with depths of
the existing line ranging from as shallow as approximately 4 ft (1.2 m) below
grade at S. 2nd St. and as deep as 12 ft (3.7 m) below existing grade at the outfall
at Williams Ave into the Cedar River.
Cascadia Archaeology, LLC 2 Burnett Ave S and Williams Ave S
Water Quality Retrofit Cultural Resources Survey
Figure 1. The Study Area shown on 7.5’ USGS quadrangle Renton, WA (1994), T.
23 N, R. 5 E., Sections 17 and 18.
Cascadia Archaeology, LLC 3 Burnett Ave S and Williams Ave S
Water Quality Retrofit Cultural Resources Survey
Figure 2. Study Area and AI shown on aerial view of Renton street map.
Cascadia Archaeology, LLC 4 Burnett Ave S and Williams Ave S
Water Quality Retrofit Cultural Resources Survey
1.2 AI Location and Description
The AI is in the City of Renton, King County in Township 23 North, Range 5 East,
Sections 17 and 18, Willamette Meridian (Figures 1 and 2). Project work will occur
within City property or City easements. The AI is situated in downtown Renton near a
channelized stretch of the Cedar River and encompasses approximately 17 acres. It is
mostly covered with asphalt, aside from curbside planting strips. Approximately 14
percent of the AI was surveyed by archaeologists prior to construction of two residential
facilities: 95 Burnett Apartment Homes, which is named for its street address, and Merrill
Gardens Senior Living, 104 Burnett Ave S (Hodges and Piston 2004, 2005).
1.3 Regulatory Context
For the purposes of this assessment, standards and guidelines for listing a cultural
resource in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the Washington Heritage
Register (WHR), and Register of King County Landmarks were applied. A cultural
resource is an object or construction (e.g., archaeological shell midden deposit, hearth,
earth oven, dike, or building) that is the result of human agency and is 50 years of age or
older. Cultural resources that are listed in or determined eligible for listing in a heritage
register are referred to as Historic Properties. If a cultural resource is identified during an
assessment, but more information is required prior to making a determination of
eligibility, that potentially eligible resource is treated as if it is a Historic Property.
The evaluation process for the NRHP and WHR are the same, with an emphasis placed
on the significance within the context of Washington State's history for the WHR. A
cultural resource may be eligible for listing in more than one register. To be determined
eligible for listing in the NRHP or WHR, a cultural resource must 1) typically be at least
50 years of age; 2) meet at least one of four criteria of significance (see following
paragraph); and 3) possess historic integrity. King County has a lower age requirement
of 40 years and considers the importance of a cultural resource to a community as well as
at the regional scale.
The four criteria of significance, defined by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior in 36 CFR
60.4, are that a cultural resource is significant if it:
(A) is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to
the broad patterns of our history; or
(B) is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
(C) embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method
of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or possesses
high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable
entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
(D) has yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in
prehistory or history.
The association of a cultural resource to one of these criteria must be considered at the
appropriate geographic scale (local, state, and/or federal) and in the context of its time
period of significance. For buildings, structures, and above-ground objects (the built
Cascadia Archaeology, LLC 5 Burnett Ave S and Williams Ave S
Water Quality Retrofit Cultural Resources Survey
environment), this information is presented as written documentation commonly referred
to as a historic context. In the case of criterion D, the significance is generally assessed
by the potential to address specific research questions. Archaeological cultural resources
are usually significant under criterion D.
A cultural resource possesses historic integrity if it is recognizable as the building,
structure, object, site, or district as it appeared during the period of significance. Historic
integrity is characterized by seven aspects (or qualities): location, design, setting,
workmanship, materials, feeling, and association. A cultural resource does not need to
retain all aspects of integrity to be listed in a heritage register. The last portion of
criterion C often applies to districts where the buildings, structures, and objects that
comprise the district are not found to be eligible for listing individually but, taken as a
whole, possess historic integrity.
2.0 CONSULTATION
Ecology carried out government-to-government consultation prior to any fieldwork
carried out by Cascadia Archaeology. Cascadia Archaeology informed Interested Tribes
as to when field surveys occurred. No tribal visits occurred during fieldwork.
3.0 PHYSIOGRAPHIC CONTEXT AND SOILS
The following is copied from Trost (2020), with minor errata fixed.
Geographically, the Study Area lies on the floodplain of the Black River, near the historic
junction of the Cedar River with the Black River. The ground surface of the project area
and surrounding vicinity is generally flat and at an elevation of less than 30 ft (9 m).
Prominent hills at the valley margins, east and west of the Study Area, rise approximately
984 ft (300 m) and 3,280 ft (1000 m), respectively. The geography of the region has been
significantly altered by humans during the past century. Prior to the construction of the
Lake Washington Ship Canal in 1917, Lake Washington drained from its south end into
the Black River, which flowed into the Duwamish River and then into Elliot Bay. The
Cedar River flowed into the Black River just under one-quarter mile west of the Study
Area. When the Ship Canal lowered the level of Lake Washington, the Black River
ceased to flow, and the Cedar River was diverted and channelized to flow into Lake
Washington (Dalan et al. 1981) (Figure 3). The modern Cedar River channel forms the
northern boundary of the Study Area.
Prior to these engineering changes to the Black River and Cedar River floodplains,
natural events led to regular changes to the landscape. Since the end of the last ice age,
the Green, White, Black, Cedar, and Duwamish rivers have frequently changed course as
they flowed into Puget Sound. The level floodplain on which the Study Area now lies
was built up by thick deposition at the mouth of the Cedar River Valley in an alluvial fan.
In the north part of Renton these alluvial fan deposits are at least 130 ft (40 m) thick. The
Cascadia Archaeology, LLC 6 Burnett Ave S and Williams Ave S
Water Quality Retrofit Cultural Resources Survey
fan deposition likely occurred right at the end of the Vashon glaciation. As the alluvial
fan built up, it dammed the south end of the valley in which Lake Washington formed
(Mullineaux 1970). Subsequently the Black and Cedar rivers carved channels and
deposited sediment during regular flood events over the millennia:
Early Renton residents described a "branch of the Cedar River" that in the winter
months flowed west to the Black River...between present South 2nd Street and
South 3rd Street (Hayes ca 1950 2[sic]) The seasonal stream hosted migrating
salmon...[Kramer et al. 2001:15] (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Study Area mapped on the 1983 USGS map showing location of the
Cedar River in 1907. Base map Chrzastowski (1983).
Cascadia Archaeology, LLC 7 Burnett Ave S and Williams Ave S
Water Quality Retrofit Cultural Resources Survey
The probable source map (Figure 4) for the channels of the Cedar and Black rivers shown
in Figure 3 provides a few more details about the Study Area. The direction of
floodwaters indicates low-lying areas which were likely former river channels (Lewarch
2006).
Figure 4. Excerpt from a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 1907 map of the
Black and Cedar rivers' confluence. Arrows indicate direction floodwaters flow. ).
Two archaeological surveys (Hodges and Piston 2004, 2005) encompassing about 14
percent of the Study Area indicate that large channels of the Cedar River deposited a
gravel surface representing the channel bed and in-channel gravel bars that were
deposited on the post-glacial Cedar River alluvial fan. Subsequently, as the river channel
Cascadia Archaeology, LLC 8 Burnett Ave S and Williams Ave S
Water Quality Retrofit Cultural Resources Survey
moved, the gravels were capped with braided stream and floodplain deposits comprised
of sand and later lower-energy deposition of silt-sand couplets, which are representative
of overbank deposits.
Few, widely distributed core samples within the Study Area have been collected by
Kleinfelder (2019) and Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. [AESI] (2001). One core was on
the southern boundary of the Study Area and contained fill from 0-7 ft (0-1.8 m) below
surface (Kleinfelder 2019). Five cores were completed north of Tobin St. and exposed
alluvium. The core logs do not indicate the presence of a buried surface (AESI 2001),
which is the stratigraphic context in which archaeological material would most likely be
found.
Shong and Rinck (2011) carried out a survey about 1,066 ft (325 m) to the west and
generally encountered the same depositional environment as that reported by Hodges and
Piston (2004, 2005) in the Study Area. Differences with the sediments observed within
the Study Area were:
• The depth of surface fill was very uneven;
• A historic buried surface (soil A horizon) 5 cm to 40 cm thick was identified in 10
probes, underneath fill, at depths between 30 to 70 cm below surface. This
stratum contained archaeological site 45-KI-1009;
• Most of the high energy alluvium appears to be associated with a historic period
flood channel of the Black River;
• A buried alluvial terrace comprised of sandy high energy alluvium was identified.
• A buried surface containing lithics, fire-modified rock, calcined animal bone, and
organic-rich sediment was present in 18 probes between 140-220 cm below
surface. It was typically on or in the sandy high energy alluvium;
• Lithic artifacts were present between 20 and 60 cm below surface in five probes.
Shong and Rinck's (2011) surveyed area appears to have remained undeveloped; it is
shown as farmland and then as high school playing fields by 1936 (historicaerials.com).
In contrast, within the Study Area, archaeologically surveyed areas contained demolition
fill, the northern edge has been disturbed by channeling the Cedar River, buildings have
been demolished throughout about three-quarters of the Study Area, roads have been
constructed, and utilities installed.
4.0 CULTURAL CONTEXT
The following is copied from Trost (2020), with minor errata fixed.
Kramer et al. (2001) did an intensive reporting of the pre-Euro American Contact (pre-
Contact) and post-Contact use of the Study Area's general locality – the area around the
historic confluence of the Black and Cedar rivers – for a project within Renton High
School's property. This locality had a high concentration of large villages and large
encampments; regional trails to Snoqualmie Falls, Yakima Pass, Muckleshoot Prairie,
and Elliot Bay; and Native American Indian landmarks/place names (Kramer et al. 2001).
Cascadia Archaeology, LLC 9 Burnett Ave S and Williams Ave S
Water Quality Retrofit Cultural Resources Survey
Even after Euro-American settlers moved in, Native American use of the locality
continued at least into the mid-twentieth century. The 1865 GLO survey map shows an
"Indian Village" about 2 mi southwest of the Study Area. The Moses family, who were
Duwamish, lived near the west side of the Renton High School property (see Figure 1)
beginning in the 1850s and owned land there until 1956 (Kramer et al. 2001). Urban
development along the Cedar River channel has likely greatly reduced use of the locality.
Permanent Euro-American settlement of the Study Area began in 1865 when Henry H.
Tobin purchased land that included the Moses family's home. Tobin eventually sold two
acres to the Moses family. The Tobins, Henry and his wife Diana, built a cabin and
established a farm within their 317-acre Donation Land Claim. In 1956, Henry died, and
a year later his wife married Erasmus Smithers. They lived on the western side of the
homestead, by the Black River, where they ran their dairy farm (Slauson 1976 in Kramer
et al. 2001). By 1895, the Renton area, including the homestead was classified as having
been logged (USGS 1895). However, the Tobin claim was described as "thickly forested
with cedar and fir (Bagley 1929 1 746 [sic], Slauson 1967 1[sic])" (Kramer et al. 2001).
Urban and residential development of the Study Area began ca. 1912. The Northern
Pacific Railway ran north-south along the western edge of the Study Area and was
constructed by 1907 (Anderson Map Co. 1907). The railroad grade was removed
between 1976 and 1983 based on USGS topographic maps (historicaerials.com 2020).
The 1912 Kroll's King County Atlas labeled an area that encompassed the Study Area
"Small Tracts" (Kroll 1912). By 1936, all modern streets in the Study Area existed
except for Tobin Street and those to its north. Those, Tobin and Tillicum streets, became
formal roads by 1964. Early development of the Study Area was mostly in the southern
three-quarters and appears to have been residential except between Burnett Ave S. and
Burnett Pl S, which contained two large buildings and a few smaller homes or
outbuildings. By 1968, about a quarter to one-fifth of homes were replaced by large
buildings suggesting more commercial/industrial use of the Study Area. Since that time,
some commercial/industrial redevelopment has occurred, and multi-residence buildings
have replaced some homes. By 2009, the area appeared almost as it does today. Within
the Study Area, two large apartment buildings at 95 and 104 S. Burnett Ave. were
recently constructed (historicaerials.com 2020; Hodges and Piston 2004, 2005).
5.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT
The following is copied from Trost (2020), with minor errata fixed.
5.1 Previous Investigations
A review of records in the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation (DAHP) online database, WISAARD, indicates 65 cultural resource
investigations have occurred within 1 mi of the Study Area since 1995. Those nearest to
or within the Study Area were reviewed for this assessment (Table 1). Also reviewed
were nearby investigations (Kramer et al. [2001], Kramer and Larson [2001], and Shong
Cascadia Archaeology, LLC 10 Burnett Ave S and Williams Ave S
Water Quality Retrofit Cultural Resources Survey
Table 1. Archaeological Investigations Nearest or Within the Study Area
Reference Description Results Distance and
Direction from
Study Area
Baldwin and
Chambers (2014)
Road improvement;
mechanical trench
excavation; ~5.4 acres
No CRs.
Sand fill at depths 32-115 cmbs
overlying mottled gray clay/silt
and dark gray clay/fine sand.
469 ft (143 m) NW
Baldwin et al.
(2016)
Trail project; 6 shovel
probes w/max. depth 35
in. (90 cm); <1 acre,
~1.4 lineal mi.
No CRs. Sediments variable but,
generally, sandy or silty loam
overlying sand often containing
rounded gravels.
243 ft (74 m) NW of
NW tip.
Celmer (1995) Pedestrian surface
survey of banks along
the lower portion of the
Cedar River; 1.25 lineal
mi.
No CRs. Includes riverbank
within the Study
Area.
Hodges and Piston
(2004)
Apartment/urban
redevelopment; 15
mechanically dug
trenches and 16 shovel
probes (overlying fill
removed with excavator)
at 66 ft (20 m) intervals;
0.75 acres
Fill with debris from demolition
of feed store. n=2 CCS flakes
found in disturbed context.
Recommended monitoring during
construction. See Geology and
Soils section of this report.
Inside, middle of
west side (95
Burnett Ave S).
Hodges and Piston
(2005)
Apartment/urban
redevelopment; 15
mechanically dug
trenches (30 m intervals)
and 7 auger probes; ~1.6
acres
Fill with debris from demolition
of a hardware store, a historic
burn feature. Monitoring not
recommended as project
disturbance did not extend
beyond depth of fill/past
disturbance. See Geology and
Soils section of this report.
Inside, middle (104
Burnett Ave S).
Kramer et al
(2001), Kramer
and Larson (2001)
Boundary identification
of 45-KI-501 with 46
mechanically excavated
trenches 30-274 cm
deep; variable intervals
between trenches.
Cultural sediments: Multiple
occupations and flood event
strata, which are not continuous
throughout the property, and
historic debris in fill. Non-
cultural sediments: Variable, but
generally loamy fill overlying
sand and silty alluvium with basal
deposit of clay or gravels.
591 ft (180 m) W
Rooke (2010,
2012)
Transit project;
pedestrian survey
Recommended four areas be
monitored, including the area
abutting the Study Area.
