Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
RS_Drainage_Report_230818_v1
Monroe Ave NE Infiltration Facility Project i Technical Information Report Otak Monroe Ave NE Infiltration Facility Draft Technical Information Report Submitted to: Kevin Evans 1055 South Grady Way, 5th Floor Renton, WA 98057 Prepared by: Otak, Inc. 11241 Willows Road NE, Suite 200 Redmond, WA 98052 04/15/2023 Otak Project No. 33201.A 04/07/2023 Monroe Ave NE Infiltration Facility Project ii Technical Information Report Otak Acknowledgements Monroe Ave NE Infiltration Facility Project Technical Information Report Draft Submitted to: City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Prepared By: Otak, Inc. 11241 Willows Road NE, Suite 200 Redmond, WA 98052 425-822-4446 Theodore Thorson, PE Water Resources Engineer Charles Dewey, PE Water Resources Engineer Russell Gaston, PE PIC, Sr Project Manager Monroe Ave NE Infiltration Facility Project i Technical Information Report Otak TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Section 1—Project Overview .................................................................................................. 1 Introduction and Site Location ................................................................................................................................1 Existing Conditions ...............................................................................................................................................1 Proposed Conditions ............................................................................................................................................2 Section 2—Conditions and Requirements Summary ........................................................... 4 Core Requirements ................................................................................................................................................4 Core Requirement 1 – Discharge at the Natural Location ...................................................................................4 Core Requirement 2 – Offsite Analysis ................................................................................................................4 Core Requirement 3 – Flow Control ....................................................................................................................4 Core Requirement 4 – Conveyance System ........................................................................................................5 Core Requirement 5 – Erosion and Sediment Control ........................................................................................5 Core Requirement 6 – Maintenance and Operations ..........................................................................................5 Core Requirement 7 – Financial Guarantees and Liability ..................................................................................5 Core Requirement 8 – Water Quality Facilities ....................................................................................................5 Core Requirement 9 – On-Site BMPs ..................................................................................................................6 Special Requirements ............................................................................................................................................6 Special Requirement 1 – Other Adopted Area Specific Requirements ...............................................................6 Special Requirement 2 – Flood Hazard Area Delineation ...................................................................................6 Special Requirement 3 – Flood Protection Facilities ...........................................................................................6 Special Requirement 4 – Source Controls ...........................................................................................................6 Special Requirement 5 – Oil Control ....................................................................................................................6 Special Requirement 6 – Aquifer Protection Area ...............................................................................................6 Section 3—Offsite Analysis .................................................................................................... 7 Scope of Analysis .................................................................................................................................................7 Section 4—Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design ......................... 8 Existing Site Hydrology ........................................................................................................................................8 Developed Site Hydrology....................................................................................................................................8 Performance Standards .......................................................................................................................................9 Flow Control System ......................................................................................................................................... 10 Section 5—Conveyance System Analysis and Design ...................................................... 14 Existing Conveyance System............................................................................................................................ 14 Proposed Conveyance System ........................................................................................................................... 14 Section 6—Special Reports and Studies ............................................................................. 15 Section 7—Other Permits ..................................................................................................... 16 Section 8—CSWPP Analysis and Design ............................................................................ 17 Section 9—Bond Quantities, Facility Summaries, and Declaration of Covenant ............ 19 Section 10—Operations and Maintenance Manual ............................................................. 20 FIGURES ................................................................................................................................. 21 Appendices Appendix A—Hyrdologic and Hydraulic Analysis Model Report Appendix B—Flow Control and Water Quality Benefit Computations Appendix C—Geotechnical Report (Submitted Under Separate Cover) Monroe Ave NE Infiltration Facility Project ii Technical Information Report Otak Appendix D—FEMA Firmette Appendix E—Fieldwork and Modeling Memo Appendix F—Environmental Site Assessment (Submitted Under Separate Cover) Appendix G—Critical Area Report (Submitted Under Separate Cover) Appendix H—Preliminary Plans (Submitted Under Separate Cover) Figures Figure 1–-TIR Worksheet Figure 2—Site Location Figure 3—Drainage Basins, Subbasins and Site Characteristics Figure 4—Soils Figure 5—City of Renton Sensitive Area Maps Tables Table 1—Summarized TDA Quantities...............................................................................................................2 Table 2—Existing Conditions Drainage Basin Summary ...................................................................................9 Table 3—Contributing Peak Discharge Rates from WWHM-SWMM .................................................................9 Table 4: Gradation for Infiltration Gravel.......................................................................................................... 10 Table 5—Facility Vertical Layout Summary ..................................................................................................... 13 Table 6—Other Required Permits ................................................................................................................... 16 Monroe Ave NE Infiltration Facility Project 1 Technical Information Report Otak Section 1—Project Overview Introduction and Site Location The Monroe Avenue NE Infiltration Facility project (project) is located between Jefferson Ave NE to the west and Monroe Avenue NE to the east, NE 4th Street to the north, and NE 2nd Street to the south. The project is located in the Upper Balch Pit, a former gravel and sand quarry. Currently there is a 245.9-acre drainage basin that contributes to a 36-inch diameter storm drainage trunkline that flows north to south along Monroe Ave NE. Historically flooding of the trunkline led to an agreement between the City of Renton and Segale Properties, to allow for the installation of high-flow overflows to be directed from the trunkline into 301 Monroe Ave NE, also referred to as the Upper Balch Pit, where the water could pond and infiltrate which eliminated street flooding along Monroe Ave NE. The property owner of the Upper Balch Pit, Segale Properties, LLC, is in the process of developing the property. This development includes filling the Upper Balch Pit to be similar in topography to the adjacent roadways. As the property owner brings the grade of the facility up to match adjacent road grades, the ability to utilize the Upper Balch Pit as an emergency overflow for storm runoff will be eliminated. The proposed improvements in the Monroe Avenue NE Infiltration Facility project (project) include providing additional stormwater facilities to manage storm flows from the contributing 250-acre basin. The proposed improvements include diverting stormwater flows from the existing 36-inch diameter trunkline to the proposed facility for water quality treatment followed by infiltration. This design report describes the existing conditions at the project site as well as the proposed project improvements. Existing Conditions There are six basins that contribute to the facility. Subbasins 1-5 are offsite subbasins that contribute to the 36- inch trunkline along Monroe Ave NE. Subbasins 1 through 5 are referred to as the Monroe Ave Basin in Figure 3, and total 245.9-acres. The Monroe Ave Basin’s Subbasins 1, 2, 4, and 5 are referred to as the Upper Monroe Ave subbasins, total approximately 193 acres and slope downward from northeast to southwest towards the 36-inch trunkline along Monroe Ave NE. These subbasins consist predominantly of medium-density residential lots and commercial lots. Stormwater from the Upper Monroe Ave subbasins is conveyed via storm drainage pipes that connect to the 36-inch trunkline along Monroe Ave NE, which ends in two perforated infiltration pipes at the SW corner of the subbasin. Subbasin 3 of the Monroe Ave Basin is to the east of Greenwood Memorial Park, referred to as the Lower Monroe Ave subbasin, is approximately 54 acres that consists predominately of low-density residential lots, and a resource conservation zone near the Cedar River. The Cedar River and the area adjacent to the Cedar River (including a portion of the Cedar River Park) are Regulated Shoreline and have an environmental designation of Shoreline High Intensity based on the City of Renton [COR] Maps. Subbasin 3 connects to the 36-inch infiltration pipe along NE 2nd St. Due to the minimal slope of the 36-inch pipe along NE 2nd St, runoff from Subbasin 3 contributes to the stage in the Monroe Ave NE trunkline. The Monroe Ave Basin has experienced historic flooding along Monroe Ave NE, which was addressed by the integration of two overflow pipes from the 36-inch trunkline into the 14.44-acre Upper Balch Pit, located outside of the Monroe Ave Basin and is referred to as Subbasin 6. The Monroe Ave Basin currently drains to a 670-foot-long 36-inch perforated infiltration pipe along NE 2nd street and a 200-foot-long 48-inch perforated infiltration pipe along the King County Access Road. The current infiltration pipe has insufficient capacity, and therefore, during large storm events, stormwater overflows via two pipes from the 36-inch trunkline in Monroe Ave NE to the Upper Balch Pit at 301 Monroe Ave NE. The Upper Balch Pit provides approximately 3.2 acres of storage footprint for the contributing runoff overflow from the Monroe Ave NE trunkline. The Upper Balch Pit is actively being filled, and the rest of the site consists of a construction laydown yard. The fill material that is being used for the majority of the Upper Balch Pit is not conductive to infiltration, so Monroe Ave NE Infiltration Facility Project 2 Technical Information Report Otak any fill material that has been placed in the northwest corner within the footprint of the infiltration facility will be removed prior to the project by others to expose the native outwash soils. Proposed Conditions This project proposes to install a 36-inch storm drainage pipe to connect to the existing trunkline along Monroe Ave NE. The existing Monroe Avenue trunkline consists of a 36-inch trunkline north of the intersection of Monroe Ave and 2nd Street, and a 42-inch perforated pipe south of the intersection. The proposed 36-inch storm drainage pipe will direct flow to the west into a hydrodynamic separator, which will provide pre-treatment for the water quality flowrate for the runoff from the contributing offsite basin. Runoff is directed from the hydrodynamic separator into a flow splitter vault structure that routes flows up to the water quality flowrate to an enhanced water quality treatment vault. Stormwater flows above the water quality flowrate are routed from the flow splitter directly to a the concrete manifold vault through a series of pipes and catch basins that serves as a high flow bypass. Flows treated by the water quality vault are also routed to this same concrete manifold vault. From the concrete manifold vault, runoff is routed into the primary isolator rows. The isolator rows are designed with a geotextile at their invert, to allow for long term maintenance of sediment removal from the isolator chambers. From the isolator row, flow is dispersed via a manifold across a 1.29-acre plastic arch infiltration gallery situated below grade in the northwest corner of Upper Balch Pit. Flow is conveyed through the manifold by overtopping internal weirs on either end of the manifold vault as the primary isolator rows stage up during peak flow events. The infiltration gallery sits on 25.5-feet of an imported clean, washed, poorly graded, and angular aggregate layer, which allows for permeation of water through the layer as well as having a significant storage volume for additional detention. Flow permeates through the 25.5-feet of clean infiltration gravel and reaches a lens of imported well-graded material that is analogous to the native outwash soils based on a gradation per Geotechnical report (Appendix C), which is a very clean sandy material. The depth of the analogous native material is dependent on the elevation of the existing native material, which varies across the infiltration footprint. From this imported well-graded sandy fill/analogous native material, water infiltrates into the native soils. The analogous native material is placed to achieve separation from seasonal high groundwater. The historic excavation and removal of native soils (for sale) have removed native soils to within several feet of the seasonal high groundwater in some places across the facility footprint. The gradation (per geotechnical report in Appendix C) of the imported analogous material is to match the attributes of the native soils. The project will include a 620-foot long maintenance access road along the north of the site, which has a connection at Monroe Ave NE. This includes a 100-feet long hammerhead at the southern end of the access road to allow for vactor truck turnaround. This new maintenance road results in 14,300 square feet of new impervious area. The project’s drainage improvements outside of the footprint of the maintenance access road footprint are all underground facilities. The proposed underground stormwater facility is an infiltration facility and is not considered impervious. This project construction will be timed in tandem with the Segale construction project (by others). This report does not address the improvements proposed in the separate project by Segale to develop the site to the southeast of the project; however, the facility has been sized for the maximum impervious area that the full site could develop to based on the current zoning. Table 1—Summarized TDA Quantities Classification TDA 1 Area (SF) New Impervious Surface 14,300 Replaced Impervious Surface 100 Total New + Replaced Impervious Surface 14,400 Replaced Pervious Surface 255,700 Total TDA 1 Area* 270,100 Monroe Ave NE Infiltration Facility Project 3 Technical Information Report Otak * Total TDA 1 Area reflects the Temporary Construction Easement Limits and associated work within ROW of Monroe Ave NE. This Area is less than the Site area, as the work is done in only a portion of the Upper Balch Pit parcel. Monroe Ave NE Infiltration Facility Project 4 Technical Information Report Otak Section 2—Conditions and Requirements Summary Core Requirements This project is required to meet the drainage, erosion control, and stormwater management codes as specified by the 2022 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual (CRSWDM), which adopts and amends the 2019 King County Surface Water Design Manual. Washington State’s Department of Ecology (Ecology), who oversees stormwater requirements in the state, has developed the 2019 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, which complies with the NPDES requirements. In addition, Ecology has approved the 2021 King County Surface Water Design Manual as equivalent to the 2019 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. The core requirements are determined by the amount of target areas that the project generates, which are based on the amount of new and replaced impervious surfaces and new pervious surface that the project generates. The project is a stormwater retrofit project and results in more than 2,000 square feet of new and/or replaced impervious surface, and therefore Core Requirements (CRs) #1 – #9 and Special Requirements #1 – #6 apply to the project. The proposed maintenance access road proposed 14,300 square feet of new impervious surface area. The Monroe Ave NE Infiltration Facility project is located at the local low point of a closed depression and is in a single threshold discharge area (TDA). Without changing the discharge location, the project proposes to manage contributing stormwater from the TDA within the site. The project site is defined as the Upper Balch Pit parcel, while the stormwater facility will be located within a permanent utility easement within the NW corner of the parcel. Core Requirement 1 – Discharge at the Natural Location The existing drainage patterns of the site will be maintained. Stormwater runoff from the basin historically overflows and drains into the Upper Balch Pit. The Upper Balch Pit is the natural discharge location for the project area (Figure 3). The proposed stormwater facilities will be located in the Upper Balch Pit and runoff that drains into the Upper Balch Pit will infiltrate into the native soils. Core Requirement 2 – Offsite Analysis Per the CRSWDM, offsite analysis is exempt for projects that are deemed by the City of Renton to have no significant adverse impact on the downstream and/or upstream drainage system. OR The project does not change the rate, volume, duration, or location of discharges to and from the project site (e.g., where existing impervious surface is replaced with other impervious surface having similar runoff-generating characteristics, or where pipe/ditch modifications do not change existing discharge characteristics). The project site is exempt from Core Requirement #2 due to the project flow control facilities being modeled to handle the 100-year flood flows from both the site improvements, as well as future development on the site and the upstream Monroe Ave Basin, and there being no proposed connection to an off-site point of discharge. During the 100-year flood flows from the upstream contributing basin, hydraulic modeling indicates that there is no surficial flooding to cause erosion or downstream issues. Refer to section 3 of this report for a discussion of off-site analysis for this project. Core Requirement 3 – Flow Control The 2022 CRSWDM standards for flow control require that the project mitigate surface runoff based on area- specific flow control facility requirements and identified downstream problems. The project is within the Flow Control Duration Standard (Forested Conditions) designation in accordance with Section 15-A of the CRSWDM. The project is in a Conservation Flow Control Area and must meet Level 2 flow control standards for target surfaces. Therefore, the project must match the flow duration of predeveloped rates for forested (historical) site conditions over the range of flows extending from 50% of the 2-year up to the full 50-year flow and match peaks Monroe Ave NE Infiltration Facility Project 5 Technical Information Report Otak for the 2 and 10-year return periods. The flow control requirement applies to target surfaces within TDAs with 5,000 square feet or more of new plus replaced impervious surface added OR ¾ acres or more of new pervious surface. The design of the onsite facilities has been sized to provide management for runoff for the proposed improvements, in addition to the runoff from the upstream 250-acre basin. The flow control facility is located in the NW corner of the Upper Balch Pit. The facility provides flow control by providing infiltration of stormwater runoff into the native soils. The design of the flow control facilities is presented in Section 4. Core Requirement 4 – Conveyance System All engineered conveyance system elements for proposed projects have been analyzed and designed to provide protection against overtopping, flooding, erosion, and structural failure. The project proposes adding a new connection structure to the existing 36-inch trunkline along Monroe Ave NE and a 36-inch stormwater pipe draining to the west. The system has been designed and hydraulically modeled to be able so safely convey the 100-year peak flow event The modeling is discussed in Section 5. Refer to Section 5 of this report for a discussion of the conveyance system analysis for the project. Core Requirement 5 – Erosion and Sediment Control A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) narrative is provided in Section 8, and Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) plans are provided in the contract documents for the Monroe Ave NE Infiltration Facility Project. Core Requirement 6 – Maintenance and Operations An Operations and Maintenance Manual (O&M) will be prepared for the stormwater facilities. Maintenance and Operations will be maintained by the City of Renton. The City will assume maintenance and operation of these facilities two years after final construction approval by CED and an inspection by the City to ensure the facilities have been properly maintained and are operating as designed. Flow control facilities, water quality treatment facilities, and on-site BMPs to be maintained and operated by the City, along with the required perimeter landscaping (as required per RMC 4-9-150), must be in a stormwater tract. For drainage facilities requiring perimeter landscaping, the stormwater tract shall be granted and conveyed with all ownership and maintenance obligations (excluding maintenance of the drainage facilities) to the subdivision’s lot owners. Maintenance requirements for the facilities are provided in Section 10. Core Requirement 7 – Financial Guarantees and Liability Financial Guarantees and Liability will be required as this project is proposing drainage features. These requirements are discussed in Section 9. Core Requirement 8 – Water Quality Facilities The project is in a Basic Water Quality Area. Although the targets for this project do not trigger water quality requirements, the purpose of this project is to propose a regional stormwater facility to manage the runoff from the upstream basin and shall provide enhanced basic water quality treatment from runoff flows from this approximately 250-acre upstream basin. The design of the water quality facilities is presented in Section 4. Monroe Ave NE Infiltration Facility Project 6 Technical Information Report Otak Core Requirement 9 – On-Site BMPs Projects are exempt from on-site BMP requirements where impervious surfaces are serviced by an infiltration facility designed in accordance with the flow control facility requirement, the facility implementation requirements, and the design criteria for infiltration facilities. The project meets these flow control requirements and therefore are not required to have on-site BMP’s. Special Requirements Special Requirement 1 – Other Adopted Area Specific Requirements The project has received an Ecology Grant and must confirm to the requirements included in this grant agreement. Special Requirement 2 – Flood Hazard Area Delineation The Flood Insurance Rate Map (53033C0981G) (August 19, 2020) indicates that the project is not within a FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area. See Appendix D for the FEMA Firmette Map. Special Requirement 3 – Flood Protection Facilities The proposed project will not rely on any existing flood protection facilities, such as levees or dams, or modify a flood protection facility. Modeling for the project shows that the infiltration facility should not flood up through the 100-year statistical storm for the Therefore, the study does not trigger Special Requirement #3. Special Requirement 4 – Source Controls Source control during construction (erosion control and prevention) applies to all projects. Post-construction source control BMPs are based on the activities and permanent facilities within the project site following construction. The project area will not be used for high-risk activities, such as vehicle fueling or maintenance, or the storage of hazardous substances or raw materials. The project does not require a commercial building or commercial site development permit. Therefore, water quality source controls are not required post-construction. Special Requirement 5 – Oil Control Oil control facilities are required for high-use sites, and road intersections with a measured average daily traffic (ADT) count of 25,000 vehicles or more on the main roadway and 15,000 vehicles or more on any intersecting roadway, excluding projects proposing primarily pedestrian or bicycle use improvements. The project does not meet the high use site threshold and therefore oil control facilities are not applicable. While the project does not require oil control, the contributing basin is very large and has several roads with an ADT count higher than the threshold for oil control. Methodologies for addressing oil control are discussed in Section 4. Special Requirement 6 – Aquifer Protection Area The project is not located within an aquifer protection area. Therefore, Special Requirement 6 does not apply to this project. Monroe Ave NE Infiltration Facility Project 7 Technical Information Report Otak Section 3—Offsite Analysis Scope of Analysis An off-site analysis is not required for the project, per the requirements in the 2022 CRSWDM. The project proposes an adjacent stormwater management facility to the existing infiltration pipes, but will be at a lower grade, providing preferential drainage to prevent storm structures within the right-of-way from surcharging and over- topping during large storm events. Monroe Ave NE Infiltration Facility Project 8 Technical Information Report Otak Section 4—Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design Methodology, assumptions, and results of the preliminary modeling are discussed in the Field Work and Modeling Memorandum included as Appendix E. Updated modeling of the current design is included in Appendix A. A summary of the modeling is included below. Site hydrology was analyzed using the Western Washington Hydrologic Model 2012 (WWHM). Model inputs and their basis for being selected are discussed briefly below. For more information about the modeling of the basin and facility see Appendix E. This analysis was conducted for the contributing upstream TDA, which encompass both the future site conditions of the 14.44-acre Upper Balch Pit and approximately 246-acres of upstream area which contributes runoff to the project site. Existing Site Hydrology The existing site hydrology is shown in Figure 3. Native soils at the project site are glacial outwash deposits also referred to as recessional outwash. In the upstream contributing basin, there are varying types of ranging from gravelly sandy loam, to an arent material with a water table within 24-inches of the surface. Currently, the basin drains to a 670-feet long 36-inch perforated infiltration pipe along NE 2nd Street and a 200- feet long 48-inch perforated infiltration pipe along the King County Access Road to the southeast of NE 2nd St. The current infiltration pipe has insufficient capacity and during large storm events stormwater overflows the trunkline via two pipes from the existing 36-inch trunkline along Monroe Ave NE into the Upper Balch Pit where the stormwater runoff ponds and eventually infiltrates. Developed Site Hydrology As this is a flood reduction project, the purpose of the project is to manage runoff from the existing contributing basin, as well as the developed condition for the Upper Balch Pit (which assumes a 40% impervious area based on current R-10 zoning). The effective impervious area ratio is smaller than the maximum allowable impervious area based on zoning, as the proposed development will not perfectly collect and route all impervious areas (i.e. roof drain downspouts to pervious areas). For the purposes of analysis, it is important to note that the five offsite basins (Basin 1 – Basin 5) are considered retrofit basins for determining the benefit of flow control and water quality. While the proposed facility is designed to provide flow control and water quality treatment for all the retrofit basins and the Upper Balch Pit (Basin 6), Basin 6 is not considered a retrofit basin as it is already currently being developed. Proposed Improvements The project proposes to install an infiltration facility in the northwest corner of the Upper Balch Pit. This facility will be installed below finished grade, and is to be considered as pervious, due to the high hydraulic conductivity of imported materials. The facility will require significant imported fill materials to be brought in in order to bring the facility closer to finished grade, without reducing the infiltrative potential of the native soils. These fill materials are discussed in the Flow Control System section. The project proposes to include pretreatment for the water quality flowrate, and to provide additional sedimentation via an enhanced water quality vault. Following the treatment processes, runoff is routed into isolator rows of the chamber gallery system, which allows for final sedimentation prior to runoff reaching the rest of the infiltration gallery system. Maintenance of the isolator rows and removal of sediment can be performed via the concrete manifold structure directly upstream of these three structures. To provide maintenance access for this facility, a maintenance road is proposed along the north side of the site. The maintenance access road will begin along Monroe Ave NE and will run approximately 620-feet to the southwest where a hammerhead is situated to allow for vehicle turn-around onsite. Monroe Ave NE Infiltration Facility Project 9 Technical Information Report Otak This maintenance road will be non-pollution generating due to the infrequency of use. The maintenance road will result in approximately 14,300 square feet of new impervious surface area, and 100 square feet of replaced impervious surface area. Runoff from the maintenance road will drain to the southwest, and discharge into the infiltration facility. The facility is sized to manage runoff from the full contributing basin (Subbasins 1-6, per Table 2 and 3). Table 2—Existing Conditions Drainage Basin Summary DRAINAGE BASINS 1 2 3 4 5 6 Lawn Area (AC) 41.63 52.18 13.47 2.13 9.21 8.66 Impervious Area (AC) 30.83 42.53 40.32 2.13 11.47 5.78 Total Area (AC): 72.46 94.71 53.79 4.26 20.68 14.44 * Basin 6 assumes built out condition with a maximum impervious fraction based on the Upper Balch Pit Zoning. Basins 1-5 are assumed to have existing landcover conditions. Table 3—Contributing Peak Discharge Rates from WWHM-SWMM Peak Discharge Rates (CFS) DRAINAGE BASINS TOTAL BASIN2 1 2 3 4 5 61 2-Year 13.08 19.16 17.28 0.91 5.30 2.81 52.47 5-Year 17.09 25.16 22.18 1.18 6.97 3.83 69.52 10-Year 20.01 29.46 25.62 1.36 8.15 4.57 81.79 25-Year 23.99 35.26 30.20 1.61 9.75 5.57 98.44 50-Year 27.18 39.86 33.78 1.81 11.01 6.38 111.70 100-Year 30.58 44.70 37.51 2.02 12.35 7.22 125.73 1 Runoff from Basin 6 assumes built out condition with a maximum impervious fraction based on the Upper Balch Pit Zoning. Basins 1-5 are assumed to have existing landcover conditions, and peak flows from each of these subbasins reach the facility inlet point at the same time. 2 The Total Basin flow rate is not equivalent to the sum of the flows from the six drainage basins, which is shown in Table 2 of Appendix E, Fieldwork and Modeling Memo. The Total Basin flow is based on the flow frequency analysis of flows conveyed to the facility from hydraulic modeling. Due to hydraulic losses in the conveyance system from items such as roughness, local losses, and routing, the flows conveyed to the facility are less than the sum of the individual basin flows computed from hydrologic modeling. Performance Standards Per the 2022 CRSWDM, the site is located in a Flow Control Duration Standard (Forested Conditions). While the upstream contributing basin is a mix of Peak Rate Flow Control Standard (Existing Site Conditions) and Flow Control Duration Standard (Forested Conditions) the project is sized to provide full infiltration of the 100-year flowrate from the full basin under current conditions. Current conditions are assumed to be worst case because as the basin redevelops, the majority of the contributing basin will need to meet Flow Control for Forested Conditions, and the volume of runoff needed to be infiltrated by this facility will decrease from existing runoff flows over time. Monroe Ave NE Infiltration Facility Project 10 Technical Information Report Otak Flow Control System Overview Flow Control Duration Standard (Forested Conditions) requirements will be met in accordance with the 2022 CRSWDM. This flow control will be provided by an infiltration gallery located in the northwest corner of the Upper Balch Pit. The infiltration gallery’s infiltrative footprint is approximately 56,000 square feet, or 1.29 acres. Facility Layout A proposed 36-inch storm drainage pipe routes flow from the existing 36-inch trunkline along Monroe Ave NE approximately 50 feet to the west, into a hydrodynamic separator vault. This hydrodynamic separator vault has capacity to bypass the high-flows and provide pre-treatment to the water quality flowrate. Flows leave the hydrodynamic separator vault via a 36-inch pipe for approximately 230 feet prior to connecting to a flow splitter vault. The flow splitter preferentially conveys the water quality flows to the water quality facility, while the additional flows are sent to the concrete manifold vault through the high-flow bypass pipes. Flows conveyed to the water quality facility are also sent to the concrete manifold vault after receiving water quality treatment. From the concrete manifold vault, flows are conveyed into the three primary isolator rows that are part of the proposed infiltration facility. As the primary isolator rows increase in stage from inflow, flow will be routed full infiltration gallery via a manifold system and a set of internal weirs inside the concrete manifold vault. Once flows are dispersed across the full footprint of the infiltration gallery, runoff infiltrates through a 25.5-feet thick lens of infiltration gravel, followed by a lens of imported supplemental receptor soil prior to reaching the native outwash receiving soils. The gradation of the gravel is shown below in Table 4. The gravel will conform to the AASHTO #3 gradation as described in special provision 2-03 SP. The depth of the lens of supplemental soil varies as the elevation of native outwash is not consistent across the project site. The vertical layout of the facility is summarized in Table 5. Table 4—Gradation for Infiltration Gravel AASHTO Grading Passing Sieve Size No. 3 No.4 Min. Max. Min. Max. 2-½“ 99 100 2 90 100 99 100 1-½“ 35 70 90 100 1” 0 15 20 55 3/4” 0 15 1/2" 0 5 3/8” 0 5 Soils The facility will infiltrate into native soils. There have been geotechnical investigations of the infiltration footprint to determine the feasibility of infiltration at the site, including borings, small scale pilot infiltration tests, and borehole infiltration tests, see Appendix C for the geotechnical report. The geotechnical investigations and analysis determined that the historic fill that was placed in the northwest corner of the Upper Balch Pit would be infeasible for infiltration, however the native soils below the fill material would provide very high long-term infiltration rates. The removal of the existing fill material will be a required prerequisite for the project; the existing fill material will be removed from the northwest corner of the Upper Balch Pit to expose clean native soils. The project proposes to import approximately 120,000 cubic yards of fill material, discussed below. Monroe Ave NE Infiltration Facility Project 11 Technical Information Report Otak The geotechnical investigations determined that the seasonal high groundwater would be at elevation 272.5 feet and the elevation of the native outwash material is at an average elevation of 280 feet across the footprint of the infiltration facility, although there is some variability to the depth to native soils based on variation in the historic excavation. During excavation by others prior to the project to remove the existing fill material, geotechnical representatives will be onsite to ensure that the native outwash material is exposed across the entire footprint of the infiltration facility footprint and confirm that there has been no mobilization of fines into the native that would result in a lowered infiltration rate. Per the geotechnical recommendations, Appendix C, a supplemental outwash receptor soil is imported to act as an analogous fill material, which is to be installed in the infiltration footprint below the facility infiltration gravel. The supplemental outwash receptor soil is imported beneath the footprint of the facility. This supplemental outwash receptor soil has a similar gradation to the native in-situ outwash receptor soils. Above this imported supplemental outwash receptor soil is a 25.5-feet thick lens of imported angular, washed poorly sorted infiltration gravel. This infiltration gravel has a size and gradation that matches AASHTO No. 3, and is a clean and washed material, with 0% fines passing a number 200 sieve. These fill materials will be installed in lifts and will have a construction geotextile for separation to separate the native outwash soil, the adjacent existing fine fill material, and to separate the imported infiltration gravel and supplemental outwash receptor soil. The purpose of this geotextile is to ensure that there is no mobilization of fines into the infiltration footprint and to ensure that there is no mobilization of the infiltration gravel into the supplemental outwash receptor soil. Additionally, on the east and south side of the proposed facility, an ecology block wall will be installed as infiltration gravel is placed. The ecology block wall will provide a vertical separation between the infiltration gravel that is part of the facility and additional aggregate that is needed to fill the excavated pit. Chamber Infiltration Gallery Facility Above the infiltration gravel, there is a plastic arch infiltration chamber gallery system occupying approximately 56,000 square feet. These plastic arch chambers are 5-feet high, have void space within the chamber, and are surrounded by the imported infiltration gravel to all sides. The infiltration gravel also extends 1-foot above the top of the plastic arch infiltration chambers. The plastic arch infiltration chamber gallery has non-woven geotextile wrapping surrounding the entire facility, in addition to the geotextile for separation mentioned previously. This non-woven geotextile ensures that any fines that reach the infiltration chamber system do not migrate into the infiltration gravel below. Within the chamber system there are isolator rows which have an additional geotextile liner, which allows for maintenance of any sedimentation within these rows. To facilitate maintenance these isolator rows are connected to catch basins via short stub outs. Runoff enters the chamber infiltration gallery via through pipes that are connected form the concrete manifold vault into the primary isolator rows. As the primary isolator rows stage up, flow will disperse to the rest of the facility through the manifold system. The design of the chamber infiltration gallery facility will require registering the facility as an Underground Injection Control facility. At the time of the 90% design phase submittal to the Department of Ecology, Otak is coordinating with Aspect to submit the initial registration for a UIC facility to DOE. This registration will continue to be updated accordingly at later phases of design. The flow control benefit for the Chamber Infiltration Gallery Facility was calculated per the DOE Stormwater Design Deliverable Guidance. Since the proposed infiltration facility is designed fully infiltrate the stormwater runoff from the contributing retrofit basins in addition to the Upper Balch Pit area, the benefit ratio was computed as 1.0. This means that the equivalent area of flow control for the infiltration facility is equal to the full contributing retrofit basins of 246 acres. Model runs were completed for the proposed facility as well as a facility designed to infiltrate only the retrofit basins to calculate the flow control benefit ration. The flow control benefit calculation, the storage computation for the proposed facility and the storage computation for the facility sized to provide flow control for only the retrofit basins are shown in Appendix B. Monroe Ave NE Infiltration Facility Project 12 Technical Information Report Otak Water Quality Processes There are several processes that allow for sedimentation prior to flows reaching the infiltrative soils. These processes are established in series to provide robust sedimentation opportunities to minimize the risk of native soils becoming fouled. The first step in water quality treatment is a hydrodynamic separator vault that provides pretreatment for the online water quality flowrate. Following the hydrodynamic separator vault flows are routed to a flow splitter, which directs water quality flows into a water quality treatment vault. Flows that are greater than the water quality flow rate are directed to the Concrete manifold vault and into the infiltration facility via the high flow bypass pipes and drainage structures. The water quality facility will provide Enhanced Treatment which is General Use Level Designation (GULD) approved by DOE. The current proposed treatment technology is an Oldcastle Biopod, as it provides the greatest amount of water quality treatment per footprint unit area of all GULD approved technologies. The water quality facility will be sized to treat 91% of the total runoff volume from the contributing basin. With a flow splitter upstream of the facility, this is analogous to treating all flows up to the off-line water quality flow rate of 12.6 cfs for the contributing basin. The water quality facility will be sized to treat all flows up to 12.6 cfs to achieve enhanced water quality treatment. The treated runoff is then directly connected to the concrete manifold vault and into the infiltration chamber gallery facility. The water quality facility benefit was calculated per the DOE Stormwater Design Deliverable Guidance. The proposed water quality facility is designed to treat the water quality flow rate for the entire facility contributing area, which includes the retrofit basins and the Upper Balch Pit, which equals a water quality flow rate of 12.6 cfs. The water quality flow rate for the retrofit basins is equal to 12.2 cfs, which results in a calculated treatment ratio of 1.0. This means that the equivalent area of treatment is equal to the full area of the