HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes 1807 - DOCUMENT: 2013 Surface Water Comprehensive Plan (Repealed by Res 2098)Following is
2013 Surface Water Comprehensive Plan
Adopted by Res 1807
CITY OF TUKWILA
2013 SURFACE WATER
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Tukwila41
FF.
Prepared by
CH2MHILL.
February 2013
Final
City of Tukwila 2013 Surface
Water Comprehensive Plan
Prepared for
Tukwila, WA
February 2013
Prepared by
CH2MHIL.
Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations iii
1.0 Introduction 1 -1
1.1 Background 1 -1
1.2 Plan Objective 1 -1
1.3 Report Organization 1 -1
2.0 Drainage Basin and Watershed Characteristics 2 -1
2.1 General Description 2 -1
2.2 Drainage Basins 2 -1
2.3 Population, Existing Land Use and Future Development 2 -4
2.4 Drainage System Characterization 2 -7
2.5 Water Quality Characterization 2 -10
2.6 Aquatic Habitat Characterization 2 -12
2.6.1 Green /Duwamish River 2 -12
2.6.2 Gilliam Creek 2 -12
2.6.3 Riverton Creek 2 -13
2.6.4 Southgate Creek 2 -13
2.6.5 Johnson Creek 2 -14
2.6.6 Mill Creek 2 -14
3.0 Regulations and City Policies 3 -1
3.1 Applicable Surface Water Regulations 3 -1
3.2 Potential Regulatory Changes 3 -1
4.0 Surface Water Issues and Solutions 4 -1
4.1 Available Data and Information 4 -1
4.2 Identified Surface Water Issues 4 -1
4.3 Menu of Solutions to Address Surface Water Issues 4 -4
4.3.1 Programmatic Solutions 4 -4
4.3.1.1 Education 4 -5
4.3.1.2 Incentives 4 -6
4.3.1.3 Regulatory and Policy Changes 4 -6
4.3.1.4 Inspection and Enforcement 4 -6
4.3.1.5 Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination 4 -7
4.3.1.6 Public Involvement 4 -7
4.3.1.7 Surface Water System Maintenance 4 -7
4.3.2 Capital Project Solutions 4 -8
4.3.2.1 Drainage 4 -9
4.3.2.2 Water Quality 4 -10
4.3.2.3 Aquatic Habitat 4 -11
4.4 Solutions to Tukwila's Surface Water Issues 4 -11
5.0 Capital Improvement Projects 5 -1
WBG031611103411 SEA\TU KW I LASURFACEWATERCOMPPLAN _FINAL_V2. DOCX
CITY OF TUKWILA 2012 SURFACE WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
5.1 412 Fund (Drainage and Water Quality) 5 -1
5.2 301 Fund (Fish Habitat) 5 -3
6.0 Operations and Maintenance 6 -1
6.1 Surface Water Maintenance Activities 6 -1
6.2 Regulatory Compliance 6 -1
6.3 Surface Water Maintenance Policies 6 -1
7.0 Recommendations 7 -1
7.1 Recommended Activities 7 -1
7.1.1 Capital Projects 7 -1
7.1.2 Programmatic Solutions and Policies 7 -1
7.1.2.1 Education 7 -1
7.1.2.2 Incentives 7 -1
7.1.2.3 Regulatory and Policy Changes 7 -1
7.1.2.4 Inspection and Enforcement 7 -2
7.1.2.5 Public Involvement 7 -2
7.1.2.6 Surface Water System Maintenance 7 -3
7.1.2.7 Habitat Manager 7 -3
7.2 Schedule for Implementation 7 -3
8.0 References 8 -1
Tables
1 Drainage Basin Areas Summary 2 -4
2 Tukwila Land Use Zoning and Undeveloped Land 2 -6
3 Surface Water Pump Stations 2 -10
4 Surface Water Issue Summary 4 -2
5 Surface Water Issue Types Addressed by Programmatic Solutions 4 -5
6 Surface Water Issue Types Addressed by Capital Projects 4 -8
7 Surface Water Issues and Solutions 4 -13
8 Drainage and Water Quality Capital Projects - 412 Fund 5 -1
9 Fish Habitat Capital Projects - 301 Fund 5 -3
Figures
1 Vicinity Map
2 Drainage Basins
3 Zoning
4 Infiltration Not Allowed
5 Level 2 Stormwater Detention
6 Surface Water Issues
7 Capital Improvement Projects
Appendices
A Map Book
B Drainage, Water Quality, and Fish Habitat Characterization
C Surface Water Regulations and Policies
D Surface Water Issues and Solutions
E Surface Water Capital Projects
WBG031611103411 SEA 1TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLAN _FINAL_V2.DOCX
Acronyms and Abbreviations
CBD Southeast Central Business District
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Endangered Species Act
GIS Geographic Information System
LF linear feet
LID Low Impact Development
mg/L milligrams per liter
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
ROW right -of -way
SEPA State Environmental Policy Act
TMDL total maximum daily load
TSS total suspended solids
TUC Tukwila Urban Center
WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
WSDOT State of Washington Department of Transportation
WBG031611103411 SEA\TU KW I LASURFACEWATERCOMPPLAN _FINAL_V2. DOCX
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Background
The purpose of this Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan is to provide a
strategic framework for the management of surface water within the City of Tukwila. This
Surface Water Plan is intended to be a flexible document that may be revised should
priorities or regulatory requirements change. This Surface Water Plan can also serve as a
reference for City departments whose activities may impact surface water drainage, water
quality, or aquatic habitat concerns.
This 2013 Surface Water Plan is an update to the Surface Water Plan prepared in 2003
(CH2MHILL 2003). The previous surface water plan was prepared in 1993. This 2013
Surface Water Plan addresses changes that have taken place since 2003, including the
annexation of 259 acres into the City of Tukwila in 2009, expansion of regulatory
requirements, and changing surface water management techniques and strategies. This 2013
Plan also reflects the surface water capital and non - structural investments that the City of
Tukwila has made since the 2003 Surface Water Plan, including addressing priority
drainage, water quality, and aquatic habitat issues identified in that plan.
1.2 Plan Objective
The objective of this 2013 Surface Water Plan is to provide a surface water management
framework that will protect the public's health and safety, protect both public and private
property, conserve and enhance the natural aquatic systems within the City, and maintain
compliance with local, state, and federal regulations related to surface water.
1.3 Report Organization
The main body of this Surface Water Plan consists of a series of sections that summarize the
general topics of this plan. Technical conclusions as well as detailed information are
included in the appendices. The Plan includes the following sections:
• Section 1- Introduction
• Section 2 - Drainage Basin and Watershed Characteristics (supporting information in
Appendix A and in Appendix B)
• Section 3 - Regulations and Policies (supporting information in Appendix C)
• Section 4 - Surface Water Issues (supporting information in Appendix D)
• Section 5 - Capital Improvement Projects (supporting information in Appendix E)
• Section 6 - Operations and Maintenance
• Section 7 - Recommendations
WBG031611103411SEA1 TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX 1 -1
2.0 Drainage Basin and Watershed
Characteristics
This section contains a description of the physical characteristics of the City of Tukwila.
Drainage, water quality, and aquatic habitat conditions are also presented. Appendix B
contains the detailed information in support of this Section 2.
2.1 General Description
The City of Tukwila encompasses approximately 9.7 square miles straddling the Green and
Duwamish Rivers (Figure 1). The climate is strongly influenced by the Pacific Ocean with
wet and mild winters with temperatures varying from 30 °F to 50 °F and dry and cool
summers with temperatures typically less than 80 °F. The average annual precipitation is
between 32 and 38 inches.
The Green and Duwamish Rivers and associated floodplains dominate the geography and
topography of Tukwila. Relatively flat and poorly drained floodplains exist adjacent to the
rivers and steep valley walls dominate the areas on the west side of Tukwila along the I -5
corridor. Soils in the valley floor tend to be fine sandy loam and silty clay loam (Newberg
and Woodinville Series, respectively). The valley walls typically are comprised of soils from
the Alderwood Series (interbedded silts and clays) and are characterized by numerous
hillside springs and the accompanying potential for instability.
2.2 Drainage Basins
The City has been divided into nine drainage basins (Figure 2):
• Green / Duwamish River Mainstem
• Gilliam Creek
• Nelson Place - Long Acres
• P17
• Riverton Creek
• Southeast Central Business District (CBD)
• Southgate Creek
• Johnson Creek
• Mill Creek
Portions of these basins are located outside City limits as shown in Table 1. The basin
boundary delineation was based on information from field visits, the City Geographic
Information System (GIS), and previously developed basin plans. The City of Tukwila has
finished an inventory and mapping of the drainage network. Basin boundaries should be
periodically re- visited to ensure the inventory is up to date. Appendix A to this Plan
includes a Surface Water map book, a summary of this inventory and mapping to date.
WBG031611103411SEA1 TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX 2 -1
King County
International Airpor
._.._.._.�
King County
•
•
•
•
•
•
Burien
Black River
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Seattle- Tacoma
International Airport
SeaTac
Normandy Park
r..
•
Des Moines
'V
Ki ng(Cou my
City of Tukwila
1 King County Unincorporated
: Other Municipalities
Streams and Rivers
0
1
2
3
N
Miles
FIGURE 1
City of Tukwila Vicinity Map
City of Tukwila 2012 Surface Water Comprehensive Plan
SEA \\ SIMBA\ PROJ\ TUKWILAWACITYOF \412954SWCOMPPL \GIS \LAYOUT \FIGUREI VICINITYMAP.MXD TJANTZEN 10/17/2011 07:40:32
CH2MHILL
Seattle
•_.• ••••• •••■• •1
".4Mercer
4 1
4.4
•
•
•
•
King County \Green /Duwamish
Lake Washington
4
Y
Y
"Le-■•■•■■•••
King County
y
se
Black River
19
\° G1 t-
Renton
Li elson
d
Springbrook
unty PS
Normandy Park
4 �
. s
• •
S 1 t St
. v
Mill Creek
•
Moines
Puget Sound
Kent
Drainage Basins
• Tukwila Stormwater Pump Station I`• _� King County Unincorporated
• Pump Station Owned by Others Other Municipalities
City of Tukwila
N
0 1 2
Miles
FIGURE 2
City of Tukwila Drainage Basins
City of Tukwila 2012 Surface Water Comprehensive Plan
SEA \\ SIMBA\ PROJ\ TUKWILAWACITYOF\ 412954SWCOMPPL \GIS \LAYOUT\FIGURE2 DRAINAGEBASINS.MXD TJANTZEN 4/2/2013 09:39:38
CH2MHILL
CITY OF TUKWILA 2012 SURFACE WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
TABLE 1
Drainage Basin Areas Summary
Basin Name
Area of Basin in Percent of
Total Basin City of Tukwila Basin in City of
Area (acres) (acres) Tukwila
Green /Duwamish River Mainstem 4,250 2,613 61%
Gilliam Creek 1,774 1,314 74%
Nelson Place / Long Acres 93 94 101%
P17 1,348 777 58%
Riverton Creek 452 393 87%
Springbrook Creek 23 23 100%
Southgate Creek 546 484 89%
Johnson Creek 1,833 309 17%
Mill Creek 87 87 100%
Total 10,406 6,094
2.3 Population, Existing Land Use and Future Development
The City of Tukwila's population is approximately 19,000 residents with an estimated
42,000 people employed at businesses located within the City of Tukwila. The resident
population of Tukwila is not expected to change dramatically over the 7 -year planning
period covered by this Plan. Any increase in residents would be due to redevelopment that
may increase residential densities. The number of those employed within the City of
Tukwila may increase with additional commercial development throughout the city, most
notably the Tukwila South project described later in this section. The 2030 targets for
additional residents and employees are 4,800 and 15,000, respectively.
Land use within the City of Tukwila varies from undeveloped natural land to highly
developed industrial areas. The City is almost fully developed with those
undeveloped acres in sensitive areas and in locations that are difficult to build such as steep
slopes. Figure 3 shows the zoning within the City of Tukwila and Table 2 lists the
distribution of land uses by drainage basin.
The City of Tukwila annexed 259 acres on the south end of the city on December 31, 2009,
referred to as the Tukwila South Annexation. In the future, the boundaries of the City of
Tukwila may change due to boundary adjustments or additional annexations. Other
possible annexations include areas to the north of the city limits though no plan has been
formalized.
The Tukwila South development consists of 512 acres of land with boundaries of
approximately S 180th Street to the north, the Green River to the east, S 204th Street to the
south, and Orillia Road /I -5 to the west. This development includes the 259 acres annexed to
the City of Tukwila as part of the Tukwila South Annexation. Stormwater management
2 -4 WBG031611103411SEA1 TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX
Seattle
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
King County
i -L-
{- -- •— w�r._J
•
Green/®uwa m ish
•
•
Borien
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1" •
° -• 1 •
•
•
•
•
• •
•
•
•
• • •
Drmandy Park
°
° • a
Johnson'
1
1• t.
f• ammo •'. -••••�
•
Mercer Islanc. ,•
•
A
� •I h
•
King County
�ba
lac
Nelson
tt:
Renton
- ,Springbrook
>eaTac
80th
'Mt-Greek
•
11- -- ■
•
f
•
i
Des Moines
•
•
•
•
Y
• +Y
Kent
CLI, Commercial Light Industrial
MIC /H, Manufacturing Industrial Center /Heavy - RCC, Residential Commercial Center
HDR, High Density Residential - MIC /L, Manufacturing Industrial Center/Light
MUO, Mixed Use Office
LDR, Low Density Residential - NCC, Neighborhood Commercial Center
LI, Lignt Industrial 0, Office
MDR, Medium Density Residential - RC, Regional Commercial
N
HI, Heavy Industrial
Miles
RCM, Regional Commercial Mixed Use
TUC, Tukwila Urban Center
TVS, Tukwila Valley South
QDrainage Basins
Park
FIGURE 3
City of Tukwila Zoning
City of Tukwila 2012 Surface Water Comprehensive Plan
SEA \ \SIMBA\ PROD\ TUKWILAWACITYOF\ 412954SWCOMPPL \GIS \LAYOUTFIGURE3 ZONING.MXD TJANTZEN 4/2/2013 09:51:39
CH2MHILL
CITY OF TUKWILA 2012 SURFACE WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
TABLE 2
Tukwila Land Use Zoning and Undeveloped Land
Other
State Right -of- Un -Zoned Undeveloped Existing and
Residential' Commercial' Industrial' Way'' 4 Areas' Land Planned Parks
% of % of % of % of % of % of
% of
Basin Name Acres Basin2 Acres Basin2 Acres Basin2 Acres Basin2 Acres Basin2 Acres Basin2 Acres Basin
Green/ Duwamish River
Mainstem 607 23% 129
5%
1209 46% 263 10% 406 16% 94 4% 116 4%
Gilliam Creek 646 49% 286 22% 0 0% 236 18% 145 11% 31 2% 29 2%
Nelson Place / Long
Acres 0 0% 64 68% 15 16% 14 15% 0 0% 19 21% 0 0%
P17 80 10% 506 65% 99 13% 23 3% 69 9% 60 8% 26 3%
Riverton Creek 168 43% 16 4% 125 32% 39 10% 44 11% 34 9% 0 0%
Springbrook Creek 0 0% 1 3% 22 96% 0 0% 0 2% 11 48% 0 0%
Southgate Creek 297 61% 47 10% 34 7% 37 8% 69 14% 18 4% 18 4%
Johnson Creek 31 10% 230 75% 0 0% 0 0% 47 15% 0 0% 0 0%
Mill Creek 0 0% 0 0% 74 85% 4 4% 9 11% 0 0% 0 0%
Total 1829 30% 1280 21% 1578 26% 612 10% 782 13% 267 4% 189 3%
1 These five categories (Residential, Commercial, Industrial, State Right -of -Way [ROW], and Other Un -zoned areas) add up to 100% of the basin; Undeveloped
Land totals and Parks totals are shown as stand -alone totals in table and also included in residential, commercial, and industrial totals
2 All percentages are of the portion of the basin within Tukwila City Limits
3 Nearly 100% of Johnson Creek was undeveloped in the 2009 aerial imagery, but much of the basin is slated for development in the near future.
4 State ROW boundaries used for this analysis are imprecise; these values are approximate.
2 -6 WBG031611103411SEA1 TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX
2.0 DRAINAGE BASIN AND WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS
approaches and techniques are described in the developers' agreement with the City of
Tukwila.
One other redevelopment initiative is the Tukwila Urban Center (TUC). The TUC covers the
area known as Southcenter. The TUC is bounded by I -5 to the west, I -405 to the north, the
City limits to the east, and South 180th Street to the south. The TUC also includes the station
at Long Acres that serves Amtrak and the Sounder commuter rail. The City issued a public
review draft of the TUC Sub -Area Plan in February 2009. That Plan will serve as a guide to
continuing growth and redevelopment of the TUC over the next 20 years, focusing on a
transition from the current pattern of sub -urban development to an urban environment. The
plan includes high- density, pedestrian oriented development served by high- capacity
transit.
Future development and re- development is undertaken in accordance with the City's storm
drainage manual (at the time of this Report, 2009 King County Surface Water Design
Manual). The City has identified areas where infiltration is not allowed as a surface water
management approach due to steep slopes and /or high groundwater table (Figure 4).
Flow control standards within the City of Tukwila depend on location within the City
(Figure 5). In addition to the flow control standards within the 2009 King County Surface
Water Design Manual, Tukwila has added two additional flow control standards referred to
as 'Level 2 - Conservation to Existing Conditions' and as 'Basic - Peak Rate to Existing'.
Table 5.1 in Chapter 5 of the City's Development Guidelines and Design and Construction
Standards (City of Tukwila, 2010) includes descriptions of each of the flow control levels
applicable within the City of Tukwila.
The flow control standard that applies to most of the City, 'Level 2 - Conservation to
Existing Conditions', means that runoff from the developed site will be controlled and
released at a rate that matches the flow duration for the existing site conditions before the
development (pre - project). The flow control duration standard requires runoff to be
detained and released at a rate that matches the flow duration over the range of flows
extending from 1/2 of the 2 -year up to the 50 -year flow and to also match developed peak
discharge rates to existing (pre - project) peak discharge rates for the 2 -year and 10 -year
return periods. Much of the City of Tukwila area east of 1 -5 falls under this category. The
'Basic - Peak Rate to Existing' flow control standard matches existing site conditions for
areas that drain to constructed (man -made) drainage systems that drain directly to either a
direct discharge exempt water body or to a receiving water body such that there is not a
possibility of creating an erosion problem. The standard calls for matching the 2 -,10- and
100 -year peak runoff rate for existing conditions. This standard only applies to those
portions of the Nelson Place /Long Acres Basin that drain to Springbrook Creek in the City
of Renton.
2.4 Drainage System Characterization
Supporting information for the drainage system, water quality, and aquatic habitat
characterizations located in Sections 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6 of this Plan, respectively, and is
contained in Appendix B.
WBG031611103411SEA1 TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX 2 -7
Seattle
King
4111 4•=11 44 NEM 0
Normandy
•
•
Burien
PEd
S 86th PI
Boeing-4W
•
ii '�
SR-595
County
•
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
S 1.2$th
Riverton
S1 3ydSt
35th Stf➢
,Green /Duwam
S 138th St //47/:, Y n,, 'A t�
t' S
S140f%S���8��
S Ithgate�
S • h t
g 4
rj
Renton
405
164th S
SeaTac
Springbrook
Saxon w
S 188th St
Mill Creek
o
I
A
Moine
ata
WV 4]0
•
M4
Areas where infiltration not allowed
=Drainage Basins N
0 1 2
Miles
FIGURE 4
Infiltration Not Allowed
City of Tukwila 2012 Surface Water Comprehensive Plan
SEA \ \SIMBA\ PROD\ TUKWILAWACITYOF\ 412954SWCOMPPL \GIS \LAYOUT\FIGURE4 NOINFILTRATION.MXD TJANTZEN 4/2/2013 10:27:31
CH2MHILL
Level 2- Conservation to Existing
Level 2- Conservation to Forested
Basic- Peak Rate to Existing
Per Tukwila South Development Agreement
N
0 1 V 2
Miles
Drainage Basins
FIGURE 5
Level 2 Stormwater Detention
City of Tukwila 2012 Surface Water Comprehensive Plan
SEA \\ SIMBA\ PROJ\ TUKWILAWACITYOF \412954SWCOMPPL \GIS \LAYOUT \FIGURES STORMWATERDETENTION.MXD TJANTZEN 4/2/2013 11:34:14
CH2MHILL
CITY OF TUKWILA 2012 SURFACE WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
All of the surface water in the City of Tukwila eventually discharges to the Green and
Duwamish Rivers. The Green /Duwamish River meanders from the southeast to northwest
through the City of Tukwila. The Green /Duwamish River is tidally influenced along most
of length of the river within the City of Tukwila. The Green /Duwamish River is called the
Duwamish below the confluence with the Black River and is called the Green River
upstream of that point.
Tukwila's drainage network consists of both closed -pipe and open channel conveyance.
Numerous outfalls discharge to the Green and Duwamish Rivers with several tide gates
preventing river and tidal flows from flowing up into the drainage basins. The outfalls with
the largest discharge are typically associated with the creek systems located entirely or
partially within the City, including Riverton Creek, Gilliam Creek, Southgate Creek, and
Johnson Creek.
Tukwila's drainage assets include pipes, manholes, ditches, ponds, culverts, and surface
water pump stations. Table 3 lists each of the city -owned surface water pump stations (also
shown in Figure 2). Outfalls, tide gates, pump stations, and other drainage assets are shown
in the map book in Appendix A. Note that King County owns and operates a pump station
(P17) within the City of Tukwila's P17 drainage basin.
TABLE 3
Surface Water Pump Stations
Station
Name
Physical Location
Drainage Basin Ownership
Sta #15 5880 S 180th Street — near Claim
Jumper Restaurant
P17 City of Tukwila Stormwater
Utility
Sta #16 7420 S. 180th Street — underpass Springbrook City of Tukwila Stormwater
Creek, Green/ Utility
Duwamish River
Sta #17
Sta #18
Sta #19
530 Strander Boulevard — Bicentennial Green/ City of Tukwila Stormwater
Park Duwamish River Utility
4225 S. 122nd Street — Allentown
Fort Dent Park
Green/ City of Tukwila Stormwater
Duwamish River Utility
Green/ City of Tukwila Parks
Duwamish River Department
It is possible that the City may acquire additional surface water assets after development of
the south annexation area. The City should update this surface water asset inventory both in
this comprehensive surface water plan and in the City's GIS when these surface water assets
are put into service.
2.5 Water Quality Characterization
Supporting information for the water quality characterization located in this Section 2.5 is
contained in Appendix B.
In 2003, Ecology adopted a water use -based classification for state surface waters
(RCW 173 -201A, Table 602) that determines the surface water quality standards applicable
2 -10 WBG031611103411SEA1 TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX
2.0 DRAINAGE BASIN AND WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS
for that water body (RCW 173 -201A- 600(1)). The Duwamish River (below the confluence
with the Black River) is classified as Salmonid Rearing /Migration Only and Secondary
Contact Recreation. The Green River (above the confluence with the Black River) is
classified as Salmonid Spawning /Rearing Only and Primary Contact Recreation.
None of the tributaries to these rivers within Tukwila is called out in Table 602. Therefore,
the uses defined for tributaries are the same as the river to which they discharge. Riverton
Creek and Southgate Creek discharge to the Duwamish River so they have a use -based
classification of Salmonid Rearing /Migration and Secondary Contact Recreation. Gilliam
Creek, Johnson Creek, and the Nelson Place / Long Acres, Southeast CBD, and P17
drainage basins have a use -based classification of Salmonid Rearing /Migration and Primary
Contact Recreation.
Ecology maintains a list of water bodies that do not meet water quality standards, known as
the 303(d) list. The 2008 update is the current water quality assessment and 303(d) list for
the state of Washington (at the time of preparation of this plan). Four sections of the
Green /Duwamish River within the City of Tukwila do not meet water quality standards
according to the 2008 303(d) list. Both the Green River and Duwamish River are listed as
Category 5 (at least one designated use is impaired) for dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH,
and fecal coliform, based on water sampling and analysis (Ecology 2010; Ecology 2006).
Gilliam Creek is the only creek system in the City of Tukwila for which additional water
quality data is available for this water quality characterization. Water quality sampling was
performed during storm runoff events in the fall of 1999 as part of the Gilliam Creek
Stormwater Management Plan (Herrera Environmental Consultants 2001). Temperature,
dissolved oxygen and pH (the latter with the exception of one sample) all met current state
water quality standards during this sampling. Turbidity was somewhat elevated, generally
ranging from 25 to 50 NTUs. Similarly suspended solids were also only modestly elevated,
generally ranging from 20 to 60 milligrams per liter (mg /L). Dissolved lead met applicable
water quality criteria, as did nearly 90 percent of the dissolved zinc samples. About half of
the samples failed to meet the dissolved copper criteria. Finally, nearly all of the fecal
coliform samples exceeded the state water quality standards.
In a study that had been conducted several years prior, two creek samples were collected
during summer baseflow conditions (June and September of 1997). Several samples taken
during these months did not meet the state dissolved oxygen standard, with one sample
recorded at 3.2 mg /L, well below the state standard of 6 mg /L. These samples also fell
slightly below the pH standard. In September the measured stream temperature of
17.5 degrees Celsius barely fell below the state standard of 18 degrees.
The northern -most portion of the City of Tukwila lies within the Lower Duwamish
Waterway Superfund Site, designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
in 2001. King County, the Port of Seattle, and the cities of Seattle and Tukwila are working
with Ecology and the EPA to control sources of pollution in the Lower Duwamish
Waterway. Ecology is the lead agency for implementing source controls in the Lower
Duwamish Waterway. In 2002 the entities listed above formed the Lower Duwamish
Waterway Source Control Work Group to coordinate source control activities.
WBG031611103411SEA1 TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX 2 -11
CITY OF TUKWILA 2012 SURFACE WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
2.6 Aquatic Habitat Characterization
Supporting information for the aquatic habitat characterization located in this Section 2.6 is
contained in Appendix B. A detailed fish - blocking culvert inventory is included in
Attachment A to Appendix B.
2.6.1 Green /Duwamish River
The Green /Duwamish River channel is significantly altered from its natural condition along
most reaches in the City of Tukwila. Non - native and other less desirable trees and shrubs
such as blackberry have replaced native riparian vegetation. Riprap also borders the river
along many reaches. Urban development in and near the City has greatly reduced the
vegetated buffer of the river and has encroached upon the banks. Flooding and drainage
problems associated with this urban development throughout the basin (including the
levees constructed to address flooding) have degraded fish and other wildlife habitat in and
along the river.
Productive, good quality fish habitat, both in the main channel and in off - channel refuge, is
generally lacking along the Green and Duwamish Rivers. Spawning gravel recruitment to
the Green /Duwamish River in this area has been diminished due to the comprehensive
effects of urban development, in particular the diversion of the White River and the
Cedar /Black River away from the Duwamish River. Little, if any, spawning habitat occurs
in the river reaches within the City. The Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan calls for
increased opportunities for levee set -backs to restore habitat within 200 feet of the
Green /Duwamish River, particularly side - channel refuge habitat.
In addition to the mainstem Green and Duwamish River channels, aquatic habitat is
provided in the City of Tukwila's four major creek systems: Gilliam Creek, Riverton Creek,
Southgate Creek, and Johnson Creek. The remainder of this section includes a description of
the aquatic habitat available to fish in these four creek systems.
2.6.2 Gilliam Creek
The lower reach of Gilliam Creek provides mostly rearing and possibly some scattered
spawning habitat. Spawning gravels are covered by sediments deposited by upstream
erosion and by historical construction activities. Habitat in the lower reach of Gilliam Creek
is available to fish through the flap gate at the outlet of Gilliam Creek only under certain
high -flow conditions, when the Green River water level is elevated but remains lower than
the water level in Gilliam Creek. Several species of anadromous fish, including coho salmon,
chinook salmon, and sea -run cutthroat trout, are reported to make use of the lower reach of
Gilliam Creek, along the south shoulder of I -405 between the Green River and the I -5 /I -405
interchange (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife [WDFW], 2010; Herrera, 2001).
Two more partial fish passage barriers exist in the lower reach of Gilliam Creek. A State of
Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) -owned culvert that conveys at least
1,000 feet of the creek under the south shoulder of I -405 is identified as a partial fish barrier
(WDFW, 2010). Farther upstream, a log at the inlet of the WSDOT -owned culvert at the I -405
on -ramp observed in spring of 2011 appears capable of blocking fish passage.
2 -12 WBG031611103411SEA1 TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX
2.0 DRAINAGE BASIN AND WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS
WDFW determined that several of the tributaries to upper Gilliam Creek provide some
rearing habitat (WSDOT, 2007). Since the culvert underneath the I -5/1 -405 interchange is a
total barrier to anadromous fish, it is likely that only resident fish such as cutthroat trout
and sculpin are utilizing the available habitat in the upper reaches of Gilliam Creek at this
time. Fish barriers do exist in the upper reaches of Gilliam Creek, including a WSDOT-
owned culvert beneath SR 518 that conveys one of these tributaries that is identified as a
total fish passage barrier.
2.6.3 Riverton Creek
Both west and east forks of Riverton Creek are characterized by narrow, straight channels
and long sections of culvert in their lower reaches. Both forks are considered fish - bearing.
Coho salmon, Chinook salmon, and resident cutthroat trout are potentially present in
Riverton Creek (WDFW, 2010; Entranco, 1997). Overall, Riverton Creek provides some
limited rearing habitat for salmon, but no longer provides substantial spawning habitat.
The flap gates at the outlet of Riverton Creek to the Duwamish River are impassable to fish
during low flows plus somewhat impassable all other times. One of the flap gates is
currently propped open as an interim solution.
The East Fork of Riverton Creek just upstream of the SR 599 culvert is characterized by a
wide, exposed, sandy, and silty streambed which provides fish passage but no spawning or
rearing habitat. Upstream of that reach, a more than 2,000 linear feet (LF) culvert likely
prevents at least some anadromous fish from accessing suitable habitat located in the upper
reach between S 126th Street and S 128th Street, where good overhead cover from riparian
plants, sufficient flows, and streambed gravel appear suitable for coho salmon spawning.
Anecdotal evidence from a local resident during a February 2011 site visit suggests that
anadromous salmon can and do access the east fork up to S 128th Street. The gradient
upstream of S 128th Street is likely too steep for anadromous fish.
Approximately 2,000 LF of restored channel in the West Fork of Riverton Creek just
upstream of SR 599 has provided some spawning and rearing habitat. The culverts within
this restored reach could fill with sediment from upper watershed erosion and surface water
runoff, which could potentially block fish passage. A log jam in the upper portion of the
restoration area may also be a partial fish passage barrier. Just upstream of the restored
reach, a 20- foot -tall manmade waterfall prevents fish from passing upstream to S 126th
Street. A private property owner owns and operates a fish hatchery and releases juvenile
salmon at the base of the waterfall into the west fork at the upper end of the restored reach.
Upstream of the waterfall up to S 126th Street, there is about 500 feet of potential fish
habitat, though that reach also includes two total fish passage barriers. Fish would likely not
be able pass upstream of S 126th Street because of a steep gradient, even if the waterfall and
other nearby barriers were removed. However, this upper reach beyond S 126th Street has a
cobble streambed that is likely supporting macroinvertebrates, a food source for fish
downstream of the barriers.
2.6.4 Southgate Creek
The East Fork of Southgate Creek begins as a relatively small channel just south of S 137th
Street and flows north through a steep ravine, several culverts, and an asphalt -lined ditch
WBG031611103411SEA1 TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX 2 -13
CITY OF TUKWILA 2012 SURFACE WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
before it merges with the west fork. The West Fork begins as three smaller tributaries that
collect flow from the hillside just west of 40th Avenue S and merge just upstream of S 133th
Street. The West Fork then passes underneath S 133rd Street and 42nd Avenue S through
more than 500 feet of culvert and merges with the east fork coming from a ditch along
S 132nd Street. From there, the main stem of Southgate Creek extends under SR 599 through
about 320 feet of culvert, a fish ladder, and large arch culvert into the Duwamish River
downstream of the Black River confluence.
Bank erosion from the combination of steep gradients and surface water runoff from urban
development have deposited sediments in the lower reach, which have reduced effective
culvert conveyance capacities and covered up salmon spawning gravels. The section of the
main stem just downstream of the confluence of the West and East Forks is often completely
blocked by sediment and debris.
As in other urbanized streams, development has altered Southgate Creek's riparian buffer
and natural channel alignment, resulting in increased channel incision, stream bank erosion,
and degraded water quality. Rearing habitat is available in the main stem between SR 599
and S 132nd Street culvert. Rearing habitat is available in some small sections of the east
fork along S 131st Place and S 134th Place. Rearing and some spawning habitat is available
in the recently restored section of the west fork just upstream of S 133rd Street.
Coho salmon are potentially present in Southgate Creek, according to WDFW, and resident
trout or and other types of non - anadromous fish are likely present. The fish ladder at the
SR 599 culvert likely is a fish barrier to anadromous fish during low stream flows. During a
February 2011 site visit, juvenile salmon were observed in the section of the east fork along
5 131st Place, which are regularly released into the stream by a nearby homeowner,
according to local residents and City of Tukwila staff. Fish are unlikely to be present in the
West Fork of Southgate Creek upstream of Macadam Way S due to the steep gradient. Some
resident fish may use the upper reaches of the east fork within Southgate Park.
2.6.5 Johnson Creek
The Johnson Creek flap gate and outfall to the Green River, once partial blockages to fish
passage, were replaced in 2011 with a fish - passable structure as part of the mitigation for the
proximate commercial development. No other barriers to fish passage were identified in
Johnson Creek. Also as part of the commercial development, the lower reach of Johnson
Creek was reconstructed and now provides aquatic habitat opportunities. A revised aquatic
habitat assessment should be performed once the commercial development in the Johnson
Creek Basin is completed.
2.6.6 Mill Creek
The Mill Creek drainage basin is the area east of the Green River north of S 190th Street and
west of 72nd Ave South. This area flows into the Duwamish River and/or south and east into
the Mill Creek basin within the City of Kent. All drainage conveyance is piped. No natural
channels exist in this basin within the City of Tukwila.
2 -14 WBG031611103411SEA1 TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX
2.0 DRAINAGE BASIN AND WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS
Mill Creek flows north from the City of Kent into the City of Renton, then discharges into
the Green /Duwamish River within the City of Renton. Habitat opportunities and problems
within the Mill Creek drainage within the City of Kent are identified in the Kent Surface
Water Comprehensive Plan, likewise for those opportunities and problems within the City
of Renton.
WBG031611103411SEA1 TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX 2 -15
3.0 Regulations and City Policies
This section contains a description of the current and anticipated future surface water
regulations applicable to the City of Tukwila's surface water management program. In
addition, potential City of Tukwila surface water management program improvements are
identified that contribute to regulatory compliance. Appendix C contains the detailed
information in support of this Section 3.
3.1 Applicable Surface Water Regulations
Regulatory changes have occurred since preparation of the 2003 City of Tukwila
Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan. The changes most significant for Tukwila
are with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II permit.
Regulations currently applicable to the City of Tukwila's surface water management
program are described in detail in Appendix C. (Note that Green and Duwamish River
flooding and flood protection are outside the scope of this Plan.)
As was done in 2003 as part of that comprehensive planning effort, this 2013 Plan contains
an evaluation, or gap analysis, of Tukwila's surface water management program against all
relevant surface water management regulations. As a result of the gap analysis, this Plan
contains recommendations for program improvements that need to be implemented to
achieve compliance. In general, the City's surface water management activities support its
regulatory compliance requirements and obligations, but there are some additional steps
that must be taken to ensure regulatory compliance and to better coordinate environmental
compliance activities across various City departments. Specific actions recommended to
improve upon regulatory compliance are presented in Section 7 of this Plan.
3.2 Potential Regulatory Changes
A number of changes in regulations relevant to surface water management are expected to
occur in the next surface water planning cycle. Appendix C contains a detailed description
of these anticipated changes. Changes to the NPDES Phase II Municipal stormwater permit
and associated Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program are anticipated, as well as the
possibility of additional listings (or downgrading of existing listed species) under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA). In general, these changes are expected to increase the City's
obligations for surface water management, water quality, and aquatic habitat protection and
restoration. Tukwila will need to accommodate such changes in its surface water
management program, possibly with additional financial resources and /or additional staff
time. Section 7 includes a section on recommendations to address these regulatory
requirements anticipated in this next surface water planning cycle.
WBG031611103411SEA1 TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX 3 -1
4.0 Surface Water Issues and Solutions
This section summarizes existing surface water issues. These issues are organized by type of
surface water issue: drainage, water quality, or aquatic habitat. Appendix D contains the
detailed information in support of this Section 4.
4.1 Available Data and Information
The following sources of information were used to identify drainage, water quality, and
aquatic habitat issues:
• Anecdotal and recorded information provided by City staff
• Observations made during field visits by CH2M HILL and City staff
• 2003 City of Tukwila Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan
• The following drainage studies:
- 1993 Surface Water Management Comprehensive Plan
- 1994 Gilliam Creek Detention and Water Quality Enhancements
- 1996 Fostoria Basin Stormwater Quality Management Plan
- 1997 Southgate Creek By -Pass Study
- 2001 Gilliam Creek Basin Storm Water Management Plan.
4.2 Identified Surface Water Issues
Localized drainage problems are the primary surface water concern for the residents of the
City of Tukwila. Drainage issues arise on both public and private property because there are
no storm drainage systems, the existing conveyance systems are damaged or in need of
maintenance, or the existing conveyance systems have inadequate hydraulic capacity. Much
of the development in Tukwila occurred previous to current stormwater flow control
standards. In addition, as impervious surfaces are added, more stormwater runs off during
storms, exacerbating existing problems.
Water quality problems are evident in the Green and Duwamish River system and in each
of the major creek systems within the City of Tukwila. The Green River and Duwamish
River are listed as impaired on the 2008 Ecology 303(d) list for dissolved oxygen,
temperature, pH, and fecal coliform. Untreated runoff from arterial streets with intensive
traffic usage, areas of dense commercial development, parking lots in the Tukwila
International Boulevard corridor and Westfield Mall area, and 1 -5 and I -405 contributes to
these problems. All of Tukwila's creek systems are affected, including Gilliam, Riverton,
Southgate, and Johnson Creeks. Runoff conveyed to the river via these creeks is contributing
to the impaired water quality of the Green and Duwamish Rivers.