NE corner
touches/slightly
overlaps SW corner
of Study Area.
Shong and Rinck
(2011)
Renton High School
Field Improvements; 118
shovel and auger probes
at 49 ft (15 m) intervals,
averaged depth 225
cmbs; 6.27 acres
Identified 45-KI-1009 and 45-KI-
1010. See Geology and Soils
section of this report.
0.2 mi. (325 m) W
CR=cultural resources (historic or prehistoric); cmbs = centimeters below surface
Cascadia Archaeology, LLC 11 Burnett Ave S and Williams Ave S
Water Quality Retrofit Cultural Resources Survey
[2011]), that identified archaeological sites. The most relevant investigations were
carried out by Hodges and Piston (2004, 2005) because those surveys were within the
Study Area. Both those surveys were for construction of residential buildings. During
the 2004 survey, two cryptocrystalline silicate (CCS) flakes were found in disturbed
context/fill sediments. Archaeological monitoring during construction of that proposed
apartment building was recommended (Hodges and Piston 2004); however, no
archaeological monitoring report was located in WISAARD. Hodges' specialization is
geoarchaeology/geology. His interpretation of the sediments and stratigraphy exposed by
the surveys was presented in Section 3. Physiographic Context and Soils.
5.2 Inventoried and Recorded Resources
Eighteen inventoried sites are mapped within approximately one mile of the Study Area
(Table 2), and two un-inventoried pre-contact lithic flakes were found within the Study
Area (Hodges and Piston 2004). Eight sites contain archaeology affiliated with Native
American Indian culture, both pre- and post-Euro-American contact (Contact). The
nearest is 0.1 mi from the Study Area. All these sites are located in alluvium near former
river channels. Site types include villages, fishing camps, hearths, lithic scatters, and a
historic debris scatter. The remainder of the sites date to the Contact period, which
commenced circa 1850 in King County. Site 45-KI-211, which is structural remains of
the Renton Coal Mine, is listed in the Washington Heritage Register. It is approximately
0.6 mi south of the Study Area. The two nearest historic archaeological sites are the
Columbia & Puget Sound Railroad grade (0.14 mi south) and a historic domestic debris
scatter (0.2 mi west) which is on the same bank of the modern Cedar River channel as the
Study Area. Other sites are a railroad grade, industrial sites, domestic debris
scatters/concentrations, and a dam with retaining walls.
The closest pre-Contact site is 45-KI-501. The archeological deposits are on buried
surfaces that developed within an abandoned channel of the Cedar River and date to the
past 600 years (Lewarch 2006). The initial exposure of archaeological deposits was
expressed in the side wall of a construction trench as follows:
The archaeological strata were black to dark brown silt and sand that included
charcoal fragments and flecks, fragments of calcined bone, burned soil, ash,
isolated pebbles, and areas with gravel associated with burned earth. Some silt
and sand had a greasy texture when rolled in the hand. A second archaeological
stratum was approximately 10 centimeters below the uppermost occupation and
was separated by light brown sand deposits. The lower archaeological stratum
was a black organic sand layer approximately 10 centimeter thick [Lewarch
2001].
This exposure in a trench excavation during construction and subsequent archaeological
survey in which mechanically excavated trenches were dug exposed archaeological
deposits at depths ranging from 64 to 151 cm below surface (Kramer and Larson 2001).
Data recovery excavations were reported in Lewarch (2006).
Cascadia Archaeology, LLC 12 Burnett Ave S and Williams Ave S
Water Quality Retrofit Cultural Resources Survey
Table 2. Inventoried Archaeological Resources in or within One Mile of the Study
Area
Smithsonian
Trinomial
(45- ) Description
Approximate location in
reference to Study Area
Inventory
Status1 Native American Indian Affiliation KI-51 Pre-/Proto-Contact village site.
150 yr old burial.
0.75 mi SW; near former Black
River channel
S/I
KI-59 Pre-/Proto- Contact village site 1.0 mi SW; near former Black
River channel
S/I
KI-439 Pre-/Proto-Contact sheet
midden with features.
0.6 m SW; near former Black
River channel
S/I
KI-501 Pre-/Proto-Contact midden
with features; multiple
occupations; possible fishing or
village site.
0.1 mi W; floodplain of the
former Cedar, Black, and
Duwamish rivers
S/I
KI-587 Pre-Contact 0.3 mi WSW; near former
channel of the Black River
S/I
KI-686 Pre-Contact: two hearths and
ca. 1940s structural remain
0.5 mi E; flood deposits in
abandoned channel of the
Cedar River
S/I
KI-1009 Historic debris scatter
associated with a Duwamish
family, Moses
0.3 mi W; near the former
confluence of the Black and
Cedar rivers on the Black River
PE
KI-1010 Pre-Contact midden and lithic
scatter
0.2 mi W; near former Black
River channel
S/I Euro American or Unknown Affiliation KI-211 Renton Coal Mine 0.6 mi S WHR
KI-285 Section of railroad grade 1.0 mi SW PE
KI-439 Historic debris 0.6 m SW; near former Black
River channel; 10 m from Pre-
/Proto-contact component
S/I
KI-538 Columbia & Puget Sound
Railroad
0.15 mi S Various sections
considered PE,
NE, S/I
KI-542 Historic debris scatter
(structural, industrial) and
structural remains
0.5 mi ESE; partially on
artificial bench
S/I
KI-686 Pre-Contact: two hearths and
ca. 1940s structural remain
0.5 mi E; flood strata in
abandoned channel of the
Cedar River
S/I
KI-767 Talbot Road dam and retaining
walls; fence and historic debris
0.7 mi S PE
KI-848 Renton Glass Company ruins 0.5 mi S DNE
KI-1218 Historic (domestic) debris
scatter (ca. 1930s-40s)
0.3 mi NW DNE
KI-1344 Historic (domestic) debris
scatter
0.2 mi NW; near left bank of
modern Cedar River channel
S/I
1Inventory Status is a field in WISAARD that indicates the statu s of an archaeological resource as pertains
to its listing or potential listing in a heritage register: PE=Potentially eligible for listing in a heritage
register; DNE=determined not eligible for listing; S/I=Surveyed/Inventoried, not evaluated for eligibi lity;
WHR=listed in the Washington Heritage Register. Note: Native American Indian affiliated sites are for
this project presumed to be potentially eligible for listing in a heritage register.
Cascadia Archaeology, LLC 13 Burnett Ave S and Williams Ave S
Water Quality Retrofit Cultural Resources Survey
Two lithic flakes were found in shovel probes approximately 6.6 ft (2 m) apart by
Hodges and Piston (2004) during the archaeological survey for redevelopment at 95
Burnett Avenue, which lies within the Study Area. A black CCS flake was found at the
contact between fill and native sediments, and a red CCS flake was found in the
overlying fill sediments. Both were considered to be out of context (not in intact
sediments). The surveyed area was covered by "demolition fill" averaging 60 cm thick,
but was up to 120 cm thick, and contained milled wood, brick, concrete, feedbags, and
other material. Structural remains were also present (Hodges and Piston 2004). More of
Hodges and Piston's findings as they relate to this project are discussed in Section 3.
Physiographic Context and Soils.
6.0 INVENTORIED HISTORIC PROPERTIES, TCPS, AND CEMETERIES
In the context of this section, Historic Property simply refers to a cultural resource of the
built environment for which a Washington State Historic Property Inventory Form is in
WISAARD. They are mostly buildings but can also include parks, dikes, dams, or other
elements of the “built environment”, and are usually over 50 years old. The historic
homes in the Study Area were all or mostly constructed prior to 1936 (historicaerials.com
2020). Only one of those buildings (124 Williams Ave. S) has an associated Historic
Property Inventory Form. Its eligibility for listing in a heritage register has not been
determined. No buildings will be impacted by this Project.
No Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs) are recorded in or adjacent to the Study Area
in WISAARD or cultural resource reports reviewed for this assessment.
No cemeteries or burials are recorded in or adjacent to the Study Area in WISAARD or
in cultural resource reports reviewed for this assessment.
7.0 RESEARCH DESIGN
7.1 Research Objectives
The objective of this cultural resources investigation was to inventory Historic Properties
present within the APE and assess the likelihood for buried archaeological resources to
be present that may not have been identified by the archaeological survey.
7.2 Archaeological Survey Expectations
Background research suggested there was a low probability of finding a historic
archaeological resource that would be eligible for listing in a heritage register. Historic
archaeological material found by previous archaeological survey within the Study Area
was deposited by modern-day demolition of historic buildings and, as such, was managed
as culturally non-significant. Most of the Study Area has the potential for containing
similar demolition fill, except in the northeast quarter which has not had as much, or any,
redevelopment. If archaeological material dating pre-1912 were to be found, it would
most likely be associated with occupation by the Tobin family. Post 1912, the Study
Cascadia Archaeology, LLC 14 Burnett Ave S and Williams Ave S
Water Quality Retrofit Cultural Resources Survey
Area was platted into small tracts and became a mixed-use area, and no significant
persons or events were identified as being associated with this time period.
The background research indicated a moderate potential for pre-Contact archaeological
material to be present within the portions of the Study Area not previously surveyed by
an archaeologist. The Statewide Archaeological Predictive Model maps the Study Area
as High Risk/Very High Risk of an archaeological resource to be present. However, only
two flakes in a fill deposit have been found by survey of approximately 14 percent of the
Study Area, and the Study Area has been logged and cleared, developed, much of it
redeveloped, and the Cedar River along its northern boundary channelized. All these
events likely significantly damaged or removed archaeology dating to the pre-Contact
era, if any had ever been present, and probably also would have removed post-Contact
archaeological resources. Although no pre-Contact material has been found in native
soils in the Study Area, the possibility remains that buried stable surfaces identified by
Hodges and Piston (2004) could have been occupied. The evidence of that use could
have been preserved by subsequent overbank or flood deposits.
7.3 Survey Design
7.3.1 Archival research
Prior to the field survey, background research was conducted to determine the likelihood
for archaeological resources to be present within the Study Area. The assessment
consisted of archival research including a records search in WISAARD for previously
recorded sites, historic buildings, ethnographically known sites, and traditional cultural
properties. Local histories and ethnographies were consulted to understand how people
formerly utilized the area. Additionally, aerial images and geologic and historic maps
were used to research the natural and cultural history.
7.3.2 Field research
No built structures will be affected by the Project, so the field methods were developed to
sample for archaeological resources and buried surfaces that could potentially contain
archaeological resources. A geotechnical survey, which was to consist of borings, was to
be monitored by a geoarchaeologist. The monitor would record the sediment profile, take
photographs, and potentially screen sediment samples over ¼-inch mesh screen.
An archaeological survey would be carried out to provide more expansive exposures of
stratigraphy and increase the volume of screened sediment. The City was to provide a
mini-excavator and associated crew to dig small trenches. Because trenches provide
more visibility, being larger than a shovel-and-auger probe, and because the results of
Hodges and Piston's (2004, 2005) surveys were negative for archaeological resources,
spacing of sub-surface probes was planned to be every 131 ft (40 m) along the route of
the stormwater system infrastructure. If needed, in a few places where trenches could not
be dug, a probe started with a shovel and completed with a 10-cm (5-in.) bucket hand
auger would be dug. The existing infrastructure is almost entirely under asphalt, so
trenches and probes were planned to be in the planting strip between the curb and the
sidewalk. Pedestrian survey would be carried out when moving between probe locations.
Cascadia Archaeology, LLC 15 Burnett Ave S and Williams Ave S
Water Quality Retrofit Cultural Resources Survey
The archaeological survey would be carried out by the geoarchaeologist and one other
archaeologist. The geoarchaeologist would be responsible for documenting the
stratigraphy and the other archaeologist would screen a sample of material from each
level of excavation. Sediments would be screened over ¼-inch mesh. The volume
screened per level would be measured in liters using graduated 5-gallon buckets.
Contents of each level, along with a description of the stratigraphy and sediments, were
recorded on a standard probe form. Photographs of the sediment profiles and overview
photographs were taken. If an artifact were found, it would be placed in an archival
quality bag at a depth at which it could be recovered and then spoils backfilled over it.
All spoils would be backfilled into the trench they came from.
8.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS
8.1 Field Methods
Geoarchaeologist|Professional archaeologist Jana Boersema monitored excavation of four
boreholes on February 4, 2021. Boring was directed by Will Rosso of Kleinfelder.
Holocene Drilling operated the Diedrich drill rig with an 8-inch diameter auger and 2 in.
diameter split spoon sampler. Geotechnical samples were taken at 2.5 ft (0.8 m) intervals
in the upper 10 ft (3.0 m) and at 5 ft (1.3 m) intervals thereafter. Borehole KB-1
terminated at 30 ft (9.2 m). Boreholes KB-2, KB-3 and KB-4 terminated at 20 ft (6.1 m)
(Figure 5). The archaeologist visually examined the cuttings as they came up around the
auger and as they were shoveled into a barrel. The archaeologist screened samples of the
cuttings from KB-2, KB-3, and KB-4, totaling approximately 30-45 L from each
borehole and typically representing the upper 7.5 ft (2.3 m) of deposits. KB-1 was not
sampled because the upper 7.5 ft of the hole were removed with a vactor truck to protect
nearby utilities from potential damage. The hole was visually examined during and after
the vactor operation, but no cuttings or spoils were available for screening. The split
spoon samples for all of the boreholes were visually examined by the archaeologist.
Professional archaeologist Teresa Trost met with the crew provided by the City of Renton
February 8, 2021 and walked over the AI selecting locations where trenches would be
placed and identifying where shovel/auger probes would need to be dug due to the
presence of utilities or other physical constraints on using a mini-excavator.
Trost and Boersema carried out the survey on February 9 and 10, 2021 with the
assistance of the City of Renton. The City provided a CAT 305.5E2 CR trackhoe with
smooth blade bucket. T1 was the only trench dug with a toothed bucket. Spoils were
either placed on a flatbed truck or screened over ¼-inch mesh onto a tarp. Placement of
trench spoils on the flatbed truck provided additional visibility of the sediments and any
inclusions. Upon completion, all spoils and material from a trench or probe were
backfilled into the hole they came from. The flatbed lifted, acting like a chute, and
sediment was funneled back into the trench. As the sediment came down and out the
flatbed it is was again visually inspected for artifacts and anthropogenic soils.
Cascadia Archaeology, LLC 16 Burnett Ave S and Williams Ave S
Water Quality Retrofit Cultural Resources Survey
Nine trenches (T#) and three shovel probes (SP#) were dug (Figure 5). Placement of
probes was strongly influenced by the presence of existing utilities. Trenches were
numbered 1-10, but on the day of survey, it was decided that T4 would not be excavated
after having fine-tuned the locations of T2 and T4. T1 through T7 were excavated from
north to south along Williams Ave. T8 and T9 were excavated at the south end of
Burnett Ave., and T10 was on the northeast corner at the intersection of Burnett Ave. and
Tobin Street. The trenches were terminated between depths of 4.9 and 6.1 ft (1.5 and
1.85 m). SPs were numbered 1-3. SPs 1 and 2 were located in a cobble covered strip at
the south end of Williams Ave. The excavator could not be used because of irrigation
lines and sprinkler heads. SP3 was dug within the park green strip along the Cedar River
because of the Cedar River Trail Extension Park's restrictions.
