No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04017 - Technical Information Report Technical Information Report Project: 2617 Lake Youngs Ct SE Storm & Water Improvements Lake Youngs Ct SE Renton, WA 98058 SWP 27-4017 PREPARED BY: Jared McDonald, PE City of Renton, Civil Engineer III REVIEWED BY: Ken Srilofung, PE City of Renton, Civil Engineer III Date: April 2019 i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Project Overview ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose and Scope ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.3 Post-Development Conditions ...................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Conditions and Requirements Summary .......................................................................................... 1 2.1 Core Requirements ....................................................................................................................... 1 2.1.1 CR 1 – Discharge at the Natural Location ............................................................................. 2 2.1.2 CR 2 – Offsite Analysis ........................................................................................................... 2 2.1.3 CR 3 – Flow Control Facilities ................................................................................................ 2 2.1.4 CR 4 – Conveyance System ................................................................................................... 2 2.1.5 CR 5 – Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention ........................................................ 2 2.1.6 CR 6 – Maintenance and Operations .................................................................................... 3 2.1.7 CR 7 – Financial Guarantees and Liability ............................................................................. 3 2.1.8 CR 8 – Water Quality Facilities .............................................................................................. 3 2.1.9 CR 9 – On-Site BMPs ............................................................................................................. 3 2.2 Special Requirements ................................................................................................................... 3 2.2.1 SR 1 – Other Adopted Area-Specific Requirements .............................................................. 3 2.2.2 SR 2 – Flood Hazard Area Delineation .................................................................................. 3 2.2.3 SR 3 – Flood Protection Facilities .......................................................................................... 3 2.2.4 SR 4 – Source Controls .......................................................................................................... 4 2.2.5 SR 5 – Oil Control .................................................................................................................. 4 2.2.6 SR 6 – Aquifer Protection Area ............................................................................................. 4 3.0 Offsite Analysis .................................................................................................................................. 4 4.0 Flow Control, Low Impact Development (LID) and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design ...... 4 4.1 Flow Control .................................................................................................................................. 4 4.2 Water Quality System (Part E) ...................................................................................................... 4 5.0 Conveyance System Analysis and Design .......................................................................................... 5 6.0 Special Reports and Studies .............................................................................................................. 5 7.0 Other Reports.................................................................................................................................... 5 8.0 CSWPP Plan Analysis and Design ...................................................................................................... 5 ii 9.0 Bond Quantities, Facility Summaries, and Declaration of Covenant .............................................. 10 10.0 Operations and Maintenance Plan ................................................................................................. 10 11.0 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 10 Appendices Appendix A Section 1.0 Figures Figure 1-1……….TIR Worksheet Figure 1-2……….Vicinity Map Figure 1-3……….Drainage Basin Figure 1-4……….Soils Map Appendix B Section 2.0 Figures Figure 2-1……….Conveyance Calculations Figure 2-2……….WWHM 25-Year/100-Year Conveyance Flows Figure 2-3……….King County Backwater Analysis Technical Information Report 1 SWP 27-4017 2617 Lake Youngs Ct SE Storm & Water Improvements 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW 1.1 Purpose and Scope This report accompanies the civil engineering plans and documents for 2617 Lake Youngs Ct SE Storm & Water Improvements located at Lake Youngs Ct SE Renton, Washington. The site includes storm conveyance and water improvement along the right-of-way of Lake Youngs Ct SE. The project site is approximately 0.32 acres in size. See Appendix A, Figure 1-1 for the TIR Worksheet and Figure 1-2 for a Site Location Map. The site is located within the City of Renton, which adheres to the 2016 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual (RSWDM). 1.2 Existing Conditions The current right-of-way site is developed with a concrete road, sidewalks, street lighting, and water, sewer, power, and communication utilities. The site is surrounded by 13 residential homes with driveways connecting to the street. The site generally slopes to the southeast, with an elevation change of approximately 21 feet and slopes ranging from1 to 14 percent. The highest point of the site is found on the northwest portion of the site, with an approximate elevation of 389 feet. The soil is typically composed of arents, alderwood material and the depth to the water table is approximately 16 to 36 inches, see Appendix A, Figure 1-4, for more soil information. The site is encompassed in a single threshold discharge area (TDA A), that generally sheet flows to the southwest to two public structures (Facility ID: 138255 & 138256) located at the intersection of Lake Youngs Ct SE and Lake Youngs Way SE. 1.3 Post-Development Conditions The project proposes to construct a new storm conveyance system and an 8” water main service with connecting metered laterals for the adjacent homes. The new stormwater conveyance system will collect stormwater runoff along Lake Youngs Ct SE and mitigate the ponding issues along the street. The new stormwater system will collect runoff from some of the adjacent homes and run from the cul-de-sac to the existing structure (Facility ID: 138254) located in Lake Youngs Way SE. All surfaces impacted by the construction will be replaced back to the original existing conditions. See section 2.0 for further discussions regarding stormwater requirements 2.0 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY 2.1 Core Requirements Per RSWDM Figure 1.1.2.A the 2617 Lake Youngs Ct SE Storm & Water Improvements Project triggers a Full Drainage Review. The project shall require approximately 13,870 sf of land