contributing retrofit basins of 246 acres. The WWHM model used for determining the water quality flow rates for the retrofit basins is shown in Appendix A. The water quality benefit computation is shown in Appendix B. Monroe Ave NE Infiltration Facility Project 13 Technical Information Report Otak Table 5—Facility Vertical Layout Summary Facility Vertical Design Element Elevation (ft) Seasonal High Groundwater 272.5 Approximate Elevation of Native Outwash Varies Bottom of Supplemental Outwash Receptor Soil Varies Top of Supplemental Outwash Receptor Soil 289.50 Bottom of Infiltration Gravel 289.50 Top of Infiltration Gravel 315.00 Bottom of Chambers 315.00 Top of Chambers (top of plastic) 320.00 Top of Chamber Gravel 321.00 Concrete Manifold Vault IE 315.00 Concrete Manifold Vault Weir Elevation 317.69 Enhanced WQ Vault Outlet IE 320.00 Enhanced WQ Vault Inlet IE 323.33 Pipe to WQ Vault from Flow Splitter IE 323.74 High-Flow Bypass Pipe from Flow Splitter IE 323.74 Flow Splitter Internal Weir Elevation 327.74 Hydrodynamic Separator Inlet and Outlet IE 329.28 Connection at Existing Trunkline IE 331.20 Monroe Ave NE Infiltration Facility Project 14 Technical Information Report Otak Section 5—Conveyance System Analysis and Design Existing Conveyance System Upstream of the proposed site is an existing 36-inch concrete stormwater trunkline. This trunkline runs from the north to the south at a very mild slope (~0.4%) prior to being conveyed to a 36-inch perforated pipe running from west to east along NE 2nd Street. This 36-inch perforated pipe connects to a 48-inch perforated pipe running from north to south along the King County Access Road at the intersection of NE 2nd Street and the King County Access Road. Currently there are two overflow pipes that convey stormwater runoff from the Monroe Ave 36-inch trunkline into the Upper Balch Pit. The older overflow pipe is an 18-inch storm drainage pipe. Historically, that 18-inch overflow pipe became overwhelmed in larger events, and a second overflow pipe was added. The second, more recent, overflow pipe is a 24-inch HDPE that is located approximately 20 feet to the north of the older overflow pipe. Proposed Conveyance System As the Segale property development project continues, the two historic overflows from the Monroe Ave trunkline will be removed as a part of that project. As part of the Monroe Ave NE Infiltration Facility project, a new connection to the existing Monroe Ave 36-inch trunkline at a lower invert than the existing overflows pipes. The proposed connection is a 36-inch pipe running at a minimum slope of 0.5%. This proposed 36-inch storm drainage pipe connects to a flow splitter vault, which directs low flows (up through the water quality flowrate) to an enhanced water quality treatment vault and high flows directly to the concrete manifold vault. The flows from the water quality flow vault are also conveyed to the proposed concrete manifold vault. From the concrete manifold vault, flow is directed into the primary isolators rows of the infiltration chamber gallery. As the primary isolator flows stage up from incoming flows, flows will be distributed to the rest of the infiltration chamber gallery through the manifold system in conjunction with the internal weirs of the concrete manifold vault. The performance of the existing and proposed system was modeled using WWHM-SWMM, a combination hydrologic and hydraulic model which incorporates both WWHM2012 and EPASWMM. Utilizing WWHM-SWMM they hydraulic model was able to run both a scaled 100-year hydrograph, as well as modeling the full historic runoff method. The WWHM-SWMM model contains the existing Monroe Ave 36-inch trunkline, the existing infiltration pipes, the proposed pipes, and the full infiltration facility. The methodology, assumptions, and results of the WWHM-SWMM model are included in Appendix A. Monroe Ave NE Infiltration Facility Project 15 Technical Information Report Otak Section 6—Special Reports and Studies ▪ The geotechnical report supporting the design infiltration rate of 20.0 in/hr is found in Appendix C. ▪ A Critical Areas Report (CAR) was prepared for the site and will be submitted with the Critical Areas Alteration Exception, see Appendix G. Monroe Ave NE Infiltration Facility Project 16 Technical Information Report Otak Section 7—Other Permits Table 6—Other Required Permits Agency Permit Washington State Department of Transportation Developer/Local Agency Agreement Washington State Department of Ecology Short Term Water Quality Modification Approval Washington State Department of Ecology NPDES Construction Permit City of Renton Right of Way Permit Monroe Ave NE Infiltration Facility Project 17 Technical Information Report Otak Section 8—CSWPP Analysis and Design ESC Plan Analysis and Design The ESC plan contains the following required elements: Clearing Limits Clearing Limits will be marked per BMP 2.1.1.1. The area of clearing has been minimized to reduce the project footprint and preserve mature trees on site. Cover Measures Cover Measures are provided on all slopes that will be graded. Temporary cover measures may include straw wattles (BMP 2.1.2.5), compost blankets (BMP 2.1.2.9), straw mulch (BMP 2.1.2.2), plastic covering (BMP 2.1.2.4), or erosion control blankets (BMP 2.1.2.3) to be installed on any slope that will be unworked for more than two days. Permanent cover measures will include mulching and vegetation. Perimeter Protection Perimeter Protection will be installed at the edges on the project. ▪ Silt fence will be installed on the downslope side of the project excavation area per BMP 2.1.3.1. Additional silt fence shall be stockpiled on site. ▪ High visibility fencing will be installed on the upslope sides of the project and the project working limits. Traffic Area Stabilization A stabilized construction entrance will be provided per BMP 2.1.4.1. Sediment Retention Sediment Retention will be accomplished firstly through erosion control, and secondly through: ▪ Catch basin inserts will be installed and maintained per BMP 2.1.5.3 on the catch basins along Monroe Ave NE adjacent to the project site to prevent sediment from entering the storm drain system. Surface Water Collection Surface Water Collection is not required because no off-site discharge is anticipated up to the 2-year runoff event. The entire site drains to the infiltration facility which is sized to fully infiltrate up to the 100-year flow. Dewatering Control N/A Dust Control Dust Control will be per BMP 2.1.8. Flow Control Flow Control (BMP 2.1.9) shall be accomplished in the proposed infiltration pond, which is sized to fully infiltrate the 100-year flow. Pollutant Control ▪ Concrete will be handled per BMP 2.2.1. Concrete washout shall occur off site. ▪ Liquids and petroleum products will be handled and stored per BMP 2.2.4. A spill kit that meets the provisions of this BMP will be available on site. Monroe Ave NE Infiltration Facility Project 18 Technical Information Report Otak Maintain BMPs Protection of Proposed Flow Control BMPs will be per BMP 2.1.10. BMP Review and Maintenance shall be per BMP 2.2.11. Manage the Project Project Management shall be per BMP 2.1.12. Site inspections shall be conducted by a CESCL. Construction Sequence Following installation of the construction entrance, clearing limit demarcation, and perimeter protection erosion control, the infiltration pond and bioswale will be excavated. The bioswale will be lined with plastic sheeting to prevent erosion. During grading of the parking area, stormwater will be directed to these depressions which will provide sediment retention and flow control as discussed above. SWPPS Plan and Design Activities that could contribute pollutants to stormwater during construction include the following: ▪ Concrete Handling, Washout and Disposal will occur off site. If required, a designated concrete washout area meeting BMP 2.2.2 will be used. ▪ Material Delivery and Storage will occur in a construction staging area constructed of compacted gravel per BMP 2.2.4. Because the project disturbs more than one acre, it will require an NPDES General Permit for Construction. Monroe Ave NE Infiltration Facility Project 19 Technical Information Report Otak Section 9—Bond Quantities, Facility Summaries, and Declaration of Covenant Project permits will require a construction quantity summary to establish appropriate bond amount. Bond quantities will be completed for the project using the County’s bonding forms. The design engineer that is rewarded the project will be required to submit the Site Bond Quantities Worksheet (city’s website). The Flow Control Facility Summary and Sketch (Reference Section 8-D CRSWDM) have been completed for the project and are provided in Figure 1. The Declaration of Covenant for Privately Maintained On-Site BMPs and Declaration of Covenant for Privately Maintained Flow Control and WQ Facilities will not be required for this project, as the facilities are public works improvements and will be maintained by the City of Renton. Monroe Ave NE Infiltration Facility Project 20 Technical Information Report Otak Section 10—Operations and Maintenance Manual The proposed flow control and water quality facilities will be maintained by the City of Renton following City of Renton’s standard guidelines for alternative infiltration facilities and proprietary water quality facilities. A full Operations and Maintenance Plan will be developed prior to project closeout for the long term operations and maintenance of the facility. Monroe Ave NE Infiltration Facility Project 21 Technical Information Report Otak FIGURES CITY OF RENTON SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL 2022 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 6/22/2022 8-A-1 REFERENCE 8-A TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 1 PROJECT OWNER AND PROJECT ENGINEER Part 2 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION Project Owner _____________________________ Phone ___________________________________ Address __________________________________ _________________________________________ Project Engineer ___________________________ Company _________________________________ Phone ___________________________________ Project Name __________________________ CED Permit # ________________________ Location Township ________________ Range __________________ Section _________________ Site Address __________________________ _____________________________________ Part 3 TYPE OF PERMIT APPLICATION Part 4 OTHER REVIEWS AND PERMITS Land Use (e.g., Subdivision / Short Subd.) Building (e.g., M/F / Commercial / SFR) Grading Right-of-Way Use Other _______________________ DFW HPA COE 404 DOE Dam Safety FEMA Floodplain COE Wetlands Other ________ Shoreline Management Structural Rockery/Vault/_____ ESA Section 7 Part 5 PLAN AND REPORT INFORMATION Technical Information Report Site Improvement Plan (Engr. Plans) Type of Drainage Review (check one): Date (include revision dates): Date of Final: Full Targeted Simplified Large Project Directed __________________ __________________ __________________ Plan Type (check one): Date (include revision dates): Date of Final: Full Modified Simplified __________________ __________________ __________________ REFERENCE 8: PLAN REVIEW FORMS AND WORKSHEET TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET 6/22/2022 2022 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 8-A-2 Part 6 SWDM ADJUSTMENT APPROVALS Type (circle one): Standard / Blanket Description: (include conditions in TIR Section 2) ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ Approved Adjustment No. ______________________ Date of Approval: _______________________ Part 7 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Monitoring Required: Yes / No Start Date: _______________________ Completion Date: _______________________ Describe: _________________________________ _________________________________________ _________________________________________ Re: SWDM Adjustment No. ________________ Part 8 SITE COMMUNITY AND DRAINAGE BASIN Community Plan: ____________________________________________________________________ Special District Overlays: ______________________________________________________________ Drainage Basin: _____________________________________________________________________ Stormwater Requirements: _____________________________________________________________ Part 9 ONSITE AND ADJACENT SENSITIVE AREAS River/Stream ________________________ Lake ______________________________ Wetlands ____________________________ Closed Depression ____________________ Floodplain ___________________________ Other _______________________________ _______________________________ Steep Slope __________________________ Erosion Hazard _______________________ Landslide Hazard ______________________ Coal Mine Hazard ______________________ Seismic Hazard _______________________ Habitat Protection ______________________ _____________________________________ REFERENCE 8-A: TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET 2022 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 6/22/2022 Ref 8-A-3 Part 10 SOILS Soil Type ______________________ ______________________ ______________________ ______________________ Slopes ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ Erosion Potential _________________________ _________________________ _________________________ _________________________ High Groundwater Table (within 5 feet) Other ________________________________ Sole Source Aquifer Seeps/Springs Additional Sheets Attached Part 11 DRAINAGE DESIGN LIMITATIONS REFERENCE Core 2 – Offsite Analysis_________________ Sensitive/Critical Areas__________________ SEPA________________________________ LID Infeasibility________________________ Other________________________________ _____________________________________ LIMITATION / SITE CONSTRAINT _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ Additional Sheets Attached Part 12 TIR SUMMARY SHEET (provide one TIR Summary Sheet per Threshold Discharge Area) Threshold Discharge Area: (name or description) Core Requirements (all 9 apply): Discharge at Natural Location Number of Natural Discharge Locations: Offsite Analysis Level: 1 / 2 / 3 dated:__________________ Flow Control (include facility summary sheet) Standard: _______________________________ or Exemption Number: ____________ Conveyance System Spill containment located at: _____________________________ Erosion and Sediment Control / Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention CSWPP/CESCL/ESC Site Supervisor: _____________________ Contact Phone: _________________________ After Hours Phone: _________________________ Maintenance and Operation Responsibility (circle one): Private / Public If Private, Maintenance Log Required: Yes / No Financial Guarantees and Liability Provided: Yes / No REFERENCE 8: PLAN REVIEW FORMS AND WORKSHEET TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET 6/22/2022 2022 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 8-A-4 Part 12 TIR SUMMARY SHEET (provide one TIR Summary Sheet per Threshold Discharge Area) Water Quality (include facility summary sheet) Type (circle one): Basic / Sens. Lake / Enhanced Basic / Bog or Exemption No. _______________________ On-site BMPs Describe: Special Requirements (as applicable): Area Specific Drainage Requirements Type: SDO / MDP / BP / Shared Fac. / None Name: ________________________ Floodplain/Floodway Delineation Type (circle one): Major / Minor / Exemption / None 100-year Base Flood Elevation (or range): _______________ Datum: Flood Protection Facilities Describe: Source Control (commercial / industrial land use) Describe land use: Describe any structural controls: Oil Control High-Use Site: Yes / No Treatment BMP: _________________________________ Maintenance Agreement: Yes / No with whom? _____________________________________ Other Drainage Structures Describe: REFERENCE 8-A: TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET 2022 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 6/22/2022 Ref 8-A-5 Part 13 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION Clearing Limits Cover Measures Perimeter Protection Traffic Area Stabilization Sediment Retention Surface Water Collection Dewatering Control Dust Control Flow Control Control Pollutants Protect Existing and Proposed BMPs/Facilities Maintain Protective BMPs / Manage Project MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS AFTER CONSTRUCTION Stabilize exposed surfaces Remove and restore Temporary ESC Facilities Clean and remove all silt and debris, ensure operation of Permanent BMPs/Facilities, restore operation of BMPs/Facilities as necessary Flag limits of sensitive areas and open space preservation areas Other _______________________ Part 14 STORMWATER FACILITY DESCRIPTIONS (Note: Include Facility Summary and Sketch) Flow Control Description Water Quality Description On-site BMPs Description Detention Infiltration Regional Facility Shared Facility Other _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ Vegetated Flowpath Wetpool Filtration Oil Control Spill Control Other _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ Full Dispersion Full Infiltration Limited Infiltration Rain Gardens Bioretention Permeable Pavement Basic Dispersion Soil Amendment Perforated Pipe Connection Other _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ REFERENCE 8: PLAN REVIEW FORMS AND WORKSHEET TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET 6/22/2022 2022 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 8-A-6 Part 15 EASEMENTS/TRACTS Part 16 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS Drainage Easement Covenant Native Growth Protection Covenant Tract Other ____________________________ Cast in Place Vault Retaining Wall Rockery > 4′ High Structural on Steep Slope Other _______________________________ Part 17 SIGNATURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER I, or a civil engineer under my supervision, have visited the site. Actual site conditions as observed were incorporated into this worksheet and the attached Technical Information Report. To the best of my knowledge the information provided here is accurate. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Signed/Date FK:\Project\33200\33201A\CADD\GIS\MXDs\Phase 2\Figure1_SiteVicinityMap.mxdDate: 5/24/2021 Figure 2 Site Location ProjectLocation Puget Sound 1 inch = 1,000 feet 0 2,000Feet Legend Streams Np - Non-Fish Ns - Non-Fish SeasonalLandslideVery HighHighModerateUnclassified Seismic Hazard AreasWetlandsUpper Balch PitBasin Boundary NE 6TH ST NE 8TH ST NE 10TH ST MONROE AVE NENE 4TH STQUEEN AVE NEJEFFERSON AVE NEUNION AVE NEKC ACCESS RDNE 2ND ST Project Location K:\Project\33200\33201A\CADD\GIS\MXDs\Phase 2\Figure 3 Drainage Basin.mxdDate: 8/5/2021 Figure 3 Drainage Basin, Subbasins, andSite Characteristics 1 inch = 700 feet 0 700 1,400Feet Legend OutletsStructures PipesBasin NumberSubbasin 1, 72.5 acSubbasin 2, 94.7 acSubbasin 3, 53.8 acSubbasin 4, 4.3 acSubbasin 5, 20.7 acSubbasin 6, 14.44 ac NE 6TH ST MONROE AVE NENE 8TH ST NE 10TH ST NE 4TH ST QUEEN AVE NEUNION AVE NENE 2ND ST F BASIN 1 BASIN 4 BASIN 3 BASIN 2 BASIN 5 BASIN 6 K:\Project\33200\33201A\CADD\GIS\MXDs\Phase 1\Figure2_SoilsandPipesMap.mxdDate: 1/9/2020 Figure 2Soils and Pipes Map 1 inch = 1,000 feet 0 2,000Feet Legend Project BoundaryAlderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes, Soil Class CArents, Alderwood material, 6 to 15 percent slopes, Soil Class B/DArents, Everett material, Soil Class APipes NE 6TH ST MONROE AVE NENE 8TH ST NE 10TH ST NE 4TH STQUEEN AVE NEJEFFERSON AVE NEUNION AVE NENE 2ND ST Notes: -- Basemap and private/public pipes files provided by the City of Renton.-- Hydrologic soils data provided by NCRS (2019). F Appendix A Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis Model Report 11241 Willows Road NE, Suite 200 | Redmond, WA 98052 | Phone 425.822.4446 | otak.com k:\project\33200\33201a\projectdocs\reports\phase 3\modeling memo\23_0407_modeling memo.docx Memorandum To: Joe Farah, PE, Kevin Evans, PE City of Renton From: Charles Dewey, PE, Russ Gaston, PE, Teddy Thorson, PE Otak Copies: N/A Date: April 7, 2023 Subject: Monroe Ave NE Infiltration Facility - H&H Modeling Memorandum Project No.: 33201A Executive Summary The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a detailed summary of the hydrologic and hydraulic modeling performed for the sizing and layout of the proposed Monroe Ave. Infiltration Facility. The following sections provide descriptions of contributing basin delineation, hydrologic modeling to determine flows, and hydraulic modeling of the conveyance system and infiltration facility. The memorandum also presents results produced from the model and how they were used in sizing and analyzing the facility. Project Overview The project site is located between Jefferson Ave NE to the west, Monroe Ave NE to the east, NE 4th Street to the north, and NE 2nd Street to the south. The project is located at 301 Monroe Ave NE, Renton, WA 98056; on a former gravel and sand quarry referred to as the Upper Balch Pit. Under existing conditions, runoff from a 245.9-acre contributing drainage basin flows through a 36-inch diameter trunkline south along Monroe Ave NE to dead end into an existing perforated pipe; high flows can emergency overflow into the Upper Balch Pit where the stormwater will pond and infiltrate. This reduces the flooding within the ROW on Monroe Ave NE. The proposed Monroe Ave NE Infiltration Facility project includes stormwater facility infrastructure to collect flow from the 36-inch trunkline and infiltrate below grade in a new infiltration facility. To meet the City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual requirements, the project proposes to infiltrate all flows from the entire upstream contributing basin, as this basin is a closed depression. The project also involves installing a facility to provide water quality treatment to flows prior to infiltration. The existing and proposed conditions are described in greater detail in the Monroe Ave NE Infiltration Facility Technical Information Report (TIR). Modeling Overview To properly analyze the proposed facility, a complex model was required that combines hydrology and hydraulics. WWHM-SWMM software was selected as it allows for analysis of scaled hydrographs, as well as modeling the full historic runoff method through the facility. WWHM-SWMM also allowed for hydraulic analysis of the different project features such as vaults, pipes, and infiltration chambers to analyze the Page 2 of 15 Monroe Ave Infiltration Facility H&H Modeling Memorandum April 7, 2023 k:\project\33200\33201a\projectdocs\reports\phase 3\modeling memo\23_0407_modeling memo.docx impacts on each project element at different peak flow events. WWHM-SWMM incorporates both WWHM2012 and EPASWMM, and is produced by the same company that produces WWHM2012. Hydrologic Modeling Setup WWHM-SWMM utilizes the WWHM2012 for hydrologic analysis. To analyze the hydrology of the flows being conveyed to the proposed facility, the relevant contributing basins were delineated based on their outfall location into the Monroe Ave NE trunkline. These basins were quantified for the given slopes, soil, and landcover for input into the hydrologic model. A more detailed discussion of these basins is provided in Section 4 of the TIR. When the model is run, a runoff timeseries is generated for each basin based off the 60-year WWHM2012 15-minute precipitation timeseries and the model basin characteristics. This runoff timeseries is then routed through the EPASWMM hydraulic model to provide hydraulic analysis of the proposed improvements. Hydraulic Modeling Setup WWHM-SWMM uses EPASWMM to model and compute hydraulic results for the proposed facility. The hydraulic analysis is performed based on the flows that are generated from the hydrologic portion of the models described above. Due to the complexity of the site, there are a significant number of project elements that required unique practices to model and analyze. This section provides an overview of the hydraulic model and its extents, as well as more detailed explanations of modeling of the closed conduit conveyance, flow splitter structure, water quality facility, and infiltration facility. Hydraulic Model Overview and Extents To build an accurate hydraulic model, all the relevant hydraulic features needed to be included within the model extents. The extents of the model were defined by the existing conveyance trunkline along Monroe Ave NE, which runs from NE 6th Street to NE 2nd Street. This was done to ensure that the routing of flows to the facility was accurate by having sufficient conveyance infrastructure in the model both north and south of the project site. A more detailed discussion of the general modeling practices for close conduit conveyance is described later in this section. With the existing trunkline incorporated into the model, subbasins from the hydrologic model were connected to junctions along the existing Monroe Avenue NE trunkline at the subbasin outflow locations. This methodology employs a conservative assumption that all runoff from each subbasin can be conveyed into the trunkline along Monroe Ave. Due to the disconnected nature of the upstream basin, which is generally single family residential, this is unlikely to occur in practice, but included for conservative modeling. As flow is routed to the proposed stormwater facility, conveyance is routed through many project specific elements such as the flow splitter, water quality vault, and the infiltration facility. These are all unique facilities that required different methods to accurately model that will be discussed later in this section. For a SWMM model to run, SWMM elements must terminate at an outfall. The model of the proposed site implements two outfalls – an existing outfall located at NE 2nd Street (which represents the infiltration from the existing perforated pipe) and a new outfall that represents infiltration (outflow from the proposed infiltration facility into deep groundwater). The full model extents are shown in Figure 1. Page 3 of 15 Monroe Ave Infiltration Facility H&H Modeling Memorandum April 7, 2023 k:\project\33200\33201a\projectdocs\reports\phase 3\modeling memo\23_0407_modeling memo.docx Figure 1: Proposed hydraulic model extents Closed Conduit Modeling Methodology Most of the flow is conveyed through closed conduits in the hydraulic model. The closed conduit conveyance modeling is designed in a manner to accurately model the hydraulics of a system of pipes Page 4 of 15 Monroe Ave Infiltration Facility H&H Modeling Memorandum April 7, 2023 k:\project\33200\33201a\projectdocs\reports\phase 3\modeling memo\23_0407_modeling memo.docx and drainage structures that is typical of an urban stormwater system. For the Monroe Ave NE Infiltration Facility, the flow is conveyed in a pipe network, and is included in the model as a closed conduit. The geometry of the stormwater system as reflected in the plans, including items such as pipe lengths, slopes, invert elevations, and structure rim elevations are represented directly in the associated model elements. The roughness parameter is determined for each conduit based on the associated pipe material. Entrance and exit loss coefficients were applied at each structure to capture local losses experienced by flow at these locations. Typical entrance and exit loss coefficients at a drainage structure are 1.0 and 0.5, respectively. The model junctions and conduits were connected to match the layout of the proposed stormwater system as represented in the plans. For the closed conduits model to run, the hydraulic model requires an outfall element to represent the downstream hydraulic extents. In the proposed conditions, stormwater outfalls via infiltration through the facility. To represent this phenomenon in SWMM, an artificial free outfall was created downstream of the infiltration facility node, which will be described in a subsequent section. The infiltration facility node was connected to the outfall with a conduit element. The conduit is represented as a 6-foot diameter pipe with 10% slope, which ensured that flow from the infiltration facility element would not backwater when reaching the outfall element. Effectively, this conduit is in the model to ensure that routing issues do not occur when directly connecting a storage element to an outfall with an outlet curve. This model setup ensures that the connection of the modeled infiltration facility to the outfall does not impact the inflow, stage storage, and outflow of the infiltration facility, which is most important hydraulic analysis for determining the functionality of the project. Flow Splitter Modeling The first significant proposed structure that required unique hydraulic modeling was the flow splitter structure. Approximately 280 feet downstream and west of Monroe Ave NE, the proposed conveyance drains into a flow splitter structure. The flow splitter structure is designed to split off the water quality flow rate to drain into the water quality facility for treatment. Flows higher than the water quality flow rate will bypass the water quality facility and drain directly into the proposed infiltration facility. The flow splitter structure is a concrete vault with internal dimensions of 10 feet x 10 feet x 8 feet. There is an internal weir within the flow splitter vault that is set at an elevation of 327.74 feet, which is 4 feet above the inflow pipe invert. The weir forces flow to preferentially drain through the pipe that conveys flow to the water quality facility. As it is not possible to create a single element with an internal weir within SWMM, the following approach was used to represent the flow splitter. At the junction that was used to represent the flow splitter, two outflowing conduits were connected. The first connected conduit was the 24-inch diameter pipe that flows to the water quality facility. This was modeled as a typical pipe using the methodology described above. It also contains a 1.15-foot orifice, which is modeled upstream of the conduit. This orifice has been sized to ensure the correct water quality flow rate is split to the water quality facility. The second connected conduit in the model was a weir element to represent the flow to the high- flow bypass. The weir element was modeled as a transverse weir with weir height and weir length being consistent with the internal weir indicated in the plans. The weir is connected to another junction, which is used to represent the half of the flow splitter vault on the far side of the weir prior to being routed through the high flow bypass. The outflow pipe from this node was then routed as a typical pipe to the next proposed drainage structure downstream, in a manner consistent with the other typical pipes and drainage structures in the hydraulic model. The model schematic for modeling of the flow splitter is shown in Figure 2. Page 5 of 15 Monroe Ave Infiltration Facility H&H Modeling Memorandum April 7, 2023 k:\project\33200\33201a\projectdocs\reports\phase 3\modeling memo\23_0407_modeling memo.docx Figure 2: Flow Splitter model configuration Water Quality Facility Modeling The selected enhanced water quality facility has been designed as a Biopod, manufactured by OldCastle, or an approved equal proprietary treatment facility. Regardless of the selected water quality device, the Page 6 of 15 Monroe Ave Infiltration Facility H&H Modeling Memorandum April 7, 2023 k:\project\33200\33201a\projectdocs\reports\phase 3\modeling memo\23_0407_modeling memo.docx design of the water quality facility must include a high-flow rate treatment media (150in/hr), well dispersed flow across the facility, and an internal high-flow bypass to ensure that flows are able to be routed with limited attenuation to the infiltration facility. The water quality facility was modeled as a storage node based on its geometry. The water quality facility is designed with a central trough that will fill as flow stages up. When the trough reaches a certain depth, runoff flows over a set of weirs onto the surface of the treatment media. The runoff then infiltrates vertically through the treatment media where the water quality treatment occurs and is collected in a series of perforated underdrains. Once the treated water is collected, it is conveyed to the outlet of the facility and into a pipe that directs flow to the proposed infiltration facility. Due to the various components of the water quality facility, it was determined that it would be very difficult to accurately model the storage, filtration, and conveyance of treated water in the context of this hydraulic model. To ensure that the overall system has adequate capacity as an end-of-line facility, conservative assumptions were made to simplify the modeling of the water quality facility. The water quality facility was modeled with the accurate geometry of the central trough and the overall vault dimensions based on the proposed design. However, the infiltration through the media and its underdrain collection were not included in this model. Due to high flowrate of media and the internal high-flow bypasses, the outflow from the water quality facility functions largely as a conduit, with insignificant losses and attenuation. The storage curve utilized for the water quality vault model is shown below in Figure 3. Based on running the model through the full time series, there are no historic events where the Enhanced Water Quality Vault backwatered, thus storage above the trough was not utilized. Figure 3: Water Quality Vault storage curve Page 7 of 15 Monroe Ave Infiltration Facility H&H Modeling Memorandum April 7, 2023 k:\project\33200\33201a\projectdocs\reports\phase 3\modeling memo\23_0407_modeling memo.docx Infiltration Facility Modeling The modeling of the infiltration facility was the most complex portion of the hydraulic modeling effort for this project. The infiltration facility required being modeled as a singular element to provide sufficient model accuracy and efficiency. Within the SWMM model, a storage node element was selected for modeling of the facility. This element allowed for the implementation of curves for both storage and outflow with respect to head in the facility that represented the complex geometry and hydraulics of the portion of the project where stormwater will be infiltrating. The schematic for the modeling of the proposed infiltration facility is shown in Figure 4. Infiltration Facility Modeling – Manifold Upstream of the proposed infiltration facility, flow is routed through a concrete infiltration chamber manifold vault and a set of pipes called the infiltration chamber manifold. The goal of the infiltration chamber manifold vault is route flow initially through three rows of Stormtech chambers, prior to distributing flow to the entire facility. These first three rows of Stormtech chambers are called the primary isolator rows and are designed to allow for easier maintenance of the facility (more concentrated maintenance activities to occur at these three primary isolator rows). To direct flow to the isolator rows, the manifold vault is constructed with two internal weirs on either side of the vault. Runoff entering the manifold vault will preferentially flow into the primary isolator rows until the flow in the primary isolator rows and concrete manifold vault reaches an elevation stage such that flows overtop the weirs. Once flow overtops the weirs, runoff will flow through the manifold pipes and be directed via stubs into every other row of Stormtech chambers. Each chamber row that is connected to the manifold has a woven geotextile fabric directly under the chambers. This woven geotextile has a high infiltration rate and is tear resistant to allow for jet-vacuuming any fine sediment that reaches these chambers. It is expected that the primary isolator rows will need to be maintained regularly, while the secondary isolator rows will need to be maintained infrequently; only when inspection determines that sedimentation has occurred. The infiltration chamber manifold vault was modeled as a storage node that represents the vault geometry shown in the plans (27-foot long, 7.5-foot wide, 7-foot high with two internal weir walls). For the primary isolator rows, flow was connected through a conduit into a separate storage node that represented the geometry of the three isolator rows. The outflow from these primary isolator rows is controlled by the filtration rate through the geotextile fabric for the three rows (41.1-cfs) routed into the full infiltration facility described below. By separating the three primary isolator rows as described above, it was possible to model the first flush of flows entering the primary isolator rows, then, as flows increase beyond the filter rate overtopping the weirs and engaging the rest of the manifold. Weirs matching the geometry of the vault internal weirs (7.5- feet wide, 2.5-foot high) were connected to the storage node representing the infiltration chamber manifold vault. These were then connected to the system of pipes and catch basins that comprise the manifold, all of which flow into the proposed infiltration facility. Modeling of Infiltration Facility – Storage Curve A storage curve was developed to capture the volume that is available for stormwater to be stored within the infiltration facility. As described in the TIR, the infiltration facility consists of an upper area of bottomless plastic arch chambers (MC-7200 Stormtech chambers or equivalent) with AASHTO #3 clean and washed gravel below. The Stormtech chambers invert is set at elevation 315. The AASHTO #3 gravel extends 25.5 feet below the chamber invert to elevation 289.5 to provide additional storage volume during peak flow events. Below elevation 289.5, a separate material is placed to fill the excavated volume between the bottom of the AASHTO #3 gravel and the existing native material. The material below the Page 8 of 15 Monroe Ave Infiltration Facility H&H Modeling Memorandum April 7, 2023 k:\project\33200\33201a\projectdocs\reports\phase 3\modeling memo\23_0407_modeling memo.docx AASHTO #3 gravel is specified as an analogous native material. This material will have similar properties to the existing native material to ensure that the infiltration rate and separation from groundwater is preserved. The analogous native material volume below the facility is not included in the computations of total facility storage. A cross section of the proposed infiltration facility is shown in Figure 5. The facility storage was computed for two separate components – the storage from the Stormtech chambers and the storage for the AASHTO #3 infiltration gravel. For the Stormtech chamber component, a stage area curve was computed based on the geometry of a single Stormtech chamber unit, taken from the WWHM2012 commercial element toolbox. This was then multiplied by the number area over which the chambers will be placed to compute the area with respect to stage for the Stormtech chambers. This stage area curve includes infiltration rock backfill between the chambers, as well as 1-foot rock backfill above the top of the chambers. To compute the available storage for the AASHTO #3 gravel component, a different approach was applied. The pit that will be filled for this project will be excavated at different side slopes in different locations until the native material is reached along the infiltration plane. Once native material is reached across the bottom of the pit, the pit will be filled in with analogous native material to a level bottom elevation of 289.5. Above elevation 289.5, the pit will be filled with AASHTO #3 infiltration gravel. As the infiltration gravel increases in elevation, the effective storage area of the pit increases due to the excavated side slopes. This occurs on the north and west side of the excavated pit. On the east and south side of the pit, the proposed infiltration facility will utilize a vertical ecology block wall which will separate the AASHTO #3 infiltration gravel from other aggregates being brought on site to fill the pit. This increase in area with elevation was modeled using a Civil 3D surface, from which a stage area curve was extracted. Within this component volume, only the void space of the aggregate can be used for storage of stormwater runoff. The AASHTO #3 was selected as an aggregate as it has a high porosity value of 0.4. By multiplying the area at each stage value by the porosity, the available area for storage was computed. To product the final infiltration facility curve, the two component curves were concatenated into a single curve based on the height relative to the facility bottom elevation of 289.5. This curve was then implemented into the model as a stage area curve. The stage area curve used for the proposed facility is shown in Figure 6. As the storage available in the Stormtech chambers is much greater than the storage in the AASHTO #3 layer, there is a large increase in storage area at elevation 315, the invert of the Stormtech chambers. This storage area also decreases from bottom to top of the chambers based on the chamber geometry. Page 9 of 15 Monroe Ave Infiltration Facility H&H Modeling Memorandum April 7, 2023 k:\project\33200\33201a\projectdocs\reports\phase 3\modeling memo\23_0407_modeling memo.docx Figure 4: Proposed Infiltration Facility and manifold model configuration Page 10 of 15 Monroe Ave Infiltration Facility H&H Modeling Memorandum April 7, 2023 k:\project\33200\33201a\projectdocs\reports\phase 3\modeling memo\23_0407_modeling memo.docx Figure 5: Proposed Infiltration Facility cross section Figure 6: Proposed Infiltration Facility storage curve Page 11 of 15 Monroe Ave Infiltration Facility H&H Modeling Memorandum April 7, 2023 k:\project\33200\33201a\projectdocs\reports\phase 3\modeling memo\23_0407_modeling memo.docx Infiltration Facility Modeling – Infiltration Curve To model the infiltration of the facility an outlet element was connected to the downstream end of the infiltration storage facility described above. An outlet element allows for a stage discharge curve to be applied for the outflow based on the upstream SWMM node. For each stage that the upstream storage node achieves, a different outflow value will be applied to the model. Using the geometry and design parameters for the proposed facility, an outflow (infiltration) curve was developed and implemented in the SWMM model. To accurately account for the full infiltration of the facility, both vertical and lateral infiltration were quantified and used in the outflow curve. This is important, as the wetted area of the infiltration plane is along a slope to the north and west. As stormwater stages up within the infiltration facility, the wetted area exposed along the side slopes to the north and west will have both vertical and lateral infiltration components. The term vertical infiltration refers to infiltration where water crosses the horizontal plane, while lateral infiltration is where water passes through a vertical plane. The vertical infiltration was straightforward to compute. The long-term design infiltration rate was determined by the geotechnical consultant to be greater than 20 inches per hour, and was set at 20 inches per hour into the native infiltration soils to comply with maximum design infiltration rates as set by the City of Renton. By multiplying the horizontal area over which infiltration was occurring by the design infiltration rate, a flowrate was computed. As with the storage area footprint, the infiltration area footprint increases as the facility increases in elevation due to the excavated native side slopes to the north and west side of the infiltration facility. Since the side slopes on the north and west side are cut into the existing native material, areas inundated as stage increases will infiltrate at the same flowrate as the areas at the bottom of the facility. Therefore, as the facility stages up within the AASHTO #3 infiltration gravel, the discharge flow rate due to vertical infiltration will also increase as the footprint of receptor soil increases. In addition to the vertical infiltration, water will infiltrate laterally into the north and west slopes as the facility increases in stage. To quantify this lateral infiltration rate, methodology provided by the geotechnical consultant was used. This methodology is shown in Figure 7. The lateral infiltration assumes that as the facility increases in stage, the lateral infiltration rate also increases due to increased head on the facility. As the lowest elevation of the facility is impacted by the greatest head, the lateral infiltration is always greatest at the bottom of the facility. The methodology also