Trenches measured approximately 1.6 ft wide and were 4.8 to 5.6 ft long (0.5 and 1.45-
1.7 m, respectively) at the top. The bottom dimensions were typically a bit smaller,
except when basal gravels sloughed into the trench bottom. Shovel probes were
approximately 45 cm diameter and the lower portions of SP2 and SP3 were completed
with a 10-cm diameter bucket auger. The description of each geotechnical boring, trench,
and shovel probe, including depth, are in Appendix A. T9 was terminated prior to
achieving the desired depth because the base of the sidewalls sloughed into the trench.
Each boring, trench, and probe had the stratigraphy, sediments, and contents, if any,
described on standard field forms and were photo-documented.
The upper stratum, which was comprised of recent fill, was not typically sampled for
screening sediments until towards the base of the stratum. The average thickness of a
sampled layer was 17 cm (7 in.). The average volume of sediment sampled per layer was
12.7 L.
Cascadia Archaeology, LLC 17 Burnett Ave S and Williams Ave S
Water Quality Retrofit Cultural Resources Survey
Figure 5. Survey map showing borings (KB-#), trenches (T#), and shovel probes
(SP#).
Cascadia Archaeology, LLC 18 Burnett Ave S and Williams Ave S
Water Quality Retrofit Cultural Resources Survey
8.2 Cultural Resources
Ten of the 16 borings, trenches, and probes contained manufactured objects from the
modern or historic eras, with only two attributed a specific date or date range. A Stay-tab
soda can, which has been a common can style since the 1980s, was found 0-12 cm below
surface in SP3. In T5, a Coca-Cola© bottle was recovered from 0-30 cm below surface
and had a date mark of "72". A jumble of more than 20 bricks was exposed in the south
end of T5 from 70-100 cm below surface. The bricks continued into three of the
sidewalls. A "tube" of white plastic stamped with a blue line running under the words
"BLUE NUN BLUE NUN" was recovered from T10 at 0-30 cm below surface. Blue
Nun is a winery.
T5 and T9 contained the most objects. Both trenches had a lens or layer of gray ashy
sand with coal fragments. In T5, the ashy sand was a thin lens lying near the top of the
jumble of bricks, which began at 70 cm below surface. In T9, the ashy sand was present
from 45 to 100 cm below surface and contained two bricks; two ceramic fragments, one
with a printed on floral pattern; and three varied glass fragments (Figure 6). In the
overlying layer in T9, a portion of a square, white glass jar and two wire nails were
recovered (Figure 6). T6 and SP2 also contained a lens of ashy sand but no associated
objects.
Figure 6. Objects found in T9.
Cascadia Archaeology, LLC 19 Burnett Ave S and Williams Ave S
Water Quality Retrofit Cultural Resources Survey
8.3 Sediments
The four boreholes provided the deepest exposures of sediments. Generally, they
contained an upper layer of gravelly fill, usually less than 2.5 ft (0.8 m) thick. In three of
the boreholes (KB-1, -2, and -3) the fill was underlain by massive silty sand or sandy silt,
then beds of silt and sand at greater depths. Gravelly coarse sand was found below the
bedded sand and silt at 30 ft (9.2 m) in KB-1, 15 ft (4.6 m) in KB-2, and 7.5 ft (2.3 m) in
KB-3. KB-4, excavated in an alley between a very large apartment building and smaller
office buildings, had a layer of crushed recycled concrete fill at the surface, and then
contained gravelly coarse sand to a depth of 15 ft (4.6 m) and clast-supported gravel with
very little sand matrix below that depth.
The coarse sand and gravel exposed in the boreholes was generally found at greater
depths in the north part of the AI and shallower depths in the south. The bedded fine-
grained alluvium that overlies the gravel has some potential for buried temporarily stable
pre-Contact or historic surfaces, and such things as organic material and developed soil
horizons could be evidence of buried surfaces. KB-1 had charcoal and black organic
staining at 9.8 ft (3.0 m) and KB-2 had a few bits of woody debris and a fine root at 7.5 ft
(2.3 m). Notably KB-1 also contained large chunks of wood in the coarser sand deposits
at depths of 20 ft and 25 ft (6.1 m and 7.6 m). However, these roots and staining
appeared to be traces of organic material and did not have associated evidence of
developed soil horizons or any cultural material, so they probably do not represent
significant stable surfaces.
The trench excavations exposed similar stratigraphy, but most trenches were not deep
enough to encounter the coarse sand and gravel that was observed in the boreholes. The
trenches were terminated between depths of 4.9 6. (1.5 m) and 6.1 ft (1.85 m). Only T2
reached a deposit of gravelly sand, just exposed at the bottom of the trench at 4.6-4.9 ft
(1.4-1.5 m) (Figure 7). All of the trenches had fill and disturbed local sediments in the
upper 1.3-3.9 ft (0.4-1.2 m). Under the fill, fine-grained alluvium consisting of silty sand
or sandy silt was present. Rootlets and occasional organic staining were observed at
depths ranging from 3.3 ft (1 m) to about 4.9 ft (1.5 m). In several of the trenches bedded
silt and sand were present below about 4.9 ft. The beds of silt and fine sand indicate low
energy alluvial deposition such as in a floodplain environment.
SP3 was excavated north of the trenches and boreholes along Williams Ave. in the AI
and was near to the bank of the channelized Cedar River. It consisted of gravelly sand
fill throughout its depth ( 0-3.4 ft [0-1.05 m]). SP1 and SP2 were excavated south of the
trenches along Williams Ave. in locations where backhoe trenches were not feasible.
SP1 encountered very gravelly fill throughout its depth and was terminated by compact
gravel deposits at 3.8 ft (1.15 m). SP2 contained gravelly and sandy fill, including a lens
of gray ash with coal fragments, in the upper meter. The fill was atop beds of fine to
coarse sand and silty sand. Gravelly sand was found at 6.1 ft (1.85 m).
Cascadia Archaeology, LLC 20 Burnett Ave S and Williams Ave S
Water Quality Retrofit Cultural Resources Survey
Figure 7. T2, with sand at bottom, underlying low energy alluvium.
T8, T9, and T10 were excavated along Burnett Ave. T8 was at the north end of the AI
and was the deepest trench, excavated to a depth of 9.8 ft (3 m). It had a layer of gravelly
fill at the surface (0-2.0 ft [60 cm]); massive sandy silt (2.0-3.0 ft [60-90 cm]); olive
brown to gray silt (3-6.2 ft [90-190 cm]) with a few roots, charcoal, and organic stains
(4.6-5.2 ft [140-160 cm]); silty fine sand (6.2-7.9 ft [190-240 cm]); and then alternating
beds of silt and silty fine sand (7.9-9.8 ft [240-300 cm]) (Figure 8). T9 and T10 were
excavated near the south end of the project area. T9 had recent fill at the surface
consisting of brown gravelly silty sand and sand (0-1.5 ft [0-45 cm]); a second fill layer
was present that consisted of gravelly gray ashy sand in which coal chunks and fragments
were common (1.5-3.38 ft [45-100 cm]) (Figure 9). Both layers of fill contained historic
or temporally non-diagnostic objects. Underlying the fill was very gravelly sand (3.28-
4.1 ft [100-125 cm]). The trench was terminated at 4.1 ft (125 cm) because the
unconsolidated deposits were collapsing into the hole. T10, excavated only 66 ft (20 m)
south of T9, did not contain unconsolidated gravel. It exposed fill (0-2.0 ft [0-60 cm]);
silt and silty fine sand (2.0-2.8 ft [60-85 cm]); and then alternating beds of silt and sand
(2.8-6.2 ft [85-190 cm]).
Cascadia Archaeology, LLC 21 Burnett Ave S and Williams Ave S
Water Quality Retrofit Cultural Resources Survey
Figure 8. T8 at 9.8 ft (3 m).
Figure 9. T9 showing coal ash fill layer (light gray layer with white flecks) and
gravelly sand at base.
Cascadia Archaeology, LLC 22 Burnett Ave S and Williams Ave S
Water Quality Retrofit Cultural Resources Survey
9.0 DISCUSSION
The absence of archaeological material, aside from the recent/historic ashy sandy fill, was
not entirely unexpected. The location has undergone residential development and urban
redevelopment, which likely removed any archaeological material that may have been at
or near the surface. Prior to this survey, the only archaeological material identified by
previous surveys encompassing 14 percent of the Study Area was two lithic flakes found
in fill.
In general the AI is underlain by a depositional sequence that consists of gravelly coarse
sand found at variable depths; overlain by deposits of bedded sand; bedded silt and very
fine sand; a layer of massive silt or silty sand that sometimes contained traces of organic
material, rootlets, and charcoal; and a surface layer of gravelly fill. In the project area the
gravelly coarse sand was typically found below depths of 6.6 ft (2 m) (KB-1, KB-2, and
KB-3). Work by Hodges and Piston (2004, 2005) on property adjacent to the AI resulted
in similar observations, with the top of the gravelly deposits ranging from 2.5 ft (75 cm)
to greater than 11.8 ft (360 cm). In the AI, the very gravelly sand was found at shallow
depths without an overlying deposit of silt or silty fine sand in T9 (3.28 ft [100 cm]), KB-
4 (2.5 ft [75 cm]) and SP1 (3.0 ft [90 cm]). This gravel may represent shallowly buried
river channel or bar deposits, or it may represent gravelly fluvial material used as fill;
however, it did not contain any historic or recent objects that would clearly indicate its
origin as fill. In T2 and SP2 gravelly sand was found below low-energy alluvial deposits,
at depths of 4.6 ft (140 cm) and 6.1 ft (185 cm), respectively. This gravelly sand likely
represents the top of high energy alluvial deposits, or possibly just a lens of higher-
energy deposits such as was present in KB-1 at about 7.5 ft (230 cm). Several of the
trenches and boreholes contained traces of roots and organic matter in the low energy
alluvium, typically within the upper 1.5 m of the deposit. While the organic material
suggests possible stable surfaces on which vegetation grew, no other evidence of soil
development or any artifacts were observed. Large pieces of wood were found in coarse
sand in KB-1 at depths of 20 ft and 25 ft (6.1 and 7.6 m). This deeply buried wood likely
represents logs that were deposited as flotsam in older fluvial deposits.
10.0 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the Project be allowed to proceed with only the requirement that it
be carried out subject to the Inadvertent Discovery Plan that was approved for this
Project.
While no heritage register-eligible cultural resources were observed within the AI, it is
possible that cultural materials not discovered during this investigation could be exposed
during construction. In all likelihood, further historic/modern scattered debris will be
exposed. Should pre-contact archaeological materials (e.g. bones, shell, stone tools,
beads, ceramics, hearths, etc.) be observed during project activities, all work in the
immediate vicinity should stop and a Professional Archaeologist should be contacted to
verify the find and the protocols in the Inadvertent Discovery Plan followed. Compliance
Cascadia Archaeology, LLC 23 Burnett Ave S and Williams Ave S
Water Quality Retrofit Cultural Resources Survey
with all applicable laws pertaining to archaeological resources (RCW 27.53, 27.44 and
WAC 25- 48) and human remains (RCW 68.50) is required.
Cascadia Archaeology, LLC 24 Burnett Ave S and Williams Ave S
Water Quality Retrofit Cultural Resources Survey
11.0 REFERENCES CITED
Anderson Map Company
1907 Atlas of King County Washington. Electronic resource,
http://www.historicmapworks.com/Map/US/1250017/Page+17+++Township+
23+North++Range+5+East/King+County+1907/Washington/, accessed
November 13, 2020.
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.
2001 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Preliminary Geotechnical
Engineering Report: Williams Avenue Apartments. Report provided by BHC
Consultants, Inc., Seattle.
Bagley, Clarence B
1929 History of King County, Washington (4 Vols.) . S.J. Clarke Publishing,
Chicago.
Baldwin, Garth and Jennifer Chambers
2014 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Logan Avenue North Roadway
Improvements Project, Renton, King County, Washington. Report prepared
for Widener & Associates, Everett, Washington by Drayton Archaeology.
Report NADB: 1686039, Project # 082614-01-FHWA, on file at DAHP,
Olympia.
Baldwin, Garth, Jennifer Chambers, and Martha Chambers
2016 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Lake Washington Loop Trail Project,
Renton, King County, Washington. Report prepared for Widener &
Associates, Everett, Washington by Drayton Archaeology. Report NADB:
1688490, Project # 2016-04-02602, on file at DAHP, Olympia.
Celmer, Gail
1995 Cedar River Reconnaissance Survey. Report NADB: 1334586 Project # NA,
on file at DAHP, Olympia.
Chrazastowski, Michael
1983 Historical Changes to Lake Washington and Route of the Lake Washington
Ship Canal, King County, Washington [Map]. United States Geological
Survey, Department of the Interior. Electronic resource,
https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1981/1182/plate-1.pdf, accessed November 13, 2020.
Dalan, Rinita, Sandra Hunt, and Steve Wilke
1981 Cultural Resource Overview and Reconnaissance: Green River Flood Damage
Reduction Study. Geo-Recon International Report. Report NADB: 1331055,
Project # NA, on file at DAHP, Olympia.
Cascadia Archaeology, LLC 25 Burnett Ave S and Williams Ave S
Water Quality Retrofit Cultural Resources Survey
Hayes, Jack
ca. 1950 I Came Here In 1880. Article on file at the Renton Public Library, Renton,
Washington
Hodges, Charles M. and Victoria Piston
2004 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Parkside at 95 Burnett Development,
Renton, King County, Washington. Report prepared for TSA Architects, Inc.,
Bellevue, Washington by Northwest Archaeological Associates, Inc. Report
NADB: 1343769, Project # NA, on file at DAHP, Olympia.
2005 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Merrill Gardens at Renton Centre,
Renton, King County, Washington. Report prepared for Friedman
Development, Mercer Island, Washington by Northwest Archaeological
Associates, Inc. Report NADB: 1344552, Project # NA, on file at DAHP,
Olympia.
historicaerials.com (NETROnline)
2020 Burnett Ave S & Tobin St, Renton, WA. Aerial imagery 1936, 1940, 1964,
1968, 1980, 1990, 2002, 2006, 2009. Electronic resource
www.historicaerials.com, accessed November 11, 2020. *Only years in which
change was observed are noted.
Kleinfelder
2019 Geotech Logs from DUIP (PDF). Prepared by Kleinfelder, Redmond, WA.
Provided by BHC Consultants, Inc., Seattle.
Kramer, Stephenie, Leonard A. Forsman, Dennis E. Lewarch, and Lynn L. Larson
2001 Renton High School Archaeological Resources and Traditional Cultural
Places Assessment, King County, Washington. Report prepared for Renton
School District No. 403 by Larson Anthropological Archaeological Services
Limited. Report NADB: 1340709, Project # NA, on file at DAHP, Olympia.
