Document Puyallup_doc_65148741f9

Earth Science + Technology Preliminary Design Report Meeker Creek Channel Restoration Puyallup, Washington for City of Puyallup July 10, 2013 ---PAGE BREAK--- Preliminary Design Report Meeker Creek Channel Restoration Puyallup, Washington for City of Puyallup July 10, 2013 1101 South Fawcett Avenue, Suite 200 Tacoma, Washington 98402 [PHONE REDACTED] ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- July 10, 2013 I Page i File No. 0402-031-00 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION 1 BACKGROUND AND RESULTS OF PRIOR STUDIES 1 ROOT CAUSES OF STREAM DEGRADATION 2 MEEKER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT OVERVIEW 3 Goals 3 Constraints 4 Risks 5 CONCEPT DESIGN 5 PRELIMINARY DESIGN 7 Hydrology 7 Channel Design 10 Floodplain Design 10 Substrate 11 Habitat Features 12 Vegetation 12 Trees and Shrubs 12 Seed Mixes 13 Groundwater Levels 13 Stormwater Treatment 14 Preliminary Design Quantities and Cost 14 WETLAND AND STREAM PERMITTING 16 Regulatory Considerations 16 Net Aquatic Habitat Improvements 17 LIMITATIONS 19 REFERENCES 19 SPECIAL CONDITIONS FOR INSTREAM HABITAT DESIGN ENGINEERING SERVICES 21 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Water Quality Parameters Figure 2. Summary of Relevant Hydrologic Values Figure 3. Wetland Impacts and Mitigation APPENDICES Appendix A. Concept Designs Appendix B. Channel Design Worksheets Appendix C. Flood Modeling Analysis Appendix D. 30% Design Drawings Appendix E. Stormwater Treatment Evaluation Appendix F. Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use ---PAGE BREAK--- MEEKER CREEK CHANNEL RESTORATION „ Puyallup, Washington July 10, 2013 I Page 1 File No. 0402-031-00 INTRODUCTION This report documents a preliminary design for the City of Puyallup Meeker Creek Channel Restoration Project (the Project) in Puyallup, Washington. GeoEngineers, Inc. (GeoEngineers) has prepared this design report in fulfillment of Task 2.1 of our Scope of Work associated with our Professional Services Contract (No. 083112) with the City of Puyallup. This design report is intended to be used by GeoEngineers and the City of Puyallup (City) during project permitting, and development of final design for the project. The City proposes to restore approximately 1,100 linear feet (LF) of Meeker Creek from its current channelized condition to a more natural, meandering channel with adjacent floodplain and wetlands. The project is proposed to be constructed on two property parcels ([PHONE REDACTED] and [PHONE REDACTED]) located south of 10th Avenue SW and east of 14th Street SW in the City of Puyallup (the “project site”). Meeker Creek is a tributary of Clarks Creek and the confluence between these two streams currently occurs at the northwest corner of the project site. Figure 1 provides a site location map for the project site and Figure 2 provides a watershed map. BACKGROUND AND RESULTS OF PRIOR STUDIES Meeker Creek is a small channelized creek in an urban watershed (see Figure Within the project reach, the creek exists in a straight channelized ditch with a 0.5H:1V cross section and a slope of approximately 0.3 percent (GeoEngineers, 2013A). Flow rates range from a typical low flow of 1.5 cubic feet per second (cfs) to a 100-year flood flow of 142 cfs with flow velocities ranging from approximately 1 foot per second (fps) at low flows up to 3 fps during the 100-year flood event. The existing channel substrate is a mix gravel and cobbles with some areas of sand deposits. Most of the site consists of low quality wetlands (GeoEngineers, 2013A). Some mature trees and quality riparian forested areas exist (such as at the northwest corner of the site near the existing confluence of Meeker Creek with Clarks Creek). Soils within the project area generally consist of silty fine sands and silts (GeoEngineers, 2013A). The site periphery was previously planted as a mitigation site for an off-site development, and disturbance to existing wetland and riparian areas will need to be considered during project permitting. Project site groundwater levels fluctuates from approximately 2 to 3 feet below ground surface (bgs) in summer to approximately 0.5 feet bgs in winter. The groundwater level is generally above creek surface water elevation, indicating base flow is present. Several storm drain pipes discharge into the existing channel within project reach at inverts 1 to 2 feet above channel bottom (GeoEngineers, 2013A). A cultural resource study did not identify any cultural resources (GeoEngineers, 2013A). Property title reports for the two project site parcels were reviewed and no restrictions that would inhibit implementation of a restoration project were identified (GeoEngineers, 2013A). ---PAGE BREAK--- MEEKER CREEK CHANNEL RESTORATION „ Puyallup, Washington Page 2 I July 10, 2013 I GeoEngineers, Inc. File No. 0402-031-00 Meeker Creek within the project reach appears stable (neither eroding or aggrading), and the creek profile as surveyed in January 2013 agrees closely with the creek profile as indicated in a 2005 Flood Insurance Study (NHC, 2005). Tributary streams flowing down valley side slopes, including Silver Creek, are contributing excess sediment to valley stream reaches, including both the tributaries and Meeker Creek (upstream of the project reach). Most of this sediment was observed to be depositing within the tributaries where they reach the valley floor; however, some sediment, mainly silt and sand, is transported to the project reach. The project reach of Meeker Creek has a greater slope than upstream sections of Meeker Creek and tributaries with the valley area, and therefore is able to transport this sediment through to Clarks Creek (GeoEngineers, 2013B; Brown & Caldwell, 2013). Within the greater Meeker Creek basin and the project reach, the creek has little documented habitat value (GeoEngineers, 2012). Within the project reach; the creek channel has a constant slope and little diversity in bed form or channel geometry (GeoEngineers, 2013). Within the valley and project reach, riparian habitat and stream buffers are degraded or absent. The project reach has no in-channel wood debris or potential for wood recruitment. Off-channel rearing habitat for juvenile salmonids originating in Clarks Creek is the greatest habitat need (GeoEngineers, 2013A). As a result of watershed urbanization and associated untreated runoff from residential, commercial, and highway areas, water quality is poor due to elevated turbidity and fecal coliform, and low dissolved oxygen concentrations. Stream temperatures are elevated due to an absence of vegetation cover (Ecology, 2008). Clarks Creek watershed, including Meeker Creek, is subject to a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Water Quality Implementation Plan for fecal coliform (Ecology, 2009). Within the valley and the project reach, residential areas experience periodic flooding (NHC, 2005). Clarks Creek has a very low gradient (approximately 0.03 percent) in the area of its confluence with Meeker Creek. During the 100-year flood event, floodwaters at the confluence are effectively backwatered from sections of Clarks Creek; however, Meeker Creek within the project reach maintains a hydraulic gradient of 0.17 percent. Clarks Creek along the project site has a sandy substrate and transports little sediment due to low flow velocities (general less than 1 fps at flow rates up to the 100-year storm event) and due to the presence of a dam located at RM 3.8 (about 0.4 miles upstream of the project site) that blocks incoming sediment from moving further ROOT CAUSES OF STREAM DEGRADATION Identifying the root causes of stream degradation is an important first step in the restoration design process (Cramer, 2012). Root causes of the degraded Meeker Creek watershed that impact water quality, hydrology, flooding, and habitat quality include: ■ Urbanization (increased peak flows due to impervious surfaces and removal of riparian buffers) ■ Channelization (reduction in channel conveyance capacity and removal of channel habitat features) ---PAGE BREAK--- MEEKER CREEK CHANNEL RESTORATION „ Puyallup, Washington July 10, 2013 I Page 3 File No. 0402-031-00 The City of Puyallup, the Puyallup Tribe, and others are working on addressing these root causes at the watershed scale. The Meeker Creek Channel Restoration project is one element of this larger effort. Other on-going work includes: ■ The City of Puyallup and the Puyallup Tribe have evaluated the Clarks Creek watershed hydrology and geomorphology and is evaluating options to remedy erosion and sedimentation (Brown and Caldwell, 2013; Tetra Tech, 2012). ■ Ecology has prepared a TMDL study (Ecology, 2008) and Water Quality Implementation Plan (Ecology, 2009) to address elevated fecal coliform levels, and with the City are implementing watershed-based actions consistent with this plan to improve water quality. Actions to address fecal coliform, including source control, public education, re-establishment of riparian buffers, and stream restoration are elements of the plan. The Meeker Creek Channel Restoration project is one element in the suite of responses to improve water quality. The City of Puyallup has implemented habitat improvement projects along Meeker Creek and Silver Creek to reduce erosion and sedimentation, improve fish passage, and restore riparian buffers. The Puyallup Tribe and watershed environmental groups are also working to implement watershed habitat improvements. MEEKER CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT OVERVIEW Goals Of the hierarchy of stream restoration strategies (protect, connect, restore, and create), this project restores stream habitat by reconfiguring the channel plan form, alignment, section, and profile. Specific goals are: ■ Reduce flood elevations through increased conveyance capacity via excavation to re-establish the floodplain. ■ Improve water quality ƒ Encourage frequent water flow in the floodplain so as to retain sediment and improve water quality; however, inundation of the floodplain should not be so frequent as to adversely impact floodplain tree and shrub vegetation. ƒ Establish vegetation to provide a riparian buffer to shade the proposed channel, and discourage waterfowl use of the floodplain. ■ Improve salmonid habitat ƒ Create off-channel rearing habitat for juvenile salmonids originating from Clarks Creek (including lower energy/velocity sections with ample cover and forage potential, and improved water quality). Optimum flow velocities for juvenile salmonids are 0.3 to 0.6 fps (Raleigh, 1986). ƒ Maintain fish passage during summer time flow conditions when flows are expected to be as low as 1 to 2 cubic feet per second (cfs). To maintain fish passage, stream depths should be at least 0.8 feet (Thompson, 1972). This goal is not achievable with flows of only 1 to 2 cfs with a channel section that is practical to construct. ƒ Create potential spawning habitat consisting of pool/riffle structure. This habitat will provide benefit for spawning and also juvenile rearing in Meeker Creek. ---PAGE BREAK--- MEEKER CREEK CHANNEL RESTORATION „ Puyallup, Washington Page 4 I July 10, 2013 I GeoEngineers, Inc. File No. 0402-031-00 ƒ Prevent fish stranding by sloping the floodplain to drain. ■ Maintain a geomorphically stable proposed channel ƒ Maintain the channel within the “as constructed” alignment. Existing floodplain soils are silts and fine sands that could readily erode should the channel migrate from the constructed alignment. ƒ Design the low flow channel to maintain existing transport capacity for silt and sand sized sediment through the project reach and minimize the potential for aggradation that degrades habitat and reduces channel flood conveyance. Pool/riffle structure and slack water channel sections, which are desirable from a habitat perspective, may accumulate sediment and potentially partially conflict with this goal. ■ Maintain groundwater levels at generally similar elevations to existing conditions, acknowledging that localized changes (generally reductions) will occur due to relocating the channel and establishing a lower elevation floodplain. ■ Prevent nuisance conditions. ƒ Discourage waterfowl use (a contributor to the fecal coliform water quality degradation) by avoiding large open areas of low-velocity water ponds) and through establishing a dense cover of trees and shrubs, both adjacent to the channel and throughout the floodplain. ƒ Avoid stagnant water where mosquitos might breed by sloping the floodplain to drain. ƒ Discourage elodea establishment in the restored channel through maintaining coarse channel substrates and vegetative cover. ■ Simplify project permitting. ƒ Avoid impacts to forested areas. ƒ Minimize disturbance of wetlands where possible. ƒ Mitigate disturbance to site plantings where possible. United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) may approve impacts to wetlands and the existing mitigation site without off-site mitigation as part of channel restoration project. Net benefit will need to be established in permitting documents. ■ Maintain a 100-foot offset between the edge of the low flow channel and the southern property line so as to avoid encumbering private property to the south of the project site with a stream buffer. Constraints ■ Improvements are limited to the two City owned parcels that define the project site. ■ The project construction budget is limited (although the City is seeking additional funding), which may: ƒ Limit the quantity of soil to be excavated and hence limit improvements in flood reduction. ƒ Limit habitat improvement and water quality benefits. ■ Watershed and larger scale issues related to upstream erosion and sediment generation, climate change, and invasive species are beyond the scope of the project. ---PAGE BREAK--- MEEKER CREEK CHANNEL RESTORATION „ Puyallup, Washington July 10, 2013 I Page 5 File No. 0402-031-00 ■ No recent survey data is available for Clarks Creek. ■ Site soils are unsuitable as a channel substrate, and replacement of soils throughout the entire site or entire floodplain is not possible within project budget limits. Hence, the constructed channel cannot be allowed to migrate naturally in the restored floodplain. Risks ■ The project is a relatively small site restoration project at the end of a degraded watershed. ■ Upstream flow regime and water quality, both substantially impacted by urbanization, will not be addressed. ■ Upstream erosion and sediment supply will not be addressed. Sediment could accumulate in pools and slack water section. However, some projects have been identified in the City’s Sediment Reduction Study for Clarks Creek that has been endorsed by the Elodea Task Force as a long–term solution, including projects on Silver Creek to reduce sediment transport, which the City plans to pursue. ■ Floods are inherently chaotic events that cannot be precisely predicted and can cause localized or widespread inundation, erosion, sediment transport, and other adverse impacts. ■ Localized erosion, sedimentation, channel avulsions, bank failure, extreme flow events and other events could adversely impact the site and adjacent properties. CONCEPT DESIGN A public meeting for the project occurred on September 5, 2012, and a presentation of the project to the Puyallup City Council and the public occurred on December 4, 2012. At both meetings, the City presented a general overview of the project and responded to questions. The Council and the