GreenLink Port Angeles Master Plan for Valley Creek Appendix

Appendix

Contents A. Restoration of an Urbanized Watershed In the City of Port Angeles: Recommendations for Improved Salmonid Habitat in Valley Creek, Washington. . . . . . . . . 3 B. Valley Creek Restoration: Goals, Objectives, Workplan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 C. List of Planning Documents Referencing Valley Creek Restoration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 D. List of Potential Required Permits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 E. Example Trail Loop System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 F. Fish Impeding Culverts on Valley Creek. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 G. Valley Creek Daylighting Feasibility Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 H. Valley Street Septic Systems in the Riparian Zone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274 I. Soil Contamination Sites. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275 J. Streamkeepers Water Quality Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277 K. Valley Creek Watershed Stormwater System Maps. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279 L. WDFW Valley Creek Fish Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281 M. GreenLink Port Angeles Phase 1 Summary Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284 N. Four Routing Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298 O. Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301

Restoration of an Urbanized Watershed in the City of Port Angeles: Recommendations for Improved Salmonid Habitat in Valley Creek, Washington

Michael McHenry1 Lupe Odenweller

August 31, 1998

Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, Fisheries Office, 51 Hatchery Road, Pt. Angeles, WA and Peninsula College, Fisheries Technology Program.

1

2

Introduction Valley Creek is one of six streams that drain through the city of Port Angeles, on Washington State’s Olympic Peninsula (Figure 1). Historical information concerning salmon runs on Valley Creek is generally lacking, however, the stream’s gradient, flow characteristics and proximity to Port Angeles Harbor suggest that this drainage probably supported runs of steelhead, coho, and chum salmon. Indeed, a November 28, 1953 edition of the Port Angeles Evening News noted: “Salmon at one time went up all the streams of Western Washington… All the streams emptying in and near Port Angeles had big runs of salmon”.

Habitat changes to accommodate urban and industrial development, including channelization, culvert construction, estuary filling, and land clearing have negatively impacted all Pt. Angeles urban streams to some degree (Figure 2). Valley and Peabody Creeks are the most affected, as salmon were considered extirpated from both drainages (WDF 1975). Recent observations by tribal biologists indicate the persistence of at least a remnant salmon population in Valley Creek. However, their existence is tenuous at best.

Community interest in restoring salmon to Valley Creek has been spurred by the 1997 construction of an estuary at the mouth of Valley Creek, in Port Angeles Harbor.

Although a notable achievement, restoration of the estuary alone will not recover salmon populations of Valley Creek. Significant problems remain to be solved if salmon are again to repopulate Valley Creek. These problems can, however, be systematically corrected and Valley Creek offers great potential as an example of urban restoration and as a community asset.

3

.

Figure 1 & 2. Location map of Valley Creek and (inset) Valley Creek as viewed east bluff in the vicinity of 6th Street in 1921 (Clallam County Historical Society).

4

In support of those groups who are interested in the restoration of Valley Creek, the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe’s fisheries department agreed to provide an assessment of the current habitat conditions of Valley Creek. This information was combined with existing data to design a conceptual restoration strategy for the watershed. This report explores primarily the biological issues surrounding restoration of Valley Creek.

Numerous other political, social and environmental issues are raised and will need to be further explored as a community.

Study Area Valley Creek drains a 4.2 mi2 watershed, originating in the lower foothills north of Olympic National Park. Peak discharges are estimated at approximately 545 cfs (cubic feet/second), while base flows are typically less that 2 cfs (Parametrix 1997). The upper watershed is relatively steep, and forested in second-growth timber. Land uses include logging and rural-density homes. Urban development is concentrated in the East Fork of Valley Creek and particularly in the lower watershed north of Highway 101. Within this reach, the creek flows through a box culvert under Highway 101 in a semi-natural channel, on to a severely channelized reach, and finally through a system of underground culverts, where it emerges at the newly created estuary. Long reaches of culvert present serious impediments to fish passage, while the channelized reach offers little habitat diversity. Additionally, stormwater runoff from Pine and Cherry Streets are discharged directly to the culverted section of Valley Creek (and ultimately to the estuary and Port Angeles Harbor). There are well-established stands of non-native exotic plant species present, as well as large amounts of urban debris.

5

Methods In order to simplify discussion, we delineated six discrete stream reaches (Figure 3) that include the likely historical distribution of salmon in Valley Creek. These reaches are: 1. The Valley Creek estuary (~ 2.4 acres) 2. Underground culverts below Valley Street (river mile 0.0 – 0.4).

3. The channelized reach between the Valley Street culvert entrance and the end of Valley St. (river mile 0.4 – 0.76).

4. The semi-natural reach between the end of Valley Street and the highway 101 culvert (river mile 0.76 –1.14).

5. Highway 101 box culvert (~ 220 feet).

6. The natural reach above Highway 101 culvert (> river mile 1.14).

Within each reach we assembled existing information, including reports, letters, and staff interviews. Where data was lacking, particularly in the channelized and semi-natural reaches, we were compelled to collect additional information. Stream habitat data was assessed using the TFW Ambient Monitoring Protocols (NWIFC 1994).

In addition to these data, we mapped the existing channel configuration, conducted electro-fishing surveys, assessed substrate conditions (Wolman 1954), and measured cross-sectional area of the channel at several locations.

The available data was assembled and combined with channel mapping and topographic information to design conceptual restoration options for each reach. We attempted to prioritize individual projects based upon factors that limited the ability of salmon to use Valley Creek. Emphasis was placed on identifying and correcting

6

passage problems, regaining a functional floodplain, restoring in-stream and riparian habitat function.

Existing Habitat Conditions Valley Creek Estuary Industrial redevelopment resulted in the construction of a created estuary at the mouth of Valley Creek in 1997 (Figure 4). The site lies on a former log storage yard owned by the Port of Port Angeles. In order to facilitate land based log transport to the K-Ply mill, an unused pond was filled. The created estuary was used to mitigate for loss of the existing pond, and to stand as a buffer between the industrial zone and the downtown business district. This was accomplished by the removal of fill (and 400’ of culvert) from the mouth of Valley Creek and placing it in the old log pond on the mill site, thereby rendering the pond site usable as a storage area.

Valley Creek now flows into the newly created 2.5-acre estuary through an 84” culvert on the southwest side. Within the estuary itself, intertidal vegetation (primarily red and green algae) has begun to colonize the substrate. The benthic amphipod (Corophium spp.), an important prey item for juvenile salmon, is already well established. More detailed biological monitoring is currently being conducted by Peninsula College students.

The estuary should provide improved rearing function for migrating juvenile salmonids, as well as other wildlife. A recent field review by agency personnel concluded the project has largely been beneficial, except for several minor issues. The largest issue being the remnant bulkhead that armors the estuary entrance along the old

7

seawall.

It would be desirable to remove these rocks which cover potentially productive

intertidal habitat and may harbor predatory species such as sculpins (Cottus spp.). These boulders have also trapped sand and gravel deposits altering the expected basin morphology. Additionally, there is a general need for more wood throughout the estuary, as boulders were used in greater proportion than anticipated during the project review process.

Because untreated storm-water is routed into Valley Creek at numerous locations, water quality may be degraded in the estuary.

Hydrocarbons and heavy metals are

typically found in storm-water runoff from urban areas. Ideally, storm-water could eventually be treated, or at minimum separated from directly discharging to the estuary.

Additionally, visibly polluted water enters the estuary from a 12” storm discharge line that formerly connected to the Valley Creek culvert. According to the city of Port Angeles, this pipe collects stormwater overflows when pumping capacity is exceeded at the Oak and Laurel Street stormwater outfalls. It is not known how often or how much water is pumped into the estuary from this line or the level of pollutants. Bacterial testing

by Clallam County (Personal Communication, Joel Freudenthal) between 1993 and 1995 showed that fecal coliform did not exceed public health standards (Table 1), though increases were detected at the mouth possibly reflecting the source inputs mentioned above.

Table 1. Fecal coliform levels (counts/100 ml) for Valley Creek, 1993 – 1995.

South Valley Street Range Average

0 – 86 19.0

Mouth 2 – 115 41.3

8

Surrounding upland areas of the estuary are currently only covered by planted grass. The lack of native shrubs and trees inhibits the presence of wildlife, makes the estuary more susceptible to erosion, leaves the uplands open to invasion by exotic plants, and is less aesthetically pleasing. It is our understanding that K-Ply plans to build a riparian buffer between their mill and the estuary, at which time plantings will take place.

However, to date this has not been accomplished.

Culverted Reach Valley Creek currently enters a series of culverts with a total length of 2,150’ at 6th Street (Figure 5). The culverts are buried approximately 10 –15’ deep within the right-of-way of Valley Street, and has several adjacent utilities as well as stormwater drains from Pine and Cherry Streets. The reach between 6th and 2nd streets was placed into a culvert in 1957 as a flood control project. Valley Creek below 2nd Street was probably first placed into a culvert in association with industrial development and the filling of the inner harbor that date to the early part of the century.

Beginning at the estuary, the lowermost section is composed of 150’ of 84” ID reinforced concrete pipe placed on a 0.53% slope. The system then connects into a adapter structure beneath Marine Drive with a vertical jump of about 3 to 5’ (NTI 1998).

This jump alone would probably completely inhibit fish passage. However, during tidal inundation, part or all of this jump is back-watered depending upon tidal height. The adapter structure connects to a 4’x 8’ concrete box culvert beneath the city’s industrial waterline. The box culvert then expands to 6’ by 8’ from 1st to 2nd streets. The total length of the box culvert is 600’, with a slope of 0.64%. The system then reverts back to

9

an 84” reinforced concrete pipe for 1400’ between 2nd and 6th streets. The lower 700’of this pipe section is set at a 1.03 % gradient, followed by 300’ at 1.24%, then 400’at a gradient of 2.15%. The physical condition of the upper culvert needs further assessment.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) staff observed significant erosion of the culvert bottom (Personal Communication, Pat Powers).

Fish passage and loss of habitat are the primary issues in this reach. WDFW has performed a preliminary analysis of the physical conditions within the culverts and concluded that salmon passage is problematic (Tables 2 & 3). Culverts provide a paradox for migrating salmon: as flows increase, depth conditions improve slowly, while velocity increases dramatically. In culverts, WDFW recommends a minimum depth of 1’ and a maximum flow of 3 fps (feet/second) to ensure passage of coho salmon.

Conversely, in natural channels, Bjornn and Reiser (1991) found that chum, coho, and steelhead cannot migrate with less than a minimum depth of 0.6’, and velocities greater than 7.97 fps.

Average velocity conditions within the culvert system at flows expected during migration exceed these standards. Conversely at low flows, water depths are insufficient to pass salmon. In order to ensure passage of salmonids, significant changes will be required in the culvert system. These passage problems should be the first priority for restoration in Valley Creek, as pursuit of other habitat improvements are pointless if fish cannot access them.

10

Table 2. Depth and velocity calculations as determined by discharge for upper 400’ of the Valley Street culvert (letter from Randy Johnson, WDFW to Pete Schroeder, NOSC).

1.0 2.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0

Discharge (cfs)

0.17 0.24 0.37 0.51 0.62 0.71

Depth (ft)

3.95 4.88 6.46 7.97 9.01 9.83

Velocity (ft/s)

Table 3. Depth and velocity conditions as determined by the size, shape, gradient and length of the culverts in the Valley Creek system during fish passage flows (WDFW unpublished data, no flows were indicated).

Culvert 4’x 8’and 6 x 8’ box (600 ft.), 0.64% 84” Concrete (1,000 ft.), 1.24%

0.3 to 0.5 0.8

Depth (ft)

6

Velocity (ft/s)

5

An additional issue is the loss of 25,800 ft.2 of spawning and rearing habitat of Valley Creek as a result of the installation of the culvert system. This is a significant loss of stream area that could be alleviated, preferably while simultaneously correcting passage problems. Given the current confines of the surrounding urban area, this habitat will be difficult to replace without removing at least some of the culvert system.

Channelized Reach The channelized area of Valley Creek runs approximately 1,916 feet (586 m), between 6th street to the end of Valley Street (Figure 6). Habitat within this reach is severely degraded, as the channel has been realigned as a ditch to accommodate urban

11

uses and for flood control (Figure 7). Channel realignment and bank armoring has resulted in a nearly complete loss of floodplain and riparian function. Loss of channel meander has increased the stream gradient and stream power through the reach. Stream energy that was historically dispersed in the floodplain is now directed upon the stream bottom. This results in the transport of spawning gravel out of the system and a condition known as stream armoring (Figure 8).

Figure 7. Cross-sectional profile of the channelized reach of Valley Creek. Note the lack of depth and floodplain features.

The channelized reach is confined by roads on both sides, with Valley Street on its west-side and a gravel road on its east side that provides access to homes adjacent to both banks. These roads restrict available space for the growth of native riparian vegetation, and the lower 1200’ of the reach are choked with exotic weeds and brambles, most notably Japanese Knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum), Himalayan Blackberry (Rubus iridaeus), and Reed Canary Grass (Phalaria spp.). Native deciduous Figure 8. Particle size distribution for the channelized reach of Valley Creek.

12

species including red alder (Alnus rubra) and Sitka willow (Salix stichensis) become more dominant in the upper portion of the channelized reach, clinging to a narrow band between the wetted channel and the roads. The loss of natural riparian vegetation has resulted in the complete absence of functional large woody debris, which is critical for habitat formation. The existing stream habitat of this reach could be characterized as simplified, being dominated by riffles (Table 5). Complex pools are required by coho salmon to complete their life cycles. In contrast, cutthroat trout, which dominant the reach, are able to thrive in riffle dominated systems. Existing pools are generally of low quality: we measured an average residual depth of 1.1’ (0.35 m), approximately 1/3 the depth expected for this channel type. Habitat homogenization, in conjunction with lack of appropriate spawning gravel, directly limits anadromous salmonid populations as specific habitats necessary for the completion of their life histories have been eliminated or reduced.

Table 5. Stream habitat conditions for the channelized reach of Valley Creek.

Habitat Type Pool Riffle Tailout Total

Wetted Area (ft 2)

6530 15,203 77 21,819.1

26 73 1 100

Wetted Area (%)

Semi-natural Reach The semi-natural reach of Valley Creek begins at the end of Valley Street and ends at the Highway 101 box culvert (Figure 9). This reach is 1,986’ (607.4 m) in length and

13

contains the best habitat currently accessible to salmon, including the only functional spawning habitat below Highway 101 (three coho nests were observed in February of 1998 by Elwha Fisheries staff. Habitat within this reach is however, degraded, primarily as a result of the historic realignment of 1,145’ (350 m) of Valley Creek to facilitate the

Figure 10. Cross-sectional profile of the semi-natural reach of Valley Creek. Note the old terrace flood plain isolated some 2 feet above the wetted channel. construction of a now abandoned floodplain gravel road and pond. A deteriorating wooden bridge and several concrete structures historically used to divert water are also present in the reach.

The semi-natural reach lacks sufficient riparian vegetation and is chronically low in large woody debris, having historically been cleared. Himalayan blackberries form impenetrable thickets that exclude native vegetation in some areas. At least 2-3’ of channel downcutting has occurred in the reach in response to large woody debris depletion, channelization, and stormwater runoff (Figure 10). As a result, suitable sized spawning gravel is less than expected for channel type in its natural state, and is only slightly better than the channelized reach (Figure 11).

14

A secondary issue within the reach is the absence of functional large woody debris recruited from the existing riparian forest. The average piece count in this section was only 5/100 m, with an average volume of 7.95 m3/100 m. For comparison, this is approximately 10% the amount of woody debris found in a similarly sized stream in an old-growth forest stream. The composition of the current riparian forest is primarily red alder, which decays rapidly upon entering streams and ultimately provides limited habitat. The preferred riparian stand condition would include a mix of coniferous (large diameter) and deciduous trees. The existing riparian cover has been further affected by clearing to maintain power lines paralleling Valley Creek.

The clearing will have an

impact on future recruitment of functional woody debris as the riparian zone is being cut down before it has reached a minimum functional size.

Figure 11. Substrate size distribution for semi-natural reach.

15

Although the semi-natural reach has a more balanced pool-riffle ratio (Table 6), the existing pools are generally of low quality, with an average residual depth of 1.4’ (0.44 m), only slightly better than in the channelized reach. Cutthroat trout also dominate this reach as we captured numerous resident fish to 12”. Deep pools with complex cover will need to be established for species such as coho salmon to flourish. Such habitat could easily be created using standard stream restoration techniques.

Table 6. Instream habitat conditions for semi-natural reach of Valley Creek.

Habitat Type Pool Riffle Tail Out Total

Wetted Area (ft 2) 11,310 9528 273 21,111

53.6 45.1 1.3 100

Wetted Area (%)

Highway 101 Box Culvert The Highway 101 box culvert (8’x 7’) is 220’ long, has a smooth-bottom, and is placed on a 1.5- 2 % gradient. Although an adequate jumping pool is located on the downstream end of the outlet, the box culvert itself certainly presents a serious impediment to migrating salmon, likely blocking access to suitable habitats upstream.

Velocity conditions likely exceed WDFW criteria noted previously, while depth conditions are also inadequate. WDFW has surveyed the highway 101 culvert and in cooperation with the Washington Department of Transportation (WDOT) has placed the culvert on its 6-year priority list for mitigation. WDFW anticipates that passage conditions can be improved through a combination of baffles placed within the culvert

16

and backwatering structures placed downstream of the outlet (Personal Communication, Mike Barber, WDFW).

Above Highway 101 Culvert The natural reach above the highway 101 culvert extends from the box culvert inlet into the foothills north of Olympic National Park. This reach flows through a second-growth riparian forest, although some remnant old-growth cedar and hemlock are present. This provides the creek with good stream cover and moderate amounts of large woody debris. Stream gradient steadily increases through the reach, becoming 10% approximately 6540’ (2000 m) above the 101 culvert. There are large areas of exposed bedrock present within the streambed, and this, in conjunction with the gradient, probably indicates a transition towards resident trout habitat. Coho salmon typically are not found in great numbers at gradients above 8%. Based upon existing gradients, at least 5559’(1700 m) of this stream reach could be utilized by coho salmon, with steelhead possibly utilizing additional areas. The East Fork of Valley Creek joins Valley Creek 3000’ (926 m) above the Highway 101 culvert. Biologists from WDFW considered stream gradient too high to support salmon in this tributary.

Summary of Existing Conditions Current habitat conditions existing in Valley Creek are insufficient to support significant populations of anadromous salmon. Indeed, fish populations found within Valley Creek are composed of resident cutthroat trout with the possible appearance of a few coho, steelhead and sea-run cutthroat trout in some years. Construction of the

17

estuary, though a significant improvement in habitat, will not restore salmon to Valley Creek. Other treatments, such as “daylighting” the culvert system, will also fail to bring back salmon because they do not treat the factors limiting salmon. If restoration of salmon in Valley Creek is the goal, then bold thinking is required. Decades of municipal infrastructure have been built in lower Valley Creek with little regard for salmon populations. To recreate a salmon friendly stream will require a major investment and commitment by the city of Port Angeles and its residents. Solutions will neither be easy nor inexpensive.

However, the authors believe that salmon can be recovered in Valley

Creek. Valley Creek has the potential to be an asset to both the community and as a model stream restoration effort within an urbanized setting.

Restoration Priorities Prior to conducting any restoration actions in Valley Creek, an assessment of potential property purchases should be conducted. It will be necessary to initiate purchase of private property where willing sellers can be located in critical areas of Valley Creek. These purchases are required in order to provide the physical space necessary to construct restoration projects, make the required changes to municipal infrastructure, and to provide for long-term habitat protection once completed. To a large degree, land ownership will determine the extent and effectiveness of the restoration effort conducted in Valley Creek. This is among the highest priorities to ensure the long-term success of the project. If private property cannot be purchased, restoration can

18

be scaled to fit existing site conditions; however, expectations for success should be similarly reduced.

Because of the magnitude of restoration efforts necessary to restore salmon runs to Valley Creek, we have prioritized restoration objectives within each reach. By breaking the system into components, separate restoration projects could be pursued over time to defray costs. We attempted to develop a conceptual restoration plan that had the greatest chance for biological success. We define success as reestablishing habitat conditions that allow for a natural, self-sustaining population of resident and anadromous salmon. We assigned project priority in the following order: (1) Those projects that provide improved access for migrating salmonids to existing habitat, (2) Projects that re-establish floodplain function, and (3) Projects that improve in-stream and riparian habitat. Water quality (primarily storm-water issues) will need further analysis. Finally, since salmon have been largely extirpated from Valley Creek, it may be necessary to re-introduce native salmonid species. Some segments of the community have suggested that restoration of Valley Creek could be coupled with a small production hatchery that could not only assist in the recovery of salmon populations but might eventually provide surplus fish to enhance local fishing opportunity.

Steps to Restoration Private Property Purchases Restoration of Valley Creek is dependent upon having sufficient space to eliminate significant reaches of culvert and re-create a more natural channel morphology, while still protecting adjacent landowners from flooding. These two goals are not

19

mutually exclusive: there is adequate space to size construct a channel with a larger cross-sectional area than currently exists in Valley Creek, thus minimizing flood risks.

Purchases of property should be targeted on the east-side of Valley Creek between 2nd Street and the culvert/bridge at 10th Street. This area is crucial for correcting passage problems in the upper culvert system as well as improving habitat conditions in the lower portion of the channelized reach. This area includes a mixture of light industry, houses, and vacant lots. The east side is the preferred location for channel reconstruction because it has a much lower density of buildings and significant lengths of the original channel are still present. These remnant channel areas contain natural wetlands that may store water during floods and provide water during low-flow conditions. Realignment of the channel to the east will improve the gradient conditions, allowing sufficient space to accommodate a functional floodplain and riparian forest. Habitat features could be incorporated into the redesigned channel to replace spawning and rearing habitat as a result of the installation of the culvert system.

The channelized reach between 6th St. and the end of Valley St. is also in need of

realignment. Procurement of private properties along the east bank would be the best option for restoration of this reach, because there is less development along the east side, particularly below the bridge/culvert. Establishment of a new channel would correct the current homogenized instream habitat, gradient problems, and allow development of a functional riparian forest. Development surrounding this section of the creek consists of private residences, located on both sides and accessed by Valley Street on the west bank and a gravel road on the east.

20

Finally, land purchases within the semi-natural reach is also necessary not only for salmon restoration, but for public access and the proposed Waterfront-Valley Creek trail link. The property that includes the semi-natural reach contains no structures, is currently for sale, making the restoration of the creek conceivable. Restoration in this reach is fairly straightforward and includes eliminating the floodplain dirt road and realignment of Valley Creek to its original channel, the removal of old bridge and water diversion structures, the addition of woody debris for habitat features, developing interconnected ponds, and restoring riparian vegetation. If publicly purchased, this area would be ideal for development as a municipal park. Such a park could be linked with the trail system and provided with an interpretative center.

Infrastructure Changes Along with the necessity for sufficient physical space for restoration, it will also be essential to relocate municipal infrastructure since many of these structures are adjacent to Valley Creek. Culverts, storm drains, water lines, power lines, telephone lines are intermingled with the current alignment of Valley Creek. Any changes in the alignment of Valley Creek will require changes to these systems. This will require the direct involvement of the City of Port Angeles and a number of utilities.

From 6th Street to the culvert/bridge (at 10th Street), the most fundamental modification would be the consolidation of the roads along both banks to a single road along the west side. This would provide ample space to construct a new channel, while

21

minimizing disruption to the west-side residents. To access residences along the east side of Valley Creek, small bridges could be constructed to provide access to individual homes.

Above the culvert/bridge, the necessary physical space to create a meandering channel will be difficult to attain as the stream is tightly bounded by paved portions of Valley Street on the west and high banks to the east. Much of this eastern bank appears to be fill material. One strategy might be to gain short reaches of reconstructed channel where physically possible. This will be strongly tied to potential property purchases.

Another strategy would be to maintain the existing channel alignment and attempt to restore some semblance of function through standard habitat enhancement (weir logs, deflectors, etc).

In both the channelized and the semi-natural reaches powerlines parallel the creek. The power lines inhibit the development and enhancement of a natural riparian forest. Ideally these lines could be relocated. However, if the channel is relocated to its original location, a large section of Valley Creek will be moved away from the power lines. A memorandum of understanding could be developed that would allow a functional riparian forest to develop, while protecting the integrity of the lines.

Culvert Systems The culvert system is probably the most difficult obstacle in the restoration of Valley Creek. NTI (1998) graciously offered several options that included: no-action, day-lighting the existing culvert system, creating a by-pass channel, and removal of the

22

culvert. These options represent a good point of reference for discussing possible solutions.

Acceptance of the no-action alternative assures that significant numbers of salmon will never occupy Valley Creek. Day-lighting involves the installation of a series of grates into the culvert system, thus improving migration conditions by allowing more light. Day-lighting may be part of a larger solution, however this option alone does nothing to address the depth and velocity conditions that currently prevent salmon passage within the culvert. Although construction of a by-pass channel alongside Valley Street is theoretically possible, it is not an ideal solution for Valley Creek. The quantity of infrastructure that would be required to be relocated and associated excavation to create the by-pass channel would be roughly equivalent to that of removing portions of the culvert system. This option would also require a portion of Valley Creek’s flow to be diverted, a fairly difficult task for a Creek whose flows vary from less than 1 cfs to over 500 cfs. NTI (1988) estimates the cost of this option at $46/linear foot.

The most promising option for full salmon restoration is the removal of the culvert (or portions thereof) and the creation of a new meandering channel. This method would alleviate lighting and gradient issues as well as provide for mitigation of lost spawning and rearing area. Realistically, it is probably not an option at this time to remove the entire structure. Therefore, removal of sections of culvert where physical space could be gained is advocated, with some exceptional priorities. The upper 700’ of culvert has the highest gradient, and represents the most significant barrier to migrating salmon in Valley Creek. This culvert may also be structurally compromised from the erosive power of Valley Creek. If so, replacement of the culvert with a newly created

23

channel would be timely. This option is also the costliest. NTI (1998) estimates the cost of a new channel at $1,000/linear foot. The actual costs may be much less as the proposed NTI channel maintained a straight line and involved infrastructure relocation costs that may not be required if a new channel is located on the east side of Valley Creek.

The transition adapter structure is also a high priority for modification. This structure serves as a transition between box and round culvert systems. Although there appears to be some discrepancy in the estimates of the loss of elevation through this structure (WDFW estimated the drop at 1-1.5’), it would be possible to minimize the jump through standard engineering design. Once an accepted design is approved access to the adapter could be accomplished from the surface at the point between Marine Drive and First Avenue.

The remaining culverted reaches that cannot be removed (under Marine Drive, Valley Street north of 2nd Street) could be fitted with baffle structures to improve depth and velocity conditions for migrating fish. Preliminary calculations by WDFW (Personal Communication, Pat Powers) indicate that this could be accomplished without significantly affecting the cross-sectional area of the culvert (without significantly increasing flood risk). Any reaches of remaining culvert could be daylighted to improve ambient light levels.

The Highway 101 box culvert is also in need of modification. Because of velocity and depth conditions, it is likely impassible to salmonids at most flows. As previously stated, the culvert is currently listed with the WDOT for treatment sometime before 2004. WDFW is concerned, however, that if passage problems persist in lower

24

Valley Creek, money to correct problems at the box culvert might be better spent elsewhere (Personal Communication, Pat Powers). Therefore, community adoption of restoration in lower Valley Creek is important. The proposed treatment at the box culvert will include installing a system of baffles within the culvert as well as the construction of back-watering structures to alleviate current fish passage problems.

Channelized Reach As previously mentioned, parallel roads on both sides of the Valley Creek (channelized reach) could be consolidated to gain physical space, allowing the construction of a new channel. This new channel would be designed to contain a 100year flood event and would contain a significant floodplain to facilitate riparian revegetation projects. Associated wetland and ponds could be designed into the new channel. Such features not only enhance fish and wildlife by serve as flood control features. The newly designed channel would incorporate large woody debris treatments, designed to improve pool area, depth and quality, and to control both local gradient and gravel loss. New riparian vegetation would be planted, while exotics would be removed during construction.

Semi-natural Reach Within the semi-natural reach, the abandoned floodplain road could be removed to restore the creek to its original meander pattern. This could be accomplished by diverting Valley Creek to its old channel, and filling and grading the road material in the current channel along the toe of the eastern valley slope. In addition, an old bridge and miscellaneous concrete structures could be removed. This reach could also be

25

systematically reloaded with woody debris to improve instream habitat, as well as developing one or more off-channel pond(s). Such ponds would be connected to Valley Creek to provide over-wintering habitat for coho salmon, as well as providing an additional aquatic habitat type for birds and amphibians. Finally, riparian management measures that include the elimination of exotic brush species, conifer planting and release could be implemented. The development of a mixed species late successional riparian forest would be the long-term goal.

Above 101 Culvert The natural reach above highway 101 requires less active restoration assistance.

The work within this reach would include primarily large woody debris additions, along with some riparian management. There is, however, some urban debris present (abandoned cars, refrigerators), which would require removal. Timber harvest practices in Valley Creek and stormwater inputs do need more study. Any significant increases in stormwater inputs would need careful assessment as the restoration design for Valley Creek is based upon flow estimates in a primarily forested watershed.

Reintroduction of Salmon/Hatchery Development If the restoration of Valley Creek comes to fruition, reintroduction of native species of salmon including coho, chum and steelhead may be necessary. Natural colonization is a potential restoration option for fish, however this will take time, as the straying rates of salmon are generally low. Another option might be the seeding of Valley Creek with stocks from an adjacent watershed. This will require the collection of

26

appropriate broodstock, and sufficient hatchery rearing space to grow their progeny prior to release in Valley Creek. Because of geographic proximity and the availability of stock, we would recommend the use of Elwha River stocks of fish for potential reintroduction.

Other options include Ennis or Morse creeks. Brood collection in these systems would require a substantial effort to collect the necessary fish. There is also the question of whether these systems have robust enough populations to spare for any brood collection efforts. In contrast, the Elwha has potential surplus production from the tribal hatchery facility.

It may be possible to combine habitat restoration with the construction of a small hatchery on Valley Creek. This facility could initially function as a restoration hatchery, to accelerate the reintroduction of salmon to Valley Creek via on-site hatching and rearing facilities. Once salmon numbers begin to build, the function of the hatchery might change to that of a supplementation facility that would release small numbers of fish to support a modest terminal area fishery. Chum and coho salmon would be ideally suited to this approach. Chum could be released directly to Valley Creek, with surplus adult fish eventually being available for harvest off the estuary. Coho could be reared on-station, then transferred to marine rearing pens for delayed release and surplus adults later harvested in a Port Angeles Harbor “bubble fishery”. Such a proposal will require further discussion with WDFW and the Tribe.

Conclusions/Recommendations A project of this magnitude will require the full support of the entire Port Angeles Community. Stream restoration can be controversial, particularly when citizens feel

27

their concerns are not being considered. The residents of Valley Street, who stand to be most affected by this proposal, must be fully involved. Perhaps a good starting point would be a neighborhood meeting with the residents of Valley Creek, followed by a presentation to City Staff and Council. These presentations would be based on the conceptual design and could be used to gauge community support. If the response is positive, a Valley Creek planning team could be assembled to begin what will likely be a lengthy planning process.

What happens beyond this point is uncertain. Restoration could take many different forms. We have presented one scenario that in our opinion has a high likelihood for success. Other options are also conceivable: we are only limited by our collective imaginations. Project cost will be a critical issue given the potential scale of the project.

The project could, however, be phased over a fairly long time period to allay those costs.

There are also a number of grant sources that could be tapped as a cost-share. Bonds might be proposed. Creative fund raising could be pursued.

Cost should not be the only concern at this point. We as a community need to decide the future of all the urban streams in Port Angeles. The small streams represent an important part of the fabric of the tapestry of our salmon heritage. These streams have traditionally been viewed as impediments to development or as conduits for the disposal of our wastes. This view is no longer consistent with society demand for sustainable natural resources. Doing nothing is no longer an option. Valley Creek represents a chance to invigorate and focus community spirit and to provide a legacy to those who follow. Such opportunities present themselves all too infrequently.

There is nothing permanent except change-Heraclitus

28

29

Literature/Communications Cited Barber, Mike. WDFW. June 1, 1998. Phone communication with author.

Bjornn, T.C. and Reiser, D.W. 1991. Habitat Requirements of Salmonids in Streams.

American Fisheries Society Special Publication. 19:83-178.

Burkle, Robert. WDFW. March 23, 1998. Letter to Ken Sweeney, Port of Port Angeles.

Johnson, Randy. WDFW. February 19, 1998. Letter to Dr. Pete Schroeder, North Olympic Salmon Coalition.

Northwestern Territories, Inc. January 1998. Draft-Conceptual Engineering Report Valley Creek “Daylighting”- Port Angeles, Washington. Unpublished report to North Olympic Salmon Coalition.

Parametrix, Inc. 1997. Valley Creek Estuary Preliminary Design-Hydraulic Analysis.

Report to the City of Port Angeles, Washington.

Peninsula Evening News. 1953. Washington Centennial Celebrated. November 28, 1953, Port Angeles, WA Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. 1994. Ambient Monitoring Program Manual.

Timber- Fish-Wildlife Program. Report # TFW-AM9-94-001. Olympia, WA Washington Department of Fisheries. 1975. A catalogue of Washington streams and salmon utilization. Volume 1: Puget Sound. Washington Department of Fisheries, Olympia.

Wolman, M.G. 1954. A Method of Sampling Coarse River-Bed Material. Transactions American Geophysical Union. 35: 951-956.

30

August 31, 1998

To: Bart Phillips, Clallam County EDC Ken Sweeney, Port of Port Angeles Jack Pittis, City of Port Angeles Dr. Jack Orsborn, consultant Dr. Pete Schroeder, NOSC Gentleman: Enclosed is a draft of the conceptual restoration plan for Valley Creek. I have identified you five as my technical reviewers. If your time allows, I would greatly appreciate your critical thoughts on this document prior to its eventual release to the community as a whole. Please contact me at 457-4012 ext. 14 if you have any questions/concerns.

Mike McHenry Timber, Fish, and Wildlife Biologist

VALLEY CREEK RESTORATION Goals, Objectives, Workplan

Final Draft January, 2001 Purpose/Mission To restore the Valley Creek system to a naturally-functioning ecosystem that supports sustainable populations of all salmonids historically inhabiting the creek, and related species, while providing for optimal educational and recreational opportunities that are compatible with the restored ecosystem (Note: Throughout this document and our restoration work, we apply the words “recover/recovery” when referring to species and populations and we apply the words “restore/restoration” when referring to habitat.)

Goals & Objectives Goal 1: To recover sustainable populations of all historic salmonids and related species through ecosystem restoration activities.

Objectives: A. Secure public ownership and/or conservation casement agreements protecting all mainstem floodplains and riparian areas upstream of Highway 101.

B. Secure public ownership and/or conservation easement agreements protecting the mainstem floodplains and valley slopes downstream of Highway 101 and extending as far north as possible.

C. Return Valley Creek to its historic alignment and function as well as its relationship to its historic floodplain north of Highway 101. This will include realigning the existing maintenance road (Daishowa powerline) to the base of the east bank of the valley, right at the base of the utility line.

D. Return as much as possible of the ~2100’ (?) of boxed culvert to an open, sinuous, habitat-replete channel. Construct bridges in lieu of the culvert at Front, First, and Second Streets.

E. Conduct appropriate habitat restoration actions along the creek and in the channel, including activities such as LWD placement, substrate enhancement, riparian planting, etc.

F. To retain and encourage flexibility of/for the city of Port Angeles to address utility and other infrastructure needs.

G. To protect water quality and quantity, including any associated groundwaters.

Valley Creek Restoration

Page 1 of 6

6/27/2007

Goal 2: To provide non-motorized recreational access through the Valley Creek corridor.

Objectives: A. Develop comprehensive recreational/trail plan that ensures minimum impact (esp. to sensitive fisheries sites/seasons) opportunities to explore Valley Creek.

B. Integrate the recreational/trail plan with existing city trail plans and ensure that Valley Creek provides a link between the Olympic Discovery/Centennial/ Waterfront Trail and the DNR trail system linking to the Olympic National Park trail network.

C. Develop appropriate trail access/connection at Hwy. 101. This is likely to be a box-culverted crossing just below the highway, with appropriate traversing approaches at each end of culvert.

D. Ensure that recreational access can support community educational activities directed at both school children and others of all ages.