Kramer, Stephenie and Lynn L. Larson
2001 Archaeological Monitoring of Backhoe Sample Points at the Renton High
School Indian Site (4SKI501). Report prepared for Renton School District
No. 403 by Larson Anthropological Archaeological Services Limited. Letter
report NADB: 1339905, Project # NA, on file at DAHP, Olympia.
Kroll Map Company
1912 Atlas of King County Washington. Electronic resource,
http://www.historicmapworks.com/Map/US/503561/Township+23+N+Range
+5+E/King+County+1912/Washington/, accessed November 13, 2020.
Lewarch, Dennis
2001 Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form, 45-KI-501. On file at
DAHP, Olympia.
Cascadia Archaeology, LLC 26 Burnett Ave S and Williams Ave S
Water Quality Retrofit Cultural Resources Survey
2006 Renton High School Indian Site (45KI501) Archaeological Data Recovery,
King County, Washington. Report prepared for Renton School District No.
403 by Larson Anthropological Archaeological Services Limited. Report
NADB: 1347769, Project # NA, on file at DAHP, Olympia.
Mullineaux, Donal R.
1970 Geology of the Renton, Auburn, and Black Diamond Quadrangles, King
County, Washington. Geological Survey Professional Paper 672, pp.1-92.
Rooke, Lara C.
2010 Cultural Resources Discipline Report for the Burien to Renton RapidRide—F
Line Project, NEPA Documented Categorical Exclusion, Final Historical,
Archaeological, and Cultural Resources Discipline Report. Report prepared
for King County Metro Transit by AMEC. Report NADB: 1354596, Project
# NA, on file at DAHP, Olympia.
2012 Cultural Resources Discipline Report for the Burien to Renton RapidRide—F
Line Project, NEPA Documented Categorical Exclusion Project –
Addendum, Historical, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources Report –
Addendum. Report prepared for King County Metro Transit by AMEC.
Report NADB: 1683232, Project # NA, on file at DAHP, Olympia.
Shong, Michael and Brandy Rinck
2011 Archaeological Assessment for Phase I of the Renton High School Field
Improvement Project, King County, Washington. Report prepared for Renton
School District No. 403 and D.A. Hogan & Associates, Inc. by Northwest
Archaeological Associates, Inc. Report NADB: 1681688, Project # 010411-
06-KI, on file at DAHP, Olympia.
Slauson, Morda C.
1967 Where was Black River? Article on file at the Renton Public LIbrary, Renton,
Washington.
Trost, Teresa
2020 Class I Cultural Resources Assessment for the City of Renton - Burnett Ave S
and Williams Ave S Water Quality Retrofit Project SWP-27-4088. Letter
report prepared for BHC Consultants, LLC, Seattle by Cascadia Archaeology,
Seattle.
USACE
1907 Map. Repository unknown. [This map has been used as a figure in cultural
resource reports, but the source was not referenced.]
USGS [U.S. Geological Survey]
1891 Land Classification Sheet, Tacoma Quadrangle. Early Washington Maps: A
Digital Collection – WSU Libraries. Electronic resource,
Cascadia Archaeology, LLC 27 Burnett Ave S and Williams Ave S
Water Quality Retrofit Cultural Resources Survey
https://cdm16866.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/maps/id/534, accessed
November 13, 2020.
Cascadia Archaeology, LLC A1 Burnett Ave S and Williams Ave S
Water Quality Retrofit Cultural Resources Survey
APPENDIX A
DESCRIPTIONS OF PROBES
Cascadia Archaeology, LLC A2 Burnett Ave S and Williams Ave S
Water Quality Retrofit Cultural Resources Survey
Description of Boreholes (KB) and Shovel/Auger Probes (SP)
Probe
Depth
below
surface
(cm[ft]) Description
Contents Notes
KB-1
0-76
(0-2.5)
Coarse sand; many rounded small to large
gravel and cobbles
Excavated with
vac truck
76-230
(2.5-7.5.)
Silty sand or sandy silt; rootlets (90-150 cm);
brown and gray mottles
Excavated with
vac truck
230-245
(7.5-8.
Mottled brown, gray and reddish brown silty
sand; common gravel, subrounded to rounded,
few angular
Borehole
sample
305
(10)
Olive brown silt to silty clay Charcoal and black organic
stain; rootlet
Possible thin
peat lens
460
(15)
Upper: Olive and reddish brown fine to
medium bedded sand. Lower: coarse gray sand;
few gravels; charcoal fleck
Charcoal fleck
610
(20)
Gray silty medium sand; large chunk of wood Wood water table
760
(25)
Large chunk of wood Wood
915
(30)
Coarse gray sand; common rounded gravel at
bottom; few pieces of wood; evergreen needle
Wood; plant material
KB-2
75
(2.5)
Dark brown silty sand; common small rounded
to subrounded gravel; asphalt chunks
fill
150
(5)
Fine sandy silt
230
(7.5)
Brown fine sandy silt; beds of reddish-brown
coarse sand; thin laminae of sandy silt
Few bits of woody debris
or bark and fine roots
Screened 3
screens of
cuttings
305
(10)
Mottled brown and olive brown silty fine sand Few flecks of organic
material
460
(15)
Bedded gravelly coarse sand and silty medium
sand; many small rounded to subrounded
gravels
610
(20)
Bedded dark gray coarse sand and brown silty
coarse sand; rounded to subrounded gravel
common
KB-3
0-45
0-1.5
Dark brown gravelly silty sand Fill; Screened 3
screens of
cuttings to 7.5 ft
75
(2.5)
Brown and olive mottled slightly sandy silt
150
(5)
Brown fine sand; bed of silty fine sand
230
(7.5)
Gravelly coarse sand; many rounded and
subrounded gravel and cobbles
305
(10)
Gravelly fine to coarse sand; rounded to
subrounded gravel and cobbles
460
(15)
Grayish brown gravelly fine to very coarse
sand; subrounded to rounded gravel
610
(20)
Grayish brown gravelly coarse sand and
grayish brown silty coarse sand with many
rounded to subrounded gravel
Cascadia Archaeology, LLC A3 Burnett Ave S and Williams Ave S
Water Quality Retrofit Cultural Resources Survey
Probe
Depth
below
surface
(cm[ft]) Description
Contents Notes
KB-4
0-75
(2.5)
Gray sand and recycled crushed concrete base (0-5 ft) 1 flat, glazed,
cream ceramic tile
fragment
Screened 3
screen loads of
cuttings 0-10 ft.
150
(5)
Dark yellowish-brown fine to coarse sand;
many subrounded to rounded gravel
230
(7.5)
Dark grayish brown fine to coarse sand; many
subrounded to subangular gravel
305
(10)
Yellowish brown fine to coarse sand; many
subrounded to subangular gravel
460
(15)
Small to large gravel; very little medium sand
matrix; rounded and subrounded gravel
610
(20)
Small to medium gravel; very little silty sand
matrix
SP1
0-30 Grayish brown coarse sand; 15% subangular to
rounded gravel; Lens of light brown clayey silt
Red ceramic utility pipe
fragment; n=2 wire nails;
n=1 nail; n=1 blue plastic;
n=1 asphalt chunk
Fill
30-90 Brown medium and coarse sand; <5% gravel Fill
90-115 Gray medium and coarse sand; 30% rounded
and subrounded gravel
Fill; terminated
by gravel
SP2
0-35 Dark grayish brown sandy loam; rounded and
subrounded gravel to cobbles common; lens of
yellowish brown sand; lens of very dark brown
gravelly silty sand
(0-20 cm) n=2 asphalt
chunks; n=1 foil wrapper;
(32-45 cm) red ceramic
utility pipe fragment in
wall
Fill
35-60 Brown slightly silty fine sand; few granules;
few coal flecks
(40-60 cm) n=1 aluminum
fragment; n=1 piece of coal
Fill
60-100 Brown silty sand; lens of gray ash and coal
fragments at about 70 cm; few rounded and
angular gravel; few roots
Coal ash debris Fill. Auger
below 60 cm
100-120 Brown medium sand; few small rounded and
subrounded gravel
Alluvium
120-130 Dark grayish brown medium to coarse sand Few rootlets; piece of
charcoal
Alluvium
130-135 Yellowish-brown silty fine sand Alluvium
135-170 Dark grayish brown medium sand Alluvium
170-185 Olive brown very silty very fine sand 1 rootlet Alluvium
185-190 Olive brown silty medium sand; small rounded
and subrounded gravel common
Alluvium
SP3
0-12 Very dark brown sandy loam; few subrounded
gravel; many roots
(0-20 cm) n=1 brown glass
fragment, n=1 concrete,
n=1 Stay-tab soda can
Fill
12-45 Brown slightly silty sand; many subrounded
and rounded gravels and cobbles; rootlets
common; lens of medium sand
(20-40 cm) wire (25 cmbs),
n=1 large nail, n=1 asphalt
Fill
54-105 Dark grayish brown gravelly sand; common
rounded to subrounded small gravel to large
cobbles; few small roots
(60-80 cm) n=1 brick, n=2
colorless glass fragments,
foil fragment, plastic
fragment
Fill; attempted
auger at 100
cm; terminated
by gravel
Cascadia Archaeology, LLC A4 Burnett Ave S and Williams Ave S
Water Quality Retrofit Cultural Resources Survey
Trench (T) Descriptions
Screened Sample
Trench
Depth
Below
Surface
(cm) Description
Basal
Depth
(cm)
Volume
(L) Contents Notes
T1
0-20 Dark grayish brown coarse loamy
sand; large roots (0-60 cm)
- Fill
20-180 Brown to yellowish brown slightly
loamy medium sand; few rounded
gravels; mixed with tan sand (50-
70 cm); few roots (100-130 cm);
- Historic fill and
mixed alluvium.
50 11
70 12 n=1 milk glass
fragment
80 20
120 20
130 13
140 14 bit of coal
160 20
180-200 Discontinuous lenses of very dark
brown fine sandy loam in same
matrix as above; few small to
large, rounded gravel and cobbles
200 15 Alluvium
T2
0-40 Dark grayish brown silty sand;
rounded to angular gravel
common; small to large roots
present
40 11 Fill
40-90 Grayish brown slightly silty
medium sand; very few gravel;
lens of grayish brown sand with
common rounded to subrounded
gravel (70-75 cm)
50 14 mixed alluvium
70 11
90 10
90-100 Grayish brown slightly silty
medium sand; small lenses of dark
brown silty sand; few medium
rounded gravel
100 13 Alluvium
100-140 Grayish brown silty fine sand; few
rounded gravel
120 11 Charcoal fleck
and some
charcoal stain
Alluvium
140 7
140-150 Gravelly medium and coarse sand;
many rounded and subrounded
gravel; few cobbles
150 15 High energy
alluvium
T4
0-37 Dark grayish brown coarse sandy
loam; common gravel; thin
organic/charcoal lens (36-37 cm)
- Recent fill
37-60 Dark grayish brown coarse sandy
loam; common gravel; medium to
small roots common
- Fill
60-105 Grayish brown to yellowish brown
silty fine to medium sand; few pea
gravel; medium to small roots
80 20 Fill
105 13
105-120 Yellowish brown fine sandy silt;
decayed organics present; rootlets;
at 120 cm lens of charcoal and
120 14 Lens of
charcoal and
burnt wood at
Alluvium
Cascadia Archaeology, LLC A5 Burnett Ave S and Williams Ave S
Water Quality Retrofit Cultural Resources Survey
burnt wood 118-120 cm
120-185 Olive gray silt; strong reddish
brown mottles
150 14 Low energy
alluvium 160 13
185 14
T5
0-90 Brown fine to coarse sandy loam;
common gravels and cobbles,
rounded and subrounded; thin
lenses of ashy gray sand with coal
flecks; roots common
30 - Coca cola bottle Fill
60 13 Brick
70-100
(south)
Pit in south end of trench filled
with bricks and cobbles in brown
sandy loam matrix
95 14 20+ bricks Fill pit at south
end of trench
90-150 Olive brown to gray fine sandy
silt; olive gray and reddish brown
mottles; lens of decayed organics
and charcoal, few rootlets (140
cm)
110 13 Low energy
alluvium 140 14
150 12
150-160 Mottled reddish brown and olive
brown fine sand; small lens of
organics and charcoal
160 14 Alluvium
160-185 Bedded gray silt and gray fine
sand; orange-brown mottles
170 7 Alluvium
185 12
T6
0-40 Dark brown sandy loam; rounded
gravel common; large roots;
Fill; topsoil
40-120 Brown silty fine sand; few rootlets;
very few gravel; Lenses of gray
ashy, gravelly coarse sand (50-70
cm and 95-100 cm)
50 10 Fill
70 18
95 10
120 13
120-135 Brown silty fine sand 130 11 Alluvium
135 14
135-150 Olive brown very fine sandy silt;
few rootlets
140 7 Low energy
alluvium
150-160 Olive brown very fine sandy silt;
few very small, rounded gravel;
discontinuous lenses with few
charcoal flecks and dark brown
organic stains
160 11 Low energy
alluvium
T7
0-70 Brown silty fine sand; few rounded
gravel and cobbles; roots
50 14 Blue glazed
ceramic
fragment
Fill
70 13 Brick, cement,
pipe
70-90 Brown medium sand; very few
rounded gravel and cobbles; gray
sandy, ashy lens
Fill
90-120 Grayish brown silty fine sand; few
roots
100 12 Alluvium
120 13
120-135 Olive brown silty fine sand to fine
sandy silt; small roots common;
lens of reddish-brown medium
sand
135 13 Low energy
alluvium
135-180 Beds of olive brown fine sandy silt
and medium to fine sand
160 11 Alluvium
170 5
T8 0-20 Dark brown sandy loam; few - Topsoil fill
Cascadia Archaeology, LLC A6 Burnett Ave S and Williams Ave S
Water Quality Retrofit Cultural Resources Survey
rounded to subrounded gravel;
lenses of yellowish brown sandy
loam
20-60 Very gravelly coarse sand;
rounded to subrounded gravel and
cobbles common; few silt lenses
30 12 wire nail, wire
tree root ball
basket, yellow
flagging tape
Fill
50 14
60 14
60-90 Olive brown fine sandy silt 70 14 Alluvium
80 12
90 10
90-140 Brown silt; few rootlets; very few
small, rounded gravel
100 8 Low energy
alluvium 115 12
140 24
140-160 Gray silt; few roots; organic stains;
charcoal flecks
160 16 Low energy
alluvium
160-190 Light olive gray silt 180 12 Low energy
alluvium 190 12
190-240 Yellowish brown silty very fine
sand
220 12 Alluvium
240 10
240-300 Alternating beds of gray silt and
silty fine sand
260 10 Alluvium
270 16
275 6
300 12
T9
0-30 Brown silty sand; common angular
crushed gravel; few roots
- Recent fill
30-45 Brown fine to coarse sand; many
rounded and subrounded gravels
and cobbles
40 12 White glass jar;
2 wire nails
Fill
45-100 Gray ashy sand; small to large
angular gravel common; coal
common
50 14 Brick Coal ash fill
70 10 White glass;
ceramic
90 12 Brick; bottle
base fragment;
glass; ceramic
with printed
floral pattern
100-125 Dark grayish brown very gravelly
fine to coarse sand; many rounded
to subrounded gravel and cobbles
105 14 Channel
alluvium or
channel gravel
used as fill
110 10
125 10
T10
0-30 Dark brown silty sand; rounded
gravel common
30 10 BLUE NUN
plastic
wrapping
Topsoil fill
30-60 Dark grayish brown gravelly
coarse sand; pockets of brown
sand; many gravel and cobbles
50 10 Fill
60 12
60-85 Brown silty fine sand to fine sand 75 14 Alluvium
85-130 Grayish brown beds of fine sand
and medium sand
90 14 Alluvium
95 14
115 14
130 14
130-180 Grayish brown very fine sandy silt; 150 14 Alluvium
Cascadia Archaeology, LLC A7 Burnett Ave S and Williams Ave S
Water Quality Retrofit Cultural Resources Survey
thin beds of reddish-brown
medium sand; few rootlets
180 12
180-190 Olive gray silt; iron oxide
concretions around old root casts
Low energy
allvuivum
Cascadia Archaeology, LLC A8 Burnett Ave S and Williams Ave S
Water Quality Retrofit Cultural Resources Survey
APPENDIX B
Wetland Reconnaissance and Stream Delineation Report
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK.