Available aquatic habitat has been significantly reduced in the creeks that drain Tukwila
due to the effects of development and the loss of riparian buffer areas. Uncontrolled runoff
WBG031611103411SEA1 TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX 4 -1
CITY OF TUKWILA 2012 SURFACE WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
flows coupled with steep slopes in the upper reaches of Gilliam, Southgate, Riverton, and
Johnson Creeks cause channel erosion that in turn delivers sediments to the lower - gradient
downstream reaches of these streams. Sediment deposition significantly reduces the
conveyance capacity of these channels, restricts fish passage, and hinders the potential for
salmonid spawning in these lower reaches. Better quality aquatic habitat in the lower
reaches of all four streams in Tukwila would provide refuge to salmonids from high flows
and predators in the Green and Duwamish Rivers. Several culverts are blockages to fish
passage from the lower reaches to the upper reaches of each of the creek systems.
Addressing these blockages to fish passage would provide salmonids access to aquatic
habitat in the upper reaches of these systems. In addition, restoration of riparian buffer
areas both in the upper and lower reaches of these creeks would reduce water temperatures,
which is better for salmonids at all life cycles. Opportunities for salmon habitat restoration
(and protection) are outlined in the WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan (WRIA 9 2005).
Table 4 presents a summary of the number of identified drainage, water quality, and aquatic
habitat issues. Individual surface water issues are shown on Figure 6 and discussed in detail
in Appendix D.
TABLE 4
Surface Water Issue Summary
Type of Surface Water Issue
Number Water Aquatic
Drainage Basin of Issues Drainage Quality Habitat
Green/ Duwamish 9 X X X
Gilliam Creek 5 X X
Nelson Place / Long Acres 3 X X X
P17 1 X
Riverton Creek 3 X X
Springbrook Creek 0
Southgate Creek 3 X X
Johnson Creek 0
Mill Creek 0
City -wide 2 X X
Totals 26 X X X
This Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan for Tukwila has outlined 26 specific
surface water problems within the City of Tukwila. In addition to these specific 26, several
smaller drainage issues have been identified by the City of Tukwila and have been included
on the Small Drainage Project List maintained and frequently updated by City of Tukwila
staff. The drainage issues on the Small Drainage Project List are addressed as a small
drainage program.
4 -2 WBG031611103411SEA1 TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX
•
v
•
•
•
. —.1
Lake Washington
.fff,
1 ._ �'
•
•
r
Riverton
Black River
19
•
4
��jjIgjeison
�
Spriingbrook
Ii
•
180th
Mill Creek
1
•
Puget Sound •
•
•
Surface Water Issues City of Tukwila Stormwater Pipe
1 1 King County Unincorporated Ml Drainage Basins
• ▪ Other Municipalities • Outfall
* Drainage
• Drainage /Habitat
• Habitat
• Water Quality
Water Quality/Drainage
0 1 2
Miles
N
FIGURE 6
Surface Water Issues
City of Tukwila 2012 Surface Water Comprehensive Plan
SEA \\ SIMBA\ PROJ\ TUKWILAWACITYOF\ 412954SWCOMPPL \GIS \LAYOUT\FIGURE6 SURFACEWATERISSUES.MXD TJANTZEN 4/2/2013 11:48:55
CH2MHILL
CITY OF TUKWILA 2012 SURFACE WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
4.3 Menu of Solutions to Address Surface Water Issues
This section outlines the menu of solutions that could be used to address the surface water
issues identified in the City of Tukwila. No single type of action, activity, or project is a "one
size fits all" fix to all of these identified problems. Some surface water problems have
structural solutions, while others have programmatic (non - structural) solutions, and many
have both programmatic and structural solutions. Implementing a diverse portfolio of
solutions allows for different aspects of the issues to be addressed by different solutions.
Potential solutions are divided into actions that would not involve construction or land
acquisition, collectively referred to as programmatic approaches, and actions that would
require capital projects and would be listed in the City of Tukwila Capital Improvement
Program. The programmatic activities have the benefit of often being strategic rather than
reactionary. Instead of fixing a single problem with a structural solution, programmatic
alternatives often address a series of existing problems and are effective at preventing future
problems.
Often, capital (structural) solutions are most effective for single - location surface water
problems and programmatic solutions are most effective for watershed -wide or other large -
scale problems. Regulatory requirements (such as the NPDES Phase II permit) emphasize
programmatic approaches to problems. Also, water quality problems can be targeted
successfully using programmatic means such as source control measures. Sub - basin- or
watershed -wide water quantity problems, such as increase in impervious surface runoff, can
be addressed with programmatic solutions. Location - specific habitat, water quality, and
water quantity issues can be addressed with capital projects. Using capital projects and
programmatic solutions in tandem is the most effective method of addressing drainage,
water quality, and aquatic habitat problems comprehensively.
Because multiple sources contribute to the problems, multiple solutions targeting different
sources and different aspects of sources are appropriate. Programmatic actions can provide
overlapping benefits, thus addressing several pollution sources at once. However, capital
projects can yield immediate, measurable results in a specific location, such as reduction of
sediment load to the Green River from a specific parking lot. An additional benefit of capital
projects is that the City can implement any number of individual capital projects in any
given year depending upon funding availability.
Both capital and programmatic solutions are discussed in the next sub - sections.
4.3.1 Programmatic Solutions
The driving factor behind the comprehensive stormwater management plan is to
comprehensively address drainage, water quality, and aquatic habitat issues identified in
the City of Tukwila. The type(s) of surface water issues that could be addressed by
individual programmatic solutions are summarized in Table 5. Note that many of these
activities are required in whole or in part by the City's NPDES Phase II permit. The
remainder of this sub - section discusses each of seven programmatic solutions in further
detail. These seven types of programmatic solutions are education, incentives, changes to
City policies or regulations, inspections and enforcement, illicit discharge detection and
elimination, public involvement and compliant response, and operations and maintenance.
4 -4 WBG031611103411SEA1 TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX
4.0 SURFACE WATER ISSUES AND SOLUTIONS
TABLE 5
Surface Water Issue Types Addressed by Programmatic Solutions
Surface Water Issue Type Required (in whole
or in part) by
Water Aquatic NPDES Phase II
Program Element Drainage Quality Habitat Permit
Education x x x x
Incentives x x x
Changes to City x x x
Policies or Regulations
Inspections and x x x
Enforcement
Illicit Discharge x x
Detection and
Elimination
Public Involvement x x x x
(including complaint
response)
Operations and x x x x
Maintenance
4.3.1.1 Education
Many surface water issues in Tukwila are caused by the everyday actions of people that live
in or visit the City. While difficult, changing behavior patterns is a cost - effective
programmatic solution to surface water problems. Establishing public knowledge of the link
between activities within the watershed and ecosystem health is imperative for the success
of these education programs.
The educational topics listed below would supplement the current City of Tukwila
education program:
• Surface water runoff from existing residential lots
• Surface water runoff from new developments
• Improperly maintained surface water detention or treatment facilities
• Proper maintenance of septic systems (where applicable)
• Wastewater conveyance systems inspection and maintenance
• Dog and cat pet waste disposal
• Erosion management
• Wildlife
• Waterfowl (ducks and geese)
• General awareness of receiving water health and fostering 'ownership'
• Stream reach needs - get to know your backyard, Adopt -a- Stream programs
Education has drainage, water quality, and aquatic habitat benefits.
WBG031611103411SEA1 TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX 4 -5
CITY OF TUKWILA 2012 SURFACE WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
4.3.1.2 Incentives
Incentives could be considered as a way to more quickly and more effectively obtain the
targeted benefits of education. Incentives are one step over on the education- incentives-
regulations - enforcement spectrum.
Incentives are most often financial. Possible incentives include:
• Free "mutt mitts" for pet owners
• Reduced surface water fee with on -site surface water management implemented on
private property (with drain cleaning certification)
• Free technical assistance for private property owners wishing to implement on -site
surface water management (such as rain gardens or rain barrels)
Incentives would have drainage, water quality, and aquatic habitat benefits.
4.3.1.3 Regulatory and Policy Changes
Most existing drainage problems are best addressed with a capital project. However,
programmatic solutions can be used to prevent future drainage problems by managing how
new and re- development is conducted.
Most of the water quality problems in Tukwila are caused by the activities of residents and
visitors, including the way that people use the land. These pollutants cannot be removed
practically by stormwater treatment facilities that are typically more effective at removal of
point- source pollution. Therefore, protection of water quality is dependent on improved
regulations to address the source of the pollutants.
Possible changes to City policies or regulations include the following:
• Require maximum potential infiltration on development and re- development sites
• Require zero stormwater discharge from all new development
• Establish a policy of no net increase in Effective Impervious Area in the City
• Establish a policy of no net loss of forest cover in the City
• Require annual inspections and corrections for septic systems (where applicable)
• Require that all new roads, driveways, parking areas and walkways be constructed of
pervious materials such as pervious asphalt, concrete, or pavers
Changes to policies or to regulations at the state or national level are outside the scope of
this Plan.
Changes to City policies and regulations would have drainage, water quality, and aquatic
habitat benefits.
4.3.1.4 Inspection and Enforcement
Inspections are conducted during construction activities to ensure compliance with existing
requirements. In Tukwila, these inspections might occur at less- than -ideal frequency due to
4 -6 WBG031611103411SEA1 TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX
4.0 SURFACE WATER ISSUES AND SOLUTIONS
lack of available personnel. In addition, enforcement is difficult. The inspection program
would be enhanced and a more reliable and detailed recording system should be utilized.
This recording system should be used to determine "hot spots" or "repeat offenders."
Programmatic decisions affecting inspection and enforcement would incorporate input from
the City's Planning and Development Services department.
In addition to inspections of construction activities, Tukwila will need to develop an
approach for inspections of privately -owned stormwater facilities such as detention ponds
and vaults.
Inspection and enforcement activities have drainage and water quality benefits.
4.3.1.5 Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination
Illicit discharge detection and elimination is an NPDES Phase II permit requirement. The
permit requires the City to have an ongoing program to detect, remove, and prevent illicit
connections, discharges, and improper disposal, including spills, into the surface water
system. The permit requires full implementation of an illicit discharge and elimination
program.
Disconnecting homes from septic systems and connecting them to piped sewers is a
structural solution aimed at reducing the risk of malfunctioning septic systems affecting
receiving water quality.
Illicit discharge detention and elimination would benefit water quality.
4.3.1.6 Public Involvement
Public involvement can promote awareness of and foster a sense of responsibility for the
health of the watersheds of Tukwila and of the greater Puget Sound, and help identify
problems and solutions. Engaging citizens in the reporting and documenting of surface
water problems through phone hotlines increases detection of problems.
Environmental stewardship activities should be increased. Individually targeted groups
should include children, students, adults, and visitors. Public involvement activities can be
coordinated with the educational activities mentioned previously. Volunteers can perform
stream buffer planting, become stream watchers, and plant trees both on their own property
and in public spaces.
Public Involvement would benefit drainage, water quality, and aquatic habitat.
4.3.1.7 Surface Water System Maintenance
Currently, Tukwila City maintenance staff perform maintenance of the surface water
system, including pipes, manholes, inlets and catch basins, ditches, open streams, and pump
stations. Because of demands on limited resources, maintenance is too often done in
response to a drainage complaint or issue rather than proactively. Proactive maintenance
may also benefit water quality and aquatic habitat by reducing total sediment load to creeks.
An example of this is cleaning out catch basins more often than required by the NPDES
Phase II permit in sensitive areas such as near salmon- bearing creeks.
Tukwila is required to ensure maintenance of private stormwater facilities in NPDES Phase
II areas according to their NPDES Phase II permit. According to the permit, the City must
WBG031611103411SEA1 TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX 4 -7
CITY OF TUKWILA 2012 SURFACE WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
have a regular inspection plan for both public and private facilities. In addition to the
inspection program, the City must have a program to work with private property owners to
ensure that maintenance of the private facilities is occurring.
Maintenance benefits drainage, water quality, and aquatic habitat.
4.3.2 Capital Project Solutions
Capital projects implemented as part of a comprehensive capital improvement program can
together address many of the surface water problems identified in the City of Tukwila.
Capital projects have the potential to reduce and /or store stormwater volumes, reduce peak
flows, improve water quality, and restore aquatic habitat. This section includes descriptions
of the methods that can be utilized to address these surface water issues using capital
projects. The type(s) of surface water issues that could be addressed by capital projects are
summarized in Table 6. The remainder of this sub - section discusses each of the types of
capital projects in further detail. Capital project types are organized by surface water issue
type (drainage, water quality, and aquatic habitat).
TABLE 6
Surface Water Issue Types Addressed by Capital Projects
Capital Project Type
Surface Water Issue Type
Water Aquatic
Drainage Quality Habitat
Increase conveyance capacity x
Provide drainage system (or re -route x
existing)
Infiltration x x
On -site detention /retention x x
Regional detention /retention x x
Velocity Reduction (check dams, etc.) x x
High flow bypass x x
Impervious surface reduction x x
Point source control x
Water quality treatment x
Conveyance system cleaning and x x
inspection
Land acquisition x x x
Riparian buffer restoration / protection x x x
Channel stabilization x
Channel physical habitat restoration x
Replacement of culvert or other x
infrastructure to be fish passable
4 -8 WBG031611103411SEA1 TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX
4.0 SURFACE WATER ISSUES AND SOLUTIONS
4.3.2.1 Drainage
Capital projects meant to address altered hydrology (that is, water quantity) include
infiltration, regional detention /retention, onsite detention /retention, reductions in
impervious surface, velocity reduction, high -flow bypass facilities, dispersion, stream buffer
restoration, and land purchase. The effectiveness of any of these alternatives can be limited
by physical space constraints. The feasibility of any of these alternatives is also often limited
by topography, soil conditions, and the presence of sensitive areas.
Increasing Conveyance Capacity of a drainage network is often performed to alleviate
localized drainage issues. Pipes are removed and replaced with a larger diameter pipe.
Hydraulic and hydrologic analysis should be performed in order to assess downstream
impacts of proposed conveyance capacity changes.
Providing a drainage network where there is currently a formal system will provide
conveyance of stormwater away from a location. Lack of a formal (that is engineered or
planned) drainage network is common in areas developed before current stormwater
standards.
Infiltration is an extremely effective method to reduce stormwater runoff volumes and peak
flows. Under pre - development conditions, a significant portion of the annual precipitation
infiltrates into the ground. After development and the corresponding increase in impervious
surfaces that prevent infiltration, much more of the annual precipitation runs off as
stormwater. Promoting infiltration is a method to reduce the impacts of development by
mimicking natural hydrologic processes.
Infiltration effectiveness is a function of soil infiltration capacity. Many areas of Tukwila
have top soils conducive to infiltration. When local soils are not conducive to infiltration,
soils amended with organic material can be brought in and placed over native soils. Even if
the native underlying soils have low infiltration capacity, the infiltrated water will use the
storage available in the soil column of the amended soil layer until infiltration into the
underlying layer is possible. Moisture retained in the amended soil layer is available for
plant uptake, including lawns.
During construction activities, it is common for the native top layer of soil to be stripped
away. In this case, amended soils should be introduced rather than relying on the remaining
native soils. Planting, then maintaining, a lawn on the remaining native soil will require
watering and fertilizing that would not be necessary if the native top layer were still in place
or if amended soils were brought in.
Regional detention/retention is a plausible structural solution. Regional detention could be
used to detain erosive peak flows. Total volumes of stormwater runoff can be reduced
through retention via evaporation, plant uptake, and infiltration. In addition to
implementation of new facilities, existing regional detention facilities can be retrofitted to
promote capacity and capability.
Onsite detention/retention and other site - specific measures are also effective at detaining
peak flows and decreasing total volumes of stormwater runoff. Onsite detention and other
site - specific measures on public, City -owned property are considered capital project and are
therefore discussed in this section. Onsite detention and other site - specific measures on
WBG031611103411SEA1 TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX 4 -9
CITY OF TUKWILA 2012 SURFACE WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
private property are discussed in the programmatic solutions section under education,
incentives, and regulations. That said, it may be feasible to use public funds to fund on -site
detention on private property if the benefit is shared by a larger group than just the private
property owner. Dispersion, for purposes of this discussion, is considered a type of on -site
stormwater management
Reductions in impervious surface can reduce runoff volumes and velocities. Low Impact
Development (LID) regulations can promote reduced widths of newly constructed
roadways and is covered in the regulations section (programmatic), but retrofitting existing
infrastructure is a structural solution. Pilot projects for reducing road widths and using
permeable pavements can be implemented within the City to address water quantity
concerns.
Conveyance system cleaning and inspection provides information as to the condition of
the stormwater conveyance system that allows for prioritization of rehabilitation, repair, or
replacement efforts. In addition, cleaning of the conveyance system can increase the
effective conveyance capacity by removing accumulated sediment and other material. Water
quality benefits may also be obtained by removing that sediment from the stormwater
system.
Stormwater runoff velocities can be reduced using check dams and vegetation in existing
ditches. In addition, high -flow bypass facilities can be installed in areas that are prone to
erosion under high flow regimes. Stream buffer restoration can reduce stormwater
volumes via plant uptake and reduce stormwater velocities by adding roughness to the flow
path. Land acquisition can be an effective method to reduce developed land surface and
therefore reduce impervious surface, promote infiltration, and retain the natural tree
canopy.
4.3.2.2 Water Quality
The most effective methods to reduce pollutant loading to the City of Tukwila's receiving
waters are controlling pollutants at the source and controlling stormwater flows (that is,
peak flows and volumes). Water quality treatment can also be an effective method but
effectiveness is often limited by available technology. Channel stabilization also has water
quality benefits.
Source control measures tend to be programmatic in nature rather than structural and are
therefore addressed in the programmatic solution section. However, control of point source
water quality problems is covered in this section.
Alternatives geared towards reducing volumes and peaks of stormwater runoff discussed in
the drainage section also have positive impacts on pollutant inputs by reducing erosion and
erosive capabilities of stormwater and by reducing total stormwater inputs to receiving
water bodies. These solutions include infiltration, regional or on -site detention or retention,
impervious surface reduction, velocity reduction, stream buffer restoration, and land
purchase.
The effectiveness of water quality treatment as an alternative is limited by available
technology. Total suspended solids (TSS) is relatively easy to remove but other pollutants
such as nutrients and heavy metals are not. Particulate -bound copper can be removed via
4 -10 WBG031611103411SEA1 TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX
4.0 SURFACE WATER ISSUES AND SOLUTIONS
treatment, but dissolved copper is difficult to remove. Though particulate -bound copper can
be removed using sedimentation and filtration, dissolved copper requires adsorption,
precipitation, or separation.
The pollutant removal capabilities of stormwater treatment is dependent upon the
concentrations of pollutants entering the treatment facility. The lower the influent
concentration, the harder it is to remove. The term "irreducible limits" refers to the
concentration at which no more of a constituent can be removed. The irreducible limit
depends on available technology. The higher the influent concentration, the easier the
constituent is to remove.
Channel stabilization can be used to reduce channel erosion propagated by increasing
stormwater peak flows and volumes. This structural solution can prevent significant erosion
and minimize the risk of increasing channel incision (that is, down - cutting).
The selection of a preferred water quality solution is dependent upon pollutants of concern
in the receiving water body.
4.3.2.3 Aquatic Habitat
Structural solutions aimed at aquatic habitat restoration include replacing culverts, flap
gates, or other structures that block fish passage, restoration of physical features of creek
and river channels, and riparian buffer restoration and protection. Any of these solutions
can aid in aquatic habitat restoration. This Plan contains an inventory of blockages to fish
passage in the Gilliam, Riverton, Southgate, and Johnson Creeks. Restoring physical
features of creek channels and protecting and restoring stream buffers also have water
quantity and water quality benefits, in addition to aquatic habitat benefits. Note that habitat
restoration or protection projects on the Green or Duwamish Rivers will require significant
partnerships with regulatory agencies and with other municipalities such as King County.
Land acquisition can be an effective method to reduce developed land surface and therefore
promote infiltration, retain the natural tree canopy, and restore stream buffers. Retention of
the natural tree canopy and restoration of stream buffers promote improvement of aquatic
habitat.
4.4 Solutions to Tukwila's Surface Water Issues
The purpose of this sub - section is to specify individual solutions to the surface water issues
outlined earlier in this section. Table 7 outlines all major surface water issues identified
during this planning effort. All of the surface water issues identified have been assigned one
or more possible solutions. Each issue can be wholly or partially addressed by that, or those,
solutions. Note that City -wide problems will need to be addressed by either a programmatic
activity (such as a regulatory change) or else as a series (or program) of capital projects.
Problems identified at specific locations may be addressed by a capital project, a
programmatic action, or a combination of both programmatic and capital investment.
A recommended solution is also shown in Table 7.
In addition to the specific surface water issues shown in Table 7, several smaller drainage
issues have been identified by the City of Tukwila and have been included on the Small
WBG031611103411SEA1 TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX 4 -11
CITY OF TUKWILA 2012 SURFACE WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Drainage Project List. The drainage issues on the Small Drainage Project List are addressed
as a small drainage program.
Note that both the programmatic activities and capital projects recommended as part of this
Plan are described in Section 7 (Recommendations). Section 5 provides specific details of the
operations and maintenance programmatic activities and Section 6 provides a listing of the
capital projects.
4 -12 WBG031611103411SEA1 TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX
4.0 SURFACE WATER ISSUES AND SOLUTIONS
TABLE 7
Surface Water Issues and Solutions
ID Problem Description
Location
Issue Drainage
Type Basin
Possible Solutions'
Recommended
Solution
1 Outfalls discharge directly All outfalls are potential candidates;
to receiving water, no 48th Ave S and S 122nd are two
treatment top candidates
2 Ponding in low spot,
possible ponding on the
east side of road
3 Dumping
4 Lack of off- channel
salmon habitat along
lower Duwamish
5 E Marginal Way S
Stormwater Outfall
6 Duwamish River riverbank
at S 104th St is eroding,
causing failure of road
shoulder and habitat
degradation
7 Duwamish River riverbank
at S 115th St is eroding,
causing failure of road
shoulder and habitat
49th Ave S and S Hazel Street
S 114th St and 49th Ave S
Duwamish River near light rail
crossing
North end of Tukwila, along east
shore of Duwamish River; 4 outfalls
proximate to S 87th Place
Duwamish River right (east) bank
at S. 104th St
Duwamish River right (east) bank
adjacent to S 115th St between
42nd Ave S and E Marginal Way S
and adjacent to 42nd Ave S from
Water
quality
All (City-
wide)
Drainage Green/
Duwamish
Programmatic
(inspections /enforcement,
illicit discharge detection and
elimination, maintenance) or
capital (point source control,
water quality treatment)
Capital (increase
conveyance capacity,
retention /detention)
Water Green/ Cleanup of dumped material
quality Duwamish
Habitat Green/ Capital (channel physical
Duwamish habitat restoration)
Drainage Green/
Duwamish
Water
quality
Water
quality
Green/
Duwamish
Programmatic
(inspections /enforcement,
illicit discharge detection and
elimination, maintenance) or
capital (retrofit system,
abandon existing outfalls)
Capital (channel
stabilization) or close the
road
Green/ Capital (physical habitat
Duwamish restoration; channel
stabilization)
Water Quality Retrofit
Program (capital project)
Move onto 2012 Small
Drainage Project List
To be addressed by
others2 and City Code
Enforcement
Physical habitat
restoration (capital
project - Duwamish
Gardens)
Retrofit system /
outfall(s) (capital project)
To be addressed by
others2; had been CIP
project #99441205
To be addressed by
others2
WBG031611103411SEA1TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX 4 -13
CITY OF TUKWILA 2012 SURFACE WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
TABLE 7
Surface Water Issues and Solutions
ID Problem Description
Location
Issue Drainage
Type Basin
Possible Solutions'
Recommended
Solution
degradation
8 53rd Ave S storm drain
system has inadequate
capacity
9 S 143rd St has no
drainage system
10 Tukwila stormwater line
discharges to WSDOT
pipe, no access due to
1-405 widening
11 Andover Park 48 inch
stormwater pipe in poor
condition, possibly
damaged
S 115 St to Interurban Ave S.
53rd Ave S near S 139th
S 143rd St, east of Interurban Ave;
S 144th St, S 143rd Place, S 143rd
S, east of Interurban Ave S
between Interurban and Duwamish
River, W. Of Duwamish, near Black
River convergence
Andover Park W at Gilliam Creek
Andover Park W
12 Gilliam Creek flapgates as Outlet of Gilliam Creek to Green
fish barrier River - partial fish blockage
13 Christensen Rd 12" pipe
is undersized (replace
with 18 ")
14 Gilliam Creek culvert at
42nd Ave SE is
undersized
Christensen Rd
Gilliam Creek crossing at 42nd Ave
SE (between S 154th and
Hwy 518)
Drainage Green/ Capital (increase
Duwamish conveyance capacity,
provide drainage system,
detention /retention)
Drainage Green/ Capital (provide drainage
Duwamish system)
Drainage Green/ Capital (re -route drainage
Duwamish system)
Drainage Gilliam Capital (increase effective
Creek conveyance capacity)
Drainage/ Gilliam Capital (modify /remove to
habitat Creek allow fish passage)
Drainage Gilliam Capital (increase capacity)
Creek
Drainage/ Gilliam
habitat Creek
Capital (increase
conveyance capacity,
replacement of culvert to be
fish - passable)
Increase conveyance
capacity (capital project)
Provide drainage system
(capital project)
Re -route drainage
system (capital project)
No capital project at this
time; address once
collection system has
been clean and
inspected; had been CIP
project #98641217
retrofit for fish passage;
provide flood protection
(capital project)
Increase capacity (capital
project)
Replace culvert (capital
project)
4 -14 WBG031611103411SEA1 TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX
4.0 SURFACE WATER ISSUES AND SOLUTIONS
TABLE 7
Surface Water Issues and Solutions
ID Problem Description
Location
Issue Drainage
Type Basin
Possible Solutions'
Recommended
Solution
15 Northwest Gilliam Storm
Drainage System has
inadequate capacity -
S 152nd and S 148th
16 Cleaning /Inspection of
Stormwater Conveyance
17 Storm Lift Station No. 15
improvements
18
Permanent home for soils
reclamation facility
19 No functional outlet to
drainage network at
Nelson /Longacres
20 Former river oxbow has
bren blocked off from
River
21 Storm system along
E Marginal Way is bad
setup, causes ponding
22 Fish habitat accessibility
issues in Riverton Creek
culvert
23 Riverton Creek Flap Gate
From 42nd Ave S to Tukwila
International Blvd S 146th St,
S 148th St, S 150th St, S 152nd St
Various - commercial area at Mall
and surrounding
Near Claim Jumper - 5880 S 180th
Vactor waste dump site / decanter
facility, currently using an area near
Nelson Place
Area bounded by SR 181, Green
River, Burlington Northern RR, and
Strander Blvd
Nelson farm property between
Green River and W. Valley
Highway
E Marginal Way between SR599
ramp and S 124th St
E Marginal Way south of SR599
Riverton outfall into Duwamish
Drainage Gilliam Capital (conveyance
Creek capacity, re -route existing
drainage system,
detention /retention, high flow
bypass)
Water All (City- Capital (conveyance system
quality / wide) cleaning and inspection)
drainage
Drainage P17 Capital (needed upgrades,
updating)
Water Nelson/ Capital (land acquisition for
quality Longacres soils reclamation facility)
Drainage Nelson/ Capital (provide drainage
Longacres system, on -site
detention /retention)
Habitat Nelson/ Capital (channel physical
Longacres habitat restoration)
Drainage Riverton Capital (increase
Creek conveyance capacity, re-
route drainage, detention,
high flow bypass)
Habitat Riverton Capital
Creek (removal /replacement of
fish - blocking culvert)
Habitat Riverton Capital (modify /remove to
Increase capacity (capital
project)
Conveyance system
cleaning and inspection
(capital project)
Upgrade pump station
(capital project)
Land acquisition (capital
project)
Provide outlet to
drainage system (capital
project)
Restore Nelson Salmon
Habitat Side Channel
(capital project)
Proximate to Riverton
Creek culvert (below), so
addressed together
Conveyance system
cleaning and inspection
(capital project)
Remove flapgate (capital
WBG031611103411SEA1TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX 4 -15
CITY OF TUKWILA 2012 SURFACE WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
TABLE 7
Surface Water Issues and Solutions
ID Problem Description Location
Issue Drainage
Type Basin
Possible Solutions'
Recommended
Solution
is partial fish passage River
barrier
24 S 146th St pipe and 35th
ave s drainage - needs
additional capacity
S 146th St between Military Rd S
and Pac Hwy S
25 Sediment/clogging issues S 131st St near 44th Ave S
proximate to Southgate
Creek
26 Historical landslide - road S 137th St at 44th Ave S
closed
Drainage
Drainage,
water
quality
Drainage,
water
quality
Creek
Southgate
Creek
Southgate
Creek
Southgate
Creek
allow fish passage)
Capital (increase
conveyance capacity,
detention /retention, high flow
bypass)
Regrading of wetlands on
private property by private
property owner
Capital (complete channel
stabilization and riparian
buffer restoration)
project)
Increase conveyance
capacity (capital project)
To be addressed by
others2
No capital project at this
time; monitor status and
review during next
planning period
Notes:
1 Possible solutions address the surface water problem in whole or in part
2 Problem to be addressed by others because responsibility /opportunity lies in other City department or with other jurisdiction
4 -16 WBG031611103411SEA1 TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX
5.0 Capital Improvement Projects
This section summarizes the eighteen capital improvement projects recommended for
inclusion into the City of Tukwila's capital improvement program. These capital projects are
organized by fund (412 Fund for drainage and water quality shown in Table 8 and 301 Fund
for fish habitat shown in Table 9). Figure 7 shows the locations of each of these capital
projects. Appendix E contains the details for each capital project, including cost estimates.
5.1 412 Fund (Drainage and Water Quality)
TABLE 8
Drainage and Water Quality Capital Projects - 412 Fund
ID Project Name
98641222 S 143rd St storm drain system
Basin
Estimated Total Project
Cost (March 2012
Dollars)
98741202 Nelson /Longacres - Phase I I
98941202 Christensen Rd. pipe
replacement
99341208 Gilliam Creek 42nd Ave S culvert
99441202 Soil Reclamation Facility
90341206 Northwest Gilliam Storm
Drainage System
90341213 53rd Ave S storm drain system
90341214 S 146th St pipe and 35th Ave S
drainage
91041203 Storm Lift Station No. 15
Improvements
91041204 E. Marginal Way S Stormwater
Outfall
91241201 Water Quality Retrofit Program
91241202 Tukwila Pkwy /Gilliam Cr Outfalls
91241203 Tukwila Urban Center
Conveyance Inspections
91041204 E. Marginal Way Conveyance
Inspection
Green/ Duwamish
River
Nelson /Longacres
Gilliam Creek
Gilliam Creek
Nelson /Longacres
Gilliam Creek
Green/ Duwamish
River
Southgate Creek
P17
Green/ Duwamish
River
Green/ Duwamish
River
Gilliam Creek
Gilliam Cr. /P17
Riverton Creek
$1,096,000
$678,000
$327,000
$702,000
$3,504,000
$1,978,000
$1,557,000
$882,000
$698,000
$772,000
$287,000
$278,000
$541,000
$85,000
WBG031611103411 SEA\TU KW I LASURFACEWATERCOMPPLAN _FINAL_V2. DOCX
5 -1
f
0
=.Green /Duwamish
19104120
v
Lake Washington
•
1 • •`
1 ( •`�
• . j •-,.�
L.�._. -0
•
4
4
Black River
Nelson
- - -- - - --
Springbrook
•
Mill Creek
•
Puget Sound
�vJ
,ceec\
Capital Improvement Projects
* Drainage
A Drainage /Habitat
• Habitat
• Water Quality
• Water Quality/Drainage
+ Water Quality/Drainage /Habitat
0 1 2
Miles
Johnson
City of Tukwila
1! King County Unincorporated
• Other Municipalities
IIIIIIII�
•
Stormwater Pipe
Drainage Basins
Outfall
N
FIGURE 7
Capital Improvement Projects
City of Tukwila 2012 Surface Water Comprehensive Plan
SEA \\ SIMBA\ PROJ\ TUKWILAWACITYOF \412954SWCOMPPL \GIS\ LAYOUT \FIGURE? CAPITOLIMPROVEMENTPROJECTS.MXD TJANTZEN 4/2/2013 11:54:45 CH2MHILL
5.0 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
5.2 301 Fund (Fish Habitat)
TABLE 9
Fish Habitat Capital Projects - 301 Fund
Estimated Total Project
Cost (March 2012
ID Project Name Basin Dollars)
90330104 Nelson Side Channel Nelson /Longacres $1,497,000
90630102 Duwamish Gardens Green/ Duwamish $3,000,000
99830103 Riverton Creek Flap Gate Riverton Creek $946,000
Removal
99830105 Gilliam Creek Fish Barrier Gilliam Creek $816,000
Removal
WBG031611103411SEA1 TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX 5 -3
6.0 Operations and Maintenance
This section contains a description of the operations and maintenance activities applicable to
the City of Tukwila's surface water management program.
6.1 Surface Water Maintenance Activities
The operations and maintenance of existing surface water assets is an important part of the
City's surface water management program. Surface water Operations and Maintenance
(O &M) staff perform the following:
• Respond to citizen complaints regarding surface water problems
• Observe and document new and existing surface water issues
• Maintain and operate surface water assets (facilities, features, etc.)
Tukwila's surface water O &M program has well - established guidelines for its various
activities. These activities are based on previous experience and institutional knowledge and
are optimized for the available maintenance crew and equipment resources.
6.2 Regulatory Compliance
The City, businesses and residents of Tukwila are involved in activities that could
potentially affect surface water. Water quality impacts from these activities can be offset by
best management practices (BMPs). Many water quality BMPs are currently being
implemented by the City in its O &M work in accordance with the City's NPDES stormwater
permit. The City should consider enhancements to its surface water O &M program related
to NPDES compliance:
• Expand and enhance documentation program for compliant /complaint response,
location of surface water 'hot spots' (for drainage and water quality), and maintenance
performed; consider implementing a GIS -based tracking tool
• Develop a vactor decant policy and locate and secure a permanent site to decant solids
from vactor and street sweepings; perform a 'benchmarking' study of proximate surface
water utilities to characterize what other utilities are doing with decant solids
6.3 Surface Water Maintenance Policies
Within the boundaries of the City of Tukwila, numerous privately -owned residential
surface facilities exist. Many if not most of these privately -owned residential surface water
facilities are not maintained as they should be to maintain designed performance. The City
of Tukwila needs make a policy decision regarding maintenance of these surface water
facilities. In making this decision, the City should consider currently available surface water
O &M staff and equipment resources and the cost of adding additional resources to maintain
these privately -owned surface water facilities. The City needs to answer the following
questions to inform their decision:
WBG031611103411SEA1 TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX 6 -1
CITY OF TUKWILA 2012 SURFACE WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
• Existing residential Stormwater facility built by developers (or redevelopers), is it public
or private?
• When a new residential development installs a stormwater facility, is it public or
private?
Once these questions are answered, the City can then decide between the following options:
• All residential stormwater facilities publically owned and publically maintained
• All residential stormwater facilities privately owned, publically maintained (private
owner charged a fee for the City to maintain)
• All residential stormwater facilities privately owned, privately maintained (with
corresponding enforcement program)
A possible option would be to increase the stormwater fee dramatically for owners served
by a private residential stormwater facility, then have the private stormwater facility owner
prove it is being maintained adequately, and in turn have a reduced stormwater fee (back to
the original rate).
Whatever the City chooses, it must consider the impacts to required number of maintenance
staff FTEs that would be required.
6 -2 WBG031611103411SEA1 TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX
7.0 Recommendations
This section contains a summary of the recommendations made in this Plan for the City of
Tukwila's surface water management program.
7.1 Recommended Activities
7.1.1 Capital Projects
Section 5 of this Plan outlines the eighteen (18) individual capital projects recommended in
this Plan. Of the 18, there are fourteen (14) recommended for implementation using the 412
fund and four (4) recommended for implementation using the 301 fund (Tables 8 and 9,
respectively).
Not all capital projects are recommended for implementation in this surface water planning
window, due to funding availability. These remaining capital projects represent the
continuing need for capital improvements in the City of Tukwila in order to achieve surface
water goals. The City of Tukwila should consider this list of unfunded capital projects when
making investments in other arenas (such as transportation) or when identified possible
outside funding sources (such as grants or loans). This list will likely be a starting point for
the next round of comprehensive surface water planning.
7.1.2 Programmatic Solutions and Policies
This sub - section contains a summary of the recommended improvements to Tukwila's
Surface Water Management Program needed in order to more fully comply with applicable
regulations. These recommendations are also shown in Section 7 of the Plan.
7.1.2.1 Education
Increase opportunities for public involvement in environmental stewardship activities;
reach out to children, students, adults, and visitors. Develop and disseminate information to
the public.
7.1.2.2 Incentives
No recommendations at this time.
7.1.2.3 Regulatory and Policy Changes
The City of Tukwila should update its SEPA ESA screening checklist to include Coastal -
Puget Sound bull trout and Puget Sound steelhead
The City of Tukwila has implemented capital improvement projects that restore fish habitat
for ESA - listed species but should identify, plan, and implement more habitat restoration
projects, in accordance with the State Salmon Recovery Planning Act.
The City should respond to any new and additional requirements in the next NPDES Phase
II permit cycle, which will likely include requirements for water quality monitoring and
implementation of low impact development where feasible. In addition, the City should
WBG031611103411SEA1 TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX 7 -1
CITY OF TUKWILA 2012 SURFACE WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
keep track of possible modifications to its NPDES stormwater permit over future cycles to
include TMDL requirements on the Green and Duwamish Rivers.
The City should make a policy decision regarding responsibility for maintenance of private
residential stormwater facilities. The City needs to answer the following questions to inform
their decision:
• Existing residential Stormwater facility built by developers (or redevelopers), is it public
or private?
• When a new development installs a residential stormwater facility, is it public or
private?
Once these questions are answered, the City can then decide between the following options:
• All residential stormwater facilities publically owned and publically maintained
• All residential stormwater facilities privately owned, publically maintained (private
owner charged a fee for the City to maintain)
• All residential stormwater facilities privately owned, privately maintained (with
corresponding enforcement program)
A possible option would be to increase the stormwater fee on privately maintained
residential stormwater facilities dramatically, then have the private stormwater facility
owner prove it is being maintained adequately, and in turn have a reduced stormwater fee
(back to the original rate).
Whatever the City chooses, it must consider the impacts to required number of maintenance
staff FTEs that would be required.
7.1.2.4 Inspection and Enforcement
The City should plan for periodic updating of City's surface water system inventory. This
inventory should include new infrastructure brought on -line since previous update (such as
for new and re- development).
The City should complete inspections of the City's stormwater system. As needed, complete
cleaning of stormwater lines in order to allow inspections to occur.