E. Ensure that trail design can support use as bicycle transportation alternative route to/from downtown Port Angeles.

Goal 3: To make comprehensive use of the restored Valley Creek and its restoration as an educational tool.

Objectives: A. Develop education plan that will guide teachers, students and the entire community in using Valley Creek as an outdoor education laboratory/site.

B. Demonstrate community commitment to fish restoration and the significance of salmon (& other species) to us and our environment.

C. Consider retention of at least one potentially-acquired property/building as an educational facility and/or park (or other appropriate organizational) office.

Goal 4: To maintain and monitor our recovery, recreation, and education actions.

Objectives: A. Develop an overall monitoring plan, including establishment of appropriate baseline parameters, addressing recovery/restoration, recreation, and education objectives.

B. Conduct all appropriate monitoring of water quality parameters (including stormwater) and water quantity measures.

C. Conduct all appropriate monitoring of salmonid and other species of interest including redd counts, stream surveys, larvae counts, vegetation surveys, etc.

D. Work with trail user groups and other interested parties to periodically evaluate the recreational opportunities provided. Make modifications and improvements as appropriate.

Valley Creek Restoration

Page 2 of 6

6/27/2007

E. Work with teacher and parent groups as well as other interested folks to periodically evaluate the educational activities, programs, and support services/materials developed for use within this restoration effort. Make modifications and improvements as appropriate.

Goal 5: To encourage community involvement in all aspects of the restoration work and associated activities.

Objectives: A. Work with community groups and service clubs to recruit volunteers.

B. Conduct Valley Creek-specific events to highlight the work being done and the opportunities being developed.

C. Publicize activities, events, and significant milestones.

Workplan begins on next page

Valley Creek Restoration

Page 3 of 6

6/27/2007

WORKPLAN Phase I (Short-term, 1-2 years) [corresponding objectives, if any, noted in brackets] 1. Pursue broad initial approach to all private landowners for interest/potential of property acquisition along floodway/creek bottom. Emphasize properties between Hwy. 101 and 8 Streets with view to maximizing stream realignment in summer, 2001.

[Goal 1, Objectives A & B] 2. Identify all utility and other infrastructure (water lines, stormwater/wastewater lines, etc.) within the Valley Creek valley to enable protection, relocation, or removal as appropriate.

[--] 3. Investigate potential for relocation of Daishowa power line to alternate alignment outside of Valley Creek valley.

[--] 4. In anticipation of WDFW’s removal of the small dam in summer, 2001, develop a plan to relocate the service road from the dike to the foot of the east bank (along powerline), enabling re-direction of the creek into its historic floodplain as far north as property acquisition (#1) allows. Remove dike and perform any other stream restoration/rehabilitation activities determined in the interim. Incorporate existing and/or newly-determined recreational considerations (but not actual trail, yet) within the design. Identify and secure finding needed to accomplish the new design.

[1C &E, 2A&B, 3A] 5. Determine organizational structure and long-term lead party(ies) to ensure effective continuation of this plan.

[--] 6. Pursue conservation easements (property tax reductions?) to protect valley-slope portions of properties extending beyond head of slope.

[1A & B] 7. Continue pursuit of opportunities to further restore and extend the Valley Creek Estuary.

[--] 8. Conduct “scoping” for, and prepare to take advantage of, any relevant opportunities to pursue items shown in Phases II & III. [--] 9. Conduct any necessary “baseline” monitoring and habitat/site descriptions/inventories.

[4B-D] 10. Recruit broad community involvement and publicize all appropriate activities, events, and accomplishments.

[5A-C]

Valley Creek Restoration

Page 4 of 6

6/27/2007

Phase II (Mid-term, 2-5 years) 1. Continue land acquisition/conservation easement activities, especially with view to achieving another northward increment of floodway/valley bottom as far north as 5th -8th Streets (with an additional increment to ultimately be as far as 2nd – 3rd Streets, in which emphasis is placed on enabling removal of the box- culvert confining the lower creek).

[1A & B] 2. Develop and implement corresponding habitat restoration plan (floodway and instream) up to and including removal of unnecessary acquired structures and of removal of the box culvert confining the lower creek.

[1C - E] 3. Develop initial recreational/educational trail link from Centennial/Waterfront/ Olympic Discovery trail and the restored Valley Creek estuary to DNR/ONP trail system in upper valley.

[2B - D] 4. Develop education plan and begin making use of Valley Creek and associated restoration work (including the estuary) for local educational activities.

[3A] 5. Continue opportunistic pursuit of any Phase III items that present themselves.

[--] 6. Conduct any necessary monitoring and habitat/site descriptions/inventories.

[4B - D] 7. Recruit broad community involvement and publicize all appropriate activities, events, and accomplishments.

[5A – C]

Valley Creek Restoration

Page 5 of 6

6/27/2007

Phase III (Long-term, ongoing, 5+ years 1. Continue land acquisition/conservation easement activities, especially with view to achieving “final” northward increment of floodway/valley bottom as far north as 2nd – 3rd Streets, in which emphasis is placed on enabling removal of the box-culvert confining the lower creek.

[1A & B] 2. Implement plan for removal of the box culvert, up to and including replacement of street crossings at Front, First, & Second Streets with bridges.

[1D] 3. Conduct further corresponding restoration/rehabilitation/realignment of lower portions of the creek.

[1C & E] 4. Complete any further recreation/education trails and associated educational/ interpretive elements.

[--] 5. Conduct any necessary monitoring and habitat/site descriptions/inventories.

[4B – D] 6. Recruit broad community involvement and publicize all appropriate activities, events, and accomplishments.

[5A – C]

Valley Creek Restoration

Page 6 of 6

6/27/2007

List of local planning documents and reports with recommendations for Valley Creek watershed restoration and improvements Local planning documents and reports with recommendations for Valley Creek watershed restoration and improvements (not exhaustive) City of Port Angeles Preliminary Capital Facilities and Transportation Plan (2022-2027) City of Port Angeles Stormwater Management Program Plan (2021) Pacific Lamprey 2020 Regional Implementation Plan for the Washington Coast and Puget Sound City of Port Angeles Comprehensive Plan (2019) City Pier Master Plan Report (2016) City of Port Angeles Shoreline Master Program (2014) Cumulative Impacts Analysis for city of Port Angeles’ Shoreline: Strait of Juan de Fuca.( 2012) Shoreline Restoration Plan. (2012) Harbor Resources Management Plan (2011) City of Port Angeles Waterfront Transportation Improvement Plan (2011) Elwha-Dungeness Watershed Plan: Water Resource Inventory Area 18 and Sequim Bay in West WRIA 17 Volume 1. (2005) ValleyCreek Committee - Valley Creek Restoration: Goals, Objective, Workplan. (2001) Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors - Water Resource Inventory Area 18, Washington State Conservation Commission final Report. (1999) Restoration of an Urbanized Watershed in the City of Port Angeles: Recommendations for Improved Salmonid habitat in Valley Creek, Washington. (1998)

Local and regional plans highlighting best practices for community asset inspiration, design and implementation Urban Tree Canopy Port Angeles Urban Assessment (2011) Port Angeles Waterfront Art Framework Plan (2011) Regional Open Space Conservation Plan (2018)

List of Potential Required Permits Federal Section 404 Clean Water Act (CORPS) Section 10 Rivers and Harbors Act (CORPS) Section 7 ESA Consultation (CORPS) and Concurrence Letters (NMFS, USFWS) Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act (DAHP) Section 401 Clean Water Act Water Quality Certification (State Ecology)

State Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application (JARPA) Hydraulic Project Approval (WDFW) Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Checklist (through the City of PA) State-Owned Aquatic Lands Lease (DNR) Construction Stormwater General Permit (Ecology)

Local Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, including Floodplain Permit and Viewshed Analysis (City) Conditional Use Permit (City) Environmentally Sensitive Areas Review (City) Stormwater related permits Right-of-way related permits Park & recreation related permits Building permit for all non-exempt construction (City) Clearing and Grading Permit (City) Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Fee (City)

Example Trail Loop System

Fish Impeding Culverts on Valley Creek

Valley Creek Daylighting Feasibility Assessment Port Angeles, Washington

Prepared for Futurewise Prepared by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc.

Note: Some pages in this document have been purposely skipped or blank pages inserted so that this document will print correctly when duplexed.

Valley Creek Daylighting Feasibility Assessment Port Angeles, Washington

Prepared for Futurewise 816 Second Avenue, Suite 200 Seattle, Washington 98104

Prepared by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. 2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1100 Seattle, Washington 98121 Telephone: 206-441-9080

April 21, 2023

This page intentionally left blank

Contents Introduction....................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................................................ 4 Study Scope ............................................................................................................................................................. 6 Data Review and Desktop Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 7 Project Phasing and Future Daylighting Compatibility..........................................................................10 Potential for Site Contamination ....................................................................................................................12 Geomorphic Assessment............................................................................................................................................15 Soils and Surface Geology ................................................................................................................................15 Geomorphic Setting ............................................................................................................................................15 Downtown Port Angles Historic Fill Activities ...........................................................................................16 Sedimentation Potential ....................................................................................................................................16 Bankfull Width .......................................................................................................................................................17 Alternative Development ...........................................................................................................................................21 Cultural Resources Assessment ......................................................................................................................21 Hydraulic Modeling .............................................................................................................................................21 Hydrology ...................................................................................................................................................22 Hydraulic Analysis ....................................................................................................................................23 Stormwater Management Options Development ...................................................................................25 Transportation and Mobility Study ...............................................................................................................26 Alternatives Assessment .............................................................................................................................................27 Summary .................................................................................................................................................................27 Alternative 1: Valley Street Alignment .........................................................................................................27 Overview ......................................................................................................................................................27 Transportation and Pedestrian Mobility ..........................................................................................28 Stormwater Management Opportunities ........................................................................................28 Alternative 2: Western Alignment ..................................................................................................................31 Overview ......................................................................................................................................................31

sw 19-07050-000_vc-daylightingfeasstdy_20230421.docx

i

Transportation and Pedestrian Mobility ..........................................................................................31 Stormwater Management Opportunities ........................................................................................31 Alternative 3: Valley Creek Park ......................................................................................................................35 Overview ......................................................................................................................................................35 Transportation and Pedestrian Mobility ..........................................................................................35 Stormwater Management Opportunities ........................................................................................36 Alternative 4: Valley Creek Park Extension .................................................................................................39 Overview ......................................................................................................................................................39 Transportation and Pedestrian Mobility ..........................................................................................40 Stormwater Management Opportunities ........................................................................................40 Assessment Criteria Descriptions ...................................................................................................................43 Scoring Results And Discussion ......................................................................................................................45 Performance Category Discussion .....................................................................................................45 Impact Category Discussion.................................................................................................................46 Implementation Category Discussion ..............................................................................................49 Preferred Alternative Selection ................................................................................................................................51 References........................................................................................................................................................................53

Appendices Appendix A Desktop Review May 2022 Presentation to GLAC Appendix B Hydraulic Modeling Data Appendix C Stormwater Management Options Development Details Appendix D Transportation and Mobility Study Memoranda Appendix E Detailed Alternatives Assessment Summary Matrix Appendix F GLAC Alternative Ranking Anonymous Comments

ii

sw 19-07050-000_vc-daylightingfeasstdy_20230421.docx

Tables Table 1.

Use “BFW Measurements and Estimates. ......................................................................................20

Table 2.

Use Modeled Flow Rates. ....................................................................................................................22

Table 3.

Valley Creek Alternatives Assessment Criteria Descriptions. .................................................43

Table 4.

Screening Criteria Matrix for Comparing Conceptual Design Alternatives Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. ........................................................................................................47

Table 5.

GLAC member Alterative Preference Ranking Summary.........................................................51

Figures Figure 1.

Existing Valley Creek Culvert. ............................................................................................................... 1

Figure 2.

Study Area Looking South Along Valley Creek Culvert Alignment Beneath Valley Street at Marine Drive Intersection. ................................................................................................... 2

Figure 3.

Valley Creek Daylighting Feasibility Assessment: Project Alignments. ................................ 3

Figure 4.

Existing Valley Creek Culvert Profile. ................................................................................................. 4

Figure 5.

Prior Restoration Projects along Valley Creek. .............................................................................. 5

Figure 6.

Phase 3 Project Overview. ..................................................................................................................... 6

Figure 7.

Preliminary Concept–Alternative 1. ................................................................................................... 7

Figure 8.

Preliminary Concept–Alternative 2. ................................................................................................... 8

Figure 9.

Preliminary Concept–Alternative 3. ................................................................................................... 8

Figure 10. Option 1 Future Daylighting Potential Overview. ......................................................................11 Figure 11. Option 2 Future Daylighting Potential Overview. ......................................................................12 Figure 12. DOE-listed cleanup sites near the project area. ..........................................................................13 Figure 13. Sedimentation at Valley Creek Culvert Outlet. ............................................................................17 Figure 14. Bank Erosion and stream confinement along Valley Street at BFW 2. ...............................18 Figure 15. BFW 3 at downstream end of Phase 2 project. ...........................................................................19 Figure 16. Alternative 1 - Valley Street Alignment. .........................................................................................29 Figure 17. Alternative 2 - Western Alignment. .................................................................................................33 Figure 18. Alternative 3 - Valley Creek Park. .....................................................................................................37 Figure 19. Valley Creek Park Extension. ...............................................................................................................41

sw 19-07050-000_vc-daylightingfeasstdy_20230421.docx

iii

INTRODUCTION Herrera Environmental Consultants (Herrera) assisted Futurewise in conducting a feasibility assessment of daylighting opportunities for the lower portions of Valley Creek where it is contained within culverts in the City of Port Angeles (City), Washington. Valley Creek is one of six streams draining from the northern slopes of the Olympic range through Port Angeles. Currently, the creek is confined and conveyed through a culvert system beneath Valley Street (hereafter called the Valley Creek Culvert) for a distance of approximately 2,100 feet as it nears Port Angeles Harbor (Figure 1). The Valley Creek Culvert presents a significant barrier for salmonids and aquatic species, hindering access to habitat upstream within the watershed. After the construction of the Valley Creek Estuary in the late 1990’s, restoration efforts along Valley Creek have been focused along reaches south of West 2nd Street, where the creek is less constrained by existing development. The project area for the current study is located from the outlet of the culvert system at the Valley Creek Estuary to just south of West 2nd Street, along the portions of the Valley Creek Culvert that pass through a highly developed area near City of Port Angeles. Within the study area, the culvert is located beneath the roadbed of Valley Street and intersecting streets and extends beneath public park space as it nears its outfall to the estuary at the edge of downtown Port Angeles (Figure 2).

Figure 1.

Existing Valley Creek Culvert.

Valley Creek Estuary

Valley Creek Culvert

April 2023

1

Valley Creek Daylighting Feasibility Assessment | Port Angeles, Washington

Figure 2.

Study Area Looking South Along Valley Creek Culvert Alignment Beneath Valley Street at Marine Drive Intersection.

This feasibility assessment was conducted as a part of Futurewise’s GreenLink Port Angeles project, a community-driven, watershed-scale planning process to develop an integrated network of multi-benefit green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) projects, which is funded through a National Estuaries Program Grant. Since 2018, Futurewise has coordinated progress in implementing GreenLink Port Angeles project elements in partnership with the City and Herrera. Futurewise also coordinates the GreenLink Advisory Committee (GLAC), a local community group of experts, stakeholders, and partners that serves to provide guidance and input on the work conducted for the GreenLink Port Angeles Project.

Daylighting Valley Creek was identified in 2021 as the top-ranked project by the GLAC due to its potential to restore critical habitat, improve stormwater management, and provide education and mobility benefits to the community while building on previous watershed enhancement and planning efforts. Multiple potential stream channel daylighting alignments were proposed for the lower portion of the creek early on in the GreenLink Port Angeles project and several stormwater management opportunities in the study area were identified through desktop and field analysis in 2020 and 2021. The primary purpose of the current study was to conduct a broad-scale comparison of two proposed alignments for daylighting Valley Creek between West 2nd Street and the estuary (Figure 3). During the course of the study, two additional alternative alignment options were also identified and evaluated. The study also included a cultural resources assessment and transportation and mobility study to assist in the evaluation of project alternatives, as discussed later in this report.

2

April 2023

Valley Creek Daylighting Feasibility Assessment | Port Angeles, Washington

W Front St

W 1st St

M

r

eD

n ari

Alignments willwill connect to the Alignments connect to the modified culvert section from the proposed 3 Project proposed Phase 3Phase Project.

W 3rd St

S Valley St

S Pine St

W 2nd St

Figure 3.

Valley Creek Daylighting Feasibility Assessment: Project Alignments.

Legend Daylighting Alignment 1 Daylighting Alignment 2 Phase 3 Designed Project Existing Storm Drain APN Boundary

Port Angeles

E

0

75

150

Study Area Evaluate Stormwater Improvement Opportunities

Clallam County, City of Port Angeles K:\Projects\Y2019\19-07050-000\Pro\ValleyCreek\ValleyCreek.aprx

300

Feet

Existing Conditions Valley Creek has been impacted by past development and industrial practices in the Port Angeles area which have negatively affected habitat quality and habitat accessibility for salmonids (McHenry 1998) and possibly for anadromous Pacific lamprey. The placement of artificial fill, culvert construction, channelization, bank armoring, logging practices, and urban development have decreased available habitat, degraded habitat conditions, limited floodplain connectivity, and created fish passage barriers within the watershed. Valley Creek is currently conveyed in an underground culvert system between the creek outlet into the Valley Creek Estuary and West 6th Street along Valley Street (Figure 1). The culvert system is approximately 2,100 feet in length and has been identified by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) as a slope barrier with a 33 percent passability rating. This partial barrier is due in part to a hydraulic drop within the culvert near Marine Drive, where a transition structure drops the culvert elevation to avoid a now-abandoned industrial water line, and partly due to the steep nature of portions of the upper culvert, which ranges in slope from 0.5 to 3.4 percent (see Figure 4). Upstream of the Valley Creek Culvert, the alignment of Valley Creek has been straightened, likely due to ditching and channelization to enable residential development. It is generally confined between Valley Street, the valley bluff slopes, and urban development along the stream corridor.

Figure 4.

Existing Valley Creek Culvert Profile.

4

April 2023

Valley Creek Daylighting Feasibility Assessment | Port Angeles, Washington

Community driven efforts to implement restoration and conservation projects along the Valley Creek corridor have been undertaken intermittently for at least 30+ years. To date, several major restoration projects have been implemented and designed along the creek corridor, including: the restoration of the Valley Creek Estuary, a “Phase 1” fish passage improvement project under U.S. Highway 101, and a “Phase 2” project to restore and re-meander a portion of channelized creek (Figure 5).

Figure 5.

Prior Restoration Projects along Valley Creek.

Additionally, a “Phase 3” project was planned and designed to improve fish passage in the upper portion of the Valley Creek Culvert, south of West 2nd Street (Figure 5 and Figure 6), through the addition of baffles within an 800-foot segment of the culvert and a partial daylighting of the uppermost 500 feet of pipe. The Phase 3 design includes restoration of a section of the creek upstream of the planned daylighting through re-meandering and placement of habitat features. Phase 3 has not yet been implemented, apparently due to funding source requirements which were not fully met in the design regarding remaining fish barrier conditions downstream of the project. In addition to physical restoration efforts, in past decades, the City has undertaken efforts to acquire properties along Valley Street and Valley Creek in pursuit of conserving a natural stream corridor.

April 2023

5

Valley Creek Daylighting Feasibility Assessment | Port Angeles, Washington

Figure 6.

Phase 3 Project Overview.

Study Scope

The scope of the current study is to complete a creek daylighting feasibility assessment for the lower portion of the Valley Creek Culvert, between the creek outlet into the Valley Creek Estuary and the downstream end of the proposed Phase 3 project near West 2nd Street. Two previously identified potential stream alignments were provided by Futurewise as a basis for the development of project alternatives (Figure 3). The focus of this study is on the lower-most portion of the existing culvert as it poses the most significant obstacles toward the vision for a fully daylighted and restored Valley Creek.

Within the study area, the urbanized setting surrounding the Valley Creek Culvert includes numerous potential constraints which could impact the feasibility of channel daylighting alternatives, including but not limited to current and planned commercial and industrial land uses, existing structures, storm drainage and other utility infrastructure, and known or suspected sites of soil and groundwater contamination. A range of multi-benefit project elements are included in the alternatives discussed herein: habitat restoration, stormwater management opportunities, fish passage barrier removal, opportunities for community use and education, and pedestrian/wheelchair mobility and vehicle circulation improvements.

A daylighting project in this critical downstream portion of Valley Creek would be a significant accomplishment toward the restoration of Valley Creek and help facilitate the continuation of future daylighting projects upstream of West 2nd Street. By solving the challenging issues associated with daylighting Valley Creek through developed portions of downtown Port Angeles, the project would serve as a steppingstone for the continuation of daylighting and restoration efforts upstream along the creek.

6

April 2023

Valley Creek Daylighting Feasibility Assessment | Port Angeles, Washington

DATA REVIEW AND DESKTOP ANALYSIS Herrera performed a review of available data sources and conducted an initial desktop analysis to inform the development of project alternatives and provide an opportunity to screen potential alternatives early in the study timeline. From the analysis, Herrera developed three preliminary alternative concepts, shown in Figure 7, Figure 8, and Figure 9. Alternatives 1 and 2 replicate the two previously identified alignments provided at the start of the study and Alternative 3 was developed anew. Descriptions of these alternatives are provided later in this report in the Alternatives Assessment section.

Figure 7.

April 2023

Preliminary Concept–Alternative 1.

7

Valley Creek Daylighting Feasibility Assessment | Port Angeles, Washington

Figure 8.

Preliminary Concept–Alternative 2.

Figure 9.

Preliminary Concept–Alternative 3.

8

April 2023

Valley Creek Daylighting Feasibility Assessment | Port Angeles, Washington

Results from the desktop analysis were presented to the GLAC for comment and all three alternatives were recommended for further study in the feasibility assessment tasks. Based on the initial feedback from the GLAC, a fourth alternative (Alternative 4) was additionally developed during the subsequent portions of the study, which combined elements of Alternatives 1 and 3, see the Alternatives Assessment section of this report for additional information. A copy of the presentation given to the GLAC during a meeting convened in May 2022 is included in Appendix A. Key outcomes of the desktop analysis were as follows: •

There is no known project constraint that prevents any of the alternatives from being feasible from an engineering perspective.

•

A significant constraint to project implementation will be space and right of way availability.

•

Each of the alternatives will have impacts to, or require the use of, property currently owned by private landowners, the City of Port Angeles, or the Port of Port Angeles. The degree of impacts and use of properties varies alternatives.

•

Any of the project alternatives will require significant stakeholder support and coordination due to the spatial requirements.

•

Alternative 1 would likely provide the least habitat value of all the alternatives due to the space constraints of the Valley Street right of way, which limit natural geomorphic processes and provides the least space to establish a riparian buffer.

•

Utility conflicts are unavoidable and are likely manageable, although they could incur significant project costs.

•

Soil and groundwater contamination, or the potential for soil and groundwater contamination will likely need to be addressed and studied further, regardless of the alternative ultimately selected.

•

Sedimentation within the daylighted creek should be expected due to the modified condition of the creek channel and watershed upstream of the study area and expected natural depositional processes.

•

Flooding is not likely to be a concern with the completed project and should be contained within the daylighted channel corridor under any of the alternatives. Project area is located in a FEMA mapped floodplain and coordination with FEMA will be required. See Hydraulic Modeling section for additional information.

•

Fish passage will likely be achievable due to anticipated low flow velocities and mild slopes through the study area.

April 2023

9

Valley Creek Daylighting Feasibility Assessment | Port Angeles, Washington

Project Phasing and Future Daylighting Compatibility During the desktop analysis, Herrera identified an upstream “phasing” boundary for the current study’s project alternatives, located near the intersection of West 2nd Street and Valley Street. Herrera’s review of the study area indicated daylighting the creek south of West 2nd Street would most effectively be accomplished by a separate project that addresses the entire length of the creek culvert between West 2nd Street and West 6th Street, including portions of the culvert which are currently shown to remain in place in the Phase 3 restoration design plans.

As previously reported, the Phase 3 project proposes to daylight approximately 500 feet of the uppermost portion of the Valley Creek culvert and proposes the installation of baffles within the next 800 feet length of the existing culvert, which would remain in place, to increase the ability of fish to pass through the steeper portions of the culvert system (Figure 4). As currently designed, the Phase 3 project does not include a full removal or replacement of the existing culvert. The downstream end of the Phase 3 project is located approximately 300 feet south of West 2nd Street. At this location, the proximity of an adjacent utility substation, nearby businesses, and the road pose a significant space constraint for a future daylighting project(s).

Considering these constraints, alternatives were developed to tie into the existing Valley Creek culvert at appropriate locations at or near the phasing boundary described above. The alternatives evaluated in this report therefore do not directly connect to the Phase 3 project. This decision preserves the forward compatibility of the alternatives developed for this study and provides the flexibility for future planners to identify the most appropriate restoration options for the remaining portions of the Valley Creek Culvert.

During Herrera’s evaluation of future compatibility for the currently proposed alternatives, two potential options for a future project to address the portions of the Valley Creek Culvert between West 2nd Street and West 6th Street were identified. Brief summaries of these options are provided below to aid future studies; however, it should be noted that both options require additional study to determine their feasibility and other options not yet identified could be applicable.

Option 1: Acquisition of all privately owned properties along Valley Street, decommissioning of Valley Street, and daylighting the creek through the valley center.

Valley Street currently provides sole access for businesses, residents and properties south of West 2nd Street. There has been a significant effort in past decades by the City of Port Angeles to acquire available properties along Valley Creek, to enable preserving the corridor for future open space conservation.

Herrera’s review of available GIS data indicates that the City of Port Angeles currently owns 49 parcels along Valley Street south of West 2nd Street, and that 29 parcels with structures (and numerous parcels without structures) remain in private ownership in this area (Figure 10). If the remaining properties under private ownership were to be acquired, thereby removing the need to provide access via Valley Street, portions of the road could potentially be decommissioned and removed. Without Valley Street, a much wider portion of the valley bottom would be available for open channel daylighting and re-meandering 10

April 2023

Valley Creek Daylighting Feasibility Assessment | Port Angeles, Washington

of the culverted segments of Valley Creek and greater flexibility for restoration along the stream corridor north of U.S. Highway 101.

Figure 10. Option 1 Future Daylighting Potential Overview.

Option 2: Acquisition of 14 properties along the east side of Valley Street, removal of existing structures to provide space, and daylighting the creek along the east side of Valley Street.

A subset of Option 1 would involve acquiring 14 parcels, eight with structures currently on them, located on the east side of Valley Street between West 2nd Street and the inlet to the existing culvert at West 5th Street (Figure 11). Acquisition of these 14 properties could provide enough space for a future project to daylight the creek along the culverted length between West 5th Street and West 2nd Street, after the removal of structures, paved surfaces, and utilities. This option may allow for the continued use of Valley Street to provide access to the numerous privately owned properties along the west side of Valley Street and farther south along Valley Street.

April 2023

11

Valley Creek Daylighting Feasibility Assessment | Port Angeles, Washington

Figure 11. Option 2 Future Daylighting Potential Overview.

Potential for Site Contamination

The potential for site contamination is an important consideration for developing stream daylighting alternatives for lower Valley Creek due to the historical land use within and near the alignment of the existing culvert system. Herrera reviewed the Washington State Department of Ecology’s (DOE’s) databases for listed cleanup and underground storage tank sites under the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) to help identify potentially contaminated properties. Three properties were identified that could influence the project alternatives, two of which have known or suspected soil and groundwater contamination and one previously remediated property which has an environmental covenant which restricts future land use on the property as a result (Figure 12). The cleanup status of each of these three properties is described below.

12

April 2023

Valley Creek Daylighting Feasibility Assessment | Port Angeles, Washington

Figure 12. DOE-listed cleanup sites near the project area.

439 Marine Drive, K Ply Site Cleaned to industrial standards, *Environmental Covenant*

436 Marine Drive

402 Marine Drive, Marine Drive Chevron

436 Marine Drive (Cleanup Site ID 10819) This property was added to the DOE database as a state cleanup site due to records of a past release from a leaking underground storage tank and a lack of record documentation to demonstrate that MTCA cleanup standards were achieved. Valley Creek alternatives that propose to utilize this property, or that are located nearby, will likely require additional site characterization study to determine the extents of contamination and determine any necessary remediation actions.

402 Marine Drive (Marine Drive Chevron, Cleanup Site 11150) This property is the location of an actively operating gas station and convenience store. DOE records indicate that soil and groundwater contamination were identified during past underground storage tank replacements and that partial remediation activities have occurred, including excavation and offsite treatment of contaminated soils. A 2016 letter from DOE, which reviewed the status of the site, indicated that although several past remediation actions had occurred, the site assessments on file were insufficient to fully characterize the extents of current contamination and that no remediation activities were previously conducted to address groundwater contamination. Valley Creek alternatives that propose to

April 2023

13

Valley Creek Daylighting Feasibility Assessment | Port Angeles, Washington

utilize this property, or that are located nearby, will likely require additional site characterization study to determine the extents of contamination and determine any necessary remediation actions.

439 Marine Drive (K Ply Site, Cleanup Site 28) This was the site of a plywood mill operated on the K Ply property under various owners; it is located adjacent to the Valley Creek Estuary, north of Marine Drive. The Port of Port Angeles (Port) currently owns the property and the site is the location of the planned Marine Trades Center development. Past mill operations contaminated soil and groundwater on the site and the Port of Port Angeles began remediation activities here in 2015. The site has been cleaned to industrial-use MTCA standards and the properties that comprise the site currently have an environmental covenant, held by DOE, placed on the deeds. The environmental covenant restricts future land use on the parcels to be compatible with the industrial-use standards to which the site was cleaned. The environmental covenant, in its current form, would likely restrict the use of any portion of the property for a proposed creek daylighting project, unless amended. Communications with DOE staff clarified that the southeast portion of the K Ply site, where some of the alternatives propose daylighting the creek, were not reported to have groundwater and soil contamination above the industrial-use MTCA standards during the site characterizations conducted for the Port’s cleanup actions. For a project alternative that proposes to utilize a portion of this site, soil and groundwater contaminant levels would have to be below stricter unrestricted-use levels as set by the MTCA. Therefore, should an alternative propose to utilize a portion of the former K Ply site, and with appropriate permissions from the Port of Port Angeles, a procedural process would have to be undertaken to modify or remove the land use restrictions imposed by the covenant. The first steps in this process would be additional site characterization on the required portions of the property to demonstrate to DOE that levels of soil and groundwater contamination are below MCTA standards for unrestricted use.

14

April 2023

Valley Creek Daylighting Feasibility Assessment | Port Angeles, Washington

GEOMORPHIC ASSESSMENT Herrera performed a targeted geomorphic assessment of Valley Creek to support the development of project alternatives within the study area which included reviewing existing geomorphic studies and available information on Valley Creek and a 1-day site visit. The purpose of the assessment was to inform selection of an appropriate channel bankfull width for the proposed daylighting, which is also a basis for defining minimum hydraulic opening (MHO) widths for any newly constructed fish-passable culverts.

Soils and Surface Geology Soils within the project area are largely mapped as “beaches” north of West 2nd Street, and a band of soils along bluffs just south of West 2nd Street are mapped as colluvial Dystric Xerorthents (NRCS 2023).

According to surface geology mapping of the area, the project area is located almost entirely on Holocene artificial fill and modified land (DNR 2022), which reflects the known history of land development and associated filling which occurred in the early 1900s to raise the elevation of downtown Port Angeles and reduce tidal flooding.

Geomorphic Setting Several reports that provide information on the geomorphic setting for Valley Creek were reviewed in support of this study (Wegmann et al. 2012, Herrera 2009, Waterfall Engineering et al. 2011, and McHenry and Odenweller 1998). The summary provided below includes interpretations from Wegmann et al. (2012) because it encompasses a review of both the geomorphic drivers of streams in the Port Angeles region on a geologic timescale and the history of anthropogenic changes associated with filling of low-lying areas in downtown Port Angeles.

On a geologic timescale, Valley Creek has been significantly influenced by interactions between periods of glaciation, glacio-isostatic rebound, and sea level rise. The advance of the Cordilleran ice sheet, which depressed the earth’s crust approximately 20,000 years ago, increased relative sea levels along the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Following the retreat of the ice sheet, glacio-isostatic rebound caused land elevations to rise relatively quickly and that decreased relative sea levels, which lowered the base level for the nearby creeks and streams. This led to the incision of streams and rivers into glacially deposited sediments and the formation of the steep walled valleys that are characteristic of the streams near Port Angeles, including Valley Creek (Wegmann et al. 2012). Radiocarbon tests on soil samples along Valley Creek and Tumwater Creek suggest that net aggregation has been the prevailing trend along these creeks after the establishment of near-modern sea levels (Wegmann et al. 2012). The dating on the radiocarbon samples indicated that these aggregation trends occurred until recently (~1700-1900s), when the streams began to incise once again into their fluvial deposit. While this shift from aggradation to degradation may have been driven by regional climate, it has been hypothesized that this was the result of the arrival of EuroAmericans into the area during the 1800s and changes in the upstream hydrology due to land use modifications such as deforestation, which is known to have occurred (Wegmann et al. 2012).

April 2023

15

Valley Creek Daylighting Feasibility Assessment | Port Angeles, Washington

Downtown Port Angles Historic Fill Activities The existing Valley Creek Culvert, at the project location between West 2nd Street and the Valley Creek Estuary, is located under fill material placed during the development of downtown Port Angeles. The fill was placed using hydraulic mining and sluicing techniques to raise city street levels up to a full story in height higher than the historic beach elevation in order to reduce tidal flooding. The natural topography along the Port Angeles downtown waterfront is estimated to be approximately 12 to 13 feet below existing grade, and locally up to 18 feet of fill depth is present over some of the intertidal areas (Wegmann et al. 2012). A utility survey profile of the existing Valley Creek Culvert, mapped by NTI in 2011, corroborates these fill depths. It is our understanding that the Valley Creek Culvert was constructed in segments and was generally constructed on existing ground at the time, with the fill material then added on top to raise the surrounding ground elevations. The fill activities in downtown occurred approximately between 1914 to the 1960’s (Szatlocky, 2011, Wegmann et al. 2012). Some fill activities occurred as late as 1998, when a log storage pond was filled in conjunction with the excavation and construction of the Valley Creek Estuary.

Sedimentation Potential Landform mapping of downtown Port Angeles by Wegmann et al. (2012) indicates that the study area is located on the historic delta of Valley Creek and supratidal beach areas which existed prior to land fill activities. Deltas are land-building geomorphic landforms associated with streams, rivers, and creeks depositing sediment at the confluence with larger bodies of water such as lakes and oceans. The implications of the study area being on the historic delta are that deposition and sedimentation should be expected after the completion of any daylighting project and therefore should be anticipated in project design.

During a site visit to Valley Creek on April 11, 2022, Herrera staff observed sedimentation at the outlet of the existing Valley Creek Culvert into the Valley Creek Estuary. Downstream of the culvert outlet and scour pool, the creek bed elevation was observed to be only approximately 1 to 1.5 feet below the soffit (top) of the culvert pipe (Figure 13). Design drawings for the Valley Creek Estuary indicate that the culvert was originally placed at the estuary ground surface, which implies that a significant amount of sedimentation has occurred within the culvert since the construction of the estuary. Trends and issues associated with sedimentation have been observed and monitored by the City of Port Angeles since the construction of the Valley Creek Estuary in the late 1990s. While Herrera staff did not have the ability to check sedimentation within the culvert pipe during their site visit, sedimentation within the Valley Creek Culvert is a known issue and has been the subject of past study and maintenance activities. Mapping of sedimentation within the culvert was conducted in 2001 by NTI and the last known maintenance activity was conducted by the City of Port Angeles in 2011, to dredge the outlet of the culvert.

16

April 2023

Valley Creek Daylighting Feasibility Assessment | Port Angeles, Washington

Figure 13. Sedimentation at Valley Creek Culvert Outlet. p

Sedimentation potential was further evaluated using estimates of sediment loading for Valley Creek and other creeks that drain to Port Angeles Harbor from previous studies (Herrera 2009). Sediment loading in Valley Creek was calculated using the Syvitski equation and estimated a long-term averaged sediment load of approximately 20,000 metric tons per year. That sediment load estimation was used to help estimate aggradation potential and long-term maintenance needs for the developed alternatives, as discussed later in the report in the Alternatives Assessment section.

