The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRES 4478 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 4478 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE CITY OF RENTON LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN FINAL JULY 2022. WHEREAS, the City of Renton Long Range Wastewater Management Plan Final July 2022 ("Plan") documents the current status of the City's wastewater system and evaluates future needs of the wastewater utility and will be used as a guide in maintaining and improving the wastewater system for the next 20 years; and WHEREAS, the Plan was prepared in accordance with requirements of Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-240-050, which is administered by the Washington State Department of Ecology, and meets the requirements of the Growth Management Act; and WHEREAS, the Plan was reviewed by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee, which issued a Determination of Non-Significance on June 17, 2021; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Environmental Determination was made public, and no comments or appeals were received during the public comment and appeal periods, which ended July 1, 2021; and WHEREAS, the Plan was presented to the Renton City Council, discussed at a meeting of the Utilities Committee, and recommended for adoption by the full City Council; and WHEREAS, the Plan is compatible with the intent of the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: 1 RESOLUTION NO. 4478 SECTION I. The City Council hereby adopts the Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by this reference. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 19th day of September, 2022. Jason A. Seth, Cit lerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 19th day of September, 2022. Ar n Pa ne, Mayor % Approved as to form: % OF , id• "s SEAL Shane Moloney, City Attorney yo41,,,°++i,,,,,N,,,,``;CO` 4`.: 8E5.1918:8/25/2022 �+�++n►►►n��ATEO �� 2 Exhibit A City of Renton Long-Range Wastewater Management Plan Final July 2022 RESOLUTION NO. 4478 CITY OF RENTON LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN FINAL | July 2022 MAYOR Armondo Pavone CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER Ed VanValey PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATOR Martin Pastucha UTILITY SYSTEMS DIRECTOR Ron Straka WASTEWATER UTILITY SYSTEMS DIVISION STAFF Joseph Stowell Michael Benoit John Hobson Don Ellis Rick Moreno MAINTENANCE SERVICES DIVISION STAFF Nathan Nelson Rocky Sittner CITY COUNCIL James Alberson, Jr. Ryan McIrvin Valerie O’Halloran Ruth Pérez Edward Prince Carmen Rivera Kim-Khánh Văn PREPARED BY City of Renton with the assistance of Carollo Engineers, Inc. CONTENTS | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY ͮͬͮͮ | i pw:\\Carollo\Documents\Client/WA/Renton/͵͵ͳͭAͬͬ/Deliverables/Long‐Range WW MP\ Contents Executive Summary ES.ͭ Introduction ES‐ͭ ES.ͮ Overview of Existing Sewer System ES‐ͭ ES.ͯ Operational Policies and Criteria ES‐ͭ ES.Ͱ Planning Considerations ES‐ͮ ES.ͱ System Analysis and Results ES‐ͮ ES.ͱ.ͭ Hydraulic Modeling Overview ES‐ͱ ES.ͱ.ͮ Capacity Criteria ES‐Ͳ ES.ͱ.ͯ Capacity Evaluation ES‐Ͳ ES.Ͳ Replacement and Rehabilitation Program ES‐Ͳ ES.ͳ Operations and Maintenance ES‐ͳ ES.ʹ Capital Improvement Program ES‐ͳ ES.͵ Financial Analysis ES‐ʹ Chapter 1 - Introduction ͭ.ͭ Introduction ͭ‐ͭ ͭ.ͮ Background and Goals ͭ‐ͭ ͭ.ͯ Referenced Documents ͭ‐ͮ ͭ.Ͱ Washington State Requirements ͭ‐ͮ ͭ.ͱ Report Organization ͭ‐ͱ ͭ.Ͳ Key Issues ͭ‐ͳ ͭ.ͳ SEPA and Approval Process ͭ‐ͳ ͭ.ʹ Acknowledgements ͭ‐ͳ Chapter 2 - Overview of Existing Sewer System ͮ.ͭ Overview of Existing System ͮ‐ͭ ͮ.ͮ System Components ͮ‐ͭ ͮ.ͯ Wastewater Collection Basins ͮ‐ͱ ͮ.ͯ.ͭ West Cedar River Basin ͮ‐ͱ ͮ.ͯ.ͮ East Cedar River Basin ͮ‐ͱ ͮ.ͯ.ͯ East Lake Washington Basin ͮ‐ͱ ͮ.ͯ.Ͱ Black River Basin ͮ‐͵ CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CONTENTS ii | JULY ͮͬͮͮ | FINAL ͮ.ͯ.ͱ Downtown Basin ͮ‐͵ ͮ.ͯ.Ͳ May Valley Basin ͮ‐͵ ͮ.Ͱ Interceptors and Collection Systems ͮ‐͵ ͮ.Ͱ.ͭ Existing Sewer System ͮ‐͵ ͮ.Ͱ.ͮ Interceptors ͮ‐ͭͬ ͮ.ͱ Lift Stations and Force Mains ͮ‐ͭͬ ͮ.ͱ.ͭ Airport Lift Station ͮ‐ͭͯ ͮ.ͱ.ͮ Baxter Lift Station ͮ‐ͭͯ ͮ.ͱ.ͯ Cottonwood Lift Station ͮ‐ͭͯ ͮ.ͱ.Ͱ Devil's Elbow Lift Station ͮ‐ͭͯ ͮ.ͱ.ͱ East Valley Lift Station ͮ‐ͭͯ ͮ.ͱ.Ͳ Falcon Ridge Lift Station ͮ‐ͭͰ ͮ.ͱ.ͳ Kensington Crest Lift Station ͮ‐ͭͰ ͮ.ͱ.ʹ Lake Washington Beach Lift Station ͮ‐ͭͰ ͮ.ͱ.͵ Lake Washington Flush Lift Station ͮ‐ͭͰ ͮ.ͱ.ͭͬ Lake Washington No. ͮ Lift Station ͮ‐ͭͰ ͮ.ͱ.ͭͭ Liberty Lift Station ͮ‐ͭͰ ͮ.ͱ.ͭͮ Lind Avenue Lift Station ͮ‐ͭͰ ͮ.ͱ.ͭͯ Long Lift Station ͮ‐ͭͰ ͮ.ͱ.ͭͰ Misty Cove Lift Station ͮ‐ͭͱ ͮ.ͱ.ͭͱ Pipers Bluff Lift Station ͮ‐ͭͱ ͮ.ͱ.ͭͲ Shy Creek Lift Station ͮ‐ͭͱ ͮ.ͱ.ͭͳ Stone Gate Lift Station ͮ‐ͭͱ ͮ.ͱ.ͭʹ Talbot Crest Lift Station ͮ‐ͭͱ ͮ.ͱ.ͭ͵ Wedgewood Lift Station ͮ‐ͭͱ ͮ.ͱ.ͮͬ Westview Lift Station ͮ‐ͭͱ ͮ.ͱ.ͮͭ Force Mains ͮ‐ͭ͵ ͮ.Ͳ Water System ͮ‐ͭ͵ ͮ.ͳ Operation and Maintenance ͮ‐ͮͬ Chapter 3 - Operational Policies and Criteria ͯ.ͭ Introduction ͯ‐ͭ ͯ.ͮ Operational Goal ͯ‐ͭ CONTENTS | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY ͮͬͮͮ | iii ͯ.ͯ Customer Service Objective ͯ‐ͮ ͯ.ͯ.ͭ Policies ͯ‐ͮ ͯ.ͯ.ͮ Implementation ͯ‐ͮ ͯ.Ͱ Planning Objective ͯ‐ͯ ͯ.Ͱ.ͭ Policies ͯ‐Ͱ ͯ.ͱ Service Area and Extension Objectives ͯ‐ͱ ͯ.ͱ.ͭ Policies ͯ‐ͱ ͯ.ͱ.ͮ Implementation ͯ‐Ͳ ͯ.Ͳ Financial Objective ͯ‐ͳ ͯ.Ͳ.ͭ Policies ͯ‐ͳ ͯ.Ͳ.ͮ Implementation ͯ‐ʹ ͯ.ͳ Facility Objective ͯ‐ʹ ͯ.ͳ.ͭ Policies ͯ‐ʹ ͯ.ͳ.ͮ Implementation ͯ‐͵ ͯ.ͳ.ͯ Analysis and Design Criteria ͯ‐ͭͬ ͯ.ʹ Operations Objective ͯ‐ͭͰ ͯ.ʹ.ͭ Policies ͯ‐ͭͰ ͯ.ʹ.ͮ Implementation ͯ‐ͭͲ ͯ.͵ Recommendations ͯ‐ͭͲ Chapter 4 - Planning Considerations Ͱ.ͭ Introduction Ͱ‐ͭ Ͱ.ͮ Basis of Planning Ͱ‐ͭ Ͱ.ͯ Planning Area Ͱ‐ͭ Ͱ.ͯ.ͭ Existing Service Area Ͱ‐ͮ Ͱ.ͯ.ͮ Potential Annexation Areas Ͱ‐ͮ Ͱ.Ͱ Land Use Ͱ‐ͳ Ͱ.Ͱ.ͭ City of Renton Land Use Ͱ‐ͳ Ͱ.Ͱ.ͮ City of Renton Land Use Designations Ͱ‐͵ Ͱ.Ͱ.ͯ School Designations Ͱ‐ͭͯ Ͱ.Ͱ.Ͱ Land Use Outside Renton’s PAA Ͱ‐ͭͰ Ͱ.Ͱ.ͱ Adjacent Utility Systems/Joint Use, Service Agreements, and Related Plans Ͱ‐ͭͱ CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CONTENTS iv | JULY ͮͬͮͮ | FINAL Ͱ.ͱ Demographic Analysis Ͱ‐ͭ͵ Ͱ.ͱ.ͭ Residential Population Projections Ͱ‐ͭ͵ Ͱ.ͱ.ͮ Employment Ͱ‐ͮͬ Ͱ.ͱ.ͯ Schools Ͱ‐ͮͭ Ͱ.Ͳ Sewer Collection System Flow Components Ͱ‐ͮͳ Ͱ.Ͳ.ͭ Dry Weather Flow Components Ͱ‐ͮͳ Ͱ.Ͳ.ͮ Wet Weather Flow Components Ͱ‐ͮͳ Ͱ.ͳ Flow Monitoring Ͱ‐ͮʹ Ͱ.ʹ Average Dry Weather Flow Ͱ‐ͮʹ Ͱ.ʹ.ͭ Average Dry Weather Flow Development Ͱ‐ͮ͵ Ͱ.͵ Wet Weather Flows Ͱ‐ͯͬ Ͱ.͵.ͭ Rainfall Data Ͱ‐ͯͬ Ͱ.͵.ͮ Wet Weather Flow Data Ͱ‐ͯͬ Ͱ.ͭͬ Projected Flows Ͱ‐ͯͬ Chapter 5 - System Analysis and Results ͱ.ͭ Introduction ͱ‐ͭ ͱ.ͮ System‐Wide Concerns ͱ‐ͭ ͱ.ͮ.ͭ King County‐Interceptor Surcharging ͱ‐ͭ ͱ.ͮ.ͮ Adjacent Utility Systems ͱ‐ͮ ͱ.ͮ.ͯ Hazard Mitigation Plan ͱ‐ͮ ͱ.ͮ.Ͱ Septic Systems ͱ‐ͮ ͱ.ͮ.ͱ Wastewater Quality ͱ‐ͮ ͱ.ͮ.Ͳ Wastewater Quality Analysis and Recommendations ͱ‐ͳ ͱ.ͮ.ͳ Aging Sanitary Sewers ͱ‐ʹ ͱ.ͮ.ʹ Infiltration and Inflow ͱ‐ʹ ͱ.ͮ.͵ Other Concerns ͱ‐͵ ͱ.ͯ Hydraulic Model ͱ‐͵ ͱ.ͯ.ͭ Model Development and Calibration ͱ‐ͭͯ ͱ.ͯ.ͮ Model Evaluation Results ͱ‐ͭͯ ͱ.Ͱ Capacity Evaluation ͱ‐ͭͱ ͱ.Ͱ.ͭ Analysis Criteria ͱ‐ͭͲ ͱ.Ͱ.ͮ Design Storm ͱ‐ͭͲ CONTENTS | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY ͮͬͮͮ | v ͱ.Ͱ.ͯ Capacity Evaluation Results ͱ‐ͭʹ ͱ.Ͱ.Ͱ Lift Station Capacity ͱ‐ͭʹ ͱ.Ͱ.ͱ Collection System Capacity ͱ‐ͭ͵ ͱ.ͱ Recommendations ͱ‐ͮͳ ͱ.ͱ.ͭ Piping Reconfiguration ͱ‐ͯͬ ͱ.ͱ.ͮ I/I Evaluation ͱ‐ͯͬ ͱ.ͱ.ͯ Programmatic Upsizing ͱ‐ͯͭ ͱ.ͱ.Ͱ Additional Long‐Term Flow Monitoring ͱ‐ͯͭ Chapter 6 - Replacement and Rehabilitation Program Ͳ.ͭ Introduction Ͳ‐ͭ Ͳ.ͮ Replacement and Rehabilitation Plan Goals Ͳ‐ͭ Ͳ.ͮ.ͭ Prioritizing Using Risk Ͳ‐ͭ Ͳ.ͯ Lift Station and Force Main Current R&R Program Ͳ‐ͮ Ͳ.Ͱ Force Main R&R Ͳ‐ͮ Ͳ.Ͱ.ͭ Force Main Criteria Ͳ‐ͮ Ͳ.Ͱ.ͮ Force Main Risk Assessment Ͳ‐ͯ Ͳ.Ͱ.ͯ Force Main Recommendations Ͳ‐ͯ Ͳ.ͱ Lift Station R&R Ͳ‐Ͱ Ͳ.ͱ.ͭ Lift Station Criteria Ͳ‐Ͱ Ͳ.ͱ.ͮ Lift Station Criticality Assessment Ͳ‐ͱ Ͳ.ͱ.ͯ Lift Station Vulnerability Assessment Ͳ‐ͱ Ͳ.ͱ.Ͱ Lift Station Risk Assessment Ͳ‐ͳ Ͳ.ͱ.ͱ Risk Based Lift Station Recommendations Ͳ‐ͳ Ͳ.ͱ.Ͳ Rehabilitation Improvements Ͳ‐ͳ Ͳ.Ͳ Gravity Sewer System R&R Ͳ‐ͭͮ Ͳ.Ͳ.ͭ Gravity Sewer Main Criteria Ͳ‐ͭͮ Ͳ.Ͳ.ͮ Gravity Sewer Criticality Assessment Ͳ‐ͭͱ Ͳ.Ͳ.ͯ Gravity Sewer Vulnerability Assessment Ͳ‐ͭͱ Ͳ.Ͳ.Ͱ Gravity Sewer Mains Risk Assessment Ͳ‐ͮͳ CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CONTENTS vi | JULY ͮͬͮͮ | FINAL Ͳ.ͳ Recommended R&R Program Ͳ‐ͮʹ Ͳ.ͳ.ͭ Force Mains Ͳ‐ͮʹ Ͳ.ͳ.ͮ Lift Stations Ͳ‐ͮʹ Ͳ.ͳ.ͯ Gravity Sewer System Ͳ‐ͮʹ Chapter 7 - Operations and Maintenance ͳ.ͭ Introduction ͳ‐ͭ ͳ.ͮ Operations and Maintenance Programs ͳ‐ͭ ͳ.ͯ Organization ͳ‐ͮ ͳ.ͯ.ͭ Wastewater Maintenance Services ͳ‐ͮ ͳ.ͯ.ͮ Wastewater Utility Services ͳ‐ͮ ͳ.ͯ.ͯ Communication ͳ‐ͮ ͳ.ͯ.Ͱ Divisional Coordination ͳ‐ͯ ͳ.Ͱ Wastewater Operations Master Plan ͳ‐ͯ ͳ.ͱ Systems Inventory and Information Management ͳ‐ͯ ͳ.ͱ.ͭ Information Management System ͳ‐ͯ ͳ.ͱ.ͮ Business Process ͳ‐Ͳ ͳ.Ͳ Collection System Maintenance ͳ‐Ͳ ͳ.Ͳ.ͭ Maintenance Priorities ͳ‐ͳ ͳ.Ͳ.ͮ Manhole Inspection and Maintenance ͳ‐ͳ ͳ.Ͳ.ͯ CCTV Inspection ͳ‐ͳ ͳ.Ͳ.Ͱ Root Cutting ͳ‐͵ ͳ.Ͳ.ͱ Grease Removal ͳ‐͵ ͳ.Ͳ.Ͳ Hydraulic Line Cleaning ͳ‐͵ ͳ.Ͳ.ͳ Repair Sewers and Clear Plugs ͳ‐ͭͬ ͳ.Ͳ.ʹ Easements and Access Road Maintenance ͳ‐ͭͬ ͳ.ͳ Lift Station Operations and Maintenance ͳ‐ͭͬ ͳ.ͳ.ͭ Lift Station Inspection and Maintenance ͳ‐ͭͬ ͳ.ͳ.ͮ Telemetry (SCADA) ͳ‐ͭͭ ͳ.ʹ Predictive Repair and Replacement Program ͳ‐ͭͭ ͳ.͵ Emergency Response ͳ‐ͭͭ ͳ.ͭͬ FOG Source Control ͳ‐ͭͭ ͳ.ͭͭ System Infrastructure Capacity ͳ‐ͭͮ CONTENTS | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY ͮͬͮͮ | vii ͳ.ͭͮ Design and Construction ͳ‐ͭͮ ͳ.ͭͮ.ͭ Design ͳ‐ͭͮ ͳ.ͭͮ.ͮ Construction ͳ‐ͭͯ ͳ.ͭͮ.ͯ Inspection ͳ‐ͭͯ ͳ.ͭͯ Legal Authority ͳ‐ͭͯ ͳ.ͭͰ Safety, Training, and Certification ͳ‐ͭͯ ͳ.ͭͱ Interagency Coordination ͳ‐ͭͯ ͳ.ͭͲ Financial Program ͳ‐ͭͰ ͳ.ͭͳ Administrative Duties and Facility/Equipment Maintenance ͳ‐ͭͰ ͳ.ͭͳ.ͭ Administrative Duties ͳ‐ͭͰ ͳ.ͭͳ.ͮ Tools and Equipment ͳ‐ͭͰ ͳ.ͭʹ Work Force Estimates ͳ‐ͭͰ ͳ.ͭʹ.ͭ Future Resource Recommendations ͳ‐ͭͱ ͳ.ͭʹ.ͮ Emergency Operations ͳ‐ͭͱ ͳ.ͭʹ.ͯ Maintenance Services Staffing ͳ‐ͭͱ ͳ.ͭʹ.Ͱ Wastewater Utility Engineering Staff ͳ‐ͭͳ ͳ.ͭ͵ Recommendations ͳ‐ͭʹ Chapter 8 - Capital Improvement Program ʹ.ͭ Introduction ʹ‐ͭ ʹ.ͮ Cost Estimating Assumptions ʹ‐ͭ ʹ.ͮ.ͭ Baseline Cost Assumptions ʹ‐ͭ ʹ.ͮ.ͮ Total Capital Improvement Cost ʹ‐ͯ ʹ.ͯ Capital Improvement Program ʹ‐ͯ ʹ.ͯ.ͭ Planning Periods ʹ‐Ͱ ʹ.ͯ.ͮ Project and Program Naming ʹ‐Ͱ ʹ.ͯ.ͯ Project Types ʹ‐Ͱ ʹ.ͯ.Ͱ Capital Improvement Program by Year ʹ‐Ͱ ʹ.Ͱ Lift Station Projects ʹ‐ͳ ʹ.Ͱ.ͭ LS‐ͬͭ: Lift Station Rehabilitation ʹ‐ͳ ʹ.Ͱ.ͮ LS‐ͬͮ: Force Main Rehabilitation/Replacement ʹ‐ͳ ʹ.Ͱ.ͯ LS‐ͬͯ: Telemetry Upgrade ʹ‐ͳ ʹ.Ͱ.Ͱ LS‐ͬͰ: Devil’s Elbow Stream Bank Study ʹ‐ͳ CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CONTENTS viii | JULY ͮͬͮͮ | FINAL ʹ.Ͱ.ͱ LS‐ͬͱ: Kennydale Lake Line Sewer Upgrade ʹ‐ͳ ʹ.Ͱ.Ͳ LS‐ͬͲ: Kennydale Lake Line Renewal ʹ‐ʹ ʹ.Ͱ.ͳ LS‐ͬͳ Low and Moderately‐Low Risk Lift Station and Force Main Rehabilitation ʹ‐ʹ ʹ.Ͱ.ʹ LS‐ͬʹ: Moderately‐High and High Risk Lift Station and Force Main Rehabilitation ʹ‐ʹ ʹ.ͱ Pipeline Projects ʹ‐͵ ʹ.ͱ.ͭ Sanitary Sewer Main Replacement/Rehabilitation ʹ‐͵ ʹ.ͱ.ͮ P‐ͬͭ: ͮͬͮͬ Sanitary Sewer Main Replacement/Rehabilitation ʹ‐͵ ʹ.ͱ.ͯ P‐ͬͮ: ͮͬͮͭ Sanitary Sewer Main Replacement/Rehabilitation ʹ‐͵ ʹ.ͱ.Ͱ P‐ͬͯ: ͮͬͮͮ Sanitary Sewer Main Replacement/Rehabilitation ʹ‐͵ ʹ.ͱ.ͱ P‐ͬͰ: ͮͬͮͯ Sanitary Sewer Main Replacement/Rehabilitation ʹ‐ͭͬ ʹ.ͱ.Ͳ P‐ͬͱ: ͮͬͮͰ Sanitary Sewer Main Replacement/Rehabilitation ʹ‐ͭͬ ʹ.ͱ.ͳ P‐ͬͲ: ͮͬͮͱ Sanitary Sewer Main Replacement/Rehabilitation ʹ‐ͭͬ ʹ.ͱ.ʹ P‐ͬͳ: ͮͬͮͲ‐ͮͬͮ͵ Sanitary Sewer Main Replacement/Rehabilitation ʹ‐ͭͬ ʹ.ͱ.͵ P‐ͬʹ: ͮͬͯͬ‐ͮͬͯ͵ Sanitary Sewer Main Replacement/Rehabilitation ʹ‐ͭͬ ʹ.ͱ.ͭͬ P‐ͬ͵: Sewer Capacity Improvements ͮͬͮͭ‐ͮͬͮͰ ʹ‐ͭͯ ʹ.ͱ.ͭͭ P‐ͭͬ: Flow Monitoring Program ʹ‐ͭͯ ʹ.ͱ.ͭͮ P‐ͭͭ: I/I Evaluation Program ʹ‐ͭͰ ʹ.Ͳ General Projects ʹ‐ͭͳ ʹ.Ͳ.ͭ G‐ͬͭ: Wastewater Operations Master Plan ʹ‐ͭͳ ʹ.Ͳ.ͮ G‐ͬͮ: Long‐Range Wastewater Master Plan ʹ‐ͭͳ ʹ.Ͳ.ͯ G‐ͬͯ: Sanitary Sewer Hydraulic Model ʹ‐ͭͳ ʹ.Ͳ.Ͱ G‐ͬͰ: Miscellaneous / Emergency Projects ʹ‐ͭͳ ʹ.ͳ Summary of CIP ʹ‐ͭͳ Chapter 9 - Financial Analysis ͵.ͭ Introduction ͵‐ͭ ͵.ͮ Historical Financial Performance ͵‐ͭ ͵.ͮ.ͭ Current Wastewater Rates, Fees, and Charges ͵‐ͭ ͵.ͮ.ͮ Historical Financial Operations ͵‐ͮ ͵.ͮ.ͯ Wastewater Utility Fund ͵‐Ͱ ͵.ͮ.Ͱ Outstanding Debt ͵‐Ͱ CONTENTS | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY ͮͬͮͮ | ix ͵.ͯ Financial Analysis ͵‐Ͱ ͵.ͯ.ͭ Projected Capital Improvement Program Levels ͵‐Ͱ ͵.ͯ.ͮ Financial Analysis ͵‐Ͱ ͵.Ͱ Available Funding Assistance and Financing ͵‐ͳ ͵.Ͱ.ͭ Grants and Low Cost Loans ͵‐ͳ ͵.Ͱ.ͮ Bond Financing ͵‐ͳ ͵.ͱ Summary ͵‐ͳ Appendices Appendix A SEPA Checklist Appendix B Agency Comment Letters and Responses Appendix C Approvals Appendix D Hydraulic Model and Deficiency Results Appendix E Service Agreements Appendix F Stantec Model Update and Capacity Analysis Report Appendix G TM ͭ ‐ Rain and Flow Monitoring and Projections Appendix H TM ͮ ‐ Model Development and Calibration Appendix I TM Ͱ ‐ Risk Findings Appendix J Standard Plans and Specifications Appendix K CIP Detail Sheets Appendix L‐ͭ Wellhead Protection Plan Update Appendix L‐ͮ Wellhead Protection Areas and Septic Systems Map Appendix M Water Reclamation Evaluation Checklist Appendix N Approved Grinder Pump Stations for Single Family Residences Tables Table ES.ͭ Existing and Projected Modeled Wastewater Flows ES‐ͮ Table ES.ͮ Deficiency Recommendations ES‐ͱ Table ES.ͯ Risk Matrix for Lift Stations ES‐Ͳ Table ES.Ͱ Risk Matrix for Length of Gravity Mains (ft) ES‐ͳ Table ͭ.ͭ WAC Plan Requirements ͭ‐ͱ Table ͮ.ͭ Gravity Sewer Inventory ͮ‐ͭͬ Table ͮ.ͮ Existing Lift Station Inventory Summary ͮ‐ͭͳ CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CONTENTS x | JULY ͮͬͮͮ | FINAL Table ͮ.ͯ Collection System Force Main Inventory ͮ‐ͭ͵ Table ͯ.ͭ Sanitary Sewer Design Criteria ͯ‐ͭͮ Table ͯ.ͮ Lift Station and Force Mains Design Criteria ͯ‐ͭͰ Table Ͱ.ͭ Land Use of Renton’s Sewer Service Area Ͱ‐͵ Table Ͱ.ͮ Schools Served by Renton Ͱ‐ͭͰ Table Ͱ.ͯ Land Use Designations for Areas Outside Renton Ͱ‐ͭͰ Table Ͱ.Ͱ Demographic Projections (From Stantec ͮͬͭͱ Hydraulic Model Update Report) Ͱ‐ͮͯ Table Ͱ.ͱ Design Event Projected Wet Weather Flow Ͱ‐ͯͬ Table ͱ.ͭ Renton Summary of Industrial Discharges ͱ‐ͱ Table ͱ.ͮ Model Calibration ͱ‐ͭͰ Table ͱ.ͯ Modeled Design Storms by Mini‐Basins ͱ‐ͭͳ Table ͱ.Ͱ Lift Station Evaluation ͱ‐ͮͬ Table ͱ.ͱ Buildout Deficiency Locations ͱ‐ͮͭ Table ͱ.Ͳ Deficiency Recommendations ͱ‐ͮ͵ Table ͱ.ͳ Piping Reconfiguration Locations ͱ‐ͯͬ Table ͱ.ʹ Micro‐Monitoring Recommendations for I/I ͱ‐ͯͭ Table ͱ.͵ Programmatic Upsizing Location and Additional Information ͱ‐ͯͭ Table ͱ.ͭͬ Long‐Term Flow Monitoring Recommendations ͱ‐ͯͮ Table Ͳ.ͭ Normalized Risk Ratings Ͳ‐ͭ Table Ͳ.ͮ Force Main Risk Assessment Summary Ͳ‐Ͱ Table Ͳ.ͯ Lift Station Risk Assessment Summary Ͳ‐Ͳ Table Ͳ.Ͱ Risk Matrix for Lift Stations Ͳ‐ͳ Table Ͳ.ͱ Lift Station and Force Main Rehabilitation Program Ͳ‐ͭͭ Table Ͳ.Ͳ Criticality Criteria Ͳ‐ͭͯ Table Ͳ.ͳ Vulnerability Criteria Ͳ‐ͭͰ Table Ͳ.ʹ Criticality Score Range Ͳ‐ͭͱ Table Ͳ.͵ Vulnerability Score Range Ͳ‐ͭͱ Table Ͳ.ͭͬ Useful Life of Pipes Ͳ‐ͭ͵ Table Ͳ.ͭͭ Remaining Useful Life Ͳ‐ͮͯ Table Ͳ.ͭͮ Remaining Useful Life by Length Ͳ‐ͮͯ Table Ͳ.ͭͯ Risk Matrix for Length of Gravity Mains (feet) Ͳ‐ͮͳ Table Ͳ.ͭͰ Pipe Length Totals Based on Risk Rating Ͳ‐ͮͳ CONTENTS | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY ͮͬͮͮ | xi Table ͳ.ͭ Existing and Recommended Information System Improvements ͳ‐Ͱ Table ͳ.ͮ Staffing Time for Maintenance Activities ͳ‐ͭͲ Table ͳ.ͯ Staffing Time for Operations Tasks ͳ‐ͭͳ Table ͳ.Ͱ Wastewater Utility Engineering Staff Activities ͳ‐ͭͳ Table ʹ.ͭ Open‐Cut Costs by Pipeline Diameter ʹ‐ͮ Table ʹ.ͮ CIPP Costs by Pipeline Diameter ʹ‐ͮ Table ʹ.ͯ Capital Improvement Program Summary ʹ‐ͱ Table ʹ.Ͱ Moderately‐Low and Low Risk Lift Stations ʹ‐ʹ Table ʹ.ͱ Moderately‐High Risk Lift Stations ʹ‐ʹ Table ʹ.Ͳ Upsizing and Reconfiguration Locations and Cost ʹ‐ͭͯ Table ʹ.ͳ Flow Monitoring Locations and Duration ʹ‐ͭͯ Table ʹ.ʹ I/I Evaluation, Quantity, and Duration ʹ‐ͭͰ Table ʹ.͵ CIP Planning Period Summary ʹ‐ͭʹ Table ʹ.ͭͬ CIP Summary by Facility Type ʹ‐ͭ͵ Table ͵.ͭ ͮͬͮͮ Wastewater Utility Monthly Rates ͵‐ͭ Table ͵.ͮ Construction Permit Fees ͵‐ͮ Table ͵.ͯ ͮͬͮͭ‐ͮͬͮͮ System Development Charge Wastewater Fee ͵‐ͮ Table ͵.Ͱ Historical Operating Revenue ͵‐ͯ Table ͵.ͱ Historical Operating Expenses ͵‐ͯ Table ͵.Ͳ Historical Utility Fund ͵‐Ͱ Table ͵.ͳ CIP Planning Period Summary ͵‐Ͱ Table ͵.ʹ Projected Future Operating Expenses ͵‐Ͳ Figures Figure ES.ͭ Existing System ES‐ͯ Figure ES.ͮ Cost by Facility Type ES‐ʹ Figure ͭ.ͭ Vicinity Map ͭ‐ͯ Figure ͮ.ͭ Existing System ͮ‐ͯ Figure ͮ.ͮ Wastewater Basins ͮ‐ͳ Figure ͮ.ͯ Topography ͮ‐ͭͭ Figure ͮ.Ͱ Water Facilities and Aquifer Protection Areas ͮ‐ͮͭ Figure Ͱ.ͭ Study Area Ͱ‐ͯ Figure Ͱ.ͮ Sewer Service Area and Adjacent Utility Systems Ͱ‐ͱ CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CONTENTS xii | JULY ͮͬͮͮ | FINAL Figure Ͱ.ͯ Comprehensive Plan Land Use Ͱ‐ͭͭ Figure Ͱ.Ͱ Typical Weekday vs Weekend Dry Weather Flow Variation (MHͬͱͯͳ) Ͱ‐ͮ͵ Figure ͱ.ͭ Flow Monitoring Locations ͱ‐ͭͭ Figure ͱ.ͮ Updated Hydraulic Model ͱ‐ͭͱ Figure ͱ.ͯ Design Storm Hydrographs ͱ‐ͭͳ Figure ͱ.Ͱ Current Deficiencies ͱ‐ͮͯ Figure ͱ.ͱ Buildout Deficiencies ͱ‐ͮͱ Figure ͱ.Ͳ Recommendation Decision Flow Chart ͱ‐ͮʹ Figure ͱ.ͳ Modeled I/I Overlaid with Deficiencies ͱ‐ͯͯ Figure ͱ.ʹ Deficiency Improvement Recommendations ͱ‐ͯͱ Figure Ͳ.ͭ City of Renton Lift Stations Ͳ‐͵ Figure Ͳ.ͮ Criticality Criteria Results Ͳ‐ͭͳ Figure Ͳ.ͯ Vulnerability Criteria Results Ͳ‐ͮͭ Figure Ͳ.Ͱ Remaining Useful Life of System Ͳ‐ͮͱ Figure Ͳ.ͱ Map of Criticality x Vulnerability Ͳ‐ͮ͵ Figure ʹ.ͭ Overview of CIP Projects ʹ‐ͭͭ Figure ʹ.ͮ High and Moderately‐High Gravity Sewer Risk with Upsizing and Reconfiguration ʹ‐ͭͱ Figure ʹ.ͯ Cost by Facility Type ʹ‐ͭʹ Figure ͵.ͭ CIP Proposed and Rate Analysis Model ͵‐ͱ ABBREVIATIONS | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY ͮͬͮͮ | xiii Abbreviations AACE American Associate of Cost Estimators ADS ADS Environmental Services, LLC ADU Accessory Dwelling Unit ADWF average dry weather flow APA Aquifer Protection Area APWA American Public Works Association ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing Methods AWWA American Water Works Association BOD biochemical oxygen demand BWF base wastewater flow CCTV closed‐circuit television CAD computer‐aided design CALAMAR Calcul de lames d’eau a l’aide du radar Carollo Carollo Engineers, Inc. CAS Corrugated aluminized steel CD Center Downtown cfs cubic feet per second CIPP Cured‐in‐place pipe City City of Renton CI cast iron CIWEM Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management CIP capital improvement program CMMS Computerized Maintenance Management System CO Commercial Office CP concrete pipe CRWSD Cedar River Water and Sewer District CV Center Village d/D diameter ratio DHI Danish Hydraulic Institute DI Ductile iron DIP ductile iron pipe du/net acre dwelling units per net acre DUIP Downtown Utility Improvement Project DWF dry weather flow ECM Enterprise Change Management Ecology Department of Ecology CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | ABBREVIATIONS xiv | JULY ͮͬͮͮ | FINAL E/G engine generator EIS Environmental Impact Statement ENR Engineering News Report EPA Environmental Protection Agency FM force main(s) FOG fats, oil and grease ft foot/feet GIS Geographic Information System GMA Growth Management Act GMPC Growth Management Planning Council GPAD gallons per acre per day GWI groundwater infiltration gpm gallons per minute HDPE high‐density polyethylene HGL hydraulic grade line hp Horsepower IACC Infrastructure Assistance Coordinating Council I/I Infiltration and Inflow ID Identification KC King County KCBHRR King County Board of Health Rules and Regulations lf linear feet Lake Line Kennydale Lake Line Sewer System LEHD Longitudinal Employer Household Dynamics LID Local Improvement District LN lined pipe LRWWMP Long‐Range Wastewater Management Plan M Million mgd Million gallons per day MH manholes miͮ square miles N/A not applicable NACWA National Association of Clean Water Agencies NASSCO National Association of Sewer Service Companies NE Northeast NEPA National Environmental Policy Act O&M operations and maintenance OERP Overflow Emergency Response Plan OMP Operations Master Plan ABBREVIATIONS | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY ͮͬͮͮ | xv OSS on‐site system PAA Potential Annexation Area PACP Pipe Assessment Certification Program PE Person Equivalent PSC pre‐stressed concrete pipe PSRC Puget Sound Regional Council Public Works Public Works Department PWTF Public Works Trust Fund PWWF peak wet weather flows PVC polyvinyl chloride R&R repair and replacement RMC Renton Municipal Code RMF Residential Multi‐Family ROW right‐of‐way RPM revolutions per minute RSD Road Services Division RUL remaining useful life RWSP Regional Wastewater Services Plan SAD Special Assessment District SCADA supervisory control and data acquisition SDC system development charges SEPA Washington State Environmental Policy Act SE Southeast SSO sanitary sewer overflows SW Southwest SWD Solid Waste Division TAZ Traffic Analysis Zone TDH total dynamic head TM Technical memoranda UC Urban Center UGA Urban Growth Area UGB Urban Growth Boundary US Urban Separator VCP vitrified clay pipe VMAC Virginia Mason Athletic Center WA Washington WAC Washington Administrative Code WEF Water Environment Federation WRRM Wastewater Revenue Requirement Model CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | ABBREVIATIONS xvi | JULY ͮͬͮͮ | FINAL WSPU Water System Plan Update WWF wet weather flow XXX Unknown Material yrs years EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY ͮͬͮͮ | ES‐ͭ ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES.1 Introduction The City of Renton (City) is updating its Long‐Range Wastewater Management Plan (LRWWMP) to provide a road map for redevelopment while maintaining a high level of service for existing customers. The existing system is aging and will continue to require investment to maintain a high level of service. The LRWWMP is intended to provide the City with a "living" plan that can be used and adapted to assist in decision making for the next ͮͬ years. This LRWWMP was prepared in accordance with requirements of Washington Administrative Code (WAC) ͭͳͯ‐ͮͰͬ‐ͬͱͬ, which is administered by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), and meets the requirements of the Washington Growth Management Act (GMA). This chapter presents the objectives of this LRWWMP, and a brief overview of the City’s wastewater collection system. A list of abbreviations is provided in the Table of Contents to assist the reader in understanding the information presented in this LRWWMP. ES.2 Overview of Existing Sewer System Chapter ͮ – Overview of Existing Sewer System provides a description of the City’s existing collection system and an inventory of the City’s assets. The City's collection system consists of approximately ͮͰͳ miles of gravity sewer, Ͳ.ʹ miles of force mains, and ͮͬ pump stations that collect and convey wastewater to King County’s (KC) Interceptors. These interceptors convey the City’s flow to the KC owned and operated South Treatment Plant. Each pump station is described in this chapter to provide framework for the condition assessment and any related Capital Improvement Program project. Additionally, other components of the system are broken down such as materials and diameters of the total gravity sewer system. The City's collection system is shown in Figure ES.ͭ. ES.3 Operational Policies and Criteria Polices and criteria regulate the manner that the City operates and plans for its future. The City's policies and criteria are detailed in the Renton Municipal Code, the Comprehensive Plan, City ordinance, and through adoption of this and other plans. The following policies and criteria are summarized in Chapter ͯ – Operational Policies and Criteria:  Customer Service Objective.  Planning Objective.  Service Area Extension Objectives.  Financial Objective.  Facility Objective.  Operations Objective. CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES‐ͮ |JULY ͮͬͮͮ | FINAL ES.4 Planning Considerations Chapter Ͱ – Planning Considerations and Technical Memorandum (TM) ͭ describe the City’s land use policies and demographic projections that are used to develop future wastewater flow projections. The City's land use policies and sewer system are connected with adjacent sewer systems' policies and systems including the KC interceptors and serving small areas of Kent and Tukwila. Existing land use provides the basis for designing properly sized sewage facilities, including trunks, interceptors, and lift stations. In most cases the City's sewers are downstream, or at the receiving end of the effluent, from the systems adjacent to the City. Therefore, proper planning for the City's sewers requires that the plans of these adjacent utilities be evaluated. In addition to adjacent utility plans, the land use plans and policies of KC and the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) were also considered. As discussed below, the entire planning area is within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) established by the GMPC. The City supports the countywide framework policies (F‐ͮͱͱ and F‐ͭͬͮ) that call for the designated Urban Area to be served with sanitary sewers and prefers cities as the provider of sewer services. The entire study area has been designated Urban by the ͮͬͭͮ King County Comprehensive Plan with ͮͬͭͯ Amendments. Two planning periods are evaluated in this LRWWMP:  Existing system.  Build‐out. The existing system is defined as the ͮͬͭͮ sanitary flows calibrated with ͮͬͭʹ flow data. Currently, build‐out is projected at ͮͬͰͬ. Evaluations are performed for both average dry weather flow (ADWF) and peak wet weather flows (PWWF). A summary of the modeled total ADWF and PWWF flows for metered basins, for each planning period is shown in Table ES.ͭ. Table ES.ͭ Existing and Projected Modeled Wastewater Flows Flow Condition Existing Conditions Build‐out Conditions ADWF (mgd) ʹ.ͱͬ ͭͯ.ͯ PWWF (mgd) ͱͰ.ͮ ͲͰ.ͳͰ Peaking Factor Ͳ.ͯʹ Ͱ.ʹͳ Note: Abbreviation: mgd – million gallons per day. ES.5 System Analysis and Results As growth occurs, additional customer flows can exceed sewer capacity. Future growth is anticipated and is modeled through the existing hydraulic model of the collection system. The model was used as a basis to perform a capacity analysis. Based on the severity of the deficiencies identified, the most probable cause and the location, four types of recommendations were developed to mitigate or confirm these problem areas:  Additional long‐term depth monitoring.  Infiltration and Inflow (I/I) Evaluation: Micro‐monitoring for areas with elevated I/I.  Piping reconfiguration.  Programmatic upsizing. 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú East Renton Interceptor East Side Interceptor South Interceptor South Renton Interceptor May Creek Interceptor Cedar River Trunk Interceptor Shy CreekLiftstation Devils ElbowLift Station East ValleyLift Station Talbot CrestLift Station Long LiftStation KensingtonCrest Lift Station WedgewoodLift Station WestviewLift Station Lind AveLift Station Lake Washington#2 Lift Station CottonwoodLift Station Lake Wash.Flush Lift Station Stone GateLift Station Falcon RidgeLift Station Liberty LiftStation Lake WashingtonBeach LiftStation Pipers BluffLift Station Baxter LiftStation Misty CoveLift Station Airport LiftStation 12''24'' 12''42''12'' 36'' 1 2 ''8' ' 12 '' 2 4 ''12''6''12''1 2 '' 12 '' 24'' 12'' 24'' 18'' 12''18''12''12''48''12' ' 12 ''12''12''12''12''1 2 ''12''12''12''24''12''18''12''12''12''18''12'' 1 2 '' 8 ''15''12''12''12''12''12'' 12''12''12''12''12'' 15'' 2 4''12''18''12''1 2 ''12''12''12''24''18''36'' 36''12''12''12''10''12 '' 30 ''12''12''18'' 12''12''12''12''12''12''12''12'' 12'' 1 2 ''5 4 ''72''24''12''1 2 ''12''12''12''12''18''1 2'' 12'' 12'' 12''12'' 12''48''36''27'' 18''24''12'' 4 8 '' 1 2 ''12''8''12''12''12''18''12''12''48''18'' 1 8 ''12' '12''2 4 ''12'' 2 4'' 2 4'' 12'' 18''36''12'' 24'' 18''18'' 1 2 ''12''30''12''24''12''12''12''30''12''12''8' ' 18''24''60''12''15'' 24 ''12''18' '12''24'' 3 6 ''15''24'' 1 2 ''24''12'' 24''12''12''8''18'' 60'' 12''24''18''18''48''18''12''12''1 2 '' 12'' 1 8 ''18''18''12''1 0'' 12'' 1 2 '' 12''24''1 2 ''12''30'' 18'' 1 8 ''12''15''60''12''30''18''36''30' '12''24'' 18'' 12''12''12''24'' 1 2 ''24''18''1 2'' 36''12''12''18'' 12'' 12'' 12''12''12'' 8'' 2 4'' 12'' 18 ''10''8'' 12''12''12''36''1 2 '' 18''24''24''12''12''18''18''12'' 60'' 12''12''8'' 12'' 12''12''1 8'' 1 2 ''12''12''18''30''1 2''30''12''24''12''12''10'' 12'' 12''18''1 2 ''12''54''12'' 21'' 12'' 1 5 ''24''24''24''12''12''36''1 5'' 12''15''1 2''12''12''18''24''12''12''12''12'' 2 4 '' 12'' 15''54'' 18'' 12''36'' 8''12''12'' 1 2 ''60''60''36''12''12''24''12' '48''12''12' '12''1 2 ''12''12''12 ''24''1 2 ''12''1 2 '' 12'' 12'' 60''12''12''12''8''18''12''15''12''8''15'' 12''12''36''3 6 ''1 2 ''1 2 ''8'' 12'' 12'' 12'' 12'' 12''15' ' 15''30''36''18''12''18''18''12'' 72'' 12''18''48'' 12''12''1 8 ''12''36''36''1 8''20''18'' 1 2 ''8''18''4''18''36''12'' 18'' 12'' 54'' 36'' 2 0 ''2 4 ''Last Revised: October 06, 2021 \\io-fs-1\Data\GIS\GISBackup\Renton\ WaterSystemPlan2017\Existing_System.mxd O 0 10.5 Miles Legend Lift Station 3Ú City of Renton Gravity Pipeline by Diameter Unknown < 8" 8" 10" - 18" > 18" City of Renton Force Main King County Gravity Main Study Area Renton City Boundary Roads Waterbodies EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | LONG RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON Disclaimer: Features shown in this figure are for planning purposes and represent approximate locations. Engineering and/or survey accuracy is not implied. Data Sources: City of Renton Figure ES.1 Existing System EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY ͮͬͮͮ | ES‐ͱ Capacity deficiencies and proposed improvements to provide sufficient capacity for future development are detailed below in Table ES.ͮ. Table ES.ͮ Deficiency Recommendations Deficiency ID(ͭ) Reason Deficient Condition Risk Recommend ͬͱA Capacity High Depth Monitoring ͰͱA Capacity High I/I Evaluation ͳA Capacity Moderately High I/I Evaluation ͮA Capacity Moderately High I/I Evaluation ͯA Capacity Moderately High I/I Evaluation ͰͲA Capacity, diameters change High Depth Monitoring ͯͳA Negative slopes High Piping Reconfiguration ͰʹA Capacity, grade change High Depth Monitoring ͮͰA Negative slopes High Piping Reconfiguration ͮͬB Capacity, shallow slope Low Programmatic Upsizing ͮͬA Capacity, shallow slope Low Programmatic Upsizing ͮͮA Capacity, diameters change High Depth Monitoring ͮͭA Capacity, shallow slope Moderately High Depth Monitoring ͰͭA Capacity, shallow slope Moderately High I/I Evaluation ͮͯA Capacity Moderately High Programmatic Upsizing ͭͱA Capacity High Depth Monitoring ͭͰA Capacity High Depth Monitoring BA Pump Station backwater High Programmatic Upsizing or Pump Station Improvements ͬͱB Capacity High Depth Monitoring or I/I Evaluation ͬͱC Capacity Moderately High Depth Monitoring or I/I Evaluation ͭͭA Negative slopes Moderately Low Piping Reconfiguration ͮͱA Capacity, shallow slope Moderately High Programmatic Upsizing Note: Abbreviation: ID – identification. (ͭ) Deficiency ID based on associated mini basin number. ES.5.1 Hydraulic Modeling Overview The City’s collection system hydraulic model was constructed using a multi‐step process utilizing data from a variety of sources. The latest version (ͮͬͭͲ) of Danish Hydraulic Institute’s (DHI) Mike Urban was used to update the hydraulic model. The City conducted temporary flow monitoring to gain a better understanding of flows in the service area and calibrate hydraulic model predicted flows to actual collection system flows. Additional information on the modeling calibration is provided in Appendix H, TM ͮ. CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES‐Ͳ |JULY ͮͬͮͮ | FINAL ES.5.2 Capacity Criteria The primary criterion used to identify capacity‐deficient trunk sewers was the maximum flow depth to pipe diameter ratio (d/D) less than or equal to one. The d/D value is defined as the depth (d) of flow in a pipe during peak flow conditions divided by the pipe’s diameter (D). ES.5.3 Capacity Evaluation The capacity evaluation was performed for the system, Existing and Build‐out, under a ͮͬ to ͯͬ year design storm. Sewer improvements were sized to a d/D of ͮ, to prioritize improvements for the most serious surcharging. For such large design storms much of the system surcharges and improvements for all surcharging was infeasible. ES.6 Replacement and Rehabilitation Program Chapter Ͳ – Replacement & Rehabilitation Program documents the City's prioritized collection system repair and replacement (R&R) program. R&R prioritization is based on a risk, which identifies the criticality and vulnerability of an asset. Criticality represents the consequence of failure, and the vulnerability represents the likelihood of failure. A consistent approach is used to identify and prioritize force mains, lift stations, and gravity mains. The risk associated with an asset (pipe, manhole, pump, etc.) is a measure of the impact of asset failure on the overall system. Risk is calculated as the product of criticality and vulnerability, or: Risk ൌ Criticality x Vulnerability Both force mains and lift stations were analyzed together. The criticality, vulnerability, and risk ratings for each force main and lift station were quantified on a relative risk scale, with one representing the lowest risk and four representing the highest risk. Each lift station and its corresponding force main’s calculated risk are shown below in Table ES.ͯ. Table ES.ͯ Risk Matrix for Lift Stations Normalized Risk Ranking Vulnerability Level Ͱ (severe) Lake WA No. ͮ Lake WA Flush ͯ (moderate) Talbot Crest Devil’s Elbow Kensington Crest ͮ (low) East Valley Shy Creek Long Wedgewood ͭ (negligible) Falcon Lind Avenue Westview Liberty Lake WA Beach Cottonwood Pipers Bluff Baxter Stonegate Airport Misty Cove ͭ (negligible) ͮ (low) ͯ (moderate) Ͱ (severe) Criticality Level Note: Abbreviation: WA – Washington. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY ͮͬͮͮ | ES‐ͳ Using TM ͯ – Pipe Risk Approach and Procedures from the Closed‐Circuit Television (CCTV) Phase ͮ Project, gravity sewer risks were calculated similarly. Table ES.Ͱ shows the final result of the normalized risk ranking for the City’s pipe. Table ES.Ͱ Risk Matrix for Length of Gravity Mains (ft) Normalized Risk Ranking Vulnerability Level Ͱ (severe) ͭ,ʹͬͱ ͳ,ͬͲͭ ͭͬ,ͬͲͭ ͮ,͵ͯͱ ͯ (moderate) ͰͰ,ʹͰͬ Ͳͯ,ͬͳͱ ͭͬͯ,ʹʹͰ ͰͰ,ͱͱͭ ͮ (low) ͳͲ,ͱͭͬ ͭͬͬ,ͱͰͭ ͭͰʹ,͵ͮͱ ͱʹ,ͱͰͲ ͭ (negligible) ͮͭͬ,Ͳͮͮ ͭʹͬ,ͯͳͭ ͭʹͲ,ͭ͵͵ Ͳͭ,ͯͬͲ ͭ (negligible) ͮ (low) ͯ (moderate) Ͱ (severe) Criticality Level ES.7 Operations and Maintenance Regular Operation and Maintenance (O&M) is required to provide effective and efficient maintenance services for utility rate payers. Delayed O&M may contribute to adverse sewer events, including sewer backups, sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), pipe breaks, etc. Chapter ͳ – Operations & Maintenance considers the City's existing and planned O&M activities and programs and provides recommendations to improve existing or address future needs. These activities are greater than the current level of service; therefore, additional workforce may be required in the future to meet City goals. ES.8 Capital Improvement Program Chapter ʹ – Capital Improvement Program of the LRWWMP assesses the City’s ability to fund the recommended improvements from Chapter ͱ – System Analysis and Results and Chapter Ͳ – Replacement and Rehabilitation Program detailed in Tables ES.ͮ, ES.ͯ, and ES.Ͱ. The projects include a financial status of the sewer utility, funding required to finance the scheduled improvements, updating the system development charges (SDC), potential funding sources, and the impacts of sanitary sewer improvements on sewer rates. To aid in finding individual projects, projects have been separated in sections by facility type:  “LS” = Lift Station.  “P” = Pipeline.  “G” = General. Figure ES.ͮ displays the various facility types of capital improvement program (CIP) allocation. CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES‐ʹ |JULY ͮͬͮͮ | FINAL Figure ES.ͮ Cost by Facility Type ES.9 Financial Analysis A Wastewater Revenue Requirement Model (WRRM) was conducted in ͮͬͭʹ to analyze the future finances of the City. The LRWWMP’s CIP differs from the WRRM CIP; therefore, the LRWWMP analyzed the City’s financial capacity to implement the LRWWMP CIP. This analysis showed the City has the financial capacity to execute the LRWWMP CIP. Differences between the ͮͬͭʹ WRRM and LRWWMP CIP timing will create larger drawdowns of the reserve fund in the coming years, but still remain above the City’s minimum requirements. By ͮͬͮͱ it is expected that the reserve fund will begin building up again. The City is not committed to CIP spending summarized in the LRWWMP. Per the City budgeting policy, the Utility’s spending is based on a biannual budget approved by the City Council. Due to COVID‐ͭ͵, short term revenue could not be predicted, but it is expected that this will likely not heavily impact any long‐term analysis. If reductions in revenue persist due to COVID‐ͭ͵ or other economic factors, then CIP projects may be delayed. CHAPTER 1 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 | 1-1 Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Introduction The purpose of the City of Renton’s (City) Long-Range Wastewater Management Plan (LRWWMP) is to present policy and an assessment of the system to recommend facility improvements. The LRWWMP is intended to provide a road map for redevelopment and maintaining a high level of service for existing customers. The existing system is aging and will continue to require investment to maintain a high level of service. The LRWWMP is intended to provide the City with a "living" plan that can be used and adapted to assist in decision making for the next 20 years, both financially and for infrastructure capacity and condition. The LRWWMP results from an evaluation of the existing sanitary sewer system which provides the groundwork for recommendations to resolve existing deficiencies and concerns, as well as accommodating growth. This chapter presents the objectives of this LRWWMP, and a brief overview of the City’s wastewater collection system. A list of abbreviations is provided in the Table of Contents to assist the reader in understanding the information presented in this LRWWMP. This LRWWMP and recommended improvements were prepared in accordance with requirements of Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-240-050, which is administered by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), and meets the requirements of the Washington Growth Management Act (GMA). 1.2 Background and Goals The City is located in King County (KC), near Seattle, Washington. It is southeast of downtown Seattle and adjacent to Lake Washington and the Cedar River, as shown in Figure 1.1. The City owns and operates most of the sewer collection system within the City limits, as well as in nearby jurisdictions including Kent, Tukwila, and incorporated KC. The City discharges wastewater to the KC Interceptor where it is conveyed to KC’s South Treatment Plant located in the City. This LRWWMP is the fourth of plans developed previously in 1992, 1998, and 2010. The LRWWMP was prepared over six years from 2015 with plans for approval in 2020 but wasn’t approved till 2022. The LRWWMP provides a recognized framework for making decisions about Renton’s sanitary sewer service area which includes properties both inside and outside the City limits. It is intended to aid decision-makers as well as users, including the Wastewater Utility, City Council members, the Mayor, City staff, builders, developers, community groups, and other government agencies. The LRWWMP is a useful tool in the following ways: • As a framework for improvements and operations that govern sanitary sewer system developments in the Renton Wastewater Utility service area. The LRWWMP provides a basis for the following: - Allocating improvements. - Allocating costs to new sanitary sewer system users. CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CHAPTER 1 1-2 | JULY 2022 | FINAL • To provide guidelines for improving the existing system to maintain a high quality of service at a reasonable cost. • To provide a basis of accommodating changes that occur which can’t be forecasted. To this end, the LRWWMP lists policy issues and operational criteria that can be used to developed alternatives and directions for development, improvements, and operations. 1.3 Referenced Documents This update to the LRWWMP is inspired by the need to provide constant evaluation of the sewer system and operating policies in order to meet the needs of the customers and to ensure compatibility with the City’s comprehensive plans. The following documents were referenced in the preparation of this LRWWMP: • King County Comprehensive Plan 2016 (King County, Updated October 2018). Establishes an overall direction for land use planning in KC. Note, land use used in the hydraulic modeling was based on the 2012 Plan. • Criteria for Sewage Works Design (Ecology, 2008). Provides guidance for the design of municipal sewer systems and est ablishes minimum requirements in the State of Washington . • King County Countywide Planning Policies (King County, December 2012 Amended June 2016 ). Provides framework for comprehensive plans for KC and cities within KC. • Washington Administrative Code, Title 173. Defines the structure of general sewer plans. • Stantec 2015 Model Update Report . • City of Renton 2010 Long -Range Wastewater Management Plan. • City of Renton 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amended December 2018. • King County Board of Health Code and Regulations. • City of Tukwila 2015 Comprehensive Plan. • City of Kent 2015 Comprehensive Plan. 1.4 Washington State Requirements The primary purpose of this LRWWMP is to develop a "living" document that is flexible and can be readily modified to respond to ongoing redevelopm en t. The major objectives of the LRWWMP are to identify capacity deficiencies in the wastewater collection system, develop feasible alternatives to correct these deficiencies, and plan the infrastructure that will serve future development. The goals of this LRWWMP, to meet the requirements from the Washington State Criteria for Sewage Works Design, include: • Prepare the LRWWMP in compliance with WAC Chapter 173-240-050 . • Prepare the LRWWMP to be consistent with KC Code 28.84.050 (pages 28-50). The purpose and need for the proposed plan . • Consideration of reclaimed water in compliance with RCW 90.48.112. • Consideration of water conservation measures in compliance with RCW 90.48.495. Each WAC requirement is detailed in Table 1.1 as well as the location within the plan. %&e !"` !"` !"b !"b ?ç ?è ?¿ ?æ ?Æ ?¦ ?í Auburn BeauxArts BlackDiamond Bellevue Burien Clyde Hill Covington Des Moines Federal Way HuntsPoint Issaquah King County KingCounty KingCounty King County King County King County King County King County King County King County Kent Kent Kent Kent Medina Mercer Island Maple Valley Newcastle Redmond Renton Seattle Sammamish SeaTac Tukwila YarrowPoint Last Revised: June 12, 2019F:\KRCD DRIVE\Renton\9971A00\Vicinity Map.mxd Figure 1.1 Vicinity Map CHAPTER 1 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON O 0 2 41Miles Legend City of Renton Other City Boundaries Roads Waterbodies CHAPTER 1 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 |1-5 Table 1.1 WAC Plan Requirements Requirement Location in Plan Purpose and need for the proposed plan. Chapter 1 Discussion of who will own, operate, and maintain the system. Chapter 2 Existing and Proposed Service Boundaries. Chapter 2 Layout map including: • Proposed sewers and areas proposed to be served by each . • Boundary lines of municipality or district and vicinity. • Existing sewers and areas served by each. • Topography and elevations of existing and proposed ground. • Information on streams, lakes, other bodies of water, and discharges. • Information on water systems. Figures 2.1 and 2.2 Figure 1.1 Figure 2.2 Figure 2.3 Figure 2.4 Figure 2.4 Population trends and methods used to determine those trends. Table 4.1 Information on existing wastewater facilities in the area. Chapter 2 Discussion of infiltration and inflow problems. Chapter 5 Discussion of the provisions for treatment, discharge, and reuse. Not included, all service performed by KC Information on facilities producing industrial wastewater. Chapter 5 Information on existing wells or other water supply sources. Chapt er 2 Discussion of alternatives evaluated and alternatives chosen. Chapter 6, Chapter 8 Information on existing and proposed cost per service. Chapter 9 Statements regarding compliance with SEPA and, if applicable, NEPA. Appendix A Consideration of reclaimed water (RCW 901.48.112). Chapter 2 Consideration of water conservation measures (RCW 90.48.495). Chapter 2 Note: Abbreviations: SEPA – Washington State Environmental Policy Act; NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act. As not ed in Table 1.1, provisions for treatment, discharge, and reuse are not included in the LRWWMP. The King County Service Agreement states that King County will provide all service to Renton and is the responsibility of King County to receive all flows. 1.5 Report Organization This LRWWMP contains nine chapters, followed by appendices that provide supporting documentation for the information presented in the report. The chapters are briefly described below: Chapter 1 – Introduction: This chapter presents the need for this LRWWMP and the objectives of the study. Lists of abbreviations and reference materials are also provided to assist the reader in understanding the information presented. Chapter 2 – Overview of Existing Sewer System: This chapter describes the existing wastewater collection system. CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CHAPTER 1 1-6 | JULY 2022 | FINAL Chapter 3 – Operational Policies and Criteria : This chapter presents the policies for ownership, operations, and maintenance of the collection system. It also reviews the criteria for ev aluating the wastewater collection system. Chapter 4 – Planning Considerations : This chapter presents a description of the study area, defines the planning horizon for this study, and summarizes the land use classifications. Lastly, this chapter summarizes the methodology and results for estimating existing and future sanitary sewer flows resulting from the flow monitoring program. Chapter 5 – System Analysis and Results: This chapter discusses hydraulic evaluation of the wastewater collection system. Chapter 6 – Replacement and Rehabilitation Program: This chapter describes the City’s prioritized rehabilitation and replacement program. Chapter 7 – Operations and Maintenance: This chapter presents the operational and maintenance programs from the 2012 Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan. Chapter 8 – Capital Improvement Program: This chapter describes the improvements necessary to resolve existing and future deficiencies and accommodate growth. The pro posed improvements are also listed by priority and project type. Chapter 9 – Financial Analysis : This chapter evaluates the financial status of the City’s water utility and the ability to finance CIP projects. Additionally, Technical Memoranda (TMs) are included in the appendices as follows: Appendix G – TM 1: Rain and Flow Monitoring and Projections Appendix H – TM 2 : Model Development and Calibration Appendix I – TM 4: Risk Findings Other appendices included are as follows: Appendix A – SEPA Checklist Appendix B – Agency Comment Letters and Responses Appendix C – Approvals Appendix D – Hydraulic Model and Deficiency Results Appendix E – Service Agreements Appendix F – Stantec Model Update and Capacity Analysis Report Appendix J – Standard Plans and Specifications Appendix K – CIP Detail Sheets Appendix L-1 – Wellhead Protection Plan Update Appendix L-2 – Wellhead Protection Areas and Septic Systems Map Appendix M – Water Reclamation Evaluation Checklist Appendix N – Approved Grinder Pump Stations for Single Family Residences CHAPTER 1 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 |1-7 1.6 Key Issues This LRWWMP addresses the following key issues: • The need and timing of the replacement of older, deteriorating sanitary sewer facilities within large, neighborhood-size areas within the City. • The evaluation of the City’s system capacity to address both system deficiency and potential development. • The evaluation of sanitary sewer lift stations and force mains for removal, rehabilitation, and replacement. • The City’s Infiltration and Inflow (I/I) program in coordination with the overall KC program to evaluate options and needs for I/I reduction. • Review, monitoring, and coordination with the public to eliminate industrial waste and grease discharges to the sewer system. • Implementation of recommended improvements by priority which maintains affordable rates for the system users. Some of these issues were also addressed during preparations of the 1992, 1998, and 2010 LRWWMP. 1.7 SEPA and Approval Process A SEPA Checklist has been prepared for this LRWWMP and is presented in App endix A. It is anticipated that this proposed LRWWMP will not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment and that an environmental impact statement (EIS) will not be required. However, many of the projects proposed herein will require SEPA checklists and an engineering determination will be made with each individual project. This LRWWMP includes review by adjacent utility systems. It has also been reviewed and approved by the King County Utilities Technical Review Committee and the Depart ment of Ecology. All comments are included in Appendix B, Agency Comment Letters and Responses. 1.8 Acknowledgements Carollo Engineers, Inc. (Carollo) and their team members, including ADS Environmental Services, LLC, would like to acknowledge and thank the fo llowing individuals for their efforts and assistance in completing this LRWWMP. Their cooperation and courtesy in obtaining a variety of necessary information were valuable components in completing and producing this report: • David Christensen, City of Rent on, Wastewater Utility Engineering Manager. • Don Ellis, City of Renton, Engineering Specialist – Geographic Information System (GIS). • Joe Stowell, City of Renton, Wastewater Utility Manager. • Ann Fowler, City of Renton, Senior Engineer. • Richard Marshall, City of Renton, Wastewater Maintenance Manager. CHAPTER 2 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 | 2-1 Chapter 2 OVERVIEW OF EXISTING SEWER SYSTEM 2.1 Overview of Existing System The City of Renton (City) currently provides sanitary sewer service to approximately 25.6 square miles both inside and outside the City limits. Overall, the City’s collection system contains approximately 14,000 customer connections. The City’s collection system is municipally owned, operated, and maintained; the system is managed by the City’s Public Works Department (Public Works). The City's collection system consists of approximately 247 miles of gravity mains (1,304,160 feet), over 6,700 manholes, 5.16 miles (27,433 linear feet [LF]) of force mains (FMs), and 20 lift stations that collect and convey wastewater to King County’s (KC’s) regional transmission interceptors. These interceptors convey the City’s flow to the KC owned and operated South Treatment Plant for treatment. Figure 2.1 presents the City's existing collection system. A more extensive description and analysis of the system can be found in Chapter 5 – System Analysis and Results. 2.2 System Components The purpose of a sanitary sewer is to convey wastewater from its source to a point of treatment. Since the generation of wastewater can vary considerably, there is seldom any control over the volume of wastewater that must be conveyed at any particular time. For this reason the sanitary sewer system is designed to accommodate a wide range of wastewater flow rates. The best method for conveying wastewater is a gravity sewer system. A gravity sewer system is made up of collector sewers, which as their name implies, collect the wastewater from the various sources. These collector sewers then convey the wastewater to interceptor sewers, which convey it to the point of treatment. The sanitary sewer system must be capable of transporting all of the constituents of the wastewater stream, which include the suspended solids, floatable solids and liquid constituents. In general, most of the floating materials are carried along with the flow stream; however, suspended solids have a tendency to settle out of the waste stream, unless minimum carrying velocities are achieved. This requires that the sanitary sewers be constructed with a minimum slope to create a gravity flow that will result in a velocity that will continuously carry the suspended solids portion of the waste stream. Another major sewer system component, and typically the most vulnerable, is the sewage lift station. A lift station is needed when the sanitary sewer system must overcome topographic restrictions that make it impossible or financially unfeasible to construct a gravity sewer. However, some lift stations are temporary, used only until the gravity sewer system can be built. 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú East Renton Interceptor East Side Interceptor South Interceptor South Renton Interceptor May Creek Interceptor Cedar River Trunk Interceptor Shy CreekLiftstation Devils ElbowLift Station East ValleyLift Station Talbot CrestLift Station Long LiftStation KensingtonCrest Lift Station WedgewoodLift Station WestviewLift Station Lind AveLift Station Lake Washington#2 Lift Station CottonwoodLift Station Lake Wash.Flush Lift Station Stone GateLift Station Falcon RidgeLift Station Liberty LiftStation Lake WashingtonBeach LiftStation Pipers BluffLift Station Baxter LiftStation Misty CoveLift Station Airport LiftStation 8''12'' 10''8''8''8'' 10'' 8''10''8''8'' 24''8''8 ''8''12'' 8'' 8'' 8''8''8 ''8'' 8''8''8''8'' 8 '' 8'' 12'' 8 ''8' '8''8''8 ''8''8'' 8'' 8'' 8''8''8 ''8' '8''12''8''8''8 '' 8''8''12''12''8''8''8''8'' 8''8''10'' 8'' 8''8''8'' 15''8''8''8''8''8''8''8'' 8'' 8'' 8'' 8''8''12''8''8''8''8''8'' 8''8''15'' 8'' 1 2 '' 8''8''8' '8''8''8''8''24''8'' 15''8''8''8''8''18''10''15'' 1 5''8''8''8'' 8'' 8'' 8 ''8' '8''8''8' ' 8'' 12''8''8 ''8''8''8''8''8''8'' 8''8''8''8' '8''8''8''8'' 24 ''15''8''8''8' '8''8''12''18' ' 8 ''12'' 8'' 12''8''8''8''8''12''15''8''8'' 8'' 1 2 ''8' ' 12''8''12''15''8''8'' 1 8 ''8''8''8''8' '8''8''8''8''10''8'' 8''8''8''8''10''8''12''8''8''12''8''8''8'' 8 '' 8''24''8' '8'' 8''10''12''8' '8''8'' 12 '' 8'' 18''10''8 ''8''8'' 8''10''18''8''1 5 ''18''8''12''8''8 ''8' '8''15''8''8''8''8''8 ''8''8' ' 8'' 8'' 18'' 8 '' 8'' 8'' 8''8''8''24''8''8''8''8'' 8''8''12''12''8''24''8''12'' 8''8''8''2 1 ''8'' 8''8''8''8''8''12''21''12''8''8''8''1 0 ''8'' 15'' 8''6''8'' 8''8''8''8''8'' 8 ''8''8''8''15'' 8'' 1 2 '' 0'' Last Revised: October 21, 2021 \\io-fs-1\Data\GIS\GISBackup\Renton\ WaterSystemPlan2017\Existing_System.mxd O 0 10.5 Miles Legend Lift Station 3Ú City of Renton Gravity Pipeline By Diameter Unknown 6" or Less 8" 10" - 18" 20" or Larger City of Renton Force Main King County Gravity Main Study Area Renton City Boundary Roads Waterbodies CHAPTER 2 | LONG RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON Disclaimer: Features shown in this figure are for planning purposes and represent approximate locations. Engineering and/or survey accuracy is not implied. Data Sources: City of Renton Figure 2.1 Existing System CHAPTER 2 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL |JULY 2022 | 2-5 2.3 Wastewater Collection Basins The City is divided into six major wastewater collection basins and 67 mini-basins illustrated in Figure 2.2 that consist of one or more model basins. Wastewater basins delineate large areas of the conveyance system network that ultimately flow to one location, specifically the regional interceptor running throughout the City's collection system. The basin boundaries almost always follow topographic features, such as ridge lines, streams, and rivers, and capture each property contributing flow to the sewer collectors in that basin. The model basins were developed by KC’s Infiltration and Inflow (I/I) Program for the Renton Sewer Service Area. These collection basins and model basins would ideally follow the natural drainage patterns of the City’s service area. However, because of natural and service area boundaries, the wastewater collection basins do not always follow drainage basins. The six m ajor basins are: West Cedar River, East Cedar River, East Lake Washington, Black River, Downtown, and May Valley. 2.3.1 West Cedar River Basin The West Cedar River Basin includes the eastern portion of the City bordering the Cedar River. The basin consists of primarily single-family and multi-family developments with some commercial and light industrial land uses. West Cedar River Basin includes the Cottonwood, Falcon Ridge, and Kensington Crest Lifts Stations. The wastewater collected in the basin is transported to KC’s Cedar River Trunk Interceptor at several connection points. 2.3.2 East Cedar River Basin The East Cedar River Basin is located at the east side of the City’s sanitary sewer service area. The basin extends from approximately Bremerton Avenue NE to the Urban Growth Boundary east of the City. The basin can be partially served by gravity through the East Renton Interceptor. The East Cedar River Basin includes the Shy Creek and Liberty lift stations. The wastewater collected in the basin is transported to KC’s Cedar River Trunk Interceptor at several connection points. 2.3.3 East Lake Washington Basin The East Lake Washington Basin is located in the northern part of the City. The City serves the entire basin, which consists of a variety of land uses including single-family and multi-family residential, and light commercial. The wastewater collected in the basin is transported to KC’s East Side Interceptor at several connection points. The East Lake Washington Basin includes the Devil’s Elbow, Lake Washington Beach, L ake Washington Flush, Lake Washington #2, Long, Stone Gate, Pipers Bluff, Wedgewood, and Westview Lift Stations. 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú East Valley RdRai ni er Ave NS 133rd St Oakesdale Ave SWBens on Dr SSW 7th St 140th Ave SENE SunsetBlvd §¨¦405 Maple Valley Hwy 164th Ave SECedar River Trail S E J o n e s R d Lake Youngs Service RdSE May Valley Rd Union Ave NESE Petrovitsky Rd §¨¦5 Shy CreekLiftstation Devils ElbowLift Station East ValleyLift Station Talbot CrestLift Station Long LiftStation KensingtonCrest Lift Station WedgewoodLift Station WestviewLift Station Lind AveLift Station Lake Washington#2 Lift Station CottonwoodLift Station Lake Wash.Flush Lift Station Stone GateLift Station Falcon RidgeLift Station Liberty LiftStation Lake WashingtonBeach LiftStation Pipers BluffLift Station Baxter LiftStation Misty CoveLift Station Airport LiftStation 41 40 23 54 U9 46 29 52 05 06 02 48 17 43 19 49 13 18 47 30B 30C 30C(West) 38A 38B 34 35 36 10 11 ESI1003 15 12 0809 24 37 01 07 45 03 RENT6504 CEDAR02A 32 39 30A 50 16 14 27 44 46(North) U3 25 22 20 2133 42 26 U2 U8 U7 U4 U6 28 BA U1 Last Revised: November 03, 2020 \\io-fs-1\Data\GIS\GISBackup\Renton\WaterSystemPlan2017\Mini_Subasins.mxd O 0 10.5 Miles Legend 3Ú City of Renton Lift Station Gravity Pipeline City of Renton Force Main King County Gravity Main 2012 Renton Minibasins Study Area Renton City Boundary Collection Basins Black River Basin Downtown Basin East Cedar River Basin East Lake Washington Basin May Valley Basin West Cedar River Basin Roads Disclaimer: Features shown in this figure are for planning purposes and represent approximate locations. Engineering and/or survey accuracy is not implied. Data Sources: City of Renton CHAPTER 2 | LONG RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON Figure 2.2 Wastewater Basins CHAPTER 2 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 | 2-9 2.3.4 Black River Basin The Black River Basin is a large drainage basin in the southwest part of the City. The higher elevations in the Rolling Hills, Talbot Hill, and Panther Creek areas are generally single-family and multi-family residential developments along with commercial uses surrounding Valley Medical Center, while the valley floor is generally industrial and commercial land uses. A portion of the south and west portions of the valley floor are un-modeled. The upper elevations of the basin are served by Soos Creek Water and Sewer District. The Black River Basin includes the East Valley, Lind Avenue, and Talbot Crest Lift Stations. The wastewater collected in the basin is transported to KC’s East Side, South Renton, and South Interceptors at several connection points. 2.3.5 Downt own Basin The Downtown Basin is located in the northwest part of the City and includes the Central Business District, West Hill, and North Renton Industrial areas. Land use within the basin consists of single-family, multi-family, commercial, and heavy industrial land uses. The model basin includes the Airport Lift Station. Skyway Water and Sewer District also provides sewer service to parts of the West Hill that are within the Downtown Basin. The wastewater collected in the basin is transported to KC’s East Side Interceptor at several connection points. 2.3.6 May Valley Basin The May Valley Basin is located in the northeast part of the City on the periphery of the City's current service boundary. The portion of the basin within the City’s service area is currently only about half serviced with a sewer collection system. The remainder of the basin is within Coal Creek Utility District’s service area. Land use within the basin consists of primarily single-family and light commercial land uses. The May Valley Basin includes the Baxter and Misty Cove Lift Stations. The wastewater collected in the basin is transported to KC’s May Creek Interceptor and East Side Interceptor at several connection points. 2.4 Interceptors and Collection Systems Interceptors are sewers that receive flow from collector sewers and convey wastewater to a point for treatment or disposal. They are typically located in low lying or centralized areas in order to facilitate the gravity flow of the wastewater. The interceptors and all other sewers make up the collection system. 2.4.1 Existing Sewer System Currently, t he City’s gravity mains consist of approximately 60 percent polyvinyl chloride (PVC), 25 percent concrete pipe (CP), 5 percent ductile iron pipe (DIP), 3 percent vitrified clay pipe (VCP), and 6 percent unknown pipes. The majority of pipe material within the existing system is comprised of CP and PVC. Older sewers typically used concrete pipe, while PVC is more common in newer sewer installations. As shown in Table 2.1, a majority of the sanitary sewer system is constructed with 8 -inch diameter pipe. This is consistent with the Department of Ecology’s criteria for minimum sanitary sewer sizing. CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CHAPTER 2 2-10 | JULY 2022 | FINAL Table 2.1 Gravity Sewer Inventory Diameter (inch) Length (lf)(2) Percentage of System 6 42,426 3.2% 8 1,033,293 79.1% 10 52,746 4.0% 12 82,153 6.3% 14 1,001 0.1% 15 35,143 2.7% 16 358 0.0% 18 25,605 2.0% 20 745 0.1% 21 8,826 0.7% 22 3,751 0.3% 24 20,066 1.5% Total (feet) 1,306,113 100% Total (miles) 247.4 100% Note: (1) System only includes gravity mains and excludes private sewers and KC pipes. (2) lf = linear feet. The City’s sanitary sewer system also contains 6,735 manholes which join the various links of sanitary sewer pipe. These manholes vary in construction type from brick manholes to precast concrete manholes. 2.4.2 Interceptors KC connections receive wastewater from the City’s collection system at more than 79 locations. This sewage is then either conveyed to another drainage basin or directly to the South Treatment Plant for treatment. 2.5 Lift Stations and Force Mains Sewage lift stations are used to convey wastewater from a low point to a higher point through the use of a pump and pressurized FM. The City owns and maintains 20 lift stations, which are described in Table 2.2. The topography of the City’s service area is such that most of the system is operated under gravity flow conditions with the exception of some areas that require pumping to higher elevations. The topography of the system is shown in Figure 2.3. Details on FM and lift station condition are in Chapter 6 – Replacement and Rehabilitation Program. The most common type of lift station is comprised of a wet well which contains a submersible pump located directly in the wet well. The second most common type of lift station is a configuration with the mechanical and electrical equipment located above the ground surface and over a large manhole wet well from which the wastewater is pumped. A wet well/dry well configuration is the third most common type; this is comprised of electrical and mechanical equipment located underground in a sealed enclosure adjacent to a large manhole which the wastewater is pumped. Additionally, the West View Lift Station contains a grinder submersible combination. East Valley RdRai ni er Ave NS 133rd St Oakesdale Ave SWBens on Dr SSW 7th St 140th Ave SENE SunsetBlvd §¨¦405 Maple Valley Hwy 164th Ave SECedar River Trail S E J o n e s R d Lake Youngs Service RdSE May Valley Rd Union Ave NESE Petrovitsky Rd §¨¦5 O 0 10.5 Miles Legend Study Area Roads Waterbodies DEM in FeetHigh : 180' Low : 5' Last Revised: August 20, 2019 \\io-fs-1\Data\GIS\GISBackup\Renton\WaterSystemPlan2017\Topography.mxd CHAPTER 2 | LONG RANG E WASTEWATER MANAG EMENT PLAN | CIT Y OF RENTON Figure 2.3 Topography Disclaimer: Features shown in this figure are for planning purposes and represent approximate locations. Engineering and/or survey accuracy is not implied. Data Sources: City of Renton CHAPTER 2 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 | 2-13 2.5.1 Airport Lift Station The Airport Lift Station is located on the west side of West Perimeter Road adjacent to the Renton Municipal airport. This facility is a duplex submersible pump system in a wet well with an adjacent valve vault and an on -site back-up emergency generator. This facility serves the southern portion of the west side of the airport as well as approximately 37 acres of residential and commercial properties west of Rainier Avenue South. The current lift station was constructed in 2014. 2.5.2 Baxter Lift Station The Baxter Lift Station is located in the former J.H. Baxter and Company pole yard near the southeast corner of the southern -most football practice field of the Virginia Mason Athletic Center (VMAC) Seattle Seahawks training facility and adjacent to the King County Trail . This facility operates as a duplex submersible pump system. The station is constructed in a large structure that contains a primary wet well and two pumps for standard operation and a secondary wet well for emergency storage. There is a third pump to transfer the emergency storage back into the primary wet well. This station has an adjacent valve vault and an on -site back-up emerg ency generator. This facility serves the VMAC Seattle Seahawks Training facility as well as the Barbee Mill neighborhood to the south. The current lift station was constructed in 2008. 2.5.3 Cottonwood Lift Station The Cottonwood Lift Station is located west of the Riviera Apartments, south of the Maple Valley Highway. This station is a submersible pump duplex station in a wet well with an adjacent valve vault . This facility serves the area between the Maple Valley Highway and the Cedar River, east of the former Stoneway concrete facilities. The current station was constructed in 1994. The FM was also replaced at that time. Upgrades to this lift station are currently in design phase. 2.5.4 Devil's Elbow Lift Station The Devil's Elbow Lift Station is located in NE 27th Street just northwest of where the road crosses Honey Creek. This facility is a submersible pump duplex station in a wet well with an adjacent valve vault that also contains the control system. There is a trailer-mounted emergency back-up generator located in the cul-de-sac of NE 24th Street. This generator is setup to automatically power this station but can also be transported to other sites is needed. The current station was constructed in 2000. Upgrades to this lift station are currently in design phase. 2.5.5 East Valley Lift Station The East Valley Lift Station is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of SW 34th Street and the East Valley Ro ad. This facility operates as a submersible pump duplex station. The station was constructed in a large structure that contains a primary wet well and two pumps for standard operation and a secondary wet well for emergency storage. There is a third pump in the secondary wet well that discharges the emergency storage to the force main. The station also has an adjacent valve vault and an on -site backup generator. This facility serves the commercial areas north and west of the lift station. The current station was built in 2003. Pumps were replaced in 2019 due to damage sustained from a private construction project. Additional upgrades to this lift station are currently in design phase. CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CHAPTER 2 2-14 | JULY 2022 | FINAL 2.5.6 Falcon Ridge Lift Station The Falcon Ridge Lift Station is located at the east end of SE 8th Place in the plat of Falcon Ridge. This station is a submersible pump duplex station in a wet well with an adjacent valve vault and an on -site emergency generator. This station serves the Falcon Ridge neighborhood exclusively. The current station was constructed in 2019. The FM associated with this station is long and has an excessively high head. 2.5.7 Kensington Crest Lift Station The Kensington Crest Lift Station is located at the northeast corner of the Kensington Crest (A.K.A. Shadowhawk) multi-family complex and provides service to the complex. This facility is a submersible pump duplex station. The station was built in 2002. 2.5.8 Lake Washington Beach Lift Station The Lake Washington Beach Lift Station is located in the south parking lot at Coulon Beach Park. This facility is a duplex wet well with adjacent valve vault. The station serves the restroom facilities at the park. The current station was constructed in 2011. 2.5.9 Lake Washington Flush Lift Station The Lake Washington Flush Lift Station is located at the south end of Mountain View Avenue North. The facility is a submersible, single, non-clogging pump for pumping lake water into the gravity sewer along the Kennydale lakefront for flushing purposes. The low-pressure sewer Lake Line then discharges into Lake Washington No. 2 Lift Station. A new pump, along with a new valve vault was installed in 2004. 2.5.10 Lake Washington No. 2 Lift Station The Lake Washington No. 2 Lift Station is located at the north end of the Kennydale Beach Park Road. This facility serves lakefront properties west of Lake Washington Boulevard North in the Kennydale area. The station is a submersible pump duplex station in a rehabilitated wet well. The current station was constructed in 1994. 2.5.11 Liberty Lift Station The Liberty Lift Station is located at 16655 SE 136th Street at Liberty High School. This facility is a duplex submersible lift station in a wet well with adjacent valve vault. The current station was constructed in 2012. 2.5.12 Lind Avenue Lift Station The Lind Avenue Lift St ation is located on the west side of Lind Avenue SW near the intersection with SW 19th Street. This station is a submersible pump duplex station in a wet well with an adjacent valve vault and an on -site emergency generator. This station serves the commercial and industrial areas in the vicinity of the lift station. The current station was constructed in 2014 (City Project No. S-3626). 2.5.13 Long Lift Station The Long Lift Station is located on the east side of Union Avenue NE, just north of NE 27th Street. This facility is a submersible pump duplex station, which serves the Caledon Plat. The lift station was constructed in 2001. CHAPTER 2 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 | 2-15 2.5.14 Misty Cove Lift Station The Misty Cove Lift Station is located in the northeast corner of the Misty Cove Condominium complex. This station is a submersible pump duplex station in a wet well with an adjacent valve vault . This facility serves the lakefront properties that are north of the VMAC Seattle Seahawks Training facility. The current station, along with a new force main was constructed in 2014 (City Project No. S-3627). 2.5.15 Pipers Bluff Lift Station The Pipers Bluff Lift Station is located at 1160 Ilwaco Place NE. This station is a submersible pump duplex station in a wet well with an adjacent valve vault. This station serves the Piper’s Bluff plat exclusively. The current station was constructed in 2015. 2.5.16 Shy Creek Lift Station This station is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of SE 136th Street & 142nd Avenue SE. This station is a submersible pump duplex station in a wet well with an adjacent valve vault. The station was constructed in a large structure that contains a primary wet well and two pumps for standard operation and a secondary wet well for emergency storage. There is a third pump to transfer the emergency storage back into the primary wet well. The current station was constructed in 2008. 2.5.17 Stone Gate Lift Station The Stonegate Lift Station is located at 2615 Nile Avenue NE. The station is within an easement on an open space tract in the Stonegate neighborhood. This station is a submersible pump duplex station in a wet well with an adjacent valve vault. The station also includes an underground vault for emergency storage. The emergency storage vault gravity flows back to the primary wet well. There is an on-site emergency back-up generator. The facility serves the entire plat of Stone Gate as well as several plats to the east and south. The current station along with a new force main was constructed in 2012. 2.5.18 Talbot Crest Lift Station The Talbot Crest Lift Station is located under the roadway at 2511 Talbot Crest Drive. This facility is a submersible pump duplex station in a wet well with an adjacent valve vault. The station serves the plat of Talbot Crest exclusively. The current station was c onstructed in 2000. 2.5.19 Wedgewood Lift Station The Wedgewood Lift Station is located at 5401 NE 10th Street. This facility is a submersible pump duplex station in a wet well with an adjacent valve vault. The station is constructed in a large structure that contains a primary wet well and two pumps for standard operation and a secondary wet well for emergency storage. There is a third pump to transfer the emergency storage back into the primary wet well. The station serves the plat of Wedgewood, as well as the surrounding basin area. The station was constructed in 2006. 2.5.20 Westview Lift Station The Westview Lift Station is located on the west side of Monterey Avenue NE. This facility is a duplex submersible lift station designed to serve the twelve-lot Westview Plat. This station was originally constructed in 1995. Upgrades including a new adjacent valve vault, wet well lining, new pumps and hardware and electrical were performed in 2010 . CHAPTER 2 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 | 2-17 Table 2.2 Existing Lift Station Inventory Summary Name Location Station Type No. of Pumps Manufacturer Normal Operating Capacity (gpm) Normal Operating TDH (ft) Hp Pump Speed (RPM) Voltage Emergency Power Connect Telemetry FM Size (inches) Airport 451 West Perimeter Road / Airport Submersible 1-Duty 1-Standby Flygt Flygt 100 100 54 54 10 10 1735 1735 460 Yes Allen Bradley Compact Logix 4 Baxter 4505 Ripley Lane Submersible 1-Duty 1-Standby 1-Flow Transfer Flygt Flygt Flygt 450 450 250 21 21 15 5 5 3 1745 1745 1700 460 Yes Rugid 9 8 Cottonwood 2101 Maple Valley Highway Submersible 1-Duty 1-Standby 1-Flow Transfer Hydromatic Hydromatic Paco 230 230 - 32.5 32.5 - 3 3 - 1750 1750 - 230 / 460 115 Yes Rugid 6 4 Devil's Elbow 3001 NE 27th Street Submersible 1-Duty 1-Standby Flygt Flygt 500 500 155 155 35 35 3520 3520 460 Yes Rugid 6 6 East Valley 3371 East Valley Road Submersible 1-Duty 1-Standby 1-Flow Transfer Flygt Flygt Flygt 362 362 362 30.5 30.5 30.5 5 5 5 1735 1735 1735 230/460 Yes Rugid 9 8 Falcon Ridge 2471 SE 8th Place Submersible 1-Duty 1-Standby Flygt Flygt 230 230 82.7 82.7 11 11 3495 3495 460 Yes Allen Bradley Compact Logix 4 Kensington Crest 3000 SE 8th Street Submersible 1-Duty 1-Standby Flygt Flygt 160 160 80 80 10 10 1745 1745 460 Yes Rugid 9 4 Lake Washington Beach 1201 Lake Washington Boulevard N Submersible Grinder 1-Duty 1-Standby Vaughn Vaughn 125 125 24 24 5 5 1725 1725 230 Yes Rugid 9 4 Lake Washington Flush 2725 Mountain View Avenue North Submersible 1-Duty Paco 400 6.5 2 1150 120/240 Yes Rugid 6 4 Lake Washington No. 2 3903 Lake Washington Boulevard N Submersible 1-Duty 1-Standby Hydromatic Hydromatic 385 385 35 35 7.5 7.5 1750 1750 480 Yes Rugid 6 6 Liberty 16655 SE 136th Street Submersible 1-Duty 1-Standby Flygt Flygt 617 617 69 69 20 20 1755 1755 460 Yes Allen Bradley Compact Logix 8 Lind Avenue 1891 Lind Avenue SW Submersible Grinder 1-Duty 1-Standby Vaughan Vaughan 500 500 12 12 7.5 7.5 1170 1170 480 Yes Allen Bradley Compact Logix 8 Long 5702 Union Avenue NE Submersible 1-Duty 1-Standby Flygt Flygt 100 100 90 90 10 10 1735 1735 230/460 Yes Rugid 6 4 Misty Cove 5023 Ripley Lane N Submersible 1-Duty 1-Standby Flygt Flygt 190 207 32 32 4 4 3430 3430 460 Yes Allen Bradley Compact Logix 4 Pipers Bluff 1160 Ilwaco Pl ace NE Submersible 1-Duty 1-Standby Flygt Flygt 106 105 66.7 66.7 4 4 3430 3430 460 Yes Allen Bradley Compact Logix 4 Shy Creek 5110 SE 2nd Pl ace Submersible 1-Duty 1-Standby 1-Flow Transfer Flygt Flygt Flygt 550 550 275 40 40 15 10 10 3 1735 1735 1700 460 Yes Rugid 9 8 Stonegate 2615 Nile Avenue NE Submersible 1-Duty 1-Standby Flygt Flygt 425 425 172 172 85 85 1775 1775 460 Yes Rugid 9 8 Talbot Crest 2511 Talbot Crest Drive South Submersible 1-Duty 1-Standby Flygt Flygt 110 110 33 33 3 3 1700 1700 460 Yes Rugid 6 4 Wedgewood 5401 NE 10th Place Submersible 1-Duty 1-Standby 1-Flow Transfer Flygt Flygt Flygt 505 511 400 67.2 67.2 11 15 15 3 1755 1755 1680 460 Yes Rugid 9 8 Westview 1149 Monterey Avenue NE Submersible 1-Duty 1-Standby Flygt Flygt 70 70 34 34 3.8 3.8 3395 3395 2 40 Yes Rugid 6 Bastard 3 Note: Abbreviations: gpm – gallons per minute; TDH – total dynamic head; ft – foot/feet; hp – horsepower; RPM – revolutions per minute. CHAPTER 2 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL |JULY 2022 | 2-19 2.5.21 Force Mains A summary of the FMs is provided in Table 2.3. Additional information regarding lift stations and FMs is provided in Chapter 6 – Replacement and Rehabilitation Program . Table 2.3 Collection System Force Main Inventory Diameter (inch) Length (LF) Percentage of System 2 6,970 19.3% 3 1,863 5.2% 4 10,996 30.4% 6 2,979 8.2% 8 12,282 34.0% 10 1,026 2.8% Total (feet) 36,116 100% Total (miles) 6.8 100% 2.6 Water System The City provides water service to City customers from a series of groundwater wells. As shown in Figure 2.4, there are ten reservoirs and one operational storage/equalizing detention clearwell at the Maplewood Treatment and Booster Pump Station (BPS) Facility. These storage facilities within the City total 22,877,053 gross volume gallons of water. The City operates 12 BPS to convey treated water from low pressure zones to high pressure zones. Altogether, the City’s water system is 1,629,560 feet (308.6 miles) with a majority 8 -inch DIPs. The City has a Water System Plan Update (WSPU) that was approved by DOH in February 2021 that includes a conservation plan identified in C hapter 6. Part of the conservation plan discusses the potential for the use of reclaimed water. Further discussion on reclaimed water can be found in Chapter 4 of this Plan. This WSPU was developed by the City in coordination with this planning effort. A wellhead protection program (WHPP) was prepared by the City and approved by DOH in 1999. The City’s Water System Plan Update completed updates to the WHPP. Changes to the program are included in Appendix L-1. Compliance with WHPP requirements is part of a broader City effort identified in the WSPU as the Aquifer Protection Program. In 1998, the City adopted an Aquifer Protection Ordinance to protect its water supply from being contaminated. The ordinance regulates land use within the aquifer recharge area in order to protect the aquifer from contamination and are defined as Critical Areas. As part of aquifer protection the City has designated an aquifer protection area (APA), which is that area within the zone of capture for the City's aquifers and spring. The APA is divided into three zones: • Zone 1 encompasses the 1-year groundwater capture zone for the downtown wells. Regulations adopted for this zone provide the strongest protection for the area that is very close to the most important and vulnerable wells. • Zone 1 Modified encompasses the 1-year capture zones for the Maplewood, Wellfield, and Springbrook Springs, which are partially outside of the City limits. Regulations are somewhat less strict than those in Zone 1 and are intended to provide appropriate CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CHAPTER 2 2-20 | JULY 2022 | FINAL protection for important wells/springs that are deep and/or partially protected by intervening layers of relatively impermeable earth materials. • Zone 2 provides a level of protection adequate for areas that are further away from the most important sources but still within the capture zone or for deep backup wells. Zone 2 encompasses: - The portion of the capture zone for downtown wells that lies between the 1-year capture zone boundary and the City limits. - The portion of the capture zone for Well 5A that lies within City limits. - The portion of the capture zone for Springbrook Springs that lies between the 1-year capture zone boundary and the 10-year bound ary. Land use in Zone 1 is more strictly regulated than in Zone 1-Modified or Zone 2. All new development within Zone 1 must connect to the sewer system. Existing development must connect if it is within 330 feet of a sewer line. In Zone 2, all new platted single-family, multi-family, and commercial development must connect to the sewer system. However, a single-family residence is required to connect only if it is within 330 feet of a sewer line. The water facilities and aquifer protection areas are shown on Figure 2.4. Currently the wellhead protection zones and the aquifer protection areas refer to the same zones. The City is in the process of updating the program: 1) update APA zones to reflect capture zone delineations, 2) will be performing site surveys at facilities within the APA zones that store/use hazardous materials, 3) provide outreach and training for aquifer protection. A more detailed description of the proposed aquifer protection policies can be found in Chapter 3 – Operational Policies and Criteria. Additionally, Appendix L-2 shows the relationship between the wellhead protection zones and where existing septic systems are located in the City. 2.7 Operation and Maintenance The current operation and maintenance program for the sewer utility consists of four elements: normal operations, emergency operations, preventive maintenance and staffing. Normal operation of the sewer system is shared by the Maintenance Services and Utility Systems divisions. The program is described and evaluated in more detail in Chapter 7 – Operations and Maintenance. 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú3Ú UT UT UTUT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT 3Q 3Q 3Q !ã!ã!ã!ã !ã !ã!ã!ã!ã!ã !ã !ã East Valley RdRai ni er Ave NS 133rd St Oakesdale Ave SWBens on Dr SSW 7th St 140th Ave SENE SunsetBlvd §¨¦405 Maple Valley Hwy 164th Ave SECedar River Trail S E J o n e s R d Lake Youngs Service RdSE May Valley Rd Union Ave NESE Petrovitsky Rd §¨¦5 LakeBoren LakeDesire SpringLake Lake Youngs Shady Lake Lake Jolie Ham Lake PantherLake Cedar River Lake Washington PW-5A Highlands Chlorination Facility HighlandsReservoirs HazenReservoir Mt Olivet Reservoir EW-3R, PW-9,RW-1,2 & 3, PW-83Q CorrosionControl Facility West Hill Reservoir MaplewoodChlorinationFacility PW-10 PW-12 PW-11, PW- 17Rolling Hills Reservoirs494 & 594 North TalbotReservoir South TalbotReservoir Southbrook SpringsTreatment Plant PW-4 Shy CreekLiftstation Devils ElbowLift Station East ValleyLift Station Talbot CrestLift Station Dennys LiftStation Long LiftStation KensingtonCrest Lift Station WedgewoodLift Station WestviewLift Station Lind AveLift Station Lake Washington#2 Lift Station CottonwoodLift Station Lake Wash.Flush Lift Station Stone GateLift Station Falcon RidgeLift Station Liberty LiftStation Lake WashingtonBeach LiftStation Pipers BluffLift Station Baxter LiftStation Misty CoveLift Station Airport LiftStation Last Revised: September 06, 2019 \\io-fs-1\Data\GIS\GISBackup\Renton\WaterSystemPlan2017\Water Facilities and Aquifer Protections.mxd O 0 10.5 Miles Legend !ã Production Well UT Reservoir 3Q Water Treatment Plant Aqu ifer Protectio n Zones Zone 1 Zone 1 Modified Zone 2 Lift Station 3Ú City of Renton 3Ú King County Gravity Pipeline City of Renton Force Main King County Force Main King County Gravity Main Study Area Renton City Boundary Roads Disclaimer: Features shown in this figure are for planning purposes and represent approximate locations. Engineering and/or survey accuracy is not implied. Data Sources: City of Renton CHAPTER 2 | LONG RANG E WASTEWATER MANAG EMENT PLAN | CIT Y OF RENTON Figure 2.4Water Facilities andAquifer Protection Areas CHAPTER 3 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 | 3-1 Chapter 3 OPERATIONAL POLICIES AND CRITERIA 3.1 Introduction The existing sewer system is designed and operated according to specific ordinances, regulations, and engineering standards (hereafter collectively referred to as policies and criteria). All of the policies originate from eight sources, listed in descending order, from those with the broadest authority to those with the narrowest: • Federal Regulation – Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). • State Regulations – Department of Ecology (Ecology). • King County (KC) Policies – Department of Natural Resources – Wastewater Treatment Division. • City of Renton Comprehensive Plan. • City of Renton Ordinances – City Council. • Administrative Policies – Mayor. • Department Policies – Public Works Department. • Long-Range Wastewater Utility Policies – Wastewater Utility Staff. Federal regulation, state regulations, county policies, and city ordinances dictate requirements that are set by law. Policies that originate in the Office of the Mayor, Public Works, or Wastewater Utility cannot be less stringent or in conflict with other, broader laws. Those policies and criteria referencing the Long -Range Wastewater Management Plan (LRWWMP) have or will become official policies with the adoption of the LRWWMP by City of Renton (City) City Council. 3.2 Operational Goal The goal of the City’s Wastewater Utility is to provide adequate, reliable sanitary sewer services at a minimum cost to the customer. Guiding the Wastewater Utility’s daily operations as well as its planning activities, the policies in this LRWWMP stem from this goal. Objectives and policies that fall into six areas of emphasis support this broad service goal: 1. Customer Service. 2. Planning Objective. 3. Service Area Extension . 4. Financial. 5. Facility. 6. Operations. The policies and criteria supporting each objective are provided below. Note, given the nature of the content, this chapter is presented in traditional policy format, rather than outline format that is used in other chapters. For actual wording of a given policy and criteria, refer to the indicated source for complete text. CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CHAPTER 3 3-2 | JULY 2022 | FINAL 3.3 Customer Service Objective Ensure the availability of an adequate level of sanitary sewer service that is consistent with land use, environmental protection, and annexation goals and policies. 3.3.1 Policies • Sewer facilities and services should be consistent with the growth and development concepts directed by the Comprehensive Plan (Policy U -1, 2018 City of Renton Comprehensive Plan). • Ensure and encourage the use of the sanitary sewer system within the urban areas in a manner consistent with land use and environmental protection goals and policies (LRWWMP). • All new developments should be required to connect to the sanitary sewer system, except properties that have adequate soils to support on-site septic systems, are zoned for low density single family residential development , located away from environmentally sensitive areas, and outside Aquifer Protection Areas (Policy U-2 1, 2018 City of Renton Comprehensive Plan). • Actively promote connection to the public sewers by all residents within the City’s service area (LRWWMP). • Public sewer expansions shall not occur in the Rural Area and on Natural Resource Lands except where needed to address specific health and safety problems threatening the existing structures and the use of septic or other onsite wastewater systems has been determined by KC to be not feasible; or to serve a new school authorized to be located in the Rural Area by R-327 (Policy F-264.A, 2018 King County Comprehensive Plan). 3.3.2 Implementation • The owner of each house, building or property used for human occupancy, employment, recreation or other purpose, situated within the City and abutting on a public sanitary sewer of the City which said public is hereby required at the owner’s expense to install suitable toilet facilities therein and to connect such facilities directly with the proper public sewer in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter, within ninety days after the date of official notice to do so (Renton Municipal Code [RMC] 4-6-040.A). • Where a public sanitary or combined sewer is not avail able under the provisions of Title IV Chapter 6 of the RMC, the building sewer shall be connected to a private sewage disposal system complying with the provisions of this section (RMC 4-6-040.A.1). • The owners of private sewerage disposal systems shall operate and maintain the facilities in a sanitary manner at all times at no expense to the City (RMC 4-6-040.I.4). • The owner or occupant of lands or premises located within the urban growth area (UGA) (as defined in the King County Comprehensive Plan ) undertaking new residential or nonresidential construction, short subdivision or subdivision from which sewage will originate shall connect to a public sewer, provided the sewer utility permits such connection (King County Board of Health Rules and Regulations [KCBHRR] No. 3, 13.04.050). • Sanitary sewers, together with all appurtenances, shall be constructed or deferred before a final short plat is submitted or a short subdivision is recorded. Sanitary sewers shall be constructed to specifications and standards of the Wastewater Utility, approved by the Department and in accordance with other standards of the City. A CHAPTER 3 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 | 3-3 separate construction permit will be required for any such improvements, along with associated engineered plans prepared per the City’s drafting standards and associated fees (RMC 4-7-100). • Unless septic tanks are specifically approved by the Planning/Building/Public Works Department and the KC Health Department, sanitary sewers shall be provided by the developer at no cost to the City and desig ned in accordance with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision development (RMC 4-6-040F). • Development that is within two hundred feet of a public sewer, where an on -site system (OSS) is operating, connection to the public sewer is required when the sewering authority permits such connection and when: - Repair, modification, or replacement of the system is necessary, or the existing OSS has failed and an OSS fully conforming to this title cannot be designed and installed (KCBHRR 13.04.050). - At such time that additional construction which in any way affects the on-site sewage system is proposed (KCBHRR No. 3, 13.04.050). - They are part of a sewer Local Im provement District (LID) (RMC 4-6-040.A). • New development (residential and non -residential) in Zone 1 of the Aquifer Protection Area (APA) shall be required to connect to the City sewer system (RMC 4 -6-040J.1.a.i). • All existing development (residential and non-residential) in Zone 1 of the APA that is within the specified proximity of existing or future gravity sanitary sewer shall be required to connect to the City sewer system within two years of the availability of the new sewer line (RMC 4-6-040J.1.a.iii). • Any new development (residential and non -residential) in Zone 2 of the APA shall be required to connect to the City sewer system (new single-family residential development on existing lots may be allowed to use on-site disposal systems until public sewer service becomes available, as determined by the Wastewater Utility) (RMC 4-6-040J.2.a.i). • The City, at the discretion of the Wastewater Utility, may defer compliance with non-health related standards dealing with extension, design, or capacity for tempo rary sanitary sewer service. Temporary sanitary sewer service may include pump tests, temporary discharge permits, connections for temporary construction sit es, or other similar usage. The property owner will retain the responsibility and will execute an agreement to either directly or financially meet said standards at the direction of the City (LRWWMP). • After connection to the sewer system, all private sewage disposal facilities shall be abandoned and filled with suitable material; provided, however, the owner of the subject premises may suitably clean the septic tank to utilize the sam e and any adjoining drain field systems for the disposal of stormwater (RMC 4 -6-040.I.6). 3.4 Planning Objective Ensure that the City’s sewage collection system is consistent with the public health and water quality goals of Washington State (Policy U-F, 2018 City of Renton Comprehensive Plan). CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CHAPTER 3 3-4 | JULY 2022 | FINAL 3.4.1 Policies • Sewer facilities and services should be consistent with the growth and development concepts expressed in the Land Use Element. Extension of sewer service should be coordinated with expected growth and development. (Policy U-20, 2018 City of Renton Comprehensive Plan). • Apply level of sanitary sewer service standards consistently throughout the service area (LRWWMP). • Sewer system improvements supporting areas of the City projected to experience high levels of growth should be prioritized to ensure that sewer service is concurrent with anticipated growth. (Policy U-2 5, 2018 City of Renton Comprehensive Plan). • Timely and orderly extension of the sewer system should be provided within the City’s existing and future service areas to meet public health requirements (Policy U -24, 2018 City of Renton Comprehensive Plan). • Implementation and coordination of programs for the improvement, phasing and financing of sewer infrastructure should be developed consistent with the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan (LRWWMP). • Approval of development should be conditioned on the availability of adequate utility service and should not result in decreases in local levels of service for existing development. All new development should be required to pay their fair share of construction costs for necessary utility system improvements (Policy U -5, 2018 City of Renton Comprehensive Plan). • Sewer f acilities and services should be in place prior to occupancy of development projects (LRWWMP). • Sewer service should be expanded so that the current levels of service are maintained through build-out of the adopted land use (LRWWMP): - Note: While land use pl ans typically deal with twenty-year projections, the sewer facilities installed today have a life expectancy of 75 to 100 years. A Sanitary Sewer Utility has to consider the current Land Use Plan, historical trends, and predictions for further growth when designing sewers. The Wastewater Utility may install a facility larger than needed for the land use projected in the 20 -year plan if additional capacity needs are projected for the long -term future. It is in the best interests of the ratepayers to obtain the longest use possible from a facility and not have to replace newer facilities. • Continue coordination with KC Wastewater Treatment Division regarding Inflow/Infiltration reduction initiatives, system improvements, and interconnections between City and KC sewer infrastructure (Policy U -27, 2018 City of Renton Comprehensive Plan). • Protect surface and groundwater quality through coordination with KC to reduce surcharging conditions that may cause wastewater overflows (Policy U -26, 2018 City of Renton Compreh ensive Plan). • Coordinate with non-City sewer providers operating within the City and neighboring jurisdictions to accommodate road construction and other public works projects (Policy U-2 3, 2018 City of Renton Comprehensive Plan). • For planning purposes, the Wastewater Utility should use sanitary sewer service boundaries established by agreement with adjacent municipalities. Where boundaries CHAPTER 3 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 | 3-5 do not exist, the Wastewater Utility shall use natural basins, KC’s Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), and negotiations with adjacent sewer service providers to determine the ultimate service area (LRWWMP). • Facilities should be planned and sized to serve natural basins to minimize the need for pumping and inter-basin transfers (LRWWMP). • Projected sewage flows from development should be calculated based on adopted land use plans and policies. These projections should be used as a guide in developing the wastewater Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The CIP should be updated as land use plans and policies are revised (Policy U-22 , 2018 City of Renton Comprehensive Plan). 3.5 Service Area and Extension Objectives Ensure the availability of an adequate level of sanitary sewer service to areas annexing to the City or areas within the City’s Potential Annexation Area (PAA). 3.5.1 Policies • Support annexation where infrastructure and services allow for urban densities, service providers would be consolidated, and/or it would facilitate the efficient delivery of service. (Policy L-8, 2018 City of Renton Comprehensive Plan). • Ensure the availability of an adequate level of sanitary sewer service through system planning that is consistent with land use, environmental protection, and annexation goals and policies (Goal U-E, 2018 City of Renton Comprehensive Plan ). • The City will follow state guidelines that define a City's ability to assume facilities in annexation areas (LRWWMP). • The City may assume existing portions of adjacent sanitary sewer systems, at the discretion of the City Council, when such assumptions promote the logical and efficient development of the City’s sanitary sewer system (LRWWMP). • Allow the extension of sanitary sewer services within the City’s PAA according to such criteria as the City may require. Sanitary sewer service shall not be established within the boundaries of another sewer service provider’s district, except by agreement with that provider. • As the service provider, the City is the point of contact or focal point. Not all regulations or criteria originate with the City. Some regulations or criteria originate at the federal, state, or county level. All applicable regulations will be followed in the provision of service in unincorporated areas (LRWWMP). • Areas annexed without existing municipal sanitary sewer service shall be served by the City unless a service agreement exists or is negotiated with a neighboring utility (LRWWMP). • The City Council shall consider annexations without assumptions of existing sanitary sewer facilities under the following conditions: - The sanitary sewer facilities are or will be operated and maintained by an adjacent municipal utility. - The adjacent utility has executed a service boundary agreement with the City. - The annexation area is better served by the adjacent utility either because of location within a drainage basin or because it is the most logical extension of facilities (LRWWMP). CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CHAPTER 3 3-6 | JULY 2022 | FINAL • When areas outside of the city limits annex to the City, they must be provided with an adequ ate level of sewer service. The City will serve annexed areas that do not have sewer service unless a service agreement exists or is negotiated with a neighboring utility. (LRWWMP). • Areas annexed with existing sanitary sewer service must meet the City's sanitary sewer service objectives. Upgrading of sanitary sewer facilities to City standards, within all or portions of newly annexed areas will be required if there is a threat to public health and safety. If improvements are necessary, they may be accomplished by developer installation or LID as a condition of the annexation (LRWWMP). • In the UGA all new development shall be served by public sewers, unless application of this policy to a proposal for a single-family residence on an individual lot would deny all reasonable use of the property; or sewer service is not available for a proposed short subdivision of urban property in a timely or reasonable manner as determined by the King County Utility Technical Review Committee. These onsite systems shall be managed by the property owner that can consider an Onsite Sewage System Maintainer certified by the Public Health – Seattle & KC. (2018 King County Comprehensive Plan, Policy F -255). • KC shall work with cities, special purpose districts, other local service providers and residents to identify and distinguish local, countywide and regional services. Over time, cities will assume primary responsibility for coordinating the provision of local services delivery in urban areas. In general, the county will continue t o provide local services delivery within the Rural Area and Natural Resource Lands. Special purpose districts may still provide services, where appropriate. The county will also assume primary responsibility for coordinating the provision of countywide services, including countywide services that must be delivered within City boundaries. The county will also work with cities, special purpose districts, and other counties to identify regional service and facility needs and develop strategies to provide them. (2018 King County Comprehensive Plan, Policy F-102). 3.5.2 Implementation It is recommended the City update the City Code to ensure the availability of an adequate level of sanitary sewer service to areas within the City’s Potential Annexation Area (PAA) that includes all developments. As currently written, sanitary sewer service to properties outside the City’s corporate limits will not be permitted except under the following conditions: - Public Entity: The applicant is a municipal or quasi-municipal corporation including a school, hospital or fire district, KC, or similar public entity. - Necessary Service: Service is necessary to convert from a failed or failing septic system or in the area that has been defined by the Seattle-King County Health Department as a health concern area. - Vested Service: Those properties for which the City has granted a valid sewer availability certificate prior to July 21, 2008, and the project has a current vested right to build. - In the City’s Sewer Service Area, Existing Legal Lot(s) Desiring to Construct One Single-Family Residence or Connect One Existing Single-Family Residence: The Administration may approve the connection of one single-family residence on an existing legal lot. CHAPTER 3 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 | 3-7 • In any case, as a condition of sewer service by the City, the property owner(s) shall execute a covenant to annex for each parcel when the property being provided sewer service is within the City’s PAA (RMC 4 -6-040.C). 3.6 Financial Objective Provide sound financial policies on which to base operations of the Wastewater Utility that will allow the utility to meet its overall goal. 3.6.1 Policies • Criteria should be established for developing the fees and rates necessary to maintain the Wastewater Utility’s established level of service (LRWWMP). • The Wastewater Utility shall be operated as an enterprise utilit y (financially self -supporting) (LRWWMP). • The Wastewater Utility should use a rate setting process that complies with standards established by the American Public Works Association (LRWWMP). • The Wastewater Utility should use cost -based rates and additional charges that: - Recover current, historical, or future costs associated with the City's sanitary sewer system and services. • Equitably charge utility customers to recover costs commensurate with the benefits they receive. • Provide adequate and stable sources of funds to cover the current and projected annual cash needs of the Wastewater Utility (LRWWMP). • Portions of the revenue generated from sewer user rates will be used for wastewater utility related capital improvement projects, including deb t service for the projects (RMC 8-5-15F). • New customers seeking to connect to the sanitary sewer system shall be required to pay charges for an equitable share of the cost of the system. Revenue from these charges is used to finance part of the CIP (RMC 4-1-180.C). • Customers should be charged for supplemental, special purpose services through separate ancillary charges based on the cost to provide the service. Ancillary charges create more equitable fees and increase operating efficiency for services to customers. Revenue from ancillary charges should be used to offset operations and maintenance (O&M) costs (LRWWMP). • The utility should maintain information systems that provide sufficient financial and statistical information to ensure conformance with rate-setting policies and objectives (LRWWMP). • Rates shall be developed using the cash basis to determine the total revenue requirements of the Wastewater Utility (LRWWMP). • User charges shall be sufficient to provide cash for the ex penses of operating and maintaining the Wastewater Utility. To ensure the fiscal and physical integrity of the Wastewater Utility, an amount shall be set aside each year for capital expenditures from retained earnings, that is, an amount shall be set aside to cover some portion of the depreciation of the physical plant. The amount may be transferred from the Sanitary Sewer Fund to the Construction Fund for general purposes, or for specific purposes, such as creating a reserve for main replacement (LRWWMP). CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CHAPTER 3 3-8 | JULY 2022 | FINAL • A Working Capital Reserve will be maintained to cover emergencies, bad debts, and fluctuations in cash flow (LRWWMP). • The customer classes for the utility shall be single-family (including attached single-family), commercial (including multi-family), and industrial (RMC 4-6-040.E.2). • The inflation rate should be based on information provided by the Finance Department (LRWWMP). • Large industrial users should be charged for services on the same basis as all other users (LRWWMP). • The utility should use generally accepted cost allocation principles for all cost allocation purposes (LRWWMP). • The utility fees and charges should be calculated for the service area as a whole. Rates should be the same regardless of location (except for the inside/outside City distinction discussed below) (LRWWMP). • When the City takes over existing service of properties outside the City limits by agreement with an adjacent district, the City shall charge the normal in-city rates (LRWWMP). 3.6.2 Implementation • For customers residing ou tside the City limits, sanitary sewer rates are 1.5 times the residential City rates (RMC 8-5-15C). • Renton provides for a senior and/or disabled citizen discount on City sewer rates (RMC 8-5-15D4). • Owners of properties that have not been assessed or charged an equitable share of the cost of the sanitary sewer system shall pay, prior to connection to the system, one or more of four charges: - System development charge. - Special assessment charge. - Latecomer's fees. • Inspection/approval fees. 3.7 Facility Objective Provide a wastewater collection system that ensures adequate capacity and system reliability, is consistent with land use and environmental protection goals and policies, and is well maintained. 3.7.1 Policies • Protect the health and safety of City citizens from environmental hazards associated with utility systems through the proper design and siting of utility facilities (LRWWMP). • Promote the co -location of new utility infrastructure within rights-of-way and ut ility corridors, and coordinate construction and replacement of utility systems with other public infrastructure projects to minimize construction related costs and disruptions (LRWWMP). • Design criteria should be established to provide an optimum performance level and a standard of quality for the sanitary sewer system (LRWWMP). CHAPTER 3 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 | 3-9 • All lift stations that will be converted to public maintenance shall have control and telemetry systems that are consistent and compatible with the current City system (LRWWMP). • Joint use facilities will be pursued only in those areas where they would improve reliability or reduce operating costs. All joint use facilities must comply with City policy and design standards (LRWWMP). 