The City should perform an inventory (and plan for periodic updates) of private stormwater
facilities within City boundaries.
The City should enhance its inspection program to reduce noncompliance with BMP
requirements and water quality violations.
The City should identify, document, and implement procedures for characterizing, tracing,
and removing illicit discharges. The City should develop and carry out systematic
inspections of construction sites then document inspections and any enforcement actions.
7.1.2.5 Public Involvement
Hold public meeting and public comment period on this Surface Water Comprehensive
Plan. See related activities under 'education' within this Recommendations Section 7.
7 -2 WBG031611103411SEA1 TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX
7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1.2.6 Surface Water System Maintenance
Develop a permanent vactor waste treatment facility or reach an agreement with another
municipality to use an existing facility.
Perform more robust documentation of inspections, maintenance activities, compliant
response, etc. Enhance tracking and reporting to ensure maintenance, inspections, and
enforcements are conducted and documented adequately.
7.1.2.7 Habitat Manager
Hire a 'habitat manager' to focus on habitat protection and restoration within the City of
Tukwila, assisting in implementation of the WRIA 9 Salmon Recovery Plan (WRIA 9 2005).
The benefit would be that the City would have a qualified person dedicated to this effort
and available for grant funding applications and permitting. The cost of this additional FTE
could come from a combination of parks and from the surface water fee. With a dedicated
person, the City would be more likely to obtain outside grant and loan funding for habitat
projects. It's also possible that this position could pay for itself through outside funding.
7.2 Schedule for Implementation
The City will determine a schedule for implementing the recommendations in this Plan. The
City should consider implementing all of the programmatic recommendations in the next
few years. While the City is budget- limited in implementing capital projects, it is
recommended that the City implement at least one capital project per year to address the
backlog of capital projects and to keep up with the rate of new capital projects being
developed. Funding the capital projects and the programmatic recommendations in this
plan will meet regulatory requirements and maintain current level of service.
WBG031611103411SEA1 TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX 7 -3
8.0 References
CH2M HILL. 2003. City of Tukwila Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan. Prepared
by CH2M HILL, Inc. Prepared for the City of Tukwila. November.
Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology). 2006. Water Quality Standards for Surface
Waters of the State of Washington - Chapter 173 -201A WAC. Publication No. 06 -10 -091.
Lacey, Washington.
Ecology 2010. 2008 Washington State Water Quality Assessment.
http: / /www.ecy.wa.gov/ programs /wq /303d /2008 /index.html accessed on
November 17, 2010.
Entranco, Inc., et al. 1997. Riverton Creek Stormwater Quality Management Plan: Water Quality,
Stream Habitat, and Flood Control. Prepared by Entranco Inc., Taylor Associates Inc.,
and Envirovision Inc. Prepared for the City of Tukwila. November.
Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. 2001. Gilliam Creek Basin: Stormwater Management
Plan. Prepared for the City of Tukwila. March.
City of Tukwila. 2010. Infrastructure Design and Construction Standards. April.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2010. Fish Passage Barrier Inventory
Geodatabase. Accessed via email by Brian Benson, WDFW Habitat Program, on
January 14, 2011.
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2007. SR 518 SeaTac Airport to 1-
5/1 -405 Interchange Widening Project: Culvert Mitigation. February.
Water Resource Inventory Area. (WRIA). 2005. Salmon Habitat Plan: Making Our Watershed
Fit for a King. August.
WBG031611103411SEA1 TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX 8 -1
APPENDIX A
Map Book
• Green /Duwamish(
C1\ C2
D3
Riverton
ri2 Southgate
•
J
k
•
F5j
_ j Drainage Basins
Maintenance Zone 1
Maintenance Zone 2
Maintenance Zone 3
Maintenance Zone 4
Maintenance Zone 5
WG2
H2
---. 1151
15
G3 �
Gilliam
H3
Green /Duwamish
(o, \?
H4
, 5
1•
l'alson
_
r'
13
14
P17
J4
Mill Creek
•-��, -I
Sprigbrook
Johnson
City of Tukwila
Surface Water Map Book
Index
SEA \ \SIMBA\ PROD\ TUKWILAWACITYOF\ 412954SWCOMPPL \GIS \LAYOUT\MAPBOOK6.MXD TJANTZEN 4/2/2013 07:49:16
- -1• I■._.
•
— �-
--
Drainage Basins
Maintenance Zone 1
Maintenance Zone 2
Maintenance Zone 3
Maintenance Zone 4
Maintenance Zone 5
Tukwila Boundary
Parcels
Buildings
Pavement & Sidewalks
Park
Fish And Wildlife Habitat
Ponds & Wetlands
Stormwater Pump Station
Stormwater Detention Pond
Closed Pipe
Culvert
Ditch
Stream
Trench Drain
Vault Pipe
Sewer Pipes
A Outfall: Trash Rack not Present, or Unknown
A Outfall: Trash Rack Present
"Other" Type Catch Basin
Catch Basin 1 Infiltrate
Catch Basin 2 Infiltrate
Catch Basin Vault
Inlet Basin
Type 1 Catch Basin
Type 1 Catch Basin Flow Restrictor
Type 1 Catch Basin Pollution Control
Type 2 Catch Basin
Type 2 Catch Basin Channel
Type 2 Catch Basin Flow Restrictor
Type 2 Catch Basin Pollution Control
Unknown or Not Assessed
Yard Drain Catch Basin
Sewer Manholes
IB
F
P
c
F
P
Y
City of Tukwila
Surface Water Map Book
Legend
SEA \\ SIMBA\ PROJ\ TUKWILAWACITYOF \412954SWCOMPPL \GIS \LAYOUT \MAPBOOK5.MXD TJANTZEN 5/15/2012 14:01:10
B1
1 inch = 500 feet
drml
�m F4
Mm G4 Ey
_H4�
14 E
0 200 400 600
CCI Feet
City of Tukwila
Surface Water Map Book
Page Al
SEA \ \SIMBA\ PROD\ TUKWILAWACITYOF1412954SWCOMPPL \GIS \LAYOUT \MAPBOOK5.MXD TJANTZEN 5/15/2012 14:01:10
i1
Allmi
tra,A.co
�m F4
Mm G4 Ey
111 14 E
Iur
1 inch = 500 feet
0 200 400 600
CCI Feet
City of Tukwila
Surface Water Map Book
Page A2
SEA \ \SIMBA\ PROD\ TUKWILAWACITYOF1412954SWCOMPPL \GIS \LAYOUT \MAPBOOK5.MXD TJANTZEN 5/15/2012 14:01:10
Al
A2
0
n i7 1 1 11 T }y .li
-1,44114
S 94th PI
0 v
24 -ft
EMI
�m F4
Mm G4 Ey
E® H41�
14 ®I
C1
1 inch = 500 feet
0 200 400 600
CCI Feet
City of Tukwila
Surface Water Map Book
Page B1
SEA \ \SIMBA\ PROD\ TUKWILAWACITYOF1412954SWCOMPPL \GIS \LAYOUT \MAPBOOK5.MXD TJANTZEN 5/15/2012 14:01:10
A2
fib G"
traall
® 1
El m F4
L G4�y
ME1N
H4
1 14 ®I
1 inch = 500 feet
0 200 400 600
CCI Feet
City of Tukwila
Surface Water Map Book
Page B2
SEA \ \SIMBA\ PROD\ TUKWILAWACITYOF1412954SWCOMPPL \GIS \LAYOUT \MAPBOOK5.MXD TJANTZEN 5/15/2012 14:01:10
B1
B2
fib G"
D
kg 41111
® 1
�m F4
L G4�y
ME1N
H4
14 ®I
1 inch = 500 feet
0 200 400 600
CCI Feet
D2
City of Tukwila
Surface Water Map Book
Page C1
SEA \ \SIMBA\ PROD\ TUKWILAWACITYOF1412954SWCOMPPL \GIS \LAYOUT \MAPBOOK5.MXD TJANTZEN 5/15/2012 14:01:10
U
B2
■
•
oct
b�dTP \p
,306 00\ '`
Boeing,Access Rd
cti
;a9
D2
D3
k°i1L2
MEM
�m F4
L G4�y
MB1N
H4
14 ®I
Iur�
N
1 inch = 500 feet
0 200 400 600
CCI Feet
City of Tukwila
Surface Water Map Book
Page C2
SEA \\ SIMBA\ PROJ\ TUKWILAWACITYOF \412954SWCOMPPL \GIS \LAYOUT \MAPBOOK5.MXD TJANTZEN 5/15/2012 14:01:10
CV
0
D3
L 3/
MEM
Mm F4
L G4
IM® H41�
14 ®I
1 inch = 500 feet
0 200 400 600
CCI Feet
D4
City of Tukwila
Surface Water Map Book
Page C3
SEA \ \SIMBA\ PROD\ TUKWILAWACITYOF1412954SWCOMPPL \GIS \LAYOUT \MAPBOOK5.MXD TJANTZEN 5/15/2012 14:01:10
C1
C2
1 inch = 500 feet
4771
MIME
�m F4
L G4�y
ME1N
H4
14 ®I
Iur
0 200 400 600
CCI Feet
City of Tukwila
Surface Water Map Book
Page D2
SEA \ \SIMBA\ PROD\ TUKWILAWACITYOF1412954SWCOMPPL \GIS \LAYOUT \MAPBOOK5.MXD TJANTZEN 5/15/2012 14:01:10
E4
0
C2
C3
47274
I D3 2
MIME
m F4
L
MEG4�y
H4 IN
14 ®I
Iur�
N
1 inch = 500 feet
0 200 400 600
CCI Feet
City of Tukwila
Surface Water Map Book
Page D3
SEA \\ SIMBA\ PROJ\ TUKWILAWACITYOF \412954SWCOMPPL \GIS \LAYOUT \MAPBOOK5.MXD TJANTZEN 5/15/2012 14:01:10
C3
E4
fill' 1
bp 477
D2 co
mom
m F4
L G4
M ®H4 IN
14 ®I
1 inch = 500 feet
0 200 400 600
CCI Feet
City of Tukwila
Surface Water Map Book
Page D4
SEA \ \SIMBA\ PROD\ TUKWILAWACITYOF1412954SWCOMPPL \GIS \LAYOUT \MAPBOOK5.MXD TJANTZEN 5/15/2012 14:01:10
D2
D3
F2
1 inch = 500 feet
0 200 400 600
CCI Feet
City of Tukwila
Surface Water Map Book
Page E2
SEA \ \SIMBA\ PROD\ TUKWILAWACITYOF1412954SWCOMPPL \GIS \LAYOUT \MAPBOOK5.MXD TJANTZEN 5/15/2012 14:01:10
m
ca
F3
D4
rfl
South Base AcRd•df
N
S 122nd St }}
i l 1 1
Y -al
or) al
7r'. -..III
'S 124th St
c—
P
1
•
W4
co
'o
wd
T k C t
x
- Sb124th'St *•
.-•,.-
LY,
'agSI125th St+
s
Unnamed Park
Cent
u wi a ommunry er
•
•
thiSt
•
Ga�e4.01
4'
j9L •'�f
co
• 5,
o'
Lo 1
1
drwl
Fs a
�� F4
LSE El
E® H41�
14 ®I
Iur�
F3
N
1 inch = 500 feet
0 200 400 600
CCI Feet
City of Tukwila
Surface Water Map Book
Page E3
SEA \\ SIMBA\ PROJ\ TUKWILAWACITYOF \412954SWCOMPPL \GIS \LAYOUT \MAPBOOK5.MXD TJANTZEN 5/15/2012 14:01:10
m
F4
F4
lb) drwl
D2 amp
�m F4
INmG4 IN
ME H4
1 14 ®I
Iur
1 inch = 500 feet
0 200 400 600
CCI Feet
City of Tukwila
Surface Water Map Book
Page E4
SEA \ \SIMBA\ PROD\ TUKWILAWACITYOF1412954SWCOMPPL \GIS \LAYOUT \MAPBOOK5.MXD TJANTZEN 5/15/2012 14:01:10
F5
E2
E3
!d P S •133rd ki
y6� n
�e�'
13� gggg b
S �4thrStA F
�13
Ell
D2 ��
Mm G4 El
M ®H4 IN
14 ®I
111121
1 inch = 500 feet
G2
0 200 400 600
CCI Feet
City of Tukwila
Surface Water Map Book
Page F2
SEA \ \SIMBA\ PROD\ TUKWILAWACITYOF1412954SWCOMPPL \GIS \LAYOUT \MAPBOOK5.MXD TJANTZEN 5/15/2012 14:01:10
m
w
E3
E4
1 inch = 500 feet
0 200 400 600
CCI Feet
City of Tukwila
Surface Water Map Book
Page F3
SEA \ \SIMBA\ PROD\ TUKWILAWACITYOF1412954SWCOMPPL \GIS \LAYOUT \MAPBOOK5.MXD TJANTZEN 5/15/2012 14:01:10
11
E4
'0!v , v
✓ I1�
-4141.1:6.
OPP
Foster GolfoCrurse
•
11111%; siii1,-
P.' iii air
.rte
a.k
<, Josephs Foster Memorial Park '
k �' r1J
cp
:S 14Oth' St 1 2_in'
Al a
j A� )L kt 4 A� 4r
,;,.
(T1
L+ % T
li t X ‘
1
-co,A •t I' �� 41 °. - >
I '''- ,'- L
S!:142ncrSt, ! • �� „� ...i
a pit '
.. '
1
G3
..ia
Vii`_ �? ■,
G4
fill M
LEP
RI
m F4
ME III
14 ®I
1 inch = 500 feet
0 200 400 600
CCI Feet
City of Tukwila
Surface Water Map Book
Page F4
SEA \ \SIMBA\ PROD\ TUKWILAWACITYOF1412954SWCOMPPL \GIS \LAYOUT \MAPBOOK5.MXD TJANTZEN 5/15/2012 14:01:10
G4
G5
1 inch = 500 feet
0 200 400 600
CCI Feet
City of Tukwila
Surface Water Map Book
Page F5
SEA \ \SIMBA\ PROD\ TUKWILAWACITYOF1412954SWCOMPPL \GIS \LAYOUT \MAPBOOK5.MXD TJANTZEN 5/15/2012 14:01:10
F2
F3
/a�r4
ti 'r'�
4
1 S 144th St v
r. s 4 "S'
?`pro" ►
4
• ► ► 12 in 'S_146thcSt 12 -in
4411111FILII
r.
18'in
4
4 4
•
12 -in
r r�
L 3/
Ill D3 a
I 1
2 F
H2
14 15
111121
H2
1 inch = 500 feet
0 200 400 600
CCI Feet
City of Tukwila
Surface Water Map Book
Page G2
SEA \\ SIMBA\ PROJ\ TUKWILAWACITYOF \412954SWCOMPPL \GIS \LAYOUT \MAPBOOK5.MXD TJANTZEN 5/15/2012 14:01:10
N
0
F3
F4
H2
H3
fill' 1
1
drwl
MOM
1 G4 El
ME IN
El
14 ®I
1 inch = 500 feet
0 200 400 600
CCI Feet
City of Tukwila
Surface Water Map Book
Page G3
SEA \ \SIMBA\ PROD\ TUKWILAWACITYOF1412954SWCOMPPL \GIS \LAYOUT \MAPBOOK5.MXD TJANTZEN 5/15/2012 14:01:10
U
F4
F5
•� o� •
"r 't j J �9 T r
Au °' 1 .
°'F-lazelr
<
is 147th;'St.<T.;
>.
.L I 'x r i
149th'' 6 -in ,1 -I
r=
S" ,149th !St
H3
H4
fill 3/
® 1
EMI
L G4 El
M ®H4 IN
14
1 inch = 500 feet
0 200 400 600
CCI Feet
City of Tukwila
Surface Water Map Book
Page G4
SEA \ \SIMBA\ PROD\ TUKWILAWACITYOF1412954SWCOMPPL \GIS \LAYOUT \MAPBOOK5.MXD TJANTZEN 5/15/2012 14:01:10
0
F5
H4
H5
1 inch = 500 feet
0 200 400 600
CCI Feet
City of Tukwila
Surface Water Map Book
Page G5
SEA \\ SIMBA\ PROJ\ TUKWILAWACITYOF\ 412954SWCOMPPL \GIS \LAYOUT\MAPBOOK6.MXD TJANTZEN 4/2/2013 07:49:16
G2
So thcenter Blvd
—SRJS'8
S 51gRa m p
SR 93 Ra
mpaSR 518 Rap
—
• It -1t
}1fi3s ®i:.1e Orr
MVW 414!
+i liv"k`fiY'°isWAl
0111.111''d1'.,
mai, -N94
c
Et-
ri_e7r 1+1i
c
DI
Ill D3 a
MEM
MM F4
DE®G4 M
ES III
ENE
I4 ®I
111121
N
1 inch = 500 feet
0 200 400 600
CCI Feet
City of Tukwila
Surface Water Map Book
Page H2
SEA \\ SIMBA\ PROJ\ TUKWILAWACITYOF \412954SWCOMPPL \GIS \LAYOUT \MAPBOOK5.MXD TJANTZEN 5/15/2012 14:01:10
G2
CV
2
G3 0
— z€.$ • '' iV { ,rte 7'r 5 (1 c\ �t�,
>r ,t`1, Y tbt
airy, T` ' Outhcentergt 1 . ,>2 '
` • ate`
A RS • 1 • _78 , '6
r� t� 7S 4 - 4,'1/2,_ 8 -i n ir3
r ''yam a y < r `+y ♦ l — • `� •
~. I,r.1 y i M � 1R �: S+ S�L lS/1'4'6'1 i io . 1`L' (.: -.
41f
■ ' i r' b S14,56th,S ,. -12. '{ 7 ► + Y ..t -p ►
+`4' ■ r �' '4,7114:7n y y�
N
• 'gam `:
• t al •-
% .'S it 1
•
cS
0 •
C/r
C7
'-' ♦ A
Q
4 z�
,dQ
'..
r .1 .-11',',111" r F A -V
(ID 1 M 1 r h
(r)
Q.
,S 163rd PI'
i it t"
fill M
drwl
D2
MEM
ffim F4
BEmG4El
BE IN
14 ®I
NMI
1 inch = 500 feet
0 200 400 600
CCI Feet
City of Tukwila
Surface Water Map Book
Page H3
SEA \ \SIMBA\ PROD\ TUKWILAWACITYOF1412954SWCOMPPL \GIS \LAYOUT \MAPBOOK5.MXD TJANTZEN 5/15/2012 14:01:10
G3
co
2
G4
N
1 inch = 500 feet
drwl
D2 ��
MEM
m F4
®G4�
E® H4 III
111121
0 200 400 600
CCI Feet
City of Tukwila
Surface Water Map Book
Page H4
SEA \\ SIMBA\ PROJ\ TUKWILAWACITYOF \412954SWCOMPPL \GIS \LAYOUT \MAPBOOK5.MXD TJANTZEN 5/15/2012 14:01:10
G4
2
G5
C3
'\C enter Ways
N
co 11 0
co 1
op
TukWilarPk �°
y
s
_ � t
-a �
1 A
� t-8
a)
Baker�Blvd kc
Bicentennial
N
1 inch = 500 feet
0 200 400 600
CCI Feet
City of Tukwila
Surface Water Map Book
Page H5
SEA \\ SIMBA\ PROJ\ TUKWILAWACITYOF\ 412954SWCOMPPL \GIS \LAYOUT\MAPBOOK6.MXD TJANTZEN 4/2/2013 07:49:16
L 3/
drwl
D2 C
I 1
�m F4
L G4
BM H4 IN
14 D
1 inch = 500 feet
0 200 400 600
CC1Feet
City of Tukwila
Surface Water Map Book
Page 13
SEA \ \SIMBA\ PROD\ TUKWILAWACITYOF1412954SWCOMPPL \GIS \LAYOUT \MAPBOOK5.MXD TJANTZEN 5/15/2012 14:01:10
-r
°"' fl2an
12 -in
r�.tr,� .nt�.� �StranderBivd
r
CD
>l
0
1
bp ATI
Ill D3 a
MEE
m F4
M ®G4 E
EWEN
� 14 0
111121
N
1 inch = 500 feet
0 200 400 600
CC1Feet
City of Tukwila
Surface Water Map Book
Page 14
SEA \\ SIMBA\ PROJ\ TUKWILAWACITYOF \412954SWCOMPPL \GIS \LAYOUT \MAPBOOK5.MXD TJANTZEN 5/15/2012 14:01:10
a►+
+R ■ .
Bicentennial Park
—� at _L 12 in
d" StranderBlvd 30_., ._
4 -ra r
an
N
1 inch = 500 feet
0 200 400 600
CC1Feet
City of Tukwila
Surface Water Map Book
Page 15
SEA \\ SIMBA\ PROJ\ TUKWILAWACITYOF\ 412954SWCOMPPL \GIS \LAYOUT\MAPBOOK6.MXD TJANTZEN 4/2/2013 07:49:16
24 " -inY • Midland Dr.
0
CD
S 180th ,St
•
.: � -,.� ■ ll rc�� 18 -inr.
O.
Segale Park D Dr
S'%. 'F i' ' ` __
I..
4 lko
Ell
1
D3 �� NEM
�m F4
�G3 G4�
H3 H4
Ei
14
J5
3
N
1 inch = 500 feet
0 200 400 600
CCI Feet
City of Tukwila
Surface Water Map Book
Page J4
SEA \\ SIMBA\ PROJ\ TUKWILAWACITYOF\ 412954SWCOMPPL \GIS \LAYOUT\MAPBOOK6.MXD TJANTZEN 4/2/2013 07:49:16
Unnamed Park
Via • • •
Aft-
G .
r
o
d<; F
f F
r•
• 1.
Saxon Dr,
o
4
1
-4
S 180th S
(1)' SW 43rd•St __ • jr.. • or •
t. .....,.
F...,,,,/
,<,,
•:, rii,
• -4
----
lko
1
tsD3 ��
ERIE F4
MB el
®H4 YCi
�, I4 ®I
IM it
N
1 inch = 500 feet
0 200 400 600
Feet
City of Tukwila
Surface Water Map Book
Page J5
SEA \ \SIMBA\ PROD\ TUKWILAWACITYOF\ 412954SWCOMPPL \GIS \LAYOUT\MAPBOOK6.MXD TJANTZEN 4/2/2013 07:49:16
fill 3/
a.21
® 1
�m F4
L G4
MB H41N
14
N
1 inch = 500 feet
0 200 400 600
CCI Feet
City of Tukwila
Surface Water Map Book
Page K3
SEA \\ SIMBA\ PROJ\ TUKWILAWACITYOF \412954SWCOMPPL \GIS \LAYOUT \MAPBOOK5.MXD TJANTZEN 5/15/2012 14:01:10
fib
Ell
A
NEM
man
D3 ��
�m F4
�G3 G4�
H3 H4
14
(�J5
N
1 inch = 500 feet
0 200 400 600
CCI Feet
City of Tukwila
Surface Water Map Book
Page K4
SEA \\ SIMBA\ PROJ\ TUKWILAWACITYOF\ 412954SWCOMPPL \GIS \LAYOUT\MAPBOOK6.MXD TJANTZEN 4/2/2013 07:49:16
fill 3/
DI
Ill D3 a
MEM
m F4
M ®G4 Ey
E® H41�
14 ®I
K3 Z
m L4
N
1 inch = 500 feet
0 200 400 600
CCI Feet
City of Tukwila
Surface Water Map Book
Page L3
SEA \\ SIMBA\ PROJ\ TUKWILAWACITYOF \412954SWCOMPPL \GIS \LAYOUT \MAPBOOK5.MXD TJANTZEN 5/15/2012 14:01:10
L 3/
drwl
�m F4
L G4�y
ME1N
H4
14 ®I
1 inch = 500 feet
0 200 400 600
CCI Feet
City of Tukwila
Surface Water Map Book
Page L4
SEA \ \SIMBA\ PROD\ TUKWILAWACITYOF1412954SWCOMPPL \GIS \LAYOUT \MAPBOOK5.MXD TJANTZEN 5/15/2012 14:01:10
APPENDIX B
Drainage, Water Quality,
and Fish Habitat Characterization
(Supporting Information for Plan Section 2)
APPENDIX B
Drainage, Water Quality,
and Fish Habitat Characterization
This Appendix B contains the drainage, water quality, and fish habitat characterization for
the City of Tukwila. The information presented here is summarized in Section 2 of this
Surface Water Comprehensive Plan.
This Appendix is organized by drainage basin, with the following eight drainage basins
located wholly or partially in the City of Tukwila:
• Green /Duwamish River Mainstem
• Gilliam Creek
• Nelson Place - Long Acres
• P17
• Riverton Creek
• Southeast Central Business District (CBD)
• Southgate Creek
• Johnson Creek
Basin boundary delineation was based on information from field visits, the City Geographic
Information System (GIS), and previously developed basin plans. The City of Tukwila is
nearly finished with an inventory and mapping of the drainage network. Basin boundaries
should be re- visited once this inventory and mapping is complete.
Green /Duwamish River Mainstem Basin
Drainage Characterization
The Green /Duwamish River meanders from the southeast to northwest through the City of
Tukwila. The Green /Duwamish River is tidally influenced along most of length of the river
within the City of Tukwila. The Green /Duwamish River is called the Duwamish below the
confluence with the Black River and is called the Green River upstream of that point. The
flood and floodplain management of the Green /Duwamish River is outside of the scope of
this surface water comprehensive plan. The Green /Duwamish River drainage basin shown
in Figure B -1 has multiple outlets, or outfalls, into both the Green and Duwamish Rivers.
This basin is almost entirely developed. Industrial areas, including portions of the Boeing
Airfield, make up the development in the area north of the Riverton Creek Basin. The areas
east of the Riverton and Southgate Creek basins and north of the Gilliam Creek basin are
mostly residential. Foster Golf Course and Fort Dent Park are within this basin. The area
east of the P17 basin is mostly commercial.
City of Tukwila surface water pump stations #17, #18, and #19 are located within the Green
Duwamish River Mainstem drainage basin (Figure B -1).
WBG031611103411SEA\ TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX B -1
YY
N▪ ormandy Park
•
Puget Sound
• Des Moines
Y
Seattle
f
• r—" Green /Duwamish
Y
4 • 7
'4„ Mercer Island ``
•
44
`44
4!
Lake Washington
•
4
•"4
King County
0 0•110•0
•
4
King County
Burien
Black River
MidT (�IIIlarn l„
talk`• I�I'
- Nelson
Springbrook
SeaTac
99
unty PS
1
•
•
•
•
Johnson a
King County COHNSON
▪ 11
tee``
Mill Creek
\Jet._
Kent
City of Tukwila
1.-1 King County Unincorporated
• Other Municipalities
N
•
0 1 2
Miles
Stormwater Pump Station
Stormwater Pipe
Drainage Basins
• Outfall
FIGURE B -1
City of Tukwila Drainage System
City of Tukwila 2012 Surface Water Comprehensive Plan
SEA \ \SIMBA\ PROJ\ TUKWILAWACITYOF\ 412954SWCOMPPL \GIS \LAYOUT\FIGUREB -1 DRAINAGESYSTEM.MXD TJANTZEN 4/2/2013 12:36:19
CH2MHILL
APPENDIX B
DRAINAGE, WATER QUALITY, AND FISH HABITAT CHARACTERIZATION
Water Quality Characterization
In 2003, Ecology adopted a water use -based classification for state surface waters
(RCW 173 -201A, Table 602) that determines the surface water quality standards applicable
for that water body (RCW 173 -201A- 600(1)). The Duwamish River (below the confluence
with the Black River) is classified as Salmonid Rearing /Migration Only and Secondary
Contact Recreation. The Green River (above the confluence with the Black River) is
classified as Salmonid Spawning /Rearing Only and Primary Contact Recreation. None of
the tributaries to these rivers within Tukwila is listed in Table 602. Therefore the uses
defined for these tributaries are the same as the Green River to which they discharge.
Table B -1 shows the classifications for surface waters in the City of Tukwila.
TABLE B -1
Use -based Classification for Surface Waters in City of Tukwila
Water Body
Use -based Classification
(Source: RCW 173 -201A- 600(1))
Aquatic Life Uses Recreational Uses
Duwamish River (Green /Duwamish River, Salmonid Secondary Contact
downstream of confluence with Black River) Rearing /Migration Only Recreation
Riverton Creek (to Duwamish River) Salmonid Secondary Contact
Rearing /Migration Only Recreation
Southgate Creek (to Duwamish River)
Salmonid Secondary Contact
Rearing /Migration Only Recreation
Green River (Green /Duwamish River, Salmonid Primary Contact
upstream of confluence with Black River) Rearing /Migration Only Recreation
Gilliam Creek (to Green River) Salmonid Primary Contact
Rearing /Migration Only Recreation
Johnson Creek (to Green River) Salmonid Primary Contact
Rearing /Migration Only Recreation
Other Tukwila drainage basins (to Green Salmonid Primary Contact
River): Rearing /Migration Only Recreation
Nelson Place / Long Acres
Southeast CBD
P17
Ecology maintains a list of water bodies that do not meet water quality standards, known as
the 303(d) List. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved the
2008 Water Quality Assessment 305(b) report and 303(d) list on January 29, 2009. This is the
current water quality assessment and 303(d) list for the state of Washington. Four sections of
the Green /Duwamish River within the City of Tukwila do not meet water quality standards
according to the 2008 303(d) list. Both the Green River and Duwamish River are listed as
Category 5 (at least one designated use is impaired) for dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH,
and fecal coliform, based on water sampling and analysis. Figure B -2 shows the 303(d)
listings for water bodies within the City of Tukwila and Table B -2 shows the 303(d) listings
relevant for the City of Tukwila.
WBG031611103411SEA1 TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX B -3
._.,
King County
King County
International Airport
Seattle
;Mercer Island r
Lake Washington
Nme
•
•
•
King County
or
t
Burien
•
•
•
•
•
•
Seattle- Tacoma
International Airport
SeaTac
•
•
Normandy Park
•
- --
Puget Sound King County
See Table B -2 for all 303(d) listed parameters.
Data from http: / /www.ecy.wa.gov/ programs /wq /303d /2008 /index.html
Kent
•'
•
111100..-... -.,
303(d) List Categories n City of Tukwila
5
4C
_ 4B
4A
2
1
King County Unincorporated
Other Municipalities
Streams and Rivers
0
3
Miles
FIGURE B -2
Ecology 303(d) Listed Water Bodies
City of Tukwila 2012 Surface Water Comprehensive Plan
SEA \\ SIMBA\ PROJ\ TUKWILAWACITYOF \412954SWCOMPPL \GIS \LAYOUT \FIGUREB -2 303D.MXD TJANTZEN 11/14/2011 17:11:20
CH2MHILL
APPENDIX B
DRAINAGE, WATER QUALITY, AND FISH HABITAT CHARACTERIZATION
TABLE B -2
303(d) Water Quality Listings for Surface Waters within City of Tukwila Boundaries
Water Body
Listing
Category Parameter Medium
Duwamish River
Duwamish River
Duwamish River
Duwamish River
Duwamish River
Duwamish Waterway
Duwamish River
Duwamish Waterway
Duwamish Waterway
Green River
Green River
Green River
Green River
Green River
Green River
Green River
Springbrook (Mill) Creek
1 Ammonia -N
1 Fecal Coliform
2 Bis(2- Ethylhexyl) Phthalate
2 Dissolved Oxygen
2 Temperature
4A Ammonia -N
5 pH
5 Dissolved Oxygen
5 Fecal Coliform
1 Ammonia -N
1 pH
2 Bis(2- Ethylhexyl) Phthalate
4A Ammonia -N
5 Dissolved Oxygen
5 Fecal Coliform
5 Temperature
1 Ammonia -N
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
In addition to Ecology's 303(d) listings, King County has collected monthly water quality
data along the Green /Duwamish River for many years (King County, 2011). Two
monitoring stations fall within the City of Tukwila: Duwamish River at E Marginal Way
Bridge and Green River at West Valley Road. These data were reviewed for the period of
2003 through 2008. They reflect around 70 samplings and are the latest data available. The
Duwamish station meets water quality standards for dissolved oxygen, pH, and fecal
coliform. Temperature is exceeded in 11 percent of the total samples, during the months of
July and August. For the Green River station, temperature is exceeded in 15 percent of the
total samples, also during the same summer period. In addition, 15 percent of the dissolved
oxygen samples from the Green River station fail to meet standards, mostly during the
summer period. The lowest dissolved oxygen measurement at the Green River station was
7.0 milligrams per liter (mg /L). Fecal coliform and pH surface water quality standards were
met at this station.
Turbidity standards are expressed as an allowable increase over background conditions and
the water quality data do not allow for a direct assessment. The maximum recorded
turbidity at either station during this six -year period is around 70 Nephelometric Turbidity
WBG031611103411SEA1 TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX B -5
CITY OF TUKWILA 2012 SURFACE WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Units (NTUs) and that only four values at each station exceeded 10 NTUs, indicating
relatively clear water conditions nearly all of the time.
The northern -most portion of the City of Tukwila lies within the Lower Duwamish
Waterway Superfund Site, designated by the EPA in 2001. King County, the Port of Seattle,
and the cities of Seattle and Tukwila are working with the Washington Department of
Ecology (Ecology) and the EPA to control sources of pollution in the Lower Duwamish
Waterway. Decades of heavy industrial activity along both sides of the waterway have
resulted in the accumulation of high levels of PCBs, polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),
arsenic and other pollutants in the upland soils and within the waterway sediments
(Windward Environmental, 2010). Dredging and capping projects in limited areas of the
waterway have removed some of these pollutants and more removal actions are planned.
Upland sources of these pollutants are also being addressed. Ecology is the lead agency for
implementing source controls in the Lower Duwamish Waterway. In 2002 the entities listed
above formed the Lower Duwamish Waterway Source Control Work Group to coordinate
source control activities.
The Norfolk Basin, located in the southern portion of the superfund site, lies partially within
the jurisdiction of the City of Tukwila. This area is included in the Duwamish River Basin
shown on Figure B -1. The Norfolk Basin discharges to the Lower Duwamish Waterway and
includes both stormwater runoff and occasional combined sewer overflows. In 2007, the
City of Tukwila signed a memorandum of agreement with the City of Seattle allowing the
latter to inspect suspected contaminated sites in the Norfolk Basin that lie within the
jurisdiction of the City of Tukwila. The City of Seattle has carried out sediment sampling
and cleaning of storm sewers in the Norfolk Basin. Of the numerous chemical parameters
analyzed in the storm sewers, phthalates and zinc consistently exceeded the cleanup
screening level (CSL), above which adverse impacts on marine organisms would be likely.
Total petroleum hydrocarbons were also consistently high. The City of Seattle removed
sediment from the storm sewer serving Martin Luther King Way South prior to a recent
sewer upgrade.
In 2007, Ecology produced a Source Control Action Plan (SCAP) for Early Action Area 7 (the
Norfolk Basin) (Ecology and Environment, 2007). The plan lists a number of potential
upland sources of contaminants to the surface water system. Through the memorandum of
agreement mentioned earlier, the City of Seattle is conducting inspections to determine
whether cleanup measures should be carried out. The SCAP states that there is an
incomplete mapping of the surface water system serving the Norfolk Basin. It identifies the
need for a cooperative effort between the City of Seattle and the City of Tukwila to use
available GIS and as -built storm sewer drawings to better delineate the surface water
system.
The EPA is sponsoring another round of storm drain sampling in 2011. The City has
recently signed another agreement allowing continued inspection and sampling with the
Norfolk Basin (Larson, 2011).
Fish Habitat Characterization
The Green / Duwamish River channel is significantly altered from its natural condition along
most reaches in the City of Tukwila. Non - native and other less desirable trees and shrubs
such as blackberry have replaced native riparian vegetation. Riprap also borders the river
B -6 WBG031611103411SEA1 TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX
APPENDIX B
DRAINAGE, WATER QUALITY, AND FISH HABITAT CHARACTERIZATION
along many reaches. Urban development in and near the City has greatly reduced the
vegetated buffer of the river and has encroached upon the banks. Flooding and drainage
problems associated with this urban development throughout the basin (including the
levees constructed to address flooding) have degraded fish and other wildlife habitat in and
along the river.
Productive, good quality fish habitat, both in the main channel and in off - channel refuge, is
generally lacking (King County, 2000). Spawning gravel recruitment to the
Green /Duwamish River in this area has been diminished due to the comprehensive effects
of urban development, in particular the diversion of the White River and the Cedar /Black
River away from the Duwamish River. Little, if any, spawning habitat occurs in the river
reaches within the City.
Gilliam Creek Basin
Drainage Characterization
The Gilliam Creek basin has a single outlet to the Green River through an outfall and flap
gate located to the south of I -405. Most of the Gilliam Creek basin is located within the
central region of the City of Tukwila, with the remainder (27 percent) located in the City of
SeaTac. The basin has been almost fully developed except for the steep slopes above the I -5
corridor. The portion of the basin located north of 1 -405 and east of 1 -5 is mostly residential,
with some commercial areas located along Southcenter Boulevard. Residential
developments make up most of the basin west of I -5, with the exception of the Tukwila
International Boulevard corridor which contains commercial development. Southcenter
Mall and other commercial areas dominate the portion of the basin east of I -5 and south of
I -405.
Tukwila Pond is within the 25 acre Tukwila Pond Park located to the south of Southcenter
Mall. Historically, this area drained north into Gilliam Creek via both subsurface and
surface flow. As this area was developed, Tukwila Pond was formed. Currently, under
normal flow conditions, Tukwila Pond drains to the south into the P17 basin then on to the
Green River. A conveyance system built along Andover Park West in the mid -1980s
provides overflow conveyance north towards Gilliam Creek. A gate valve installed at the
discharge point to Gilliam Creek is usually closed. When open, the City of Tukwila has the
capability to either allow Tukwila Pond to flow into Gilliam Creek when the pond is at high
levels or to provide storage when the Green River is at high levels and backs water into the
storm drain systems in the lower portion of the Gilliam Creek Basin. Figure B -1 shows the
location of Tukwila Pond.
Water Quality Characterization
Gilliam Creek's use -based classification is Salmonid Spawning /Rearing and Primary
Contact Recreation, because Gilliam Creek enters the Green River upstream of the
confluence with the Black River. The water quality characterization for Gilliam Creek in this
section is drawn from the stormwater management plan prepared for Gilliam Creek in 2001
(Herrera, 2001). Water quality data for the creek was collected in support of that study. No
additional water quality data for the creek has been found subsequent to this study. Thus,
the discussion in this section is drawn from that study.