Bankfull Width During Herrera’s site visit in April of 2022, staff took bankfull width (BFW) measurements and observed stream conditions from the Valley Creek Estuary upstream to just past the Phase 2 restoration project site, located north of U.S. Highway 101. BFW measurements were taken at three locations along the creek upstream of the Valley Creek Culvert and those were compared against BFW that is estimated with a regional regression equation and to previous design estimates.

April 2023

17

Valley Creek Daylighting Feasibility Assessment | Port Angeles, Washington

Herrera staff measured BFW at three locations during the site visit in April 2022; BFW 1 and BFW 2 (17 feet and 15 feet) were measured along Valley Creek within 240 feet of the inlet to the Valley Creek Culvert and BFW 3 (19 feet) was measured approximately 120 feet upstream of the pedestrian bridge at the downstream end of the Phase 2 restoration project. Immediately upstream of the existing Valley Creek Culvert, the stream appeared to be straight and channelized and showed signs of incision and erosion along the left bank (facing downstream), indicating potential channel instability as the channel is still adjusting in response to the historical modifications and land use changes along the creek (Figure 14). Therefore, BFW 1 and BFW 2 may underrepresent the BFW which might be observed in a more naturalized, stable version of Valley Creek. Upstream along the Phase 2 restoration project, the creek channel, although reconstructed, appeared to be in a much more stable condition, and has had approximately 20 years to adjust to the current hydrologic conditions (Figure 15).

Figure 14. Bank Erosion and stream confinement along Valley Street at BFW 2.

18

April 2023

Valley Creek Daylighting Feasibility Assessment | Port Angeles, Washington

Figure 15. BFW 3 at downstream end of Phase 2 project.

Three regression equations; two from Castro and Jackson (2001) and one reported by Faustini et al.

(2009), were used to estimate bankfull width for Valley Creek, which resulted in an estimated range between 21 to 29 feet. These estimates match well with previous design BFW estimates documented for the Phase 2 and Phase 3 projects, which ranged between 20 and 25 feet. For the current study, a design BFW width of 25 feet was selected for use in developing the daylighted channel geometry, sizing fish passable structures, and developing preliminary grading of the daylighted stream channel. See Table 1 for a comparison of BFW measurements and estimates considered for this study.

April 2023

19

Valley Creek Daylighting Feasibility Assessment | Port Angeles, Washington

Table 1. Use “BFW Measurements and Estimates.

Bankfull Width Source

Measurement/ Estimate (ft)

Description

Notes

BFW Measurement 1 (Herrera, April 2022)

Located approx. 70 feet upstream of culvert inlet

17

Signs of channel instability observed. Additionally, the creek appeared channelized and straightened/constricted by road fill along left bank.

BFW Measurement 2 (Herrera, April 2022)

Located approx. 240 feet upstream of culvert inlet

15

Signs of channel instability observed. Additionally, the creek appeared channelized and straightened/constricted by road fill along left bank.

BFW Measurement 3 (Herrera, April 2022)

Located approx. 120 feet upstream of pedestrian bridge in Phase 2 project area

19

Reach constructed ~20 years ago, appeared relatively stable. Some erosion present at meander bends

Regression Equation 1: Castro and Jackson (2001)

For Pacific Northwest Region

24.9

Regression Equation 2: Castro and Jackson (2001)

For Pacific Maritime Mountains

28.8

Regression Equation 3: Faustini et al. (2009)

For Coast Range/Cascades

20.2

Phase 2 Design Plans

Measured from typical channel sections

~20

Phase 3 Design Report

As reported in channel dimensions table

20–30

Design BFW Selected

–

25

20

Used to size channel geometry and structure sizes

April 2023

Valley Creek Daylighting Feasibility Assessment | Port Angeles, Washington

ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT The three concept alternatives (Alternatives 1, 2, and 3) presented to the GLAC at the conclusion of the Desktop Analysis (see Figure 7, Figure 8, and Figure 9, respectively) were refined and studied further in additional tasks, which included a cultural resources assessment, hydraulic modeling, a traffic and mobility assessment, and a stormwater management opportunities assessment. Herrera used results from the additional study to conduct a broad comparison of benefits and impacts as described in detail in the Alternatives Assessment section of this report.

In addition to Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, a fourth alternative (Alternative 4) was developed during the course of completing the additional studies, based on the initial feedback from the GLAC on the concept alternatives. Descriptions and exhibits for the four alternatives considered in this study are provided in the Alternatives Assessment section of this report. The following subsections provide a brief overview of the additional studies conducted.

Cultural Resources Assessment Herrera contracted with Drayton Archaeology (Drayton) to perform an archaeological desktop review to determine the probability of encountering cultural resources (cultural, historical, or archaeological materials or sites) within the study area. Determinations were based upon review and analysis of past environmental and cultural contexts, and previous cultural resources studies and sites recorded within one mile of the study area. Additionally, consultation letters were sent to all tribes in the area with an expressed interest in consulting with the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation.

Based on Drayton’s review, it is their opinion that the probability of encountering precontact or historic resources in the area is high. A documented village site is located near the study area; however, the area has been heavily impacted by development and multiple fill episodes in the harbor tidelands. Drayton noted that the presence of archaeological materials, precontact or historic, is always a possibility, regardless of probability determination. Of the tribes that responded to the consultation outreach letters, no significant concerns were raised. A desire for tribal cultural resource monitors to observe ground disturbing work was raised during consultation.

Hydraulic Modeling Herrera conducted hydraulic modeling for the existing Valley Creek Culvert and for each of the four developed alternatives. Results of the hydraulic modeling informed preliminary alternative development and was used to evaluate alternatives in the Alternatives Assessment. The project area is located in a portion of City of Port Angeles mapped as a Zone B on the current FEMA Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and where the 100-year flooding event is noted in the FIS to be conveyed in the existing Valley Creek Culvert (FEMA 1990, Panel 530023003C eff. 9/28/1990). Therefore, the hydraulic modeling results were used to April 2023

21

Valley Creek Daylighting Feasibility Assessment | Port Angeles, Washington

evaluate if project alternatives would be able to maintain and or improve the flooding protection provided by the existing culvert system for the 100-year event. Coordination with FEMA will be necessary during future design of any proposed daylighting projects to revise floodplain mapping in the project area.

Hydrology Herrera reviewed several sources of existing hydrological data to determine stream flow rates for input to the hydraulic modeling conducted in this study. During final design, project specific hydrologic modeling may be appropriate to better characterize design flow rates in the project area.

Flow rates used in this study were taken from the current FEMA Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and recent Phase 3 Restoration project design (FEMA 1990, Waterfall Engineering et al. 2011). No known long-term stream gage data is available for Valley Creek that is suitable for use in a flow-frequency analysis to develop design flow rates. The design report for the Phase 3 restoration project indicated that flow rates used for the project design were derived using available gage data for nearby streams to calibrate regression equation estimates (Waterfall Engineering et al., 2011). In addition to regression equation estimates, smaller fish passage design flow rates were estimated after reviewing data from a water level recorder that was operated along Valley Creek by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for a few years around the time of the Phase 2 project construction. It should be noted that the design flows reported for the Phase 3 project are lower than FEMA estimated flowrates, according to the currently adopted FIS (FEMA 1990). As the study area is located in a FEMA mapped flood zone that is partly contained by the existing culvert, Herrera utilized the 100-year flow rate from the FEMA FIS for flood risk evaluations in the current study and used the lower return interval flow rates (2-year and below) from the Phase 3 project work for habitat and geomorphic evaluations. Table 2 provides a summary of the flowrates used in this study.

Table 2. Use Modeled Flow Rates.

Recurrence Interval

Source

Flow Rate (cfs)

Low Fish Passage Design Flow (90% exceedance)

Phase 3 Design Report (Waterfall Engineering et al., 2011)

3

–

High Fish Passage Design Flow (10% exceedance)

Phase 3 Design Report (Waterfall Engineering et al., 2011)

30

–

2-year

Phase 3 Design Report (Waterfall Engineering et al., 2011)

134

–

100-year (Waterfall et al., 2011)

Phase 3 Design Report (Waterfall Engineering et al., 2011)

354

Modeled, but not used for flood risk evaluation

100-year (FEMA)

FEMA FIS (1990)

545

Utilized for flood risk and freeboard evaluation

22

Notes

April 2023

Valley Creek Daylighting Feasibility Assessment | Port Angeles, Washington

Hydraulic Analysis The hydraulic analyses for the current study were conducted using two separate software programs to appropriately model the complexities of the Valley Creek Culvert system and the proposed daylighted creek. Additional details regarding the two models are provided in the sections below.

WSPGW Water Surface Profile Gradient for Windows (WSPGW) is a 1-D hydraulic analysis software program, based on code developed by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District for the computation of uniform and non-uniform steady flow water surface profiles and pressure gradients in open channels and closed conduits. The program performs direct-step hydraulic computations, can be used to evaluate complex hydraulic systems with a variety of conduit types, sizes, structures, and with varying invert slopes, and is accepted by FEMA. Herrera used WSPGW to model the Valley Creek Culvert in the existing condition and the portions of the existing culvert system that tie into each of the four proposed alternatives. Herrera determined that this additional modeling was necessary due to the varied vertical profile and complex composition of the existing Valley Creek Culvert system, which includes multiple slope breaks, conduit sizes, and nonstandard transition structures. Herrera used the WSPGW models to evaluate the performance of the existing Valley Creek Culvert and how the remaining portion of the culvert may function with the four proposed alternatives.

Past maintenance inspection reports, utility maps, GIS data, and culvert mapping surveyed by NTI in 2001 were reviewed to determine the system configuration and vertical and horizontal alignment for the setup of the model. For each of the alternatives developed, the model was modified to reflect the proposed temporary culvert connections at the upstream end of each of the developed alternatives. Results from the model were utilized in the Alternatives Assessment, and detailed output files are provided in Appendix B.

HEC-RAS The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ HEC-RAS (Hydrologic Engineering Centers River Analysis System) program was used to develop a 1-D hydraulic model for each of the proposed daylighting alignments developed for the alternatives. Preliminary grading surfaces for each alternative were imported into the program and used to generate cross sectional data representing the excavated creek corridor and fish passable crossings. Upstream modeling results from HEC-RAS were used as input to the WSGPW model evaluations. As described further in the Alternatives Assessment section of this report, Alternative 4 was developed as an expanded version of Alternative 3 that proposes the same daylighted creek alignment, therefore modeling results for Alternative 3 were also used in evaluating Alternative 4.

Downstream Boundary Conditions Downstream of the Valley Creek Culvert outlet, a short pedestrian bridge named the Friendship Bridge spans the portion of the creek which leads to the wider areas of the Valley Creek Estuary. The April 2023

23

Valley Creek Daylighting Feasibility Assessment | Port Angeles, Washington

downstream boundary for the HEC-RAS models was set north of this structure in anticipation that the narrower bridge section may serve as a hydraulic control for flow in the creek as it enters the estuary.

Two downstream boundary conditions were evaluated for use in the model: a normal depth condition and a water surface elevation-based boundary condition. Elevation-based water surface boundary conditions were set at a mean higher-high tide elevation of 6.6 feet for low to moderate flow events up to the 2-year recurrence interval and at the reported 10-year tidal water surface elevation of 9.6 feet (with the vertical datum adjusted to NAVD 88 from NGVD 29) for the 100-year return interval flow event, as used by FEMA in the FIS (1990).

Preliminary hydraulic results indicated that the elevation-based water surface boundary conditions produced an artificially low downstream boundary as compared to the normal depth boundary assumption. Normal depth downstream boundary conditions were utilized in all final models for the proposed alternatives.

Model Boundary between HEC-RAS and WSPGW To model the effects of daylighting Valley Creek on the performance of the remaining portions of the Valley Creek Culvert, upstream model outputs from HEC-RAS were used as downstream boundary conditions for the WSPGW hydraulic models. Hydraulic grade line (HGL) elevations from the upstream end of the HEC-RAS models were used for this purpose, which conservatively assumed the culvert outlets into a still water condition. Results from the HEC-RAS modeling indicated a downstream subcritical control on the daylighted portions of the creek and, due to the steepness of the upstream culvert system, water surface profiles within the culvert were generally not found to be influenced by the simulated water surface elevations at the outlet into a daylighted creek channel.

Results Detailed hydraulic modeling results from HEC-RAS and WSPGW are included for each of the alternatives in Appendix B. Interpreted results from the modeling of each alternative, including flow velocities, depths, and implications for system performance, are integrated in the Alternatives Assessment section of this report. None of the proposed alternative model results indicate adverse impacts to the Valley Creek Culvert length that would remain in place. Each modeled alternative indicated a general reduction in flow velocities through the proposed daylighted portion of the creek as compared to the velocities modeled in corresponding portions of the existing culvert. Modeling results indicated that for each of the four alternatives, velocities during low and moderate flows should support fish passage. Additionally, model results indicate that each alternative could convey the 100-year flood event, however, the available freeboard varied between alternatives depending on the available height for the assumed culverts. See the detailed assessment summary matrix in Appendix F for freeboard ranges.

Modeling of higher flow rates indicates that the Friendship Bridge abutments somewhat constrict portions of the creek between the existing outlet of the Valley Creek Culvert and the wider body of the estuary. Modeling results indicated that the highest flow velocities for the non-culverted portions of creek occur at this constriction (up to approximately 10 feet/second [ft/s] in the 100-year event). This bridge constriction is assumed to remain for the long term (i.e., the configuration of Friendship Bridge will remain as is) and is downstream of any of the proposed grading for the project alternatives.

24

April 2023

Valley Creek Daylighting Feasibility Assessment | Port Angeles, Washington

Additionally, this portion of the channel is lined with riprap and no assessment of the riprap stability was included in the current study.

During the development of the WSGPW model for the existing Valley Creek Culvert, conflicting information was found regarding the size of the culvert at the outlet to the Valley Creek Estuary.

Surveyed utility mapping conducted by NTI indicates a 7-foot-diameter pipe at the Valley Creek Estuary, however it was noted that the bottom of the culvert had to be assumed because it was buried in sediment at the time. Design plans for the estuary restoration project also show a 7-foot-diameter pipe, however no “as-built” drawings were available for review. Conflicting information was found in City of Port Angeles culvert inspection reports, which indicated that the portions of the culvert north of Marine Drive, prior to the construction of the Valley Creek Estuary, may be 5 feet in diameter. Additionally, photographs which were taken during past sediment clearing activities at the outlet of the Valley Creek Culvert appear show a pipe which could be less than 7 feet in diameter. For this study, the culvert outlet was modeled as a 7-foot-diameter pipe. However, a model was also created assuming a 5-foot-diameter pipe, and it was found that in this case that flow in the existing culvert system would back up and potentially cause flooding during a 100-year event. Confirmation of the size of the existing Valley Creek Culvert pipe at the outlet may be of interest to the City of Port Angeles.

Stormwater Management Options Development Herrera evaluated potential stormwater management opportunities in the study area to inform the development of alternatives, including options for constructing Best Management Practices (BMPs) next to the stream alignment within the project disturbance footprint. The intent of this analysis was to provide a level of detail needed to evaluate whether any project alternatives would be more or less compatible with stormwater improvement opportunities.

The primary opportunities identified were nearby existing catch basin structures which would discharge stormwater to the daylighted creek and could be easily replaced with the installation of high-rate underground filter systems. These types of underground stormwater treatment devices are comprised of rechargeable, media filled cartridges that trap particulates and adsorb pollutants form stormwater runoff.

No specific requirements for filter systems have been recommended at this time as there are several products available on the market, most of which are proprietary. Additionally, the assessment identified several small to moderately sized lateral gravity-fed storm drains which could provide opportunities for the treatment of runoff from larger areas of impervious surfaces, as allowed by the available space in each alternative. An example of this type of stormwater treatment retrofit is a bioretention area at higher elevation in the floodplain adjacent to the daylighted creek. Nearby, larger stormwater gravity mainlines were identified for each alternative, however, evaluation for regional stormwater management opportunities was beyond the scope of this study. The City of Port Angeles is pursuing several regional stormwater quality management planning efforts for future projects along the Valley Creek corridor, upstream of the project location. That work is expected to inform specific stormwater treatment opportunities for some of the larger stormwater gravity mains which drain to the Valley Creek Culvert.

The results of the stormwater management opportunities evaluation were incorporated into the concept designs for the four alternatives and shown on the exhibits provided in the Alternatives Assessment April 2023

25

Valley Creek Daylighting Feasibility Assessment | Port Angeles, Washington

section of this report. Identified locations for stormwater retrofits with high-rate underground filter systems are shown and labeled as “stormwater collection points.” More information regarding this evaluation is provided in Appendix C. A review of stormwater permit requirements for the alternatives was not included in the scope of this study, therefore, these requirements, as set by the City of Port Angeles and the Department of Ecology, should be evaluated after the selection of a preferred alternative. Evaluation of “regional” stormwater management opportunities, such as installation of stormwater facilities at storm drain outfalls, were also not included in the scope of this task.

Transportation and Mobility Study Herrera contracted with TranTech Engineering LLC to evaluate potential transportation and mobility related impacts and opportunities associated with project alternatives. TranTech completed this study in conjunction with their subconsultant, DKS Associates. DKS Associates focused their work on the evaluation of alternative project impacts and identifying potential improvements and mitigation strategies for traffic and mobility related impacts. Subsequently, TranTech reviewed DKS Associates’ findings and provided final recommendations for the project alternatives, conducted preliminary feasibility evaluations for crossing structure types (bridges vs. culverts), and developed planning-level cost estimates for crossings and traffic related improvements.

Findings and recommendations from these studies were incorporated into each of the four alternatives. It should be noted that the work conducted by TranTech and DKS Associates was centered around Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 only; Alternative 4 was not identified and developed until later in the study.

However, since Alternative 4 was developed as a partial combination of project elements from Alternatives 1 and 3, Herrera was able to apply the applicable findings and recommendations from the transportation and mobility study in developing Alternative 4.

Technical memoranda documenting the transportation and mobility study work can be found in Appendix D.

26

April 2023

Valley Creek Daylighting Feasibility Assessment | Port Angeles, Washington

ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT Summary The following sections describe the key components for each of the four Valley Creek daylighting alternatives and supplement the information provided in the alternative exhibits. The purpose of these descriptions is to provide a narrative of what is proposed in each alternative without attempting to exhaustively discuss project impacts. Considerations and impacts for each of the alternatives are provided in the Detailed Alternative Summary Matrix in Appendix F, and in the Scoring Results and Discussion section later in the body of this report.

Alternative 1: Valley Street Alignment Overview This alternative proposes to daylight Valley Creek following the alignment of the existing culvert beneath Valley Street. Figure 16 presents the conceptual layout for it. As a result, this alternative proposes closing Valley Street between West 2nd Street and West 1st Street, where excavation would occur to create a daylighted creek corridor within the public right of way (ROW). Since the proposed alignment follows that of the existing Valley Creek Culvert, the upstream portion of the remaining culvert system would outlet directly into the newly daylighted creek corridor. No additional temporary pipe connections would be necessary to route flow from the Valley Creek Culvert to the proposed daylighted creek for this alternative. The space available within the Valley Street ROW (80 feet wide) would allow for a straight, 35foot-wide creek section, with 2H:1V side slopes along the excavated corridor sloping up towards existing ground. Due to the limits imposed by the width of the available ROW, this alternative provides the smallest opportunity for riparian buffer establishment along the side slopes of the excavated corridor as compared to other developed alternatives. Additionally, due to the space limitations, a short retaining wall structure varying in height would be required along the uppermost portion of the excavated corridor to maintain space for a shared-use trail. The retaining wall for the alternative, as shown, would range in height between 0 and 3 feet. Along the east side of the daylighted channel, a 10-foot-wide shared use trail (15 feet with shoulders) is proposed. A pedestrian handrail would separate non-motorized traffic on the trail from the embankment slope.

North of West 1st Street, the existing culvert would be replaced with a fish passable crossing extending beneath Marine Drive with a 35-foot-wide minimum hydraulic opening. Downstream of that new crossing, a small segment of daylighted creek would be excavated to connect the creek to the Valley Creek Estuary and match the grade of the existing streambed at the estuary.

April 2023

27

Valley Creek Daylighting Feasibility Assessment | Port Angeles, Washington

Transportation and Pedestrian Mobility Due to the required closure of Valley Street, this alternative would require modifications to the intersections at West 2nd Street and Marine Drive and at Marine Drive and West 1st Street to maintain traffic circulation. The Marine Drive and West 2nd Street intersection would be modified to add a westbound left turn lane along Marine Drive to allow traffic from downtown to be able to access West 2nd Street. Additionally, the curb island between Marine Drive and West 1st Street would be extended to the east to remove the westbound lane of Marine Drive which currently allows traffic to drive south on Valley Street.

To improve pedestrian mobility and wheelchair accessibility for this alternative, the existing crosswalk across the westbound lane of Marine Drive at the intersection of Marine Drive and West 1st Street would be relocated to the east side of the curb island. Additionally, a crosswalk could be added to provide another option for pedestrian traffic to cross Marine Drive and access the properties more directly along the west side of Valley Street. This alternative proposes adding High-Intensity Activated Crosswalks (HAWKs), which include flashing lights and signage, and Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APSs), which include sounds for visually impaired pedestrians, for added safety at the crossings. This alternative would also be compatible with the planned extension of the Waterfront Trail along Marine Drive, west of the Friendship Bridge at the Valley Creek Estuary.

This alternative would require modifications to maintain parking access for the properties along Valley Street. Full utilization of the street ROW for the project would require reconfiguration of the sidewalk and parking lots at the Chevron store on Marine Drive and the Port of Port Angeles’ (Port’s) Public Works Maintenance Annex building on Valley Street. It is anticipated that one of the existing parking spots would be unusable at the Marine Drive Chevron store and the number of parking spaces would be reduced from 12 to 5 at the Public Works Maintenance Annex and require the conversion to a single row of parallel parking spaces. Additional angled parking may be a viable addition along West 2nd Street to supplement the loss of parking at the Port’s maintenance building.

Stormwater Management Opportunities This alternative would include the construction and retrofits of existing catch basin facilities to treat stormwater runoff from existing hard surfaces near the disturbance limits of the project. High-rate underground filter systems would be constructed where catch basins are presently, or stormwater could be collected and routed to a nearby treatment system, prior to discharge into Valley Creek. Additional “green” stormwater treatment features such as bioswales, vegetation buffers, and infiltration facilities would be incorporated to treat runoff from new or replaced hard surfaces generated as a part of the project.

28

April 2023

Valley Creek Daylighting Feasibility Assessment | Port Angeles, Washington

Fish Passable Bridge or C 35 foot Minimum Hy

Existing Waterfront Trail (Olympic Discovery Trail)

W Marine

Dr.

Parking impacts: Loss of southern-most parking space.

W

2n

dS t.

Parking impacts: Loss of parking lot width. Convert parking lot to parallel parking for 5 spaces. Dependant on final daylighted stream bank width.

Valley Street Closed between W. 2nd Street and W. 1st Street.

Exiting Valley Creek culvert ties directly into daylighted creek.

ey St.

Existing Valley Creek Culvert.

SV all

Marine Drive and W. 2nd Street.

Modify curb/intersection and add left turn lane for westbound traffic along Marine Dr.

Retaining Wall (0-3ft sh Height depend daylighted sec

Figure 16.

Alternative 1 - Valley Street Alignment

Regrade portion of Valley Creek Estuary near outlet to allow for widened crossing.

Legend Stormwater Collection Points Daylighted Creek Trail Modified curb Stream Breaklines

e Crossing Culvert ydraulic Opening

Structures Roadway Stripiing Crosswalk Improvement Existing Culvert Contour (1ft) Parcel

r.

Marine D

Creekside shared use trail (15 feet wide with a 10 foot wide trail) W

1s

tS t.

Marine Drive and W. 1st Street. Modify curb to reduce westbound Marine Dr. to a left-hand turn only. Move Intersection Improvements at existing crosswalk to he east and add additional crosswalk to Marine Dr. and W. 1st St. improve circulation. Add High-Intensity Activated Crosswalks (HAWKs) with Assessable Pedestrian Signals (APSs) for safety at crossing.

Move crosswalk

W Marine Dr.

Marine Dr. W

SV all ey St.

l Structure hown) ds on final ction width.

Remove portion of abandoned 4ft industrial water line.

1s

tS t.

E 0

40

80

160

Feet

Add crosswalk

ESRI World Imagery (2022) K:\Projects\Y2019\19-07050-000\Pro\ValleyCreek\ValleyCreek_Report2022\ValleyCreek_Report2022.aprx\Alternative 1

Alternative 2: Western Alignment Overview This alternative proposes to daylight Valley Creek following an alignment to the west of the existing Valley Creek Culvert. Figure 17 presents the conceptual layout for it. The alternative utilizes several Port and City-owned properties to daylight the creek between existing roadways and would not require the closure of any existing roads. The space available with this alternative would be sufficient to daylight a 35-foot-wide bankfull creek channel with additional room along the alignment to introduce a gentle meander and for the creation of a floodplain bench. No retaining wall structures would be required along the daylighted creek corridor due to the additional space available on the parcels that would be used for the alternative, however the use of the City-owned property along West 2nd Street would require the removal of existing structures and pavement. This property is currently used as a storage/maintenance yard and is paved with one building structure.

Two fish passable structures would be required to cross West 2nd Street and Marine Drive with a minimum hydraulic opening of 35 feet, the same as with Alternative 1. Downstream of the Marine Drive crossing, a segment of daylighted creek would be excavated to connect the creek to the Valley Creek Estuary and match the grade of the existing stream bed at the estuary. An additional section of storm drain, a 7-foot-diameter pipe or similar, would be needed to convey flows from the upstream remaining portions of the Valley Creek Culvert to the daylighted channel. This proposed section of storm drain is necessary for the current project while the upstream culvert remains intact but is “temporary” in that it would be anticipated to be replaced with a fish passable crossing or continuation of creek daylighting with a future daylighting project. See the Project Phasing and Future Daylighting Compatibility section of this report for additional information. This alternative alignment does not provide good opportunities to incorporate a shared use trail along the entire length of daylighted creek corridor, so a trail has not been included in the alternative at this time. However, this alternative would be compatible with the planned extension of the Waterfront Trail along Marine Drive, west of the Friendship Bridge at the Valley Creek Estuary, which would provide additional opportunity for public access and use of the project corridor.

Transportation and Pedestrian Mobility No modifications to existing street intersections would be required to maintain traffic circulation for this alternative. Pedestrian and mobility improvements proposed for the crosswalks at the intersection of Marine Drive and West 1st Street would be the same as described for Alternative 1.

Stormwater Management Opportunities This alternative would include the construction and retrofits of existing catch basin facilities to treat stormwater runoff and incorporate additional “green” stormwater treatment features, where feasible, similar to Alternative 1.

April 2023

31

Valley Creek Daylighting Feasibility Assessment | Port Angeles, Washington

Existing Waterfront Trail (Olympic Discovery Trail)

Remove portion of abandoned 4ft industrial water line.

W Marine Proposed alternative does not include shared use trail but is compatible with City-planned extension of Waterfront Trail along Marine Drive within street ROW. (PURPLE fill area)

Dr.

Fish Passable Crossing Bridge or Culvert 35 foot Minimum Hydraulic Opening

W

2n

dS t.

Fish Passable Crossing Bridge or Culvert 35 foot Minimum Hydraulic Opening

Creek Daylighting requires removal of existing structures.

Existing Valley Creek Culvert.

Existing Waterfront Trail (Olympic Discovery Trail) Existing Trail west of Friendship Bridge will end.

Potential observation/picnic area.

Figure 17.

Alternative 2 - Western Alignment

Legend Stormwater Collection Points Crosswalk Improvement Temporary Culvert Connection Stream Breaklines Structures Existing Culvert

r.

Marine D

ey St.

W

SV all

Contour (1ft)

Regrade portion of Valley Creek Estuary near outlet to tie daylighted creek.

Parcel Daylighted Creek

1s

tS t.

Move existing crosswalk to the east.

Add crosswalk to eastbound lane of Marine Dr. Add High-Intensity Activated Crosswalks (HAWKs) with Assessable Pedestrian Signals (APSs) for safety.

Potential for shared use trail along Valley Street as a separate project to provide direct access to future trails along Valley Creek corridor.

E Temporary pipe connection required to tie into existing culvert. To be replaced as part of future daylighting project.

0

40

80

160

Feet

ESRI World Imagery (2022) K:\Projects\Y2019\19-07050-000\Pro\ValleyCreek\ValleyCreek_Report2022\ValleyCreek_Report2022.aprx\Alternative 2

Alternative 3: Valley Creek Park Overview This alternative proposes the creation of park open space using the properties bounded by Marine Drive, Valley Street, and West 2nd Street, and utilizing a portion of the available space to daylight Valley Creek.

Figure 18 presents the conceptual layout for it. The space available with this alternative would allow for the creation of a 35-foot-wide creek section with additional room along the alignment to introduce a gentle meander, construct a wide floodplain bench, and provide a wide riparian buffer. No additional retaining wall structures would be required along the daylighted creek corridor. One fish passable crossing would be needed at Marine Drive with a minimum hydraulic opening of 35 feet. Downstream of that crossing, a segment of daylighted creek would be excavated to connect the creek to the Valley Creek Estuary and match the grade of the existing stream bed at the estuary, similar to Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. An additional section of storm drain, a 7-foot-diameter pipe or similar, would be needed to convey flows from the upstream remaining portions of the Valley Creek Culvert to the daylighted channel, similar to Alternative 2. As described for Alternative 2, this section of storm drain is also considered to be “temporary” in that it would be anticipated to be replaced with a fish passable crossing or continuation of creek daylighting with a future daylighting project.

The creation of the public park space would require the use of several Port-owned and privately-owned properties and the removal of existing structures and pavement from the properties within the identified park space. Two of the privately owned properties, which are sites of known or suspected soil contamination, would require the contamination to be remediated in order to daylight the creek. The additional land area available with this alternative would allow for a portion of the new park space to be utilized for excavating the creek daylighting corridor and the remaining portions outside of the excavation area to be utilized for a vegetative buffer, passive open space, active park use, or other facilities.

Along the east side of the daylighted channel there would be space for a 10-foot-wide shared use trail and the required shoulder buffers. A pedestrian handrail may be needed to separate non-motorized traffic on the trail from the embankment slope, depending on the final design and location. Additionally, this alternative would be compatible with the planned extension of the Waterfront Trail along Marine Drive, west of the Friendship Bridge at the Valley Creek Estuary, which would provide additional opportunity for public access and use of the project corridor.

Transportation and Pedestrian Mobility No modifications to existing street intersections would be required to maintain traffic circulation for this alternative. Pedestrian and mobility improvements proposed for the crosswalks at the intersection of Marine Drive and West 1st Street would be the same as described for Alternative 1 and 2.

April 2023

35

Valley Creek Daylighting Feasibility Assessment | Port Angeles, Washington

Stormwater Management Opportunities This alternative would include the construction and retrofits of existing catch basin facilities to treat stormwater runoff and incorporate additional “green” stormwater treatment features, where feasible, similar to Alternative 1 and 2.

36

April 2023

Valley Creek Daylighting Feasibility Assessment | Port Angeles, Washington

Proposed alternative is compatible with City-planned extension of Waterfront Trail along Marine Drive within street ROW. (PURPLE fill area) Existing Waterfront Trail (Olympic Discovery Trail)

Remove portion of abandoned 4ft industrial water line.

Fish Passable Crossing Bridge or Culvert 35 foot Minimum Hydraulic Opening

W Marine D

r.

W

2n

dS t.

Non-Creek Daylighting Area Available for open space, park use, or other facilities.

Existing Valley Creek Culvert.

Existing Trail west of Friendship Bridge will end.

Potential observation/picnic area.

Existing Waterfront Trail (Olympic Discovery Trail)

Figure 18.

Alternative 3 - Valley Creek Park

Legend Stormwater Collection Points Openspace Non-Creek Area Trail Daylighted Creek

r.

Marine D

Existing Pipe

Regrade portion of Valley Creek Estuary near outlet to tie daylighted creek.

Temporary Culvert Connection Stream Breaklines Structures Crosswalk Improvement Contour (1ft)

SV all

ey St.

W

Parcel

1s

tS t.

Move existing crosswalk to the east. Add crosswalk to eastbound lane of Marine Dr. Add High-Intensity Activated Crosswalks (HAWKs) with Assessable Pedestrian Signals (APSs) for safety.

Creek Daylighting requires removal of existing structures and remediation of 2 sites listed for known or potential soil and groundwater contamination

Temporary pipe connection required to tie into existing culvert. To be replaced as part of future daylighting project.

E 0

40

80

160

Feet

ESRI World Imagery (2022) K:\Projects\Y2019\19-07050-000\Pro\ValleyCreek\ValleyCreek_Report2022\ValleyCreek_Report2022.aprx\Alternative 3

Alternative 4: Valley Creek Park Extension Overview This alternative includes a combination of project components from Alternatives 1 and 3 to create an extended, larger park area and open space as compared to Alternative 3. Figure 19 presents the conceptual layout for it. This alternative would utilize the properties bounded by Marine Drive, Valley Street, and West 2nd Street and the Valley Street ROW. As a result, it would require the closure of Valley Street between West 2nd Street and West 1st Street. The additional space would enable more park space and additional riparian buffer for the daylighted creek.

The available space would allow for the creation of a 35-foot-wide creek section with additional room along the alignment to introduce a gentle meander, construct a wide floodplain bench, and provide a wider riparian buffer (recommended) than would be possible with Alternative 3. One fish passable crossing would be required at Marine Drive with a minimum hydraulic opening of 35 feet, the same as with Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. Downstream of that crossing, a segment of daylighted creek would be excavated to connect the creek to the Valley Creek Estuary and match the grade of the existing stream bed at the estuary, similar to Alternatives 1, 2 and 3. An additional section of storm drain, a 7-foot diameter pipe or similar, would be needed to convey flows from the upstream remaining portions of the Valley Creek Culvert to the daylighted channel, similar to Alternatives 2 and 3. As described for Alternatives 2 and 3, this section of storm drain is also considered to be “temporary” in that it would be anticipated to be replaced with a fish passable crossing or continuation of creek daylighting with a future daylighting project.

The creation of the public park space would require the use of several Port-owned and privately-owned properties, the use of public road ROW, and the removal of existing structures and pavement from the properties within the identified park space. Two of the required privately-owned properties for the park are sites of known or suspected soil contamination. As with Alternative 3, the contamination would have to be remediated in order to daylight the creek. The additional space available with this alternative would allow for a portion of the park to be utilized for excavating the creek daylighting corridor and the remaining portions outside of the excavation area to be utilized for passive open space, active park use, or other facilities.

Along the east side of the daylighted channel, there would be space for a 10-foot-wide shared use trail and the required shoulder buffers. A pedestrian handrail may be needed to separate non-motorized traffic on the trail from the embankment slope, depending on the final design and location. Additionally, this alternative would be compatible with the planned extension of the Waterfront Trail along Marine Drive, west of the Friendship Bridge at the Valley Creek Estuary, which would provide additional opportunity for public access and use of the project corridor.

April 2023

39

Valley Creek Daylighting Feasibility Assessment | Port Angeles, Washington

Transportation and Pedestrian Mobility Due to the required closure of Valley Street, this alternative includes modifications to the intersections at West 2nd Street and Marine Drive and at Marine Drive and West 1st Street to maintain traffic circulation, similar to Alternative 1. The Marine Drive and West 2nd Street intersection would be modified to add a westbound left turn lane along Marine Drive to allow traffic from downtown to be able to access West 2nd Street. Additionally, the curb island at Marine Drive and West 1st street would be extended to remove the westbound lane of Marine Drive which currently allows traffic to drive south on Valley Street, due to the closure.

Pedestrian and mobility improvements proposed for the crosswalks at the intersection of Marine Drive and West 1st Street would be the same as described for Alternative 1, 2, and 3.

Stormwater Management Opportunities This alternative would include the construction and retrofits of existing catch basin facilities to treat stormwater runoff and incorporate additional “green” stormwater treatment features, where feasible, similar to Alternative 1, 2, and 3.

40

April 2023

Valley Creek Daylighting Feasibility Assessment | Port Angeles, Washington

Existing Waterfront Trail (Olympic Discovery Trail)

Proposed alternative is compatible with City-planned extension of Waterfront Trail along Marine Drive within street ROW. (PURPLE fill area)

Remove portion of abandone 4ft industrial water line.