3.7.2 Implementation • Public sewers shall conform to the lat est City standards, as adop ted by City Code, as well as Ecology Criteria for sewage works design and the Recommended Standards for Sewage Works of the Great Lakes-Upper Mississippi River Board of State Sanitary Engineers. The standards are subject to review by Ecology. All public sewer extensions shall conform to City standards and be consisten t with the City LRWWMP (RMC 4-6-040.F.2). • The public sewer shall be polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic pipe American Society for Testing Methods (ASTM) D 3034. Rubber gaskets for PVC pipe shall meet ASTM 1869 standards. However, ductile iron (DI) American Water Works Association (AWWA) C151, that is Type II push-on or Type III mechanical joints, together with cement mortar lining that is 3/32 of an inch in accordance wit h AWWA C 104 and PVS C900 pipes can be used for force mains or areas with external loading concerns. Also public sewers installed in filled or unstable ground, in areas with high ground water levels, or in areas where the potential for infiltration occurs, may be required to be either DI, or PVC plastic pipe. Exact pipe material shall be as determined by the Wastewater Utility. Alternative pipe materials may be considered by the Wastewater Utility on a case-by-case basis. Minimum size shall be 8 inches in diameter (RMC 4 -6-040.F.3). • Manholes shall be installed at the end of each line, at all changes of grade, size or alignment, and at distances no greater than 400 feet for 15-inch diameter sewers or smaller. Greater spacing may be permitted in larger sewers. Manholes shall be a minimum of 48 inches in diameter, shall be precast concrete or cast in place concrete, with steel reinforc ement. Steps shall be placed at 1-foot intervals, conforming to current safety regulations. • The manhole covers shall be 24 -inch d iameter cast iron (CI) frame and lid. All connections to the manhole shall match the existing inverts or have a drop connection in accordance with current City standards (RMC 4-6-040.F.5). • All private lift stations for commercial or multi-family use shall have alarm and standby emergency operation systems, and meet or exceed Ecology specifications as detailed in Recommended Standards for Sewage Works. All private single-family lift stations shall meet or exceed City standards for that type of facility (RMC 4-6-040.F.6). City provides development guidelines for lift stations and review during building permit approval. The development handout is included in Appendix N. • All person(s) or local improvement districts desiring to extend sanitary sewer mains as part of the City's system must extend said mains under the supervision of the Wastewater Utility (RMC 4-6-040.F.7). • No property shall be served by City sewer unless the sewer main is extended to the extreme boundary limit of said property as required by this section. All extensions shall extend and cross the full width of the property to be served by sewer except when CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CHAPTER 3 3-10 | JULY 2022 | FINAL shown by engineering methods, to the satisfaction of the Wastewater Utility, that future extension is not possible or necessary. If an exemption is granted, the property owner is not relieved of the responsibility to extend the main and shall execute a covenant agreeing to participate in an extension if, in the future, the Wastewater Utility determines that it is necessary (RMC 4 -6-010.B). • Any facility improvements, identified by the current adopted LR WWMP, that are not installed or are being installed must be constructed by the property owner(s) o r developer(s) desiring service (RMC 4-6-040.B). • Any party extending utilities that may serve other than that party's property may request a latecomers' agreement from the City (RMC 9-5-1). • Any party required to oversize utilities may request that the utility participate in the cost of the project (RMC 4 -6-010.C). • Grease and oil interceptors or other approved methodology, shall be required on all restaurant, garage, and gas station premises and shall be so situated as to intercept the sources of grease and oil wastes but exclude domestic or human wastes. Grease, oil, and sand interceptors shall be provided in any other case if, in the opinion of the Wastewater Utility, they are necessary for the proper handling of liquid wastes. All interceptors shall be of a type and capacity approved by the Wastewater Utility (RMC 8-5-11). • Old building sewers may be used in connection with new buildings only when the Wastewater Utility finds they meet all standards and specifications of the City. The applicant / owner is required to provide testing / examination material (i.e., c losed -circuit television [CCTV]) prior to the City determination (RMC 4-6-040.G.13). • The size and slope of the building sewer shall be subject to the approval of the Wastewater Utility. The standard minimum sizes and slopes are (RMC 4 -6-040.G.3): - 4 inches at a 2 percent slope (1/4 inch per foot) for single-family residential. - 6 inches at a 2 percent slope (1/4 inch per foot) for multi-family, commercial, or industrial. • In no event shall the diameter of the side sewer stub be less than 6 inches. The Wastewater Utility may allow, under certain circumstances, a 6-inch side sewer to be laid at no less than 1 percent (1/8 inch per foot). A grade release holding the City harmless for the flatter slope will be required . • If a building cannot be served by a gravity system an approved, private lift station may be utilized to provide service (RMC 4 -6-040.G.5). 3.7.3 Analysis and Design Criteria Wastewater Flow Rates: Wastewater flow rates will be established based on adopted land use plans and policies as reflected in the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) Land Use Baseline projections. Per capita and employee flow rates will be calibrated to flow measurement data (LRWWMP). 3.7.3.1 Sanitary Sewer Design Criteria All sewer lines within the City shall be designed in accordance with good engineering practice by a professional engineer with minimum design criteria presented in Chapter C1 of the "Criteria for Sewerage Works Design," prepared by Ecology, November 2007, or as superseded by CHAPTER 3 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 | 3-11 subsequent updates. The sewer lines shall also conform to the latest City Standards and Specifications. Detailed standards are included in Title 4, Chapter 6 of the City Code: • Design Loading for Sanitary Sewer Facilities: Sanitary sewer system flows are composed of residential, institutional, commercial, and industrial sewage, along with infiltration and stormwater inflow. Sanitary sewer systems must be capable of conveying the ultimate peak flows of these wastewater sources. No overflo ws shall be permitted (LRWWMP): - Design Period: The design period is the length of time that a given facility will provide safe, adequate and reliable service. The period selected for a given facility is based on its economic life, which is determined by the following factors: the structural integrity of the facility, rate of degradation, cost of replacing the facility, cost of increasing the capacity of the facility, and the projected population growth rate serviced by the facility. Collection and interceptor sewers are designed for the ultimate development of the contributing area. The life expectancy for new sanitary sewers, using current design practices, is in excess of eighty years (LRWWMP). • Design of Sanitary Sewer Facilities: Allowable sewer pipe shall be high-density polyethylene (HDPE) or PVC. For normal depth, PVC is generally preferable, because it has longer laying lengths, which results in fewer joints, reducing the potential for infiltration. Table 3.1 summarizes sanitary sewer design criteria (LRWWMP): - Gravity Sewer Sizing: Gravity sewers are sized to provide capacity for peak, wet -weather flows. The smallest diameter sewer allowed is 8 -inches, except for limited conditions. All sewers will be laid on a grade to produce a mean velocity when flowing half-full of at least two feet per second. - Manhole Sizing: Manholes will be at least 48-inches in diameter and will be spaced at intervals not to exceed 400 feet on sewer lines 15-inches in diameter or less, and 500 feet on sewer lines 18 -inches in diameter or larger. These distances are consistent with most standards, but approval can be granted for longer distances. - Roughness Coefficient: The Manning equation shall be used to design and analyze wastewater flow characteristics of the sanitary sewers. The Manning roughness constant [n] shall vary depending on the pipe material. For sewer modeling, a Manning’s equivalent of 0.013 will be used. Typical values are summarized in Table 3.1. - Reference Datum: The North American Vertical Datum (NAVD) 1988 is the standard datum used within the City for design and construction of sanitary sewer facilities. - Separation between Sanitary and Other Facilities: Ecology requires a ten -foot horizontal separation of water and sewer facilities for health reasons. Sanitary and storm sewer facilities require seven feet separation per the Surface Water Design Manual and shall have basic separation requirements for construction purposes. In unusual conditions the separation distance can be shortened, but a minimum horizontal separation of five feet between sanitary and other facilities shall be maintained per Ecology. Wherever possible, a horizontal separation of seven feet is desirable. These distances are measured edge to edge. - Hydraulic Analysis: The hydraulics of the City’s sewer service area is modeled with the MikeUrban software program by the Danish Hydraulic Institute (DHI). The CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CHAPTER 3 3-12 | JULY 2022 | FINAL model was calibrated and updated to reflect the system wet weather flows in 2018. The City currently maintains and updates the model as needed. • All new developments, with the exception of developments involving less than five single-family residences, may require a hydraulic analysis. The sanitary sewer system hydraulic analyses will be performed using the City's hydraulic computer model. The developer may be responsible for paying the cost of the analysis of the sanitary sewer system. If the analysis concludes improvements need to be made, the developer and the City may need to negotiate cost allocation. Table 3.1 Sanitary Sewer Design Criteria Criteria Details Sanitary Sewer Sizing: Peak Wet -Weather Flow Minimum Sewer Size: 8 inches in Diameter (6 inches for limited conditions) Pipe Materials: PVC HDPE Manholes: Maximum Spacing 400 feet for pipe < 15 inches 500 feet for pipe > 18 inches Minimum Manhole Size 48 inches in diameter Minimum Clear Opening 23 inches in diameter Maximum Depth 20 feet (where possible) Separation From Water Mains: Horizontal Separation (Parallel) 10 feet Minimum Horizontal Separation (Parallel) 5 feet Minimum Vertical Separation (Perpendicular) 18 inches Hydraulic Criteria: Depth to Diameter Ratio 0.85 Minimum Scouring Velocity 2 feet per second Manning Roughness Coefficient Design 0.013 PVC 0.011 Concrete 0.012 Lined DI / CI 0.012 Vitrified Clay 0.013 Sewer Modeling 0.013 CHAPTER 3 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 | 3-13 3.7.3.2 Lift Station Design Criteria Sewage lift stations within the City shall be designed in accordance with good engineering practice by a professional engineer using the minimum design criteria presented in Chapter C2 of the "Criteria For Sewerage Works Design," prepared by Ecology, August 2008, or any subsequent updates, and shall conform to the latest City standards and specifications. Detailed standards are in cluded in Title 4, Chapter 6 of the City Code. Table 3.2 summarizes Lift Station design criteria (LRWWMP): • Design Loading for Lift Stations: Lift stations shall be designed to handle the peak, wet -weather flow from the contributing area. All lift stations, except for private stations for a single-family home, shall have a minimum of two pump units, each with the capacity to handle the expected maximum flow: - Design Period: The design period for lift stations shall take into consideration long-term needs, rep lacement or expansion difficulties, service area growth rate and useful life. A lift station should have a minimum design period of twenty years for the facility and ten years for mechanical and electrical equipment. Consideration should be given to longer design periods for lift stations that are expected to serve an indefinite life. Consideration must also be given to the ability of the consumers to pay for the facilities. • Design of Lift Station Facilities: If wide variations in wastewater flow rates are expected for the lift station, then consideration should be given to the use of three or more pumping units. If three pumps are used, two of them must have the capacity to convey peak wastewater flow rates. Each pump shall be capable of passing spheres of at least three inches in diameter: - Backup Power: Each lift station will be provided with an on-site power backup. The City may allow the use of portable power backup for smaller stations. A lift station designed for portable power backup shall be provided with sufficient wet -well storage to allow adequate time for maintenance personnel to transport, setup, and provide the necessary backup, during a power outage. Wet -well storage will be designed on the basis of the peak, wet -weather flow. - Force Mains: Force mains shall be sized to maintain a minimum velocity of 2 feet per second. The force main shall have a maximum velocity of 10 feet per second when all pumps are operating together. Regardless of these velocity criteria, minimum size shall be three inches in diameter. A minimum of four inches in diameter is preferable. - Ownership: Each lift station to be owned by the City shall have control and telemetry systems that are consistent and compatible with the current City system. • Elimination of Lift Station Facilities: Lift station facilities are typically eliminated through the development of the gravity sewer system. Highest priority should be given to elimination of lift station facilities because of their high degree of vulnerability and high O&M costs. Considerations for the elimination of a lift station include environmental risks, life-cycle costs, lift station impacts on downstream sanitary sewer facilities, vulnerability to vandalism, and lift station accessibility (LRWWMP). CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CHAPTER 3 3-14 | JULY 2022 | FINAL Table 3.2 Lift Station and Force Mains Design Criteria Criteria Details General Design Criteria Criteria for Sewerage Works Design . Lift Station Sizing: Peak Wet Weather Flow. Number of Pumps: Minimum of two pumps. Two Pumps: Each pump to handle the peak flow rates. Three Pumps: Two pumps to handle peak flow rates. Design Periods: Facility: 20 years. Mechanical and Electrical : 10 years . Wet-well Storage: Sufficient wet -well storage to allow adequate time for maintenance personnel to transport, setup, and provide the necessary backup, during a power outage. Reliability: On -site power backup . Elimination of Lift Stations: High Priority. Force Mains: Minimum Diameter: 3 inches. Velocity: Minimum: 2 feet per second. Maximum : 10 feet per second . 3.8 Operations Objective Maintain the sanitary sewer system in a safe, reliable, and efficient operating condition. Provide the organizational structure and staff necessary to operate the City's Wastewater Utility system efficiently. 3.8.1 Policies • The City will use its Wastewater Operations Master Plan (OMP) to document current activities and programs into an O&M procedures manual, review programs for effectiveness and future regulatory requirements, analyze and recommend programs in accordance with the City's long-range goals and objectives, and assist with the development of an implementation strategy (LRWWMP). • System Repair and Replacement shall be performed in a manner that includes risk assessment, condition, and coordination with other Capital Projects as part of determining when projects will be performed (LRWWMP). • The City will maintain its wastewater collection system according to the following guidelines: - Maintenance shall be performed by the sanitary sewer maintenance staff and supervised by the Field Superintendent . - All maintenance personnel shall be trained in the procedures and techniques necessary to efficiently perform their job descriptions. - Dry, heated shop space shall be available to all maintenance personnel. CHAPTER 3 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 | 3-15 - Tools shall be obtained and maintained to repair all items whose failure will impact the ability to meet other policy standards. - Spare parts shall be stocked for all equipment items whose failure will impact either the ability to meet other policy standards or the inability to continue providing service to customers. - Equipment and software to conduct condition assessments, including CCTV Inspections (LRWWMP). • The City should provide a preventive maintenance schedule for all fac ilities and equipment. This schedule should be based on the functional and economically useful life of the equipment and facilities as determined by the manufacturer or industry experience: - Worn parts should be repaired, replaced, or rebuilt before they have a high probability for failure. - Pipelines should be replaced through a condition assessment that includes a risk based prioritization. - Where feasible and practical, equipment should be replaced before it becomes obsolete (LRWWMP). • The City will maintain the wastewater collection system in a timely manner that provides service continuity to the customer: - Equipment breakdown repairs will be made even if overtime labor is involved. - Equipment that is taken out of service for maintenance will be returned to service as soon as possible (LRWWMP). • Written records and reports should be maintained on each facility and item of equipment showing its O&M history (LRWWMP). • The property owner shall own and maintain the side sewer from the house connection to the wastewater main, including the building side sewer and the side sewer stub (that portion of the side sewer within the right -of-way or easement). If a side sewer becomes plugged, it is the property owner's responsibility to correct the problem. The City will assist in locating the side sewer based on any as-built records it has. If it is determined that the problem exists within the City sewer main, the City will provide professional clean up and repair service (LRWWMP). • A vulnerability analysis will be performed t o determine a reasonable "worst case" failure for each basin. The analysis will consider the failure of the interceptor and trunk sewers, failure of the largest mechanical component, and power failure to a single power grid (LRWWMP). • The Wastewater Utility is responsible for operating the sanitary sewer system, including its planning, design, O&M, records management, customer service, and construction management (LRWWMP). • The Wastewater Utility shall consist of two sections: Wastewater Utility Systems Secti on and Surface Water / Wastewater Maintenance Services Section. The Wastewater Utility Systems Section is responsible for project management of CIP projects, planning and design, and customer service. Surface Water / Wastewater Maintenance Services Section is responsible for inspection, testing and repair of facilities, routine preventative maintenance, and responding to emergencies (LRWWMP). CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CHAPTER 3 3-16 | JULY 2022 | FINAL • Wastewater Utility customer service is performed by the Development Services Division (general) and by the Wastewater Utility staff (technical) (LRWWMP). • Ensure wastewater utility staffing is sufficient to maintain the sewer system and provide adequate service to City residents. Staffing levels should be commensurate with the physical extent of the sewer system and the number of residents served (Policy U-24, 2018 City of Renton Comprehensive Plan). • Provide the levels of staffing and diversity of skills necessary to operate the City's wastewater utility system (LRWWMP). • The Wastewater Utility should utilize the expertise in other City departments, according to inter-departmental agreements, to augment the Wastewater Utility's expertise (LRWWMP). 3.8.2 Implementation Restaurants and other food processing establishments, garages, and gas stations shall install and maintain grease traps, grease and oil interceptors, or other approved methodology on their premises as determined by the Wastewater Utility (RMC 8 -5-11). 3.9 Recommendations The City has robust policies and criteria to aid in providing adequate, reliable sanitary sewer service at a minimum cost to the customer. These policies and criteria are found in the Comprehensive Plan, RMC, reference manuals, and as LRWWMP policies. Through review of these documents, a discrepancy in Section 3.3.2 was found in regard to the distanc e from an OSS. We recommend the RMC is revised to be consistent with the KC Health Department. The recommended policy would state: "Existing development that is within three hundred and thirty feet of a public sewer, where an on -site system (OSS) is operat ing, connection to the public sewer is required when the sewering authority permits such connection and when: • Repair, modification, or replacement of the system is necessary, or the existing OSS has failed and an OSS fully conforming to this title cannot be designed and installed; or • At such time that additional construction which in any way affects the on-site sewage system is proposed (KCBHRR No. 3, 13.04.050). • They are part of a sewer Local Improvement District (LID) (RMC 4 -6-040.A).” The City also identified a discrepancy in Section 3.5.2 in regard to the implementation of areas annexing the City or in the City’s PAA. Currently the code states the City will only provide sewer services outside the City limits under certain conditions. However, the City would like to modify the policy to allow all development the opportunity to connect to public sewers. This will be reflected in a future iterations of the code. We recommend the City continue its regular review of policies and criteria to keep pace with changing system and development conditions. CHAPTER 4 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL |JULY 2022 | 4-1 Chapter 4 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 Introduction This chapter describes the City of Renton's (City) land use policies and demographic projections that are used to develop future wastewater flow projections. The City's land use policies and sewer system are connected with adjac ent sewer systems' policies and systems in several ways. Existing land use provides the basis for designing properly sized sewerage facilities, including trunks, interceptors, and lift stations. Many of the basins at the edges of the City's service area are also served in part by other cities or districts. In most cases, the City's sewers are downstream, or at the receiving end of the effluent, from the systems adjacent to the City. Therefore, proper planning for the City's sewers requires that the plans of these adjacent utilities be evaluated. In addition to adjacent utility plans, the land use plans and policies of King County (KC) and the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) were also considered. As discussed below the entire planning area is within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) established by the GMPC. The City refers to a portion of this area as the Potential Annexation Area (PAA). The City supports the countywide framework policies (F-255 and F -102) that call for the designated Urban Area to be served with sanitary sewers and prefers cities as the provider of sewer services. The entire study area has been designated Urban by the 2018 King County Comprehensive Plan. 4.2 Basis of Planning The Study Area, shown as a dashed green line in Figure 4.1, is the currently agreed -upon service boundary considered for the Long-Range Wastewater Management Plan (LRWWMP). The Study Area encompasses areas that coincide with the City limits and UGB. Two planning periods are evaluated in this LRWWMP: • Existing system . • Build-out . Evaluations are performed for both average dry weather flow (ADWF) and peak wet weather flows (PWWF). The existing system is defined as 2012 sanitary flows calibrated with 2018 flow data. Build-out conditions are projected to occur in 2040. 4.3 Planning Area The planning area for this LRWWMP corresponds, for the most part, with the current City limits and PAA, as shown in Figure 4.1. Service is provided consistent with regional planning and agreements with adjacent utilities. CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CHAPTER 4 4-2 | JULY 2022 | FINAL 4.3.1 Existing Service Ar ea The City currently serves customers in the Existing Service Area. As described in Chapter 2 – Overview of Existing Sewer System , the City serves six drainage basins: Black River, Downtown, East Cedar River, East Lake Washington, May Valley, and West Cedar River. Several basins are served by utilities other than the City: City of Renton, City of Tukwila, City of Kent, and Soos Creek Water and Sewer District provide service within the Black River Basin ; Soos Creek Water and Sewer District also provides service within the West Cedar River Basin ; Skyway Water and Sewer District serves parts of the Downtown Basin; and May Valley Basin is partially served by Coal Creek Water and Sewer District. Figure 4.2 shows the City of Renton’s service area and the adjacent sewer systems that border the City. The City has negotiated service area boundaries along the common borders in these Basins with Coal Creek Water and Sewer District, Soos Creek Water and Sewer District, Skyway Water and Sewer District, and Cedar River Water and Sewer District. Additionally, natural boundaries in certain areas make the City the logical sanitary sewer provider to them, especially the area to the east of the Green River within the City of Tukwila. Figure 4.2 reflects these agreed upo n service area boundaries. 4.3.2 Potential Annexation Areas The PAA, the gold line in Figure 4.1, is the area between this line and the existing City boundary, the dashed black line in Figure 4.1. Consistent with City policies outlined in Chapter 3 – Operational Policies and Criteria, property owner(s) in the PAA will be required to execute a covenant to annex for each parcel when the property is being provided sewer service if they meet the City’s sanitary sewer service objectives. The City aims to provide sewer services to areas in the PAA without existing sewer service in a timely and reasonable manner. The total area of PAA for the City is 7,603 acres. 142ND AVE SE144TH AVE SES 116TH ST SE 196TH ST SE 148TH ST 172ND AVE SE88TH AVE SLAKE WASHINGTON BLVD NNE 21ST ST UNION AVE NE121ST PL SESE 144TH ST W JAMES ST S 132ND ST BURNETT AVE NS 212TH WAY K L I C K I T A T D R NE 19TH ST S ORCAS ST 84TH AVE SEHARDIE AVE SWSOUTH C E N T E R B L V D MA P L E V A L L E Y H W Y S 208TH ST 120TH PL SES 115TH PL MAIN AVE SSE 141 S T S T TALBOT RD S84TH AVE S135TH AVE SES 1 3 0 T H P L CEDAR AVE S4TH AVE NSUNSET BLVD NE134TH AVE SEBENSON RD SS MORGAN ST S FINDLAY ST LINCOLN AVE NEHOQUIAM AVE NES LEO ST SE 227TH PL S 15TH STWILSON AVE SS 134TH S T 160TH AVE SE126TH AVE SESE 218TH PL 148TH AVE SEN 30TH ST S BANGOR ST IN T E R U R B A N A V E S S LUCILE ST SR 5 1 8 W MERCER WAY112TH AVE SE94TH AVE SSE 179TH ST S 190TH ST S 178TH ST 120TH AVE SE130TH AVE SEWA T E R S A V E S NE 16TH ST 59TH AVE SS 164TH ST 78TH AVE SES 115TH ST 76TH AVE SNE 7TH PL S 130TH STCORNELL AVE SSOMERSET B LVD SE CASCADE KY 127TH AVE SESE 60TH ST EDMONDS AVE NEI -5 FWY SE 79 T H D R N 38TH ST SKAGI T KYCENTRAL AVE NNE 2ND ST NE 12TH ST S OTHELLO ST NE 8TH ST E JAMES ST SE 56TH ST NE 7TH ST 131ST AVE SES L A K E R I D G E D R SE 192ND DR S 23RD ST58TH AVE SWILLIAMS AVE SS 200TH ST S 116 T H P L HARRINGTON AVE NES GRAHAM ST 143RD AVE SE100TH AVE SEBE A C O N A V E S S MEAD ST NE 6TH PL SE 235T H S T DUVALL AVE NES BRANDON ST SE 64TH ST SE 38TH ST 85TH PL SESE 145 T H P L S 2ND STLIND AVE NWSE 75TH P L P E T E R G R U B B R D S E S HOLLY ST 155TH AVE SESE 61ST ST 104TH PL SE63RD AVE SSE 40 T H P L 133RD AVE SEWELLS AVE S137TH AVE SE164TH WAY SE129TH PL SE86TH AVE SE121ST AVE SESE 45TH ST E MERCER WAYSE 200TH ST118TH AVE SE98TH AVE SREDMOND AVE NENE 6TH ST87TH AVE SS 124TH ST SE 8 3 R D S T SE 158T H S T 93RD AVE S52ND AVE SSE 46TH WAY 48TH AVE SSE 48TH DR S 129 T H S T 85TH AVE SSE 134TH ST S E 1 7 0 T H S T162ND AVE SES 19TH ST 164TH AVE SESE 46TH ST OLYMPIA AVE NESE 160TH ST S 14TH S T ANACORTES AVE NES ROXBURY ST W E S T L A K E S A M M A M I S H P K W Y S E CRESTWOOD DR SMONROE AVE NE123RD AVE SEHAZEL AVE NS 117TH ST W A B A S H A V E S 128TH AVE SE54TH AVE SSE 18 3 R D D RJERICHO AVE NESE 221ST S T 175TH AVE SESE 216TH ST NE 9TH ST S 220TH ST HOUSER WAY NKIRKLAND AVE NEN 5TH ST N 6TH ST S MYRTLE ST SE PET R O V I T S K Y R D 66TH AVE SSE 223RD ST SE 128TH ST SE 156TH S T 124TH AVE SESHATTUCK AVE SSE 244TH ST SE 4TH S T N 3RD ST SE 73RD PL S 127TH ST S WILLOW ST BREMERTON AVE NE168TH PL SESE 164TH ST INDUSTRY DRF O R E S T D R S E BRONSON WAY NES RYAN ST S NORFOLK ST TUKWILA PKWY SE 228TH ST SE 55TH ST SE 142ND ST S ALASKA ST S 3RD ST82ND AVE SESE CARR R D S 216TH ST S 128TH ST SE 172ND ST 167TH PL SESE R E N T O N - I S S A Q U A H R D SE 202ND PL108TH AVE SE146TH AVE SE57TH AVE SSE 136TH STROSARIO PL NESE 116TH ST SE 162ND ST NE 22ND ST SE 68TH ST SE 40TH ST SE 42ND ST SE 72ND ST S S U N N Y C R E S T R D DI X O N D R SFOREST AVE SE SE 212TH ST93RD AVE SESTRANDER BLVD SE 234TH ST S 196TH STLAKE WASH INGTON BLVD S SE 138TH PLSW 4 T H P L SR 167SE 208TH ST 150TH AVE SES 218TH ST NILE AVE NE104TH AVE SEN 10TH ST VIL L A G E P A R K D R S ESOMERSET DR SEWEST LAKE DES IRE DR SE177TH AVE SESE 224TH ST S 112TH ST SE 52N D S T ILWACO AVE NEBENSON DR SS 144TH ST LIND AVE SW55TH AVE SNE 10TH STHIGHLAND DRMILL AVE S S 212TH ST SE 183RD ST S 224TH ST NE 23RD PL ANDOVER PARK W50TH AVE S49TH AVE SS 113TH STSEWARD PARK AVE SNEWCASTLE GOLF C L U B R D SE 219TH PL S HENDERSON ST SE 4 7 T H S T S 120TH ST51ST AVE SNE W C A S T L E W A Y 125TH AVE SESE 76TH ST PELLY AVE NSW 7TH ST 188TH AVE SES 121ST ST S 237TH PL N 29TH ST 53RD AVE SSE 51 S T S T 129TH AVE SESE 91ST ST SE 176TH ST 127TH PL SESW 12TH S T SE 223RD DR 161ST AVE SEHIGH AVE SSE 42ND PL NE 4TH ST SE 66TH ST SE 225TH ST SE LAKE Y O U N G S R D SE ALLEN RD BURNETT AVE SSW 39TH ST SE 221ST PL65TH AVE SSE F A I R W O O D B L V D PARKSIDE WAY SEN 32ND ST SE 82ND ST E SMITH ST S LANGSTON RD SOUTHCENTER PKWYL A K E S I D E B L VD E SW 16TH ST 85TH AVE SEN 31ST ST S 192ND ST 171ST PL SE S 204TH ST SE 5TH ST SE 226TH ST MERCE R W O O D D R SW 3R D P L SW SUNSET B L V D SE 106TH ST SE 192ND ST 68TH AVE S149TH AVE SESE 220TH PL77TH AVE SSE 80TH ST 78TH AVE S62ND AVE SSE 2ND PL S 2 3 1 S T S T47TH AVE SSE 180TH STPOWELL AVE SWS JUNEAU ST SE 214TH ST171ST AVE SES 114TH ST 3RD AVE NSE 121ST PL PARK AVE NSE 59TH ST89TH AVE SE88TH AVE SEGARDEN AVE N91ST AVE SE81ST AVE SE92ND AVE SE2ND AVE N1ST AVE NS TAFT ST PASCO PL NENE SU N S E T B L V D MACADAM RD S136TH AVE SESE 241 S T S TMIL ITARY RD S SE 8 0 T H W A Y117TH AVE SESE 188TH ST S 50TH ST S AVON ST 190TH AVE SE80TH AVE SESE 168TH ST S 194TH ST N 4TH ST 132ND AVE SE81ST PL SE116TH PL SES 1 2 6 T H S T 80TH AVE S102ND AVE SE126TH PL SEW SMITH ST SE 65TH ST UNION AVE SESE 1 1 0 T H S T SE 204TH ST S PUGET DRRAINIER AVE N181ST AVE SE176TH AVE SE170TH PL SES 160T H S T SE 58TH ST NE 3RD S T SE 3RD P L S 170TH ST 5 1 S T P L S AIRPORT WAY S TOBIN ST SE 228TH PL SE 4TH P L SE 112TH ST SE 49TH ST SE 240TH ST SE 184TH ST116TH AVE SEABERDEEN AVE NES 240TH ST SW GR A D Y W A Y 64TH AVE SGRANT AVE SSE 149TH STISLAND CREST WAYALVORD AVE NS 32ND ST SE 20 4 T H W A Y R E N T O N A V E S SUNSET BLVD N56TH AVE SS 36TH PLOAKESDALE AVE SW180TH AVE SENE PARK D R 163RD PL SELOGAN AVE NSW 19TH ST 113TH AVE SESE 63RD ST I -405 FWYPUGET DR SERAINIER AVE S S E L I C O R I C E W A Y NE 27TH ST SE 44TH ST COAL CREEK PKWY SE119TH AVE SES E 1 7 0 T H P L 140 T H W A Y S E N 8TH ST 92ND AVE S80TH PL SESE 43RD ST JONES AVE NE174TH AVE SEN 28TH PL N 34TH STN 35TH STN 36TH ST PATRIOT WAY SESE 232ND ST SW 34TH ST 184TH AVE SE72ND AVE S106TH AVE SELUMMI KY SW 41ST ST S GRAD Y W A Y FACTORIA BLVD SEANDOVER PARK ES 228T H S T59TH PL SSE 53R D P L LAKEMONT BLVD SE S 180TH ST M A R T I N L U T H E R K I N G J R W A Y S S 188TH ST SW 27TH ST 156TH AVE SE138TH AVE SE136TH PL SES 222ND ST 66 T H L N S 152ND AVE SEWEST VALLEY HWY183RD AVE SESE 184TH PL 89TH AVE S1 6 6 T H W A Y S E SE 8TH PL W O O D S I D E D R S ESR 599EAST VALLEY HWY SSE C O U G A R M O U N T A I N D R SE MAY C R E E K P A R K D R ORILLIA RD SSE 95TH WAY SE 50T H S T 105TH AVE SES 199TH PL 6TH AVE NS 226TH STS 184TH PLSE 159TH PL I-90 F W Y RIPLEY LN SES E 1 7 1 S T W A Y SE 160TH PL SW 43RD ST 5 6 T H P L S SE ROYAL H I L L S D R SE 196TH D R140TH AVE SESE 6 4 T H W A Y 154TH PL SERENTON-ISSAQUAH RD SENE 31ST ST EAST VALLEY RDS 133RD ST S 135TH ST SE 65TH P L N RIVERSIDE DRNW VILLAGE PARK DRMONSTER RD SWMUNAO MEMOR IA L DR SE NE W P O R T W A Y 80TH PL S 16 9 T H A V E S E FRAGER RD SRUSSELL RD SB E A C O N - C O A L M I N E R D S SE RENTON-MA P L E V A L L E Y R D S E M A Y V A L L E Y R D 1 4 4 TH P L SE SE JONES RD Last Revised: October 28, 2021 \\io-fs-1\Data\GIS\GISBackup\Renton\ WaterSystemPlan2017\Study_Area.mxd O 0 10.5 Miles Legend Study Area Renton City Boundary Potential Annexation Areas Roads Waterbodies CHAPTER 4 | LONG RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON Figure 4.1 Study Area Disclaimer: Features shown in this figure are for planning purposes and represent approximate locations. Engineering and/or survey accuracy is not implied. Data Sources: City of Renton Renton City of Tukwila Cedar River Water and Sewer District Coal CreekUtility District City ofKent Soos Creek Waterand Sewer District Skyway Water andSewer District N 4TH ST 144TH AVE SESE 64TH ST S 116TH ST SE 148TH ST LAKEMONT BLVD SE88TH AVE SNE 21ST ST HOQUIAM AVE NE121ST PL SE78TH AVE SESE 144TH ST SE 204TH ST S 2ND ST NE 12TH ST IN T E R U R B AN A V E S S 132ND ST S 144TH ST 153RD AVE SES 212TH WAYCORNEL L A V E S NE 19TH ST84TH AVE SELAKE WASHINGTON BLVD SEHARDIE AVE SWMAPLE VAL L E Y H W Y K L I C K I T A T D R S 125TH STEDMONDS AVE NES 208TH ST GARDEN AVE NS 216TH ST NE PARK DR S ROXBURY ST CEDAR AVE SS 19TH ST SE 141ST ST TALBOT RD S135TH AVE SEMAIN AVE SCOAL CREEK PKWY SES 1 3 0 T H P L 84TH AVE SSUNSET BLVD NEBENSON RD SLINCOLN AVE NEBREMERTON AVE NESE 227TH PL 100TH AVE SES 15TH ST S 134TH ST 53RD PL S160TH AVE SE126TH AVE SESW 3RD P LW MERCER WAYI-5 FWY112TH AVE SESE 179TH ST S 190TH ST S 178TH S T NE 1 S T S T S 7TH ST 130TH AVE SEW A T E R S A V E S HIGHLAND DR59TH AVE SS 115TH ST 94TH AVE SSE 2ND PL86TH AVE SES 130TH ST SE 183 R D D R S O M E R S E T B L V D S E 127TH AVE SESE 200TH ST SE 79TH DR SE 44TH PL NE 6TH ST NE 2ND ST SE 56TH ST57TH AVE S164TH AVE SENE 8TH ST R A I N I E R A V E S SE 192ND DR S 23RD ST S 200TH ST S 50TH ST 156TH AVE SEUNION AVE NES RYAN ST 58TH AVE S143RD AVE SEJERICHO AVE NEBE A C O N A V E S 133RD AVE SE NE 6TH PL M O R R I S A V E S 131ST AVE SESE PET R O V I T S K Y R D SE 235TH S T 129TH PL SECENTRAL AVE NSE 172ND PL SE 145TH P LHARRINGTON AVE NESE 75TH P L LIND AVE NW155TH AVE SE104TH PL SESE 164TH ST SE 78TH ST 137TH AVE SE164TH WAY SES 38TH CT FOR E S T A V E S SE 1 5 1 S T S TOLYMPIA AVE NESE 45TH ST FORE S T D R S E LAKE WASH ING TON B LVD S76TH AVE SR E N T O N A V E S 98TH AVE SREDMOND AVE NE121ST AVE SE93RD AVE SS 18TH S T SE 186TH ST SE 134TH ST NE 9TH ST SE 46TH WAY SE 83 R D S T SE 158TH ST SE 48TH DR 120TH AVE SE151ST AVE SE128TH AVE SES 14TH ST MONROE AVE NE123RD AVE SE54TH AVE SSE 221ST ST SE 216TH STE MERCER WAY S 220TH ST BURNETT AVE NSE 102ND ST 134TH AVE SEN 6TH ST N 5TH ST 66TH AVE SSE 223RD ST SE 128TH ST SE 156TH STSHATTUCK AVE SHOUSER WAY NSE 4TH ST SE 71ST ST SE 60TH ST INDUSTRY DR124TH AVE SE168TH PL SE68TH AVE SBE A C O N W A Y S E N 3RD ST BRONSON WAY NESE 142ND ST82ND AVE SESE CARR R D S 128TH ST SE 55TH ST HIGH AVE SLAKE WASHINGTON BLVD NKIRKLAND AVE NESE 202ND PL53RD AVE SSE 196TH ST S 3RD ST NE 16TH ST SE 136TH ST SE 147TH ST SE 116TH ST 9 2 N D A V E S E MONTEREY AVE NEROSARIO PL NESE 162ND ST 118TH AVE SENE 7TH S T NE 22ND ST 162ND AVE SESE 44TH ST SE 72ND ST SW GRADY WA Y SE 68TH ST 78TH AVE SFOREST AVE SEWILSON AVE S SE 160TH ST SE 234TH ST 143RD PL SES ORCAS ST S 196TH ST SE 138TH PLSW 4TH P L SR 167NILE AVE NEN 10TH ST VILL A G E P A R K D R S E S 218TH ST 104TH AVE SE65TH AVE SSE 172ND ST WE S T L A K E D E S I R E D R S ERAYMOND AVE SWSOMERSET DR SE88TH AVE SEWOODSIDE DR SE177TH AVE SESE 224TH ST 167TH AVE SES 112TH ST ISLAND CREST WAYSE 52ND S T ILWACO AVE NEBENSON DR S55TH AVE SNE 10TH ST MI L L AVE S NE 20TH ST WOODLEY AVE SNE 24TH ST SE 183RD ST SE 63RD ST NE 23RD PL ANDOVER PARK W52ND AVE SSW LAN G S T O N R D NEWCASTLE GOLF CL U B R D SE 47 T H S T SE 219TH PL NEWCASTLE WAY S LEO ST SE 76TH ST 135TH PL SE F R A G E R R D S S 115TH PL SE 208TH ST N 33RD ST N 29TH ST SE 51ST S T I-90 F W Y S 237TH PL SE 233RD ST SE 91ST ST 129TH AVE SE108TH AVE SESE 176TH ST150TH AVE SEBLAINE AVE NE132ND AVE SESW 12TH ST 161ST AVE SENE SUN S E T B L V D L A K E S I D E B L V D E SE 192ND ST S 212TH ST SE 66TH ST SEWARD PARK AVE S172ND AVE SES HOLLY ST S 31ST ST 125TH AVE SES MORGAN ST 63RD AVE SSE 225TH STWELLS AVE SSW 39TH ST77TH AVE SESE 221ST PLWILLIAMS AVE SSE 218TH PLBURNETT AVE SSE FAIRWOOD BLVD PARKSIDE WAY SEN 32ND ST SE 228TH ST N 30TH ST SE 82ND ST SOUTHCENTER PKWYS LANGSTON RD SW 7TH ST N 31ST ST SW 10TH ST 171ST PL SE SE 73RD PL S LAK E R I D G E D R S 204TH ST SE 5TH ST61ST AVE S116TH AVE SE93RD AVE SESE 106TH ST SE 168TH ST SE 226TH ST 149TH AVE SES 192ND ST 77TH AVE SFIELD AVE NESE 80TH ST 62ND AVE SSE 220TH PL S 231ST S T SE 180TH STPOWELL AVE SWW A B A S H A V E S 171ST AVE SESE 214TH ST S 113TH ST S NORFOLK ST SE 121ST PL S 114TH ST SW SUNSET BLVD SE 184TH ST SE 59TH ST89TH AVE SESE 61ST ST S BANGOR ST 146TH AVE SE91ST AVE SEN 38TH ST S 224TH ST PASCO PL NEDUVALL AVE NE94TH PL SS TAFT ST 136TH AVE SE SE 188TH ST117TH AVE SE S AVON ST S 194TH ST NE 4TH ST S S U N N Y C R E S T R D81ST PL SE116TH PL SESW 5TH PL 80TH AVE S102ND AVE SECRESTWOOD DR SSE 65TH ST SE 223RD DR UNION AVE SESE 110 T H S T S PUGET DRRAIN IER AVE N181ST AVE SE176TH AVE SE170TH PL SE N LANDING WAY SE 58TH ST 147TH AVE SENE 3RD ST SE 3RD PL AIRPORT WAY S TOBIN ST SE 228TH PL SE 112TH ST SE 4TH PL SE 49TH ST SE 133RD ST MINKLER BLVD S 152ND ST 64TH AVE SGRANT AVE SSTEVENS AVE NWSE 149TH ST S 32ND ST SE 204T H WAY56TH AVE SS 36TH PLOAKESDALE AVE SWLIND AVE SW180TH AVE SE163RD PL SELOGAN AVE NSW 19TH ST 140TH AVE SE113TH AVE SEDIX O N D R S PUGET DR SEISLAND DR SSE L I C O R I C E W A Y CASCADE KY SE 70TH ST NE 27TH ST I -405 FWY SW 16TH ST IND E X A V E S E119TH AVE SESE 1 7 0 T H P L 140T H W A Y S E N 8TH ST 98TH PL SNE 17TH ST 92ND AVE S80TH PL SEJONES AVE NE174TH AVE SEN 28TH PL N 33RD PLN 34TH STN 35TH ST NE 5TH ST N 36TH ST PATRIOT WAY SESE 232ND ST SW 34TH ST S 228TH ST 184TH AVE SE72ND AVE SSW 41ST ST 106TH AVE SES GRADY W A YS 126TH STANDOVER PARK E59TH PL SSE 53RD PL S 180TH ST S 187TH ST S 188TH ST SW 27TH ST 85TH AVE SHAZELWOOD LN138TH AVE SE136TH PL SES 222ND STWEST VALLEY HWY152ND AVE SE183RD AVE SELAKEHURST LN89TH AVE S87TH AVE SSE 184TH PL 1 6 6 T H W A Y S E SE 8TH PL EAST VALLEY HWY SSE COU G A R M O U N T A I N D R SE MAY C R E E K P A R K D R132ND PL SESE 50TH S T SE 95TH WAY 105TH AVE SE148TH AVE SES 199TH PL 6TH AVE N4TH AVE NSTRANDER BLVD S 226TH STS 184TH PLSE 159TH PLRIPLEY LN SESE 1 7 1 S T W A Y 183RD WAY SE SW 43RD ST SE 160TH PL 56 T H P L S SE ROYAL HILLS DR SE 196TH DR154TH PL SENE 31ST ST EAST VALLEY RDS 133RD ST S 135TH ST SE R E N T O N - I S S A Q U A H R D N R IVERS IDE DR SE N E W P O R T W A Y M A R T I N L U T H E R K I N G J R W A Y S MONSTER RD SW80TH PL S169 T H A V E S E SE RENTON-MAP L E V A L L E Y R D B E A C O N - C O A L M I N E R D S S E M A Y V A L L E Y R D 14 4 T H P L S E SE JONES RD Last Revised: May 20, 2016E:\KRCD DRIVE\Renton\LRRWRP\Figure 4.1.mxd O 0 1 20.5 Miles Legend City of Renton Wastewater Service Area Neighboring Wastewater Service Areas Renton City Boundary Urban Growth Boudary Roads Waterbodies Utility Systems CHAPTER 4 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON Figure 4.2 Sewer Service Area and Adjacent Boundary CHAPTER 4 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 | 4-7 4.4 Land Use Land Use designations and regulations provide important information in evaluating sewer system capacity. Existing and future land use information is an integral component in projecting wastewater generation for the City and jurisdictions within the service area boundary, including KC, City of Tukwila, and City of Kent. The City designates parcels into twelve land use categories, as shown in Figure 4.3, these categories include: • Residential Single Family. • Residential Low Density. • Residential Medium Density. • Residen tial Multi-Family. • Center Village. • Urban Center Downtown. • Urban Center North . • Employment Area – Industrial. • Employment Area – Valley. • Commercial Neighborhood. • Commercial/Office/Residential. • Commercial Corridor. 4.4.1 City of Renton Land Use The existing land use pattern of the City reflects 100 years of settlement and expansion. The original City was settled in the broad floodplain at the confluence of the Cedar and Black Rivers along the shore of Lake Washington. Downtown Renton, the Renton Municipal Airport, and the Boeing/PACCAR industrial area now occupy these lands. Since the 1950s, the hills and highlands above the valley have been developed primarily for residential housing and accompanying retail businesses. 4.4.1.1 Downtown Renton The Landing Development sits on approximately 60 acres of former Boeing Industrial Land and currently consists of various retail uses and a significant multi-family component. This development will continue to expand within its existing 60-acres over time as current surface parking is replaced by structured parking, thus permitting future infill of additional retail, residential, and commercial office applications. Future phases of The Landing include an additional approximate 30 acres of land for similar uses as the existing. The init ial development of The Landing was a partnership between the City and the developer Harvest Partners. Areas immediately north and south of downtown are characterized by older, single-family development interspersed with small -scale multi-family development s. Outside of the central business district, commercial areas are concentrated along the major arterials and freeway exchanges, including Rainier Avenue, Grady Way, Sunset Boulevard, NE 4th Street, the NE 44th Street exit from Interstate 405, and SW 43rd Street. These areas are generally characterized by low intensity, auto-oriented strip commercial, but also include the City's automall along Grady Way and several large-scale retailers. CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CHAPTER 4 4-8 | JULY 2022 | FINAL 4.4.1.2 The Green River Valley South of downtown to the city limits, the Green River Valley has developed with manufacturing, office and warehouse uses. The south and eastern portions of the valley include some commercial uses. New commercial and industrial development activity, as well as changes in business type is expected t o increase sewer flows in the Valley within the future. 4.4.1.3 Residential Growth Significant residential development has occurred on the uplands above the Green River Valley, downtown , and East Kennydale areas. These areas are primarily comprised of single-family neighborhoods, although some concentrations of multi-family and commercial uses exist. West of downtown, residential development extends seamlessly from the City up onto the West Hill of unincorporated KC. On the east side of the service area, residential development extends from downtown to the UGB, with the denser development closer to downtown and becoming less dense as you travel east. The City's PAA and sanitary sewer service area on the East Renton Plateau is generally characterized by large-lot single-family, moderate density single-family developments, and vacant, un-platted parcels. This area, known as the East Renton highlands, has seen significant single-family growth occur over the past decade and anticipates continued expansion of the sewer system. 4.4.1.4 Passive Land Use The geography and hydrology of the City vicinity, as well as a proactive parks acquisition program by the City, combine to provide significant open spaces that constitute a passive land use. Some larger examples include lands adjacent to the Cedar River and May Creek, Gene Coulon Park on Lake Washington, the Black River Riparian Wildlife Habitat area, and habitat areas of the Green River Valley. 4.4.1.5 2015 Comprehensive Plan The City has had a Comprehensive Plan since 1965. The current plan, adopted in 2015 and annually amended, was developed and approved under the regulatory requirements of the Washington Growth Management Act (GMA) and the policy framework of the KC Countywide Planning Policies. While the plan includes Transportation, Housing, Capital Facilities, Utilities, Downtown, Economic Development, and Environmental Elements, it is the policy decisions expressed i n the Land Use Element that gives the plan its primary direction and cohesiveness. This LRWWMP proceeds from and supports the policies and Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan. Utility Element policies have been addressed in Chapter 3 – Operational Policies and Criteria. To the extent that the City has jurisdiction or can require compliance, development within the service area must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Consistency with certain elements of the Comprehensive Plan is required as a condition of sanitary sewer service outside the city limits. The Comprehensive Plan is intended to provide the basis for all development regulations, functional plans and other City plans and programs that may in some way support, implement or derive from the City's land use plans. The Comprehensive Plan is a broad statement of community goals and policies that direct the orderly and coordinated physical development of the City. The Comprehensive Plan anticipates change and provides specific guidance for future legislative and administrative actions. The Comprehensive Plan also serves CHAPTER 4 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 | 4-9 as a guide for designating land uses and infrastructure development as well as developing community services. 4.4.1.6 Service Outside the City Sewer service outside the City is outlined in the current code. 4.4.2 City of Renton Land Use Designations For the purposes of the LRWWMP, t he Land Use Map adopted on September 22, 2014 within the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan was assumed to represent the intended future pattern of land uses in the planning area as shown in Figure 4.3 with areas tabulated in Table 4.1. The City’s Land Use schema identifies six types of land uses: Residential Low Density, Residential Medium Density, Residential High Density, Commercial & Mixed Use, Employment Area, and Commercial Office Residential. The service area addressed in the LRWWMP includes most of the area within the existing city limits, the UGB, and one area outside the UGB. The area outside of the City (dashed black line in Figure 4.1), and wit hin the study area (solid green line in Figure 4.1) includes 117 acres (0.18 square miles [mi2 ]) within the city limits of Tukwila, approximately 15 acres (0.02 mi2 ) within the city limits of Kent , and 12 acres of unincorporated areas in the City’s PAA (0.02 mi2). Table 4.1 Land Use of Renton’s Sewer Service Area Land Use Designation Within Existing City Boundaries (Acres) PAA (Acres) Residential Single Family 5,000 1,504 Employment Area 1,779 0 Residential Medium Density 925 73 Commercial Neighborhood 32 2 Commercial Corridor 1,046 144 Commercial/ Office / Residential 137 6 Residential Multi-Family 688 286 Employment Area - Industrial 528 47 Residential Low Density 3,782 5,538 Urban Center North 348 3 Urban Center Downtown 233 0 Center Village 216 0 Total 14,714 (23.0 mi2) 7,603 (11.9 mi2) The district designations on the land use map correspond to policies in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan and are implemented by the City's adopted Zoning Map and Zoning Code. The land use designations are described below based on Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-2-020. 4.4.2.1 Residential Designations Residential Low Density Land Use Designation The designation is intended to guide development on land appropriate for a range of low intensity residential and employment where land is either constrained by sensitive areas or CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CHAPTER 4 4-10 | JULY 2022 | FINAL where the City has the opportunity to add larger-lot housing stock, at urban densities of up to four dwelling units per net acre (du/net acre), to its inventory. Residential Medium Density Land Use Designation The Residential Medium Density designation is for "neighborhoods based on a mix of single-family and small to mid-sized multi-family developments built around amenities such as shopping centers, recreation areas, and other community gathering places." Residential medium density land use designations include between three and eight dwellings per acre (R -6 and R-8 Zoning). Residential High Density Land Use Designation The Residential High Density Land Use desig nation provides a mix of residential styles including small lot detached dwellings or attached dwellings. Residential High Density is "intended to increase opportunities for detached dwellings as a percent of the housing stock, as well as allow some small-scale attached housing choices and to create high -quality infill development that increases densi ty while maintaining the single-family character of the existing neighborhood." Higher density neighborhoods may "provide a mix of detached and attached dwelling structures organized and designed to combine characteristics of both typical single-family and small-scale multi-family developments." High density land use designations include between five and fourteen dwellings per acre (R -10 and R -14 Zoning). Residential Multi-Family Designation The multi-family residential land use designation is intended to encourage a range of multi-family living environments that provide shelter for a wide variety of people in differing living situations, from all income levels, and in all stages of life. Densities range from 10 to 20 dwellings per acre (Residential Multi-Family [RMF] Zoning). S 130TH PL144TH AVE SESE 211TH ST S 116TH ST SE 196TH ST NE 24TH ST SE 148TH STLAKE WASHINGTON BLVD NNE 21ST ST UNION AVE NE121ST PL SESE 144TH STINTERURBAN AVE S S 132ND ST BURNETT AVE NS 212TH WAY NE 19TH ST84TH AVE SELAKE WASHINGTON BLVD SEHARDIE AVE SWSOUTHCE N T E R B L V D S 125T H ST S 208TH ST 120TH PL SES 115TH PL MAIN AVE SSE 141ST ST TALBOT RD S84TH AVE S135TH AVE SECEDAR AVE SSUNSET BLVD NE134TH AVE SES 202ND ST BENSON RD SLINCOLN AVE NEHOQUIAM AVE NESE 227TH PL 100TH AVE SES 15TH ST S 134TH ST 160TH AVE SE126TH AVE SESE 218TH PL 148TH AVE SEN 30TH ST S BANGOR ST W MERCER WAY112TH AVE SESE 179TH ST S 190TH ST 120TH AVE SENE 1 S T S T S 7TH ST 130TH AVE SESE 44TH PL 59TH AVE S78TH AVE SES 115TH ST 76TH AVE SNE 7TH PL S 130TH STCORNELL AVE SSOMERSET BLVD SE C A S C A D E K Y 127TH AVE SEEDMONDS AVE NESE 79 T H D R N 38TH ST S K A G I T K Y NE 12TH ST96TH AVE SE NE 8TH ST SE 56TH ST R A I N I E R A V E S NE 7TH ST S L A K E R I D G E D R SE 192ND DR S 23RD ST58TH AVE SWILLIAMS AVE SS 200TH ST 156TH AVE SES 116 T H P L HARRINGTON AVE NE94TH AVE SSE 60TH ST143RD AVE SEB E A C O N A V E S MORRIS A VE S NE 6TH PL 131ST AVE SEDUVALL AVE NEWA T E R S A V E S CENTRAL AVE NSE 64TH ST 85TH PL SESE 145 T H P L S 2ND STLIND AVE NWSE 75T H P L P E T E R G R U B B R D S E155TH AVE SESE 61ST ST 104TH PL SE63RD AVE SSE 40 T H P L 133RD AVE SEWELLS AVE S137TH AVE SE164TH WAY SES 38TH CT ANACORTES AVE NE129TH PL SE SE 1 5 1 S T S T SE 38TH ST 86TH AVE SE121ST AVE SESE 45TH ST E MERCER WAYSE 200TH ST118TH AVE SEREDMOND AVE NENE 6TH ST87TH AVE SS 124TH ST SE 8 3 R D S T SE 158T H S T 93RD AVE SSE PET R O V I T S K Y R D S 1 8 T H S T SE 46TH WAY SE 48TH DR 85TH AVE SSE 134TH ST 162ND AVE SE151ST AVE SES 19TH ST SE 46TH ST OLYMPIA AVE NESE 160TH ST S 14TH S T W E S T L A K E S A M M A M I S H P K W Y S E NE 20TH ST CRESTWOOD DR SMONROE AVE NE123RD AVE SES 117TH ST 128TH AVE SESE 1 8 3 R D D RJERICHO AVE NESE 221ST S T 175TH AVE SESE 216TH ST NE 9TH STWOODLEY AVE SS 220TH ST HOUSER WAY NKIRKLAND AVE NESE 102ND S T N 5TH ST N 6TH ST SE 71ST ST 66TH AVE SSE 223RD ST SE 128TH ST SE 156TH S T 124TH AVE SESHATTUCK AVE SSE 4TH ST N 3RD ST SE 73RD PL S 127TH S T BREMERTON AVE NE168TH PL SESE 164TH ST INDUSTRY DRFOR E S T D R S E BRONSON WAY NES RYAN ST TUKWILA PKWY SE 55TH ST SE 142ND ST82ND AVE SESE CARR R D S 216TH ST S 128TH ST SE 172ND ST 167TH PL SENE 16TH ST SE R E N T O N - I S S A Q U A H R D SE 202ND PL108TH AVE SE146TH AVE SE57TH AVE SSE 136TH STROSARIO PL NESE 116TH ST NE 22ND ST AVALO N D R SE 68TH ST SE 40TH ST SE 42ND ST SE 72ND ST SE 41ST ST S S U N N Y C R E S T R D DI X O N D R SFOREST AVE SE SE 212TH ST93RD AVE SESTRANDER BLVD SE 204TH PL S 196TH ST SE 138TH PL SR 167SE 208TH ST S 218TH ST NILE AVE NE104TH AVE SEN 10TH ST VIL L A G E P A R K D R S ESOMERSET DR SEWE S T L A K E D E S I R E D R S E177TH AVE SESE 224TH ST S 112TH ST SE 52N D S T ILWACO AVE NEBENSON DR SLIND AVE SWNE 10TH STHIGHLAND DRMILL AVE S NE 2ND ST S 212TH ST SE 183RD ST S 224TH ST NE 23RD PL ANDOVER PARK WS 113TH ST NEWCASTLE GO L F C L U B R D SE 4 7 T H S T S 120TH ST SE 219TH PL NE W C A S T L E W A Y 125TH AVE SE135TH PL SE SE 76TH ST PELLY AVE NSW 7TH ST 188TH AVE SES 121ST ST N 33RD ST N 29TH ST SE 51S T S T 129TH AVE SESE 233RD ST SE 91ST ST SE 176TH ST150TH AVE SESE 213TH STBLAINE AVE NE127TH PL SESW 12TH S T SE 223RD DR 161ST AVE SEHIGH AVE SSE 42ND PL NE 4TH ST SE 66TH ST 172ND AVE SEMONTEREY AVE NESE 225TH ST SE ALLEN RD 60TH AVE SBURNETT AVE SSW 39TH ST77TH AVE SESE 221ST PL65TH AVE SSE F A I R W O O D B L V D PARKSIDE WAY SEN 32ND ST SE 82ND ST S LANGSTON RD SOUTHCENTER PKWYSW 16TH ST MINKLER BLVD 85TH AVE SEN 31ST ST SW 10TH S T S 192ND ST 171ST PL SE S 204TH ST SE 5TH ST SE LAK E Y O U N G S R D SE 226TH ST61ST AVE SMERCE R W O O D D R SW 3R D P L SW S U N S E T B L V D SE 106TH ST SE 192ND ST 149TH AVE SESE 220TH PL77TH AVE SSE 80TH ST 78TH AVE S62ND AVE SSE 2ND PL S 231S T S T SE 180TH STPOWELL AVE SWSE 214TH ST171ST AVE SES 114TH ST SE 121ST PL PARK AVE NSE 59TH ST89TH AVE SE88TH AVE SEGARDEN AVE N91ST AVE SE81ST AVE SE92ND AVE SES E 1 7 0 T H S T S TAFT ST PASCO PL NENE SU N S E T B L V D 94TH PL S136TH AVE SESE 8 0 T H W A Y SE 188TH ST M A R T I N L U T H E R K I N G J R W A Y S 117TH AVE SES 50TH ST 190TH AVE SE80TH AVE SESE 168TH ST S 194TH ST N 4TH ST 132ND AVE SE81ST PL SE116TH PL SE80TH AVE S164TH AVE SE102ND AVE SE126TH PL SESE 65TH ST UNION AVE SESE 1 1 0 T H S T SE 204TH ST S PUGET DRRAINIER AVE N181ST AVE SE176TH AVE SE170TH PL SE SE 58TH ST 147TH AVE SE64TH AVE SNE 3RD S T SE 3RD P L AIRPORT WAY S TOBIN ST SE 228TH PL SE 4TH P L SE 112TH ST SE 49TH ST SE 184TH ST116TH AVE SEABERDEEN AVE NESW GR A D Y W A Y GRANT AVE SSE 149TH STISLAND CREST WAYS 32ND ST SE 204 T H W A Y REN T O N A V E S SUNSET BLVD NS 36TH PLOAKESDALE AVE SW180TH AVE SENE PARK DR 163RD PL SELOGAN AVE NSW 19TH ST 113TH AVE SESE 63RD ST I-405 FWYPUGET DR SEISLAND DR SS E L I C O R I C E W A Y NE 27TH ST SE 44TH ST COAL CREEK PKWY SE119TH AVE SES E 1 7 0 T H P L 140 T H W A Y S E N 8TH ST 98TH PL S92ND AVE S80TH PL SESE 43RD ST JONES AVE NE174TH AVE SEN 28TH PL NE 5TH ST N 33RD PLN 34TH ST N 35TH ST N 36TH ST SE 232ND ST SW 34TH ST 68TH AVE S75TH AVE S184TH AVE SE72ND AVE SLUMMI KY 106TH AVE SESW 41ST ST S GRAD Y W A Y FACTORIA BLVD SES 126T H S T ANDOVER PARK ES 228TH ST59TH PL SSE 53R D P L LAKEMONT BLVD SE S 180TH ST S 187TH ST S 188TH ST SW 27TH ST 138TH AVE SE136TH PL SES 222ND ST 66 T H L N S 152ND AVE SEWEST VALLEY HWY183RD AVE SELAKEHURST LNSE 184TH PL 89TH AVE S1 6 6 T H W A Y S E SE 8TH PL WOODSIDE DR SEEAST VALLEY HWY SSE CO U G A R M O U N T A I N D R SE MAY C R E E K P A R K D R SE 95TH WAY SE 50T H S T 6TH AVE N88TH AVE S4TH AVE N S 199TH PL SE 228TH ST S 226TH ST SE 159TH PL I-90 F W Y RIPLEY LN SES E 1 7 1 S T W A Y 183RD WAY SESE 160TH PL SW 43RD ST SE ROYAL HILLS DR SE 196TH D R140TH AVE SESE 6 4 T H W A Y 154TH PL SERENTON-ISSAQUAH RD SENE 31ST ST EAST VALLEY RDMA P L E V A L L E Y H W Y S 133RD ST S 135TH ST SE 65T H P L N RIVERSIDE DRNW VILLAGE PARK DRMONSTER RD SWSE NE W P O R T W A Y 80TH PL S 16 9 T H A V E S E B E A CO N - C O A L M I N E R D S S E M A Y V A L L E Y R D SE RENTON- M A P L E V A L L E Y R D 1 4 4 TH P L SE SE JONE S R D Last Revised: October 28, 2021 C:\Users\kchristensen\OneDrive - Carollo Engineers\Desktop\Project_Data\Renton\Comp Plan Figure.mxd Figure 4.3 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Long-range Wastewater Management Plan | City of Renton O 0 1 20.5 Miles Legend Renton City Boundary Roads Renton Wastewater Service Boundary Waterbodies Comprehensive Land Use Designations Residential Residential Low Density Residential Single Family Residential Medium Density Residential Multi-Family Center Designations Center Village Urban Center Downtown Urban Center North Employment Area Designations Employment Area - Industrial Employment Area - Valley Commercial Designations Commercial Neighborhood Commercial/Office/Residential Commercial Corridor CHAPTER 4 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 | 4-13 4.4.2.2 Commercial and Mixed Use Designations Commercial Neighborhood Land Use Designation The purpose of Commercial Neighborhood designation is for "small-scale convenience retail/commercial areas offering incidental retail and service needs for the surrounding area. Uses serving a larger area may be appropriate if they also serve the residents of the immediate area and are compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood." Commercial/Office/Residential Land Use Designation The Commercial Office (CO) designation is "established to provide areas appropriate for professional, administrative, and business offices and related uses, offering high-quality and amenity work environments. In addition, a mix of limited retail and service uses may be allowed to primarily support other uses within the zone, subject to special conditions." Center Village Land Use Designation Center Village (CV) designations are characterized by an existing commerc ial and multi-family core served by transit and set in the midst of suburban patterns of residential development or in the City’s downtown. CV zoned lands are suitable for redevelopment into compact urban development with a pedestrian -oriented, mixed-use c enter, and community focal point. The zone is intended to revitalize an area, creating a vibrant, urban center where surface parking is discouraged. CV zoning implements the Commercial and Mixed Use designation. 4.4.2.3 Center Downtown Land Use Designation Center Downtown (CD) designation within downtown Renton is appropriate for the widest mix of uses, is served by transit, and is suitable for intensive urban use within a pedestrian environment. The CD zone is intended to revitalize the area by creating a vibrant , urban center in the City’s historic downtown core. Surface parking is discouraged in this zone, except as a land bank. CD zoning implements the Commercial and Mixed Use Land Use Designation. 4.4.2.4 Urban Center Land Use Designation The Urban Center (UC) North land use designation include lands that are located within the City’s Designated Regional Growth Center, if there is a potential for the creation of dense employment, destination retail, recreation, or public gathering space with the UC zone. The UC zoned areas have large parcels of land with the potential for large scale redevelopment opportunities that will create a mixed-use retail, employment, and residential center. UC zoning implements the Commercial Mixed Use land use designation . 4.4.3 School Designations The City serves public elementary, middle, and high schools from the Issaquah and Renton School districts, in addition to Renton Technical College. These schools are spread throughout the City and can be found within each service basin, except for the May Valley Basin, as shown in Table 4.2. There are two schools in the City’s service area, Maywood Middle School and Briarwood Elementary School, which are not currently connected to the public sewers. Both of these schools are in the East Cedar R iver Basin. CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CHAPTER 4 4-14 | JULY 2022 | FINAL Table 4.2 Schools Served by Renton Name Mini-basin Employment (PE’s)(1) Staff (PE’s)(1) Highlands Elementary 48 545 63 Honey Dew Elementary 26 525 62 Kennydale Elementary 33 559 66 Maplewood Elementary 44 612 56 Sierra Heights Elementary 21 618 63 Talbot Hill Elementary 7 526 50 Tiffany Park Elementary 4 466 52 McKnight Middle School 37 1159 105 Nelson Middle School 2 1041 70 Hazen High School 22 1380 124 Renton High School 15 1218 90 Renton Secondary Learning Center 14 298 34 Apollo Elementary School 22 576 69 Briarwood Elementary School U6 440 70 Liberty High School U6 1224 107 Maywood Middle School U9 905 80 Renton Technical College 27/29 3400 230 Note: (1) PE(s) – Person Equivalent. 4.4.4 Land Use Outside Renton’s PAA A remaining 137 acres of jurisdiction is part of the service area beyond the city limits and PAA. Table 4.3 displays the land use designations for those areas within the City's service area. Table 4.3 Land Use Designations for Areas Outside Renton Jurisdiction (Designation) Land Use (Density) Area (Acres) Kent US(1) US(1) (1 unit / acre maximum) 15 Tukwila (Commercial/ Light Industrial) Commercial/Office/Light Industrial 82 Tukwila (Tukwila Urban Center) Commercial/Office/Light Industrial/ Multi-Family (22 du/net acre maximum) 40 Note: (1) US – Urban Separator. 4.4.4.1 King County Land Use For the purposes of the LRWWMP, t he 2018 King County Comprehensive Plan was used to direct Land use within the unincorporated portions of the study area. All of the service area in unincorporated KC is designated "urban", with the exception of the service to Apollo Elementary School just east of the Urban Growth Area (UGA). Land within the UGA is intended to develop at urban densities and with urban service levels. The UGB is the division line between the CHAPTER 4 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 | 4-15 designated urban and rural areas that defines the eastern boundary of the City’s PAA. According to the KC Countywide Planning Policies that provide a policy framework for all comprehensive plans in KC, cities may not annex areas outside the UGB nor may they provide sewer service, except "where needed to address specific health and safety problems or the needs of public facilities such as schools (Policy F-264)”. Unincorporated areas of KC are divided into community planning areas, each with a community plan. For the purposes of the LRWWMP, community plans were based on those adopted as part of the 2012 King County Comprehensive Plan. Where conflicts or inconsistencies between the policies of the community plans and KC’s Comprehensive Plan occur, the Comprehensive Plan takes precedence. Th e community plans, West King County, SE King County, Greater Maple Valley/Cedar River, West Hill, and Four Creeks/Tiger Mountain , cover most of the unincorporated areas within the study area of this LRWWMP. 4.4.4.2 City of Kent Land Use City of Kent Planning Division assures quality in the land development process by effective administration of land use codes and compliance with the GMA. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map provides the general vision for the City's growth over the next twenty years, and provides a framework for amendments to the City's official Zoning Districts Map. Approximately 15 acres of the City’s sewer service area are within the City of Kent. This area is designated as single-family residential. 4.4.4.3 City of Tukwila Land Use Approximately 122 acres of the City’s sewer service area are within the City of Tukwila. Based on the 2015 Comprehensive Plan , 40 acres are within the Tukwila Urban Center that contains an intense diverse mix of use that will continue to evolve over time. The center is a regional commercial/industrial area with limited mixed-use residential. The remaining area is designated as Commercial/Light Industrial. 4.4.5 Adjacent Utility Systems/Joint Use, Service Agreements, and Related Plans The City has entered into several joint use and service agreements with neighboring districts and private customers when it has been economically beneficial. A list and a summary of these joint use and service agreements are presented below. The full text for each of these agreements is presented in Appendix F, Service Agreements: • Coal Creek Utility District (formerly Water District No. 107): - CAG -035-075, 1975 - Construction of an interceptor line from the City sewer service area through Water District No. 107 to a collection trunk operated by the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle. - Sewer Utility Franchise, 1987 - The City granted Water District No. 107 the right to install sewer lines within the service area of Water District No. 107. - CAG -01-031, 2001 - Sewer service boundary clarification. • City of Kent : - CAG -012 -83, 1983 - Provides for the installation of a sanitary sewer main that is owned and operated by the City and allowing the City to provide sewer service to the adjacent properties that are in the Kent service area. • King County: CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CHAPTER 4 4-16 | JULY 2022 | FINAL - Franchise No. 14056, 2001 - Grants the City the right to construct sewer lines along KC roads. • Soos Creek Water and Sewer District, formerly called Cascade Sewer District : - Resolution 1234 AG-764-64, 1964 - Interceptor sewer line from the Cascade sewer system through portions of the City to the sewer system of the municipality of Metropolitan Seattle. Addendum 1 and 2 were made in 2011 and 2014, respectively. - Agreement CAG -039-074, 1974 - Extension of the City’s sewer service to certain areas within the Cascade sewer service area. - CAG -91-083, 1991 - Soos Creek Water and Sewer District to provide sewer service to certain properties within City limits. - CAG 91 -083 Adden#2 -08, 2008 – Soos Creek and Sewer District revise service boundary and transfer of service to City. - CAG - 097-164, 1997 - Revision of the water and sewer service boundary. - CAG -083-91 Addendum 1-04, 2004 - The Soos Creek Water and Sewer District may connect certain properties (described in the 1991 agreem ent) to the City’s Sewer System . • Skyway Water and Sewer District : - CAG -03-197, 2003 - Sewer and water service boundary clarification . - CAG -06-170, 2006 - Skyway Water and Sewer District may connect a portion of their service area into the City’s sewer facilities. • Cedar River Water and Sewer District : - CAG -99-014, 1999 - Water and sewer service boundary clarification . The City is surrounded by seven neighboring sewer utility entities, as previously shown in Figure 4.2 . These neighboring utility entities are listed below. 4.4.5.1 Coal Creek Water and Sewer District Coal Creek Water and Sewer District (formerly King County Water District No. 107) provides sewer service in part of the May Valley Basin. The City and Coal Creek have made boundary adjustments to remove previous service overlaps. This interlocal agreement provides for joint use of a sewer main in Lincoln Avenue for the provision of service to that area and to allow for another portion of the City’s service area to flow into Coal Creek’s system. 4.4.5.2 Cedar River Water and Sewer District Cedar River Water and Sewer District (CRWSD) provides service to parts of the Lower Cedar River Basin. However, only a small fraction of the wastewater from CRWSD ultimately flows through the City's system by flowing through the Soos Creek Water and Sewer District. The majority of sewage from CRWSD flows directly into KC’s Cedar River Interceptor located along the Maple Valley Highway. CRWSD’s last Comprehensive Sewer Plan was adopted in 20 16. The City and CRWSD have entered into a 1999 interlocal agreement identifying the common service boundary between the two service providers. 4.4.5.3 Soos Creek Water and Sewer District Soos Creek Water and Sewer District adopted the Soos Creek Water and Sewer District Sewer Comprehensive Plan in July of 2014. In 1997, the District and City entered into an interlocal agreement revising the boundary between Soos Creek and the City that had been set by a 1991 agreement. Based upon these agreements, the City is the service provider to some areas currently outside the City and Soos Creek provides service to some areas inside the city limits. CHAPTER 4 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 | 4-17 A 1964 agreement provides for joint use of a sewer interceptor in the Tiffany Park Subbasin, and the 1991 agreement provides for joint u se of the Spring brook Interceptor, located on South 192nd Street. The Springbrook Interceptor will provide service to the sout hernmost portions of the City. 4.4.5.4 City of Kent SW 43rd Street is the principal dividing line between the Cities of Renton and Kent. The City has an agreement with Kent to serve a small area south of SW 43rd Street east of 72nd Avenue Street and west of the Puget Sound Electric Railway right-of-way. The City of Kent Comprehensive Sewer Plan was adopted in 2002 (dated 2000). The Renton and Kent City limits adjoin each other. There is a small portion of the City of Kent, south of South 55th Street and east of the Valley Freeway that is in the City’s service area. There are no service area overlaps or gaps between the two entities, except for that one small area. 4.4.5.5 City of Tukwila The City serves a portion of the City of Tukwila east of the Burlington Northern Railroad and south of Longacres. Tukwila also discharges from a lift station into the KC Sewer System within the City along Monster Road SW. Tukwila prepared a Comprehensive Sewer Plan in 2014. Approximately 122 acres of the City’s sewer service area is within the City of Tukwila. 4.4.5.6 Skyway Water and Sewer District Skyway Water and Sewer Distric t adopted a Comprehensive Plan in 2004 The Skyway sewer service area is shown in Figure 4.2. The boundary between Skyway and the City has been set by an interlocal agreement adopted in 1994. An area in the southern portion of the District, as well as in th e service area to the south of the District, could be served by gravity to the City’s sanitary sewer system. An agreement to allow the district to route portions of this southern service area through the City’s facilities was entered into in 2006. Skyway Water and Sewer District provides sanitary sewer service to a small area of the City along Rainier Avenue near South 117th Place and the northwest portion of the airport. Skyway sewage discharges into the KC System within the City at the north end of the Renton Airport. (Coordinate with Skyway about how much flows they will have so we can plan for the future). 4.4.5.7 King County Regional Wastewater Services Plan For more than 40 years, KC has protected water quality in the Puget Sound region by providing wastewater treatment services to King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties, including the City. To ensure the continuation of high quality wastewater treatment services in the future, KC carried out an intensive planning effort, involving numerous elected officials, representatives from local sewer agencies, organizations, and individuals from around the region. The Regional Wastewater Services Plan (RWSP) resulted from these efforts, which was adopted by the KC Council in November 1999, via Ordinance 13680. The RWSP outlines a number of important projects, programs, and policies for KC to implement through 2030, and work is well underway. A summary of the major components of the RWSP includes Brightwater Treatment System, Conveyance System Improvements, Regional Infiltration and Inflow Control, Combined Sewer Overflow Control, Odor Control Program, Biosolids Recycling, and Reclaimed Water. In 2013, KC completed a comprehensive review of RWSP. The Compressive Review found that full expansion of the South Treatment Plan t , located in the City, will likely occur in the 2030s based on updated treatment capacity needs, not 2029 as previous planned. CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CHAPTER 4 4-18 | JULY 2022 | FINAL In December 1999 , as part of the RWSP, the KC Council approved the development of a Regional Infiltration and Inflow (I/I) Control Program. The purpose of the program is to reduce the risk of sanitary sewer overflows and the cost of adding capacity to facilities that convey wastewater to KC treatment plants. In 2000, KC’s Wastewater Treatment Division, in cooperation with the local component agencies that it serves, of which the City is one of, launched an I/I Program. The recommendations of the I/I Program represent the consensus reached by the KC and local agencies throughout the 6 -year program development process. Knowledge gained from flow monitoring, modeling, pilot projects, and a benefit -cost analysis conducted during the I/I control study served as the basis for consensus. Recommendations are presented for both I/I reduction and long -term I/I control and for program administration and policy. In addition to cost -effectively removing enough I/I from the collection system to delay, reduce, or eliminate some otherwise needed conveyance system improvement (CSI) projects, measures must be in place to maintain I/I reductions long-term and to prevent future increases in I/I throughout the regional system. Long-term I/I control includes policy, administrative, financial, and technical measures that promote an ongoing program of review, maintenance, and repair of the collection and conveyance system. 4.4.5.8 King County Conveyance System Improvement Program Since 1999, the CSI Program focuses on guiding major upgrades and improvements to KC-owned facilities. A 2017 CSI program update was completed with conceptual projects approved in 2017. As part of this effort, a Regional Needs Assessment report was completed in 2015, where the City discharges are included in the South Lake Washington Planning Area. As discussed in Chapter 5 – System Analysis and Results, surcharging in these interceptors impacts capacity in the City's system. 4.4.5.9 King County Reclaimed Water Comprehensive Plan The City is participating in the regional forum, consisting of King County, Cascade Water Alliance, Seattle Public Utilities, and individual surrounding purveyors, in combined effort to develop a master agreement for reclaimed water as well as reclaimed water planning and policies. The forum represents a regional approach to strategic planning and system expansions needed to accommodate the distribution, sale, supply, and reuse of reclaimed water that could include the City's current and future service area. In 2011, the King County Wastewater Treatment Division began another engineering, environmental, and economic analysis of conceptual reclaimed water strategies. The City is now working with King County to provide them appropriate information for this analysis. A completed King County Water Reclamation Evaluation Checklist for this use is included in Appendix M. The City will support the regional supplier's study of reclaimed water use opportunities and will work with King County Department of Natural Resources to identify potential reclaimed water users and demand. Any reclaimed water to be used as a source of supply should only be provided through retail water suppliers. The City has identified several potential users of reclaimed water for landscape irrig ation uses, including the Boeing Longacres Facilities. The full list of potential reclaimed water users from the City’s largest consumers is in the checklist. CHAPTER 4 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 | 4-19 4.5 Demographic Analysis Future sewer system requirements are based, in part, upon future demographic growth projections within the sewer service area. Demographic growth projections were created for areas within the City, unincorporated KC, and several small service areas that the City has agreed to serve in adjacent jurisdictions. Most of the projected sewer area growth will occur in the areas east of the current City limits, including a large non-sewered area within unincorporated KC in the East Plateau service area, also known as the East Renton Highlands. This section summarizes the demographic projections made as part of latest hydraulic model update documented in the 2012 Hydraulic Model Update (Stantec , 2015). Demographic projections were sought for existing condition and build-out. The existing condition was set as the year 2012 to correspond with the most recent flow monitoring effort. Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) Land Use Baseline projections, which were developed using the UrbanSims, provide demographic data through 2040. The City will likely reach build-out by 2040 with future growth from redevelopment. Therefore, the City defined the Ultimate projection as the PSRC 2040 project ion plus a 25 percent factor as a margin of safety to account for future redevelopment and c hanges to building practices. Population, household, and employment data was derived from the PSRC Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) projections for the years 2012 and 2040. The data obtained was provided in geographic subdivisions based on the sewer mini-basin boundaries provided to PSRC by Stantec. Consistent with other LRWWMP, demographic data and results in this chapter are summarized based on sewer mini-basins, rather than TAZ. 4.5.1 Residential Population Projections In total, existing populations were determined to be 43,869 single-family and 24,417 multi-family using both PSRC residential and Baseline Land Use. The total future population was projected to be 76,731 and 37,386 which is an increase of 32,862 and 12,452 single- and multi-family households, respect ively, over a period of 28 years. This is an approximately 1,174 single-family and 445 multi-family increase in population annually. Mini basins which see the greatest growth include basins 30B, 30C, and U9 at rates of 2,000 percent, 4,650 percent, and 2,582 percent, respectively, over the 28 year period. 4.5.1.1 Existing - 2012 The PSRC data provided 2012 residential projections for single-family and multi-family populations. Stantec performed a review of the data to resolve any obvious inaccuracies identified through the review of City geographic information system (GIS) data within each mini-basin, including land-use, parcel count, and aerial photos. Addit ionally, larger multi-family developments were reviewed using KC Assessor’s information. Based on this review, populations for the following basins were modified as documented in the 2012 Hydraulic Modeling Update: • Basin 5 – The Land Use Baseline projecti ons list 126 parcels and a single-family residential population of 169. City GIS data shows 170 parcels within the basin, with an estimated 100 single-family lots. A multiplier of 2.5 persons per single-family lot was used to estimate a single-family residential population of 250 for this basin. The CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CHAPTER 4 4-20 | JULY 2022 | FINAL multi-family population supplied by PSRC is negligible, and is consistent with the City GIS data. • Basin 20 – The estimate from PSRC for this mini-basin encompassed the Ultimate mini-basin boundary. To estimate t he population for the current boundary, the total of 3,007 people was scaled on an area ratio of the current/ultimate basins for an adjusted population of 2,390. The multi-family development and zoning is all within the current mini-basin boundary, so this population was not modified. • Basin 25/Basin 43 – Both of these mini -basins include large mobile home parks, which are not accounted for in the PSRC projections for either single-family or multi-family populations. Basin 25 includes approximately 240 mobile homes, and Basin 43 includes approximately 200 mobile homes. To account for these populations, a multiplier of 1.8 (multi-family) was applied to each mobile home, and the populations were added to the projections supplied by PSRC. For Basin 25, the total residential population was adjusted from 983 to 1,415. For Basin 43, the population was adjusted from 49 to 410. • Basin U1 - The Land Use Baseline projections list 58 parcels and a single-family residential population of 255. City GIS data shows approximately 205 parcels within the basin, with an estimated 197 single-family lots. A multiplier of 2.5 persons per single-family lot was used to estimate a single-family residential population of 490 for this basin. The multi-family population supplied by PSRC is negligible, and is consistent with the GIS data. • Basin U6 – The estimate from PSRC for this mini-basin encompassed the ultimate mini-basin boundary. To estimate the population for the current boundary, the total of 2,050 people was scaled on an area ratio of the current/ultimate basins for an adjusted population of 1,345. The multi-family population supplied by PSRC is negligible, and is consistent with the GIS data. It was not modified. • Basin U9 – The estimate from PSRC for this mini-basin encompassed the ultimate mini-basin boundary. To estimate the population for the current boundary, the total of 1,268 people was scaled on an area ratio of the current/ultimate basins for an adjusted population of 68. No multi-family population was projected. This is consistent with the GIS data. All modifications were reviewed and accepted by City Planning Department staff. 4.5.1.2 Future The PSRC 2040 residential projections estimated single-family and multi-family populations that are aligned with the Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy. Ultimate projections were calculated as the PSRC 2040 projection plus 25 percent to be conservative. Unlike the 2012 projections, no changes were made to the PSRC output with one exception . Recent detailed projections for mini-basin 45, which were made as part of the Thunder Hills Sanitary Sewer Interceptor Design Project, were incorporated into the 2040 demographic projection. Mini-basin 45 multi-family populations were increased using a higher growth rate similar to the adjacent mini-basin 3 PSRC estimates. 4.5.2 Employment The total existing employment is 44,506 using 2012 basin population estimates. The total future employment was projected to be 104,414 which is an increase of 59,908 employees over a period of 28 years. This is approximately a 2,140 increase in employment annually. Major regions of CHAPTER 4 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 | 4-21 growth for future employment are mini-basins 27, 32, 43, 48, 50, and U9 with growth rates of 10,891 percent, 5,017 percent, 2,400 percent, 4,700 percent, 3,447 percent, and 31,300 percent, respectively. Where employment projectio ns were not released for several TAZ due to confidentiality requirements by the Employment Securities Department, alternate methods were used in these areas, which are discussed further in this section. In addition, the school enrollment s were estimated to account for sewer use by students, as they are not captured in the PSRC employment projections. Note, the TAZ projections meet or exceed the City’s adopted GMPC population and employment targets for the City and PAA. Demographic projections are summarized in Table 4.4 and discussed further in the following sections. 4.5.2.1 Existing - 2012 PSRC employment projections, also based on the Baseline Land Use model, were throughout the Sewer Service Area. As previously mentioned, projections were not available for six mini basins due to confidentiality requirements by the Employment Securities Department: Basins 30C, 32, 50, 52, U3, and U8. Therefore, demographic projections for those mini-basins were developed using 2011 Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) data, developed by the U.S. Census Bureau. Through a review of available GIS data, no obvious discrepancies were found in either the PSRC or LEHD data. 4.5.2.2 Future PSRC 2040 employment are based on local growth targets t hat are aligned with the Vision 2040 Regio nal Growth Strategy. Mini-basin employment allocations were made using the PSRC, except where no data was available. For these six basins, Stantec produced custom allocations, which were reviewed and accepted by City Planning Department staff. Ultimate pro jections were calculated as the PSRC 2040 projection plus 25 percent. 4.5.3 Schools The City serves public elementary, middle, and high schools from the Issaquah and Renton School Districts in addition to private schools, Renton Technical College, and the University of Phoenix campus. These schools are spread throughout Renton and can be found within each service basin except for the May Valley Basin. There are two schools in Renton’s service area, Maywood Middle School and the Briarwood Elementary School, that are not currently connected to the public sewers. These are located in the East Cedar River Basin. 4.5.3.1 Existing - 2012 School enrollment projections were determined for schools within the existing sewer service area using published data from the local school districts, including the Renton School District and Issaquah Schools. Student populations were generally developed using enrollment statistics for the 2011-2012 school year. School staffing were not included in enrollment, as staff are considered in the PSRC employment projection. 4.5.3.2 Future School enrollment projections for 2040 are not available from the PSRC or school districts. Therefore, school population estimates were projected to grow at the same rate as the residential population. As with other categories, the resulting projection was increased by 25 percent to create the Ultimate projection. CHAPTER 4 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 | 4-23 Table 4.4 Demographic Projections (From Stantec 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Report) Sewer Mini basin 2012 Basin Population Estimates Ultimate Population Estimates (2040 Population+25%) Area (acres) Single- Family Multi- Family Employment Schools Single- Family Multi- Family Employment Schools 2012 Ult % Diff 1 180 82 22 0 554 420 29 0 71.79 71.79 0.00% 2 81 1,303 342 1,041 209 1,608 713 1,367 127.50 134.72 5.67% 3 1,012 1,307 95 0 1,660 1,836 248 0 194.52 194.52 0.00% 4 1,094 49 22 466 2,109 121 160 909 205.17 205.17 0.00% 5 250 1,823 4,126 0 701 2,238 5,633 0 213.91 233.53 9.18% 6 1,513 10 25 0 2,173 14 165 0 224.34 224.34 0.00% 7 1,232 27 67 526 1,936 31 88 822 162.60 162.60 0.00% 8 0 0 2,248 0 0 0 5,310 0 82.14 82.14 0.00% 9 0 0 272 0 0 0 645 0 111.02 111.02 0.00% 10 173 121 537 0 201 65 1,011 0 54.44 54.44 0.00% 11 803 461 1,140 0 1,148 559 2,201 0 163.83 163.83 0.00% 12 23 1,492 458 0 34 1,803 883 0 73.57 73.57 0.00% 13 402 438 698 0 398 498 1,301 0 81.08 81.08 0.00% 14 1,041 401 504 298 1,795 483 1,088 471 205.98 205.98 0.00% 15 110 456 736 1,218 139 576 1,504 1,539 92.33 92.33 0.00% 16 1,077 380 241 0 1,534 481 583 0 177.15 177.15 0.00% 17 545 149 202 0 765 355 379 0 122.66 122.66 0.00% 18 350 209 148 0 408 280 279 0 38.85 38.85 0.00% 19 0 0 1,480 0 0 0 3,496 0 144.37 144.37 0.00% 20 2,390 490 261 0 5,943 549 973 0 309.45 620.56 100.53% 21 1,425 17 59 618 1,998 35 335 871 143.52 176.54 23.00% 22 1,065 1,433 599 1,956 1,690 1,905 2,049 2,815 208.76 208.76 0.00% 23 858 393 52 0 1,228 500 98 0 111.83 111.83 0.00% 24 1,258 136 63 0 1,839 179 109 0 130.46 130.46 0.00% 25 1,583 35 111 0 1,321 90 200 0 179.79 179.79 0.00% 26 2,189 1,440 818 525 3,270 2,228 1,800 795 382.54 382.54 0.00% 27 1,097 62 11 1,135 1,434 86 1,209 1,489 102.98 102.98 0.00% 28 0 0 5,365 0 0 0 12,673 0 180.04 180.04 0.00% 29 574 120 16 2,265 770 188 44 3,127 85.78 85.78 0.00% 30A 787 835 60 0 941 1,688 139 0 133.61 133.61 0.00% 30B 38 3 0 0 55 63 0 0 4.68 4.68 0.00% 30C 2 324 12 0 95 499 106 0 21.21 21.21 0.00% 32 321 281 105 0 368 328 5,373 0 141.77 141.77 0.00% 33 3,184 11 218 559 4,903 18 398 861 320.61 375.94 17.26% 34 721 227 43 0 1,223 279 75 0 127.92 127.92 0.00% 35 328 224 113 0 438 314 313 0 60.08 60.08 0.00% 36 40 1,376 397 0 41 1,634 854 0 117.20 117.20 0.00% 37 256 352 257 1,159 341 494 451 1,592 69.08 69.08 0.00% 38A 642 253 469 0 808 370 1,091 0 91.24 91.24 0.00% 38B 47 17 2 0 55 63 0 0 16.72 16.72 0.00% 39 508 515 127 0 640 690 329 0 86.04 86.04 0.00% 40 593 87 33 0 776 113 63 0 74.87 74.87 0.00% 41 1,063 94 61 0 1,319 133 116 0 117.31 117.31 0.00% 42 0 0 147 0 0 0 329 0 20.06 20.06 0.00% 43 549 624 7 0 611 1,085 175 0 116.45 116.45 0.00% 44 282 578 487 0 361 835 909 0 127.88 127.88 0.00% 45 20 1,157 2,733 0 133 2,390 5,165 0 158.81 158.81 0.00% 46 1,994 615 679 0 2,431 741 1,469 0 389.97 389.97 0.00% 46 (North) 67 665 21 0 106 1,055 36 0 23.84 23.84 0.00% 47 777 1,496 606 0 1,089 2,628 1,269 0 196.30 196.30 0.00% 48 462 168 6 545 609 243 288 737 60.26 60.26 0.00% 49 12 0 544 0 15 0 1,284 0 71.85 71.85 0.00% CHAPTER 4 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 | 4-25 Sewer Mini basin 2012 Basin Population Estimates Ultimate Population Estimates (2040 Population+25%) Area (acres) Single- Family Multi- Family Employment Schools Single- Family Multi- Family Employment Schools 2012 Ult % Diff 50 4 174 30 0 5 210 1,064 0 162.61 162.61 0.00% 52 597 6 187 0 1,054 5 1,028 0 148.12 148.12 0.00% 54 139 1,066 883 0 446 1,680 1,668 0 252.50 252.50 0.00% A 4 0 4,975 0 5 571 11,753 0 857.19 857.19 0.00% B 0 0 2,580 0 85 0 6,046 0 323.32 323.32 0.00% CEDAR02A 302 146 318 0 370 211 599 0 48.59 48.59 0.00% ESI1003 237 620 7,126 0 255 1,108 14,185 0 403.86 403.86 0.00% RENT65 561 526 189 0 1,115 811 569 0 178.09 178.09 0.00% U1 255 8 7 0 1,004 8 16 0 75.48 75.48 0.00% U2 1,054 56 23 0 2,014 61 51 0 139.04 139.04 0.00% U3 1,064 63 59 0 1,743 88 303 0 141.67 141.67 0.00% U4 2,927 10 251 612 4,649 30 614 975 471.97 471.97 0.00% U5 NA NA NA NA 976 75 36 0 NA 112.94 U6 1,345 6 32 1,664 4,055 33 544 3,309 219.90 615.17 179.75% U7 NA NA NA NA 1,685 9 96 0 NA 173.66 U8 294 0 3 0 496 0 26 0 43.01 43.01 0.00% U9 68 0 1 905 1,824 0 314 1,305 12.21 212.66 1641.94% U10 NA NA NA NA 2,335 178 64 0 NA 354.03 Total 43,869 25,417 44,506 15,492 76,731 37,869 104,414 22,984 10,407.68 12,070.34 Note: Abbreviation: NA – not applicable. CHAPTER 4 | LONG RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 | 4-27 4.6 Sewer Collection System Flow Components The City has separate sewer and stormwater collection systems, where only wastewater is conveyed in the sanitary sewer system. However, some groundwater and stormwater inevitably enter the sanitary sewer through defects in pipes and manholes (MHs) and illicit storm drain connections. Therefore, sewer flows may vary substantially between dry and wet weather. The different flow components are described in the section below. 4.6.1 Dry Weather Flow Components There are two components of dry weather flow: • Base wastewater flow (BWF). • Dry weather groundwater infiltration (GWI). 4.6.1.1 Base Wastewater Flow The BWF is the sanitary flow generated by routine water usage of the City’s residential, commercial, and mixed-use customers. Conveying this flow is the primary function of the collection system. The flow has a diurnal pattern that varies by customer. Typically, a residential diurnal pattern has two peaks with the more pronounced peak following the wake-up hours of the day, and a less pronounced peak occurring in the evening. Commercial and mixed -use patterns, though they vary depending on the type of use, typically have more consistent higher flow patterns during business hours, and lower flows at night. Furthermore, the diurnal flow pattern of a weekend may vary from the diurnal flow experienced during a weekday. 4.6.1.2 Groundwater Infiltration Dry weather GWI enters the sewer system through defects such as cracks, misaligned joints, MH defects, and broken pipelines. Dry weather GWI only occurs when the relative depth of the ground water table is higher than the depth of the pipeline and where there is a defect; therefore it varies throughout the system. Dry weather GWI (or base infiltrat ion) cannot easily be separated from BWF by flow measurement techniques. Therefore, dry weather GWI is typically grouped with BWF. 4.6.1.3 Average Dry Weather Flow ADWF is the average flow that occurs on a daily basis during the dry weather season and is represent ative of routine wastewater discharges into the collection system from customers as well as baseline groundwater infiltration. 4.6.2 Wet Weather Flow Components Wet Weather Flow (WWF) includes two components: • Infiltration and Inflow (I/I). • Wet weather GWI. 4.6.2.1 Inflo w and Infiltration The stormwater I/I response in the sewer system to rainfall is seen immediately (inflow) or within hours after the storm (infiltration). Inflow is stormwater that enters the sewer system via a direct connection to the system, such as roof drain and downspout connections, leaky MH covers, and illicit storm drain CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CHAPTER 4 4-28 | JULY 2022 | FINAL cross-connections. Infiltration is stormwater that enters the sewer system by percolating through the soil and then through defects in pipelines, MHs, and joints. The adverse effects of I/I entering the sewer system is that it increases both the flow volume and peak flows such that the sewer system could be operating at or above its c apacity. If too much I/I enters the sewer system, sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) could occur. 4.6.2.2 Wet Weather Groundwater Infiltration Wet weather GWI is not specific to a single rainfall event, but rather to the effects on the sewer system over the entire wet weather season. The depth of the groundwater table rising above the pipe invert elevation causes GWI. Sewer pipes within close proximity to a body of water can be greatly influenced by groundwater effects. Wet weather GWI is associated with extraneous water entering the sewer system through defects in pipes and MHs while the ground is saturated during the wet weather season. Wet weather GWI may occur throughout the year, although rates are typically higher in the late winter and early spring in the Pacific Northwest. 4.6.2.3 Peak Wet Weather Flow PWWF is the highest observed hourly flow that occurs following the selected design storm event. PWWF in a sewer system can be more than ten times the base flow, causing utilities to construct high-capacity infrastructure to convey and treat these flows. 4.7 Flow Monitoring As part of the Scope of Services for this LRWWMP, Carollo Engineers, Inc. (Carollo) contracted with ADS Environmental Services, LLC (ADS) to conduct a Temporary F low Monitoring Program within the City's sanitary sewer collection system. The purposes of the flow monitoring program were to correlate actual collection system flows to the hydraulic model predicted flows, evaluate the system's capacity, and estimate basin I/I. The temporary flow monitoring data was collected for a period of approximately four months from December 22, 2017 to April 22, 2018. The "ADS Flow Monitoring Report" prepared by ADS summarizes the flow monitoring program and was submitted to the City as a stand-alone report. The report can be found as an attachment to Appendix G , TM 1. 4.8 Average Dry Weather Flow Developing an accurate estimate of the future quantity of wastewater generated at build -out of the collection system is an important step in maintaining and sizing sewer system facilities, for both existing conditions and future scenarios. Base flow can be estimated for a wastewater system by comparing dry weather flow and wet weather flow at the various flow monitoring locations. To estimate ADWF for more specific areas, such as individual wastewater basins, dry weather flows are typically estimated based on the area contributing to flows and flow coefficients developed for each land use type. This method is developed based on the assumption that areas with similar land uses, such as low density residential parcels, produce equivalent quantities of wastewater flow. System -wide flows can be compared to known flows at flow monitors, or at the treatment plant to verify accuracy. This method of estimating base flows is an industry standard for planning and provides sufficiently accurate data for planning purposes. CHAPTER 4 | LONG RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 | 4-29 4.8.1 Average Dry Weather Flow Development Existing ADWFs for each basin were estimated using data from the Flow Monitoring Program for each of the flow monitoring basins. ADWF was developed using the driest days from the flow monitoring period based on the following set of minimum criteria: • Less than 0.1 in of rain in the previous day. • Less than 0.4 in of rain in the previous 3 days. • Less than 1.0 in of rain in the previous 5 days. • Selected days must exhibit average-day flows within 85 percent to 115 percent of the average-day flows of remaining dry days. • In addition, those dry days that exhibited unusual flow patterns were not used to generate net d ry day flow values for a basin. Characteristic dry weather 24 -hour diurnal flow patterns for each site were developed based on the hourly data. The hourly flow data were also used to calibrate the hydraulic model for the observed dry weather flows during t he flow monitoring period. Hourly patterns for weekday and weekend flows vary and were separated to better understand dry weather flow. An example of the dry weather flow diurnal patterns is shown in Flow Monitoring Basin MH0537, in Figure 4.4. Carollo est imated the average weekday and weekend dry weather levels and velocities at each site from the data provided by ADS for use in the model calibration process. Figure 4.4 Typical Weekday vs Weekend Dry Weather Flow Variation (MH0537) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23Hourly MultiplierHour Weekday Diurnal Pattern 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47Hourly MultiplierHour Weekend Diurnal Pattern CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CHAPTER 4 4-30 | JULY 2022 | FINAL 4.9 Wet Weather Flows PWWF in a wastewater collection system are caused by rainfall dependent I/I. Peak hour flows can result in flows more than ten times the base flow, causing utilities to construct high-capacity infrastructure to convey and treat these extraneous flows. Existing and projected PWWFs are predicted using the hydraulic model and design storm used for this LRWWMP. This analysis uses four separate multi-day, 20 -30 year recurrence design storms, illustrated in Chapter 5 – System Analysis and Results. These storms were identified in the 2012 KC I/I Study and correspond to the recurrence interval within historical KC rainfall. To represent typical Pacific Northwest winter rainfall conditions, antecedent rainfall was added from historical data. Further detail on the development of the design storm can be found in Chapter 5 – System Analysis and Results. 4.9.1 Rainfall Data An important part of the flow monitoring program is the collection and analysis of rainfall data. Three significant rainfall events occurred during the course of the flow monitoring period, as well as a few other relatively minor events. The storms recorded during the Temporary Flow Monitoring Program did present data in terms of the collection system’s I/I response to wet weather flow events, and is appropriate for I/I analysis and model calibration purposes. 4.9.2 Wet Weather Flow Data The flow monitoring data was evaluated to determine how the collection system responds to wet weather events. A summary of the peak wet weather flow mini basin during current and buildout conditions is shown in Table 4.5. 4.10 Projected Flows A summary of the modeled PWWF flows for each planning period is shown in Table 4.5. As previously described, these flows were calculated usi ng land use data for the study area and an average wastewater conveyance required per capita. These flows were calculated by simulating the February 1996 design storm, described in Chapter 5 – System Analysis and Results. Flows consider both I/I change and system expansion. Table 4.5 Design Event Projected Wet Weather Flow Sewer Mini basin Current PWWF (mgd)(1) Buildout PWWF (mgd )(1) 1 0.57 0.77 2 2.25 2.97 3 0.67 0.87 4 10.15 12.14 5 3.51 4.53 6 1.20 1.44 7 4.16 5.57 8 0.69 1.53 9 2.96 3.51 10 0.38 0.47 11 2.49 3.53 CHAPTER 4 | LONG RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 | 4-31 Sewer Mini basin Current PWWF (mgd)(1) Buildout PWWF (mgd )(1) 12 0.70 0.88 13 2.26 2.79 14 2.87 3.03 15 5.80 6.68 16 1.20 1.67 17 0.20 0.37 18 0.52 2.70 19 0.32 0.52 20 0.97 2.20 21 1.35 1.51 22 3.00 4.66 23 1.29 2.04 24 1.95 2.45 25 1.25 1.61 26 2.32 2.90 27 0.36 0.52 28 2.00 2.89 29 0.80 0.86 30A 4.35 6.40 30B 3.14 4.90 30C 1.76 2.33 32 2.45 3.33 33 0.96 1.60 34 0.21 0.29 35 3.14 4.88 36 0.65 0.80 37 0.77 0.97 38A 0.21 0.27 38B 3.14 4.90 39 1.54 1.97 40 0.54 0.69 41 1.34 1.48 42 0.09 0.14 43 0.22 0.36 44 2.37 3.15 45 6.26 8.23 46 17.04 27.21 46 (North) 0.33 0.46 CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CHAPTER 4 4-32 | JULY 2022 | FINAL Sewer Mini basin Current PWWF (mgd)(1) Buildout PWWF (mgd )(1) 47 8.89 11.89 48 2.41 3.23 49 0.42 0.60 50 3.14 4.06 52 0.41 0.55 54 5.92 7.71 A 15.27 20.07 B 6.75 8.51 CEDAR02A 25.41 36.72 ESI1003 59.19 83.48 RENT65 11.13 13.70 U1 0.01 0.02 U2 0.13 0.25 U3 0.30 0.61 U4 0.28 0.91 U5 0.00 0.00 U6 0.28 0.91 U7 0.00 0.00 U8 1.01 2.65 U9 0.00 0.00 U10 0.00 0.00 Notes: Abbreviation: mgd – million gallons per day. (1) PWWF Modeling Results are from the respective design storm. CHAPTER 5 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL |JULY 2022 | 5-1 Chapter 5 SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND RESULTS 5.1 Introduction This chapter summarizes the conveyance analysis of all aspects of the existing system and their recommended improvements. It includes a summary of system -wide conc erns and the hydraulic analysis performed using the updated Danish Hydraulic Institute (DHI) MikeUrban hydraulic model. The results are summarized at the end of the chapter for each sewer mini-basin and within the entire system (system -wide) in Table 5.10. This chapter builds on Chapter 4 – Planning Considerations and summarizes the detailed technical information provided in Technical Memorandum (TM) No. 2 - Model Development and Calibration that can be found in Appendix I. 5.2 System-Wide Concerns The sewer system has system -wide concerns that are common throughout its mini-basins. These concerns, summarized below, impact both the City of Renton’s (City’s) operations and capital planning. 5.2.1 King County-Interceptor Surcharging During peak flows, King County (KC) will use its interceptors for storage of wastewater and for controlling flows in the South Treatment Plant. This may result in surcharging of the KC interceptors. KC reserves the right to surcharge its interceptors to an elevation of 25 feet (ft). KC has n ever reached this extreme, to the City’s knowledge; however, the City has experienced sewer surcharge problems in the low-lying areas. As a result of KC's surcharging, it is possible that additional wastewater could overflow in low-lying areas through manh ole covers and side sewer connections. KC, as part of their regional conveyance system needs report (Report), dated December 2017, identified long-term capacity concerns within this Long-Range Wastewater Management Plan’s (LRWWMP’s) planning period within portions of the east-side interceptor in the City. The Report identifies capacity projects to alleviate the capacity concerns; however, these projects are not in KC’s 6 year capital improvement plan. The City has not designed facilities to accommodate a sewer surcharge to an elevation of 25 ft. The City's current position is that KC is responsible for providing adequate capacity within its interceptors and wastewater treatment facilities. In addition, the City considers KC to be responsible for proper effluent disposal. During the preparation of the LRWWMP, no specific analysis was made of the effect of KC’s surcharging on the City's sewer system. KC should continue to study and identify areas of potential risk and alternatives to mitigate this problem. In the past, KC has increased the influent and effluent capacity at South Plant and has installed parallel interceptor facilities. This has significantly reduced the chance of surcharging but does not eliminate the problem. CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CHAPTER 5 5-2 | JULY 2022 | FINAL 5.2.2 Adjacent Utility Systems For purposes of this LRWWMP, all of the comprehensive plans for the adjacent utility systems described in Chapter 4 – Planning Considerations were examined. The hydraulic analysis utilized the projected Ultimate Peak 20 -year design flows, as computed by KC. These flows were obtained from KC and assigned as constant inflow conditions. This conservative assumption contributed to surcharging and capacity issues in portions of the system. The City has several agreements with adjacent utilities that allow joint use of facilities within the City, as summarized in Chapter 4 – Planning Considerations. If capacity limitations become evident, through visual inspection or flow measurements, then the City and the adjacent utility should work together to correct the limitation as specified in the joint use agreement. 5.2.3 Hazard Mitigation Plan The City partnered with KC Emergency Management to update the Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan. The City developed a city-specific plan – Hazard Mitigation Plan (Renton Annex) – as part of the regional effort. The Regional and city-specific Hazard Mitigation Plan seek to mitigate long-term risk to people and property from the effect of both natural and man -made hazards. The City is subject to a number of natural and man-made hazards that could affect the city, such as earthquakes, flooding, landslides, winter/wind storms, coal mine hazards, hazardous materials release, and terrorism/civil disturbance. The sanitary sewer system may be vulnerable to a variety of the identified hazards. 5.2.4 Septic Systems There are still a small percentage of developed properties within City Limits that are served by private septic systems. In addition, the developed properties within the sewer service area but outside of the city limits are primarily served by private septic systems. The Seattle-King County Department of Public Health has an approved Septic Management Plan (King County On -Site Septic System Management Plan – July 2007) and has started revising the document, however, the latest draft has not yet been approved (King County On-Site Sewage System Management Plan – September 2016). The latest Septic Management Plan identifies East Hill in unincorporated KC and Renton, potentially served by Cedar River Water and Sewer District and to a much lesser extent the City. This area was identified as challenging for the proper func tioning of OSS due to high density development with smaller lots, poor soils, older septic systems, and high or perched water tables. The latest OSS Plan states “work is needed to document the environmental and current status of systems to develop competit ive grant applications to seek funding for sewer extension projects.” 