WBG031611103411SEA1 TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX B -7
CITY OF TUKWILA 2012 SURFACE WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The creek water samples were taken at eight locations during three different storm runoff
events in the fall of 1999. The data therefore reflect the effects of active stormwater runoff
and cooler temperature conditions. In summary, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH
(the latter with the exception of one sample) all met current state water quality standards.
Turbidity was somewhat elevated, generally ranging from 25 to 50 NTUs. Similarly
suspended solids were also only modestly elevated, generally ranging from 20 to 60 mg /L.
Dissolved lead met applicable water quality criteria, as did nearly 90 percent of the
dissolved zinc samples. About half of the samples failed to meet the dissolved copper
criteria. Finally, nearly all of the fecal coliform samples were above the state water quality
standards. The study noted that the two sites most frequently exceeding the criteria for zinc
and copper both directly drained Highway 99 and appear to be heavily influenced by the
high level of traffic and parking lots in the upper basin. Similar conditions exist in the lower
reaches of Gilliam Creek near Southcenter Mall, but the dilution effects occurring in the
lower portion of the basin may mitigate against higher metals concentrations in the creek.
In a study that had been conducted several years prior, two creek samples were collected
during summer baseflow conditions (June and September of 1997). Several samples taken
during these months did not meet the state dissolved oxygen standard, with one sample
recorded at 3.2 mg /L, well below the state standard of 6 mg /L. These samples also fell
slightly below the pH standard. In September the measured stream temperature of
17.5 degrees Celsius barely fell below the state standard of 18 degrees. This suggests the
likelihood that portions of the stream may exceed the state temperature standard during the
warmer summer months Gilliam Creek flows into a section of the Green River that is on
Ecology's 303(d) list for temperature, dissolved oxygen and fecal coliform. Thus the
degraded water quality conditions in Gilliam Creek may be contributing to water quality
problems in the Green River.
Given both the age and the limited amount of water quality data available for Gilliam
Creek, additional water quality data should be collected to determine if similar water
quality conditions continue to persist in this creek.
Fish Habitat Characterization
Several species of anadromous fish, including coho salmon, chinook salmon, and sea -run
cutthroat trout are reported to make use of the lower reach of Gilliam Creek, along the south
shoulder of 1 -405 between the Green River and the 1 -5 /I -405 interchange (Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife [WDFW], 2010; Herrera, 2001). This lower reach provides
mostly rearing and possibly some scattered spawning habitat. Spawning gravels are
covered by sediments deposited by upstream erosion and by historical construction
activities.
Habitat in the lower reach of Gilliam Creek is available to fish through the flap gate at the
outlet of Gilliam Creek only under certain high flow conditions, when the Green River
water level is elevated but remaining lower than the water level in Gilliam Creek. WDFW
has characterized this flap gate a partial fish passage barrier (WDFW, 2010). Two more
partial fish passage barriers exist in the lower reach of Gilliam Creek. A State of Washington
Department of Transportation (WSDOT) -owned culvert that conveys at least 1,000 feet of
the creek under the south shoulder of I -405 is identified as a partial fish barrier (WDFW,
B -8 WBG031611103411SEA1 TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX
APPENDIX B
DRAINAGE, WATER QUALITY, AND FISH HABITAT CHARACTERIZATION
2010). Farther upstream, a log at the inlet of the WSDOT -owned culvert at the I -405 on -ramp
observed in spring of 2011 appears capable of blocking fish passage.
WDFW determined that several of the tributaries to upper Gilliam Creek provide some
rearing habitat (WSDOT, 2007). Since the culvert underneath the I -5 /I -405 interchange is a
total barrier to anadromous fish, it is likely that only resident fish such as cutthroat trout
and sculpin are utilizing the available habitat in the upper reaches of Gilliam Creek at this
time. Fish barriers do exist in the upper reaches of Gilliam Creek, including a WSDOT-
owned culvert beneath SR 518 that conveys one of these tributaries that is identified as a
total fish passage barrier.
Figure B -3 shows the inventory of fish - blockages in the creek systems of Tukwila, including
Gilliam Creek. Attachment A to this Appendix B contains a detailed inventory of barriers to
fish passage within the City of Tukwila.
Nelson Place — Long Acres Basin
Drainage Characterization
The Nelson Place - Long Acres basin is located east of the Green River on the eastern edge
of the City of Tukwila (Figure B -1). The Renton city limits form the east boundary of the
basin. Commercial developments line the West Valley Highway corridor. The areas east and
west of the West Valley Highway corridor are mostly undeveloped.
Runoff from the West Valley Highway and the area in the western part of the drainage
basin drains directly into the Green River through numerous storm drainage outfalls.
Runoff from the area east of the West Valley Highway drains to the open ditch and culvert
system located on the east side of the basin adjacent to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe
(BNSF) Railroad track. A 24 -inch- diameter pipe located under the BNSF tracks directs
drainage from this series of open ditches and culverts east to drainage systems in the City of
Renton. Figure B -1 shows the Nelson Place - Long Acres Basin in relation to the city
boundaries and to the other drainage basins in Tukwila.
Water Quality Characterization
The Nelson Place - Long Acres drainage basin use -based classification is Salmonid
Spawning /Rearing and Primary Contact Recreation, because the drainage discharges to the
Green River upstream of the confluence with the Black River. No water quality data is
available for this drainage basin.
Fish Habitat Characterization
The former alignment of the Green River, prior to construction of I -405 in 1962, extended
through the Nelson farm property and into the property currently occupied by Homestead
Studio Suites. Part of that former alignment has been filled, isolating a pond area and
reducing off - channel habitat and floodplain connectivity in this reach of the river. Apart
from along the mainstem Green River, which is described in an earlier section of this
Appendix, no fish habitat was identified in this basin.
WBG031611103411SEA1 TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX B -9
Fish Passage Features =I City of Tukwila
Barrier Status • King County Unincorporated
▪ N/A Stream
❑ None I=1 Drainage Basins
II Partial
• Potential
• Total
Attachment A Figures
0
1
2
3
Miles
FIGURE B -3
Inventory of Fish Blocking Culverts
City of Tukwila 2012 Surface Water Comprehensive Plan
CFI2
SEA \\ SIMBA\ PROJ\ TUKWILAWACITYOF \412954SWCOMPPL \GIS \LAYOUT \FIGUREB -3 FISHBLOCKINGCULVERTS.MXD TJANTZEN 4/2/2013 12:43:59 MHILL
APPENDIX B
DRAINAGE, WATER QUALITY, AND FISH HABITAT CHARACTERIZATION
P17 Basin
Drainage Characterization
The P17 drainage basin is located south of the Gilliam Creek basin (Figure B -1).
Approximately 60 percent of this basin is located within the City of Tukwila, with the
remaining portion in the City of SeaTac. The basin is almost fully developed for the
exception of the steep slopes adjacent to the I -5 corridor. The P17 basin includes a portion of
the Tukwila South development site.
Typically, flows from Tukwila Pond are routed through drainage basin P17. A drainage
pipe adjacent to Andover Park West conveys pond outflow into the basin. As discussed
earlier, drainage is routed north to Gilliam Creek when the gate valve at the overflow pipe
to Gilliam Creek is open and the pond water level is elevated.
The P17 drainage basin has multiple outlets, or outfalls, into the Green River. Runoff from
the northern portion of the basin is routed to the P17 stormwater pump station located at
the east end of Minkler Boulevard. This P17 pump station, owned and operated by King
County, discharges to the Green River. The southern portion of the basin drains to the P17
pump station or directly into the Green River through a WSDOT outfall. City of Tukwila's
surface water pump station #15 is located within this P17 drainage basin (Figure B -1).
Water Quality Characterization
The P17 drainage basin use -based classification is Salmonid Spawning /Rearing and
Primary Contact Recreation, because the drainage discharges to the Green River upstream
of the confluence with the Black River. No water quality data is available for this drainage
basin.
Fish Habitat Characterization
Apart from along the mainstem of the Green River, which is described in an earlier section
of this Appendix, no fish habitat was identified in this basin.
Riverton Creek Basin
Drainage Characterization
The Riverton Creek basin is located in the northwest region of Tukwila. Nearly the entire
basin is located within the City of Tukwila boundaries with the remaining portion of the
basin in unincorporated King County and in the City of Sea -Tac. The basin is almost entirely
developed except for about 50 acres of forested land west of Tukwila International
Boulevard. Residential and commercial developments are located on the steep slopes in the
southern and western portions of the basin. Light industrial developments are located in the
valley floor in the northern portion of the basin.
There are two major forks to Riverton Creek, named the East Fork and West Fork. The East
Fork and West Fork of Riverton Creek merge just upstream of SR 599, and then pass
underneath SR599 through approximately 300 feet of culvert, through about 1,000 feet of
open channel and finally through two 48 -inch culverts (each with a flap gate) into the
Duwamish River downstream of the confluence with the Black River (Figure B -1).
WBG031611103411SEA1 TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX B -11
CITY OF TUKWILA 2012 SURFACE WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Water Quality Characterization
The Riverton Creek use -based classification is Salmonid Spawning /Rearing and Secondary
Contact Recreation, because the drainage discharges to the Duwamish River downstream of
the confluence with the Black River. No water quality data is available for this drainage
basin.
Fish Habitat Characterization
The flap gates at the Duwamish River are impassable to fish during low flows plus
somewhat impassable all other times. Both west and east forks of Riverton Creek are
characterized by narrow, straight channels and long sections of culvert in their lower
reaches. Both forks are considered fish - bearing. Coho salmon, Chinook salmon, and resident
cutthroat trout are potentially present in Riverton Creek (WDFW, 2010; Entranco, 1997).
Overall, Riverton Creek provides some limited rearing habitat for salmon, but no longer
provides substantial spawning habitat.
The East Fork of Riverton Creek just upstream of the SR 599 culvert is characterized by a
wide, exposed, sandy and silty streambed that provides fish passage but no spawning or
rearing habitat. Upstream of that reach, a more than 2,000 linear foot (LF) culvert likely
prevents at least some anadromous fish from accessing suitable habitat located in the upper
reach between S 126th Street and S 128th Street, where good overhead cover from riparian
plants, sufficient flows, and streambed gravel appear suitable for coho salmon spawning.
Anecdotal evidence from a local resident during a February 2011 site visit suggests that
anadromous salmon can and do access the east fork up to S 128th Street. The gradient
upstream of S 128th Street is likely too steep for anadromous fish.
Approximately 2,000 LF of restored channel in the West Fork of Riverton Creek just
upstream of SR 599 has provided some spawning and rearing habitat. The culverts within
this restored reach could fill with sediment from upper watershed erosion and stormwater
runoff, which could potentially block fish passage. A log jam in the upper portion of the
restoration area may also be a partial fish passage barrier. Just upstream of the restored
reach, a 20- foot -tall manmade waterfall prevents fish from passing upstream to S 126th
Street. Juvenile salmon are released from a city- operated fish hatchery at the base of the
waterfall into the west fork at the upper end of the restored reach.
Upstream of the waterfall up to S 126th Street, there is about 500 feet of potential fish
habitat, though that reach also includes two total fish passage barriers. Fish would likely not
be able pass upstream of S 126th Street because of a steep gradient, even if the waterfall and
other nearby barriers were removed. However, this upper reach beyond S 126th Street has a
cobble streambed that is likely supporting macroinvertebrates, a food source for fish
downstream of the barriers.
Figure B -3 shows the inventory of fish - blockages in the creek systems of Tukwila, including
Riverton Creek. Attachment A to this Appendix B contains a detailed inventory of barriers
to fish passage within the City of Tukwila.
B -12 WBG031611103411SEA1 TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX
APPENDIX B
DRAINAGE, WATER QUALITY, AND FISH HABITAT CHARACTERIZATION
Southeast Central Business District (CBD) Basin
Drainage Characterization
The Southeast CBD drainage basin shown in Figure B -1 is formed by the Green River on the
west and the BNSF railroad track to the east. Most of the basin contains developed
commercial areas along the West Valley Highway corridor with some wetland areas located
along the east side of the basin adjacent to the BNSF railroad track.
The Southeast CBD basin has multiple outlets. Drainage from the West Valley Highway and
the area in the west side of the drainage basin drain directly into the Green River through
numerous storm drainage outfalls. The area east of the West Valley Highway drains into the
wetlands on the east side of the basin. Overflow from these wetlands drains east into the
City of Renton through culverts under the BNSF railroad tracks. City of Tukwila surface
water pump station #16 is located within this CBD drainage basin (Figure B -1).
Water Quality Characterization
The use -based classification for the Southeast CBD basin is Salmonid Spawning /Rearing
and Primary Contact Recreation, because the drainage discharges to the Green River
upstream of the confluence with the Black River. No water quality data is available for this
drainage basin.
Fish Habitat Characterization
Apart from along the mainstem Green River, which is described in an earlier section of this
Appendix, no fish habitat was identified in this basin.
Southgate Creek Basin
Drainage Characterization
The Southgate Creek basin is located in the northwest region of Tukwila, south of Riverton
Creek (Figure B -1). Most of the basin is located in the City of Tukwila with the remaining
portion (approximately 11 percent) located in the City of SeaTac. Commercial and
residential developments are located on the steep -sided slopes in the west portion of the
basin (west of Tukwila International Boulevard) and lowlands in the central portion of the
basin (between Tukwila International Boulevard and 42nd and 43rd Avenue S). The east
portion of the basin, also located in the lowlands, is the least- developed portion of the basin.
Private residences are the primary type of development in this area, covering nearly
80 percent of the basin.
Water Quality Characterization
The Southgate Creek use -based classification is Salmonid Spawning /Rearing and Secondary
Contact Recreation, because the drainage discharges to the Duwamish River downstream of
the confluence with the Black River. No water quality data is available for this drainage
basin.
WBG031611103411SEA1 TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX B -13
CITY OF TUKWILA 2012 SURFACE WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Fish Habitat Characterization
The East Fork of Southgate Creek begins as a relatively small channel just south of S 137th
Street and flows north through a steep ravine, several culverts, and an asphalt -lined ditch
before it merges with the west fork. The West Fork begins as three smaller tributaries that
collect flow from the hillside just west of 40th Avenue S and merge just upstream of S 133th
Street. The West Fork then passes underneath S 133rd Street and 42nd Avenue S through
more than 500 feet of culvert and merges with the east fork coming from a ditch along
S 132nd Street. From there, the main stem of Southgate Creek extends under SR 599 through
about 320 feet of culvert, a fish ladder, and large arch culvert into the Duwamish River
downstream of the Black River confluence.
Coho salmon are potentially present in Southgate Creek, according to WDFW, and resident
trout or and other types of non - anadromous fish are likely present. The fish ladder at the
SR 599 culvert likely is a fish barrier to anadromous fish during low stream flows.
As in other urbanized streams, development has altered Southgate Creek's riparian buffer
and natural channel alignment, resulting in increased channel incision, stream bank erosion,
and degraded water quality. Suitable fish habitat is limited to the following:
• Rearing habitat in the main stem between SR 599 and S 132nd Street culvert
• Rearing habitat in some small sections of the east fork along S 131St Place and S 134th
Place
• Rearing and some spawning habitat in the recently- restored section of the west fork just
upstream of S 133rd Street
Bank erosion from the combination of steep gradients and stormwater runoff from urban
development have deposited sediments in the lower reach, which have reduced effective
culvert conveyance capacities and covered up salmon spawning gravels. The section of the
main stem just downstream of the confluence of the West and East Forks is often completely
blocked by sediment and debris.
During a February 2011 site visit, juvenile salmonids were observed in the section of the east
fork along S 131st Place, which are reportedly released into the stream by a nearby
homeowner.
Fish are unlikely to be present in the West Fork of Southgate Creek upstream of Macadam
Way S due to the steep gradient. Some resident fish may use the upper reaches of the east
fork within Southgate Park.
Figure B -3 shows the inventory of fish - blockages in the creek systems of Tukwila, including
Southgate Creek. Attachment A to this Appendix B contains a detailed inventory of barriers
to fish passage within the City of Tukwila.
Johnson Creek Basin
Drainage Characterization
The Johnson Creek basin is located to the south of the P17 basin and extends southward to
the City of Tukwila boundary with the City of Kent and westward to I -5. Much of the
B -14 WBG031611103411SEA1 TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX
APPENDIX B
DRAINAGE, WATER QUALITY, AND FISH HABITAT CHARACTERIZATION
Johnson Creek basin was recently annexed into the City of Tukwila (Figure B -1). The
approximately 850 -acre basin includes about half of the Tukwila South commercial
development site.
The basin includes steep hillsides leading up to I -5 as well as Green River floodplain
lowlands. In times of high Green River water levels, runoff ponds behind the Green River
levees until the river stage drops, allowing discharge by gravity through the flap gate and
outfall at the Johnson Creek outlet to the Green River.
Water Quality Characterization
The Johnson Creek use -based classification is Salmonid Spawning /Rearing and Primary
Contact Recreation, because the drainage discharges to the Green River upstream of the
confluence with the Black River. No water quality data is available for this drainage basin.
Fish Habitat Characterization
The Johnson Creek flap gate and outfall to the Green River, partial blockages to fish passage,
were replaced with a fish - passable structure as part of the mitigation for the proximate
commercial development. No other barriers to fish passage were identified in Johnson
Creek. Figure B -3 shows the inventory of fish - blockages in the creek systems of Tukwila,
including Johnson Creek. Attachment A to this Appendix B contains a detailed inventory of
barriers to fish passage within the City of Tukwila.
The lower reach of Johnson Creek was reconstructed in 2011 as part of mitigation for the
commercial development in the area. As the commercial development is completed, an
aquatic habitat assessment should be conducted in order to assess conditions post -
development and to assess the effectiveness of the mitigation.
References
Ecology and Environment. 2007. Lower Duwamish Waterway Source Control Action Plan.
Ecology Publication No. 07 -09 -003, Lacey, Washington.
Entranco, Inc., et al. 1997. Riverton Creek Stormwater Quality Management Plan: Water Quality,
Stream Habitat, and Flood Control. Prepared by Entranco Inc., Taylor Associates Inc.,
and Envirovision Inc. Prepared for the City of Tukwila. November.
Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. 2001. Gilliam Creek Basin: Stormwater Management
Plan. Prepared for the City of Tukwila. March.
King County and Washington State Conservation Commission. 2000. Habitat Limiting Factors
and Reconnaissance Assessment Report: Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound
Watersheds. December.
King County. 2011. Stream and River Water Quality Monitoring.
http:// green. kingcounty .gov /w1r /waterres /streamsdata/ accessed on February 10, 2011.
Larson. 2011. Personal communication (conversation with Ryan Larson, City of Tukwila
Public Works Department). Tukwila City Hall, Tukwila, WA. November 30.
WBG031611103411SEA1 TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX B -15
CITY OF TUKWILA 2012 SURFACE WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
WSDOT. 2007. SR 518 SeaTac Airport to 1 -5/1 -405 Interchange Widening Project: Culvert
Mitigation. February.
WDFW. 2010. Fish Passage Barrier Inventory Geodatabase. Accessed via email by Brian
Benson, WDFW Habitat Program, on January 14, 2011.
Windward Environmental. 2010. Lower Duwamish Waterway Remedial Investigation, Seattle,
Washington.
B -16 WBG031611103411SEA1 TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX
ATTACHMENT A
Fish - blocking Culvert Inventory
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM CH2MHILL,
City of Tukwila Fish Passage Barrier Inventory
PREPARED FOR:
Ryan Larson, City of Tukwila Surface Water Management
PREPARED BY: Erin Thatcher /CH2M HILL
Randy Whitman /CH2M HILL
REVIEWED BY: Amy Carlson/ CH2M HILL
DATE: November 22, 2011
PROJECT NUMBER: 412954.TT.02
Introduction
This memo documents the fish passage barrier inventory developed for the City of Tukwila
(the City). The purpose of the inventory is to provide a baseline of information that will
inform future planning efforts and prioritization of capital and programmatic
improvements related to fish - bearing streams within the City's jurisdiction. The inventory
includes information gathered from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
(WDFW) and a windshield survey completed for the City's 2010 Surface Water
Comprehensive Plan.
The inventory encompasses the four main fish - bearing streams in the City's jurisdiction:
Riverton Creek, Southgate Creek, Gilliam Creek, and Johnson Creek. Each of these streams
is identified by WDFW as having the potential to support anadromous fish such as coho
salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). The WDFW fish passage barrier inventory does not currently
identify any barriers on the Duwamish River, and the inventory in this memo does not
include the Duwamish River.
Determining a culvert's (or other structure's) fish passability according to accepted
standards involves a detailed engineering analysis (developed by WDFW) beyond the scope
of this effort. For the areas that were not covered by WDFW's existing inventory, a best
professional judgment of fish passability was made based on information gathered during
the windshield survey. The windshield survey was conducted by a CH2M HILL
professional fish biologist and an assistant scientist on February 3 and 4, 2011.
Method
The steps outlined below summarize the method used to develop the fish passage barrier
inventory.
1. Gathered existing information and data from WDFW and other sources (listed below)
2. Created a basemap from the existing data, which included roads, stream channels,
WDFW- mapped fish presence, WDFW fish barrier inventory, and City- mapped culverts
WBG031611103411SEA1 APPXB _FISH_BARRIERS_MEMO_V2_20111111 1
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
CITY OF TUKWILA FISH PASSAGE BARRIER INVENTORY
3. Identified information gaps from the basemap and existing information (e.g., road
crossings without a corresponding WDFW fish passage feature)
4. Completed a windshield survey to fill information gaps, determine fish passability of
areas uncovered by WDFW's inventory, and assess general aquatic habitat conditions
for the 2010 Surface Water Comprehensive Plan
5. Created a new GIS database file of fish passage barriers incorporating WDFW's existing
inventory and new information from the windshield survey
Sources of existing information on fish passage and habitat that were evaluated during
development of the inventory include:
• WDFW Fish Passage Barrier Inventory GIS data (WDFW, 2010)
• WSDOT Fish Passage Inventory (WSDOT and WDFW, 2010)
• WRIA 9 Limiting Factors Analysis (King County and Washington State Conservation
Commission, 2000)
• Existing knowledge of City of Tukwila staff (Personal communications)
• Tukwila's 2003 Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan (CH2M HILL, 2003)
• Gilliam Creek Basin Plan (Herrera, 2001)
• Riverton Creek Basin Plan (Entranc, 1997)
• Fostoria (Southgate) Creek Basin Plan (Herrera, 1996)
• Johnson Creek Restoration Plan (Cedarock Consultants, 2010)
• Tukwila South Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
• King County's WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan
• Wild Fish Conservancy (formerly Washington Trout) website:
http://wildfishconservancy.org/
Of these, the primary sources of information used to create the inventory are the WDFW
fish passage barrier inventory and the February 2011 windshield survey. The WDFW fish
passage barrier data are collected under the auspices of the Fish Passage Barrier and Surface
Water Diversion Screening Assessment and Prioritization Manual (WDFW, 2009). The data
do not represent a complete and comprehensive inventory of all waters. Numerous fish
passage inventories are being conducted across the state and the data set is updated when
new information becomes available.
Table 1 summarizes key information from the fish passage inventory GIS database. Road
crossings and other fish passage features were not always covered by the WDFW inventory
or accessible in the field during the windshield survey. Remaining information gaps are
noted by the entry "Unknown" both in the GIS database and in Table 1.
Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 on the following pages show the fish passage barrier inventory for
Riverton Creek, Southgate Creek, Lower Gilliam Creek, Upper Gilliam Creek, and Johnson
Creek, respectively. Attachment A to this memo provides photographs of the fish passage
features observed during the February 2011 windshield survey; not all fish passage features
were accessible for photographs.
WBG031611103411SEA1 APPXB _FISH_BARRIERS_MEMO_V2_20111111 2
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
CITY OF TUKWILA FISH PASSAGE BARRIER INVENTORY
TABLE 1
Tukwila Fish Barrier Inventory
Barrier Survey Problems
Fish Passage IDa Locationb Feature Type Status Date` Owner Type Data Source (CH2M HILL Added)
Culvert IDe
Riverton Creek
14673 W (upstream) of SR 99 Culvert None 10/2/2003 City WDFW None
14674 SR 99 Culvert Total 10/2/2003 State WDFW Unknown
14675 126th St Culvert Partial 10/2/2003 City WDFW Unknown 1077
14676 S 126th St Culvert Partial 10/2/2003 Private WDFW Unknown
14677 S 126th St Culvert None 10/2/2003 Private WDFW None
19812 N of S 128th St Dam Total 10/2/2003 Private WDFW Unknown 885
21065 34th Ave S Culvert Potential 10/2/2003 City WDFW Unknown 1460
20534 W of 35th Ave S Artificial waterfall Total 7/8/2003 Private WDFW Gradient n/a
20533 W of 35th Ave S Artificial waterfall Total 7/8/2003 Private WDFW Gradient n/a
50002 Unnamed road ( Outfall to Duwamish River) Culvert Partial n/a City CH2M HILL Flap gate
50003 SR 599 Culvert Potential n/a State CH2M HILL Unknown
50005 Unnamed road (Adjacent to E Marginal Way just S of SR 599) Culvert Partial 2/4/2011 City CH2M HILL Length; others possible
50006 S 126th St Culvert None 2/4/2011 City CH2M HILL None 994
50007 S 128th St Culvert None 2/4/2011 City CH2M HILL None 1803
50008 S 128th St Culvert Total 2/4/2011 City CH2M HILL Gradient; length, others possible 1606
50004 Unnamed road (Just upstream of SR 599)
Culvert
Potential n/a Unknown CH2M HILL Unknown
50009 S 120th PI (Restored stream length in industrial park) Culvert None 2/4/2011 City CH2M HILL None 872
50010 Unnamed road (Restored stream length in industrial park) Culvert None 2/4/2011 City CH2M HILL None 920
50011 Unnamed (Restored stream length in industrial park) Culvert None 2/4/2011 City CH2M HILL None 925
50022 W of Group Health building (main stream reach) Log jam Partial 2/4/2011 Unknown CH2M HILL Insufficient pool downstream of log jam obstacle n/a
50023 S 128th St Artificial waterfall Total 2/4/2011 Private CH2M HILL Gradient n/a
Southgate Creek
50012 Unnamed road (Outfall to Duwamish River) Culvert None 2/3/2011 City CH2M HILL None 1487
50013 Interurban Ave S Culvert Partial 2/3/2011 City CH2M HILL Fish ladder at low flows 1932
50014 SR 599 Culvert Potential n/a State CH2M HILL Unknown 1932
50015 S 132nd St Culvert Partial 2/3/2011 City CH2M HILL Sediment blockage 1420
50016 44th PI S Culvert None 2/3/2011 City CH2M HILL None 1035
50017 S 132nd St Culvert None 2/3/2011 City CH2M HILL None 1591
50018 S 133rd St Culvert None 2/3/2011 City CH2M HILL None 2086
50019 Commercial lot just S of S 133rd St Culvert Total 2/3/2011 Unknown CH2M HILL Perched; no flow 2225
WBG031611103411SEA1 APPXB _ FISH _BARRIERS _MEMO _V2_20111111 3
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
TABLE 1
Tukwila Fish Barrier Inventory
Barrier Survey Problems
Fish Passage IDa Locationb Feature Type Status Date` Owner Type Data Source (CH2M HILL Added)
Culvert IDe
50020 Unnamed road (driveway in restored stream length just N of S 133rd St) Culvert
50021 S 133rd St/E Marginal Way
Culvert
None
2/3/2011 Unknown CH2M HILL None
Total 2/3/2011 City CH2M HILL Gradient; others possible 1877
50025 S 134th PI Culvert None 2/3/2011 City CH2M HILL None 953
50026 S 134th PI Culvert None 2/3/2011 City CH2M HILL None 988
50027 S 134th PI Culvert None 2/3/2011 City CH2M HILL None 2068
50028 S 134th PI Culvert None 2/3/2011 City CH2M HILL None 1285
50029 S 134th PI Culvert None 2/3/2011 City CH2M HILL None 1370
50030 S 134th PI Culvert None 2/3/2011 City CH2M HILL None 1203
Gilliam Creek
14611 1 -405; NB on -ramp
Culvert
Partial 12/11/2007 State WDFW Unknown
14737 1 -5; NB to 1 -405
Culvert
Total 9/9/2009 State WDFW Unknown
40359 SR 518
Culvert
Total 9/15/2009 State WDFW Unknown
40863 61st Ave SE Culvert None 3/1/2007 City WDFW Unknown
40864 1 -405 NB shoulder Culvert Partial 9/8/2009 State WDFW High discharge during high flows; length
44984 Southcenter Blvd Culvert Total 9/9/2009 City WDFW Unknown
44985 51st Ave S Bridge None 9/9/2009 City WDFW Unknown
44986 Southcenter Blvd
44989 Southcenter Blvd
44990 42nd Ave S
44994 Tukwila Pkwy
17539 SR 518
40532 SR 518
Culvert
Total 9/9/2009 City WDFW Unknown
Culvert
Total 9/9/2009 City WDFW Unknown
Culvert
n/a
Total 9/10/2009 City WDFW Unknown 3086
Culvert
Partial 9/8/2009 City WDFW Flap gate
Culvert
N/A 9/13/2005 State WDFW Unknown
Culvert
Total 9/16/2009 State WDFW Unknown
40861 1 -5; NB off-ramp Culvert Total 2/27/2007 State WDFW Unknown
44979 39th Ln S (Upper Gilliam) Culvert Total 9/15/2009 Unknown WDFW Unknown
44981 S 154th St (Upper Gilliam) Culvert Total 9/15/2009 Private WDFW Unknown
44983 SR 518 (Upper Gilliam) Culvert Partial 9/16/2009 Unknown WDFW Unknown
44991 W of 42nd Ave S (Upper Gilliam) Dam Total 9/10/2009 Private WDFW Gradient n/a
44992 S 150th St (Upper Gilliam) Culvert Partial 9/16/2009 City WDFW Unknown
44993 N of S 150th St (Upper Gilliam) Culvert Total 9/17/2009 Unknown WDFW Unknown
45078 Gilliam Regional Detention Facility Dam Partial 9/10/2009 City WDFW Unknown n/a
at SR 518 /Southcenter Blvd (Upper Gilliam)
45118 SR 518 (Upper Gilliam) Abandoned None 9/16/2009 Unknown WDFW Unknown
50031 S 152nd St (Upper Gilliam) Culvert Potential n/a City CH2M HILL Unknown
WBG031611103411SEAVAPPXB _ FISH _BARRIERS _MEMO _V2_20111111
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
4
TABLE 1
Tukwila Fish Barrier Inventory
Barrier Survey Problemd
Fish Passage IDa Locationb Feature Type Status Date` Owner Type Data Source (CH2M HILL Added)
Culvert IDe
Johnson Creek
50000 Outfall to Green River Flood gate Partial n/a City CH2M HILL Assumes newly installed flood gate is fish - passable at
most flows.
50001 S 204th St Culvert Potential 2/3/2011 Unknown CH2M HILL Unknown
50024 Outfall to Green River Culvert None n/a City CH2M HILL Assumes newly installed culvert is fish - passable.
NOTES:
a The Fish Passage ID number is a unique identifier number that corresponds to the "Fish_Passage_ID" attribute within the GIS database and figures. The number was either assigned by WDFW (where WDFW is the data source for the fish passage feature) or by
CH2M HILL (where CH2M HILL was the data source for the fish passage feature).
bThe Location indicates the road crossing or other location description based on the nearest road or major landmark.
° The Survey Date indicates either 1) the date that WDFW surveyed the fish passage feature or 2) CH2M HILL visited the feature during windshield survey. If no date is listed, the feature has not yet been assessed in the field.
d The Problem listed here corresponds to the "CH_Problem" attribute within the GIS database, and indicates the specific cause of fish impassability. Some information was not available from the WDFW inventory or windshield survey.
e The Culvert ID corresponds to the culvert feature ID number in the City's GIS database.
WBG031611103411 SEAWPPXB_FIS H_BARRI ERS_MEMO_V2_20111111 5
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
References
Cedarock Consultants, Inc. 2010. Tukwila South Project Fisheries Mitigation Plan. June.
CH2M HILL. 2003. City of Tukwila Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan. Prepared
by CH2M HILL, Inc. Prepared for the City of Tukwila. November.
Entranco, Inc., et al. 1997. Riverton Creek Stormwater Quality Management Plan: Water Quality,
Stream Habitat, and Flood Control. Prepared by Entranco Inc., Taylor Associates Inc.,
and Envirovision Inc. Prepared for the City of Tukwila. November.
Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. 1996. Fostoria Basin: Stormwater Quality Management
Plan. Prepared for the City of Tukwila. March.
Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. 2001. Gilliam Creek Basin: Stormwater Management
Plan. Prepared for the City of Tukwila. March.
Howat. 2010. Personal communication (conversation with John Howat, City of Tukwila
Public Works Department). Tukwila City Hall, Tukwila, WA. November 30.
King County and Washington State Conservation Commission. 2000. Habitat Limiting Factors
and Reconnaissance Assessment Report: Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound
Watersheds. December.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2009. Fish Passage and Surface
Water Diversion Screening Assessment and Prioritization Manual. Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington.
WDFW. 2010. Fish Passage Barrier Inventory Geodatabase. Accessed via email by Brian
Benson, WDFW Habitat Program, on January 14, 2011.
Whiting. 2011. Personal communication (email correspondence with Sandra Whiting, City
of Tukwila Department of Community Development). CH2M HILL, Bellevue, WA.
January 27.
WSDOT and WDFW. 2010. Progress Performance Report for WSDOT Fish Passage Barrier
Inventory. May.
WSDOT. 2007. SR 518 SeaTac Airport to I -5/1 -405 Interchange Widening Project: Culvert
Mitigation. February.
WBG031611103411SEA1APPXB _FISH_BARRIERS_MEMO_V2_20111111 6
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
Attachment A
Photographs
This information is intended for planning purposes only. Additional information would be required to support design and construction.
Figure 1. Riverton Creek Fish Passage Barrier Inventory
N
0 250 500 1,000 1,500
CC■Feet
Legend
Fish Passage Features Culverts Fish Passage Features - Other
Barrier Status Barrier Status
O N/A A Partial
O None A Total
O Partial Stream
O Potential I=1 Drainage Basins
• Total D Tukwila Boundary
Path: \ \simba\ prof\ TukwilaWACityOfl412954SWCompPI \GIS\ Layout\ Erin \9.3\ TukwilaFishPassageMapBook _20111110.mxd ethatche 11/14/2011 8:25:39 AM
50011
50022*J
20533,4V'
2053z1- =r
14677 _
1467k6 -L..
14675
50008
-50000
50013 Gaye
Survey limit
S 130th St
Survey limit
Survey limit
501321
S 136th St
S 137th St
5136th S
Survey limit
S 139th St'
S 140th St
co ;: ST-141st St'
Q
F ,5 142ndSt
1r;r
At∎ -
'1 H471
.
S 144tt St
This information is intended for planning purposes only. Additional information would be required to support design and construction.
Figure 2. Southgate Creek Fish Passage Barrier Inventory
N
0 250 500 1,000 1,500
ICC■Feet
Legend
Fish Passage Features Culverts Fish Passage Features - Other
Barrier Status Barrier Status
• N/A A Partial
• None A Total
O Partial Stream
O Potential I=1 Drainage Basins
• Total =I Tukwila Boundary
Path: \ \simba\ prof\ TukwilaWACityOt \412954SWCompPI \GIS\ Layout\ Erin \9.3\ TukwilaFishPassageMapBook _20111110.mxd ethatche 11/14/2011 8:25:39 AM
This information is intended for planning purposes only. Additional information would be required to support design and construction.
Figure 3. Lower Gilliam Creek Fish Passage Barrier Inventory
N
0 250 500 1,000 1,500
CC■Feet
Legend
Fish Passage Features Culverts Fish Passage Features - Other
Barrier Status Barrier Status
O N/A A Partial
O None A Total
O Partial Stream
O Potential I=1 Drainage Basins
• Total =I Tukwila Boundary
Path: \ \simba\ prof\ TukwilaWACityOfl412954SWCompPI \GIS\ Layout\ Erin \9.3\ TukwilaFishPassageMapBook _20111110.mxd ethatche 11/14/2011 8:25:39 AM
IS 146th St
S 148th St
/ -993
r 44911•%%y' S 150th St
4+S 150th St'
S 152nd St
CO
r 50031 Q
i a
,- s..
�s .. 4498
5078 4z ' ur
1 44986, •
ob. gets, '
`,'� 44985 z .`
n ,.. —
7539
S 152nd St
S 158th St
S 16_ th_St�
S 164th St"
This information is intended for planning purposes only. Additional information would be required to support design and construction.
Figure 4. Upper Gilliam Creek Fish Passage Barrier Inventory
N
0 250 500 1,000 1,500
CC■Feet
Legend
Fish Passage Features Culverts Fish Passage Features - Other
Barrier Status Barrier Status
O N/A A Partial
• None A Total
O Partial Stream
O Potential I=1 Drainage Basins
• Total =I Tukwila Boundary
Path: \ \simba\ prof\ TukwilaWACityOfl412954SWCompPI \GIS\ Layout\ Erin \9.3\ TukwilaFishPassageMapBook _20111110.mxd ethatche 11/14/2011 8:25:39 AM
ST,188th St'
This information is intended for planning purposes only. Additional information would be required to support design and construction.
Figure 5. Johnson Creek Fish Passage Barrier Inventory
N
0 250 500 1,000 1,500
CC■Feet
Legend
Fish Passage Features Culverts Fish Passage Features - Other
Barrier Status Barrier Status
O N/A A Partial
O None A Total
O Partial Stream
O Potential I=1 Drainage Basins
• Total =I Tukwila Boundary
Path: \ \simba\ prof\ TukwilaWACityOfl412954SWCompPI \GIS\ Layout\ Erin \9.3\ TukwilaFishPassageMapBook _20111110.mxd ethatche 11/14/2011 8:25:39 AM
ATTACHMENT A: PHOTOGRAPHS
Photo 1. East Fork Riverton Creek: view downstream from the
outlet of the 2, 000 -foot long pipe along East Marginal Way S
(fish passage ID 50005, partial barrier). (Date: 2/4/2011)
Photo 3. East Fork Riverton Creek: view of the privately -owned
waterfall (fish passage ID 50007, total barrier) just upstream of
the S 128th Street culvert (fish passage ID 50023, non -
barrier). (Date: 2/4/2011)
Photo 2. East Fork Riverton Creek: view upstream from the
culvert under S 126th Street (fish passage ID 50006, non -
barrier). (Date: 2/4/2011)
Photo 4. West Fork Riverton Creek: view of log jam (fish
passage ID 50022, partial barrier) in restored channel area.