Fish Passable Crossing Bridge or Culvert 35 foot Minimum Hydraulic Opening

W Marine

Dr.

Marine Drive and W. 2nd Street.

Modify curb/intersection and add left turn lane for westbound traffic along Marine Dr. Non-Creek Daylighting Area Available for open space, park use, or other facilities.

Temporary pipe connection required to tie into existing culvert. To be replaced as part of future daylighting project.

Existing Valley Creek Culvert.

Alternative 4 - Extended Valley Creek Park

Existing Trail west of Friendship Bridge will end. Potential observation/picnic area.

Legend Stormwater Collection Points Modified curb Trail Daylighted Creek Openspace Non-Creek Area

r.

Marine D

Existing Pipe Temporary Culvert Connection W

Stream Breaklines

1s

tS t. Drive and W. 1st Marine Street. Modify curb to reduce westbound Marine Dr. to a left-hand turn only. Move existing crosswalk to he east and add additional crosswalk to improve circulation. Add High-Intensity Activated Crosswalks (HAWKs) with Assessable Pedestrian Signals (APSs) for safety at crossing.

Structures Roadway Striping Crosswalk Improvement Parcel Contour (1ft)

Creek Daylighting requires removal of existing structures and remediation of 2 sites listed for known or potential soil and groundwater contamination

SV all ey St.

ed

Existing Waterfront Trail (Olympic Discovery Trail)

Regrade portion of Valley Creek Estuary near outlet to tie daylighted creek.

Figure 4.

Figure 4.

19.

Figure

W

2n

dS t.

Valley Street Closed between W. 2nd Street and W. 1st Street.

Used for additional riparian buffer and open space for the creek.

E 0

40

80

160

Feet

ESRI World Imagery (2022) K:\Projects\Y2019\19-07050-000\Pro\ValleyCreek\ValleyCreek_Report2022\ValleyCreek_Report2022.aprx\Alternative 4

Assessment Criteria Descriptions Table 3 presents the criteria used to assess the benefits and drawbacks for each of the proposed alternatives. For each criterion, the four alternatives were scored with a value between 1 and 5. A value of 1 indicates a poor score, which is the least favorable score for each criterion evaluated. A value of 5 indicates the most favorable score for each criterion evaluated.

Table 3. Valley Creek Alternatives Assessment Criteria Descriptions.

Criterion

Description

Performance 1

Fish Passage

Quantitative/qualitative assessment of the ability for adult salmonids and Pacific Lamprey to navigate through the daylighted creek corridor and proposed road crossings. The assessment utilizes results from the hydraulic modeling conducted for the study and considers the applicability of WDFW stream crossing design. A stream simulation approach was adopted to help ensure that suitable flow velocities would be achieved for all alternatives. Additional criteria considered include swimming velocities for lamprey, assumed at 2.8 ft/s and swimming speed metrics for juvenile and adult salmonids typically used for hydraulically designed culverts, which range from 1-2 ft/s and 2-4 ft/s, respectively. Additional considerations for lamprey included conditions which inhibit their passage such as vertical steps and perched culvert conditions. Generally, higher flow velocities make fish passage more difficult when above the range of swimmable velocities for each species during their use of the habitat.

2

Hydraulic Performance

Hydraulic performance considers a variety of flow rates and anticipated freeboard at the 100-year flood flow, to prevent flooding of adjacent land and streets. This criterion also considers any impacts to the hydraulic performance of the remaining portions of the Valley Creek Culvert. This criterion does not include flooding risk, which is covered in Criterion 10.

3

Geomorphic Implications.

Qualitative assessment of anticipated geomorphic implications after the construction of each of the alternatives. This assessment considers the space available for natural geomorphic processes and the potential for sedimentation to occur without compromising other desired outcomes.

4

Instream and Floodplain Habitat Creation and Complexity

Qualitative assessment of the anticipated quality of instream and floodplain habitat. Key considerations include the space available for geomorphic adjustments and habitat creation, available floodplain areas, and the degree of floodplain connectivity. Additional considerations include the ability to incorporate habitat features such as Large Woody Material (LWM).

5

Riparian Buffer

Qualitative assessment of the potential buffer area provided for the daylighted creek in each of the alternatives. This criterion relies on evaluations of the stream corridor and open space widths available for planting.

6

Pedestrian Mobility and Trail Compatibility

Qualitative assessment of the potential for the project to improve pedestrian mobility and accessibility for disabled people, the degree to which a shared use trail(s) could be incorporated into the project, and project compatibility with future planned trail corridor improvements.

April 2023

43

Valley Creek Daylighting Feasibility Assessment | Port Angeles, Washington

Table 3 (continued). Valley Creek Alternati7ves Assessment Criteria Descriptions.

Criterion

Description

Performance (continued) 7

Community Utilization

Qualitative assessment of the level of community utilization of the finished daylighting project. This criterion includes consideration of use of trails and paths, use of park/open space, and educational opportunities.

8

Stormwater Management Opportunities

Quantitative assessment of the potential for treating stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces and runoff in the immediate areas around the daylighting project. Scoring based on square feet of treatable impervious surfaces. A higher score indicates that the project alignment is compatible with intercepting and treating more runoff from impervious surfaces. Additionally, this criterion qualitatively considers opportunities to implement green stormwater infrastructure and other management BMPs.

Impacts 9

Cultural Resources

Qualitative assessment of the potential impacts to cultural resources, using the findings from the cultural resources assessment presented in this report and consultation with interested Tribes.

10

Flooding Risk

Quantitative assessment of the potential flooding impacts based on the capacity of each alternative to convey the 100-year recurrence FEMA flow rate.

11

Existing Utilities

Qualitative assessment of the impacts to existing utilities. Scores for this criterion are based on the number of known utilities in conflict with the project and the perceived complexity of to relocate them. All alternatives would require utility relocations. While no single utility was determined to prohibit any of the alternatives, the combined complexity and extent of utility relocations could significantly influence the overall project cost, depending on the final design.

12

Post Project Transportation Impacts

Qualitative assessment of the post-project impacts to traffic and circulation as compared to the existing condition. The scoring for this criterion assumes that the traffic and roadway modifications described for each alternative would be implemented.

13

Existing Property Access

Qualitative and quantitative assessment of the impacts of each alternative on access to existing properties adjacent to the project site.

14

Port Property–Existing and Future Land Use Impacts

Qualitative and quantitative assessment of the impacts of each alternative on Port of Port Angeles property, considering both existing and planned uses.

15

City Property and ROW– Existing and Future Land Use Impacts

Qualitative and quantitative assessment of the impacts of each alternative on City of Port Angeles property, considering both existing and planned uses.

16

Existing Site Contamination

Qualitative assessment of the potential impacts or added complexity that known site contamination could introduce for each alternative. Each alternative is likely to require consideration and management of site contamination to some extent.

Implementation 17

Right of Way and Easement Needs/Complexity

Quantitative assessment of the number of individual parcels that would be involved in each alternative, potential private property acquisition needs, and a qualitative assessment of the complexity that right of way needs would add to project implementation.

18

Future Daylighting Compatibility

Qualitative assessment of the compatibility of each alternative with future daylighting projects planned for the remaining portions of the Valley Creek Culvert to the south of West 2nd Street.

44

April 2023

Valley Creek Daylighting Feasibility Assessment | Port Angeles, Washington

Table 3 (continued). Valley Creek Alternati7ves Assessment Criteria Descriptions.

Criterion

Description

Implementation (continued) 19

Cost Considerations

Qualitative assessment of the primary project components that would influence overall project cost. This assessment is not based on itemized cost estimation, but a comparison of project components between the alternatives.

20

Cost Uncertainty

Qualitative assessment which highlights the degree of uncertainty that may influence overall project cost for specific project components.

21

Project Longevity and Future Maintenance

Qualitative assessment which considers the viability of each alternative over time regarding future maintenance needs, including sedimentation issues.

22

Grant Funding Potential

Qualitative assessment of factors that could affect future grant funding success.

Scoring Results And Discussion Table 4 highlights the draft scoring for each of the four alternatives. Alternative 3 scores the highest, followed by Alternative 4, Alternative 2, and Alternative 1 in that order. A detailed summary of the information used to support the scoring results is presented in Appendix E. Draft scoring results from the assessment were presented to the GLAC members at a meeting on November 18, 2021. Minor updates to the final scoring were made based on the discussions and input provided during this meeting; however, the changes did not affect the overall score rankings.

Performance Category Discussion Generally, Alternatives 3 and 4 scored significantly higher than Alternatives 1 and 2 in the performance categories, indicating that they could yield more value across the range of benefits considered. A summary of the scoring results comparison for each of the criteria used is as follows: 1. Fish Passage–Each alternative scored the same, due to the low available slope for the creek daylighting and resulting low flow velocities.

2. Hydraulic Performance–Each alternative scored well regarding hydraulic characteristics at a range of flow rates and the ability to convey the 100-year flowrate, however Alternative 2 scored lower due to a lower available freeboard (space between the top of the crossing structure and the water surface during a 100-year flood event). No alternative would negatively impact the remaining portions of the existing culvert.

3. 4. and 5. Geomorphic, Habitat, and Riparian Buffer–Alternatives 3 and 4 scored generally higher due to the additional space for the creek provided by the creation of a park/open space area, followed by Alternative 2 which would provide additional space but is more limited, and lastly by Alternative 1 which is the most space limited due to the width of the existing Valley Street ROW. 6. Pedestrian Mobility and Trail Compatibility–Each alternative has good potential for inclusion of a shared use trail, except for Alternative 2, which is less favorable for this criterion due to its location offset from the existing streets intersection and adjacent to developed properties.

April 2023

45

Valley Creek Daylighting Feasibility Assessment | Port Angeles, Washington

7. Community Utilization–Alternatives 3 and 4 scored highest due to the perceived value in both park/open space and trail connectivity.

8. Stormwater Management Opportunities–All alternatives scored similarly with minor differences primarily attributed to differences between the contributing impervious surface areas from which runoff could be treated.

Impact Category Discussion Alternatives 2 and 3 scored much better overall for the Impact criteria, followed by Alternative 4 and Alternative 1.

1. Cultural Resources–Each of the alternatives would have similar potential to encounter cultural resources during construction, but no known resources in the area would preclude any of the alternatives.

2. Flooding Risk–Each alternative scored similarly considering flooding risk with a slightly lower score for Alternative 2 due to lower freeboard.

3. Existing Utilities–Alternative 1 scored the lowest for impacts to existing utilities, due to the perceived difficulty in realigning many of the utilities along Valley Street and throughout the intersection at Marine Drive, although no alternative is without the need for utility relocations.

4. Post-project Transportation Impacts–Alternatives 1 and 4 scored lower than Alternatives 2 and 3 for post-project transportation impacts due to the need to reroute traffic due to the closure of Valley Street. No significant impacts to traffic circulation are anticipated for any alternative with the appropriate intersection improvements included, as necessary.

5. Existing Property Access–Only Alternative 1 would affect existing access to properties due to the utilization of the Valley Street ROW, which encompasses portions of the current parking lots for properties along Valley Street.

6. and 15. Port Property and City Property–The impacts to Port- and City-owned property would vary widely among the alternatives due to which specific properties would be utilized for the project, thereby precluding other land uses, and is reflected in the scoring results.

16. Site Contamination–Alternatives 3 and 4 scored the lowest since utilizing properties for the park/open space areas would require remediation of known contamination. The other two alternatives would encounter a lesser extent of potential contamination during construction or require additional design considerations.

46

April 2023

Valley Creek Daylighting Feasibility Assessment | Port Angeles, Washington

Valley Creek Daylighting Feasibi Table 4: Screening Criteria Matrix for Comparing Herrera Environmental Cons December 16, 202 Score color code:

9) Cultural Resources

10) Flooding Risk

11) Existing Utilities

3

3.5

3.1

4

5

1

5

3

2.5

3

3

2

2

4

3.1

4

4

3.5

Alternative 3 Valley Creek Park

5

4

3

4

4

5

4.5

4

4.2

4

5

3

Alternative 4 Valley Creek Park Extension

5

5

3

Alternative 2 Western Alignment

Performance

1

4

3

4

60BValley Creek Daylighting Feasibility Assessment | Port Angeles, Washington

5

5

5

4

4

4.4

47

12) Post Project Transportation

8) Stormwater Management Opportunities

Average Score ‐ Performance

7) Community Utilization

5

Alternative 1 Valley Street Alignment

5) Riparian Buffer 2

3) Geomorphic Implications

1

2) Hydraulic Performance

1.5

1) Fish Passage

4

Evaluation Criteria

5

Alternative

April 2023

6) Pedestrian Mobility and Trail Compatibility

4) Instream and Floodplain Habitat Creation and Complexity

po

Impact Category Average Score ‐ Implementation

22) Grant Funding Potential

21) Project Longevity and Future Maintenance

good

20) Cost Uncertainty

4.5

19) Cost Considerations

neutral 4

18) Future Daylighting Compatibility

3.5

17) Right of Way and Easement Needs/Complexity

ok 3

Average Score ‐ Impact

2.5

16) Existing Site Contamination

oor 2

15) City Property and ROW ‐ Existing and Future Land Use Impacts

1.5

14) Port Property ‐ Existing and Future Land Use Impacts

1

13) Existing Property Access

Impacts

ility Assessment g Conceptual Design Alternatives sultants, Inc. 22 5

very good

Implementation Category Total Average Score

3 2.5 4 1 2.5 2.9 5 5 3 3 3.5 2 3.6 Alt 1 3.2

4 5 2 2.5 2.5 3.4 3 4 3 4 3 3 3.3 Alt 2 3.3

4 5 1 5 1 3.5 1.5 4 2 2 3.5 4 2.8 Alt 3 3.6

3 5 1 1 1 2.9 1 4 1 2 3.5 5 2.8 Alt 4 3.4

Implementation Category Discussion Generally, Alternatives 3 and 4 are the most challenging, and therefore they scored somewhat lower than Alternatives 1 and 2 for the Implementation criteria. Alternative 1 scored the highest in the Implementation criteria, overall.

1. Right of Way and Easement Needs/Complexity–Alternative 1 would require the least additional right of way for project implementation, followed by Alternative 2, Alternative 3, and lastly Alternative 4, which would require the most right of way and the highest number of property acquisitions.

2. Future Daylighting Compatibility–Each alternative would be compatible with future projects to remove the remaining portions of the existing Valley Creek Culvert, however, Alternative 1 is the most compatible since it would directly connect to the existing culvert, thereby not requiring any temporary piping.

3. Cost Considerations–Alternatives 1 and 2 would likely be less costly than Alternatives 3 and 4, however it should be noted that this was based on a qualitative assessment of the primary project components and itemized cost estimates have not been prepared at this time. The higher perceived costs for Alternatives 3 and 4 stem from additional property acquisition, removal of structures, and remediation of contaminated properties.

4. Cost Uncertainty–Alternatives 3 and 4 scored the lowest since the extents of existing soil contamination are not currently known.

5. Project Longevity and Future Maintenance–Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, scored similarly with only Alternative 2 being lower, which was primarily based on future sea level rise predictions and future sedimentation that could result. Each alternative would experience sedimentation over time, however the lower freeboard for Alternative 2 means it has the highest potential for additional maintenance in the future.

Grant Funding Potential–Alternatives 3 and 4 are likely to be the most competitive for future funding due to the higher ecological lift they could accomplish, and greater extent of public park/open space they would create as compared to Alternatives 1 and 2. This is not to say, however, that Alternatives 1 and 2 do not provide benefits and would not be fundable by available grants.

April 2023

49

Valley Creek Daylighting Feasibility Assessment | Port Angeles, Washington

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE SELECTION After the presentation of alternatives to the GLAC at the November 18, 2021 meeting, GLAC members were asked to anonymously rank their preferences for the four alternatives for Valley Creek daylighting described in this report. This included an opportunity to provide comments, which are included (anonymous to the GLAC member) in Appendix F. A total of nine GLAC members submitted votes, which are summarized in Table 5 below.

Table 5. GLAC member Alterative Preference Ranking Summary.

Alternative 1 Valley Street Alignment First Choice

Alternative 2 Western Alignment 2 votes

Second Choice

Alternative 3 Valley Creek Park

Alternative 4 Valley Creek Park Extension

3 votes

4 votes

5 votes

4 votes

Third Choice

3 votes

4 votes

1 vote

1 vote

Fourth Choice

6 votes

1 vote

1 vote

1 vote

The results of the GLAC member voting highlight that park features, as included in Alternatives 3 and 4, are part of the most desirable project alternative configuration, as indicated by 78 percent of the vote for a ”first choice” between these two alternatives. In the first choice scoring, Alternative 4 was the most preferred alternative, receiving one more vote than Alternative 3 received. Further discussion with the City clarified that the City representative in the GLAC voted for Alternative 3 as a first choice, however the City would select Alternative 4 as their first choice with a modification to the type of intersection proposed at Marine Drive and West 2nd Street. The City’s preference would be for a roundabout intersection in lieu of the curb and turn lane improvements shown in Figure 16, and Futurewise supported this proposed modification as part of the selection of the preferred alternative. With the modification to Alternative 4 and the City’s updated preference, the first choice vote tally for Alternative 4 would increase to 5 GLAC members and the first choice vote tally for Alternative 3 would decrease to 2.

In consideration of the alternative assessment scoring results (Table 4), and the vote ranking and input from the GLAC and the City of Port Angeles (Table 5), Alternative 4 was selected as the GLAC’s preferred alternative with the proposed street intersection modification as previously described.

A roundabout intersection was considered in the Traffic and Mobility Assessment conducted for this study by TranTech and DKS Associates at Marine Drive and West 2nd Street. DKS identified that there appears to be sufficient space for a compact roundabout at the intersection. However, in developing Alternative 4, a roundabout was not included, largely due to unknown future pedestrian crossing needs and semi-truck traffic along Marine Drive heading eastbound. If the City’s preference is for a roundabout at this location, and it meets their needs and requirements, it will be included in the preferred alternative.

In addition to offering the greatest ecological benefit, Alternative 4 is the most flexible and provides the widest range of design options and opportunities moving forward. The GLAC and project partners April 2023

51

Valley Creek Daylighting Feasibility Assessment | Port Angeles, Washington

selected Alternative 4 as the preferred alternative based on their expertise and in-depth analysis of the site, however the project design is expected to evolve to meet the needs and requirements of the key property owners and stakeholders. This alternative concept is intended to provide a starting point for the outreach and stakeholder discussions during the subsequent phases of project planning and outreach.

52

April 2023

Valley Creek Daylighting Feasibility Assessment | Port Angeles, Washington

REFERENCES Castro, J.M. and P.L. Jackson. 2001. Bankfull Discharge Recurrence Intervals and Regional Hydraulic Geometry Relationships: Patterns in the Pacific Northwest, USA. DNR. 2023. Washington Department of Natural Resources Geologic Information Portal. Accessed January 2023.

Faustini, J.M. P.R. Kaufmann, and A.T. Herlihy. 2009. Downstream Variation in Bankfull Width of Wadable Streams Across the Conterminous United States.

FEMA. 1990. Flood Insurance Study City of Port Angeles, Washington, Clallam County. Revised September 28.

Herrera. 2009. Geomorphic Report, Port Angeles Harbor, Draft. Prepared for Ecology & Environment, April.

McHenry, M. and L. Odenweller. 1998. Restoration of an Urbanized Watershed in the City of Port Angeles: Recommendations for Improved Salmonid Habitat in Valley Creek, Washington.

NRCS. 2023. Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey. Accessed January, 2023.

Szatlocky, M. 2011. Valley Creek Culvert Basis for Hydraulic Calculations, Prepared for the City of Port Angeles. Draft. June 6.

Waterfall Engineering, L.L.C., Natural Systems Design, Toth Consulting, and NTI Northwest. 2011. Valley Creek Phase 3 Design, Basis for Design Report.

Wegmann, K.W., D.R. Bohnenstiehl, J.D. Bowman, J.A. Homburg, J.D. Windingstad, and D. Beery. 2012.

Assessing Coastal Landscape Change for Archaeological Purposes: Integrating Shallow Geophysics, Historical Archives and Geomorphology at Port Angeles, Washington.

April 2023

53

Valley Creek Daylighting Feasibility Assessment | Port Angeles, Washington

This page intentionally left blank

APPENDIX A Desktop Review May 2022 Presentation to GLAC

Valley Creek Daylighting Feasibility Assessment

Valley Creek Daylighting Feasibility Assessment

Today’s Agenda 1. Present preliminary findings from Task 2: Data Review and Desktop Analysis 2. Review potential alternatives 3. Open discussion and feedback 4. Next Steps

Study Overview Assessment of stream routing alternatives From Phase 3 to estuary

o Alt 1 and Alt 2 shown, potential 3rd

Milestone 1 (Now) Data Review

Milestone 2 (Next)

Existing Conditions and Restoration History

Existing Conditions and Restoration History

Valley Creek Year:1852

Valley Creek Year:1892

Existing Conditions: Valley Creek Culvert 6th Street to estuary outfall Varied size:

o 7ft Corrugated Metal Pipe o Short Transition 7ft reinforced concrete box o 8ft Reinforced Concrete Box

Approximately 2100 ft long

Existing Conditions: Valley Creek Culvert 6th Street End Phase 3 3rd Street

Steep upper section

• Steep upper section: ~ 3.5% to 1.2% • Mild lower section: ~ 0.4% to .7% • 10 -14 feet below existing ground • Mean Higher High Tide ~6.6ft

W. 2nd Street

Marine Drive

Mild lower section

Drop due to 4ft Industrial Water Pipe

Restoration History

PHASE 1

Phase 1 - Estuary (complete) Phase 2 – WDFW remeandering (complete) Phase 3 (Designed) Numerous property acquired along Valley Creek Corridor (blue)

PHASE 3 (Designed)

PHASE 2

Restoration History Phase 3 overview 10th Street to 3rd Street.

Upstream restoration Daylights 500ft of Creek Baffles for steep upper sections of culvert (1.2% to 3.5%) Utilizes City owned property

End of Phase 3

Arch Pipe Connection (with baffles)

~800ft of 7ft Pipe to remain with baffles

Daylighted Creek ~ 500ft

Re-meander the creek and habitat restoration

Hydrology and Geomorphology Hydrology

o 2yr = 134 cfs o 100yr = 354 cfs

Bankfull Width

o Phase 2/3 = 20-25 feet with low flow channel o Regression Eq’s = ~20-30ft.

MINIMUM 65 feet (channel only) MINIMUM 80 foot section (with trail)

Hydrology and Geomorphology Sedimentation/depositional Potential for channel movement and erosion Slopes will be low: 0.44-.5% Prelim hydraulics show low velocities: 3-4 ft/s **Give the Creek space **Eliminate downstream drop to match existing estuary grade **Fish passage will be feasible

Minimum Typical Section with Trail

End of Phase 3

Project Phasing

@ W. 2nd Street and Valley Street

Project Phasing End of Phase 3

Identifiable Phase limit at W. 2nd Street.

Current study (Phase 4) Future Daylighting (Phase 5)

• Bottle Neck at W. 2nd Street for last o Between potential daylighted creek, road, and buildings

Project Phasing Option 1 – Full property acquisition and close Valley St.

o Sole access road o 49 Parcels owned by City (blue) o 29 parcels with structures, not owned by city. o Additional parcels w/o structures

Project Phasing Future Daylighting (PHASE 5)

Option 2 – East Valley Street Realignment o 14 parcels o 8 parcels with structures o Slope ~ 1.2%

Creek already on east side of Valley Street.

End of Phase 3

Questions at this time?

Preliminary Findings and Alternatives

Study Area

Port of Port Angeles K Ply Site

Marine Drive Chevron Port of Port Angeles Property

Port of Port Angeles Properties

City of Port Angeles Properties

Utilities

Yellow = Power Blue = Water Purple = Sewer Green = Stormwater

Utilities

Potential Soil Contamination K Ply Site – Remediated to Industrial Standards, *Environmental Covenant*

Old Site of Underground Fuel Tanks, Listed, needs study Marine Drive Chevron – Partially remediated, remaining contamination

Cleanup Complete (Jackpot Food Mart)

Alternative 1 Valley Street Alignment

Green = Daylighted Creek Purple = Bridge or Culvert

Red line = Existing Culvert Maroon Dash = Future Daylighting Fish Passable Crossing ~ 35ft Wide

White Line = edge of pavement

80ft ROW corridor for Daylighting.

Valley Street closed

Could add baffles to improve passage until Phase 5 daylighting Phase 4 ties directly to existing culvert End of Phase 3

Alternative 1 Valley Street Alignment

TRAFFIC IMPACTS Yellow = Closed Road = Bridge or Culvert Red Arrow = Traffic Impact Green Arrow = Traffic Alternative Maroon = Parking/access impacts

Alternative 2 Western Alignment

Daylighting width depends on ROW acquisition limits. Min = 80ft width

Green = Daylighted Creek Purple = Bridge or Culvert

Red line = Existing Culvert Orange Dash = Future Daylighting White Line = edge of pavement Blue Arrow = Lateral Storm drain inputs

Fish Passable Crossing ~ 35ft Wide 100ft ROW for Daylighting.

Fish Passable Crossing ~ 35ft Wide

Potential Baffles Added (may not be necessary) End of Phase 3

Temporary 7ft pipe connection to existing culvert

K PLY SITE – Marine Trade Center Plan

K PLY SITE – Environmental Covenant Restrictions

Estuary

1st Street

Alternative 3a Valley Creek Park

Daylighting width depends on ROW acquisition limits. Min = 80ft width

Green = Daylighted Creek BLUE = Park/Open Space

Purple = Bridge or Culvert Red line = Existing Culvert Green Dash= Future Daylighting Fish Passable Crossing ~ 35ft Wide

Non creek area used for Park Open Space 150-250 width for Daylighting.

Potential Baffles Added (may not be necessary)

End of Phase 3

Temporary 7ft pipe connection to existing culvert

White Line = edge of pavement

Alternative 3b Valley Creek Park

Green = Daylighted Creek BLUE = Park/Open Space

Purple = Bridge or Culvert Red line = Existing Culvert Green Dash= Future Daylighting

Avoids K Ply Site Fish Passable Crossing ~ 35ft Wide

Non creek area used for Park Open Space

White Line = edge of pavement

150-250 width for Daylighting.

Potential Baffles Added (may not be necessary)

Temporary 7ft pipe connection to existing culvert

End of Phase 3

In conclusion Take Aways

No single constraint prevents them from working Primary Constraints = Space and Right of Way Stakeholder support and buy-in will be key!

Utilities likely manageable, though will incur costs Soil contamination like for any alterative, use it as an opportunity to address!

Sedimentation expected, more space = better Flooding not a concern Fish Passage not a concern

END

Randy Johnson Concept Rendition

THANK YOU! Recommendation

Continue remainder of Assessment Alt 1, 2, and 3a 3b will be a discussion/part of Alt 3a

Questions and Feedback

Feasibility Assessment Schedule

APPENDIX B Hydraulic Modeling Data

This page intentionally left blank

EXISTING VALLEY CREEK CULVERT

WSPGW

100YR FEMAW FLOWRATE SPGW - 545 CFS

T1 Valley Creek Existing Condtions Hydraulic Model T2 Pipe Geometry and Elevations Based on NTI 2001 Survey and City Sizing Map T3 FEMA FLOWRATE AND DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION @9.6ft SO R R TS R TS R R R R TS R R R R R R R R R R SH CD CD CD CD CD Q

1001.244 .215 1 1114.240 1.256 1 .013 1115.244 1.265 1 .013 1123.803 5.400 2 .015 1132.209 5.443 2 .015 1135.209 5.459 4 .015 1141.175 5.489 4 .015 1515.710 7.401 4 .015 1528.008 7.448 4 .015 1576.536 7.631 4 .015 1586.028 8.103 6 .015 1591.856 8.145 6 .013 1813.929 9.762 6 .013 1903.213 10.230 6 .013 2242.213 14.280 6 .013 2499.213 18.050 6 .013 2652.213 20.640 6 .013 2885.213 25.700 6 .013 2920.213 26.890 6 .013 2951.213 27.680 6 .013 3062.213 30.090 6 .013 3062.213 30.090 6 1 4 1 .000 7.000 .000 2 3 0 .000 4.500 8.000 4 3 0 .000 7.000 8.000 5 3 0 .000 7.330 8.000 6 4 1 .000 7.000 .000 545.000 .0

9.600

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000

30.090 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

0

-4.154 0 .000 0 .000 1 .000 0 .000 0 .000 0 .000 0 .000 0 .000 1 .000 0 .000 1 .000 0 .000 1 .000 0 .000 0 .000 0 .000 0

ཪ FILE: VC_7FTFEMA_3.WSW

W S P G W - CIVILDESIGN Version 14.11 PAGE 1 Program Package Serial Number: 7397 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING Date: 8-17-2022 Time: 5:28:49 Valley Creek Existing Condtions Hydraulic Model Pipe Geometry and Elevations Based on NTI 2001 Survey and City Sizing Ma p FEMA FLOWRATE AND DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION @9.6ft ************************************************************************************************************************** ******** | Invert | Depth | Water | Q | Vel Vel | Energy | Super |Critical|Flow Top|Height/|Base Wt| |No Wth Station | Elev | (FT) | Elev | (CFS) | (FPS) Head | Grd.El.| Elev | Depth | Width |Dia.-FT|or I.D.| ZL |Prs/Pip -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-| L/Elem |Ch Slope | | | | SF Ave| HF |SE Dpth|Froude N|Norm Dp | "N" | X-Fall| ZR |Type Ch *********|*********|********|*********|*********|*******|*******|*********|*******|********|********|*******|*******|***** |******* | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1001.244 .215 9.385 9.600 545.00 14.16 3.11 12.71 .00 6.05 .00 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||112.996 .0092 .0073 .82 9.39 .00 5.14 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1114.240 1.256 9.209 10.465 545.00 14.16 3.11 13.58 .00 6.05 .00 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||1.004 .0090 .0073 .01 9.21 .00 5.20 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1115.244 1.265 9.207 10.472 545.00 14.16 3.11 13.59 .00 6.05 .00 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||TRANS STR .4831 .0097 .08 9.21 .00 .015 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1123.803 5.400 4.820 10.220 545.00 15.14 3.56 13.78 .00 4.50 8.00 4.500 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||8.406 .0051 .0144 .12 4.82 1.26 4.50 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1132.209 5.443 5.075 10.518 545.00 15.14 3.56 14.08 .00 4.50 8.00 4.500 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||TRANS STR .0053 .0042 .01 5.08 1.26 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1135.209 5.459 7.384 12.843 545.00 9.73 1.47 14.31 .00 5.24 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||5.966 .0050 .0042 .03 7.38 .65 5.53 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1141.175 5.489 7.379 12.868 545.00 9.73 1.47 14.34 .00 5.24 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||337.813 .0051 .0042 1.42 7.38 .65 5.50 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1478.989 7.214 7.071 14.284 545.00 9.73 1.47 15.75 .00 5.24 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||HYDRAULIC JUMP | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1478.989 7.214 3.729 10.943 545.00 18.27 5.18 16.12 .00 5.24 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||2.373 .0051 .0142 .03 3.73 1.67 5.50 .015 .00 .00 BOX W S P G W - CIVILDESIGN Version 14.11 PAGE 2 ཪ FILE: VC_7FTFEMA_3.WSW Program Package Serial Number: 7397 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING Date: 8-17-2022 Time: 5:28:49 Valley Creek Existing Condtions Hydraulic Model Pipe Geometry and Elevations Based on NTI 2001 Survey and City Sizing Ma

p FEMA FLOWRATE AND DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION @9.6ft ************************************************************************************************************************** ******** | Invert | Depth | Water | Q | Vel Vel | Energy | Super |Critical|Flow Top|Height/|Base Wt| |No Wth Station | Elev | (FT) | Elev | (CFS) | (FPS) Head | Grd.El.| Elev | Depth | Width |Dia.-FT|or I.D.| ZL |Prs/Pip -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-| L/Elem |Ch Slope | | | | SF Ave| HF |SE Dpth|Froude N|Norm Dp | "N" | X-Fall| ZR |Type Ch *********|*********|********|*********|*********|*******|*******|*********|*******|********|********|*******|*******|***** |******* | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1481.362 7.226 3.718 10.944 545.00 18.32 5.21 16.16 .00 5.24 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||34.348 .0051 .0152 .52 3.72 1.67 5.50 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1515.710 7.401 3.545 10.946 545.00 19.22 5.73 16.68 .00 5.24 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||12.298 .0038 .0167 .20 3.55 1.80 6.16 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1528.008 7.448 3.477 10.925 545.00 19.59 5.96 16.88 .00 5.24 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||18.910 .0038 .0178 .34 3.48 1.85 6.19 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1546.918 7.519 3.375 10.894 545.00 20.19 6.33 17.22 .00 5.24 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||29.618 .0038 .0198 .59 3.37 1.94 6.19 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1576.536 7.631 3.218 10.849 545.00 21.17 6.96 17.81 .00 5.24 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||TRANS STR .0497 .0164 .16 3.22 2.08 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1586.028 8.103 5.234 13.337 545.00 17.66 4.84 18.18 .00 6.05 6.08 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||5.828 .0072 .0088 .05 5.23 1.38 5.77 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1591.856 8.145 5.223 13.368 545.00 17.70 4.86 18.23 .00 6.05 6.09 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||121.603 .0073 .0094 1.14 5.22 1.39 5.74 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1713.459 9.030 4.993 14.024 545.00 18.56 5.35 19.37 .00 6.05 6.33 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||100.470 .0073 .0105 1.05 4.99 1.52 5.74 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1813.929 9.762 4.781 14.543 545.00 19.46 5.88 20.42 .00 6.05 6.51 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||30.420 .0052 .0114 .35 4.78 1.65 7.00 .013 .00 .00 PIPE W S P G W - CIVILDESIGN Version 14.11 PAGE 3 ཪ FILE: VC_7FTFEMA_3.WSW Program Package Serial Number: 7397 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING Date: 8-17-2022 Time: 5:28:49 Valley Creek Existing Condtions Hydraulic Model Pipe Geometry and Elevations Based on NTI 2001 Survey and City Sizing Ma p FEMA FLOWRATE AND DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION @9.6ft ************************************************************************************************************************** ******** | Invert | Depth | Water | Q | Vel Vel | Energy | Super |Critical|Flow Top|Height/|Base Wt| |No Wth Station | Elev | (FT) | Elev | (CFS) | (FPS) Head | Grd.El.| Elev | Depth | Width |Dia.-FT|or I.D.| ZL |Prs/Pip -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|

L/Elem |Ch Slope | | | | SF Ave| HF |SE Dpth|Froude N|Norm Dp | "N" | X-Fall| ZR |Type Ch *********|*********|********|*********|*********|*******|*******|*********|*******|********|********|*******|*******|***** |******* | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1844.349 9.921 4.679 14.601 545.00 19.93 6.17 20.77 .00 6.05 6.59 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||58.864 .0052 .0125 .74 4.68 1.72 7.00 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1903.213 10.230 4.489 14.719 545.00 20.91 6.79 21.50 .00 6.05 6.71 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||169.100 .0119 .0137 2.32 4.49 1.87 4.65 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2072.313 12.250 4.375 16.625 545.00 21.54 7.20 23.83 .00 6.05 6.78 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||169.900 .0119 .0152 2.58 4.38 1.96 4.65 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2242.213 14.280 4.203 18.483 545.00 22.59 7.92 26.40 .00 6.05 6.86 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||4.161 .0147 .0161 .07 4.20 2.12 4.33 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2246.374 14.341 4.201 18.542 545.00 22.60 7.93 26.47 .00 6.05 6.86 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||252.839 .0147 .0172 4.34 4.20 2.12 4.33 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2499.213 18.050 4.038 22.088 545.00 23.70 8.72 30.81 .00 6.05 6.92 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||153.000 .0169 .0187 2.85 4.04 2.29 4.13 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2652.213 20.640 3.978 24.618 545.00 24.14 9.05 33.67 .00 6.05 6.93 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||101.381 .0217 .0186 1.88 3.98 2.36 3.82 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2753.594 22.842 4.051 26.893 545.00 23.61 8.65 35.55 .00 6.05 6.91 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||131.619 .0217 .0170 2.24 4.05 2.28 3.82 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2885.213 25.700 4.215 29.915 545.00 22.51 7.87 37.78 .00 6.05 6.85 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||8.205 .0340 .0157 .13 4.22 2.11 3.35 .013 .00 .00 PIPE W S P G W - CIVILDESIGN Version 14.11 PAGE 4 ཪ FILE: VC_7FTFEMA_3.WSW Program Package Serial Number: 7397 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING Date: 8-17-2022 Time: 5:28:49 Valley Creek Existing Condtions Hydraulic Model Pipe Geometry and Elevations Based on NTI 2001 Survey and City Sizing Ma p FEMA FLOWRATE AND DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION @9.6ft ************************************************************************************************************************** ******** | Invert | Depth | Water | Q | Vel Vel | Energy | Super |Critical|Flow Top|Height/|Base Wt| |No Wth Station | Elev | (FT) | Elev | (CFS) | (FPS) Head | Grd.El.| Elev | Depth | Width |Dia.-FT|or I.D.| ZL |Prs/Pip -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-| L/Elem |Ch Slope | | | | SF Ave| HF |SE Dpth|Froude N|Norm Dp | "N" | X-Fall| ZR |Type Ch *********|*********|********|*********|*********|*******|*******|*********|*******|********|********|*******|*******|***** |******* | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2893.418 25.979 4.259 30.238 545.00 22.23 7.67 37.91 .00 6.05 6.83 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||-