5.2.5 Wastewater Quality The quality of wastewater transported in the City sanitary sewer system varies considerably depending on the wastewater source, detention time within the sanitary sewer system and the volume of infiltration and inflow (I/I). The quality of domestic wastewater varies and is a direct result of the type of water used within the home. Some domestic sewage can be considered stronger than others can. One household appliance, the garbage disposal, can greatly impact the quality of wastewater. Most new home construction incorporates garbage disposal in its design. Use of these garbage disposals increases both suspended solids and the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), two common results tested for when measuring contaminant concentrations. CHAPTER 5 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL |JULY 2022 | 5-3 The total volume of industrial waste produced within the City is small compared with the volume of domestic wastewater. However, an industrial or commercial development can have a considerable impact on the sanitary sewer collection system immediately downstream of the facility. Industrial waste can contain high concentrations of chemicals that can make the waste highly corrosive or toxic. If discharge of an industrial waste to the sanitary sewer system creates problems, then pretreatment of the industrial waste should be considered. Several federal, state, and local regulations govern the pretreatment of industrial waste. The KC Industrial Waste Program is a state delegated authority to implement the Federal Pretreatment Program and handles the industrial waste for the City. The most recent list of industrial discharges is provided in Table 5.1. This program administers the waste discharge permits, inspections, enforcements, compliance and collection of surcharge monitoring fees. The program also works with businesses to help them implement pollution prevention practices. The industrial dischargers submit monthly self-monitoring reports to the KC Industrial Waste Program to confirm compliance with their NPDES permits. The City regularly coordinates with King County on program compliance including collaboration on conducting twice yearly monitoring of the discharges. CHAPTER 5 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL |JULY 2022 | 5-5 Table 5.1 Renton Summary of Industrial Discharges Industrial Discharger Industry Type Authorization Type Approval Number Effective Date Expiration Date Max Volume (gpd) Aero Plastics Inc. General Type No Control Document Required 400391-01 15-Nov-17 Alliance Packaging LLC Corrugated Container Major Discharge Authorization 689-08 9-Dec -20 8-Dec -25 4,500 Allpak Container Corporation Corrugated Container Major Discharge Authorization 585-06 21-Jun-18 20-Jun-23 4,000 Amazon Services LLC – SWA2 -4 General Type No Control Document Required 400502-01 28-Jul-21 Barbee Mill Company, Inc. Groundwater Remediation - Metals Major Discharge Authorization 4133-03 29-Oct -17 28-Oct -22 25,000 Boeing Commercial Airplane - Renton Metal Finishing - CFR 433 Permit 7630-06 2-Jan -18 1-Jan -23 75,000 Boeing Electronics Center Metal Finishing - CFR 433 Permit 7508-05 9-Mar-17 8-Mar-22 15,000 Buchan Bros. Vehicle Washing No Control Document Required 400319-01 30-Jun-16 Buchan Bros. Vehicle Washing Letter of Authorization 10356 -01 28-Feb -03 Cintas Corporation Laundry-Industrial Permit 7857-03 16-Aug-20 15-Aug-25 120,000 Distribution International General Type No Control Document Required 400451-01 22-Apr-19 E&E Foods Food Processing-Fish Permit 7961-01 10 -Feb -21 9-Feb -26 85,000 Hartung Glass Industries - Flat Glass Products Glass Manufacturing Minor Discharge Authorization 400465-01 20-Nov-19 Hilite Seafood Food Processing – Seafood No Control Document Required 1034 -01 21-Dec -16 20-Dec -21 21,000 Kenworth Truck Co. Manufacturing-Misc Major Discharge Authorization 400221-01 4-Jun-15 King County RSD (1) - Renton Decant Facility Decant Station Major Discharge Authorization 4451-01 9-May-18 8-May-23 73,000 King County SWD(2) - Renton Transfer Station Solid Waste - Transfer Fac Major Discharge Authorization 4367-03 5-Jun-21 4-Jun-26 52,000 Northwest Gourmet Food Products Inc. - Renton Facility Food Processing-Other Permit 4419-01 15-Jun-17 14 -Jun-22 2,037 Ocean Beauty Seafoods LLC - Renton Food Processing-Seafood Major Discharge Authorization 7949-01 1-Feb -20 31-Jan -25 3,000 Phillips 66 Company - Renton Terminal Groundwater Remediation - Organics Major Discharge Authorization 4444-02 1-Dec -18 21-Dec -22 43,305 Phillips 66 Company - Renton Terminal Groundwater Remediation - Organics Permit 261-06 14 -Jan -21 13-Jan -26 5,000 Renton Coil Spring Co. Inc. Manufacturing-Misc No Control Document Required 7910 -02 5-Mar-20 4-Mar-25 50,400 Republic Services - Monster Road SW General Type Major Discharge Authorization 400396-01 15-Nov-17 Rosemount Specialty Products LLC Manufacturing-Misc No Control Document Required 4484-01 11-Feb -19 10 -Feb -24 48,000 Schwartz Brothers Bakery - Renton Food Processing-Bakery Minor Discharge Authorization 400192-02 16-Dec -19 Service Linen Supply Laundry - Linen Major Discharge Authorization 830-03 1-Jul-21 30-Jun-26 6,000 Sheets Unlimited LLC Corrugated Container Minor Discharge Authorization 388-06 1-Mar-19 3-Sep -22 120,000 SKIS Painting General Type No Control Document Required 816-05 7-May-21 30-Sep -25 2,500 Stoneway Concrete - Black River Cement/Readymix Major Discharge Authorization 400458-01 10-Jul-19 Stoneway Concrete - Houser Way Cement/Readymix Major Discharge Authorization 4080-04 28-Sep -20 27-Sep -25 25,000 Trojan Lithograph Printing Letter of Authorization 10193-03 15-Jul-18 14 -Jul-23 1000 United Rentals – Tukwila No Control Document Required 400202-01 22-Apr-15 Valley Medical Center Hospital Minor Discharge Authorization 709-04 2-Aug-17 1-Aug-22 Note: (1) RSD - Road Services Division. (2) SWD - Solid Waste Division. CHAPTER 5 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL| JULY 2022 | 5-7 5.2.6 Wastewater Quality Analysis and Recommendations A major problem associated with wastewater quality is the generation of hydrogen sulfide that occurs during wastewater transport from its source to the point of treatment. The hydrogen sulfide found in wastewater results from the anaerobic bacterial reduction of the sulfate ions that are present. Hydrogen sulfide poses three serious problems: it is highly corrosive, has an obnoxious odor, and, as a gas, is toxic to humans and has been known to cause deat h to sewer maintenance workers. The production of hydrogen sulfide is directly related to the BOD of the wastewater. Wastewater exhibiting a high BOD will tend to generate more hydrogen sulfide than wastewater exhibiting a lower BOD. Hydrogen sulfide is very corrosive to both sewers and pumping facilities. Hydrogen sulfide released from the wastewater will tend to dissolve on condensation within the crown of a sanitary sewer. The hydrogen sulfide retained in the condensation is converted to sulfuric acid through oxidation by aerobic bacteria. This sulfuric acid will react with the cement bonding material within concrete pipes, or iron within steel pipes, and can corrode a pipe to the point of structural failure. Sanitary sewer pipes are most susceptible to t his type of corrosion in their crowns because that is where most condensation occurs. Aeration, periodic cleaning, and use of non-corrosive pipe materials can control effects of hydrogen sulfide. If excessive hydrogen sulfide production is evident at a lift station, aeration of the wet well should be considered to reduce the hydrogen sulfide in the wastewater and reduce the effects of anaerobic bacteria that produce the hydrogen sulfide. Periodic cleaning of the sanitary sewers will also remove the biological slime that forms on the pipe walls and produces the hydrogen sulfide. The most effective method of mitigating corrosion by hydrogen sulfide is through the use of non-corrosive pipe materials, such as polyvinyl chloride (PVC), or high-density polyethylen e (HDPE). Existing pipes experiencing severe corrosion can be rehabilitated through the use of various slip form liners or fiberglass resin liners. In order to control the generation of hydrogen sulfide, the City conducts preventative maintenance with rout ine cleaning sewer pipes with inadequate slopes. In addition, all pipes are cleaned before video inspection is performed. Both of these tasks reduce biological growth on the walls of the sewer pipes and reduce the hydrogen sulfide generation potential. Exc essive I/I will tend to reduce the production of hydrogen sulfide and the concentration of contaminants in the wastewater. As the City works to reduce structural defects causing I/I, there may be more impact by contaminants and hydrogen sulfide. The City m ay have to increase efforts to reduce hydrogen sulfide and be more aware of potential contaminants. The planning area for this LRWWMP corresponds, for the most part, with the current City limits and urban growth boundary (UGB), as shown in Figure 4.1. Service is provided consistent with regional planning and agreements with adjacent utilities. System -wide concerns present in the wastewater infrastructure include some segments approaching the end of the Remaining Useful Life and infiltration and inflow. CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CHAPTER 5 5-8 | JULY 2022 | FINAL 5.2.7 Agin g Sanitary Sewers Sanitary sewer system installation began in earnest during the 1940’s and 1950’s as a federal program to provide housing for workers at the Renton Boeing Plant and has continued through today. Prior to this boom, the City also had significant sewer installations in the 1920s and 1930s for the Central Business District. Some of t hese sewers have reached the end of their useful life. This LRWWMP recommends a program to address condition issues of these aging sanitary sewers through rehabilit ation and replacement . 5.2.8 Infiltration and Inflow I/I occur in all sanitary sewer systems. Infiltration is defined as water entering the sanitary sewer system through pipes, joint connections, manhole (MH) covers, and walls. Inflow is defined as water discharged to the sanitary sewer system through connections to roof drains, yard drains, foundation drains, and cross connections with storm sewers and combined sewers. The combination of I/I may be a major portion of the total wastewater flow which must be carried by the sanitary sewer system. I/I problems in an existing sanitary sewer system can be studied to determine their effect. Finding and correcting I/I sources can be challenging, as determining the source can be evasive. Elimination of storm inflow from the system is difficult due to conflicting concerns. Sealing MH lids and maintaining the water tightness of the lids decreases inflow, but gas, particularly hydrogen sulfide and methane, can collect in the sealed MHs. The City attempts to minimize vent holes for the system, but inflow cannot be prevented completely. During the design and construction of new main extensions, the City utilizes MH liners and coatings as well as sealed MH covers in wet areas. The City also performs video inspections during the wet season on all new gravity sewers to check for leaks. 5.2.8.1 Historical Infiltration and Inflow In December 1999 , as part of the Regional Wastewater Services Plan (RWSP), the KC Council approved the development of a Regional I/I Control Program. The purpose of the program is to reduce the risk of sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) and the cost of adding capacity to facilities that convey wastewater to KC treatment plants. KC installed over 800 flow meters to measure flows throughout KC. The flow meters monitor depth of flow and velocity. Early flow monitoring data between late 2000 and early 2001 were considered unrepresentative because of drought conditions that lowered the groundwater table and therefore reduced I/I to the system. Consequently, KC performed additional flow monitoring from late 2001 to early 2002. This effort proved more productive as data from several storms was captured. Rainfall in the region was also monitored by KC. The Calcul de lames d’eau a l’aide du radar system (CALAMAR ) used a combination of 73 rain gauges throughout the region, as well as the National Weather Service radar, to generate rainfall quantities to an accuracy of plus or minus 10 percent. In 2000, KC’s Wastewater Treatment Division, in cooperation with the local component agencies that it serves, launched an I/I Program. Ten pilot projects were selected to evaluate the effectiveness of various sewer rehabilitation technologies in reducing I/I in local agency collection systems. The completion of the ten pilot projects in January 2004 marked a major milestone in the KC study. The projects demonstrated that I/I could be effectively reduced, depending on the location and method of rehabilitation. The results of the pilot projects, along with other information, were used to prepare a long -term regional plan for reducing I/I in local agency systems. CHAPTER 5 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL| JULY 2022 | 5-9 5.2.8.2 Current Infiltration and Inflow Old and aging sewers contribute to excessive I/I into the sanitary sewer system. In conjunction with KC’s program for reducing I/I, the City identified, through model analysis, areas of concern for investigation, additional metering, and replacement or rehabilitation of the sewers. There are certain portions of the sanitary sewer system that are known as having I/I in excess of the 1,500 gallons per acre per day (GPAD) identified as the acceptable amount as determined through the joint planning effort between KC and the component agencies. The City works to reduce the I/I in these portions of the system through its mainline and lateral replacement program. If these systems are replaced, I/I will be reduced and KC’s requirements will be met. If a system is not scheduled for replacement or a replacement is delayed, the City may have to perform interim rehabilitation to reduce I/I if required for capacity needs. The City is participating with KC on its program to gain knowledge and experience to determine methods for I/I abatement . The additional data produced through the current effort occurring will be used by the City in determining feasibility of using I/I improvements in lieu of upsizing sewer systems where capacity restraints have been identified. The modeled values of I/I are shown for every mini -basin in Figure 5.5. The sewer model has also identified portions of the sewer system that have I/I or capacity problems during large storms that may not be evident with physical signs during smaller storms. To better understand these areas, the City will initiate I/I Metering, Investigation, and Rehabilitation and Replacement , as needed . 5.2.9 Other Concerns The Downtown Utility Improvement Project (DUIP) is a pipeline replacement project intended to support the anticipated future redevelopment of the City’s Downtown area. This program will be incorporated into the City’s hydraulic model and evaluated during the capacity evaluation. Additionally, combined sewers are designed to carry both stormwater and wastewater within a single system. Current codes in the City do not allow combined sewers because it causes stormwater, which is relatively clean, to be treated along with wastewater. Combined sewer systems within the City have been replaced with separate sanitary and storm sewer systems. 5.3 Hydraulic Model Wastewater collection system models are valuable tools used to assess the performance of collection systems during dry and wet weather conditions and to plan for future improvements. These models provide a means to simulate the impact of different storm sizes on the collection system, and determine where future system deficiencies are likely to occur. In addition, a well-calibrated model provides a method for testing alternative improvement scenarios. The flow monitoring wastewater basins used in the model for calibration is shown in Figure 5.1. 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú3Ú g` g` g` g` g` g` g` g` g` g`g` g` g`g` g`g` g` g`East Valley RdRain ier Ave N S 133rd St Oakesdale Ave SWBenson D r S SW 7th St 140th Ave SENE Sunset B lvd §¨¦405 Maple V a l l e y H w y 164th Ave SECedar River Trail SE Jones Rd Lake Youngs Service RdSE May Valley Rd Union Ave NESE Petrovitsky Rd §¨¦5 Shy CreekLiftstation Devils ElbowLift Station East ValleyLift Station Talbot CrestLift Station Long LiftStation KensingtonCrest Lift Station WedgewoodLift Station WestviewLift Station Lind AveLift Station Lake Washington#2 Lift Station CottonwoodLift Station Lake Wash.Flush Lift Station Stone GateLift Station Falcon RidgeLift Station Liberty LiftStation Lake WashingtonBeach LiftStation Pipers BluffLift Station Baxter LiftStation Misty CoveLift Station Airport LiftStation MH6704 MH0166 MH0286 MH0537 MH6041 MH1360 MH1763 MH2116 MH2171 MH2252 MH5302 MH2999 MH5519 MH3216 MH3625 MH5505 MH4628 MH4646 Last Revised: July 15, 2020\\io-fs-1\Data\GIS\GISBackup\Renton\WaterSystemPlan2017\Flow_Monitoring_Basins.mxd O 0 10.5 Miles Legend g`Flow Monitoring Locations Flow Monitoring Basins Lift Station 3Ú City of Renton 3Ú King County Gravity Pipeline Force Main MAINTBY City of Renton Force Main King County Force Main King County Gravity Main Study Area Renton City Boundary Roads Waterbodies Figure 5.1Flow Monitoring Locations CHAPTER 5 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON Disclaimer: Features shown in this figure are for planning purposes andrepresent approximate locations. Engineering and/or survey accuracyis not implied. Data Sources: City of Renton CHAPTER 5 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL|JULY 2022 | 5-13 5.3.1 Model Development and Calibration A sewer collection system model is a simplified representation of the real sewer system. Sewer system models can assess the conveyance capacity for a collection system. In addition, sewer system models can perform “what if” scenarios to assess the impacts of future developments and land use changes. The model was developed using the MikeUrban hydraulic modeling software package, developed by DHI. The hydraulic model is a full pipe model and includes 100 percent of the total system pipelines. For this project, flow monitoring was conducted at 18 meter sites for a period of approximately five months from December 2017 to April 2018. Flow monitoring data was used to calibrate the updated hydraulic model for both dry and wet weather conditions. Dry weather flow (DWF) calibration ensures an accurate depiction of base wastewater flow generated within the study area. The WWF calibration process consists of calibrating the hydraulic model to specific storm events to accurately simulate the peak and volume of I/I int o the sewer system. The hydraulic model was calibrated following the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) code of practice. The updated hydraulic model is shown in Figure 5.2 . 5.3.2 Model Evaluation Results The hydraulic model is well calibrated; simulating WWF storms accurately. A summary of dry and wet weather flow model calibration is provided in Table 5.2. The percent difference in volume is shown for each of the three storms that were used for calibration. The CIWEM standards require the model to meet the calibration standards for two out of the three WWF storms. The model is within calibration criteria for every site for DWF and for 16 of the 18 sites for WWF. Calibration standards were not met for Site MH3216 and MH6041. Site MH3216 showed greater response in the model than in the meter; therefore the model is conservative. Site MH6041 flow monitoring showed very little flow response to Storms 2 and 3, which made it difficult to match across the season and be within typical parameters for the sewer system. For this reason, the calibration focused on matching Storm 1. These sites are discussed in further detail in TM 2: Model Update and Calibration , located in Appendix I of this LRWWMP. Appendix I also discusses the level calibration and shows example calibration figures. CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CHAPTER 5 5-14 | JULY 2022 | FINAL Table 5.2 Model Calibration Flow Meter ID DWF Percent Difference (%) WWF Storm 1 Volume Flow Percent Difference (%) WWF Storm 1 Peak Flow Percent Difference (%) WWF Storm 2 Volume Flow Percent Difference (%) WWF Storm 2 Peak Flow Percent Difference (%) WWF Storm 3 Volume Flow Percent Difference (%) WWF Storm 3 Peak Flow Percent Difference (%) MH0166 -0.2% 31.1% -1.5% -3.0% 11.9% 15.4% -0.9% MH0286 1.0% 7.2% -1.8% 0.1% -11.9% -7.8% -25.8% MH0537 -0.7% 10.1% 2.0% 5.2% -6.6% 17.2% 13.3% MH1360 5.0% 18.1% 9.7% -12.8% 7.2% 15.1% 2.5% MH1763 -1.1% 13.0% 13.7% -38.9% -15.0% -0.3% -5.0% MH2116 -8.1% - - -9.5% -12.6% 3.7% 7.3% MH2171 -0.4% 6.8% 10.9% -6.7% 7.7% 17.3% 19.5% MH2252 -0.8% -2.5% -5.8% -9.4% 12.2% 8.1% 58.3% MH2999 -7.2% 11.0% -10.9% 11.3% 1.8% 16.8% 7.0% MH3216 -0.4% 18.8% -4.4% -11.3% 25.2% 13.5% 47.8% MH3625 -2.5% 4.7% 5.0% -14.7% -6.1% -1.7% -8.5% MH4628 0.0% 10.4% 3.5% -21.2% 15.0% 10.9% -1.6% MH4646 0.0% -1.9% -6.6% -18.3% -19.7% -2.2% 1.9% MH5302 -8.6% -4.3% -8.7% -7.9% 6.7% -1.6% 0.8% MH5505 0.4% 6.6% -1.9% -9.5% 6.3% -2.2% -14.7% MH5519 3.7% 12.2% 33.1% 10.9% 24.0% 9.8% 1.3% MH6041 -0.1% -14.5% -8.9% 16.5% 19.7% 39.3% 140.3% MH6704 -0.2% -8.4% -19.1% 16.7% 21.8% 15.2% 3.0% CHAPTER 5 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL |JULY 2022 | 5-15 Figure 5.2 Updated Hydraulic Model 5.4 Capacity Evaluation Capacity problems are the result of inadequate pipe sizes or slopes, or backwater conditions. These problems may concern lack of capacity in the sewer system or available capacity for future development. A hydraulic analysis has been performed on the City‘s sewer system. This analysis did not show capacity problems in the current system. Capacity problems do occur throughout the system in various degrees at build-out. As the City implements more water conservation programs, there may be a negative impact on the operation of a sewer system. Reduction of the liquid component of wastewater could cause problems in moving solids through the lines. Problems moving solids could impact the operation of the system, increase the potential of SSOs and will increase the need for flushing. This section describes the capacity evaluation performed as part of this LRWWMP. Deficiencies were identified per the analysis criteria and presented in the following sections. CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CHAPTER 5 5-16 | JULY 2022 | FINAL 5.4.1 Analysis Criteria Capacity evaluation of the wastewater collection system was performed in accordance with the following criteria, using the hydraulic model developed for this LRWWMP: • 20-year and 30 -year, multi-day design storms are used for evaluating the City’s sewer infrastructu re. Essentially, these design storm have a three to five percent chance (1/30 - 1/20) that a peak of 3.7 inches of rain will fall in any 24-hour period in a given year. • It was assumed that system degradation is considered for this analysis. I /I degradation is estimated at seven percent per decade, and 28 percent for buildout . This assumption is based on KC’s Updated Planning Assumptions for Wastewater Flow Forecasting (2014). • During Peak Wet Weather Flow (PWWF), water levels were allowed to rise no more than three feet from the MH rim. Sewers were allowed to surcharge under these maximum flow conditions during the design storms presented above. Additionally, p ipes that surcharged to a ratio of depth/diameter > 2 were flagged as well in the hydraulic model results. • No surcharging was allowed for shallow MHs (shallow MHs consist of locations where the difference between the MH rim and top of pipe was less than 3.5 ft ). • Areas that were identified as a deficiency based on the analysis criteria but were caused by KC backwatering conditions are not included in the results presented in this section. The City is unable to fix issues pertaining to KC’s interceptor backwater condition. Additional information and figures showing the heightened hydraulic grade line (HGL) due to KC Interceptors are shown in Appendix I, in this LRWWMP. • Modeled Lift Station influent is larger than firm capacity of lift station for the design storm. 5.4.2 Design Storm This analysis uses four separate multi-day, 20 -30 year recurrence design storms for the capacity evaluation. These storms were identified in the 2012 KC I/I Study and correspond to t he recurrence interval within historical KC rainfall. There are five of these historical rain gauges which are used in different areas of the system. Figure 5.3 shows each of the four design storms. Table 5.3 outlines which design storm was used for the capacity analysis in each mini-basin. CHAPTER 5 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL |JULY 2022 | 5-17 Figure 5.3 Design Storm Hydrographs Table 5.3 Modeled Design Storms by Mini -Basins Sewer Mini Basin Design Storm 1 Nov-98 2 Nov-98 3 Nov-98 4 Jan-90 5 Nov-90 6 Nov-90 7 Nov-98 8 Feb -96 9 Feb -96 10 Feb -96 11 Feb -96 12 Feb -96 13 Feb -96 14 Feb -96 15 Feb -96 16 Feb -96 17 Nov-90 18 Feb -96 19 Feb -96 Sewer Mini Basin Design Storm 20 Nov-90 21 Nov-90 22 Nov-90 23 Jan -90 24 Feb -96 25 Nov-90 26 Nov-90 27 Feb -96 28 Feb-96 29 Feb -96 30A Feb -96 30B Feb -96 30C Feb -96 32 Feb -96 33 Feb -96 34 Jan -90 35 Jan -90 36 Feb-96 37 Feb -96 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 120Rainfall (in/hr)Hours Design Storms Nov-98 Jan-90 Nov-90 Feb-96 CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CHAPTER 5 5-18 | JULY 2022 | FINAL Sewer Mini Basin Design Storm 38A Feb -96 38B Feb -96 39 Feb -96 40 Feb -96 41 Feb -96 42 Feb -96 43 Jan -90 44 Nov-90 45 Nov-90 46 Nov-98 46 (North) Nov-90 47 Nov-90 48 Nov-90 49 Feb -96 50 Feb -96 52 Feb -96 Sewer Mini Basin Design Storm 54 Feb-96 A Feb -96 B Feb -96 CEDAR02A Nov-90 ESI1003 Feb -96 RENT65 Jan -90 U1 Feb -96 U2 Feb-96 U3 Feb -96 U4 Feb-96 U5 Feb -96 U6 Feb-96 U7 Feb -96 U8 Feb -96 U9 Feb -96 U10 Feb -96 5.4.3 Capacity Evaluation Results A capacity analysis of the modeled collection system was performed with the City's calibrated hydraulic model using the system performance criteria outlined above. The I/I degradation assumption created a conservative scenario for projecting future system conditions. Capacity analysis was performed for existing conditions (2012 ) and build-out conditions (2040) for Lift Stations and the collection system. 5.4.4 Lift Station Capacity The hydraulic model includes representations of all of the City’s major lift stations. The model simulates the existing lift station pumps and, when required, allowing and tracking flow beyond the existing capacity. The peak hourly flow during the design storm upstream of modeled lift station was used to determine whether stations met the firm capacity of the station. Firm capacity is defined as the capacity of the pump station with one pump offline. It is recommended the City investigate lift station capacity as a separate project in the future. The lift stations were evaluated for sufficient capacity under peak wet weather flow under current and buildout conditions. Table 5.4 shows the lift station capacity, modeled flows, and deficiencies. The City has two lift stations that are deficient: • Airport. • Lind Avenue. At buildout, it is anticipated that the firm capacity of three additional stations will be deficient: • Kingston. • Stonegate. • Baxter. CHAPTER 5 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL |JULY 2022 | 5-19 These additional buildout deficiencies are due large, anticipated increase in flow from new development. The deficiencies at Lift Stations with current deficiencies are also anticipated to grow worse with additional development. However, every lift station has sufficient total capacity to convey both current and buildout total pump capacities, except buildout flows to the Airport Lift Station. The City is currently working on upgrading the Airport lift station, which will address the capacity issue. Falcon Ridge accepts flows from Soos Creek Water and Sewer District, which may be a source of model inaccuracy. It is recommended the City work with Soos Creek Water and Sewer District to better understand both Utilities contributions to the Falcon Ridge Lift Station. The City should further investigate flows at the Lind Avenue Lift Station to confirm station performance in wet weather flows. The City has not historically observed capacity issues at this station; therefore, it is anticipated the deficiency may only be in very large storms similar to the 25- to 30 -year design storm. The City should continue to evaluate potential developments contributing to Kingston, Stonegate, and Baxter lift stations. The City should make necessary lift station improvements prior to granting a utility permit that exceeds its capacity. 5.4.5 Collection System Capacity The capacity analysis identified areas in the sewer system where flow restrictions may occur or where the pipe does not have sufficient capacity to convey design flows. Sewers that lack sufficient capacity to convey design flows could produce backwater effects in the collection system that increase the risk of SSOs. Potential system deficiencies were identified for PWWF under both existing and build-out conditions and are highlighted in Figures 5.4 and 5.5, respectively. The Downtown Utility Improvement Project (DUIP) adjusted the DWF in the area from 0.22 cfs to 8.96 cfs. Wet weather flow assumptions were taken from Flow Monitoring Basin 6041, which was deemed similar in age and I/I rate to the new construction of the DUIP. All pipelines within the DUIP were adequately sized. However, some of the connection point s between the existing system and DUIP project caused elevated HGL’s. Further analysis is needed to finalize any improvements. Under buildout condition, twenty-two areas were considered potentially deficient based on design storms and evaluation criteria. These locations and associated information are presented in Table 5.5. Add itional information on the deficiencies and proposed improvements can be found in Chapter 8 – Capital Improvement Program. CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CHAPTER 5 5-20 | JULY 2022 | FINAL Table 5.4 Lift Station Evaluation Pump Station Number Pump Station Name Storm Used Pump Firm Capacity (gpm)(1) Total Pump Capacity (gpm) Current Modeled PWWF (gpm) Buildout Modeled PWWF (gpm) Current Modeled Deficiency (gpm) Buildout Modeled Deficiency (gpm) L01 Shy Creek Feb 96 825 1375 18 180 807 7645 L02 Devil’s Elbow Jan -90 500 1000 119 237 381 263 L03 Airport Feb -96 100 200 174 216 -74 -116 L04 East Valley Feb -96 724 1086 492 548 232 176 L05 Talbot Crest Nov-90 110 220 35 35 75 75 L07 Long Nov-90 100 200 69 69 31 31 L08 Kensington Jan -90 160 320 56 182 104 -22 L09 Wedgewood Feb 96 905 1416 150 237 755 668 L25 Lind Avenue Feb -96 500 1000 542 630 -42 -130 L29 Stone Gate Nov-90 425 850 244 593 181 -168 L30 Falcon Ridge Jan -90 100 200 142 154 -42 -54 L32 Misty Cove Feb -96 190 397 125 160 65 30 L34 Liberty Feb 96 617 1234 1 184 616 433 L39 Baxter Feb -96 700 1150 548 817 152 -117 Note: (1) gpm – gallons per minute. CHAPTER 5 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 | 5-21 Table 5.5 Buildout Deficiency Locations Deficiency ID(1) Upstream MH Downstream MH Mini Basin Storm Event Pipe Sections Length and Diameter Highest Surcharged MH Description of Surcharge Reason Deficient 05A MH3043 RE*SRENT.R18 -19 5 Nov-90 22 5,005' - 8" MH2998 Flooding Capacity 45A MH2252 MH4031 & MH 2672 45 Nov-98 30 2,242' - 8" & 246' - 10" & 526 - 12" & 636' - 15" & 4,670' - 18" MH2257 Flooding Capacity 7A MH2276 SSMH009 7 Nov-98 8 2,082 - 8" MH2272 10.7 ft from rim Capacity 2A MH2681 & MH2678 MH2676 2 Nov-98 4 987' - 8" MH2677 1.6 ft from rim Capacity 3A MH2369 MH2336 3 Nov-98 16 3,930 - 8" MH2337 8.5 ft from rim Capacity 46A MH4640 & MH1854 RE*CEDAR1.R10- 05A 46 Nov-90 20 584' - 8" & 358' - 10" & 1,191' - 12" & 549' - 15" & 660' - 21" & 760' - 24" MH4692 Flooding Capacity, diameters change 37A MH6042 & MH0840 MH0825 37 Feb -96 15 2,989' & 8" MH0839 5.1 ft from rim Negative slopes 48A MH0887 MH0845 48 Feb -96 8 1,262 - 8" & 441 - 12" MH0847 17.2 ft from rim Capacity, grade change 24A MH0927 MH0761 24 Feb -96 3 409' - 8" & 233' - 10" MH0924 0.8 ft from rim Negative slopes 20B MH6612 MH6613 20 Nov-90 1 282' - 8" MH6612 12.1 ft from rim Capacity, shallow slope 20A MH5238 MH3726 20 Nov-90 11 1,253' - 8" MH5240 5.4 ft from rim Capacity, shallow slope 22A MH3064 MH5504 22 Nov-90 26 2,732' - 8" & 463' - 10" & 1276' -12" & 1,067' - 15" MH3615 0.5 ft from rim Capacity, diameters change CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CHAPTER 5 5-22 | JULY 2022 | FINAL Deficiency ID(1) Upstream MH Downstream MH Mini Basin Storm Event Pipe Sections Length and Diameter Highest Surcharged MH Description of Surcharge Reason Deficient 21A MH4301 MH3625 21 Nov-90 47 9,778' - 8" MH3581 Flooding Capacity, shallow slope 41A MH0925 MH0761 41 Feb -96 15 2,230 - 8"& 358' - 10" MH3329 Flooding Capacity, shallow slope 23A MH3499 MH3497 23 Jan -90 2 700' - 8" MH3498 13.2 ft from rim Capacity 15A MH2469 2790 15 Feb -96 55 153' - 6" & 4,461' - 8" & 764' - 10" & 3,204' - 12" & 2,284' - 15" & 272' - 18" & 144' - 24" MH2183 Flooding Capacity 14A MH5443 MH6332 14 Feb -96 6 1050' - 8" MH6337 8.7 ft from rim Capacity BA MH2981 MH5188 B Feb -96 6 1,353' - 8" & 387' - 10" L04-East Valley 9.5 ft from rim Capacity 05B MH3306 RE*SRENTON.R1 8-17 5 Nov-90 25 366' - 8" & 901' - 10" MH5531 4.8 ft from rim Capacity 05C MH3304 MH5523 5 Nov-90 21 3,462' - 8" MH3205 10.2 ft from rim Capacity 11A MH6825 MH5049 11 Feb -96 2 607' - 10" MH5050 10.1 ft from rim Negative slopes 25A MH1708 MH1660 25 Nov-90 25 3,326 - 8" MH1694 6.9 ft from rim Capacity, shallow slope Note: (1) Deficiency ID based on associated mini basin number. O 0 10.5 Miles Disclaimer: Features shown in this figure are for planning purposes and represent approximate locations. Engineering and/or survey accuracy is not implied. Data Sources: Fill in the name of the data sources used in this map including aerial imagery. CHAPTER 5 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON Legend 3 feet from rim Flooding King County Force Mains d/D Ratio 0 - 1 1 - 2 2 + U Basin Nov 1998 Storm Nov 1990 Storm Jan 1990 Storm Feb 1996 Storm Roads Figure 5.4 Current Deficiencies O 0 10.5 Miles Disclaimer: Features shown in this figure are for planning purposes and represent approximate locations. Engineering and/or survey accuracy is not implied. Data Sources: Fill in the name of the data sources used in this map including aerial imagery. CHAPTER 5 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON Legend 3 feet from rim Flooding King County Force Mains d/D Ratio 0 - 1 1 - 2 2 + U Basin Nov 1998 Storm Nov 1990 Storm Jan 1990 Storm Feb 1996 Storm Roads Figure 5.5 Buildout Deficiencies CHAPTER 5 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 | 5-27 5.5 Recommendations This section describes recommendations for each of the deficiency areas identified in Table 5.5. Deficiencies can be caused by a combination of local physical flow constraints and excessive upstream flow from I/I. The design storms identified for system planning have return intervals of 20-30 years, therefore, the City may not observe surcharging during normal WWF. Appendix J shows the hydraulic grade lines at each deficiency. These are used to help identify possible physical flow constraints in the vicinity of the deficiency, which includes negative slopes, undersized pipes, and downstream backwater conditions. Therefore, a systematic approach was taken to confirm and address capacity issues, as shown in in the flow chart shown in Figure 5.6 and outlined below: • Piping reconfiguration: Identified the deficient pipe segment has a negative (reverse) slope. It is recommended to replace these sections of pipe to create a positive slope, if possible, to address both capacity and potential maintenance concerns. • I/I Evaluation : Considered if excess upstream flow from I/I was a major factor in the deficiency. A criteria of 7,500 GPAD of I/I was used to delineate excess I/I areas. 7,500 GPAD represents the cutoff for the highest 10 percent of basins, ensuring the worst I/I basins are prioritized. For these areas, an I/I evaluation, followed by rehabilitation and replacement of structural deficiencies, is recommended to address the deficiency. • Programmatic upsizing: If there is a clear undersized pipe segment without excess I/I in the upstream mini-basin, then it is recommended the City upsize the pipe segments causing the deficiency. These segments were relatively short. • Long-term flow monitoring: Long -term flow monitoring is recommended for the remaining deficiencies to better understand the issues in order to identify the most cost -effective improvements. All identified deficiencies and recommendations are detailed below in Table 5.6. Figure 5.8 shows the system wide improvement recommendations by deficiency. CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CHAPTER 5 5-28 | JULY 2022 | FINAL Figure 5.6 Recommendation Decision Flow Chart CHAPTER 5 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 | 5-29 Table 5.6 Deficiency Recommendations Deficiency ID Pipe Configuration Constraint I/I (GPAD) Downstream Undersized Flow Constraint Recommendation 05A None 1,320 Unclear Long-term Flow Monitoring 45A None 11,000 None I/I Evaluation 7A None 11,000 None I/I Evaluation 2A None 11,000 None I/I Evaluation 3A None 11,000 None I/I Evaluation 46A None 2,750 Unclear Long-term Flow Monitoring 37A Negative slopes 1,910 None Piping Reconfiguration 48A None 1,0 30 Unclear Long-term Flow Monitoring 24A Negative slopes 1,035 None Piping Reconfiguration 20B Negative slopes 1,230 Clear Constraint Programmatic Upsizing 20A Negative slopes 1,230 Clear Constraint Programmatic Upsizing 22A None 1,230 Unclear Long-term Flow Monitoring 21A None 2,2 90 Unclear Long-term Flow Monitoring 41A None 4,708 None Long-term Flow Monitoring 23A None 480 Clear Constraint Programmatic Upsizing 15A None 5,625 Unclear Long-term Flow Monitoring 14A None 5,625 Unclear Long-term Flow Monitoring BA None 175 Clear Constraint Programmatic Upsizing 05B None 9,570 None I/I Evaluation 05C None 2,450 None I/I Evaluation 11A Negative slopes 4,545 None Piping Reconfiguration 25A None 1,310 None I/I Evaluation CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CHAPTER 5 5-30 | JULY 2022 | FINAL 5.5.1 Piping Reconfiguration Pipeline reconfiguration was recommended for areas in the system that presented negative slopes causing a capacity deficiency in the collection system. The negative slope also increases the risk of solids accumulation in the pipe and other maintenance issues. The first action would be to confirm the geographic information system (GIS) information and confirm that the modeled negative slopes and inverts are accurate. In the event where these are accurate, and where physically possible, potential pipe replacement may be recommended to create a positively sloped pipe. Of the 22 deficiencies, five are at negative pipe slope segments. The location and inverts to reconfigure are outlined in Table 5.7. Preliminary design evaluation of each location is recommended to identify site specific constraints that may limit changes to slope. This may require replacing pipe lengths upstream and/or downstream of the deficiency to achieve a positive slope. Table 5.7 Piping Reconfiguration Locations Deficiency ID Location Invert ID Invert Elevation 37A Edmonds Avenue and NE 9th St reet MH0738 273.66 24A Monroe Avenue and NE 7th St reet MH0761 360.25 11A Grant Avenue and SE 9th St reet MH5049, MH5050, MH5052, MH5053 Unknown 20A SE 99th C ourt MH3726 321.86 20B Jericho Pl ace and NE 16th St reet MH6616 453.85 5.5.2 I/I Evaluation An I/I evaluation, followed by rehabilitation and replacement of structural deficiencies, is recommended for deficiency in mini-basins with excessive I/I (defined as 7,500 GPAD). The evaluation should incorporate micro-monitoring to focus rehabilitation and replacement activities on areas with the greatest I/I. Micro-monitoring consists of installing multiple flow monitors for a relatively short period of time in mini-basins to identify areas with relatively high I/I. Flow meters are often moved to identify smaller and smaller areas with higher I/I. This allows rehabilitation and repair activities to be focused on specific areas, rather than an entire mini-basin. Mini-basin I/I rates in GPAD is shown in Figure 5.7. Of the 22 deficiencies, seven occur in mini-basins with high I/I (greater than 7500 GPAD). A total of seven upstream mini-basins contribute to the deficiencies, as shown in Table 5.8, where mini -basins 2, 3, and 7 contribute to multiple current system deficiencies. Deficiencies 05C and 25A became deficient during buildout conditions. The upstream demographics of these areas were unchanged in buildout conditions, so the deficiency is attributed to I/I despite I/I rates lower than 7500 GPAD. CHAPTER 5 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 | 5-31 Table 5.8 Micro -Monitoring Recommendations for I/I Deficiency ID Manhole Location Upstream Mini -Basins with High I/I 45A MH2258 45, 7, 3, 2, 1 7A MH2480 7 2A MH2489 2 3A SSMH004 3 05B MH5516 5 05C MH5516 5 25A MH1696 25 & U3 5.5.3 Programmatic Upsizing For sites where modeling indicated that capacity issues were caused by short and undersized stretches, upsizing was recommended. Programmatic upsizing was typically recommended for areas without significant surcharging and where modeling allowed identification of a defined segment responsible for the deficiency. These locations are described in additional detail in Table 5.9, which shows the location, pipe, and pipe diameter. Deficiencies 23A, BA, and 46A also all correspond to areas with high condition risk; therefore, upsizing could be completed in conjunction with pipe rehabilitation and replacement program activities. Table 5.9 Programmatic Upsizing Location and Additional Information Deficiency ID Location Pipe ID’s Current Pipe Diameter Proposed Pipe Diameter Upsizing Length (ft) Comments 23A N 28th Pl ace and Park Avenue North GM03987, GM03986, GM03985 8” 12” 12” 16” Reconfiguration at MH3498 if possible. BA SE 24th Street and E Valley Road GM05178, GM05179 8” 12” Backwater from Pump Station influences hydraulics. 46A Sunset Boulevard North and NE 3rd St reet GM04391 8” 12” 12” 16” Significant stretch of pipe that is deficient, but change in diameter appears to be hydraulic restriction. 5.5.4 Additional Long-Term Flow Monitoring Additional long-term flow monitoring was recommended for the remaining deficiencies. Of the twenty-two deficient locations, five are recommended to undergo additional long-term flow monitoring. The City reviewed these deficiencies and confirmed that they have not observed capacity issues at these location in the field. Therefore, long -term flow monitoring is CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CHAPTER 5 5-32 | JULY 2022 | FINAL recommended to determine the extent and possible causes of the deficiency. The recommended quantity, type, duration, location, and priority of the monitoring is provided in Table 5.10. The recommended duration is chosen based on the recurrence of the deficiency given the surcharging seen in the model calibration events (6 months to 1 year storms) and design storms (20 to 30 year storms). Based on the HGL under different storms, 2-5 years of monitoring is recommended for Deficiency 05A; 1-2 years for deficiency 22A; 3-7 years for deficiency 14A, 15A, and 21A, 48A, and 41A. Table 5.10 Long-Term Flow Monitoring Recommendations Deficiency ID Location Quantity Duration Manhole ID 05A Talbot R oad S outh and 36th Street to 27th Pl ace 1 2 - 5 years MH2998 22A Whitman C ourt NE and NE 12th St reet 2 1-2 years MH3616, MH3622 21A Anacortes Avenue NE and NE 17th St reet to NE 26th St reet 2 3-7 years MH3542, MH3581 15A Renton High School 1 3-7 years MH2118 14A West Sunset Blvd and SW 4th Place 1 3-7 years MH6332 41A Lake Washington Boulevard and Burnett Avenue North 1 3-7 years MH3381 48A NE 7th St reet and Harington Avenue NE 1 3-7 years MH0847 O 0 10.5 Miles Disclaimer: Features shown in this figure are for planning purposes and represent approximate locations. Engineering and/or survey accuracy is not implied. Data Sources: Fill in the name of the data sources used in this map including aerial imagery. CHAPTER 5 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON Legend 3 feet from rim Flooding King County Force Mains d/D Ratio 0 - 1 1 - 2 2 + I/I (GPAD) 0 - 500 500-2,000 2,000-3,750 3,750 - 7,500 Greater than 7,500 Roads Figure 5.7 Modeled I/I Overlaid with Deficiencies g` g` g` g` g` g` g`g` g`East Valley RdRainier Ave NS 133rd St Oakesdale Ave SWBe n s o n D r S SW 7th St 140th Ave SEN E S u n set Blvd §¨¦405 Maple V a l l e y H w y 164th Ave SECedar River Trail SE Jones Rd Lake Youngs Service RdSE May Valley Rd Union Ave NESE Petrovitsky Rd 5A & 5B: Mini-Basin 5 41A 14A 25A: Mini-Basin U3 2A: Mini-Basin 2 15A 48A 05A 21A 21A 22A22A 45A: Mini-Basin 1 25A: Mini-Basin 25 7A: Mini-Basin7 45A: Mini-Basin 45 3A: Mini-Basin3 46A 23A BA 24A 20B37A20A 1 1 ALast Revised: September 18, 2019 \\io-fs-1\Data\GIS\GISBackup\Renton\WaterSystemPlan2017\Fig5.6.mxd CHAPTER 5 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON Figure 5.8 Deficiency Improvement Recommendations O 0 10.5 Miles Disclaimer: Features shown in this figure are for planning purposes and represent approximate locations. Engineering and/or survey accuracyis not implied. Data Sources: City of Renton Legend g`Flow and Monitoring Program Sewer Upsizing Projects Pipe Reconfiguration Projects I/I Evaluation Program City Limits Street Centerlines CHAPTER 6 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 | 6-1 Chapter 6 REPLACEMENT AND REHABILITATION PROGRAM 6.1 Introduction This chapter documents the City of Renton's (City's) prioritized collection system replacement and rehabilitation (R&R) program. R&R prioritization is based on a risk, which is based on the criticality and vulnerability of an asset. Criticality represents the consequence of failure, and the vulnerability represents the likelihood of failure. A consistent approach is used to identify and prioritize force mains (FMs), lift stations, and gravity mains as documented in the following sections. 6.2 Replacement and Rehabilitation Plan Goals The City is implementing a risk-based R&R program that takes into account the criticality and vulnerability of their system. Using this approach, the City can proactively replace or rehabilitate infrastructure to reduce the System’s risk. 6.2.1 Prioritizing Using Risk The risk associated with an asset (pipe, manhole [MH], pump, etc.) is a measure o f the impact of asset failure on the overall system. Risk is calculated as the product of criticality and vulnerability, or: Risk = Criticality x Vulnerability Risk criteria were developed from the Halcrow Risk and Remaining Life Planning Tools (Weber Dav is Aqueduct, March 2011) and refined to meet the City’s objectives and available data sources. Data sources and levels were chosen that represented the selected criteria, were readily available, and that could be applied consistently across the entire system. Table 6.1 shows the matrix of the normalized risk rankings that were used for this study. Table 6.1 Normalized Risk Ratings Normalized Risk Ranking Vulnerability Level 4 (severe) Moderately Low Moderately High High High 3 (moderate) Moderately Low Moderately High Moderately High High 2 (low) Low Moderately Low Moderately High Moderately High 1 (negligible) Low Low Moderately Low Moderately Low 1 (negligible) 2 (low) 3 (moderate) 4 (severe) Criticality Level CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CHAPTER 6 6-2 | JULY 2022 | FINAL 6.3 Lift Station and Force Main Current R&R Program The Wastewater Utility operates 2 0 sewage lift stations in which each has its own FM that delivers the flow to the gravity system (Fig.6.1). Since the 2010 Long -Range Wastewater Management Plan (LRWWMP), six lift stations have been decommissioned and two lift stations added. Over the past 25-years, the City has replaced, rehabilitated , or eliminated all previous 25 lift stations. However, their FMs often times were not. In 2016 the City conducted a risk assessment of the Lift Stations and FMs. Based on this study, the City had developed and is near completion on the lift station and FM R&R project that has systematically addressed or mitigated potential risks to its existing infrastructure. Over the 20 year planning period, it is anticipated that continued R&R will be needed and prioritized by the highest risk. 6.4 Force Main R&R The City completed a preliminary condition assessment of its FMs in the 2016 Existing Force Main Condition Assessment and Lift Station Evaluation Report (Carollo Engineers, Inc. [Carollo], 2016). The 2016 project included developing an updated inventory of the lift stat ions and FMs, performing a preliminary risk assessment of the FMs to identify those having the highest risk of failure, field verifying the preliminary risk rankings, and preparing routine evaluation and maintenance guidelines. This section summarizes the preliminary condition and risk assessment. FM R&R recommendation s are presented based on the 2016 project and improvements being made as part of the Rehabilitation Program. 6.4.1 Force Main Criteria A preliminary “desktop” risk assessment was performed for the City’s sewer FMs. Criticality and vulnerability criteria used to establish risk are summarized below in Sections 6.4.1.1 and 6.4.1.2. The criticality, vulnerability, and risk ratings for each FM were quantified on a relative risk scale, with one representing the lowest risk and four representing the highest risk. 6.4.1.1 Force Main Criticality Criticality describes the consequence of failure of a particular asset. Criticality factors used in the desktop risk assessment for the FMs are: • Cost to repair, which includes FM material, diameter, length, and excavation and backfill costs. • Potential for life-threatening injuries or fatalities from FM break. Injuries or fatalities can be of a pedestrian, a household, or a vehicle. • Ability to maintain flow using bypass pumps or a Vactor Truck. • Loss of critical infrastructure and transportation links. For example, a FM located underneath a major highway is given a higher impact rating compared to one located in a low-use road . • Emergency construction access constraints, such as FMs l ocated in backyards, in a wetland, or on a steep slope. • Damage to nearby property, based on the number of properties damaged from FM leakage. • Environmental impact to waterways, wetlands, or other sensitive areas. A FM located near an environmentally sensitive area is given a higher rating than one located further away. CHAPTER 6 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 | 6-3 6.4.1.2 Force Main Vulnerability The vulnerability metric reflects the likelihood of asset failure. Physical or performance failure and technological obsolescence qualify as asset failure; however, t he desktop risk assessment considered physical failure only asset mortality. Factors used to assess the physical vulnerability of the FMs are: • Material type. Cast iron (CI) and ductile iron (DI) pipes generally have a shorter useful life compared to polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and high-density polyethylene (HDPE) FMs, and thus have a higher vulnerability rating. • Age. As the FM ages, its remaining useful life (RUL) decreases and becomes more likely to fail . • History of failure. FMs having a history of frequent failures are more likely to fail again. • Maintenance history. If routine maintenance is required to prevent FM failure, the FM is considered to be in poor condition and is more likely to fail. • Pipe conditions based on closed-circuit television (CCTV) records. • Soil corrosivity based on soil classification from the United States Soil Conservation Map. Electronic conductive soils such as peat, clay, and silt are more corrosive than non-conductive soils such as sand and gravel for CI and DI FMs. • Cathodic protection for CI and DI FMs. • Potential of third-party damage from nearby construction or utility failures. No CCTV or cathodic protection data was available for the analysis. Accordingly, these factors were excluded from the analysis, but should be included in th e future if available. 6.4.2 Force Main Risk Assessment A criticality and vulnerability level were assigned for each FM based on the available data and input from City staff. Once levels were assigned for all criteria, a weighted average was used to determine th e overall rating. Normalized ratings were determined by allocating the weighted average of criticality and vulnerability into quartiles. The results of the desktop risk assessment are shown in Table 6.2 . 6.4.3 Force Main Recommendations The recommendations of th e system inventory and risk assessment of the City’s sewer FMs were incorporated into the Lift Station and FM Rehabilitation Program, summarized in Table 6.2, including: • It is recommended that the City conduct CCTV inspection of FMs after FM cleanouts are installed as part of the Lift Station and FM Rehabilitation. • It is recommended that the City monitor the condition of the stream banks adjacent to the Devil’s Elbow lift station and evaluate alternatives to armor the banks to protect the lift station and FM. • It is recommended the City continue regular maintenance and its active rehabilitation program for FMs. CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CHAPTER 6 6-4 | JULY 2022 | FINAL Table 6.2 Force Main Risk Assessment Summary Lift Station Name Force Main Diameter (inches) Force Main Length Normalized Risk Ranking Baxter 8" 155 lf(1) High Devil's Elbow 6" 506 lf High Lake WA No. 2 6" 192 lf High Falcon Ridge 4" 3,217 lf Moderately-High Kensington Crest 4" 1,350 lf Moderately-High Lake WA(2) Beach 4" 337 lf Moderately-High Lake WA Flush 4" 18 lf Moderately-High Long 4" 783 lf Moderately-High Misty Cove 4" 175 lf Moderately-High Wedgewood 8" 1,019 lf Moderately-High Airport 4" 530 lf Moderately-Low Cottonwood 4" 52 lf Moderately-Low East Valley 8" 120 lf Moderately-Low Stonegate 8" 4,944 lf Moderately-Low Talbot Crest 4" 520 lf Moderately-Low Westview 3" 340 lf Moderately-Low Liberty 8" 900 lf Low Lind Avenue 8" 180 lf Low Pipers Bluff 4" 1,017 lf Low Shy Creek 1'' 226 lf Low Note: (1) lf – linear feet. (2) WA - Washington. 6.5 Lift Station R&R Lift stations criticality and vulnerability are commonly assessed by individual component s, such as pump, wet well, electrical system, etc. Each component may be rehabilitated as it reaches its usable life, rather than replacing the entire pump station. Regular maintenance conducted by the City helps extend the useful life; however, the infrastructure will eventually reach the end of its useful life and require reh abilitation or replacement. 6.5.1 Lift Station Criteria Similar to the FM criteria, a risk assessment was performed for the City's 2 0 lift stations. Vulnerability was established based on the RUL of the lift stations. Initial RUL was determined based on the age of the facility. The initial RUL was then adjusted based on the past condition assessments and the ongoing FM and Lift Station Rehabilitation Program. Lift station criticality was based on the FM criticality. CHAPTER 6 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 | 6-5 6.5.1.1 Lift Station Criticality The same criticality factors that influence FM impacts the lift station associated with it. Therefore, the FM criticality factors were applied to the lift stations, as presented in Table 6.2 . 6.5.1.2 Lift Station Vulnerability The City's lift stations were assessed a vulnerability, or likelihood of failure, score based on RUL. Since several lift stations have been rehabilitated in the past, RUL was calculated for both structural integrity of the lift station and the components within the lift station, which include mechanical and elect rical coatings, roofing, etc. The structural usable life for a lift station was selected as 75 years. The usable life for the components of a lift station was selected as 25 years, which is consistent with the City’s capital improvement program (CIP) planning. 6.5.2 Lift Station Criticality Assessment Lift Station criticality scores mirrored their FMs, as presented previously and detailed in Table 6.3. 6.5.3 Lift Station Vulnerability Assessment Vulnerability scores were calculated based on RUL. RUL was calculated using the construction or renovation date of each lift station for structural and components within the lift station, which are presented in Table 6.3. RUL was adjusted based on prior condition assessments and the FM and Lift Station Rehabilitation Program: • Lake WA No. 2 and Lake WA Flush Stations were assigned a Components RUL of 0 to 5 years based on the findings of the Lake Line Project condition assessment . • Devil’s Elbow and Talbot Components RUL was adjusted upwards to 6 to 10 years based on the FM and Lift Station Rehabilitation Program. • Cottonwood Lift Station was considered to be fully renovated as part of the Rehabilitation Program. The RUL of each lift station was based on component RUL, as it was less than the structural RUL in all cases. The vulnerability levels for Lift Stations were determined from the RUL as follows: • Level 1 (Negligible): RUL greater than 15 years. • Level 2 (Low): RUL between 11 and 15 years. • Level 3 (Moderate): RUL between 6 and 10 years. • Level 4 (Severe): RUL of 5 years and less. The results of the vulnerability scores for each lift station are found in Table 6.3. CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CHAPTER 6 Ͳ‐Ͳ | JULY ͮͬͮͮ | FINAL Table Ͳ.ͯ Lift Station Risk Assessment Summary Lift Station Name Criticality Score Construction Date Renovation Date Structural RUL (yrs)(Ͱ) Components RUL (yrs) Vulnerability Score Vulnerability Designation Risk Score Baxter ͯp ͮͬͬʹ ͲͲ ͭͲ ͭ negligible (ͭ,ͯ) Devil's Elbow ͯ ͮͬͬͬ ͱʹ Ͳ to ͭͬ(ͭ) ͯ moderate (ͯ,ͯ) Lake WA No. ͮ Ͱ ͭ͵ͳͮ ͭ͵͵Ͱ ͯͬ ͬ to ͱ(ͮ) Ͱ severe (Ͱ,Ͱ) Falcon Ridge ͭ ͭ͵ʹͭ ͮͬͭ͵ ͯͳ ͮͰ ͭ negligible (ͭ,ͭ) Kensington Crest ͯ ͮͬͬͮ Ͳͬ ͭͬ ͯ moderate (ͯ,ͯ) Lake WA Beach ͮ ͮͬͭͭ Ͳ͵ ͭ͵ ͭ negligible (ͭ,ͮ) Lake WA Flush Ͱ ͭ͵ͳͮ ͮͬͬͱ ͯͬ ͬ to ͱ(ͮ) Ͱ low (Ͱ,Ͱ) Long ͯ ͮͬͬͲ ͲͰ ͭͰ ͮ low (ͮ,ͯ) Misty Cove Ͱ ͮͬͭͰ ͳͮ ͮͮ ͭ negligible (ͭ,Ͱ) Wedgewood ͯ ͮͬͬͲ ͲͰ ͭͰ ͮ low (ͮ,ͯ) Airport Ͱ ͮͬͭͰ ͳͮ ͮͮ ͭ negligible (ͭ,Ͱ) Cottonwood ͮ ͭ͵͵Ͱ ͮͬͭʹ(ͯ) ͱͯ ͮͲ ͭ negligible (ͭ,ͮ) East Valley ͭ ͮͬͬͰ Ͳͮ ͭͮ ͮ low (ͮ,ͭ) Stonegate ͯ ͮͬͭͮ ͳͬ ͮͬ ͭ negligible (ͭ,ͯ) Talbot Crest ͮ ͮͬͬͬ ͱʹ Ͳ to ͭͬ(ͭ) ͯ moderate (ͯ,ͮ) Westview ͭ ͭ͵͵Ͳ ͮͬͭͬ ͱͰ ͭʹ ͭ negligible (ͭ,ͭ) Liberty ͮ ͮͬͭͮ ͳͬ ͮͬ ͭ negligible (ͭ,ͮ) Lind Avenue ͭ ͭ͵ͳʹ ͮͬͭͰ ͯͲ ͮͮ ͭ negligible (ͭ,ͭ) Pipers Bluff ͮ ? ͯ moderate (ͯ,ͮ) Shy Creek ͭ ͮͬͬͳ Ͳͱ ͭͱ ͮ low (ͮ,ͭ) Notes: (ͭ) Devil’s Elbow and Talbot RUL as adjusted upwards to Ͳ to ͭͬ years based on the FM and Lift Station Rehabilitation Program. (ͮ) Lake WA No. ͮ and Lake WA Flush Stations were assigned a RUL of ͬ to ͱ years based on the findings of the Lake Line Project condition assessment. (ͯ) Cottonwood Lift Station was considered to be fully renovated as part of the Rehabilitation Program. (Ͱ) yrs – years. CHAPTER 6 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 | 6-7 6.5.4 Lift Station Risk Assessment The risk score was calculated applying the same method as the FM risk assessment. A matrix of the normalized risk rankings for the lift stations is shown in Table 6.4 . Two lift stations which are part of the Lake Line were categorized at the highest risk level. Five lift stations were categorized in the moderately-high risk level including Devil’s Elbow, Kensington Crest, Talbot Crest, Long, and Wedgewood. The remaining thirteen lift stations are categorized as low to moderately-low risk level. Table 6.4 Risk Matrix for Lift Stations Normalized Risk Ranking Vulnerability Level 4 (severe) Lake WA No. 2 Lake WA Flush 3 (moderate) Talbot Crest Devil’s Elbow Kensington Crest 2 (low) East Valley Shy Creek Long Wedgewood 1 (negligible) Falcon Lind Avenue Westview Liberty Lake WA Beach Cottonwood Pipers Bluff Baxter Stonegate Airport Misty Cove 1 (negligible) 2 (low) 3 (moderate) 4 (severe) Criticality Level 6.5.5 Risk Based Lift Station Recommendations The City's lift stations are well maintained and it is recommended the City continue regular maintenance and rehabilitation to address aging equipment . The operation of lift stations with moderate and severe critical ity should be monitored closely, as the potential impacts from failures at these stations are relatively higher than other stations. In addition to regular maintenance, the City plans for a full rehabilitation of lift stations every 15 to 20 years to limit vulnerability. 6.5.6 Rehabilitation Improvements The Lift Station and FM Rehabilitation Project paired the 2016 risk findings with a detailed condition assessment to generate comprehensive rehabilitation improvements to address condition issues and enhance operations and maintenance (O&M ). The improvements, shown in Table 6.5, provide enhancements to aid in future O&M of the lift stations and FMs: • FM cleanouts to allow access for inspection and rehabilitation. • Backup power (engine generator [E/G] install), where needed . • Telemetry Improvements, where needed . • Added Flow Meters, where needed. CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CHAPTER 6 6-8 | JULY 2022 | FINAL Common rehabilitation items include wet well repair or recoating and structural improvements. The Cottonwood and Baxter lift stations also will receive new pumps. The rehabilitation is anticipated to provide approximately 15 years of useful life in all lift stations. Falcon Ridge was not included in the Rehabilitation Project, so improvements are not included in Table 6.5. The Lake WA No. 2 Lift Station and the Lake WA Flush Station, which serve the Kennydale Lake Line Sewer System (Lake Line), are not included in the Rehabilitation Program . The Lake Line evaluation provided a comprehensive analysis that addressed the City’s short - and long-term issues concerning the system. Kennydale Lake L ine Sewer System Evaluation Technical Memo randum (TM) 1: Phase 1 Existing Conditions (Carollo, 2017) documents the condition assessment of the stations and identified rehabilitation improvements for the lift and flush stations. The City is waiting to implement these improvements until the long-term approach for O&M of the Lake Line is determined in 2020-2021 through the completion of the Kennydale Lake Line Sewer System Improvements Project , which may change the sizing and extent of improvements needed. [Ú [Ú [Ú [Ú [Ú [Ú [Ú [Ú [Ú [Ú [Ú [Ú [Ú [Ú [Ú [Ú [Ú [Ú [Ú [Ú Piper's BluffLift Station Shy CreekLift Station Devil's ElbowLift Station Airport LiftStation East ValleyLift Station Talbot CrestLift Station Long LiftStation Kensington CrestLift Station WedgewoodLift Station WestviewLift Station Lind AveLift Station Lake Washington#2 Lift Station CottonwoodLift Station Lake Wash. FlushLift Station Stone GateLift Station Falcon RidgeLift Station MistyCove LiftStation LibertyLiftStation Lake WashingtonBeach LiftStation Baxter Lift Station %&e Aè Aæ AÅ Aç Aè %&e Aí Last Revised: July 15, 2020F:\KRCD DRIVE\Renton\LRRWRP_Figures\Fig_06_01LiftStations.mxd Long-range Wastewater Management Plan | City of Renton O 0 10.5 Miles Legend [Ú Lift Station Renton City Boundary Street Centerlines Highway Freeway Street Centerline CHAPTER 6 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON Figure 6.1 City of Renton Lift Stations CHAPTER 6 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY ͮͬͮͮ | Ͳ‐ͭͭ Table Ͳ.ͱ Lift Station and Force Main Rehabilitation Program Group ͭ Pump Replacement Motor Control Replacement Telemetry Improvements Add Flow Meter E/G Install Noise Abatement Slope Stabilization Wet Well Structural Assess Coatings Wet Well Recoat Temp Wet Well System/Pump FM Cleanouts FM Maintenance Equip. Evaluation FM Reconfiguration FM Replacement MH or Vault Improvements Structural E/G Pad or Vault Control Room Structural Misc. Structural (Telem.) Environmental/Agency Elements No. Lift Station Name ͭ Cottonwood X X X X X X X X ͮ Devil’s Elbow X X X X X X ͯ East Valley X X X X X X Ͱ Misty Cove X X ͱ Piper’s Bluff X X X X Ͳ Shy Creek X X X X X X X ͳ Baxter X X X X ʹ Stonegate X X X ͵ Airport and Lind X Group ͮ ͭͬ Liberty X X X X ͭͭ Wedgewood X X ͭͮ Lake WA Beach X X X X X X ͭͯ Talbot Crest X X X X X X X X X ͭͰ Long X X X X X X ͭͲ Westview X X X X X ͭͳ Kensington Crest X X X X X X CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CHAPTER 6 6-12 | JULY 2022 | FINAL 6.6 Gravity Sewer System R&R A risk-based prioritization of gravity sewer mains was developed in 2016 and documented in CCTV Program Phase 2 project's TM No. 4: Risk Findings, which is provided in Appendix I. This section summarizes the findings that include criticality and vulnerability analysis, the RUL analysis, a risk-based evaluation, and a recommended R&R program for the system's gravity mains. 6.6.1 Gravity Sewer Main Criteria Similar to the City's FM analysis, a risk assessment was performed for the City's gravity mains. Criticality and vulnerability criteria were used to establish the assets risk of failure and are summarized below. 6.6.1.1 Criticality Once the criteria and data sources were found, each pipe segm ent was assigned a score-based criteria rating found in Tables 6.6 and 6.7. The levels varied from negligible criticality or vulnerability (Level 1) to severe (Level 4). The levels are represented numerically as 1 to 4. Weighted factors, as discussed above, were applied to reflect the City’s priorities. As discussed above, criticality represents the consequence of failu re of a particular asset. Table 6.6 shows the criteria, weighting, and description of each level for criticality of gravity sewer mains. These criteria and data sources reflect an iterative refinement process that reflected the City’s typical key decision factors and the perceived accuracy of the data. Criteria were scored on four levels based on analysis of available geographic information system (GIS) information that best represented each criterion. Where the decision factors or available data did not support four levels of scoring, two levels of scoring were typically used. For example, the criticality criterion for environmental impacts receives a level of 3 when within 50 feet (ft) from a critical area and a level of 1 at greater distances. Given the high level of the critical area data, the City was not comfortable in differentiating the criteria further without a site-specific investigation (wetland delineation, geotechnical analysis, etc.). These site-specific analyses are generally conducted as part of the design of the R&R program and could not be reasonably completed City wide. The weighting factor for each criterion in Table 6.6 was discussed with City staff and used to identify certain criteria that would impact the system more than other criteria. For criticality, it was agreed that the loss of critical infrastructure and transportation links should have a weighting factor of 2, while the other criteria were kept at a factor of 1. The scoring of these criteria was adjusted with respect to the weighting factor. A total score was calculated for each criteria for all gravity collection pipes in the system. For example, if a pipe segment was located in an arterial street, its Loss of Critical Infrastructure and Transportation Links criteria was scored as Level 3, or moderate, rating. Multiplying the level of three by a weight of two on Table 6.6 , the final weighed level for that criteria would be 3 x 2 = 6. The same calculation would be made for the remaining criteria and summed for an overall criticality score. The same process was repeated for the vulnerability criteria. 6.6.1.2 Vulnerability The likelihood of failure is known as the asset's vu lnerability. Table 6.7 shows the criteria that were used to determine the vulnerability of each asset. Similar to the criticality criteria in Table 6.6, the criteria, weighting, and description of each level were used as a decision factor to find the vulnerability of the asset. CHAPTER 6 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY ͮͬͮͮ | Ͳ‐ͭͯ Table Ͳ.Ͳ Criticality Criteria Criteria Weighting Level ͭ Level ͮ Level ͯ Level Ͱ Cost to Repair Failure ͭ Small Repair Effort by City Crew Pipe Diameter: ≤ ͭͮ" AND Pipe Depth: < ͭͮ ft Large Repair Effort by City Crew Pipe Diameter: > ͭͮ" AND Pipe Depth: < ͭͮ ft Small Repair Effort by Contractor Pipe Diameter: ≤ ͭͮ" AND Pipe Depth: ≥ ͭͮ ft Large Repair Effort by Contractor Pipe Diameter: > ͭͮ" AND Pipe Depth: ≥ ͭͮ ft Loss of Critical Infrastructure and Transportation Links ͮ Negligible No Site of Interest OR Non‐arterials Low No Site of Interest OR Collector Street Moderate Site of Interest OR Arterial Street Severe Critical Infrastructure OR Freeways Damage to Property ͭ Negligible Distance to Building Footprint: > ͭͬ ft Moderate Distance to Building Footprint: ≤ ͭͬ ft Environmental Impacts to waterway, wetland, or other Sensitive Area ͭ Negligible Distance from Critical Area: > ͱͬ ft Moderate Distance to Critical Area: < ͱͬ ft Loss of Service to Customers ͭ Negligible Collection Line Moderate Trunk Line Reputational Damage ͭ Negligible Outside Wellfield Capture Zone OR Distance to Critical Water Body > ͮͬͬ ft Low Within ͱ year Wellfield Capture Zone OR ͮ. Distance to Critical Water Body > ͭͬͬ ft and ≤ ͮͬͬ ft Moderate Within ͭ year Wellfield Capture Zone OR ͮ. Distance to Critical Water Body > ͱͬ ft and ≤ ͭͬͬ ft Severe Distance to Critical Water Body < ͱͬ ft OR ͮ. Distance from well ≤ ͱͬͬ ft Damage to Local Business and Economy ͭ Negligible Pipeline outside of Overlay District Moderate Pipeline within Overlay District CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CHAPTER 6 6-14 | JULY 2022 | FINAL Table 6.7 Vulnerability Criteria Criteria Weighting Level 1(1) Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Structural Condition, CCTV Inspection Results 1 Negligible Pipe not yet inspected: material is PVC or DIP(1) Structural NASSCO(2) Score: ≤ 2 Low Pipe not yet inspected: all other materials Structural NASSCO Score: > 2 and ≤ 3 Moderate Structural NASSCO Score: > 3 and ≤ 4 Severe Structural NASSCO Score: > 4 O&M Condition, CCTV Inspection Results 1 Negligible Pipe not yet inspected: material is PVC or DIP O&M NAS SCO Score: ≤ 2 Low Pipe not yet inspected: all other materials O&M NASSCO Score: > 2 and ≤ 3 Moderate O&M NASSCO Score > 3 and ≤ 4 Severe O&M NAS SCO Score: > 4 RUL Estimate 1 Negligible RUL > 20 years Low RUL between 10 and 20 years Moderate RUL between 5 and 10 years Severe Less than 5 years RUL Frequency of Preventative Maintenance 1 Negligible No Cleaning Low Annual OR Biannual Cleaning Moderate Monthly or Quarterly Cleaning Severe Biweekly or Weekly Cleaning Slope of Pipe Segment 1 Negligible Slope > 0.5% Low Slope ≤ 0.5% Moderate Severe Note: (1) DIP – ductile iron pipe. (2) NASSCO – National Association of Sewer Service Companies. CHAPTER 6 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 | 6-15 6.6.2 Gravity Sewer Criticality Assessment Once the criteria and data sources were found, each pipe segment was assigned a score-based criteria rating found in Tables 6.8 and 6.9. The amount of pipe found in each criticality level was calculated and is shown in Table 6.8. Figure 6.2 shows the map of the City's total criticality score results using the guidelines from Table 6.1. To aid in review, a consistent color scheme is applied to the levels and scores in all mapping, with light green showing the Level 1, or negligible pipes, dark green showing the Level 2, or low criticality piping, orange representing the Level 3, or moderately critical piping, and red showing the Level 4, or severe criticality piping. Severe criticality mains make up 12.9 percent of the gravity collection system and are largely located along major roadways or in the Valley. The majority (61.5 percent) of piping in the Valley is either moderate or low criticality. Negligible criticality piping is distributed throughout the system and account s for the remaining 25.7 percent . Table 6.8 Criticality Score Range Criticality Level Length (ft ) Percent of Total 1 (negligible) 333,777 25.7% 2 (low) 352,977 27.1% 3 (moderate) 447,195 34.4% 4 (severe) 167,286 12.9% 6.6.3 Gravity Sewer Vulnerability Assessment Using the criteria in Section 6.4.1.2, the length of pipe allocated to each vulnerability level was calculated and is shown in Table 6.9. Figure 6.3 shows a map of the four vulnerability criteria results. About three quarters of the City’s gravity mains have negligible or low vulnerability, indicating they have substantial RUL and are without O&M issues. RUL is discussed in detail in the following section. Moderate vulnerability pipes are largely in older portions of the system. There are very few, approximately 2 percent, severe vulnerability pipes, which are spread throughout the system. Table 6.9 Vulnerability Score Range Vulnerability Level Lengt h (ft ) Percent of Total 1 (negligible) 638,499 49.1% 2 (low) 384,523 29.6% 3 (moderate) 256,350 19.7% 4 (severe) 21,863 1.7% MaplewoodSE Petrovitsky Rd Be a c o n W a y S SE 168th StOakesdale Ave SWSW 7th St SW 16th St SR 167SE 192nd StInterurban TrailCeda r R i v e r T r a i l SW SunsetBlvd Monroe Ave NENile Ave NESE 116th St N 6th St Garden Ave NN 4th St RentonA v e S Rainer Ave N132nd Ave SE§¨¦405 §¨¦405 N 40th St N 29th St Edmonds Ave NEDisclaimer: Features shown in this figure are for planning purposes and represent approximate locations. Engineering and/or survey accuracyis not implied. Data Sources: City of Renton, WA O 0 0.5 10.25 Miles Legend City of Renton Criticality Criteria Rank Street Centerlines Level 1 (Negligible) Level 2 (Low) Level 3 (Moderate) Level 4(Severe) CHAPTER 6 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON Last Revised: August 03, 2017E:\KRC D DRIVE\Renton\Fig_06_04SumCriticality.mxd Criticality Criteria Figure Results 6.2 CHAPTER 6 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 | 6-19 6.6.3.1 Remaining Useful Life Analysis Because the City has a limited amount of CCTV for their gravity mains, the main criteria used for the vulnerability was a RUL estimate, or how many years a pipe with a certain material has before it will most likely fail. Due to the importance of this criteria, detailed information is presented below. Pipe age and material type were used to determine the RUL of the collection system pipelines. GIS data and field research were used to determine the type of material and year or decade that pipe segments were installed. Pipe manufacturers establish a theoretical useful life based on pipe material; however, the actual useful life is commonly lower due to soil conditions, aggressive wastewater materials, roots, installation errors, etc. The original useful life varies from 60 years for concrete pipe (CP) to 100 years for vitrified clay pipe (VCP). Since the age and material data for some of the pipelines were unavailable, it is assumed that the original useful life for all unknown pipelines is 50 years. Table 6.10 presents the estimated useful life of pipes of various materials. Table 6.10 Useful Life of Pipes Pipe Material Original Useful Life (Years) Corrugated Aluminized Steel (CAS) 60 Concrete Pipe (CP) 75 Ductile Iron Pipe (DIP) 75 Polyethylene 90 Pre-stressed Concrete Pipe (PSC) 85 Polyvinyl Chloride Pipe (PVC) 100 Vitrified Clay Pipe (VCP) 100 Lined Pipe (LN) 75 Unknown Material (XXX) 50 Table 6.11 summarizes the City's gravity sewer system by material type into short, medium, and long-term replacement. The cells are color-coded to show the three categories of RUL; red indicates pipe that is expected to reach the end of their useful life in the next 10 years or has reached its useful life, light orange represents pipe with a RUL of between 10 and 20 years, and green represents pipe that has a RUL of over 20 years. In total, approximately nine percent of the existing collection pipes with known installation year are expected to reach the end of their useful lives by the year 2026. MaplewoodSE Petrovitsky Rd Be a c o n W a y S SE 168th StOakesdale Ave SWSW 7th St SW 16th St SR 167SE 192nd StInterurban TrailCeda r R i v e r T r a i l SW SunsetBlvd Monroe Ave NENile Ave NESE 116th St N 6th St Garden Ave NN 4th St RentonA v e S Rainer Ave N132nd Ave SE§¨¦405 §¨¦405 N 40th St N 29th St Edmonds Ave NEDisclaimer: Features shown in this figure are for planning purposes and represent approximate locations. Engineering and/or survey accuracyis not implied. Data Sources: City of Renton, WA O 0 0.5 10.25 Miles Level 1 (Negligible) Level 2 (Low) Level 3 (Moderate) Level 4(Severe) Legend City of Renton Street Centerlines Last Revised: September 20, 2017E:\KRC D DRIVE\Renton\Fig_06_05SumVulnerability.mxd CHAPTER 6 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON Figure 6.3 Vulnerability Criteria Results CHAPTER 6 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 | 6-23 Table 6.11 Remaining Useful Life Feet of Pipeline (1) Material >20 Years <=20 Years and >10 Years <=10 Years Grand Total CAS 604 830 1,395 2,829 CP 265,992 49,683 55,824 371,499 DIP 58,591 0 186 58,777 Polyethylene 6,573 0 0 6,573 PSC 147 0 0 147 PVC 707,458 0 3,958 711,415 VCP 32,731 0 5,865 38,596 LN 16,653 265 0 16,918 XXX 7,716 36,485 50,236 94,438 Grand Total 1,096,464 87,263 117,465 1,301,192 Note: (1) Feet of pipeline is specific to year installed per the City and not by decade. Pipelines were assigned to one of four levels shown in Table 6.8 and Table 6.9 . After discussing the breakdown of the three replacement ranges with the City, it was agreed that the assets with a RUL of less than, or equal to, 10 years could be split into two categories: between 5 and 10 years would be considered a "moderate" level, and assets that have less than 5 years of RUL would be labeled as "severe." The resulting RUL levels were: • Level 1 (Negligible) greater than 20 years. • Level 2 (Low) RUL between 11 years and 20 years. • Level 3 (Moderate) RUL between 6 years and 10 years. • Level 4 (Severe) RUL less than 5 years. Table 6.12 shows the linear footage breakdown of these levels. Further detail on the RUL source data can be found in CCTV Phase 2 Project’s TM 3 - Pipe Risk Approach and Procedures and RUL scores can be found in TM 4 - Risk Findings (Carollo 2017). Figure 6.4 shows the map results of the RUL analysis, with the four levels color-coded similar to the previous figures. Please note that the Sunset Lane project was completed in 2019 and replaced and revised the layout of the pipe system around the new park, which is not reflected in the figure. Table 6.12 Remaining Useful Life by Length RUL Level Length (ft ) Percent 1 (negligible) 1,102,619 84.7% 2 (low) 86,030 6.6% 3 (moderate) 3,707 0.3% 4 (severe) 108,877 8.4% MaplewoodSE Petrovitsky Rd Be a c o n W a y S SE 168th StOakesdale Ave SWSW 7th St SW 16th St SR 167SE 192nd StInterurban TrailCeda r R i v e r T r a i l SW SunsetBlvd Monroe Ave NENile Ave NESE 116th St N 6th St Garden Ave NN 4th St RentonA v e S Rainer Ave N132nd Ave SE§¨¦405 §¨¦405 N 40th St N 29th St Edmonds Ave NEDisclaimer: Features shown in this figure are for planning purposes and represent approximate locations. Engineering and/or survey accuracyis not implied. Data Sources: City of Renton, WA O 0 0.5 10.25 Miles Legend City of Renton Street Centerlines Level 1 (Negligible) Level 2 (Low) Level 3 (Moderate) Level 4(Severe) Last Revised: August 03, 2017E:\KRC D DRIVE\Renton\Fig_06_03RUL.mxd CHAPTER 6 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON Figure 6. 4 Remaining Useful Life of System CHAPTER 6 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 | 6-27 6.6.4 Gravity Sewer Mains Risk Assessment A risk-based prioritization was developed for their R&R projects. As discussed above, risk is calculated as the product of criticality and vulnerability. A risk ranking was developed for all gravity collection pipelines in the system during the study. This assessment is at a conceptual planning level and does not include survey, site inspections, or other detailed investigations. Pipeline risk was determined by combining the vulnerability and criticality scores for each pipe segment. Those two scores were then combined into 16 different "criticality, vulnerability" combinations (for example: 1, 2; 2,3; or 4,4). Each combination was categorized with a risk ranking of low, moderately-low, m oderately-high, and high, as shown in Table 6.1. Table 6.13 shows how the linear feet of pipe was categorized into the 16 combinations using the normalized risk rankings. Figure 6.5 shows the final result of the normalized risk ranking for the City's piping system. Table 6.13 Risk Matrix for Length of Gravity Mains (feet) Normalized Risk Ranking Vulnerability Level 4 (severe) 1,805 7,061 10,061 2,935 3 (moderate) 44,840 63,075 103,884 44,551 2 (low) 76,510 100,541 148,925 58,546 1 (negligible) 210,622 180,371 186,199 61,306 1 (negligible) 2 (low) 3 (moderate) 4 (severe) Criticality Level Table 6.14 uses the results from Table 6.13 and shows the total lengths for the four colored risk ratings. Table 6.14 Pipe Length Totals Based on Risk Rating Color Total Length (ft) % of Total Length Low 467,504 36% Moderately-Low 394,691 30% Moderately-High 381,491 29% High 57,548 4% The following gravity main R&R is recommended based on the risk assessment : • To confirm the condition of individual pipe’s RUL, the City should continue to conduct ongoing monitoring through CCTV inspections and tracking of point repairs and other maintenance issues. For the most critical or vulnerable pipelines, more advanced condition assessment may be warranted. • Approximately 57,500 lf of gravity mains are considered high risk and should be rehabilitated in the short- and medium-term planning horizon (10 year period). Individual capital projects will likely be warranted for long segments and large diameter CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CHAPTER 6 6-28 | JULY 2022 | FINAL mains, while rehabilitation of smaller mains may be accomplished through annual R&R program funding. • Approximately 381,500 LF of gravity sewers are considered moderately-high risk and should be monitored in the short-term and medium-term planning horizon (10 year period). Pipe segments in poor condition should be repaired, rehabilitated, or replaced through an annual R&R program . • Remaining pipelines should be monitored in the medium-term planning horizon. Pipe segments in poor condition should be repaired, rehabilitated, or replaced through an annual R&R program . 6.7 Recommended R&R Program The recom mended improvements for the replacement and rehabilitation program are summarized below: 6.7.1 Force Mains • It is recommended that the City conduct a CCTV inspection of FMs after FM cleanouts are installed as part of the Lift Station and FM Rehabilitation. • It is recommended that the City monitor the condition of the stream banks adjacent to the Devil’s Elbow lift station and evaluate alternatives to armor the banks to protect the lift station and FM. • It is recommended the City continue regular maintenance and its active rehabilitation program for FMs. 6.7.2 Lift Stations • The operation of lift stations with moderate and serve criticality should be monitored closely and maintenance activities conducted promptly. • The Lake WA No. 2 Lift Station and Lake WA Flush Station, which both serve the Lake Line Sewer System, have a severe risk and should be addressed in the short -term . • It is recommended that comprehensive R&R of Lift Stations and FMs be performed during the long-term planning horizon. 6.7.3 Gravity Sewer System • To confirm the condition of individual pipe’s RUL, the City should continue to conduct ongoing monitoring through CCTV inspections and tracking of point repairs and other maintenance issues. For the most critical or vulnerable pipelines, more advanced condition assessment may be warranted. • Approximately 57,500 lf of gravity mains are considered high risk and should be rehabilitated in the short- and medium-term planning horizon (10 year period). • Approximately 381,500 lf of gravity mains are considered moderately-high risk and should be monitored in the short-term and medium-term planning horizon (10 year period). Pipe segments in poor condition should be repaired, rehabilitated, or replaced through an annual R&R program . • Remaining pipelines should be monitored in the medium-term planning horizon. Pipe segments in poor condition should be repaired , rehabilitated, replaced through an annual R&R program . MaplewoodSE Petrovitsky Rd Be a c o n W a y S SE 168th StOakesdale Ave SWSW 7th St SW 16th St SR 167SE 192nd StInterurban TrailCeda r R i v e r T r a i l SW SunsetBlvd Monroe Ave NENile Ave NESE 116th St N 6th St Garden Ave NN 4th St RentonA v e S Rainer Ave N132nd Ave SE§¨¦405 §¨¦405 N 40th St N 29th St Edmonds Ave NEDisclaimer: Features shown in this figure are for planning purposes and represent approximate locations. Engineering and/or survey accuracyis not implied. Data Sources: City of Renton, WA O 0 0.5 10.25 Miles Legend City of Renton Critcality x Vulnerability Risk 1,1 1,2 1,3 1,4 2,1 2,2 2,3 2,4 3,1 3,2 3,3 3,4 4,1 4,2 4,3 4,4 Street Centerlines CHAPTER 6 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON Last Revised: August 03, 2017E:\KRC D DRIVE\Renton\Fig_06_06CriticalityXVulnerability.mxd Map of Criticality x Vulnerability Figure 6.5 CHAPTER 7 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 | 7-1 Chapter 7 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE 7.1 Introduction This operation and maintenance (O&M) chapter summarizes the City of Renton’s (City) Wastewater Operations Master Plan (OMP), which was developed in 2012 as a living document. The OMP provides specific guidance on how to manage, maintain, and operate the system assets with greater stewardship and effectiveness. This O&M chapter has been supplemented and reorganized from the 2010 Long -Range Wastewater Management Plan (LRWWMP) for consistency with the OMP. 7.2 Operations and Maintenance Programs The O&M programs presen ted in this chapter are consistent with the "Wastewater Collection Systems Management, Sixth Edition" by Water Environment Federation (WEF) Manual of Practice No. 7 and “Core Attributes of Effectively Managed Wastewater Collection Systems,” June 2010 (Appendix A), developed by the American Publi c Works Association (APWA), American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA), and WEF. These sources provided a foundation of good engineering practices for O&M of sanitary sewer collection systems; providing guidance and direction. Through development and implementation of a management program encompassing these practices, the City can provide efficient and effective collection system O&M while protecting public health and the environment. Where current City programs and practices are lacking, enhancements have been recommended. In most cases, these program deficiencies were identified in the OMP and are actively being developed by the City. Based on the City's system and needs, O&M activities are divided into the following programs and practices: 1. System Inven tory and Information Management. 2. Collection System Maintenance. 3. Lift Station Operations and maintenance. 4. Predictive Repair and Replacement (R&R) Program . 5. Overflo w Emergency Response. 6. Fats, oil, and grease (FOG) Source Control. 7. System Infrastructure Capacity. 8. Design and Construction. 9. Legal Authority. 10. Safety, Training, and Certification. 11. Interagency Coordination. 12. Administration and Facility Maintenance. 13. Financial Program . CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CHAPTER 7 7-2 | JULY 2022| FINAL The categories were formulated to be integrated within the organizational structure of the City Public Works, which is presented in this chapter. Using this framework, a workforce estimate has been developed to evaluate the staffing levels needed to perform the City's O&M functions at a high level. 7.3 Organization The City's O&M tasks are supported by the City's organization. The sewer utility operates under the direction of the Public Works Administrator, as shown in Figure 7.1. Wastewater services are provided under two divisions: Utility Systems and Maintenance Services. The Utility Systems Director and the Maintenance Services Director both report to the Public Works Administrator. The Surface/Waste Water Special Operations Services Manag er reports to the Wastewater Manager who in turn reports to the Maintenance Services Director. The Wastewater Utility Engineering Manager reports to the Utility Systems Director. The Surface/Waste Water Special Operations Services Manager and Wastewater Manager evenly divide their duties, overseeing the O&M of the sanitary sewer and storm water systems. 7.3.1 Wastewater Maintenance Services The Wastewater Maintenance staff focuses on preventative maintenance and troubleshooting of the collection system. Maintenance staff works to prioritize and monitor issues to keep the system operating in optimal conditions. Maintenance work may involve electronic, mechanical, and other types of improvements to existing systems. Currently, t here are two Lift St ation technicians and eight Maintenance Services workers responsible for the continued operation of the sanitary sewer system. 7.3.2 Wastewater Utility Services The Wastewater Utility staff is responsible for the design and management of capital improvement program (CIP) projects, coordination of developer extensions of the sewer system, and long-range planning for the Utility. The Wastewater Utility Engineering Manager oversees the Wastewater Utility staff. Currently, t he Wastewater Utility staff consists of t hree engineering project managers, one grease/industrial waste specialist , and a geographic information system (GIS) specialist. 7.3.3 Communication Efficient and economical functioning of a team requires adequate provision for regular, effective communication am ong its members. The normal channels of communication available to maintain effective coordination are: 1. Vehicular two-way radios. 2. Cellular Telephones. 3. Daily work assignment meetings.. 4. Electronic records and GIS system inventory 5. Documentation in the Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS), supplemented through more detailed work logs and inspection reports. 6. Emergency phone numbers for "on -call" employees. 7. Direct, City-owned telephone connection to City Hall. 8. Weekly staff meetings. CHAPTER 7 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 | 7-3 As the complexity of the system increases and the service area expands, the need for trained, efficient staff to keep pace with public demand and advances in technology will become imperative. New employees need orientation and basic training; while more experien ced employees can improve by continued training. 7.3.4 Divisional Coordination The Wastewater Utility utilizes the services of other City departments, according to inter-departmental agreements, to augment the Wastewater Utility’s expertise. The Finance and Information Services Department is responsible for customer billing, payment collection, project cost reporting, fund activity reporting, and basic computer needs. The Human Resource and Risk Management Departments are responsible for employee records, union labor negotiations, salary schedules, and risk management evaluation. Within the Public Works Department, the Wastewater Utility utilizes the services of the Technical Services Section. Technical Services provides support to Wastewater through Mapping and Property Services. This includes computer-aided design (CAD ) mapping, development of the City’s GIS, surveys, and property management. Within the Department of Community and Economic Development, the Wastewater Utility utilizes the services of the Developm ent Services Division. Development Services provides plan review, permit issuance, and inspection for developer extensions. They also provide inspection service for the Utility’s Capital Improvement Projects. 7.4 Wastewater Operations Master Plan The OMP is su mmarized in this LRWWMP. There are two primary purposes of the OMP; 1) to document current procedures and programs into an O&M manual, review existing programs for effectiveness and compliance with potential future regulatory requirements; and 2) analyze and recommend program improvements in accordance with the City’s long -term goals and objectives, and assist with the development of an improvement implementation strategy. The master copy of this document is maintained by the Wastewater Utility Engineering Manager to be a living document . The Wastewater Utility Manager solicits updates, comments, and recommendations from wastewater operations team members, which after review by the wastewater operations management team are subsequently incorporated into the master document. 7.5 Systems Inventory and Information Management In recent years the City has made substantial investment in improving its system inventory and information management. 7.5.1 Information Management System Providing time for keeping and maintaining accurate records should be an integral consideration in determining the time to be allotted to any departmental task. Adequate records are an essential tool in utility management and operation, providing the supporting data for operations assessment and long-term planning, while saving time and reducing difficulty when trouble arises. The sewer utility has need for several types of records: facility operation, personnel, customer contact, inventory, and facility maintenance and repair. These and other appropriate CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CHAPTER 7 7-4 | JULY 2022| FINAL documents should be legible, concise, permanent, accurate and accessible. Their importance to the efficient functioning of the utility is critical. There are many different information systems that are currently used in the management, and O&M of the City’s wastewater system. These information systems and recommended improvements, as stated in the OMP, are shown in Table 7.1. Most of these information systems are managed outside of the City’s Utility Systems Department and contain data for ot her non-wastewater related functions and groups. Information management is a key component of operating an effective and efficient wastewater system. The City continues to work toward the vision of a seamless, integrated, information management system. The benefits of developing this seamless, integrated, information management vision are as follows: • Improved budgeting, planning, and decision making for capital planning. • More efficient use of O&M staff. • Extended useful service life of assets. • Reduced risk o f asset failures including overflows, breaks, and permit violations. • Better projections of asset lives and rehabilitation or replacement costs. • Enhanced customer service through reduced emergencies and improved response times. Since the 2010 LRWWMP, the City has integrated many information systems that have increased the efficiency of wastewater business processes. These changes to information systems are introduced gradually to allow City staff to learn and implement the benefits of the upgrades. Further u pgrades, especially in terms of automated scheduling, are anticipated in the future as need arises. GIS serves as a key user interface across multiple information systems and is used on a daily basis. Since the 2010 LRWWMP, the wastewater utility has hired a full time GIS specialist to assist with use of the information systems. Table 7.1 Existing and Recommended Information System Improvements Information System Existing Software Vendor Description Recommended Improvement CMMS Cityworks GIS based Computerized maintenance management system of sewer pipeline assets, sewer manhole assets, sewer lift station assets. Allows tracking of service requests, work orders, preventive maintenance, and work order costs. Operators use Cityworks to track their time. GIS ESRI ArcGIS Contains spatial data on sewer pipeline assets, sewer manhole assets, sewer lift station assets, lateral stubs, parcels, addresses, FOG locations, zoning, and ROW(7) easements. CHAPTER 7 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 | 7-5 Information System Existing Software Vendor Description Recommended Improvement CCTV(1) CUES Granite Net Contains tabular and graphical data on sewer assets, inspections, condition, defects, and inspection photos and videos. The City is currently planning to upgrade to the latest version of CUES Granite Net with additional modules for GIS integration and NASSCO(5) PACP(6) standards. Hydraulic Model DHI(2) MikeUrban Contains tabular and spatial data on sewer pipeline assets, sewer manhole assets, sewer lift stations, modeled flows, pipeline capacities, contributing areas, and Infiltration and Inflow parameters. SCADA(9) Wonderware Contains real-time and historical tabular data on influent/effluent flows, pump run times, pump start times, and rain gauges. Integrate with Water Utility. FOG XC2 Contains tabular data on cross connection and FOG locations, permits, and inspections. Integrate with GIS. Utility Billing / Customer Information System SpringBrook Contains tabular data on customers, wastewater billing history, and consumption records. Permits Management EnerGov Contains tabular data on permits, planning, business licenses, code compliance, side sewer connections, and permit inspections. Financial Information System Tyler Technologies Eden The City’s financial and accounting system of record that contains all financial data including budgets, revenues, capital and operating expenses, and fixed assets. SDC(10)/SAD (8) Database Contains tabular data on system development charges and special assessment district charges. KC(4) Assessors Database Microsoft SQL Database Database that contains tabular data on parcels, tax history, and property legal descriptions. Outside Data Sources Data Various outside data sources that including the KC flow monitoring and rainfall data, KC IMAP system, SeaTac Airport rainfall data, and Renton Airport rain gauge data. LaserFiche None This system is currently being implemented by the City and will contai n scanned, electronic documents including record drawings, as-built drawings, and other relevant documents. CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CHAPTER 7 7-6 | JULY 2022| FINAL Information System Existing Software Vendor Description Recommended Improvement ECM None This system is proposed to provide a centralized web site for capturing and linking to various data on projects, policies and procedures, drawings, and other electronic content. The existing hardcopy O&M policies and procedures could be scanned and populated into the ECM (3) for improved accessibility, ease of use, and linking to other information systems. Implement with Microsoft SharePoint. Renton Results None This system is the City’s reporting tool for outcome management and financial performance measures. This system could be expanded to include many of the same functions as ECM above. Implement with Microsoft SharePoint. Note: (1) CCTV - closed-circuit television. (2) DHI - Danish Hydraulic Institute. (3) ECM - Enterprise Change Management. (4) KC – King County . (5) NASSCO - National Association of Sewer Service Companies. (6) PACP - Pipe Assessment Certification Program. (7) ROW - right-of-way. (8) SAD - Special Assessment District. (9) SCADA – supervisory control and data acquisition. (10) SDC - Standard Development Charge. 7.5.2 Business Process In addition to recommended information systems, the OMP documents business processes and recommended improvements. Business processes reflect the ability to conduct O&M tasks by streamlining and enhancing how the tasks are currently completed. A review of business processes is recommended as part of the upcoming OMP update to incorporate the changes to information systems discussed in the previous section. 7.6 Collection System Maintenance The City maintains more than 191 miles of gravity sewer throughout the system. The Wastewater Maintenance Services Crew’s primary goal is to maintain sewer pipelines to minimize damage to property due to wastewater overflows. The collection system maintenance program includes both preventive and corrective maintenance. The preventative maintenance program includes: lift station inspection and maintenance, manhole inspection and maintenance, CCTV inspection, root cutting, grease removal, and hydraulic line cleaning. Corrective maintenance is that which improves the performance of existing equipment, facilities and infrastructure. The corrective maintenance program is mainly composed of repairing sewers and clearing plugs. Additionally, easement maintenance and minor road work is periodically required to access the collection system. The following section briefly describes each O&M program. CCTV has undergone substantial changes since the last LRWWMP; therefore, it is presented in more detail below in Section 7.6.3. Additionally, side sewer maintenance is a major problem CHAPTER 7 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 | 7-7 within a sanitary sewer system. It is the City’s policy that individual property owners are responsible for maintaining their side sewers. If a problem occurs, it is the property owner’s responsibility to contact a private plumber to investigate and correct the problem. Therefore, no discussion of side sewers is provided below. 7.6.1 Maintenance Priorities Wastewater Maintenance Services has developed a program to maintain the existing system. First level of priority is the inspection and maintenance of the portions of the system that are known to have problems if not handled on a weekly, monthly, quarterly, or annual basis. This includes the inspection and maintenance of lift stations, areas of known root problems, and areas of known grease problems. The second level of priority is the routine inspection and maintenance that is required to identify any additional high priority maintenance issues and to identify potentially unexpected conditions that may cause problems for the customers. The second level of priority includes CCTV inspection of the system and hydraulic line cleaning. It is typically recommended by insurers involved with utility system management that, in order to minimize claims against the utility, the entire system should be inspected approximately every five years. Since line cleaning is performed prior to CCTV inspec tion, this means the system is cleaned on the same cycle as CCTV inspection. 7.6.2 Manhole Inspection and Maintenance The City has identified problem areas in the collection system. The City’s personnel inspect the sanitary sewer manholes in those areas on a weekly, monthly, or quarterly basis - determined by historical maintenance needs in the area - for the following situations: 1. A visual guarantee of proper sewage conveyance. 2. Assessment of the state of solids buildup in manhole wet wells. 3. Verification of the condition of the manhole lid/cover and support rings for wear and stability. 4. Visual affirmation of condition of sewer channels and ladder rings. Corrective actions are taken to address any issues that are found during the inspections. The City inspects the remaining manholes/pipes in conjunction with the video inspection program. O&M staff perform the same inspections and any required maint enance on those manholes at that time. The City uses a line service truck for inspection and repair of manholes and lines. It carries parts used in sewer line repair and repairs to manholes are made as needed. 7.6.3 CCTV Inspection Routine video inspection of the sanitary sewer system is an essential part of the maintenance responsibilities. The City uses the NASSCO PACP methodology to assess pipes during CCTV Inspection. Structural correction and obstructions are the primary cause of line failure in sanitary sewer pipes. Operational deficiencies, such as FOG build up, are also noted. Routine inspections of the lines are crucial to be aware of potential trouble spots. Sewage spill claims have proven to be a very costly type of litigation for municipalities to deal with and routing video inspection of the sewer system is the first line of defense. CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CHAPTER 7 7-8 | JULY 2022| FINAL The City has recently implemented a new CCTV inspection program that includes purchase and installation of the latest version of CUES Granite Net CCTV software, purchase of new CCTV trucks and cameras, and the development of a risk-based condition assessment program. 7.6.3.1 CCTV Inspection Equipment Since the 2012 OMP, t he City has invested in a CCTV truck, camera equipment, updates to the CUES Granite Net, and information technology (IT) to support the new equipment and software. The City purchased a customized CCTV inspection truck that includes the following major equipment: hybrid freightliner step van with inverter, safe entry/exit bumper, transporter/camera lockable storag e compartment, TV step van exterior lighting & viewing room, roof top air conditioner with heat strip, file cabinet under viewing room desktop, wall mounted storage cabinet mounted above desktop, and bench seat in viewing room. The inspection truck included a new solid state color sewer TV camera with pan, rotate, and zoom head. Additionally, the truck is equipped with a self-propelled lateral inspection / evaluation system. 7.6.3.2 CCTV Software The CUES Granite Net program contains tabular and graphical data on sewer assets, inspections, conditions, defects and inspection photos and videos. The City’s IT and software allow the sewer condition data, with associated photos and videos, to be collected via the Granite Net CCTV process and automatically transferred and/or linked to ArcGIS for spatial analysis and reporting. New and updated sewer pipeline and manhole asset data from ArcGIS is also automatically transferred to Granite Net, along with the latest GIS spatial data, in order to provide the latest information to the CCTV operations staff. The updated software also interfaces with modules for a variety of different users and specialized functions. 7.6.3.3 NASSCO Rating and Scoring The City uses the NASSCO system of rating the collection system to maintain consistent and reliable data on condition. This includes standards of the PACP standard compatible mainline information (Main Assets, Main Inspections and Main Observations). CCTV operators are trained and well versed in NASSCO system coding. The City uses its own inspection methodology for manholes and laterals that is focused on identifying assets for rehabilitation. 7.6.3.4 CCTV Driven Improvements City operators make point repairs to critical pipe defects identified through the CCTV Inspection. Repairs are made following the CCTV Inspection; depending on availability of necessary operators, equipment, and customer notifications. The City pursues preventative maintenance through its annual Pipe Replacement and Rehabilitation program. The Program bids out a large replace or rehabilitate aging pipes project each year to address aging infrastructure, typically in the same general area (rather than spread out over the entire system). To assist with identifying areas, the City has developed a decision support tool to help determine areas of pipes and structures to rehabilitate or replace based on historical CCTV Inspection scoring. CHAPTER 7 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 | 7-9 7.6.4 Root Cutting Routine sewer facility inspection commonly identifies root intrusion within both private and public sewer mains. If the problem is within the City ROW, the City will correct the problem and remove the root. A hydraulic root cutter is used to routinely remove roots that accumulate within sewer lines creating flow restrictions and blockages. Numerous lines throughout the City have been examined and discovered to have had a history of problems created by roots. These particular lines require root removal more frequently to ensure there is no interruption of flow. 7.6.5 Grease Removal Grease problems are typically associated with major food processing operations, the majority of which involves restaurants where grease is released into the conveyance system. Many of the older restaurants within the City do not have grease removal systems while newer restaurants have been and will continue to be required to install grease removal systems. Despite the implementation of grease removal systems, many are not properly maintained. Grease buildup problems occur most often in the side sewers; however, som e grease buildup problems also occur in the sanitary sewer collection system. When problems do occur, the City maintenance crews are usually called out to investigate. A proper monitoring program reduces maintenance time involved in removing grease buildup. The City has achieved moderate success in noting problems and identifying the sources. The Wastewater Utility has also worked with new construction and implemented tenant improvements to ensure that these users are installing proper grease removal system s and/or bio-agent facilities. The City has a grease removal program for standard food-services establishments and multi-family housing to improve grease collection at these locations. 7.6.6 Hydraulic Line Cleaning Jetting a sanitary sewer pipe is the principal means of cleaning the line portion of the sewer of sludge, debris, or obstruction. Hydraulic Line Cleaning is a common means of addressing acute and preventative maintenance concerns, as well as performed prior to CCTV Inspection. The sewer lines are clean ed with a vacuum -high velocity cleaning/jetting truck which performs two primary functions: vacuuming and jetting. A hose with a special end fitting is inserted into a pipe and high-pressure water (up to 2,500 pounds per square inch) is sent through the hose. The high-pressure water exits the small hole at the tip of the cone fitting, breaking down the sludge and obstructions. The hose is propelled down the length of the pipe via the numerous other holes found in the end fitting. The hose is inserted throug h a manhole into the pipe and the line is jetted to the next manhole. The hose is then retracted via a motor driven reel system back to the entry manhole. All of the sludge/debris is scoured toward the entry manhole because the spraying water forces it in that direction and is vacuumed out as required. There are a number of lines in the City that have inconsistent grades, creating septic conditions within the lines. A part of the maintenance program is to use the Vac-Con to flush water through these particu lar lines periodically to prevent those conditions from occurring until the inverted slope can be reconfigured. The Vac -Con is the primary equipment used for emergency blockages in the lines and is used to assist TV inspection. CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CHAPTER 7 7-10 | JULY 2022| FINAL 7.6.7 Repair Sewers and Clear Plu gs When problems with the sewers are identified through the preventative maintenance program described above, repairs are made to the infrastructure or clogs are removed. The preventative maintenance program is efficient and typically represents only one percent of the maintenance manhour allotment. 7.6.8 Easements and Access Road Maintenance In addition to public roads, the City operates, maintains, repairs and constructs sewer mains, and lines in, over, along, and under roads and easements located within the sewer service area. As the utility performs work within the easements, minor roadwork and improvements are necessary. All work done within the easements is done in accordance to any permits and City and KC standards. Note, the Street and Surface Water Maintenance crews conduct maintenance for the Wastewater Utility along road right of ways and other areas where work efforts overlap. 7.7 Lift Station Operations and Maintenance The City maintains 20 lift stations throughout the system. The pump crew’s primary goal is to maintain stations to minimize damage to property due to wastewater overflows. The Wastewater has two operators dedicated to lift station maintenance that includes daily inspections and regular preventative maintenance. The City maintains an O&M Manual for each lift station. It is recommended the City review and update, as necessary, these manuals and associated Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) during the next OMP update. 7.7.1 Lift Station Inspection and Maintenance Lift station inspection and maintenance involves weekly, monthly, and annual t asks which align with preventative and corrective maintenance procedures. The following describes the inspection and maintenance program for the sewage lift stations and wet well facilities: 7.7.1.1 Sewage Lift Stations The City has on-call staff 24 -hours per day. They also perform a daily inspection of the telemetry at each station. Every week the City performs an inspection of each lift station. This weekly inspection includes a security check, recording pump motor hours, checking motor noise, temperature, and vibration. The City changes all filters, cleans electrodes, exercises all valves, and runs each emergency generator on a monthly basis. On an annual basis, the City checks the pump bearings and seals, tests the entire electrical system at each station, and performs an infrared test of the system. 7.7.1.2 Wet Well Facilities On a weekly basis, the City checks the security, float settings, and operation of each wet well. The City washes down, checks the interior condition, ladders, hatches, etc. in each wet well . The City performs a pump down of each wet well once a year. They take this time to clean the wet well. The lift station crew uses a vehicle equipped with a crane to lift pumps, equipment, utility compartments for parts, tools, etc. for the lift station maintenance program. CHAPTER 7 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 | 7-11 7.7.2 Telemetry (SCADA) Successful operation of any municipal sewer system requires that t he municipality maintains a comprehensive maintenance program and that they obtain accurate sewage flow rate information. A telemetry and control system is the means by which flow rates are measured and maintenance needs are updated. The SCADA system collects data from the City’s lift stations which is then continually stored on servers at the shops. The SCADA information is only used when someone makes a query which is usually related to lift station evaluation. Data compiled by SCADA includes inflow, outflow, pump run times, and pump starts. The civil engineers have access to the SCADA and control subconsultant (RH2 Engineering), which helps the City maintain the system. The current system occasionally experiences communication failures and ot her issues that cause data errors. The City has planned SCADA systems, in collaboration with the Water Utility, which is anticipated resolve communication failures and provide additional monitoring and analysis features. The master telemetry unit, located at the City Shop, includes an intelligent telephone dialer alarm system, so that critical alarms can be relayed to on -duty maintenance personnel even during a telemetry system failure. 7.8 Predictive Repair and Replacement Program The City is currently expanding its Asset Management Program, which is described in more detail in Chapter 6 – Replacement & Rehabilitation Program. The City's asset management program prioritized asset renewal schedule and costs and is closely tied to O&M activities. 7.9 Emergency Response The City’s Overflow Emergency Response Plan (OERP) provides measures to protect public health and the environment in the event of a sanitary sewer overflow (SSO). Historically, overflows have not been related to lack of capacity of the system. There has been one overflow in the past 10 years. This occurred on August 9 , 2021 at 505 Rainier Ave N between MH0619 and MH0615 and was related to FOG. FOG O&M is described in Section 7.10 below. The City may also develop project specific emergency response plans, as required. In addition to OERP, the Wastewater Utility participates in the City’s Comprehensive Emergency Response Plan and the broader Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan. In the case of these wider emergencies, the Wastewater Utility follows the direction of the Emergency Operation Center or other responsible official. 