assumes that there is a maximum lateral infiltration rate equal to half the design (vertical) infiltration rate of 10 inches per hour. Using these assumptions and the vertical component over the wetted slope area over which infiltration can occur, the lateral discharge component was computed with respect to the stage of the facility. These values were then added to the vertical discharge flow rate to determine the total (infiltration) outflow from the storage facility. This curve was used for the outflow of the facility and is shown in Figure 8. Page 12 of 15 Monroe Ave Infiltration Facility H&H Modeling Memorandum April 7, 2023 k:\project\33200\33201a\projectdocs\reports\phase 3\modeling memo\23_0407_modeling memo.docx Figure 7: Methodology for determining lateral infiltration Page 13 of 15 Monroe Ave Infiltration Facility H&H Modeling Memorandum April 7, 2023 k:\project\33200\33201a\projectdocs\reports\phase 3\modeling memo\23_0407_modeling memo.docx Figure 8: Proposed Infiltration Facility outflow curves Analysis Methodology, Results, and Discussion The analysis of the facility hydraulic performance was completed in accordance with the requirements of the City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual. Per the requirements for infiltration facilities, the infiltration facility should be able to infiltrate all stormwater flows up to the 100-year peak flow event. While it was possible to extract and scale a 25-year and 100-year peak flow hydrograph to perform this analysis, a more robust approach was implemented. The proposed facility contains a significant amount of storage that will provide flow attenuation of the shorter and more significant peak flow events. However, peak flow events that have longer duration and greater runoff volume will cause the facility to be inundated for longer periods of time that could result in more significant staging of the facility. This results in a phenomenon where a 25-year or 100-year peak flow hydrograph that is scaled based on an existing hydrograph may not result in the greatest observed stage within the facility. By analyzing hydraulics in WWHM-SWMM, it was possible to route a hydrograph through this facility that used 15- minute precipitation data for the entire available 61-year precipitation record. Once this model run was completed, the peak stage values within the facility were extracted for each year and compared to the top of the proposed infiltration facility. These results are shown in Figure 9. As shown in Figure 9, peak stage exceeded the maximum height of the facility for only one year out of the entire 61-year precipitation record . The model showed that the duration where the modeled stage was above the top of chambers was approximately 3 hours and 45 minutes. While the facility in this peak flow event does surcharge, it does not result in any significant flooding as the grade of all surrounding infrastructure is approximately 10 feet above the top of the Stormtech chambers. All surcharging water will remain within the proposed stormwater pipes and structures, and does not backwater through the Page 14 of 15 Monroe Ave Infiltration Facility H&H Modeling Memorandum April 7, 2023 k:\project\33200\33201a\projectdocs\reports\phase 3\modeling memo\23_0407_modeling memo.docx upstream water quality treatment vault. The surcharged volume will still route through the proposed infiltration facility as infiltration into the native soils draws down the staged volume. This analysis shows that the proposed infiltration facility meets the requirements outlined in the City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual. Figure 9: Proposed Infiltration Facility peak elevation by year Conclusion As this is an end of the line stormwater facility in a closed depression, which will experience significant flow, a detailed hydraulic model was necessary to assess performance of the proposed system. The modeling complexities described above for the different project elements provide an accurate estimation of the hydraulic performance of the proposed improvements. The model results show that minimal surcharging of the facility is expected during the most significant precipitation events on record in the contributing basin. The model also implements several conservative assumptions such as assuming the fully unattenuated flows from the upstream contributing basin will reach the proposed stormwater facility. The detail of the model for the proposed conditions, combined with the conservative assumptions for its expected inflow, ensure that the facility design is expected to function for long-term management of stormwater discharge. Page 15 of 15 Monroe Ave Infiltration Facility H&H Modeling Memorandum April 7, 2023 k:\project\33200\33201a\projectdocs\reports\phase 3\modeling memo\23_0407_modeling memo.docx Attachment A WWHM2012 Hydrologic Model Report WWHM2012 PROJECT REPORT DRAFTRM_V3 1/16/2023 5:57:37 PM Page 2 General Model Information Project Name:RM_V3 Site Name: Site Address: City: Report Date:1/16/2023 Gage:Seatac Data Start:1948/10/01 Data End:2009/09/30 Timestep:15 Minute Precip Scale:1.000 Version Date:2021/10/18 Version:4.2.18 POC Thresholds Low Flow Threshold for POC1:50 Percent of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC1:50 Year Low Flow Threshold for POC2:50 Percent of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC2:50 Year DRAFTRM_V3 1/16/2023 5:57:37 PM Page 3 Landuse Basin Data Predeveloped Land Use Basin 6 Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre C, Lawn, Flat 8.66 Pervious Total 8.66 Impervious Land Use acre ROADS FLAT 5.78 Impervious Total 5.78 Basin Total 14.44 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater DRAFTRM_V3 1/16/2023 5:57:37 PM Page 4 Basin 2 Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre A B, Lawn, Flat 23.591 A B, Lawn, Mod 9.665 A B, Lawn, Steep 1.388 C, Lawn, Flat 6.848 C, Lawn, Mod 7.231 C, Lawn, Steep 3.453 Pervious Total 52.176 Impervious Land Use acre ROADS FLAT 22.08 ROADS MOD 16.047 ROADS STEEP 4.406 Impervious Total 42.533 Basin Total 94.709 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater DRAFTRM_V3 1/16/2023 5:57:37 PM Page 5 Basin 3 Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre A B, Lawn, Flat 2.747 A B, Lawn, Mod 1.353 A B, Lawn, Steep 0.686 C, Lawn, Flat 4.328 C, Lawn, Mod 3.207 C, Lawn, Steep 1.151 Pervious Total 13.472 Impervious Land Use acre ROADS FLAT 19.439 ROADS MOD 15.156 ROADS STEEP 5.727 Impervious Total 40.322 Basin Total 53.794 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater DRAFTRM_V3 1/16/2023 5:57:37 PM Page 6 Basin 4 Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre A B, Lawn, Flat 0.917 A B, Lawn, Mod 1.006 A B, Lawn, Steep 0.207 Pervious Total 2.13 Impervious Land Use acre ROADS FLAT 0.891 ROADS MOD 1.119 ROADS STEEP 0.123 Impervious Total 2.133 Basin Total 4.263 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater DRAFTRM_V3 1/16/2023 5:57:37 PM Page 7 Basin 5 Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre A B, Lawn, Flat 1.014 A B, Lawn, Mod 0.403 A B, Lawn, Steep 0.141 C, Lawn, Flat 2.944 C, Lawn, Mod 3.433 C, Lawn, Steep 1.275 Pervious Total 9.21 Impervious Land Use acre ROADS FLAT 5.74 ROADS MOD 4.426 ROADS STEEP 1.303 Impervious Total 11.469 Basin Total 20.679 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater DRAFTRM_V3 1/16/2023 5:57:37 PM Page 8 Basin 1 Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre A B, Lawn, Flat 20.723 A B, Lawn, Mod 15.657 A B, Lawn, Steep 5.249 Pervious Total 41.629 Impervious Land Use acre ROADS FLAT 15.524 ROADS MOD 12.944 ROADS STEEP 2.358 Impervious Total 30.826 Basin Total 72.455 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater DRAFTRM_V3 1/16/2023 5:57:37 PM Page 9 Mitigated Land Use Basin 6 Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre C, Lawn, Flat 8.66 Pervious Total 8.66 Impervious Land Use acre ROADS FLAT 5.78 Impervious Total 5.78 Basin Total 14.44 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater DRAFTRM_V3 1/16/2023 5:57:37 PM Page 10 Basin 2 Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre A B, Lawn, Flat 23.591 A B, Lawn, Mod 9.665 A B, Lawn, Steep 1.388 C, Lawn, Flat 6.848 C, Lawn, Mod 7.231 C, Lawn, Steep 3.453 Pervious Total 52.176 Impervious Land Use acre ROADS FLAT 22.08 ROADS MOD 16.047 ROADS STEEP 4.406 Impervious Total 42.533 Basin Total 94.709 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater DRAFTRM_V3 1/16/2023 5:57:37 PM Page 11 Basin 3 Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre A B, Lawn, Flat 2.747 A B, Lawn, Mod 1.353 A B, Lawn, Steep 0.686 C, Lawn, Flat 4.328 C, Lawn, Mod 3.207 C, Lawn, Steep 1.151 Pervious Total 13.472 Impervious Land Use acre ROADS FLAT 19.439 ROADS MOD 15.156 ROADS STEEP 5.727 Impervious Total 40.322 Basin Total 53.794 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater DRAFTRM_V3 1/16/2023 5:57:37 PM Page 12 Basin 4 Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre A B, Lawn, Flat 0.917 A B, Lawn, Mod 1.006 A B, Lawn, Steep 0.207 Pervious Total 2.13 Impervious Land Use acre ROADS FLAT 0.891 ROADS MOD 1.119 ROADS STEEP 0.123 Impervious Total 2.133 Basin Total 4.263 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater DRAFTRM_V3 1/16/2023 5:57:37 PM Page 13 Basin 5 Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre A B, Lawn, Flat 1.014 A B, Lawn, Mod 0.403 A B, Lawn, Steep 0.141 C, Lawn, Flat 2.944 C, Lawn, Mod 3.433 C, Lawn, Steep 1.275 Pervious Total 9.21 Impervious Land Use acre ROADS FLAT 5.74 ROADS MOD 4.426 ROADS STEEP 1.303 Impervious Total 11.469 Basin Total 20.679 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater DRAFTRM_V3 1/16/2023 5:57:37 PM Page 14 Basin 1 Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre A B, Lawn, Flat 20.723 A B, Lawn, Mod 15.657 A B, Lawn, Steep 5.249 Pervious Total 41.629 Impervious Land Use acre ROADS FLAT 15.524 ROADS MOD 12.944 ROADS STEEP 2.358 Impervious Total 30.826 Basin Total 72.455 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater DRAFTRM_V3 1/16/2023 5:57:37 PM Page 15 Routing Elements Predeveloped Routing DRAFTRM_V3 1/16/2023 5:57:37 PM Page 16 Mitigated Routing DRAFTRM_V3 1/16/2023 5:57:37 PM Page 17 Analysis Results POC 1 + Predeveloped x Mitigated Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:118.617 Total Impervious Area:127.283 Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:118.617 Total Impervious Area:127.283 Flow Frequency Method:Log Pearson Type III 17B Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 55.430388 5 year 72.082028 10 year 83.891204 25 year 99.738631 50 year 112.237735 100 year 125.348724 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 55.430388 5 year 72.082028 10 year 83.891204 25 year 99.738631 50 year 112.237735 100 year 125.348724 Annual Peaks Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Year Predeveloped Mitigated 1949 73.932 73.932 1950 72.546 72.546 1951 47.297 47.297 1952 35.397 35.397 1953 41.767 41.767 1954 45.500 45.500 1955 51.552 51.552 1956 46.936 46.936 1957 55.347 55.347 1958 44.762 44.762 DRAFTRM_V3 1/16/2023 5:58:06 PM Page 18 1959 46.325 46.325 1960 48.599 48.599 1961 46.004 46.004 1962 39.841 39.841 1963 48.600 48.600 1964 45.399 45.399 1965 57.555 57.555 1966 38.405 38.405 1967 71.214 71.214 1968 81.496 81.496 1969 51.984 51.984 1970 51.165 51.165 1971 61.703 61.703 1972 68.291 68.291 1973 37.554 37.554 1974 57.573 57.573 1975 59.611 59.611 1976 45.807 45.807 1977 44.394 44.394 1978 60.894 60.894 1979 77.568 77.568 1980 82.114 82.114 1981 54.854 54.854 1982 79.649 79.649 1983 62.964 62.964 1984 39.263 39.263 1985 53.437 53.437 1986 46.303 46.303 1987 71.684 71.684 1988 43.192 43.192 1989 64.783 64.783 1990 119.931 119.931 1991 88.721 88.721 1992 39.854 39.854 1993 42.698 42.698 1994 39.330 39.330 1995 48.935 48.935 1996 66.161 66.161 1997 54.170 54.170 1998 51.408 51.408 1999 113.348 113.348 2000 53.349 53.349 2001 60.284 60.284 2002 67.428 67.428 2003 63.766 63.766 2004 107.825 107.825 2005 44.793 44.793 2006 43.608 43.608 2007 114.301 114.301 2008 81.906 81.906 2009 71.796 71.796 Ranked Annual Peaks Ranked Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated 1 119.9310 119.9310 2 114.3010 114.3010 3 113.3480 113.3480 DRAFTRM_V3 1/16/2023 5:58:06 PM Page 19 4 107.8250 107.8250 5 88.7208 88.7208 6 82.1139 82.1139 7 81.9061 81.9061 8 81.4958 81.4958 9 79.6485 79.6485 10 77.5678 77.5678 11 73.9321 73.9321 12 72.5461 72.5461 13 71.7959 71.7959 14 71.6844 71.6844 15 71.2136 71.2136 16 68.2912 68.2912 17 67.4276 67.4276 18 66.1611 66.1611 19 64.7828 64.7828 20 63.7664 63.7664 21 62.9636 62.9636 22 61.7027 61.7027 23 60.8940 60.8940 24 60.2836 60.2836 25 59.6110 59.6110 26 57.5726 57.5726 27 57.5552 57.5552 28 55.3470 55.3470 29 54.8537 54.8537 30 54.1702 54.1702 31 53.4369 53.4369 32 53.3491 53.3491 33 51.9842 51.9842 34 51.5517 51.5517 35 51.4082 51.4082 36 51.1648 51.1648 37 48.9346 48.9346 38 48.6004 48.6004 39 48.5991 48.5991 40 47.2966 47.2966 41 46.9363 46.9363 42 46.3252 46.3252 43 46.3031 46.3031 44 46.0043 46.0043 45 45.8068 45.8068 46 45.4999 45.4999 47 45.3989 45.3989 48 44.7934 44.7934 49 44.7620 44.7620 50 44.3935 44.3935 51 43.6075 43.6075 52 43.1920 43.1920 53 42.6983 42.6983 54 41.7666 41.7666 55 39.8537 39.8537 56 39.8407 39.8407 57 39.3301 39.3301 58 39.2628 39.2628 59 38.4051 38.4051 60 37.5544 37.5544 61 35.3966 35.3966 DRAFTRM_V3 1/16/2023 5:58:06 PM Page 20 DRAFTRM_V3 1/16/2023 5:58:06 PM Page 21 Duration Flows The Facility PASSED Flow(cfs)Predev Mit Percentage Pass/Fail 27.7152 1478 1478 100 Pass 28.5690 1335 1335 100 Pass 29.4227 1203 1203 100 Pass 30.2765 1074 1074 100 Pass 31.1302 985 985 100 Pass 31.9840 894 894 100 Pass 32.8378 800 800 100 Pass 33.6915 721 721 100 Pass 34.5453 651 651 100 Pass 35.3991 596 596 100 Pass 36.2528 544 544 100 Pass 37.1066 500 500 100 Pass 37.9604 473 473 100 Pass 38.8141 446 446 100 Pass 39.6679 407 407 100 Pass 40.5216 378 378 100 Pass 41.3754 351 351 100 Pass 42.2292 334 334 100 Pass 43.0829 302 302 100 Pass 43.9367 283 283 100 Pass 44.7905 260 260 100 Pass 45.6442 239 239 100 Pass 46.4980 222 222 100 Pass 47.3517 199 199 100 Pass 48.2055 186 186 100 Pass 49.0593 171 171 100 Pass 49.9130 164 164 100 Pass 50.7668 154 154 100 Pass 51.6206 144 144 100 Pass 52.4743 136 136 100 Pass 53.3281 127 127 100 Pass 54.1818 120 120 100 Pass 55.0356 115 115 100 Pass 55.8894 106 106 100 Pass 56.7431 105 105 100 Pass 57.5969 100 100 100 Pass 58.4507 93 93 100 Pass 59.3044 86 86 100 Pass 60.1582 82 82 100 Pass 61.0120 76 76 100 Pass 61.8657 73 73 100 Pass 62.7195 70 70 100 Pass 63.5732 66 66 100 Pass 64.4270 62 62 100 Pass 65.2808 55 55 100 Pass 66.1345 50 50 100 Pass 66.9883 48 48 100 Pass 67.8421 45 45 100 Pass 68.6958 41 41 100 Pass 69.5496 39 39 100 Pass 70.4033 35 35 100 Pass 71.2571 33 33 100 Pass 72.1109 29 29 100 Pass DRAFTRM_V3 1/16/2023 5:58:06 PM Page 22 72.9646 26 26 100 Pass 73.8184 25 25 100 Pass 74.6722 24 24 100 Pass 75.5259 23 23 100 Pass 76.3797 22 22 100 Pass 77.2335 22 22 100 Pass 78.0872 21 21 100 Pass 78.9410 19 19 100 Pass 79.7947 18 18 100 Pass 80.6485 18 18 100 Pass 81.5023 17 17 100 Pass 82.3560 14 14 100 Pass 83.2098 14 14 100 Pass 84.0636 14 14 100 Pass 84.9173 14 14 100 Pass 85.7711 14 14 100 Pass 86.6248 13 13 100 Pass 87.4786 13 13 100 Pass 88.3324 12 12 100 Pass 89.1861 10 10 100 Pass 90.0399 9 9 100 Pass 90.8937 8 8 100 Pass 91.7474 8 8 100 Pass 92.6012 8 8 100 Pass 93.4549 7 7 100 Pass 94.3087 7 7 100 Pass 95.1625 7 7 100 Pass 96.0162 7 7 100 Pass 96.8700 7 7 100 Pass 97.7238 7 7 100 Pass 98.5775 6 6 100 Pass 99.4313 5 5 100 Pass 100.2851 5 5 100 Pass 101.1388 5 5 100 Pass 101.9926 4 4 100 Pass 102.8463 4 4 100 Pass 103.7001 4 4 100 Pass 104.5539 4 4 100 Pass 105.4076 4 4 100 Pass 106.2614 4 4 100 Pass 107.1152 4 4 100 Pass 107.9689 3 3 100 Pass 108.8227 3 3 100 Pass 109.6764 3 3 100 Pass 110.5302 3 3 100 Pass 111.3840 3 3 100 Pass 112.2377 3 3 100 Pass DRAFTRM_V3 1/16/2023 5:58:06 PM Page 23 Water Quality Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC #1 On-line facility volume:16.689 acre-feet On-line facility target flow:21.679 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min:21.679 cfs. Off-line facility target flow:12.151 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min:12.151 cfs. DRAFTRM_V3 1/16/2023 5:58:06 PM Page 24 LID Report DRAFTRM_V3 1/16/2023 5:58:34 PM Page 25 POC 2 + Predeveloped x Mitigated Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #2 Total Pervious Area:8.66 Total Impervious Area:5.78 Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #2 Total Pervious Area:8.66 Total Impervious Area:5.78 Flow Frequency Method:Log Pearson Type III 17B Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #2 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 2.798656 5 year 3.822625 10 year 4.56141 25 year 5.566123 50 year 6.367647 100 year 7.215766 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #2 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 2.798656 5 year 3.822625 10 year 4.56141 25 year 5.566123 50 year 6.367647 100 year 7.215766 Annual Peaks Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #2 Year Predeveloped Mitigated 1949 4.111 4.111 1950 3.966 3.966 1951 2.541 2.541 1952 1.705 1.705 1953 1.822 1.822 1954 2.258 2.258 1955 2.432 2.432 1956 2.426 2.426 1957 3.095 3.095 1958 2.137 2.137 1959 1.873 1.873 DRAFTRM_V3 1/16/2023 5:59:02 PM Page 26 1960 2.672 2.672 1961 2.543 2.543 1962 1.872 1.872 1963 2.463 2.463 1964 2.223 2.223 1965 3.278 3.278 1966 1.869 1.869 1967 4.005 4.005 1968 3.812 3.812 1969 2.966 2.966 1970 2.592 2.592 1971 3.099 3.099 1972 3.913 3.913 1973 1.636 1.636 1974 3.006 3.006 1975 3.167 3.167 1976 2.317 2.317 1977 2.176 2.176 1978 2.669 2.669 1979 3.298 3.298 1980 4.549 4.549 1981 2.802 2.802 1982 4.622 4.622 1983 2.955 2.955 1984 2.074 2.074 1985 2.837 2.837 1986 2.548 2.548 1987 3.350 3.350 1988 1.866 1.866 1989 2.333 2.333 1990 7.183 7.183 1991 5.171 5.171 1992 2.057 2.057 1993 1.618 1.618 1994 1.557 1.557 1995 2.431 2.431 1996 3.317 3.317 1997 2.951 2.951 1998 2.421 2.421 1999 6.099 6.099 2000 2.811 2.811 2001 2.559 2.559 2002 4.095 4.095 2003 3.185 3.185 2004 5.576 5.576 2005 2.582 2.582 2006 2.398 2.398 2007 6.499 6.499 2008 5.070 5.070 2009 3.143 3.143 Ranked Annual Peaks Ranked Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #2 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated 1 7.1828 7.1828 2 6.4986 6.4986 3 6.0993 6.0993 4 5.5758 5.5758 DRAFTRM_V3 1/16/2023 5:59:02 PM Page 27 5 5.1709 5.1709 6 5.0699 5.0699 7 4.6219 4.6219 8 4.5490 4.5490 9 4.1108 4.1108 10 4.0947 4.0947 11 4.0046 4.0046 12 3.9656 3.9656 13 3.9134 3.9134 14 3.8121 3.8121 15 3.3502 3.3502 16 3.3172 3.3172 17 3.2977 3.2977 18 3.2779 3.2779 19 3.1848 3.1848 20 3.1672 3.1672 21 3.1428 3.1428 22 3.0994 3.0994 23 3.0954 3.0954 24 3.0059 3.0059 25 2.9665 2.9665 26 2.9548 2.9548 27 2.9507 2.9507 28 2.8372 2.8372 29 2.8109 2.8109 30 2.8019 2.8019 31 2.6718 2.6718 32 2.6687 2.6687 33 2.5922 2.5922 34 2.5822 2.5822 35 2.5593 2.5593 36 2.5480 2.5480 37 2.5427 2.5427 38 2.5415 2.5415 39 2.4632 2.4632 40 2.4324 2.4324 41 2.4310 2.4310 42 2.4258 2.4258 43 2.4211 2.4211 44 2.3983 2.3983 45 2.3334 2.3334 46 2.3169 2.3169 47 2.2585 2.2585 48 2.2230 2.2230 49 2.1763 2.1763 50 2.1370 2.1370 51 2.0741 2.0741 52 2.0570 2.0570 53 1.8726 1.8726 54 1.8721 1.8721 55 1.8688 1.8688 56 1.8656 1.8656 57 1.8216 1.8216 58 1.7045 1.7045 59 1.6361 1.6361 60 1.6180 1.6180 61 1.5566 1.5566 DRAFTRM_V3 1/16/2023 5:59:02 PM Page 28 DRAFTRM_V3 1/16/2023 5:59:02 PM Page 29 Duration Flows The Facility PASSED Flow(cfs)Predev Mit Percentage Pass/Fail 1.3993 1474 1474 100 Pass 1.4495 1317 1317 100 Pass 1.4997 1154 1154 100 Pass 1.5499 1027 1027 100 Pass 1.6001 930 930 100 Pass 1.6503 837 837 100 Pass 1.7004 741 741 100 Pass 1.7506 668 668 100 Pass 1.8008 611 611 100 Pass 1.8510 554 554 100 Pass 1.9012 498 498 100 Pass 1.9514 456 456 100 Pass 2.0015 425 425 100 Pass 2.0517 396 396 100 Pass 2.1019 366 366 100 Pass 2.1521 331 331 100 Pass 2.2023 311 311 100 Pass 2.2525 289 289 100 Pass 2.3027 276 276 100 Pass 2.3528 256 256 100 Pass 2.4030 237 237 100 Pass 2.4532 207 207 100 Pass 2.5034 196 196 100 Pass 2.5536 179 179 100 Pass 2.6038 158 158 100 Pass 2.6540 151 151 100 Pass 2.7041 142 142 100 Pass 2.7543 138 138 100 Pass 2.8045 127 127 100 Pass 2.8547 119 119 100 Pass 2.9049 113 113 100 Pass 2.9551 107 107 100 Pass 3.0052 104 104 100 Pass 3.0554 102 102 100 Pass 3.1056 91 91 100 Pass 3.1558 88 88 100 Pass 3.2060 82 82 100 Pass 3.2562 79 79 100 Pass 3.3064 73 73 100 Pass 3.3565 68 68 100 Pass 3.4067 64 64 100 Pass 3.4569 61 61 100 Pass 3.5071 56 56 100 Pass 3.5573 55 55 100 Pass 3.6075 51 51 100 Pass 3.6577 48 48 100 Pass 3.7078 47 47 100 Pass 3.7580 47 47 100 Pass 3.8082 44 44 100 Pass 3.8584 41 41 100 Pass 3.9086 41 41 100 Pass 3.9588 38 38 100 Pass 4.0090 33 33 100 Pass DRAFTRM_V3 1/16/2023 5:59:02 PM Page 30 4.0591 32 32 100 Pass 4.1093 30 30 100 Pass 4.1595 29 29 100 Pass 4.2097 27 27 100 Pass 4.2599 25 25 100 Pass 4.3101 25 25 100 Pass 4.3602 22 22 100 Pass 4.4104 22 22 100 Pass 4.4606 21 21 100 Pass 4.5108 21 21 100 Pass 4.5610 19 19 100 Pass 4.6112 18 18 100 Pass 4.6614 15 15 100 Pass 4.7115 15 15 100 Pass 4.7617 15 15 100 Pass 4.8119 15 15 100 Pass 4.8621 14 14 100 Pass 4.9123 14 14 100 Pass 4.9625 12 12 100 Pass 5.0127 12 12 100 Pass 5.0628 12 12 100 Pass 5.1130 9 9 100 Pass 5.1632 9 9 100 Pass 5.2134 8 8 100 Pass 5.2636 8 8 100 Pass 5.3138 7 7 100 Pass 5.3639 5 5 100 Pass 5.4141 5 5 100 Pass 5.4643 5 5 100 Pass 5.5145 5 5 100 Pass 5.5647 5 5 100 Pass 5.6149 4 4 100 Pass 5.6651 3 3 100 Pass 5.7152 3 3 100 Pass 5.7654 3 3 100 Pass 5.8156 3 3 100 Pass 5.8658 3 3 100 Pass 5.9160 3 3 100 Pass 5.9662 3 3 100 Pass 6.0164 3 3 100 Pass 6.0665 3 3 100 Pass 6.1167 2 2 100 Pass 6.1669 2 2 100 Pass 6.2171 2 2 100 Pass 6.2673 2 2 100 Pass 6.3175 2 2 100 Pass 6.3676 2 2 100 Pass DRAFTRM_V3 1/16/2023 5:59:02 PM Page 31 Water Quality Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC #2 On-line facility volume:1.0078 acre-feet On-line facility target flow:0.9512 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min:0.9512 cfs. Off-line facility target flow:0.5252 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min:0.5252 cfs. DRAFTRM_V3 1/16/2023 5:59:02 PM Page 32 LID Report DRAFTRM_V3 1/16/2023 5:59:02 PM Page 33 Model Default Modifications Total of 0 changes have been made. PERLND Changes No PERLND changes have been made. IMPLND Changes No IMPLND changes have been made. DRAFTRM_V3 1/16/2023 5:59:02 PM Page 34 Appendix Predeveloped Schematic DRAFTRM_V3 1/16/2023 5:59:03 PM Page 35 Mitigated Schematic DRAFTRM_V3 1/16/2023 5:59:03 PM Page 36 Predeveloped UCI File RUN GLOBAL WWHM4 model simulation START 1948 10 01 END 2009 09 30 RUN INTERP OUTPUT LEVEL 3 0 RESUME 0 RUN 1 UNIT SYSTEM 1 END GLOBAL FILES <File> <Un#> <-----------File Name------------------------------>*** <-ID-> *** WDM 26 RM_V3.wdm MESSU 25 PreRM_V3.MES 27 PreRM_V3.L61 28 PreRM_V3.L62 31 POCRM_V32.dat 30 POCRM_V31.dat END FILES OPN SEQUENCE INGRP INDELT 00:15 PERLND 16 IMPLND 1 PERLND 7 PERLND 8 PERLND 9 PERLND 17 PERLND 18 IMPLND 2 IMPLND 3 COPY 502 COPY 501 DISPLY 2 DISPLY 1 END INGRP END OPN SEQUENCE DISPLY DISPLY-INFO1 # - #<----------Title----------->***TRAN PIVL DIG1 FIL1 PYR DIG2 FIL2 YRND 2 Basin 9 MAX 1 2 31 9 1 Basin 2 MAX 1 2 30 9 END DISPLY-INFO1 END DISPLY COPY TIMESERIES # - # NPT NMN *** 1 1 1 502 1 1 501 1 1 END TIMESERIES END COPY GENER OPCODE # # OPCD *** END OPCODE PARM # # K *** END PARM END GENER PERLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name------->NBLKS Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 16 C, Lawn, Flat 1 1 1 1 27 0 7 A/B, Lawn, Flat 1 1 1 1 27 0 8 A/B, Lawn, Mod 1 1 1 1 27 0 DRAFTRM_V3 1/16/2023 5:59:03 PM Page 37 9 A/B, Lawn, Steep 1 1 1 1 27 0 17 C, Lawn, Mod 1 1 1 1 27 0 18 C, Lawn, Steep 1 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO *** Section PWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC *** 16 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <PLS > ***************** Print-flags ***************************** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC ********* 16 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 7 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 8 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 9 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 17 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 18 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO PWAT-PARM1 <PLS > PWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP UZFG VCS VUZ VNN VIFW VIRC VLE INFC HWT *** 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END PWAT-PARM1 PWAT-PARM2 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # ***FOREST LZSN INFILT LSUR SLSUR KVARY AGWRC 16 0 4.5 0.03 400 0.05 0.5 0.996 7 0 5 0.8 400 0.05 0.3 0.996 8 0 5 0.8 400 0.1 0.3 0.996 9 0 5 0.8 400 0.15 0.3 0.996 17 0 4.5 0.03 400 0.1 0.5 0.996 18 0 4.5 0.03 400 0.15 0.5 0.996 END PWAT-PARM2 PWAT-PARM3 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN INFEXP INFILD DEEPFR BASETP AGWETP 16 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 7 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 8 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 9 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 17 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 18 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 END PWAT-PARM3 PWAT-PARM4 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 4 *** # - # CEPSC UZSN NSUR INTFW IRC LZETP *** 16 0.1 0.25 0.25 6 0.5 0.25 7 0.1 0.5 0.25 0 0.7 0.25 8 0.1 0.5 0.25 0 0.7 0.25 9 0.1 0.5 0.25 0 0.7 0.25 17 0.1 0.25 0.25 6 0.5 0.25 18 0.1 0.15 0.25 6 0.3 0.25 END PWAT-PARM4 DRAFTRM_V3 1/16/2023 5:59:03 PM Page 38 PWAT-STATE1 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation ran from 1990 to end of 1992 (pat 1-11-95) RUN 21 *** # - # *** CEPS SURS UZS IFWS LZS AGWS GWVS 16 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0 7 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 8 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 9 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 17 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0 18 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0 END PWAT-STATE1 END PERLND IMPLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name-------> Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 1 ROADS/FLAT 1 1 1 27 0 2 ROADS/MOD 1 1 1 27 0 3 ROADS/STEEP 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO *** Section IWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL *** 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <ILS > ******** Print-flags ******** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL ********* 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9 2 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9 3 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO IWAT-PARM1 <PLS > IWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP VRS VNN RTLI *** 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 END IWAT-PARM1 IWAT-PARM2 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # *** LSUR SLSUR NSUR RETSC 1 400 0.01 0.1 0.1 2 400 0.05 0.1 0.08 3 400 0.1 0.1 0.05 END IWAT-PARM2 IWAT-PARM3 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 END IWAT-PARM3 IWAT-STATE1 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation # - # *** RETS SURS 1 0 0 DRAFTRM_V3 1/16/2023 5:59:03 PM Page 39 2 0 0 3 0 0 END IWAT-STATE1 END IMPLND SCHEMATIC <-Source-> <--Area--> <-Target-> MBLK *** <Name> # <-factor-> <Name> # Tbl# *** Basin 9*** PERLND 16 8.66 COPY 502 12 PERLND 16 8.66 COPY 502 13 IMPLND 1 5.78 COPY 502 15 Basin 2*** PERLND 7 23.591 COPY 501 12 PERLND 7 23.591 COPY 501 13 PERLND 8 9.665 COPY 501 12 PERLND 8 9.665 COPY 501 13 PERLND 9 1.388 COPY 501 12 PERLND 9 1.388 COPY 501 13 PERLND 16 6.848 COPY 501 12 PERLND 16 6.848 COPY 501 13 PERLND 17 7.231 COPY 501 12 PERLND 17 7.231 COPY 501 13 PERLND 18 3.453 COPY 501 12 PERLND 18 3.453 COPY 501 13 IMPLND 1 22.08 COPY 501 15 IMPLND 2 16.047 COPY 501 15 IMPLND 3 4.406 COPY 501 15 Basin 3*** PERLND 7 2.747 COPY 501 12 PERLND 7 2.747 COPY 501 13 PERLND 8 1.353 COPY 501 12 PERLND 8 1.353 COPY 501 13 PERLND 9 0.686 COPY 501 12 PERLND 9 0.686 COPY 501 13 PERLND 16 4.328 COPY 501 12 PERLND 16 4.328 COPY 501 13 PERLND 17 3.207 COPY 501 12 PERLND 17 3.207 COPY 501 13 PERLND 18 1.151 COPY 501 12 PERLND 18 1.151 COPY 501 13 IMPLND 1 19.439 COPY 501 15 IMPLND 2 15.156 COPY 501 15 IMPLND 3 5.727 COPY 501 15 Basin 4*** PERLND 7 0.917 COPY 501 12 PERLND 7 0.917 COPY 501 13 PERLND 8 1.006 COPY 501 12 PERLND 8 1.006 COPY 501 13 PERLND 9 0.207 COPY 501 12 PERLND 9 0.207 COPY 501 13 IMPLND 1 0.891 COPY 501 15 IMPLND 2 1.119 COPY 501 15 IMPLND 3 0.123 COPY 501 15 Basin 5*** PERLND 7 1.014 COPY 501 12 PERLND 7 1.014 COPY 501 13 PERLND 8 0.403 COPY 501 12 PERLND 8 0.403 COPY 501 13 PERLND 9 0.141 COPY 501 12 PERLND 9 0.141 COPY 501 13 PERLND 16 2.944 COPY 501 12 PERLND 16 2.944 COPY 501 13 PERLND 17 3.433 COPY 501 12 PERLND 17 3.433 COPY 501 13 PERLND 18 1.275 COPY 501 12 PERLND 18 1.275 COPY 501 13 IMPLND 1 5.74 COPY 501 15 IMPLND 2 4.426 COPY 501 15 DRAFTRM_V3 1/16/2023 5:59:03 PM Page 40 IMPLND 3 1.303 COPY 501 15 Basin 1*** PERLND 7 20.723 COPY 501 12 PERLND 7 20.723 COPY 501 13 PERLND 8 15.657 COPY 501 12 PERLND 8 15.657 COPY 501 13 PERLND 9 5.249 COPY 501 12 PERLND 9 5.249 COPY 501 13 IMPLND 1 15.524 COPY 501 15 IMPLND 2 12.944 COPY 501 15 IMPLND 3 2.358 COPY 501 15 ******Routing****** END SCHEMATIC NETWORK <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** COPY 502 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 DISPLY 2 INPUT TIMSER 1 COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 DISPLY 1 INPUT TIMSER 1 <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** END NETWORK RCHRES GEN-INFO RCHRES Name Nexits Unit Systems Printer *** # - #<------------------><---> User T-series Engl Metr LKFG *** in out *** END GEN-INFO *** Section RCHRES*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # HYFG ADFG CNFG HTFG SDFG GQFG OXFG NUFG PKFG PHFG *** END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <PLS > ***************** Print-flags ******************* PIVL PYR # - # HYDR ADCA CONS HEAT SED GQL OXRX NUTR PLNK PHCB PIVL PYR ********* END PRINT-INFO HYDR-PARM1 RCHRES Flags for each HYDR Section *** # - # VC A1 A2 A3 ODFVFG for each *** ODGTFG for each FUNCT for each FG FG FG FG possible exit *** possible exit possible exit * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** END HYDR-PARM1 HYDR-PARM2 # - # FTABNO LEN DELTH STCOR KS DB50 *** <------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------> *** END HYDR-PARM2 HYDR-INIT RCHRES Initial conditions for each HYDR section *** # - # *** VOL Initial value of COLIND Initial value of OUTDGT *** ac-ft for each possible exit for each possible exit <------><--------> <---><---><---><---><---> *** <---><---><---><---><---> END HYDR-INIT END RCHRES SPEC-ACTIONS END SPEC-ACTIONS FTABLES END FTABLES EXT SOURCES DRAFTRM_V3 1/16/2023 5:59:03 PM Page 41 <-Volume-> <Member> SsysSgap<--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # tem strg<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.76 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.76 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP END EXT SOURCES EXT TARGETS <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Volume-> <Member> Tsys Tgap Amd *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # <Name> tem strg strg*** COPY 502 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 WDM 502 FLOW ENGL REPL COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 WDM 501 FLOW ENGL REPL END EXT TARGETS MASS-LINK <Volume> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult--> <Target> <-Grp> <-Member->*** <Name> <Name> # #<-factor-> <Name> <Name> # #*** MASS-LINK 12 PERLND PWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 12 MASS-LINK 13 PERLND PWATER IFWO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 13 MASS-LINK 15 IMPLND IWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 15 END MASS-LINK END RUN DRAFTRM_V3 1/16/2023 5:59:03 PM Page 42 Mitigated UCI File RUN GLOBAL WWHM4 model simulation START 1948 10 01 END 2009 09 30 RUN INTERP OUTPUT LEVEL 3 0 RESUME 0 RUN 1 UNIT SYSTEM 1 END GLOBAL FILES <File> <Un#> <-----------File Name------------------------------>*** <-ID-> *** WDM 26 RM_V3.wdm MESSU 25 MitRM_V3.MES 27 MitRM_V3.L61 28 MitRM_V3.L62 31 POCRM_V32.dat 30 POCRM_V31.dat END FILES OPN SEQUENCE INGRP INDELT 00:15 PERLND 16 IMPLND 1 PERLND 7 PERLND 8 PERLND 9 PERLND 17 PERLND 18 IMPLND 2 IMPLND 3 COPY 502 COPY 501 DISPLY 2 DISPLY 1 END INGRP END OPN SEQUENCE DISPLY DISPLY-INFO1 # - #<----------Title----------->***TRAN PIVL DIG1 FIL1 PYR DIG2 FIL2 YRND 2 Basin 9 MAX 1 2 31 9 1 Basin 2 MAX 1 2 30 9 END DISPLY-INFO1 END DISPLY COPY TIMESERIES # - # NPT NMN *** 1 1 1 502 1 1 501 1 1 END TIMESERIES END COPY GENER OPCODE # # OPCD *** END OPCODE PARM # # K *** END PARM END GENER PERLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name------->NBLKS Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 16 C, Lawn, Flat 1 1 1 1 27 0 7 A/B, Lawn, Flat 1 1 1 1 27 0 8 A/B, Lawn, Mod 1 1 1 1 27 0 DRAFTRM_V3 1/16/2023 5:59:03 PM Page 43 9 A/B, Lawn, Steep 1 1 1 1 27 0 17 C, Lawn, Mod 1 1 1 1 27 0 18 C, Lawn, Steep 1 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO *** Section PWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC *** 16 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <PLS > ***************** Print-flags ***************************** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC ********* 16 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 7 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 8 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 9 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 17 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 18 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO PWAT-PARM1 <PLS > PWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP UZFG VCS VUZ VNN VIFW VIRC VLE INFC HWT *** 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END PWAT-PARM1 PWAT-PARM2 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # ***FOREST LZSN INFILT LSUR SLSUR KVARY AGWRC 16 0 4.5 0.03 400 0.05 0.5 0.996 7 0 5 0.8 400 0.05 0.3 0.996 8 0 5 0.8 400 0.1 0.3 0.996 9 0 5 0.8 400 0.15 0.3 0.996 17 0 4.5 0.03 400 0.1 0.5 0.996 18 0 4.5 0.03 400 0.15 0.5 0.996 END PWAT-PARM2 PWAT-PARM3 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN INFEXP INFILD DEEPFR BASETP AGWETP 16 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 7 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 8 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 9 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 17 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 18 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 END PWAT-PARM3 PWAT-PARM4 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 4 *** # - # CEPSC UZSN NSUR INTFW IRC LZETP *** 16 0.1 0.25 0.25 6 0.5 0.25 7 0.1 0.5 0.25 0 0.7 0.25 8 0.1 0.5 0.25 0 0.7 0.25 9 0.1 0.5 0.25 0 0.7 0.25 17 0.1 0.25 0.25 6 0.5 0.25 18 0.1 0.15 0.25 6 0.3 0.25 END PWAT-PARM4 DRAFTRM_V3 1/16/2023 5:59:03 PM Page 44 PWAT-STATE1 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation ran from 1990 to end of 1992 (pat 1-11-95) RUN 21 *** # - # *** CEPS SURS UZS IFWS LZS AGWS GWVS 16 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0 7 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 8 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 9 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 17 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0 18 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0 END PWAT-STATE1 END PERLND IMPLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name-------> Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 1 ROADS/FLAT 1 1 1 27 0 2 ROADS/MOD 1 1 1 27 0 3 ROADS/STEEP 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO *** Section IWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL *** 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <ILS > ******** Print-flags ******** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL ********* 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9 2 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9 3 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO IWAT-PARM1 <PLS > IWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP VRS VNN RTLI *** 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 END IWAT-PARM1 IWAT-PARM2 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # *** LSUR SLSUR NSUR RETSC 1 400 0.01 0.1 0.1 2 400 0.05 0.1 0.08 3 400 0.1 0.1 0.05 END IWAT-PARM2 IWAT-PARM3 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 END IWAT-PARM3 IWAT-STATE1 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation # - # *** RETS SURS 1 0 0 DRAFTRM_V3 1/16/2023 5:59:03 PM Page 45 2 0 0 3 0 0 END IWAT-STATE1 END IMPLND SCHEMATIC <-Source-> <--Area--> <-Target-> MBLK *** <Name> # <-factor-> <Name> # Tbl# *** Basin 9*** PERLND 16 8.66 COPY 502 12 PERLND 16 8.66 COPY 502 13 IMPLND 1 5.78 COPY 502 15 Basin 2*** PERLND 7 23.591 COPY 501 12 PERLND 7 23.591 COPY 501 13 PERLND 8 9.665 COPY 501 12 PERLND 8 9.665 COPY 501 13 PERLND 9 1.388 COPY 501 12 PERLND 9 1.388 COPY 501 13 PERLND 16 6.848 COPY 501 12 PERLND 16 6.848 COPY 501 13 PERLND 17 7.231 COPY 501 12 PERLND 17 7.231 COPY 501 13 PERLND 18 3.453 COPY 501 12 PERLND 18 3.453 COPY 501 13 IMPLND 1 22.08 COPY 501 15 IMPLND 2 16.047 COPY 501 15 IMPLND 3 4.406 COPY 501 15 Basin 3*** PERLND 7 2.747 COPY 501 12 PERLND 7 2.747 COPY 501 13 PERLND 8 1.353 COPY 501 12 PERLND 8 1.353 COPY 501 13 PERLND 9 0.686 COPY 501 12 PERLND 9 0.686 COPY 501 13 PERLND 16 4.328 COPY 501 12 PERLND 16 4.328 COPY 501 13 PERLND 17 3.207 COPY 501 12 PERLND 17 3.207 COPY 501 13 PERLND 18 1.151 COPY 501 12 PERLND 18 1.151 COPY 501 13 IMPLND 1 19.439 COPY 501 15 IMPLND 2 15.156 COPY 501 15 IMPLND 3 5.727 COPY 501 15 Basin 4*** PERLND 7 0.917 COPY 501 12 PERLND 7 0.917 COPY 501 13 PERLND 8 1.006 COPY 501 12 PERLND 8 1.006 COPY 501 13 PERLND 9 0.207 COPY 501 12 PERLND 9 0.207 COPY 501 13 IMPLND 1 0.891 COPY 501 15 IMPLND 2 1.119 COPY 501 15 IMPLND 3 0.123 COPY 501 15 Basin 5*** PERLND 7 1.014 COPY 501 12 PERLND 7 1.014 COPY 501 13 PERLND 8 0.403 COPY 501 12 PERLND 8 0.403 COPY 501 13 PERLND 9 0.141 COPY 501 12 PERLND 9 0.141 COPY 501 13 PERLND 16 2.944 COPY 501 12 PERLND 16 2.944 COPY 501 13 PERLND 17 3.433 COPY 501 12 PERLND 17 3.433 COPY 501 13 PERLND 18 1.275 COPY 501 12 PERLND 18 1.275 COPY 501 13 IMPLND 1 5.74 COPY 501 15 IMPLND 2 4.426 COPY 501 15 DRAFTRM_V3 1/16/2023 5:59:03 PM Page 46 IMPLND 3 1.303 COPY 501 15 Basin 1*** PERLND 7 20.723 COPY 501 12 PERLND 7 20.723 COPY 501 13 PERLND 8 15.657 COPY 501 12 PERLND 8 15.657 COPY 501 13 PERLND 9 5.249 COPY 501 12 PERLND 9 5.249 COPY 501 13 IMPLND 1 15.524 COPY 501 15 IMPLND 2 12.944 COPY 501 15 IMPLND 3 2.358 COPY 501 15 ******Routing****** END SCHEMATIC NETWORK <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** COPY 502 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 DISPLY 2 INPUT TIMSER 1 COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 DISPLY 1 INPUT TIMSER 1 <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** END NETWORK RCHRES GEN-INFO RCHRES Name Nexits Unit Systems Printer *** # - #<------------------><---> User T-series Engl Metr LKFG *** in out *** END GEN-INFO *** Section RCHRES*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # HYFG ADFG CNFG HTFG SDFG GQFG OXFG NUFG PKFG PHFG *** END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <PLS > ***************** Print-flags ******************* PIVL PYR # - # HYDR ADCA CONS HEAT SED GQL OXRX NUTR PLNK PHCB PIVL PYR ********* END PRINT-INFO HYDR-PARM1 RCHRES Flags for each HYDR Section *** # - # VC A1 A2 A3 ODFVFG for each *** ODGTFG for each FUNCT for each FG FG FG FG possible exit *** possible exit possible exit * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** END HYDR-PARM1 HYDR-PARM2 # - # FTABNO LEN DELTH STCOR KS DB50 *** <------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------> *** END HYDR-PARM2 HYDR-INIT RCHRES Initial conditions for each HYDR section *** # - # *** VOL Initial value of COLIND Initial value of OUTDGT *** ac-ft for each possible exit for each possible exit <------><--------> <---><---><---><---><---> *** <---><---><---><---><---> END HYDR-INIT END RCHRES SPEC-ACTIONS END SPEC-ACTIONS FTABLES END FTABLES EXT SOURCES DRAFTRM_V3 1/16/2023 5:59:03 PM Page 47 <-Volume-> <Member> SsysSgap<--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # tem strg<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.76 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.76 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP END EXT SOURCES EXT TARGETS <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Volume-> <Member> Tsys Tgap Amd *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # <Name> tem strg strg*** COPY 2 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 WDM 702 FLOW ENGL REPL COPY 502 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 WDM 802 FLOW ENGL REPL COPY 1 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 WDM 701 FLOW ENGL REPL COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 WDM 801 FLOW ENGL REPL END EXT TARGETS MASS-LINK <Volume> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult--> <Target> <-Grp> <-Member->*** <Name> <Name> # #<-factor-> <Name> <Name> # #*** MASS-LINK 12 PERLND PWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 12 MASS-LINK 13 PERLND PWATER IFWO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 13 MASS-LINK 15 IMPLND IWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 15 END MASS-LINK END RUN DRAFTRM_V3 1/16/2023 5:59:03 PM Page 48 Predeveloped HSPF Message File DRAFTRM_V3 1/16/2023 5:59:03 PM Page 49 Mitigated HSPF Message File DRAFTRM_V3 1/16/2023 5:59:03 PM Page 50 Disclaimer Legal Notice This program and accompanying documentation are provided 'as-is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by End User. Clear Creek Solutions Inc. and the governmental licensee or sublicensees disclaim all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions Inc. be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions Inc. or their authorized representatives have been advised of the possibility of such damages. Software Copyright © by : Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 2005-2023; All Rights Reserved. Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 6200 Capitol Blvd. Ste F Olympia, WA. 98501 Toll Free 1(866)943-0304 Local (360)943-0304 www.clearcreeksolutions.com Appendix B Flow Control and Water Quality Benefit Computations Flow Control Benefit Ratio Calculations 𝑅𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑙𝑊𝐸𝐶−1 = 𝑉𝑙𝑙𝑟𝑙𝑐 𝑎𝑟 𝑙𝑟𝑐𝑟𝑐𝑙𝑙𝑟 𝑙𝑐 𝑙𝑟𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑟𝑐𝑐 𝐹𝑙𝑙𝑟 𝐴𝑙𝑙𝑟𝑟𝑙𝑙 𝐴𝑀𝑃 𝑉𝑙𝑙𝑟𝑙𝑐 𝑎𝑟 𝑙𝑟𝑐𝑟𝑐𝑙𝑙𝑟 𝑙𝑐 𝐹𝑙𝑙𝑟 𝐴𝑙𝑙𝑟𝑟𝑙𝑙 𝐴𝑀𝑃 𝑟𝑙 𝑙𝑐𝑐𝑟 𝑙𝑐𝑟/𝑟𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑟𝑐𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑐𝑙𝑟 𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑟𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑎 𝑅𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑙𝑊𝐸𝐶−1 = 17.20 𝐴𝑐−𝑐𝑟 16.34 𝐴𝑐−𝑐𝑟=1.05 → 𝑅𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑙𝑊𝐸𝐶−1 =1 𝑨𝒓𝒆𝒂𝑾𝑬𝑪−𝟏= 𝟏∗𝟏𝟒𝟔→ 𝑨𝒓𝒆𝒂𝑾𝑬𝑪−𝟏=𝟏𝟒𝟔 𝒂𝒄𝒓𝒆𝒓 Water Quality Benefit Calculations 𝑅𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑙𝐸𝑅𝑇−1 = 𝐴𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑙 𝑐𝑙𝑙𝑟 𝑟𝑎𝑟𝑐 𝑙𝑟 𝑟𝑙𝑙𝑟𝑙𝑐 𝑐𝑙𝑟 𝑙𝑟𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑟𝑐𝑐 𝑟𝑐𝑟𝑟𝑙𝑐𝑖𝑟 𝑟𝑟𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑙𝑐𝑙𝑟 𝐴𝑀𝑃 𝐴𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑙 𝑐𝑙𝑙𝑟 𝑟𝑎𝑟𝑐 𝑙𝑟 𝑟𝑙𝑙𝑟𝑙𝑐 𝑟𝑙 𝑙𝑐𝑐𝑟 𝑙𝑐𝑟/𝑟𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑟𝑐𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑐𝑙𝑟 𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑟𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑎 𝑅𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑙𝐸𝑅𝑇−1 = 12.62 𝑐𝑐𝑟 12.15 𝑐𝑐𝑟=1.04 → 𝑅𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑙𝐸𝑅𝑇−1 =1 𝑨𝒓𝒆𝒂𝑬𝑹𝑻−𝟏= 𝟏∗𝟏𝟒𝟔→ 𝑨𝒓𝒆𝒂𝑬𝑹𝑻−𝟏=𝟏𝟒𝟔 𝒂𝒄𝒓𝒆𝒓 Renton Monroe Infiltration Facility Facilty Storage and Infiltration Curve Constant Value Depth (ft) Storage Area (SF) Area Volume (CF) Head (ft) Vertical Outflow (CFS) Horizontal Outflow (CFS) Total Outflow (CFS) Gravel Void Space 0.4 0 15444.19 7771 0 17.88 0.00 17.88 Stormtech Chamber Type MH4500 0.5 15641.77 7869 0.5 18.10 0.00 18.11 Design Infiltration Rate (in/hr)20 1 15832.83 7964 1 18.33 0.01 18.33 1.5 16023.92 8060 1.5 18.55 0.02 18.57 Values to Iterate 2 16216.83 8157 2 18.77 0.04 18.80 Facility Area (SF)57490 2.5 16411.60 8255 2.5 18.99 0.05 19.05 Gravel Below Facility (ft)25.5 3 16608.20 8353 3 19.22 0.08 19.30 Gravel Above Facility (ft)1 3.5 16803.02 8440 3.5 19.45 0.11 19.56 4 16956.26 8516 4 19.63 0.14 19.76 Computed Values 4.5 17106.65 8591 4.5 19.80 0.17 19.97 Facility Area 1.3197888 5 17257.31 8666 5 19.97 0.21 20.18 Stormtech Chamber Depth 5 5.5 17408.30 8742 5.5 20.15 0.25 20.39 Total Facility Depth 30.5 6 17559.70 8818 6 20.32 0.29 20.61 Average Facility Outflow (CFS)25.73 6.5 17711.53 8894 6.5 20.50 0.33 20.83 AASHTO #3 Thickness (ft)25.5 7 17863.77 8970 7 20.68 0.38 21.06 Bottom of Facility Grav Elev. 289.5 7.5 18016.43 9046 7.5 20.85 0.44 21.29 Imported Gravel Borrow Thickness (ft)9.5 8 18169.51 9123 8 21.03 0.49 21.52 Facility Bottom Area (SF)38610.48 8.5 18323.01 9200 8.5 21.21 0.56 21.76 9 18476.93 9277 9 21.39 0.62 22.00 9.5 18631.46 9355 9.5 21.56 0.69 22.25 Design Infiltration Rate Check Inputs 10 18786.66 9432 10 21.74 0.76 22.50 W, Approx Width of Facility 177 10.5 18942.56 9510 10.5 21.92 0.83 22.76 Top of Facility Elevation 321 11 19098.70 9589 11 22.10 0.91 23.02 Bottom of Stormtech Chambers 315 11.5 19255.32 9667 11.5 22.29 0.99 23.28 Approximate SH GW Elevation 272.5 12 19412.39 9746 12 22.47 1.08 23.55 D, Approximate to Depth to SH GW 17 12.5 19569.93 9824 12.5 22.65 1.17 23.82 13 19727.93 9904 13 22.83 1.26 24.10 Facility Output Values 13.5 19886.39 9983 13.5 23.02 1.36 24.38 Total Facility Storage (Ac-Ft)17.20 14 20045.31 10063 14 23.20 1.46 24.66 100-Year Facility WSE (ft)322.53 14.5 20204.70 10142 14.5 23.39 1.57 24.95 15 20364.55 10222 15 23.57 1.67 25.25 15.5 20524.86 10303 15.5 23.76 1.79 25.54 16 20685.63 10383 16 23.94 1.90 25.84 16.5 20846.86 10464 16.5 24.13 2.02 26.15 17 21008.56 10545 17 24.32 2.15 26.46 17.5 21170.72 10626 17.5 24.50 2.27 26.78 18 21333.35 10707 18 24.69 2.41 27.10 18.5 21496.46 10789 18.5 24.88 2.54 27.42 19 21660.05 10871 19 25.07 2.68 27.75 19.5 21824.12 10953 19.5 25.26 2.82 28.08 20 21988.66 11036 20 25.45 2.97 28.42 20.5 22153.67 11118 20.5 25.64 3.12 28.76 21 22319.16 11201 21 25.83 3.28 29.11 21.5 22485.12 11284 21.5 26.02 3.44 29.46 22 22651.56 11368 22 26.22 3.60 29.82 22.5 22818.46 11451 22.5 26.41 3.77 30.18 23 22985.85 11535 23 26.60 3.94 30.54 23.5 23153.70 11619 23.5 26.80 4.11 30.91 24 23322.03 11703 24 26.99 4.29 31.28 24.5 23490.84 11788 24.5 27.19 4.47 31.66 25 23660.11 11872 25 27.38 4.66 32.05 25.5 23829.68 18626 25.5 27.58 4.85 32.43 26 50672.49 25154 26 26.62 4.85 31.47 26.5 49942.39 24725 26.5 26.62 4.85 31.47 27 48959.09 24161 27 26.62 4.85 31.47 27.5 47684.54 23439 27.5 26.62 4.85 31.47 28 46072.82 22534 28 26.62 4.85 31.47 28.5 44062.26 21396 28.5 26.62 4.85 31.47 29 41523.00 19930 29 26.62 4.85 31.47 29.5 38197.88 17864 29.5 26.62 4.85 31.47 30 33259.07 14635 30 26.62 4.85 31.47 30.5 25279.83 12069 30.5 26.62 4.85 31.47 31 22996.00 11498 31 26.62 4.85 31.47 31.5 22996.00 11498 31.5 26.62 4.85 31.47 Storage Curve Table Infiltration Outflow Table Renton Monroe Infiltration Facility Facilty Storage and Infiltration Curve Constant Value Depth (ft) Storage Area (SF) Area Volume (CF) Head (ft) Vertical Outflow (CFS) Horizontal Outflow (CFS) Total Outflow (CFS) Gravel Void Space 0.4 0 14671.98 7383 0 16.98 0.00 16.98 Stormtech Chamber Type MH4500 0.5 14859.68 7475 0.5 17.20 0.00 17.20 Design Infiltration Rate (in/hr)20 1 15041.19 7566 1 17.41 0.01 17.42 1.5 15222.72 7657 1.5 17.62 0.02 17.64 Values to Iterate 2 15405.99 7749 2 17.83 0.03 17.86 Facility Area (SF)54616 2.5 15591.02 7842 2.5 18.05 0.05 18.10 Gravel Below Facility (ft)25.5 3 15777.79 7935 3 18.26 0.08 18.34 Gravel Above Facility (ft)1 3.5 15962.87 8018 3.5 18.48 0.10 18.58 4 16108.45 8090 4 18.64 0.13 18.77 Computed Values 4.5 16251.32 8161 4.5 18.81 0.16 18.97 Facility Area 1.25381084 5 16394.45 8233 5 18.98 0.20 19.17 Stormtech Chamber Depth 5 5.5 16537.89 8305 5.5 19.14 0.23 19.37 Total Facility Depth 30.5 6 16681.72 8377 6 19.31 0.27 19.58 Average Facility Outflow (CFS)24.45 6.5 16825.95 8449 6.5 19.47 0.32 19.79 AASHTO #3 Thickness (ft)25.5 7 16970.58 8522 7 19.64 0.37 20.01 Bottom of Facility Grav Elev. 289.5 7.5 17115.61 8594 7.5 19.81 0.42 20.23 Imported Gravel Borrow Thickness (ft)9.5 8 17261.04 8667 8 19.98 0.47 20.45 Facility Bottom Area (SF)36679.96 8.5 17406.86 8740 8.5 20.15 0.53 20.67 9 17553.09 8813 9 20.32 0.59 20.90 9.5 17699.88 8887 9.5 20.49 0.65 21.14 Design Infiltration Rate Check Inputs 10 17847.33 8961 10 20.66 0.72 21.38 W, Approx Width of Facility 177 10.5 17995.43 9035 10.5 20.83 0.79 21.62 Top of Facility Elevation 321 11 18143.77 9109 11 21.00 0.87 21.87 Bottom of Stormtech Chambers 315 11.5 18292.55 9184 11.5 21.17 0.94 22.12 Approximate SH GW Elevation 272.5 12 18441.77 9258 12 21.34 1.03 22.37 D, Approximate to Depth to SH GW 17 12.5 18591.43 9333 12.5 21.52 1.11 22.63 13 18741.53 9408 13 21.69 1.20 22.89 Facility Output Values 13.5 18892.07 9484 13.5 21.87 1.29 23.16 Total Facility Storage (Ac-Ft)16.34 14 19043.05 9559 14 22.04 1.39 23.43 100-Year Facility WSE (ft)322.60 14.5 19194.47 9635 14.5 22.22 1.49 23.70 15 19346.32 9711 15 22.39 1.59 23.98 15.5 19498.61 9787 15.5 22.57 1.70 24.27 16 19651.35 9864 16 22.74 1.81 24.55 16.5 19804.52 9941 16.5 22.92 1.92 24.84 17 19958.13 10018 17 23.10 2.04 25.14 17.5 20112.18 10095 17.5 23.28 2.16 25.44 18 20266.68 10172 18 23.46 2.29 25.74 18.5 20421.63 10250 18.5 23.64 2.41 26.05 19 20577.05 10327 19 23.82 2.55 26.36 19.5 20732.91 10406 19.5 24.00 2.68 26.68 20 20889.22 10484 20 24.18 2.82 27.00 20.5 21045.99 10562 20.5 24.36 2.97 27.32 21 21203.20 10641 21 24.54 3.11 27.65 21.5 21360.86 10720 21.5 24.72 3.26 27.99 22 21518.98 10799 22 24.91 3.42 28.32 22.5 21677.54 10879 22.5 25.09 3.58 28.67 23 21836.56 10958 23 25.27 3.74 29.01 23.5 21996.02 11038 23.5 25.46 3.91 29.36 24 22155.93 11118 24 25.64 4.08 29.72 24.5 22316.29 11198 24.5 25.83 4.25 30.08 25 22477.11 11279 25 26.02 4.43 30.44 25.5 22638.20 17694 25.5 26.20 4.61 30.81 26 48138.86 23896 26 25.28 4.61 29.90 26.5 47445.27 23489 26.5 25.28 4.61 29.90 27 46511.14 22953 27 25.28 4.61 29.90 27.5 45300.31 22267 27.5 25.28 4.61 29.90 28 43769.17 21407 28 25.28 4.61 29.90 28.5 41859.15 20326 28.5 25.28 4.61 29.90 29 39446.85 18934 29 25.28 4.61 29.90 29.5 36287.98 16971 29.5 25.28 4.61 29.90 30 31596.11 13903 30 25.28 4.61 29.90 30.5 24015.84 11466 30.5 25.28 4.61 29.90 31 21846.20 10923 31 25.28 4.61 29.90 31.5 21846.20 10923 31.5 25.28 4.61 29.90 Storage Curve Table Infiltration Outflow Table Appendix C Geotechnical Report Submitted Under Separate Cover Appendix D Fema Firmette National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000250 Feet Ü SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT SPECIAL FLOODHAZARD AREAS Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE)Zone A, V, A99With BFE or DepthZone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR Regulatory Floodway 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areasof 1% annual chance flood with averagedepth less than one foot or with drainageareas of less than one square mileZone X Future Conditions 1% Annual Chance Flood HazardZone X Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to Levee. See Notes.Zone X Area with Flood Risk due to LeveeZone D NO SCREENArea of Minimal Flood Hazard Zone X Area of Undetermined Flood HazardZone D Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer Levee, Dike, or Floodwall Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance 17.5 Water Surface Elevation Coastal Transect Coastal Transect Baseline Profile Baseline Hydrographic Feature Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE) Effective LOMRs Limit of Study Jurisdiction Boundary Digital Data Available No Digital Data Available Unmapped This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of digital flood maps if it is not void as described below.The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemapaccuracy standards The flood hazard information is derived directly from theauthoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This mapwas exported on 8/4/2021 at 3:55 PM and does notreflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date andtime. The NFHL and effective information may change orbecome superseded by new data over time. This map image is void if the one or more of the following map elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels, legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers, FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for regulatory purposes. Legend OTHER AREAS OF FLOOD HAZARD OTHER AREAS GENERAL STRUCTURES OTHER FEATURES MAP PANELS 8 B 20.2 The pin displayed on the map is an approximatepoint selected by the user and does not representan authoritative property location. 1:6,000 122°10'49"W 47°29'26"N 122°10'11"W 47°29'2"N Basemap: USGS National Map: Orthoimagery: Data refreshed October, 2020 Appendix E Fieldwork and Modeling Memo k:\project\33200\33201a\projectdocs\reports\field work and modeling memo\21_0415 field work and modeling memo.docx Field Work and Modeling Memorandum To: Kevin Evans, PE City of Renton From: Otak, Inc Copies: File Date: 04/23/2021 Subject: Field Work and Modeling Memorandum Project No.: 33201A Executive Summary The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a hydrologic and hydraulic model of the subbasin in order to estimate the existing flows, assess the capacity of the existing infiltration system, and to size the proposed improvements. This memorandum will also provide the results from Aspect’s geotechnical analysis of the two chosen boring locations, proposed in Appendix A: Level 1 Project Area Review. The boring investigations will define the design infiltration rates used in the hydrologic and hydraulic model. Project Overview This memorandum presents the findings of Task 3 of Phase 1- Alternatives Analysis for the Monroe Avenue NE Storm System Improvements project. In this task, Otak collected data to characterize the existing storm sewer system within the project area and other adjacent basins. The project located in the Renton Highlands area is approximately bounded by Monroe Avenue NE, NE 2nd street, Union Avenue NE and NE 9th street. The sub basin currently drains to a 670-foot-long 36-inch perforated infiltration pipe along NE 2nd street and a 200-foot- long 48-inch perforated infiltration pipe along the King County Access Road. The boundary of the project was delineated based on the project area data collected and the area was adjusted from the original scope of work from 211 acres to 245 acres, see Figure 1 for the site boundary map. The project area slopes down from north to south towards the infiltration pipes on NE 2nd Street. Upstream of the project site includes predominantly medium-density residential lots and commercial lots. Downstream of the project site are low-density residential lots, and a resource conservation zone near the Cedar River. The Cedar River and area near the Cedar River has an environmental designation of shoreline high intensity. This basin has seen historic flooding along Monroe Ave NE, which was addressed by the integration of an overflow to the Upper Balch Pit. An alternative design is required to deal with the runoff from this basin as the Upper Balch Pit property is redeveloping. K:\Project\33200\33201A\CADD\GIS\MXDs\Phase 1\WWHMSWMM_Map.mxdDate: 3/5/2020 Figure 1WWHM-SWMMBasins Map 1 inch = 700 feet 0 2,000Feet Legend Pipes Basin NumberBasin 1 Basin 2 Basin 3 Basin 4 Basin 5 Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6to 15 percent slopes, Soil Class CArents, Alderwood material, 6 to15 percent slopes, Soil Class B/D Arents, Everett material, SoilClass A NE 6TH ST MONROE AVE NENE 8TH ST NE 10TH ST NE 4TH ST QUEEN AVE NEUNION AVE NENE 2ND ST Notes: - Basemap and private/public pipes files provided by the City of Renton.- Soils data provided by NCRS (2019).F BASIN 1 BASIN 4 BASIN 3 BASIN 2 BASIN 5 Page 3 Field Work and Modeling Memorandum for the Renton Monroe Project April 23, 2021 k:\project\33200\33201a\projectdocs\reports\field work and modeling memo\21_0415 field work and modeling memo.docx Project Area Data The subbasin stormwater is conveyed via storm sewer pipes that connect to two perforated infiltration pipes at the southwest corner of the subbasin, see Figure 1 for pipes map. In addition to the storm sewer pipes there is a culvert connecting the lower southeast portion of the subbasin to the infiltration pipes. The subbasin is primarily moderate sized residential properties, roads, and commercial properties. The topography of the site slopes from the northeast corner towards the southwest corner of the subbasin, see Figure 2 for the contour map. The hydrologic soil groups at the site are mapped as Arents Everett Material (hydrologic soil Group A), Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam (hydrologic soil Group C), and Arents Alderwood Material (hydrologic soil Group B/D) by the National Resource Conservation Service (NCRS), shown in Figure 1. The dominant hydrologic soil group based on this mapping is hydrologic soil Group C. Hydrologic soil groups are groups of soils that have similar runoff potential under similar storm and cover conditions. Group A soils have a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential), Group B soils have a moderate infiltration rate, Group C soils have a slow infiltration rate, and Group D soils have a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential). Soils can be placed in Group B/D if their water table is within 24-inches of the surface but can still maintain moderate infiltration rates. Based on this soil classification, the groundwater connectivity would be maintained for the Group B/D soils, so as not to lose water to a deep aquifer fraction. Further geological investigations were performed by Aspect Consulting, LLC to obtain information on preferential infiltration facility locations, the results of this investigation can be found in the Hydrogeologic Settings and Modeling below. K:\Project\33200\33201A\CADD\GIS\MXDs\Phase 1\Figure3_ContoursMap.mxdDate: 3/6/2020 Figure 2Site Contour Map NE 6TH ST NE 8TH ST MONROE AVE NENE 4TH STQUEEN AVE NEJEFFERSON AVE NEUNION AVE NEKC ACCESS RDNE 2ND ST Notes: -- Basemap and contour data provided by the City of Renton. Legend Project Boundary CONTOUR202- 276 276 - 318 318 - 368 368 - 408 408 - 445 F1 inch = 700 feet 0 1,800900Feet K:\Project\33200\33201A\CADD\GIS\MXDs\Phase 1\Figure4_LandUseandEIA.mxdDate: 3/6/2020 Figure 3Land Use Types and Effective Impervious Area Zones NE 6TH ST NE 8TH ST MONROE AVE NENE 4TH ST QUEEN AVE NEJEFFERSON AVE NEUNION AVE NEKC ACCESS RDNE 2ND ST Notes: -- Basemap and landuse data provided by the City of Renton. Legend PROJECT BOUNDARYGreenwood Memorial Park, 5% EIACommercial Arterial Zone, 85% EIALight Industrial Zone, 48% EIAResidential-10, 40% EIAResidential-8, 26% EIAResidential Multi-Family, 48% EIAResidential Manufactured Home Park, 85% EIARoads, 100% EIA F1 inch = 700 feet 0 1,800900Feet Page 6 Field Work and Modeling Memorandum for the Renton Monroe Project April 23, 2021 k:\project\33200\33201a\projectdocs\reports\field work and modeling memo\21_0415 field work and modeling memo.docx Hydrologic Settings and Modeling The subbasin drains primarily through catch basins and storm sewer pipes to a 670-foot-long 36-inch perforated infiltration pipe along NE 2nd street and a 200-foot-long 48-inch perforated infiltration pipe along King County Access Road. The hydrologic modeling of the project site was completed using WWHM-SWMM which is a combination of the Department of Ecology’s Western Washington Hydrologic Model 2012 (WWHM2012) program and EPA’s Stormwater Management Model (SWMM). WWHM-SWMM uses a continuous simulation to model the generation of runoff from rainfall and the routing of runoff through user-defined conveyance systems. The model utilizes WWHM2012, which runs EPA HSPF, with a continuous simulation hydrology model that models the entire hydrologic cycle for a historically recorded 60-year time series at small time steps. WWHM-SWMM includes the hydrology simulation of HSPF and combines it with the runoff conveyance hydraulic system of EPA SWMM. The model allows the user to input the basins soils, landuse/vegetation, and slopes. The user also can create a network of conveyance structures, storage facilities, and water quality elements. Storage and water quality elements in WWHM-SWMM can be auto sized in order to meet NPDES MS4 permit requirements. The WWHM-SWMM program was used in this project to determine the predeveloped conditions to compare to the developed alternatives and the existing conditions of the subbasin in order to create a model that accurately simulates the runoff and stormwater processes of the Monroe Ave subbasin. The impervious fraction based on land use type is typically used for the WWHM2012 model but for this site the Effective Impervious Area (EIA) was determined to better model how this site would transport rainfall. The EIA was delineated by Joe Brascher a scientist at Otak with over 30 years of experience delineating watersheds and the chief architect in the development of the WWHM2012 program. Joe Brascher determined the EIA percent by comparing the land use types of this basin to his previous experience delineating other basins in the Renton, WA area, see Figure 3. The EIA was determined by comparing the impervious area percentage of each land use that is present in the basin with the existing conveyance to determine the percentage of the impervious area where the runoff will be collected. The EIA for the different Land Use Types was determined as follows: the Greenwood Memorial Park was determined to be 5% EIA (not including the parking lot), the residential-8 zone is 26% EIA, the residential-10 will have a 40% EIA, the Light Industrial Zone and Residential Multi-Family will have 48% EIA, the Residential Manufactured Home Park and Commercial Arterial Zones were determined to be 85% EIA. The ROW was approximated to be all road and have 100% EIA. The EIA ratios were determined through utilizing GIS, Google Street View, and COR maps. The EIA factors for single-family residential zones are lower than what is determined via the 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual, as the manual assumes that the roof drains are routed to the collection network. Based on Street View investigations of the single-family residential neighborhoods, the roofs are frequently disconnected (downspouted to splash blocks on vegetated side-yards). The disconnection of the roof runoff indicates that there will be the lower EIA factors as indicated above. Multifamily has a higher density than Residential-10, so has a higher EIA. The Light Industrial Zone has a significant proportion of disconnected impervious area, which renders a similar amount of effective impervious area as the Residential Multi-Family. Two models were set up, one model to evaluate the pre-developed conditions using forested conditions, and one model using the existing conditions of impervious and lawn surfaces (Table 1). The project boundary delineated in Appendix A was spit up into 5 different subbasins to be modeled in WWHM-SWMM. The basins were delineated using the pipe network and the connection points that the pipes have to the infiltration pipes on NE 2nd St and King County Access Road. Additionally, the northern basin as delineated in Level 1 Project Area Review Memo was separated into 3 separate basins in order to model the soil type B/D as connecting to groundwater in the model. The precipitation data peak inflow rates and peak outflow rates were calculated for the 2-year, 5-year, 10- year, 25-year, 50-year, and 100-year rainfall events (Table 2). WWHM2012 modeling results are included in Page 7 Field Work and Modeling Memorandum for the Renton Monroe Project April 23, 2021 k:\project\33200\33201a\projectdocs\reports\field work and modeling memo\21_0415 field work and modeling memo.docx Appendix A. A 6th basin was also added to he model, in order to account for the future development of the Upper Balch Pit. The WWHM-SWMM model was calibrated using two historic flooding events that flooded the Upper Balch Pit. A weir was placed on the catch basin in front of McDonalds on Monroe Ave to represent the flood levels necessary for the Monroe Ave trunkline to flood as the weir was set at the rim elevation of the historically flooded catch basin. The weir in the preexisting conditions model was modeled to be able to evaluate the alternatives compacity to convey the 25-year flood. The 25-year event was based on the January 1990 flood event which was a good event to model due to its significant peak and volume component. The volume is important to include in this model because the volume component of the storm will have a greater impact on filling the facility (both the existing infiltration pipes and the proposed alternatives) than a narrow (low-volume) peak event. After modeling the contributing basins in the hydrologic model WWHM2012, statistical return event peak flowrates (for the 25-yr, 50-yr, and 100-yr events) were derived for each of the basins. Determining these statistical peak flowrates allowed us to then scale the input storm hydrograph to match the statistical peak by applying a ratio of the hydrograph peak to the statistical peak. To apply this ratio, a representative basin was selected to determine the scaling factor to apply to the input hydrograph. The representative basin for this event was Basin 3 due to its size and land use, as it was one of the larger and more developed of the contributing basins. Basin 3 had a 25- year flow of 30.2 cfs. The peak flow in the January 1990 storm event was 32 cfs so this historic hydrograph was scaled down 30.2 cfs to match the statistical peak event. Any preliminary alternatives that flood at events equal to or less than the 25-year flood are considered to have too little capacity. The proposed alternatives are all able to convey the 25-year flood or less with no flooding occurring at the Upper Balch Pit at the historically flooding catch basin. For further explanation on modeling of the alternatives see the Considered Alternatives section later in this report. Table 1: Existing Conditions Drainage Basin Summary Drainage Basins 1 2 3 4 5 6 Lawn Area (ac) 41.63 52.18 13.47 2.13 9.21 8.66 Impervious Area (ac) 30.83 42.53 40.32 2.13 11.47 5.78 Total Area (ac) 72.46 94.71 53.79 4.26 20.68 14.44 Table 2: Existing Conditions Peak Discharge Rates from WWHMSWMM Peak Discharge Rates Drainage Basins TOTAL BASIN 1 2 3 4 5 6 2-year (cfs) 13.08 19.16 17.28 0.91 5.30 2.81 58.55 5-year (cfs) 17.09 25.16 22.18 1.18 6.97 3.83 76.41 10-year (cfs) 20.01 29.46 25.62 1.36 8.15 4.57 89.17 25-year (cfs) 23.99 35.26 30.20 1.61 9.75 5.57 106.38 50-year (cfs) 27.18 39.86 33.78 1.81 11.01 6.38 120.02 100-year (cfs) 30.58 44.70 37.51 2.02 12.35 7.22 134.39 Notes Total Basin Flowrates is not a direct summation of the component basins, as the routing was included in the total basin model which delayed peaks and led to smaller event peaks. The total basin model has basins connected to conduits which represent the length of pipe leading from the downstream point of discharge from each subbasin to the Upper Balch Pit. Basin 6 is the future developed Upper Balch Pit. Page 8 Field Work and Modeling Memorandum for the Renton Monroe Project April 23, 2021 k:\project\33200\33201a\projectdocs\reports\field work and modeling memo\21_0415 field work and modeling memo.docx Hydraulic and Water Quality Conditions The drainage system within this basin does not have a discharge point or an adequate connection to a downstream conveyance system. Conveyance in the upper basins are typically smaller diameter pipes that lead to being collected in a 36” Trunkline that flows north to south along Monroe Ave NE. Before the existing stormwater overflow to Upper Balch Pit was constructed, large storm events would cause the drainage system along Monroe Avenue NE South of NE 4th Street to surcharge. There have been no reported drainage problems reported within the subbasin, besides the Upper Balch Pit area. The lack of reported drainage issues is likely due to the land use in the southern basin being mainly commercial and industrial. Water quality requirements were considered for every alternative using the 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual. The water quality control facilities described later in this report for each alternative will meet the requirements by the City of Renton’s Surface Water Design Manual - Chapter 5 Flow Control for Presettling. Water quality facilities are required for Alternative 1: Stormtech Chambers, Alternative 2: Gravel Pit, and Alternative 3: Vault. WWHM-SWMM was used to appropriately size the water quality features to meet water quality standards. Proposed Boring Locations The Level 1 Project Area Review Memorandum for the Renton Monroe Project proposed 6 locations that would be feasible to install borings to determine the best feasible locations for locating infiltration features. Selected Boring Locations Based upon discussion with the City of Renton staff Kevin Evans and Joe Farah on 1/15/2020, two of the proposed boring locations were selected as preferred locations for taking borings and installing piezometers. The two selected boring locations that were selected were Boring Location 3 (in the ROW adjacent to the King County Department of Transportation Equipment Maintenance yard) and Boring Location 6 (in the ROW adjacent to the City of Renton Public Works Maintenance Division yard). Borings 3 and 6 were conducted on 02/20/2020. The boring reports for 3 and 6 are found in Appendix B. Borings 3 and 6 indicated that there is a thick layer of outwash of approximately 25 feet thick prior to encountering groundwater above a glacial till layer. In additional Boring (Boring Location 7) was selected to be installed in the NW corner of the Segale Balch Pit. This boring is located adjacent to the northwest Pilot Infiltration Test in order to confirm that the in-situ soil conditions would allow for infiltration to be sited in the NW corner, such as the seasonal high groundwater and that the existing soils remain favorable for infiltration below the proposed infiltration plane. This boring was conducted on Monday 11/23/2020. The installed boring was drilled approximately 75 feet deep in order to reach the infiltration plane. There is a 5-foot layer of fill material above the native recessional glacial outwash. Groundwater was encountered at approximately 70 feet below ground surface. Pilot Infiltration Tests Due to the high variability of infiltration rates of outwash, Otak recommended that Pilot Infiltration Tests (PITs) be conducted in association with the borings in order to determine a more exact design infiltration rate as this was the highest impact to size of facility. The location of the PITs was determined based on where there was the highest probability of native, undisturbed soils; along the edges of the pit. Page 9 Field Work and Modeling Memorandum for the Renton Monroe Project April 23, 2021 k:\project\33200\33201a\projectdocs\reports\field work and modeling memo\21_0415 field work and modeling memo.docx Two PITs were performed on April 7, 2020 in the Segale Balch pit NW and SE corners. The NW PIT indicated that there was a long-term, corrected infiltration rate of 31.4 in/hr. The SE PIT indicated that there was a long- term, corrected design infiltration rate of 2 in/hr. There was a much higher percentage of fine sediments present in the SE corner PIT, and upon further historical aerial review, it appears that this portion of the Balch pit had been previously mined and used as an access ramp from the road in the early 1960s and restored with imported material prior to 1990. WWHM-SWMM Alternatives Model The WWHM-SWMM Model was then adjusted to reflect the different alternatives that were determined as most feasible for the site. The following assumptions were used for each of these alternatives. An exhibit of the WWHM-SWMM layout for alternatives 1-3 is provided in Figure 4. Alternative 1. Stormtech Infiltration Gallery Storage: Stormtech Chambers with surrounding gravel modeled as a stage area table Actual facility size: 6 feet of storage with a bottom surface area of 87,120 square feet or 2.0 acres Infiltration is based on this bottom surface area Modeled Volume: Actual facility size is multiplied by a factor of 0.7 to get the equivalent volume minus the gravel. This results in a modeled bottom area of 60,984 square feet or 1.8 acres. No storage modeled underneath Stormtech Chambers due to lack of information about the depth of native soils across the bottom of the infiltration footprint. Overflow: No overflow modeled; entirety of the modeled time series was infiltrated with no flooding. Alternative 2. Gravel Pit Storage: Gravel Pit 12 feet of gravel storage with a bottom surface area of 75,359 square feet or 1.73 acres. Storage is modeled with half of the actual bottom surface area or 37,680 square feet or 0.865 acres to represent about 50% storage capacity in the gravel. Overflow: No overflow modeled Alternative 3. Vault Storage: Vault 6 feet deep vault with a bottom surface area of the facility is 78,4080 square feet or 1.8 acres Overflow: No overflow modeled Alternative 4. 4th/3rd Trunkline Storage: No storage modeled Overflow: Trunkline model functions as the overflow for this system. Along with modeling a new trunkline, two pipes to the south of the intersection of Monroe Ave and NE 4th St. needed to be replaced to route water from the trunkline in Monroe Ave to the new trunkline. Alternative 5. East Trunkline A fifth alternative was considered, but not modeled, as the cost of this alternative performing to the same level of functionality of an infiltration facility was significantly higher than other alternatives. The construction costs for installing an East Trunkline was far greater than the Trunkline along 4th/3rd, and therefore was not considered to be one of the feasible alternatives and was not modeled. Alternative 6. Pump Station A sixth alternative was considered, but not modeled, as the cost of this alternative performing to an equivalent functionality of an infiltration facility was significantly higher than all other alternatives. Due to the extensive cost of a pump station to be located along NE 2nd St, along with the cost of construction of a trunkline down a steep forested slope, this alternative was deemed prohibitively expensive, and was not modeled. Page 10 Field Work and Modeling Memorandum for the Renton Monroe Project April 23, 2021 k:\project\33200\33201a\projectdocs\reports\field work and modeling memo\21_0415 field work and modeling memo.docx INSERT FIGURE 4 – WWHMSWMM Plan w/ Aeral Page 11 Field Work and Modeling Memorandum for the Renton Monroe Project April 23, 2021 k:\project\33200\33201a\projectdocs\reports\field work and modeling memo\21_0415 field work and modeling memo.docx Hydraulic Modeling Assumptions The following assumptions are global model assumptions that were included in the combined hydrologic/hydraulic model. Existing Trunkline Infiltration Rate: 1.5 inches per hour (((6’ wide pipe trench x 660 lf of pipe)SF * 1.33 ft/hr) = (5,267 CF/HR)*(1hr/3600sec) = 1.46 CFS) [16 in/hr infiltration rate determined by nearby boring lab tests] Routing Timestep: ½ second New Pipes Manning’s: 0.018 Entrance loss: 1.0, Exit loss: 0.5 The equivalent to 100-year storm event is run Precipitation time series: Seatac Airport, Factor 1.0 Pan Evaporation data is the default data included in the WWHM2012 model, which comes from the Puyallup Pan station Flooding observed in roadway via a weir that’s notch invert is the same as the lowest CB rim adjacent to McDonalds Native Soil Infiltration Rate in Upper Balch Pit (Alternatives 1-3): 20 inches/hour Infiltration into the native soils was modeled through an outlet, controlled by an outlet curve that utilized the designed infiltration rate (converted from in/hr over the footprint into cfs (2.0 acres *20 in/hr = 40ac-in/hr = 40.3cfs) The storages were modeled as storage nodes with tabular storage curves Design Storm The design storm was determined by analyzing flowrates from the pre-existing WWHM-SWMM model and running a full 50-year times series through the pre-existing model. The 25-year event was based on the January 1990 flood event, which was a good event to model after due to its significant volume component. The representative basin for this event was Basin 3, which had a 25-year peak flow of 30.2 cfs. The peak flow in January 1990 was 32 cfs. This flow was scaled down to 30.2 cfs to match the 25-year peak, and scaled up to 35 cfs to match the 100-year event. The water quality flow rates were analyzed at the trunkline where Monroe Ave flows into Upper Balch Pit. The results of that analysis are included in the following table. Table 3: Contributing Basin Flowrates Online WQ Flowrate (CFS) 23 Offline WQ Flowrate (CFS) 13.1 2-Year (CFS) 61.8 5-Year (CFS) 83.8 10-Year (CFS) 98.2 25-Year (CFS) 116.4 50-Year (CFS) 129.9 100-Year (CFS) 143.3 Alternative 1: Stormtech Chambers Alternative 1 proposes installing Stormtech Chambers in the northwest corner of Upper Balch Pit. Stormwater runoff enters the site from the existing pipe network in Monroe Ave NE, then is conveyed to a hydrodynamic separator and flow splitter, which then outlets the stormwater using surface flow via a level spreader. For this alternative, a Contech Bioscape was sized for Enhanced Treatment at the Department of Ecology approved 175 inches/hour with an incoming flow rate of 11.08 cfs and a safety factor of 1.8, as recommended by the manufacturer. Page 12 Field Work and Modeling Memorandum for the Renton Monroe Project April 23, 2021 k:\project\33200\33201a\projectdocs\reports\field work and modeling memo\21_0415 field work and modeling memo.docx The Stormtech Chambers sit in a footprint of 97,850 square feet or 2.3 acres. The required footprint for Stormtech Chambers was modeled as 1.8 acres, which is 20% smaller than the designed footprint of 2.3 acres. The footprint was scaled up to act as contingency in order to account for, and address, the limited geotechnical information across the site. The designed facility as an infiltration plane of approximate elevation 284 feet. This elevation correlates to the assumed undisturbed native material depth of the pit, as approximated by the survey data provided by Segale, included in this report as Figure 5, that was performed in September 2020. Above the infiltration plane, there is a well drained clean gravel, with the bottom of the Stormtech Chambers at approximate elevation 312 feet. The Stormtech Chamber bottom elevation was determined based on the maximum cover requirements. Standard gravel backfill can be used above the Stormtech Chambers, to a finished elevation of 326 feet, which maximizes the cover over the Stormtech Chambers. The model for the Stormtech Chamber alternative only includes the storage available in the Stormtech Chambers and the 18-inches of drain rock that surrounds the chambers, which is represented in a storage curve where the depth is effectively 6-feet. The storage available in the infiltration gravel below the Stormtech Chambers was not included in this model, as the depth to native soils may be inconsistent across the footprint of the infiltration facility, and the depth of the new clean gravel material could significantly impact additional storage of the facility. While the Alternative 1 model does not include representation of the storage in gravel below the Stormtech Chambers due to a lack of data about how thick that section of gravel would need to be, an additional model was run that included an assumed depth of clean washed infiltration gravel below the chambers in order to determine the sensitivity of the model to storage. This model utilized a significant assumption of a 25 feet thick gravel layer below the Stormtech Chambers was made, based off of the ground surface during 2006, as shown in Figure 5. This additional gravel was then added to the storage curve as an additional 10 feet of available storage (an equivalent open volume converted by the porosity of the gravel). When modeling the Stormtech Chamber and additional storage of the gravel beneath the chambers the amount of storage allows for either the same footprint size and a smaller infiltration rate or a smaller footprint with the same long-term infiltration rate. This model will need to be further analyzed as more information about the depth to native material along the entire footprint. It is possible that the depth of gravel could allow for the storage to increase by a factor of 2, which would correspond to the ability to decrease the long-term design infiltration rate or design footprint size (See Appendix C for modeling results). Alternative 2: Gravel Pit Alternative Two is to install a gravel infiltration pit located onsite in the northwest corner of Upper Balch Pit. The gravel infiltration pit will sit 24-feet deep in a footprint of 3,500 square feet. The infiltration trench consists of a 7- foot layer of storage and 2 feet of sand. The infiltration trench has a total of 2,365,000 cubic feet of gravel and was sized using WWHM-SWMM, see Appendix C for modeling results. The model infiltration rate was set using an orifice element with a diameter of 12 inches. Alternative 3: Vault Alternative Three proposes to install an infiltration vault in the NW corner of the Upper Balch Pit. This option requires the use of a hydrodynamic separator and Bioscape prior to infiltration. Following the hydrodynamic separator, stormwater would then infiltrate through a sand liner to allow for protection of the native infiltration rate in the first bay of the infiltration vault. This first bay is designed with a short weir wall that stormwater to stage for water quality treatment before overtopping the weir and spilling over into the clean infiltration gravel. This stormwater then infiltrates into the native outwash and spreads out to cover the NW corner of the Upper Balch Pit. Due to the significant volume of runoff from the storms generated from the Monroe Ave Basin, available storage volume is quickly filled, and without maximizing the footprint to increase the infiltration, the facility gets overwhelmed. See Appendix C for modeling results. Page 13 Field Work and Modeling Memorandum for the Renton Monroe Project April 23, 2021 k:\project\33200\33201a\projectdocs\reports\field work and modeling memo\21_0415 field work and modeling memo.docx Alternative 4: 4th/3rd Trunkline Alternative Four proposes installing a trunkline from the existing stormwater trunkline on NE 4th and Monroe Ave west along NE 4th St, southwest down NE 3rd St, southwest across Cedar River Park, and discharging into the Cedar River to the east of I-405. The 48-inch trunkline would run 7,300 feet through 30 connecting structures (including the catch basin tie into the existing Monroe Ave network and the outfall into Cedar River). The trunkline starts at an elevation of 323 ft and ends at an elevation of 40 feet, with the Cedar River being at an elevation of 32 feet. The trunkline has an average slope of 3.8%, see modeling results and trunkline profile in Appendix C. Alternative 5: East Trunkline A fifth alternative was considered, but not modeled. The construction costs for installing an East Trunkline was far greater than the Trunkline along 4th/3rd, and therefore was not considered to be one of the feasible alternatives and was not hydraulically modeled. Alternative 6: Pump Station A sixth alternative was considered, but not modeled. Due to the extensive cost of a pump station to be located along NE 2nd St, along with the cost of construction of a trunkline down a steep forested slope, this alternative was deemed prohibitively expensive, and was not hydraulically modeled. k:\project\33200\33201a\projectdocs\reports\field work and modeling memo\21_0415 field work and modeling memo.docx Appendix A – Level 1 Project Area Review \\red-ae.otak.com\proj\project\33200\33201a\projectdocs\reports\level 1 project area review memo\final\level 1 project area review memo.docx Level 1 Project Area Review Memorandum To: Kevin Evans, PE City of Renton From: Otak, Inc Copies: File Date: January 28, 2020 Subject: Level 1 Project Area Review Memorandum Project No.: 33201A Executive Summary The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a basin data review and based on Aspect’s geotechnical analysis provide proposed boring locations. These borings will then provide information, such as soil type, depth to different lenses, and depth to groundwater, that will be used in site selection for the facility. The boring information will then be used in the alternative analysis phase in the design of solution elements. Depending on the information provided by the borings, alternatives derived from solution elements considered may include a combination of facilities at different sites, a single facility, or a combination of infiltration and detention. The result of this Memorandum is a recommendation of boring locations, which are clustered in the southern portion of the basin, where Aspect’s Preferential Infiltration Memorandum indicate higher infiltration rates. Project Overview This memorandum presents the findings of Task 3 of Phase 1- Alternatives Analysis for the Monroe Avenue NE Storm System Improvements project. In this task, Otak collected data to characterize the existing storm sewer system within the project area and other adjacent basins. The project located in the Renton Highlands area is approximately bounded by Monroe Avenue NE, NE 2nd street, Union Avenue NE and NE 9th street. The sub basin currently drains to a 670-foot-long 36-inch perforated infiltration pipe along NE 2nd street and a 200-foot-long 48- inch perforated infiltration pipe along the King County Access Road. The boundary of the project was delineated based on the project area data collected and the area was adjusted from the original scope of work from 211 acres to 245 acres, see Figure 1 for the site boundary map. The project area slopes down from north to south towards the infiltration pipes on NE 2nd Street. Upstream of the project site includes predominantly medium- density residential lots and commercial lots. Downstream of the project site are low-density residential lots, and a resource conservation zone near the Cedar River. The Cedar River and area near the Cedar River has an environmental designation of shoreline high intensity. This basin has seen historic flooding along Monroe Ave NE, which was addressed by the integration of an overflow to the Upper Balch Pit. An alternative design is required to deal with the runoff from this basin as the Upper Balch Pit property is redeveloping. FK:\Project\33200\33201A\CADD\GIS\MXDs\Phase 1\Figure1_SiteVicinityMap.mxdDate: 12/19/2019 Figure 1 Site Vicinity Map ProjectLocation Puget Sound 1 inch = 1,000 feet 0 2,000Feet Legend Project Boundary NE 6TH ST NE 8TH ST NE 10TH ST MONROE AVE NENE 4TH STQUEEN AVE NEJEFFERSON AVE NEUNION AVE NEKC ACCESS RDNE 2ND ST Project Location Notes: -- Basemap provided by the City of Renton.-- Inset Basemap provided by ESRI. Page 3 Level 1 Project Area Review Memorandum for the Renton Monroe Project January 28, 2020 \\red-ae.otak.com\proj\project\33200\33201a\projectdocs\reports\level 1 project area review memo\final\level 1 project area review memo.docx Project Area Data The subbasin stormwater is conveyed via storm sewer pipes that connect to two perforated infiltration pipes at the SW corner of the subbasin, see Figure 2 for pipes map. In addition to the storm sewer pipes there is a culvert connecting the lower SE portion of the subbasin to the infiltration pipes. The subbasin is primarily moderate sized residential properties, roads, and commercial properties. The topography of the site slopes from the NE corner towards the SW corner of the subbasin, see Figure 3 for the contour map. The hydrologic soil groups at the site are mapped as Arents Everett Material (A hydrologic soil group), Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam (C hydrologic soil group), and Arents Alderwood Material (B/D hydrologic soil group) by the National Resource Conservation Service (NCRS), shown in Figure 2. The dominant hydrologic soil group based on this mapping is hydrologic soil Group C. Hydrologic soil groups are groups of soils that have similar runoff potential under similar storm and cover conditions. Group A soils have a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential), Group B soils have a moderate infiltration rate, Group C soils have a slow infiltration rate, and Group D soils have a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential). Soils can be placed in Group B/D if their water table is within 24- inches of the surface but can still maintain moderate infiltration rates. Based on this soil classification, the groundwater connectivity would be maintained for the Group B/D soils, so as not to lose water to a deep aquifer fraction. Further geological investigations were performed by Aspect Consulting, LLC to obtain information on preferential infiltration facility locations, the results of this investigation can be found in the Hydrogeologic Conditions below. K:\Project\33200\33201A\CADD\GIS\MXDs\Phase 1\Figure2_SoilsandPipesMap.mxdDate: 1/9/2020 Figure 2Soils and Pipes Map 1 inch = 1,000 feet 0 2,000Feet Legend Project BoundaryAlderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes, Soil Class CArents, Alderwood material, 6 to 15 percent slopes, Soil Class B/DArents, Everett material, Soil Class APipes NE 6TH ST MONROE AVE NENE 8TH ST NE 10TH ST NE 4TH STQUEEN AVE NEJEFFERSON AVE NEUNION AVE NENE 2ND ST Notes: -- Basemap and private/public pipes files provided by the City of Renton.