26.795

ཪ

|

2920.213 -|31.000 | 2951.213 -|32.917 | 2984.130 -|29.651 | 3013.781 -|21.500 | 3035.281 -|14.790 | 3050.071 -|9.031 | 3059.102 -|3.111 | 3062.213 -|-

.0340

| 26.890 -|.0255 | 27.680 -|.0217 | 28.395 -|.0217 | 29.038 -|.0217 | 29.505 -|.0217 | 29.826 -|.0217 | 30.022 -|.0217 | 30.090 -|-

|

|

4.436 -|-

31.326 -|-

| 4.595 -|-

| 32.275 -|-

| 4.759 -|-

| 33.154 -|-

| 4.970 -|-

| 34.009 -|-

| 5.198 -|-

| 34.703 -|-

| 5.449 -|-

| 35.275 -|-

| 5.728 -|-

| 35.751 -|-

| 6.052 -|-

| 36.142 -|-

|

545.00 21.19 -|-|-

.0146

|

6.98 -|.0130 | | 545.00 20.35 6.43 -|-|-|.0118 | | 545.00 19.56 5.94 -|-|-|.0106 | | 545.00 18.65 5.40 -|-|-|.0095 | | 545.00 17.78 4.91 -|-|-|.0085 | | 545.00 16.95 4.46 -|-|-|.0077 | | 545.00 16.17 4.06 -|-|-|.0070 | | 545.00 15.41 3.69 -|-|-|-

.39

|

38.30 -|.40 | 38.71 -|.39 | 39.09 -|.31 | 39.41 -|.20 | 39.61 -|.13 | 39.74 -|.07 | 39.81 -|.02 | 39.83 -|-

4.26

|

2.07

|

3.35

|

.013

|

.00 6.05 6.75 7.000 -|-|-|-|4.44 1.91 3.64 .013 | | | | .00 6.05 6.65 7.000 -|-|-|-|4.60 1.79 3.82 .013 | | | | .00 6.05 6.53 7.000 -|-|-|-|4.76 1.67 3.82 .013 | | | | .00 6.05 6.35 7.000 -|-|-|-|4.97 1.53 3.82 .013 | | | | .00 6.05 6.12 7.000 -|-|-|-|5.20 1.40 3.82 .013 | | | | .00 6.05 5.81 7.000 -|-|-|-|5.45 1.27 3.82 .013 | | | | .00 6.05 5.40 7.000 -|-|-|-|5.73 1.14 3.82 .013 | | | | .00 6.05 4.79 7.000 -|-|-|-|-

.00

PIPE | .000 .00 1 .0 -||.00 .00 PIPE | | .000 .00 1 .0 -||.00 .00 PIPE | | .000 .00 1 .0 -||.00 .00 PIPE | | .000 .00 1 .0 -||.00 .00 PIPE | | .000 .00 1 .0 -||.00 .00 PIPE | | .000 .00 1 .0 -||.00 .00 PIPE | | .000 .00 1 .0 -||.00 .00 PIPE | | .000 .00 1 .0 -|||

.00

2YR CFS WS- 134 PGW

T1 Valley Creek Existing Condtions Hydraulic Model T2 Pipe Geometry and Elevations Based on NTI 2001 Survey and City Sizing Map T3 2 YEAR FLOW OF 134CFS AND DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION AT MHH @6.6ft SO R R TS R TS R R R R TS R R R R R R R R R R SH CD CD CD CD CD Q

1001.244 .215 1 1114.240 1.256 1 .013 1115.244 1.265 1 .013 1123.803 5.400 2 .015 1132.209 5.443 2 .015 1135.209 5.459 4 .015 1141.175 5.489 4 .015 1515.710 7.401 4 .015 1528.008 7.448 4 .015 1576.536 7.631 4 .015 1586.028 8.103 6 .015 1591.856 8.145 6 .013 1813.929 9.762 6 .013 1903.213 10.230 6 .013 2242.213 14.280 6 .013 2499.213 18.050 6 .013 2652.213 20.640 6 .013 2885.213 25.700 6 .013 2920.213 26.890 6 .013 2951.213 27.680 6 .013 3062.213 30.090 6 .013 3062.213 30.090 6 1 4 1 .000 7.000 .000 2 3 0 .000 4.500 8.000 4 3 0 .000 7.000 8.000 5 3 0 .000 7.330 8.000 6 4 1 .000 7.000 .000 134.000 .0

6.600

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000

30.090 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

0

-4.154 0 .000 0 .000 1 .000 0 .000 0 .000 0 .000 0 .000 0 .000 1 .000 0 .000 1 .000 0 .000 1 .000 0 .000 0 .000 0 .000 0

ཪ FILE: VC_7FT_2YR.WSW

W S P G W - CIVILDESIGN Version 14.11 PAGE 1 Program Package Serial Number: 7397 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING Date:12-19-2022 Time: 1:12:30 Valley Creek Existing Condtions Hydraulic Model Pipe Geometry and Elevations Based on NTI 2001 Survey and City Sizing Ma p 2 YEAR FLOW OF 134CFS AND DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION AT MHH @6.6ft ************************************************************************************************************************** ******** | Invert | Depth | Water | Q | Vel Vel | Energy | Super |Critical|Flow Top|Height/|Base Wt| |No Wth Station | Elev | (FT) | Elev | (CFS) | (FPS) Head | Grd.El.| Elev | Depth | Width |Dia.-FT|or I.D.| ZL |Prs/Pip -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-| L/Elem |Ch Slope | | | | SF Ave| HF |SE Dpth|Froude N|Norm Dp | "N" | X-Fall| ZR |Type Ch *********|*********|********|*********|*********|*******|*******|*********|*******|********|********|*******|*******|***** |******* | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1001.244 .215 6.385 6.600 134.00 3.64 .21 6.81 .00 2.99 3.96 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||41.326 .0092 .0004 .02 6.38 .21 2.22 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1042.570 .596 6.000 6.596 134.00 3.82 .23 6.82 .00 2.99 4.90 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||33.284 .0092 .0004 .01 6.00 .25 2.22 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1075.855 .902 5.685 6.587 134.00 4.00 .25 6.84 .00 2.99 5.47 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||28.498 .0092 .0005 .01 5.69 .29 2.22 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1104.353 1.165 5.411 6.576 134.00 4.20 .27 6.85 .00 2.99 5.86 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||9.887 .0092 .0005 .00 5.41 .32 2.22 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1114.240 1.256 5.315 6.571 134.00 4.27 .28 6.85 .00 2.99 5.99 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||1.004 .0090 .0005 .00 5.32 .33 2.24 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1115.244 1.265 5.306 6.571 134.00 4.28 .28 6.86 .00 2.99 6.00 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||TRANS STR .4831 5.31 .33 .015 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1123.803 5.400 1.974 7.374 134.00 8.48 1.12 8.49 .00 2.06 8.00 4.500 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||8.406 .0051 .0050 .04 1.97 1.06 1.97 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1132.209 5.443 1.979 7.422 134.00 8.46 1.11 8.53 .00 2.06 8.00 4.500 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||TRANS STR .0053 .0051 .02 1.98 1.06 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1135.209 5.459 1.971 7.430 134.00 8.50 1.12 8.55 .00 2.06 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||5.966 .0050 .0051 .03 1.97 1.07 1.98 .015 .00 .00 BOX W S P G W - CIVILDESIGN Version 14.11 PAGE 2 ཪ FILE: VC_7FT_2YR.WSW Program Package Serial Number: 7397 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING Date:12-19-2022 Time: 1:12:30 Valley Creek Existing Condtions Hydraulic Model Pipe Geometry and Elevations Based on NTI 2001 Survey and City Sizing Ma

p 2 YEAR FLOW OF 134CFS AND DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION AT MHH @6.6ft ************************************************************************************************************************** ******** | Invert | Depth | Water | Q | Vel Vel | Energy | Super |Critical|Flow Top|Height/|Base Wt| |No Wth Station | Elev | (FT) | Elev | (CFS) | (FPS) Head | Grd.El.| Elev | Depth | Width |Dia.-FT|or I.D.| ZL |Prs/Pip -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-| L/Elem |Ch Slope | | | | SF Ave| HF |SE Dpth|Froude N|Norm Dp | "N" | X-Fall| ZR |Type Ch *********|*********|********|*********|*********|*******|*******|*********|*******|********|********|*******|*******|***** |******* | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1141.175 5.489 1.968 7.457 134.00 8.51 1.13 8.58 .00 2.06 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||164.049 .0051 .0051 .84 1.97 1.07 1.97 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1305.224 6.326 1.968 8.294 134.00 8.51 1.13 9.42 .00 2.06 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||45.189 .0051 .0052 .24 1.97 1.07 1.97 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1350.413 6.557 1.931 8.488 134.00 8.67 1.17 9.66 .00 2.06 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||39.319 .0051 .0058 .23 1.93 1.10 1.97 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1389.733 6.758 1.841 8.599 134.00 9.10 1.29 9.88 .00 2.06 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||27.663 .0051 .0067 .18 1.84 1.18 1.97 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1417.395 6.899 1.756 8.655 134.00 9.54 1.41 10.07 .00 2.06 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||23.453 .0051 .0076 .18 1.76 1.27 1.97 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1440.848 7.019 1.674 8.693 134.00 10.01 1.56 10.25 .00 2.06 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||21.005 .0051 .0088 .18 1.67 1.36 1.97 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1461.853 7.126 1.596 8.722 134.00 10.50 1.71 10.43 .00 2.06 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||19.261 .0051 .0101 .20 1.60 1.46 1.97 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1481.114 7.224 1.522 8.746 134.00 11.01 1.88 10.63 .00 2.06 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||17.880 .0051 .0117 .21 1.52 1.57 1.97 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1498.994 7.316 1.451 8.766 134.00 11.55 2.07 10.84 .00 2.06 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||16.716 .0051 .0134 .22 1.45 1.69 1.97 .015 .00 .00 BOX W S P G W - CIVILDESIGN Version 14.11 PAGE 3 ཪ FILE: VC_7FT_2YR.WSW Program Package Serial Number: 7397 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING Date:12-19-2022 Time: 1:12:30 Valley Creek Existing Condtions Hydraulic Model Pipe Geometry and Elevations Based on NTI 2001 Survey and City Sizing Ma p 2 YEAR FLOW OF 134CFS AND DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION AT MHH @6.6ft ************************************************************************************************************************** ******** | Invert | Depth | Water | Q | Vel Vel | Energy | Super |Critical|Flow Top|Height/|Base Wt| |No Wth Station | Elev | (FT) | Elev | (CFS) | (FPS) Head | Grd.El.| Elev | Depth | Width |Dia.-FT|or I.D.| ZL |Prs/Pip -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|

L/Elem |Ch Slope | | | | SF Ave| HF |SE Dpth|Froude N|Norm Dp | "N" | X-Fall| ZR |Type Ch *********|*********|********|*********|*********|*******|*******|*********|*******|********|********|*******|*******|***** |******* | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1515.710 7.401 1.383 8.784 134.00 12.11 2.28 11.06 .00 2.06 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||12.298 .0038 .0154 .19 1.38 1.81 2.18 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1528.008 7.448 1.326 8.774 134.00 12.63 2.48 11.25 .00 2.06 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||11.154 .0038 .0174 .19 1.33 1.93 2.19 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1539.162 7.490 1.275 8.765 134.00 13.14 2.68 11.45 .00 2.06 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||13.000 .0038 .0198 .26 1.27 2.05 2.19 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1552.161 7.539 1.215 8.754 134.00 13.78 2.95 11.70 .00 2.06 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||12.458 .0038 .0229 .29 1.22 2.20 2.19 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1564.619 7.586 1.159 8.745 134.00 14.46 3.25 11.99 .00 2.06 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||11.917 .0038 .0265 .32 1.16 2.37 2.19 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1576.536 7.631 1.105 8.736 134.00 15.16 3.57 12.31 .00 2.06 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||TRANS STR .0497 .0192 .18 1.10 2.54 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1586.028 8.103 2.346 10.449 134.00 11.85 2.18 12.63 .00 2.99 6.61 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||5.828 .0072 .0075 .04 2.35 1.60 2.37 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1591.856 8.145 2.345 10.490 134.00 11.85 2.18 12.67 .00 2.99 6.61 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||72.871 .0073 .0076 .55 2.34 1.60 2.36 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1664.727 8.676 2.329 11.005 134.00 11.96 2.22 13.22 .00 2.99 6.60 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||149.202 .0073 .0082 1.23 2.33 1.62 2.36 .013 .00 .00 PIPE W S P G W - CIVILDESIGN Version 14.11 PAGE 4 ཪ FILE: VC_7FT_2YR.WSW Program Package Serial Number: 7397 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING Date:12-19-2022 Time: 1:12:30 Valley Creek Existing Condtions Hydraulic Model Pipe Geometry and Elevations Based on NTI 2001 Survey and City Sizing Ma p 2 YEAR FLOW OF 134CFS AND DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION AT MHH @6.6ft ************************************************************************************************************************** ******** | Invert | Depth | Water | Q | Vel Vel | Energy | Super |Critical|Flow Top|Height/|Base Wt| |No Wth Station | Elev | (FT) | Elev | (CFS) | (FPS) Head | Grd.El.| Elev | Depth | Width |Dia.-FT|or I.D.| ZL |Prs/Pip -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-| L/Elem |Ch Slope | | | | SF Ave| HF |SE Dpth|Froude N|Norm Dp | "N" | X-Fall| ZR |Type Ch *********|*********|********|*********|*********|*******|*******|*********|*******|********|********|*******|*******|***** |******* | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1813.929 9.762 2.251 12.013 134.00 12.54 2.44 14.45 .00 2.99 6.54 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||-

17.107

.15 2.25 1.73 2.58 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | 2.54 14.61 .00 2.99 6.51 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0099 .38 2.22 1.78 2.58 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | 2.144 12.196 134.00 13.40 2.79 14.99 .00 2.99 6.45 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0113 .39 2.14 1.90 2.58 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | 2.072 12.302 134.00 14.06 3.07 15.37 .00 2.99 6.39 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0127 2.83 2.07 2.03 2.08 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | 2.023 14.919 134.00 14.53 3.28 18.20 .00 2.99 6.35 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0142 1.64 2.02 2.12 2.08 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | 1.956 16.236 134.00 15.24 3.61 19.84 .00 2.99 6.28 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0156 2.08 1.96 2.27 1.97 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | 1.926 18.167 134.00 15.56 3.76 21.93 .00 2.99 6.25 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0172 2.12 1.93 2.34 1.97 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | 1.862 19.912 134.00 16.32 4.14 24.05 .00 2.99 6.19 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0186 .84 1.86 2.50 1.90 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | 1.847 20.656 134.00 16.50 4.23 24.88 .00 2.99 6.17 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0203 2.19 1.85 2.53 1.90 .013 .00 .00 PIPE W S P G W - CIVILDESIGN Version 14.11 PAGE 5 Program Package Serial Number: 7397 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING Date:12-19-2022 Time: 1:12:30 Valley Creek Existing Condtions Hydraulic Model Pipe Geometry and Elevations Based on NTI 2001 Survey and City Sizing Ma p 2 YEAR FLOW OF 134CFS AND DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION AT MHH @6.6ft ************************************************************************************************************************** ******** | Invert | Depth | Water | Q | Vel Vel | Energy | Super |Critical|Flow Top|Height/|Base Wt| |No Wth Station | Elev | (FT) | Elev | (CFS) | (FPS) Head | Grd.El.| Elev | Depth | Width |Dia.-FT|or I.D.| ZL |Prs/Pip -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-| L/Elem |Ch Slope | | | | SF Ave| HF |SE Dpth|Froude N|Norm Dp | "N" | X-Fall| ZR |Type Ch *********|*********|********|*********|*********|*******|*******|*********|*******|********|********|*******|*******|***** |******* | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2652.213 20.640 1.786 22.426 134.00 17.31 4.65 27.08 .00 2.99 6.10 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||233.000 .0217 .0211 4.91 1.79 2.71 1.78 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2885.213 25.700 1.810 27.510 134.00 16.98 4.48 31.99 .00 2.99 6.13 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||15.552 .0340 .0197 .31 1.81 2.64 1.59 .013 .00 .00 PIPE |

.0052

| 1831.036 9.852 -|-|38.185 .0052 | | 1869.221 10.052 -|-|33.992 .0052 | | 1903.213 10.230 -|-|223.156 .0119 | | 2126.369 12.896 -|-|115.844 .0119 | | 2242.213 14.280 -|-|133.682 .0147 | | 2375.895 16.241 -|-|123.318 .0147 | | 2499.213 18.050 -|-|44.859 .0169 | | 2544.072 18.809 -|-|108.141 .0169 ཪ FILE: VC_7FT_2YR.WSW

| 2.219 -|-

| 12.071 -|-

| 134.00 12.78 -|-|-

.0090

| | 2900.765 26.229 -|-|19.448 .0340 | | 2920.213 26.890 -|-|4.128 .0255 | | 2924.341 26.995 -|-|26.872 .0255 | | 2951.213 27.680 -|-|19.699 .0217 | | 2970.912 28.108 -|-|23.406 .0217 | | 2994.318 28.616 -|-|17.499 .0217 | | 3011.817 28.996 -|-|13.497 .0217 ཪ FILE: VC_7FT_2YR.WSW

| 1.849 -|-

| 28.078 -|-

| 134.00 16.47 -|-|-

| | | | | | | | 4.21 32.29 .00 2.99 6.17 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0176 .34 1.85 2.53 1.59 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | 1.914 28.804 134.00 15.70 3.83 32.63 .00 2.99 6.24 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0163 .07 1.91 2.37 1.71 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | 1.922 28.917 134.00 15.61 3.78 32.70 .00 2.99 6.25 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0152 .41 1.92 2.35 1.71 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | 1.989 29.669 134.00 14.88 3.44 33.11 .00 2.99 6.31 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0136 .27 1.99 2.20 1.78 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | 2.033 30.141 134.00 14.43 3.23 33.37 .00 2.99 6.36 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0122 .29 2.03 2.10 1.78 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | 2.104 30.720 134.00 13.76 2.94 33.66 .00 2.99 6.42 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0107 .19 2.10 1.97 1.78 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | 2.178 31.174 134.00 13.12 2.67 33.85 .00 2.99 6.48 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0093 .13 2.18 1.84 1.78 .013 .00 .00 PIPE W S P G W - CIVILDESIGN Version 14.11 PAGE 6 Program Package Serial Number: 7397 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING Date:12-19-2022 Time: 1:12:30 Valley Creek Existing Condtions Hydraulic Model Pipe Geometry and Elevations Based on NTI 2001 Survey and City Sizing Ma p 2 YEAR FLOW OF 134CFS AND DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION AT MHH @6.6ft ************************************************************************************************************************** ******** | Invert | Depth | Water | Q | Vel Vel | Energy | Super |Critical|Flow Top|Height/|Base Wt| |No Wth Station | Elev | (FT) | Elev | (CFS) | (FPS) Head | Grd.El.| Elev | Depth | Width |Dia.-FT|or I.D.| ZL |Prs/Pip -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-| L/Elem |Ch Slope | | | | SF Ave| HF |SE Dpth|Froude N|Norm Dp | "N" | X-Fall| ZR |Type Ch *********|*********|********|*********|*********|*******|*******|*********|*******|********|********|*******|*******|***** |******* | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3025.314 29.289 2.254 31.543 134.00 12.51 2.43 33.97 .00 2.99 6.54 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||10.412 .0217 .0082 .09 2.25 1.72 1.78 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3035.725 29.515 2.334 31.849 134.00 11.93 2.21 34.06 .00 2.99 6.60 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||8.099 .0217 .0072 .06 2.33 1.61 1.78 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3043.825 29.691 2.417 32.108 134.00 11.37 2.01 34.12 .00 2.99 6.66 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||6.257 .0217 .0063 .04 2.42 1.51 1.78 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | |

ཪ

3050.081 -|4.748 | 3054.829 -|3.427 | 3058.256 -|2.240 | 3060.495 -|1.315 | 3061.811 -|.402 | 3062.213 -|-

29.827 -|.0217 | 29.930 -|.0217 | 30.004 -|.0217 | 30.053 -|.0217 | 30.081 -|.0217 | 30.090 -|-

2.503 -|-

32.330 -|-

| 2.592 -|-

| 32.522 -|-

| 2.685 -|-

| 32.689 -|-

| 2.783 -|-

| 32.836 -|-

| 2.884 -|-

| 32.965 -|-

| 2.991 -|-

| 33.081 -|-

134.00 10.84 -|-|-

1.83 -|.0055 | | 134.00 10.34 1.66 -|-|-|.0048 | | 134.00 9.86 1.51 -|-|-|.0042 | | 134.00 9.40 1.37 -|-|-|.0037 | | 134.00 8.96 1.25 -|-|-|.0033 | | 134.00 8.54 1.13 -|-|-|-

34.15 -|.03 | 34.18 -|.02 | 34.20 -|.01 | 34.21 -|.00 | 34.21 -|.00 | 34.21 -|-

.00 2.99 6.71 7.000 -|-|-|-|2.50 1.41 1.78 .013 | | | | .00 2.99 6.76 7.000 -|-|-|-|2.59 1.32 1.78 .013 | | | | .00 2.99 6.81 7.000 -|-|-|-|2.69 1.23 1.78 .013 | | | | .00 2.99 6.85 7.000 -|-|-|-|2.78 1.15 1.78 .013 | | | | .00 2.99 6.89 7.000 -|-|-|-|2.88 1.07 1.78 .013 | | | | .00 2.99 6.93 7.000 -|-|-|-|-

.000 .00 1 .0 -||.00 .00 PIPE | | .000 .00 1 .0 -||.00 .00 PIPE | | .000 .00 1 .0 -||.00 .00 PIPE | | .000 .00 1 .0 -||.00 .00 PIPE | | .000 .00 1 .0 -||.00 .00 PIPE | | .000 .00 1 .0 -||-

LOW FISH WPASSAGE SPGW - 3 CFS

T1 Valley Creek Existing Condtions Hydraulic Model 0 T2 Pipe Geometry and Elevations Based on NTI 2001 Survey and City Sizing Map T3 LOW FLOW FISH PASSAGE FLOW OF 3CFS AND DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION AT MHH @6.6ft SO R R TS R TS R R R R TS R R R R R R R R R R SH CD CD CD CD CD Q

1001.244 1114.240 1115.244 1123.803 1132.209 1135.209 1141.175 1515.710 1528.008 1576.536 1586.028 1591.856 1813.929 1903.213 2242.213 2499.213 2652.213 2885.213 2920.213 2951.213 3062.213 3062.213 1 4 1 2 3 0 4 3 0 5 3 0 6 4 1

.215 1 1.256 1 .013 1.265 1 .013 5.400 2 .015 5.443 2 .015 5.459 4 .015 5.489 4 .015 7.401 4 .015 7.448 4 .015 7.631 4 .015 8.103 6 .015 8.145 6 .013 9.762 6 .013 10.230 6 .013 14.280 6 .013 18.050 6 .013 20.640 6 .013 25.700 6 .013 26.890 6 .013 27.680 6 .013 30.090 6 .013 30.090 6 .000 7.000 .000 .000 4.500 8.000 .000 7.000 8.000 .000 7.330 8.000 .000 7.000 .000 3.000 .0

6.600

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000

30.090 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

-4.154 0 .000 0 .000 1 .000 0 .000 0 .000 0 .000 0 .000 0 .000 1 .000 0 .000 1 .000 0 .000 1 .000 0 .000 0 .000 0 .000 0

ཪ FILE: VC_7FT_3CFS.WSW

W S P G W - CIVILDESIGN Version 14.11 PAGE 1 Program Package Serial Number: 7397 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING Date:12-19-2022 Time: 1:13:13 Valley Creek Existing Condtions Hydraulic Model Pipe Geometry and Elevations Based on NTI 2001 Survey and City Sizing Ma p LOW FLOW FISH PASSAGE FLOW OF 3CFS AND DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION AT MHH @ ************************************************************************************************************************** ******** | Invert | Depth | Water | Q | Vel Vel | Energy | Super |Critical|Flow Top|Height/|Base Wt| |No Wth Station | Elev | (FT) | Elev | (CFS) | (FPS) Head | Grd.El.| Elev | Depth | Width |Dia.-FT|or I.D.| ZL |Prs/Pip -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-| L/Elem |Ch Slope | | | | SF Ave| HF |SE Dpth|Froude N|Norm Dp | "N" | X-Fall| ZR |Type Ch *********|*********|********|*********|*********|*******|*******|*********|*******|********|********|*******|*******|***** |******* | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1001.244 .215 6.385 6.600 3.00 .08 .00 6.60 .00 .43 3.96 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||41.779 .0092 .0000 .00 6.38 .00 .35 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1043.023 .600 6.000 6.600 3.00 .09 .00 6.60 .00 .43 4.90 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||34.191 .0092 .0000 .00 6.00 .01 .35 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1077.214 .915 5.685 6.600 3.00 .09 .00 6.60 .00 .43 5.47 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||29.741 .0092 .0000 .00 5.69 .01 .35 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1106.955 1.189 5.411 6.600 3.00 .09 .00 6.60 .00 .43 5.86 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||7.285 .0092 .0000 .00 5.41 .01 .35 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1114.240 1.256 5.344 6.600 3.00 .10 .00 6.60 .00 .43 5.95 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||1.004 .0090 .0000 .00 5.34 .01 .36 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1115.244 1.265 5.336 6.601 3.00 .10 .00 6.60 .00 .43 5.96 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||TRANS STR .4831 .0000 .00 5.34 .01 .015 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1123.803 5.400 1.200 6.600 3.00 .31 .00 6.60 .00 .16 8.00 4.500 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||8.406 .0051 .0000 .00 1.20 .05 .17 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1132.209 5.443 1.157 6.600 3.00 .32 .00 6.60 .00 .16 8.00 4.500 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||TRANS STR .0053 .0000 .00 1.16 .05 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1135.209 5.459 1.142 6.601 3.00 .33 .00 6.60 .00 .16 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||5.966 .0050 .0000 .00 1.14 .05 .18 .015 .00 .00 BOX W S P G W - CIVILDESIGN Version 14.11 PAGE 2 ཪ FILE: VC_7FT_3CFS.WSW Program Package Serial Number: 7397

WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING Date:12-19-2022 Time: 1:13:13 Valley Creek Existing Condtions Hydraulic Model Pipe Geometry and Elevations Based on NTI 2001 Survey and City Sizing Ma p LOW FLOW FISH PASSAGE FLOW OF 3CFS AND DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION AT MHH @ ************************************************************************************************************************** ******** | Invert | Depth | Water | Q | Vel Vel | Energy | Super |Critical|Flow Top|Height/|Base Wt| |No Wth Station | Elev | (FT) | Elev | (CFS) | (FPS) Head | Grd.El.| Elev | Depth | Width |Dia.-FT|or I.D.| ZL |Prs/Pip -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-| L/Elem |Ch Slope | | | | SF Ave| HF |SE Dpth|Froude N|Norm Dp | "N" | X-Fall| ZR |Type Ch *********|*********|********|*********|*********|*******|*******|*********|*******|********|********|*******|*******|***** |******* | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1141.175 5.489 1.112 6.601 3.00 .34 .00 6.60 .00 .16 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||10.137 .0051 .0000 .00 1.11 .06 .17 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1151.312 5.541 1.061 6.601 3.00 .35 .00 6.60 .00 .16 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||9.664 .0051 .0000 .00 1.06 .06 .17 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1160.976 5.590 1.011 6.601 3.00 .37 .00 6.60 .00 .16 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||9.214 .0051 .0000 .00 1.01 .06 .17 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1170.190 5.637 .964 6.601 3.00 .39 .00 6.60 .00 .16 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||8.784 .0051 .0000 .00 .96 .07 .17 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1178.974 5.682 .919 6.601 3.00 .41 .00 6.60 .00 .16 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||8.375 .0051 .0000 .00 .92 .07 .17 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1187.349 5.725 .877 6.601 3.00 .43 .00 6.60 .00 .16 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||7.984 .0051 .0000 .00 .88 .08 .17 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1195.333 5.765 .836 6.601 3.00 .45 .00 6.60 .00 .16 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||7.612 .0051 .0000 .00 .84 .09 .17 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1202.946 5.804 .797 6.601 3.00 .47 .00 6.60 .00 .16 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||7.257 .0051 .0000 .00 .80 .09 .17 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1210.203 5.841 .760 6.601 3.00 .49 .00 6.61 .00 .16 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||6.919 .0051 .0000 .00 .76 .10 .17 .015 .00 .00 BOX W S P G W - CIVILDESIGN Version 14.11 PAGE 3 ཪ FILE: VC_7FT_3CFS.WSW Program Package Serial Number: 7397 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING Date:12-19-2022 Time: 1:13:13 Valley Creek Existing Condtions Hydraulic Model

Pipe Geometry and Elevations Based on NTI 2001 Survey and City Sizing Ma p LOW FLOW FISH PASSAGE FLOW OF 3CFS AND DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION AT MHH @ ************************************************************************************************************************** ******** | Invert | Depth | Water | Q | Vel Vel | Energy | Super |Critical|Flow Top|Height/|Base Wt| |No Wth Station | Elev | (FT) | Elev | (CFS) | (FPS) Head | Grd.El.| Elev | Depth | Width |Dia.-FT|or I.D.| ZL |Prs/Pip -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-| L/Elem |Ch Slope | | | | SF Ave| HF |SE Dpth|Froude N|Norm Dp | "N" | X-Fall| ZR |Type Ch *********|*********|********|*********|*********|*******|*******|*********|*******|********|********|*******|*******|***** |******* | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1217.121 5.877 .724 6.601 3.00 .52 .00 6.61 .00 .16 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||6.596 .0051 .0001 .00 .72 .11 .17 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1223.717 5.910 .691 6.601 3.00 .54 .00 6.61 .00 .16 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||6.288 .0051 .0001 .00 .69 .12 .17 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1230.006 5.942 .659 6.601 3.00 .57 .01 6.61 .00 .16 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||5.995 .0051 .0001 .00 .66 .12 .17 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1236.001 5.973 .628 6.601 3.00 .60 .01 6.61 .00 .16 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||5.715 .0051 .0001 .00 .63 .13 .17 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1241.716 6.002 .599 6.601 3.00 .63 .01 6.61 .00 .16 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||5.449 .0051 .0001 .00 .60 .14 .17 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1247.165 6.030 .571 6.601 3.00 .66 .01 6.61 .00 .16 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||5.195 .0051 .0001 .00 .57 .15 .17 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1252.360 6.057 .544 6.601 3.00 .69 .01 6.61 .00 .16 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||4.953 .0051 .0001 .00 .54 .16 .17 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1257.313 6.082 .519 6.601 3.00 .72 .01 6.61 .00 .16 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||4.722 .0051 .0002 .00 .52 .18 .17 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1262.035 6.106 .495 6.601 3.00 .76 .01 6.61 .00 .16 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||4.503 .0051 .0002 .00 .49 .19 .17 .015 .00 .00 BOX W S P G W - CIVILDESIGN Version 14.11 PAGE 4 ཪ FILE: VC_7FT_3CFS.WSW Program Package Serial Number: 7397 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING Date:12-19-2022 Time: 1:13:13 Valley Creek Existing Condtions Hydraulic Model Pipe Geometry and Elevations Based on NTI 2001 Survey and City Sizing Ma p LOW FLOW FISH PASSAGE FLOW OF 3CFS AND DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION AT MHH @

************************************************************************************************************************** ******** | Invert | Depth | Water | Q | Vel Vel | Energy | Super |Critical|Flow Top|Height/|Base Wt| |No Wth Station | Elev | (FT) | Elev | (CFS) | (FPS) Head | Grd.El.| Elev | Depth | Width |Dia.-FT|or I.D.| ZL |Prs/Pip -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-| L/Elem |Ch Slope | | | | SF Ave| HF |SE Dpth|Froude N|Norm Dp | "N" | X-Fall| ZR |Type Ch *********|*********|********|*********|*********|*******|*******|*********|*******|********|********|*******|*******|***** |******* | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1266.538 6.129 .472 6.601 3.00 .79 .01 6.61 .00 .16 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||4.294 .0051 .0002 .00 .47 .20 .17 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1270.832 6.151 .450 6.601 3.00 .83 .01 6.61 .00 .16 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||4.095 .0051 .0003 .00 .45 .22 .17 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1274.927 6.172 .429 6.601 3.00 .87 .01 6.61 .00 .16 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||3.906 .0051 .0003 .00 .43 .24 .17 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1278.833 6.192 .409 6.601 3.00 .92 .01 6.61 .00 .16 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||3.726 .0051 .0003 .00 .41 .25 .17 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1282.559 6.211 .390 6.601 3.00 .96 .01 6.62 .00 .16 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||3.556 .0051 .0004 .00 .39 .27 .17 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1286.115 6.229 .372 6.601 3.00 1.01 .02 6.62 .00 .16 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||3.394 .0051 .0005 .00 .37 .29 .17 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1289.509 6.246 .354 6.601 3.00 1.06 .02 6.62 .00 .16 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||3.241 .0051 .0006 .00 .35 .31 .17 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1292.750 6.263 .338 6.601 3.00 1.11 .02 6.62 .00 .16 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||3.097 .0051 .0006 .00 .34 .34 .17 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1295.846 6.279 .322 6.601 3.00 1.16 .02 6.62 .00 .16 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||2.961 .0051 .0008 .00 .32 .36 .17 .015 .00 .00 BOX W S P G W - CIVILDESIGN Version 14.11 PAGE 5 ཪ FILE: VC_7FT_3CFS.WSW Program Package Serial Number: 7397 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING Date:12-19-2022 Time: 1:13:13 Valley Creek Existing Condtions Hydraulic Model Pipe Geometry and Elevations Based on NTI 2001 Survey and City Sizing Ma p LOW FLOW FISH PASSAGE FLOW OF 3CFS AND DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION AT MHH @ ************************************************************************************************************************** ******** | Invert | Depth | Water | Q | Vel Vel | Energy | Super |Critical|Flow Top|Height/|Base Wt| |No Wth

Station | Elev | (FT) | Elev | (CFS) | (FPS) Head | Grd.El.| Elev | Depth | Width |Dia.-FT|or I.D.| ZL |Prs/Pip -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-| L/Elem |Ch Slope | | | | SF Ave| HF |SE Dpth|Froude N|Norm Dp | "N" | X-Fall| ZR |Type Ch *********|*********|********|*********|*********|*******|*******|*********|*******|********|********|*******|*******|***** |******* | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1298.807 6.294 .307 6.601 3.00 1.22 .02 6.62 .00 .16 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||2.834 .0051 .0009 .00 .31 .39 .17 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1301.641 6.308 .293 6.601 3.00 1.28 .03 6.63 .00 .16 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||2.716 .0051 .0010 .00 .29 .42 .17 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1304.356 6.322 .279 6.601 3.00 1.34 .03 6.63 .00 .16 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||2.607 .0051 .0012 .00 .28 .45 .17 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1306.964 6.335 .266 6.602 3.00 1.41 .03 6.63 .00 .16 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||2.509 .0051 .0014 .00 .27 .48 .17 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1309.473 6.348 .254 6.602 3.00 1.48 .03 6.64 .00 .16 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||2.423 .0051 .0016 .00 .25 .52 .17 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1311.896 6.361 .242 6.603 3.00 1.55 .04 6.64 .00 .16 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||2.353 .0051 .0019 .00 .24 .55 .17 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1314.249 6.373 .231 6.603 3.00 1.62 .04 6.64 .00 .16 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||2.302 .0051 .0022 .01 .23 .60 .17 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1316.551 6.384 .220 6.604 3.00 1.70 .05 6.65 .00 .16 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||2.282 .0051 .0026 .01 .22 .64 .17 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1318.833 6.396 .210 6.606 3.00 1.79 .05 6.66 .00 .16 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||2.315 .0051 .0030 .01 .21 .69 .17 .015 .00 .00 BOX W S P G W - CIVILDESIGN Version 14.11 PAGE 6 ཪ FILE: VC_7FT_3CFS.WSW Program Package Serial Number: 7397 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING Date:12-19-2022 Time: 1:13:13 Valley Creek Existing Condtions Hydraulic Model Pipe Geometry and Elevations Based on NTI 2001 Survey and City Sizing Ma p LOW FLOW FISH PASSAGE FLOW OF 3CFS AND DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION AT MHH @ ************************************************************************************************************************** ******** | Invert | Depth | Water | Q | Vel Vel | Energy | Super |Critical|Flow Top|Height/|Base Wt| |No Wth Station | Elev | (FT) | Elev | (CFS) | (FPS) Head | Grd.El.| Elev | Depth | Width |Dia.-FT|or I.D.| ZL |Prs/Pip -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|

L/Elem |Ch Slope | | | | SF Ave| HF |SE Dpth|Froude N|Norm Dp | "N" | X-Fall| ZR |Type Ch *********|*********|********|*********|*********|*******|*******|*********|*******|********|********|*******|*******|***** |******* | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1321.148 6.408 .200 6.608 3.00 1.87 .05 6.66 .00 .16 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||2.464 .0051 .0035 .01 .20 .74 .17 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1323.612 6.420 .191 6.611 3.00 1.97 .06 6.67 .00 .16 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||2.972 .0051 .0041 .01 .19 .79 .17 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1326.584 6.436 .182 6.617 3.00 2.06 .07 6.68 .00 .16 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||5.068 .0051 .0048 .02 .18 .85 .17 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1331.652 6.461 .175 6.636 3.00 2.15 .07 6.71 .00 .16 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||184.058 .0051 .0051 .94 .17 .91 .17 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1515.710 7.401 .175 7.576 3.00 2.15 .07 7.65 .00 .16 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||2.188 .0038 .0047 .01 .17 .91 .19 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1517.898 7.409 .183 7.592 3.00 2.05 .07 7.66 .00 .16 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||9.332 .0038 .0041 .04 .18 .84 .19 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1527.231 7.445 .191 7.636 3.00 1.97 .06 7.70 .00 .16 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.777 .0038 .0038 .00 .19 .79 .19 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1528.008 7.448 .191 7.639 3.00 1.97 .06 7.70 .00 .16 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||14.197 .0038 .0038 .05 .19 .79 .19 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1542.205 7.502 .191 7.693 3.00 1.96 .06 7.75 .00 .16 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||26.655 .0038 .0038 .10 .19 .79 .19 .015 .00 .00 BOX W S P G W - CIVILDESIGN Version 14.11 PAGE 7 ཪ FILE: VC_7FT_3CFS.WSW Program Package Serial Number: 7397 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING Date:12-19-2022 Time: 1:13:13 Valley Creek Existing Condtions Hydraulic Model Pipe Geometry and Elevations Based on NTI 2001 Survey and City Sizing Ma p LOW FLOW FISH PASSAGE FLOW OF 3CFS AND DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION AT MHH @ ************************************************************************************************************************** ******** | Invert | Depth | Water | Q | Vel Vel | Energy | Super |Critical|Flow Top|Height/|Base Wt| |No Wth Station | Elev | (FT) | Elev | (CFS) | (FPS) Head | Grd.El.| Elev | Depth | Width |Dia.-FT|or I.D.| ZL |Prs/Pip -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-| L/Elem |Ch Slope | | | | SF Ave| HF |SE Dpth|Froude N|Norm Dp | "N" | X-Fall| ZR |Type Ch *********|*********|********|*********|*********|*******|*******|*********|*******|********|********|*******|*******|***** |*******

| | 1568.860 7.602 -|-|HYDRAULIC JUMP | | 1568.860 7.602 -|-|.024 .0038 | | 1568.883 7.602 -|-|.614 .0038 | | 1569.498 7.604 -|-|.634 .0038 | | 1570.131 7.607 -|-|.637 .0038 | | 1570.768 7.609 -|-|.630 .0038 | | 1571.398 7.612 -|-|.615 .0038 | | 1572.013 7.614 -|-|.597 .0038 | | 1572.610 7.616 -|-|.575 .0038 ཪ FILE: VC_7FT_3CFS.WSW

| .191 -|-

| 7.793 -|-

| 3.00 -|-

1.96 -|-

| .138 -|-

| 7.740 -|-

| 3.00 -|-

2.72 -|-

| .06 -|-

| 7.85 -|-

| .00 -|-

.16

| -|-

8.00

|

| | | 7.000 8.000 .00 0 -|-|-||-

.0

| | | | | | | | .11 7.85 .00 .16 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0110 .00 .14 1.29 .19 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | .138 7.740 3.00 2.72 .11 7.85 .00 .16 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0119 .01 .14 1.29 .19 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | .132 7.736 3.00 2.85 .13 7.86 .00 .16 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0140 .01 .13 1.38 .19 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | .126 7.732 3.00 2.99 .14 7.87 .00 .16 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0163 .01 .13 1.49 .19 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | .120 7.729 3.00 3.13 .15 7.88 .00 .16 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0191 .01 .12 1.60 .19 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | .114 7.726 3.00 3.29 .17 7.89 .00 .16 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0224 .01 .11 1.71 .19 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | .109 7.723 3.00 3.45 .18 7.91 .00 .16 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0262 .02 .11 1.84 .19 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | .104 7.720 3.00 3.61 .20 7.92 .00 .16 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0306 .02 .10 1.98 .19 .015 .00 .00 BOX W S P G W - CIVILDESIGN Version 14.11 PAGE 8 Program Package Serial Number: 7397 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING Date:12-19-2022 Time: 1:13:13 Valley Creek Existing Condtions Hydraulic Model Pipe Geometry and Elevations Based on NTI 2001 Survey and City Sizing Ma p LOW FLOW FISH PASSAGE FLOW OF 3CFS AND DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION AT MHH @ ************************************************************************************************************************** ******** | Invert | Depth | Water | Q | Vel Vel | Energy | Super |Critical|Flow Top|Height/|Base Wt| |No Wth Station | Elev | (FT) | Elev | (CFS) | (FPS) Head | Grd.El.| Elev | Depth | Width |Dia.-FT|or I.D.| ZL |Prs/Pip -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-| L/Elem |Ch Slope | | | | SF Ave| HF |SE Dpth|Froude N|Norm Dp | "N" | X-Fall| ZR |Type Ch *********|*********|********|*********|*********|*******|*******|*********|*******|********|********|*******|*******|***** |******* | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1573.185 7.618 .099 7.717 3.00 3.79 .22 7.94 .00 .16 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0

-|-|.552 .0038 | | 1573.736 7.620 -|-|.527 .0038 | | 1574.264 7.622 -|-|.503 .0038 | | 1574.766 7.624 -|-|.478 .0038 | | 1575.244 7.626 -|-|.454 .0038 | | 1575.698 7.628 -|-|.430 .0038 | | 1576.129 7.629 -|-|.407 .0038 | | 1576.536 7.631 -|-|TRANS STR .0497 | | 1586.028 8.103 -|-|5.828 .0072 ཪ FILE: VC_7FT_3CFS.WSW

-|-

-|-

-|-

-|-

-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0359 .02 .10 2.12 .19 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | .094 7.715 3.00 3.98 .25 7.96 .00 .16 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0420 .02 .09 2.28 .19 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | .090 7.712 3.00 4.17 .27 7.98 .00 .16 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0491 .02 .09 2.45 .19 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | .086 7.710 3.00 4.37 .30 8.01 .00 .16 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0575 .03 .09 2.63 .19 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | .082 7.708 3.00 4.59 .33 8.03 .00 .16 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0673 .03 .08 2.83 .19 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | .078 7.706 3.00 4.81 .36 8.07 .00 .16 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0788 .03 .08 3.04 .19 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | .074 7.704 3.00 5.04 .40 8.10 .00 .16 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0923 .04 .07 3.26 .19 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | .071 7.702 3.00 5.29 .43 8.14 .00 .16 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0546 .52 .07 3.50 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | .373 8.476 3.00 3.79 .22 8.70 .00 .43 3.14 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0073 .04 .37 1.33 .37 .013 .00 .00 PIPE W S P G W - CIVILDESIGN Version 14.11 PAGE 9 Program Package Serial Number: 7397 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING Date:12-19-2022 Time: 1:13:13 Valley Creek Existing Condtions Hydraulic Model Pipe Geometry and Elevations Based on NTI 2001 Survey and City Sizing Ma p LOW FLOW FISH PASSAGE FLOW OF 3CFS AND DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION AT MHH @ ************************************************************************************************************************** ******** | Invert | Depth | Water | Q | Vel Vel | Energy | Super |Critical|Flow Top|Height/|Base Wt| |No Wth Station | Elev | (FT) | Elev | (CFS) | (FPS) Head | Grd.El.| Elev | Depth | Width |Dia.-FT|or I.D.| ZL |Prs/Pip -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-| L/Elem |Ch Slope | | | | SF Ave| HF |SE Dpth|Froude N|Norm Dp | "N" | X-Fall| ZR |Type Ch *********|*********|********|*********|*********|*******|*******|*********|*******|********|********|*******|*******|***** |******* | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1591.856 8.145 .373 8.518 3.00 3.79 .22 8.74 .00 .43 3.14 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||190.426 .0073 .0073 1.39 .37 1.33 .37 .013 .00 .00 PIPE

| | 1782.282 9.532 -|-|18.609 .0073 | | 1800.891 9.667 -|-|9.987 .0073 | | 1810.878 9.740 -|-|3.051 .0073 | | 1813.929 9.762 -|-|54.398 .0052 | | 1868.327 10.047 -|-|14.841 .0052 | | 1883.168 10.125 -|-|5.401 .0052 | | 1888.569 10.153 -|-|4.411 .0052 | | 1892.979 10.176 -|-|3.900 .0052 ཪ FILE: VC_7FT_3CFS.WSW

| .373 -|-

| 9.905 -|-

| 3.00 -|-

| | | | | | | | .22 10.13 .00 .43 3.14 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0071 .13 .37 1.33 .37 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | .377 10.044 3.00 3.73 .22 10.26 .00 .43 3.16 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0065 .07 .38 1.31 .37 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | .389 10.129 3.00 3.56 .20 10.33 .00 .43 3.21 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0057 .02 .39 1.22 .37 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | .402 10.164 3.00 3.39 .18 10.34 .00 .43 3.26 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0053 .29 .40 1.15 .40 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | .402 10.449 3.00 3.39 .18 10.63 .00 .43 3.26 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0056 .08 .40 1.14 .40 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | .390 10.515 3.00 3.55 .20 10.71 .00 .43 3.21 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0065 .03 .39 1.22 .40 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | .377 10.530 3.00 3.72 .22 10.75 .00 .43 3.16 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0074 .03 .38 1.30 .40 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | .365 10.541 3.00 3.91 .24 10.78 .00 .43 3.11 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0085 .03 .37 1.39 .40 .013 .00 .00 PIPE W S P G W - CIVILDESIGN Version 14.11 PAGE 10 Program Package Serial Number: 7397 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING Date:12-19-2022 Time: 1:13:13 Valley Creek Existing Condtions Hydraulic Model Pipe Geometry and Elevations Based on NTI 2001 Survey and City Sizing Ma p LOW FLOW FISH PASSAGE FLOW OF 3CFS AND DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION AT MHH @ ************************************************************************************************************************** ******** | Invert | Depth | Water | Q | Vel Vel | Energy | Super |Critical|Flow Top|Height/|Base Wt| |No Wth Station | Elev | (FT) | Elev | (CFS) | (FPS) Head | Grd.El.| Elev | Depth | Width |Dia.-FT|or I.D.| ZL |Prs/Pip -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-| L/Elem |Ch Slope | | | | SF Ave| HF |SE Dpth|Froude N|Norm Dp | "N" | X-Fall| ZR |Type Ch *********|*********|********|*********|*********|*******|*******|*********|*******|********|********|*******|*******|***** |******* | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1896.879 10.197 .354 10.551 3.00 4.10 .26 10.81 .00 .43 3.07 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||3.340 .0052 .0097 .03 .35 1.48 .40 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1900.219 10.214 .343 10.557 3.00 4.30 .29 10.84 .00 .43 3.02 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 3.79 -|-

-|-|2.994 .0052 | | 1903.213 10.230 -|-|303.332 .0119 | | 2206.545 13.854 -|-|22.386 .0119 | | 2228.931 14.121 -|-|13.282 .0119 | | 2242.213 14.280 -|-|214.160 .0147 | | 2456.373 17.422 -|-|20.113 .0147 | | 2476.485 17.717 -|-|22.728 .0147 | | 2499.213 18.050 -|-|118.488 .0169 ཪ FILE: VC_7FT_3CFS.WSW

-|-

-|-

-|-

-|-

-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0112 .03 .34 1.58 .40 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | .332 10.562 3.00 4.51 .32 10.88 .00 .43 2.98 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0119 3.62 .33 1.68 .33 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | .332 14.186 3.00 4.51 .32 14.50 .00 .43 2.98 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0124 .28 .33 1.68 .33 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | .326 14.447 3.00 4.61 .33 14.78 .00 .43 2.95 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0137 .18 .33 1.73 .33 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | .317 14.597 3.00 4.84 .36 14.96 .00 .43 2.91 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0147 3.14 .32 1.85 .32 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | .317 17.738 3.00 4.84 .36 18.10 .00 .43 2.91 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0147 .30 .32 1.85 .32 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | .316 18.033 3.00 4.85 .37 18.40 .00 .43 2.91 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0158 .36 .32 1.85 .32 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | .306 18.356 3.00 5.09 .40 18.76 .00 .43 2.86 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0169 2.01 .31 1.97 .31 .013 .00 .00 PIPE W S P G W - CIVILDESIGN Version 14.11 PAGE 11 Program Package Serial Number: 7397 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING Date:12-19-2022 Time: 1:13:13 Valley Creek Existing Condtions Hydraulic Model Pipe Geometry and Elevations Based on NTI 2001 Survey and City Sizing Ma p LOW FLOW FISH PASSAGE FLOW OF 3CFS AND DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION AT MHH @ ************************************************************************************************************************** ******** | Invert | Depth | Water | Q | Vel Vel | Energy | Super |Critical|Flow Top|Height/|Base Wt| |No Wth Station | Elev | (FT) | Elev | (CFS) | (FPS) Head | Grd.El.| Elev | Depth | Width |Dia.-FT|or I.D.| ZL |Prs/Pip -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-| L/Elem |Ch Slope | | | | SF Ave| HF |SE Dpth|Froude N|Norm Dp | "N" | X-Fall| ZR |Type Ch *********|*********|********|*********|*********|*******|*******|*********|*******|********|********|*******|*******|***** |******* | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2617.701 20.056 .306 20.362 3.00 5.09 .40 20.76 .00 .43 2.86 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||24.415 .0169 .0179 .44 .31 1.97 .31 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2642.116 20.469 .298 20.767 3.00 5.29 .43 21.20 .00 .43 2.83 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||10.096 .0169 .0203 .21 .30 2.08 .31 .013 .00 .00 PIPE

| | 2652.213 20.640 -|-|179.938 .0217 | | 2832.150 24.548 -|-|24.104 .0217 | | 2856.254 25.071 -|-|16.364 .0217 | | 2872.618 25.426 -|-|7.496 .0217 | | 2880.114 25.589 -|-|5.099 .0217 | | 2885.213 25.700 -|-|9.159 .0340 | | 2894.372 26.011 -|-|19.218 .0340 ཪ FILE: VC_7FT_3CFS.WSW

| .289 -|-

| 20.929 -|-

| 3.00 -|-

| | | | | | | | .48 21.41 .00 .43 2.78 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0217 3.91 .29 2.22 .29 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | .289 24.837 3.00 5.55 .48 25.31 .00 .43 2.78 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0221 .53 .29 2.22 .29 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | .286 25.357 3.00 5.62 .49 25.85 .00 .43 2.77 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0242 .40 .29 2.25 .29 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | .277 25.704 3.00 5.89 .54 26.24 .00 .43 2.73 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0277 .21 .28 2.40 .29 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | .268 25.857 3.00 6.18 .59 26.45 .00 .43 2.69 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0318 .16 .27 2.56 .29 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | .260 25.960 3.00 6.48 .65 26.61 .00 .43 2.65 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0338 .31 .26 2.73 .26 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | .261 26.273 3.00 6.45 .65 26.92 .00 .43 2.65 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0314 .60 .26 2.71 .26 .013 .00 .00 PIPE W S P G W - CIVILDESIGN Version 14.11 PAGE 12 Program Package Serial Number: 7397 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING Date:12-19-2022 Time: 1:13:13 Valley Creek Existing Condtions Hydraulic Model Pipe Geometry and Elevations Based on NTI 2001 Survey and City Sizing Ma p LOW FLOW FISH PASSAGE FLOW OF 3CFS AND DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION AT MHH @ ************************************************************************************************************************** ******** | Invert | Depth | Water | Q | Vel Vel | Energy | Super |Critical|Flow Top|Height/|Base Wt| |No Wth Station | Elev | (FT) | Elev | (CFS) | (FPS) Head | Grd.El.| Elev | Depth | Width |Dia.-FT|or I.D.| ZL |Prs/Pip -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-| L/Elem |Ch Slope | | | | SF Ave| HF |SE Dpth|Froude N|Norm Dp | "N" | X-Fall| ZR |Type Ch *********|*********|********|*********|*********|*******|*******|*********|*******|********|********|*******|*******|***** |******* | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2913.590 26.665 .269 26.934 3.00 6.15 .59 27.52 .00 .43 2.69 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||6.623 .0340 .0273 .18 .27 2.54 .26 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2920.213 26.890 .278 27.168 3.00 5.86 .53 27.70 .00 .43 2.74 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||13.749 .0255 .0252 .35 .28 2.39 .28 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2933.962 27.240 .279 27.519 3.00 5.82 .53 28.04 .00 .43 2.74 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 5.55 -|-

-|-|17.251 .0255 | | 2951.213 27.680 -|-|56.288 .0217 | | 3007.501 28.902 -|-|24.700 .0217 | | 3032.202 29.438 -|-|12.952 .0217 | | 3045.153 29.720 -|-|5.887 .0217 | | 3051.041 29.847 -|-|3.327 .0217 | | 3054.368 29.920 -|-|2.394 .0217 ཪ FILE: VC_7FT_3CFS.WSW

-|-

-|-

-|-

-|-

-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0233 .40 .28 2.36 .28 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | .289 27.969 3.00 5.54 .48 28.45 .00 .43 2.78 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0217 1.22 .29 2.22 .29 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | .289 29.191 3.00 5.54 .48 29.67 .00 .43 2.78 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0211 .52 .29 2.22 .29 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | .292 29.730 3.00 5.44 .46 30.19 .00 .43 2.80 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0193 .25 .29 2.16 .29 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | .302 30.022 3.00 5.19 .42 30.44 .00 .43 2.84 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0168 .10 .30 2.03 .29 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | .311 30.159 3.00 4.95 .38 30.54 .00 .43 2.89 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0146 .05 .31 1.90 .29 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | .322 30.242 3.00 4.72 .35 30.59 .00 .43 2.93 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0128 .03 .32 1.79 .29 .013 .00 .00 PIPE W S P G W - CIVILDESIGN Version 14.11 PAGE 13 Program Package Serial Number: 7397 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING Date:12-19-2022 Time: 1:13:13 Valley Creek Existing Condtions Hydraulic Model Pipe Geometry and Elevations Based on NTI 2001 Survey and City Sizing Ma p LOW FLOW FISH PASSAGE FLOW OF 3CFS AND DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION AT MHH @ ************************************************************************************************************************** ******** | Invert | Depth | Water | Q | Vel Vel | Energy | Super |Critical|Flow Top|Height/|Base Wt| |No Wth Station | Elev | (FT) | Elev | (CFS) | (FPS) Head | Grd.El.| Elev | Depth | Width |Dia.-FT|or I.D.| ZL |Prs/Pip -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-| L/Elem |Ch Slope | | | | SF Ave| HF |SE Dpth|Froude N|Norm Dp | "N" | X-Fall| ZR |Type Ch *********|*********|********|*********|*********|*******|*******|*********|*******|********|********|*******|*******|***** |******* | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3056.761 29.972 .332 30.304 3.00 4.50 .31 30.62 .00 .43 2.98 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||1.659 .0217 .0111 .02 .33 1.67 .29 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3058.420 30.008 .343 30.351 3.00 4.29 .29 30.64 .00 .43 3.02 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||1.246 .0217 .0097 .01 .34 1.57 .29 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3059.666 30.035 .354 30.389 3.00 4.09 .26 30.65 .00 .43 3.07 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.876 .0217 .0085 .01 .35 1.47 .29 .013 .00 .00 PIPE

ཪ

| 3060.542 -|.660 | 3061.202 -|.491 | 3061.693 -|.294 | 3061.988 -|.186 | 3062.173 -|.040 | 3062.213 -|-

| 30.054 -|.0217 | 30.068 -|.0217 | 30.079 -|.0217 | 30.085 -|.0217 | 30.089 -|.0217 | 30.090 -|-

| .366 -|-

| 30.420 -|-

| 3.00 -|-

| .378 -|-

| 30.446 -|-

| 3.00 -|-

| .390 -|-

| 30.469 -|-

| 3.00 -|-

| .403 -|-

| 30.488 -|-

| 3.00 -|-

| .416 -|-

| 30.505 -|-

| 3.00 -|-

| .431 -|-

| 30.521 -|-

| 3.00 -|-

| .24 -|.0074 | 3.72 .21 -|-|.0064 | 3.54 .20 -|-|.0056 | 3.38 .18 -|-|.0049 | 3.22 .16 -|-|.0042 | 3.06 .15 -|-|3.90 -|-

| 30.66 -|.00 | 30.66 -|.00 | 30.66 -|.00 | 30.67 -|.00 | 30.67 -|.00 | 30.67 -|-

| .00 -|.37 | .00 -|.38 | .00 -|.39 | .00 -|.40 | .00 -|.42 | .00 -|-

| 7.000 -|-|-|1.38 .29 .013 | | | .43 3.16 7.000 -|-|-|1.30 .29 .013 | | | .43 3.21 7.000 -|-|-|1.22 .29 .013 | | | .43 3.26 7.000 -|-|-|1.14 .29 .013 | | | .43 3.31 7.000 -|-|-|1.07 .29 .013 | | | .43 3.37 7.000 -|-|-|.43

|

3.12

|

| | .000 .00 1 .0 -||.00 .00 PIPE | | .000 .00 1 .0 -||.00 .00 PIPE | | .000 .00 1 .0 -||.00 .00 PIPE | | .000 .00 1 .0 -||.00 .00 PIPE | | .000 .00 1 .0 -||.00 .00 PIPE | | .000 .00 1 .0 -||-

HIGH FISHW PASSAGE SPGW - 30 CFS

T1 Valley Creek Existing Condtions Hydraulic Model 0 T2 Pipe Geometry and Elevations Based on NTI 2001 Survey and City Sizing Map T3 HIGH FLOW FISH PASSAGE FLOW OF 30CFS AND DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION AT MHH @6.6ft SO R R TS R TS R R R R TS R R R R R R R R R R SH CD CD CD CD CD Q

1001.244 .215 1 1114.240 1.256 1 .013 1115.244 1.265 1 .013 1123.803 5.400 2 .015 1132.209 5.443 2 .015 1135.209 5.459 4 .015 1141.175 5.489 4 .015 1515.710 7.401 4 .015 1528.008 7.448 4 .015 1576.536 7.631 4 .015 1586.028 8.103 6 .015 1591.856 8.145 6 .013 1813.929 9.762 6 .013 1903.213 10.230 6 .013 2242.213 14.280 6 .013 2499.213 18.050 6 .013 2652.213 20.640 6 .013 2885.213 25.700 6 .013 2920.213 26.890 6 .013 2951.213 27.680 6 .013 3062.213 30.090 6 .013 3062.213 30.090 6 1 4 1 .000 7.000 .000 2 3 0 .000 4.500 8.000 4 3 0 .000 7.000 8.000 5 3 0 .000 7.330 8.000 6 4 1 .000 7.000 .000 30.000 .0

6.600

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000

30.090 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

-4.154 0 .000 0 .000 1 .000 0 .000 0 .000 0 .000 0 .000 0 .000 1 .000 0 .000 1 .000 0 .000 1 .000 0 .000 0 .000 0 .000 0

ཪ FILE: VC_7FT_30CFS.WSW

W S P G W - CIVILDESIGN Version 14.11 PAGE 1 Program Package Serial Number: 7397 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING Date:12-19-2022 Time: 1:13:48 Valley Creek Existing Condtions Hydraulic Model Pipe Geometry and Elevations Based on NTI 2001 Survey and City Sizing Ma p HIGH FLOW FISH PASSAGE FLOW OF 30CFS AND DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION AT MHH ************************************************************************************************************************** ******** | Invert | Depth | Water | Q | Vel Vel | Energy | Super |Critical|Flow Top|Height/|Base Wt| |No Wth Station | Elev | (FT) | Elev | (CFS) | (FPS) Head | Grd.El.| Elev | Depth | Width |Dia.-FT|or I.D.| ZL |Prs/Pip -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-| L/Elem |Ch Slope | | | | SF Ave| HF |SE Dpth|Froude N|Norm Dp | "N" | X-Fall| ZR |Type Ch *********|*********|********|*********|*********|*******|*******|*********|*******|********|********|*******|*******|***** |******* | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1001.244 .215 6.385 6.600 30.00 .81 .01 6.61 .00 1.38 3.96 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||41.757 .0092 .0000 .00 6.38 .05 1.05 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1043.001 .600 6.000 6.600 30.00 .85 .01 6.61 .00 1.38 4.90 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||34.148 .0092 .0000 .00 6.00 .06 1.05 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1077.150 .914 5.685 6.599 30.00 .90 .01 6.61 .00 1.38 5.47 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||29.682 .0092 .0000 .00 5.69 .06 1.05 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1106.832 1.188 5.411 6.599 30.00 .94 .01 6.61 .00 1.38 5.86 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||7.408 .0092 .0000 .00 5.41 .07 1.05 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1114.240 1.256 5.343 6.599 30.00 .95 .01 6.61 .00 1.38 5.95 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||1.004 .0090 .0000 .00 5.34 .07 1.06 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1115.244 1.265 5.334 6.599 30.00 .95 .01 6.61 .00 1.38 5.96 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||TRANS STR .4831 .0008 .01 5.33 .07 .015 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1123.803 5.400 1.064 6.464 30.00 3.53 .19 6.66 .00 .76 8.00 4.500 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||8.406 .0051 .0017 .01 1.06 .60 .73 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1132.209 5.443 1.017 6.460 30.00 3.69 .21 6.67 .00 .76 8.00 4.500 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||TRANS STR .0053 .0019 .01 1.02 .64 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1135.209 5.459 1.002 6.461 30.00 3.74 .22 6.68 .00 .76 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||5.966 .0050 .0020 .01 1.00 .66 .73 .015 .00 .00 BOX W S P G W - CIVILDESIGN Version 14.11 PAGE 2 ཪ FILE: VC_7FT_30CFS.WSW Program Package Serial Number: 7397

WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING Date:12-19-2022 Time: 1:13:48 Valley Creek Existing Condtions Hydraulic Model Pipe Geometry and Elevations Based on NTI 2001 Survey and City Sizing Ma p HIGH FLOW FISH PASSAGE FLOW OF 30CFS AND DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION AT MHH ************************************************************************************************************************** ******** | Invert | Depth | Water | Q | Vel Vel | Energy | Super |Critical|Flow Top|Height/|Base Wt| |No Wth Station | Elev | (FT) | Elev | (CFS) | (FPS) Head | Grd.El.| Elev | Depth | Width |Dia.-FT|or I.D.| ZL |Prs/Pip -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-| L/Elem |Ch Slope | | | | SF Ave| HF |SE Dpth|Froude N|Norm Dp | "N" | X-Fall| ZR |Type Ch *********|*********|********|*********|*********|*******|*******|*********|*******|********|********|*******|*******|***** |******* | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1141.175 5.489 .969 6.458 30.00 3.87 .23 6.69 .00 .76 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||7.766 .0051 .0023 .02 .97 .69 .73 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1148.941 5.529 .924 6.452 30.00 4.06 .26 6.71 .00 .76 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||7.110 .0051 .0027 .02 .92 .74 .73 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1156.050 5.565 .881 6.446 30.00 4.26 .28 6.73 .00 .76 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||6.340 .0051 .0031 .02 .88 .80 .73 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1162.391 5.597 .840 6.437 30.00 4.47 .31 6.75 .00 .76 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||5.291 .0051 .0036 .02 .84 .86 .73 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1167.681 5.624 .801 6.425 30.00 4.68 .34 6.77 .00 .76 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||1.751 .0051 .0041 .01 .80 .92 .73 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1169.433 5.633 .763 6.397 30.00 4.91 .37 6.77 .00 .76 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||HYDRAULIC JUMP | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1169.433 5.633 .730 6.364 30.00 5.13 .41 6.77 .00 .76 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||320.426 .0051 .0051 1.64 .73 1.06 .73 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1489.859 7.269 .730 7.999 30.00 5.13 .41 8.41 .00 .76 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||12.481 .0051 .0052 .06 .73 1.06 .73 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1502.340 7.333 .722 8.054 30.00 5.20 .42 8.47 .00 .76 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||13.370 .0051 .0057 .08 .72 1.08 .73 .015 .00 .00 BOX W S P G W - CIVILDESIGN Version 14.11 PAGE 3 ཪ FILE: VC_7FT_30CFS.WSW Program Package Serial Number: 7397 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING Date:12-19-2022 Time: 1:13:48 Valley Creek Existing Condtions Hydraulic Model

Pipe Geometry and Elevations Based on NTI 2001 Survey and City Sizing Ma p HIGH FLOW FISH PASSAGE FLOW OF 30CFS AND DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION AT MHH ************************************************************************************************************************** ******** | Invert | Depth | Water | Q | Vel Vel | Energy | Super |Critical|Flow Top|Height/|Base Wt| |No Wth Station | Elev | (FT) | Elev | (CFS) | (FPS) Head | Grd.El.| Elev | Depth | Width |Dia.-FT|or I.D.| ZL |Prs/Pip -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-| L/Elem |Ch Slope | | | | SF Ave| HF |SE Dpth|Froude N|Norm Dp | "N" | X-Fall| ZR |Type Ch *********|*********|********|*********|*********|*******|*******|*********|*******|********|********|*******|*******|***** |******* | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1515.710 7.401 .688 8.089 30.00 5.45 .46 8.55 .00 .76 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||2.021 .0038 .0064 .01 .69 1.16 .80 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1517.731 7.409 .675 8.083 30.00 5.56 .48 8.56 .00 .76 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||5.090 .0038 .0071 .04 .67 1.19 .80 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1522.821 7.428 .643 8.071 30.00 5.83 .53 8.60 .00 .76 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||5.187 .0038 .0082 .04 .64 1.28 .80 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1528.008 7.448 .613 8.061 30.00 6.11 .58 8.64 .00 .76 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||2.779 .0038 .0092 .03 .61 1.38 .80 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1530.787 7.458 .598 8.056 30.00 6.28 .61 8.67 .00 .76 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||5.045 .0038 .0104 .05 .60 1.43 .80 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1535.833 7.478 .570 8.047 30.00 6.58 .67 8.72 .00 .76 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||4.910 .0038 .0121 .06 .57 1.54 .80 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1540.742 7.496 .543 8.039 30.00 6.90 .74 8.78 .00 .76 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||4.742 .0038 .0140 .07 .54 1.65 .80 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1545.485 7.514 .518 8.032 30.00 7.24 .81 8.85 .00 .76 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||4.558 .0038 .0163 .07 .52 1.77 .80 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1550.042 7.531 .494 8.025 30.00 7.59 .90 8.92 .00 .76 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||4.364 .0038 .0190 .08 .49 1.90 .80 .015 .00 .00 BOX W S P G W - CIVILDESIGN Version 14.11 PAGE 4 ཪ FILE: VC_7FT_30CFS.WSW Program Package Serial Number: 7397 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING Date:12-19-2022 Time: 1:13:48 Valley Creek Existing Condtions Hydraulic Model Pipe Geometry and Elevations Based on NTI 2001 Survey and City Sizing Ma p HIGH FLOW FISH PASSAGE FLOW OF 30CFS AND DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION AT MHH

************************************************************************************************************************** ******** | Invert | Depth | Water | Q | Vel Vel | Energy | Super |Critical|Flow Top|Height/|Base Wt| |No Wth Station | Elev | (FT) | Elev | (CFS) | (FPS) Head | Grd.El.| Elev | Depth | Width |Dia.-FT|or I.D.| ZL |Prs/Pip -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-| L/Elem |Ch Slope | | | | SF Ave| HF |SE Dpth|Froude N|Norm Dp | "N" | X-Fall| ZR |Type Ch *********|*********|********|*********|*********|*******|*******|*********|*******|********|********|*******|*******|***** |******* | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1554.406 7.548 .471 8.018 30.00 7.96 .98 9.00 .00 .76 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||4.167 .0038 .0222 .09 .47 2.05 .80 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1558.573 7.563 .449 8.012 30.00 8.35 1.08 9.10 .00 .76 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||3.970 .0038 .0258 .10 .45 2.20 .80 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1562.543 7.578 .428 8.006 30.00 8.76 1.19 9.20 .00 .76 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||3.776 .0038 .0301 .11 .43 2.36 .80 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1566.320 7.592 .408 8.001 30.00 9.19 1.31 9.31 .00 .76 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||3.587 .0038 .0350 .13 .41 2.53 .80 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1569.907 7.606 .389 7.995 30.00 9.64 1.44 9.44 .00 .76 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||3.403 .0038 .0408 .14 .39 2.72 .80 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1573.310 7.619 .371 7.990 30.00 10.11 1.59 9.58 .00 .76 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||3.226 .0038 .0476 .15 .37 2.92 .80 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1576.536 7.631 .354 7.985 30.00 10.60 1.74 9.73 .00 .76 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||TRANS STR .0497 .0305 .29 .35 3.14 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1586.028 8.103 1.116 9.219 30.00 7.59 .89 10.11 .00 1.38 5.12 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||5.828 .0072 .0073 .04 1.12 1.52 1.12 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1591.856 8.145 1.115 9.260 30.00 7.60 .90 10.16 .00 1.38 5.12 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||126.281 .0073 .0073 .92 1.12 1.52 1.12 .013 .00 .00 PIPE W S P G W - CIVILDESIGN Version 14.11 PAGE 5 ཪ FILE: VC_7FT_30CFS.WSW Program Package Serial Number: 7397 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING Date:12-19-2022 Time: 1:13:48 Valley Creek Existing Condtions Hydraulic Model Pipe Geometry and Elevations Based on NTI 2001 Survey and City Sizing Ma p HIGH FLOW FISH PASSAGE FLOW OF 30CFS AND DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION AT MHH ************************************************************************************************************************** ******** | Invert | Depth | Water | Q | Vel Vel | Energy | Super |Critical|Flow Top|Height/|Base Wt| |No Wth

Station | Elev | (FT) | Elev | (CFS) | (FPS) Head | Grd.El.| Elev | Depth | Width |Dia.-FT|or I.D.| ZL |Prs/Pip -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-| L/Elem |Ch Slope | | | | SF Ave| HF |SE Dpth|Froude N|Norm Dp | "N" | X-Fall| ZR |Type Ch *********|*********|********|*********|*********|*******|*******|*********|*******|********|********|*******|*******|***** |******* | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1718.137 9.065 1.115 10.180 30.00 7.60 .90 11.08 .00 1.38 5.12 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||95.792 .0073 .0068 .65 1.12 1.52 1.12 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1813.929 9.762 1.152 10.914 30.00 7.25 .82 11.73 .00 1.38 5.19 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||18.925 .0052 .0067 .13 1.15 1.43 1.21 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1832.854 9.861 1.128 10.989 30.00 7.47 .87 11.86 .00 1.38 5.15 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||22.515 .0052 .0074 .17 1.13 1.49 1.21 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1855.370 9.979 1.091 11.070 30.00 7.83 .95 12.02 .00 1.38 5.08 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||18.351 .0052 .0085 .16 1.09 1.59 1.21 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1873.721 10.075 1.056 11.132 30.00 8.22 1.05 12.18 .00 1.38 5.01 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||15.647 .0052 .0098 .15 1.06 1.70 1.21 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1889.368 10.157 1.022 11.180 30.00 8.62 1.15 12.33 .00 1.38 4.94 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||13.845 .0052 .0112 .15 1.02 1.81 1.21 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1903.213 10.230 .989 11.219 30.00 9.04 1.27 12.49 .00 1.38 4.88 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||173.633 .0119 .0119 2.07 .99 1.93 .99 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2076.846 12.304 .989 13.294 30.00 9.04 1.27 14.56 .00 1.38 4.88 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||108.186 .0119 .0124 1.34 .99 1.93 .99 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2185.032 13.597 .972 14.569 30.00 9.26 1.33 15.90 .00 1.38 4.84 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||57.181 .0119 .0137 .79 .97 2.00 .99 .013 .00 .00 PIPE W S P G W - CIVILDESIGN Version 14.11 PAGE 6 ཪ FILE: VC_7FT_30CFS.WSW Program Package Serial Number: 7397 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING Date:12-19-2022 Time: 1:13:48 Valley Creek Existing Condtions Hydraulic Model Pipe Geometry and Elevations Based on NTI 2001 Survey and City Sizing Ma p HIGH FLOW FISH PASSAGE FLOW OF 30CFS AND DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION AT MHH ************************************************************************************************************************** ******** | Invert | Depth | Water | Q | Vel Vel | Energy | Super |Critical|Flow Top|Height/|Base Wt| |No Wth Station | Elev | (FT) | Elev | (CFS) | (FPS) Head | Grd.El.| Elev | Depth | Width |Dia.-FT|or I.D.| ZL |Prs/Pip -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|

L/Elem |Ch Slope | | | | SF Ave| HF |SE Dpth|Froude N|Norm Dp | "N" | X-Fall| ZR |Type Ch *********|*********|********|*********|*********|*******|*******|*********|*******|********|********|*******|*******|***** |******* | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2242.213 14.280 .941 15.221 30.00 9.71 1.47 16.69 .00 1.38 4.78 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||60.233 .0147 .0147 .88 .94 2.13 .94 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2302.446 15.164 .941 16.105 30.00 9.71 1.47 17.57 .00 1.38 4.78 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||97.493 .0147 .0147 1.44 .94 2.13 .94 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2399.939 16.594 .939 17.533 30.00 9.74 1.47 19.01 .00 1.38 4.77 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||99.273 .0147 .0159 1.57 .94 2.14 .94 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2499.213 18.050 .909 18.959 30.00 10.21 1.62 20.58 .00 1.38 4.71 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||2.809 .0169 .0169 .05 .91 2.28 .91 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2502.021 18.098 .909 19.007 30.00 10.21 1.62 20.63 .00 1.38 4.71 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||107.169 .0169 .0179 1.92 .91 2.28 .91 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2609.190 19.912 .885 20.797 30.00 10.63 1.75 22.55 .00 1.38 4.65 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||43.022 .0169 .0203 .88 .89 2.40 .91 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2652.213 20.640 .857 21.497 30.00 11.14 1.93 23.43 .00 1.38 4.59 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||88.919 .0217 .0217 1.93 .86 2.56 .86 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2741.132 22.571 .857 23.428 30.00 11.14 1.93 25.36 .00 1.38 4.59 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||104.027 .0217 .0231 2.40 .86 2.56 .86 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2845.159 24.830 .832 25.662 30.00 11.63 2.10 27.76 .00 1.38 4.53 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||40.054 .0217 .0263 1.05 .83 2.71 .86 .013 .00 .00 PIPE W S P G W - CIVILDESIGN Version 14.11 PAGE 7 ཪ FILE: VC_7FT_30CFS.WSW Program Package Serial Number: 7397 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING Date:12-19-2022 Time: 1:13:48 Valley Creek Existing Condtions Hydraulic Model Pipe Geometry and Elevations Based on NTI 2001 Survey and City Sizing Ma p HIGH FLOW FISH PASSAGE FLOW OF 30CFS AND DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION AT MHH ************************************************************************************************************************** ******** | Invert | Depth | Water | Q | Vel Vel | Energy | Super |Critical|Flow Top|Height/|Base Wt| |No Wth Station | Elev | (FT) | Elev | (CFS) | (FPS) Head | Grd.El.| Elev | Depth | Width |Dia.-FT|or I.D.| ZL |Prs/Pip -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-| L/Elem |Ch Slope | | | | SF Ave| HF |SE Dpth|Froude N|Norm Dp | "N" | X-Fall| ZR |Type Ch *********|*********|********|*********|*********|*******|*******|*********|*******|********|********|*******|*******|***** |*******

| | | 2885.213 25.700 .806 -|-|-|18.360 .0340 | | | 2903.573 26.324 .824 -|-|-|16.640 .0340 | | | 2920.213 26.890 .852 -|-|-|31.000 .0255 | | | 2951.212 27.680 .878 -|-|-|33.696 .0217 | | | 2984.908 28.412 .899 -|-|-|23.607 .0217 | | | 3008.515 28.924 .929 -|-|-|14.733 .0217 | | | 3023.249 29.244 .960 -|-|-|10.272 .0217 | | | 3033.521 29.467 .992 -|-|-|7.575 .0217 | | | 3041.096 29.632 1.025 -|-|-|5.678 .0217 ཪ FILE: VC_7FT_30CFS.WSW

| 26.506 -|-

| 30.00 12.19 -|-|-

| | | | | | | | 2.31 28.81 .00 1.38 4.47 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0268 .49 .81 2.90 .77 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | 27.148 30.00 11.79 2.16 29.31 .00 1.38 4.51 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0239 .40 .82 2.77 .77 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | 27.742 30.00 11.24 1.96 29.70 .00 1.38 4.58 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0209 .65 .85 2.59 .82 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | 28.558 30.00 10.75 1.80 30.35 .00 1.38 4.64 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0186 .63 .88 2.44 .86 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | 29.311 30.00 10.37 1.67 30.98 .00 1.38 4.68 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0166 .39 .90 2.33 .86 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | 29.853 30.00 9.89 1.52 31.37 .00 1.38 4.75 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0144 .21 .93 2.18 .86 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | 30.204 30.00 9.43 1.38 31.58 .00 1.38 4.82 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0126 .13 .96 2.04 .86 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | 30.459 30.00 8.99 1.25 31.71 .00 1.38 4.88 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0110 .08 .99 1.92 .86 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | 30.657 30.00 8.57 1.14 31.80 .00 1.38 4.95 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||.0096 .05 1.03 1.80 .86 .013 .00 .00 PIPE W S P G W - CIVILDESIGN Version 14.11 PAGE 8 Program Package Serial Number: 7397 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING Date:12-19-2022 Time: 1:13:48 Valley Creek Existing Condtions Hydraulic Model Pipe Geometry and Elevations Based on NTI 2001 Survey and City Sizing Ma p HIGH FLOW FISH PASSAGE FLOW OF 30CFS AND DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION AT MHH ************************************************************************************************************************** ******** | Invert | Depth | Water | Q | Vel Vel | Energy | Super |Critical|Flow Top|Height/|Base Wt| |No Wth Station | Elev | (FT) | Elev | (CFS) | (FPS) Head | Grd.El.| Elev | Depth | Width |Dia.-FT|or I.D.| ZL |Prs/Pip -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-| L/Elem |Ch Slope | | | | SF Ave| HF |SE Dpth|Froude N|Norm Dp | "N" | X-Fall| ZR |Type Ch *********|*********|********|*********|*********|*******|*******|*********|*******|********|********|*******|*******|***** |******* | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3046.774 29.755 1.060 30.815 30.00 8.17 1.04 31.85 .00 1.38 5.02 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0

ཪ

-|4.451 | 3051.225 -|3.386 | 3054.611 -|2.607 | 3057.218 -|1.974 | 3059.192 -|1.390 | 3060.582 -|.948 | 3061.529 -|.512 | 3062.042 -|.171 | 3062.213 -|-

-|.0217 | 29.851 -|.0217 | 29.925 -|.0217 | 29.982 -|.0217 | 30.024 -|.0217 | 30.055 -|.0217 | 30.075 -|.0217 | 30.086 -|.0217 | 30.090 -|-

-|-

-|-

-|-

| 1.095 -|-

| 30.947 -|-

| 30.00 -|-

| 1.132 -|-

| 31.057 -|-

| 30.00 -|-

| 1.170 -|-

| 31.152 -|-

| 30.00 -|-

| 1.209 -|-

| 31.234 -|-

| 30.00 -|-

| 1.250 -|-

| 31.305 -|-

| 30.00 -|-

| 1.292 -|-

| 31.367 -|-

| 30.00 -|-

| 1.336 -|-

| 31.422 -|-

| 30.00 -|-

| 1.382 -|-

| 31.472 -|-

| 30.00 -|-

-|-

-|.0084 | 7.79 .94 -|-|.0073 | 7.43 .86 -|-|.0064 | 7.08 .78 -|-|.0056 | 6.75 .71 -|-|.0049 | 6.44 .64 -|-|.0043 | 6.14 .59 -|-|.0037 | 5.85 .53 -|-|.0033 | 5.58 .48 -|-|-

-|.04 | 31.89 -|.02 | 31.91 -|.02 | 31.93 -|.01 | 31.94 -|.01 | 31.95 -|.00 | 31.95 -|.00 | 31.95 -|.00 | 31.96 -|-

-|-|-|-|1.06 1.68 .86 .013 | | | | .00 1.38 5.09 7.000 -|-|-|-|1.10 1.58 .86 .013 | | | | .00 1.38 5.15 7.000 -|-|-|-|1.13 1.48 .86 .013 | | | | .00 1.38 5.22 7.000 -|-|-|-|1.17 1.39 .86 .013 | | | | .00 1.38 5.29 7.000 -|-|-|-|1.21 1.30 .86 .013 | | | | .00 1.38 5.36 7.000 -|-|-|-|1.25 1.22 .86 .013 | | | | .00 1.38 5.43 7.000 -|-|-|-|1.29 1.14 .86 .013 | | | | .00 1.38 5.50 7.000 -|-|-|-|1.34 1.07 .86 .013 | | | | .00 1.38 5.57 7.000 -|-|-|-|-

-||.00 .00 PIPE | | .000 .00 1 .0 -||.00 .00 PIPE | | .000 .00 1 .0 -||.00 .00 PIPE | | .000 .00 1 .0 -||.00 .00 PIPE | | .000 .00 1 .0 -||.00 .00 PIPE | | .000 .00 1 .0 -||.00 .00 PIPE | | .000 .00 1 .0 -||.00 .00 PIPE | | .000 .00 1 .0 -||.00 .00 PIPE | | .000 .00 1 .0 -||-

MODEL RESULTS ASSUMING 5’ OUTLET PIPE INSTEAD OF 7’

T1 Valley Creek Existing Condtions Hydraulic Model T2 Pipe Geometry and Elevations Based on NTI 2001 Survey and City Sizing Map T3 Assumes a 5ft downstream Pipe with FEMA flowrate/conditions SO R R TS R TS R R R R TS R R R R R R R R R R SH CD CD CD CD CD Q

1000.213 2.210 1 1114.240 3.260 1 .013 1115.244 3.269 1 .013 1123.803 5.400 2 .015 1132.209 5.443 2 .015 1135.209 5.459 4 .015 1141.175 5.489 4 .015 1515.710 7.401 4 .015 1528.008 7.448 4 .015 1576.536 7.631 4 .015 1586.028 8.103 6 .015 1591.856 8.145 6 .013 1813.929 9.762 6 .013 1903.213 10.230 6 .013 2242.213 14.280 6 .013 2499.213 18.050 6 .013 2652.213 20.640 6 .013 2885.213 25.700 6 .013 2920.213 26.890 6 .013 2951.213 27.680 6 .013 3062.213 30.090 6 .013 3062.213 30.090 6 1 4 1 .000 5.000 .000 2 3 0 .000 4.500 8.000 4 3 0 .000 7.000 8.000 5 3 0 .000 7.330 8.000 6 4 1 .000 7.000 .000 545.000 .0

9.600

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000

30.090 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

0

-4.154 0 .000 0 .000 1 .000 0 .000 0 .000 0 .000 0 .000 0 .000 1 .000 0 .000 1 .000 0 .000 1 .000 0 .000 0 .000 0 .000 0

ཪ FILE: VC_5FTFEMA3.WSW

W S P G W - CIVILDESIGN Version 14.11 PAGE 1 Program Package Serial Number: 7397 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING Date: 8-17-2022 Time: 5:26:17 Valley Creek Existing Condtions Hydraulic Model Pipe Geometry and Elevations Based on NTI 2001 Survey and City Sizing Ma p Assumes a 5ft downstream Pipe with FEMA flowrate/conditions ************************************************************************************************************************** ******** | Invert | Depth | Water | Q | Vel Vel | Energy | Super |Critical|Flow Top|Height/|Base Wt| |No Wth Station | Elev | (FT) | Elev | (CFS) | (FPS) Head | Grd.El.| Elev | Depth | Width |Dia.-FT|or I.D.| ZL |Prs/Pip -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-| L/Elem |Ch Slope | | | | SF Ave| HF |SE Dpth|Froude N|Norm Dp | "N" | X-Fall| ZR |Type Ch *********|*********|********|*********|*********|*******|*******|*********|*******|********|********|*******|*******|***** |******* | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1000.213 2.210 7.390 9.600 545.00 27.76 11.96 21.56 .00 4.97 .00 5.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||114.027 .0092 .0438 4.99 7.39 .00 5.00 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1114.240 3.260 11.497 14.757 545.00 27.76 11.96 26.72 .00 4.97 .00 5.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||1.004 .0090 .0438 .04 11.50 .00 5.00 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1115.244 3.269 11.532 14.801 545.00 27.76 11.96 26.76 .00 4.97 .00 5.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||TRANS STR .2490 .0144 .12 11.53 .00 .015 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1123.803 5.400 19.874 25.274 545.00 15.14 3.56 28.83 .00 4.50 8.00 4.500 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||8.406 .0051 .0144 .12 19.87 1.26 4.50 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1132.209 5.443 20.129 25.572 545.00 15.14 3.56 29.13 .00 4.50 8.00 4.500 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||TRANS STR .0053 .0042 .01 20.13 1.26 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1135.209 5.459 22.438 27.897 545.00 9.73 1.47 29.37 .00 5.24 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||5.966 .0050 .0042 .03 22.44 .65 5.53 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1141.175 5.489 22.433 27.922 545.00 9.73 1.47 29.39 .00 5.24 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||374.535 .0051 .0042 1.57 22.43 .65 5.50 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1515.710 7.401 22.094 29.495 545.00 9.73 1.47 30.97 .00 5.24 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||12.298 .0038 .0042 .05 22.09 .65 6.16 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1528.008 7.448 22.098 29.546 545.00 9.73 1.47 31.02 .00 5.24 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||48.528 .0038 .0042 .20 22.10 .65 6.19 .015 .00 .00 BOX W S P G W - CIVILDESIGN Version 14.11 PAGE 2 ཪ FILE: VC_5FTFEMA3.WSW Program Package Serial Number: 7397 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING Date: 8-17-2022 Time: 5:26:17 Valley Creek Existing Condtions Hydraulic Model Pipe Geometry and Elevations Based on NTI 2001 Survey and City Sizing Ma

p Assumes a 5ft downstream Pipe with FEMA flowrate/conditions ************************************************************************************************************************** ******** | Invert | Depth | Water | Q | Vel Vel | Energy | Super |Critical|Flow Top|Height/|Base Wt| |No Wth Station | Elev | (FT) | Elev | (CFS) | (FPS) Head | Grd.El.| Elev | Depth | Width |Dia.-FT|or I.D.| ZL |Prs/Pip -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-| L/Elem |Ch Slope | | | | SF Ave| HF |SE Dpth|Froude N|Norm Dp | "N" | X-Fall| ZR |Type Ch *********|*********|********|*********|*********|*******|*******|*********|*******|********|********|*******|*******|***** |******* | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1576.536 7.631 22.119 29.750 545.00 9.73 1.47 31.22 .00 5.24 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||TRANS STR .0497 .0069 .07 22.12 .65 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1586.028 8.103 20.398 28.501 545.00 14.16 3.11 31.62 .00 6.05 .00 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||5.828 .0072 .0073 .04 20.40 .00 5.77 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1591.856 8.145 20.399 28.544 545.00 14.16 3.11 31.66 .00 6.05 .00 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||222.073 .0073 .0073 1.62 20.40 .00 5.74 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1813.929 9.762 20.554 30.316 545.00 14.16 3.11 33.43 .00 6.05 .00 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||89.284 .0052 .0073 .65 20.55 .00 7.00 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1903.213 10.230 20.736 30.966 545.00 14.16 3.11 34.08 .00 6.05 .00 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||339.000 .0119 .0073 2.47 20.74 .00 4.65 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2242.213 14.280 19.309 33.589 545.00 14.16 3.11 36.70 .00 6.05 .00 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||257.000 .0147 .0073 1.87 19.31 .00 4.33 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2499.213 18.050 17.409 35.459 545.00 14.16 3.11 38.57 .00 6.05 .00 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||153.000 .0169 .0073 1.11 17.41 .00 4.13 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2652.213 20.640 16.088 36.728 545.00 14.16 3.11 39.84 .00 6.05 .00 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||233.000 .0217 .0073 1.70 16.09 .00 3.82 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2885.213 25.700 12.724 38.424 545.00 14.16 3.11 41.54 .00 6.05 .00 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||35.000 .0340 .0073 .25 12.72 .00 3.35 .013 .00 .00 PIPE W S P G W - CIVILDESIGN Version 14.11 PAGE 3 ཪ FILE: VC_5FTFEMA3.WSW Program Package Serial Number: 7397 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING Date: 8-17-2022 Time: 5:26:17 Valley Creek Existing Condtions Hydraulic Model Pipe Geometry and Elevations Based on NTI 2001 Survey and City Sizing Ma p Assumes a 5ft downstream Pipe with FEMA flowrate/conditions ************************************************************************************************************************** ******** | Invert | Depth | Water | Q | Vel Vel | Energy | Super |Critical|Flow Top|Height/|Base Wt| |No Wth Station | Elev | (FT) | Elev | (CFS) | (FPS) Head | Grd.El.| Elev | Depth | Width |Dia.-FT|or I.D.| ZL |Prs/Pip -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|

L/Elem |Ch Slope | | | | SF Ave| HF |SE Dpth|Froude N|Norm Dp | "N" | X-Fall| ZR |Type Ch *********|*********|********|*********|*********|*******|*******|*********|*******|********|********|*******|*******|***** |******* | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2920.213 26.890 11.789 38.679 545.00 14.16 3.11 41.79 .00 6.05 .00 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||31.000 .0255 .0073 .23 11.79 .00 3.64 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2951.213 27.680 11.224 38.904 545.00 14.16 3.11 42.02 .00 6.05 .00 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||111.000 .0217 .0073 .81 11.22 .00 3.82 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3062.213 30.090 9.622 39.712 545.00 14.16 3.11 42.83 .00 6.05 .00 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||-

ཪ

ALTERNATIVE 1 – VALLEY STREET A L I GN M ENT

HEC -RA S

Model Domain – Alternative 1

Example Cross Sections Valley_Creek .06

20

Plan: Alternative 1_v2_NormalDepth

8/17/2022

.045

.06 Legend EG FEMA 100 yr WS FEMA 100 yr EG 2-Yr

18

WS 2-Yr EG 30 cfs WS 30 cfs EG 3 cfs

16

WS 3 cfs Ground Bank Sta Current Terrain

Elevation (ft)

14

12

10

8

6

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Station (ft)

Valley_Creek .06

22

Plan: Alternative 1_v2_NormalDepth .045

8/17/2022 .06 Legend EG FEMA 100 yr WS FEMA 100 yr EG 2-Yr

20

WS 2-Yr EG 30 cfs WS 30 cfs 18

EG 3 cfs WS 3 cfs Ground Bank Sta

Elevation (ft)

16

Current Terrain

14

12

10

8

6

0

20

40

60 Station (ft)

80

100

2YR Flow Depth Plot (134 CFS)

100YR FEMA Depth Plot (545 CFS)

Hydraulic Results – Alternative 1

Valley_Creek

Plan: Alternative 1_v2_NormalDepth

8/17/2022

Valley Creek Alt 1

14

Legend EG FEMA 100 yr WS FEMA 100 yr EG 2-Yr WS 2-Yr Crit FEMA 100 yr

12

EG 30 cfs WS 30 cfs Crit 2-Yr Crit 30 cfs EG 3 cfs WS 3 cfs

10

Crit 3 cfs

Elevation (ft)

Ground

8

6

4

0

100

200

300

400 Main Channel Distance (ft)

500

600

700

WSPGW

100YR FEMAW FLOWRATE SPGW - 545 CFS

T1 Valley Creek Existing Condtions Hydraulic Model T2 Alternative 1_Upstream Pipe Connection T3 100yr event (FEMA) based on HEC_RAS EGL using FEMA Harbor WSE @ 9.6ft SO R R R R TS R R R R R R R R R R SH CD CD CD CD CD Q

1504.313 7.342 4 1504.313 7.342 4 .015 1515.885 7.401 4 .015 1528.183 7.448 4 .015 1576.771 7.631 4 .015 1586.203 8.103 6 .015 1592.031 8.145 6 .013 1814.104 9.762 6 .013 1903.338 10.230 6 .013 2242.338 14.280 6 .013 2499.338 18.050 6 .013 2652.338 20.640 6 .013 2885.338 25.700 6 .013 2920.338 26.890 6 .013 2951.338 27.680 6 .013 3062.338 30.090 6 .013 3062.338 30.090 6 1 4 1 .000 7.000 .000 2 3 0 .000 4.500 8.000 4 3 0 .000 7.000 8.000 5 3 0 .000 7.330 8.000 6 4 1 .000 7.000 .000 545.000 .0

13.480

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000

30.090 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

0

.000 0 .000 0 .000 0 .000 0 .000 0 .000 1 .000 0 .000 1 .000 0 .000 1 .000 0 .000 0 .000 0 .000 0

ཪ FILE: Alt1_100yrFEMA2.WSW

W S P G W - CIVILDESIGN Version 14.11 PAGE 1 Program Package Serial Number: 7397 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING Date: 8-17-2022 Time: 5:31:17 Valley Creek Existing Condtions Hydraulic Model Alternative 1_Upstream Pipe Connection 100yr event (FEMA) based on HEC_RAS EGL using FEMA Harbor WSE @ 9.6 ************************************************************************************************************************** ******** | Invert | Depth | Water | Q | Vel Vel | Energy | Super |Critical|Flow Top|Height/|Base Wt| |No Wth Station | Elev | (FT) | Elev | (CFS) | (FPS) Head | Grd.El.| Elev | Depth | Width |Dia.-FT|or I.D.| ZL |Prs/Pip -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-| L/Elem |Ch Slope | | | | SF Ave| HF |SE Dpth|Froude N|Norm Dp | "N" | X-Fall| ZR |Type Ch *********|*********|********|*********|*********|*******|*******|*********|*******|********|********|*******|*******|***** |******* | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1504.313 7.342 3.603 10.945 545.00 18.91 5.55 16.50 .00 5.24 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||11.572 .0051 .0159 .18 3.60 1.76 5.50 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1515.885 7.401 3.545 10.946 545.00 19.22 5.74 16.68 .00 5.24 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||12.298 .0038 .0167 .20 3.54 1.80 6.16 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1528.183 7.448 3.477 10.925 545.00 19.59 5.96 16.89 .00 5.24 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||18.982 .0038 .0178 .34 3.48 1.85 6.20 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1547.165 7.519 3.374 10.893 545.00 20.19 6.33 17.23 .00 5.24 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||29.606 .0038 .0199 .59 3.37 1.94 6.20 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1576.771 7.631 3.217 10.848 545.00 21.18 6.97 17.81 .00 5.24 8.00 7.000 8.000 .00 0 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||TRANS STR .0500 .0164 .16 3.22 2.08 .015 .00 .00 BOX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1586.203 8.103 5.232 13.335 545.00 17.66 4.85 18.18 .00 6.05 6.08 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||5.828 .0072 .0088 .05 5.23 1.38 5.77 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1592.031 8.145 5.222 13.367 545.00 17.70 4.86 18.23 .00 6.05 6.09 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||121.383 .0073 .0094 1.14 5.22 1.39 5.74 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1713.414 9.029 4.992 14.021 545.00 18.56 5.35 19.37 .00 6.05 6.33 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||100.690 .0073 .0105 1.06 4.99 1.52 5.74 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1814.104 9.762 4.780 14.542 545.00 19.46 5.88 20.43 .00 6.05 6.51 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||30.346 .0052 .0114 .35 4.78 1.65 7.00 .013 .00 .00 PIPE W S P G W - CIVILDESIGN Version 14.11 PAGE 2 ཪ FILE: Alt1_100yrFEMA2.WSW Program Package Serial Number: 7397

WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING Date: 8-17-2022 Time: 5:31:17 Valley Creek Existing Condtions Hydraulic Model Alternative 1_Upstream Pipe Connection 100yr event (FEMA) based on HEC_RAS EGL using FEMA Harbor WSE @ 9.6 ************************************************************************************************************************** ******** | Invert | Depth | Water | Q | Vel Vel | Energy | Super |Critical|Flow Top|Height/|Base Wt| |No Wth Station | Elev | (FT) | Elev | (CFS) | (FPS) Head | Grd.El.| Elev | Depth | Width |Dia.-FT|or I.D.| ZL |Prs/Pip -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-| L/Elem |Ch Slope | | | | SF Ave| HF |SE Dpth|Froude N|Norm Dp | "N" | X-Fall| ZR |Type Ch *********|*********|********|*********|*********|*******|*******|*********|*******|********|********|*******|*******|***** |******* | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1844.450 9.921 4.679 14.600 545.00 19.93 6.17 20.77 .00 6.05 6.59 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||58.888 .0052 .0125 .74 4.68 1.72 7.00 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1903.338 10.230 4.489 14.719 545.00 20.91 6.79 21.50 .00 6.05 6.71 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||169.100 .0119 .0137 2.32 4.49 1.87 4.65 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2072.438 12.250 4.375 16.625 545.00 21.54 7.20 23.83 .00 6.05 6.78 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||169.900 .0119 .0152 2.58 4.38 1.96 4.65 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2242.338 14.280 4.203 18.483 545.00 22.59 7.92 26.40 .00 6.05 6.86 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||4.161 .0147 .0161 .07 4.20 2.12 4.33 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2246.499 14.341 4.201 18.542 545.00 22.60 7.93 26.47 .00 6.05 6.86 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||252.839 .0147 .0172 4.34 4.20 2.12 4.33 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2499.338 18.050 4.038 22.088 545.00 23.70 8.72 30.81 .00 6.05 6.92 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||153.000 .0169 .0187 2.85 4.04 2.29 4.13 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2652.338 20.640 3.978 24.618 545.00 24.14 9.05 33.67 .00 6.05 6.93 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||101.381 .0217 .0186 1.88 3.98 2.36 3.82 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2753.719 22.842 4.051 26.893 545.00 23.61 8.65 35.55 .00 6.05 6.91 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||131.619 .0217 .0170 2.24 4.05 2.28 3.82 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2885.338 25.700 4.215 29.915 545.00 22.51 7.87 37.78 .00 6.05 6.85 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||8.205 .0340 .0157 .13 4.22 2.11 3.35 .013 .00 .00 PIPE W S P G W - CIVILDESIGN Version 14.11 PAGE 3 ཪ FILE: Alt1_100yrFEMA2.WSW Program Package Serial Number: 7397 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING Date: 8-17-2022 Time: 5:31:17 Valley Creek Existing Condtions Hydraulic Model

Alternative 1_Upstream Pipe Connection 100yr event (FEMA) based on HEC_RAS EGL using FEMA Harbor WSE @ 9.6 ************************************************************************************************************************** ******** | Invert | Depth | Water | Q | Vel Vel | Energy | Super |Critical|Flow Top|Height/|Base Wt| |No Wth Station | Elev | (FT) | Elev | (CFS) | (FPS) Head | Grd.El.| Elev | Depth | Width |Dia.-FT|or I.D.| ZL |Prs/Pip -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-| L/Elem |Ch Slope | | | | SF Ave| HF |SE Dpth|Froude N|Norm Dp | "N" | X-Fall| ZR |Type Ch *********|*********|********|*********|*********|*******|*******|*********|*******|********|********|*******|*******|***** |******* | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2893.543 25.979 4.259 30.238 545.00 22.23 7.67 37.91 .00 6.05 6.83 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||26.795 .0340 .0146 .39 4.26 2.07 3.35 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2920.338 26.890 4.436 31.326 545.00 21.19 6.98 38.30 .00 6.05 6.75 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||31.000 .0255 .0130 .40 4.44 1.91 3.64 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2951.338 27.680 4.595 32.275 545.00 20.35 6.43 38.71 .00 6.05 6.65 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||32.917 .0217 .0118 .39 4.60 1.79 3.82 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2984.255 28.395 4.759 33.154 545.00 19.56 5.94 39.09 .00 6.05 6.53 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||29.651 .0217 .0106 .31 4.76 1.67 3.82 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3013.906 29.038 4.970 34.009 545.00 18.65 5.40 39.41 .00 6.05 6.35 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||21.500 .0217 .0095 .20 4.97 1.53 3.82 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3035.406 29.505 5.198 34.703 545.00 17.78 4.91 39.61 .00 6.05 6.12 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||14.790 .0217 .0085 .13 5.20 1.40 3.82 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3050.196 29.826 5.449 35.275 545.00 16.95 4.46 39.74 .00 6.05 5.81 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||9.031 .0217 .0077 .07 5.45 1.27 3.82 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3059.227 30.022 5.728 35.751 545.00 16.17 4.06 39.81 .00 6.05 5.40 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||3.111 .0217 .0070 .02 5.73 1.14 3.82 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3062.338 30.090 6.052 36.142 545.00 15.41 3.69 39.83 .00 6.05 4.79 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||-

ཪ

ALTERNATIVE 2 – WESTERN ALIGNMENT

HEC -RA S

Model Domain – Alternative 2

Example Cross Sections Valley_Creek .06

20

Plan: Alternative 2_v2_Normal Depth RS = 1597

.045

8/18/2022 .06 Legend EG FEMA 100 yr WS FEMA 100 yr EG 2-Yr

18

WS 2-Yr EG 30 cfs WS 30 cfs EG 3 cfs

16

WS 3 cfs Ground Bank Sta

Elevation (ft)

14

12

10

8

6

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Station (ft)

Valley_Creek

Plan: Alternative 2_v2_Normal Depth RS = 1452

.06

20

.045

8/18/2022 .06 Legend EG FEMA 100 yr WS FEMA 100 yr EG 2-Yr

18

WS 2-Yr EG 30 cfs WS 30 cfs EG 3 cfs

16

WS 3 cfs Ground Bank Sta

Elevation (ft)

14

12

10

8

6

0

20

40

60 Station (ft)

80

100

2YR Flow Depth Plot (134 CFS)

100YR FEMA Depth Plot (545 CFS)

Hydraulic Results – Alternative 2

WSPGW

100YR FEMAW FLOWRATE SPGW - 545 CFS

T1 Valley Creek Existing Condtions Hydraulic Model T2 Pipe Geometry and Elevations Based on NTI 2001 Survey and City Sizing Map T3 FEMA FLOW (CONC) USING HECRAS EGL BASED ON FEMA HARBOR ELEVATION @ 9.6ft SO R R R R R R R R R R R R SH CD CD CD CD CD Q

1943.284 8.847 6 1967.821 8.913 6 .013 2011.070 9.030 6 .013 2056.513 9.268 6 .013 2124.355 9.762 6 .013 2213.639 10.230 6 .013 2552.639 14.280 6 .013 2809.639 18.050 6 .013 2962.639 20.640 6 .013 3195.639 25.700 6 .013 3230.639 26.890 6 .013 3261.639 27.680 6 .013 3372.639 30.090 6 .013 3374.944 30.090 6 1 4 1 .000 7.000 .000 2 3 0 .000 4.500 8.000 4 3 0 .000 7.000 8.000 5 3 0 .000 7.330 8.000 6 4 1 .000 7.000 .000 545.000 .0

14.480

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000

30.090 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

23.431 .000 43.395 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

0

.000 0 .000 0 .000 0 .000 1 .000 0 .000 1 .000 0 .000 1 .000 0 .000 0 .000 0 .000 0

ཪ FILE: Alt2100YR_Fema3.WSW

W S P G W - CIVILDESIGN Version 14.11 PAGE 1 Program Package Serial Number: 7397 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING Date: 8-17-2022 Time: 5:36:36 Valley Creek Existing Condtions Hydraulic Model Pipe Geometry and Elevations Based on NTI 2001 Survey and City Sizing Ma p FEMA FLOW (CONC) USING HECRAS EGL BASED ON FEMA HARBOR ELEVATION @ 9.6 ************************************************************************************************************************** ******** | Invert | Depth | Water | Q | Vel Vel | Energy | Super |Critical|Flow Top|Height/|Base Wt| |No Wth Station | Elev | (FT) | Elev | (CFS) | (FPS) Head | Grd.El.| Elev | Depth | Width |Dia.-FT|or I.D.| ZL |Prs/Pip -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-| L/Elem |Ch Slope | | | | SF Ave| HF |SE Dpth|Froude N|Norm Dp | "N" | X-Fall| ZR |Type Ch *********|*********|********|*********|*********|*******|*******|*********|*******|********|********|*******|*******|***** |******* | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1943.284 8.847 5.610 14.457 545.00 16.48 4.22 18.68 .39 6.05 5.58 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||24.537 .0027 .0079 .19 6.00 1.19 7.00 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1967.821 8.913 5.380 14.293 545.00 17.17 4.58 18.87 .00 6.05 5.90 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||6.779 .0027 .0084 .06 5.38 1.31 7.00 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1974.600 8.931 5.328 14.259 545.00 17.34 4.67 18.93 .00 6.05 5.97 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||36.470 .0027 .0089 .33 5.33 1.33 7.00 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2011.070 9.030 5.089 14.119 545.00 18.19 5.14 19.25 .53 6.05 6.24 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||45.443 .0052 .0098 .45 5.62 1.46 7.00 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2056.513 9.268 4.926 14.194 545.00 18.83 5.51 19.70 .00 6.05 6.39 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||67.842 .0073 .0107 .72 4.93 1.56 5.74 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2124.355 9.762 4.781 14.543 545.00 19.46 5.88 20.42 .00 6.05 6.51 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||30.420 .0052 .0114 .35 4.78 1.65 7.00 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2154.775 9.921 4.679 14.601 545.00 19.93 6.17 20.77 .00 6.05 6.59 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||58.864 .0052 .0125 .74 4.68 1.72 7.00 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2213.639 10.230 4.489 14.719 545.00 20.91 6.79 21.50 .00 6.05 6.71 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||169.101 .0119 .0137 2.32 4.49 1.87 4.65 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2382.740 12.250 4.375 16.625 545.00 21.54 7.20 23.83 .00 6.05 6.78 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||169.899 .0119 .0152 2.58 4.38 1.96 4.65 .013 .00 .00 PIPE W S P G W - CIVILDESIGN Version 14.11 PAGE 2 ཪ FILE: Alt2100YR_Fema3.WSW Program Package Serial Number: 7397 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING Date: 8-17-2022 Time: 5:36:36 Valley Creek Existing Condtions Hydraulic Model Pipe Geometry and Elevations Based on NTI 2001 Survey and City Sizing Ma

p FEMA FLOW (CONC) USING HECRAS EGL BASED ON FEMA HARBOR ELEVATION @ 9.6 ************************************************************************************************************************** ******** | Invert | Depth | Water | Q | Vel Vel | Energy | Super |Critical|Flow Top|Height/|Base Wt| |No Wth Station | Elev | (FT) | Elev | (CFS) | (FPS) Head | Grd.El.| Elev | Depth | Width |Dia.-FT|or I.D.| ZL |Prs/Pip -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-| L/Elem |Ch Slope | | | | SF Ave| HF |SE Dpth|Froude N|Norm Dp | "N" | X-Fall| ZR |Type Ch *********|*********|********|*********|*********|*******|*******|*********|*******|********|********|*******|*******|***** |******* | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2552.639 14.280 4.203 18.483 545.00 22.59 7.92 26.40 .00 6.05 6.86 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||4.161 .0147 .0161 .07 4.20 2.12 4.33 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2556.800 14.341 4.201 18.542 545.00 22.60 7.93 26.47 .00 6.05 6.86 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||252.839 .0147 .0172 4.34 4.20 2.12 4.33 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2809.639 18.050 4.038 22.088 545.00 23.70 8.72 30.81 .00 6.05 6.92 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||153.000 .0169 .0187 2.85 4.04 2.29 4.13 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2962.639 20.640 3.978 24.618 545.00 24.14 9.05 33.67 .00 6.05 6.93 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||101.381 .0217 .0186 1.88 3.98 2.36 3.82 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3064.020 22.842 4.051 26.893 545.00 23.61 8.65 35.55 .00 6.05 6.91 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||131.619 .0217 .0170 2.24 4.05 2.28 3.82 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3195.639 25.700 4.215 29.915 545.00 22.51 7.87 37.78 .00 6.05 6.85 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||8.205 .0340 .0157 .13 4.22 2.11 3.35 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3203.844 25.979 4.259 30.238 545.00 22.23 7.67 37.91 .00 6.05 6.83 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||26.795 .0340 .0146 .39 4.26 2.07 3.35 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3230.639 26.890 4.436 31.326 545.00 21.19 6.98 38.30 .00 6.05 6.75 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||31.000 .0255 .0130 .40 4.44 1.91 3.64 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3261.639 27.680 4.595 32.275 545.00 20.35 6.43 38.71 .00 6.05 6.65 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||32.917 .0217 .0118 .39 4.60 1.79 3.82 .013 .00 .00 PIPE W S P G W - CIVILDESIGN Version 14.11 PAGE 3 ཪ FILE: Alt2100YR_Fema3.WSW Program Package Serial Number: 7397 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING Date: 8-17-2022 Time: 5:36:36 Valley Creek Existing Condtions Hydraulic Model Pipe Geometry and Elevations Based on NTI 2001 Survey and City Sizing Ma p FEMA FLOW (CONC) USING HECRAS EGL BASED ON FEMA HARBOR ELEVATION @ 9.6 ************************************************************************************************************************** ******** | Invert | Depth | Water | Q | Vel Vel | Energy | Super |Critical|Flow Top|Height/|Base Wt| |No Wth Station | Elev | (FT) | Elev | (CFS) | (FPS) Head | Grd.El.| Elev | Depth | Width |Dia.-FT|or I.D.| ZL |Prs/Pip -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|