7.10 FOG Source Control Maintenance issues such as blockages and overflows can be caused or increased by FOG that is discharged into the system. Controlling discharge into the collection system can assist in enhancing and improving the collection system performance. FOG buildup problems occur most often in the side sewers. However, some FOG buildup problems also occur in the sanitary sewer collection system. When problems do occur, the City maintenance crews are usually called out to investigate. A proper monitoring program reduces maintenance time involved in removing grease buildup. Additionally, the City has worked with new construction and tenant improvements to ensure that these users are installing proper grease removal systems and/or bio -agent facilities. CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CHAPTER 7 7-12 | JULY 2022| FINAL Property owners may need to inspect or maintain their grease traps on a weekly basis depending on how much FOG enters the drains. The City recommends property owners inspect to clean grease interceptors at least twice a year. Establishments suspected of causing problems to the collection system may be inspected by the City. Depending on how full the grease trap is the City will rate the condition to be good, fair, or poor. Traps in fair condition are advised to monitor the buildup and maintenance schedule and increase frequency as necessary. If the trap is in poor condition, the establishment is issued a compliance order and will need to clean the trap immediately. After cleaning, the est ablishment is required to contact the City within 30 days to verify the grease has been properly cleaned. The OMP identified multiple items for future effort with regard to the FOG program, including identifying regulatory requirements, summarizing the FOG Control Plan and training, identifying performance measures, and conducting a program evaluation. 7.11 System Infrastructure Capacity The City has developed several tools and activities for determining system capacity such as hydraulic models, flow monitoring, and field investigation. The key elements of the program are to identify existing areas of the system with capacity deficiencies and to confirm the available hydraulic capacity for development. The City's hydraulic computer model is the main tool used for this identification. The purpose of this model is 1) to evaluate the existing sanitary sewer system and determine areas of capacity constraint, and 2) to provide a tool for planning future improvements. The analysis of the hydraulic capacity of the system is presented in Chapter 5 – System Analysis and Results. The analysis includes evaluation of the City’s facilities for system capacity to address both system deficiencies and potential development within the City’s sewer service area. The CIP for capac ity projects is developed from the LRWWMP and is maintain ed and updated annually by Wastewater Utility Director. 7.12 Design and Construction Utility Systems lead the City’s program to ensure proper design, construction, and inspection as necessary to enable the collection system projects. Design involves converting the projects identified in the planning process to paper to provide a set of doc uments (plans and specifications) that will be used to construct the facilities. Construction involves building the actual facilities that are planned and designed. Inspection helps resolve issues that arise during construction and confirms that the facilities are constructed as planned and designed. 7.12.1 Design Most designs are completed in house by the Utility Systems Project Managers. Projects may be contracted out if the Utility Systems department is too overloaded, the project involves a lift station, or it involves significant environmental issues. Design projects are selected based on th is Plan and follow the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) Standards, the Orange Book, Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Standards, and the City’s adopted supplements and amendments. The pump station design standards are not documented, but institutional design standards exist. The City has recently updated its standard details and specifications, which are provided in Appendix J, Standard Details and Specifications. This update, in part, coordinated the standard details between the City’s Development Services and its Utilities. CHAPTER 7 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 | 7-13 All designs involve appropriate City staff, including Construction Inspectors, lift station technicians, Maintenance Services, and Development Services. 7.12.2 Construction The construction contractor is typically determined by competitive bidding; however, other forms of selection such as emergency direct award or sole source are sometimes applied. The project must be constructed as designed using the materials and procedures specified. The City must approve any significant changes, and these changes should be documented. 7.12.3 Inspection Utility Systems does not select the inspectors for construction observation. All inspections are coordinated by the Development Services Department. Utility Systems allows the inspector assigned to the project to dictate the level of involvement that the Utility Systems has during construction. The inspector’s main goal is to ensure that the project is constructed as designed and specified. The inspection for a collection system project verifies that the pipe and appurtenances have been installed correctly for line and grade and with the proper materials. The inspector witnesses tests of installed pipe. Construction administration, including Requests for Information (RFIs) and submittals, is typically lead by Wastewater Utility Engineers. The City requires CCTV of new sewer lines to be completed after construction. Currently this CCTV information is not used to establish a baseline for subsequent inspections. 7.13 Legal Authority The City’s collection system is municipally owned, operated and maintained. It is managed by the City’s Public Works Department. The customer is responsible for the maintenance and condition of the laterals from the point of connection back to the property. The City has the authority to operate, maintain, and administer a wastewater system through ordinances, service agreements, or other legally binding procedures. Additional information on the City's legal authority, policies, and standards can be found in Chapter 3 – Operational Policies and Criteria. 7.14 Safety, Training, and Certification Training opportunities are of such high priority to effective operation of the system th at the City has linked them to its overall personnel evaluation program. Employees are evaluated and promoted through a set of job categories with pay commensurate to the category. It is essential that the promotional program continue to be closely linked with the training program, not only because it promotes efficient operation, but also because mandatory certification of wastewater utility workers is required by the state. The State Department of Health stipulates qualifications and training requirements for obtaining and maintaining certification. 7.15 Interagency Coordination Communication and outreach with customers, constituents, and other stakeholders is critical to effectively manage a wastewater collection system. To be effective, communications must be ongoing, open, timely, and two-way with reciprocal information sharing. Key stakeholders for collection system operators include policymakers, customers, local residents and businesses, regulatory agencies, local health officials, environmental organizations, community and business groups, neighboring agencies and systems, and employees. Effective communications with each CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CHAPTER 7 7-14 | JULY 2022| FINAL of these groups will require different techniques that are tailored to specific interests, perspectives, and each situation. Additional information on interagency communication can be found in Chapter 1 – Introduction and Chapter 3 – Operational Policies and Criteria. 7.16 Financial Program The City’s primary objective is to maintain an adequate revenue stream and implement effective accounting practices to support the effective management of the system. This is accomplished through financial programs such as the biennial budget process with mid-bi correction as needed , the development of the CIP and Rehabilitation and Replacement Program. Additional information on the financial program can be found in Chapter 8 – Capital Improvement Program . The financial program is conducted in cooperation with the Administrative Services Division based on input from Wastewater Utility staff. 7.17 Administrative Duties and Facility/Equipment Maintenance Administrative duties as well as facility and equipment maintenance are crucial components to the success of t he Wastewater Utility. Administrative tasks are broad-sweeping and require multiple skillsets of staff to complete. Additionally, the OMP maintains all new equipment and facilities maintenances procedures. 7.17.1 Administrative Duties The key administrative duty of the City’s O&M staff is to establish routine operation duties and schedules. Routine operations involve the analysis, formulation, and implementation of procedures to ensure that the sanitary sewer facilities are functioning efficiently. The utility's maintenance procedures work well. Repairs are made promptly so customers do not experience unnecessary inconvenience. 7.17.2 Tools and Equipment Sewer O&M staff is equipped primarily with City-owned equipment. The equipment available for daily use includes rolling stock, shop tools and incidental equipment, as well as other portable equipment for field use. City Operators are responsible for cleaning, maintenance, and repair on all non-rolling stock tools equipment. The rolling stock - specialized vehicles, such as Vacuum Trucks and the CCTV Inspection Truck, and trucks/vehicles - repaired and maintained by the Fleet Maintenance Section. For Fleet Maintenance, t he Wastewater Utility works with Fleet Services for procurement of parts and to maintain a standard of service for each vehicle. IT has become an important tool for O&M , including GIS based CMMS and asset inventory. As previously described, the IT department maintains all information technology with assistance from Wastewater Utility Staff (as necessary), including specialized software, database servers, etc. 7.18 Work Force Estimates The wastewater utility is staffed by both Maintenance Services and Utility Systems teams. The primary roles of each team, summary of programs, and estimated staffing levels have been summarized in preceding sections. CHAPTER 7 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 | 7-15 7.18.1 Future Resource Recommendations The LRWWMP evaluations have identified recommended projects and programs that will require additional future resources. Resources that are responsible for the City’s wastewater operations are currently divided across multiple department and divisions. These resources include the following positions and area of responsibilities: • Information and IT Support - Wastewater operations-related support functions that are currently provided include approximately 0.1 full-time equivalent (FTE). • Electronic Document Management System (EDMS)/ECM Support - It is recommended the City provide 0.25 FTE of resources to support increased use of LaserFiche EDMS and future ECM efforts (SharePoint). • Hydraulic Model Support - It is recommended the City provide 0.25 FTE of resources to support improved integration of the MikeUrban hydraulic model with GIS and SCADA. • Outside Support- Outside consultants and contractors currently provide support for the MikeUrban hydraulic model and Wonderware SCADA system. These resources are required on an interim basis when there are major upgrades to infrastructure, such as lift stations, that require changes to SCADA, and when master plan updates are completed that include changes to the hydraulic model. 7.18.2 Emergency Operations Emergency operations are the unplanned and unscheduled tasks needed to keep the system in operation. The primary objectives of these procedures are to ensure public safety, restore essential services as quickly as possible, and to provide assistance to other areas as required. This would include responding to sewer blockages, pipes broken by construction, and damage to the system by acts of nature. All of the O&M staff are also available to aid any of the other sections with additional manpower or equipment. The Wastewater O&M staff has the responsibility to keep the system operating when there are power or mechanical failures at lift stations. The City’s telemetry system allows for 24-hour remote monitoring and access to the system by the crew. With this access, they can be alerted to a problem and correct it rem otely, determine that it can wait until the next shift, or mobilize the necessary manpower and equipment. The City follows all Ecology guidelines for emergency notification procedures. The City’s emergency response plan is focused on SSO notifications and is summarized in Section 7.9 above. 7.18.3 Maintenance Services Staffing Currently, t here are eight FTE, including supervisory personnel and maintenance workers, who operate and maintain the wastewater system. The tasks that are performed by wastewater utility staff include inspection, testing, installation and repair of system facilities and preventive maintenance, corrective maintenance, record keeping, administrative tasks, training, and response to emergencies. The estimated FTE hours of work required to adeq uately maintain the sanitary sewer system are shown in Table 7.2. For maintenance activities, the annual FTE hours total seven. The FTE hours of work required for operational tasks for the sanitary sewer system are shown in Table 7.3. For operational tasks, the annual FTE hours total two. For adequate maintenance of the sanitary sewer system, the City would need a total of approximately 17,081 hours (the sum of O&M tasks) CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CHAPTER 7 7-16 | JULY 2022| FINAL worked per year. The City spends approximately 14,350 hours per year on O&M. This is approximately 2,731 hours short of the hours estimated for O&M of the sanitary sewer system. The size of the maintenance crew should be increased to carry the full workload of the Utility without neglecting preventive maintenance, emergency preparedness, record keeping, or safety precautions. Further staff increases should be tied to the actual growth of the sewer system. An expansion of the system requiring new service connections and/or additional facilities, without enlargement of the staff, will result in diminished levels of service for all maintenance programs. In view of predicted population growth in the service area over the next several years and the growing demand for sanitary sewer service, an increase in the size of the sewer system could be pro jected to continue at a similar rate of growth. With that increase in demand, there may be a need for additional staff. As shown in Table 7.2, the City would like to add an additional two operators to increase their maintenance activity FTE from 7 to 9. These operators would assist in doubling the amount of CCTV inspection, which then increases the need for root cutting, grease removal, and hydraulic line cleaning. Manhole inspections, sewer repairs, and unscheduled maintenance would not increase and would only be performed as needed. The City plans to use the CIP to repair non-point source sewer in a cost effective matter. The City also plans to increase staff time from 2 FTE to 2.5 FTE as shown in Table 7.3. By doubling administrative duties, the City may have a separate full-time wastewater manager and surface water manager. Maintenance and technical staff additions may be accompanied by additions to the clerical, secretarial, and other support staff needed to ensure that record keeping, billing, public relations, communications, and other general functions of support staff are performed with the accuracy and timeliness required. Table 7.2 Staffing Time for Maintenance Activities Preventative Maintenan ce Frequency of Maintenance Desired Time per Year (FTE) Existing Time per Year (FTE) Collection System Maintenance Manhole inspection, repair and maintenance As needed 0.5 0.5 CCTV inspection Continuous 2 1 Root cutting/grease removal Continuous 1.5 1 Hydraulic line cleaning Continuous 1.5 1 Repair sewers As needed 0.5 0.5 Unscheduled maintenance As needed 1 1 Lift Station O&M Lift station inspection Twice per weekly 1 1 Lift station cleaning and maintenance Monthly (cleaning), Annually (maintenance) 1 1 Total for Maintenance Activities 9 7 CHAPTER 7 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY ͮͬͮͮ | ͳ‐ͭͳ Table ͳ.ͯ Staffing Time for Operations Tasks Operations Tasks Task Frequency Desired Time per Year (FTE) Existing Time per Year (FTE) Administrative duties Daily ͭ ͬ.ͱ Asset Management Annually ͬ.ͱ ͬ.ͱ Tool and equipment cleaning Once per week ͬ.ͮͱ ͬ.ͮͱ Staff meetings and Cleanup Daily ͬ.ͮͱ ͬ.ͮͱ Training and conferences Annually ͬ.ͮͱ ͬ.ͮͱ Total for Operations ͮ.ͱ ͮ 7.18.4 Wastewater Utility Engineering Staff The City is not looking to increase their staff as number of capital projects are not anticipated to increase in the next six years. They don’t work on their own, but in coordination with “development” which is found on the organization chart. The current engineering staff organization is described in Section ͳ.ͯ of this Chapter. The engineering staff is responsible for two major tasks, administrative and capital improvement projects. The various tasks and the hours of work are described in relevant sections within the Chapter, as summarized in Table ͳ.Ͱ. The number of hours required for each task is not easily defined. Additional administrative tasks that are recommended in this LRWWMP are ͭ) prepare new ordinances and revise existing ordinances, ͮ) setup and administer grease trap management and certification ordinance, ͯ) inventory and update hydraulic computer model, and Ͱ) perform computer analyses using the sewer system hydraulic model. These tasks will require additional City staff or other resource staffing alternatives. Table ͳ.Ͱ Wastewater Utility Engineering Staff Activities Tasks/Projects Administrative Tasks Latecomer’s Agreement Administration LRWWMP Review Support Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Customer Service Support Support to Other Divisions/Departments/Agencies FOG / Industrial Waste Program Engineering Tasks Asset Management System Infrastructure Capacity Design and Construction Major Capital Improvement Projects CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CHAPTER 7 7-18 | JULY 2022| FINAL 7.19 Recommendations The O&M staff requested purchasing equipment and tools for the department's crews, which are currently shared with other City agencies. Additionally, acquisition of equipment for collection system maintenance including a 10-yard dump truck, excavator/backhoe and trailer, shoring, trench box, and a service truck was requested. CHAPTER 8 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 | 8-1 Chapter 8 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 8.1 Introduction This chapter summarizes the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the City of Renton’s (City) Long-Range Wastewater Management Plan (LRWWMP). The purpose of this chapter is to describe the CIP projects and programs including pipeline, lift station, and general facility types. The CIP consists of the cost estimates and schedules for the recommended improvements. This CIP was developed in 2019. Therefore, there are projects planned for 2020 outlined in this CIP that will have passed before the adoption of this Plan in 2022. The following sections present cost estimating assumptions, the recommended projects, estimated costs of each individual project, and a summary of the CIP. 8.2 Cost Estimating Assumptions The cost estimates presented in this CIP are opinions developed from bid tabulations, cost curves, information obtained from previous studies, and Carollo Engineers, Inc.’s experience on other projects. The cost estimates have been prepared for the general master planning purposes. Capital costs, or “total project costs,” are presented in the CIP. All costs are in 2019 dollars and were developed using a Class 5 budget estimate, as established by the American Associate of Cost Estimators (AACE). The Engineering News Report (ENR) Construction Cost Index for a 20-city average for July 2019 is 11293. This level of estimate is used for master planning and assumes a 0 percent to 2 percent level or project definition. The expected accuracy range is minus 30 percent to plus 50 percent. 8.2.1 Baseline Cost Assumptions This is the total estimated construction cost, in dollars, of the proposed improvement for pipelines and lift stations. All cost estimates provided in this CIP represent total project cost including materials, construction, engineering, legal, and administrative costs. Costs were represented as unit costs, as described in subsequent sections. 8.2.1.1 Gravity Sewer Unit Costs For pipes, Baseline Construction Costs are calculated by multiplying the estimated new pipe length by a proposed unit cost. These improvements involve a series of assumptions to develop a cost per linear foot (lf). All of the known pipelines involved in this CIP are between 6 inches and 24 inches. The gravity sewer unit costs provided are for typical open-cut installation with stable soil at an average depth of 15 feet. Costs include manhole installation at every 300 foot interval, excavation, hauling, soldier piles, wood lagging shoring, pipe materials and installation, backfill material and installation, and pavement replacement for a two lane width roadway. Costs do not include erosion and sediment control, individual side sewers, traffic control, or other general conditions. Open-cut costs listed by pipeline diameter are available in Table 8.1. CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CHAPTER 8 8-2 | JULY 2022 | FINAL Table 8.1 Open-Cut Costs by Pipeline Diameter Pipeline Diameter Construction Cost per LF 6” $330 8” $341 10” $352 12” $363 14” $374 16” $385 18” $396 24” $407 Gravity sewer rehabilitation for typical right-of-way pipelines can be completed through cost-effective cured-in-place pipe (CIPP) which varies in construction cost per linear foot. CIPP estimates are shown in Table 8.2. CIPP costs include pre-inspection, installation, lateral reinstatement, post-inspection closed-circuit television (CCTV), traffic control, and bypass pumping. Traffic control is assumed for a collector street. Table 8.2 CIPP Costs by Pipeline Diameter Pipeline Diameter Construction Cost per LF 6” $52.80 8” $70.40 10” $88.00 12” $105.60 14” $123.20 16” $140.80 18” $158.40 21” $184.80 24” $211.20 8.2.1.2 Force Main Rehabilitation/Replacement Costs Recent force main (FM) rehabilitation and replacement costs were obtained from the City’s current Wastewater Utility Capital Improvement Program. An average cost per FM rehabilitation was used for future cost estimating by using the total amount spent to-date by the City of $2.28 million (M) for all 19 FMs. This determined the rehabilitation/replacement cost of $120,000 per FM. FM assessment includes the same criteria as lift station assessment which may include one or more of the following: addition of flow meters, engine generator installation, noise abatement, slope stabilization, FM cleanouts, FM maintenance evaluation, FM replacement, manhole or vault improvements, and environmental/agency elements. 8.2.1.3 Lift Station Unit Costs Recent lift station rehabilitation projects completed by the City were compiled to create the lift station rehabilitation cost. This cost was used to estimate lift station repair and upgrade projects in the City’s CIP. As detailed in the 2019 Wastewater Utility Capital Investment Program, all CHAPTER 8 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 | 8-3 previous 20 lift stations were replaced, rehabilitated, or eliminated within the 25-year span. The total amount spent on rehabilitation of all lift stations to-date by the City is $2.8 M. This determined the rehabilitation cost of $140,000 per low to moderately-low lift station. A similar cost will be derived by the City for high to moderately-high lift station rehabilitation. The assessment for rehabilitation of lift stations may include one or more of the following: pump replacement, motor control replacement, telemetry improvements, addition of flow meters, engine generator installation, noise abatement, slope stabilization, structural adjustments to the wet well, assessment of coatings, wet well recoating, temp wet well system, FM cleanouts, FM maintenance evaluation, FM replacement, manhole or vault improvements, structural engine generator pad changes, structural control room changes, miscellaneous structural improvements such as telemetry, and environmental/agency elements. 8.2.2 Total Capital Improvement Cost The costs presented in this LRWWMP are high-level planning costs to help the City in making financial decisions. A planning contingency cost will be added to the Total Allied Project Cost to account for unforeseen events and unexpected conditions through the design process of these projects. As shown in the following sample calculation of the capital improvement cost, the total cost of all project contingencies (construction and planning) and allied costs (engineering services, construction management, and project administration) is 82 percent of the baseline construction cost. Example: Baseline Construction Cost $1,000,000 City Administrative (10%) $100,000 Design (20%) $200,000 Construction (10%) $100,000 Admin, Design, & Construction $1,400,000 Scope Contingency (30%) $420,000 Total Capital Improvement Cost $1,820,000 8.3 Capital Improvement Program As discussed in Chapter 5 – System Analysis and Results and Chapter 6 – Replacement and Rehabilitation Program, the CIPs are prioritized based on their urgency and risk to mitigate deficient systems. The timing for implementing these improvement projects is based on the affordability and urgency of the project. It is recommended that the City monitor growth and adjust project implementation accordingly. CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CHAPTER 8 8-4 | JULY 2022 | FINAL 8.3.1 Planning Periods The following terms are used to define timing and prioritization into three planning periods: • Short-term (2020 - 2025). Proposed facilities determined to be a high priority. • Medium-term (2026 - 2029). Proposed facilities determined to be a medium priority or proposed facilities to service major growth areas to be developed in the medium-term. • Long-term (2030 - 2039). Proposed facilities determined to be a low priority or proposed facilities to service major growth areas to be developed in the long-term. 8.3.2 Project and Program Naming The CIP projects were named based on the facility type. 8.3.3 Project Types In the current Wastewater Utility Capital Investment Program, projects are categorized by type. These types include the following: • “M”= Maintenance. • “P” = Planning. • “C” = Cross Category. • “D” = Development. • “R” = Regulatory. • “A” = Acquisition. Maintenance projects are focused on renewing infrastructure in poor condition, as recommended and prioritized in Chapter 6 – Replacement and Rehabilitation Program. Planning projects focus on allocating miscellaneous/emergency funds or including funds for long-term or operational planning. Development projects are designated based upon projected growth and flow volume; no development projects were identified in this CIP. Similarly, no CIP projects are listed under the acquisition or regulatory categories. 8.3.4 Capital Improvement Program by Year An individual Project Sheet was generated for each CIP project and includes project identifiers, description, costs, project type, and comments to aid in future implementation. A location map is included for projects that are located in a specific area. To aid in finding individual projects, Project Sheets have been separated in sections by facility type: • “LS” = Lift Station. • “P” = Pipeline. • “G” = General. Lift Station projects addresses the City’s 20 traditional lift station / FM and the unique Kennydale Lake Line System. Pipeline Projects address capacity and rehabilitation and replacement of the gravity sewer system. General Sewer project support the capital projects through long-term and operational planning, as well as various smaller miscellaneous projects. A summary of all CIP projects by facility type and project type is shown in Table 8.4. A summary of costs by project category and type is presented at the end of the chapter. CHAPTER 8 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 | 8-5 Table 8.3 Capital Improvement Program Summary CHAPTER 8 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 | 8-7 8.4 Lift Station Projects The City is completing the current series of lift station rehabilitation in 2020. It is anticipated the City’s lift stations will require additional rehabilitation by the end of the planning period, given the useful life of non-structural components and continued preventative maintenance of structural elements Other major projects include the Kennydale Lake Line Upgrade and Renewal projects will allow long-term operation of the system and renewal in the long-term. Prioritization of long-term rehabilitation of the lift station and FM projects are based on risk. 8.4.1 LS-01: Lift Station Rehabilitation The Wastewater Utility operates 20 lift stations throughout the City. At this point, the City is going into the maintenance/rehabilitation phase for each of the stations. In 2016, the City completed the process of evaluating the needs for each station. The second phase of full rehabilitation of lift stations began in 2017 and will be completed in 2020. The cost for this has been reported by the City at $900,000 in 2020. 8.4.2 LS-02: Force Main Rehabilitation/Replacement The Wastewater Utility operates lift stations that each have their own FM that delivers the flow to the gravity system. While many of the lift stations have been either rehabilitated or replaced, their FMs often times were not. In 2016, a FM evaluation was completed that prioritized FMs. The replacement and rehabilitation of FMs identified began in 2016 and will be complete in 2020. The estimated cost is $400,000 in 2020. 8.4.3 LS-03: Telemetry Upgrade The telemetry and control system records and stores flow rates and alarms for each lift station, which is then monitored in a supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system. SCADA can then be accessed by the operations and maintenance (O&M) team, as well as engineers, to help the City monitor infrastructure. This system occasionally experiences communication and other issues that result in data errors which can be critical at times. Automatically generated reports are a benefit of the updated SCADA. It is currently anticipated that the system will be updated every five years. The cost for this has been reported by the City to be $300,000 and is planned for 2023. 8.4.4 LS-04: Devil’s Elbow Stream Bank Study It is recommended that the City monitor the condition of stream banks adjacent to the Devil’s Elbow lift station and evaluate alternatives to armor the bank to protect the lift station and FM. The timing for this project is recommended to be completed in the short-term. The FM length is 506 LF with 6 inch diameter. The Level 5 AACE estimated cost for this project is $180,000 in the short-term. 8.4.5 LS-05: Kennydale Lake Line Sewer Upgrade The Kennydale Lake Line Sewer System Improvement Project will allow long-term operation of the system. This program includes design and construction of a preferred alternative: 1) Lake Line System rehabilitation and repair or 2) Replacement with Individual Lift Stations. The City has budgeted a total of $1.7 M for 2019 and $1.7 M for 2020 for a total of $3.4 M for this effort. CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CHAPTER 8 8-8 | JULY 2022 | FINAL 8.4.6 LS-06: Kennydale Lake Line Renewal The Kennydale Lake Line Sewer System Evaluation identified multiple options for the replacing the system at the end of its usable life. For budgetary purposes, the least expensive option, Individual Lift Stations, for $8 M will be budgeted in the long-term. For additional details, see the 2019 Kennydale Lake Line Sewer System Evaluation Phase 2B and 3 Summary Report. 8.4.7 LS-07 Low and Moderately-Low Risk Lift Station and Force Main Rehabilitation This project addresses long-term renewal needs for existing facilities. Lift stations and FMs in the moderately-low to low risk categories are recommended to be evaluated for rehabilitation in the long-term, which are listed in Table 8.4. The recommended rehabilitation is consistent with the City’s historical Lift Station rehabilitation schedule. Table 8.4 Moderately-Low and Low Risk Lift Stations Moderately-Low Risk Low Risk Baxter East Valley Stonegate Shy Creek Airport Lind Avenue Misty Cove Westview Liberty Lake WA Beach Cottonwood Pipers Bluff Note: Abbreviation: WA – Washington. • The cost for rehabilitation of thirteen low and moderately-low risk lift stations is $3.27 M in the long-term. • The cost for FM rehabilitation and replacement is $2.84 M in the long-term. Altogether, FM rehabilitation and replacement and lift station rehabilitation are estimated to cost $6.11 M in the long-term planning horizon. 8.4.8 LS-08: Moderately-High and High Risk Lift Station and Force Main Rehabilitation Lift stations and FMs that are moderately-high to high risk are recommended for rehabilitation in the medium-term, which are listed in Table 8.5. The recommended rehabilitation is consistent with the City’s historical Lift Station rehabilitation schedule. Table 8.5 Moderately-High Risk Lift Stations Moderately-High Risk Talbot Crest Long Wedgewood Devil’s Elbow Kensington Crest Altogether, the planned cost is $2.57 M current value for the medium-term. This does not include the rehabilitation of Lake WA No. 2 and Lake WA Flush stations. CHAPTER 8 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 | 8-9 8.5 Pipeline Projects Pipeline projects address aging gravity sewer and the City’s relatively few pipe capacity deficiencies. The rehabilitation and replacement is the largest City expense during the planning period. These pipeline projects may involve full replacement with open-cut installation or rehabilitation through CIPP. To identify and plan for replacement and rehabilitation activities, the CIP includes condition assessments to identify deficiency and timing, infiltration and inflow (I/I) micro-monitoring, and verification of capacity deficiencies through long-term monitoring. All pipeline projects are shown in Figure 8.1. 8.5.1 Sanitary Sewer Main Replacement/Rehabilitation The City’s annual Sanitary Sewer Main Replacement/Rehabilitation Program identifies and repairs, rehabilitates, or replaces sewer pipe. Activities are mainly prioritized based on risk. Pipe risk will be updated throughout the planning period through routine CCTV inspections and required maintenance and any changes in criticality. More advanced condition assessment may be conducted for high risk pipes. The program currently prioritizes high and moderately-high risk pipes, as defined in this LRWWMP and shown in Figure 8.2. However, lower risk pipes may be addressed when cost-effective. Program costs for the planning period are based on: • Full open-cut replacement of all high-risk sewer pipes (54,000 LF) with a cost of $35.16 M. • Rehabilitation (CIPP) of approximately half of the moderately-high sanitary sewers (177,000 LF) with an annual cost of $27.32 M. • Gravity Sewer condition assessment budgetary placeholder of $50,000. The total cost of this program is $62.54 M in the short-, medium-, and long-term. The actual method of sanitary sewer main replacement or rehabilitation will be determined through site-specific design. The program is administered through separate annual budget line items. 8.5.2 P-01: 2020 Sanitary Sewer Main Replacement/Rehabilitation This is an annual program that is performed to identify and either repair, rehabilitate, or replace portions of sewer pipe that do not meet current standards. The program will be city-wide and may consist of individual projects. The annual cost of this project is $1.5 M in 2020. 8.5.3 P-02: 2021 Sanitary Sewer Main Replacement/Rehabilitation This is an annual program that is performed to identify and either repair, rehabilitate, or replace portions of sewer pipe that do not meet current standards. The program will be city-wide and may consist of individual projects. The annual cost of this project is $2.0 M in 2021. 8.5.4 P-03: 2022 Sanitary Sewer Main Replacement/Rehabilitation This is an annual program that is performed to identify and either repair, rehabilitate, or replace portions of sewer pipe that do not meet current standards. The program will be city-wide and may consist of individual projects. The annual cost of this project is $2.0 M in 2022. CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CHAPTER 8 8-10 | JULY 2022 | FINAL 8.5.5 P-04: 2023 Sanitary Sewer Main Replacement/Rehabilitation This is an annual program that is performed to identify and either repair, rehabilitate, or replace portions of sewer pipe that do not meet current standards. The program will be city-wide and may consist of individual projects. The annual cost of this project is $2.0 M in 2023. 8.5.6 P-05: 2024 Sanitary Sewer Main Replacement/Rehabilitation This is an annual program that is performed to identify and either repair, rehabilitate, or replace portions of sewer pipe that do not meet current standards. The program will be city-wide and may consist of individual projects. The annual cost of this project is $2.0 M in 2024. 8.5.7 P-06: 2025 Sanitary Sewer Main Replacement/Rehabilitation This is an annual program that is performed to identify and either repair, rehabilitate, or replace portions of sewer pipe that do not meet current standards. The program will be city-wide and may consist of individual projects. The annual cost of this project is $3.54 M in 2025. 8.5.8 P-07: 2026-2029 Sanitary Sewer Main Replacement/Rehabilitation This is an annual program that is performed to identify and either repair, rehabilitate, or replace portions of sewer pipe that do not meet current standards. The program will be city-wide and may consist of individual projects. The annual cost of this project is $3.54 M in the medium term. The total cost is $14.14 M. 8.5.9 P-08: 2030-2039 Sanitary Sewer Main Replacement/Rehabilitation This is an annual program that is performed to identify and either repair, rehabilitate, or replace portions of sewer pipe that do not meet current standards. The program will be city-wide and may consist of individual projects. The annual cost of this project is $3.54 M in the long-term. The total cost is $35.36 M. g` g` g` g` g` g` g`g` g`East Valley RdRainier Ave NS 133rd St Oakesdale Ave SWBe n s o n D r S SW 7th St 140th Ave SEN E S u n set Blvd §¨¦405 Maple V a l l e y H w y 164th Ave SECedar River Trail SE Jones Rd Lake Youngs Service RdSE May Valley Rd SE Petro v i t s k y R d 5A & 5B: Mini-Basin 5 41A 25A: Mini-Basin 25 14A 25A: Mini-Basin U315A 48A 05A 21A 21A 22A22A 45A: Mini-Basin 1 2A: Mini-Basin 2 7A: Mini-Basin7 45A: Mini-Basin 45 3A: Mini-Basin3 24A 20B37A20A 1 1 A46A 23A BA Last Revised: September 18, 2019 \\io-fs-1\Data\GIS\GISBackup\Renton\WaterSystemPlan2017\9-2_Overview_of_CIP_Projects.mxd CHAPTER 8 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON Figure 8.1 Overview of CIP Projects O 0 10.5 Miles Disclaimer: Features shown in this figure are for planning purposes and represent approximate locations. Engineering and/or survey accuracyis not implied. Data Sources: City of Renton Legend LS-05 & LS-06: Kennydale Lakeline Upgrade and Renewal PS-09: Sewer Capacity Improvements g`P-10: Flow and Monitoring Program P-11: I/I Evaluation Program City Limits Street Centerlines CHAPTER 8 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 | 8-13 8.5.10 P-09: Sewer Capacity Improvements 2021-2024 Pipe capacity improvements have been categorized together due to the need for infrastructure replacement, rather than rehabilitation, due to lack of pipe hydraulic capacity. Pipe capacity improvements were based on the City’s calibrated sewer hydraulic model to address either pipe size or adverse slope segments. Details on the deficiencies, locations, and other parameters are shown in Table 8.6 and Figure 8.2: • The total length of pipe upsizing is 5,497 LF and will cost $3.64 M. • The cost for reconfiguration of 3,440 LF of adverse slope pipe is $2.17 M. The total $5.81 M in expenses are estimated for the short-, medium-, and long-term. Table 8.6 Upsizing and Reconfiguration Locations and Cost Deficiency ID Location 23 A North 28th Place and Park Avenue North BA SE 24th Street and East Valley Road 46A Sunset Blvd North and NE 3rd Street 37A Edmonds Avenue and NE 9th Street 24A Monroe Avenue and NE 7th Street 11A Grant Avenue and SE 9th Street 20A SE 99th Court 20B Jericho Place and NE 16th Street Note: Abbreviation: ID – identification. 8.5.11 P-10: Flow Monitoring Program The flow monitoring project is to verify deficiencies identified in the hydraulic model for the specified pipe. These locations have typically not been observed deficient, so additional monitoring over a specified period of time is recommended. All deficiency locations are shown with details in Table 8.7. Altogether, the flow monitoring program is estimated to cost $1.47 M and timing will be short-, and medium-term. CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CHAPTER 8 8-14 | JULY 2022 | FINAL Table 8.7 Flow Monitoring Locations and Duration Deficiency ID Location Meter Quantity Duration Manhole ID 05A Talbot Road South and 36th Street to 27th Place 1 2- 5 years MH2998 22A Whitman Court NE and NE 12th Street 2 1-2 years MH3616, MH3622 21A Anacortes Avenue NE and NE 17th Street to NE 26th Street 2 3-7 years MH3542, MH3581 15A Renton High School 2 3-7 years MH2182, MH2118 14A West Sunset Blvd and SW 4th Place 1 3-7 years MH6332 41A Lake Washington Boulevard and Burnett Avenue North 1 3-7 years MH3324 48A NE 7th Street and Harrington Avenue NE 1 3-7 years MH0847 Note: Abbreviation: MH – manhole. 8.5.12 P-11: I/I Evaluation Program Micro-monitoring is recommended for areas in wastewater basins that prior flow monitoring indicated significant I/I in the collection system. This involves installing multiple flow monitors where high I/I is observed and breaking larger areas into smaller basins to refine the location of I/I. By micro-monitoring deficiencies identified in the hydraulic model, an isolated location within the area will be identified for replacement. The downstream start location for micro-monitoring is shown in Table 8.8. Repair or Replacement of identified I/I issues will be allocated to Sanitary Sewer Main Replacement/Rehabilitation. Table 8.8 I/I Evaluation, Quantity, and Duration Deficiency ID Study Quantity Locations Basins to Monitor 45A 5 SSMH004, MH2489, MH2480, MH2258 45, 7, 3, 2, 1 7A 2A 3A 05B 1 MH5516 5 East Valley RdRainier Ave NS 133rd St Oakesdale Ave SWBe n s o n D r S SW 7th St 140th Ave SEN E S u n set Blvd §¨¦405 Maple V a l l e y H w y 164th Ave SECedar River Trail SE Jones Rd Lake Youngs Service RdSE May Valley Rd SE Petro v i t s k y R d Last Revised: August 23, 2019 \\io-fs-1\Data\GIS\GISBackup\Renton\WaterSystemPlan2017\Fig9-3_High_and_ModeratelyHigh_Gravity_Sewer_w_Upsizing_Reconfig.mxd CHAPTER 8 | LONG RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON Figure 8.2 High and Moderately-High Gravity Sewer Risk with Upsizing and Reconfiguration O 0 10.5 Miles Disclaimer: Features shown in this figure are for planning purposes and represent approximate locations. Engineering and/or survey accuracyis not implied. Data Sources: City of Renton Legend High Risk Pipes Moderately High Risk Pipes Pipe Upsize Projects Pipe Reconfiguration Projects City Limits Street Centerlines CHAPTER 8 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 | 8-17 8.6 General Projects General programmatic projects involve necessary funding which cannot be allocated to a specific facility type. These projects involve implementation and compliance with regulatory requirements such as the Wastewater Operations Master Plan (OMP). Additionally, future miscellaneous and emergency projects for all infrastructure types have been allocated as general projects. 8.6.1 G-01: Wastewater Operations Master Plan This project will be an update to the Wastewater OMP created by the City. The purpose of the OMP is to document current procedures and programs into an O&M manual and review existing programs for effectiveness and compliance of potential future regulatory requirements. Additionally, the OMP analyzes and recommends program improvements in accordance with the City’s long-term goals and objectives. Based on the City’s existing resources and implementation budget, it is recommended to implement this OMP over 5 years. The cost for this OMP is estimated by the City as $600,000 in 2020. 8.6.2 G-02: Long-Range Wastewater Master Plan The LRWWMP considers a 20-year planning period for the analysis of existing and projected conditions. The sewage collection system’s operational and capital requirements are detailed to achieve the City’s operational goals and fulfill regulatory requirements. The cost is estimated at $300,000 in 2024. 8.6.3 G-03: Sanitary Sewer Hydraulic Model As discussed in Chapter 7 – Operations and Maintenance in the System Infrastructure Capacity, the City has a hydraulic model that allows them to evaluate the existing sanitary sewer system and determine areas of capacity constraint, and provide a tool for planning future improvements. The model needs to be updated as the system expands, and flow monitoring and physical system data is collected by survey or field inspection. The cost is estimated by the City as $600,000 over two years in the short-term for the model to be updated in 2021 and 2022. 8.6.4 G-04: Miscellaneous / Emergency Projects This project is to perform small repairs, replacements, or installations of sewers that are not scheduled in the CIP, but become a priority due to unexpected problems, failures, or coordination with other projects. This could also include service to planned annexation areas and any future new pipeline extensions. Based on historical spending, the cost is estimated by the City as $200,000 annually, or $4.0 M, in the short-, medium-, and long-term planning horizon. 8.7 Summary of CIP Altogether, recommend improvements include eight lift station projects, eleven pipelines, and four general projects. The majority of projects are allocated as maintenance projects at $80.94 M of the total $96.87 M. Cross category projects follow at $10.25 M, as well as planning projects at $5.68 M. Seventy-seven percent of short-term project funding is allocated to pipelines with general at nine percent. In the short-term, lift stations require the remaining fourteen percent of funding. CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CHAPTER 8 8-18 |JULY 2022 | FINAL The CIP recommends investing $26.97 M into the wastewater system during short-term. The annual short-term cost for all recommended programs is approximately $4.5 M per year from 2020 to 2025. For medium-term, the CIP recommends an additional $17.8 M be invested to continue these programs. The annual medium-term cost is approximately $4.45 M per year from 2026 to 2039. For long-term, the CIP recommends $52.1 M be invested to continue to maintain the sewer system. The annual long-term cost is approximately $5.21 M. Detailed sheets for each CIP project presented in this chapter can be found in Appendix K. Table 8.9 summarizes the total cost and annual cost for each planning period. Table 8.9 CIP Planning Period Summary Planning Period Total Cost Annual Cost Short-term (2020-2025) $26.97 M $4.5 M Medium-term (2026-2029) $17.8 M $4.45 M Long-term (2030-2039) $52.10 M $5.21 M Pipelines account for a majority of the capital cost of planned projects (74 percent) at $71.51 M of the $96.87 M. Lift stations account for $20.16 M (21 percent) of the total CIP. The remaining $5.2 M (6 percent) is associated with general projects. Table 8.10 summarizes the total estimated capital costs by facility type. Figure 8.3 shows the various facility types of CIP allocation. Figure 8.3 Cost by Facility Type CHAPTER 8 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 | 8-19 Table 8.10 CIP Summary by Facility Type Project ID Title Total Capital Cost ($) Planning Period Short-term (2020-2025) Medium-term (2026-2029) Long-term (2030-2039) Lift Station LS-01 Lift Station Rehabilitation $900,000 $900,000 LS-02 FM Rehabilitation/Replacement $400,000 $400,000 LS-03 Telemetry Upgrade $300,000 $300,000 LS-04 Devil's Elbow Stream Bank Study $180,000 $180,000 LS-05 Kennydale Lake Line Sewer Upgrade $1,700,000 $1,700,000 LS-06 Kennydale Lake Line Renewal $8,000,000 $8,000,000 LS-07 Low and Moderately-Low Risk Lift Station and FM Rehabilitation $6,110,000 $6,110,000 LS-08 Moderately-High and High Risk Lift Station and FM Rehabilitation $2,570,000 $2,570,000 Pipeline P-01 2020 Sanitary Sewer Main Repl/Rehab $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $0 $0 P-02 2021 Sanitary Sewer Main Repl/Rehab $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 $0 P-03 2022 Sanitary Sewer Main Repl/Rehab $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 $0 P-04 2023 Sanitary Sewer Main Repl/Rehab $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 $0 P-05 2024 Sanitary Sewer Main Repl/Rehab $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 $0 P-06 2025 Sanitary Sewer Main Repl/Rehab $3,540,000 $3,540,000 $0 $0 P-07 2026-2029 Sanitary Sewer Main Repl/Rehab $14,160,000 $0 $14,160,000 $0 P-08 2030-2039 Sanitary Sewer Main Repl/Rehab $35,360,000 $0 $0 $35,360,000 P-09 Sewer Capacity Improvements $5,800,000 $5,800,000 $0 $0 P-10 Flow Monitoring Program $1,470,000 $1,200,000 $270,000 $0 P-11 I/I Evaluation Program $1,680,000 $1,050,000 $0 $630,000 General G-01 Wastewater OMP $300,000 $300,000 G-02 Long-Range Wastewater Management Plan $300,000 $300,000 G-03 Sanitary Sewer Hydraulic Model $600,000 $600,000 G-04 Miscellaneous/Emergency Projects $4,000,000 $1,200,000 $800,000 $2,000,000 CHAPTER 9 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 | 9-1 Chapter 9 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 9.1 Introduction This chapter analyzes the financial status of the City of Renton’s (City’s) water utility for the Long-Range Wastewater Management Plan (LRWWMP). The purpose of this chapt er is to provide a cursory evaluation to show the City’s ability to finance necessary Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects in Chapter 8 – Capital Improvement Program . The following sections present the City’s financial status, funding required to finance the scheduled improvements, potential funding sources, and the impact of water system improvements on water rates. 9.2 Historical Financial Performance The City and King County have updated their fees and rates. In November 2021, the City released their fee schedule for 202 1-2022, which can be found on the City’s website at rentonwa.gov. Key rates and fees related to this Plan are summarized below. 9.2.1 Current Wastewater Rates, Fees, and Charges The City and King County (KC) wastewater rates are summarized in Table 9.1. Table 9.1 2022 Wastewater Utility Monthly Rates(1) Category City KC Single-Family $31.74 $49.27 Other Users Minimum Charge(3) $31.74 $49.27 Per 10 0 cf(2) $3.58 $6.57 Notes: (1) Outside City Limits: Rates are 1.5 times the above for the Renton rates. (2) cf – cubic feet. (3) Includes 750 cf. Construction permit fees are summarized in Table 9.2. CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CHAPTER 9 9-2 | JULY 2022 | FINAL Table 9.2 Construction Permit Fees(1) Type of Service 2021 2022 Residential $375 $375 Commercial $375 $375 Industrial $375 $375 Repair of any of the above $375 $375 Cut and Cap/Demolition Permit $375 $375 Ground Water Discharge (temporary connection to wastewater system for one-time discharge of contaminated ground water to 50,000 gallons) $375 + KC sewer rate discharged amount $375 + KC sewer rate discharged amount Note: (1) Per Res. 4422, fees for an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) will be waived as of the adoption date of Res. 4422, through December 31, 2022. The City pays for expansion of the sewer system through system development charges (SDCs). The SDC allocation is based on a property’s associated water met er size as shown in Table 9.3. KC also has a charge for first time connection to sanitary sewers in KC, including the City’s Sewer Service Area, called the sewage treatment capacity charge. This charge pays for building sewage treatment capacity to serve newly connected customers. Single-family customers pay $66.35 per month for 15 years. It may also be paid as a lump sum of $9,927.44 to KC. This charge is established annually and changes to the capacity charge apply only to new connections. Table 9.3 2021-2022 System Development Charge(1) Wastewater Fee Meter Size, inch 2 021 2022 5/8 x 3/4 $3,450 $3,500 1 1/2 $17,250 $17,500 2 $27,600 $28,000 3 $55,2 00 $56,000 4 $86,250 $87,500 6 $172,500 $175,000 8 $276,000 $280,000 Note: (1) Outside City Limits: Rates are 1.5 times the above for the Renton rates. (2) Per Res. 4422, utility system development charges (hookup fees) for an ADU will be reduced by 50% as of the adoption date of Res. 4422, through December 31, 2022. 9.2.2 Historical Financial Operations The City’s operating revenues and expenses for the years 2015 to 2019 are su mmarized in Table 9.4 and Table 9.5, respectively. The tables present City and KC wholesale water services (King County Metro Fund) revenue and expense. The Plan was developed using 2019 historical operating revenue and expenses and was not updated for the future years during Plan development . WATER SYSTEM PLAN | CHAPTER 9 | CITY OF TUMWATER FINAL | JULY 2022 | 9-3 Table 9.4 Historical Operating Revenue(1) Operating Revenue 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Budget City Revenue $ 10,880,141 $ 13,286,986 $ 15,143,808 $ 12,124,358 $ 11,582,615 King County Metro Fund $ 16,638,722 $ 16,142,469 $ 16,922,259 $ 16,886,297 $ 16,922,613 Total $ 27,518,863 $ 29,429,455 $ 32,066,067 $ 29,010,655 $ 28,505,228 Note: (1) Source: City’s Financial Statements. Table 9.5 Historical Operating Expenses(1) Operating Expenses 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Budget City Expense $ 6,832,715 $ 13,785,490 $ 11,593,468 $ 10,655,159 $ 13,858,678 King County Metro Fund $16,638,722 $ 15,140,189 $ 16,827,147 $ 16,463,648 $ 16,922,613 Total $ 23,471,437 $ 28,925,679 $ 28,420,615 $ 27,118,807 $ 30,781,291 Note: (1) Source: City’s financial statements. CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CHAPTER 9 9-4 | JULY 2022 | FINAL 9.2.3 Wastewater Utility Fund The City maintains substantial fund balances to ensure continued operation of the Utility. These include operation, bond, and undesignated as shown in Table 9.6. Table 9.6 Historical Utility Fund Utility Fund 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Budget Operation $ 838,706 $ 838,706 $ 838,706 $ 661,227 $ 661,227 Bond $ 307,857 $ 806,900 $ 373,343 $ 949,646 $ 954,259 Undesignated $ 6,442,525 $ 9,990,909 $ 12,647,613 $ 15,799,129 $ 17,263,715 Total $ 7,589,088 $ 11,636,515 $ 13,859,662 $ 17,410,002 $ 18,879,201 9.2.4 Outstanding Debt The City has outstanding debt through the Waterworks Revenue Bond debt and Public Works Trust Fund Loans. As of 2019, the Waterworks Revenue Bond has $22.3 million (M) in outstanding principal debt and the Public Works Trust Fund Loans have $1.9 M in outstanding principal debt. 9.3 Financial Analysis The City’s ability to fund its CIP was evaluated by comparing the historical and future funding requirements. The financial analysis was developed in 2020 using 2019 data and was not updated to reflect future years during Plan development. 9.3.1 Projected Capital Improvement Program Levels Projected CIP is described in Chapter 8 – Capital Improvement Program and summarized in Table 9.7 and Figure 9.1 below. The following terms are used to define timing and prioritization into three planning periods: • Short-term (2020 - 2025). Proposed facilities determined to be a high priority. • Medium-term (2026 - 2029). Proposed facilities determined to be a medium priority or proposed facilities to service major growth areas to be developed in the medium -term . • Long-term (2030 - 2039). Proposed facilities determined to be a low priority or proposed facilities to service major growth areas to be developed in the long -term . Table 9.7 shows the expected cost per planning period. Comparison of annual CIP cost. Table 9.7 CIP Planning Period Summary Planning Period Total Cost Annual Cost Short -term (2020 -2025) $ 26.27 M $ 4.38 M Medium -term (2026 -2029) $ 17.79 M $ 4.45 M Long-term (2030 -2039) $ 51.47 M $ 5.15 M 9.3.2 Financial Analysis A Wastewater Revenue Requirement Model (WRRM) was conducted in 2018 to analyze the future finances of the City. The LRWWMP’s CIP differs from the WRRM CIP; therefore, this Section seeks to show the financial capacity of the LRWWMP CIP by comparing of the two CIP CHAPTER 9 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 | 9-5 costs. For the purpose of this analysis, all assumptions in the WRRM were considered applicable, including expected rate increase of 2 percent from 2020 to 2024. The differences between the proposed LRWWMP and WRRM CIP, as shown in Figure 9.1 and Table 9.8 . The proposed LRWWMP and WRRM CIP are both in current dollars. The annual WRRM CIP spending is $4 M from 2021 through 2024 and then $4.5 M from 2025 through 2029, as shown in Table 9.8 . With the WRRM the fund balance does not get drawn down. The LRWWMP CIP shows annual spending from 2021 through 2024 will be higher than the WRRM, and from 2025 to 2029 the proposed CIP is lower than the WRRM. This results in a net drawdown of approximately $1.5 M dollars of the 2018 $15.8 M undesignated wastewater funds. This spending is additional planned to address existing repair and replacement (R&R) and capacity needs in the system . This analysis to show the City’s financial capacity in respect to the LRWWMP CIP. The City is not committed to CIP spending summarized in the LRWWMP. Per the City budgeting policy, the Utility’s spending is based on a biannual budget approved by the City Cou ncil. Figure 9.1 CIP Proposed and Rate Analysis Model 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 $- $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,000 Revenue Analysis Model CIP Proposed CIP CITY OF RENTON | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CHAPTER 9 9-6 | JULY 2022 | FINAL Table 9.8 Projected Future Operating Expenses CIP Analysis 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 WRRM CIP $ 4,500,000 $ 4,000,000 $ 4 ,000,000 $ 4 ,000,000 $ 4,000,000 $ 4,500,000 $ 4,500,000 $ 4,500,000 $ 4,500,000 $ 4,500,000 Proposed CIP $ 5,010,200 $ 4,130,000 $ 5 ,280,000 $ 4 ,230,000 $ 4,1 6 0,000 $ 3,950,000 $ 4,6 00,000 $ 4,380,000 $ 4,380,000 $ 4,380,000 Fund Balance Change ($510,200) ($ 130,000) ($ 1,280,000) ($ 230,000) ($ 160,000) $ 550,000 ($ 100,000) $120,000 $120,000 $120,000 CHAPTER 9 | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 | 9-7 9.4 Available Funding Assistance and Financing The ten -year planning period shows the City will have adequate funding for the anticipated short -term projects shown in the CIP, so more bonds and funding isn’t necessary. However, there are bond assistance and grant options available if needed. 9.4.1 Grants an d Low Cost Loans The Infrastructure Assistance Coordinating Council (IACC) is a non-profit organization that helps improve the delivery of infrastructure assistance, both financial and technical, to local governments and tribes in Washington State. The IAC C has put together a list of funding opportunities that are currently available for drinking water and wastewater projects. The Public Works Trust Fund (PWTF) is a potential loan for eligible projects including repair, replacement, and construction of infrastructure for domestic water projects that improve public health and safety, respond to environmental issues, promote economic development, or upgrade system performance. 9.4.2 Bond Financing Bond financing is obtained by issuing general obligation or revenue bonds. Revenue bonds do not require voter approval and may be repaid with revenues from rates, miscellaneo us fees or connection charges. 9.5 Summary Due to unusual circumstances from COVID-19, short term revenue cannot be predicted, b ut in the long term, it is not expected to heavily impact the budget and long-term analysis. Over the next five years, the City is anticipating spending approximately $22,810,000 in capital projects. CIP spending as proposed for the short term can still be completed although it will draw down the reserve fund. However, by 2025 it is expected that even with CIP spending, the reserve fund will begin to build up again. Based on the City’s 2020 rate study, rates are expected to increase at 2 percent from 2020 till 2024. APPENDICES | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FIN AL | JULY 2022 Appendix A SEPA CHECKLIST SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 1 of 22 SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of checklist: Governmental agencies use this checklist to help determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant. This information is also helpful to determine if available avoidance, minimization or compensatory mitigation measures will address the probable significant impacts or if an environmental impact statement will be prepared to further analyze the proposal. Instructions for applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Please answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. You may need to consult with an agency specialist or private consultant for some questions. You may use “not applicable” or "does not apply" only when you can explain why it does not apply and not when the answer is unknown. You may also attach or incorporate by reference additional studies reports. Complete and accurate answers to these questions often avoid delays with the SEPA process as well as later in the decision-making process. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Instructions for Lead Agencies: Please adjust the format of this template as needed. Additional information may be necessary to evaluate the existing environment, all interrelated aspects of the proposal and an analysis of adverse impacts. The checklist is considered the first but not necessarily the only source of information needed to make an adequate threshold determination. Once a threshold determination is made, the lead agency is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the checklist and other supporting documents. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: For nonproject proposals (such as ordinances, regulations, plans and programs), complete the applicable parts of sections A and B plus the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). Please completely answer all questions that apply and note that the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proponent," and "affected geographic area," respectively. The lead agency may exclude (for non-projects) questions in Part B - Environmental Elements –that do not contribute meaningfully to the analysis of the proposal. A. Background [HELP] 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: City of Renton 2021 Long Range Wastewater Management Plan 2. Name of applicant: City of Renton – Utility Systems Division SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 2 of 22 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Ann Fowler, CIP Project Manager, Wastewater Utility 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 425-430-7211 afowler@rentonwa.gov 4. Date checklist prepared: April 29, 2021 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): The City of Renton 2021 Long Range Wastewater Management Plan is scheduled for adoption in 2021. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No. This Plan lists capital improvement projects planned by the City within the next 10 years and long-term projects over the next 20 years. Proposed locations are shown in the Plan. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Depending upon the scope of the projects proposed in the Plan, an individual environmental checklist and threshold determination would be completed as specified projects are proposed for construction. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. At this time, there are no known pending applications for general applicability related to the area covered by the sewer system. There may be applications pending related to improvements to the sewer system such as various on-going plats and developer extensions occurring within the sewer service area. The City plans to adopt the capital improvement plan outlined in this document as part of the City’s 10-year capital improvements plan. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. The 2021 Long-Range Wastewater Management Plan will need to be approved by the Renton City Council and the Washington State Department of Ecology. The King County Utilities Technical Review Committee (UTRC) will review the plan and make recommendations to the Executive and County Council as to the consistency of such SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 3 of 22 items with adopted county policies and codes. King County will review and approve franchises to allow the construction of sewer facilities in county rights-of-way. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) The 2021 Long-Range Wastewater Management Plan (LRWWMP) addresses policies, criteria, assumptions and recommendations for the City's planning area. The major purpose of the Plan is to provide a long range plan for facility improvements necessary to serve the estimated population at saturation. The Plan addresses facility reliability, public health, groundwater and environmental protection, operation and maintenance, and financing issues. The plan also addresses the need to expand Renton’s sewer service area into its Urban Growth Area as the appropriate provider of the urban service per the King County Countywide Planning Policies. This checklist does not address the specific projects addressed in the five year capital improvement program. This is a programmatic checklist and does not address any site specific conditions. These conditions as well as the associated impacts will be discussed in the SEPA reviews of each project. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The area covered by this comprehensive sewer system plan is the sewer service area as shown in Figure 2.1 of the LRWWMP. Renton has entered into boundary agreements with most of the sewer service providers adjacent to the City. These service boundaries are established and are not generally altered by annexations. B. Environmental Elements [HELP] 1. Earth [help] a. General description of the site: (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other _____________ The sewer service area includes steep slopes, several hills, a plateau, and river valley areas. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 4 of 22 b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The slopes vary from flat (zero percent) to very steep (over 40 percent). Steep slopes exist along the Maple Valley Highway to the north and south of the Cedar River Valley (southern edge of Renton Highlands; northern edge of Scenic Hill and Rolling Hills), along the eastern side of I-405 (eastern edge of the Renton Highlands), along the southern (SR 900) and eastern (Rainier Ave N) edges of Renton West Hill, along the western (SR 167) and northern (I-405) edges of Talbot Hill and the western edge (I-405) of Scenic Hill. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any agricultural land of long-term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. According to the USDA’s Web Soil Survey, the main soil types within the water service area include: Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, Alderwood and Kitsap soils, Arents- Alderwood material, and Indianola loamy sand. Alderwood gravelly sandy loam makes up over 30% of the water service area and is considered prime farmland. Using engineering classifications: there is a wide variety of highly variable glacial deposits in the water service area that include clay, silt, sand, gravel, cobbles, and boulders. In the river valley areas, there is a variety of modern alluvium and undifferentiated deltaic deposits. Adoption of the LRWWMP will not itself result in the removal of agricultural soil. Specific projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for their impact to agricultural soils prior to implementation. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Within the City, there are areas of unstable soils including steep slopes and historic coal mines. Some alluvial deposits in the Cedar River Valley and old Black River Valley may be subject to liquefaction during seismic events. Sensitive areas are mapped by the City and are subject to regulation under Renton Municipal Code Title IV, Development Regulations. Specific projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for their soil conditions prior to implementation. e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. N/A, non-project action. However, the sewer system construction projects identified in the LRWWMP will require excavation and grading of an undetermined quantity of material. Specific projects will be subject to individual environmental review before implementation. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. N/A, non-project action. Adoption of the LRWWMP will not itself result in the clearing, construction, or use of soils, however, the Plan’s programs and projects may result in erosion from construction. Specific projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for erosion potential prior to implementation. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 5 of 22 g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? N/A, non-project action. Specific projects will be subject to individual environmental review before implementation. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: N/A, non-project action. Where applicable, best management practices, along with erosion and sedimentation control measures, will be used in all areas of potential erosion. Specific projects will be subject to individual environmental review before implementation. 2. Air [help] a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during construction, operation, and maintenance when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. N/A, non-project action. Adoption of the LRWWMP will not itself result in air emissions, however, the Plan’s programs and projects may be a source of emissions from construction activity and increased usage of generators during maintenance, testing, and power outages events. Specific projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for air emissions potential prior to implementation. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. N/A, non-project action. Specific projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for off-site sources of emissions prior to implementation. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: N/A, non-project action. However, standard emissions controls for construction equipment will be utilized during construction of projects recommended by this Plan. Specific projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for their potential impact and corresponding mitigation measures prior to implementation. 3. Water [help] a. Surface Water: [help] 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. There are multiple surface water bodies within the sewer system area. The northwest boundary of the sewer service area is the shoreline of Lake Washington. The rivers and streams that run through the sewer service area SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 6 of 22 include the Cedar River, Green River, May Creek, and Springbrook Creek. The Cedar River is tributary to Lake Washington and the Green River is a tributary to Puget Sound. May Creek flows into Lake Washington and Springbrook Creek flows into the Green River. All water bodies and wetland boundaries are cataloged in the City’s GIS (COR Maps). 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. N/A, non-project action. However, the Plan’s programs and projects may require work within 200 feet of surface water bodies. These projects will be subject to individual review and compliance with the City’s Shoreline Master Program. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. N/A, non-project action. Adoption of the LRWWMP will not itself result in the direct alteration of the environment, however, the Plan’s programs and projects may result in the addition or removal of fill and dredge material. The potential impacts of these actions are currently unknown. Projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for potential impacts and corresponding mitigation measures prior to implementation. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. N/A, non-project action. Adoption of the LRWWMP will not itself result in the withdrawal or diversion of surface water. Projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for potential impacts and corresponding mitigation measures prior to implementation. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. N/A, non-project action. However, some portions of the City are within or adjacent to 100-year floodplains. Projects that are subject to environmental review will identify floodplain boundaries prior to implementation. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. N/A, non-project action. However, no waste material will be discharged into surface waters during construction of projects recommended by this Plan. Projects that are subject to environmental review will identify discharge plans prior to implementation. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 7 of 22 b. Ground Water: [help] 1) Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well. Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. N/A, non-project action. Adoption of the LRWWMP will not itself result in the withdrawal of groundwater. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals. . . ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. N/A, non-project action. However, no waste material will be discharged into the ground during projects recommended by this Plan. Projects that are subject to environmental review will identify discharge plans prior to implementation. c. Water runoff (including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. N/A, non-project action. Adoption of the LRWWMP will not itself result in runoff. Projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for potential impacts and corresponding mitigation measures prior to implementation. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. N/A, non-project action. Adoption of the LRWWMP will not itself result in waste materials entering ground or surface waters. Projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for potential impacts and corresponding mitigation measures prior to implementation. 3) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe. N/A, non-project action. Adoption of the LRWWMP will not itself result in any such impacts. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, if any: N/A, non-project action. Adoption of the LRWWMP will not itself result in any such impacts. Projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 8 of 22 potential impacts and their corresponding reduction and control measures prior to implementation. 4. Plants [help] a. Check the types of vegetation found on the site: __x__deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other __x__evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other __x__shrubs __x__grass __x__pasture ____crop or grain ____ Orchards, vineyards or other permanent crops. __x__ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other __x_water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other _ x__other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? N/A, non-project action. Adoption of the LRWWMP will not itself result in the direct removal or alteration of vegetation, however, the Plan’s programs and projects may result in these impacts. The potential impacts of these actions are currently unknown. Projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for potential vegetation impacts and corresponding mitigation measures prior to implementation. c. List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. N/A, non-project action. Specific projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for their potential impact to threatened or endangered plant species on or near the site. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: N/A, non-project action. Specific projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for vegetation plans before implementation. e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. N/A, non-project action. Specific projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for noxious and invasive plant species on or near the site before plan implementation. 5. Animals [help] a. List any birds and other animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 9 of 22 N/A, non-project action. Many of the following birds and animals could be present within the water service area. Specific projects will be subject to individual environmental review prior to implementation. Examples include: Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: gulls Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: possum, raccoon, rabbits, squirrels Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the following animals are listed as threatened within the water service area: bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus), streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata), and yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus). According NOAA, the City is within the critical habitat for Puget Sound ESU Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and Puget Sound DPS Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Specific projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for their potential impact to threatened or endangered wildlife species on or near the site. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. N/A, non-project action. However, the entire state of Washington is within the Pacific flyway and two rivers within the sewer service area (Cedar and Green Rivers) are spawning routes for salmon and steelhead trout. Specific projects will be subject to individual environmental review prior to implementation. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: N/A, non-project action. Projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for potential impacts to wildlife and their corresponding preservation or enhancement measures prior to implementation. e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. N/A, non-project action. Specific projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for invasive animal species on or near the site prior to implementation. 6. Energy and Natural Resources [help] a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 10 of 22 N/A, non-project action. Adoption of the LRWWMP will not itself use energy. Specific projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for energy and other natural resource uses prior to implementation. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. N/A, non-project action. Adoption of the LRWWMP will not itself affect the use of solar energy. Specific projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for effects on solar energy by adjacent properties prior to implementation. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: N/A, non-project action. Adoption of the LRWWMP will not itself result in the direct reduction or control of energy impacts, however, the Plan’s programs and projects may result in energy conservation features. Specific projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for energy conservation features prior to implementation. 7. Environmental Health [help] a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. N/A, non-project action. Adoption of the LRWWMP will not itself result in direct environmental hazards, however, the potential impacts from the Plan’s programs and projects are currently unknown. Specific projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for potential environmental health hazards and corresponding mitigation measures prior to implementation. 1) Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. N/A, non-project action. Specific projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for known or possible contamination at the site prior to implementation. 2) Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity. N/A, non-project action. Specific projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for existing hazardous chemicals or conditions at the site prior to implementation. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 11 of 22 3) Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project's development or construction, or at any time during the operating life of the project. N/A, non-project action. Specific projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for toxic or hazardous chemicals during the development, construction, or lifetime of the project prior to implementation. 4) Describe special emergency services that might be required. N/A, non-project action. Adoption of the LRWWMP will not itself require emergency services, however, the potential impacts from the Plan’s programs and projects are currently unknown. Specific projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for special emergency services prior to implementation. 5) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: N/A, non-project action. Adoption of the LRWWMP will not itself require the reduction or control of environmental health hazards, however, the potential impacts from the Plan’s programs and projects are currently unknown. Specific projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for environmental health hazards and corresponding reduction or control measures prior to implementation. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? N/A, non-project action. Specific projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for surrounding noise prior to implementation. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indi- cate what hours noise would come from the site. N/A, non-project action. Adoption of the LRWWMP will not itself create any long- term or short-term noise, however, the potential impacts from the Plan’s programs and projects are currently unknown. Specific projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for potential project noise prior to implementation. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 12 of 22 N/A, non-project action. Specific projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for potential project noise and corresponding measures to reduce or control noise impacts prior to implementation. 8. Land and Shoreline Use [help] a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe. The following land uses are present within the water service area: industrial, commercial, residential, public, park, and other land uses. Adoption of the LRWWMP will not itself affect any land use on nearby or adjacent properties, however, the potential impacts from the Plan’s programs and projects are currently unknown. Specific projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for individual land uses prior to implementation. b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest use? In the past, the City contained working farmlands as a small part of the economic base. Adoption of the LRWWMP will not itself convert any agricultural or forest land. Specific projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for effects to working farm or forest land prior to implementation. 1) Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how: N/A, non-project action. Adoption of the LRWWMP will not itself affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land, however, the potential impacts from the Plan’s programs and projects are currently unknown. Specific projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for affects by or affects to working farm or forest land prior to implementation. c. Describe any structures on the site. There are many types of structures in the sewer service area including: industrial, commercial, residential, schools, hotels, and other common structures. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? N/A, non-project action. Adoption of the LRWWMP will not itself demolish any structures, however, the potential impacts from the Plan’s programs and projects are currently unknown. Specific projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for planned demolition prior to implementation. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 13 of 22 e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The sewer service area encompasses a wide variety of zoning classifications including: resource conservation, residential, commercial, urban, and industrial areas. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? The sewer service area encompasses multiple comprehensive plan land use designations including: residential low density, residential medium density, residential high density, commercial & mixed use, commercial office residential, and employment area. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? The sewer service area encompasses multiple areas classified with shoreline designations including: natural, urban conservancy, single family residential, shoreline high-intensity, shoreline isolated high-intensity, and aquatic environments. Specific projects recommended by the Plan will be required to comply with the City’s Shoreline Master Program. h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county? If so, specify. The sewer service area encompasses multiple areas classified as critical areas. These include: flood hazard areas, seismic hazard areas, steep slopes, habitat conservation areas, streams, lakes, wellhead protection areas, and wetlands. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? The City’s sewer system provided service to a full time residential and commercial population of approximately 113,792 in 2012, and is estimated to increase to 219,014 by 2040. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? N/A, non-project action. Adoption of the LRWWMP will not itself displace any people. The potential impacts from the Plan’s programs and projects are currently unknown, however, it is unlikely any project would lead to displacement. Specific projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for displacement prior to implementation. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 14 of 22 N/A, non-project action. Specific projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for displacement prior to implementation. L. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The City of Renton Long Range Wastewater Management Plan is written in accordance with all existing local, county, and state regulations including the City’s Comprehensive Plan. m. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts to agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any: N/A, non-project action. Specific projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for potential impacts to agricultural and forest lands, and their corresponding preservation or enhancement measures, prior to implementation. 9. Housing [help] a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, mid- dle, or low-income housing. N/A, non-project action. The adoption of the LRWWMP and its corresponding programs and projects are not intended to provide housing units. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. N/A, non-project action. The adoption of the LRWWMP and its corresponding programs and projects are not intended to provide housing units. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: N/A, non-project action. The adoption of the LRWWMP and its corresponding programs and projects are not intended to provide housing units. 10. Aesthetics [help] a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? N/A, non-project action. Adoption of the LRWWMP will not itself result in a structure. Specific projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for structure height and material prior to implementation. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 15 of 22 N/A, non-project action. Specific projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for view alteration or obstruction prior to implementation. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: N/A, non-project action. Specific projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for their potential aesthetic impacts and corresponding mitigation measures prior to implementation. 11. Light and Glare [help] a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? N/A, non-project action. Adoption of the LRWWMP will not itself result in light or glare. Specific projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for potential light or glare prior to implementation. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? N/A, non-project action. Adoption of the LRWWMP will not itself result in light or glare. Specific projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for potential light or glare prior to implementation. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? N/A, non-project action. Adoption of the LRWWMP itself will not be affected by existing off-site sources of light or glare. Specific projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for existing off-site light or glare prior to implementation. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: N/A, non-project action. Adoption of the LRWWMP itself will not be affected by existing off-site sources of light or glare. Specific projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for their potential light impacts and corresponding mitigation measures prior to implementation. 12. Recreation [help] a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Within and near the sewer service area are numerous parks and recreational opportunities, including Maplewood Golf Course. There are also streams and rivers within the water service area that provide recreational opportunities. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 16 of 22 b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. N/A, non-project action. Adoption of the LRWWMP will not itself displace any recreational uses. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: N/A, non-project action. Specific projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for their impacts on recreation and corresponding mitigation measures prior to implementation. 13. Historic and cultural preservation [help] a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers ? If so, specifically describe. N/A, non-project action. Adoption of the LRWWMP will not itself involve any historical buildings or sites. Specific projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for their proximity to historical buildings or sites prior to implementation. b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. N/A, non-project action. Adoption of the LRWWMP will not itself involve any cultural resources. Specific projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for their proximity to cultural resources prior to implementation. c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc. N/A, non-project action. Specific projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for their impacts on historic sites and cultural resources on or near the project site. d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required. N/A, non-project action. Specific projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for their impacts on historic and cultural resources and corresponding mitigation measures prior to implementation. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 17 of 22 14. Transportation [help] a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Many streets and highways serve the Sewer System Plan area. Major highways passing through the city include: Interstate 405 and State Routes 167, 169, 515 and 900. Major arterials providing access to and from the city include Rainier Avenue, Benson Road, Carr Road, and Duvall Avenue. b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Public transportation within the City includes bus and train services provided by Sound Transit and King County Metro. Specific projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for their proximity to public transit prior to implementation. c. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or non-project proposal have? How many would the project or proposal eliminate? N/A, non-project action. Adoption of the LRWWMP will not itself impact any parking features. Specific projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for their impacts to parking spaces and corresponding mitigation measures prior to implementation. d. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle or state transportation facilities, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). N/A, non-project action. Adoption of the LRWWMP will not itself require any new or improved transportation features. Specific projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for their impacts to transportation prior to implementation. e. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. N/A, non-project action. The Plan’s programs and projects may occur in the immediate vicinity of water, rail, or air transportation. Specific projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for transportation prior to implementation. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or proposal? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be trucks (such as commercial and nonpassenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates? SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 18 of 22 N/A, non-project action. Adoption of the LRWWMP will not itself affect the amount of vehicular trips per day in the area, however, the potential impacts from the Plan’s programs and projects are currently unknown. Specific projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for effects to transportation prior to implementation. g. Will the proposal interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe. N/A, non-project action. The potential impacts from the Plan’s programs and projects are currently unknown, however, it is unlikely any project would affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural or forest products. Specific projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for the movement of products prior to implementation. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: N/A, non-project action. Specific projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for their impacts on transportation and corresponding mitigation measures prior to implementation. 15. Public Services [help] a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. N/A, non-project action. The potential impacts from the Plan’s programs and projects are currently unknown, however, it is unlikely any project would increase the need for public services. Specific projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for public service needs prior to implementation. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. N/A, non-project action. Specific projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for their impacts on public services and corresponding mitigation measures prior to implementation. 16. Utilities [help] a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other ___________ SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 19 of 22 b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. The recommended repairs, replacements, improvements, or extensions to infrastructure in the LRWWMP are required to meet the level of service criteria set forth by local, county, and state governments. The infrastructure includes lift stations, sewer mains, and related appurtenances. Each specific recommended project, subject to environmental review, will be evaluated for its impacts prior to implementation. C. Signature [HELP] The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: ___________________________________________________ Name of signee ___Ann Fowler____________________________ _________ Position and Agency/Organization CIP Project Manager/ City of Renton ______ Date Submitted: April 29, 2021 D. Supplemental sheet for nonproject actions [HELP] (IT IS NOT NECESSARY to use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; pro- duction, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? The Long Range Wastewater Management Plan will not itself increase discharge to water, emissions to air, hazardous substances, or production of noise, however, the Plan’s programs and projects have the potential for these effects. For example, projects recommended by the Plan that require construction may result in exhaust emissions, dust, and noise from construction equipment as well as temporary storage of hazardous materials. All hazardous materials storage within the Aquifer Protection Area will be required to comply with the Aquifer Protection Code in order to prevent contamination of the City’s main drinking water source. Specific projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for potential impacts and corresponding mitigation measures prior to implementation. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 20 of 22 Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: For the LRWWMP adoption, there are no specific measures planned to reduce these impacts. Best management practices will be used to minimize impacts, in accordance with local, state, and federal laws, during the planning and construction of any applicable projects. Proposed projects will be reviewed and addressed on an individual basis by appropriate agencies prior to implementation. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Adoption of the LRWWMP will not itself result in direct effects to plants, animals, fish, or marine life. It is not anticipated that any of the proposed projects within the Plan will have an impact upon vegetation or wildlife, however, there is potential for impacts to occur during construction efforts. Specific projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for potential impacts to vegetation and wildlife and corresponding mitigation measures prior to implementation. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: Specific projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for their potential impact to plants, animals, fish, and marine life. Potential impacts will be reported with corresponding mitigation measures to protect or conserve vegetation and wildlife. Proposed projects and mitigation measures will be reviewed and addressed on an individual basis by appropriate agencies prior to implementation. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Adoption of the LRWWMP will not itself result in the direct depletion of energy or natural resources. It is not anticipated that any of the proposed projects within the Plan will have a strong impact on energy or natural resources, however, some projects may require the use of energy resources. For example, the running or testing of water system facilities uses electricity and construction projects require fuel for equipment operation and delivery of materials. Specific projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for potential impacts to energy resources and corresponding mitigation measures prior to implementation. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: For the LRWWMP adoption, best management practices will be used to minimize energy usage. For example, the sewer utility maximizes the potential for gravity flow in the sewer system whenever possible. Programs and projects proposed in the LRWWMP may also result in energy conservation features such as improvements to lift stations and strategies to increase system efficiency. Best management practices will be used in the design, construction and operations of the infrastructure proposed by the Plan, in accordance with local, state, and federal laws, during the planning and construction of any applicable projects. Proposed projects will be reviewed and addressed on an individual basis for energy and natural resources impacts by appropriate agencies prior to implementation. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 21 of 22 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? Adoption of the LRWWMP will not itself result in direct effects to environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated for governmental protection, however, there is potential for the Plan’s programs and projects to occur in the immediate vicinity of sensitive areas. The potential impacts from these actions are currently unknown. Specific projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for potential impacts and corresponding mitigation measures prior to implementation. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Specific projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated by the appropriate agencies for their potential impact and corresponding mitigation measures prior to implementation. All such projects will be required to comply with applicable local, state, and federal guidelines and regulations regarding environmental protection. 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Adoption of the LRWWMP will not itself result in direct effects to land and shoreline use and will not allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans. Specific projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for land and shoreline use prior to implementation. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: The LRWWMP is designed to support City land use plans, including adhering to the guidelines set by the state Growth Management Act. All such projects will be required to comply with applicable local, state, and federal guidelines and regulations regarding shoreline and land use. Proposed projects will be reviewed and addressed on an individual basis by appropriate agencies prior to implementation. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Adoption of the LRWWMP will not increase the demand for transportation, public services, or utilities. The Plan itself is partly in response to population growth and increased demands on the sewer utility. Sewer demand projections are included in Chapter 4 of the 2021 City of Renton Long Range Wastewater Management Plan. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 22 of 22 Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: The proposed LRWWMP was developed, in part, as a response to increased demands on the City’s sewer utility system. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The 2021 City of Renton Long Range Wastewater Management Plan does not conflict with any known local, state, or federal environmental laws or requirements. Specific projects that are subject to environmental review will be evaluated for adherence to environmental laws or requirements prior to implementation. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way, 6th Floor | Renton, WA 98057 | 425-430-7200, ext. 2 www.rentonwa.gov OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION DNS: THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. DATE OF NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: June 17, 2021 PROJECT NAME/NUMBER: PR21-000001 Long Range Wastewater Management Plan Environmental Review / LUA21-000116, ECF PROJECT LOCATION: Citywide APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Ann Fowler, City of Renton / 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 / afowler@rentonwa.gov LOCATION WHERE APPLICATION MAY BE REVIEWED: Applicant documents are available online through the City of Renton Document Center website. See also https://cutt.ly/knhndiq PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant, the City of Renton Public Works Department, is requesting SEPA Environmental Review for the City of Renton 2021 Long Range Wastewater Management Plan. The subject plan will reviewed as a non-project action, as defined by Section 197-11-774 in the Washington Administrative Code. The plan primarily serves as an update to the City of Renton’s 2010 Long Range Wastewater Management Plan and was developed collaboratively by City staff and Carollo Engineers, Inc. (Carollo), including ADS Environmental Services LLC as part of the Carollo team. The plan addresses policies, criteria, assumptions, and recommendations regarding the Wastewater Management of the City’s planning area with consideration to population growth and increased demands on the sewer utility. The plan will be used as a guide in maintaining and improving the water system in the short-term over the next 10 years. It also provides a planning framework for the 20-year, long-term planning horizon. The primary purpose of this plan is to identify capacity deficiencies in the wastewater collection system, develop feasible alternatives to correct these deficiencies, and plan the infrastructure that will serve future development by addressing facility reliability, public health, groundwater and environmental protection, operation and maintenance, and financing issues. Maintaining a current Plan is required to meet the regulations of the Washington State Department of Health (DOH) and the requirements of the Washington State Growth Management A ct. The plan also contains estimated timeframes, which are the intended framework for future funding decisions. The applicant submitted an Environmental (SEPA) Checklist with the application. Per WAC197-11-340(2)(c) any person, affected tribe, or agency may submit comments to the City within fourteen days of the date of issuance of the DNS. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on July 1, 2021. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and more information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk’s Office, (425) 430-6510. Due to Governor Jay Inslee’s Proclamation 20-25 (“Stay Home, Stay Healthy”), the City Clerk’s Office is working remotely. For that reason, appeals must be submitted electronically to the City Clerk at cityclerk@rentonwa.gov. The appeal fee, normally due at the time an appeal is submitted, will be collected at a future date. Appeals to the Hearing Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk’s Office, cityclerk@rentonwa.gov. If the situation changes such that the City Clerk’s Office is open when you file your appeal, you have the option of filing the appeal in person. CONTACT PERSON: Brittany Gillia, Assistant Planner; Tel: (425) 430-7246; Email: bgillia@rentonwa.gov NOTICE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SIGNATURES: Martin Pastucha, Administrator Public Works, Chair Date Anjela Barton, Fire Marshal Renton Regional Fire Authority Date Kelly Beymer, Administrator Community Services Department Date Chip Vincent, Administrator Date Community and Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) PROJECT NUMBER: PR21-000001/LUA21-000116, ECF APPLICANT: Ann Fowler, City of Renton / 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 / afowler@rentonwa.gov PROJECT NAME: Long Range Wastewater Management Plan Environmental Review PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant, the City of Renton Public Works Department, is requesting SEPA Environmental Review for the City of Renton 2021 Long Range Wastewater Management Plan. The subject plan will reviewed as a non-project action, as defined by Section 197-11-774 in the Washington Administrative Code. The plan primarily serves as an update to the City of Renton’s 2010 Long Range Wastewater Management Plan and was developed collaboratively by City staff and Carollo Engineers, Inc. (Carollo), including ADS Environmental Services LLC as part of the Carollo team. The plan addresses policies, criteria, assumptions, and recommendations regarding the Wastewater Management of the City’s planning area with consideration to population growth and increased demands on the sewer utility. The plan will be used as a guide in maintaining and improving the water system in the short -term over the next 10 years. It also provides a planning framework for the 20-year, long-term planning horizon. The primary purpose of this plan is to identify capacity deficiencies in the wastewater collection system, develop feasible alternatives to correct these deficiencies, and plan the infrastructure that will serve future development by addressing facility reliability, public health, groundwater and environmental protection, operation and maintenance, and financing issues. Maintaining a current Plan is required to meet the regulations of the Washington State Department of Health (DOH) and the requirements of the Washington State Growth Management Act. The plan also contains estimated timeframes, which are the intended framework for future funding decisions. The applicant submitted an Environmental (SEPA) Checklist with the application. PROJECT LOCATION: Citywide LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Department of Community & Economic Development The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This Determination of Non-Significance is issued under WAC 197-11-340. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be involved, the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fourteen (14) days. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on July 1, 2021. Due to Governor Jay Inslee’s Proclamation 20-25 (“Stay Home, Stay Healthy”), the City Clerk’s Office is working remotely. For that reason, appeals must be submitted electronically to the City Clerk at cityclerk@rentonwa.gov. The appeal fee, normally due at the time an appeal is submitted, will be collected at a future date. Appeals to the Hearing Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk’s DocuSign Envelope ID: F3AF94AC-B4FB-4986-A7DB-8D55B0D43273 6/17/2021 | 2:16 PM PDT 6/17/2021 | 10:54 AM PDT6/17/2021 | 10:45 AM PDT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Office, cityclerk@rentonwa.gov. If the situation changes such that the City Clerk’s Office is open when you file your appeal, you have the option of filing the appeal in person. DATE OF DECISION: June 17, 2021 DocuSign Envelope ID: F3AF94AC-B4FB-4986-A7DB-8D55B0D43273 APPENDICES | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 Appendix B AGENCY COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSES Project Name:Long Range Wastewater Management Plan Client:City of Renton Date Last Updated:9/7/2021 Comment No. Section/Page Comment By Comment Response Change to Plan Reference Docs Person Responsible Status of Change 1 UTRC With such a large document, it would be helpful to have the table of contents be live linked, or for there to be navigation options in the PDF. Many of the boundaries are identified using dashed lines with large gaps, making it very hard to see outlines in areas of complex topology. Recommend using solid lines or smaller dashes to demarcate boundaries. Breakout maps or inset maps may be helpful in areas of dense feature/data concentration. Thank you for the comment, we think the links were dropped in the file transfer. No change to Plan.Complete General Project Name:Long Range Wastewater Management Plan Client:City of Renton Date Last Updated:9/7/2021 Comment No. Section/Page Comment By Comment Response Change to Plan Reference Docs Person Responsible Status of Change 1 Figure ES.1 Ecology The map of the existing system shows several (about 2 dozen) pump stations labeled as "King County". This is not consistent with information Ecology has about King County's wastewater infrastructure in the area, which identifies no wastewater pump stations owned or operated by King County Wastewater Treatment Division. Please clarify the ownership of these pump stations. This was a mis-label in GIS. Renton's PS are now included on the map. Include updated Figure in Final Plan to show Renton only PSs.Complete Executive Summary Project Name:Long Range Wastewater Management Plan Client:City of Renton Date Last Updated:10/13/2021 Comment No. Section/Page Comment By Comment Response Change to Plan Reference Docs Person Responsible Status of Change 1 1.4/Page 1-2 and 1-5 Ecology The regulatory requirements listed under Ecology's authority in this section are incomplete. The following are missing: Consideration of Reclaimed Water (RCW 90.48.112) and consideration of water conservation measures (RCW 90.48.495). Both requirements generally relate to necessary coordination between the general sewer plan and the city's water system plan. In addition, RCW 90.46.120 requires Water System Planning under DOH's authority to evaluate opportunities for using reclaimed water in coordination with evaluations done in a general sewer plan submitted under RCW 90.48.110. Sections will be added to comply with Ecology. Text on page 1-2 and 1-5 will be updated.Complete 2 Table 1.1/Page 1-5 Ecology The table indicated that "discussion of the provision for treatment, discharge, and reuse" was "not included" because the service is performed by King County. This is not an appropriate claim. The general sewer plan must address the requirement of WAC 173-240-050(3)(h), which requires "A statement regarding provisions for treatment and discussion of the adequacy of the treatment." Although Ecology recognizes that the City does not own and operate a sewage treatment facility, it must still demonstrate in the general sewer plan the adequacy of treatment for all wastewater generated during the planning period. The plan must include sufficient discussion necessary to demonstrate that the city's agreements with King County will provide adequate treatment throughout the planning period. Please identify the capacity available to the city at the King County facilities for treatment and identify whether any agreements contain capacity constraints that may limit or otherwise constrain the city's ability to provide sewer service. Agreement with King County will be added to the Appendicies. Text will be revised as needed. Ann to find KC Service Agreement for Renton. Para/Text that KC Will provide all service to Renton. Complete Chapter 1 - Introduction Project Name:Long Range Wastewater Management Plan Client:City of Renton Date Last Updated:2/28/2021 Comment No. Section/Page Comment By Comment Response Change to Plan Reference Docs Person Responsible Status of Change 1 Page 2-2/Table 2.1 Ecology (Same comment as ES 1) The map of the existing system shows several (about 2 dozen) pump stations labeled as "King County". This is not consistent with information Ecology has about King County's wastewater infrastructure in the area, which identifies no wastewater pump stations owned or operated by King County Wastewater Treatment Division. Please clarify the ownership of these pump stations. This was a mis-label in GIS. Renton's PS are now included on the map. Include updated Figure in Final Plan to show Renton only PSs.Complete 2 Pages 2-13 - 2-17/ 2.5 and Table 2.2 Ecology The text on these pages identify lift stations that appear to be equipped with overflows, but does not provide much detail about the overflows. Section 2.5.17 states that the Shy Creek lift station overflows to secondary wet well with third pump. In addition, sections on the Stonegate lift station (2.5.17) and Wedgewood lift station (2.5.19) also discuss overflow vaults. Finally, Table 2.2 shows a third "flow transfer" pump at the following pump stations, but there is no discussion in 2.5 about possible overflow vaults: Baxter, Cottonwood, East Valley. Please expand discussions in these sections to better describe the use of these "overflows", including the frequency of use and routing of flow to and from any storage related to these overflows. The text seems to suggest that these systems are designed to contain flow and not allow for overflows to the environment. However, further details are necessary to verify this assumption and to better understand how the city uses this strategy. Text and table to be updated with additional information. Specifics on the infrastructure to prevent overflows in both text and Table have been updated. Complete Page 2-19 to 2-21 / 2.6 and Figure 2.4 Ecology While the overall discussion of the water system is generally appropriate, the section should include additional information related to the following topics: discussion of water conservation measures and how they impact the city's sewer systems (see RCW 90.48.495) and coordination between water system planning and general sewer planning related to reclaimed water (see RCW 90.48.112 and RCW 90.46.120). Ecology also recommends including a map that shows the relationship between existing unsewerd areas and wellhead protection areas. Plan updated to include additional information regarding water system coordination.Text updated and map of well head protection area included.Complete Chapter 2 - Overview of Existing Sewer System Project Name:Long Range Wastewater Management Plan Client:City of Renton Date Last Updated:2/28/2022 Comment No. Section/Page Comment By Comment Response Change to Plan Reference Docs Person Responsible Status of Change 1 3.3.2 / Page 3-2 Ecology The third bullet in this section references "private sewerage disposal systems". Please add clarity about the types of facilities the city considers "private sewerage disposal systems". How does the city's definition and allowance for private sewers align with the requirement of public ownership of domestic sewage facilities in WAC 173-240-104? The definition of a private sewerage disposal system is the side sewer from building to main.No change to Plan.Complete 2 3.7.2 / Page 3-9 Ecology Related to comment above, the third to last bullet on page 3-9 talks about "private multi family and single family pump stations" and references city standards/code. While the city code (RMC 4-6- 040.F.6) talks about private lift stations for commercial and multi-family buildings, it does not provide much clarity beyond requiring " alarm and standby emergency operation systems, and meet or exceed Department of Ecology specifications as detailed in “Criteria for Sewage Works Design”". In addition, although the code (RMC 4-6-040.G.5) states that sewage from building drains "shall be lifted by approved artificial means and discharged to the building sewer" when gravity discharge is not possible, the code contains no standards for this type of connection. Please verify whether the city has specific design standard for these lift stations. Also, as discussed above, clarify how the city's code ensures compliance with the public ownership requirement in WAC 173-240-104. The City provides development guidelines for the pump stations and review during buidling permit approval. The City is working to develop design standards. Development handout referenced in Section 3.7.2 and included in the appendix. Complete Chapter 3 - Operational Policies and Criteria Project Name:Long Range Wastewater Management Plan Client:City of Renton Date Last Updated:2/28/2022 Comment No. Section/Page Comment By Comment Response Change to Plan Reference Docs Person Responsible Status of Change Chapter 3 - Operational Policies and Criteria 3 3.5 and 3.5.2 UTRC Section 3.5 (Service Area and Extension Objectives) states: Ensure the availability of an adequate level of sanitary sewer service to areas annexing to the City or areas within the City’s Potential Annexation Area (PAA). But then immediately thereafter in 3.5.2 (Implementation) states: Sanitary sewer service to properties outside the City’s corporate limits will not be permitted except under the following conditions: One of the conditions of 3.5.2 should be that the subject area is a PAA within the UGA. To add confusion, UTRC staff recently received a Certificate of Sewer Availability for a proposed subdivision at 14310 SE 140th St, in the PAA. The certificate states that “The City has no plans to extend sanitary sewer within this portion of our sewer service are[a] within the next 20 years.” In fact, the plan doesn’t show appear to show any extension of service into the PAAs, despite Policy 3.5 above. Please clarify. The City intends to serve all areas in the City Limits and Potential Annexation Areas. The extension of the City's system may be required by the developer. The City Code is being reviewed to align with this intention. No change to Plan.Complete 4 Page 3-6 UTRC In the UGA all new development shall be served by public sewers, unless application of this policy to a proposal for a single-family residence on an individual lot would deny all reasonable use of the property; or sewer service is not available for a proposed short subdivision of urban property in a timely or reasonable manner as determined by the Utility Technical Review Committee. These onsite system shall be managed by one of the following entities, in order or preference, the sewer utility whose service area encompasses the proposed short subdivision, the provider most likely to serve the area, or an Onsite Sewage System Maintainer certified by the Public Health – Seattle & KC (2018 King County Comprehensive Plan, Policy F-255) “These onsite system…” should read “These onsite systems…” “Utility Technical Review Committee” should read “King County Utility Technical Review Committee” Does the City manage on-site systems? KC Permitting has an application in for a short plat right now that may need on-site instead of sewer. Text edits will be incorporated, as follows: In the UGA all new development shall be served by public sewers, unless application of this policy to a proposal for a single-family residence on an individual lot would deny all reasonable use of the property; or sewer service is not available for a proposed short subdivision of urban property in a timely or reasonable manner as determined by the King County Utility Technical Review Committee. These onsite systems shall be managed by the property owner that can consider an Onsite Sewage System Maintainer certified by the Public Health – Seattle & KC. Text updated on page 3-6.Complete Project Name:Long Range Wastewater Management Plan Client:City of Renton Date Last Updated:7/7/2022 Comment No. Section/Page Comment By Comment Response Change to Plan Reference Docs Person Responsible Status of Change 1 4.4.5 / Page 4-16 Ecology The final sentence in this section states that the city has seven adjoining sewer utilities, but the subsections that follow (as well as Figure 4.2) list only six. While the section discusses KC regional wastewater, Ecology does not view the county as an "adjoining sewer utility" since it is a wholesale sewer service provider that receives wastewater from the city's planning area. Text in Section 4.4.5 updated. Text in Section 4.4.5 updated to change "adjoining" to "neighboring utilities"Complete 2 4.4.5.9 / Page 4-18 Ecology RCW 90.48.112 requires general sewer plans to "include consideration of opportunities for the use of reclaimed water". The Reclaimed Water Use Law (RCW 90.46) also requires coordination between wastewater system and water system plans in the evaluation of opportunities to use reclaimed water. While this general sewer plan discusses the city's work with King County and other stakeholders in reclaimed water comprehensive planning, it does not provide much detail on the status of these efforts. It also does not discuss steps the city has taken to ensure coordination between this general sewer plan and its water system plan on the topic of reclaimed water use. Please expand the discussion to address these topics. Reclaimed Water Opportunities will be consistent with City's Water System Plan. Text will be updated. Text updated consistent with City's Water System Plan. Complete Chapter 4 - Planning Considerations Project Name:Long Range Wastewater Management Plan Client:City of Renton Date Last Updated:7/7/2022 Comment No. Section/Page Comment By Comment Response Change to Plan Reference Docs Person Responsible Status of Change Chapter 4 - Planning Considerations 3 Figure 4.2 Soos Creek It appears there may be a discrepancy in the service area between the City and District. See attached markup of Figure 7-2 from the District Sewer Comprehensive Plan. This area, while outside the District's Sewer Corporate Boundary, it is within the District's Sewer Planning Boundary and is currently served by the District. Additionally, in order to confirm that both the City and District's sewer service areas align, we request the City share its GIS sharefile so it can be overlaid with the District's boundary to avoid any future conflict. Boundary investigated and is correct in the Plan. Information has been sent to Soos Creek for review. No change to Plan.Complete 4 4.4.5 / Page 4-16 Soos Creek It appears there is an agreement missing from the list, CAG-91-083, Arden #2-08, that amended the 1991 Agreement. Please see attached copy that was executed in 2008. Additionally, the transfer of service boundaries needs to be reviewed and revised as necessary per the Exhibits A and B of the attached Agreement. Agreement to be added to Appendix and update text. Agreement to be added to Appendix and update text. Complete 5 Figure 4.1 UTRC That which is called the urban growth boundary is incorrect. The growth boundary is a much larger area surrounding the developed areas of King County. You’re showing Renton Corporate Limits plus the Potential Annexation Areas, which is not the same this as the King County designated UGA. In the figure below, the red line represents the extent of the Urban Growth Area, and the shaded green areas are Potential Annexation Areas in unincorporated King County adjacent to Renton. Section 4.3.2 explains this correctly. Thank you for the comment. Figure updated. UGA has been changed to PAA in Figure 4.1 and text updated. Complete 6 Figure 4-3 UTRC Figure 4-3 Wastewater Service Boundary line typology is very hard to see in certain areas. Recommend smaller dash size and different color. Thanks for the comment.Figure has been updated. Complete Project Name:Long Range Wastewater Management Plan Client:City of Renton Date Last Updated:7/7/2022 Comment No. Section/Page Comment By Comment Response Change to Plan Reference Docs Person Responsible Status of Change Chapter 4 - Planning Considerations 7 4.4.4.1 UTRC All of the service area in unincorporated KC is designated “urban”, with the exception of the service to Apollo Elementary School just east of the urban growth areas (UGAs). UGAs are intended to develop at urban densities and with urban service levels. This should read: ….just east of the Urban Growth Area (UGA). Land within the UGA is intended to develop at urban densities and with urban service levels. Section 4.4.4.1 updated. Section 4.4.4.1 updated. Complete 8 4.4.4.1 UTRC Immediately below, this plan makes reference to community plans which are out of date and no longer active: Unincorporated areas of KC are divided into community planning areas, each with a community plan. For the purposes of the LRWWMP, community plans were based on those adopted as part of the 2012 King County Comprehensive Plan. Where conflicts or inconsistencies between the policies of the community plans and KC’s Comprehensive Plan occur, the Comprehensive Plan takes precedence. Three community plans, Soos Creek, West Hill, and Newcastle, cover most of the unincorporated areas within the study area of this LRWWMP.Section 4.4.4.1 updated. Section 4.4.4.1 updated. Complete Project Name:Long Range Wastewater Management Plan Client:City of Renton Date Last Updated:10/13/2021 Comment No. Section/Page Comment By Comment Response Change to Plan Reference Docs Person Responsible Status of Change 1 5.2.5 / Page 5-3 Ecology The second paragraph of this section states that "several industries within the city have obtained [NPDES] permits". This statement is not accurate for the context of this section of the general sewer plan. The section appears to address the requirement of WAC 173-240-050(3)(i), which requires a "List of all establishments producing industrial wastewater, the quantity of wastewater and periods of production, and the character of the industrial wastewater insofar as it may affect the sewer system or treatment plant." While the facilities shown in Table 5.1 may have received coverage under a general NPDES permit for industrial stormwater, this permit is not administered by King County's Industrial Waste Program. Pretreatment permits issued by King County are State Waste Discharge permits issued under state authority (WAC 173-216). Although the permits are related to federal pretreatment standards, they are not NPDES permits. In addition, King County may issue "discharge authorizations" to industrial facilities that do not require a permit under the federal pretreatment program. These authorizations are generally based on county codes. Section 5.2.5 updated and new table of Industrial Wate Permits included. Section 5.2.5 updated and new table of Industrial Wate Permits included. Complete 2 5.2.5 / Page 5-3 Ecology Please expand this section to include more detail on policies and practices related to coordinating with King County's Industrial Waste Program to ensure industrial facilities receive appropriate pretreatment permitting. Section 5.2.5 updated. Section 5.2.5 updated. Complete 3 Table 5.1 / Page 5-3 Ecology Related to comment above, this table does not provide sufficient information to ensure consistency with WAC 173-240-050(3)(i). Please update the table to address the following: the quantity of wastewater and periods of production, and the character of the industrial wastewater insofar as it may affect the sewer system or treatment plant. Data provided by King County incorporated into Table 5.1.New Table 5.1 Complete Chapter 5 - System Analysis and Results Project Name:Long Range Wastewater Management Plan Client:City of Renton Date Last Updated:9/7/2021 Comment No.Section/Page Comment By Comment Response Change to Plan Reference Docs Person Responsible Status of Change Chapter 6 - Replacement and Rehabilitation Program Project Name:Long Range Wastewater Management Plan Client:City of Renton Date Last Updated:7/7/2022 Comment No. Section/Page Comment By Comment Response Change to Plan Reference Docs Person Responsible Status of Change 1 7.9 / Page 7-11 Ecology Please expand the discussion of the city's Overflow Emergency Response Plan. Please include information on the history of SSOs experienced in the system along - particularly with respect to the frequency of SSOs, typical causes, and how the city has used information about SSOs to form its operations and emergency response plans. Please also include information related to procedures for notifying appropriate state and local agencies when SSOs occur. This discussion should include information on how the city responds to overflows that may impact any of the following: surface waters of the state, groundwater in wellhead protection areas, stormwater systems (either under the city's jurisdiction or another local jurisdiction), and areas accessible to the general public. Information related to historical SSO included and Emergency Response Plan referenced. Updated Section 7.9.Complete 2 7.10 / Page 7-11 Ecology Please expand the FOG Source Control section to add in a discussion of the city's policies related to enforcement of it's FOG ordinance. In particular, clarify if there are any requirements for property owners to periodically inspect grease traps or other control devises and whether the city requires submission of these inspection reports. Section will be expanded. Page 7-11 updated.Complete 3 7.18.2 / Page 7-15 Ecology The final sentence of paragraph 2 under "Emergency operations" states that "The City follows all Ecology guidelines for emergency notification procedures". Please add details about how the city uses these guidelines, especially with respect to SSO notifications discussed in comment 13. Emergency Response Plan referrenced. Section 7.18.2 updated. Complete Chapter 7 - Operations and Maintenance Project Name:Long Range Wastewater Management Plan Client:City of Renton Date Last Updated:9/7/2021 Comment No. Section/Page Comment By Comment Response Change to Plan Reference Docs Person Responsible Status of Change 1 8.4.6 / Page 8-8 Ecology The description of the Kennydale Lake Line Renewal project talks about the potential use of individual lift stations. Please provide more information on how the city envisions the use of individual lift stations in this project. In particular, please describe the design standards the city would use and clarify the ownership/O&M responsibilities for these systems. This project is currently under preliminary design. The design standards are being developed and it is anticipated that the City will both own and maintain the individual lift stations. No change to plan.Complete Chapter 8 - CIP Project Name:Long Range Wastewater Management Plan Client:City of Renton Date Last Updated:7/7/2022 Comment No. Section/Page Comment By Comment Response Change to Plan Reference Docs Person Responsible Status of Change 1 Table 9.1 / Page 9-1 Ecology Please verify accuracy of the table. It is titled as "water utility monthly rates" rather than wastewater. In addition, the rates are not consistent with the city or county's published rates - both appear to be half of what they should be. Does the accuracy of this table impact any planning calculations presented in this chapter? Table and data source reviewed and changes incorporated in Plan. Table 9.1 is updated.Complete 2 9.3.1 / Page 9-4 Ecology Please verify the table references in this section. Should they cite Table 9.7 instead of 9.6? Table and data source reviewed and changes incorporated in Plan. Text updated. Complete 3 Page 9-1 UTRC The text states that “The SDC allocation based on meter size is shown in Table 9.3.” We assume that you’re basing charges on the property’s associated water meter size, and not installing sewer meters, but please clarify. Yes, assumption is correct. Text will be updated.Page 9-1 udpated.Complete 4 Table 9.8 UTRC In Table 9.8 and the preceding text, it sounds as if this LRWWMP CIP would be underfunded by nearly $1.76 million over the next six years compared to the WRRM revenue-based model. We’re interested in knowing more about the relationship of these two documents and the likelihood of the City being able to financially complete the CIP. The City has fund balance available for next six years of improvements. Per the City budgeting policy, the Utility’s spending is based on a biannual budget approved by the City Council and projects will be adjusted accordingly. No change to plan.Complete Chapter 9 - Financial Project Name:Long Range Wastewater Management Plan Client:City of Renton Date Last Updated:10/13/2021 Comment No. Section/Page Comment By Comment Response Change to Plan Reference Docs Person Responsible Status of Change 1 Appendix J - Standard Plans and Specifications Ecology Although this appendix includes adequate detail for most collection system projects, it does not include specific details of standards for lift stations, including individual grinder pump facilities. According to WAC 173-240-030, Ecology may waive submission of engineering reports and design documents for sewer system projects when the general sewer plan includes standard design criteria. Based on the material presented in this appendix and throughout the general sewer plan, Ecology cannot provide this waiver for lift station projects. City is evaluating standards for lift stations and future individual grinder pumps. This will be incorporated into future Standard Plans and Specifications and sent to Ecology at that time. No change to Plan. Complete Appendix Utilities Technical Review Committee Department of Local Services 35030 SE Douglas St #210 Snoqualmie, WA 98065 www.kingcounty.gov City of Renton Draft Long-Range Wastewater Management Plan – Initial Review The City of Renton submitted their draft Long Range Wastewater Management Plan for review by the King County Utilities Technical Review Committee (UTRC). On August 25, 2021, the UTRC held an open public meeting and deliberated the plan content, then directed Staff to issue this comment letter. The UTRC would like to see the following clar ifications and revisions as detailed below. General Notes: With such a large document, it would be helpful to have the table of contents be live linked, or for there to be navigation options in the PDF. Many of the boundaries are identified using dashed lines with large gaps, making it very hard to see outlines in areas of complex topology. Recommend using solid lines or smaller dashes to demarcate boundaries. Breakout maps or inset maps may be helpful in areas of dense feature/data concentration. Section 3.5 (Service Area and Extension Objectives ) states: Ensure the availability of an adequate level of sanitary sewer service to areas annexing to the City or areas within the City’s Potential Annexation Area (PAA). But then immediately thereafter in 3.5.2 (Implementation) states: Sanitary sewer service to properties outside the City’s corporate limits will not be permitted except under the following conditions: One of the conditions of 3.5.2 should be that the subject area is a PAA within the UGA. To add confusion, UTRC staff recently received a Certificate of Sewer Availability for a proposed subdivision at 14310 SE 140th St , in the PAA. The certificate states that “The City has no plans to extend sanitary sewer within this portion of our sewer service are[a] within the next 20 years.” In fact, the plan doesn’t show appear to show any extension of service into the PAAs , despite Policy 3.5 above. Please clarify. Figure 4-1. That which is called the urban growth boundary is incorrect. The growth boundary is a much larger area surrounding the developed areas of King County. You’re showing Renton Corporate Limits Page 2 of 4 plus the Potential Annexation Areas, which is not the same this as the King County designated UGA. In the figure below, the red line represents the extent of the Urban Growth Area, and the shaded green areas are Potential Annexation Areas in unincorporated King County adjacent to Renton. Section 4.3.2 explains this correctly. Figure 4-3 Wastewater Service Boundary line typology is very hard to see in certain areas. Recommend smaller dash size and different color. I n Section 4.4.4.1 King County Land Use: All of the service area in unincorporated KC is designated “urban”, with the exception of the service to Apollo Elementary School just east of the urban growth areas (UGAs). UGAs are intended to develop at urban densities and with urban service levels. This should read: ….just east of the Urban Growth Area (UGA). Land within the UGA is intended to develop at urban densities and with urban service levels. Immediately below, this plan makes reference to community plans which are out of date and no longer active: Unincorporated areas of KC are divided into community planning areas, each with a community plan. For the purposes of the LRWWMP, community plans were based on those adopted as part of the 2012 King County Comprehensive Plan. Where conflicts or inconsistencies between the Page 3 of 4 policies of the community plans and KC’s Comprehensive Plan occur, the Comprehensive Plan takes precedence. Three community plans, Soos Creek, West Hill, and Newcastle, cover most of the unincorporated areas within the study area of this LRWWMP. King County Comprehensive Plan: Subarea plans - King County Current Community Service Area Former Community Planning Areas Bear Creek / Sammamish Bear Creek, Northshore, East Sammamish Four Creeks / Tiger Mountain Tahoma Raven Heights, Snoqualmie Greater Maple Valley / Cedar River Tahoma Raven Heights, Soos Creek, East King County, Snoqualmie SE King County Enumclaw, Tahoma Raven Heights, East King County, Soos Creek Snoqualmie Valley / NE King County Snoqualmie, East King County, East Sammamish Vashon / Maury Island Vashon West King County (unincorporated) Portions of 10 different Community Planning Areas King County Franchise No. 14056, 2001 - Grants the City the right to construct sewer lines along KC roads . Just as a reminder, expires in 4.5 years. Page 3-6 In the UGA all new development shall be served by public sewers, unless application of this policy to a proposal for a single -family residence on an individual lot would deny all reasonable use of the property; or sewer service is not available for a proposed short subdivision of urban property in a timely or reasonable manner as determined by the Utility Technical Review Committee. These onsite system shall be managed by one of the following entities, in order or preference, the sewer utility whose service area encompasses the proposed short subdivision, the provider most likely to serve the area, or an Onsite Sewage System Maintainer certified by the Public Health – Seattle & KC (2018 King County Comprehe nsive Plan, Policy F-255) “These onsite system…” should read “These onsite systems…” “Utility Technical Review Committee” should read “King County Utility Technical Review Committee” Does the City manage on-site systems? KC Permitting has an application in for a short plat right now that may need on-site instead of sewer. On Page 9-1, the text states that “The SDC allocation based on meter size is shown in Table 9.3.” We assume that you’re basing charges on the property’s associated water meter size, and not installing sewer meters, but please clarify. Page 4 of 4 In Table 9.8 and the preceding text, it sounds as if this LRWWMP CIP would be underfunded by nearly $1.76 million over the next six years compared to the WRRM revenue-based model. We’re interested in knowing more about the relationship of these two documents and the likelihood of the City being able to financially complete the CIP. DraftReviewed By:Shawn McKone, PEComment Date: 9/1/2021Dwg. Sheet No.SectorSpec. & Page No.Paragraph No.Date Initials1Pages 1-2 and 1-5Sec. 1.4The regulatory requirements listed under Ecology's authority in this section are incomplete. The following are missing: Consideration of Reclaimed Water (RCW 90.48.112) and consideration of water conservation measures (RCW 90.48.495). Both requirements generally relate to necessary coordination between the general sewer plan and the City's water system plan. In addition, RCW 90.46.120 requires Water System Planning under DOH's authority to evaluate opportunities for using reclaimed water in coordination with evaluations done in a general sewer plan submitted under RCW 90.48.110.McKone2Page 1-5Table 1.1 (WAC Plan Requirements)The table indicated that "discussion of the provision for treatment, discharge, and reuse" was "not included" because the service is performed by King County. This is not an appropriate claim. The general sewer plan must address the requirement of WAC 173-240-050(3)(h), which requires "A statement regarding provisions for treatment and discussion of the adequacy of the treatment." Although Ecology recognizes that the City does not own and operate a sewage treatment facility, it must still demonstrate in the general sewer plan the adequacy of treatment for all wastewater generated during the planning period. The plan must include sufficient discussion necessary to demonstrate that the City's agreements with King County will provide adequate treatment throughout the planning period. Please identify the capacity available to the city at the King County facilities for treatment and identify whether any agreements contain capacity constraints that may limit or otherwise constrain the City's ability to provide sewer service.McKone3Page 2-2 Figure 2.1/ES.1The map of the existing system shows several (about 2 dozen) pump stations labeled as "King County." This is not consistent with information Ecology has about King County's wastewater infrastructure in the area, which identifies no wastewater pump stations owned or operated by King County Wastewater Treatment Division. Please clarify the ownership of these pump stations.McKone4Pages 2-13 through 2-17Sec. 2.5 and Table 2.2The text on these pages identify lift stations that appear to be equipped with overflows, but does not provide much detail about the overflows. Section 2.5.17 states that the Shy Creek lift station overflows to secondary wet well with third pump. In addition, sections on the Stonegate lift station (2.5.17) and Wedgewood lift station (2.5.19) also discuss overflow vaults. Finally, Table 2.2 shows a third "flow transfer" pump at the following pump stations, but there is no discussion in 2.5 about possible overflow vaults: Baxter, Cottonwood, East Valley. Please expand discussions in these sections to better describe the use of these "overflows", including the frequency of use and routing of flow to and from any storage related to these overflows. The text seems to suggest that these systems are designed to contain flow and not allow for overflows to the environment. However, further details are necessary to verify this assumption and to better understand how the city uses this strategy.McKoneReviewer last nameCity of Renton General Sewer Plan - Review Comment/Response FormReview Phase:Contact:Ann Fowler, City of RentonResponseImplementationNo.CommentResponderReviewer Check OffPage 1 of 37/9/2022 Dwg. Sheet No.SectorSpec. & Page No.Paragraph No.Date InitialsReviewer last name ResponseImplementationNo.CommentResponderReviewer Check Off5Pages 2-19 through 2-21Sec. 2.6 and Fig. 2.4While the overall discussion of the water system is generally appropriate, the section should include additional information related to the following topics: discussion of water conservation measures and how they impact the city's sewer systems (see RCW 90.48.495) and coordination between water system planning and general sewer planning related to reclaimed water (see RCW 90.48.112 and RCW 90.46.120). Ecology also recommends including a map that shows the relationship between existing unsewerd areas and wellhead protection areas.McKone6Page 3-2 Section 3.3.2The third bullet in this section references "private sewerage disposal systems". Please add clarity about the types of facilities the city considers "private sewerage disposal systems". How does the city's definition and allowance for private sewers align with the requirement of public ownership of domestic sewage facilities in WAC 173-240-104?McKone7Page 3-9 Section 3.7.2Related to comment 6 above, the third to last bullet on page 3-9 talks about "private multi family and single family pump stations" and references city standards/code. While the city code (RMC 4-6-040.F.6) talks about private lift stations for commercial and multi-family buildings, it does not provide much clarity beyond requiring " alarm and standby emergency operation systems, and meet or exceed Department of Ecology specifications as detailed in “Criteria for Sewage Works Design”". In addition, although the code (RMC 4-6-040.G.5) states that sewage from building drains "shall be lifted by approved artificial means and discharged to the building sewer" when gravity discharge is not possible, the code contains no standards for this type of connection. Please verify whether the city has specific design standard for these lift stations. Also, as discussed above, clarify how the city's code ensures compliance with the public ownership requirement in WAC 173-240-104.McKone8Page 4-16 Sec. 4.4.5The final sentence in this section states that the city has seven adjoining sewer utilities, but the subsections that follow (as well as Figure 4.2) list only six. While the section discusses KC regional wastewater, Ecology does not view the county as an "adjoining sewer utility" since it is a wholesale sewer service provider that receives wastewater from the City's planning area.McKone9Page 4-18 Sec. 4.4.5.9RCW 90.48.112 requires general sewer plans to "include consideration of opportunities for the use of reclaimed water." The Reclaimed Water Use Law (RCW 90.46) also requires coordination between wastewater system and water system plans in the evaluation of opportunities to use reclaimed water. While this general sewer plan discusses the City's work with King County and other stakeholders in reclaimed water comprehensive planning, it does not provide much detail on the status of these efforts. It also does not discuss steps the City has taken to ensure coordination between this general sewer plan and its water system plan on the topic of reclaimed water use. Please expand the discussion to address these topics.McKone10Page 5-3 Sec. 5.2.5The second paragraph of this section states that "several industries within the City have obtained [NPDES] permits." This statement is not accurate for the context of this section of the general sewer plan. The section appears to address the requirement of WAC 173-240-050(3)(i), which requires a "List of all establishments producing industrial wastewater, the quantity of wastewater and periods of production, and the character of the industrial wastewater insofar as it may affect the sewer system or treatment plant." While the facilities shown in Table 5.1 may have received coverage under a general NPDES permit for industrial stormwater, this permit is not administered by King County's Industrial Waste Program. Pretreatment permits issued by King County are State Waste Discharge permits issued under state authority (WAC 173-216). Although the permits are related to federal pretreatment standards, they are not NPDES permits. In addition, King County may issue "discharge authorizations" to industrial facilities that do not require a permit under the federal pretreatment program. These authorizations are generally based on county codes. McKonePage 2 of 37/9/2022 Dwg. Sheet No.SectorSpec. & Page No.Paragraph No.Date InitialsReviewer last name ResponseImplementationNo.CommentResponderReviewer Check Off11Page 5-3 Sec. 5.2.5Please expand this section to include more detail on policies and practices related to coordinating with King County's Industrial Waste Program to ensure industrial facilities receive appropriate pretreatment permitting.McKone12Page 5-3 Table 5.1Related to comment 10 above, this table does not provide sufficient information to ensure consistency with WAC 173-240-050(3)(i). Please update the table to address the following: the quantity of wastewater and periods of production, and the character of the industrial wastewater insofar as it may affect the sewer system or treatment plant. McKone13Page 7-11 Sec. 7.9Please expand the discussion of the city's Overflow Emergency Response Plan. Please include information on the history of SSOs experienced in the system along - particularly with respect to the frequency of SSOs, typical causes, and how the city has used information about SSOs to form its operations and emergency response plans. Please also include information related to procedures for notifying appropriate state and local agencies when SSOs occur. This discussion should include information on how the city responds to overflows that may impact any of the following: surface waters of the state, groundwater in wellhead protection areas, stormwater systems (either under the city's jurisdiction or another local jurisdiction), and areas accessible to the general public. McKone14Page 7-11 Sec. 7.10Please expand the FOG Source Control section to add in a discussion of the city's policies related to enforcement of it's FOG ordinance. In particular, clarify if there are any requirements for property owners to periodically inspect grease traps or other control devises and whether the city requires submission of these inspection reports.McKone15Page 7-15 Sec. 7.18.2The final sentence of paragraph 2 under "Emergency operations" states that "The City follows all Ecology guidelines for emergency notification procedures". Please add details about how the city uses these guidelines, especially with respect to SSO notifications discussed in comment 13.McKone16Page 8-8 Sec. 8.4.6The description of the Kennydale Lake Line Renewal project talks about the potential use of individual lift stations. Please provide more information on how the city envisions the use of individual lift stations in this project. In particular, please describe the design standards the city would use and clarify the ownership/O&M responsibilities for these systemsMcKone17Page 9-1 Table 9.1Please verify accuracy of the table. It is titled as "water utility monthly rates" rather than wastewater. In addition, the rates are not consistent with the city or county's published rates - both appear to be half of what they should be. Does the accuracy of this table impact any planning calculations presented in this chapter?McKone18Page 9-4 Sec. 9.3.1Please verify the table references in this section. Should they cite Table 9.7 instead of 9.6?McKone19Appendix J - Standard Plans and SpecificationsAlthough this appendix includes adequate detail for most collection system projects, it does not include specific details of standards for lift stations, including individual grinder pump facilities. According to WAC 173-240-030, Ecology may waive submission of engineering reports and design documents for sewer system projects when the general sewer plan includes standard design criteria. Based on the material presented in this appendix and throughout the general sewer plan, Ecology cannot provide this waiver for lift station projects. McKonePage 3 of 37/9/2022 APPENDICES | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 Appendix C APPROVALS ~~To be included at a later date.~~ APPENDICES | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 Appendix D HYDRAULIC MODEL AND DEFICIENCY RESULTS Appendix D HYDRAULIC MODEL AND DEFICIENCY RESULTS This Appendix goes through all the deficiencies presented in chapter 5 and shows the location and the hydraulic profile where the surcharging and flooding occurs. The hydraulic grade line profiles can be used to identify the cause of the deficiency. Physical flow constraints are primarily identified as negative sloped pipes, undersized pipes, and downstream backwater conditions. Current and buildout system results are shown for the February 96 storm event. For deficiencies that emerged only for buildout scenarios just the buildout system HGL is shown. A legend for all the HGL profiles is shown below: O 0 10.5 Miles Disclaimer: Features shown in this figure are for planning purposes and represent approximate locations. Engineering and/or survey accuracy is not implied. Data Sources: Fill in the name of the data sources used in this map including aerial imagery. APPENDIX D | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON Legend 3 feet from rim Flooding King County Force Mains d/D Ratio 0 - 1 1 - 2 2 + U Basin Nov 1998 Storm Nov 1990 Storm Jan 1990 Storm Feb 1996 Storm Roads Figure D.1 Current Deficiencies Deficiency 05A: Deficiency 45A: Deficiency 7A, 2A, and 3A are upstream of this. Deficiency 46A: Deficiency 37A (drains through MH0825): Deficiency 48A: Deficiency 24A: Deficiency 20A: Deficiency 20B: Deficiency 22A: Deficiency 21A: Deficiency 41A: Deficiency 23A: Deficiency 15A & 14A (just upstream): Deficiency BA: Deficiency 11A: O 0 10.5 Miles Disclaimer: Features shown in this figure are for planning purposes and represent approximate locations. Engineering and/or survey accuracy is not implied. Data Sources: Fill in the name of the data sources used in this map including aerial imagery. APPENDIX D | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON Legend 3 feet from rim Flooding King County Force Mains d/D Ratio 0 - 1 1 - 2 2 + U Basin Nov 1998 Storm Nov 1990 Storm Jan 1990 Storm Feb 1996 Storm Roads Figure D.2 Buildout Deficiencies Deficiency 05B & 05C: Deficiency 25A: APPENDICES | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 Appendix E SERVICE AGREEMENTS APPENDICES | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 Appendix F STANTEC MODEL UPDATE AND CAPACITY ANALYSIS REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1.1 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING ............................................................................................................... 1.1 MODELING SOFTWARE ....................................................................................................................... 1.2 Chapter 2 PHYSICAL MODEL UPDATE ........................................................................................... 2.1 2012 PHYSICAL MODEL DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................... 2.1 Data Source .................................................................................................................................. 2.1 Manholes and Nodes .................................................................................................................. 2.1 Pipes ............................................................................................................................................... 2.1 Lift Stations and Force Mains ...................................................................................................... 2.1 Extent of 2012 Hydraulic Model ................................................................................................. 2.3 Model Pipe and Manhole ID Updates ...................................................................................... 2.3 ULTIMATE PHYSICAL MODEL DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................... 2.4 Pipe, Manhole and Node Additions ......................................................................................... 2.4 Chapter 3 PLANNING DATA .......................................................................................................... 3.1 MODEL SANITARY FLOW DETERMINATION ...................................................................................... 3.1 Dry Weather Flow Determination by Mini-Basin ...................................................................... 3.1 Diurnal Curve Development ...................................................................................................... 3.1 MODEL PLANNING DATA ................................................................................................................... 3.1 Planning Area/Basin Boundaries ............................................................................................... 3.2 2012 Model ......................................................................................................................... 3.2 Ultimate Model ................................................................................................................... 3.2 Land Use and Zoning ................................................................................................................... 3.5 Data Projections ........................................................................................................................... 3.5 Residential .......................................................................................................................... 3.5 Employment ....................................................................................................................... 3.7 Schools ................................................................................................................................ 3.7 Future Population Projections .................................................................................................... 3.7 Residential .......................................................................................................................... 3.7 Employment ....................................................................................................................... 3.8 Schools ................................................................................................................................ 3.9 POPULATION AND SANITARY SEWAGE FLOW ASSIGNMENT TO MODEL .................................. 3.10 Population Assignment .............................................................................................................. 3.10 Determination of Sanitary Sewer Flow Rates ......................................................................... 3.11 Page i City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Table of Contents Input to Model ............................................................................................................................ 3.15 Area Assignments ............................................................................................................ 3.15 RAINFALL AND EVAPORATION ASSIGNMENTS.............................................................................. 3.16 Rainfall Assignments ................................................................................................................... 3.16 Evaporation ................................................................................................................................. 3.16 External Boundary Flows ............................................................................................................ 3.16 Chapter 4 MODEL CALIBRATION .................................................................................................. 4.1 2012 MODEL DRY WEATHER CALIBRATION ..................................................................................... 4.2 Sanitary Flow Calibration ............................................................................................................ 4.2 2012 MODEL WET WEATHER CALIBRATION ..................................................................................... 4.6 Infiltration and Inflow Calibration .............................................................................................. 4.6 Non-Calibrated Model Basins .................................................................................................... 4.8 Ultimate Model Inflow and Infiltration Parameters ................................................................. 4.9 Chapter 5 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ............................................................................................... 5.1 2012 MODEL PEAK FLOW AND CAPACITY ANALYSIS .................................................................... 5.1 External Boundary Flows .............................................................................................................. 5.1 Peak Storm ..................................................................................................................................... 5.1 Analysis Results .............................................................................................................................. 5.3 ULTIMATE MODEL PEAK FLOW AND CAPACITY ANALYSIS .......................................................... 5.17 Peak Storm ................................................................................................................................... 5.17 Analysis Results ............................................................................................................................ 5.17 LIFT STATION AND FORCE MAIN ANALYSIS .................................................................................... 5.33 INFILTRATION AND INFLOW ANALYSIS ............................................................................................ 5.34 PEAK BOUNDARY FLOW ANALYSIS ................................................................................................. 5.37 Chapter 6 RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUMMARY ....................................................................... 6.1 FLOW MONITORING RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................... 6.1 KING COUNTY COMPATIBILITY .......................................................................................................... 6.3 LIMITATIONS OF THE MODEL .............................................................................................................. 6.6 TABLES Table 2-1 Pipe Material Summary .................................................................................................... 2.4 Table 3-1 Population Projections by Sewer Mini-Basins: Values Assigned to 2012 and Ultimate Models ................................................................................................................................ 3.12 Table 4-1 Dry Weather Calibration Summary ................................................................................ 4.4 Table 4-2 Per Capita Flow Rate (ft2/PE/day) ................................................................................. 4.5 Table 4-3 Wet Weather Calibration Summary ............................................................................... 4.8 Page ii City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Table of Contents Table 4-4 City Mini-Basins Not Calibrated for Dry and Wet Weather ........................................ 4.9 Table 5-1 Selected Storm Events Per Model Basin ........................................................................ 5.3 Table 5-2 Capacity Analysis for 2012 Sewer Model - Problem Areas ........................................ 5.5 Table 5-3 City of Renton Sewer Model 2012 and Ultimate Peak Flow at Mini-Basin Outlet, Including Storm Event ...................................................................................................................... 5.18 Table 5-4 Capacity Analysis for Ultimate Sewer Model - Problem Areas ............................... 5.21 Table 5-5 Lift Station and Force Main Analysis Summary ........................................................... 5.33 Table 5-6 Peak Infiltration and Inflow per Mini-Basin .................................................................. 5.35 Table 5-7 Peak Boundary Flows ...................................................................................................... 5.37 Table 6-1 City of Renton Sewer Model Proposed Flow Monitor Locations ............................... 6.2 FIGURES Figure 3.1 2012 Sewer Mini-Basin Boundaries ................................................................................. 3.3 Figure 3.2 Ultimate Sewer Mini-Basin Boundaries .......................................................................... 3.4 Figure 5.1 Selected Storm Events Per Model-Basin ....................................................................... 5.2 Figure 5.2 2012 Sewer Model Analysis Results .............................................................................. 5.38 Figure 5.3 Ultimate Sewer Model Analysis Results ....................................................................... 5.39 Figure 6.1 Proposed Flow Monitor Locations ................................................................................. 6.8 APPENDIX APPENDIX A – Dry Weather Flow Calibration Time Series .............................................................. A APPENDIX B – Wet Weather Flow Calibration Time Series .............................................................. B APPENDIX C – Figure 5-2A Through Figure 5-2S: 2012 Sewer Model Analysis Results ............... C APPENDIX D – Figure 5-3A Through Figure 5-3W: Ultimate Sewer Model Analysis Results ....... D Page iii City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION PROJECT UNDERSTANDING The City of Renton retained the services of Stantec to update the existing hydraulic model to evaluate the capacity of the existing sewer system and to analyze the system for future development scenarios. Steps in the development of the sewer model included: 1.Updates of the physical model that involved obtaining, formatting, and inputting into the physical system data such as manholes, pipes and lift stations. 2.O btaining and analyzing the population and employment data to input as flow assignments to each sewer basin with the precipitation and evaporation data. 3.Calibration of the model to 2012 conditions. 4.Analyzing the 2012 and Ultimate Model Peak Flow Scenarios. The methodology and numerous assumptions associated with developing the model are detailed herein, with supporting documents associated with the project. The r eport includes the following sections: •Chapter 1 – Introduction •Chapter 2 – Physical Model Updates •Chapter 3 – Planning Data •Chapter 4 – Model Calibration •Chapter 5 – Analysis and Results •Chapter 6 – Recommendations and Summary Two primary models were used during this project. T he 2012 Model was updated from previous versions of the model, and was calibrated to King County’s 2008-2011 flow-monitoring data. Discussion of the original model development can be found in the City of Renton Sanitary Sewer Model Development and Analysis Summary Report, September 2006. T he Ultimate Model was then developed, which incorporates all of the projected flow assignments for the analysis. City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 1.1 INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 1 MODELING SOFTWARE The model was analyzed using the MIKE URBAN software program by the Danish Hydraulic Institute (DHI), and was originally developed using MOUSE, also by DHI. DHI assisted King County with the 2001 regional Infiltration and Inflow (I&I) study, and King County also used MOUSE for the 2012 I/I study, and has assisted the City and Stantec with the development of the original MOUSE model, conversion of the MOUSE model to MIKE URBAN, and development of the City’s sewer system geodatabase. City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 1.2 CHAPTER 2 PHYSICAL MODEL UPDATE The development of the two primary models (2012 and Ultimate) is summarized below. 2012 PHYSICAL MODEL DEVELOPMENT Data Source The basis for the M IKE U RBAN model update was primarily the City’s GIS database, and includes system data from 2008 through March 2012 . Additional data was provided from topographic survey data and sewer record drawings. To be consistent with the previous model development and updates, the following rules were applied when adding new facilities to the model: Manholes and Nodes • Cleanouts and connected piping were generally excluded from the model. • The correct manhole diameters were assigned to the model where available. Manholes were generally assumed to be 4-foot diameter if no other information was available. • Outlet loss for manholes in the model was assumed to be “round-edged.” To remain conservative yet more realistic, the outlet loss was assigned as “round-edged” to the manholes, and the default loss value “Km” was reduced from 0.25 to 0.1. • At a few locations, the new sewer information was joined the older portions of the model. I nterpolations and/or datum shifts of elevations were necessary during the original model development. In many of these cases, it was necessary to re-interpolate or re-work the existing manhole elevations to match the new data. Pipes • Specific pipe lengths were generally not input into the model; instead the pipe lengths were scaled based on the coordinates from the City’s GIS. Lift Stations and Force Mains • Best available pumping rate data was used to input flow rates for single pumps in duplex stations. Pumps were assumed to operate at a constant rate (the design flow rate) throughout the ranges of operation. The pump City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 2.1 PHYSICAL MODEL DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 2 data originated from pumping tests and flow monitoring data supplied by the City. Pump curves were not used for the lift stations in the model. Generally, the magnitude of flow rates from the lift stations relative to the larger system flows were considered to be small enough to neglect the effects of wet well fluctuations for modeling purposes. • The pump controls (on/off) are based on actual level settings obtained from the City. The second pump in each station is activated based on the wet well level, and a very rough estimate was made for the flow rates with both pumps running. For the backup pumps within lift stations, where no other information was available, the second pump was assumed to produce approximately 1/4 to 1/3 of the flow rate of the first pump when the pumps operate simultaneously. It is recognized that per DOH requirements for duplex stations, a single pump must be sized to handle the entire peak flow of the design storm event. The flow rate from the second pump is defined as the difference between the first pump operating alone, and the combined pumping rate (e.g., Pump 1 pumps 1.0 cfs throughout operation range, Pump 2 pumps 0.25 cfs throughout its operating range). • The alignment, size, and material of f orce mains is physically defined in the model. However, intermittent grade changes along the alignment are not represented. • Appropriate lift stations were added and abandoned in the model for the different scenarios and timeframes analyzed, as described below, and in the sections discussing the Ultimate Models. The following lift stations were added or modified in the 2012 Model: • Denny’s Lift Station (L07) Improvements • Airport Lift Station (L25) Replacement • Stoneg ate Lift Station (L27) Replacement • Shy Creek Lift St ation (L01) • Liberty Lift Station (L3 4) The following lift stations, which have been removed from service, were removed in the 2012 Model: • Summer Wind Lift Station • Earlington Lift Station • East Renton Lift Station • High Gate Lift Station City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 2.2 PHYSICAL MODEL DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 2 • Highland Estates Lift Station • Evendell Lift Station A few of the improvements described above, including the Liberty Lift Station and Airport Lift Station Improvements, were not active until after 2012. These improvements were added after the calibration was complete. Extent of 2012 Hydraulic Model The majority of the City’s sewer system as it existed in 2012 was incorporated into the hydraulic model. Clean-outs, dead-end portions of the system with missing/errant information, and some portions of private system were not included. Although present in the physical model, a portion of the City’s system south of Mini- Basin 5 did not include flow assignments, per direction from City staff (this portion of the system is “dry” piping in the model), since it is tributary to another purveyor’s Mini-Basin (SOO039). This area is located in the South portion of the City, primarily serving customers on South 55th Street (between 99th Place South and SR-167) and on Talbot Road South (between South 50th Street and South 194th Street). Isolated areas where small portions of the City’s piping are tributary to sewer purveyors other than King County were generally not modeled. Model Pipe and Manhole ID Updates The City updated its geodatabase in 2014. Included in this update was a revision to the naming conventions for the sewer infrastructure, including manholes, cleanouts, gravity pipes, force mains, and lift stations. In order to more easily identify and discuss the analysis of the sewer system, the City requested that we update the City sewer identifiers (MUIDs) within the model to be consistent with the geodatabase. This included updates to the pipe material identifications , which were adjusted to conform to NASSCO standards for pipe inspection. With the assistance of DHI, Stantec imported and updated the MUIDs and pipe materials . Small isolated areas of the City sewer system were not updated. These locations were typically updates to the geodatabase that occurred after 2012, or were locations where the model included horizontal and vertical bends in the pipe not adequately represented in the GIS. The King County interceptor sewer pipes were not updated during this procedure. Table 2-1 lists the pipe materials and associated Manning’s roughness values. City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 2.3 PHYSICAL MODEL DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 2 Table 2-1 Pipe Material Summary Pipe Material Manning's Roughness Legacy MOUSE model material descriptions Concrete (Smooth) 0.013 Plastic 0.011 NASSCO Material Descriptions CAS - Cast Iron 0.0143 CP - Concrete Pipe (non- reinforced) 0.0133 DIP - Ductile Iron Pipe 0.012 PE - Polyethylene 0.011 PSC - Plastic/Steel Composite 0.011 PVC - Polyvinyl Chloride 0.011 VCP - Vitrified Clay Pipe 0.014 XXX - Not Known 0.0143 A small number of pipes and manholes from sewer improvements after 2012 were added to the model in order successfully complete the ID updates. ULTIMATE PHYSICAL MODEL DEVELOPMENT Pipe, Manhole and Node Additions The 2012 Model was used as the base to create the Ultimate physical model. Development of the Ultimate Model included working with City Staff to determine and include future system improvements, such as: • T he proposed diversion sewer for Heather Downs/Maplewood Heights was added. The proposed sewer will begin south of the Union Avenue SE/SE 4th Street Intersection and will drain sewage flows down a steep slope, and connect to the existing sewer located in the Maplewood Golf Course. • The proposed Talbot Hills Sewer relocation was added. This involves r elocation of the sewer from South 14th Street and redirection of the sewer to flow by gravity to Smithers Avenue S. This also includes installation of a new sewer crossing under I-405 at the extension of Smithers Avenue S to S Renton Village Place. City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 2.4 PHYSICAL MODEL DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 2 • The proposed Thunder Hills diversion sewer, located on S 18th Street between Grant Avenue S and Eagle Ridge Drive S, was added. The downstream sewers between Eagle Ridge Drive and Smithers Avenue S were upsized to accommodate increased flow rates. In addition to the improvements listed above, “dummy” nodes were added to represent portions of the “U” Basins or other existing sub-basins not currently served by sewer. To represent future service, nodes were added for each mini-basin or sub-b asin, generally a single node each for residential, employment, and any school populations. City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 2.5 CHAPTER 3 PLANNING DATA The planning data section includes the populations and areas assigned to each mini-basin, the assumptions used to model sanitary sewer flow, peak flow generating storm events assigned to each model basin, and I&I assignments. MODEL SANITARY FLOW DETERMINATION Unlike the flow monitoring performed for the original 2001 Infiltration and Inflow study performed by King County, the decennial flow monitoring used for the 2012 study did not include each of the City’s mini-basins. Instead, flow monitors were placed at fewer locations. T ypically, the locations were at the outlet of each Model Basin, although a small number of mini-basins were also assigned a flow monitor. There were 25 flow monitors placed which recorded flows generated within the City’s sewer service area. Dry Weather Flow Determination by Mini-Basin Dry weather flow data from the 2009-2010 flow monitoring season was generally used to determine total average sanitary sewage flows for each mini-basin. King County staff identified the periods meeting their criteria for dry weather flow. For model basins receiving flow from upstream tributary basins , time series using the flow monitoring data were developed and added to the model as boundary conditions to examine the total flow through the basin. Diurnal Curve Development The diurnal curves developed during the creation of the 2001 Mouse m odel were not modified for the 2012 or Ult imate models. MODEL PLANNING DATA Population projections were compiled for the City of Renton Sewer Service Area for current and future conditions. The populations are divided into four categories; single-family residential, multi-family residential, employment, and schools. Most of the projections for the three categories (not including schools) were taken from the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) Land Use Baseline projections, which were developed using the UrbanSims model, and cut to the City of Renton sewer mini-basin boundaries by PSRC staff. Due to confidentially requirements established by the Employment Securities Department, employment populations could not be provided for six sewer mini-basin boundaries. Because of this, two different methods, which are described later in the chapter, were used to estimate City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 3.1 PLANNING DATA CHAPTER 3 the employment populations for current and future conditions. A small number of residential populations were also modified after our review of the PSRC data. School populations were derived from enrollment data published by the school districts located within the City sewer service area. Planning Area/Basin Boundaries 2012 Model Population and employment data was assigned to the hydraulic model based on City of Renton mini-basins. There are 6 7 sewer drainage mini-basins. The mini- basins vary in size and span the entire City. These include the 57 King County Mini- Basins delineated for the year 2001-2002 flow monitoring, which were modified to more accurately represent the City’s service area and to exclude non-developable areas, and to also add Mini-Basins A and B. Mini-Basin 38 was split into two sub- basins, as discussed in the September 2006 report, and Mini-Basins U1, U2, U3, U4, U6, U8, and U9 were added to address the development in the eastern portions of the City Sewer Service Area. These were originally delineated for the previous Ultimate analysis, but have incorporated some development since that time. Mini- Basin 30C, which was formerly part of Basin 30A, was created, and Basin 46 was split into two sub-basins, Mini-Basin 46 and 46-N orth. Other minor adjustments were made to some of the basins boundaries due to additional development and improvements to the network. Figure 3-1 displays the mini-basin boundaries used in conjunction with the 2012 model. Ultimate Model The planning area boundaries are determined by physical service area agreements between the City and other jurisdictions, including adjacent Cities and Sewer Utility Districts. The Urban Growth Boundary designated by the King County Comprehensive Plan determines much of the easterly planning boundary areas. Most of the projected sewer area growth will occur to the areas east of the current City limits, including a large non-sewered area within unincorporated King County in the East Plateau service area. S everal Mini-Basin boundaries were expanded to include the City’s sewer planning area for the “Ultimate” conditions, so that the entire population projected to be served by the City and the resultant sanitary sewage flows would be represented. Topography and other geographic features were taken into account when creating the new boundaries. Three Basins east of the City, identified as U5, U7, and U10 included in the Ultimate model, were also delineated for the previous Ultimate analysis. Basins U5, U10, and the eastern portion of U9 are outside the East Plateau Service Area but City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 3.2 CHAPTER 3 PLANNING DATA Figure 3.1 2012 Sewer Mini-Basin Boundaries City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 3.3 PLANNING DATA CHAPTER 3 Figure 3.2 Ultimate Sewer Mini-Basin Boundaries City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 3.4 PLANNING DATA CHAPTER 3 within the Ultimate Sewer Service Area. The areas of proposed future growth were represented in the model, as a “skeletonized” system. Large portions of the other U-Basins, including U4 and U6, are also currently without sewer. Undeveloped portions of the U-Basins were generally represented in the model by single nodes in the approximate centers of the proposed service areas, connected to the appropriate discharge locations. Additionally, single nodes were assigned as “point” loads at various locations in the model, where significant proposed future service area is projected to connect to the existing system. Figure 3-2 shows the mini-basin boundaries used in conjunction with the Ultimate Model. Land Use and Zoning The land use and zoning map, adopted September 22, 2014, was obtained from the City’s geodatabase and used for the planning data. The land use and zoning designations within the City include single-family residential (generally ranging from 1 to 14 dwelling units per acre), several classifications of multifamily residential, office, commercial, business, urban-center, and industrial zoning. There are also many parks and open spaces in and around the City. Population assigned to the model was grouped into the following four categories: single-family residential, multifamily residential, employment, and schools. For the 2012 model, population was assigned to the appropriate categories in the model by overlaying the land use and zoning map with the map of the sewer system, and separating the manholes into the four categories. Population was generally not assigned to manholes within parks and open areas. Future land use and zoning patterns used in the Ultimate Model for the planning area were assumed to very closely correspond to existing uses (with a few exceptions), based on discussions with the City Planning Department and Planning/Building/Public Works Staff. Data Projections Population, household, and employment data was provided by the PSRC for the years 2012 and 2040 for the entire sewer planning area (both inside and outside current City limits). The data obtained for these years was provided in geographic subdivisions based on the based on the sewer Mini-Basin boundaries provided to PSRC by Stantec. With a few exceptions, each Mini-Basin included projected growth of households and employment. Residential PSRC provided 2012 residential projections for the entire City of Renton Sewer Service Area utilizing Land Use Baseline data. These projections included estimated populations for single family and multi-family populations. City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 3.5 PLANNING DATA CHAPTER 3 The Land Use Baseline projections are available down to the parcel level. However, the data was not been verified at this precision, and may contain some inaccuracies. Also, PSRC did not provide verification for its cut of the data at the mini-basin level, so we reviewed the data to determine if there were any obvious inaccuracies. This was done by reviewing City GIS data within each mini-basin, including land-use, parcel count, and aerial photos. King County Assessor’s information, via King County’s online GIS interface, iMap, was also checked to estimate volume of larger multi-family developments. Based on this review, the populations for the following basins were modified: • Basin 5 – The Land Use Baseline projections list 126 parcels and a single family residential population of 169. City GIS data shows 170 parcels within the basin, with an estimated 100 single family lots. A multiplier of 2.5 persons per single family lot was used to estimate a single family residential population of 250 for this basin. The multi-f amily population supplied by PSRC is negligible, and is consistent with the city GIS data. • Basin 20 – The estimate from PSRC for this mini-basin encompassed the Ultimate mini-basin boundary. T o estimate the population for the current boundary, the total of 3,007 people was scaled on an area ratio of the current/ultimate basins for an adjusted population of 2,390. The multi-family development and zoning is all within the current mini-basin boundary, so this population was not modified. • Basin 25/Basin 43 – Both of these mini-basins include large mobile home parks, which are not accounted for in the PSRC projections for either single- family or multi-family populations. Basin 25 includes approximately 240 mobile homes, and Basin 43 includes approximately 200 mobile homes. T o account for these populations, a multiplier of 1.8 (multi-family) was applied to each mobile home, and the populations were added to the projections supplied by PSRC. For Basin 25, the total residential population was adjusted from 983 to 1,415. For Basin 43, the population was adjusted from 49 to 410. • Basin U1 - The Land Use Baseline projections list 58 parcels and a single family residential population of 255. City GIS data shows approximately 205 parcels within the basin, with an estimated 197 single family lots. A multiplier of 2.5 persons per single family lot was used to estimate a single family residential population of 490 for this basin. The multi-family population supplied by PSRC is negligible, and is consistent with the GIS data. • Basin U6 – The estimate from PSRC for this mini- basin encompassed the ultimate mini-basin boundary. T o estimate the population for the current boundary, the total of 2,050 people was scaled on an area ratio of the current/ultimate basins for an adjusted population of 1,345. The multi-family population supplied by PSRC is negligible, and is consistent with the GIS data. It was not modified. City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 3.6 PLANNING DATA CHAPTER 3 • Basin U9 – The estimate from PSRC for this mini-basin encompassed the ultimate mini-basin boundary. T o estimate the population for the current boundary, the total of 1,268 people was scaled on an area ratio of the current/ultimate basins for an adjusted population of 68. No multi-family population was projected. This is consistent with the GIS data. These modifications were reviewed by City of Renton Planning Department staff and accepted. Employment Using Land Use Baseline data, PSRC provided 2012 employment projections for all but six mini-basins within City of Renton Sewer Service Area. Projections were not released for Basins 30C, 32, 50, 52, U3, and U8 due to confidentiality requirements by the Employment Securities Department. For those six basins, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) data, developed by the U.S. Census Bureau, was cut to the mini-basin boundaries. The data listed is for the year 2011, which was the most recent data available. As with the residential data, the employment data was reviewed. However, since it is difficult to estimate employment populations for each business without performing a detailed analysis of each min-basin, no obvious discrepancies between the PSRC/LEHD projections and the GIS data were identified. Schools Using published data from the local school districts, including the Renton School District and Issaq uah Schools, populations were determined for schools within the existing sewer service area. Student populations were generally developed using enrollment statistics for the 2011-2012 school year. Where available, school staffing data was also collected and used to allocate employment population to the schools in the model. Future Population Projections Residential PSRC provided 2040 residential projections, using the Land Use Baseline data, for the entire City of Renton Sewer Service Area. These projections included estimated populations for single family and multi-family populations. Since these projections were modeled using a large number of factors, it is difficult to review them solely on zoning and land use designations. Because of this, none of the residential projections were modified from the PSRC output, with the following exception: • As part of the Thunder Hills Sanitary Sewer Interceptor analysis, A detailed review of the projections for the the tributary areas was performed. It was City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 3.7 PLANNING DATA CHAPTER 3 determined that The PSRC projections for Mini-Basin 45 (which is tributary to the Thunder Hills interceptor) for the year 2040 showed large decreases in single and multi-family residential population, which is inconsistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan land use designations and current development activity for the basin. Because of this, Stantec developed Ultimate populations for the portions of Mini-Basin 45 tributary to the Thunder Hills Interceptor by applying the growth percentages calculated for adjacent Mini-Basin 3 based on PSRC estimates. Employment Future employment projections fall under the same restrictions as the current population data, so PSRC provided 2040 employment projections, using the Land Use Baseline data, for all but Basins 30C, 32, 50, 52, U3, and U8. Long-term LEHD data is not developed, so this methodology could not be used for future projections. PSRC provided employment projections for its Land Use Targets dataset, which are based on local growth targets that are aligned with the Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy. This data is divided by TAZ (Traffic Analysis Zone), which is the smallest delineation of the data made available to the public by PSRC. No similar data set is available for the Land Use Baseline data. The long-term horizon for these projections varies by city, since they were based on each City's comprehensive planning period. For the City of Renton, year 2035 was the longest- term projection. To allocate this population data to the future sewer mini-basins, we divided the populations for each TAZ into the mini-basins and using an area percentage of each mini-basin within the overlapping TAZ. A TAZ may still include multiple basins, city boundaries, and the UGA boundary in some cases. Each TAZ may also include areas of varying residential and employment density due to land-use designations. Because of this, a strict area to population ratio may not be an adequate representation of the employment population. Th e projections for two of the six mini-b asins appeared to be reasonable. However, t here were concerns about the projections for the other four mini-basins. C oncerns and comments for the six mini- basins, which were presented with the population projections to the City Planning Department staff, are described below: • Basin 30C – This basin is located in portions TAZ Zones 325, 324, and 325. The developable areas within this basin are entirely residential at this time, and have residential zoning and land use designations. A low or negligible employment population would be anticipated. • Basin 32 – Almost this entire basin is located in a portion TAZ Zone 324. Approximately 50% of the basin has industrial land use designations, while the rest of the basin is a mixture of urban center, residential and commercial land-use designations. Much of the TAZ Zone 324 is south of Basin 32, and includes large areas with Commercial Corridor and Urban Center Downtown City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 3.8 PLANNING DATA CHAPTER 3 land use designations, where more of the employment population is likely to be located. Because of this, it appears that the employment projections for Basin 32 are high. • Basin 50 – Most of this basin is located in a part of TAZ Zone 323, with a small portion in Zone 335. The land use designations are Urban Center North, Industrial, and Commercial Corridor. Although there are commercial and industrial land use designations outside of Basin 50 for both TAZ zones, the employment population distribution does not appear to be disproportionate. • Basin 52 - This basin is located in portions of TAZ Zones 322, 323, 324 and 325. The land use designations within the basin are residential and industrial. The area within Basin 325 is not developable. The employment population within Zone 323 does not appear to be disproportionate. However, the employment population projections for Zones 322 and 324 appear to be high, for similar reasons as for Basin 32. • Basin U3 – This Basin is located within parts of TAZ Zones 327 and 328. The land use designations within the basin are primarily residential, but there is a small area of the basin within Zone 322 with a commercial designation. Zone 327 contains a large cross-section of residential and commercial land-use designations, so it is difficult to assess whether the employment population projections within Basin U3 are accurate. • Basin U8 - This basin covers a comparatively small area in relation to the other basins. It is located within TAZ Zone 328, and the land use designation is all single-family. Zone 328 included only single family residential land use designations, so the employment population should be negligible. The comments and data were reviewed by City of Renton Planning Department staff, and the population data was accepted. The 2040 data is considered to be Ultimate built-out population by City Planning Staff. For hydraulic modeling purposes, most populations assigned to the model were increased by an additional 25% per the City’s direction, to ensure an adequate level of conservatism for the Ultimate scenario. Schools Since school enrollment projections are not available for 2040, school population estimates were determined by applying the residential growth rate between 2012 and Ultimate conditions from the surrounding mini-basin. School staffing was similarly adjusted to compensate for adjustments in school population. City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 3.9 PLANNING DATA CHAPTER 3 POPULATION AND SANITARY SEWAGE FLOW ASSIGNMENT TO MODEL Population Assignment I ndividual (per capita) flow rates were assigned to the residential and employment population, consistent with the flow rate assigned to each Mini-Basin in the original model, and later adjusted during the dry weather calibration process. Allowances were made for large concentrations of population or employment. The following outlines some of the main considerations for the process of population assignment to the model: • Population was generally assigned to manholes in four main categories: residential single-family, residential multifamily, employment (commercial/industrial, etc.), and schools. Population and employment numbers for each composite mini-basin were apportioned among each zoning category to achieve uniform flow distribution. • Population was generally assigned to most of the nodes in the model. Population was usually not assigned to the nodes associated with parks/open space, non-served areas (transmission areas), lift stations, and bends (population was assigned to Tees); these nodes were separated from the others and excluded from the population assignments. • Per the City, typical sewage flows for the residential category are generally in the 60 to 100 gpcd range (not including I&I). Sewage flows from multifamily individuals are typically about 2/3 of the flows from single family individuals. • Sewage flows for the employment category were generally assumed to be 10 gpcd (not including I&I), unless other information about higher demands was available or apparent, or as necessary for calibration. • Sewage flows for the school category were generally assumed to be 10 to 15 gpcd (not including I&I), unless other information about higher demands was available or apparent. These values were roughly consistent with average school flow rates from Table 2-4 of Wastewater Engineering by Metcalf and Eddy (1991). In areas where the mini-basin boundaries remained constant (no increase in area), and no significant sewer improvements were added, generally the projected population was evenly distributed among the existing nodes. Where mini-basin boundaries expanded for the Ultimate Model, the population was often increased by 25-50% for the existing manholes, and new area and new projected population was generally assigned to new manholes or projected single point-loads outside of and connected to the existing system. These populations were estimated based on zoning and area. City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 3.10 PLANNING DATA CHAPTER 3 Table 3-1 summarizes the population and area assignments by mini-basin in the 2012 Model and the Ultimate Model. The population was separated into residential single-family, residential multifamily, employment, and school categories. This table updated the population assignments provided in the “City of Renton Hydraulic Model Update – Population Projections” memo dated June 18, 2014. Determination of Sanitary Sewer Flow Rates The per capita sanitary sewage flow rates developed during the creation of the 2001 Mouse model were generally used in the 2012 and Ultimate models. A description of the process for flow rate development is included in the text of the documentation report. Flows for new catchments within existing basin were initially assigned the same flows as existing adjacent areas based on development, a nd adjustments were made during the model dry weather calibration. City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 3.11 PLANNING DATA CHAPTER 3 City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 3.12 Table 3-1 Population Projections by Sewer Mini-Basins: Values Assigned to 2012 and Ultimate Models 2012 Basin Population Estimates Ultimate Population Estimates (2040 Population+25%) Area (acres) Sewer Mini-Basin Single Family Multi- Family Employment Schools Single Family Multi- Family Employment Schools 2012 Ult % Diff 1 180 82 22 0 554 420 29 0 71.8 71.8 0.0% 2 81 1,303 342 1,041 209 1,608 713 1,367 127.5 134.7 5.7% 3 1,012 1,307 95 0 1,660 1,836 248 0 194.5 194.5 0.0% 4 1,094 49 22 466 2,109 121 160 909 205.2 205.2 0.0% 5 250 1,823 4,126 0 701 2,238 5,633 0 213.9 233.5 9.2% 6 1,513 10 25 0 2,173 14 165 0 224.3 224.3 0.0% 7 1,232 27 67 526 1,936 31 88 822 162.6 162.6 0.0% 8 0 0 2,248 0 0 0 5,310 0 82.1 82.1 0.0% 9 0 0 272 0 0 0 645 0 111.0 111.0 0.0% 10 173 121 537 0 201 65 1,011 0 54.4 54.4 0.0% 11 803 461 1,140 0 1,148 559 2,201 0 163.8 163.8 0.0% 12 23 1,492 458 0 34 1,803 883 0 73.6 73.6 0.0% 13 402 438 698 0 398 498 1,301 0 81.1 81.1 0.0% 14 1,041 401 504 298 1,795 483 1,088 471 206.0 206.0 0.0% 15 110 456 736 1,218 139 576 1,504 1,539 92.3 92.3 0.0% 16 1,077 380 241 0 1,534 481 583 0 177.2 177.2 0.0% 17 545 149 202 0 765 355 379 0 122.7 122.7 0.0% 18 350 209 148 0 408 280 279 0 38.9 38.9 0.0% 19 0 0 1,480 0 0 0 3,496 0 144.4 144.4 0.0% 20 2,390 490 261 0 5,943 549 973 0 309.5 620.7 100.5% 21 1,425 17 59 618 1,998 35 335 871 143.5 176.5 23.0% 22 1,065 1,433 599 1,956 1,690 1,905 2,049 2,815 208.8 208.8 0.0% 23 858 393 52 0 1,228 500 98 0 111.8 111.8 0.0% 24 1,258 136 63 0 1,839 179 109 0 130.5 130.5 0.0% 25 1,583 35 111 0 1,321 90 200 0 179.8 179.8 0.0% 26 2,189 1,440 818 525 3,270 2,228 1,800 795 382.5 382.5 0.0% 27 1,097 62 11 1,135 1,434 86 1,209 1,489 103.0 103.0 0.0% PLANNING DATA CHAPTER 3 City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 3.13 Table 3-1 Population Projections by Sewer Mini-Basins: Values Assigned to 2012 and Ultimate Models 2012 Basin Population Estimates Ultimate Population Estimates (2040 Population+25%) Area (acres) 28 0 0 5,365 0 0 0 12,673 0 180.0 180.0 0.0% 29 574 120 16 2,265 770 188 44 3,127 85.8 85.8 0.0% 30A 787 835 60 0 941 1,688 139 0 133.6 133.6 0.0% 30B 38 3 0 0 55 63 0 0 4.7 4.7 0.0% 30C 2 324 12 0 95 499 106 0 21.2 21.2 0.0% 32 321 281 105 0 368 328 5,373 0 141.8 141.8 0.0% 33 3,184 11 218 559 4,903 18 398 861 320.6 375.9 17.3% 34 721 227 43 0 1,223 279 75 0 127.9 127.9 0.0% 35 328 224 113 0 438 314 313 0 60.1 60.1 0.0% 36 40 1,376 397 0 41 1,634 854 0 117.2 117.2 0.0% 37 256 352 257 1,159 341 494 451 1,592 69.1 69.1 0.0% 38A 642 253 469 0 808 370 1,091 0 91.2 91.2 0.0% 38B 47 17 2 0 55 63 0 0 16.7 16.7 0.0% 39 508 515 127 0 640 690 329 0 86.0 86.0 0.0% 40 593 87 33 0 776 113 63 0 74.9 74.9 0.0% 41 1,063 94 61 0 1,319 133 116 0 117.3 117.3 0.0% 42 0 0 147 0 0 0 329 0 20.1 20.1 0.0% 43 549 624 7 0 611 1,085 175 0 116.5 116.5 0.0% 44 282 578 487 0 361 835 909 0 127.9 127.9 0.0% 45 20 1,157 2,733 0 133 2,390 5,165 0 158.8 158.8 0.0% 46 1,994 615 679 0 2,431 741 1,469 0 390.0 390.0 0.0% 46 (North) 67 665 21 0 106 1,055 36 0 23.8 23.8 0.0% 47 777 1,496 606 0 1,089 2,628 1,269 0 196.3 196.3 0.0% 48 462 168 6 545 609 243 288 737 60.3 60.3 0.0% 49 12 0 544 0 15 0 1,284 0 71.9 71.9 0.0% 50 4 174 30 0 5 210 1,064 0 162.6 162.6 0.0% 52 597 6 187 0 1,054 5 1,028 0 148.1 148.1 0.0% 54 139 1,066 883 0 446 1,680 1,668 0 252.5 252.5 0.0% A 4 0 4,975 0 5 571 11,753 0 857.2 857.2 0.0% B 0 0 2,580 0 85 0 6,046 0 323.3 323.3 0.0% PLANNING DATA CHAPTER 3 City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 3.14 Table 3-1 Population Projections by Sewer Mini-Basins: Values Assigned to 2012 and Ultimate Models 2012 Basin Population Estimates Ultimate Population Estimates (2040 Population+25%) Area (acres) CEDAR 02A 302 146 318 0 370 211 599 0 48.6 48.6 0.0% ESI1003 237 620 7,126 0 255 1,108 14,185 0 403.9 403.9 0.0% RENT65 561 526 189 0 1,115 811 569 0 178.1 178.1 0.0% U1 255 8 7 0 1,004 8 16 0 75.5 75.5 0.0% U2 1,054 56 23 0 2,014 61 51 0 139.0 139.0 0.0% U3 1,064 63 59 0 1,743 88 303 0 141.7 141.7 0.0% U4 2,927 10 251 612 4,649 30 614 975 472.0 472.0 0.0% U5 N/A1 N/A1 N/A1 N/A1 976 75 36 0 N/A1 112.9 U6 1,345 6 32 1,664 4,055 33 544 3,309 219.9 615.2 179.8% U7 N/A1 N/A1 N/A1 N/A1 1,685 9 96 0 N/A1 173.7 U8 294 0 3 0 496 0 26 0 43.0 43.0 0.0% U9 68 0 1 905 1,824 0 314 1,305 12.2 212.7 1641.9% U10 N/A1 N/A1 N/A1 N/A1 2,335 178 64 0 N/A1 354.0 Total 43,869 25,417 44,506 15,492 76,731 37,869 104,414 22,984 10,407.7 12,070.3 1. Basin U5, U7, and U10 are not located within the existing sewer service area. PLANNING DATA CHAPTER 3 The same per capita flow rates and diurnal curves were used in both the 2012 and Ultimate Models for the portions of the system common to both models. These per capita flow rates were computed as part of the dry weather calibration for the 2012 Model. For population assigned to manholes located in the U-Basins, 100 gallons per person per day was assumed for residential population, and a peaking factor of 2.0 was globally applied to this flow rate. Twenty (20) gallons per person per day was assigned for employment population, per direction from the City Staff. For new schools in the projected service area, 15 gallons per person per day was assigned to the model. With this methodology, calibrated diurnal curves were applied to the existing manholes, and an averaged flow rate was applied to population assigned to new manholes. Input to Model Flows for the newly-added portions of sewer system were assigned to new catchments. Numbering methodology is consistent with the original model development, and was assigned in sequential order. In cases where portions of the sewer system were upgraded or re-routed, existing catchment information w as re- assigned to new manholes. Area Assignments For the older portions of the model, area assignments were generally not modified from the original MOUSE model development. A description of the process for area assignment is included in the text of the documentation report. For portions of the 2012 model developed in Mike Urban, the City parcel GIS data w as overlaid in the model, and catchments were drawn directly over the se developments. Where the new development included multiple manholes, a routine in Mike Urban automatically divided the catchments among the manholes within the development boundary. I f additional manholes were added to a mini- basin with a constant boundary, the areas of the older surrounding catchments were reduced. Areas assigned to the Ultimate Model were generally consistent with the methodology used for area assignments to the 2012 Model. Additionally, “dummy” nodes were added to represent future projected growth areas within the proposed service area boundaries. Large areas (point loads) were added to these dummy nodes to represent the discharges to the system from future growth. For example, s everal dummy nodes were used in the portions of the U-Basins where gravity sewer systems have not yet been constructed. City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 3.15 PLANNING DATA CHAPTER 3 RAINFALL AND EVAPORATION ASSIGNMENTS Rainfall Assignments King County developed model basin specific precipitation time series as part of its 2001 I&I study by using Doppler radar to identify the varying precipitation patterns between rain gauges and factoring the gauge data accordingly. These precipitation data sets were developed for a 60-year period based from SeaTac d ata, and spliced with local rain gauge data for the period of time the County flow monitors were in place, resulting in a specific precipitation data set for each monitoring basin. Each Model Basin was assigned 60 years of factored data coupled with two years of more exact measured precipitation data. These rainfall time series were used in the original MOUSE model analysis, and most of the subsequent model analyses performed for the City. King County used these time series for its recent anal ysis, so they were also used for the City’s 2012 models. For system improvements constructed within the U-Basins, a global I&I assignment of 1,500 gallons per acre per day was assumed and connected to the model. Evaporation Evaporation data was obtained from the historical Puyallup pan evaporation data record. The data is no longer collected at that location and no other known sources of evaporation data exist in the area. As a result, historical monthly averages of the Puyallup data were determined and input to the model. The County adopted a similar average monthly approach to input evaporation data into the model. A standard pan evaporation factor of 0.75 has been applied to the data. King County provided an updated evaporation time series which extends through 2015. The rainfall and evaporation assignments assigned to the Ultimate Model were consistent with those applied to the 2012 Model. This rainfall data included 60- years of data spliced with two years of more specific rainfall data from King County’s flow monitoring program. Each model basin had a separate targeted rainfall assignment which was applied consistently to all of nodes (catchments) contained within. External Boundary Flows Boundary flows enter the City of Renton Sewer Service area at multiple points in the system. Some of these flows discharge from other sewer systems into the City’s sewers, while others flow into the King County sewers within the City’s Sewer Service Area boundary. These boundary flows are described below: City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 3.16 PLANNING DATA CHAPTER 3 • TUK 015 – This boundary flow discharges through the Tukwila T runkline into the South I nterceptor on the west side of Mini-Basin A, and includes flows from King County Model Basins TUK015, TUK002, TUK004, VAL002, and VAL020 in southwestern King County. There is no direct discharge into City of Renton facilities. However, these flows can potentially impact the hydraulic grade line in City sewers tributary to the Tukwila Tr unkline and South Interceptor. • SINT020 - This boundary flow discharges into the South Interceptor on the south side of Mini-Basin A, and includes flows from King County Model Basins SINT020,AUBRN002, ULID066, ULID57C, ULIDN001, ULIDN003, SOO039, KNT035, KNT036, KNT042, and KNT047 located in south King County. T here is no direct discharge into City of Renton facilities. However, these flows can potentially affect the hydraulic grade line in City sewers tributary to the South Interceptor. • SOO021 - This boundary flow discharges into the South Renton Interceptor on the east side of Mini-Basin 5 from the Soos Creek Water and Sewer District, and includes flows from King County Model Basin SOO021. There is no direct discharge into City of Renton facilities. However, these flows can potentially affect the hydraulic grade line in City sewers tributary to the South Renton Interceptor. • SOO003 - This boundary flow discharges into the City of Renton facilities on the south side of Mini-Basin 4 from the Soos Creek Water and Sewer District, and includes flows from King County Model Basins SOO003. SOOS67, NSOOS384, SOO051, SOOS62, and SOO011. • CEDAR039A - This boundary flow discharges into the Cedar River Trunkline to the southeast of the City sewer s ervice area, and includes flows from King County Model Basins CEDAR039, CEDAR010, CEDAR011, and CEDAR 012. There is no direct discharge into City of Renton facilities. However, these flows can potentially affect the hydraulic grade line in City sewers tributary to the Cedar River Trunk. • RNT042 - This boundary flow discharges into the City of Renton facilities on the north side of Mini-Basin 42 , and includes flows from King County Model Basin RENT042. Mini-Basin 42 is actually located within King County Model Basin RENT042. However, the City of Renton sewer service area flows are not modeled as boundary flows. • ESI4024 - This boundary flow discharges into the Eastside Interceptor at the north end of the City Sewer Service area, and includes a tributary area encompassing Belle vue, Kirkland, and much of the area east of Lake Washington. • BLS043B - This boundary flow discharges into the Bryn Mawr Trunkline on the northwest side of Mini Basin 50, and includes flows from King County Model Basins BLS007 and BLS43B. There is no direct discharge into City of Renton City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 3.17 PLANNING DATA CHAPTER 3 facilities. However, these flows can potentially affect the hydraulic grade line in City sewers tributary to the Bryn Mawr Trunk. Locations where the boundary flows enter the City of Re nton Sewer Service Area are included in t he model analysis results, F igure 5-2 and Figure 5-3. Methods for simulating the boundary flows during the calibration and capacity anal ysis are discussed in Chapter 4 and Chapter 5. City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 3.18 CHAPTER 4 MODEL CALIBRATION Model calibration consists of two primary tasks: sanitary and I&I calibration. It is important to distinguish between these separate components, to more accurately simulate future scenario changes in pipe flows related to changing population and employment as well as assumptions about I&I changes over time. Understanding the characteristics of these individual components of pipe flow is a key element in developing the model. Calibration parameters were generally based on the guidelines found in the 2002 Wastewater Planning Users Group Code of Practice for the Hydraulic Modeling of Sewer Systems. The code recommends that sanitary flow verification should be carried out for two dry weather days and the predicted flows/depths compared to the observed flows/depths. The two flow hydrographs should closely follow each other both in shape and in magnitude. In addition to the shape, as a general guide, the flow hydrographs should meet the following criteria: • The timing of the peaks and troughs should be within 1 hour. • The peak flow rate should be in the range ± 10%. • The volume of flow should be in the range ±10%. Care should be taken to exclude periods of missing or inaccurate data. For wet weather calibration, modeled flows/depths should be compared to the observed flows/depths. The two flow hydrographs should closely follow each other both in shape and in magnitude, until the flow has substantially returned to dry weather flow rates. In addition to the shape, as a general guide, the observed and modeled hydrographs should meet the following criteria in at least two of the three events: • The timing of the peaks and troughs should be similar inregard to the duration of the event. • The peak flow rates at each significant peak should be in the range + 25% to - 15% and should be generally similar throughout the event. • The volume of flow should be in the range +20% to -10%. Care should be taken to exclude periods of missing or inaccurate data. • The depth of surcharge should be in the range +0.5 m to - 0.1 m. • The unsurcharged depth at any key points, where this is important regarding the objectives of the model (e.g. at combined sewer overflows), should be within the range ±100 mm. Where rainfall induced infiltration is modeled, the use of a single verification period incorporating a number of rainfall events should be considered instead of a number of discrete events. City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 4.1 MODEL CALIBRATION CHAPTER 4 For the purposes of this model calibration, for both sanitary and wet weather, peak flow and volume parameters for the model were verified against the flow monitoring data, as well as a comparison of general flow patterns and timing of peaks. 2012 MODEL DRY WEATHER CALIBRATION Sanitary Flow Calibration Sanitary calibration consists of two primary elements: the total flow produced per person over a 24-hour (diurnal) period and the definition of how that flow fluctuates over the same period. This information, combined with the previously discussed population and employment data, generate the total sanitary flow simulated in the model. Prior to determining per capita flow rates and diurnal fluctuations, periods of “dry weather” flow have to be identified for the County flow monitoring data. A dry weather period in September 2010 was analyzed for the dry weather calibration. Since dry weather flow typically includes a component of low level or base I&I, it must be estimated and subtracted from the total flow, leaving presumably sanitary flow only. Base I&I values were determined by estimating typical minimum (nightly) sanitary flow as a percent of average and assuming the balance is base I&I. Base I&I was assumed to be constant throughout the day. Residential flow typically varies throughout the day in a different manner than commercial/industrial sanitary flow. Residential flow generally peaks twice during the day, while commercial/industrial flow typically increases in the morning, stays relatively constant during the day, and decreases in the evening. Numerous exceptions exist to these generalized variations however. Commercial/industrial flow for example can exhibit all manner of daily variations, depending on the nature of the business conducted at the location. A thorough understanding of these businesses is required to accurately simulate the daily fluctuations and achieve a detailed sanitary flow calibration. It is possible however, to achieve an accurate calibration by applying the composite diurnal variation recorded at the flow monitor to both residential and commercial/industrial development throughout the basin represented by the flow monitor. Lacking extensive knowledge of commercial/industrial developments and additionally to expedite the calibration process, this was the method selected to determine the sanitary flow calibration. This method allows for a quick, accurate calibration, but could potentially result in misrepresentation of diurnal fluctuations in future scenarios, if the balance between residential and commercial/industrial populations changes significantly. The potential shortcomings are considered to be negligible however, especially since it is difficult to accurately forecast how anticipated additional commercial/industrial flows will vary in the future. Dry weather calibration was verified by performing a sanitary flow model simulation, using the data assigned to the catchments and dry weather flow entries. External boundary flows were simulated by attaching time series of the flow monitoring data from the August-September 2010 period. The resulting basin City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 4.2 MODEL CALIBRATION CHAPTER 4 outlet flows were compared to the County “dry day” flow monitoring data. If the curve shape generated by the model (Model Output) generally matched the metered curve shape (Model Input) and the total daily volume was within 10%, the basin was considered calibrated for sanitary flow. Output graphs of the computed dry weather flows versus the measured King County flows (excluding the base I&I) were generated for each mini-basin. The dry calibration resulted in computed model peak flows and volumes that closely simulated the measured flows in six of the ele ven locations analyzed. In some cases, including RNT41, RNT43, and SRENT002, the modeled peaks and volumes were much higher than the recorded flows. However, in these basins, the modeled peak per capita flow rates were already low based on population and land use. These were not adjusted further to match the flow monitoring data. Some of the discrepancy in overall volume in these basins is due to significant “noise”, or small peaks, in the flow monitoring data, in addition to the per capita flow rate assumptions. T he model output is much smoother, which leads to significant differences in volume. Because of this, the overall shape of the model output was compared against the flow monitoring data. We were generally more focused on closely simulating the peak dry weather flows rather than the volumes, to be conservative, and also due to the “noise” and drop-outs in the flow monitoring results. Overall, the shape and timing of the patterns adequately matches the flow monitoring data. Flow monitoring data was not available for the boundary flows at SINT020 and BLS043, so constant dry weather flows were estimated. These two boundary flows do not flow through City sewers, so the impact to the dry weather calibration is negligible. A number of model basins were not calibrated with 2010 flow monitoring data, as are noted in the next section in Table 4-4 . For those, the per capita flow rates from the original model calibration were maintained in this model. Th e basins that were calibrated as part of this project were calibrated in 2015, while the others were calibrated in 2005. Th e calibration for RNT030B and RNT047 were only partially successful. Since RNT035 is upstream of both RNT030B, and could not be recalibrated, it was difficult to adjust the dry weather flow parameters within RNT035. There were similar difficulties with RNT047. A dry weather calibration summary is provided in Table 4-1 . The summary lists the percentage deviation of the calibration model results from the flow monitoring data for peak flow and total volume of flow over the duration of the analysis. Annotated plots of the dry weather calibration time series are provided in the A ppendix A. City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 4.3 MODEL CALIBRATION CHAPTER 4 City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 4.4 Table 4-1 Dry Weather Calibration Summary Model Basin Pipe Diameter (in) September 1, 2010 to September 8, 2010 Peak Flow (%) Volume (%) RNT017 15 -1.8% -4.7% RNT023 8 10.5% 6.0% RNT025 12 4.4% 6.4% RNT028 24 -9.1% -0.9% RNT030A 21 -9.4% 11.3% RNT030B 18 27.1% 23.9% RNT041 8 26.3% 96.6% RNT043 8 15.0% 54.6% RNT047 24 27.0% 58.2% RENT65 20 6.1% 12.2% SRENT002 36 19.6% 45.6% Peak weekday per capita flow rates for residential, employment and school populations in each mini basin are provided in Table 4-2. Employment flow rates for Mini-Basins 9 and 11 greatly exceed the flow rates in other basins. These were calibrated in 2005. Flow monitoring data was not available to re-calibrate these Mini-basins in 2015. MODEL CALIBRATION CHAPTER 4 Table 4-2 Per Capita Flow Rate (ft2 /PE/day) Sewer Mini-Basin Residential Employment Schools Calibration Year(1) 1 13.77 N/A N/A 2015 2 10.49 1.34 2.01 2015 3 12.21 N/A N/A 2015 4 13.37 N/A 1.34 2015 5 10.69 N/A N/A 2015 6 10.69 2.67 N/A 2015 7 10.45 1.34 1.34 2015 8 14.20 N/A N/A 2005 9 N/A 21.05 N/A 2005 10 8.71 1.34 N/A 2005 11 13.37 69.35 N/A 2005 12 13.37 2.12 N/A 2005 13 10.87 1.34 N/A 2005 14 10.69 5.85 2.01 2005 15 13.37 2.55 2.01 2005 16 8.69 1.34 N/A 2005 17 10.23 1.34 N/A 2015 18 8.86 1.34 N/A 2005 19 N/A 5.24 N/A 2015 20 6.31 1.34 N/A 2015 21 12.88 N/A 1.34 2015 22 7.13 1.34 1.00 2015 23 12.17 1.34 1.34 2015 24 8.60 1.34 N/A 2015 25 8.02 1.34 N/A 2015 26 10.51 1.34 1.34 2005 27 8.02 1.34 1.33 2015 28 N/A 3.80 N/A 2005 29 9.80 1.34 1.34 2015 30A 9.36 1.34 N/A 2015 30B N/A 1.34 N/A 2015 30C 9.36 1.34 N/A 2015* 32 11.53 1.34 1.34 2005 33 11.34 1.34 1.34 2015 34 12.03 1.34 N/A 2015 35 10.69 2.70 N/A 2015 36 11.18 1.34 N/A 2015 37 10.23 1.34 1.34 2015 City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 4.5 MODEL CALIBRATION CHAPTER 4 Table 4-2 Per Capita Flow Rate (ft2 /PE/day) Sewer Mini-Basin Residential Employment Schools Calibration Year(1) 38A 9.36 1.34 N/A 2015 38B 9.36 1.34 N/A 2015 39 12.67 1.34 N/A 2015 40 8.25 1.34 N/A 2005 41 10.14 1.34 N/A 2015 42 N/A 2.67 N/A 2005 43 1.34 9.90 N/A 2015 44 9.36 1.34 N/A 2005 45 8.25 1.37 N/A 2015 46 9.36 1.34 N/A 2005 47 8.06 0.67 N/A 2015 48 9.84 1.34 1.00 2015 49 0.67 8.06 N/A 2015 50 N/A 3.23 N/A 2005 52 10.56 1.34 N/A 2005 54 12.17 2.67 N/A 2005 A N/A 2.67 N/A 2005** B N/A 2.67 N/A 2005** CEDAR02A 10.69 2.67 N/A 2005 ESI1003 10.69 2.67 N/A 2005 RENT65 15.33 N/A N/A 2015 (1) Per capita flow rates determined in the 2005 dry weather calibration were set using DWF at the Mini-Basin level. Those modified in the 2015 calibration were set at the model basin level. * Basin 30C was calibrated with Basin 30A. ** Per capita flow rates for Basins A and B were not calibrated. During the 2005 model development, standard per capita flow rates based on land use were assigned, and diurnal curves from adjacent basins with similar land use were assigned. 