The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutWWP273539 (4)City of Renton HEATHER DOWNS SEWER SYSTEM ANALYSIS December 2006 Prepared By Roth Hill Engineering Partners, LLC 2600 — 116" Avenue NE #100 Bellevue, WA 98004 (425) 869-9448 Z 7-e� . La"4-0'- Tony Fish r, PE Lara Kammereck, PE December 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................1 FLOWASSIGNMENTS...........................................................................................................1 MODELANALYSIS................................................................................................................2 ANALYSISRESULTS.............................................................................................................2 Scenario No. 1 - Heather Downs 2001 Model.......................................................... 3 Scenario No. 2 -The Heather Downs Ultimate Model without Mini -Basin U3A.......... 3 Scenario No. 3 - The Heather Downs Ultimate Model with Mini -Basin U3A ............... 4 Scenario No. 4 - The Heather Downs Ultimate Model without Addition PopulationDensity.............................................................................................. 4 SOLUTIONALTERNATIVES..................................................................................................4 Alternative A - Upsize Existing Pipes...................................................................... 4 Alternative B - Diverting Flows............................................................................... 5 Alternative C - I&I Reduction.................................................................................. 6 OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS..............................................................6 Alternative A - Open Trench Construction.............................................................. 7 Alternative Al - Trenchless Construction............................................................... 8 Alternative B - Open Trench Construction.............................................................. 8 Alternative 131 - Trenchless Construction............................................................... 8 Alternative C - I&I Reduction.................................................................................. 8 FLOW MONITORING PROGRAM...........................................................................................9 RECOMMENDATION.............................................................................................................9 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Opinion of Probable Cost............................................................................ 7 LIST OF FIGURES Figure1 Vicinity Map.............................................................................................10 Figure 2 2001 Model Results..................................................................................11 Figure 3 Ultimate Model Results - Scenario No. 3...................................................12 Figure 4 Alternative A - Upsize Existing Pipes........................................................13 Figure 5 Alternative B - Diverting Flows.................................................................14 Figure 6 Alternative C - 70% 1&1 Reduction - Ultimate Flows..................................15 Figure 7 Moderately Surcharging Piping................................................................16 City of Renton Heather Downs Sewer System Analysis Page i December 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) ATTACHMENT A Scenario No. 1, Heather Downs 2001 Model Results ATTACHMENT B Scenario No. 2, Heather Downs Ultimate Model without Mini -Basin U3A Results ATTACHMENT C Scenario No. 3, Heather Downs Ultimate Model with Mini -Basin U3A Results ATTACHMENT D Scenario No. 4, Heather Downs Ultimate Model without Additional 25% Population Density Results ATTACHMENT E Alternative A, Upsizing Existing Pipes Ultimate Model Results ATTACHMENT F Alternative B, Diverting Flows Ultimate Model Results ATTACHMENT G Alternative C, 70% 1&1 Reduction Ultimate Model Results ATTACHMENT H Opinion of Probable Cost City of Renton Heather Downs Sewer System Analysis Page ii December 2006 INTRODUCTION The City of Renton requested that Roth Hill Engineering perform an analysis of the sewer system piping within the Heather Downs area in order to identify any capacity problems created by the increased population density, infiltration and inflow (I&I), and added upstream flows associated with the Ultimate design flows. The City will use the analysis to implement a flow monitoring program and to assist with capital improvement planning of any necessary sewer system improvements in the area. The sanitary sewer interceptor, known as the Heather Downs Interceptor, was analyzed as shown on Figure 1. The Heather Downs Interceptor begins at Manhole 5315192 and heads generally south along Bremerton Avenue, SE 2nd Place, and Chelan Avenue before turning west at SE 4th Street. The interceptor continues west along SE 4th Street to Union Avenue SE, where it jogs south and west, parallel to Madrona Drive, to Manhole 5316036. From Manhole 5316036, the interceptor travels southwest across easements to Manhole 5316039. It then conveys the flows along SE 5th Street to Pierce Avenue SE. At Pierce Avenue SE, the interceptor turns south and travels to SE 6th Street where it turns west again and follows the road to SE 5th Street. At SE 5th Street, the interceptor once again turns south until it discharges into the King County Trunk at Manhole RE*CEDAR2.R10-26a. The primary sewer mini -basins that comprise and are tributary to the Heather Downs area include Mini -Basin 25, a portion of Mini -Basin 46, and Mini -Basin U3A, as shown in Figure 1. These basins drain into the King County Trunk at the intersection of SE 5th Street and SR 169, and therefore were separated from the overall model for this analysis since they do not have any upstream mini -basins or tributary boundary flows. This approach simplified the hydraulic model runs, simulating backwater effects from the downstream main, based on the tailwater elevation established by the hydraulic model for the overall system. FLOW ASSIGNMENTS Population assignments, flow rates, and I&I parameters assigned to the 2001 Heather Downs Model were consistent with the Renton 2001 Model, as described in the Capacity Analysis for 2001 Sewer Model Memorandum, dated March 24, 2006. The populations assigned to the Ultimate Heather Downs Model for Mini -Basins 25 and 46 included the projected ultimate growth based on RTAZ data, which was then increased by a factor of 25%. Infiltration and inflow simulated for these Mini -Basins in the Ultimate Heather Downs Model was increased by 28% from the 2001 model to represent degradation of the system, in accordance with King County's methodology. For flow assignments to Mini -Basin U3A, 100 gallons per person per day were assumed for residential population, with a peaking factor of 2.0, consistent with the City's planning standard. Infiltration and inflow within Mini -Basin U3A was assigned at 1,500 gallons per acre per day. Flow assignments to the Ultimate Heather Downs Model were consistent with the assignments to the overall Ultimate Model, as described in the Ultimate Model report, dated July 2006. ' City of Renton Heather Downs Sewer System Analysis Page 1 December 2006 p MODEL ANALYSIS p The Heather Downs areas had previously been modeled as part of the Renton 2001 Sewer Model using the City's hydraulic MOUSE software program by the Danish Hydraulic Institute (DHI). However, the original analysis had been performed using the January 9, p 1990 storm that simulates approximately the 60-year flow event for the area. Therefore, as previously mentioned, for this investigation the Heather Downs 2001 Study Area was separated from the Renton 2001 Model and the November 24, 1990 storm was used to p identify existing capacity issues. This scenario was identified as Scenario No. 1, and its results were used as a benchmark for comparing the Ultimate Models results as the November storm yields approximately 30-year design flows. Two years of rainfall prior to p the storm event were simulated to develop appropriate antecedent conditions. The results of Scenario No. 1 are shown on Figure 2 and included in Attachment A. Based on the model results, the current flows appear to be at or above the capacity of many of the pipes pin the Heather Downs Interceptor. Additional model scenarios were then performed. The Ultimate Heather Downs model was run without Mini -Basin U3A to determine the impact of ultimate development conditions pdue to increased population density and I&I within the existing basins only, Scenario No. 2. This second scenario showed significant surcharging in the Heather Downs Interceptor along Pierce Avenue and near Madrona Drive. Moderate surcharging appears pto be occurring within the Interceptor along SE 4th Street, Chelan Avenue SE, and portions of Bremerton Avenue SE. The results from the model runs for Scenario No. 2 may be found in Attachment B. ' Scenario 3 adds the ultimate flows from Mini -Basin U3A to the conditions associated with Scenario No. 2 to examine the magnitude of impact due to the basin expansion. This pscenario represents the ultimate development for all Mini -Basins tributary to the Heather Downs Interceptor. The results of this analysis may be found in Attachment C. Significant to moderate surcharging appears to be occurring within the majority of the pHeather Downs Interceptor. This scenario was used to evaluate the necessary improvements to the system in order to handle the anticipated growth and is shown on Figure 3. ' Finally, as Scenario No. 4, the Ultimate Heather Downs Model was run without the additional 25% population density increase. This last scenario was included because the p service area is already mostly built out with anticipated build -out to be completed over the next few years, and would determine the relative impacts of the 25% population increase assumption on the system. As can be seen from the results included in Attachment D, p removing the 25% population growth assumption did not have much impact on the surcharging occurring in Scenario No. 3. Surcharging within both interceptors is still moderate or significant for the majority of the pipe runs. ANALYSIS RESULTS pMaps were created to summarize the results of the analysis of each scenario described above, as well as the alternative