-- Hydrologic soils data provided by NCRS (2019). F K:\Project\33200\33201A\CADD\GIS\MXDs\Phase 1\Figure3_ContoursMap.mxdDate: 12/26/2019 Figure 3 Site Contour Map NE 6TH ST NE 8TH ST MONROE AVE NENE 4TH STQUEEN AVE NEJEFFERSON AVE NEUNION AVE NEKC ACCESS RDNE 2ND ST Notes: -- Basemap and contour data provided by the City of Renton. Legend Project Boundary CONTOUR202- 276 276 - 318 318 - 368 368 - 408 408 - 445 F1 inch = 700 feet 0 1,800900Feet Page 6 Level 1 Project Area Review Memorandum for the Renton Monroe Project January 28, 2020 \\red-ae.otak.com\proj\project\33200\33201a\projectdocs\reports\level 1 project area review memo\final\level 1 project area review memo.docx Hydrologic Settings and Modeling The subbasin drains primarily through catch basins and storm sewer pipes to a 670-foot-long 36-inch perforated infiltration pipe along NE 2nd street and a 200-foot-long 48-inch perforated infiltration pipe along King County Access Road. The hydrologic modeling of the project site was completed using the Department of Ecology’s Western Washington Hydrologic Model 2012 (WWHM2012) program. The WWHM model was used to determine the existing conditions and predeveloped conditions runoff rates for the project subbasin. The impervious fraction based on land use type is typically used for the WWHM2012 model but for this site the Effective Impervious Area (EIA) was determined to better model how this site would transport rainfall. The EIA was delineated by Joe Brascher a scientist at Otak with over 30 years of experience delineating watersheds and the chief architect in the development of the WWHM2012 program. Joe Brascher determined the EIA percent by comparing the land use types of this basin to his previous experience delineating other basins in the Renton, WA area, see Figure 4. The EIA was determined by comparing the impervious area percentage of each land use that is present in the basin with the existing conveyance to determine the percentage of the impervious area where the runoff will be collected. The EIA for the different Land Use Types was determined as follows: the Greenwood Memorial Park was determined to be 5% EIA (not including the parking lot), the residential-8 zone is 26% EIA, the residential-10 will have a 40% EIA, the Light Industrial Zone and Residential Multi-Family will have 48% EIA, the Residential Manufactured Home Park and Commercial Arterial Zones were determined to be 85% EIA. The ROW was approximated to be all road and have 100% EIA. The EIA ratios were determined through utilizing GIS, Google Street View, and COR maps. The EIA factors for single-family residential zones are lower than what is determined via the 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual, as the manual assumes that the roof drains are routed to the collection network. Based on Street View investigations of the single-family residential neighborhoods, the roofs are frequently disconnected (downspouted to splash blocks on vegetated side-yards). The disconnection of the roof runoff indicates that there will be the lower EIA factors as indicated above. Multifamily has a higher density than Residential-10, so has a higher EIA. The Light Industrial Zone has a significant proportion of disconnected vegetated area and some disconnected gravel, leading to the EIA of 48%. Higher impervious areas that are well connected to storm drainage networks, such as the Residential Manufactured Home Park and Commercial Arterial Zones were given the high EIA of 85% as a significant portion of the runoff from the impervious area would be collected in the drainage system. Two models were set up, one model to evaluate the pre-developed conditions using forested conditions, and one model using the existing conditions of impervious and lawn surfaces (Table 1). The three soil types were modeled in different basins within the model and were connected to the infiltration gallery through culverts. The precipitation data peak inflow rates and peak outflow rates were calculated for the 2-year, 5-year, 10-year, 25- year, 50-year, and 100-year rainfall events (Table 2). WWHM2012 modeling results are included in Appendix A. Table 1: Existing Conditions drainage basin summary table. Drainage Basins 1 2 3 Lawn Area (ac) 40.98 33.87 43.76 Impervious Area (ac) 23.34 70.98 32.96 Total Area (ac) 64.33 104.85 76.72 Page 7 Level 1 Project Area Review Memorandum for the Renton Monroe Project January 28, 2020 \\red-ae.otak.com\proj\project\33200\33201a\projectdocs\reports\level 1 project area review memo\final\level 1 project area review memo.docx Table 2: Existing Conditions Peak Discharge Rates Peak Discharge Rates Drainage Basins TOTAL BASIN 1 2 3 2-year (cfs) 9.66 31.90 13.99 49.63 5-year (cfs) 12.77 41.40 18.26 65.04 10-year (cfs) 15.06 48.13 21.37 76.03 25-year (cfs) 18.21 57.14 25.61 90.85 50-year (cfs) 20.76 64.25 29.01 102.59 100-year (cfs) 23.48 71.69 32.63 114.94 1. Total Basin Flowrates is not a direct summation of the component basins, as the routing was included in the total basin model which delayed peaks and led to smaller event peaks. K:\Project\33200\33201A\CADD\GIS\MXDs\Phase 1\Figure4_LandUseandEIA.mxdDate: 1/16/2020 Figure 4Land Use Types and Effective Impervious Area Zones NE 6TH ST NE 8TH ST MONROE AVE NENE 4TH ST QUEEN AVE NEJEFFERSON AVE NEUNION AVE NEKC ACCESS RDNE 2ND ST Notes: -- Basemap and landuse data provided by the City of Renton. Legend PROJECT BOUNDARY Greenwood Memorial Park, 5% EIA Commercial Arterial Zone, 85% EIA Light Industrial Zone, 48% EIAResidential-10, 40% EIAResidential-8, 26% EIAResidential Multi-Family, 48% EIAResidential Manufactured Home Park, 85% EIARoads, 100% EIA F1 inch = 700 feet 0 1,800900Feet Page 9 Level 1 Project Area Review Memorandum for the Renton Monroe Project January 28, 2020 \\red-ae.otak.com\proj\project\33200\33201a\projectdocs\reports\level 1 project area review memo\final\level 1 project area review memo.docx Hydraulic and Water Quality Conditions The drainage system within this basin does not have a discharge point or an adequate connection to a downstream conveyance system. Conveyance in the upper basins are typically smaller diameter pipes that lead to being collected in a 36” Trunkline that flows north to south along Monroe Ave NE. Before the existing stormwater overflow to Upper Balch Pit was constructed, large storm events would cause the drainage system along Monroe Avenue NE south of NE 4 th Street to surcharge. I There have been no reported drainage problems reported within the subbasin, besides the Upper Balch Pit area. The lack of reported drainage issues is likely due to the land use in the southern basin being mainly commercial and industrial. Hydrogeologic Conditions (Preferential Infiltration Locations) As shown in Figure 5, six potential locations have been identified for infiltration facilities and their respective boring/piezometer installations. These locations have been evaluated based upon the following factors: contributing drainage basins, property ownership, aesthetics and property usage, and infiltration feasibility (Table 3). Table 3: Boring Preferential Feasibility Matrix Boring Locations Infiltrating Soils Property Access Aesthetics / Tree Removal Contributing Area 1 Good Moderate Good Moderate 2 Moderate Low Low Low/Moderate 3 Good Moderate Good Good 4 Moderate Good Low Low/Moderate 5 Low/Moderate Moderate Moderate Good 6 Good Good Good Good Note: A Low Score in Aesthetics indicates a higher impact or removal of existing trees or aesthetic features. A commonality between each location is that the Monroe Ave NE Trunkline is deep; along NE 2nd St the trunkline is approximately 20’ deep. The borings will be able to provide depth of the till layer that underlays the outwash, as well as the groundwater level. Boring Location 1: This boring is located at the SE corner of the Renton Technical College. A future facility at this area would allow for a significant collection of runoff from the basin, however the facility would require significant construction at the NE 4th St and Monroe Ave NE intersection, along with coordination with the Renton Technical College. Boring Location 2: This boring is located in a vacant lot to the East of the Greenwood Memorial Park and would allow for a collection of a significant portion of the basin. However, an installation of a future facility at this location would require the acquisition of the property (valued at ~$1 million), as well as this location being on the intersection of the good infiltrating soils and poorer infiltrating soils. Boring Location 3: Boring location 3 is adjacent to the King County Equipment Maintenance yard and would allow for the collection of the whole basin. A future facility at this location could require coordination and acquiring easement from King County or could possibly be located in the ROW. Boring Location 4: This boring would be located on City of Renton property. A future facility would be located in a heavily forested zone, on an intersection of the outwash and till soil groups (higher uncertainty of infiltration rates). Boring Location 5: This boring is located in a King County parcel. Aspect has previously conducted geotechnical Page 10 Level 1 Project Area Review Memorandum for the Renton Monroe Project January 28, 2020 \\red-ae.otak.com\proj\project\33200\33201a\projectdocs\reports\level 1 project area review memo\final\level 1 project area review memo.docx investigations in this area as part of a separate project and found thicker outwash and deeper groundwater than likely prevalent at the proposed locations of other borings in this area. A future facility in this location would be able to collect the entire basin. Boring Location 6: This boring is located in ROW adjacent to City of Renton property. A future facility in this location would effectively be an end of the line facility, connecting 400’ to the north. This boring would indicate the depth of the till layer and groundwater, and if it would have sufficient separation from the bottom of facility. The trunkline in this location is approximately 22ft deep. Selected Boring Locations Based upon discussion with the City of Renton staff Kevin Evans and Joe Farah on 1/15/2020, two of the proposed boring locations were selected as preferred locations for taking borings and installing piezometers. The two selected boring locations were Boring Location 3 (in the ROW adjacent to the King County Department of Transportation Equipment Maintenance yard) and Boring Location 6 (in the ROW adjacent to the City of Renton Public Works Maintenance Division yard). K:\Project\33200\33201A\CADD\GIS\MXDs\Phase 1\Figure 5 Proposed Boring Locations.mxdDate: 1/10/2020 Figure 5Proposed BoringLocations NE 6TH ST NE 8TH ST MONROE AVE NENE 4TH ST QUEEN AVE NEUNION AVE NEKC ACCESS RDNE 2ND ST Notes: -- Basemap and soil data provided by the City of Renton.-- Proposed boring locations provided by Aspect. Legend k Proposed Boring LocationProposed FacilityProject BoundaryPipesSoil TypeGlacil Till Deposits, Soil Type CGlacial Till Deposits, Soil Type B/DOutwash Deposits, Soil Type APits F1 inch = 700 feet 0 1,800900Feet \\red-ae.otak.com\proj\project\33200\33201a\projectdocs\reports\level 1 project area review memo\final\level 1 project area review memo.docx Appendix A – WWHM2012 Report WWHM2012 PROJECT REPORT DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:01:28 PM Page 2 General Model Information Project Name:RentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse Site Name: Site Address: City: Report Date:1/16/2020 Gage:Seatac Data Start:1948/10/01 Data End:2009/09/30 Timestep:15 Minute Precip Scale:1.000 Version Date:2018/10/10 Version:4.2.16 POC Thresholds Low Flow Threshold for POC1:50 Percent of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC1:50 Year Low Flow Threshold for POC2:50 Percent of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC2:50 Year Low Flow Threshold for POC3:50 Percent of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC3:50 Year Low Flow Threshold for POC4:50 Percent of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC4:50 Year DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:01:28 PM Page 3 Landuse Basin Data Predeveloped Land Use P-Basin 1_Indiviual Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre A B, Forest, Flat 42.779 A B, Forest, Mod 17.788 A B, Forest, Steep 3.766 Pervious Total 64.333 Impervious Land Use acre Impervious Total 0 Basin Total 64.333 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:01:28 PM Page 4 P-Basin 3_Indiviual Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre A B, Forest, Flat 38.056 A B, Forest, Mod 30.725 A B, Forest, Steep 7.937 Pervious Total 76.718 Impervious Land Use acre Impervious Total 0 Basin Total 76.718 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:01:28 PM Page 5 P-Basin 2_Indiviual Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre C, Forest, Flat 45.953 C, Forest, Mod 43.134 C, Forest, Steep 15.763 Pervious Total 104.85 Impervious Land Use acre Impervious Total 0 Basin Total 104.85 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:01:28 PM Page 6 P-Basin 1 Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre A B, Forest, Flat 42.779 A B, Forest, Mod 17.788 A B, Forest, Steep 3.766 Pervious Total 64.333 Impervious Land Use acre Impervious Total 0 Basin Total 64.333 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:01:28 PM Page 7 P-Basin 2 Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre C, Forest, Flat 45.953 C, Forest, Mod 43.134 C, Forest, Steep 15.763 Pervious Total 104.85 Impervious Land Use acre Impervious Total 0 Basin Total 104.85 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:01:28 PM Page 8 P-Basin 3 Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre A B, Forest, Flat 38.056 A B, Forest, Mod 30.725 A B, Forest, Steep 7.937 Pervious Total 76.718 Impervious Land Use acre Impervious Total 0 Basin Total 76.718 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:01:28 PM Page 9 Mitigated Land Use M-Basin 1_Ind Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre A B, Lawn, Flat 27.352 A B, Lawn, Mod 11.42 A B, Lawn, Steep 2.215 Pervious Total 40.987 Impervious Land Use acre ROADS FLAT 15.427 ROADS MOD 6.367 ROADS STEEP 1.551 Impervious Total 23.345 Basin Total 64.332 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Culvert 1_Ind Culvert 1_Ind DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:01:28 PM Page 10 M-Basin 2_Ind Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre C, Lawn, Flat 14.121 C, Lawn, Mod 13.872 C, Lawn, Steep 5.879 Pervious Total 33.872 Impervious Land Use acre ROADS FLAT 31.833 ROADS MOD 29.262 ROADS STEEP 9.885 Impervious Total 70.98 Basin Total 104.852 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Culvert 2_Ind Culvert 2_Ind DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:01:28 PM Page 11 M-Basin 3_Ind Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre A B, Lawn, Flat 21.64 A B, Lawn, Mod 16.663 A B, Lawn, Steep 5.456 Pervious Total 43.759 Impervious Land Use acre ROADS FLAT 16.416 ROADS MOD 14.063 ROADS STEEP 2.481 Impervious Total 32.96 Basin Total 76.719 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Culvert 3_Ind Culvert 3_Ind Culvert 3_Ind DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:01:28 PM Page 12 Routing Elements Predeveloped Routing DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:01:28 PM Page 13 Mitigated Routing Culvert 1_Ind Discharge Structure Riser Height:0 ft. Riser Diameter:0 in. Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:01:28 PM Page 14 Culvert 3_Ind Discharge Structure Riser Height:0 ft. Riser Diameter:0 in. Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:01:28 PM Page 15 Culvert 2_Ind Discharge Structure Riser Height:0 ft. Riser Diameter:0 in. Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:01:28 PM Page 16 Analysis Results POC 1 + Predeveloped x Mitigated Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:245.901 Total Impervious Area:0 Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:118.618 Total Impervious Area:127.285 Flow Frequency Method:Log Pearson Type III 17B Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 3.618201 5 year 5.804073 10 year 7.230377 25 year 8.960914 50 year 10.186129 100 year 11.353304 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 49.631183 5 year 65.038245 10 year 76.02992 25 year 90.850732 50 year 102.589513 100 year 114.94411 Annual Peaks Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Year Predeveloped Mitigated 1949 3.756 67.556 1950 4.947 66.309 1951 8.143 43.506 1952 2.635 34.437 1953 2.113 34.459 1954 3.191 40.105 1955 4.974 47.079 1956 4.238 45.129 1957 3.191 52.110 1958 3.578 38.398 DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:02:00 PM Page 17 1959 3.278 37.108 1960 5.196 40.844 1961 3.388 45.647 1962 1.992 36.718 1963 2.580 45.578 1964 3.577 41.953 1965 2.476 55.052 1966 2.473 36.464 1967 5.281 68.898 1968 3.233 63.057 1969 3.080 49.206 1970 2.512 43.841 1971 2.764 51.097 1972 6.563 67.111 1973 2.831 30.522 1974 3.038 48.276 1975 3.990 54.732 1976 2.966 37.419 1977 0.483 37.382 1978 2.544 52.087 1979 1.576 63.601 1980 6.043 75.295 1981 2.252 51.033 1982 4.418 73.661 1983 3.913 54.853 1984 2.509 37.873 1985 1.493 51.964 1986 6.107 43.963 1987 5.347 64.269 1988 2.210 40.985 1989 1.677 51.508 1990 11.624 111.318 1991 6.886 74.744 1992 2.791 35.441 1993 2.783 34.374 1994 1.015 36.036 1995 4.007 42.766 1996 9.645 60.109 1997 6.880 50.559 1998 1.781 45.033 1999 6.875 103.953 2000 2.900 48.896 2001 0.594 46.740 2002 3.160 66.629 2003 4.240 51.892 2004 5.080 99.911 2005 3.670 41.981 2006 4.557 38.254 2007 10.439 108.700 2008 11.014 74.084 2009 5.411 67.177 Ranked Annual Peaks Ranked Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated 1 11.6244 111.3180 2 11.0136 108.7000 3 10.4393 103.9530 DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:02:00 PM Page 18 4 9.6448 99.9109 5 8.1428 75.2946 6 6.8856 74.7443 7 6.8797 74.0842 8 6.8752 73.6612 9 6.5630 68.8984 10 6.1075 67.5562 11 6.0432 67.1772 12 5.4112 67.1113 13 5.3473 66.6293 14 5.2807 66.3089 15 5.1956 64.2688 16 5.0801 63.6009 17 4.9744 63.0565 18 4.9475 60.1089 19 4.5574 55.0521 20 4.4181 54.8534 21 4.2401 54.7318 22 4.2377 52.1099 23 4.0067 52.0873 24 3.9901 51.9636 25 3.9133 51.8918 26 3.7557 51.5075 27 3.6702 51.0969 28 3.5782 51.0334 29 3.5766 50.5586 30 3.3878 49.2064 31 3.2779 48.8963 32 3.2329 48.2760 33 3.1915 47.0787 34 3.1910 46.7404 35 3.1601 45.6473 36 3.0799 45.5776 37 3.0376 45.1285 38 2.9661 45.0330 39 2.8998 43.9629 40 2.8310 43.8414 41 2.7915 43.5060 42 2.7829 42.7659 43 2.7645 41.9808 44 2.6352 41.9529 45 2.5803 40.9852 46 2.5441 40.8439 47 2.5121 40.1049 48 2.5086 38.3983 49 2.4757 38.2542 50 2.4728 37.8729 51 2.2518 37.4185 52 2.2096 37.3815 53 2.1126 37.1081 54 1.9915 36.7176 55 1.7811 36.4637 56 1.6774 36.0361 57 1.5755 35.4414 58 1.4935 34.4592 59 1.0148 34.4370 60 0.5938 34.3741 61 0.4829 30.5215 DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:02:00 PM Page 19 DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:02:00 PM Page 20 Duration Flows Flow(cfs)Predev Mit Percentage Pass/Fail 1.8091 21688 154320 711 Fail 1.8937 19310 149850 776 Fail 1.9783 17259 145529 843 Fail 2.0629 15434 141594 917 Fail 2.1476 13888 137765 991 Fail 2.2322 12478 134193 1075 Fail 2.3168 11310 130793 1156 Fail 2.4014 10273 127563 1241 Fail 2.4860 9353 124376 1329 Fail 2.5706 8547 121339 1419 Fail 2.6553 7824 118451 1513 Fail 2.7399 7174 115756 1613 Fail 2.8245 6539 113125 1730 Fail 2.9091 5978 110430 1847 Fail 2.9937 5540 107949 1948 Fail 3.0783 5106 105575 2067 Fail 3.1630 4684 103287 2205 Fail 3.2476 4327 101083 2336 Fail 3.3322 4008 98966 2469 Fail 3.4168 3728 96891 2599 Fail 3.5014 3454 94795 2744 Fail 3.5860 3213 92763 2887 Fail 3.6707 2992 90753 3033 Fail 3.7553 2778 88913 3200 Fail 3.8399 2588 87052 3363 Fail 3.9245 2389 85299 3570 Fail 4.0091 2186 83545 3821 Fail 4.0937 2026 81812 4038 Fail 4.1784 1876 80187 4274 Fail 4.2630 1706 78604 4607 Fail 4.3476 1553 77021 4959 Fail 4.4322 1427 75502 5290 Fail 4.5168 1322 74027 5599 Fail 4.6014 1223 72572 5933 Fail 4.6861 1149 71118 6189 Fail 4.7707 1069 69727 6522 Fail 4.8553 998 68316 6845 Fail 4.9399 928 67011 7221 Fail 5.0245 867 65728 7581 Fail 5.1091 820 64466 7861 Fail 5.1938 768 63247 8235 Fail 5.2784 714 62049 8690 Fail 5.3630 663 60873 9181 Fail 5.4476 620 59675 9625 Fail 5.5322 586 58498 9982 Fail 5.6168 559 57365 10262 Fail 5.7015 520 56231 10813 Fail 5.7861 479 55098 11502 Fail 5.8707 445 54135 12165 Fail 5.9553 401 53108 13243 Fail 6.0399 359 52146 14525 Fail 6.1245 320 51183 15994 Fail 6.2092 283 50221 17745 Fail 6.2938 258 49301 19108 Fail DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:02:00 PM Page 21 6.3784 235 48339 20569 Fail 6.4630 220 47440 21563 Fail 6.5476 203 46585 22948 Fail 6.6322 182 45729 25125 Fail 6.7169 161 44916 27898 Fail 6.8015 136 44104 32429 Fail 6.8861 120 43334 36111 Fail 6.9707 111 42542 38326 Fail 7.0553 102 41772 40952 Fail 7.1399 91 41045 45104 Fail 7.2246 87 40296 46317 Fail 7.3092 77 39548 51361 Fail 7.3938 67 38821 57941 Fail 7.4784 57 38115 66868 Fail 7.5630 52 37473 72063 Fail 7.6476 45 36810 81800 Fail 7.7323 38 36126 95068 Fail 7.8169 32 35484 110887 Fail 7.9015 26 34842 134007 Fail 7.9861 18 34222 190122 Fail 8.0707 14 33645 240321 Fail 8.1553 13 33088 254523 Fail 8.2400 8 32511 406387 Fail 8.3246 7 31955 456500 Fail 8.4092 7 31377 448242 Fail 8.4938 6 30821 513683 Fail 8.5784 6 30244 504066 Fail 8.6630 6 29730 495500 Fail 8.7476 6 29238 487300 Fail 8.8323 6 28704 478400 Fail 8.9169 6 28212 470200 Fail 9.0015 6 27720 462000 Fail 9.0861 6 27249 454150 Fail 9.1707 6 26822 447033 Fail 9.2553 6 26351 439183 Fail 9.3400 6 25945 432416 Fail 9.4246 6 25495 424916 Fail 9.5092 6 25068 417800 Fail 9.5938 6 24619 410316 Fail 9.6784 5 24212 484240 Fail 9.7630 5 23827 476540 Fail 9.8477 4 23421 585525 Fail 9.9323 4 23036 575900 Fail 10.0169 4 22694 567350 Fail 10.1015 3 22266 742200 Fail 10.1861 3 21902 730066 Fail The development has an increase in flow durations from 1/2 Predeveloped 2 year flow to the 2 year flow or more than a 10% increase from the 2 year to the 50 year flow. The development has an increase in flow durations for more than 50% of the flows for the range of the duration analysis. DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:02:00 PM Page 22 Water Quality Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC #1 On-line facility volume:0 acre-feet On-line facility target flow:0 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min:0 cfs. Off-line facility target flow:0 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min:0 cfs. DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:02:00 PM Page 23 LID Report DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:03:24 PM Page 24 POC 2 + Predeveloped x Mitigated Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #2 Total Pervious Area:64.333 Total Impervious Area:0 Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #2 Total Pervious Area:40.987 Total Impervious Area:23.345 Flow Frequency Method:Log Pearson Type III 17B Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #2 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.054818 5 year 0.086139 10 year 0.11294 25 year 0.154938 50 year 0.192985 100 year 0.237608 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #2 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 9.657285 5 year 12.774879 10 year 15.061084 25 year 18.212341 50 year 20.757742 100 year 23.479041 Annual Peaks Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #2 Year Predeveloped Mitigated 1949 0.046 12.316 1950 0.110 13.850 1951 0.112 8.786 1952 0.050 6.431 1953 0.050 7.352 1954 0.051 8.093 1955 0.051 8.811 1956 0.052 8.208 1957 0.051 9.371 1958 0.052 7.766 1959 0.051 8.180 DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:03:50 PM Page 25 1960 0.051 8.208 1961 0.051 7.817 1962 0.049 7.042 1963 0.049 8.327 1964 0.051 7.980 1965 0.050 9.933 1966 0.050 6.543 1967 0.051 13.465 1968 0.050 13.657 1969 0.050 8.761 1970 0.049 8.710 1971 0.052 10.463 1972 0.306 13.095 1973 0.051 6.656 1974 0.052 9.611 1975 0.051 10.750 1976 0.051 7.682 1977 0.040 7.939 1978 0.051 10.494 1979 0.043 13.617 1980 0.051 12.796 1981 0.050 9.520 1982 0.052 13.512 1983 0.050 11.078 1984 0.050 6.829 1985 0.051 9.330 1986 0.048 8.214 1987 0.049 12.746 1988 0.050 7.818 1989 0.052 11.076 1990 0.052 24.761 1991 0.096 15.801 1992 0.051 6.808 1993 0.040 7.037 1994 0.049 6.870 1995 0.050 8.513 1996 0.413 12.822 1997 0.052 9.845 1998 0.049 9.010 1999 0.096 18.769 2000 0.048 9.134 2001 0.051 10.492 2002 0.048 11.323 2003 0.050 10.335 2004 0.051 17.860 2005 0.050 7.641 2006 0.051 7.911 2007 0.615 24.839 2008 0.052 15.291 2009 0.052 12.515 Ranked Annual Peaks Ranked Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #2 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated 1 0.6154 24.8393 2 0.4131 24.7613 3 0.3056 18.7691 4 0.1117 17.8598 DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:03:50 PM Page 26 5 0.1102 15.8013 6 0.0961 15.2907 7 0.0959 13.8496 8 0.0519 13.6571 9 0.0518 13.6168 10 0.0518 13.5120 11 0.0518 13.4647 12 0.0518 13.0953 13 0.0516 12.8218 14 0.0516 12.7958 15 0.0515 12.7456 16 0.0515 12.5146 17 0.0515 12.3164 18 0.0515 11.3226 19 0.0515 11.0776 20 0.0515 11.0759 21 0.0514 10.7504 22 0.0514 10.4936 23 0.0513 10.4923 24 0.0513 10.4634 25 0.0513 10.3350 26 0.0512 9.9330 27 0.0510 9.8450 28 0.0510 9.6105 29 0.0510 9.5202 30 0.0507 9.3707 31 0.0507 9.3299 32 0.0506 9.1340 33 0.0506 9.0100 34 0.0505 8.8114 35 0.0505 8.7858 36 0.0503 8.7611 37 0.0503 8.7104 38 0.0502 8.5129 39 0.0502 8.3268 40 0.0502 8.2142 41 0.0502 8.2081 42 0.0501 8.2079 43 0.0500 8.1802 44 0.0499 8.0932 45 0.0499 7.9797 46 0.0498 7.9394 47 0.0498 7.9106 48 0.0498 7.8176 49 0.0494 7.8168 50 0.0489 7.7658 51 0.0489 7.6818 52 0.0488 7.6407 53 0.0487 7.3523 54 0.0486 7.0416 55 0.0484 7.0368 56 0.0481 6.8695 57 0.0479 6.8291 58 0.0456 6.8084 59 0.0434 6.6557 60 0.0404 6.5432 61 0.0404 6.4314 DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:03:50 PM Page 27 DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:03:50 PM Page 28 Duration Flows Flow(cfs)Predev Mit Percentage Pass/Fail 0.0274 3018 331313 10977 Fail 0.0291 2644 326179 12336 Fail 0.0308 2299 321260 13973 Fail 0.0324 2010 316768 15759 Fail 0.0341 1749 312704 17879 Fail 0.0358 1506 308640 20494 Fail 0.0374 1335 304790 22830 Fail 0.0391 1151 301368 26183 Fail 0.0408 948 297732 31406 Fail 0.0425 754 294524 39061 Fail 0.0441 586 291315 49712 Fail 0.0458 462 288321 62407 Fail 0.0475 349 285540 81816 Fail 0.0492 227 282546 124469 Fail 0.0508 88 279979 318157 Fail 0.0525 29 277413 956596 Fail 0.0542 29 274846 947744 Fail 0.0558 28 272279 972425 Fail 0.0575 28 270141 964789 Fail 0.0592 27 267788 991807 Fail 0.0609 27 265649 983885 Fail 0.0625 26 263296 1012676 Fail 0.0642 26 261371 1005273 Fail 0.0659 25 259232 1036928 Fail 0.0675 25 257307 1029228 Fail 0.0692 25 255168 1020672 Fail 0.0709 24 253457 1056070 Fail 0.0726 23 251532 1093617 Fail 0.0742 23 249821 1086178 Fail 0.0759 23 248110 1078739 Fail 0.0776 22 246399 1119995 Fail 0.0793 22 244474 1111245 Fail 0.0809 21 242977 1157033 Fail 0.0826 21 241480 1149904 Fail 0.0843 21 239768 1141752 Fail 0.0859 21 238271 1134623 Fail 0.0876 21 236774 1127495 Fail 0.0893 19 235277 1238300 Fail 0.0910 19 233780 1230421 Fail 0.0926 18 232496 1291644 Fail 0.0943 18 231213 1284516 Fail 0.0960 17 229716 1351270 Fail 0.0977 16 228432 1427700 Fail 0.0993 16 227149 1419681 Fail 0.1010 16 225866 1411662 Fail 0.1027 16 224582 1403637 Fail 0.1043 15 223299 1488660 Fail 0.1060 15 222016 1480106 Fail 0.1077 15 220732 1471546 Fail 0.1094 15 219663 1464420 Fail 0.1110 14 218380 1559857 Fail 0.1127 13 217310 1671615 Fail 0.1144 13 216241 1663392 Fail 0.1161 13 214957 1653515 Fail DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:03:50 PM Page 29 0.1177 13 213888 1645292 Fail 0.1194 13 212861 1637392 Fail 0.1211 13 211771 1629007 Fail 0.1227 12 210701 1755841 Fail 0.1244 12 209632 1746933 Fail 0.1261 11 208691 1897190 Fail 0.1278 11 207664 1887854 Fail 0.1294 11 206680 1878909 Fail 0.1311 11 205675 1869772 Fail 0.1328 11 204734 1861218 Fail 0.1344 10 203728 2037280 Fail 0.1361 10 202766 2027660 Fail 0.1378 9 201867 2242966 Fail 0.1395 9 200948 2232755 Fail 0.1411 9 200049 2222766 Fail 0.1428 9 199087 2212077 Fail 0.1445 9 198253 2202811 Fail 0.1462 8 197354 2466925 Fail 0.1478 8 196456 2455700 Fail 0.1495 8 195536 2444200 Fail 0.1512 8 194724 2434050 Fail 0.1528 8 193911 2423887 Fail 0.1545 8 193055 2413187 Fail 0.1562 8 192221 2402762 Fail 0.1579 8 191387 2392337 Fail 0.1595 8 190531 2381637 Fail 0.1612 8 189719 2371487 Fail 0.1629 8 188949 2361862 Fail 0.1646 8 188136 2351700 Fail 0.1662 8 187344 2341800 Fail 0.1679 8 186639 2332987 Fail 0.1696 8 185890 2323625 Fail 0.1712 8 185141 2314262 Fail 0.1729 8 184414 2305175 Fail 0.1746 8 183730 2296625 Fail 0.1763 8 182960 2287000 Fail 0.1779 8 182211 2277637 Fail 0.1796 8 181527 2269087 Fail 0.1813 8 180864 2260800 Fail 0.1830 8 180136 2251700 Fail 0.1846 8 179388 2242350 Fail 0.1863 8 178703 2233787 Fail 0.1880 8 177998 2224975 Fail 0.1896 8 177270 2215875 Fail 0.1913 8 176650 2208125 Fail 0.1930 8 175987 2199837 Fail The development has an increase in flow durations from 1/2 Predeveloped 2 year flow to the 2 year flow or more than a 10% increase from the 2 year to the 50 year flow. The development has an increase in flow durations for more than 50% of the flows for the range of the duration analysis. DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:03:50 PM Page 30 Water Quality Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC #2 On-line facility volume:0 acre-feet On-line facility target flow:0 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min:0 cfs. Off-line facility target flow:0 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min:0 cfs. DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:03:50 PM Page 31 LID Report DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:03:50 PM Page 32 POC 3 + Predeveloped x Mitigated Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #3 Total Pervious Area:104.85 Total Impervious Area:0 Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #3 Total Pervious Area:33.872 Total Impervious Area:70.98 Flow Frequency Method:Log Pearson Type III 17B Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #3 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 3.330685 5 year 5.337962 10 year 6.570313 25 year 7.977845 50 year 8.916033 100 year 9.765133 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #3 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 31.903472 5 year 41.40289 10 year 48.129144 25 year 57.144078 50 year 64.246329 100 year 71.689663 Annual Peaks Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #3 Year Predeveloped Mitigated 1949 3.576 43.914 1950 4.271 41.170 1951 7.159 26.341 1952 2.330 19.897 1953 1.860 23.756 1954 2.753 25.901 1955 4.609 29.903 1956 3.649 27.062 1957 3.012 32.622 1958 3.282 25.789 1959 2.774 26.177 DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:04:20 PM Page 33 1960 4.966 28.930 1961 2.746 26.914 1962 1.763 22.712 1963 2.392 28.270 1964 3.208 25.793 1965 2.237 33.598 1966 2.144 22.317 1967 4.847 39.075 1968 2.809 47.726 1969 2.784 30.742 1970 2.316 29.892 1971 2.517 36.095 1972 5.448 37.487 1973 2.497 21.193 1974 2.658 34.005 1975 3.789 33.448 1976 2.658 26.928 1977 0.374 26.017 1978 2.324 34.781 1979 1.382 44.112 1980 5.902 50.117 1981 2.049 31.751 1982 4.297 46.807 1983 3.567 35.987 1984 2.237 22.692 1985 1.305 30.900 1986 5.782 27.142 1987 5.080 40.722 1988 2.045 24.182 1989 1.292 36.996 1990 11.309 62.806 1991 6.317 50.834 1992 2.598 23.567 1993 2.579 24.753 1994 0.869 22.392 1995 3.581 28.229 1996 7.972 36.730 1997 6.538 30.595 1998 1.651 29.435 1999 6.458 67.375 2000 2.603 31.161 2001 0.486 34.442 2002 2.883 40.087 2003 4.023 38.085 2004 4.976 63.912 2005 3.518 26.339 2006 3.925 24.674 2007 8.434 60.544 2008 10.763 48.173 2009 5.107 40.806 Ranked Annual Peaks Ranked Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #3 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated 1 11.3088 67.3753 2 10.7632 63.9119 3 8.4341 62.8063 4 7.9716 60.5439 DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:04:20 PM Page 34 5 7.1589 50.8337 6 6.5384 50.1168 7 6.4579 48.1728 8 6.3168 47.7262 9 5.9024 46.8069 10 5.7820 44.1116 11 5.4485 43.9143 12 5.1075 41.1703 13 5.0801 40.8062 14 4.9757 40.7221 15 4.9660 40.0870 16 4.8474 39.0746 17 4.6093 38.0846 18 4.2973 37.4866 19 4.2710 36.9958 20 4.0226 36.7299 21 3.9245 36.0953 22 3.7885 35.9870 23 3.6489 34.7808 24 3.5806 34.4422 25 3.5764 34.0050 26 3.5668 33.5978 27 3.5181 33.4482 28 3.2820 32.6221 29 3.2080 31.7513 30 3.0116 31.1612 31 2.8832 30.9001 32 2.8095 30.7423 33 2.7841 30.5947 34 2.7740 29.9026 35 2.7530 29.8921 36 2.7460 29.4351 37 2.6579 28.9298 38 2.6579 28.2699 39 2.6032 28.2292 40 2.5977 27.1424 41 2.5786 27.0615 42 2.5170 26.9282 43 2.4974 26.9140 44 2.3922 26.3405 45 2.3304 26.3386 46 2.3239 26.1767 47 2.3162 26.0172 48 2.2367 25.9012 49 2.2365 25.7931 50 2.1438 25.7891 51 2.0487 24.7533 52 2.0455 24.6743 53 1.8600 24.1820 54 1.7630 23.7561 55 1.6514 23.5665 56 1.3824 22.7118 57 1.3052 22.6921 58 1.2919 22.3922 59 0.8695 22.3168 60 0.4856 21.1928 61 0.3745 19.8972 DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:04:20 PM Page 35 DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:04:20 PM Page 36 Duration Flows Flow(cfs)Predev Mit Percentage Pass/Fail 1.6653 15755 108698 689 Fail 1.7386 14429 105126 728 Fail 1.8118 13218 101575 768 Fail 1.8851 12093 98303 812 Fail 1.9583 11079 95116 858 Fail 2.0315 10145 91993 906 Fail 2.1048 9328 89042 954 Fail 2.1780 8573 86325 1006 Fail 2.2513 7903 83673 1058 Fail 2.3245 7261 81128 1117 Fail 2.3977 6714 78711 1172 Fail 2.4710 6222 76401 1227 Fail 2.5442 5784 74091 1280 Fail 2.6175 5392 71909 1333 Fail 2.6907 5022 69770 1389 Fail 2.7639 4678 67631 1445 Fail 2.8372 4350 65706 1510 Fail 2.9104 4032 63824 1582 Fail 2.9836 3767 62049 1647 Fail 3.0569 3551 60231 1696 Fail 3.1301 3326 58477 1758 Fail 3.2034 3097 56851 1835 Fail 3.2766 2896 55162 1904 Fail 3.3498 2710 53622 1978 Fail 3.4231 2541 52060 2048 Fail 3.4963 2366 50670 2141 Fail 3.5696 2199 49301 2241 Fail 3.6428 2049 47911 2338 Fail 3.7160 1912 46606 2437 Fail 3.7893 1766 45323 2566 Fail 3.8625 1650 44061 2670 Fail 3.9358 1546 42906 2775 Fail 4.0090 1417 41772 2947 Fail 4.0822 1288 40596 3151 Fail 4.1555 1199 39548 3298 Fail 4.2287 1126 38457 3415 Fail 4.3020 1063 37473 3525 Fail 4.3752 1014 36468 3596 Fail 4.4484 959 35527 3704 Fail 4.5217 907 34586 3813 Fail 4.5949 850 33666 3960 Fail 4.6682 802 32832 4093 Fail 4.7414 758 32019 4224 Fail 4.8146 714 31206 4370 Fail 4.8879 674 30393 4509 Fail 4.9611 635 29602 4661 Fail 5.0344 587 28853 4915 Fail 5.1076 544 28083 5162 Fail 5.1808 517 27356 5291 Fail 5.2541 480 26629 5547 Fail 5.3273 456 26030 5708 Fail 5.4005 413 25389 6147 Fail 5.4738 372 24790 6663 Fail 5.5470 345 24212 7017 Fail DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:04:20 PM Page 37 5.6203 322 23613 7333 Fail 5.6935 293 22993 7847 Fail 5.7667 270 22458 8317 Fail 5.8400 248 21902 8831 Fail 5.9132 215 21376 9942 Fail 5.9865 193 20826 10790 Fail 6.0597 172 20309 11807 Fail 6.1329 157 19825 12627 Fail 6.2062 142 19327 13610 Fail 6.2794 127 18865 14854 Fail 6.3527 111 18411 16586 Fail 6.4259 99 18005 18186 Fail 6.4991 89 17586 19759 Fail 6.5724 79 17203 21775 Fail 6.6456 73 16809 23026 Fail 6.7189 71 16427 23136 Fail 6.7921 62 15999 25804 Fail 6.8653 52 15616 30030 Fail 6.9386 47 15278 32506 Fail 7.0118 44 14919 33906 Fail 7.0851 37 14549 39321 Fail 7.1583 32 14213 44415 Fail 7.2315 29 13911 47968 Fail 7.3048 26 13614 52361 Fail 7.3780 23 13308 57860 Fail 7.4512 21 13022 62009 Fail 7.5245 19 12746 67084 Fail 7.5977 18 12474 69300 Fail 7.6710 15 12239 81593 Fail 7.7442 14 11948 85342 Fail 7.8174 12 11676 97300 Fail 7.8907 12 11383 94858 Fail 7.9639 7 11135 159071 Fail 8.0372 6 10902 181700 Fail 8.1104 5 10673 213460 Fail 8.1836 5 10431 208620 Fail 8.2569 5 10211 204220 Fail 8.3301 5 9986 199720 Fail 8.4034 4 9758 243950 Fail 8.4766 3 9546 318200 Fail 8.5498 3 9373 312433 Fail 8.6231 3 9189 306300 Fail 8.6963 3 9015 300500 Fail 8.7696 3 8836 294533 Fail 8.8428 3 8641 288033 Fail 8.9160 3 8461 282033 Fail The development has an increase in flow durations from 1/2 Predeveloped 2 year flow to the 2 year flow or more than a 10% increase from the 2 year to the 50 year flow. The development has an increase in flow durations for more than 50% of the flows for the range of the duration analysis. DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:04:20 PM Page 38 Water Quality Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC #3 On-line facility volume:0 acre-feet On-line facility target flow:0 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min:0 cfs. Off-line facility target flow:0 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min:0 cfs. DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:04:20 PM Page 39 LID Report DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:04:20 PM Page 40 POC 4 + Predeveloped x Mitigated Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #4 Total Pervious Area:76.718 Total Impervious Area:0 Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #4 Total Pervious Area:43.759 Total Impervious Area:32.96 Flow Frequency Method:Log Pearson Type III 17B Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #4 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.422777 5 year 0.616946 10 year 0.754871 25 year 0.939085 50 year 1.083256 100 year 1.23322 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #4 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 13.987743 5 year 18.263936 10 year 21.368107 25 year 25.611522 50 year 29.013855 100 year 32.629892 Annual Peaks Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #4 Year Predeveloped Mitigated 1949 0.302 17.798 1950 0.676 18.958 1951 0.958 12.600 1952 0.342 9.139 1953 0.484 10.717 1954 0.563 11.747 1955 0.368 12.939 1956 0.788 11.818 1957 0.455 13.494 1958 0.441 11.326 1959 0.533 12.015 DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:04:52 PM Page 41 1960 0.505 11.931 1961 0.680 11.512 1962 0.250 10.174 1963 0.359 12.210 1964 0.607 11.684 1965 0.422 14.213 1966 0.375 9.759 1967 0.606 18.965 1968 0.447 20.207 1969 0.513 12.612 1970 0.415 12.701 1971 0.462 15.248 1972 1.105 17.966 1973 0.400 9.783 1974 0.529 14.102 1975 0.445 15.462 1976 0.496 11.403 1977 0.129 11.507 1978 0.327 15.687 1979 0.277 19.884 1980 0.377 19.326 1981 0.310 13.685 1982 0.576 19.427 1983 0.412 15.962 1984 0.289 10.016 1985 0.233 13.285 1986 0.349 11.780 1987 0.438 18.262 1988 0.228 11.232 1989 0.353 16.767 1990 0.433 32.575 1991 0.575 22.299 1992 0.318 9.845 1993 0.265 11.021 1994 0.216 10.207 1995 0.452 12.279 1996 1.260 18.187 1997 0.678 14.095 1998 0.444 13.067 1999 0.677 27.267 2000 0.336 13.272 2001 0.157 15.408 2002 0.397 16.116 2003 0.371 15.509 2004 0.374 26.120 2005 0.244 10.936 2006 0.604 11.370 2007 1.390 32.474 2008 0.354 21.175 2009 0.354 18.530 Ranked Annual Peaks Ranked Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #4 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated 1 1.3898 32.5745 2 1.2600 32.4740 3 1.1052 27.2667 4 0.9575 26.1196 DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:04:52 PM Page 42 5 0.7885 22.2987 6 0.6800 21.1748 7 0.6784 20.2071 8 0.6774 19.8836 9 0.6762 19.4267 10 0.6070 19.3260 11 0.6058 18.9654 12 0.6043 18.9577 13 0.5763 18.5299 14 0.5754 18.2618 15 0.5630 18.1870 16 0.5326 17.9659 17 0.5291 17.7982 18 0.5127 16.7667 19 0.5047 16.1156 20 0.4965 15.9624 21 0.4837 15.6871 22 0.4623 15.5089 23 0.4552 15.4622 24 0.4517 15.4079 25 0.4473 15.2481 26 0.4446 14.2134 27 0.4435 14.1022 28 0.4407 14.0948 29 0.4379 13.6852 30 0.4335 13.4941 31 0.4220 13.2853 32 0.4151 13.2718 33 0.4122 13.0671 34 0.4003 12.9387 35 0.3969 12.7006 36 0.3774 12.6120 37 0.3746 12.5998 38 0.3736 12.2787 39 0.3712 12.2099 40 0.3678 12.0148 41 0.3595 11.9312 42 0.3545 11.8176 43 0.3537 11.7800 44 0.3534 11.7466 45 0.3492 11.6843 46 0.3416 11.5116 47 0.3356 11.5071 48 0.3271 11.4030 49 0.3184 11.3704 50 0.3100 11.3258 51 0.3025 11.2323 52 0.2894 11.0208 53 0.2772 10.9355 54 0.2648 10.7169 55 0.2504 10.2069 56 0.2444 10.1740 57 0.2332 10.0156 58 0.2276 9.8445 59 0.2157 9.7831 60 0.1573 9.7591 61 0.1288 9.1390 DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:04:52 PM Page 43 DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:04:52 PM Page 44 Duration Flows Flow(cfs)Predev Mit Percentage Pass/Fail 0.2114 556537 441037 79 Pass 0.2202 519962 413659 79 Pass 0.2290 486809 389490 80 Pass 0.2378 455795 369385 81 Pass 0.2466 420076 347782 82 Pass 0.2554 388207 327676 84 Pass 0.2642 357835 310138 86 Pass 0.2730 330671 295593 89 Pass 0.2818 307571 284257 92 Pass 0.2906 281904 272707 96 Pass 0.2995 257307 261799 101 Fail 0.3083 234635 251960 107 Fail 0.3171 213460 242977 113 Fail 0.3259 195515 235918 120 Fail 0.3347 178490 228860 128 Fail 0.3435 163432 222444 136 Fail 0.3523 150278 216027 143 Fail 0.3611 138279 210851 152 Fail 0.3699 127477 206252 161 Fail 0.3787 114601 201547 175 Fail 0.3875 101725 197226 193 Fail 0.3963 90689 193462 213 Fail 0.4051 81513 189612 232 Fail 0.4139 75652 186617 246 Fail 0.4228 69663 183345 263 Fail 0.4316 63183 180179 285 Fail 0.4404 57814 177099 306 Fail 0.4492 52937 174126 328 Fail 0.4580 48638 171624 352 Fail 0.4668 43933 168693 383 Fail 0.4756 39569 166255 420 Fail 0.4844 35463 163646 461 Fail 0.4932 31912 161400 505 Fail 0.5020 28640 158962 555 Fail 0.5108 25966 157101 605 Fail 0.5196 23357 155005 663 Fail 0.5284 21293 153037 718 Fail 0.5372 18959 151112 797 Fail 0.5460 17323 149251 861 Fail 0.5549 15327 147583 962 Fail 0.5637 14061 145743 1036 Fail 0.5725 12868 144054 1119 Fail 0.5813 12006 142321 1185 Fail 0.5901 11034 140653 1274 Fail 0.5989 10412 139220 1337 Fail 0.6077 9527 137680 1445 Fail 0.6165 8729 136182 1560 Fail 0.6253 8081 134707 1666 Fail 0.6341 7255 133274 1836 Fail 0.6429 6699 132012 1970 Fail 0.6517 6181 130621 2113 Fail 0.6605 5636 129253 2293 Fail 0.6693 4945 127841 2585 Fail 0.6781 4355 126515 2905 Fail DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:04:52 PM Page 45 0.6870 4017 125338 3120 Fail 0.6958 3692 124034 3359 Fail 0.7046 3424 122750 3584 Fail 0.7134 3230 121531 3762 Fail 0.7222 2832 120312 4248 Fail 0.7310 2654 119243 4492 Fail 0.7398 2425 118066 4868 Fail 0.7486 2031 116890 5755 Fail 0.7574 1767 115778 6552 Fail 0.7662 1526 114687 7515 Fail 0.7750 1300 113596 8738 Fail 0.7838 1164 112655 9678 Fail 0.7926 1035 111585 10781 Fail 0.8014 816 110516 13543 Fail 0.8102 727 109511 15063 Fail 0.8191 688 108505 15771 Fail 0.8279 599 107628 17967 Fail 0.8367 462 106623 23078 Fail 0.8455 451 105661 23428 Fail 0.8543 410 104720 25541 Fail 0.8631 341 103757 30427 Fail 0.8719 338 102923 30450 Fail 0.8807 331 101982 30810 Fail 0.8895 281 101041 35957 Fail 0.8983 201 100164 49832 Fail 0.9071 179 99330 55491 Fail 0.9159 149 98495 66104 Fail 0.9247 66 97640 147939 Fail 0.9335 51 96848 189898 Fail 0.9423 18 95972 533177 Fail 0.9512 15 95180 634533 Fail 0.9600 8 94453 1180662 Fail 0.9688 6 93597 1559950 Fail 0.9776 6 92763 1546050 Fail 0.9864 5 91950 1839000 Fail 0.9952 4 91180 2279500 Fail 1.0040 4 90453 2261325 Fail 1.0128 4 89662 2241550 Fail 1.0216 4 88870 2221750 Fail 1.0304 4 88079 2201975 Fail 1.0392 4 87330 2183250 Fail 1.0480 4 86582 2164550 Fail 1.0568 4 85940 2148500 Fail 1.0656 4 85256 2131400 Fail 1.0744 4 84529 2113225 Fail 1.0833 3 83801 2793366 Fail The development has an increase in flow durations from 1/2 Predeveloped 2 year flow to the 2 year flow or more than a 10% increase from the 2 year to the 50 year flow. The development has an increase in flow durations for more than 50% of the flows for the range of the duration analysis. DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:04:52 PM Page 46 Water Quality Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC #4 On-line facility volume:0 acre-feet On-line facility target