public expressed concerns about watershed issues, water quality, flood mitigation, sedimentation, groundwater levels, habitat restoration, preventing use of the site by waterfowl, and other issues. In response to these concerns, the City and GeoEngineers developed four project concept designs and presented the concepts to the public at a meeting on March 14, 2013. The project concept designs, planning level cost estimates, and concept profile and typical cross section for Alternative 4 are provided in Appendix A. The four alternative concepts consist of variations in establishing a new stream channel and floodplain. Implementation of other concepts, such as a treatment wetland, were considered and rejected due to concerns about sediment deposition, flow capacity during flood events and vegetation stability. As noted above, a stream channel can be designed to manage the existing incoming sediment load by passing sediments at lower flows and depositing sediment in the floodplain at higher flows. In contrast, a treatment wetland would intercept virtually all sediment and, therefore, would require periodic maintenance to remove sediment. Additionally, the USACE typically does not favor changing habitat types, such as changing an open stream to wetland as would occur if a treatment wetland were implemented. A treatment wetland would have much slower velocities than a stream, and thus it would have a larger area and consist of a pond environment that could attract waterfowl. A treatment wetland would not allow as high of flow rates during flood events. Wetland vegetation could break loose during high flow events. ---PAGE BREAK--- MEEKER CREEK CHANNEL RESTORATION „ Puyallup, Washington Page 6 I July 10, 2013 I GeoEngineers, Inc. File No. 0402-031-00 For water quality treatment benefits, Table 1 shows that wetland basins typically achieve better water quality results than do wetland channels or grass strips (which are similar to the proposed floodplain), but the results are not dramatically different (Geosytec, 2012). It is worth noting that the raw data on which the data in Table 1 are based exhibited a wide range of variability that is inherent in natural treatment systems, and in some cases natural treatment systems can release contaminants to the environment. Prior to designing a treatment wetland, we would recommend a detailed water quality study be completed that would monitor a range of water quality parameters to identify seasonal and flow-based variations in incoming contaminant loadings. The Meeker Creek channel restoration project, once completed, is expected to improve on-site water quality through achieving reductions in levels of total suspended sediment (TSS), phosphorus, nitrogen, and fecal coliforms. The floodplain is designed to be engaged with a frequency of approximately 10 percent on an annual basis (approximately 5 weeks per year, most commonly during winter storm events) and will intercept sediment during high flow events while maintaining the low flow channel mostly free from sediment deposition. Coir mat wraps on the upper portions of the low flow channel with provide some water quality improvement at lower flows. Little specific water quality treatment information is available about this type of periodic floodplain inundation; however, treatment functions will be similar to a constructed open water wetland, though with less treatment due to less frequent inundation. Constructed open-water (free surface) wetland basins function in a manner analogous to natural wetlands as an effective means of improving water quality by reducing pollutants such as TSS, phosphorus, nitrogen, and fecal coliforms (EPA, 2000; EPA, 2004). Numerous studies have demonstrated the ability for constructed wetlands to be effective in polishing dilute storm water, especially for removing suspended solids and nitrates, and to a lesser extent phosphorus and pathogens in both agricultural and urban settings (Beutel, M. 2013; Beutel, et al, 2013; EPA, 1999; Stone K. C, et al 2003). On average, storm water treatment wetlands achieve the following long-term removal rates: TSS – 67%, phosphorus – 49%, nitrogen – 28%, and bacteria – 77% (EPA 1999). Locally, Pierce County completed monitoring at the South Midland Wetland Reserve, and results demonstrated approximately a 90 percent decrease in fecal coliform counts after completion of this floodplain restoration project, as compared to pre-project conditions (Boeholdt, 2013). The South Midland project was designed so that floodplain wetland areas remained ponded from creek overflow most of the winter. TABLE 1. COMPARISON OF WATER QUALITY TREATMENT RESULTS Parameter Wetland Basin Wetland Channel Grass Strip TSS 55% 29% 56% Fecal Coliform 53% ND 28% Dissolved Copper ND ND 54% Total Copper 36% 70% Dissolved Iron ND ND -238% Total Iron ND ND 26% Dissolved Lead ND 84% 59% Total Lead 40% 15% 78% ---PAGE BREAK--- MEEKER CREEK CHANNEL RESTORATION „ Puyallup, Washington July 10, 2013 I Page 7 File No. 0402-031-00 Parameter Wetland Basin Wetland Channel Grass Strip Phosphorus 38% 7% -29% Total Nitrogen 16% 16% Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 15% 16% Nox as Nitrogen 67% 44% 34% Notes: ND – No Data Available At the March 14th meeting, the public expressed support for Alternative 4 as the preferred concept, primarily because Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would require disturbing a substantial portion of the existing mature forested area in the northwest corner of the project site in order to restore the floodplain at the end of the project reach. The public had questions about flooding, sedimentation, storm water treatment, and other items. The City concurred that Alternative 4 was the preferred alternative to move forward to preliminary design. Alternative 4 includes a restored channel and floodplain aligned through the southern parcel and connecting to Clarks Creek upstream of the current outlet of Meeker Creek. Alternative 4 also includes filling most of the existing creek channel, and collecting and treating storm water that currently discharges to the existing channel. The existing channel would be filled using soil excavated from the new floodplain. To reduce costs of off-site soil disposal, a portion of the soil excavated for the new floodplain would be placed in a mound about 4 to 5 feet high on the northern property, outside of the existing wetland area. The City also proposed to collect stormwater from a 16-acre residential drainage area located north of the existing creek channel and install a stormwater treatment unit meeting Ecology “General Use Level Designation” for basic treatment. PRELIMINARY DESIGN Alternative 4 was further refined as 30 percent design proceeded. An upstream wide and deep section that would function as a sediment trap was determined to be undesirable as it would create too large of a pond that might attract waterfowl. Appendix D contains 30 Percent Design Level plans. Hydrology Table 2 presents hydrology data for Meeker Creek and Clarks Creek, obtained from identified studies. Table 3 presents a cumulative flow duration curve derived from available data (Brown and Caldwell, 2013) and using the future flow rate of 194 cfs as a 100-year flood event flow based on predicted future land use conditions in the basin (NHC, 2005). Based on this data, a bankfull flow rate of 16 cfs was selected for designing the restored creek channel. The bankfull flow rate is estimated to be exceeded approximately 10 percent of the time, or a cumulative duration of 5 weeks out of the year, thereby providing relatively frequent floodplain utilization. This will promote water quality improvement through sedimentation, adsorption, and biological production in the floodplain. ---PAGE BREAK--- MEEKER CREEK CHANNEL RESTORATION „ Puyallup, Washington Page 8 I July 10, 2013 I GeoEngineers, Inc. File No. 0402-031-00 TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF RELEVANT FLOW RATES Location Meeker Creek Clarks Creek Upstream of Meeker Creek Clarks Creek of Meeker Creek Reference B&C 2013 NHC 2005 NHC 2005 B&C 2013 NHC 2005 NHC 2005 B&C 2013 NHC 2005 NHC 2005 Diru Creek Woodland Creek USGS Flow Parameter Reach MC-RC01 RM 0- 0.2 Current RM 0- 0.2 Future Reach CC-R14 RM 3.1-3.8 Current RM 3.1-3.8 Future Reach CC-13 RM 1.6-3.1 Current RM 1.6-3.1 Future DC- RQ01 WC-RQ01 USGS Gauge @ RM 1.6 (14 years record to present) Median 1.5 54 57 1.6 1.4 60 75th percentile 69 Q2 56 64 107 30 60 Q10 101 145 128 138 203 222 Q50 176 130 180 114 163 172 222 260 282 115 233 Q100 142 194 177 186 284 308 Q500 168 226 209 216 342 370 Note: All values in cubic feet per second (cfs) ---PAGE BREAK--- MEEKER CREEK CHANNEL RESTORATION „ Puyallup, Washington July 10, 2013 I Page 9 File No. 0402-031-00 TABLE 3. CUMULATIVE FLOW TABULATION FOR MEEKER CREEK PROJECT REACH Flow (cfs) Frequency of Occurrence Meeker Creek, Reach MC-R01 (B&C 2013) Cumulative Frequency of Occurrence Approximate Days Per Year 1.5 1.70 50.0% 183 2.0 1.55 46.4% 170 3.0 1.20 40.4% 148 4.0 1.00 35.6% 130 5.0 0.82 31.6% 116 6.0 0.76 28.2% 103 7.0 0.62 25.2% 92 8.0 0.53 22.7% 83 9.0 0.44 20.5% 75 10.0 0.40 18.7% 68 16.0 0.26 10.0% 37 20.0 0.13 6.6% 24 25.0 0.090 4.2% 15 30.0 0.050 2.7% 10 40.0 0.020 1.2% 4 50.0 0.013* 0.4% 2 60.0 0.0014* 0.1% 1 70.0 0.00088* 0.1% 0.3 80.0 0.00057* 0.1% 0.2 90.0 0.00037* 0.0% 0.1 100.0 0.00024* 0.0% 0.1 110.0 0.00015* 0.0% 0.1 120.0 0.000099* 0.0% 0.0 130.0 0.000064* 0.0% 0.0 140.0 0.000041* 0.0% 0.0 150.0 0.000027* 0.0% 0.0 160.0 0.000017* 170.0 0.000011* 180.0 0.000007* 190.0 0.000006* 194.0 0.000005* Note: *Denotes value estimated by GeoEngineers ---PAGE BREAK--- MEEKER CREEK CHANNEL RESTORATION „ Puyallup, Washington Page 10 I July 10, 2013 I GeoEngineers, Inc. File No. 0402-031-00 Channel Design The proposed channel was design considering results from the various project data reports (GeoEngineers, 2013A), Geomorphic Assessment (GeoEngineers, 2013B), hydrologic analysis and hydraulic design (see Appendix and hydraulic modeling (see Appendix The existing channel is approximately 1,125 feet in length with a slope of 0.28%. The proposed channel, assuming no sinuosity, is 990 feet in length. The resulting floodplain slope is 0.32%. The proposed creek channel was designed to have the same slope as the existing channel and, therefore, the restored channel sinuosity was set at 1.14 based on channel length constraints in order to achieve the desired slope, which is important to achieve the geomorphic goal to maintain a similar sediment transport capacity as the existing creek up to the bankfull flow of 16 cfs. Based on the bankfull flow of 16 cfs and a channel slope of 0.28%, a bankfull section was set at 7.35 feet top width with 1.75H:1V side slopes, 1.8 feet depth and a 1.0 feet bottom width. This proposed section will maximize water depth available for fish passage at summer time low flow conditions. Appendix B summarizes design data and calculations. The central portion of the restored channel will have a pool and riffle type stream profile. Approximately 250 feet of the restored channel is proposed to be deeper and wider to provide for low velocities (0.6 fps or less) to provide off-channel habitat for juvenile salmonids. At the bankfull flow rate, the restored channel is predicted to have a velocity of 2 fps. To achieve 0.6 fps at the bankfull flow rate, the section of the channel will have a cross-section area of 3 times the upstream low flow channel. The section of the channel will have a depth of 2.4 feet and a top width of 17 feet. Floodplain Design The proposed width of the proposed floodplain width was determined using hydraulic modeling (see Appendix C) and estimated project costs. The proposed restoration was modeled for two options: a wide floodplain (approximately 120 feet total width) and a narrow floodplain (approximately 70 feet total width). The cost differential between the two options is estimated to be approximately $150,000 for the additional soil excavation and off-site disposal, and additional clearing, erosion control, and restoration. The wider floodplain could also be more difficult to permit, as it would have great impacts to existing wetlands and previously planted mitigation areas. Predicted flood reductions for the 100-year flood event for the wide floodplain option are up to 0.9 feet, as compared to existing conditions as represented by the 2005 Flood Insurance Study (NHC, 2005). The largest reductions occur at the upstream end of the project reach. Water surface elevations at the end of the project reach are essentially the same for the existing and proposed conditions due to the backwater effects from Clarks Creek. Predicted flood reductions for the narrow floodplain option are up to 0.8 feet, as compared to existing conditions. Based on these predicted flood benefits and costs, the City selected the narrow floodplain as the preferred floodplain width. A floodplain cross-slope of approximately 1% was selected to avoid fish stranding and promote drainage of surface water and groundwater seeps that might, with a flatter slope, cause ponding that would attract waterfowl and provide areas where mosquitos could breed. The proposed Meeker Creek channel and floodplain are designed for flow to be contained within the low flow channel during the majority of year while allowing higher discharges and flood flows to ---PAGE BREAK--- MEEKER CREEK CHANNEL RESTORATION „ Puyallup, Washington July 10, 2013 I Page 11 File No. 0402-031-00 overtop onto the floodplain. The elevation of the section of the floodplain was set considering bankfull flow rates in both Meeker Creek and Clarks Creek. The Meeker Creek floodplain elevation was set at 1.8 feet above the creek thalweg for a flow of 16 cfs, which as noted above is estimated to have approximately a 10 percent frequency of exceedance. The floodplain elevation adjacent to Clarks Creek was set by adjusting the model parameters to achieve results that matched the water surface elevation of approximately 26.8 feet (NAVD88) as measured during the site topographic survey. Flow in Clarks Creek at the time of survey was 60 cfs at the USGS stream gage, which is a relatively typical flow. Based on USGS stream gage data, the 10 percent exceedance flow rate for Clarks Creek was estimated to be 78 cfs. This value was adjusted to 73 cfs within the hydraulic model based on a number of factors including inflows from Diru and Woodland Creeks, and relative consistency between model reaches at other flow rates. By applying the 10 percent exceedance flow to the model, adjusted to match the site survey data, the floodplain elevation was set at 27.2 feet at the confluence of the proposed Meeker Creek channel with Clarks Creek. At higher flows in Clarks Creek, the portion of the restored floodplain will be backwatered due to water surface elevations in Clarks Creek. For the narrow floodplain, velocities at the 100-year flow event per the existing 2005 FIS study (142 cfs) are predicted to be approximately 0.9 fps and 3.6 fps in the and upstream areas of the channel, respectively. Velocities in the floodplain range from approximately 0.2 and 1.1 fps. For comparison, estimated velocities in the existing channel at the 100-year flow event range from 2.0 to 2.5 fps from to upstream, respectively. To be conservative, velocities were also predicted for the narrow floodplain for a reasonably adverse design condition of a future 100-year flood flow of 194 cfs in Meeker Creek while Clarks Creek is experiencing a 10-year flow