disturbing area. However, all the proposed work is utility work that shall be replacing any impacted surfaces to their existing condition. Because the proposed work is considered utility work, all impervious surfaces replaced are not considered to be “replaced impervious surfaces” per the definitions in Chapter 1 of RSWDM. Technical Information Report 2 SWP 27-4017 2617 Lake Youngs Ct SE Storm & Water Improvements 2.1.1 CR 1 – Discharge at the Natural Location The project site in the existing condition naturally drains to the street curb and gutters and then sheet flows southeast along the street to the existing catch basins located at the intersection of Lake Youngs Ct SE and Lake Youngs Way SE. This conveyance system collects surface water and eventually discharges into Ginger Creek. The proposed project will install a piped conveyance system that will collect the surface water ponding along the street and discharge it to the existing public conveyance system along Lake Youngs Way SE, which is the same conveyance system that the existing surface water collection system discharges to. 2.1.2 CR 2 – Offsite Analysis The project is exempt from Core Requirement #2 because the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the downstream and/or upstream drainage system per section 1.2.2 Exemption #1 of the RSWDM. 2.1.3 CR 3 – Flow Control Facilities The project is exempt from Core Requirement #3 because the project meets the Basic Exemption in section 1.2.3 of RSWDM. The proposed project meets the following exemption criteria: 1) Less than 5,000 sf of new plus replaced impervious surface will be created, and 2) Less than ¾ acres of new pervious surface will be added. 2.1.4 CR 4 – Conveyance System Per Section 1.2.4.1 in the RSWDM, new pipe systems must be designed to contain the 25-year peak flow. The project has designed all new conveyance systems to contain the 100-year storm event without overtopping. The design and calculations for the new conveyance system are included in Section 5.0 and Appendix B. The project will not be changing the flow characteristics of the existing conveyance system because the new conveyance system will be collecting and discharging the same flows that were being collected via sheet runoff. 2.1.5 CR 5 – Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention An erosion and sediment control plan has been developed for this site in accordance with the RSWDM. The full erosion and sediment control plan is described further in Section 8.0 and in the project plans. Technical Information Report 3 SWP 27-4017 2617 Lake Youngs Ct SE Storm & Water Improvements 2.1.6 CR 6 – Maintenance and Operations The proposed project is a City of Renton project that will be maintained by the city in accordance with the maintenance standards in Appendix A of the RSWDM. Therefore, a project specific Maintenance and Operations Manual is not required. 2.1.7 CR 7 – Financial Guarantees and Liability The project is a public City of Renton project, therefore financial guarantee and liability requirements are not applicable. 2.1.8 CR 8 – Water Quality Facilities The project is exempt from Core Requirement #8 because it meets the Surface Are Exemption per Section 1.2.8 of the RSWDM. The proposed project meets the following exemption criteria: 1) Less than 5,000 sf of new plus replaced PGIS that is not fully dispersed will be created, and 2) Less than ¾ acres of new PGPS that is not fully dispersed will be added. 2.1.9 CR 9 – On-Site BMPs The project is exempt from Core Requirement #9 because it is a utility project which does not trigger the need for on-site BMPs. 2.2 Special Requirements 2.2.1 SR 1 – Other Adopted Area-Specific Requirements There are no area-specific regulations that apply to the project. Therefore the project is exempt from Special Requirement #1. 2.2.2 SR 2 – Flood Hazard Area Delineation The project is not within a flood hazard area. Therefore the project is exempt from Special Requirement #2. 2.2.3 SR 3 – Flood Protection Facilities The proposed project does not rely on an existing flood protection facility and will modify or construct a new flood protection facility. Therefore the project is exempt from Special Requirement #3. Technical Information Report 4 SWP 27-4017 2617 Lake Youngs Ct SE Storm & Water Improvements 2.2.4 SR 4 – Source Controls The proposed project does not require a commercial building or commercial site development permit. Therefore the project is exempt from Special Requirement #4. 2.2.5 SR 5 – Oil Control The proposed project site is not a high-use site, is not a redevelopment project proposing $100,000 or more of improvements, and is not a redevelopment project that results in new plus replaced pollution generating impervious surfaces of 5,000 square feet or more or new pollution generating pervious surface of ¾ acre or more improvements to an existing high-use site. Therefore the project is exempt from Special Requirement #5. 2.2.6 SR 6 – Aquifer Protection Area The proposed project is not located within an aquifer protection area. Therefore the project is exempt from Special Requirement #6. 3.0 OFFSITE ANALYSIS As discussed in section 2.1.2, the project is exempt from requiring an offsite analysis. 4.0 FLOW CONTROL, LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT (LID) AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 4.1 Flow Control As stated in section 2.1.3, the project is exempt from Core Requirement #3 because the project meets the Basic Exemption in section 1.2.3 of RSWDM. The proposed project meets the following exemption criteria: 3) Less than 5,000 sf of new plus replaced impervious surface will be created, and 4) Less than ¾ acres of new pervious surface will be added. 4.2 Water Quality System (Part E) As stated in section 2.1.8, the project is exempt from Core Requirement #8 because it meets the Surface Are Exemption per Section 1.2.8 of the RSWDM. The proposed project meets the following exemption criteria: 3) Less than 5,000 sf of new plus replaced PGIS that is not fully dispersed will be created, and 4) Less than ¾ acres of new PGPS that is not fully dispersed will be added. Technical Information Report 5 SWP 27-4017 2617 Lake Youngs Ct SE Storm & Water Improvements 5.0 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN The conveyance analysis and design has been based upon the worst case scenario to ensure that there is adequate capacity in the storm system. The conveyance system has been designed to convey calculated flows resulting from the 25-year event and 100-year event. Per City of Renton GIS Maps the project site is located in the flow control area: “Flow Control Duration Standard – Matching Forested”. However, to be conservative the 25-year and 100-year flows have been calculated based upon existing conditions. It is also assumed that upstream runoff will be collected via the new conveyance system. Please see Figure 1-3 for the collected drainage basin and the existing areas measurements. The pervious and impervious areas noted in Figure 1-3 were then used to calculate the 25-year (1.46 CFS) and 100-year (1.90 CFS) flow event using WWHM, see Figure 2-2. With the flow information the proposed storm conveyance system was analyzed to determine capacity. One run of conveyance calculations were analyzed, Ex. MH#1 to CB#7, because this is the most constrained conveyance run. Conveyance calculations were not run from CB#4 to CB#5 because, as noted, the run from CB#4 to CB#7 is the more constrained system. To also ensure the worst case scenario the proposed conveyance system was analyzed by inputting the entire 25-year and 100-year flows into CB#7 (the top of the system) instead of disbursing throughout the system. See Figure 2-1 for the proposed conveyance system assumptions and information collected. The information from Figure 2-1 was then inputted into the King County Backwater Analysis program to ensure capacity of the 25-year storm and containment of the 100-year storm event. See Figure 2-3 for the King County Backwater Analysis. As seen in the analysis, the “HW” elevation never exceeds to the structure rim (overflow elevation). 