flow:0 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min:0 cfs. Off-line facility target flow:0 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min:0 cfs. DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:04:52 PM Page 47 LID Report DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:04:53 PM Page 48 Model Default Modifications Total of 0 changes have been made. PERLND Changes No PERLND changes have been made. IMPLND Changes No IMPLND changes have been made. DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:04:53 PM Page 49 Appendix Predeveloped Schematic DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:04:53 PM Page 50 Mitigated Schematic DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:04:54 PM Page 51 Predeveloped UCI File RUN GLOBAL WWHM4 model simulation START 1948 10 01 END 2009 09 30 RUN INTERP OUTPUT LEVEL 3 0 RESUME 0 RUN 1 UNIT SYSTEM 1 END GLOBAL FILES <File> <Un#> <-----------File Name------------------------------>*** <-ID-> *** WDM 26 RentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse.wdm MESSU 25 PreRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse.MES 27 PreRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse.L61 28 PreRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse.L62 31 POCRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse2.dat 33 POCRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse4.dat 32 POCRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse3.dat 30 POCRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse1.dat END FILES OPN SEQUENCE INGRP INDELT 00:15 PERLND 1 PERLND 2 PERLND 3 PERLND 10 PERLND 11 PERLND 12 COPY 502 COPY 504 COPY 503 COPY 501 DISPLY 2 DISPLY 4 DISPLY 3 DISPLY 1 END INGRP END OPN SEQUENCE DISPLY DISPLY-INFO1 # - #<----------Title----------->***TRAN PIVL DIG1 FIL1 PYR DIG2 FIL2 YRND 2 P-Basin 1_Indiviual MAX 1 2 31 9 4 P-Basin 3_Indiviual MAX 1 2 33 9 3 P-Basin 2_Indiviual MAX 1 2 32 9 1 P-Basin 1 MAX 1 2 30 9 END DISPLY-INFO1 END DISPLY COPY TIMESERIES # - # NPT NMN *** 1 1 1 502 1 1 504 1 1 503 1 1 501 1 1 END TIMESERIES END COPY GENER OPCODE # # OPCD *** END OPCODE PARM # # K *** END PARM END GENER PERLND DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:04:54 PM Page 52 GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name------->NBLKS Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 1 A/B, Forest, Flat 1 1 1 1 27 0 2 A/B, Forest, Mod 1 1 1 1 27 0 3 A/B, Forest, Steep 1 1 1 1 27 0 10 C, Forest, Flat 1 1 1 1 27 0 11 C, Forest, Mod 1 1 1 1 27 0 12 C, Forest, Steep 1 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO *** Section PWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC *** 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <PLS > ***************** Print-flags ***************************** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC ********* 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 2 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 3 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 10 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 11 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 12 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO PWAT-PARM1 <PLS > PWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP UZFG VCS VUZ VNN VIFW VIRC VLE INFC HWT *** 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END PWAT-PARM1 PWAT-PARM2 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # ***FOREST LZSN INFILT LSUR SLSUR KVARY AGWRC 1 0 5 2 400 0.05 0.3 0.996 2 0 5 2 400 0.1 0.3 0.996 3 0 5 2 400 0.15 0.3 0.996 10 0 4.5 0.08 400 0.05 0.5 0.996 11 0 4.5 0.08 400 0.1 0.5 0.996 12 0 4.5 0.08 400 0.15 0.5 0.996 END PWAT-PARM2 PWAT-PARM3 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN INFEXP INFILD DEEPFR BASETP AGWETP 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 10 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 11 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 12 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 END PWAT-PARM3 PWAT-PARM4 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 4 *** # - # CEPSC UZSN NSUR INTFW IRC LZETP *** DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:04:54 PM Page 53 1 0.2 0.5 0.35 0 0.7 0.7 2 0.2 0.5 0.35 0 0.7 0.7 3 0.2 0.5 0.35 0 0.7 0.7 10 0.2 0.5 0.35 6 0.5 0.7 11 0.2 0.5 0.35 6 0.5 0.7 12 0.2 0.3 0.35 6 0.3 0.7 END PWAT-PARM4 PWAT-STATE1 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation ran from 1990 to end of 1992 (pat 1-11-95) RUN 21 *** # - # *** CEPS SURS UZS IFWS LZS AGWS GWVS 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 10 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0 11 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0 12 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0 END PWAT-STATE1 END PERLND IMPLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name-------> Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** END GEN-INFO *** Section IWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL *** END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <ILS > ******** Print-flags ******** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL ********* END PRINT-INFO IWAT-PARM1 <PLS > IWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP VRS VNN RTLI *** END IWAT-PARM1 IWAT-PARM2 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # *** LSUR SLSUR NSUR RETSC END IWAT-PARM2 IWAT-PARM3 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN END IWAT-PARM3 IWAT-STATE1 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation # - # *** RETS SURS END IWAT-STATE1 END IMPLND SCHEMATIC <-Source-> <--Area--> <-Target-> MBLK *** <Name> # <-factor-> <Name> # Tbl# *** P-Basin 1_Indiviual*** PERLND 1 42.779 COPY 502 12 PERLND 1 42.779 COPY 502 13 PERLND 2 17.788 COPY 502 12 PERLND 2 17.788 COPY 502 13 DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:04:54 PM Page 54 PERLND 3 3.766 COPY 502 12 PERLND 3 3.766 COPY 502 13 P-Basin 3_Indiviual *** PERLND 1 38.056 COPY 504 12 PERLND 1 38.056 COPY 504 13 PERLND 1 38.056 COPY 504 14 PERLND 2 30.725 COPY 504 12 PERLND 2 30.725 COPY 504 13 PERLND 2 30.725 COPY 504 14 PERLND 3 7.937 COPY 504 12 PERLND 3 7.937 COPY 504 13 PERLND 3 7.937 COPY 504 14 P-Basin 2_Indiviual*** PERLND 10 45.953 COPY 503 12 PERLND 10 45.953 COPY 503 13 PERLND 11 43.134 COPY 503 12 PERLND 11 43.134 COPY 503 13 PERLND 12 15.763 COPY 503 12 PERLND 12 15.763 COPY 503 13 P-Basin 1*** PERLND 1 42.779 COPY 501 12 PERLND 1 42.779 COPY 501 13 PERLND 2 17.788 COPY 501 12 PERLND 2 17.788 COPY 501 13 PERLND 3 3.766 COPY 501 12 PERLND 3 3.766 COPY 501 13 P-Basin 2*** PERLND 10 45.953 COPY 501 12 PERLND 10 45.953 COPY 501 13 PERLND 11 43.134 COPY 501 12 PERLND 11 43.134 COPY 501 13 PERLND 12 15.763 COPY 501 12 PERLND 12 15.763 COPY 501 13 P-Basin 3*** PERLND 1 38.056 COPY 501 12 PERLND 1 38.056 COPY 501 13 PERLND 1 38.056 COPY 501 14 PERLND 2 30.725 COPY 501 12 PERLND 2 30.725 COPY 501 13 PERLND 2 30.725 COPY 501 14 PERLND 3 7.937 COPY 501 12 PERLND 3 7.937 COPY 501 13 PERLND 3 7.937 COPY 501 14 ******Routing****** END SCHEMATIC NETWORK <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** COPY 502 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 DISPLY 2 INPUT TIMSER 1 COPY 504 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 DISPLY 4 INPUT TIMSER 1 COPY 503 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 DISPLY 3 INPUT TIMSER 1 COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 DISPLY 1 INPUT TIMSER 1 <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** END NETWORK RCHRES GEN-INFO RCHRES Name Nexits Unit Systems Printer *** # - #<------------------><---> User T-series Engl Metr LKFG *** in out *** END GEN-INFO *** Section RCHRES*** ACTIVITY DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:04:54 PM Page 55 <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # HYFG ADFG CNFG HTFG SDFG GQFG OXFG NUFG PKFG PHFG *** END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <PLS > ***************** Print-flags ******************* PIVL PYR # - # HYDR ADCA CONS HEAT SED GQL OXRX NUTR PLNK PHCB PIVL PYR ********* END PRINT-INFO HYDR-PARM1 RCHRES Flags for each HYDR Section *** # - # VC A1 A2 A3 ODFVFG for each *** ODGTFG for each FUNCT for each FG FG FG FG possible exit *** possible exit possible exit * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** END HYDR-PARM1 HYDR-PARM2 # - # FTABNO LEN DELTH STCOR KS DB50 *** <------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------> *** END HYDR-PARM2 HYDR-INIT RCHRES Initial conditions for each HYDR section *** # - # *** VOL Initial value of COLIND Initial value of OUTDGT *** ac-ft for each possible exit for each possible exit <------><--------> <---><---><---><---><---> *** <---><---><---><---><---> END HYDR-INIT END RCHRES SPEC-ACTIONS END SPEC-ACTIONS FTABLES END FTABLES EXT SOURCES <-Volume-> <Member> SsysSgap<--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # tem strg<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.76 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.76 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP END EXT SOURCES EXT TARGETS <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Volume-> <Member> Tsys Tgap Amd *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # <Name> tem strg strg*** COPY 502 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 WDM 502 FLOW ENGL REPL COPY 504 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 WDM 504 FLOW ENGL REPL COPY 503 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 WDM 503 FLOW ENGL REPL COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 WDM 501 FLOW ENGL REPL END EXT TARGETS MASS-LINK <Volume> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult--> <Target> <-Grp> <-Member->*** <Name> <Name> # #<-factor-> <Name> <Name> # #*** MASS-LINK 12 PERLND PWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 12 MASS-LINK 13 PERLND PWATER IFWO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 13 MASS-LINK 14 PERLND PWATER AGWO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 14 END MASS-LINK DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:04:54 PM Page 56 END RUN DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:04:54 PM Page 57 Mitigated UCI File RUN GLOBAL WWHM4 model simulation START 1948 10 01 END 2009 09 30 RUN INTERP OUTPUT LEVEL 3 0 RESUME 0 RUN 1 UNIT SYSTEM 1 END GLOBAL FILES <File> <Un#> <-----------File Name------------------------------>*** <-ID-> *** WDM 26 RentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse.wdm MESSU 25 MitRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse.MES 27 MitRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse.L61 28 MitRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse.L62 31 POCRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse2.dat 32 POCRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse3.dat 33 POCRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse4.dat 30 POCRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse1.dat END FILES OPN SEQUENCE INGRP INDELT 00:15 PERLND 7 PERLND 8 PERLND 9 IMPLND 1 IMPLND 2 IMPLND 3 PERLND 16 PERLND 17 PERLND 18 RCHRES 1 RCHRES 2 RCHRES 3 COPY 502 COPY 503 COPY 504 COPY 1 COPY 501 DISPLY 2 DISPLY 3 DISPLY 4 DISPLY 1 END INGRP END OPN SEQUENCE DISPLY DISPLY-INFO1 # - #<----------Title----------->***TRAN PIVL DIG1 FIL1 PYR DIG2 FIL2 YRND 2 M-Basin 1_Ind MAX 1 2 31 9 3 M-Basin 2_Ind MAX 1 2 32 9 4 M-Basin 3_Ind MAX 1 2 33 9 1 Culvert 1_Ind MAX 1 2 30 9 END DISPLY-INFO1 END DISPLY COPY TIMESERIES # - # NPT NMN *** 1 1 1 502 1 1 503 1 1 504 1 1 501 1 1 END TIMESERIES END COPY GENER OPCODE DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:04:54 PM Page 58 # # OPCD *** END OPCODE PARM # # K *** END PARM END GENER PERLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name------->NBLKS Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 7 A/B, Lawn, Flat 1 1 1 1 27 0 8 A/B, Lawn, Mod 1 1 1 1 27 0 9 A/B, Lawn, Steep 1 1 1 1 27 0 16 C, Lawn, Flat 1 1 1 1 27 0 17 C, Lawn, Mod 1 1 1 1 27 0 18 C, Lawn, Steep 1 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO *** Section PWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC *** 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <PLS > ***************** Print-flags ***************************** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC ********* 7 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 8 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 9 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 16 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 17 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 18 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO PWAT-PARM1 <PLS > PWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP UZFG VCS VUZ VNN VIFW VIRC VLE INFC HWT *** 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END PWAT-PARM1 PWAT-PARM2 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # ***FOREST LZSN INFILT LSUR SLSUR KVARY AGWRC 7 0 5 0.8 400 0.05 0.3 0.996 8 0 5 0.8 400 0.1 0.3 0.996 9 0 5 0.8 400 0.15 0.3 0.996 16 0 4.5 0.03 400 0.05 0.5 0.996 17 0 4.5 0.03 400 0.1 0.5 0.996 18 0 4.5 0.03 400 0.15 0.5 0.996 END PWAT-PARM2 PWAT-PARM3 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN INFEXP INFILD DEEPFR BASETP AGWETP 7 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 8 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 9 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:04:54 PM Page 59 16 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 17 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 18 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 END PWAT-PARM3 PWAT-PARM4 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 4 *** # - # CEPSC UZSN NSUR INTFW IRC LZETP *** 7 0.1 0.5 0.25 0 0.7 0.25 8 0.1 0.5 0.25 0 0.7 0.25 9 0.1 0.5 0.25 0 0.7 0.25 16 0.1 0.25 0.25 6 0.5 0.25 17 0.1 0.25 0.25 6 0.5 0.25 18 0.1 0.15 0.25 6 0.3 0.25 END PWAT-PARM4 PWAT-STATE1 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation ran from 1990 to end of 1992 (pat 1-11-95) RUN 21 *** # - # *** CEPS SURS UZS IFWS LZS AGWS GWVS 7 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 8 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 9 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 16 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0 17 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0 18 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0 END PWAT-STATE1 END PERLND IMPLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name-------> Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 1 ROADS/FLAT 1 1 1 27 0 2 ROADS/MOD 1 1 1 27 0 3 ROADS/STEEP 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO *** Section IWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL *** 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <ILS > ******** Print-flags ******** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL ********* 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9 2 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9 3 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO IWAT-PARM1 <PLS > IWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP VRS VNN RTLI *** 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 END IWAT-PARM1 IWAT-PARM2 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # *** LSUR SLSUR NSUR RETSC 1 400 0.01 0.1 0.1 2 400 0.05 0.1 0.08 3 400 0.1 0.1 0.05 DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:04:54 PM Page 60 END IWAT-PARM2 IWAT-PARM3 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 END IWAT-PARM3 IWAT-STATE1 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation # - # *** RETS SURS 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 END IWAT-STATE1 END IMPLND SCHEMATIC <-Source-> <--Area--> <-Target-> MBLK *** <Name> # <-factor-> <Name> # Tbl# *** M-Basin 1_Ind*** PERLND 7 27.352 RCHRES 1 2 PERLND 7 27.352 RCHRES 1 3 PERLND 8 11.42 RCHRES 1 2 PERLND 8 11.42 RCHRES 1 3 PERLND 9 2.215 RCHRES 1 2 PERLND 9 2.215 RCHRES 1 3 IMPLND 1 15.427 RCHRES 1 5 IMPLND 2 6.367 RCHRES 1 5 IMPLND 3 1.551 RCHRES 1 5 M-Basin 2_Ind*** PERLND 16 14.121 RCHRES 3 2 PERLND 16 14.121 RCHRES 3 3 PERLND 17 13.872 RCHRES 3 2 PERLND 17 13.872 RCHRES 3 3 PERLND 18 5.879 RCHRES 3 2 PERLND 18 5.879 RCHRES 3 3 IMPLND 1 31.833 RCHRES 3 5 IMPLND 2 29.262 RCHRES 3 5 IMPLND 3 9.885 RCHRES 3 5 M-Basin 3_Ind*** PERLND 7 21.64 RCHRES 2 2 PERLND 7 21.64 RCHRES 2 3 PERLND 7 21.64 RCHRES 2 4 PERLND 8 16.663 RCHRES 2 2 PERLND 8 16.663 RCHRES 2 3 PERLND 8 16.663 RCHRES 2 4 PERLND 9 5.456 RCHRES 2 2 PERLND 9 5.456 RCHRES 2 3 PERLND 9 5.456 RCHRES 2 4 IMPLND 1 16.416 RCHRES 2 5 IMPLND 2 14.063 RCHRES 2 5 IMPLND 3 2.481 RCHRES 2 5 M-Basin 1_Ind*** PERLND 7 27.352 COPY 502 12 PERLND 7 27.352 COPY 502 13 PERLND 8 11.42 COPY 502 12 PERLND 8 11.42 COPY 502 13 PERLND 9 2.215 COPY 502 12 PERLND 9 2.215 COPY 502 13 IMPLND 1 15.427 COPY 502 15 IMPLND 2 6.367 COPY 502 15 IMPLND 3 1.551 COPY 502 15 M-Basin 2_Ind*** PERLND 16 14.121 COPY 503 12 PERLND 16 14.121 COPY 503 13 PERLND 17 13.872 COPY 503 12 DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:04:54 PM Page 61 PERLND 17 13.872 COPY 503 13 PERLND 18 5.879 COPY 503 12 PERLND 18 5.879 COPY 503 13 IMPLND 1 31.833 COPY 503 15 IMPLND 2 29.262 COPY 503 15 IMPLND 3 9.885 COPY 503 15 M-Basin 3_Ind*** PERLND 7 21.64 COPY 504 12 PERLND 7 21.64 COPY 504 13 PERLND 7 21.64 COPY 504 14 PERLND 8 16.663 COPY 504 12 PERLND 8 16.663 COPY 504 13 PERLND 8 16.663 COPY 504 14 PERLND 9 5.456 COPY 504 12 PERLND 9 5.456 COPY 504 13 PERLND 9 5.456 COPY 504 14 IMPLND 1 16.416 COPY 504 15 IMPLND 2 14.063 COPY 504 15 IMPLND 3 2.481 COPY 504 15 ******Routing****** PERLND 7 27.352 COPY 1 12 PERLND 8 11.42 COPY 1 12 PERLND 9 2.215 COPY 1 12 IMPLND 1 15.427 COPY 1 15 IMPLND 2 6.367 COPY 1 15 IMPLND 3 1.551 COPY 1 15 PERLND 7 27.352 COPY 1 13 PERLND 8 11.42 COPY 1 13 PERLND 9 2.215 COPY 1 13 PERLND 16 14.121 COPY 1 12 PERLND 17 13.872 COPY 1 12 PERLND 18 5.879 COPY 1 12 IMPLND 1 31.833 COPY 1 15 IMPLND 2 29.262 COPY 1 15 IMPLND 3 9.885 COPY 1 15 PERLND 16 14.121 COPY 1 13 PERLND 17 13.872 COPY 1 13 PERLND 18 5.879 COPY 1 13 PERLND 7 21.64 COPY 1 12 PERLND 8 16.663 COPY 1 12 PERLND 9 5.456 COPY 1 12 IMPLND 1 16.416 COPY 1 15 IMPLND 2 14.063 COPY 1 15 IMPLND 3 2.481 COPY 1 15 PERLND 7 21.64 COPY 1 13 PERLND 8 16.663 COPY 1 13 PERLND 9 5.456 COPY 1 13 PERLND 7 21.64 COPY 1 14 PERLND 8 16.663 COPY 1 14 PERLND 9 5.456 COPY 1 14 RCHRES 1 1 COPY 501 16 RCHRES 2 1 COPY 501 16 RCHRES 3 1 COPY 501 16 END SCHEMATIC NETWORK <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** COPY 502 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 DISPLY 2 INPUT TIMSER 1 COPY 503 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 DISPLY 3 INPUT TIMSER 1 COPY 504 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 DISPLY 4 INPUT TIMSER 1 COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 DISPLY 1 INPUT TIMSER 1 <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** END NETWORK DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:04:54 PM Page 62 RCHRES GEN-INFO RCHRES Name Nexits Unit Systems Printer *** # - #<------------------><---> User T-series Engl Metr LKFG *** in out *** 1 Culvert 1_Ind 1 1 1 1 28 0 1 2 Culvert 3_Ind 1 1 1 1 28 0 1 3 Culvert 2_Ind 1 1 1 1 28 0 1 END GEN-INFO *** Section RCHRES*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # HYFG ADFG CNFG HTFG SDFG GQFG OXFG NUFG PKFG PHFG *** 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <PLS > ***************** Print-flags ******************* PIVL PYR # - # HYDR ADCA CONS HEAT SED GQL OXRX NUTR PLNK PHCB PIVL PYR ********* 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO HYDR-PARM1 RCHRES Flags for each HYDR Section *** # - # VC A1 A2 A3 ODFVFG for each *** ODGTFG for each FUNCT for each FG FG FG FG possible exit *** possible exit possible exit * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** 1 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 3 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 END HYDR-PARM1 HYDR-PARM2 # - # FTABNO LEN DELTH STCOR KS DB50 *** <------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------> *** 1 1 0.47 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 2 2 0.93 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 3 3 0.76 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 END HYDR-PARM2 HYDR-INIT RCHRES Initial conditions for each HYDR section *** # - # *** VOL Initial value of COLIND Initial value of OUTDGT *** ac-ft for each possible exit for each possible exit <------><--------> <---><---><---><---><---> *** <---><---><---><---><---> 1 0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 END HYDR-INIT END RCHRES SPEC-ACTIONS END SPEC-ACTIONS FTABLES FTABLE 1 91 4 Depth Area Volume Outflow1 Velocity Travel Time*** (ft) (acres) (acre-ft) (cfs) (ft/sec) (Minutes)*** 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.033333 0.036096 0.000804 0.009687 0.066667 0.050759 0.002266 0.043197 0.100000 0.061813 0.004149 0.103272 0.133333 0.070964 0.006366 0.191273 0.166667 0.078878 0.008866 0.308016 0.200000 0.085897 0.011615 0.454002 0.233333 0.092225 0.014585 0.629520 DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:04:54 PM Page 63 0.266667 0.097997 0.017757 0.834707 0.300000 0.103306 0.021113 1.069584 0.333333 0.108220 0.024640 1.334077 0.366667 0.112790 0.028324 1.628036 0.400000 0.117057 0.032156 1.951244 0.433333 0.121054 0.036125 2.303428 0.466667 0.124805 0.040223 2.684269 0.500000 0.128333 0.044443 3.093400 0.533333 0.131655 0.048776 3.530420 0.566667 0.134787 0.053218 3.994889 0.600000 0.137741 0.057760 4.486336 0.633333 0.140529 0.062399 5.004260 0.666667 0.143161 0.067127 5.548135 0.700000 0.145645 0.071941 6.117406 0.733333 0.147988 0.076835 6.711500 0.766667 0.150197 0.081805 7.329814 0.800000 0.152278 0.086847 7.971726 0.833333 0.154237 0.091956 8.636600 0.866667 0.156077 0.097128 9.323769 0.900000 0.157802 0.102360 10.03256 0.933333 0.159417 0.107647 10.76227 0.966667 0.160925 0.112986 11.51220 1.000000 0.162329 0.118374 12.28160 1.033333 0.163632 0.123807 13.06973 1.066667 0.164835 0.129282 13.87583 1.100000 0.165942 0.134795 14.69912 1.133333 0.166953 0.140344 15.53880 1.166667 0.167871 0.145924 16.39407 1.200000 0.168698 0.151534 17.26410 1.233333 0.169434 0.157170 18.14806 1.266667 0.170080 0.162829 19.04508 1.300000 0.170639 0.168507 19.95431 1.333333 0.171110 0.174204 20.87485 1.366667 0.171495 0.179914 21.80581 1.400000 0.171793 0.185636 22.74627 1.433333 0.172006 0.191366 23.69532 1.466667 0.172134 0.197102 24.65199 1.500000 0.172176 0.202840 25.61533 1.533333 0.172134 0.208579 26.58436 1.566667 0.172006 0.214315 27.55811 1.600000 0.171793 0.220045 28.53554 1.633333 0.171495 0.225767 29.51563 1.666667 0.171110 0.231477 30.49735 1.700000 0.170639 0.237173 31.47962 1.733333 0.170080 0.242852 32.46136 1.766667 0.169434 0.248511 33.44147 1.800000 0.168698 0.254147 34.41881 1.833333 0.167871 0.259757 35.39225 1.866667 0.166953 0.265337 36.36060 1.900000 0.165942 0.270886 37.32267 1.933333 0.164835 0.276399 38.27723 1.966667 0.163632 0.281874 39.22302 2.000000 0.162329 0.287307 40.15876 2.033333 0.160925 0.292695 41.08312 2.066667 0.159417 0.298034 41.99475 2.100000 0.157802 0.303321 42.89223 2.133333 0.156077 0.308553 43.77415 2.166667 0.154237 0.313725 44.63899 2.200000 0.152278 0.318834 45.48521 2.233333 0.150197 0.323876 46.31120 2.266667 0.147988 0.328846 47.11529 2.300000 0.145645 0.333740 47.89573 2.333333 0.143161 0.338554 48.65069 2.366667 0.140529 0.343282 49.37822 2.400000 0.137741 0.347921 50.07627 2.433333 0.134787 0.352463 50.74266 2.466667 0.131655 0.356904 51.37506 2.500000 0.128333 0.361238 51.97092 2.533333 0.124805 0.365458 52.52751 2.566667 0.121054 0.369556 53.04179 DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:04:54 PM Page 64 2.600000 0.117057 0.373525 53.51042 2.633333 0.112790 0.377357 53.92959 2.666667 0.108220 0.381041 54.29497 2.700000 0.103306 0.384568 54.60150 2.733333 0.097997 0.387924 54.84311 2.766667 0.092225 0.391096 55.01236 2.800000 0.085897 0.394066 55.09974 2.833333 0.078878 0.396814 55.09974 2.866667 0.070964 0.399315 55.09974 2.900000 0.061813 0.401532 55.09974 2.933333 0.050759 0.403415 55.09974 2.966667 0.036096 0.404877 55.09974 3.000000 0.001000 0.405681 55.09974 END FTABLE 1 FTABLE 2 91 4 Depth Area Volume Outflow1 Velocity Travel Time*** (ft) (acres) (acre-ft) (cfs) (ft/sec) (Minutes)*** 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.033333 0.070748 0.001576 0.009687 0.066667 0.099489 0.004442 0.043197 0.100000 0.121154 0.008132 0.103272 0.133333 0.139090 0.012478 0.191273 0.166667 0.154601 0.017378 0.308016 0.200000 0.168357 0.022765 0.454002 0.233333 0.180761 0.028587 0.629520 0.266667 0.192074 0.034804 0.834707 0.300000 0.202479 0.041382 1.069584 0.333333 0.212110 0.048294 1.334077 0.366667 0.221068 0.055515 1.628036 0.400000 0.229432 0.063025 1.951244 0.433333 0.237265 0.070805 2.303428 0.466667 0.244618 0.078837 2.684269 0.500000 0.251532 0.087108 3.093400 0.533333 0.258043 0.095602 3.530420 0.566667 0.264182 0.104307 3.994889 0.600000 0.269972 0.113210 4.486336 0.633333 0.275437 0.122301 5.004260 0.666667 0.280596 0.131569 5.548135 0.700000 0.285464 0.141004 6.117406 0.733333 0.290057 0.150597 6.711500 0.766667 0.294387 0.160338 7.329814 0.800000 0.298466 0.170220 7.971726 0.833333 0.302304 0.180233 8.636600 0.866667 0.305910 0.190371 9.323769 0.900000 0.309292 0.200625 10.03256 0.933333 0.312458 0.210988 10.76227 0.966667 0.315414 0.221453 11.51220 1.000000 0.318166 0.232013 12.28160 1.033333 0.320718 0.242662 13.06973 1.066667 0.323077 0.253392 13.87583 1.100000 0.325246 0.264198 14.69912 1.133333 0.327228 0.275073 15.53880 1.166667 0.329028 0.286012 16.39407 1.200000 0.330647 0.297007 17.26410 1.233333 0.332090 0.308053 18.14806 1.266667 0.333358 0.319144 19.04508 1.300000 0.334452 0.330275 19.95431 1.333333 0.335376 0.341439 20.87485 1.366667 0.336130 0.352631 21.80581 1.400000 0.336715 0.363846 22.74627 1.433333 0.337132 0.375077 23.69532 1.466667 0.337382 0.386319 24.65199 1.500000 0.337466 0.397567 25.61533 1.533333 0.337382 0.408815 26.58436 1.566667 0.337132 0.420058 27.55811 1.600000 0.336715 0.431289 28.53554 1.633333 0.336130 0.442503 29.51563 1.666667 0.335376 0.453696 30.49735 1.700000 0.334452 0.464860 31.47962 DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:04:54 PM Page 65 1.733333 0.333358 0.475991 32.46136 1.766667 0.332090 0.487082 33.44147 1.800000 0.330647 0.498128 34.41881 1.833333 0.329028 0.509123 35.39225 1.866667 0.327228 0.520061 36.36060 1.900000 0.325246 0.530936 37.32267 1.933333 0.323077 0.541742 38.27723 1.966667 0.320718 0.552472 39.22302 2.000000 0.318166 0.563121 40.15876 2.033333 0.315414 0.573681 41.08312 2.066667 0.312458 0.584146 41.99475 2.100000 0.309292 0.594510 42.89223 2.133333 0.305910 0.604763 43.77415 2.166667 0.302304 0.614901 44.63899 2.200000 0.298466 0.624915 45.48521 2.233333 0.294387 0.634796 46.31120 2.266667 0.290057 0.644538 47.11529 2.300000 0.285464 0.654130 47.89573 2.333333 0.280596 0.663565 48.65069 2.366667 0.275437 0.672833 49.37822 2.400000 0.269972 0.681924 50.07627 2.433333 0.264182 0.690828 50.74266 2.466667 0.258043 0.699533 51.37506 2.500000 0.251532 0.708027 51.97092 2.533333 0.244618 0.716297 52.52751 2.566667 0.237265 0.724330 53.04179 2.600000 0.229432 0.732109 53.51042 2.633333 0.221068 0.739619 53.92959 2.666667 0.212110 0.746841 54.29497 2.700000 0.202479 0.753752 54.60150 2.733333 0.192074 0.760331 54.84311 2.766667 0.180761 0.766547 55.01236 2.800000 0.168357 0.772369 55.09974 2.833333 0.154601 0.777756 55.09974 2.866667 0.139090 0.782657 55.09974 2.900000 0.121154 0.787002 55.09974 2.933333 0.099489 0.790693 55.09974 2.966667 0.070748 0.793559 55.09974 3.000000 0.001000 0.795135 55.09974 END FTABLE 2 FTABLE 3 91 4 Depth Area Volume Outflow1 Velocity Travel Time*** (ft) (acres) (acre-ft) (cfs) (ft/sec) (Minutes)*** 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.038889 0.067379 0.001751 0.014613 0.077778 0.094751 0.004935 0.065160 0.116667 0.115385 0.009036 0.155778 0.155556 0.132467 0.013864 0.288522 0.194444 0.147239 0.019309 0.464621 0.233333 0.160340 0.025295 0.684829 0.272222 0.172153 0.031763 0.949586 0.311111 0.182928 0.038671 1.259096 0.350000 0.192837 0.045980 1.613392 0.388889 0.202010 0.053660 2.012361 0.427778 0.210541 0.061684 2.455776 0.466667 0.218507 0.070028 2.943312 0.505556 0.225967 0.078672 3.474557 0.544444 0.232969 0.087597 4.049028 0.583333 0.239554 0.096786 4.666174 0.622222 0.245756 0.106224 5.325387 0.661111 0.251602 0.115896 6.026005 0.700000 0.257117 0.125789 6.767317 0.738889 0.262321 0.135890 7.548570 0.777778 0.267234 0.146188 8.368966 0.816667 0.271870 0.156671 9.227671 0.855556 0.276244 0.167330 10.12382 0.894444 0.280368 0.178154 11.05650 0.933333 0.284253 0.189133 12.02478 0.972222 0.287908 0.200259 13.02769 DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:04:54 PM Page 66 1.011111 0.291343 0.211523 14.06424 1.050000 0.294564 0.222917 15.13340 1.088889 0.297579 0.234431 16.23412 1.127778 0.300394 0.246059 17.36533 1.166667 0.303015 0.257793 18.52591 1.205556 0.305446 0.269624 19.71475 1.244444 0.307692 0.281547 20.93069 1.283333 0.309758 0.293554 22.17257 1.322222 0.311646 0.305637 23.43917 1.361111 0.313360 0.317791 24.72929 1.400000 0.314902 0.330007 26.04167 1.438889 0.316276 0.342281 27.37505 1.477778 0.317483 0.354604 28.72815 1.516667 0.318526 0.366972 30.09965 1.555556 0.319406 0.379377 31.48823 1.594444 0.320124 0.391812 32.89251 1.633333 0.320681 0.404273 34.31113 1.672222 0.321078 0.416752 35.74269 1.711111 0.321316 0.429244 37.18576 1.750000 0.321396 0.441741 38.63890 1.788889 0.321316 0.454239 40.10062 1.827778 0.321078 0.466731 41.56944 1.866667 0.320681 0.479210 43.04382 1.905556 0.320124 0.491670 44.52223 1.944444 0.319406 0.504106 46.00308 1.983333 0.318526 0.516511 47.48477 2.022222 0.317483 0.528878 48.96565 2.061111 0.316276 0.541202 50.44407 2.100000 0.314902 0.553475 51.91832 2.138889 0.313360 0.565692 53.38669 2.177778 0.311646 0.577846 54.84738 2.216667 0.309758 0.589929 56.29859 2.255556 0.307692 0.601936 57.73847 2.294444 0.305446 0.613858 59.16513 2.333333 0.303015 0.625690 60.57662 2.372222 0.300394 0.637424 61.97095 2.411111 0.297579 0.649052 63.34608 2.450000 0.294564 0.660566 64.69988 2.488889 0.291343 0.671959 66.03018 2.527778 0.287908 0.683223 67.33473 2.566667 0.284253 0.694349 68.61119 2.605556 0.280368 0.705329 69.85714 2.644444 0.276244 0.716153 71.07006 2.683333 0.271870 0.726811 72.24730 2.722222 0.267234 0.737295 73.38609 2.761111 0.262321 0.747593 74.48352 2.800000 0.257117 0.757694 75.53648 2.838889 0.251602 0.767587 76.54168 2.877778 0.245756 0.777259 77.49561 2.916667 0.239554 0.786696 78.39442 2.955556 0.232969 0.795886 79.23400 2.994444 0.225967 0.804811 80.00976 3.033333 0.218507 0.813455 80.71665 3.072222 0.210541 0.821799 81.34894 3.111111 0.202010 0.829823 81.90009 3.150000 0.192837 0.837503 82.36246 3.188889 0.182928 0.844812 82.72692 3.227778 0.172153 0.851719 82.98222 3.266667 0.160340 0.858188 83.11402 3.305556 0.147239 0.864174 83.11402 3.344444 0.132467 0.869619 83.11402 3.383333 0.115385 0.874447 83.11402 3.422222 0.094751 0.878548 83.11402 3.461111 0.067379 0.881732 83.11402 3.500000 0.001000 0.883483 83.11402 END FTABLE 3 END FTABLES EXT SOURCES <-Volume-> <Member> SsysSgap<--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:04:54 PM Page 67 <Name> # <Name> # tem strg<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.76 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.76 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP END EXT SOURCES EXT TARGETS <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Volume-> <Member> Tsys Tgap Amd *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # <Name> tem strg strg*** COPY 2 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 WDM 702 FLOW ENGL REPL COPY 502 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 WDM 802 FLOW ENGL REPL COPY 3 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 WDM 703 FLOW ENGL REPL COPY 503 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 WDM 803 FLOW ENGL REPL COPY 4 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 WDM 704 FLOW ENGL REPL COPY 504 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 WDM 804 FLOW ENGL REPL RCHRES 1 HYDR RO 1 1 1 WDM 1000 FLOW ENGL REPL RCHRES 1 HYDR STAGE 1 1 1 WDM 1001 STAG ENGL REPL COPY 1 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 WDM 701 FLOW ENGL REPL COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 WDM 801 FLOW ENGL REPL RCHRES 2 HYDR RO 1 1 1 WDM 1002 FLOW ENGL REPL RCHRES 2 HYDR STAGE 1 1 1 WDM 1003 STAG ENGL REPL RCHRES 3 HYDR RO 1 1 1 WDM 1004 FLOW ENGL REPL RCHRES 3 HYDR STAGE 1 1 1 WDM 1005 STAG ENGL REPL END EXT TARGETS MASS-LINK <Volume> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult--> <Target> <-Grp> <-Member->*** <Name> <Name> # #<-factor-> <Name> <Name> # #*** MASS-LINK 2 PERLND PWATER SURO 0.083333 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL END MASS-LINK 2 MASS-LINK 3 PERLND PWATER IFWO 0.083333 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL END MASS-LINK 3 MASS-LINK 4 PERLND PWATER AGWO 0.083333 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL END MASS-LINK 4 MASS-LINK 5 IMPLND IWATER SURO 0.083333 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL END MASS-LINK 5 MASS-LINK 12 PERLND PWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 12 MASS-LINK 13 PERLND PWATER IFWO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 13 MASS-LINK 14 PERLND PWATER AGWO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 14 MASS-LINK 15 IMPLND IWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 15 MASS-LINK 16 RCHRES ROFLOW COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 16 END MASS-LINK END RUN DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:04:54 PM Page 68 DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:04:54 PM Page 69 Predeveloped HSPF Message File DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:04:54 PM Page 70 Mitigated HSPF Message File DRAFTRentonMonroe_Version5_LandUse 1/16/2020 4:04:54 PM Page 71 Disclaimer Legal Notice This program and accompanying documentation are provided 'as-is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by End User. Clear Creek Solutions Inc. and the governmental licensee or sublicensees disclaim all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions Inc. be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions Inc. or their authorized representatives have been advised of the possibility of such damages. Software Copyright © by : Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 2005-2020; All Rights Reserved. Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 6200 Capitol Blvd. Ste F Olympia, WA. 98501 Toll Free 1(866)943-0304 Local (360)943-0304 www.clearcreeksolutions.com \\red-ae.otak.com\proj\project\33200\33201a\projectdocs\reports\level 1 project area review memo\final\level 1 project area review memo.docx Appendix B – Preferential Infiltration Memorandum MEMORANDUM Project No. 190398 - Task 3 January 14, 2020 To: Russ Gaston, PE and Charles Dewey, PE, Otak From: Elson T. “Chip” Barnett, LEG Senior Engineering Geologist ebarnett@aspectconsulting.com Erik O. Andersen, PE Principal Geotechnical Engineer eandersen@aspectconsulting.com Re: City of Renton, Preliminary Stormwater Feasibility Evaluation Monroe Avenue NE Storm System Improvements This memorandum, prepared by Aspect Consulting, LLC (Aspect), provides Otak and the City of Renton (City) with an overview of local geology, available geotechnical data, description of data reviewed for the infiltration feasibility GIS-based analysis, the resulting shallow infiltration feasibility map, and recommended next steps on the Monroe Avenue NE Storm System Improvement Project (Project). In support of the Project, Aspect completed a desktop-level GIS-based geological survey for an approximately 245-acre stormwater subbasin (Subbasin) in Renton, Washington. We created maps of surface conditions, including ground surface topography, aerial photography, surficial geology, slopes, wetlands, critical areas, and existing facilities. Existing geotechnical reports and studies within the area of study were included in the review to include measured data where available. We evaluated the combination of this GIS data and existing reported soils data in combination to develop a shallow infiltration feasibility map that identifies areas expected to have high, medium, and low capacity for shallow infiltration. This memorandum is intended for use by the Otak team as input to further investigate particular areas or sites within the Subbasin as preferential stormwater infiltration areas. The following sections provide background on the Project, an overview of local geology, available geotechnical data, a description of data reviewed for the infiltration feasibility GIS-based analysis, the resulting shallow infiltration feasibility map, and recommended next steps for the Project. earth +w ater Aspect Consulting, LLC 710 2nd Avenue Suite 550 Seattle, WA 98104 206.328.7443 www.aspectconsulting.com 1/14/2020 1/14/2020 Otak MEMORANDUM January 14, 2020 Project No. 190398 - Task 3 Page 2 Project Background The Project encompasses the Subbasin in the Renton Highlands area (Figure 1). A 670-foot, 36- inch perforated pipe along NE 2nd Street and a 200-ft, 48-inch perforated pipe along King County Access Road drain portions of the stormwater runoff. In addition, numerous areas throughout the Subbasin are drained by points of infiltration and stormwater ponds (Figure 2). In 1994, a large rain event caused flooding in the street along Monroe Avenue NE, south of NE 4th Street, and erosion of the northeast corner of the Upper Balch Pit, a privately-owned gravel pit (301 Monroe Avenue NE). In order to accommodate any future high-flow runoff, the City provided the property owner with a temporary easement. The easement allowed construction of one 18-inch and one 24-inch overflow pipe, which would discharge flows into the pit during high flow events. This temporary system has prevented roadway and property flooding since the original event. However, a recent Application to the City to redevelop the Upper Balch Pit site will remove the two overflow pipes from operation. In order to minimize risk of property damage or incidents nearby, a new approach to managing high flow runoff needs to be constructed prior to the removal of the pipes to allow the City to continue to manage stormwater within the Subbasin. Overview of Local Geology Local soils will directly inform the feasibility for infiltration across the Subbasin. Based on our review of the geologic map (Mullineaux, 1965), the Subbasin is underlain by Pleistocene Vashon Stade continental recessional stratified drift, glaciofluvial deposits (Qpa), and Vashon Stade continental glacial till (Qgt). The glaciofluvial deposits consist chiefly of well-sorted sand and gravel with few fines. The unit is subdivided according to origin and topographic form with outwash along the Cedar River. The glacial till deposits consist of a diamict of dense to very dense silty sand with gravel. The Subbasin is divided into two geologic units, glacial till and outwash (drift), as shown on Figure 3. Data Review Aspect compiled and reviewed data, including GIS data from the City of Renton, King County, and various state agencies, as well as geotechnical reports made available by the City of Renton. The following sections describe the various data reviewed. Topography King County Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data with a 3-ft cell size resolution covers the Subbasin. Ground surface elevations developed from the 2016 King County LiDAR data (2019) and 5-foot topographic contours from the City of Renton are shown on Figure 4. The Subbasin topography ranges from Elevation 4251 feet in the northeast to Elevation 320 feet in the southwest portion of the Project area. 1 1 Elevations referenced to North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88). Otak MEMORANDUM January 14, 2020 Project No. 190398 - Task 3 Page 3 Critical Areas The City of Renton has established a set of Critical Areas Regulations protect health, safety, welfare, and property by minimizing adverse environmental impacts due to development within and near to critical areas. (City of Renton, 2019a) The mapped extent of critical areas within the City of Renton are available on the City’s Critical Area Inventory maps and GIS data from the City’s data download portal (City of Renton, 2019b). Mapped critical areas for the Subbasin are shown on Figure 5. • Flood Hazard Areas – The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year Floodplain dataset shows no mapped floodplain areas within the Subbasin. • Wetlands and Streams – City of Renton Wetland and Stream Corridor Critical Areas Inventory shows one small wetland area (approximately 7800 sq ft) within the Subbasin. No significant streams or rivers flow through the Subbasin. • Erosion Hazard Areas – City of Renton Erosion Hazard Areas show areas subject to erosion hazards. There are no high erosion hazard areas and only localized moderate erosion hazard areas within the Subbasin. • Landslide Hazard Areas – The City of Renton Landslide Hazard maps approximately 16 acres of areas with moderate risk of landslides within the Subbasin. The largest of which is 4 acres. • Seismic Hazard Areas – The City of Renton Seismic Hazard Areas show no known hazards in the Subbasin. • Steep Slope Hazard Areas – The City of Renton Steep Slopes Areas, created from the 2016 King County LiDAR data, defined slopes greater than 25 percent as sensitive. There are localized slopes greater than 25 percent and smaller areas greater than 40 percent that likely represent areas of cut and fill slopes within the Subbasin. • Wellfield Capture Zones – The City of Renton Wellfield Capture Zones do not lay within the Subbasin. • Group A and B drinking water – Well locations were downloaded from the Washington State Department of Health (2019). There are no water sources located within the Subbasin. • Environmental Data – The Washington State Department of Ecology’s Facility Index, includes state Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) cleanup and federal cleanup (Superfund) sites. It includes facilities with known or suspected contamination to soil and groundwater in any stage of cleanup. This data is shown on the map (star symbol) and may be useful in site screening when considering potential infiltration feasibility. Geotechnical, Soil, and Groundwater Data Review Aspect reviewed available GIS data and reports to characterize the soil and the soil’s potential to infiltrate stormwater runoff. Our methods and findings are described below. Otak MEMORANDUM January 14, 2020 Project No. 190398 - Task 3 Page 4 Geotechnical and Soil Data Using the Washington Geological Survey 1:24,000 Surficial Geologic Units map and geotechnical reports provided by the City, Aspect mapped 94 subsurface locations to assess feasibility for stormwater infiltration. To assist in the infiltration assessment, information about the explorations, including depth to groundwater, depth to glacial till, and infiltration rate testing, was incorporated into a GIS database. In general, the subsurface data corroborate the geologic mapping with outwash and till units observed as mapped on Figure 3, with some exceptions. GeoEngineers (2006) observed outwash deposits on the order of a few feet overlying glacial till at a depth of approximately 5 feet below ground surface (bgs) in areas mapped as glacial till. Stratigraphically recessional outwash typically overlies glacial till. Just south of the Subbasin at the King County Regional Communications and Emergency Coordination Center, HWA GeoSciences (HWA, 2002) reported a sequence of recessional outwash overlying glacial till, over unsaturated advance outwash. HWA evaluated shallow infiltration feasibility using pilot infiltration testing (PIT) methods and correlation to grain-size distribution. Groundwater There is no available GIS layer that maps depth to groundwater or areas of shallow groundwater across the Subbasin. Areas of shallow groundwater are typically less than ideal for infiltration. Figure 3 shows the available depth to groundwater information compiled by the 15 geotechnical reports reviewed. In general, shallow groundwater perches on glacial till in the east areas of the Subbasin. There is no groundwater data available within the western portion of the Subbasin that includes deposits of outwash, however Aspect (2019) did observe groundwater immediately west of the Subbasin within outwash at depths greater than 50 feet, as shown on Figure 3. Shallow Infiltration Feasibility Assessment and Map Three of the geotechnical studies we reviewed provided infiltration testing at exploration locations completed in outwash (Aspect, 2019, GeoEngineers, 2006, and HWA, 2001) and glacial till (Otto Rosenau and Associates, 2011). The infiltration rates for glacial till are considerably lower, at less than 5 inches per hour compared to those measured in recessional outwash that are greater than the maximum allowable design infiltration rate of 20 inches per hour. Available infiltration data are provided below in Table 1. Otak MEMORANDUM January 14, 2020 Project No. 190398 - Task 3 Page 5 Table 1. Geotechnical Explorations and Infiltration Data Exploration Type Consultant Exploration Name Geologic Unit Infiltration Rate (in/hr) Site Location Monitoring Well Aspect MW-1 Glacial outwash 33.9 (20 design rate) 3005 NE 4th St Monitoring Well Aspect MW-2 Glacial outwash 106.6 (20 design rate) 3005 NE 4th St Test Pit HWA TP-6 Glacial outwash >150 (15 design rate) 3511 NE 2nd St Hand Auger GeoEngineers HA-4 Glacial outwash* 8.1* 475 Union Ave NE Hand Auger GeoEngineers HA-5 Glacial outwash* 7.7* 475 Union Ave NE Hand Auger GeoEngineers HA-6 Glacial outwash* 5.1* 475 Union Ave NE Test Pit Otto Rosenau & Assoc. TP-1 Glacial till 4.9 421 Union Ave NE Test Pit Otto Rosenau & Assoc. TP-3 Glacial till 1.3 421 Union Ave NE Test Pit Otto Rosenau & Assoc. TP-4 Glacial till 0.3 421 Union Ave NE * GeoEngineers infiltration rates reflect testing in shallow glacial outwash overlying glacial till at a depth of approximately 5 feet bgs. We assimilated the mapped data and previous studies and assessed shallow infiltration feasibility within the Subbasin. The unique combinations of the factors show areas that are more or less likely to be feasible for infiltration. The combinations of the following input data within the Subbasin are provided below: • Soil Permeability • Surface Slope Classification • Geologic Hazard Areas Soil Permeability The permeability of a soil is the core factor in determining its feasibility for infiltration. Typically, higher permeability soils are more feasible for shallow stormwater infiltration. If the soil cannot infiltrate runoff effectively, flooding and water quality issues can occur. The properties of the surface soils in the Subbains were evaluated for their permeability and categorized into two permeability groups (Figure 8): • Low permeability (infiltration observed at 0-5 inches/hour) • High permeability (infiltration observed at greater than 5 inches/hour) Surface Slope Classification The steepness of a surface slope is a factor in the potential for runoff to effectively infiltrate. If the ground surface is too steep, water can daylight down the slope from the point of infiltration. Steeper Otak MEMORANDUM January 14, 2020 Project No. 190398 - Task 3 Page 6 slopes can pose design challenges. The City of Renton Critical Area regulations define medium landslide hazards as areas with slopes between 15 and 40 percent. Spatial analysis was used to calculate the slope percentage over the Subbasin from the King County 2016 LiDAR data (King County, 2019). Areas within the Subbasin fall within one of three categories: • Good: Slopes less than 8 percent • Moderate: Slopes between 8 and 15 percent • Poor: Slopes greater than 15 percent These categories reflect previous observations across the region of slopes in relation to infiltration and potential hazard issues due to ground surface slope. The surface slope categories over the Subbasin are shown on Figure 7. Geologic Hazard Areas Three input datasets from the City’s available Critical Area Inventory were used to identify geologic hazard areas to avoid from potential infiltration site locations. Erosion, Landslide, and Seismic Hazard areas were considered poor for shallow infiltration (Figure 6). Soil Infiltration Map Figure 9 shows areas across the Subbasin that are expected to have good, moderate, and poor capacity for shallow infiltration (generally less than 10 feet deep). • Good – Shallow infiltration is expected to be feasible, unlikely to pose hazards, and cost effective. • Moderate – Shallow infiltration is expected to be feasible with slopes are between 8 and 15 percent • Poor – Shallow infiltration is expected to be low or risks could be high. Areas shown mapped as Poor may not necessarily exhibit poor infiltration upon further site investigation. Recommendations and Next Steps Our recommendations for next steps on the Project as follows: • Complete a site reconnaissance in coordination with City staff to observe subsurface conditions at the Greenwood Memorial Park and some of the City stormwater facility discharge points. • Identify explorations that include borings and monitoring wells in the southwest portion of the Subbasin where infiltration appears most feasible. We anticipate five borings along Monroe Ave NE south of NE 4th Street, along NE 4th Street west of Queen Avenue NE, and along 3rd Avenue NE would be well suited for explorations and may be needed if mounding analysis is required. We recommend two of the five monitoring wells be installed along NE 4th Street, one along Monroe Avenue, and one to two along NE 2nd Street. The monitoring wells should be installed with data loggers and to record seasonal high groundwater. Otak MEMORANDUM January 14, 2020 Project No. 190398 - Task 3 Page 7 • Identify potential pilot infiltration testing locations. References Aspect Consulting, LLC, (Aspect) 2019, Geotechnical Evaluation – 60 Percent Design, King County Parks and Recreation Division – Renton Shop, 3005 4th Street NE, Renton, Washington, for Mr. Christopher Walling, Project Manager, HDR Architecture, Inc., May 31, 2019. City of Renton, 2019a, Critical Areas Regulations, Chapter 4-03-5, accessed December 20, 2019. City of Renton, 2019b Critical Area Data Download accessed on May 25, 2019, https://rentonwa.gov/city_hall/administrative_services/Information_technology/maps___g_i_s_data/data_download. GeoEngineers, Inc., 2006, Geotechnical Engineering Services, President Park Substation, Renton, Washington, File No. 0186-673-00, for Puget Sound Energy, February 22, 2006. HWA GeoSciences, Inc. 2001, Geotechnical Engineering Report, King County Regional Communications and Emergency Coordination Center, for Hewitt Architects, August 16, 2001. King County KCGIS Center GIS, 2016 LiDAR data, accessed on December 6, 2019, http://www5.kingcounty.gov/gisdataportal/Default.aspx. Mullineaux, D. R., 1965, Geologic map of the Renton quadrangle, King County, Washington, U.S. Geological Survey, Geologic Quadrangle Map GQ-405, 1 sheet, scale 1:24,000. Otto Rosenau & Associates, Inc., 2011, Infiltration Feasibility Study, Proposed Firestone Complete Auto Care Facility, 421 Union Avenue Northeast, Renton, Washington, for FES Group, January 17, 2011. Washington State Department of Health, Division of Environmental Health, Office of Drinking Water, 2019, Individual System Viewer, Accessed December 8, 2019. Otak MEMORANDUM January 14, 2020 Project No. 190398 - Task 3 Page 8 Reports Reviewed for Infiltration Mapping Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., 2005, Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Geotechnical Engineering Report, Proposed Le Development, Renton, Washington, Mr. Alex Le c/o Wu Architecture, December 14, 2005. Earth Solutions NW, LLC, 2006, Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed Highlands Square Townhome Development, 343 Union Avenue Southeast, Renton, Washington, for Davis Real Estate Group, September 27, 2006. GeoEngineers, Inc., 2010, Geologic and Geotechnical Design, Olympic Pipe Line Milepost 109, Landslide Stabilization Project, Renton, Washington, File No. 0894-188-00, for Olympic Pipe Line Company, March 26, 2010. Geospectrum Consultants, Inc., 2004, Geotechnical Consultations, Storm Water Infiltration Feasibility, Tax Lots 518210-001, -0012, -0014, 254, 316 & 318 Union Avenue NE, Renton Washington, for Redhawk Construction, December 17, 2004. Geotech Consultants, Inc., 2013, Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed Taco Time Restaurant and Second Retail Building, 4114 Northeast 4th Street, Renton, Washington, for Taco Time Northwest, November 11, 2013. Hong West & Associates, Inc., 1997, Geotechnical Report, King County Transfer Stations Seismic Evaluation, First Ave. NE, Algona, Houghton, Factoria, and Renton Facilities, King County, Washington, for ABKJ, Inc., July 18, 1997. The Riley Group, Inc., 2007, Geotechnical Engineering Report, Proposed Walgreens Drugstore, 4105 & 4111 NE 4th Street, Renton, WA 98059, for Mr. Robert Sherry, Phillips Edison & Company, November 14, 2007. The Riley Group, Inc., 2012, Geotechnical Engineering Report, QFC 871 Fuel Station, 4615 Northeast 4th Street, Renton, Washington 98059, for Kroger, Inc., August 22, 2012. Pacific Geo Engineering, LLC, 2007, Geotechnical Engineering Study for Union Avenue Property, Renton, King County, Washington, for American Classic Homes, LLC, February 15, 2007. Shannon & Wilson, Inc., 2005, Geotechnical Report, Heather Downs Park Development, Renton, Washington, for J.A. Brennan Associates, PLLC, October 10, 2005. Terra Associates, Inc., 2018, Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation, Upper Balch Development, 3005 NE 4th Street, Renton, Washington, for Mr. Mark Seagle, Seagle Properties, LLC, November 9, 2018. Otak MEMORANDUM January 14, 2020 Project No. 190398 - Task 3 Page 9 Limitations Work for this project was performed for Otak (Client), and this report was prepared consistent with recognized standards of professionals in the same locality and involving similar conditions, at the time the work was performed. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made by Aspect Consulting, LLC (Aspect). Recommendations presented herein are based on our interpretation of site conditions, geotechnical engineering calculations, and judgment in accordance with our mutually agreed-upon scope of work. Our recommendations are unique and specific to the project, site, and Client. Application of this report for any purpose other than the project should be done only after consultation with Aspect. Variations may exist between the soil and groundwater conditions reported and those actually underlying the site. The nature and extent of such soil variations may change over time and may not be evident before construction begins. If any soil conditions are encountered at the site that are different from those described in this report, Aspect should be notified immediately to review the applicability of our recommendations. It is the Client's responsibility to see that all parties to this project, including the designer, contractor, subcontractors, and agents, are made aware of this report in its entirety. At the time of this report, design plans and construction methods have not been finalized, and the recommendations presented herein are based on preliminary project information. If project developments result in changes from the preliminary project information, Aspect should be contacted to determine if our recommendations contained in this report should be revised and/or expanded upon. The scope of work does not include services related to construction safety precautions. Site safety is typically the responsibility of the contractor, and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor’s site safety methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures. The scope of our work also does not include the assessment of environmental characteristics, particularly those involving potentially hazardous substances in soil or groundwater. All reports prepared by Aspect for the Client apply only to the services described in the Agreement(s) with the Client. Any use or reuse by any party other than the Client is at the sole risk of that party, and without liability to Aspect. Aspect’s original files/reports shall govern in the event of any dispute regarding the content of electronic documents furnished to others. Please refer to Appendix A titled “Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use” for additional information governing the use of this report. We appreciate the opportunity to perform these services. If you have any questions please call Chip Barnett, Senior Engineering Geologist, at 206-413-5398. Otak MEMORANDUM January 14, 2020 Project No. 190398 - Task 3 Page 10 Attachments: Figure 1 – Site Location Map Figure 2 – Stormwater Map Figure 3 – Surficial Geologic Units Figure 4 – Surface Elevation Figure 5 – Critical Areas Figure 6 – Geologic Hazard Areas Figure 7 – Surface Slope Classification Figure 8 – Soil Permeability Figure 9 – Shallow Infiltration Feasibility Appendix A – Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use V:\190398 City of Renton Monroe Ave NE Storm System Improvements\Deliverables\Preliminary Technical Memo\Final\Preliminary Stormwater Feasibility Evaluation_20200114.docx FIGURES ^GIS Path: T:\projects_8\CityofRenton\MonroeAveNEStormImprovements_190398\Delivered\PreliminarySWFeasibilityEvaluation\Fig 01 Site Location Map.mxd || Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Washington North FIPS 4601 Feet || Date Saved: 1/9/2020 || User: ecrumbaker || Print Date: 1/9/2020Site Location MapPreliminary Stormwater Feasibility EvaluationMonroe Avenue NE Storm System ImprovementsCity of Renton, Washington FIGURE NO.1JAN-2020 PROJECT NO.190398 BY:EAC / ETB REVISED BY:- - - 0 2,000 4,000 Feet ! ! ! #! ! ! ! !( W A S H I N G T O N SITELOCATION Bellingham Olympia Port Angeles Seattle Spokane Tacoma Wenatchee Yakima ! ! ! ! # !( SITELOCATION PugetSoundLake WashingtonElliottBay Bellevue Kent Renton Seattle C edarRiv e r GreenRiverBasemap Layer Credits || Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user communitySources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and theGIS User Community SITE LOCATION ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,,,, ,, ,,,,,,!D,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,!D,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,, ,,!D,,,,,,!D,,,,,, ,,!D,,!D,,,, , , ,,,,!D,,,,,, ,,!D,,,,,,,,,,,,!D,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,!D,,,,!D,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,!D,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,!D,,,,!D,, ,,,,,, ,,!D,,!D,,,,,,!D,,,,,,,,!D,,,,,,,,,,,, ,, ,, ,,,,,,,,!D,,,,,,,,!D,,,,,,,,!D,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,!D,,,,,,!D,,!D,,,,!D,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,, ,, ,,,,!D,, ,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,!D,,,,,,,,!D,,,,,,!D,,!D,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,!D,,,,,,!D,,!D,,,,!D,,,,,,,,,,!D,,,,,,,, , ,,,!D ,,!D,,!D,,!D,,!D,,!D,, ,,,,,,!D,,,,,, ,,,,!D,,!D,,,,,,,,,,,,!D,,,,,,!D,,,,!D,,,,,, ,,!D,,!D,,,,,,!D,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,!D,,!D,,!D,,,,!D,,!D,,,,!D,,,,!D,,,,,,!D,,!D,,!D ,,,,!D,,,,,,,,,,!D,, ,,!D,,!D,,!D,,!D,,!D,,!D,,!D,, ,, ,,,,!D,,,,!D,,!D,,!D,,,,,,,,!D ,,,,,,!D,,,,,,!D,,,,!D,,!D,,,,,,,,!D,,!D,, ,,,, ,, ,,,,!D ,,,,,,,,!D,, ,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,") ")") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ")") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") !( ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") !( !( !( ") !( ") ") !( ") !( ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") !( !( ") !( ") ") ") ") ") ") ") !( ") ") ") ") ") !( !( ") ")") ") ") !( !( ") ")") ")") ")") !( !( ") !( ") !( !( ") ") !( !( !( !( ") ")") !( ") !( !( ") !( !( ")!( ") ") ") !( ") ") !( ") ") ") ") !( ") ") ") !( !( ") !( ") !( !( ") ") ") ") ") ") !( "/!( ") ") ") ") !( ") ") ") ")") !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(") ") ") !( !( ")") !( ") ") ") ") ") ®f ") !( ") ") !( !( !( !( !( !( ") ") ") !( ") ") ") ") "/ ") !( ") ") !( ") ") ") ")") "/ ®f !( ®f !( !( ") ") ") ") ") !( !( ") ") ") !( ") ®f ") !( ") ") ") !( ") ") ")") ") !( !( ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") !( !( !( !( !( ") ") !( !( !( !( ") ") !( ") ") ®f !( ") !( !( ") ") !( ") !( !( !( !( !( ") !(") !( ") ") ") ") ") ") ") !( !( ") ") ") ") ") ")") ") ")")")!( ") ") ")!( !( ") ") ") ") ") ") ") !( ") !( ") !( ") !( !( ") !( ") ") ") ") ") ")") !( ")!( !( ")!( !( ") ") ") ") ") !(!( ") !( ") ") !( ") !( ") ") !( !( !( ") ") ") ") !( ") ") ") ") !( ") !( ") ") ") !( ") !( ") ")")!( ") ")") !( !( ") ") !( !(!( ") ") ") !(") ") ") !( !( ") ") ") ")") !( ") !( ") ") ") ") !(") ")") ")")")")")") !( !( ")")")")")")!( ")") ") ")")") ") ") ")")")")!(!( ")!(!( !(") !(") ")!(!(!(!(") !(!(!( !(!(!( ")") !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !(!(!( ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ")") !( !( !( ") !( !( "/ !( ") ") ")") !( ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ")") ") !( !( ") !( !( !( ") ") ") ") ") ")!(!( ") !( ") ")!( ") !( ") ") !( !( ") ") ") ") !( ") !( ") ") !( ") ") ") ") ") ") ") !( ") !( ") !( ") !( ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") !( ") ") ") ") !( ") !( !( ") ") !( ") ") !(") ") ") ") ")") ") !( ") ") ") ") !( !( ") ") ") ") ") ") !( ") ") ") !( !( ") !( ") ") ") !( !( ") ") ") ") ") !( ") ") ") ") !( ") !( !( !( ") !( ") ") ") ") ") !( !( !( !( ") ") ") ") ") !( ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") !(") ") !( ") ") ") !( ") !( !( ") ") !( ") ") !( !( "/!( ") ") !( ") !( ") !( ") !( ")!( !( ") !( !( ") !(")!( ") ") ") !( ") !( ") !( !( !( !( ") !( ") !( !( ") !( ") ")!( !( ") ") ") ") !( !( ") !( !( !( !( ")")") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ")") ") !( ") ") !( ") !( ") !( !( ") ") ")!( ") !( ") !( ") ") !( !( !( ") ") !( ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") !(") !( !( ") ") ") !( ")") ") !( !( ") ") ") !( !( !( ") !( !( ") ") ") ") ") ") !( ") !( !( ") !( !( ") ") ") ") !( ")") !( ") ") !( ")!( !(") ") !(") !( ") ")!( ") ") ") ") ") ") !( !( !( ") !( ") ") !(") ") !( ") !( !( !( ") !( ") ") ") ") !( !( !( ") ") ") ") ") !( ") !( ") !( !(") ") !( ") !( !( ")") ") ") !( ") ") !( ")!( ") ") ") ") !( ") ") !( ") ") !( !( ") ") ") ") ") !( ") ") ") !( ") ")") !( ") ") ") ") !( ") ") ") !( ") ") ") ") ") ") !( ")") ") ") ") ")!( ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ")") ")") ") ") ") ") ") ") !( ") ") ") ") ") ") ") !( !( ")") !(")!(!( !( ")")") ") !(") ") !( ") ") !( !(") ") ") ") ") !( ") ") !( ")") ") !(!( ") ") ") ")") ") !( ")!( ") ") ") !( ") ") ") !( ") ") ") !( ") ") ") ") !( !( !( ") ") ")") !( ") ") ") ") !( ") !( ") !( !( ") ") ")") ") ") ") ") ") ") !( ") ") !(") !( !(") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ")!( !( ") ") ") ") ") !(!( ") !( ") ")")!( !( ") ") ") !( ") ") ") ") ") ") !( ") ") ") ") !( ") ") ")!( ") ") ") ") !( !( ") !( ")") !( !( ") ") ") ") !( ")") !( ") ") !( ") ") ") ") ") !( !( !( ")!( ") ")")!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( ") ")!(!( ") ") ") ") ")!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!(!(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !(!(!( !( !(!(!(!( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!( !(!( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!(!(!(!( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !(!( !( !( !(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!(!(!( !(!(!( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !(!(!(!( !(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!( !( !(!(!(!(!( !(!(!( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !U ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") !!( !!( !!( !!( !!( !!( !!(!!( !!( !!( !!( !!(!!(!!( !!(!!( !!(!!( !!( !!( !!(!!(!!( !!( !!( !!( !!(!!( !!( !!( !!( !!( !!( !!( !!( !!( !!(!!( !!(!!( !!( !!( !!( !!(!!( !!( !!( !!( !!( !!( !!( !!( !!(!!( !!( !!( !!( !!( !!(!!(!!( !!( !!( !!( !!( !!( !!( !!(!!( !!(!!( !\ !\ !\ !\!\ !\ !\ !\!\ !\!\!\ !\ !\ !\ !\!\!\ !\ !\!\ !\ !\ !\!\ !\ !\!\ !\!\ !\!\ !\!\ !\!\!\!\ !\!\!\ !\!\ !\!\!\ !\ !\!\ !\ !\ !\ !\ !\!\ !\ !\ !\ !\ !\ !\ !\ !\ !\ NE 4TH ST QUEEN AVE NEMONROE AVE NENE 2ND ST NE 6TH ST NE 8TH ST Upper Balch Pit UNION AVE NEGIS Path: T:\projects_8\CityofRenton\MonroeAveNEStormImprovements_190398\Delivered\PreliminarySWFeasibilityEvaluation\Fig 02 Stormwater Map.mxd || Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Washington North FIPS 4601 Feet || Date Saved: 1/9/2020 || User: ecrumbaker || Print Date: 1/9/2020FIGURE NO.2JAN-2020 PROJECT NO.190398 BY:EAC / ETB REVISED BY:- - - Stormwater MapPreliminary Stormwater Feasibility EvaluationMonroe Avenue NE Storm System ImprovementsCity of Renton, Washington 0 440220 Feet ")Inlet !(Manhole "/Utility Vault ®f Unknown Structure !U Lift Station !\Existing Flow Control BMP !!(Outlet Culvert ,,Pipe Ditch Stormwater Ponds Project Boundary Project Boundary(1000-ft Buffer) Stream/river Lake or pond Basemap Layer Credits || Pictometry, King County """) "J "J "J "J"J "J "J "J"J "J"J"J"J "J "J"J"J"J "J"J"J"J"J"J"J"J"J"J"J"J "J"J !<!<!<""")""") "J """)""")""") """)""") """) """) """) """) "J"J"J"J "J"J"J"J "J "J "J "J "J "J"J """) """)""") """) """) """) """)""")""")""") """) """) """) """) "J"J "J "J "J """) """)""")""") &<&< !<!<!<""") """) NE 4TH ST QUEEN AVE NEMONROE AVE NENE 2ND ST NE 6TH ST NE 8TH ST UNION AVE NE67.29 67.88 8 3.51 10.5 3.5 46 4 3 6 0.5 3030 2438.5 47 7.6 7.5 5 5 6 0.5 8 1212.5 8 1010 158 9.55 11.55 11.5 11.5 4.5 1940 2629 33 Qac af Qmc Qac Qpa Qgt Qu Qu Qu Qlp Qgt Qgt QpaGIS Path: T:\projects_8\CityofRenton\MonroeAveNEStormImprovements_190398\Delivered\PreliminarySWFeasibilityEvaluation\Fig 03 Surficial Geologic Units.mxd || Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Washington North FIPS 4601 Feet || Date Saved: 1/9/2020 || User: ecrumbaker || Print Date: 1/9/2020FIGURE NO.3JAN-2020 PROJECT NO.190398 BY:EAC / ETB REVISED BY:- - - Surficial Geologic UnitsPreliminary Stormwater Feasibility EvaluationMonroe Avenue NE Storm System ImprovementsCity of Renton, Washington 0 600300 Feet Explorations from Previous Geotechnical Reports ")Blue Color IndicatesExploration with Infiltration Test "J Boring_____ !<Hand Auger_____ &<Monitoring Well_____ """)Test Pit_____ Surficial Geology (WADNR 1:24,000)Quaternary Rocks and Deposits Quaternary bog, marsh, swamp, or lake deposits Holocene artificial fill and modified land Quaternary alluviumQuaternary mass-wastingdeposits Pleistocene continental glacial driftPleistocene continentalglacial tillPleistocene glacial andnonglacial deposits Project Boundary Project Boundary1000-ft Buffer Basemap Layer Credits || Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community 12 11Depth toGroundwater (ft) Till Depth (ft)(If Observed) NE 4TH ST QUEEN AVE NEMONROE AVE NENE 2ND ST NE 6TH ST NE 8TH ST 300 15 0 12 5 100 75 35 0 325 275 200175325 275 4 2 5 40 0 400375250225 3004 0 0 4 0 0 35 0 5 30 0 300 27530027522550GIS Path: T:\projects_8\CityofRenton\MonroeAveNEStormImprovements_190398\Delivered\PreliminarySWFeasibilityEvaluation\Fig 04 Surface Elevation.mxd || Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Washington North FIPS 4601 Feet || Date Saved: 1/9/2020 || User: ecrumbaker || Print Date: 1/9/2020FIGURE NO.4JAN-2020 PROJECT NO.190398 BY:EAC / ETB REVISED BY:- - - Surface ElevationPreliminary Stormwater Feasibility EvaluationMonroe Avenue NE Storm System ImprovementsCity of Renton, Washington0600300 Feet Project Boundary Project Boundary 1000-ft Buffer 5-ft Contour (City of Renton) Surface Elevation (King County Lidar, 2016)Value High : 440.507 Low : 44.2797 !\ !\ !\ !\ !\ !\ !\ !\ !\ !\ !\ !\ !\!\!\ !\ !\!\ !\!\!\ !\ !\ !\ !\ !\ !\ !\ !\ !\ !\ !\!\ !\ !\!\!\!\!\!\ !\ !\ NE 4TH ST QUEEN AVE NEMONROE AVE NENE 2ND ST NE 6TH ST NE 8TH ST UNION AVE NEGIS Path: T:\projects_8\CityofRenton\MonroeAveNEStormImprovements_190398\Delivered\PreliminarySWFeasibilityEvaluation\Fig 05 Critical Areas.mxd || Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Washington North FIPS 4601 Feet || Date Saved: 1/9/2020 || User: ecrumbaker || Print Date: 1/9/2020FIGURE NO.5JAN-2020 PROJECT NO.190398 BY:EAC / ETB REVISED BY:- - - Critical AreasPreliminary Stormwater Feasibility EvaluationMonroe Avenue NE Storm System ImprovementsCity of Renton, Washington0600300 Feet !\Facilities (WA Ecology) Project Boundary Project Boundary1000-ft Buffer Wetland (City of Renton) Classified Streams (City of Renton) Stream (no Classification) Wellfield Capture Zones (City of Renton) Ten Year Capture Zone Steep Slopes (City of Renton)Percent Range >15% & <=25% >25% & <=40% >40% & <=90% High Erosion Hazard Area(City of Renton)Moderate Landslide Severity(City of Renton) Basemap Layer Credits || Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community NE 4TH ST QUEEN AVE NEMONROE AVE NENE 2ND ST NE 6TH ST NE 8TH ST UNION AVE NEGIS Path: T:\projects_8\CityofRenton\MonroeAveNEStormImprovements_190398\Delivered\PreliminarySWFeasibilityEvaluation\Fig 06 Hazard Areas.mxd || Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Washington North FIPS 4601 Feet || Date Saved: 1/9/2020 || User: ecrumbaker || Print Date: 1/9/2020FIGURE NO.6JAN-2020 PROJECT NO.190398 BY:EAC / ETB REVISED BY:- - - Geologic Hazard AreasPreliminary Stormwater Feasibility EvaluationMonroe Avenue NE Storm System ImprovementsCity of Renton, Washington0600300 Feet Geologic Hazard Areas Low Hazard Elevated Hazard Project Boundary Project Boundary 1000-ft Buffer Basemap Layer Credits || Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community NE 4TH ST QUEEN AVE NEMONROE AVE NENE 2ND ST NE 6TH ST NE 8TH ST Upper Balch Pit UNION AVE NEGIS Path: T:\projects_8\CityofRenton\MonroeAveNEStormImprovements_190398\Delivered\PreliminarySWFeasibilityEvaluation\Fig 07 Surface Slope.mxd || Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Washington North FIPS 4601 Feet || Date Saved: 1/9/2020 || User: ecrumbaker || Print Date: 1/9/2020FIGURE NO.7JAN-2020 PROJECT NO.190398 BY:EAC / ETB REVISED BY:- - - Surface Slope ClassificationPreliminary Stormwater Feasibility EvaluationMonroe Avenue NE Storm System ImprovementsCity of Renton, Washington0600300 Feet Surface Slope Classification Good: less than 8% Moderate: 8 - 15 % Poor: Greater than 15% Project Boundary Project Boundary 1000-ft Buffer Basemap Layer Credits || Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community """) NE 4TH ST QUEEN AVE NEMONROE AVE NENE 2ND ST NE 6TH ST NE 8TH ST UNION AVE NE4.88 1.250.25 33.91 106.56 8.17.7 5.1 150GIS Path: T:\projects_8\CityofRenton\MonroeAveNEStormImprovements_190398\Delivered\PreliminarySWFeasibilityEvaluation\Fig 08 Soil Permeability.mxd || Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Washington North FIPS 4601 Feet || Date Saved: 1/12/2020 || User: ecrumbaker || Print Date: 1/12/2020FIGURE NO.8JAN-2020 PROJECT NO.190398 BY:EAC / ETB REVISED BY:- - - Soil PermeabilityPreliminary Stormwater Feasibility EvaluationMonroe Avenue NE Storm System ImprovementsCity of Renton, Washington0600300 Feet Surface Permeabilty High Permeability Low Permeability Project Boundary Project Boundary 1000-ft Buffer Explorations with Infiltration Test """)Test Pit Basemap Layer Credits || Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community 150 Infiltration Rate(in/hr) NE 4TH ST QUEEN AVE NEMONROE AVE NENE 2ND ST NE 6TH ST NE 8TH ST UNION AVE NEGIS Path: T:\projects_8\CityofRenton\MonroeAveNEStormImprovements_190398\Delivered\PreliminarySWFeasibilityEvaluation\Fig 09 Shallow Infiltration Feasibilty.mxd || Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Washington North FIPS 4601 Feet || Date Saved: 1/9/2020 || User: ecrumbaker || Print Date: 1/9/2020FIGURE NO.9JAN-2020 PROJECT NO.190398 BY:EAC / ETB REVISED BY:- - - Shallow Infiltration FeasibilityPreliminary Stormwater Feasibility Evaluation Monroe Avenue NE Storm System Improvements City of Renton, Washington0600300 Feet Shallow Infiltration Feasibility Good Potential Moderate Potential Poor Potential Project Boundary Project Boundary 1000-ft Buffer Basemap Layer Credits || Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community APPENDIX A Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use ASPECT CONSULTING REPORT LIMITATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR USE This Report and Project-Specific Factors Aspect Consulting, LLC (Aspect) considered a number of unique, project-specific factors when establishing the Scope of Work for this project and report. You should not rely on this report if it was: •Not prepared for you •Not prepared for the specific purpose identified in the Agreement •Not prepared for the specific real property assessed •Completed before important changes occurred concerning the subjectproperty, project or governmental regulatory actions Geoscience Interpretations The geoscience practices (geotechnical engineering, geology, and environmental science) require interpretation of spatial information that can make them less exact than other engineering and natural science disciplines. It is important to recognize this limitation in evaluating the content of the report. If you are unclear how these "Report Limitations and Use Guidelines" apply to your project or site, you should contact Aspect. Reliance Conditions for Third Parties This report was prepared for the exclusive use of the Client. No other party may rely on the product of our services unless we agree in advance to such reliance in writing. This is to provide our firm with reasonable protection against liability claims by third parties with whom there would otherwise be no contractual limitations. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with our Agreement with the Client and recognized geoscience practices in the same locality and involving similar conditions at the time this report was prepared. Property Conditions Change Over Time This report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. The findings and conclusions of this report may be affected by the passage of time, by events such as a change in property use or occupancy, or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, slope instability, or groundwater fluctuations. If any of the described events may have occurred following the issuance of the report, you should contact Aspect so that we may evaluate whether changed conditions affect the continued reliability or applicability of our conclusions and recommendations. ASPECT CONSULTING Discipline-Specific Reports Are Not Interchangeable The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geotechnical or geologic study differ significantly from those used to perform an environmental study and vice versa. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering or geologic report does not usually address any environmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations (e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants). Similarly, environmental reports are not used to address geotechnical or geologic concerns regarding the subject property. We appreciate the opportunity to perform these services. If you have any questions please contact the Aspect Project Manager for this project. k:\project\33200\33201a\projectdocs\reports\field work and modeling memo\21_0415 field work and modeling memo.docx Appendix B – Geotechnical Evaluation for Potential Stormwater Facilities Technical Memorandum Page 15 Field Work and Modeling Memorandum for the Renton Monroe Project January 8, 2021 k:\project\33200\33201a\projectdocs\reports\field work and modeling memo\20_1229 field work and modeling memo.docx Appendix C – WWHMSWMM Report Alternative 1-3. Plan View NEW CONNECTION INTO PIT THIS ELEMENT IS MODELED DIFFERENTLY FOR ALTERNATIVES #1-3 EXISTING INFILTRATION PIPES Historically Flooding Catch Basin, Represented as Weir Inlet flow along NE 4th St. Outfall represents infiltration to deep groundwater Outlet controlled by a table curve with long-term infiltration rate Storage node, represents different storage options in Alternatives 1 - 3. Future developed Segale Upper Balch Pit Infiltration from existing Infiltration Pipes Alternative 1 - Stormtech Chamber Facility Model, No Storage in gravel under Stormtech Chambers STORMTECH CHAMBERS The trunkline infiltration rate is 1.5cfs. This rate is determined by ((3960SF * 1.33 ft/hr)= (5,267CF/HR)*(1hr/3600sec)= 1.46 CFS) Designed facility surface area of 87,120 square feet or 2.0 acres Modeled footprint: 87,120 * 0.7 = 60,984 square feet to account for porosity. Alternative 1 - Stormtech Chamber Facility Model, No Storage in gravel under Stormtech Chambers The Outflow is constant regardless of head, which is a conservative assumption. This outflow represents the long-term design infiltration into native soils over the footprint of the facility [2.0 acre facility footprint *20 in/hr = 40ac-in/hr = 40.3cfs]. Native Infiltration Additional Gravel under Stormtech Chambers Stormtech Chambers Riser to surface Alternative 1.1 - Model including Storage in gravel under Stormtech Chambers StormtechChambers Alternative 1.1 - Model including Storage in gravel under Stormtech Chambers Determined that with the additional storage from the gravel underneath the Stormtech Chambers a smaller long-term design infiltration rate would still prove the design to be feasible. This outflow represents the infiltration into native soils. With the additional gravel beneath the Stormtech Chambers, the long-term infiltration rate could be as low as 10 in/hr and the facility would still perform. Native Infiltration The Outflow is constant regardless of head, which is a conservative assumption. ALTERNATIVE 4. PLAN VIEW WEIR TO INDICATE IF ANY FLOODING OCCURS, AT HISTORIC LOW-POINT; WHICH DOES NOT RECIEVE ANY FLOW WITH THIS TRUNKLINE LAYOUT. NEW CONNECTION TO EXISTING TRUNKLINE OUTFALL EXISTING INFILTRATION PIPES ALTERNATIVE 1-3: PROFILE VIEWThe event shown is the 100-year peak event ALTERNATIVE 4: TRUNKLINE PROFILE VIEW EPA STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION 5.1 (Build 5.1.012) -------------------------------------------------------------- WARNING 04: minimum elevation drop used for Conduit SD-11870-11859 WARNING 03: negative offset ignored for Link 48 WARNING 04: minimum elevation drop used for Conduit 48 WARNING 03: negative offset ignored for Link 54 WARNING 03: negative offset ignored for Link 54 WARNING 03: negative offset ignored for Link 51 ********************************************************* NOTE: The summary statistics displayed in this report are based on results found at every computational time step, not just on results from each reporting time step. ********************************************************* **************** Analysis Options **************** Flow Units ............... CFS Process Models: Rainfall/Runoff ........ YES RDII ................... NO Snowmelt ............... NO Groundwater ............ NO Flow Routing ........... YES Ponding Allowed ........ NO Water Quality .......... NO Infiltration Method ...... HORTON Flow Routing Method ...... DYNWAVE Starting Date ............ 01/09/1990 00:00:00 Ending Date .............. 01/09/1990 11:30:00 Antecedent Dry Days ...... 0.0 Report Time Step ......... 00:15:00 Wet Time Step ............ 00:15:00 Dry Time Step ............ 00:15:00 Routing Time Step ........ 0.50 sec Variable Time Step ....... YES Maximum Trials ........... 8 Number of Threads ........ 1 Head Tolerance ........... 0.005000 ft ************************** Runoff Quantity Continuity ************************** Runoff supplied by interface file RM_future_Stormtech6_S2G1E6.int ************************** Volume Volume You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) Alternative 1. Stormtech Chambers WWHM SWMM Report Flow Routing Continuity acre-feet 10^6 gal ************************** --------- --------- Dry Weather Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000 Wet Weather Inflow ....... 38.286 12.476 Groundwater Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000 RDII Inflow .............. 0.000 0.000 External Inflow .......... 0.000 0.000 External Outflow ......... 29.342 9.562 Flooding Loss ............ 3.337 1.087 Evaporation Loss ......... 0.000 0.000 Exfiltration Loss ........ 0.344 0.112 Initial Stored Volume .... 0.000 0.000 Final Stored Volume ...... 5.274 1.719 Continuity Error (%) ..... -0.028 ************************* Highest Continuity Errors ************************* Node 1551 (4.35%) *************************** Time-Step Critical Elements *************************** Link 48 (33.86%) ******************************** Highest Flow Instability Indexes ******************************** Link 48 (72) Link SD-2813-2825 (62) Link 51 (47) Link SD-2825-2713 (46) Link 54 (37) ************************* Routing Time Step Summary ************************* Minimum Time Step : 0.50 sec Average Time Step : 0.50 sec Maximum Time Step : 0.50 sec Percent in Steady State : 0.00 Average Iterations per Step : 4.02 Percent Not Converging : 22.75 *************************** Subcatchment Runoff Summary You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) *************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------- Total Total Total Total Total Total Peak Runoff Precip Runon Evap Infil Runoff Runoff Runoff Coeff Subcatchment in in in in in 10^6 gal CFS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------- Basin1(M)2863 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 Basin2(M)11870 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 Basin3(M)2698 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 Basin4(M)11870 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 Basin5(M)4614 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 Basin92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 ****************** Node Depth Summary ****************** --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average Maximum Maximum Time of Max Reported Depth Depth HGL Occurrence Max Depth Node Type Feet Feet Feet days hr:min Feet --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2698 JUNCTION 0.75 3.29 345.73 0 07:14 2.33 2713 JUNCTION 4.31 10.13 340.97 0 04:51 7.37 2773 JUNCTION 3.37 6.76 339.11 0 09:30 6.75 2813 JUNCTION 3.61 6.50 338.21 0 09:31 6.48 2825 JUNCTION 2.66 5.31 337.60 0 09:39 5.26 2863 JUNCTION 0.52 1.09 368.01 0 07:15 1.09 2869 JUNCTION 3.41 7.35 340.17 0 09:30 7.35 2922 JUNCTION 5.86 9.80 339.22 0 07:15 9.79 3590 JUNCTION 0.61 1.62 351.57 0 07:15 1.61 3655 JUNCTION 3.36 10.86 346.95 0 05:22 10.86 3825 JUNCTION 2.54 12.03 350.08 0 05:22 11.17 4545 JUNCTION 3.29 10.86 346.90 0 07:14 10.84 4614 JUNCTION 4.69 13.08 346.72 0 07:14 13.06 11653 JUNCTION 3.57 7.11 339.41 0 09:30 7.10 You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) 11859 JUNCTION 4.49 11.06 344.14 0 07:03 11.03 11870 JUNCTION 5.09 13.19 346.27 0 06:58 13.19 1551 JUNCTION 6.28 10.29 339.23 0 07:15 10.26 1809 JUNCTION 7.66 16.49 343.99 0 00:31 11.72 2 JUNCTION 48.99 50.24 335.10 0 00:26 50.24 314 JUNCTION 0.47 0.67 308.67 0 04:56 0.59 6 OUTFALL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00:00 0.00 9 OUTFALL 0.00 0.00 328.94 0 00:00 0.00 10 OUTFALL 0.46 0.57 300.57 0 05:04 0.56 7 STORAGE 1.56 5.07 337.46 0 09:44 5.07 ******************* Node Inflow Summary ******************* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------- Maximum Maximum Lateral Total Flow Lateral Total Time of Max Inflow Inflow Balance Inflow Inflow Occurrence Volume Volume Error Node Type CFS CFS days hr:min 10^6 gal 10^6 gal Percent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------- 2698 JUNCTION 36.48 36.48 0 07:15 3.47 3.47 0.021 2713 JUNCTION 0.00 34.51 0 07:15 0 2.94 0.609 2773 JUNCTION 0.00 62.64 0 07:20 0 7.85 0.280 2813 JUNCTION 0.00 62.69 0 07:20 0 7.83 0.504 2825 JUNCTION 0.00 96.42 0 07:20 0 10.7 0.170 2863 JUNCTION 34.44 34.44 0 07:15 2.81 2.81 0.012 2869 JUNCTION 0.00 62.83 0 06:56 0 7.89 0.257 2922 JUNCTION 0.00 36.48 0 07:15 0 3.49 0.712 3590 JUNCTION 0.00 34.44 0 07:15 0 2.81 0.082 3655 JUNCTION 0.00 34.13 0 07:15 0 2.8 0.085 3825 JUNCTION 0.00 34.13 0 07:15 0 You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) 2.8 -0.047 4545 JUNCTION 0.00 21.22 0 06:55 0 2.5 0.184 4614 JUNCTION 12.79 29.60 0 06:55 1.14 3.64 0.015 11653 JUNCTION 0.00 62.63 0 07:20 0 7.87 0.231 11859 JUNCTION 0.00 62.84 0 06:56 0 7.9 0.076 11870 JUNCTION 51.72 75.19 0 07:15 4.36 8 0.035 1551 JUNCTION 0.00 34.20 0 00:23 0 0.499 4.549 1809 JUNCTION 0.00 20.87 0 00:23 0 0.0207 0.000 2 JUNCTION 8.09 8.09 0 07:15 0.696 0.696 0.683 314 JUNCTION 0.00 40.30 0 03:30 0 9.09 -0.141 6 OUTFALL 0.00 0.00 0 00:00 0 0 0.000 gal 9 OUTFALL 0.00 1.50 0 00:11 0 0.456 0.000 10 OUTFALL 0.00 42.05 0 05:04 0 9.1 0.000 7 STORAGE 0.00 166.92 0 07:03 0 10.6 0.097 ********************** Node Surcharge Summary ********************** Surcharging occurs when water rises above the top of the highest conduit. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Max. Height Min. Depth Hours Above Crown Below Rim Node Type Surcharged Feet Feet --------------------------------------------------------------------- 2698 JUNCTION 0.04 1.291 14.709 2713 JUNCTION 7.32 7.131 7.209 2773 JUNCTION 3.62 2.200 6.650 2813 JUNCTION 4.23 1.997 8.353 2825 JUNCTION 1.48 0.709 7.661 3655 JUNCTION 3.98 7.860 0.000 3825 JUNCTION 1.87 6.500 0.000 4545 JUNCTION 3.97 7.865 0.000 4614 JUNCTION 4.10 8.088 0.000 11653 JUNCTION 3.94 2.606 6.994 11859 JUNCTION 6.27 8.060 0.000 11870 JUNCTION 6.45 10.190 0.000 You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) 1551 JUNCTION 10.85 6.286 9.734 1809 JUNCTION 10.97 12.487 3.223 ********************* Node Flooding Summary ********************* Flooding refers to all water that overflows a node, whether it ponds or not. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Maximum Maximum Time of Max Flood Ponded Hours Rate Occurrence Volume Depth Node Flooded CFS days hr:min 10^6 gal Feet -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3655 1.14 23.41 0 07:15 0.299 5.000 3825 0.01 8.67 0 06:55 0.000 5.000 11870 0.44 14.91 0 07:15 0.096 5.000 2 11.06 8.09 0 07:15 0.692 0.000 ********************** Storage Volume Summary ********************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------- Average Avg Evap Exfil Maximum Max Time of Max Maximum Volume Pcnt Pcnt Pcnt Volume Pcnt Occurrence Outflow Storage Unit 1000 ft3 Full Loss Loss 1000 ft3 Full days hr:min CFS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------- 7 95.137 26 0 0 309.071 84 0 09:44 40.30 *********************** Outfall Loading Summary *********************** ----------------------------------------------------------- Flow Avg Max Total Freq Flow Flow Volume Outfall Node Pcnt CFS CFS 10^6 gal ----------------------------------------------------------- 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) 9 99.51 1.48 1.50 0.456 10 97.16 30.26 42.05 9.104 ----------------------------------------------------------- System 65.56 31.74 43.55 9.561 ******************** Link Flow Summary ******************** ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Time of Max Maximum Max/ Max/ |Flow| Occurrence |Veloc| Full Full Link Type CFS days hr:min ft/sec Flow Depth ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- SD_2863-3590 CONDUIT 34.44 0 07:15 12.53 0.27 0.45 SD-3590-3825 CONDUIT 34.13 0 07:15 9.87 0.35 0.77 SD-3825-3655 CONDUIT 34.13 0 07:15 4.83 0.94 1.00 SD-3655-4545 CONDUIT 21.22 0 06:55 3.00 1.28 1.00 SD-4545-4614 CONDUIT 21.22 0 06:55 3.06 1.11 1.00 SD-4614-11870 CONDUIT 29.59 0 06:55 4.19 0.69 1.00 SD-11870-11859 CONDUIT 62.84 0 06:56 8.89 22.44 1.00 SD-11859-2869 CONDUIT 62.83 0 06:56 8.89 3.58 1.00 SD-2869-11653 CONDUIT 62.63 0 07:20 3.94 1.14 1.00 SD-11653-2773 CONDUIT 62.64 0 07:20 3.94 0.62 1.00 SD-2773-2813 CONDUIT 62.69 0 07:20 3.94 1.12 1.00 SD-2813-2825 CONDUIT 63.17 0 07:20 4.42 0.95 1.00 SD-2825-2713 CONDUIT 34.34 0 07:15 4.86 1.01 1.00 SD-2713-2922 CONDUIT 34.51 0 07:15 4.88 1.27 1.00 SD-2698-2922 CONDUIT 36.48 0 07:15 13.65 0.68 0.94 SD-2922-1551 CONDUIT 34.20 0 00:23 8.05 0.38 1.00 SD-1551-1809 CONDUIT 20.87 0 00:23 6.23 0.15 1.00 48 CONDUIT 166.92 0 07:03 22.51 6.53 1.00 54 CONDUIT 42.05 0 05:04 30.97 0.02 0.10 43 ORIFICE 0.00 0 00:00 44 WEIR 0.10 0 09:30 0.01 51 DUMMY 40.30 0 03:30 52 DUMMY 1.50 0 00:11 *************************** Flow Classification Summary *************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - Adjusted ---------- Fraction of Time in Flow Class ---------- /Actual Up Down Sub Sup Up Down Norm Inlet You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) Conduit Length Dry Dry Dry Crit Crit Crit Crit Ltd Ctrl ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - SD_2863-3590 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.00 SD-3590-3825 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.02 0.00 0.75 0.21 0.00 SD-3825-3655 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.00 SD-3655-4545 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SD-4545-4614 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.00 SD-4614-11870 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 SD-11870-11859 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SD-11859-2869 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SD-2869-11653 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SD-11653-2773 1.