Laserfiche WebLink
IN 04'96 10:30 FR W a H PRCIFIC <br />I ;�KLOHN LEONOFF <br />CONSULTING ENGINEERS <br />I � <br />Oecember 4, 1990 <br />Wilsey 6 Ham Pacific <br />2731 Netmore Avenue <br />Everett, WA. 98201-3526 <br />ATTN: GENE WRIGMT, P.E. <br />RE: MERRILL 6 RING CREEK <br />Dear Gene: <br />206 E2Z 5�41 TO E21�aE1 <br />We have completed the hydraulic analyses <br />rehabilitatton fo� Merrill 8 Ring Creek. Our <br />model runs with the proposQd channel and bridge <br />of the site of material required to resist bed <br />P.03�14 <br />Our File: PW0255 0101 <br />,� 1 <br />�, , <br />rt�'i �� <br />y�'C � �.¢ �; <br />e�� r �'�' ; . <br />(H �`,:, �� <br />�0!� <br />I�C �) <br />,y. <br />1 � �ri I A <br />of the proposed channel <br />analyses consisted of HEC-2 <br />configuration, and analyses <br />erosion in the new channel. <br />Summaries af the hydraulic analyses are attached for your review. The final i�� • <br />channel configuration we used in our analyses was a 5-foot wide, 2-foot deep I,� �• <br />channel With 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) side slopes. 7he bridge opentngs used ,,•.' <br />were 15 feet. The channel slopes used in the HEC-2 model was ranged from;`:: <br />0.006 to 0.009 for the downstream reach of the channel (Stations 120t10 te' <br />140+80), and Station 120+10 upstream to the edge of the site, a slope of ;;, <br />approximately 0.02 was used in the HEC-2 model. We understand that the ''� <br />slopes of the upstream reach may change, however 6ecause of the steepness ',�: '� ' <br />of the channel, capacity should not be an issue. A Manning's "n" value of •• ..�;�' <br />0.04 was used to describe the channel roughness, and a"n" value of 0.04 was - � <br />used to describe the overbank roughness. A roughness value of 0.04 for � <br />overbank conditions is required to give sufficient channel capacity for the� <br />creek. The lindstaping or,revegetatian requirements to meet the "n" value <br />requtreme'nt�s'-i�n ffie overbank areas can be discussed in fur�her detail�after <br />revi�N'of'tii� report. The design flowrates used in the model were obtained <br />frofi'your firm, and were approxSmately 64 cfs for a 2-year flood event, and <br />200 cfs for a 100-year flood event, although they varied with location along <br />the creek depending on stormwater discharges from the development site. The <br />chan�el used in our analysis would have sufficient capacity to convey the <br />design flows without overtopping the adjacent street. 7he primary channel <br />is also predicted to have adequate capacity to contain the 2-year flood. <br />The required material siie to ii'mor the bed of the channel was calculated <br />using a stable channel design program based on Corps of Engineers design <br />criteria. The channel stability program was wrStten for angular riprap, and <br />a� appropriate safety factor was used to account for the less stable rounded <br />gravel and cobbles which are proposed for the new channel. The recommended <br />material sizes were also checked for stability us•ing the Meyer-Peter Muller <br />bedioad transport program. <br />.... i�.a.^.�• u,r i�txk . Min n., vr i�,ae PM. K�••��a�n .}�...�.•;�:n 9,-:::.N • Te'e:tVro 1.'Qi1 B25;i529. F;.. 'JJ6i P:q fFS.^ <br />