750 Sixth Street South | Kirkland, WA 98033
P 425.822.5242 | f 425.827.8136 | watershedco.com
December 1, 2020
Becca Ochiltree
BHC Consultants
1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98101
Via email: becca.ochiltree@bhcconsultants.com
(206) 355-8953
Re: City of Renton – Burnett Ave S & Williams Ave S Water
Quality Retrofit Project SWP-27-4088, Wetland Reconnaissance
and Stream Delineation Report
The Watershed Company Reference Number: 200903
Summary
This report has been prepared to present the findings of a wetland reconnaissance and stream
delineation study located in the City Center of Renton. The study was conducted as a
preliminary step to inform permitting of the Burnett Avenue S and Williams Avenue S Water
Quality Retrofit Project. The project will upgrade water quality treatment facilities within the
urbanized Burnett Avenue South and Williams Avenue South drainage area and upgrade the
existing stormwater conveyance infrastructure.
This study screened for and evaluated critical areas within the project area and within
approximately 200 feet of the project area. In addition to the information and findings presented
in this report, the following attachments are enclosed:
• Reconniassance and Delineation Sketch
• Wetland Determination Data Forms
The Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of the Cedar River was delineated and flagged
within the project area. Additionally, two wetlands were identified within, or adjacent to, the
project area. A summary of identified wetlands and streams are described in Table 1 below.
Wetland Reconnaissance and Stream Delineation Report
Water Quality Retrofit Project
Page 2
750 Sixth Street South | Kirkland, WA 98033
P 425.822.5242 | f 425.827.8136 | watershedco.com
Table 1. Summary of wetlands, streams, and required buffers.
*Wetland features have not been delineated; category, habitat score, and standard buffer width are approximate.
Study Area
The project is located in the City of Renton, in the City Center. The northern extents of the study
area are defined by the Cedar River, with the southern extents defined by South 2nd Street. The
study area’s western boundary extends approximately 120 feet west of Burnett Avenue S and
eastern boundary extends approximately 170 feet east of Williams Avenue S (Figure 1). It is
located within Sections 17 and 18 of Township 23 North, Range 05 East of the Public Land
Survey System.
Figure 1. Vicinity and study area map; study area outlined in red.
Feature Name Category/Type Habitat Score Standard Buffer
Wetland A* Category III* 3* 60 ft.
Potential Wetland B* Category III* 3* 75 ft.
Cedar River Type S n/a 200’
Wetland Reconnaissance and Stream Delineation Report
Water Quality Retrofit Project
Page 3
750 Sixth Street South | Kirkland, WA 98033
P 425.822.5242 | f 425.827.8136 | watershedco.com
Methods
Field investigations for the delineation study were conducted on November 13, 2020 by The
Watershed Company fisheries biologist Peter Heltzel and ecologist Roen Hohlfeld.
The study area was evaluated for wetlands using methodology from the Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the
Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Version 2.0 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2010). Presence or absence of wetlands was
determined on the basis of an examination of vegetation, soils and hydrology. These parameters
were sampled at several locations along the wetland boundaries to determine the wetland edge.
Wetland A and Wetland B were classified using the Department of Ecology’s 2014 rating system
(Hruby 2014).
Characterization of climatic conditions for precipitation in the Wetland Determination Data
Forms were determined using the WETS table methodology (USDA, NRCS 2015). The “Seattle
Tacoma Intl AP” station from 1981‐2010 was used as a source for precipitation data
(http://agacis.rcc‐acis.org/). The WETS table methodology uses climate data from the three
months prior to the site visit month to determine if normal conditions are present in the study
area region.
The study area was evaluated for streams based on the presence or absence of an OHWM as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Washington Administrative Code (WAC)
220‐660‐030, and the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 90.58.030 and guidance documents
including Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark for Shoreline Management Act Compliance in
Washington State (Anderson 2016) and A Guide to Ordinate High Water Mark (OHWM) Delineation
for Non-Perennial Streams in the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region of the United States
(Mersel 2016).
Public‐domain information on the subject properties was reviewed for this delineation study.
Resources and review findings are presented in Table 2 of the “Environmental Setting” section
of this letter.
Environmental Setting
The study area is located in Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 8, the Cedar-Sammamish
Watershed, within the Cedar River Drainage basin. The northern extents of the study area are
defined by the Cedar River. The study area totals approximately 14-acres in size and
encompasses the William’s sub-basin which discharges into the Cedar River.
Wetland Reconnaissance and Stream Delineation Report
Water Quality Retrofit Project
Page 4
750 Sixth Street South | Kirkland, WA 98033
P 425.822.5242 | f 425.827.8136 | watershedco.com
Land use within the study area is highly urbanized with a mix of commercial businesses, multi-
family apartments, and high-density single-family housing. Approximately 90 percent of the
study area consists of impervious surfaces. Vegetation is limited throughout and generally
consists of small lawn areas, planters and ornamental trees. Along the Cedar River, restoration
plantings as well as non-native vegetation are present. Immediately west and east of the project
area Burnett Linear Park and Jones Park are dominated by maintained lawn areas with small
clusters of mature trees. Topography is relatively flat throughout the study area, with the
exception of steeply sloped stream banks along the Cedar River.
Reviewed public-domain information for the site is summarized below (Table 2).
Table 2. Summary of online mapping and inventory resources.
Findings
One stream (Cedar River) was delineated and flagged within the study area. Additionally, two
wetlands (Wetland A and B) were identified within or adjacent to the study area; wetland
features were not delineated in the study.
Resource Summary
USDA NRCS: Web Soil Survey Urban land
USFWS: NWI Wetland Mapper One riverine system (Cedar River) located within study area; no
wetlands mapped with 300 feet of study area.
WDFW: PHS on the Web Sockeye, bull trout, kokanee, steelhead, coho, chinook, and cutthroat
mapped in study area.
WDFW: SalmonScape Documented chinook, coho, and sockeye spawning; documented
steelhead rearing; documented bull trout and kokanee presence.
WA-DNR: Forest Practices
Activity Mapping Tool
One Type S water body (Cedar River) mapped along northern extent of
study area; one Type F stream mapped approximately 530 feet south
of study area.
King County iMap
One stream (Cedar River) mapped at northern boundary of study
area; no wetlands mapped within 300 feet of study area. FEMA
floodway and 100-year floodplain extend approximately 75 feet into
study area.
City of Renton Maps
One stream (Cedar River) mapped at northern boundary of study
area; 100-year floodplain extend approximately 75 feet into study
area; no wetlands mapped within 300 feet of study area.
WETS Climatic Condition Normal
Wetland Reconnaissance and Stream Delineation Report
Water Quality Retrofit Project
Page 5
750 Sixth Street South | Kirkland, WA 98033
P 425.822.5242 | f 425.827.8136 | watershedco.com
C edar River
The Cedar River, a Shoreline of the State, is located at the northern extent of the study area. The
left bank OHWM was flagged between Wells Avenue S and Logan Avenue S bridges. The
Cedar River flows northwest though the study area and discharges into Lake Washington
approximately 1 mile north of the study area.
The Cedar River is approximately 100 feet in width within the study area, with a gradient of
less than 1% slope based on King County topography data. At the time of the site visit on
November 13th, the USGS stream gage located at Renton, WA (USGS 12119000) measured
approximately 9.8 feet, with a 1,300 cubic feet per second flow rate. Streambed substrate is
composed of cobble, gravel, and fine sediments (sand and silt). Some bank armoring is present
within the study area. The stream channel is fairly straight and confined in the study area reach
and includes areas of glides and riffles; gravel bars are present with lower flows. Riparian
vegetation is limited to a narrow corridor dominated by a mixture of native and invasive plants
as well as a row of mature deciduous trees. The Cedar River is a fish-bearing stream that
supports multiple fish species including salmonids such as sockeye, bull trout, kokanee,
steelhead, coho, chinook, and cutthroat.
Wetland Reconnaissance and Stream Delineation Report
Water Quality Retrofit Project
Page 6
750 Sixth Street South | Kirkland, WA 98033
P 425.822.5242 | f 425.827.8136 | watershedco.com
Figure 2. Cedar River facing northwest (downstream), taken from Williams Ave S bridge.
Figure 3. Left bank of Cedar River showing approximate location of existing outfall.
Wetland Reconnaissance and Stream Delineation Report
Water Quality Retrofit Project
Page 7
750 Sixth Street South | Kirkland, WA 98033
P 425.822.5242 | f 425.827.8136 | watershedco.com
Wetland A
Wetland A is a depressional wetland located in Burnett Linear Park, immediately west of the
study area. One data point (DP-1) was taken within Wetland A, with hydrophytic vegetation,
hydric soils, and wetland hydrology present. Soils sampled within the wetland meet
requirements for Redox Dark Surface (F6) and saturation was present at 4-inches below surface
grade at the time of sampling. The primary source of hydrology appears to be a high
groundwater table. Wetland A consists of emergent vegetation dominated by maintained lawn
and creeping buttercup.
Figure 4. Wetland A, facing north; puddles present due to recent precipitation.
Potential Wetland B
Potential Wetland B is a small depressional wetland located on private property at the western
boundary of the study area near S Tobin Street. Observations were made from the city right-of-
way and a soil sample could not be examined. Wetland B is located in a narrow swale and there
appeared to be surface water shallowly ponded at the time of the study. Dominant vegetation in
the wetland area includes Sitka willow, black cottonwood, Himalayan blackberry, reed canary
grass, and giant horsetail.
Wetland Reconnaissance and Stream Delineation Report
Water Quality Retrofit Project
Page 8
750 Sixth Street South | Kirkland, WA 98033
P 425.822.5242 | f 425.827.8136 | watershedco.com
Figure 5. Potential wetland area, Wetland B, facing west; puddles present due to recent precipitation.
Local Regulations
The Cedar River is listed as a Shoreline of the State per Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-3-090B
(Regulated Shorelines). Therefore, Stream A (Cedar River) is classified as a Type S water body
and is regulated under RMC 4-3-090 (Shoreline Master Program Regulations). The jurisdictional
area of regulated shorelines includes “lands within two hundred feet (200'), as measured on a
horizontal plane, from the OHWM, or lands within two hundred feet (200') from floodways,
whichever is greater;” as well as “all marshes, bogs, swamps, and river deltas associated with
streams, lakes, and tidal waters that are subject to the provisions of the State Shoreline
Management Act.” (RMC 4-3-090B.3.a -b)
Critical areas in the City of Renton are regulated by RMC 4-3-050 (Critical Areas Regulations).
Wetlands within the City of Renton are rated as one of four categories based on the Washington
State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington, 2014 Update (Ecology Publication No.
14-06-029). Accordingly, Wetland A and Wetland B are both estimated to be classified as
Category III wetlands with low habitat functions (3-4 points).
Wetland A is an associated wetland located within shoreline jurisdiction of the Cedar River and
is thus regulated under 4-3-090B (Regulated Shorelines). Accordingly, the minimum buffer
Wetland Reconnaissance and Stream Delineation Report
Water Quality Retrofit Project
Page 9
750 Sixth Street South | Kirkland, WA 98033
P 425.822.5242 | f 425.827.8136 | watershedco.com
width for Wetland A is 60 feet (RMC 4-3-090D2.d.iii.c). However, the buffer of Wetland A is
disconnected to the project area due to the presence of a multistory building, approximately 50
feet wide, that spans the length of the wetland. According to RMC 4-3-090D2.d.iii.a, “buffers
shall not include areas that are functionally and effectively disconnected from the wetland by a
permanent road or other substantially developed surface of sufficient width and with use
characteristics such that buffer functions are not provided and that cannot be feasibly removed,
relocated or restored to provide buffer functions.” Therefore, an argument can likely be made
that the buffer would not extend into the project area.
Wetland B appears to be located entirely outside of the Shoreline Jurisdiction and, if confirmed
as a jurisdictional wetland, its buffer width would be determined by RMC 4-3-050G.2. As an
estimated Category III wetland with low habitat functions located outside of areas with low
impact land uses, the buffer width for Wetland B would be 75 feet. While there is a similar
provision to exclude buffer areas that are disconnected from the wetland in RMC 4-3-050, this
likely does not apply to Wetland B since the gravel lot comprising its encumbering buffer could
be feasibly removed to restore buffer functions. However, in the case of both Wetland A and
Wetland B, no buffer impacts are anticipated in association with the proposed water quality
retrofit project because all construction activities, with the exception of replacing the existing
stormwater outfall, are to take place within the existing right-of-way, disturbing only existing
paved street areas.
Permitted Alterations
Utility improvements in existing improved rights-of-way within wetland buffers are an allowed
use pursuant to RMC 4-3-050C.3.
Additionally, according to RMC 4-3-090D7.d.ii., underground utilities, including stormwater
outfalls and conveyance pipes are exempt from buffers and setbacks “provided, they are
constructed and maintained in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts on shoreline
ecological functions; and provided further, that they comply with all the applicable regulations
in RMC Title IV.” All work within shoreline jurisdiction must follow the utility guidelines
found in RMC 4-3-090E.11, as well as the no net loss and mitigation sequencing standards in
RMC 4-3-090D.2.a.
State and Federal Regulations
Federal Agencies
Most wetlands and streams are regulated by the Corps under Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act. Any proposed filling or other direct impacts to Waters of the U.S., including wetlands
Wetland Reconnaissance and Stream Delineation Report
Water Quality Retrofit Project
Page 10
750 Sixth Street South | Kirkland, WA 98033
P 425.822.5242 | f 425.827.8136 | watershedco.com
(except isolated wetlands), would require notification and permits from the Corps. Unavoidable
impacts to jurisdictional wetlands are typically required to be compensated through
implementation of an approved mitigation plan. If activities requiring a Corps permits are
proposed, a Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application (JARPA) could be submitted to obtain
authorization.