6.0 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES There are no special reports or studies that were required or used in the preparation of the project plans or TIR. 7.0 OTHER REPORTS There are no other reports that we required or used in the preparation of the project plans or TIR. 8.0 CSWPP PLAN ANALYSIS AND DESIGN The proposed improvements will comply with guidelines set forth in the 2016 RSWDM. The plan includes erosion/sedimentation control features designed to prevent sediment-laden runoff from leaving the site or from adversely affecting critical water resources during construction. A stormwater pollution prevention and spill plan has been developed. 8.1 ESC Plan Analysis and Design (Part A) The erosion potential of the site is influenced by four major factors: soil characteristics, vegetative cover, topography, and climate. Erosion/sedimentation control is achieved by a combination of Technical Information Report 6 SWP 27-4017 2617 Lake Youngs Ct SE Storm & Water Improvements structural measures, cover measures, and construction practices that are tailored to fit the specific site. The following measures, if applicable, will be used to control sedimentation/erosion processes: 1) Clearing Limits: All areas to remain undisturbed during the construction of the project will be delineated prior to any site clearing or grading. 2) Cover Measures: Disturbed areas will be covered, as required in Section D.2.1.2 of the 2016 RSWDM. 3) Perimeter Protection: The project will install perimeter filter fabric silt fencing and other erosion control BMPs to prevent the transportation of sediment from the site to adjacent properties. The project may also install perimeter ditches and rock check dams that will prevent construction stormwater runoff from entering adjacent properties and direct the storm water runoff to a temporary sediment trap if necessary. 4) Traffic Area Stabilization: A stabilized construction entrance will be provided at the access points to the site if necessary. If additional protection is needed to prevent construction vehicles from tracking sediment onto adjacent streets, then a wheel wash will be installed to prevent transport of sediment from vehicles onto the public roadways. 5) Sediment Retention: The project will install storm drain inlet protection and other Erosion Control BMPs to prevent sediment from transferring downstream. 6) Surface Water Collection: The project will install swales and ditches (if needed) to collect on- site construction stormwater and direct it to the temporary storm drain inlet protection. 7) Dewatering Control: Dewatering is not expected to be necessary. If needed, the contractor shall secure the required permits prior to dewatering activities. All de-watering shall be discharged to the sanitary sewer or hauled offsite to an approved discharge location. 8) Dust Control: If needed, the project will implement the use of water and/or water trucks to minimize the wind transport of soils from being deposited in water resources. Dust control will be applied when exposed soils are dry to the point that wind transport is possible and roadways, drainage ways, or surface waters are likely to be impacted. When using water for dust control, the exposed soils shall be sprayed until wet, but runoff shall not be generated by spraying. 9) Flow Control: Flow Control is not expected to be necessary. If needed, the project will install a temporary sediment trap to allow sediment to settle out of onsite runoff prior to discharging from the site. If the construction site does not easily allow for a sediment trap, the contractor may use a movable storage tanks. The sediment trap will release the sediment treated stormwater using a gravel filter window. Alternatively, the contractor can elect to haul the construction storwmater offsite to be release to an approved discharge location. Technical Information Report 7 SWP 27-4017 2617 Lake Youngs Ct SE Storm & Water Improvements 10) Control Pollutants: All construction debris will be promptly removed from the site to minimize demolition and construction impacts on the site. The contractor shall implement additional BMPs as required and/or recommended by the City inspector or other agencies as required to prevent demolition and construction debris, waste material, fuel, oil, lubricants, and other fluids from discharging from the site. All construction debris will be promptly removed from the site to minimize demolition and construction impacts on the site. 11) Protect Existing and Proposed Stormwater Facilities and On-site BMPs: The contractor shall protect all existing and proposed infiltration BMPs onsite. The contractor shall protect the area of any drainage facilities during excavation to ensure sediment does not build up in the proposed infiltration area; and shall keep all heavy equipment off existing soils under Low Impact Development (LID) facilities that have been excavated to final grade to retain the infiltration rate of the soils. Inlet protection will be also be used on all on-site and adjacent downstream catch basins to reduce sediment-laden water from entering the storm system during construction 12) Maintain Protective BMPs: The contractor shall maintain all temporary erosion and sediment control measures as needed to assure continued performance of their intended function. The contractor shall also remove all temporary erosion and sedimentation control BMPs within 30 days of achieving final site stabilization or after the temporary BMPs are no longer needed. 13) Manage the Project: The contractor shall conduct regular inspection and monitoring to ensure the installed erosion and sediment control measures are functioning as intended. The inspection shall occur at least once every calendar week and within 24 hours of any discharge from the site. The project is expected to be a straight forward construction project with no phasing of construction for the short plat improvements. However, Best Management Practices and Good Housekeeping procedures during construction will be employed by the project contractor. 