solutions (see Attachments A through G). The pipes on peach map were color -coded by peak flows divided by maximum capacity (Q/Qf„„), based p City of Renton Heather Downs Sewer System Analysis Page 2 December 2006 on Manning's equation. This color coding scheme is consistent with the previous results from the various analyses that were provided to the City and is summarized below: Peak Q/f,,,, Color Greater than 1.2 Red 1.0 to 1.2 0.8 to 1.0 Green 0.6to0.8 Blue 0.0 to 0.6 Gray All pipes with ratios greater than 0.8 (color coded green, orange, or red) are considered to be exceeding their capacity. Significantly surcharging pipes are coded red with ratios larger than 1.2. Moderately surcharging pipes are represented by ratios of 1.0 to 1.2 and are color coded orange. Green colored pipes have flows that exceed the pipes capacity without surcharging. Pipes colored blue indicate pipes that are close to but not exceeding the capacity standard. Although the color coding identifies most of the problem areas, some surcharging may occur in adjacent mains upstream from the identified problem areas due to backwater effects. For instance, the model predicts moderate surcharging from the King County Trunk. However, this surcharging is likely the result of conservative assumptions for the King County peak flows. The actual level of surcharging may not be as pronounced as shown in the model results. This analysis did not identify the pipes that were surcharging due to backwater affects, since alleviating the downstream capacity restrictions in those instances eliminated the surcharging. In addition to the color coded maps, profiles have been provided for each of the problem areas. The profiles are useful in analyzing the severity of the surcharging. The following paragraphs summarize the issues identified for each scenario. Scenario No. 1 - Heather Downs 2001 Model The Heather Downs 2001 Model results show capacity issues in the Heather Downs Interceptor in the manholes along SE 6th Street between the King County Trunkline and Manhole 5316017. Moderate to significant surcharging also occurs along Pierce Avenue SE and SE 5th Street between Manhole 5316017 and Manhole 5316039. Pipes between Manholes 5306037 and 5316034 are shown to have capacity issues with significant surcharging occurring in the section that is parallel to Madrona Drive, between Manholes 5316036 and 5316035. The surcharging is likely caused by the significant change in pipe grade west of this section, as the pipe travels down a steep slope for approximately 400 feet before returning to a shallow grade. Some capacity issues are evident in the pipes along Union Avenue SE, SE 4th Street, and Chelan Avenue, although these pipes do not appear to be surcharging. The map and profiles for these results are found in Attachment A. Scenario No. 2 - The Heather Downs Ultimate Model without Mini -Basin U3A The results of the analysis for Scenario No. 2 reveal increased capacity problems compared to Scenario No. 1. The problem areas were slightly larger and the severity City of Renton Heather Downs Sewer System Analysis Page 3 December 2006 significantly increased compared to Scenario No. 1. In fact, the moderate surcharging identified in Scenario No. 1 becomes severe in Scenario No. 2, with Manholes 5316114 ' and 5316011 overtopping on SE 5th Street west of Pierce Avenue SE. The pipe between Manholes 5316037 and 5316036, Manholes 5315001 and 5315002, Manholes 5135012 and 5315011, and Manholes 5315022 and 5315023 begin to moderately surcharge. ' Additionally, most of the remaining pipe within SE 4th Street, Chelan Avenue, SE 2nd Place and the southern portion of Bremerton Avenue appear to be at capacity. The map and profiles for these results are shown in Attachment B. Scenario No. 3 - The Heather Downs Ultimate Model with Mini -Basin U3A ' This scenario reveals even more capacity problems along the Heather Downs Interceptor compared to the previous scenarios, as seen in Attachment C. Based on the model results, the peak flow from Mini -Basin U3A is approximately 110 gpm. The addition of this ' flow to the Heather Downs Interceptor increases the magnitude of the capacity issues without significantly increasing the footage of pipes with issues. The pipe between Manholes 5316002 and 5316003 and the pipe between Manholes 5316026 and 5316025 ' begin to surcharge moderately. In addition, the pipes between Manholes 5316035 and 5316034, as well as Manholes 5315014 to 5315046, will experience moderate to significant surcharging with a few exceptions. The capacity problems in this scenario ' correspond to Problems Areas 25A, 25B, 25C, and 46A as shown on Figure 3 and as described in the Ultimate Model Peak Flow Analysis Report. Scenario No. 4 - The Heather Downs Ultimate Model without Addition Population Density This scenario yielded similar results to Scenario No. 3, except the pipe along SE 6th ' Street appears to no longer be surcharging. The flows in the pipes along SE 6th Street are still shown to exceed the City's capacity standards. In addition, the surcharging in the manholes on Union Avenue was slightly less in this scenario than in Scenario No. 3. This ' analysis demonstrates that the population impacts on the system are relatively minor in comparison to the impacts associated with increased I&I. The map and profiles for these results are shown in Attachment D. SOLUTION ALTERNATIVES Three modifications to the sewer system were analyzed to determine the most feasible solution to address the current and future capacity issues identified under Scenario No. 3. These modifications consisted of upgrading the size of the existing pipes (Alternative A), rerouting flow from the Heather Downs Interceptor (Alternative B), and aggressively pursuing I&I reduction/control in the tributary sewer systems (Alternative C). The following paragraphs describe each alternative and their resultant capacity impacts. Alternative A — Upsize Existing Pipes Alternative A focuses on increasing pipe sizes within the Heather Downs Interceptor as needed to convey the ultimate flows without significant surcharging. These improvements ' include upsizing the existing 15-inch pipe to 21-inch diameter pipe from the intersection of SE 6th Street and Pierce Avenue SE (Manhole 5316017) to the connection to the King ' City of Renton Heather Downs Sewer System Analysis Page 4 December 2006 County trunk in SR 169. In addition, the existing 10-inch and 12-inch pipes in Pierce Avenue SE and SE 5th Street (between Manholes 6316039 and 5316017) were upsized to ' 18-inch diameter pipe. Finally, the existing 8-inch and 10-inch pipes from Manhole 5315046 (near Bremerton Avenue and SE 2nd Place) to Manhole 5315014 (on SE 4th Street), as well as the pipes between Manholes 5315001 to 5315002 (along Union Avenue) and Manholes 5316037 and 5316036 (near Madrona Drive) were upsized to 12- inch diameter pipe. These improvements are shown in Figure 4 and eliminate the surcharging above the crown of the pipes that was occurring in the Heather Downs Interceptor. Surcharging caused by backwater effects in the King County Trunkline was not eliminated. The City ' will need to coordinate with the County to have the County address this issue. The new pipes along SE 4th Street between Manholes 5315002 and 5315003, as well as between Manholes 5316012 and 5316011, will be near their capacity under the flows generated in ' Scenario No. 3 with some sections exceeding the 80% full capacity criteria. However, these sections are fairly limited, and the flow should still remain below the crown of the pipes. The City should review these sections based upon additional flow monitoring to ' determine if 15-inch diameter pipes should be installed instead of 12-inch diameter pipes. For purposes of developing cost projections for this alternative, the new 12-inch diameter pipes were considered adequate and not upsized to 15-inch. The map and profiles associated with routing the flows from Scenario No. 3 through the improvements associated with this alternative may be found in Attachment E. Alternative B — Diverting Flows Alternative B focuses on redirecting flows from a portion of the Heather Downs Interceptor ' to a different portion of the City's conveyance system within Mini -Basin 46. The flows were intercepted by a new 10-inch interceptor near the intersection of Union Avenue SE and SE 4th Street (near Manhole 5315001), then routed south down a steep slope to the ' existing 15-inch diameter pipes near Manhole 5322007 located east of Maplewood Creek. Flows from the Maplewood Heights development were also routed to Manhole 5322007 under ultimate development conditions. The system downstream of Manhole 5322007 ' appears to have adequate capacity for both additions. The pipes in the Heather Downs Interceptor upstream of the interception point were also upsized as described in Alternative A. ' The improvements included in this alternative are shown on Figure 5 and would eliminate the surcharging in the Heather Downs Interceptor. The new pipe along SE 4th Street ' would experience similar flow levels described in Alternative A and should be reviewed in light of any additional flow monitoring or other data the City may collect. For purposes of developing cost projections for this alternative, the 12-inch pipe upgrades were considered adequate. Diverting these flows did not cause any adverse effects to the sewer system downstream of Manhole 5322007. The map and profiles associated with diverting the flows from Scenario No. 3 through the improvements associated with this alternative may ' be found in Attachment F. ' City of Renton Heather Downs Sewer System Analysis Page 5 December 2006 Alternative C — I&I Reduction Alternative C simulates improvements and rehabilitation to the system upstream of the Heather Downs Interceptor that would reduce I&I in the system. Under the ultimate flow scenario, I&I within Mini -Basin 25 is approximately 5,000 gallons per acre per day. In order to eliminate the surcharging, this I&I would need to be reduced by at least 70%. tFuture I&I within Mini -Basin U3A was held at 1,500 gallons per acre per day in order to remain consistent with the Ultimate Model Scenarios. No pipes were upsized and no flows were rerouted as part of Alternative C. The results of this alternative are shown in ' Figure 6 and in Attachment G. To accomplish this reduction, the City would need to conduct a comprehensive Sanitary ' Sewer Evaluation Study (SSES) to determine the sources of I&I. Capital projects similar to the methodologies