Federally permitted actions that could affect endangered species may also require a biological
assessment study and consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or the National
Marine Fisheries Service. Compliance with the Endangered Species Act must be demonstrated
for activities within jurisdictional wetlands and the 100‐year floodplain. Application for Corps
permits may also require an individual 401 Water Quality Certification and Coastal Zone
Management Consistency determination from Ecology and a cultural resource study in
accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology)
Similar to the Corps, Ecology, under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, is charged with
reviewing, conditioning, and approving or denying certain federally permitted actions that
result in discharges to state waters. Ecology review under the Clean Water Act would only
become necessary if a Section 404 permit from the Corps was issued. However, Ecology also
regulates wetlands, including isolated wetlands, under the Washington Pollution Prevention
and Control Act, but only if direct wetland impacts are proposed. Therefore, if filling activities
are avoided, authorization from Ecology would not be needed.
If filling is proposed, a JARPA may be also be submitted to Ecology in order to obtain a Section
401 Water Quality Certification and Coastal Zone Management Consistency Determination.
Ecology permits are either issued concurrently with the Corps permit or within 90 days
following the Corps permit.
In general, neither the Corps nor Ecology regulates wetland and stream buffers, unless direct
impacts are proposed. When direct impacts are proposed, mitigated wetlands and streams may
be required to employ buffers based on Corps and Ecology joint regulatory guidance.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Chapter 77.55 of the RCW (the Hydraulic Code) gives WDFW the authority to review,
condition, and approve or deny “any construction activity that will use, divert, obstruct, or
change the bed or flow of state waters.” This provision includes any in‐water work, the crossing
or bridging of any state waters and can sometimes include stormwater discharge to state
waters. If a project meets regulatory requirements, WDFW will issue a Hydraulic Project
Approval (HPA).
Wetland Reconnaissance and Stream Delineation Report
Water Quality Retrofit Project
Page 11
750 Sixth Street South | Kirkland, WA 98033
P 425.822.5242 | f 425.827.8136 | watershedco.com
Through issuance of an HPA, WDFW can also restrict activities to a particular timeframe. Work
is typically restricted to late summer and early fall. However, WDFW has in the past allowed
crossings or outfalls that do not involve in‐stream work to occur at any time during the year.
Disclaimer
The information contained in this letter is based on the application of technical guidelines
currently accepted as the best available science and in conjunction with the manuals and criteria
referenced above. All discussions, conclusions and recommendations reflect the best
professional judgment of the author(s) and are based upon information available at the time the
study was conducted. All work was completed within the constraints of budget, scope, and
timing. The findings of this report are subject to verification and agreement by the appropriate
local, state and federal regulatory authorities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is
made.
Please call if you have any questions or if we can provide you with any additional information.
Sincerely,
Roen Hohlfeld
Ecologist
Wetland Reconnaissance and Stream Delineation Report
Water Quality Retrofit Project
Page 12
750 Sixth Street South | Kirkland, WA 98033
P 425.822.5242 | f 425.827.8136 | watershedco.com
References
Anderson, P.S. et al. 2016. Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark for Shoreline
Management Act Compliance in Washington State. (Publication #16-06-029). Olympia,
WA: Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, Washington Department of
Ecology.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. “Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,” Technical
Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Hruby, T. 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014
Update. (Publication #14-06-029). Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Ecology.
Mersel, M.K. and Lichvar, R.W. 2014. A Guide to Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM)
Delineation for Non-Perennial Streams in the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast
Region of the United States. ERDC/CRREL TR-14-13.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0). ed. J.
S. Wakely, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-3. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army
Engineer Research and Development Center.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2015.
National Engineering Handbook, Part 650 Engineering Field Handbook, Chapter 19
Hydrology Tools for Wetland Identification and Analysis. ed. R. A. Weber. 210-VI-NEH,
Amend. 75. Washington, DC
Page 1 of 1
Reconnaissance and Delineation Sketch – Burnett & Williams Stormwater Retrofit
Project area: Renton, WA; City Center Prepared for: BHC Consultants
Site Visit Date: November 13, 2020 TWC Ref. No.: 200903
Wetland A
Note: Field sketch only. Features depicted are approximate and not to scale. OHWM is marked with blue- and white-
striped flags. Data points are marked with yellow- and black-striped flags.
LEGEND
Wetland Area
Non-delineated Wetland Boundary
Delineated OHWM
Non-delineated OHWM
Project Extents
Data Point (DP)
Potential
Wetland B
(private property)
DP-1
DP-2
Stream A OHWM
(Cedar River)
Flags WMA-1L to
WMA-23L
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
DP - 1
Project/Site: Burnett & Williams City/County: Renton Sampling date: 11/13/2020
Applicant/Owner: City of Renton State: WA Sampling Point: 1
Investigator(s): Hohlfeld, R. and Heltzel, P. Section, Township, Range: T23N, R05E, S17/18
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Slight depression Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%): <2
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: - Long: - Datum: -
Soil Map Unit Name: Urban land NWI classification: none
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? ☒ Yes ☐ No (If no, explain in remarks.)
Are Vegetation ☐, Soil ☐, or Hydrology ☐ significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present on the site? ☒ Yes ☐ No
Are Vegetation ☐, Soil ☐, or Hydrology ☐ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
0Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 1Yes ☒ 3No ☐
5Is the Sampled Area
6within a Wetland? 7Yes ☒ No ☐ 8Hydric Soils Present? 9Yes ☒ 11No ☐
13Wetland Hydrology Present? 14Yes ☒ 16No ☐
18Remarks: 19Wetland A – in pit.
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5-m diameter)
Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 1.
2. Total Number of Dominant
Species Across all Strata: 2 (B) 3.
4. Percent of Dominant Species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) - = Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3-m diameter) Prevalence Index worksheet:
1. Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
2. OBL species x 1 =
3. FACW species x 2 =
4. FAC species x 3 =
5. FACU species x 4 =
- = Total Cover UPL species x 5 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1-m diameter) Column Totals: (A) (B)
1. Poa sp. 85 Y FAC* Prevalence Index = B/A = 2. Ranunculus repens 25 Y FAC
3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4. ☐ 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5. ☒ 2 – Dominance Test is > 50%
6. ☐ 3 – Prevalence Index is ≤ 3.01
7. ☐ 4 – Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8.
9. ☐ 5 – Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
10. ☐ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
11. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic. 110 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3-m diameter)
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
Yes ☒ No ☐
1.
2.
- = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum:
Remarks: * Poa species (mowed lawn) assumed to be FAC.
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM –
Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: DP-1
HYDROLOGY
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-6 10YR 2/2 100 - Silt loam
6-18 2.5Y 3/1 80 7.5Y 4/4 20 C M Silt loam
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Loc: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
☐ Histosol (A1) ☐ Sandy Redox (S5) ☐ 2cm Muck (A10)
☐ Histic Epipedon (A2) ☐ Stripped Matrix (S6) ☐ Red Parent Material (TF2)
☐ Black Histic (A3) ☐ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ☐ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
☐ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ☐ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ☐ Other (Explain in Remarks)
☐ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ☐ Depleted Matrix (F3)
☐ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ☒ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present, unless
disturbed or problematic. ☐ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ☐ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
☐ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ☐ Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric soil
present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
☐ Surface water (A1) ☐ Water-Stained Leaves (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A
& 4B) (B9) ☐ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1,
2, 4A & 4B) ☐ High Water Table (A2)
☒ Saturation (A3) ☐ Salt Crust (B11) ☐ Drainage Patterns (B10)
☐ Water Marks (B1) ☐ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ☐ Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
☐ Sediment Deposits (B2) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ☐ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
☐ Drift Deposits (B3) ☐ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ☐ Geomorphic Position (D2)
☐ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ☐ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ☐ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
☐ Iron Deposits (B5) ☐ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ☐ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
☐ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ☐ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ☐ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
☐ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ☐ Other (explain in remarks) ☐ Frost-Heave Hummocks
☐ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Wetland Hydrology
Present? Yes ☒ No ☐
Surface Water Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in):
Water Table Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in):
Saturation Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Depth (in): 4” BSG
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM –
Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
DP - 2
Project/Site: Burnett & Williams City/County: Renton Sampling date: 11/13/2020
Applicant/Owner: City of Renton State: WA Sampling Point: 2
Investigator(s): Hohlfeld, R. and Heltzel, P. Section, Township, Range: T23N, R05E, S17/18
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%): <2
Subregion (LRR): A Lat: - Long: - Datum: -
Soil Map Unit Name: Urban land NWI classification: none
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? ☒ Yes ☐ No (If no, explain in remarks.)
Are Vegetation ☐, Soil ☐, or Hydrology ☐ significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present on the site? ☒ Yes ☐ No
Are Vegetation ☐, Soil ☐, or Hydrology ☐ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
20Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 21Yes ☒ 23No ☐
25Is the Sampled Area
26within a Wetland? 27Yes ☐ No ☒ 28Hydric Soils Present? 29Yes ☐ 31No ☒
33Wetland Hydrology Present? 34Yes ☐ 36No ☒
38Remarks: 39Wetland A – out pit.
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5-m diameter)
Absolute
% Cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) 1.
2. Total Number of Dominant
Species Across all Strata: 1 (B) 3.
4. Percent of Dominant Species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) - = Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3-m diameter) Prevalence Index worksheet:
1. Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
2. OBL species x 1 =
3. FACW species x 2 =
4. FAC species x 3 =
5. FACU species x 4 =
- = Total Cover UPL species x 5 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1-m diameter) Column Totals: (A) (B)
1. Poa sp. 100 Y FAC* Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.
3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4. ☐ 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5. ☒ 2 – Dominance Test is > 50%
6. ☐ 3 – Prevalence Index is ≤ 3.01
7. ☐ 4 – Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8.
9. ☐ 5 – Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
10. ☐ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
11. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic. 100 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3-m diameter)
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
Yes ☒ No ☐
1.
2.
- = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum:
Remarks: * Poa species (mowed lawn) assumed to be FAC.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point: DP-2
HYDROLOGY
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-9 10YR 3/2 100 - Silt loam
9-16 2.5Y 4/3 100 - Sandy loam
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Loc: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
☐ Histosol (A1) ☐ Sandy Redox (S5) ☐ 2cm Muck (A10)
☐ Histic Epipedon (A2) ☐ Stripped Matrix (S6) ☐ Red Parent Material (TF2)
☐ Black Histic (A3) ☐ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ☐ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
☐ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ☐ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ☐ Other (Explain in Remarks)
☐ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ☐ Depleted Matrix (F3)
☐ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ☐ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present, unless
disturbed or problematic. ☐ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ☐ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
☐ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ☐ Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric soil
present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
☐ Surface water (A1) ☐ Water-Stained Leaves (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A
& 4B) (B9) ☐ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1,
2, 4A & 4B) ☐ High Water Table (A2)
☐ Saturation (A3) ☐ Salt Crust (B11) ☐ Drainage Patterns (B10)
☐ Water Marks (B1) ☐ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ☐ Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
☐ Sediment Deposits (B2) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ☐ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
☐ Drift Deposits (B3) ☐ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ☐ Geomorphic Position (D2)
☐ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ☐ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ☐ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
☐ Iron Deposits (B5) ☐ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ☐ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
☐ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ☐ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ☐ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
☐ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ☐ Other (explain in remarks) ☐ Frost-Heave Hummocks
☐ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Wetland Hydrology
Present? Yes ☐ No ☒
Surface Water Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in):
Water Table Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in):
Saturation Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in):
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: Soil moist at 16” BSG.
APPENDIX C
Geotechnical Report
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK.
APPENDIX D
Water Quality Calculations
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK.