8.2 Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Spill (SWPPS) Plan Design (Part B) The Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Spill (SWPPS) Plan includes three elements: a site plan, a pollution prevention report, and a spill prevention and cleanup report. This report includes identifying the expected sources of potential pollution and spills that may occur during construction, and works to develop a plan to prevent pollution and spills. It also develops a plan to mitigate spills that may occur. The SWPPS Plan will be kept onsite at all times during construction. The general contractor will be responsible to ensure that subcontractors are aware of the SWPPS Plan and a form or record will be provided stating that all subcontractors have read and agree to the SWPPS Plan. Updates or revisions to the SWPPS plan may be required by the City Inspector at any time during project construction if it is determined that pollutants generated on the construction site have the potential to contaminate surface, storm, or ground water. The contractor is required to designate an ESC Lead/Supervisor who is possess a CESCL. The ESC Lead/Supervisor is responsible for installing, inspecting, and maintaining BMPs included in the TESC Plan, and updating the ESC plan and SWPPP to reflect current field conditions. The ESC Lead/Supervisor is also responsible Technical Information Report 8 SWP 27-4017 2617 Lake Youngs Ct SE Storm & Water Improvements for ensuring that the project is in compliance with the State of Washington NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit and the ESC Standard in Appendix D of the 2017 Renton SWDM. The SWPPS Site Plan, Pollution Prevention Report, and Spill Prevention and Cleanup Report have been developed and BMPs have been selected based on Section 2.3.1.4 of the RSWDM. (The below plan can be updated with input from the contractor.) 8.2.1 Pollution and Spill Prevention Source Controls and BMPs The sources of pollution and spills have been identified below, and the BMPs to be used for each source for prevention of both pollution and spills have been listed below: Liquids that will be handled or stored onsite are still being assessed by the owner. Tight-fitting lids shall be placed on all containers containing liquids. Containers shall be covered with plastic sheeting during rain events. Drip pans or absorbent materials shall be placed beneath all mounted container taps and at all potential drip and spill locations during filling and unloading of containers. Containers shall be stored such that if a container leaks or spills, the contents will not be discharged, flow, or be washed into the storm drainage system, surface water, or groundwater. Appropriate spill cleanup materials shall be stored and maintained near the container storage area. Storage area shall be swept and cleaned as needed. Area shall not be hosed down such that water drains to the storm drainage system or neighboring areas. Containers shall be checked daily for leaks and spills and replaced as necessary. All spilled liquids will be collected and disposed of properly. Spill control devices shall be routinely inspected on a weekly basis. Dry pesticides and fertilizers, if stored onsite, shall be covered with plastic sheeting or stored in a sealed container. Materials shall be stored on pallets or another raised method to prevent contact with stormwater runoff. Alternatively, the materials shall be contained in a manner such that if the container leaks or spills, the contents will not discharge, flow, or be washed into the storm drainage system, surface waters, or groundwater. Maintenance requirements are the same as liquid materials described above. Soil, sand, and other erodible materials shall be stored onsite as directed by the contractors approved CESCL. Fueling shall not occur onsite. If fueling does occur onsite, the Contractor shall develop a containment plan for spills and provide lighting and signage if fueling occurs at night in conformance with the RSWDM. Maintenance and repair of vehicles shall not occur onsite. If maintenance or repair of vehicles does occur onsite, the Contractor shall develop a spill prevention plan in Conformance with the RSWDM. Truck wheel washing is not expected at a large scale due to the small area of disturbance for the project. All other vehicle washing shall occur in a controlled manner, such that runoff is collected and disposed of in a legal manner. Technical Information Report 9 SWP 27-4017 2617 Lake Youngs Ct SE Storm & Water Improvements Rinsing of hand tools shall occur as directed by the contractors approved CESCL. Water for washing shall be collected and disposed of in a legal manner. Contaminated soils are not expected. If encountered, contaminated soils will be covered with plastic to prevent stormwater from carrying pollutants away to surface or ground waters. Appropriate spill cleanup materials, such as brooms, dustpans, vacuum sweepers, etc., shall be stored and maintained near the storage area. Storage area shall be swept and cleaned as needed. Area shall not be hosed down such that water drains to the storm drainage system, groundwater, surface water, or neighboring areas. During concrete and asphalt construction, the contractor shall provide the following BMPs or equivalent measures, methods or practices as required: 1. Drip pans, ground cloths, heavy cardboard or plywood wherever concrete, asphalt and asphalt emulsion chunks and drips are likely to fall unintentionally, such as beneath extraction points from mixing equipment. 2. Storm drain inlet protection is being provided as shown on TESC plans. Storm drains shall be covered to prevent concrete and asphalt from entering the storm system. 3. Concrete, concrete slurry and rinse water shall be contained and collected and shall not be washed or allowed to discharge into storm drain, ditch, or neighboring parcels. All collected runoff shall be properly disposed of. 4. Contractor shall designate an area where application and mixing equipment cleaning will be conducted. Rinse water and slurry shall be collected, contained, and disposed of in a legal manner. 5. Routine maintenance: the pouring area shall be swept at the end of each day or more frequently if needed. Loose aggregate chunks and dust shall be collected. Areas shall not be hosed down. The contractor may provide the following optional BMPs if the above do not provide adequate source controls: 1. Cover portable mixing equipment with an awning or plastic sheeting to prevent contact with rainfall. 2. Provide catch basin inserts configured for pollutant removal. Ph elevated water shall not be discharged from the site. Contractor shall monitor stormwater for ph prior to discharging from the site. Contractor shall implement a ph treatment plan if ph is not within the natural range. Technical Information Report 10 SWP 27-4017 2617 Lake Youngs Ct SE Storm & Water Improvements 9.0 BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT This project is a public project that will be publicly-maintained, therefore bond quantities, facility summaries, and a declaration of covenant are not required. 10.0 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PLAN The stormwater facilities constructed for this project will be publicly maintained by the City of Renton. The City of Renton has its own existing operation and maintenance standards for publicly maintained stormwater facilities (Appendix A of the RSWDM). Therefore, an operation and maintenance plan for this specific stormwater system is not required. 