Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
SWP272810
1AId- 7-53 THU 11 : 53 INCA ENGINEEPS, INC, FAX NO, 2064500836 P. 01 Y I Transmittal INCA Form INCA ENGINEERS INC. 11120 NE 2nd Street Bellevue, WA 98004 (206) 450 -0933 ( FAX) 450-0836 To: o>c Date: /7-93 Sv F c,�J,4 Subject: G4 JCS._f �0 2 �owL 4-'14-w :a Gtil�idG l c f yt�.-T. F'AX 23s-2s-'1 Attention: CfF►QE We Are Transmitting: The Following: For: _)Z- Herewith Prints or Tracings Review and Comment Under Separate Cover Construction Drawings Approval Specifications Signature Shop Drawings Your Use and Files Number of Copies: Change Order Quotation Sets Approved Bills Payment Shee<A/- %..1CL�O�N9 .dOssL� Legal Descriptions L As Requested CC1! Letters Action Noted Below Subject Remarks: Sincerely Yours, r INCA INCA ENGINEERS INC. JAN- 7-93 THU 11 : 53 INCA ENGINEERS. INC, FAX N0, 2064500836 P, 02 s1-Z-i6s A A.clz..._.. .6A C K -------..._.. ...._.. .. ._. /.N. . .._.7 h� G c�./'✓�!'. ............._7�?.._ rC.� �s�L.i.iv q %�/Q a Y¢. r t�I �cl �/ u... L,,j -g 6.L4 ....._. _. ...-------....�E.s!_�.----�-_x..�. . Cy�Ve�?-.F`-- -- --c�s��:.T..._...��Y�4L:.d......�.rL... ...��o�Fc•�� . ..... L / � -- - _........ ./7_..._b��Jti�... L/ C7 Aix --------.. . .._.�..._��.:���� .��. . _.�.�._. ._ . 3,y...��_._-.._�-�.4%/�•a�--....mod __.��.¢s-. ...yg...-��.•._._.. .. .... .......... .....(7dUi•l /.67tJ/��. �2�-sL.i,-�_..--CU�G'!1---..�.._..� .�T.C.. ..W°v,lL. .._.T.U!-'.!� �s.... . GvlvzL:.�, JAN- 7-93 THU 11 : 53 INCA ENGINEERS, INC. FAx NO, 2064500836 P. 03 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL Y-Notch, Sharp Crested Weir: V-Notch weirs, as shown In Figure 4,4.7D, may be analyzed using standard equations for the fully contracted condition. FIGURE 4.4.71) V-NOTCH,SHARP CRESTED WEIR g � 126.87" a s A-A Where values of Cd may be taken frcm the following chart. 2.9 2.s Q= Cd(Tan 912)H5r2,in c's 2.7 C] � 20• 2.6 45• 2.5 60• 90• 2,4 Q.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 YM tail Standard control structure details are shown In Figures 4.4.7E through I. 7'.N- 7-93 THU 11 : 54 lN[A ENGINEERS, I NO, FAX NO. 206450083 ' P. 04 . ^ � Z�~ - [� -� _-'-_--_--__ -_ -- -'- �___-�������-^����^�-------_�_----_--__---------__------_-__--_--- ' - -___-___� ----------------___�-_---___-__ ~l ......... w�� u �2-C � --_--- ____-__-------_- -................. -__- � .~J7`��''�����-_-----�------------------ PROJECT: S7?-/69- /7-lAe%,r-.soo� C4ce k LQW t-l" aA-r&je,r DESIGNER DATE 3 W HYDROLOGIC AND CHANNEL INFORMATION SKETCH STATION: EL, AHW _Y FA`! Q I - S/o Tw Q2 = 73.6 EL. 67 1 So EL 6 2y S6. TW� — L s- b TW2 + ALLOWABLE OUTLET VELOCITY = HEADWATER COMPUTATION z `� INLET CONT. OUI_ET CONTROL_ OUTLET CULVCRT TYPC Q 'IlC IiW HW Ke d� �� t D ho H LSa IiW y VELOCITY COST COMMENTS D 2 � C.jVC-&-r- V7 o, CT) X X Gx3 a87 NEARI y f! Noy f- PAC-is.,eE SyS�n co W 6) c1 SUMMERY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: � o JArI- 7-99 'THU 11 : 54 INC."k ENGINEER'.). I C, F;x No. 2064500036 P. 06 3-4.5 Box Culvert Mier Control Nomoy�rapA) CHART 8 Iz ' II 600 (1) (2) (3) 500 EXAMPLE 8 9 s0 10 g 400 5'1 2' Bog 0•75 era 7 Q/>i ISc1a/}E 7 8 • 6 9 300 Inter MY w>r 6 7 D roar 5 (1) 1.75 3.5 S 6 4 5 200 7 � 3 3 t- 3 6 O 100 O w 3 2 uj _ — li 80 2 S N u' SO / = 1.5 ~ i 40 / W W W = 1.5 � m z 4 o 30 .►e��' O ~ CL CD // I,0 1.0 LO Q S 0. O Cr< 10 flare —� C 8 .9 .8 W (1f W G a •7 O o S F(W NGV c / 7 7 cp SCALE FL z 8 2 a ° v,s7 (1) 30• ro 75' 3 (2) 90'ana 15' 1�) 0•(eve-lons .5 2 of sides) 5 .5 to use scale (2) or(3) project r. lori:oalonf to scale (1),thaa use %Ireloel leclfaod liAs tar049A _4 0 and 0 seals%,or rs.oee as Illuslraled. g -4 .4 .6 ( S .30 .35 .35 HEADWATER DEPTH FOR BOX CULVERTS ROADS „� WITH INLET CONTROL sUKaU Qe pUe`IC 3 - 13 May 1989 .JIkK- 7-93 THU 11 : 55 INCH ENJINEEFS, I11C, FAX NO. 2064500836 P. 07 5 4 do CAN VOTEXCEED D f- U- 3 _2 6$ ? CRITICAL DEPTH RECTA GUAR SECTION 0 0 10f2.3 20 30 40 50 60 Q/B !6 I I-_T I 1,4_ 15 14 I i 3 do CANNOT, EXCEED D, _ I _ 12 I I III k z 10 I I ICRITICAL DEPTH 8 RECT NGULAR SECTION 8 7 FTT �8 5 B IN FT, IQ IN, C.F.S. 5 ! H dc _ .315 3 (0;13)2 4 I 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Q�g CRITICAL DEPTH OURCAU Of PUBLIC *0AD5 yal. I%3 RECTANGULAR SECTION FIGURE 3-6.11A(2) 1A1�- 7-93 THU 11 : 55 IIICA ENGIPIEEPS, IPIC. FAx: NO, 2064500836 P. 08 3-5.6 Box Culvert(Outlet Control NomograDh) 5000 4000 12 3000 T-- -- -- — M FI M 2000 S1ppe 5•— SU$MCRGED OUTLET CULVERT PWWllr FULL Fee e16141 cP0■n R01 bubmarood. pYy Mr ps 1000 .4 12x12 Rr11�o4o aw•vipod 1A irr Cori p.oc•eu.g .S 900 ioxi0 100- 6 W 600 8 X9 80 U. 500 Liu9xe so ME 6 i U. a e+ /-=56.5 1.0 400 2 7X7 50 N : O O sr'y W x 40 2 �•G 2 4i 300 O 6x6 m W 30 — Z 200 Q Sxs m o c F� s 2 a v ir �a N �cpLL Q O W 4 z 4 z Apo �o m 3 it z 4 J 100 O xis v `3j� �0 b00 z lAJ z 10 a o eOC S � x 3 9 C // 00 6 6o a /2.5x2.3 w / fxorvLE `f M;T.j 9 0.•O�, ;a 10 e 2x2 Z4 30 120 20 J O 2 2 C '10 B 6 3 HEAD FOR CONCRETE BOX CULVERTS FLOWING FULL AU of •USLIC R0.05 401. 1993 n = 0.012 May 1929 3 - 22 AMk Washington State Memorandum Department of Transportation DATE: December 6, 1993 FROM: R.H. Nichols/E.R. Winter PHONE: 440-4540 SUBJECT:SR 169 MP 19.22 - MP 23.88 _ 196th/Jones Rd - Maplewood Change Order THRU: TO: Cathy Arnold MS 58 This will respond to Sandy Glover's request for an hydraulic evaluation of the proposed diversion of Maplewood Creek relative to manhole demolition. The current proposal is to connect the cut ends of the 72 inch concrete outfall and the existing 42 inch corrugated metal pipe culvert with a 48 inch diversion pipe. The diversion pipe will be placed over the end of the 42 inch pipe and inserted into the 72 inch pipe. Plan and profile are attached as Contract 8593 overlays, construction of 1968. The slope of the 48 inch diversion pipe, about seven percent, will exceed the slope of the existing culvert and will have no adverse hydraulic impact on the system. cc: M.J Witecki 7329 r } � �cS FE Ct"1 C12 t p0E S 1--- CATS �► y PO o _---- Z1 DOT 700-008X Revised 6/92 - --- S��A� � .�.>r7AM T—• �..�.�wsnww�r u( yl..._...a__� ..-_ .''� .....zn�sm - ... - ♦ - ..._-.-.� ._...� �` .�__ ._._ --- �.. ,.. ,o C Washington State District 1 Department of Transportation Duane Berentson Secretary of Transportation November 15, 1993 Ron Straca 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055-2189 Subject: SR 169 196th Avenue SE to Maplewood Maplewood Creek Diversion Dear Mr. Straca: Enclosed is Kiewit Pacific Company's proposal to divert Maplewood Creek around existing manhole. Please review and provide comments by November 23, 1993. If you have any questions, please contact Sandy Glover at 720-3000. Sincerely, 1 G CA ARNOLD, P.E. Project'Engineer 1515 25th Ave. S, Suite B Seattle, WA 98144 SEG/sg attach. cc: Bob Dyer MS 114 /S 4- 1,)/VQf'sla/7 �ddr 7 WS 1�(�\ l_S �T v � TW✓� � �y�l�-ti.(�<<C Cs=. ��F-C-c/� o,`�ys 1 S 4 �cEv✓ f J�- VQ� �. ' y.r ti c:++r'vY,.... 'Y.....yiS,n+x n"}fC:""-:u:T'1.�. rr^-o• .. ...... .. ... .,. � ..... w F-f rm �Printed inU..S.A. Rev.5/85 y+ (Company Name) ADDRESS REPLY TO: LEV— TO DATE-//-/- 23 -CO. NCL JOB NO,3 W- 1 D• U TRANSMITTAL NO. R E:M.4 PLf 4:i. )n(r/2_ �x ( a L Attached WE ARE SENDING El Under separate cover via the following: 9 Drawings ❑Plans ❑Progress Payment ❑Subcontractor El Prints ❑Samples ❑Specifications ❑Change Order ❑Payroll ❑EEO Report ❑Certificates of Compliance ❑Copy of Letter KIA-r&R �F���� ❑ COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 2 _ I- 72 W P, - ZE _ ACT&I INFO. THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: For approval ❑Approved a Aftnittetl -- --- --MZU )mit copies for approval For your use ❑Approved a A16 -�----�— —EjSrM it copies for distribution El As requested El Returned fo Wrecti0fi etur n corrected prints ❑For review and comment AOE I ,tee 4--u�n b MATS -Fes---- CA - ❑FOR BIDS DUE P0% -� ITN S RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US. REMARKS - "�W/� 1,f 4 j ,Q COPY TO: SIGNED r\� 1 KIEWIT PACIFIC COMPANY 18823 Renton Maple Valley Highway Renton, WA 98058 PROJECT: WSDOT SR169 Jones Road to Maple Valley REFERENCE: Special Provisions (p. 145) Maplewood Creek Box Culvert, (line # 11 - 13) . ATTN: Cathy Arnold Submitted below is the Kiewit Pacific Company plan for temporarily rerouting water from existing drainage pipes to bypass structure subject to demolition. 1. Excavate and expose 72" and 42" pipe. 2 . Approximately 10' down grade from existing manhole break through side of 72" pipe with chipping gun. This hole is for the 42" diversion pipe. 3 . Place 42" diversion pipe into hole in the 72" pipe, dry pack around the 42" and 72" pipe. 4 . Place new sections of 42" pipe to make connection into existing 42" pipe. 5. Water will have to be temporarily controlled to make connection to existing 42" pipe. Place sandbags at inlet end of 42" pipe and allow water to temporarily back up in existing ditch. 6. As soon as sandbags are in, cut existing 42" pipe and make connection with 42" diversion pipe. 7. Remove sandbags from inlet end of 42" pipe. Water flow will be controlled for approximately one hour. In addition to the above, we will repair the existing 72" ST in the following manner: 1. Clean and prep the hole in the 72" ST. 2 . Apply a two-part epoxy on the interior of the hole. 3 . Install wire mesh. 4 . Pour concrete to close the hole in the 72" ST ensuring it's integrity. �O }- r 1 I i Y_1 . _ • I_.-�.� _ _ - �.- - _ -.. _ -- I - -- i 4 JELK 3 L. S- _ ' IIM!H.Ii _ I _ -._ __, _ _... E'x,� ._f.N C _72�,1 1.3E ELE E �Q� r ' 1 i .... �. ._I I.- ; ; Y• j.. � _ -- ....._ I --.I. e.C�ivC � I I I .i - ---T--... _i__ '__ , I - I I • I T I ry, I- ! SE_ I r �fUr I! �G' n v Rs - �-- I I I ; •,I N G K f ir•� I I I j 1' a�--�Nz- ..Tbf- I `11 _ A A"DO�.1E ✓ I - I i — � I r i � tm I � , r i I r L : i ! 11 Lo Lob, I IWi TEMPOAAR -� i SA N D 6AC7 - ! ---I- Z Z . ;NOT Tp LEI--II • I- r C � Z.iv�mevw+o�,h CITY OF RENTON SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971 PERMIT FOR SHORELINE MANAGEMENT SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION NO.: LUA-92-187-SM DATE RECEIVED: December23, 1992 MAY 3 1993 DATE OF PUBLICATION: January 21 &28, 1993 CITY OF RENTON Engineering Dept. DATE APPROVED: April 14, 1993 DATE DENIED: N/A TYPE OF ACTION(S): [X] Substantial Development Permit [ ] Conditional Use Permit ( ] Variance Permit Pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW, the City of Renton has granted/denied a permit: This action was taken on the following application: APPLICANT: Washington State Department of Transportation DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION: SR 169 between Maplewood Avenue and the Renton City limits is a two lane highway with turn pockets provided at major intersections and a four lane highway between Maplewood Avenue and 1-405. The State of Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) is planning to this highway from two lanes to four lanes with turn pockets provided at intersections for the remainder of the route within the City of Renton and extending out into the County area to 196 Avenue SE. Other improvements that will be constructed as part of this project include a trail, noise abatement walls, drainage modifications, a fishway, and landscaping. The State is taking lead agency status on this project. As the lead agency the State has issued a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance in accordance with SEPA for this project. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Right-of-way for SR 169 between Maplewood Ave. and the Renton City limits. SEC-TWNP-R: Sec.'s 16, 21, & 22 of T23N, R5E WITHIN SHORELINES OF: Cedar River SHORELINE OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE (YES/NO): No ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATION: Urban APPLICABLE MASTER PROGRAM: City of Renton, Shoreline Master Program Y The following section/page of the Master Program is applicable to the development: Section 5.04 pages 22 & 22A, Section 7.15 page 36, Section 7.17 page 37 Development of this project shall be undertaken pursuant to the following terms and conditions: See Exhibit A This permit is granted pursuant to the Shoreline Management Action of 1971 and pursuant to the following: 1. The issuance of a license under the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 shall not release the applicant from compliance with federal, state, and other permit requirements. 2. This permit may be rescinded pursuant to Section 14(7) of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 in the event the permittee fails to comply with any condition hereof. 3. A construction permit shall not be issued until thirty (30) days after approval by the City of Renton Development Services Division or until any review proceedings initiated within this thirty (30) day review period have been completed. 13 Pla ning/B I ing/P lic Works Administrator bate THIS SECTION FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY IN REGARD TO A CONDITIONAL USE OR VARIANCE PERMIT DATE RECEIVED: APPROVED: DENIED: If Conditional Use, Section of the City's Shoreline Master Program authorizing the use: If Variance, Section(s) of the City's Shoreline Master Program being varied: This Conditional Use/Variance permit is approved/denied by the Department pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW. Development shall be undertaken pursuant to the following additional terms and conditions: Date Signature of Authorized Department Official cc: D.O.E., NW District Office Attorney General's Office City of Renton, Development Services Division City of Renton, Transportation Systems City of Renton, Utility Systems Applicant WSOOT/SHRLNPER EXHIBIT A 1. The applicant shall ensure that all surface water runoff from the newly paved areas of the project within the City of Renton corporate limits shall be collected, treated, conveyed, detained and discharged in full compliance with the King County Surface Water Manual as enforced by the City of Renton. To ensure compliance with this provision, the applicant must submit drainage control plans to the Plan Review Section for review and approval. Approval of the applicant's Shoreline Substantial Development Permit will be based upon these plans for the installation of the drainage facilities, which will be inspected for approval by the City of Renton inspection staff. All applicable project plan review and inspection costs are to be paid by the applicant. 2. The applicant shall ensure that all construction to conform to the requirements of the City of Renton Aquifer Protection Ordinance for APA Zone 2. This shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, lining for all biofiltration swales and complying with pipe material and drainage structure requirements included in the ordinance. Compliance to be ensured as outlined in condition#1. 3. The applicant shall submit a copy of the Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures Plan to the City of Renton for review and approval prior to the begining of any construction for this project. 4. The applicant shall coordinate with Dave Christensen (277-6212) of the City of Renton Waste Water Utility to allow construction of new sewer crossings by the City prior to paving crossing areas. 5. The applicant shall coordinate with the Water Utility for the construction of two new crossings for future water mains as part of the project construction. These two crossings are for a 12" water main at approximately Station 1464, and a 16" water main at approximately Station 1470. Final design of these water main crossings shall be approved by the City of Renton Water Utility prior to construction. 6. The applicant shall work with City of Renton staff to establish a steering committee to coordinate the road improvement activities that could impact the movement of traffic and emergency vehicles. This committee shall be established and working prior to the begining of construction. 7. To ensure access from the Maplewood subdivision to the proposed trail along the Cedar River and to ensure the safety of pedestrians walking along SR169, the applicant shall review the possibility of replacing the duplicate sidewalk adjacent to SR 169 and replacing it with a planter area to enhance the visual appeal and safety of the area. 8. An arborist, hired by the City of Renton, shall make a written determination as to the general health of the trees. During the construction phase of the SR 169 road widening project, any trees declared to be unhealthy or unsafe by the arborist shall be pruned or removed by WSDOT under the direction of the arborist. Trees that are removed shall be replaced by WSDOT to the satisfaction of the City of Renton Parks Department. The replacement trees shall be 3" to 5" in diameter, of a species, and in a location satisfactory to the City of Renton Parks Division. WSOOT/SHRLNPER 4% CITY OF RENTON "'LLR Planning/Building/Public Works Department om Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann,Administrator April 12, 1993 Thomas Hamstra, Project Engineer Washington State Dept. of Transportation - District 1 P. 0. Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 SUBJECT: SR 169 - REVIEW OF FISHWAY PLANS Dear Mr. Hamstra: The Surface Water Utility has reviewed theplans for the fishway under SR 169 sent to us on March 18,1993 and received on March 22, 1993. The plans show a 6' x 4' box culvert under the northern part of SR 169, expanding to a 8' x 4' culvert at the southern end. The control weir is located in the 8' x 4' section and is a broad V-notch weir, made out of treated Douglas Fir and bolted to a steel angle iron.. The design and flow capacity of the culvert is within the range ,of values the City has used for preliminary sizing of the low flow fish passage channel, and is acceptable to the City.. The apparent ground elevation of the golf course,across from the culvert will limit the allowable water elevation in the culvert to approximately 65.5. We analyzed the weir's flow capacity at water elevation 65.5 and calculated,it to be 53 cubic feet per second (cfs). The City will limit the peak flow in the fish channel on the golf course so it does not exceed elevation 65.5 at the culvert entrance, unless the actual ground elevations in that area are lower than anticipated and a lower water level is required to protect the golf course from flooding. You should contact the Washington Sate Department of Fisheries for the technical review and approval of the culvert and fish ladder for fish passage. We would like to note that it is' the City's position that future operation and maintenance responsibility for the culvert and fish ladder will belong;,to WSDOT. We .are assuming that WSDOT will accept the future operation and maintenance. responsibility for the culvert and fish ladder since you are proceeding with the preparation of plans for construction. However, we have not received a response to our letter dated January 29, 1993 which requested that WSDOT accept that responsibility. We would like you to confirm that the WSDOT will accept the operation and maintenance responsibility for the fishway in writing. Please contact Daniel Carey at (206) 277-6193 if you have any questions regarding this letter. Very truly yours Ronald J. S aka, P.E. Engineering Supervisor Surface Water Utility C:D0CS:93-302:DWCcps cc: Gregg Zimmerman Bill Hutsinpiller Ken Bates 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 THIS PAPER CONTAINS 50%RECYCLED MATERIAL,10%POST CONSUMER Washington State District 1 Department of TIransportation jipton venue North Duane y of Tra son spoSecretary of Transportation 440-4000 APR 1 2 1993 April7, 1993 CITY OF RENTOIV Gregg Zimmerman, P.E. Engineering Dept, Utility Systems Director City of Renton Public Works Department 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 SR 169 196th SE/Jones Rd to 140th Additional lanes - OL8607 140th Place SE to Maplewood Golf Course - OL7228 Dear Mr. Zimmerman: Please refer to your letter dated January 29, 1993 regarding the low-flow fish channel and ladder as well as my previous letter dated January 13, 1993. The Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has reconsidered our previous position regarding maintenance of the fish ladder associated with the future Maplewood Creek low-flow channel. We will operate and maintain the fishway and ladder within WSDOT right of way. Should you have any further questions regarding this, please contact me at 440-4312. Sincerely, THOMAS C. HAMSTRA, P.E. Project Engineer TH/th cc: Ken Bates - WSDOF - MS 3155 Larry Fisher - WSDOF W. Carter / J. L. Lutz - MS 110 R. Nichols / D. Hagglund - MS 138 T.Paananen - MS 121 T. Lentz - MS 119 J. Olson - MS 44 AdnkL Washington State District 1 Department of Transportation 15700 Dayton Avenue North e Box 330310 WA 98133 9710 Duane Berentson S Secretary of Transportation Seattle,WA 81 (206)440-4000 March 18, 1993fD 41A Dan Carey NIAR 2'.2 1993 Renton Surface Water Utility RENTON 200 Mill Avenue South CITY OF Renton, WA 98055 Engineering Dept, Subject: SR 169 196th Ave SE/Jones Rd to Maplewood Fishway plans Dear Mr. Carey, Enclosed is 1 copy of the Fishway plans and details for the subject project as you requested. Please review and forward any comments by March 26, 1993 . If you have any questions or comments, please contact Sandy Glover at 440-4327 . Sincerely, THOMAS C. HAMSTRA, P. E. Project Engineer SEG/sg enclosure (Glover/memoan.doc) cc: Project File Day File Aft Washington State District t Department of Transportation 15700 Dayton Avenue North 30310 Duane Berentson Se Box 3 A 981 Secretary of Transportation Seattle,WA 8133 9710 (206)440-4000 January 13, 1993 Gregg Zimmerman, P.E. JAN 2:0 1993 Utility Systems Director City of Renton Public Works Department CITY OF RENTON 200 Mill Avenue South Engineering Dept. Renton, Washington 98055 SR 169 196th SE/Jones Rd tc, 140th Additional lanes - OL8607 140th Place SE to Maplewood Golf Course - OL7228 Dear Mr. Zimmerman: Thank you for providing us your letter dated January 7, 1993 concerning the Maplewood Creek low-flow fish channel. This letter should be sufficient evidence to the Deparment of Fisheries concerning the intent of the City of Renton. We wish to provide further clarification regarding the statement (No. 6) in the letter which states that WSDOT must operate, maintain and repair the fish ladder and culvert. This statement is in conflict with RCW 47.24.020 (copy attached), which covers the jurisdiction and control of city streets and underground facilities. This section of the RCW is specific in stating that cities are responsible for maintainence beyond the curbs (Section (2)) and for the maintainence of underground facilities in streets (Section (3)). Should you have any further questions regarding this, please contact me at 440-4312. Sincerely, �� (_tq44-hA�. THOMAS C. HAMSTRA, P.E. Project Engineer TH/th cc: R.D. Aye/ J. L. Lutz F Title 47 RCW: Public Highways and Transportation Chapter 47.22 Chapter 47.22 Speed limits in cities: RCW 46.61.415,46.61.430,46.61.440. Viaducts.bridges COMBINATION HIGHWAY ROUTES ,elevated roadways,tunnels.etc..in cities: Chapter 35.85 RCW. . Sections 47.22.010 Fast Pacific highway. 47.24.010 Designation of street as part of high- 47.22.020 Lewis and Clark highway. ;- ._ way—Construction, maintenance—Return of street to city or town. The transportation commission shall deter- . 47.22.010 East Pacific highway. There is hereby mine what streets, together with bridges thereon and wharves established the east Pacific highway which shall be com- necessary for use for ferriage of motor vehicle traffic in posed of the following existing highway routes: Beginning connection with such streets, if any, in any incorporated on state route number 5 at or near Centralia; thence by way cities and towns shall form a part of the route of state of state route number 5 to its junction with state route highways and between the first and fifteenth days of July of number 12 or by way of state route number 507 between any year the department of transportation shall certify to the Centralia and Tenino; thence on state route number 507 to clerk of each city or town, by brief description, the streets, Roy junction with state route number 7; thence on state route together with the bridges thereon and wharves, if any, in such city or town which are designated as forming a part of number 7 to a junction with state route number 512; thence Y on state route number 512 to Puyallup; thence on state route orbcluding the s ute and f uttersanyt at and street inter- highway; sections all hand such bridges numbers 410 and 167 to Sumner, Auburn, Kent and Renton; g thence on state route number 405 to Kirkland; thence on and wharves, shall thereafter be a part of the state highway p; system and as such shall be constructed and maintained by state route number 405 north to a junction with state route Y number 522; thence on state route number 522 to a junction the department of transportation from any state funds with state route number 9-northeast of Woodinville; and available therefor: PROVIDED, That the responsibility for Arlington, the construction and maintenance of any such street together thence on state route number 9 to Snohomish, Sedro Woolley, and to a junction with state route number with its appurtenances may returned to a city or a town 542 at Deming; thence westerly, on state route 542 to a upon certification by the depaarr tment of transportation to the r clerk of any city or town that such street, or portion thereof, junction with state route number 9 at Lawrence; thence on st A' state route number 9 via Sumas, to the Canadian internation- is no longer required as a part of the state highway system: y b`, al boundary. (1970 ex.s. c 51 § .175; 1961 c 13 § 47.22.010. PROVIDED FURTHER,That any such certification that a Prior: 1951 c 273 § 1.] street, or portion thereof, is no.longer required as a part of the state highway system shall be made between the first and 47.22.020 Lewis and Clark h>Ighway. There"is fifteenth of July following the determination by the depart- ment that such street or portion thereof is no longer required established the Lewis and Clark highway,`which shall be as a part of the state highway system, but this shall not composed of the following existing routes: state route prevent the department and any city or town from entering number 12 from Clarkston to Waitsburg; state route number into an agreement that a city or town will accept responsibi]- w 124 from Waitsburg to Pasco (west); state route number 12 ity for such a street or portion thereof at some time other from Pasco to Waitsburg via Wallula and Walla Walla than between the first and fifteenth of July of any year. (east); state route number 14 from Pasco to Maryhill; state [1979 ex.s. c 86 § 2; 1977 ex.s. c 151 § 57; 1973 c 95 § 3; route numbers 14, 5 and 4 from Maryhill to Naselle junc- 1961 c 13 § 47.24.010. Prior: 1959 c 160 § 1; 1957 c 83 tion; state route number 401 from Naselle junction to § 2; 1955 c 179 § 2; 1949 c 220 § 5, part; 1945 c 250 § 1, :P Megler; and state route number 101 from Megler to Ilwaco. A [1970 ex.s. c 51 § 176; 1967 ex.s. c 145 § '.3; 1961 c 13 § part; 1943 c 82 § 10, part; 1937 c 187 § 61, part; Rem. 47.22.020. Prior: 1955 c 178 § 1.] Supp. 1949 § 6450-61, part.] Severability-1979 exs.c 86: See note following RCW 13 24.040. Chapter 47.24 47.24.020 Jurisdiction, control of such streets. The jurisdiction, control, and duty of the state and city or town CITY STREETS AS PART OF STATE HIGHWAYS with respect to such streets shall be as follows: Sections (1) The department has no authority to change or of 47.24.010 Designation of street a., -- part of highwayConswction, establish any grade of any such street without approval c v maintenance—Return of street to city or town. the governing body of such city or town, except with respect ct 47.24.020 Jurisdiction,control or such streets. to limited access facilities established by the commission; 47.24.030 Acquisition of rights of way—Condemnation proceedings. (2)The city or town shall exercise full responsibility for 47 24.040 Street fund—Expenditures on streets forming part of state I highway. and control over any such street beyond the curbs and if no 47.24.050 Aid on streets by state or county—Payment. curb is installed,beyond that portion of the highway used for s and Ciry streets highway purposes. However, within incorporated citie parkways, boulevards, generally: Title 35 RCW. towns the title to a state limited access highway vests in the sidewalks, etc.: Chapters 35.6K through 35.79 RCW. state, and, notwithstanding any other provision of this Design standards committee for cit. streets: Chapter 35.78 RCW. Section, the department shall exercise full jurisdiction, off-street parking responsibility;and control to and over such facility as cities: Chapter 35.86 RCW. rovided in chapter 47.52 RCW; towns: RCW 35.27.550 through 35.27.590. provided Platted streets as public highways RCW 58.08.035.58.08.050. t (Title 47 RCW—Page 691 (1992 Ed.) f 4714.020 Title 47 RCW: Public Highways and Transportation (3)The department has authority to prohibit the suspen- (1 1) Cities and towns shall regulate and enforce all lion of signs, banners, or decorations above the portion of traffic and parking restrictions on such streets, but all such street between the curbs or portion used for highway regulations adopted by a city or town relating to speed, purposes up to a vertical height of twenty feet above the parking, and traffic control devices on such streets not surface of the roadway; identical to state law relating thereto are subject to the (4) The city or town shall at its own expense maintain approval of the department before becoming effective. All N ` all underground facilities in such streets, and has the right to regulations pertaining to speed, parking, and traffic control ?. construct such additional underground facilities as may be devices relating to such streets heretofore adopted by a city necessary in such streets; or town not identical with state laws shall become null and (5)The city or town has the right to grant the privilege void unless approved by the department heretofore or within to open the surface of any such street, but all damage one year after March 21, 1963; occasioned thereby shall promptly be repaired either by the (12) The department shall erect, control, and maintain at state expense all route markers and directional signs, city or town itself or at its direction; (6) The city or town at its own expense shall provide except street signs, on such streets; - x, street illumination and shall clean all such streets, including (13)The department shall install, operate, maintain,and storm sewer inlets and catch basins, and remove all snow, control at state expense all traffic control signals, signs, and except that the state shall when necessary plow the snow on traffic control devices for the purpose of regulating both the roadway. In cities and towns having a population of pedestrian and motor vehicular traffic on, entering upon, or fifteen thousand or less according to the latest determination leaving state highways in cities and towns having a popula- of population by the office of financial management, the tion of fifteen thousand or less according to the latest state, when necessary for public safety, shall assume, at its determination of population by the office of financial expense, responsibility for the stability of the slopes of cuts management. Such cities and towns may submit to the and fills and the embankments within the right of way to department a plan for traffic control signals, signs, and protect the roadway itself. When the population of a city or traffic control devices desired by them, indicating the town reaches fifteen thousand after January 1, 1990, the state location, nature of installation, or type thereof, or a proposed shall retain the responsibility for the stability of slopes of amendment to such an existing plan or installation, and the cuts and fills and the embankments within the right of way department shall consult with the cities or towns concerning to protect the road itself until the legislature acts upon the the plan before installing such signals, signs, or devices. findings of the task force created in section 53, chapter 342, Cities and towns having a population in excess of fifteen Laws of 1991, or until June 30, 1993, whichever occurs first. thousand according to the latest determination of population The state shall install, maintain, and operate all illuminating by the office of financial management shall install, maintain, facilities on any limited access facility, together with its operate, and control such signals,signs, and devices at their interchanges, located within the corporate limits of any city own expense, subject to approval of the department for the , or town, and shall assume and pay the costs of all such installation and type only. When the population of a city or installation, maintenance, and operation incurred after town reaches fifteen thousand after January I, 1990, the state November 1, 1954; shall retain the responsibility"for installing, operating, (7)The department has the right to use all storm sewers maintaining, and controlling such signals, signs, and devices on such highways without cost; and if new storm sewer until the legislature acts upon the findings of the task force facilities are necessary in construction of new streets by the created in section 53, chapter 342, Laws of. 1991, or until department, the cost of the facilities shall be borne by the June 30, 1993, whichever occurs first. For the purpose of ;:'� state and/or city as may be mutually agreed upon between this subsection, striping, lane marking, and channelization are the department and the governing body of the city or town; considered traffic control devices;. (8) Cities and towns have exclusive right to grant (14) All revenue from parking meters placed on such franchises not in conflict with state laws,over, beneath, and streets belongs to the city or town; r upon such streets, but the department is authorized to (15)Rights of way for such streets shall be acquired by b f enforce in an action brought.in the name of the state any either the city or town or by"the state as shall be mutually condition of any franchise which a city or town has granted agreed upon. Costs of acquiring rights of way may be at the on such street. No franchise for transportation of passengers sole expense of the state or at the expense of the city or in motor vehicles may be granted on such streets without the town or at the expense of the state and the city or town as approval of the department,but the department shall not may be mutually agreed upon. Title to all such rights of refuse to approve such franchise unless another street way so acquired shall vest in the city or town:,PROVIDED, rf conveniently located and of strength of construction to That no vacation,,sale,rental,or any other nontransportation `t sustain travel of such vehicles is accessible;. use of any unused portion of any such street may be made (9) Every franchise.or permit granted any person by a by the city or town without the prior written approval of the city or town for use of any portion of such street by a public department; and all revenue derived from sale, vacation; utility shall require the grantee or permittee to restore,repair, rental, or any nontransportation use of such rights of.way and replace to its original condition any portion of the street shall be shared by the city or town and the state in the same damaged or injured by it; proportion as the purchase costs were shared; (10) The city or town has the right to issue overload or (16) If any city or town fails to perform any of its overwidth permits for vehicles to operate on such streets or obligations as set forth in this section or in any cooperative roads subject to regulations printed.and distributed to the agreement entered into with the department,for the mainte- cities and towns by the department; nance of a city or town street forming part of the route of a [Title 47 RCW—page 70] (1992 ') �! - CITY OF RENTON "LL Planning/Building/Public Works Department Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann,Administrator January 7, 1993 Thomas Hamstra, Project Engineer Washington State Dept. of Transportation - District 1 P.O. Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 SUBJECT: MAPLEWOOD CREEK FISH PASSAGE CHANNEL Dear Mr. Hamstra: We are providing this letter to indicate the City's support for the Maplewood Creek low flow fish passage channel through the Maplewood Golf Course. Since the beginning of our discussions, the City has supported the idea of establishing a low flow channel that would allow salmon to migrate from the Cedar River, through the golf course, and into the Maplewood Creek canyon. Upstream migration of salmon into the Maplewood Creek Canyon is impeded by the existing culvert under SR 169, the golf course sedimentation pond, and the remnants of an old water supply dam in the canyon. The construction of the fish passage channel depends on several preceding conditions, and the availability of future funding. The City will pursue the project to the extent that funding is available and is approved by the City Council. Currently, the following steps and considerations need to be satisfied for the City to reach the design and construction stage for the low flow fish passage channel: 1 . The City has applied for a FEMA grant to provide matching funds for reconstructing the existing sedimentation basin at the golf course. The control structures needed for the low flow channel would be incorporated into that project, and the old water supply dam in the canyon would be removed. The City's application was selected by the State Department of Community Development for recommendation to FEMA, and is currently undergoing federal review. 2. The City has allocated FEMA matching funds in the 1993 budget for the design of the sedimentation basin. The funds can be expended provided that the City receives the FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant. If the funding is not received the project schedule would be delayed, and the project scope could be reduced. 3. The City Council will need to approve funds for construction of the fish passage channel across the golf course. Council approval will depend on successfully completing the first two steps. The Surface Water Utility Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget has identified future funding for projects in 1993 through 1995 and is subject to Council approval (see attached CIP worksheet). The 1993 CIP budget has been approved by Council. 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 4. As discussed at the October 12,1992 meeting, the City could not construct the low flow channel if the Department of Fisheries places excessive design requirements on the low flow channel design. The primary purpose of the channel will be to allow fish migration into the Maplewood Creek canyon. A secondary consideration will be to provide limited habitat on the golf course, where the space is available. 5. The City of Renton Parks Department has had its golf course architect examine the preliminary alignment and conceptual plans for the low flow channel, and has determined that the channel can be accommodated in the golf course expansion plans. However, the design of the fish passage channel must be balanced with the needs of the golf course. 6. The City will commit to construct the low flow fish passage channel if the WSDOT constructs a fish ladder and culvert from the Cedar River, under SR 169, to the Maplewood Golf Course at no cost to the City of Renton. The WSDOT must also assume responsibility for the inspection, operation, maintenance, and repair of the fish ladder and culvert crossing from the Cedar River to the southern property boundary of the golf course. The City will assume inspection, operation, maintenance, and repair responsibility of the fish passage channel from the southern boundary of the golf course north, to the proposed sedimentation basin. 7. The DOT and Department of Fisheries must commit to removing the baffles in the existing 72-inch culvert that conveys the flow from Maplewood Creek to the Cedar River. The draft Maplewood Basin Study shows that the full capacity of the culvert will be needed as development in the basin proceeds. If the baffles remain in place the culvert capacity would be less than the predicted peak runoff rate from the 100-year, 24-hour storm, and flooding on the golf course could result. We hope this letter is sufficient to allow your project to proceed. We support the development of the low flow fish passage channel and will continue to work for it's construction. The expenditure of City funds on the project is subject to City Council approval. We have identified this project in the Surface Water Utility's 6-year CIP and will seek Council approval of funding for the project in future years. Sincerely, Gregg Zimmerman, P.E. Utility Systems Director William Hutsinpiller Recreation Services Manager 93-015:DWC:ps CC: Ron Straka David Jennings CONCURRENCE DATE NAME INITIAUDATE L 1-G 2 - January 6, 1993 Thomas Hamstra, Project Engineer Washington State Dept. of Transportation - District 1 P.O. Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 SUBJECT: MAPLEWOOD CREEK FISH PASSAGE CHANNEL Dear Mr. Hamstra: We are providing this letter to indicate the City's support for the Maplewood Creek low flow fish passage channel through the Maplewood Golf Course. Since the beginning of our discussions, the City has supported the idea of establishing a low flow channel that would allow salmon to migrate from the Cedar River, through the golf course, and into the Maplewood Creek canyon. Upstream migration of salmon into the Maplewood Creek Canyon is impeded by the existing culvert under SR 169, the golf course sedimentation pond, and the remnants of an o!d water supply dam in the canyon. The construction of the fish passage channel depends on several preceding conditions, and the availability of future funding. The City will pursue the project to the extent that funding is available and is approved by the City Council. Currently, the following steps and considerations need to be satisfied for the City to reach the design and construction stage for the low flow fish passage channel: 1 . The City has applied for a FEMA grant to provide matching funds for reconstructing the existing sedimentation basin at the golf course. The control structures needed for the low flow channel would be incorporated into that project, and the old water supply dam in the canyon would be removed. The City's application was selected by the State Department of Community Development for recommendation to FEMA, and is currently undergoing federal review. 2. The City has allocated FEMA matching funds in the 1993 budget for the design of the sedimentation basin. The funds can be expended provided that the City receives the FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant. If the funding is not received the project schedule would be delayed, and the project scope could be reduced. 3. The City Council will need to approve funds for construction of the fish passage channel across the golf course. Council approval will depend on successfully completing the first two steps. The Surface Water Utility Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget has identified future funding for projects in 1993 through 1995 and is subject to Council approval (see attached CIP worksheet). The 1993 CIP budget has been approved by Council. 4. As discussed at the October 12,1992 meeting, the City could not construct the low flow channel if the Department of Fisheries places excessive design requirements on the low flow channel design. The primary purpose of the channel will be to allow fish migration into the Maplewood Creek canyon. A secondary consideration will be to provide limited habitat on the golf course, where the space is available. 5. The City of Renton Parks Department has had its golf course architect examine the preliminary alignment and conceptual plans for the low flow channel, and has determined that the channel can be accommodated in the golf course expansion plans. However, the design of the fish passage channel must be balanced with the needs of the golf course. 6. The City will commit to construct the low flow fish passage channel if the WSDOT constructs a fish ladder and culvert from the Cedar River, under SR 169, to the Maplewood Golf Course at no cost to the City of Renton. The WSDOT must also assume responsibility for the inspection, operation, maintenance, and repair of the fish ladder and culvert crossing from the Cedar River to the southern property boundary of the golf course. The City will assume inspection, operation, maintenance, and repair responsibility of the fish passage channel from the southern boundary of the golf course north, to the proposed sedimentation basin. 7. The DOT and Department of Fisheries must commit to removing the baffles in the existing 72-inch culvert that conveys the flow from Maplewood Creek to the Cedar River. The draft Maplewood Basin Study shows that the full capacity of the culvert will be needed as development in the basin proceeds. If the baffles remain in place the culvert capacity would be less than the predicted peak runoff rate from the 100-year, 24-hour storm, and flooding on the golf course could result. We hope this letter is sufficient to allow your project to proceed. We support the development of the low flow fish passage channel and will continue to work for it's construction. The expenditure of City funds on the project is subject to City Council approval. We have identified this project in the Surface Water Utility's 6-year CIP and will seek Council approval of funding for the project in future years. Sincerely, Gregg Zimmerman, P.E. Utility Systems Director William Hutsinpiller Recreation Services Manager 93-015:DWC:ps CC: Ron Straka David Jennings CITY OF RENTON FAX TRANSMITTAL Department of Planning/ Building/ Public Works 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 - 2189 Date: FAX: (206) 235-2541 To: INS D07 - SAAJDY GL,6VE-k FAX# �l�lD - �-1003 From: M a niell CaVIC4 Phone # 277F-4/9.3 SUBJECT: SR I6q Frshwe, 16,-17 C�,Oa"_5y Number of pages ( not including cover sheet) 4 sto- - FAI an.t tIA- Shceb �-- ZVC4 nor 1 reviewed your calculations sent on 1-7-93 and have the following comments: 1. The equation for a V-notch weir show in the King County Surface Water Design Manual appears to be wrong. See the enclosed pages from the"Standard Handbook For Civil Engineers" by Merritt. I think the problem should be analyzed as a submerged weir, due to the water level in the fish ladder at peak flow and the relative elevations of the weirs. 2. For peak flow design I feel that the available head at the tailwater can not be higher than the top of the culvert. The inlet elevation of the culvert is given as 62.4, plus the 3 foot culvert height, equaling a water elevation of 65.4 at the culvert inlet. Based on the topographic map for the golf course the ground elevations in the area may range from 66 to 67. The low flow channel on the golf course will be designed with a 1-foot freeboard. Therefore,we cannot allow the water level to exceed 65.4. The section of channel just north of the culvert will be at a very small slope ( approximately 0.20 to 0.35 percent for a distance of 500 feet ). The flow in this section will be slow and we need to protect the golf course from overflow during peak flow events. Please revise your calculations in consideration of these factors. You and the DOT may need to discuss the culvert and weir design with Fisheries to obtain a workable solution. At this point I am using a peak flow of 55 cfs for the low flow fish channel. This could be reduced if Fisheries would agree that a lower flow would be adequate and would be approved by them. Give me a call if you have any questions. CITY OF RENTON FAX TRANSMITTAL Department of Planning/ Building/ Public Works 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 -2189 Date: FAX: (206) 235-2541 To: INCA - R,bLrf Alc4ri FAX# yS4 ' 083o� From: D k h►,e 1 Ca re4 Phone# 277-61 3 SUBJECT: .59 161 ri r4 CAA J-7 / �u �y�r f �C5[1�J Number of pages ( not including cover sheet) Y I reviewed your calculations sent on 1-7-93 and have the following comments: 1. The equation for a V-notch weir show in the King County Surface Water Design Manual appears to be wrong. See the enclosed pages from the"Standard Handbook For Civil Engineers" by Merritt. I think the problem should be analyzed as a submerged weir, due to the water level in the fish ladder at peak flow and the relative elevations of the weirs. 2. For peak flow design I feel that the available head at the tailwater can not be higher than the top of the culvert. The inlet elevation of the culvert is given as 62.4, plus the 3 foot culvert height, equaling a water elevation of 65.4 at the culvert inlet. Based on the topographic map for the golf course the ground elevations in the area may range from 66 to 67. The low flow channel on the golf course will be designed with a 1-foot freeboard. Therefore,we cannot allow the water level to exceed 65.4. The section of channel just north of the culvert will be at a very small slope ( approximately 0.20 to 0.35 percent for a distance of 500 feet ). The flow in this section will be slow and we need to protect the golf course from overflow during peak flow events. Please revise your calculations in consideration of these factors. You and the DOT may need to discuss the culvert and weir design with Fisheries to obtain a workable solution. At this point I am using a peak flow of 55 cfs for the low flow fish channel. This could be reduced if Fisheries would agree that a lower flow would be adequate and would be approved by them. Give me a call if you have any questions. 1-0- (3 ct jllj so-n d/ VOU✓rr - � � ( yyo'ti3Z z To 6+dVl�t hrr �y 1'hy GOrn ►orn/1 - Ptvr'JL �. /�17 /Ivr,^t 1 I C HE CITy � x3 Box, N N N W W W xxx 2 6Z• g N N N Loo �r C4 IT rrr N CI C! a F1 r �a sf d �ZrC iSn t �n ,-2 y,,� ifi�r far ti V-Alo4(6 v+//A e4,7, 1.4r GArrk a (ooat l I U Trx f Ccp ro I,- ,v/GL l�j C C✓) ✓e/ f / C rxS,I— fQ t -�/*0 A V—/Vo�c w('!�7 7 SG)712 hC y�� GFs,d I e✓off—.f c c -17un A r c-GC i (J Arcs s 6 = 2 A 2 = 9 Cz ) _ � N r (7 , 2 T-n « - Z �.6 2.5 p/ 2.5 2 2 Q = 2 . y 2. 5 )/L Tan 3 s 2 C-fs A uf-t For 5L& GMtritij totir � �.csu� H��hfi o� Ljc,+r a ��d� fl rs� wC it a„ � Sc cow� w.ti, l✓ e 9S � s 0, 33S = 2. 6* 2 5) G2, g 2, S QS = ( 3 5. 2 H2= (6 2 S %AANDOIPI) fl�Np3o�K �2 G/✓/L CNG/NG"�-RS - 3rd ��. /"lcrritf' 21-72 WATER ENGINEERING the weir 21-40. Sharp-Crested Weirs over the Article 21-39 classifies weirs as sharp-crested or not sharp-crested. Discharge over a rectangular The sharp-crested weir is given by (21 1 15) CLH 3/Z Q = where 1 1 ( where Q = discharge, ft3/s t C = discharge coefficient if flow L = effective length of crest, ft the wei H = measured head = depth of flow above elevation of crest, ft m from the weir, to be beyond the drop in N _ 1 The head should be measured at least 2.5H r the weir. weir is the water surface (surface contractrea ) finding the discharge coefficient Numerous equations have been developed for n C. One such equation,which applies only when the nappe is fully ventilated,was developed by Rehbock and 21-41 4 simplified by Chow: The tr H (21-116) C = 3.27 + 0.40 P crestet starts g V. T. Chow, "Open- the et where P is the height of the weir above the channel bottom o 21-59) ( end oi Channel Hydraulics," McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York). allow. The height of weir P must be at least 2.5H for a complete crest contr ressedt Equationo form. (21S char! less than c2.5 orrects f the crest contraction friction,contraction d said to be of then pp ea unequartly suppressed. velocities in the chan- Di 116) corrects for the effect nel of approach, and partial suppression of the crest contraction and includes a correction for the velocity of approach and the associated velocity head. subjected to full To be fully ventilated, a nappehe nappe e canve ,ts lower surface re result through removal of air by the overflowing pressure.A partial vacuum below t pp I wher jet if there is restricted ventilation atandesha sides e change of weir. the nappeCThe resulting unsteady increased discharge and a fluctuation P very The condition is very objectionable when adhere hethetr is downsed as a dam face su a rectangularing device. r weir even when the nappe has a tendency to tion 2.51 means for ventilation relationship between headprovided. A weir land discharge as would a fully ventilated chat I expected to have the same nappe. A V-notch weir should be used for measurement of flow at very low heads if accuracy by I of measurement is required. ing End contractions occur when the weir opening does not extend the full width of the approach wel channel. Water flowing near the walls must move toward the center of the channel to pass over Ter A E nF the M< WATER SURFACE WATER SURFACE cle -- in T g 17771-71 A SECTION A-A 1; Fig. 21-61. V-notch weir. i ,l{ TRAPEZOIDAL SHARP-CRESTED WEIRS 21-73 I!. the weir, thus causing a contraction of the flow. The nappe continues to contract as it passes over the crest, so below the crest, the nappe has a minimum width less than the crest length. 4' The effective length L, ft, of a contracted-width weir is given by L = L' — 0.1NH (21-117) where L' = measured length of crest, ft N = number of end contractions H = measured head, ft i If flow contraction occurs at both ends of a weir, there are two end contractions and N = 2. If the weir crest extends to one channel wall but not the other, there is one end contraction and N = 1. The effective crest length of a full-width weir is taken as its measured length. Such a weir is said to have its contractions suppressed. P � ' t 21-41. Triangular or V-Notch Sharp-Crested Weirs The triangular or V-notch weir(Fig. 21-61) has a distinct advantage over a rectangular sharp- crested weir (Art. 21-40) when low discharges are to be measured. Flow over a V-notch weir starts at a point,and both discharge and width of flow increase as a function of depth.This has the effect of spreading out the low-discharge 1, end of the depth-discharge curve and therefore 2.9 allows more accurate determination of dis- 2 e charge in this region. NOTCH ANGLE '� Discharge is given by IN DEGREES it 2 7 20° Q = C,H'I' tang (21-118) 2 2.6 ° 45 gp° 60° where B = notch angle H = measured head, ft 2.5 !jl.. C, = discharge coefficient 24 � The head H is measured from the notch eleva- 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 I tion to the water-surface elevation at a distance H,FT l i 2.5H upstream from the weir. Values of the dis- Fig. 21-62. Chart gives discharge coefficients charge coefficient were derived experimentally for sharp-crested V-notch weirs. The coefficients j ! by Lenz,who developed a procedure for includ- depend on head and notch angle. % ! ing the effect of viscosity and surface tension as !I� well as the effect of contraction and velocity of approach (A. T. Lenz, "Viscosity and Surface Tension Effects on V-Notch Weir Coefficients," Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers, vol. 69, 1943). His values were summarized by Brater, who presented the data in �I the form of curves (Fig. 21-62) (E. F. Brater and H. W. King, "Handbook of Hydraulics, lull McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York). A V-notch weir tends to concentrate or focus the overflowing nappe, causing it to spring jl j clear of the downstream face for even the smallest flows. This characteristic prevents a change in the head-discharge relationship at low flows and adds materially to the reliability of the weir. Ri'jll ii, 21-42. Trapezoidal Sharp-Crested Weirs II jidl � The discharge from a trapezoidal weir (Fig. 21-63) is assumed the same as that from a rectan- gular weir and a triangular weir in combination. Q = CZLH'I' -1- C3ZH1/2 (21-119) �C: 21-74 WATER ENGINEERING b where Q = disc C = coe WATER SURFACE L = effe --- H = tot, tf _Hl - - _ .";- Hz The head of velocity head of —P �/" coefficient for sl L Thus, for such Fig. 21-63. Trapezoidal sharp-crested weir. Fig. 21-64. Submerged sharp-crested weir. where Q = discharge, ft3/s L = length of notch at bottom, ft where H = me H = head, measured from notch bottom, ft Z = b/H [substituted for tan (6/2) in Eq. (21-118)] V = , b = half the difference between lengths of notch at top and bottom, ft VZ/2g = H H„ No data are available for determination of coefficients C2 and C3. They must be determined 81, experimentally for each installation. g = ace Since veloci unknown,disch 21-43. Submerged Sharp-Crested Weirs First, compute The discharge over a submerged sharp-crested weir(Fig. 21-64) is affected not only by the head using this disc] on the upstream side H, but by the head downstream H2. Discharge also is influenced to some From this total extent by the height P of the weir crest above the floor of the channel. sufficiently acc The discharge Qs, ft3/s,for a submerged weir is related to the free or unsubmerged discharge starting with tf. Q, ft3/s, for that weir by a function of H2/H,. Villemonte expressed this relationship by the The dischar equation a weir of untes r n0.385 made to detern QJ — (Y2) ( )21-120 between head 2 Q L H, shapes in pass) change in the r where n is the exponent of H in the equation for free discharge for the shape of weir used.(The nappe undergoc value of n is % for a rectangular sharp-crested weir and % for a triangular weir.) To use the appear with an Villemonte equation, first compute the rate of flow Q for the weir when not submerged, and ing head. Ther, then, using this rate and the required depths,solve for the submerged discharge Q5. (J. R. Vil- ensure that the lemonte, "Submerged-Weir Discharge Studies," Engineering News-Record, Dec. 25, 1947, p. W. King, "Hat 866.) Large weirs Equation (21-120) may be used to compute the discharge for a submerged sharp-crested roadway. These weir of any shape simply by changing the value of n. The maximum deviation from the Ville- ual widths bec-, monte equation for all test results was found to be 5%. Where great accuracy is essential, it is for weir not s recommended that the weir be tested in a laboratory under conditions comparable with those at its point of intended use. where L = effc 21-44. Weirs Not Sharp-Crested L' = net These are sturdy, heavily constructed devices, normally an integral part of hydraulic projects N = nui (Fig. 21-60). Typically, a weir not sharp-crested appears as the crest section for an overflow Kp = pie dam or the entrance section for a spillway or channel. Such a weir can be used for discharge & = abi measurement, but its purpose is normally one of control and regulation. H, = tot. The discharge over a weir not sharp-crested is given by (U.S. Departm CLH��2 ington, D.C. 21 Q = (21-121) The pier-co 4 qV - K Washington State ' l District 1 ® � Department of Transportation 15700 Dayton Av fVoi;� 't Duane Berentson PO Box 330310 Secretary of Transportation I v I I� rl,ySeattle,WA 9813 0 n rC O IJ l/-` (206)440-4000 U` 199?_ CITY OF RENTOp,,I December 8 , 1992 Engineering Dept. , David Jennings Renton Surface Water Utility 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Dear Mr, Jennings: Please refer to our meeting dated October 12 , 1992 during which design and implementation of a low flow channel involving the re- routing of Maplewood Creek and a new fishway was discussed. We are requesting a letter from you stating your intent to build the low flow channel to connect with the fishway that we are including in our project. This is necessary for our fishway design approval and for the HPA permit. Your cooperation and expediency in this matter is greatly appreciated. Please call Sandy Glover at 440-4327 if you have any questions. Sincerely, THOMAS C. HAMSTRA, P. E. Project Engineer cc: Jim Lutz Dan Hagglund * FAX �� -t. October 19 1992 To: Dale Dior, imoto, DOT A ;. Fax No. scan 440-4321 From: Ken Bates �' 2 Pages Washington Department of Fisheries phone: (206) 902-2545 PO Box 43155 fax: (206) 902-2946 Olympia, WA 98504-3155 Here are. some review notes on the proposed Maplewood fishway. I request that grating not cover the lowest two fishway pools. As I had suggested before, the ceiling should not be submerged at frequent high Cedar River flows. That is regardless if it is grated or solid. Fish are often delayed at fishway entrances; an open fishway entrance will be a better transition for them and may also discourage poaching at that location. Once fish are in the fishway they are better protected by the turbulence in the fishway. The outflow from the existing culvert should be directed immediately along the upstream wall of the fishway. I recommend it be contained within an open flume built with a common wall to the fishway and extending nearly to the end of the fishway. That flume would have stoplog guides sufficient to create a fishway up to the existing culvert. When flow is diverted into the new fishway, the stoplogs would be removed. I am unable to recommend slope or depth of that flume. I envision it being no more than a couple of feet deep. The sketch shows an elevation of 56. 58 for the top of the existing 72" culvert. I believe, based on my observations and the minimum water surface elevations noted, that the floor of the culvert at the outlet should be at about elevation 53 . Please confirm elevations of the culvert and low flow river water surface. The sketch shows walls extending downstream of the lowest fishway weir. The walls should not extend more than a foot beyond the lowest weir. The curb at the downstream end of the culvert should be skewed to be parallel to the fishway weirs . It appears their is a transition in width from the culvert to the fishway within the upper two fishway pools. Any transition should be located within the culvert. If the curb at the lower end of the culvert is placed across the fishway at the 52' skew angle, it will nearly accomplish the transition. All opposite fishway and culvert walls should therefore be parallel . I request the manhole be provided as shown in the sketch. It could be located in the sidewalk. Any debris accumulations will likely occur at either the fishway bend, which is accessible from the downstream end, or at the upper few fishway weirs. The weirs should be as narrow as practical; I suggest 4 inches. Their cross section should be as I suggested previously; with a 3 inch, 450 chamfer on the downstream edge. An imbedded steel angle my be required on the leading edge of each weir for strength since they are so thin. Before we accept the fishway design, we need a clarification as to the ownership and maintenance responsibility of this fishway. It was mentioned at the last meeting that DOT would only be responsible to the curb. There was no indication that Renton was going to accept responsibility. I would like to see any regulations, agreements or other documents that define responsibilities for this facility. cc: Dave Jennings, Renton Larry Fisher Tom Burns IL ofR CITY OF RENTON a; Planning/Building/Public Works Department Ear( Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann,Administrator September 18, 1992 Tom Hamstra, Project Engineer Washington State Department of Transportation 15700 Dayton Avenue North, Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 SUBJECT: SR 169 CULVERT/FISH LADDER FOR MAPLEWOOD CREEK LOW FLOW CHANNEL Dear Tom: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed cross culvert and box culvert fishway design you forwarded to the City for review. The Surface Water Utility has reviewed your calculations and in general concurs with your findings. Please review the attached memorandum (Dan Carey, 9/18/92) for specific comments. Please note that Dan suggests a 6' x 3' box culvert might provide better hydraulic performance under anticipated conditions for fish passage. We will send a copy of this letter to Ken Bates at WDOF for his review and concurrence. I would prefer to defer to his experience for comments on the adequacy of the design for Fisheries' concerns. We are planning, but have not yet been able to schedule a meeting with the Parks Department and the Golf Course architect to discuss the horizontal layout of the planned low-flow channel and the positioning of the culvert. As soon as this information is available, I will forward it to you. I would like to schedule a future meeting with you to discuss the following: 1) Future ownership of the culvert; 2) Maintenance responsibilities; 3) Easements, if any, that may be required; and 4) Implementation schedule. 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 Tom Hamstra Washington State Department of Transportation Page 2 Please call me if you have any questions, comments, or need additional information. Thank you again for this opportunity to comment on the SR-169 project. Sincerely, David E. J gs, Project Manager Surface Water Utility System C:DOCS:92-722:DEJ:ps CC: Ron Straka Gregg Zimmerman Dan Carey Ken Bates—WDOF Enclosure CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: September 18, 1992 TO: David Jennings FROM: Daniel Carey SUBJECT: SR 169 - 72'Culvert and Proposed Fish Culvert I have reviewed the September 8,1992 letter and calculations from Tom Hamstra ( Wash. DOT ) regarding the SR 169 72 " culvert capacity and proposed design for the low flow fish culvert. My comments are as follows: EXISTING 72-INCH CULVERT 1. The DOT has calculated the potential culvert capacity correctly using the Manning Equation for simple uniform flow. The capacity with one 4 x 4 baffle in place is 278 cfs. The draft Maplewood Creek Study ( Parametrix, October 1989 ) showed the 100-year, 24-hour storm having a peak flow of 300 cfs for the existing conditions, and 392 cfs for future land use conditions in the watershed (attached). 2. The DOT adjusted the culvert capacity downward by accounting for a larger roughness value for the 4 x 4 wooded baffle. If the adjustment was not made the culvert capacity would have been 370 cfs using a roughness value of 0.012 for the concrete pipe. Depending on the actual pipe roughness there may be some additional capacity in the pipe. 3. When all baffles for the pipe are removed the maximum capacity using the Manning equation will be 420 cfs. 4. 1 suggest that we inform the DOT that maintaining one 4 x 4 baffle in the pipe will be acceptable for a limited period of time (for example until 1996 or 1997). We would want the baffles removed entirely from the pipe after the fish channel through the golf course is completed, or at a speck time in the future . After that time the baffles will have to be removed to allow the full capacity of the pipe to be available. Title September 16, 1992 Page 2 PROPOSED FISH CULVERT 1. The culvert shown appears to have a larger slope (0.0147) and a greater peak flow capacity ( 165 cfs ) than the one presented at an earlier meeting ( s = 0.0035 , max. O = 79 cfs , see attached figure). The DOT should identify the slope and maximum capacity of the culvert. 