event. This scenario reduces the backwater effects of Clarks Creek and results in increased velocities in the Meeker Creek channel and floodplain. The maximum predicted velocity within the low flow channel was approximately 4.5 fps, while floodplain velocities ranged from 0.6 to 1.5 fps. Maintaining channel and floodplain velocities below 0.6 fps for juvenile salmon off-channel habitat is not possible during high flow events. For comparison, predicted velocities in the existing channel for this modeled scenario were estimate at up to 3.6 fps. To provide a low velocity area for juvenile salmon during high flow events, several small excavated areas adjacent to floodplain, and another area at the outlet of the existing Meeker Creek channel, will be constructed. These areas will be inundated at flow levels above bankfull and have essentially zero velocity during high flow events. Substrate Substrate grain sizes were developed based on potential velocities of up to 4.5 fps in the upstream section of the restored channel and floodplain and 2 to 2.5 fps in the section of the restored channel and floodplain. Channel substrate will be a mix of sand, gravel, and cobbles. Floodplain erosion will be prevented by establishing native and erosion resistant grasses in the floodplain, and planting vegetation to increase hydraulic roughness. ---PAGE BREAK--- MEEKER CREEK CHANNEL RESTORATION „ Puyallup, Washington Page 12 I July 10, 2013 I GeoEngineers, Inc. File No. 0402-031-00 Habitat Features There is insufficient stream gradient for rock or log weirs. Large wood will be placed along the stream edge. Substantial in-stream structures that would restrict flow and encourage excessive sedimentation will not be used. Anchorage requirements for the large wood placed along the stream edge will be completed during the final design. Vegetation At completion of construction, willows tolerant of wet conditions will be planted adjacent to the low flow channel to provide shade and discourage waterfowl. The floodplain and floodplain side slopes will be hydroseeded with native wetland grasses and erosion resistant grasses for erosion protection. The soil disposal mounds and riparian areas disturbed during construction will be hydroseeded with upland native grasses for erosion protection. The roadside ditch resulting from filling the existing Meeker Creek channel will be seeded with an erosion resistant type seed mix. Following construction, using community volunteers, the City will plant areas of the floodplain with inundation tolerant trees and shrubs, and plant the floodplain side slopes and adjacent upland areas, including the soil disposal mound, with native trees and shrubs. The following preliminary list of wetland plants is proposed. These plants are adapted to periods of flooding during the winter and spring for extended periods of time (more than two weeks) and during the growing season of up to approximately several weeks. Facultative Wet (FACW) plants occur mostly in wetlands and tend not to tolerate standing water for extended periods of time (2 weeks or more) during the growing season. Obligate (OBL) wetland plants occur nearly exclusively in wetlands and can tolerate flooding conditions for longer than 2 weeks during the growing season, annually. Trees and Shrubs Willows (Adjacent to Low Flow Channel and in Floodplain) ■ Salix lucida var. lasiandra (Pacific Willow)-FACW ■ Salix hookeriana (Hooker Willow)-FACW ■ Salix rigida var. macrogemma (Heartleaf Willow)-OBL Trees (to be planted by the City) ■ Populus balsamifera (Black Cottonwood) Wetland Indicator Status: FACW ■ Fraxinus latifolia (Oregon Ash)-FACW Shrubs (to be planted by the City) ■ Physocarpus capitatus (Pacific Ninebark)-FACW ■ Spiraea douglasii (Douglas Spirea)-FACW ■ Cornus sericea (Red Osier Dogwood)-FACW ---PAGE BREAK--- MEEKER CREEK CHANNEL RESTORATION „ Puyallup, Washington July 10, 2013 I Page 13 File No. 0402-031-00 Seed Mixes Floodplain Seed Mix – Planted at 30 lbs. per acre ■ 15% Scirpus microcarpus (Small fruited Bullrush) ■ 15% Carex obnupta (Slough Sedge) ■ 25% Glyceria grandis (Reed Managrass) ■ 30% Horedum brachyantherum (Meadow Barley) ■ 10% Festuca rubra (red fescue, native variety) Upland Area Seed Mix – Planted at 60 lbs. per acre ■ 50% Elymus glaucus (Blue Wild Rye) ■ 10% Festuca rubra (Red Fescue, native variety) ■ 40% Horedum brachyantherum (Meadow Barley) Drainage Swale Mix – 20 lbs. of Carex and Horedum ■ 15% Carex stipata (Sawbeak Sedge) ■ 10% Horedum brachyantherum (Meadow Barley) ■ 1 oz Juncus ensifolius (Daggerleaf Rush) ■ 1 oz Juncus tenuis (Slender Rush) Ditch Area Seed Mix ■ Heracleum lanatum (Cow-parsnip), 1 lbs per acre ■ Lupinus (Big Leaf Lupine), 1 lbs per acre ■ Mimulus guttatus (Yellow Monkey Flower) 1 oz along stream channel Groundwater Levels In general, the proposed channel thalweg is designed to have a similar profile to the existing channel, and therefore, no substantial changes are anticipated to either groundwater levels in the vicinity of the project or to creek base flow rates. Site soils are silts and silty sands through which groundwater flows slowly at the relatively flat gradients estimated to occur in the valley in the vicinity of the project site. The broad floodplain of the restored channel will reduce groundwater elevations over a larger area as compared to the existing channel, but the resulting minor changes in groundwater levels are not anticipated to adversely affect local wetland or riparian areas. The restored channel is shifted to the south of the existing channel, and areas to the south of the proposed channel are expected to experience a slight reduction in groundwater levels compared to existing conditions. By the same logic, areas to the north of the channel may experience a slight increase in groundwater levels. To mitigate this potential effect, a gravel drain trench will be installed as part of backfilling the existing creek channel. The gravel drain will collect groundwater and discharge it to Clarks Creek. ---PAGE BREAK--- MEEKER CREEK CHANNEL RESTORATION „ Puyallup, Washington Page 14 I July 10, 2013 I GeoEngineers, Inc. File No. 0402-031-00 Stormwater Treatment Stormwater treatment is proposed for approximately 16 acres of residential developed area to the north of the existing Meeker Creek channel that currently drains to the creek via storm drain pipes. Appendix E contains stormwater treatment system design details. The delineation of the contributing area of the basin is approximate as detailed survey data from the City was not available and the area is very flat. Collecting and treating this flow, which would continue to discharge to Clarks Creek, would improve water quality in Clarks Creek. The WWHM3 model developed by Washington State Department of Ecology was used to predict a water quality treatment flow rate of 0.69 cfs (see Appendix Adding stormwater detention was not considered due to project budget limitations. Connecting the storm drains into a single pipe will not increase discharge rates to Clarks Creek compared to the existing conditions. Various water quality treatment options were evaluated. The existing drain pipes lie below existing groundwater elevations during most or all of the year, and therefore are at too low of an elevation to consider an infiltration-type facility. Ecology approved storm water treatment vault type systems were evaluated; however, there is insufficient elevation between the drain pipes and the discharge water surface elevation at Clarks Creek to meet vendor-specified design criteria for most systems. Due to the low head profile of the proposed treatment location, a hydrodynamic separator treatment system was chosen as the preferred alternative. This system, designed by Royal Environmental, meets Ecology’s General Use Level Designation for basic treatment of total suspended sediment. The treatment system is sized to treat the estimated design water quality flow rate of 0.69 cfs and is able to convey the 25-year 24-hour storm event flow of 4.24 cfs and provide a high flow bypass. The existing 10-, and 12-inch-diameter storm drains that drain to the existing Meeker Creek channel do not appear large enough to convey 25-year storm event flows without backwatering, and high surface water elevations in Clarks Creek may also cause backwatering during a wide range of storm events. The proposed design was determined to not increase backwatering in existing storm drain drainages and pipes with any higher frequency or duration than currently occurs. In the future, should flows in Meeker and Clarks Creek increase as predicted (NHC, 2005), the frequency of backwatering in existing storm drains could increase, but this change would not be related to the channel restoration project or installation of a stormwater treatment system. Preliminary Design Quantities and Cost Table 4 provides a 30% design level construction cost estimate for the project, including estimated quantities for major work elements. ---PAGE BREAK--- MEEKER CREEK CHANNEL RESTORATION „ Puyallup, Washington July 10, 2013 I Page 15 File No. 0402-031-00 TABLE 4. 30% DESIGN CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE Work Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Mobilization/Demobilization 1 LS $80,000 $80,000 Survey 1 LS $10,000 $10,000 Clearing & Grubbing 1 LS $15,000 $15,000 Demolition 1 LS $6,000 $6,000 TESC 1 LS $20,000 $20,000 Dewatering/Water Treatment 1 LS $80,000 $80,000 Decommission Groundwater Well 1 LS $2,500 $2,500 Install New Monitoring Well 1 LS $2,500 $2,500 Excavation 11,000 CY $6 $66,000 Backfill Existing Ditch 1,400 CY $4 $5,600 Soil Mound 6,200 CY $4 $24,800 Off-site Soil Disposal 3,400 CY $20 $68,000 Channel Connection to Clarks Creek 1 LS $25,000 $25,000 Coir Matt 80,500 SF 0.5 $40,250 Compost 1,171 CY 35 $40,995 Sand 1,546 CY 30 $46,383 Mix Native, Sand, Compost to 8” 4,264 CY 2 $8,527 Large Wood (Owner Supplied) 10 Each $ 300 $3,000 Large Wood (New) 40 Each $800 $32,000 Anchors for Large Wood 60 Each $500 $30,000 Streambed Sediment 340 CY $ 40 $13,600 6" Streambed Cobbles 730 CY $50 $36,500 4" Streambed Cobbles 220 CY $50 $11,000 Hydroseed 3.8 Acre $2,000 $7,625 Plantings (Willows along channel) 1,700 Each $ 2.50 $4,250 12" HDPE Storm Drain Pipe 310 LF $25.00 $7,750 18" HDPE Storm Drain Pipe 450 LF $ 50.00 $22,500 Pipe Bedding 139 CY $30.00 $ 4,180 WSDOT CB Type 1 5 Each $1,500.00 $7,500 Stormwater Treatment - Vendor Supplied Equipment 1 LS $ 50,000 $50,000 Stormwater Treatment Vault – Other Equipment 1 LS $60,000 $60,000 Stormwater Treatment Vault - Installation 1 LS $40,000 $40,000 Subtotal $866,460 Contingency 10.00% $86,646 Subtotal $953,107 ---PAGE BREAK--- MEEKER CREEK CHANNEL RESTORATION „ Puyallup, Washington Page 16 I July 10, 2013 I GeoEngineers, Inc. File No. 0402-031-00 Work Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Sales Tax 9.40% $89,592 Total $1,042,699 PROJECT TOTAL $1,208,699 Note: This cost estimate is based on preliminary design level data. Final design analyses have not yet been completed. Quantities, unit pricing, and total cost may change as design analyses are completed. WETLAND AND STREAM PERMITTING The project is proposed to be self-mitigating due to its nature as a stream habitat restoration project. The project’s primary purpose is stream and floodplain restoration by re-aligning the existing channel, which is a degraded linear ditch lacking in riparian and floodplain functions and providing limited fish habitat. The project also includes excavation, grading and placement of wood material in jurisdictional wetland habitats and regulatory buffers. Regulatory Considerations The project may qualify as a “fish habitat enhancement project” in accordance with the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), Section 77.55.181, which includes a streamlined permit review and approval process. In order to qualify under this provision of the state code, the project needs to be reviewed and approved by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) to ensure compliance with these regulatory provisions. The project is also anticipated to qualify for USACE approval for Clean Water Act regulations under Nationwide Permit (NWP) 27 – Aquatic Habitat Restoration. This permit authorizes restoration activities including enhancement of stream, riparian and wetland habitats that result in a net increase in aquatic resource functions. Activities proposed as part of the project that would be covered under this NWP permit include: “…the installation of current deflectors; the enhancement, restoration, or establishment of riffle and pool stream structure; the placement of in-stream habitat structures; modifications of the stream bed and/or banks to restore or establish stream meanders; the backfilling of artificial channels; the removal of existing drainage structures, such as drain tiles, and the filling, blocking, or reshaping of drainage ditches to restore wetland hydrology; the installation of structures or fills necessary to establish or re-establish wetland or stream hydrology; … the construction of open water areas; … activities needed to reestablish vegetation, including plowing or discing for seed bed preparation and the planting of appropriate wetland species; … mechanized land clearing to remove non-native invasive, exotic, or nuisance vegetation; and other related activities.” In addition, “compensatory mitigation is not required for activities authorized by this NWP since these activities must result in net increases in aquatic resource functions and services.” ---PAGE BREAK--- MEEKER CREEK CHANNEL RESTORATION „ Puyallup, Washington July 10, 2013 I Page 17 File No. 0402-031-00 Net Aquatic Habitat Improvements Stream habitat impacts proposed are self-mitigating because the existing channel that will be filled will be replaced with a longer channel with increased sinuosity, structural heterogeneity and habitat features. An active floodplain will be created on either side of the new channel and riparian plantings are proposed to increase floodplain and riparian function. Most wetland impacts will be temporary in nature and will be fully offset through enhancement and restoration actions that are integral to the project design. The design of the restoration project minimizes impacts to existing wetlands, previously installed mitigation plantings, and existing forested areas. For example, the design avoids any impacts to the emergent wetland planting area in the southwest corner of the site. Most of the wetland habitat that will be affected by the project is degraded as a result of prior use as a home site and associated pasture. Degraded wetlands that will be temporarily affected by the project will see a net enhancement upon completion. Areas that were previously enhanced as part of a wetland mitigation strategy previously implemented on a portion of the site will be restored. A small amount of permanent wetland fill is also proposed as an unavoidable impact. The impacted wetland is considered a Category II wetland. Figure 3 and Table 5 provides the location and a summary of stream and wetland alterations that will result from the project and identifies impacts, beneficial effects, and how each type of alteration is considered as part of the overall self-mitigating project strategy. This table demonstrates the net beneficial effect of the project on aquatic habitats (streams and wetlands). ---PAGE BREAK--- MEEKER CREEK CHANNEL RESTORATION „ Puyallup, Washington Page 18 I July 10, 2013 I GeoEngineers, Inc. File No. 0402-031-00 TABLE 5. WETLAND IMPACTS AND MITIGATION STRATEGY Impacts Beneficial Effects Mitigation Strategy Activity Quantity Activity Quantity Existing channel (ditch) filled 9,524 SF; 880 LF Proposed channel 12,606 SF; 1,100 LF Replacement with longer, more sinuous channel, with improved stream, riparian and floodplain habitat characteristics. Design will address limiting factors, including channel structure, riparian and floodplain function. Temporary wetland impact 1,470 SF Wetland restoration 1,470 SF Mitigated at a 1:1 ratio by re-planting affected area upon project completion for a net habitat enhancement. Temporary buffer impact 63,076 SF Buffer restoration 63,076 SF Mitigated at a 1:1 ratio by re-planting affected area upon project completion for a net habitat enhancement. Permanent wetland fill 569 SF Wetland creation 8,377 SF Fully mitigated through wetland creation at 14.7:1 ratio, far exceeding Ecology recommended ratio of 3:1 for Category II wetlands. Wetland creation will result from re-grading current upland areas to function as floodplain for the new channel alignment. Wetland enhancement 48,226 SF Existing degraded wetland areas will be enhanced as a result of overbank flooding from the new channel and installation of vegetation plantings. Wetland restoration 10,362 SF Existing wetland areas previously enhanced through plantings will be restored to an even greater wetland function as a result of overbank flooding from the new channel and replacement plantings. TOTAL (Stream) 9,524 SF; 880 LF 12,606 SF; 1,100 LF TOTAL (Wetlands) 65,115 SF 131,511 SF Notes: SF – square feet LF – linear feet. ---PAGE BREAK--- MEEKER CREEK CHANNEL RESTORATION „ Puyallup, Washington July 10, 2013 I Page 19 File No. 0402-031-00 LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for the City of Puyallup and their authorized agents and regulatory agencies for Meeker Creek Channel Restoration project. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with generally accepted practices in the field of stream and river habitat enhancement, stabilization and restoration design engineering in this area at the time this report was prepared. The conclusions, recommendations, and opinions presented in this report are based on our professional knowledge, judgment and experience. No warranty or other conditions, expressed or implied, should be understood. Please refer to Appendix F titled “Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use” for additional information pertaining to the use of this report. Any information, conclusions and recommendations in this preliminary draft report for the subject project are preliminary and subject to change until confirmed or revised, in a formal written document, which will be submitted under separate cover. The information, conclusions and recommendations contained in our forthcoming document will be covered as appropriate, by the seal of a registered professional who had the responsibility of overseeing and reviewing our evaluation for the subject project. The Principal or Associate in charge of our services for this project, or an equally qualified P/A, has reviewed and approved the information contained in this e-mail correspondence. If a final document in any electronic form, facsimile or copy of the original document is attached to this email, it is provided for convenience; the original document is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. electronically or in hard copy and will serve as the official document of record. REFERENCES Boeholt, 2013. Personal Communication. May 14, 2013. Beutel, M. 2013. Personal Communication. Associate Professor Civil and Environmental Engineering Department. Washington State University. May 14, 2013. Beutel, M. V. Whritenour, and E. Brouillard, 2013. Fecal Coliform Removal in a Loaded Surface-Flow Constructed Treatment Wetland Polishing Agricultural Runoff. IWA Publishing Water Surface and Technology. April 10, 2013. Brown and Caldwell, 2013. Clarks Creek Sediment Reduction Action Plan. Prepared for the Puyallup Tribe of Indians, Puyallup, Washington. January 31, 2013. DRAFT. Cramer, Michelle L. (managing editor). 2012. Stream Habitat Restoration Guidelines. Co-published by the Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Resources, Transportation and Ecology, Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office, Puget Sound Partnership, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Olympia, Washington. ---PAGE BREAK--- MEEKER CREEK CHANNEL RESTORATION „ Puyallup, Washington Page 20 I July 10, 2013 I GeoEngineers, Inc. File No. 0402-031-00 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1999. Storm Water Technology Fact Sheet Free Water Storm Water Wetlands. EPA 832-F-99-025. September 1999. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2000. Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet Free Water Surface Wetlands. EPA 832-F-00-024. September 2000. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2004. Constructed Treatment Wetlands. EPA 843-F-03- 013. September 2000. GeoEngineers, 2013A. Progress Update Letter of Transmittal and Data Reports, Meeker Creek Channel Restoration Project. Prepared for City of Puyallup. February 1, 2013. GeoEngineers, 2013B. Geomorphic Assessment – Revision 2 Letter Report. Meeker Creek Channel Restoration Project. Prepared for City of Puyallup. March 20, 2013. Geosyntec, 2012. International Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP) Database Pollutant Category Summary Statistical Addendum: TSS, Bacteria, Nutrients, and Metals. July. Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (NHC), 2005. Flood Insurance Mapping Study for Clarks Creek Near Puyallup, Washington. November. Raleigh, R. W. J. Miller and P. C. Nelson. 1986. Habitat Suitability Index Models and Instream Flow Suitability Curves: Chinook Salmon. USFWS, National Ecology Center, Ft. Collins, CO, September 1986. Stone, K. P. G. Hunt, J. M. Novak, and M. H. Johnson, 2003. In–Stream Wetland Design for Non–Point Source Pollution Abatement. Applied Engineering in Agriculture. 2003 American Society of Agricultural Engineers ISSN 0883-8542. Tetra Tech, 2012. Clarks Creek Sediment Study Watershed Model Report. Prepared for the Puyallup Tribe of Indians, Puyallup, WA. April 4. REVISED DRAFT. Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology), Water Quality Program. 2008. Clarks Creek Watershed Fecal Coliform Bacteria, Total Maximum Daily Load Water Quality Improvement Report, Ecology Publication Number 07-10-110. Olympia, Washington Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology), Water Quality Program. 2009. Clarks Creek Watershed Fecal Coliform Bacteria, Total Maximum Daily Load Water Quality Implementation Plan, Ecology Publication Number 09-10-081. Olympia, Washington. December. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), 2000. Fish Protection Screen Guidelines for Washington State. April 25, 2000. ---PAGE BREAK--- MEEKER CREEK CHANNEL RESTORATION „ Puyallup, Washington July 10, 2013 I Page 21 File No. 0402-031-00 SPECIAL CONDITIONS FOR INSTREAM HABITAT DESIGN ENGINEERING SERVICES Instream Habitat Enhancement, Stabilization and/or Restoration Structures (Structures) may involve the placement of large logs, logs with root wads, large rocks and other natural or artificial materials and/or features in and adjacent to creeks, streams and rivers (streams). These Structures are designed for various purposes including but not limited to: improvement of aquatic and riparian habitat; stabilization of eroding stream banks and channels; creation or improvement of recreational uses; irrigation; and flood management. These Structures create potential hazards, including, but not limited to: humans falling from the Structures and associated injury or death; collisions of recreational users’ and their watercraft with the Structures and associated risk of injury or death, with partial or total damage of the watercraft; mobilization of a portion or all of the Structures during high water flow conditions and any subsequent related damage to properties, utilities, roads, bridges and other infrastructure, and injury or death to humans; flooding; erosion; and channel avulsion. To reduce the risk of injury or death caused by these hazards, we recommend that the client post and maintain conspicuous warning signs on, upstream and from the Structures for as long as the Structures remain in the stream, identifying the Structure locations, and the specific hazards the Structures present to recreational users. We further recommend that the client distribute pamphlets to nearby residents warning of the danger to children and adults posed by the Structures. Client shall indemnify GeoEngineers against any damages arising from Client’s failure to follow these recommendations, to the extent provided in the INDEMNIFICATION section of the GENERAL CONDITIONS. ---PAGE BREAK--- SITE Vicinity Map Figure 1 Meeker Creek Channel Restoration Project Puyallup, Washington 2,000 2,000 0 Feet Data Sources: National Geographic, ESRI Data & Maps Notes: 1. The locations of all features shown are approximate. 2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. GeoEngineers, Inc. can not guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication. 3. It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for personal use or resale, without permission. Projection: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 10N Path: \\tac\Projects\0\0402031\GIS\VicinityMap.mxd Map Revised: 28 January 2013 dconlin ---PAGE BREAK--- Meeker Creek Watershed Meeker Creek Channel Restoration Project Puyallup, Washington Figure 2 Notes 1. The locations of all features shown are approximate. 2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication. Reference: Image provided by City of Puyallup, January, 2013. W E N S FEET 0 1000 1000 Meeker Creek Silver Creek Clarks Creek Meeker Creek Watershed Silver Creek Sub-basin Legend Silver Creek Meeker Creek Tributary Meeker Creek Tributary ---PAGE BREAK--- CLARKS CREEK 10TH AVE. S.W. 14TH ST. S.W. 18TH ST. S.W. 10TH AVE. S.W. LEGEND: Notes 1. The locations of all features shown are approximate. 2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication. Reference: Survey provided by Gray and Osborne, dated February 2013. Figure 3 Meeker Creek Channel Restoration Puyallup, Washington Wetland Impacts and Mitigation FEET 0 100 100 ---PAGE BREAK--- APPE Concept D ENDIX A Designs ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Elevation (in feet) Elevation (in feet) Distance (in feet) 20 25 30 35 40 20 25 30 35 40 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 380 390 400 410 420 430 440 450 2 1 3 1 4 1 3 1 Elevation (in feet) Elevation (in feet) Distance (in feet) 20 25 30 35 40 20 25 30 35 40 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 380 390 400 410 420 430 440 450 SECTION A-A' - ACTUAL SCALE 1" = 40' HORIZONTAL 1" = 40' VERTICAL Section A-A' Preliminary Proposed Design Alternative #4 SECTION A-A' - EXAGGERATED VERTICAL SCALE 1" = 40' HORIZONTAL 1" = 10' VERTICAL Meeker Creek Channel Restoration Project Puyallup, Washington PROPOSED VEGETATED SOIL MOUND PROPOSED VEGETATED SOIL MOUND PROPOSED FLOOD PLAIN PROPOSED CHANNEL EXISTING GROUND SURFACE EXISTING CHANNEL PROPOSED STORM DRAIN PIPE PROPOSED FLOOD PLAIN ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- 20.00 21.00 22.00 23.00 24.00 25.00 26.00 27.00 28.00 29.00 30.00 31.00 32.00 33.00 34.00 35.00 36.00 0 200 400 [PHONE REDACTED] 1200 1400 Elevation (feet) - NAVD88 Datum DIstance Upstream From Clarks Creek Parallel to Existing Meeker Creek Channel (feet) Figure 1 - Channel Profile Preliminary Proposed Design Alternative 4 - South Channel Meeker Creek Channel Restoration Project City of Puyallup Proposed Channel Thalwag Existing Ground Surface Proposed Flood Plain Existing Channel Thalwag ---PAGE BREAK--- 95.0 95.5 96.0 96.5 97.0 97.5 98.0 98.5 99.0 99.5 100.0 -60.0 -40.0 -20.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 Elevation (feet) Horizontal Distance (feet) Meeker Creek Channel Concept Sections 60-Foot Channel 70-Ft Channel 120-Foot Channel ---PAGE BREAK--- Planning Level Cost Estimate 3/14/2013 Alternative 1 - North Channel Meeker Creek Channel Restoration Project City of Puyallup GeoEngineers, Inc. SERVICES GeoEngineers Phase 1: Investigations 27,000 $ Phase 2: Design 74,000 $ Phase 3: Permitting 28,000 $ Phase 4: Bidding/Constr. Mgmt 15,000 $ Phase 5: Project Management 6,000 $ Subtotal 150,000 $ Survey 12,000 $ Cultural Resources 4,000 $ Total 166,000 $ CONSTRUCTION Work Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Mob/Demob 1 LS 50,000 $ 50,000 $ Clearing, Grubbing, Chipping 1 LS 15,000 $ 15,000 $ Demolition 1 LS 6,000 $ 6,000 $ Dewatering/Water Treatment 1 LS 40,000 $ 40,000 $ TESC 1 LS 20,000 $ 20,000 $ Excavation 13,700 CY 6 $ 82,200 $ Backfill Existing Ditch 350 CY 4 $ 1,400 $ Off-site Soil Disposal 13,350 CY 15 $ 200,250 $ Large Wood (Owner Supplied) 40 Each 300 $ 12,000 $ Large Wood (New) 10 Each 800 $ 8,000 $ Stream Gravel 700 CY 50 $ 35,000 $ Cobbles/Boulders 175 CY 50 $ 8,750 $ Mulch 1,400 CY 25 $ 35,000 $ Hydroseed 2.0 Acre 3,000 $ 5,923 $ Plantings (Willows along channel) 2,200 Each 2.50 $ 5,500 $ Subtotal 525,023 $ Sales Tax 9.40% 49,352 $ Contingency 10.00% 52,502 $ Total 626,877 $ PROJECT TOTAL 792,877 $ This cost estimate is based on planning level data. Design analyses have not yet been completed. Quantities, unit pricing, and total cost may change as design analyses are completed. ---PAGE BREAK--- Planning Level Cost Estimate 3/14/2013 Alternative 2 - Mid-Channel (Narrow) Meeker Creek Channel Restoration Project City of Puyallup GeoEngineers, Inc. SERVICES GeoEngineers Phase 1: Investigations 27,000 $ Phase 2: Design 74,000 $ Phase 3: Permitting 28,000 $ Phase 4: Bidding/Constr. Mgmt 15,000 $ Phase 5: Project Management 6,000 $ Subtotal 150,000 $ Survey 12,000 $ Cultural Resources 4,000 $ Total 166,000 $ CONSTRUCTION Work Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Mob/Demob 1 LS 55,000 $ 55,000 $ Clearing, Grubbing, Chipping 1 LS 12,000 $ 12,000 $ Demolition 1 LS 6,000 $ 6,000 $ TESC 1 LS 18,000 $ 18,000 $ Dewatering/Water Treatment 1 LS 35,000 $ 35,000 $ Excavation 13,200 CY 6 $ 79,200 $ Backfill Existing Ditch 2,000 CY 4 $ 8,000 $ Soil Mound 4,100 CY 4 $ 16,400 $ Off-site Soil Disposal 7,100 CY 15 $ 106,500 $ Large Wood (Owner Supplied) 40 Each 300 $ 12,000 $ Large Wood (New) 10 Each 800 $ 8,000 $ Tail Water Section Wood Crib 1 LS 48,000 $ 48,000 $ Stream Gravel 800 CY 50 $ 40,000 $ Cobbles/Boulders 200 CY 50 $ 10,000 $ Mulch 1,600 CY 25 $ 40,000 $ Hydroseed 2.9 Acre 2,000 $ 5,785 $ Plantings (Willows along channel) 2,200 Each 2.50 $ 5,500 $ 6" HDPE Storm Drain Pipe 170 LF 10.00 $ 1,700 $ 8" HDPE Storm Drain Pipe 300 LF 15.00 $ 4,500 $ 12" HDPE Storm Drain Pipe 415 LF 20.00 $ 8,300 $ Stormwater Treatment Vault 1 LS 60,000 $ 60,000 $ Subtotal 579,885 $ Sales Tax 9.40% 54,509 $ Contingency 10.00% 57,989 $ Total 692,383 $ PROJECT TOTAL 858,383 $ This cost estimate is based on planning level data. Design analyses have not yet been completed. Quantities, unit pricing, and total cost may change as design analyses are completed. ---PAGE BREAK--- Planning Level Cost Estimate 3/14/2013 Alternative 3 - Mid-Channel (Wide) Meeker Creek Channel Restoration Project City of Puyallup GeoEngineers, Inc. SERVICES GeoEngineers Phase 1: Investigations 27,000 $ Phase 2: Design 74,000 $ Phase 3: Permitting 28,000 $ Phase 4: Bidding/Constr. Mgmt 