11.0 CONCLUSION The project stormwater infrastructure has been designed to meet the 2016 RSWDM. The new stormwater improvements consist of a new conveyance system to better collect surface runoff along Lake Youngs Ct SE. King County Backwater Analysis standards were used for sizing new stormwater conveyance networks. Pipe networks have been designed to be of adequate size to effectively convey the 25-year storm event and to contain the 100-year storm event. This analysis is based on data and records either supplied to or obtained by the City of Renton. The TIR has been prepared to City of Renton and/or industry accepted standards. Based on the TIR the City of Renton concludes that this project will not create any new problems within the downstream drainage system. City of Renton Jared McDonald, PE Civil Engineer III April 2019 JARE D MCDON A LDPROF ESSIONAL E N G IN E ERREGISTER E DSTATE O F WASHI N GTON4/12/19 Draft Technical Information Report SWP 27-4017 2617 Lake Youngs Ct SE Storm & Water Improvements Appendix A Section 1.0 Figures Figure 1-1……….TIR Worksheet Figure 1-2……….Vicinity Map Figure 1-3……….Drainage Basin Figure 1-4……….Soils Map CITY OF RENTON SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 12/12/2016 8-A-1 REFERENCE 8-A TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 1 PROJECT OWNER AND PROJECT ENGINEER Part 2 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION Project Owner _____________________________ Phone ___________________________________ Address __________________________________ _________________________________________ Project Engineer ___________________________ Company _________________________________ Phone ___________________________________ Project Name __________________________ CED Permit # ________________________ Location Township ________________ Range __________________ Section _________________ Site Address __________________________ _____________________________________ Part 3 TYPE OF PERMIT APPLICATION Part 4 OTHER REVIEWS AND PERMITS  Land Use (e.g., Subdivision / Short Subd.)  Building (e.g., M/F / Commercial / SFR)  Grading  Right-of-Way Use  Other _______________________  DFW HPA  COE 404  DOE Dam Safety  FEMA Floodplain  COE Wetlands  Other ________  Shoreline Management  Structural Rockery/Vault/_____  ESA Section 7 Part 5 PLAN AND REPORT INFORMATION Technical Information Report Site Improvement Plan (Engr. Plans) Type of Drainage Review (check one): Date (include revision dates): Date of Final:  Full  Targeted  Simplified  Large Project  Directed ____________________________________ __________________ Plan Type (check one): Date (include revision dates): Date of Final:  Full  Modified  Simplified ____________________________________ __________________ CITY OF RENTON N/A, SWP # 27-4017 2617 LAKE YOUNGS CT SE STROM & WATER IMPROVEMENTS (425) 430-6400 1055 S GRADY WAY RENTON, WA 98057 JARED MCDONALD CITY OF RENTON (425) 430-7293 23 N 5E, W.M. 21 LAKE YOUNGS CT SE RENTON, WA 98058 04/12/19 04/12/19 FIGURE 1-1 TIR WORKSHEET REFERENCE 8: PLAN REVIEW FORMS AND WORKSHEET TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET 12/12/2016 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 8-A-2 Part 6 SWDM ADJUSTMENT APPROVALS Type (circle one): Standard / Blanket Description: (include conditions in TIR Section 2) ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ Approved Adjustment No. ______________________ Date of Approval: _______________________ Part 7 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Monitoring Required: Yes / No Start Date: _______________________ Completion Date: _______________________ Describe: _________________________________ _________________________________________ _________________________________________ Re: SWDM Adjustment No. ________________ Part 8 SITE COMMUNITY AND DRAINAGE BASIN Community Plan: ____________________________________________________________________ Special District Overlays: ______________________________________________________________ Drainage Basin: _____________________________________________________________________ Stormwater Requirements: _____________________________________________________________ Part 9 ONSITE AND ADJACENT SENSITIVE AREAS  River/Stream ________________________  Lake ______________________________  Wetlands ____________________________  Closed Depression ____________________  Floodplain ___________________________  Other _______________________________ _______________________________  Steep Slope __________________________  Erosion Hazard _______________________  Landslide Hazard ______________________  Coal Mine Hazard ______________________  Seismic Hazard _______________________  Habitat Protection ______________________  _____________________________________ NO FLOW CONTROL, NO WATER QUALITY, CONVEYANCE CALCS REQUIRED GINGER CREEK REFERENCE 8-A: TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 12/12/2016 Ref 8-A-3 Part 10 SOILS Soil Type ______________________ ______________________ ______________________ ______________________ Slopes ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ Erosion Potential _________________________ _________________________ _________________________ _________________________  High Groundwater Table (within 5 feet)  Other ________________________________  Sole Source Aquifer  Seeps/Springs  Additional Sheets Attached Part 11 DRAINAGE DESIGN LIMITATIONS REFERENCE  Core 2 – Offsite Analysis_________________  Sensitive/Critical Areas__________________  SEPA________________________________  LID Infeasibility________________________  Other________________________________  _____________________________________ LIMITATION / SITE CONSTRAINT _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________  Additional Sheets Attached Part 12 TIR SUMMARY SHEET (provide one TIR Summary Sheet per Threshold Discharge Area) Threshold Discharge Area: (name or description) Core Requirements (all 8 apply): Discharge at Natural Location Number of Natural Discharge Locations: Offsite Analysis Level: 1 / 2 / 3 dated:__________________ Flow Control (include facility summary sheet) Standard: _______________________________ or Exemption Number: ____________ On-site BMPs: _______________________________ Conveyance System Spill containment located at: _____________________________ Erosion and Sediment Control / Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention CSWPP/CESCL/ESC Site Supervisor: _____________________ Contact Phone: _________________________ After Hours Phone: _________________________ Arents, Alderwood material 6-15% n/a, see report n/a, see report n/a, see report n/a drainage basin 1 n/a n/a tbd tbd tbd tbd REFERENCE 8: PLAN REVIEW FORMS AND WORKSHEET TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET 12/12/2016 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 8-A-4 Part 12 TIR SUMMARY SHEET (provide one TIR Summary Sheet per Threshold Discharge Area) Maintenance and Operation Responsibility (circle one): Private / Public If Private, Maintenance Log Required: Yes / No Financial Guarantees and Liability Provided: Yes / No Water Quality (include facility summary sheet) Type (circle one): Basic / Sens. Lake / Enhanced Basic / Bog or Exemption No. _______________________ Special Requirements (as applicable): Area Specific Drainage Requirements Type: SDO / MDP / BP / Shared Fac. / None Name: ________________________ Floodplain/Floodway Delineation Type (circle one): Major / Minor / Exemption / None 100-year Base Flood Elevation (or range): _______________ Datum: Flood Protection Facilities Describe: Source Control (commercial / industrial land use) Describe land use: Describe any structural controls: Oil Control High-Use Site: Yes / No Treatment BMP: _________________________________ Maintenance Agreement: Yes / No with whom? _____________________________________ Other Drainage Structures Describe: n/a n/a n/a REFERENCE 8-A: TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 12/12/2016 Ref 8-A-5 Part 13 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION  Clearing Limits  Cover Measures  Perimeter Protection  Traffic Area Stabilization  Sediment Retention  Surface Water Collection  Dewatering Control  Dust Control  Flow Control  Control Pollutants  Protect Existing and Proposed BMPs/Facilities  Maintain Protective BMPs / Manage Project MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS AFTER CONSTRUCTION  Stabilize exposed surfaces  Remove and restore Temporary ESC Facilities  Clean and remove all silt and debris, ensure operation of Permanent BMPs/Facilities, restore operation of BMPs/Facilities as necessary  Flag limits of sensitive areas and open space preservation areas  Other _______________________ Part 14 STORMWATER FACILITY DESCRIPTIONS (Note: Include Facility Summary and Sketch) Flow Control Type/Description Water Quality Type/Description  Detention  Infiltration  Regional Facility  Shared Facility  On-site BMPs  Other ________________ ________________ ________________ ________________ ________________ ________________  Vegetated Flowpath  Wetpool  Filtration  Oil Control  Spill Control  On-site BMPs  Other ________________ ________________ ________________ ________________ ________________ ________________ ________________ Part 15 EASEMENTS/TRACTS Part 16 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS  Drainage Easement  Covenant  Native Growth Protection Covenant  Tract  Other ____________________________  Cast in Place Vault  Retaining Wall  Rockery > 4′ High  Structural on Steep Slope  Other _______________________________ REFERENCE 8: PLAN REVIEW FORMS AND WORKSHEET TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET 12/12/2016 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 8-A-6 Part 17 SIGNATURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER I, or a civil engineer under my supervision, have visited the site. Actual site conditions as observed were incorporated into this worksheet and the attached Technical Information Report. To the best of my knowledge the information provided here is accurate. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Signed/Date Part 17 SIGNATURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER I, or a civil engineer under my supervision, have visited the site. Actual site conditions as observed were incorporated into this worksheet and the attached Technical Information Report. To the best of my knowledge the information provided here is accurate. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Signed/Date 4/12/19 18,056 1,505 Vicinity Map This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. 3/4/2019 Legend 1,0230512 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION Feet Notes 1,023 WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Jared McDonald jmcdonald@Rentonwa.gov City and County Boundary County Admin Area Incorporated King County County Background RoadCenterline_36K Freeway, Ground Level Freeway, First Level Highway/Major, Ground Level Highway/Major, First Level Minor/Local, Ground Level Local/Minor, Second Level Local/Major Subsurface Local/ Minor,First Level Service, Ground Level Other, Subsurface Ramp, First Level Ramp, Ground Level Ramp, Subsurface Trees Building Footprints Railroad Trails and Paths Street Pavement Parking Lot Parking figure 1-2 project site 1,200200 Drainage Basin This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATIONWGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Notes 03/04/2019 Legend 136 0 68 136 Feet Jared McDonald jmcdonald@Rentonwa.gov City and County Boundary Parcels 2' Primary 2' Intermediate Network Structures Inlet Manhole Utility Vault Unknown Structure Control Structures Pump Stations Discharge Points Water Quality Detention Facilities Pond Tank Vault Wetland Stormwater Mains Culverts Open Drains Virtual Drainlines Facility Outlines Private Network Structures Inlet Manhole Utility Vault Unknown Structure Private Control Structures Private Pump Stations Private Discharge Points Private Water Quality Private Detention Facilities Pond Tank Vault Wetland Private Pipes Private Culverts Private Open Drains Private Facility Outlines Flow Control BMPs Fences Streets Points of Interest Parks Waterbodies Map Extent2010 cb#1 cb#2 cb#4 cb#5 cb#6 cb#7 cb#3 Legend Description Quantity Unit Drainage Basin 3.47 ac Impervious Area 1.19 ac Site Area 0.62 ac figure 1-3 United States Department of Agriculture A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants Custom Soil Resource Report for King County Area, Washington Natural Resources Conservation Service March 7, 2019 FIGURE 1-4 SOIL MAP Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 Contents Preface....................................................................................................................2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 Soil Map..................................................................................................................8 Soil Map................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 Map Unit Legend................................................................................................11 Map Unit Descriptions.........................................................................................11 King County Area, Washington.......................................................................13 AmC—Arents, Alderwood material, 6 to 15 percent slopes........................13 References............................................................................................................14 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and Custom Soil Resource Report 6 identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. Custom Soil Resource Report 7 Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 8 9 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map 52573105257340525737052574005257430525746052574905257310525734052573705257400525743052574605257490561340 561370 561400 561430 561460 561490 561520 561550 561580 561610 561640 561340 561370 561400 561430 561460 561490 561520 561550 561580 561610 561640 47° 28' 4'' N 122° 11' 10'' W47° 28' 4'' N122° 10' 54'' W47° 27' 58'' N 122° 11' 10'' W47° 27' 58'' N 122° 10' 54'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 10N WGS84 0 50 100 200 300 Feet 0 20 40 80 120 Meters Map Scale: 1:1,460 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: King County Area, Washington Survey Area Data: Version 14, Sep 10, 2018 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Aug 31, 2013—Oct 6, 2013 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Custom Soil Resource Report 10 Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI AmC Arents, Alderwood material, 6 to 15 percent slopes 5.4 100.0% Totals for Area of Interest 5.4 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Custom Soil Resource Report 11 An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. Custom Soil Resource Report 12 King County Area, Washington AmC—Arents, Alderwood material, 6 to 15 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 1hmsq Elevation: 50 to 660 feet Mean annual precipitation: 35 to 60 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 150 to 200 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Arents, alderwood material, and