²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
0*6)/22'
352-(&75(3257
3URJUDP9HUVLRQ0*6)ORRG
3URJUDP/LFHQVH1XPEHU
3URMHFW6LPXODWLRQ3HUIRUPHGRQ$0
5HSRUW*HQHUDWLRQ'DWH$0
²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
,QSXW)LOH1DPH 7UHDWPHQW$UHDVB3UHGHYHORSHG(QWLUH%DVLQIOG
3URMHFW1DPH 5HQWRQ:45HWURILW
$QDO\VLV7LWOH
&RPPHQWV (QWLUH%DVLQ3UHGHYHORSHG
²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²35(&,3,7$7,21,1387²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²²
&RPSXWDWLRQDO7LPH6WHS0LQXWHV
([WHQGHG3UHFLSLWDWLRQ7LPH6HULHV6HOHFWHG
&OLPDWLF5HJLRQ1XPEHU
)XOO3HULRGRI5HFRUG$YDLODEOHXVHGIRU5RXWLQJ
3UHFLSLWDWLRQ6WDWLRQ 3XJHW(DVWLQBPLQ
(YDSRUDWLRQ6WDWLRQ 3XJHW(DVWLQ0$3
(YDSRUDWLRQ6FDOH)DFWRU
+63)3DUDPHWHU5HJLRQ1XPEHU
+63)3DUDPHWHU5HJLRQ1DPH 86*6'HIDXOW
'HIDXOW+63)3DUDPHWHUV8VHG1RW0RGLILHGE\8VHU
:$7(56+(''(),1,7,21
3UHGHYHORSPHQW3RVW'HYHORSPHQW7ULEXWDU\$UHD6XPPDU\
3UHGHYHORSHG3RVW'HYHORSHG
7RWDO6XEEDVLQ$UHDDFUHV
$UHDRI/LQNVWKDW,QFOXGH3UHFLS(YDSDFUHV
7RWDODFUHV
6&(1$5,2(17,5(%$6,135('(9(/23('
1XPEHURI6XEEDVLQV
6XEEDVLQ:LOOLDPV%DVLQ
$UHD$FUHV
2XWZDVK)RUHVW
6XEEDVLQ7RWDO
6&(1$5,2(17,5(%$6,13267'(9(/23('
1XPEHURI6XEEDVLQV
6XEEDVLQ:LOOLDPV%DVLQ
$UHD$FUHV
2XWZDVK*UDVV
,PSHUYLRXV
6XEEDVLQ7RWDO
/,1.'$7$
6&(1$5,2(17,5(%$6,135('(9(/23('
1XPEHURI/LQNV
/LQN1DPH1HZ&RS\/QN
/LQN7\SH&RS\
'RZQVWUHDP/LQN1RQH
/,1.'$7$
6&(1$5,2(17,5(%$6,13267'(9(/23('
1XPEHURI/LQNV
/LQN1DPH1HZ&RS\/QN
/LQN7\SH&RS\
'RZQVWUHDP/LQN1RQH
)/22')5(48(1&<$1''85$7,2167$7,67,&6
6&(1$5,2(17,5(%$6,135('(9(/23('
1XPEHURI6XEEDVLQV
1XPEHURI/LQNV
6&(1$5,2(17,5(%$6,13267'(9(/23('
1XPEHURI6XEEDVLQV
1XPEHURI/LQNV
*URXQGZDWHU5HFKDUJH6XPPDU\
5HFKDUJHLVFRPSXWHGDVLQSXWWR3HUOQG*URXQGZDWHU3OXV,QILOWUDWLRQLQ6WUXFWXUHV
7RWDO3UHGHYHORSHG5HFKDUJH'XULQJ6LPXODWLRQ
0RGHO(OHPHQW5HFKDUJH$PRXQWDFIW
6XEEDVLQ:LOOLDPV%DVLQ
/LQN1HZ&RS\/QN
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
7RWDO
7RWDO3RVW'HYHORSHG5HFKDUJH'XULQJ6LPXODWLRQ
0RGHO(OHPHQW5HFKDUJH$PRXQWDFIW
6XEEDVLQ:LOOLDPV%DVLQ
/LQN1HZ&RS\/QN
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
7RWDO
7RWDO3UHGHYHORSPHQW5HFKDUJHLV*UHDWHUWKDQ3RVW'HYHORSHG
$YHUDJH5HFKDUJH3HU<HDU1XPEHURI<HDUV
3UHGHYHORSHG DFIW\HDU 3RVW'HYHORSHGDFIW\HDU
:DWHU4XDOLW\)DFLOLW\'DWD
6&(1$5,2(17,5(%$6,135('(9(/23('
1XPEHURI/LQNV
/LQN1HZ&RS\/QN
%DVLF:HW3RQG9ROXPH([FHHGDQFHFXIW
&RPSXWHG/DUJH:HW3RQG9ROXPH
%DVLF9ROXPHFXIW
<HDU'LVFKDUJH5DWHFIV
0LQXWH7LPHVWHS:DWHU4XDOLW\7UHDWPHQW'HVLJQ'LVFKDUJH
2QOLQH'HVLJQ'LVFKDUJH5DWH([FHHGDQFHFIV
2IIOLQH'HVLJQ'LVFKDUJH5DWH([FHHGDQFHFIV
,QILOWUDWLRQ)LOWUDWLRQ6WDWLVWLFV
,QIORZ9ROXPHDFIW
,QIORZ9ROXPH,QFOXGLQJ337(YDSDFIW
7RWDO5XQRII,QILOWUDWHGDFIW
7RWDO5XQRII)LOWHUHGDFIW
3ULPDU\2XWIORZ7R'RZQVWUHDP6\VWHPDFIW
6HFRQGDU\2XWIORZ7R'RZQVWUHDP6\VWHPDFIW
9ROXPH/RVWWR(7DFIW
3HUFHQW7UHDWHG,QILOWUDWHG)LOWHUHG(77RWDO9ROXPH
6&(1$5,2(17,5(%$6,13267'(9(/23('
1XPEHURI/LQNV
/LQN1HZ&RS\/QN
%DVLF:HW3RQG9ROXPH([FHHGDQFHFXIW
&RPSXWHG/DUJH:HW3RQG9ROXPH
%DVLF9ROXPHFXIW
<HDU'LVFKDUJH5DWHFIV
Entire Basin - Predeveloped
Water Quality Flow Rates
0LQXWH7LPHVWHS:DWHU4XDOLW\7UHDWPHQW'HVLJQ'LVFKDUJH
2QOLQH'HVLJQ'LVFKDUJH5DWH([FHHGDQFHFIV
2IIOLQH'HVLJQ'LVFKDUJH5DWH([FHHGDQFHFIV
,QILOWUDWLRQ)LOWUDWLRQ6WDWLVWLFV
,QIORZ9ROXPHDFIW
,QIORZ9ROXPH,QFOXGLQJ337(YDSDFIW
7RWDO5XQRII,QILOWUDWHGDFIW
7RWDO5XQRII)LOWHUHGDFIW
3ULPDU\2XWIORZ7R'RZQVWUHDP6\VWHPDFIW
6HFRQGDU\2XWIORZ7R'RZQVWUHDP6\VWHPDFIW
9ROXPH/RVWWR(7DFIW
3HUFHQW7UHDWHG,QILOWUDWHG)LOWHUHG(77RWDO9ROXPH
&RPSOLDQFH3RLQW5HVXOWV
6FHQDULR(QWLUH%DVLQ3UHGHYHORSHG&RPSOLDQFH/LQN1HZ&RS\/QN
6FHQDULR(QWLUH%DVLQ3RVWGHYHORSHG&RPSOLDQFH/LQN1HZ&RS\/QN
3RLQWRI&RPSOLDQFH)ORZ)UHTXHQF\'DWD
5HFXUUHQFH,QWHUYDO&RPSXWHG8VLQJ*ULQJRUWHQ3ORWWLQJ3RVLWLRQ
3UHGHYHORSPHQW5XQRII 3RVWGHYHORSPHQW5XQRII
7U<HDUV 'LVFKDUJHFIV 7U<HDUV 'LVFKDUJHFIV
<HDU ( <HDU
<HDU ( <HDU
<HDU ( <HDU
<HDU ( <HDU
<HDU ( <HDU
<HDU ( <HDU
<HDU ( <HDU
<HDU ( <HDU
5HFRUGWRR6KRUWWR&RPSXWH3HDN'LVFKDUJHIRU7KHVH5HFXUUHQFH,QWHUYDOV
)ORZ'XUDWLRQ3HUIRUPDQFH
([FXUVLRQDW3UHGHYHORSHG40XVWEH/HVV7KDQRU(TXDOWR )$,/
0D[LPXP([FXUVLRQIURP4WR40XVWEH/HVV7KDQRU(TXDOWR )$,/
0D[LPXP([FXUVLRQIURP4WR40XVWEHOHVVWKDQ )$,/
3HUFHQW([FXUVLRQIURP4WR40XVWEHOHVVWKDQ )$,/
)/2:'85$7,21'(6,*1&5,7(5,$)$,/
Entire Basin - Postdeveloped
Water Quality Flow Rates
!"#$%&'('&&&%
)!*#*+&(,%-,%&%''%'
.**
*&(,%-,%&%''%'/
!
"
000 "0"1
"
#$% & '
()
# #
"
* + ,
+
*
#
-.//,0/'*(
,0 ' /1/1-,-2/1/10/-3
(
#
-./,0*(
,0 %
(
#
/3'/
4#
* +
4#
*
5#6#7
88888888887
4#
5$% +!5&888888888888888
222222222222222222222234
0"00 "22222222222222222222222
5.*,*
5.*$#*6#6
7
#++
$
& 0/0/ 0/0/
9 :;
1(
$
& //// ////
$
& 0/0/ 0/0/
7777777777777777777777"0
83'
+#++
2222222222#++
2222222222
2222222
$&22222222
<=
; 0/0/
2222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222
#++
0/0/
7777777777777777777777"0
83'
+#++
2222222222#++
2222222222
2222222
$&22222222
<=
;6
/0/0
>>
2222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222
#++
0/0/
22222222222222222222222220"9
2222222222222222222222222222222
2222222222222222222222#"(<(7(?(9<(7
+9 :
777777777777777777777777777777777777777777
:"";.6:'
9 :! "!
7=
9 :
22222222222222222222222220"9
2222222222222222222222222222222
2222222222222222222222#"(<<#7(?(9<(7
+9 :
777777777777777777777777777777777777777777
:"";.6:%
9 :! "!
7=
9 :
2222222222222222222222
<1"="
10 "002222222222222222222
7777777777777777777777"0
83'
+#++
+9 :
7777777777777777777777"0
83'
+#++
+9 :
22222222222#;*!>#62222222222222
;
*
6=
#
;
*7 *#
%
(
;
*$
2&
22222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222
#++
,'.
9 : ="!9: ////
,'.
7
;
*7 *#
%
(
;
*$
2&
22222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222
#++
@3@,
9 : ="!9:0 ////
@3@,
*5.*!>**>*
5.
5!>=?@"#$+=A' /B
5. %%%C!7+*,6? *
5. &C&&!7+*,6
222222222223*<#*6!*6
*2222222222222
7777777777777777777777"0
83'
+9 :
88888888889 :="!9:8888888888
02A
7 ;
*
///
'2% B
!
7 *7 ;
*
<2
7 *7 ;
*
$-C()
& ///
<2
7 *7 ;
*
$-C()
& ///
1
#
22222222222222222222
=?
$
2& /0,
=?
*2(
$
2& /0,
$
2& ///B ///C
$
2& ///B ///C
!<
=7=
#!$
2& /0,
#
!<
=7=
#!$
2& ///
?
9($
2& ///
$
D
D(&1
?
///C
7777777777777777777777"0
83'
+9 :
88888888889 :="!9:0 8888888888
02A
7 ;
*
/'>>
'2% B
!
7 *7 ;
*
<2
7 *7 ;
*
$-C()
& /00
<2
7 *7 ;
*
$-C()
& /0
Williams 1 - Predeveloped
Water Quality Flow Rates
Williams 1 - Postdeveloped
Water Quality Flow Rates
1
#
22222222222222222222
=?
$
2& .-''
=?
*2(
$
2& .-''
$
2& ///B ///C
$
2& ///B ///C
!<
=7=
#!$
2& .-''
#
!<
=7=
#!$
2& ///
?
9($
2& ///
$
D
D(&1
?
///C
22222222222.!*#*2222222222222
#
"
9 :="!9:
#
"
9 :="!9:0
222*+.!;D#!6
*222
"5 *6 *
*
$A
& 7 ;
*$& $A
& 7 ;
*$&
2222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222
02A
@'(2/, 02A
/'>>
'2A
'>0(2/, '2A
/3-,
/2A
.0(2/, /2A
/-0'
0'2A
.0@(2/, 0'2A
'/
'/2A
.0.(2/, '/2A
@.
//2A
.0>(2/, //2A
>,@
0//2A
.0>(2/, 0//2A
>-3
'//2A
.0>(2/, '//2A
-3>
88#;"
:7 ;
*;
2222;
#*+!2222
()
'/C 0$%+9;
(E
/C& -.'',C 9
%
) () '/C 0 0$%+9;
(E
/C& 3@00//>C 9
%
) () 0 '/$%+
;
/C& -----/C 9
() 0 '/$%+
;
'/C& ///C 9
2222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222
9<75<7(#6"( 9
2222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222
—————————————————————————————————
MGS FLOOD
PROJECT REPORT
Program Version: MGSFlood 4.55
Program License Number: 201910002
Project Simulation Performed on: 11/19/2021 2:53 PM
Report Generation Date: 11/19/2021 2:55 PM
—————————————————————————————————
Input File Name: Treatment Areas_W2_pre&post development.fld
Project Name: Renton WQ Retrofit
Analysis Title:
Comments: Predeveloped (forested) and postdeveloped for W2
———————————————— PRECIPITATION INPUT ————————————————
Computational Time Step (Minutes): 15
Extended Precipitation Time Series Selected
Climatic Region Number: 13
Full Period of Record Available used for Routing
Precipitation Station : 96003205 Puget East 32 in_5min 10/01/1939-10/01/2097
Evaporation Station : 961032 Puget East 32 in MAP
Evaporation Scale Factor : 0.750
HSPF Parameter Region Number: 1
HSPF Parameter Region Name : USGS Default
********** Default HSPF Parameters Used (Not Modified by User) ***************
********************** WATERSHED DEFINITION ***********************
Predevelopment/Post Development Tributary Area Summary
Predeveloped Post Developed
Total Subbasin Area (acres) 8.560 8.560
Area of Links that Include Precip/Evap (acres) 0.000 0.000
Total (acres) 8.560 8.560
----------------------SCENARIO: PREDEVELOPED_W2
Number of Subbasins: 1
---------- Subbasin : W2 ----------
-------Area (Acres) --------
Outwash Forest 8.560
----------------------------------------------
Subbasin Total 8.560
----------------------SCENARIO: POSTDEVELOPED_W2
Number of Subbasins: 1
---------- Subbasin : W2 ----------
-------Area (Acres) --------
Outwash Grass 0.856
Impervious 7.704
----------------------------------------------
Subbasin Total 8.560
************************* LINK DATA *******************************
----------------------SCENARIO: PREDEVELOPED_W2
Number of Links: 1
------------------------------------------
Link Name: New Copy Lnk1
Link Type: Copy
Downstream Link: None
************************* LINK DATA *******************************
----------------------SCENARIO: POSTDEVELOPED_W2
Number of Links: 1
------------------------------------------
Link Name: New Copy Lnk2
Link Type: Copy
Downstream Link: None
**********************FLOOD FREQUENCY AND DURATION STATISTICS*******************
----------------------SCENARIO: PREDEVELOPED_W2
Number of Subbasins: 1
Number of Links: 1
----------------------SCENARIO: POSTDEVELOPED_W2
Number of Subbasins: 1
Number of Links: 1
***********Groundwater Recharge Summary *************
Recharge is computed as input to Perlnd Groundwater Plus Infiltration in Structures
Total Predeveloped Recharge During Simulation
Model Element Recharge Amount (ac-ft)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subbasin: W2 1488.088
Link: New Copy Lnk1 0.000
_____________________________________
Total: 1488.088
Total Post Developed Recharge During Simulation
Model Element Recharge Amount (ac-ft)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subbasin: W2 200.918
Link: New Copy Lnk2 0.000
_____________________________________
Total: 200.918
Total Predevelopment Recharge is Greater than Post Developed
Average Recharge Per Year, (Number of Years= 158)
Predeveloped: 9.418 ac-ft/year, Post Developed: 1.272 ac-ft/year
***********Water Quality Facility Data *************
----------------------SCENARIO: PREDEVELOPED_W2
Number of Links: 1
********** Link: New Copy Lnk1 **********
15-Minute Timestep, Water Quality Treatment Design Discharge
On-line Design Discharge Rate (91% Exceedance): 0.00 cfs
Off-line Design Discharge Rate (91% Exceedance): 0.00 cfs
Infiltration/Filtration Statistics--------------------
Inflow Volume (ac-ft): 0.99
Inflow Volume Including PPT-Evap (ac-ft): 0.99
Total Runoff Infiltrated (ac-ft): 0.00, 0.00%
Total Runoff Filtered (ac-ft): 0.00, 0.00%
Primary Outflow To Downstream System (ac-ft): 0.99
Secondary Outflow To Downstream System (ac-ft): 0.00
Volume Lost to ET (ac-ft): 0.00
Percent Treated (Infiltrated+Filtered+ET)/Total Volume: 0.00%
----------------------SCENARIO: POSTDEVELOPED_W2
Number of Links: 1
********** Link: New Copy Lnk2 **********
15-Minute Timestep, Water Quality Treatment Design Discharge
On-line Design Discharge Rate (91% Exceedance): 0.95 cfs
Off-line Design Discharge Rate (91% Exceedance): 0.52 cfs
Infiltration/Filtration Statistics--------------------
Inflow Volume (ac-ft): 2625.41
Inflow Volume Including PPT-Evap (ac-ft): 2625.41
Total Runoff Infiltrated (ac-ft): 0.00, 0.00%
Total Runoff Filtered (ac-ft): 0.00, 0.00%
Primary Outflow To Downstream System (ac-ft): 2625.41
Secondary Outflow To Downstream System (ac-ft): 0.00
Volume Lost to ET (ac-ft): 0.00
Percent Treated (Infiltrated+Filtered+ET)/Total Volume: 0.00%
***********Compliance Point Results *************
Scenario Predeveloped_W2 Compliance Link: New Copy Lnk1
Scenario Postdeveloped_W2 Compliance Link: New Copy Lnk2
*** Point of Compliance Flow Frequency Data ***
Recurrence Interval Computed Using Gringorten Plotting Position
Predevelopment Runoff Postdevelopment Runoff
Tr (Years) Discharge (cfs) Tr (Years) Discharge (cfs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2-Year 6.148E-03 2-Year 2.493
5-Year 6.704E-03 5-Year 3.359
10-Year 6.832E-03 10-Year 3.918
25-Year 6.880E-03 25-Year 4.874
50-Year 6.890E-03 50-Year 6.190
100-Year 6.897E-03 100-Year 7.772
200-Year 6.898E-03 200-Year 8.038
500-Year 6.898E-03 500-Year 8.383
** Record too Short to Compute Peak Discharge for These Recurrence Intervals
**** Flow Duration Performance ****
Excursion at Predeveloped 50%Q2 (Must be Less Than or Equal to 0%): 91655.3% FAIL
Maximum Excursion from 50%Q2 to Q2 (Must be Less Than or Equal to 0%): 742199.6% FAIL
Maximum Excursion from Q2 to Q50 (Must be less than 10%): 99999.0% FAIL