2012 MODEL WET WEATHER CALIBRATION Infiltration and Inflow Calibration Infiltration and inflow is represented in the Mike Urban model as two individual components. The fast response component (FRC) is characterized by a rapid increase in pipe flow corresponding to a rainfall event. The rapid increase results in a sharp peak and is followed by a rapid decrease in flow. This type of flow typically comes from a direct hydraulic connection between an impervious or nearly impervious surface and the piping system. The slow response component (SRC) is characterized by a somewhat delayed response to a rainfall event, a smaller, broader peak and a relatively slower decrease in pipe flow. SRC flow is City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 4.6 MODEL CALIBRATION CHAPTER 4 generated from overland flow, near surface and groundwater intrusion into the piping system. SRC flow includes base I&I. Mike Urban contains a choice of multiple options or models for generating I&I. Given the wealth of flow monitoring and precipitation data, it was decided to use the more complex RDII module to generate the SRC, consistent with the methodology employed by King County, and that used in the original MOUSE model development. The RDII module requires calibration to a number of parameter values that govern the algorithms defining the hydrologic process and the resulting potential inflow into the sewer collection system. When properly calibrated, the RDII module provides the best overall representation of the SRC. The FRC was generated using the “A” model, with simplified algorithms governing the timing, shape and volume of the hydrologic response. The I&I calibration involved identification of parameter values for the SRC component (after sanitary calibration was completed) then development of the FRC component parameters, which essentially “finish off” the hydrographs. The County’s 2008 through 2011 flow monitoring data was used for I&I calibration. There were a few significant storms over this period, including the December 12/13 , 2010 storm, which produced a rainfall of approximately 2.5 inches over a 24-hour period, which is equivalent to a 10-year storm, based on King County Drainage Manual rainfall isopluvials. External boundary flows were simulated by attaching time series of the flow monitoring data from the December 12/13, 2010 storm. Other peak flow events were also considered. However, this was the only one were usable flow monitoring data was available for most of the model basins. As with the dry weather calibration, flow monitoring data was not available for the boundary flows at SINT020 and BLS043, so constant wet weather flows were estimated and assigned. Mike Urban RDII parameters are typically adjusted to match base I&I first, then peak flows resulting from rainfall events. Possibly the most important parameter controlling base I&I is the percent of total basin area contributing to pipe flow. A high base I&I, for example, can be simulated in the model by assuming a relatively high contributing area percentage, then adjusting additional parameter values to contribute a higher percentage of runoff to base flow versus surface runoff. A wet weather calibration summary is provided in Table 4-3 . The summary lists the percentage deviation between the model results and the flow monitoring data for peak flow and total volume of flow over the duration of the analysis. Six of the eleven model basins met standards for volume. The calibration for volume for RNT028 and RNT043 was not as successful, deviating from acceptable standards by approximately 5%. The volume deviation is significantly greater for RNT017. As with the dry weather calibration, t his is due to significant “noise” in the flow monitoring data. RNT017 especially contains a lot of small peaks, whereas the model output is much smoother. This contributes to the large discrepancy in volume. Because of this, the overall shape of the model output RNT017, RNT028, and RNT043 was compared against the flow monitoring data. Overall, the shape and timing of the patterns matches the flow monitoring data. Th e flow monitor for RENT65 failed City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 4.7 MODEL CALIBRATION CHAPTER 4 City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 4.8 Table 4-3 Wet Weather Calibration Summary Model Basin Pipe Diameter (in) December 10, 2010 to December 18, 2010 Peak Flow (%) Volume (%) RNT017 15 3.0% 48.5% RNT023 8 2.9% 17.8% RNT025 12 1.2% 31.4% RNT028 24 -4.0% -16.1% RNT030A 21 -6.9% 9.9% RNT030B 18 4.7% 7.2% RNT041 8 -6.5% -10.7% RNT043 8 9.4% 26.9% RNT047 24 -9.7% -11.1% RENT65 20 N/A N/A SRENT002 36 5.7% 4.5% Annotated plots of the wet weather calibration time series are provided in the Appendix B. Non-Calibrated Model Basins Several of the King County model basins had complications including faulty or missing flow-monitoring data, and inconsistent dry weather flow. Table 4-4 identifies the City mini-basins that were not calibrated for dry and wet weather, with a brief explanation for each: MODEL CALIBRATION CHAPTER 4 Table 4-4 City Mini-Basins Not Calibrated for Dry and Wet Weather Model Basin Mini-Basins Reason Not Calibrated 19 19 Errant dry and wet weather flow monitor data, impossible to calibrate 45 1,3,7,35 Wet weather calibration not possible due to faulty flow monitoring data 35 20,21,22,35 Wet weather calibration not possible due to faulty flow monitoring data Cedar02A Cedar02A, 46 Errant dry and wet weather flow monitor data, impossible to calibrate ESI1006 8,9,11,12, 13,14,15,16,32,49,50,54, ESI1003 Large geographic area. Could not isolate from upstream flow. Calibration not performed. For the above-listed mini-basins, since wet weather calibration was not attainable, the RDII parameters from the original model calibration were maintained in this model, with minor adjustments to address increased I/I due to pipe degradation. Ultimate Model Inflow and Infiltration Parameters The calibrated I&I parameters used for the 2012 Model were applied to the Ultimate Model for the calibrated portion of model (sewer system constructed prior to mid-2002), except that the I&I was globally increased per King County’s previous methodology, which assumes a 7.0% increase per decade, to a maximum degradation of 28.0% for Ultimate conditions. The ramifications of the system degradation-related I&I assumptions are discussed further in this report. For system improvements constructed for the Ultimate model, a global I&I assignment of 1500 gallons per acre per day was assumed and connected to the model. City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 4.9 CHAPTER 5 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS 2012 MODEL PEAK FLOW AND CAPACITY ANALYSIS External Boundary Flows In order to model in flows into the County’s piping systems within the approximate City limits, discharge time series for the peak storms were developed from the County’s 2012 I/I study MOUSE output, and assigned at upstream locations in the King County interceptors. For the boundary flows from SOO003 and RNT042, where output model data was not available, peak 20-year design inflows were assigned as constant inflow conditions. Although use of the County model output better simulates flows from upstream areas within the County system, variations between the King County Model and the Renton model contributed to some surcharging and capacity issues in portions of the system not shown in the County’s results. Peak Storm For the prior analysis, the County provided a chart ranking the six highest peak flow-generating storm events within each model basin in the vicinity of the City. The peak storm events were determined by the County by routing 60 years of rainfall data through the County’s calibrated model. The storms identified on the chart were assumed to roughly correspond (in decreasing ranking) to the 60, 30, 20, 15, 12, and 10-year design flow events. Of the eleven model basins within the City boundaries, the County identified nine different storm events which generated the 20-year peak flows (third-ranked peak flow generating events) for the basins. Rather than running the model nine separate times to capture all of the 20-year events, four separate storm events were selected to generate the either the 20-year or 30-year peak flow rates for all eleven model basins. This simplified methodology was acceptable to the City staff. The selected rainfall events are summarized in Table 5-1 below by model basin. Although King County modified some of its model basin boundaries for it 2012 I/I analysis, for the purposes of the City of Renton models, the original model basin boundaries developed for the 2001 I/I study were applied to the 2012 analysis. Figure 5-1 shows the selected storm events for each model basin. City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 5.1 Chapter 5 ANALYSIS & RESULTS Figure 5.1 Selected Storm Events Per Model-Basin City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 5.2 Chapter 5 ANALYSIS & RESULTS Table 5-1 Selected Storm Events Per Model Basin Model Basin Storm Event Modeled Recurrence Interval Peak Flow CEDAR02A November 24, 1990 30-Year ESI1006 February 8, 1996 30-Year RNT023 January 9, 1990 30-Year RNT030 February 8, 1996 20-Year RNT035 November 24, 1990 30-Year RNT042 January 9, 1990 20-Year RNT045 November 4, 1998 20-Year RNT054 February 8, 1996 20-Year RENT65 January 9, 1990 30-Year SINT001 February 8, 1996 30-Year SRENT002 November 24, 1990 30-Year In addition to the assignments listed in the table above, there were four mini-basins not calibrated by King County, and not included with the model basins (Mini-Basins RNT08, RNT09, A, and portions of Mini-Basin B), all of which are independently tributary to King County interceptors near the treatment plant. All four of these mini-basins were in the proximity of Model Basins ESI1003 and SINT001, and were similarly assigned the February 8, 1996 storm event. Analysis Results Figure 5-2 displays the overall modeled system with pipes color-coded by peak flows divided by maximum capacity (Q/Full) based on Manning’s equation for the model analysis period. The map was color-coded as listed below: Peak Q/full Color 0.0 to 0.6 Gray 0.6 to 0.8 Blue 0.8 to 1.0 Green 1.0 to 1.2 Orange Greater than 1.2 Red City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 5.3 ANALYSIS & RESULTS Chapter 5 All pipes with ratios greater than 0.8 are considered to be exceeding their capacity. Pipes colored blue indicate pipes that are close to but not exceeding this capacity standard. The map has individual areas with capacity problems identified. The problem areas were labeled based on mini-basins within the City. For example, if Mini-Basin 65 has two problem areas, they would be identified as 65A and 65B, respectively. Only City piping was identified in the problem areas. Areas where County piping exceeded 0.8 were not labeled. Problem areas were classified by the degree of surcharging and summarized in Table 5-2 , which is arranged by profile and includes a location des cription, the duration of surcharging above the crown of the pipe (where applicable), the duration of surcharging above manhole rims (where applicable), a brief listing of the suspected cause of the problem or any special conditions, and a ranking of the severity of the problem. The surcharging issues are ranked as Minor, Moderate, or Severe. Minor problems were classified as pipes with insignificant to no surcharging (often in the 0.8 to 1.0 Q/Q F ull category). Moderate problems represent areas with surcharging to more significant levels or durations, but contained within the sewer system. Severe problems represent areas with significant surcharging heights and durations and any areas with where the flow overtops the manholes. Figures 5-2A to 5-2S (which are referenced in the Table) are included in Appendix C , and provide zoomed-in views of the problem areas sh own in Figure 5-2. Attaching constant peak inflows for the boundary flows was conservative, as mentioned above. The constant inflows caused the discharge in some of the mini- basins to look non-standard, including Mini-Basins 4, 42, 46, and 65. For each of these mini-basins, the incoming constant peak boundary flow dominates the local flows, such that the peaks caused by the individual mini-basins do not appear to contribute as significantly to the total flow as may appear at some of the other mini-basins. Additionally, Mini-Basin 50 has severe surcharging issues in the King County trunk sewer, which significantly influences flows in the downstream system. The County has indicated it is aware of the capacity issues and is working to resolve them. A table and figures detailing the discharge at the outlet of each mini-basin are summarized in the next section in Table 5-3 , along with the output from the Ultimate Model. City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 5.4 ANALYSIS & RESULTS Chapter 5 Table 5-2 Capacity Analysis for 2012 Sewer Model - Problem Areas Problem Manhole No. Storm Event Rating Mini Pipe Length and Diameter Manhole Manhole Max Surcharge Comments Area Upstream Downstream Basin Sections Surcharge (hrs) Overtopping (hrs) Height (ft) 04A MH2795 MH2790 January 9, 1990 Minor 4 4 1083'-24" Entire run 0 0.5' Includes upstream flows from SCWSD. Pipe nearing capacity. Backwater due to downstream capacity issues. MH2790 MH2819 Minor 4 4 1140'-24" Entire run 0 0.5' Includes upstream flows from SCWSD. Minor capacity issues due to pipe size. Location: See Figure 5-2A. Index Ct SE south of SE 16th St, off-road easement from Index Ct SE to Kirkland Ave SE to Beacon Way ROW. 05A MH2998 RE*SRENT.R18-19 November 24, 1990 Severe 5 3 807'-8" 15 14 5' Capacity issues due to pipe size, backwater due to sharp bend at MH2996, MH2997 Location: See Figure 5-2B. Shattuck Ave S north of S 37th St near Talbot Rd S. 05B MH3217 RE*SRENT.R18-25 November 24, 1990 Moderate 5 2 672'-8" 4 0 1.5' Capacity issues due to pipe size. Location: See Figure 5-2B. Talbot Road S between SE Carr Rd and S 177th St. 05C MH3198 MH5523 November 24, 1990 Severe 5 9 1645'-8" 8 0 10' Capacity issues due to pipe size, backwater due to sharp bend at MH3193, MH3194. City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 5.5 ANALYSIS & RESULTS Chapter 5 Table 5-2 Capacity Analysis for 2012 Sewer Model - Problem Areas Problem Manhole No. Storm Event Rating Mini Pipe Length and Diameter Manhole Manhole Max Surcharge Comments Area Upstream Downstream Basin Sections Surcharge (hrs) Overtopping (hrs) Height (ft) MH5519 RE*SRENT.R18-17 November 24, 1990 Moderate 5 3 902'-12" 11 0 1.5' Capacity issues due to pipe size. Location: See Figure 5-2B. Davis Ave S off of S 43rd St near Talbot Rd S, and north through off-road easement towards S 37th St. 5D MH3205 MH3198 November 24, 1990 Minor/ Severe 5 2 474'-8" 7 0 9' Pipe nearing capacity. Severe surcharging due to backwater in DS system. Location: See Figure 5-2B. Off-road easement south of Davis Ave S off of S 43rd St near Talbot Road S. 06A MH3016 MH3004 November 24, 1990 Severe 6 7 2166'-8" 10 1 8' Capacity issues due to pipe size, backwater d ue to sharp bend at MH3004, MH3009. Location: See Figure 5-2C. Talbot Road S from S 27th Pl south toward 32nd St and off-road easement west of Talbot Rd S. 07A MH2479 MMH2257 November 4, 1998 Moderate 7 6 1551'-12" 1 0 4' Minor capacity issues due to pipe size, bends. Minor surcharging from capacity problems in DS system. Location: See Figure 5-2D. S 14th St from Shattuck Ave S to Smithers Ave S. 07B MH2270 MH2269 November 4, 1998 Minor 7 1 338'-8" 0 0 0' Pipe nearing capacity. Location: See Figure 5-2D. S 14th St from S 15th St and north on S 14th St toward Shattuck Ave S. City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 5.6 ANALYSIS & RESULTS Chapter 5 Table 5-2 Capacity Analysis for 2012 Sewer Model - Problem Areas Problem Manhole No. Storm Event Rating Mini Pipe Length and Diameter Manhole Manhole Max Surcharge Comments Area Upstream Downstream Basin Sections Surcharge (hrs) Overtopping (hrs) Height (ft) 11A MH3522 MH5360 February 8, 1996 Minor 11 1 180'-12" 5 0 0.5' Capacity issues due to pipe size, backwater due to bend at MH5360. MH1903 MH2170 February 8, 1996 Moderate 11 3 892'-12" 8 0 2' Capacity issues due to pipe size, backwater due to multiple bends. Location: See Figure 5-2E. S 5th St between Wells Ave S and Main Ave S, from S Grady Way across Williams Ave S to Burnett Ave S. 11B MH1940 MH1939 February 8, 1996 Minor/ Moderate 11 1 249'-10" 8 0 1.5' Pipes nearing/slightly over capacity. Surcharging due to capacity problems in DS system. Location: See Figure 5-2E. Williams Ave S north of S Grady Way and south of S 5th St. 14A MH2183 MH0066 February 8, 1996 Severe 14 5 1284'-12" 27 0 4' Minor capacity issues due to pipe size and slope, bends. Severe surcharging from capacity problems in DS system. Location: See Figure 5-2F. Off-road easement from the intersection of Rainier Ave S, SW Sunset Blvd, and S 3rd St and north through private property and along S 2nd St. City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 5.7 ANALYSIS & RESULTS Chapter 5 Table 5-2 Capacity Analysis for 2012 Sewer Model - Problem Areas Problem Manhole No. Storm Event Rating Mini Pipe Length and Diameter Manhole Manhole Max Surcharge Comments Area Upstream Downstream Basin Sections Surcharge (hrs) Overtopping (hrs) Height (ft) 15A MH2115 KC2790 February 8, 1996 Minor/ Severe 15 6 1252'-15" 16 0 2.5' Minor capacity issues due to pipe size and bends. Severe surcharging from capacity problems in DS East Side Interceptor. Location: See Figure 5-2F. S Tobin Street from Shattuck Ave S to Logan Ave S. 15B MH5330 MH2115 February 8, 1996 Minor/ Severe 15 5 926'-15" 34 0 3' Pipe nearing capacity. Severe surcharging from capacity problems in DS Renton sewer and East Side Interceptor. Location: See Figure 5-2F. Off-road easement from S Tobin St to S 2nd St. 15C MH5209 MH2147 February 8, 1996 Minor 15 3 656'-8" 0 0 0' Negligible capacity issues due to pipe size. Location: See Figure 5-2F. Easement along S 2nd St between Rainier Ave S and Shattuck Ave. 16A MH5398 MH5395 February 8, 1996 Minor 16 2 340'-8" 16 0 2' Pipe nearing capacity. Backwater due to capacity issues in DS system. MH5395 MH2111 February 8, 1996 Severe 16 1 417'-8" 16 0 2' Capacity issues due to pipe size. City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 5.8 ANALYSIS & RESULTS Chapter 5 Table 5-2 Capacity Analysis for 2012 Sewer Model - Problem Areas Problem Manhole No. Storm Event Rating Mini Pipe Length and Diameter Manhole Manhole Max Surcharge Comments Area Upstream Downstream Basin Sections Surcharge (hrs) Overtopping (hrs) Height (ft) Location: See Figure 5-2F. Renton Ave Ext from Hayes Pl SW to Rainier Ave S, Rainier Ave S from Renton Ave Ext/Airport Way to S Tobin St. 21A MH3547 MH3582 November 24, 1990 Minor 21 5 1141'-8" 0 0 0' Pipe nearing capacity. NH3582 MH3587 November 24, 1990 Minor/ Severe 21 5 890'-8" 8 0 3' Pipe nearing capacity. Surcharging due to capacity problems in DS system. Location: See Figure 5-2G. Anacortes Ave NE from NE 23rd Ct to NE 17th St. 21B MH3587 MH5504 November 24, 1990 Moderate 21 3 5 18'-8" 9 0 3' Capacity issues due to pipe size. Location: See Figure 5-2G. NE 17th St east of Anacortes Ave NE. 22A MH3614 MH3615 November 24, 1990 Minor 22 1 118'-12" 0 0 0' Pipe nearing capacity for short duration. No surcharging. MH3622 MH3624 November 24, 1990 Minor 22 1 172'-12" 0 0 0' Pipe at capacity for short duration. No surcharging. Location: See Figure 5-2G. NE Sunset Blvd from unnamed Access Road east toward Duvall Ave NE. 23A MH3498 MH3497 January 9, 1990 Severe 23 1 400'-8" Entire run 0 0-6.5' Capacity issues due to pipe size. Surcharge is intermittent over entre run. Typically 0'- 2.5;. Peak surcharge for 7 hours. City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 5.9 ANALYSIS & RESULTS Chapter 5 Table 5-2 Capacity Analysis for 2012 Sewer Model - Problem Areas Problem Manhole No. Storm Event Rating Mini Pipe Length and Diameter Manhole Manhole Max Surcharge Comments Area Upstream Downstream Basin Sections Surcharge (hrs) Overtopping (hrs) Height (ft) Location: See Figure 5-2H. N 28th Pl between Burnett Ave N and Meadow Ave N. 23B MH0495 MH0383 January 9, 1990 Moderate 23 2 49'-8", 251'-12" 115 0 1' Capacity issues due to pipe size. Surcharge is intermittent over entire run. Typically 0'-1'. Peak surcharge for 6 hours. Location: See Figure 5-2H. Lake Washington Blvd N between Burnett Ave N and N 20th St. 25A MH1177 MH1158 November 24, 1990 Severe 25,46 5 315'-10", 651'-12" 8 3 3' Moderate capacity issues due to pipe size, backwater due to sharp bend at MH1773, MH1772. Severe surcharging from capacity problems in DS system. Location: See Figure 5-2I. Off-road easement north of SE 5th St between Newport Ave SE and Pierce Ave SE, Pierce Ave SE from SE 5th St to SE 6th St. 25B MH1172 MH1175 November 24, 1990 Moderate 25 3 653'-10" 12 0 2' Capacity issues due to pipe size, backwater due to sharp bend at MH1174. Location: See Figure 5-2I. Off-road easement south of Sunnydale Mobile Home Park Access Rd west of Union Ave SE. 25C MH1660 MH1663 November 24, 1990 Minor 25 3 1285'-10" 12 0 0 Pipe nearing capacity. MH1651 MH1650 November 24, 1990 Minor 25 1 310'-10" 12 0 0 Pipe nearing capacity. City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 5.10 ANALYSIS & RESULTS Chapter 5 Table 5-2 Capacity Analysis for 2012 Sewer Model - Problem Areas Problem Manhole No. Storm Event Rating Mini Pipe Length and Diameter Manhole Manhole Max Surcharge Comments Area Upstream Downstream Basin Sections Surcharge (hrs) Overtopping (hrs) Height (ft) Location: See Figure 5-2I. SE 4th St from Chelan Ave SE to Union Ave SE, south on Union Ave SE from SE 4th St. 25D MH1695 MH1673 November 24, 1990 Minor 25 2 475'-8" 2 0 0.5 Pipe nearing capacity. Surcharging due to bend at MH 1672, capacity issues in DS system. MH1672 MH1660 November 24, 1990 Minor 25 2 506'-8" 9 0 0.6' Capacity issues due to pipe size, backwater due to sharp bends at MH1660. Location: See Figure 5-2I. From Bremerton Ave SE through easement to SE 2nd Pl north of SE 3rd Pl. 26A MH1506 MH1741 November 24, 1990 Minor 26 7 78'-8", 1322'-12" 0 0 0 Pipe nearing capacity. Location: See Figure 5-2J. Duvall Ave NE from NE 4th St to NE 6th St. 27A MH1114 MH1112 February 8, 1996 Minor 27 2 594'-8" 0 0 0 Pipes at capacity for short duration. Negligible surcharging. MH1107 MH1102 February 8, 1996 Minor 27 1 307'-8" 0 0 0 Pipe at capacity for short duration. Negligible surcharging. Location: See Figure 5-2K. NE 7th Pl from NE 6th Pl to Monroe Ave NE, off-road easement from NE 6th Pl to Jefferson Ave NE. 28A MH5350 MH2548 February 8, 1996 Minor 28 1 301'-15" 0 0 0 Pipe nearing capacity. City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 5.11 ANALYSIS & RESULTS Chapter 5 Table 5-2 Capacity Analysis for 2012 Sewer Model - Problem Areas Problem Manhole No. Storm Event Rating Mini Pipe Length and Diameter Manhole Manhole Max Surcharge Comments Area Upstream Downstream Basin Sections Surcharge (hrs) Overtopping (hrs) Height (ft) MH2537 MH2536 February 8, 1996 Minor 28 1 281'-18" 0 0 0 Pipe nearing capacity. Location: See Figure 5-2L. Lind Ave SW between SW 19th St and SW 16th St, SW 16th St from Lind Ave SW toward Seneca Ave SW. 33A MH0518 MH0394 January 9, 1990 Minor 33 1 87'-8" 0 0 0 Pipe at capacity for short duration. Location: See Figure 5-2H. Easement parallel to I-405 and Jones Ave NE south of NE 28th St. 36A MH0805 MH0812 February 8, 1996 Moderate/ Severe 36 3 696'-8" 9 0 4' Moderate capacity issues due to pipe size. MH0813 MH0467 February 8, 1996 Moderate 36 2 377'-8" 7 0 4' Minor capacity issues due to pipe size. Severe surcharging from capacity problems in DS system. Location: See Figure 5-2M. Harrington Ave NE from NE 12th St to NE Sunset Blvd. 36B MH6006 MH0909 February 8, 1996 Moderate 36 1 388'-8" 1 0 0 Minor capacity issues due to pipe size. Negligible surcharging. Location: See Figure 5-2M. Kirkland Ave NE north of NE 12th St. 38A-1 MH0467 MH0470 February 8, 1996 Moderate 38 4 287'-8" 17 0 3' Capacity issues due to pipe size. Location: See Figure 5-2M. Harrington Ave NE between Glennwood Ave NE and Sunset Blvd NE. City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 5.12 ANALYSIS & RESULTS Chapter 5 Table 5-2 Capacity Analysis for 2012 Sewer Model - Problem Areas Problem Manhole No. Storm Event Rating Mini Pipe Length and Diameter Manhole Manhole Max Surcharge Comments Area Upstream Downstream Basin Sections Surcharge (hrs) Overtopping (hrs) Height (ft) 39A MH6043 MH0826 February 8, 1996 Minor /Severe 37,39 4 512'-8" 4 0 2.5' Pipe nearing capacity. Backwater due to capacity issues in DS system. MH0826 MH0825 February 8, 1996 Moderate 39 299'-8" 36 0 3' Capacity issues due to pipe s ize. Location: See Figure 5-2M. Edmonds Ave NE from NE 9th St and north toward Sunset Blvd NE. 41A MH3327 MH3510 February 8, 1996 Severe 41 6 727'-8", 328'-10" 9 2 5' Minor to severe capacity issues due to pipe size. Location: See Figure 5-2N. Lake Washington Blvd N between N 33rd Pl and N 37th St. 45A MH2257 MH2252 November 4, 1998 Minor 45 5 1532'-18" 1 0 1' Capacity issues due to pipe size. Location: See Figure 5-2D. Off-road easement between S Renton Village Pl to S Grady Way. 46A MH1158 RE*CEDAR2.R10-26A November 24, 1990 Moderate 46 14 2620'-15" 10 0 1.5' Pipe nearing capacity, surcharging in DS portion do to water levels in Cedar River Trunk, backwater due to multiple bends. Location: See Figure 5-2O. SE 6th St between SE 5th St and Pierce Ave SE. City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 5.13 ANALYSIS & RESULTS Chapter 5 Table 5-2 Capacity Analysis for 2012 Sewer Model - Problem Areas Problem Manhole No. Storm Event Rating Mini Pipe Length and Diameter Manhole Manhole Max Surcharge Comments Area Upstream Downstream Basin Sections Surcharge (hrs) Overtopping (hrs) Height (ft) 47A MH4692 RE*CEDAR1.R10-05A November 24, 1990 Minor 47 8 155'-12". 660'-22", 760'-24" 36 0 1 Pipe nearing capacity. Surcharging from capacity problems in DS Cedar River Trunk. Location: See Figure 5-2P. N 4th St west of I-405. 4 7B MH0639 MH0627 November 24, 1990 Moderate/ Severe 47 4 129'-6", 459'-8" 11 4 7 Capacity issues due to pipe size. Location: See Figure 5-2P. Bronson Way NE between Grandley Way NE and Windsor Way NE. 47C MH1976 MH1975 November 24, 1990 Minor 47 1 310'-8" 6 0 0.5 Minor capacity issues due to pipe size. Location: See Figure 5-2P. NE 4th St between Brighton Ridge Apartments Access Rd and Edmonds Ave SE. 48A MH0847 MH1360 February 8, 1996 Severe 48 2 360'-8" 162 0 13' Capacity issues due to pipe size. Location: See Figure 5-2P. NE 7th St between Ferndale Pl NE and Harrington Ave NE. 50A MH0418 MH420 February 8, 1996 Minor 50 2 460'-8" 5 0 1' Capacity issues due to pipe size. Minor surcharging due to capacity problems in DS Bryn Mawr Interceptor. Location: See Figure 5-2Q. Easement along Cedar River south of N 6th St. City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 5.14 ANALYSIS & RESULTS Chapter 5 Table 5-2 Capacity Analysis for 2012 Sewer Model - Problem Areas Problem Manhole No. Storm Event Rating Mini Pipe Length and Diameter Manhole Manhole Max Surcharge Comments Area Upstream Downstream Basin Sections Surcharge (hrs) Overtopping (hrs) Height (ft) 65A MH2818 MH2760 January 9, 1990 Minor 4,65 3 517'-24" Entire run 0 0 Includes upstream flows from SCWSD. Pipe at capacity. Location: See Figure 5-2A. SE 16th St from Index Ct SE to Index Ave SE. 65B MH5300 MH5302 January 9, 1990 Minor/ Severe 65 1 500'-20" 0 0 0 Pipe nearing capacity. Includes upstream flows from SCWSD. Location: See Figure 5-2A. Off-road easement north of Royal Hills Dr SE and east of Harrington Pl SE. ESI1003A MH1923 MH1921 February 8, 1996 Minor ESI1003 3 674'-8" 0 0 0 Full pipe for short duration. Location: See Figure 5-2Q. Wells Alle y N from N 1st St to N 3rd St. A1 MH0216 KC1735 February 8, 1996 Minor A 6 837'-15", 70'-16" 7 0 0.5 Minor capacity issues due to pipe slope. Minor surcharging in DS East Side Interceptor. Location: See Figure 5-2L. Off-road easement between SW Grady Way and I-405 parallel to Oakesdale Ave SW. A2 MH6188 MH6191 February 8, 1996 Minor A 3 1175'-8" 2 0 0.5' Minor capacity issues due to pipe size. Surcharging due to bend at MH6190. Location: See Figure 5-2R. Off-road easement between Oaksdale Ave SW and SW 39th St. City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 5.15 ANALYSIS & RESULTS Chapter 5 Table 5-2 Capacity Analysis for 2012 Sewer Model - Problem Areas Problem Manhole No. Storm Event Rating Mini Pipe Length and Diameter Manhole Manhole Max Surcharge Comments Area Upstream Downstream Basin Sections Surcharge (hrs) Overtopping (hrs) Height (ft) A3 MH0275 MH0286 February 8, 1996 Severe A 13 396'-8", 2000'-10" 32 5 11' Severe capacity issues due to pipe size. Minor surcharging due to capacity problems in DS South Interceptor. Location: See Figure 5-2R. Off-road easement between Oaksdale Ave SW and Interurban Trail north of S 180th St. B1 MH5190 MH2982 February 8, 1996 Minor/ Moderate B 2 489'-8" 3 0 0.5 Minor capacity issues due to pipe size. Location: See Figure 5-2R. SW 34th St from Lind Ave SW to East Valley Road. B2 MH3173 RE*SRENTON.R18-05 February 8, 1996 Minor B 2 245'-8" 1 0 0 Minor capacity issues due to pipe size. Negligible surcharging. Location: See Figure 5-2R. 84th Ave S from SW 43rd St towards SW 41st St. U6A MH4717 MH4713 N/A Minor U6 3 587'-8" Intermittent entire run 0 0 Negligible intermittent surcharging due to LS 34 (Liberty). Model contains constant flow rate inputs for U-Basins. Location: See Figure 5-2S. SE 137th Terrace from 160th Ave SE to 161st Pl SE, 161st Pl SE south from SE 137th Terrace. City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 5.16 ANALYSIS & RESULTS Chapter 5 ULTIMATE MODEL PEAK FLOW AND CAPACITY ANALYSIS Peak Storm The peak storm rainfall events assigned to the 2012 Model were assigned to the Ul timate model using the same methodology. The County did not conduct hydraulic modeling for its future development scenarios. Instead, it determined the 20-year peak flows for locations within its sewer system, and appl ied a growth factor to determine to 20-year peak flows at 10-year intervals. So to use the boundary time series developed for the 2012 analysis for the external boundary flows, the flow rates were multiplied by a fact or based on a ratio of the County’s 2010 and 2060 20-year peak flow rates. As with the 2012 model, 20-year constant peak flow rates were assigned at the other locations. This conservative assumption contributed to surcharging and capacity issues in portions of the system. Analysis Results Table 5-3 summarizes the peak flow at the outlet from each mini-basin and the corresponding storm events from the 2012 and Ultimate Model analysis. For some of the mini-basins, the peak flow from the 2012 Model exceeds the peak flow from the Ultimate Model, or does not significantly increase for the Ultimate Model. In some of these cases, changes in the sewer system or assumptions rerouted or decreased flow to certain mini-basins. City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 5.17 ANALYSIS & RESULTS Table 5-3 City of Renton Sewer Model - 2012 and Ultimate Peak Flow at Mini- Basin Outlet, Including Storm Event Mini- 2012 Peak Flow Ultimate Peak Flow Basin Outlet MH# (cfs) (gpm) (cfs) (gpm) Storm Event Used 1 MH2493 (5319095) 0.62 278 0.91 408 November 4, 1998 2 MH2481 (5319084) 1.03 462 2.53 1,135 November 4, 1998 3 MH2323 (5320049) 1.73 776 1.01** 453** November 4, 1998 4 MH2814 (5321024) 8.81* 3,954* 18.72* 8,402* January 9, 1990 5 RE*SRENTON.R18-15 8.26* 3,707* 10.48* 4,703* November 24, 1990 6 MH2999 (5330059) 1.54 691 1.69 758 November 24, 1990 7 MH2257 (5319035)1 3.39 1,521 5.77 2,590 November 4, 1998 8 MH0169 (4324017) 0.70 314 1.48 664 February 8, 1996 9 MH0167 (4324012) 1.40 628 1.72 772 February 8, 1996 10 MH2161 (5318106) 0.37 166 0.42 189 February 8, 1996 11 RE*ESI1.RO1-14 3.83 1,719 5.02 2,253 February 8, 1996 12 MH2440 (5318226) 0.45 202 0.53 238 February 8, 1996 13 MH2247 (5319020) 2.12 951 2.36 1,059 February 8, 1996 14 MH2373 (5318148) 1.94 871 2.17 938 February 8, 1996 15 MH2118 (5318047) 4.41 1,979 4.89 2,195 February 8, 1996 16 MH2113(5318042) 1.16 521 1.39 6.24 February 8, 1996 17 MH1851 (5317033) 0.34 153 0.41 184 November 24, 1990 18 MH1825 (5317002) 1.52 682 9.03*** 4,052*** February 8, 1996 19 MH0246 (4325005) 0.36 162 0.51 229 February 8, 1996 20 MH4301 (5303426) 1.04 467 2.17 974 November 24, 1990 21 MH5503(5303093) 1.01 453 1.44 646 November 24, 1990 22 MH3625 (5303102) 2.60 1,166 4.27 1,916 November 24, 1990 23 MH0383 (5305041) 2.10 943 2.98 1,337 January 9, 1990 24 MH0923 (5309169) 1.38 619 1.53 686 February 8, 1996 25 MH1156 (5316015) 1.99 893 1.12** 502** November 24, 1990 26 MH1244(5316115) 3.10 1,391 4.02 1,804 November 24, 1990 27 MH1365 (5309478) 0.74 332 0.87 390 February 8, 1996 28 MH0205 (4324060) 1.68 754 2.27 1,018 February 8, 1996 29 MH0448 (5308252) 0.70 314 0.81 363 February 8, 1996 30A MH4653 (5308327) 3.00 1346 4.80 2,154 February 8, 1996 City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 5.18 ANALYSIS & RESULTS Table 5-3 City of Renton Sewer Model - 2012 and Ultimate Peak Flow at Mini- Basin Outlet, Including Storm Event Mini- 2012 Peak Flow Ultimate Peak Flow Basin Outlet MH# (cfs) (gpm) (cfs) (gpm) Storm Event Used 30B MH4651(5308329) 5.98 2,684 8.11 3,640 February 8, 1996 30C MH0714 (5308161) 3.00 1,346 3.42 1,535 February 8, 1996 32 RE*ESI1.RO1-32A 3.45 1,548 4.00 1,795 February 8, 1996 33 MH0490 (5305008) 1.60 718 2.31 1,037 January 9, 1990 34 MH0362 (5304207) 0.34 152 0.53 237 January 9, 1990 35 MH0368 (5304230) 2.87 1,289 4.64 2,083 November 24, 1990 36 MH0467 (5309128) 1.29 579 1.52 682 February 8, 1996 37 MH6044 (5309028) 0.82 368 1.01 453 February 8, 1996 38A MH0472 (5309133) 1.57 705 1.86 834 February 8, 1996 38B MH0371 (5304234) 2.46 1,104 4.06 1,822 February 8, 1996 39 MH6074 (5308236) 3.06 1,373 3.66 1,642 February 8, 1996 40 RE*ESI4.RO2-19 0.53 238 0.77 346 February 8, 1996 41 MH3511 (5432141) 1.12 503 1.53 687 February 8, 1996 42 MH3386 (5432004) 1.20* 539* 4.86* 2,181* January 9, 1990 43 MH1206 (5316068) 0.31 139 0.47 211 November 24, 1990 44 MH1264 (5316136) 3.22 1,445 4.34 1,948 November 24, 1990 45 MH2253 (5319027) 5.38 2,414 7.09 3,182 November 4, 1998 46 RE*CEDAR1.R10-11A 31.98* 14,354* 47.54* 21,337* November 24, 1990 47 MH2014 (5317243)/ MH1966 (5317183) 9.20 4,129 12.13 5,444 November 24, 1990 48 MH6075 (5308059) 2.22 996 2.38 1,068 February 8, 1996 49 MH0196 (4324044) 0.41 184 0.54 242 February 8, 1996 50 RE*BRYNMAWR.RO1-57 15.86* 7,118* 27.39* 12,293* February 8, 1996 52 MH5833 (5308169) 0.39 175 0.50 224 February 8, 1996 54 RE*ESI2.RO2-08 209.70* 94,120* 239.6* 107,540* February 8, 1996 65 MH5302 (5321007) 14.47* 6,495* 19.07* 8,559* January 9, 1990 *Includes upstream flows from adjacent sewer purveyor **Decrease in peak flow rates from 2012 to Ultimate Analysis due to future sewer diversion projects described in Chapter 2. ***Large increase in peak flows at Mini-Basin 18 outlet to overflow at MH1966 from Mini- Basin 47. City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 5.19 ANALYSIS & RESULTS Figure 5-3 identifies pipes color-coded by the ratios of peak flow rates to maximum pipe capacities (Q/Q Full) for the ultimate analysis, consistent with the methodology and format used for the 2012 Model analysis. Where possible, the same exact problem area labels were used from the 2012 Model analysis, with additional problem areas identified within each mini-basin as needed. Only City piping was identified in the problem areas; areas where County piping exceeded a Q-ratio of 0.8 were not labeled. The problem areas were summarized and classified in Table 5-4 based on the degree of surcharging. This table includes a location description, the duration of surcharging above the crown of the pipe (where applicable), the duration of surcharging above manhole rims (where applicable), a brief listing of the suspected cause of the problem or any special conditions for severe problems, and a ranking of the severity of each problem. Figures 5-3A to 5-3S, which are referenced in the Table, are included in Appendix D . Blow-ups of the problem areas are sh own in Figure 5-3. Surcharging problems in the system are generally the result of insufficient capacity in the City’s pipes, compounded by backwater from the County’s trunk lines in some instances. There are several connections in Mini-Basins A and B where sections of the City’s pipe are modeled below the hydraulic grade line of the County system. These problem areas in Mini-Basins A and B could potentially be related to the vertical datum assumptions. Assigning the constant peak inflows for the boundary flows was conservative, as mentioned above. The constant inflows caused the discharge in some of the mini- basins to look non-standard, including Mini-Basins 4, 42, 46, and 65. For each of these mini-basins, the incoming constant peak boundary flow dominates the local flows, such that the peaks caused by the individual mini-basins do not appear to contribute as significantly to the total flow as may appear at some of the other mini-basins. Additionally, Mini-Basin 50 has severe surcharging issues in the King County trunk sewer, which significantly influences flows in the downstream system. City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 5.20 ANALYSIS & RESULTS Chapter 5 Table 5-4 Capacity Analysis for Ultimate Sewer Model - Problem Areas Problem Manhole No. Storm Event Rating Mini Pipe Length and Diameter Manhole Manhole Max Surcharge Comments Area Upstream Downstream Basin Sections Surcharge (hrs) Overtopping (hrs) Height (ft) 03A MH2367 MH2364 November 4, 1998 Minor 3 3 716'-8" 0 0 0 Pipe nearing capacity Location: See Figure 5-3A. SE 19th St from Rolling Hills Ave SE to Aberdeen Pl SE. 04A MH2795 MH2819 January 9, 1990 Severe 4 8 2222'-24" Entire run 0 17' Includes upstream flows from SCWSD. Capacity issues due to pipe size. Location: See Figure 5-3B. Index Ct SE south of SE 16th St, off-road easement from Index Ct SE to Kirkland Ave SE and to Beacon Way ROW. 05A MH2999 RE*SRENT.R18-19 November 24, 1990 Severe 5 4 921'-8" 17 14 6' Capacity issues due to pipe size, backwater due to sharp bend at MH2996, MH2997 Location: See Figure 5-3C. Off-road easement parallel to Shattuck Ave S north of S 37th St. 05B MH3218 RE*SRENT.R18-25 November 24, 1990 Severe 5 3 960'-8" 6 0 5' Capacity issues due to pipe size Location: See Figure 5-3C. Talbot Road S from S 177th St to S Carr Rd/S 43rd St. 05C MH3198 MH5523 November 24, 1990 Severe 5 9 1645'-8" 9 0 10' Capacity issues due to pipe size, backwater due to sharp bend at MH3193, MH3194 MH5519 RE*SRENT.R18-17 November 24, 1990 Severe 5 3 902'-12" 11 0 8' Capacity issues due to pipe size. Severe surcharging due to backwater in South Renton Interceptor Location: See Figure 5-3C. Davis Ave S south of S 43rd St. 5D MH3205 MH3198 November 24, 1990 Minor/ Severe 5 2 474'-8" 8 0 9' Pipe nearing capacity. Severe surcharging due to backwater in DS system Location: See Figure 5-3C. Off-road easement south of Davis Ave S along Copper Ridge Apt Access Rd. City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 5.21 ANALYSIS & RESULTS Chapter 5 Table 5-4 Capacity Analysis for Ultimate Sewer Model - Problem Areas Problem Manhole No. Storm Event Rating Mini Pipe Length and Diameter Manhole Manhole Max Surcharge Comments Area Upstream Downstream Basin Sections Surcharge (hrs) Overtopping (hrs) Height (ft) 06A MH3017 MH3004 November 24, 1990 Severe 6 8 2604'-8" 13 6 9' Capacity issues due to pipe size, backwater due to sharp bend at MH3004, MH3009 Location: See Figure 5-3D. Talbot Rd S between S 27th Pl and S 32nd St, Off-road easement parallel to Talbot Road S. 07C MH2275 Prop. Talbot Hill MH November 4, 1998 Minor 7 6 1593'-8" 0 0 0.5' Pipe sections nearing or at capacity. Negligible surcharging Location: See Figure 5-3E. Lake Ave S between S 14th St and S 19th St. 9A MH0166 MH0167 February 8, 1996 Minor/ Moderate 9 1 390'-12" 75 0 2' Pipe nearing capacity. Surcharging due to backwater from DS Eastside Interceptor Location: See Figure 5-3F. Black River Trail parallel to Oaksdale Ave SW north of SW Grady Way. 11A MH1910 MH2170 February 8, 1996 Severe 11 8 1720'-12" 50 9 5.5' Capacity issues due to pipe size, backwater due to multiple bends. Location: See Figure 5-3G. S 5th St from Main Ave S to Wells Ave S, Wells Ave S between S 5th St and S Grady Way, off-road easement from Wells Ave S across Williams Ave S to Burnett Ave S. 11B MH1941 MH1939 February 8, 1996 Moderate/ Severe 11 2 531'-10" 50 9 6' Capacity issues due to pipe size, severe surcharging in DS system Location: See Figure 5-3G. Williams Ave S between S 5th St and S Grady Way. 14A MH2183 MH0066 February 8, 1996 Moderate/ Severe 14 5 1284'-12" 62 3 11' Capacity issues due to pipe size, slope, and bends. Severe surcharging from capacity problems in DS system Location: See Figure 5-3H. Off-road easement from Rainier Ave S and north parallel to S 2nd St. City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 5.22 ANALYSIS & RESULTS Chapter 5 Table 5-4 Capacity Analysis for Ultimate Sewer Model - Problem Areas Problem Manhole No. Storm Event Rating Mini Pipe Length and Diameter Manhole Manhole Max Surcharge Comments Area Upstream Downstream Basin Sections Surcharge (hrs) Overtopping (hrs) Height (ft) 15A MH2115 KC2790 February 8, 1996 Moderate/ Severe 15 6 1252'-15" 66 0 8.5' Capacity issues due to pipe size and bends. Severe surcharging from capacity problems in DS East Side Interceptor Location: See Figure 5-3H. S Tobin St between Shattuck Ave S and Burnett Ave S. 15B MH5330 MH2115 February 8, 1996 Minor/ Severe 15 5 926'-15" 64 0 9.5' Pipes nearing/at capacity. Severe surcharging from capacity problems in DS Renton sewer and East Side Interceptor Location: See Figure 5-3H. Off-road easement following Shattuck Ave S between S Tobin St and S 2nd St. 15C MH5209 MH2147 February 8, 1996 Minor/ Severe 15 3 656'-8" 12 0 3' Capacity issues due to pipe size. Severe surcharging from capacity problems in DS Renton sewer and East Side Interceptor Location: See Figure 5-3H. S 2nd St between Rainier Ave S and Shattuck Ave S. 16A MH5398 MH2111 February 8, 1996 S evere 16 3 756'-8" 18 0 4' Capacity issues due to pipe size Location See Figure 5-3H. Renton Ave Ext from Hayes Pl SW to Rainier Ave S, Rainier Ave S from Renton Ave Ext/Airport Way to S Tobin St. 18A MH1966 MH1826 February 8, 1996 Minor 18 8 2039'-22" 5 0 1' Pipes nearing/over capacity. Location: See Figure 5-3I. N 4th St from Burnett Ave N to Factory Ave N. 20A MH3728 MH5270 November 24, 1990 Minor 20 1 403'-8" 0 0 0 Pipe nearing capacity. Location: See Figure 5-3J. Lyons Ave NE between NE 26th St and 148th Ave SE. City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 5.23 ANALYSIS & RESULTS Chapter 5 Table 5-4 Capacity Analysis for Ultimate Sewer Model - Problem Areas Problem Manhole No. Storm Event Rating Mini Pipe Length and Diameter Manhole Manhole Max Surcharge Comments Area Upstream Downstream Basin Sections Surcharge (hrs) Overtopping (hrs) Height (ft) 21A MH3547 MH3582 November 24, 1990 Minor/ Severe 21 5 1141'-8" 7 0 3' Pipe nearing capacity. Surcharging due to capacity problems in DS system. MH3582 MH3587 November 24, 1990 Minor/ Severe 21 5 758'-8" 30 0 6' Pipe nearing/at capacity. Surcharging due to capacity problems in DS system. Location: See Figure 5-3K. Anacortes Ave NE between NE 22nd Ct and NE 17th St. 21B MH3587 MH5504 November 24, 1990 Severe 21 3 518'-8" 30 0 6' Capacity issues due to pipe size Location: See Figure 5-3K. NE 17th St between Anacortes Ave NE and Duvall Ave NE. 22A MH3614 MH3624 November 24, 1990 Severe 22 6 963'-12" 13 0 6' Capacity issues due to pipe size MH3624 MH3626 November 24, 1990 Minor 22,35 2 255'-15" 3 0 0 Pipe over capacity for short duration. Negligible surcharging. Location: See Figure 5-3K. NE Sunset Blvd from Anacortes Ave NE to Union Ave NE. 23A MH0490 MH3500 January 9, 1990 Minor 23 6 842'-12" 4 0 1' Minor capacity issues due to pipe size MH3499 MH3497 January 9, 1990 Severe 23 2 701'-8" Entire run 0 0'-17' Capacity issues due to pipe size. Surcharge is intermittent over entire run. Typically 0'-8'. Peak surcharge for 7 hours Location: See Figure 5-3L. N 28th Pl east of Burnett Ave N to Park Ave N, N 28th St from Park Ave N to I-405. 23B MH0495 MH0383 January 9, 1990 Moderate 23 2 49'-8", 251'-12" Entire run 0 2' Capacity issues due to pipe size. Surcharge is intermittent over entire run. Typically 0'-1'. Peak surcharge for 6 hours City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 5.24 ANALYSIS & RESULTS Chapter 5 Table 5-4 Capacity Analysis for Ultimate Sewer Model - Problem Areas Problem Manhole No. Storm Event Rating Mini Pipe Length and Diameter Manhole Manhole Max Surcharge Comments Area Upstream Downstream Basin Sections Surcharge (hrs) Overtopping (hrs) Height (ft) Location: See Figure 5-3L. Lake Washington Blvd N between Burnett Ave N and N 20th St. 25A MH1177 MH1158 November 24, 1990 Minor/ Severe 25,46 5 315'-10", 651'-12" 66 38 5' Pipes near/slightly over capacity. Backwater due to sharp bend at MH1773, MH1772. Severe surcharging from capacity problems in DS system Location: See Figure 5-3M. Off-road easement north of SE 5th St between Newport Ave SE and Pierce Ave SE, Pierce Ave SE from SE 5th St to SE 6th St. 25B MH1173 MH1174 November 24, 1990 Minor 25 1 323'-10" 3 0 0.5' Minor capacity issues due to pipe size, backwater due to sharp bend at MH1174 Location: See Figure 5-3M. Off-road easement south of Sunnydale Mobile Home Park Access Rd west of Union Ave SE. 25C MH1660 MH1650 November 24, 1990 Minor 25 6 2116'-10" 2 0 0 Pipe nearing/at capacity. Negligible surcharging Location: See Figure 5-3M. SE 4th St from Chelan Ave SE to Union Ave SE, south on Union Ave SE from SE 4th St. 25D MH1695 MH1660 November 24, 1990 Moderate 25 5 1211'-8" 8 0 2' Capacity issues due to pipe size, backwater due to sharp bends at MH1660 Location: See Figure 5-3M. From Bremerton Ave SE through easement to SE 2nd Pl north of SE 3rd Pl. 25E MH1706 MH1695 November 24, 1990 Minor/ Moderate 25 5 487'-8" 8 0 2' Pipes nearing capacity. Surcharging from capacity problems in DS system Location: See Figure 5-3M. Bremerton Ave SE from 135th Ave SE to Bremerton Pl NE, Bremerton Pl NE from Bremerton Ave SE to NE 1st Pl. 26A MH1437 MH1741 November 24, 1990 Minor 26 5 991'-12" 1 0 0 Pipes nearing/slightly over capacity. Negligible surcharging Location: See Figure 5-3N. Duvall Ave NE from NE 6th St to NE 4th St. City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 5.25 ANALYSIS & RESULTS Chapter 5 Table 5-4 Capacity Analysis for Ultimate Sewer Model - Problem Areas Problem Manhole No. Storm Event Rating Mini Pipe Length and Diameter Manhole Manhole Max Surcharge Comments Area Upstream Downstream Basin Sections Surcharge (hrs) Overtopping (hrs) Height (ft) 27A MH0976 MH1112 February 8, 1996 Minor 27 3 825'-8" 3 0 0.5' Pipes nearing/slightly over capacity. MH1107 MH1365 February 8, 1996 Minor 27 2 569'-8" 4 0 0.5' Pipes nearing/slightly over capacity. Location: See Figure 5-3O. NE 7th Pl from NE 6th Pl to Monroe Ave NE, off-road easement from NE 7th St to Jefferson Ave NE. 28A MH5350 MH2548 February 8, 1996 Minor 28 1 301'-15" 0 0 0 Pipe nearing capacity. MH2537 MH2536 February 8, 1996 Minor 28 1 281'-18" 0 0 0 Pipe nearing capacity. Location: See Figure 5-3P. Lind Ave SW between SW 19th St and SW 16th St, SW 16th St from Lind Ave SW to Raymond Ave SW. 32A MH0445 MH0726 February 8, 1996 Minor/ Severe 32 1 286'-24" 52 0 2.5' Pipes nearing capacity. Surcharging from capacity problems in DS East Side Interceptor Location: See Figure 5-3I. N 6th St between Park Ave N and Garden Ave N. 33A MH0518 MH0519 January 9, 1990 Minor 33 2 213'-8" 2 0 0 Pipes nearing/slightly over capacity. Negligible surcharging Location: See Figure 5-3L. Off-road easement parallel to I-405. 36A MH0805 MH0467 February 8, 1996 Severe 36 6 1314'-8" 8 0 7' Capacity issues due to pipe size. Surcharging from capacity problems in DS system Location: See Figure 5-3Q. Harrington Ave NE from NE 12th St to NE Sunset Blvd. 36B MH6006 MH0907 February 8, 1996 Minor 36 3 983'-8" 1 0 1' Minor capacity issues due to pipe size. Surcharging from capacity problems in DS system Location: See Figure 5-3Q. NE 12th St from Harrington Ave NE to NE Sunset Blvd, Kirkland Ave NE from NE 12th St to NE 13th St. City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 5.26 ANALYSIS & RESULTS Chapter 5 Table 5-4 Capacity Analysis for Ultimate Sewer Model - Problem Areas Problem Manhole No. Storm Event Rating Mini Pipe Length and Diameter Manhole Manhole Max Surcharge Comments Area Upstream Downstream Basin Sections Surcharge (hrs) Overtopping (hrs) Height (ft) 38A-1 MH0467 MH0470 February 8, 1996 Moderate 38 4 287'-8" 22 0 3' Capacity issues due to pipe size Location: See Figure 5-3Q. 39A MH6042 MH0825 February 8, 1996 Severe 37,39 6 1130'-8" 4 0 4' Capacity issues due to pipe size. Location: See Figure 5-3Q. Edmonds Ave NE from NE Sunset Blvd to NE 9th St. 41A MH3329 MH3510 February 8, 1996 Severe 41 8 1035'-8", 328'-10" 66 60 8' Capacity issues due to pipe size. Severe surcharging from capacity problems in DS East Side Interceptor Location: See Figure 5-3R. Lake Washington Blvd N from N 33rd St to N 36th St. 45A MH2257 MH2252 November 4, 1998 Moderate 45 5 1532'-18" 2 0 2' Capacity issues due to pipe size Location: See Figure 5-3E. Off-road easement from S Grady Way to S Renton Village Pl. 46A MH1158 RE*CEDAR2.R10-26A November 24, 1990 Minor/ Severe 46 14 2620'-15" 10 0 1.5 Severe surcharging in DS portion due to water levels in Cedar River Trunk. No capacity problems in pipe. Location: See Figure 5-3S. SE 6th St between SE 5th St and Pierce Ave SE. 47A MH4692 RE*CEDAR1.R10-05A November 24, 1990 Minor/ Severe 47 8 155'-12", 660'-22", 720'-24" 36 0 2.5' Minor capacity issues due to pipe size. Surcharging from capacity problems in DS Cedar River Trunk Location: See Figure 5-3T. N 4th St west of Houser Way N. 47B MH0622 MH0639 November 24, 1990 Minor/ Severe 47 2 394'-8" 18 0 2' Pipe nearing capacity. Surcharging from capacity problems in DS system City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 5.27 ANALYSIS & RESULTS Chapter 5 Table 5-4 Capacity Analysis for Ultimate Sewer Model - Problem Areas Problem Manhole No. Storm Event Rating Mini Pipe Length and Diameter Manhole Manhole Max Surcharge Comments Area Upstream Downstream Basin Sections Surcharge (hrs) Overtopping (hrs) Height (ft) MH0639 MH0627 November 24, 1990 Severe 47 4 129'-6", 429'-8" 13 10 7' Capacity issues due to pipe size Location: See Figure 5-3T. Bronson Way NE from Grandley Way NE to Windsor Way NE. 47C MH1976 MH1975 November 24, 1990 Minor 47 1 311'-8" 8 0 1 Capacity issues due to pipe size Location: See Figure 5-3T. NE 4th St west of Edmonds Ave NE. 47D MH1851 MH1968 November 24, 1990 Minor/ Severe 47 1 469'-15" 55 0 3' Pipe nearing capacity. Surcharging from capacity problems in DS system Location: See Figure 5-3T. Houser Way N between Factory Pl N and N 4th St. 47E MH4645 MH4644 November 24, 1990 Minor 47 1 100'-15" 0 0 0 Pipe nearing capacity. Location: See Figure 5-3T. Sunset Blvd NE between Bronson Way NE and I-405. 48A MH0847 M H1360 February 8, 1996 Severe 48 2 360'-8" Entire run 0 14' Capacity issues due to pipe size Location: See Figure 5-3T. NE 7th St between Ferndale Pl NE and Harrington Ave NE. 50A MH0418 MH420 February 8, 1996 Moderate/ Severe 50 2 460'-8" 67 57 6' Capacity issues due to pipe size. Severe surcharging due to capacity problems in DS Bryn Mawr Interceptor Location: See Figure 5-3I. Cedar River Trail south of N 6th St. 65A MH2818 MH2760 January 9, 1990 Moderate 4,65 3 517'-24" Entire run 0 3' Includes upstream flows from SCWSD. Capacity issues due to pipe size. MH5275 MH5299 January 9, 1990 Severe 65 3 432'-18", 322'-20" Entire run 132 12' Includes upstream flows from SCWSD. Capacity issues due to pipe size. City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 5.28 ANALYSIS & RESULTS Chapter 5 Table 5-4 Capacity Analysis for Ultimate Sewer Model - Problem Areas Problem Manhole No. Storm Event Rating Mini Pipe Length and Diameter Manhole Manhole Max Surcharge Comments Area Upstream Downstream Basin Sections Surcharge (hrs) Overtopping (hrs) Height (ft) Location: See Figure 5-3B. SE 16th St from Lake Youngs Way SE and north of SE Royal Hills Dr. 65B MH5301 MH5303 January 9, 1990 Severe 65 4 134'-15", 1001'-20" Entire run Entire run 21' Capacity issues due to pipe size. Backwater due to bend at MH 5302. Includes upstream flows from SCWSD Location: See Figure 5-3B. Off-road easement north of Royal Hills Dr SE and east of Harrington Pl SE. ESI1003A MH1923 MH1921 February 8, 1996 Minor/ Severe ESI1003 3 674'-8" 54 0 3' Capacity issues due to pipe size. Surcharging due to backwater in East Side Interceptor Location: See Figure 5-3I. Wells Alle y N from N 3rd St to N 1st St. ESI1003B MH4635 RE*ESI2.RO2-01 February 8, 1996 Moderate/ Severe ESI1003 7 944'-10" 84 82 11.5' Capacity issues due to pipe size. Severe surcharging due to backwater in East Side Interceptor Location: See Figure 5-3V. Off-road easement from Lake Washington Blvd N northwest toward Lake Washington. ESI1003C MH0192 RE*ESI2.RO1-03 February 8, 1996 Minor ESI1003 4 934'-8" 2 0 0.5' Minor capacity issues due to pipe size Location: See Figure 5-3F. Thomas Ave SW from SW 7th St to SW 10th St. ESI1003D MH2440 MH2244 February 8, 1996 Minor/ Severe ESI1003 1 240'-8" 58 0 2' Minor capacity issues due to pipe size. Surcharging due to backwater in East Side Interceptor Location: See Figure 5-3F. Hardie Ave SW between SW 5th Pl and SW 7th St. A1 MH0216 KC1735 February 8, 1996 Minor/ Moderate A 6 837'-15", 70'-16" 66 0 2' Capacity issues due to pipe slope. Surcharging in DS East Side Interceptor Location: See Figure 5-3F. Off-road easement parallel to Oakesdale Ave SW north of SW Grady Way. City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 5.29 ANALYSIS & RESULTS Chapter 5 Table 5-4 Capacity Analysis for Ultimate Sewer Model - Problem Areas Problem Manhole No. Storm Event Rating Mini Pipe Length and Diameter Manhole Manhole Max Surcharge Comments Area Upstream Downstream Basin Sections Surcharge (hrs) Overtopping (hrs) Height (ft) A2 MH6188 MH6191 February 8, 1996 Minor/ Severe A 3 1175'-8" 22 10 5' Pipes nearing/slightly over capacity. Surcharging due to bend at MH6190 and backwater in DS South Interceptor Location: See Figure 5-3U. Off-road easement between Oaksdale Ave SW and SW 39th St. A3 MH0275 MH0286 February 8, 1996 Severe A 13 396'-8", 2000'-10" 39 31 12' Severe capacity issues due to pipe size. Severe surcharging due to capacity problems in DS South Interceptor Location: See Figure 5-3U. Off-road easement between Oaksdale Ave SW and Interurban Trail north of S 180th St. A4 MH0186 RE*ESI2.RO1-04 February 8, 1996 Minor A 2 275'-8" 2 0 0 Pipe over capacity for short duration. Negligible surcharging. Location: See Figure 5-3F. SW 10th St from Powell Ave SW towards Thomas Ave SW. B1 MH5191 MH2982 February 8, 1996 Minor/ Severe B 5 1367'-8" 5 0 2.5' Capacity issues due to pipe size. Additional surcharging due to possible pump capacity issues in Lift Station. Location: See Figure 5-3U. SW 34th St from Lind Ave SW to E Valley Rd. B2 MH3172 RE*SRENTON.R18-05 February 8, 1996 Minor/ Severe B 3 645'-8" 33 0 8' Pipe nearing capacity. Severe surcharging from capacity problems in DS South Renton Interceptor Location: See Figure 5-3U. 84th Ave S from SW 43rd St towards SW 41st St. City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 5.30 ANALYSIS & RESULTS Chapter 5 Table 5-4 Capacity Analysis for Ultimate Sewer Model - Problem Areas Problem Manhole No. Storm Event Rating Mini Pipe Length and Diameter Manhole Manhole Max Surcharge Comments Area Upstream Downstream Basin Sections Surcharge (hrs) Overtopping (hrs) Height (ft) B3 MH2987 RE*SRENTON.R18-11 February 8, 1996 Minor/ Severe B 7 2012'-12" 26 7 7' Pipes nearing/slightly over capacity. Severe surcharging from capacity problems in DS South Renton Interceptor Location: See Figure 5-3U. East Valley Rd from SW 34th St to SW 41st St, U6A MH4717 MH4713 N/A Minor U6 3 587'-8" Intermittent entire run 0 0.5' Intermittent surcharging due to LS 34 (Liberty). Model contains constant flow rate inputs for U- Basins Location: See Figure 5-3W. SE 137th Terrace from 160th Ave SE to 161st Pl SE, 161st Pl SE south from SE 137th Terrace. City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 5.31 ANALYSIS & RESULTS Chapter 5 Based on discussions with Bruce Nairn of King County, the County’s interceptor located in Mini-Basin 50 has significant potential surcharging issues, primarily due to severe I&I problems in the upstream County-owned system. S urcharging potential was evident in the 2012 Model Analysis, and significantly more pronounced in the Ultimate Model Analysis. T he County plans to install a storage facility to dampen peak flows or implement an I&I repair and reduction program for the upstream system, or both. For the Ultimate Model analysis, it was assumed that this County trunk line would be at capacity (rather than significantly exceeding capacity) during the 20-year design flow-generating event, resulting from the future improvements. As a result of this assumption, the County’s trunk sewer would not cause backwater effects in the City’s sewer mains within Mini-Basin 50. Further coordination with the County is recommended with regard to the significant future zoning densification projected in the City, adjacent to their trunk sewer, within Mini- Basin 50. During the Ultimate Model analysis, some lift stations overtopped significantly; to the extent that the model could not complete its computations. These lift stations include East Valley (L04), Airport (L03), Stoneg ate (L29), and Long (L07). T he pumps in each of these cases were upsized to accommodate the peak flow rate with a single pump in operation to allow MIKE URBAN to complete the computations. The Airport and Stonegate pumps were modeled based on projected peak pump capa cities with as-designed impelle r upgrades. Since most or all of the City’s lift stations appear to only contain two duty pumps, any of the duplex stations operating with more than one pump would function beyond their design capacity. The I&I increase assumption of 7% per decade and a maximum of 28% for the Ultimate Model may be overly conservative for newer portions of the City constructed primarily with PVC and ductile iron pipes. These system degradation assumptions may be reasonable for the older portions of the system. During future analysis, pipe material and age should be taken into consideration in addition to flow monitoring. Also, the degree of I&I reduction efforts by the City should be taken into consideration for flow modeling. It may be more practical to assume lower degradation rates for some of the newer portions of the system. For sewer system locat ed in the “U” Basins, standard I&I assumptions (1500 gallons per day per acre) were used, with no applied degradation. It may be desirable to incorporate some degradation (such as 7%) for the newer system in future analyses. No flow monitors were associated with Mini-Basin A and a portion of B, which have multiple discharges to KC trunks; there was no check on the accuracy of these flows. The flows were generated from standard sanitary and I&I assumptions rather than subtracted from the South Interceptor. I&I parameters used by KC from an adjacent Model Basin were assigned, which may or may not be representative of actual conditions. Further monitoring and analysis is recommended (see Chapter 6). Although flows were calibrated to reasonable accuracy based on King County’s 2008-2011 flow monitoring data, all of the flows in the Ultimate Model are more heavily based on assumptions and projections, as detailed herein. It is advisable to City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 5.32 ANALYSIS & RESULTS Chapter 5 conduct additional flow monitoring and analysis to verify the existence and extent of projected problem areas in the City’s system. LIFT STATION AND FORCE MAIN ANALYSIS A review of lift station and force main capacity was conducted for the 2012 and Ultimate model analysis. In each case, the model results were reviewed to determine the number of pumps operating during the peak storm event, and the maximum velocity of the flow in each force main. Typically, lift stations are designed so that a single pump is able to convey the peak 20-year flow. Flow velocities in the force main should be a maximum of 8 feet per second. Results are shown in Table 5-5. Table 5-5 Lift Station and Force Main Analysis Summary Lift Station Mini- Basin Force Main 2012 Analysis Ultimate Analysis Max. Pumps On Max. Force Main Velocity (fps) Max. Pumps On Max. Force Main Velocity (fps) L01-Shy Creek U4 8" PVC 1 3.5 1 3.5 L02-Devils Elbow 33 6" PVC 1 4.7 1 4.7 L03-Airport 16 5" PVC 1 2.8 1* 4.7 L04-East Valley B 12" DI 2 1.27 2 1.27 L05-Talbot Crest 6 3" PVC 1 4.3 1 4.3 L07-Long 21 6" PVC 1 0.97 1 0.97 L08-Kensington 65 3" PVC 1 5 1 5 L09-Wedgewood 22 10" DIP 1 1.3 1 1.3 L25-Lind Ave 28 8" PVC 1 4.4 1 4.4 L29-Stone Gate 20 8" PVC 1 1.7 1* 3.4 L30-Falcon Ridge 4 10" PVC 1 1.4 1 1.4 L32-Misty Cove 54 Not Modeled 2 N/A 2 N/A L34-Liberty U6 8" PVC 1 3.9 1 3.9 L39-Baxter 54 6" PVC 2 4.8 2 4.8 *Lift stations modeled to include pump impeller upgrades provided in lift station design City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 5.33 ANALYSIS & RESULTS Chapter 5 Results of the analysis show that most of the lift stations and all of the force mains are capable of conveying projected flows for 2012, as well as u ltimate scenarios. There are three lift stations which may have capacity problems based on the analysis. Misty Cove and Baxter Lift Stations are located in Mini Basin 54, which was calibrated in 2005. The service area for Baxter Lift Station includes large multi- family development which was added since the model calibration, and may be simulating sanitary flows that are larger than what actually occurs. The second pump for Misty Cove Lift Station only activated 3 times during the peak storm event. East Valley Lift Station also exceeded its capacity during both simulations. T he City provided data for this lift station during the calibration process. This data indicated that a second pump did activate a few times during the December 2010 storm used in the Calibration. T he second pump did not activate for Long Lift Station7. However, the station was close to its single pump capacity during the ultimate model simulation. Therefore, it is possible that the l ift s tation will eventually exceed its capacity if the service area sees significant population growth. INFILTRATION AND INFLOW ANALYSIS The runoff simulations for the 2012 model analysis were reviewed to estimate the peak inflow to the sewer system due to infiltration and inflow. This was done by determining the peak modeled RDII flow rate for the catchments in each calibrated mini-basin and dividing this by the area. Results of this analysis are provided in Table 5-6 . City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 5.34 ANALYSIS & RESULTS Chapter 5 Table 5-6 Peak Infiltration and Inflow per Mini-Basin Sewer Mini-Basin Peak Storm Event Peak I/I(1) (gpad) Calibration Year(2) 1 November 4, 1998 4,580 2005 2 November 4, 1998 3,902 2005 3 November 4, 1998 4,062 2005 4 January 9, 1990 1,700 2015 5 November 24, 1990 19,223 2015 6 November 24, 1990 3,436 2015 7 November 4, 1998 6,618 2005 8 February 8, 1996 1,330 2005 9 February 8, 1996 7,718 2005 10 February 8, 1996 4,009 2005 11 February 8, 1996 7,724 2005 12 February 8, 1996 2,076 2005 13 February 8, 1996 17,189 2005 14 February 8, 1996 6,595 2005 15 February 8, 1996 9,248 2005 16 February 8, 1996 3,725 2005 17 November 24, 1990 6,17 2015 18 February 8, 1996 5,927 2005 19 February 8, 1996 1,140 2015 20 November 24, 1990 1,650 2005 21 November 24, 1990 2,443 2005 22 November 24, 1990 585 2005 23 January 9, 1990 539 2015 24 February 8, 1996 6,616 2015 25 November 24, 1990 4,400 2015 26 November 24, 1990 2,251 2005 27 February 8, 1996 3,595 2015 28 February 8, 1996 4,907 2005 29 February 8, 1996 3,924 2015 30A February 8, 1996 860 2015 30B February 8, 1996 329 2015 30C February 8, 1996 860 2015* 32 February 8, 1996 2,413 2005 33 January 9, 1990 798 2015 34 January 9, 1990 842 2015 35 November 24, 1990 1,199 2005 36 February 8, 1996 6,824 2015 37 February 8, 1996 7,085 2015 City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 5.35 ANALYSIS & RESULTS Chapter 5 City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 5.36 Table 5-6 Peak Infiltration and Inflow per Mini-Basin Sewer Mini-Basin Peak Storm Event Peak I/I(1) (gpad) Calibration Year(2) 39 February 8, 1996 3,985 2015 40 February 8, 1996 3,891 2005 41 February 8, 1996 6,712 2015 42 January 9, 1990 2,804 2005 43 November 24, 1990 548 2015 44 November 24, 1990 37 2005 45 November 4, 1998 602 2005 46 November 24, 1990 3,081 2005 47 November 24, 1990 7,326 2015 48 February 8, 1996 2,065 2015 49 February 8, 1996 3,331 2015 50 February 8, 1996 12,370 2005 52 February 8, 1996 1,468 2005 54 February 8, 1996 4,429 2005 A February 8, 1996 10,232 2005** B February 8, 1996 3,932 2005** CEDAR02A November 24, 1990 3,088 2005 ESI1003 February 8, 1996 10,225 2005 RENT65 January 9, 1990 1,450 2015 1) RDII parameters determined in the 2005 wet weather calibration were set using wet weather at the Mini-Basin level. Those modified in the 2015 calibration were set at the model basin level. * Mini-Basin Basin 30C was calibrated with Basin 30A. ** RDII parameters for Mini-Basins A and B were not calibrated. During the 2005 model development, RDII parameters from adjacent basins with similar land use were assigned. Peak I/I flow rates for a 15 basins are very high, exceeding 6,000 gallons per acre per day. The calibration for many of these basins was performed in 2005. The I/I flow rates for Mini-Basin 5 and 13 exceed 15,000 gallons per acre per day. Although the calibration for Mini-Basin 5 was performed in 2015, it was done at the model basin level, and included decreases in the I/I parameters from the prior calibration. Mini-Basin 13 was calibrated in 2005. The 2012 and Ultimate model results show pipe capacity problems for many of the basins with high I/I flow rates.. Therefore, we recommend additional flow monitoring to verify the calibration in these basins. The Mini-Basin 44 I/I flow rate is extremely low, so flow-monitoring is also recommended to for this basin. See Chapter 6 for further discussion. PEAK BOUNDARY FLOW ANALYSIS The peak flow rates for each of the external boundary flows are tabulated below in Table 5-7. The flow rates for SOO003 and RNT042 were constant flow inputs. The rest of the flows were time series inputs. Since four separate storm events were ANALYSIS & RESULTS Chapter 5 PEAK BOUNDARY FLOW ANALYSIS The peak flow rates for each of the external boundary flows are tabulated below in Table 5-7 . The flow rates for SOO003 and RNT042 were constant flow inputs. The rest of the flows were time series inputs . Since four separate storm events were used in the model analysis, the peaks were different magnitudes for each event. The peaks were also from different events depending on the boundary condition. For this table, the largest peak event was listed. Table 5-7 Peak Boundary Flows Boundary Flow Peak 2012 Flow (cfs) Peak Ultimate Flow (cfs) TUK015 24.16 34.50 SINT020 156.11 291.24 SOO021 2.62 4.42 SOO003 7.90 17.20 Cedar039A 13.56 21.02 RNT042 1.1 3.6 ESI4024 261.13 428.46 BLS043B 24.67 34.17 City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 5.37 ANALYSIS & RESULTS Chapter 5 City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 5.38 Figure 5.2 2012 Sewer Model Analysis Results ANALYSIS & RESULTS Chapter 5 City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 5.39 Figure 5.3 Ultimate Sewer Model Analysis Results CHAPTER 6 RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUMMARY This section of the report includes the recommendations for future flow monitoring and model updates. A summary of the King County hydraulic model compatibility and limitations of the model have also been included. FLOW MONITORING RECOMMENDATIONS As mentioned previously in this report, additional flow monitoring and analysis can be a worthwhile supplement to hydraulic modeling and verification of capacity deficiencies. Figure 6-1 (located at the end of this chapter) i dentifies recommended future modeling locations, and Table 6-1 lists the specific recommended locations for future monitors in addition to the general categories of the monitors. Figure 6-1 includes the following four categories of flow meters: 1.Locations of King County flow monitors from 2008-2011 (Black Rings ): These are locations where flow moni toring was conducted by King County for the decennial monitoring program, but much of the recorded data was missing or errant due to flow monitor issues. Additional monitoring is warranted at these locations to verify the flows in the tributary basins. 2.L ocations which King County did not monitor from 2008-2011 (Orange Rings): These locations include large tributary basin areas, and were not monitored. In some cases, downstream monitors did collect these tributary flow data, but the data is not detailed enough to examine the smaller upstream areas. Other locations are newer Mini-Basins or S ub-B asins, which have seen substantial growth since the model was developed. Monitoring is warranted at these locations to verify the flows in the tributary basins. 3.New flow meter locations to monitor specific 2012 Model problem areas (Violet Rings ): These locations would provide targeted monitoring to isolate and verify some of the more serious problem areas as identified by the 2012 Model Peak Flow Analysis. These areas are typically not immediately adjacent to previous flow monitor locations, or would be used to separate large branches of upstream sewer to help identify the cause and location of problems. Where feasible, attempts were made to select locations where a single meter could be used to help verify more than one problem area. 4.New f low m eter l ocations to m onitor s pecific Ultimate Model p roblem a reas (Blue Rings): These locations would provide targeted monitoring to isolate and verify some of the more serious problem areas as identified by the Ultimate Model Peak Flow Analysis. These City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 6.1 RECOMMENDATIONS & SUMMARY Chapter 6 areas are typically not immediately adjacent to previous flow monitor locations, or would be used to separate large branches of upstream sewer to help identify the cause and location of problems. Where feasible, attempts were made to select locations where a single meter could be used to help verify more than one problem area. It might be wise to install flow monitors for suspected problem areas using a phased approach, rather than installing all of the meters at the same time. This would allow more opportunity for evaluation of the metering to make sure useful and reliable data is being provided. Installation of flow meters at new locations or locations where data previously collected by King County was errant may potentially be a collaborative effort with King County, with each party sharing information and possibly expenses. Targeted use of flow meters could help locate areas with higher than normal I&I issues, which could potentially be repaired to avoid downstream piping upsizing and modifications. Flow monitors can be used to verify or refute projected capacity problems, potentially eliminating costly projects or providing confidence that improvements are warranted. Table 6-1 City of Renton Sewer Model Propo sed Flow Monitor Locations Basin Flow Monitor MH* Category** Problem Area 3 MH0084 (SE) 2 5 RE*SRENTON.R18-25 (S) 3 5B 5 RE*SRENTON.R18-17 (S) 3 5C 6 MH2999 3 5A, 6A 11 RE*ESI1.RO1-14 (E) 3 11A, 11B 13 MH2247 (N) 2 14 MH0066 (W) 3 14A 15 MH2120 (W) 3 15A, 15B, 15C 16 MH2113 (W) 4 16A 19 MH0246 (E) 1 21 MH5503 (N) 3 21A, 21B 22 MH3626 (E) 4 22A 23 MH0383 (NE) 1,3 23A, 23B 25 MH1650 (N) 4 2BC, 25D, 25E 26, U2 MH1746 (E) 2 26 MH1741 (N) 4 26A 38A MH0466 (N) 3 36A, 36B, 38A 39 MH0825 (N) 3 39A 40 RE*ESI4.RO2-19 (E) 1 City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS & SUMMARY Chapter 6 Table 6-1 City of Renton Sewer Model Propo sed Flow Monitor Locations Basin Flow Monitor MH* Category** Problem Area 41 MH3511 (SW) 1,3 41A 42 MH3386 (N) 1 44 MH1264 (E) 2 45 MH2253 (E) 3 45A 47 MH4646 (E) 3 47B, 47C 47 MH2014 (N) 48 MH0843 (E) 3 48A 50 MH0420 (S) 4 50A RENT65 MH5302 (W) 2,4 65B RENT65 MH2760 (SW) 2,3 4a, 65A ESI1003 MH4629 (W) 4 ESI1003B ESI1003 MH1924 (S) 4 ESI1003A A MH0211 (S) 3 A1 A MH6191 (E) 3 A2 A MH0286 (W) 3 A3 B MH2982 (S) 3 B1 B MH3187 (N) 2,4 B3 U3 MH1709 (E) 2 U4, U6, U8 & U9 RE*CENTRALPLAT.MH-5 (N) 1 U6 MH4712 (E) 4 U6A * Proposed flow monitor locations include the necessary orientation. For example “(E)” indicates that the monitor would be installed in the pipe entering the identified manhole to the East. **Categories are as follows: 1)King County flow monitors with errant data 2)No Prior flow monitors – Mini-Basin flow verification 3)2012 Model problem areas 4)Ultimate Model problem areas KING COUNTY COMPATIBILITY The model was updated with the intent of achieving general compatibility with the models developed by King County during the Regional I&I study. Many of the assumptions and methodologies employed by the City and County models are consistent. Overall, the models are fairly compatible, and data can be shared between the models in a relatively straightforward fashion. Some of the main similarities between the models are listed below: City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 6.3 RECOMMENDATIONS & SUMMARY Chapter 6 •B oth models use the MOUSE hydraulic engine (MIKE URBAN r uns on the MOUSE engine). •The same formula was used for computing the base I&I for each mini- basin in the two models. •Both models include population projections based on PSRC planning data. •Both models use similar RDII parameters. •Both models were calibrated to the same dry weather and wet weather flow monitoring data. •DHI worked on calibrating the County’s and City’s original models for the wet weather season, and employed a similar methodology for both. •Both models use similar rainfall gauge assignments. •Both models feature detailed representations of King County trunklines within the City boundaries. •Boundary flow assignments to the City’s model conservatively represent boundary flow rates computed by King County. •Both models incorporate an assumed system degradation resulting in an I&I increase of 7.0 percent per decade. The City of Renton assumes a maximum increase of 28.0 percent for the Ultimate Models, whereas King County does not apply a cap for future projections. •Both models use the same hydraulic engine and computations, and both feature a similar overall set-up. There are some key differences between the City’s model and the King County models. The City’s model is much more detailed than any of the County’s models in terms of the representation of the physical system. The majority of the City’s system is included in the model, with flow present in all of the pipes. The physical detail in the City’s model allows it to be a powerful hydraulic tool for evaluation of system capacity at a local level. With the City’s model, it is possible to evaluate pipes as small as 8-inch diameter to evaluate capacity, throughout the City. The County’s model is intended to be a regional tool used to evaluate I&I and system capacity at a much broader and less refined level. With the models developed by the County, hydraulic evaluation of large sewer trunks is possible, but generally not smaller pipes. The County’s models are primarily hydrology models, with hydraulics for trunks. The City’s model is both a hydrologic and hydraulic model throughout. Some other key differences in the models are summarized below: City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 6.4 RECOMMENDATIONS & SUMMARY Chapter 6 •The population is assigned more representatively to the City’s model, by zoning categories. The City’s model has individual populations assigned to manholes by zone, while the County’s model feature lump net flow assignments, not targeted to specific zoning categories by individual manholes. The net results at the outlet of each mini-basin should be similar, but the flow in the local system is more representative in the City’s model. •A conservative factor of 25% was added to all of the projected populations within the City’s model. The County may have applied different measures of conservatism into their models, but it is believed that they did not apply a 25% increase to the population assignments. •Efforts were made in the City’s model to check to make sure realistic per capita flow rates were assigned, and adjustments to projected population distributions were made as deemed appropriate. •The area assignments between the models differ. King County applied several discount factors reducing the area assigned to each mini-basin. In the City’s model, the overall areas (generally not including parks and open space) were equally assigned to all of the manholes within each mini-basin. As a result, much larger overall areas were assigned to the 2012 Renton Model. This does not create a difference in the calibrated wet weather flows for the 2012 model, but may have an impact to flows in the Ultimate Model and future scenarios. •The City’s model has the ability to accurately simulate lift station operation and settings, whereas the County’s models did not generally include that level of detail. The County did not model lift station operation, focusing instead on the larger picture. •The original wet weather calibration for Renton’s model started with similar RDII parameters to King County, but these were refined by DHI, and further refined by Stantec to provide a more representative and system specific calibration. •The County performed complex statistical analyses and developed synthetic storm events to represent 20-year peak flows within the various basins. The scope and budget of the City’s model did not support this level of analysis. Per the County’s suggestion, events ranked by the County were assumed to represent the various storm events used for the City’s analyses. •The County’s Ultimate models do not use diurnal sanitary flows; instead, they use a constant average sanitary flow rate throughout the model simulations. •Due to the system-specific detail in the City’s model, it takes significantly longer to perform computations. City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 6.5 RECOMMENDATIONS & SUMMARY Chapter 6 •The County generally uses more conservative I&I assumptions (such as 2,000 gallons per acre per day) for areas projected to be served in the future (the City generally used 1500 gallons per acre pre day for new projected areas). LIMITATIONS OF THE MODEL The limitations of the model generally relate to limitations in the data and assumptions used to develop the model, the budget used to develop the model, and limitations of the software. Some of the main limitations are summarized below: •The data used to develop the City’s model was found to contain a large volume of missing information, incorrect information, and inconsistencies. Numerous assumptions were used to correct this data, including interpolations and datum assumptions. Although the piping in the model all flows downhill, there is certainly a portion of model data that is inaccurate to some extent. •The diurnal curves assigned to the model apply to the overall mini- basins. Targeted diurnal curves used for each zoning category were not used; therefore, although flow is represented in all of the piping throughout the model, it can be considered an average of the upstream flow generation at any point. The diurnal curve applied to any node within a mini-basin will have the average flow values for the total system, but may not represent the actual specific flow patterns from an individual area, such as a school. The diurnal patterns generally represent the overall make-up of the mini-basins (residential versus employment, etc.). •Although I&I is assigned to most of the manholes in each mini-basin, weighted areas to each manhole were not assigned; most manholes typically receive the average area for the mini-basin. This functions to distribute average mini-basin I&I rates to each manhole, but does not isolate I&I issues within each mini-basin, since only the total flow at the downstream monitors were used to calibrate the flows. •The RDII parameters used to develop the antecedent soil and groundwater conditions are very complex, and difficult to accurately represent. The County performed more extensive research and evaluation when determining their parameters, the results of w hich were largely applied to the City’s model. However, the specific conditions defining how surface water and groundwater enter the sewage system are extremely complex, and the RDII parameters assigned to the model will not necessarily be able to accurately predict future performance, even though they were determined and estimated using flow monitoring data from a couple of seasons. City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 6.6 RECOMMENDATIONS & SUMMARY Chapter 6 •The storm events assigned to the model may or may not provide representative 20/30-year design flows within the system. The extent of the rainfall data analyzed by King County was approximately 60 years, and there are no guarantees that the storm flow rankings correspond to the appropriate storm events over that limited period of data. •There were many inconsistencies, gaps, and a lot of “noise” in the flow monitoring data obtained by the County, and calibration was anything but an exact science. For some b asins, the data was non- existent or inadequate to provide accurate calibrations. Without further flow monitoring efforts, there should be limited confidence in any of the projected flow rates from non-calibrated basins/mini- basins. •The flow monitoring data obtained from the County was collected a the model basin level, which was at a much broader scale than the data collected for the 2001 I/I study, which was collected at the mini- basin level. Without more refined flow data, changes to the calibration of the model were less precise than the prior effort, and may have significant impacts on the analysis results. •The large volume of data compiled from numerous sources and the extensive estimations, judgment, and assumptions used to create the model make it a very powerful tool, but common sense and sound engineering judgment should be applied to all results. The data provided by model analysis is simply a planning level tool to determine areas that will need further analysis prior to implementation of any capital improvements. A dditional analysis and flow-monitoring may be prudent prior to proceeding with large-scale system improvements in many parts of the system, as described earlier in this report in more detail. It is always advisable to apply sound engineering judgment coupled with real- world perspective to make sure that modeling results make sense and fit the appropriate conditions being studied. The physical components of projected “problem areas” such as manhole invert elevations, pipe slopes, and pipes sizes should be verified to ensure that the model is an accurate representation of the actual system. City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 6.7 RECOMMENDATIONS & SUMMARY Chapter 6 Figure 6.1 Proposed Flow Monitor Locations City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page 6.8 APPENDICES APPENDIX A – Dry Weather Flow Calibration Time Series City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page A 00:00:001-9-201000:00:002-9-201000:00:003-9-201000:00:004-9-201000:00:005-9-201000:00:006-9-201000:00:007-9-201000:00:008-9-20100.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.02.22.42.62.83.03.23.43.6[cfs]Time Series Link DischargeLink DischargeGM05310 (MH5304 -> MH2759) 74.47External TS 1Rent 65 Dry 00:00:001-9-201000:00:002-9-201000:00:003-9-201000:00:004-9-201000:00:005-9-201000:00:006-9-201000:00:007-9-201000:00:008-9-20100.000.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.100.110.120.130.140.150.160.170.180.190.200.210.220.23[cfs]Time Series Link DischargeLink DischargeGM02800 (MH1852 -> MH1851) 120.91External TS 1RNT 17 Dry 00:00:001-9-201000:00:002-9-201000:00:003-9-201000:00:004-9-201000:00:005-9-201000:00:006-9-201000:00:007-9-201000:00:008-9-20100.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.01.11.21.31.4[cfs]Time Series Link DischargeLink DischargeGM01571 (MH0520 -> MH0383) 24.48External TS 1RNT 23 Dry 00:00:001-9-201000:00:002-9-201000:00:003-9-201000:00:004-9-201000:00:005-9-201000:00:006-9-201000:00:007-9-201000:00:008-9-20100.000.050.100.150.200.250.300.350.400.450.500.550.60[cfs]Time Series Link DischargeLink DischargeGM02237 (MH1773 -> MH1156) 109.94External TS 1RNT 25 Dry 00:00:001-9-201000:00:002-9-201000:00:003-9-201000:00:004-9-201000:00:005-9-201000:00:006-9-201000:00:007-9-201000:00:008-9-20100.000.050.100.150.200.250.300.350.400.450.500.55[cfs]Time Series Link DischargeLink DischargeGM00108 (MH0206 -> MH0205) 108.45External TS 1RNT 28 Dry 00:00:001-9-201000:00:002-9-201000:00:003-9-201000:00:004-9-201000:00:005-9-201000:00:006-9-201000:00:007-9-201000:00:008-9-20100.00.10.10.20.20.30.30.40.40.50.50.60.60.70.70.80.80.90.91.0[cfs]Time Series Link DischargeLink DischargeGM01793 (MH0715 -> MH0714) 90.57External TS 1RNT 30A Dry 00:00:001-9-201000:00:002-9-201000:00:003-9-201000:00:004-9-201000:00:005-9-201000:00:006-9-201000:00:007-9-201000:00:008-9-20100.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.02.22.42.62.83.03.2[cfs]Time Series Link DischargeLink DischargeGM04481 (MH4653 -> MH4652) 99.98External TS 1RNT 30B Dry 00:00:001-9-201000:00:002-9-201000:00:003-9-201000:00:004-9-201000:00:005-9-201000:00:006-9-201000:00:007-9-201000:00:008-9-20100.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.01.11.21.31.41.51.61.7[cfs]Time Series Link DischargeLink DischargeGM01350 (MH3756 -> MH0368) 113.70External TS 1RNT 35 Dry 00:00:001-9-201000:00:002-9-201000:00:003-9-201000:00:004-9-201000:00:005-9-201000:00:006-9-201000:00:007-9-201000:00:008-9-20100.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.160.180.200.220.240.260.280.300.32[cfs]Time Series Link DischargeLink DischargeGM05921 (MH5705 -> MH3511) 83.15External TS 1RNT 41 Dry 00:00:001-9-201000:00:002-9-201000:00:003-9-201000:00:004-9-201000:00:005-9-201000:00:006-9-201000:00:007-9-201000:00:008-9-20100.000.050.100.150.200.250.300.350.400.450.500.550.600.65[cfs]Time Series Link DischargeLink DischargeGM01059 (MH1205 -> MH1206) 79.00External TS 1RNT 43 Dry 00:00:001-9-201000:00:002-9-201000:00:003-9-201000:00:004-9-201000:00:005-9-201000:00:006-9-201000:00:007-9-201000:00:008-9-20100.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.02.22.42.62.83.03.23.43.63.84.04.24.44.6[cfs]Time Series Link DischargeLink DischargeGM03455 (MH2254 -> MH2253) 87.38External TS 1RNT 45 Dry 00:00:001-9-201000:00:002-9-201000:00:003-9-201000:00:004-9-201000:00:005-9-201000:00:006-9-201000:00:007-9-201000:00:008-9-20100.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.02.22.42.62.83.03.23.43.63.8[cfs]Time Series Link DischargeLink DischargeGM03057 (MH2009 -> MH2014) 82.81External TS 1RNT 47 Dry 1-9-20103-9-20105-9-20107-9-20100.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.02.22.42.62.8[cfs]Time Series Link DischargeLink DischargeRE*SRENTON.R18-03l1 (RE*SRENTON.R18-03 -> RE*SRENTON.R18-02) 98.66External TS 1SRENT002 Dry APPENDICES APPENDIX B – Wet Weather Flow Calibration Time Series City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page B 00:00:0010-12-201000:00:0011-12-201000:00:0012-12-201000:00:0013-12-201000:00:0014-12-201000:00:0015-12-201000:00:0016-12-201000:00:0017-12-20100.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.160.180.200.220.240.260.280.300.320.34[cfs]Time Series Link DischargeLink DischargeGM02800 (MH1852 -> MH1851) 120.91External TS 1RNT017 00:00:0010-12-201000:00:0011-12-201000:00:0012-12-201000:00:0013-12-201000:00:0014-12-201000:00:0015-12-201000:00:0016-12-201000:00:0017-12-20100.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.01.11.21.31.41.51.61.71.8[cfs]Time Series Link DischargeLink DischargeGM01571 (MH0520 -> MH0383) 24.48External TS 1RNT023 00:00:0010-12-201000:00:0011-12-201000:00:0012-12-201000:00:0013-12-201000:00:0014-12-201000:00:0015-12-201000:00:0016-12-201000:00:0017-12-20100.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.01.11.21.31.41.5[cfs]Time Series Link DischargeLink DischargeGM02237 (MH1773 -> MH1156) 109.94External TS 1RNT025 00:00:0010-12-201000:00:0011-12-201000:00:0012-12-201000:00:0013-12-201000:00:0014-12-201000:00:0015-12-201000:00:0016-12-201000:00:0017-12-20100.00.10.10.20.20.30.30.40.40.50.50.60.60.70.70.80.80.90.91.01.0[cfs]Time Series Link DischargeLink DischargeGM00108 (MH0206 -> MH0205) 108.45External TS 1RNT028 00:00:0010-12-201000:00:0011-12-201000:00:0012-12-201000:00:0013-12-201000:00:0014-12-201000:00:0015-12-201000:00:0016-12-201000:00:0017-12-20100.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.02.22.42.62.8[cfs]Time Series Link DischargeLink DischargeGM01793 (MH0715 -> MH0714) 90.57External TS 1RNT030A 00:00:0010-12-201000:00:0011-12-201000:00:0012-12-201000:00:0013-12-201000:00:0014-12-201000:00:0015-12-201000:00:0016-12-201000:00:0017-12-20100.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.05.56.06.5[cfs]Time Series Link DischargeLink DischargeGM04481 (MH4653 -> MH4652) 99.98External TS 1RNT030B 00:00:0010-12-201000:00:0011-12-201000:00:0012-12-201000:00:0013-12-201000:00:0014-12-201000:00:0015-12-201000:00:0016-12-201000:00:0017-12-20100.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0[cfs]Time Series Link DischargeLink DischargeGM01350 (MH3756 -> MH0368) 113.70External TS 1RNT035 00:00:0010-12-201000:00:0011-12-201000:00:0012-12-201000:00:0013-12-201000:00:0014-12-201000:00:0015-12-201000:00:0016-12-201000:00:0017-12-20100.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.01.11.21.31.4[cfs]Time Series Link DischargeLink DischargeGM05921 (MH5705 -> MH3511) 83.15External TS 1RNT041 00:00:0010-12-201000:00:0011-12-201000:00:0012-12-201000:00:0013-12-201000:00:0014-12-201000:00:0015-12-201000:00:0016-12-201000:00:0017-12-20100.000.050.100.150.200.250.300.350.400.450.500.550.600.650.700.750.800.85[cfs]Time Series Link DischargeLink DischargeGM01059 (MH1205 -> MH1206) 79.00External TS 1RNT043 10-12-201012-12-201014-12-201016-12-201018-12-20100.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.05.56.06.57.07.58.0[cfs]Time Series Link DischargeLink DischargeGM03057 (MH2009 -> MH2014) 82.81External TS 1RNT047 00:00:0010-12-201000:00:0011-12-201000:00:0012-12-201000:00:0013-12-201000:00:0014-12-201000:00:0015-12-201000:00:0016-12-201000:00:0017-12-20100.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.09.010.011.012.0[cfs]Time Series Link DischargeLink DischargeGM05309 (MH5303 -> MH5304) 33.19External TS 1RENT65 10-12-201012-12-201014-12-201016-12-20100.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.05.56.06.57.07.58.08.59.0[cfs]Time Series Link DischargeLink DischargeRE*SRENTON.R18-03l1 (RE*SRENTON.R18-03 -> RE*SRENTON.R18-02) 98.66External TS 1SRENT002 APPENDICES APPENDIX C – Figure 5-2A through Figure 5-2S: 2012 Sewer Model Analysis Results City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page C APPENDICES APPENDIX D – Figure 5-3A through Figure 5-3W: Ultimate Sewer Model Analysis Results City of Renton 2015 Hydraulic Model Update Summary Report Page D APPENDICES | LONG-RANGE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN | CITY OF RENTON FINAL | JULY 2022 Appendix G TM 1 - RAIN AND FLOW MONITORING AND PROJECTIONS TITLE | TM 1 | CLIENT City of Renton LRWWMP Technical Memorandum ͭ RAIN AND FLOW MONITORING & PROJECTIONS DRAFT | September ͮͬͭ͵ City of Renton LRWWMP Technical Memorandum ͭ RAIN AND FLOW MONITORING & PROJECTIONS DRAFT | September ͮͬͭ͵ This document is released for the purpose of information exchange review and planning only under the authority of Daniel L. Reisinger, September ͮͬ, ͮͬͭ͵ Washington PE License No. ͱͯͲͱͳ. LRWWMP | TM 1 | CITY OF RENTON DRAFT | SEPTEMBER ͮͬͭ͵ | iii Contents Technical Memorandum 1 Rain and Flow Monitoring & Projections 1-1 ͭ.ͭ Study Area ͭ‐ͭ ͭ.ͮ Sewer Collection System Flows ͭ‐ͭ ͭ.ͮ.ͭ Dry Weather Flow Components ͭ‐ͭ ͭ.ͮ.ͮ Wet Weather Flow ͭ‐Ͱ ͭ.ͯ Flow Monitoring Program ͭ‐ͳ ͭ.ͯ.ͭ Program Description ͭ‐ͳ ͭ.ͯ.ͮ Flow Monitoring Results ͭ‐ͭͮ ͭ.ͯ.ͯ Dry Weather Flow Projections ͭ‐ͭͳ ͭ.ͯ.Ͱ Wet Weather Flow Projections ͭ‐ͭ͵ Attachments Attachment A ADS ͮͬͭʹ‐ͮͬͭ͵ Flow Monitoring Report Attachment B ADWF Development Review Packet Tables Table ͭ.ͭ Flow Meter General Information ͭ‐ͳ Table ͭ.ͮ Dry Weather Flow Summary ͭ‐ͭͯ Table ͭ.ͯ Rainfall Event Summary for Calibration (ͮͬͭͳ‐ͮͬͭʹ) ͭ‐ͭͯ Table ͭ.Ͱ Flow Meter Basins ADWF Development ͭ‐ͭʹ Table ͭ.ͱ Wet Weather Flow Development ͭ‐ͮͬ Figures Figure ͭ.ͭ Study Area Boundary ͭ‐ͭ Figure ͭ.ͮ Typical Wastewater Flow Components ͭ‐ͯ Figure ͭ.ͯ Typical Sources of Inflow and Infiltration ͭ‐ͱ Figure ͭ.Ͱ Typical Effects of Inflow and Infiltration ͭ‐Ͳ Figure ͭ.ͱ Flow Monitoring Locations ͭ‐͵ Figure ͭ.Ͳ Flow Monitoring Schematic ͭ‐ͭͭ Figure ͭ.ͳ Typical Weekday vs Weekend Dry Weather Flow Variation (MHͬͱͯͳ) ͭ‐ͭͰ Figure ͭ.ʹ Typical Rainfall Activity over Flow Monitoring Period ͭ‐ͭͱ CITY OF RENTON | TM 1 | LRWWMP iv | SEPTEMBER ͮͬͭ͵ | DRAFT Figure ͭ.͵ Rainfall Accumulation Plot ͭ‐ͭͲ Figure ͭ.ͭͬ Example of Wet Weather Flow Response (MHͭͯͲͬ) ͭ‐ͭͳ Figure ͭ.ͭͭ LRWWMP Design Storms ͭ‐ͭ͵ LRWWMP | TM 1 | CITY OF RENTON DRAFT | SEPTEMBER ͮͬͭ͵ | v Abbreviations ADWF Average Dry Weather Flow BI base infiltration BWF base wastewater flow Carollo Carollo Engineers, Inc. City City of Renton d/D depth vs diameter DEQ Department of Environmental Quality DWF dry weather flow gpd/ac gallons per day per acre GWI Groundwater Infiltration I/I Inflow and Infiltration LRWWMP Long Range Wastewater Management Plan mgd million gallons per day PE Person Equivalent PWWF Peak Wet Weather Flow SSOs sanitary sewer overflows TM Technical Memorandum WWF wet weather flow LRWWMP | TM 1 | CITY OF RENTON DRAFT | SEPTEMBER ͮͬͭ͵ | ͭ‐ͭ Technical Memorandum 1 RAIN AND FLOW MONITORING & PROJECTIONS This Technical Memorandum (TM) reviews the existing wastewater flows and presents the projected wastewater flows for future conditions within the City of Renton’s (City) wastewater collection system. Existing flows are based on data collected by ADS’s flow monitoring program (further detail in Attachment A) and the Person Equivalent (PE) developed by Stantec (further detail in Appendix F). 1.1 Study Area The collection system area is served, owned and operated by the City. The City's existing wastewater service area is illustrated in Figure ͭ.ͭ, and mostly follows City limits. The flow projections for this study only include the portion of the system within the service area identified in Figure ͭ.ͭ. The extent of the future wastewater service area matches the exiting wastewater service area. No additional area will be included to the City's existing wastewater service area in the ͮͬ‐year planning horizon. The Service Area boundary on Figure ͭ.ͭ will be called Study Area for the remainder of this project. 1.2 Sewer Collection System Flows Sewer collections systems are intended to convey sanitary flows from customers (dry weather flow [DWF]), but frequently have additional flows from other sources (wet weather flow [WWF]). The different flow components are described in the section below and illustrated in Figure ͭ.ͮ. 1.2.1 Dry Weather Flow Components There are two primary components of DWF. 1.2.1.1 Base Wastewater Flow The base wastewater flow (BWF) is the sanitary flow generated by routine water usage of the City’s residential, commercial, and industrial customers. Conveying this flow is the primary function of the collection system. The flow has a diurnal pattern that varies by customer. Typically, a residential diurnal pattern has two peaks with the more pronounced peak following the wake‐up hours of the day, and a less pronounced peak occurring in the evening. Commercial and industrial patterns, though they vary depending on the type of use, typically have more consistent higher flow patterns during business hours, and lower flows at night. Furthermore, the diurnal flow pattern of a weekend may vary from the diurnal flow experienced during a weekday. 142ND AVE SE144TH AVE SES 116TH ST SE 196TH ST NE 24TH ST SE 148TH ST 172ND AVE SE88TH AVE SLAKE WASHINGTON BLVD NNE 21ST ST UNION AVE NE121ST PL SESE 144TH ST W JAMES ST S 132ND ST BURNETT AVE NS 212TH WAYKLI C K I T A T D R NE 19TH ST S ORCAS ST 84TH AVE SEHARDIE AVE SWSOUTHCE N T E R B L V D MAPL E V A L L E Y H W Y S 208TH ST 120TH PL SE S 115TH PL MAIN AVE SSE 141ST STTALBOT RD S84TH AVE S135TH AVE SES 1 3 0 T H P L CEDAR AVE S4TH AVE NSUNSET BLVD NE134TH AVE SEBENSON RD S S MORGAN ST S FINDLAY ST LINCOLN AVE NEHOQUIAM AVE NES LEO ST SE 227TH PL S 15TH STWILSON AVE S S 134TH ST 160TH AVE SE126TH AVE SESE 218TH PL 148TH AVE SEN 30TH ST S BANGOR ST IN T E R U R B A N A V E S S LUCILE ST SR 5 1 8 W MERCER WAY112TH AVE SE94TH AVE SSE 179TH ST S 190TH ST S 178TH ST 120TH AVE SE130TH AVE SEW A T E R S A V E S 59TH AVE SS 164TH ST 78TH AVE SES 115TH ST 76TH AVE SNE 7TH PL S 130TH STCORNEL L A V E S S O M E R S E T B L V D S E CASCADE KY 127TH AVE SESE 60TH ST EDMONDS AVE NEI- 5 FWY SE 79TH D R N 38TH ST S K A G I T K Y CENTRAL AVE NNE 2ND ST NE 12TH ST S OTHELLO ST NE 8TH ST E JAMES ST SE 56TH ST NE 7TH ST S LA K E R I D G E D R SE 192ND DR58TH AVE SS 200TH ST S 116TH P L HARRINGTON AVE NES GRAHAM ST 143RD AVE SE100TH AVE SEBE A C O N A V E S S MEAD ST NE 6TH PL 131ST AVE SESE 235TH S T DUVALL AVE NES BRANDON ST SE 64TH ST SE 38TH ST 85TH PL SESE 145TH P L S 2ND STLIND AVE NWSE 75TH PL P E T E R G R U B B R D S E S HOLLY ST 155TH AVE SESE 61ST ST 104TH PL SE63RD AVE SSE 40TH P L 133RD AVE SEWELLS AVE S137TH AVE SE164TH WAY SEANACORTES AVE NE1 2 9 TH P L S E86TH AVE SE121ST AVE SESE 45TH ST E MERCER WAYSE 200TH ST118TH AVE SE98TH AVE SREDMOND AVE NENE 6TH ST87TH AVE SS 124TH ST SE 83 R D S T SE 158TH S T 93RD AVE S52ND AVE SSE 46TH WAY 48TH AVE SSE 48TH DR S 129TH S T 85TH AVE SSE 134TH ST SE 1 7 0 T H S T162ND AVE SE151ST AVE SES 19TH ST 164TH AVE SESE 46TH ST OLYMPIA AVE NESE 160TH ST S 14TH ST S ROXBURY ST W E S T L A K E S A M M A M I S H P K W Y S E CRESTWOOD DR SMONROE AVE NE123RD AVE SEHAZEL AVE NS 117TH ST W A B A S H A V E S 128TH AVE SE54TH AVE SSE 183 R D D RJERICHO AVE NESE 221ST ST 175TH AVE SESE 216TH ST NE 9TH ST S 220TH ST HOUSER WAY NKIRKLAND AVE NEN 5TH ST N 6TH ST S MYRTLE ST SE 71ST ST SE PETRO V I T S K Y R D 66TH AVE SSE 223RD ST SE 128TH ST SE 156TH ST 124TH AVE SESE 244TH ST SE 4TH ST N 3RD ST SE 73RD PL S 127TH ST S WILLOW ST BREMERTON AVE NE168TH PL SESE 164TH ST INDUSTRY DRFO R E S T D R S E BRONSON WAY NES RYAN ST S NORFOLK ST TUKWILA PKWY SE 228TH ST SE 55TH ST SE 142ND ST S 3RD ST82ND AVE SESE CARR R D S 216TH ST S 128TH ST SE 172ND ST NE 16TH ST SE R E N T O N - I S S A Q U A H R D SE 202ND PL108TH AVE SE146TH AVE SE57TH AVE SSE 136TH STROSARIO PL NESE 116TH ST SE 162ND ST NE 22ND STAVALON DRSE 68TH ST SE 40TH ST SE 42ND ST SE 72ND ST S SU N N Y C R E S T R D DIX O N D R SFOREST AVE SE SE 212TH ST93RD AVE SESTRANDER BLVD S 196TH ST L A K E W A SH ING TON B L VD S SE 138TH PLSW 4TH P L SR 167SE 208TH ST 150TH AVE SENILE AVE NE104TH AVE SEN 10TH ST VILL A G E P A R K D R S E S 218TH ST SOMERSET DR SEWEST LAKE DES IRE DR SE177TH AVE SESE 224TH ST S 112TH ST SE 52ND S T ILWACO AVE NEBENSON DR SS 144TH ST LIND AVE SW55TH AVE SNE 10TH STHIGHLAND DRMIL L AVE S S 212TH ST SE 183RD ST S 224TH ST NE 23RD PL ANDOVER PARK W50TH AVE S49TH AVE SS 113TH STSEWARD PARK AVE SNEWCASTLE GOLF CLUB R D S HENDERSON ST SE 47T H S T S 120TH ST SE 219TH PL51ST AVE SNEW C A S T L E W A Y 125TH AVE SESE 76TH ST SHATTUCK AVE SPELLY AVE NSW 7TH ST 188TH AVE SES 121ST ST S 237TH PL N 29TH ST 53RD AVE SSE 51ST S T 129TH AVE SESE 233RD ST SE 91ST ST SE 176TH STBLAINE AVE NE127TH PL SESW 12TH ST SE 223RD DR 161ST AVE SEHIGH AVE SSE 42ND PL NE 4TH ST SE 66TH ST MONTEREY AVE NESE 225TH ST SE LAKE YOUN G S R D SE ALLEN RD BURNETT AVE SSW 39TH ST SE 221ST PL65TH AVE SSE FA I R W O O D B L V D PARKSIDE WAY SEN 32ND ST E SMITH ST S LANGSTON RD SOUTHCENTER PKWYL A K E S I D E B L V D E SW 16TH ST MINKLER BLVD 85TH AVE SEN 31ST ST SW 10TH ST S 192ND ST 171ST PL SE S 204TH ST SE 5TH ST SE 226TH ST MERCER W O O D D R SW 3RD P L SW SUNSET BLVD SE 106TH ST SE 192ND ST 68TH AVE S149TH AVE SESE 220TH PL77TH AVE SSE 80TH ST 78TH AVE S62ND AVE SSE 2ND PL S 2 3 1 S T S T47TH AVE SSE 180TH STPOWELL AVE SWS JUNEAU ST SE 214TH ST171ST AVE SES 114TH ST 3RD AVE NSE 121ST PL PARK AVE NSE 59TH ST89TH AVE SE88TH AVE SEGARDEN AVE NSE 186TH ST91ST AVE SE81ST AVE SE92ND AVE SE2ND AVE N1ST AVE NS TAFT ST PASCO PL NENE SUNS E T B L V D MACADAM RD S136TH AVE SESE 241ST S TMI L ITARY RD S SE 80 T H W A Y SE 188TH ST117TH AVE SES 50TH ST S AVON ST 190TH AVE SE80TH AVE SESE 168TH ST S 194TH ST N 4TH ST 132ND AVE SE81ST PL SE116TH PL SE80TH AVE S102ND AVE SE126TH PL SEW SMITH ST SE 65TH ST UNION AVE SESE 110 T H S T SE 204TH ST S PUGET DRRAIN IER AVE N181ST AVE SE176TH AVE SE170TH PL SE S 160TH ST SE 58TH ST NE 3RD ST SE 3RD PL S 170TH ST AIRPORT WAY S TOBIN ST SE 228TH PL SE 4TH PL SE 112TH ST SE 49TH ST SE 240TH ST SE 184TH ST116TH AVE SEABERDEEN AVE NES 240TH ST SW GRAD Y W A Y 64TH AVE SGRANT AVE SSE 149TH STISLAND CREST WAYALVORD AVE NS 32ND ST SE 204TH WAY R E N T O N A V E S SUNSET BLVD N56TH AVE S S 36TH PLOAKESDALE AVE SW180TH AVE SENE PARK DR 163RD PL SELOGAN AVE NSW 19TH ST 113TH AVE SESE 63RD ST I- 4 0 5 FWY RAINIER AVE S PUGET DR SE50 T H P L S SE L I C O R I C E W A Y NE 27TH ST SE 44TH ST COAL CREEK PKWY SE119TH AVE SESE 1 7 0 T H P L 140T H W A Y S E N 8TH ST 92ND AVE S80TH PL SESE 43RD ST JONES AVE NE174TH AVE SEPATRIOT WAY SESE 232ND ST SW 34TH ST 184TH AVE SE72ND AVE SLUMMI KY 106TH AVE SESW 41ST ST S GRADY W A Y FACTORIA BLVD SES 126TH STANDOVER PARK ES 228TH ST59TH PL SSE 53RD PL LAKEMONT BLVD SES 180TH ST M A R T I N L U T H E R K I N G J R W A Y S S 188TH ST SW 27TH ST 156TH AVE SE138TH AVE SE136TH PL SES 222ND ST 66T H L N S 152ND AVE SEWEST VALLEY HWY183RD AVE SESE 184TH PL 89TH AVE S16 6 T H W A Y S E SE 8TH PL W O O D S I D E D R S ESR 599EAST VALLEY HWY SSE COU G A R M O U N T A I N D R SE MAY CRE E K P A R K D R ORILLIA RD SSE 95TH WAY SE 50TH ST 105TH AVE SES 199TH PL 6TH AVE NS 226TH STS 184TH PLSE 159TH PL I-90 F W Y RIPLEY LN SESE 1 7 1 S T W A Y 183RD WAY SE SE 160TH PL SW 43RD ST 56 T H P L S SE ROYAL HILLS D R SE 196TH D R140TH AVE SESE 6 4 T H W A Y 154TH PL SERENTON-ISSAQUAH RD SENE 31ST ST EAST VALLEY RDS 133RD ST S 135TH ST SE 65TH PL N R IVERS IDE DRNW VILLAGE PARK DRMONSTER RD SWM U N A O M E M O R I A L D R SE NEW P O R T W A Y 80TH PL S 169 T H A V E S E FRAGER RD SRUSSELL RD SB E A C O N - C O A L M I N E R D S SE RENTON-MAPLE VA L L E Y R D S E M A Y V A L L E Y R D 1 4 4 T H P L S E SE JONES RD Last Revised: June 10, 2019 F:\KRCD DRIVE\Renton\9971A00\Study_Area.mxd O 0 1 20.5 Miles Legend Study Area Renton City Boundary Urban Growth Boudary Roads Waterbodies LRWWMP | TM01 | CITY OF RENTON Study Area Boundry Figure 1.1 LRWWMP | TM 1 | CITY OF RENTON DRAFT | SEPTEMBER ͮͬͭ͵ | ͭ‐ͯ Figure ͭ.ͮ Typical Wastewater Flow Components CITY OF RENTON | TM 1 | LRWWMP ͭ‐Ͱ | SEPTEMBER ͮͬͭ͵ | DRAFT 1.2.1.2 Dry Weather Groundwater Infiltration Dry weather Groundwater Infiltration (GWI) will enter the sewer system when the relative depth of the groundwater table is higher than the depth of the pipeline and the sanitary sewer pipe allows infiltration through defects such as cracks, misaligned joints, and broken pipelines. Dry weather GWI (or base infiltration) cannot easily be separated from BWF by flow measurement techniques. Therefore dry weather GWI is typically grouped with BWF. 1.2.1.3 Average Dry Weather Flow Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) is the average flow that occurs on a daily basis during the dry weather season, and is estimated from the DWFs during the monitoring period. Based on the flow monitoring, the ADWF is approximately ʹ.͵ͳ million gallons per day (mgd). The ADWF serves as the baseline flow in the hydraulic model. Diurnal (ͮͰ‐hour) patterns are applied to ADWFs, and cumulatively make up the flows experienced at the outfalls of the collection system. The diurnal patterns utilized for the City’s collection system basins are developed in Section ͭ.ͯ and described in detail in the ADS Flow Monitoring Report, Attachment A. 1.2.2 Wet Weather Flow WWF includes two components: ͭ. Inflow and Infiltration (I/I): The stormwater I/I response in the sewer system to rainfall is seen immediately (inflow) or within hours after the storm (infiltration). ͮ. GWI: Wet weather GWI is not specific to a single rainfall event, but rather to the effects on the sewer system over the entire wet weather season. The depth of the groundwater table rising above the pipe invert elevation causes GWI. Sewer pipes within close proximity to a body of water can be greatly influenced by groundwater effects. 1.2.2.1 Inflow and Infiltration Inflow is stormwater that enters the sewer system via a direct connection to the system, such as roof drain and downspout connections, leaky manhole covers, and inappropriate storm drain connections. Infiltration is stormwater that enters the sewer system by percolating through the soil and then through defects in pipelines, manholes, and joints. Some of the most common sources of I/I are shown in Figure ͭ.ͯ. The adverse effects of I/I entering the sewer system is that it increases both the flow volume and peak flows such that the sewer system could be operating at or above its capacity, as illustrated in Figure ͭ.Ͱ. If too much I/I enter the sewer system, sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) could occur. LRWWMP | TM 1 | CITY OF RENTON DRAFT | SEPTEMBER ͮͬͭ͵ | ͭ‐ͱ Figure ͭ.ͯ Typical Sources of Inflow and Infiltration CITY OF RENTON | TM 1 | LRWWMP ͭ‐Ͳ | SEPTEMBER ͮͬͭ͵ | DRAFT Figure ͭ.Ͱ Typical Effects of Inflow and Infiltration Maximum Pipe Capacity LRWWMP | TM 1 | CITY OF RENTON DRAFT | SEPTEMBER ͮͬͭ͵ | ͭ‐ͳ 1.2.2.2 Groundwater Infiltration GWI, one of the components of I/I, is associated with extraneous water entering the sewer system through defects in pipes and manholes while the ground is saturated during the wet weather season. GWI is related to the condition of the sewer pipes, manholes, and groundwater levels. GWI may occur throughout the year, although rates are typically higher in the late winter and early spring in the Pacific Northwest. 1.3 Flow Monitoring Program As part of the Scope of Services for this LRWWMP, Carollo Engineers, Inc. (Carollo) contracted with ADS to conduct a temporary flow monitoring program within the City's sanitary sewer collection system. The purposes of the flow monitoring program were to correlate actual collection system flows to the hydraulic model predicted flows, evaluate the system's capacity, and estimate basin I/I. The temporary flow monitoring data was collected for a period of approximately Ͱ months from December ͮͮ, ͮͬͭͳ to April ͮͮ, ͮͬͭʹ. The "ADS Flow Monitoring Report" prepared by ADS summarizes the flow monitoring program and was submitted to the City as a stand‐alone report. A copy of the report is included in Attachment A. 1.3.1 Program Description 1.3.1.1 Flow Monitoring Sites and Tributary Areas Eighteen (ͭʹ) sewer basins were monitored during the flow monitoring period. The meter sites were selected to best isolate and model the critical areas and subareas within the sewer system. The ͭʹ flow monitoring locations, as well as the area tributary to each site, are shown on Figure ͭ.ͱ. Table ͭ.ͭ lists the flow monitoring locations and the diameters for the sewers where the meters were installed. Figure ͭ.Ͳ provides a schematic illustrating the flow monitoring locations to help understand how the basins connect. In the figure the color of the flow meter represents the accuracy level of the data, blue meters have high quality data while green meters moderate quality data that was considered acceptable for model calibration. The model inflows from outside of the City’s collection system are indicated by the orange boxes. Table ͭ.ͭ Flow Meter General Information Meter ID/Manhole ID Pipe ID Pipe Diameter (in.) Pipe Slope (%) MHͬͭͲͲ GMͬͬͳͳͰ ͭͮ ͬ.ͮͱ MHͬͮʹͲ GMͬͬͲͰͰ ͭͬ ͬ.ͱ͵ MHͬͱͯͳ GMͬͯ͵ʹͯ ʹ ͵.͵ͭ MHͭͯͲͬ GMͬͭͱͬͰ ͭͬ.ͳͱ ͬ.ͭ͵ MHͭͳͲͯ GMͬͮͮͮ͵ ͭͱ ͬ.ͭͲ MHͮͭͭͲ GMͬͮʹͱͳ ͭͰ.ͱ ͬ.ͮͳ MHͮͭͳͭ GMͬͮʹͯͮ ͭͭ.ͮͱ ͬ.ͭͰ MHͮͮͱͮ GMͬͯͰͱͰ ͭʹ ͬ.ͮʹ MHͮ͵͵͵ GMͬͰͭͬͬ ʹ ͯ.ͯͮ MHͯͮͭͲ GMͬͯͳʹ͵ ͳ.ͯʹ ͬ.ͱͱ MHͯͲͮͱ GMͬͬ͵Ͱͮ ͭͮ ͬ.ͯͮ CITY OF RENTON | TM 1 | LRWWMP ͭ‐ʹ | SEPTEMBER ͮͬͭ͵ | DRAFT Table ͭ.ͭ Flow Meter General Information (continued) Meter ID/Manhole ID Pipe ID Pipe Diameter (in.) Pipe Slope (%) MHͰͲͮʹ GMͬͭͳͳͲ ͭͬ.ͯʹ ͮ.͵ͱ MHͰͲͰͲ GMͬͰͯʹͰ ʹ ͭͮ.ͬͮ MHͱͯͬͮ GMͬͱͯͭͭ ͭͰ ͬ.ͳ MHͱͱͬͱ GMͬͱͳͭͭ ͭͬ ͯ.͵ MHͱͱͭ͵ GMͬͱͳͰͰ ͭͬ.ͮͱ Ͱ.ͱͮ MHͲͬͰͭ GMͬͱʹͰͮ ʹ Ͳ.ͭ MHͲͳͬͰ GMͬͳͱͮͰ ͭͮ ͬ.ͬʹ 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú3Ú3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú 3Ú3Ú g` g` g` g` g` g` g` g` g` g`g` g` g`g` g`g` g` g`East Valley RdRain ier Ave N S 133rd St Oakesdale Ave SWBenson D r S SW 7th St 140th Ave SENE Sunset B l vd §¨¦405 Maple V a l l e y H w y 164th Ave SECedar River Trail SE Jones Rd Lake Youngs Service RdSE May Valley Rd Union Ave NESE Petrovitsky Rd §¨¦5 Shy CreekLiftstation Devils ElbowLift Station East ValleyLift Station Talbot CrestLift Station Dennys LiftStation Long LiftStation KensingtonCrest Lift Station WedgewoodLift Station WestviewLift Station Lind AveLift Station Lake Washington#2 Lift Station CottonwoodLift Station Lake Wash.Flush Lift Station Stone GateLift Station Falcon RidgeLift Station Liberty LiftStation Lake WashingtonBeach LiftStation Pipers BluffLift Station Baxter LiftStation Misty CoveLift Station Airport LiftStation MH6704 MH0166 MH0286 MH0537 MH6041 MH1360 MH1763 MH2116 MH2171 MH2252 MH5302 MH2999 MH5519 MH3216 MH3625 MH5505 MH4628 MH4646 Last Revised: September 06, 2019\\io-fs-1\Data\GIS\GISBackup\Renton\WaterSystemPlan2017\Flow_Monitoring_Locations.mxd Figure 1.5FlowMonitoringLocations O 0 10.5 Miles Legend g`Flow Monitoring Locations Lift Station 3Ú City of Renton 3Ú King County Gravity Pipeline By Diameter < 8" 8" 10" - 18" > 18" City of Renton Force Main King County Gravity Main Study Area Renton City Boundary Roads Waterbodies Figure 1.5 Flow Monitoring Locations LRWWMP | TM01 | CITY OF RENTON Disclaimer: Features shown in this figure are for planning purposes and represent approximate locations. Engineering and/or survey accuracyis not implied. Data Sources: City of Renton LRWWMP | TM 1 | CITY OF RENTON DRAFT | SEPTEMBER ͮͬͭ͵ | ͭ‐ͭͭ Figure ͭ.Ͳ Flow Monitoring Schematic 1.3.1.2 Flow Monitoring Installation and Flow Calculation ADS installed eighteen ADS Triton+TM Wireless Open Channel Flow Monitors. These meters use a pressure transducer to collect depth readings and ultrasonic Doppler sensors on the probe to determine the average fluid velocity. The flow meters used are non‐contact meters that use radar to measure velocity and down‐looking ultrasonic sensors to measure depth. ADS selected the optimal type of flow meter to use on a site‐to‐site basis based on the hydraulic characteristics at each site, as well as other factors. ADS conducted an analysis of the data retrieved from each flow meter, and made adjustments as needed for calibration based on the field measurements. The flow at each meter was then calculated at ͭͱ‐minute intervals based on the continuity equation: Q = V x A where, Q = Pipeline flow rate, cfs V = Average velocity, ft/s A = Cross sectional flow area, ftͮ CITY OF RENTON | TM 1 | LRWWMP ͭ‐ͭͮ | SEPTEMBER ͮͬͭ͵ | DRAFT 1.3.1.3 Rain Gauges One rain gauge was installed by ADS to capture rainfall that occurred throughout the flow monitoring program. 1.3.2 Flow Monitoring Results This section summarizes the results of the flow monitoring program, including DWF data, rainfall data, and WWF data. Data collected from flow meters MHͬͱͯͳ and MHͭͯͲͬ is presented throughout this TM as an example of the type of data and the results from the flow monitoring program. Refer to Attachment A for additional data summaries and other information associated with the remaining meter sites. 1.3.2.1 Dry Weather Flow Data During the flow monitoring period, depth and velocity data were collected at each meter at ͭͱ‐minute intervals. Carollo aggregated the ͭͱ‐minute data to hourly data for use in the hydraulic model. ADWF was developed using the driest days from the flow monitoring period defined based on the following set of minimum criteria:  Less than ͬ.ͭ in of rain in the previous day.  Less than ͬ.Ͱ in of rain in the previous ͯ days.  Less than ͭ.ͬ in of rain in the previous ͱ days.  Selected days must exhibit average‐day flows within ʹͱ percent to ͭͭͱ percent of the average‐day flows of remaining dry days.  In addition, those dry days that exhibited unusual flow patterns were not used to generate net dry day flow values for a basin. Characteristic dry weather ͮͰ‐hour diurnal flow patterns for each site were developed based on the hourly data. The hourly flow data were used to calibrate the hydraulic model for the observed ADWFs during the flow monitoring period. Typically, a diurnal pattern with mostly residential uses has two peaks with the more pronounced peak following the wake‐up hours of the day, and a less pronounced peak occurring in the evening. Commercial and industrial oriented‐patterns, though they vary depending on the type of use, typically have more consistent higher flow patterns during business hours, and lower flows at night. Hourly patterns for weekday and weekend flows vary and were separated to better understand ADWF. In addition, Carollo estimated the average weekday and weekend dry weather levels and velocities at each site from the data provided by ADS, which are used in the ADWF calibration. Figure ͭ.ͳ illustrates a typical variation of weekday and weekend flow in the City, which is based on the data collection from MHͬͱͯͳ. Similar graphics associated with the remaining sites are included in Attachment A. Table ͭ.ͮ summarizes the ADWFs at each meter, and the different components of ADWF at each meter. LRWWMP | TM 1 | CITY OF RENTON DRAFT | SEPTEMBER ͮͬͭ͵ | ͭ‐ͭͯ Table ͭ.ͮ Dry Weather Flow Summary Meter ID/ Manhole ID Average Daily Flow (mgd) Minimum Daily Flow (mgd) Maximum Daily Flow (mgd) Base Infiltration Base Infiltration/ ADWF (%) MHͬͭͲͲ ͬ.ͬͳͲ ͬ.ͬͯͲ ͬ.ͭͯʹ ͬ.ͬͭͭ ͭͯ MHͬͮʹͲ ͬ.ͯͳ͵ ͬ.ͮʹʹ ͬ.Ͱ͵ͬ ͬ.ͮͳͯ ͳͭ MHͬͱͯͳ ͭ.ͲͳͲ ͭ.ͬ͵ͯ ͮ.ͭͭͮ ͬ.ʹͲͲ ͱͮ MHͭͯͲͬ (ͭͯͲͬ – ͰͲͮʹ) ͬ.ͮͭͲ ͬ.ͬͯͲ ͯ.ͯͭͭ ͬ.ͬͬͬ <ͱ MHͭͳͲͯ ͬ.ʹʹͲ ͬ.ͯͳʹ ͭ.ͮͰͯ ͬ.ͮʹͳ ͯͮ MHͮͭͭͲ ͯ.ͬͯͯ ͮ.ͭͲͳ ͯ.ͰͳͲ ͭ.Ͳͱʹ ͱͱ MHͮͭͳͭ ͬ.͵Ͳͮ ͬ.Ͱ͵ͯ ͭ.ͰͲͰ ͬ.ͯʹͱ ͯ͵ MHͮͮͱͮ ͯ.Ͱͯͯ ͮ.ͮͳͭ Ͱ.ͰͱͲ ͭ.Ͳͮ͵ Ͱʹ MHͮ͵͵͵ ͬ.͵ͮʹ ͬ.ͲͰͲ ͭ.ͭͯͲ ͬ.ͱͲͭ Ͳͭ MHͯͮͭͲ ͬ.ͮͲͯ ͬ.ͭͭͳ ͬ.ͯͳͭ ͬ.ͭͬͲ Ͱͬ MHͯͲͮͱ (ͯͲͮͱ – ͱͱͬͱ) ͭ.ͳͭͳ ͬ.Ͳ͵ʹ ͮ.ͲͲͯ ͬ.ͮ͵͵ ͭͳ MHͰͲͮʹ ͬ.ʹͲͰ ͬ.Ͳͮͯ ͭ.ͬͰͭ ͬ.ͱͰ͵ ͲͰ MHͰͲͰͲ ͭ.ͱͯ͵ ͬ.͵ͬͯ ͭ.ͮͭͱ ͬ.ʹͯͰ ͱͯ MHͱͯͬͮ ʹ.͵ͮʹ ͱ.Ͳͳͬ ͭͬ.Ͳͱͱ ͯ.ͮ͵Ͱ ͯͳ MHͱͱͬͱ ͭ.ͭͭͲ ͬ.ʹʹͬ ͭ.ͮͲͭ ͬ.ͳʹ͵ ͳͭ MHͱͱͭ͵ ͭ.Ͳʹͬ ͬ.͵ʹͱ ͮ.ͬͯ͵ ͬ.ͳͰʹ Ͱͱ MHͲͬͰͭ ͬ.ͮͰͳ ͬ.ͬ͵ͬ ͬ.ͯͱͮ ͬ.ͬͳͰ ͯͬ MHͲͳͬͰ ͬ.Ͳͬͳ ͬ.ͯͯͰ ͬ.ʹͯ͵ ͬ.ͮʹͬ ͰͲ 1.3.2.2 Rainfall Data An important part of the study is the collection and analysis of rainfall data. One tipping bucket type rain gauge was temporarily set up for this LRWWMP. Four significant rainfall events occurred during the course of the flow monitoring period, as well as a few other relatively minor events. The rainfall data recorded over the course of the flow monitoring program is illustrated in Figure ͭ.ʹ. Figure ͭ.͵ illustrates the total accumulation of rainfall over the course of the flow monitoring period for the ADS tipping bucket type rain gauge. Table ͭ.ͯ summarizes the total rainfall recorded at the ADS rain gauge during the main rainfall event, as well as over the entire flow monitoring period. Table ͭ.ͯ Rainfall Event Summary for Calibration (ͮͬͭͳ‐ͮͬͭʹ) Event ID Start Date End Date Duration (hours) Total Rainfall (in) Avg. Rainfall (in/day) Peak Rainfall (in/hr) ͭ ͭͮ/ͮͲ/ͭͳ ͭ/ͯ/ͭʹ ͮͭͲ ͮ.ͬͮ ͬ.ͮͮ ͬ.ͭͲ ͮ ͭ/ͮͯ/ͭʹ ͮ/ͳ/ͭʹ ͯʹͰ Ͱ.Ͱͱ ͬ.ͮʹ ͬ.ͮͯ ͯ Ͱ/Ͳ/ͭʹ Ͱ/ͮͮ/ͭʹ Ͱͬʹ ͱ.ͭͭ ͬ.ͯͬ ͬ.ͮͳ CITY OF RENTON | TM 1 | LRWWMP ͭ‐ͭͰ | SEPTEMBER ͮͬͭ͵ | DRAFT Figure ͭ.ͳ Typical Weekday vs Weekend Dry Weather Flow Variation (MHͬͱͯͳ) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 01234567891011121314151617181920212223Hourly MultiplierHour Weekday Diurnal Pattern 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47Hourly MultiplierHour Weekend Diurnal Pattern LRWWMP | TM 1 | CITY OF RENTON DRAFT | SEPTEMBER ͮͬͭ͵ | ͭ‐ͭͱ Figure ͭ.ʹ Typical Rainfall Activity over Flow Monitoring Period 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 12/18/201712/25/20171/1/20181/8/20181/15/20181/22/20181/29/20182/5/20182/12/20182/19/20182/26/20183/5/20183/12/20183/19/20183/26/20184/2/20184/9/20184/16/20184/23/20184/30/2018Rainfall Intensity (inch/hour) CITY OF RENTON | TM 1 | LRWWMP Figure ͭ.͵ Rainfall Accumulation Plot The storms presented in Table ͭ.ͯ, correspond to the most significant rainfall events that were then used for model calibration. Additional storms did provide data in terms of the collection system’s I/I response to WWF events, and is appropriate for I/I analysis and model calibration purposes. 1.3.2.3 Wet Weather Flow Data The flow monitoring data were also evaluated to determine how the collection system responds to wet weather events. As mentioned above, the flow monitoring program captured three main rainfall events. The rainfall event that occurred on April ͭͱ, ͮͬͭʹ was associated with the largest I/I response during the flow monitoring period, and is the most appropriate to be used for wet weather flow analysis. Figure ͭ.ͭͬ shows an example of the wet weather response at MHͭͯͲͬ during the April ͮͬͭʹ rainfall event. This figure also illustrates the volume of I/I that entered the system from the collection system upstream of MHͭͯͲͬ. The light grey line is the base sanitary flow while the dark blue line is the measured flow from the flow monitoring period. As can be seen in the figure, discernible amounts of I/I do enter the system during wet weather events. Similar graphs were generated for the remaining monitoring sites and can be found in Attachment B, as well as capacity indicators in the collection system during the flow monitoring period, such as the depth vs diameter (d/D) ratio. ͭ‐ͭͲ | SEPTEMBER ͮͬͭ͵ | DRAFT 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 12/22/2017 1/22/2018 2/22/2018 3/22/2018 4/22/2018Cummulative Rainfall (in) LRWWMP | TM 1 | CITY OF RENTON DRAFT | SEPTEMBER ͮͬͭ͵ | ͭ‐ͭͳ Figure ͭ.ͭͬ Example of Wet Weather Flow Response (MHͭͯͲͬ) 1.3.3 Dry Weather Flow Projections Developing an accurate estimate of the future quantity of wastewater generated at build‐out of the collection system is an important step in maintaining and sizing sewer system facilities, for both existing conditions and future scenarios. GWI can be estimated for a sewer system by comparing ADWF and WWF at the various flow monitoring locations. To estimate ADWF for more specific areas, such as individual wastewater basins, ADWFs are typically estimated based on the PE’s contributing to flows and flow factors developed for each land use type. These values were considered unchanged and PE’s were taken from Stantec’s ͮͬͭͲ Model Update Report, Appendix F. This method is developed based on the assumption that areas with similar land uses, such as low density residential parcels, produce equivalent quantities of wastewater flow. System‐wide flows can be compared to known flows at flow monitors, or at the treatment plant to verify accuracy. This method of estimating GWI is an industry standard for planning and provides sufficiently accurate data for planning purposes. 1.3.3.1 Existing Average Dry Weather Flows and Existing Flow Factors This section presents the existing flow data available for this LRWWMP. Overall ADWF, BWP, and GWI were estimated using data from the Flow Monitoring Program for each of the eighteen flow monitoring basins. After reviewing the flow monitoring data, BWP and BI were estimated for each flow monitoring basin and were presented in Section ͭ.ͯ.ͮ.ͯ in Table ͭ.ͯ. ADWFs were developed for each of the eighteen flow meters. Table ͭ.Ͱ lists the flow factors and ADWF developed, while Figure ͭ.ͳ illustrates a typical variation of weekday and weekend flow in the system, which is based on the data collection from Meter MHͬͱͯͳ. Similar graphs for each meters site can be found in Attachment A. 0.00000 0.10000 0.20000 0.30000 0.40000 0.50000 0.600000.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 12/241/71/212/42/183/43/184/14/15Rain (inches/hour)Flow (mgd)Rain ADWF CITY OF RENTON | TM 1 | LRWWMP ͭ‐ͭʹ | SEPTEMBER ͮͬͭ͵ | DRAFT Table ͭ.Ͱ Flow Meter Basins ADWF Development Meter ID Total PE(ͭ) Flow Factor (ft^ͯ/PE/day) Existing ADWF (mgd) Future PE Future ADWF (mgd) MHͬͭͲͲ ͮʹͲ ͱ.Ͳʹ ͬ.ͬͭ ͲͰͱ ͬ.ͬͯ MHͬͮʹͲ ͭ,ͭʹͰ ͳ.ͰͰ ͬ.ͬͳ ͮ,ͬͰʹ ͬ.ͭͳ MHͬͱͯͳ Ͱ,ͱͳͭ ͵.ͮͳ ͬ.ͯͮ ͳ,ͲͱͰ ͬ.ͱͭ MHͭͯͲͬ ͮ,ͬͭ͵ ͭͯ.ͱ͵ ͬ.ͮͭ Ͳ,ͭͯͱ ͬ.ͬ͵ MHͭͳͲͯ ͯ,͵͵ͭ ͱ.ͳ ͬ.ͭͳ ͯ,ͳͱͳ ͬ.ͮͬ MHͮͭͭͲ Ͱ,ͬͮͳ ͭ͵.ͬͯ ͬ.ͱͳ ͳ,ͯ͵ͳ ͬ.ͳͮ MHͮͭͳͭ ͮ,ͮͬͳ ͭͬ.Ͱ͵ ͬ.ͭͳ ͯ,ͯͬͳ ͬ.ͮ͵ MHͮͮͱͮ ͭͭ,Ͱͬͱ ͳ.Ͳʹ ͬ.ͲͲ ͭʹ,ͱͮʹ ͭ.ͬʹ MHͮ͵͵͵ ͮ,ͭͬͰ ͭͭ.ͯͮ ͬ.ͭʹ ͮ,ͭͱͬ ͬ.ͮͱ MHͯͮͭͲ ͭ,Ͳͳͯ ͯ.͵ ͬ.ͬͱ ͮ,ͭͯͬ ͬ.ͬʹ MHͯͲͮͱ ʹ,Ͳͬͬ ʹ.ͱͯ ͬ.ͱͱ ͭͯ,ʹͰͯ ͬ.ͳͰ MHͰͲͮʹ ͭ,ͮͬͮ ͭʹ.ͯʹ ͬ.ͭͳ ͭ,ʹͭ͵ ͬ.ͮͰ MHͰͲͰͲ ͮ,ͯͯͲ ͭͭ.ͳͯ ͬ.ͮͭ ͮ,ʹͬͱ ͬ.ͯͳ MHͱͯͬͮ ͮ,ʹͬͱ ʹͬ.ͱͭ ͭ.Ͳ͵ ͳ,ͮͱͯ ͭ.ͮͱ MHͱͱͬͱ ͮ,ͭʹͲ ͭͮ.͵ͮ ͬ.ͮͭ ͯ,ͭͯͳ ͬ.ͯͬ MHͱͱͭ͵ ͯ,ͯͯʹ ͭͮ.ͱͮ ͬ.ͯͭ Ͱ,ͱͲͰ ͬ.ͰͲ MHͲͬͰͭ ͭ,ͮͲͱ Ͱ.ͳ͵ ͬ.ͬͱ ͭ,ͳͮ͵ ͬ.ͬͱ MHͲͳͬͰ ͮ,ͳͮͯ ͱ.ʹͭ ͬ.ͭͮ ͮ,ʹͱʹ ͬ.ͭͳ Unmetered Basins Ͳ͵,ͲͯͲ ͯ.ͮͱ ͭͰͱ,ͭͳͮ Ͳ.ͯͭ Modeled Total ͭͮͳ,ͱͱʹ ʹ.͵ͳ ͮͯͲ,͵ͯͭ ͭͯ.ͯ Notes: (ͭ) Total PE is not directly equivalent to City’s population, Chapter Ͱ, Stantec ͮͬͭͲ Model Update Report – Appendix F. 1.3.3.2 Projected Dry Weather Flows Developing an accurate estimate of the future quantity of wastewater generated at build‐out of the collection system is an important step in maintaining and sizing sewer system facilities, for both existing conditions and future scenarios. GWI can be estimated for a sewer by comparing ADWF and WWF at the various flow monitoring locations. To estimate ADWF for more specific areas, such as individual wastewater basins, ADWFs are typically estimated based on the PE contributing to flows and flow factors developed for each land use type. The future build‐out ADWFs were developed by projecting the planning GWI to the build‐out planning year land uses. The PE’s for each catchment were developed for existing and buildout conditions and a constant flow factor was used to relate this to ADWF Additional information can be found in Chapter Ͱ of the LRWWMP and Attachment F – Stantec’s Model Update Report. LRWWMP | TM 1 | CITY OF RENTON DRAFT | SEPTEMBER ͮͬͭ͵ | ͭ‐ͭ͵ 1.3.4 Wet Weather Flow Projections 1.3.4.1 Peak Wet Weather Flows and Design Storms Peak wet weather flows (PWWF) in a wastewater collection system are caused by rainfall dependent I/I. Peak hour flows can result in flows more than ten times the GWI, causing utilities to construct high‐capacity infrastructure to convey and treat these extraneous flows. Existing and projected PWWFs are predicted using the hydraulic model and design storm used for this LRWWMP. This analysis uses four separate multi‐day, ͮͬ‐ͯͬ year recurrence design storms, illustrated in Figure ͭ.ͭͭ. These storms were identified in the ͮͬͭͮ King County (KC) I/I Study and correspond to the recurrence interval within historical KC rainfall. To represent typical winter Pacific Northwest antecedent conditions, typical rainfall was added from historical data prior to the design storm in the hydraulic model. Further detail on the development of the design storm can be found in Appendix H, TM ͮ. Figure ͭ.ͭͭ LRWWMP Design Storms 1.3.4.2 Future PWWF Assumptions To predict future PWWF, I/I in the future service area must be defined. A direct inflow technique is used. Instead of simulating I/I using an I/I unit hydrograph, I/I is simulated by assuming a constant I/I flow factor per acre of new development. I/I flow factors can range from ͭ,ͬͬͬ to over ͭͬ,ͬͬͬ gallons per day per acre (gpd/ac) in the northwest. An I/I Flow Factor of ͭ,ͱͬͬ gpd/ac was selected for estimating I/I in areas of new development to reflect improved construction methods and integrity of new materials. Additionally, this value also meets the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) recommendation. 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 20406080100120Rainfall (in/hr)Hours Design Storms Nov‐98 Jan‐90 Nov‐90 Feb‐96 CITY OF RENTON | TM 1 | LRWWMP ͭ‐ͮͬ | SEPTEMBER ͮͬͭ͵ | DRAFT Existing pipe I/I is assumed to degrade over time, for the purpose of this LRWWMP, a value of ͳ percent degradation per ͭͬ years was used. This corresponded to a ͮʹ percent degradation for build out conditions in the model. The PWWF for buildout and current conditions at each of the monitored sites and the entire system is shown in Table ͭ.ͱ. Table ͭ.ͱ Wet Weather Flow Development Meter ID Current Peak Wet Weather Flow (mgd) Buildout Peak Wet Weather Flow (mgd) MHͬͭͲͲ ͭ.ʹͲ ͮ.ͭ͵ MHͬͮʹͲ ͬ.ͯͭ ͬ.ͯͯ MHͬͱͯͳ ͬ.ʹͳ ͬ.͵ʹ MHͭͯͲͬ ͭ.͵ͯ ͮ.ͯͲ MHͭͳͲͯ ͭ.ͬͭ ͭ.ͮͰ MHͮͭͭͲ ͯ.ͳͭ Ͱ.ͬͯ MHͮͭͳͭ ͭ.ͯͭ ͭ.ͱ͵ MHͮͮͱͮ Ͱ.ͳͳ ͱ.ʹͭ MHͮ͵͵͵ ͬ.ʹͳ ͭ.ͬͮ MHͯͮͭͲ ͬ.ͯͬ ͬ.ͯͲ MHͯͲͮͱ ͮ.ͮͮ ͮ.ͱͭ MHͰͲͮʹ ͭ.Ͱͳ ͭ.ʹͮ MHͰͲͰͲ ͬ.ͱͱ ͬ.Ͳͬ MHͱͯͬͮ ͯ.ͰͰ Ͱ.ͳͱ MHͱͱͬͱ ͬ.͵ͭ ͭ.ͬͭ MHͱͱͭ͵ ͬ.ʹͭ ͬ.͵ͬ MHͲͬͰͭ ͬ.ͱͱ ͬ.Ͳʹ MHͲͳͬͰ ͬ.ͱͱ ͬ.ͲͰ Unmetered Basins ͮͲ.ͳʹ ͯͭ.͵Ͱ Modeled Total ͱͰ.ͮͬ ͲͰ.ͳͰ LRWWMP | TM 1 | CITY OF RENTON DRAFT | SEPTEMBER ͮͬͭ͵ Attachment A ADS ͮͬͭʹ‐ͮͬͭ͵ FLOW MONITORING REPORT Renton, WA Temporary Flow Monitoring and RDII Analysis December 22, 2017 – April 22, 2018 Report Submitted May 29, 2018 May 29, 2018 Daniel Reisinger, P.E. Carollo Engineering 1218 Third Ave, Suite 1600 Seattle, WA 98101 Re: City of Renton Results and Analysis of 2017/18 Flow Monitoring Data Dear Mr. Reisinger, Thank you for the opportunity to complete this flow monitoring work effort for Renton, WA. Please find attached the electronic report of results and conclusions based on the flow monitoring study conducted between December 2017 and April 2018. Hydrographs and scattergraphs of the data are available in the report. The Excel raw and edited data is being provided in addition to the report. Daniel, we certainly look forward to other opportunities to work on wastewater flow monitoring projects as they arise. If you have any questions regarding the content of this report, please do not hesitate to call me at (206) 255 6904. Sincerely, Mike Pina Senior Project Manager mpina@idexcorp.com Methodology Introduction Background Carollo Engineers entered into agreement with ADS Environmental Services to conduct flow monitoring at (18) eighteen metering points and (1) rain gauge located in the City of Renton, WA. The study was contracted for a four month monitoring period. The objective of this study was to measure depth, velocity, and quantify flows and identify capacity restrictions. A basin map and drawings for the pump stations are available in the appendix. Project Scope The scope of this study involved using temporary flow monitors to quantify wastewater flow at the designated locations. Specifically, the study included the following key components.  Investigate the proposed flow-monitoring sites for adequate hydraulic conditions  Flow monitor installations  Flow monitor confirmations and data collections  Flow data analysis  I/I Analysis Equipment installation was accomplished starting in December 22, 2017. The monitoring period was completed on April 22, 2018. Equipment and Methodology Flow Quantification Methods There are two main equations used to measure open channel flow: the Continuity Equation and the Manning Equation. The Continuity Equation, which is considered the most accurate, can be used if both depth of flow and velocity are available. In cases where velocity measurements are not available or not practical to obtain, the Manning Equation can be used to estimate velocity from the depth data based on certain physical characteristics of the pipe (i.e. the slope and roughness of the pipe being measured). However, the Manning equation assumes uniform, steady flow hydraulic conditions with non-varying roughness, which are typically invalid assumptions in most sanitary sewers. The Continuity Equation was used exclusively for this study. Continuity Equation The Continuity Equation states that the flow quantity (Q) is equal to the wetted cross-sectional area (A) multiplied by the average velocity (V) of the flow. Q = A * V This equation is applicable in a variety of conditions including backwater, surcharge, and reverse flow. Most modern flow monitoring equipment, including the ADS Models, measure both depth and velocity and therefore use the Continuity Equation to calculate flow quantities. Flow Monitoring Equipment The ADS Triton+ monitor was selected for this project. This flow monitor is an area velocity flow monitor that uses both the Continuity and Manning's equations to measure flow. The ADS Triton+ monitor consists of data acquisition sensors and a battery-powered microcomputer. The microcomputer includes a processor unit, data storage, and an on-board clock to control and synchronize the sensor recordings. The monitor was programmed to acquire and store depth of flow and velocity readings at 1-minute intervals. The Triton+ monitor features cross-checking using multiple technologies in each sensor for continuous running of comparisons and tolerances. The sensor option used for this project was the peak combo sensor. ThePeakComboSensor installed at the bottom of the pipe includes three types of data acquisition technologies. The up looking ultrasonic depth uses sound waves from two independent transceivers to measure the distance from the sensor upward toward the flow surface; applying the speed of sound in the water and the temperature measured by sensor to calculate depth. The pressure depth is calculated by using a piezo-resistive crystal to determine the difference between hydrostatic and atmospheric pressure. The pressure sensor is temperature compensated and vented to the atmosphere through a desiccant filled breather tube. To obtain peak velocity, the sensor sends an ultrasonic signal at an angle upward through the widest cross-section of the oncoming flow. The signal is reflected by suspended particles, air bubbles, or organic matter with a frequency shift proportional to the velocity of the reflecting objects. The reflected signal is received by the sensor and processed using digital spectrum analysis to determine the peak flow velocity. Installation Installation of flow monitoring equipment typically proceeds in four steps. First, the site is investigated for safety and to determine physical and hydraulic suitability for the flow monitoring equipment. Second, the equipment is physically installed at the selected location. Third, the monitor is tested to assure proper operation of the velocity and depth of flow sensors and verify that the monitor clock is operational and synchronized to the master computer clock. Fourth, the depth and velocity sensors are confirmed and line confirmations are performed. A typical flow monitor installation is shown in Figure 1. The installations depicted in Figure 1 are typical for circular or oval pipes up to approximately 104-inches in diameter or height. In installations into pipes 42-inches or less in diameter, combo sensors are mounted on an expandable stainless steel ring and installed one to two pipe diameters upstream of the pipe/manhole connection in the incoming sewer pipe. This reduces the effects of turbulence and backwater caused by the connection. In pipes larger than 42 inches in diameter, a special installation is made using two sections of the ring installed one to two feet upstream of the pipe/manhole connection; one bolted to the crown of the pipe for the surface combo sensor and the other bolted to the bottom of the pipe (bolts are usually placed just above the water line) to hold the peak combo sensor. Figure 1 Typical Installation Large Pipe ( > 42" Diameter) Small Pipe ( 8" to 42" Diameter) Data Collection, Confirmation, and Quality Assurance During the monitoring period data collects from the meters were done remotely via wireless connection. Quality assurance taken to assure the integrity of the data collected included:  Measure Power Supply: The monitor is powered by a dry cell battery pack. Power levels are recorded and battery packs replaced, if necessary. A separate battery provides back-up power to memory, which allows the primary battery to be replaced without the loss of data.  Perform Pipe Line Confirmations and Confirm Depth and Velocity: Once equipment and sensor installation is accomplished, a member of the field crew descends into the manhole to perform a field measurement of flow rate, depth and velocity to confirm they are in agreement with the monitor. Since the ADS V-3 velocity sensor measures peak velocity in the wetted cross-sectional area of flow, velocity profiles are also taken to develop a relationship between peak and average velocity in lines that meet the hydraulic criteria. Measure Silt Level: During site confirmation, a member of the field crew descends into the manhole and measures and records the depth of silt at the bottom of the pipe. This data is used to compute the true area of flow. Confirm Monitor Synchronization: The field crew and data analyst checks the flow monitor's clock for accuracy. Upload and Review Data: Data collected by the monitor is uploaded and reviewed for comparison with previous data. All readings are checked for consistency and screened for deviations in the flow patterns, which may indicate system anomalies or equipment failure. Data Analysis and Presentation Data Analysis A flow monitor is typically programmed to collect data at either 15-minute or 5-minute intervals throughout the monitoring period. The monitor stores raw data consisting of (1) the updepth (distance from sensor to top of flow) for each active ultrasonic depth sensor, (2) the peak velocity and (3) the pressure depth. The data is imported into ADS's proprietary software and is examined by a data analyst to verify its integrity. The data analyst also reviews the daily field reports and site visit records to identify conditions that would affect the collected data. Velocity profiles and the line confirmation data developed by the field personnel are reviewed by the data analyst to identify inconsistencies and verify data integrity. Velocity profiles are reviewed and an average to peak velocity ratio is calculated for the site. This ratio is used in converting the peak velocity measured by the sensor to the average velocity used in the Continuity equation. The data analyst selects which depth sensor entity will be used to calculate the final depth information. Silt levels present at each site visit are reviewed and representative silt levels established. Occasionally the velocity sensor's performance may be compromised resulting in invalid readings sporadically during the monitoring period. This is generally caused by excessive debris (silt) blocking the sensor's crystals, shallow flows (~< 2") that may drop below the top of the sensor or very clear flows lacking the particles needed to measure rate. In order to use the Continuity equation to quantify flow during during such brief (in respect to overall study duration) periods of velocity sensor "fouling", a Sr. Analyst and/or Engineer will use the site's historical pipe curve (depth vs. velocity) data along with valid field confirmations to reconstitute and replace the false velocity recordings with expected velocity readings for a given historical depth along the curve. Selections for the above parameters can be constant or can change during the monitoring period. While the data analysis process is described in a linear manner, it often requires an iterative approach to accurately complete. REN_MH0166 Located At: Springbrook Trail, Renton (see attached site report for details) Monitoring Period: December 22, 2017 – April 22, 2018 Pipe Dimensions: 11.5” Finalized Silt Level: 0 mm Site Data Characteristics: This site is located in a sanitary sewer pipe. The scattergraph indicates site operated in free flow conditions. The site did surcharge during the monitoring period. The dry weather data plots below the Froude =1 curve indicating subcritical flow. Site Data Bias & Editing: The depth and velocity measurements recorded by the flow monitor were consistent with field confirmations conducted to date and supported the relative accuracy of the flow monitor at this location. The finalized depth data utilized the downward ultrasonic sensor. Site Data Uptime: The data uptime achieved during the monitoring period is provided in the table below. Based upon the quality and consistency of the observed flow depth and velocity data, the Continuity equation was used to calculate the flow rate for the monitoring period. Entity Percentage Uptime Raw Percentage Uptime Final Depth (in) 100% 100% Velocity (f/s) 100% 100% Quantity (mgd) 100% 100% Site Data Summary: The average flow depth, velocity, and quantity data observed during the monitoring period along with observed minimum and maximum data, are provided in the following table. The minimum and maximum rates recorded in the tables are based on 5‐minute data intervals. Item Depth (in) Velocity (f/s) Quantity (mgd) % Full Minimum 0.65 0.00 0.000 6% Maximum 28.29 3.47 1.429 100% Average 1.74 0.77 0.070 15% Latitude: 47.470098° Longitude:-122.235586° Pipe Condition: Single Good Manhole Pick / Vent Hole Manhole Condition: No PVC 20'' NormalUnbolted 20'' 0 Downlooker Physical Offset (in)Measurement Confidence (in) 1.25'' Peak Velocity (fps) Silt (in) ~10' Installation Confirmation: Manhole Opening Diameter (in) Silt Type Hydraulic Comments: Renton.Carollo.I&I.WA17 LightWalk (Wooded) Site Access Details: Site Address /Location: Site Name Springbrook Trail, Renton. East of Wastewater Treatment Area. 0 - 5 psi Installation Information Circular Monitor Series Monitor Location: Doppler Standard Ring and Crank Manhole # Installation Date: 12.20.17 Upstream 0-5 FT Manhole MH0166 Other Map Flow Monitoring Site Report Temporary 12.00'' x 12.00'' REN_MH0166 Access Traffic TRITON+ System Characteristics Location Type Pipe ShapeAccess / Park SW 7th St Outside Treatment plant and walkdown trail/ bike path. Located just off trail. Sensors / Devices: 12.00'' x 12.00'' 0.25" Manhole / Pipe Information: Installation Type: Pressure Sensor Range (psi) Confirmation Time: Site Sketch Profile View or Photo Pipe Size (H x W) Topside / Area Photo Peak Combo (CS4), Smart Depth (CS5) Pipe Size (HxW) 10:00:00 AM Monitoring Location (Sensors): Depth of Flow (Wet DOF) (in)Range (Air DOF) (in) ~3.50'' Velocity Sensor Offset (in) ~ 1 FPS Site Sketch Plan View or Photo Additional Site Info. / Comments: Manhole frame slightly elevated. White fungus of some kind growing in pipe. Smooth, slow flow Good Antenna Location Communication Information: Active Drop Connections Air Quality: Communication Type Normal 22275.11.325 ADS Project Name: ADS Project Number: Renton.Carollo.I&I.WA17 Manhole Cover Manhole Frame Manhole Material: Manhole Diameter (Approx.): Manhole Depth (Approx. FT):Manhole Configuration Concrete Wireless Pipe Material Additional Photos Flow Direction Monitoring Point Location Upstream Downstream Overflow Top Down Location Location ADS Environmental Services Pipe Height: 11.50 REN_MH0166\mp1\DFINAL (inches) REN_MH0166\mp1\VFINAL (feet/sec) REN_MH0166\mp1\QFINAL (MGD - Total MG) REN_RG\mp1\RAIN (inches) Date Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Total Total 12/22/2017 1:25 0.9 12:40 4.2 1.5 11:05 0.3 12:40 2.7 0.9 1:25 0.006 12:40 0.428 0.046 0.046 0.10 12/23/2017 23:45 0.7 11:35 3.6 1.0 23:50 0.0 11:35 2.4 0.4 23:50 0.000 11:35 0.308 0.012 0.012 0.00 12/24/2017 17:40 0.7 0:55 3.3 0.9 18:15 0.0 0:55 2.3 0.3 18:15 0.000 0:55 0.266 0.011 0.011 0.00 12/25/2017 6:25 0.7 15:45 3.8 1.2 6:25 0.0 15:45 2.5 0.5 6:25 0.000 15:45 0.356 0.022 0.022 0.14 12/26/2017 7:10 0.9 20:30 3.6 1.3 4:45 0.2 20:30 2.4 0.7 4:45 0.005 20:30 0.303 0.026 0.026 0.17 12/27/2017 4:55 0.7 11:45 3.5 1.1 4:55 0.0 11:45 2.4 0.5 4:55 0.000 11:45 0.293 0.017 0.017 0.00 12/28/2017 7:45 1.2 20:55 4.3 1.6 1:00 0.4 20:55 2.8 1.0 1:00 0.013 20:55 0.468 0.048 0.048 0.25 12/29/2017 23:20 1.8 11:05 9.4 4.1 23:20 1.1 10:45 3.5 2.5 23:20 0.054 11:05 1.429 0.436 0.436 1.57 12/30/2017 8:15 0.9 19:20 4.2 1.6 8:05 0.3 19:20 2.7 1.0 8:05 0.006 19:20 0.435 0.059 0.059 0.02 12/31/2017 23:30 1.0 6:10 3.7 1.3 22:20 0.3 16:30 2.5 0.6 22:30 0.006 6:10 0.336 0.023 0.023 0.00 ReportAvg 1.6 0.8 0.070 ReportTotal 0.700 2.25 ADS Environmental Services Pipe Height: 11.50 REN_MH0166\mp1\DFINAL (inches) REN_MH0166\mp1\VFINAL (feet/sec) REN_MH0166\mp1\QFINAL (MGD - Total MG) REN_RG\mp1\RAIN (inches) Date Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Total Total 1/1/2018 13:05 0.9 5:20 3.5 1.2 11:15 0.3 5:20 2.4 0.5 11:15 0.006 5:20 0.294 0.018 0.018 0.00 1/2/2018 2:55 0.9 7:25 3.7 1.2 23:00 0.2 7:25 2.5 0.6 1:35 0.003 7:25 0.335 0.020 0.020 0.01 1/3/2018 5:20 0.8 13:25 2.6 1.2 5:20 0.2 17:00 1.9 0.6 5:20 0.002 13:25 0.155 0.022 0.022 0.00 1/4/2018 7:20 0.8 23:40 3.4 1.2 22:30 0.2 23:35 2.4 0.6 22:30 0.003 23:40 0.279 0.025 0.025 0.09 1/5/2018 23:15 1.1 10:40 5.1 2.2 23:15 0.2 10:40 3.0 1.5 23:15 0.006 10:40 0.628 0.118 0.118 0.42 1/6/2018 23:40 1.1 5:40 4.4 2.2 23:35 0.4 5:40 2.7 1.5 23:40 0.010 5:40 0.461 0.135 0.135 0.24 1/7/2018 6:40 1.0 21:25 2.3 1.5 3:55 0.3 19:05 1.9 0.9 6:40 0.007 19:05 0.128 0.044 0.044 0.38 1/8/2018 21:00 1.2 9:30 7.4 1.6 19:05 0.5 9:25 3.4 0.9 19:05 0.016 9:35 1.095 0.053 0.053 0.14 1/9/2018 12:05 1.5 15:10 6.6 2.2 8:10 0.8 15:40 3.2 1.6 8:10 0.031 15:10 0.919 0.125 0.125 0.46 1/10/2018 6:40 1.4 23:20 3.3 1.7 6:40 0.8 20:10 2.3 1.3 6:40 0.025 23:20 0.252 0.066 0.066 0.22 1/11/2018 0:45 2.0 15:00 13.6 5.9 15:45 0.5 12:15 3.3 2.4 5:25 0.068 18:05 1.179 0.600 0.600 1.04 1/12/2018 16:15 1.1 0:00 4.2 1.8 23:45 0.6 0:00 2.7 1.4 23:45 0.016 0:00 0.434 0.083 0.083 0.20 1/13/2018 2:45 1.0 17:05 15.6 1.6 17:05 0.3 17:35 3.2 0.8 2:45 0.008 17:25 1.177 0.054 0.054 0.02 1/14/2018 23:50 1.0 13:30 1.3 1.1 22:45 0.3 13:25 0.9 0.5 22:45 0.006 13:30 0.026 0.013 0.013 0.00 1/15/2018 22:55 1.0 13:15 1.8 1.1 0:40 0.2 13:15 1.3 0.5 0:40 0.005 13:15 0.065 0.014 0.014 0.04 1/16/2018 23:55 1.0 1:35 2.4 1.4 23:30 0.2 1:50 1.7 0.8 23:30 0.004 1:35 0.117 0.032 0.032 0.26 1/17/2018 2:50 0.9 18:25 7.0 2.4 7:50 0.4 11:10 3.3 1.5 7:35 0.008 18:20 0.979 0.196 0.196 0.79 1/18/2018 23:50 1.8 5:40 6.9 3.4 23:20 1.0 5:40 3.2 2.2 23:20 0.051 5:40 0.979 0.299 0.299 0.40 1/19/2018 21:05 1.4 15:40 2.7 1.7 21:00 0.7 15:40 2.2 1.2 21:00 0.023 15:40 0.189 0.059 0.059 0.10 1/20/2018 23:45 1.3 4:10 2.8 1.6 17:10 0.5 4:05 2.2 1.0 17:10 0.017 4:05 0.204 0.043 0.043 0.10 1/21/2018 16:15 1.3 17:05 7.2 1.6 11:40 0.6 17:00 3.2 1.0 11:40 0.018 17:15 0.978 0.061 0.061 0.16 1/22/2018 23:55 1.4 6:05 5.9 2.4 23:35 0.6 6:05 3.1 1.6 23:35 0.022 6:05 0.764 0.149 0.149 0.34 1/23/2018 4:00 1.3 16:15 6.9 3.2 9:00 0.7 16:00 3.4 1.9 1:15 0.022 16:10 1.022 0.295 0.295 0.79 1/24/2018 7:20 1.7 16:25 28.3 6.7 19:55 0.0 22:25 3.3 1.9 19:55 0.000 21:45 1.417 0.376 0.376 0.51 1/25/2018 6:15 1.3 10:50 5.0 2.2 6:15 0.7 10:50 2.9 1.5 6:15 0.020 10:50 0.594 0.119 0.119 0.14 1/26/2018 7:55 1.3 12:05 5.5 2.3 7:55 0.7 12:30 3.1 1.6 7:55 0.021 12:30 0.692 0.145 0.145 0.36 1/27/2018 23:55 1.2 1:35 7.0 3.2 21:05 0.4 2:30 3.4 2.0 21:05 0.011 1:40 1.027 0.290 0.290 0.61 1/28/2018 23:55 1.1 0:10 4.5 1.7 14:10 0.4 0:10 2.9 1.0 16:10 0.011 0:10 0.517 0.060 0.060 0.07 1/29/2018 1:45 1.1 16:05 7.5 3.9 4:10 0.3 14:35 3.5 2.0 4:10 0.007 14:35 1.141 0.441 0.441 0.90 1/30/2018 23:55 1.2 1:05 4.2 1.8 23:15 0.4 3:40 2.6 1.1 23:55 0.011 3:40 0.403 0.067 0.067 0.00 1/31/2018 3:55 1.0 5:00 3.6 1.4 4:45 0.3 15:25 2.5 0.7 4:45 0.006 15:25 0.315 0.030 0.030 0.00 ReportAvg 2.2 1.2 0.131 ReportTotal 4.053 8.79 ADS Environmental Services Pipe Height: 11.50 REN_MH0166\mp1\DFINAL (inches) REN_MH0166\mp1\VFINAL (feet/sec) REN_MH0166\mp1\QFINAL (MGD - Total MG) REN_RG\mp1\RAIN (inches) Date Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Total Total 2/1/2018 4:05 1.1 4:50 3.4 1.9 5:55 0.4 21:35 2.3 1.0 4:05 0.010 4:50 0.266 0.069 0.069 0.66 2/2/2018 6:35 1.4 8:20 7.4 1.9 23:50 0.5 8:10 3.4 1.0 23:50 0.018 8:20 1.074 0.067 0.067 0.04 2/3/2018 0:10 1.5 19:05 3.2 1.9 4:35 0.5 19:10 2.2 1.0 9:15 0.018 19:10 0.237 0.057 0.057 0.31 2/4/2018 20:10 1.4 7:45 2.4 1.5 20:10 0.7 7:45 1.6 0.8 20:10 0.024 7:45 0.122 0.034 0.034 0.02 2/5/2018 22:45 1.1 13:30 2.3 1.5 5:35 0.4 13:30 1.1 0.7 22:45 0.010 13:30 0.078 0.026 0.026 0.04 2/6/2018 23:35 1.1 10:55 8.4 1.5 23:35 0.3 10:55 3.2 0.7 23:35 0.007 10:55 1.224 0.059 0.059 0.00 2/7/2018 5:35 1.0 10:00 1.9 1.2 5:35 0.2 9:55 1.2 0.5 5:35 0.005 9:55 0.063 0.014 0.014 0.00 2/8/2018 5:20 1.0 15:20 1.9 1.2 5:20 0.2 21:50 1.1 0.5 5:20 0.004 21:50 0.056 0.015 0.015 0.09 2/9/2018 23:20 0.9 14:25 3.5 1.2 23:20 0.1 14:25 2.3 0.4 23:20 0.001 14:25 0.295 0.019 0.019 0.01 2/10/2018 19:05 0.8 12:00 1.0 0.8 0:30 0.0 12:00 0.2 0.0 0:30 0.000 12:00 0.004 0.001 0.001 0.01 2/11/2018 16:10 0.8 12:20 1.5 0.8 0:00 0.0 12:25 0.6 0.0 0:00 0.000 12:20 0.022 0.001 0.001 0.00 2/12/2018 2:20 0.8 16:30 1.4 1.0 0:00 0.0 16:25 0.7 0.2 0:00 0.000 16:25 0.025 0.007 0.007 0.00 2/13/2018 2:05 0.8 23:55 2.2 1.1 1:20 0.0 23:55 1.7 0.3 1:20 0.000 23:55 0.107 0.011 0.011 0.17 2/14/2018 23:55 1.0 1:15 2.5 1.5 6:10 0.2 0:05 1.7 0.7 8:45 0.005 1:15 0.127 0.031 0.031 0.15 2/15/2018 6:55 0.8 10:30 6.7 1.4 6:55 0.0 10:30 3.2 0.4 6:55 0.001 10:30 0.941 0.036 0.036 0.00 2/16/2018 3:30 1.0 3:40 2.4 1.4 3:30 0.2 3:40 1.4 0.5 3:30 0.005 3:40 0.106 0.020 0.020 0.15 2/17/2018 4:35 1.0 9:30 3.3 1.6 4:35 0.2 6:15 1.9 0.7 4:35 0.004 9:30 0.218 0.041 0.041 0.32 2/18/2018 23:50 1.0 16:15 1.2 1.1 18:50 0.2 16:05 0.5 0.3 23:50 0.003 16:05 0.013 0.007 0.007 0.01 2/19/2018 3:00 0.9 10:15 7.5 1.3 23:55 0.0 10:25 3.2 0.5 23:55 0.000 10:15 1.083 0.033 0.033 0.00 2/20/2018 6:40 1.0 15:50 4.5 1.4 6:40 0.2 15:50 2.5 0.4 6:40 0.003 15:50 0.435 0.017 0.017 0.00 2/21/2018 5:35 0.9 16:10 1.7 1.3 5:35 0.1 16:10 0.6 0.4 5:35 0.003 16:10 0.028 0.012 0.012 0.00 2/22/2018 4:25 1.0 9:30 1.9 1.3 4:25 0.2 9:30 0.7 0.4 4:25 0.004 9:30 0.038 0.012 0.012 0.07 2/23/2018 7:25 0.8 11:30 6.8 1.5 5:55 0.0 11:30 3.2 0.5 5:55 0.000 11:30 0.974 0.040 0.040 0.01 2/24/2018 2:10 1.5 10:20 2.8 1.6 0:30 0.4 10:35 1.2 0.5 0:30 0.015 10:25 0.106 0.023 0.023 0.13 2/25/2018 1:05 1.5 5:50 4.0 1.9 23:55 0.4 5:50 2.2 0.7 23:55 0.016 5:50 0.323 0.049 0.049 0.11 2/26/2018 22:05 1.5 9:00 2.3 1.7 7:05 0.3 15:30 0.8 0.5 7:05 0.012 9:00 0.053 0.024 0.024 0.00 2/27/2018 4:30 1.5 16:10 2.1 1.7 23:55 0.4 16:10 0.8 0.5 23:55 0.014 16:10 0.048 0.025 0.025 0.19 2/28/2018 3:45 1.4 22:25 4.3 1.8 3:55 0.2 22:25 2.4 0.6 3:55 0.008 22:25 0.404 0.039 0.039 0.35 ReportAvg 1.4 0.5 0.028 ReportTotal 0.786 2.84 ADS Environmental Services Pipe Height: 11.50 REN_MH0166\mp1\DFINAL (inches) REN_MH0166\mp1\VFINAL (feet/sec) REN_MH0166\mp1\QFINAL (MGD - Total MG) REN_RG\mp1\RAIN (inches) Date Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Total Total 3/1/2018 23:55 1.1 16:20 7.5 1.5 8:00 0.2 16:25 3.2 0.5 23:55 0.006 16:20 1.078 0.031 0.031 0.01 3/2/2018 3:25 1.0 5:30 2.6 1.5 3:25 0.2 4:50 1.2 0.4 3:25 0.003 4:50 0.101 0.020 0.020 0.07 3/3/2018 23:55 1.0 18:50 1.6 1.2 17:15 0.2 15:30 0.5 0.3 23:55 0.004 18:50 0.020 0.007 0.007 0.00 3/4/2018 15:55 1.0 16:45 2.9 1.1 15:55 0.2 16:45 1.3 0.3 15:55 0.003 16:45 0.130 0.009 0.009 0.12 3/5/2018 6:55 1.0 15:00 7.6 1.5 6:55 0.2 15:10 3.2 0.4 6:55 0.003 15:00 1.089 0.036 0.036 0.00 3/6/2018 7:25 0.9 18:20 2.8 1.3 6:25 0.1 18:20 1.5 0.3 7:25 0.002 18:20 0.141 0.011 0.011 0.00 3/7/2018 7:00 1.1 10:00 7.5 1.5 7:00 0.2 10:05 3.2 0.5 7:00 0.005 10:00 1.083 0.030 0.030 0.03 3/8/2018 7:25 0.9 11:05 6.5 1.7 9:05 0.1 11:05 3.1 0.7 7:25 0.003 11:05 0.884 0.053 0.053 0.37 3/9/2018 23:55 1.0 10:00 7.4 1.6 23:55 0.2 9:55 3.2 0.5 23:55 0.003 10:00 1.061 0.043 0.043 0.00 3/10/2018 21:05 0.8 3:10 3.6 1.2 19:15 0.0 3:05 2.1 0.3 19:15 0.000 3:10 0.272 0.012 0.012 0.00 3/11/2018 17:30 0.8 22:15 1.0 0.8 0:00 0.0 22:15 0.2 0.0 0:00 0.000 22:15 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.00 3/12/2018 4:45 0.8 17:35 7.2 1.3 0:00 0.0 17:40 3.2 0.4 0:00 0.000 17:35 1.032 0.029 0.029 0.00 3/13/2018 5:55 0.8 13:40 6.3 1.5 2:20 0.0 17:25 3.0 0.5 2:20 0.000 13:40 0.797 0.035 0.035 0.31 3/14/2018 6:15 0.9 13:45 7.4 1.4 4:40 0.1 13:45 3.2 0.4 6:15 0.002 13:45 1.071 0.027 0.027 0.04 3/15/2018 0:35 0.9 9:35 3.6 1.5 0:25 0.1 9:35 2.0 0.4 0:35 0.002 9:35 0.257 0.020 0.020 0.00 3/16/2018 4:30 0.8 6:55 3.4 1.2 0:05 0.0 6:55 1.9 0.3 0:05 0.000 6:55 0.236 0.010 0.010 0.00 3/17/2018 23:30 0.8 13:25 1.3 1.0 4:10 0.0 13:25 0.3 0.1 4:10 0.000 13:25 0.010 0.003 0.003 0.00 3/18/2018 3:00 0.8 14:05 1.8 1.1 0:00 0.0 13:50 0.6 0.2 0:00 0.000 13:50 0.025 0.007 0.007 0.00 3/19/2018 23:55 1.1 14:55 7.3 1.5 13:35 0.2 14:50 3.2 0.4 23:55 0.005 14:55 1.057 0.032 0.032 0.00 3/20/2018 23:55 0.8 17:30 6.0 1.2 23:10 0.0 17:30 2.8 0.4 23:10 0.000 17:30 0.730 0.018 0.018 0.00 3/21/2018 3:50 0.7 10:45 5.1 1.1 0:00 0.0 10:45 2.8 0.3 0:00 0.000 10:45 0.588 0.012 0.012 0.10 3/22/2018 6:05 0.7 12:00 6.9 1.6 0:00 0.0 12:05 3.3 0.5 0:00 0.000 12:00 0.987 0.057 0.057 0.48 3/23/2018 5:25 0.8 8:45 6.5 1.9 0:00 0.0 8:45 3.1 0.7 0:00 0.000 8:45 0.888 0.098 0.098 0.31 3/24/2018 23:55 0.8 5:15 2.4 1.3 15:40 0.0 5:25 1.6 0.4 15:40 0.000 5:25 0.119 0.018 0.018 0.28 3/25/2018 7:50 0.8 10:20 1.7 1.0 0:00 0.0 10:20 0.9 0.1 0:00 0.000 10:20 0.037 0.003 0.003 0.01 3/26/2018 2:35 0.8 9:10 6.4 1.5 0:00 0.0 9:05 3.2 0.6 0:00 0.000 9:05 0.867 0.059 0.059 0.17 3/27/2018 5:10 1.0 7:15 6.1 1.5 4:35 0.0 7:15 3.1 0.6 4:35 0.000 7:15 0.792 0.036 0.036 0.02 3/28/2018 23:55 0.8 10:15 4.1 1.3 5:25 0.0 10:10 2.5 0.4 5:25 0.000 10:15 0.396 0.021 0.021 0.01 3/29/2018 5:15 0.7 10:25 9.9 2.1 0:00 0.0 9:30 3.3 0.8 0:00 0.000 10:30 1.311 0.167 0.167 0.00 3/30/2018 5:25 0.7 11:40 6.0 1.2 0:00 0.0 11:40 3.0 0.3 0:00 0.000 11:40 0.773 0.023 0.023 0.00 3/31/2018 5:10 0.9 12:25 1.1 1.0 0:35 0.0 12:25 0.2 0.0 0:35 0.000 12:25 0.004 0.001 0.001 0.00 ReportAvg 1.4 0.4 0.030 ReportTotal 0.929 2.33 ADS Environmental Services Pipe Height: 11.50 REN_MH0166\mp1\DFINAL (inches) REN_MH0166\mp1\VFINAL (feet/sec) REN_MH0166\mp1\QFINAL (MGD - Total MG) REN_RG\mp1\RAIN (inches) Date Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Total Total 4/1/2018 22:35 0.9 23:30 1.1 0.9 0:00 0.0 23:30 0.2 0.0 0:00 0.000 23:30 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.10 4/2/2018 1:20 1.0 10:10 6.1 1.7 0:25 0.0 10:05 3.1 0.7 0:25 0.000 10:05 0.798 0.050 0.050 0.00 4/3/2018 23:55 1.1 14:00 6.2 1.6 23:55 0.1 14:00 3.2 0.7 23:55 0.003 14:00 0.845 0.047 0.047 0.00 4/4/2018 1:20 1.0 14:00 6.6 1.7 0:20 0.0 14:00 3.2 0.7 0:20 0.000 14:00 0.922 0.053 0.053 0.39 4/5/2018 6:35 1.1 10:45 6.7 1.7 6:35 0.2 10:45 3.2 0.7 6:35 0.004 10:45 0.949 0.051 0.051 0.25 4/6/2018 22:30 1.0 10:30 6.4 1.6 21:40 0.0 10:30 3.1 0.6 21:40 0.000 10:30 0.858 0.051 0.051 0.00 4/7/2018 1:20 1.1 3:10 6.3 2.2 1:20 0.1 3:10 3.1 1.1 1:20 0.003 3:10 0.847 0.102 0.102 0.88 4/8/2018 23:55 1.2 8:35 2.6 1.8 23:55 0.3 8:35 1.5 0.9 23:55 0.009 8:35 0.125 0.049 0.049 0.45 4/9/2018 23:55 1.0 9:50 6.4 1.7 23:55 0.1 9:35 3.3 0.7 23:55 0.002 9:35 0.899 0.053 0.053 0.00 4/10/2018 1:20 1.0 9:10 6.3 1.6 0:10 0.0 9:10 3.3 0.7 0:10 0.000 9:10 0.913 0.059 0.059 0.23 4/11/2018 1:00 0.9 8:30 5.0 1.6 0:45 0.0 8:30 2.9 0.8 0:45 0.000 8:30 0.602 0.049 0.049 0.31 4/12/2018 23:55 0.9 15:05 6.3 1.6 22:55 0.0 15:25 3.2 0.7 22:55 0.000 15:05 0.866 0.056 0.056 0.11 4/13/2018 1:20 0.9 16:10 6.4 2.2 0:00 0.0 16:10 3.2 1.3 0:00 0.000 16:10 0.871 0.114 0.114 0.51 4/14/2018 12:25 1.6 23:45 13.8 5.0 12:25 0.6 15:35 3.4 2.1 12:25 0.026 20:15 1.287 0.432 0.432 1.52 4/15/2018 23:55 1.7 0:05 13.4 5.4 23:30 0.8 4:05 3.3 2.2 23:45 0.037 3:05 1.314 0.465 0.465 0.21 4/16/2018 6:40 1.7 13:50 6.3 2.6 23:15 0.6 14:25 3.3 1.6 0:10 0.030 13:40 0.889 0.161 0.161 0.71 4/17/2018 23:55 1.3 7:05 6.5 2.1 21:55 0.2 7:05 3.4 1.0 21:55 0.008 7:05 0.953 0.082 0.082 0.01 4/18/2018 0:10 1.3 14:45 3.4 1.8 22:15 0.2 9:20 2.3 0.7 23:20 0.006 9:20 0.273 0.047 0.047 0.12 4/19/2018 23:55 1.2 14:05 6.1 1.7 20:50 0.2 14:05 3.0 0.7 20:50 0.006 14:05 0.773 0.042 0.042 0.00 4/20/2018 22:35 1.1 1:00 3.6 1.7 22:35 0.2 1:00 2.3 0.7 22:35 0.004 1:00 0.300 0.041 0.041 0.00 4/21/2018 23:55 1.1 13:05 3.5 1.7 23:15 0.2 13:05 2.3 0.7 23:55 0.005 13:05 0.293 0.040 0.040 0.05 4/22/2018 5:00 1.0 21:30 3.2 1.5 2:10 0.0 13:10 2.1 0.5 2:10 0.000 21:30 0.225 0.025 0.025 0.00 ReportAvg 2.1 0.9 0.094 ReportTotal 2.071 5.85 REN_MH0286 Located At: 3000 SE 5th St (see attached site report for details) Monitoring Period: December 22, 2017 – April 22, 2018 Pipe Dimensions: 9.88” Finalized Silt Level: 0 mm Site Data Characteristics: This site is located in a sanitary sewer pipe. The scattergraph indicates site operated in free flow conditions. The site did not surcharge during the monitoring period. The dry weather data plots below the Froude =1 curve indicating subcritical flow. Site Data Bias & Editing: The depth and velocity measurements recorded by the flow monitor were consistent with field confirmations conducted to date and supported the relative accuracy of the flow monitor at this location. The finalized depth data utilized both the pressure sensor and upward ultrasonic sensor. Site Data Uptime: The data uptime achieved during the monitoring period is provided in the table below. Based upon the quality and consistency of the observed flow depth and velocity data, the Continuity equation was used to calculate the flow rate for the monitoring period. Entity Percentage Uptime Raw Percentage Uptime Final Depth (in) 100% 100% Velocity (f/s) 100% 100% Quantity (mgd) 100% 100% Site Data Summary: The average flow depth, velocity, and quantity data observed during the monitoring period along with observed minimum and maximum data, are provided in the following table. The minimum and maximum rates recorded in the tables are based on 5‐minute data intervals. Item Depth (in) Velocity (f/s) Quantity (mgd) % Full Minimum 2.72 0.36 0.028 28% Maximum 5.93 1.06 0.212 60% Average 3.40 0.66 0.072 34% Latitude: 47.477311° Longitude:-122.179048° Site Sketch Plan View or Photo Additional Site Info. / Comments: Site located in roadway. Traffic control required. Moderate, slow flow Good Antenna Location Communication Information: Active Drop Connections Air Quality: Communication Type Normal 22275.11.325 ADS Project Name: ADS Project Number: Renton.Carollo.I&I.WA17 Manhole Cover Manhole Frame Manhole Material: Manhole Diameter (Approx.): Manhole Depth (Approx. FT):Manhole Configuration Concrete Wireless Pipe Material Located in roadway, at intersection. Requires traffic control. Sensors / Devices: 15.00'' x 15.00'' 0.25" Manhole / Pipe Information: Installation Type: Pressure Sensor Range (psi) Confirmation Time: Site Sketch Profile View or Photo Pipe Size (H x W) Topside / Area Photo Peak Combo (CS4), Smart Depth (CS5) Pipe Size (HxW) 3:17:00 PM Monitoring Location (Sensors): Depth of Flow (Wet DOF) (in)Range (Air DOF) (in) ~8.00'' Velocity Sensor Offset (in) .3 FPS Temporary 15.00'' x 15.00'' REN_MH1763 Access Traffic TRITON+ System Characteristics Location Type Pipe Shape Renton.Carollo.I&I.WA17 Medium Drive Site Access Details: Site Address /Location: Site Name 3000 SE 5th St 0 - 5 psi Installation Information Circular Monitor Series Monitor Location: Doppler Standard Ring and Crank Manhole # Installation Date: 12.13.17 Upstream 0-5 FT Manhole MH1763 Residential Map Flow Monitoring Site Report 0 Downlooker Physical Offset (in)Measurement Confidence (in) 1.25'' Peak Velocity (fps) Silt (in) ~8' Installation Confirmation: Manhole Opening Diameter (in) Silt Type Hydraulic Comments: Pipe Condition: Single Good Manhole Pick / Vent Hole Manhole Condition: No Concrete 20'' NormalUnbolted 20'' Additional Photos Flow Direction Monitoring Point Top Down Location Location Upstream Downstream Side Inlet ADS Environmental Services Pipe Height: 9.88 REN_MH0286\mp1\DFINAL (inches) REN_MH0286\mp1\VFINAL (feet/sec) REN_MH0286\mp1\QFINAL (MGD - Total MG) REN_RG\mp1\RAIN (inches) Date Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Total Total 12/22/2017 23:55 2.9 12:40 3.7 3.2 23:55 0.5 13:45 0.8 0.7 23:55 0.044 13:45 0.095 0.065 0.065 0.10 12/23/2017 6:40 2.7 15:15 3.1 2.8 8:10 0.5 20:05 0.7 0.5 6:30 0.037 15:15 0.060 0.044 0.044 0.00 12/24/2017 0:50 2.7 16:45 3.3 2.9 3:35 0.4 18:00 0.7 0.5 3:35 0.036 16:55 0.072 0.044 0.044 0.00 12/25/2017 16:40 2.9 17:05 3.2 3.0 22:30 0.5 23:20 0.7 0.6 22:30 0.043 23:15 0.069 0.051 0.051 0.14 12/26/2017 5:05 2.9 9:15 3.8 3.2 5:00 0.5 15:55 0.8 0.6 5:00 0.044 9:15 0.097 0.062 0.062 0.17 12/27/2017 21:50 3.1 13:30 4.4 3.4 22:10 0.6 13:35 0.9 0.8 21:50 0.061 13:30 0.133 0.082 0.082 0.00 12/28/2017 4:20 3.0 16:50 4.1 3.5 3:40 0.6 15:40 1.0 0.8 3:40 0.054 16:45 0.131 0.083 0.083 0.25 12/29/2017 22:00 3.3 10:00 4.4 3.7 23:50 0.6 9:10 1.0 0.8 23:50 0.067 10:00 0.142 0.101 0.101 1.57 12/30/2017 23:50 2.9 8:05 3.4 3.1 12:00 0.5 8:20 0.8 0.6 23:50 0.045 8:20 0.084 0.060 0.060 0.02 12/31/2017 22:30 2.8 14:10 3.1 2.9 23:00 0.5 14:15 0.6 0.5 22:30 0.039 14:10 0.059 0.046 0.046 0.00 ReportAvg 3.2 0.6 0.064 ReportTotal 0.638 2.25 ADS Environmental Services Pipe Height: 9.88 REN_MH0286\mp1\DFINAL (inches) REN_MH0286\mp1\VFINAL (feet/sec) REN_MH0286\mp1\QFINAL (MGD - Total MG) REN_RG\mp1\RAIN (inches) Date Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Total Total 1/1/2018 21:20 2.7 22:55 3.5 2.9 12:15 0.5 22:55 0.8 0.5 12:15 0.037 22:55 0.090 0.045 0.045 0.00 1/2/2018 0:05 3.0 11:50 4.0 3.3 0:05 0.6 15:55 0.9 0.7 0:05 0.052 11:50 0.116 0.074 0.074 0.01 1/3/2018 4:55 3.0 15:05 4.2 3.4 4:50 0.6 15:10 0.9 0.7 4:50 0.050 15:10 0.133 0.076 0.076 0.00 1/4/2018 5:30 3.0 14:25 4.5 3.5 0:00 0.5 14:20 1.0 0.7 4:55 0.051 14:25 0.150 0.081 0.081 0.09 1/5/2018 2:45 3.2 12:35 4.2 3.6 4:50 0.6 13:30 1.0 0.7 4:50 0.059 13:30 0.132 0.085 0.085 0.42 1/6/2018 3:35 3.2 7:25 3.5 3.3 10:00 0.5 15:40 0.7 0.6 23:40 0.053 16:20 0.079 0.064 0.064 0.24 1/7/2018 13:45 3.1 9:05 3.5 3.3 5:40 0.5 18:45 0.8 0.6 5:40 0.052 18:45 0.080 0.062 0.062 0.38 1/8/2018 21:40 3.3 10:50 5.3 3.7 0:50 0.7 10:45 1.1 0.8 0:50 0.067 10:50 0.200 0.095 0.095 0.14 1/9/2018 5:10 3.3 16:00 4.6 3.7 6:05 0.7 16:05 1.0 0.8 5:20 0.068 16:00 0.153 0.095 0.095 0.46 1/10/2018 3:40 3.2 9:05 4.5 3.6 5:20 0.6 13:05 1.0 0.8 5:20 0.057 14:25 0.136 0.089 0.089 0.22 1/11/2018 5:25 3.4 11:15 4.8 3.9 4:40 0.6 11:15 1.0 0.8 4:40 0.069 11:15 0.164 0.102 0.102 1.04 1/12/2018 4:45 3.3 12:55 4.2 3.7 4:45 0.7 10:20 0.9 0.8 4:45 0.068 15:20 0.130 0.095 0.095 0.20 1/13/2018 23:55 3.4 12:20 4.2 3.6 14:20 0.7 2:25 0.9 0.8 23:55 0.073 2:25 0.126 0.085 0.085 0.02 1/14/2018 23:20 3.3 8:00 3.8 3.4 5:25 0.7 8:00 0.8 0.7 5:25 0.069 8:00 0.102 0.074 0.074 0.00 1/15/2018 0:35 3.4 10:45 4.6 3.7 4:00 0.6 11:30 1.0 0.8 3:05 0.061 10:45 0.156 0.094 0.094 0.04 1/16/2018 23:05 3.4 10:00 4.3 3.7 20:00 0.6 1:05 0.9 0.8 19:55 0.067 10:00 0.131 0.096 0.096 0.26 1/17/2018 3:00 3.2 19:40 4.3 3.7 4:50 0.6 19:10 1.0 0.8 4:55 0.061 19:40 0.137 0.094 0.094 0.79 1/18/2018 2:25 3.4 13:15 4.4 3.8 2:00 0.6 13:15 0.9 0.8 2:00 0.065 13:15 0.142 0.101 0.101 0.40 1/19/2018 23:55 3.1 13:50 4.3 3.6 23:55 0.6 5:25 0.9 0.8 23:55 0.054 13:50 0.133 0.087 0.087 0.10 1/20/2018 2:20 3.0 19:35 3.5 3.2 6:25 0.5 19:35 0.7 0.6 6:25 0.044 19:35 0.082 0.056 0.056 0.10 1/21/2018 4:25 3.0 17:40 3.6 3.1 3:55 0.4 17:20 0.8 0.5 3:55 0.040 17:25 0.088 0.051 0.051 0.16 1/22/2018 5:10 3.2 15:25 4.2 3.6 4:15 0.6 15:10 1.0 0.8 4:15 0.059 15:15 0.132 0.089 0.089 0.34 1/23/2018 22:30 3.2 15:50 4.2 3.6 7:25 0.6 15:50 0.9 0.8 5:40 0.059 15:50 0.127 0.086 0.086 0.79 1/24/2018 6:00 3.2 14:45 4.5 3.6 6:10 0.6 14:10 1.0 0.7 6:10 0.059 14:45 0.146 0.087 0.087 0.51 1/25/2018 5:50 3.1 10:55 4.0 3.4 2:05 0.6 11:05 1.0 0.8 1:20 0.057 11:05 0.124 0.081 0.081 0.14 1/26/2018 1:30 3.1 9:10 4.6 3.4 1:20 0.6 9:10 1.0 0.7 1:20 0.053 9:10 0.156 0.078 0.078 0.36 1/27/2018 10:10 3.1 11:20 3.8 3.2 14:55 0.5 11:25 0.8 0.6 10:10 0.051 11:25 0.102 0.062 0.062 0.61 1/28/2018 6:15 2.9 20:35 3.4 3.0 23:55 0.5 17:15 0.7 0.6 7:25 0.046 20:35 0.072 0.053 0.053 0.07 1/29/2018 3:50 3.0 15:10 4.6 3.6 0:00 0.5 14:55 1.0 0.7 0:00 0.046 15:10 0.148 0.087 0.087 0.90 1/30/2018 2:45 3.3 12:30 4.6 3.5 22:05 0.5 12:30 1.0 0.7 21:25 0.056 12:30 0.152 0.082 0.082 0.00 1/31/2018 2:55 3.2 16:55 4.0 3.5 23:30 0.6 9:55 1.0 0.7 23:30 0.058 9:55 0.130 0.083 0.083 0.00 ReportAvg 3.5 0.7 0.080 ReportTotal 2.490 8.79 ADS Environmental Services Pipe Height: 9.88 REN_MH0286\mp1\DFINAL (inches) REN_MH0286\mp1\VFINAL (feet/sec) REN_MH0286\mp1\QFINAL (MGD - Total MG) REN_RG\mp1\RAIN (inches) Date Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Total Total 2/1/2018 3:05 3.2 14:00 4.5 3.6 5:30 0.5 13:55 1.0 0.8 5:30 0.052 13:55 0.157 0.090 0.090 0.66 2/2/2018 4:55 3.3 13:45 4.3 3.6 4:20 0.6 11:35 0.9 0.7 4:55 0.060 13:45 0.133 0.088 0.088 0.04 2/3/2018 23:05 3.1 11:50 3.8 3.3 23:30 0.5 11:50 0.8 0.6 23:30 0.046 11:50 0.100 0.064 0.064 0.31 2/4/2018 6:10 3.0 12:25 3.4 3.1 6:10 0.5 15:45 0.6 0.5 6:10 0.043 12:25 0.061 0.049 0.049 0.02 2/5/2018 0:15 3.0 15:30 4.4 3.5 1:00 0.5 15:30 0.9 0.7 1:00 0.043 15:30 0.136 0.077 0.077 0.04 2/6/2018 3:10 3.2 12:25 5.8 3.5 2:00 0.5 12:30 1.0 0.7 2:00 0.052 12:25 0.204 0.075 0.075 0.00 2/7/2018 2:45 3.2 8:15 4.0 3.5 1:30 0.5 8:15 0.8 0.7 1:30 0.050 8:15 0.111 0.075 0.075 0.00 2/8/2018 5:40 3.2 15:25 4.2 3.6 19:30 0.6 15:25 0.9 0.7 5:40 0.059 15:25 0.127 0.081 0.081 0.09 2/9/2018 23:10 3.0 13:30 4.1 3.5 23:00 0.4 13:30 0.9 0.7 23:00 0.039 13:30 0.119 0.074 0.074 0.01 2/10/2018 7:45 2.9 1:25 3.3 3.0 7:10 0.4 17:35 0.7 0.5 11:45 0.034 17:35 0.065 0.047 0.047 0.01 2/11/2018 16:15 2.9 12:10 3.5 3.1 21:20 0.4 12:10 0.7 0.5 21:30 0.038 12:10 0.074 0.050 0.050 0.00 2/12/2018 2:55 3.0 12:10 4.1 3.4 0:25 0.4 12:10 0.9 0.6 0:25 0.041 12:10 0.119 0.068 0.068 0.00 2/13/2018 2:30 3.0 11:15 3.9 3.4 2:30 0.5 11:15 0.8 0.7 2:30 0.047 11:15 0.101 0.071 0.071 0.17 2/14/2018 21:35 3.0 10:15 4.2 3.4 21:25 0.5 10:15 0.9 0.7 21:25 0.042 10:15 0.123 0.071 0.071 0.15 2/15/2018 23:55 3.2 13:25 4.1 3.5 22:45 0.6 13:25 0.9 0.7 23:55 0.056 13:25 0.119 0.075 0.075 0.00 2/16/2018 0:20 3.1 15:15 4.0 3.4 6:15 0.5 15:15 0.8 0.7 0:20 0.052 15:15 0.109 0.071 0.071 0.15 2/17/2018 4:05 3.1 8:10 3.5 3.3 4:05 0.6 8:10 0.7 0.6 4:05 0.053 8:10 0.077 0.065 0.065 0.32 2/18/2018 23:20 3.1 17:25 3.7 3.2 17:30 0.5 10:45 0.7 0.6 23:20 0.051 17:25 0.075 0.059 0.059 0.01 2/19/2018 3:15 3.1 11:30 3.8 3.4 20:40 0.6 11:30 0.8 0.6 3:15 0.053 11:30 0.094 0.068 0.068 0.00 2/20/2018 21:55 3.0 14:45 3.8 3.4 21:05 0.5 10:00 0.8 0.6 21:05 0.047 10:00 0.096 0.067 0.067 0.00 2/21/2018 2:35 3.2 13:45 4.1 3.5 7:40 0.6 13:45 0.9 0.7 2:35 0.058 13:45 0.120 0.079 0.079 0.00 2/22/2018 23:15 3.2 14:25 4.0 3.5 22:05 0.6 14:25 0.8 0.7 22:05 0.059 14:25 0.108 0.076 0.076 0.07 2/23/2018 22:30 3.1 11:35 3.9 3.4 22:30 0.5 11:35 0.8 0.7 22:30 0.050 11:35 0.103 0.073 0.073 0.01 2/24/2018 23:40 2.9 15:25 3.3 3.0 21:20 0.5 15:25 0.6 0.5 23:40 0.042 15:25 0.062 0.049 0.049 0.13 2/25/2018 0:15 2.9 12:45 3.3 3.1 20:45 0.4 12:45 0.6 0.5 20:45 0.039 12:45 0.061 0.050 0.050 0.11 2/26/2018 3:30 3.2 14:35 5.1 3.6 3:35 0.5 14:35 1.0 0.7 3:35 0.048 14:35 0.179 0.084 0.084 0.00 2/27/2018 22:25 3.3 11:05 4.0 3.6 21:35 0.5 11:05 0.8 0.7 21:35 0.055 11:05 0.110 0.079 0.079 0.19 2/28/2018 5:00 3.2 13:15 4.1 3.5 0:55 0.5 13:15 0.9 0.7 0:55 0.053 13:15 0.118 0.078 0.078 0.35 ReportAvg 3.4 0.6 0.070 ReportTotal 1.951 2.84 ADS Environmental Services Pipe Height: 9.88 REN_MH0286\mp1\DFINAL (inches) REN_MH0286\mp1\VFINAL (feet/sec) REN_MH0286\mp1\QFINAL (MGD - Total MG) REN_RG\mp1\RAIN (inches) Date Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Total Total 3/1/2018 5:10 3.2 16:05 4.1 3.5 22:40 0.5 16:05 0.9 0.7 22:40 0.055 16:05 0.115 0.079 0.079 0.01 3/2/2018 21:50 3.0 16:00 4.0 3.4 19:45 0.5 16:00 0.8 0.6 21:50 0.049 16:00 0.107 0.068 0.068 0.07 3/3/2018 5:30 2.9 12:05 3.4 3.1 9:25 0.4 12:05 0.7 0.5 9:25 0.040 12:05 0.072 0.050 0.050 0.00 3/4/2018 4:50 2.8 17:40 3.3 2.9 5:35 0.4 17:40 0.6 0.5 5:35 0.029 17:40 0.066 0.041 0.041 0.12 3/5/2018 1:05 3.1 14:15 4.9 3.5 19:50 0.6 14:15 1.0 0.7 1:05 0.054 14:15 0.170 0.076 0.076 0.00 3/6/2018 23:30 3.1 11:25 4.4 3.5 23:40 0.5 11:25 0.9 0.7 23:40 0.048 11:25 0.133 0.076 0.076 0.00 3/7/2018 2:40 3.0 14:05 5.2 3.5 2:40 0.4 14:05 1.0 0.7 2:40 0.039 14:05 0.185 0.075 0.075 0.03 3/8/2018 2:20 3.1 15:20 4.1 3.5 2:15 0.5 15:20 0.9 0.7 2:15 0.043 15:20 0.115 0.073 0.073 0.37 3/9/2018 22:10 3.0 13:00 4.4 3.4 22:55 0.5 13:00 0.9 0.6 22:55 0.043 13:00 0.139 0.069 0.069 0.00 3/10/2018 3:55 2.9 14:55 3.3 3.1 2:55 0.4 18:30 0.6 0.5 2:55 0.037 18:30 0.062 0.048 0.048 0.00 3/11/2018 0:45 2.9 15:00 3.4 3.0 2:35 0.4 15:00 0.7 0.5 2:35 0.035 15:00 0.070 0.046 0.046 0.00 3/12/2018 1:40 3.1 14:20 4.1 3.5 0:35 0.5 14:20 0.9 0.7 0:35 0.046 14:20 0.116 0.073 0.073 0.00 3/13/2018 2:05 3.2 14:15 4.2 3.5 23:30 0.5 14:15 0.9 0.7 23:30 0.053 14:15 0.124 0.077 0.077 0.31 3/14/2018 23:15 3.0 9:05 3.9 3.5 23:15 0.5 6:50 0.8 0.6 23:15 0.042 6:50 0.099 0.071 0.071 0.04 3/15/2018 1:30 3.0 9:40 4.3 3.5 2:10 0.5 9:40 0.9 0.6 2:10 0.042 9:40 0.128 0.072 0.072 0.00 3/16/2018 23:40 3.1 13:15 4.1 3.5 23:50 0.5 13:15 0.9 0.7 23:50 0.044 13:15 0.120 0.073 0.073 0.00 3/17/2018 23:25 3.0 13:25 3.9 3.1 4:25 0.4 13:25 0.7 0.5 4:25 0.038 13:25 0.092 0.050 0.050 0.00 3/18/2018 23:45 2.9 17:05 3.2 3.0 23:05 0.4 17:05 0.6 0.5 11:05 0.038 17:05 0.061 0.046 0.046 0.00 3/19/2018 2:00 2.9 13:35 4.0 3.4 3:55 0.4 13:35 0.8 0.7 3:55 0.034 13:35 0.107 0.073 0.073 0.00 3/20/2018 5:10 3.2 9:15 4.3 3.5 22:15 0.5 9:15 0.9 0.7 22:15 0.050 9:15 0.132 0.075 0.075 0.00 3/21/2018 23:55 3.0 12:50 4.2 3.4 2:20 0.5 12:50 0.9 0.6 2:20 0.041 12:50 0.124 0.066 0.066 0.10 3/22/2018 2:20 2.8 10:20 4.7 3.4 2:15 0.4 10:20 1.0 0.6 2:15 0.029 10:20 0.161 0.069 0.069 0.48 3/23/2018 4:15 2.9 9:35 4.1 3.4 4:25 0.5 9:35 0.8 0.7 4:25 0.041 9:35 0.115 0.072 0.072 0.31 3/24/2018 22:50 2.8 9:20 3.6 3.1 22:45 0.4 9:20 0.7 0.6 22:50 0.036 9:20 0.082 0.052 0.052 0.28 3/25/2018 0:05 2.8 19:00 3.2 2.9 21:00 0.4 12:50 0.6 0.5 21:00 0.032 12:50 0.062 0.042 0.042 0.01 3/26/2018 3:20 2.8 10:15 4.4 3.4 3:20 0.4 10:15 0.9 0.6 3:20 0.028 10:15 0.137 0.068 0.068 0.17 3/27/2018 0:10 3.1 11:50 4.3 3.5 0:10 0.5 11:50 0.9 0.7 0:10 0.044 11:50 0.129 0.075 0.075 0.02 3/28/2018 23:55 3.0 12:00 4.0 3.4 23:35 0.4 12:00 0.8 0.6 23:35 0.041 12:00 0.112 0.066 0.066 0.01 3/29/2018 1:55 2.9 12:55 4.1 3.4 1:55 0.4 12:55 0.9 0.6 1:55 0.034 12:55 0.120 0.068 0.068 0.00 3/30/2018 1:40 3.0 12:15 4.0 3.4 1:40 0.4 12:15 0.8 0.6 1:40 0.039 12:15 0.108 0.068 0.068 0.00 3/31/2018 23:10 2.9 12:55 3.3 3.1 23:10 0.4 10:15 0.6 0.5 23:10 0.036 10:15 0.063 0.050 0.050 0.00 ReportAvg 3.3 0.6 0.065 ReportTotal 2.006 2.33 ADS Environmental Services Pipe Height: 9.88 REN_MH0286\mp1\DFINAL (inches) REN_MH0286\mp1\VFINAL (feet/sec) REN_MH0286\mp1\QFINAL (MGD - Total MG) REN_RG\mp1\RAIN (inches) Date Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Total Total 4/1/2018 23:15 2.9 17:25 3.2 3.0 23:15 0.4 17:25 0.6 0.5 23:15 0.033 17:25 0.059 0.045 0.045 0.10 4/2/2018 2:35 2.9 10:45 5.9 3.4 1:55 0.4 10:50 1.0 0.7 1:55 0.033 10:45 0.212 0.073 0.073 0.00 4/3/2018 2:05 2.9 17:55 4.1 3.5 2:00 0.4 17:55 0.9 0.7 2:00 0.036 17:55 0.120 0.078 0.078 0.00 4/4/2018 1:55 3.1 14:50 4.1 3.5 21:55 0.5 14:50 0.9 0.7 21:55 0.045 14:50 0.115 0.073 0.073 0.39 4/5/2018 4:25 3.2 12:55 4.0 3.5 2:30 0.5 12:55 0.8 0.7 2:30 0.056 12:55 0.113 0.077 0.077 0.25 4/6/2018 23:55 2.9 12:40 4.1 3.4 21:45 0.5 12:40 0.8 0.7 21:45 0.041 12:40 0.115 0.071 0.071 0.00 4/7/2018 0:25 2.9 9:30 3.6 3.2 1:05 0.4 9:30 0.7 0.6 1:05 0.034 9:30 0.085 0.059 0.059 0.88 4/8/2018 16:40 3.0 10:55 3.4 3.2 17:05 0.5 10:55 0.7 0.6 17:05 0.042 10:55 0.072 0.058 0.058 0.45 4/9/2018 0:00 3.0 11:05 4.2 3.6 0:30 0.5 11:05 0.9 0.7 0:05 0.043 11:05 0.125 0.084 0.084 0.00 4/10/2018 22:15 3.3 10:30 4.5 3.7 22:15 0.6 10:30 0.9 0.8 22:15 0.063 10:30 0.145 0.091 0.091 0.23 4/11/2018 2:05 3.4 6:45 4.4 3.8 2:05 0.7 6:45 0.9 0.8 2:05 0.068 6:45 0.140 0.094 0.094 0.31 4/12/2018 4:30 3.5 14:25 4.3 3.8 4:30 0.7 14:25 0.9 0.8 4:30 0.074 14:25 0.130 0.097 0.097 0.11 4/13/2018 23:55 3.3 15:05 4.3 3.7 21:50 0.5 15:05 0.9 0.7 21:50 0.056 15:05 0.132 0.090 0.090 0.51 4/14/2018 2:55 3.1 13:20 4.5 3.5 4:45 0.5 13:20 0.9 0.7 4:45 0.049 13:20 0.142 0.076 0.076 1.52 4/15/2018 20:30 3.3 6:50 4.2 3.6 19:45 0.6 6:50 0.9 0.7 19:45 0.060 6:50 0.121 0.081 0.081 0.21 4/16/2018 2:30 3.3 14:55 5.0 3.8 4:20 0.6 14:55 1.0 0.8 4:20 0.060 14:55 0.174 0.095 0.095 0.71 4/17/2018 22:30 3.3 11:15 4.2 3.7 22:15 0.6 11:15 0.9 0.7 22:15 0.057 11:15 0.127 0.089 0.089 0.01 4/18/2018 3:45 3.2 15:50 4.4 3.6 4:05 0.5 15:50 0.9 0.7 4:05 0.053 15:50 0.138 0.084 0.084 0.12 4/19/2018 1:55 3.1 9:45 4.3 3.5 5:40 0.5 9:45 0.9 0.7 5:40 0.053 9:45 0.129 0.079 0.079 0.00 4/20/2018 23:55 3.1 9:50 4.2 3.5 21:15 0.5 9:50 0.9 0.7 21:15 0.050 9:50 0.122 0.078 0.078 0.00 4/21/2018 7:30 2.9 19:20 3.8 3.1 7:20 0.5 19:20 0.8 0.6 7:20 0.041 19:20 0.096 0.055 0.055 0.05 4/22/2018 6:50 2.8 2:25 3.2 3.0 10:35 0.4 2:25 0.6 0.5 8:25 0.033 2:25 0.058 0.046 0.046 0.00 ReportAvg 3.5 0.7 0.076 ReportTotal 1.671 5.85 REN_MH0537 Located At: 2803 Burnett Ave (see attached site report for details) Monitoring Period: December 22, 2017 – April 22, 2018 Pipe Dimensions: 8” Finalized Silt Level: 0 mm Site Data Characteristics: This site is located in a sanitary sewer pipe. The scattergraph indicates site operated in free flow conditions. The site did not surcharge during the monitoring period. The dry weather data plots above the Froude =1 curve indicating supercritical flow. Site Data Bias & Editing: The depth and velocity measurements recorded by the flow monitor were consistent with field confirmations conducted to date and supported the relative accuracy of the flow monitor at this location. The finalized depth data utilized the upward ultrasonic sensor. Site Data Uptime: The data uptime achieved during the monitoring period is provided in the table below. Based upon the quality and consistency of the observed flow depth and velocity data, the Continuity equation was used to calculate the flow rate for the monitoring period. Entity Percentage Uptime Raw Percentage Uptime Final Depth (in) 100% 100% Velocity (f/s) 100% 100% Quantity (mgd) 100% 100% Site Data Summary: The average flow depth, velocity, and quantity data observed during the monitoring period along with observed minimum and maximum data, are provided in the following table. The minimum and maximum rates recorded in the tables are based on 5‐minute data intervals. Item Depth (in) Velocity (f/s) Quantity (mgd) % Full Minimum 1.21 6.33 0.141 15% Maximum 2.90 10.62 0.766 36% Average 1.77 8.86 0.336 22% Latitude:47.516545° Longitude:-122.207103° Pipe Condition: Single Good Manhole Pick / Vent Hole Manhole Condition: No Concrete 20'' NormalUnbolted 20'' 0 Downlooker Physical Offset (in)Measurement Confidence (in) 1.38'' Peak Velocity (fps) Silt (in) ~10' Installation Confirmation: Manhole Opening Diameter (in) Silt Type Hydraulic Comments: Renton.Carollo.I&I.WA17 Medium Drive Site Access Details: Site Address /Location: Site Name ADJ 2803 Burnett Ave Nth 0 - 5 psi Installation Information Circular Monitor Series Monitor Location: Doppler Standard Ring and Crank Manhole # Installation Date: 12.19.17 Upstream 0-5 FT Manhole MH0537 Other Map Flow Monitoring Site Report Temporary 8.00'' x 8.00'' REN_MH0537 Access Traffic TRITON+ System Characteristics Location Type Pipe ShapeLocated in roadway, at intersection. Requires traffic control. Sensors / Devices: 8.00'' x 8.00'' 0.25" Manhole / Pipe Information: Installation Type: Pressure Sensor Range (psi) Confirmation Time: Site Sketch Profile View or Photo Pipe Size (H x W) Topside / Area Photo Peak Combo (CS4), Smart Depth (CS5) Pipe Size (HxW) 1:05:00 PM Monitoring Location (Sensors): Depth of Flow (Wet DOF) (in)Range (Air DOF) (in) ~1.75'' Velocity Sensor Offset (in) 9.60 FPS Site Sketch Plan View or Photo Additional Site Info. / Comments: Site located in roadway. Traffic control required. Low, fast flow Good Antenna Location Communication Information: Active Drop Connections Air Quality: Communication Type Normal 22275.11.325 ADS Project Name: ADS Project Number: Renton.Carollo.I&I.WA17 Manhole Cover Manhole Frame Manhole Material: Manhole Diameter (Approx.): Manhole Depth (Approx. FT):Manhole Configuration Concrete Wireless Pipe Material Additional Photos Flow Direction Monitoring Point Upstream Downstream Overflow Top Down Location Location ADS Environmental Services Pipe Height: 8.00 REN_MH0537\mp1\DFINAL (inches) REN_MH0537\mp1\VFINAL (feet/sec) REN_MH0537\mp1\QFINAL (MGD - Total MG) REN_RG\mp1\RAIN (inches) Date Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Total Total 12/22/2017 4:40 1.3 10:15 2.6 1.8 3:55 7.2 10:15 10.0 8.9 3:55 0.182 10:15 0.630 0.356 0.356 0.10 12/23/2017 4:40 1.3 9:55 2.6 1.8 4:30 6.9 7:55 10.0 8.9 4:30 0.167 9:55 0.630 0.344 0.344 0.00 12/24/2017 6:40 1.2 10:45 2.7 1.8 4:15 7.0 10:40 10.2 8.9 5:10 0.159 10:45 0.665 0.347 0.347 0.00 12/25/2017 3:10 1.2 11:40 2.6 1.8 4:05 6.8 11:45 10.1 8.8 4:05 0.158 11:40 0.629 0.354 0.354 0.14 12/26/2017 5:15 1.3 10:40 2.5 1.8 4:20 6.6 9:15 10.0 8.7 5:15 0.156 11:10 0.581 0.342 0.342 0.17 12/27/2017 5:45 1.3 20:45 2.5 1.8 4:10 6.6 9:30 9.9 8.7 4:10 0.155 20:45 0.599 0.331 0.331 0.00 12/28/2017 4:30 1.3 8:20 2.7 1.7 4:50 6.7 20:05 10.2 8.8 4:50 0.155 8:20 0.652 0.328 0.328 0.25 12/29/2017 3:25 1.4 10:25 2.8 1.9 2:40 7.6 10:25 10.5 9.2 3:20 0.194 10:25 0.753 0.387 0.387 1.57 12/30/2017 5:00 1.4 10:40 2.8 1.8 5:00 7.5 10:40 10.4 9.1 5:00 0.192 10:40 0.722 0.357 0.357 0.02 12/31/2017 4:00 1.3 17:25 2.6 1.8 3:55 7.3 10:05 10.4 9.1 3:55 0.176 17:25 0.659 0.339 0.339 0.00 ReportAvg 1.8 8.9 0.349 ReportTotal 3.486 2.25 ADS Environmental Services Pipe Height: 8.00 REN_MH0537\mp1\DFINAL (inches) REN_MH0537\mp1\VFINAL (feet/sec) REN_MH0537\mp1\QFINAL (MGD - Total MG) REN_RG\mp1\RAIN (inches) Date Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Total Total 1/1/2018 5:50 1.3 21:00 2.4 1.7 5:50 7.3 11:35 10.3 9.1 5:50 0.174 21:00 0.590 0.334 0.334 0.00 1/2/2018 3:20 1.2 20:15 2.6 1.7 4:05 6.9 7:40 10.5 9.0 3:15 0.159 20:15 0.630 0.330 0.330 0.01 1/3/2018 2:35 1.3 20:25 2.7 1.8 4:00 6.7 6:45 10.2 9.0 4:00 0.163 20:25 0.673 0.345 0.345 0.00 1/4/2018 3:45 1.3 20:35 2.6 1.8 3:45 6.6 8:20 10.1 8.7 3:45 0.163 20:35 0.619 0.352 0.352 0.09 1/5/2018 3:20 1.3 20:45 2.6 1.9 4:00 6.6 20:45 10.0 8.6 4:00 0.161 20:45 0.632 0.355 0.355 0.42 1/6/2018 3:40 1.3 12:25 2.8 1.9 3:35 6.9 10:45 9.9 8.8 3:35 0.176 12:25 0.684 0.377 0.377 0.24 1/7/2018 3:55 1.3 11:25 2.8 1.9 3:55 6.6 21:00 9.9 8.7 3:55 0.162 11:25 0.696 0.377 0.377 0.38 1/8/2018 3:40 1.4 20:15 2.6 1.9 4:20 6.8 21:50 10.0 8.7 4:20 0.178 20:15 0.618 0.357 0.357 0.14 1/9/2018 4:40 1.4 21:00 2.6 1.9 4:40 7.0 19:05 10.3 9.0 4:40 0.179 21:00 0.646 0.366 0.366 0.46 1/10/2018 4:55 1.4 19:25 2.7 1.8 3:35 7.2 19:25 10.3 9.0 3:40 0.184 19:25 0.675 0.354 0.354 0.22 1/11/2018 4:10 1.4 22:00 2.8 1.9 3:35 7.1 7:20 10.3 9.2 3:35 0.186 22:00 0.694 0.399 0.399 1.04 1/12/2018 3:30 1.4 9:25 2.7 1.9 2:30 7.5 9:00 10.3 9.3 3:00 0.205 7:55 0.658 0.391 0.391 0.20 1/13/2018 2:35 1.3 9:50 2.7 1.9 6:20 7.5 11:15 10.3 9.3 2:35 0.195 9:50 0.682 0.385 0.385 0.02 1/14/2018 4:30 1.4 9:55 2.8 1.8 4:30 7.3 9:15 10.3 9.1 4:30 0.187 9:55 0.691 0.362 0.362 0.00 1/15/2018 2:45 1.4 20:15 2.8 1.9 3:55 7.1 20:55 10.3 9.1 4:30 0.183 20:55 0.705 0.373 0.373 0.04 1/16/2018 3:30 1.3 21:55 2.7 1.8 4:00 7.3 19:15 10.3 9.2 3:30 0.185 21:55 0.666 0.367 0.367 0.26 1/17/2018 3:00 1.3 20:20 2.8 1.9 4:10 7.1 20:00 10.6 9.2 3:00 0.177 20:20 0.710 0.378 0.378 0.79 1/18/2018 0:05 1.3 20:50 2.8 1.9 0:05 6.9 20:10 10.4 9.3 0:05 0.155 20:50 0.694 0.399 0.399 0.40 1/19/2018 2:10 1.4 8:00 2.7 1.9 4:20 7.4 8:00 10.3 9.2 3:50 0.194 8:00 0.675 0.374 0.374 0.10 1/20/2018 6:10 1.4 12:20 2.9 1.8 3:20 7.3 12:20 10.1 9.1 3:20 0.186 12:20 0.742 0.364 0.364 0.10 1/21/2018 5:20 1.3 9:50 2.8 1.8 3:35 7.2 9:50 10.2 8.9 5:20 0.180 9:50 0.700 0.353 0.353 0.16 1/22/2018 3:50 1.4 8:55 2.7 1.9 3:50 7.1 17:50 10.2 9.0 3:50 0.180 8:55 0.686 0.365 0.365 0.34 1/23/2018 3:35 1.3 20:50 2.8 1.9 3:00 7.0 7:40 10.3 9.2 3:00 0.173 20:50 0.701 0.376 0.376 0.79 1/24/2018 3:30 1.4 8:15 2.8 1.9 3:30 7.7 8:15 10.5 9.2 3:30 0.207 8:15 0.733 0.385 0.385 0.51 1/25/2018 3:35 1.4 7:50 2.7 1.9 4:30 7.7 7:50 10.4 9.3 3:35 0.216 7:50 0.717 0.396 0.396 0.14 1/26/2018 3:55 1.4 8:40 2.6 1.9 3:25 7.5 9:05 10.3 9.2 3:55 0.206 8:40 0.661 0.388 0.388 0.36 1/27/2018 2:55 1.5 10:20 2.8 1.9 4:40 8.2 8:55 10.4 9.3 4:40 0.254 10:20 0.728 0.399 0.399 0.61 1/28/2018 6:05 1.4 10:15 2.8 1.8 4:40 7.7 7:35 10.2 9.0 4:40 0.220 10:15 0.724 0.347 0.347 0.07 1/29/2018 4:55 1.4 21:55 2.7 1.9 3:50 7.9 22:35 10.4 9.3 4:55 0.218 21:55 0.712 0.387 0.387 0.90 1/30/2018 4:10 1.5 9:10 2.7 1.9 6:45 8.1 18:00 10.6 9.4 3:40 0.237 21:10 0.706 0.396 0.396 0.00 1/31/2018 2:30 1.4 21:40 2.8 1.9 3:30 8.0 17:25 10.5 9.3 2:30 0.219 21:40 0.716 0.386 0.386 0.00 ReportAvg 1.9 9.1 0.372 ReportTotal 11.52 8.79 ADS Environmental Services Pipe Height: 8.00 REN_MH0537\mp1\DFINAL (inches) REN_MH0537\mp1\VFINAL (feet/sec) REN_MH0537\mp1\QFINAL (MGD - Total MG) REN_RG\mp1\RAIN (inches) Date Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Total Total 2/1/2018 4:10 1.4 21:00 2.9 1.9 4:10 7.8 6:40 10.4 9.3 4:10 0.205 21:00 0.766 0.383 0.383 0.66 2/2/2018 5:15 1.4 8:25 2.7 1.9 3:15 7.8 8:05 10.4 9.3 3:45 0.218 8:25 0.707 0.387 0.387 0.04 2/3/2018 6:05 1.4 13:10 2.6 1.8 6:05 7.8 8:35 10.4 9.1 6:05 0.202 13:10 0.663 0.354 0.354 0.31 2/4/2018 5:10 1.4 15:45 2.7 1.8 5:10 7.6 8:30 10.3 9.1 5:10 0.202 15:45 0.675 0.361 0.361 0.02 2/5/2018 4:40 1.4 21:40 2.7 1.9 3:05 7.5 21:40 10.5 9.2 4:40 0.201 21:40 0.708 0.372 0.372 0.04 2/6/2018 3:00 1.4 7:10 2.7 1.8 3:30 7.3 7:10 10.6 9.2 3:30 0.190 7:10 0.704 0.361 0.361 0.00 2/7/2018 3:20 1.4 7:35 2.7 1.8 2:45 7.4 6:45 10.3 9.1 3:20 0.187 7:35 0.663 0.359 0.359 0.00 2/8/2018 4:35 1.3 8:25 2.7 1.8 3:25 7.2 8:05 10.2 9.0 3:25 0.181 8:25 0.668 0.356 0.356 0.09 2/9/2018 4:35 1.3 7:45 2.6 1.8 2:00 7.2 7:45 10.3 9.0 2:40 0.183 7:45 0.649 0.349 0.349 0.01 2/10/2018 5:55 1.3 9:10 2.7 1.8 5:15 6.9 9:10 10.4 8.9 5:15 0.170 9:10 0.689 0.344 0.344 0.01 2/11/2018 4:10 1.3 20:40 2.5 1.8 3:25 7.0 9:25 10.0 8.9 4:50 0.171 20:40 0.599 0.341 0.341 0.00 2/12/2018 4:40 1.3 21:15 2.6 1.8 3:55 6.8 7:30 10.3 8.8 4:40 0.161 21:15 0.643 0.332 0.332 0.00 2/13/2018 4:00 1.3 7:55 2.5 1.7 4:00 6.9 7:55 10.2 8.9 4:00 0.164 7:55 0.621 0.329 0.329 0.17 2/14/2018 3:30 1.3 20:20 2.7 1.8 4:10 6.9 6:25 10.2 8.9 4:10 0.171 20:20 0.644 0.334 0.334 0.15 2/15/2018 4:00 1.3 21:30 2.6 1.7 2:20 6.9 21:30 10.1 8.8 3:10 0.166 21:30 0.638 0.327 0.327 0.00 2/16/2018 4:35 1.3 7:40 2.6 1.7 4:30 6.9 7:40 10.3 8.8 4:30 0.167 7:40 0.652 0.322 0.322 0.15 2/17/2018 4:20 1.3 10:10 2.8 1.8 2:50 6.7 9:50 10.2 8.8 2:50 0.161 10:10 0.688 0.333 0.333 0.32 2/18/2018 4:55 1.3 20:25 2.6 1.8 4:55 7.0 9:10 10.1 8.8 4:55 0.170 9:10 0.626 0.331 0.331 0.01 2/19/2018 3:50 1.3 18:50 2.5 1.7 3:50 6.8 21:30 10.0 8.8 3:50 0.159 18:50 0.609 0.323 0.323 0.00 2/20/2018 4:05 1.3 10:20 2.5 1.7 3:15 6.8 10:20 10.2 8.8 3:15 0.166 10:20 0.611 0.319 0.319 0.00 2/21/2018 4:00 1.3 20:40 2.7 1.7 4:00 6.7 20:20 10.1 8.7 4:00 0.156 20:40 0.682 0.311 0.311 0.00 2/22/2018 3:15 1.3 7:15 2.4 1.7 4:55 6.6 19:05 10.2 8.8 3:20 0.160 7:15 0.588 0.315 0.315 0.07 2/23/2018 3:30 1.3 10:15 2.5 1.7 3:30 6.6 7:25 10.0 8.7 3:30 0.154 10:15 0.585 0.312 0.312 0.01 2/24/2018 4:05 1.3 10:10 2.6 1.7 5:05 6.6 10:40 9.9 8.6 5:05 0.155 10:10 0.627 0.313 0.313 0.13 2/25/2018 5:10 1.2 21:30 2.6 1.8 4:20 6.7 11:05 10.1 8.6 5:10 0.156 11:05 0.652 0.329 0.329 0.11 2/26/2018 2:55 1.3 21:15 2.6 1.7 3:45 6.6 21:15 9.9 8.5 2:55 0.157 21:15 0.618 0.316 0.316 0.00 2/27/2018 3:35 1.3 20:25 2.6 1.7 3:30 6.5 19:05 10.2 8.6 3:30 0.151 20:25 0.639 0.315 0.315 0.19 2/28/2018 3:25 1.3 7:35 2.6 1.7 3:20 6.7 19:20 10.2 8.8 3:20 0.157 7:35 0.623 0.318 0.318 0.35 ReportAvg 1.8 8.9 0.337 ReportTotal 9.447 2.84 ADS Environmental Services Pipe Height: 8.00 REN_MH0537\mp1\DFINAL (inches) REN_MH0537\mp1\VFINAL (feet/sec) REN_MH0537\mp1\QFINAL (MGD - Total MG) REN_RG\mp1\RAIN (inches) Date Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Total Total 3/1/2018 3:55 1.3 20:55 2.6 1.7 3:30 6.7 6:55 10.3 8.8 3:30 0.159 6:55 0.655 0.324 0.324 0.01 3/2/2018 4:00 1.3 7:20 2.5 1.7 3:15 7.1 7:50 10.1 8.8 4:00 0.172 7:20 0.609 0.316 0.316 0.07 3/3/2018 2:10 1.3 11:25 2.6 1.7 4:55 6.6 9:45 10.4 8.8 5:50 0.157 9:15 0.652 0.320 0.320 0.00 3/4/2018 5:25 1.3 21:35 2.7 1.7 5:15 6.8 11:45 10.2 8.7 5:15 0.156 11:45 0.667 0.315 0.315 0.12 3/5/2018 1:55 1.3 19:30 2.6 1.7 4:00 6.6 19:30 10.4 8.8 4:50 0.154 19:30 0.658 0.322 0.322 0.00 3/6/2018 3:40 1.3 20:35 2.6 1.7 3:40 6.7 20:35 10.4 8.8 3:40 0.154 20:35 0.677 0.317 0.317 0.00 3/7/2018 2:30 1.3 7:50 2.6 1.7 3:25 6.9 7:25 10.1 8.8 3:25 0.166 7:50 0.648 0.324 0.324 0.03 3/8/2018 4:25 1.3 21:55 2.5 1.7 4:25 6.8 6:50 10.1 8.7 4:25 0.155 21:55 0.602 0.319 0.319 0.37 3/9/2018 2:55 1.3 8:05 2.6 1.7 2:50 6.9 8:00 10.2 8.7 2:50 0.164 8:00 0.642 0.323 0.323 0.00 3/10/2018 4:25 1.3 10:25 2.6 1.7 5:20 6.6 10:30 10.1 8.7 5:20 0.155 10:25 0.654 0.319 0.319 0.00 3/11/2018 5:30 1.3 18:50 2.5 1.7 4:25 6.6 20:50 10.1 8.5 5:30 0.148 18:50 0.588 0.298 0.298 0.00 3/12/2018 4:25 1.2 20:25 2.4 1.7 2:25 6.6 20:50 10.0 8.6 2:25 0.150 20:25 0.584 0.302 0.302 0.00 3/13/2018 2:45 1.3 18:20 2.7 1.7 2:40 6.5 18:20 10.4 8.6 2:40 0.149 18:20 0.709 0.303 0.303 0.31 3/14/2018 3:50 1.3 21:45 2.5 1.7 2:00 6.4 7:25 10.2 8.5 3:50 0.148 7:25 0.583 0.297 0.297 0.04 3/15/2018 3:45 1.3 19:10 2.4 1.7 2:40 6.3 12:20 10.0 8.5 2:40 0.151 19:10 0.551 0.306 0.306 0.00 3/16/2018 2:50 1.3 6:45 2.5 1.7 2:30 6.5 7:45 9.9 8.5 2:50 0.147 6:45 0.574 0.300 0.300 0.00 3/17/2018 1:50 1.2 9:10 2.6 1.7 2:55 6.4 8:15 10.1 8.5 2:55 0.145 9:10 0.650 0.303 0.303 0.00 3/18/2018 4:45 1.3 20:25 2.7 1.7 4:35 6.5 17:45 10.0 8.5 4:35 0.149 20:25 0.652 0.300 0.300 0.00 3/19/2018 5:00 1.2 6:50 2.4 1.6 3:00 6.5 6:50 10.0 8.5 3:00 0.148 6:50 0.569 0.290 0.290 0.00 3/20/2018 4:50 1.3 19:10 2.5 1.6 2:40 6.6 6:45 10.3 8.6 2:40 0.150 19:10 0.630 0.294 0.294 0.00 3/21/2018 22:25 1.2 7:45 2.5 1.6 2:35 6.5 5:40 10.2 8.6 2:35 0.147 18:00 0.589 0.291 0.291 0.10 3/22/2018 2:35 1.3 19:15 2.6 1.7 2:40 6.4 7:35 10.2 8.7 2:30 0.148 19:15 0.659 0.312 0.312 0.48 3/23/2018 2:15 1.3 6:35 2.3 1.7 2:05 6.6 8:05 10.1 8.7 2:05 0.152 8:05 0.547 0.308 0.308 0.31 3/24/2018 3:20 1.3 9:35 2.6 1.7 2:25 6.7 9:40 9.9 8.6 3:20 0.156 9:35 0.631 0.307 0.307 0.28 3/25/2018 5:25 1.3 8:10 2.6 1.7 5:15 6.7 7:30 10.2 8.6 5:25 0.154 8:10 0.636 0.303 0.303 0.01 3/26/2018 2:45 1.3 18:20 2.8 1.7 2:45 6.6 20:30 10.3 8.7 2:45 0.150 18:20 0.698 0.308 0.308 0.17 3/27/2018 5:05 1.2 20:45 2.6 1.7 5:05 6.6 5:50 10.4 8.7 5:05 0.141 20:45 0.633 0.311 0.311 0.02 3/28/2018 0:45 1.3 19:40 2.6 1.7 2:45 6.7 19:40 10.2 8.7 2:45 0.153 19:40 0.640 0.311 0.311 0.01 3/29/2018 4:15 1.3 6:15 2.6 1.7 3:10 6.6 6:15 10.2 8.6 4:15 0.152 6:15 0.648 0.310 0.310 0.00 3/30/2018 3:20 1.3 20:55 2.4 1.7 3:30 6.5 8:05 9.9 8.5 2:25 0.152 8:05 0.571 0.303 0.303 0.00 3/31/2018 4:20 1.3 10:25 2.5 1.7 3:15 6.6 7:45 10.0 8.6 4:20 0.149 7:45 0.603 0.312 0.312 0.00 ReportAvg 1.7 8.6 0.309 ReportTotal 9.569 2.33 ADS Environmental Services Pipe Height: 8.00 REN_MH0537\mp1\DFINAL (inches) REN_MH0537\mp1\VFINAL (feet/sec) REN_MH0537\mp1\QFINAL (MGD - Total MG) REN_RG\mp1\RAIN (inches) Date Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Total Total 4/1/2018 4:00 1.3 8:40 2.7 1.7 4:15 6.5 8:15 9.9 8.6 4:15 0.150 8:40 0.673 0.318 0.318 0.10 4/2/2018 4:00 1.3 7:35 2.4 1.7 2:55 6.4 7:35 10.0 8.6 4:00 0.158 7:35 0.584 0.304 0.304 0.00 4/3/2018 3:50 1.3 18:15 2.4 1.7 2:30 6.4 19:15 10.0 8.5 3:50 0.155 18:15 0.582 0.300 0.300 0.00 4/4/2018 1:20 1.3 18:00 2.5 1.7 2:25 6.6 20:30 10.0 8.6 1:20 0.156 18:00 0.586 0.302 0.302 0.39 4/5/2018 4:05 1.3 6:40 2.5 1.7 2:55 6.5 6:40 10.0 8.5 4:05 0.160 6:40 0.591 0.298 0.298 0.25 4/6/2018 2:00 1.3 8:15 2.5 1.6 3:00 6.7 7:20 10.0 8.6 2:00 0.155 8:15 0.604 0.294 0.294 0.00 4/7/2018 1:40 1.2 10:10 2.7 1.7 1:40 6.8 10:40 10.0 8.8 1:40 0.147 10:10 0.645 0.320 0.320 0.88 4/8/2018 1:50 1.3 10:45 2.6 1.7 2:45 6.9 18:55 9.9 8.7 2:45 0.162 9:10 0.627 0.316 0.316 0.45 4/9/2018 2:50 1.3 18:50 2.5 1.7 2:45 6.8 18:50 10.2 8.7 2:45 0.161 18:50 0.616 0.311 0.311 0.00 4/10/2018 5:20 1.3 22:10 2.6 1.6 2:35 6.8 17:20 10.3 8.5 2:50 0.159 22:10 0.628 0.295 0.295 0.23 4/11/2018 5:05 1.3 19:10 2.5 1.7 2:25 6.7 6:50 10.2 8.7 2:25 0.158 19:10 0.609 0.311 0.311 0.31 4/12/2018 4:40 1.3 6:40 2.5 1.7 2:10 7.0 6:45 10.2 8.7 4:40 0.164 6:40 0.606 0.303 0.303 0.11 4/13/2018 4:15 1.3 14:45 2.6 1.7 1:40 6.8 14:45 10.2 8.8 1:45 0.166 14:45 0.651 0.311 0.311 0.51 4/14/2018 4:25 1.3 19:50 2.8 1.7 23:35 7.2 22:25 10.5 8.9 23:35 0.171 19:50 0.712 0.325 0.325 1.52 4/15/2018 18:40 1.4 14:00 2.7 1.7 18:40 7.8 21:30 10.4 9.0 18:40 0.213 21:30 0.688 0.330 0.330 0.21 4/16/2018 6:30 1.4 19:45 2.6 1.8 6:30 7.5 6:50 10.4 9.2 6:30 0.189 19:45 0.652 0.357 0.357 0.71 4/17/2018 19:40 1.3 6:05 2.7 1.8 19:40 7.0 6:45 10.4 9.1 19:40 0.162 6:45 0.700 0.341 0.341 0.01 4/18/2018 20:15 1.3 8:00 2.6 1.7 20:15 7.1 19:30 10.4 9.0 20:15 0.166 8:00 0.660 0.332 0.332 0.12 4/19/2018 20:45 1.3 6:30 2.5 1.7 20:45 7.2 6:30 10.5 9.0 20:45 0.173 6:30 0.652 0.330 0.330 0.00 4/20/2018 3:15 1.3 8:30 2.4 1.7 1:20 7.5 6:55 10.5 9.1 1:20 0.186 8:30 0.599 0.333 0.333 0.00 4/21/2018 12:00 1.2 8:20 2.5 1.7 12:00 6.7 7:05 10.4 9.0 12:00 0.146 8:20 0.635 0.322 0.322 0.05 4/22/2018 13:25 1.3 12:40 2.6 1.7 13:25 6.9 8:50 10.3 8.8 13:25 0.159 12:40 0.623 0.313 0.313 0.00 ReportAvg 1.7 8.8 0.317 ReportTotal 6.964 5.85 REN_MH1360 Located At: Intersection of Ferndale and 7th St (see attached site report for details) Monitoring Period: December 22, 2017 – April 22, 2018 Pipe Dimensions: 10.75” Finalized Silt Level: 0 mm Site Data Characteristics: This site is located in a sanitary sewer pipe. The scattergraph indicates site operated in free flow conditions. The site did not surcharge during the monitoring period. The dry weather data plots above the Froude =1 curve indicating supercritical flow. Site Data Bias & Editing: The depth and velocity measurements recorded by the flow monitor were consistent with field confirmations conducted to date and supported the relative accuracy of the flow monitor at this location. The finalized depth data utilized the upward ultrasonic sensor. Site Data Uptime: The data uptime achieved during the monitoring period is provided in the table below. Based upon the quality and consistency of the observed flow depth and velocity data, the Continuity equation was used to calculate the flow rate for the monitoring period. Entity Percentage Uptime Raw Percentage Uptime Final Depth (in) 100% 98% Velocity (f/s) 100% 98% Quantity (mgd) 100% 98% Site Data Summary: The average flow depth, velocity, and quantity data observed during the monitoring period along with observed minimum and maximum data, are provided in the following table. The minimum and maximum rates recorded in the tables are based on 5‐minute data intervals. Item Depth (in) Velocity (f/s) Quantity (mgd) % Full Minimum 1.49 2.26 0.082 14% Maximum 5.28 5.41 1.013 49% Average 2.75 3.86 0.338 26% Latitude: 47.494057° Longitude:-122.183210° Pipe Condition: Single Good Manhole Pick / Vent Hole Manhole Condition: No Concrete 20'' NormalUnbolted 20'' 0 Downlooker Physical Offset (in)Measurement Confidence (in) 1.25'' Peak Velocity (fps) Silt (in) ~8' Installation Confirmation: Manhole Opening Diameter (in) Silt Type Hydraulic Comments: Renton.Carollo.I&I.WA17 Medium Drive Site Access Details: Site Address /Location: Site Name Intersection of Ferndale Pl NE and NE 7th St 0 - 5 psi Installation Information Circular Monitor Series Monitor Location: Doppler Standard Ring and Crank Manhole # Installation Date: 12.13.17 Upstream 0-5 FT Manhole MH1360 Other Map Flow Monitoring Site Report Temporary 10.75'' x 10.75'' REN_MH1360 Access Traffic TRITON+ System Characteristics Location Type Pipe ShapeLocated in roadway, at intersection. Requires traffic control. Sensors / Devices: 10.75'' x 10.75'' 0.25" Manhole / Pipe Information: Installation Type: Pressure Sensor Range (psi) Confirmation Time: Site Sketch Profile View or Photo Pipe Size (H x W) Topside / Area Photo Peak Combo (CS4), Smart Depth (CS5) Pipe Size (HxW) 9:20:00 AM Monitoring Location (Sensors): Depth of Flow (Wet DOF) (in)Range (Air DOF) (in) ~2.00'' Velocity Sensor Offset (in) 2.5 FPS Site Sketch Plan View or Photo Additional Site Info. / Comments: Site located in roadway. Traffic control required. Low, fast flow Good Antenna Location Communication Information: Active Drop Connections Air Quality: Communication Type Normal 22275.11.325 ADS Project Name: ADS Project Number: Renton.Carollo.I&I.WA17 Manhole Cover Manhole Frame Manhole Material: Manhole Diameter (Approx.): Manhole Depth (Approx. FT):Manhole Configuration Concrete Wireless Pipe Material Additional Photos Flow Direction Monitoring Point Upstream Downstream Overflow Top Down Location Location ADS Environmental Services Pipe Height: 10.75 REN_MH1360\mp1\DFINAL (inches) REN_MH1360\mp1\VFINAL (feet/sec) REN_MH1360\mp1\QFINAL (MGD - Total MG) REN_RG\mp1\RAIN (inches) Date Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Total Total 12/22/2017 3:40 2.2 12:00 2.8 2.5 3:40 2.9 12:00 4.3 4.0 3:40 0.170 12:00 0.365 0.293 0.293 0.10 12/23/2017 4:45 2.1 12:35 2.9 2.4 2:50 2.9 9:45 4.3 3.9 2:50 0.167 12:35 0.391 0.274 0.274 0.00 12/24/2017 4:30 2.0 15:25 3.0 2.4 3:40 2.7 11:25 4.2 3.7 4:35 0.144 11:25 0.366 0.257 0.257 0.00 12/25/2017 5:05 1.9 14:30 2.8 2.3 4:40 2.6 14:30 4.1 3.6 5:15 0.131 14:30 0.340 0.234 0.234 0.14 12/26/2017 2:55 1.9 18:15 2.7 2.3 2:50 2.6 12:45 4.1 3.6 2:50 0.128 18:15 0.317 0.237 0.237 0.17 12/27/2017 4:15 1.9 20:20 2.7 2.3 3:55 2.5 18:20 4.0 3.5 3:55 0.120 20:20 0.308 0.223 0.223 0.00 12/28/2017 4:10 1.9 18:40 2.6 2.3 2:30 2.5 18:25 4.0 3.5 4:15 0.122 18:25 0.293 0.228 0.228 0.25 12/29/2017 0:40 2.2 15:15 4.9 3.9 0:35 3.0 15:00 5.1 4.5 0:35 0.190 15:05 0.924 0.635 0.635 1.57 12/30/2017 23:55 3.2 0:00 4.0 3.6 3:00 4.3 0:20 4.9 4.6 23:55 0.447 0:30 0.663 0.547 0.547 0.02 12/31/2017 5:20 2.8 10:45 3.4 3.1 5:50 3.7 14:15 4.7 4.3 5:50 0.316 11:55 0.525 0.423 0.423 0.00 ReportAvg 2.7 3.9 0.335 ReportTotal 3.351 2.25 ADS Environmental Services Pipe Height: 10.75 REN_MH1360\mp1\DFINAL (inches) REN_MH1360\mp1\VFINAL (feet/sec) REN_MH1360\mp1\QFINAL (MGD - Total MG) REN_RG\mp1\RAIN (inches) Date Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Total Total 1/1/2018 23:55 2.5 13:10 3.2 2.8 4:25 3.3 13:10 4.4 4.1 4:25 0.248 13:10 0.452 0.351 0.351 0.00 1/2/2018 3:35 2.3 19:30 2.9 2.6 2:20 3.3 21:55 4.3 4.0 3:55 0.214 19:30 0.383 0.307 0.307 0.01 1/3/2018 3:50 2.2 10:50 3.3 2.5 3:30 2.9 10:50 4.6 3.9 3:30 0.172 10:50 0.485 0.284 0.284 0.00 1/4/2018 2:55 2.1 11:40 3.8 2.5 3:20 2.7 11:40 4.9 3.8 3:20 0.153 11:40 0.630 0.285 0.285 0.09 1/5/2018 3:20 2.1 20:05 2.8 2.5 3:55 2.8 12:45 4.1 3.7 3:55 0.155 20:05 0.334 0.265 0.265 0.42 1/6/2018 3:00 2.3 11:55 3.2 2.8 4:00 2.9 10:15 4.3 3.9 4:00 0.181 11:55 0.442 0.329 0.329 0.24 1/7/2018 4:45 2.4 19:25 3.4 2.9 3:55 3.0 19:10 4.5 3.9 3:55 0.199 19:25 0.492 0.352 0.352 0.38 1/8/2018 4:10 2.7 19:15 3.3 3.0 4:00 3.3 20:15 4.4 4.1 4:00 0.267 19:10 0.445 0.380 0.380 0.14 1/9/2018 0:05 2.9 10:15 4.0 3.3 3:25 3.5 10:15 4.8 4.3 3:25 0.305 10:15 0.667 0.446 0.446 0.46 1/10/2018 10:50 2.8 14:10 3.8 3.1 3:25 3.7 14:10 4.7 4.2 3:25 0.319 14:10 0.596 0.414 0.414 0.22 1/11/2018 1:50 2.8 14:15 4.8 3.9 2:05 3.7 14:10 5.2 4.7 2:05 0.305 14:10 0.900 0.645 0.645 1.04 1/12/2018 23:55 3.6 0:00 4.2 3.9 23:35 4.6 7:30 5.0 4.8 23:50 0.562 7:50 0.716 0.640 0.640 0.20 1/13/2018 23:55 3.3 11:20 3.8 3.5 6:05 4.2 13:10 4.8 4.6 6:05 0.461 11:20 0.606 0.536 0.536 0.02 1/14/2018 5:00 3.0 10:50 3.6 3.2 5:05 3.8 11:30 4.7 4.4 5:05 0.348 10:35 0.558 0.453 0.453 0.00 1/15/2018 3:35 2.7 19:45 3.3 3.0 2:40 3.5 13:45 4.5 4.2 2:40 0.280 19:45 0.465 0.396 0.396 0.04 1/16/2018 4:25 2.5 19:10 3.2 2.9 2:45 3.6 9:45 4.4 4.1 2:45 0.276 20:35 0.435 0.364 0.364 0.26 1/17/2018 3:15 2.4 21:15 3.9 3.0 1:55 3.3 21:05 4.8 4.2 3:30 0.236 21:05 0.636 0.394 0.394 0.79 1/18/2018 2:35 3.3 7:05 4.1 3.8 2:20 4.1 10:30 4.9 4.7 2:20 0.438 7:00 0.687 0.595 0.595 0.40 1/19/2018 23:55 3.2 8:20 3.7 3.5 3:40 4.1 6:40 4.7 4.5 23:55 0.426 8:20 0.574 0.509 0.509 0.10 1/20/2018 3:05 3.0 11:05 3.5 3.2 6:00 3.8 11:10 4.6 4.3 6:00 0.347 11:10 0.535 0.448 0.448 0.10 1/21/2018 5:35 2.8 11:50 3.5 3.1 4:00 3.6 10:35 4.6 4.2 4:00 0.306 11:50 0.523 0.421 0.421 0.16 1/22/2018 1:45 2.7 7:40 3.4 3.1 3:10 3.5 19:00 4.5 4.2 3:10 0.285 7:40 0.501 0.415 0.415 0.34 1/23/2018 3:05 2.7 20:25 4.3 3.4 2:55 3.5 19:25 4.8 4.3 2:55 0.287 19:25 0.717 0.484 0.484 0.79 1/24/2018 4:15 3.9 20:50 4.7 4.3 3:30 4.3 21:50 4.8 4.6 3:30 0.576 20:25 0.830 0.700 0.700 0.51 1/25/2018 23:55 3.7 7:35 4.3 4.0 2:00 4.2 9:05 4.9 4.6 23:50 0.553 9:05 0.729 0.646 0.646 0.14 1/26/2018 3:55 3.4 18:55 3.9 3.7 4:55 4.1 17:15 4.7 4.5 4:55 0.444 19:35 0.628 0.559 0.559 0.36 1/27/2018 0:15 3.7 12:15 4.9 4.4 0:25 4.5 10:45 5.0 4.8 0:25 0.555 11:15 0.893 0.759 0.759 0.61 1/28/2018 23:55 3.6 11:45 4.3 3.9 4:25 4.4 10:30 4.8 4.6 23:55 0.542 11:45 0.723 0.631 0.631 0.07 1/29/2018 3:55 3.3 19:15 5.3 4.2 3:05 4.1 16:35 5.1 4.7 3:05 0.443 18:35 1.013 0.699 0.699 0.90 1/30/2018 23:55 3.7 0:00 4.6 4.2 23:40 4.6 5:30 4.9 4.7 23:45 0.573 0:00 0.808 0.693 0.693 0.00 1/31/2018 23:50 3.3 7:40 3.8 3.6 3:35 4.1 17:40 4.7 4.5 23:45 0.450 7:40 0.607 0.538 0.538 0.00 ReportAvg 3.4 4.3 0.482 ReportTotal 14.94 8.79 ADS Environmental Services Pipe Height: 10.75 REN_MH1360\mp1\DFINAL (inches) REN_MH1360\mp1\VFINAL (feet/sec) REN_MH1360\mp1\QFINAL (MGD - Total MG) REN_RG\mp1\RAIN (inches) Date Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Total Total 2/1/2018 3:15 3.0 21:40 4.1 3.4 3:50 3.8 21:45 4.8 4.4 3:50 0.357 21:45 0.687 0.490 0.490 0.66 2/2/2018 23:45 3.5 8:00 4.0 3.7 16:30 4.0 8:05 4.7 4.5 23:55 0.500 8:05 0.642 0.570 0.570 0.04 2/3/2018 3:30 3.1 20:25 3.9 3.6 5:40 4.0 10:05 4.6 4.3 5:40 0.402 19:55 0.588 0.513 0.513 0.31 2/4/2018 23:55 3.3 12:05 4.0 3.6 4:55 4.0 11:40 4.7 4.3 4:55 0.433 12:05 0.646 0.528 0.528 0.02 2/5/2018 3:15 3.0 19:00 3.6 3.3 3:10 3.5 10:10 4.4 4.1 3:10 0.330 19:05 0.522 0.440 0.440 0.04 2/6/2018 3:40 2.8 10:35 3.8 3.1 3:25 3.4 10:40 4.3 4.0 3:25 0.286 10:40 0.558 0.388 0.388 0.00 2/7/2018 3:10 2.6 21:05 3.3 2.9 3:15 3.2 20:10 4.2 3.8 3:15 0.246 20:55 0.433 0.343 0.343 0.00 2/8/2018 3:45 2.5 20:40 3.2 2.8 2:45 3.2 9:05 4.1 3.8 3:35 0.232 20:40 0.403 0.324 0.324 0.09 2/9/2018 4:05 2.4 10:15 3.0 2.7 3:20 3.1 18:20 4.0 3.6 3:20 0.214 7:35 0.364 0.301 0.301 0.01 2/10/2018 4:35 2.3 11:00 3.1 2.7 4:20 3.0 11:15 4.0 3.6 4:20 0.196 11:15 0.392 0.293 0.293 0.01 2/11/2018 5:00 2.3 12:05 3.1 2.7 5:15 2.9 11:45 4.0 3.6 5:15 0.186 11:50 0.386 0.293 0.293 0.00 2/12/2018 3:30 2.1 20:20 2.9 2.5 2:10 2.7 20:25 3.9 3.5 3:35 0.157 20:20 0.351 0.253 0.253 0.00 2/13/2018 2:30 2.0 19:40 2.8 2.5 3:10 2.7 18:25 3.9 3.5 2:30 0.145 21:20 0.326 0.247 0.247 0.17 2/14/2018 4:25 2.1 19:30 2.8 2.5 3:10 2.9 6:40 3.9 3.5 3:10 0.170 19:15 0.314 0.251 0.251 0.15 2/15/2018 2:20 2.0 21:05 2.8 2.4 2:55 2.7 17:00 3.9 3.5 2:55 0.142 19:00 0.321 0.239 0.239 0.00 2/16/2018 2:15 2.0 19:55 2.7 2.4 1:10 2.7 19:45 3.9 3.5 3:40 0.150 19:50 0.316 0.238 0.238 0.15 2/17/2018 3:00 2.0 10:55 3.1 2.6 3:10 2.6 10:30 4.1 3.6 3:10 0.138 10:30 0.397 0.272 0.272 0.32 2/18/2018 4:10 2.1 10:45 3.0 2.5 4:10 2.7 10:35 4.1 3.5 4:10 0.150 10:35 0.370 0.254 0.254 0.01 2/19/2018 3:45 2.0 19:20 2.9 2.4 3:45 2.5 11:05 3.9 3.5 3:45 0.129 19:20 0.337 0.240 0.240 0.00 2/20/2018 2:50 1.9 19:35 2.7 2.3 2:45 2.5 19:10 4.0 3.5 2:45 0.119 19:10 0.298 0.223 0.223 0.00 2/21/2018 3:35 1.9 20:30 2.6 2.3 3:55 2.4 7:00 3.9 3.4 3:55 0.114 20:30 0.289 0.219 0.219 0.00 2/22/2018 3:50 1.8 19:10 2.6 2.3 3:15 2.4 20:40 3.8 3.4 3:15 0.111 19:10 0.282 0.212 0.212 0.07 2/23/2018 2:15 1.8 17:45 2.5 2.2 4:05 2.5 17:40 3.8 3.4 4:05 0.110 17:40 0.271 0.208 0.208 0.01 2/24/2018 4:30 1.8 10:40 2.7 2.3 3:55 2.4 10:35 3.8 3.4 3:50 0.109 10:35 0.307 0.212 0.212 0.13 2/25/2018 3:55 1.8 11:25 2.7 2.3 4:40 2.5 9:50 3.9 3.4 4:40 0.114 10:20 0.315 0.226 0.226 0.11 2/26/2018 3:20 1.8 19:00 2.6 2.2 3:40 2.3 19:45 3.9 3.3 3:40 0.100 19:45 0.285 0.203 0.203 0.00 2/27/2018 3:15 1.7 19:50 2.6 2.2 2:25 2.3 18:10 3.9 3.3 2:25 0.099 19:50 0.294 0.204 0.204 0.19 2/28/2018 3:10 1.8 19:15 2.9 2.3 3:55 2.3 21:00 4.0 3.4 3:50 0.105 19:15 0.336 0.222 0.222 0.35 ReportAvg 2.7 3.7 0.300 ReportTotal 8.405 2.84 ADS Environmental Services Pipe Height: 10.75 REN_MH1360\mp1\DFINAL (inches) REN_MH1360\mp1\VFINAL (feet/sec) REN_MH1360\mp1\QFINAL (MGD - Total MG) REN_RG\mp1\RAIN (inches) Date Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Total Total 3/1/2018 4:10 1.9 21:10 2.7 2.4 2:35 2.6 20:45 4.0 3.5 2:35 0.130 20:45 0.314 0.234 0.234 0.01 3/2/2018 1:40 1.9 20:00 2.7 2.3 1:30 2.6 18:45 4.0 3.5 1:30 0.133 20:00 0.309 0.232 0.232 0.07 3/3/2018 3:55 1.9 10:40 2.8 2.3 2:25 2.6 10:40 4.1 3.5 3:20 0.128 10:40 0.341 0.231 0.231 0.00 3/4/2018 4:45 1.8 10:25 2.8 2.3 4:50 2.4 10:30 4.0 3.5 4:50 0.107 10:30 0.326 0.228 0.228 0.12 3/5/2018 4:05 1.8 21:15 2.6 2.2 2:50 2.4 21:40 3.9 3.4 2:50 0.110 21:15 0.284 0.214 0.214 0.00 3/6/2018 3:05 1.8 21:05 2.6 2.2 1:45 2.3 21:05 3.9 3.4 1:45 0.105 21:05 0.293 0.209 0.209 0.00 3/7/2018 3:15 1.8 19:15 2.6 2.2 4:00 2.4 7:35 3.9 3.4 4:00 0.108 19:50 0.285 0.207 0.207 0.03 3/8/2018 4:10 1.8 21:15 2.7 2.2 2:20 2.3 22:00 3.9 3.4 2:20 0.104 21:15 0.301 0.209 0.209 0.37 3/9/2018 3:35 1.8 7:40 2.5 2.2 2:45 2.5 19:00 3.9 3.5 2:45 0.117 7:40 0.281 0.214 0.214 0.00 3/10/2018 3:55 1.8 9:40 2.6 2.2 3:05 2.3 10:25 3.9 3.5 4:05 0.102 10:35 0.295 0.214 0.214 0.00 3/11/2018 4:45 1.7 11:50 2.6 2.2 3:15 2.3 18:45 4.0 3.4 4:45 0.099 11:30 0.295 0.215 0.215 0.00 3/12/2018 3:10 1.7 19:05 2.6 2.2 2:50 2.4 19:55 3.9 3.4 2:50 0.100 19:05 0.289 0.200 0.200 0.00 3/13/2018 2:20 1.7 18:55 2.7 2.2 2:05 2.3 17:35 3.9 3.4 2:05 0.097 20:10 0.297 0.201 0.201 0.31 3/14/2018 1:35 1.7 19:55 2.6 2.2 2:00 2.3 20:35 3.9 3.4 2:00 0.096 19:55 0.285 0.200 0.200 0.04 3/15/2018 1:30 1.7 19:45 2.5 2.1 1:30 2.4 19:45 3.9 3.4 1:30 0.100 19:45 0.279 0.200 0.200 0.00 3/16/2018 1:10 1.7 17:35 2.4 2.1 1:25 2.5 7:40 3.8 3.4 1:25 0.106 17:35 0.254 0.194 0.194 0.00 3/17/2018 3:10 1.7 11:05 2.7 2.2 3:00 2.5 10:50 3.8 3.3 3:00 0.104 11:05 0.295 0.198 0.198 0.00 3/18/2018 3:45 1.7 10:25 2.6 2.2 4:25 2.4 10:25 3.9 3.3 4:25 0.097 10:25 0.298 0.198 0.198 0.00 3/19/2018 0:25 1.7 19:25 2.5 2.1 23:50 2.5 20:25 3.8 3.4 23:50 0.110 19:25 0.273 0.192 0.192 0.00 3/20/2018 2:55 1.6 20:05 2.5 2.0 2:05 2.4 20:40 3.8 3.3 2:05 0.095 20:05 0.273 0.180 0.180 0.00 3/21/2018 3:05 1.6 13:00 2.7 2.1 3:45 2.4 9:55 4.0 3.4 1:20 0.093 13:00 0.324 0.191 0.191 0.10 3/22/2018 1:50 1.6 6:35 2.5 2.1 2:45 2.3 6:35 3.9 3.4 2:45 0.091 6:35 0.278 0.192 0.192 0.48 3/23/2018 2:55 1.7 17:55 2.5 2.2 3:15 2.5 9:20 4.0 3.5 3:15 0.099 9:40 0.288 0.207 0.207 0.31 3/24/2018 2:45 1.7 9:25 2.8 2.3 2:35 2.5 10:05 4.1 3.6 2:35 0.106 9:30 0.343 0.227 0.227 0.28 3/25/2018 4:20 1.7 9:25 2.8 2.3 2:40 2.5 9:30 4.1 3.6 2:40 0.110 9:25 0.341 0.229 0.229 0.01 3/26/2018 2:40 1.7 20:40 2.6 2.2 3:45 2.5 6:25 4.0 3.5 3:45 0.112 20:40 0.297 0.214 0.214 0.17 3/27/2018 3:15 1.7 19:45 2.5 2.2 3:30 2.6 18:25 4.0 3.5 3:30 0.110 21:00 0.287 0.209 0.209 0.02 3/28/2018 3:00 1.7 19:30 2.6 2.2 1:50 2.5 20:25 3.9 3.5 1:50 0.107 19:15 0.286 0.206 0.206 0.01 3/29/2018 3:05 1.7 19:55 2.6 2.1 3:10 2.4 18:10 4.0 3.4 3:10 0.098 19:55 0.280 0.197 0.197 0.00 3/30/2018 2:45 1.7 18:05 2.4 2.1 3:15 2.5 7:00 3.9 3.4 2:20 0.102 18:05 0.259 0.191 0.191 0.00 3/31/2018 2:55 1.6 11:15 2.7 2.1 2:55 2.3 11:15 3.9 3.4 2:55 0.090 11:15 0.306 0.200 0.200 0.00 ReportAvg 2.2 3.4 0.208 ReportTotal 6.433 2.33 ADS Environmental Services Pipe Height: 10.75 REN_MH1360\mp1\DFINAL (inches) REN_MH1360\mp1\VFINAL (feet/sec) REN_MH1360\mp1\QFINAL (MGD - Total MG) REN_RG\mp1\RAIN (inches) Date Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Total Total 4/1/2018 2:40 1.6 11:10 2.7 2.0 3:20 2.5 11:10 4.0 3.3 2:45 0.101 11:10 0.321 0.186 0.094 0.10 4/2/2018 -- 0.00 4/3/2018 -- 0.00 4/4/2018 23:50 1.6 20:15 2.7 2.2 23:55 2.7 18:50 4.0 3.5 23:55 0.104 20:15 0.304 0.206 0.171 0.39 4/5/2018 1:10 1.5 19:15 2.7 2.1 1:20 2.4 19:10 4.0 3.3 1:10 0.082 19:15 0.316 0.196 0.196 0.25 4/6/2018 3:05 1.6 6:50 2.6 2.1 3:05 2.6 6:50 3.9 3.4 3:05 0.093 6:50 0.291 0.199 0.199 0.00 4/7/2018 1:15 1.7 9:50 3.0 2.4 1:15 2.7 11:40 4.1 3.7 1:15 0.110 9:50 0.373 0.263 0.263 0.88 4/8/2018 2:45 2.0 11:00 3.1 2.7 2:25 2.6 17:35 4.6 3.9 2:25 0.141 10:25 0.415 0.307 0.307 0.45 4/9/2018 3:05 2.2 20:20 2.9 2.5 2:20 3.1 18:05 4.2 3.9 2:20 0.188 18:05 0.369 0.290 0.290 0.00 4/10/2018 3:15 2.0 20:25 2.9 2.5 1:30 3.0 20:30 4.3 3.9 1:55 0.168 20:30 0.375 0.276 0.276 0.23 4/11/2018 1:30 2.0 21:30 2.8 2.5 1:05 2.9 21:15 4.2 3.8 1:05 0.162 21:15 0.349 0.271 0.271 0.31 4/12/2018 2:10 2.1 19:45 2.8 2.5 2:20 3.0 11:55 4.4 3.8 2:20 0.166 11:55 0.352 0.273 0.273 0.11 4/13/2018 1:55 2.0 18:25 2.9 2.5 0:40 2.8 18:30 4.2 3.8 0:40 0.155 18:30 0.364 0.281 0.281 0.51 4/14/2018 2:35 2.5 23:45 4.8 3.6 3:50 3.4 19:40 5.1 4.4 3:50 0.253 22:30 0.894 0.550 0.550 1.52 4/15/2018 23:50 3.7 9:15 4.8 4.5 22:40 4.8 10:05 5.2 5.1 23:55 0.596 9:20 0.921 0.817 0.817 0.21 4/16/2018 3:45 3.5 18:15 4.4 4.0 3:20 4.6 18:55 5.4 5.0 3:20 0.539 18:15 0.844 0.678 0.678 0.71 4/17/2018 23:55 3.2 5:45 4.1 3.8 23:50 4.5 5:40 5.2 5.0 23:55 0.467 5:45 0.735 0.630 0.630 0.01 4/18/2018 23:55 2.9 6:40 3.6 3.3 3:05 4.1 6:50 4.9 4.6 23:55 0.374 6:50 0.574 0.487 0.487 0.12 4/19/2018 23:40 2.6 7:15 3.3 3.0 23:40 3.9 6:50 4.7 4.4 23:40 0.293 6:50 0.493 0.407 0.407 0.00 4/20/2018 23:55 2.5 6:50 3.1 2.8 2:05 3.6 7:25 4.5 4.2 2:05 0.270 6:50 0.431 0.353 0.353 0.00 4/21/2018 2:30 2.3 10:20 3.0 2.6 3:20 3.3 8:05 4.4 4.0 3:20 0.216 10:25 0.403 0.316 0.316 0.05 4/22/2018 23:50 2.2 9:05 3.1 2.6 4:40 3.1 9:10 4.3 3.9 4:05 0.189 9:10 0.409 0.302 0.302 0.00 ReportAvg 2.8 4.1 0.370 ReportTotal 7.160 5.85 REN_MH1763 Located At: 3000 SE 5th St (see attached site report for details) Monitoring Period: December 22, 2017 – April 22, 2018 Pipe Dimensions: 15” Finalized Silt Level: 0 mm Site Data Characteristics: This site is located in a sanitary sewer pipe. The scattergraph indicates site operated in free flow conditions. The site did surcharge during the monitoring period. The dry weather data plots below the Froude =1 curve indicating subcritical flow. Site Data Bias & Editing: The depth and velocity measurements recorded by the flow monitor were consistent with field confirmations conducted to date and supported the relative accuracy of the flow monitor at this location. The finalized depth data utilized the pressure sensor. Site Data Uptime: The data uptime achieved during the monitoring period is provided in the table below. Based upon the quality and consistency of the observed flow depth and velocity data, the Continuity equation was used to calculate the flow rate for the monitoring period. Entity Percentage Uptime Raw Percentage Uptime Final Depth (in) 100% 98% Velocity (f/s) 100% 98% Quantity (mgd) 100% 98% Site Data Summary: The average flow depth, velocity, and quantity data observed during the monitoring period along with observed minimum and maximum data, are provided in the following table. The minimum and maximum rates recorded in the tables are based on 5‐minute data intervals. Item Depth (in) Velocity (f/s) Quantity (mgd) % Full Minimum 4.06 0.17 0.035 27% Maximum 17.41 0.95 0.749 100% Average 9.59 0.47 0.257 64% Latitude: 47.477311° Longitude:-122.179048° Site Sketch Plan View or Photo Additional Site Info. / Comments: Site located in roadway. Traffic control required. Moderate, slow flow Good Antenna Location Communication Information: Active Drop Connections Air Quality: Communication Type Normal 22275.11.325 ADS Project Name: ADS Project Number: Renton.Carollo.I&I.WA17 Manhole Cover Manhole Frame Manhole Material: Manhole Diameter (Approx.): Manhole Depth (Approx. FT):Manhole Configuration Concrete Wireless Pipe Material Located in roadway, at intersection. Requires traffic control. Sensors / Devices: 15.00'' x 15.00'' 0.25" Manhole / Pipe Information: Installation Type: Pressure Sensor Range (psi) Confirmation Time: Site Sketch Profile View or Photo Pipe Size (H x W) Topside / Area Photo Peak Combo (CS4), Smart Depth (CS5) Pipe Size (HxW) 3:17:00 PM Monitoring Location (Sensors): Depth of Flow (Wet DOF) (in)Range (Air DOF) (in) ~8.00'' Velocity Sensor Offset (in) .3 FPS Temporary 15.00'' x 15.00'' REN_MH1763 Access Traffic TRITON+ System Characteristics Location Type Pipe Shape Renton.Carollo.I&I.WA17 Medium Drive Site Access Details: Site Address /Location: Site Name 3000 SE 5th St 0 - 5 psi Installation Information Circular Monitor Series Monitor Location: Doppler Standard Ring and Crank Manhole # Installation Date: 12.13.17 Upstream 0-5 FT Manhole MH1763 Residential Map Flow Monitoring Site Report 0 Downlooker Physical Offset (in)Measurement Confidence (in) 1.25'' Peak Velocity (fps) Silt (in) ~8' Installation Confirmation: Manhole Opening Diameter (in) Silt Type Hydraulic Comments: Pipe Condition: Single Good Manhole Pick / Vent Hole Manhole Condition: No Concrete 20'' NormalUnbolted 20'' ADS Environmental Services Pipe Height: 15.00 REN_MH1763\mp1\DFINAL (inches) REN_MH1763\mp1\VFINAL (feet/sec) REN_MH1763\mp1\QFINAL (MGD - Total MG) Date Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Total 12/22/2017 4:10 6.8 11:45 12.3 10.0 16:40 0.2 8:10 0.6 0.4 22:30 0.133 11:45 0.305 0.193 0.193 12/23/2017 23:55 8.6 11:10 12.8 10.0 8:35 0.2 22:55 0.6 0.3 8:35 0.115 22:55 0.285 0.185 0.185 12/24/2017 5:05 6.0 11:50 12.7 9.1 15:00 0.2 22:15 0.7 0.4 4:55 0.090 11:55 0.355 0.188 0.188 12/25/2017 5:40 5.5 10:55 11.6 8.5 14:10 0.3 6:15 0.7 0.5 6:40 0.120 11:05 0.388 0.233 0.233 12/26/2017 4:55 5.7 12:20 12.1 8.8 14:10 0.2 3:00 0.6 0.4 7:20 0.098 9:40 0.241 0.171 0.171 12/27/2017 5:20 5.7 11:40 11.4 8.6 10:00 0.2 8:00 0.6 0.4 3:20 0.090 21:40 0.255 0.177 0.177 12/28/2017 4:25 5.4 11:40 11.6 8.5 11:50 0.2 21:55 0.6 0.4 5:25 0.094 12:25 0.305 0.195 0.195 12/29/2017 3:20 7.8 11:30 17.4 13.4 7:30 0.4 14:05 0.8 0.6 3:25 0.201 14:05 0.656 0.398 0.398 12/30/2017 23:55 10.1 11:40 14.6 12.5 14:35 0.3 0:15 0.6 0.4 22:50 0.168 0:15 0.444 0.298 0.298 12/31/2017 5:30 8.1 11:45 13.5 11.0 14:45 0.3 9:05 0.6 0.4 7:20 0.185 12:55 0.330 0.251 0.251 ReportAvg 10.1 0.4 0.229 ReportTotal 2.290 ADS Environmental Services Pipe Height: 15.00 REN_MH1763\mp1\DFINAL (inches) REN_MH1763\mp1\VFINAL (feet/sec) REN_MH1763\mp1\QFINAL (MGD - Total MG) Date Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Total 1/1/2018 23:55 8.8 12:25 13.1 10.9 20:00 0.3 23:10 0.6 0.4 23:45 0.169 12:25 0.303 0.241 0.241 1/2/2018 4:50 6.5 9:35 11.5 9.2 13:05 0.3 6:25 0.6 0.5 3:55 0.132 20:25 0.336 0.229 0.229 1/3/2018 5:05 6.3 21:20 12.2 9.8 15:05 0.2 5:55 0.6 0.4 5:15 0.128 23:25 0.303 0.201 0.201 1/4/2018 23:55 8.2 8:10 11.7 10.0 0:45 0.2 20:45 0.7 0.4 0:45 0.115 20:45 0.344 0.244 0.244 1/5/2018 4:50 5.7 9:35 11.5 8.9 10:30 0.4 19:55 0.7 0.6 4:05 0.151 19:30 0.357 0.275 0.275 1/6/2018 4:40 7.1 10:25 12.9 9.9 7:45 0.5 21:55 0.7 0.6 4:35 0.227 10:15 0.463 0.321 0.321 1/7/2018 5:30 6.8 10:30 12.7 10.0 11:30 0.3 4:40 0.7 0.5 11:30 0.203 10:40 0.454 0.282 0.282 1/8/2018 4:25 7.6 9:30 12.3 10.0 10:35 0.3 0:55 0.6 0.5 3:55 0.168 8:05 0.331 0.253 0.253 1/9/2018 1:35 8.5 8:30 13.0 10.4 12:20 0.3 6:00 0.6 0.5 0:00 0.175 7:45 0.370 0.285 0.285 1/10/2018 4:35 7.4 21:45 13.0 10.5 19:00 0.4 6:25 0.7 0.5 3:15 0.173 7:55 0.362 0.283 0.283 1/11/2018 4:35 10.2 14:40 16.0 13.2 1:15 0.3 19:45 0.8 0.5 5:40 0.184 19:45 0.612 0.394 0.394 1/12/2018 4:50 10.1 21:10 13.5 12.2 23:20 0.5 9:40 0.8 0.7 23:20 0.330 9:40 0.547 0.455 0.455 1/13/2018 23:50 10.0 10:40 14.1 12.0 1:20 0.5 23:10 0.7 0.6 6:15 0.294 11:05 0.492 0.384 0.384 1/14/2018 5:35 8.0 12:20 13.7 11.1 18:05 0.4 10:00 0.8 0.6 6:20 0.276 11:20 0.501 0.376 0.376 1/15/2018 23:55 9.2 11:40 12.9 11.0 10:30 0.4 21:00 0.8 0.6 4:05 0.238 11:35 0.455 0.349 0.349 1/16/2018 4:30 7.4 21:45 12.6 10.6 12:40 0.4 6:10 0.7 0.6 4:00 0.234 8:30 0.428 0.337 0.337 1/17/2018 4:45 9.6 21:10 13.4 11.3 8:40 0.4 18:45 0.8 0.5 3:20 0.235 21:05 0.514 0.342 0.342 1/18/2018 3:20 9.4 21:05 14.3 12.4 16:05 0.4 0:05 0.7 0.6 3:00 0.294 20:55 0.527 0.416 0.416 1/19/2018 23:55 9.8 9:10 13.9 11.9 11:45 0.5 19:55 0.8 0.6 4:20 0.331 9:10 0.486 0.412 0.412 1/20/2018 5:40 8.0 10:40 13.4 10.3 7:25 0.5 16:50 0.8 0.7 5:25 0.297 12:40 0.523 0.405 0.405 1/21/2018 5:35 7.4 12:25 13.4 10.8 17:50 0.3 10:10 0.8 0.6 17:50 0.230 19:40 0.524 0.384 0.384 1/22/2018 23:55 9.4 8:10 13.3 11.3 12:45 0.3 1:05 0.6 0.4 23:35 0.167 7:10 0.412 0.271 0.271 1/23/2018 4:40 7.5 21:15 12.8 10.7 1:10 0.4 21:00 0.9 0.6 4:05 0.159 21:00 0.633 0.381 0.381 1/24/2018 5:00 10.0 20:30 15.0 12.7 13:35 0.5 20:50 0.8 0.7 13:35 0.354 20:50 0.655 0.493 0.493 1/25/2018 23:55 10.2 8:10 14.2 12.5 8:25 0.5 21:45 0.9 0.7 5:10 0.398 8:05 0.592 0.486 0.486 1/26/2018 4:15 8.3 20:55 13.6 11.4 23:00 0.5 9:10 0.8 0.7 4:35 0.319 20:15 0.550 0.438 0.438 1/27/2018 23:55 11.1 11:15 15.8 13.5 22:35 0.4 12:40 0.9 0.7 22:35 0.294 12:40 0.675 0.525 0.525 1/28/2018 6:05 9.3 12:10 14.4 12.1 23:15 0.4 9:10 0.8 0.7 23:15 0.296 12:00 0.608 0.461 0.461 1/29/2018 4:30 10.5 15:40 15.2 12.8 10:05 0.4 18:30 0.9 0.6 1:45 0.297 18:30 0.749 0.467 0.467 1/30/2018 4:25 9.6 20:45 13.9 12.1 5:25 0.6 20:45 0.7 0.7 4:40 0.320 20:45 0.548 0.459 0.459 1/31/2018 23:55 9.6 8:20 13.6 11.6 23:40 0.7 8:20 0.7 0.7 23:40 0.351 8:20 0.528 0.438 0.438 ReportAvg 11.2 0.6 0.364 ReportTotal 11.29 ADS Environmental Services Pipe Height: 15.00 REN_MH1763\mp1\DFINAL (inches) REN_MH1763\mp1\VFINAL (feet/sec) REN_MH1763\mp1\QFINAL (MGD - Total MG) Date Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Total 2/1/2018 4:05 7.6 8:30 12.7 10.3 7:15 0.6 4:05 0.7 0.7 4:05 0.280 8:30 0.459 0.376 0.376 2/2/2018 3:50 8.9 11:15 12.8 10.9 16:00 0.6 0:00 0.6 0.6 3:50 0.310 11:15 0.426 0.369 0.369 2/3/2018 5:20 8.1 10:55 13.5 10.6 9:00 0.6 5:20 0.6 0.6 5:20 0.281 10:55 0.467 0.359 0.359 2/4/2018 4:55 8.3 10:45 13.8 10.8 12:15 0.6 4:55 0.6 0.6 4:55 0.288 10:45 0.484 0.366 0.366 2/5/2018 4:05 7.7 20:15 13.1 10.9 18:25 0.6 4:05 0.6 0.6 4:05 0.267 20:15 0.442 0.369 0.369 2/6/2018 15:30 8.9 0:00 11.6 9.9 6:20 0.6 15:30 0.6 0.6 17:55 0.301 7:20 0.394 0.338 0.338 2/7/2018 4:15 6.9 8:55 12.0 9.3 8:25 0.6 4:55 0.7 0.6 3:15 0.229 8:55 0.401 0.317 0.317 2/8/2018 4:15 6.4 9:00 12.2 9.2 13:05 0.5 7:15 0.8 0.6 4:15 0.212 9:00 0.439 0.316 0.316 2/9/2018 4:45 6.5 19:20 11.8 9.8 22:45 0.3 6:10 0.8 0.5 16:55 0.177 8:15 0.368 0.271 0.271 2/10/2018 23:55 8.1 0:00 11.0 9.3 6:05 0.2 22:10 0.6 0.4 6:05 0.096 13:35 0.316 0.214 0.214 2/11/2018 5:00 5.8 11:35 12.4 8.9 16:40 0.2 21:35 0.6 0.5 16:40 0.108 21:35 0.341 0.222 0.222 2/12/2018 4:40 5.5 9:25 11.2 8.5 12:45 0.3 6:55 0.6 0.4 2:55 0.086 21:25 0.276 0.189 0.189 2/13/2018 3:45 5.4 8:25 11.2 8.3 11:30 0.3 23:40 0.8 0.5 3:55 0.092 23:40 0.352 0.204 0.204 2/14/2018 5:05 5.6 8:20 11.4 8.5 11:15 0.2 22:45 0.7 0.4 3:55 0.100 22:45 0.336 0.199 0.199 2/15/2018 4:40 5.3 8:30 11.4 8.2 17:30 0.2 23:25 0.6 0.4 17:30 0.091 8:50 0.279 0.177 0.177 2/16/2018 3:40 5.4 8:25 11.3 9.3 11:25 0.3 5:30 0.6 0.4 2:50 0.119 8:35 0.294 0.219 0.219 2/17/2018 5:10 8.2 10:55 12.7 9.6 16:05 0.4 19:55 0.7 0.5 16:50 0.185 18:30 0.341 0.256 0.256 2/18/2018 5:55 6.1 11:20 12.5 9.1 18:35 0.3 0:00 0.6 0.5 5:35 0.124 12:50 0.403 0.235 0.235 2/19/2018 4:30 5.9 11:40 11.9 8.6 20:00 0.2 5:00 0.6 0.4 2:50 0.083 11:20 0.308 0.174 0.174 2/20/2018 4:40 5.5 10:10 11.8 8.4 0:10 0.2 5:55 0.6 0.4 0:10 0.074 10:15 0.359 0.197 0.197 2/21/2018 4:00 5.3 9:40 10.8 8.2 12:45 0.2 18:00 0.6 0.5 3:50 0.102 21:00 0.278 0.195 0.195 2/22/2018 4:10 5.2 11:40 10.9 8.1 13:35 0.2 0:40 0.6 0.4 3:25 0.087 20:45 0.274 0.193 0.193 2/23/2018 4:10 5.2 10:10 10.9 8.0 10:40 0.3 0:35 0.5 0.4 5:20 0.078 11:25 0.281 0.156 0.156 2/24/2018 4:35 5.3 11:00 11.9 8.3 20:35 0.3 9:50 0.4 0.4 4:05 0.077 11:00 0.246 0.160 0.160 2/25/2018 5:25 5.4 10:50 12.1 8.6 2:05 0.3 5:50 0.4 0.3 5:25 0.091 10:50 0.220 0.164 0.164 2/26/2018 4:35 5.3 21:10 11.6 9.2 21:00 0.3 0:55 0.4 0.3 4:35 0.090 21:10 0.211 0.170 0.170 2/27/2018 15:55 7.2 0:00 10.0 8.4 15:20 0.3 18:05 0.6 0.4 16:00 0.118 20:55 0.264 0.174 0.174 2/28/2018 3:45 5.3 8:30 11.1 8.2 3:15 0.3 19:50 0.5 0.4 3:15 0.071 9:45 0.249 0.156 0.156 ReportAvg 9.1 0.5 0.240 ReportTotal 6.734 ADS Environmental Services Pipe Height: 15.00 REN_MH1763\mp1\DFINAL (inches) REN_MH1763\mp1\VFINAL (feet/sec) REN_MH1763\mp1\QFINAL (MGD - Total MG) Date Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Total 3/1/2018 3:45 5.9 8:10 11.7 8.5 11:20 0.3 21:40 0.6 0.4 4:20 0.095 21:40 0.334 0.201 0.201 3/2/2018 4:25 5.7 8:55 11.6 8.4 7:30 0.3 19:40 0.7 0.5 3:55 0.087 19:40 0.336 0.223 0.223 3/3/2018 5:05 5.4 10:45 12.3 8.5 22:35 0.2 3:35 0.6 0.4 22:35 0.095 11:35 0.342 0.178 0.178 3/4/2018 5:15 4.6 10:50 11.5 8.1 2:45 0.2 10:50 0.5 0.4 5:15 0.047 10:50 0.308 0.182 0.182 3/5/2018 4:10 4.7 9:15 10.6 7.7 4:10 0.2 9:15 0.5 0.4 4:10 0.051 9:15 0.277 0.169 0.169 3/6/2018 4:00 4.6 8:40 10.7 7.5 4:00 0.2 8:40 0.5 0.4 4:00 0.046 8:40 0.280 0.163 0.163 3/7/2018 4:20 4.6 8:20 10.8 7.6 4:20 0.2 8:20 0.5 0.4 4:20 0.047 8:20 0.281 0.164 0.164 3/8/2018 4:15 4.6 8:35 11.0 7.6 4:15 0.2 19:40 0.5 0.4 4:15 0.046 8:35 0.290 0.161 0.161 3/9/2018 4:40 5.0 11:40 10.2 7.7 1:55 0.2 20:50 0.5 0.4 2:00 0.061 13:05 0.261 0.168 0.168 3/10/2018 5:25 4.7 9:40 11.1 7.8 7:25 0.2 0:35 0.5 0.4 4:25 0.069 9:35 0.292 0.173 0.173 3/11/2018 4:15 4.8 9:30 10.8 8.0 4:15 0.3 9:30 0.5 0.4 4:15 0.056 9:30 0.284 0.180 0.180 3/12/2018 3:55 4.7 8:25 10.6 7.6 2:25 0.2 21:15 0.5 0.4 3:55 0.050 8:25 0.275 0.165 0.165 3/13/2018 3:30 4.7 8:25 10.4 7.6 3:30 0.2 8:25 0.5 0.4 3:30 0.052 8:25 0.271 0.168 0.168 3/14/2018 4:55 4.7 7:55 10.6 7.6 4:55 0.2 21:05 0.6 0.4 4:55 0.051 21:05 0.274 0.167 0.167 3/15/2018 3:45 4.4 7:50 10.7 7.3 8:50 0.3 19:00 0.6 0.5 3:50 0.075 19:00 0.276 0.174 0.174 3/16/2018 3:25 4.3 8:15 10.8 7.2 9:25 0.3 23:00 0.6 0.5 3:00 0.074 21:45 0.251 0.168 0.168 3/17/2018 4:35 4.1 9:00 10.2 7.4 5:25 0.3 11:05 0.7 0.5 2:20 0.075 11:05 0.344 0.184 0.184 3/18/2018 1:40 4.9 0:20 6.3 5.7 1:30 0.4 1:25 0.6 0.5 1:30 0.103 0:00 0.159 0.131 0.010 3/19/2018 -- 3/20/2018 23:55 5.9 9:35 9.6 7.8 11:10 0.2 7:10 0.7 0.4 23:55 0.093 7:15 0.273 0.173 0.125 3/21/2018 3:45 4.1 7:40 10.5 7.2 9:30 0.2 19:05 0.6 0.4 3:10 0.051 19:40 0.240 0.147 0.147 3/22/2018 2:55 4.3 8:15 10.8 7.5 3:00 0.2 19:25 0.5 0.4 3:00 0.035 7:55 0.275 0.153 0.153 3/23/2018 3:00 4.5 9:40 10.7 7.7 1:50 0.3 5:10 0.5 0.4 1:50 0.067 9:40 0.251 0.160 0.160 3/24/2018 3:50 5.2 8:50 11.4 8.4 17:35 0.2 3:55 0.6 0.4 2:05 0.095 8:40 0.243 0.161 0.161 3/25/2018 4:15 5.3 8:45 11.1 8.4 5:40 0.2 21:40 0.6 0.4 4:30 0.076 21:40 0.286 0.170 0.170 3/26/2018 3:20 5.0 8:25 10.7 7.9 20:35 0.3 6:15 0.7 0.5 2:50 0.084 6:55 0.286 0.190 0.190 3/27/2018 3:05 4.9 7:40 11.1 7.8 0:45 0.2 7:40 0.5 0.4 3:05 0.058 7:40 0.292 0.174 0.174 3/28/2018 2:35 4.9 7:45 11.0 7.8 2:35 0.3 18:40 0.5 0.4 2:35 0.057 7:25 0.269 0.165 0.165 3/29/2018 3:10 4.8 7:35 10.9 7.7 0:10 0.2 19:15 0.5 0.4 3:00 0.052 20:40 0.265 0.149 0.149 3/30/2018 3:45 4.6 8:20 11.2 7.8 4:15 0.2 21:10 0.5 0.4 4:15 0.047 8:05 0.290 0.170 0.170 3/31/2018 3:35 4.8 8:45 10.5 8.0 5:45 0.2 0:00 0.4 0.3 4:25 0.043 9:00 0.217 0.147 0.147 ReportAvg 7.8 0.4 0.170 ReportTotal 4.909 ADS Environmental Services Pipe Height: 15.00 REN_MH1763\mp1\DFINAL (inches) REN_MH1763\mp1\VFINAL (feet/sec) REN_MH1763\mp1\QFINAL (MGD - Total MG) Date Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Total 4/1/2018 4:30 4.6 9:00 11.1 8.0 5:15 0.2 20:25 0.5 0.4 4:30 0.046 9:00 0.294 0.176 0.176 4/2/2018 3:05 4.5 8:35 10.6 7.5 3:05 0.2 8:35 0.5 0.4 3:05 0.044 8:35 0.275 0.162 0.162 4/3/2018 4:00 4.5 8:05 10.8 7.4 4:00 0.2 7:05 0.5 0.4 4:00 0.045 7:40 0.285 0.157 0.157 4/4/2018 2:55 4.4 7:30 10.8 7.6 2:55 0.2 7:30 0.5 0.4 2:55 0.041 7:30 0.282 0.167 0.167 4/5/2018 3:20 4.6 7:30 10.8 7.6 3:20 0.2 7:30 0.5 0.4 3:20 0.048 7:30 0.284 0.167 0.167 4/6/2018 3:25 4.8 8:10 11.2 9.1 3:25 0.3 8:10 0.5 0.4 3:25 0.056 8:10 0.297 0.221 0.221 4/7/2018 3:15 7.5 10:40 13.5 10.9 3:15 0.4 10:40 0.5 0.5 3:15 0.165 10:40 0.400 0.290 0.290 4/8/2018 6:25 8.1 10:30 12.1 10.0 6:25 0.4 10:30 0.5 0.5 6:25 0.188 10:30 0.329 0.257 0.257 4/9/2018 3:20 6.9 9:25 11.7 9.2 3:20 0.4 9:25 0.5 0.4 3:20 0.140 9:25 0.316 0.224 0.224 4/10/2018 3:15 6.3 8:30 12.2 9.1 1:10 0.3 20:05 0.5 0.4 1:10 0.125 8:40 0.332 0.217 0.217 4/11/2018 3:30 6.2 8:30 11.5 9.0 3:30 0.4 17:35 0.5 0.4 3:30 0.111 8:30 0.307 0.210 0.210 4/12/2018 3:15 6.7 20:55 12.1 10.3 3:20 0.4 5:15 0.5 0.4 3:20 0.130 20:55 0.332 0.261 0.261 4/13/2018 2:55 9.2 19:55 12.1 11.0 14:15 0.4 0:20 0.5 0.5 2:55 0.227 19:55 0.332 0.292 0.292 4/14/2018 3:50 10.2 21:30 15.9 13.5 0:10 0.4 21:30 0.7 0.6 3:50 0.264 21:30 0.580 0.426 0.426 4/15/2018 23:55 10.5 0:00 15.0 13.1 21:15 0.3 0:00 0.6 0.5 6:15 0.216 0:00 0.501 0.335 0.335 4/16/2018 3:40 9.0 21:25 14.7 12.0 1:40 0.4 21:25 0.6 0.5 4:15 0.220 21:25 0.484 0.333 0.333 4/17/2018 23:55 11.7 20:40 14.4 13.1 7:40 0.4 20:40 0.6 0.5 23:45 0.300 20:40 0.462 0.373 0.373 4/18/2018 3:15 10.7 7:10 13.6 12.2 6:30 0.3 8:35 0.5 0.4 6:30 0.226 7:45 0.399 0.309 0.309 4/19/2018 23:55 8.2 7:05 13.0 11.2 21:25 0.4 7:05 0.5 0.4 23:50 0.168 7:05 0.374 0.284 0.284 4/20/2018 2:05 7.1 7:40 12.5 10.6 8:00 0.3 11:15 0.5 0.4 2:05 0.148 7:15 0.346 0.259 0.259 4/21/2018 6:10 7.7 0:00 10.7 9.4 16:30 0.4 12:50 0.6 0.5 5:50 0.176 12:50 0.345 0.246 0.246 4/22/2018 3:40 6.2 8:50 11.5 9.1 2:55 0.3 20:10 0.6 0.4 3:40 0.111 20:10 0.320 0.223 0.223 ReportAvg 10.1 0.4 0.254 ReportTotal 5.588 REN_MH2116 Located At: Shattuck Ave and Tobin St (see attached site report for details) Monitoring Period: January 17, 2018 – April 22, 2018 Pipe Dimensions: 14.38” Finalized Silt Level: 0 mm Site Data Characteristics: This site is located in a sanitary sewer pipe. The scattergraph indicates site operated in free flow conditions. The site did surcharge during the monitoring period. The dry weather data plots below the Froude =1 curve indicating subcritical flow. Site Data Bias & Editing: The depth and velocity measurements recorded by the flow monitor were consistent with field confirmations conducted to date and supported the relative accuracy of the flow monitor at this location. The finalized depth data utilized the upward ultrasonic sensor. Site Data Uptime: The data uptime achieved during the monitoring period is provided in the table below. This location was installed on January 17, 2018 after the official monitoring period had begun as directed by the client. Based upon the quality and consistency of the observed flow depth and velocity data, the Continuity equation was used to calculate the flow rate for the monitoring period. Entity Percentage Uptime Raw Percentage Uptime Final Depth (in) 100% 100% Velocity (f/s) 100% 100% Quantity (mgd) 100% 100% Site Data Summary: The average flow depth, velocity, and quantity data observed during the monitoring period along with observed minimum and maximum data, are provided in the following table. The minimum and maximum rates recorded in the tables are based on 5‐minute data intervals. Item Depth (in) Velocity (f/s) Quantity (mgd) % Full Minimum 3.57 2.15 0.309 25% Maximum 20.21 3.36 2.248 100% Average 6.09 2.86 0.844 42% Latitude: 47.483765° Longitude:-122.211201° REN_MH2116 TRITON+ System Characteristics Location Type Pipe ShapeSite located in middile of street in front of school Renton.Carollo.I&I.WA17 LightDrive Site Access Details: Site Address /Location: Site Name Shattuck Ave S and S Tobin St Flow Monitoring Site Report Installation Information Circular Monitor Series Monitor Location: Doppler Standard Ring and Crank Manhole # Installation Date: Pipe Size (H x W) Topside / Area Photo Wednesday, January 17, 2018 Access Temporary 14.38 X 14.50 Traffic MH2116 Residential / Commercial Map Installation Type: Monitoring Location (Sensors): Peak Combo (CS4), Smart Depth (CS5) Pipe Size (HxW) 0.00'' CS5 Physical Offset (in)Measurement Confidence (in) 1.38" Peak Velocity (fps) Silt (in) 2:11:00 PM 14.38 X 14.50Site Sketch Profile View or Photo Straight, Some Ripples 0 - 5 psi Depth of Flow (Wet DOF) (in) 6.50'' Velocity Sensor Offset (in) 3.36 Downstream 0-5 FT Manhole Sensors / Devices: Installation Confirmation: Manhole Opening Diameter (in) Silt Type Hydraulic