2. The King County Surface Water Design Manual states that the design flow rate, Qf, for fish passage design should be 90 % ( on a time basis ) of the peak flow for the 2-year, 24-hour storm hydrograph. For a 2-year, 24-hour storm with a peak flow of 118 cfs the fish passage design flow rate, Qf, would be approximately 108 cfs. For a total flow of 108 cfs the preliminary design for the low flow fish channel weir would allow approximately 21 cfs into the fish channel. Therefore, the fish passage design flow ( Of) for the culvert should range from 15 to 25 cfs, with a maximum capacity of approximately 55 cfs. 3. The King County Manual contains the following design requirements for fish passage through culverts: - for a culvert < 60 feet in length a flow velocity <= 4 fps - for a culvert > 60 feet in length a flow velocity <= 3 fps - for a culvert > 60 feet in length a slope <= 0.5% - for a culvert < 60 feet in length a slope <= 1.0% - a water depth => 0.8 feet at the design flow rate The 4 x 3 culvert proposed by DOT appears to meet the desired flow range (Qf) if a slope of 0.15 % is used. At that slope for a flow range of 15 to 25 cfs the flow depth ranges from 1.0 to 1.5 feet, and the velocity ranges from 3.7 to 4.3 fps. The maximum capacity of the culvert flowing full, using the Manning equation,will be 52 cfs. At less than full the culvert will have a capacity of 58 cfs. We may want to recommend using a 6 x 3 culvert at a slope of 0.1 % to reduce the flow velocity. For a Qf of 15 to 25 cfs the flow depth will range from 0.75 to 1.25 feet, and the velocity will range from 2.8 to 3.6 fps. The maximum capacity of the culvert flowing full, using the Manning equation, will be 70 cfs. At less than full the culvert will have a capacity of 88 cfs. 4. The 100 foot long fish ladder should have several access manholes for inspection and cleaning. A manhole should be located near the first pod after the culvert outlet since sediment is likely to accumulate there. Table 3.4 — HEC-1 Model: Runoff Hydrograph Summary HYDROGRAPH CHARACTERISTICS AT MAPLEWOOD GOLF COUSE Total Existing Land Use Conditions Future Land Use Conditions Precipitation Peak Flow Time of Peak Runoff Volume Peak Flow Time of Peak Runoff Volume Storm (inches) (cfs) (hours) (acre-feet) (cfs) (hours) (acre-feet) 2-Year 2.0 118 8.58 119 173 8.75 157 10-Year 2.9 202 8.58 199 275 8.92 247 25-Year 3.4 251 8.67 247 333 8.92 298 100-Year 3.9 300 8.67 297 (39 8.92 351 `A LI, �1J0 D C B {� �FlsIN Q�_A�J Parb,„ e.4 X 01�4. 19� 9 .......... ---W L S/ /y v r-1 -Y h�l) 1 .Y",-/Y Or/"Y -Zlc�•o — U �s—�.��n� `�r n� � ,•cam y��� �'-3�'S 'rc�; �„ �f� �'?LL�w oC =7 _ 09 s•9� i ,' 1 of i 1411jfLFLVaov �i-s h4Nrve,L s = .00zo 2,0 If F F F tu NNN N000 OO CI Ca a N CIC N N H D 4 00 z h = , 03 .5 D. 8 z. 6 I. S 13. 9 2 ?.8 h - 0 3S 0. 8 3 , 3 I. o y . 6 L—T--r4 �- S- y 1 92 Slb�Oc. � 0 , p3S v1 0 3 5 0.s N N N ! O 2 8 N N N 000 3 2. o 13 S v 27 a a ' 3.0 310 N C4 ev CI CV D D.s 3 20 4 2, /2 S 2.5 226 1 29 3. 0 3 70 D _ 4 /. 0 2 7 z ' /. S so z. 0 �6 2. S 108 3 .0 / 1/0 W D OD c4j� 151V e H NNE 17. If 2 -2 L-1 12 S = . s3 - o Q o, S s s n 035 0. 8 �i W W W W W W xxx coo 13 ' �V Ide —CI a a /l rrcr S = 0 S3 0, aaer ►� = . 03s 1z ' w ;d� D Q = 0 ,53 0, 9 3, 7 n = 03 5 0. 6 Y, 9 0 /o 7 Iq . 9 2 2 ' �/,de D. Carey Date: 9/16/92 PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR FISH AND OVERFLOW WEIRS MAPLEWOOD CREEK SEDIMENTATION POND Fish Weir designed as submerged sharp-crested weir. Overflow Weir designed as a sharp-crested weir. Normally; Q = 2/3 x C x L x (2g)"0.5 x H'3/2 H defined as head in pond above top of fish weir. H over is height of overflow weir above top of fish weir. Target Total Q = cfs C = 0.661 Target Total Q = cfs L fish = 5 Fish Overflow L overflow = 50 Fish Overflow L Weir Weir TOTAL H over = 0.5 Weir Weir TOTAL H (ft) Q (cfs) Q (cfs) Q (cfs) H (ft) Q (cfs) Q (cfs) Q (cfs) 0.10 0.56 #NUM! #NUM! 0.10 0.56 #NUM! #NUM! 0.20 1.58 #NUM! #NUM! 0.20 1.58 #NUM! #NUM! 0.30 2.91 #NUM! #NUM! 0.30 2.91 #NUM! #NUM! 0.40 4.48 #NUM! #NUM! 0.40 4.48 #NUM! #NUM! 0.50 6.25 0.00 6 0.50 6.25 #NUM! #NUM! 0.60 8.22 5.59 14 0.60 8.22 #NUM! #NUM! 0.70 10.36 15.82 26 0.70 10.36 #NUM! #NUM! 0.80 12.66 29.07 42 0.80 12.66 #NUM! #NUM! 0.90 15.10 44.75 60 0.90 15.10 #NUM! #NUM! 1.00 17.69 62.55 80 1.00 17.69 0.00 18 1.10 20.41 82.22 103 1.10 20.41 5.59 26 1.20 23.25 103.61 127 1.20 23.25 15.82 39 1.30 26.22 126.58 153 1.30 26.22 29.07 55 1.40 29.30 151.04 180 1.40 29.30 44.75 74 1.50 32.50 176.91 209 1.50 32.50 62.55 _95 1.60 35.80 204.09 240 1.60 35.80 82.2-2 118 1.70 39.21 232.55 272 1.70 39.21 103.61 143 1.80 42.72 262.21 305 1.80 42.72 126.58 169 1.90 46.33 293.04 339 1.90 46.33 151.04 197 2.00 50.04 325.00 375 2.00 50.04 176.91 227 2.00 50.04 325.00 375 2.00 50.04 176.91 227 2.10 53.84 358.03 412 2.10 53.84 204.09 258 2.20 57.73 392.12 450 2.20 57.73 232.55 290 2.30 61.71 427.2-2 489 2.30 61.71 262.21 3 2.40 65.77 463.31 529 2.40 65.77 293.04 359 2.50 69.93 500.36 570 2.50 69.93 325.00 395 2.60 74.17 538.36 613 2.60 74.17 358.03 432 2.70 78.48 577.26 656 2.70 78.48 392.12 471 2.80 82.89 617.07 700 2.80 82.89 427.22 510 2.90 87.36 657.74 745 2.90 87.36 463.31 551 3.00 91.92 699.28 791 3.00 91.92 500.36 592 Page 1 AFISHWR.XLS Daniel Carey Date: 9/15/92 OPEN CHANNEL USING MANNING EQUATION For A Trapezoidal Swale: A = (b + zy)y b = base width (ft) R = A/(b + 2y SORT( 1 + z"2)) y = flow depth (ft) Q = (1.49/n)A x R"2/3 x S"1/2 z = z : 1 side slope SOLVE MANNING EON BY TRIAL & ERROR - DESIGN INPUTS Target Q = n = 0.012 Slope s = 0.0147 ISide z = 0.0001 Flow Depth Width Area Hyd. Rad. Velocity Flow y(ft) b (ft) A (sgft) R v(fps) Q (cfs) 0.25 4 1.000 0.22-2 5.52 5.52 0.50 4 2.000 0.400 8.17 16.35 0.75 4 3.000 0.545 10.05 30.15 1.00 4 4.000 0.667 11.49 45.96 1.25 4 5.000 0.769 12.64 63.20 1.50 4 6.000 0.857 13.58 81.51 1.75 4 7.000 0.933 14.38 100.65 2.00 4 8.000 1.000 15.05 120.45 2.25 4 9.001 1.059 15.64 140.77 2.50 4 10.001 1.111 16.15 161.52 2.75 4 11.001 1.158 16.60 182.62 2.90 4 11.601 1.184 16.85 2.95 4 11.601 1.192 16.92 3.00 4 12.001 1.200 17.00 -21 3.00 4 12.001 PW8 13.58 163.00 3.00 4 12.001 0.8-5-7) 13.58 163.00 .)oT) .� 4- u L-VE�PL.T AOPNCHN.XLS Daniel Carey Date: 9/16/92 OPEN CHANNEL USING MANNING EQUATION For A Trapezoidal Swale: A = (b + zy)y b = base width (ft) R = A/ (b + 2y SQRT( 1 + z"2)) y = flow depth (ft) Q = ( 1.49/n)A x R"2/3 x S'1/2 z = z : 1 side slope SOLVE MANNING EQN BY TRIAL & ERROR - DESIGN INPUTS Target Q = n = 0.012 Slope s = 0.0035 ISide z = 0.0001 Flow Depth Width Area Hyd. Rad. Velocity Flow y(ft) b (ft) A(sq ft) R v (fps) Q (cfs) 0.25 4 1.000 0.22-2 2.69 2.69 0.50 4 2.000 0.400 3.99 7.98 0.75 4 3.000 0.545 4.90 14.71 1.00 4 4.000 0.667 5.61 22.42 1.25 4 5.000 0.769 6.17 30.84 1.50 4 6.000 0.857 6.63 39.77 1.75 4 7.000 0.933 7.02 49.11 2.00 4 8.000 1.000 7.35 58.77 2.25 4 9.001 1.059 7.63 68.69 2.50 4 10.001 1.111 7.88 78.81 2.75 4 11.001 1.158 8.10 89.11 2.90 4 11.601 1.184 8.22 95.36 2.95 4 11.801 1.192 8.26 97.46 3.00 4 12.001 1.200 8.30 99.56 3.00 4 12.001 1.200 8.30 99.56 3.00 4 12.001 1.200 8.30 99.56 (ID AOPNCHN.XLS Daniel Carey Date: 9/16/92 OPEN CHANNEL USING MANNING EQUATION For A Trapezoidal Swale: A = (b + zy) y b = base width (ft) R = A/ (b + 2y SQRT(1 + z"2)) y = flow depth (ft) Q = ( 1.49/n ) A x R"2/3 x S"1/2 z = z: 1 side slope SOLVE MANNING EQN BY TRIAL & ERROR - DESIGN INPUTS Target Q = n = 0.012 Slope s = 0.0015 Side z = 0.0001 Flow Depth Width Area Hyd. Rad. Velocity Flow y(ft) b (ft) A (sgft) R v(fps) Q (cfs) 0.25 4 1.000 0.222 1.76 1.76 0.50 4 2.000 0.400 2.61 5.22 0.75 4 3.000 0.545 3.21 9.63 1.00 4 4.000 0.667 3.67 14.68 1.25 4 5.000 0.769 4.04 20.19 1.50 4 6.000 0.857 4.34 26.04 1.75 4 7.000 0.933 4.59 32.15 2.00 4 8.000 1.000 4.81 38.47 2.25 4 9.001 1.059 5.00 44.97 2.50 4 10.001 1.111 5.16 51.59 2.75 4 11.001 1.158 5.30 58.34 2.90 4 11.601 1.184 5.38 62.43 2.95 4 11.801 1.192 5.41 63.80 3.00 4 12.001 1.200 5.43 65.17 3.00 4 12.001 1.200 5.43 65.17 3.00 4 12.001 1.200 5.43 65.17 �rj C U L-Vc-21 AOPNCHN.XLS Daniel Carey Date: 9/16/92 OPEN CHANNEL USING MANNING EQUATION For A Trapezoidal Swale: A = (b + zy) y b = base width (ft) R = A/ (b + 2y SQRT(1 + z"2)) y = flow depth (ft) Q = ( 1.49/n)A x R"2/3 x S"1/2 z = z : 1 side slope SOLVE MANNING EQN BY TRIAL & ERROR - DESIGN INPUTS Target Q = n = 0.012 1 Slopes =10.0010 Side z = 0.0001 Flow Depth Width Area Hyd. Rad. Velocity Flow y (ft) b (ft) A (sq ft) R v(fps) Q (cfs) 0.25 6 1.500 0.231 1.48 2.22 0.50 6 3.000 0.429 2.23 6.70 0.75 6 4.500 0.600 2.79 12.57 1.00 6 6.000 0.750 3.24 19.45 1.25 6 7.500 0.882 3.61 27.09 1.50 6 9.000 1.000 3.93 35.34 1.75 6 10.500 1.105 4.20 44.08 2.00 6 12.000 1.200 4.43 53.21 2.25 6 13.501 1.286 4.64 62.68 2.50 6 15.001 1.364 4.83 72.43 2.75 6 16.501 1.435 5.00 82.42 2.90 6 17.401 1.475 5.09 88.52 2.95 6 17.701 1.487 5.12 90.57 3.00 6 18.001 1.500 5.15 92.62 3.00 6 18.001 1.500 5.15 92.62 3.00 6 18.001 1.500 5.15 92.62 �Ik L C A 7 j rj e-L G 6 J l T_` b ' AOPNCHN.XLS f CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: February 21, 1992 TO: Randall Parsons FROM: Daniel Carey SUBJECT: SR 169, MEETING WITH DEPT. OF FISHERIES On Wednesday February 12th I attended a meeting with engineers from the DOT and INCA consultants at the Washington State Department of Fisheries Habitat Management Division in Tumwater. We met with Ken Bates and Larry Ratte. The important points and discussion is summarized below. INCA PRESENTATION -- INCA gave an overview of the project and explained that removing the baffles from the existing 72-inch diameter pipe would provide enough capacity to convey the peak flow from the 24- hour, 100-year storm ( 150 cfs, as referenced in a draft study for the City of Renton). -- A 3' x 4' concrete box culvert (with a maximum capacity of 79 cfs) could be placed under the highway above the existing 42-inch METRO sewer line (preliminary drawing attached). -- Provisional flow records for Maplewood Creek were provided by INCA (attached ). Between 1988 and 1991, during the winter, the mean daily flow in the creek ranged from 0.75 to 7.9 cfs. The high flows were 30 cfs in December 1989 and 40 cfs in January 1990. RENTON COMMENTS -- I outlined the problems with drainage from the Maplewood Creek Basin: (sediment , erosion in the ravine, the need for detention facilities on the plateau) -- Design of an improved detention pond is in the CIP budget and would occur in 1993. -- The City has conceptual plans to construct a salmon habitat stream on the west side of the golf course. - Construction of the stream depends on city council approval and funding in the future. -- The City needs to know what flow capacity the stream would need for fish habitat and design. -- The space available on the golf course would limit the stream size. The project may not be built if the stream size conflicted too much with golf course needs. FISHERIES COMMENTS / DISCUSSION Title February 14, 1992 Page 2 - Fish will be attracted to the furthest upriver"smell" of a side stream, and the strongest smell of a stream (usually the largest flow). -- They recommend locating the fish ladder next to or near the existing outfall. The fish will be attracted to the large flow and try to get up it. If they can't they will eventually notice the side flow. Once one fish starts up the side flow the others will follow. -- They recommend designing the fish channel for the largest flow possible -- The flow measurements from the stream gage don't seem to correspond with the analysis predicting 150 cfs from the 2-yr ,, 24-hr storm. This need to be resolved to determine the fish stream design flow. -- The stream section on the golf course should have plantings alongside to provide shade and cover. Minimize possible disturbance by golfers. They prefer the north most route alongside the hill. -- They would like some type of commitment by the City that the stream will be built, possible a letter of intent or memo of understanding. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS -- Determine what type of commitment the city can make, discuss with Fisheries to determine if it will be acceptable to them. -- Examine our Maplewood Creek Basin report to determine if the flow projections are realistic. -- Discuss stream flow data with DOT/ INCA . Ask them to determine the validity of the readings,try to explain why flows are lower than predicted. Develop realistic flow projection. -- We should examine preliminary routes, potential design flows, and stream size requirements to determine what flows the golf course stream should be designed for. Coordinate with Parks Dept. to determine how much space they can allocate to the stream channel, plantings, and side path. CONTACTS Dale Morimoto Ken Bates Larry Ratte Transportation Engr. Staff Engr. Wash. DOT Wash. Dept. of Fisheries Wash. Dept. of Fisheries 562-4049 Tumwater SCAN 234-3632 392-9159 Robert Turner c f Acting Director =e. mom 4 TJa' S 3 v� H STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES 115 General Administration Building, M.S. AX-11 • Olympia, Washington 98504 • (2%) 753-6600 • (SCAN) 2.34-6600 October 5, 1992 D 91a%7 Thomas C. Hamstra C U T 8 1992 District 1 Washington Department of Transportation CITY OF RENTON Post Office sox 330310 Engineering Dept. Seattle, Washington 98133-9710 Dear Mr a: 6-v,� Thank you for the opportunity to review the preliminary drawing of the fish passage culvert under State Route 169 . The following comments were given to you verbally on September 22 . The system is comprised of a box culvert at the upper end to pass over an existing sewer main. The culvert discharges to a fishway that is buried in the road fill. The fishway discharges directly to the Cedar River. The 4 x 3 foot culvert gives minimal flow area at the design flow. I suggest that it be widened to 5 or 6 feet. This must be done, however, without raising the elevation of the floor or decreasing the height of the culvert. It is more important to maintain as low an elevation as possible than to widen the culvert. Is the downstream invert elevation of 62 . 41 an absolute minimum? I request special design consideration if necessary to eliminate clearance required between it and the 42-inch sewer to minimize the culvert elevation. A curb will be required at the downstream end of the culvert to backwater it for fish passage. I request that the culvert be placed on nearly a flat grade. The objective is to maintain an average velocity within the culvert of 5. 0 fps during a culvert flow of 40 cfs. The flat grade should not change the capacity of the culvert in this short a distance. The lower end of the culvert should have a 45 degree flare transition to the 8-foot width of the fishway. The maximum fishway slope should be 10 percent, as shown in my previous sketch. With the elevations provided, a fishway length of 120 feet is necessary. I recommend the culvert be at right angles to the highway and the fishway have a skew of 30 degrees to provide the extra length. Weirs within the fishway should be similar to what I provided earlier in my sketch. They should have 0. 8-foot drops and be located at 8-foot centers. A weir should be added at the downstream end of the fishway to provide the last step. I I c--_,•.3 Thomas C. Hamstra October 5, 1992 Page 2 The upper fishway weir should backwater the culvert just as the fishway weirs backwater each other. The hydraulics of the transition from fishway to culvert needs to be checked at high and low flows. The lower end of the fishway may have to have a horizontal ceiling at an elevation such that it is not submerged by the Cedar River when the river is at a relatively high but frequent flow. I suggest 2 , 000 cfs be used as a target. When the fishway becomes submerged, floating debris will be trapped inside and may not be sluiced out as the river flow recedes. Fish attraction is also much better to a non-submerged entrance. I am not familiar with the highway stationing you have shown to locate the culvert and fishway. The preferred location identified in the field would be for the fishway entrance (at the river) to be about 200 feet east of the southwest corner of the golf course at the edge of the highway. I would be happy to meet again at the site to specifically locate the fishway entrance. No run-off from the highway may enter the fish passage culvert or fishway. If you have any further questions, call me at (206) 753-3632 . Sincerely, Ken Bates Staff Engineer Habitat Management Division KB: lt cc: Dave Jennings, City of Renton Larry Fisher, Washington Department of Fisheries Tom Burns, Washington Department of Fisheries �; le- �V CITY OF REN ON =� Planning/Building/Public Works Department Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann,Administrator June 17, 1992 Tom Hamstra Washington State Department of Transportation 15325 SE 130th Place Bellevue, WA 98007 SUBJECT: SR 169 WIDENING - 140TH PLACE SE TO MAPLEWOOD GOLF COURSE L-7228 Per our telephone conversation of June 12, 1992, this letter is intended to summarize the City of Renton Surface Water Utility's review of design flow calculations presented in the October 1990 Hydraulic Report prepared by INCA Engineers for the project. Accordingly, the City will accept the SBUH analysis included in the hydraulic report which provided the following results: Peak Runoff Maplewood Creek at Golf Course Design Flow (CFS) 24-hour, 25-year design storm 337.5 24-hour, 100-year design storm 405.9 The SBUH method is required by the Renton Storm water code and the King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) for the design and analysis of runoff control facilities and of conveyance systems serving the basins greater than 25 acres. The results of the flow analysis given above are also consistent with the findings of a study of the Maplewood Creek Basin performed by Parametrix. In our conversation, we also talked about possible WSDOT plans to retrofit the existing 72" culvert by pulling out existing baffles instead of installing a larger and more expensive 84" culvert to provide adequate conveyance for the creek down stream of the golf course. Note that the option to install a new 84" culvert was discussed in the hydraulic report, the 72" retrofit option was not. In order for the City to approve the latter proposal, the City would require a minimum of the following information: • Recheck backwater calculation for the 72" culvert. 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 Tom Hamstra Washington State Department of Transportation Page 2 • Identify existing and proposed top-of-bank elevations for Maplewood Creek at the box culvert entrance. • Show that the expected backwater condition with the 72" pipe will not over top the banks for the 24-hour, 100 year design storm. The City of Renton Surface Water Utility has prepared substantial comments on the October 1990 Hydraulic Report which was sent at our request. The comments are under going final revisions and will be forwarded to you as soon as possible. No formal submittals for City of Renton permits have been made. If you can let me know when such formal submittals will be made, I will alert the Plan Review staff and attempt to coordinate the review as much as possible in advance of their imminent arrival. If you have any additional questions or comments, please call me at 277-6205. Very truly yo s, David E. Je ngs, Project Manager Surface Water Utility C:DOCS:92-438:DEJ:ps CC: Gregg Timmerman Ron Straka Dan Carey Daniel Carey - City of Renton MAPLEWOOD CREEK SALMON HABITAT 3/30/92 DESIGN OUTLINE STEP 1 2 - MEETING RENTON DEPT. OF FISHERIES TASK TASK 1 Preliminary Design, Flow, Location 1 Review Preliminary Design by City, Provide comments and concurrence -Review existing stream flow records - Review draft Maplewood Creek -Design flow Basin report - Design velocity - Determine flows, average, low, high -Stream features on Golf Course peaks -Design features for culvert under -Select example channel configurations SR 169,flow velocity and depth based on flow requirements -Select potential locations on Golf Course 2 Discuss agreement/form needed - Meet w/ Parks for agreement on between DOT/ Fisheries/ Renton size and location 3 Identify future Reports/ Permits 2 Determine what type of commitment /Approvals needed by Renton and the City can make to Fisheries DOT if project proceeds 3 Develop preliminary cost estimate, 4 Provide info on fish ladder design, Determine that project is viable flow, size, spacing 4 Meet w/ Fisheries and DOT to present preliminary design DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION 1 Attend Meeting Provide comments and concurrence -Design flow and velocity -Culvert location - Design features for SR 169 culvert 2 After Meeting - Prepare preliminary culvert design and location - Check for potential constraints - Prepare draft agreement for review at next meeting Pagel FISHTSK2.XLS Daniel Carey - City of Renton MAPLEWOOD CREEK SALMON HABITAT 3/30/92 DESIGN OUTLINE 3 4 - MEETING RENTON DEPT. OF FISHERIES TASK TASK 1 Design Revisions 1 Review Design Revisions, per meeting comments Provide comments and concurrence -Revise design as needed -Design flow -Check w/ Parks on space needed - Design velocity stream location, landscaping -Stream features on Golf Course - Design features for culvert under 2 Prepare draft agreement SR 169, flow velocity and depth for review at next meeting -Fish ladder location and design 3 Meet w/ Fisheries and DOT 2 Provide input on draft agreements to review design changes DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION 1 Attend Meeting Provide comments and concurrence - Design flow and velocity -Culvert location -Design features for culvert - Draft agreement 2 After Meeting -Finalize culvert design /location - Finalize draft agreement Page 2 FISHTSK2.XLS Daniel Carey - City of Renton MAPLEWOOD CREEK SALMON HABITAT 3/30/92 DESIGN OUTLINE 5 7 RENTON RENTON TASK TASK 1 Finalize Preliminary Design 1 Prepare final agreement 2 Finalize draft ageement 2 Execute final agreement 3 Meet w/ Fisheries and DOT 3 Assemble all info into Preliminary to review design /agreement Design Report for future reference 6 - MEETING DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION DEPT. OF FISHERIES TASK 1 Prepare final agreement 1 Review Design Revisions, concurrence 2 Execute final agreement 2 Review draft agreements, concurrence DEPT. OF FISHERIES 1 Execute final agreements DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION 1 Attend Meeting - Provide final culvert design - Final draft agreement Page 3 FISHTSK2.XLS ik co _. it k ��� �v�✓ DA s;f�.� �P ---li eo fl I't IIk tj f� hO fAlf O t GG --- DOT 4j if CON ex 72 i f I f i li f f c CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: February 21, 1992 TO: Randall Parsons FROM: Daniel Carey SUBJECT: SR 169, MEETING WITH DEPT. OF FISHERIES On Wednesday February 12th I attended a meeting with engineers from the DOT and INCA consultants at the Washington State Department of Fisheries Habitat Management Division in Tumwater. We met with Ken Bates and Larry Ratte. The important points and discussion is summarized below. INCA PRESENTATION -- INCA gave an overview of the project and explained that removing the baffles from the existing 72-inch diameter pipe would provide enough capacity to convey the peak flow from the 24- hour, 100-year storm ( 150 cfs, as referenced in a draft study for the City of Renton). - A 3' x 4' concrete box culvert (with a maximum capacity of 79 cfs) could be placed under the highway above the existing 42-inch METRO sewer line (preliminary drawing attached ). -- Provisional flow records for Maplewood Creek were provided by INCA ( attached ). Between 1988 and 1991, during the winter, the mean daily flow in the creek ranged from 0.75 to 7.9 cfs. The high flows were 30 cfs in December 1989 and 40 cfs in January 1990. RENTON COMMENTS -- I outlined the problems with drainage from the Maplewood Creek Basin: (sediment , erosion in the ravine, the need for detention facilities on the plateau) -- Design of an improved detention pond is in the CIP budget and would occur in 1993. -- The City has conceptual plans to construct a salmon habitat stream on the west side of the golf course. -- Construction of the stream depends on city council approval and funding in the future. -- The City needs to know what flow capacity the stream would need for fish habitat and design. -- The space available on the golf course would limit the stream size. The project may not be built if the stream size conflicted too much with golf course needs. FISHERIES COMMENTS / DISCUSSION Title February 14, 1992 Page 2 -- Fish will be attracted to the furthest upriver"smell" of a side stream, and the strongest smell of a stream (usually the largest flow). -- They recommend locating the fish ladder next to or near the existing outfall. The fish will be attracted to the large flow and try to get up it. If they can't they will eventually notice the side flow. Once one fish starts up the side flow the others will follow. -- They recommend designing the fish channel for the largest flow possible -- The flow measurements from the stream gage don't seem to correspond with the analysis predicting 150 cfs from the 2-yr , 24-hr storm. This need to be resolved to determine the fish stream design flow. -- The stream section on the golf course should have plantings alongside to provide shade and cover. Minimize possible disturbance by golfers. They prefer the north most route alongside the hill. -- They would like some type of commitment by the City that the stream will be built, possible a letter of intent or memo of understanding. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS -- Determine what type of commitment the city can make, discuss with Fisheries to determine if it will be acceptable to them. -- Examine our Maplewood Creek Basin report to determine if the flow projections are realistic. -- Discuss stream flow data with DOT/ INCA . Ask them to determine the validity of the readings, try to explain why flows are lower than predicted. Develop realistic flow projection. -- We should examine preliminary routes, potential design flows, and stream size requirements to determine what flows the golf course stream should be designed for. Coordinate with Parks Dept. to determine how much space they can allocate to the stream channel, plantings, and side path. CONTACTS Dale Morimoto Ken Bates Larry Ratte Transportation Engr. Staff Engr. Wash. DOT Wash. Dept. of Fisheries Wash. Dept. of Fisheries 562-4049 Tumwater SCAN 234-3632 392-9159 . S G ------------------------ 1 To 4N C.q- /,S FM Stream Gaging Program � King County Surface Water Management Yesler Building 4�is i Yes 1 er Way - Room 400 Seattle, WA 98104-2637 Enclosed for your use are records from the following gal-taing stations. Stz,tion Period C��mments/File ----1qV-Pr4-Y--dg IV!65CAIC k For _Q,u cr _ �of►cx� l��s?r > ��csL�a -r Pis�-------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ----r-------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Request: _�2-��' i6 Filled by: _ zn Flows for Maplewood Creek Recorded at Ganging Station 31B 40.00 35.00 30.00 25.00 U 20.00 15.00 w 10.00 5.00 0.00 Oct. Nov. Dec. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Fel> '88 '88 '88 '89 '89 '89 '90 '90 '90 '90 '90 '91 '91 High Flow Low Flow Mean Daily Flow ❑ Estimated Base Floe. Oct. Nov. Dec. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. '88 '88 '88 '89 '89 189 190 190 190 '90 190 .91 1 '91 High Flow 1.50 7.80 3.40 3.40 6.20 30.00 40.00 7.40 3.10 5.30 6.80 31.00 19.00 Low Flow 0.70 0.70 1.30 0.60 1.10 1.00 0.90 1.70 0.50 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.90 Mean Daily Flow 0.75 2.24 1.86 1.29 2.52 4.31 6.59 3.61 1.05 1.90 3.33 7.92 5.13 Estimated Base Flow 0.70 1.10 1.40 1.10 1 1.60 1.40 3.20 1 1.80 0.70 1.00 1.00 4.00 3.50 NOTE: No Data Available for January and February, 1989 1 P '� d 2IB; S'_ream 0302 above Maple Valley Highway, Renton. SE 22 T23N R5E 'Wa'ter, year 1989 (Octo --', 1988 - September 1989) $ean daily discharge i.. cubic feet/second. ** * *** PROVISIONAL DATA - PLEASE DO NOT DISTRIBUTE01 'DAY OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP 1 0. 7 0. 7 1 . 5 --- - -- --- --- --- i?. 'g 1 . 5 (:). '3 0. 5 2 0. 7 1 . 1 1 . 4 --- --- --- --- --- 0. 9 1 . 0 3 0. 5 3 0. 3 1 . 1 1 . 4 --- --- --- --- --- 0.9 0. 9 0. 8 0. 5 4 0. 7 1 1 . 4 .--- ---- --- --- --- 1 . 0 0. 9 0. 9 0. 5 0. 7 2. 0 1 . 3 --- --- --- --- --- 1 . 0 0. 9 0. 9 0. 5 6 0. 6 1 . 2 - --- --- --- --- --- 0. 8 0. 9 0. 7 0. 5 7 O. E 0. 3 1 . F --- --- --- --- --- 0. 8 0. 9 0. 7 0. . 8 0. 7 1 . 1 1 . 5 --- --- --- --- --- '_ifs 0. 9 0. 7 0. '_-I 0. 7 0. 9 1 . 4 --- --- --- --- --- 0. 7 0. 9 0. 7 0. 5 10 0. 7 2. 5 1 . 4 --- --- --- --- --- 0. 7 1 . 0 0. 7 7 0. 5 11 0. 7 1 . 4 1 . 5 --- --- ---- --- --- 0. 7 0. 9 0. 6 0. 5 12 0. 7 1 . 7 2. 1 --- --- --- --- --- 0. 7 0. 8 O. E 0. 13 0. 7 1 . 1 1 . 9 --- --- --- --- --- 0. 6 O. B 0. 6 0. 5 14 0. 9 1 . 1 1 . 6 ---- --- --- --- --- 1 . 0 0. 8 0. 7 0. 5 15 0. 9 1 . 0 1 . 5 ---- --- --- --- --- 0. 8 0. 8 0. 6 O. E is 1 .5 2. 4 1 . 5 ---- --- ----- --- ---- 0. 6 1 . 5 0. 6 0. 17 0. 8 3. 8 1 . 4 --- --- 4. 3 --- --- 0. 8 1 . 3 0. 6 0. 6 is 0. 9 1 . 9 1 . 7 --- --- 4. 2 --- --- 0. 8 0. 9 0. 6 0. 6 19 0. 7 2. 4 3. 0 --- --- 3. 2 --- ---- 1 . 2 0. 9 0. 7 O. E 20 0. 7 2. 3 2. 6 --- --- 2. 5 --- --- 1 . 3 0. 9 0. 7 0. 6 21. 0. 7 3. 1 2. 7 --- --- 3. 6 --- --- 1 . 1 0. 9 1 . 2 0. 6 2 0. 7 7. 8 3. 4 --- --- 2. 4 --- --- 0. 9 0. 8 1 . 4 0. 6 23 0. 7 6. 4 2. 6 --- --- 1 . 8 --- 1 . 7 0. 8 0. 9 0. 6 0. 7 24 0 4. 3 2. 1 --- --- 2 --- 1 . 2 25 0. 7 4. 0 --- --- --- 4. 5 --- 1 . 1 0. 9 0. 9 0. 6 0. 7 26 0. 7 2. 5 --- --- ---- 2. 8 --- 1 . 2 0. 9 0. 9 0. 6 o. 8 27 0. 7 2. 6 --- --- --- 3. 3 --- 2. 3 0. 9 0. 9 0. 6 0. 8 28 0. 8 2. 1 --- --- --- 3. 4 --- 1 . 8 0. 9 0. 0. 6 0. 8 29 0. 7 1 . 6 --- --- 2. 6 --- 1 . 7 1 . 1 0. 9 0. 6 0. 8 30 0. 7 1 . 5 --- --- 2. 1 --- 1 . 3 1 . 4 0. 9 0. 6 0. 8 31 0. 7 --- --- 2. 9 1 . 0 0. 9 0. 6 Mean 0. 75 2. 24 W --- --- --- --- --- 0. 89 0. 94 0. 70 0. 60 Annual mean daily discharge data are not available. Notes: -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- King County Surface Water Management Division (206) 296-6519 11/12/91 Q1•B;- Stream 0302 above Maple Valley Highway, Renton. SE 22 T23N R5E -Water- year 1990 (Oct gib'" *) 1989 - September 1990) Kean daily discharge i cubic feet/second. PROVISIONAL DATA - PLEASE DO NOT DISTRIBUTE 1110 I��o 'DAY OCT NOV DISC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP 1 0. 8 1 . 1 1 . 3 1 . 6 7.4 1 . 8 1 . 4 1 . 4 1 . 4 0. 8 0. 8 0. 7 2 0. 8 1 4. 1 0. 9 5. 7 1 . 8 1 . 4 1 . 8 1 . 1 1 0. 8 0. 7 3 0. 7 1 . 3 1. i i . 6 5. 5 2. 0 1 . 3 1 . 5 4. 6 1 . 0 0. 3 0. 7 4 0. 6 2. 5 30 2. 5 5. 0 1 . 9 1 . 3 1 . 5 4. 0 0. 9 0. 8 0. 7 5 0. 7 1 . 6 17 6. 3 5. i 2. 1 1 . 3 1 . 5 1 . 9 1 . 5 0. 8 0. 3 6 0. 7 1 . 6 9. 8 10 4. 2 2. 6 1 . 3 1 . 6 4. 0 1 . 8 0. 3 0. 7 7 0. 7 1 . 6. 8. 1 19 3. 9 4. 1 1 . 3 1 . 7 2. 6 1 . 2 0. 8 0. 8 8 0. 7 1 . 7 12 18 4. - 5. 2 1 . 2 1 . .3 119 0. 9 0. 8 0. 3 0. 8 1 . 8 E. 9 40 4. 1 6. 6 1 . 2 1 . 3 2. 1 0. 8 0. 9 0. 7 10 1 . 2 3. 7 4 34 4. 5 5. 6 1 . 2 1 . 3 4. 8 0. 8 . 8 0. 7 11 0. 8 4. 9 2. 7 7. 7 5. 2 3. 1 1 . 6 1 . 3 2. 4 0. 9 O' s 0. 6 12 1 . 3 6.:' 1 . 8 5. 2 4. = 2. 3 1 . 3 1 . 2 2. 3 0. 8 0. 9 0. 7 1:= 3. 1 3. 1 1 . 7 4. 1 4. 1 2. 2 2. 2 1 . 4 2. 6 0. 8 0. 3 O. E. 14 1 . 6 1 . 9 1 .. 4 2. 9 3. 4 3. 1 2. 1 1 . 4 1 . 5 0. 8 0. 8 O. G. 15 1 . 1 1 . 7 1 . 4 2. 7 3. 7 2. 2 1 . 5 1 . 2 1 . 2 O. r 0. 8 O. G'� 1 E 1 . 0 2. 3 1 . 6 2. 6 3. 2. 2 1 . 5 1 . 1 _. . 0 0. 8 0. 7 0. 7 . 17 --- 2. S 1 . 3 2. 4 3. 3 2. 6 2. 1 1 . 0 0. 9 0. 8 0. 7 0. 7 is --- 2. 0 1 . 1 _ . _ 2. 7 1 . 6 1 . 0 7. 9 0. .8 0. 7 0. 7 19 --- 2. 5 1 . 4 2. 2 2. E 2. 5 1 . 5 1 . 1 O. B 0. 9 0. 7 0. 7 20 1 . 2 2. 3 1 . 6 2. 2 2. 4 2. 3 2. 0 2. 2 0. 9 0. 9 0. 8 0. 7 21 1 . 7 2. 7 1 . E 2. 2 2. 2 2. 4 1 . 5 1 . 8 0. 9 0. 9 1 . 3 0. . 22 1 . 8 1 . 9 1 . 4 3. 3 1 . 7 2. 8 2. 5 1 . 5 0. 9 0. 9 0. 8 0. 7 23 2. 7 ti. 3 1 . 4 2. 8 1 . 7 2. 9 3. 4 1 . 2 0. 9 rj. 8 0. 8 0. 7 24 1 . 7 4. 4 1 . 5 2. 7 1. . 8 2. 4 2. 9 1 . 1 0. 9 0. 8 0. 7 0. . 2 5 1 . 7 3. 6 1 . 3 3. 6 1 . 8 2. 2 2. 5 1. . 1 0. 9 0. 8 0. 6 0. 7 26 2. 8 4. 9 1 . 2 2. 9 1. 9 2. 2 1 . 7 1 . 1 0. 9 0. 8 0. 6 0. 7 27 1 . 7 2. 1 1 . 0 3. 6 1 . 8 2. 1 2. 4 1 . 2 0. 9 0. 8 0. 6 0. 7 28 1 . 4 1 . 6 1 . 3 5. 0 1 . 8 2. 0 1 . 9 1 . 0 0. 8 0. 8 0. 6 0. 7 29 1 . 1 1 . 6 1 . 0 2. 3 1 . 6 2. 1 1 . 0 0. 8 0. 8 0. 8 0. 7 30 1 . 0 1 . 4 1 . 2 2. 7 1 . 4 1 . 6 1 . 6 0. 8 0. 8 0. 8 0. 6 31 1 . 4 1 . 5 4. 4 1 . 4 2. 9 0. 8 1 . 0 Mean �'2� 2. 52 4. 31 6. 59 3. 61 2. 66 1 . 76 1 . 40 1 . 72 O. 89 0. 77 0. 69 Annual mean daily discharge data are not available. Notes- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- King County Surface plater Management Division (206) 96-6519 11/12/91 311j Stream 0302 above Maple Valley Highway, Renton. SE 22 T23N R5E 'WaVeN year 1991 (Oct k-) 1990 - September 1991 ) Mean daily discharge i cubic feet/second. # * PROVISIONAL DATA - PLEASE DO NOT DISTRIBUTE `DAY OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP 1 0. 7 1 . 2 - - 1 . 7 5. 5 1 . 3 1 . 7 --- --- --- 2 0. 7 0 3 --- 1 . 4 3. 3 6. 3 2. 7 --- --- --- --- --- 3 0. 3 0. 3 --- 0. 9 9. 4 11 4. 4 --- 4 1 . 3 0. 9 --- 0. 2 9. 3 3. 0 --- --- --- --- -- --- 5 0. 8 0. 9 --- 0 3. S 5. 9 --_ _-- -_- 6 0. 6 0. 3 --- 0 5. 9 5. 4 --- --- --- --- --- 7 0. 5 0. 9 --- 1. . 4 4. 0 4. 3 --- --- --- --- --- --- 3 0. 6 0. 9 --- 4. 1 4. 0 3. 8 •--- ---- --- --- --- 9 0. 7 5. 3 --- 5. 2 3. 4 3. o --- --- --- --- ---- --- io 0. 7 4. 0 --- S. 3 2. 9 4. 1 --- --- 11 0. 6 - . 3 S. 0 13 3. 2 3. 4 -•-- --- --- --- --- --- 12 0. 7 1 . 6 5. 9 31 3. 5 6 5 14 1 2. 7 i� is 5. 7 3. 7 ---- --- --- --- -'-- --- 15 1 . 3 1 . 9 E. 0 i!_ 5. 1 3. 1 --- _-_ 16 0. 9 9 1 . 5 6. 8 15 9. 5 2. 6 --__ --_ -__ 1 . 0. 9 1 . 7 6. 8 14 5. 9 2. 3 --- --- ---- --- --- --- 18 1 . 0 1 . 1 6. 2 14 5. 1 2. 5 --- ---- --- - -- --- - -- 19 0. 7 --- 5. 5 12 19 3. 1 -- - ---- --- ---- --- --_ 0 0. 6 --- 4. 0 10. 0 6. 4 2. 4 --- --- --- --- ---- --- 21 1 . 3 --- 2. 1 9. 6 3. 6 2. 4 --- --- --- --- --- --- 22 9 --- 1 . 3 8. 0 2. 1 2. 3 --- -- - --- - -- --- -- - 23 0. 7 --- 0. 5 8. 2 1 . 5 2. 3 --- --- --- --- --- ---- 24 0. 7 --- 0 8. 3 1. . 2 3. 4 --- --- --- --- ---- --- 25 1 . 0 --- 0 6. 2 1 . 0 3. 0 --- --- --- --- --- --- 26 1 . 1 --- 0. 4 4. 9 1 . 0 2. 4 --- •--- --- --- --- --- 27 1 . 2 --- 3. 0 4. 0 0. 9 2. 4. --- --- --- --- --- --- 8 2. 3 --- 2. 6 4. 7 0. 9 2. ' 29 2. 0 --- 0. 3 3. 5 1 . 7 30 2. 0 --- 0 3. 4 1 . 3 ___ --- --- --- --- --- 31 3. 1 0. 4 4. 3 1 . 3 --- --- --- Mean 1 . 05 any w? 7. 92 5. 13 3. 67 --- --- --- --- --- Annual mean daily discharge data are not available. Notes: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- King County Surface Water Management Division (206) 296-6519 11/12/91 I I G5 ---- - -- ------ --.,..__._. - S=o,Cx�3S �•� Me7ry �: " ems. 5a"C,:. �-�-7-SZ i Cw � GM� 5 ��� Cyyix 7?"� - C/7, 6� i,�g6 /7 6 �a, 021 `" ���- , �cFS -- ---- (15)#5 O 12" i U J F18#4 RIPRAPD o O� ��aOCo o Cfp c 0 0 0 o O 0 po o Q Oo Oo o p C AR R 0 0 o O po Oo I R 0— �.,0 �DooOOO � 0�o�n�� -- -- o Q0� ® O0o 0o< �O Oo �O 0O iloOO / o �0 0 O o 04 o D i ® 2'-0" - --- -- -N, Oo o Op� �O_O O 0 O ��o v o 0� ; p 0 <2 <2 O 6" FILLET, TYP. I CONSTR. JOINT, TYP. \I �� adoo�0o �O o \� O 0000 00 0000 D O o v 0 0 p O o O QO 4oQ�oapopp i 0 2'-0" i O O c O O W I ® o P a pO o �O I RIPRAP a cn I I I \ BEGIN FW 0+00 - F15#5 A.P. FW 0+�59 i FW 0+4 DINT CONC APRON i :YM. ABOUT - - - - - - - ^ EXP. JOIN', FW 0+71 TR 2234+68.64= TERMINATE CHAIN-LINK FENCE AT 3 O 12" MAX. FW 0+93.46 ENDS OF FISH WAY BRIDGE HANDRAIL w CHAIN-LINK FENCE I _ / TYPE 1 a � E O 2'-0" /-- CONSTR. JOINT 11/2" X 10" CONT. F16#5 = =i RAILING TYPE 2 (TYP.) KEY (TYP.) - TRAIL r I BRIDGE I 17#5 F= = RAILING TYPE 3 <S MAY BE RAILING TYPE 3 l EXP. JOINT FW 1+09.14 :ED HORIZ. TO /IDE SUFFICIENT i 8'-0" 9" I u �R, TYP. (TYP., WALLS) ISOMETRIC VIEW �_ =ai A k SECTION A CORNER BAR PLACEMENT I I I TYPIEING 1 I, ,t c EXISTING 42"0 METRO SS II It CURB ; 1 II U 11_ I I I MH SR 169 1457+37= FW 1+31 -� JL- FW 1+25 �� II r II I _ 2 E0. SPA. SYM. ABOUT ¢ SPAN VARIES TII_ 11 J I I 90. F5 #4 F1 #5 ® 10" F6 #5 O 5" F7 #5 O 12" MAXI L N FW 1+41 I i i I SR 169 F4 #4 •, A J � II II ',li II II W W ,jlil 'S O 1'-8" --- -- 8#5 6' x 4' CULVERT a STD. PLAN B-5 I II (EXCEPT THAT TOPII II SR 169 1467+37= 6" FILLET, TYP. CONSTR. JOINT, TYP. & BOT. SLAB I II 5 O 1'-8" II II FW 1+46 THICKNESSES _ ARE 8", NOT 6") I I I I I CURB „I SYM. ABOUT I t I I 4 O 2'-0" CONSTR. JOINT, TYP V/2" X 10" CONT. I I 1 I I WALKWAY KEY (TYP.) !�� BOND BREAKER II II 3 ® 12" STYROFOAM F2 #5 II II FW 1+87 11 I 11 INLET, SEE STD END FW PLAN B-6b ,KS MAY BE F3 #5 (IL ;j CED HORIZ.SUFFICIENT TO EXISTING METRO PLAN ♦�' s3 ill ER TYP FFICIENT 42" SEWER PIPE SEE �7 t VARIES FROM 6'-0" TO 8'-0" _I TRANSITIONS FROM SCALE 1"=10' 9" O FW 1+31 TO ISOMETRIC VIEW SECTION B 8" O FW 1+41 CORNER BAR PLACEMENT ll (TYP., WALLS) STATE FED. AID PROJ. NO BULLINGTON 10 WASH Washington State FM,� II 196TH AVE" S.E./JOKES ROAD RANT/L.N. M"'eoe Department of Transportation TO MAPLEWOOD AWAD 260 C. HAMSTRA PE 93W040 or ''- PE �� �•Q. ANDERSON N11914un„CI FISHWAY LAYOUT AND SECTIONS_ 333 DATE REVISION HY APP' vim i ¢ 3 r ---... __ :HANDRACL mj .. T ' U� ........wi(� ....... ....... ........ ........ ... ..... ...... ....... ......... ........•.......... ....... QW � ....... . ..Z o 71,5 o ... o - I + .............. ........ ¢ ............................................................ .....:.........:................... ........ �1a... ......... .... q.. �Io �10 EXISTING GRADE ON LEFT SIDE :g3 g8 �`"IN ELEV. 61-0 'I� y.�..�. ...... ....... ...... �� �I�'1t30 YEAfT. .......x .......:......... .........:.........:.........:.........: 10%.......... 64.7 fr7..8..... w FLOOD- ., SLOPS 62.0 Fws 62.4 . LL 1 w� EXISTING GRADE ON RIGHT SIDE: ---� / 61.2 �- 0 o y _ -- TOP OF SIDEWALL, BOTH SIDES Z z 58.3 59.E i� — — E:.10% .........' -7 ........ ....... ....... :... . ... ..... . om...:......... .......om..............r�LOP :._._..••-,.�... ..........:.........:.�,-... ; OPE:jO:. :. :. .... 8:8 59.6 _ _ _ ___� 58.0ui "SL TOP OF LEFT SIDEWAL — ---- - 57.2 _ 56.38 P. JOINT EXISTING METRO 42" SS �.. :.......� '��.:............... 5A.Q...... .... ........... ..... SLOPE::'4:44%..:. .54.8 B (C Q .. ...... ... ....... 55.6 �T ....... j. 3 FW3 .� :. 51.6 j/ 51.6 I '/ 5 �_ SLOPE-. 1 8'-0" C 52.4 vvn EXISTING CONCRETE �- TYP: .. ........ ..... ............ .. ........ .............. .........:........ ........ .. 7''_9M'O:C.:. . EXPANSION JOINT BEDDING 47.8 -1"•LAYER• .. 5LOPE: O% SIivt. C POLYSTYRENE FOAM C N JOINT• ANSI 0 .....TOP OF RIGHT SIDEWALL :........ ....... ........:........ ....... ....... ....... ....... EXPANSION• • -ZONE*S' ZONE 3 TYP. ZONE 4 RIGHT IDEWALL: ; ZONE 1 :ZONE 2 : : LEFT SIDEWALL ; . ......... :.........:.........:.........:..............................:.........:.......................................:........................................... ......... ... ......................................................................................................... -18 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1+00 1+10 1+20 1+30 SECTION THROUGH FISHWAY CENTERLINE SCALE: 1"= 5' HORIZ. 1"= 5' VERT. r RIGHT SIDEWALL LEFT SIDEWALL - B. #4 ® 12" it FINISHED GRADE FISHWAY BAR LIST REFERENCES BAR ZONE ZONE ZONE ZONE ZONE ...... . ................................................ .................................................................. .................. L 1 2 3 4 5 w 6' X 4' BOX CULVERT'`' =III=III—)I I I=III=III= LASE V)� - StD PLAN 0-5 A F55 F46 F54 F46 F76 N+ + m w B F57 F47 F56 F47 F77 :._ .................................. I A. #6 ® 6 t 3 3 ......... 3 ... -.0 C F62 F65 F60 F61 F59 w w SR169 w ¢ A: #6 ® 6" F67 F58 FW 1+46 0 LO F63 ......� ....... .......... .......:...................:........ ....... ....... ........ ........ STD NJ B 6 Mi z C. #4 ® 12 E.F. INLET, SEE F64 ..W Pi - tr. 2" CLR. z¢ C: #4 0 12" E.F. TYP ¢ ¢a ( ) ........ ................. .......:...... ... ........................................................ 6 2 N`� 0 12 TOP k BOT. 0-18 TO FW 0+6.4 F69 /4 (FW 02) ... 0%—� oz I N 0 3" CLR. 6" FILLET (TYP.) Wl F70 /4 0 12" TOP h BOT. (FW 0-02 TO FW 0+07) (TYP.) ......... .....:.........:. .......:.........:....................:.........:.........:.........:..... ... .............. F48 14 0 1F71 /4 0 BOT. (FW + 5 TO FW 0+45) 2" TOP � 2" CLR 12" TOP do B 0 0 ... ......... 1 ...... ........ ................... ....... ....... .................... I 'k NOTE: INCREASE THICKNESS:OF STD.:PLAN " I SLR " X 10" CONT. KEY (TYP.) t TOP: AND BOTTOM SLAB FROWN 6" 0 6" BOT. 1 0 . .....:.........:................_.....................:.....TO-8 SEE $EGTION. .. 1 -0 F49 {6 I FM : 8'-0" . t....:... :.........:.........:......... .........:........ . NOTE: ............................. =• - FISHWAY.WALL ZONES ARE IDENTIFIED AS FOLLOWS ZONE 1 - LEFT SIDEWALL FW 0-18 TO FW 0+00 ZONE 2 - LEFT SIDEWALL FW 0+00 TO FW 0+45 ZONE 3 - RIGHT SIDEWALL FW 0-05 TO FW 0+16 .......................................... FW 0 FW 0+71 ZONE 4 RIGHT SIDEWALL FW 0+16 TO FW 0+45 1+40 1+50 1+60 1+70 1+80 1+90 2+00 ZONE 5 - BOTH SIDEWALLS -0+45 T SECTION THROUGH FISHWAY CENTERLINE SECTION A SCALE: 1"= 5' HORIZ. 1"= 5' VERT. loom 14y 1 STATE FED. A1D PROJ. NO SR 169 S. BULLINGTON 10 WASH Washington State ts6TH AVE. s.E.i, s Roan [;FW2V. PLANCICH L.N. Department of Transportation TO MAPLEWOODL AWAD 93Joe O40 93wo4o FISFiWAY ELEVATION AND SECTION 333 HAMSTRA PE �tTRACT Ho..Q. ANDERSON PE M4I�OYin_ M6►Doolu 1S NC. DATE REVISION7183YIAPPI'D SLOPING FACE W/ 6" TYP., 90' HOOK (RAILING;'SEE 1 ii STAINLESS STEEL W/ 1'-O" EXTENSION SffiET FW5) I I 2" PLATES (NOT SHOWN) ` WATER FLOW CLR. 2"CLR. /�- /5 0 6- CENTERED IN WALL1,��(TYP.) 3" 2" 3 F72 /6" STAINLESS STEEL PLATES i o 3/6 W/ BEVELS AS SHOWN 9"(TYP.) t N % r SIDEWALK 1_ ;.� F33 /506" L _ I3/16 2„ 6" FILLET o CLR. / / f74 /4 ® 4" l _ I �NSION JOINT 15' FROM VERTICAL 1 1 1/4" X 211/16" HEADED ANCHOR 0 12" I SPACING, STAINLESS STEEL, NELSON 1 X 5" CONT. F21 /5 H4L OR APPROVED EQUAL. STAGGER :(TYP.) 3'-6" 1'-O- 3-6" PLACEMENT OF ANCHORS IN THE TWO ROWS F20 /7 E: FACE SLAB REINF. SHOWN FOR DETAIL q TYPICAL WEIR ELEVATION TYPICAL TOP OF WEIR RI TY. W F15 /5 10- F1 /5/4 F4 /4 F7 /5 /5 OR F17 /5 TYP. �815 TYP. F1 /5 f5 /4 { F21 /s F18 F19 /4 F16 F7 /5 F21 /5 77 7T� F2 /5 OR F3 /5 TYP. F20 /7 5- F6 /5 1" X 41/2" X 3'-0" F20 /7 NOTCH IN CULVERT I O WALL (TYP.) -- I F6 /5 SPECIAL REMOVABLE j F7 /5 WEIR (SEE SHT. FW4) E0 /5 0 12" 1 -L I- -A I- F5 /4 1--H F20 /7 1 F1 /5 F2 /5 OR F3 #5 TYP. F16 /5 OR F17 /5 TYP. - _ _ - - F15 /5 TYP. F21 /5 F15 /5 f18 /4 r F21 /5 F10 /5 SECTION AT CENTERLINE B F19 /4 SECTION AT WALL W W F22 /4 . 1 STATE FED. AID PROD. NO S. BUwNcrON 10 WASH Washington State 169 FW3 LNEMIROVSKY 196TH AVE S"E.IJONES ROAD CED I. AWAD Department of Transportation To MAPLEWOOD ENGR. T.C. HAMSTRA PE 93WO40 P 262 • R.Q. ANDERSON PE C°"1RACT FISHWAY WEIR AND DETAILS 333 _ DATE REVISION BY APP'Dl (Fl 7)#5 T-- —TH #5 F107 #5 4 17 ((�22�#3 �F70#6 0 6"--1 P F77 7."IJ4 0 12-- K) 63 #4 0 12- @#5 .6.1 ic #3 lo OT lo to to (B,4 0 12' cr #4 0 12-- 8#4— 8#4 0 m (F�#6 0 6- C-4 (��#4 0 12- F 1')#31 1 0 0 En L, I I 0 m 5 Ln 4 T� 1 0 cD #4 0 12- m #4 0 12- cl x < � u- v, uj L.j Ln Lj z v) NOTE: NOT ALL VERTICAL WALL REINFORCING BARS u) uj DETAIL A DETAIL DETAIL C ARE SHOWN. VERTICAL WALL REINFORCING TOP SLAB, TOP FACE REINF4. EXP. JIT. FW STA. 0+71 SHOO FOR EACH FACE IS TYPICAL FOR TYP. WALL REINF. \FWV 4.� TOP SLAB, 80T. FACE REINF., THAT FACE ALONG THE FULL LENGTH OF WALL (BOT. SLAB, BOT. FACE SIM. (BOT. SLAB, T FACE SIM.)TOP (F68 14 0 12- TOP & BOT. DETAIL L 31/2 X 31/2 X 3/8 INSIDE SURFACE GALVANIZED OF BOX CULVERT I EL64.5 i v SOLID TIMBER WEIR, DOUGLAS FIR W/ NOTCH (TYP.) 3'_ 1' PRESERVATIVE, SEE 2"/16' A B WEIR lb L I X 4 X 3/8 CONTRACT SPECIFICATIONS 1'-4' 1'-0` LONG EL62.80 GALVANIZED CONCRETE TIMBER EL62 L 31/2 x 31/2 x 3/8 *A .40 ' '0:' 0. 1' 0 GALVAI' CONCRETE 6'-10* LONG, GALVANIZED (INSTALL W/ TIMBER) TIMBER (TYP.) (3)-1/2-0 X 11/2- 5/8 0 STAINLESSSTEEL HILTI HVA ADHESIVE ANCHORS OR APPROVED WELDED HEADED CONCRETE STUDS 0 EQ. SPA. EQUAL 0 1_O* (TYP.) 6� 3'-6' 5/8-0 MACHINE BOLTS� 8'-0* GALVANIZED (TYP.) SECTION q SECTION SECTION ELEVATION—REMOVABLE WEIR L 3 X 2 X 1/4, 3' LONG, GALVANIZED, W/ 1/2.0 X 4- STUDS 0 8- D.C. (TYP.) I -W STATE FED. AID PROJ. NO SR169 10 1 WASH Washington State 169TK AVE S.E/JOWS ROADFW4 S. Bt It I INGTON T. ELAM JOB NUMBER ODepartment of Transportation TO MAPLEWOOD 1. AWAD 93WO40 263- EN__ PE co"W$a "m FISHWAY WO? AW REINFORCING -bETAiLs _cw R.Q. ANDE N PE M-3 lffflAPF�Dl I DATE I REVISION s � F T.23N. R.5E. W.M. M.P. 22.50 STATION 1410+00 ; BEGIN PROJECT I ( W 3O LF-CrCUP IE S7.OE. z IE.KO VL ----'--�--- --- ! PROPOSED R/W tEJOSTM6 b.11RJt. R/M/I — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — v—_ — — — -— — — -- -- — — — --- _ — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —3MNg_-- — Np H W O u _ i < PROPOSED am" SL•.002� —_. --- --- — —�---- --- � v~i ' EJOSTIM DITCH! r PROPOSED R/W (EXISTING 9".R. R/WI I I s•O.a4 YR — ! INv EIEK• �[DO(3) INV ELElt• $i3O(Ni PLAN D x I00 SCALE N FEET :4 M6•IS'RISE CIIM ... ., _ . I I.... *Y . . �y .. . . .. r' _ E .. .... is .. .. _ . .. 4JECT` --- .. 1.r rIESE A 141O.QQ 90.00 it 4 1 TC RCMAIN .. I 00, _0.003 W IS•RISE cup SOUASM PIPE.. 1 .....—i.... " �. -- :. PROPOSED DITCH LINE 3•.0045 E.... ... . .,. .. .. ...t: _ -a004 2 sOUTI! :'.PROPOSED OITC11 LtN[ ... 1 ... NOIITMASOUTN- �m f ... ' _ .. PROFILE ' 0 5 to 1 1.. Il4 � . 77777 SCALE IN FEE- 1 . , 1 2 3 4 1415+00 6 T 8 9 14204M 2 STA FED.AID PROD.NO. ""` ' w+m SR169 MP22.52 TO 23.90 IwFI T v,/EST 10 wAs ® �1/ashington State HYDRAULIC REPORT A.Sp LE Department of Transportation PLAN & PROFILE 1-1410,00 TO 1423-00 U o��uwu i M.- A sovcE KING COUNTY OCTOBER 1990 —2" (.ADM., CONTIIAR MO. � � 2 fl6 TRI oc Vf o:nu evl.n..... ••Mnvn ....ter• r.. .. � �.•. ....... _.._......_ .___. _ __.._-- •-. 1 � 1 1 � 1 P 1 1 PROPOSED R/M NDCMT7W6 D.N.R.R. R/Wl � 24*CpP 00 LF OF 24*CM/ 74. VC S-0.007/Ft __ I[ 74.OE. --- — — — — — — \ - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — SR169 i N — - -. — — 1G — -� W0 - - - - - - -- - 0 N N 4 _ O Y ~ 1435 S O F- — 3 — 1--- --- ------ - f/_-5 H aS U N _---7__..��__— �—� �� \ V,Off' M j y 2 = PROPOSED R/W tE)OSTWO &"it. R/W) � N I � STA_ 1426.76.65 Kaw P.C. RETANNO PLAN P.T. ■A 100 STA. 14'JO.O6.SO WAL[ N FM ......... ... _ : : s T ., j.. v �_ a, ,n -tee r t ;q s �' .. a'I .�. ash=r'-•.' Y. Wc`: a•re :.� -..:._.... .-s........ ..-..w-.:_ ..r.- .. _ �.. .. . "� _. .. ..... ......... .... ... ..... .. .. ... .. .. - .. .. _ .. ... .. . .°-�-- .. . . ..... - - -• . ...... . . . . ... .. .. ..........:.... .. 4 .. f ..:f: .. .. I i _. . s•o •1 r. . . r^ ... .. .... 1� :I. ....:!:.......... .. ...t:.. .. I 1i .. ...... i . - Pioil.L.E...... .. . .. ..... I-.. ....1 .... .....:I!............... ........ ... .... ..... ... . ..... .i. ......... .. ........... ...: ........... :. . .. .. ::: ... . ... . ..... l �: ..... ....... .... .. .. ... .... ... ..- ....... .... .... --- i "--. ... .... ....I. ...:... .. ... .. ' E:. .. .. :: W .. .. .. ........1.... ... .. ....... .. .. i:.....:. ..... .... ...... ... .> .. ... .... .. ..{ .. .. .. .. .... !' { .. 1' ... .. .. .. f.... ... .... f .. .. - ....... ... .. 1 ....... .i.... .. .. ... .... ....... .... .. .. .. ... - .... ... .. .. ... 1- ..... ...... ... .. V d ... ... ... .... ...... ... .. .. .. .� ..... .. .. ..... -.. .. .... - -F r ... _ ... ... .. .. .. .... ... .....�.{:.... ... .... .... .... �" �I ... .. N ... ... ... ..... ...... ....... ...... ....... ....... .... .. ... .... .. .... .. IL::::::: .... ...._.. .: .....t:::.::.. .. .. ... { I:.. i90 W i .. ....'I....... ! ...... f. .. .. .... +0.40 X p ... .... ... .. ...:{: '� .. ... -. .. -. .... .. .. f' .. i.. - .. .. ...:�... .. :: :. .. .'t . +J' ..... , .... . F �- I: ... ... . . r {:to .... _+ .: O' moo — Zr cup 17T r• TC�PFI�LE a . . S•0-004/FT LEFT 9 RIGHT <�► i' .:. ... .. .. .. ... ... .. ....- ... ... . i y .:i......... j ... .... : :v ... : :-::. ::: .......t ....... :.:. ....! ..... .. .. .. .:I. ..... ., .... ..... .- ... ..... .. ........t. ... .. .- .. . ... ... ... .. ....... .. ... -. .... .. .. ... .. ... .. i... - .-..... ...:i:.... :.:: :'t ..... ... ..... :::. 1- �' .... t' .. .. ... .. ... ....... f. -... :. :. .. : .. ....... ...PROFILE .. { .. . . . .. . ......... - .. . . ... f :� {: .. t . scAle IR rzt .... .. .. . . 3: .... .. ... ... .. ....... .... ... .. .. 4 1425+CO 6 7 8 9 1430400 I- 2 3 4 i43!5i0b 6 T 8 _. . STA FED.AID PROD.NO. "" ,; R, SA169 MP22.52 TO 23.90 A"� T � 10 WAS Washington State HYDRAULIC REPORT TrAp Department of Transportation PLAN i PROFILE 2-1423+00 TO 1438*00 b A.MULE Joe»uw[R ,.., YOR. A.5q/LE ;T.ADM.• OCTOBER 1990 g n�+� __v._..... __. ---•— CO«T'ACT MO. ..r.,,,... ,NUL� N'Vl7 COUNTY —.. .._� —. T.23N. R.5E. W.M. c , MAPLEWOOD GOLF COURSE \ DETENTION POND•I SEE DETAIL SHT-DETENTION 3'tiRUCTURES'V / / � I I � �OPo� R/w •Jr..R.R- R/w! O OVERFLOW STRUCTUR I E ) OUTFALL EL.71S W� FIRM RESTRICTOII f i I ) SR%q (EXISTIN6) , • �� — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — F 5 u 1440 r- .4 O \ 71 C( 7 t I O I 91 Z JI Al ♦ ` \ / MIS ,1 =V~f S k3 IV-- I y 0 END RETAwINc wu I I I KG1N ASPHALT CUP* 1 PROPOSED R/W y I � END ASPHALT CURS CdICR[TE CU • /I GUTTER & U / P.C. ;. STA. M42.0235 STA i44Md103 P.T./►.C, P L A(V ST ►+4wa —�O !� asST& Eosm-:7 !Gl[ i I ... E ..... ..,. ... - !'. i. SRIO•[ .•f:: 1.Q? 1 . . i,: . .. . . .... I: . ... (' .j' ... t' .. — .... .......t...... .. . .. ... .... —... .... t'....... e ... .. ...... .. ... .. ...... ....... ..... .. .. ... ... .... ... .. ... ... .. N .. ....... .... .... t. .... .. ...... i .. ...... .. ... ..... .. .. ... .. .... .... .. .... ....... 1 - .. ....... ... .. i! .... ..... i' :i: .... :j:...... 1 . ...... :�: .... ...... .... .. .. .. - .i. .. .... .. .... .. ..:. .... ...... .... .. .. .. ... .. .... .. .. .. ... .. ..... ..... ..... ... ... .... ... .. .. .. ...... ..... ...... ... .......:�: ...... ..... .. ..i....... .... ..... .... ...... ♦ .. .. ..... � ... ... .. .... .... ...t: .. .. ..... ... ...- -. .. . t .. ... ..... .... .. .. ... ... .. ...... ... ..... — -- '�' ..... ....... ... { ... '1'. .. .. ..... .. ... ..... .. .. r u ... . .....:� .. ... ....... ..... _ ..... w .. .... ... ... --. .... ... ... ... ... ..1. #.... .. .. .. �: .. I :i.. ..... { ... .. : . t. i. ... '� ... ... .. i' .... ..... ... .. .1... .... .. ... .. a 1. 1.. .... i ... ..... -. ...... ...... .t... ... .. ... .. ..i:.. .f: i. ..i:....... .... ...+0.4o x .. t ... ..-....'1'.... ..... ,.. f'.. i .... i ..... i'o s •�' � .... ......... .. ..... .i. .,: ..... ... .. ♦ :I:.. . i .. .. -- :�: ... .. • . ...... ... ..... .. I .... .... ....... ....... ....... .t. . .. .. .... .. ... ..'f'. .. .... .. ... .. .4... .. ... .. .. .. .... .. .. .. I:.. ... ...... i .... .. ! .. .. .:i'.. .... .-.... ... .. .. - .... .... ... .... .. ... ... .. .. i I !.: .. .. .I: .. .... .. .. .... .... ... .... .... .... ... .. .. F= .......is I: ... W,. .. ....... ... ....... .. ..:t:... .. .. .. ....... ..... .. ...'4 ... ... ... ..... ..... ....-. ... ..... ... .. .... - .. .. .is .. ... .. .. ...... -I....... - :E. ... ..... 0: .. .... :. -... .... .. ..... .... _ —__— _.— .. 1: .. .. ... ..:1: .. .... 0 .. .. j. ... .:: ... .. .PPOP""a1CN .Rrt: I ..... n so�►T�.; +: .. .. .... -. .. .. .. .. .... .. .. .. tI... ....... .... .. •i ..... ... •1 .. .. ... T ... .... .......'I' .. �: .. .. ..... .... .... .. .. .... .... ...... ... - _ _ ... ... .. - ...i. .. ....... t�..... ... . .. ...... .. ... ....... ....... ....... ....... .. I ... .. �� .. H• `7O .. .. .. .... j ...... ..... I...-... i ... .... .. ... ... .. ...... ... -... ..... 4 .. .. ....... ... .... . ... ... .. .... I ..... .. ... ...... ... ... .. .... .. .... -.... .. .. .. ....... .. ... _ I . . . .. 1 ... f. �:.. .. .. PROFILE . . .... .. •I. : � .. ... _... . 1: .:I: :{: ... .. .... { __ -t .. ----� .. s ... ►o. SCALE IN-FEET .... .... .... ..I:. __ ------ j: .. 9 14404'00 1 2 3 4 1445400 6 7: 8 9 "t,— STATld FED.AID PROJ.NO. SRM- MP22.52 TO 23.90 T wE 10 WASH dfflb. Washington State =w,� HYDRAULIC REPORT �I/ Department o1 Transportation 1 - PLAN h PROFILE 3-1438+00 TO 1453+00 CKED A Lr7 o�r.uwe� T.23N. R.5E. W.M. MAPLEWOOD GOLF COURSE SIM 0T1Oq �qp•1 7 sct ocT.rL awT I1 MOIWS[p �iw OVUMLDW 3TMKTUIK ------ 10 F- 1- �1 O � � 1 s COMmTL CIIIIA •IITT[J1 {�O �W) ` fL.OMf R[ST111CTd1 Ile X ! O Of ym �u~i O �- 3 ' • Y1A0 All t • _ ~a ►" — — - - - - - - - — —\ — 3� O \ I At 1 4 AG 3 Aq y 1 Al2 12 13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i P*OPOSM am 1 wirm AM "a CUM 1 ► LE moot 1 MGtZ �K �b I� C,, verse t I / � sTA. Is•s.�•.�o STA. wes.r�o � t it I PLAN _ •CA►[M ipT r '- __- r`•..,. � .� .. .mot• �:::: .:..:. !! ::: ii - ......:�..... .- ..:: .. .:. ... ..- .... ..... ... .. ..... .-. .. ....... .. .. .i ... I:..- _ f is .. 1:.... ....-.. .. ....... .......:I:. .... .. � ....-.. ....... ..... - .I .. .. .... -... .. .. ...... .. ..... �' I .. ( .. 0:. ....... i �I 1. :►:. ... I : .-.. ..... goo:: .-..... . ... ..... ...... .... .. .. ....... `�. -- ... ! , .. ...... .. _. .- i- :,:.. I:... .:i ....... ... .. .- 'Yl:.. .... ....... .. -. -... ... t .... ... -..... .. .. I .. .. .:I. ...... —....-. ..... t... ..i..... .. . .-. ....... ... . .. ....... �' - i .. is... ... �. -..'� . .. .... .. :i.. ... _. :.. .. ... :I: ..- fi: :!: .. . I L.E E E .. t :i:. f :I' ....... ..... . ... .. ` :t:.. .. '..... ... .. I: :i.... ... .. ......... .. . :I: ...... ....-. I .. .-.- .. ..- ..�: i ... .... .. - -.- ..... .. .. .. .. ... .. .. ..- .. ... .. ...i .. .. e:tM. ear::: .-.. ...- _ ... ... is ►.:: .. . . ... .... .. ........(. - ..... .....- - . I !- .. .. .. .. ...- ... . ..... .-. . :.: -... . ..... t : . �I: :. . ...... ....... _.......... .... ................. .. �. - 1 _ ... .. ...... ... ....... ..... .. ...... .. :,........ ...... .. .. .. .. :�: f:..... ........ .. .. I .... :I: j j . ... .. . �f� =.. . . (/1 vRCR L E .... .. ...... ... o j. ..- !' 8O .. .... ...... ♦ ! .. .. :I: .. .- - :� r• :I: :I: .. .. ...:i: ....... ::� .. E .. .. .. .. - .... ..j..... .. ... .. .. ....1..... .. .i�... (:. !'. .. .. .. ..- .. .... i. .. ......... .. .. ...... .t: i.. ! .I. ... .... ... .....-. ..t .. . ...:t: .. .. ... .. ... ....... - .:f: - ... ...... .. ....�:..... ... .... ... ....... ....... W t. ! SO OL �► :f: i. 1 . i t _.. if ... .. . i:... :I: .... ... - .. ..... i j: is i 1 . .. - ... ... -.. ... .. ! ... ... .- .. ! .. . •f f .. ... - d f f ....... i ..... i _.. �y :1� — .....i.... ... .... .......�+�. .... ..... _ is .. .. ..... .... .... t. .... .... ... .'f .. ... i ..—... —. ..... . :i: ::..: :#:::I: .. j i ...- .. - .... 4 145500 6: :'.: ... 7 ,. . ... : ' i:.8 9 f460+00 I: 2- 3 :� 4 ' 3 6 i ......':7 ;:. .. ::. ISTATE moo.AID ntoi.r+o. " SR169 MP22M TO 23.90 7 WEST t0 WASH '_�/— Washington State HYDRAULIC REPORT CXED A SOVL�' ,,off _J/ �p(�AI�T�Ant A} Tf'A1n�aM1��l3�r PLAN & PROFILE 4-1453+00 TO 1d68+00 T.23N. R.5E. W.M. MAPLEWOOD GOLF COURSE END PROJECT STATION I480.75.00 MP 23.90 773 00 PRO►osFD Riw . a 'y w TYPE 2 ce AD TH �: iyiW►Op -� CONcilm DAM,WTTI M s SWEVALX wISEl�A11ATOR � p4 ...::..- �� -------------- �► Q ! _ ATE.Calk EUTm•$NKu%LX 0 1. Tw EXISTIN Cam Msm an PIPES STA hgD.2s 30 1!R m" 6. 7. Mn 9 nu a VKD S T✓►.0 S THE PIR e.cw0c * Is AAIrATE 3 TA I,Ts. PLAN STA. ►,n.zs 34 < r"".11com C Tm �.Es MR I...w ML 2. a EBISTIltl 3Tr[ in `"—�--� us®. nE CUM nP[3 WWL R[ o so wo �m m►2PE1 PAYLLEL To rt - sCALE M PER w"r A W MW IM`Am ►m ilf Rai_. l ... *10 PROF t f=E � ..E sTA t48oar.,k2Q to E� s4.so ..:.. .... .. ... .. .:� .. ... :j:.... .. SCALE iN FEET 1 :i .:� i ...... ..... .... -... ... ....... .. ... -..... .... .. ................... ....:i� ... ... .. .. .... ... - ... .. .... ... ... ::. ... F:. ....... - .... ..... 44 ...... .. .. :I'.... ... ....'i'... ...... ... ... ...... .... .:i: ... .. ....... ..:I. ...... .. - ... ... ... ... .... ...... ... .. .. .. ..... ....... ... ... .. ..... .. .... .. .. .. .. ..-.. i�.. .. :t: j. :I .. ... ... .. ..... ... ... ....... .. - � .. ... ... ... ... ....... i. ----- $ ... i:... ..... .. _ .. ...... :.. .:: .. .. ..::::. - .. ... _.. f- {i ....... . - -- F - S s. .. .......:. t• . .-... _- .. .r' i {{ j 1. f ........ .. .... y .. .......... .. .. EXISTING MOAIaQ: .. ....... �— PROFILE ¢ '1: .".' .. ....... isE .: W ....... ... .. ... ::. .: .. ... ... ....... ...... ... ... .....:I' _ o _ _ _... ...... . . . .. ---a ...... .. .. I...... _.... _. .. .. ... m I::. .. I' 2 . . .. .. ... ":::' :I:. .. I ..... i U {'....... ..... I:..... . .. - — ._ .. ,. ... ... ... t7- I 9 1470.00 i 2 3 4 14754 00 6 7 8 9 1480-0,00 -.- IsrATEEFED.AID PROD.NO. ria,. - SR169 MP22.52 TO 23.90 wE ,o WASHWashington State HYDRAULIC REPORT PLAN h PROFILE 5-1568+00 TO 1480+75.20 ?CKED r„ Joe Numsu rVemolk Department of Transoorta#ion I 3 HYDRO SEED ENTIRE DITCH SECTION PROPOSED ROADWAY E STA. 1437+50 2 YR. 10 YR. TABLE I 90 a 15' ROAD EL.79.0 TOP OF POND EL.77.3 MAX. WATER SURFACE E INLET OUTLET OVERFLOW STORM STORM 90 EL. DIA. EL. 00 I 75.0 'M0 7!8 5' 73.0 S VL' 75.0 �.� EXISTING 66.0 66.0 66.D 3' 64.0 3 3W 6R6 'ry i 1 2'THICK CLAY LINER GRADE G D" 2 6 DEAD —EL_ BOTTOM OF POND L.F. 70 '5 DETENTION PON D N0. I SECTION (a) STA. 1437+50 , SCALE I'•10' HDRIZ. 1'•K)' VERT. 3 o =HYDROSEEDEMMIE DITCH SECTION STA. 1433.50 Q PROPOSED ROADWAY EL.70.0 TOP OF BERM EL_6&0 MAX.WATER SURFACE 70 0 5 ' 4I _ ---r--- 70 -_•�_. —————— 1--- rr� !'THIpC CLAY LINER EX13T1lKI // jj�� a DEAD GRADE b JJF'G S f o STOR60 AGE EL.WIS BOTTOM OF POND-30 L.F. jA { A .DETENTION POND NO 2 SECTION STA. 1453+50 <J qn �15'(TYP) SCALE 1'•KY HORIZ. I'•N PROVIDE MAW.ACCESS BY WELDING(4)CROSS BARS TO(4) Y VERT VER,T)CAL Mlle AS SHOWN.HNGE UPPER ENDS WtM RANGES /BOLTS AND PROVIpE LOCKNC MECHANSSM,ON LOWER END. - / HOOK CLAMPS(4)PLACES LOCATE LADDER STEPS DIRECTLY BELOW. EVENLY SPACED(TYP.) A A PLAN / 4EA. 3/4'DIAM6ER SMOOTH BARS EQUALLY ) [ WSHOULDER 6- 3'SPACED VARIES /2 CATCH BASIN W TH FLOW RESTRICTOR/ Zl : SEPARATOR PER PLAN 8-3 rrrr W sZs O rrrr HANWKX_D 3/4'TH= a 4'WIDE LONG 0 -2 PLAN SMOOTH BARS WELDED To 2"CLAY LINER FLOW EL. UPPER AND LOWER BAND! E TABLE 1 (24 "as EVENLY S►ACKM 4'SOO MIN_ lTXFS OR LADDER RFLOW EL. TYPICAL STORM DRAINAGE DITCH TABLE LIFT HANDLE SEE TABLE I r NTS E STRICTOR PLAT ® CL[ANOUT GATE/SlIEAR ORIFICE GATE: B'DM. ABLE 1 ` ca � STEPS OR LADDER IY DUI. t � ET TO OVERFLON � ' 48'DIA. MANHOLE A CRRE SEE TABLE I INLET FROM POND c� INLET FROM FLOW RESTRICTOR/ SEE TABLE 1 �— _——— OIL SEPERATOR K"T0R PLATE 2 STORM)E •DIA. OUTLET EL o TABLE I :• SEE TABLE I v SECTION A-A SECTION A-A FLOW RESTRICTOR / OIL SEPARATOR OVERFLOW STRUCTURE NTS NTS STATE FED.AID PROD.NO. "rrI ;;"T` HIGHWAY DIVISION SR169 MP22.52 TO 23.90 10 WAS Amoki, Washington StaTte HYDRAULIC REPORT cos Mvrsu Department of 1 ranspo�tion DETAIL SHEET - DETENTION STRUCTURES V� 11 ♦� � S IF g- � . ( ►- \: II II i• /• �:� ' \, , '�� • . iq �' '"•fit .`1 ��\`\ Tra MAINONO WON ► _ ' S NOW IRA RV AN 1. b �—o � �� � I��� �������II, ! �� � � "�1 — •mil w II (,I • j e - -- f-6l9i '`iy E t 1-99'9t 2-l39t —.f t- tit y C-Am 1_ E- . E-LM �9-4Q4t It-Lov 1=1 I Mi I I - F '' -llllllll 111=i11� f I-1 11- =11 I 4"X 6" FOR CONNECTION DETAIL I— UNTREATED SEE SHT. BC10 '/4• JOINT WITH ASPHALTIC i BOARD FINER AROUND PIPE 6' FILLET STD. HANDHOLD EXIST. 72'0 RCP 72'0 CLASS II RCP (TYP•) o _ SET VERTICAL e 18"(TYP.) I i � 1 I I I B - 1 I W.P. BC6A INV. EL 64.70 I I / INV. EL. 59.12 NOTE: I SEE STD. PLAN 8-24 18"m CCP STORM 1 / I FOR HANDHOLD & DRAIN LADDER DETAILS 1 o 10.837X 27 E 12' COMPACTED BC6a \ GRAVEL BACKFILL FOR FOUNDATIONS DETAIL q 4'0 GOOSENECK VENT _ PRECAST CONC. COVER (SEE TOP SLAB PLAN Bc6n D BC6A SEE SHT. BC9 FOR LOCATION) SECTION �B5 BC6A b 73/8• N I/i JOINT WITH ASPHALTIC RING & COVER TYPE 3 W.P. FILLER TO TOP OF CULVERT SEE STD. PLAN B-25 BOTTOM SLAB 36' S2' 00* r` SEE STD. PLAN B-24 R=3' INV. EL 64.70 FOR HANDHOLD & a LADDER 3 72*0 RCP-CHAMFERED END SECTION C BC5 1'-6- 6' I ( I L8X4XI/2 (GALV.) W/ 1/2.0X4- W.P. W.P. STUDS & 11/2 X 1/4 X 0'-51/2 ANCHORS 0 1'-3' AROUND OPENING, MITRE AND lb BC6a WELD CORNERS i == h o I r- fV ' c 4• �e ��r c6a SECTION g 1'-4• /4 2'-0• DEEPER FOOTING BC5 (BEYOND) CHAMFER SECTION D DETAIL q STATE FED. AID PROD. NO S. BUWNGTON 10 wASH WaStfttoR State SR 169 BC6 1. BANT p of Transportation 196TH AVE. SJL/JOWS ROAD D I. AWAD Ion 1aAUE1t TO 'NOR. 7.C_ HAMSj 93WO40R.O. ANDE ?is room rW•ass iy OONTR CT?a DATE MAPLEWOOD CREEK TRANSITION STRUCTURE __.,..-__ _ �w►a.�w.o SECTIONS AND DETAILSf ; cr O F- a x _ a a N J 00 w Q � ~ w F- .-...-i O ,n J cr-jJ J N I U .r F- x = w O U In to w o rn Ir 0 0- F- F- a F- r- F- O) r-- J J rU V1 + w... F-�-+ M to lD J O _. �.O b Ln r- (11 O lD z N .z.F- O� + z + N + J In lD O r- 2 r- �n -� DETENTION a m v v c m v Ln POND m v >Fa Ln . _ + 75 ELEV 65.50' x O 16 0`n c' Z ~ + N L)J 69.00' F a 7 S.50' a s 69.85, .N a 75 - F- ^ Ln 68.00' -w c 3 70.00' a~ n5l' F- x F- a kn c x s OVERFLOW D1 "`" � D16w`" " v 16 ELEV.'" 4 5 75 t a 15 75 _.. ._ 70 2. 68.00 70- ---- w N 13 �' 12' X10 - -5=0.0% I 1 DITCH 18` X 285' S=0.307, �� S=0..31%. 70 FL 70 65 - I I -_ .: F�---._ ___ 65 INV. 65.50 INV. I I EXIST 18" X 66' 5=0.29% INV. 66.00 INV. 66.00' 72"X34' 72 NFL OUTFALL� 0 12"X12' 6INV. S=0.837%I IS 0 837% o _ S=0.0% INV. 60 65- 60 _ - - 65 _ _ f f 67.19' 67.00' 64.70' L INV. J - J J 59.1�2', ... Li O 60 _ 60 - 55 m - -- -- - OD Ln STATION 1451+70 125' LT TO J STATION- 1452+25 89' LT w . STATION 1453+80 77' LT TO STATION 1457+60 95' LT wF- .. .. .. ,-. ..... , .. ..... _ s5 v,F, _EXI-STING. - - - -- GROUND --------, -. :..:.. co + i w 0 0 • In � . .� � T M rh Q a / v Ln v� 71.5 0' F ... I.::: v D1� v - - -' 75 f - - a 75 F- N 16 731--- - --� --- - I 1- 1 � DETENTION- i I 10 a a POND v, v, FL 65.50 I - _ _ .... 70 -- 70 + --+----+-- {-- - - j---- 70 - - - 9 r- - - --- --- -- -- INV. I.. ... DITCH FL 66.00 ; Q X 4' DOUBLE OX II' -r- 24" X 40 ! I I ... I 4=139 lNY. 5=0.30%__ -- -.. - -- --- ----1---- -_. �..... INY. 64.:70' S=0.56% 5:0'i� :' - �- I- II I F 1;:65 . 65 65rt- rt-:-65- - -- - - -- - - -- --- --.-r-. 66.12 -.- _. ;. i ;: i ... � i. _. . f I� ---. --- ---- -t - ----�--- .. II. II 59.12 ...-t-_ f �' .... . -- = Im STATION 1453+10 .81'. L TO:: ... ,. �: ...... I I:... I. ;. NATION i 453+51T - ... .. ....... .. 1 ... ...- .. .. .0. o b Q:. .t7 ..C}. O ..O. .0...o...0 ! - .. I ... ... ...... 0� tD in ih :i .n rh :. n0l. ... ... ... .... 1: ....... ....... ... ...... .i ..... .... .... .-..... ...... .. .... ...... ....... ...... .. .. .. ....:i:.. .. ....:I'. .... .:.. _ .... �.. .. ... .'�' ... .. .. .. ....... ... ...... ... ....... ....... ...... I ....... ....... — ::::':::i i.:::: :: :... " .::. :.. :..' S'TA :FO i45T+ 1tT Ck : ... ._ I ::: ::: L. t- -- ` TAT FED. AID PROJ. NO. HIGHWAY DIVISION Washington 'State SR 169 IMT JFK T93 MASH 196TH.AVE. S.E./JONES ROAD orle D JFK R Department of Transportation TO MAPLEWOOD ENGR. T.A� j040 10�6ADM. R. �CT wo. ArPNOYFD 333 D REVISION bYlAPPA e a8 z� - — -- - — ----- _ o % r \ r l c y 11 r„ r Ilk J l cc> _ /'�_ � . 61 \ o \ / --------n777777777n777777777-777777777-777777777T7777777---77'Y77777717777777TTT7 7 ................... '7777777' ....................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ........ ZZ.. ................................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. *. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................ 7t77777777 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... 7: 7777777 777777 ...................... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . .. ...... ....................... ......... ... . . . . . . . . . . : : I . . . . . . . . . . 777 . . . ... ................. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ....• ......... ... . . 177717 77777777* *................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122=22.. ..... ................................. ... ............................. . . .... ............—-----------------............ ... - ...... . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. - , ! * * - C I T Y 0 F R E N T 0 N . . . . . . . . . i : : : : • 777777771 1771 . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77777 D E F, A RTIM ENT 0 F PUBLIC WORKS , * * , . I 171 177*. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . DESIGNED DATE FILE NO DRAWN CHECKED- SCALE BY APPR. DATE APPROVED SHEET OF REVISION DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS 2 E0. SPA. SYM. ABOUT E O m F21 5 ® 12" � F1545 ® 12" i cn i mCD Y %#4 �. F18#4 /r 20#7 ® 9" RIPRAP 0 a O� 00 �O� o a0 0� Cf \ F O OOo O C Oo o O OOo CD Oo p o O OqR Rj� 0 0 O o 0 O0 0 O�n 0 i'Y fR a p ® o a o 00 0 0 6 #5 ® 2'-0" - �OD��000 Co O OO O� Go� O/��� 00 0 CD 0 o00a�c� c4 / 6" FILLET, TYP. CONSTR. JOINT, TYP. o p>p�poo�0 00 O p OOc o 0 0 00 0 0 o Oc' kkk0o p O O O Q o pp 0 C 0 O 0 4000a OC O 7)#5 0 2'-0" `a p i p 0 D O W p \ / p 0 p ® o co O�oO p 0 O G Itu" RIPRAP 1 11 0 \ BEGIN FW 0+00 o F15 #5 A.P. FW 0+�59 i i� FW 0+4 OINT CONC APRON N SYM ABOUT - - - - - - - ^ EXP. JOIN I � FW 0+71 TR 2234+68.64= p l TERMINATE CHAIN-LINK FENCE AT >2)#3 0 12" MAX. L_ FW 0+93.46 ENDS OF FISHWAY BRIDGE HANDRAIL In CHAIN-LINK FENCE TYPE i � I #4 0 2'-0" - CONSTR. JOINT 11/2" X 10" CONT. _ - (TYP.) KEY (TYP.) Fl6#5 i - RAILING TYPE 2 TRAIL F17#5 E BRIDGE E_ = RAILING TYPE 3 iOOKS MAY BE RAILING TYPE 3— EXP. JOINT FW 1+09.14 'LACED HORIZ. TO 'ROVIDE SUFFICIENT 8'-0" 9" 'OVER, TYP_ - (TYP., WALLS) ISOMETRIC VIEW 1 F= -� SECTION q CORNER BAR PLACEMENT 11 I TYPEI1 A I, ,I v EXISTING 42"0 METRO SS i1 II CURB LL MH SR 169 1467+37= iI�_� _� � FW 1+31 1+25 �m 11_ rJl_ B �0 i1 2 E0. SPA. SYM. ABOUT m -rl- 7r- J SPAN VARIES \I I F1 #5 0 10" ; (n II II 90 rFS) 4 F4 4 F6 #5 05" F7 #5 ® 12" MAXZ _ FW 1+41 I I SR 169 II W g II I 11 II II U2 #5 ® 1'-8" --- -- F1 #5 6' x 4' CULVERT I I `N STD. PLAN B-5 I1 I SR 169 1467+37= 6" FILLET, TYP. CONSTR. JOINT, TYP. (EXCEPT THAT TOP I1 11 FW 1+46 F3 #5 ® l'-8" II I & BOT. SLAB THICKNESSES CURB ARE 8", NOT 6") if 11 o II I SYM. ABOUT F9 #4 0 2'-0" CONSTR. JOINT, TYP 11/2" X 10" CONT. II 1 II WALKWAY KEY (TYP.) I 11 BOND BREAKER I II F8 #3 0 12" STYROFOAM F2 #5 I I II FW 1+87 INLET, SEE STD END FW PLAN B-6b 1 F3 #5 HOOKS MAY BE PLACED HORIZ. TO EXISTING METRO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT 42" SEWER PIPE SEE D PLAN t� COVER, TYP. W7 VARIES FROM 6'-0" TO 8'-0" _ TRANSITIONS FROM SCALE 1"=10' s" ® Fw 1+31 To ISOMETRIC VIEW SECTION T ® F 1+41 (TY W P., WALLS) CORNER BAR PLACEMENT ( STATE FED. AID PROJ. NO Washington State - SR 169. FW1 M 10 WASH 19M AVE. &E.%,)ONES ROAD Department of Transportation TO MAPLEWOOD JOB r�BER260 W0 a"^ CTCUWAV I Avry IT Amn CFnTT0NS 333 .........W. ........ ............... ..... ........................ ...... .........:.........:......... ...................................L-4j ... 0..............13 Ld ............ ...... . a /-:BICYCLE:AND PROPOSED TRAIL :PEDESTRIAN EXISTING GRADE, BOTH SIDES ELIEVATION:71.5< I 3: + -7 :HANDRALL 71..'2 m Lj u.) —7 ........ V) ........ ....... ..... ..... D uj Z ................... ... ....... .............. ...... * .:........ 71� u_ 4- .0 w Ia c� + 0 : _j . ..... _j L-j < ......... ... ..... ......... ..... _j ......... ......... ............ < ....... ....... 3!... w 0 Ld 3: _j 0 V) I uj2 cyV) EXISTING GRADE ON LEFT SIDE :63.88 W ELEV. 61.0: > ......... ....... . ......... ... ......... ... . v) w . ......... .......... .... ......... ......... ......... ......... ... ..... ........ •.1,00.-YEAR ....... ....... .........w................... ........ 6'4.*7 62.4 w u_ SLOPS_- 10 62.0 u-w FLOOD- EXISTING GRADZE ON RIGHT SIDE*: : _j 60. . 61.2 TOP OF SIDEWALL, BOTH SIDES 0 0 uj z 58.3 59. uj ....68:8-:..... ......... ...... S(-O?E. ...... .. ...... ..... ......... ......... ......... ......... ........... ..................................... .. ........ ........... ......... ......... W 58.0 ui M 57. • TOP OF LEFT SIDEWALI 56.38 P. JOINT EXISTING :55.6 METRO 42" SS ...:: . .. ......... .... ......... ... .... ....... ..... .......... ... ...... ......... ... .. ....54,OL.... --- .. ... .. . ..... ..........SLOpE-: 4-44%.... .. . ...... .... ......... 53.2 �3 �FW7 52.4 51.6 :51.6 SLOPE: 1( FVQ EXISTING CONCRETE BEDDING EXPANSION JOINT ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... I!,-4:-AYE-R..... .. . .......... ............... ..... . gr",*O:C, ........... .. ...... ......... ......... ......... ... .... ......... ......... ............ POLYSTYRENE SLOPE:7.6 Stm.rc FOAM C EXPANSION JOINT FW7 TOP OF RIGHT SIDEWALL FV ......... ......... ......... ...... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ................ .. ......... ................... -ZONE,-5......... 6't... 0.. $ ZONE 3 TYP. ZONE 4 RIGHT IDEWALL: LEFT SIbEWALL q ZONE 1 — ZONE 2 ; ................................ ......... ......... ................ ................ ............................................. ...................................................................... _18............._iO................. 0............... 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1+00 1+10 1+20 1+30 SECTION THROUGH FISHWAY CENTERLINE SCALE: 1"= 5' HORIZ. 1"= 5' VERT. RIGHT SIDEWALL LEFT SIDEWALL B: #4 0 12" FINISHED GRADE FISHWAY BAR LIST REFERENCES BAR ZONE ZONE ZONE ZONE ZONE ..................................................... ........ ...... ....... ....... ...... LABEL 1 2 3 4 5 Li I Ml I I— ui 6' X 4' BOX CULVERT X cn r� STD PLAN 13-5 A F55 F46 F54 F46 F76 tl) 00 B F57 F47 F56 F47 F77 ..... ....... ......... ......... ......... ......... ................... ......... ......... A ..... ......... ......... ......... ui I A: #6 0 6" c F62 F65 F60 F61 F59 ckf <- A: #6 0 6"----, ui :SR169 F67 F58 z FW 1+46 >C6 F63 INLET, :SEE _j z F64 ... . ... ..... ..STD-PLAN-B-66......... ........ ......... ................... z 2" CLR. C: #4 0 12" E.F. 0< C: #4 0 '12" E.F.z (TYP.) C.r En................ ............................... ....... .. ................... ......... .. .. ......... . .......:....... 4..... ......... 62.4�-\ w V) 14 0 12' TOP & BOT. (FW 0-18 TO FW 0+02) Z W 0% 0z T (TYP.) N 0 3' CLR. 6" FILL J4 0 12" TOP & Bor. (FW 0-02 TO FW 0+07) (TYP.) E� ......... ......... ......... ......... #4 0 12- TOP . ................ 14 0 12* TOP & BOT. (FW 0+05 TO FW 0+45) ... ... . w CLR. r a zorl o m ............... ......... ..... ........ ................. ................................. ..................................................... NOTE: INCREASE THICKNESS*:OF STD.':PLAN �34- CLR. 11/2- X 10- CONT. KEY (TYP.) TOP: AND BOTTOM SLAB TYP. (RJ6 0 6- BOT. .......... ..... .................. ......... ..........................TO-0%--SEE--$ECTION ....... . ..............................a m w 1 8,-0, NOT�: . . .......... ..... ......... ......... ............................. .................... ........ ........ FISHWAY WALL ZONES ARE IDENTIFIED AS FOLLOWS: w ZONE 1 - LEFT SIDEWALL FW 0-18 TO FW 0+00 ZONE 2 - LEFT SIDEWALL FW 0+00 TO FW 0+45 ZONE 3 - RIGHT SIDEWALL FW 0-05 TO FW 0+16 m ZONE 4 - RIGHT SIDEWALL FW 0+16 TO FW 0+45 ... ................... ............. . ............................................................................................. SIDEWALLS FW 0+45 TO FW 0+71 1+40 1+50 1+60 1+70 1+80 1+90 2+00 ZONE 5 - BOTH SECTION t-A—'*\ SECTION THROUGH FISHWAY CENTERLINE -KE7 SCALE: 1"= 5' HORIZ. 1"= 5' VERT. -r ISTATE FED. AID PROJ. NO. AOL SR 169 10 WASH V. Washington State 196TH AVE. S.E./JOKES ROAD FW2 WN N S. BULUNGTON — t of Transportation TO MAPLEWOOD PLANC — JOB NUMBER 261 r,LD I AWAD — 93WO40 opr • ENCR. T.C. HA STRA PE — CON'TPACT W. FISkWAY ELEVATION AND SECTION .333 ' SLOPING FACE W/ 6" TYP., 90' HOOK LING,SEE STAINLESS STEEL W/ 1'-O" EXTENSION EET FW5) 2_ PLATES (NOT SHOWN) CAR. �I� WATER FLOW If _ 2"CLR �I iI 1 /�- F�#5 0 6- WWF 4X4 - D11XD11, (TYP.) 3" 2" _ CENTERED IN WALL 3/8" STAINLESS STEEL PLATES ' 55)#5 0 12" of i 3/16- W/ BEVELS AS SHOWN Ni r, / SIDEWALK 9"(TYP) F73 #5 0 6" 3/16 2" 6" FILLET o / / CLR. F74 /4 0 4" 1 jON JOINT I 15' FROM VERTICAL 1 I! 1/4" X 211/16" HEADED ANCHOR 0 12" 5" CONT. - F21 15 SPACING, STAINLESS STEEL, NELSON 3'-6" 1'-0" 3'-6" H4L OR APPROVED EQUAL. STAGGER F20 /7 PLACEMENT OF ANCHORS IN THE TWO ROWS ACE SLAB REINF. OWN FOR DETAIL q TYPICAL WEIR ELEVATION W TYPICAL TOP OF WEIR F15 �5 10" Ft y5 f16 �5 OR F17 ,y5 TYP. F15 �'S TYP. Ft #5 F5 14 F21 /5 F18 �'4 1 F4 �4 F7 �5 F19 ,/4 f21 5 8#5 F2 ,i5 OR @#5 TYP. 1" X 41/2" X 3'-0" F20 /7 NOTCH IN CULVERT O WALL (TYP.) O F6 /5 I I � SPECIAL REMOVABLE WEIR (SEE SHT. FW4) N F7 #5 � I I F10 #5 0 12' 8/5 0 8" - 815 F5 /4 F20 /7 Ft 15 F2 IV, OR @15 TYP. E6 #5 OR 8#5 TYR - - _ - _ _ - E5 #5 TYP. F21 5 815 F21 #5 F10 j5 SECTION AT CENTERLINE g f1s H SECTION AT WALL •Ss W C W F22 /4 STATE FED. AID PROJ. NO S. BULtJNGTON WASH Washington State SR 169 JOBLNEMIROVSKY 196TH AVE. SJL/JOKES ROAD FW3 I. AW-- "�°' Department- of Transportation To MAPLEWOOD ENOR. T.C. HAMSTRA PE 19317WZ040R. . ANDERSON PE CT NO. MkbWA I - 5R9 3 #4 F107 #5 TtJ 5 ---- F202 #3 #7 #5 E�#4 #4 "F76)#6 0 6" iF77)#4 0 12*--\ F603 #4 0 12"  0 12-- cli #4 F4 #4 —(R#6 0 6 CL 10 0 (F�#4 0 12- A c) a z zcx: cn M r2 M #4 0 12'-,_ #4 0 12' rn = < 0 0- ICD C3 a: T T n 6� < z < u < <1 aLZ ti En uj Ln cn ONOTE: NOT ALL VERTICAL WALL REINFORCING BARS DETAIL rA DETAIL rB DETAIL rc ARE SHOWN. VERTICAL WALL REINFORCING EXP. JT. FW STA. 0+71 SHOWN FOR EACH FACE IS TYPICAL FOR TYP. WALL REINF. VWV TOP SLAB, TOP FACE REINF.,\�W_y TOP SLAB, BOT. FACE REINF.,\tWy THAT FACE ALONG THE FULL LENGTH OF WALL (BOT. SLAB, BOT. FACE SIM.) (BOT, SLAB, TOP FACE SIM.) #4 0 12- TOP & BOT. DETAIL % L 31/2 X 31/2 X 3/8 INSIDE SURFACE GALVANIZED OF BOX CULVERT EL64.5 SOLID TIMBER WEIR, DOUGLAS FIR W/ 2'1 " NOTCH (,TYP.) 3- PRESERVATIVE, SEE WEIR B/16 A CD L7X4X3/8 CONTRACT SPECIFICATIONS -0. 1 0" • 1'-4 1'-0' LONG f EL62.80 GALVANIZED CONCRETE TIMBER; - I I - I V-1 L 31/2 x 31/2 x '/3 b EL.62.40 on !=t 6'-10- LONG, GALVANIZED (INSTALL W/ TIMBER) 5 STAINLESS STEEL HI I LTI HVA /8 0 TIMBER (TYP.) (3)-1/2"0 X 11/2" ADHESIVE ANCHORS OR APPROVED WELDED HEADED gI EQUAL I CONCRETE D l'-O* (TYP.) STUDS 0 EQ. SPA. 6' 6* 5/0"0 MACHINE BOLTS " GALVANIZED (TYP.) SECTION SECTION rb_l� SECTION ELEVATION—REMOVABLE WEIR L 3 X 2 X 1/4, 3' LONG, GALVANIZED, W/ 1/2.0 X-4- STUDS 0 8' D.C. (TYP-) STATE FED. AID PROJ. NO, SR 169 FW4 10 Washington State 1169TK AVE. S.E./JONES ROADS. BUI I INGTON T. BANT * Department of Transportation TO MAPLEWOOD -Ter- 1 toe EDNumm 26& I. AWAD GR. T.C. RAMSTRA PE 93WO40 FISHwAy WEIR AND' REINFORCING 15ETAILS or R.Q. ANDERSON PE CON No. S33 DATE REVISION F3y_lAPf'* -� POST F- POST Ft POST E POST �� POST 4'-6" 4'-6' 1/ - - DETAIL (TYP.) --- ---6-0 Z" - ----I I P — 6" MAX. T i (TYP.) R=s' MAT'L PART MATERIAL SPECIFICATION BEND BEFORE ANODIZING 21/2"0 POST ALUMINUM POSTS A.S.T.M. B241 OR 8429 ALLOY 6063-T6 SCHEDULE 160 (STD. PIPE - TYP.) ALUMINUM BALUSTER & RAILS A.S.T.M. B241 OR 8429 ALLOY 6063-T6 SCHEDULE 40 (STD. PIPE) 11/4" BALUSTER o (STD. PIPE TYP.) ALUMINUM DRIVE PINS & PLATES A.S.T.M. 8221 ALLOY 6063-T6 � i - a L DETAIL gag L (TYP) NOTE: SEE TYPE 1 RAILING FOR DETAILS NOT SHOWN OUTSIDE ELEVATION OUTSIDE ELEVATION RAILING-TYPE 1 & 2 RAILING-TYPE 3 31/2" 12" AT TYP. RAIL SPLICE 51/4" (TYP.) 7" TYp. AT RAIL SPLICE AT EXP. JT. RAIL SPLICE 51 2' 1 2' 4" 11 2 3/8" E RAILING 0 DRIVE k BALUSTER ¢ 21/2-0 POST DRIVE PINS PIN FOR BOTTOM E CURB OR WALL RAIL ++ 21/2"0 RAIL --=�-- --I=== i (STD. PIPE) 2"0 RAILING SPLICE TYP. AT TOP OF EACH (STD. PIPE) END BALUSTER 316 SEE °° 3O FOR ALL RAIL /1s NOTES SECTIONS I — I` L 3 3/16' X 1' X 17/e' ALUM PL 16 GA. GALVANIZED /8"0 DRIVE STEEL SLEEVE PIN FOR TOP RAIL ++ a GROUT BREAK 1 EDGEs 1/1E 45' 11/4- BALUSTER (STD. PIPE) EXPAND BALUSTER INTO 178" ST SURFACE RAIL FOR TIGHT FIT TYP. I I 1 3 11 SEE INUCONTACT MINUM O WITH CEMENT ( ) I I i 16 NOTES I j ��^ .• LOCATE ON OUTSIDE OF >s? 4• GROUT SHALL BE PAINTED 1 I I 1 RAILING. DRIVE PINS WITH EPDXY -----_ SHALL BE DRIVEN FLUSH WITH OUTSIDE FACE OF DETAIL --- t=====_ -===y II I 11 t== ========'---- RAILING. SECTION s i I 13/8"0 HOLE FOR EXPANDER TYP. BOTTOM RAIL ONLY AdW �e>r DETAIL STATE FED. AID PROD. NO S. QULIJNGTON 10 wASH Washington State SR 169 FW5 T. BANT 196TH AVE. S.E./JOKES ROAD ED I. AwAD ►«, Department 93WO40 264- of Transportation To MAPLEWOOD EN -war- OR. T.C. HAMSTRA PE - � ' R.Q. ANDERSON PE LOK'R^`T N0' FISHWAY HANDRAIL ELEVATIONS AND DETAILS 333 DATE REVISION IBYIAPPDjM�OrtM � 18'-0"_ If SEE DETAILS -- FISHWAY BRIDGE RAILING, TYP. - O 4" 19 F39 #6 0 12"t TOP 71.50 '71.50 -- 1 8^ 19 F40 #6 0 12"t BOT. F 3/j4 TOP EA. SIDE 71.58 ? + C EL. 71.58 EL. 71.50 3/4" DOUBLE 71.50 I171.50 o� CHAMFER (TYP.) O O F44 �4 0 12" EA. SIDE EL. 70.50 F414 0 12" TOP F41 #4 0 12" BOT. 13" 18,-0" zi z a — o' B A o a I+ PLAN POST HOLE a + SECTION xlo SEE DETAIL A x C uj 3 Fws w 3 10'-0" EL. 71.50 (TYP.) o F396 EL. 71.58 I FINISHED GRADE (TRAIL) 10'-0" 1'- 18,-0" 6'-8" JOINT CONSTRUCTION iv t� F38 #5 0 12" (TYP.) F28 �5 11 F35 #5 0 12" E.F. 32 F32 #6 0 6" N.F. 10 F30 15 0 12" E.F. F40 -_ METAL HANDRAIL F32 {6 0 6" (TYP.) F33 #6 0 12" (TYP) 16 F33 #6 0 12" F.F. SEE SHT. FW5 F35 0 12" EL. 71.50 F 66 #5 TOP E.F. 1'_p• � 6 F24 y5 0 E0. SPA. E.F. (TYP-) F28 #�TDPE.F.. F27 #5 E.F. F29 /5 TOP E.F. I EL 64.70 w N � W 2" CL F31 /6 0 6" (TYP) > F36 #6 0 6" 11 F25 (!5 0 E0. SPA. E.F. 6" FILLET ON o ALL SECTIONS 2" CL b kr 11/2" X 10" CONTINUOUS KEY, ALL SECTIONS 1'- CONSTRUCTION JOINT F37 /6 0 6" (TYP.) F37 ,y6 O 6" SEE DETAIL B Fvn o z o z 30 F31 rY 6 0 6" E.F. 32 F31 / 6 0 6' E.F. 20 F31 6 0 6" E.F. ! EE 82 @0 6 0 6" TOP & SOT. 12" TOP & BOT. #4 0 12" TOP & SOT. $ SEE DETAIL C WALL ELEVATION SECTION SECTION Z` JY. STATE FED. AID PROJ. N0444 SR S. BUWNGTON 10 WASH Washington State 169 AFWLNEMIROVSKY7 196TH AVE. S,E./JONES ROADDepartment of Transportation To MAPLEWOODI. AWAO �T.C. HAMSTRAD PE 93W040A n nuncocnu oc CONTRACT N0. v � HYDRAULIC REPORT SUPPLEMENT SR 169 MP 22.52 to MP 23.90 140th Place S.E. to Maplewood Golf Course L7228 April 19, 1993 INTRODUCTION The following supplements the Hydraulic Report, dated October 5, 1990, which was developed for L-7228. The issue discussed in this supplement concerns the design of high-flow and low-flow channels that accommodate 100-year flood events and the Department of Fisheries requirements for fish passage in Maplewood Creek. The original hydraulic report, referenced above, was developed with the understanding the WSDOT would place a new culvert under SR 169 with the capacity to pass the 100- year storm (400 cfs) for the Maplewood Creek basin. In this scenario, the culvert installed by WSDOT would connect to a new 84-inch culvert that the City of Renton was proposing to install as a replacement for the existing 72-inch culvert that outfalls to the Cedar River. We were not able to proceed with this scheme since the City of Renton was unable to secure funding for their proposed project to replace the 72-inch culvert. An additional factor affecting the drainage design for Maplewood Creek is the improvement in fish passage for the facility. At the time the original hydraulics report was done, the project team was not aware that the Department of Fisheries would required improvements to fish passage as a condition for receiving an HPA. The attached October 16, 1991, IDC from Johnson/Winter clarifies that fish passage must be addressed. Supplemental Information and Decisions In order to meet the goals for improved fish passage, as well as providing for the 100- year flood, the following solution was agreed to by WSDOT, the Department of Fisheries, and the City of Renton: 1. The existing creek channel will become a high-flow channel and will handle flows up to the 100-year flood event. WSDOT will construct a new culvert across SR 169 (Sta. 1457+00) to accommodate these flows and will connect it into the existing 72-inch culvert. The baffles in the existing 72-inch culvert (which assists in fish passage) will remain until the low-flow channel can be built by the City of Renton. r HYDRAULIC REPORT SUPPLEMENT 140th Place S.E. to Maplewood Golf Course April 19, 1993 Page 2 2. WSDOT will construct a culvert for the low-flow channel along with a fish ladder to the Cedar River at Sta. 1467+87. This will be done prior to the construction of the low-flow channel by the City of Renton. 3. The City of Renton will construct the new low-flow channel along with a sputter structure. The low flow channel will meander through the golf course and will be designed with improved fish habitat as a goal. The splitter structure will be located north of the existing golf course club house. This splitter structure will allow the initial 15 CFS of flow into the low-flow channel and then a portion of higher flows to a maximum of 40 cfs during the 100-year event. The remaining flow will enter the existing creek channel (high- flow channel). Hydraulic Analysis The design criteria for the low-flow and high-flow channels are listed below. The hydraulic analysis including the schematic plans and profiles for the culvert crossings are attached. Low-flow System - Design Criteria 1. Maximum design flow: 40 cfs 2. The box culvert under SR 169 will be 6 feet by 4 feet (6' x 4'). The culvert will pass over an existing 42-inch Metro sanitary sewer line. 3. The outfall invert will be at elevation 50.8. It will be located within 50 feet horizontally of the existing 72-inch culvert outfall. 4. The 6 x 4 culvert is to be designed with a 0.4 backwater to provide for fish passage. 5. The fish ladder is to have a maximum grade of 10 percent with a maximum step of 12 inches. High-flow System - Design Criteria 1. The Maplewood Creek basin design flow for the 100-year event is 400 cfs (reference the June 17, 1992, letter form the City of Renton). 41MHydLWC t HYDRAULIC REPORT SUPPLEMENT 140th Place S.E. to Maplewood Golf Course April 19, 1993 Page 3 Since the low-flow channel will accommodate 40 cfs, the design flow for the high-flow channel is 360 cfs. The capacity of the existing 72-inch culvert, with the baffles removed and without inlet and outlet restraints is 418 cfs. 2. An 8 foot by 4 foot (8' x 4') double box culvert will be installed as a replacement to the existing 42-inch culvert under SR 169. This box culvert will accommodate the 100-year flow. If 100-year events were to occur at the same time in both the Maplewood Creek Basin and the Cedar River Basin, the 72-inch culvert would be outlet controlled. This would limit the capacity of the 72-inch culvert to 330 cfs, which is 92 percent of the design flow for the 100-year event (360 cfs). This should not be of a great concern since it is unlikely that the 010-year event would occur in both basins at the same time. This due to the size of basins and resulting times of concentration. If coincident 100-year events did occur, the unit hydrograph for Maplewood Creek indicates that the time duration for flows exceeding 330 cfs would be about 2.2 hours. During this time, portions of the golf course could flood. Also, the roadway would have water flowing on it in localized areas. 41993x,a.00c rr. La► Intra-Departmental Communication DATE: Oct . 16, 1991 FROM: R. F. Johnson/E . R. Winter SR 169 MP 22. 52 to MP 23 . 96 140th to Maplewood Hydraulic Report/Box Culvert TO : T. C . Hamstra/D . Morimoto MS 117 Attached for your information are the comments from Headquarters regarding the box culvert at STA. 1457+17 . We request your office have the box culvert redesigned addressing these comments and provide for fish passage. Reference our office' s letter of June 3 , 1991 : "According to the Department of Fisheries , Maplewood Creek is presently used by anadromous fish. The culvert design , as shown in the Hydraulic Report will eliminate fish passage. Use of this design would be in direct violation of the Memorandum of Understanding between WSDOT, WDW and WDF and probably the state Hydraulic Code . It is requested that an alternative design be developed in accordance with the attached fish Passage Guidelines . WDF will deny an HPA application for this structure as it is designed. " Please have the box culvert designed with a fish ladder/baffles to allow fish passage, and return the design to this office for approval and inclusion in the Hydraulic Report . An estimated date of return would be appreciated for the Sunshine Report . kbh attachments 412348 cc: J. L. McIntosh g F 01 DEVELOPMENT D . Hagglund MS 138 kP-i0j'ECT D koL-7228 files P'-A.�.G `; 2 FILE DOT 700,008 A(x)Rev 1W9 CITY OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann,Administrator 412 348 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT DATE: .E. �. I June 17, 1992 2 TEAM 3 Tom Hamstra Washington State Department of Transportation 15325 SE 130th Place F E. Bellevue, WA 98007 SUBJECT: SR 169 WIDENING - 140TH PLACE SE TO MAPLEWOOD GOLF COURSE L-7228 Per our telephone conversation of June 12, 1992, this letter is intended to summarize the City of Renton Surface Water Utility's review of design flow calculations presented in the October 1990 Hydraulic Report prepared by INCA Engineers for the project. Accordingly, the City will accept the SBUH analysis included in the hydraulic report which provided the following results: Peak Runoff Maplewood Creek at Golf Course Design Flow (CFS) 24-hour, 25-year design storm 337.5 24-hour, 100-year design storm 405.9 The SoUH method is required by the Renton Storm '.Dater code and the King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) for the design and analysis of runoff control facilities and of conveyance systems serving the basins greater than 25 acres. The results of the flow analysis given above are also consistent with the findings of a study of the Maplewood Creek Basin performed by Parametrix. In our conversation, we also talked about possible WSDOT plans to retrofit the existing 72" culvert by pulling out existing baffles instead of installing a larger and more expensive 84" culvert to provide adequate conveyance for the creek down stream of the golf course. Note that the option to install a new 84" culvert was discussed in the hydraulic report, the 72" retrofit option was not. In order for the City to approve the latter proposal, the City would require a minimum of the following information: • Recheck backwater calculation for the 72" culvert. Tom Hamstra Washington State Department of Transportation Page 2 • Identify existing and proposed top-of-bank elevations for Maplewood Creek at the box culvert entrance. • Show that the expected backwater condition with the 72" pipe will not over top the banks for the 24-hour, 100 year design storm. The City of Renton Surface Water Utility has prepared substantial comments on the October 1990 Hydraulic Report which was sent at our request. The comments are under going final revisions and will be forwarded to you as soon as possible. No formal submittals for City of Renton permits have been made. If you can let me know when such formal submittals will be made, I will alert the Plan Review staff and attempt to coordinate the review as much as possible in advance of their imminent arrival. If you have any additional questions or comments, please call me at 277-6205. Very truly yo s, David E. Je ngs, Project Manager Surface Water Utility C:DOCS:92-438:DEJ:ps CC: Gregg Timmerman Ron Straka Dan Carey PROJECT: DESIGNER -RAJ �7 S:�'c�L•Ir DATE q HYDROLOGIC AND CHANNEL INFORMATION �-�' '' "�'� S '`� SKETCH STATION: /y67ta7 LT CT i z 7 2-) EL. r AHW = y 82 Q _ t/b ��%s� 1 Tw Q 2 3/ // ) J EL. C.7,q So= b _ EL 6 2`� L TW, = z , zz' TW2 = s, 93 ' ALLOWABLE OUTLET VELOCITY = HEADWATER COMPUTATION z INLET CONT. OULET CONTROL o OUTLET CULVERT TYPE Q SIZE Hw d�+D � = COST COMMENTS D HW K© dc 2 ho H LSO HW Uoz VELOCITY �X"J L�pX� . w�,� Z/v C, 0.s6 A 16 o.2 /, // z. l 2, 0,12 O z.2-2 2.2z 3.0 'S 3 b X iW ;r ?�,7 C�K 3 0.g3 2,5/9 O.Z /. 63 �.3I 3 U 3,3�, 3.3L 3 .S'28 SUMMERY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: .I 3-4.5 Box Culvert Mlet Control Nomograph) I 7CHART' 8 ►2 600 (i} (2) (3) II 500 EXAMPLE 8 9 t0 10 400 S'a 2' Boa 0&T5 cts 7 9 0/B • 15 c1 2/tt. b 7 8 9 300 Into Mw rlw 6 7 p teat S 6 (1) 1.75 3.5 S 8 200 (2) 190 3.8 4 5 (3) 2D5 41 4 4 T. 3 3 3 ~ 100 6 O o U. BO 2 B 2 W a 60 S o SO / COD 1.5 w z 40 = 1.5 1.5 W 30 ?`�/ O Z 4 Q ��►/ H X O 20/ W 1.0 O ; f m z O — y 1.0 LO H 0 3 - /W_ Amite Of _ 1- 8� O mng..0 ---. n_ .9 .9 210 flora 8 Q W _ _ / w W % � .T .9 U- \ o / O S HW WINGWALL w T T / p SCALE FCAR = •6 2 Q 4 3 (2) 90•00d 16• .6 .6 (3) 0-(•:tension& .5 at sides) 2 .5 .5 To use scale (2)or(3) project horizootally to scab(1).then was straight laclimed time through •4 0 sm0 0 scales,or reverse as I Illustrated. 8 .4 .4 .b 35 35 HEADWATER DEPTH FOR BOX CULVERTS WITH INLET CONTROL BUREAU OF PUSUC ROA05 dAX NOW 3 - 13 May 1989 t r 3-5.6 Box Culvert(Outlet Control Nomograph) El 5000 4000 3000 -1-- — — — — - If I/w _ 2000 SbO. so— SUBMERGED OUTLET CULVERT FLOWING FULL 3� for eslbl cf"w •ol euMw.raed, e.w.oWe Mw by 1000 12 X 12 ew/bode described w it. deeips proced.re A .5 B00 10X10 100� .6 9X9 80 LU 600 F /•' 500 w 8X8 60 w U.. 4tLo 400 Z TX7 50 rn \Qa yp p y�( W 300 m 6X6 40 ? �� 0 �O J� U. _v w 30 XO �O� pp AN Z 200 a 5X5 N .20` W q;� O W a 4 X 4 .''tp �p0 Mp = 3 2 O z Z Q pp p" j 100 3.5X3.5 v 4 4 80/Z 10 ¢ oy wp0 5 W ,3X3 0 / 8 ypp 6 � 60 Q / 50 2.SX2.5 6 / �� x�ti►L[ H�LS 8 40 L�2 ——_ 10 SO* 2X2 q 30 W 120 20 Z o - z z s 10 8 6 5 HEAD FOR CONCRETE BOX CULVERTS FLOWING FULL AU OF PUBLIC ROADS JAM. 1963 n = 0.0I2 May 1989 3-22 A % F� 4 do CANNOT EXCEED D z 2 I CRITICAL DEPTH IAII I- - RECTA GULAR SECTION 0 0 10 11•B 20 30 40 50 60 Q/B 16 15 14 I � � 13 do CANNOT C E D 12 LL- Z 10 CR ITICAL' DEPTH 9 II RECTtkNGULAR SECTION 8 7 6 IN FT.' 6 I N C.F.S. 5 I d'= .315 4 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Q/B CRITICAL DEPTH BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS .AN. 1963 RECTANGULAR SECTION FIGURE 3-6.IM(2) May 1989 3 - 28 /Fs i.Sz f �r� i.ozr 1 14 6 Auv i� 6 tj/ /3 y 7�5jk(C) VA, J,J". vjp N. Ar S- Z•7z 0 / C - G L �}- 'iz - CL C�t �. v Z d c,�,/..,-,�._,e Fo�(�) Ass��E w�-��, s�,��,•c¢_ ar �t��� Cd� aF ; G = 3 . `d s /. OV3 . 775 l, GB1 `2cc. .883' /,997 ` 3 I. azS 2 . Y1a /.z_ i 3. OAL? Cs n-r_•-� v= Z cc. y (:1-7 S 3 . 35 !•Y s 3. 9 0 1. 38 3_ C z p� = z. `iS S f. S Zs� `f. ; ?� /.-7:2-i— /,'l7 s S', /a4 /.`r-7j s:9zo •.,S�:s 4� L S 6 L •s � -� '�� Leh •��� �� z� ss 8 sih L 4-s•L sf C_ /.)Z L �h8 " 9 JszZ z '17 �7- 8 ' f �G/I- z L � '� C89-7- £S4 ' Z � l PROJECT: S R /(-9 - N,AD I, w�� DESIGNER R/N DATE HYDROLOGIC AND CHANNEL INFORMATION SKETCH STATION: EL. 71,y 6 A H W = io.Gy al- Q, = 3�o —} --- — TW Q2 = 220 EL So= V•Oc2a-77 EL so, TW 1 _ L TW2 = ALLOWABLE OUTLET VELOCITY = HEADWATER COMPUTATION z INLET CONT. OULET CONTROL o OUTLET CULVERT TYPE Q SIZE 11w d`+D s COST COMMENTS D HW Ke dr 2 h,, H LSO HW o VELOCITY B G 36c> 7-2 /. 57 8,52 /3.8 8 �7 if 7 Q A �_ /f nf�Cc c,w d G¢c A 33c� /z /J, I 9 /y U a Z /.6z ��. c�i Pc It 5 ;,JsI-Awu t Al c� f}E 4:�r✓t r4;l -s I-Z- 6 �.r.L r.tnpCw•DJ SUMMERY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: . J 3-4.1 COncmtr Pipe (Inlet Control NomoKraptt) A 180 10,000 �f 168 - 8,000 EXAMPLE (2) (3) 156 D•42 Inches (3.5 toot) 6. 6,000 6 144 5,000 0•t20 cts 5. 4,000 mw s ttw 6• 5. 132 0 tact 3,000 (1) 2.5 6.8 5. 4. 120 4. (2) 2.1 7.4 2,000 108 (3) 2.2 7.7 40 3. 'D Is feet 3. 96 1,000 3. 800 84 -- 6002- �_. 500 / 1 3 6J 400 a 2. _ W 300 1.5 1.5 z N Z 60 U- 7 200 / 1.5 0 54 Q _. O t 48 0 100 Z / rr 80 _ Q v 42 v 60 a 1.0 1.0 o rn 50 W o HW SCALE ENTRANCE 10 40 D TYPE W W 9 36 30 .9 W (1) SOeara edge with < neadsrall 3 .9 33 p Q a= 0 20 (2) Woove and with W 30 hoodwall S .8 .8 (3) Groeso end •8 27 Projecting 10 24 8 .7 7 7- 6 To use scale (2) or (3) project 21 5 horizontally to scale (1),than 4 use straight Inclined line through D and 0 scales,or reran• at .6 3 Illustrated. 6 6 18 2 15 5 .5 t.0 5 12 HEADWATER DEPTH FOR HEADWATER SCALES 2a3 CONCRETE PIPE CULVERTS REVISED MAY1464 WITH INLET CONTROL BUREAU OF"LIC ROADS JAX I943 3-9 May 1989 I 2 I I 3.5' t 3'i I I do CANNOT EXCEED TOP OF PIPE 2 .0'DIA. I 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 t00 DISCHARGE-Q-CFS 6 8 5 ( 7 w w W W 7 I 6 v 8' (L 3 I do CANNOT EXCEED TOP OF PIPE _ wo 7 I 5 a w J � U2 DI A. Q 1— 0 100 200 300 4• 0 500 600 700 800 900 t000 v Ix DIS ARGE-Q-CFS I- U U 14 12 10 8 I I I I 6 do CANNOT EXCEED TOP OF PIPE 3' r 4 9'DIA. 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 DISCHARGE-O-CFS BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS JAN. 1964 CRITICAL DE PTH CIRCULAR PIPE FIGURE 3-6.1M(1) 3 - 27 Vav lgon i 3-5.1 Concrete Pipe(Outlet Control Nomorraph) 1 1 2000 MW -� ho .4 = W Slope Se, 1000 ` = SU6YERGED OUTLET CULVERT FLOWING FULL 5 � J 1- 800 120 For odllet crew not sub.orged.compute NW by •6 e4ethods described w ItN do"" procedure 600 108 .8 S00 96 aoo 84 1.0/ '30 `\� c X� 200 60 E/ �\\(,) 2 `+ W U3 U_54100 42 uw 4 -10 /_ 02 36 5Z- 60 W 33boo 5 0 ►- w 30 40 y00 T7_9'. 27 `I 10 30 24 �`\_. 20 21 18 izo Ip I5 z � vZ e = 1+ �G4- 2� n 40 5 u : '? HEAD FOR ,�P � CONCRETE PIPE CULVERTS -2 lg•$ FLOWING FULL BUREAU OF ►UOLIC ROd05 JAN. 1963 n = 0.0 12 T, g 3- 17 May 1989 � f \ _ r r PROJECT: S2 69 l-c- wh�cJ DESIGNER R►" DATE :s—A 4 9 oar A;k VJA'k- HYDROLOGIC AND CHANNEL INFORMATION � 7 7l. 33 7Lq SKETCH STATION: iqrct8gr Iys-2t-ic EL. -2L5`1 yY'2r 9o'L7 gxa� AHW _- J TW Qt Q2 = EL cs.s So=: 0.005-6 EL TW2 = ALLOWABLE OUTLET VELOCITY = L'� ✓ I HEADWATER COMPUTATION z INLET CONT. OULET CONTROL o CULVERT TYPE Q SIZE LIW — d +D OUTLET Z 5, D I-iW K �a d� 2 ho H LSO Hyy 8 VELOCITY COST COMMENTS gx`/ Bn�,�, .x /yam 8xY o,8zs ca. z z.sl 3,ZS y.9� o.8y o.7g Soy 5,93 ,a►� o,�� �.o G,v�l SUMMERY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: i Y 3-4.5 Box Culvert(Inlet Control Nomo%raM) t S v. rj- r `f , Ar CHART 8 "r 12 11 600 (1) (2) (3) 500 EXAMPLE 8 9 10 10 400 5'1 2' Box 0.75 ats 7 8 0/8 • 15 cfs/tt 7 8 5 9 300 Inlet !w Nw 6 7 D feet 5 (1) 1.75 3.5 5 6 8 200 (2) 1.90 3.8 q 5 (3) ED5 4.1 4 4 T 3 3 3 0 100 6 O � j` 80 2 w 3 2 W 0_ 60 5 to /►- LL 50 / = 1.5 W Z 40 / w 1.5 W = 1.5 \ U. O Ox o 20 W 1.0 m ���3 ( G•9�,�Z y Lo io' F- 3 W Angle of _ f- C7 10 Flora —► W .8 .9—--.9 W N W 8 Q '7 / LL 6 3 / O O O 5 HW WINGWALL W Q 4 7 T 2 p SCALE FLARE _ •6 (11 301 to 731 3 90•en4 IS• 6 .6 (3) o•(szleasions S 2 of aides) 5 .5 To sea scale (2)or(3) /roloct horizontally to scale(1).thee use straight Inclined line through •4 ( D snd 0 seats@,of reverse ea Illustrated. 8 .4 .4 .6 1 . L .30 .35 L .E5 HEADWATER DEPTH FOR BOX CULVERTS WITH INLET CONTROL {uREAU OIr"UO ROADS dAK 00 3 - 13 May 1989 r 1 5 4 do CANNOT EXCEED D 3 } Z_ . "+ I -- 2 CRITICAL DEPTH RECTANGULAR SECTION l 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 2 2 Q/B 16 15 14 13 d CANNOT CEO D 12 I I � 11 I I I ? 10 CRITICAL DEPTH 9 R!ECT NGULAR SECTION 8 1 IH 7 �-B B IN FT. 6 Q IN C.FS. 5 7dc= .315 A70B 4 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Q� s�A PUBLIC ��� 8— CRITICAL DEPTH RECTANGULAR SECTION FIGURE 3-6.IM(2) May 1989 3 - 28 3-5.6 Box Culvert(Outlet C—trol Nomograph) • tC I�G-';' 5000 ,11: �I P'N A 4000 3000 Mr 2000 —� he - Slog* So—• SUBMERGED OUTLET CULVERT FLOWING FULL For pullet cro— not wiuwsps�,mww/s Nr by 1000 12 X 12 methods described is ttheulssuyn procedureprocedureas A .S 800 10 X 10 100 W 9 X9 80 W Ci 600 F. U. 400 Z 7X7 50 a 1 X 40 H fig?Jti0 ° y/ yj /`� ��/!' � 300 0 6X6 Z •OJ �O �J� U. A 03 oOfui •• c z Z m 'L c^� 2 Q�SX.S— 107 J S a yo �°° c H 20 �� a ZU.0 4 X a z q°° ,Q i 3 = 100 O 3SX35 v �� °O bo0 4 N W ° 80 Z 10 5 3X3 0 // °O 6 8 60 -X / S O 2,5X2.5 6 w / =x�M►Lf— �� N:T.s 8 2 10 40 S%� e 2 X 2 f4 30 _ 120 20 Z e z z c 10 8 6 S HEAD FOR CONCRETE BOX CULVERTS FLOWING FULL Au Of PUBLIC ROADS JAIL t963 n = 0.012 May 1989 3 - 22 °'I. EXISTING GRADE, BOtTt ". PROPCSED TRAIL Bl�:"i.LE PEDESTRIAN 3 i W,•� �I _ ELCvA T(ON:71.5 -HANDRAIL 3 I Q C I J : I- EXISTING GRADE ON LEFT SIDE--: 63.88 n ELCv 67 O: �'1� -- : I \ FLOLO t� .. .... SLOPE .. .. \ 647 EXISTING GRADE ON RI�Hi , SIDE- _ --� - TOP CE UOSIDES604 e 0 624 59 1 59.9 : - - -. 1C7 1 2- +: 10T.. �. ... .. .... ... .. .. .. .. ... ..-.. L 580 58:$ cLrPE.t OF Si WPL TH TOP OF LEFT SIDE -----,_--.-- �572 . -. - Sc - 59 6 1I I 1 _ : 5E $ a - P JOItEXISTING 548 — X C METRC 2' i, �- _I ...:...... ..:/./ _..._ r. _.. 54.0.... SLOPE,:4.I4R.. .. . 55 6 .SLOPE. 1 I - 'SOB ,EXISTING CONCFLtE .i /. Jam' -�-- : �r -EXPANSION JOINT ---III J78 _..... ____..✓,...__ r ... .... ..... .... T.�_9„ ... .. .. ... ..... .. h`- .. .. .. .. ..t'.L.4FH Sim TYP. BEDDING Ah 1'kl JOIN : -TOP OF RIGHT SIDEWALL I :� L _ ... _ . E%P T POALI T . 7t+LNr l.. LONF 5- ..... rn ZCNE ZONE 4.._: L. TIGHT J(QEWA:.L 1►__."-. _._ �._. ..:Z...ONE_$. -_ LEFT SIDEWALL '. ........ ..... ... .... ... ........................... .. .... . ...... .. . ...... .. .... .. ... .. ..... .... ....... .. .. .. -18 -10 0 10 20 JO 40 50 60 70 80 90 1+00 1+10 1+20 1+30 SECTION THROUGH FISHWAY CENTERLINE SCALE. t-- 5•NUR:?. 1'. 5• VERT. LEFT SIDE'NALL RIGHT SIOE'NALL - B ,y4 0 t2'-�\ FINISHED GRADE FISHNAV BAP LIST-EFERFN-:iS ..... _ID•_ ..-... -.. ( II_ BAR ZO E ZONE :ONE ZONE /U14 E 80X CLVERT ! C LABEL 3 •6 %$4 5I PUN B-5 nI y, F 6 N♦ + Z ...1.. .. ... .. N 0 6 • A F55 F46 F54 F4 3 i -E$R169 ...4I. z%I A. Z I FW 1+46 A. p6 C F62 f65 f60 F6t f59 0 6-� / . ..: J c ... ..... INLET. SE '^ 6 f 3 6 .Z....... __...:. ..... ..... .STD P<;ANEB-6D....... >lo F64 I z F ' I c 2"CLR_. C: Y4 0 12• E.F. C #4 0 12-E.F.-\. (TYP.) ...: ......... ............. . ................ ....... ..... ..... fit ..... ..... F`6J91/4 O 1�TOP t 001.(F4 0-18 TO FW O•.ti; _-CL_ b FILLET 12 TOP!BO ( O 02 TO FO 0 ) ..:.........:... . .. ..�.. ..... .................. ..... .. . .. /' 0 1 _ 4:- �l - r(T • i T nr .n, I .. i 2• CLR. ��•µ ,•/ `F 'p 4'TOP T (1■o•W TO f4,:.U) :.. ..:. i I *INCREASE T11iCKNESS.OF STD:PLAN X 10 CCw KEY(TYP.) ...... ..... .. ) _ TOP'AND BOTTOM SL.AQ�fRC4t 6- tY _... ..:.. .TO.�•:'SEG SECTION.[w]. . : .. .. ..... .. 1•_p•� I �� •6 Tt,-o" NOTE: .. ...........:.........:...................:................. .. T WALL ZONES ARE IDENTIFIED AS FOLLOWS. FISHWA ZONE I - LEFT SIDEWALL FW 0-15 TO FW 0.00 ZONE 2 -LEFT SIDEWALL Fw 0+00 TO Fw 0+45 ZCNE 3 - RIGNI SICEwALL Fw 0-05 TO Fw 0+16 . ... ..........:.........:.........:.........:.... ... . i. .:...._.. .. .. c ZONE 4 - RIGHT SIDE ALL F'w 0+16 TO Fw 0.45 ..1+40 t+50 1.60 1.TO I+dO I+90 2.00 . "� ZONE 5 -BOTH SIDCwALjS FW 0+45 TO Fw 0.71 XcTICN_WOW�Ts►tw�r c�rltEa�T► - SECTION SCAT E: 1•. S MOIL l'. 6' 11(11L IA. WsNigtm State Fti1rI _ 5 Bl.il•.GT• _ DepuM'Mt of Transportation A _2 EJ._SlA- sYM ABOUT L V21�05 0 12' F`a e4 / O 11 ` RIPP.AP —'--- ----- op^Sy.ou_ �g0 "DIP Ri po 5'y5 02'-0' I - ` `n •16C Fn oc,7oo�0 0 oo OQoc o0p631b \\p/ �.(`�` ��`� vT_.- 6'FILLET. TYP. I CONSTR. JOINT. TYP. 1 ��r�y+•St�C :�.� �,; .s- '' /}�.�.r'00o p o00o d���� ,y5 O 2'-0* o0D o � y/ o p �00 O p \ o p a O 0 O x O o e o J� � o 0 o p moo o0 RiPRAF P I \ t p BEGIN FW 0+00 _0+59 i 1 `rS EXP. JOINT --- - _-_GONG APRON SY'h1. ABOUT EXP. JOINT. E FW 0�71 ' Sy3 O 12' MAX.-10 i O 7R 2234+68 64- Sl TERMINATE CHAIN-LINK FENCE AT FW 0+93.96 �\ I I � I ENDS OF FISHWAY BRIDGE HANDRAIL - :H EN-LINK FENCE Sp4 O 2'-0' CONSTR. JOINT I 0/2"X 10'CONT. (TYP.) KEY(TYP.) Il \ /F`I/61y5 -._ _. ' =i=� RAILING TYPE 2 TRAIL / 1=BRIDGE ' c F 17!MS RAILING TYPE 3 70KS MAY BE ' RAILING TYPE 3 --_..--__ LACED HORIZ. EXP.JOINT FW 1+0914 RCVIDE SUfFIC[ENT ROCK WALL OVER. TrP. -- -____-_.__- -------- - r(TYP WALLS ISOMETRIC VIEW SECTION CORNER BAR PLACEMENT RAluac SIDEWALK II EXISTING 42"0 METRO SS- # CURB ♦ �� MH SR 169 1467+37. 2 E0. SPA SYM. ABOUT E �m SPAN VARIES -_ Ft /5 O 10^ ^ , FF�yd F6 j5 O 5' IP7/N5 O 12"MAX. F4/t4 ! FW 1+H ii 1 �SR 169 05 O t'-8^ F1 /5 __._ ' I • -6'. a' CULVERT STD. PLAN 6"FILLET. TYP CONSTR. JOINT, TYP AT I li SR 169 f1_67_+J7= 3•�p5 O 1'-8'- do I / (EXCEPT THAT TOPiI �I I SLAB THICKNESSES FW I+46 -CURB SUM. ABOUT E-- ---— o / I ARE 8', NOT 6') I ' yA 9 i-� .i. CONSTR. JOINT. TYP. 11/2_% 10'CON T. KEY(TYP.) BOND BREAKER - - ---- - -- iy3 0 12'�^ STYROFOAM { FW 1+87 -1-'-- - - -'--- yt�r=yn INLET, SEE STD ' END Fw yy� PLAN B-60 •OJK6 MAY BE .._ I / _-- \'- �.F3 Y5 I'r I r,� ' �ArED 4r1piz TO - __ Y '-� _ I_ ♦- KOVIUE Sl;rFIC:LN• ' y.___ [XI STING METRO J `y. OVER, TYP. 42'SEWER PIPE SEE W7 PLAN VARIES FROM 6'-0" TO 8'_0' [TRANSITIONS FROM SCALE I'-10' r — --- 19' O FW 1+31 TO ISOMETRIC VIEW SECTION N--n W 1+41 (TYP.,FWALLS) CORNER BAR PLACEMENT 5_9NLL!%r TG+ _ 10 WA1.1 �® Washington State c7 J'�I rhn^-r+man} of Trancnr�.f..a:�n t; i L r s��ru : c�poTs S�-l�j ;Mp iLi Proposed: 312 ' Sight Distance Available for p } P Vehicle Right Turn onto SR 169 5,Tfleh,e-.t �)6 I " using Figure 910-15b Design Manual 2) Figure 920-2A Design Manual A 30 ' commercial road approach with centerline 30 ' minimum from property line required. Proposed: 30 ' Commercial Approach with centerline 15' from property line It is proposed to allow the nonstandard road approach to be relocated as shown on the plans for the following reasons : 1 . The road approach permit services an existing unclassified use permit for gravel mining. The property is no longer used for gravel mining. 2 . To provide the required 1030' of sight distance will require widening the new Cedar River Bridge 7 ' for a cost of approximately $114, 000. 