used in the King County I&I Reduction program would then target I&I sources with the intent of reducing flows. These capital project improvements could be ' expensive and there is no guarantee they will successfully reduce I&I by 70%, resulting in the possibility that further capital improvements to the Heather Downs Interceptor would be needed. OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS In order to further compare Alternative A and Alternative B, planning level projections of probable project costs were prepared for both alternatives. The construction cost projections were based on the approximate footages of pipe being replaced. Open -trench construction methods were compared with trenchless construction methods in determining the cost of pipe replacement, except as noted otherwise in Alternative B. For the open -trench construction methods, the new gravity sewer improvements were assumed to parallel the existing system with new manholes as needed to meet pipe length criteria and junction needs. The new system would tie into the existing system using cut - in manholes. New side sewers would be installed between the new gravity sewer system and the existing side sewer connections at the property lines. The construction cost projections also assumed a 4-inch thick asphalt patch and a 2-inch full -width asphalt overlay for all pipe replacement in the public right-of-way. Open -trench construction in the right-of-way could necessitate street closures and other inconveniences to the local populace. For the trenchless construction methods, pipe -bursting along the existing sewer alignment was assumed. This method would require the replacement of all manholes in the project area. New side sewers would be installed between the new gravity sewer system and the existing side sewer connections at the property lines. In addition, construction cost projections assumed a 4-inch thick asphalt patch and a 2-inch full -width overlays at manhole locations. Trenchless construction in the right-of-way could necessitate traffic detours and other inconveniences to the local populace, but would have significantly less impact than open -trench construction. An 8.8% sales tax rate was applied to determine the projected construction cost for each alternative. Allied design costs associated with engineering, permitting, public outreach, legal, and City administration costs were then estimated at a rate of 40% of the projected City of Renton ' Heather Downs Sewer System Analysis Page 6 December 2006 ' construction cost. The construction costs and allied design costs were totaled, and a 15% contingency factor was applied to the total. Table 1 provides additional detail on the costs ' for each alternative and the assumptions used in developing the costs. These costs are conservative, but are justifiable given the high level of unknowns and the planning level basis used to develop them. Table 1 Opinion of Probable Cost Alternative A Alternative Al Alternative B Alternative 61 Construction Costs .........................._.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... $1,896,000 $1,398,000 $1,311,000 $926,000 Allied Costs ................................__................................._.................................................................._........._....................................................... $758,000 _ . __.................................................................._ $559,000 ...................................... $524,000 ...._................................................... ................................................................... $375,000 Subtotal .............................................................................................................................................................................................. $2,654,000................................._$1.,_95.7.,_00.0........__........._..._$_1...,_835,000......................_....._$1,301,000 ......._....................... 15% Contingency $398,000 .......................... ..................... $294,000 .................................._.................... Total (without Piping $3,052,000 $2,251,000 .................................................... $2,111,000 $1,490,000 Deduct) .............................. _.... .......................... ........_............................ _...... _............ ............................ .......... .................._............. _....... _............. ........................................................ Moderately Surcharging ($818,000) ................. _.................. ($362,000) ....... ............. ..................................... ........................... ($818,000) ......................... ................ ................................... ............. .... ($362,000) Piping Deduct Total with Deduct Piping $2,234,000 $1,889,000 $1,292,000 $1,128,000 Assumptions 1. All open -trench construction costs include cost of mobilization, materials, excavation, shoring, TESC, surface restoration, trench patching, and asphalt overlays. Depths are based on review of proposed pipe sections to be replaced. 2. All pipe bursting costs include cost of mobilization, materials, excavation, shoring, TESC, surface restoration, trench patching, and asphalt overlays. Depths are based on review of proposed pipe sections to be replaced. 3. Manhole depths were determined by reviewing existing manhole depths based on information contained in the MOUSE model. The price of extra depth manholes is included in the cost per manhole. 4. Four side sewer connections are assumed for every 150 feet of sewer at an average length of 30 feet of 6-inch PVC per side sewer (10 feet average depth per connection). 5. Full width asphalt overlay (30 feet wide x 1.5 inches deep) was assumed for all sewer replacement in right-of-way. 6. Horizontal directional drilling costs are based on a national survey conducted by Trenchless Technologies. Actual drilling costs may vary. 7. The moderately surcharging piping deduction represents pipes surcharging less than 20% above the crown of the pipe. The surcharging will result in additional maintenance requirements, but the cost of the additional maintenance may be less than the cost of replacing the pipe. The specific lengths of pipe being considered for the potential deduct are shown on Figure 7. These costs would be subtracted from the project costs for Alternative A and B, if the City chooses to pay the increased maintenance costs. IAlternative A — Open Trench Construction ' The proposed improvements associated with Alternative A include the replacement of approximately 6,745 linear feet of existing sanitary sewer with 12-inch, 18-inch, and 21- inch pipe, along with associated 6-inch side sewers, manholes and other structures. All of ' the proposed replacement pipe is located within the right-of-way, so a patch and full width overlay is assumed for the entire length of pipe. The projected cost for Alternative A using open trench construction methods, including sales tax, contingency, and allied costs, is tapproximately $3,052,000. City of Renton Heather Downs Sewer System Analysis Page 7 December 2006 Alternative Al — Trenchless Construction The proposed improvements associated with Alternative A were also evaluated using pipe bursting construction methods for the replacement pipe. A patch and full width overlay is assumed at all manhole locations. The projected cost for Alternative Al, including sales tax, contingency, and allied costs, is approximately $2,251,000. Alternative B — Open Trench Construction ' The proposed improvements associated with Alternative B include the replacement of approximately 2,940 linear feet of existing sanitary sewers with 12-inch pipe along with ' associated 6-inch side sewers, manholes, and other structures. For this alternative, open - trench construction methods were assumed for the replacement efforts. All of the replacement pipe is located within the right-of-way, so a patch and full width overlay is ' assumed for the entire length of pipe. In addition, approximately 1,370 linear feet of new 10-inch pipe will need to be constructed across easements and down a steep slope in order to divert the sewage manhole. For purposes of this construction cost projection, the ' new 10-inch pipe was assumed to be installed using horizontal directional drilling construction methods. The projected cost for Alternative B, including sales tax, contingency, and allied costs is approximately $2,111,000. Alternative B1 — Trenchless Construction ' The proposed improvements associated with Alternative B were also evaluated using pipe bursting construction methods for the 12-inch replacement pipe and horizontal directional drilling for the new 10-inch pipe. A patch and full width overlay is assumed for all manhole ' locations. The projected cost for Alternative 131, including sales tax, contingency, and allied costs, is approximately $1,490,000. ' The proposed improvements to the Heather Downs Interceptor described in Alternatives A and B include the replacement of about 1,370 feet of existing 10-inch diameter pipe that is experiencing moderate surcharging (Peak Q/Qf,,,, is between 1.00 and 1.20). These pipe ' sections are shown on Figure 7 and are located near Madrona Drive between Manholes 5316036 and 5316037, along Union Avenue between Manholes 5315001and 5315002, and along SE 4th Street between Manholes 5315014 and 5315012. This moderate surcharging ' would increase maintenance costs if the pipes are not replaced with new 12-inch diameter pipes. However, the City could reduce the project costs of the open -trench alternatives by approximately $818,000 and the pipe bursting alternatives by roughly $362,000 if it elects ' to exclude this pipe from the proposed improvements. Alternative C — I&I Reduction The costs of the SSES and the follow-on I&I reduction capital improvement projects needed to reduce I&I by 70% would need to be evaluated against the costs associated ' with Alternatives A or B. Since the nature of the improvements needed to reduce I&I in the system cannot be determined with any degree of accuracy until the sources of I&I are determined through the SSES and the associated capital improvements are identified, ' further evaluation of the project costs for Alternative C would be premature. ' City of Renton Heather Downs Sewer System Analysis Page 8 December 2006 FLOW MONITORING PROGRAM Modeling the flows in the interceptors required many assumptions on flow information. In ' order to better gauge the validity of those assumptions, additional flow monitoring per the City's standard procedures was considered. However, based on the characteristics of the flow within the basin, more than 70% of the current I&I would need to be removed in order ' to avoid capital improvements to the Heather Downs Interceptor. Identifying and removing this much I&I from the upstream tributary system, even using the methodologies established by King County's I&I reduction program, would likely cost more than just ' upsizing the Interceptor. Therefore, additional flow monitoring for this basin is not recommended. I RECOMMENDATION ' The recommended solution to the long-term capacity issues within the Heather Downs Interceptor appears to be Alternative B1. This alternative would minimize impacts to the public related to upsizing the main in existing streets and represents the lowest cost ' alternative for the City. However, the drawbacks associated with Alternative 131 include the complexities and challenges associated with constructing pipes on steep slopes in an area outside the right-of-way without current sewer easements. Detailed survey, ' geotechnical, and sensitive area analysis of the area would be necessary to determine the best method and route for the proposed sewer. Constructing the improvements associated with the steep slope portion of Alternative B1 will require project methods ' similar to the City's Central Plateau Interceptor. Geotechnical analysis of the soils around the existing pipes must be performed and existing pipe diameters and materials must be verified to determine if pipe -bursting is a suitable construction method. ' Although Alternatives A and Al adequately addresses the capacity issues, they are the most expensive solutions and would be the most disruptive to construct. Alternative B is ' an adequate solution, but open -trench construction methods will be more expensive than pipe bursting, and will be more disruptive to construct. Alternative C would require an SSES and extensive capital improvements aimed at reducing I&I by at least 70%. Even ' using the methodologies associated with King County's I&I reduction program, this alternative would likely be expensive and carries no guarantees that sufficient I&I can be removed to avoid capital improvements to Heather Downs Interceptor. ' Prior to reaching a final determination of an alternative, this report recommends that the interceptor be surveyed to provide accurate horizontal and vertical controls. The sewer ' model should then be updated with the more accurate data and the model rerun to confirm the preliminary results. The survey information would also assist in the development of a pre -design report that would refine Alternatives A and B and provide a final ' recommendation. City of Renton Heather Downs Sewer System Analysis Page 9 704 7s 98 30 201 202 128 102 103 12 120 21• 1 � & 76 202 _.r.#' Y z0 r I�t r 109 r 110 r 178 -819 __ 107 810 'C 51 .. 0,1 169 8t0 06 7, 31 9 h 801 n �B9 i 995 325 A t 1 w 270 52 271 a 11112 168 gp6 305 Z r r U 3A • 8':` N3 73 13r 307 30{ j 53 NE Y 34 as 326 r 2M Q 87 328 � I �% Y 55 _ IM ® 14U Or 139 306 830 ON44 v ° 54 57 - ' �� 86 W 170 w 813 �8t 32 321 829 C 207 § Oa 171 � 72 Z 'i 319 0 435884 y,_ 314 � \827 cC 159 il) i J. 149 i C 711 I 308 903 • Y.. 83 Q 79 177 175 , 174 O 147 324 32Y 72 E 2 nd St , 7y Z a. t -- - _ 60 93 r i It.173 ` 1 7 162 r r r13 917 95 SE 132 d St ao� ►� 164 112 285 I w 7 � -4 1% W r 92 92 1 17 -+ 153 1 S 286 r ii�1 12 Ir BB 2 21 p 2 66 r 816 G i 281 � li 1� � 6, 64 � ,� 113 :113 °9 � jp 63 59 � IB9 62 i r �I 173 i 282 W�74 1 6, 93 912 i 76 75 9 7S+f >° 806 �< ' 171 s 175 !/S 28 3 06 6 80, 2 2272 r 91 i go Y ,71 r 61 7 �7 i 1821N T S _ 11 182 2 79 �"� j w 0 i 205 75 _ 11 � 105 1 i J LLI E 170 176 /� 20i S E 1 St PI 1 in 169 I81 I /`�1 �� 5 52 19 42 44 Y 177 \� / \ 2% 76 I— 228 51 50 Y 8� 5 1 i [� 42) j � 805 168 , �\ -�\_ ae / \ % 26 Ev r Fawn U 3 U a _. ♦317 829 291 �t 1 a) 17, t80 �d121 �I I6 n J �J 814 222 54 ss 1 4 r 47 181 292 3° r IB R r 04 � 232 2� r 1>e 179 1, 3 m° � �, � 0 &S E 2nd PI ( � ea O 288 314 Of 32 r 3 161 78 ® 280 ed 23 SE 136th St 2% 283 � 87 19 317 316� 333 162 1 C Y 31 r 33 r 801 r r 00 CS 276 26 om 4 165 291 s, 3 3 \� 7 \ 274 285 / 40 3 75 r d Jrn « y28O.82 / + 7 I50 A 1 �330 34 341 34 159 �257 260� 2 r 29 r 7Q� i' 22 ;-Z o 0 86 / 4R 296 151 71/p 3U r313 57 I58 ®. 824 241 i ,z w i J r � > 289 303 152 1Lv 1 61 .® 923 2 819 82� IB Y N N Q is o; - 02 256 255 {10 /8211 24 17 1j SE 300 r 301 ® 167 �1 j vj CN 17 & .3 5 +i 251 Or Or n _ 0o W v % 15- 46 252 14 j�v• N m H LL RIO-18 +154 4 18 2, 'R se 4 C � 305 9 RIO-23 0-24 9,—��.---_ _ —. ` 248 32 1111-15 , S 25 a0 •� 304 306 RI0-20 a10.22 17 �. 12. 5 7 R10- RIO-26 6 r 9 38. 2 5 '— RIO-26A 10 �h t SE �4,S,S _c � d w mo-z 46 d �15B ' SE 142n d St = I3 w 2 %6' 79 4,a' LLI � t 9 s uwi U m o u ° a> Q W e RI Q Q = 16 O C 7 �\� 7 (V ('7 � ENSINGTON CREST ' W9 $ M �'9 B' RIO-30 262 LIFT STATION k 6 5 O 254 41 4 L N• I7 ��16 r 2554 RIO-. f+ m 19 251 0-32 3 y CW 3R IR Y 252 6y ci 7 248 249 ' 244 U 7 Y 2,6 4% 1 RIO-34 2 217 LEGEND R25 24 24' 2 '�' 3 = to 242 b •Ij Q ai — Study Area Boundaries z39 24 2/0 461 Q� Q Q Mini -Basin Boundaries r RIO- 0— Q/Qfull Greater Than 1.2 RI° O L W_ Q/Qfull Between 1.0 and 1.2 1B 9 0-36 U = O L Q/Qfull Between 0.8 and 1.0 \ 7 Q/Qfull Between 0.6 and 0.8 �201 11 ar 21R 2Y C # Capacity Issues Identified in 18 200 2oz 203 2% 216 Ultimate Model Peak Flow 207 215 RIO- Anal sis Report 20 a 12 < 201 209 2'0 213 R ° { RIO-42 = = m m = = = = m m = = m m m m = m = .tu+ 66 75 y s•-i-g 30 - 201 2N b 12g 128 -7T9 W 102 103 iee121 120 24• •10 29. r N I(tt e• 109 e• 110 W 178 * •810 8 51•" A .74 31 9 b 189 8D1 112 325 ' t I �, .• 806 - - :. 305 Z j �� 52.Qg] R . 1! IV U 3A �, 73 7 . 1 *134 307 304 j �53 NE fd Ot'_3, _ •� 328 7 1 �,, Q 3 57 V 55 n • 7 \ •_ y 4 32644 321 1/0 139 , 306 �830 828 O ° 207 L L t I70 171 7,. -'� 24 3I9 j♦I� cC� 3 �.. 314 3 :f 827 G 59 ►..... �___. 8 _ 179 ♦� 71 206 803 R' 83� Q• 177 1 17 32+yx_� I " �'► 0 72 E 2 nd St I, •m 111I r l 60I 97 + Ta° a° M 17 326 I } 2a7 162 8' ..• 213 817 - �95• 5 R a•- I61 0, N2'S 1 r_ _ 285 t�o� u� 6 M• e° % z z1 o eoz 'u - v w 163,0 / 286 % 1 R 66 ' 2 L %6/ 4191 r 816 may/ 2. 281 64 2 A 0 59 in I+; 1 ' B03 63 189IN j , 17 >R,,1 • 282 203 �71 61 93 92 76 75 NE 9 S 62 5i 6.0 � B' -♦ ,6• 283 1 63 2 1 71 a, 8 < �m C 171 17 • : 28, - ---... ` .� 801 ry 91 g i / �. ` lJ 1e2 82 6� 2 227 5 a. 79 61 S7 7 l a *' • 81 309 ze1 .c•� �75 2 S E 1 St PI a6�' 1as _ 1e3 E 0 176 UJ 169 177 6 ,'�b • 76 2 228 ►53 51 50 B' 52 ,9 '� 8, „ 8'e 1 +i 5 L 168 ♦ R \ % 26 Ev r reen 317 829 291 828 0 1 171 ,� 46Kt • 811 _ 51 55 I 7 18. 292 V_. • &9 1 �'1• 312 311 •77 232 222 38 W ,8 �m I •� 179�., 4 3100 2995 e• 81 ]78 1,6 3 0 16 �78 SE 2nd PI 3 ._.--1_ - 4- - 288 LW 317 �! 314 1 327 fY 3-287 149 \ dL V 1333 339 I60 tY 162 _ I B' 31 8. 37 8• • �6 316 3 e3L 1' L1 274 801 B' 276 ti' ao R 165 291 % 31 3 31726 285 281 282 i� 1 3 10 3 75 no+I, 61. 7 I50 •� �330 f g 159 257 260� 2 e• 29 8' 7 •t 298 151 315 31�, 8'�3�/3 3 57 �• I58 82/ N1 w 2p g (D 85 290 295 303 11- 52 12• 823 2 i /2 819 8� 18 g q 289 _ 1 262 255 /1 821 24 17 to -17 i84 300 V 301 5 d 145 3 251 B, 16 B' 1k $'53 302 .:< , /6 252 31 2 RIO-18 18 4 825 217 303 155 - zp a D � 1 305 R 9 RIO-23 "RIO 24 91 W 269 218 32 RIO-25 , S /, 37 30.1 306 R10-20 RIO R10-22 2 7T 27 1, 5 7 •. �t� / ' RI°Rio- IV SF 6 �• Conceptual Alignment of h w '° 2, 1y 23 � �'w•d New 10-Inch Sewer -- 2 � .r 25.it -A�;�Installed via 21 Directional Drilling 20 'J� ]2 JY -� RIO- 1'6 79 �gp•'� 4/ V" 19 �� + v 80 \�J 17� Pic-? 1-�-y♦ ENSINGTON CREST RI°-30 809 40 i 2s9 8' LIFT STATION 6 5 262 g 2`i 25�- 3 L-33 � 20~'� 17 _:6 0, 255R RIO-. A / 19 251 10-32 250 3 30 16 • ►- � 8• 252 9 248 249 -_q2,/ 216 RIO-3, V 247 #el, 1 - 2 • R 213 12 In LEGEND �5 • �46239 - 2,0 1 2,1 _ e 1 I• Study Area Boundary RIO, ' ° _ RIO-� Mini -Basin Boundaries 7 Upsize to 12-inch Diameter Pipes 10 9 1 0-38 fi• New 10-inch Diameter Pipe �` 0 201 `o 21° �-� a zn 200 206 216 � •^ • 5 IB 202 203 1. 19�17 207 215 R10- ,� 12 20, 210 213 RIO-/I RIO-/2 i� ----�---- - ♦ --♦- +. 819 107 169 8 810 06 2. 951 168• 815 113 809 ' 11, W 8t3 Z 148 149 0 1,7 0 SE 132 d St 807 r 806 U NTS w w 805 U36 Q aa/ _j SE 136th St O �{ C? O j l m U..1 7k J IlJ Qt I m o II I' y C w °D 01 :E� �L3:C� C ,n y co °? U) ` ` O x a N m H LT OA C - C SE �4AStSt c Lu WC SE 142nd St LLJ U) L W Lll 0 0 N n U7 N coN�a c m3 oa ;U° — Cn L) LL+�ai a o m Cn m••..i75 • - T.� 107 % 30 p 201 m i 28 128 121 120 -- - - -- - - 102 t03� 2P �015 &., •78 r I log 8, ..,. -. ♦ Big Y(2 ? t 810 51 Jt ii 1 169 1 7/ BIO 06 31 9 b 89 iR + 801 4q 325 I LL% - 270 'S2 �271 I2 168♦ • 143 3 W6 t •13, 307 701 z �. Co?8,: 3 r N E 'd Vt 34 n ♦88 U 3A 815 BO9 4455 3 144 9, I40 39 306 R28 - 0 ! 207 54 a. % cf) 17U U) W 113 48 321 C I J 26 IF n f � ,� .I z 1,8 32 2,• 829 31, 23' 319 2 I 59 s- +♦58.°ill m 119 827 m 0320 71 i 308 208 803 85 r 831 QJ7j v7� vs - Ow324 t325j ar, 72 E 2nd St 11 :Gva, L V2B' 60 _ —_93 '-�14 73 'C 16I� 7 1 i. •-----�-'• H '� g 213 817 802 .8' 92 _. � ►� 5 92�--f78+ I7 (' SE 132 d St 807A 1� w 1630 •. 1/2 i� ..-"286 1� �/ I 10 67 ♦ 10' 88 2 21 p 8l8 2 6: 12• •6 g 816 °2 191 aD ' 2'• ty28 1. 1 89 803 189 I , ENE % 662 ae9 '� j173 �. 1„ T 282 203 74 I f 2 2 93 {92 76 75 9 7 SfA Q � IS � 283 � � � � 63 8, Q � 806 171 b 175� ; �,,� 281 -)I I �� 2 227 �'F % • ' 61 57 �' 182,N T S mU3 W 0 • 102 2 m 79 52 S E 1st PI 56 195 18 W W ( %l. 2os Is n, 201 \ 1701 I76 '6 r10] ♦309 8.53 49 42 44 E 1 81 805 W 169 I77 7 206 76 �1 1 228 51 50 8' 8• 45 L' IB t" Q i" b Q 168 I R 1 96 I� 26 Ev F teen U 3 B 317 829 291 829 17� I80 ! jO) 81, 5, 55 I 4 �' 181 •- 292T�F it �°! i � A 312 .3,1 �77 �V - 232 222 38 B' IB �4� ."` W. 179 \.,. 31a 4 6 1•q 0 i N 803 Q 295� g ?a31 a 148 *313 4. SE 2nd pl (lI �r ❑ r 2 19 74 32.8 .3.227 -- r 332- 78 3s , 23 SE 1 36th St .19 � z96a. 28] ^g 333 12 162 1 0' 31 8. 33 Y 287 4166 \ 316 329 , 339 S! 160 I `. 801 8' 8' C) a� _ o 286 8. b at %165 291 29 % A 334 3 °P 337 39 ,0, 776 75 26 2 N 11 c) 8 285 28, 282 8, i B2 >i< 3 �� 6 _ If P I' J 261 61. I50 �' 330 33°4' 34 159 257 N,0Ljrr 8, Z O f.� 2 83 97 X 2 28 7 rJ'� / g G N m L C. 290 b 2%I51 315 3„ 1M 313 3, 57 �, 158 82/ 241 W 20 g (O % 295 303 1' W l I � 2 ,2 819 S, y� N y a ai I i L W • � � 299 301 256 255 " 821 21 16 17 if SE 10 vj n i84 = 5 b is zsl §g r c m v x 153 46 252 31 Q�r a N m F 1i �"p`'"• 305 R 9 RIO-23 RIO-24 94 ••87 '(� 36 W269 2,8 32 4 — �- RID-25 U �� 37 3066 RI0-20 RI0 -22 2 19 27 tS 12' 5 7 R10- R10- b 8' � 38 m0- S'F� 0 39 'c 1g1st St c h 2/ 15. 