(Date: 2/4/2011)
WBG031611103411SEAWTTA _PHOTOS- FISHPASSAGEINVENTORY TUKWILASWCP V2 A -1
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
ATTACHMENT A: PHOTOGRAPHS
Photo 5. West Fork Riverton Creek: view of the waterfall just Photo 6. West Fork Riverton Creek: view upstream from the
upstream of the restored channel area (fish passage ID 20533, top of the large waterfall in Photo 5, toward fish passage ID
total barrier). (Date: 2/4/2011) 20534 (total barrier).(Date: 2/4/2011)
Photo 7. Southgate Creek: view of the outlet of the culvert
under Interurban Avenue S (fish passage ID 50013, partial
barrier). The fish ladder just inside the culvert is considered a
partial fish passage barrier because low flows did not appear
sufficient to allow fish to jump over the weirs. (Date: 2/3/2011)
Photo 9. Southgate Creek: view of pipe outlet into the wetland
that conveys the main branch (fish passage ID 50015, partial
barrier) just upstream of SR 599. (Date: 2/3/2011)
Photo 8. Southgate Creek: view of inlet to City -owned culvert
under S 132nd Street (fish passage ID 50015, partial barrier).
There was no flow through the culvert due to sediment
blockage at the time this photo was taken. (Date: 2/3/2011)
Photo 10. East Fork Southgate Creek: view of the east end of
the culvert under 44th Place S (fish passage ID 50016, non -
barrier). Flow from the west fork was diverting into a pipe at S
133rd Street, instead of passing into the main channel, due to
channel gradient and sediment blockage. (Date: 2/3/2011)
WBG031611103411SEAWTTA _PHOTOS- FISHPASSAGEINVENTORY TUKWILASWCP V2
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
A -2
ATTACHMENT A: PHOTOGRAPHS
Photo 11. West Fork Southgate Creek: view of the inlet to the
long culvert under S 133rd Street (fish passage ID 50021, total
barrier). The steep gradient as well as the structures shown
here and in Photo 12 combine to act as a total fish passage
barrier. (Date: 2/3/2011)
Photo 13. Gilliam Creek: view of the log at the inlet to WSDOT-
owned culvert at the northbound 1 -405 on -ramp (fish passage
ID 14611, partial barrier). (Date: 2/3/2011)
Photo 12. West Fork Southgate Creek: view of weir at the inlet
to the long culvert under S 133rd Street (fish passage ID
50021, total barrier). The weir's height exceeds the fish
jumping criteria by 0.10 foot, and the culvert just downstream
was considered too steep for fish. Habitat just upstream
provides some suitable spawning gravel, possibly for resident
trout. (Date: 2/3/2011)
Photo 14. Gilliam Creek: view of the outlet of the WSDOT-
owned culvert under the south shoulder of 1 -405 (fish passage
ID 40864, partial barrier). This 1,100 -foot long culvert is
identified as a partial fish passage barrier likely because of
high discharge during high stream flows due to its length.
(Date: 2/3/2011)
WBG031611103411SEAWTTA _PHOTOS- FISHPASSAGEINVENTORY TUKWILASWCP V2
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
A -3
ATTACHMENT A: PHOTOGRAPHS
Photo 15. Upper Gilliam Creek: view downstream from the
42nd Avenue S culvert (fish passage ID 44990, total barrier). A
view of the actual culvert was not possible due to physical
constraints.
(Date: 2/4/2011)
Photo 16. Gilliam Creek: view of the presumed outlet of the
culvert under the 1 -5/1 -405 interchange (fish passage ID 14737,
total barrier). It was not clear from the available mapping
whether this culvert conveys flow from upper Gilliam Creek, or
from stormwater detention managed by WSDOT.
(Date: 2/3/2011).
Photo 17. Upper Gilliam Creek: view upstream from the City -
owned culvert under 42nd Ave S, toward the dam feature
located on privately -owned property (fish passage ID 44991,
total barrier). (Date: 2/4/2011)
WBG031611103411SEAWTTA _PHOTOS- FISHPASSAGEINVENTORY TUKWILASWCP V2 A -4
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
ATTACHMENT A: PHOTOGRAPHS
Photo 18. Upper Gilliam Creek: view of the Gilliam Creek RDF
structure (fish passage ID 45078, partial barrier). This feature
was identified as a partial barrier by WDFW, but appeared to
be a total barrier during the windshield survey. (Date: 2/4/11)
Photo 20. Johnson Creek: view upstream of the old inlet to the
outfall to the Green River (fish passage ID 50000, partial
barrier). The flap gate and outfall were replaced with a fish -
passable structure (see Photo 21). (Date: 2/3/2011)
Photo 19. Upper Gilliam Creek: view downstream from outlet
of the culvert underneath Southcenter Boulevard (fish passage
ID 44989, total barrier). In addition to the culvert identified by
WDFW as a total barrier, the flow appeared too low for adult
fish through this length. (Date: 2/4/11)
Photo 21. Newly restored section of the main Johnson Creek:
reach, looking upstream of the inlet to the outfall to the Green
River (fish passage ID 50000, partial barrier). The culvert and
flood gate were replaced with a fish - passable structure
(passable under most flow conditions) under the mitigation for
the adjacent Tukwila South project. (Date: Fall 2011)
WBG031611103411SEAWTTA _PHOTOS- FISHPASSAGEINVENTORY TUKWILASWCP V2
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
A -5
APPENDIX C
Surface Water Regulations and Policies
(SUPPORTING INFORMATION FOR PLAN SECTION 3)
APPENDIX C
Surface Water Regulations and Policies
This Appendix C contains the detailed assessment of regulations applicable to the City of
Tukwila's surface water program. The information presented here is summarized in Section 3 of
this Surface Water Comprehensive Plan.
Applicable Surface Water Regulations
Regulatory changes have occurred since preparation of the 2003 City of Tukwila
Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan. The changes most significant for Tukwila are
with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II permit. Regulations
currently applicable to the City of Tukwila's surface water management program are shown in
Table C -1. (Note that flood protection and flooding as a result of Green or Duwamish River
flooding are outside the scope of this Plan.)
TABLE C -1
Summary of Applicable Surface Water Regulations
Regulation or Program
(organized by category)
Tukwila Surface Water Management Program Areas
Surface Water
Water Quality
Aquatic Habitat
Surface Water
Management
Surface Water
Management
Ordinance, Tukwila
Municipal Code
14.30, and resultant
surface water
planning
Surface Water
Design Manual
Capital projects to
address drainage
problems; many
needed projects
await funding
Adoption of the 2009
King County Surface
Water Design
Manual
Capital projects to
address water quality
concerns; projects
await funding
Adoption of the 2009
King County Surface
Water Design Manual
Capital projects to
address aquatic
habitat concerns or
opportunistically
protect /restore habitat;
projects await funding
Not Applicable.
Water Quality State surface water
quality standards
Section 303(d) list
Not Applicable
Not Applicable.
Several water bodies
do not meet standards.
Anti- degradation
standard difficult to
achieve. Need to
identify pollution
sources and
implement prevention
programs.
303(d) impaired
listings will require
development of
TMDLs; Tukwila would
be one of several
jurisdictions involved
Degraded water quality
impacts aquatic
habitat, lessening
benefits of habitat
protection or
restoration efforts
Not Applicable.
WBG031611103411 SEAITU KW I LASURFACEWATERCOM PPLAN_FINAL_V2. DOCX
C -1
CITY OF TUKWILA 2012 SURFACE WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
TABLE C -1
Summary of Applicable Surface Water Regulations
Regulation or Program
Tukwila Surface Water Management Program Areas
(organized by category) Surface Water Water Quality Aquatic Habitat
Total Maximum Daily Not Applicable. Not yet applicable to Not Applicable.
Loads (TMDLs) Tukwila (see above);
however, studies and
implementation may
be initiated as a part of
TMDL development
NPDES Phase II See Table C -2 See Table C -2 Not Applicable.
permit
Habitat Endangered Species
Protection Act
State Salmon
Recovery Planning
Act
Growth Management
Act
City regulations and
policies generally
support compliance
with the ESA and
encourage salmon
recovery.
Not Applicable.
Adopted Stormwater
Management Manual
for Western
Washington
City demonstrates
understanding of
environmental baseline
conditions (see basin
pans and other
documents).
Not Applicable.
Adopted Stormwater
Management Manual
for Western
Washington
Update the SEPA ESA
screening checklist to
include Coastal -Puget
Sound bull trout and
Puget Sound
Steelhead.
City has implemented
capital improvement
projects that restore
fish habitat for ESA -
listed species but
should implement
more projects.
Not Applicable.
As was done in 2003 as part of that comprehensive planning effort, this 2010 Plan contains an
evaluation, or gap analysis, of Tukwila's surface water management program against all
relevant surface water management regulations. While Table C -1 contains a high -level
assessment of all applicable surface water regulations, Table C -2 contains a more detailed gap
analysis of Tukwila's surface water management program against the requirements of the
NPDES Phase II permit. Improvements to Tukwila's surface water management program
recommended as a result of the gap analyses are outlined later in this Appendix.
NPDES Municipal Stormwater Phase II Permit
Table C -2 contains a detailed gap analysis of Tukwila's surface water management program
against the NPDES Phase II permit. Since preparation of Tukwila's 2003 Surface Water
Management Plan, the Phase II NPDES permits have changed and Tukwila has responded by
expanding their surface water management program to meet those requirements. The gap
analysis included in this Plan is intended to enhance and document Tukwila's previous
investments in NPDES Phase II compliance, including an extensive Surface Water Management
Program development as well as preparation and submittal of annual reports.
C -2 WBG031611103411SEA1 TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX
APPENDIX C
SURFACE REGULATIONS AND POLICIES
As a result of the gap analysis, this Plan contains recommendations for program improvements
that need to be implemented to achieve compliance. The outlined recommended program
improvements listed later in this Appendix reflect Tukwila's significant investment in NPDES
Phase II compliance activities since preparation of the 2003 Surface Water Comprehensive Plan.
Environmental Species Act (ESA)
The Environmental Species Act (ESA) of 1973 provided broad protection for listed threatened
and endangered species and their designated critical habitat. As of June of 2011, the salmon and
trout listings applicable for Puget Sound are
• Chinook salmon (Threatened)
• Coho Salmon (Species of Concern)
• Steelhead (Threatened; Critical Habitat Designation)
• Bull trout (Threatened)
The listings for bull trout and coho salmon have occurred since development of the 2003 Surface
Water Comprehensive Plan. The listing for Puget Sound cutthroat trout was determined to be
not warranted, though listings are in effect for other geographic areas.
The ESA prohibits a "take" of a listed species by any person subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States, which applies to both public and private lands and activities. Both a person
whose actions harm or harass a protected species and a government entity that authorizes that
person's actions can violate the ESA prohibitions. Thus, the City of Tukwila is responsible for
implementation of plans and policies that support the ESA prohibitions.
Coho salmon are thought to be present in Gilliam Creek, Southgate Creek, and Riverton Creek
within the boundaries of the City of Tukwila. Chinook are thought to be present in both
Riverton Creek and Gilliam Creek. These streams historically did not provide extensive habitat
for Chinook salmon because Chinook tend to use larger streams for spawning and rearing.
Generally, City regulations and policies support compliance with ESA and encourage salmon
recovery. With this recent listing of coho as a species of concern, areas within these creeks used
by coho for rearing, foraging, and migration should be protected and /or enhanced. In addition,
there may be opportunities for improvements to road maintenance practices, stormwater
treatment, and watershed management that would improve conditions for coho in Gilliam,
Southgate, and Riverton Creeks. The City should update the State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA) ESA screening checklist to include Coastal -Puget Sound bull trout (listed as threatened)
as Puget Sound steelhead (listed as threatened with a critical habitat designation).
WBG031611103411SEA1 TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX C -3
CITY OF TUKWILA 2012 SURFACE WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
This page intentionally left blank.
C -4 WBG031611103411SEA1TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX
APPENDIX C
SURFACE REGULATIONS AND POLICIES
TABLE C -2
NPDES Phase II Requirements and Corresponding City of Tukwila Regulations, Plans, and Programs
NPDES Phase II Requirements
(per Western Washington Phase II
Municipal Stormwater Permit,
effective through July 31, 2013)
Minimum Performance Measures Associated with
NPDES Phase II Requirements
Required Date
Applicable City Regulation or Program
Additional Activities
Recommended to Address
Requirement
2013 Surface Water
Comprehensive Plan
Recommendation(s)
S5.A2 Implement a Stormwater
Management Program
Each Permittee must prepare a
Stormwater Management Program
(SWMP) that describes the activities
being carried out to fulfill the
requirements of Section S5.C5.
S5.C1. Public Education and
Outreach
Education programs aimed at
residents, businesses, industries,
engineer, developers, elected
officials and city staff to increase
knowledge of Best Management
Practices (BMPs) and reduce or
eliminate practices that cause or
contribute to adverse stormwater
impacts.
The SWMP shall be organized according to the five elements listed in
Section S5.C5. An updated SWMP is to be submitted to the Washington
Department of Ecology (Ecology) on an annual basis.
a) Implement or participate in an education and outreach program targeting
the following audiences:
i. General Public
General impacts of stormwater flows into surface waters
Impacts from impervious surfaces
Source control BMPs and environmental stewardship actions and
opportunities in the areas of pet waste, vehicle maintenance, landscaping,
and buffer
ii. General public, businesses, including home -based and mobile businesses
BMPs for use and storage of automotive chemicals, hazardous cleaning
supplies, carwash soaps, and other hazardous materials
Impacts of illicit discharges and how to report them
iii. Homeowners, landscapers and property managers
Yard care techniques protective of water quality
BMPs for use and storage of pesticides and fertilizers
BMPs for carpet cleaning and auto repair and maintenance
Low impact development (LID) techniques, including site design, pervious
paving, retention of forests and mature trees
Stormwater pond maintenance
iv. Engineers, contractors, developers, review staff, and land use planners
Technical standards for stormwater site and erosion control plans
LID techniques, including site design, pervious paving, retention of forests,
and mature trees
Stormwater treatment and flow control BMPs
b) Implement or participate in an effort to measure understanding and
adoption of the targeted behaviors among the targeted audiences. The
resulting measurements shall be used to direct education and outreach
resources most effectively, as well as to evaluate changes in adoption of the
targeted behaviors.
c) Track and maintain records of public education and outreach activities.
8/15/2011;
Updates due
March 31
annually
The City prepares annual SWMP updates.
2/16/2009 Educational materials provided to the public include:
i. General Public
water course signs
catch basin labeling
City newsletter articles published several times per year
hazardous waste directory
Ecology pamphlet on 5 Steps To Natural Yard Care
ii. General public, businesses, including home -based and
mobile businesses
spill kit program
disposing of hazardous waste information card
Ecology pamphlet on reporting spills
Sudsafe carwash program
iii. Homeowners, landscapers and property managers
Puget Sound Shoreline Guidebook
Pet Waste brochure
iv. Engineers, contractors, developers, review staff, and land
use planners
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) information sheet on
oil /water separators
City Infrastructure Design and Construction Standards
2/16/2009 In January 2010, a survey was mailed to 1,000 Tukwila residents for
the purpose of measuring the understanding of practices that
impact the stormwater system. Such a survey will be performed
annually in the future. Results to be posted on website.
2/16/2009 Public education activities have been tracked since 2008.
None
Increase opportunities for public
involvement in environmental
stewardship activities; reach out to
children, students, adults, and
visitors.
None
None
N/A
Education (see Section 7)
Education (see Section 7)
N/A
WBG031611103411SEA1 TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX C -5
CITY OF TUKWILA 2012 SURFACE WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
TABLE C -2
NPDES Phase II Requirements and Corresponding City of Tukwila Regulations, Plans, and Programs
NPDES Phase II Requirements
(per Western Washington Phase II
Municipal Stormwater Permit,
effective through July 31, 2013)
Minimum Performance Measures Associated with
NPDES Phase II Requirements
Required Date
Applicable City Regulation or Program
Additional Activities
Recommended to Address
Requirement
2013 Surface Water
Comprehensive Plan
Recommendation(s)
S5.C2. Public Involvement and
Participation
Ongoing opportunities for public
involvement through advisory
councils, watershed committees, etc.
S5.C3. Illicit Discharge Detection
and Elimination
Ongoing program to detect, remove,
and prevent illicit connections,
discharges, and improper disposal,
including spills, into the municipal
separate storm sewer system (MS4).
Full implementation of an illicit
discharge detection and elimination
program must be achieved by
8/15/2011.
a) Create opportunities for the public to participate in the decision - making 2/16/2008
process involving the development, implementation, and update of the
Permittee's entire SWMP. Each Permittee must develop and implement a
process for consideration of public comments on their SWMP.
b) Each Permittee must make their SWMP, the annual report required under
S9.A, and all other submittals required by this Permit, available to the public,
preferably by posting the materials on the Permittee's website.
a) A storm sewer system map shall be developed to show storm sewer
outfalls and all stormwater BMPs owned by the Permittee. The map shall
show tributary conveyances, connections to the storm sewers, drainage
areas, and land use. These maps should be periodically updated.
b) Develop and implement an ordinance or other regulatory mechanism to
effectively prohibit non - stormwater, illegal discharges, and /or dumping into
the Permittee's municipal separate storm sewer system. Prohibited
discharges include runoff from irrigation, sidewalk washing and dust control,
municipal water releases for system testing purposes and swimming pool
discharges unless dechlorinated to 0.1 ppm or less. This section also lists
13 categories of allowed non - stormwater discharges. An enforcement
strategy must be identified along with escalating enforcement procedures.
c) Develop and implement an ongoing program to detect and address non- 8/15/2011
stormwater discharges, spills, illicit connections and illegal dumping into the
Permittee's municipal separate storm sewer system.
2/16/2008
2/16/2011
Public involvement is encouraged via the City website,
City Council, and Utilities Committee meetings, and City news
articles.
The SWMP, latest annual report, and an email address for
public comment are posted on the City's website:
www.ci.tukwila.wa.us/pubwks/npdes.html
A consultant has been hired to update the City's GIS maps and
develop a program to ensure the storm sewer map is kept
current. Areas 1 through 5 have been previously mapped. Area 6
(of a total of seven areas) is currently being mapped. Mapping is
expected to be completed in the spring of 2011.
9/15/2009 A new City ordinance, TMC 14.31 Illicit Discharge Detection
and Elimination, was adopted in March 2010.
i. and ii. Locate priority areas likely to have illicit discharges; Conduct field 8/15/2011
assessment activities, including visual inspection of priority outfalls (prioritize
receiving waters for visual inspection; screen for illicit connections).
iii, iv, and v. Identify procedures for characterizing, tracing and removing illicit 8/15/2011
discharges.
d) Permittees shall inform public employees, businesses, and the general
public of hazards associated with illegal discharges and improper disposal of
waste.
i. Distribute information to target audiences.
ii. Establish hotline for reporting spills and illicit discharges.
i. 8/15/2011
ii. 2/16/2009
c) City maintenance staff respond to hazardous material spills
and perform basic containment and cleanup functions.
Tracking of illicit discharges began in June 2009. Much of the
stormwater piping was videotaped in 2009 and questionable
connections were investigated. Approximately 25% of the
system has been done (as of December 2011).
i and ii. Three outfalls, one to the Green River and two to the
Duwamish River, have been identified for visual field
assessment.
iii, iv, and v. Not completed.
A hotline phone number (206- 433 -1860) has been added to the
City website: www. ci. tukwila.wa.us /pubwks /npdes.html
Hold public meeting and public
comment period on the SWMP.
None
Complete the mapping of the City's
stormwater system, including newly
annexed area (scheduled completion
in Summer 2013).
Perform inventory of private
stormwater facilities.
Plan for periodic updating of
stormwater system inventory;
inventory should include new
infrastructure brought on -line since
previous update (such as for new and
re- development).
None
c) Complete inspections of the
remaining City stormwater system. As
needed, complete cleaning of
stormwater lines in order to allow
inspections to occur.
i and ii. Carry out inspections of the
individual tributary areas and outfalls.
Iii, iv, and v. Identify procedures for
characterizing, tracing, and removing
illicit discharges
Develop and disseminate information
to the public.
Public Involvement (see
Section 7)
N/A
Inspections and
Enforcement and Illicit
Detection and Elimination
(see Section 7)
N/A
Inspections and
Enforcement and Illicit
Detection and Elimination
(see Section 7)
Inspections and
Enforcement and Illicit
Detection and Elimination
(see Section 7)
Inspections and
Enforcement and Illicit
Detection and Elimination
(see Section 7)
Education (see Section 7)
C -6 WBG031611103411SEA1 TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX
APPENDIX C
SURFACE REGULATIONS AND POLICIES
TABLE C -2
NPDES Phase II Requirements and Corresponding City of Tukwila Regulations, Plans, and Programs
NPDES Phase II Requirements
(per Western Washington Phase II
Municipal Stormwater Permit,
effective through July 31, 2013)
Minimum Performance Measures Associated with
NPDES Phase II Requirements
Required Date
Applicable City Regulation or Program
Additional Activities
Recommended to Address
Requirement
2013 Surface Water
Comprehensive Plan
Recommendation(s)
S5.C4. Controlling Runoff from New
Development, Redevelopment and
Construction Sites
Develop, implement, and enforce a
program to reduce pollutants in
stormwater runoff to MS4s from new
development, redevelopment, and
construction site activities. This
applies to all sites 1 acre in size or
greater, including those projects less
than 1 acre that are part of a larger
project.
e) Adopt and implement procedures for program evaluation and assessment,
including the tracking number and type of spills or illicit discharges identified;
inspections made; and any feedback received from public education efforts.
f) Provide appropriate training for municipal field staff on the identification and
reporting of illicit discharges into MS4s.
i. Ensure that all municipal field staff responsible for identification and
reporting of illicit discharges are trained to conduct these activities.
ii. Implement ongoing training of staff.
a) The program shall include an ordinance or other enforceable mechanism
that addresses the runoff from new development, redevelopment, and
construction site projects. The program must meet the requirements of
Ecology's 2005 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington or
an equivalent manual approved by Ecology. The program should allow the
use of LID measures.
b) The program shall include a permitting process with plan review,
inspection and enforcement capability to meet the standards listed for both
private and public projects, using qualified personnel. Elements of the
permitting process must include:
i. Review of all stormwater site plans for development
iii, iv. Site inspection prior, during and at the conclusion of construction
v. Attain minimum 80% inspection rate and retain inspection records
vi. Enforce non - compliance
c) The program shall include provisions to ensure adequate long -term
operation and maintenance (O &M) of post- construction stormwater facilities
and BMPs that are permitted and constructed pursuant to (b) above.
Elements include:
ii. Establishment of maintenance standards
iii, iv. Prescribed schedule for inspections and maintenance:
catch basins: by 2/15/2012
treatment and flow control facilities: annually
d) The program shall include a procedure for keeping records of inspections
and enforcement actions by staff, including inspection reports, warning
letters, notices of violations, and other enforcement records.
e) The program shall make available copies of the "Notice of Intent for
Construction Activity" and /or copies of the "Notice of Intent for Industrial
Activity" to representatives of proposed new development and
8/15/2011
i. 9/15/09
ii. 2/16/2010
2/16/2010
2/16/2010
2/16/2010
2/16/2010
2/16/2010
Field staff dealing with illicit discharges were trained in
August 2009 and a staff review was conducted in 2010.
Ongoing training is provided for street storm /sewer and water
department staff.
TMC 14.30 — Surface Water Management defines City
responsibilities for stormwater management. TMC 14.30.060.2
adopts the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual
(KCSWDM) as the City's surface water manual. Per
Appendix 10 of the NPDES Permit, the KCSWDM is recognized
an equivalent manual approved by Ecology. The City's
Infrastructure Design and Construction Standards are also
implemented.
TMC 14.30.080.A4 provides for unlimited City access to
stormwater facilities for inspection and enforcement activities.
TMC 14.30.130.B allows for LID measures in projects by
exception.
TMC 14.30.070 specifies a project review process and issuance
of a storm drainage permit. TMC 14.30.10 describes
enforcement actions available to the City while TMC 14.130
describes penalties the City may assign a violator for each day
of non - compliance. TMC 8.45 provides a system of escalating
enforcement procedures.
i. The City reviews all development stormwater plans
iii, iv, v. The City inspects some construction sites for proper
stormwater BMPs but inspections are sporadic.
vi. The City carries out enforcement measures for sites that are
not in compliance.
TMC 14.30.080 describes maintenance requirements and
responsibilities for stormwater facilities. TMC 14.30.080.6
places responsibility for maintenance of privately owned
facilities on the owner. TMC 14.30.080.A2 and B5 identify a
schedule for frequency of inspection and elapsed time for
required maintenance. Maintenance standards are those found
in the KCSWDM.
Develop and carry out systematic inspections of construction
sites.
These documents are readily available and the City inserts
them into the Pre - Application Packet for new projects.
Develop and implement.
None
Develop a proactive approach to LID
that encourages innovative design to
reduce onsite runoff. Consider
developing a map that identifies
locations in the City with soils that are
conducive to LID measures.(see LID
requirements anticipated for next
permit cycle)
Enhance the City inspection program
with adequate staffing to reduce
noncompliance with BMP
requirements and water quality
violations.
Develop and carry out systematic
inspections of construction sites.
Expand the City inspection program
to ensure maintenance. Increase
inspections and expand enforcement
efforts. Keep robust database of
inspections and enforcement actions.
Enhance tracking and reporting
function to ensure maintenance is
conducted and documented
adequately.
None
Record - Keeping and
Annual Reporting (see
Section 7)
N/A
Regulations (see
Section 7)
Regulations (see
Section 7)
Maintenance and
Operations and Record -
keeping (see Section 7)
Record - Keeping and
Annual Reporting (see
Section 7)
N/A
WBG031611103411SEA1 TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX C -7
CITY OF TUKWILA 2012 SURFACE WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
TABLE C -2
NPDES Phase II Requirements and Corresponding City of Tukwila Regulations, Plans, and Programs
NPDES Phase II Requirements
(per Western Washington Phase II
Municipal Stormwater Permit,
effective through July 31, 2013)
Minimum Performance Measures Associated with
NPDES Phase II Requirements
Required Date
Applicable City Regulation or Program
Additional Activities
Recommended to Address
Requirement
2013 Surface Water
Comprehensive Plan
Recommendation(s)
S5.C5. Pollution Prevention and
Operation and Maintenance for
Municipal Operations
Develop and implement an O &M
program for stormwater facilities for
municipal operations.
redevelopment. Permittees will continue to enforce local ordinances
controlling runoff form sites that are also covered by stormwater permits
issued by Ecology.
f) The Permittee shall ensure that all staff responsible for implementing the 2/16/2010
stormwater program are trained to conduct these activities. Follow -up training
shall be provided as needed to address changes in procedures, techniques,
or staffing. Permittees shall document and maintain records of the training
provided and the staff trained.
a) Adopt maintenance standards that are at least as protective as those
specified in Ecology's 2005 Stormwater Management Manual for Western
Washington, Volume V, Chapter 4.
b) Annual inspection of all municipally owned or operated permanent
stormwater treatment and flow control facilities with maintenance, as
required. Reduced frequency of inspection is allowed if justified by
maintenance records.
c) Spot checks of permanent treatment and flow control facilities (other than
catch basins) after major storm events, defined as greater than the 10 -year,
24 -hour rain event.
d) Inspection of all catch basins and inlets owned or operated by the
Permittee at least once before the end of the permit term (February 15,
2012). Clean catch basins if the inspection indicates cleaning is needed.
Decant water shall be disposed of in accordance with Permit Appendix 6.
Street Waste Disposal. There are provisions for the inspection of a
representative subset of catch basins.
e) Inspect at least 95 percent of all catch basins.
f, g) Establish and implement practices to reduce stormwater impacts
associated with runoff from streets, parking lots, roads, or highways owned or
maintained by the Permittee, and road maintenance activities conducted by
the Permittee. Covered activities include:
pipe and culvert cleaning
ditch maintenance
road repair and resurfacing
snow and ice control
utility installation
road shoulder maintenance
dust control
fertilizer /pesticide application
landscape management
trash management
2/16/2010
2/16/2010
2/16/2010
2/16/2010
8/19/2011
2/16/2010
The City has conducted staff training in the application of the
revised stormwater procedures.
None
Maintenance standards are those found in the KCSWDM, which Develop maintenance practices that
is equivalent to the Ecology manual. are applicable to the City.
TMC 14.30.050.D states that the surface water compliance
requirements of TMC 14.30 apply to all City departments except
for O &M activities of the Department of Parks and Recreation.
TMC 14.30.080 identifies the required frequency of inspection
and maintenance. The City is carrying out annual inspections of
its stormwater facilities and is documenting all maintenance that
is carried out. The City maintains a list of problem areas and
complaints, using these to target maintenance.
The City has committed to carry out spot checks of its
stormwater system following major storm events.
The City is committed to inspecting all catch basins. The storm
conveyance system is inspected and maintained on a 3 -5 year
cycle.
Vactor waste is currently disposed of in an open field, with the
water allowed to percolate and evaporate.
None
None
Continue inspections.
Develop a permanent vactor waste
treatment facility or reach an
agreement to use an existing facility.
Complete inspection of all catch
basins by 7/16/2011.
Develop a program to reduce
pollutants in runoff from City property.
N/A
Maintenance and
Operations (see
Section 7)
N/A
N/A
Maintenance and
Operations (see
Section 7)
Maintenance and
Operations (see
Section 7)
Maintenance and
Operations (see
Section 7)
C -8 WBG031611103411SEA1 TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX
APPENDIX C
SURFACE REGULATIONS AND POLICIES
TABLE C -2
NPDES Phase II Requirements and Corresponding City of Tukwila Regulations, Plans, and Programs
NPDES Phase II Requirements
(per Western Washington Phase II
Municipal Stormwater Permit,
effective through July 31, 2013)
Minimum Performance Measures Associated with
NPDES Phase II Requirements
Required Date
Applicable City Regulation or Program
Additional Activities
Recommended to Address
Requirement
2013 Surface Water
Comprehensive Plan
Recommendation(s)
S7. Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) Requirements
For Permittees whose jurisdictions
fall within an area covered by TMDL
requirements, specific additional
stormwater requirements must be
met.
S8. Monitoring
A. Permittees must conduct water
sampling only for TMDL compliance
and illicit discharges pursuant to
S5.C.3.
C. Permittees must prepare for
future long -term monitoring.
S9. Reporting Requirements
building exterior maintenance
h) Implement an on -going training program for appropriate employees of the 2/16/2010
Permittee whose construction, operations, or maintenance job functions may
impact stormwater quality. Provide follow -up training as necessary.
City's O &M training program
i) Develop and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) 2/16/2010 The City is preparing a SWPPP for the Tukwila Golf Links
for all heavy equipment maintenance or storage yards, and material- storage maintenance center (SWPPP needed for each building).
facilities owned or operated by the Permittee that are not required to have
coverage under the Industrial Stormwater General Permit.
j) Keep records of inspections and maintenance /repair activities.
Compliance with TMDL requirements
B. Applicable only to water bodies listed in Appendix 2 of the Phase 2
NPDES Permit.
C.1.a.iv. Tukwila's population is between 10,000 and 75,000 persons.
Therefore the City is required to identify two outfalls where stormwater
sampling can be conducted.
C.1.b. Select two suitable monitoring objectives that relate to the
effectiveness of BMPs or the achievement of an environmental outcome such
as a water quality goal.
C.2. Permittees within a single Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) may
choose to collaborate on a single basin -level monitoring plan.
S9.A through E. Submit an annual report that discusses the status of each
component of the SWMP. The Permittee is to use the Annual Report Form
for Cities, Towns and Counties. The annual report is to include:
E.4. a. A summary of barriers to the use of LID measures within the
jurisdiction.
E.4.b.A report that identifies:
LID practices currently available or reasonably implemented in the jurisdiction
Potential LID techniques
Metrics to promote and measure LID use
Schedule for requirements /implementation of LID on a broader scale within
the jurisdiction
2/16/2010
n/a
City performs record - keeping.
None of the water bodies within the City's jurisdiction currently
has a TMDL. The City therefore has no obligations under this
section of the NPDES permit.
12/31/2010 None.
3/31/2011 and
annually on
March 31
The City produces the required annual report and posts it on
the City website.
None.
Complete SWPPP for Tukwila Golf
Links Maintenance Center
Perform more robust, computer -
based record - keeping system.
None at this time under current permit
cycle; (see requirements anticipated
for next permit cycle, Plan Section 3)
Consider joining the regional
stormwater monitoring network of
Puget Sound entities proposed to
Ecology.
(see stormwater monitoring
requirements anticipated for next
permit cycle, Plan Section 3)
None at this time
Maintenance and
Operations (see
Section 7)
Maintenance and
Operations (see
Section 7)
Record - Keeping and
Annual Reporting (see
Section 7)
Regulations (see
Section 7)
Regulations (see
Section 7)
N/A
N/A = not applicable
Sources of information include the following:
• NPDES Phase 2 Permit (Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit (modified June 17, 2009; Ecology reissued it unmodified on August 1, 2012 at legislative direction to be effective through July 31, 2013. This document has an effective date of
September 1, 2012. The updated 2013 -2018 permit will become effective on August 1, 2013)
• Tukwila's 2010 Stormwater Management Program (March 2010) and Tukwila's 2011 Stormwater Management Program (March 2011)
• Tukwila's annual Ecology Report Form for Cities, Towns and Counties (2009)
WBG031611103411SEA1 TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX C -9
APPENDIX C
SURFACE REGULATIONS AND POLICIES
Potential Changes to Surface Water Regulations
This plan includes a discussion of potential changes to the following regulations:
• Endangered Species Act listings
• NPDES Phase II, including LID, monitoring, and potential TMDL pollution reduction
requirements
Endangered Species Act
The listing of coho salmon as a species of concern highlights the need to protect and restore
salmon rearing, foraging, and migration areas in Gilliam, Riverton, and Southgate creeks within
the City of Tukwila's boundaries.
If additional species are listed or current listings are downgraded, the City's surface water
program will need to be re- prioritized to place greater emphasis on habitat protection and
restoration measures for these additional species.
NPDES Phase 11 Permit
The City of Tukwila is covered under the Washington State Department of Ecology's NPDES
program for municipalities as a 'small MS4' with a Phase II municipal stormwater Permit. The
current Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit was issued on
January 17, 2007 (with an effective date of February 16, 2007), was modified on June 17, 2009,
with an expiration date of February 15, 2012. The Washington State Department of Ecology
reissued the Phase II permit unmodified on August 1, 2012 at legislative direction to be effective
starting September 1, 2012 through July 31, 2013. Ecology will finalize the current draft of the
updated 2013 -2018 permit, which will become effective August 1, 2013.
While a draft of the new permit has not been finalized, preliminary draft language regarding
stormwater monitoring and low impact development (LID) requirements has been distributed
for comment. Based on this draft language, it is anticipated that the new Phase II permit will
include requirements for both stormwater monitoring and LID implementation. However,
specific requirements are not yet known. It is anticipated that the new permit will contain other
changes in addition to stormwater monitoring and LID implementation. However, the extent
and impact of these are not yet known. Therefore, this section focuses on potential requirements
for stormwater monitoring and LID implementation.
Stormwater Monitoring
The rationale behind the anticipated stormwater monitoring requirements is that monitoring is
necessary to characterize the effectiveness of stormwater management investments. Monitoring
results are intended to steer future policy and future capital investments.
The preliminary draft language in the Phase II permits proposes collaborative implementation
of a new regional stormwater monitoring program. Costs of this program would be shared
among all permittees and Ecology administers the contracts. Individual permittees would not
have specific monitoring requirements according to this preliminary draft language. All
permittees are still required to sample outfalls and receiving waters as necessary to identify
illicit discharges and implement water quality improvement plans.
WBG031611103411SEA1 TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX C -11
CITY OF TUKWILA 2012 SURFACE WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The impact of these anticipated stormwater monitoring requirements on Tukwila's stormwater
program will be mainly financial. Since Ecology will administer the program, significant staff
time is not anticipated to be required.
Low Impact Development
The preliminary draft language calls for three levels for local government implementation:
• Adopt site and subdivision requirements that require list of LID BMPs or compliance with
performance standard using methods of choice. The LID techniques are mandatory unless
infeasible for the site as determined using proposed feasibility criteria.
• Update development codes, roles, and standards to require LID principles, such as ways to
conserve native vegetation and minimize impervious surfaces, in site design.
• Perform watershed -scale stormwater planning in areas where urban areas are expanding or
impervious surface is increasing, in order to identify and prevent urban stormwater
pollution and further habitat damage.
The intent of this last bullet is to address the stormwater problem through land use, referring to
watershed -scale LID rather than a traditional capital project in one location. A May 2011
publication from Ecology (publication number 11 -10 -034) acknowledges that there is
considerable experience with the first two bullets above and much less with the third bullet,
watershed -scale LID. That same publication states that it is not possible to maintain water
quality and habitat in Puget Sound lowland streams without considering land -use and how the
landscape is developed.
All three of the anticipated LID requirements require political and /or planning action rather
than implementation of capital projects. The first two items involve modification of Tukwila
code. The third involves watershed planning. A possible approach for the watershed planning
is to use this 2013 Surface Water Comprehensive Plan to identify the highest priority
watersheds to take to the next level of planning as required by this last bullet. The priority
watersheds may be those identified as containing the most growth or re- development in earlier
sections of this Plan.
The impact of these anticipated LID requirements on Tukwila's stormwater program is difficult
to quantify at this stage. However, significant staff time may be required for the first two
bullets, as they involve changes to city code and standards. The third bullet would be more of a
financial impact, as the technical work could be done by an outside consultant, saving limited
staff time.
Establishment of a TMDL for the Green and Duwamish River System
Ecology is required to establish a TMDL for each pollutant identified in each impaired water
body on the Section 303(d) list. The Green /Duwamish River system is listed as Category 5
(impaired) for pH, dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform, and temperature. (A complete list of 303(d)
listings is included in Table B -2 of Appendix B of this Plan).
While a TMDL is not yet established, it is anticipated that a TMDL will be established in the
future. Ecology can use mechanisms such as the municipal NPDES permit program to establish
water quality control requirements for individual drainage basins. If TMDL requirements were
to be incorporated into the NPDES permit mechanism, the earliest this would occur is with the
C -12 WBG031611103411SEA1TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX
APPENDIX C
SURFACE REGULATIONS AND POLICIES
next permit cycle (beginning approximately July 2017, five years after the effective date of this
next permit). Before this can occur, Ecology would spearhead establishment of the TMDL using
data collection and modeling.
The impact of the anticipated TMDL on Tukwila's surface water program during this surface
water planning cycle is likely in the form of staff time or financial resources during the technical
portion of establishment of the TMDL.
Recommended Improvements to Tukwila's Surface Water
Management Program
This sub - section contains a summary of the recommended improvements to Tukwila's Surface
Water Management Program needed in order to more fully comply with applicable regulations.