3 . By adjusting the line of sight from the 18 ' offset from the fog line shown in Figure 910-15b of the Design Manual to 10 ' from the fog line, the line of sight increases to 1560 feet. Due to the limited use of the road approach and sight distance available before encroaching on the through lane, no operational problems are anticipated (see Appendix A for analysis) . Drainage A Hydraulics Report Type A has been submitted and approved for both projects, L-8607 and L-7228 . The Hydraulic Report for the section 140th to Maplewood, L-7228, has been supplemented to address Maplewood Creek from the existing 42" culvert crossing SR 169 to the 72" outfall to the Cedar River. The Hydraulic Report noted that the City of Renton had applied for a FEMA grant to replace the 72" culvert with an 84" diameter culvert to provide storm capacity. The City of Renton chose not to continue with their plans . The District, through coordination with the Department of Fisheries and the City of Renton, proposes to construct an additional culvert and fishway for Maplewood Creek. This new fishway will cross SR 169 at Sta. 1467+37 . The new culvert and fishway will become part of a future enhancement of Maplewood Creek by the City of Renton. The City will design and construct a low flow channel for fish habitat through the golf course to connect the culvert and fishway. - 9 - CHECKED K ZENTNER 12-92 21 r oan i cNr.R Tc HAMSTRA PE. ALIGNMENT AND CHANNELIZATION PLAiI �Z----��� I The existingMaplewood P Creek channel through the golf course will carry storm flows once the low flow channel is constructed. In consideration of the new fishway, the Department of Fisheries and the City of Renton have agreed to the proposed modification to the existing drainage course. AS noted in the Hydraulics Report, the existing 42" culvert crossing SR 169 will be replaced with a double 8 ' x 4 ' box culvert to be connected to the existing 72" culvert. The existing 72" diameter culvert will be modified to increase capacity by removing a portion of the adjustable weirs in the culvert. Removing all but one of the 4" x 4" timbers from the adjustable weirs along with the concrete weir supports will increase the storm capacity. Once the low flow channel through the golf course has been established by the City, the remaining timber and concrete weirs could be removed from the 72" culvert to provide additional storm capacity as required. The estimated cost for construction of the fishway is f $120, 000, including mobilization, sales tax, engineering, and contingencies . Non-Motorized Facilities Plans include an alignment for the Cedar River Trail within the right of way to be acquired from the abandoned railroad. King County and the City of Renton are the responsible agencies for the trail development. As noted in the letter of understanding with King County (Appendix A) , sections of the trail will be graded from the beginning of the project to 149th Avenue NE along with the SR 169 roadway. This will provide a subgrade for the trial where the SR 169 Roadway construction encroaches onto the existing railroad bed. King County will develop the future trail . From 149th Avenue SE to the end of the project, the City of Renton will participate in grading and paving the Cedar River Trail . This portion of the trail will be for pedestrian and bicycle use and link the Cedar River Park east of the golf course to the Cedar River Trail in the vicinity of SR 405. The City of Renton trail link will utilize the existing Cedar River Bridge 169/24 . The plan proposes to turn back the existing bridge and surplus right of way for exclusive trail use. The existing bridge will not serve as a local 10 - rrcn V 7FNTNFR 12-92 ��� T AtJfl CtdoNNELIZ �j0-bra DOrs Pep., AMENDME 5-�NT TO THE HYDRAULICS REPORT ?PI eW,P—t SR -161 MP 1 tvt- MP' Background Dec- (Q I Z� Atf-4, The hydraulics report was developed with the understanding that WSDOT would place a new culvert under SR 169 with the capacity to pass the 100-year storm (400 cfs) for Maplewood Creek. This culvert would connect to a new 84 inch diameter culvert installed by the City of Renton. The existing 72 inch diameter culvert was planned for removal and replacement by the City of Renton. The City of Renton was to use funds acquired from FEMA to cover the estimated cost ($1,000,000±) for construction of the new storm drain. The City of Renton, however, could not proceed with the planned culvert replacement project, after being unsuccessful in securing sufficient funding. The Department of Fisheries originally did not require culvert access for fish passage. Supplemental Information and Decisions 1. The Department of Fisheries has stated. the requirement for fish passage on Maplewood Creek. 2. The City of Renton will install a low flow bypass channel and a splitter structure. 3. The WSDOT SR 169 project will install two culvert crossings. a. Low flow - box culvert with fish ladder. Approx. station 1467+87. b. High flow - box culvert to tie to existing 72 inch diameter storm drain system. Approx. station 1457+00. The City of Renton will be responsible for the development of a flow splitting structure on the Maplewood Golf Course and also for a stream channel that is enhanced for fish use from the flow splitter through the golf course to the low flow box culvert. The flow splitter will allow the initial 15 cfs of flow into the low flow channel and then a portion of higher flows to a maximum of 40 cfs during the 100-year storm event. The WSDOT portion of the project will install the low flow channel culvert and fish ladder from SR 169 to the Cedar River. High flows will be routed from the splitter box through the golf course to the high flow box culvert. Renton will install and maintain the high flow bypass channel. WSDOT will install the high flow bypass box culvert crossing and transition structure which will connect to the existing 72 inch diameter storm drain system. The existing gravel and weirs in the 72 inch diameter system will be removed to improve hydraulic capacity. Hydraulic Analysis The hydraulic analysis including schematic plans and profiles for both the low flow and high flow culvert crossings are attached. Each of the culvert crossings is discussed more as follows: Low Flow System The low flow fish channel culvert was designed as a 6x3 box culvert as follows: 1. Design to maximum flow of 40 cfs. 2. Outfall within 50 feet of 72 inch diameter culvert outfall. 3. 6x3 culvert to pass over existing 42 inch Metro sewer line. M1vtlaLt169.doc 4. 6x3 culvert to be backwatered 0.4 feet and have a fish ladder to the Cedar River at elevation 50.8. 5. The fish ladder is to have a maximum grade of 10% with a maximum step of 12 inches. It is to be noted that the actual capacity of the 6x3 culvert is 71 cfs flowing full, and the actual design step is 0.8 feet at the maximum design grade of 10%. High Flow System The high flow bypass system consists of an 8x4 double box culvert, transition structure and 72 inch diameter culvert, designed as follows: 1. First the capacity of the 72 inch diameter culvert was checked to find its free flowing capacity without inlet or outlet restraints, assuming the baffles totally removed. Capacity was 418 cfs which will handle the 100-year storm event (360 cfs). 2. An improved inlet with 30' walls and bevel was used to transition the flows and reduce the headwater from the box culvert to the 72 inch diameter culvert inlet. 3. The 72 inch diameter culvert will be outlet controlled during coinciding 100-year storm events in both the Cedar River and Maplewood Creek Basins. This is unlikely due to the difference in size of basins which results in two different times of concentration. If the two peaks did coincide then the maximum flow that the 72 inch diameter culvert could pass is 330 cfs which is 92% of the 100- year storm event. The unit hydrograph for Maplewood Creek indicates that the time duration for exceeding 330 cfs flows is 2.2 hours. During this time, portions of the golf course would flood. There will also be localized overtopping of the roadway. This potential could be eliminated by diking the high flow channel and box culvert inlet to surcharge the system. Diking is not recommended, however, given the magnitude of events and the low potential for coincidental peak flows. - --- --- - -- _- --- --.._..- --- - -� - '- - --- - --- �^ --• ------- -- - _ - — _ ----� � —- � � ^--cam--- F� -- ... ._ Sid _. .._.. / Pr.Q a Tra.i� �1�u.71S — . ... ... �le - -- v. --- -- - - ---------- -- - --> Id ' I D ?dP 4 �£ ` I 6x3 Box Fiev. Gil O 100 YR. Flood / NN��FISNWAY Wt v _� . .. `I �4 Y----- Y-A` oh-- - 8 /10 �9 1aow N. . I Ir7 t 2� O 2, SCALE : •- - - -- • - �• - ��- _.�� ��� �.`r7 ~_ -}fib 71 r� - s--c T r - �- �� i)1 11%J3 17:11 Fat 2i 6 235 2.541 RENTON P-B-P4t' �Ui)1 CITY OF RENTON FAX ANSMITTAL Department of Planning/ Building/ Public Works 200 Mill Avenue South Renton,Washington 98055 - 2189 Date: l~l t'9 3 FAX: (206) 235-2541 To: INS Q0 i - S ,vD CGLav1=R FAX # y803 From: i C a rc y Phone # SUBJECT: SR L�� ts��w0.y �afr,u�G�r , Fvr C� ue—e Number of pages ( not including cover sheet) 1 reviewed your calculations sent on 1-7-93 and have the following comments: 1. The equation for a V-notch weir show in the King County Surface Water Design Manual appears to be wrong. See the enclosed pages from the"Standard Handbook For Civil Engineers" by Merritt. 1 think the problem should be analyzed as a submerged weir, due to the water level in the fish ladder at peak flow and the relative elevations of the weirs. 2. For peak flow design I feel that the available head at the tailwater can not be higher than the top of the culvert. The inlet elevation of the culvert is given as 62.4, plus the 3 foot culvert height, equaling a water elevation of 65.4 at the culvert inlet. Based on the topographic map for the golf course the ground elevations in the area may range from 66 to 67. The low flow channel on the golf course will be designed with a 1-foot freeboard. Therefore, we can not allow the water level to exceed 65.4. The section of channel just north of the culvert will be at a very small slope ( approximately 0.20 to 0.35 percent for a distance of 500 feet ). The flow in this section will be slow and we need to protect the golf course from overflow during peak flow events. Please revise your calculations in consideration of these factors. You and the DOT may need to discuss the culvert and weir design with Fisheries to obtain a workable solution. At this point I am using a peak flow of 55 cfs for the low flow fish channel. This could be reduced if Fisheries would agree that a lower flow would be adequate and would be approved by them. Give me a call if you have any questions_ 01.111,93 17:14 FAX 206 235 2541 RENTON P-B/PW tfl005 21-74 WATER ENGINEERING where Q = it C - - L uaT:3 uRfaGf. / - The hey ?— = ` velocity he { coefficient: �--- t ...,,,..,,, ,.......,,,.,.,,, (I Thus, for s Fig. 21-63. Trapezoidal Sharp-crestcd weir, Fig. 21-64. Submerged sharp-crested weir. 1 where Q = discharge, ft'/s L length of notch at bottom, ft where H H = head, measured from notch bottom, ft V = Z = b/11 (substituted for tan (0/2) in Eq. (21-118)] j.=/2g - b = half the difference between lengths of notch a, top and bottom, ft No data are available for determination of coefficients C, and C3. They must be determined g = experimentally for each installation. Since v unknown, 21-43. Submerged Sharp-Crested Weirs First, com � using this The discharge over a submerged sharp-crested weir(Fig. 21-64) is affected not only by the head From this oil the upstream side Hi but by the head downstream HZ. Discharge also is inRuenccd to some sufficientl-, extent by the height P of the weir crest above the floor of the channel. starting w The discharge Qs,fills,for a submerged weir is related to the free or unsubmerged discharge The dig Q, fills, for that weir by a function of H2/H1. Villemonte expressed this relationship by the a weir of l equation made to d, n , ., R 03R5 C tween H h ' = l 1 _ ( be J (21.120) f shapes in Q L `H''� J change in where n is the exponent of H in the equation for free discharge for the shape of weir used. (The nappe and value of n is 3,4 for a rectangular sharp-crested weir and ;4 for a triangular weir.) To use the appear wi Villemonte equation, first compute the rate of flow Q for the weir when not submerged, and ing head. then, using this rate and the required depths,solve for the submerged discharge Q,- (J. R. Vil- ensure the lemonte, "Submerged-Weir Discharge Studies," Engineering News-Record, Dec. 25, 1947, p. W. King, 866.) Large Equation (21-120) may be used to compute the discharge for a submerged sharp-crested I roadway. wcir of any shape simply by changing the value of n. The maximum deviation from the Ville- ual width: monte equation for all test results was found to be 5%. Where great accuracy is essential, it is for a wcir recommended that the wcir be tested in a laboratory under conditions comparable with those I at its point of intended use. where L 21-44. Weirs Not Sharp-Crested L' - N = These are sturdy, heavily constructed devices, normally an integral part of hydraulic projects K (Fig. 21-60). Typically, a weir not sharp-crested appears as the crest section for an overflow Ka dam or the entrance section for a spillway or channel. Such a weir can be used for discharge H, measurement, but its purpose is normally one of control and regulation, (U.S. Del The discharge over a weir not sharp-crested is given by ington, D Q = CLH'I' (21-121) The p 1S 2, RENTON P%B;Ptv tg!uu-t 01-'11:93 17:13 FAX 06 5�1 TRAPEZOIDAL SHARP-CRESTED WEIRS 21-73 V�1 the weii, thus causing a contraction of the flow. The nappe continues to contract as tt passes over the crest, so below the crest, the napp e has a minimum width less than the crest length. The effective length L, ft. of a contracted-width weir is given by (2I-1 17) I' L = L' — 0.1 NH length of crest, ft �? where 1_ measured lcnp S i! N = number of end contractions E H = measured head, ft = 2. If If ilo%v contraction occurs at both ends of but not the other, there is eonQnc`endleonua tian and , the weir crest extends to ore channelt1i, Such a I' N = 1, The effective crest length of a full-width weir is taken as its measured leng F, weir is said to have its contractions suppressed. �I 21-41. Triangular or V-Notch Sharp-Crested Weirs ular shar ' Thr ti iangular or V-notch weir (Fig. 21-61) has a distinct advantage over a rectangular p- crested weir (l1rt. 210) when low discharges arc to be measured. Flow over a V-notch weir ;tarts at a paint, and both discharge and width of flow increase as a function of depth.This has IIII the effect of spreading out the low•dischargc 29 end of the depth-discharge curve and therefore allows more accurate determination of dis- 2.6 T--jL�i %N OCS aREE I AI charge in this region. i 'O Discharge is given by 2.7 r— 200I 'i' Q C,xs�= tan (21-1 18) 2.5 where - angle 2.5 --t--•- '`t'1 notch ` I I 1 `'I'• H = measured head, ft Ci = discharge coefficient 24 E 0.e , The head Ir is measured from the notch eleva- 0.2 0.4 r F. I,II Lion to the water-surface elevation at a distance 2,5H upstream from the weir, Values of the dis- Fig- 21-62. Chart gives discharge coefftcicnts experimentally � charge coefficient were derived cxp Y for sharp-creStCd W-notch weirs. The coefficients 'I'I'. by Lenz,who developed a procedure for inciud- depend on head and notch angle. yl ing the effect of viscosity and surface tension as -viscosity and Surface well as the effect of contracti on and velocity of approach (A- Lenz, Y � " Transactions of the American Society of Civil lip Tension Effects on V-Notch Weir Coctlicients, resented the data in Engineers, vo1. 69, 1943). His values were summarized by K} teri Handbook of Hydraulics," I ' The form of curves (Fig. 21-62) (E. F. Brater and H- g McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York). it to spring iC; ; A V-notch weir tends to fo even the smallest flows. Thiscfocus the lntrate Orharacter sng �tic prevents a chancgT li',o III' clear of the downstream face of the in the head-discharge relationship at low flows and adds materially to the reliability 21-42. Trapezoidal Sharp-Crested Weirs Fi 21-63) is assumed the same as that from a rectan- 'I The discharge from a trapezoidal weir( g• gular weir and a triangular weir in combination. (21 119) Q = C,LH'I' + C3ZHS�Z ICI 01 11,193 1 i:13 FAX 206 235 2541 RENTON P/B,'PIV L6 003 $ �AN111�� HAND lio�Y4rL 21-72 WATER ENGINEERING i the i� ii 21_4Q, Sharp-Crested Weirs over Article 21 39 classifies weirs as sharp-crested or not sharp-crested. Disch.i�gc over a rectangular n sharp-crested weir is given by Q CLNlJ, (21-1 15) wh< r. where Q dischargc, ft'/s discharge coefficient if f L - effcctivc length of crest, ft the 14 � measured head = depth of flow above elevation of crest, ft h measured at least 2.5H upstream from the weir, to be bey The head should beo�id the drop in we the water surface (surface contraction) near the weir. the discharge coefficient C. One such Numerous equations havc been developed for finding h vas developed by Rchbock and equation,which applies only when the nappc is fully ventilated. P 2 simplified by Chow; T ti C = 3.27 + 0.40 c, p (21-116} sl 21-59) (V. T. Chow, "Open- _ ti where F is the height of the weir above the channel bNteo�mYo�k) e Channel Hydraulics," McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1 suppressed. Equation (21- The height of weir P must be at least 2.5H for a complete crest contraction to form. if P is Less than 2_ N,the crest contraction is reduced iai�n of the nappe, unequaPvelocities in the chan- 116) corrects for the effects of friction, ion and includes a correction for nel of approach, and partial suppression of the crest contract the velocity of approach and the associated velocity head. e sub a e must have its lower surfac to full atmospheric To be fully ventilated, a n pP pressure.A partial vacuumbelow,�i aj phc lades oflttherwe.r}.rThis vlack of ventilation on cause jet if there is restricted ventilation The resulting unsteady increased discharge and a fluctuation and shape change of the nappe. condition is very objectionable when the weir is used as a meaace of a suring device.At verir even we y low had n the nappe has a tendency to adhere to the downstream (under such tconditio s angularecould not be 1; ,Weans for ventilation are provided. A we operating i; expected to have the same relationship bet ehead dof�flow e as would a fully ventilated at very low heads if accuracy nappe. A V-notch weir should be used f Measurement of measurement is required. oach End contractions occur when the weir topeni g coward he center ofoes not extend the ull titan the pasar over channel. Water flowing near the walls m { i �A 1 1 � HATER SAFACE VATER 15URFAC } SECTION A-A i, dig. 21-61- V-notch weir. t 01,'11/93 1 i:12 FAX 206 235 2541 RENTON P/B/Pw 002 E WErR CHPACI7 � z •3 Coax •_V�VI_ / tA NOS coo tr 7 rNN rnn CC , -fly Ltf� 4 n e SStc a( tius� w C< r[4 - / TYY �� roX�•+'r �� G Ovt ✓[/ �iH'✓ �r i G r D s.!-11. E+iWri V- ND 4 �+�r'tj� �e Sc m� � Jh7' .mod w e.t<< ( Gros)-_r < h a - Arcs � tu71'Ar�� 19 !�i S C f ► fan Ta�+ « — 2.5 z.s oc 3 S5. 2 Lf .35. 2 c,f� AJiur1" For SL�v$ler).e Loam 1Sa Nn��j)` .9 f �+)�'}��. aGo,A- 4; {irr"� cvCi� a„d S-CcGv,� - C62. 6* WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES HABITAT MANAGEMENT DIVISION Post Office Box 43155 Olympia, Washington 98504-3155 1111 Washington Fax Phone: (206) 902-2946 FAX COMPLETED: pate: - „� Initial : Project #: FACISIMILE NUMBER CALLEDt (AREA CODE / NUMBER) TO: 6lo ue,r ; II. FROM: SUBJECT y�✓`� �hs�/lam �i� •c G��'�e�/n�; - ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONSIINFORMATION: TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES FAXED 7 (INCLUDING COVER PAGE) IF MATERIAL IS UNREADABLE OR INCOMPLETE, PLEASE CALL (206) r FISH PROTECTION GUIDELINES; CULVERT INSTALLATIONS �ntrodjlctlion This report presents guidelines for use by designers and resource managers to assure juvenile and adult salmonid (trout and salmon) fish passage, as required, at new culvert installations . Guidelines for special struttutes such as fishways and xtteambed controls are not included . In general , these special structures ' sre not considered satisfactory for fish passage at road crossings except in extraordinary circumstances . hIlthor i ty The authority of the Washington Department, of Fisheries (WDF) and Washington Department of Wildlife (WDW) in this regard is the Hydraulic Law RCW 75 . 20 .100 which requires that a Hydraulic project Approval (HPA) be obtained from these agencies for work within the ordinary high water line of -streams . In addition, -if a culvert is a fish obstruction, RCW 75 . 20 .060 requires that fish passage be provided with a fishway or, that the obstruction be removed . Maintaining free upstream passage for migrating aalmonids at culvert sites is essential . The success or failure of a fish -migrating through a culvert depends upon the swimming ability of the fish, the hydraulic conditions at the site, and proper maintenance of the culvert (e •g • debris removal ) . An Interruption or delay by any obstruction in the upstream migration of adult salmonids can adversely affect the spawning success by depleting the fish ' s limited energy budget before the fish reaches an acceptable spawning area. This can result in spawning in marginal spawning areas or loss of spawning ability and increasing the possibility of injury, disease or predation. A complete obstruction will result in a full loss of production from the habitat upstream of that point . In many areas, necessary juvenile upstream migration occurs as a response to watex conditions, predation, and population pressures . Juvenile migration and redistribution is a means for increased survival and full stream production. An obstruction to juvenile fish migration may result in a limit to production both upstream and downstream from the barrier . Design guidelines for areas requiring upstream juvenile - migration are very restrictive due to the size and limited swimming ability those fish . culvert Installation Guidelines; Aprll. 12, 1990 . Excessive water velocity, inadequate water depth, excessive vertical drop at the culvert outfall, and dQbria blockages are the most frequent causes of fish passage problems at. culverts . Consideration of these fsc�oz$thefor =ishchnving the fish msatssge must includ+� design provision restrictive swimming ability rather than �ustthe eztr llgoccur in swimmer . otherwise, undesirable g selection favor of the strongest fish • ulv e zis 12pQic7 CLll?- . Table l presents the hydraulic criteria for the design of culverts for the passage of salmon and steelhead . Satisfaction vert of these criteria is criterial to are basedvon numerous of the uliterature , installation . Thesese references of which the most TheSescriterianarerthenlimits of athletic ain the ttached bibliography• ability for the weakest build°�nto each a stxucturetdesigned it nbysthese fety factor for fish passage criteria . in a natQf��nSexceedeam ctheselcriterla the eraThe flow divexaity of characteristic may natural channel beds and tb$r�ndivelocities however and Provide briefpaths of access with suitable d p exposure to excessiVe c0no; suchs telatively smooth e on diversity and thcaverageflow the other hand, provide characteristics within the culvert approach the maximum. OE Baffles within culverts are ate acceptableeonly ifmallsother providing f.ish' passage andd options are deemed unfeasibb� less structures with by hfoundations • fisheries agencies . Full bridging, btomless and supports placed beyond the margin of the channel are sure against fish passage problems . In important preferred to ennot allowe spawning areas, culvezto are the fisheriesnagencies, for full be ,made , to the satisfaction of replacement of habitat disrupted or lost. it is recogni%ed that fish passage through culverts as well as through many natural able�'hydraulic cannot pdesignaofy be culvertsided at includes all discharges . Acceptable selection of appzoPr a design y hfloWddraulicrom wanalysis .flThe low characteristics can be deribtohde th o£ flow, should be the flow design flow, to be appliedp two-year seven-day low flow discharge for the subject basin or 35 percent exceedance flow for migration months of the fish species of concern- When' sufficient data is available, the thhigh f loQw. that design discharge , to determine velocity, should beis not exceeded more than la$ � the time be approximates the °byhs of adult migration «,.,,c) - That low can + 36 Culvert Installation Guidelines; April 12, 1990 • r for cases where the two-year flood event is greater than 44 cfs . p= is the two-year flood event in cubic feet per second . For Cases where Q= is less than 44 cfs, the design flow can be approximated as equalling the two-year flood event (Bates, i9B8 ) . Appropriate statistical or hydrologic methods must be applied for the determination of these flows . These methods, as well as 'the methods of calculating the resulting hydraulic characteristics, Should be documented within the NPA application. An acceptable alternative to the hydrologic and hydraulic analysis is described in the following section. These flow event Criteria may be modified for specific proposals as necessary for unusual fish passage requirements or where other mutually agreed upon methods of empirical or hydrologic analysis are used or where special facilities are deemed adequate by the fisheries agencies . Culvert size (diameter or equivalent ) and Slope must consider and accommodate Juvenile and/or adult fish passage . At any given flow, hydraulic characteristics within a culvert are most sensitive to the variables of size and slope . Acceptable hydraulic character^stics (depth, velocity) and the design flows from which they are derived are presented in Table 1 . The velocity criteria for juvenile salmonids is based on the assumption that, for culverts up to 60 feet in length, roughness within the culvert will provide a passable migration path along flow boundaries, where the velocity will be less than the 4 .0 fps average flow velocity required by Table I . By limiting the design flow velocity to 4 . 0 fps, bed material can be expected to deposit in the culvert to provide that roughness . Also, juvenile salmonid passage occurs typically when flows are much less than the two-year flood frequency flow design suggested by Table 1 . A hydrologic analysis may not be warranted for very small streams . An acceptable alternative to the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses descrwbth abdiametero ( orss8an a act uleast,asn level grade ( 0% slope ) , P ) large as the characteristic toe width of the stream channel . The toe width is the horizontal distance between the points where the banks and streambed join. The width of gravel bars, if present, are included . Consideration must, of course, also be given to flood capacity and debris and bed load passage . No culvert should be designed to be structurally jeopardized at flows less than a 100--year flood. Culvert installation Guidelines; April 12, 1990 . IHU U! lll: . DE HI -'`. 1 '-tcr-1t'_. I.EL t L: kii:=t F05 . _ Debris hacks are not an acceptable alternative to passage of debris through the culvert . placement of multiple parallel culverts is not desirable due to increased potential of blockage by debris . culverts must be placed below the natural channel grade (countersunk ) by a minimum 20 percent of the culvert diameter or rise . The natural channel grade is defined as the profile connecting the low flow hydraulic controls in the natural channel . Culvert capacity for flood design flow must be . determined by using the remaining capacity of the culvert . The culvert assuming criteria bedpresented material is retained can withinapplied to the cult/ structure . In the case of culverts proposed for channels with gradients that, if applied to the culvert, would cause a water velocity greater than that acceptable for fish passage, the upstream end . of the culvert may be further countersunk . Approval of either option must be on a site-specific basis . Generally, an additional countersink of 1 . 0 foot at the upstream end is acceptable for culverts in channels with gradients up to 3 .0 percent. A bridge may be required in more severe cases . ationji To design a culvert solely by the criteria presented here ignores the presence or potential of on-going or eventual changes in dimensions or characteristics of the stream channel . Natural changes related to the continual evolution of the basin and channel are always Present . Such changes may be accelerated or reversed by basin land use changes or by influences of Structural changes or development within a particular reach of channel . Such changes must be accounted for in the design of any effective hydraulic structure within a natural stream corridor . This is especially important in the case of culverts, since the athletic limitations of fish are more restrictive and often prevail a$ a limiting design factor over corresponding structural and hydraulic constraints . Fish pazsag nd1change . Any 'licits6 evolutionn afish pasaageaimprovements should a initially be located at the downstream end of the scour pool Mt the discharge of the culvert . For this reason, an area extending at least 30 feet downstream of the culvert should be included culvert Installation Guidelines; April 12, 1990 • vithin the right-of-way or under control of the owner of the road crossing . A scour pool may develop at the culvert outlet due to poor energy dissipation through, the culvert . The scour pool is Important to the protection of the downstream channel . in a bedrock or non- erodible channel, the pool may not Scour by itself . In that case, it should be constructed; a pool 3 feet deep by 20 feet long' fa recommended . Culvert Installation Guidelines; April 12, 1990 . Table I. Fish Desi nq__Criterl a oz v+ert ,nst-a l_a_jon 3/ Trout Pink ChinooAdult Adult k, �� criteria Sa�iz�an �e5' , end . <G in. (1566n) >6 i-n. (150m� 1. e oci , Ps _ CL,Ivert length (ft) �,p 4.a 5.0 6_0 a. 10 -- 60 '10 Not allaw� V 3.0 `t'0 5.0 4.0 b_ 60 -- loa 3.0 �•Q C. 100 -- 200 3.0 2.0 3.0 d. >200 2. Depth, yii.nim" (ft) 41 0.3 0.9 0.8 3..0 -migration to -� rea i J._ mile salmonid z#ge is.regL i c z �a mYmthe resource agency s field habitat ooczs s Is a site--sue IL stated 2. .Hi dgsign flow four velocity shall be two frec��r�cy flood flaw uril.ess spe�.afi�lly' otherwise. failure exists for Juvenile sal ids• 3. For culvertslorx}er than 6fl feet, an excessive risk of pa. e stated othexwise• �`las�r for depth shall be t�-y�r� s�Y 1cx+ flaw unless specifically. siderations do not apply wiU-Jjb structures w -th nectural beds r Washington State District 1 Department of Transportation '_ D—,,`C, '.e,;e�,Jor,�i PO Sc' ; C3 Duane Berentson Sea, iA 33_1)71,0 Sec,etary of Transpora:er April 7, 1993 Ken Bates Washington State Department of Fisheries 1111 Washington Street SE Olympia, WA 98504-3155 SR 169: 196th to Maplewood Golf Course Dear Ken: Please refer to our earlier conversation during which we discussed the operation and maintainance of the fishway and ladder associated with the proposed low-flow channel of Maplewood Creek. During that conversation, you stressed that a commitment by either WSDOT or the City of Renton was necessary in order to receive approval of an ETA for this project. I am forwarding a copy of a letter to the City of Renton, dated April 7, 1993, which commits to operating and maintaining the fishway and ladder. Hopefully, this resolves the last of the issues associated with the HPA for this project. Should you require further information or are aware of any unresolved issues, please call me at 440-4312. Sincerely, THOMAS C. HAMSTRA, P.E. Project Engineer TH/th cc: Fisher - WSDOF 412 348 Larry PROJECT DEVELOPMENT W. Carter / J. L. Lutz - MS 110 DATE: 4- -?-a3 R. Nichols / D. Hagglund - MS 138 T.Paananen - MS 121 P.E. T. Lentz - MS 119 '` A.P.E. J. Olson - MS 44 TEAM 1 x TEAM 2 TEAM 3 169mw\fish l.doc �+', Washington State District 1 Department of Transportation 10- c Da,r 3 a,erne Nor1n �o ���33c31 Duane Berentson Sea:re aV.4J3r33-0710 Secretary of Trarspocancr �206)-140--''000 April 7, 1993 Gregg Zimmerman, P.E. Utility Systems Director City of Renton Public Works Department 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 SR 169 196th SE/Jones Rd to 140th Additional lanes - OL8607 140th Place SE to Maplewood Golf Course - OL7228 Dear Mr. Zimmerman: Please refer to your letter dated January 29, 1993 regarding the low-flow fish channel and ladder as well as my previous letter dated January 13, 1993. The Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has reconsidered our previous position regarding maintenance of the fish ladder associated with the future Maplewood Creek low-flow channel. We will operate and maintain the fishway and ladder within WSDOT right of way. Should you have any further questions regarding this, please contact me at 440-4312. Sincerely, THOMAS C. HAMSTRA, P.E. Project Engineer TH/th cc: Ken Bates - WSDOF - MS 3155 Larry Fisher - WSDOF W. Carter / J. L. Lutz - MS 110 R. Nichols / D. Hagglund - MS 138 T.Paananen - MS 121 412 348 T. Lentz - MS 119 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT J. Olson - MS 44 DATE: -7-ti 3 P.E. A.P.E. TEAM i TEAM 2 TEAM 3 FILE: CITY OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann,Administrator 412 348 PROJECT DEVELORI ENT P . A.P.E. January 29, 1993 TEAh11 TE.W 2 Thomas Hamstra, Project Engineer TEAM 3 Washington State Department of Transportation - District 1 N ` P.O. Box 330310 4f1LE•: Seattle, WA 98133-9710 SUBJECT: SR 169 - FISH LADDER FOR LOW FLOW FISH CHANNEL Dear Mr. Hamstra: The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has proposed to construct a culvert and fish ladder under SR 169 as mitigation to allow the fish baffles to be removed from the existing 72-inch pipe, which carries flow from Maplewood Creek to the Cedar River. The City of Renton has indicated that it will support the construction of a fish passage channel through the Maplewood Golf Course to connect to the proposed fish ladder and culvert provided that WSDOT constructs the fish ladder and culvert, and will maintain and operate the facility. The existing 72-inch pipe does not have the capacity to convey the peak flow from the 100-year, 24-hour storm with the fish baffles in place. If WSDOT does not construct the culvert and associated fish ladder facility the existing 72" pipe would have to be upsized such that it can convey the 100-year, 24-hour storm, and provide fish passage as required by the Department of Fisheries. The City is not willing to accept the future maintenance and repair responsibility for any part of the culvert and fish ladder south of the Maplewood Golf Course property line. The construction of the culvert and fish ladder is a mitigation project sponsored by WSDOT for its benefit so the existing 72" drainage system does not have to be upsized and associated baffles can be removed. The City is not required to construct the fish passage channel. The WSDOT culvert and fish ladder is not necessary for the proper functioning of City facilities. However, we support the project because of its benefits to fisheries resources. The City of Renton recommends that WSDOT accept the City's January 7, 1993 letter with the specified conditions and limitations. If WSDOT is unwilling to accept the responsibility of maintaining and operating the fish ladder and culvert crossing from the Cedar River to the north right-of-way line of SR-169, then the City of Renton will abandon its support to construct the proposed fish passage channel across the Maplewood Golf Course. WSDOT should then proceed with plans to upsize the existing 72" drainage system such that WSDOT can demonstrate to the City of 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 'Thomas Hamstra, Washington State Department of Transportation SR-169 - Fish Ladder for Low Flow Fish Channel Page 2 Renton that the upsized facility can convey the peak flow from the 100-year, 24-hour storm. The City of Renton is hopeful that WSDOT will accept responsibility for the maintenance and operation of the fish ladder and culvert under SR-169 since the facility will benefit the WSDOT's SR-169 widening project by mitigating the project's environmental impacts to fisheries resources. If you have any questions regarding this subject, or would like to arrange a meeting to resolve this issue, please contact Ron Straka, Surface Water Utility Supervisor at (206) 277-5548. Sincerely, Gregg Zimmerman, P.E. Utility Systems Director C:DO CS:93-067:GAZ:DWC:ps CC: Ron Straka David Jennings Bill Hutsinpiller Ken Bates January 13, 1993 Gregg Zimmerman, P.E. Utility Systems Director City of Renton Public Works Department 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 SR 169 196th SE/Jones Rd to 140th Additional lanes - OL8607 140th Place SE to Maplewood Golf Course - OL7228 Dear Mr. Zimmerman: Thank you for providing us your letter dated January 7, 1993 concerning the Maplewood Creek low-flow fish channel. This letter should be sufficient evidence to the Deparment of Fisheries concerning the intent of the City of Renton. We wish to provide further clarification regarding the statement (No. 6) in the letter which states that WSDOT must operate, maintain and repair the fish ladder and culvert. This statement is in conflict with RCW 47.24.020 (copy attached), which covers the jurisdiction and control of city streets and underground facilities. This section of the RCW is specific in stating that cities are responsible for maintainence beyond the curbs (Section (2)) and for the maintainence of underground facilities in streets (Section (3)). Should you have any further questions regarding this, please contact me at 440-4312. Sincerely, THOMAS C. HAMSTRA, P.E. Project Engineer TH/th cc: R.D. Aye/ J. L. Lutz r r " CITY OF RENTON RPlanning/Building/Public Works Department Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann,Administrator 412 348 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT DATE: -l2-93 P.E. January 7, 1993 A.P.E. TEAM 1 Thomas Hamstra, Project Engineer k TEAM 2 Washington State Dept. of Transportation - District 1 TEAM 3 P.O. Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 SUBJECT: MAPLEWOOD CREEK FISH PASSAGE CHANNEL Dear Mr. Hamstra: We are providing this letter to indicate the City's support for the Maplewood Creek low flow fish passage channel through the Maplewood Golf Course. Since the beginning of our discussions, the City has supported the idea of establishing a low flow channel that would allow salmon to migrate from the Cedar River, through the golf course, and into the Maplewood Creek canyon. Upstream migration of salmon into the Maplewood Creek Canyon is impeded by the existing culvert under SR 169, the golf course sedimentation pond, and the remnants of an old water supply dam in the canyon. The construction of the fish passage channel depends on several preceding conditions, and the availability of future funding. The City will pursue the project to the extent that funding is available and is approved by the City Council. Currently, the following steps and considerations need to be satisfied for the City to reach the design and construction stage for the low flow fish passage channel: 1 . The City has applied for a FEMA grant to provide matching funds for reconstructing the existing sedimentation basin at the golf course. The control structures needed for the low flow channel would be incorporated into that project, and the old water supply dam in the canyon would be removed. The City's application was selected by the State Department of Community Development for recommendation to FEMA, and is currently undergoing federal review. 2. The City has allocated FEMA matching funds in the 1993 budget for the design of the sedimentation basin. The funds can be expended provided that the City receives the FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant. If the funding is not received the project schedule would be delayed, and the project scope could be reduced. 3. The City Council will need to approve funds for construction of the fish passage channel across the golf course. Council approval will depend on successfully completing the first two steps. The Surface Water Utility Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget has identified future funding for projects in 1993 through 1995 and is subject to Council approval (see attached CIP worksheet). The 1993 CIP budget has been approved by Council. 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 4. As discussed at the October 12,1992 meeting, the City could not construct the low flow channel if the Department of Fisheries places excessive design requirements on the low flow channel design. The primary purpose of the channel will be to allow fish migration into the Maplewood Creek canyon. A secondary consideration will be to provide limited habitat on the golf course, where the space is available. 5. The City of Renton Parks Department has had its golf course architect examine the preliminary alignment and conceptual plans for the low flow channel, and has determined that the channel can be accommodated in the golf course expansion plans. However, the design of the fish passage channel must be balanced with the needs of the golf course. 6. The City will commit to construct the low flow fish passage channel if the WSDOT constructs a fish ladder and culvert from the Cedar River, under SR 169, to the Maplewood Golf Course at no cost to the City of Renton. The WSDOT must also assume responsibility for the inspection, operation, maintenance, and repair of the fish ladder and culvert crossing from the Cedar River to the southern property boundary of the golf course. The City will assume inspection, operation, maintenance, and repair responsibility of the fish passage channel from the southern boundary of the golf course north, to the proposed sedimentation basin. 7. The DOT and Department of Fisheries must commit to removing the baffles in the existing 72-inch culvert that conveys the flow from Maplewood Creek to the Cedar River. The draft Maplewood Basin Study shows that the full capacity of the culvert will be needed as development in the basin proceeds. If the baffles remain in place the culvert capacity would be less than the predicted peak runoff rate from the 100-year, 24-hour storm, and flooding on the golf course could result. We hope this letter is sufficient to allow your project to proceed. We support the development of the low flow fish passage channel and will continue to work for it's construction. The expenditure of City funds on the project is subject to City Council approval. We have identified this project in the Surface Water Utility's 6-year CIP and will seek Council approval of funding for the project in future years. Sincerely, Gregg Zimmerman, P.E. Utility Systems Director William Hutsinpiller - Recreation Services Manager 93-015:DWC:ps CC: Ron Straka David Jennings .n 'TAT;.. Robert Turner � �- Acting Director b m 0 �y�IAA9�Y STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES 115 General Administration Building, M.S. AX-11 • Olympia, Washington 98504 • (206) 753-6600 • (SCAN) 234-66(x) October 5, 1992 412 348 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT DATE: tit)- tz-n P.E. Thomas C. Hamstra A.P.E. District 1 TEAM 1 Washington Department of Transportation TEAM Post Office Box 330310 TEAM 3 Seattle, Washington 98133-9710 Dear M a: ati,� FRE: Thank you for the opportunity to review the preliminary drawing of the fish passage culvert under State Route 169. The following comments were given to you verbally on September 22 . The system is comprised of a box culvert at the upper end to pass over an existing sewer main. The culvert discharges to a fishway that is buried in the road fill. The fishway discharges directly to the Cedar River. The 4 x 3 foot culvert gives minimal flow area at the design flow. I suggest that it be widened to 5 or 6 feet. This must be done, however, without raising the elevation of the floor or decreasing the height of the culvert. It is more important to maintain as low an elevation as possible than to widen the culvert. Is the downstream invert elevation of 62 . 41 an absolute minimum? I request special design consideration if necessary to eliminate clearance required between it and the 42-inch sewer to minimize the culvert elevation. A curb will be required at the downstream end of the culvert to backwater it for fish passage. I request that the culvert be placed on nearly a flat grade. The objective is to maintain an average velocity within the culvert of 5. 0 fps during a culvert flow of 40 cfs. The flat grade should not change the capacity of the culvert in this short a distance. The lower end of the culvert should have a 45 degree flare transition to the 8-foot width of the fishway. The maximum fishway slope should be 10 percent, as shown in my previous sketch. With the elevations provided, a fishway length of 120 feet is necessary. I recommend the culvert be at right angles to the highway and the fishway have a skew of 30 degrees to provide the extra length. Weirs within the fishway should be similar to what I provided earlier in my sketch. They should have 0.8-foot drops and be located at 8-foot centers. A weir should be added at the downstream end of the fishway to provide the last step. .IQM�.3 Thomas C. Hamstra October 5, 1992 Page 2 The upper fishway weir should backwater the culvert just as the fishway weirs backwater each other. The hydraulics of the transition from fishway to culvert needs to be checked at high and low flows. The lower end of the fishway may have to have a horizontal ceiling at an elevation such that it is not submerged by the Cedar River when the river is at a relatively high but frequent flow. I suggest 2, 000 cfs be used as a target. When the fishway becomes submerged, floating debris will be trapped inside and may not be sluiced out as the river flow recedes. Fish attraction is also much better to a non-submerged entrance. I am not familiar with the highway stationing you have shown to locate the culvert and fishway. The preferred location identified in the field would be for the fishway entrance (at the river) to be about 200 feet east of the southwest corner of the golf course at the edge of the highway. I would be happy to meet again at the site to specifically locate the fishway entrance. No run-off from the highway may enter the fish passage culvert or fishway. If you have any further questions, call me at (206) 753-3632 . Sincerely, Ken Bates Staff Engineer Habitat Management Division KB: lt cc: Dave Jen--___ ' -- - � Larry FL Tom Burn; CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: November 9, 1992 TO: Randall Parsons FROM: Daniel Carey SUBJECT: SR 169 Drainage Review - DRAFT I have completed my review of the Hydraulic Report prepared by INCA Engineers for the Washington State Dept. of Transportation for a section of SR 169. The DOT is planning to widen the existing highway from two lanes to four lanes . The report addresses highway drainage from 140th Place SE to the western end of the Maplewood Golf Course ( Station 1410 to Sta. 1480, 1.32 miles ).Drainage from the highway is divided into four seperate areas, each draining to the Cedar River. Drainage from adjacent areas to the highway is either minor, or runs in already established culverts under the highway to discharge at other locations. This memo addresses the following drainage areas and topics: 1.The area east of the Golf Course (Sta. 1410 to Sta. 1441, 0.59 miles) 2.Across from the Golf Course (Sta. 1442 to Sta. 1467, 0.48 miles) 3.The area west of the Golf Course (Sta. 1467 to Sta. 1480, 0.25 miles) 4. Drainage ditch and detention pond design 5. Maplewood Creek culvert revisions 1. EAST OF THE GOLF COURSE (0.59 miles, 4.73 acres) - This section of SR 169 appears to be south of the boundary for Aquifer Protection Area (APA) 2, as such it may not be subject to the APA 2 requirements. -- The drainage area is approximately 4.73 acres and consists of paved roadway, an 8-foot wide shoulder, and roadside drainage ditch. Title January 20, 1992 Page 2 -- Runoff from the highway is collected and transported in roadside ditches. One section of the highway utilizes inlets and a 12-inch concrete pipe, then transfers the flow under the highway to a roadside ditch. -- The typical drainage ditch consists of a 8-foot unpaved shoulder, a 4:1 sideslope, a 3-foot wide ditch bottom, and a 3:1 far slope. The ditch will be lined with 2 inches of clay and 4 inches of sod to a minimum flow depth of 1 foot. -- Runoff from this area is directed to Detention Pond # 1. The pond is lined with 2 inches of clay to the design water level. The pond contains an control manhole with an oil/water separator, and a separate overflow manhole. The pond does not have a emergency overflow spillway. --- Discharge from the pond will flow in an 18-inch diameter pipe to an outfall to the river. 2. ACROSS FROM THE GOLF COURSE (0.48 miles, 3.90 acres) -- Half of the area is definitely in APA 2,the eastern half may be outside the southern boundary of APA 2. -- Runoff from the western half of the area ( 1.80 acres ) is collected and transported in roadside ditches. One section of the highway utilizes inlets and a 12-inch concrete pipe, then directs runoff under the highway to a roadside ditch. -- Runoff from this area is directed to Detention Pond #2. The pond is lined with 2 inches of clay to the design water level. The pond contains an control manhole with an oil/water separator, and a separate overflow manhole. The pond does not have a emergency overflow spillway. --- Discharge from the pond will flow in an 18-inch diameter pipe to the new inlet structure for Maplewood Creek, and to an outfall to the river. -- Runoff from the eastern half of the area (2.1 acres) is collected by highway inlets and transported in a 12-inch diameter concrete pipe. The highway in this area is bordered by a concrete curb and sidewalk. Runoff will be directed into a manhole in the existing 72-inch diameter pipe and discharges to the river. Runoff from this area is not treated in any manner, and a oil/water separator manhole was not specified. -- Maplewood Creek crosses under SR 169 at Station 1457+17 in an existing 42-inch diameter culvert. A new double 4' x 8' box culvert is proposed for the undercrossing. 3.WEST OF THE GOLF COURSE (0.25 miles, 1.95 acres) -- The area ( 1.95 acres) is definitely in APA 2. Part of the area is currently served by an existing system of inlets and pipe routing flow to the east. The highway will be widened and reconstructed with a concrete curb and sidewalk. Runoff will be collected by highway inlets and transported in a 12- inch diameter concrete pipe to a new manhole with an oil/water separator. That manhole will tie into Title January 20, 1992 Page 3 the existing system which discharges to the river further to the west. No other water treatment is provided. 4. DRAINAGE DITCH AND DETENTION POND DESIGN A. DRAINAGE DITCHES -- In the Aquifer Recharge and/or Protection Area amended requirements by the City apply to the King County Surface Water Design Manual. -- Amended Core Requirement # 4 states that new drainage ditches only be used when a pipe system is not feasible. The DOT should revise the plans to provide an enclosed pipe system where ever possible. -- Any new and existing open drainage ditches should be constructed using a liner meeting the design criteria contained in the KCM "Liner To Prevent Groundwater Contamination " section. This would entail the following; 1. A 40-mil geomembrane, or 2. A 12-inch thick layer of bentonite clay, and 3. 18 inches of compacted top soil above the liner -- Projects are to provide an impervious surface for all new and existing areas subject to vehicular use. This means that unpaved highway shoulders would not be allowed. An alternative would be to extend the liner for the ditch to the edge of pavement. B. DETENTION PONDS -- An exemption in Core Requirement#3 allows proposed projects to discharge directly into selected surface waters(including the Cedar River)without requiring peak rate runoff control. -- Special Requirement # 5 requires that a wet pond containing a permanent pool of water be used for proposed projects that will construct more than 1 acre of impervious surface subject to vehicular use. The requirement gives design criteria for pond surface area and volume. A wet vault or water quality swale may be used if a wet pond is not feasible -- Amended Core Requirement # 3 requires that a lined biofiltration facility be used to treat runoff prior to discharge from the site. The biofiltration facility would follow the wet pond in the flow schematic. -- The proposed detention ponds do not meet the design criteria for wet ponds in the KCM. Some specific comments are; One foot of dead storage would be required, only 1/2 foot is proposed. Peak flow bypass of the pond would be required. Title January 20, 1992 Page 4 Ponds must be divided into three cells. Emergency spillways to prevent accidental overtopping must be included. Pond volume must be increased by a 30 percent factor of safety ? (no, because it isn't intended to function as a detention facility?) Gravity drainage for maintenance of the ponds must be provided. -- The following comments apply to the specific pond design presented in the report; Detention Pond # 1 The pond does not provide the surface area or volume needed for a wet pond. The longest flow path for time of concentration calculations would be 2200 feet, not 1000 feet. The slope appears to be.0055 ft/ft, not.009. The pond volume given on page E-5 does not seem correct. At elevation 75 the basin surface area appears to be 6 1/2' x 33', not 3' x 30' . The basin volume above el. 75 would be 1603 cf, not 1156 cf. Table 1 in the plans erroneously gives the overflow elevation as El. 79.5, it should be 77.5 . Detention Pond #2 The pond does not provide the volume needed for a wet pond. The longest flow path for time of concentration calculations seems to be 1150 feet with a slope of .018 ft/ft, not 1000 feet at a slope of.008 ft/ft. The pond volume given on page E-11 does not seem correct. At elevation 66 the basin area seem to be 6' x 33', not 3' x 30' . The basin volume above el. 66 would be 963 cf, not 672 cf. 5. MAPLEWOOD CREEK CULVERT -- Maplewood Creek crosses under SR 169 at Station 1457+17 in an existing 42-inch diameter culvert. The report analyzed the creek basin for peak flow, referenced the draft Maplewood Creek Basin Plan prepared by Parametrix for the City of Renton, and designed a new culvert for a 25-year flow of 330 cfs and a 100-year flow of 400 cfs. The new culvert will consist of double 4' x 8' box culverts and a new inlet structure tieing into the existing 72-inch diameter culvert discharging to the river. A new 84-inch pipe was proposed in the report , however in subsequent meetings the DOT has stated that they do not have the funds to install the new pipe. The DOT stated that the existing 72-inch pipe will have adequate flow capacity for the 100-year storm if the internal weirs required for fish migration are removed. Since the City is considering construction of a new stream habitat through the golf course for fish migration to Maplewood Creek this arrangement may be acceptable. The DOT will be examining the feasibility of constructing a culvert for the new stream under SR 169 at the eastern end of the golf course. Clearances with existing utilities and a METRO sewage line have to be examined. J Title January 20, 1992 Page 5 -- The 100-year flood elevation of the Cedar River at the outfall is el. 61. At that level the top of the existing outfall is 2 feet below water level, and the proposed 84-inch diameter pipe would be 1 foot below water level. I will be examining the calculations provided to determine how the submerged outfall potentially affects the design flow and golf course. -- The FEMA flood area map also shows the majority of the golf course and existing road as being in the 100-year flood plain, due to higher water levels in the river east of the golf course during flooding. .._._._.._.. _._._. --- II IOA ii II ij l .__.._.`._.__._.._.._._.-.-.___._.__-..______._-.__.---._.__.._._._._._._.__.___-_._ z y, ij lcovt i, ELh i; - - -- ----------- -_ -ix-- F i i! ii l t i .F , 7l1,� w C4L - 2 �i r4 na9t � 4-t Q 1 II� I .. 4 Bo* a o 2 ,1 i 1y30fiov 96 8� 7y 2. 2 1 s 4mj �y /is 2 s-� Noyes i �s E SU tJ< l..._.._..... Aid Vc llz 0. wd�r_._-_.... k-a..�r.� f Lam►' e L__.._�t_ w �✓� E; J.AL � -----__ _.__._._._.—._.._._._..._.___ _ . __._. _ -- -'----___ '" �4l _..._........._.._._.---___._.._._.__ __.___..__.__. _._.__ __.__._..._._ 51 ks_._._._... T fin,c ... Z7. p�3 �rf V°l _ _Slog fi Va I. V rbv i 0 vi = 11 sl G-f �I __._.___.._..__._._ ...____.._.__._.__.._._...—._.._._.._.__.._.._.._.._._._..._ __..._____..._.._._...._.._.___..._..__._...._..__._..___ {'._.._m_e_ CAL - 3 _._....._._ lam., rl -.-- cl l E _.__.._.._..__... dU - •�, 2- 1 .. __..._......_._PG ____ s_O_v► _._.__C .. . ____._.. - _____ ----------------------- _.__.. ._..._... ... _._...._...__� 1'h _..._....._....._..____.__ _.._..____._...__.___ ___..._.____._. __...__.._._..:_._...._......._... ..____...__.._..._...._..__._.__.__..._...._...__.__._. ... -. _- s .. __.._._........ .._. _._.__..._..._._._._.__.___._..__. ..-_.C .._..__?�.H ._.__.__.—..._._._. I r 0 � i - 1. U C 4r Q -Tt 2. —.---___.__._..._ .._...___._.._._._...-----_._.—.._ ..._._.._.__._._.__..—.._..._........._........_.__.._.__._.—_.._..__�.._--.._.__...._..._..----__.._......_._..._._. 1 File Basin Nydrograph Storage Discharge Level pool IN2 Rectangular vault Trapezoidal basin Underground pipe 3 ` TRAPEZOIDAL BASIN 1 STORAGE STRUCTURE ID: 1 1 ,Name: BRIDGE DETENTION POND I `Length. . . . . . . . . . . 30.00 Width. . . . . . .. . . : Length Sslope 1: 3.1,30 Width Sslope 3: 3.0o Length Sslope 2: 4.00 Width Sslope 4: 3.00 ,Infiltration hate. . : &21.h� Startino Elevation. : 75.121k n �Y max Elev of Basin. . : 77.5N a lu✓hei ,�esN i 'Stage-Sto Increment: �. ia Structure Vol (cf). : 1156.25 1 + Ac-ft. : 0.03 ! or I' U F3: Get F6: Delete F1N: Exit I ��- 5 2.S f�-G�F FGDN 116 i Avg Current Data Set Name: C:\WORKS\SR169-2. bsn � � 3x30 �.Li X �0 V=. 1603 61x33 Y` b y $ AB = 3D > 3 = 90 s� ' AMtif. = 2`1x4a - II52 s� � C q r L C T T ' 6 1 ' Abpva �Crti S is v4 Ao = 6.5 x 33 2, 1y . 5 EL ryq �. V D,4n, _ 5 r Z 1 N.S (2. J`b 6 3 2 Fiie Basin Hydroarapn 5toraoe Discnarae Level p001 3 MULTIPLE ORIFICE DISCHARGE STRUCTURE ID: 1 +Name: BRIDGE DETENTION ORIFICE 'Peat Dsan Release Rate: 2.05 cfs Orif /flow/eiev Grifice Coefficient. . . : 0.62 Dia (in)/cfs/ ft I Lowest Orifice Dia (in) . . : 5.00 5.0i� 1.07 cfs +ni: Outlet to 2nd Orifice: 1.00 76.00 fc i 'Second Orifice Dia (in) . . : 6.0,0 5.42 �1.98 cfs +n2: 2nd to 3rd Orifice. . . . 0.00 it 'Tnira Orifice Dia (in). . : 0.00 'n3: 3-rd to 4tn Orifice. . . . ,Fourth Orifice Dia (in) . . : 0.00 'n4: 4tn to 5th Orifice. . . : 0.00 ITop Orifice Dia (in) . . : 0.00 I i I - �Elevation of Lowest Orifice: : : : : 73.00 Outlet Elevation. . . .. . 75.00 77.50Imax Elev Aoove Outlet. . . . . . . . . . . 5tane-Disco Iy I Increment. . . . . . . . . . : 0. 10 AviPGUP PGDN F3: Get F6: Delete r10: Exit � 4 Cu � t 1 �' V CzjL - �: ii 4eki Pa n d 2 fi i g. 1s 98 s oo ___..._.___._.__. .._.. e✓_v_� _� 0 �_ .___.__._.._...._... _____.___ ✓✓ ii - i ...._............._._._._.___._.._.._.__..__._.._._.._.._.-...._ -�_.__�_.___..____ _._._._.__..___._. i it { ___._._._._.._._.__..__._�.-.__._ vi �D - r a - ►' __-------------—._._.__..._.._.__._ L 0.3_I_.__ .—fit_ ._........ JDD r /00— r c�- s i u j l j} li I� If __.._.-.__..-._- _.._.._.._.._.._-_.__.-..__._._..._..—__-._. c� L - s f --_ _►_ S s �� 7so a4___l T L (f - 6 � ! /0 _—_____.__---- = _....._......._ _ _ _Fn - d Z 3 G v 8 S 7-�{•� _ .__..___._..._.__.__.. ._.._.__._...____._.__.---..._._..._..__..__..___.._.__...__._.._._.._._._.__._.——.__._.._._..._..__.._.._.__..___.___...._...._._..._ ._..._...._..._. _ __..._...._..._....__._____.___.._._...________..__.____._...._...__._.__._._...._ _.._._._ _..._.__..._...___._.._._...__...__..._.._..._.._..._.___..._.._.__..__._...____._._....__....____..._.__...._....____..._...._..___..._._.. l f( ij I it j i : i i fl i I li .._._...._....._.... . ` i i i� �j � s CC) Q� i f U if 7 7 -�,.• � 5_. �v h Alaif ___ ___ 17 if Z ii I f; 1 I Fj.ie Etas In Hydroyrapn Storage Discnarqe Levei pool INL ,Rectangular vault. Trapezoidal basin Underground pipe 3 TRAPEZOIDAL BASIN STORAGE STRUCTURE ID: 2 I Name: UNDERPASS DETEBTION POND +Length. . . . . . . . . . . 30. 00 Width. . . . . . - - - - - 3. 00 �f Length Sslope 1 : 3. 00 Width Sslope 3: 3. 00 fb Length Sslope 2: 3. 00 Width Sslope 4: 3. 00 Infiltration Rate. . : 0. 00 EL Starting Elevation. : 66. 00 Max Elev of Basin. . : 68. 00 Stage-Sto Increment: - iN i Structure Vol (cf) . : 672. 00- -- Ac-ft. : . 02 I i PGUP PGDN F3: Get FG: Delete F10: Exit Av Current Data Set Name: C:\WORKS\SR163-2. bsn 3 Or _ 90 6 3 3 °3 (o8. b As = 18nkS = 8 /0 I$ 5 t 3.► i 96 c� -�9 v F-Til�= /0 3 S 3 2 C - 6� 1 ! 1 1 � 11 i=ile Basin Hyurograoh Stora+_7e Discnarne i_evel poo:i. C 3 MULTIPLE ORIFICE DISCHARGE $TRUCTURE ID: 2 Name: UNDERPASS DETENTION ORIFICE l0 Y.Z zxiSY1►J[� {�oVA Peak. Dsgn Release Rate: 0. 81 cfs Orif /flow/elev 10-rifice Coefficient. . . : 0. 62 Dia (in) /cfs/ ft Lowest Orifice Dia (in) . . : 3. 00 3. 00 0. 35 cfs 1hl : Outlet to 2nd Orifice: 0. 50 66. 50 ft Second Orifice Dia (in) . . : 4. 00 3. 74 0. 46 cfs n2: 2nd to 3-rd Orifice. . . : 0. 00 Third Orifice Dia (in) . . : 0. 00 n 3: 3-rd to 4th Orifice. . . : 0. 00 Fourth Orifice Dia (in) . . : 0.00 h4: 4th to 5th Orifice. . . : 0.00 Top Orifice Dia (in) . . : 0. 00 Elevation of Lowest Orifice. . . . : 64. 00 Outlet Elevation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66. 00 Max Elev Above Outlet. . . . . . . . . . . 68. 00 Stage-Disch Increment. . . . . . . . . . . 0. 10 Av P,GUP PGDN F3: Get F6: Delete F10: Exit Cu �i F. 1 � _ r U N ( R r $._ e.n _._ L b w .i I. /V o i i I� n 62 ij y CJ v t' 6 U S 60 Z/ __.._._.._.._.._.-------._..__..yr j m_.._.._Trcai�- _ i' D 1 r c Ile TD Gt,✓ C a �j CIO 411 tj i! fI i i i _._.__._._._._._._.._s_.__—_-_.__.._..._._..._._._._..___._.._.._.._..._._..._._._._._.._._._ _._----..—._._.._._._.—.__._.._..__._.—.-- .....-... ----.—.-. I; ...._..._....__.__..._._..;____..._..__..._....__..__..._.._.__._.._..—_.._._.._..._.._..__..___.._._.._.._.._..._.._._.—_.___.._.__. ._.._.—..__.._.__._.__..._.._..___.._.__.__._.._.___.. 3 �I �I . • ` CiiL —� �i At e— 70e--- s —._ 1 Ii ie li I i i �i !i I ij ii f� MWashington State Memorandum P m Department of Transportation Date: August 26, 1992 From: D.E. Hagglund 01 D-1 Env. 440-4534 Subj: SR 169 196th Ave. to Maplewood Golf Course SEPA Checklist/MDNS To: Dave Jennings City of Renton Attached is a copy of the SEPA material you requested at yesterdays meeting. A copy was transmitted to Renton c/o "SEPA Review Official". Other agencies with jurisdiction including the Muckleshoots were sent a copy. As I mentioned yesterday, we will continue to accept any comments which may come in. We will take these comment into consideration in preparing our permit submittals. If you have any questions, please call me at 440-4534. Please note that we have moved since the MDNS was issued. Our new address is 15700 Dayton Avenue North, P.O. Box 330310, Seattle, WA 98133-9710. DEH:deh cc: Tom Hamstra, MS-117 e Project File C/7-y V 1gg2 Engi'' OF RENT�N g Q�At. DOT 700-008X Revised 6/92 Daniel E. Hagglund Environmental Coordinator Aft Washington State Department of Transportation -„ District 1 15700 Dayton Avenue North,MS 138 PO Box 330310 Seattle,WA 981 -9710 4 (206)440-453 CAN 440-4534 Fax(206)440-4805/SCAN 440-4805 MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE Description of Proposal: SR 169 - 196th Ave. SE/ Jones Road to Maplewood Golf Course This proposal would widen the highway from two to four lanes, demolish the existing railroad bridge near the Maplewood Golf Course and construct a new SR 169 bridge in its location. The majority of widening will occur on the abandoned BNRR railroad grade. The proposal includes clearing about 47 acres of shrubs, grass and trees, relocation of a portion of Madsen Creek, and drainage improvements. Proponent: Washington State Department of Transportation Location of Proposal, including street address, if any: The proposal is located in King County and the city of Renton, in Sections 16, 21, 22, 23, and 24, T 23 N, R 5 E, and Sections 19, 20, 29, and 30, T 23 N, R. 6 E., W.M. Lead Agency: Washington State Department of Transportation Proposed Mitigation: Wetlands: 0.2 acres of isolated forested and emergent wetlands will be compensated for by on-site construction of approximately 0.4 acres of new wetlands of similar function and value as outlined in the Wetland Mitigation Concepts Report as attached to the SEPA Checklist. Noise: Noise mitigation will be provided at four locations along the project corridor as described in the SEPA Checklist. The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. This Determination of Non-Significance is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by August 4, 1992. Responsible Official: ROBERT D. AYE, P.E. Position/ Title: Development Engineer Phone: 562-4090 Address: 15325 S.E. 30th P Bellevue, WA 98007-6538 Date: 7 Z Signature: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.12C requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. The purpose of this checklist is to provide the information to help you and the agency identify impacts for your proposal(and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether ar. Environmental Impact Statement is required. The checklist questions apply to all parts of the proposal. even if they are planned over a period of time. Attach any additional information that will help describe the proposal or its environmental effects. Be prepared to explain answers or provide additiona. information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impacts. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: SR 169 196th Vicinity/Jones Road to Maplewood Golf Course Widen to Five Lanes L-8607 and L-7228 2. Name of proponent: Washington State Department of Transportation 3. Address and phone number of proponent and contact person: 15325 SE 30th Pl. Bellevue, WA 98007 Contact person: Daniel Hagglund Ph: 562-4404 4. Date checklist prepared: July 13, 1992 5. Agency requesting checklist: Washington State Department of Transportation 6. Proposed timing or schedule (include phasing, if applicable): This project is scheduled for construction beginning in the summer of 1993 and ending in th fall of 1994. 7. Are there any plans for future additions, expansions, or further activity related to or connected wit. this proposal? If yes, explain. The city of Seattle Water Department is studying a proposal to locate a spawning channe adjacent to the Cedar River near 196th Street. King County Public Works is undertaking drainage improvements (Summerfield Phase II) a 161st Avenue S.E. Several other projects are in various stages of design includin,. replacement of the Elliot Bridge and widening 140th Place. Widening SR 169 will not affec any of these proposals. The city of Renton is proposing a low flow channel for Maplewood Creek through th Maplewood Golf Course. 1 Future WSDOT projects may eventually widen SR 169 south to SR 516 (Kent-Kangley Road. Resurfacing project are scheduled for SR 169 between SR 18 and about Jones Road in 1992, and Maplewood Golf Course to SR 405 in 1993 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Traffic Noise Analysis Hazardous Waste Report Air Quality Analysis Biology/Wetland Report Biological Assessment, Bald Eagle Archaeological Reconnaissance Soils Report Hydraulic Report Wetland Mitigation Plan Cedar River Backwater Analysis 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposal, directly affecting the property covered by the proposal? If yes, explain. None 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for the proposal, if known. Shoreline Management Permit - King County and city of Renton Sensitive Area Public Agency and Utility Exception - King County Clearing Permit- King County Hydraulic Project Approval- Department of Fisheries Water Pollution Control Plan - Department of Ecology and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Short-Term Modification of Water Quality Standards -Department of Ecology Section 10 Nationwide# 3 - Army Corps of Engineers (Bridge Replacement) Section 404 Nationwide#26 - Army Corps of Engineers (Wetland Fill) 11. Give brief, complete description of the project including (but not limited to) it's size, general desigl elements, and other factors that will give an accurate understanding of it's scope and nature. Ther are several questions in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of the proposal. Yoi do not need to repeat those answers on this page. This proposal will widen the existing 2 lane highway to four lanes with left turn channelizatioi at major intersections. East of 196th to about 140th Place, the highway would be widenec asymmetrically onto the abandoned BNRR railroad grade to the north. Between 140th an( the existing entrance to the Maplewood Golf Course, widening would generally parallel th; railroad centerline. East of the golf course entrance, widening would be constructed generall, using the railroad grade to the south, matching in with the existing 5 lane roadway section a about Maplewood Avenue. The project is designed consistent with the proposed King Count; trail system. About 1700 feet of new roadway alignment will be necessary just east of 196th to correct severe sight distance problem. About 800 feet of Madsen Creek will be relocated and a nev culvert installed. A new bridge structure will be constructed over the Cedar River at thf existing railroad bridge; the existing SR 169 structure will remain. Completion of the project would displace about 0.20 acres of isolated palustrine wetlands 0.40 acres of wetland will be constructed on-site to mitigate for these impacts. 