23 ,a 2 5 SF W mc PIC P 2' SE 142nd St = 3 R1Ui 0- 7 20 79 4/0''. � i 1, 6 19 8 b W ,, W W 5 0 m Q 1' Q Q Q RI .6 4' 6 O C • • ENSINGTON CREST RIO 30 `h C7 e59 e. 262 LIFT STATION k' °960g z56 3 L-33 . ..' 20 17 6 25, C 2554 RIO-. !� • '0•� A 10-32 O ro 251 .3250 U1 30 1e g 252 248 249 2„ T Qi 246 g U7 2,7 e� 1 RIO-3, .'2 4 2,3 -� O = LL O �5 12 0 2,2 4, 6 1 c 3 a o� LEGEND 239 241 r 240 rL o W f i o 0 L CDStudy Area Boundary RIO 4-W R10 „ G i �` 0+ R , E Mini -Basin Boundaries V Q/Qfull Greater Than 1.2 10 9 10-38 r� 3 Q/Qfull Between 1.0 and 1.2 2r e 7 / 218 �� e� 201 II 217 3' r v+ L Q/Qfull Between 0.8 and 1.0 266 202 206 216 F: 5 Q/QfUll Between 0.6 and 0.8 17 2�230 �207 215 R10- RI°_„ r 20 dl (> 209 210 213 a RIO-42 a 75_-y.. .-- m 128 '7TB z4' 30 2D1 2D2 28 102 103 121 Izo 24• •. _i--..-�-- % kGz �' - •78 202 98 ♦ 7r B' I 62 N I(tt 109 r I10 8• 178 --�--- - - -- +-"819 1107 f BIO Z9 51 • - t, I 169 810 06 ,474 31 9 b 89 m .. � 801 95�. �..... I ! Z 270 271 II2 U 3A 168� 815 143 .� 806 3o5 B' r � ea 73 7 t -0134 307 � J 53 NE R• h �326 �._ _� 24• Q I g 55 87 IN �v 139 ' 306 830 B28 44 ° = • 4 57 W 813 321 140 1 B� C 4 7 •b �� ;� 2 Z 148 24' 319 0 58 314 3 827 cC 59 � a.149 �� 320 G 308 208 803 85 8. 83 Q•179 177• 175 > 174 0 147 `1 324� b► 72 E 2nd St I N (C_; Va. 5• 5� L U 326Ti287 - 213 4 &?- 60 93 C75-R 1211 173 ' 62 817 95 r- — SE 132 A 164 % - *.- 1---�'�-- f-♦ g 1Q W2 8' 92 92 178 17 d St 01 42 Sf��ycp-y zes to 6r to as 2 zI o 8 66 12 W 163 0`/ _( 286 �.-_.4• !1I R i 2 0 191 816 2 . 281 6/ 89 ~ 16 59 189 t 63 188 143 803 173 l44 ♦ 28z �3 7/ 6• Cie 2 93 92 76 �� 9 's'75 7 62 m 8' Q �IIS 2 1 71 Q L jj 283 af-� 8D4 B' 8' 8 1824806 -p 7/ b 17, � 284 r �� 6• 91 b 80 4 61 �87 O171 ,' •j r 19 2 2 227 79 /�y 57 lt.Jd" �' w W N T S /( 56 SE 1st PI..'es 18 (n 75 E I70 204 .A---- 176 •f I81 309 52 49 42 E I Ir - jr 53 44 805 LU 169 7' 6 206 76 228 51 50 II �- ♦r R 168 n•^ , 1 t' /b °2 96 26 EV r teen ss 5 `7 I U 3 B a 317 829 291 828 174 jl 814 y4 I 4 8. I81 291�-f--• �, 2t. �2 311 46 77 232 222 38 9• 48�aQ m t 292 ?6 289 r 179 \,. b - 310 >•y C 4 804 a 295 g• _ 81 i 178 14B 313 161 78 �'� - a, •T ,;9 3317 3z r 332 0 e � �S E 2nd PI 4 23^ - � SE 136th St 7 296 •}283 0287 +1 ?1� 316 3➢) 333 3� .. I� I Ci 1 8' 3I 8. 33 8. 801 8• 8' sl `'� O 165 291 29 % 3.3 R 337 40, 36 75 26 2 j82 • p MO � i. 330 36 .3 159 257 ` 29 30 7 g `a Z. O 7 26 �1 p 87 2% b 2%;: 729e Isl 341 8'343 34 57 '0 158 260 824 241 b 42 82i m g 19 J 20 g i1 I > y �] 289 295 >r{ 152 12• 1 I 25s 823 2 441 8821 17 � N Q � aD 262 24 C �h (�i 2" 256 16 g .7� V � Iz loll I �C-. Z, �(i � 300 B' Al b /S 251 8' Ir > 4V � -17 +� _ 5 43 N IF IL CD X 4 46 252 33 2 CG (�� d 302 R10-IB •_ti 18 W W .74 303 155 ...2p B25 247 Wjj 4 C _ 305 R 9 RID-23 (R10-24 94 8 W 269 . . - `� 248 32 1 - V Qi RID-25 4 7} V 306� R,0-20 RIO-22 I 2 Lr 27 Iy g. 5 7 Sth C 304 RID- RIO- ^ 6 8• -9 38� X 0 �, F h 10 SE �Q1st St c 24 15• 2339 ,4: 2 w A f RIO-2 Cf' 4t. b 11. 114 —_ 21 SE 142nd St = 12 W b V ((� c� ai O Iq 7� 8 � � � � N Q 17 14 g Q >Q 7 R 7c 16 RID-30 � ENSINGTON CREST , � "It zs9 262 LIFT STATION 4 6 ,5 2% 254 3 L-33 RIO-31 g, A 20 �` 16 Or 255 RID A 04 _ • R 251 10 32 .Q 250 30 ,' 18 252 U7 I� 9 i.► '.; 20 249 246 'li ,244 247 RIO-34 612 = (/� 243 I 128 • t o 825 242t • 'yT 4 3 •� LEGEND o 239 2,+.._-s----9z4D 1 N 0 E 4)i 8 Y. Study Area Boundary RlD R1D Note: Shaded p o r A N Mini -Basin Boundaries pipe experiences N 11111111� Moderately Surcharging * �' /1+ 10-38 moderate surcharging and Pipe 2& B replacement may be unnecessary if 201 IL 11 21� 217 2p 6 City is willing to pay increased V' ,s IB 202 203 207 216 Ny 5 maintenance costs. 0 19 �• 17 12 215 RIO- R10-41 �^ 20 dL 4204 209 210 213 R10-12 Attachment A December 2006 ATTACHMENT A Scenario No. 1 Heather Downs 2001 Model Results City of Renton Heather Downs Sewer System Analysis [feet] 181000.0 180500.0 180000.0 a a 179500.0 a I 1 179000.0 178500.0-, 178000.0 177500.0 176500.0 176000.0 1307000.0 1308000.0 1309000.0 1310000.0 ■ 1.20 < 1.00 1.20 ■ 0.80 1.00 ■ 0.60 0.80 < 0.60 Q / Q-manning - Maximum Heather Downs 2001.PRF . o o -,--r-�-ram,— 1311000.0 1312000.0 1313000.0 [feet] �bP Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs 2001.PRF Discharge 0.000 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 [0.0001 0.000 1 1 1 I 0.000 I 0.000 I cfsl G` ON " l' `l,'� c1,0 N°b N0 N1 [feet] G Q-0`5 �`5 0`5 �`5 �0�00 �`5 �0�00 �00 �00 ^00 ^00 �00 65.0 f l � �, 64.0 t 63.0 it �1 Ij 62.0 61.0 a 60.0 i 59.0 _ 58.0 a 57.0 ' I 56.0 - T, - 7--T-T 0.0 500.0 1000.0 Ground Lev. � (q Iq Iq m N (D Ln (O Ln Ln (O (0 Ln (0 Invert lev. (q rn CO U Ln Ln Ln Ln co (O L) Ln ti Ln Length 218.01 409.81 349.87 Diameter 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 Slope o/oo 1.56 12.05 1.49 1.40 � 1500.0 2000.0 2500.0 1:0 [feet] (NO 19 cNo (ND C19 1P cNo cNo [ml Ln (O Ln Ln (O (D Ln Ln (O (D Ln Ln co (0 0 (0 rn 7 v m - rn M [ml ti Ln � 00 Ln Ln 00 00 Ln Ln 00 00 Ln Ln Ln 182.72 242.48 206.68 281.63 [m] 1.25 1.25 1.25 ' 1.25' 1.25 1.25 1.25 [ml 1.42 1.58 1.40 1.44 1.23 2.08 1.78 Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs 2001.PRF Discharge 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 cfs L [feet] �`0IZ, �`o1z, '.�O��f �rO�� `O��^ �COR,�� 69.0 68.0 67.0 66.0 _ 65.0 64.0 63.0 62.0 Ii 61.0 60.0 I I 1 1 1 1 1 T- T-T ,-,ITT--1 11 1 - 0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0 700.0 800.0 900.0 1:0 [feet] Ground Lev. (N°. 1P � N [m] U') (a co LO (0 Ui Ui (o (0 Invert lev. U') 00 N 7 (D U? M [m] a) (n o (O C) (O (0 Cfl Length 220.50 219.87 209.91 79.38 235.29 [m] Diameter 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.83 [m] Slope o/oo 1.22 2.00 4.43 1.51 3.78 Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs 2001.PRF Discharge 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 cfs NrO1Z,1§1 �cO" �cOO��O [feet] 360.0 350.0 340.0 330.0 320.01 1 310.0 300.0 0.0 200.0 Ground Lev. rn CR 0) N Invert lev. ti 00 v rn N Length 202.37 Diameter 0.83 Slope o/oo 54.90 ti rn 00 N U-) _N CO CO 00 00 rn rn 0 0 CO M 136.77 7.31 400.0 I 1 1 600.0 800.0 1:0 00 N 00 cM M M CO N LO r� co 0 0 CY) M 322.32 193.93 0.83 0.83 2.30 4.80 1000.0 1200.0 1400.0 1600.0 [feet] M o I� Im] M coo M M M 00 Co 04 Cl? Im] N N M CO 398.34 204.40 192.65 [m] 0.83 0.83 0.83 [m] 29.70 33.46 160.91 Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs 2001.PRF Discharge 10.000 10.000 10.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Icfs N�pp ��pp �hpp ��p� ��p^ ��p� ��p� ��Q) p`L p`L ��p� �pb �� pb ��p��p� �hp�^�p`o [feet] h� �� 5 395.0 390.0 385.0 380.0 375.0 370.0 365.0 - 360.01 0.0 R 1 Ground Lev. rn C) 'IT00 CO o (M ('M M Invert lev. (V 06 M CO CO (n 6 (n o (D M CO cM Length 309.95 274.901 Diameter 0.83 0.83 0.83 Slope o/oo 3.26 3.67 3.85 -T T-77- r-r7- - 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0 2500.0 3000.0 3500.0 4000.0 1:0 [feet] 00 00 U") 00 O (D O lzr rl_ (f) r-- N r- 00 U') 00 It CO M LO O (f) 00 - r1- O 00 O 00 V CO M N t1- r-- r- 00 .4 00 rl_ O t` O r- r rl- CO [m] M M CO CO cM Cl) M M CO CO CO CO (n O N O N (O U-) M O N O) O 'ITC0 N d) r- N � cD N (0 () cD v (f� cD cD cD t` cD 06 (D 00 (D 6 (D ti C6 q4 r.- rl- 7 [m] CO M Ce) CO CO M ('M M M CO CO CO (M 459.29 465.55 359.46 286.26 352.99 289.15 [m] 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 [m] 2.61 2.43 1.75 4.12 2.15 5.47 3.54 3.84 Attachment B M M M M M M M M M M M M M M r [feet] i 181000.0 180500.0 180000.0 179500.0 J 179000.0 1 178500.0 178000.0 _1 177500.0 i 177000.0 176500.0 176000.0 ■ 1.20 < 1.00 1.20 ■ 0.80 1.00 ■ 0.60 0.80 < 0.60 Q / Q-manning - Maximum Heather Downs No U3.PRF 0 0 0 c 0 0 0 0 v o c u o o J OU O �� C,00 O .. C J O O O 0 00 ° u a o 01 41 p a u o 0 0 occ 0 0co 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 1307000.0 1308000.0 1309000.0 1310000.0 1311000.0 1312000.0 1313000.0 1314000.0 [feet] �P Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs No U3.PRF Discharge I I I c0.000 I 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 I0.0001 0.000 1 1 1 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 cfsl pp pp`l. ppp &1 pip p�b pVR pip p�ti pc� pro ,��° ,pro NQ5 pip pip pip p�1 '�r° ,pro ,pro [feet] G*pro Q-�`� �`� �`� p`� �3 �`� �`� 1 `1 hp 4 hp 4P hp hp - n 65.0 III 64.0 63.0 62.0 1 61.0 J 60.0 � 59.0 I J 58.0 � 57.0 I 56.0 0.0 500.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0 2500.0 1:0 [feet] Ground Lev. � N cD N N CD cD N N m N N cD cD N N cD (q CV (q N co N (P (m] NU-) CD (0 U) U) CO CD CD In CO U1 U7 CO CD U7 V) CD CO U') (D U') CD U') (D Invert lev. U) co 0) rn M CD Cl? Lq f` CD 1P N N rn r CD N ? (P r` P- N rn CP) M [m] U-) LO Co co U� U ti U') r; 00 LO LO 00 00 U) U') co U') 00 U') of LO Length 218.01 409.81 349.87 182.72 242.48 206.68 281.63 [m] Diameter 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 11.25, 1.25 11.251 1.25 1 1.25 1.25 [m] Slope o/oo 1.56 2.05 1.49 1.40 1.42 1.58 1.40 1.441 1.23 2.08 1.78 Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs No U3.PRF Discharge 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 cfs [feet] 4�5 4P �`� �� 4P MOR 68.0 67.0 66.0 65.0 64.0 63.0 62.0 61.0 _ 60.0 0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0 700.0 800.0 900.0 1:0 [feet] Ground Lev. 1P (q m N 1P [m] (0 Invert lev. to O0 N - C0 U� 0 N: C-q Im] of LO o c0 o CO �- c0 .- CO Length 220.50 219.87 209.91 79.38 235.29 [m] Diameter 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.83 [m] Slope o/oo 1.22 2.00 4.43 1.51 3.78 Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs No U3.PRF Discharge 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 cfs N�0�1 ��0�� [feet] 360.0 MIN 340.0 330.0 320.0 310.0 qIII1I011111111 0.0 200.0 Lev. rn a° r-- 00 0)Ground 0) 0) lL) N N CO M Invert lev. 1� °0 00 O' CO O' rn LO O co O N CO CO Length 202.37 136.77 Diameter 0.83 0.83 Slope o/oo 54.90 7.31 400.0 600.0 1000.0 1200.0 1400.0 1600.0 800.0 1:0 [feet] 00 N Cl? MCq Cl? f� (0 [m] CO CY) cM M M C'M N ti r; In Iq O v 0 N Cl? Im] O 00 O N N CO CO M M 322.32 193.93 398.34 204.40 192.65 [m] 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 [m] 2.30 4.80 29.70 33.46 160.91 _ Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs No U3.PRF Discharge 10.000 10.000 10.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 10.00010.0001 0.000 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10.000 1 cfs N `L O tx O `L ^ `ti "� O P O 00 00 00 ON ON ON O� 00' 00' 00' Off` Cab r (r Ot�`� O� O� 00 OHO [feet] h0 h0 h0 h� h0 h0 h0 h� �`� h0 h� h h�, Ile O h h� h0 h0 �O 395.0 n 390.0 385.0 380.0 375.0 370.0 365.0 360.0 M 77 71 --T-T-T-T-T- I -T l - '- r-r-r-r- -T--T - 500.