Comments: 0'' Sanitary Sewer Overflow 0.25" Manhole / Pipe Information: Pressure Sensor Range (psi) Confirmation Time: 20''20'' Manhole Cover Manhole Frame Pipe Condition: Manhole Material: Manhole Diameter (Approx.): Manhole Depth (Approx. FT):Manhole Configuration PVC Good 15' Manhole Condition: 22275.11.325 Additional Site Info. / Comments: ADS Project Name: ADS Project Number: Renton.Carollo.I&I.WA17 Wireless Pipe Material Antenna Location Communication Information: Manhole Pick / Vent Hole No Vitrified Clay Pipe NormalUnbolted Fair Active Connections Renton traffic control required. Air Quality: Communication Type Normal Additional Photos Flow Direction Monitoring Point Google Map KEY Top Down Location Inlet Outlet Location Map ADS Environmental Services Pipe Height: 14.38 REN_MH2116\mp1\DFINAL (inches) REN_MH2116\mp1\VFINAL (feet/sec) REN_MH2116\mp1\QFINAL (MGD - Total MG) Date Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Total 1/1/2018 -- 1/2/2018 -- 1/3/2018 -- 1/4/2018 -- 1/5/2018 -- 1/6/2018 -- 1/7/2018 -- 1/8/2018 -- 1/9/2018 -- 1/10/2018 -- 1/11/2018 -- 1/12/2018 -- 1/13/2018 -- 1/14/2018 -- 1/15/2018 -- 1/16/2018 -- 1/17/2018 15:35 6.4 18:35 13.8 9.0 16:45 2.4 15:10 2.8 2.6 15:55 0.866 18:30 1.870 1.251 0.469 1/18/2018 1:45 6.7 5:30 11.9 8.6 6:25 2.6 2:10 2.9 2.7 1:45 0.904 5:30 1.748 1.233 1.233 1/19/2018 3:55 6.8 8:10 8.7 7.6 11:50 2.6 16:05 3.0 2.8 23:30 0.943 8:10 1.314 1.085 1.085 1/20/2018 6:00 6.4 12:05 8.5 7.2 12:15 2.5 9:40 2.9 2.8 6:05 0.893 13:00 1.292 1.022 1.022 1/21/2018 4:20 6.1 17:00 10.6 7.1 19:25 2.6 7:25 3.0 2.8 6:25 0.832 16:55 1.573 1.004 1.004 1/22/2018 1:45 6.2 6:25 9.3 7.3 13:50 2.5 4:40 3.1 2.7 23:45 0.852 6:05 1.328 1.022 1.022 1/23/2018 3:55 6.0 16:00 12.3 8.2 19:15 2.4 6:00 3.0 2.7 3:00 0.795 16:00 1.771 1.169 1.169 1/24/2018 4:15 8.1 18:30 13.6 9.7 13:25 2.5 5:50 2.8 2.7 5:30 1.147 18:30 1.937 1.410 1.410 1/25/2018 23:25 7.8 11:55 10.3 8.8 7:45 2.6 20:05 2.9 2.7 23:40 1.098 11:55 1.526 1.278 1.278 1/26/2018 1:40 7.2 12:30 10.0 8.3 23:10 2.5 8:40 2.9 2.7 6:10 0.950 11:00 1.502 1.196 1.196 1/27/2018 23:00 8.2 10:55 13.5 9.8 14:55 2.5 21:30 2.8 2.7 23:05 1.177 10:55 1.947 1.445 1.445 1/28/2018 23:40 7.5 11:40 9.9 8.5 12:35 2.5 2:55 2.8 2.7 4:50 1.027 9:05 1.460 1.218 1.218 1/29/2018 2:15 6.9 16:40 20.2 10.3 9:35 2.3 16:35 3.1 2.7 4:20 0.952 16:35 2.248 1.435 1.435 1/30/2018 23:55 7.8 0:00 10.7 9.1 20:05 2.5 21:05 2.8 2.7 23:20 1.078 0:00 1.571 1.318 1.318 1/31/2018 23:45 6.9 20:15 9.2 7.9 17:45 2.5 8:40 2.8 2.7 23:45 0.951 20:15 1.348 1.115 1.115 ReportAvg 8.5 2.7 1.212 ReportTotal 17.42 ADS Environmental Services Pipe Height: 14.38 REN_MH2116\mp1\DFINAL (inches) REN_MH2116\mp1\VFINAL (feet/sec) REN_MH2116\mp1\QFINAL (MGD - Total MG) Date Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Total 2/1/2018 3:15 6.4 21:45 13.0 8.2 22:50 2.4 3:00 2.9 2.7 5:25 0.878 21:45 1.801 1.149 1.149 2/2/2018 23:55 7.2 8:40 9.8 8.4 20:50 2.4 15:30 2.8 2.6 23:55 0.965 11:10 1.406 1.165 1.165 2/3/2018 4:40 6.6 18:55 9.7 8.0 22:55 2.4 0:50 2.8 2.6 2:55 0.879 18:55 1.376 1.101 1.101 2/4/2018 3:20 6.7 13:20 9.7 7.9 11:55 2.4 2:30 2.7 2.6 3:50 0.881 13:20 1.359 1.069 1.069 2/5/2018 3:55 6.2 14:45 8.6 7.3 10:45 2.3 4:10 2.8 2.6 3:10 0.800 14:45 1.196 0.968 0.968 2/6/2018 3:30 5.9 18:45 8.4 6.9 18:25 2.5 4:20 2.8 2.7 3:55 0.772 12:15 1.173 0.934 0.934 2/7/2018 4:20 5.7 13:15 8.0 6.7 14:50 2.4 4:25 3.0 2.7 3:05 0.738 14:15 1.103 0.894 0.894 2/8/2018 3:30 5.6 18:15 7.9 6.5 18:15 2.4 4:05 2.9 2.7 2:30 0.699 8:10 1.140 0.864 0.864 2/9/2018 3:40 5.4 11:15 7.9 6.3 19:10 2.5 0:45 2.9 2.7 3:40 0.687 11:15 1.120 0.833 0.833 2/10/2018 4:25 5.3 13:30 8.0 6.3 11:10 2.4 5:15 3.1 2.7 4:15 0.658 14:35 1.117 0.836 0.836 2/11/2018 4:50 5.5 13:40 8.1 6.4 11:25 2.4 0:55 3.0 2.7 5:10 0.666 13:40 1.120 0.849 0.849 2/12/2018 2:20 5.2 19:30 7.5 6.0 13:35 2.6 23:05 3.1 2.8 2:15 0.646 14:00 1.110 0.822 0.822 2/13/2018 3:55 5.0 23:25 7.9 5.9 18:00 2.6 7:20 3.1 2.8 3:55 0.585 23:25 1.152 0.816 0.816 2/14/2018 4:40 5.2 17:20 7.7 6.1 19:10 2.6 9:45 3.2 2.9 3:55 0.653 17:20 1.129 0.864 0.864 2/15/2018 3:05 5.0 11:15 7.1 5.7 9:30 2.6 21:25 3.2 2.9 3:10 0.620 11:10 1.034 0.783 0.783 2/16/2018 1:45 4.7 9:30 7.1 5.7 8:35 2.7 23:45 3.2 2.9 1:40 0.580 9:30 1.066 0.801 0.801 2/17/2018 4:00 4.7 9:05 9.6 6.6 10:55 2.5 5:00 3.2 2.9 3:25 0.593 9:05 1.468 0.934 0.934 2/18/2018 5:40 5.0 12:00 7.8 6.0 14:05 2.6 23:45 3.2 3.0 4:25 0.669 13:00 1.177 0.863 0.863 2/19/2018 4:40 4.7 11:30 7.1 5.7 2:05 2.8 7:50 3.3 3.0 5:20 0.589 12:35 1.080 0.810 0.810 2/20/2018 4:00 4.6 13:10 7.5 5.4 13:15 2.7 15:30 3.2 3.0 2:40 0.567 13:10 1.151 0.762 0.762 2/21/2018 2:00 4.5 20:15 6.4 5.2 2:45 2.7 23:50 3.2 3.0 2:45 0.548 20:10 0.963 0.719 0.719 2/22/2018 3:30 4.5 12:35 6.7 5.3 4:55 2.7 17:05 3.2 3.0 4:55 0.539 12:30 0.995 0.725 0.725 2/23/2018 3:05 4.6 13:30 6.2 5.0 3:05 2.5 13:30 3.3 3.0 3:05 0.501 13:30 0.989 0.686 0.686 2/24/2018 4:45 4.4 11:40 6.6 5.2 7:25 2.8 20:10 3.3 3.0 4:15 0.557 11:40 1.003 0.730 0.730 2/25/2018 4:30 4.5 11:25 6.9 5.4 4:35 2.8 20:00 3.2 3.0 4:35 0.561 14:30 1.073 0.777 0.777 2/26/2018 3:50 4.4 16:35 6.5 5.0 3:30 2.8 9:10 3.3 3.0 3:30 0.536 16:30 1.021 0.702 0.702 2/27/2018 3:20 4.2 20:20 6.7 5.0 3:00 2.7 10:55 3.3 3.0 3:15 0.500 20:15 0.980 0.682 0.682 2/28/2018 4:00 4.3 19:10 7.4 5.3 1:10 2.8 9:40 3.3 3.0 3:55 0.525 19:10 1.154 0.738 0.738 ReportAvg 6.2 2.8 0.853 ReportTotal 23.88 ADS Environmental Services Pipe Height: 14.38 REN_MH2116\mp1\DFINAL (inches) REN_MH2116\mp1\VFINAL (feet/sec) REN_MH2116\mp1\QFINAL (MGD - Total MG) Date Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Total 3/1/2018 3:40 4.5 13:50 6.3 5.1 1:10 2.8 19:50 3.3 3.0 3:10 0.563 13:50 0.973 0.722 0.722 3/2/2018 1:15 4.5 9:00 6.5 5.2 2:50 2.8 7:50 3.2 3.1 1:10 0.569 9:00 1.019 0.741 0.741 3/3/2018 3:05 4.4 10:40 6.4 5.0 4:10 2.7 13:45 3.2 3.0 4:10 0.524 10:40 0.960 0.695 0.695 3/4/2018 4:20 4.2 16:15 7.2 5.0 4:10 2.5 9:55 3.2 2.9 4:15 0.440 16:10 1.115 0.684 0.684 3/5/2018 3:55 4.1 12:00 5.8 4.8 3:30 2.6 19:30 3.3 2.9 3:55 0.460 8:40 0.882 0.640 0.640 3/6/2018 3:30 3.9 19:00 5.7 4.6 3:35 2.5 16:55 3.2 2.9 3:35 0.401 20:55 0.839 0.597 0.597 3/7/2018 3:30 3.9 9:35 5.5 4.6 1:10 2.5 17:30 3.3 2.9 4:15 0.406 9:35 0.784 0.582 0.582 3/8/2018 4:15 3.8 21:15 8.9 4.9 2:55 2.4 12:40 3.2 2.9 2:55 0.389 21:15 1.393 0.650 0.650 3/9/2018 3:25 4.2 9:05 5.9 4.7 2:15 2.5 11:15 3.3 2.9 2:15 0.459 9:05 0.869 0.626 0.626 3/10/2018 4:00 3.8 10:45 6.0 4.6 5:00 2.4 12:15 3.2 2.9 5:15 0.389 12:15 0.911 0.596 0.596 3/11/2018 3:50 3.7 10:50 6.0 4.6 4:15 2.4 14:45 3.3 2.9 3:50 0.371 10:50 0.903 0.591 0.591 3/12/2018 2:25 3.7 10:15 5.6 4.4 3:30 2.3 14:15 3.2 2.8 3:30 0.346 10:15 0.824 0.554 0.554 3/13/2018 2:50 3.7 18:55 7.0 4.7 1:00 2.3 6:55 3.2 2.9 1:00 0.353 18:55 1.055 0.595 0.595 3/14/2018 3:00 3.8 19:55 5.6 4.6 4:05 2.5 7:10 3.2 2.9 2:20 0.395 12:25 0.813 0.589 0.589 3/15/2018 2:25 3.8 11:00 5.7 4.5 1:20 2.4 6:40 3.3 2.8 2:00 0.375 6:40 0.872 0.570 0.570 3/16/2018 2:20 3.7 17:45 5.6 4.5 3:45 2.3 18:30 3.2 2.8 3:45 0.360 17:45 0.801 0.554 0.554 3/17/2018 3:05 3.7 10:30 5.7 4.4 2:30 2.3 16:10 3.1 2.8 5:30 0.351 10:30 0.842 0.544 0.544 3/18/2018 3:25 3.7 10:20 5.8 4.4 2:20 2.3 15:10 3.2 2.8 2:40 0.351 10:20 0.881 0.547 0.547 3/19/2018 2:55 3.6 8:15 5.7 4.4 2:25 2.2 8:15 3.1 2.8 2:25 0.321 8:15 0.849 0.534 0.534 3/20/2018 1:45 3.6 9:25 6.2 4.5 2:05 2.2 9:05 3.1 2.8 2:05 0.309 9:25 0.940 0.545 0.545 3/21/2018 2:35 3.6 10:45 5.0 4.3 3:00 2.2 9:50 3.1 2.8 3:00 0.331 9:50 0.680 0.516 0.516 3/22/2018 3:25 3.7 8:45 6.6 4.8 1:45 2.3 9:40 3.3 2.9 1:45 0.355 8:50 0.967 0.628 0.628 3/23/2018 3:10 3.7 9:50 7.8 4.9 3:35 2.4 17:50 3.2 2.9 3:05 0.372 9:20 1.183 0.649 0.649 3/24/2018 1:50 4.2 9:20 6.1 5.1 2:45 2.5 15:25 3.3 3.0 2:45 0.458 9:20 0.932 0.700 0.700 3/25/2018 3:10 4.1 9:35 5.9 4.8 2:00 2.5 13:40 3.3 3.0 3:15 0.437 13:40 0.883 0.641 0.641 3/26/2018 2:40 3.8 12:35 6.4 4.8 1:50 2.4 19:00 3.2 2.9 1:50 0.376 12:35 0.955 0.632 0.632 3/27/2018 1:55 3.8 19:50 5.5 4.7 1:50 2.5 16:55 3.2 2.9 1:55 0.396 19:50 0.794 0.608 0.608 3/28/2018 2:50 3.9 16:55 5.2 4.6 3:05 2.5 9:55 3.2 2.9 2:50 0.406 16:55 0.745 0.589 0.589 3/29/2018 2:20 3.8 17:25 5.3 4.5 3:10 2.5 7:35 3.2 2.9 3:10 0.384 9:25 0.760 0.576 0.576 3/30/2018 2:05 3.7 12:10 6.1 4.5 2:00 2.3 13:05 3.2 2.9 2:00 0.346 12:10 0.926 0.569 0.569 3/31/2018 2:35 3.7 12:50 5.8 4.5 2:55 2.4 11:25 3.3 2.9 2:55 0.362 11:25 0.858 0.577 0.577 ReportAvg 4.7 2.9 0.608 ReportTotal 18.84 ADS Environmental Services Pipe Height: 14.38 REN_MH2116\mp1\DFINAL (inches) REN_MH2116\mp1\VFINAL (feet/sec) REN_MH2116\mp1\QFINAL (MGD - Total MG) Date Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Total 4/1/2018 4:10 3.7 10:05 5.6 4.5 4:05 2.3 17:05 3.2 2.9 4:05 0.346 10:05 0.824 0.572 0.572 4/2/2018 2:05 3.6 19:45 5.6 4.5 2:35 2.4 7:10 3.2 2.8 1:55 0.353 19:45 0.812 0.555 0.555 4/3/2018 3:15 3.7 16:35 5.3 4.4 1:40 2.3 20:45 3.1 2.8 1:40 0.350 17:40 0.729 0.527 0.527 4/4/2018 1:40 3.7 13:35 6.4 4.7 0:10 2.4 7:20 3.2 2.8 1:40 0.356 13:35 0.902 0.592 0.592 4/5/2018 2:20 3.8 18:45 7.5 4.9 0:55 2.4 17:55 3.1 2.8 2:15 0.381 18:45 1.140 0.633 0.633 4/6/2018 2:45 3.9 18:15 6.3 4.8 2:30 2.4 7:20 3.2 2.9 2:40 0.387 18:15 0.933 0.610 0.610 4/7/2018 1:05 4.2 5:20 10.3 6.6 0:20 2.6 22:55 3.2 2.9 1:05 0.468 5:20 1.541 0.965 0.965 4/8/2018 2:30 5.6 8:50 9.5 7.0 11:00 2.7 2:35 3.3 3.0 2:30 0.803 8:50 1.466 1.054 1.054 4/9/2018 23:55 5.4 13:40 7.4 6.1 20:05 2.8 21:35 3.2 3.1 1:40 0.736 18:05 1.154 0.907 0.907 4/10/2018 2:10 4.9 8:55 7.5 5.9 8:35 2.7 11:35 3.2 3.1 1:55 0.640 8:45 1.156 0.862 0.862 4/11/2018 1:35 4.8 20:00 7.4 5.8 10:30 2.8 0:35 3.3 3.0 1:35 0.638 19:55 1.125 0.844 0.844 4/12/2018 2:55 4.8 10:45 6.9 5.7 3:55 2.7 6:00 3.2 3.1 23:10 0.616 10:45 1.115 0.822 0.822 4/13/2018 1:35 4.7 19:10 8.1 6.0 22:05 2.8 8:45 3.4 3.0 1:10 0.574 19:10 1.243 0.875 0.875 4/14/2018 3:15 6.0 19:35 16.0 9.9 16:50 2.5 3:25 3.2 2.8 3:15 0.867 19:40 2.183 1.460 1.460 4/15/2018 23:10 7.7 1:05 13.8 10.1 0:25 2.6 21:35 3.1 2.8 23:00 1.160 0:00 2.026 1.526 1.526 4/16/2018 4:15 7.1 14:35 13.3 8.9 6:50 2.6 0:50 3.1 2.9 3:50 1.071 14:35 1.972 1.368 1.368 4/17/2018 23:55 7.0 6:30 9.4 8.0 20:35 2.7 13:15 3.2 3.0 23:10 1.045 10:35 1.515 1.236 1.236 4/18/2018 23:55 6.3 16:55 8.5 7.2 7:55 2.7 10:20 3.2 3.0 4:35 0.934 16:50 1.326 1.103 1.103 4/19/2018 23:45 5.9 16:20 8.2 6.9 12:55 2.7 3:20 3.2 2.9 2:00 0.848 17:40 1.255 1.019 1.019 4/20/2018 3:15 5.6 8:35 7.7 6.6 10:55 2.7 2:55 3.2 3.0 2:45 0.797 13:15 1.160 0.965 0.965 4/21/2018 3:40 5.5 10:10 7.8 6.4 15:45 2.5 0:30 3.2 2.9 4:10 0.742 10:10 1.170 0.921 0.921 4/22/2018 3:35 5.1 11:00 7.3 6.2 10:35 2.7 23:00 3.1 3.0 3:55 0.670 18:00 1.118 0.899 0.899 ReportAvg 6.4 2.9 0.923 ReportTotal 20.31 REN_MH2171 Located At: 540 Burnett Ave S (see attached site report for details) Monitoring Period: December 22, 2017 – April 22, 2018 Pipe Dimensions: 11.25” Finalized Silt Level: 0 mm Site Data Characteristics: This site is located in a sanitary sewer pipe. The scattergraph indicates site operated in free flow conditions. The site did not surcharge during the monitoring period. The dry weather data plots below the Froude =1 curve indicating subcritical flow. Site Data Bias & Editing: The depth and velocity measurements recorded by the flow monitor were consistent with field confirmations conducted to date and supported the relative accuracy of the flow monitor at this location. The finalized depth data utilized the upward ultrasonic sensor. Site Data Uptime: The data uptime achieved during the monitoring period is provided in the table below. Based upon the quality and consistency of the observed flow depth and velocity data, the Continuity equation was used to calculate the flow rate for the monitoring period. Entity Percentage Uptime Raw Percentage Uptime Final Depth (in) 100% 100% Velocity (f/s) 100% 100% Quantity (mgd) 100% 100% Site Data Summary: The average flow depth, velocity, and quantity data observed during the monitoring period along with observed minimum and maximum data, are provided in the following table. The minimum and maximum rates recorded in the tables are based on 5‐minute data intervals. Item Depth (in) Velocity (f/s) Quantity (mgd) % Full Minimum 2.66 0.80 0.067 24% Maximum 8.34 2.40 0.840 74% Average 4.37 1.32 0.222 39% Latitude: 47.475159° Longitude:-122.207887° Site Sketch Plan View or Photo Additional Site Info. / Comments: Site located in walkway. Monitoring point is in a recessed pipe entry. Moderate, slow flow Good Antenna Location Communication Information: Active Drop Connections Air Quality: Communication Type Normal 22275.11.325 ADS Project Name: ADS Project Number: Renton.Carollo.I&I.WA17 Manhole Cover Manhole Frame Manhole Material: Manhole Diameter (Approx.): Manhole Depth (Approx. FT):Manhole Configuration Concrete Wireless Pipe Material Located in sidewalk infront of home. Sensors / Devices: 11.25'' x 11.25'' 0.25" Manhole / Pipe Information: Installation Type: Pressure Sensor Range (psi) Confirmation Time: Site Sketch Profile View or Photo Pipe Size (H x W) Topside / Area Photo Peak Combo (CS4), Smart Depth (CS5) Pipe Size (HxW) 1:42:00 PM Monitoring Location (Sensors): Depth of Flow (Wet DOF) (in)Range (Air DOF) (in) ~4.50'' Velocity Sensor Offset (in) ~1.5 FPS Temporary 11.25'' x 11.25'' REN_MH2171 Access Traffic TRITON+ System Characteristics Location Type Pipe Shape Renton.Carollo.I&I.WA17 LightDrive Site Access Details: Site Address /Location: Site Name 540 Burnett Ave S 0 - 5 psi Installation Information Circular Monitor Series Monitor Location: Doppler Standard Ring and Crank Manhole # Installation Date: 12.14.17 Upstream 0-5 FT Manhole MH2171 Residential Map Flow Monitoring Site Report 0 Downlooker Physical Offset (in)Measurement Confidence (in) 0 Peak Velocity (fps) Silt (in) ~8' Installation Confirmation: Manhole Opening Diameter (in) Silt Type Hydraulic Comments: Pipe Condition: Single Good Manhole Pick / Vent Hole Manhole Condition: No PVC 20'' NormalUnbolted 20'' Additional Photos Flow Direction Monitoring Point Top Down Location Location Upstream Downstream Side Inlet ADS Environmental Services Pipe Height: 11.25 REN_MH2171\mp1\DFINAL (inches) REN_MH2171\mp1\VFINAL (feet/sec) REN_MH2171\mp1\QFINAL (MGD - Total MG) REN_RG\mp1\RAIN (inches) Date Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Total Total 12/22/2017 3:35 3.8 10:10 6.0 4.7 3:15 1.1 8:50 1.7 1.4 3:35 0.142 10:10 0.392 0.247 0.247 0.10 12/23/2017 4:50 3.6 11:10 4.8 4.1 3:45 1.0 11:10 1.3 1.2 3:45 0.125 11:10 0.244 0.171 0.171 0.00 12/24/2017 5:00 3.5 12:30 4.7 4.0 5:10 1.0 12:35 1.4 1.1 4:00 0.115 12:40 0.236 0.164 0.164 0.00 12/25/2017 4:10 3.4 10:10 4.5 3.9 3:40 0.9 10:15 1.3 1.1 4:10 0.106 10:15 0.213 0.153 0.153 0.14 12/26/2017 3:20 3.4 9:25 5.9 4.5 3:15 0.9 9:20 1.6 1.3 3:15 0.104 9:25 0.374 0.219 0.219 0.17 12/27/2017 3:20 3.3 10:00 6.0 4.4 3:25 0.9 10:00 1.7 1.3 3:25 0.097 10:00 0.410 0.209 0.209 0.00 12/28/2017 2:10 3.4 11:35 5.7 4.5 1:10 0.9 11:20 1.7 1.3 2:10 0.106 11:20 0.377 0.222 0.222 0.25 12/29/2017 0:05 4.1 10:45 8.3 6.3 0:00 1.1 10:35 2.4 1.8 0:00 0.161 10:35 0.840 0.486 0.486 1.57 12/30/2017 23:40 4.4 10:00 5.2 4.9 3:30 1.3 12:45 1.5 1.4 23:40 0.213 10:05 0.307 0.260 0.260 0.02 12/31/2017 5:10 4.0 11:05 4.9 4.5 5:45 1.2 11:05 1.4 1.3 5:45 0.168 11:05 0.269 0.211 0.211 0.00 ReportAvg 4.6 1.3 0.234 ReportTotal 2.343 2.25 ADS Environmental Services Pipe Height: 11.25 REN_MH2171\mp1\DFINAL (inches) REN_MH2171\mp1\VFINAL (feet/sec) REN_MH2171\mp1\QFINAL (MGD - Total MG) REN_RG\mp1\RAIN (inches) Date Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Total Total 1/1/2018 4:30 3.8 16:10 4.9 4.3 6:15 1.0 17:10 1.3 1.2 5:10 0.137 16:10 0.247 0.183 0.183 0.00 1/2/2018 3:20 3.6 8:00 5.9 4.6 3:20 1.0 8:25 1.7 1.3 3:20 0.124 8:25 0.408 0.238 0.238 0.01 1/3/2018 3:15 3.5 10:55 5.9 4.6 23:55 1.0 10:55 1.7 1.4 2:50 0.121 10:55 0.407 0.237 0.237 0.00 1/4/2018 3:45 3.2 12:40 5.7 4.5 2:10 0.9 8:55 1.7 1.3 3:45 0.099 8:55 0.370 0.225 0.225 0.09 1/5/2018 3:30 3.4 12:15 7.1 4.6 3:35 1.0 12:10 2.0 1.4 3:20 0.113 12:15 0.587 0.239 0.239 0.42 1/6/2018 3:00 3.7 14:05 4.7 4.3 3:05 1.1 10:20 1.4 1.3 3:00 0.137 14:05 0.246 0.198 0.198 0.24 1/7/2018 4:55 3.5 20:15 4.9 4.3 4:55 1.0 18:55 1.4 1.2 4:55 0.123 20:25 0.260 0.196 0.196 0.38 1/8/2018 1:20 3.9 8:55 7.1 4.8 1:40 1.2 8:55 2.0 1.4 2:00 0.163 8:55 0.605 0.261 0.261 0.14 1/9/2018 0:00 4.1 8:15 6.4 5.1 23:55 1.2 8:10 1.8 1.5 23:55 0.181 8:15 0.469 0.301 0.301 0.46 1/10/2018 2:05 3.9 7:25 6.0 4.8 1:45 1.1 10:30 1.7 1.5 2:10 0.161 7:25 0.411 0.271 0.271 0.22 1/11/2018 2:00 3.9 13:25 7.8 6.0 1:35 1.2 13:20 2.3 1.7 1:45 0.164 13:20 0.748 0.439 0.439 1.04 1/12/2018 23:40 4.6 9:05 6.6 5.5 23:35 1.4 9:05 2.0 1.6 23:40 0.244 9:05 0.541 0.356 0.356 0.20 1/13/2018 3:45 4.2 10:10 5.1 4.6 6:40 1.3 10:50 1.5 1.4 5:00 0.204 10:50 0.292 0.245 0.245 0.02 1/14/2018 5:20 4.0 11:50 5.1 4.5 23:50 1.2 11:15 1.4 1.3 4:40 0.170 11:15 0.270 0.216 0.216 0.00 1/15/2018 2:55 4.0 10:40 6.5 4.9 2:15 1.1 10:40 1.7 1.4 2:50 0.157 10:40 0.458 0.265 0.265 0.04 1/16/2018 23:50 3.8 7:40 5.8 4.7 23:40 1.1 8:45 1.7 1.4 23:45 0.149 8:45 0.389 0.249 0.249 0.26 1/17/2018 2:45 3.6 18:35 6.2 4.9 2:40 1.0 8:15 1.8 1.5 2:45 0.126 18:55 0.434 0.282 0.282 0.79 1/18/2018 2:05 4.4 7:15 6.6 5.4 1:30 1.3 9:05 1.9 1.6 2:05 0.218 7:10 0.518 0.339 0.339 0.40 1/19/2018 3:15 4.2 7:00 6.1 4.8 23:25 1.2 6:40 1.8 1.5 23:25 0.190 9:05 0.433 0.272 0.272 0.10 1/20/2018 5:20 3.8 10:30 4.7 4.3 5:15 1.1 9:35 1.4 1.3 5:15 0.152 9:35 0.250 0.202 0.202 0.10 1/21/2018 4:25 3.8 17:00 5.2 4.3 4:00 1.1 17:00 1.6 1.3 4:00 0.140 17:00 0.325 0.198 0.198 0.16 1/22/2018 1:20 3.7 8:10 6.3 4.9 0:45 1.1 7:45 1.8 1.5 1:15 0.139 7:45 0.465 0.283 0.283 0.34 1/23/2018 2:25 3.7 16:00 6.6 5.2 3:40 1.1 16:10 1.8 1.5 3:00 0.143 16:00 0.491 0.321 0.321 0.79 1/24/2018 3:35 4.9 14:00 7.0 5.9 2:50 1.5 14:05 2.1 1.7 3:35 0.280 14:05 0.593 0.406 0.406 0.51 1/25/2018 23:55 4.5 10:55 6.6 5.4 23:30 1.3 7:15 1.9 1.6 23:55 0.226 10:55 0.520 0.347 0.347 0.14 1/26/2018 3:20 4.3 10:30 7.1 5.3 1:35 1.3 10:35 1.9 1.6 3:20 0.202 10:30 0.566 0.329 0.329 0.36 1/27/2018 0:15 4.7 11:05 6.3 5.6 0:10 1.4 10:55 1.8 1.7 0:10 0.251 11:00 0.464 0.367 0.367 0.61 1/28/2018 5:25 4.5 11:20 5.3 4.9 6:15 1.4 13:00 1.6 1.5 6:15 0.232 12:55 0.332 0.283 0.283 0.07 1/29/2018 2:50 4.3 15:25 8.0 5.9 3:45 1.3 16:15 2.3 1.7 3:40 0.203 15:25 0.773 0.417 0.417 0.90 1/30/2018 23:45 4.5 8:15 7.1 5.6 23:45 1.4 9:10 2.1 1.7 23:45 0.233 9:10 0.583 0.372 0.372 0.00 1/31/2018 23:55 4.2 7:40 6.2 5.0 23:45 1.3 7:45 1.8 1.5 23:50 0.196 7:45 0.465 0.299 0.299 0.00 ReportAvg 5.0 1.5 0.285 ReportTotal 8.837 8.79 ADS Environmental Services Pipe Height: 11.25 REN_MH2171\mp1\DFINAL (inches) REN_MH2171\mp1\VFINAL (feet/sec) REN_MH2171\mp1\QFINAL (MGD - Total MG) REN_RG\mp1\RAIN (inches) Date Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Total Total 2/1/2018 3:05 4.0 7:10 6.2 5.1 3:10 1.2 7:10 1.7 1.5 3:35 0.166 7:10 0.439 0.306 0.306 0.66 2/2/2018 23:55 4.4 8:30 6.3 5.1 23:25 1.3 6:40 1.8 1.5 23:40 0.218 6:40 0.457 0.309 0.309 0.04 2/3/2018 5:50 4.0 11:00 5.1 4.5 2:55 1.2 18:15 1.5 1.4 4:35 0.177 18:35 0.296 0.233 0.233 0.31 2/4/2018 3:50 4.1 13:00 5.1 4.5 23:55 1.2 11:10 1.5 1.3 23:55 0.179 13:00 0.290 0.225 0.225 0.02 2/5/2018 3:45 3.9 7:55 6.1 4.8 2:30 1.1 7:15 1.7 1.4 3:45 0.157 7:10 0.410 0.258 0.258 0.04 2/6/2018 23:55 3.7 8:50 6.2 4.6 3:10 1.1 18:10 1.7 1.4 3:10 0.140 8:50 0.432 0.245 0.245 0.00 2/7/2018 3:40 3.5 7:20 5.9 4.4 1:30 1.1 7:30 1.8 1.4 3:00 0.130 7:30 0.406 0.228 0.228 0.00 2/8/2018 3:20 3.5 8:30 5.6 4.4 2:20 1.0 6:35 1.7 1.3 2:20 0.124 6:35 0.378 0.219 0.219 0.09 2/9/2018 3:30 3.4 9:35 5.6 4.3 3:25 1.0 8:20 1.6 1.3 3:30 0.113 9:35 0.352 0.212 0.212 0.01 2/10/2018 4:20 3.2 10:40 4.6 3.8 3:10 0.9 10:00 1.3 1.2 4:20 0.100 10:00 0.219 0.157 0.157 0.01 2/11/2018 3:35 3.2 14:30 4.9 3.8 5:55 1.0 14:30 1.5 1.2 3:35 0.102 14:30 0.276 0.153 0.153 0.00 2/12/2018 2:25 3.2 13:15 5.5 4.1 3:40 0.9 13:15 1.6 1.2 3:40 0.096 13:15 0.351 0.187 0.187 0.00 2/13/2018 2:50 3.0 7:15 5.3 4.1 2:30 0.9 7:15 1.6 1.3 2:30 0.091 7:15 0.330 0.189 0.189 0.17 2/14/2018 3:20 3.2 13:15 5.3 4.2 3:40 1.0 9:45 1.6 1.3 3:20 0.104 9:45 0.322 0.205 0.205 0.15 2/15/2018 3:15 3.2 17:15 5.2 4.1 3:20 1.0 8:15 1.6 1.2 2:25 0.101 6:50 0.308 0.188 0.188 0.00 2/16/2018 2:05 3.3 10:40 5.6 4.2 1:40 1.0 7:15 1.6 1.2 1:50 0.106 7:15 0.352 0.192 0.192 0.15 2/17/2018 3:15 3.2 9:20 5.2 4.0 4:00 0.9 9:25 1.4 1.2 3:55 0.093 9:20 0.285 0.171 0.171 0.32 2/18/2018 4:50 3.2 10:20 4.3 3.7 5:45 1.0 10:05 1.4 1.2 4:50 0.110 10:20 0.219 0.156 0.156 0.01 2/19/2018 3:30 3.1 13:30 5.7 4.2 3:15 1.0 9:05 1.6 1.3 3:15 0.096 13:30 0.373 0.200 0.200 0.00 2/20/2018 3:30 3.0 14:40 5.6 4.1 4:10 0.9 14:45 1.7 1.3 3:40 0.090 14:45 0.375 0.188 0.188 0.00 2/21/2018 3:00 3.0 7:25 5.2 4.0 3:25 1.0 8:10 1.6 1.3 3:25 0.093 8:10 0.314 0.187 0.187 0.00 2/22/2018 2:55 3.0 14:15 5.2 4.1 2:20 0.9 12:10 1.6 1.3 2:55 0.086 12:10 0.316 0.190 0.190 0.07 2/23/2018 3:20 2.9 11:00 5.5 4.0 2:15 0.9 12:20 1.6 1.2 3:20 0.086 11:00 0.351 0.178 0.178 0.01 2/24/2018 5:05 2.9 10:20 4.1 3.6 6:00 1.0 9:10 1.3 1.1 5:05 0.088 10:20 0.191 0.138 0.138 0.13 2/25/2018 4:15 2.9 18:50 4.3 3.7 4:25 1.0 10:45 1.3 1.2 4:15 0.091 18:50 0.203 0.147 0.147 0.11 2/26/2018 3:00 3.0 6:35 5.5 4.0 3:00 0.9 6:35 1.6 1.2 3:00 0.089 6:35 0.351 0.184 0.184 0.00 2/27/2018 3:50 2.9 8:30 5.7 3.9 3:35 1.1 14:35 1.8 1.3 3:50 0.095 14:35 0.390 0.187 0.187 0.19 2/28/2018 3:30 3.0 17:20 5.2 4.1 3:05 1.0 17:20 1.7 1.4 3:45 0.098 17:20 0.339 0.207 0.207 0.35 ReportAvg 4.2 1.3 0.201 ReportTotal 5.640 2.84 ADS Environmental Services Pipe Height: 11.25 REN_MH2171\mp1\DFINAL (inches) REN_MH2171\mp1\VFINAL (feet/sec) REN_MH2171\mp1\QFINAL (MGD - Total MG) REN_RG\mp1\RAIN (inches) Date Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Total Total 3/1/2018 2:25 3.1 9:20 5.5 4.1 3:40 1.1 9:20 1.7 1.3 3:00 0.108 9:20 0.368 0.200 0.200 0.01 3/2/2018 1:20 3.1 8:15 5.7 4.1 1:40 1.1 8:15 1.7 1.3 1:20 0.106 8:15 0.388 0.205 0.205 0.07 3/3/2018 5:30 2.9 10:20 4.3 3.6 23:50 1.0 10:25 1.4 1.2 4:35 0.095 10:20 0.208 0.146 0.146 0.00 3/4/2018 4:45 3.0 17:35 4.5 3.7 6:15 0.9 17:00 1.4 1.1 4:35 0.091 17:35 0.219 0.145 0.145 0.12 3/5/2018 2:45 3.0 15:55 5.2 4.1 1:10 0.9 7:50 1.6 1.3 3:15 0.087 7:50 0.311 0.190 0.190 0.00 3/6/2018 2:25 3.0 21:10 5.3 4.0 3:30 1.0 13:10 1.7 1.3 3:35 0.099 13:10 0.343 0.196 0.196 0.00 3/7/2018 4:05 3.0 15:10 5.4 4.0 2:40 1.0 15:15 1.7 1.3 2:40 0.098 15:15 0.353 0.192 0.192 0.03 3/8/2018 3:10 3.0 9:15 5.4 4.3 0:30 0.9 20:40 1.7 1.4 3:10 0.090 20:40 0.356 0.222 0.222 0.37 3/9/2018 3:40 3.0 10:40 5.5 4.1 2:10 1.0 10:40 1.7 1.3 3:40 0.102 10:40 0.361 0.197 0.197 0.00 3/10/2018 5:15 2.8 19:15 4.2 3.5 3:10 0.9 10:10 1.3 1.1 5:25 0.085 10:15 0.187 0.137 0.137 0.00 3/11/2018 2:55 3.0 9:45 4.7 3.5 4:25 0.9 9:40 1.5 1.1 2:55 0.088 9:40 0.255 0.136 0.136 0.00 3/12/2018 3:15 3.0 13:25 5.4 4.0 1:25 0.9 6:10 1.6 1.2 1:20 0.085 13:25 0.329 0.184 0.184 0.00 3/13/2018 2:25 2.9 12:05 5.4 4.1 3:10 0.9 15:15 1.6 1.3 2:25 0.083 12:05 0.326 0.200 0.200 0.31 3/14/2018 2:55 2.9 9:45 6.1 4.1 2:55 1.0 9:45 1.8 1.3 2:55 0.089 9:45 0.445 0.197 0.197 0.04 3/15/2018 1:55 2.8 8:50 6.1 4.1 2:15 1.0 8:45 1.8 1.3 2:00 0.085 8:50 0.447 0.202 0.202 0.00 3/16/2018 3:05 2.9 12:00 6.3 4.1 1:50 0.8 11:45 1.9 1.3 1:50 0.079 12:00 0.488 0.210 0.210 0.00 3/17/2018 3:40 2.8 10:25 4.2 3.5 4:40 0.9 11:40 1.3 1.1 4:00 0.080 11:05 0.183 0.133 0.133 0.00 3/18/2018 4:55 2.7 8:50 4.2 3.4 2:45 0.9 10:05 1.3 1.1 4:55 0.079 8:50 0.194 0.132 0.132 0.00 3/19/2018 2:35 2.8 8:40 6.4 3.9 1:50 0.9 8:40 1.9 1.3 2:35 0.082 8:40 0.502 0.188 0.188 0.00 3/20/2018 0:50 2.8 6:15 5.3 3.8 23:50 0.9 6:10 1.7 1.2 23:50 0.078 6:10 0.349 0.164 0.164 0.00 3/21/2018 2:00 2.7 7:20 5.3 3.9 3:00 0.8 7:20 1.6 1.2 1:55 0.069 7:20 0.333 0.171 0.171 0.10 3/22/2018 2:45 2.9 11:50 6.3 4.1 2:35 0.9 11:45 1.8 1.3 2:45 0.079 11:45 0.448 0.196 0.196 0.48 3/23/2018 2:25 2.8 8:40 6.0 4.2 3:05 0.9 9:05 1.8 1.3 2:25 0.077 9:05 0.420 0.201 0.201 0.31 3/24/2018 2:05 3.1 10:35 4.2 3.7 1:55 1.0 9:55 1.3 1.1 2:05 0.096 10:35 0.193 0.147 0.147 0.28 3/25/2018 3:30 2.8 13:50 4.8 3.5 3:35 0.9 13:50 1.4 1.1 3:35 0.080 13:50 0.245 0.134 0.134 0.01 3/26/2018 3:05 2.8 6:10 5.9 4.1 3:10 0.9 11:15 1.7 1.2 3:15 0.078 11:15 0.396 0.185 0.185 0.17 3/27/2018 3:00 2.8 5:55 5.5 4.0 2:00 0.9 16:35 1.6 1.2 3:00 0.080 5:55 0.337 0.178 0.178 0.02 3/28/2018 2:50 2.9 13:10 5.7 4.0 1:15 0.9 13:10 1.7 1.2 2:45 0.084 13:10 0.375 0.177 0.177 0.01 3/29/2018 1:35 2.8 10:10 5.7 3.9 2:05 0.9 10:10 1.6 1.2 2:05 0.074 10:10 0.365 0.174 0.174 0.00 3/30/2018 3:00 2.8 13:40 5.4 3.9 3:05 0.9 13:40 1.6 1.2 3:00 0.077 13:40 0.345 0.169 0.169 0.00 3/31/2018 2:20 2.7 8:35 4.1 3.4 2:20 0.9 8:30 1.3 1.0 2:20 0.070 8:30 0.184 0.120 0.120 0.00 ReportAvg 3.9 1.2 0.175 ReportTotal 5.429 2.33 ADS Environmental Services Pipe Height: 11.25 REN_MH2171\mp1\DFINAL (inches) REN_MH2171\mp1\VFINAL (feet/sec) REN_MH2171\mp1\QFINAL (MGD - Total MG) REN_RG\mp1\RAIN (inches) Date Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Total Total 4/1/2018 2:55 2.7 9:30 4.0 3.4 2:30 0.8 9:35 1.2 1.0 2:55 0.070 9:30 0.175 0.121 0.121 0.10 4/2/2018 2:55 2.7 14:55 5.2 3.8 1:45 0.8 14:55 1.5 1.2 2:55 0.067 14:55 0.306 0.165 0.165 0.00 4/3/2018 1:50 2.8 17:20 5.2 3.9 1:20 0.9 6:15 1.6 1.2 1:40 0.075 17:25 0.303 0.169 0.169 0.00 4/4/2018 0:20 2.7 6:05 5.3 3.9 2:20 0.8 12:00 1.6 1.2 1:25 0.068 6:10 0.321 0.176 0.176 0.39 4/5/2018 1:35 2.9 15:25 5.0 4.0 2:20 0.9 15:30 1.5 1.2 2:40 0.078 15:25 0.290 0.184 0.184 0.25 4/6/2018 2:05 2.9 8:40 5.0 3.8 23:30 0.9 7:10 1.5 1.2 2:55 0.086 6:00 0.283 0.163 0.163 0.00 4/7/2018 1:50 3.0 5:15 5.8 4.1 1:05 0.8 5:15 1.7 1.2 1:05 0.083 5:15 0.393 0.190 0.190 0.88 4/8/2018 2:10 3.4 9:40 4.9 4.2 23:55 1.1 9:55 1.5 1.3 2:10 0.120 8:15 0.281 0.196 0.196 0.45 4/9/2018 23:05 3.3 7:10 5.7 4.2 2:10 1.0 7:10 1.7 1.3 23:05 0.112 7:10 0.380 0.205 0.205 0.00 4/10/2018 23:55 3.1 7:35 5.9 4.1 23:55 1.0 7:35 1.8 1.3 23:55 0.096 7:35 0.413 0.200 0.200 0.23 4/11/2018 0:00 3.1 7:05 5.5 4.1 1:40 0.9 7:05 1.7 1.3 2:30 0.091 7:05 0.358 0.197 0.197 0.31 4/12/2018 23:50 3.3 8:40 5.2 4.1 2:30 0.9 8:40 1.7 1.3 1:55 0.104 8:40 0.338 0.193 0.193 0.11 4/13/2018 1:00 3.1 8:10 5.1 4.2 0:40 0.9 8:25 1.6 1.3 1:00 0.096 8:25 0.297 0.205 0.205 0.51 4/14/2018 2:45 3.9 17:00 7.0 5.5 4:25 1.2 19:15 2.0 1.6 2:45 0.168 17:00 0.574 0.353 0.353 1.52 4/15/2018 23:45 4.6 0:00 6.6 5.6 20:25 1.5 1:00 1.9 1.7 23:55 0.258 1:00 0.516 0.366 0.366 0.21 4/16/2018 2:45 4.4 15:00 6.7 5.6 2:40 1.4 14:30 2.0 1.7 2:40 0.224 14:15 0.531 0.369 0.369 0.71 4/17/2018 23:45 4.2 5:50 6.1 5.2 23:05 1.3 5:25 1.8 1.6 23:45 0.201 5:45 0.433 0.315 0.315 0.01 4/18/2018 2:30 4.0 6:15 5.8 4.7 23:15 1.2 6:40 1.7 1.4 23:25 0.172 5:50 0.385 0.259 0.259 0.12 4/19/2018 2:30 3.8 6:00 5.7 4.6 2:35 1.1 5:55 1.7 1.4 2:35 0.145 5:55 0.387 0.246 0.246 0.00 4/20/2018 2:05 3.5 8:40 5.5 4.4 2:00 1.0 8:40 1.6 1.3 2:05 0.123 8:40 0.355 0.226 0.226 0.00 4/21/2018 3:55 3.4 9:00 4.6 3.9 0:40 1.0 9:00 1.4 1.2 4:05 0.115 9:00 0.246 0.161 0.161 0.05 4/22/2018 23:50 3.3 19:50 4.5 3.8 3:40 0.9 19:50 1.4 1.2 3:40 0.102 19:50 0.226 0.157 0.157 0.00 ReportAvg 4.3 1.3 0.219 ReportTotal 4.814 5.85 REN_MH2252 Located At: NE Corner of Rainier and Grady Way (see attached site report for details) Monitoring Period: December 22, 2017 – April 22, 2018 Pipe Dimensions: 18” Finalized Silt Level: 0 mm Site Data Characteristics: This site is located in a sanitary sewer pipe. The scattergraph indicates site operated in free flow conditions. The site did not surcharge during the monitoring period. The dry weather data plots above the Froude =1 curve indicating supercritical flow. Site Data Bias & Editing: The depth and velocity measurements recorded by the flow monitor were consistent with field confirmations conducted to date and supported the relative accuracy of the flow monitor at this location. The finalized depth data utilized the upward ultrasonic sensor. Site Data Uptime: The data uptime achieved during the monitoring period is provided in the table below. Based upon the quality and consistency of the observed flow depth and velocity data, the Continuity equation was used to calculate the flow rate for the monitoring period. Entity Percentage Uptime Raw Percentage Uptime Final Depth (in) 100% 100% Velocity (f/s) 100% 100% Quantity (mgd) 100% 100% Site Data Summary: The average flow depth, velocity, and quantity data observed during the monitoring period along with observed minimum and maximum data, are provided in the following table. The minimum and maximum rates recorded in the tables are based on 5‐minute data intervals. Item Depth (in) Velocity (f/s) Quantity (mgd) % Full Minimum 2.49 3.39 0.326 14% Maximum 6.65 7.64 2.865 37% Average 3.57 5.10 0.847 20% Latitude: 47.471006° Longitude:-122.207887° Site Sketch Plan View or Photo Additional Site Info. / Comments: Site located in pedestrian walkway area. Moderate, fast flow Good Antenna Location Communication Information: Active Drop Connections Air Quality: Communication Type Normal 22275.11.325 ADS Project Name: ADS Project Number: Renton.Carollo.I&I.WA17 Manhole Cover Manhole Frame Manhole Material: Manhole Diameter (Approx.): Manhole Depth (Approx. FT):Manhole Configuration Concrete Wireless Pipe Material Located in sidewalk infront of large parking area. Park in parking lot and carry equipment to location. Sensors / Devices: 18.00'' x 18.00'' 0.25" Manhole / Pipe Information: Installation Type: Pressure Sensor Range (psi) Confirmation Time: Site Sketch Profile View or Photo Pipe Size (H x W) Topside / Area Photo Peak Combo (CS4), Smart Depth (CS5) Pipe Size (HxW) 8:50:00 AM Monitoring Location (Sensors): Depth of Flow (Wet DOF) (in)Range (Air DOF) (in) ~3.50'' Velocity Sensor Offset (in) ~6.00 FPS Temporary 18.00'' x 18.00'' REN_MH2252 Access Traffic TRITON+ System Characteristics Location Type Pipe Shape Renton.Carollo.I&I.WA17 LightDrive Site Access Details: Site Address /Location: Site Name Northeast Corner of Rainier Ave and S Grady Way 0 - 5 psi Installation Information Circular Monitor Series Monitor Location: Doppler Standard Ring and Crank Manhole # Installation Date: 12.01.17 Upstream 0-5 FT Manhole MH2252 Other Map Flow Monitoring Site Report 0 Downlooker Physical Offset (in)Measurement Confidence (in) 1.38'' Peak Velocity (fps) Silt (in) ~8' Installation Confirmation: Manhole Opening Diameter (in) Silt Type Hydraulic Comments: Pipe Condition: Single Good Manhole Pick / Vent Hole Manhole Condition: No Concrete 20'' NormalUnbolted 20'' Additional Photos Flow Direction Monitoring Point Top Down Location Location Upstream Downstream Side Inlet ADS Environmental Services Pipe Height: 18.00 REN_MH2252\mp1\DFINAL (inches) REN_MH2252\mp1\VFINAL (feet/sec) REN_MH2252\mp1\QFINAL (MGD - Total MG) REN_RG\mp1\RAIN (inches) Date Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Total Total 12/22/2017 3:35 2.7 12:55 4.1 3.3 3:45 4.2 12:50 6.4 5.2 3:45 0.445 12:50 1.258 0.759 0.759 0.10 12/23/2017 5:20 2.7 12:40 3.7 3.2 4:10 4.0 11:20 5.7 5.0 4:10 0.425 11:20 0.954 0.707 0.707 0.00 12/24/2017 4:40 2.6 12:05 3.9 3.3 4:30 3.7 12:30 5.6 4.8 4:30 0.370 12:30 1.004 0.696 0.696 0.00 12/25/2017 4:25 2.7 14:10 3.9 3.4 4:30 3.6 14:10 5.6 4.9 4:30 0.392 14:10 1.034 0.750 0.750 0.14 12/26/2017 2:40 3.1 14:20 4.7 3.8 2:40 4.6 14:20 6.3 5.4 2:40 0.599 14:20 1.488 0.961 0.961 0.17 12/27/2017 3:55 3.0 11:10 4.0 3.7 3:55 4.5 11:10 5.7 5.4 3:55 0.573 11:10 1.095 0.927 0.927 0.00 12/28/2017 3:20 3.0 16:05 4.3 3.7 3:20 4.5 16:05 6.0 5.4 3:20 0.562 16:05 1.242 0.934 0.934 0.25 12/29/2017 1:15 3.7 11:05 6.7 4.8 2:45 5.1 12:35 7.6 6.5 2:45 0.869 11:10 2.865 1.643 1.643 1.57 12/30/2017 5:25 3.4 11:25 4.1 3.7 5:30 5.2 10:25 6.4 5.8 5:30 0.782 10:25 1.241 0.994 0.994 0.02 12/31/2017 5:40 3.1 11:05 4.0 3.5 5:25 4.5 11:25 6.0 5.3 5:25 0.593 11:25 1.117 0.844 0.844 0.00 ReportAvg 3.7 5.3 0.921 ReportTotal 9.215 2.25 ADS Environmental Services Pipe Height: 18.00 REN_MH2252\mp1\DFINAL (inches) REN_MH2252\mp1\VFINAL (feet/sec) REN_MH2252\mp1\QFINAL (MGD - Total MG) REN_RG\mp1\RAIN (inches) Date Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Total Total 1/1/2018 4:55 2.9 12:45 4.0 3.5 6:05 4.0 12:45 5.8 5.0 5:20 0.499 12:45 1.103 0.795 0.795 0.00 1/2/2018 3:45 2.8 19:25 3.8 3.4 3:40 3.9 12:05 5.5 4.8 3:40 0.446 20:40 0.935 0.749 0.749 0.01 1/3/2018 2:15 2.9 20:40 3.9 3.4 2:40 3.9 20:40 5.5 4.8 2:40 0.467 20:40 0.991 0.719 0.719 0.00 1/4/2018 4:00 2.8 18:40 3.8 3.4 5:45 4.2 21:45 5.4 4.8 4:00 0.491 18:35 0.930 0.737 0.737 0.09 1/5/2018 3:00 2.9 10:35 4.1 3.6 2:45 4.0 10:45 5.8 5.1 3:00 0.476 10:45 1.121 0.833 0.833 0.42 1/6/2018 3:35 3.2 11:35 4.4 3.9 4:00 4.4 11:35 6.0 5.5 4:00 0.619 11:35 1.291 0.992 0.992 0.24 1/7/2018 3:35 3.1 20:45 4.7 4.0 3:35 4.6 20:45 6.3 5.6 3:35 0.607 20:45 1.513 1.104 1.104 0.38 1/8/2018 4:00 3.8 8:55 4.8 4.1 4:00 5.4 8:55 6.4 5.8 4:00 0.943 8:55 1.563 1.150 1.150 0.14 1/9/2018 4:00 3.7 8:40 5.1 4.4 4:00 5.3 8:40 6.6 6.0 4:00 0.896 8:40 1.756 1.307 1.307 0.46 1/10/2018 3:45 3.8 7:00 4.6 4.2 3:45 5.5 7:00 6.2 5.9 3:45 0.957 7:00 1.439 1.184 1.184 0.22 1/11/2018 2:50 3.8 13:40 6.4 4.9 2:50 5.4 14:10 7.3 6.4 2:50 0.948 13:40 2.669 1.627 1.627 1.04 1/12/2018 4:10 3.6 8:25 4.8 3.9 2:20 5.1 8:20 6.8 5.8 4:10 0.823 8:20 1.644 1.074 1.074 0.20 1/13/2018 5:10 3.3 11:55 4.2 3.8 5:10 4.8 11:00 6.3 5.5 5:10 0.688 11:50 1.263 0.964 0.964 0.02 1/14/2018 4:40 3.2 10:30 4.2 3.7 4:15 4.4 19:20 6.1 5.3 4:20 0.608 10:30 1.186 0.912 0.912 0.00 1/15/2018 3:30 3.1 19:55 3.9 3.6 2:55 4.3 18:40 5.7 5.2 2:55 0.569 19:50 1.042 0.861 0.861 0.04 1/16/2018 5:05 3.2 7:10 4.0 3.6 0:45 4.5 7:20 5.9 5.2 4:30 0.628 7:20 1.097 0.862 0.862 0.26 1/17/2018 4:05 2.9 18:40 5.1 3.7 4:30 4.0 18:35 6.6 5.3 4:30 0.492 18:35 1.761 0.910 0.910 0.79 1/18/2018 2:45 3.5 7:10 4.9 4.1 2:35 4.8 7:55 6.5 5.7 2:35 0.734 7:30 1.600 1.125 1.125 0.40 1/19/2018 4:05 3.3 9:35 3.9 3.7 2:45 4.7 9:40 6.0 5.5 2:45 0.684 9:40 1.088 0.935 0.935 0.10 1/20/2018 3:20 3.1 11:40 4.1 3.7 2:45 4.7 10:45 6.1 5.3 3:20 0.642 10:45 1.164 0.909 0.909 0.10 1/21/2018 5:45 3.0 17:20 4.7 3.9 3:50 4.4 17:20 6.4 5.5 3:50 0.576 17:20 1.530 1.031 1.031 0.16 1/22/2018 4:20 3.3 7:55 5.3 4.1 4:10 4.6 7:55 6.7 5.7 4:10 0.684 7:55 1.901 1.116 1.116 0.34 1/23/2018 3:40 3.2 18:35 5.8 4.5 4:00 4.4 18:35 7.0 6.0 4:15 0.617 18:35 2.247 1.366 1.366 0.79 1/24/2018 3:40 4.5 18:40 5.4 4.9 21:35 6.0 18:40 6.8 6.4 3:40 1.345 18:40 1.986 1.603 1.603 0.51 1/25/2018 23:50 4.0 12:25 5.1 4.3 4:40 5.3 12:25 6.6 5.9 3:55 1.017 12:25 1.750 1.249 1.249 0.14 1/26/2018 3:25 3.5 9:35 4.8 4.0 3:00 4.8 9:35 6.5 5.6 3:15 0.765 9:35 1.574 1.076 1.076 0.36 1/27/2018 0:35 3.8 11:45 6.0 4.4 0:30 5.3 11:45 7.2 6.1 0:30 0.942 11:45 2.384 1.336 1.336 0.61 1/28/2018 6:40 3.7 10:40 4.4 4.0 4:35 5.0 12:15 6.3 5.7 5:40 0.844 12:15 1.368 1.099 1.099 0.07 1/29/2018 4:05 3.3 16:40 6.5 4.4 3:40 4.7 15:15 7.5 6.1 3:40 0.668 16:35 2.735 1.392 1.392 0.90 1/30/2018 23:55 3.6 8:40 4.7 4.0 23:45 5.0 8:35 6.6 5.8 23:50 0.825 8:35 1.571 1.102 1.102 0.00 1/31/2018 3:35 3.3 8:55 4.2 3.7 2:45 4.7 8:55 6.4 5.6 3:35 0.671 8:55 1.304 0.932 0.932 0.00 ReportAvg 4.0 5.6 1.066 ReportTotal 33.05 8.79 ADS Environmental Services Pipe Height: 18.00 REN_MH2252\mp1\DFINAL (inches) REN_MH2252\mp1\VFINAL (feet/sec) REN_MH2252\mp1\QFINAL (MGD - Total MG) REN_RG\mp1\RAIN (inches) Date Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Total Total 2/1/2018 3:40 3.0 3:35 4.6 3.6 2:45 4.5 21:05 6.5 5.7 3:40 0.569 3:35 1.467 0.946 0.946 0.66 2/2/2018 4:15 3.3 8:50 4.1 3.7 2:55 5.0 6:55 6.4 5.9 2:55 0.745 8:45 1.250 1.000 1.000 0.04 2/3/2018 5:25 3.1 12:50 4.1 3.6 3:30 4.9 9:45 6.4 5.8 5:15 0.638 12:50 1.223 0.949 0.949 0.31 2/4/2018 5:55 3.1 13:20 4.1 3.6 5:00 5.0 11:00 6.3 5.7 5:00 0.639 13:15 1.232 0.936 0.936 0.02 2/5/2018 3:45 2.9 15:20 3.9 3.4 1:50 4.8 12:45 6.1 5.6 4:35 0.596 15:20 1.083 0.852 0.852 0.04 2/6/2018 3:20 2.8 21:00 3.8 3.4 3:15 4.6 19:25 5.9 5.3 3:15 0.526 19:25 1.011 0.805 0.805 0.00 2/7/2018 2:55 2.8 21:00 4.0 3.4 1:45 4.3 6:50 5.7 5.1 1:45 0.513 21:05 1.053 0.789 0.789 0.00 2/8/2018 3:15 2.8 20:55 4.0 3.5 2:25 4.2 20:55 5.7 5.1 3:25 0.486 20:55 1.102 0.805 0.805 0.09 2/9/2018 4:35 3.1 12:35 4.0 3.6 4:40 4.2 12:35 5.7 5.2 4:40 0.540 12:35 1.100 0.856 0.856 0.01 2/10/2018 6:45 3.1 11:45 4.2 3.7 7:10 4.4 11:45 5.9 5.3 6:45 0.601 11:45 1.219 0.894 0.894 0.01 2/11/2018 6:40 3.0 11:20 4.2 3.6 6:45 4.1 11:20 5.9 5.2 6:45 0.530 11:20 1.191 0.875 0.875 0.00 2/12/2018 3:45 3.0 20:30 3.7 3.4 0:30 4.3 19:35 5.4 4.8 3:45 0.560 19:35 0.919 0.720 0.720 0.00 2/13/2018 4:25 2.7 17:50 3.7 3.3 4:35 3.7 17:25 5.2 4.7 4:35 0.410 17:55 0.875 0.670 0.670 0.17 2/14/2018 4:15 2.8 19:50 3.7 3.4 4:35 3.9 21:20 5.4 4.8 4:10 0.458 21:20 0.922 0.714 0.714 0.15 2/15/2018 3:30 2.8 14:15 3.9 3.3 4:35 3.8 14:10 5.7 4.7 4:35 0.445 14:10 1.023 0.684 0.684 0.00 2/16/2018 2:15 2.6 20:00 3.5 3.2 1:25 3.7 8:25 5.2 4.6 2:10 0.387 20:10 0.814 0.648 0.648 0.15 2/17/2018 2:50 2.6 12:15 4.4 3.6 2:55 3.6 12:15 6.1 5.1 2:55 0.374 12:15 1.319 0.834 0.834 0.32 2/18/2018 5:15 2.7 10:45 3.9 3.4 5:35 3.7 11:25 5.5 4.8 5:05 0.404 11:25 0.974 0.717 0.717 0.01 2/19/2018 3:35 2.6 20:00 3.8 3.3 3:35 3.5 12:25 5.3 4.7 3:35 0.369 12:25 0.894 0.685 0.685 0.00 2/20/2018 4:35 2.7 20:40 3.7 3.2 3:50 3.6 20:45 5.4 4.6 3:50 0.388 20:45 0.923 0.651 0.651 0.00 2/21/2018 4:55 2.8 19:45 3.8 3.3 5:25 3.8 19:45 5.5 4.8 4:45 0.438 19:45 0.958 0.709 0.709 0.00 2/22/2018 4:50 2.9 19:00 3.6 3.3 4:50 4.0 19:00 5.2 4.8 4:50 0.473 19:00 0.838 0.699 0.699 0.07 2/23/2018 5:30 2.8 10:10 3.6 3.2 1:05 3.7 10:10 5.2 4.7 5:30 0.418 10:10 0.831 0.666 0.666 0.01 2/24/2018 3:35 2.7 11:55 3.9 3.3 3:25 3.7 11:55 5.6 4.8 3:25 0.405 11:55 1.038 0.719 0.719 0.13 2/25/2018 2:05 2.8 11:00 3.9 3.4 3:20 3.9 11:00 5.6 4.9 3:20 0.448 11:00 1.019 0.763 0.763 0.11 2/26/2018 1:20 2.8 20:05 3.7 3.2 1:35 3.8 20:05 5.3 4.6 1:35 0.424 20:05 0.902 0.652 0.652 0.00 2/27/2018 4:00 2.7 20:30 3.8 3.2 1:25 3.8 20:25 5.5 4.7 5:05 0.426 20:25 0.959 0.660 0.660 0.19 2/28/2018 5:10 2.7 18:55 4.0 3.3 5:10 3.8 18:55 5.6 4.8 5:10 0.411 18:55 1.053 0.708 0.708 0.35 ReportAvg 3.4 5.0 0.772 ReportTotal 21.61 2.84 ADS Environmental Services Pipe Height: 18.00 REN_MH2252\mp1\DFINAL (inches) REN_MH2252\mp1\VFINAL (feet/sec) REN_MH2252\mp1\QFINAL (MGD - Total MG) REN_RG\mp1\RAIN (inches) Date Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Total Total 3/1/2018 4:30 2.7 19:25 3.6 3.2 4:25 3.7 19:50 5.3 4.6 4:25 0.400 19:50 0.846 0.645 0.645 0.01 3/2/2018 3:30 2.7 8:10 3.6 3.3 1:55 3.6 7:45 5.2 4.6 1:55 0.383 8:10 0.811 0.653 0.653 0.07 3/3/2018 4:15 2.6 10:55 3.8 3.2 4:05 3.5 11:20 5.4 4.6 4:05 0.356 11:20 0.945 0.655 0.655 0.00 3/4/2018 3:45 2.6 11:35 3.8 3.3 3:50 3.5 11:10 5.5 4.7 3:50 0.362 11:10 0.960 0.702 0.702 0.12 3/5/2018 2:25 2.7 20:15 3.7 3.2 2:05 3.7 20:20 5.3 4.6 2:05 0.388 20:20 0.871 0.648 0.648 0.00 3/6/2018 1:35 2.7 20:30 3.7 3.2 1:15 3.6 20:35 5.3 4.6 1:15 0.395 20:35 0.897 0.638 0.638 0.00 3/7/2018 5:15 2.7 16:35 4.9 3.2 1:35 3.8 16:35 6.4 4.7 1:35 0.413 16:35 1.602 0.662 0.662 0.03 3/8/2018 4:55 2.7 21:30 4.4 3.3 3:40 3.7 21:10 5.8 4.7 3:40 0.414 21:30 1.241 0.690 0.690 0.37 3/9/2018 4:40 2.7 12:05 3.6 3.3 5:05 3.7 12:10 5.2 4.6 4:40 0.410 12:10 0.824 0.655 0.655 0.00 3/10/2018 4:25 2.6 11:35 3.8 3.2 4:20 3.5 11:40 5.4 4.6 4:20 0.348 11:40 0.938 0.643 0.643 0.00 3/11/2018 4:15 2.6 11:15 3.8 3.3 2:55 3.5 11:15 5.4 4.7 4:15 0.364 11:15 0.938 0.675 0.675 0.00 3/12/2018 4:00 2.6 10:00 3.9 3.2 4:05 3.5 10:05 5.6 4.7 4:05 0.366 10:05 1.017 0.670 0.670 0.00 3/13/2018 4:05 2.7 18:45 3.9 3.3 1:30 3.8 18:45 5.6 4.7 4:20 0.421 18:45 1.019 0.686 0.686 0.31 3/14/2018 2:55 2.7 19:40 3.7 3.3 3:50 3.7 19:40 5.4 4.7 3:40 0.394 19:40 0.930 0.680 0.680 0.04 3/15/2018 3:40 2.7 19:45 3.6 3.2 3:45 3.6 19:40 5.3 4.6 3:45 0.375 19:40 0.866 0.633 0.633 0.00 3/16/2018 2:50 2.6 8:55 3.5 3.2 3:15 3.6 8:55 5.2 4.5 3:15 0.366 8:55 0.820 0.621 0.621 0.00 3/17/2018 5:05 2.5 10:05 3.8 3.2 3:45 3.4 10:05 5.5 4.6 3:45 0.339 10:05 0.985 0.665 0.665 0.00 3/18/2018 1:45 2.6 11:10 3.8 3.3 5:15 3.5 11:10 5.5 4.7 5:15 0.365 11:10 0.986 0.694 0.694 0.00 3/19/2018 3:25 2.7 8:55 3.9 3.2 0:55 3.6 9:00 5.5 4.6 0:55 0.380 9:00 0.981 0.636 0.636 0.00 3/20/2018 2:45 2.5 20:10 3.7 3.2 2:15 3.5 20:10 5.4 4.6 2:15 0.355 20:10 0.926 0.637 0.637 0.00 3/21/2018 4:00 2.7 19:25 3.6 3.2 2:35 3.7 19:20 5.3 4.6 2:35 0.396 19:20 0.865 0.649 0.649 0.10 3/22/2018 4:20 2.7 7:30 4.0 3.3 4:15 3.7 7:45 5.6 4.8 4:15 0.398 7:45 1.020 0.721 0.721 0.48 3/23/2018 4:00 2.7 9:45 4.1 3.4 4:10 3.7 9:40 5.8 4.8 4:10 0.407 9:40 1.124 0.734 0.734 0.31 3/24/2018 3:00 2.7 10:10 3.9 3.4 2:30 3.7 10:30 5.5 4.7 2:55 0.397 10:10 0.986 0.709 0.709 0.28 3/25/2018 3:50 2.6 9:40 3.8 3.3 3:40 3.5 11:40 5.4 4.6 3:45 0.350 11:40 0.926 0.679 0.679 0.01 3/26/2018 3:05 2.5 19:20 3.7 3.3 2:35 3.4 19:30 5.4 4.6 2:35 0.341 19:30 0.905 0.666 0.666 0.17 3/27/2018 3:05 2.5 20:05 3.6 3.2 2:15 3.5 19:55 5.3 4.5 2:15 0.347 19:55 0.872 0.621 0.621 0.02 3/28/2018 1:50 2.5 19:55 3.7 3.2 1:50 3.4 20:00 5.3 4.5 1:50 0.335 20:00 0.895 0.615 0.615 0.01 3/29/2018 3:20 2.6 19:50 3.7 3.2 3:00 3.5 19:50 5.4 4.5 3:00 0.357 19:50 0.914 0.633 0.633 0.00 3/30/2018 3:50 2.5 18:35 3.5 3.1 2:40 3.5 18:35 5.1 4.5 2:45 0.346 18:35 0.785 0.604 0.604 0.00 3/31/2018 3:25 2.5 10:30 3.8 3.2 3:30 3.4 10:30 5.5 4.6 3:30 0.326 10:30 0.977 0.650 0.650 0.00 ReportAvg 3.2 4.6 0.660 ReportTotal 20.47 2.33 ADS Environmental Services Pipe Height: 18.00 REN_MH2252\mp1\DFINAL (inches) REN_MH2252\mp1\VFINAL (feet/sec) REN_MH2252\mp1\QFINAL (MGD - Total MG) REN_RG\mp1\RAIN (inches) Date Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Total Total 4/1/2018 5:15 2.5 10:10 3.9 3.2 5:55 3.4 10:10 5.5 4.7 5:55 0.341 10:10 0.992 0.675 0.675 0.10 4/2/2018 2:20 2.6 20:10 3.6 3.2 4:30 3.6 20:10 5.3 4.6 4:30 0.377 20:10 0.874 0.621 0.621 0.00 4/3/2018 2:20 2.6 20:25 3.7 3.2 4:15 3.5 20:25 5.4 4.6 4:15 0.350 20:25 0.919 0.631 0.631 0.00 4/4/2018 2:15 2.6 18:30 3.9 3.4 3:40 3.5 18:30 5.6 4.9 3:40 0.371 18:30 1.010 0.752 0.752 0.39 4/5/2018 2:15 2.7 18:50 4.1 3.4 2:15 3.8 18:50 5.8 4.9 2:15 0.408 18:50 1.119 0.745 0.745 0.25 4/6/2018 4:30 2.8 14:30 3.5 3.3 3:55 4.1 14:30 5.2 4.8 4:30 0.474 14:30 0.822 0.699 0.699 0.00 4/7/2018 2:40 2.7 8:40 4.8 3.9 2:45 3.8 8:40 6.4 5.4 2:45 0.409 8:40 1.569 1.013 1.013 0.88 4/8/2018 2:55 3.1 9:40 4.5 3.8 3:00 4.3 10:35 6.2 5.4 3:00 0.568 10:35 1.384 0.961 0.961 0.45 4/9/2018 2:45 3.0 6:35 3.8 3.4 23:50 4.1 19:40 5.4 4.8 3:50 0.508 6:35 0.922 0.737 0.737 0.00 4/10/2018 3:00 2.8 8:20 3.7 3.4 2:15 3.8 19:45 5.4 4.8 2:40 0.441 8:20 0.917 0.722 0.722 0.23 4/11/2018 2:35 2.7 19:35 3.9 3.4 2:35 3.7 19:25 5.5 4.7 2:35 0.401 19:35 0.971 0.703 0.703 0.31 4/12/2018 2:00 2.8 19:50 3.7 3.4 2:40 3.9 20:05 5.3 4.8 2:40 0.451 19:40 0.887 0.705 0.705 0.11 4/13/2018 1:30 2.8 15:10 4.3 3.6 1:10 3.7 19:20 5.9 5.0 1:10 0.419 15:10 1.211 0.826 0.826 0.51 4/14/2018 3:10 3.5 19:25 5.6 4.6 4:50 4.8 19:25 7.0 6.0 4:50 0.756 19:25 2.121 1.437 1.437 1.52 4/15/2018 23:55 3.9 9:30 5.3 4.8 23:15 5.3 8:50 6.8 6.2 23:55 0.998 10:25 1.860 1.545 1.545 0.21 4/16/2018 3:20 3.6 19:35 5.1 4.4 4:20 5.0 20:25 6.7 6.0 4:00 0.851 19:35 1.744 1.302 1.302 0.71 4/17/2018 23:50 3.5 7:20 4.7 4.1 22:35 5.0 7:35 6.4 5.6 23:50 0.774 7:35 1.517 1.078 1.078 0.01 4/18/2018 23:55 3.1 8:45 4.3 3.7 23:50 4.3 8:45 6.1 5.2 23:50 0.581 8:45 1.298 0.890 0.890 0.12 4/19/2018 23:55 3.0 7:15 4.3 3.5 1:40 4.1 7:10 6.4 5.0 1:40 0.515 7:10 1.312 0.786 0.786 0.00 4/20/2018 2:50 2.7 10:10 4.2 3.3 1:55 3.9 9:40 6.0 4.8 1:55 0.430 9:55 1.218 0.708 0.708 0.00 4/21/2018 3:50 2.7 9:10 3.8 3.3 3:35 3.9 10:20 5.5 4.8 3:35 0.414 9:35 0.971 0.701 0.701 0.05 4/22/2018 3:05 2.7 11:05 3.8 3.3 5:05 3.9 8:40 5.5 4.8 5:05 0.417 10:55 0.946 0.704 0.704 0.00 ReportAvg 3.6 5.1 0.861 ReportTotal 18.94 5.85 REN_MH2999 Located At: 3431 Shattuck Ave S (see attached site report for details) Monitoring Period: December 22, 2017 – April 22, 2018 Pipe Dimensions: 8” Finalized Silt Level: 0 mm Site Data Characteristics: This site is located in a sanitary sewer pipe. The scattergraph indicates site operated in free flow conditions. The site did not surcharge during the monitoring period. The dry weather data plots above the Froude =1 curve indicating supercritical flow. Site Data Bias & Editing: The depth and velocity measurements recorded by the flow monitor were consistent with field confirmations conducted to date and supported the relative accuracy of the flow monitor at this location. The finalized depth data utilized the upward ultrasonic sensor. Site Data Uptime: The data uptime achieved during the monitoring period is provided in the table below. Based upon the quality and consistency of the observed flow depth and velocity data, the Continuity equation was used to calculate the flow rate for the monitoring period. Entity Percentage Uptime Raw Percentage Uptime Final Depth (in) 100% 100% Velocity (f/s) 100% 100% Quantity (mgd) 100% 100% Site Data Summary: The average flow depth, velocity, and quantity data observed during the monitoring period along with observed minimum and maximum data, are provided in the following table. The minimum and maximum rates recorded in the tables are based on 5‐minute data intervals. Item Depth (in) Velocity (f/s) Quantity (mgd) % Full Minimum 1.28 3.51 0.087 16% Maximum 3.28 7.12 0.609 41% Average 1.81 5.58 0.218 23% Latitude: 47.448386° Longitude:-122.212824° Site Sketch Plan View or Photo Additional Site Info. / Comments: Traffic control required. Fast, low flow Good Antenna Location Communication Information: Active Drop Connections Air Quality: Communication Type Normal 22275.11.325 ADS Project Name: ADS Project Number: Renton.Carollo.I&I.WA17 Manhole Cover Manhole Frame Manhole Material: Manhole Diameter (Approx.): Manhole Depth (Approx. FT):Manhole Configuration Concrete Wireless Pipe Material Located in roadway at end of residential neighborhood. Sensors / Devices: 8.00'' x 8.00'' 0.25" Manhole / Pipe Information: Installation Type: Pressure Sensor Range (psi) Confirmation Time: Site Sketch Profile View or Photo Pipe Size (H x W) Topside / Area Photo Peak Combo (CS4), Smart Depth (CS5) Pipe Size (HxW) 9:22:00 AM Monitoring Location (Sensors): Depth of Flow (Wet DOF) (in)Range (Air DOF) (in) ~2.63'' Velocity Sensor Offset (in) ~7.5 FPS Temporary 8.00'' x 8.00'' REN_MH2999 Access Traffic TRITON+ System Characteristics Location Type Pipe Shape Renton.Carollo.I&I.WA17 Medium Drive Site Access Details: Site Address /Location: Site Name 3431 Shattuck Ave S 0 - 5 psi Installation Information Circular Monitor Series Monitor Location: Doppler Standard Ring and Crank Manhole # Installation Date: 12.19.17 Upstream 0-5 FT Manhole MH2999 Other Map Flow Monitoring Site Report 0 Downlooker Physical Offset (in)Measurement Confidence (in) 1.25'' Peak Velocity (fps) Silt (in) ~8' Installation Confirmation: Manhole Opening Diameter (in) Silt Type Hydraulic Comments: Pipe Condition: Single Good Manhole Pick / Vent Hole Manhole Condition: No Concrete 20'' NormalUnbolted 20'' Additional Photos Flow Direction Monitoring Point Top Down Location Location Upstream Downstream Side Inlet ADS Environmental Services Pipe Height: 8.00 REN_MH2999\mp1\DFINAL (inches) REN_MH2999\mp1\VFINAL (feet/sec) REN_MH2999\mp1\QFINAL (MGD - Total MG) REN_RG\mp1\RAIN (inches) Date Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Total Total 12/22/2017 1:20 1.6 13:25 2.2 1.8 3:00 5.1 9:35 6.8 5.9 1:20 0.171 11:30 0.335 0.232 0.232 0.10 12/23/2017 5:25 1.5 9:55 2.1 1.8 5:25 5.0 11:05 6.5 5.7 5:25 0.147 9:55 0.310 0.211 0.211 0.00 12/24/2017 5:10 1.4 10:45 2.2 1.8 3:40 4.8 10:45 6.5 5.7 5:05 0.136 10:45 0.326 0.210 0.210 0.00 12/25/2017 5:45 1.5 12:10 2.2 1.8 5:45 4.8 12:10 6.4 5.6 5:45 0.136 12:10 0.317 0.209 0.209 0.14 12/26/2017 4:35 1.4 18:30 2.2 1.8 4:35 4.7 13:00 6.3 5.4 4:35 0.130 18:30 0.314 0.204 0.204 0.17 12/27/2017 3:55 1.4 19:50 2.1 1.7 3:05 4.6 19:50 6.3 5.4 4:00 0.128 19:50 0.291 0.195 0.195 0.00 12/28/2017 2:15 1.4 9:45 2.1 1.8 4:10 4.6 20:10 6.2 5.5 4:10 0.127 20:10 0.288 0.204 0.204 0.25 12/29/2017 0:45 1.7 10:40 3.3 2.4 1:05 5.1 11:55 7.1 6.4 1:05 0.185 10:40 0.609 0.383 0.383 1.57 12/30/2017 23:35 1.9 0:25 2.6 2.1 5:30 5.8 16:55 6.7 6.2 23:35 0.250 12:05 0.401 0.298 0.298 0.02 12/31/2017 3:05 1.8 10:40 2.4 2.0 5:05 5.4 10:40 6.6 6.0 5:20 0.206 10:40 0.371 0.260 0.260 0.00 ReportAvg 1.9 5.8 0.241 ReportTotal 2.407 2.25 ADS Environmental Services Pipe Height: 8.00 REN_MH2999\mp1\DFINAL (inches) REN_MH2999\mp1\VFINAL (feet/sec) REN_MH2999\mp1\QFINAL (MGD - Total MG) REN_RG\mp1\RAIN (inches) Date Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Total Total 1/1/2018 6:35 1.6 10:30 2.4 1.9 6:05 5.1 11:25 6.8 5.9 7:20 0.171 10:30 0.381 0.238 0.238 0.00 1/2/2018 2:50 1.5 6:55 2.1 1.8 1:50 4.9 6:55 6.4 5.7 2:50 0.147 6:55 0.296 0.215 0.215 0.01 1/3/2018 2:50 1.5 18:45 2.1 1.8 23:00 4.9 18:45 6.4 5.6 2:40 0.141 18:45 0.292 0.206 0.206 0.00 1/4/2018 3:35 1.4 9:55 2.1 1.7 3:50 4.6 8:35 6.4 5.4 3:50 0.129 9:55 0.292 0.192 0.192 0.09 1/5/2018 2:10 1.5 20:05 2.2 1.8 4:05 4.6 16:05 6.3 5.5 2:20 0.134 20:05 0.312 0.221 0.221 0.42 1/6/2018 2:50 1.6 11:05 2.4 2.0 3:00 4.9 9:15 6.3 5.7 2:50 0.157 11:05 0.359 0.247 0.247 0.24 1/7/2018 3:10 1.6 12:15 2.5 2.0 4:25 4.9 10:20 6.6 5.7 5:10 0.154 12:15 0.393 0.249 0.249 0.38 1/8/2018 2:40 1.7 8:45 2.3 2.0 2:35 5.0 11:45 6.4 5.8 2:35 0.179 8:45 0.345 0.254 0.254 0.14 1/9/2018 3:25 1.8 6:55 2.4 2.0 3:30 5.3 6:55 6.4 5.9 3:30 0.209 6:55 0.362 0.268 0.268 0.46 1/10/2018 4:10 1.7 22:35 2.2 2.0 2:50 5.1 9:20 6.3 5.7 2:55 0.181 22:35 0.318 0.247 0.247 0.22 1/11/2018 2:40 1.7 15:10 3.0 2.3 2:10 5.2 13:05 6.7 6.1 2:35 0.181 15:10 0.515 0.331 0.331 1.04 1/12/2018 23:55 2.0 19:10 2.7 2.2 2:40 5.6 19:55 6.5 6.0 23:55 0.261 19:10 0.421 0.302 0.302 0.20 1/13/2018 4:25 1.9 11:35 2.4 2.1 4:10 5.3 12:25 6.5 5.9 4:25 0.221 12:25 0.372 0.277 0.277 0.02 1/14/2018 5:50 1.7 10:05 2.5 2.0 2:50 5.0 10:05 6.5 5.7 5:50 0.176 10:05 0.392 0.254 0.254 0.00 1/15/2018 4:05 1.6 19:40 2.2 1.9 1:55 4.8 19:40 6.4 5.6 2:50 0.155 19:40 0.320 0.232 0.232 0.04 1/16/2018 3:35 1.6 20:45 2.2 1.9 3:35 4.8 7:15 6.3 5.6 3:35 0.155 20:45 0.318 0.232 0.232 0.26 1/17/2018 3:40 1.6 19:05 2.8 2.0 3:10 4.6 19:05 6.6 5.6 3:10 0.148 19:05 0.462 0.246 0.246 0.79 1/18/2018 1:30 1.9 9:00 2.7 2.2 1:55 5.3 9:00 6.4 6.0 1:35 0.229 9:00 0.421 0.297 0.297 0.40 1/19/2018 3:20 1.9 8:30 2.5 2.1 3:15 5.1 18:45 6.5 5.8 3:15 0.205 18:45 0.381 0.267 0.267 0.10 1/20/2018 3:10 1.7 10:30 2.4 2.0 2:15 4.9 10:30 6.3 5.6 3:10 0.180 10:30 0.349 0.253 0.253 0.10 1/21/2018 6:00 1.6 9:45 2.4 2.0 4:20 4.8 11:35 6.4 5.6 2:50 0.161 9:45 0.364 0.249 0.249 0.16 1/22/2018 2:20 1.6 10:40 2.5 2.0 4:30 4.8 7:45 6.4 5.7 2:20 0.162 10:40 0.373 0.255 0.255 0.34 1/23/2018 2:15 1.7 18:45 2.7 2.1 3:55 4.8 20:10 6.5 5.8 3:55 0.165 18:45 0.419 0.274 0.274 0.79 1/24/2018 4:30 2.0 6:30 2.7 2.2 3:20 5.6 19:25 6.6 6.2 4:30 0.258 6:30 0.443 0.314 0.314 0.51 1/25/2018 2:45 2.0 20:35 2.6 2.1 3:35 5.6 20:35 6.6 6.1 2:40 0.250 20:35 0.425 0.294 0.294 0.14 1/26/2018 4:30 1.9 23:20 2.4 2.1 3:10 5.4 13:00 6.5 6.0 3:35 0.218 23:20 0.374 0.277 0.277 0.36 1/27/2018 0:05 2.0 10:50 2.6 2.2 0:10 5.9 20:55 6.9 6.4 0:10 0.261 10:50 0.440 0.323 0.323 0.61 1/28/2018 5:20 1.9 10:05 2.5 2.0 5:30 5.7 10:05 6.7 6.2 5:20 0.236 10:05 0.398 0.282 0.282 0.07 1/29/2018 2:45 1.8 16:50 3.0 2.2 3:15 5.3 18:05 7.1 6.3 3:15 0.204 16:55 0.540 0.317 0.317 0.90 1/30/2018 23:35 1.9 16:20 2.4 2.0 23:15 6.0 22:35 6.8 6.3 23:30 0.243 16:20 0.389 0.287 0.287 0.00 1/31/2018 4:00 1.8 6:30 2.3 1.9 3:30 5.4 6:30 6.7 6.0 3:45 0.200 6:30 0.363 0.249 0.249 0.00 ReportAvg 2.0 5.9 0.263 ReportTotal 8.150 8.79 ADS Environmental Services Pipe Height: 8.00 REN_MH2999\mp1\DFINAL (inches) REN_MH2999\mp1\VFINAL (feet/sec) REN_MH2999\mp1\QFINAL (MGD - Total MG) REN_RG\mp1\RAIN (inches) Date Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Total Total 2/1/2018 3:40 1.7 21:55 2.5 1.9 4:05 5.3 22:50 6.9 6.0 3:40 0.180 21:55 0.400 0.246 0.246 0.66 2/2/2018 3:00 1.8 8:15 2.4 2.0 23:00 5.8 11:00 6.8 6.2 3:00 0.223 8:15 0.373 0.265 0.265 0.04 2/3/2018 3:45 1.7 10:20 2.3 1.9 4:10 5.3 12:55 6.7 6.0 4:10 0.187 10:20 0.352 0.249 0.249 0.31 2/4/2018 3:50 1.7 20:35 2.3 1.9 4:30 5.3 11:05 6.7 6.0 3:05 0.186 20:35 0.352 0.247 0.247 0.02 2/5/2018 3:40 1.6 20:55 2.3 1.8 2:50 5.0 12:55 6.6 5.8 3:15 0.164 20:55 0.338 0.224 0.224 0.04 2/6/2018 3:30 1.6 17:50 2.1 1.8 1:45 4.9 17:50 6.5 5.7 1:45 0.160 17:50 0.307 0.217 0.217 0.00 2/7/2018 2:45 1.5 10:25 2.2 1.8 3:30 4.8 10:25 6.5 5.6 3:00 0.147 10:25 0.330 0.209 0.209 0.00 2/8/2018 2:40 1.5 18:20 2.1 1.7 2:45 4.7 18:20 6.4 5.5 2:45 0.136 18:20 0.300 0.197 0.197 0.09 2/9/2018 3:20 1.4 8:55 2.0 1.7 2:15 4.8 8:00 6.3 5.5 3:15 0.132 8:55 0.270 0.194 0.194 0.01 2/10/2018 4:00 1.4 10:25 2.1 1.7 5:20 4.8 10:20 6.4 5.5 3:55 0.130 10:25 0.298 0.194 0.194 0.01 2/11/2018 5:20 1.4 13:50 2.1 1.7 3:15 4.6 16:50 6.3 5.5 5:05 0.125 13:50 0.291 0.197 0.197 0.00 2/12/2018 3:30 1.4 8:55 2.0 1.6 2:20 4.4 21:30 6.2 5.3 4:25 0.118 8:55 0.275 0.178 0.178 0.00 2/13/2018 3:05 1.4 20:55 1.9 1.6 4:30 4.3 20:55 6.2 5.3 2:50 0.111 20:55 0.253 0.173 0.173 0.17 2/14/2018 4:35 1.4 7:35 2.0 1.7 4:30 4.6 7:35 6.3 5.4 4:35 0.124 7:35 0.277 0.189 0.189 0.15 2/15/2018 2:55 1.4 21:20 1.9 1.6 2:45 4.4 21:20 6.2 5.3 2:50 0.115 21:20 0.256 0.178 0.178 0.00 2/16/2018 2:55 1.4 10:00 2.0 1.7 1:20 4.5 17:35 6.3 5.3 1:20 0.119 10:00 0.272 0.181 0.181 0.15 2/17/2018 3:25 1.4 10:45 2.2 1.8 3:25 4.5 11:30 6.6 5.6 3:25 0.117 10:45 0.328 0.211 0.211 0.32 2/18/2018 5:00 1.5 9:25 2.1 1.8 5:00 4.9 9:25 6.3 5.6 5:00 0.139 9:25 0.296 0.206 0.206 0.01 2/19/2018 2:55 1.4 21:25 2.0 1.7 2:55 4.7 21:25 6.3 5.4 2:55 0.127 21:25 0.286 0.191 0.191 0.00 2/20/2018 3:35 1.4 19:45 1.9 1.7 3:35 4.5 21:00 6.3 5.4 3:35 0.120 19:45 0.260 0.183 0.183 0.00 2/21/2018 3:15 1.4 21:25 1.9 1.6 4:05 4.3 21:25 6.2 5.3 3:10 0.114 21:25 0.260 0.177 0.177 0.00 2/22/2018 3:00 1.4 17:35 2.0 1.6 3:45 4.4 20:05 6.2 5.2 2:50 0.114 17:35 0.277 0.177 0.177 0.07 2/23/2018 3:15 1.4 22:45 2.0 1.6 3:25 4.2 9:10 6.0 5.2 3:25 0.109 22:50 0.267 0.170 0.170 0.01 2/24/2018 5:00 1.4 10:10 2.1 1.7 4:45 4.2 10:15 6.2 5.2 4:45 0.111 10:10 0.293 0.177 0.177 0.13 2/25/2018 4:40 1.4 9:50 2.1 1.7 3:15 4.3 14:10 6.2 5.4 3:15 0.115 9:50 0.294 0.193 0.193 0.11 2/26/2018 4:05 1.4 21:10 2.0 1.6 4:10 4.3 19:40 6.1 5.2 4:10 0.111 21:10 0.264 0.174 0.174 0.00 2/27/2018 2:40 1.3 20:35 2.0 1.6 2:15 4.2 7:45 6.1 5.2 2:40 0.101 20:35 0.264 0.168 0.168 0.19 2/28/2018 3:40 1.4 19:05 2.1 1.7 4:15 4.1 19:05 6.3 5.3 3:35 0.106 19:05 0.297 0.181 0.181 0.35 ReportAvg 1.7 5.5 0.198 ReportTotal 5.546 2.84 ADS Environmental Services Pipe Height: 8.00 REN_MH2999\mp1\DFINAL (inches) REN_MH2999\mp1\VFINAL (feet/sec) REN_MH2999\mp1\QFINAL (MGD - Total MG) REN_RG\mp1\RAIN (inches) Date Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Total Total 3/1/2018 3:50 1.4 21:20 2.0 1.7 3:05 4.5 21:20 6.2 5.3 2:55 0.124 21:20 0.278 0.186 0.186 0.01 3/2/2018 2:00 1.4 7:40 2.0 1.7 1:30 4.5 8:55 6.2 5.4 1:30 0.122 7:40 0.273 0.194 0.194 0.07 3/3/2018 3:30 1.4 9:15 2.1 1.7 3:20 4.5 9:20 6.2 5.4 3:20 0.122 9:20 0.298 0.190 0.190 0.00 3/4/2018 4:20 1.4 9:50 2.1 1.7 2:35 4.3 13:20 6.2 5.4 2:35 0.116 9:50 0.294 0.196 0.196 0.12 3/5/2018 3:50 1.4 9:40 2.1 1.7 2:30 4.4 19:55 6.1 5.3 3:50 0.116 9:40 0.281 0.188 0.188 0.00 3/6/2018 3:10 1.4 18:15 2.1 1.6 1:40 4.3 19:55 6.1 5.2 2:45 0.112 18:15 0.285 0.174 0.174 0.00 3/7/2018 2:40 1.4 9:00 2.1 1.6 2:30 4.2 7:40 6.1 5.2 2:30 0.109 9:00 0.279 0.174 0.174 0.03 3/8/2018 2:30 1.4 21:05 2.1 1.7 2:30 4.1 21:10 6.1 5.2 2:30 0.104 21:05 0.290 0.179 0.179 0.37 3/9/2018 3:25 1.4 9:20 2.1 1.7 3:15 4.4 18:50 6.1 5.2 3:15 0.117 18:50 0.286 0.179 0.179 0.00 3/10/2018 3:00 1.4 11:35 2.2 1.7 2:45 4.1 8:40 6.1 5.2 2:45 0.107 11:40 0.292 0.182 0.182 0.00 3/11/2018 2:20 1.4 10:10 2.2 1.7 2:10 4.0 19:05 6.0 5.1 2:10 0.103 21:35 0.293 0.179 0.179 0.00 3/12/2018 2:40 1.4 20:00 2.1 1.6 1:55 3.9 20:00 6.0 5.1 1:55 0.099 20:00 0.278 0.167 0.167 0.00 3/13/2018 2:10 1.4 18:50 2.2 1.6 1:20 4.0 18:00 6.2 5.1 1:20 0.105 18:50 0.304 0.174 0.174 0.31 3/14/2018 23:55 1.4 9:25 2.0 1.7 2:05 4.3 5:35 6.1 5.2 2:05 0.117 5:35 0.278 0.177 0.177 0.04 3/15/2018 2:55 1.4 7:50 2.1 1.6 2:30 4.1 19:35 6.1 5.2 2:30 0.107 7:50 0.279 0.173 0.173 0.00 3/16/2018 2:25 1.4 19:35 2.0 1.6 1:10 4.0 19:30 6.0 5.0 1:10 0.102 19:35 0.271 0.163 0.163 0.00 3/17/2018 3:20 1.3 11:20 2.1 1.6 2:25 3.8 8:25 6.1 5.0 2:25 0.096 11:20 0.282 0.165 0.165 0.00 3/18/2018 3:10 1.3 18:05 2.1 1.6 4:25 3.7 9:40 6.1 5.0 3:10 0.094 18:05 0.286 0.168 0.168 0.00 3/19/2018 2:00 1.3 18:35 2.0 1.6 1:45 3.7 18:35 6.1 4.9 2:00 0.093 18:35 0.278 0.156 0.156 0.00 3/20/2018 2:55 1.3 9:05 2.2 1.6 1:45 3.6 9:05 6.2 5.0 2:15 0.091 9:05 0.306 0.155 0.155 0.00 3/21/2018 2:00 1.3 7:15 2.0 1.5 0:45 3.5 7:15 6.0 4.9 0:45 0.087 7:15 0.259 0.152 0.152 0.10 3/22/2018 2:45 1.3 19:45 2.0 1.6 2:15 3.9 21:00 6.3 5.3 2:15 0.097 19:45 0.270 0.179 0.179 0.48 3/23/2018 2:00 1.4 10:30 2.1 1.7 2:25 4.3 11:20 6.3 5.4 2:25 0.114 10:30 0.296 0.192 0.192 0.31 3/24/2018 2:45 1.4 10:10 2.2 1.8 2:15 4.6 14:10 6.3 5.6 2:15 0.127 10:10 0.317 0.210 0.210 0.28 3/25/2018 2:55 1.4 9:05 2.1 1.7 2:55 4.7 8:15 6.4 5.5 2:55 0.126 9:05 0.311 0.196 0.196 0.01 3/26/2018 2:35 1.4 7:50 2.1 1.7 1:35 4.3 18:50 6.4 5.5 1:35 0.111 7:50 0.304 0.190 0.190 0.17 3/27/2018 2:20 1.4 8:20 2.2 1.7 0:30 4.6 8:20 6.4 5.4 2:05 0.125 8:20 0.314 0.185 0.185 0.02 3/28/2018 2:40 1.4 7:15 1.9 1.6 0:15 4.3 18:10 6.3 5.4 2:40 0.116 7:15 0.250 0.176 0.176 0.01 3/29/2018 2:50 1.4 18:50 2.0 1.6 2:40 4.5 17:35 6.2 5.3 2:40 0.116 18:50 0.275 0.174 0.174 0.00 3/30/2018 2:20 1.3 8:45 2.3 1.6 1:10 4.4 8:45 6.4 5.2 1:55 0.112 8:45 0.347 0.172 0.172 0.00 3/31/2018 3:05 1.4 15:05 2.0 1.6 2:05 4.2 9:45 6.2 5.2 2:05 0.108 15:05 0.276 0.175 0.175 0.00 ReportAvg 1.6 5.2 0.178 ReportTotal 5.518 2.33 ADS Environmental Services Pipe Height: 8.00 REN_MH2999\mp1\DFINAL (inches) REN_MH2999\mp1\VFINAL (feet/sec) REN_MH2999\mp1\QFINAL (MGD - Total MG) REN_RG\mp1\RAIN (inches) Date Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Total Total 4/1/2018 5:40 1.3 12:35 2.0 1.7 3:25 4.1 12:35 6.2 5.2 3:25 0.104 12:35 0.284 0.179 0.179 0.10 4/2/2018 2:30 1.3 18:30 2.0 1.6 2:30 3.9 20:15 6.2 5.1 2:30 0.096 20:15 0.264 0.167 0.167 0.00 4/3/2018 23:55 1.4 21:05 1.9 1.6 0:35 3.6 19:35 6.1 5.0 0:35 0.102 7:35 0.252 0.164 0.164 0.00 4/4/2018 2:10 1.3 20:10 2.0 1.6 2:00 3.7 18:50 6.2 5.1 2:00 0.091 20:10 0.269 0.168 0.168 0.39 4/5/2018 3:05 1.4 18:45 2.0 1.7 2:00 4.1 19:40 6.3 5.2 2:00 0.107 19:40 0.282 0.178 0.178 0.25 4/6/2018 2:40 1.4 8:40 2.0 1.7 2:35 4.4 8:40 6.2 5.3 2:40 0.122 8:40 0.279 0.182 0.182 0.00 4/7/2018 2:10 1.4 9:05 2.5 1.9 2:00 4.3 9:05 6.6 5.8 2:00 0.114 9:05 0.387 0.240 0.240 0.88 4/8/2018 2:35 1.7 10:50 2.5 2.0 3:00 5.0 7:55 6.8 6.0 3:05 0.172 10:50 0.408 0.260 0.260 0.45 4/9/2018 2:35 1.6 19:40 2.2 1.8 2:35 5.1 18:45 6.7 5.8 2:35 0.169 19:40 0.337 0.230 0.230 0.00 4/10/2018 3:00 1.6 8:30 2.3 1.8 1:20 5.0 8:30 6.7 5.8 3:00 0.160 8:30 0.354 0.223 0.223 0.23 4/11/2018 3:20 1.6 19:20 2.2 1.8 2:50 5.0 19:15 6.7 5.7 3:20 0.155 19:20 0.336 0.216 0.216 0.31 4/12/2018 3:25 1.6 7:40 2.1 1.8 2:00 5.1 7:40 6.5 5.7 2:00 0.163 7:40 0.312 0.218 0.218 0.11 4/13/2018 1:30 1.5 22:45 2.3 1.8 1:45 4.9 22:45 6.5 5.7 1:45 0.148 22:45 0.351 0.224 0.224 0.51 4/14/2018 3:30 1.7 20:40 2.9 2.3 3:25 5.3 21:55 6.9 6.3 3:25 0.195 19:25 0.500 0.340 0.340 1.52 4/15/2018 23:55 1.9 1:00 2.9 2.3 23:40 5.8 9:20 6.9 6.5 23:55 0.249 1:00 0.505 0.349 0.349 0.21 4/16/2018 3:20 1.9 16:35 2.6 2.1 1:45 5.7 16:35 7.0 6.3 3:05 0.230 16:35 0.443 0.300 0.300 0.71 4/17/2018 23:40 1.8 20:45 2.3 2.0 23:20 5.7 6:15 6.8 6.2 23:25 0.220 7:05 0.366 0.276 0.276 0.01 4/18/2018 23:50 1.7 7:30 2.2 1.9 2:25 5.4 20:25 6.6 5.9 23:50 0.195 7:30 0.341 0.244 0.244 0.12 4/19/2018 2:35 1.6 7:35 2.2 1.8 2:00 5.0 7:35 6.6 5.8 2:35 0.166 7:35 0.322 0.223 0.223 0.00 4/20/2018 1:35 1.6 8:35 2.1 1.8 3:40 4.9 7:30 6.3 5.6 3:40 0.155 8:35 0.298 0.213 0.213 0.00 4/21/2018 3:55 1.5 9:15 2.2 1.8 3:55 4.9 9:10 6.4 5.5 3:55 0.149 9:15 0.317 0.212 0.212 0.05 4/22/2018 4:30 1.5 8:55 2.2 1.8 23:50 4.7 17:50 6.3 5.5 4:30 0.138 8:55 0.316 0.210 0.210 0.00 ReportAvg 1.8 5.7 0.228 ReportTotal 5.019 5.85 REN_MH3216 Located At: West of 4022 Talbot Rd S (see attached site report for details) Monitoring Period: December 22, 2017 – April 22, 2018 Pipe Dimensions: 7.38” Finalized Silt Level: 0 mm Site Data Characteristics: This site is located in a sanitary sewer pipe. The scattergraph indicates site operated in free flow conditions. The site did not surcharge during the monitoring period. The dry weather data plots below the Froude =1 curve indicating subcritical flow. Site Data Bias & Editing: The depth and velocity measurements recorded by the flow monitor were consistent with field confirmations conducted to date and supported the relative accuracy of the flow monitor at this location. The finalized depth data utilized the upward ultrasonic sensor and the pressure sensor. Site Data Uptime: The data uptime achieved during the monitoring period is provided in the table below. Based upon the quality and consistency of the observed flow depth and velocity data, the Continuity equation was used to calculate the flow rate for the monitoring period. Entity Percentage Uptime Raw Percentage Uptime Final Depth (in) 100% 94% Velocity (f/s) 100% 94% Quantity (mgd) 100% 94% Site Data Summary: The average flow depth, velocity, and quantity data observed during the monitoring period along with observed minimum and maximum data, are provided in the following table. The minimum and maximum rates recorded in the tables are based on 5‐minute data intervals. Item Depth (in) Velocity (f/s) Quantity (mgd) % Full Minimum 1.41 0.33 0.011 19% Maximum 6.76 2.41 0.445 92% Average 2.55 0.96 0.059 35% Latitude: 47.444195° Longitude:-122.216122° Pipe Condition: Single Good Manhole Pick / Vent Hole Manhole Condition: No PVC 20'' NormalVented 20'' 0 Downlooker Physical Offset (in)Measurement Confidence (in) 1.38'' Peak Velocity (fps) Silt (in) ~8' Installation Confirmation: Manhole Opening Diameter (in) Silt Type Hydraulic Comments: Renton.Carollo.I&I.WA17 LightDrive Site Access Details: Site Address /Location: Site Name West of 4033 Talbot Rd S, Renton, WA 98055, USA 0 - 5 psi Installation Information Circular Monitor Series Monitor Location: Doppler Special Installation Manhole # Installation Date: 12.14.17 Upstream 0-5 FT Manhole MH5519 Other Map Flow Monitoring Site Report Temporary 10.25'' x 10.25'' REN_MH5519 Access Traffic TRITON+ System Characteristics Location Type Pipe ShapeOff of Talbot Rd, down brush area from parking lot west of Valley Medical Center Sensors / Devices: 10.25'' x 10.25'' 0.25" Manhole / Pipe Information: Installation Type: Pressure Sensor Range (psi) Confirmation Time: Site Sketch Profile View or Photo Pipe Size (H x W) Topside / Area Photo Peak Combo (CS4) Pipe Size (HxW) - Monitoring Location (Sensors): Depth of Flow (Wet DOF) (in)Range (Air DOF) (in) ~2.25'' Velocity Sensor Offset (in) ~6.00 FPS Site Sketch Plan View or Photo Additional Site Info. / Comments: Off trail. Confirmation information available from ADS. Low, fast flow Good Antenna Location Communication Information: Active Drop Connections Air Quality: Communication Type Normal 22275.11.325 ADS Project Name: ADS Project Number: Renton.Carollo.I&I.WA17 Manhole Cover Manhole Frame Manhole Material: Manhole Diameter (Approx.): Manhole Depth (Approx. FT):Manhole Configuration Concrete Wireless Pipe Material Additional Photos Flow Direction Monitoring Point Side Inlet Second Side Inlet (usually dry)Top Down Secondary Top Down - Outlet Oriented Location Upstream Downstream ADS Environmental Services Pipe Height: 7.38 REN_MH3216\mp1\DFINAL (inches) REN_MH3216\mp1\VFINAL (feet/sec) REN_MH3216\mp1\QFINAL (MGD - Total MG) Date Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Total 12/22/2017 3:45 2.1 19:30 4.4 3.0 4:15 0.7 18:20 1.9 1.2 3:45 0.031 19:30 0.218 0.098 0.098 12/23/2017 23:55 2.3 4:50 4.7 4.0 23:15 0.8 4:50 2.1 1.7 23:55 0.040 4:50 0.265 0.182 0.182 12/24/2017 4:10 1.9 13:40 3.2 2.4 3:30 0.6 13:40 1.3 0.9 4:10 0.024 13:40 0.100 0.049 0.049 12/25/2017 4:15 1.8 12:20 3.3 2.3 4:20 0.5 12:20 1.4 0.8 4:20 0.019 12:20 0.120 0.045 0.045 12/26/2017 3:25 1.8 9:40 6.8 3.0 3:50 0.5 9:40 2.4 1.1 3:50 0.016 9:40 0.445 0.095 0.095 12/27/2017 2:00 2.0 16:00 3.7 2.7 4:25 0.3 7:15 1.3 0.8 2:00 0.021 7:15 0.121 0.052 0.052 12/28/2017 3:10 2.2 17:50 3.9 2.8 23:25 0.5 13:25 1.5 0.8 3:10 0.026 13:25 0.144 0.056 0.056 12/29/2017 1:25 2.5 11:05 4.3 3.4 1:20 0.4 12:50 1.2 0.6 1:20 0.024 10:50 0.113 0.057 0.057 12/30/2017 5:05 2.9 13:10 3.8 3.3 20:25 0.4 10:05 0.8 0.6 23:00 0.029 10:00 0.069 0.046 0.046 12/31/2017 3:15 2.8 16:45 3.7 3.2 6:05 0.4 8:45 0.7 0.5 6:05 0.024 8:45 0.069 0.044 0.044 ReportAvg 3.0 0.9 0.072 ReportTotal 0.723 ADS Environmental Services Pipe Height: 7.38 REN_MH3216\mp1\DFINAL (inches) REN_MH3216\mp1\VFINAL (feet/sec) REN_MH3216\mp1\QFINAL (MGD - Total MG) Date Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Total 1/1/2018 6:55 2.7 13:05 3.7 3.1 6:55 0.4 10:25 0.8 0.5 6:55 0.025 10:25 0.066 0.040 0.040 1/2/2018 3:30 2.7 15:40 3.7 3.2 3:50 0.4 9:35 0.9 0.5 3:30 0.025 9:35 0.083 0.044 0.044 1/3/2018 4:25 3.0 12:45 3.6 3.3 2:50 0.3 9:00 0.9 0.6 2:50 0.026 9:00 0.085 0.046 0.027 1/4/2018 -- 1/5/2018 -- 1/6/2018 -- 1/7/2018 -- 1/8/2018 -- 1/9/2018 -- 1/10/2018 -- 1/11/2018 21:15 2.8 11:05 5.5 3.3 10:55 0.5 11:55 1.7 1.2 23:30 0.056 11:55 0.165 0.095 0.054 1/12/2018 2:45 2.5 8:40 4.2 3.2 23:50 0.6 8:40 1.4 0.9 23:50 0.042 8:40 0.156 0.075 0.075 1/13/2018 20:55 2.2 7:00 3.9 2.8 3:55 0.5 12:20 1.6 1.0 3:55 0.034 7:00 0.157 0.065 0.065 1/14/2018 4:50 2.0 9:10 3.5 2.5 6:30 0.6 10:20 1.5 1.0 4:30 0.026 9:10 0.114 0.059 0.059 1/15/2018 4:25 1.9 10:40 3.8 2.8 2:45 0.7 10:40 1.7 1.2 3:00 0.029 10:40 0.173 0.085 0.085 1/16/2018 22:35 2.2 10:55 3.5 2.7 22:35 0.8 12:00 1.7 1.2 22:35 0.041 10:55 0.149 0.080 0.080 1/17/2018 2:40 2.0 18:35 3.7 2.6 3:00 0.7 16:35 1.7 1.1 3:00 0.029 19:05 0.161 0.072 0.072 1/18/2018 2:55 2.3 9:35 3.9 2.8 2:20 0.9 9:35 1.9 1.2 2:40 0.045 9:35 0.191 0.085 0.085 1/19/2018 3:25 2.2 10:10 3.5 2.7 1:15 0.8 14:35 1.7 1.2 1:15 0.038 14:35 0.154 0.076 0.076 1/20/2018 4:15 2.1 10:00 3.7 2.5 0:40 0.7 9:20 1.7 1.1 23:35 0.037 9:20 0.162 0.065 0.065 1/21/2018 5:00 1.9 13:10 3.4 2.6 4:10 0.6 11:55 1.6 1.1 4:10 0.024 11:55 0.132 0.065 0.065 1/22/2018 3:10 2.1 9:30 3.5 2.7 2:15 0.7 9:30 1.6 1.1 2:15 0.033 9:30 0.150 0.073 0.073 1/23/2018 3:35 2.2 15:00 3.8 2.7 2:15 0.7 15:00 1.6 1.1 2:15 0.035 15:00 0.160 0.073 0.073 1/24/2018 3:45 2.4 15:00 3.7 2.9 3:20 0.9 15:00 1.7 1.2 3:20 0.047 15:00 0.160 0.086 0.086 1/25/2018 1:30 2.4 9:30 3.8 2.8 1:20 0.9 9:30 1.8 1.2 1:25 0.052 9:30 0.176 0.086 0.086 1/26/2018 2:25 2.3 10:15 3.8 2.8 3:10 0.8 11:15 1.6 1.2 3:15 0.041 10:15 0.163 0.079 0.079 1/27/2018 23:15 2.3 10:40 3.7 2.8 23:55 0.8 10:40 1.7 1.2 23:55 0.044 10:40 0.157 0.078 0.078 1/28/2018 3:45 2.2 9:35 3.4 2.6 4:00 0.8 14:15 1.5 1.1 4:00 0.036 9:35 0.133 0.068 0.068 1/29/2018 3:10 2.0 14:55 4.0 2.7 3:00 0.8 14:55 1.8 1.1 3:00 0.033 14:55 0.196 0.075 0.075 1/30/2018 23:25 2.2 13:10 3.8 2.7 3:20 0.9 10:40 1.7 1.2 3:20 0.044 9:15 0.158 0.076 0.076 1/31/2018 2:35 2.1 12:15 3.6 2.7 23:50 0.8 12:15 1.7 1.1 2:35 0.038 12:15 0.157 0.071 0.071 ReportAvg 2.8 1.1 0.072 ReportTotal 1.658 ADS Environmental Services Pipe Height: 7.38 REN_MH3216\mp1\DFINAL (inches) REN_MH3216\mp1\VFINAL (feet/sec) REN_MH3216\mp1\QFINAL (MGD - Total MG) Date Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Total 2/1/2018 4:30 1.9 15:10 3.6 2.6 4:00 0.6 15:10 1.6 1.1 4:00 0.029 15:10 0.153 0.069 0.069 2/2/2018 3:00 2.2 10:05 3.9 2.7 3:45 0.8 10:35 1.7 1.2 3:45 0.040 10:35 0.164 0.075 0.075 2/3/2018 3:15 2.2 19:55 3.4 2.6 4:45 0.8 10:55 1.5 1.1 4:45 0.044 19:55 0.124 0.068 0.068 2/4/2018 23:55 2.1 10:10 4.0 2.6 2:40 0.8 10:10 1.9 1.1 23:55 0.040 10:10 0.201 0.068 0.068 2/5/2018 4:20 2.0 15:05 3.7 2.6 2:25 0.7 15:05 1.8 1.1 2:25 0.028 15:05 0.177 0.069 0.069 2/6/2018 3:40 2.0 12:10 3.4 2.6 1:35 0.7 12:10 1.6 1.1 1:35 0.033 12:10 0.137 0.066 0.066 2/7/2018 23:40 2.1 19:50 3.7 2.6 0:45 0.8 16:00 1.6 1.1 0:45 0.039 19:50 0.152 0.066 0.066 2/8/2018 3:50 1.9 11:50 3.7 2.5 2:55 0.8 11:50 1.6 1.1 2:55 0.031 11:50 0.158 0.064 0.064 2/9/2018 4:10 1.9 13:55 3.7 2.5 1:40 0.7 13:55 1.6 1.1 1:40 0.029 13:55 0.159 0.066 0.066 2/10/2018 3:25 2.1 13:45 3.5 2.5 20:45 0.8 13:45 1.6 1.1 3:25 0.035 13:45 0.146 0.061 0.061 2/11/2018 3:45 1.9 12:20 3.5 2.4 1:25 0.6 12:20 1.7 1.0 1:30 0.026 12:20 0.147 0.056 0.056 2/12/2018 0:40 1.8 11:10 3.7 2.4 0:30 0.5 14:25 1.6 1.0 0:30 0.019 11:10 0.148 0.057 0.057 2/13/2018 3:10 1.7 17:25 3.5 2.3 3:05 0.4 17:25 1.6 0.9 3:05 0.012 17:25 0.142 0.051 0.051 2/14/2018 1:25 1.8 14:10 3.6 2.5 1:55 0.5 14:10 1.7 1.0 1:55 0.020 14:10 0.155 0.061 0.061 2/15/2018 22:55 2.0 8:50 3.4 2.5 23:55 0.7 8:50 1.6 1.0 23:55 0.027 8:50 0.137 0.061 0.061 2/16/2018 1:40 1.6 17:15 3.7 2.4 2:50 0.6 17:15 1.6 1.0 2:50 0.020 17:15 0.160 0.057 0.057 2/17/2018 3:15 1.7 23:00 3.3 2.4 4:00 0.5 23:00 1.4 1.0 4:00 0.020 23:00 0.116 0.057 0.057 2/18/2018 3:55 2.0 9:00 3.5 2.5 5:20 0.7 9:00 1.6 1.0 3:20 0.031 9:00 0.140 0.059 0.059 2/19/2018 3:40 1.9 11:40 3.3 2.5 3:15 0.8 9:55 1.5 1.0 3:40 0.030 11:40 0.121 0.059 0.059 2/20/2018 2:45 1.7 7:15 3.8 2.4 4:15 0.5 7:15 1.8 1.0 4:15 0.018 7:15 0.181 0.055 0.055 2/21/2018 1:40 1.8 19:25 3.4 2.4 2:10 0.6 19:25 1.6 1.0 2:10 0.021 19:25 0.133 0.056 0.056 2/22/2018 4:55 1.7 13:40 3.6 2.4 3:25 0.5 15:00 1.5 0.9 3:25 0.017 15:00 0.135 0.052 0.052 2/23/2018 3:55 1.8 10:15 4.0 2.4 2:55 0.6 10:15 1.7 1.0 3:45 0.024 10:15 0.184 0.054 0.054 2/24/2018 4:20 1.8 14:30 3.2 2.3 3:45 0.6 14:30 1.4 0.9 3:45 0.022 14:30 0.109 0.047 0.047 2/25/2018 3:15 1.6 18:25 3.6 2.3 1:30 0.5 18:25 1.5 0.9 1:30 0.017 18:25 0.137 0.046 0.046 2/26/2018 3:05 1.7 15:20 3.6 2.4 0:30 0.5 15:20 1.5 0.9 2:25 0.018 15:20 0.143 0.053 0.053 2/27/2018 23:50 1.9 10:20 3.6 2.4 0:45 0.6 10:20 1.6 0.9 0:45 0.028 10:20 0.150 0.053 0.053 2/28/2018 1:15 1.6 10:55 3.5 2.4 2:25 0.6 10:55 1.4 0.9 0:40 0.020 10:55 0.129 0.051 0.051 ReportAvg 2.5 1.0 0.059 ReportTotal 1.657 ADS Environmental Services Pipe Height: 7.38 REN_MH3216\mp1\DFINAL (inches) REN_MH3216\mp1\VFINAL (feet/sec) REN_MH3216\mp1\QFINAL (MGD - Total MG) Date Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Total 3/1/2018 2:40 1.8 10:25 3.7 2.4 4:05 0.5 10:00 1.5 0.9 2:40 0.020 10:25 0.140 0.051 0.051 3/2/2018 4:00 1.7 10:45 3.6 2.4 3:50 0.5 10:45 1.6 1.0 3:50 0.020 10:45 0.149 0.056 0.056 3/3/2018 2:55 1.7 11:10 3.1 2.2 4:35 0.4 11:10 1.3 0.8 4:35 0.015 11:10 0.100 0.043 0.043 3/4/2018 4:55 1.6 13:30 3.3 2.3 4:45 0.5 15:10 1.4 0.9 4:45 0.015 15:10 0.115 0.045 0.045 3/5/2018 23:55 1.6 10:40 3.2 2.1 2:30 0.4 10:25 1.3 0.8 2:30 0.014 10:40 0.099 0.038 0.038 3/6/2018 4:35 1.4 12:05 3.6 2.3 4:35 0.4 12:05 1.5 0.9 4:35 0.011 12:05 0.142 0.047 0.047 3/7/2018 3:25 1.7 13:10 3.4 2.3 3:25 0.4 13:10 1.3 0.9 3:25 0.013 13:10 0.116 0.048 0.048 3/8/2018 3:05 1.8 13:30 3.5 2.4 3:00 0.5 10:05 1.4 0.9 3:00 0.018 13:30 0.127 0.048 0.048 3/9/2018 4:10 1.7 10:55 3.5 2.3 2:00 0.5 10:55 1.4 0.9 4:10 0.018 10:55 0.126 0.048 0.048 3/10/2018 3:15 1.7 8:45 3.3 2.2 3:25 0.5 8:45 1.3 0.8 3:25 0.017 8:45 0.112 0.043 0.043 3/11/2018 2:45 1.6 9:25 3.2 2.3 2:35 0.5 9:25 1.4 0.8 2:35 0.015 9:25 0.112 0.044 0.044 3/12/2018 3:05 1.7 14:15 3.6 2.4 1:15 0.6 14:15 1.5 0.9 3:05 0.020 14:15 0.136 0.052 0.052 3/13/2018 2:25 1.7 11:15 3.5 2.3 2:25 0.5 11:15 1.5 0.9 2:25 0.018 11:15 0.135 0.048 0.048 3/14/2018 2:05 1.6 14:05 3.4 2.4 3:30 0.5 12:05 1.5 0.9 2:05 0.017 16:05 0.124 0.049 0.049 3/15/2018 23:55 1.7 10:20 3.8 2.4 2:40 0.6 10:20 1.6 0.9 23:55 0.021 10:20 0.162 0.051 0.051 3/16/2018 3:50 1.6 9:35 3.7 2.3 3:50 0.5 7:15 1.4 0.9 3:50 0.015 9:35 0.138 0.046 0.046 3/17/2018 2:25 1.8 7:40 3.4 2.3 2:25 0.6 8:20 1.4 0.9 2:25 0.023 7:40 0.119 0.047 0.047 3/18/2018 3:45 1.7 11:25 3.4 2.3 4:10 0.5 11:25 1.4 0.9 4:10 0.019 11:25 0.120 0.047 0.047 3/19/2018 3:00 1.8 13:45 3.7 2.4 3:20 0.6 13:45 1.6 0.9 3:00 0.021 13:45 0.154 0.048 0.048 3/20/2018 23:10 1.7 9:10 3.5 2.3 23:55 0.5 11:00 1.4 0.9 23:55 0.018 9:10 0.121 0.047 0.047 3/21/2018 1:50 1.5 13:55 3.5 2.2 3:15 0.5 15:30 1.5 0.8 2:35 0.015 13:55 0.133 0.042 0.042 3/22/2018 2:35 1.5 7:50 3.6 2.3 3:10 0.4 7:50 1.6 0.9 3:10 0.012 7:50 0.147 0.048 0.048 3/23/2018 1:30 1.6 8:35 3.8 2.4 1:20 0.5 8:35 1.6 0.9 1:20 0.016 8:35 0.159 0.053 0.053 3/24/2018 2:25 1.9 8:20 3.3 2.4 2:25 0.7 8:20 1.4 0.9 2:25 0.025 8:20 0.121 0.052 0.052 3/25/2018 23:30 1.7 13:25 3.3 2.3 3:55 0.5 13:25 1.5 0.9 23:30 0.018 13:25 0.124 0.048 0.048 3/26/2018 3:05 1.6 15:35 3.4 2.4 3:20 0.5 15:35 1.4 0.9 3:05 0.016 15:35 0.120 0.049 0.049 3/27/2018 23:40 1.7 13:40 3.4 2.4 23:40 0.6 8:25 1.4 0.9 23:40 0.020 8:25 0.122 0.049 0.049 3/28/2018 2:10 1.6 9:55 3.5 2.3 2:25 0.5 8:55 1.4 0.9 2:25 0.016 9:55 0.116 0.046 0.046 3/29/2018 0:45 1.7 9:20 3.6 2.4 0:45 0.6 9:20 1.5 0.9 0:45 0.019 9:20 0.137 0.047 0.047 3/30/2018 3:25 1.6 11:50 3.2 2.3 0:05 0.4 12:10 1.3 0.9 0:05 0.015 11:50 0.102 0.046 0.046 3/31/2018 3:25 1.6 8:45 3.5 2.2 4:35 0.5 8:45 1.4 0.8 4:35 0.016 8:45 0.129 0.043 0.043 ReportAvg 2.3 0.9 0.047 ReportTotal 1.470 ADS Environmental Services Pipe Height: 7.38 REN_MH3216\mp1\DFINAL (inches) REN_MH3216\mp1\VFINAL (feet/sec) REN_MH3216\mp1\QFINAL (MGD - Total MG) Date Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Total 4/1/2018 2:20 1.6 8:55 3.2 2.2 3:30 0.4 8:55 1.2 0.8 3:30 0.012 8:55 0.098 0.042 0.042 4/2/2018 2:05 1.6 10:45 3.4 2.3 2:05 0.4 10:45 1.5 0.8 2:05 0.013 10:45 0.128 0.044 0.044 4/3/2018 23:45 1.7 12:15 3.4 2.3 1:30 0.5 12:15 1.4 0.9 23:45 0.018 12:15 0.127 0.047 0.047 4/4/2018 2:00 1.5 12:50 3.4 2.3 2:00 0.5 12:50 1.4 0.8 2:00 0.014 12:50 0.120 0.044 0.044 4/5/2018 2:05 1.6 9:45 3.4 2.4 2:05 0.5 9:55 1.4 0.9 2:05 0.017 9:45 0.119 0.050 0.050 4/6/2018 2:10 1.8 11:20 3.6 2.4 1:20 0.6 11:20 1.5 0.9 23:45 0.023 11:20 0.143 0.049 0.049 4/7/2018 2:35 1.7 10:00 3.3 2.4 0:25 0.5 10:00 1.4 0.9 2:30 0.018 10:00 0.114 0.053 0.053 4/8/2018 1:45 1.9 12:15 3.4 2.5 1:50 0.7 12:15 1.4 0.9 1:45 0.028 12:15 0.120 0.056 0.056 4/9/2018 2:45 1.9 11:55 3.5 2.5 2:10 0.6 11:55 1.4 0.9 2:10 0.025 11:55 0.132 0.054 0.054 4/10/2018 3:05 1.9 11:45 3.6 2.5 2:50 0.7 11:45 1.5 0.9 3:05 0.026 11:45 0.141 0.054 0.054 4/11/2018 3:00 1.9 15:45 3.5 2.5 0:20 0.6 11:20 1.5 1.0 0:20 0.027 15:45 0.127 0.058 0.058 4/12/2018 2:25 1.9 9:05 3.5 2.5 1:00 0.6 12:00 1.5 0.9 1:00 0.026 12:00 0.135 0.056 0.056 4/13/2018 2:00 1.8 11:00 3.6 2.5 0:30 0.6 11:00 1.5 0.9 3:05 0.024 11:00 0.140 0.054 0.054 4/14/2018 3:35 2.0 19:00 3.6 2.7 3:35 0.7 7:50 1.5 1.0 3:35 0.028 7:50 0.134 0.067 0.067 4/15/2018 23:40 2.2 9:35 3.5 2.8 23:40 0.8 13:10 1.5 1.1 23:40 0.038 9:35 0.130 0.073 0.073 4/16/2018 3:20 2.1 7:40 4.0 2.8 2:25 0.7 7:40 1.8 1.1 2:25 0.032 7:40 0.195 0.072 0.072 4/17/2018 23:40 2.1 8:00 4.1 2.7 23:35 0.8 8:00 1.8 1.0 23:40 0.035 8:00 0.199 0.064 0.064 4/18/2018 23:40 2.0 12:50 3.6 2.6 3:10 0.7 13:10 1.4 1.0 3:10 0.031 13:10 0.131 0.060 0.060 4/19/2018 22:15 2.0 11:25 3.6 2.6 22:25 0.6 11:25 1.5 1.0 22:15 0.026 11:25 0.136 0.060 0.060 4/20/2018 2:00 1.9 14:40 3.7 2.5 2:00 0.6 14:40 1.6 0.9 2:00 0.023 14:40 0.150 0.057 0.057 4/21/2018 2:05 1.8 6:35 3.3 2.4 1:55 0.6 6:35 1.3 0.9 2:05 0.023 6:35 0.114 0.051 0.051 4/22/2018 23:55 1.9 9:55 3.3 2.4 23:55 0.6 9:55 1.3 0.9 23:55 0.024 9:55 0.111 0.050 0.050 ReportAvg 2.5 0.9 0.055 ReportTotal 1.217 REN_MH3625 Located At: 4201 NE Sunset Blvd (see attached site report for details) Monitoring Period: December 22, 2017 – April 22, 2018 Pipe Dimensions: 12” Finalized Silt Level: 0 mm Site Data Characteristics: This site is located in a sanitary sewer pipe. The scattergraph indicates site operated in free flow conditions. The site did not surcharge during the monitoring period. The dry weather data plots below the Froude =1 curve indicating subcritical flow. Site Data Bias & Editing: The depth and velocity measurements recorded by the flow monitor were consistent with field confirmations conducted to date and supported the relative accuracy of the flow monitor at this location. The finalized depth data utilized the upward ultrasonic sensor. Site Data Uptime: The data uptime achieved during the monitoring period is provided in the table below. Based upon the quality and consistency of the observed flow depth and velocity data, the Continuity equation was used to calculate the flow rate for the monitoring period. Entity Percentage Uptime Raw Percentage Uptime Final Depth (in) 100% 100% Velocity (f/s) 100% 100% Quantity (mgd) 100% 100% Site Data Summary: The average flow depth, velocity, and quantity data observed during the monitoring period along with observed minimum and maximum data, are provided in the following table. The minimum and maximum rates recorded in the tables are based on 5‐minute data intervals. Item Depth (in) Velocity (f/s) Quantity (mgd) % Full Minimum 3.28 1.71 0.198 27% Maximum 11.73 3.67 1.855 98% Average 5.86 2.78 0.702 49% Latitude: 47.503555° Longitude:-122.163503° REN_MH3625 TRITON+ System Characteristics Location Type Pipe ShapeSite located between trees and bus top, park in lot Renton. Carollo.I&I.WA17 NoneDrive Site Access Details: Site Address /Location: Site Name 4201 NE Sunset Blvd Flow Monitoring Site Report Installation Information Circular Monitor Series Monitor Location: Doppler Standard Ring and Crank Manhole # Installation Date: Pipe Size (H x W) Topside / Area Photo Wednesday, November 29, 2017 Access Temporary 12.00" x 12.00" Traffic MH5505 Residential / Commercial Map Installation Type: Monitoring Location (Sensors): Peak Combo (CS4), Smart Depth (CS5) Pipe Size (HxW) 0.00'' CS5 Physical Offset (in)Measurement Confidence (in) 1.38" Peak Velocity (fps) Silt (in) 11:50:00 AM 12.00" x 12.00"Site Sketch Profile View or Photo Smooth flow with some ripples 0 - 5 psi Depth of Flow (Wet DOF) (in) 4.38'' Velocity Sensor Offset (in) 3.27' Downstream 0-5 FT Manhole Sensors / Devices: Installation Confirmation: Manhole Opening Diameter (in) Silt Type Hydraulic Comments: 0'' Sanitary Sewer Overflow 0.25" Manhole / Pipe Information: Pressure Sensor Range (psi) Confirmation Time: 20''20'' Manhole Cover Manhole Frame Pipe Condition: Manhole Material: Manhole Diameter (Approx.): Manhole Depth (Approx. FT):Manhole Configuration Brick Good 11' Manhole Condition: 22275.11.325 Additional Site Info. / Comments: ADS Project Name: ADS Project Number: Renton. Carollo.I&I.WA17 Wireless Pipe Material Antenna Location Communication Information: Manhole Pick / Vent Hole Yes, Inside Vitrified Clay Pipe NormalSteel Fair Active Connections None. Air Quality: Communication Type Normal Additional Photos Flow Direction Monitoring Point KEY Top Down Location Location Map Inlet Outlet ADS Environmental Services Pipe Height: 12.00 REN_MH3625\mp1\DFINAL (inches) REN_MH3625\mp1\VFINAL (feet/sec) REN_MH3625\mp1\QFINAL (MGD - Total MG) REN_RG\mp1\RAIN (inches) Date Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Total Total 12/22/2017 3:40 4.5 10:40 8.6 5.8 2:55 2.4 11:35 3.3 2.8 3:40 0.418 10:40 1.237 0.683 0.683 0.10 12/23/2017 3:40 4.3 11:50 8.6 5.7 4:55 2.1 11:00 3.3 2.7 4:55 0.346 13:35 1.243 0.656 0.656 0.00 12/24/2017 4:30 3.9 11:10 9.0 5.5 4:20 2.2 14:15 3.3 2.7 4:20 0.320 11:10 1.324 0.625 0.625 0.00 12/25/2017 4:55 3.8 10:50 8.4 5.3 5:45 2.2 13:15 3.3 2.7 4:55 0.306 10:50 1.229 0.595 0.595 0.14 12/26/2017 4:30 3.9 9:20 7.9 5.3 5:10 2.1 20:05 3.3 2.6 4:25 0.301 17:55 1.147 0.579 0.579 0.17 12/27/2017 3:50 3.7 20:30 7.8 5.2 3:45 2.1 18:00 3.1 2.5 3:45 0.279 20:30 1.066 0.546 0.546 0.00 12/28/2017 4:05 3.6 22:20 7.8 5.2 4:15 2.0 11:55 3.2 2.5 4:15 0.264 22:20 1.098 0.553 0.553 0.25 12/29/2017 2:50 4.6 11:50 11.4 7.8 2:05 2.3 11:50 3.5 3.0 2:50 0.418 11:50 1.746 1.043 1.043 1.57 12/30/2017 23:50 6.3 10:20 10.3 7.4 5:40 2.8 10:20 3.3 3.1 5:35 0.798 10:20 1.544 0.995 0.995 0.02 12/31/2017 4:50 5.3 13:30 9.6 6.6 6:40 2.7 22:00 3.4 3.0 5:45 0.592 14:15 1.400 0.852 0.852 0.00 ReportAvg 6.0 2.8 0.713 ReportTotal 7.126 2.25 ADS Environmental Services Pipe Height: 12.00 REN_MH3625\mp1\DFINAL (inches) REN_MH3625\mp1\VFINAL (feet/sec) REN_MH3625\mp1\QFINAL (MGD - Total MG) REN_RG\mp1\RAIN (inches) Date Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Total Total 1/1/2018 6:25 4.7 15:25 9.0 6.1 3:35 2.5 21:30 3.4 2.9 6:20 0.476 21:30 1.324 0.751 0.751 0.00 1/2/2018 3:45 4.5 20:35 8.5 5.7 3:30 2.3 19:35 3.4 2.8 3:30 0.400 19:35 1.300 0.666 0.666 0.01 1/3/2018 3:50 4.1 20:35 8.7 5.5 5:05 2.1 20:35 3.4 2.7 3:50 0.330 20:35 1.337 0.636 0.636 0.00 1/4/2018 3:45 4.2 19:40 8.2 5.4 3:45 2.2 19:40 3.3 2.7 3:45 0.342 19:40 1.227 0.617 0.617 0.09 1/5/2018 2:20 4.0 18:40 8.2 5.5 3:20 2.2 18:40 3.4 2.8 3:20 0.326 18:40 1.253 0.632 0.632 0.42 1/6/2018 3:10 4.4 12:05 9.1 6.0 3:20 2.5 10:40 3.3 2.9 3:10 0.421 12:05 1.277 0.745 0.745 0.24 1/7/2018 4:20 4.4 19:45 9.4 6.1 2:55 2.5 9:55 3.4 2.9 4:20 0.440 9:55 1.387 0.764 0.764 0.38 1/8/2018 3:00 5.0 20:40 9.2 6.4 16:30 2.6 19:55 3.3 2.9 3:00 0.526 19:00 1.340 0.808 0.808 0.14 1/9/2018 4:00 5.2 19:30 9.7 6.7 4:20 2.5 17:35 3.3 3.0 4:20 0.539 6:00 1.419 0.875 0.875 0.46 1/10/2018 4:15 5.5 21:55 9.4 6.6 15:00 2.7 0:25 3.4 2.9 4:25 0.630 19:10 1.313 0.850 0.850 0.22 1/11/2018 3:20 5.2 20:45 11.6 7.6 4:40 2.6 19:55 3.5 3.1 3:20 0.552 20:45 1.730 1.047 1.047 1.04 1/12/2018 4:00 6.7 8:00 10.3 7.5 22:40 2.9 11:55 3.4 3.2 4:15 0.880 7:15 1.536 1.061 1.061 0.20 1/13/2018 5:10 6.0 10:50 10.8 7.1 7:00 2.8 11:00 3.3 3.1 3:30 0.723 10:50 1.591 0.959 0.959 0.02 1/14/2018 4:40 5.4 11:10 9.7 6.7 4:10 2.6 9:40 3.4 3.0 4:05 0.594 10:25 1.388 0.872 0.872 0.00 1/15/2018 3:50 5.0 11:10 9.0 6.4 5:50 2.6 16:30 3.3 2.9 3:25 0.523 19:15 1.298 0.802 0.802 0.04 1/16/2018 4:05 4.7 19:40 9.0 6.1 4:30 2.5 18:45 3.3 2.9 4:20 0.479 7:30 1.285 0.750 0.750 0.26 1/17/2018 3:35 4.5 22:05 9.9 6.2 14:55 2.5 6:40 3.3 2.9 3:35 0.437 22:05 1.444 0.770 0.770 0.79 1/18/2018 1:50 5.8 7:15 10.2 7.4 13:30 2.8 7:25 3.3 3.0 2:45 0.682 7:15 1.522 0.981 0.981 0.40 1/19/2018 3:20 5.8 7:15 9.5 6.9 3:30 2.8 12:20 3.3 3.0 3:20 0.682 7:15 1.325 0.905 0.905 0.10 1/20/2018 3:55 5.4 10:05 9.6 6.7 2:25 2.6 10:10 3.3 2.9 4:15 0.587 10:05 1.347 0.852 0.852 0.10 1/21/2018 4:15 4.9 18:55 9.3 6.5 4:10 2.4 19:00 3.3 2.9 4:10 0.472 20:30 1.347 0.818 0.818 0.16 1/22/2018 1:20 4.9 21:05 9.2 6.4 1:30 2.5 10:40 3.3 2.9 2:25 0.486 21:05 1.295 0.799 0.799 0.34 1/23/2018 2:30 4.9 21:20 10.2 6.7 3:10 2.5 14:45 3.3 3.0 3:10 0.501 21:20 1.460 0.859 0.859 0.79 1/24/2018 3:00 6.5 19:15 10.8 7.8 0:40 2.8 9:30 3.4 3.1 3:05 0.840 19:15 1.602 1.087 1.087 0.51 1/25/2018 23:35 6.5 8:05 10.3 7.4 10:05 2.9 23:55 3.3 3.1 3:45 0.827 8:05 1.527 1.018 1.018 0.14 1/26/2018 3:20 5.7 21:10 9.4 6.9 2:55 2.6 13:25 3.4 3.1 2:55 0.642 13:20 1.402 0.924 0.924 0.36 1/27/2018 0:55 6.5 11:35 11.2 8.0 23:55 2.9 11:35 3.5 3.2 23:55 0.836 11:35 1.731 1.138 1.138 0.61 1/28/2018 4:55 6.5 12:10 10.7 7.4 4:55 2.9 22:05 3.4 3.1 4:55 0.797 12:10 1.588 1.029 1.029 0.07 1/29/2018 2:30 5.7 20:45 11.7 7.6 12:40 2.7 20:45 3.5 3.1 2:30 0.673 20:45 1.791 1.061 1.061 0.90 1/30/2018 23:40 6.5 7:15 10.3 7.5 6:50 2.8 17:55 3.4 3.2 23:55 0.840 7:15 1.517 1.055 1.055 0.00 1/31/2018 2:30 5.9 21:15 9.6 6.7 12:50 2.6 5:55 3.3 3.1 2:10 0.726 21:15 1.411 0.899 0.899 0.00 ReportAvg 6.7 3.0 0.872 ReportTotal 27.03 8.79 ADS Environmental Services Pipe Height: 12.00 REN_MH3625\mp1\DFINAL (inches) REN_MH3625\mp1\VFINAL (feet/sec) REN_MH3625\mp1\QFINAL (MGD - Total MG) REN_RG\mp1\RAIN (inches) Date Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Total Total 2/1/2018 2:35 5.2 21:20 9.8 6.5 13:35 2.6 13:55 3.3 3.0 2:40 0.555 21:20 1.434 0.835 0.835 0.66 2/2/2018 4:05 5.9 6:50 9.2 6.8 4:05 2.8 23:25 3.4 3.1 4:05 0.694 7:35 1.318 0.916 0.916 0.04 2/3/2018 4:20 5.4 9:55 9.8 6.8 4:45 2.7 18:05 3.3 3.0 4:10 0.611 9:55 1.422 0.896 0.896 0.31 2/4/2018 4:20 5.7 14:30 10.1 7.0 6:40 2.6 9:20 3.4 3.0 4:20 0.652 14:30 1.487 0.934 0.934 0.02 2/5/2018 3:15 5.2 20:35 9.1 6.4 2:20 2.6 13:50 3.3 3.0 3:15 0.561 20:35 1.286 0.818 0.818 0.04 2/6/2018 3:50 4.8 20:40 9.0 6.1 3:10 2.5 6:50 3.3 2.9 3:10 0.488 6:50 1.338 0.753 0.753 0.00 2/7/2018 2:30 4.6 7:30 8.6 5.8 2:35 2.5 1:20 3.3 2.9 2:35 0.453 8:25 1.207 0.708 0.708 0.00 2/8/2018 4:10 4.4 20:25 8.7 5.7 2:30 2.4 8:50 3.3 2.8 3:25 0.420 20:25 1.256 0.678 0.678 0.09 2/9/2018 3:30 4.3 8:15 8.4 5.5 2:20 2.4 18:45 3.3 2.8 2:15 0.399 8:15 1.242 0.648 0.648 0.01 2/10/2018 3:50 4.2 10:25 9.0 5.6 3:05 2.3 20:20 3.3 2.7 3:50 0.366 10:25 1.211 0.653 0.653 0.01 2/11/2018 4:15 4.0 18:40 8.3 5.6 4:05 2.1 19:30 3.3 2.8 4:05 0.323 18:40 1.199 0.659 0.659 0.00 2/12/2018 2:05 3.9 7:20 8.1 5.3 2:50 2.1 11:25 3.2 2.7 3:50 0.310 7:20 1.172 0.582 0.582 0.00 2/13/2018 3:50 3.8 21:15 7.8 5.2 2:10 2.1 16:20 3.3 2.7 2:10 0.297 21:15 1.106 0.572 0.572 0.17 2/14/2018 3:00 3.8 21:10 8.5 5.2 4:05 2.1 21:10 3.3 2.7 2:40 0.302 21:10 1.251 0.584 0.584 0.15 2/15/2018 2:20 3.9 7:15 8.0 5.2 2:45 2.1 18:25 3.3 2.6 2:40 0.307 7:15 1.110 0.565 0.565 0.00 2/16/2018 4:15 3.9 19:50 7.5 5.2 1:50 2.1 6:05 3.3 2.6 2:30 0.314 6:05 1.010 0.564 0.564 0.15 2/17/2018 2:55 3.9 9:50 8.1 5.6 3:25 2.1 10:40 3.3 2.7 3:25 0.304 9:50 1.154 0.645 0.645 0.32 2/18/2018 4:25 4.0 11:35 8.2 5.5 6:30 2.3 16:35 3.2 2.7 4:25 0.344 11:35 1.159 0.619 0.619 0.01 2/19/2018 3:30 4.0 20:10 7.9 5.3 3:55 2.1 14:35 3.3 2.7 3:55 0.313 20:10 1.116 0.597 0.597 0.00 2/20/2018 3:20 3.8 9:50 7.2 5.1 4:50 2.2 18:00 3.2 2.7 3:20 0.312 16:55 1.002 0.561 0.561 0.00 2/21/2018 3:00 3.7 18:50 7.2 5.0 3:00 2.1 22:00 3.2 2.6 3:00 0.273 18:50 1.020 0.536 0.536 0.00 2/22/2018 3:25 3.7 20:15 7.2 5.0 2:40 2.0 13:45 3.2 2.6 2:40 0.276 20:15 0.999 0.531 0.531 0.07 2/23/2018 2:55 3.5 19:50 7.3 4.9 3:15 2.0 18:45 3.2 2.6 3:30 0.251 19:50 1.027 0.517 0.517 0.01 2/24/2018 3:00 3.6 10:45 8.1 4.9 0:20 2.1 12:35 3.2 2.7 3:00 0.270 10:45 1.178 0.534 0.534 0.13 2/25/2018 4:30 3.6 11:20 8.1 5.2 3:25 2.2 10:35 3.3 2.7 4:10 0.294 10:35 1.199 0.586 0.586 0.11 2/26/2018 3:20 3.5 6:55 7.9 5.0 3:05 1.9 21:05 3.3 2.6 3:05 0.247 21:05 1.168 0.524 0.524 0.00 2/27/2018 3:45 3.4 20:10 8.2 4.9 3:15 2.1 7:15 3.3 2.6 3:15 0.249 20:10 1.096 0.524 0.524 0.19 2/28/2018 3:25 3.5 20:40 8.8 5.2 3:05 2.1 15:30 3.2 2.6 3:05 0.259 20:40 1.181 0.556 0.556 0.35 ReportAvg 5.6 2.7 0.646 ReportTotal 18.10 2.84 ADS Environmental Services Pipe Height: 12.00 REN_MH3625\mp1\DFINAL (inches) REN_MH3625\mp1\VFINAL (feet/sec) REN_MH3625\mp1\QFINAL (MGD - Total MG) REN_RG\mp1\RAIN (inches) Date Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Total Total 3/1/2018 3:40 4.0 20:55 8.3 5.4 3:25 2.1 19:05 3.2 2.7 3:25 0.304 20:05 1.102 0.593 0.593 0.01 3/2/2018 3:20 4.0 20:40 7.7 5.3 3:00 2.2 9:05 3.2 2.7 3:05 0.328 9:05 1.076 0.593 0.593 0.07 3/3/2018 4:05 4.0 9:45 8.1 5.4 3:15 2.1 16:50 3.2 2.7 3:15 0.309 9:45 1.135 0.600 0.600 0.00 3/4/2018 4:45 3.8 20:35 8.1 5.4 4:50 2.0 14:15 3.2 2.7 4:50 0.279 10:00 1.089 0.606 0.606 0.12 3/5/2018 3:45 3.8 21:15 8.0 5.1 4:15 2.0 20:20 3.1 2.6 3:40 0.278 21:15 1.121 0.553 0.553 0.00 3/6/2018 2:45 3.7 8:10 7.8 5.1 2:40 2.0 7:20 3.2 2.6 2:40 0.263 7:20 1.102 0.540 0.540 0.00 3/7/2018 2:40 3.6 21:05 7.6 5.1 1:50 2.0 6:40 3.1 2.6 2:40 0.260 21:05 1.046 0.532 0.532 0.03 3/8/2018 2:00 3.7 21:05 8.0 5.2 5:10 2.0 6:25 3.2 2.6 3:25 0.277 19:20 1.118 0.555 0.555 0.37 3/9/2018 2:45 3.8 20:25 7.7 5.2 2:55 2.2 8:40 3.1 2.6 2:55 0.305 8:40 1.060 0.566 0.566 0.00 3/10/2018 4:15 3.8 10:20 8.7 5.3 3:15 2.1 8:45 3.1 2.6 3:50 0.296 10:20 1.163 0.578 0.578 0.00 3/11/2018 4:35 3.6 19:45 7.8 5.3 4:25 2.0 18:05 3.2 2.6 4:25 0.261 19:45 1.104 0.576 0.576 0.00 3/12/2018 1:25 3.6 20:00 8.3 5.1 3:35 2.0 20:50 3.1 2.5 1:55 0.258 20:00 1.142 0.529 0.529 0.00 3/13/2018 2:35 3.5 18:40 8.4 5.1 2:50 1.8 17:50 3.1 2.5 2:50 0.231 18:40 1.124 0.522 0.522 0.31 3/14/2018 2:20 3.6 20:35 7.9 5.1 2:15 1.9 6:30 3.1 2.5 2:15 0.247 20:35 1.045 0.528 0.528 0.04 3/15/2018 2:25 3.6 20:10 7.7 5.1 2:55 2.0 20:10 3.2 2.5 2:25 0.259 20:10 1.089 0.532 0.532 0.00 3/16/2018 2:20 3.4 17:15 7.5 5.0 2:10 1.9 5:30 3.1 2.5 2:10 0.228 17:15 1.006 0.514 0.514 0.00 3/17/2018 4:20 3.7 8:55 8.6 5.2 1:40 1.8 21:10 3.1 2.5 1:25 0.245 8:55 1.153 0.537 0.537 0.00 3/18/2018 3:30 3.3 19:15 7.8 5.2 1:45 1.9 10:30 3.2 2.5 3:30 0.233 10:30 1.105 0.538 0.538 0.00 3/19/2018 2:00 3.4 19:30 7.6 4.9 2:25 1.7 18:45 3.2 2.4 2:25 0.203 19:30 1.007 0.486 0.486 0.00 3/20/2018 2:50 3.3 20:50 7.7 4.8 2:20 1.7 5:35 3.1 2.4 2:20 0.198 20:50 1.068 0.474 0.474 0.00 3/21/2018 2:10 3.3 19:25 7.6 4.8 1:15 1.9 18:30 3.1 2.4 1:30 0.213 18:30 1.011 0.467 0.467 0.10 3/22/2018 2:25 3.3 20:00 8.3 5.0 1:30 1.8 20:00 3.1 2.4 2:25 0.210 20:00 1.158 0.500 0.500 0.48 3/23/2018 2:15 3.5 18:10 7.8 5.1 1:15 1.8 21:25 3.1 2.5 2:15 0.221 15:55 1.043 0.523 0.523 0.31 3/24/2018 2:10 3.8 9:55 8.8 5.5 2:30 2.0 8:15 3.2 2.6 2:10 0.282 9:55 1.150 0.602 0.602 0.28 3/25/2018 3:30 3.8 18:30 8.1 5.5 3:05 2.1 20:55 3.1 2.6 3:15 0.295 18:30 1.124 0.599 0.599 0.01 3/26/2018 2:35 3.8 21:00 8.8 5.2 2:20 2.0 5:25 3.1 2.5 2:20 0.282 21:00 1.241 0.552 0.552 0.17 3/27/2018 2:50 3.9 19:40 8.1 5.1 0:45 1.9 19:40 3.2 2.6 0:45 0.273 19:40 1.155 0.544 0.544 0.02 3/28/2018 2:00 3.8 19:40 7.8 5.1 0:45 2.0 19:40 3.1 2.6 2:35 0.277 19:40 1.102 0.540 0.540 0.01 3/29/2018 2:25 3.6 17:50 7.7 5.0 0:40 2.1 7:35 3.2 2.6 2:20 0.277 5:55 1.014 0.534 0.534 0.00 3/30/2018 2:20 3.6 7:50 7.1 4.9 1:30 2.1 19:55 3.1 2.7 2:15 0.269 7:50 0.952 0.528 0.528 0.00 3/31/2018 2:55 3.3 8:55 8.0 5.0 3:15 2.0 9:40 3.3 2.8 3:15 0.261 8:10 1.091 0.569 0.569 0.00 ReportAvg 5.1 2.6 0.546 ReportTotal 16.91 2.33 ADS Environmental Services Pipe Height: 12.00 REN_MH3625\mp1\DFINAL (inches) REN_MH3625\mp1\VFINAL (feet/sec) REN_MH3625\mp1\QFINAL (MGD - Total MG) REN_RG\mp1\RAIN (inches) Date Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Total Total 4/1/2018 2:00 3.4 10:00 7.6 5.2 3:45 2.1 9:15 3.3 2.7 3:45 0.254 8:35 1.054 0.573 0.573 0.10 4/2/2018 2:15 3.6 20:05 7.7 5.0 2:35 1.9 18:30 3.3 2.5 2:35 0.243 20:05 1.119 0.522 0.522 0.00 4/3/2018 2:55 3.5 19:35 7.6 4.8 3:25 2.0 10:10 3.4 2.7 0:50 0.255 19:35 1.034 0.515 0.515 0.00 4/4/2018 2:25 3.4 20:10 7.5 4.9 2:45 2.0 7:30 3.1 2.6 2:20 0.237 20:10 1.018 0.522 0.522 0.39 4/5/2018 2:50 3.5 19:05 7.6 5.0 4:25 2.0 21:45 3.2 2.6 2:40 0.256 19:55 1.003 0.525 0.525 0.25 4/6/2018 2:15 3.6 6:55 7.2 4.9 4:00 2.1 19:05 3.4 2.8 2:50 0.278 21:10 0.951 0.556 0.556 0.00 4/7/2018 1:00 3.5 9:55 8.4 5.6 1:05 2.4 23:10 3.4 2.9 1:05 0.309 9:55 1.190 0.690 0.690 0.88 4/8/2018 0:55 4.5 11:20 9.8 6.3 23:15 2.7 13:40 3.3 3.0 0:45 0.521 11:20 1.455 0.806 0.806 0.45 4/9/2018 23:50 4.6 20:25 8.3 5.9 2:15 2.5 16:00 3.2 2.8 23:50 0.458 21:20 1.159 0.708 0.708 0.00 4/10/2018 2:30 4.6 20:05 8.2 5.8 23:10 2.3 6:20 3.3 2.8 2:05 0.429 6:20 1.219 0.673 0.673 0.23 4/11/2018 0:15 4.6 20:05 8.4 5.7 3:40 2.2 17:05 3.4 2.8 3:40 0.420 18:15 1.208 0.680 0.680 0.31 4/12/2018 0:30 4.4 20:10 8.1 5.7 1:20 2.4 21:10 3.3 2.8 0:30 0.430 6:00 1.198 0.669 0.669 0.11 4/13/2018 1:20 4.5 18:50 8.2 5.8 1:15 2.3 16:35 3.3 2.8 1:20 0.402 16:35 1.132 0.675 0.675 0.51 4/14/2018 2:10 4.9 19:45 11.7 7.7 1:35 2.5 19:45 3.6 3.0 2:10 0.517 19:45 1.811 1.045 1.045 1.52 4/15/2018 23:15 6.7 8:30 11.7 8.9 23:05 2.9 9:55 3.7 3.2 23:20 0.875 9:55 1.855 1.284 1.284 0.21 4/16/2018 2:45 6.2 21:00 11.3 7.7 9:15 2.8 10:20 3.5 3.1 2:20 0.779 21:00 1.669 1.080 1.080 0.71 4/17/2018 23:55 6.1 7:00 10.4 7.3 23:45 2.8 18:55 3.4 3.1 23:55 0.736 5:25 1.532 1.018 1.018 0.01 4/18/2018 23:55 5.3 20:45 9.8 6.9 23:40 2.7 16:15 3.5 3.1 23:40 0.590 12:00 1.415 0.930 0.930 0.12 4/19/2018 23:55 4.8 6:15 9.1 6.4 23:55 2.6 8:55 3.5 3.0 23:55 0.490 6:15 1.381 0.816 0.816 0.00 4/20/2018 3:10 4.5 8:35 8.7 5.9 0:25 2.4 6:45 3.4 2.8 3:15 0.442 6:45 1.309 0.720 0.720 0.00 4/21/2018 4:05 4.3 7:15 8.8 5.9 4:20 2.4 7:15 3.4 2.8 4:20 0.402 7:15 1.353 0.706 0.706 0.05 4/22/2018 3:20 4.4 11:15 8.7 5.9 0:45 2.2 8:50 3.3 2.8 4:05 0.389 12:05 1.240 0.704 0.704 0.00 ReportAvg 6.0 2.8 0.746 ReportTotal 16.42 5.85 REN_MH4628 Located At: 766 Monroe Ave NE (see attached site report for details) Monitoring Period: December 22, 2017 – April 22, 2018 Pipe Dimensions: 10.38” Finalized Silt Level: 0 mm Site Data Characteristics: This site is located in a sanitary sewer pipe. The scattergraph indicates site operated in free flow conditions. The site did not surcharge during the monitoring period. The dry weather data plots above the Froude =1 curve indicating supercritical flow. Site Data Bias & Editing: The depth and velocity measurements recorded by the flow monitor were consistent with field confirmations conducted to date and supported the relative accuracy of the flow monitor at this location. The finalized depth data utilized the upward ultrasonic sensor. Site Data Uptime: The data uptime achieved during the monitoring period is provided in the table below. Based upon the quality and consistency of the observed flow depth and velocity data, the Continuity equation was used to calculate the flow rate for the monitoring period. Entity Percentage Uptime Raw Percentage Uptime Final Depth (in) 100% 100% Velocity (f/s) 100% 100% Quantity (mgd) 100% 100% Site Data Summary: The average flow depth, velocity, and quantity data observed during the monitoring period along with observed minimum and maximum data, are provided in the following table. The minimum and maximum rates recorded in the tables are based on 5‐minute data intervals. Item Depth (in) Velocity (f/s) Quantity (mgd) % Full Minimum 1.45 2.46 0.086 14% Maximum 3.86 6.75 0.787 37% Average 2.11 4.64 0.261 20% Latitude: 47.495741° Longitude:-122.175081° 22275.11.325 Additional Site Info. / Comments: ADS Project Name: ADS Project Number: Renton.Carollo.I&I.WA17 Wireless Pipe Material Antenna Location Communication Information: Manhole Pick / Vent Hole Yes, Inside Vitrified Clay Pipe NormalSteel Fair Active Connections Renton traffic control required. Air Quality: Communication Type Normal 20''20'' Manhole Cover Manhole Frame Pipe Condition: Manhole Material: Manhole Diameter (Approx.): Manhole Depth (Approx. FT):Manhole Configuration Concrete Good 13' Manhole Condition: Downstream 0-5 FT Manhole Sensors / Devices: Installation Confirmation: Manhole Opening Diameter (in) Silt Type Hydraulic Comments: 0'' Sanitary Sewer Overflow 0.25" Manhole / Pipe Information: Pressure Sensor Range (psi) Confirmation Time: Peak Combo (CS4), Smart Depth (CS5) Pipe Size (HxW) 0.00'' CS5 Physical Offset (in)Measurement Confidence (in) 1.38" Peak Velocity (fps) Silt (in) 2:50:00 PM 10.38" x 10.00"Site Sketch Profile View or Photo Straight, Some Ripples 0 - 5 psi Depth of Flow (Wet DOF) (in) 2.38'' Velocity Sensor Offset (in) 3.00' Installation Information Circular Monitor Series Monitor Location: Doppler Standard Ring and Crank Manhole # Installation Date: Pipe Size (H x W) Topside / Area Photo Wednesday, November 29, 2017 Access Temporary 10.38" x 10.00" Traffic MH4628 Residential / Commercial Map Installation Type: Monitoring Location (Sensors): REN_MH4628 TRITON+ System Characteristics Location Type Pipe ShapeSite located In roadway Renton.Carollo.I&I.WA17 Medium Drive Site Access Details: Site Address /Location: Site Name 766 Monroe Ave NE Flow Monitoring Site Report Additional Photos Flow Direction Monitoring Point Inlet Outlet Side connect Top Down Location Location Map KEY ADS Environmental Services Pipe Height: 10.38 REN_MH4628\mp1\DFINAL (inches) REN_MH4628\mp1\VFINAL (feet/sec) REN_MH4628\mp1\QFINAL (MGD - Total MG) REN_RG\mp1\RAIN (inches) Date Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Total Total 12/22/2017 0:10 1.8 17:30 2.2 2.0 0:10 4.2 16:15 5.1 4.8 0:10 0.184 17:30 0.272 0.233 0.233 0.10 12/23/2017 23:00 1.8 6:55 2.1 2.0 23:55 4.1 8:35 5.1 4.6 23:55 0.179 8:35 0.266 0.227 0.227 0.00 12/24/2017 0:25 1.6 9:00 2.1 1.9 0:25 3.5 8:45 5.1 4.4 0:25 0.131 8:45 0.260 0.201 0.201 0.00 12/25/2017 2:40 1.5 9:25 2.1 1.9 4:00 3.2 10:25 4.8 4.2 2:40 0.112 9:20 0.246 0.194 0.194 0.14 12/26/2017 3:35 1.5 17:40 2.0 1.8 1:30 3.0 13:40 4.8 4.1 3:40 0.112 13:40 0.234 0.182 0.182 0.17 12/27/2017 1:05 1.6 13:05 2.1 1.8 0:20 3.0 17:25 4.7 3.9 2:30 0.112 17:25 0.235 0.172 0.172 0.00 12/28/2017 0:20 1.7 17:55 2.0 1.9 0:20 3.3 17:55 4.7 4.1 0:20 0.128 17:55 0.235 0.191 0.191 0.25 12/29/2017 0:05 1.9 13:40 3.7 3.0 1:10 4.0 14:40 6.7 6.0 1:10 0.184 13:40 0.768 0.549 0.549 1.57 12/30/2017 23:55 2.3 0:05 2.9 2.7 23:55 5.6 9:30 6.2 6.0 23:55 0.333 0:05 0.525 0.446 0.446 0.02 12/31/2017 23:00 2.0 11:55 2.4 2.2 23:00 5.1 11:55 6.0 5.5 23:00 0.244 11:55 0.389 0.318 0.318 0.00 ReportAvg 2.1 4.8 0.271 ReportTotal 2.713 2.25 ADS Environmental Services Pipe Height: 10.38 REN_MH4628\mp1\DFINAL (inches) REN_MH4628\mp1\VFINAL (feet/sec) REN_MH4628\mp1\QFINAL (MGD - Total MG) REN_RG\mp1\RAIN (inches) Date Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Total Total 1/1/2018 23:40 1.9 11:35 2.2 2.0 22:40 4.6 11:35 5.5 5.2 23:35 0.209 11:35 0.302 0.253 0.253 0.00 1/2/2018 3:55 1.9 5:55 2.0 1.9 23:35 4.5 17:50 5.4 4.9 23:40 0.200 17:50 0.263 0.226 0.226 0.01 1/3/2018 23:55 1.8 18:30 1.9 1.9 23:30 4.3 19:10 5.1 4.7 23:30 0.184 18:20 0.235 0.213 0.213 0.00 1/4/2018 0:20 1.8 20:35 1.9 1.9 0:50 4.0 19:45 5.0 4.6 0:50 0.175 19:45 0.234 0.207 0.207 0.09 1/5/2018 3:15 1.8 19:45 2.0 1.9 4:15 3.9 20:25 5.0 4.6 4:15 0.164 20:25 0.244 0.213 0.213 0.42 1/6/2018 2:55 1.9 12:30 2.2 2.0 3:35 4.4 11:55 5.4 5.0 3:35 0.200 12:35 0.307 0.253 0.253 0.24 1/7/2018 5:00 1.9 19:15 2.3 2.1 3:55 4.4 21:30 5.4 5.1 3:55 0.213 19:20 0.322 0.265 0.265 0.38 1/8/2018 4:05 2.0 20:10 2.3 2.1 3:10 5.0 20:10 5.4 5.3 3:10 0.254 20:10 0.327 0.283 0.283 0.14 1/9/2018 0:30 2.0 20:05 2.7 2.4 0:30 5.1 20:00 5.8 5.5 0:30 0.262 20:05 0.443 0.347 0.347 0.46 1/10/2018 15:15 2.1 7:30 2.4 2.2 15:00 5.2 8:10 5.5 5.3 13:50 0.277 7:30 0.350 0.305 0.305 0.22 1/11/2018 2:05 2.1 15:50 3.6 2.9 4:00 5.1 14:40 6.4 5.9 3:30 0.270 15:50 0.709 0.499 0.499 1.04 1/12/2018 18:25 2.8 0:00 3.1 3.0 18:30 5.7 0:00 6.1 5.9 18:30 0.450 0:00 0.568 0.506 0.506 0.20 1/13/2018 23:35 2.4 10:45 2.8 2.6 23:30 5.3 9:50 5.8 5.5 23:35 0.340 9:50 0.464 0.407 0.407 0.02 1/14/2018 23:55 2.1 10:45 2.6 2.3 23:30 5.1 11:20 5.6 5.3 23:30 0.280 10:45 0.399 0.320 0.320 0.00 1/15/2018 2:10 2.1 12:50 2.3 2.2 23:55 4.6 10:20 5.3 5.1 23:55 0.255 10:40 0.311 0.282 0.282 0.04 1/16/2018 0:50 2.1 13:15 2.2 2.2 2:10 4.4 21:05 5.3 4.9 2:10 0.239 19:20 0.298 0.275 0.275 0.26 1/17/2018 2:30 2.1 20:20 2.8 2.3 4:45 4.4 21:10 5.8 5.0 3:50 0.236 20:25 0.466 0.304 0.304 0.79 1/18/2018 2:35 2.5 7:20 3.0 2.8 1:50 5.3 7:45 5.9 5.7 2:35 0.360 7:05 0.527 0.465 0.465 0.40 1/19/2018 23:35 2.3 0:00 2.7 2.5 4:05 5.3 7:50 5.6 5.4 23:35 0.322 0:00 0.434 0.376 0.376 0.10 1/20/2018 3:20 2.2 11:05 2.6 2.3 5:20 5.2 10:15 5.5 5.3 5:20 0.291 11:05 0.385 0.319 0.319 0.10 1/21/2018 1:40 2.2 11:05 2.4 2.2 23:40 4.8 9:35 5.4 5.2 3:15 0.271 11:05 0.350 0.300 0.300 0.16 1/22/2018 1:10 2.2 7:10 2.4 2.2 5:00 4.6 18:35 5.5 5.2 1:20 0.259 7:15 0.340 0.301 0.301 0.34 1/23/2018 1:50 2.2 19:45 3.0 2.5 3:55 4.6 19:55 5.9 5.3 3:55 0.266 19:55 0.523 0.365 0.365 0.79 1/24/2018 0:15 3.0 20:55 3.4 3.2 2:25 5.6 16:00 6.3 5.9 0:15 0.485 20:50 0.643 0.555 0.555 0.51 1/25/2018 23:55 2.8 0:00 3.2 3.0 23:15 5.4 0:25 6.0 5.8 23:50 0.434 0:00 0.585 0.515 0.515 0.14 1/26/2018 4:10 2.5 18:50 2.9 2.8 3:50 5.3 13:25 5.7 5.5 3:55 0.371 18:50 0.475 0.430 0.430 0.36 1/27/2018 0:00 2.8 12:45 3.4 3.2 0:10 5.5 9:50 6.3 6.0 0:10 0.445 12:45 0.665 0.590 0.590 0.61 1/28/2018 23:55 2.7 9:50 3.1 3.0 23:40 5.5 9:15 5.9 5.7 23:55 0.412 9:10 0.538 0.493 0.493 0.07 1/29/2018 3:55 2.5 19:10 3.9 3.1 3:40 5.3 19:35 6.4 5.8 3:55 0.364 19:10 0.787 0.531 0.531 0.90 1/30/2018 23:50 2.8 0:05 3.4 3.1 23:45 5.5 0:20 6.2 5.8 23:45 0.441 0:05 0.642 0.545 0.545 0.00 1/31/2018 23:40 2.4 7:35 2.8 2.6 23:05 5.3 6:55 5.6 5.4 23:40 0.336 6:55 0.452 0.393 0.393 0.00 ReportAvg 2.5 5.4 0.366 ReportTotal 11.34 8.79 ADS Environmental Services Pipe Height: 10.38 REN_MH4628\mp1\DFINAL (inches) REN_MH4628\mp1\VFINAL (feet/sec) REN_MH4628\mp1\QFINAL (MGD - Total MG) REN_RG\mp1\RAIN (inches) Date Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Total Total 2/1/2018 3:55 2.2 22:05 3.0 2.5 4:50 5.1 22:40 5.8 5.3 3:55 0.294 22:05 0.522 0.358 0.358 0.66 2/2/2018 23:40 2.6 6:45 3.0 2.8 22:10 5.3 9:10 5.7 5.5 23:40 0.374 7:40 0.496 0.443 0.443 0.04 2/3/2018 5:40 2.4 21:35 2.9 2.6 5:35 5.1 10:00 5.4 5.3 5:35 0.326 21:35 0.441 0.381 0.381 0.31 2/4/2018 23:45 2.5 10:35 3.1 2.7 23:30 5.0 10:35 5.5 5.2 23:40 0.341 10:35 0.492 0.388 0.388 0.02 2/5/2018 23:50 2.4 5:30 2.5 2.5 3:30 4.7 19:10 5.3 5.0 23:50 0.307 7:50 0.358 0.336 0.336 0.04 2/6/2018 2:45 2.3 7:40 2.4 2.4 3:55 4.4 18:50 5.2 4.8 3:55 0.269 7:00 0.325 0.302 0.302 0.00 2/7/2018 3:30 2.1 7:55 2.3 2.2 4:10 4.4 19:10 5.2 4.8 4:10 0.238 19:20 0.303 0.271 0.271 0.00 2/8/2018 2:05 2.1 7:30 2.2 2.1 3:50 4.3 19:00 5.0 4.7 3:50 0.223 22:05 0.282 0.254 0.254 0.09 2/9/2018 4:00 2.0 19:35 2.2 2.1 4:00 4.2 10:05 5.0 4.6 4:00 0.208 10:05 0.281 0.239 0.239 0.01 2/10/2018 2:15 2.1 17:50 2.3 2.2 4:35 3.8 10:35 5.0 4.4 2:15 0.206 11:05 0.285 0.246 0.246 0.01 2/11/2018 4:35 2.1 21:05 2.4 2.3 4:40 3.6 9:20 4.7 4.3 4:40 0.195 18:50 0.280 0.252 0.252 0.00 2/12/2018 2:10 1.9 20:15 2.4 2.2 3:50 3.5 20:20 4.4 4.0 3:50 0.162 20:20 0.289 0.230 0.230 0.00 2/13/2018 2:55 1.9 8:10 2.4 2.2 4:10 3.4 19:10 4.4 4.0 4:10 0.153 19:10 0.281 0.221 0.221 0.17 2/14/2018 4:35 1.9 7:35 2.3 2.1 3:10 3.6 19:20 4.6 4.2 4:15 0.175 7:35 0.277 0.229 0.229 0.15 2/15/2018 3:50 1.9 7:35 2.2 2.0 2:55 3.5 20:10 4.5 4.2 2:55 0.158 7:35 0.243 0.209 0.209 0.00 2/16/2018 23:50 1.8 8:50 2.2 2.0 0:55 3.7 19:35 4.5 4.2 2:10 0.164 7:55 0.249 0.207 0.207 0.15 2/17/2018 4:30 1.7 9:40 2.3 2.0 2:50 3.7 10:25 4.8 4.4 2:50 0.149 9:40 0.284 0.222 0.222 0.32 2/18/2018 4:15 1.8 10:40 2.1 1.9 4:55 4.0 10:35 4.9 4.4 4:15 0.164 10:40 0.250 0.207 0.207 0.01 2/19/2018 3:00 1.6 19:15 2.0 1.8 2:35 3.8 19:15 4.8 4.3 3:00 0.134 19:15 0.231 0.189 0.189 0.00 2/20/2018 2:40 1.6 20:25 1.9 1.8 2:25 3.6 21:30 4.6 4.2 2:25 0.128 20:25 0.213 0.179 0.179 0.00 2/21/2018 5:05 1.6 19:20 1.9 1.8 3:40 3.3 19:05 4.6 4.1 3:40 0.127 19:15 0.217 0.176 0.176 0.00 2/22/2018 5:40 1.6 10:35 1.9 1.8 3:10 3.0 17:05 4.5 4.0 3:10 0.113 20:25 0.201 0.169 0.169 0.07 2/23/2018 5:20 1.6 19:40 1.9 1.8 2:15 2.8 18:50 4.5 4.0 1:50 0.106 18:50 0.199 0.163 0.163 0.01 2/24/2018 0:30 1.6 10:35 1.9 1.8 4:05 2.8 17:25 4.6 4.0 4:05 0.108 10:15 0.210 0.167 0.167 0.13 2/25/2018 0:20 1.6 10:15 2.0 1.8 2:05 2.7 10:10 4.7 4.0 2:05 0.109 10:10 0.232 0.178 0.178 0.11 2/26/2018 3:00 1.7 21:05 2.0 1.8 2:05 2.5 21:15 4.5 3.8 2:05 0.104 21:15 0.215 0.161 0.161 0.00 2/27/2018 10:45 1.7 19:55 2.0 1.8 2:20 2.7 19:40 4.6 3.8 1:35 0.106 19:55 0.221 0.161 0.161 0.19 2/28/2018 3:25 1.7 19:35 2.1 1.9 2:20 2.8 19:30 4.8 4.0 2:20 0.112 19:30 0.253 0.184 0.184 0.35 ReportAvg 2.1 4.4 0.240 ReportTotal 6.722 2.84 ADS Environmental Services Pipe Height: 10.38 REN_MH4628\mp1\DFINAL (inches) REN_MH4628\mp1\VFINAL (feet/sec) REN_MH4628\mp1\QFINAL (MGD - Total MG) REN_RG\mp1\RAIN (inches) Date Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Total Total 3/1/2018 2:40 1.7 21:20 2.1 1.9 4:00 3.5 19:40 4.9 4.3 3:25 0.147 21:15 0.244 0.199 0.199 0.01 3/2/2018 2:55 1.7 8:05 2.0 1.9 3:25 3.6 8:05 4.9 4.3 2:55 0.147 8:05 0.240 0.195 0.195 0.07 3/3/2018 1:30 1.7 9:55 2.0 1.9 4:00 3.4 13:40 4.7 4.2 1:10 0.142 9:45 0.230 0.191 0.191 0.00 3/4/2018 1:05 1.7 11:35 2.0 1.9 4:40 3.2 9:45 4.8 4.2 3:00 0.133 11:35 0.238 0.188 0.188 0.12 3/5/2018 0:50 1.7 19:50 1.9 1.8 4:15 3.0 20:05 4.6 4.0 4:15 0.118 20:05 0.214 0.175 0.175 0.00 3/6/2018 2:50 1.6 19:45 1.9 1.8 2:15 3.0 19:40 4.6 4.0 2:50 0.114 19:40 0.219 0.170 0.170 0.00 3/7/2018 2:15 1.7 19:45 2.0 1.8 2:10 2.7 21:25 4.6 4.0 2:10 0.105 21:25 0.218 0.171 0.171 0.03 3/8/2018 4:05 1.7 21:30 2.0 1.8 3:05 2.9 21:25 4.7 4.0 3:00 0.113 21:25 0.237 0.174 0.174 0.37 3/9/2018 23:35 1.8 9:25 2.0 1.9 3:20 3.3 9:25 4.6 4.1 3:20 0.137 9:25 0.222 0.182 0.182 0.00 3/10/2018 3:25 1.7 10:40 2.0 1.9 3:50 3.0 10:45 4.6 4.0 3:50 0.117 10:45 0.234 0.180 0.180 0.00 3/11/2018 5:10 1.7 9:25 2.0 1.9 3:50 2.7 9:10 4.7 4.0 3:50 0.110 9:30 0.224 0.178 0.178 0.00 3/12/2018 14:15 1.7 19:15 2.0 1.8 2:45 2.5 18:40 4.6 3.9 2:45 0.099 18:40 0.215 0.164 0.164 0.00 3/13/2018 11:00 1.7 18:55 2.0 1.8 1:25 2.5 18:15 4.6 3.9 2:40 0.097 18:45 0.223 0.164 0.164 0.31 3/14/2018 1:25 1.7 20:30 2.0 1.8 2:50 2.7 7:30 4.6 3.9 1:25 0.108 7:30 0.222 0.168 0.168 0.04 3/15/2018 1:25 1.7 19:55 2.0 1.8 1:20 2.8 17:45 4.5 3.8 1:20 0.105 19:50 0.224 0.170 0.170 0.00 3/16/2018 3:00 1.7 16:40 2.0 1.8 1:45 2.8 16:40 4.4 3.7 1:45 0.111 16:40 0.210 0.162 0.162 0.00 3/17/2018 22:30 1.7 11:05 2.1 1.8 4:25 2.5 9:15 4.5 3.7 3:35 0.102 9:15 0.230 0.165 0.165 0.00 3/18/2018 4:00 1.4 9:35 2.0 1.8 4:55 2.6 10:50 4.5 3.6 4:00 0.086 10:50 0.221 0.160 0.160 0.00 3/19/2018 2:05 1.5 19:30 2.0 1.8 1:55 2.6 19:20 4.5 3.6 1:55 0.086 19:25 0.215 0.150 0.150 0.00 3/20/2018 3:00 1.5 20:05 1.9 1.7 1:40 2.6 18:25 4.4 3.5 2:25 0.088 18:25 0.208 0.142 0.142 0.00 3/21/2018 3:00 1.5 18:35 2.0 1.7 0:05 2.8 18:50 4.4 3.5 3:40 0.098 18:50 0.215 0.144 0.144 0.10 3/22/2018 1:40 1.5 20:30 1.9 1.8 0:50 2.5 19:10 4.3 3.7 0:50 0.093 16:55 0.196 0.151 0.151 0.48 3/23/2018 4:25 1.6 9:45 1.9 1.8 3:20 2.5 18:20 4.5 3.8 3:20 0.096 18:00 0.208 0.165 0.165 0.31 3/24/2018 2:55 1.6 9:00 2.0 1.8 1:10 3.0 9:55 4.7 4.1 2:55 0.114 9:55 0.232 0.182 0.182 0.28 3/25/2018 4:20 1.6 9:15 1.9 1.8 23:55 3.2 9:15 4.8 4.2 4:20 0.124 9:15 0.226 0.180 0.180 0.01 3/26/2018 2:40 1.6 18:40 1.9 1.8 3:45 3.2 18:35 4.7 4.1 2:35 0.116 18:35 0.208 0.173 0.173 0.17 3/27/2018 3:50 1.6 16:50 1.8 1.8 3:15 3.2 16:40 4.7 4.1 3:15 0.118 16:50 0.204 0.169 0.169 0.02 3/28/2018 1:55 1.5 19:25 1.8 1.7 2:40 3.2 17:45 4.7 4.1 2:40 0.109 17:45 0.205 0.166 0.166 0.01 3/29/2018 3:00 1.5 18:30 1.8 1.7 1:00 3.1 19:50 4.6 4.0 3:00 0.101 18:30 0.202 0.160 0.160 0.00 3/30/2018 2:30 1.5 20:55 1.8 1.7 1:05 3.1 9:15 4.5 3.9 3:15 0.103 7:20 0.190 0.156 0.156 0.00 3/31/2018 2:05 1.5 9:50 1.9 1.7 0:25 2.9 9:45 4.8 4.0 2:25 0.101 9:45 0.221 0.161 0.161 0.00 ReportAvg 1.8 3.9 0.170 ReportTotal 5.255 2.33 ADS Environmental Services Pipe Height: 10.38 REN_MH4628\mp1\DFINAL (inches) REN_MH4628\mp1\VFINAL (feet/sec) REN_MH4628\mp1\QFINAL (MGD - Total MG) REN_RG\mp1\RAIN (inches) Date Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Total Total 4/1/2018 2:15 1.5 9:30 1.9 1.7 3:25 2.8 9:05 4.7 4.0 2:20 0.097 9:30 0.214 0.162 0.162 0.10 4/2/2018 0:00 1.5 7:25 1.8 1.7 0:35 2.7 20:30 4.5 3.8 0:35 0.094 20:30 0.194 0.145 0.145 0.00 4/3/2018 22:40 1.6 20:20 1.8 1.7 3:10 2.6 21:10 4.6 3.7 2:45 0.094 21:10 0.199 0.141 0.141 0.00 4/4/2018 1:45 1.5 20:10 1.9 1.7 0:55 2.6 20:10 4.7 3.7 1:45 0.088 20:10 0.217 0.147 0.147 0.39 4/5/2018 0:25 1.6 18:55 1.9 1.7 3:00 2.6 18:55 4.6 3.9 3:00 0.096 18:55 0.208 0.155 0.155 0.25 4/6/2018 23:35 1.6 19:40 1.8 1.7 1:55 2.9 7:50 4.5 3.9 2:25 0.106 19:40 0.196 0.156 0.156 0.00 4/7/2018 3:30 1.6 9:40 2.0 1.8 1:40 2.9 9:45 5.0 4.4 1:40 0.107 9:40 0.257 0.196 0.196 0.88 4/8/2018 4:35 1.8 10:20 2.2 1.9 2:15 4.1 10:20 5.4 4.9 2:15 0.174 10:20 0.315 0.232 0.232 0.45 4/9/2018 23:55 1.8 19:35 1.9 1.9 0:50 4.4 18:35 5.2 4.8 23:55 0.194 20:20 0.245 0.218 0.218 0.00 4/10/2018 2:45 1.8 19:05 1.9 1.9 3:05 4.2 17:20 5.1 4.7 3:05 0.178 19:05 0.238 0.211 0.211 0.23 4/11/2018 2:30 1.8 20:50 1.9 1.8 2:55 4.2 9:05 5.1 4.7 2:55 0.177 20:50 0.235 0.208 0.208 0.31 4/12/2018 12:15 1.7 11:50 3.0 1.9 2:05 4.4 11:50 6.3 4.7 12:20 0.179 11:50 0.545 0.211 0.211 0.11 4/13/2018 3:30 1.8 20:50 1.9 1.9 2:15 4.2 20:50 5.2 4.8 2:15 0.176 20:50 0.242 0.212 0.212 0.51 4/14/2018 0:45 1.9 23:55 3.5 2.6 2:10 4.9 23:40 6.7 5.8 2:10 0.223 23:55 0.725 0.431 0.431 1.52 4/15/2018 23:55 2.7 2:10 3.6 3.3 23:00 6.1 1:30 6.7 6.5 23:40 0.467 1:35 0.759 0.644 0.644 0.21 4/16/2018 3:35 2.7 18:00 3.1 2.9 3:35 5.9 20:55 6.6 6.2 3:35 0.445 20:05 0.612 0.511 0.511 0.71 4/17/2018 23:50 2.4 0:05 2.9 2.7 23:50 5.8 5:30 6.4 6.1 23:50 0.366 5:40 0.534 0.470 0.470 0.01 4/18/2018 23:55 2.1 6:35 2.5 2.4 23:55 5.3 6:05 6.0 5.7 23:55 0.280 6:20 0.411 0.360 0.360 0.12 4/19/2018 23:55 1.9 6:55 2.4 2.1 23:40 5.1 6:05 5.7 5.4 23:55 0.232 6:55 0.355 0.288 0.288 0.00 4/20/2018 2:30 1.9 6:30 2.1 2.0 23:55 4.7 18:15 5.5 5.1 23:55 0.212 6:30 0.293 0.244 0.244 0.00 4/21/2018 5:00 1.9 9:05 2.0 1.9 2:00 4.5 9:05 5.4 4.9 2:00 0.203 9:05 0.273 0.227 0.227 0.05 4/22/2018 2:10 1.8 9:10 2.0 1.9 2:25 4.3 11:20 5.2 4.8 2:25 0.187 9:10 0.252 0.219 0.219 0.00 ReportAvg 2.0 4.9 0.263 ReportTotal 5.788 5.85 REN_MH4646 Located At: 582 Bronson Way NE (see attached site report for details) Monitoring Period: December 22, 2017 – April 22, 2018 Pipe Dimensions: 8” Finalized Silt Level: 0 mm Site Data Characteristics: This site is located in a sanitary sewer pipe. The scattergraph indicates site operated in free flow conditions. The site did not surcharge during the monitoring period. The dry weather data plots above the Froude =1 curve indicating supercritical flow. Site Data Bias & Editing: The depth and velocity measurements recorded by the flow monitor were consistent with field confirmations conducted to date and supported the relative accuracy of the flow monitor at this location. The finalized depth data utilized the downward ultrasonic sensor. Site Data Uptime: The data uptime achieved during the monitoring period is provided in the table below. Based upon the quality and consistency of the observed flow depth and velocity data, the Continuity equation was used to calculate the flow rate for the monitoring period. Entity Percentage Uptime Raw Percentage Uptime Final Depth (in) 100% 100% Velocity (f/s) 100% 100% Quantity (mgd) 100% 100% Site Data Summary: The average flow depth, velocity, and quantity data observed during the monitoring period along with observed minimum and maximum data, are provided in the following table. The minimum and maximum rates recorded in the tables are based on 5‐minute data intervals. Item Depth (in) Velocity (f/s) Quantity (mgd) % Full Minimum 1.02 6.57 0.138 13% Maximum 1.82 11.44 0.387 23% Average 1.34 9.28 0.225 17% Latitude: 47.491659° Longitude:-122.190337° REN_MH4646 TRITON+ System Characteristics Location Type Pipe Shapelocated in turn lane RENTON Medium Drive Site Access Details: Site Address /Location: Site Name 582 Bronson Way NE Flow Monitoring Site Report Installation Information Circular Monitor Series Monitor Location: Doppler Standard Ring and Crank Manhole # Installation Date: Pipe Size (H x W) Topside / Area Photo Wednesday, December 13, 2017 Access Temporary 8.00" x 7.75" Traffic MH4646 Residential Map Installation Type: Monitoring Location (Sensors): Peak Combo (CS4), Smart Depth (CS5) 4 0.00'' CS5 Physical Offset (in)Measurement Confidence (in) Peak Velocity (fps) Silt (in) 12:28:00 PM 8.00" x 7.75"Site Sketch Profile View or Photo low flow 0 - 5 psi Depth of Flow (Wet DOF) (in) 1.13 Velocity Sensor Offset (in) 10.75 Downstream 0-5 FT Manhole Sensors / Devices: Installation Confirmation: Manhole Opening Diameter (in) Silt Type Hydraulic Comments: 0'' Sanitary Sewer Overflow 0.25" Manhole / Pipe Information: Pressure Sensor Range (psi) Confirmation Time: 20''20'' Manhole Cover Manhole Frame Pipe Condition: Manhole Material: Manhole Diameter (Approx.): Manhole Depth (Approx. FT):Manhole Configuration Concrete Good 10 Manhole Condition: 22275.11.325 Additional Site Info. / Comments: ADS Project Name: ADS Project Number: Renton Wireless Pipe Material Antenna Location Communication Information: Manhole Pick / Vent Hole Yes, Inside Vitrified Clay Pipe NormalSteel Fair Active Connections Renton traffic control Needed Air Quality: Communication Type Normal Additional Photos Flow Direction Monitoring Point Side inlet KEY Google Earth Map Top Down Location Location Map Inlet Outlet Location Map ADS Environmental Services Pipe Height: 8.00 REN_MH4646\mp1\DFINAL (inches) REN_MH4646\mp1\VFINAL (feet/sec) REN_MH4646\mp1\QFINAL (MGD - Total MG) REN_RG\mp1\RAIN (inches) Date Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Time Min. Time Max. Average Total Total 12/22/2017 1:10 1.2 11:40 1.6 1.4 4:10 8.5 16:15 10.0 9.2 4:10 0.174 17:00 0.280 0.232 0.232 0.10 12/23/2017 6:05 1.1 10:45 1.6 1.4 3:40 8.2 12:05 10.2 9.1 6:05 0.163 10:45 0.301 0.230 0.230 0.00 12/24/2017 3:50 1.2 10:40 1.6 1.3 2:30 7.7 11:00 10.3 9.0 2:30 0.161 10:40 0.301 0.218 0.218 0.00 12/25/2017 2:10 1.2 9:05 1.5 1.3 4:40 7.7 10:20 10.6 8.9 2:10 0.157 11:20 0.287 0.210 0.210 0.14 12/26/2017 4:25 1.2 14:30 1.5 1.3 5:20 7.6 12:25 9.8 8.9 4:50 0.155 14:30 0.273 0.210 0.210 0.17 12/27/2017 2:05 1.1 11:45 1.5 1.3 4:10 7.5 10:35 10.0 9.0 2:05 0.144 11:45 0.286 0.214 0.214 0.00 12/28/2017 2:40 1.1 14:55 1.5 1.3 2:35 7.2 17:55 10.2 8.9 2:40 0.140 14:55 0.262 0.205 0.205 0.25 12/29/2017 2:45 1.1 10:25 1.6 1.4 2:05 8.3 13:00 11.3 9.7 2:45 0.166 10:25 0.329 0.248 0.248 1.57