15,000 $ Phase 5: Project Management 6,000 $ Subtotal 150,000 $ Survey 12,000 $ Cultural Resources 4,000 $ Total 166,000 $ CONSTRUCTION Work Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Mob/Demob 1 LS 80,000 $ 80,000 $ Clearing, Grubbing, Chipping 1 LS 15,000 $ 15,000 $ Demolition 1 LS 6,000 $ 6,000 $ TESC 1 LS 20,000 $ 20,000 $ Dewatering/Water Treatment 1 LS 40,000 $ 40,000 $ Excavation 24,300 CY 6 $ 145,800 $ Backfill Existing Ditch 2,000 CY 4 $ 8,000 $ Soil Mound 4,100 CY 4 $ 16,400 $ Off-site Soil Disposal 18,200 CY 15 $ 273,000 $ Large Wood (Owner Supplied) 40 Each 300 $ 12,000 $ Large Wood (New) 10 Each 800 $ 8,000 $ Tail Water Section Wood Crib 1 LS 48,000 $ 48,000 $ Stream Gravel 800 CY 50 $ 40,000 $ Cobbles/Boulders 200 CY 50 $ 10,000 $ Mulch 3,000 CY 25 $ 75,000 $ Hydroseed 4.4 Acre 2,000 $ 8,747 $ Plantings (Willows along channel) 2,200 Each 2.50 $ 5,500 $ 6" HDPE Storm Drain Pipe 170 LF 10.00 $ 1,700 $ 8" HDPE Storm Drain Pipe 300 LF 15.00 $ 4,500 $ 12" HDPE Storm Drain Pipe 415 LF 20.00 $ 8,300 $ Stormwater Treatment Vault 1 LS 60,000 $ 60,000 $ Subtotal 885,947 $ Sales Tax 9.40% 83,279 $ Contingency 10.00% 88,595 $ Total 1,057,820 $ PROJECT TOTAL 1,223,820 $ This cost estimate is based on planning level data. Design analyses have not yet been completed. Quantities, unit pricing, and total cost may change as design analyses are completed. ---PAGE BREAK--- Planning Level Cost Estimate 3/14/2013 Alternative 4 - South Channel Meeker Creek Channel Restoration Project City of Puyallup GeoEngineers, Inc. SERVICES GeoEngineers Phase 1: Investigations 27,000 $ Phase 2: Design 74,000 $ Phase 3: Permitting 28,000 $ Phase 4: Bidding/Constr. Mgmt 15,000 $ Phase 5: Project Management 6,000 $ Subtotal 150,000 $ Survey 12,000 $ Cultural Resources 4,000 $ Total 166,000 $ CONSTRUCTION Work Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Subtotal Mob/Demob 1 LS 75,000 $ 75,000 $ Clearing, Grubbing, Chipping 1 LS 18,000 $ 18,000 $ Demolition 1 LS 6,000 $ 6,000 $ TESC 1 LS 18,000 $ 18,000 $ Dewatering/Water Treatment 1 LS 40,000 $ 40,000 $ Excavation 20,100 CY 6 $ 120,600 $ Backfill Existing Ditch 2,000 CY 4 $ 8,000 $ Soil Mound 4,100 CY 4 $ 16,400 $ Off-site Soil Disposal 14,000 CY 15 $ 210,000 $ Channel Connection to Clarks Creek 1 LS 20,000 $ 20,000 $ Large Wood (Owner Supplied) 40 Each 300 $ 12,000 $ Large Wood (New) 8 Each 800 $ 6,400 $ Tail Water Section Wood Crib 1 LS 48,000 $ 48,000 $ Stream Gravel 700 CY 50 $ 35,000 $ Cobbles/Boulders 175 CY 50 $ 8,750 $ Mulch 2,500 CY 25 $ 62,500 $ Hydroseed 4.4 Acre 2,000 $ 8,747 $ Plantings (Willows along channel) 2,000 Each 2.50 $ 5,000 $ 6" HDPE Storm Drain Pipe 170 LF 10.00 $ 1,700 $ 8" HDPE Storm Drain Pipe 300 LF 15.00 $ 4,500 $ 12" HDPE Storm Drain Pipe 415 LF 20.00 $ 8,300 $ Stormwater Treatment Vault 1 LS 60,000 $ 60,000 $ Subtotal 792,897 $ Sales Tax 9.40% 74,532 $ Contingency 10.00% 79,290 $ Total 946,718 $ PROJECT TOTAL 1,112,718 $ This cost estimate is based on planning level data. Design analyses have not yet been completed. Quantities, unit pricing, and total cost may change as design analyses are completed. ---PAGE BREAK--- Channel De APPE esign Work NDIX B ksheets ---PAGE BREAK--- HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS AND CROSS SECTION Project: Meeker Creek Channel Restoration Site: 0 Project Number: 00402-031-00 Analyst: KTF Watercourse: Meeker Creek Latest Revision: 5/9/2013 Step Input Desired Stream Classification Data N/A 10 = ER = Entrenchment Ratio (ft/ft) 4.05 = W/D = Width/Depth Ratio (ft/ft) 1.14 = K = Sinuosity (ft/ft) 16.0 = Q2 = Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 0 = Q100 = 100-Year Discharge (cfs) (Or any "Design Flood" Discharge) Step Input Desired Stream and Valley Geometry Data Bankfull Channel Floodplain (Valley) 0.035 0.07 = n = Manning's n Value 1.75 3 = z = Bank Side-Slopes ( _H:1V) 958.74 841 = L = Length (ft) 0.00281 0.00320 = G = Gradient (ft/ft) Channel and Floodplain Design (Output) Bankfull Channel Floodplain (Valley) 16 = Required Channel Discharge (cfs) -16 = Required Floodplain Discharge (Excludes Channel Q) (cfs) 1.81 = Dbf = Bankfull Depth (ft) 1.65 = D = Depth of Water In Floodplain (ft) 7.35 = Wbf =Bankfull Width (Top Width) (ft) 73.47 = W = Width of Water in Floodplain (Top Width) (ft) 1.00 = B = Bottom Width (ft) 63.58 = B = Bottom Width (ft) 7.57 = A = Cross-Sectional Area (sf) 113.02 = A = Cross-Sectional Area (sf) 8.31 = P = Wetted Perimeter (ft) 74.01 = P = Wetted Perimeter (ft) 0.91 = R = Hydraulic Radius (ft) 1.53 = R = Hydraulic Radius (ft) 2.11 = V = Velocity (fps) 1.59 = V = Velocity (fps) 0.159538902 = t = Shear Stress in Channel (lbs/sf) 80.82 = Overall Floodplain Width (ft) 15.99958356 = Resulting Channel Discharge (cfs) 179.9993 = Resulting Floodplain Discharge (cfs) - This spreadsheet estimates the size of the bankfull channel and floodplain required for a Targeted "Rosgen" Stream type. - The dimensions calculated below are only approximate, and intended to be a "first estimate". The dimensions calculated below should be input into a hydraulic model (like HEC-RAS) and refined. - The calculations are based on Manning's equation, and therefore do not account for any backwater effects. Also, this analysis assumes the flow in the channel remains in the long sinuous channel, while the flow in the floodplain flows along the shorter valley. Also, the cross-sections of the bankfull channel and floodplain are calculated independently. - Only input data into the shaded cells. - Step - Use Microsoft's "Goal Seek" tool twice. Once to calculate the geometry of the bankfull channel and once to calculate the geometry of the floodplain. ("Goal Seek" is a trial-and-error tool, found under the "Tools" menu.) - For each Trial, "Set Cell" = "Resulting" Discharge, "To Value" = "Required" Discharge, "By Changing Cells" = "Depth". (See Bold Italics) - Calculate the bankfull channel first. 0 2 4 6 8 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Elevation (ft) Stations (ft) Channel and Floodplain Cross-Section Floodplain and Channel Bankfull WSEL Flood WSEL ---PAGE BREAK--- Flood M APPE Modeling A NDIX C Analysis ---PAGE BREAK--- Memorandum 1101 Fawcett Avenue, Suite 200, Tacoma, Washington 98402 Phone: [PHONE REDACTED] Fax: [PHONE REDACTED] www.geoengineers.com To: Steve Carstens (City of Puyallup) From: Ken Fellows, PE Date: May 9, 2013 File: File No. 0402-031-00 Subject: Meeker Creek Restoration HEC-RAS Modeling Results For the purposes of assessing potential restoration scenarios and completing preliminary design for the Meeker Creek Channel Restoration Project, the existing 2005 Flood Insurance Study (FIS) HEC-RAS 4.1.0 model (NHC, 2005) obtained from Pierce County was modified to compare proposed conditions to current existing conditions. This analysis did not seek to validate or update the results of the 2005 FIS and assumes that the existing conditions modeled at the project site are representative of the current conditions. The inundation extents and water surface elevations of the 100-year flow event as modeled by the FIS are shown in Figure 1. Water surface elevations range from 30.4 feet (NAVD88) at the lowest cross section on Meeker Creek to 31.9 feet immediately of the culvert at 14th Street SW at the upstream boundary of the project site. Within the project reach, flood inundation extents extend south outside of the project site to the homes located on 11th Avenue SW. Due to apparent incomplete valley floor topographic data, the existing conditions model did not rigorously delineate flood extents in the area southeast of the confluence of Meeker Creek and Clarks Creek, and the proposed FEMA flood maps indicate that the 100-year flood event would inundate most of this area. East of the project reach (east of 14th Street SW) flood inundation extents extend both north and south of Meeker Creek. Based on public input and a determination by the City of Puyallup, Concept Design Alternative 4 was selected as the preferred alternative to carry forward for flood modeling. Alternative 4 involves shifting the creek to the south and creating a channel plan form consisting of a meandering low flow channel within a connected floodplain. The confluence of Meeker Creek with Clarks Creek is moved approximately 500 feet upstream in Clarks Creek. The existing Meeker Creek channel would be filled with soil. The new channel is designed with a slope and cross sectional area to maintain the sediment transport capacity of the current channel while reducing flood water surface elevations and inundation extents. Two differing floodplain geometries were analyzed in the HEC-RAS model: ■ “Wide”: a channel with a wider floodplain of 47 feet on each side (approximately 120 feet total width) ■ “Narrow”: a channel with a narrower floodplain of 22 feet on each side (approximately 70 feet total width) In both cases the geometry of the low flow channel and all other model parameters were identical. The modified model was run for several scenarios to estimate relative flood water elevations for the 10-, 50-, and 100-year flood flows as listed in the FIS model. These predicted flood water elevations should be viewed as the most accurate indicators of the potential changes due to channel restoration. Of lesser value are the predicted lateral/aerial extents of flooding, which may be inaccurate in: 1) areas located a substantial distance from the new channel, and 2) the area southeast of the confluence. As noted above, the valley floor topographic ---PAGE BREAK--- data in the existing conditions model, particularly south of the existing creek, was incomplete. The FIS model flows and an additional bankfull flow used in the development of the design are shown in Table 1 below. TABLE 1: FIS AND BANKFULL MODELING FLOW RATES Storm Event Return Period Meeker Creek Flow (cfs) 10-year 1011 50-year 1301 100-year 1421 Future 100-year 1941 Bankfull 162 Notes: 1 Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (NHC), 2005. Flood Insurance Mapping Study for Clarks Creek Near Puyallup, Washington. November. 2 GeoEngineers, Meeker Creek Channel Restoration Project 30% Design Report. April 2013 The resulting 100-year inundation extents and water surface elevations of the wide floodplain alternative are shown in Table 2 and Figure 2. The water surface elevations at the extent of Meeker Creek remain nearly identical due to the backwatering effect from Clarks Creek. At the upstream extent of the project site, near the outlet of the culvert at 14th Street SW, water surface elevations are decreased by 0.9 feet. The predicted extent of floodplain inundation at the middle of the site (cross section 0.1296) has been substantially reduced compared to the existing model. The wide floodplain was also modeled for the 10- and 50-year flood event flows, and the results are summarized in Table 2. The narrow floodplain alternative was developed to determine if similar beneficial flood reduction results at the 100-year flow could be obtained while reducing project costs by minimizing floodplain excavation volumes. The resulting 100-year inundation extents and water surface elevations of this alternative are shown in Table 2 and Figure 3. Water surface elevations remain very similar to the wide floodplain in the lower portion of the site. Water surface elevations at the outlet of the box culvert at 14th Street SW decreased by 0.8 feet compared to the existing conditions model (0.1 feet less than for the wide floodplain alternative). Figure 4 presents a representative model cross section (with the water surface elevations) that compares existing conditions, the wide floodplain alternative, and the narrow floodplain alternative. This figure clearly shows the reduction in water surface elevation that results from the either the wide or narrow floodplain alternative when compared to the existing conditions. To compare variation in flow velocities as well as water surface elevations, tabular output from the modeling of the existing conditions and two alternatives are shown in Attachment A. In general, the flow velocity reduction is greatest at the extent of the project site for either alternative when compared to existing conditions. At the upstream extent near the outlet of the culvert at 14th Street SW flow velocities are increased in both of the proposed restoration alternatives, compared to existing conditions. This is likely due to the elimination of backwatering that was occurring in the existing conditions model due to the higher water surface elevation at the culvert outlet. With the exception of the cross section at the culvert outlet, flow velocities are lower in the wide floodplain alternative than the narrow floodplain alternative. The proposed Meeker Creek channel and floodplain are designed for flow to be contained within the channel during the majority of year while allowing higher discharges and flood flows to overtop onto the floodplain. The floodplain elevation was set based on the modeled water surface elevation in the proposed channel at the 10% flow exceedance discharge at the Clarks Creek streamgage (USGS, 2013). To model the water surface elevation at the lower flows, the existing 2005 Flood Insurance Study HEC-RAS model was modified to ---PAGE BREAK--- better represent flow conditions ranging from the 50% to 10% flow exceedance discharge. Model flow values for exceedance discharges were obtained from the flow duration curve of the Clarks Creek streamgage shown in Figure 5 and reduced by 5 cubic feet per second (cfs) to account for two small tributaries within the Clarks Creek drainage area that are not included in the HEC-RAS model. The boundary location of the model was shifted from the confluence of Clarks Creek with the Puyallup River to the location of the Clarks Creek USGS gage approximately 1.6 miles upstream. The model was then calibrated to match observed water surface elevations at the confluence of Meeker and Clarks creek by setting model flow and boundary conditions to recorded discharge and stage elevation and adjusting channel Manning’s n-values until modeled water surface elevation matched the observed conditions of 26.8 feet. This resulted in Manning’s n-values increasing from 0.04 to 0.055 within the channel. Following calibration, the model was run with the narrow floodplain geometry and the 10% exceedance flow discharge. Floodplain elevations were set at each cross section based on the modeled water surface elevations and ranged from 27.2 to 29.2 feet. TABLE 2: PREDICTED WATER SURFACE ELEVATIONS (feet, NAVD88) Scenario: Location 10-Year Flow (101 cfs) Existing Channel 10-Year Flow (101 cfs) Restored Wide Floodplain 50-Year Flow (130 cfs) Existing Channel 50-Year Flow (130 cfs) Restored Wide Floodplain 100-Year Flow (142 cfs) Existing Channel 100-Year Flow (142 cfs) Restored Wide Floodplain 100-Year Flow (142 cfs) Restored Narrow Floodplain Clarks Creek RM 3.353 29.7 29.7 30.2 30.2 30.4 30.4 30.5 Meeker Creek RM 0.1296 (middle of project reach) 30.8 29.8 31.0 30.3 31.1 30.5 30.5 Meeker Creek RM 0.2289 (upstream end of project reach) 31.8 30.8 31.9 30.9 31.9 31.0 31.1 Meeker Creek RM 0.313 32.3 31.9 32.7 32.2 32.8 32.4 32.4 Meeker Creek RM 0.386 32.9 32.7 33.3 33.2 33.4 33.3 33.3 To assess a reasonably adverse scenario the narrow floodplain alternative was modeled at a differing flow configuration than in the FIS model. This reasonably maximum velocity scenario was modeled by setting flow in Meeker Creek to the future 100-year flow (196 cfs) and setting flow in Upper Clarks Creek