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0 2500.0 3000.0 3500.0 4000.0 1:0 Ground Lev. rn v 00 m U-) o M M co Invert IE'V. N M - 00 u7 6 (f') 6 (D M (`') M Length 309.95 274.901 Diameter 0.83 0.83 0.83 Slope Woo 3.26 3.67 3.85 co 00 00 (O O N co 00 00 U) r- L(7 O r- U7 V M O o ai ri (v CC) 00 00 r` r- r` 00 ti� r- m M ('M c7 M cM M M M M M M O M (V LO M O O .- N v N (0 N It CY) � 00 O) rl- r N oO 06 6 - (0 (o (0 co (fl (o (o (o (.o (o M M M M M co M M M M ('7 459.29 465.55 359.46 286.26 352.99 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 2.61 2.43 1.75 4.12 2.15 5.47 3.54 [feet] Ui 00 [m] r- 00 co ('M M (N [m] M M 289.15 [m] 0.67 [m] 3.84 Attachment C' December 2006 ATTACHMENT C Scenario No. 3 Heather Downs Ultimate Model with Mini- Basin U3A Results City of Renton Heather Downs Sewer System Analysis [feet] 181000.0 180500.0 180000.0 179500.0 179000.0 178500.0 1 178000.0 177500.0 177000.0 176500.0 ir . e 11111 ■ ■ 1.20 < 1.00 1.20 ■ 0.80 1.00 ■ 0.60 0.80 < 0.60 Q / Q-manning - Maximum Heather Downs UIt.PRF n r- 0 1307000.0 1308000.0 1309000.0 1310000.0 1311000.0 1312000.0 1313000.0 1314000.0 [feet] 0- Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs Ult.PRF Discharge 40.000 0.000 1 0.000 10.000 10.0001 0.000 I I I I 0.000 I 0.000 I cfs `l`O 04' ti� do 0,ti 0O �°' �o N1 ,c ^00 �00 �00 �oO �(0 �00 �0- �00 �00 �00 ^00 ^oo �00 �00 [feet] <h� hN hN h� h� h� h� ho 65.0 -1 - I n n. 64.0 62.0 - 61.0 - - I 60.0 59.0 58.0 57.0 56.0 -1 0.0 500.0 Ground Lev. V v N Iq N N M c0 N (0 LO (0 CO CO Invert lev. LO CO M c0 M 'f' LO Sri co co LO U-) Length 218.01 Diameter 1.25 1.25 Slope o/oo 1.56 2.05 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0 2500.0 1:0 [feet] N c0 N CO N N CO c0 N N (0 c0 N c0 cV c0 N c0 [m7 L6 c0 lf) c0 LO c0 c0 l!7 6 CO c0 L6 c0 6 c0 6J c0 t� c0 (0 N N M - (0 N It c0 r- r-- N d') LO co [m7 LO r` U-) r� ao U-) LO co o6 LO LO of LO co L 6 11 409.81 349.87 182.72 242.48 1 206.68 281.63 [m] 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 [m] 1.49 1.40 1.42 1.58 1.40 1.44 1.23 2.08 1.78 Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs Ult.PRF Discharge 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 cfs ��O ^�O ��O [feet] �` �`� �� 4;5 69.0 68.0 67.0 66.0 65.0 64.0 63.0 62.0 61.0 - 60.0 0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0 700.0 800.0 900.0 1:0 [feet] Ground Lev. N CP N 0 Ln (D Uri 0 Invert lev. U*) CC! N T7 rn 0 o 0 Length 220.50 219.87 Diameter 1.00 1.00 Slope o/oo 1.22 2.00 N GO N I CD 1 [m] Sri 0 � (0 �ci 0 (O �n 0') v cfl [m] o 0 r- 0 0 209.91 79.38 235.29 [m] 1.00 0.83 0.83 [m] 4.43 1.51 3.78 Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs Ult.PRF Discharge 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 cfs N0000 �0- �0000 �`OO�h ^`Oe Nb1z, �N`300. [feet] 360.0 350.0 340.0 330.0 320.0 310.0 300.0 0.0 200.0 400.0 600.0 -_ 800.0 1000.0 1200.0 1400.0 1600.0 1:0 [feet] Ground Lev. M 00 C9 `l� CO °O N C1 CM I? I� o O) 0) LO N e-- M v O fM CO CO [m] N M M M CO M M Invert lev. °p rn O' C° Cl? 0) O O CD CD N N [m] N M cM M CO M CY) Length 202.37 136.77 322.32 193.93 398.34 204.40 192.65 [m] Diameter 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 [m] Slope o/oo 54.90 7.31 2.30 4.80 29.70 33.46 160.91 Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs Ult.PRF Discharge 10.000 1 0.000 10.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 10.000 10.00010.0001 0.000 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10.000 1 1 cfs tx ti '� `L O rx 1 � F P [feet] ��00 ��00 ��00 ��0� ��0� ��0� ��0� ��0� ��0� �h0� h�h6 ��OD��Od �� P �O��O� ��0��00 395.0 n 390.0 385.0 I 380.0 � 375.0 I 370.0 a 365.0 360.0 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.0 500.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0 2500.0 3000.0 3500.0 4000.0 1:0 [feet] Ground Lev. 6) CO � 00 00 LO 00 00 LO 00 CDrl- CO O 'IT(V U) r 00 00 00 LO LC) It O LC) 00 t` o co v ti o rl- 6 00 of CO v CO ri cli r-- rl- r` 00 v o0 6 6 r-- rl- r1- rl- r; r- 1 o Im] CO CO CM CO M CO M M M CO M M CO CO CO M Invert lev. N cM m CO V M O N 0) � CV CO LO (M O CO N d7 c - 'IT 00 m r CO N 'IT 7 CO LO LO O Cfl �- M N CO M Cfl 14 6 L6 r� M CO cD CO o6 CO O Cfl CO Cfl C6 rl I.m] M CO CO M M CO CO CO M M CO M CO M M M Length 309.95 274.90 459.29 465.55 359.46 286.26 352.99 ' 289.151 [m] Diameter 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 [m] Slope o/oo 3.26 3.67 3.85 2.61 2.43 1.75 4.12 2.15 5.47 3.54 3.84 Attachment D December 2006 ATTACHMENT D Scenario No. 4 Heather Downs Ultimate Model without Additional 25% Population Density Results City of Renton Heather Downs Sewer System Analysis [feet] 181000.0 180500.0 180000.0 179500.0 179000.0 178500.0 178000.0 177500.0 177000.0 ■ 1.20 < 1.00 1.20 ■ 0.80 1.00 ■ 0.60 0.80 < 0.60 Q / Q-manning - Maximum Heather Downs Ult-Ex Population.PRF c O o C J O O Cl G v J G 4 0 o G �° o0 n 0 , 0 0y o o ro c O G p o 0 G� o c `— r �� '� -G O C' 176500.0 176000.0 1307000.0 1308000.0 1309000.0 1310000.0 1311000.0 1312000.0 1313000.0 1314000.0 [feet] R?* Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs Ult-Ex Population.PRF Discharge 0.000 0.000 10.000 10.000 10.0001 0.0001 F7 10.0001 0.0001 cfs 0�10,\0 ON� ON1 G* Nq ,pro ^qo Nq ,��o '��° '��° N '��° ,pro [feet] Q-�� 4P h1 �� h� �� p 65.0 64.0 63.0 62.0 61.0 60.0 59.0 58.0 57.0 56.0 0.0 500.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0 2500.0 1:0 [feet] Ground Lev. v N Iq N (V (q (q N (q N N (V m co m N N (q (q N N m (q N Iq [m] N CO (n CD (n (n (D CD (C) CO LO (n (n (O (D (O U(l V) co (O LO In (0 (D (n Co Invert lev. LO (° 0) 0� CO (0 M Lq I,- r CO N (V Iq rn r CO N ;' (q Il- N r� CT LO Cl? [m] LO In (0 CO t` r- 00 00 00 00 00 M Length 218.01 409.81 349.87 182.72 242.48 206.68 281.63 [m] Diameter 1.25 1.25, 1.25 1.25 1.25 11.251 1.25 11.251 1.25 1 1.25 1.25 [m] Slope o/oo 1.56 2.051.49 1.40 1.42 1.58 1.40 1.44, 1.23 2.08 1.78 Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs Ult-Ex Population.PRF Discharge 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 cfs [feet] 69.0 68.0 I 67.0 1 1 66.0 65.0 64.0 7 63.0 62.0 61.0 - - 7 60.0 0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0 700.0 800.0 900.0 1:0 [feet] N N N f� Ground Lev. Iq (° co LO U") LO U') U"i co co co co co LO N co rn Invert lev. 00 T' Lq C° [m] ai o o LO co co co co Length 220.50 219.87 209.91 79.38 235.29 [m] Diameter 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.83 [m] Slope o/oo 1.22 2.00 4.43 1.51 3.78 Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs Ult-Ex Population.PRF Discharge 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 cfs 11 [feet] 4�5 ,AFn n 350.0 340.0 330.0 320.0 310.0 300.0 � 0.0 200.0 Ground Lev. rn °O r- o) O0 `" d) � CV N M M Invert lev. r` aO CD CO °) °) rn 0 0 N M CO Length 202.37 136.77 Diameter 0.83 0.83 Slope o/oo 54.90 7.31 400.0 600.0 800.0 1000.0 1:0 CO CO N Cl? M � C'M cM N r` In co r; 0 00 0 CO CM 322.32 193.93 398.34 0.83 0.83 0.83 2.30 4.80 29.70 1200.0 1400.0 1600.0 [feet] (M o CO Iml CO CO CO CO CO N Orrl- [ml N N CY) CM 204.40 192.65 [m] 0.83 0.83 [m] 33.46 160.91 Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs Ult-Ex Population.PRF Discharge 10.000 10.000 10.0001 0.000 0.000 10.000 10.000 0.000 0.000 0.0001 1 1 1 1 1 1 10.0001 1cfs ��O N�O ^4� h0 N�O [feet] h� �� h� 395.0 390.0 385.0 380.0 375.0 370.0 365.0 . i ig11111110- 0.0 500.0 Ground Lev. rn v CO CD c.0 It r 6 r-- M M M Invert lev. N 00 CO M Mo Ln U') CO CO Cl) CO Length 309.95 274.90 Diameter 0.83 0.83 0.83 Slope o/oo 3.26 3.67 3.85 l I I I fI II III'I I it n ' i I � ff II i I 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0 2500.0 3000.0 3500.0 1:0 00 00 Ln CO CO O N 00 Ln 00 d 00 U') M O O 00 0) 00 CO e') N r- � rl- 00 ti r- r- O rl- CY) M M M M CO M M M CO M N CO N M 00 07 � CO N c0 M c.0 V Ln CO CO 6 CO CO 00 c0 00 CO 6 � c0 r- M CO M M M M M CM CO M M 459.29 465.55 359.46 286.2611 352.99 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 2.61 2.43 1.75 4.12 2.15 5.47 3.54 4000.0 [feet] CO [m] M M CO CN [m] f� ti M M 289.15 [m] 0.67 [m] 3.84 Attachment E December 2006 ATTACHMENT E Alternative A Upsizing Existing Pipes Ultimate Model Results City of Renton Heather Downs Sewer System Analysis [feet] 181000.0 180500.0 I:IIIN us 179500.0 Iwo if -XIII 178000.0 177500.0 177000.0 176500.0 `F101iI1I1][ii Q / Q-manning - Maximum Heather Downs Ult Alt 1 w Add Imp.PRF ■ 1.20 < 1.00 1.20 ■ 0.80 1.00 ■ 0.60 0.80 < 0.60 1307000.0 •Q o o u .�.v o o c 8 p � O ot3 O O 00_„� �,..�" o P o 'p o o a o c 1308000.0 1309000.0 1310000.0 1311000.0 1312000.0 1313000.0 1314000.0 [feet] Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs Ult Alt 1 w Add Imp.PRF Discharge Q� 0.000 0.000 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1 1 1 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 cfs C` 00' 00 G 0'� *� N00 �00 ^00 �00 [feet] IgwW �`5 4` 1 �`5 �`� �`� 4`3 65.0 i 64.0 63.0 62.0 61.0 60.0 59.0 58.01 57.0 56.0 ' 0.0 500.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0 v Ground Lev. N cc U') Invert lev. Iq LO LO Length Diameter Slope o/oo 2500.0 1:0 [feet] N Cfl N N CO cfl N co CV 19 N N 19 CD N N (fl cfl CV N co co cV Cfl [m] U') CO LO U') CO CO Uri CO LO Cfl ui LO CO CD LO V) CD CO LO Sri CO CO Uri Co 0) O� co CO cM U? cc co N N rn - CO N er CD I- (N Il- 0) U') co [m] 218.01 409.81 349.87 182.72 242.48 206.68 281.63 [m] 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 [m] 1.56 2.05 1.49 1.40 1.42 1.58 1.40 1.44 1.23 2.08 1.78 Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs Ult Alt 1 w Add Imp.PRF Discharge 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 cfs [feet] �`�� '` ��N1 h 69.0 68.0 I 67.0 66.0 65.0 I 64.0 I I -- 63.0 -- 62.0 61.0 60.0 0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0 700.0 800.0 900.0 1:0 [feet] Ground Lev. IR 1 N o [m] (D CD (0 (( c0 c0 Invert lev. LO C N o (D o 0') Nt C9 [m] U') CD CO CD (D Length 220.50 219.87 209.91 79.38 235.29 [m] Diameter 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 [m] Slope o/oo 1.22 2.00 4.43 1.51 3.78 Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs Ult Alt 1 w Add Imp.PRF Discharge 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 cfs NqP [feet] <o. 360.0 - 350.0 340.0 330.0 7 320.0 -1 TILIX1.' 91111 101 0.0 200.0 Ground Lev. rn 00 � rn °O `*� � � N N CO CO Invert lev. ti C� M CO M °' v rn � csj o 0 N M M Length 202.37 136.77 Diameter 0.83 1.00 Slope o/oo 54.90 7.31 77- -,-T- -r T , 400.0 600.0 800.0 1:0 CO N CO M M M (V LO � co Co 0 0 M CO 1000.0 1200.0 1400.0 M r- cyo o (6 M CM M CO CO N tt CO o r` N N M CO 1600.0 [feet] [m] 322.32 193.93 398.34 204.40 192.65 1.25 1.25 0.83 0.83 0.83 2.30 4.80 29.70 33.46 160.91 [m] [m] [m] Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs Ult Alt 1 w Add Imp.PRF Discharge 10.000 10.000 10.