Percent Excursion from Q2 to Q50 (Must be less than 50%): 100.0% FAIL
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLOW DURATION DESIGN CRITERIA: FAIL
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
—————————————————————————————————
MGS FLOOD
PROJECT REPORT
Program Version: MGSFlood 4.55
Program License Number: 201910002
Project Simulation Performed on: 12/14/2021 11:32 AM
Report Generation Date: 12/14/2021 11:33 AM
—————————————————————————————————
Input File Name: Treatment Areas_W3_entirebasin.fld
Project Name: Renton WQ Retrofit
Analysis Title:
Comments: Updated treated area to 4.15 ac for W3
———————————————— PRECIPITATION INPUT ————————————————
Computational Time Step (Minutes): 15
Extended Precipitation Time Series Selected
Climatic Region Number: 13
Full Period of Record Available used for Routing
Precipitation Station : 96003205 Puget East 32 in_5min 10/01/1939-10/01/2097
Evaporation Station : 961032 Puget East 32 in MAP
Evaporation Scale Factor : 0.750
HSPF Parameter Region Number: 1
HSPF Parameter Region Name : USGS Default
********** Default HSPF Parameters Used (Not Modified by User) ***************
********************** WATERSHED DEFINITION ***********************
Predevelopment/Post Development Tributary Area Summary
Predeveloped Post Developed
Total Subbasin Area (acres) 5.030 5.030
Area of Links that Include Precip/Evap (acres) 0.000 0.000
Total (acres) 5.030 5.030
----------------------SCENARIO: PREDEVELOPED
Number of Subbasins: 1
---------- Subbasin : W3 ----------
-------Area (Acres) --------
Outwash Forest 5.030
----------------------------------------------
Subbasin Total 5.030
----------------------SCENARIO: POSTDEVELOPED
Number of Subbasins: 1
---------- Subbasin : W3 ----------
-------Area (Acres) --------
Outwash Grass 0.500
Impervious 4.530
----------------------------------------------
Subbasin Total 5.030
************************* LINK DATA *******************************
----------------------SCENARIO: PREDEVELOPED
Number of Links: 1
------------------------------------------
Link Name: New Copy Lnk1
Link Type: Copy
Downstream Link: None
************************* LINK DATA *******************************
----------------------SCENARIO: POSTDEVELOPED
Number of Links: 1
------------------------------------------
Link Name: New Copy Lnk2
Link Type: Copy
Downstream Link: None
**********************FLOOD FREQUENCY AND DURATION STATISTICS*******************
----------------------SCENARIO: PREDEVELOPED
Number of Subbasins: 1
Number of Links: 1
----------------------SCENARIO: POSTDEVELOPED
Number of Subbasins: 1
Number of Links: 1
***********Groundwater Recharge Summary *************
Recharge is computed as input to Perlnd Groundwater Plus Infiltration in Structures
Total Predeveloped Recharge During Simulation
Model Element Recharge Amount (ac-ft)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subbasin: W3 874.425
Link: New Copy Lnk1 0.000
_____________________________________
Total: 874.425
Total Post Developed Recharge During Simulation
Model Element Recharge Amount (ac-ft)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subbasin: W3 117.359
Link: New Copy Lnk2 0.000
_____________________________________
Total: 117.359
Total Predevelopment Recharge is Greater than Post Developed
Average Recharge Per Year, (Number of Years= 158)
Predeveloped: 5.534 ac-ft/year, Post Developed: 0.743 ac-ft/year
***********Water Quality Facility Data *************
----------------------SCENARIO: PREDEVELOPED
Number of Links: 1
********** Link: New Copy Lnk1 **********
15-Minute Timestep, Water Quality Treatment Design Discharge
On-line Design Discharge Rate (91% Exceedance): 0.00 cfs
Off-line Design Discharge Rate (91% Exceedance): 0.00 cfs
Infiltration/Filtration Statistics--------------------
Inflow Volume (ac-ft): 0.58
Inflow Volume Including PPT-Evap (ac-ft): 0.58
Total Runoff Infiltrated (ac-ft): 0.00, 0.00%
Total Runoff Filtered (ac-ft): 0.00, 0.00%
Primary Outflow To Downstream System (ac-ft): 0.58
Secondary Outflow To Downstream System (ac-ft): 0.00
Volume Lost to ET (ac-ft): 0.00
Percent Treated (Infiltrated+Filtered+ET)/Total Volume: 0.00%
----------------------SCENARIO: POSTDEVELOPED
Number of Links: 1
********** Link: New Copy Lnk2 **********
15-Minute Timestep, Water Quality Treatment Design Discharge
On-line Design Discharge Rate (91% Exceedance): 0.56 cfs
Off-line Design Discharge Rate (91% Exceedance): 0.30 cfs
Infiltration/Filtration Statistics--------------------
Inflow Volume (ac-ft): 1543.76
Inflow Volume Including PPT-Evap (ac-ft): 1543.76
Total Runoff Infiltrated (ac-ft): 0.00, 0.00%
Total Runoff Filtered (ac-ft): 0.00, 0.00%
Primary Outflow To Downstream System (ac-ft): 1543.76
Secondary Outflow To Downstream System (ac-ft): 0.00
Volume Lost to ET (ac-ft): 0.00
Percent Treated (Infiltrated+Filtered+ET)/Total Volume: 0.00%
***********Compliance Point Results *************
Scenario Predeveloped Compliance Link: New Copy Lnk1
Scenario Postdeveloped Compliance Link: New Copy Lnk2
*** Point of Compliance Flow Frequency Data ***
Recurrence Interval Computed Using Gringorten Plotting Position
Predevelopment Runoff Postdevelopment Runoff
Tr (Years) Discharge (cfs) Tr (Years) Discharge (cfs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2-Year 3.613E-03 2-Year 1.466
5-Year 3.939E-03 5-Year 1.975
10-Year 4.015E-03 10-Year 2.304
25-Year 4.043E-03 25-Year 2.866
50-Year 4.049E-03 50-Year 3.640
100-Year 4.053E-03 100-Year 4.570
200-Year 4.053E-03 200-Year 4.726
500-Year 4.053E-03 500-Year 4.929
** Record too Short to Compute Peak Discharge for These Recurrence Intervals
**** Flow Duration Performance ****
Excursion at Predeveloped 50%Q2 (Must be Less Than or Equal to 0%): 91667.8% FAIL
Maximum Excursion from 50%Q2 to Q2 (Must be Less Than or Equal to 0%): 742329.2% FAIL
Maximum Excursion from Q2 to Q50 (Must be less than 10%): 99999.0% FAIL
Percent Excursion from Q2 to Q50 (Must be less than 50%): 100.0% FAIL
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLOW DURATION DESIGN CRITERIA: FAIL
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
—————————————————————————————————
MGS FLOOD
PROJECT REPORT
Program Version: MGSFlood 4.55
Program License Number: 201910002
Project Simulation Performed on: 12/14/2021 11:03 AM
Report Generation Date: 12/14/2021 11:05 AM
—————————————————————————————————
Input File Name: Treatment Areas_W3_4.15ac.fld
Project Name: Renton WQ Retrofit
Analysis Title:
Comments: Updated treated area to 4.15 ac for W3
———————————————— PRECIPITATION INPUT ————————————————
Computational Time Step (Minutes): 15
Extended Precipitation Time Series Selected
Climatic Region Number: 13
Full Period of Record Available used for Routing
Precipitation Station : 96003205 Puget East 32 in_5min 10/01/1939-10/01/2097
Evaporation Station : 961032 Puget East 32 in MAP
Evaporation Scale Factor : 0.750
HSPF Parameter Region Number: 1
HSPF Parameter Region Name : USGS Default
********** Default HSPF Parameters Used (Not Modified by User) ***************
********************** WATERSHED DEFINITION ***********************
Predevelopment/Post Development Tributary Area Summary
Predeveloped Post Developed
Total Subbasin Area (acres) 4.150 4.150
Area of Links that Include Precip/Evap (acres) 0.000 0.000
Total (acres) 4.150 4.150
----------------------SCENARIO: PREDEVELOPED
Number of Subbasins: 1
---------- Subbasin : W3 ----------
-------Area (Acres) --------
Outwash Forest 4.150
----------------------------------------------
Subbasin Total 4.150
----------------------SCENARIO: POSTDEVELOPED - TREATED
Number of Subbasins: 1
---------- Subbasin : W3 ----------
-------Area (Acres) --------
Outwash Grass 0.415
Impervious 3.735
----------------------------------------------
Subbasin Total 4.150
************************* LINK DATA *******************************
----------------------SCENARIO: PREDEVELOPED
Number of Links: 1
------------------------------------------
Link Name: New Copy Lnk1
Link Type: Copy
Downstream Link: None
************************* LINK DATA *******************************
----------------------SCENARIO: POSTDEVELOPED - TREATED
Number of Links: 1
------------------------------------------
Link Name: New Copy Lnk2
Link Type: Copy
Downstream Link: None
**********************FLOOD FREQUENCY AND DURATION STATISTICS*******************
----------------------SCENARIO: PREDEVELOPED
Number of Subbasins: 1
Number of Links: 1
----------------------SCENARIO: POSTDEVELOPED - TREATED
Number of Subbasins: 1
Number of Links: 1
***********Groundwater Recharge Summary *************
Recharge is computed as input to Perlnd Groundwater Plus Infiltration in Structures
Total Predeveloped Recharge During Simulation
Model Element Recharge Amount (ac-ft)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subbasin: W3 721.444
Link: New Copy Lnk1 0.000
_____________________________________
Total: 721.444
Total Post Developed Recharge During Simulation
Model Element Recharge Amount (ac-ft)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subbasin: W3 97.408
Link: New Copy Lnk2 0.000
_____________________________________
Total: 97.408
Total Predevelopment Recharge is Greater than Post Developed
Average Recharge Per Year, (Number of Years= 158)
Predeveloped: 4.566 ac-ft/year, Post Developed: 0.617 ac-ft/year
***********Water Quality Facility Data *************
----------------------SCENARIO: PREDEVELOPED
Number of Links: 1
********** Link: New Copy Lnk1 **********
15-Minute Timestep, Water Quality Treatment Design Discharge
On-line Design Discharge Rate (91% Exceedance): 0.00 cfs
Off-line Design Discharge Rate (91% Exceedance): 0.00 cfs
Infiltration/Filtration Statistics--------------------
Inflow Volume (ac-ft): 0.48
Inflow Volume Including PPT-Evap (ac-ft): 0.48
Total Runoff Infiltrated (ac-ft): 0.00, 0.00%
Total Runoff Filtered (ac-ft): 0.00, 0.00%
Primary Outflow To Downstream System (ac-ft): 0.48
Secondary Outflow To Downstream System (ac-ft): 0.00
Volume Lost to ET (ac-ft): 0.00
Percent Treated (Infiltrated+Filtered+ET)/Total Volume: 0.00%
----------------------SCENARIO: POSTDEVELOPED - TREATED
Number of Links: 1
********** Link: New Copy Lnk2 **********
15-Minute Timestep, Water Quality Treatment Design Discharge
On-line Design Discharge Rate (91% Exceedance): 0.46 cfs
Off-line Design Discharge Rate (91% Exceedance): 0.25 cfs
Infiltration/Filtration Statistics--------------------
Inflow Volume (ac-ft): 1272.83
Inflow Volume Including PPT-Evap (ac-ft): 1272.83
Total Runoff Infiltrated (ac-ft): 0.00, 0.00%
Total Runoff Filtered (ac-ft): 0.00, 0.00%
Primary Outflow To Downstream System (ac-ft): 1272.83
Secondary Outflow To Downstream System (ac-ft): 0.00
Volume Lost to ET (ac-ft): 0.00
Percent Treated (Infiltrated+Filtered+ET)/Total Volume: 0.00%
***********Compliance Point Results *************
Scenario Predeveloped Compliance Link: New Copy Lnk1
Scenario Postdeveloped - Treated Compliance Link: New Copy Lnk2
*** Point of Compliance Flow Frequency Data ***
Recurrence Interval Computed Using Gringorten Plotting Position
Predevelopment Runoff Postdevelopment Runoff
Tr (Years) Discharge (cfs) Tr (Years) Discharge (cfs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2-Year 2.981E-03 2-Year 1.209
5-Year 3.250E-03 5-Year 1.629
10-Year 3.312E-03 10-Year 1.899
25-Year 3.335E-03 25-Year 2.363
50-Year 3.340E-03 50-Year 3.001
100-Year 3.344E-03 100-Year 3.768
200-Year 3.344E-03 200-Year 3.897
500-Year 3.344E-03 500-Year 4.064
** Record too Short to Compute Peak Discharge for These Recurrence Intervals
**** Flow Duration Performance ****
Excursion at Predeveloped 50%Q2 (Must be Less Than or Equal to 0%): 91655.3% FAIL
Maximum Excursion from 50%Q2 to Q2 (Must be Less Than or Equal to 0%): 742198.8% FAIL
Maximum Excursion from Q2 to Q50 (Must be less than 10%): 99999.0% FAIL
Percent Excursion from Q2 to Q50 (Must be less than 50%): 100.0% FAIL
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLOW DURATION DESIGN CRITERIA: FAIL
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub-basin Total Area (ac) Pervious Area (ac)Impervious Area1 (ac)Treated Area (ac) Untreated Area (ac) 25-yr (cfs) 100-yr (cfs) On-line (cfs) Off-line (cfs) On-line (cfs) Off-line (cfs)Williams-12.020.201.82-2.021.151.830.220.12--Williams-28.560.867.708.56-4.877.770.950.520.950.52Williams-35.03 0.50 4.53 4.15 0.88 2.86 4.57 0.56 0.30 0.46 0.25TOTAL15.61 1.56 14.05 1. Percent impervious = 90%Sub-basin AreasDesign Storm Flow RatesEntire Sub-BasinWater Quality Flow RatesTreated AreaNotes:Water Quality Flow RatesEntire Sub-Basin
APPENDIX E
30 Percent Design Cost Estimate
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK.
APPENDIX F
Operations and Maintenance Information
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK.