HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWP272708(7) EAST SIDE GREEN RIVER WATERSHED PLAN
PROGRESS REPORT AND ACTION PLAN
MEETING OF
THE CITY OF RENTON AND THE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
September 20, 1993
1:00 pm
**** AGENDA ****
1. Introduction 5 minutes
The goals of the meeting are as follows:
• Provide a review of the progress made to date on the East Side Green River Watershed
(ESGRW) Plan since the March 1993 meeting with SCS
• Present overview of the current status, the major issues to be resolved, and future plans.
• Finalize approved action plan for completion and implementation of the ESGRW Plan.
2. Project Progress and Status 30 minutes
A. East Side Green River Watershed Plan
1. SW Grady Way to SW 16th Street P-1 connecting channel
2. Improvement alternatives south of SW 16th Street
3. Issues for resolution 20 minutes
A. SW Grady Way to SW 16th Street P-1 connecting channel
1. SCS EA process schedule and interaction with SEPA
2. HPA fisheries window
3. COE 404 individual permit
B. Improvement alternatives south of SW 16th Street
1. Environmental process and change in impact mitigation scope
2. Program Issues
a. Funding
b. Sponsor participation/withdrawal (Kent, King County, Auburn, Tukwila)
c. Revised flood protection goals and flood control alternatives
d. Process and schedule for updating the SCS work plan if necessary
3. Technical Issues
a. Hydrology/Hydraulics modeling
b. Engineering alternatives and analysis
4. Action Plan 20 minutes
A. SW Grady Way to SW 16th Street P-1 connecting channel
1. Environmental/permitting
2. Coordination
B. Improvement alternatives south of SW 16th Street
1. Environmental
2. Program
3. Technical
4. Coordination
EAST SIDE GREEN RIVER WATERSHED PLAN
SW GRADY WAY TO SW 16TH STREET P-1 CONNECTING CHANNEL
PROGRESS SUMMARY
Date Action
3/5/93 Meeting with SCS regarding project status and the need for a constructable project
to ensure continued funding. As a result of this meeting the City separated the
connnecting channel project for implementation independent of the improvements
alternatives to be developed in the East Side Green River Watershed Plan and
EIS.
3/30/93 Meeting with SCS and City design team to present the project, discuss permitting
requirements, and identify issues for resolution.
4/15/93 City transmits right-of-way information to SCS to use in completing the land rights
map.
4/20/93 SCS request City decision on dewatering requirements for PVC membrane
installation.
4/26/93 City response to SCS 4/20/93 letter.
5/4/93 City transmits conceptual trail design to SCS and requests an estimate of the
project cost, cut/fill quantities, status and schedule of the construction plans and
environmental assessment preparation, and list of information SCS needed from
the City.
5/20/93 City requests sampling and testing of sediments in Springbrook Creek to be
removed by construction.
5/18/93 Meeting with SCS, the City, and Joe Robel of the Department of Fisheries to
review the project and construction plans.
5/24/93 SCS provides construction cost estimate and preliminary land rights map to the
City.
5/25/93 SCS submits dewatering cost estimate to the City.
6/1/93 Wetland delineation report completed by SCS.
6/9/93 SCS sediment testing scope delivered to City for review.
6/22/93 City submits revised sediment testing scope to SCS.
7/6/93 City transmitted project proposal and requested information for 7/8/93 meeting
with the Corps.
Nod k-7/8/93 Meeting with SCS, the City, and Corps of Engineers to present the project and
rr�'•' discuss Corps jurisdiction and permit requirements.
7/16/93 City letter to SCS regarding the urgency of moving forward with the project
.� ' envirionmental assessment.
7/19/93 Meeting with SCS to review the project proposal and schedule.
7/29/93 Conference call with SCS regarding integration of the environmental assessment
process with the SEPA process. Minutes issued.
8/24/93 Sediment sampling contract selected.
8/24/93 Meeting with SCS to discuss the project status and environmental assessment
process. Schedule for the assessment prepared and action items outlined.
Minutes issued.
8/26/93 City completes initial contacts with property owners concerning land rights needs
for the project.
CURRENT STATUS lo��h�g3
SCS is working on preparing a preliminary draft environmental assessment (EA) for City review scheduled for
completion on October 15, 1993. Other work in progress includes:
Preparation of a wetland delineation map
September 16, 1993
Page 2
• Finalizing the land rights map and grading plan
• Preparing alternative analysis for inclusion in the EA
The City is continuing to work on land rights acquisition, the engineering analysis and design of a
maintenance access road/pedestrian trail on the west side of the existing Springbrook Creek channel,
coordination of the EA/SEPA/Corps 404 processes, and preparation of a revised project schedule and work
plan.
ISSUES FOR RESOLUTION
Construction of the connecting channel project is proposed in the summer of 1994. Because a portion of the
project is within Springbrook Creek, a fish bearing stream, construction must take place within the fisheries
window of June 15 - September 15, 1994. Because this limits the number of working days available to the
contractor construction delays must be kept to a minimum. Provide that there are no significant delays the
contractor should be able to complete the project within the fisheries window.
To maximize the number of working days available it is important to be able to start construction as early as
possible within the fisheries window. This is anticipated to be achieveable, except that a 404 individual
permit from the Corps is required, which can take only two months to process, but has been known to take
more than a year. The earlier that the 404 permit application is submitted the more likely that the permit may
be obtained to start construction early in the 1994 fisheries window. The completeness of the permit
application and supporting environmental information also determines the speed of permit issuance. In order
to avoid duplication of effort the City's intention has been to use the information contained in the EA to
complete the required permit and SEPA applications, including the 404 permit. Because SCS has delayed
the preparation of the draft EA, which the City had initially been told would be completed in mid-May, permits
applications have also been delayed.
The City will review whether to proceed without the EA being completed. To this end the City will prepare an
alternate schedule based on the permit applications being prepared independent of the EA. It would be
desirable to proceed independently of the EA process if the project schedule will be significantly accelerated.
ACTION PLAN
The item for immediate action is to prepare a revised project schedule and detailed action plan to define how
the EA/SEPA/Corps 404 processes are to be integrated. The schedule and plan would also include all tasks
necessary for completion of the project and identify intermediate and final products, responsibilities, critical
decisions points, issue resolution procedures, and coordination requirements. It is recommended that bi-
weekly project meetings be held to review progress and to identify items to be accomplished before the next
meeting. It is also recommended that bi-weekly progress reports be prepared by the City and SCS for
presentation at the meetings. Conference calls could be used as an alternative to meeting.
CITY OF RENTON SURFACE WATER UTILITY t
P-1 Channel Project(SW Grady Way to SW 16th St.)
4th Quarter 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter
ID Name 8 Se Oct Nov Dec Jan Fe—b--T Mar Apr May Jun Jul Au
1 Environmental Permits
2
3 SEPA
4 j A PPt. S,PA A4,11" 4 I;IA ftAL
5 SCS Environmental Assessment Process a _
3u-oAh So-oA4
6 Gen MfNf Aef"t,
7 Shoreline Permit
$ 7o_DA'+ �PA ss �Goco`v
9 Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit
10 � �� V/Fp/�emrv&n�TS �trSior�
11 Coastal Zone Management Consistancy
A312Water Quality Certification Permit
I
14 Du( /t a4w
15 Hydraulic Project Approval Permit
A
16 PPL
17 Temp.Water Quality Modificaiton Permit.
,$ svoT-
19 City Condiitonal Use Permit
20
hPPL//t�ulCw
21 City Variance Approval
NLAhn�K� flPpff( \
22
23 Construction Permit
PAL
Project: P-1 Channel(Grady Way to S Critical Progress Summary
Date:9/20/93 Noncritical Milestone
9/20/93 (1)If SEPA is not appealed (2)If Hearing Examiner's Decision is not appealed.
EAST SIDE GREEN RIVER WATERSHED PLAN
IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES SOUTH OF SW 16TH STREET
PROGRESS SUMMARY
Date Action
3/23/93 East Side Green River Watershed (ESGRW) Plan Project progress report to SCS.
4/7/93 Letter confirming meeting for 5/4/93 to discuss hydrologic and hydraulic (h/h)
modeling issues.
4/13/93 City consultants ESGRW Plan Contract Addendum No. 7 notice to proceed. The
addendum provided $9995 for additional coordination with SCS for the purpose of
resolving the major h/h issues.
4/28/93 Consultant submits technical memoranda deliverables identified in contract
Addendum No. 7 to City.
4/29/93 Transmitted May 4, 1993 meeting agenda and technical memoranda to SCS for
review.
4/30/93 Contract Addendum No. 8 executed and notice to proceed given for consultants to
complete the Black River Water Quality Management Plan.
5/4/93 Meeting with SCS regarding h/h issues. Minutes issues 5/10/93.
5/18/93 Addendum to 5/4/93 meeting minutes.
6/3/93 Summary of water level observation in the Renton ESGRW valley for the January
9, 1990 storm event. Summary included observations of individuals who were
working in the valley at the time and evaluation of water levels present in
photographs from January 9-10, 1990.
6/8/93 Consultant provides estimate of assumed water level frequency on the Green
River at peak discharge from the pump station.
6/11/93 Consultant information of 6/8/93 to SCS and request for decision on plan of action
presented in 5/4/93 meeting.
6/14/93 Letter from SCS disapproving of the plan of action presented in the 5/4/93
meeting. SCS committed to updating their h/h models for comparison with the
City's HSPF/FEQ modes. Based on the comparison a flow or cost contingency
factor would be negotiated and the planning/design process continued.
7/7/93 City requests additional field survey work by SCS.
7/21/93 Information meeting with Kent on current and future plans and projects.
7/26/93 City requests that consultant prepare Contract Addendum No. 9 for completion of
the final ESGRW Plan and EIS.
7/29/93 City response to SCS June 14, 1993 letter.
8/4/93 Agenda for 8/16/93 conference call.
8/9/93 Ecology approves the Black River Water Quality Management Plan.
8/9/93 Field survey information provided by SCS in response to 7/7/93 request.
8/12/93 Consultant submits three options for performing remaining technical analysis in
coordination with SCS.
8/13/93 Consultant meeting with City to discuss Addendum No. 9 issues to be resolved.
Discussion included issue of coordination with SCS and Kent modeling update
work.
8/16/93 Conference call with the City, the City's consultant, and SCS. Minutes issues
8/30/93.
8/27/93 Request to King County for continued assistance in the collection of stream gaging
data at five gaging stations in the ESGRW.
9/3/93 HSPF/FEQ drawing files sent to SCS.
9/13/93 Consultant contract executed and notice to proceed for installation of stream
gaging station at SW 27th Street and Springbrook Creek.
September 16, 1993
Page 2
CURRENT STATUS
On June 14, 1993 SCS issued a letter disapproving of a City proposed work plan to allow continuation of the
project using refined HSPF/FEQ models for completion of the ESGRW Plan. In the letter SCS recommended
the collection of additional stream gage data. SCS also committed to updating their event simulation models
for comparison with the HSPF/FEQ models for the purpose of reaching agreement on flow or cost
contingency factors to be applied to the HSPF/FEQ results and used for preparation of the Plan. The SCS
model updates are scheduled to be completed in mid-October.
On July 26, 1993 the City requested its consultant, R.W. Beck, to prepare the Contract Addendum No. 9
scope, schedule, and budget for completion of the ESGRW Plan and EIS. Because the City wishes to
maintain SCS involvement, the work plan is to be developed in coordination with SCS. The City desires the
Addendum No. 9 to be the final addendum for the project. All issues for resolution must be identified and the
City and SCS processes and requirement defined and coordinated. Therefore a conference call with the
City, R.W. Beck, and SCS was held on August 16 to identify and discuss SCS environmental, programmatic,
and technical processes and requirements. SCS is preparing the information requested in the conference
call for transmittal by September 20.
The City has contracted for the installation of an additional stream gage at SW 27th Street and Springbrook
Creek to be operational by the start of the 1994 water year in October. The data collected at the gage and
five others operated by King County will be used for refinement of the HSPF/FEQ models.
ISSUES FOR RESOLUTION
Several environmental, programmatic, and technical issues for resolution were identified and discussed in the
August 16 conference call and summarized in the attached conference call minutes. It is recommended that
a procedure be established for resolution of these and issues which may arise in the future. Of particular
concerns are the issues that may jeopardize SCS funding or require reauthorization from congress, such as
Kent withdrawal from the project.
ACTION PLAN
SCS will be providing the information requested in the August 16 conference call by September 20.
Additional meetings may be required to resolve issues and adequately define and evaluate work plan options
for proceeding with the project. From the work plans options two work plan documents will be created that
will be separate, but related, and will reference each other when coordination or exchange of information is
required to keep each process moving toward completion. These work plans will document all required tasks
and products, responsibilities, schedules, costs and opportunities for financial assistance, critical decision
points, and coordination requirements necessary to achieve a completed project in a timely manner. It is
recommended that a project logic diagram be prepared for each work plan option. The diagrams will provide
assistance in visualizing how the City's work plan and the SCS work plan may be integrated into a single,
comprehensive project logic diagram for all work through completion of the project.
The scope of the work plan is directly effected and may be driven by the project budget. The City's resources
are limited. Some work plan options may be eliminated because they would be too expensive to implement.
It is requested that SCS funding assistance be provided because information that the City will prepare to
satisfy its own permit and other requirements may also be used to modify or supplement the SCS work plan
and NEPA environmental documents. Funding assistance may also facilitate acceleration of the project
schedule. An assessment of the opportunities for financially assistance can be made once work plan options
have been identified and costs assigned.
EAST SIDE GREEN RIVER WATERSHED PLAN
ACTION PLAN DEVELOPMENT
CONFERENCE CALL WITH
THE CITY OF RENTON AND THE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
August 16, 1993
10:00 a.m.
**** MINUTES ****
ISSUED AUGUST 30, 1993
1. Introduction
The following individuals participated in the conference call:
Representing the Soil Conservation Service (SCS):
Lang Cooke
Keith Busch
Rod Den Herder
Representing the City of Renton (City):
Scott Woodbury,
Ron Straka zwgo
Representing R. W. Beck (RWB):
Mike Giseburt
2. Project Status
A. City of Renton staff and project consultants. The City and project consultants are developing
a contract addendum scope, schedule, and budget to cant'the project through completion of
the final East Side Green River Watershed Plan (ESGRWP) and EIS. Because the City
wishes to maintain the technical and financial assistance of the SCS this addendum will be
coordinated with the SCS watershed planning process so that both local and federal
requirements can be satisfied as efficiently as possible.
B. SCS staff. SCS is updating their TR-20 and WSP-2 models and anticipate them to be
completed in the middle of October.
3. Identify Issues and Develop Resolution Procedures
A. Environmental Issues
1. Environmental Process. The proposed SEPA process involves completing the ESGRWP
and preparing a programmatic EIS of the alternatives developed in the ESGRWP.
Agency coordination will be initiated in the scoping process of the SEPA EIS preparation.
Following issuance of the Final Programmatic EIS and final engineering design, a project
specific SEPA document would then be prepared. A determination of nonsignificance-
mitigated will hopefully be issued for each separate implementation project identified in
the ESGRWP. Although, if the implementation project has significant environmental
East Side Green River Watershed Plan
Conference Call
Page 2
impacts, a project specific EIS may be required. The proposed schedule is for completion
of the programmatic EIS in 1994 with implementation and project specific SEPA in 1995.
The proposed NEPA process is to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) to
supplement the 1979 NEPA EIS for each separate implementation project identified in the
ESGRWP. The EA (6-month process) could be elevated into a NEPA EIS (1-112 year
process) if comments received in the EA review can only be addressed through an EIS.
SCS will review the NEPA requirements to ensure whether a new NEPA EIS will be
required.
Significant changes in the scope of the ESGRWP from the early 1980 watershed work
plan could also render the EA process insufficient and a NEPA EIS would be required. It
is the understanding of the City that this would not by itself require reauthorization from
congress. Reauthorization may be required for changes such as a reduction in the
cost/benefit ratio or benefited area from the original work plan. SCS will identify the types
of changes that may trigger reauthorization. The proposed schedule for preparation of a
project specific EA is late 1994 following completion of the SEPA EIS.
The environmental information prepared for the SEPA process could be utilized in the
NEPA process. SCS will determine the information needed for the NEPA process for the
City to possibly include in the scope of its consultant contract. The City will send SCS a
copy of the SEPA handbook and rules. SCS will send the City a copy of the NEPA
handbook and rules.
2. Impact Mitigation Scope and Obligation. New mitigation measures would be required to
address the impacts associated with the updated ESGRWP. The mitigation identified for
the earlier watershed plan is no longer binding.
B. Programmatic Issues
1. Funding. SCS updates its fiscal October 1-September 30 budget every year in April.
Currently the following projects are programmed:
Fiscal year (FY) 1994
P-1 Channel Grady Way to SW 16th Street construction
P-9/Panther Creek Wetland (PCW) and P-1 SW 16th Street to P-9 final design
FY 1995
P-9/PCW construction
P-1 SW 16th Street to P-9 final design
FY 1996
P-1 SW 16th Street to P-9 construction
Funding for future ESGRWP projects identified in the updated ESGRWP is dependent
upon the demonstration of the project providing an acceptable cost/benefit (C/B) ratio.
SCS will check into if and when a new C/B analysis is required, what information is
needed, and who makes the decision if a C/B ratio is acceptable. For the City, C/B
information is useful in determining if a project provides sufficient returns. However the
SEPA EIS process considers environmental impacts alone, not C/B ratios, in determining
whether a project has an acceptable impact.
SCS and the City have common interest in environmental information for the SEPA/NEPA
processes, C/B information for determining the profitability of the project, and stream
East Side Green River Watershed Plan
Conference Call
Page 3
gaging data for hydrologic/hydraulic model calibration and engineering design. Given
SCS limited staffing it may be more beneficial and expedient for SCS to assist with the
funding of the City's consultants in their work of preparing the needed information. SCS
will check into funding availability for sharing with the City the costs of preparing the
environmental, C/B, stream gaging, and other information needed for the project.
)L2-
Sponsor Participation/Withdrawal. The issue of Kent's participation/withdrawal from the
watershed plan and the implications to the ESGRWP project will be defined by SCS. For
example, if Kent withdraws what has to take place for Renton to have an independent
watershed plan? Since a change in benefited area from the original work plan may
require reauthorization from congress would continued SCS assistance be available if
Kent were to withdraw? Or what requirements must be fulfilled if Kent is to participate
and what cost/benefits will Kent realize? The City and SCS will begin discussions with
the City of Kent once the participation/withdrawal issues are identified by SCS.
3- Revised Flood Projection Goals and Flood Control Alternatives. Questions regarding the
effect of changes to the original watershed plan would be answered by the SCS WNTC in
Portland. SCS will define the effect of making changes to the original watershed plan
and the requirements formaking the changes. For example what are the impacts of
reducing the flood protection goals?
—4. Process and Schedule for Updating the SCS Work Plan. For any changes to the scope
of the work plan that do not require a new plan and reauthorization by congress, a
supplement(requires local official approval) or amendment(requires original work plan
official approval) to the SCS work plan would be prepared. SCS will send the City
information on its work plan preparation processes and schedule with a copy of the
watershed handbook regulation information on work plan revisions.
5. Citizen Participation. The local sponsors are responsible for hosting public meetings.
SCS will work jointly with the City in presenting the project to the public.
C. Technical Issues. SCS is updating their TR-20 and WSP-2 event simulation models for
comparison with the HSPF/FEQ continuous simulation models. The City and project
consultants are developing a contract addendum scope, schedule, and budget to carry the
project through completion of the final East Side Green River Watershed Plan (ESGRWP)
and EIS. In order to integrate the SCS processes and requirements with the City's consultant
contract the information outlined in these minutes is needed from SCS. Coordination with
Kent also must be considered when mapping out the future scope for the project.
The City has received some new information regarding the Kent portions of the HSPF
watershed model that merit consideration. The HSPF model for the watershed is divided into
three sub-areas, two of which are in Kent that provide input to the Renton portion. Kent is
currently planning to update the calibration of their portions of the HSPF model to more
detailed field information to be collected on recent major storm events. The Kent work is
estimated to be completed in February of 1994. In order to have the best information
included in the Renton model the City is considering delaying the Renton HSPF update until
the Kent update is complete. This would delay the project schedule by several months but
would provide for consistency between the Kent/Renton HSPF models and save Renton from
having to fund additional calibration work on the Kent HSPF models. The impact of the delay
on the project schedule will better be determined when the information on SCS processes
and requirements identified in these minutes has been transmitted to the City and reviewed.
Any information that SCS can provide on the potential impact of waiting for the Kent models
East Side Green River Watershed Plan
Conference Call
Page 4
to be updated would be appreciated. The City would like to know SCS's position regarding
the consideration to delay the model update.
4. Action Plan Options
The information and actions outlined in the text above are summarized following:
The City will:
• prepare environmental, programmatic, technical, and coordination action plan options once the
information identified in these minutes is provided by SCS.
8/3�193 . send SCS a copy of the SEPA handbook and rules.
SCS will:
• SCS will review the NEPA requirements to ensure whether a new NEPA EIS will be required.
• determine the information needed for the NEPA process for the City to possibly include in the
scope of its consultant contract.
• SCS will identify the types of changes that may trigger congressional reauthorization.
• send the City a copy of the NEPA handbook and rules.
• check into if and when a new C/B analysis is required, what information is needed, and who
makes the decision if a C/B ratio is acceptable.
• check into funding availability for sharing with the City the costs of preparing the environmental,
C/B, stream gaging, and other information needed for the project.
• define the issues of Kent's participation/withdrawal from the watershed plan and the implications
to the ESGRWP project. SCS and the City will begin discussions with the City of Kent once the
participation/withdrawal issues are identified by SCS.
• define the effect of making changes to the original watershed plan and the requirements for
making the changes. For example, what effect would changing the flood protection goal at SW
43rd St have on the project?
9/3/93 • send the City information on its work plan preparation processes and schedule with a copy of the
watershed handbook regulation information on work plan revisions.
• provide information on the potential impact of waiting for the Kent models to be updated.
End of Minutes
Development of the final consultant contract addendum to cant'the project through completion of
the final ESGRWP and EIS is dependent upon the information identified to be collected in these
minutes. If possible, the City requests a response from SCS by September 8, 1993 regarding the
consideration to delay the City model update until the Xent update is complete, with the balance of
the information identified in the minutes to be provided by September 20, 1993.
The City appreciates the assistance of SCS and looks forward to moving forward with this project.
Please review these minutes. If you have any questions, or if there are any corrections or additional
items which you would like included, please contact Scott Woodbury at 206-277-5547.
H:DOGS:93-837:S S W:ps
CC: All present
Gregg Zimmerman
EAST SIDE GREEN RIVER WATERSHED PLAN (VALLEY DRAINAGE STUDY)
PROJECT ACTION PLAN
DUE DATE MILESTONES
Oct 191 Program issues resolved. City consultant contract Addendum No. 9
�C ') ' executed. SCS formal work plan completed.
,i> Models approved for planning.
ASS
Alternative analysis completed.
Scoping complete.
Programmatic ESGRW Plan and EIS complete.
Stream gaging data sufficient for design.
Models roved r design. `q
Sept 1994 Preliminary' hase I design completed. t,r
i�
Jan 1995 Phase I project SEPA completed.
April 1995 Phase I construction contract award.
May 1995 Phase I permits issued.
June 1995 Start Phase I construction.
June 1995 Prelimina Phas II design completed. ,
Nov 1995 Phase II project SEPA completed.
March 1996 Phase II construction contract award.
May 1996 Phase II permits issued.
June 1996 Start Phase II construction.
Phase I includes improvements other than the main stem project, such as the Panther Creek
Wetland/P-9 channel.
Phase II includes main stem channel improvements identified in the ESGRW Plan, such as Springbrook
Creek from SW 16th Street to the P-9 channel.
P- 1 CHANNEL
SW GRADY WAY TO SW 16TH STREET
Project Proposal
Planning/Building/Public Works Department
Lynn Guttmann, Administrator
Prepared by:
Surface Water Utility Division
Scott Woodbury, Project Manager
June, 1993
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1
PROJECT RELATIONSHIP WITH THE EAST SIDE GREEN RIVER 2
WATERSHED PLAN
SCOPE OF WORK 5
Task 1 - Project Management and Quality Assurance/ Quality 5
Control
Task II - Data Collection and Conditions Assessment 5
Task III - Engineering Analysis and Design 7
Task IV - SEPA Review 9
Task V - Approvals/Permits 10
Task VI - Bidding Assistance 10
Task VII - Construction 11
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS 11
RIGHT-OF-WAY 12
COST 12
FUNDING 12
SCHEDULE 12
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT 12
STAFFING 12
MANAGEMENT CONCURRENCE AND COMMITMENT 13
INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM CONCURRENCE AND COMMITMENT 14
APPENDIX 15
Figure I - Site Map
Figure 2 - East Side Green River Watershed
Project Schedule
C:DOCS:93-559a:ssw:ps
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is the final segment of a series of flood control improvements to
the Springbrook/P-1 Channel made from 1984 to 1990 with the assistance of the Soil
Conservation Service (SCS). Improvements which have been completed during this
period include the Black River pump station forebay, P-1 Channel improvements from
the forebay to SW Grady Way, the SW Grady Way and 1-405 box culverts, the
P-1/Oakesdale retaining wall, and the SW 16th Street bridge (see Figure 1). The
purpose of this proposed project is to extend construction of P-1 Channel
improvements from SW 16th Street (Sta 670+31) to SW Grady Way (Sta 678+30).
The existing Springbrook Creek stream chann-1, which conveys drainage from an
approximately 25 square miles watershed, directs flows north under the SW 16th
Street bridge toward the 1-405 box culvert. However, since the corresponding channel
improvements to direct flow into the culvert were not constructed, fill now blocking
the 1-405 box culvert forces the flow around the culvert to the west and underneath
the 1-405 bridge adjacent to the culvert. The channel improvement between Grady
Way and SW 16th Street was not completed at the same time as the 1-405 box culvert
because the channel improvement project was proposed to be implemented as part of
another project, the overall P-1 Channel improvements identified in the modified SCS
1978 East Side Green River Watershed Plan (ESGRWP), rather than as a corollary
project to the 1-405 box culvert. A review by the City of the adequacy of the 1979
NEPA EIS to address the environmental impacts of implementing the modified 1978
ESGRWP identified a need for further study and delayed construction of the Grady Way
to SW 16th Street channel improvement project. The City elected to construct 1-405
box culvert with the 1-405 HOV lane widening and the Oakesdale underpass projects,
because it was determined either impossible or uneconomical to construct the culvert
at a later time. The proposed channel improvement project would remove the fill
blocking the culvert and bring the 1-405 box culvert into service as originally intended
by allowing flows to pass through.
Continuing downstream from under the I-405 bridge the flow is redirected to the
northeast to pass through the SW Grady Way box culvert and on toward the Black
River pump station forebay. Only three of the five cells of the SW Grady Way culvert
are open because of the existing narrow inlet channel blocking the outer two cells.
The project proposes to widen the inlet channel to fully utilize the full capacity of the
existing Grady Way box culvert.
This channel reach is also a source of downstream sedimentation due to erosion within
the reach. It provides minimal habitat for wildlife because the surrounding streets
confine Springbrook Creek to a narrow, defined corridor disconnected from other
habitat in the area. Shoreline anchoring work by the Department of Transportation
under 1-405, significant channel erosion and sedimentation provide low quality fish
habitat. The narrow channel also affords little in-stream or off-stream shelter to
migrating fish which the proposed project will provide.
The proposed channel construction would begin immediately upstream of the SW 16th
Street bridge and extend north along Oakesdale Avenue SW through the 1-405 box
culvert to SW Grady Way. Fill blocking the 1-405 box culvert would be removed and
Springbrook Creek flows directed through the 1-405 box culvert. Low flows and most
of the high flows would pass through the new channel. A low flow channel to
P-1 Channel - SW Grady Way to SW 16th Street
maintain fish passage is included in the design which would connect to one of the five
bays of the 1-405 and SW Grady Way box culverts which have a lower bottom
elevation than the other bays for fish passage. Fill blocking the SW Grady Way box
culvert would also be removed. The existing stream channel would be preserved to
convey some flows in larger storm events, provide needed flood storage, and create
off-stream habitat for fish and wildlife use.
The proposed project would provide many benefits including increased flow
conveyance capacity and flood storage as well as alleviation of the existing erosion
problem. The project completes the channel improvements for which the existing I-
405 and SW Grady Way box culverts, P-1/Oakesdale retaining wall, and SW 16th
Street bridge capital improvements were designed. The project utilizes land area,
which by its location and zoning designation is of no commercial use, but can be
enhanced to provide a riparian corridor for fish and wildlife habitat. These
improvements would also be beneficial to water quality by reducing channel erosion,
maximizing biofiltration, and reducing exposure to solar induced temperature increases.
The project will also provide for a trail link across the 1-405 corridor to connect the
existing and proposed pedestrian and bicycle trails to the north and south which will
provide increased recreational opportunities.
PROJECT RELATIONSHIP WITH THE EAST SIDE GREEN RIVER WATERSHED PLAN
The Valley Drainage Study (also known as the East Side Green River Watershed Plan)
has a long history dating back to the early 1960's when the local governments of
Auburn, Kent, Tukwila, Renton, King County Conservation District, and King County
requested federal flood assistance from the Soil Conservation Service under the
Watershed Protection and Flood Protection Act (Public Law 566). The SCS developed
a work plan in 1965 which was approved by the United States Congress. This led to
the construction of the Black River Pump Station (BRPS) in 1972.
In 1972 the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was enacted and it was
determined that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would be required prior to
any future project improvements. A draft EIS issued in 1973 raised concerns regarding
the environmental impacts posed by the plan. It was not until 1978 that a revised
watershed plan was completed which provided for a reduced scope of work to more
accurately reflect development trends and to address environmental concerns. A NEPA
EIS was then prepared by SCS and approved at the federal level in 1979. Subsequent
modifications to the 1978 revised watershed plan were finalized and approved by the
local governmental sponsors along with an Environmental Mitigation Program in 1980.
A 1981 amplification to the 1979 EIS was then prepared by the SCS to reflect the
changes to the 1978 watershed plan. The plan consisted of constructing the P-1
Channel, P-9 Channel in the City of Renton and a series of channels in the City of Kent.
The total plan consisted of approximately 11.1 miles of new channels with the P-1
Channel being the main channel with an average top width of 210 feet.
In 1982 the local sponsors withdrew from the plan as a result of a disagreement over
the equitable cost sharing for the local share of the plan construction cost. Following
1982, the City of Renton assumed lead agency responsibility from King County. With
assistance from SCS the City of Renton constructed the BRPS forebay, the P-1
Channel from the forebay to SW Grady Way, and the SW Grady Way box culvert.
Efforts to continue construction of the channel improvements identified in the
Page 2
P-1 Channel - SW Grady Way to SW 16th Street
watershed plan were halted when City review of the NEPA EIS determined that the
document did not adequately evaluate the environmental impacts of the overall plan.
However given that SCS support would be withdrawn if the City did not rely on the
existing environmental documents, it was agreed, with Ecology approval, that the City
proceed to adopt the NEPA EIS as a local SEPA document.
The process to formally adopt the NEPA EIS as a local SEPA document began in 1988.
The adoption process generated serious concerns and comments from various
regulatory agencies, environmental groups, and citizens who questioned the adequacy
of the original NEPA EIS. The City then suspended the adoption process and
conducted an Adequacy Determination Study for the NEPA EIS. This study identified
deficiencies in the NEPA EIS with respect .to wetland impacts, impacts to streams,
wildlife and fish habitat, and water quality. In addition, the existing hydrologic and
hydraulic models were considered out of date due to changes in the drainage system
and advances in modeling technology.
Concurrently with environmental review, the 1-405 box culvert, the Oakesdale Avenue
SW underpass, and the P-1 retaining wall projects were constructed in conjunction
with the state's 1-405 HOV lane project. These projects were constructed without the
corresponding channel improvement because of concern with respect to the adequacy
of the modified 1978 ESGRWP and 1979 NEPA EIS. The City elected to move forward
with the construction of the culvert and retaining walls because these improvements
would have been much more expensive if not done in conjunction with the HOV
project. The shoreline permit for the box culvert was approved by Ecology with the
stipulation that approval of the 1-405 box culvert did not imply approval of the channel
improvement to direct Springbrook Creek into the culvert. In order to obtain Ecology
approval, the City agreed to review the environmental impacts of the channel
construction identified in the ESGRWP prior to directing Springbrook Creek into the box
culvert.
In May of 1990 the City initiated a study to address the identified deficiencies in the
NEPA EIS and to update the hydrologic and hydraulic models for the watershed. Since
the start of the study the City has made significant progress toward an updated
ESGRWP, and is committed to completion of the plan effort. A portion of the work
was to be completed though the Black River Water Quality Management Plan
(BRWQMP) funded in part by a Centennial Clean Water Fund grant from Ecology.
Ecology approval of the final BRWQMP plan has been received.
The hydrologic and hydraulic models for the watershed and the following reports were
completed, including a preliminary alternatives analysis, and sent to SCS for review:
• Hydrologic Analysis Report
• Hydraulic Analysis Report
• Current Conditions Report
• Project Summary Report
The models and reports will be revised this summer to address SCS comments and to
extend the period of simulation to include water years 1989-91, as well as the most
recent information on regional storm water detention facilities, which were not
included in the recent modeling work. Because of the major storm events in 1990-91,
the flow predicted by the recent modeling work could increase up to 20%. The flow
Page 3
P-1 Channel - SW Grady Way to SW 16th Street
increase could impact the selection and identification of various flood control
alternatives. Once the models are updated the flood control alternatives can be
finalized and integrated into an updated ESGRWP with other related information for
SEPA review. Following environmental review final design can be completed.
Construction of the improvements identified in the updated ESGRWP is expected to
start in 1995.
Historically the City and SCS had considered the Grady Way to SW 16th Street
channel project as an element to be implemented through the ESGRWP. The channel
improvement was not completed with the 1-405 box culvert because the channel
improvement project was proposed to be implemented as an element of the overall P-1
Channel improvements identified in the modified SCS 1978 ESGRWP, rather than as an
independent project. Review of the adequacy of the 1979 NEPA EIS to address the
environmental impacts of implementing the modified 1978 ESGRWP identified a need
for further study and delayed construction of the channel improvement project.
However, the channel improvement from Grady Way to SW 16th Street is now
proposed to be implemented separately, but concurrently, with the effort to complete
the updated ESGRWP. The updated watershed plan would address the future flood
control alternative projects south of SW 16th Street where there are potential impacts
to significant environmental resources. The proposed project would complete the final
segment of channel improvements located north of SW 16th Street, in accordance
with the 1979 SCS NEPA EIS as supplemented through the City SEPA process. Since
the project and updated ESGRWP would be considered separately, approval of this
project would not imply approval of any element of the updated ESGRWP effort. The
channel improvements can function independently of the improvements required for the
ESGRWP.
The proposed project is considered independent from the ESGRWP because the project
would not predetermine or depend on future improvements identified in the watershed
plan. The existing 1-405, SW Grady Way, SW 16th Street, and Oakesdale Avenue SW
streets confine this project's segment of Springbrook creek to a narrow, defined
corridor. Also, all downstream improvements and major structures necessary for the
proposed project have already been permitted and constructed. Therefore the
proposed channel impact can be evaluated and mitigation provided independently from
the ESGRWP. The impact evaluation and mitigation for the proposed project are
identified in the project description and environmental assessment.
For the ESGRWP there are several options for the location of future improvements
south of SW 16th Street, as the location for these improvements is not so limited by
existing streets and other existing development. Any future proposed alignment must
be evaluated for impacts and compared with other alternative alignments through the
updated ESGRWP for their effect on environmental resources. The proposed project,
however, does not predetermine, depend upon, or foreclose opportunities for a future
connection between this project segment and any future ESGRWP improvement, that
potential connection being clearly defined by the existing channel location as it passes
under the SW 16th Street bridge.
Page 4
P-1 Channel - SW Grady Way to SW 16th Street
SCOPE OF WORK
Task I - Project Management and Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Purpose: Provide project management to meet project scope, schedule, budget, and
quality requirements.
Approach: Provide various management services in support of the project:
Develop and administer contracts and agreements
Coordinate, schedule, and monitor work tasks and meetings
Invoice/budget reviews and control
Communications, record keeping
Coordination with the City design team
Detailed quality assurance/quality control check and coordination review
of all task products
Products:
Meeting agenda and minutes
Weekly progress reports
Product review summary/redline documents
Communication documents and log
Budget and schedule summaries _
Invoices/reimbursements
Task II - Data Collection and Conditions Assessment
Purpose: Collect and assess existing physical, biological, and land use conditions of
the project area and create base mapping suitable for design.
Approach: Assist SCS in collecting and assessing the following information:
A. Base map survey - Provide a horizontal and vertical survey of the project area
including important physical features such as edge of pavement, utilities,
driveways, structures, trees, landscaping, walkways, fences, mail boxes, and other
objects a minimum of 30 feet beyond the project work limits. The survey will
include ties to centerline monuments and City vertical elevation datum. The survey
shall incorporate utility information prepared from map and locate information
obtained from utility agencies and the one-call locating service. Horizontal control
for the project will be based upon survey information compiled from previous
projects, such as the Oakesdale underpass. The base map survey plans shall be
prepared in accordance with the City of Renton drafting standards.
B. Geotechnical survey - Review existing geotechnical information prepared for the
16th Street bridge (box culvert), Grady Way box culvert, 1-405 box culvert, and
Page 5
P-1 Channel - SW Grady Way to SW 16th Street
Oakesdale underpass projects. Boring locations shall be shown on the base map
and appropriately referenced. Prepare recommendations for project site
preparation, dewatering, excavation and fill, shoring, seepage control between the
channel and Oakesdale underpass, and erosion control. The recommendations will
be used for engineering design, cost estimating, and project permitting.
Recommendations to be used for construction will be noted in the specifications to
be the responsibility of the contractor.
C. Environmental Assessment - Provide an environmental assessment to identify
potential impacts of the project on land use and socioeconomic issues, natural
resources, and archeological and historical resources. The natural resource
assessment shall at a minimum include a review of project impacts to the following
resources: surface and ground water, wetland, terrestrial and aquatic, and earth.
The assessment shall be conducted using standard professional methodologies used
by biologists and scientists in accordance with the established standard of care. A
draft of the environmental assessment will be routed to the City design team for
review and comment. The following information will be a part of the assessment
and will be provided to the City as soon as it can be completed.
Sediment testing report. Because of concerns with sediment quality, representative
tests of the sediments to be removed from Springbrook Creek shall be performed
and a summary prepared. The summary shall identify the disposal requirements for
the material to be removed.
Wetland delineation report. A wetland delineation with the project work limits shall
be performed and a summary prepared. The delineation will be submitted to the
Army Corps of Engineers (COE) for approval and determination of federal permitting
requirements as outlined below.
D. Approval/permit requirements - Identify and confirm federal, state, and local
permitting requirements. Hold a preliminary project review with City Development
Services staff to determine City land use permit requirements. Of particular
concern is whether a COE Section 404 permit will be required because of the
lengthy permit process involved. Request for resolution of COE permitting
requirements shall be submitted to COE with the wetland delineation report. A
summary of permitting requirements shall be prepared along with a listing of
application materials to be prepared. Permits known or anticipated to be required
for the project are as follows:
1. Local approvals/permits
a. Land use approvals/permits
1) Tree cutting/land clearing variance for work within 25 feet of the high water
mark
2) Administrative conditional use permit for medium utility in IM/CO interim
land use zones
3) Shoreline permit
Page 6
P-1 Channel - SW Grady Way to SW 16th Street
b. Construction approvals/permits
1) Fill & grade permit
2) Haul route
3) Construction sequence
4) Traffic control plan
5) Construction easements
2. State approvals/permits
a. Department of Fisheries
1) HPA permit
b. Department of Ecology
1) Temporary water quality modification permit
2) 401 water quality certification (If a COE 404 permit is required)
3) Shoreline permit
c. Department of Transportation
1) Work plan approval within 1-405 right-of-way
3. Federal Permits
a. Corps of Engineers
1) 404 individual permit
Products:
Technical memoranda of permitting requirements and geotechnical
recommendations
Sediment testing report
Wetland delineation report
Environmental assessment
Base map plans
Preliminary project review comments by Development Services
Task III- Engineering Analysis and Design
Purpose: To prepare the technical and administrative information necessary for permit
approval and construction.
Approach: Assist SCS in developing the necessary plans, analysis, and other contract
documents. The construction for the project will be administered by the SCS as a
federal contract.
A. Design and working drawings. Prepare plan, profile, section, and detail drawings
necessary for permit approval and construction. The drawings shall be prepared in
Page 7
P-1 Channel - SW Grady Way to SW 1 6th Street
accordance with the City of Renton drafting standards and standard plans. All
drawings shall be completed in AutoCad. The City title block shall be provided to
SCS on AutoCad, Release 11 format.
The design shall allow for a trail link across the 1-405 corridor on the west side of
Springbrook Creek which connects the existing recreational trails to the north of Grady
Way and south of SW 16th Street. This provides pedestrian passage across 1-405
corridor which the City Hearing Examiner's office had been assured would be
completed during the conditional use/special permit hearing conducted for the
Oakesdale underpass transportation improvement project in 1988. An
interdepartmental agreement between the Surface Water Utility, Transportation
Division, and the Parks Department will be prepared as outlined in Task III.E.
Cross sections of the channel at a minimum of 50-foot intervals shall be submitted
separately for review. A land rights map for use by the City in obtaining the necessary
construction easements will be also be submitted separately. The following drawings
are anticipated:
1. Permit/construction drawings
a. cover sheet
b. land clearing/erosion control plan sheets
c. fill and grade plan and profile sheets
d. landscape/habitat improvement plan sheets
e. section and detail sheets
f. standard notes
2. Working drawings
a. land rights map sheet
b. cross section sheets
The design drawings will be presented to the design team for review and comment at
80% level of completion.
B. Analysis. A drainage report shall be prepared in accordance with the City of
Renton storm drainage ordinance.
C. Specifications. Prepare specifications for the project in accordance with standards
for federal contracts, including an engineer's estimate of construction cost for the
project.
D. Bidding/contract documents. Prepare bidding/contract documents to be used in the
procurement of bids and construction of the project, including all addenda required.
E. Prepare agreements. Assist SCS preparation of an agreement outlining SCS and
City contractual and financial obligations for the project. Assist SCS preparation of
Page 8
P-1 Channel - SW Grady Way to SW 16th Street
an operations and maintenance agreement for City management of the completed
project.
Prepare an agreement between the Surface Water Utility, Transportation Division,
and the Parks Department for inclusion of pedestrian trail link between Grady Way
and SW 16th Street within the scope of the channel improvement project. The
agreement would outline the responsibilities of each department, the scope of trail
improvements, and the financial responsibilities of each department.
Products:
Design and working drawings
Storm drainage report
Specifications
Bidding/contract documents
Project agreement with SCS
Operations and maintenance agreement with SCS
Interdepartmental agreement between Surface Water Utility,
Transportation Division, and Parks Department
Task IV - SEPA Review
Purpose: To obtain a determination of non-significance mitigated
Approach: Complete environmental checklist and City of Renton permit applications
for submittal for SEPA review with SCS and Planning Department assistance. Prepare
a mitigation document with approval of SCS and the design team for the project,
identifying mitigation alternatives and the recommended mitigation. The mitigation
document, environmental checklist, and other application documents will be submitted
to the design team (Technical Advisory Committee) for concurrence and referral to the
Environmental Review Committee (ERC) for subsequent SEPA determination of non-
significance mitigated.
Products:
Environmental checklist
Permit applications
Mitigation document
Determination of non-significance mitigated
Task V - Approvals/Permits
Purpose: To obtain all local, state, and federal approvals/permits.
Approach: Prepare, submit, and modify in a timely manner all approval/permit
documents determined to be required for the project in Task II.D.
Page 9
P-1 Channel - SW Grady Way to SW 16th Street
A. Applications. The City shall be responsible for all applications with technical
assistance and review provided by SCS. All applications will name SCS and the
City as co-applicants, with the City as the lead agency. The applications will direct
all communication to the City who will distribute copies to SCS. All communication
with the agencies regarding the applications shall be coordinated through the City
and carefully documented.
Federal and State applications are not submitted until the SEPA determination is
issued. Pre-application activities include informal meetings and correspondence
with the respective agencies to present the project and obtain preliminary input.
B. Construction easements. The City shall obtain the necessary construction
easements for the project and letter from the City attorney addressed to SCS
certifying that all easements and right-of-way were obtained.
C. Coordination. Coordinate and modify task products to address all permits
conditions and review comments.
Products:
Completed approval/permit applications
Construction easements and certification letter
Approvals/Permits
Task VI - Bidding Assistance
Purpose: To obtain competitive bids from qualified contractors for construction of the
project and award the construction contract.
Approach: Assist SCS in bid advertisement, tabulating and evaluating bids received,
and selecting the lowest, most responsible bidder.
Product:
Bid award and notice to proceed.
Task VII - Construction
Purpose: Provide limited construction support services during construction to assist
SCS and City inspection staff in performing needed construction management
functions for the project. The City shall be responsible for PVC membrane installation
inspection.
Approach: Provide assistance in interpretation of the contract documents, review of
change orders, limited field observation of construction progress, and review of record
drawings.
Page 10
P-1 Channel - SW Grady Way to SW 16th Street
Products:
Photographic documentation of construction progress
Record drawings of complete project
Closed out project agreements
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
The following issues are of special concern for the project:
A. HPA permit. Construction within Springbrook Creek, a fish bearing stream, must
take place within the fisheries window. Therefore construction for this project
must be completed during the "fisheries window" of June 15 - September 15,
1994.
B. COE 404 individual permit. If needed, this can significantly add to the cost and
schedule of the project, with no guarantee of success.
C. Dewatering for seepage control membrane installation and bypass of stream flows.
Unexpected subsurface conditions can significantly change the amount of
dewatering required.
D. Hazardous materials. Depending upon the results of the sediment testing of Task
II.0 disposal costs of the excavated sediment could increase significantly.
Preliminary review of sediment testing performed for the Black River Water Quality
Management Plan near the SW 16th Street bridge indicated that the sediments
should not require special disposal.
RIGHT-OF-WAY
The City will be responsible for obtaining all land area/easements necessary for project
construction. Easement acquisition for the recreational trail shall be the responsibility
of the Parks Department.
COST
The total estimated cost for this project is $665,000.
FUNDING
The estimated funding for the project will be provided by the following sources:
General Government $ To be determined
Surface Water Utility $ 200,000
Federal Grant $ 465,000
The General Government portion of the project cost for the trail construction will be
determined as part of the Interdepartmental Agreement.
Page 11
P-1 Channel - SW Grady Way to SW 16th Street
SCHEDULE
A diagram of the project schedule is included in the appendix. Construction for this
project must be completed during the "fisheries window" of June 15 - September 15,
1994.
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
Opportunity for community involvement will be provided during the
SEPA/shoreline/COE 404 notification process and through the required variance
hearing.
STAFFING
A. Project Management
Scott Woodbury of the Surface Water Utility will act as project manager.
B. Design Team
Scott Woodbury Project Manager - Surface Water Utility
Ron Straka Surface Water Utility
Bob Mahn Transportation
Lenora Blauman Development Services
Mary Lynne Myer Long Range Planning
Leslie Betlach Parks Department
C:DOCS:93-559:SSW:ps
Page 12
MANAGEMENT CONCURRENCE AND COMMITMENT
Project: P-1 Channel - SW Grady Way to SW 16th Street
The following concur with the Project Proposal and commit to its accomplishment:
' co 602-rr4� (,136193
Project Manager Date
/-,-' J-/ � 7 �3
Surface Water Uti Engineering S ervisor Date
(6 --,? -7
� '
Utility Sy s ctor Date
(--� z 0 ) -
-+11?4
Plannin I
uilding/ ublic Works Administrator Date
C:DOCS:93-635:SSW:ps
INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM CONCURRENCE AND
COMMITMENT
Project: P-1 Channel - SW Grady Way to SW 16th Street
The following concur with the Project Proposal and commit to its accomplishment:
476-- Aldz�2= -7zo ?,3
Transportation Systems Date/
Development Planning Date
—�ej,f z ��/" 7 � 3
annin & Technical Service Date
Parks Date
C:DOCS:93-636:SSW:ps
N
pumi' S)-AT/ON RENTON
13A
r02F Y_ I
z
/ qR
1.3 South Renton Subbasin r
Pumping OA-F5DALE �-
Station ,'
3 GPPOY WA ' 4 Basin
r-•{ ` Boundary
Rolling
_ SW 761h St l"lfllS
Drain l
Rolling Hills
01 II 0 II
Subbasin
�� P-9 Channel
,m
,m
nn U
O
Panther
Creek
Wetland
Valley Subbasin i
SW 3rh St
�--�-
SW 43,e SL
Panther Creek Subbasin
Q. W
167 1�
1 S.19anasl.
LEGEND
------ Stream/Drainage Channel ,n Springbrook
Springs b `
-- ---------- Storm Drain Pipe ` Subbasin I
Subbasin Boundary /
0 1000 2000 3000 t
SCALE IN FEET ` 1
50ui2CE % HE/Zg RA [-wvl/torVmF,irAu
Black River Basin Water Quality Management Plan
Figure SITE KAP
R ADO 100-,
f—Watershed
Black River King County Boundary
Water ouality ;'•
Management Plan -•''� ''•'- '.... ........
Study Area :i••
'''
. '' { gee •,. '' � � •� c.-•,, •.
L+ :�•' r Panther Lake i
• ••405 Ling Count Garrison € .•••,
i Renton Creek I E t•?'�
Renton r�
i
Panther Creek We King County y'-' �•�'"-;
J per
_. Sprung rooTc r
Valley rea N 67 Kent ;
n roo r
Sprin brook reek
• East Valley Road i J
i, Springbrook -
' Creek
e to rAill 167
cue
: 7u calla ek ,-•
-•• .. e .�P K N
Black River , e ent y 81 .........
Pump Station �,� Tukwila y 181
" Kent L----_-
N ,
Tukwila
/ Kent y
Lagoons •''''+ Z
c I-5 __. + PP f
r �_ ..-- .............
-,
I R per
t I-5 `�\ EAST SIDE CREEK RIVED WATERSHED
FIGURE 2
SOURCE:
RW. BECK
AND ,4=
3rd Quarter 4th Quarter 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter 1st Quarter 2n
ID Name Jul I AugSep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar A r Ma Jun Jul Au Se Oct Nov Dec Jan JFebJ Mar A r
1 Project Management and QA/QC
2 Data Collection and Conditions Assessment MMMW
3 Base Map Survey
4 Approval/Permit Requirements
5 Geotechnical Survey
6 Sediment Testing Report MOM
7 Wetland Delineation Report
8 Environmental Assessment
9 Engineering Analysis and Design
I I
10 Design and Working Drawings
11 Analysis
12 Specifications
13 Bidding/Contract Documents
14 Prepare Agreements
15 SEPA Review
I
16 SEPA Review/ERC Decision
17 15-day Comment Period
18 Comment Review/Respond
19 14-day Appeal Period
20 SEPA Complete
21 Approvals/Permfts
22 Local
23 Application
i
24 Land Use Permit Review/Coordination
25 Two Week Public Notice
i
26 Variance Hearing
Project:P-1 Channel-SW Grady Way Critical Progress Summary
Date:7/2/93 Noncritical Milestone
Rolled Up Q
Page 1
3rd Quarter 4th Quarter 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter 1st Quarter
ID Name Jul Au Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar A r may Jun I Jul AugSe Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar
27 Hearing Examiner Decision
28 14-day HEX Appeal Period
29 Local Land Use Permits Approved
30 Obtain Construction Easements
31 Construction Permits Review/Coordination
32 Construction Permits Approved
33 State
34 WDOF HPA Permit
i
35 Application
36 Review Coordination
37 HPA Permit Issued
38 WDOE Permits
39 Application
40 Shoreline Review
41 Shoreline Permit Issued
42 TWQM&WQ Cert Review/Coordination
43 WO Cert and TWQM Permits Issued
44 Federal Permits
45 ACOE Section 404 Permit
46 Application
47 Permit Review/Coordination
48 Section 404 Permit Issued
49 Bidding Assistance
50 Construction
Project:P-1 Channel-SW Grady Way Critical Progress Summary
Date:7/2/93 Noncritical Milestone Rolled Up
Page 2
CITY OF RENTON
EAST SIDE GREEN RIVER WATERSHED PLAN Exhibit D
PROJECT SCHEDULE
1990 1991
T A S K OC TOBER NOKMBER DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JUEY AUGUST SEPIEMBER OCIOBER NO`.EMBER
PHASE 1
1. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT/
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
a. TASK REPORT
IL HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS
III. HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
SUPPLEMENTAL TASKS
IV. WETLANDS INVENTORY/ASSESSMENT MEMO Mill mmmmumumn
V. WATER QUALITY
VI. FISHERIES
VII. ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
EVALUATE ALTERNATIVES
RECOMMENDED PLAN 14 LIL
INTERIM POLICIES FOR DEVELOPMENT IM
VIII. POLICIES/FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS MIN IN
IX. DRAFT REPORT/FINAL REPORT
DRAFT REPORT -
FINAL REPORT
M Ell
CITY REVIEW
mill I I
NOTES:
SUPPLEMENTAL TASKS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THIS CONTRACT. SUPPLEMENTAL TASKS
MAY BE INITATED BY CONTRACT AGREEMENT WHEN PLANNING FUNDS BECOME AVAILABLE.
SCHEDULE REFLECTS CENTENNIAL CLEAN WATER FUND GRANT AWARD AND CONTRACT SIGNED
JANUARY 1ST.
v..00se�
THE
CITY OF RENTON
AND THE
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
CENTENNIAL CLEAN WATER FUND
GRANT PROGRAM
BLACK RIVER WATER
QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN
PROPOS
ED SCOPE OF WORK
Task 1. Water Ouality
1 a. Review of existing water quality data within the Black River basin
1 b. Sampling and analysis of the major culverts, surface channel outfalls, and stream
channels in the basin during baseflow and stormflow conditions
1 c. v'Thorough re
view e iew of industrial/commercial discharges to all streams in the basin
including point (NPDES) and nonpoint pollutant discharges, including an
investigation of surface "washoff' from parking lots, the Longacres stables, and
similar areas
1d. Sampling and analysis of bottom sediments throughout the system including
analysis for dangerous waste characteristics (WAC 173-303). It is important that
sediments within the streams that may be disturbed or dredged be characterized
due to disposal options.
1 e. Documentation of actual and potential hazards from industrial spills and along
transportation corridors
1 f. Analysis of sediment loading from construction and development activity within
the basin, including erosion hazard areas, unstable soils, and channel incision I
areas f
19. Report writing and information evaluation
Task 2. Wetlands Inventory '
'i
2a. Sample and analyze water and sediment ve
quality, vegetation
types, areal
coverage, wildlife species, and other pertinent resource characteristics
2b. Determine and assess hydrologic connection(s) to existing and proposed stream
corridors I
4
i
(f
I
2c. Prepare maps and reports that describe the functional characteristics of wetlands
within the Black River basin including an evaluation of active and potential storage
of all wetlands
ATask 3. Fisheries Evaluation
3a. Review existing fisheries data
3b. Inventory existing habitat including spawning, rearing, and migratory functions
3c. Population estimation via electroshocking
3d. Review Black River pumping station operation with respect to upstream migration
of juvenile salmonids and other impacts on fisheries resources
3e. Report preparation
Task 4. Analysis of ESGRWP Alternatives
4a. Water quality modeling analysis of the impacts of the alternatives proposed for the
East Side Green River Watershed Project (ESGRWP) including potential impacts
of future development
4b. Matrix evaluation of proposed channel alternatives using evaluation criteria
developed by all interested parties, jurisdictions, and agencies
4c. Evaluate existing and potential operating procedures for the Black River pumping
station relative to minimizing adverse water quality impacts
4d. Report preparation
Task 5. Management Alternatives
5a. Identification of BMP solutions to control identified point and nonpoint pollution
sources
5b. Evaluation of existing regulatory, inspection, and enforcement practices
5c. Report preparation
Task 6. Public Involvement
Ga. Identification of comprehensive public education program for citizens,
businesses, and developers
6b. Conduct public meetings/workshops to identify findings, recommendations, and
appropriate means of implementation
Task 7. Agency Coordination
7a. Conduct and assure coordination among all affected jurisdictions following tenets
of the Green River Basin Program
Task 8. Proiect Management
8a. Ensure timely and cost-effective completion of identified tasks
I
PIP
MEN
Kenn
mw
'Jai
Ps�_ RON
17.
174,
Fr
wags
WE,
�—��i�ir..� -►- //!���I � ��li: .tom- _
Rill"
-ol -111
—
Am
EWA
WWI
aim
OQ
�- It� , 20
No
v
I
BLACK RIVER WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PROJECT
COST ESTIMATE
Washington State Department of Ecology Centennial Clean Water Fund Grant Portion: $171 ,75
Task 1. Water Quality
j
1 a. Data Review $2,000
1 b. Sampling &Analysis of Water 58,000
1c. Pollutant Discharge Evaluation 6,000 I'
1d. Sampling&Analysis of Sediments 8,000
1e. Industrial Spill Analysis 3,000
1f. Sediment Loading Analysis 4,000
19. Report& Evaluation 8,000
$89,000
Task 2. Wetlands Inventory
2a. Sampling &Analysis $18,000
2b. Hydrologic Evaluation 4,000
2c. Mapping & Reporting 8,000
$30,000
Task 3. Fisheries Evaluation
3a. Data Review $2,000
3b. Habitat Inventory 6,000 I:
3c. Population Estimation 4,000
3d. Impacts of Pumping Station 3,000
3e. Reporting 5,000
i
$20,000
Task 4. Analysis of ESGRWP Alternatives
4a. Water Quality Modeling of Channel Altematives
$7,000
4b. Matrix Evaluation of Channel Alternatives 8,000
4c. Water Quality Impacts of Pumping Station 9,000
4d. Reporting 3,000
i
$27,000
Task 5. Management Alternatives
5a. Identification of BMP Solutions
$14,000
5b. Regulation Practices 6,000
5c. Reporting 4,000
$24,000
Task 6. Public Involvement
6a. Public Education $6,000
6b. Information Dissemination 3,000
$9,000
Task 7. Agency Coordination
7a. Implement Coordination $8,000
Task 8. Project Management
8a. Management $22,000
TOTAL $229,000
r
EXHIBIT A
EASTSIDE GREEN RIVER WATERSHED PLAN
SCOPE OF WORK
GENERAL
The purpose of the Eastside Green River Watershed Plan is to
examine the watershed in a comprehensive manner to identify the best approach
for flood control while meeting hydraulics , wetland, water quality, fisheries ,
and other environmental concerns . In addition, the plan needs to consider
funding requirements and interim policies and regulations. The work
authorized by this Contract represents the initial phase of the comprehensive
approach.
A program approach will be necessary to coordinate the planning
effort with Soil Conservation Service, City of Renton, King County, City of
Kent, Valley Property Owners and the Consultant. Because of the long history
associated with the project, significant effort will be required to coordinate
with state and federal agencies .
PHASE 1
TASK NO. I PROGRAM MANAGEMENT/IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
The East Side Green River Watershed (ESGRW) Program is a major
project which will integrate flood control elements with environmentally
sensitive issues such as wetlands, wildlife habitat, and fisheries resource.
The first task of the project is to complete the ESGRW program
management/implementation plan.
For the successful implementation and joint sponsorship of this
plan, it will be necessary to gain agency and local community support. This
will be accomplished by developing a Program Management/Implementation Plan.
The plan will establish and document project objectives , technical and
regulatory background information , major project issues and policies , planning
costs , and funding sources . The implementation plan will be completed in the
initial stages of the program as a task report and will be used as a basis to
secure agency and developer funding and work sharing commitments . The task
report will also be used as a program management tool to control progress of
the planning effort and to ensure that valley activities are consistent with
the goals and objectives of the ESGRW program.
J7566C 04/10/90
r
- 12 -
A. Review and document existing conditions and information
1 . Identify existing technical and regulatory framework
The ESGRW project has an extensive history dating back to
approximately 1960. A detailed review of prior reports and investigations is
necessary for overall project understanding and continuity with the original
ESGRW program objectives. The primary technical basis for the original
project was the hydrology/hydraulic analysis developed by the Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) using the SCS TR-20 computer model . The TR-20
model was used in conjunction with the SCS WSP2 backwater computer program.
The hydrology has been periodically updated since 1980, with the most recent
update in February 1988.
Although periodically updated, we understand that the majority of
the model is based on the original analysis. Since that time, changes in the
basin have occurred that are not currently reflected in the most recent update
of the analysis. Some of these changes include changing land use policies,
introduction of on-site and regional detention, and changing stormwater
management policies .
The primary environmental basis for the original ESGRW project was
the East Side Green River Watershed, Final Environmental Impact Statement, May
1981 and the associated Environmental Mitigation Agreement (EMA) . We
understand that the city is considering the development of a new or supplement
EIS. The ESGRW plan should proceed consistent with the needs of any future
environmental documents.
Identifying the projects ' regulatory requirements is essential for
a successful program. The major regulatory requirement includes the Corps of
Engineers (COE) 404(b) Individual Permit. The Individual Permit requires that
a thorough alternatives analysis be completed. For the alternatives analysis ,
also known as Public Interest Review, the applicant must demonstrate that the
proposal is the only practicable alternative (defined in terms of cost,
logistics, and technology) and that the proposed alternative is the least
environmentally damaging practicable alternative. We will meet with
regulatory agencies to review the wetland inventory requirements that will be
undertaken during subsequent phases in order to determine the level of effort
necessary to obtain the COE 404(b) permit. The COE generally acts as a
clearinghouse for other interested environmental agencies. Some of the
environmental agencies interested in the project include the Department of
Ecology, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Fisheries, Department
of Wildlife-and Game, the Renton Planning Department, the Muckleshoot Tribe,
and the Autobahn Society. Another important permit to the ESGRW will be the
hydraulic t. We will meet with the Department of Fisheries and discuss
permit requirements and their concerns relative to the program in order to
gain their support. The Consultant shall prepare minutes of all meetings and
issue to the City and SCS. The City and SCS shall be notified at least 7 days
in advance of any meeting.
J7566C 04/10/90
L
13 -
Other, non-environmental agencies such as the City of Seattle Water
Department, King County Surface Water Management Division, City of Kent, City
of Tukwila Drainage and Diking District, and Valley Property Owners may also
impact the development of the project. Workshop meetings with these agencies
are planned to identify concerns and to gain their support.
We will review and document the status of the City' s right-of-way
acquisition program to ensure consistency with proposed Alternative
P-1 /Springbrook Channel alignments. The City shall provide maps which
identify Acquired Rights-of-Way (R/W) and R/W presently under negotiation. We
will meet with the COE representative operating the Howard Hanson Dam to
determine current operations .
2. Identify existing and planned land use
Identification of existing and planned land use within the project
area as well as the contributing watersheds is necessary to perform the
hydrologic modeling. The ESGRW is located in the City of Renton, City of
Kent, City of Tukwila, and unincorporated King County. Land use controls in
the valley will also impact alternative locations of the P-1/Springbrook
Channel .
3. Identify issues , current policies and goals
We understand that the major objectives of this plan are to:
develop an integrated program which coordinates flood control measures with
wetland preservation/enhancement and water quality; develop an implementation
plan to allow growth in the Green River Valley consistent with the city' s
flood control policies ; identify possible funding sources including cost
sharing; and provide a feasible system of capital improvements that are low in
maintenance. The city' s goals and objective shall be identified and confirmed.
A major element in identifying the city' s goals and objectives will
be to coordinate with the valley landowner community. This will include
developers , agencies , citizens ' groups , and other interested parties .
Coordination, by way of workshops, with these groups will ensure that the
needs of the community are being considered. Identifying the city' s present
stormwater design standards will also be important to evaluate consistency
with other project goals . Workshops shall include discussions on existing
policies , the need to change existing policies, and agreements for sharing the
ESGRW Plan funding. Five workshop meetings are planned. Draft and principal
agreements for the ESGRW program will be developed and reviewed at the
workshop meetings in order to produce agreements acceptable to all affected
parties.
4. Identify funding and/or matching contributions: SCS, Renton,
Valley Landowners , Grants and Loans.
Available funding sources will be identified and evaluated for the
ESGRW plan, and construction.
J7566C 04/10/90
- 14 -
The SCS has been the primary funding agency of the ESGRW program to
date under the provision of the Watershed Flood Prevention Act (PL-566) . It
will be important to address SCS goals and objectives in order to ensure their
continued involvement.
Grants and low-interest loans for the ESGRW project may be
available. The ESGRW project may be eligible for state programs such as the
Flood Control Assistance Account Program and the Centennial Clean Water
Program, both for the plan and construction phase. It is understood that the
City applied for Centennial Clean Water Funds and the application is pending.
The State Revolving Fund loan program for water quality projects was
established in 1988 and may also be a potential revenue source. The
Consultant will investigate the possible funding sources and prepare grant and
loan applications for the appropriate agencies . In addition, we will pursue
funding under the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority Public Involvement and
Education (PIE) Program. It will be necessary to demonstrate coordination
with the development of the Green-Duwamish Watershed Nonpoint Action Plan.
The City of Renton' s stormwater utility will participate in project
funding. Close coordination with the city staff will be required to review
the financial resource of this utility and the relative share of city
contributions devoted to the project.
The local development community likely has a financial interest in
the success of this project. The options for local contribution to the
project will be evaluated. The development community could participate in the
cost sharing of the ESGRW plan or construction. Participation could also be
accomplished in the form of work sharing, such as completing the soils
sampling.
Funding by other organizations may also be possible. Contact will
be made with King County, the City of Kent, and the City of Tukwila.
Based on the funding sources identified, and in consultation with
the city, an interim funding plan which indicates the relative contributions
for the ESGRW plan and will be developed for incorporation into the Project
Management/Implementation Plan.
B. Project Coordination
1 . Work Plan
A detailed work plan will be prepared at the start of the project.
The work plan will set forth the scope of work, budget, schedule, project
organization, and personnel assignments; lines of communications ;
identification of client personnel and client responsibility; and other
special instructions important to the performance of the project. The work
plan is used to organize the project team and to inform the city of our plan
of action for performing the project.
J7566C 04/10/90
15 -
2. Project Organization
Exhibit "C" attached shows our project organization and individual
team members assigned to the ESGRWP.
3. Schedule
Exhibit "D" attached shows our planning schedule for the first
phase of ESGRWP.
C. Permitting
This task shall include meeting and coordinating with all agencies
who require permit applications . The purpose of this task is to obtain agency
support of the methodology for the planning process . The development of a COE
404(b) permit application and a Department of Fisheries Hydraulic permit
application for the ESGRW Program will be conducted under subsequent phases .
TASK I ACTION OUTLINE:
I . Develop Program Management/Implementation Plan
A. Review and document existing conditions and information
1 . Identify existing technical and regulatory framework
a. Review previous reports/information
- SCS TR-20/WSP2 hydrology/hydraulics
- Completed design drawings of P-1 Channel
- East Side Green River Watershed, Final EIS, 1981
- East Side Green River Watershed, EMA, 1980
- FEMA Studies : Black River, Mill Creek, Springbrook Creek
- City of Kent Master Drainage Plan, 1985
- P-1 Alignment Alternatives Report, 1980
- Draft Green-Duwamish Watershed Management Plan, 1990
- Green River Pump Operations Procedures Plan
- Green River Management Agreement, 1985
- Report on Stormwater Control at the Kent Sewage Lagoon,
Northwest Hydraulics, March 1990
- City Right-of-way acquisition program
- Research and Identify Other Activities and Engineering
Studies
b. Review Agency Concerns by Holding Workshops
- Confirm wetland inventory strategy
c. Review Operation of the Howard Hanson Dam
2. Identify Existing and Planned land Use
- Obtain Renton, Kent, Tukwila and King County
Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning Information
3. Identify Issues , Current Policies and Goals
a. Identify and Document
- Present Wetland Policies
- Status of ESGRW EMA
- Present Flood Control Policies, FEMA, SCS, COE and City
J7566C 04/10/90
C
16 -
- City Drainage Standards
Applicable Water Quality Standards
Funding Issues
Objectives of Development Community, Through Workshops
- SCS Policies and Goals
b. Summarize and Provide Recommendations for Incorporation into
Implementation Plan
- Coordinate with City
- Development Community Workshop
4. Identify Funding and/or Matching Contributions; SCS, Renton,
Valley Landowners, Grants and Loans
a. Identify Funding Sources
- SCS
- Grants such as the Flood Control Assistance Account
Program
- Puget Sound Water Quality Authority - Public Involvement
and Education Program
- State Revolving Fund Loan Program
- Renton Stormwater Utility
- Development Community (LID, Special Utility Charge, Work
Sharing, etc. )
- Others including King County, Kent, Tukwila, and the COE
b. Prepare Flood Control Assistance Account Grant
c. Determine ESGRW Plan Cost and Develop Funding Plan Indicating
Relative Contributions.
DELIVERABLES/PRODUCTS:
A task report will be prepared and submitted early during the
planning process . The purpose of the task report is to summarize and document
the basis for the ESGRW plan, to identify the project policies and objectives
and goals , to identify technical and regulatory background information, and
major project issues , and to establish an implementation plan. The plan will
include an interim financial plan indicating the relative funding of the
planning effort. The task report will also be used as a basis to secure
agency and development community funding and work sharing commitments , and to
be used a program management tool to control progress of the plan and ensure
valley activities are consistent with the goals and objectives of the ESGRW
program.
J7566C 04/10/90
- 17 -
e
TASK NO. II HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS
A detailed study of the basin hydrology will be undertaken. This
study will take advantage of the data collection and hydrologic modeling work
being performed by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (NHC) and others for the
City of Kent, the regional hydrology work undertaken by the USGS for King
County, and advances made in hydrologic modeling in general .
EPA' s HSPF, a continuous modeling approach, or other approved
hydrologic model will be used. In a continuous modeling approach an extended
period of observed rainfall data (say 25 years of data) is used to simulate or
recreate corresponding streamflow data that reflects the historic range of
observed events . These data are then subject to frequency analysis and used
in the design process.
A. Field Reconnaissance and Data Review
A field reconnaissance of the East Side watershed will be
undertaken to familiarize project staff both with the general nature of the
watershed and with key hydraulic and hydrologic elements of the watershed,
such as the Black River pump station and the Panther Creek wetland.
Documents, plans , maps and photographs pertinent to the hydrologic
analyses will be obtained and reviewed. The following available information
will be provided by the City or obtained with survey assistance provided by
SCS (see Task III.B) :
1 . Land-use and zoning maps for future full build-out conditions
within Renton. The Consultant shall obtain all other available
information.
2. A set of the aerial photographs for the watershed. Aerial
photographs shall include the 1989 Renton aerials. The Consultant
shall obtain available aerial photographs from Kent, the County and
Tukwila.
3. Existing topographic maps for the Eastside watershed at a scale of
1 inch to 200 ft. with 5 foot contour interval or similar from the
Corps of Engineers and City of Kent.
4. As-built records for any major stormwater detention facilities in
the watershed within the City of Renton.
5. Plans and specifications for any proposed major detention
facilities within the City of Renton.
6. Representative channel cross-section data for all streams in the
basin, and culvert sizes and bridge geometry at any known
constrictions in the system (see Task III .B) .
J7566C 04/10/90
18 -
B. Review Jurisdictional Policies and Stormwater Programs
We will review the stormwater management policies and plans of King
County, Kent, Tukwila, and Renton. An assessment will be made of all existing
and proposed major stormwater control projects within the basin. We will
also, in consultation with the City, make a determination of the advisability
of including these projects in the analysis of the Eastside system. For
example, the proposed Kent Lagoons project will almost certainly be built and
should be included in any basin-wide modeling effort.
The City of Renton, SCS, and Consultant will meet to determine the
criteria and approved hydrologic model or analysis to be used in this study.
C. HSPF Modeling
Flows in the Eastside system will be modeled using the EPA' s HSPF
or other approved hydrologic model . HSPF is a continuous simulation model
which will be run at a 15-minute or hourly time-step using recorded rainfall
data from Sea-Tac Airport for the period 1963-1987 to produce a 25-year record
of simulated flows at critical points in the Eastside system. A 25-year
record of simulated flows created using HSPF for Mill Creek for full build-out
conditions will be obtained directly from the City of Kent. The City of Kent
is currently designing a major off-channel detention facility in the lower
Mill Creek basin. It is assumed that flow data available from the City of
Kent will consist of a 25-year record of simulated hourly flows in Mill Creek
at its confluence with Springbrook Creek corresponding to the detention
project configuration finally selected by the City of Kent. These flows will
be used as a direct input to the basin model . Flows for other parts of the
system will be generated using HSPF with regional parameter values determined
by the USGS and future land-use determined from available land-use or zoning
plans. Flows will be routed through the channel system to the Black River
pump station to produce a 25-year record of forebay inflows.
D. Interaction with the Green River
The 25-year record of flows generated for the Eastside system
represents what would have happened over the period 1963-1987 if there had
been full build-out of the watershed at that time. This record can therefore
be treated as concurrent with the observed record of flows on the Green River
from 1963 (when Howard Hanson Dam become operational ) through 1987, for the
purposes of analyzing the interaction between the Green River and the Eastside
system.
The operation of the Black River pump station will be simulated on
an hourly time-step, using an independent simulation program, for the 25-year
record. The simulation will be based on the current pump operations plan, and
the concurrent record of observed flows on the Green River at Auburn
(1963-1987) and HSPF simulated forebay inflows . The simulated pump station
forebay storage and inflows will be subject to frequency analysis to determine
appropriate discharge and forebay elevations for use in the detailed hydraulic
analyses described under Task III .
J7566C 04/10/90
C ,
19 -
Note that this continuous modeling approach eliminates the need to
make any assumption about the coincidence of high flows on the Green River and
high flows in the Eastside system. Any relationship between the two systems
is automatically reflected through the simulation of the pump plant operation
using concurrent Green River and local flow records.
E. Establish Criteria for Flood Protection
Our recommended analysis will provide an accurate prediction of
flow rates and hydraulic performance of the East Side Green River Watershed
that can be used as design criteria for the proposed flood protection
improvements . The proposed facilities will be accurately designed for an
agreed-upon level of protection. All criteria and hydrologic analysis shall
be reviewed and coordinated with the City and SCS for their approval .
DELIVERABLES/PRODUCTS:
This task will result in a report with the following products :
1 . An HSPF model of the East Side Green River watershed, which will
provide a comprehensive and consistent model for the whole
watershed, and which may be used in evaluation and design of any
future stormwater control facilities.
2. A simulation model of the operation of the Black River pump station.
3. Flood frequency and flow duration curves at critical points in the
East Side system.
4. A comprehensive report describing the hydrologic modeling effort,
the assumptions and results .
J7566C 04/10/90
- 20 -
TASK III HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
General
The purpose of the hydraulic analysis will be to incorporate the
hydrologic data developed under Task II into an analysis to determine the
hydraulic response of the proposed alternative channels and other hydraulic
elements of the project. It will be important to determine depths of flow and
velocities in order to evaluate the alternative channel alignments . The EPA
SWMM4 EXTRAN model , or other approved method, will be used to model the system
hydraulics for the proposed P-1 channel alignment alternatives. Storms
approximating the 2, 10, 25, 50 and 100 year frequency will be used in the
Hydraulic analysis.
The P-9 Channel , Panther Creek wetlands (PCW) , and the trunk
drainage system through the Renton Shopping Center will also be modeled using
SWMM to evaluate the flood control elements of the PCW/P-9 Channel Project.
The SWMM4 EXTRAN module is a dynamic flow routing model that can
route inflow hydrographs through an open channel or closed conduit system,
computing the time history of flows and heads throughout. The program solves
the full dynamic equations (St. Venant equations) for gradually varied flow
and can, therefore, directly model the hydraulic response of the system to
pumping rates , varying inflow rates , existing or proposed storage
configurations, and backwater effects. The inflow hydrographs to be routed
with the SWMM4 EXTRAN module will be imported from the HSPF hydrologic
analysis developed under Task II .
It is understood that the hydraulics analysis will be initiated but
cannot be completed in its entirety until the impacts associated from
wetlands , water quality and fisheries on the proposed channel configurations
are defined. These environmental impacts as well as establishing design
criteria associated with wetlands , water quality and fisheries impacts are to
be studied during subsequent project phases .
A. Site Visit and Review of Previous Documents
Conduct two site visits to gather reconnaissance level information
on the Black River Pump Station (BRPS) , the pump station forebay, the P-1
alignment alternatives .
Obtain from the City and review the following available documents :
1 . "As Built" drawings of the BRPS and Forebay , and the P-1
Channel Constructed to Date.
2. Preliminary design information on the P-1 Channel developed
by SCS.
3. Corps of Engineers 1 "= 200' 5'contour topographic mapping of
the valley east of the Green River.
J7566C 04/10/90
- 21 -
4. 1980 FEMA study of Springbrook creek and 1989 FEMA Study of
Springbrook Creek
B. Identify Survey Requirements and Coordination with SCS
It is understood that the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) will
provide survey assistance or surveys provided by others will be used to
develop SWMM input data. The survey assistance shall be in the form of
developing stream cross sections, bridge crossing information and and field
inventorying. Beck shall conduct a field review of the drainage system and
notify the City and SCS of the specific cross section locations and other
surveying needs. Surveys by the consultant, if required, will be considered
as extra work.
Beck will also review the previous FEMA work on Springbrook Creek
in order to determine whether information contained in this report, pertaining
to stream cross section characteristics , could be used in the SWMM modeling.
If cross section information is suitable for use in the SWMM modeling, some of
the survey needs from SCS could be eliminated.
C. Review and Select Channel Design Criteria
The design criteria, as agreed upon by the City and SCS, for the
P-1 Channel will be identified and reviewed. Design criteria issues include
the desired level of protection (which will be evaluated under Task II) , the
maximum allowable water surface elevation, conflicts with major utilities,
consistency with wetland, fisheries , and water quality issues and confirmation
of the pump operational characteristics of the BRPS. A task letter report
will be developed summarizing the channel design criteria options . With this
information Beck shall work closely with the City to select preliminary design
criteria for subsequent computer modeling of the alternative channel
configurations.
Major utility conflicts include the Seattle Water Department Cedar
River Pipeline, Olympic Gas pipelines, and City water and sewer lines . The
City will provide all available utility information on City utilities .
D. Alternatives Analysis
A SWMM model will be developed to simulate the hydraulic response
of five P-1 alternatives as listed below and described in the following
paragraphs :
Alternative 1 - No Action
Alternative 2 - Springbrook Alignment (incorporating Wetlands)
Alternative 3 - Original P-1 Alignment (as defined by SCS)
Alternative 4 - Springbrook Creek/Low Flow and P-1 /High Flow
Alternative 5 - Develop P-1 Channel to P-9
Alternative 6 - Phasing Alternative
J7566C 04/10/90
- 22 -
Information to be developed for each alternative includes ; peak
flow rates for both existing and future land development conditions , Water
surface elevation profiles , frequencies of inundation for wetland impact
assessments , velocity checks for the 10 years and 100 year flows through the
existing P-1 channel based on "As-Built" conditions , and peak capacity flow
rates for the 100 year frequency final build-out conditions.
Alternative 1 - No Action
Model the existing conditions of the existing P-1 Channel and
Springbrook Creek from the BRPS to the South City limits. Beck will conduct a
field review of the Springbrook alignment to assign Manning' s coefficients to
cross section data.
For this Alternative, it will be assumed that the P-9 Channel and
the Panther Creek Wetland (PCW) flow control elements are included.
Alternative 2 - Springbrook Alignment (incorporating Wetlands)
The results of the Alternative 1 analysis will be evaluated to
determine a required channel configuration within the existing Springbrook
Alignment to accommodate peak design flows and satisfy the design criteria
established under Task III .C. The channel cross-section shall be configured
such that adjacent wetlands are incorporated to carry high flows to minimize
impacts to adjacent wetlands . This channel configuration will then be modeled
to evaluate hydraulic response of this alternative.
For this Alternative, it will be assumed that the P-9 Channel and
the PCW flow control elements are included.
Alternative 3 - Original P-1 Alignment (As defined by (SCS) or an alignment
agreed upon by the Valley Property Owners .
A. This alternative includes developing a new channel configuration
(cross-section) to satisfy the design criteria established under Task III .0
for the original P-1 channel alignment (as defined by the SCS) except that the
P-1 channel will terminate at the south City limits .
For this analysis , it will be assumed that the P-9 Channel and the
PCW flow control elements are included.
B. Alignment proposed by the Valley Property Owners.
Alternative 4 - Springbrook Creek/low Flow & P-1 /high Flow
J7566C 04/10/90
- 23 -
This alternative includes modeling two major conveyance systems ,
the existing Springbrook creek which would carry low flows and be improved
with diversion structures to divert high flows to a new P-1 Channel . The
intent of this system would be to minimize impacts to wetlands and fishery
habitats. The alignment for the high flow P-1 channel would be developed
during the study in close coordination with the City and SCS.
For this analysis , it will be assumed that the P-9 Channel and the
PCW flow control elements are included.
Alternative 5 - Develop P-1 Channel to P-9.
Develop P-1 Channel to the intersection of P-1 and P-9.
For this alternative it will be assumed that the P-9 channel and
the PCW flow control elements are included.
Alternative 6 - Phasing Alternative
This alternative includes selecting one or a combination of the
above alternatives in close coordination with the City to evaluate the
possibility of phasing. This modeling effort will proceed consistent with the
project phasing analysis under Task III . E.
E. Project Phasing
Phasing the channel alternatives will be identified and evaluated.
Phasing alternatives will be discussed with the City in order to select one or
a combination of channel alignment alternatives for a detailed analysis using
SWMM EXTRAN as discussed under Task III .D. Phasing issues include allowing
development to occur in the valley, and the present flood control/drainage
capacity needs versus future flood control /drainage capacity needs.
DELIVERABLES/PRODUCTS
This task will result in a report with the following products :
1 . A task report on channel design criteria.
2. A SWMM4 EXTRAN model of five alternative channel alignments .
3. Hydrologic/hydraulic response of the proposed channel
alignments .
4. A Task report on project phasing alternatives.
5. A comprehensive report describing the hydraulic modeling
effort, the assumptions and results.
J7566C 04/10/90
CITY OF RENTON
EAST SIDE GREEN RIVER WATERSHED PLAN Exhibit D
PROJECT SCHEDULE
1990 1991
T A S K OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY ,TUNE JUEY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER N014MBER
PHASE 1
I. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT/
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
o. TASK REPORT
II. HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS
III. HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
SUPPLEMENTAL TASKS
IV. WETLANDS INVENTORY/ASSESSMENT
V. WATER QUALITY _.. ._.
VI. FISHERIES
VII, ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
EVALUATE ALTERNATIVES
RECOMMENDED PLAN
INTERIM POLICIES FOR DEVELOPMENT
VIII. POLICIES/FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
IX. DRAFT REPORT/FINAL REPORT
DRAFT REPORT
FINAL REPORT
CITY REVIEW .....
NOTES:
SUPPLEMENTAL TASKS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THIS CONTRACT. SUPPLEMENTAL TASKS
MAY BE INITATED BY CONTRACT AGREEMENT WHEN PLANNING FUNDS BECOME AVAILABLE.
SCHEDULE REFLECTS CENTENNIAL CLEAN WATER FUND GRANT AWARD AND CONTRACT SIGNED
JANUARY 1ST.
VAAOO"8
Black River ( 517 \
H Pump Station I S76 1
1
S14 `I I t PS \
/ \
S1 -- 13 r
S11
i P4 \\ J
sic \ I—_
1
S9 \
Panther\ II
Creek
S7 / Wetland! 1
SB \
1 S5 PJ 1
i 43rd_ t
\ ♦ 8 180th t \ 11
I ` P2 1
\ S6
I \ \
iS4
IEI 167 •.J \
r
\ 53 \ anther
Lake
\ $ 1I \
P1 \`
J�—
I Kentll 1: 1 a \
I L0900n!
♦ 1 1 \
S1 1 \
\ I IJ 1 I
\ \ I I
1 Y I
1 \
\ I
E. Side Green River — Renton
SCALE HSPF Sub—basins
1 1 z
Configuation
1/2 0
northwest hydraulic consultants
n 1 n
1
EXHIBIT B
CITY Of RENTON _
EAST SIDE GREEN RIVER WATERSHED PLAN
SIMKARY OF COST BY TASK
Direct Salary Overhead Direct Non- _ Net Total
Phase/Task Description Cost Cost Salary Cost Fee Cost
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase 1
I Prop. Management/Implementation 510,944 $17,241 518,634 54,228 551,046
Task I Subtotal $10,944 $17,241 $18,634 54,228 551,046
11 Hydrologic Analysis $1,581 52,490 539,039 5610 $43,720
III Hydraulic Analysis 514,930 $23,523 $4,291 $5,766 $48,512
Task 11 and III Subtotal 516,511 526,012 $43,330 $6,379 $92,232
Phase I Total 5143 278
Transmittal Letter
northwest hydraulic consultants inc.
16300 Christensen Road Suite 350, Tukwila, WA 98188-3418
(206) 241-6000 (206) 439-2420 fax
Date: 21 Auaust Job No. n-CA.
To: 5colt oadb�ru
Engineering O Uopf.ENraN
Regarding: �<<'� � ' <<5 �
We are sending: attached ❑ separate by
Description: c� c`hQ rap A a+a shee�'s ark
� C
This is: lJ as requested for your use
❑ for approval ❑ for review and comment
Remarks:
From: -arru a
Copy to:
Stage (measured down
Date on fence post) Stage (on staff plate) Flow
12-Nov-93 2.21 4.16 0.75
9-Dec-93 2.85 4.80 7.05
15-Feb-93 2.80 4.75 6.23
1-Mar-94 3.00 4.95 16.28
2-Mar-94 3.36 5.31 21.97
1-Feb-95 3.15 5.10 31.32
29-Nov-95 3.52 5.47 40.48
8-Feb-96 4.025 5.98 69.78
Rolling Hills Creek Summary Stage Rating Data (Feb 1996)
6.50
6.00
c
w
5.50
r
O
w+ �
5.00
m Be
Gp
cC
4.50
4.00
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00
Discharge (cfs)
STREAM FLOW RATING TABLE METER USED 1
WATER COURSE: Rolling Hills Creek SITE:U/S of I-405 Interchange (ENTER 1 FOR PYGMY OR 2 FOR PRICE METER)
DATE: 08-Feb-96 TIME IN: 02:40 PM TIME OUT: 03:45 PM
Staff: 4.05 Staff: 4.00
Staff Correction 1.95
.4 OR.2 .8 AVG.
DIST.FROM OBSERV. COUNTED OBSERV. OBSERV. COUNTED OBSERV. REV.PER MEAN
PT. INITIAL PT. WIDTH DEPTH DEPTH METER TIME DEPTH METER TIME TIME VELOCITY AREA DISCHARGE
No. (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) REVS. (SEC) (FT) REVS. (SEC) (rev/seo) (FT/S) (SQFT) (CFS)
1 2.0 0.50 2.6 1.0 44 15 2.93 2.85 1.30 3.71
2 3.0 1.00 2.2 0.9 49 15 3.27 3.17 2.20 6.98
3 4.0 1.00 1.8 0.7 43 15 2.87 2.79 1.75 4.88
4 5.0 1.00 3.8 1.5 44 15 2.93 2.85 3.80 10.84
5 6.0 1.00 3.9 1.6 50 15 3.33 3.24 3.90 12.62
6 7.0 1.00 4.0 1.6 48 15 3.20 3.11 4.00 12.43
7 8.0 1.00 3.9 1.6 35 15 2.33 2.27 3.90 8.87
8 9.0 1.00 3.5 1.4 22 15 1.47 1.44 3.50 5.04
9 10.0 1.50 3.0 1.2 20 15 1.33 1.31 4.50 5.91
10 12.0 1.50 2.0 0.8 11 15 0.73 0.74 3.00 2.21
11 13.0 1.25 1.5 0.6 0 15 0.00 0.00 1.88 0.00
12 14.5 0.75 0.0 0.0 0 15 0.00
Total Flow 69.78
northwest hydmuhc consultants Streamflow discharge me unumnent summary sheet 2-8-96
STREAM FLOW RATING TABLE METER USED I
WATER COURSE: Rolling Hills Creek SITE:U/S of I-405 Interchange (ENTER 1 FOR PYGMY OR 2 FOR PRICE METER)
DATE: 29-Nov-95 TIME IN: 02:40 PM TIME OUT: 03:45 PM
Staff: 3.85 Staff: 3.35
Staff Correction 1.95
.4 OR.2 .8 AVG.
DIST.FROM OBSERV. COUNTED OBSERV. OBSERV. COUNTED OBSERV. REV.PER MEAN
PT. INITIAL PT. WIDTH DEPTH DEPTH METER TIME DEPTH METER TIME TIME VELOCITY AREA DISCHARGE
No. (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) REVS. (SEC) (FT) REVS. (SEC) (rev/sec) (FT/S) (SQ FT) (CFS)
1 0.7 0.40 2.4 1.0 122 60 2.03 1.99 0.96 1.91
2 1.5 0.65 2.7 1.1 70 40 1.75 1.71 1.72 2.95
3 2.0 0.50 2.4 1.0 111 60 1.85 1.81 1.20 2.17
4 2.5 0.50 1.5 0.6 114 60 1.90 1.86 0.75 1.39
5 3.0 0.50 1.5 0.6 114 60 1.90 1.86 0.75 1.39
6 3.5 0.50 1.8 0.7 114 60 1.90 1.86 0.88 1.63
7 4.0 0.75 2.6 1.0 118 60 1.97 1.92 1.95 3.75
8 5.0 1.00 3.3 1.3 121 60 2.02 1.97 3.30 6.50
9 6.0 1.00 3.5 1.4 158 60 263 2.56 3.50 8.97
10 7.0 1.00 3.5 1.4 112 60 1.87 1.83 3.50 6.39
11 8.0 1.00 2.2 0.9 60 60 1.00 0.99 2.20 2.18
12 9.0 1.00 1.5 0.6 33 60 0.55 0.56 1.50 0.84
13 10.0 1.00 0.9 0.4 25.6 60 0.43 0.44 0.90 0.40
14 11.0 1.00 0.8 0.3 0 60 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.00
15 12.0 0.50 0.0 0.0 0 60
Total Flow 40.48
northwest hydraulic consuhants Stmamflow diwhwp measurement summary ahoet 11-29-95
STREAM FLOW RATING TABLE METER USED 1
WATER COURSE: Rolling Hills Creek SITE: U/S of I-405 Interchange (ENTER 1 FOR PYGMY OR 2 FOR PRICE METER)
DATE: 01-Feb-95 IME IN: 12:58 PM TIME OUT: 01:20 PM
Staff: 3.20 Staff: 3.10
Staff Correction 1.95
.4 OR.2 .8 AVG.
DIST.FROM OBSERV. COUNTED OBSERV. OBSERV. COUNTED OBSERV. REV.PER MEAN
PT. NITIAL PT WIDTH DEPTH DEPTH METER TIME DEPTH METER TIME TIME VELOCITY AREA ISCHARG
No. (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) REVS. (SEC) (FT) REVS. (SEC) (rev/sec) (FT/S) (SQ FT) (CFS)
1 1.1 0.0 1.6 0.7 35 30 1.17 1.15
2 1.2 0.5 1.6 0.7 51 30 1.70 1.67 0.70 1.16
3 2.0 0.9 1.6 0.8 51 30 1.70 1.67 1.44 2.40
4 3.0 1.0 1.6 0.8 97 60 1.62 1.59 1.60 2.54
5 4.0 1.0 2.0 0.8 56 30 1.87 1.83 1.95 3.56
6 5.0 1.0 2.1 0.8 67 30 2.23 2.18 2.05 4.47
7 6.0 1.0 2.1 0.8 74 30 2.47 2.40 2.05 4.93
8 7.0 1.0 2.2 0.9 75 30 2.50 2.44 2.20 5.36
9 8.0 1.0 2.2 0.9 59 30 1.97 1.92 2.15 4.13
10 9.0 1.0 1.7 0.7 43 30 1.43 1.41 1.70 2.40
11 10.0 1.0 1.2 0.5 9 30 0.30 0.32 1.20 0.38
12 11.0 1.0 1.0 0.4 0 30 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00
13 12.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0 0 0.00 0.50 0.00
14 13.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.00
Total Flow 31.32
northwest hydraulic conmdunts Stm mflow discharge measuremmt sm wy sheet 2-1-95
STREAM FLOW RATING TABLE
WATER COURSE: Rolling Hills SITE:KCSWM Gage
DATE:2-Mar-94 TIME IN: 2:40 PM TIME OUT: 3:51 PM
Staff Meal Start(dn): 1.54 Stage: 3.36
Staff Maas End(dn): 1.75
Fence Post Elev 5.00 (assumed KCSWM Datum)
METER USED(ENTER 1 FOR PYGMY OR 2 FOR PRICE METER): 2
.4 OR.2 .8
DIST.FROM CELL MEASURED OBSERV. COUNTED OBSERV. OBSERV. COUNTED OBSERV. AVG. MEAN CELL CELL
PT. INITIAL PT. WIDTH DEPTH DEPTH METER TIME DEPTH METER TIME REV.PER VELOCITY AREA DISCHARGE
No. (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) REVS. (SEC) (FT) REVS. (SEC) SEC. (FT/S) (SQ FT) (CFS)
0.3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1 0.3 0.35 1.30 0.00 0 60 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.00
2 1 0.60 1.80 1.10 40 60 0.67 1.48 1.08 1.59
3 1.5 0.50 1.80 1.10 43 60 0.72 1.59 0.90 1.43
4 2 0.50 1.70 1.00 48 60 0.80 1.77 0.85 1.50
5 2.5 0.50 1.60 0.95 50 60 0.83 1.84 0.90 1.47
6 3 0.50 1.70 1.00 51 60 0.85 1.88 0.85 1.60
7 3.5 0.50 1.50 0.90 51 60 0.85 1.88 0.75 1.41
8 4 0.50 1.50 0.90 52 60 0.97 1.92 0.75 1.44
9 4.5 0.50 1.60 0.95 49 60 0.82 1.81 0.80 1.44
10 5 0.50 1.60 0.95 47 60 0.78 1.73 0.80 1.39
11 5.5 0.50 1.60 0.95 51 60 0.85 1.88 0.80 1.50
12 6 0.50 1.60 0.95 45 60 0.75 1.66 0.80 1.33
13 6.5 0.50 1.70 1.00 49 60 0.82 1.81 0.85 1.53
14 7 0.50 1.70 1.00 47 60 0.78 1.73 0.85 1.47
15 7.5 0.50 1.60 0.95 42 60 0.70 1.55 0.80 1.24
16 8 0.50 1.50 0.90 30 60 0.50 1.11 0.75 0.83
17 8.5 0.50 1.30 0.70 38 90 0.42 0.94 0.65 0.61
18 9 0.50 1.00 0.60 11 90 0.12 0.28 0.50 0.14
19 9.5 0.50 1.00 0.60 2 60 0.03 0.08 0.50 0.04
20 10 0.60 0.80 0.00 0 60 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.00
21 10.7 0.35 0.00 0.00 0 60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Flow 21.97
oul6ave.t 6y6raie rmwaaaU Sk..M-&..b.W�.....y�MN 3-2-94
STREAM FLOW RATING TABLE
WATERCOURSE:Rolling Hills SITE:KCSWM Gage
DATE: 1-Mar-94 TIME IN:2:35 PM TIME OUT: 3:53 PM
Staff Mew Start(dn): 1.80 Stage: 3.00
Staff'Meas End(dn): 2.20
Fence Post Elev: 5.00 (assumed KCSWM Datum)
METER USED(ENTER I FOR PYGMY OR 2 FOR PRICE METER): 2
(ENTER I FOR PYGMY OR 2 FOR PRICE METER):
.4 OR.2 .8
DIST.FROM CELL MEASURED OBSERV. COUNTED OBSERV. OBSERV. COUNTED OBSERV. AVG. MEAN CELL CELL
PT. INTTIAL PT. WIDTH DEPTH DEPTH METER TIME DEPTH METER TIME REV.PER VELOCITY AREA DISCHARGE
No. (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) REVS. (SEC) (FT) REVS. (SEC) SEC. (Ff/S) (SQ FT) (CFS)
0.4 0.00 1.15 0.00 0 60
1 0.4 0.30 1.15 0.69 0 60 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.00
2 1 0.55 1.60 0.96 40 60 0.67 1.48 0.88 1.30
3 1.5 0.50 1.80 1.08 39 60 0.65 1.44 0.90 1.30
4 2 0.50 1.60 0.96 43 60 0.72 1.59 0.80 1.27
rJ 2.5 0.50 1.40 0.84 44 60 0.73 1.62 0.70 1.14
6 3 0.50 1.60 0.96 47 60 0.78 1.73 0.80 1.39
7 3.5 0.50 1.20 0.72 45 60 0.75 1.66 0.60 1.00
8 4 0.50 1.20 0.72 48 60 0.80 1.77 0.60 1.06
9 4.5 0.50 1.20 0.72 43 60 0.72 1.59 0.60 0.95
10 5 0.50 1.30 0.78 42 60 0.70 1.55 0.65 1.01
11 5.5 0.50 1.30 0.78 39 60 0.65 1.44 0.65 0.94
12 6 0.50 1.30 0.78 37 60 0.62 1.37 0.65 0.89
13 6.5 0.50 1.40 0.84 36 60 0.60 1.33 0.70 0.93
14 7 0.50 1.40 0.84 40 60 0.67 1.48 0.70 1.03
15 7.5 0.50 1.40 0.84 36 60 0.60 1.33 0.70 0.93
16 8 0.50 1.30 0.78 29 60 0.48 1.07 0.65 0.70
17 8.5 0.50 1.00 0.60 16 60 0.27 0.60 0.50 0.30
18 9 0.50 0.90 0.54 10 60 0.17 0.38 0.45 0.17
19 9.5 0.50 0.70 0.42 0 60 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.00
20 10 0.65 0.65 0.39 0 60 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.00
21 10.8 0.40 0.00 0.00 0 60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10.40 Total Flow 16.28
oeMwveR hydrdic ceowd[sh sh'-fi w d-hwv m.wemaot.....y bet 3.1.94
STREAM FLOW RATING TABLE
WATER COURSE: Rolling Hills Creek SITE: KCSWM Gage
DATE: 2/15/93 ME IN: 4:00 pm TIME OUT: 4:35 pm
Staff Meas(dn): 2.205 Stage: 2.795
Fence Post Elev: 5.00 (assumed KCSWM Datum)
METER USED(ENTER 1 FOR PYGMY OR 2 FOR PRICE METER): 1
.4 OR.2 .8 AVG.
DIST.FROM OBSERV. METER OBSERV. METER REV.PER MEAN
INITIAL PT. WIDTH DEPTH DEPTH REV. TIME DEPTH REV. TIME TIME VELOCITY AREA DISCHARGE
(FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (SEC) (FT) (SEC) (rev/sec) (FT/S) (SQ FT) (CFS)
0.65 0 0 0.00 0.00
0.65 0.175 0.7 0.52 0 60 0.00 0.00 0.1225 0.00
1 0.425 0.8 0.6 0 60 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00
1.5 0.5 1.32 0.6 30 60 0.50 0.51 0.66 0.34
2 0.75 1.47 0.6 43 60 0.72 0.72 1.1025 0.79
3 0.75 1.4 0.6 41 60 0.68 0.69 1.05 0.72
3.5 0.5 1.4 0.6 41 60 0.68 0.69 0.7 0.48
4 0.75 1.4 0.6 41 60 0.68 0.69 1.05 0.72
5 0.75 1.45 0.6 41 60 0.68 0.69 1.0875 0.75
5.5 0.5 1.4 0.6 41 60 0.68 0.69 0.7 0.48
6 0.5 1.3 0.6 41 60 0.68 0.69 0.65 0.45
6.5 0.5 1.3 0.6 35 60 0.58 0.59 0.65 0.38
7 0.5 1.37 0.6 28 60 0.47 0.48 0.685 0.33
7.5 0.5 1.32 0.6 24 60 0.40 0.42 0.66 0.27
8 0.5 1.2 0.6 21 60 0.35 0.37 0.6 0.22
8.5 0.5 1.55 0.6 15 60 0.25 0.27 0.775 0.21
9 0.5 0.8 0.32 5 60 0.08 0.11 0.4 0.04
9.5 0.5 0.7 0.3 3 60 0.05 0.08 0.35 0.03
10 0.5 0.6 0.25 0 60 0.00 0.00 0.3 0.00
10.5 0.5 0.6 0.25 0 60 0.00 0.00 0.3 0.00
11 0.25 0
10.35 6.23
northwest hydraulic consultants Streamflow discharge measurement summary sheet 2-15-93
STREAM FLOW RATING TABLE
WATER COURSE: Rolling Hills Creek SITE: KCSWM Gage
DATE: 12/9/93 TIME IN: 4:50pm TIME OUT: 5:20pm
StaffMeas(dn) : 2.15 Stage: 2.85
Fence Post Elev: 5.00 (assumed KCSWM Datum)
METER USED(ENTER 1 FOR PYGMY OR 2 FOR PRICE METER): 1
.4 OR.2 .8 AVG.
DIST.FROM OBSERV. METER OBSERV. METER REV.PER MEAN
INITIAL PT. WIDTH DEPTH DEPTH REV. TIME DEPTH REV. TIME TIME VELOCITY AREA DISCHARGE
(FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (SEC) (FT) (SEC) (rev/sec) (FT/S) (SQ FT) (CFS)
2.2 0 0 0.00 0.00 0
2.2 0.15 1.4 0.56 0 60 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.00
2.5 0.4 1.4 0.6 3 60 0.05 0.08 0.56 0.04
3 0.5 1.45 0.56 29 60 0.48 0.50 0.725 0.36
3.5 0.75 1.45 0.6 33 60 0.55 0.56 1.0875 0.61
4.5 1 1.5 0.6 55 60 0.92 0.91 1.5 1.37
5.5 1 1.5 0.6 39 60 0.65 0.66 1.5 0.98
6.5 1 1.55 0.6 41 60 0.68 0.69 1.55 1.07
7.5 1 1.55 0.6 39 60 0.65 0.66 1.55 1.02
8.5 1 1.45 0.55 25 60 0.42 0.43 1.45 0.63
9.5 0.75 1.5 0.6 22 60 0.37 0.38 1.125 0.43
10 0.75 1.4 0.55 21 60 0.35 0.37 1.05 0.39
11 1 0.6 0.12 0 60 0.48 30 60 0.25 0.27 0.6 0.16
12 1 0.6 0.6 0 60 0.00 0.00 0.6 0.00
13 0.5 0 0.00 0.00 0
10.8 7.05
northwest hydraulic consuhants Streamflow discharge measurement summary sheet 12-9-93
STREAM FLOW RATING TABLE
WATER COURSE: Rolling Hills Creek SITE: KCSWM Gage
DATE: ###### MIE IN: 3:05pm TIME OUT: 3:30pm
ff Meas(dn) : 2.79 Stage: 2.21
Fence Post Elev: 5.00 (assumed KCSWM Datum)
ER USED(ENTER 1 FOR PYGMY OR 2 FOR PRICE METER): 1
.4 OR .2 .8 AVG.
DIST. FROM OBSERV. METER OBSERV. METER REV. PER MEAN
INITIAL PT WIDTH DEPTH DEPTH REV. TIME DEPTH REV. TIME TIME VELOCITY AREA DISCHAR
(FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (SEC) (FT) (SEC) (rev/sec) (FT/S) (SQ FT) (CFS)
1 0.65 0 0.00 0.00
2.3 0.9 0.65 0.25 0 60 0.00 0.00 0.585 0.00
2.8 0.6 1.3 0.52 2 60 0.03 0.06 0.78 0.05
3.5 0.6 1.15 0.46 18 60 0.30 0.32 0.69 0.22
4 0.5 1 0.4 13 60 0.22 0.24 0.5 0.12
4.5 0.5 1.05 0.42 16 60 0.27 0.29 0.525 0.15
5 0.5 1 0.4 14 60 0.23 0.26 0.5 0.13
5.5 0.5 0.9 0.36 9 60 0.15 0.18 0.45 0.08
6 0.5 0.9 0.36 0 60 0.00 0.00 0.45
6.5 0.25 0 0.00 0.00
0.75
northwest hydraulic consultants Streamflow discharge measurement summary sheet I 1-12-93
Aug- 14-97 04 : 05P northwest hydraulic consu 206 439 2420 P _ 01
w
northwest hydraulic consultants inc.
16300 Christensen Road, Suite 350
Tukwila Washington 98188-3418
206-241-60W phone 3 206-439-2420 fax
FAX MESSAGE
Date: Thursday, Aug-usL 14, 1997
From: tarry Karpack
To: Scott Woodbury
Company: City of Renton
Fax #:
City: Renton
Total Pages: 3 Original in Mail:
Please call immediately if you do not receive all pages of this traastnic ion.
Dear Scott
Attached are the figures you requested showing flow frequency results for Rollin; FliIIs Creek and the
stage frequency results for the BRPS forehay. Note that the BRPS foreba_y plot show~ the data. as
simulated using the BRPS-SLM model as configured 1br the East Side Green River Watershed
Project. It also shows results for the February 1996 event if one large pLtmp were operated
continuously through the event (i.e. no ptnnp cutoff). Also shown on the plot is the actual maximum
forebay storage for the Febmary 1996 flood. I hope these curves are legible. Let me know if you
need anything further before I go out of town
Sincerely.
NOR'111WLST HYDRAULIC CONSULTANTS TNC.
Y/)W/�'/
Larry M• Karpack, P.E.
A,j/
l:1':I:k P:Nci1N'h.'F:RIAG/E!�'Dlu�lI.l('N1<7u1:1.'I'I•al'IN'tl:11Y131<i\IILh'.\N.raI.YS15 ANP hL:tif<;N i i'O,l`;I'hl.IfNG1NIili{iIN<i
!IvpR()Li(;Y 11,H)INWNTArJON ENt31N[A:RjN(; NI(Nil RVAJ.Nulur.I.IN(i r.aHTIEU RESr)\PCH ;VORi:NSR I:NGINTI-N'IN(;
D
c
1000
0
+ 'Current' Land-Use
Future Land-Use Ln
v
3
0
N T
10
100 % Cr
Q '
CU
p1 J
Zn
L
M
a>
a
FlooA FloL,,, Q,antles (Lfs) N
0
2 ur 25„r 100 ar Feb 96
(,anent fit 105 115 124
w
138 1W 220 12(0
N
10
.001 .01 . 10 .50 .90 .99 .999 0
Cumulative Probability (P)
Springbrook Creek Hydrologic Analysis
Simulated Peak Flows in Rolling Hills Creek U/S of SR-167
0
N
D
c
c�
1000
0
"Current` Land-use
Future Land-use Ln
°
oc<e E}
/ �pump Ai 6ct•,R� er �bwa � 12 00� ID
Iw ncQ�1
3
a i00 a
8 4696
tp115 acre A �
Y VI
dl+ { C
N
O
M
w
lD
N
10 N)
.00i .01 . 10 .50 .90 .99 .999 0
Cumulative Probability (P)
East Side Green River Watershed Project - Hydrologic Analysis
Frequency Analysis of Simulated Peak Storage in The BAPS
0
w
THE CITY OF RENTON
DEPARTMENT OF
PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS
FOURTH FLOOR
200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH '
RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055-2189 a
FAX: 235-2541
To: Larry Karpack
Company: NHC
Phone: 241-6000
From: Scott Woodbury
Phone: 425-277-5547
Fax: 425-235-2541
Date: 7/22/97
Pages incl this cover page: 7
Subject: Observed/measured Springbrook Creek elevation information (NGVD datum)
Attached is the chart (1 page) and data sheets (4 pages) for the crest stage gage near the Oakesdale
road crossing of SW 41st Street. Following are some notes regarding observed/measured flood
elevations at selected locations along Springbrook Creek. Unless noted, the observations are my
own. The USGS has not been collecting stage data at SW 16th Street.
November 29, 1995
SW 16th Street
3:15 pm. The water at the upstream side of the bridge was at about 7 feet.
February 8, 1996
SW 16th Street
11:50 am. I recall seeing the elevation at the upstream side of the bridge at about 8 feet,
although for some reason I did not record that observation.
SW 34th Street - The crown of the road is at about 14.6 feet and the top of the curb is at 14.4
feet (from spot elevations on the City's 4196 aerial topography)
12:15 pm. The water is just about to overtop the street.
1:00 pm. 0.1 foot depth of water over the crown of the road. It appeared that the overtopping just
started to begin (Mike G)
3:10 pm. 3 inch depth overtopping (Mike G). Not noted whether this was the crown of the road or
not.
4:00 pm. Water flowing over roadway and measures 0.2' to 0.3' over the top of the north curb.
You also set a pk nail at the water level when you were out the afternoon of 2/8/96. 1 have not
found the nail. If you thought it valuable, you could use the contingency on your contract to
survey in the pk nail.
Pac Rim Building Supply Development at SW corner of Raymond and SW 39th Street
Contractor for Pac Rim reported flooding to have reached about 15.4' to 15.6' at the Pac Rim site.
Railroad bridge north of SW 41st Street - Several measurements were made here, but I am not
aware of any survey of the bridge (this could be contingency survey).
Oakesdale near SW 41st Street
4:25 pm. Springbrook overtopping Oakesdale west curb and flowing into the Metro 108" jacking
pit. I met you at the time and you estimated that maybe 15 cfs was flowing into the pit.
February 9, 1996
SW 43rd Street
12:55 pm. Measured down 0.5' to the water from the top of both ends of the CMP culvert.
December 30, 1996
SW 34th Street
4:10 pm. Measured down 1.1' to the water level from the rim of the CB on the north side of the
road just east of the culvert crossing.
Railroad bridge north of SW 41st Street - Made measurements were made here (not surveyed
yet). I also made a measure down from a CB for a development west of the creek and about 500
feet upstream of SW 34th Street, but this CB also has not been surveyed.
CB on north side of SW 41st Street just east of Oakesdale
3:10 pm. Measured down 1.3' from the rim to the water level.
January 2, 1997
SW 23rd Street
I made measurements near SW 23rd Street area, but the reference points have not been
surveyed yet.
SW 34th Street
10:50 am. Measured down 1.55' to the water level from the rim of the CB on the north side of the
road just east of the culvert crossing.
Railroad bridge north of SW 41st Street - Made a measurement from the bridge at 10.45 am at
3.20' below the top of the north-south railroad ties (not surveyed yet).
As you know, other crest stage gage data is available for wetlands associated with the creek and for
the Panther Creek Wetland. Please let me know if you would like a copy of the data. However, my
feeling is that the other crest stage gage data would not be useful in checking the HSPF/HEC2
simulation.
U:1997:97-031:SW
Elev. NGVD
O � � N N N N W W W W A A A A (77 tlt U1 C11 T T T T V V
OD W Of 00 W m DD W O DO W O W W 01 00 CJ T OD + Cu
3-16-94
4-4-94
5-4-94
6-3-94
7-8-94
8-5-94
9-6-94
10-5-94
11-7-94
' 12-8-94 ,
1-4-95
I
2-7-95
2-21-95
i
3-16-95
4-3-95
I} i !
5-5-95
-0 0+
6-5-95 0 m CD
7-7-95 t
7to
C.
8-2-95 m -
O '+
9-12-95 < X- N
m 10-6-95 c D)
11-3-95 y CC
CD
12-5- CC
95 O Z
1-8-96 CD cD O
2-6-96 II c
I G1
2-16-96 O tD
4 5-96 O 0
5-3-96 Z
C) C
6-7-96 I
7-9-96 l 0
8-9-96
9-9-96
10-7-96
11-5-96
12-9-96
1-8-97
I
2-10-97
I
3-10-97
4-8-97 MEN
5-5-97
6-6-97
7-3-97
I
n �
c �
co o'
�C c
< H
N �
f� N
r
m
m
CSG 5.DAT
Staff Gage Raw Readings
Date CSG-5
3-16-94 -1
4-4-94 -1
5-4-94 -1
6-3-94 -1
7-8-94 -1
8-5-94 -1
9-6-94 -1
10-5-94 -1
11-7-94 -1
12-8-94 -1
1-4-95 -1
2-7-95 -1
2-21-95 -1
3-16-95 -1
4-3-95 -1
5-5-95 -1
6-5-95 -1
7-7-95 -1
8-2-95 -1
9-12-95 -1
10-6-95 -1
11-3-95 -1
12-5-95 -1
1-8-96 -1
2-6-96 90.37
2-16-96 -1
4-5-96 -1
5-3-96 -1
6-7-96 -1
7-9-96 -1
8-9-96 -1
9-9-96 -1
10-7-96 -1
11-5-96 -1
12-9-96 -1
1-8-97 -1
2-10-97 -1
3-10-97 -1
4-8-97 -1
5-5-97 -1
6-6-97 -1
7-3-97 -1
Staff Gage Raw Readings Adjusted to NGVD
Page 1
CSG 5.DAT
Date CSG-5
Grd. Elev 10.86
3-16-94 -1
4-4-94 -1
5-4-94 -1
6-3-94 -1
7-8-94 -1
8-5-94 -1
9-6-94 -1
10-5-94 -1
11-7-94 -1
12-8-94 -1
1-4-95 -1
2-7-95 -1
2-21-95 -1
3-16-95 -1
4-3-95 1 -1
5-5-95 -1
6-5-95 -1
7-7-95 -1
8-2-95 -1
9-12-95' -1
10-6-95, -1
1 1-3-95 -1
12-5-95 -1
1-8-96 -1
2-6-96 11.23
2-16-96 -1
4-5-96 -1
5-3-96 -1
6-7-96 -1
7-9-96 -1
8-9-96 -1
9-9-96 -1
10-7-96 -1
11-5-96 -1
12-9-96 -1
1-8-97 -1
2-10-97 -1
3-10-97 -1
4-8-97 -1
5-5-97 -1
6-6-97 -1
7-3-97 -1
Crest Gage Raw Readin
9 9s
Date CSG-5
Page 2
CSG 5.DAT
3-16-94 -1
4-4-94 -1
5-4-94 -1
6-3-94 -1
7-8-94 -1
8-5-94 -1
9-6-94 -1
10-5-94 -1
11-7-94 -1
12-8-94 91.47
1-4-95 92.6
2-7-95 -1
2-21-95 92.82
3-16-95 -1
4-3-95 -1
5-5-95 -1
6-5-95 -1
7-7-95 -1
8-2-95 -1
9-12-95 90.72
10-6-95 -1
11-3-95 _ 90.53
12-5-95 92.04
1-8-961 92.07
2-6-96 92.46
2-16-96 i 96.2
4-5-96 -1
5-3-961 92.53
6-7-96 -1
7-9-96 -1
8-9-96 - -1
9-9-96 -1
10-7-96 -1
11-5-96 -1
12-9-96 91.61
1-8-97 94.55
2-10-97 90.72
3-10-97 -1
4-8-97 92.34
5-5-97, -1
6-6-97 91.32
7-3-97! -1
i
Crest Gage Raw Readings Adjusted to NGVD
Date CSG-5
Grd. Elev 10.86
3-16-94 -1
4-4-94 — -1
Page 3
CSG 5.DAT
5-4-94 -1
6-3-94 -1
7-8-94 - - -1
8-5-94 -1
9-6-94 -1
10-5-94 -1
11-7-94 -1
12-8-94 12.33
1-4-95 13.46
2-7-95 -1
2-21-95 13.68
3-16-95 -1
4-3-95 -1
5-5-95 -1
6-5-95 -1
7-7-95 -1
8-2-95 -1
9-12-95 11.58
10-6-95 -1
11-3-95 11.39
12-5-95 12.9
1-8-96 12.93
2-6-96 13.32
2-16-96 17.06
4-5-96 -1
5-3-961 13.39
6-7-96 -1
7-9-96 -1
8-9-96 -1
9-9-96 -1
10-7-96 -1
11-5-96 -1
12-9-96 12.47
1-8-97 15.41
2-10-97 11.58
3-10-97 -1
4-8-97 13.2
5-5-97 -1
6-6-97 12.18
7-3-97 -1
Notes:
11. A value of -1 indicates that the gage was dry.
Page 4
northwest hydraulic consultants inc.
16300 Christensen Road, Suite 350
Tukwila Washington 98188-3418
206-241-6000 phone * 206439-2420 fax
FAX MESSAGE
Date: Wednesday, September 03, 1997
From: Larry Karpack
To: Scott Woodbury
Company: City of Renton
Fax #:
City: Renton
Total Pages: 9 3- Original in Mail: yes
Please call immediately if you do not receive all pages of this transmission.
Dear Scott:
Attached please find the flood frequency plots and flow hydrographs for Rolling Hills Creek upstream of the I-405
culvert as you requested. Please look these over and feel free to give me a call if you need any further information or
modifications to these figures. I will send color copies of these with Bob Elliot tomorrow.
Regarding the storage in Renton Village Shopping Center for the 100-1year event the HSPF modeling shows the following
results:
Peak Discharge Required Storage
Current Land-use.Current Conveyance System 127 cfs 5.56 acre ft
Future Land-use.Current Conveyance System 130 cfs 5.86 acre ft
Note that the difference in simulated peak discharges, and thus the difference in required storage is quite small for this
basin. This results from the fact that the Rolling Hills basin is highly developed already. and there is substantial available
storage in the model FTABLE for the current convevance system. One further bit of information-for the January 1990
flood event the HSPF simulations showed required storages of 5.86 and 6.26 acre feet for the current and full build out
scenarios.respectively.
Please let me know if you need an-ylhing else at this time. I will be out of the office until Monday but can provide
additional information when I return.
Sincerely,
NORTHWEST HYDRAULIC CONSULTANTS INC.
COVZCL�0
Lam M.Karpack P.E.
RIVER ENGINEERING/HYDRAULIC MODEL TESTING/HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN/COASTAL ENGINEERING
HYDROLOGY/SEDIMENTATION ENGINEERING/NUMERICAL!MODELING/APPLIED RESEARCH/FORENSIC ENGINEERING
HSPF Simulated Flows
Rolling Hills Creek upstream of SR 167
140 _...._ .._............ . ........._---
- .._-----------------
_ ...
............
.............
r.........,
E
--Current Land-use, Current Conveyance
120 ............_. .._._......_.__......_._......_._._ _._._......_._........_....._.....__......_._._......_._......_._......._._._..._._._......_._........_.................._.........._._......_...........a............_.._........_..._........ e ._._......_........_._._......_._.... _._.....
I
100 .............................................................._._.........._........_._._._._......_......................._......_ ...........................................a.._._._......_._.............................................. ...._.........._..............._._._ _......_._._ ..................
i
80
...._..................._......_._......_._:
........................... ... .... ......_._...... ._. ......................................................................................
_......_._._......_._......_._._......t
�.d 3
........._..........._._......_........._._.5.............................................L..........................................L.. ._.. .. b.. _............................_._.......d_._......_._................._._......_...«......._.........._......_._......_._._...i..............................._...........
A
...........................
20 ._._......_._..... . .... _......_._......._..... ........ .._.....i.........._._._.. _;......_._._......_._......_._._......_._...._._._......_._........................ ......_._... ._......_. _._................._._......_._._..._._......_._._......_._......_..._......
_.. _. ..
c
0
2/5/% 2/6/96 2/7/96 2/8/96 2/9/96 2/10/96 2/11/96 2/12/96
(midnight on specified date)
HSPF Simulated Flows
Rolling Hills Creek upstream of SR 167
140 ...-------- __ ................ �.. ,,.,, . . ........
Future Land-use, Current Conveyance
i i <
120 .._._......_.......... ..................................« «........_._......_._......_._._.. {...................................................._....................._......_._._....._._...«_................«............ .................................._................a........«.................«.................b_........._._....
i
t
; ; ; ;
100 ._._.............._................................................................................_ ............ ......... ........................._...._.......;_.....................................
_. _._............_......_._......_._._ ..............._..#
i
;
y
80
._._........_......_._._......_._......_.e........................................... _._ ...« ........_._.. .._._..................3..........._............_......_._......_. ............ _......_._.«......_._......_._�.
,
3� t
i � � t C� 60
............................_..............._.e:......_._......_._._......_._......_._._...E._._......_._._........_......«._._......_6.....« .. .5.. ............«.................. ................_._._................................................................d...._................._...................
A _. ...... .....
� i 1
' i ............. i e :
...«.««..«._... ._........«.;•.................... ........._......_._.....2....._......_._._................._._........_ ....._..........._..... ..............�.......... ... ......}..................._«..............._......_._.e................_._...............................E._..............................._..._......�
3
i
i
20 ...«......«.«..... ..............._...................._. ........... ....... _7........................................... _......_._......_._._......_._... ........... ....................... ........................................................_..._......_._......_..._.....II
i
i f
}
0
2/5/96 2/6/96 2/7/96 2/8/96 2/9/96 2/10/96 2/11/96 2/12/96
(midnight on specified date)
HSPF Simulated Flows
Rolling Hills Creek upstream of SR 167
140 . ..................... ..................................._. _ ......._---........ .....
Future Land-use, Improved Conveyance
120 _._......_._._.............. _._._......_._......_. _._......_._._....__._......_._._ ..«...«..._......_._......_._._...
.._........_....._..._................._.;....................................._.......a...........................................�......_._._..... ......... _._..e.._._._.... «.. _.....
i00 .................................... ............................... ._..........................................4................................................_._......_._._......_............................«._......_._......_._._...
..<
w 80 .. ......«_v _._......_._......_._._......_._......_._ ......_._........_._......_........._...._.«._._......_._._........_........_._......__.... __._.. . ...._._....._._.... .........................................................._.«.« _........_._......_._......_._._...
;
bL�A
A
40 ._._......_._......__._... ._......_._................... .............................................._._......_._._...... .......«_.......... _._...... _..s... ....«._................. _.........._......_._._......_._......_. _._......_._._......_._......_._._ ....................................._..
i
s
20 ...................._..... ......._. ............_. ._._............................... .._._........_.................._._......_._..... ....... ...._.«.�.............. «.... .. ._._...}..._......_.......... ._.. _}......._._._......_........_..._...........}... .....i.... ._._... _.{.... ..
i
i
0
2/5/96 2/6/96 2/7/96 2/8/96 2/9/96 2/10/96 2/11/96 2/12/96
(midnight on specified date)
HSPF Simulated Flows
Rolling Hills Creek upstream of SR 167
140 _._ ....... _ _ ... __ ............ _ u.
'—Current Land-use, Improved Conveyance
j f
100 _........... _.... _...........«........_._ ............................
__._._..._._._......_._......_._.r......_._......_._._........._......_._._...._._......_._._......_._......_._._......_ ......_.__.... _......_._._... ._. ._._._........_........_._......_.«.... ...._..._........_......_.
3 j
! EEi
i
y i
A
40 _._._......_._... ' ,
� E
i
s
i
20 .................. ............ _.... _._._..... _......._..._.........«..............._............................_.................i................ ...................................._._._......_._......_..._.............................
....«..........
i
I
f
i
0
2/5/96 2/6/96 2/7/96 2/8/96 2/9/96 2/10/96 2/11/96 2/12/96
(midnight on specified date)
1000
"Current" Land-Use
Future Land-Use
,
---- o J*,.
v-
100
---- �� -
C c -
L a
CO
-N -- --
Q
(13
CD
FI opd Flow Quant-105 64s)
a
Scenario 2�� 10gr 25yr 5 a r I00 r
GI 105 115 121 121
FL)ture g9 138 ICcB 193 22o
10
.001 .01 . 10 .50 .90 .99 .999
Cumulative Probability (P)
Springbrook Creek Hydrologic Analysis
Simulated Peak Flows in Rolling Hills Creek U/S of SR-167
1000
`Current' Land-Use with improved conveyance
Future Land-Use with current conveyance
0
LO
o
—
a —
i00 ---- *
L
(O
L
U
N
M _
Flood Flow Quo,t let, (A)
a
5cenac�o 2u' lD�� 25�� 50Kr 100 �r
current Pv5 133 l m2 I ST 214
Future g4 10� 114 124 1W
i0
.001 .01 .10 .50 .90 .99 .999
Cumulative Probability (P)
Springbrook Creek Hydrologic Analysis (alternative FTABLEs)
Simulated Peak Flows in Rolling Hills Creek U/S of SR-167
Current Land-use Future Land-use Current Land-use Future Land-use
(current conveyance) (improved conveyance) (improved conveyance) (current conveyance)
1990 130.0 1950 226.0 1950 220.4 1990 134.4
1950 126.7 1990 168.3 1990 163.3 1950 128.4
1991 113.4 1982 150.6 1982 147.2 1991 117.1
1982 106.7 1991 148.4 1991 144.4 1982 110.3
1972 101.7 1972 138.9 1972 135.0 1972 103.1
1975 100.2 1975 135.2 1975 131.2 1975 101.6
1968 98.7 1987 132.0 1968 125.8 1968 101.0
1996 97.6 1968 131.8 1987 124.2 1996 100.2
1987 94.8 1996 126.8 1996 123.4 1987 97.7
1986 92.7 1979 116.4 1986 108.4 1979 95.6
1979 92.7 1986 112.0 1979 108.1 1986 94.6
1957 92.0 1957 111.8 1957 107.7 1967 93.4
1967 91.9 1980 110.8 1980 106.9 1957 93.4
1980 91.8 1967 109.1 1967 104.4 1980 93.1
1951 88.8 1983 105.0 1951 98.1 1983 90.3
1983 87.8 1951 100.6 1983 96.9 1951 89.7
1956 87.8 1974 98.1 1956 94.4 1956 88.9
1974 87.5 1956 97.8 1974 94.1 1974 88.8
1981 87.1 1949 96.8 1949 92.7 1978 88.7
1978 86.4 1981 96.1 1981 92.0 1981 88.4
1949 86.2 1978 95.9 1963 90.6 1949 87.6
1963 86.2 1963 94.6 1978 88.7 1963 87.5
1984 85.2 1984 90.5 1984 86.7 1984 86.5
1958 79.8 1958 84.5 1958 80.8 1958 83.5
1954 79.5 1955 82.8 1960 79.4 1954 82.9
1960 79.3 1964 82.7 1955 79.4 1964 82.4
1955 78.8 1992 82.6 1992 79.1 1992 82.3
1992 78.7 1960 82.2 1964 79.0 1955 82.1
1964 78.6 1954 82.2 1954 78.7 1960 82.0
1966 76.1 1966 80.9 1966 77.2 1966 79.6
1970 75.8 1970 80.5 1970 76.9 1970 79.3
1961 75.3 1973 79.8 1973 76.2 1961 78.7
1973 73.5 1961 78.6 1961 75.1 1973 77.0
1995 73.1 1969 77.1 1969 73.8 1995 76.9
1969 72.4 1995 77.0 1995 73.2 1969 75.6
1965 71.8 1985 76.2 1959 72.9 1965 75.4
1971 71.7 1959 76.2 1965 72.2 1959 74.9
1959 71.6 1965 75.8 1985 71.6 1962 74.6
1962 70.4 1962 75.7 1962 71.5 1971 74.3
1985 68.6 1971 73.6 1971 71.1 1985 73.2
1953 64.5 1952 67.6 1952 64.6 1953 68.1
1952 63.5 1953 67.1 1976 63.7 1952 66.5
1976 63.1 1976 66.3 1953 63.6 1977 65.9
1977 61.5 1977 65.0 1977 60.8 1976 65.7
1989 58.5 1989 62.3 1989 58.9 1989 62.0
1994 52.5 1994 58.7 1994 54.2 1994 56.7
1988 52.0 1988 57.0 1988 53.9 1988 55.0
1993 48.3 1993 53.5 1993 49.2 1993 52.3
East Side Green River Watershed
Hydrologic Analysis
Report prepared for:
R.W. Beck
and
City of Renton, Department of Planning/Building/Public Works
Prepared by
Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Inc.
16300 Christensen Road Suite 350
Tukwila, WA 98188-3418
206-241-6000
March 1996
Date: 07/27/95 File name: PANTH C.INP Page 3 Date: 07/27/95 File name: PANTH C.INP Page 4
END FTABLE 20 WDM 30 EVAP ENGL 0.80 DIV RCHRES 24 EXTNL POTEV
SUBBASIN •'• P1
FTABLE 21 WDM 140 PERO ENGL 2.5833 RCHRES 19 EXTNL IVOL
ROWS COLS "' WDM 141 PERO ENGL 29.8948 RCHRES 19 EXTNL IVOL
8 4 WDM 145 SURO ENGL 3.7302 RCHRES 19 EXTNL IVOL
DEPTH AREA VOLUME OUTFLOW "' SUBBASIN - P2
(FT) (ACRES) (AC-FT) (CFS) "• WDM 140 PERO ENGL 15.0667 RCHRES 20 EXTNL IVOL
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 WDM 141 PERO ENGL 42.0392 RCHRES 20 EXTNL IVOL
1.0 0.1 0.1 0.01 WDM 144 PERO ENGL 0.0417 RCHRES 20 EXTNL IVOL
6.0 0.1 0.63 0.06 WDM 145 SURO ENGL 10.8192 RCHRES 20 EXTNL IVOL
7.0 0.1 1.24 85.0 SUBBASIN ••+ P3
8.0 0.1 3.75 109.0 WDM 140 PERO ENGL 0.0167 RCHRES 20 EXTNL IVOL
9.0 0.1 6.46 136.0 WDM 141 PERO ENGL 0.6513 RCHRES 20 EXTNL IVOL
10.0 0.1 10.0 156.0 WDM 144 PERO ENGL 0.2250 RCHRES 20 EXTNL IVOL
11.0 0.1 100.0 176.0 WDM 145 SURO ENGL 3.6904 RCHRES 20 EXTNL IVOL
D FTABLE 21 :*:WDM
FEQ P-123 (runoff from P-3)
••'WDM 140 PERO ENGL 0.202 COPY 1 INPUT MEAN 1
FTABLE 24 •`•WDM 141 PERO ENGL 7.881 COPY 1 INPUT MEAN 1
ROWS COLS ••• •••WDM 144 PERO ENGL 2.723 COPY 1 INPUT MEAN 1
13 4 •`•WDM 145 SURO ENGL 44.654 COPY 1 INPUT MEAN 1
DEPTH AREA VOLUME OUTFLOW •`• SUBBASIN •+• P4
(FT) (ACRES) (AC-FT) (CFS) ••• WDM 140 PERO ENGL 6.1500 RCHRES 24 EXTNL IVOL
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 WDM 141 PERO ENGL 22.4104 RCHRES 24 EXTNL IVOL
0.50 10.00 5.00 0.10 WDM 144 PERO ENGL 5.3833 RCHRES 24 EXTNL IVOL
1.00 14.00 12.00 3.00 WDM 145 SURO ENGL 3.5979 RCHRES 24 EXTNL IVOL
1.50 26.00 25.00 10.00 •++ TO FEQ P-4
2.00 28.00 39.00 18.00 WDM 140 PERO ENGL 74.415 COPY 1 INPUT MEAN 3
2.50 42.00 60.00 27.00 WDM 141 PERO ENGL 271.17 COPY 1 INPUT MEAN 3
3.00 40.00 80.00 37.00 WDM 144 PERO ENGL 65.138 COPY 1 INPUT MEAN 3
3.50 56.00 108.00 52.00 WDM 145 SURO ENGL 43.535 COPY 1 INPUT MEAN 3
4.00 56.00 136.00 63.00 +++ TO Total PCW Inflow
4.50 68.00 170.00 78.00 WDM 140 PERO ENGL 74.415 COPY 1 INPUT MEAN 4
5.00 68.00 204.00 90.00 WDM 141 PERO ENGL 271.17 COPY 1 INPUT MEAN 4
5.50 68.00 236.00 100.00 WDM 144 PERO ENGL 65.138 COPY 1 INPUT MEAN 4
6.00 68.00 268.00 108.00 WDM 145 SURO ENGL 43.535 COPY 1 INPUT MEAN 4
END FTABLE 24 SUBBASIN - P5
WDM 140 PERO ENGL 16.8167 RCHRES 21 EXTNL IVOL
FTABLE 23 WDM 141 PERO ENGL 39.2516 RCHRES 21 EXTNL IVOL
ROWS COLS ••• WDM 144 PERO ENGL 1.0333 RCHRES 21 EXTNL IVOL
11 5 WDM 145 SURO ENGL 18.2651 RCHRES 21 EXTNL IVOL
DEPTH AREA VOLUME OUTFLOW OUTFLOW ••• END EXT SOURCES
(FT) (ACRES) (AC-FT) (CFS) (CFS) +•+
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NETWORK
0.50 1.00 0.17 1.00 0.05 <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> •••
1.00 3.00 1.17 4.00 0.10 <Name> N <Name> N N<-factor->strg <Name> N N <name> N N '••
1.50 5.00 3.17 11.00 0.15 RCHRES 23 HYDR 0 1 PLTGEN 1 INPUT POINT 1
2.00 7.00 6.17 20.00 0.20 RCHRES 24 HYDR RO PLTGEN 1 INPUT POINT 2
2.50 9.00 10.17 26.00 26.00 RCHRES 23 HYDR O 2 PLTGEN 1 INPUT POINT 3
3.00 10.00 14.92 27.00 40.00 RCHRES 20 HYDR RO PLTGEN 1 INPUT POINT 4
3.50 10.50 20.04 28.00 50.00 RCHRES 21 HYDR RO PLTGEN 1 INPUT POINT 5
4.00 11.00 25.42 28.50 60.00 RCHRES 20 HYDR RO COPY 1 INPUT MEAN 1
4.50 11.00 30.92 28.90 70.00 RCHRES 21 HYDR RO COPY 1 INPUT MEAN 2
5.00 11.00 36.42 30.20 75.00 RCHRES 20 HYDR RO COPY 1 INPUT MEAN 4
END FTABLE 23 RCHRES 21 HYDR RO COPY 1 INPUT MEAN 4
COPY 1 OUTPUT MEAN 4 PLTGEN 1 INPUT MEAN 1
END FTABLES END NETWORK
EXT SOURCES SCHEMATIC
<-Volume-> <Member> SsysSgap<--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> +++ <-Source-> <--Area--> <-Target-> <ML-> •••
<Name> N <Name> N tem strg<-factor->strg <Name> N N <Name> N N ••• <Name> N <-factor-> <Name> N N •++
+•+ RCHRES 19 RCHRES 20 1
WDM 15 RAIN ENGL 1.00 RCHRES 19 EXTNL PREC RCHRES 20 RCHRES 23 1
WDM 30 EVAP ENGL 0.80 DIV RCHRES 19 EXTNL POTEV RCHRES 23 RCHRES 24 2
WDM 15 RAIN ENGL 1.00 RCHRES 24 EXTNL PREC RCHRES 21 RCHRES 24 1
a
AO
File name: PANTH F.INP Page 3
Date: 01/27/95 File name: PANTH F.INP Page 4
Date: 07/27/95 "
3.00 10.00 14.92 27.00 40.00
END FTABLE 20 3.50 10.50 20.04 28.00 50.00
4.00 11.00 25.42 28.50 60.00
FTABLE 21 4.50 11.00 30.92 28.90 70.00
ROWS COLS `•` 5.00 11.00 36.42 30.20 75.00
15 4 END FTABLE 23
DEPTH AREA VOLUME OUTFLOW •••
(FT) (ACRES) (AC-FT) (CFS) END FTABLES
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.69 0.03 0.20 4.63 EXT SOURCES ...
2.64 0.05 0.40 43.38 <-Volume-> <Member> Ssyssgap<--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> ...
3.67 0.05 0.60 74.66 <Name> # <Name> # tem strg<-factor->strg <Name> N # <Name> # #
4.57 0.05 0.80 110.77
5.46 0.05 1.24 148.84 WDM 15 RAIN ENGL 1.0 RCHRES 19 EXTNL PREC
6.32 0.04 1.29 185.48 WDM 30 EVAP ENGL 0.8 DIV RCHRES 19 EXTNL POTEV
7.14 0.03 1.32 216.55 WDM 15 RAIN ENGL 1.0 RCHRES 24 EXTNL PREC
8.20 0.10 1.35 237.74 WDM 30 EVAP ENGL 0.8 DIV RCHRES 24 EXTNL POTEV
8.84 0.60 1.57 268.83 SUBBASIN ••• P1 Lake - 33.2 acres
9.03 O.BO 1.70 296.67 WDM 140 PERO ENGL 3.3938 RCHRES 19 EXTNL IVOL
9.21 2.00 1.91 322.11 WDM 141 PERO ENGL 28.0672 RCHRES 19 EXTNL IVOL
9.40 3.00 2.34 345.69 WDM 144 PERO ENGL 0.0430 RCHRES 19 EXTNL IVOL
9.58 3.00 2.88 367.76 WDM 145 SURD ENGL 4.7488 RCHRES 19 EXTNL IVOL
9.90 10.00 4.96 370.00 SUBBASIN ••, P2
EN FTABLE 21 WDM 140 PERO ENGL 11.1916 RCHRES 20 EXTNL IVOL
••• current o 1ng Hills FTAB LE shown below for comparison WDM 141 PERO ENGL 42.2920 RCHRES 20 EXTNL IVOL
••• 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 WDM 144 PERO ENGL 0.1329 RCHRES 20 EXTNL IVOL
••• 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.01 WDM 145 SURO ENGL 14.0593 RCHRES 20 EXTNL IVOL
••. 6.0 0.1 0.63 0.06 SUBBASIN ••` P3
... 7.0 0.1 1.24 85.0 WDM 140 PERO ENGL 0.1586 RCHRES 20 EXTNL IVOL
••• 0.0 0.1 3.75 109.0 WDM 141 PERO ENGL 0.5837 RCHRES 20 EXTNL IVOL
9.0 0.1 6.46 136.0 WDM 144 PERO ENGL 0.2524 RCHRES 20 EXTNL IVOL
••• 10.0 0.1 10.0 156.0 WDM 145 SURO ENGL 3.5803 RCHRES 20 EXTNL IVOL
••• 11.0 0.1 100.0 116.0 •`• TO FEQ (P-3 portion of P-123)
••WDM 140 PERO F.NGL 1.919 COPY 1 INPUT MEAN 1
FTABLE 24 ---WDM 141 PERO ENGL 7.063 COPY 1 INPUT MEAN 1
ROWS COLS `•' •"WDM 144 PERO ENGL 3.054 COPY 1 INPUT MEAN 1
13 4 •`•WDM 145 SURO ENGL 43.322 COPY 1 INPUT MEAN 1
DEPTH AREA VOLUME OUTFLOW •`• SUBBASIN ••' P4 Lake - 67.8 acres
RCHRES 24 EXTNL IVOL
(FT) (ACRES) (AC-FT) (CFS) ••• WDM 140 PERO ENGL 2.2196
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 WDM 141 PERO ENGL 26.1744 RCHRES 24 EXTNL IVOL
0.50 10.00 5.00 0.10 WDM 144 PERO ENGL 2.9784 RCHRES 24 EXTNL IVOL
1.00 14.00 12.00 3.00 WDM 145 SURD ENGL 5.6908 RCHRES 24 EXTNL IVOL
1.50 26.00 25.00 10.00 ••• TO FEQ P-4
2.00 28.00 39.00 18.00 WDM 140 PERO ENGL 26.857 COPY 1 INPUT MEAN 3
2.50 42.00 60.00 27.00 WDM 141 PERO ENGL 316.71 COPY 1 INPUT MEAN 3
3.00 40.00 80.00 37.00 WDM 144 PERO ENGL 36.039 COPY 1 INPUT MEAN 3
3.50 56.00 108.00 52.00 WDM 145 SURO ENGL 68.859 COPY 1 INPUT MEAN 3
4.00 56.00 136.00 63.00 - TO Total PCW Inflow
4.50 68.00 110.00 78.00 WDM 140 PERO ENGL 26.857 COPY 1 INPUT MEAN 4
5.00 68.00 204.00 90.00 WDM 141 PERO ENGL 316.71 COPY 1 INPUT MEAN 4
5.50 68.00 236.00 100.00 WDM 144 PERO ENGL 36.039 COPY 1 INPUT MEAN 4
6.00 68.00 268.00 108.00 WDM 145 SURD ENGL 68.859 COPY 1 INPUT MEAN 4
END FTABLE 24 SUBBASIN ••• P5
WDM 140 PERO ENGL 18.1184 RCHRES 21 EXTNL IVOL
FTABLE 23 WDM 141 PERO ENGL 35.1093 RCHRES 21 EXTNL IVOL
ROWS COLS ••• WDM 144 PERO ENGL 2.9073 RCHRES 21 EXTNL IVOL
11 5 �� WDM 145 SURO ENGL 19.8066 RCHRES 21 EXTNL IVOL
DEPTH AREA VOLUME OUTFLOW OUTFLOW • END EXT SOURCES
(FT) (ACRES) (AC-FT) (CFS) (CFS) `•'
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NETWORK ..
0.50 1.00 0.17 1.00 0.05 <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member->
1.00 3.00 1.17 4.00 0.10 <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> N N <name> # #
1.50 5.00 3.17 I1.00 0.15 RCHRES 23 HYDR O 1 PLTGEN 1 INPUT POINT 1
2.00 7.00 6.17 20.00 0.20 RCHRES 24 HYDR RO PLTGEN 1 INPUT POINT 2
2.50 9.00 10.17 26.00 26.00
THE CITY OF RENTON
DEPARTMENT OFF
PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS \ g
FOURTH FLOOR
200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH C,
RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055-2189 ,
FAX: 235-2541 -
To: Larry Karpack
Company: NHC
Phone:
Fax:
From: Scott Woodbury
Phone: 425-277-5547
Fax: 425-235-2541
Date: 9/2/97
Pages incl this cover page: 1
Subject: Rolling Hills Creek
Under the contingency task of our contract CAG-97-044, please provide the following
information for Rolling Hills Creek near Renton Village as early this week as possible:
1. Flow frequency plot for current conditions w/o storage and future conditions w/ storage
noting major events and flood flow quantiles on the plot similar to as was done previously.
2. Storage required for the 100-year event under current and future conditions simulations w/
storage.
3. Hydrograph plots of the February 1996 event simulation for the current condition w/o
storage and future condition w/ and w/o storage similar to as was done for the recent
validation work.
Please call me with an estimate of your time to do this work before you begin. Thanks.
cc: Ron Straka
;y ,� CITY OF RENTON
4" Planning/Building/Public Works Department
J e Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator
January 7, 1998
Larry Karpack
Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Inc.
16300 Christensen Road- STE 350
Tukwila, WA 98188-3418
SUBJECT: ESGRWP GAGING SERVICES CONTRACT CAG-97-044
I have reviewed the products that you have provided under the ESGRWP gaging services
contract. As usual I am impressed with the quality of your work. In addition to a few suggested
revisions in the attached pages of the gage data review report, I also request the following:
• revised black and white figures for the validation report, instead of color, using different line
types to differentiate the simulated and observed curves. This way we can make copies
without having to send the figures out for color copying.
• streamflow discharge data sheets for the Panther Creek and SW 27th Street gages.
I have also enclosed the most recent download sheet for Rolling Hills Creek so you can see the
notes about the staff plate reinstallation. We have surveyed the steel post near the gage to the
NGVD 1929 datum and will survey the staff plate soon.
Please proceed with completing the work identified in the contract, including making streamflow
measurements as conditions allow. For your final submittal I would like two revised gage data
review reports and one more copy of the validation report with black and white figures.
Please call me at 425-277-5547 as soon as you have reviewed this information to discuss the
recommendations section of the gaging data report. Thanks for your help.
Sincerely,
CO�
w
Scott Woodbury, P.E., ro'ect Manager
Surface Water Utility
H:DOCS:98-011:SW:ps
Attachment
CC: Ron Straka
200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055
®This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer
approximately t 0.03 feet of being exactly 1 foot lower than the peak water surface elevation
recorded on the instrument for the concurrent period. Therefore, we think it is possible, even
likely, that the manual readings were mis-recorded, and the discrepancy does not indicate a
problem with the automatic gage.
ROLLING HILLS CREEK
Raw output from the pressure transducer at the Rolling Hills Creek gage site is downloaded
approximately once every 40 days by City of Renton personnel. Raw data consist of stages
upstream of the I-405 and SR-167 culverts recorded at a 15 minute interval. The raw gage data
collected between 27 January 1995 and 5 May 1997 were provided to NHC in digital format.
NHC converted the raw gage data to stream water surface elevations by offsetting the raw
measurement by an appropriate shift, producing output water surface elevations corresponding to
the arbitrary datum of the staff plate at the gage site. Two manual measurements are reported at t-p
this site, one from the staff plate, and the second as a measure down distance from a���
i ort. A fixed offset was applied to all raw stage data to convert all data to the rot of
datum of the staff plate. Additional variable offsets were applied to the data to correct for drift in �y[ A�,Ae,
the transducer. The amount of these offsets was determined from the operator's observations at
the time of each download. All comparisons of the recorded data were made after converting
stages to the staff gage datum.
Missing or Erroneous Data -Because of the manner in which the TerraScience data loggers '
function, data recording does not take place during the time data are being downloaded.
Therefore there are numerous short intervals (15 minutes to 1 hour) of missing data
I i ,
corresponding to the time of each download. In addition to these gaps, data are not available for
the periods from 12 February 1996 at 6:00 through 29 March 1996 at 17:00 and 25 September 6I ,ups
I
1996 at 3:00 through 27 Sept er 1996 at 14:00. The remainder of the data appears to be of r^°"^�,P,�}
good quality through about m h 1997. The station observer's notes indicate that a City crew��i,�q',�,o�
performed maintenance wor the channel at the gage site on 5 March 1997. Subsequent to t s
work the recorded mi mum stages appear to be about 0.15 feet lower than were observe�e t �j
' to the channel work IL March 1997 the station operator adjusted the instruments offs e�
correspond to a manual staff reading at the time of the data download. e fee$rded
' adjustrnent-the-stages-Tecorded-atrt
� theFperied4n-the-gage- d We are pot able to verify thWadjustmenmp-pe4r"G-b�e
S stment made by the
station operator on 25 Marc�i^�la�a recorded subsequent to s p
�on� :S*ages produced from the raw data recorded after 25 March
1997 are likely to be erroneous. �r �5 <<<0� IV A,
' Instantaneous Instrument Readings-F r the Rolling Hills gage the manually read staff plate ,� � .
reading and the concurrent instrumen�Vreading corresponded within f 0.18 feet at each of the 16)
�e
downloads (Table 2). Note, however, that relatively few observations of the staff plate have beer '9 K��a
recorded so it is difficult to say if the gage has experienced any transient problems. I i
articular) problematic that no�staff plate stage observations have been made since arch
particularly
1996, so it is not possible to say how the instrument is cujr Intl TTforming relative to the fixed /�
gage. The instrument's d � , as measured down on the gat , was used in conjunction
with an assumed fixed set between the instrument datum arid the staff plat(eta adjust g4-�
f�/'= U/Y�.Of C n�l���Cn�.r� fir,b�[.� �6 �
NHC Project 20852 3 c�ri��� .,y 1iv rA J'o- F fie Si"If' 141 1997 p-ic
/kEL alh8r?)tS Iz *Y�< n�" .;`;' �': / SAS,
G4 Y/�9 I9� !/G�� �l�S4V(.• �i !F_[ P1G
1,4 f� �c reset
� v
stage data to coincide with the staff plate. Recorded drift ha typically been less than 0.1 feet
between downloads. The single exception to this was at the 5 March 1997 download when the
observed daft was noted
b the station observer as 0.39 feet. With the exception of the 25 Marche
r in the
download, the observations indicate that
t the timeoof downloadsment readings or +
water surface elevations to the range of those observed a
Crest Stage Gage Readings-No crest stage gage is maintained at this site.
PANTHER CREW
Raw output from the capacitance probe at the Panther Creek gage site is downloaded
approximately once every 40 days by City of Renton personnel. Raw data consist of stages
upstream of the Talbot Road culvert recorded at a 15 minute interval. The raw gage data
collected between 12 December 1994 and 9 April 1997 were provided to NHC in digital format.
NHC converted the raw gage data to stream water surface elevations by offsetting the raw
measurement by an appropriate shift, producing output water surface elevations corresponding to
the arbitrary datum of the staff plate at the gage s Sea measure down distance from Two manual measurements ebol orte on t et
this site, one from the staff plate, and the seco
brace holding the gage. As will be described later,
c tance measurements
however, has have
all
been referenced to the staff plate datum. The TerraScience ca Pa
always been calibrated to the bolt datum. The two datums have not been surveyed or otherwise
conclusively tied together so the offset, necessary to adjust water surface elevations to the datum
of the stage-discharge rating was chosen by NHC on the basis of the available observations.
Observations by City staff have indicated differences between these two datums ranging from
+0.21 feet to -0.40 feet. For this analysis, a fixed offset of-0.15 feet was applied to all raw stage
data to convert the data to the datum of the staff plate. Variable offsets were also applie offsets was determined
to the
data to correct for significant drift in the transducer. The amount of these
from the operator's observations at the time of each download. All comparisons of the recorded
1 data were made after converting stages to the staff plate datum.
1 Missing or Erroneous Data-Because of the manner in which the TerraScience data loggers
function, data recording does not take place during the time data are being downloaded.
Therefore there are numerous short intervals (15 minutes to 1 hour) of missing data
' corresponding to the time of each download. In addition to these gaps, numerous problems have
ce probe at the Panther
been encountered with the TerraScience loggers and/or the day of 1 March 19951and the periods from 11
Creek gage site. Data are not available for the y
April 1995 at 15:30 through 1 June 1995 at 15:30, 6 September 1995 at 5:30 through 15
September 1995 at 14:00, 25 September 1996 at 5:30 through 27 September 1996 at 14:45, 11
November 1996 at 3:30 through 26 November remainder of the data�appearDto be ofemarginaltquality due
through 9 January 1997 at 15:45 . The rem
to instrument drift, datum uncertainty, and gage overtopping.
Instantaneous Instrument Readings-For the Panther Creek gage the manually read staff plate
reading and the concurrent instrument reading are difficult to corroborate (Table 3). The
difference between the readings staff plate and measure down) reported by the station operator
have ranged between -0.40 feet and+0.21 feet. It is therefore difficult to determine what offset
t
4 July 14, 1997
NHC Project 20852
i
E�
gage. No significant anomalies were noted in the data. The streamflow data clearly show the
flashy character of this stream which has made it difficult to obtain high flow discharge measure-
ments, thus adding additional uncertainty to the high end discharges.
Analysis of several of the largest storms in the extended data period produced were reported ,
above in the discussion of the SW 27th Street gage. Note that the Rolling Hills Creek gage
typically reports less unit area storm runoff(inches) than the other basin gages. It is not known
whether inaccuracies in the stage-discharge rating or other features of the gage are causing this,
or if this site actually receives less storm runoff than the other basin gages. Note that the unit area
runoff would also be affected by errors in the basin delineation. For the week ending 2 January
1997, computed runoff at the Rolling Hills gage exceeded the observed Panther Lake precipita-
tion by approximately 25%. It is not known whether the accumulations of snow on the ground
prior to the late December storm, and the effects of rainfall on frozen ground, resulted in the
abnormally high streamflow or if it was the result of a rating shift or other problem at the gage.
Table 7 shows that the computed monthly runoff at the Rolling Hills Creek gage ranges between
0.63 inches in July 1995 and June 1996 to 6.2 inches in December 1996 (note that the record for
February 1996 is incomplete). Considering the precipitation data and the relatively high impervi-
ous area in this basin, these figures are in line with what would be expected. The percentage of
monthly rainfall recorded as runoff ranges from a low of 25% in October 1995 and October 1996,
to a high of over 100% in June 1996, apparently as a result of base flow.
It should be emphasized that the stage-discharge rating for the Rolling Hills Creek gage is
somewhat uncertain at the low end due to the datum correction described above, and also at the
high end due to the lack of high flow discharge measurements. Also, with only 7 discharge
measurements over the last 4 years, and none since February 1996, it is clear that the stage-
discharge rating at the Rolling Hills Creek site is not as precisely defined as would be desirable.
However, with the exceptions noted abov the data developed to date appears to be of reason-
able quality for validation of the City's HSF model. J
PANTHER CREEK i
Water surface elevations recorded at the Panther Creek gage site were converted to flows using
NHC's STAGE2Q program. A conventional stage-discharge rating curve was developed for this
site using the single NHC discharge measurement and numerous discharge measurements made by
the King County Water and Land Resources Division(KCWLR) as shown in Figure 3. Note that
the rating curve is referenced to the staff plate which was used as the reference elevation for the
discharge measurements. As described above, the water surface elevations at the Panther Creek
site were also adjusted to correspond to the staff plate, although there is significant uncertainty in
the offset between the gage datum and the staff plate datum (used for discharge measurements).
The rating curve fits the discharge data moderately well for discharges above about 8 cfs. Below
8 cfs there is considerable scatter in the discharge data reported by KCWLR. There was no
obvious trend in the discharge data indicating any rating shift over time. The curve shown on E
Figure 3 represents the best fit to the available data. The curve is fairly well defined at the upper
end due to the control of the downstream culvert. At the low end however, the curve is very
NHC Project 20852 8 July 14, 1997
i
---- --- Fn: Number _Station: Name��r�i� Number 2=I D� /Q,p1
Date l2 -24 -97
Time: WatchD/L /�-/� Date �_�� — 7� Date J Date Time DMP
Log # Date J Date Time DMP 3�Z5- 3E/p0 Hr .HEX
_�737 g3C- 9g- HcX HEX S= J.
.WK1S=
__ILA— WK I RL Measurement #
R= `7'� Measurement #
m =- 96( )+ q( )+ I =
Initial Control Start-up First Log CSC Measurement
Initial �! Control Start-up First Log CSC Measurement Time �D8 �l''3o Top=
�� ��1
Timc 12: 2 r_ I > Q (�',50 L4 Q� Top Stag /.ln� Dist. — ----
Swli O Dist. = _ CSC = —
CSC Log / 70 _
Log 1_ 71
1t = �,/� Monitur /o Shift =
(p _
monitor Shift =
Shin � Scrcrn Cleaned?:Y N _
Shill 'Q 5 Screen Cleaned?:Y N_ O�� Desicant Chg'd?:Y N_
Desicant Ch d?:Y _ N_ End Offict old'b' Well Flushed?: Y
End O(Isct a old'b' (04 Well Flushed?: Y_ N_ Start 011sct new b Data Fib Crcrrtcd?Y N_
Stan 011sct �2 new'b' 6¢ Data Fib Crcertcel?Y _ N__ PIC File Cre a trd?Y_ N_
PIC File Crem ted?Y_ N_
Remarks 500
y�
Remarks /1/� DAD Orr-
Me
17GS
A � — jr
D,n 1 fG., 'l Id 4,dzLr
Party Pa _{r:
--- - - /// Station: Name. //,, Number _ �3
FSta o n: Nam e ` / L`� Number 0 3� Time: Watch s D/L �S 9_�2 Date ��-G-97
S_-S„e: Watch
D/L Date �-l`r-`I Log # Date J Date Time DMP
Log # Date J Date Tiinc DNT I P.L-I X HEX
.HEX S=
S=
---- .WK I R=
Measurement #
R Measurement #
in = 96( )+ 4( )+ 1 =
Initial Control Start-up First Log: CSC Measurement
Initial Control Start-up First Log CSC Measurement Time /�./5 Top= _
Time - Top Staff ��-fP jZ- /(po Dist. = -----
Staff JPIC
ist. = --- CSC =Log
SG = Log - /, 7Z
K= _ Monitor /-�a --- -- Shift =Monitor ift = _ Shill Screen Cleaned?:Y N
Shill Cleaned?:Y_ N_ Desicant Chg'd?:Y — N_
End OIl ct old'b' .—YL� Well Flushed?: Y_ N_
tChg'd?:Y N_
End Offsct old'b' shed?: Y— N_ Start Offset Data Fib Created?Y N_
ncw'b'
Star 0thscl ncw'b'
Crcatod?Y _ N__ PIC FJc Cr-tld?Y_ N__
Cr(m ttd 7 Y _ N__ C
Remarks
Remarks �r� �� � _ T 44C.>
ZL. y'Z _ 1
r} So fT'io e7)Ir
c�
Party
Pan
--- Station:Name Number
Station; Name Ntunber
Time: Watch f ',s o D/L, O Date _1� I Ft-97
Time: Watch D/L Date 8! 9� Log# Date J Date Time
.DMP
Log # Date J Date Time DMP �— � —�_�� 1AU �97 HEX
.HEX S= (. Sta — F�1r / �. .WK1
=S — WKI R= �- � Measurement#
Measurement#
m= 96( )+4( )+] _
Initial Control Start-up First Log CSG Measurement
Initial Control Start-up First L.og CSG Measurement Time � _ Z � sS Top=
Time Top= Staff r•s� f.S7 Dut.=
Dist._ CSCLo
=
Staff /
CSG= S — R=
Log — —
R= Monitor Shift=
Monitor Shift Sly Screen Cleaned?:Y_ N_
Shift Screen Cleaned?:Y_ N_ End Offset Desicant Chg'd?:Y _ N_
Desicant Chg'd?:Y _ N— old'b' Well Flushed?: Y_ N_
End Offset old'b' Well Flushed?: Y_. N_ Start Offset _ new'b' ZOQ Data Fib Crcated?Y _ N_
Start Offset ncw'b'
Data Fib CrcutMd?Y — N_— PIC File Created?Y_ N—
PIC F'Jc Crea ted?Y_ N
Remarks
Remarks
1 i S-O )
C e� Ou `'/-
7 e '5A
f
J
/
f Parry
Gf a Ca Party
—------ — _—_. Station: Name Number
i Time: Watch _ _ U/L T 1 Date Station: Name
Number 3� Log # Date J DateTime ►�aT = 5�rQ�F n G 5'
DMPe3
Time: Watch,�- 5
Log # Date J Date Time - DNP s= Z. 6o -�-�� �l_�l r -till
S= f 7& HEX R- Measurement #
R= 1' ten m= ?._31 96( )+4( )+7 =
In _ 96( )+ 4( )+ 1 = Initial Control Start-up First Log CSC Measurement
Fff
e Top=
Initial Control Start-upFirst Log / Dist. _
�� CSG Measurement /_ f� J S
Time J Y�O Top= --�= CSG=
Sniff { •1�O j ,y a Dist.= LOB - _ R= —
Log /,� (/ CSC= Monitor �' 6T Shift_
`}
Monitor 14-7 R= Shift Screen Cleaned?:Y N
— —
Shift= Desicant Chg'd?:Y _ N
Shin Oq ------ End Offset _ old'b' _ Well Flushed?: Y_ N_
Scrcron Cleaned.:Y _
N --
" Desicant Chg'd?:Y _ N_ Start Offset new'b' -�[�_ Data Fib Crcatca?Y _ N
EndOQ-set �•y� old'b' _�-yi� PICFileCrti�tL�d?Y N__
_Well Flushed?: Y_ N_
Start011set new'b' j Data Fib Created?y / N
PIC File Cre att?d?Y _— N_ Remarks ¢ 5 me
�-
nZ) 9G
Remarks _ .pU
! S' 'Q fr2
F'1 P
Party
Party
H
O
aEast Side Green River Watershed Project
Hydraulic Analysis Report
a Existing Or'ainage System
Table 10 (updated 2/5/98)
Summary of Peak Flows and Water Surface Elevations
O
N Current and Futuna Land Use Conditions
it Wilh Connecting Channei(Grady Way to SW 16th Sveel)Ccnslructed and In-Place
N CUu- Yk k•.
M Road. 1o0-YrCy.Flog IC&Yr FuL F:aa 100-`4 Fug Floe_ 10-NYY Fut.Flow
.wY Top Slncrge Srortk.t(5 Sluraee Stange
Elcv. Feb 1196 Fvent(1) f:rb l996 E%cnt(7) pyd f_41AA
lD
0 LacafimDncrpliat Elow Fkv F14m, F1, Flog. lea Flow Elev
N z (rfs) (Seel) (C IS) (f-) J (dk) (lea) Ccrs) (fed)
N
(Ai I u�__i I FLOM Crerk u/s of SR-l67(1) I a2 92 129 1711
C
RollhK Nilht Creek al Rmron!3)(4) R7 20.7 99 ;0. i 23 11 . 123 212
U Shopping Gen1c(Cole Oudel 1
V V Ro:.irrg Hills ids 1-403 J32"tuhat(3)(4) 57 10.8 99 16. 1,23 IS 6 173 10.4
U N
o E H ± Sfl-i6-7 north crovsin� 58 1 i_ 69 15 6 11J 18
7 C a U ii ti
b Nprir;xook Orvk
S` BUSourllow I 1361) 1700 I7JD i'i(s)
r`
BRPS itlllDA' 734 8.•1 )1 i3 0 O 1391 1 h.1 1:i78 13.1
CD
a'Grady Way . B4 8.6 10l5 1 10 3� 1282 Iv.) I:49 1 i_I
L S\Y 16th Street 177 9.6 %t1 1 ; 1 1%7 14.1 1 I:d I1.1:
Confl,)tllceo(-Nunh60'SS 571 �.7r E98 :;_I 1" 14 1071 133
410 0 C-oallw-.:entF-9 30; ia.4 F07 .3.3 M 14.) 9Sy 13.5
a1 O
(1) 511f V111 u+s 179 492 t l At 775 14.3 903 160 90S .15.1
3 z`p 3 SW34thi0w 149 493 12a 341 t5.2 1021 161. 1021 161
r x Oskculale rirs 17.1 469 1291 8,16 1 A :026 169 10.16 16.6
+) LL 4 (Ukad:Jc o:s I"'A .6:1 13 6 79. 17 3 973 17.6 97) 17.6
St1'dirdc+; :29 459 140 7S3 11.6 965 ISO 45 Iso
C o 0 SW43rJc%s 2.9 ;39 54 731 IS.q 9n) Is; yi IS.7
h I IQ U 4 tL
�
a
a
M ; Not.-,
� It 1 PCPs at tAr IJLrL Rit_I)ur,><s ui:,o:t sT=t oii a.:_nGrrca Ribtr Ilewi ecck .t 12,('tiJ c.`,.
(.; OntlxS.pjrtpW_the H'c.:Amer pumpsut,enstilluPc.0 i'.1'kn G:ernrivct MN%se.Nrnd 112,10,D,
O o 43.11 GOtilnulated flott3 c-1hete lrcatioru ire:n ai upon fregvtYl.�'•ual)s�of S;:il�:roo's
t Curs i,Iln;I�i to Ilse ORPS forebav- Rafe:to FiG(kWP.6Jroi,:^e loycs s Rt;orl(NMC 199511 C
00 j bic:.'YPml:'h.�nrf.:;ar1:J-ssr'?A.IIJ::Creek max;Rvllin3 hea Cree..
0)4 (4)Flode air Kaed upon�muraplumlha cap cnJY(eluicl,)ntarouShR,AL>.iS4ep;rinSCede:e:rn (oveJ
I r-1 wch iho:no a tnaaiior.IronYdu:�re pondir.;O"Les.
to L.
(i),tc sittvut,icd Co-151;Ht.'r:tul:e:►r,ahtis Ilrptrt For tar Existing OrainrScS)'uam I\1Lr:i,14G5)
O
IL
THE CITY OF RENTON
DEPARTMENT OF
PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS
FOURTH FLOOR
200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH
RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055-2189
FAX: 235-2541
To: Larry Karpack
Company:
Phone:
Fax:
From: Scott Woodbury
Phone: 425-277-5547
Fax: 425-235-2541
Date: 10/20/97
Pages incl this cover page: 2
Subject: Potential Additional Flow-Frequency Analysis
Attached is a table from our Surface Water Utility comprehensive plan. The subbasin listed as valley
needs to be updated, but we don't have the information needed to do so. Please call me to discuss.
attachment do
rTABLE II-7
PREDICTED PEAK FLOWS (CFS) FOR THE BLACK RIVER BASIN
2-Year Peak 10-Year Peak Flood 25-Year Peak Flood 100-Year Peak.`
Flood Flows Flows Flows Flood Flows
Su"asin
Name Current Future Current Future Current Future' Current Future
(Entire Black 45Z 7L3 743 30� (l1�3
' Rivers a K-h ti I, 3
tle pringbrook 2a 43 -35 .46 39- _7& -45 W
Creeks Y,P ✓ a �3 85 _7 l 1 0 1 87 1 ZZ-
Panther 69 $o 7210 -95 t%9 01 u� 34 '1� �S v �7
Rolling s _7C 0 3 '8T9 5 `951' 411140 ++1-7 -P2T1,3 +rg15o +-"�9 "4o
Valley 52 T 90` 9�- T 145 _ 122 174 17 217
33Z �3°� S 2Z 7� 7P�i
875- � Ig 1030
Ole, o"k-p.,t, r<1 i 7�D
.&I t,�AiN� I
ou Renton Sub-basin _
The South Renton sub-basin, also called the "Southwest 7th Basin", is located in the former
floodplain of the Black River. This flat area has been developed into a mixed use commercial
area. The sub-basin includes much of the southern portion of the core area of Renton, a small
residential sector, a large area of commercial and industrial facilities, and an unnamed area near
the Black River Pump Station. Aerial photographs show the commercial areas having significant
amounts of impervious surface area in structures and parking lots.
Hydrology and Land Use - Present Conditions: The ESGRW analysis estimates this sub-basin
to be approximately 525 acres with 56 percent of the area being impervious. Predicted flows
for this sub-basin were combined with adjoining flows in the analysis. Both flows from the area
surrounding the Black River pump station and the cumulative flow from the Springbrook Creek
system flow into this subbasin. Table II-7 presents both current and future predicted peak flows
from this area.
Hydrology and Land Use - Future Conditions: Because this area is already highly developed,
little change in land use is predicted for the future. Some acreage which is currently residential
housing will be converted to additional commercial/industrial use, as will an additional five acres
of existing open space.
As noted above, flow from outside this sub-basin flows into the drainage system. Upstream
changes in land use contribute significantly to increased flows.
Flooding - Current Conditions: The majopfproblem within this basin appears to be the lack
of capacity in the storm drain in SW 7th Asenue. Inadequate retention in the Metro Park and
Ride lot may also contribute to the problem. Flooding in the vicinity of Lake Avenue South and
South Tobin Street is also impacted by the capacity problems on SW 7th Avenue.
November 1995 II-26 Surface Water Utility Comprehensive Plan
THE CITY OF RENTON
DEPARTMENT OF
PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS
FOURTH FLOOR
200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH
RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055-2189
FAX: 235-2541
To: Larry Karpack
Company: NHC
Phone:
Fax:
From: Scott Woodbury
Phone: 425-277-5547
Fax: 425-235-2541
Date: 9/2/97
Pages incl this cover page: 1
11
Subject: Rolling Hills Creek
Under the contingency task of our contract CAG-97-044, please provide the following
information for Rolling Hills Creek near Renton Village as early this week as possible:
1. Flow frequency plot for current conditions w/o storage and future conditions w/ storage
noting major events and flood flow quantiles on the plot similar to as was done previously.
2. Storage required for the 100-year event under current and future conditions simulations w/
storage.
3. Hydrograph plots of the February 1996 event simulation for the current condition w/o
storage and future condition w/ and w/o storage similar to as was done for the recent
validation work.
Please call me with an estimate of your time to do this work before you begin. Thanks.
cc: Ron Straka
r
531--zHo'�
THE CITY OF RENTON �
DEPARTMENT OF m ��
PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS
FOURTH FLOOR
200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH
RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055-2189
FAX: 235-2541
To: kick
Company:
Phone:
Fax:
From: Sc,rT �JwdL
Company:
Phone:
Fax:
Date: Z�q
Pages including this
cover page:
Comments:
Pef r 157 G
pepl
A te,
fl e-4s(! 1:;k k' —.4- 277 - <S"j7 r`S
CITY OF RENTON
PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 21, 1997
TO: Gregg Zimmerman C� C)r,
FROM: Ron Olsen
STAFF CONTACT: Ron Straka K�`
Scott Woodbury
SUBJECT: Proposed License Agreement with Boeing
ISSUE:
The Surface Water Utility requests approval of the proposed License Agreement with Boeing which
will allow the City access through Boeing property to the City-owned land adjacent to and south of
the Longacres Office Park site.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Surface Water Utility recommends that you approve and sign the proposed License Agreement
with Boeing.
DISCUSSION:
This agreement is the same form that you executed with Boeing to allow the City and its agents
right-of-entry onto Boeing property for the Oakesdale Extension project. The only changes are the
portion of the Boeing property to which the license applies and that the City will only access
through the Boeing site, not conduct any civil surveys or wetland studies on Boeing property as
was the purpose of the license for the Oakesdale project. The portion we request license to enter
upon is that area lying 300 east from the west line of the Boeing Longacres/CSTC property and
extending from SW 16th Street southerly to the south Boeing property line south of Southwest 27th
Street. We have verbal approval from Boeing to go ahead and pursue the license.
We propose to use the license to access the City land south of the Boeing site to install groundwater
monitoring wells on the City's wetland banking site. You recently approved a contract with
Northwest Hydraulic Consultants to install the wells. However, access to the bank site from
Oakesdale Avenue is difficult because the City maintenance crews have very securely barricaded
Oakesdale north and south of the bank site due to problems with illegal dumping on the City
property. Removing and reconstructing the barricades would be very time consuming for our
maintenance crews and the work would be charged to the Surface Water Utility. Therefore, we
propose securing access through the Boeing site to facilitate getting equipment to the bank site
while avoiding removing and replacing the barricades.
If you have any questions, please contact Ron Straka at X-5548 or Scott Woodbury at X-5547.
H:DOCS-97-442:SW:ps
LICENSE AGREEMENT
THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of June , 1997, by and
between (1) The City of Renton, Washington ("City"); and (2) Longacres Park, Inc., a Washington
corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of The Boeing Company ("LPI").
RECITALS
A. LPI is the owner of certain real property located in King County, Washington, legally
described on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof(the "Property").
B. The City wishes to access its land lying south of the Property by traveling through the
south portion of the Property.
C. LPI is willing to facilitate the City's access subject to the City's execution of this License
Agreement.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual covenants contained herein and other good
and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which the parties hereby acknowledge, it is
agreed as follows:
1. LPI, as owner of the Property, hereby severally grants to the City, its employees and
agents, a non-exclusive license to enter upon a portion of the Property at all reasonable times and from
time to time to access the City-owned land adjacent to and south of the Property. The license shall
apply to only the following portion of the Property: that area lying 300 feet east from the west line of
the Property and extending from SW 16th Street southerly to the south Property line south of Southwest
27th Street.
2. This license is effective from the date of this license noted above and shall continue until
the close of business on August 29, 1997, at which time this license shall terminate without any further
act by either party.
3. Prior to each entry of the Property, the City shall provide LPI not less than 48 hours
advance notice (such notice to be given by telephone to Rick Ford, of LPI's Longacres Park project,
544-5262, or his delegate, and to be confirmed by facsimile communication, 544-5679, immediately
thereafter. Such notice shall identify the number of persons entering the property, the approximate
area to be occupied by such persons, and a brief description of the activity planned by such persons.
All parties shall use reasonable good faith efforts to avoid interfering with activities of the other parties
at the property.
4. All fees, cost, and charges to be paid by the City to its employees, agents, consultants,
and contractors associated with entering upon the relevant portion of the Property shall be the
responsibility of the City and the City agrees to hold LPI harmless from and against any claims of liens
of such persons for any amount owed to them for such services.
5. The City hereby agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless LPI, The Boeing
Company, and their respective officers, directors, agents assigns, employees, and attorneys (the
"Indemnified Parties") from and against any and all claims, damages, judgments, suits, actions, and
costs (including the reasonable fees and disbursements of attorneys in connection with any indemnified
matter, and in connection with establishing the right to indemnification hereunder) for injury to or
death of any person or loss of or damage to any property arising out of or in any way connected with
this License Agreement or the presence on the property of any official or employee of the City or any
contractor or subcontractor or the employees or agents of any contractor or subcontractor, PROVIDED
that the foregoing shall only apply to the extent that any indemnified matter arises out of negligence,
active, passive, or imputed, of any employee or official of the City or any contractor, or their
respective employees, principals, agents or assigns. The City hereby waives any immunity it may have
with respect to industrial insurance laws, including Title 51 of the Revised Code of Washington, and
any governmental immunity it may have in connection with the foregoing indemnity or with any other
obligation of the City under this License Agreement.
6. On or before termination of this license, the City will quit the Property and will leave the
property in the same condition it was in at the commencement of the City's use thereof, normal wear
and tear excepted.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the date and year first
above written.
LONGACRES PARK, INC. THE CITY OF RENTON
By By
Its Its
H:DOCS:97-441:SW:ps
Allen Quynn
From: Michael D. Dotson
To: Allen Quynn
Cc: Ronald J. Straka
Subject: Stream, Wetland, Ground Water Data Program Needs
Date: Monday, October 19, 1998 11:02AM
Allen,
Here are the gage site needs that NW Hydralic could perform:
1. Replace and/or repair site tubes at wetland and SW 27th street Gage sites. Check timber and anchor for
rot or repair. Determine if new sites are needed (i.e. Boeing wetland. Note: since culvert replacement
between wetland W-6 and W-7, water level does not reach gage in wetland W-6, west side of access road.
2. Perform a cursory check at each site. Calibrate equipment if necessary.
3. Reset Transducer at Rolling Hills site.
4. Recommend changes or modifications for wetland and Groundwater Gage sites.
5. Determine if Y2K problem is significant for logger data.
6. Replace missing staff plate at rolling Hills site.
7. Determine if maintenance dredge of Rolling Hills Creek has modified base flow at gage site.
8. Peak flow measurements for this fall/winter.
9. New equipment recommendations/rebuild/check (batteries, lithium cells, transducers, etc.)
10. Evaluate future water quality data needs.
Page 1
rNovi30-It
16 : 49 northwest hydraulic consu 206 439 2420 P.01
northwest hydraulic consultants inc.
16300 Christensen Road, Suite 350
Tukwila Washington 98188-3418
206-241-6000 phone * 206-439-2420 fax
FAX MESSAGE
Date: Monday, November 30, 1998
From: Larry Karpack
To: Alan Quyrui
Company: City of Renton
Fax #: 425-430-7241
City: Rcruon
Total Paget: 4 Original in Mail: No
Please call immediately iiT you do not receive all pages of this transmission.
Dear Alan;
Attached are several sheets showing:
• field notes far the discharge measurement NHC made on 11-25-1998
■ the processed discharge data(Excel spreadsheet)
2 a plot of the new discharge meaeul'elllent with the existing rating curve, and a table showing
how the new nleasureniciir cornpares to the calculated discharge using the existing double
entry rating Curve
Notc that the latest discharge measurement is within about 6% of the previous rating table
(measured 322 cfs versus computed 341 cfs). This indicates that the stage discharge rating has nut
shifted dramatically at this (low level. We cannot say how other points on the stage discharge
curve may have shifted without additional rnCasureanems, but at this flow level it appears that the
downstrcam projecis have not significantly affected the rating. Please let Ole know if you would
like us to collect any additional discharge data. At this point I believe we have about S 4,000.00
remaining in the budget under the Strearntlow Monitoring, Data Analysis, Gage Installation and
HSPF Modeling contract (contract ('AG 97-044)' 2-7 MA) 0 41
Sincerely,
NORTHWEST HYDRAULIC CONSULTANTS INC.
Larry M. K..arpack, P.E.
RIVER FNGINITRING!HYURAUI.u`m0m:L TFSTING:HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS AN I)DESIGN ;COASTAL LNUNURiNG
II1'DR0H.0xiY!SIDIMI;N I'A I ION 1MRNIT.RING!NIIMI:RICAL MODIJ.INCG r AITLIFr7 RFSEARCI-I!FORENSIC ENGINEERING
n iZ
�_` kvij
0
QN
1�
ZO ' d OZVZ 6EV 9O2 nsuoo oL fine-ApXq 4samq-4.aou 6V = 9I 86-DE-AON
Z
0
W
O
STREAM FLOW RAT[NG TABLE METER USED 2 10
WATER COURSE: Springbrook Creek SITE: Bridle (KN 1•ER 1 FOR PYG1I' OR 2 FOR PRICE ME'I-ER) W
DATE: 25-Nov-98 TIME IN: 1:45 PM TD•IE OUT: 2:50 PNI �J
m
UPS Encoder : DiS Encoder: (T1
U,S Staff: 83.45 83.55 D:S Staff: 73.85 73.95 O
U'S Stage: 10.80 D..S Stage: 10.61
PK Elevation: 1 7.9
0
.4 OR.2 .8 AVG. •1
DIST_FROM OBSERV. COUNTED ODSERV OBSERVCOtiVTEC ORSERV REV.PER MEAN rt
PT. IKITIAL PT. WIDTH DF.PTII DEPTH METER TIME DEPTH METER TIME TIME vFLOCIn AREA DISCHARGE T
No. (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) REVS_ (SEC) (FT) REVS. (SEC) (rcv.-sec) (FT..S) (SQ FT) (CFS)
1 0.0 0.5 2.6 1.0 0 60 0.00 1A
2 1.0 1.5 2.6 l_0 29 60 0.48 1.07 3.83 4.10
3 3.0 2.0_ 3.1 1.2 -36 60 0.60 1-333 6.10 8.11 7
tC
4 5.0 2.0 6.5 2.6 37 60 0.62 1.37 12.90 17.62 a
5 ^.0 2.0 7.6 3.0 46 60 0.77 l.70 15.10 25.60
a
6 9.0 2.0 8.3 3.3 50 60 0.93 1.84 16.50 30.39 C
11.0 2.0 8.4 3.3 51 60 0.85 1.88 16.70
r J.
8 13.0 2.0 8.7 3.5 53 60 0.88 1.95 17.30 _3.77 0
9 1-;.0 2.0 "(.8 3.5 57 60 0.9� 2.10 17.50 36.7 2
n
l0 17.0 2.0 8.5 3.4 61 6U 1.02 2.24 16.90 37.94 0
10 19.0 2.0 8.1 3.2 60 60 1.00 2.21 16.10 35.55 1A
I() 21.0 2.0 6.6 2.6 58 60 0_97 2.13 13.10 27.97 C
t0 23.0 2.0 5.1 2.0 42 60 U_;0 1_55 10.10 15.65 N
10 25.0 2.0 3.6 1.4 38 60 0.63 1-40 '7.10 9.96 O
10 27.0 2.0 2.9 1.1 35 60 0.58 1.29 5.70 7.37
11 29.0 1.0 2.9 1.1 0 60 0.010 0.00 2.85 0.00
W
ID
29.0 Tolal Flow 322.12 N
A
N
O
4
T
Page l
W
Z
0
Summary•
W
0
Measured Single Entry ;Upstream Double Entry tp
Datc Time DiS Staee'+ Flow Ratine Flow ;Head Rating Flow % co
12-Nov-93' 1:55 Phi 4.62 3.l 01
21-Nov-9' 2-.15 PM 5.35 11.1 25.5
9-Dec-93 3:45 Ph-1 7.27 121.7 122.4 0
4-.Ian-94 321 Ph1 .93 5 3.1 5 5.0
9-Apr-94 4:05 PM 7.5= 140.6 135.5 0
2-filar-94 3:07 P\1 8.36 184.0 177.6 1
30-Nov-94 2:15 PM 10.21 267.04 270.2 276 ct
27--Dec-94 10.33 A\4 10.87 361.46 ! 303.7 7.66 358 ?
17-Aug-95' 2:15 PM 9.18 157.00 + 218.6
IA
8-Feb-961 12:30 Phi 12.21 514.71 371.2 600 &
8-Feb-96' 3:40 PM 12.49 547.79 385.0 9.9 6A'
25-\ov-98 1:45 PM 10.61 322.12 290.6 7.4 341
- 11
SW 271h Street �
Stage versus Floe Rating c
J
14 n
li 0
w
-;- --- - - ?- '- - - - - -- - ----- N
- - -- - :- :- :- _ - . �_ : ._ .:__- :25- Niu:-: Iq9�- - :_: .: _:_ _ : _ :
N
- -- - ----- -- - -- - _ - L -' -- - - - - - -- -- O
a
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Flow (c(s)
T
Page 1
Transmittal Letter
northwest hydraulic consultants inc.
16300 Christensen Road Suite 350, Tukwila, WA 98188-3418
(206) 241-6000 (206) 439-2420 fax
Date: �w 15,419 9 3 Job No. 2005 2
To: SGoft woo C16"r,i
C�tu of Rentnn
Regarding: 16C,4 R W Ga 4 i na 5e(u i e 5
We are sending: attached ❑ separate by
Description: rno a e Re u e tj i `Ret?or'
This is: ❑ as requested ❑ for your use
LI for approval ❑ for review and comment
Remarks:
From: Lc*ru M C'it-
Copy to: '�� 20R52
07/1994 I9: 09 206?614_;91 TAYLOR ASSOCIATES PA E 01
northwest hydraulic consultants inc.
16300 Christensen Road, Suite 350
Tukwila Washington 98188-3418
206-241-6000 phone * 206-439-2420 fax
FAX NESSAGE
y
Date: Thursday, June 26, 1997 _
From: Larry Karpack S 3 LL
To: Bill Taylor
''L
Company: 104r Aysac ca
1 fV
Fax #: 7814391 -qY D
0
City: N�
Total Pages: 3 Original in Mail: nQ
Please call immediately if you do not receive al! pages of this transmission. o o x
0 0 a LL
Dear Bill ;
Attached are two versions of the flow duration curve for Springbrook Creek at 1-405,just upstream of
Grady Way The analysis was performed for the winter season (I November - 31 March) for the
simulated period of record (1961-1991). Note that the only difference between the two curves is the
type of scale(i.e. linear or log) that is used on the x-axis.
The curves show the results of our 1995 simulation runs for the East Side Green River Watershed
Plan - for 1990 land-use and for the expected full build out land-use. Current land-use is somewhere
in between these two conditions. Note that the runs included conveyance features such as the City of
Kent Lagoons, and proposed City of Kent and/or Renton projects that may not yet be completed. To
verify the modeling assumptions you should obtain a copyof the Hydrologic Analysis report for the
ESGRWP from the City of Renton.
Please recall the various caveats I expressed on the phone about how the simulations may not
accurately match true conditions due to beaver activity, operations of the pump station, etc. However,
I hope that these provide you withy some additional insight into the now conditions at your project
site.
Sincerely,
NORTHWEST HYDRAULIC CONSULTANTS INC.
Larry M. Karpack, P.E.
RIVER ENGLNEEKLNU/HYDRAULIC MUDE L TESTIYG/HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS AND ntSiGY/fO ASTAL ENGINEERING
HYDROLOGY I SEDIMENTATION ENGINEERING I NUMERICAL MODELING I APPLIED RFSEAJzCH 1 FORENSIC ENGINEERING
1'
�L
�L
L"
1000.0
LD
__.+ E,6s (1990)Land-use LD
900.0 Frmue Laid-Use
CTI
800.0
w
H
700.0
600.0
t!�00.0
b
400.0 n
r
0
300.0 n
u�
0
0
H
200.0 I'
m
r�
100.0
0.0
0.10 0.20 030 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
Excoodnce Probability(p)
East Side Green River Hydrologic Analysis- Wnter Flow Duration Analysis m
Spruu -+rook Creek at I405 cl
(pro&Iced by NHC for Bill Taylor-26 June 1997)
CD
LD
-J
N
one hour per ten hoary pOr six bmm per LD
ton yeas avaage yam'a'aw dW a wW
1000.0
CID
-- 9 F)dsting(1990)laadAwl LD
900.0 lk.-_ Fulurc Lard-[Jsc
m
800.0
w
N
700.0
600.0
400.0 n
r
0
300.0
0
H
200.0 n
m
CO
100.0
0.0
10 5 10, 10,3 10 z 10-1 10)
Exceadance Probability(p)
East side Green River Hydrologic Analysis- Winter Flow Duration Analysis m
Springbrook Creek at I405
(produced by NHC for Bill Taylor- 26 June 1997) W
Jun-24-97 10 : 48A northwest hydraulic consu 206 439 2420 P . 01
r
northwest hydraulic consultants inc.
16300 Christensen Road, Suite 350
Tukwila Washington 98188-3418
206-241-6000 phone * 206-439-2420 fax
FAX MESSAGE
Date: Tuesday, June 24, 1997
From: Larry Karpack
To: Scott Woodbury
Company: City of Renton
Fax #: ??
City: Renton
Total Pages: 20""3 Original in Mail: no
Please call immediately if you do not receive all pages of this transmission.
Dear Scott;
We have more or less completed the development of continuous records of stage information at the
SW 27th Street, Rolling Hills Creek, and Panther Creek gages as per our contract. To complete the
Black River Pump Station record we need the file covering the time period 9 Aug. 1995 to 19 Sept.
1995 (file name 03p79.dat). Without this data files we cannot produce a continuous record for this
gage. If the data fills do not exist please let us know and we will note that in the gage data review.
For the Panther Creek gage there is a difficulty with the conversion of the stage data into flows. It
appears that all of the County's (and NHC's) discharge measurements were referenced to the staff
gage. However, according to Mike the TerraScience gage data record has been referenced to a
measure down on a bolt (on the gage housing?). To convert the stage record into flows we need to
correlate the two gage datums, to adjust the stage-discharge rating to be consistent with the gage
readings. This is where the problem comes in. As you can see from the attached sheet the offset
between the two gages (as noted on the download data sheets) ranges between -0.40 feet and +0.21
feet. Also in some months the offset was not even recorded. The variation in the recorded offset does
not follow any pattern we can discern. Note that the flow record will be drastically impacted by the
assumption of the stage correction used to adjust the stage-discharge rating, We have no means of
determining an appropriate conversion based on the data provided,
Ideally the gage would have been set to record to the same datum as the discharge measurements (and
staff plate) and we would not have a problem at this time. Presumably the two datums are both fixed
and they can still be tied together by a field survey. However, this will not solve the problem created
by the inconsistency between the two datums over the course of the data logging. Without correlation
between the recorded stages and the stage-discharge rating I can think of no means of developing
flow data for this gage. Please let me know how you would like us to proceed.
RivFR ENGINLUUNCi/HYDRAULW MODEL IT•SIING!HYDRA[ILICANALYSISAND DESIGN!COASTAL&V131NF"fNO
HYDROISMY!SEDLMI:N rATION ENG1h1FTIUNG 1 NUMFRICAL'.�IODIJ JNG i AFFLIl1>RNiFARCH!I-nRFNSIC ENGINEFRINO
Jun-24-97 10 : 48A northwest hydraulic cansu 206 439 2420 P _ 02
Please let me know as soon as possible if the data for the BRPS will be available, Also maybe you
can call when you have a chance and we can discuss how to deal with the Panther Creek record.
Sincerely,
NORTHWEST HYDRAULIC CONSULTANTS INC.
Larry M. Karpack, P.E.
RIVER UNGINI=..LRING I HYDRAULIC M6DE L MMN(;1 11YDKAULIC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN I COASTAL,ENCHNl-IdNG
HYDROLOGY+SF:D1?4F.NTATEON I Nl?MrR1c7A1.N40DELENG I APPLIED RF_SE4RCH I PORUNSIC ENUINE ER NIG
Jun-24-97 10 : 48A northwest hydraulic consu 206 439 2420 P . 03
�ant4,e Creek � Cure odVstmerzt
(C,pQq plaTe� �jta{ (Me%ure 4c-.,r,) Datc 4�siQR io ,etc)
0140 o,43 1,2Iq/94 —.03
1 14
0,�12 119 2/2-+J95 .21 ;
0.84 0 99' 4111 /96 -, 15
0,64 0199 :I 14 /95 -115
0.4 2 0.l09 9/ l 5/95 - . 23
o, 42 0-82 QZI95 -.4o
koq 12/20/95 -.21
1, 1 p 1,50 2/1219G -. 40
p �$ 0,40 4/5/9G -. 02
0 30 0, 3s 5/10/9C0 - ,Oa
0, 3a °,40 G/14 /9G - ,10
0,(00 olsg 612/96 4 .21
0,45 O'Go 1�Ji5/46 -.15
O.(oG 01-40 111Z&196 - 10
0. 50
0,5B 4/10/0 - o.��
C/A"�S
�c_ /h-�.•� � `ra..ems- s, z�
Station number R-S9b (obser)
Table of daily values for the 12-month period ending September 1994
Observed Flow (efs)
SPRINGBROOK CK. AT SW 27th ST (observed)
Day October November December January February March April May June July August September Annual
1 2.5 2.8 - 60.8 3.1 44.8 3.4 5.7 15.0 31.1 6.0 4.7
2 2.5 2.8 9.8 38.2 3.0 92.2 3.2 5.6 8.0 28.5 5.7 4.7
3 2.5 5.6 6.9 26.0 3.0 151.4 19.5 5.4 8.1 9.6 5.7 18.2
4 2.5 3.0 24.5 35.5 3.0 94.5 16.2 25.6 9.9 9.6 5.5 10.1
5 2.5 2.9 4.9 42.9 3.0 31.9 5.0 6.3 11.3 47.8 5.4 5.0
6 13.0 2.9 3.7 8.6 3.0 11.1 44.8 5.7 38.9 12.1 5.1 3.9
7 7.1 3.0 34.0 6.7 3.0 8.4 41.5 5.7 20.5 9.0 5.2 3.7
8 2.6 3.0 46.6 13.6 2.9 7.1 105.6 5.6 9.1 8.4 10.3 16.2
9 2.6 3.2 90.4 7.3 4.9 6.2 23.5 5.8 8.4 7.9 10.8 9.4
10 2.5 3.1 89.9 10.1 3.1 15.0 8.1 5.9 8.4 7.7 7.0 12.0
11 2.5 3.3 53.2 16.4 2.9 8.6 6.1 6.0 8.5 7.6 5.3 3.2
12 2.5 3.1 10.1 9.5 2.9 5.7 48.1 6.0 10.7 7.4 5.0 2.8
13 2.5 3.1 24.1 6.5 72.3 5.1 10.5 6.1 52.3 7.1 3.1 2.8
14 2.6 3.1 10.0 5.1 17.1 4.6 6.5 6.9 45.4 7.2 3.7 7.0
15 4.6 4.5 7.2 4.3 27.5 4.6 4.9 16.9 13.4 7.6 3.9 5.1
16 11.6 7.8 5.3 3.6 101.8 19.0 4.2 24.9 9.8 8.1 4.0 4.3
17 2.7 11.0 4.2 3.4 98.4 25.2 3.7 8.3 12.6 7.8 4.3 4.1
18 2.6 9.1 3.6 3.2 73.6 48.4 3.5 7.0 98.5 7.9 4.4 4.2
19 2.6 3.7 3.2 3.1 18.8 11.0 3.3 6.8 17.9 7.7 3.3 4.6
20 2.6 3.7 3.0 3.1 8.6 46.8 3.2 6.9 11.0 7.5 3.8 5.1
21 2.6 6.0 3.1 3.4 7.8 63.5 7.3 6.9 9.8 7.5 4.4 5.2
22 15.8 7.4 2.9 59.7 10.5 30.6 3.9 6.8 9.5 7.3 4.6 5.4
23 80.3 5.1 2.9 41.4 37.4 15.3 3.3 6.9 9.2 7.2 5.2 5.7
24 18.1 4.5 2.9 14.2 13.1 7.6 3.2 6.8 9.7 7.3 4.3 4.6
25 4.1 4.5 2.8 13.5 39.2 6.2 3.2 6.8 9.6 7.4 4.3 4.7
26 2.9 4.7 2.8 6.0 50.0 5.4 3.8 6.8 9.2 7.1 4.5 4.8
27 2.8 4.9 2.8 4.7 48.4 4.8 4.3 7.7 9.2 6.7 4.7 4.8
28 2.9 7.5 2.8 3.9 28.3 4.5 4.5 7.4 9.1 6.6 4.7 5.3
29 2.8 44.1 2.8 3.5 4.1 5.4 23.4 9.2 6.8 4.7 5.1
30 2.8 15.0 29.6 3.2 3.8 7.8 12.3 9.5 6.6 4.7 4.2
31 2.9 35.2 3.1 3.6 11.1 6.2 4.8
Mean 6.9 6.3 17.5 15.0 24.7 25.5 13.7 8.9 17.1 10.5 5.1 6.0 13.1
Minimum 2.5 2.8 2.8 3.1 2.9 3.6 3.2 SA 8.0 6.2 3.1 2.8 2.5
Maximum 80.3 44.1 90.4 60.8 101.8 151.4 105.6 25.6 98.5 47.8 10.8 18.2 151.4
Station number R-S9b (obser)
Table of daily values for the 12-month period ending September 1995
Observed Flow (efs)
SPRINGBROOK CK. AT SW 27th ST (observed)
Day October November December January February March April May June July August September Annual
1 4.4 32.1 141.3 26.8 135.3 9.8 6.7 4.0 2.8 3.7 2.9 8.0
2 5.0 19.9 110.8 15.7 107.4 9.3 6.1 36.1 2.9 6.1 2.9 8.0
3 4.6 10.2 41.6 11.1 59.9 8.9 6.0 4.9 2.9 6.0 2.9 7.7
4 4.2 58.5 18.8 10.3 36.1 16.0 7.9 3.5 3.2 4.9 2.9 20.7
5 4.0 15.2 10.6 9.8 22.9 9.6 6.0 3.4 19.5 4.3 4.0 137.5
6 5.5 16.1 9.9 9.2 14.4 8.3 5.7 3.1 7.8 4.2 30.7 106.9
7 6.2 9.0 9.2 10.6 10.8 7.9 27.2 3.0 3.9 4.1 56.3 41.8
8 6.7 14.0 8.5 17.3 10.1 48.6 28.8 3.2 3.2 3.9 24.0 14.4
9 7.4 64.9 20.7 35.5 9.6 92.1 6.8 3.5 3.1 58.5 10.1 9.3
10 7.5 17.2 8.7 85.8 8.8 135.0 13.6 4.9 8.5 63.1 12.4 8.7
11 6.3 10.0 9.1 57.7 13.6 111.9 17.6 6.0 13.5 8.0 16.3 7.9
12 6.3 21.6 21.1 26.5 9.3 94.9 27.1 3.2 4.4 5.6 10.0 7.5
13 7.5 8.9 8.1 55.9 8.0 64.8 39.9 3.0 9.3 4.4 9.3 7.4
14 27.5 9.0 13.2 53.2 7.4 88.7 7.5 2.9 5.2 3.7 9.7 7.3
15 7.2 19.4 31.3 32.9 23.0 46.3 6.7 2.9 6.3 3.4 10.5 7.1
16 6.8 70.6 85.6 18.0 15.5 24.4 5.7 2.9 4.3 3.1 14.4 7.1
17 7.3 19.5 173.7 11.4 72.4 14.0 5.4 2.9 9.2 3.1 198.3 7.0
18 7.9 9.2 106.8 41.5 127.5 68.6 5.2 2.9 9.0 3.1 75.8 7.6
19 8.1 23.1 112.0 14.5 368.2 42.6 4.9 2.9 4.7 3.0 29.2 8.9
20 11.2 53.2 236.5 10.0 292.0 69.8 21.9 2.9 7.7 3.0 22.2 8.8
21 10.5 9.9 181.5 9.2 132.5 23.2 5.4 2.8 5.1 3.0 33.2 8.6
22 8.4 8.3 81.4 8.6 88.1 14.9 4.5 2.8 4.2 3.0 15.2 8.3
23 9.8 26.1 53.8 8.2 67.4 74.1 4.2 2.8 3.7 3.0 9.7 8.2
24 9.9 9.0 33.6 8.0 53.6 20.0 3.9 2.8 3.9 3.0 9.1 8.2
25 11.8 27.6 23.9 7.7 42.7 10.3 3.6 2.8 3.7 3.0 9.0 8.4
26 120.5 67.5 198.8 7.5 22.9 9.1 3.3 2.8 3.6 37.4 9.0 9.2
27 168.4 47.9 316.7 7.1 13.3 8.4 3.3 2.8 3.5 5.9 8.5 55.5
28 40.6 12.3 - 16.3 10.5 7.8 3.2 2.8 3.5 3.2 8.4 60.0
29 9.5 31.8 89.6 118.2 7.5 4.6 2.8 3.4 3.0 8.4 29.3
30 13.1 222.0 58.9 107.4 7.2 7.3 2.9 3.7 2.9 8.1 58.5
31 98.3 42.6 161.9 6.8 2.8 2.9 8.0
Mean 21.0 32.1 75.3 32.7 63.7 37.4 10.0 4.3 5.7 8.7 21.7 23.1 28.0
Minimum 4.0 8.3 8.1 7.1 7.4 6.8 3.2 2.8 2.8 2.9 2.9 7.0 2.8
Maximum 168.4 222.0 316.7 161.9 368.2 135.0 39.9 36.1 19.5 63.1 198.3 137.5 368.2
Station number R-S9b (obser)
Table of daily values for the 12-month period ending September 1996
Observed Flow (efs)
SPRINGBROOK CK. AT SW 27th ST (observed)
Day October November December January February March April May June July August September Annual
1 32.7 2.7 187.9 10.1 9.1 7.9 84.5 8.3 3.0 2.8 4.2 5.2
2 108.0 2.7 147.3 20.0 8.2 7.3 21.0 6.9 3.0 2.8 28.9 4.0
3 123.0 2.6 106.2 49.8 11.6 41.1 6.3 7.4 3.0 3.0 104.3 33.2
4 83.4 2.7 153.9 10.1 39.3 16.1 4.8 5.5 2.9 4.6 11.8 10.3
5 56.7 2.8 - 13.4 98.8 9.2 4.2 4.9 2.9 3.0 5.5 5.5
6 49.2 3.0 - 45.7 182.5 7.3 31.9 4.5 2.9 2.9 4.7 7.2
7 46.1 145.3 - 245.7 163.7 6.8 7.8 4.2 2.9 2.9 4.4 4.5
8 63.6 179.4 - 102.7 540.3 6.7 4.9 3.9 2.9 3.0 4.2 3.8
9 63.4 49.3 - 52.7 677.1 6.7 5.1 3.7 2.9 3.0 4.1 3.3
10 195.5 34.5 - 29.3 - 42.7 5.0 3.4 2.9 3.0 5.0 3.5
11 201.1 208.4 - 14.9 - 63.3 7.0 5.2 2.9 3.0 4.9 3.4
12 90.7 67.0 - 10.5 - 10.6 7.3 40.7 2.9 3.1 4.8 3.3
13 17.1 48.6 - 14.5 - 8.1 4.9 154.7 2.9 3.1 4.9 3.5
14 8.6 14.2 - 100.7 - 6.9 4.0 18.9 2.9 3.1 5.0 7.7
15 7.1 30.7 - 266.2 - 5.7 17.9 7.2 2.9 3.1 4.9 37.3
16 28.8 13.9 - 197.6 - 5.2 79.2 5.5 2.9 3.2 4.8 5.6
17 13.7 8.5 - 98.4 - 4.9 11.3 17.5 2.9 6.7 4.8 24.0
18 8.1 20.2 - 60.9 - 4.7 19.8 53.1 2.9 17.6 4.8 8.3
19 3.2 7.2 - 97.8 - 7.4 19.9 33.3 2.9 32.7 4.6 43.4
20 41.8 5.8 - 156.6 - 6.6 9.0 7.7 3.0 6.7 4.6 6.4
21 11.6 5.1 - 189.3 - 6.2 6.1 7.1 2.9 4.6 4.4 4.4
22 3.4 19.3 9.3 111.8 50.9 16.0 50.2 14.3 2.8 4.1 4.4 5.7
23 2.9 88.1 8.2 86.8 81.9 6.2 378.4 6.1 12.4 3.8 4.2 3.1
24 2.9 92.8 7.3 114.2 40.0 5.1 289.6 4.7 5.5 4.2 4.0 3.0
25 5.2 113.9 6.5 85.5 22.0 4.3 123.8 4.0 3.6 4.2 3.9 2.9
26 5.6 47.9 6.1 54.9 13.2 4.2 99.2 3.5 3.0 4.2 3.8 2.9
27 2.9 51.4 5.9 35.4 10.5 5.4 50.4 3.3 2.9 4.4 3.7 2.8
28 2.8 87.9 9.0 17.8 9.4 4.1 28.5 3.1 2.9 4.2 3.6 2.8
29 2.7 322.4 101.5 21.1 8.6 3.9 14.5 3.1 2.9 4.3 3.3 2.8
30 2.7 195.9 92.9 10.8 3.6 9.3 3.1 2.8 4.2 3.9 2.8
31 2.7 24.9 9.8 22.9 3.1 4.3 5.3
Mean 41.5 62.5 57.5 75.3 121.3 11.5 46.9 14.6 3.3 5.2 8.7 8.6 38.1
Minimum 2.7 2.6 3.6 9.8 8.2 3.6 4.0 3.1 2.8 2.8 3.3 2.8 2.6
Maximum 201.1 322.4 187.9 266.2 677.1 63.3 378.4 154.7 12.4 32.7 104.3 43.4 677.1
Station number R-S9b (obser)
Table of daily values for the 12-month period ending September 1997
Observed Flow (cfs)
SPRINGBROOK CK. AT SW 27th ST (observed)
Day October November December January Annual
1 2.8 4.1 58.0 499.5
2 2.7 3.4 40.0 436.7
3 2.9 6.1 20.0 -
4 40.6 12.4 113.8 -
5 27.0 3.4 116.5 -
6 3.4 9.5 102.3 -
7 2.9 5.2 136.3 19.5
8 2.8 3.1 190.4 43.8
9 2.8 3.0 130.1 45.3
10 2.8 3.0 106.2 31.0
11 4.7 3.0 65.9 16.9
12 3.1 32.8 98.9 10.8
13 37.8 116.1 86.6 9.5
14 28.4 38.6 33.0 8.5
15 13.4 31.7 14.9 7.7
16 5.7 16.7 30.3 22.4
17 24.5 32.7 9.5 194.6
18 100.4 92.6 8.0 160.0
19 7.7 68.0 14.4 147.3
20 3.5 81.2 45.4 202.2
21 12.9 70.3 35.6 143.0
22 65.6 29.2 10.3 86.7
23 19.4 19.0 57.4 57.5
24 64.1 116.7 82.3 34.3
25 21.0 105.1 113.6 21.9
26 5.1 40.7 68.3 12.1
27 3.6 192.9 199.6 26.0
28 69.2 170.8 108.7 70.2
29 74.1 76.4 227.9 24.4
30 8.9 56.3 478.2 179.3
31 5.2 500.8 91.5
Mean 21.6 48.1 106.6 94.2 67.6
Minimum 2.7 3.0 8.0 7.7 2.7
Maximum 100.4 192.9 500.8 499.5 500.8
Station number R-S9b (calib)
Table of daily values for the 12-month period ending September 1994
Simulated Flow (cfs)
SPRINGBROOK CK. REACH 9b (calib) SW 27th
Day October November December January February March April May June July August September Annual
1 2.3 1.9 163.7 58.4 5.4 60.6 7.2 5.0 4.0 2.8 2.1 1.7
2 2.2 1.9 33.0 55.4 5.2 79.2 7.0 4.9 3.8 2.8 2.1 1.7
3 2.0 1.9 14.8 40.2 5.0 111.1 7.6 4.9 3.6 2.8 2.1 36.7
4 1.9 1.9 21.8 37.1 4.8 49.7 10.5 18.5 3.6 2.7 2.1 13.7
5 1.9 1.8 8.5 30.6 4.7 45.4 7.8 10.4 3.5 2.7 2.0 3.7
6 3.3 1.8 4.8 13.3 4.6 21.8 64.4 5.6 3.5 2.6 2.0 2.2
7 8.3 1.8 63.1 11.0 4.5 16.8 50.5 5.1 4.9 2.6 2.0 1.8
8 3.0 1.8 72.8 29.9 4.4 13.8 107.4 4.8 3.8 2.6 2.0 36.5
9 2.1 1.8 112.9 14.3 4.3 11.9 28.8 4.7 3.5 2.5 2.0 17.9
10 2.0 1.8 82.2 20.8 4.3 28.7 17.6 4.6 3.4 2.5 2.0 11.5
11 1.9 1.7 53.2 24.1 4.2 24.0 13.0 4.4 3.3 2.5 2.0 4.4
12 1.9 1.7 20.4 16.7 4.1 13.4 11.8 4.4 3.2 2.4 1.9 2.3
13 1.9 1.7 40.9 14.7 80.0 10.9 10.9 4.3 3.8 2.4 1.9 2.0
14 1.9 1.7 46.0 7.7 40.5 9.8 8.9 4.2 5.6 2.4 1.9 2.0
15 2.2 1.7 12.0 6.2 64.5 9.2 8.1 4.4 3.7 2.4 1.9 2.0
16 19.2 1.7 7.5 5.8 136.8 17.0 7.6 14.6 3.3 2.4 1.9 1.8
17 5.1 17.3 6.2 5.5 117.0 31.0 7.2 7.5 4.1 2.3 1.9 1.7
18 2.3 20.9 5.5 5.3 62.4 37.4 6.9 4.7 38.5 2.3 1.9 1.6
19 2.0 4.1 5.1 5.1 26.1 21.5 6.7 4.3 7.4 2.3 1.8 1.6
20 1.9 2.3 4.8 4.9 18.1 56.6 6.4 4.2 4.0 2.3 1.8 1.6
21 1.9 2.9 4.5 5.0 17.9 53.4 6.3 4.1 3.5 2.2 1.8 1.6
22 18.4 15.2 4.4 78.4 41.7 33.8 6.1 4.0 3.2 2.2 1.8 1.6
23 66.6 4.8 4.2 67.1 55.8 21.3 5.9 3.9 3.2 2.2 1.8 1.5
24 17.0 2.2 4.1 28.1 29.2 13.5 5.8 3.8 3.1 2.2 1.8 1.5
25 4.0 1.9 4.0 25.5 61.2 11.0 5.7 3.7 3.1 2.2 1.8 1.5
26 2.5 1.8 3.9 12.6 54.9 9.8 5.5 3.7 3.0 2.2 1.8 1.5
27 2.2 1.8 3.8 8.7 49.3 9.0 5.4 3.6 2.9 2.2 1.7 1.5
28 2.1 3.6 3.7 7.3 46.4 8.5 5.3 3.6 2.8 2.2 1.7 1.5
29 2.0 72.8 3.7 6.5 8.1 5.2 9.2 2.8 2.1 1.7 1.5
30 2.0 49.5 38.5 6.0 7.7 5.1 11.0 2.7 2.1 1.7 1.5
31 1.9 52.5 5.6 7.5 4.7 2.1 1.7
Mean 6.1 7.6 29.2 21.2 34.2 27.5 15.1 5.8 4.8 2.4 1.9 5.5 13.4
Minimum 1.9 1.7 3.7 4.9 4.1 7.5 5.1 3.6 2.7 2.1 1.7 1.5 1.5
Maximum 66.6 72.8 163.7 78.4 136.8 111.1 107.4 18.5 38.5 2.8 2.1 36.7 163.7
Station number R-S9b (calib)
Table of daily values for the 12-month period ending September 1995
Simulated Flow (efs)
SPRINGBROOK CK. REACH 9b (calib) SW 27th
Day October November December January February March April May June July August September Annual
1 1.5 13.3 66.6 22.6 167.5 13.6 9.3 6.0 4.0 3.4 2.8 2.5
2 1.5 24.3 55.7 19.3 102.4 12.7 8.9 28.6 3.9 3.3 2.8 2.4
3 1.5 11.9 35.1 17.1 50.2 11.8 8.6 11.5 3.9 3.3 2.8 2.4
4 1.5 53.3 17.9 15.5 30.8 11.2 8.5 6.9 3.9 3.3 2.7 2.4
5 1.5 11.2 12.3 14.4 23.0 11.0 8.5 6.3 9.6 3.3 2.7 3.4
6 1.5 17.1 13.0 13.5 18.9 10.5 8.1 6.0 19.0 3.2 8.8 2.6
7 1.5 10.0 11.1 12.8 16.2 9.9 37.4 5.9 6.1 3.2 15.3 2.4
8 1.4 13.6 13.4 30.2 14.5 63.8 46.5 5.7 4.4 3.2 4.3 2.4
9 1.4 58.1 26.7 58.8 13.4 111.9 15.6 5.6 4.1 72.1 3.1 2.4
10 1.4 19.0 11.3 71.4 12.4 121.9 13.0 5.6 5.4 21.9 2.9 2.3
11 1.4 10.0 15.7 52.6 11.6 107.2 26.0 8.0 16.5 6.1 2.8 2.3
12 1.4 33.0 33.2 27.6 11.3 60.5 29.6 7.1 6.0 4.1 2.7 2.3
13 2.4 7.9 11.0 70.0 11.1 73.1 37.8 5.7 6.0 3.7 2.7 2.3
14 23.9 8.4 23.2 59.4 10.2 97.4 14.6 5.4 4.6 3.5 2.6 2.2
15 4.6 23.6 48.5 30.8 57.1 42.5 10.6 5.2 4.3 3.3 2.6 2.2
16 2.0 60.8 78.3 24.0 43.5 25.7 9.2 5.1 4.1 3.2 2.9 2.2
17 1.7 16.7 179.5 19.1 91.1 19.7 8.4 5.0 5.9 3.2 154.7 2.2
18 1.6 7.7 84.1 50.5 190.0 37.5 8.0 4.9 12.0 3.1 14.8 2.2
19 1.5 29.2 149.3 20.1 394.6 30.3 7.6 4.9 5.3 3.0 5.4 2.2
20 1.7 39.7 270.8 15.2 288.2 59.3 17.9 4.8 4.2 3.0 3.8 2.2
21 3.3 9.1 119.1 13.1 138.7 22.4 11.7 4.7 4.0 3.0 3.3 2.1
22 1.9 5.4 48.6 12.0 64.4 16.7 8.3 4.6 3.9 3.0 3.1 2.1
23 1.6 23.7 31.0 11.2 38.2 103.2 7.5 4.5 3.8 3.0 2.9 2.1
24 1.5 8.3 23.1 10.6 27.2 37.3 7.1 4.4 3.7 2.9 2.8 2.1
25 3.5 59.7 35.8 10.2 21.6 22.9 6.9 4.4 3.6 2.9 2.7 2.0
26 146.7 78.3 264.9 9.8 18.4 17.3 6.6 4.3 3.5 24.0 2.7 2.0
27 114.7 47.8 369.1 9.5 16.1 13.9 6.5 4.2 3.5 8.1 2.6 12.9
28 12.2 15.9 143.1 28.1 14.6 12.1 6.3 4.2 3.4 3.5 2.6 11.5
29 3.9 35.2 66.3 136.6 11.0 6.2 4.1 3.4 3.1 2.6 3.3
30 12.4 231.5 40.0 151.5 10.2 6.1 4.1 3.4 2.9 2.5 6.1
31 111.3 28.2 221.9 9.7 4.0 2.9 2.5
Mean 15.2 32.8 75.0 40.6 67.8 39.0 13.6 6.2 5.6 7.0 8.8 3.1 26.2
Minimum 1.4 5.4 11.0 9.5 10.2 9.7 6.1 4.0 3.4 2.9 2.5 2.0 1.4
Maximum 146.7 231.5 369.1 221.9 394.6 121.9 46.5 28.6 19.0 72.1 154.7 12.9 394.6
Station number R-S9b (calib)
Table of daily values for the 12-month period ending September 1996
Simulated Flow (cfs)
SPRINGBROOK CK. REACH 9b (calib) SW 27th
Day October November December January February March April May June July August September Annual
1 4.5 2.6 157.3 30.1 17.6 14.2 65.6 12.6 5.9 4.4 3.4 3.1
2 41.6 2.5 102.2 29.2 15.9 13.4 23.5 11.2 5.8 4.3 28.9 3.0
3 16.4 2.5 88.0 39.1 22.4 24.6 13.5 10.1 5.7 4.3 114.2 15.9
4 8.8 2.4 134.3 21.3 66.4 23.0 10.2 9.1 5.6 4.3 13.4 11.3
5 3.1 2.4 46.7 29.9 133.7 25.0 8.7 8.5 5.5 4.3 6.9 4.1
6 2.4 2.5 30.1 59.1 213.9 17.3 14.8 8.0 5.4 4.2 5.4 3.4
7 2.3 205.6 22.9 336.0 175.0 13.4 15.8 7.6 5.3 4.1 4.7 3.2
8 2.3 203.9 19.0 128.5 600.3 12.1 9.1 7.3 5.3 4.0 4.3 3.1
9 10.4 32.6 95.3 57.9 600.3 11.4 7.8 7.1 5.2 4.0 4.0 3.0
10 134.5 71.8 184.8 34.5 235.4 48.9 7.4 6.9 5.1 4.0 3.9 3.0
11 94.2 214.1 197.6 25.1 121.9 94.1 7.1 6.7 5.1 3.9 3.8 2.9
12 10.5 45.2 106.4 20.1 68.0 35.0 6.9 19.6 5.0 3.9 3.7 2.9
13 4.2 54.1 101.7 20.6 45.3 22.4 6.8 167.1 4.9 3.8 3.7 2.9
14 3.3 24.3 114.0 110.7 32.4 16.6 6.6 42.8 4.9 3.8 3.6 5.0
15 3.0 36.3 48.6 347.6 25.6 13.6 7.7 23.1 4.8 3.7 3.5 52.0
16 23.3 20.2 30.6 219.2 21.8 11.9 54.9 15.9 4.7 3.7 3.5 8.4
17 36.2 16.1 40.0 102.6 81.3 10.9 18.1 14.1 4.7 3.7 3.5 3.8
18 23.8 27.3 132.6 50.7 145.1 10.3 21.2 28.0 4.7 4.5 3.4 3.3
19 5.5 15.9 42.5 133.3 124.6 9.8 19.6 21.4 4.6 16.6 3.4 20.7
20 47.2 8.7 28.5 179.3 62.2 9.4 10.2 11.7 4.5 8.8 3.4 8.8
21 20.0 7.1 22.6 201.3 50.6 9.1 8.0 9.1 4.5 4.5 3.4 3.8
22 6.5 30.1 19.4 90.4 44.6 11.3 58.7 24.3 4.4 4.0 3.3 3.3
23 3.8 119.0 17.4 55.4 61.3 12.1 473.0 21.4 37.0 3.9 3.3 3.1
24 3.2 107.7 16.0 63.8 39.9 9.4 251.4 13.4 17.8 3.8 3.2 3.0
25 7.2 95.5 15.0 40.2 25.4 8.7 138.5 9.0 6.6 3.7 3.2 3.0
26 13.1 37.0 14.2 28.7 20.4 8.3 77.4 7.6 5.2 3.6 3.2 2.9
27 4.1 65.7 13.7 24.3 17.9 8.1 37.7 7.0 4.9 3.6 3.2 2.9
28 3.0 136.8 37.0 79.5 16.3 7.9 25.0 6.7 4.7 3.5 3.2 2.8
29 2.8 389.4 161.8 40.3 15.2 7.7 18.8 6.4 4.6 3.5 3.1 2.7
30 2.7 164.8 113.5 25.2 7.5 15.0 6.2 4.5 3.5 3.1 2.7
31 2.6 44.3 20.2 14.0 6.0 3.4 3.1
Mean 17.6 71.5 70.9 85.3 106.9 17.5 48.0 17.9 6.6 4.5 8.4 6.5 38.5
Minimum 2.3 2.4 13.7 20.1 15.2 7.5 6.6 6.0 4.4 3.4 3.1 2.7 2.3
Maximum 134.5 389.4 197.6 347.6 600.3 94.1 473.0 167.1 37.0 16.6 114.2 52.0 600.3
Station number R-S9b (calib)
Table of daily values for the 12-month period ending September 1997
Simulated Flow (cfs)
SPRINGBROOK CK. REACH 9b (calib) SW 27th
Day October November December January Annual
1 2.7 7.7 34.6 283.7
2 2.7 6.3 34.4 394.9
3 2.7 5.4 18.8 232.6
4 42.4 5.0 156.6 107.2
5 19.8 4.6 71.9 60.9
6 5.0 4.4 74.3 39.0
7 3.3 4.2 90.3 28.7
8 3.0 4.0 143.3 23.9
9 2.9 3.9 46.6 40.0
10 2.8 3.8 46.5 33.7
11 2.8 3.7 30.6 20.9
12 2.8 11.9 57.7 18.0
13 49.5 49.7 52.8 16.5
14 57.3 14.0 22.0 15.5
15 17.9 34.8 17.7 14.6
16 5.6 34.5 25.2 38.7
17 54.7 63.4 13.9 215.6
18 90.9 84.0 11.3 139.1
19 16.9 83.2 15.0 133.8
20 8.9 23.7 30.0 192.2
21 41.6 13.7 20.1 92.4
22 65.9 9.8 13.9 46.9
23 46.2 24.3 47.4 31.9
24 65.4 55.6 74.2 25.5
25 23.7 28.3 39.7 21.7
26 11.2 13.4 123.2 19.5
27 7.7 174.5 87.6 44.6
28 98.3 84.3 53.0 80.3
29 43.7 31.4 367.9 41.7
30 16.2 46.7 246.2 162.5
31 10.4 277.0 75.2
Mean 26.6 31.1 75.6 86.8 55.0
Minimum 2.7 3.7 11.3 14.6 2.7
Maximum 98.3 174.5 367.9 394.9 394.9
Station number R-S9b
Table of daily differences for the 12-month period ending September 1994
Simulated Flow (cfs)
SPRINGBROOK CK. at SW 27th
Day October November December January February March April May June July August September Annual
1 -8% -32% - -4% 74% 35% 112% -12% -73% -91% -65% -64%
2 -12% -32% 237% 45% 73% -14% 119% -13% -53% -90% -63% -64%
3 -20% -66% 114% 55% 67% -27% -61% -9% -56% -71% -63% 102%
4 -24% -37% -11% 5% 60% -47% -35% -28% -64% -72% -62% 36%
5 -24% -38% 73% -29% 57% 42% 56% 65% -69% -94% -63% -26%
6 -75% -3 8% 30% 55% 53% 96% 44% -2% -91% -79% -61% -44%
7 17% -40% 86% 64% 50% 100% 22% -11% -76% -71% -62% -51%
8 15% -40% 56% 120% 52% 94% 2% -14% -58% -69% -81% 125%
9 -19% -44% 25% 96% -12% 92% 23% -19% -58% -68% -81% 90%
10 -20% -42% -9% 106% 39% 91% 117% -22% -60% -68% -71% -4%
11 -24% -48% 0% 47% 45% 179% 113% -27% -61% -67% -62% 3 8%
12 -24% -45% 102% 76% 41% 135% -75% -27% -70% -68% -62% -18%
13 -24% -45% 70% 126% 11% 114% 4% -30% -93% -66% -39% -29%
14 -27% -45% 360% 51% 137% 113% 37% -39% -88% -67% -49% -71%
15 -52% -62% 67% 44% 135% 100% 65% -74% -72% -68% -51% -61%
16 66% -78% 42% 61% 34% -11% 81% -41% -66% -70% -53% -58%
17 89% 57% 48% 62% 19% 23% 95% -10% -67% -71% -56% -59%
18 -12% 130% 53% 66% -15% -23% 97% -33% -61% -71% -57% -62%
19 -23% 11% 59% 65% 39% 95% 103% -37% -59% -70% -45% -65%
20 -27% -38% 60% 58% 110% 21% 100% -39% -64% -69% -53% -69%
21 -27% -52% 45% 47% 129% -16% -14% -41% -64% -71% -59% -69%
22 16% 105% 52% 31% 297% 10% 56% -41% -66% -70% -61% -70%
23 -17% -6% 45% 62% 49% 39% 79% -43% -65% -69% -65% -74%
24 -6% -51% 41% 98% 123% 78% 81% -44% -68% -70% -58% -67%
25 -2% -58% 43% 89% 56% 77% 78% -46% -68% -70% -58% -68%
26 -14% -62% 39% 110% 10% 81% 45% -46% -67% -69% -60% -69%
27 -21% -63% 36% 85% 2% 88% 26% -53% -68% -67% -64% -69%
28 -28% -52% 32% 87% 64% 89% 18% -51% -69% -67% -64% -72%
29 -29% 65% 32% 86% 98% -4% -61% -70% -69% -64% -71%
30 -29% 230% 30% 88% 103% -35% -11% -72% -68% -64% -64%
31 -34% 49% 81% 108% -58% -66% -65%
Mean -11% 22% 41% 41% 38% 8% 10% -34% -72% -77% -63% -9% 2%
Minimum 24% 39% -32% -58% -41% -108% -59% 33% 66% 66% 45% 46%
Maximum 17% -65% -25% -29% -34% 27% -2% 28% 61% 94% 81% -102%
Station number R-S9b
Table of daily differences for the 12-month period ending September 1995
Simulated Flow (cfs)
SPRINGBROOK CK. at SW 27th
Day October November December January February March April May June July August September Annual
1 -66% -59% -53% -16% 24% 39% 39% 50% 43% -8% -3% -69%
2 -70% 22% -50% 23% -5% 37% 46% -21% 34% -46% -3% -70%
3 -67% 17% -16% 54% -16% 33% 43% 135% 34% -45% -3% -69%
4 -64% -9% -5% 50% -15% -30% 8% 97% 22% -33% -7% -88%
5 -63% -26% 16% 47% 0% 15% 42% 85% -51% -23% -33% -98%
6 -73% 6% 31% 47% 31% 27% 42% 94% 144% -24% -71% -98%
7 -76% 11% 21% 21% 50% 25% 38% 97% 56% -22% -73% -94%
8 -79% -3% 58% 75% 44% 31% 61% 78% 38% -18% -82% -83%
9 -81% -10% 29% 66% 40% 21% 129% 60% 32% 23% -69% -74%
10 -81% 10% 30% -17% 41% -10% -4% 14% -36% -65% -77% -74%
11 -78% 0% 73% -9% -15% -4% 48% 33% 22% -24% -83% -71%
12 -78% 53% 57% 4% 22% -36% 9% 122% 36% -27% -73% -69%
13 -68% -11% 36% 25% 39% 13% -5% 90% -35% -16% -71% -69%
14 -13% -7% 76% 12% 38% 10% 95% 86% -12% -5% -73% -70%
15 -36% 22% 55% -6% 148% -8% 58% 79% -32% -3% -75% -69%
16 -71% -14% -9% 33% 181% 5% 61% 76% -5% 3% -80% -69%
17 -77% -14% 3% 68% 26% 41% 56% 72% -36% 3% -22% -69%
18 -80% -16% -21% 22% 49% -45% 54% 69% 33% 0% -80% -71%
19 -81% 26% 33% 39% 7% -29% 55% 69% 13% 0% -82% -75%
20 -85% -25% 15% 52% -1% -15% -18% 66% -45% 0% -83% -75%
21 -69% -8% -34% 42% 5% -3% 117% 68% -22% 0% -90% -76%
22 -77% -35% -40% 40% -27% 12% 84% 64% -7% 0% -80% -75%
23 -84% -9% -42% 37% -43% 39% 79% 61% 3% 0% -70% -74%
24 -85% -8% -31% 33% -49% 87% 82% 57% -5% -3% -69% -74%
25 -70% 116% 50% 32% -49% 122% 92% 57% -3% -3% -70% -76%
26 22% 16% 33% 31% -20% 90% 100% 54% -3% -36% -70% -79%
27 -32% 0% 17% 34% 21% 65% 97% 50% 0% 37% -69% -77%
28 -70% 29% - 72% 39% 55% 97% 50% -3% 9% -69% -81%
29 -59% 11% -26% 16% 47% 35% 46% 0% 3% -69% -89%
30 -5% 4% -32% 41% 42% -16% 41% -8% 0% -69% -90%
31 13% -34% 37% 43% 43% 0% -69%
Mean -28% 2% -3% 24% 6% 4% 36% 44% -1% -20% -59% -86% -6%
Minimum 65% 35% -36% -34% -38% -43% -91% -43% -21% 0% 14% 71%
Maximum 13% -4% -17% -37% -7% 10% -17% 21% 3% -14% 22% 91%
Station number R-S9b
Table of daily differences for the 12-month period ending September 1996
Simulated Flow (cfs)
SPRINGBROOK CK. at SW 27th
Day October November December January February March April May June July August September Annual
1 -86% -4% -16% 19 8% 93% 80% -22% 52% 97% 57% -19% -40%
2 -61% -7% -31% 46% 94% 84% 12% 62% 93% 54% 0% -25%
3 -87% -4% -17% -21% 93% -40% 114% 36% 90% 43% 9% -52%
4 -89% -11% -13% 111% 69% 43% 113% 65% 93% -7% 14% 10%
5 -95% -14% - 123% 35% 172% 107% 73% 90% 43% 25% -25%
6 -95% -17% - 29% 17% 137% -54% 78% 86% 45% 15% -53%
7 -95% 42% - 37% 7% 97% 103% 81% 83% 41% 7% -29%
8 -96% 14% - 25% 11% 81% 86% 87% 83% 33% 2% -18%
9 -84% -34% - 10% -11% 70% 53% 92% 79% 33% -2% -9%
10 -31% 108% - 18% - 15% 48% 103% 76% 33% -22% -14%
11 -53% 3% - 68% - 49% 1% 29% 76% 30% -22% -15%
12 -88% -33% - 91% - 230% -5% -52% 72% 26% -23% -12%
13 -75% 11% - 42% - 177% 39% 8% 69% 23% -24% -17%
14 -62% 71% - 10% - 141% 65% 126% 69% 23% -28% -35%
15 -58% 18% - 31% - 139% -57% 221% 66% 19% -29% 39%
16 -19% 45% - 11% - 129% -31% 189% 62% 16% -27% 50%
17 164% 89% - 4% - 122% 60% -19% 62% 45% -27% -84%
18 194% 35% - -17% - 119% 7% -47% 62% -74% -29% -60%
19 72% 121% - 36% - 32% -2% -36% 59% -49% -26% -52%
20 13% 50% - 14% - 42% 13% 52% 50% 31% -26% 38%
21 72% 39% - 6% - 47% 31% 28% 55% -2% -23% -14%
22 91% 56% 109% -19% -12% -29% 17% 70% 57% -2% -25% -42%
23 31% 35% 112% -36% -25% 95% 25% 251% 198% 3% -21% 0%
24 10% 16% 119% -44% 0% 84% -13% 185% 224% -10% -20% 0%
25 38% -16% 131% -53% 15% 102% 12% 125% 83% -12% -18% 3%
26 134% -23% 133% -48% 55% 98% -22% 117% 73% -14% -16% 0%
27 41% 28% 132% -31% 70% 50% -25% 112% 69% -18% -14% 4%
28 7% 56% 311% 347% 73% 93% -12% 116% 62% -17% -11% 0%
29 4% 21% 59% 91% 77% 97% 30% 106% 59% -19% -6% -4%
30 0% -16% 22% 133% 108% 61% 100% 61% -17% -21% -4%
31 -4% 78% 106% -39% 94% -21% -42%
Mean -58% 14% 16% 13% 7% 52% 2% 23% 99% -14% -4% -25% 13%
Minimum 15% 8% -281% -105% -94% -108% -65% -94% -57% -21% 6% 4%
Maximum 33% -21% 14% -31% 11% -49% -25% -8% -198% 49% -9% -20%
Station number R-S9b
Table of daily differences for the 12-month period ending September 1997
Simulated Flow (cfs)
SPRINGBROOK CK. at SW 27th
Day October November December January Annual
1 -4% 8 8% -40% -43%
2 0% 85% -14% -10%
3 -7% -11% -6% -
4 4% -60% 39% -
5 -27% 35% -38% -
6 47% -54% -27% -
7 14% -19% -34% 47%
8 7% 29% -25% -45%
9 4% 30% -64% -12%
10 0% 27% -56% 9%
11 -40% 23% -54% 24%
12 -10% -64% -42% 67%
13 31% -57% -39% 74%
14 102% -64% -33% 82%
15 34% 10% 19% 90%
16 -2% 107% -17% 73%
17 123% 94% 46% 11%
18 -9% -9% 41% -13%
19 119% 22% 4% -9%
20 154% -71% -34% -5%
21 222% -81% -44% -35%
22 0% -66% 35% -46%
23 138% 28% -17% -45%
24 2% -52% -10% -26%
25 13% -73% -65% -1%
26 120% -67% 80% 61%
27 114% -10% -56% 72%
28 42% -51% -51% 14%
29 -41% -59% 61% 71%
30 82% -17% -49% -9%
31 100% -45% -18%
Mean 23% -35% -29% -11% -18%
Minimum 0% -23% -41% -90%
Maximum 2% 10% 27% 21%
soo SW 27th Street Validation Run (13 - 27 February 1995)
Observed Flow
Simulated Flow
400
w 300
a�
A 200
100
0
w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w
M et kn 00 M tn O t�
N N N N N
Parameter Observed Simulated Difference
Peak Discharge (cfs) 471.S 499.6 6%
12 - 27 February Volume (ac-ft) 2645 2795 6%
B - 22 February Volume (ac-ft) 2000 204 7%
600 SW 27th Street Validation Run (22 April - 7 May 1996)
Observed Flow
Simulated Flow
500
400
w
a�
1".300
A
200
100
0
91 C� C� rn C. C� o�, c1 C� C� rn a rn
Qa Qa Q Q Qa Q Q Q Q � M cc
N M O r� Ob C1 O
N N N N N N N N Cn "" N M \C
Parameter Observed Simulated Difference
Peak Discharge (cfs) 497.6 543.9 9%
22 April - 7 May 1996 Volume (ac-ft) 2082 2190 5%
22 - 26 April 1996 Volume (ac-ft) 1867 1981 6%
SW 27th Street Validation Run (1-15 February 1996)
800
Observed Flow
700 Simulated Flow
600
500
w
e�
a
bs.10 400
u
A 300 -- fA
200
100
0
o o o o 10 10 10 I'o o
o o o o o C� C� C� 1� C� 1� C� C� o
w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w
-� N 00
Parameter Observed Simulated Difference
Peak Discharge (cfs) 713.9 787.2 10%
1 - 10 Feb 1996 Volume (ac-ft) 4058 4006 -1%
7 - 10 Feb 1996 Volume (ac-ft) 3209 2923 -9%
l000 BRPS Inflow Validation Run (1-15 February 1996)
Observed Flow
900 Simulated Flow
800
700
600
a
�10 500
A 400
300
200
100
0
o c o o o o o o o o o o o o o
w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w
t� 00
Parameter Observed Simulated Difference
Peak Discharge (cfs) 896.8 1000.0 12%
1 - 15 Feb 1996 Volume (ac-ft) 6633 6267 -6%
7 - 11 Feb 1996 Volume (ac-ft) 4470 4370 -2%
SW 27th Street Validation Run (25 Dec 1996 - 8 Jan 1997)
600
Observed Flow
Simulated Flow
500 --_ A_ Ak
400
W
V
;"0 300
A
200
100
0
� � o
91 91 91 rn 1�1 1� 1� 1� C� C� all CN C
V1 D t� 00 CT O N M n 00
N N N N N M M
Parameter Observed Simulated Difference
Peak Discharge (cfs) 527.5 538.9 2%
25 Dec 1996 - 2 Jan 1997 Volume (ac-ft) 5295 3577 -32%
28 Dec 1996 - 2 Jan 1997 Volume (ac-ft) 4538 3099 -32%
soo SW 27th Street Validation Run (16 - 30 November 1996)
Observed Flow
Simulated Flow
400
E 300
an
A 200
100
0
c1 C� c, c1 91 C� C� 1. 1� C� C� rn rn rn rn
> > > >
0 0> > > > > > > > > > >
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
z Z z Z z z z z z z z z z z Z
- N N N NNN NNG N N M
Parameter Observed Simulated Difference
Peak Discharge (cfs) 430.3 363.9 -15%
16 - 30 November 1996 Volume (ac-ft) 2302 1515 -34%
27 - 30 November 1996 Volume (ac-ft) 985 668 -32%
soo SW 27th Street Validation Run (16 Nov - 14 Dec 1996)
Observed Flow
Simulated Flow
400
I
w 300
do
A 200
100
0
1� 1� F, Q\ ON 11 O� C� 1� 1� O, 1� rn C. C� 91 C1 C� C� C� 91 C1 C� O, 1� 1� C� C1 1�
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8a
z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
� � � � � � N M 4 kA � n Ob c� O "+ N r 1 4
�O l� 00 O� O ^-� N M !}' V1 �D t� 00 O� O
� •-+ � -� N N N N N N N N N N M ^' ^'" ^" ""' ^"
Parameter Observed Simulated Difference
Peak Discharge (cfs) 430.3 363.9 -15%
16 Nov - 14 Dec 1996 Volume (ac-ft) 4892 3275 -33%
27 - 30 November 1996 Volume (ac-ft) 985 668 -32%
f
THE CITY OF RENTON
DEPARTMENT OF = _
PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS ==
FOURTH FLOOR --- =
200 MILL AVENUE SOUTH
RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055-2189 - -
FAX: 235-2541
5' - `To: Lrr �4
Company: /
Phone:
Fax:
From:
Company:
Phone: Z'77- rj3�f'7
Fax:
Date:
Pages including this
cover page:
Comments:
2--3,tl
L log, ►A r ye Use / V9 e-IcvS ��►.�
7 m, '0
l
701, use
.... ,
5318
754 SW 7th St 'so Nh 63
CITY OF RENTON
SURVEY CONTROL NETWORK
LEGEND
t } tI
E
o SW 10th \ SW Groat W°y j1
S Renton Village PI Horizontal & Vertical
CkY„ �...._.......__....
2222
Horizontal Only
1856
3333
#:
N SW 16th St - St Vertical Onl
,.. 1�.5..._... N E 6 its
0
t
17th �-� `nett
(j( : ({ S 18tv.' 1 t
_ SW 19th St 167 S 19th St{tt 1
......._..._. i.._......_...._...3 i.
SW 21st St o E�! S 21st St
.. � °::::'::::::.:::: i L: otf 1 __ {y /// O 650 1300
i
c' O e
1 161 SW-23rd St _ # S 23rd St 2 >6 '• �' s*W0a,,-,
® 1551 ........._....... L..._........_._..........s ......, ............_.._fix_....._...................._ ' z TECHNICAL SERVICES
t t -------— ...._...................._..._........................... P/B/PW TECHNICAL SERVICES
1160 �„ ', t 3 oleo/s�r 5319
5330
SECTION 19 T23N R5E W.M,
24-Oct-96 Horizontal: NAD 1983/91 Meters Vertical: NAVD 1988 Meters
912
Location: Found a tack in lead in a 4" x 4" concrete post in a monument case at the
intersection of Grady Way and Lind Ave SW. Easternmost of two
monument case in the intersection.
Monument: TK IN LEAD IN 4 IN X 4 IN CONC. POST IN MON. CASE
NORTHING: 53185.732 EASTING: 395219.138 ELEVATION:
1160 N 1/4 Corner 30 T23N R5E
Location: Found a 1/2" bronze button with a punch on a concrete post monument down
0.3' in a monument case approximately 6' east of the constructed centerline
of East Valley Highway at the northerly margin of an east-west pipeline right-
of-way. Another monument (found a copper tack in lead on a concrete post
monument down 1.0' in a monument case) exists approximately 6' west in
the constructed centerline of East Valley Highway.
Monument: 1/2 IN BRONZE BUTTON W/PUNCH ON CONC MON, IN CASE, DN. 0.3,
NORTHING: 51991.935 EASTING: 395595.663 ELEVATION: 5.743 yi, N1_x-'V 09
1V Avp r e
SECTION 19 T23N R5E W.M,
24-Oct-96 Horizontal: NAD 1983/91 Meters Vertical: NAVD 1988 Meters
1551
Location: Found 3/8" brass plug in a 10" monument case in centerline of Lind Ave SW
at SW 23rd. St. (pipeline R.O.W.)
Monument: 3/8 IN BRASS PLUG IN MON CASE
NORTHING: 51992.882 EASTING: 395190.593 ELEVATION: 6.497/y
L/. 3 2 /W Cl- /JAV 2
17, -7 Y Ae
1856
Location: Found a Washington State Department of Transportation brass diskset in
south shoulder of SR167, 1-405 overcrossing above the approximate
centerline of SR167.
Monument: W.S.D.O.T. BRASS DISC
MEMORANDUM
northwest hydraulic consultants inc.
16300 christensen road,suite 350
tukwila,washington 98188-3418
(206)241-6000
fax no.(206)439-2420
DATE: Monday,March 16, 1998
TO: Scott Woodbury, City of Renton
FROM: Larry Karpack
SUBJECT: Updated Storage Event Simulations for Springbrook Creek
Introduction
Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (NHC) recently updated existing HSPF (Hydrologic Simulation
Program—FORTRAN) hydrologic models of the Springbrook Creek basin. The update consisted
of extending the period of model simulations to include the recent severe storms of February 1996
and December 1996 / January 1997. Work also included validation of the HSPF models to
observed data from several streamflow gages in the basin. The results of the validation are
documented in an earlier NHC transmittal to the City(1998). In general the validation showed that
the HSPF model of Springbrook Creek was well calibrated for high flows, both in terms of peak
discharges and total storm runoff volumes. Based on that result the City authorized NHC to
proceed with a review of earlier hydrologic and hydraulic analyses of the Black River Pump Station
(BRPS) and Springbrook Creek.
Overview
The methodologies used in the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses of the BRPS in this study are
similar to those used in the East Side Green River Watershed Project (ESGRWP). These are
described in detail in reports by NHC (1996) and RW Beck (1996). The specific intent of this
study was to update the volume frequency analysis for the BRPS to include the February 1996
event, and to revise the input hydrology and FEQ (Full Equations) hydraulic simulations of the
100-year "storage" design event for Springbrook Creek. The basic approach taken in this study
consisted of:
1. running HSPF to simulate the basin hydrology for the period October 1961 through April 1997
2. using an NHC customized routing program (BRPSSIM) to simulate the performance of the
BRPS for the period October 1961 through September 1991 and the February 1996 event.
3. performing volume frequency analysis of peak annual BRPS storage to estimate the 100-year
storage volume(note: this required extrapolation of the frequency curve)
4. using the BRPSSIM model for the February 1996 event to determine a multiplier on BRPS
inflows which would produce a peak storage volume equal to the 100-year storage estimated in
step 3
5. extracting runoff hydrographs for the February 1996 event at select locations in the basin for
use as input to the FEQ model
6. running the FEQ model to determine peak stages and flows at key locations in the basin for the
100-year "storage" design event (this task was performed by RW Beck as sub-consultant to
NHC)
The results of the FEQ simulations are shown in Table 1. Additional details about the analyses are
provided below.
Methodology
Precipitation data for SeaTac airport for the period 1 October 1991 through 30 April 1997 were
obtained from the National Climatic Data Center and added to the existing data set in the City's
WDM database for Springbrook Creek (developed by NHC, 1996). Available daily evaporation
data for the Puyallup 2NW station for the same period were extracted from published NCDC
records and added to the database. Missing data in the daily evaporation record were infilled
using the Jenson Haise equation (with software previously provided to NHC by King County
Surface Water Management). The Jenson Haise equation utilizes daily maximum and minimum
temperatures to produce an estimate of daily evaporation. Temperature data from SeaTac airport
were used with the Jenson Haise equation to produce evaporation data for the Springbrook Creek
basin. Hourly flow data for the Green River gage at Auburn for the period 1-15 February 1996
were also obtained from the USGS.
Following the data development, the City's HSPF hydrologic models of Springbrook Creek
(NHC, 1996) were extended to include the additional period of record. HSPF PERLND and
IMPLND time series were extended using the additional hydrometric data. The City's current
and future conditions HSPF models were then run to include the period through April 1997.
Simulated inflows to the BRPS were stored in the HSPF WDM database for use in the BRPS
simulations.
Using the previously developed BRPS routing model (NHC, 1996) the operation of the pump
station for current and future conditions was simulated for the period 1 October 1961 — 30
September 1991 and for the February 1996 event assuming pump station operations according to
constraints defined in the Green River Basin Program Interlocal Agreement (GRIA, 1992) and
the Green River Pump Operations Procedure Plan (POPP) (Green River Basin Program, 1986).
The BRPSSIM model uses BRPS inflows from HSPF and observed Green River flow data as
input. Note that a continuous period through April 1997 was not simulated because no other
event in the extended simulation period would have resulted in significant BRPS storage.
Considering the difficulty and expense of obtaining a continuous record of Green River flows it
was decided that the split record was adequate for analysis of the BRPS.
The resulting peak annual storage data at the BRPS were extracted from these simulations and
plotted. Note that the February 1996 event required significantly more storage than any event in
the previous 30-year record. The frequency curve of required storage was then redrawn to
consider the new data as shown in Figure 1. Based on the graphically fit frequency curves the
100-year storage for existing and future conditions were estimated to be approximately 540 and
780 acre feet respectively.
The BRPSSIM model was then run for the February 1996 event using future conditions HSPF
simulated BRPS inflows to determine a multiplier on inflows which resulted in 780 acre feet of
storage. This multiplier was found to be 1.205 (i.e. if BRPS inflows in the future land-use
condition for the February 1996 event were increased by 20.5%, the resulting peak storage would
be 780 acre feet).
HSPF simulated runoff hydrographs at 20 locations in the basin were then extracted from the
WDM file for input to the FEQ hydraulic model. Runoff hydrographs were extracted for the
period 1-15 February 1996. These hydrographs were then multiplied by 1.205 (as computed
above) for input to FEQ. The resulting simulations, therefore, represent conditions during the
100-year"storage" design event. A more complete description of the design event methodology
is provided in RW Beck's 1996 report. The FEQ model was used to simulate two alternative
pump operation scenario's. The first scenario assumed all pump station characteristics per the
POPP as modeled in the ESGRWP in which all pumps are shut off for flows in the Green River
at Auburn greater than 12,000 cfs. The second scenario was the same as the first except that one
large pump (nominal capacity 400 cfs) was assumed to continue operating even when Green
River flows exceeded 12,000 cfs.
The revised WDM data base, HSPF input and output files, BRPS simulation files, and FEQ input
files are provided on the attached Zip disk.
Results
The results of the FEQ simulations are shown in Table 1. Also shown in Table 1 are results for
the 100-year current and future land-use conditions "storage" events, and the 100-year
conveyance event from RW Beck's 1996 analysis. The final column in Table 1 shows the
corresponding 100-year water surface elevations from the effective FEMA Flood Insurance
Study(1994).
As shown in Table 1 the updated simulations (scenario 1) result in increases in water surface
elevations of between 0.3 and 1.1 feet compared to the earlier modeling results. This is primarily
because simulation of the February 1996 event required longer curtailments of pumping than
simulations of the 1975 event used in the earlier analysis. Peak flows throughout the system also
increase by 180 to 240 cfs compared to the 1996 study.
Assuming one large pump continues to operate throughout the event (scenario 2), water surface
elevations in the lower reaches of Springbrook Creek would be reduced by up to 1 foot compared
to scenario 1, approximately equaling the simulated water levels from the previous analysis.
Further upstream, as the influence of BRPS water levels is less significant, water levels under
scenario 2 are similar to those in scenario 1. Upstream of Oakesdale Avenue water levels are the
same under either scenario.
References
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1994. Flood Insurance Study for King County,
Washington
Green River Basin Program, 30 June 1992, Green River Basin Program Interlocal Agreement.
Sponsors: King County, City of Auburn, City of Kent, City of Renton, City of Tukwila.
Green River Basin Program, 6 March 1986, Green River Pump Operations Procedures Plan.
Sponsors: King County, City of Auburn, City of Kent, City of Renton, City of Tukwila.
Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, January 27, 1998, Springbrook Creek Basin HSPF Model
Validation, Letter report prepared for Scott Woodbury, City of Renton.
Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, March 1996,East Side Green River Watershed—Hydrologic
Analysis, Report prepared for City of Renton Surface Water Utility.
RW Beck, March 1996,East Side Green River Watershed Project—Hydraulic Analysis Report,
Existing Drainage System, Final, Report prepared for City of Renton Surface Water
Utility,.
Table 1
Summary of Peak Flows and Water Surface Elevations
(updated 3116/98 from RW Beck East Side Green River Watershed Project Hydraulic Analysis Report Table 10)
Current and Future Land Use Conditions -Existing Drainage System
With Connecting Channel (Grady Way to SW 16th Street)Constructed and In-Place
100-Yr Fut.Flow 100-Yr Fut.Flow
100-Yr Cur.Flow 100-Yr Fut.Flow Storage Storage 100-Yr Fut.Flow
Roadway Storage Storage s Feb 1996 Event Feb 1996 Event 2 Conveyance FEMA
Location/Discription Top Elev. Flow Elev Flow Elev Flow Elev Flow Elev Flow Elev Flow Elev.
(feet) (cfs) ((feet) (cfs) ((feet) (cfs) (feet) (cfs) (feet) cfs (feet) cfs feet)
Panther Creek u/s of SR-167 3 82 92 129 128 170 16.0
Rolling Hills Creek at Renton 34 87 20.7 99 20.9 123 21.2 123 21.2 174 21.8 130 24.0
Shopping Center Culv.Outlet
Rolling Hills u/s I-405 132"culvert 3° 87 16.8 99 16.9 123 18.6 123 18.4 174 17.8 91 24.0
SR-167 north crossing 58 15.2 69 15.6 134 18.5 117 18.3 98 17.0 16.0
Springbrook Creek
BRPS outflow 1360 1700 1700 1700 1223
BRPS inflow 734 8.4 1153 13.0 1393 14.1 1378 13.1 1223 4.1 1230 15.0
Grady Way u/s 638 8.6 1045 13.0 1282 14.1 1249 13.1 1110 7.6 1100 16.0
SW 16th Street 577 8.6 960 13.0 1157 14.1 1124 13.1 1106 8.2 1055 16.4
Confluence of North 60"SS 571 9.7 898 13.1 1096 14.2 1071 13.3 1088 11.6 1055 15.8
Confluence of P-9 502 10.4 807 13.3 985 14.3 959 13.5 989 12.6 1055 16.0
SW 27th u/s 17.9 492 11.4 775 14.3 905 16.0 906 15.7 989 15.6 1055 16.3
SW 34th u/s 14.9 490 12.4 845 15.2 1023 16.3 1023 16.1 1219 16.1 1055 16.8
Oakesdale d/s 17.1 489 12.9 846 15.8 1026 16.8 1026 16.6 1227 16.9 1055 17.3
Oakesdale u/s 17.1 463 13.6 792 17.3 973 17.6 973 17.6 1167 17.9 1055 17.4
SW 43rd d/s 22.9 459 14.0 783 17.6 965 18.0 965 18.0 1158 18.3 1055 17.8
SW 43rd u/s 22.9 459 14.2 783 18.0 965 18.7 965 18.7 1158 19.5 1055 17.8
Notes: (1)Pumps at the Black River pump station shut off when Green River flows exceed 12,000 cfs.
(2) One large pump at the Black River pump station still operates when Green river flows exceed 12,000 cfs.
(3)FEQ simulated flows at these locations are based upon frequency analysis of Springbrook
Creek inflows to the BRPS forebay. Refer to ESGRWP Hydrologic Analysis Report(NHC, 1995a) for flows
based upon frequency analysis of Panther Creek and Rolling Hills Creek.
(4)Flows are based upon assumption that capacity restriction through Renton Shopping Center is improved
such that no attenuation from surface ponding occurs.
(5)As simulated for the Hydraulic Analysis Report For the Existing Drainage System(March, 1996)
(6)FEMA is based upon current land use conditions and does not consider future
land use conditions. Elevations are approximated from FEMA maps.
1000
+ "Current" Land-use
Future Land-use
4
i
i
i
i
i
a 100
C
C i
L
O
f0
CD + + +
10
.001 .01 . 10 .50 .90 .99 .999
Cumulative Probability (P)
c� East Side Green River Watershed Project - Hydrologic Analysis
Frequency Analysis of Simulated Peak Storage in The BRPS
cu
i f i b
1•^
i
1 fY
✓a' sei� ■Yr1��1�IfY0•I/l�Y�l\{O��r�■I�I�'rrl� i � i s
,y � 11111111/ 11111111111111111111111 '. / ' � � -�
�. _' 111®1111 11111111111 111111 111 " ' ' . � " ' � }4 .
ME mmomom MEMO
Moll 111111111_!11_111oorand 111111LIlii
�a } 111111111111lII��IIIA11'Ir11.�11.■1
,
r /1111111 WIN Y
�t ° IIIIIIIIIIIIii 1ir1i�l r/11 E 11 1111
fcFr 111111111111��111111Gr.' � iO4
1
4 1 °,: 111111111111�l113�i�i® I��iLiill 1 1 ' '
'n. IIIIIIIIIIII��hi11�1/�111111111111 � '
11111111111 nil Ill 110911111111
. IIIIII,i��.11 1111001�1 Ili.1111111111
, : � 111`�5���ui1111���r111ti1�111 111111 i
Fez 111111111111111l1_iC�1l11�«` 1.1� 0,
- � �.�■■■■■■■■■�� ■■■■■r��■■■■■■■■■111 ���� Vic.
all111111111�11�V�i�����111
YF
MIN
.ems✓; n . ' w f' i •.
. b F
.F:
1111111111111111111111111111111111 - � � ��; �� , ,
111111111111111111111111111 • - / : � fig;
I , 1111111111111111111111111111111111 - - ��� - . -, �'
- � 1111111111111111111111111111111111 �� , 1,
111111111 f 11111111111111111111 �.; ,
11i611111111111111111111 � �`� f"': ' � �� `
. : � , 111111111111i®i1111111111111111111 �� 'i1f��� �
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiI ����� ,f'
1111111111111111111111111111111111 1���� �� ;� �,'�
1111111111111111111111111111111111 •I ,�-� � � -� ,. }k
111111111111111111111111111111 � ' � � - - - � �:� ��
1111111111111111111111111111111111 ,����� : -��
11111111111 1111111111111111111111 �"' '- - ��(;;�, • . �� • �� �`:}'
11111111111 1111111111111111111111 ���
1111111111111111111111111111111111 '� �� . �7 ��F�
1111111111i1111111111111 111111111 • -� � ' �5�,
i 111111111111111111111111 111111 a IIIi111111111111111111111111111111 -�
1111111111111111111111111111111111 • � • - / / �� �`�
111111111®111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111111111111 ���E . , � .�
1®IIIIIi111111111111111111 1111111 - ��® �
111111111111®1111111111111 IIIIIIi � � ��� �M�:,
1111111111111111111111111111111111 '� � �
111mi11111111111111
IIIIi���i1111111 ���,�y � ,
;try
i{{�;
.- ..(ttt}1
111111���1�111111!�Acp����111111111 �
noun 1[i ► ► ��r�►� ■■;�► �1 gill111
111 ILI,
71l -
1.
7
YI' IIt' III
1111 1�r� �«� .n 1 ► r w ww ,
1111 ,111111111:��1�9i��i� rr _ - - - •
r Y.
t:.
_ T.