These recommendations are also shown in Section 7 of the Plan.
Environmental Species Act
• Update the SEPA ESA screening checklist to include Coastal -Puget Sound bull trout and
Puget Sound steelhead
State Salmon Recovery Planning Act
• City has implemented capital improvement projects that restore fish habitat for ESA - listed
species but should identify, plan, and implement more habitat restoration projects.
NPDES Permit
Education
• Increase opportunities for public involvement in environmental stewardship activities;
reach out to children, students, adults, and visitors.
• Develop and disseminate information to the public.
Public Involvement
• Hold public meeting and public comment period on the SWMP.
Inspections and Enforcement and Illicit Detection and Elimination
• Plan for periodic updating of City's surface water system inventory; inventory should
include new infrastructure brought on -line since previous update (such as for new and re-
development).
• Complete inspections of the City's stormwater system. As needed, complete cleaning of
stormwater lines in order to allow inspections to occur.
• Perform inventory of private stormwater facilities. City to make policy decision regarding
responsibility for maintenance of private stormwater facilities.
• Enhance the City inspection program to reduce noncompliance with BMP requirements and
water quality violations.
• Identify procedures for characterizing, tracing, and removing illicit discharges
WBG031611103411SEA1 TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX C -13
CITY OF TUKWILA 2012 SURFACE WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
• Develop and carry out systematic inspections of construction sites. Document inspections
and any enforcement actions.
Maintenance and Operations
• Develop a permanent vactor waste treatment facility or reach an agreement with another
municipality to use an existing facility.
• Perform more robust documentation of inspections, maintenance activities, compliant
response, etc.
Record - keeping
• Enhance tracking and reporting to ensure maintenance, inspections, and enforcements are
conducted and documented adequately.
Future NPDES Phase II requirements
• City should respond to any new and additional requirements in the next NPDES Phase II permit
cycle, which may include requirements for water quality monitoring and implementation of low
impact development where feasible.
C -14 WBG031611103411SEA1TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX
APPENDIX D
Surface Water Issues and Solutions
(SUPPORTING INFORMATION FOR PLAN SECTION 4)
APPENDIX D
Surface Water Issues and Solutions
This Appendix D contains an inventory of the drainage, water quality, and aquatic habitat
issues identified in the City of Tukwila. The information presented here is summarized in
Section 4 of this Surface Water Comprehensive Plan.
Note that the City of Tukwila maintains a Small Drainage Project list to address the minor
drainage issues that existing throughout the City. Some, but not all, of these minor drainage
problems are identified in this Appendix. This Appendix (and this Plan) focuses on the major
surface water problems and therefore should not be considered a complete list of surface water
issues.
Table D -1 contains an inventory of the surface water issues identified in this planning effort.
This surface water issue inventory is organized by drainage basin, with the following eight
drainage basins located wholly or partially in the City of Tukwila:
• Green /Duwamish River Mainstem
• Gilliam Creek
• Nelson Place - Long Acres
• P17
• Riverton Creek
• Southeast Central Business District (CBD)
• Southgate Creek
• Johnson Creek
Green /Duwamish River Mainstem Basin
Drainage Issues
Right -of -way and private property drainage issues occur along S 143rd Street, east of Interurban
Avenue. No formal drainage system exists along South 143rd Street, and flooding occurs about
every 2 to 5 years.
Drainage issues occur on 53rd Avenue South, east of I -5 near S 139th. A damaged and / or
undersized drainage system causes flooding along 53rd Avenue S, which occurs about once
every 5 years.
Historically, there has been a localized drainage issue at S 112th Street and Tukwila International
Boulevard west of E Marginal Way. Localized ponding has occurred on private property due to
sheet flows from International Boulevard. This problem has not been experienced over the last
several years even through significant storm events. It is probable that the issue has been
addressed because of improvements made on private property.
A localized drainage issue exists at 49th Avenue S and S Hazel Street in Tukwila. This is a
general low spot with no observed outlet.
WBG031611103411SEA 1TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLAN FINAL V2.DOCX D -1
CITY OF TUKWILA 2012 SURFACE WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
A series of four stormwater outfalls exist along E. Marginal Way S within the City of Tukwila.
Two of the outfalls are owned by King County, a third has been decommissioned (Jorgenson
Forge), and the fourth outfall is currently owned by Boeing.
The major storm pipe flowing north along Andover Park West currently discharges to a State of
Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) -owned pipe that flows east to the
Duwamish River. With the widening of I -405, the connection was covered leaving no access to
this junction. This stormwater line serves much of the central retail area in Tukwila.
Water Quality Issues
Four sections of the Green /Duwamish River within the City of Tukwila do not meet water
quality standards according to the 2008 303(d) list. Both the Green River and Duwamish River
are listed as Category 5 (at least one designated use is impaired) for dissolved oxygen,
temperature, pH, and fecal coliform, based on water sampling and analysis. While stormwater
originating in the City of Tukwila does contribute to water quality in the Green /Duwamish
River system, other contributions from upstream sources outside of the City's management and
control have a significant contribution to the impairment.
Most of the City of Tukwila's stormwater outfalls to the Green and Duwamish River have no
water quality treatment.
Riverbank erosion is currently occurring along the length of the Green and Duwamish Rivers
within the City of Tukwila. Two example locations are the East bank of the Duwamish River at
S 104th and on the East bank adjacent to S 115th St between 42nd Avenue S and E Marginal
Way S. Riverbank erosion is a water quality concern. Also, places that are currently
experiencing riverbank erosion may be candidates for restoration projects and are therefore an
aquatic habitat opportunity.
The Norfolk Basin, partially within the City of Tukwila, discharges to the Lower Duwamish
Waterway and includes both stormwater runoff and occasional combined sewer overflows. Of
the numerous chemical parameters analyzed in the storm sewers, phthalates and zinc
consistently exceeded the cleanup screening level (CSL), above which adverse impacts on
marine organisms would be likely. Total petroleum hydrocarbons were also consistently high.
In 2007, Ecology produced a Source Control Action Plan for Early Action Area 7 (the Norfolk
Basin) (Ecology and Environment 2007). The plan lists a number of potential upland sources of
contaminants to the stormwater system. Through a memorandum of agreement, the City of
Seattle is conducting inspections to determine the sources of contaminants. The Action Plan also
calls for better as -built storm sewer drawings and the use of Geographic Information System
(GIS) to better delineate the stormwater system in this area.
Aquatic Habitat Issues
The riparian corridor of the river is significantly degraded from its natural condition in many
areas of the city, such as along Foster Golf Course, north of SR 599, and east of Southcenter
Mall. Productive, good quality fish habitat, both in the main channel and in off - channel refuge,
is generally lacking. Little, if any, spawning habitat exists in the river reaches within the City.
The City of Tukwila is moving forward with the Duwamish Gardens project located on the
Duwamish River near the E Marginal Way South crossing. This project will provide off - channel
refuge habitat for salmonids. In addition to the Duwamish Gardens project, there are
D -2 WBG031611103411SEA1 TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX
APPENDIX D
SURFACE WATER ISSUES AND SOLUTIONS
opportunities to enhance and / or restore aquatic habitat up and down the length of the Green
and Duwamish Rivers in the City of Tukwila. A possible opportunity is on the east bank of the
Duwamish River at S 104th Street, an area currently experiencing riverbank erosion.
Gilliam Creek Basin
Drainage Issues
The 12 -inch drainage pipe serving Christensen Road is undersized and possibly collapsing and
is therefore in need of replacement with a larger -sized pipe. Localized drainage issues have
occurred along S 146th Street, S 148th Street, S 150th Street, and S 152nd Street between
42nd Avenue S to Tukwila International Boulevard. The problems along S 146th Street have been
addressed previous to this Plan and the problems along 150th will be addressed in 2014. The
problems at S 148th Street and S 152nd Street remain. The existing Gilliam Creek culvert under
42nd Avenue S is lacking adequate conveyance capacity during large storms. The 48 -inch storm
pipe located underneath Andover Park West is reported to be in poor condition.
Water Quality Issues
Gilliam Creek's use -based classification is Salmonid Spawning /Rearing and Primary Contact
Recreation, because Gilliam Creek enters the Green River upstream of the confluence with the
Black River. Water quality in Gilliam Creek is thought to be consistent with other urbanized
creeks in the Puget Sound Area showing elevated levels of fecal coliform, elevated
temperatures, and low dissolved oxygen levels. Temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and fecal
coliform are the constituents of concern in Gilliam Creek based on the Category 5 (impaired)
listings of the Duwamish River and the Green River. In addition to these parameters, total
suspended solids and turbidity are also of concern.
No site - specific water quality problems were identified in the Gilliam Creek basin. While some
water quality data is available for Gilliam Creek, additional water quality data should be
collected to characterize water quality conditions in Gilliam Creek. This data will help in
determining an approach for addressing any water quality concerns.
Aquatic Habitat Issues
Habitat in the lower reach of Gilliam Creek is available to fish through the flap gate at the outlet
of Gilliam Creek only under certain high flow conditions, when the Green River water level is
elevated but remaining lower than the water level in Gilliam Creek.
A WSDOT -owned culvert that conveys at least 1,000 feet of the creek under the south shoulder
of I -405 is identified as a partial fish barrier (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
[WDFW], 2010). Farther upstream, a log at the inlet of the WSDOT -owned culvert at the I -405
on -ramp observed in spring of 2011 appears capable of blocking fish passage. Removal of the
log would allow anadromous fish greater access to the rest of the lower reach, up to the culvert
at the 1 -5/1 -405 interchange, which is currently impassable to fish (WDFW, 2010).
WDFW determined that several of the tributaries to upper Gilliam Creek provide some rearing
habitat (WSDOT, 2007). Coho salmon and other anadromous fish are not expected to be able to
reach the habitat in these upper reaches until fish passability is improved at the I -5/1 -405
interchange and immediately upstream of the interchange, where there are several other
WSDOT- and City -owned culverts identified as fish passage barriers (WDFW, 2010).
WBG031611103411SEA1 TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX D -3
CITY OF TUKWILA 2012 SURFACE WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Fish barriers do exist in the upper reaches of Gilliam Creek, including a WSDOT -owned culvert
beneath SR 518 that conveys one of these tributaries that is identified as a total fish passage
barrier. The Gilliam Creek culvert under 42nd Avenue S currently is a total blockage to fish
passage. Tukwila plans to replace the deteriorating culvert at 42nd Avenue S with a fish -
passable structure. Just upstream of this culvert is a dam -like structure that is a total fish
passage barrier, and appears to be privately -owned Removing both of these barriers would
immediately improve resident fish access to the limited rearing habitat in this reach.
Nelson Place — Long Acres Basin
Drainage Issues
The area bounded by SR -181, the Green River, the Burlington Northern Railroad, and Strander
Boulevard experiences localized drainage issues. There is no functional outlet to the drainage
network in this area.
Water Quality Issues
The Nelson Place - Long Acres drainage basin use -based classification is Salmonid
Spawning /Rearing and Primary Contact Recreation, because the drainage discharges to the
Green River upstream of the confluence with the Black River.
The City of Tukwila is currently using a site within the Nelson Place - Long Acres basin to
dispose of solids collected in vactor trucks. The material sits at the site and gradually decants.
The site is located near Nelson Place.
Aquatic Habitat Issues
The former alignment of the Green River, prior to construction of I -405 in 1962, extended
through the Nelson farm property and into the property currently occupied by Homestead
Studio Suites. An oxbow of that former river alignment has been filled, isolating a pond area
and reducing off - channel habitat and floodplain connectivity in this reach of the river. This is a
habitat restoration opportunity for the City of Tukwila. Partnerships with other jurisdictions
and regulatory agencies would be necessary, acknowledging that flood protection is necessary
for proximate land owners.
P17 Basin
Drainage Issues
Sediment is thought to have accumulated in significant quantities in the stormwater conveyance
system within the P17 basin. While not a drainage issue currently, this significant buildup of
sediment could potentially cause a severe localized drainage issue. In addition, because of the
sediment buildup, City crews have not been able to inspect the conveyance system and
therefore do not know its condition. Portions of the conveyance system that require cleaning
and inspection include the following:
• Andover Park E from 180th to Minkler
• 36 -inch pipe from Minkler to Azteca
• Andover Park W from Tukwila Pkwy to 180th
D -4 WBG031611103411SEA1 TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX
APPENDIX D
SURFACE WATER ISSUES AND SOLUTIONS
• Minkler from Southcenter to ditch at Andover West
• From Minkler to industry drive
It is possible that, after cleaning and inspection, individual improvement projects will be
identified. The 48 -inch pipe along Andover Park (in the Gilliam Basin) is one location that City
staff have identified as a potential problem. Cleaning and inspection will provide more
information.
City of Tukwila's stormwater pump station #15 is located within this P17 drainage basin.
Improvements to pump station #15 are planned for 2013 as part of a capital improvement
project.
Water Quality Issues
The P17 drainage basin use -based classification is Salmonid Spawning /Rearing and Primary
Contact Recreation, because the drainage discharges to the Green River upstream of the
confluence with the Black River. No site - specific water quality issues were identified in this
basin other than the potential water quality impact of sediment load currently contained within
the stormwater pipes in the basin (mentioned above).
Aquatic Habitat Issues
Apart from along the mainstem of the Green River, which is described in an earlier section of
this Appendix, no fish habitat opportunities were identified in this basin.
Riverton Creek Basin
Drainage Issues
Localized drainage issues occur in the stormwater system along E Marginal Way between the
SR -599 ramp and S 124th Street. The setup of the drainage network in this area is likely not
optimal.
Water Quality Issues
The Riverton Creek use -based classification is Salmonid Spawning /Rearing and Secondary
Contact Recreation, because the drainage discharges to the Duwamish River downstream of the
confluence with the Black River. Water quality in Riverton Creek is thought to be consistent
with other urbanized creeks in the Puget Sound Area showing elevated levels of fecal coliform,
elevated temperatures, and low dissolved oxygen levels. Temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH
and fecal coliform are the constituents of concern in Riverton Creek based on the Category 5
(impaired) listings of the Duwamish River and the Green River. In addition to these parameters,
total suspended solids and turbidity are also of concern.
No site - specific water quality problems were identified in the Riverton Creek basin.
Water quality data should be collected to characterize water quality conditions that will help in
determining an approach for addressing any water quality concerns.
Aquatic Habitat Issues
The flap gate at the Duwamish River is impassable to fish during high tides and high river
flows. This flap gate should be modified and /or replaced to allow fish access to mainstem
WBG031611103411SEA1 TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX D -5
CITY OF TUKWILA 2012 SURFACE WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Riverton Creek. One of the gates failed in 2000, and now, during high flow events, river water
backs up through that culvert into the lower reach of the creek.
The East Fork of Riverton Creek just upstream of the SR 599 culvert is characterized by a wide,
exposed, sandy and silty streambed that provides fish passage but no spawning or rearing
habitat. Upstream of that reach, a more than 2,000 - linear -foot (LF) culvert likely prevents at
least some anadromous fish from accessing suitable habitat located in the upper reach between
S 126th Street and S 128th Street, where good overhead cover from riparian plants, sufficient
flows, and streambed gravel appear suitable for coho salmon spawning. This 2000 LF culvert is
considered a partial fish blockage. Little is known about the condition and characteristics of this
culvert. Inspection of this culvert would provide more information to help in deciding if
replacement or channel day - lighting is feasible and beneficial.
Southeast CBD Basin
Drainage Issues
No site - specific drainage issues were identified in this basin.
Water Quality Issues
The use -based classification for the Southeast CBD Basin is Salmonid Spawning /Rearing and
Primary Contact Recreation, because the drainage discharges to the Green River upstream of
the confluence with the Black River. No site - specific water quality issues were identified in this
basin.
Aquatic Habitat Issues
Apart from along the mainstem of the Green River, which is described in an earlier section of
this Appendix, no fish habitat opportunities were identified in this basin.
Southgate Creek Basin
Drainage Issues
The drainage network near 5 146th Street and 35th Avenue South is under capacity to serve the
area. A landslide occurred several years ago on S 131St Street near 44th Avenue South. This
landslide is both a drainage and a water quality issue.
Water Quality Issues
The Southgate Creek use -based classification is Salmonid Spawning /Rearing and Secondary
Contact Recreation, because the drainage discharges to the Duwamish River downstream of the
confluence with the Black River. Water quality in Southgate Creek is thought to be consistent
with other urbanized creeks in the Puget Sound Area showing elevated levels of fecal coliform,
elevated temperatures, and low dissolved oxygen levels. Temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH,
and fecal coliform are the constituents of concern in Southgate Creek based on the Category 5
(impaired) listings of the Duwamish River and the Green River. In addition to these parameters,
total suspended solids and turbidity are also of concern. This is especially true in Southgate
Creek given the sediment load observed in the lower reaches of the creek.
D -6 WBG031611103411SEA1 TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX
APPENDIX D
SURFACE WATER ISSUES AND SOLUTIONS
Water quality data should be collected to characterize water quality conditions in Southgate
Creek. This data will help in determining an approach for addressing any water quality
concerns.
Aquatic Habitat Issues
The fish ladder at the Southgate culvert under SR 599 likely is a fish barrier to anadromous fish
during low stream flows. Bank erosion from the combination of steep gradients and stormwater
runoff from urban development have deposited sediments in the lower reach, which have
reduced effective culvert conveyance capacities and covered up salmon spawning gravels. The
section of the main stem just downstream of the confluence of the West and East Forks is often
completely blocked by sediment and debris. Improving this section of the main stem Southgate
Creek along S 132nd Street would allow anadromous fish greater access to the spawning and
rearing habitat in the recently- restored lower west fork and rearing habitat in the east fork.
Johnson Creek Basin
Drainage Issues
No site - specific drainage issues were identified in this basin.
Water Quality Issues
The Johnson Creek use -based classification is Salmonid Spawning /Rearing and Primary
Contact Recreation, because the drainage discharges to the Green River upstream of the
confluence with the Black River. Water quality in Johnson Creek is thought to be consistent with
other urbanized creeks in the Puget Sound Area showing elevated levels of fecal coliform,
elevated temperatures, and low dissolved oxygen levels. Temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH,
and fecal coliform are the constituents of concern in Johnson Creek based on the Category 5
(impaired) listings of the Duwamish River and the Green River. In addition to these parameters,
total suspended solids and turbidity are also of concern. However, no site - specific water quality
problems were identified in the Johnson Creek basin.
Water quality data should be collected to characterize water quality conditions in
Johnson Creek. This data will help in determining an approach for addressing any water quality
concerns.
Aquatic Habitat Issues
The Johnson Creek flap gate and outfall to the Green River were replaced as part of mitigation
for the proximate commercial development. No other barriers to fish passage were identified in
Johnson Creek. No other aquatic habitat opportunities were identified in this basin.
Mill Creek Basin
Drainage Issues
No site - specific drainage issues were identified in this basin.
Water Quality Issues
No site - specific water quality issues were identified in this basin.
WBG031611103411SEA1 TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX D -7
CITY OF TUKWILA 2012 SURFACE WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Aquatic Habitat Issues
No site - specific habitat issues were identified in this basin.
D -8 WBG031611103411SEA1TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX
APPENDIX D
SURFACE WATER ISSUES AND SOLUTIONS
TABLE D -1
Surface Water Issues and Solutions
ID Problem Description
Location
Issue Drainage
Type Basin
Possible Solutions'
Recommended Solution
1 Outfalls discharge directly All outfalls are potential candidates; Water All
to receiving water, no 48th Ave S and S 122nd are two quality
treatment top candidates
2 Ponding in low spot,
possible ponding on the
east side of road
3 Dumping
4 Lack of off- channel
salmon habitat along
lower Duwamish
5 E Marginal Way S
Stormwater Outfall
6 Duwamish River riverbank
at S 104th St is eroding,
causing failure of road
shoulder and habitat
degradation
7 Duwamish River riverbank
at S 115th St is eroding,
causing failure of road
shoulder and habitat
degradation
8 53rd Ave S storm drain
system has inadequate
capacity
49th Ave S and S Hazel Street
S 114th St and 49th Ave S
Duwamish River near light rail
crossing
North end of Tukwila, along east
shore of Duwamish River; 4 outfalls
proximate to S 87th Place
Duwamish River right (east) bank
at S. 104th St
Duwamish River right (east) bank
adjacent to S 115th St between
42nd Ave S and E Marginal Way S
and adjacent to 42nd Ave S from
S 115 St to Interurban Ave S.
53rd Ave S near S 139th
WBG031611103411 SEAITU KW I LASURFACEWATERCOM PPLAN_FINAL_V2. DOCX
Programmatic
(inspections /enforcement, illicit
discharge detection and
elimination, maintenance) or capital
(point source control, water quality
treatment)
Drainage Duwamish Capital (increase conveyance
capacity, retention /detention)
Water Duwamish Cleanup of dumped material
quality
Habitat Duwamish Capital (channel physical habitat
restoration)
Drainage Duwamish Programmatic
(inspections /enforcement, illicit
discharge detection and
elimination, maintenance) or capital
(retrofit system, abandon existing
outfalls)
Water Duwamish Capital (channel stabilization) or
quality close the road
Water Duwamish Capital (physical habitat
quality restoration; channel stabilization)
Drainage Duwamish Capital (increase conveyance
capacity, provide drainage system,
detention /retention)
Water Quality Retrofit
Program (capital project)
Move onto 2013 Small
Drainage Project List
To be addressed by others2
Physical habitat restoration
(capital project - Duwamish
Gardens)
Retrofit system / outfall(s)
(capital project)
To be addressed by others2
To be addressed by others2
Increase conveyance
capacity (capital project)
D -9
CITY OF TUKWILA 2012 SURFACE WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
TABLE D -1
Surface Water Issues and Solutions
ID Problem Description
Location
Issue Drainage
Type Basin
Possible Solutions'
Recommended Solution
9 S 143rd St has no
drainage system
10 Tukwila stormwater line
discharges to WSDOT
pipe, no access due to
1-405 widening
11 Andover Park 48 inch
stormwater pipe in poor
condition, possibly
damaged
12 Gilliam Creek flapgates as
fish barrier
13 Christensen Rd 12" pipe
is undersized (replace
with 18 ")
14 Gilliam Creek culvert at
42nd Ave SE is
undersized
15 Northwest Gilliam Storm
Drainage System has
inadequate capacity -
S 152nd and S 148th
16 Cleaning /Inspection of
Stormwater Conveyance
17 Storm Lift Station No. 15
improvements
S 143rd St, east of Interurban Ave;
S 144th St, S 143rd Place, S 143rd
S, east of Interurban Ave S
between Interurban and Duwamish
River, W. Of Duwamish, near Black
River convergence
Andover Park W at Gilliam Creek
Andover Park W
Outlet of Gilliam Creek to Green
River - partial fish blockage
Christensen Rd
Gilliam Creek crossing at 42nd Ave
SE (between S 154th and
Hwy 518)
From 42nd Ave S to Tukwila
International Blvd S 146th St,
S 148th St, S 150th St, S 152nd St
Various - commercial area at Mall
and surrounding
Near Claim Jumper - 5880 S 180th
Drainage Duwamish Capital (provide drainage system) Provide drainage system
(capital project)
Drainage Duwamish Capital (re -route drainage system) Re -route drainage system
(capital project)
Drainage Gilliam Capital (increase effective
Creek conveyance capacity)
Drainage/ Gilliam Capital (modify /remove to allow fish
habitat Creek
Drainage
Drainage/ Gilliam
habitat Creek
Drainage Gilliam
Creek
passage)
Gilliam Capital (increase capacity)
Creek
Water All
quality /
drainage
Capital (increase conveyance
capacity, replacement of culvert to
be fish - passable)
Capital (increase conveyance
capacity, re -route existing drainage
system, detention /retention, high
flow bypass)
Capital (conveyance system
cleaning and inspection)
Drainage P17 Capital (needed upgrades,
updating)
No capital project at this
time; address once
collection system has been
clean and inspected
retrofit for fish passage;
provide flood protection
(capital project)
Increase capacity (capital
project)
Replace culvert (capital
project)
Increase capacity (capital
project)
Conveyance system
cleaning and inspection
(capital project)
Upgrade pump station
(capital project)
D -10 WBG031611103411SEA1 TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX
APPENDIX D
SURFACE WATER ISSUES AND SOLUTIONS
TABLE D -1
Surface Water Issues and Solutions
ID Problem Description
18
Location
Issue Drainage
Type Basin
Possible Solutions'
Recommended Solution
Permanent home for soils
reclamation facility
19 No functional outlet to
drainage network at
Nelson /Longacres
20 Former river oxbow has
bren blocked off from
River
21 Storm system along
E Marginal Way is bad
setup, causes ponding
22 Fish habitat accessibility
issues in Riverton Creek
culvert
23 Riverton Creek Flap Gate
is partial fish passage
barrier
24 S 146th St pipe and 35th
ave s drainage - needs
additional capacity
25 Sediment/clogging issues
proximate to Southgate
Creek
26 Historical landslide - road
closed
Vactor waste dump site / decanter Water
facility, currently using an area near quality
Nelson Place
Area bounded by SR 181, Green Drainage
River, Burlington Northern RR, and
Strander Blvd
Nelson farm property between
Green River and W. Valley
Highway
E Marginal Way between SR599
ramp and S 124th St
E Marginal Way south of SR599
Riverton outfall into Duwamish
River
S 146th St between Military Rd S
and Pac Hwy S
S 131st St near 44th Ave S
S 137th St at 44th Ave S
Habitat
Drainage
Habitat
Habitat
Drainage
Drainage,
water
quality
Drainage,
water
quality
Nelson/ Capital (land acquisition for soils
Longacres reclamation facility)
Nelson/ Capital (provide drainage system,
Longacres on -site detention /retention)
Nelson/ Capital (channel physical habitat
Longacres restoration)
Riverton
Creek
Capital (increase conveyance
capacity, re -route drainage,
detention, high flow bypass)
Riverton Capital (removal /replacement of
Creek fish - blocking culvert)
Riverton Capital (modify /remove to allow fish
Creek passage)
Southgate
Creek
Capital (increase conveyance
capacity, detention /retention, high
flow bypass)
Southgate Regrading of wetlands on private
Creek property
Southgate
Creek
Capital (complete channel
stabilization and riparian buffer
restoration)
Land acquisition (capital
project)
Provide outlet to drainage
system (capital project)
Restore Nelson Salmon
Habitat Side Channel
(capital project)
Proximate to Riverton
Creek culvert (below), so
addressed together
Conveyance system
cleaning and inspection
(capital project)
Remove flapgate (capital
project)
Increase conveyance
capacity (capital project)
To be addressed by others2
No capital project at this
time; monitor status and
review during next planning
period
Notes:
1 Possible solutions address the surface water problem in whole or in part
2 Problem to be addressed by others because responsibility /opportunity lies in other City department or with other jurisdiction
WBG031611103411SEA1TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX D -11
APPENDIX E
Surface Water Capital Projects
(SUPPORTING INFORMATION FOR PLAN SECTION 5)
APPENDIX E
Surface Water Capital Projects
This Appendix E contains a summary of the recommended surface water capital projects. The
information presented here is summarized in Section 5 of this Surface Water Comprehensive
Plan.
The City of Tukwila has requested that CH2M HILL update the City's Comprehensive Surface
Water Management Plan to provide a "living" document that will guide the City's surface
water management activities for the next planning period. A major component of the Plan is
identified surface water management issues and corresponding solutions to those issues. The
Plan identifies both programmatic (non- structure) and capital project (structural) solutions to
those issues. The purpose of this appendix is to outline the capital projects recommended for
implementation in the Plan.
Attachment A to this Appendix contains the basis for the cost estimates for each of the capital
projects recommended for inclusion in Tukwila's CIP. Attachment B to this Appendix contains
the summary sheets for each of the capital projects that can be utilized as part of the budget
planning process and CIP development.
Capital Projects
Capital Project Development
The surface water needs, or issues, were identified as part of Comprehensive Surface Water
Management Plan development. Needs were categories as drainage, water quality, or aquatic
habitat needs. Once these needs were identified, one or more potential solutions were
identified. These solutions were either programmatic or structural (capital) in nature.
CH2MHILL and City of Tukwila staff collaborated on the preferred solution for each surface
water need identified. CH2MHILL developed preliminary design concepts and planning -level
cost estimates for each capital project.
Most of the capital projects presented in this memorandum are focused on rectifying discrete
drainage or aquatic habitat problems. Some of the surface water management problems
identified are not readily solved using discrete capital projects. For example, widespread water
quality problems in urban runoff entering Riverton, Southgate, and Gilliam Creeks are difficult
to address with capital improvements. Very few water quality projects have been developed
because individual, small -scale runoff treatment system retrofits would make only an
incremental difference in receiving water quality. It is more appropriate to address most of the
water quality problems with land use or storm water management regulations (for example,
requiring water quality treatment for redevelopment projects).
The water quality projects that have been developed and are described in this section either are
targeting a drainage or habitat issue and have water quality benefits, or else are the
recommended first projects as part of a larger program to address water quality.
E -1
CITY OF TUKWILA 2012 SURFACE WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Capital Projects Recommended for Inclusion into the CIP
Table E -1 presents the capital projects recommended for inclusion into Tukwila's Surface Water
CIP. Attachment A to this memorandum contains the basis for the cost estimates. Attachment B
contains project summary sheets with project scopes, benefits, schematic sketches, and cost
estimates for each project.
TABLE E -1
Recommended Capital Projects
ID
Estimated Total
Project Cost
(March 2012
Project Name Drainage Basin dollars)
98641222 S 143rd St storm drain system Duwamish River $1,096,000
98741202 Nelson /Longacres — Phase II Nelson /Longacres $678,000
98941202 Christensen Rd. pipe replacement Gilliam Creek $327,000
99341208 Gilliam Creek 42nd Ave S culvert Gilliam Creek $702,000
99441202 Soil Reclamation Facility Nelson /Longacres $3,504,000
90341206 Northwest Gilliam Storm Drainage Gilliam Creek $1,978,000
System
90341213 53rd Ave S storm drain system Duwamish River $1,557,000
90341214 S 146th St pipe and 35th Ave S drainage Southgate Creek $882,000
91041203 Storm Lift Station No. 15 Improvements P17 $698,000
91041204 E. Marginal Way S Stormwater Outfall Duwamish River $772,000
91241201 Water Quality Retrofit Program Duwamish River $287,000
91241202 Tukwila Pkwy /Gilliam Cr Outfalls Gilliam Creek $278,000
91241203 Tukwila Urban Center Conveyance Gilliam Cr. /P17 $541,000
Inspections
91041204 E. Marginal Way Conveyance Inspection Riverton Creek $85,000
90330104 Nelson Side Channel Nelson /Longacres $1,497,000
90630102 Duwamish Gardens Duwamish $3,000,000
99830103 Riverton Creek Flap Gate Removal Riverton Creek $946,000
99830105 Gilliam Creek Fish Barrier Removal Gilliam Creek $816,000
Capital Projects Recommended for Removal from the CIP
Several capital projects developed in previous Comprehensive Stormwater Plans and appearing
in previous CIPs are recommended for removal from the CIP for one or more of the following
reasons:
• Surface water issue is located on private property.
E -2 WBG031611103411SEA1 TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX
APPENDIX E
SURFACE WATER CAPITAL PROJECTS
• Alternative solutions are already under further development (that is, design and
construction).
• Alternative solutions were developed under a different capital project included in the CIP.
• Issue will be monitored over time and considered for inclusion in the CIP during the next
planning period
• Issue will be further characterized with information gathered in this next planning cycle and
will be considered for inclusion in the CIP during the next planning period
• Issue will be addressed by other parties besides the City of Tukwila or by other departments
within the City of Tukwila
These projects are listed in Table E -2.
TABLE E -2
Capital Projects Removed from the CIP
ID
Fund Capital Project Name
99441205 412 Duwamish Riverbank Stabilization at S 104th St.
99441209 412 Duwamish Riverbank Stabilization near S 115th St.
98641217 412 Andover Park West 48" rehabilitation
90341205 412 Tukwila Parkway Drainage
90341207 412 Treatment Pond for Gilliam Creek
90341208 412 Minkler Boulevard Culvert Replacement
90341210 412 Retrofit Stormwater Treatment at 51St Avenue S
0341211 412 Property for Riverton Creek Sediment Trap
90330106 301 Foster Golf Course Riverbank
90330116 301 Lower Gilliam Creek Channel Improvements
Capital Project Descriptions
98641222: S 143rd Street Storm Drain System
Project Description
Because of development and increased surface water runoff, drainage issues are occurring in
the right -of -way along S. 143rd Place and S. 143th Street. The design objectives are reduction of
stormwater ponding and peak flow rate. A secondary design objective is to provide water
quality treatment prior to discharge to the Duwamish River.
Proposed Solution
The proposed solution is to install an asphalt overlay, curb and a closed -pipe conveyance
system along S. 143rd Street and S. 143rd Place to collect and convey the stormwater runoff to a
water quality treatment device then discharge the stormwater into the Duwamish River. A flap
gate will be installed in the outfall to prevent flooding when the river is at high levels. Also, the
E -3
CITY OF TUKWILA 2012 SURFACE WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
project will convert an existing drainage ditch into a bioswale to provide some water quality
treatment.
98741202: Nelsen PI /Longacres - Phase II
Project Description
Because of development and increased surface water runoff, flooding is occurring in the right -
of -way and on private property. The design objectives are reduction of stormwater ponding and
peak flow rate. The project is located within the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) corridor.
Proposed Solution
The proposed solution is to install a 48 -inch stormwater pipe crossing underneath the
Burlington Northern railroad tracks connecting to a previously installed interceptor east of the
tracks. This 48 -inch stormwater pipe will be constructed using trenchless techniques to
minimize the impact to the operation of the railroad. This new pipe will provide drainage from
the existing drainage ditch west of the tracks to the P -1 interceptor. Ownership, easement, and
maintenance responsibility will be determined and / or verified prior to moving forward with
this project.
98941202: Christensen Road Pipe Replacement
Project Description
The existing 12 -inch storm drain pipe between the end of Christensen Road to Strander
Boulevard is collapsed and causing flooding at Christensen Road. This pipe is currently located
between two buildings. Temporary pumps have been used to convey water from the area when
flooding occurs.
Proposed Solution
The proposed solution is to replace the existing collapsed pipe with an 18 -inch pipe. Because of
the close proximity of the pipe trench to the adjacent buildings, shoring will be needed to
provide support for the building foundations.
99341208: Gilliam Creek 42nd Avenue S Culvert
Project Description
The existing concrete culvert along Gilliam Creek underneath 42nd Avenue S. is in poor
condition and is undersized for larger storm events. The pipe is cracked and pipe sections are
separating. The failure of the culvert could result in erosion or catastrophic failure of the 42nd
Avenue South roadway.
Proposed Solution
The proposed solution is to replace this culvert with a 16' wide open- bottom arch culvert and to
rehabilitate the upstream and downstream segments of the stream channel. The project will be
included in the 42nd Avenue S. Roadway Improvement project.
99441202: Soil Reclamation Facility
Project Description
The City maintenance crews collect sediments during typical stormwater system maintenance
work tasks such as street sweeping and cleaning out stormwater inlets and pipes. The City is
lacking a formal facility to efficiently dewater, treat and dispose of the waste materials.
E -4 WBG031611103411SEA\ TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX
APPENDIX E
SURFACE WATER CAPITAL PROJECTS
Proposed Solution
The proposed solution is to build a soil reclamation facility within the City. This capital project
consists of property acquisition for this facility.
90341206: Northwest Gilliam Basin Storm Drainage System
Project Description
Because of urban development and increased surface water runoff, flooding is occurring in the
right -of -way and private property along S. 148th Street and S. 152nd Street between
International Boulevard and S. 42nd Avenue South. (A similar issue has been addressed on S
146th Street. The issue will be addressed in 2014 on S 150th Street. S. 148th Street and S 152nd
Street still need to be addressed and are therefore included here in this capital project.) The
design objectives are reduction of stormwater surface runoff volume and reduction of peak flow
rate. The project may also provide water quality treatment prior discharge to the Gilliam Creek.
Proposed Solution
The proposed solution includes installing new storm drain pipes along S. 148th Street and S.
152nd Street to replace the old storm drain and increase the conveyance capacity of the system.
Other project elements include installation of an asphalt overlay and curbs to route water to
new catch basins to reduce surface ponding. In addition, the installation of water quality
treatment devices at the end of each of the blocks is also planned. Stormwater would be
discharged to the existing storm drain on 42nd Avenue South.
90341213: 53rd Avenue S Storm Drainage System
Project Description
Because of urban development and increased surface water runoff, flooding is occurring in the
right -of -way and private property along 53rd Avenue South between S. 137th Street to S. 144th
Street. The existing storm drain is in poor condition and street runoff flows onto private
property. The design objectives are reduction of stormwater ponding and peak flow rate and
providing water quality treatment.
Proposed Solution
The proposed solution includes providing an asphalt overlay to the existing roadway, installing
a curb to keep the stormwater runoff remain on the road, and replacing the existing storm drain
system along 53rd Avenue S. to improve conveyance capacity. The project also includes the
installation of bioretention swales along 53rd Avenue South or near the Lee Philip Field and
Foster Memorial Park to provide water quality treatment. The upgraded storm drains will
connect to an existing storm drain at S. 137th Street.
90341214: S 146th St Pipe and 35th Ave S Drainage System
Project Description
Because of urban development and increased surface water runoff, flooding is occurring in the
right -of -way and private property along S. 146th Street immediately west of Tukwila
International Boulevard. The design objectives are reduction of stormwater ponding and peak
flow rate.
Proposed Solution
The proposed solution includes applying an asphalt overlay to the existing roadway, installing
a curb to keep the stormwater runoff on the road, and replacing the existing storm drain system
E -5
CITY OF TUKWILA 2012 SURFACE WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
along S. 146th Street and a segment of 35th Avenue South to improve conveyance capacity. The
upgraded storm drains will connect to an existing storm drain on International Boulevard.
91041203: Storm Lift Station No.15 Improvement
Project Description
The study completed in 2010 recommended upgrading of this lift station to provide a higher
level of reliability and protection against damage due to power failure.
Proposed Solution
The proposed solution includes the installation of an on -site power generator with enclosure.
The power generator will provide power automatically to the lift station allowing the lift station
to continue conveying stormwater runoff during power failure.
91041204: East Marginal Way South Stormwater Outfall
Project Description
A series of four stormwater outfalls located on private property discharge directly into the
Duwamish River. Two of the outfalls (Z -line and Jorgensen Forge) are located within the Boeing
property and the other two outfalls (KC Airport Lift Station and Slip -6) are owned and operated
by King County. The Jorgensen Forge outfall was closed in January 2011. The stormwater runoff
previously discharging from the Jorgensen Forge outfall overflowed to the King County Airport
Lift Station outfall. No flooding was reported. A study completed in September 2009 by GHD
(GHD 2009) evaluated 4 alternatives to this problem.