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 10.000 10.00010.0001 0.000 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10.000 cfs p'� (9 O� N tx N ,�`L r� 0`l' 110 `1, p1 bF' r� rr tn5 Ilk 4j h� h0 coo NCO O O ^�O ^� ^�O [feet] �5 h� �� ^� �� 395.0 390.0 385.0 380.0 375.01 370.0 365.0 360.0 0.0 500.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0 2500.0 1:0 Ground Lev. C� 'IT a0 COCO LO � CD O CO It r- O r- O 00 00 1q' CO CM rl- N rl_ r-- M M M M M M M CO CO Invert lev. N M M M M M N M N CO LO CV M O V d7 � V) (0 ( (0 � M M M M M M M M M Length 309.95 274.90 � 459.29 465.55 359.46 ' 286.26 Diameter 1.00 0.83 0.83 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 I1.00 1.00 Slope o/oo 3.26 3.67 3.85 2.61 2.43 1.75 4.12 2.15 5.47 3000.0 3500.0 r CO CO CO C6 6 CC) � � M M CO M V CO 6) r; C6 06 0� co (0 ce c0 M CO M M 1.00 1 3.54 4000.0 [feet] U') Ln o •- CO [m] G7 ti rl- ti CO M M CO CO It [m] M V CO CO Cl) 289.15 [m] 0.67 [m] 3.84 December 2006 Ultimate Model Results with Moderate Surcharging Pipe Deduction City of Renton Heather Downs Sewer System Analysis [feet] { 181000.0 1 180500.0 180000.0 179500.0 179000.0 178500.0 178000.0 177500.0 Q / Q-manning - Maximum Heather Downs Ult Alt 1.PRF 0 vG O O O Ci U U 0 0 0 U O O C 0 0 ° ° C,)O K n o ocj O O CO O ° o O 00 6 c o 177000.0 ° o o o c c 0 176500.0 0o o 0 G 176000.0 1307000.0 1308000.0 1309000.0 1310000.0 1311000.0 1312000.0 1313000.0 1314000.0 [feet] ■ 1.20 < 1.00 1.20 ■ 0.80 1.00 ■ 0.60 0.80 < 0.60 bP Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs Ult Alt 1.PRF Discharge I c0.000 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 10.0001 0.000 1 1 1 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 cfs� Q�� C` CO�14' '1.� `L� �1 '1b� ` P �O ,�� ^1 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 feet G*`�� `5� �^ 'S, �'. ON [ Q-h h h h h h h 4 ON� ,�� ,�� h h h h h 65.0 64.0 ' 1 63.0 1 62.0 - - 61.0 1 60.0 j 59.0 JII 58.0 - { 57.0 56.0 1 0.0 V Ground Lev. N Un Invert lev. C° Urn Length Diameter Slope o/oo 500.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0 2500.0 1:0 [feet] N co N N (q (o N (o N cD N N co cq N N cD (o (V N co (D N (o [m] Uri (0 Uri LO (D cc cri (D Uri (O Ur) Ur) (O cD Uri Uri (D (D Uri Ln (O (O LO (D d� rn M (D C� Un .- (D co N � rn (D N 11� cn � N I r` rn LO (h [m] Uri Un (0 (0 Un c) ti Un rl- Un r- 00 Un Un 00 00 Un Uc) 00 00 Un Un 6 Un 218.01 409.81 349.87 182.72 242.48 206.68 281.63 [m] 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 [m] 1.56 2.05 1.49 1.40 1.42 1.58 1.40 1.44 1.23 2.08 1.78 Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs Ult Alt 1.PRF Discharge 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 cfs NA f L N"§b N [feet] ^BOND .�0 69.0 68.0 67.0 66.0 65.0 64.0 -' 63.0 62.0 61.0 60.0 „. 0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0 700.0 800.0 900.0 1:0 [feet] Ground Lev. 1P 1P ( N � [m] Ln co Sri to V) (0 ui ui cfl co Invert lev. tf) 00 N CO U 0 C° [m] of �n o c0 o cfl cp co Length 220.50 219.87 209.91 79.38 235.29 [m] Diameter 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 [m] Slope o/oo 1.22 2.00 4.43 1.51 3.78 Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs Ult Alt 1.PRF Discharge 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 cfs (00�0 ��o�h ^cOo,S� �bo,�^� 1`3 o,�`L �00N [feet] hp 360.0 350.0 340.0 J 330.0 320.0 310.0 300.0 0.0 200.0 400.0 Ground Lev. rn 00 � a0 rn `" O) O U) � N � (V M M Invert lev. rl- 00 CO °' 00 M 4 rn O O N M CO Length 202.37 136.77 322.32 Diameter 0.83 0.83 1.25 Slope o/oo 54.90 7.31 2.30 600.0 800.0 1000.0 1200.0 1400.0 1600.0 1:0 [feet] CO co N M M M I� O [m] M O CO (O M CO M M M N LO CO 00 o N [m] O O N N M CO M CO 193.93 398.34 204.40 192.65 [m] 1.25 0.83 0.83 0.83 [m] 4.80 29.70 33.46 160.91 Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs Ult Alt 1.PRF Discharge 10.000 1 0.000 10.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 10.000 10.00010.0001 0.000 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10.000 1 1 cfs `b p �, '� `L 1 "� F �r �r c`- p �p0 hpp hp0 hp^tx gyp^ h�� hp^ hp`L hp`L �p`L �pik pb Off` p� p� p� pro [feet] 395.0 7 390.0 a 385.0 nn 380.0 a 375.0 370.0 1 365.0 360.0 0.0 500.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0 2500.0 3000.0 3500.0 4000.0 1:0 [feet] Ground Lev. a0 V °0 CO "' CO r` CO "' 00 C) CO � CV rl 00 00 00 U') "' NT M o U-) - M rl- Im] CD (D v r- (D r- 0 00 M 00 � 00 M rl- cli rl- rl- CO v 06 6 6 r` r-- ti r- P-� rl- CO M CO M M M CO M M M M M M M M CO CO Invert lev. N ``) M M � M D) N M (V (D LO N M O (D V - (V � 00 0) rl- CO (V V M Im] 00 rn 0� U-) o co (O c i (D (yi (o .r M (ri (r) P-� CO (D (D 00 06 Oi (D (D (D r- ri rl- v fl- M M cM M M M CO CO M M M M M M (M M Length 309.95 j 274.90 459.29 465.55 359.46 286.26 1 352.99 1289.15 [m] Diameter 0.83 j 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.67 [m] Slope o/oo 3.26 3.67 3.85 2.61 2.43 1.75 1 4.12 2.15 5.47 3.54 I 3.84 Attachment F M M M M M M M M M M M M w M M M M M M December 2006 ATTACHMENT F Alternative B Diverting Flows Ultimate Model Results City of Renton Heather Downs Sewer System Analysis [feet] 181000.0 180500.0 Q / Q-manning - Maximum Heather Downs Ult Alt 2 w Add Imp.PRF ■ 1.20 < 1.00 1.20 ■ 0.80 1.00 ■ 0.60 0.80 < 0.60 180000.0 179500.0 - i 179000.0 c 178500.0 178000.0 177500.0 177000.0 c, 0 0 176500.0 176000.0 ° 0 175500.0 0 175000.0 1307000.0 1308000.0 1309000.0 1310000.0 1311000.0 1312000.0 1313000.0 1314000.0 1315000.0 [feet] 10'; Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs Ult Alt 2 w Add Imp.PRF Discharge 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 cfs NO 1\00 1 � 00 00 00 00' 59 59 00 00' 00' 00' O O O '��O �O �O �O �O �O �O �O �O �O [feet] Q-h� b- h� �� ,'� �,� �,'� �,� �,� �,'� �,� �,� �,� hP 65.0 1 a 64.0 63.0 62.0 61.0 60.0 59.0 a 58.0 a 57.0 56.0 T_--T r - 0.0 500.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0 Ground Lev. ": N CO Ln Invert lev. C° LO Length Diameter Slope o/oo 2500.0 1:0 [feet] N c0 N N co c0 N co N c0 N N CO CO N N co c0 N (V c0 cO N c0 [m] LO CO � � (0 CD LO CO LO (0 LO � CO c0 UD Ln CO (.0 LO Ln (D CO CO M 0) CO CO CO LO rl- CO CO N N 0) - CO N Cr CO ti N rl- 0) Ln M rml 6 (o (6 11i 0 r- LO lf) r� 06 U) LO oo ao LO LO ao Cn LLB U') C6 Lf) L JJ 218.01 409.81 349.87 182.721 242.48 1 j 206.68 281.63 [m] 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 [m] 1.56 2.05 1.49 1.40 1.42 1.58 1.40 11.44 11.23 2.08 1.78 Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs Ult Alt 2 w Add Imp.PRF Discharge 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 cfs N� �Q�Nb �� N(0oN� ��IZ� [feet] 69.0 j 68.0 67.0 J I 66.0 65.0 �I 64.07 63.0 62.0 61.0 - - 60.0 0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 Ground Lev. N 1P Invert lev. 0° M LO Length 220.50 Diameter 1.00 Slope o/oo 1.22 CV N CO CO LO U') N ro r Lq 0 0 (0 c0 219.87 1.00 2.00 500.0 600.0 700.0 800.0 900.0 1:0 [feet] N c0 [m] LO LO CD � e- 19 [m] c0 c0 209.91 79.38 235.29 [m] 1.00 0.83 0.83 [m] 4.43 1.51 3.78 Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs Ult Alt 2 w Add Imp.PRF Discharge 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 cfs [feet] 335.0 330.0 " 325.0 320.0 1 315.0 I 310.0 - - 305.0 - 300.0 � I 295.0 1 - 0.0 200.0 400.0 600.0 800.0 1000.0 1200.0 1400.0 1:0 [feet] Ground Lev. CO o0 `�' Cq 04 M M of LO N �- ri v o M Im] N CO M M M M Invert lev. I� C9 00 O' 00 O' N U) C° 00 ',I: M [m] N MO CO M Length 202.37 136.77 322.32 193.93 398.34 204.40 [m] Diameter 0.83 1.00 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 [m] Slope o/oo 54.90 7.31 2.30 4.80 29.70 33.46 Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs Ult Alt 2 w Add Imp.PRF Discharge 0.000 cfs [feet] �N h 360.0 - -- 340.0 320.0 300.0 280.0 260.0 240.0 220.0 200.0 180.0 160.0 140.0 120.0 100.0 -, 0.0 200.0 400.0 600.0 800.0 1000.0 1200.0 1:0 Ground Lev. r- N 0 Invert lev. Cl? rn Length 1365.84 Diameter 0.83 Slope o/oo 193.27 [feet] [m] Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs Ult Alt 2 w Add Imp.PRF Discharge 10.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 I0.000 I0.000 F6 -66616-6661 6.000 6.600 cfs O� 6, 00 �� `1 ��O ��O ��O ��O [feet] �,� �� hp �5 �� 5 395.0 390.0 385.0 { 1 380.0 375.0 370.0 365.0 360.0 0.0 500.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0 2500.0 3000.0 3500.0 1:0 Ground Lev. 00 T CO 00 "' CO Il_ 00 "' 00 O CD F-- M V `n I- N CO `r' CO 'T CO M LO CD O (D Cf rl- O I` O CO 6 CO V CO M f` N rl- Il- 00 V I` 06 Il- 6 I` 6 I` M CO M M M CO CO CO CO CO CO M M CO Invert lev. N `'' M MC? V 0) N C) v N Cfl LO N M O � CA CO - - 00 N C) � I• 00 tf-) C) In CD c0 Cfl N (0 M cfl V CO LO lf) C0 CO I-� CD CO (0 CO CO 6 CD � r- CO CO CO Cl)M M M M M M M M M M Length 309.95 274.90 459.29 465.55 359.46 1286.26 i 352.99 Diameter 1.00 0.83 0.83 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 j 1.00 1.00 1.00 Slope o/o0 3.26 3.67 3.85 2.61 2.43 1.75 4.12 2.15 5.47 3.54 4000.0 [feet] Ln CO [m] rl- 00 CO M M I- M [m] M M 289.15 [mJ 0.67 [m] 3.84 December 2006 Ultimate Model Results with Moderate Surcharging Pipe Deduction City of Renton Heather Downs Sewer System Analysis [feet] 181000.0 180500.0 180000.0 179500.0 179000.0 178500.0 178000.0 1 - 177500.0 177000.0 1 176500.0 176000.0 ■ 1.20 < 1.00 1.20 ■ 0.80 1.00 ■ 0.60 0.80 < 0.60 Q / Q-manning - Maximum Heather Downs Ult Alt 2.PRF - o c ° 0 0 _ o ° o a 7a..� l? O < o O O �c 0 ° 175500.0 ° ----------- - - 175000.0 1307000.0 1308000.0 1309000.0 1310000.0 1311000.0 1312000.0 1313000.0 1314000.0 1315000.0 [feet] bP Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs Ult Alt 2.PRF Discharge Q�. c0.000 0.000 1 0.000 1 0.000 P.000I 0.000 I 1 I I 0.000 I 0.000 I cfsl C` G ^�O ��O NCO NCO ��O ��O N(6 NCO �QO N�O O � [feet] < -� h5 h� <:5 h� h1 h� h5 h5 65.0 64.0 63.0 62.07 61.0 60.0 59.0 -1 58.0 57.0 I 56.01 0.0 500.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0 2500.0 1:0 [feet] Ground Lev. V N CO N N C° (9 N I N N N (P cP N N 19 Co N M N (fl N Iq [m] N Cfl U-) Cfl U-) U-) CO CO U' CD CD U') U-) CD CD U7 U7 CO CD U) Cfl U-) co U) (fl Invert lev. U7 0) °' M CD °" ' 'n 1� CO � CV N CO N ? (0 f-- ti NU') rn M [m] U� U') LO U') U') U-) LO Ln Length 218.01 409.81 349.87 182.72 242.48 206.68 281.63 [m] Diameter 1.25 11.