similar soils: 100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Arents, Alderwood Material Setting Landform: Till plains Parent material: Basal till Typical profile H1 - 0 to 26 inches: gravelly sandy loam H2 - 26 to 60 inches: very gravelly sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope: 6 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 40 inches to densic material Natural drainage class: Moderately well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to moderately low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 16 to 36 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 2.3 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4s Hydrologic Soil Group: B/D Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 13 References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262 Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 14 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf Custom Soil Resource Report 15 Draft Technical Information Report SWP 27-4017 2617 Lake Youngs Ct SE Storm & Water Improvements Appendix B Section 2.0 Figures Figure 2-1……….Conveyance Calculations Figure 2-2……….WWHM 25-Year/100-Year Conveyance Flows Figure 2-3……….King County Backwater Analysis 2617 Lake Youngs Ct SE - EX. MH#1 to CB#7CB to CB Pipe KCBWPipe Diam.Pipe LengthOutlet Elev. Inlet Elev.SlopeOverflow Elev.CoverBend AngleStruc TypeTotal AreaImperv. CoverImperv. Cover % Perv.Perv. Cover Perv. Cover Q (25 year)Q (100 year)Trib Flow (25 year)Cumulative Q (25 Q Ratio (25 year)Trib flow (100 year)Cumulative Q (100 ####ftftftft%ftftdegreessfsfacre%sfacreCFSCFSCFSCFSunitlessCFSCFSCB#7CB#6P - (8)50.66666748.29384.83385.551.49388.222.0-1151153.2518361.1965.71%993172.281.461.9001.46001.90CB#6CB#4P - (1)417.80384.15384.504.49387.462.092.51000.000.00%000001.46001.90CB#4CB#2P - (1)(2)3181.01383.34384.151.00387.762.6100.81000.000.00%000001.46001.90CB#2CB#1P - (2)2162.39382.72383.340.99386.942.631.91000.000.00%000001.46001.90CB#1Ex. MH#1P - (3)11262.45361.2382.728.20386.823.157.31000.000.00%000001.46001.90360.2*Note: Tailwater is based upon field measurementTailwaterFIGURE 2-1 CONVEYANCE CALCULATIONSLAKE YOUNGS CT SE CONVEYANCE CALCULATIONS WWHM2012 PROJECT REPORT ___________________________________________________________________ Project Name: 2617 Lake Youngs Ct SE - Conveyance Flows Site Name: 2617 Lake Youngs Ct SE Site Address: 2617 Lake Youngs Ct SE City : Renton Report Date: 03/04/2019 Gage : Seatac Data Start : 1948/10/01 Data End : 2009/09/30 Precip Scale: 1.00 Version Date: 2018/07/12 Version : 4.2.15 ___________________________________________________________________ Low Flow Threshold for POC 1 : 50 Percent of the 2 Year ___________________________________________________________________ High Flow Threshold for POC 1: 50 year ___________________________________________________________________ PREDEVELOPED LAND USE Name : Conveyance Basin Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre C, Lawn, Mod 2.28 Pervious Total 2.28 Impervious Land Use acre DRIVEWAYS MOD 1.19 Impervious Total 1.19 Basin Total 3.47 ___________________________________________________________________ Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater ___________________________________________________________________ MITIGATED LAND USE Name : Conveyance Basin 2 Bypass: No GroundWater: No FIGURE 2-1 WWHM 25-YEAR/100-YEAR CONVEYANCE FLOWS Pervious Land Use acre C, Lawn, Mod 2.28 Pervious Total 2.28 Impervious Land Use acre DRIVEWAYS MOD 1.19 Impervious Total 1.19 Basin Total 3.47 ___________________________________________________________________ Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ANALYSIS RESULTS Stream Protection Duration ___________________________________________________________________ Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:2.28 Total Impervious Area:1.19 ___________________________________________________________________ Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:2.28 Total Impervious Area:1.19 ___________________________________________________________________ Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.719621 5 year 0.990751 10 year 1.187562 25 year 1.456504 50 year 1.67196 100 year 1.900694 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.719621 5 year 0.990751 10 year 1.187562 25 year 1.456504 50 year 1.67196 100 year 1.900694 ___________________________________________________________________ Stream Protection Duration Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Year Predeveloped Mitigated 1949 1.090 1.090 1950 1.016 1.016 1951 0.630 0.630 1952 0.419 0.419 1953 0.446 0.446 1954 0.577 0.577 1955 0.645 0.645 1956 0.621 0.621 1957 0.759 0.759 1958 0.531 0.531 1959 0.478 0.478 1960 0.704 0.704 1961 0.601 0.601 1962 0.438 0.438 1963 0.650 0.650 1964 0.584 0.584 1965 0.789 0.789 1966 0.484 0.484 1967 1.038 1.038 1968 1.074 1.074 1969 0.717 0.717 1970 0.659 0.659 1971 0.809 0.809 1972 0.940 0.940 1973 0.384 0.384 1974 0.811 0.811 1975 0.782 0.782 1976 0.626 0.626 1977 0.593 0.593 1978 0.762 0.762 1979 0.836 0.836 1980 1.368 1.368 1981 0.666 0.666 1982 1.122 1.122 1983 0.761 0.761 1984 0.494 0.494 1985 0.647 0.647 1986 0.635 0.635 1987 0.770 0.770 1988 0.457 0.457 1989 0.715 0.715 1990 1.781 1.781 1991 1.357 1.357 1992 0.551 0.551 1993 0.514 0.514 1994 0.431 0.431 1995 0.589 0.589 1996 0.989 0.989 1997 0.727 0.727 1998 0.681 0.681 1999 1.639 1.639 2000 0.698 0.698 2001 0.668 0.668 2002 0.965 0.965 2003 0.972 0.972 2004 1.522 1.522 2005 0.601 0.601 2006 0.595 0.595 2007 1.657 1.657 2008 1.272 1.272 2009 0.834 0.834 ___________________________________________________________________ Stream Protection Duration Ranked Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated 1 1.7807 1.7807 2 1.6568 1.6568 3 1.6389 1.6389 4 1.5224 1.5224 5 1.3680 1.3680 6 1.3574 1.3574 7 1.2723 1.2723 8 1.1218 1.1218 9 1.0901 1.0901 10 1.0742 1.0742 11 1.0385 1.0385 12 1.0164 1.0164 13 0.9888 0.9888 14 0.9719 0.9719 15 0.9648 0.9648 16 0.9400 0.9400 17 0.8357 0.8357 18 0.8337 0.8337 19 0.8111 0.8111 20 0.8086 0.8086 21 0.7889 0.7889 22 0.7818 0.7818 23 0.7696 0.7696 24 0.7620 0.7620 25 0.7612 0.7612 26 0.7586 0.7586 27 0.7266 0.7266 28 0.7166 0.7166 29 0.7148 0.7148 30 0.7036 0.7036 31 0.6985 0.6985 32 0.6814 0.6814 33 0.6677 0.6677 34 0.6660 0.6660 35 0.6592 0.6592 36 0.6505 0.6505 37 0.6468 0.6468 38 0.6448 0.6448 39 0.6350 0.6350 40 0.6298 0.6298 41 0.6264 0.6264 42 0.6208 0.6208 43 0.6014 0.6014 44 0.6011 0.6011 45 0.5951 0.5951 46 0.5931 0.5931 47 0.5889 0.5889 48 0.5842 0.5842 49 0.5770 0.5770 50 0.5510 0.5510 51 0.5314 0.5314 52 0.5144 0.5144 53 0.4943 0.4943 54 0.4838 0.4838 55 0.4779 0.4779 56 0.4573 0.4573 57 0.4460 0.4460 58 0.4377 0.4377 59 0.4312 0.4312 60 0.4189 0.4189 61 0.3840 0.3840 ___________________________________________________________________ Stream Protection Duration POC #1 The Facility PASSED The Facility PASSED. Flow(cfs) Predev Mit Percentage Pass/Fail 0.3598 1078 1078 100 Pass 0.3731 948 948 100 Pass 0.3863 842 842 100 Pass 0.3996 760 760 100 Pass 0.4128 682 682 100 Pass 0.4261 605 605 100 Pass 0.4393 561 561 100 Pass 0.4526 517 517 100 Pass 0.4658 465 465 100 Pass 0.4791 418 418 100 Pass 0.4924 383 383 100 Pass 0.5056 363 363 100 Pass 0.5189 337 337 100 Pass 0.5321 309 309 100 Pass 0.5454 282 282 100 Pass 0.5586 254 254 100 Pass 0.5719 235 235 100 Pass 0.5851 214 214 100 Pass 0.5984 200 200 100 Pass 0.6116 185 185 100 Pass 0.6249 174 