2 The proposal would require acquisition of about 60 acres of abandoned railroad right of way and about 5 acres of private property. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of the proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township and range, if known. If the proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. The proposal is located in King County and the city of Renton on SR 169 (Maple Valley Highway), in Sections 16, 21, 22, 23, and 24, T 23 N, R 5 E, and Sections 19, 20, 29, and 30, T 23N, R6E,W.M. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site: (flat, rolling hills, steep slopes, mountainous, other). The western two-thirds is generally flat, the eastern third is generally hilly. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent of slope)? About 100%; near the Jones Road Bridge. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (e.g., clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If yot know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Glacial deposits, medium to dense gravel, slightly silty sand and isolated pockets of hydric soils. None of the site is classified prime farmland. d. Are there any indications of a history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No, however, King County mapping indicates the presence of Class III Seismic anc Landslide Hazard Areas near 196th Avenue. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed Indicate source of fill. Approximately 211,400 yd3 of gravelly fill material would be used to construct thf roadway embankments. A portion of the fill may come from the railroad bed. Abou- 120,600 yd3 of excavation would be required. The remainder would be provided by the construction contractor from an approved source. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or land use? If so, generally describe. Yes, excavation and placement of embankment material will increase the potential fo: wind and water erosion. 3 g. About what percent of the site would be covered with impervious surfaces after projec- construction (e.g., asphalt, buildings)? About 45 percent; double that which exists now. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: The Contractor is required by WSDOT Standard Specifications to prepare an( implement an erosion/ sedimentation control plan during construction. In addition, th contractor will be required to adhere to the WSDOT prepared Water Pollution Contro Plan. Upon completion of the project, all disturbed areas will be seeded to grass fo erosion control and / or planted with native vegetation. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (e.g., dust, automobile, odor industrial, wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If and generally describe and give approximate quantities, if known. Construction would cause slight increases in fugitive dust and hydrocarbons fror increase truck traffic and heavy machinery usage, and removal and placement c. materials. Upon completion of the proposal, CO levels are expected to rise slightly however, the increase would be less than that of a no-build alternative, due to a smoothe flow of traffic. No violations of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards are expectec b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If sc generally describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to the air, if any: The Contractor will be required to adhere to applicable federal, state, and local a, quality regulations. 3. Water a. Surface 1) Is there any surface water body on, or in, the immediate vicinity of the site (including year round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type an provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. The Cedar River, a perennial tributary of Lake Washington, flows adjacent to an across the site. The river is listed as a Class A water by the Department of Ecolog Madsen Creek, a perennial tributary of the Cedar River, crosses the project nea 149th Avenue. The project also crosses Maplewood Creek and several small season, tributaries of the Cedar River as well as several isolated wetlands. 4 2) Will the project require work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. At several locations, roadway widening will occur within 200 feet of the Cedar River; no work will occur below the ordinary high water mark. At Madsen Creek, a new culvert will be installed across the highway and about 800 feet of the of the creek would be rechanneled with meanders. Several drainage outfalls to the Cedar River will be replaced. A second culvert will be installed to pass high flows of Maplewood Creek under the highway to the Cedar River. Fish passage will be maintained in the existing culvert. About 100 feet of the existing Maplewood Creek culvert will be replaced from the inlet and under the highway. Fish passage will be provided in the normal flow culvert. After removing the existing railroad bridge, a new SR 169 concrete bridge (five lanes) will be constructed across the Cedar River. A minor amount of riprap will be required. About 0.20 acres of isolated palustrine forested and emergent wetlands would be filled as a result of the project. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface waters or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. About 1000 yd3 of contractor provided fill would be placed in wetlands. About 20( yd3 of riprap would be placed at the new Cedar River Bridge. No riprap will bE placed below the ordinary high water mark of the Cedar River. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give genera description, purpose and approximate quantities, if known. Madsen Creek would be permanently diverted into the new channel and culvert. Temporary diversions may be required at both Madsen and Maplewood Creek-, during the construction period. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Review of FIRM mapping indicated that the widened highway would not encroacl- into the 100 year Floodplain. The Cedar River Bridge would be primarily located above the 100-year Floodplain: however, one bridge pier would be located within the Floodplain but above the ordinary high water mark. The cost of a clear span structure is cost prohibitive. Th( pier would have an insignificant impact of the base flood elevation. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so. describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No 5 b. Ground 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose and approximate quantities, if known. No. This proposal will have no effect on the Cedar River Sole Source Aquifer. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (e.g., domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals... agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses served (if applicable) or the number of animals or humans the system(s are expected to serve. None c. Water Runoff(including storm water) 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection an( disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this wate flow into other waters? If so, describe. The primary source of runoff is storm water. It will be collected in open vegetate( ditches where possible and routed through retention/ detention facilities prior t, discharging to the Cedar River, Madsen Creek or their various unnamed tributarieE Off-site runoff will be routed across the highway is separate facilities. 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface water? If so, generally describe. No, except as the result of an accident. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground and runoff water impacts, if any: Retention/ detention facilities will be utilized as necessary to insure that the rate of storr water discharge to Madsen and Maplewood Creeks does not increase . (A portion of th King County Summerfield Phase 11 Drainage Improvements will constructed as a part c this project. Impacts of that proposal are addressed in a SEPA DNS issued April 2E 1992.) The realignment of Madsen Creek will be designed to minimize both short any long-term erosion of the channel. Grass-lined ditches and swales will be constructed fo water quality. Ditches within Renton's proposed Aquifer Protection Area will be eithe clay-lined or have an impervious fabric liner to protect the Sole Source Aquifer. See alsc attached wetland mitigation concept report. 4. Plants a. Types of vegetation found on the site. Cedar, fir, alder, maple, black cottonwood, willow, spiraea, salmonberry, elderberry blackberry, grasses and herbs. 6 b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Approximately 46 acres would be cleared for the proposal. This estimate includes 319 acres of upland shrubs and grasses, 7 acres of upland forest, and about than 0.2 acres o! wetland vegetation. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Clearing would be limited to that necessary for construction of the roadway. Al disturbed areas will be replanted to grass. The Maplewood Golf Course, areas within Shoreline jurisdiction, Madsen Creek and the wetland mitigation site will be planted wit! native species. 5. Animals a. Birds or animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near th site. Red-tailed hawk, Cooper's Hawk, owls, bald eagles, deer, coyote, raccoon, weasels, skunk and small rodents. Various species of fish also occur on or adjacent to the site in th Cedar River and Madsen and Maplewood Creeks. b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Bald eagles may winter in the vicinity of the project. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. A study concluded periodic usage by wintering eagles. The Cedar River also support large runs of various salmonid species. d. Proposed measure to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Preservation of mature black cottonwood trees near 196th, preservation or replacement c vegetated buffers between the highway and the river and planting a riparian buffer alon the rechanneled Madsen Creek. Construction of the new Cedar River Bridge would no affect any spawning habitat. All construction would occur consistent with th requirements of the Department of Fisheries Hydraulic Project Approval. 7 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, or solar) will be used to meet the complete( projects energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. The completed proposal would require a minor amount of electricity for operation of th, signals and luminaires. b. Would the project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If sc generally describe. No c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List othc proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any. None Required 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fir and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If s( describe. A Metro landfill leachate line is located in the project corridor. Relocation of portions c the line will be required. The only other known potential source is a service statio adjacent to the highway. This proposal will not impact that property. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Standard construction practices and safety measures will be employed by tr Contractor. Any discovered hazardous substances will be reported to th Department of Ecology or the Seattle/King County Health Department as necessary. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (e.g., traffic, equipmen operation, other). The only significant noise in the vicinity of the project is caused by highway traM, Between 196th and 140th, noise levels north of the highway vary from 57 to 62 dB. Leq, while south of the highway levels vary from 57 to 72 dBA Leq. Between 140t and Maplewood Place, levels vary from 59 to 71 dBA Leq. 8 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a shor term or long term basis (e.g., traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hour; noise would come from the site. Noise would increase slightly during construction due operation of heavy equipment. Upon completion of the proposal, peak noise levels between 196th and 140th woul( increase 7 to 12 dBA Leq north of the highway (due to removal of the railroad berm; South of the highway, noise levels would increase by about 2 dBA. Between 140t' and Maplewood Place, noise increases would vary from 0 to 10 dBA Leq. Noise would be generated by the proposal at all hours with peak levels during th morning and evening commute times. Four areas would be adversely affected by thi proposal. Partial removal of the railroad berm would cause unacceptable nois increases (3 dBA Leq or more) to residences at three locations: 1) Highway station 1310 to 1320 (east of 174th); 2) Highway stations 1388 to 1397 (Between 150th ani 149th); and 3) Highway stations 1455+50 to 1467 (between the golf course drivewa and Maplewood Place). A fourth location, Highway station 1469+50 to 1478+50 (we: end of golf course to Maplewood Place) will have increased noise due solely t additional traffic. All four locations will be treated with noise attenuating devises. 3). Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: In Area 1, an earth berm with a minimum height of three feet above the propose roadway would be constructed on the existing berm between stations 1311 an 1319+50. In Area 2, the existing berm would be reshaped to an additional 1 foot i height and / or a concrete barrier to the 1 foot additional height would L constructed. In Area 3, 6 feet of the existing berm will be removed and an 8 foot hig wall will be constructed. In Area 4, a 10 foot high wall will be constructed behind tl: sidewalk at the right of way line. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site is currently state highway, railroad right of way, and forest. Adjacent properti( are commercial, residential, parks and recreation and agricultural. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. c. Describe any structures on the site. The Jones Road Bridge, near the beginning of the project (Vicinity MP 19.21), is a M lane county bridge across the Cedar River. The existing SR 169 Cedar River Bridge (M 23.12) is a two lane steel and concrete bridge. A timber and steel truss railroad bridge located just upstream of the existing SR 169 bridge. 9 d. Will any structure be demolished? If so, what? The existing railroad bridge over the Cedar River will be demolished and a new SR 16c structure constructed in its place. The existing SR 169 bridge will remain for the Cedar River Trail Crossing. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The site is WSDOT highway right of way and is not zoned. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Urban. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Conservancy in King County; Urban in the city of Renton. No impacted wetlands are located in the shoreline zone. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Yes, a portion of the site is within Floodplain, Class III Seismic and Landslide hazardi erosions hazard areas and wetlands. The project crosses Madsen and Maplewood Creek (K.C. Class 2 streams) and the Cedar River (K.C. Class 1 stream). i. Approximately how may people would reside or work in the completed project? None j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None Required 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land use and plans, if any: The project is being coordinated with various department within King County and the city of Renton. 10 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None b. Approximately how may units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, of low-income housing. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None Required 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is th, principal exterior building material(s) proposed? The noise barriers would be between 3 and 10 feet above the roadway. The bottom of th new Cedar River bridge would be 6 feet above the base flood elevation. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? All views across the highway would be altered due to the widened pavement. N� significant views would be obstructed by the noise barriers. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Noise barriers would be constructed so as to be as aesthetically pleasing as possiblE Disturbed areas will be planted with native species or seeded with grass. A landscap screen will be planted between the highway and the Maplewood Golf Course. 11. Light and Glare a. What types of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Illumination will be provided at the signalized intersections. The luminaires woulc operate at night. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No 11 c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? The Cedar River supports sport fishing and boating. Cedar Grove Park is locate( between Jones Road and a trailer park community, on the north side of the highway Cedar River Park, also on the north side of the highway, is located between 161st Avenu4 and 152nd Avenue and 149th Avenue to the end of the proposal. The Aqua Barn, commercial recreational facility, is located on the south side of the highway at abou 152nd Avenue. Maplewood Golf Course is located at the west end of the project. b. Would the proposed'project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreatio: opportunities to be provided by the project, if any: None Required 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places on or objects listed on. or proposed for, national, state, or locz preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. None known. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or culture importance known to be on or next to the site. If so, generally describe. Based on reconnaissance, no historic sites or cultural artifacts were, or are expected to b encountered between 196th and 140th. Four Indian settlements were located in the are: around Maplewood Golf Course and the Cedar River. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Monitoring for artifacts would not be required between 196th and 140th. If artifacts wer uncovered, however, the Contractor is required to cease operations until a proper surve- 12 is conducted. The remainder of the project will be monitored by a qualified archeologis for cultural artifacts during clearing and excavation. If any artifacts are discovered, th( State Historic Preservation Officer and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe will be notifies immediately. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to th existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. SR 169 is classified a minor arterial. The proposal intersects Jones Road, 196th Ave. 174th Ave., 161st Ave., 154th Pl., 152nd Ave., 149th Ave., 140th Place, 131st Ave., an( Maplewood Place. Existing street and residential access is unrestricted. Left tur movements to and from private road approaches would be restricted by placement e median barrier. b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to & nearest transit stop? Yes, by METRO Transit. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the projec eliminate? None d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or street: not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). A new temporary signal will be provided at 149th Avenue and existing traffic signals 140th Place and 131st Avenue will be replaced to accommodate revised intersectio configurations. U-turn channelization will be provided at 196th Avenue and left tur channelization will be provided at 174th Avenue, 161st Avenue and 152nd Avenue. _ portable weigh scale site will be constructed between 149th Avenue and 140th Place o the north side of the highway. The site will consist of an additional 12 feet of should( widening to accommodate WSP mobile scales. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? so, generally describe. No, the existing rail system has been abandoned. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If know: indicate when peak volumes would occur. The proposal itself would not generate any new vehicular trips. 13 g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: During construction, temporary lane closures would be limited to off peak traffic hour` where possible. Completion of the proposal is designed to reduce the growing traffic congestion in the area. Bus pullouts will be provided. Access to the Seattle Water Department Sockeye Project near 196th (if constructed) would be limited to right-in- right-out. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (e.g., fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any: None Required 16. Utilities a. Utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone sanitary sewer, septic system, other. Electricity, natural gas, water, telephone, sanitary sewer and cable television. A leachat line is also located through the corridor. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and th general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. No new utilities are proposed. Relocation of existing utilities may be required in th roadway realignment area. Relocation would be coordinated with the affected utility. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are tru and correct to the b it of my knowledge. Signature: / - G Date: rl Envi nmental and Spe ' Services E 'neer 14 ST p 6 p ,"� OAF `, ,�= 'U 1 .a_• \b�ll-ice,., ....... Wetland 48 Elliot 1^.�4'�°•iii�•�'` _ , l.,� •� .<_.-'`,-•• :l - ( � let a �� Wetland#10 F "` ° 1 � 9!a l►ower:,:�w.•_, '1:� _ TON J° R - e' Wetland #f r�'.` �;�. c �.� 1:; . 1;• �`' - - Wetland#11 N. eM4 2 ..��� Wetland#2 . '� V \fir .�` — -soo - �' _�\\ _— P1P��,N '• Wetland#5 I :); 1 Wetland#3 ._ ;__ 1 ` _: ,�_ _- __:.__'- :�::: Ll 0 in .4971 Xk Wetland # 't' 1 / ' r VIGIN ITY MAP cdna - \� LDGATIbNS YYETL_AHD_ -� r Index to identified wetlands, State Route 169 (Maple Valley Highway) road improvements, King V. WETLAND MITIGATION CONCEPTS REPORT SR 169 196th/ Jones Rd. to Maplewood Golf Course Washington State Department of Transportation King County, Washington PROJECT DESCRIPTION Significant traffic congestion through the SR 169 corridor requires that the WSDOT address a proposal to increase the capacity of the highway. In addition, a severe sight distance hazard exists at the SR 169 intersection with 196th Avenue SE/ Jones Road. This intersection has been the site of several fatal traffic accidents in recent years. An interim project to realign 196th Avenue to align with Jones Road and install a traffic signal was recently completed and should help reduce the number of accidents at this intersection. This project proposes to widen approximately 5 miles of SR 169 from two lanes to four through lanes with left turn lanes at major intersections. The majority of widening will occur on right of way formerly owned by Burlington Northern Railroad. Approximately 1700 feet of new alignment is also proposed to correct the sight distance problem at 196th Avenue. The Cedar River Railroad Bridge neat the Maplewood Golf Course will be replaced and an 800 foot channel change of Madsen Creek will be required to construct an enlarged culvert crossing and set the creek back from the highway. Other minor work will include construction of a trail, installing traffic signals and guard rail. WETLANDS FINDING A Wetland Report prepared for the project, using the unified federal method, identified 11 palustrine wetlands on, or adjacent to the project corridor. Wetlands were classified using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service system; Cowardin, et al. 1979. Three classes of wetlands were identified as follows: Forested, Deciduous, Seasonally Flooded; Scrub-Shrub, Deciduous, Seasonally Flooded; and Emergent, Persistent, Seasonally Flooded. WETLAND IMPACTS Two separate wetlands will be filled to complete the project. Wetlands identified as #8 and #10 in the wetland report each have an aerial coverage of about 0.1 acres. Neither the impacted wetlands nor the proposed mitigation site are located within the Cedar River floodplain. Combined wetland impacts total about 0.2 acres. Wetland #8 is a combination forested and emergent wetland. Roadway realignment near 196th Avenue would cross this wetland. Based on the wetland delineations and the existing/ proposed roadway cross-sections, 0.1 acres would be filled due to roadway realignment. Avoidance of this wetland would require displacing a portion of a higher quality forested wetland (#9) north of the existing railroad grade or displacing a portion of a similar wetland (#5) south of the existing highway. SR 169 Mitigation Concept Page Two Wetland #10 is located in a roadside depression/ ditch and is scrub-shrub. This wetland, located between the existing highway and the railroad grade, would be completely filled by roadway widening. Due to its location, avoidance of this wetland is not practical. Avoiding this wetland would require widening to the south which would impact Wetland #11, a similar but larger wetland. Unavoidable wetland impacts will total 0.2 acres. ALTERNATIVES Four alternatives to the proposed project have been examined as follows: Constructing a five lane SR 169 on new alignment would likely result in greater overall social, economic and environmental impacts. Quantifying wetland impacts for this alternative is not possible. An Environmental Impact Statement would be required. Widening the highway to the south is feasible although steep and, in some locations, unstable slopes, would cause a significant cost increase. A large amount of private property and many residential displacements would also be required for this alternative. Wetland impacts would total about 2.1 acres. This figure includes about 0.3 acres of a high quality wetland. Constructing the facility symmetrically about the existing alignment would result in several residential displacements, soil stability problems and displace about 1 .2 acres of wetlands. A "no-build" alternative would not affect wetlands. Selection of this alternative is not prudent due to existing severe safety problems and continued deterioration of transportation and public services through the corridor. WETLAND DETERMINATION Governor's Executive Order 90-04, Protection of Wetlands, and WSDOT Directive 31-12, Protection of Wetlands Action Plan, require that WSDOT avoid impacts to wetlands unless there is no reasonable alternative. Minimizing the impact and compensation for impacts are required when impacts are unavoidable. This proposal will result in unavoidable wetland impacts totaling about 0.2 acres. Complete wetland avoidance is not possible because of the number and location of wetlands along the corridor. Unavoidable impacts will be compensated consistent with no net loss policies. MITIGATION CONCEPT GOALS 0.2 acres of palustrine forested, scrub-shrub and emergent wetlands will be mitigated by constructing new wetlands of equal or greater size and with equal SR 169 Mitigation Concept Page Three or greater functions and values. In order to adequately compensate for the loss of functions and values and the time lag between the impact and development of a functioning wetland ecosystem, the created wetland would have an aerial coverage of about 0.4 acres and provide the following functions: Flood Storage and Flow Desynchronization Wildlife Habitat Food Chain Support CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN The mitigation site is located immediately south of existing Wetland #8 on the existing alignment of SR 169. A very small natural drainage, which provides hydrology to Wetland #5 and #8, crosses through a culvert onto the proposed site. A culvert through the abandoned railroad grade may exist which conveys water to Wetland #9. The culvert, if in existence, cannot be located. GRADING and HYDROLOGY The existing roadbed of SR 169 will be excavated and the culvert removed. A new culvert will be installed under the new roadway fill with an inlet elevation of about 172.5 feet. Because the drainage is not large enough to provide resident or anadromous fish habitat, this culvert will not be designed for fish passage. Several utility lines are located in the existing roadway prism; therefore, excavation of the roadbed will require relocation of these utilities. The area between Wetland #5 and the new roadway fill will be graded to gentle slopes; matching the flow line out of Wetland #5 on the south to about 2.5 feet below the new culvert inlet to the north. The grading and created backwater would form a seasonally flooded open water (emergent) wetland area of about 0.1 acres, about 0.2 acres of scrub-shrub wetland and about 0.1 acres of forested wetland (see attached site plan). Created slopes from the flattened area to the existing contours will be no steeper than 6:1 . Hydric soils from the impacted wetlands would be used as a planting medium for most of the wetland creation area. Hydrology would be provided by surface flows from the seasonal stream and from the high ground water table. Soil borings indicate the water table at about elevation 170.8 feet. These water sources would provide sufficient soil saturation during the growing season to support hydrophytic vegetation. In addition highway runoff would enter the wetland after receiving the benefit of biofiltration. A report on bald eagle use in the project corridor identified several mature black cottonwood trees on the proposed mitigation site. Because these cottonwoods serve as potential perch sites for wintering bald eagles, the report recommended the project avoid impacting these trees. Highway construction and mitigation site grading will not impact the black cottonwoods. SR 169 Mitigation Concept Page Four VEGETA TION Wetlands As shown on the attached plan, the center area of the new wetland would be planted with emergent species such as cattails, sedges and rushes. The perimeter of the emergent area would be planted with wetland shrubs species such as spiraea, dogwood or willow. All plantings would be native species. Upland Buffer The remainder of the site will be planted with native upland tree and shrub species such as fir, alder and maple. In addition, the abandoned roadway will be graded and planted to blend with the existing vegetation types. A vegetated buffer of about 25 feet would be located between the north edge of the wetland and the toe of the roadway fill. All areas disturbed by construction will be seeded with an erosion control seeding mix. Contingency Plan Should the site fail to satisfactory revegetate. a contingency planting plan would be initiated. The plan would consist of transplanting or acquiring wetland and/ or upland plant species similar to those found in the existing adjacent wetlands. STANDARDS OF SUCCESS Species composition may vary from those planted; however, the new wetland should be comparable to the impacted wetlands. Success should be determined by 50% aerial coverage of wetland plant species after the first growing season and 90% coverage by the end of the five year monitoring period, and use of the site by wetland dependent wildlife. MAINTENANCE Maintenance of the mitigation site would begin after completion of construction and continue for five years. After initial planting acceptance by WSDOT, the construction contractor will be responsible for plant survival for a period of six months. After this period, maintenance will be performed by state forces and would be confined to repairing vandalism, repairing erosion damage, minor revegetation and noxious weed control. MONITORING AND REPORTING The mitigation site will be monitored annually for five years by WSDOT biologists using WSDOT wetland monitoring protocol. An annual report will be prepared for review by interested agencies and the public. T• 23N. R.6E. W. M. OSO�•� m % w Erc.a6t s- RAPTOR PERCH PROTECTION AREA TREE PROTECTION FENCE qQ LL \ _c Xs `--� �•EXP __ FX R/W i� '—s —L :XP= �)f'JIT_ —_—/ _— — AL O it J_' r�irSs+ems+>✓ it --- WETLAND 1250 • R/W 236 +40.88 -L.= .... .. ......... ......... o 9X.4iW— .....o..... .......... _�� V CO\LA - N \ —'i--------- J - - �j 1252+48.54 P.T. PROPOSED O 50 160 wErt..AND 9 SCALE IN FEET GRADING-, PLAN / RAPTOR PERCH PROTECTION ZONE. SCRUB SHRUB WETLAND ZONE BOUNDARY OF WETLAND MITIGATION N FORESTED UPLAND ZONE 0`SV BULRUSH CATTAIL ZONE m -WILLOW ZONE 0 STANDARD EMERGENT WETLAND ZONE HIGHWAY SEEDING FORESTED WETLAND ZONE STANOAR: HIGHWAY SEE- --�—�--T—T-r rG--'u!N•Ma On•}� uuw.�•r j7111••••••••••nurt.+w,«�I iin• 11�, rS1�u4��Inaai�^-1_A�. 7'_YCIT-__ ---_ .. ... - 1 Ir — � , �:•:-,=�.eY-. ,l Y • ....-t•�-+:: ��_ g— '"". P1AL �'•sad�fc, '��—•—_ �/ ��y:::i::f:•- _ �a-•{'asii'�(e�°d<.4 4 440etaA+ iq* ——f � — � 3 -/ / se : '' • . `, y '. i � — — - - - -- -- —.- � �a*:'aiiii a �/ \ i�y4 ••••e• •v• •�T..� •-. ... e i e.e ::��r - R/W 236 +40.88 P-T. SR 169 -.-- ---.-- O 50 100 SCALE IN FEET I VJO" N FLAN`rING COt1«� I I � f: as f os 1�Dt'Q'dd NI93 tl1SON181 t91 � 1 X 3NOZ ISO9i I / I � I X 3NOZ } _CD m b T _ � D D r I � i Lez we i x N.oz 6I = W F! - - /, n I ¢ i s 4``err_ o '- r3NO2' OL Z 3b'3NOZ - N j c 6I s � I } 9. ' � If tltl H L91 I NI X 3NOZ X 3NOZ I[ ZONE X 5 I � P / I ZONE X '0 16 I I \\ I � ZONE X 'y sy i � ZONE X -- II � CORPORATE LIMITS KING COUNTY RENTON ZONE AEA ZzON )( ZONE X I I I I RM 286 — I KING COUNTY UNINCORPORATED AREAS SM71 ZONE X ZONE AE Pa x ZONE X ZONE X - ey 23 r Mq �- 21 7 d S)PAck °h , 22 'I Q iAUrAW / N 2 N T 1 p 2 ISO ��is PO 4$T BUgCi'VCTpy _ _ P I � N i / I - _- --- RM 267 I\ i PJ ZONE X I I i i Z) t KING rnrTNTV