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 [m] Slope o/oo 1.56 2.05 1.49 1.40 1.42 1.58 1.40 1.44 1.23 2.08 1.78 M Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs Ult Alt 2.PRF Discharge 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 cfs [feet] 4 69.0 68.0 67.0 � 66.0 - 65.0 I 64.063.0-1 I� it I 62.0 -a 61.0 60.0 0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0 700.0 800.0 900.0 1:0 (feet] Ground Lev. co 1 N 1P [m] Ln c0 ui co u i co iti co Uri co Invert lev. u7 OO N Q0 U� d' I: (q (ml a� o o co co Length 220.50 219.87 209.91 79.38 235.29 [m] Diameter 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.83 (m] Slope o/oo 1.22 2.00 4.43 1.51 3.78 Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs Ult Alt 2.PRF Discharge 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 cfs N��0 ��1�roDzti [feet] 335.0 330.0 - - 320.0 315.0 310.0 305.0 300.0 295.0 0.0 200.0 400.0 600.0 800.0 1:0 rn Ground Lev. O N ti Invert lev. v rn N Length Diameter Slope o/oo 202.37 0.83 54.90 1,- rn O N CO cM O CO rn rn 0 0 M M 136.77 0.83 7.31 1000.0 1200.0 CO N (`M O Cl? CM M O CO CO (") M N LO O r� co v 0 CO No M M C) 1400.0 [feet] [m] 322.32 193.93 398.34 204.40 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 2.30 4.80 29.70 33.46 [m] [m] [m] Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs Ult Alt 2.PRF Discharge 0.000 cfs [feet] c�`- 360.0 - 340.0 320.0 300.0 8. 260.0 - - 240.0 220.0 200.0 180.0 160.0 140.0 - 120.0 - ---------. 100.0 - 0.0 200.0 400.0 600.0 800.0 1000.0 1200.0 1:0 [feet] Ground Lev. CO c1i [m] 0 Invert lev. Cl? [mj v rn Length 1365.84 i [m] Diameter 0.83 [m] Slope o/oo 193.27 Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs Ult Alt 2.PRF Discharge 0.000 10.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 10.000 10.00010.0001 0.000 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10.000 1 1 cfs O O R�b Nb` N N`l �� Ol �O �,� �1 b; r4 r ° t, `� �� (DOb �h0 ��O O NCO NCO ^�C`^< ^� �P ^4, �O ^�O �O ��O [feet] 4P �`� ��`5 �`� �� O5 �� h� �� h� 4p 4� h5 395.0 I� 390.0 385.0 380.0 375.0 370.0 1 365.0 360.0 0.0 500.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0 2500.0 3000.0 3500.0 4000.0 Ground Lev. m a v CO o M CO M Invert lev. (V CO Cl) M V o On (C) CO M CO cM Length 309.95 274.901 Diameter 0.83 0.83 0.83 Slope o/oo 3.26 3.67 3.85 1:0 CO CO (O 0) ItN CO 00 CO LC> O f-- In ti - V) It M Oh cl i .4 Op 6 00 CO r1- ti rl- CO � � rl- M CO C`') CO M M M CO CO M N U') CO o (O N V (0 N V rn - V 00 rn N M 4 L6 6 r-� 06 00 0� M M M M M M M M co 459.29 465.55 359.46 1286.26 352.99 0.83 0.83 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.61 2.43 1.75 4.12 2.15 5.47 3.54 [feet] LO o M CO [m] ti fM rl- M 00 M ~ M It v [m] c(14 ti r- M M M 289.15 [m] 0.67 [m] 3.84 Attachment G December 2006 ATTACHMENT G Alternative C 70% 1&1 Reduction Ultimate Model Results City of Renton Heather Downs Sewer System Analysis [feet] 181000.0 IU-11911I1I1B B-11111111 [1' 179500.0 179000.0 { 1 -1 178500.0 M 0111I)u1�. 177500.0 177000.0 176500.0 176000.0 ■ 1.20 < 1.00 1.20 ■ 0.80 1.00 ■ 0.60 0.80 < 0.60 1307000.0 Q / Q-manning - Maximum Heather Downs Ult-70% I&I Red.PRF c c 0 t ° o v o r a o O U 0 O ...�..o U 090 co c U 0 c c c, o o n U U U U U o < 1308000.0 1309000.0 1310000.0 1311000.0 1312000.0 1313000.0 1314000.0 [feet] Water Level - 21-11-1990 00.-00:00 Heather Downs Ult-70% Al Red.PRF Discharge 22 0.000 0.000 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 cfs CC' G �00 �00 �00 �00 �00 �00 00 Ord �00 �00 [feet] Q-�`5 �`5 �`5 �`5 �`� �5 �'S'�54' 4� 4P hO 65.0 , 64.0 63.0 62.0 61.0 60.0 59.0 58.0 57.0 56.0 � 0.0 500.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0 2500.0 1:0 [feet] Ground Lev. V "': (V 1P N N cj� 1P (V (0 N (o N (0 N m N N (0 cfl N W N CD N (0 [m] N (o Ln (o Ln LC') (o (o Ln (o Ln (.O Ln (o Ln (o In Ln (O (o 6 Co In (O In (o Invert lev. Ln (° O) O' M (O r) "? (o (fl N 0?- N (o N � 1P 1l- rl� N rn Ln M [rp] U') Ln Lr) Ln co (0 Ln Ln ti Ln � Ln � Ln oo Ln co co LO in 00 Ln 00 in 0) Ln Length 218.01 409.81 349.87 182.72 242.48 206.68 281.63 [m] Diameter 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1 1.25 1.25 [m] Slope o/oo 1.56 2.05 1.49 1.40 1.42 1.58 1.40 i 1.44 11.23 2.08 1.78 Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs Ult-70% M Red.PRF Discharge 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 cfs NA NID NV N [feet] h`5 69.0 68.0 67.0 66.0 65.0 64.0 - 63.0 i �- 62.0 _ 61.0 i 60.0 0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 N Ground Lev. Iq co Invert lev. OO Length Diameter Slope o/oo N N co co U') U') N CO Lq 0 0 500.0 600.0 700.0 800.0 900.0 1:0 [feet] N co Iml 220.50 219.87 209.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.22 2.00 4.43 C 0 v co C 1.51 235.29 0.83 3.78 Iml [m] Iml Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00:00:00 Heather Downs Ult-70% Al Red.PRF Discharge 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 cfs 16 [feet] <�5 360.0 350.0 340.0 330.0 320.0 310.0 300.0 0.0 200.0 400.0 600.0 800.0 1000.0 1200.0 1400.0 1600.0 1:0 [feet] Ground Lev. 00 a0 �' 00 °° M M o ai a7 ui �i CO �f o M CO M [ml N M M CO M CO CO Invert lev. CD rn a' CO V: M 0) O O O O N CV Iml CV CO eM CO M M M Length 202.37 136.77 322.32 193.93 398.34 204.40 192.65 [m] Diameter 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 [m] Slope o/oo 54.90 7.31 2.30 4.80 29.70 33.46 160.91 Link Water Level - 21-11-1990 00-.00.-00 Heather Downs Ult-70% I&I Red.PRF Discharge 0.000 0.000 10.000 0.000 0.000 10.000 10.000 lo.000lo-000l 0.000I I I I I6.000 cfs tx "� `L ,� 1. , D O� O� O� Off' Off' 00' PO� Off` C`b �'r �° Off` C`� O� O� O� OHO [feet] 395.0 n 390.0 385.0 380.0 1 a 375.0 370.01 365.0 360.0 0.0 500.0 Ground Lev. rn °D 'IT00 OO `-) o co 'ITo ti rl- M M CO Invert lev. N "' M M V M CO Ln M l() O (0 CO CO CO Length 309.95 274.901 Diameter 0.83 0.83 0.83 Slope o/oo 3.26 3.67 3.85 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0 2500.0 3000.0 3500.0 1:0 CO ti 00 LO 00 O (O r- d) 'IT U') r` N - 00 Ln 00 IT 00 M u) O O 00 6 00 .4 CO M r- N - r- r- 00 � 00 � r- M CO M CO CO M CO CO Cl) CO CO M N O 'IT N (0 In N CO O 'ITO) C0 r lt - 00 N M cY ti co N c0 M co V c0 6 6 c0 c0 n co 00 00 6 c0 r- M M M M M M M M M M CO 459.29 465.55 359.46 286.26 352.99 0.83 0.83 0.83 1 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 2.61 2.43 1.75 ' 4.12 2.15 5.47 3.54 4000.0 [feet] U-) 00 r- CO CO CO M CO C6 -4 Iml rl- rl- cM M 289.15 [m] 0.67 [m] 3.84 Attachment H December 2006 ATTACHMENT H Opinion of Probable Cost City of Renton Heather Downs Sewer System Analysis December 2006 City OPINION OF PROBABLE COST of Renton Prepared by: BPW 11/27/06 ' Heather Downs Interceptor Edited By: BAF 12/13/06 Job #: 0015.00016.000 Alternative A — Upsizing the Existing Pipes — Open Trench Construction ' Item # Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost 1 21-Inch Dia. PVC Sewer Pipe, ROW 2620 LF $145.00 $379,900 2 18-Inch Dia, PVC Sewer Pipe, ROW (Under 10' Depth) 950 LF $105.00 $99,750 ' 3 18-Inch Dia. PVC Sewer Pipe, Easement (Under 10' Depth) 235 LF $105.00 $24,675 4 12-Inch Dia. PVC Sewer Pipe, ROW (Under 10' Depth) 735 LF $110.00 $80,850 5 12-Inch Dia, PVC Sewer Pipe, ROW (10-15' Depth) 310 LF $125.00 $38,750 ' 6 12-Inch Dia. PVC Sewer Pipe, ROW (15-20' depth) 360 LF $125.00 $45,000 7 12-Inch Dia. PVC Sewer Pipe, ROW (20-25' depth) 925 LF $270.00 $249,750 8 12-Inch Dia, PVC Sewer Pipe, Easement (Under 10' Depth) 610 LF $85.00 $51,850 ' 9 48-Inch Dia. Sanitary Sewer Manhole 25 EA $4,000.00 $100,000 10 6-Inch Dia. PVC Side Sewer 164 EA $1,100.00 $180,400 11 1 112 " Deep Asphalt Overlay Class'B' 19670 SY $25.00 $491,750 ' Subtotal $1, 742, 675 Sales Tax @ 8.8% $153,325 Construction Cost with Sales Tax $1,896,000 ' Allied Costs (Engineering, Permitting, Legal, City Admin) @ 40% $758,000 Total Project Cost $2,654,000 Contingency @ 15% $398,000 Total Project Cost with Contingency $3,052,000 Alternative Al — Upsizing the Existing Pipes — Pipe Bursting Construction Item # Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost 1 24-Inch O.D. HDPE Sewer Pipe 2620 LF $175.00 $458,500 2 20-Inch O.D. HDPE Sewer Pipe 1185 LF $150.00 $177,750 3 12-Inch O.D. HDPE Sewer Pipe, ROW 2940 LF $100.00 $294,000 4 48-Inch Diameter Sanitary Sewer Manhole 33 EA $4,000.00 $132,000 5 6-Inch Diameter PVC Side Sewer 180 EA $1,100.00 $198,000 ' 6 1 '/2 "Deep Asphalt Overlay Class 'B' 1000 SY $25.00 $25,000 Subtotal $1,285,250 Sales Tax @ 8.8% $112,750 ' Construction Cost with Sales Tax $1,398,000 Allied Costs (Engineering, Permitting, Legal, City Admin) @ 40% $559,000 Total Project Cost $1,957,000 ' Contingency @ 15% $294,000 Total Project Cost with Contingency $2,251,000 City of Renton ' Heather Downs Sewer System Analysis December 2006 OPINION OF PROBABLE COST City of Renton Prepared by: BPW 11/27/06 Heather Downs Interceptor Edited By: BAF 12/13/06 Job #: 0015.00016.000 Alternative B — Diverting Flow — Open Trench Construction Item # Description Quantity UnitUnit Cost Total Cost 1 12-Inch Diameter PVC Sewer Pipe, ROW (Under 10' Depth) 735 LF $110.00 $80,850 2 12-Inch Diameter PVC Sewer Pipe, ROW (10-15' Depth) 310 LF $125.00 $38,750 3 12-Inch Diameter PVC Sewer Pipe, ROW (15-20' depth) 360 LF $125.00 $45,000 4 12-Inch Diameter PVC Sewer Pipe, ROW (20-25' depth) 925 LF $270.00 $249,750 5 12-Inch Diameter PVC Sewer Pipe, Easement (Under 10' Depth) 610 LF $85.00 $51,850 6 10-Inch Diameter HDPE Sewer Pipe, Directional Drill 1370 LF $300.00 $411,000 7 48-Inch Diameter Sanitary Sewer Manhole 12 EA $4,000.00 $48,000 8 6-Inch Diameter PVC Side Sewer 78 EA $1,100.00 $85,800 9 1 1 /2 " Deep Asphalt Overlay Class 'B' 7770 SY $25.00 $194,250 Subtotal $1,205,250 Sales Tax @ 8.8%u $105,750 Construction Cost with Sales Tax $1,311,000 Allied Costs (Engineering, Permitting, Legal, City Admin) @ 40% $524,000 Total Project Cost $1,835,000 Contingency @ 15% $275,000 Total Project Cost with Contingency $2,110,000 Alternative B1 — Diverting Flow — Pipe Bursting Construction Item # Description Quantity UnitUnit Cost Total Cost 1 12-Inch Diameter PVC Sewer Pipe, ROW (Under 10' Depth) 2940 LF $100.00 $294,000 2 10-Inch Diameter HDPE Sewer Pipe, Directional Drill 1370 LF $300.00 $411,000 3 48-Inch Diameter Sanitary Sewer Manhole 12 EA $4,000.00 $48,000 4 6-Inch Diameter PVC Side Sewer 78 EA $1,100.00 $85,800 5 1 Y2 "Deep Asphalt Overlay Class 'B' 500 SY $25.00 $12,500 Subtotal $851,300 Sales Tax @ 8.8% $74,700 Construction Cost with Sales Tax $926,000 Allied Costs (Engineering, Permitting, Legal, City Admin) @ 40% $370,000 Total Project Cost $1,296,000 Contingency @ 15% $194,000 Total Project Cost with Contingency $1,490,000 I City of Renton Heather Downs Sewer System Analysis