174 100 Pass 0.6381 162 162 100 Pass 0.6514 153 153 100 Pass 0.6647 144 144 100 Pass 0.6779 136 136 100 Pass 0.6912 125 125 100 Pass 0.7044 113 113 100 Pass 0.7177 111 111 100 Pass 0.7309 105 105 100 Pass 0.7442 101 101 100 Pass 0.7574 100 100 100 Pass 0.7707 92 92 100 Pass 0.7839 87 87 100 Pass 0.7972 82 82 100 Pass 0.8104 79 79 100 Pass 0.8237 68 68 100 Pass 0.8370 62 62 100 Pass 0.8502 60 60 100 Pass 0.8635 57 57 100 Pass 0.8767 56 56 100 Pass 0.8900 55 55 100 Pass 0.9032 50 50 100 Pass 0.9165 49 49 100 Pass 0.9297 49 49 100 Pass 0.9430 45 45 100 Pass 0.9562 41 41 100 Pass 0.9695 37 37 100 Pass 0.9828 33 33 100 Pass 0.9960 32 32 100 Pass 1.0093 30 30 100 Pass 1.0225 28 28 100 Pass 1.0358 27 27 100 Pass 1.0490 26 26 100 Pass 1.0623 25 25 100 Pass 1.0755 23 23 100 Pass 1.0888 22 22 100 Pass 1.1020 21 21 100 Pass 1.1153 20 20 100 Pass 1.1285 19 19 100 Pass 1.1418 18 18 100 Pass 1.1551 18 18 100 Pass 1.1683 18 18 100 Pass 1.1816 18 18 100 Pass 1.1948 16 16 100 Pass 1.2081 14 14 100 Pass 1.2213 14 14 100 Pass 1.2346 14 14 100 Pass 1.2478 14 14 100 Pass 1.2611 14 14 100 Pass 1.2743 12 12 100 Pass 1.2876 12 12 100 Pass 1.3008 12 12 100 Pass 1.3141 12 12 100 Pass 1.3274 12 12 100 Pass 1.3406 12 12 100 Pass 1.3539 10 10 100 Pass 1.3671 9 9 100 Pass 1.3804 8 8 100 Pass 1.3936 8 8 100 Pass 1.4069 8 8 100 Pass 1.4201 7 7 100 Pass 1.4334 7 7 100 Pass 1.4466 6 6 100 Pass 1.4599 5 5 100 Pass 1.4731 5 5 100 Pass 1.4864 4 4 100 Pass 1.4997 4 4 100 Pass 1.5129 4 4 100 Pass 1.5262 3 3 100 Pass 1.5394 3 3 100 Pass 1.5527 3 3 100 Pass 1.5659 3 3 100 Pass 1.5792 3 3 100 Pass 1.5924 3 3 100 Pass 1.6057 3 3 100 Pass 1.6189 3 3 100 Pass 1.6322 3 3 100 Pass 1.6455 2 2 100 Pass 1.6587 1 1 100 Pass 1.6720 1 1 100 Pass _____________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC #1 On-line facility volume: 0 acre-feet On-line facility target flow: 0 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0 cfs. Off-line facility target flow: 0 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0 cfs. ___________________________________________________________________ LID Report LID Technique Used for Total Volume Volume Infiltration Cumulative Percent Water Quality Percent Comment Treatment? Needs Through Volume Volume Volume Water Quality Treatment Facility (ac-ft.) Infiltration Infiltrated Treated (ac-ft) (ac-ft) Credit Total Volume Infiltrated 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% No Treat. Credit Compliance with LID Standard 8 Duration Analysis Result = Passed ___________________________________________________________________ Perlnd and Implnd Changes No changes have been made. ___________________________________________________________________ This program and accompanying documentation are provided 'as-is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by End User. Clear Creek Solutions Inc. and the governmental licensee or sublicensees disclaim all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions Inc. be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions Inc. or their authorized representatives have been advised of the possibility of such damages. Software Copyright © by : Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 2005-2019; All Rights Reserved. BACKWATER COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR PIPES Pipe data from file:2617 Lake Youngs.bwp Using a broad-crested weir at intermediate junctions Individual CB's subject to surcharged condition should be simulated by raising the overflow elevation to an appropriate height above the rim elevation. Tailwater Elevation:360.2 feet Discharge Range:1.4 to 2. Step of 0.1 [cfs] Overflow Elevation:388.22 feet Weir:NONE Upstream Velocity:1. feet/sec PIPE NO. 1: 262 LF - 12"CP @ 8.20% OUTLET: 361.20 INLET: 382.72 INTYP: 2 JUNC NO. 1: OVERFLOW-EL: 386.82 BEND: 57 DEG DIA/WIDTH: 2.0 Q- RATIO: 0.00 Q(CFS) HW(FT) HW ELEV. * N-FAC DC DN TW DO DE HWO HWI ************************************************************************* ****** 1.40 0.66 383.38 * 0.012 0.51 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.51 ***** 0.66 1.50 0.69 383.41 * 0.012 0.52 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.52 ***** 0.69 1.60 0.72 383.44 * 0.012 0.54 0.26 0.00 0.26 0.54 ***** 0.72 1.70 0.74 383.46 * 0.012 0.56 0.27 0.00 0.27 0.56 ***** 0.74 1.80 0.77 383.49 * 0.012 0.58 0.28 0.00 0.28 0.58 ***** 0.77 1.90 0.80 383.52 * 0.012 0.59 0.29 0.00 0.29 0.59 ***** 0.80 2.00 0.82 383.54 * 0.012 0.61 0.29 0.00 0.29 0.61 ***** 0.82 PIPE NO. 2: 62 LF - 12"CP @ 0.99% OUTLET: 382.72 INLET: 383.34 INTYP: 2 JUNC NO. 2: OVERFLOW-EL: 386.94 BEND: 32 DEG DIA/WIDTH: 2.0 Q- RATIO: 0.00 Q(CFS) HW(FT) HW ELEV. * N-FAC DC DN TW DO DE HWO HWI ************************************************************************* ****** 1.40 0.68 384.02 * 0.012 0.51 0.42 0.66 0.66 0.51 ***** 0.68 1.50 0.71 384.05 * 0.012 0.52 0.44 0.69 0.69 0.52 ***** 0.71 FIGURE 2-3 KING COUNTY BACKWATER ANALYSIS 25 YEAR FLOW 25 YEAR FLOW 100 YEAR FLOW 1.60 0.73 384.07 * 0.012 0.54 0.45 0.72 0.72 0.54 ***** 0.73 1.70 0.76 384.10 * 0.012 0.56 0.47 0.74 0.74 0.56 ***** 0.76 1.80 0.78 384.12 * 0.012 0.58 0.49 0.77 0.77 0.58 ***** 0.78 1.90 0.80 384.14 * 0.012 0.59 0.50 0.80 0.80 0.59 ***** 0.80 2.00 0.83 384.17 * 0.012 0.61 0.52 0.82 0.82 0.61 ***** 0.83 PIPE NO. 3: 81 LF - 12"CP @ 1.00% OUTLET: 383.34 INLET: 384.15 INTYP: 2 JUNC NO. 3: OVERFLOW-EL: 387.76 BEND: 90 DEG DIA/WIDTH: 2.0 Q- RATIO: 0.00 Q(CFS) HW(FT) HW ELEV. * N-FAC DC DN TW DO DE HWO HWI ************************************************************************* ****** 1.40 0.73 384.88 * 0.012 0.51 0.42 0.68 0.68 0.51 ***** 0.73 1.50 0.77 384.92 * 0.012 0.52 0.44 0.71 0.71 0.52 ***** 0.77 1.60 0.80 384.95 * 0.012 0.54 0.45 0.73 0.73 0.54 ***** 0.80 1.70 0.83 384.98 * 0.012 0.56 0.47 0.76 0.76 0.56 ***** 0.83 1.80 0.87 385.02 * 0.012 0.58 0.49 0.78 0.78 0.58 ***** 0.87 1.90 0.90 385.05 * 0.012 0.59 0.50 0.80 0.80 0.59 ***** 0.90 2.00 0.93 385.08 * 0.012 0.61 0.52 0.83 0.83 0.61 ***** 0.93 PIPE NO. 4: 7 LF - 12"CP @ 4.49% OUTLET: 384.15 INLET: 384.50 INTYP: 2 JUNC NO. 4: OVERFLOW-EL: 387.46 BEND: 90 DEG DIA/WIDTH: 2.0 Q- RATIO: 0.00 Q(CFS) HW(FT) HW ELEV. * N-FAC DC DN TW DO DE HWO HWI ************************************************************************* ****** 1.40 0.78 385.28 * 0.012 0.51 0.29 0.73 0.73 0.51 ***** 0.78 1.50 0.82 385.32 * 0.012 0.52 0.30 0.77 0.77 0.52 ***** 0.82 1.60 0.87 385.37 * 0.012 0.54 0.30 0.80 0.80 0.54 ***** 0.87 1.70 0.91 385.41 * 0.012 0.56 0.31 0.83 0.83 0.56 ***** 0.91 25 YEAR FLOW 25 YEAR FLOW 100 YEAR FLOW 100 YEAR FLOW 1.80 0.96 385.46 * 0.012 0.58 0.32 0.87 0.87 0.58 ***** 0.96 1.90 1.00 385.50 * 0.012 0.59 0.33 0.90 0.90 0.59 ***** 1.00 2.00 1.05 385.55 * 0.012 0.61 0.34 0.93 0.93 0.61 ***** 1.05 PIPE NO. 5: 48 LF - 8"CP @ 1.49% OUTLET: 384.83 INLET: 385.55 INTYP: 2 Q(CFS) HW(FT) HW ELEV. * N-FAC DC DN TW DO DE HWO HWI ************************************************************************* ****** 1.40 1.05 386.60 * 0.012 0.56 0.49 0.45 0.49 0.56 ***** 1.05 1.50 1.14 386.69 * 0.012 0.58 0.52 0.49 0.52 0.58 ***** 1.14 1.60 1.24 386.79 * 0.012 0.59 0.55 0.54 0.55 0.59 ***** 1.24 1.70 1.34 386.89 * 0.012 0.60 0.60 0.58 0.60 0.60 1.20 1.34 1.80 1.45 387.00 * 0.012 0.61 0.67 0.63 0.63 0.78 1.38 1.45 1.90 1.64 387.19 * 0.012 0.62 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.97 1.64 1.56 2.00 1.88 387.43 * 0.012 0.63 0.67 0.72 0.72 1.13 1.88 1.68 25 YEAR FLOW 100 YEAR FLOW 100 YEAR FLOW