to the 10-year flow event (128 cfs). This models a precipitation event that results in a much larger flow event in Meeker Creek than in Clarks Creek. This increases flow velocity in Meeker Creek by reducing the backwater effect of Clarks Creek on the boundary of Meeker Creek. The results of this analysis are shown in Attachment B. Flow velocities within the project reach range from approximately 2 to 4.5 feet per second within the channel and 0.6 to 1.5 feet per second along the floodplain as seen in Figure 6. The maximum velocity of 4.47 feet per second occurs at cross section 0.2289. ---PAGE BREAK--- Material excavated from the construction of the proposed Meeker Creek channel and floodplain will be placed on site in the northern area of the project site. Soil fill will be located outside of the floodplain area at ground surface elevation ranging from 30.5 to 31 feet. This area is above the inundation elevations of the modeled flow extents at the 100-year (142 cfs), reasonable maximum velocity (194 cfs in Meeker and 128 cfs in Clarks), and the future 100-year (194 cfs) flow scenarios and will not reduce flow capacity during these events as shown in Table 3. TABLE 3: PREDICTED WATER SURFACE ELEVATIONS ALONG SOIL FILL AREA (feet, NAVD88) Scenario: Location Existing Conditions 100-Year (Meeker 142 cfs, Clarks 178 cfs) 100-Year (Meeker 142 cfs, Clarks 178 cfs) Reasonably Maximum Velocity (Meeker 192 cfs, Clarks 128 cfs) 100-Year Future (Meeker 192 cfs, Clarks 178 cfs) Meeker Creek RM 0.0556 N/A 30.5 29.7 30.5 Meeker Creek RM 0.0926 N/A 30.5 29.8 30.5 Meeker Creek RM 0.0927 N/A 30.5 29.8 30.5 Meeker Creek RM 0.1296 31.1 30.5 30.0 30.6 Meeker Creek RM 0.1627 N/A 30.6 30.3 30.7 References Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (NHC), November, 2005. Flood Insurance Mapping Study for Clarks Creek Near Puyallup, Washington. GeoEngineers, Inc., “Meeker Creek Channel Restoration Project 30% Design Report, Puyallup, Washington.” GEI File No. 0482-031-00, April 2013. USGS, 2013. StreamStats Data-Collection Station Report USGS 12102075. website accessed at http://streamstatsags.cr.usgs.gov/gagepages/html/12102075.htm 4/22/13 WJS:KTF:tln Attachments: Figure 1: Meeker Creek Restoration 2005 Flood Insurance Study Modeling Stations and 100 year Results Figure 2: Meeker Creek Restoration Model Stations and Predicted 100 year Results for Wide Floodplain Option Figure 3: Meeker Creek Restoration Model Stations and Predicted 100 year Results for Narrow Floodplain Option Figure 4: Meeker Creek Restoration Typical Model Cross-Section for Narrow Option. Figure 5: Clarks Creek Flow Duration Curve Figure 6: Meeker Creek Velocities for Narrow Option at Reasonably Maximum Velocity Scenario Attachment A: Meeker Creek Tabular Output 100 year Results Attachment B: Meeker Creek Tabular Output Reasonably Maximum Velocity Scenario Results ---PAGE BREAK---  600 600 0 Feet 2005 Flood Insurance Study Modeling Stations and 100 yr Results Meeker Creek Restoration City of Puyallup Pierce County, WA Figure 1  100 yr Water Surface Extents RAS Thalweg RAS XS Cut Lines Meeker Creek Restoration Site Notes: 1. The locations of all features shown are approximate. 2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication. 3. It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for personal use or resale, without permission. Data Sources: Aerial Imagery NAIP 2006. State Plane Washington South FIPS 4601 (Feet), North American Datum 1983. North arrow oriented to grid north. Depth grids generated using Hec-GeoRAS extension within ArcGIS. = Water surface elevation at cross section for the Meeker Creek (ft_NAVD88) WSEL = FIS RIVER STATION RIVER STATION ---PAGE BREAK---  600 600 0 Feet Meeker Creek Restoration Model Stations and Predicted 100 year Results for Wide Floodplain Option City of Puyallup Pierce County, WA Figure 2  100 yr Water Surface Extents RAS Thalweg RAS XS Cut Lines Meeker Creek Restoration Site Notes: 1. The locations of all features shown are approximate. 2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication. 3. It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for personal use or resale, without permission. Data Sources: Aerial Imagery NAIP 2006. State Plane Washington South FIPS 4601 (Feet), North American Datum 1983. North arrow oriented to grid north. Depth grids generated using Hec-GeoRAS extension within ArcGIS. = Water surface elevation at cross section for the Meeker Creek (ft_NAVD88) WSEL = FIS RIVER STATION RIVER STATION ---PAGE BREAK---  600 600 0 Feet Meeker Creek Restoration Model Stations and Predicted 100 year Results for Narrow Floodplain Option City of Puyallup Pierce County, WA Figure 3  100 yr Water Surface Extents RAS Thalweg RAS XS Cut Lines Meeker Creek Restoration Site Notes: 1. The locations of all features shown are approximate. 2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication. 3. It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for personal use or resale, without permission. Data Sources: Aerial Imagery NAIP 2006. State Plane Washington South FIPS 4601 (Feet), North American Datum 1983. North arrow oriented to grid north. Depth grids generated using Hec-GeoRAS extension within ArcGIS. = Water surface elevation at cross section for the Meeker Creek (ft_NAVD88) WSEL = FIS RIVER STATION RIVER STATION ---PAGE BREAK--- Figure 4 Meeker Creek Restoration Typical Model Cross-Section for Narrow Option City of Puyallup, Washington TACO:\00\0402031\00\Hydraulics\Design Alternatives Analysis\Figure 4.ppt DSP:wjs 041613 ---PAGE BREAK--- Figure 5 Flow Duration Curve for Clarks Creek Streamgage USGS 12102075 City of Puyallup, Washington BELL\0\0402031_Taco\00\Hydraulics\Figure 5 Clarks Creek Flow Duration Curve.ppt DSP:wjs 050113 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Discharge (cfs) Percent Duration ---PAGE BREAK--- Figure 6 Meeker Creek Velocities for Narrow Option at Reasonably Maximum Velocity Scenario City of Puyallup, Washington BELL\0\0402031_Taco\00\Hydraulics\Design Alternative Analysis\Figure6.ppt DSP:wjs 05 09 13 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 Velocity (ft/s) Channel Distance (ft) Channel Velocity (ft/s) Floodplain Velocity (ft/s) ---PAGE BREAK--- ATTACHMENT A Meeker Creek Tabular Output 100 year Results ---PAGE BREAK---        " " " " # " # " # "    ?E    ?E  +99   ?E     ?E    ?E    <+99  <+99  ?E <+99    ?E     ?E    ?E    ?E     ?E ;99    ?E     <999'  ?E    ?E     ?E ---PAGE BREAK---      ?E    ?E   ;*99  ;*99  ?E ;*99    ?E   IJ   7  ?E  D   D     ?E +99  ;99' D  ;99  ;99= D  ;99  ?E ; D ;99> ;99> ?E ;99> ?E ?E   D A   A LG ?E ?E ?E ?E  ---PAGE BREAK--- ATTACHMENT B Meeker Creek Tabular Output Reasonably Maximum Velocity Scenario Results ---PAGE BREAK---        " " " " # " # " # "   ?E   ?E   ?E    ?E   ?E    <+99  ?E <+99   ?E    ?E   ?E   ?E    ?E ;99   ?E    &99  ?E   ?E    ?E   ?E   ?E   ;*99  ?E ;*99   ?E  ---PAGE BREAK---  99:   ?E 7  7     ?E +99   ;99  ;99  ?E ; D ;99> ?E ;99> ?E ?E   D A   A LG ?E ?E ?E ?E  ---PAGE BREAK--- Stormwater Treat APPE tment Eva ENDIX E aluation ---PAGE BREAK--- Disclaimer: Any electronic form, facsimile or hard copy of the original document (email, text, table, and/or figure), if provided, and any attachments are only a copy of the original document. The original document is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. Memorandum 600 Dupont Street, Bellingham, WA 98225, Telephone: [PHONE REDACTED], Fax: [PHONE REDACTED] www.geoengineers.com To: Steve Carstens (City of Puyallup) From: Ken Fellows, PE Date: May 9, 2013 File: File No. 00402-031-00 Subject: Meeker Creek Channel Restoration Project Stormwater Treatment Alternatives The purpose of this memorandum is to present preliminary recommendations for a stormwater treatment facility as part of the City of Puyallup Meeker Creek Channel Restoration Project design located in Puyallup, Washington. The City requested the project include a stormwater treatment facility that would treat flows draining from a 16-acre residential neighborhood located north of the existing Meeker Creek channel (see Figure The delineation of the contributing area of the basin is approximate as detailed survey data from the City of Puyallup was not available and the area is very flat. The treatment facility will be designed to meet Washington State Department of Ecology’s basic treatment standards and will tie the existing storm drain network together and route flows to treatment prior to the outfall at Clarks Creek. After a preliminary review of stormwater treatment options, a vault type system was determined to be the most appropriate for the site. Other potential stormwater treatment options included an infiltration type facility, such as a bioretention area or bioswale, however these were ruled out due to poorly draining silty soils at the site as well as shallow groundwater elevations relative to the depth of the existing storm drain network. The typical groundwater depths range seasonally from 0.5 – 3 feet beneath ground surface (bgs) whereas the storm drain network is approximately 4 – 5 feet (bgs). Infiltration type facilities generally require a minimum of three feet between the bottom of the infiltration basin and the water table and would not be feasible in this situation. The stormwater treatment facility was sized using the Western Washington Hydrology Model Version 3 (WWHM3) described in the Washington State Department of Ecology’s Stormwater Management for Western Washington. This model determined a water quality flow rate for the treatment facility by using inputs such as local precipitation data, site drainage area, pervious and impervious land use, and soil type. Assumptions used in this analysis included the following: ■ The Meeker Creek Watershed map provided by the City of Puyallup is representative of current conditions. Figure 1 indicates the drainage basin as interpreted for WWHM3 modeling. ■ No stormwater detention is required ■ No field survey or verification was performed ■ Soil types provided by the NRCS soil maps are representative of current conditions. Mapped conditions generally match with conditions found in test pits completed on the adjacent restoration site. ■ Slopes are generally “flat” throughout the drainage area For the purposes of this design the 15-mintue water quality design flow was used to determine the flow rate for the stormwater treatment facility. A 15-mintue water quality design flow is required by Ecology for the treatment facilities that are expected to have a hydraulic residence time of less than one hour (WA ---PAGE BREAK--- Department of Ecology, 2012). The resulting water quality design flow was found to be 0.69 cubic feet per second (cfs) by WWHM3. Output from the WWHM3 model runs are shown in Attachment A. Results from consultation with vendors are shown in Table 1 and include information on the product model, treatment type, estimated costs, and maintenance requirements. The treatment alternative that is best able to meet Ecology’s basic treatment standards given the limited head available at the site is the Royal Environmental EcoStorm / Ecostorm-plus system. This system has an estimated total cost of $100,000 which includes freight, installation, and flow bypass monitoring equipment required to meet Ecology’s General Use Level Designation for basic treatment. This treatment system may be designed with an internal 1 or 1.5 foot weir to decrease the effects of backwatering on the treatment efficiency. Vendor literature and cost estimates for the EcoStorm – plus stormwater treatment system are shown in Attachment B. With a 1.5 foot internal weir, the system would be able to treat 100% of the design flow through the system at a water surface elevation of 27.0 feet (NAVD88) at the outfall location on Clarks Creek. This corresponds to approximately the 5% exceedance flow for Clarks Creek. During larger flow events a portion of the flow would bypass the treatment system up to an outfall water surface elevation of 28.5 feet at which point all stormwater flow would bypass the system and not be treated. ---PAGE BREAK--- Disclaimer: Any electronic form, facsimile or hard copy of the original document (email, text, table, and/or figure), if provided, and any attachments are only a copy of the original document. The original document is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. TABLE 1: STORMWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES Vendor / Product Treatment Type Number of Cartridges or Units Design Flow rate (cfs) Estimated Cost for Vendor Supplied Equipment Estimated Cost Including Installation Recommended Inspection / Maintenance Estimated Annual Maintenance Costs BaySaver Technologies / BayFilter Model PVF-8-14-11 Cartridge Filter 11 cartridges 0.73 $ 41,000 $ 62,000 / Annually $7,150 for cartridge replacement Royal Environmental / EcoStorm - Model 0.5 and EcoStorm plus - 60" diameter Hydro- dynamic Separator 1 ecoStorm unit 2 ecoStorm - plus units 0.8 $ 63,207 $ 100,000 Every month or after 2" of rainfall / 9 months $2,543 for cleaning, inspection, and data collection Contech / StormFilter - 12" height and StormGate bypass Cartridge Filter 62 cartridges 0.69 $ 105,000 $ 158,000 Annually / Annually $6,045 ($12,090 for cartridge replacement every 2 years) Note: Estimated costs are based on 30% design level analysis. ---PAGE BREAK--- Disclaimer: Any electronic form, facsimile or hard copy of the original document (email, text, table, and/or figure), if provided, and any attachments are only a copy of the original document. The original document is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. To evaluate whether the installation of the Royal Enviromental EcoStorm / Ecostorm-plus treatment system would result in backwatering of the storm drain network to the inlets at street level, an analysis of headlosses due to friction was performed. The headloss analysis was performed on the storm drain network at the 25- year 24-hour storm event flow rate of 4.24 cfs, as determined by WWHM3, and with the 1.5 foot weir installed at the diversion structure of the treatment system. Street elevations were estimated at 32 feet (NAVD88) based on the cross-sections in the flood insurance model study (NHC, 2005), and were not field verified. The resulting hydraulic grade line elevations at the storm drain inlets are shown in Table 2 with calculations shown in Attachment C. With the exception of inlets located on 16th St. SW, the water surface elevations in the storm drain system during the 15-minute peak flow rates associated with the 25-year storm event are estimated to be below the street level provided water surface elevations in Clarks Creek do not exceed 27.0 feet. At 16th St. SW, the calculated hydraulic grade line elevation is predicted to above the street inlet elevation; however, this is due to the long length and narrow diameter of the existing storm drain pipe that runs along 16th St. SW, and not the installation of the stormwater treatment system or associated storm drain piping. The existing 12-inch storm drain cannot pass the predicted peak storm flow rates, resulting in localized ponding and surface flow. TABLE 2: PREDICTED HYDRAULIC GRADE LINE ELEVATIONS AT STORM DRAIN NETWORK INLETS FOR 15- MINUTE PEAK FLOWS PREDICTED FOR THE 25-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM EVENT (FEET, NAVD88) Storm Drain Inlet Location Predicted Hydraulic Grade Line Elevation At The Upstream End Of the Existing Storm Drain Network (ft, NAVD88) 18th St. SW 29.1 16th St. SW 35.8 14th St. SW 29.8 References Washington State Department of Ecology, 2012. Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Volume III Hydrologic Analysis and Flow Control BMPs. August 2012. Publication No. 12-10-030 Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (NHC), November, 2005. Flood Insurance Mapping Study for Clarks Creek Near Puyallup, Washington. Attachments: Figure 1: Meeker Creek Stormwater Treatment Drainage Map and Basin Calculations Attachment A: WWHM3 Results Attachment B: EcoStorm - plus Vendor Literature and Cost Estimates Attachment C: Hydraulic Grade Line Calculations ---PAGE BREAK--- Figure 1 Meeker Creek Stormwater Treatment Drainage Map and Basin Calculations City of Puyallup, Washington BELL\0\0402031_Taco\00\Hydraulics\Stormwater Treatment\Figure1.ppt DSP:wjs 050713 Sub-basin Area (acres) Percent Pervious Percent Impervious Pervious Area (acres) Impervious Area (acres) A 4.8 67% 33% 3.2 1.6 B 5.4 80% 20% 4.3 1.1 C 5.4 75% 25% 4.1 1.4 D 0.42 67% 33% 0.3 0.1 Total 16.0 11.9 4.2 ---PAGE BREAK--- ATTACHMENT A WWHM3 Results ---PAGE BREAK--- Western Washington Hydrology Model PROJECT REPORT Project Name: Meeker WWHM 4 Site Address: Puyallup City : Report Date : 4/24/2013 Gage : McMillin Data Start : 10/01/1948 Data End : 09/30/1996 Precip Scale: 1.00 WWHM3 Version: PREDEVELOPED LAND USE Name : Basin 1 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use Acres C, Lawn, Flat 11.78 Impervious Land Use Acres ROADS FLAT 1.1 ROOF TOPS FLAT 2.6 DRIVEWAYS FLAT 0.54 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Name : Basin 1 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use Acres C, Lawn, Flat 11.78 Impervious Land Use Acres ROADS FLAT 1.1 ROOF TOPS FLAT 2.6 DRIVEWAYS FLAT 0.54 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater ---PAGE BREAK--- MITIGATED LAND USE ANALYSIS RESULTS Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 1.84057 5 year 2.688238 10 year 3.331946 25 year 4.243582 50 year 4.997076 100 year 5.816886 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 1.84057 5 year 2.688238 10 year 3.331946 25 year 4.243582 50 year 4.997076 100 year 5.816886 Yearly Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Year Predeveloped Mitigated 1950 1.583 1.583 1951 2.008 2.008 1952 3.326 3.326 1953 0.842 0.842 1954 2.214 2.214 1955 2.035 2.035 1956 1.156 1.156 1957 1.512 1.512 1958 3.202 3.202 1959 1.448 1.448 1960 1.541 1.541 1961 6.880 6.880 1962 1.652 1.652 1963 1.356 1.356 1964 4.675 4.675 1965 1.634 1.634 1966 1.873 1.873 1967 3.847 3.847 1968 1.778 1.778 1969 2.037 2.037 1970 2.314 2.314 1971 1.338 1.338 1972 1.597 1.597 1973 1.454 1.454 1974 1.689 1.689 1975 3.880 3.880 1976 1.227 1.227 1977 2.198 2.198 ---PAGE BREAK--- 1978 0.830 0.830 1979 3.454 3.454 1980 2.293 2.293 1981 1.939 1.939 1982 3.203 3.203 1983 1.735 1.735 1984 2.539 2.539 1985 1.493 1.493 1986 0.937 0.937 1987 1.793 1.793 1988 2.334 2.334 1989 1.914 1.914 1990 2.107 2.107 1991 1.428 1.428 1992 2.357 2.357 1993 1.419 1.419 1994 1.482 1.482 1995 0.970 0.970 1996 1.784 1.784 1997 2.023 2.023 Ranked Yearly Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated 1 6.8797 6.8797 2 4.6750 4.6750 3 3.8797 3.8797 4 3.8468 3.8468 5 3.4544 3.4544 6 3.3264 3.3264 7 3.2027 3.2027 8 3.2016 3.2016 9 2.5388 2.5388 10 2.3567 2.3567 11 2.3336 2.3336 12 2.3137 2.3137 13 2.2928 2.2928 14 2.2142 2.2142 15 2.1985 2.1985 16 2.1067 2.1067 17 2.0372 2.0372 18 2.0353 2.0353 19 2.0232 2.0232 20 2.0081 2.0081 21 1.9389 1.9389 22 1.9142 1.9142 23 1.8729 1.8729 24 1.7935 1.7935 25 1.7842 1.7842 26 1.7784 1.7784 27 1.7348 1.7348 28 1.6888 1.6888 29 1.6518 1.6518 30 1.6336 1.6336 31 1.5973 1.5973 32 1.5825 1.5825 33 1.5406 1.5406 ---PAGE BREAK--- 34 1.5121 1.5121 35 1.4929 1.4929 36 1.4822 1.4822 37 1.4540 1.4540 38 1.4478 1.4478 39 1.4279 1.4279 40 1.4193 1.4193 41 1.3558 1.3558 42 1.3379 1.3379 43 1.2273 1.2273 44 1.1555 1.1555 45 0.9698 0.9698 46 0.9366 0.9366 47 0.8417 0.8417 48 0.8303 0.8303 POC #1 The Facility PASSED. Flow(CFS) Predev Dev Percentage Pass/Fail 0.9203 460 460 100 Pass 0.9615 397 397 100 Pass 1.0026 339 339 100 Pass 1.0438 299 299 100 Pass 1.0850 252 252 100 Pass 1.1262 228 228 100 Pass 1.1674 207 207 100 Pass 1.2085 186 186 100 Pass 1.2497 164 164 100 Pass 1.2909 154 154 100 Pass 1.3321 142 142 100 Pass 1.3733 122 122 100 Pass 1.4144 114 114 100 Pass 1.4556 102 102 100 Pass 1.4968 91 91 100 Pass 1.5380 85 85 100 Pass 1.5792 76 76 100 Pass 1.6203 68 68 100 Pass 1.6615 61 61 100 Pass 1.7027 57 57 100 Pass 1.7439 54 54 100 Pass 1.7851 48 48 100 Pass 1.8262 45 45 100 Pass 1.8674 44 44 100 Pass 1.9086 42 42 100 Pass 1.9498 35 35 100 Pass 1.9910 35 35 100 Pass 2.0321 33 33 100 Pass 2.0733 29 29 100 Pass 2.1145 26 26 100 Pass 2.1557 26 26 100 Pass 2.1969 24 24 100 Pass 2.2380 21 21 100 Pass 2.2792 20 20 100 Pass 2.3204 18 18 100 Pass ---PAGE BREAK--- 2.3616 16 16 100 Pass 2.4028 14 14 100 Pass 2.4439 14 14 100 Pass 2.4851 14 14 100 Pass 2.5263 14 14 100 Pass 2.5675 13 13 100 Pass 2.6087 13 13 100 Pass 2.6498 13 13 100 Pass 2.6910 12 12 100 Pass 2.7322 12 12 100 Pass 2.7734 12 12 100 Pass 2.8146 11 11 100 Pass 2.8557 11 11 100 Pass 2.8969 10 10 100 Pass 2.9381 10 10 100 Pass 2.9793 10 10 100 Pass 3.0205 10 10 100 Pass 3.0616 10 10 100 Pass 3.1028 10 10 100 Pass 3.1440 10 10 100 Pass 3.1852 10 10 100 Pass 3.2263 8 8 100 Pass 3.2675 8 8 100 Pass 3.3087 8 8 100 Pass 3.3499 7 7 100 Pass 3.3911 7 7 100 Pass 3.4322 7 7 100 Pass 3.4734 6 6 100 Pass 3.5146 6 6 100 Pass 3.5558 6 6 100 Pass 3.5970 6 6 100 Pass 3.6381 6 6 100 Pass 3.6793 6 6 100 Pass 3.7205 6 6 100 Pass 3.7617 6 6 100 Pass 3.8029 6 6 100 Pass 3.8440 6 6 100 Pass 3.8852 4 4 100 Pass 3.9264 4 4 100 Pass 3.9676 4 4 100 Pass 4.0088 4 4 100 Pass 4.0499 4 4 100 Pass 4.0911 4 4 100 Pass 4.1323 3 3 100 Pass 4.1735 3 3 100 Pass 4.2147 3 3 100 Pass 4.2558 3 3 100 Pass 4.2970 3 3 100 Pass 4.3382 3 3 100 Pass 4.3794 3 3 100 Pass 4.4206 3 3 100 Pass 4.4617 3 3 100 Pass 4.5029 3 3 100 Pass 4.5441 3 3 100 Pass 4.5853 3 3 100 Pass 4.6265 3 3 100 Pass 4.6676 3 3 100 Pass ---PAGE BREAK--- 4.7088 2 2 100 Pass 4.7500 2 2 100 Pass 4.7912 2 2 100 Pass 4.8324 2 2 100 Pass 4.8735 2 2 100 Pass 4.9147 2 2 100 Pass 4.9559 2 2 100 Pass 4.9971 2 2 100 Pass Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC 1. On-line facility volume: 0.8526 acre-feet On-line facility target flow: 0.01 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0.691 cfs. Off-line facility target flow: 0.3776 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0.3906 cfs. Perlnd and Changes No changes have been made. This program and accompanying documentation is provided 'as-is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by the user. Clear Creek Solutions and the Washington State Department of Ecology disclaims all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions and/or the Washington State Department of Ecology be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions or the Washington State Department of Ecology has been advised of the possibility of such damages. ---PAGE BREAK--- ATTACHMENT B EcoStorm - plus Vendor Literature and Cost Estimates ---PAGE BREAK--- Client Initials:_________ Client Name: GeoEngineers Client Contact: Joey Smith Project Name: Meeker Creek Proposal Type: EcoStorm / EcoStorm Plus Issue Date: 5/14/2013 Re-Issue Date: Proposal Version: 2.0 Duration: Project Start Date: Set by Client Project Finish Date: Set by Client Proposal pricing is valid for 30 days from the date issued above. PURCHASE - Permanent Stormwater Filtration Item Qty Unit Cost Extended Cost 1) ecoStorm - Model 0.5 1 $8,200.00 $8,200.00 2) ecoStorm plus - 60" diameter structure w/1 10" filter 2 $24,600.00 $49,200.00 3) Diversion/Collection Manholes 2 $1,200.00 $2,400.00 4) Drop Structure 1 $1,920.00 $1,920.00 Freight Included $61,720.00 SERVICE - Permanent Stormwater Filtration Item Qty Unit Cost Extended Cost 1) System Maintenance / Cleaning 1 2,200.00 $ 2,200.00 $ 2) Flow Bypass Monitoring Equipment 1 1,487.00 $ 1,487.00 $ 3) Inspection & Reporting 1 343.00 $ 343.00 $ PURCHASE - ecoStorm plus - Permanent Stormwater Filtration Product Inclusions ecoStorm plus 60" - Detail 1) One concrete structure, including top slab and precasted sloped bottom section. 2) One 10" filter to meet requirements per Washington State Dept of Ecology. 3) One 32" hinged, clear opening, ductile iron frame and cover without strut.for AASHTO H2O vehicle loading requirements. 4) Stainless steel brackets, anchor bolts and beam support system installed prior to delivery. 5) Two 8" flexible watertight sleeve boot connections for PVC inlet and outlet pipes, installed prior to delivery. 6) Two sets of pipe boot securing clamps and bolts. 7) One Cyclonic separator molded into structure section. 8) Internal PVC pipe connection, including 8" Tee, 90 degree bend and 12" cleanout pipe. 9) Grout for sealing Filter and Cleanout pipe. 10) Delivery of structure and filter to jobsite. 11) Installation of filter media sections and cleanout pipe with grout material at site by Water Tectonics. Provided By Client 1) Equipment/product offloading and placement by client. 2) Pvc piping for the inlet and outlet pipes. 3) Adjusting grade rings. 4) Installation of product to project specifications. 5) Access to filter and associated storm structures during normal business hours and any permits/authorizations necessary to work in right of way. Terms & Conditions 1) All orders are subject to state and applicable taxes. 2) If applicable, a valid tax exemption certificate must be submitted at the time of the order. 3) Invoice Balances due 30 days after invoiced date. 4) Customer accepts full responsibility for all losses, damages, or costs arising out of spills, leakage or discharges from this site. 5) Permitting, nic. 6) Union Dues, nic. Includes concrete structures, no additional shipping cost needed if all Items 1-4 ordered at the same time. Includes concrete structure inbetween ES/ES+, no additional shipping cost needed if all Items 1-4 ordered at the same time. The information contained in this proposal is intended for the confidential use of the designated recipient(s) named above. This message and all communication contained herein is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this information in error, and that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. Includes vactoring out the ecoStorm Plus unit. The structure will be refilled with water per the manufacturer's specifications. All maintenance to be performed per the product maintenance sheet provided by the manufacturer. Includes internal components, filter, casting, hydraulic design, detailed drawings, delivery, WT to install filter blocks - includes confined space entry equipment, certified confined space entry personnel at 2 men 4 hrs each, lifting equipment supplied by contractor. One HOBO water level sensor, one HOBO barometric pressure sensor, and materials to mount equipment within an upstream catch basin. Includes visual observation of the system, downloading of data from sensors, data analysis and report generation. All findings to be discussed with client. Price is per visit. WADOE requires 2 visits/month during the first wet season (Oct-Apr). Pricing does not include castings (typ 3 ea required). Pricing assumes a rim of casting to invert of outlet pipe elevation of 5 feet. Additional cost for deeper bury. Includes shipping. 6300 Merrill Creek Parkway Suite C-100 Everett, WA 98203 Tel: [PHONE REDACTED] 5/14/2013 WT Proposal GeoEngineers (Meeker Creek) EcoStorm Plus [051413]v2 Template Version 3.0 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Client Initials:_________ Client Name: GeoEngineers Client Contact: Joey Smith Project Name: Meeker Creek Proposal Type: EcoStorm / EcoStorm Plus Issue Date: 5/14/2013 Re-Issue Date: Proposal Version: 2.0 6300 Merrill Creek Parkway Suite C-100 Everett, WA 98203 Tel: [PHONE REDACTED] 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed by facsimile and in counterparts. IN WITNESS HEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized Representatives as of the data and year written above. Water Tectonics 6300 Merrill Creek Parkway Suite C-100 Everett, WA 98203 By: By: Name: Name: James Mothersbaugh Title: Title: Date: Date: Miscellaneous Additional Consulting Services and Reimbursable Expenses. Fees for miscellaneous additional consulting services are based on the time expended on the project by professional, technical, and clerical personnel. A list of standard rates for this project are in effect for the duration of the proposal. Client shall also pay and/or reimburse WATER TECTONICS for all reimbursable expenses as set forth herein or at Water Tectonics' standard rates. Client agrees reimbursable expenses incurred under this paragraph are merely advances by vendor of costs for which Client is legally obligated. Vendor may forward to Client for payment invoices vendor received from this parties for costs incurred on Client's behalf, unless such invoices are for work covered by the, Lease Rate", and Client agrees to pay the invoiced amounts directly to the invoicing party. Legal Remedies. If a legal action between or among any Parties arises from this Agreement or the conduct of any Party with respect to any disclosing Party's Confidential Information, a prevailing Party shall recover from the other Party or parties to the action its reasonable attorney fees and costs of suit. Governing Law and Waiver. This Agreement shall be governed by and constituted and enforced in accordance with the internal laws of the State of Washington without regards to conflicts of law, and shall be binding upon the parties hereto in the United States and worldwide. Failure to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other term hereof. The parties agree to submit to the jurisdiction of any state court sitting in King County, Washington or any federal district court for the district in which said county is located. Injunctive Relief. The recipient acknowledges that remedies at law may be inadequate to protect the disclosing Party against any actual or threatened breach of this Agreement by the recipient Party or by its representatives and, without prejudice to any other rights and remedies otherwise available to the disclosing Party, the recipient Party agrees to allow the seeking of injunctive or other adequate relief in the disclosing Party's favor, without the requirement of providing proof of actual damages. No Warranties. ALL CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION PROVIDED HEREUNDER IS PROVIDED "AS IS." THE PARTIES MAKE NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR OTHERWISE, REGARDING ITS ACCURACY, COMPLETENESS OR PERFORMANCE. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the sole and entire agreement between the Parties related to the disclosure of Confidential Information with respect to the Purpose. This Agreement may only be modified in a writing executed by both Parties. Should any provision of this Agreement be deemed illegal or otherwise unenforceable, that provision shall be severed and the remainder of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. Independent Development. This Agreement shall not create, nor will it create an obligation to form a joint venture, partnership or other formal business relationship of any kind nor will it prohibit either Party from engaging in similar discussions with a similar Purpose, with any other third party. Business Relationship. The proposed transaction or relationship as described in the Purpose of this Agreement is subject to the execution of a separate agreement in form and substance satisfactory to both Parties and neither Party is bound to conclude such transaction ore relationship. Neither Party will be legally bound to any such transaction or relatinoship except as set forth in a final, definitive and fully executed agreement (which shall only be binding upon Water Tectonics if signed by a Water Tectonics Vice President or higher-level office of Water Tectonics). Professional Liability. This paragraph relates only to Professional Liability. The Client recognizes the inherent risks connected with furnishing the services covered by this Agreement. WATER TECTONICS will endeavor to perform such services in accordance with generally accepted practices using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by members of its profession. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made or intended by its proposal for services, by its furnishing oral or written reports, by its observation of work, or by its otherwise furnishing services under this Agreement unless otherwise stated. Contractor agrees it will limit any and all liability of, or claims against WATER TECTONICS, its shareholders, associates, officers, agents, or employees, including but not limited to losses, damages, liabilities, costs of defense and expenses, of any and all kinds to a sum not to exceed the lesser of 50 percent of the amount paid to WATER TECTONICS pursuant to this Agreement, or $500.00, whichever is less. PLEASE NOTE: CUSTOMER SHALL BE DEEMED TO AGREE TO THE TERMS BELOW, UPON NOTICE TO PROCEED AND/OR DELIVERY OF EQUIPMENT TO CUSTOMERS Services Provided. Client engages Water Tectonics Inc. to provide consulting and professional services as set forth in proposal. Payment. Invoices will be submitted on or before the end of a month for services rendered, costs advanced during that month and lease charges for the next month. Client agrees to pay WATER TECTONICS within 30 days of invoice date. No retention shall be withheld from such payments. If Client fails to pay invoices according to these terms, WATER TECTONICS at its sole discretion, may cease all work on the project, retain all records, and work product in its possession until such time as the account is brought current. Interest will be added to accounts in arrears at the rate of 1.5 percent per month of delinquency, but not to exceed the legal rate. Any attorney's fees and/or other costs incurred in collection of a delinquent amount will be added to the account and paid by the Client. Venue of any suit for collection of unpaid fees, or other disputes regarding this Agreement, will be King County, Washington. 5/14/2013 WT Proposal GeoEngineers (Meeker Creek) EcoStorm Plus [051413]v2 Template Version 3.0 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Royal Environmental Systems, Inc. P.O. Box 430 30622 Forest Blvd Stacy, MN 55079 (651) 462-2130 FAX: (651) 462-6990 “Innovative technological products revolutionizing stormwater pollution control” 5-8-13 Joey Smith GeoEngineers, Inc. 600 Dupont Street Bellingham, WA 98225 Re: Manufacturer’s Performance Certificate Meeker Creek Stormwater Treatment System – Puyallup, WA Joey, Royal Environmental Systems, Inc. certifies that the proposed stormwater treatment system, as designed for the above referenced site and corresponding water quality flow rate, meets the WA Ecology GULD for basic treatment. Lance R. Hoff, P.E. (MN) Royal Environmental Systems ---PAGE BREAK--- ATTACHMENT C Hydraulic Grade Line Calculations ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment C: Hydraulic Grade Line Calculations Variables Value Units Pipe EcoStorm 1 A 2 B 3 Q 25yr, 24hr 4.24 cfs System Q 15min 0.69 cfs IE out 26.64 26.64 26.73 26.73 27.33 27.33 g 32.2 ft/sec2 IE in 26.64 26.73 26.75 27.33 27.33 27.97 n 0.015 Length 40 55 280 337 672 118 R D/4 for circular pipe Slope 0.00100 0.00164 0.00100 0.00178 0.00100 0.00542 flowing full dia (in) 8 21 10 18 12 8 dia (ft) 0.67 1.75 0.83 1.50 1.00 0.67 Weir Variables Q 0.69 4.24 0.636 3.604 2.968 0.636 Treatment Discharge IE 26.64 ft A 0.35 2.40 0.55 1.77 0.79 0.35 Height of weir 1.5 ft V 1.98 1.76 1.17 2.04 3.78 1.82 Elev at top weir 28.14 ft n 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.015 width of wier 4 ft R 0.167 0.438 0.208 0.375 0.250 0.167 weir coeff 0.623 Water height determined by Narrow ft h 0.47 Eqn 3.7.3-6 Narrow Crested Weir Eqn Hf 0.173 0.052 0.313 0.526 6.180 0.433 Structure LossesV^2/2g+v^2/4g 0.09 0.07 0.05 0.09 0.25 0.08 Headloss in Storm Drain Pipe Equation 5 structure 0.46 total losses 0.72 0.12 0.36 0.61 6.43 0.52 Hydraulic Grade Elevations at Upstream End of Segment top of vault weir 1 A 2 B 3 18th St. SW 28.61 28.7 29.1 16th St. SW 28.61 28.7 29.3 35.8 14th St. SW 28.61 28.7 29.3 29.8 16th ST under existing conditions 37.21 Predicted Hydraulic Grade Line Elevation at the Upstream end of the Existing Storm Drain System (ft, NAVD88) 18th St. SW 29.1 16th St. SW 35.8 14th St. SW 29.8 ---PAGE BREAK--- Report Limitations and G APPE Guidelines ENDIX F for Use ---PAGE BREAK--- MEE AP RE Str and This age Geo City adv liab act acc pra for A S Fac This Wa est ind ■ ■ ■ ■ For ■ ■ ■ ■ If im give we 1 De KER CREEK CHANNE PENDIX F PORT LIMITA eam and Rive d Projects s report has encies. The in oEngineers st y of Puyallup vance and in bility claims b tions. Within cordance with actices in this any purpose Stream or Riv ctors s report has shington. G ablishing the icates otherw not prepared not prepared not prepared completed b r example, cha the function elevation, co composition project owne mportant cha en the opport can provide w eveloped based on EL RESTORATION „ ATIONS AND er Design Eng been prepa nformation co tructures our p may rely on writing. This by third partie the limitation h our Agreeme area at the t or project exc ver Design E been prepa GeoEngineers e scope of se wise, it is impo d for you, d for your pro d for the spec before importa anges that ca of the propos onfiguration, l n of the design ership. nges are mad tunity to revie written modif material provided Puyallup, Washingt D GUIDELINES gineering Se red for City o ontained here services to m n the produc is to provide es with whom ns of scope, s ent with the C time this repo cept the one o Engineering R red for the M s considered ervices for th ortant not to r oject, cific site, or ant project ch an affect the a sed design an location, orien n team; or de after the d ew our interp ications or co by ASFE, Professio ton S FOR USE1 rvices Are Pe of Puyallup a ein is not appl meet the spec ct of our ser e our firm with m there would schedule and Client dated D ort was prepa originally cont Report is Ba Meeker Cree d a number is project an rely on this re hanges were m applicability o nd/or structu ntation or we date of this re pretations and onfirmation, a onal Firms Practici erformed for S and their aut licable to othe ific needs of rvices unless h reasonable d otherwise b budget, our s December 21 ared. Use of t templated. ased on A Un ek Channel R of unique, nd report. Un eport if it was: made. of this report i re; ight of the pro eport, we rec d recommend as appropriate ing in the Geoscien Ju Specific Purp thorized agen er sites. our clients. N we agree to e protection a be no contrac services have 1, 2012 and g this report is nique Set of P Restoration p project-spec nless GeoEng : include those oposed struct commend tha dations. Bas e. nces; www.asfe.org uly 10, 2013 I Pa File No. 040 poses, Person nts and regu No party othe o such relian gainst open-e ctual limits to e been execu generally acc not recomme Project-Spec roject in Puy cific factors gineers speci e that affect: tures; t GeoEnginee sed on that re g. age F-1 02-031-00 ns ulatory r than nce in ended o their ted in cepted ended cific yallup, when fically ers be eview, ---PAGE BREAK--- MEEKER CREEK CHANNEL RESTORATION „ Puyallup, Washington Page F-2 I July 10, 2013 I GeoEngineers, Inc. File No. 0402-031-00 Conditions Can Change This report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study/design was performed. The findings and conclusions of this report may be affected by the passage of time, by man-made events such as construction on or adjacent to the site, or by natural events such as floods, earthquakes, slope instability, stream flow fluctuations or stream channel fluctuations. If more than a few months have passed since issuance of our report or work product, or if any of the described events may have occurred, please contact GeoEngineers before applying this report for its intended purpose so that we may evaluate whether changed conditions affect the continued reliability or applicability of our conclusions and recommendations. Report Recommendations and Designs Are Not Final Do not over-rely on the preliminary construction recommendations included in this report. These recommendations are not final, because they were developed principally from GeoEngineers’ professional judgment and opinion. GeoEngineers’ recommendations can be finalized only by observing actual site-specific conditions revealed during construction. We recommend that you allow sufficient monitoring and consultation by GeoEngineers during construction to provide recommendations for design changes if the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated and to evaluate whether construction activities are completed in accordance with our recommendations. GeoEngineers is unable to assume responsibility for the recommendations in this report without performing construction observation. The designs depicted herein are approximate and are intended to express the overall design intent of the project. These designs will need to be adjusted in the field during construction in order to meet the specific-site conditions and intended function. Report Could Be Subject to Misinterpretation Misinterpretation of this report by members of the design team or by contractors can result in costly problems. GeoEngineers can help reduce the risks of misinterpretation by conferring with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report, reviewing pertinent elements of the design team’s plans and specifications, participating in pre-bid and preconstruction conferences, and providing construction observation. To help prevent costly problems, we recommend giving contractors the complete report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report’s accuracy is limited. In addition, encourage them to confer with GeoEngineers and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. Instream Habitat Structures Instream habitat, stabilization, enhancement and/or restoration structures and artificial (Structures) involve the placement of large logs, logs with root wads, large rocks and other natural and artificial materials and/or features in and adjacent to creeks, streams and rivers (streams). They are designed for various purposes including but not limited to: improvement of aquatic and riparian habitat; stabilization of eroding stream banks and channels; restoration of stream channels; creation or improvement of recreational uses; irrigation; and flood management. ---PAGE BREAK--- MEE Haz Inst from the mo dam dea stru veg det dan It is This dee be the war Inc The wet and and Cha In g ban ree cha avu Imp Pile bee inst hab sta of t pro dow rem a m KER CREEK CHANNE zards of Inst tream habita m the Structu e Structures a obilization of mage to dow ath to huma uctures are o getation beco terioration wit ngerous with s strongly rec s would inclu ep and fast m placed along e potential ha rning of the p creased Floo e proposed s tlands. The a d riparian hab d quantified if annel Erosio general, river nks and floo establishing th annel meand ulsions can be portance of es, anchors, en excluded tream wood s bitat Structur ble during flo this report, w ocedures to roa moving damag major storm ev EL RESTORATION „ tream Habita t structures c ures and asso and associate a portion or nstream prop ns; flooding; only intended omes establ th age and vu increasing ag commended t ude warning moving water the enhance azards noted potential haza d Elevations tream enhan analysis of the bitat in the p f they were be on and Migra r and stream odplains. In he natural ba dering and m e expected to Monitoring a chains, cable from woody structures. Co res if conside ood events, m we recommen minimize pot ad, bridge an ged, malfunct vent. Puyallup, Washingt at Structures create potent ociated injury d risk of injur all of the St perties, utilitie erosion; and d to be tem lished while ulnerability to ge. that the Clien construction and on steep ed stream rea d above and rds to childre s and Wetlan ncements ma ese impacts, roject locatio eyond the con ation Are Pos m enhanceme some case lance of sedi migration. T occur over ti and Mainten es, reinforcing habitat stru onversely, su ered appropri movement of t d that the Cli tential adver nd/or culvert tioning or det ton s tial hazards, or death; col ry or death, w tructures dur es, roads, bri d channel av porary, provi or stream/ major flood e nt address th workers of h p, slippery and ches in prom pamphlets en and adults nd Expansion ay result in in which are ge ns of these s ntext of GeoE ssible ents are inten s, stream e ment erosion Therefore, ch me. nance g bars, bolts ctures with t ch fasteners ate. While t hese Structur ient impleme rse impacts crossings. T eriorated com including, bu llisions of rec with partial or ring high wat idges and oth vulsion. In iding tempor /river proces events make t he necessary hazards asso d unstable sl minent location should be d posed by the n Are Possib ncreased floo nerally consid stream system ngineers’ sco nded to resu nhancement n, distribution hannel erosio and similar the intent of may have pu the Structure res should be ent appropriat at or near a This would in mponents of S Ju t not limited creational use total damage ter flow cond her infrastruc some cases, rary stabilizat sses stabiliz temporary St y safety conce ociated with w opes. In add ns to warn re distributed to ese Structures le od elevations dered advant ms, may need ope of service ult in more s and channe n and deposit on, channel fasteners m f mimicking urposely been s are design e expected. A te monitoring areas of con nclude replac Structures, pa uly 10, 2013 I Pa File No. 040 to: humans f ers’ watercraf e of the wate ditions and re cture, and inj , instream h tion while rip e. This gr ructures inhe erns appropr working in or dition, signs s creational us o nearby resi s. and expans ageous for aq d to be consi es. stable stream el stability m tion, which ind migration a ay have purp naturally-occ included in w ed to be rela As noted in th g and mainten ncern, such cing, adjusting articularly foll age F-3 02-031-00 falling ft with rcraft; elated ury or abitat parian radual erently iately. r near should sers of idents ion of quatic dered mbeds, means duces and/or posely urring woody atively he text nance as at g and owing ---PAGE BREAK--- MEEKER CREEK CHANNEL RESTORATION „ Puyallup, Washington Page F-4 I July 10, 2013 I GeoEngineers, Inc. File No. 0402-031-00 Contractors Are Responsible for Site Safety on Their Own Construction Projects Our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor’s procedures, methods, schedule or management of the work site. The contractor is solely responsible for job site safety and for managing construction operations to minimize risks to on-site personnel and adjacent properties.