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.98 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 SD-2773-2813 1.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SD-2813-2825 1.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SD-2825-2713 1.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 SD-2713-2922 1.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 SD-2698-2922 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.95 0.00 0.00 SD-2922-1551 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SD-1551-1809 1.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 48 1.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 54 1.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.97 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 ************************* Conduit Surcharge Summary ************************* ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hours Hours You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) --------- Hours Full -------- Above Full Capacity Conduit Both Ends Upstream Dnstream Normal Flow Limited ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- SD-3590-3825 0.01 0.01 1.87 0.01 0.01 SD-3825-3655 2.95 2.95 3.98 0.01 0.16 SD-3655-4545 3.97 3.98 3.97 0.98 3.70 SD-4545-4614 3.97 3.97 4.10 0.13 1.16 SD-4614-11870 5.93 5.93 6.45 0.01 0.16 SD-11870-11859 6.27 6.45 6.27 11.34 6.27 SD-11859-2869 5.62 6.27 5.71 5.65 5.03 SD-2869-11653 3.55 3.56 3.94 1.07 2.14 SD-11653-2773 3.62 3.62 3.94 0.01 0.01 SD-2773-2813 3.61 3.62 4.22 0.93 1.61 SD-2813-2825 1.60 1.60 4.22 0.01 0.01 SD-2825-2713 5.07 5.07 7.32 0.05 0.01 SD-2713-2922 7.32 7.32 10.64 0.45 0.01 SD-2698-2922 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01 SD-2922-1551 10.83 10.83 10.85 0.01 0.01 SD-1551-1809 10.85 10.85 10.97 0.01 0.01 48 1.30 1.48 1.30 5.05 1.30 Analysis begun on: Tue Aug 11 11:17:55 2020 Analysis ended on: Tue Aug 11 11:17:57 2020 Total elapsed time: 00:00:02 You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) EPA STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION 5.1 (Build 5.1.012) -------------------------------------------------------------- WARNING 04: minimum elevation drop used for Conduit SD-11870-11859 WARNING 03: negative offset ignored for Link 48 WARNING 03: negative offset ignored for Link 54 WARNING 03: negative offset ignored for Link 54 WARNING 03: negative offset ignored for Link 51 ********************************************************* NOTE: The summary statistics displayed in this report are based on results found at every computational time step, not just on results from each reporting time step. ********************************************************* **************** Analysis Options **************** Flow Units ............... CFS Process Models: Rainfall/Runoff ........ YES RDII ................... NO Snowmelt ............... NO Groundwater ............ NO Flow Routing ........... YES Ponding Allowed ........ NO Water Quality .......... NO Infiltration Method ...... HORTON Flow Routing Method ...... DYNWAVE Starting Date ............ 01/09/1990 00:00:00 Ending Date .............. 01/09/1990 11:30:00 Antecedent Dry Days ...... 0.0 Report Time Step ......... 00:15:00 Wet Time Step ............ 00:15:00 Dry Time Step ............ 00:15:00 Routing Time Step ........ 0.50 sec Variable Time Step ....... YES Maximum Trials ........... 8 Number of Threads ........ 1 Head Tolerance ........... 0.005000 ft ************************** Runoff Quantity Continuity ************************** Runoff supplied by interface file RM_future_pit12_S2G1E6.int ************************** Volume Volume Flow Routing Continuity acre-feet 10^6 gal You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) Alternative 2. Gravel Pit WWHM SWMM Report ************************** --------- --------- Dry Weather Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000 Wet Weather Inflow ....... 38.286 12.476 Groundwater Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000 RDII Inflow .............. 0.000 0.000 External Inflow .......... 0.000 0.000 External Outflow ......... 26.556 8.654 Flooding Loss ............ 3.210 1.046 Evaporation Loss ......... 0.000 0.000 Exfiltration Loss ........ 0.343 0.112 Initial Stored Volume .... 0.000 0.000 Final Stored Volume ...... 8.188 2.668 Continuity Error (%) ..... -0.030 ************************* Highest Continuity Errors ************************* Node 1551 (4.31%) *************************** Time-Step Critical Elements *************************** Link 48 (15.81%) ******************************** Highest Flow Instability Indexes ******************************** Link 51 (48) Link 54 (38) Link SD-1551-1809 (28) Link SD-2922-1551 (5) Link 52 (2) ************************* Routing Time Step Summary ************************* Minimum Time Step : 0.50 sec Average Time Step : 0.50 sec Maximum Time Step : 0.50 sec Percent in Steady State : 0.00 Average Iterations per Step : 3.70 Percent Not Converging : 19.34 *************************** Subcatchment Runoff Summary *************************** You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------- Total Total Total Total Total Total Peak Runoff Precip Runon Evap Infil Runoff Runoff Runoff Coeff Subcatchment in in in in in 10^6 gal CFS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------- Basin1(M)2863 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 Basin2(M)11870 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 Basin3(M)2698 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 Basin4(M)11870 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 Basin5(M)4614 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 Basin92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 ****************** Node Depth Summary ****************** --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average Maximum Maximum Time of Max Reported Depth Depth HGL Occurrence Max Depth Node Type Feet Feet Feet days hr:min Feet --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2698 JUNCTION 0.76 3.40 345.84 0 07:12 2.64 2713 JUNCTION 3.51 6.75 337.59 0 09:31 6.70 2773 JUNCTION 3.07 6.16 338.51 0 09:30 6.14 2813 JUNCTION 3.28 5.88 337.59 0 09:31 5.84 2825 JUNCTION 1.71 4.91 337.20 0 10:03 4.90 2863 JUNCTION 0.52 1.09 368.01 0 07:15 1.09 2869 JUNCTION 3.13 6.78 339.60 0 09:30 6.77 2922 JUNCTION 5.07 8.54 337.96 0 07:15 8.52 3590 JUNCTION 0.61 1.62 351.57 0 07:15 1.61 3655 JUNCTION 3.16 10.86 346.95 0 05:23 10.86 3825 JUNCTION 2.35 12.03 350.08 0 05:23 11.16 4545 JUNCTION 3.08 10.99 347.03 0 06:52 10.84 4614 JUNCTION 4.44 13.06 346.70 0 07:15 13.06 11653 JUNCTION 3.28 6.51 338.81 0 09:30 6.50 11859 JUNCTION 4.23 10.90 343.98 0 07:24 10.88 You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) 11870 JUNCTION 4.84 13.19 346.27 0 06:59 13.19 1551 JUNCTION 5.47 9.02 337.96 0 09:30 9.00 1809 JUNCTION 6.85 19.71 347.21 0 00:33 10.44 2 JUNCTION 48.99 50.24 335.10 0 00:26 50.24 314 JUNCTION 0.45 0.57 308.57 0 04:49 0.53 6 OUTFALL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00:00 0.00 9 OUTFALL 0.00 0.00 328.94 0 00:00 0.00 10 OUTFALL 0.44 0.54 300.54 0 04:49 0.52 7 STORAGE 3.51 10.73 337.12 0 10:05 10.71 ******************* Node Inflow Summary ******************* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------- Maximum Maximum Lateral Total Flow Lateral Total Time of Max Inflow Inflow Balance Inflow Inflow Occurrence Volume Volume Error Node Type CFS CFS days hr:min 10^6 gal 10^6 gal Percent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------- 2698 JUNCTION 36.48 36.48 0 07:15 3.47 3.47 0.014 2713 JUNCTION 0.00 34.43 0 07:15 0 2.92 0.558 2773 JUNCTION 0.00 62.37 0 07:13 0 7.9 0.239 2813 JUNCTION 0.00 62.37 0 07:13 0 7.89 0.441 2825 JUNCTION 0.00 96.63 0 07:15 0 10.7 0.180 2863 JUNCTION 34.44 34.44 0 07:15 2.81 2.81 0.012 2869 JUNCTION 0.00 63.51 0 06:56 0 7.94 0.215 2922 JUNCTION 0.00 36.48 0 07:15 0 3.48 0.684 3590 JUNCTION 0.00 34.44 0 07:15 0 2.81 0.084 3655 JUNCTION 0.00 34.13 0 07:15 0 2.8 0.084 3825 JUNCTION 0.00 34.13 0 07:15 0 2.8 -0.058 You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) 4545 JUNCTION 0.00 21.58 0 06:56 0 2.52 0.170 4614 JUNCTION 12.79 30.01 0 06:56 1.14 3.66 0.013 11653 JUNCTION 0.00 62.37 0 07:14 0 7.92 0.191 11859 JUNCTION 0.00 63.52 0 06:56 0 7.94 0.066 11870 JUNCTION 51.72 75.19 0 07:15 4.36 8.02 0.030 1551 JUNCTION 0.00 38.92 0 00:26 0 0.5 4.502 1809 JUNCTION 0.00 24.24 0 00:27 0 0.0229 0.000 2 JUNCTION 8.09 8.09 0 07:15 0.696 0.696 0.683 314 JUNCTION 0.00 35.01 0 00:59 0 8.21 0.204 6 OUTFALL 0.00 0.00 0 00:00 0 0 0.000 gal 9 OUTFALL 0.00 1.50 0 00:11 0 0.456 0.000 10 OUTFALL 0.00 36.99 0 04:49 0 8.2 0.000 7 STORAGE 0.00 96.62 0 07:15 0 10.7 -0.191 ********************** Node Surcharge Summary ********************** Surcharging occurs when water rises above the top of the highest conduit. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Max. Height Min. Depth Hours Above Crown Below Rim Node Type Surcharged Feet Feet --------------------------------------------------------------------- 2698 JUNCTION 0.10 1.401 14.599 2713 JUNCTION 5.77 3.747 10.593 2773 JUNCTION 2.26 1.598 7.252 2813 JUNCTION 1.76 1.377 8.973 2825 JUNCTION 1.08 0.410 8.060 3655 JUNCTION 3.81 7.860 0.000 3825 JUNCTION 1.55 6.500 0.000 4545 JUNCTION 3.78 7.990 0.000 4614 JUNCTION 4.01 8.066 0.000 11653 JUNCTION 2.60 2.013 7.587 11859 JUNCTION 6.01 7.902 0.000 11870 JUNCTION 6.22 10.190 0.000 1551 JUNCTION 10.31 5.018 11.002 You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) 1809 JUNCTION 10.91 15.710 0.000 ********************* Node Flooding Summary ********************* Flooding refers to all water that overflows a node, whether it ponds or not. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Maximum Maximum Time of Max Flood Ponded Hours Rate Occurrence Volume Depth Node Flooded CFS days hr:min 10^6 gal Feet -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3655 0.81 23.41 0 07:15 0.280 5.000 3825 0.01 7.71 0 06:55 0.000 5.000 4545 0.01 4.86 0 06:52 0.000 5.000 11870 0.42 12.81 0 07:15 0.074 5.000 1809 0.01 5.25 0 00:33 0.000 0.000 2 11.06 8.09 0 07:15 0.692 0.000 ********************** Storage Volume Summary ********************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------- Average Avg Evap Exfil Maximum Max Time of Max Maximum Volume Pcnt Pcnt Pcnt Volume Pcnt Occurrence Outflow Storage Unit 1000 ft3 Full Loss Loss 1000 ft3 Full days hr:min CFS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------- 7 132.079 29 0 0 404.265 89 0 10:05 35.01 *********************** Outfall Loading Summary *********************** ----------------------------------------------------------- Flow Avg Max Total Freq Flow Flow Volume Outfall Node Pcnt CFS CFS 10^6 gal ----------------------------------------------------------- You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 9 99.51 1.48 1.50 0.456 10 97.42 27.17 36.99 8.197 ----------------------------------------------------------- System 65.64 28.65 38.49 8.653 ******************** Link Flow Summary ******************** ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Time of Max Maximum Max/ Max/ |Flow| Occurrence |Veloc| Full Full Link Type CFS days hr:min ft/sec Flow Depth ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- SD_2863-3590 CONDUIT 34.44 0 07:15 12.53 0.27 0.45 SD-3590-3825 CONDUIT 34.13 0 07:15 9.89 0.35 0.77 SD-3825-3655 CONDUIT 34.13 0 07:15 4.83 0.94 1.00 SD-3655-4545 CONDUIT 21.58 0 06:56 3.05 1.30 1.00 SD-4545-4614 CONDUIT 21.57 0 06:56 3.08 1.13 1.00 SD-4614-11870 CONDUIT 30.01 0 06:56 4.25 0.70 1.00 SD-11870-11859 CONDUIT 63.52 0 06:56 8.99 22.69 1.00 SD-11859-2869 CONDUIT 63.51 0 06:56 8.98 3.62 1.00 SD-2869-11653 CONDUIT 62.37 0 07:14 3.92 1.14 1.00 SD-11653-2773 CONDUIT 62.37 0 07:13 3.92 0.62 1.00 SD-2773-2813 CONDUIT 62.37 0 07:13 3.92 1.11 1.00 SD-2813-2825 CONDUIT 62.37 0 07:13 5.17 0.94 1.00 SD-2825-2713 CONDUIT 34.27 0 07:15 5.48 1.01 1.00 SD-2713-2922 CONDUIT 34.43 0 07:15 4.87 1.26 1.00 SD-2698-2922 CONDUIT 36.48 0 07:15 13.65 0.68 0.80 SD-2922-1551 CONDUIT 38.92 0 00:26 8.27 0.43 1.00 SD-1551-1809 CONDUIT 24.24 0 00:27 6.36 0.18 1.00 48 CONDUIT 96.62 0 07:15 22.75 0.08 1.00 54 CONDUIT 36.99 0 04:49 29.49 0.02 0.09 43 ORIFICE 0.00 0 00:00 44 WEIR 0.00 0 00:00 0.00 51 DUMMY 35.01 0 00:59 52 DUMMY 1.50 0 00:11 *************************** Flow Classification Summary *************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - Adjusted ---------- Fraction of Time in Flow Class ---------- /Actual Up Down Sub Sup Up Down Norm You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) Inlet Conduit Length Dry Dry Dry Crit Crit Crit Crit Ltd Ctrl ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - SD_2863-3590 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.00 SD-3590-3825 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.04 0.00 0.77 0.18 0.00 SD-3825-3655 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.00 SD-3655-4545 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SD-4545-4614 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.00 0.00 SD-4614-11870 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 SD-11870-11859 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SD-11859-2869 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SD-2869-11653 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SD-11653-2773 1.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.98 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 SD-2773-2813 1.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SD-2813-2825 1.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SD-2825-2713 1.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 SD-2713-2922 1.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 SD-2698-2922 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 SD-2922-1551 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SD-1551-1809 1.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 48 1.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.04 0.00 0.62 0.00 0.00 54 1.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.97 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 ************************* Conduit Surcharge Summary ************************* ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) Hours Hours --------- Hours Full -------- Above Full Capacity Conduit Both Ends Upstream Dnstream Normal Flow Limited ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- SD-3590-3825 0.01 0.01 1.55 0.01 0.01 SD-3825-3655 2.71 2.71 3.81 0.01 0.16 SD-3655-4545 3.78 3.81 3.78 1.10 3.54 SD-4545-4614 3.78 3.78 4.01 0.25 1.17 SD-4614-11870 5.71 5.71 6.22 0.01 0.27 SD-11870-11859 6.01 6.22 6.01 11.34 6.01 SD-11859-2869 5.25 6.01 5.31 5.66 4.86 SD-2869-11653 2.34 2.41 2.60 1.18 1.56 SD-11653-2773 2.26 2.26 2.60 0.01 0.01 SD-2773-2813 1.36 2.26 1.76 0.93 0.37 SD-2813-2825 1.08 1.08 1.76 0.01 0.01 SD-2825-2713 2.36 2.36 5.77 0.04 0.01 SD-2713-2922 5.77 5.77 6.67 0.46 0.01 SD-2698-2922 0.01 0.10 0.01 0.01 0.01 SD-2922-1551 6.74 6.74 10.31 0.01 0.01 SD-1551-1809 10.31 10.31 10.91 0.01 0.01 48 1.08 1.08 2.73 0.01 0.01 Analysis begun on: Tue Aug 11 13:57:43 2020 Analysis ended on: Tue Aug 11 13:57:45 2020 Total elapsed time: 00:00:02 You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) EPA STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION 5.1 (Build 5.1.012) -------------------------------------------------------------- WARNING 04: minimum elevation drop used for Conduit SD-11870-11859 WARNING 03: negative offset ignored for Link 48 WARNING 04: minimum elevation drop used for Conduit 48 WARNING 03: negative offset ignored for Link 54 WARNING 03: negative offset ignored for Link 54 WARNING 03: negative offset ignored for Link 51 ********************************************************* NOTE: The summary statistics displayed in this report are based on results found at every computational time step, not just on results from each reporting time step. ********************************************************* **************** Analysis Options **************** Flow Units ............... CFS Process Models: Rainfall/Runoff ........ YES RDII ................... NO Snowmelt ............... NO Groundwater ............ NO Flow Routing ........... YES Ponding Allowed ........ NO Water Quality .......... NO Infiltration Method ...... HORTON Flow Routing Method ...... DYNWAVE Starting Date ............ 01/09/1990 00:00:00 Ending Date .............. 01/09/1990 11:30:00 Antecedent Dry Days ...... 0.0 Report Time Step ......... 00:15:00 Wet Time Step ............ 00:15:00 Dry Time Step ............ 00:15:00 Routing Time Step ........ 0.50 sec Variable Time Step ....... YES Maximum Trials ........... 8 Number of Threads ........ 1 Head Tolerance ........... 0.005000 ft ************************** Runoff Quantity Continuity ************************** Runoff supplied by interface file RM_future_vault6_S2G1E6.int ************************** Volume Volume You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) Alternative 3. Vault WWHM SWMM Report Flow Routing Continuity acre-feet 10^6 gal ************************** --------- --------- Dry Weather Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000 Wet Weather Inflow ....... 38.286 12.476 Groundwater Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000 RDII Inflow .............. 0.000 0.000 External Inflow .......... 0.000 0.000 External Outflow ......... 27.195 8.862 Flooding Loss ............ 3.325 1.083 Evaporation Loss ......... 0.000 0.000 Exfiltration Loss ........ 0.344 0.112 Initial Stored Volume .... 0.000 0.000 Final Stored Volume ...... 7.423 2.419 Continuity Error (%) ..... -0.002 ************************* Highest Continuity Errors ************************* Node 1551 (4.34%) *************************** Time-Step Critical Elements *************************** Link 48 (33.36%) ******************************** Highest Flow Instability Indexes ******************************** Link 48 (70) Link SD-2813-2825 (60) Link 51 (48) Link SD-2825-2713 (46) Link SD-1551-1809 (36) ************************* Routing Time Step Summary ************************* Minimum Time Step : 0.50 sec Average Time Step : 0.50 sec Maximum Time Step : 0.50 sec Percent in Steady State : 0.00 Average Iterations per Step : 4.01 Percent Not Converging : 19.54 *************************** Subcatchment Runoff Summary You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) *************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------- Total Total Total Total Total Total Peak Runoff Precip Runon Evap Infil Runoff Runoff Runoff Coeff Subcatchment in in in in in 10^6 gal CFS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------- Basin1(M)2863 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 Basin2(M)11870 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 Basin3(M)2698 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 Basin4(M)11870 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 Basin5(M)4614 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 Basin92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 ****************** Node Depth Summary ****************** --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average Maximum Maximum Time of Max Reported Depth Depth HGL Occurrence Max Depth Node Type Feet Feet Feet days hr:min Feet --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2698 JUNCTION 0.75 3.26 345.70 0 07:14 2.33 2713 JUNCTION 4.30 9.43 340.27 0 04:47 7.19 2773 JUNCTION 3.36 6.56 338.91 0 09:30 6.56 2813 JUNCTION 3.60 9.14 340.85 0 06:56 6.26 2825 JUNCTION 2.65 5.06 337.35 0 09:39 5.02 2863 JUNCTION 0.52 1.09 368.01 0 07:15 1.09 2869 JUNCTION 3.40 7.18 340.00 0 09:30 7.18 2922 JUNCTION 5.85 9.77 339.19 0 07:15 9.75 3590 JUNCTION 0.61 1.62 351.57 0 07:15 1.61 3655 JUNCTION 3.34 10.86 346.95 0 05:22 10.86 3825 JUNCTION 2.51 12.03 350.08 0 05:22 11.16 4545 JUNCTION 3.27 10.85 346.89 0 07:12 10.84 4614 JUNCTION 4.67 13.06 346.70 0 07:15 13.06 11653 JUNCTION 3.55 6.92 339.22 0 09:30 6.91 You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) 11859 JUNCTION 4.48 11.05 344.13 0 07:06 11.05 11870 JUNCTION 5.08 13.19 346.27 0 06:58 13.19 1551 JUNCTION 6.26 10.27 339.21 0 07:15 10.22 1809 JUNCTION 7.64 19.71 347.21 0 00:30 11.69 2 JUNCTION 48.99 50.24 335.10 0 00:26 50.24 314 JUNCTION 0.45 0.62 308.62 0 04:49 0.54 6 OUTFALL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00:00 0.00 9 OUTFALL 0.00 0.00 328.94 0 00:00 0.00 10 OUTFALL 0.45 0.54 300.54 0 04:54 0.53 7 STORAGE 1.55 4.82 337.21 0 09:45 4.82 ******************* Node Inflow Summary ******************* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------- Maximum Maximum Lateral Total Flow Lateral Total Time of Max Inflow Inflow Balance Inflow Inflow Occurrence Volume Volume Error Node Type CFS CFS days hr:min 10^6 gal 10^6 gal Percent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------- 2698 JUNCTION 36.48 36.48 0 07:15 3.47 3.47 0.016 2713 JUNCTION 0.00 34.59 0 07:15 0 2.94 0.567 2773 JUNCTION 0.00 62.62 0 07:20 0 7.85 0.313 2813 JUNCTION 0.00 62.66 0 07:20 0 7.83 0.545 2825 JUNCTION 0.00 97.12 0 07:19 0 10.6 0.218 2863 JUNCTION 34.44 34.44 0 07:15 2.81 2.81 0.012 2869 JUNCTION 0.00 62.60 0 06:55 0 7.9 0.289 2922 JUNCTION 0.00 36.48 0 07:15 0 3.49 0.753 3590 JUNCTION 0.00 34.44 0 07:15 0 2.81 0.081 3655 JUNCTION 0.00 34.13 0 07:15 0 2.8 0.081 3825 JUNCTION 0.00 34.13 0 07:15 0 You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) 2.8 -0.046 4545 JUNCTION 0.00 21.12 0 06:55 0 2.51 0.180 4614 JUNCTION 12.79 29.47 0 06:55 1.14 3.64 0.027 11653 JUNCTION 0.00 62.62 0 07:20 0 7.87 0.259 11859 JUNCTION 0.00 62.61 0 06:55 0 7.9 0.080 11870 JUNCTION 51.72 75.19 0 07:15 4.36 8 0.037 1551 JUNCTION 0.00 41.76 0 00:25 0 0.499 4.532 1809 JUNCTION 0.00 26.20 0 00:26 0 0.0209 0.000 2 JUNCTION 8.09 8.09 0 07:15 0.696 0.696 0.683 314 JUNCTION 0.00 36.30 0 03:29 0 8.41 0.021 6 OUTFALL 0.00 0.00 0 00:00 0 0 0.000 gal 9 OUTFALL 0.00 1.50 0 00:11 0 0.456 0.000 10 OUTFALL 0.00 38.18 0 04:54 0 8.41 0.000 7 STORAGE 0.00 160.64 0 06:59 0 10.6 -0.056 ********************** Node Surcharge Summary ********************** Surcharging occurs when water rises above the top of the highest conduit. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Max. Height Min. Depth Hours Above Crown Below Rim Node Type Surcharged Feet Feet --------------------------------------------------------------------- 2698 JUNCTION 0.04 1.265 14.735 2713 JUNCTION 7.22 6.433 7.907 2773 JUNCTION 3.65 2.004 6.846 2813 JUNCTION 4.39 4.639 5.711 2825 JUNCTION 1.48 0.458 7.912 3655 JUNCTION 3.95 7.860 0.000 3825 JUNCTION 1.75 6.500 0.000 4545 JUNCTION 3.95 7.849 0.000 4614 JUNCTION 4.07 8.067 0.000 11653 JUNCTION 4.04 2.419 7.181 11859 JUNCTION 6.37 8.048 0.000 11870 JUNCTION 6.53 10.190 0.000 You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) 1551 JUNCTION 10.86 6.265 9.755 1809 JUNCTION 10.98 15.710 0.000 ********************* Node Flooding Summary ********************* Flooding refers to all water that overflows a node, whether it ponds or not. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Maximum Maximum Time of Max Flood Ponded Hours Rate Occurrence Volume Depth Node Flooded CFS days hr:min 10^6 gal Feet -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3655 1.12 23.41 0 07:15 0.297 5.000 3825 0.01 8.73 0 06:55 0.000 5.000 11870 0.44 14.83 0 07:15 0.095 5.000 1809 0.01 9.14 0 00:30 0.000 0.000 2 11.06 8.09 0 07:15 0.692 0.000 ********************** Storage Volume Summary ********************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------- Average Avg Evap Exfil Maximum Max Time of Max Maximum Volume Pcnt Pcnt Pcnt Volume Pcnt Occurrence Outflow Storage Unit 1000 ft3 Full Loss Loss 1000 ft3 Full days hr:min CFS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------- 7 121.632 26 0 0 378.234 80 0 09:45 36.30 *********************** Outfall Loading Summary *********************** ----------------------------------------------------------- Flow Avg Max Total Freq Flow Flow Volume Outfall Node Pcnt CFS CFS 10^6 gal ----------------------------------------------------------- You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 9 99.51 1.48 1.50 0.456 10 97.15 27.94 38.18 8.405 ----------------------------------------------------------- System 65.55 29.42 39.68 8.861 ******************** Link Flow Summary ******************** ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Time of Max Maximum Max/ Max/ |Flow| Occurrence |Veloc| Full Full Link Type CFS days hr:min ft/sec Flow Depth ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- SD_2863-3590 CONDUIT 34.44 0 07:15 12.53 0.27 0.45 SD-3590-3825 CONDUIT 34.13 0 07:15 9.86 0.35 0.77 SD-3825-3655 CONDUIT 34.13 0 07:15 4.83 0.94 1.00 SD-3655-4545 CONDUIT 21.12 0 06:55 2.99 1.27 1.00 SD-4545-4614 CONDUIT 21.12 0 06:55 3.06 1.11 1.00 SD-4614-11870 CONDUIT 29.47 0 06:55 4.17 0.69 1.00 SD-11870-11859 CONDUIT 62.61 0 06:55 8.86 22.36 1.00 SD-11859-2869 CONDUIT 62.60 0 06:55 8.86 3.57 1.00 SD-2869-11653 CONDUIT 62.62 0 07:20 3.94 1.14 1.00 SD-11653-2773 CONDUIT 62.62 0 07:20 3.94 0.62 1.00 SD-2773-2813 CONDUIT 62.66 0 07:20 3.94 1.12 1.00 SD-2813-2825 CONDUIT 63.17 0 07:19 4.42 0.95 1.00 SD-2825-2713 CONDUIT 34.42 0 07:15 4.87 1.02 1.00 SD-2713-2922 CONDUIT 34.59 0 07:15 4.89 1.27 1.00 SD-2698-2922 CONDUIT 36.48 0 07:15 13.66 0.68 0.93 SD-2922-1551 CONDUIT 41.76 0 00:25 8.36 0.46 1.00 SD-1551-1809 CONDUIT 26.20 0 00:26 6.44 0.19 1.00 48 CONDUIT 160.64 0 06:59 22.39 6.28 1.00 54 CONDUIT 38.18 0 04:54 29.92 0.02 0.09 43 ORIFICE 0.00 0 00:00 44 WEIR 0.00 0 00:00 0.00 51 DUMMY 36.30 0 03:29 52 DUMMY 1.50 0 00:11 *************************** Flow Classification Summary *************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - Adjusted ---------- Fraction of Time in Flow Class ---------- /Actual Up Down Sub Sup Up Down Norm You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) Inlet Conduit Length Dry Dry Dry Crit Crit Crit Crit Ltd Ctrl ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - SD_2863-3590 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.00 SD-3590-3825 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.03 0.00 0.75 0.21 0.00 SD-3825-3655 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.00 SD-3655-4545 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SD-4545-4614 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.00 SD-4614-11870 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 SD-11870-11859 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SD-11859-2869 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SD-2869-11653 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SD-11653-2773 1.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.98 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 SD-2773-2813 1.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SD-2813-2825 1.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SD-2825-2713 1.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 SD-2713-2922 1.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 SD-2698-2922 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.97 0.00 0.00 SD-2922-1551 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SD-1551-1809 1.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 48 1.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 54 1.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.97 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 ************************* Conduit Surcharge Summary ************************* ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) Hours Hours --------- Hours Full -------- Above Full Capacity Conduit Both Ends Upstream Dnstream Normal Flow Limited ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- SD-3590-3825 0.01 0.01 1.75 0.01 0.01 SD-3825-3655 2.93 2.93 3.95 0.01 0.16 SD-3655-4545 3.94 3.95 3.95 0.98 3.69 SD-4545-4614 3.95 3.95 4.07 0.14 1.16 SD-4614-11870 6.09 6.09 6.53 0.01 0.16 SD-11870-11859 6.37 6.53 6.37 11.34 6.37 SD-11859-2869 5.76 6.37 5.76 5.65 5.03 SD-2869-11653 3.51 3.52 4.04 1.17 2.16 SD-11653-2773 3.65 3.65 4.04 0.01 0.01 SD-2773-2813 3.64 3.65 4.39 0.93 1.61 SD-2813-2825 1.65 1.65 4.39 0.01 0.01 SD-2825-2713 5.07 5.07 7.21 0.06 0.01 SD-2713-2922 7.21 7.21 10.64 0.45 0.01 SD-2698-2922 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01 SD-2922-1551 10.84 10.84 10.86 0.01 0.01 SD-1551-1809 10.86 10.86 10.98 0.01 0.01 48 1.24 1.48 1.24 4.87 1.24 Analysis begun on: Tue Aug 11 11:45:41 2020 Analysis ended on: Tue Aug 11 11:45:43 2020 Total elapsed time: 00:00:02 You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) EPA STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION 5.1 (Build 5.1.012) -------------------------------------------------------------- WARNING 04: minimum elevation drop used for Conduit SD-11870-11859 WARNING 02: maximum depth increased for Node 2863 WARNING 02: maximum depth increased for Node 3590 WARNING 02: maximum depth increased for Node 3825 WARNING 02: maximum depth increased for Node 114365 WARNING 02: maximum depth increased for Node 133030 ********************************************************* NOTE: The summary statistics displayed in this report are based on results found at every computational time step, not just on results from each reporting time step. ********************************************************* **************** Analysis Options **************** Flow Units ............... CFS Process Models: Rainfall/Runoff ........ YES RDII ................... NO Snowmelt ............... NO Groundwater ............ NO Flow Routing ........... YES Ponding Allowed ........ NO Water Quality .......... NO Infiltration Method ...... HORTON Flow Routing Method ...... DYNWAVE Starting Date ............ 01/09/1990 00:00:00 Ending Date .............. 01/09/1990 11:30:00 Antecedent Dry Days ...... 0.0 Report Time Step ......... 00:15:00 Wet Time Step ............ 00:15:00 Dry Time Step ............ 00:15:00 Routing Time Step ........ 3.00 sec Variable Time Step ....... YES Maximum Trials ........... 8 Number of Threads ........ 1 Head Tolerance ........... 0.005000 ft ************************** Runoff Quantity Continuity ************************** Runoff supplied by interface file RentonMonroe_future2006_Trunkline_Option100a_S2G1E6.int You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) Alternative 4. 4th/3rd Trunkline WWHM SWMM Report ************************** Volume Volume Flow Routing Continuity acre-feet 10^6 gal ************************** --------- --------- Dry Weather Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000 Wet Weather Inflow ....... 35.908 11.701 Groundwater Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000 RDII Inflow .............. 0.000 0.000 External Inflow .......... 0.000 0.000 External Outflow ......... 34.736 11.319 Flooding Loss ............ 0.254 0.083 Evaporation Loss ......... 0.000 0.000 Exfiltration Loss ........ 0.000 0.000 Initial Stored Volume .... 0.000 0.000 Final Stored Volume ...... 0.925 0.301 Continuity Error (%) ..... -0.019 ************************* Highest Continuity Errors ************************* Node 1551 (58.64%) *************************** Time-Step Critical Elements *************************** Link SD-11653-2773 (65.75%) Link SD-11870-11859 (9.50%) Link SD-3655-4545 (5.10%) Link 110240 (2.10%) ******************************** Highest Flow Instability Indexes ******************************** Link SD-1551-1809 (3) Link SD-2922-1551 (3) Link SD-11653-2773 (2) Link SD-11870-11859 (1) ************************* Routing Time Step Summary ************************* Minimum Time Step : 0.50 sec Average Time Step : 1.75 sec Maximum Time Step : 3.00 sec Percent in Steady State : -0.00 Average Iterations per Step : 2.12 Percent Not Converging : 1.05 You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) *************************** Subcatchment Runoff Summary *************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------- Total Total Total Total Total Total Peak Runoff Precip Runon Evap Infil Runoff Runoff Runoff Coeff Subcatchment in in in in in 10^6 gal CFS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------- Basin1(M)2863 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 Basin2(M)11870 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 Basin3(M)2698 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 Basin4(M)11870 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 Basin5(M)4614 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 ****************** Node Depth Summary ****************** --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average Maximum Maximum Time of Max Reported Depth Depth HGL Occurrence Max Depth Node Type Feet Feet Feet days hr:min Feet --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2698 JUNCTION 3.88 5.92 348.36 0 07:15 5.92 2713 JUNCTION 5.03 12.96 343.80 0 07:15 12.94 2773 JUNCTION 3.18 9.33 341.68 0 07:15 9.30 2813 JUNCTION 3.88 10.40 342.11 0 07:15 10.38 2825 JUNCTION 3.37 10.16 342.45 0 07:15 10.14 2863 JUNCTION 2.65 5.08 372.00 0 07:15 5.08 2869 JUNCTION 2.58 8.26 341.08 0 07:15 8.24 2922 JUNCTION 6.71 15.94 345.36 0 07:15 15.92 3590 JUNCTION 2.75 4.72 354.67 0 07:15 4.72 3655 JUNCTION 1.64 3.75 339.84 0 07:15 3.70 3825 JUNCTION 0.90 3.09 341.14 0 07:15 3.06 4545 JUNCTION 1.43 3.17 339.21 0 07:15 3.13 4614 JUNCTION 2.71 13.98 337.39 0 07:16 13.93 You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) 11653 JUNCTION 3.18 9.17 341.47 0 07:15 9.14 11859 JUNCTION 2.08 7.63 340.71 0 07:15 7.62 11870 JUNCTION 1.85 7.41 340.49 0 07:15 7.40 1551 JUNCTION 7.18 16.42 345.36 0 07:15 16.40 1809 JUNCTION 8.61 17.86 345.36 0 07:15 17.84 113018 JUNCTION 1.08 1.99 302.73 0 07:17 1.98 114150 JUNCTION 3.00 9.33 329.26 0 07:16 9.30 114158 JUNCTION 0.81 1.45 201.38 0 07:18 1.44 114368 JUNCTION 1.74 3.75 319.66 0 07:16 3.74 114365 JUNCTION 0.73 1.26 114.32 0 07:18 1.26 114151 JUNCTION 2.31 7.24 326.96 0 07:16 7.21 114372 JUNCTION 1.28 2.49 314.94 0 07:16 2.48 134787 JUNCTION 2.61 11.64 333.31 0 07:16 11.60 114373 JUNCTION 1.39 2.72 59.43 0 07:19 2.69 114157 JUNCTION 0.84 1.51 269.88 0 07:17 1.50 133030 JUNCTION 1.85 4.00 50.66 0 07:11 4.00 114153 JUNCTION 1.91 4.95 323.09 0 07:16 4.93 114366 JUNCTION 0.94 1.77 147.30 0 07:18 1.75 503195 JUNCTION 1.28 2.48 42.48 0 07:10 2.41 6 OUTFALL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00:00 0.00 PrivateSWOutfall OUTFALL 1.01 1.72 33.72 0 07:10 1.69 2 STORAGE 0.01 0.02 284.88 0 07:24 0.02 ******************* Node Inflow Summary ******************* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------- Maximum Maximum Lateral Total Flow Lateral Total Time of Max Inflow Inflow Balance Inflow Inflow Occurrence Volume Volume Error Node Type CFS CFS days hr:min 10^6 gal 10^6 gal Percent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------- 2698 JUNCTION 36.44 36.44 0 07:15 3.46 3.46 0.020 2713 JUNCTION 0.00 36.25 0 07:15 0 3.41 0.548 2773 JUNCTION 0.00 36.25 0 07:15 0 3.37 0.283 2813 JUNCTION 0.00 36.25 0 07:15 0 3.39 0.664 2825 JUNCTION 0.00 36.25 0 07:15 0 You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) 3.39 0.363 2863 JUNCTION 34.44 34.44 0 07:15 2.81 2.81 0.009 2869 JUNCTION 0.00 36.28 0 07:15 0 3.37 0.230 2922 JUNCTION 0.00 36.44 0 07:15 0 3.46 0.600 3590 JUNCTION 0.00 34.44 0 07:15 0 2.81 0.012 3655 JUNCTION 0.00 34.18 0 07:15 0 2.8 0.073 3825 JUNCTION 0.00 34.43 0 07:15 0 2.8 0.030 4545 JUNCTION 0.00 34.00 0 07:16 0 2.8 0.092 4614 JUNCTION 12.77 118.54 0 07:15 1.14 11.5 0.033 11653 JUNCTION 0.00 36.24 0 07:15 0 3.37 0.237 11859 JUNCTION 0.00 32.17 0 07:26 0 3.3 0.050 11870 JUNCTION 51.51 74.43 0 07:05 4.3 7.57 0.012 1551 JUNCTION 0.00 4.20 0 00:26 0 0.0387 141.802 1809 JUNCTION 0.00 2.82 0 00:16 0 0.015 0.000 113018 JUNCTION 0.00 118.07 0 07:17 0 11.5 0.048 114150 JUNCTION 0.00 118.07 0 07:16 0 11.5 0.043 114158 JUNCTION 0.00 118.06 0 07:17 0 11.4 0.037 114368 JUNCTION 0.00 118.07 0 07:16 0 11.5 0.036 114365 JUNCTION 0.00 118.05 0 07:18 0 11.4 0.022 114151 JUNCTION 0.00 118.07 0 07:16 0 11.5 0.030 114372 JUNCTION 0.00 118.06 0 07:16 0 11.5 0.037 134787 JUNCTION 0.00 118.07 0 07:16 0 11.5 0.042 114373 JUNCTION 0.00 118.05 0 07:18 0 11.4 0.073 114157 JUNCTION 0.00 118.06 0 07:17 0 11.4 0.044 133030 JUNCTION 0.00 117.98 0 07:19 0 11.4 0.149 114153 JUNCTION 0.00 118.07 0 07:16 0 11.5 0.038 You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) 114366 JUNCTION 0.00 118.06 0 07:18 0 11.4 0.030 503195 JUNCTION 0.00 110.07 0 07:10 0 11.3 0.065 6 OUTFALL 0.00 0.00 0 00:00 0 0 0.000 gal PrivateSWOutfall OUTFALL 0.00 109.76 0 07:10 0 11.3 0.000 2 STORAGE 0.00 15.24 0 07:15 0 0.0716 0.003 ********************** Node Surcharge Summary ********************** Surcharging occurs when water rises above the top of the highest conduit. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Max. Height Min. Depth Hours Above Crown Below Rim Node Type Surcharged Feet Feet --------------------------------------------------------------------- 2713 JUNCTION 10.58 9.961 4.379 2773 JUNCTION 1.44 5.267 4.083 2813 JUNCTION 3.49 6.403 4.447 2825 JUNCTION 2.14 6.159 2.811 2922 JUNCTION 0.83 6.900 2.680 4545 JUNCTION 0.13 0.171 2.819 11653 JUNCTION 1.49 5.172 4.928 11859 JUNCTION 0.92 4.632 0.368 11870 JUNCTION 0.75 4.405 0.785 1551 JUNCTION 10.79 12.422 3.598 1809 JUNCTION 10.98 13.864 1.846 114150 JUNCTION 1.61 5.332 2.318 114151 JUNCTION 0.74 3.243 5.057 134787 JUNCTION 1.36 7.644 5.396 133030 JUNCTION 0.34 0.000 0.000 114153 JUNCTION 0.45 0.948 2.032 ********************* Node Flooding Summary ********************* Flooding refers to all water that overflows a node, whether it ponds or not. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Maximum Maximum Time of Max Flood Ponded Hours Rate Occurrence Volume Depth Node Flooded CFS days hr:min 10^6 gal Feet -------------------------------------------------------------------------- You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) 133030 0.34 12.08 0 07:19 0.083 0.000 ********************** Storage Volume Summary ********************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------- Average Avg Evap Exfil Maximum Max Time of Max Maximum Volume Pcnt Pcnt Pcnt Volume Pcnt Occurrence Outflow Storage Unit 1000 ft3 Full Loss Loss 1000 ft3 Full days hr:min CFS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------- 2 4.397 0 0 0 9.577 0 0 07:24 0.00 *********************** Outfall Loading Summary *********************** ----------------------------------------------------------- Flow Avg Max Total Freq Flow Flow Volume Outfall Node Pcnt CFS CFS 10^6 gal ----------------------------------------------------------- 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 PrivateSWOutfall 98.67 44.86 109.76 11.318 ----------------------------------------------------------- System 49.33 44.86 109.76 11.318 ******************** Link Flow Summary ******************** ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Time of Max Maximum Max/ Max/ |Flow| Occurrence |Veloc| Full Full Link Type CFS days hr:min ft/sec Flow Depth ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- SD_2863-3590 CONDUIT 9.21 0 06:48 11.84 0.91 1.00 SD-3590-3825 CONDUIT 8.21 0 07:15 10.45 1.06 1.00 SD-3825-3655 CONDUIT 34.18 0 07:15 4.84 0.63 1.00 SD-3655-4545 CONDUIT 34.00 0 07:16 4.81 1.37 1.00 You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) SD-4545-4614 CONDUIT 34.02 0 07:16 5.51 1.19 0.82 SD-4614-11870 CONDUIT 74.37 0 07:05 11.46 0.83 1.00 SD-11870-11859 CONDUIT 32.18 0 07:26 4.55 7.66 1.00 SD-11859-2869 CONDUIT 32.17 0 07:26 4.55 1.22 1.00 SD-2869-11653 CONDUIT 36.28 0 07:15 2.89 0.61 1.00 SD-11653-2773 CONDUIT 36.24 0 07:15 2.88 0.33 1.00 SD-2773-2813 CONDUIT 36.25 0 07:15 2.88 0.59 1.00 SD-2813-2825 CONDUIT 36.25 0 07:15 2.88 0.50 1.00 SD-2825-2713 CONDUIT 36.25 0 07:15 5.13 0.71 1.00 SD-2713-2922 CONDUIT 36.25 0 07:15 5.13 1.60 1.00 SD-2698-2922 CONDUIT 8.38 0 06:57 10.67 1.18 1.00 SD-2922-1551 CONDUIT 3.74 0 00:21 2.98 0.05 1.00 SD-1551-1809 CONDUIT 2.82 0 00:16 2.26 0.02 1.00 110240 CONDUIT 118.07 0 07:16 9.40 1.08 1.00 120319 CONDUIT 118.07 0 07:16 9.40 1.07 1.00 110141 CONDUIT 118.07 0 07:16 9.49 0.79 0.97 333 CONDUIT 118.07 0 07:16 9.40 1.08 1.00 110238 CONDUIT 118.07 0 07:16 9.40 1.07 1.00 110147 CONDUIT 118.06 0 07:16 11.25 0.73 0.78 110856 CONDUIT 118.05 0 07:18 27.05 0.27 0.38 345 CONDUIT 117.98 0 07:19 10.82 0.70 0.84 403 CONDUIT 109.76 0 07:10 16.45 0.38 0.52 404 CONDUIT 110.07 0 07:10 10.67 0.90 0.81 405 CONDUIT 118.06 0 07:18 25.00 0.25 0.40 406 CONDUIT 118.05 0 07:18 18.92 0.22 0.50 407 CONDUIT 118.06 0 07:17 27.94 0.26 0.37 408 CONDUIT 118.06 0 07:17 22.36 0.38 0.44 409 CONDUIT 118.07 0 07:17 16.30 0.49 0.56 43 ORIFICE 0.00 0 00:00 44 WEIR 15.24 0 07:15 0.19 410 WEIR 31.74 0 07:15 0.48 411 WEIR 25.23 0 07:15 0.42 412 WEIR 26.23 0 07:15 0.43 413 WEIR 0.00 0 00:00 0.00 *************************** Flow Classification Summary *************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - Adjusted ---------- Fraction of Time in Flow Class ---------- /Actual Up Down Sub Sup Up Down Norm Inlet Conduit Length Dry Dry Dry Crit Crit Crit Crit Ltd Ctrl ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) - SD_2863-3590 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 SD-3590-3825 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 SD-3825-3655 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.91 0.00 SD-3655-4545 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SD-4545-4614 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 SD-4614-11870 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.96 0.00 0.00 SD-11870-11859 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SD-11859-2869 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SD-2869-11653 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 SD-11653-2773 1.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SD-2773-2813 1.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 SD-2813-2825 1.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SD-2825-2713 1.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 SD-2713-2922 1.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SD-2698-2922 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.00 SD-2922-1551 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SD-1551-1809 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 110240 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 120319 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 110141 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 333 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 110238 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 110147 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 110856 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 345 1.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.00 You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) 403 1.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 404 1.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 405 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 406 1.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.98 0.00 407 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 408 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 409 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ************************* Conduit Surcharge Summary ************************* ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hours Hours --------- Hours Full -------- Above Full Capacity Conduit Both Ends Upstream Dnstream Normal Flow Limited ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- SD_2863-3590 4.76 4.76 5.44 0.01 4.01 SD-3590-3825 4.92 5.44 4.92 4.92 4.92 SD-3825-3655 0.04 0.04 0.43 0.01 0.01 SD-3655-4545 0.13 0.43 0.13 0.48 0.13 SD-4545-4614 0.01 0.13 0.01 0.33 0.01 SD-4614-11870 0.37 0.75 0.37 0.01 0.37 SD-11870-11859 0.75 0.75 0.92 10.02 0.01 SD-11859-2869 0.92 0.92 2.45 0.46 0.01 SD-2869-11653 0.78 0.78 1.49 0.01 0.01 SD-11653-2773 1.44 1.44 1.49 0.01 0.64 SD-2773-2813 1.44 1.44 3.49 0.01 0.01 SD-2813-2825 2.14 2.14 3.49 0.01 0.01 SD-2825-2713 4.49 4.49 10.58 0.01 0.01 SD-2713-2922 10.58 10.58 10.68 0.96 0.01 SD-2698-2922 5.97 7.31 5.97 5.51 5.66 SD-2922-1551 10.70 10.70 10.79 0.01 0.01 SD-1551-1809 10.79 10.79 10.98 0.01 0.01 110240 0.74 1.61 0.74 0.38 0.74 120319 1.36 1.36 1.61 0.37 1.06 110141 0.01 0.45 0.01 0.01 0.01 333 1.29 1.29 1.36 0.38 1.09 110238 0.45 0.74 0.45 0.37 0.45 345 0.01 0.01 0.34 0.01 0.01 404 0.01 0.34 0.01 0.01 0.01 You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) Analysis begun on: Tue May 12 14:54:50 2020 Analysis ended on: Tue May 12 14:54:51 2020 Total elapsed time: 00:00:01 You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com) Appendix F Environmental Site Assessment Submitted Under Separate Cover Appendix G Critical Area Report Submitted Under Separate Cover Appendix H Preliminary Plans Submitted Under Separate Cover