Proposed Solution
The proposed solution is based on the Alternative 1 from the GHD study to reuse the Z -line
outfall. This alternative includes installing a new storm drain to direct the stormwater runoff
from East Marginal Way South to an existing storm drain connecting to the outfall. This existing
storm drain would be slip -lined to reduce the risk of cross contamination. This alternative is
proposed for inclusion into the City's CIP because this alternative provides a long -term fix of
the problem without the long -term maintenance cost associated with the use a stormwater lift
station or paying a fee for using a third -party stormwater lift station. Ownership, easement, and
maintenance responsibility will be negotiated between the City and the property owner prior
the implementation of the project.
91241201: Water Quality Retrofit Program
Project Description
Because of existing development and the increase in surface water runoff from pollutant
generating impervious surfaces, the water quality of the receiving water bodies in the City of
Tukwila continues to deteriorate. The water quality retrofit program is intended to address this
need as an overall water quality program with individual project(s) implemented each year.
Three of the possible locations for implementation of water quality retrofits under this program
are Z -line (see CIP 91041204), 48th Avenue South, and S. 122nd Street, all discharging to the
Duwamish River.
Proposed Solution
For each location identified as part of this water quality retrofit program, several options for
water quality retrofits will be evaluated. These include low impact development techniques and
water quality proprietary devices. The proposed solution is based on installing a structure
E -6 WBG031611103411SEA\ TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX
APPENDIX E
SURFACE WATER CAPITAL PROJECTS
treatment device to provide pre - treatment. The treatment device needs to works with the
existing storm drain system. The actual location and the treatment approach will be determined
for each project that is implemented as part of this program.
91241202: Tukwila Parkway / Gilliam Creek Outfalls
Project Description
The existing 48 -inch storm drain along Andover Park West crosses Tukwila Parkway, crosses
underneath a 60 -inch Seattle Public Utility water supply pipe line, and then discharges into a
108 -inch culvert owned by WSDOT installed as part of the initial construction of I -405 to convey
Gilliam Creek adjacent to the freeway. This WSDOT -owned pipe discharges to Gilliam Creek.
With subsequent freeway improvements and widening, the discharge point of the 48 -inch storm
drain to the culvert is now underneath the freeway travel lanes. Also, the connection to the 108 -
inch culvert is higher than the invert elevation of the 48 -inch pipe which can create backwater
conditions in the 48 -inch pipe at Andover pipe W. This system is extremely difficult, if not
impossible, for the City to inspect and maintain. In addition, a backwater condition within City
pipes for several hundred feet prevents inspection and cleaning.
Proposed Solution
The proposed solution is to install a new 84 -inch manhole structure on the existing 48 -inch pipe
and a new 72 -inch structure on the 30 -inch pipe west of Lowe's. A slide guide with a discharge
port would be installed in each of the new structures.
91241203: Tukwila Urban Center Conveyance Inspections
Project Description
The network of storm pipes in the core retail area of Tukwila has not been inspected in the last
several decades. Because there have been no inspections, pipe condition is unknown and
rehabilitation, repair, and replacement needs are therefore unknown. It is likely that a
significant amount of sediment exists within the storm network in that area. Several stormwater
pipes have been selected as higher priority because of the large pipe sizes and more significant
impact should a pipe fail. The selected area includes 1)Andover Park E from S. 180th Street to
Minkler Boulevard, 2) 36" pipe from Minkler Boulevard to Azteca Restaurant, 3) Andover Park
West from Tukwila Parkway to S 180th Street, 4) Minkler Boulevard from Southcenter Parkway
to ditches at Andover Park West, and 5) Minkler Boulevard to Industry Drive.
Proposed Solution
In order to assess the pipe conditions, the storm drain pipes will be cleaned and the sediment
will be disposed of. Then the pipe interior will be inspected using a remote - control camera. The
inspection will be recorded. Rehabilitation, repair, and replacement needs will then be known
and prioritized.
91241204: East Marginal Way Conveyance Inspection
Project Description
The storm drainage system along East Marginal Way near S 124th is problematic. Localize
drainage issues occur. Proximate to this drainage issue, Riverton Creek flows through a long
culvert that is a blockage to fish passage under certain flow conditions.
CITY OF TUKWILA 2012 SURFACE WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Proposed Solution
These separate problems of drainage issues and fish blockages could be addressed by a joint
solution. However, until more information is known, this solution cannot be fully developed.
Therefore, for this planning period, Tukwila should proceed with cleaning and inspecting the
Riverton Creek culvert and proximate drainage infrastructure. After the City performs the
inspection, the City can determine the pipe conditions, address any issues, and proceed with
development of the larger project.
90330104: Nelson Salmon Habitat Side Channel
Project Description
Many years ago, a natural oxbow on the Duwamish River was disconnected from the main
channel as the Duwamish /Green River was engineered for flood control. Currently, this oxbow
is a pond.
Proposed Solution
The proposed solution is to re- connect the oxbow with the main channel. The hydraulic
connectivity will increase habitat for juvenile salmonids in order to increase rearing
productivity. The existing embankment between the Duwamish River and the existing pond
will be removed to create a backwater side channel. Boulders and large woody debris will be
placed along the toe of embankment for erosion protection and creating habitat. A flood control
levee will be installed along the south side of the existing pond to provide flood protection to
the adjacent private property. Currently a hotel is located next to the pond.
90630102: Duwamish Gardens
Project Description and Solution
This on -going 2.25 -acre habitat restoration project is located within the Lower Duwamish River.
The goal of this project is to provide salmon habitat and a passive park. This project is currently
in the design process.
99830103: Riverton Creek Flap Gate Removal
Project Description
The flap gates at the outlet of Riverton Creek are impassible to fish during low flows and are
somewhat impassible all other times. The flap gates have been partially propped -open as an
interim solution.
Proposed Solution
The proposed solution is to remove the flap gates and to perform channel restoration in the
lower reaches of Riverton Creek. The existing channel upstream of the existing flap gates will be
enhanced and restored to provide salmonid rearing and resting habitat.
99830105: Gilliam Creek Fish Barrier Removal
Project Description
The flap gate at Gilliam Creek only allow fish passage at certain of high flow conditions, when
the Green River water level is elevated but remaining lower than the water level in Gilliam
Creek.
Proposed Solution
The proposed solution is to remove the fish barrier and restore the natural channel in the lower
reaches of Gilliam Creek. The existing flap gate will be replaced with a self - regulating tide gate
E -8 WBG031611103411SEA\ TUKWILASURFACEWATERCOMPPLANFINAL V2.DOCX
APPENDIX E
SURFACE WATER CAPITAL PROJECTS
to allow fish access of upstream habitats. A fish ladder will be installed upstream of the tide
gate to provide access to further upstream creek reaches. The Army Corps of Engineer had
plans to improve this segment of Gilliam Creek. This project should be coordinated with the
Army Corps of Engineers and another City of Tukwila capital project, "91241202: Andover Park
W Outfall to Gilliam Creek ".
Surface Water Capital Project Funding
The City of Tukwila's Capital Improvement Program includes projects and program elements
that are recommended for implementation in the Surface Water Management Comprehensive
Plan. Projects implemented primarily for surface water management purposes are funded with
Fund 412 (drainage, water quality) or Fund 301 (aquatic habitat). Projects financed under the
commercial streets, water, and sewer programs may have a stormwater element. Projects with
surface water components are funded under the following City Programs, in addition to Fund
412 and Fund 301:
• Commercial Streets Program (Fund 104)
• Water Program (Fund 403/01)
• Sewer Program (Fund 403/02)
References
CH2M HILL. 2003. City of Tukwila Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan. Prepared
for the City of Tukwila. November.
City of Tukwila. Adopted 2010 -2015 Financial Planning Model and Capital Improvement
Program. December 7, 2009.
GHD 2009. City of Tukwila East Marginal Way South Outfall Analysis Report, report to City of
Tukwila. September.
ATTACHMENT A
Capital Project Cost Opinions
City of Tukwila
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
for
2012 -2017
Enter Year: SUMMARY OF FUND # 412
2012 • NOTE: All sheets are linked to the Summary
Printed: 8/31/2012
SURFACE WATER
412 Fund
PROJ.# PROJECT TITLE Construction Project Land Project Total Notes
Subtotal Subtotal Acquisition
98641222 5 143rd Street /Place Storm Drain System 687,000 1,096,000 0 1,096,000 Updated unit costs from 2003
98741202 Nelson PI /Longacres Ph2 - Interceptor Pipe 425,000 678,000 0 678,000 Updated unit costs from 2003
98941202 Christensen Rd Pipe Replacement 205,000 327,000 0 327,000 New estimate
99341208 Gilliam Creek Crossing at 42nd Ave 5. (93 -DR08) 489,000 702,000 0 702,000 Updated unit costs from 2003; revised for 16' width
99441202 Soil Reclaimation Facility 1,507,000 2,404,000 1,100,000 3,504,000 New estimate
90341206 Northwest Gilliam Storm Drainage System 1,240,000 1,978,000 0 1,978,000 5148th, S150th, and S152th Street. Revised from 2003
90341213 53rd Ave 5 Storm Drainage System 976,000 1,557,000 0 1,557,000 Updated unit costs from 2003
90341214 S. 146th Street Pipe and 35th Avenue S. Drainage System 553,000 882,000 0 882,000 Updated unit costs from 2003
91041203 Storm Lift Station No. 15 Improvement 467,000 698,000 0 698,000 New estimate
91041204 East Marginal Wy 5 Stormwater Outfall 469,000 772,000 0 772,000 New estimate
91241201 Water Quality Retrofit Program n/a n/a n/a 286,500 New Project.
91241202 Tukwila Pkwy /Gilliam Creek Outfalls 180,000 278,000 0 278,000 New Project.
91241203 Tukwila Urban Center Conveyance Inspections 396,000 541,000 0 541,000 New Project.
91241204 E. Marginal Way Conveyance Inspection 57,000 85,000 0 85,000 New Project.
Grand Total 7,651,000 11,998,000 1,100,000 13,384,500
2012 - 2017 Capital Improvement Program
1 of 20
8/31/2012
PLANNING LEVEL CONSTRUCTION COST OPINION
PROJECT: S 143rd Street /Place Storm Drain System
CHECKED BY:
DATE:
Amy Carlson
BY: Raymond Chung
3/2/2012 CIP#
98641222
ITEM NO. 1 BID ITEM 1
QUANTITY
_� UNIT 1 UNIT PRICE 1
AMOUNT
1 REMOVE /ABANDON PIPE
85
LF $ 23.00
$ 1,955
2 PAVEMENT OVERLAY, ASPHALT CONCRETE CL B (S 143RD STANDS 143RD PL)
1,305
TN $ 63.00
$ 82,215
3 WASHED DRAIN ROCK/STRUCTURAL FILL/PIPE BEDDING
420
TN $ 26.00
$ 10,920.
4 CURB AND GUTTER, CEMENT AND CONC. (S 143RD ST)
2,300
LF $ 22.00
$ 50,600
5 CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK OR DRIVEWAY (S 143RD ST)
1,533
SY $ 40.00
$ 61,320
6 CURB RAMP, CEMENT CONCRETE (S 143RD ST)
12
EA $ 489.00
$ 5,868
7 CATCH BASIN TYPE 1
8
EA $ 1,532.00
$ 12,256
8 CATCH BASIN TYPE 2 48 " -54"
2
EA $ 4,353.00
$ 8,706
9 STORMCEPTOR WQ MANHOLE (STC 4800)
1
EA $ 53,000.00 '
$ 53,000
12 18" -24" DIA. SMOOTH INTERIOR WALL CORROGATED POLYETHENE IN PAVED AREA
500
LF $ 141.00
$ 70,500
13 8 " -12" DIA. SMOOTH INTERIOR WALL CORROGATED POLYETHENE IN PAVED AREA
1,100
LF $ 81.00
$ 89,100
14 TRENCH SAFETY SYSTEMS
16,000
SF $ 0.92
$ 14,741
15 REGRADE EXISTING DITCH
500
LF $ 5.76
$ 2,879
16 BIOSWALE SEEDING
4,000
SF $ 1.73
$ 6,910
17 18" - 24" DIAMETER FLAP GATE
1
EA $ 3,455.00
$ 3,455
18 UTILITY RELOCATIONS
1
L5 $ 11,516.00
$ 11,516
19 TEMPORARY BYPASS
1
LS $ 5,758.00
$ 5,758
Subtotal
$ 491,699
DEWATERING
5%
$ 24,585
EROSION & SEDIMENTATION CONTROL
2%
(See Note 3)
$ 9,834
TRAFFIC CONTROL
5%
(See Note 4)
$ 24,585
CONTINGENCY
15%
$ 73,755
Subtotal
$ 624,458
MOBILIZATION (GENERAL REQUIREMENT)
10%
$ 62,446
Construction Subtotal (Rounded)
$ 687,000
STATE SALES TAX
9.5%
$ 65,265
ENGINEERING /LEGAL/ADMIN
25%
$ 171,750
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
20%
$ 137,400
PERMITTING
5%
$ 34,350
Project Subtotal (Rounded)
$ 1,096,000
LAND ACQUISITION
0
AC
$ -
CONTINGENCY
30%
$ -
2012 Dollars
Total Estimated Project Cost (Rounded)
$ 1,096,000
Notes:
1. The above cost opinion is based on 2003 quantities, with unit prices escalated to 2012 dollars. It does not include future escalation beyond 2011, financing, or O &M costs.
2. The order -of- magnitude cost opinion has been prepared for guidance in project evaluation from the information available at the time of preparation and for the assumptions stated. The final costs of the project will depend
on actual labor and material costs, actual site conditions, productivity, competitive market conditions, final project scope and schedule, and other variable factors. As a result, the final project costs will vary from those
presented above. Because of these factors, funding needs for individual projects must be scrutinized prior to establishing the final project budgets.
3. Increase percentage markup if work is in or immediately adjacent to flowing or standing water, steep slope, and /or other erosion -prone conditions.
4. Increase percentage markup if work is in or immediately adjacent to secondary, arterial, or other high - volume road ortemporarily closes a roadway.
5. Land Acquisition unit costs include Administrative Costs and Condemnation.
2 of 20
Notes:
1. The above cost opinion is based on 2003 quantities, with unit prices escalated to 2012 dollars. It does not include future escalation beyond 2011, financing, or O &M costs.
2. The order-of-magnitude cost opinion has been prepared for guidance in project evaluation from the information available at the time of preparation and for the assumptions stated. The final costs of the project will depend
on actual labor and material costs, actual site conditions, productivity, competitive market conditions, final project scope and schedule, and other variable factors. As a result, the final project costs will vary from those
presented above. Because of these factors, funding needs for individual projects must be scrutinized prior to establishing the final project budgets.
3. Increase percentage markup if work is in or immediately adjacent to flowing or standing water, steep slope, and /or other erosion -prone conditions.
4. Increase percentage markup if work is in or immediately adjacent to secondary, arterial, or other high - volume road or temporarily closes a roadway.
5. Land Acquisition unit costs include Administrative Costs and Condemnation.
3 of 20
PLANNING LEVEL CONSTRUCTION COST OPINION
PROJECT:
BY:
Nelson PI /Longacres Ph2 - Interceptor Pipe
CHECKED BY:
DATE:
Amy Carlson
Raymond Chung
3/2/2012 CIP#
98741202
ITEM NO.
1 BID ITEM
1
QUANTITY
1 UNIT 1 UNIT PRICE 1
AMOUNT
1
JACKING AND RECEIVING PIT
1
EA $ 40,883.00
$ 40,883
2
42" DIA. SMOOTH WALL INTERIOR CORROGATED POLYETHENE, JACK & BORE
225
LF $ 1,025.00
$ - 230,625
CONSTRUCTION
3
RAILROAD INSPECTOR
24
HR $ 58.00
$ 1,392
4
CATCH BASIN TYPE 2 72 " -96"
1
EA $ 14,108.00
$ 14,108
5
UTILITY RELOCATIONS
1
L5 $ 11,516.00
$ 11,516
6
TEMPORARY BYPASS
1
LS $ 5,758.00
$ 5,758
Subtotal
$ 304,282
DEWATERING
5%
$ 15,214
EROSION & SEDIMENTATION CONTROL
2%
(see Note 3)
$ 6,086
TRAFFIC CONTROL
5%
(See Note 4)
$ 15,214
CONTINGENCY
15%
$ 45,642
Subtotal
$ 386,438
MOBILIZATION (GENERAL REQUIREMENT)
10%
$ 38,644
Construction Subtotal (Rounded)
$ 425,000
STATE SALES TAX
9.5%
$ 40,375
ENGINEERING /LEGAIJADMIN
25%
$ 106,250
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
20%
$ 85,000
PERMITTING
5%
$ 21,250
Project Subtotal (Rounded)
$ 678,000
2%
LAND ACQUISITION
0
AC
$ -
CONTINGENCY
30%
$ -
2012 Dollars
Total Estimated Project Cost (Rounded)
$ 678,000
Notes:
1. The above cost opinion is based on 2003 quantities, with unit prices escalated to 2012 dollars. It does not include future escalation beyond 2011, financing, or O &M costs.
2. The order-of-magnitude cost opinion has been prepared for guidance in project evaluation from the information available at the time of preparation and for the assumptions stated. The final costs of the project will depend
on actual labor and material costs, actual site conditions, productivity, competitive market conditions, final project scope and schedule, and other variable factors. As a result, the final project costs will vary from those
presented above. Because of these factors, funding needs for individual projects must be scrutinized prior to establishing the final project budgets.
3. Increase percentage markup if work is in or immediately adjacent to flowing or standing water, steep slope, and /or other erosion -prone conditions.
4. Increase percentage markup if work is in or immediately adjacent to secondary, arterial, or other high - volume road or temporarily closes a roadway.
5. Land Acquisition unit costs include Administrative Costs and Condemnation.
3 of 20
Notes:
1. The above cost opinion is in 2012 dollars and does not include future escalation, financing, or O &M costs.
2. The order- of-magnitude cost opinion has been prepared for guidance in project evaluation from the information available at the time of preparation and for the assumptions stated. The final costs of the project will depend
on actual labor and material costs, actual she conditions, productivity, competitive market conditions, final project scope and schedule, and other variable factors. As a result, the final project costs will vary from those
presented above. Because of these fact ors, funding needs for individual projects must be scrutinized prior to establishing the final project budgets.
3. Increase percentage markup if work is in or immediately adjacent to flowing or standing water, steep slope, and /or other erosion -prone conditions.
4. Increase percentage markup if work is in or immediately adjacent to secondary, arterial, or other high - volume road or temporarily closes a roadway.
5. Land Acquisition unit costs include Administrative Costs and Condemnation.
4 of 20
PLANNING LEVEL CONSTRUCTION COST OPINION
PROJECT:
Christensen Rd Pipe Replacement
CHECKED BY:
Amy Carlson
BY:
Raymond Chung
DATE:
3/2/2012 CIP#
98941202
ITEM NO. 1
BID ITEM
1
QUANTITY
UNIT 1 UNIT PRICE 1
AMOUNT
1
18" DIA. SMOOTH INTERIOR WALL CORROGATED POLYETHENE IN PAVED AREA
320
LF $ 110.00
$ 35,200
2
REMOVE /ABANDON PIPE
320
LF $ 20.00
$ 6,400
3
TRENCHBOX SHORING
2,720
SF $ 2.00
$ 5,440
4
SPECIAL BUILDING SHORING
1,020
SF $ 75.00
$ 76,500
5
SETTLEMENT MONITORING
1
LS $ 10,000.00
$ 10,000
6
CONNECTION TO EXISTING STRUCTURE
2
EA $ 500.00
$ 1,000
7
REMOVE PAVEMENT
178
SY $ 20.00
$ 3,556
8
PATCH PAVEMENT
178
SY $ 50.00
$ 8,889
Subtotal
$ 146,984
DEWATERING
5%
$ 7,349
EROSION & SEDIMENTATION CONTROL
2%
(SeeNote3)
$ 2,940
TRAFFIC CONTROL
5%
(See Note 4)
$ 7,349
CONTINGENCY
15%
$ 22,048
Subtotal
$ 186,670
MOBILIZATION (GENERAL REQUIREMENT)
10%
$ 18,667
Construction Subtotal (Rounded)
$ 205,000
STATE SALES TAX
9.5%
$ 19,475
ENGINEERING /LEGAL/ADMIN
25%
$ 51,250
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
20%
$ 41,000
PERMITTING
5%
$ 10,250
Project Subtotal (Rounded)
$ 327,000
LAND ACQUISITION
0
AC
$ -
CONTINGENCY
30%
$ -
2012 Dollars
Total Estimated Project Cost (Rounded)
$ 327,000
Notes:
1. The above cost opinion is in 2012 dollars and does not include future escalation, financing, or O &M costs.
2. The order- of-magnitude cost opinion has been prepared for guidance in project evaluation from the information available at the time of preparation and for the assumptions stated. The final costs of the project will depend
on actual labor and material costs, actual she conditions, productivity, competitive market conditions, final project scope and schedule, and other variable factors. As a result, the final project costs will vary from those
presented above. Because of these fact ors, funding needs for individual projects must be scrutinized prior to establishing the final project budgets.
3. Increase percentage markup if work is in or immediately adjacent to flowing or standing water, steep slope, and /or other erosion -prone conditions.
4. Increase percentage markup if work is in or immediately adjacent to secondary, arterial, or other high - volume road or temporarily closes a roadway.
5. Land Acquisition unit costs include Administrative Costs and Condemnation.
4 of 20
PLANNING LEVEL CONSTRUCTION COST OPINION
PROJECT: Gilliam Creek Crossing at 42nd Ave S. (93 -DR08)
CHECKED BY:
DATE:
Amy Carlson (revised 8/30/12)
BY: Raymond Chung
3/2/2012 CIP#
99341208
ITEM NO. 1 BID ITEM
1
QUANTITY
1 UNIT 1 UNIT PRICE 1
AMOUNT
1 REMOVE /ABANDON EXISITNG 36" DIAM. PIPE
94
LF $ 37.00
$
3,478
2 16' SPAN MULTI -PLATE OPEN BTM ARCH (5' -3" RISE)
116
LF $ 424.00
$
49,184
3 CIP PIPE ARCH FOUNDATION / FTGS
19
CY $ 457.50
$
8,648
4 ROCKERY HEADWALL
2
LS $ 15,000.00
$
30,000
5 TRENCH SAFETY SYSTEMS
2,640
SF $ 3.00
$
7,920
6 SHORING (SHEET PILE)
0
SF $ 60.00
$
-
7 RESTORE ROADWAY ASPHALT PAVEMENT
123
TONS $ 91.50
$
11,285
8 UTILITY RELOCATIONS AND TEMPORARY SUPPORT
1
LS $ 50,000.00
$
50,000
9 TEMPORARY BYPASS
1
LS $ 15,000.00
$
15,000
10 STREAMBED COBBLES WITHIN CULVERT
224
CY $ 90.00
$
20,160
11 STREAMBED CHANNEL RECONSTRUCTION (OUTSIDE CULVERT)
80
LF $ 300.00
$
24,000
12 ROADWAY EXCAVATION INCL. HAUL
2,712
CY $ 27.00
$
73,211
13 IMPORTED GRAVEL BACKFILL
1,156
CY $ 40.00
$
46,230
14 CLEARING AND GRUBBING
1
LS $ 6,000.00
$
6,000
15 LANDSCAPE RESTORATION
1
LS $ 20,000.00
$
20,000
Subtotal
$
365,116
DEWATERING
$
10,000
EROSION & SEDIMENTATION CONTROL
5%
(See Note 3)
$
18,256
TRAFFIC CONTROL
4%
(See Note 4)
$
14,605
CONTINGENCY
10%
$
36,512
Subtotal
$
444,488
MOBILIZATION (GENERAL REQUIREMENT)
10%
$
44,449
Construction Subtotal (Rounded)
$
489,000
STATE SALES TAX
9.5%
$
46,455
ENGINEERING /LEGAL/ADMIN
18%
$
88,020
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
10%
$
48,900
PERMITTING
6%
$
29,340
Project Subtotal (Rounded)
$
702,000
LAND ACQUISITION
0
AC
$
-
CONTINGENCY
30%
$
-
2012 Dollars
Total Estimated Project Cost (Rounded)
$
702,000
Notes:
1. The above cost opinion is based on 2003 quantities, with unit prices escalated to 2012 dollars. N does not include future escalation beyond 2011, financing, or O &M costs.
2. The order -of- magnitude cost opinion has been prepared for guidance in project evaluation from the information available at the time of preparation and for the assumptions stated. The final costs of the project will depend
on actual labor and material costs, actual site conditions, productivity, competitive market conditions, final project scope and schedule, and other variable factors. Asa result, the final project costs will vary from those
presented above. Because of these factors, funding needs for individual projects must be scrutinized prior to establishing the final project budgets.
3. Increased percentage markup because work is in or immediately adjacent to flowing or standing water, steep slope, and /or other erosion -prone conditions.
4. Increased percentage markup because will require temporary partial, or entire, closure of 42nd.
5. Land Acquisition unit costs include Administrative Costs and Condemnation.
5 of 20
Notes:
1. The above cost opinion is in 2012 dollars and does not include future escalation, financing, or O &M costs.
2. The order -of- magnitude cost opinion has been prepared for guidance in project evaluation from the information available at the time of preparation and for the assumptions stated. The final costs of the project will depend
on actual labor and material costs, actual site conditions, productivity, competitive market conditions, final project scope and schedule, and other variable factors. As a result, the final project costs will vary from those
presented above Because of these factors, funding needs for individual projects must be scrutinized prior to establishingthefinal project budgets.
3. Increase percentage markup if work is in or immediately adjacent to flowing or standing water, steep slope, and /or other erosion -prone conditions.
4. Increase percentage markup if work is in or immediately adjacent to secondary, arterial, or other high - volume road or temporarily closes a roadway.
5. Land Acquisition unit costs include Administrative Costs.
6 of 20
PLANNING LEVEL CONSTRUCTION COST OPINION
PROJECT:
Soil Reclaimation Facility
CHECKED BY:
Amy Carlson
BY:
Raymond Chung
DATE:
3/2/2012 CIP#
99441202
ITEM NO. 1
BID ITEM
1
QUANTITY
1 UNIT 1 UNIT PRICE 1
AMOUNT
1
RECLAIMATION FACILITY (bid item provided by City)
1
LS $ 760,000.00
$ 1,104,000
2
LF
$ -
3
HR
$ -
4
EA
$ -
5
LS
$ -
6
LS
$
Subtotal
$ 1,104,000
DEWATERING
5%
$ 55,200
EROSION & SEDIMENTATION CONTROL
5%
(SeeNote3)
$ 55,200
TRAFFIC CONTROL
5%
(See Note 4)
$ 55,200
CONTINGENCY
15%
$ 165,600
Subtotal
$ 1,435,200
MOBILIZATION (GENERAL REQUIREMENT)
5%
$ 71,760
Construction Subtotal (Rounded)
$ 1,507,000
STATE SALES TAX
9.5%
$ 143,165
ENGINEERING /LEGAL/ADMIN
25%
$ 376,750
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
20%
$ 301,400
PERMITTING
5%
$ 75,350
Project Subtotal (Rounded)
$ 2,404,000
LAND ACQUISITION
2
AC $ 500,000.00
$ 1,000,000
CONTINGENCY
10%
$ 100,000
2012 Dollars
Total Estimated Project Cost (Rounded)
$ 3,504,000
Notes:
1. The above cost opinion is in 2012 dollars and does not include future escalation, financing, or O &M costs.
2. The order -of- magnitude cost opinion has been prepared for guidance in project evaluation from the information available at the time of preparation and for the assumptions stated. The final costs of the project will depend
on actual labor and material costs, actual site conditions, productivity, competitive market conditions, final project scope and schedule, and other variable factors. As a result, the final project costs will vary from those
presented above Because of these factors, funding needs for individual projects must be scrutinized prior to establishingthefinal project budgets.
3. Increase percentage markup if work is in or immediately adjacent to flowing or standing water, steep slope, and /or other erosion -prone conditions.
4. Increase percentage markup if work is in or immediately adjacent to secondary, arterial, or other high - volume road or temporarily closes a roadway.
5. Land Acquisition unit costs include Administrative Costs.
6 of 20
Notes: •
1. The above cost opinion is based on 2003 quantities, with unit prices escalated to 2012 dollars. It does not includefuture escalation beyond 2011, financing, or O &M costs.
2. The order -of- magnitude cost opinion has been prepared for guidance in project evaluation from the information available at the time of preparation and for the assumptions stated. The final costs of the project will depend
on actual labor and material costs, actual site conditions, productivity, competitive market conditions, final project scope and schedule, and other variable factors. As a result, the final project costs will vary from those
presented above. Because of these factors. funding needs for individual projects must be scrutinized prior to establishing the final project bud gets.
3. Increase percentage markup if work is in or immediately adjacent to flowing or standing water, steep slope, and /or other erosion -prone conditions.
4. Increase percentage markup if work is in or immediately adjacent to secondary, arterial, or other high - volume road or temporarily closes a roadway.
5. Land Acquisition unit costs include Administrative Costs and Condemnation.
7 of 20
PLANNING LEVEL CONSTRUCTION COST OPINION
PROJECT:
BY:
Northwest Gilliam Storm Drainage System
CHECKED BY:
DATE:
Amy Carlson
Raymond Chung
3/2/2012 CIP#
90341206
ITEM NO.
1 BID ITEM 1
QUANTITY
1 UNIT 1 UNIT PRICE 1
AMOUNT
1
REMOVE /ABANDON PIPE
2096
LF $ 23.00
$ 48,208
2
REMOVE /ABANDON CATCH BASIN
20
EA $ 345.00
$ 6,900
3
PAVEMENT OVERLAY, ASPHALT CONCRETE CL B {QTY > 500)
1446
TN $ 63.00
$ 91,098
4
CURB, EXTRUDED (ASPHALT OR CEMENT CONCRETE)
7,584
LF $ 9.00
$ 68,256
5
CATCH BASIN TYPE 1
36
EA $ 1,532.00
$ 55,152
6
8" -12" DIA. SMOOTH INTERIOR WALL CORROGATED POLYETHENE IN PAVED AREA
4,340
LF $ 81.00
$ 351,540
7
TRENCH SAFETY SYSTEMS
26,040
SF $ 1.00
$ 26,040
8
STORMCEPTOR WQ MANHOLE (STC 2400)
0
EA $ 37,000.00
$ -
9
STORMCEPTOR WQ MANHOLE (STC 4800)
2
EA $ 53,000.00
$ 106,000
10
STORMCEPTOR WQ MANHOLE (STC 7200)
1
EA $ 71,072.00
$ 71,072
11
UTILITY RELOCATIONS
1
LS $ 57,582.00
$ 57,582
12
TEMPORARY BYPASS
1
LS $ 5,758.00
$ 5,758
Subtotal
$ 887,606
DEWATERING
5%
$ 44,380
EROSION & SEDIMENTATION CONTROL
2%
(See Note 3)
$ 17,752
TRAFFIC CONTROL
5%
(See Note 4)
$ 44,380
CONTINGENCY
15%
$ 133,141
Subtotal
$ 1,127,260
MOBILIZATION (GENERAL REQUIREMENT)
10%
$ 112,726
Construction Subtotal (Rounded)
$ 1,240,000
STATE SALES TAX
9.5%
$ 117,800
ENGINEERING /LEGAL/ADMIN
25%
$ 310,000
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
20%
$ 248,000
PERMITTING
5%
$ 62,000
Project Subtotal (Rounded)
$ 1,978,000
LAND ACQUISITION
0
AC
$ -
CONTINGENCY
30%
$ -
2012 Dollars
Total Estimated Project Cost (Rounded)
$ 1,978,000
Notes: •
1. The above cost opinion is based on 2003 quantities, with unit prices escalated to 2012 dollars. It does not includefuture escalation beyond 2011, financing, or O &M costs.
2. The order -of- magnitude cost opinion has been prepared for guidance in project evaluation from the information available at the time of preparation and for the assumptions stated. The final costs of the project will depend
on actual labor and material costs, actual site conditions, productivity, competitive market conditions, final project scope and schedule, and other variable factors. As a result, the final project costs will vary from those
presented above. Because of these factors. funding needs for individual projects must be scrutinized prior to establishing the final project bud gets.
3. Increase percentage markup if work is in or immediately adjacent to flowing or standing water, steep slope, and /or other erosion -prone conditions.
4. Increase percentage markup if work is in or immediately adjacent to secondary, arterial, or other high - volume road or temporarily closes a roadway.
5. Land Acquisition unit costs include Administrative Costs and Condemnation.
7 of 20
Notes:
1. The above cost opinion is based on 2003 quantities, with unit prices escalated to 2012 dollars. It does not include future escalation beyond 2011, financing, or O &M costs.
2. The order -of- magnitude cost opinion has been prepared for guidance in project evaluation from the information available at the time of preparation and for the assumptions stated. The final costs of the project will depend
on actual labor and material costs, actual site conditions, productivity, competitive market conditions, final project scope and schedule, and other variable factors. As a result, the final project costs will vary from those
presented above. Because of these factors, funding needs for individual proiects must be scrutinized prior to establishing the final project budgets.
3. Increase percentage markup if work is in or immediately adjacent to flowing or standing water, steep slope, and /or other erosion -prone conditions.
4. Increase percentage markup if work is in or immediately adjacent to secondary, arterial, or other high - volume road or temporarily closes a roadway.
5. Land Acquisition unit costs include Administrative Costs and Condemnation.
of 20
PLANNING LEVEL CONSTRUCTION COST OPINION
PROJECT:
53rd Avenue 5. Storm Drain System
CHECKED BY:
Amy Carlson
BY:
Raymond Chung
DATE
3/2/2012 CIP#
90341213
ITEM NO. 1
BID ITEM 1
QUANTITY
1 UNIT 1 UNIT PRICE 1
AMOUNT
1
CATCH BASIN TYPE 1
18
EA $ 1,532.00
$ 27,576
2
CATCH BASIN TYPE 2 48 " -54"
6
EA $ 4,353.00
$ 26,118
3
CURB, EXTRUDED (ASPHALT OR CEMENT CONCRETE)
4400
LF $ 9.00
$ 39,600
4
TRENCH SAFETY SYSTEMS
15,360
SF $ 1.00
$ 15,360
5
STORMCEPTOR WQ MANHOLE (STC 2400)
1
EA $ 37,000.00
$ 37,000
6
BIOSWALE CONSTRUCTION (INCLUDES EXCAVATION GRADING AND SEEDING)
8,184
SF $ 6.00
$ 49,104
7
PAVEMENT OVERLAY, ASPHALT CONCRETE CL B {QTY > 500}
1,933
TN $ 63.00
$ 121,779
8
8" -12" DIA. SMOOTH INTERIOR WALL CORROGATED POLYETHENE IN PAVED AREA
1,460
LF $ 93.00
$ 135,780
9
18 " -24" DIA. SMOOTH INTERIOR WALL CORROGATED POLYETHENE IN PAVED AREA
1,100
LF $ 162.00
$ 178,200
10
REMOVE /ABANDON PIPE
2,200
LF $ 23.00
$ 50,600
11
UTILITY RELOCATIONS
1
LS $ 17,275.00
$ 17,275
Subtotal
$ 698,392
DEWATERING
5%
$ 34,920
EROSION & SEDIMENTATION CONTROL
2%
(See Note 3)
$ 13,968
TRAFFIC CONTROL
5%
(See Note 4)
$ 34,920
CONTINGENCY
15%
$ 104,759
Subtotal
$ 886,958
MOBILIZATION (GENERAL REQUIREMENT)
10%
$ 88,696
2% Construction Subtotal (Rounded)
$ 976,000
STATE SALES TAX
9.5%
$ 92,720
ENGINEERING /LEGAL/ADMIN
25%
$ 244,000
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
20%
$ 195,200
PERMITTING
5%
$ 48,800
Project Subtotal (Rounded)
$ 1,557,000
LAND ACQUISITION
0
AC
$ -
CONTINGENCY
30%
$ -
2012 Dollars
Total Estimated Project Cost (Rounded)
$ 1,557,000
Notes:
1. The above cost opinion is based on 2003 quantities, with unit prices escalated to 2012 dollars. It does not include future escalation beyond 2011, financing, or O &M costs.
2. The order -of- magnitude cost opinion has been prepared for guidance in project evaluation from the information available at the time of preparation and for the assumptions stated. The final costs of the project will depend
on actual labor and material costs, actual site conditions, productivity, competitive market conditions, final project scope and schedule, and other variable factors. As a result, the final project costs will vary from those
presented above. Because of these factors, funding needs for individual proiects must be scrutinized prior to establishing the final project budgets.
3. Increase percentage markup if work is in or immediately adjacent to flowing or standing water, steep slope, and /or other erosion -prone conditions.
4. Increase percentage markup if work is in or immediately adjacent to secondary, arterial, or other high - volume road or temporarily closes a roadway.
5. Land Acquisition unit costs include Administrative Costs and Condemnation.
of 20
Notes:
1. The above cost opinion is based on 2003 quantities, with unit prices escalated to 2012 dollars. it does not include future escalation beyond 2011, financing, or O &M costs.
2. The order -of- magnitude cost opinion has been prepared for guidance in project evaluation from the information available at the time of preparation and for the assumptions stated. The final costs of the project will
depend on actual labor and material costs, actual site conditions, productivity, competitive market conditions, final project scope and schedule, and other variable factors. As a result, the final project costs will vary from
those presented above. Because of these factors, funding needs for individual projects most be scrutinized prior to establishing the final project budgets.
3. Increase percentage markup if work is in or immediately adjacent to flowing or standing water, steep slope, and /or other erosion -prone conditions.
4. Increase percentage markup if work is in or immediately adjacent to secondary, arterial, or other high- volume road or temporarily closes a roadway.
5. Land Acquisition unit costs include Administrative Costs and Condemnation.
9 of 20
PLANNING LEVEL CONSTRUCTION COST OPINION
PROJECT:
S. 146th Street Pipe and 35th Avenue S. Drainage System
CHECKED BY
Amy Carlson
BY:
Raymond Chung
DATE:
3/2/2012 CIP#
90341214
ITEM NO.
1 BID ITEM
1
QUANTITY
1 UNIT 1 UNIT PRICE 1
AMOUNT
1
REMOVE /ABANDON PIPE
1,000
LF $ 23.00
$ 23,000
2
REMOVE /ABANDON CATCH BASIN
5
EA $ 345.00
$ 1,725
3
PAVEMENT OVERLAY, ASPHALT CONCRETE CL B {QTY> 500}
1,062
TN $ 63.00
$ 66,906
4
CURB, EXTRUDED (ASPHALT OR CEMENT CONCRETE)
2,700
LF $ 9.00
$ 24,300
5
8" - 12" DIA. SMOOTH INTERIOR WALL CORROGATED POLYETHENE IN PAVED AREAS
560
LF $ 93.00
$ 52,080
6
18" -24" DIA. SMOOTH INTERIOR WALL CORROGATED POLYETHENE IN PAVED AREA
1,050
LF $ 162.00
$ 170,100
7
TRENCH SAFETY SYSTEMS
9,660
SF $ 1.00
$ 9,660
8
CATCH BASIN TYPE 2 48 " -54"
5
EA $ 4,353.00
$ 21,765
9
UTILITY RELOCATIONS
1
LS $ 11,516.00
$ 11,516
10
TEMPORARY BYPASS
1
LS $ 5,758.00
$ 5,758
Subtotal
$ 386,810
DEWATERING
5%
$ 19,341
EROSION & SEDIMENTATION CONTROL
5%
(See Note 3)
$ 19,341
TRAFFIC CONTROL
5%
(See Note 4)
$ 19,341
CONTINGENCY
15%
$ 58,022
Subtotal
$ 502,853
MOBILIZATION (GENERAL REQUIREMENT)
10%
$ 50,285
Construction Subtotal (Rounded)
$ 553,000
STATE SALES TAX
9.5%
$ 52,535
ENGINEERING /LEGAL /ADMIN
25%
$ 138,250
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
20%
$ 110,600
PERMITTING
5%
$ 27,650
Project Subtotal (Rounded)
$ 882,000
LAND ACQUISITION
0
$ -
CONTINGENCY
30%
$ -
2012 Dollars
Total Estimated Project Cost (Rounded)
$ 882,000
Notes:
1. The above cost opinion is based on 2003 quantities, with unit prices escalated to 2012 dollars. it does not include future escalation beyond 2011, financing, or O &M costs.
2. The order -of- magnitude cost opinion has been prepared for guidance in project evaluation from the information available at the time of preparation and for the assumptions stated. The final costs of the project will
depend on actual labor and material costs, actual site conditions, productivity, competitive market conditions, final project scope and schedule, and other variable factors. As a result, the final project costs will vary from
those presented above. Because of these factors, funding needs for individual projects most be scrutinized prior to establishing the final project budgets.
3. Increase percentage markup if work is in or immediately adjacent to flowing or standing water, steep slope, and /or other erosion -prone conditions.
4. Increase percentage markup if work is in or immediately adjacent to secondary, arterial, or other high- volume road or temporarily closes a roadway.
5. Land Acquisition unit costs include Administrative Costs and Condemnation.
9 of 20
Notes:
1. The above cost opinion is in 2012 dollars based on information provided by PACE Engineers, and does not include future escalation, financing, or O &M costs.
2. The order -of- magnitude cost opinion has been prepared for guidance in project evaluation from the information available at the time of preparation and for the assumptions stated. The final costs of the project will depend on
actual labor and material costs, actual site conditions, productivity, competitive market conditions, final project scope and schedule, and other variable factors. As a result, the final project costs will vary from those presented
above. Because of these factors, funding needs for individual projects must be scrutinized prior to establishing the final project budgets.
3. Increase percentage markup if work is in or immediately adjacent to Bowing or standing water, steep slope, and /or other erosion -prone conditions.
4. Increase percentage markup if work is in or immediately adjacent to secondary, arterial, or other high - volume road or temporarily closes a roadway.
5. Land Acquisition unit costs include Administrative Costs and Condemnation.
10 of 20
PLANNING LEVEL CONSTRUCTION COST OPINION
PROJECT:
Storm Lift Station No. 15 Improvement
CHECKED BY: Amy Carlson
BY:
Raymond Chung
DATE: 3/2/2012 CIP#
91041203
ITEM NO. 1
BID ITEM
1
QUANTITY UNIT 1 UNIT PRICE 1
AMOUNT
1
Generator with Turning Vane
1 Ls $ 220,000.00
$ 220,000
2
Generator Enclosure
1 LS $ 75,000.00
$ 75,000
3
Electrical /Communication
1 LS $ 75,000.00
$ 90,000
4
Concrete Pad
1 LS $ 3,000.00
$ 3,000
5
Asphalt Patch, 2"
30 SY $ 45.00
$ 1,350
6
Crushed Surfacing Top Course
35 TN $ 30.00
$ 1,050
7
Trench Shoring and Protection
1 LS $ 500.00
$ 500
8
Landscape Restoration
1 L5 $ 1,250.00
$ 1,250
Subtotal
$ 392,150
DEWATERING
$ -
EROSION & SEDIMENTATION CONTROL
$ 2,000
TRAFFIC CONTROL
$ -
CONTINGENCY
$ 48,000
Subtotal
$ 442,150
MOBILIZATION (GENERAL REQUIREMENT)
$ 25,000
Construction Subtotal (Rounded)
$ 467,000
STATE SALES TAX
9.5%
$ 44,365
ENGINEERING /LEGAL/ADMIN
15%
$ 70,050
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
20%
$ 93,400
PERMITTING
5%
$ 23,350
Project Subtotal (Rounded)
$ 698,000
LAND ACQUISITION
0
$ -
CONTINGENCY
30%
$ -
2012 Dollars
Total Estimated Project Cost (Rounded)
$ 698,000
Notes:
1. The above cost opinion is in 2012 dollars based on information provided by PACE Engineers, and does not include future escalation, financing, or O &M costs.
2. The order -of- magnitude cost opinion has been prepared for guidance in project evaluation from the information available at the time of preparation and for the assumptions stated. The final costs of the project will depend on
actual labor and material costs, actual site conditions, productivity, competitive market conditions, final project scope and schedule, and other variable factors. As a result, the final project costs will vary from those presented
above. Because of these factors, funding needs for individual projects must be scrutinized prior to establishing the final project budgets.
3. Increase percentage markup if work is in or immediately adjacent to Bowing or standing water, steep slope, and /or other erosion -prone conditions.
4. Increase percentage markup if work is in or immediately adjacent to secondary, arterial, or other high - volume road or temporarily closes a roadway.
5. Land Acquisition unit costs include Administrative Costs and Condemnation.
10 of 20
PLANNING LEVEL CONSTRUCTION COST OPINION
PROJECT: East Marginal Wy S Stormwater Outfall
CHECKED BY: Amy Carlson
BY: Raymond Chung
DATE: 3/2/2012 CIP4
91041204
ITEM NO. 1 BID ITEM
1 QUANTITY 1 UNIT 1 UNIT PRICE ]
AMOUNT
Cost estimate from GHD report for the 'Z-line' outfall
1 REMOVE MANHOLE
4 EA $ 650.00
$ 2,600
2 REMOVE /ABANDON PIPE
980 LF $ 20.00
$ 19,600
3 MANHOLE TYPE 204A
4 EA $ 3,400.00
$ 13,600
4 PIPE, P5, CONC REINF C76 CL 111, 18 IN (TRUNK)
980 LF $ 85.00
$ 83,300
5 SHORING
9,506 SF $ 1.42
$ 13,499
6 BEDDING, CL B, 18" PIPE
980 LF $ 18.00
$ 17,640
7 CONSTRUCTION GEOTEXTILE
1,206 SY $ 2.00
$ 2,412
8 REPAIR CB PIPE CONNECTIONS
6 EA $ 600.00
$ 3,600
9 PIPE, P5, CONC REINF C76 CL III, 18 IN (OUTFALL)
230 LF $ 85.00
$ 19,550
10 8X11 MANHOLE FILTER SYSEM (24 CARTRIDGES)
1 EA $ 50,200.00
$ 50,200
11 VORTECHS
1 EA $ 14,500.00
$ 14,500
12 SAW CUT CEMENT CONCRETE, FULL DEPTH
1,960 IF $ 8.00
$ 15,680
13 REMOVE PAVEMENT
436 SY $ 24.00
$ 10,464
14 CONCRETE PAVEMENT CL6.5, (1 -1/2), 91N
436 SY $ 80.00
$ 34,880
Subtotal
$ 301,525
DEWATERING
$ -
EROSION & SEDIMENTATION CONTROL
$ 29,720
TRAFFIC CONTROL
$ 14,860
CONTINGENCY
$ 92,875
Subtotal
$ 438,979
MOBILIZATION (GENERAL REQUIREMENT)
$ 29,720
Construction Subtotal (Rounded)
$ 469,000
STATE SALES TAX
9.5%
$ 44,555
ENGINEERING /LEGAL/ADMIN
30%
$ 140,700
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
20%
$ 93,800
PERMITTING
5%
$ 23,450
Project Subtotal (Rounded)
$ 772,000
LAND ACQUISITION
0
$ -
CONTINGENCY
30%
$ -
2012 Dollars
Total Estimated Project Cost (Rounded)
$ 772,000
Notes:
1. The above cost opinion is in 2012 dollars based on information provided by GHD, and does not include future escalation, financing, or 0 &M costs.
2. The order -of- magnitude cost opinion has been prepared for guidance in project evaluation from the information available at the time of preparation and for the assumptions stated. The final costs of the project will depend on
actual labor and material costs, actual site conditions, productivity, competitive market conditions, final project scope and schedule, and othervariable factors. As a result, the final project costs will vary from those presented
above Because of these factors, funding needs for individual projects must be scrutinized prior to establishing the final project budgets.
3. Increase percentage markup if work is in or immediately adjacent to flowing or standing water, steep slope, and /or other erosion -prone conditions.
4. Increase percentage markup if work is in or immediately adjacent to secondary, arterial, or other high - volume road or temporarily closes a roadway.
5. Land Acquisition unit costs include Administrative Costs and Condemnation.
11 of 20
Notes:
1. The above cost opinion is in 2012 dollars and does not include future escalation, financing, or 0 &M costs.
2. The order -of- magnitude cast opinion has been prepared for guidance in project evaluation from the information available at the time of preparation and for the assumptions stated. The final costs of the project will depend on
3. Increase percentage markup if work is in or immediately adjacent to flowing or standing water, steep slope, and /or other erosion -prone conditions.
4. Increase percentage markup if work is in or immediately adjacent to secondary, arterial, or other high - volume road or temporarily closes a roadway.
5. Land Acquisition unit costs include Administrative Costs and Condemnation.
12 of 20
PLANNING LEVEL CONSTRUCTION COST OPINION
PROJECT:
Water Quality Retrofit Program
CHECKED BY: Amy Carlson
BY:
Raymond Chung
DATE: 3/2/2012
CIP:
91241201
ITEM NO I
BID ITEM
1 QUANTITY 1 UNIT 1
UNIT PRICE 1
AMOUNT
S 122th Street
1
STORMCEPTORSTC2400
1 - EA
$ 37,000.00
$ 37,000
2
STORMCEPTOR STC 4800
1 EA
$ 53,000.00
$ 53,000
3
CATCH BASIN TYPE 1
2 EA
$ 1,530.00
$ 3,060
4
CATCH BASIN TYPE 248 " -54"
2 EA
$ 4,350.00
$ 8,700
5
18 " -24" DIA. SMOOTH INTERIOR WALL CORROGATED POLYETHENE IN PAVED AREA
200 LF
$ 141.00
$ 28,200
6
PAVEMENT, HMA CLASS
36 TN
$ 150.00
$ 5,396
7
TRENCH SAFETY SYSTEM
1,465 SF
$ 1.00
$ 1,465
8
BIOFILTRATION SWALE
200 IF
$ -
$ -
48th Avenue S
7
STORMCEPTOR STC 11000
1 EA
$ 89,000.00
$ 89,000
8
CATCH BASIN TYPE 248 " -54"
2 EA
$ 4,350.00
$ 8,700
9
18 " -24" DIA. SMOOTH INTERIOR WALL CORROGATED POLYETHENE IN PAVED AREA
10D LF
$ 141.00
$ 14,100
10
PAVEMENT, HMA CLASS
13 TN
$ 100.00
$ 1,326
11
TRENCH SAFETY SYSTEM
90D SF
$ 1.00
$ 900
$ 250,847
DEWATERING
5%
$ 12,542
EROSION & SEDIMENTATION CONTROL
5% (See Note 3)
$ 12,542
TRAFFIC CONTROL
5% (See Note 4)
$ 12,542
CONTINGENCY
15%
$ 37,627
$ 326,101
MOBILIZATION (GENERAL REQUIREMENT)
10%
$ 32,610
$ 359,000
STATE SALES TAX
9.5%
$ 34,105
ENGINEERING /LEGAL/ADMIN
25%
$ 89,750
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
20%
$ 71,800
PERMITTING
5%
$ 17,950
$ 573,000
LAND ACQUISITION
0
$ -
CONTINGENCY
30%
$ -
2012 Dollars
Total Estimated Project Cost (Rounded)
$ 573,000
Notes:
1. The above cost opinion is in 2012 dollars and does not include future escalation, financing, or 0 &M costs.
2. The order -of- magnitude cast opinion has been prepared for guidance in project evaluation from the information available at the time of preparation and for the assumptions stated. The final costs of the project will depend on
3. Increase percentage markup if work is in or immediately adjacent to flowing or standing water, steep slope, and /or other erosion -prone conditions.
4. Increase percentage markup if work is in or immediately adjacent to secondary, arterial, or other high - volume road or temporarily closes a roadway.
5. Land Acquisition unit costs include Administrative Costs and Condemnation.
12 of 20
PLANNING LEVEL CONSTRUCTION COST OPINION
PROJECT: Tukwila Pkwy /Gilliam Creek Outfalls
CHECKED BY: Amy Carlson (revised 8/30/12)
BY: Raymond Chung
DATE: 3/2/2012 CIP#
91241202
ITEM NO. 1 BID ITEM
1 QUANTITY 1 UNIT 1 UNIT PRICE 1
AMOUNT
1 SHEETPIPE SHORING, WALERS, BRACING
1,600 SF $ 10.00
$ 16,000
2 MANHOLE TYPE 2, 84- INCHES DIAM.
1 EA $ 14,108.00
$ 14,108
3 MANHOLE TYPE 2, 72- INCHES DIAM.
1 EA $ 10,000.00
$ 10,000
4 REMOVE PAVEMENT
197 SY $ 15.00
$ 2,958
5 PATCH PAVEMENT
197 SY $ 45.00
$ 8,875
6 OVERLAY PAVEMENT & STRIPING
300 SY $ 20.00
$ 6,000
6 SELF- REGULATING TIDE GATE WITH DISCHARGE PORT
1 IS $ 30,000.00
$ 30,000
FOR 84 -INCH DIAM MANHOLE
7 SELF - REGULATING TIDE GATE WITH DISCHARGE PORT
1 LS $ 20,000.00
$ 20,000
FOR 72 -INCH DIAM MANHOLE
8 UTILITY COORDINATION
1 L5 $ 5,000.00
$ 5,000
Subtotal
$ 112,941
DEWATERING
10%
$ 11,294
EROSION & SEDIMENTATION CONTROL
10% (See Note3)
$ 11,294
TRAFFIC CONTROL
15% (See Note 4)
$ 16,941
CONTINGENCY
10%
$ 11,294
Subtotal
$ 163,765
MOBILIZATION (GENERAL REQUIREMENT)
10%
$ 16,376
Construction Subtotal (Rounded)
$ 180,000
STATE SALES TAX
9.5%
$ 17,100
ENGINEERING /LEGAL /ADMIN
20%
$ 36,000
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
15%
$ 27,000
PERMITTING
10%
$ 18,000
Project Subtotal (Rounded)
$ 278,000
LAND ACQUISITION
0
$ -
CONTINGENCY
30%
$ -
2012 Dollars
Total Estimated Project Cost (Rounded)
$ 278,000
Notes:
1. The above cost opinion is in 2012 dollars and does not include future escalation, financing, or O &M costs.
2. The order -of- magnitude cost opinion has been prepared for guidance in project evaluation from the information available at the time of preparation and for the assumptions
stated. The final costs of the project will depend on actual labor and material costs, actual site conditions, productivity, competitive market conditions, final project scope and
schedule, and other variable factors. As a result, the final project Costs will vary from those presented above. Because of these factors, funding needs for individual projects must
3. Increase percentage markup if work is in or immediately adjacent to flowing or standing water, steep slope, and /or other erosion -prone conditions.
4. Increase percentage markup if work is in or immediately adjacent to secondary, arterial, or other high - volume road or temporarily closes a roadway.
5. Land Acquisition unit costs include Administrative Costs and Condemnation.
13 of 20
Notes:
1. The above cost opinion is in 2012 dollars and does not include future escalation, financing, or O&M costs.
2. The order -of- magnitude cost opinion has been prepared for guidance in project evaluation from the information available at the time of preparation and for the assumptions stated. The final costs of the project will depend on
actual labor and material costs, actual site conditions, productivity, competitive market conditions, final project scope and schedule, and other variable factors. As a result, the final project costs will vary from those presented
above. Because of these factors, funding needs for individual projects must be scrutinized prior to establishing the final project budgets.
3. Increase percentage markup if work is in or immediately adjacent to flowing or standing water, steep slope, and /or other erosion -prone conditions.
4. Increase percentage markup if work is in or immediately adjacent to secondary, arterial, or other high - volume road or temporarily closes a roadway.
5. Land Acquisition unit costs include Administrative Costs and Condemnation.
14 of 20
PLANNING LEVEL CONSTRUCTION COST OPINION
PROJECT:
Tukwila Urban Center Conveyance Inspections
CHECKED BY: Amy Carlson
BY:
Raymond Chung
DATE: 3/2/2012 CIP#
91241203
ITEM NO.
1 BID ITEM
1
QUANTITY 1 UNIT 1 UNIT PRICE 1
AMOUNT
1
PIIPE CLEANING AND CCTV
14,300 LF $ 9.50
$ 135,850
2
DISPOSAL OF SEDIMENT
2,000 TON $ 85.00
$ 170,000
Subtotal
$ 305,850
DEWATERING
5%
$ 15,293
EROSION & SEDIMENTATION CONTROL
2% (See Note 3)
$ 6,117
TRAFFIC CONTROL
5% (See Note 4)
$ 15,293
CONTINGENCY
15%
$ 45,878
Subtotal
$ 388,430
MOBILIZATION (GENERAL REQUIREMENT)
2%
$ 7,769
Construction Subtotal (Rounded)
$ 396,000
STATE SALES TAX
9.5%
$ 37,620
ENGINEERING /LEGAL/ADMIN
2%
$ 7,920
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
20%
$ 79,200
PERMITTING
5%
$ 19,800
Project Subtotal (Rounded)
$ 541,000
LAND ACQUISITION
0
$ -
CONTINGENCY
30%
$ -
2012 Dollars
Total Estimated Project Cost (Rounded)
$ 541,000
Notes:
1. The above cost opinion is in 2012 dollars and does not include future escalation, financing, or O&M costs.
2. The order -of- magnitude cost opinion has been prepared for guidance in project evaluation from the information available at the time of preparation and for the assumptions stated. The final costs of the project will depend on
actual labor and material costs, actual site conditions, productivity, competitive market conditions, final project scope and schedule, and other variable factors. As a result, the final project costs will vary from those presented
above. Because of these factors, funding needs for individual projects must be scrutinized prior to establishing the final project budgets.
3. Increase percentage markup if work is in or immediately adjacent to flowing or standing water, steep slope, and /or other erosion -prone conditions.
4. Increase percentage markup if work is in or immediately adjacent to secondary, arterial, or other high - volume road or temporarily closes a roadway.
5. Land Acquisition unit costs include Administrative Costs and Condemnation.
14 of 20
Notes:
1. The above cost opinion is in 2012 dollars and does not include future escalation, financing, or O &M costs.
2. The order -of- magnitude cost opinion has been prepared for guidance in project evaluation from the information available at the time of preparation and for the assumptions stated. The final costs of the project will depend on
actual labor and material costs, actual site conditions, productivity, competitive market conditions, final project scope and schedule, and other variable factors. As a result, the final project costs will vary from those presented
above. Because of these factors, funding needs for individual projects must be scrutinized prior to establishing the final project budgets.
3. Increase percentage markup if work is in or immediately adjacent to flowing or standing water, steep slope, and /or other erosion -prone conditions.
4. Increase percentage markup if work is in or immediately adjacent to secondary, arterial, or other high - volume road or temporarily closes a roadway.
5. Land Acquisition unit costs include Administrative Costs and Condemnation.
15 of 20
PLANNING LEVEL CONSTRUCTION COST OPINION
PROJECT:
E. Marginal Way Conveyance Inspection
CHECKED BY: Amy Carlson
BY:
Raymond Chung
DATE: 3/2/2012 CIPN
91241204
ITEM NO.
I
BID ITEM
1 QUANTITY 1 UNIT 1 UNIT PRICE 1
AMOUNT
1
PIIPE CLEANING AND CCTV
3,500 LF $ 9.50
$
33,250
2
DISPOSAL OF SEDIMENT
94 TON $ 85.00
$
7,969
3
$
-
4
$
-
5
$
-
6
$
-
7
$
-
8
$
-
9
$
-
10
$
-
Subtotal
$
41,219
DEWATERING
10%
$
4,122
EROSION & SEDIMENTATION CONTROL
2% (See Note 3)
$
824
TRAFFIC CONTROL
5% (See Note 4)
$
2,061
CONTINGENCY
15%
$
6,183
Subtotal
$
54,409
MOBILIZATION (GENERAL REQUIREMENT)
5%
$
2,720
Construction Subtotal (Rounded)
$
57,000
STATE SALES TAX
9.5%
$
5,415
ENGINEERING /LEGAL/ADMIN
15%
$
8,550
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
20%
$
11,400
PERMITTING
5%
$
2,850
Project Subtotal (Rounded)
$
85,000
LAND ACQUISITION
0
$
-
CONTINGENCY
30%
$
-
2012 Dollars
Total Estimated Project Cost (Rounded)
$
85,000
Notes:
1. The above cost opinion is in 2012 dollars and does not include future escalation, financing, or O &M costs.
2. The order -of- magnitude cost opinion has been prepared for guidance in project evaluation from the information available at the time of preparation and for the assumptions stated. The final costs of the project will depend on
actual labor and material costs, actual site conditions, productivity, competitive market conditions, final project scope and schedule, and other variable factors. As a result, the final project costs will vary from those presented
above. Because of these factors, funding needs for individual projects must be scrutinized prior to establishing the final project budgets.
3. Increase percentage markup if work is in or immediately adjacent to flowing or standing water, steep slope, and /or other erosion -prone conditions.
4. Increase percentage markup if work is in or immediately adjacent to secondary, arterial, or other high - volume road or temporarily closes a roadway.
5. Land Acquisition unit costs include Administrative Costs and Condemnation.
15 of 20
2012 - 2017
0
m
SUMMARY OF FUND #
0
z
O G
N O
00 C h
CO J b
d-
0)
C
NOTE: All sheets are linked to the Summary
SURFACE WATER
Q
To
v o
.o a
N
C
O A
� O
C
O
u
PROJECT TITLE
0
rc
6
New Estimate
a
0
Under design (75% completion). Cost provided by the City
Updated from 2003
0 0 0 0
o °0 0 00
m o te LS
O a, W
ti M
O
0 0 0 0
0 O • 0 O
0
0
00 0 00 v
Nelson Salmon Habitat Side Channel
Duwamish Gardens
Riverton Creek Flap Gate Removal
Gilliam Creek Fish Barrier Removal
0 0 0 •
LO
0
0 ▪ O 0 0
K) CO CO CO
m u0 CO CO
0 0 00 CO
CO CO m m
2012 - 2017 Capital Improvement Program
Notes:
1. The above cost opinion is in 2011 dollars and does not include future escalation, financing, or O &M costs.
2. The order -of- magnitude cost opinion has been prepared for guidance in project evaluation from the information available at the time of preparation and for the assumptions
stated. The final costs of the project will depend on actual labor and material costs, actual site conditions, productivity, competitive market conditions, final project scope and
schedule, and other variable factors. As a result, the final project costs will vary from those presented above. Because of these factors, funding needs for individual projects
must be scrutinized prior to establishing the final project budgets.
3. Increase percentage markup if work is in or immediately adjacent to flowing or standing water, steep slope, and /or other erosion -prone conditions.
4. Increase percentage markup if work is in or immediately adjacent to secondary, arterial, or other high - volume road or temporarily closes a roadway.
5. Land Acquisition unit costs include Administrative Costs and Condemnation.
17 of 20
PLANNING LEVEL CONSTRUCTION COST OPINION
PROJECT:
Nelson Salmon Habitat Side Channel
CHECKED BY:
BY:
Raymond Chung
DATE:
3/1/2012 CIP#
90330104
ITEM NO.
1 BID ITEM
1 QUANTITY
1 UNIT 1 UNIT PRICE 1
AMOUNT
1
COMMON EXCAVATION (INCL HAUL)
13600
CY $ 10.00
$ 136,000
2
VINYL SHEET PILES (EXPOSED FACE AREA)
3,120
SF $ 40.00
$ 124,800
3
PILING CONTRACTOR MOB /DEMOB
1
LS $ 10,000.00
$ 10,000
4
EMBANKMENT COMPACTION
900
CY $ 5.00
$ 4,500
5
BOULDERS /RIPRAP, SLOPE PROTECTION
200
CY $ 50.00
$ 10,000
6
GEOTEX TILE UNDER RIPRAP
274
SY $ 2.00
$ 548
7
PLANTING
0.7
AC $ 20,000.00
$ 14,000
8
COMMON BORROW INSIDE SHEETS
415
CY $ 15.00
$ 6,225
9
CLEARING AND GRUBBING
0.5
AC $ 8,000.00
$ 4,000
10
SET & REMOVE COFFERDAM
250
LF $ 500.00
$ 125,000
11
TREE SCREEN ON SOUTH SIDE OF WALLS
430
LF $ 50.00
$ 21,500
12
SLAB TOP ON WALL STRUCTURE
42
CY $ 300.00
$ 12,613
13
SAFETY RAILINGS
860
LF $ 40.00
$ 34,400
14
LARGE WOODY DEBRIS
1
LS $ 50,000.00
$ 50,000
Subtotal
$ 553,586
DEWATERING
5%
$ 27,679
EROSION & SEDIMENTATION CONTROL
20%
(See Note 3)
$ 110,717
TRAFFIC CONTROL
5%
(See Note 4)
$ 27,679
CONTINGENCY
15%
$ 83,038
Subtotal
$ 802,700
MOBILIZATION (GENERAL REQUIREMENT)
10%
$ 80,270
Construction Subtotal (Rounded)
$ 883,000
STATE SALES TAX
9.5%
$ 83,885
ENGINEERING /LEGAL /ADMIN
30%
$ 264,900
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
20%
$ 176,600
PERMITTING
10%
$ 88,300
Project Subtotal (Rounded)
$ 1,497,000
LAND ACQUISITION
0
AC
$ -
CONTINGENCY
15%
$ -
2011 Dollars
Total Estimated Project Cost (Rounded)
$ 1,497,000
Notes:
1. The above cost opinion is in 2011 dollars and does not include future escalation, financing, or O &M costs.
2. The order -of- magnitude cost opinion has been prepared for guidance in project evaluation from the information available at the time of preparation and for the assumptions
stated. The final costs of the project will depend on actual labor and material costs, actual site conditions, productivity, competitive market conditions, final project scope and
schedule, and other variable factors. As a result, the final project costs will vary from those presented above. Because of these factors, funding needs for individual projects
must be scrutinized prior to establishing the final project budgets.
3. Increase percentage markup if work is in or immediately adjacent to flowing or standing water, steep slope, and /or other erosion -prone conditions.
4. Increase percentage markup if work is in or immediately adjacent to secondary, arterial, or other high - volume road or temporarily closes a roadway.
5. Land Acquisition unit costs include Administrative Costs and Condemnation.
17 of 20
Notes:
1. The above cost opinion is in 2011 dollars and does not include future escalation, financing, or O &M costs.
2. The order -of- magnitude cost opinion has been prepared for guidance in project evaluation from the information available at the time of preparation and for the assumptions
stated. The final costs of the project will depend on actual labor and material costs, actual site conditions, productivity, competitive market conditions, final project scope and
schedule, and other variable factors. As a result, the final project costs will vary from those presented above. Because of these factors, funding needs for individual projects must be
scrutinized prior to establishing the final project budgets.
3. Increase percentage markup if work is in or immediately adjacent to flowing or standing water, steep slope, and /or other erosion -prone conditions.
4. Increase percentage markup if work is in or immediately adjacent to secondary, arterial, or other high - volume road or temporarily closes a roadway.
5. Land Acquisition unit costs include Administrative Costs and Condemnation.
18 of 20
PLANNING LEVEL CONSTRUCTION COST OPINION
PROJECT:
Duwamish Gardens
CHECKED BY:
BY:
Raymond Chung
DATE:
3/2/2012 CIP4t
90630102
ITEM NO. 1
BID ITEM
1
QUANTITY
1 UNIT 1 UNIT PRICE 1
AMOUNT
1
Restoration
1
LS $ 3,000,000.00
$ 3,000,000
2
$ -
3
$ -
4
5
6
Subtotal
$ 3,000,000
DEWATERING
$ -
EROSION & SEDIMENTATION CONTROL
(See Note 3)
$ -
TRAFFIC CONTROL
(See Note 4)
$ -
CONTINGENCY
$ -
Subtotal
$ 3,000,000
MOBILIZATION (GENERAL REQUIREMENT)
$ -
Construction Subtotal (Rounded)
$ 3,000,000
STATE SALES TAX
$ -
ENGINEERING/LEGAL/ADMIN
$ -
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
$ -
PERMITTING
$ -
Project Subtotal (Rounded)
$ 3,000,000
LAND ACQUISITION
0
AC
$ -
CONTINGENCY
15%
$ -
2011 Dollars
Total Estimated Project Cost (Rounded)
$ 3,000,000
Notes:
1. The above cost opinion is in 2011 dollars and does not include future escalation, financing, or O &M costs.
2. The order -of- magnitude cost opinion has been prepared for guidance in project evaluation from the information available at the time of preparation and for the assumptions
stated. The final costs of the project will depend on actual labor and material costs, actual site conditions, productivity, competitive market conditions, final project scope and
schedule, and other variable factors. As a result, the final project costs will vary from those presented above. Because of these factors, funding needs for individual projects must be
scrutinized prior to establishing the final project budgets.
3. Increase percentage markup if work is in or immediately adjacent to flowing or standing water, steep slope, and /or other erosion -prone conditions.
4. Increase percentage markup if work is in or immediately adjacent to secondary, arterial, or other high - volume road or temporarily closes a roadway.
5. Land Acquisition unit costs include Administrative Costs and Condemnation.
18 of 20
Notes:
1. The above cost opinion is in 2011 dollars and does not include future escalation, financing, or O &M costs.
2. The order -of- magnitude cost opinion has been prepared for guidance in project evaluation from the information available at the time of preparation and for the assumptions
stated. The final costs of the project will depend on actual labor and material costs, actual site conditions, productivity, competitive market conditions, final project scope and
schedule, and other variable factors. As a result, the final project costs will vary from those presented above. Because of these factors, funding needs for individual projects
must be scrutinized prior to establishing the final project budgets.
3. Increase percentage markup if work is in or immediately adjacent to flowing or standing water, steep slope, and /or other erosion -prone conditions.
4. Increase percentage markup if work is in or immediately adjacent to secondary, arterial, or other high - volume road or temporarily closes a roadway.
5. Land Acquisition unit costs include Administrative Costs and Condemnation.
19 of 20
PLANNING LEVEL CONSTRUCTION COST OPINION
PROJECT:
Riverton Creek Flap Gate Removal
CHECKED BY:
BY:
Raymond Chung
DATE:
3/2/2012 CIP#
99830103
ITEM NO.
1 BID ITEM
1 QUANTITY
UNIT 1 UNIT PRICE I
AMOUNT
1
CLEAR AND GRUBBING, REMOVAL AND DEMOINATION
1
LS $ 17,925 $
17,925
2
DITCH EXCAVATION INCLUDING HAUL
1,125
CY $ 50 $
56,250
3
TIE -BACK ANCHORS, 20 FT, THROUGH SHEET PILE WALL
10
EA $ 8,500 $
85,000
4
CLEANING AND 5/16" FILLET WIELD OF SHEET PILES TO WALL CAP
10
EA $ 200 $
2,000
5
EPDXY DOW ELLS AT WALL CAP
50
LS $ 35 $
1,750
6
CONCRETE WALL CAP
16
CY $ 150 $
2,400
7
8 -INCH DIAM. STANDARD PIPE MICROPILE
280
LF $ 50 $
14,000
8
BRIDGE ABUTMENT CONCRETE
20
CY $ 500 $
10,000
9
MODULAR BLOCK RETAINING WALL
1
LS $ 5,000 $
5,000
10
PREFABRICATED BRIDGE
1
LS $ 50,000 $
50,000
11
HOT MIX ASPHALT WITH CSBC
1
TON $ 160 $
160
12
LARGE WOODY DEBRIS
11
EA $ 11,000 $
121,000
13
OVERLAPPED LARGE WOODY DEBRIS
2
EA $ 4,000 $
8,000
14
PLANTING
1
LS $ 6,000 $
6,000
15
SURVEY
1
LS $ 7,500 $
7,500
Subtotal $
386,985
DEWATERING
5%
$
19,349
EROSION & SEDIMENTATION CONTROL
10%
(See Note 3) $
38,699
TRAFFIC CONTROL
5%
(See Note 4) $
19,349
CONTINGENCY
15%
$
58,048
Subtotal $
522,430
MOBILIZATION (GENERAL REQUIREMENT)
10%
$
52,243
Construction Subtotal (Rounded) $
575,000
STATE SALES TAX
9.5%
$
54,625
ENGINEERING /LEGAL /ADMIN
25%
$
143,750
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
20%
$
115,000
PERMITTING
10%
$
57,500
Project Subtotal (Rounded) $
946,000
LAND ACQUISITION
0
AC $
-
CONTINGENCY
15%
$
-
2011 Dollars
Total Estimated Project Cost (Rounded) $
946,000
Notes:
1. The above cost opinion is in 2011 dollars and does not include future escalation, financing, or O &M costs.
2. The order -of- magnitude cost opinion has been prepared for guidance in project evaluation from the information available at the time of preparation and for the assumptions
stated. The final costs of the project will depend on actual labor and material costs, actual site conditions, productivity, competitive market conditions, final project scope and
schedule, and other variable factors. As a result, the final project costs will vary from those presented above. Because of these factors, funding needs for individual projects
must be scrutinized prior to establishing the final project budgets.
3. Increase percentage markup if work is in or immediately adjacent to flowing or standing water, steep slope, and /or other erosion -prone conditions.
4. Increase percentage markup if work is in or immediately adjacent to secondary, arterial, or other high - volume road or temporarily closes a roadway.
5. Land Acquisition unit costs include Administrative Costs and Condemnation.
19 of 20
Notes:
1.. The above cost opinion is based on 2003 quantities, with unit prices escalated to 2011 dollars. It does not include future escalation beyond 2011, financing, or O &M costs.
2. The order -of- magnitude cost opinion has been prepared for guidance in project evaluation from the information available at the time of preparation and for the assumptions
stated. The final costs of the project will depend on actual labor and material costs, actual site conditions, productivity, competitive market conditions, final project scope and
schedule, and other variable factors. As a result, the final project costs will vary from those presented above. Because of these factors, funding needs for individual projects
3. Increase percentage markup if work is in or immediately adjacent to flowing or standing water, steep slope, and /or other erosion -prone conditions.
4. Increase percentage markup if work is in or immediately adjacent to secondary, arterial, or other high - volume road or temporarily closes a roadway.
5. Land Acquisition unit costs include Administrative Costs and Condemnation.
20 of 20
PLANNING LEVEL CONSTRUCTION COST OPINION
PROJECT:
Gilliam Creek Fish Barrier Removal
CHECKED BY:
BY:
Raymond Chung
DATE:
3/2/2012 CIP#
99830105
ITEM NO.
1 BID ITEM
1 QUANTITY
1 UNIT 1 UNIT PRICE 1
AMOUNT
1
CLEARING AND GRUBBING, AND ROADSIDE CLEANUP
1
AC $ 9,213
$
9,213
2
COMMON EXCAVATION
30
CY $ 31
$
933
3
TOP SOIL
130
CY $ 32
$
4,192
4
PLANTING (WETLAND ENHANCEMENT)
1
LS $ 23,033
$
23,033
5
EMBANKMENT COMPACTION
20
CY $ 25
$
507
6
GRAVEL CLASS B
75
TN $ 25
$
1,900
7
STREAMBED GRAVEL
35
TN $ 35
$
1,209
8
RIPRAP
3,200
TN $ 52
$
165,837
9
CONCRETE CLASS A (INCL. FORMS AND REBAR)
110
CY $ 633
$
69,675
10
108" SELF - REGULATING TIDE GATE
1
EA $ 57,582
$
57,582
Subtotal
$
334,081
DEWATERING
5%
$
16,704
EROSION & SEDIMENTATION CONTROL
10%
(See Note 3)
$
33,408
TRAFFIC CONTROL
5%
(See Note 4)
$
16,704
CONTINGENCY
15%
$
50,112
Subtotal
$
451,009
MOBILIZATION (GENERAL REQUIREMENT)
10%
$
45,101
Construction Subtotal (Rounded)
$
496,000
STATE SALES TAX
9.5%
$
47,120
ENGINEERING /LEGAL /ADMIN
25%
$
124,000
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
20%
$
99,200
PERMITTING
10%
$
49,600
Project Subtotal (Rounded)
$
816,000
LAND ACQUISITION
0
AC
$
-
CONTINGENCY
15%
$
-
2011 Dollars
Total Estimated Project Cost (Rounded)
$
816,000
Notes:
1.. The above cost opinion is based on 2003 quantities, with unit prices escalated to 2011 dollars. It does not include future escalation beyond 2011, financing, or O &M costs.
2. The order -of- magnitude cost opinion has been prepared for guidance in project evaluation from the information available at the time of preparation and for the assumptions
stated. The final costs of the project will depend on actual labor and material costs, actual site conditions, productivity, competitive market conditions, final project scope and
schedule, and other variable factors. As a result, the final project costs will vary from those presented above. Because of these factors, funding needs for individual projects
3. Increase percentage markup if work is in or immediately adjacent to flowing or standing water, steep slope, and /or other erosion -prone conditions.
4. Increase percentage markup if work is in or immediately adjacent to secondary, arterial, or other high - volume road or temporarily closes a roadway.
5. Land Acquisition unit costs include Administrative Costs and Condemnation.
20 of 20