L/Elem |Ch Slope | | | | SF Ave| HF |SE Dpth|Froude N|Norm Dp | "N" | X-Fall| ZR |Type Ch *********|*********|********|*********|*********|*******|*******|*********|*******|********|********|*******|*******|***** |******* | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3294.556 28.395 4.759 33.154 545.00 19.56 5.94 39.09 .00 6.05 6.53 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||29.651 .0217 .0106 .31 4.76 1.67 3.82 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3324.207 29.038 4.970 34.009 545.00 18.65 5.40 39.41 .00 6.05 6.35 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||21.500 .0217 .0095 .20 4.97 1.53 3.82 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3345.707 29.505 5.198 34.703 545.00 17.78 4.91 39.61 .00 6.05 6.12 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||14.790 .0217 .0085 .13 5.20 1.40 3.82 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3360.497 29.826 5.449 35.275 545.00 16.95 4.46 39.74 .00 6.05 5.81 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||9.031 .0217 .0077 .07 5.45 1.27 3.82 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3369.528 30.022 5.728 35.751 545.00 16.17 4.06 39.81 .00 6.05 5.40 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||3.111 .0217 .0070 .02 5.73 1.14 3.82 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3372.639 30.090 6.052 36.142 545.00 15.41 3.69 39.83 .00 6.05 4.79 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||| | | | | | | | | | | | | 3374.944 30.090 6.052 36.142 545.00 15.41 3.69 39.83 .00 6.05 4.79 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||-

ཪ

ALTERNATIVE 3 – VALLEY CREEK PARK AND ALTERNATIVE 4 – VALLEY CREEK PARK E X T E NS IO N

Model Domain – Alternative 3

Example Cross Sections Valley_Creek .06

20

Plan: Alternative 3_v2_Normal Depth RS = 1271

8/18/2022

.045

.06 Legend EG FEMA 100 yr WS FEMA 100 yr EG 2-Yr

18

WS 2-Yr EG 30 cfs WS 30 cfs EG 3 cfs

16

WS 3 cfs Ground Bank Sta

Elevation (ft)

14

12

10

8

6

0

20

40

60

80

100

Station (ft)

Valley_Creek

Plan: Alternative 3_v2_Normal Depth RS = 1424

20

8/18/2022

.045

.06

.06 Legend EG FEMA 100 yr WS FEMA 100 yr EG 2-Yr

18

WS 2-Yr EG 30 cfs WS 30 cfs EG 3 cfs

16

WS 3 cfs Ground Bank Sta

Elevation (ft)

14

12

10

8

6

0

50

100 Station (ft)

150

200

2YR Flow Depth Plot (134 CFS)

100YR FEMA Depth Plot (545 CFS)

Hydraulic Results – Alternative 3 and 4

Valley_Creek

Plan: Alternative 3_v2_Normal Depth

8/18/2022

Valley Creek Alt 3

14

Legend EG FEMA 100 yr WS FEMA 100 yr EG 2-Yr WS 2-Yr Crit FEMA 100 yr

12

EG 30 cfs WS 30 cfs Crit 2-Yr Crit 30 cfs EG 3 cfs WS 3 cfs

10

Crit 3 cfs

Elevation (ft)

Ground

8

6

4

0

100

200

300

400 Main Channel Distance (ft)

500

600

700

800

WSPGW

100YR FEMAW FLOWRATE SPGW - 545 CFS

T1 Valley Creek Existing Condtions Hydraulic Model T2 Pipe Geometry and Elevations Based on NTI 2001 Survey and City Sizing Map T3 FEMA FLOW BASED ON HECRAS EGL WITH WSE AT HARBOR @9.6ft SO R R R R R R R R R R R R R R SH CD CD CD CD CD Q

1569.767 7.308 6 1569.767 7.308 6 .013 1645.290 7.442 6 .013 1696.439 7.593 6 .013 1716.022 8.103 6 .013 1721.850 8.145 6 .013 1943.923 9.762 6 .013 2033.207 10.230 6 .013 2372.207 14.280 6 .013 2629.207 18.050 6 .013 2782.207 20.640 6 .013 3015.207 25.700 6 .013 3050.207 26.890 6 .013 3081.207 27.680 6 .013 3192.207 30.090 6 .013 3192.207 30.090 6 1 4 1 .000 7.000 .000 2 3 0 .000 4.500 8.000 4 3 0 .000 7.000 8.000 5 3 0 .000 7.330 8.000 6 4 1 .000 7.000 .000 545.000 .0

13.200

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000

30.090 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

.000 .000 48.844 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

0

.000 0 .000 0 .000 0 .000 1 .000 0 .000 1 .000 0 .000 1 .000 0 .000 1 .000 0 .000 0 .000 0 .000 0

ཪ FILE: Alt3_100yrFEMA2.WSW

W S P G W - CIVILDESIGN Version 14.11 PAGE 1 Program Package Serial Number: 7397 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING Date: 8-17-2022 Time: 5:40:15 Valley Creek Existing Condtions Hydraulic Model Pipe Geometry and Elevations Based on NTI 2001 Survey and City Sizing Ma p FEMA FLOW BASED ON HECRAS EGL WITH WSE AT HARBOR @9.6ft ************************************************************************************************************************** ******** | Invert | Depth | Water | Q | Vel Vel | Energy | Super |Critical|Flow Top|Height/|Base Wt| |No Wth Station | Elev | (FT) | Elev | (CFS) | (FPS) Head | Grd.El.| Elev | Depth | Width |Dia.-FT|or I.D.| ZL |Prs/Pip -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-| L/Elem |Ch Slope | | | | SF Ave| HF |SE Dpth|Froude N|Norm Dp | "N" | X-Fall| ZR |Type Ch *********|*********|********|*********|*********|*******|*******|*********|*******|********|********|*******|*******|***** |******* | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1569.767 7.308 6.052 13.360 545.00 15.41 3.69 17.05 .00 6.05 4.79 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||13.678 .0018 .0065 .09 6.05 1.00 7.00 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1583.445 7.332 6.452 13.784 545.00 14.69 3.35 17.14 .00 6.05 3.76 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||61.845 .0018 .0068 .42 6.45 .82 7.00 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1645.290 7.442 7.000 14.442 545.00 14.16 3.11 17.56 7.00 6.05 .00 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||51.149 .0030 .0073 .37 7.00 .00 7.00 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1696.439 7.593 7.680 15.273 545.00 14.16 3.11 18.39 .00 6.05 .00 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||19.583 .0260 .0073 .14 7.68 .00 3.62 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1716.022 8.103 7.468 15.571 545.00 14.16 3.11 18.69 .00 6.05 .00 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||5.828 .0072 .0073 .04 7.47 .00 5.77 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1721.850 8.145 7.469 15.614 545.00 14.16 3.11 18.73 .00 6.05 .00 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||222.073 .0073 .0073 1.62 7.47 .00 5.74 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1943.923 9.762 7.624 17.386 545.00 14.16 3.11 20.50 .00 6.05 .00 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||89.284 .0052 .0073 .65 7.62 .00 7.00 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2033.207 10.230 7.806 18.036 545.00 14.16 3.11 21.15 .00 6.05 .00 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||2.646 .0119 .0073 .02 7.81 .00 4.65 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2035.854 10.262 7.790 18.052 545.00 14.16 3.11 21.17 .00 6.05 .00 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||HYDRAULIC JUMP W S P G W - CIVILDESIGN Version 14.11 PAGE 2 ཪ FILE: Alt3_100yrFEMA2.WSW Program Package Serial Number: 7397

WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING Date: 8-17-2022 Time: 5:40:15 Valley Creek Existing Condtions Hydraulic Model Pipe Geometry and Elevations Based on NTI 2001 Survey and City Sizing Ma p FEMA FLOW BASED ON HECRAS EGL WITH WSE AT HARBOR @9.6ft ************************************************************************************************************************** ******** | Invert | Depth | Water | Q | Vel Vel | Energy | Super |Critical|Flow Top|Height/|Base Wt| |No Wth Station | Elev | (FT) | Elev | (CFS) | (FPS) Head | Grd.El.| Elev | Depth | Width |Dia.-FT|or I.D.| ZL |Prs/Pip -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-| L/Elem |Ch Slope | | | | SF Ave| HF |SE Dpth|Froude N|Norm Dp | "N" | X-Fall| ZR |Type Ch *********|*********|********|*********|*********|*******|*******|*********|*******|********|********|*******|*******|***** |******* | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2035.854 10.262 4.487 14.748 545.00 20.92 6.79 21.54 .00 6.05 6.72 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||166.454 .0119 .0137 2.29 4.49 1.87 4.65 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2202.308 12.250 4.375 16.625 545.00 21.54 7.20 23.83 .00 6.05 6.78 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||169.899 .0119 .0152 2.58 4.38 1.96 4.65 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2372.207 14.280 4.203 18.483 545.00 22.59 7.92 26.40 .00 6.05 6.86 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||4.161 .0147 .0161 .07 4.20 2.12 4.33 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2376.368 14.341 4.201 18.542 545.00 22.60 7.93 26.47 .00 6.05 6.86 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||252.839 .0147 .0172 4.34 4.20 2.12 4.33 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2629.207 18.050 4.038 22.088 545.00 23.70 8.72 30.81 .00 6.05 6.92 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||153.000 .0169 .0187 2.85 4.04 2.29 4.13 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2782.207 20.640 3.978 24.618 545.00 24.14 9.05 33.67 .00 6.05 6.93 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||101.381 .0217 .0186 1.88 3.98 2.36 3.82 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2883.588 22.842 4.051 26.893 545.00 23.61 8.65 35.55 .00 6.05 6.91 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||131.619 .0217 .0170 2.24 4.05 2.28 3.82 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3015.207 25.700 4.215 29.915 545.00 22.51 7.87 37.78 .00 6.05 6.85 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||8.205 .0340 .0157 .13 4.22 2.11 3.35 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3023.412 25.979 4.259 30.238 545.00 22.23 7.67 37.91 .00 6.05 6.83 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||26.795 .0340 .0146 .39 4.26 2.07 3.35 .013 .00 .00 PIPE W S P G W - CIVILDESIGN Version 14.11 PAGE 3 ཪ FILE: Alt3_100yrFEMA2.WSW Program Package Serial Number: 7397 WATER SURFACE PROFILE LISTING Date: 8-17-2022 Time: 5:40:15 Valley Creek Existing Condtions Hydraulic Model

Pipe Geometry and Elevations Based on NTI 2001 Survey and City Sizing Ma p FEMA FLOW BASED ON HECRAS EGL WITH WSE AT HARBOR @9.6ft ************************************************************************************************************************** ******** | Invert | Depth | Water | Q | Vel Vel | Energy | Super |Critical|Flow Top|Height/|Base Wt| |No Wth Station | Elev | (FT) | Elev | (CFS) | (FPS) Head | Grd.El.| Elev | Depth | Width |Dia.-FT|or I.D.| ZL |Prs/Pip -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-| L/Elem |Ch Slope | | | | SF Ave| HF |SE Dpth|Froude N|Norm Dp | "N" | X-Fall| ZR |Type Ch *********|*********|********|*********|*********|*******|*******|*********|*******|********|********|*******|*******|***** |******* | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3050.207 26.890 4.436 31.326 545.00 21.19 6.98 38.30 .00 6.05 6.75 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||31.000 .0255 .0130 .40 4.44 1.91 3.64 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3081.207 27.680 4.595 32.275 545.00 20.35 6.43 38.71 .00 6.05 6.65 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||32.917 .0217 .0118 .39 4.60 1.79 3.82 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3114.124 28.395 4.759 33.154 545.00 19.56 5.94 39.09 .00 6.05 6.53 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||29.651 .0217 .0106 .31 4.76 1.67 3.82 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3143.775 29.038 4.970 34.009 545.00 18.65 5.40 39.41 .00 6.05 6.35 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||21.500 .0217 .0095 .20 4.97 1.53 3.82 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3165.275 29.505 5.198 34.703 545.00 17.78 4.91 39.61 .00 6.05 6.12 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||14.790 .0217 .0085 .13 5.20 1.40 3.82 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3180.065 29.826 5.449 35.275 545.00 16.95 4.46 39.74 .00 6.05 5.81 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||9.031 .0217 .0077 .07 5.45 1.27 3.82 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3189.096 30.022 5.728 35.751 545.00 16.17 4.06 39.81 .00 6.05 5.40 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||3.111 .0217 .0070 .02 5.73 1.14 3.82 .013 .00 .00 PIPE | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3192.207 30.090 6.052 36.142 545.00 15.41 3.69 39.83 .00 6.05 4.79 7.000 .000 .00 1 .0 -|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-||-

ཪ

APPENDIX C Stormwater Management Options Development Details

Alternative 1 Valley Street Alignment 6 5

4

Could add baffles to improve passage until Phase 5 daylighting

3

7

1 2

Phas to e End of Phase 3

Green = Daylighted Creek Purple = Bridge or Culvert

Red line = Existing Culvert Maroon Dash = Future Daylighting Fish Passable Crossing ~ 35ft Wide

7

White Line = edge of pavement Yellow Dash = Olympic Discovery Trail Stormwater collection points = Surface water

80ft ROW corridor for Daylighting.

Valley Street closed

se 4 ties directly existing culvert

Gravity main Both Phase 5 impact

Alternative 2 Western Alignment 5

Fish Passable Crossing ~ 35ft Wide 100ft ROW for Daylighting.

Fish Passable Crossing ~ 35ft Wide

4

3 2

10 9

Potential Baffles Added (may not be necessary) End of Phase 3

6

7 8

1

Temporary connection to culve

Daylighting Width Shown ~ 80ft

7ft pipe to existing ert

Green = Daylighted Creek Purple = Bridge or Culvert

Red line = Existing Culvert Orange Dash = Future Daylighting

White Line = edge of pavement Blue Arrow = Lateral Storm drain inputs Yellow Dash = Olympic Discovery Trail Stormwater collection points = Surface water Gravity main Both Phase 5 impact

Alternative 3a Valley Creek Park 7

6

Non creek area used for Park Open Space 150-250 width for Daylighting.

5 4

Potential Baffles Added (may not be necessary)

End of Phase 3

3

1 2

Green = Daylighted Creek Daylighting Width Shown ~ 80ft

BLUE = Park/Open Space

Purple = Bridge or Culvert Red line = Existing Culvert

Green Dash= Future Daylighting Fish Passable Crossing ~ 35ft Wide

White Line = edge of pavement

Yellow Dash = Olympic Discovery Trail Stormwater collection points = Surface water

Temporary 7ft pipe connection to existing culvert

Gravity main Both Phase 5 impact

Alternative 4 Valley Creek Park Combo 7 6 Non creek area used for Park Open Space 150-250 width for Daylighting.

Potential Baffles Added (may not be necessary)

End of Phase 3

5

4 3

1 2

Green = Daylighted Creek Daylighting Width Shown ~ 80ft

APPENDIX D

BLUE = Park/Open Space

Purple = Bridge or Culvert

Transportation and Mobility Study Red Memoranda line = Existing Culvert

Green Dash= Future Daylighting Fish Passable Crossing ~ 35ft Wide Additional Buffer from closing Portion of Valley Street

Temporary 7ft pipe connection to existing culvert

White Line = edge of pavement

Yellow Dash = Olympic Discovery Trail Stormwater collection points = Surface water Gravity main Both Phase 5 impact

This page intentionally left blank

VALLEY CREEK DAYLIGHTING – TRANSPORTATION MEMO DATE:

August 25, 2022

TO:

David Cortese | Herrera Inc.

FROM:

Christian Thompson | DKS Associates

SUBJECT: Valley Creek Daylighting – Transportation Memo

The following memo describes the transportation impacts/considerations associated with the planned daylighting of a portion of Valley Creek in Port Angeles, WA. Three alternatives are considered separately here with a level of detail suitable for preliminary planning-level analysis.

ALTERNATIVE 1 VEHICLE ROUTE IMPACTS

Valley Street is closed between W 2nd Street and W 1st Street. Westbound traffic from Marine Drive can no longer access Valley Street, and westbound left turns are not currently allowed from Marine Drive onto W 2nd Street. Eastbound traffic from Marine Drive can only access Valley Street by turning right at W 2nd Street. Measurements at Marine Drive & W 2nd Street show that an inscribed circle diameter (ICD) of approximately 115 feet is the largest that will fit between the existing edge of pavement lines. WSDOT guidance states that a compact roundabout can be considered with an ICD between 65 feet and 120 feet.1 Often compact roundabouts are constructed and later converted to full scale roundabouts. Compact roundabouts do not include non-motorized safety elements such as vertical curbs and refuge islands for crosswalks. It is not recommended to use compact roundabouts where significant non-motorized traffic (such as the Olympic Discovery Trail) would utilize the intersection. Alternatively, there appears to be enough right-of-way to restripe Marine Drive with a westbound left turn lane with 13 ft wide lanes to allow westbound traffic to turn on W 2nd Street (each lane is approximately 20 ft wide on Marine Drive at W 2nd Street). This would also require modifying the raised concrete island (pork chop) and moving the eastbound right turn further east to match the westbound left turn path. A left-turn treatment

1

WSDOT Design Manual 1320.04(2)(e). https://wsdot.wa.gov/publications/manuals/fulltext/M22-01/1320.pdf

VALLE Y CREE K DAY LIG HTING – T RANSPOR TAT ION MEMO

would not interfere with non-motorized traffic. Both options would likely require removing some portion of on-street parking.

The westbound approach on Marine Drive currently allows left turns onto both W 1st Street (eastbound, sharp left maneuver) and Valley Street (southbound, slight left maneuver). With the Valley Street closure, the westbound Marine Drive channelization would require changes such as modifying the raised concrete island, pedestrian ramp, striping, and removing one lane to ensure a safe perpendicular crossing design.

The eastbound approach from Marine Drive leads onto W 1st Street and traffic currently can turn right to travel southbound on Valley Street. This route on Valley Street is identified as a Tsunami Evacuation Route leading towards S Cherry Street which continues south and then west on E Lauridsen Boulevard/US-101. Alternative routes exist at both S Cedar Street and S Lincoln Avenue2 which are approximately 3,500 ft apart along Marine Drive.

For all other routes/turn movements that become unavailable, there exists an alternative route.

To maintain a single southbound lane on Valley Street, the lane width (curb face to curb face) should be at least 14 ft plus sidewalk and guardrail. A wider lane would be needed if an on-street bike lane is included.

PARKING IMPACTS ASSUMING CURB-TO-CURB PAVEMENT AREA IS REMOVED

This alternative would impact parking on the west side of Valley Street between W 2nd Street and the alley (parcel 063000003569). 12 spaces are currently striped. Depending on the amount of pavement remaining, this parking area may need to be angle-parking or parallel-parking only.

Approximately 10 spaces may fit as angled parking spaces and approximately 5 spaces may fit as parallel-parking spaces. Additional angled parking may be viable along W 2nd Street.

Parking north of the alley (parcel 063000003503) appears to be unaffected under this alternative.

Approximately 185 feet of on-street parking would be removed, most of which does not appear to be utilized due to ample off-street parking supply. The curb-to-curb pavement removal impacts are shown in Figure 1.

ASSUMING 80-FOOT RIGHT OF WAY IS REMOVED

In the case of utilizing the full 80-foot right of way for the daylighted creek, there would be greater impacts to parking. For the west side of Valley Street between W 2nd Street and the alley, parking would likely be parallel-only, as the remaining parking area would be approximately 23 feet wide.

2

Tsunami Evacuation Map for Port Angeles and Vicinity, July 2012, Washington State Department of Natural Resources. https://file.dnr.wa.gov/publications/ger_tsunami_evac_port_angeles.pdf

VALLE Y CREE K DAY LIG HTING – T RANSPOR TAT ION MEMO

At a minimum, parallel parking areas should be at least 18 feet wide (9 feet for parking width, plus 9 feet for circulation) although a wider area may be necessary for larger vehicles and trucks.

Parking north of the alley would likely be minimally affected. There are four marked spaces, and with the full 80 foot daylighted creek the southernmost space may need to be removed or relocated closer to the building around the corner (moved south and west).

MARINE DRIVE/W 1ST STREET/VALLEY STREET PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS

Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) may be appropriate improvements for pedestrian crossings at the intersection of Marine Drive /W 1st Street/Valley Street when crossing 1 or 2 vehicle travel lanes. When crossing 3 or more lanes, a high intensity activated crosswalk (HAWK) signal is recommended. A marked crosswalk across the western leg of Marine Drive at Valley Street would improve pedestrian connectivity and provide a more direct route between the northeast/southwest pedestrian travel directions. Additionally, moving the existing crossing across the westbound lane of Marine Drive further east would also provide a more direct and intuitive route between the trails. See Figure 1 below.

FIGURE 1: ALTERNATIVE 1 SKETCH

VALLE Y CREE K DAY LIG HTING – T RANSPOR TAT ION MEMO

ALTERNATIVE 2 VEHICLE ROUTE IMPACTS

With no road closures included as part of this alternative, all current vehicular routes will be maintained. A reduction in on-street parking supply is possible at midblock crossings, but the impact would be minimal.

MID-BLOCK PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS

This alternative, if the trail follows the daylighted route, would route pedestrian across Marine Drive approximately 250 ft west of the current Marine Drive pedestrian crossing. An unsignalized midblock crossing would be a safety concern, similarly an RRFB crossing would not be recommended.

If the crossing is at the future Marine Trades Industrial Park main access point, a full traffic signal would be appropriate. Rather, a pedestrian crossing at the existing Marine Drive/W 1st Street/ Velley Street intersection would be preferred. See Alternative 1 for further discussion for pedestrian improvements at this location.

The City of Port Angeles plans to construct a shared use trail along the north side of Marine Drive.

Since a trail following the daylighted creek alignment for this alternative would require a midblock crossing on Marine Drive, we recommend aligning the trail along Valley Street to avoid the midblock crossing and to utilize the established crossings at the intersection of Marine Drive/W 1st Street/Valley Street. See Figure 2 on the following page.

At the W 2nd Street daylight crossing location, an unsignalized marked mid-block pedestrian crossing may be appropriate depending on the traffic volume. An RRFB treatment would be preferred.

VALLE Y CREE K DAY LIG HTING – T RANSPOR TAT ION MEMO

FIGURE 2: ALTERNATIVE 2 SKETCH

ALTERNATIVE 3 VEHICLE ROUTE IMPACTS

With no road closures included as part of this alternative, all current vehicular routes will be maintained.

VALLE Y CREE K DAY LIG HTING – T RANSPOR TAT ION MEMO

MARINE DRIVE/W 1ST STREET/VALLEY STREET PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS

Similar to Alternative 1, a marked crosswalk across the western leg of Marine Drive at Valley Street would greatly improve pedestrian connectivity and provide a direct route between the main northeast/southwest pedestrian travel directions. See Figure 3 below.

PARKING

Since this alternative would create a park that lies at the intersection of two trails, parking supply may not be a concern, as many users would arrive by non-motorized travel modes. On-street parking along Marine Drive, W 2nd Street, and Valley Street would likely be ample for a park of this size that is well-connected to the adjacent trails. Angle parking could be implemented on W 2nd Street, instead of parallel parking, for additional supply.

FIGURE 3: ALTERNATIVE 3 SKETCH

VALLE Y CREE K DAY LIG HTING – T RANSPOR TAT ION MEMO

Memorandum Date:

December 26, 2022

To:

David Cortese, Herrera

From:

Ravyn Whitewolf, P.E., Kash Nikzad, P.E.; Scott Shih, P.E.

CC:

File

Re:

Valley Creek Daylighting Transportation and Feasibility Recommendation

Introduction The primary purpose of the feasibility assessment is to conduct a broad-scale comparison of three proposed alignments for daylighting the lower portion of Valley Creek to inform the selection of a preferred alignment and help to identify barriers to implementation. The purpose of this memorandum is to evaluate the transportation study developed by DKS 1, infrastructure implications (see Figure 1) and considerations for the selection of crossing structure type (culvert or bridge) for each alternative. Since stormwater can enter the daylighted creek, we did not analyze the storm system, expecting it would be directed to the new creek alignment. In the

Figure 1 – Utility Overview

Water Sewer Storm

Source: City of Port Angeles Website

See memo dated 8-25-2022 by Christian Thompson, DKS & Associates entitled “Valley Creek Daylighting Transportation Memo”

1

following report, we will provide further details on utility and transportation impacts that were evaluated for the three viable alternatives under consideration for the daylighting of Valley Creek.

Alternative 1 Alternative 1 proposes to daylight Valley Creek within the S. Valley Street right-of-way between W. 1st Street/Marine Drive/Front Street and W. 2nd Street. This alternative is the most challenging due to the abundance of underground utilities and the complex geometry of the intersection, shown in Figure 2. The resulting crossing structure is quite long (approximately 160 feet). There are two sewer lines (8-inch and 15-inch respectively) running parallel to the creek on Valley Street, approximately 36 feet apart and both appear to gravity drain toward the bay.

Due to the depth of the utility, relocating in the Valley Street right-of-way would be challenging with the daylighted creek section. Furthermore, adjacent sewer lines do not appear to offer a means by which to gravity these lines if relocated outside of Valley Street. Additional right of way or easements would need to be obtained to allow for the sewer to continue to gravity flow.

Figure 2- Plan View of Alternative 1 Structure

Evaluation Transportation - Transportation options for this alternative per the DKS memo, involve modifications to the intersections at W. 1st and Marine Drive and Marine Drive and W. 2nd Street, in order to maintain traffic circulation due to the required closure of Valley Street. One option at Marine Drive and W. 2nd Street involves the installation of a new westbound left turn lane along Marine Drive with modifications to the existing raised island to improve eastbound right turn movements. The other alternative at this intersection would be a compact roundabout with an inscribed circle diameter (ICD) of approximately 115 feet. Because future pedestrian crossing needs at this location are currently unknown, a compact roundabout would not be recommended as the tapers and island are mountable, and do not offer pedestrians the protection of vertical curbs that are part of a standard roundabout or pork chop island with a left turn lane.

Pedestrian safety is also a concern at the existing intersection of W. 1st and Marine Drive, where modifications to the crosswalks within the existing pork chop island would add more clarity.

Additionally, the closure of Valley Street would require changes to the intersection such as modifying the raised concrete island, pedestrian ramp, striping, and removing one lane to ensure a safe perpendicular crossing design. The future alignment of the new trail will need to be a consideration for the selection of crossing treatments. Because of the width of the Marine Drive/W. 1st/Valley Street intersection, a rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) or HAWK signal could be added to address pedestrian safety. This is the same for all three alternatives; 2

however, a RRFB would be sufficient here because there is no longer westbound traffic turning south on Valley Street. The other alternatives still have this movement of traffic southbound so the HAWK would be the preferred choice. Existing parking would be eliminated or would need to be relocated with this alternative.

In the following, viable bridge and culvert crossing options are investigated: Bridge – This option would necessitate a bridge span of over 145 feet (width of 60 feet) due to the complex intersections of Valley Street, W. 1st Street and Marine Drive. Piers would need to be located to avoid the sewer mains in the intersection and to avoid a water line which runs parallel to Marine Drive and W. 1st Street that crosses Valley Street just south of the intersection. The water main that parallels the creek would need to be hung from one of the bridge girders. In addition, the 6-inch water main on Valley Street may be located within the trail or the side slope of the daylighted creek.

Culvert – A culvert that spans the 3-way intersection would also be quite long (approximately 160 feet). The grade of the stream poses a problem for the 8-inch sewer main running parallel to the creek. The opportunity to lower this section, considering the other utilities in the vicinity, would be challenging. In addition, it would mean that the pipes would still be directly beneath the bottom of the culvert. Based on the grades of the existing sewer in the Marine Drive intersection, this option is likely not feasible in Alternative 1 as the slope of the pipe appears too flat to be lowered.

Alternative 2 Alternative 2 proposes to daylight Valley Creek in 3 sections across private property, involving 2 road crossings: Marine Drive and W. 2nd Street (Figure 3). Both crossings are individually shorter than Alternative 1. For the W. 2nd Street crossing (Structure 1), one sewer line parallels the south part of W. 2nd Street ending approximately 250 feet west of Valley Street, and another bisects the private parcel just south of Marine Drive. Both sewer mains are 6-inch. The Marine Drive crossing (Structure 2) has a 30-inch sewer main that runs along the center of the road as described in Alternative 1. It is possible the 6-inch sewer that bisects the private parcel may no longer be needed if the land uses in the area change as result of the project. A 12-inch cast iron water main runs parallel to and on the south side of Marine Drive while a 6-inch water main parallels the north line of W. 2nd Street (Also cast iron). Transportation impacts for this alternative are primarily related to the loss of on-street parking but would be further compounded depending on the location of the planned trail.

3

Structure 2

Structure 1

Figure 3- Plan View of Alternative 2 Structures

Evaluation Transportation – As indicated earlier, transportation impacts for this alternative are minor. If a trail is incorporated into the daylighted section, a mid-block crossing as indicated in the DKS analysis is a concern due to its proximity to Valley Street and the width of the roadway.

Relocating the trail crossing to Valley Street or W. 2nd Street is preferred, following the recommendations in the DKS memo. Alternatively, the mid-block crossing would require a HAWK signal at a minimum. The short crossing on W. 2nd Street is not a concern.

In the following, viable bridge and culvert crossing alternatives are investigated: Bridge – For this option, the first structure would be about 105 feet long by 60 feet wide, and the second structure would be about 145 by 60 feet. The 6-inch water main impacted by Structure 1 would need to be buried below the creek or hung from the bridge structure. This structure is not impacted by the sewer main. Structure 2 would cross two sewer mains and one water line. The 30-inch sewer appears to be below the creek elevation; however, the 6-inch sewer looks like it would need to be hung from the bridge or otherwise relocated. Depending on the land use of the remaining site, the 6-inch sewer that bisects the lot between W. 2nd and W. Marine Drive may be abandoned in place.

Culvert – For this option, the Structure 1 culvert would be about 100 feet long and would necessitate lowering the water line so that the pipe could avoid the structure. There is no impact from the sewer main for this structure. As with the bridge, Structure 2 would be about 145 feet long, and would leave little cover for the 30-inch sewer main. If still needed, the 6-inch sewer would need to be lowered or relocated. If this line could be abandoned through this section, the challenges with this pipe would no longer be problematic. Alternatively, it appears there may be enough vertical fall to replace the pipe with a flatter slope.

Alternative 3 Alternative 3 proposes to daylight Valley Creek across private property in a manner that involves the establishment of a park (see Figure 4). This option would involve a larger acquisition of 4

private property to gain right of way for not only the creek but also the additional park space adjacent to the creek. Land contamination would need to be evaluated with this option due to the presence of a gas station on one of the parcels through which the creek would pass. This alternative involves one crossing over Marine Drive and would involve the shortest proposed structure. Like Alternative 2 (Structure 2), there are two utilities that intersect this crossing, one being a 12-inch water main and the other being a 30-inch sewer line. Both run parallel to Marine Dr. with the water main near the centerline of the road and the sewer line in the more northern region of the road.

Evaluation Transportation – The only road impact involved in this alternative involves the use of W. 2nd Street for on-street parking. As this road primarily services those surrounding properties where the park and daylighted creek will be located, this change should have limited impact to those properties. Furthermore, the existing crosswalks and pork chop island can be retained and potentially enhanced at Valley Street as indicated in the DKS memo.

In the following, viable bridge and culvert crossing alternatives are investigated: Bridge – For this option, the bridge in this location would be approximately 90 feet long by 60 feet wide. The water main intersects the bridge in such a way that it would need to be hung from the bridge structure to remain operational. For the sewer line, it appears deep enough under the structure that it likely would not have any impact.

Culvert – For this option, the culvert would be approximately 100 feet to span Marine Drive.

Unfortunately, the 12-inch water main collides with the top portion of the culvert. As a result, the water main would need to be relocated or buried deeper, depending on the feasibility of either option. The sewer line, as with the bridge option, sits low enough in the ground to avoid conflict with the culvert. This alternative has the lowest estimated construction cost associated with it.

Figure 4- Plan View of Alternative 3 Structure

5

Cost* This section provides planning level costs for the described alternatives. Provided costs exclusive of preliminary and construction engineering in 2022 dollars. We would recommend including a contingency representing 20 percent of construction costs.

Estimated costs are as follows: Alternative 1 2 3

Bridge $7,830,000 $13,500,000 $4,860,000

Culvert $2,240,000 $4,000,000 $1,600,000

Roadway $150,000 <$50,000 (Striping) <$50,000 (Striping)

Signal (optional) RRFB $100,000 Hawk $350,000 Hawk $350,000

*Costs do not include utility relocations or changes in roadway approach due to bridge clearances.

Concluding Remarks While each alternative evaluated in this report has transportation and utility challenges, none of them are fatally flawed. Of the three, Alternative 1 requires the most intersection improvements to mitigate for traffic impacts and requires significant utility relocations - making it the least recommended alternative. In addition, the city would need to acquire easements parallel to Valley Street to relocate the two sewer lines that parallel that road. Finally, because of its location, the Alternative 1 bridge would have the longest span of the three alternatives.

Alternative 2 has fewer challenges, but with two crossings instead of one, it would still involve a significant amount of utility work. In addition, depending on the outcome of the planned trail network, a mid-block crossing on Marine Drive may be required. Because of the number of lanes, width of the road and potential increased use of that crossing due to the integration of a new trail, pedestrian safety challenges will need to be addressed by a HAWK signal, traffic signal or roundabout. The mid-block crossing on W. 2nd Street is less problematic from a transportation perspective as it is much shorter and narrower.

Alternative 3 involves the least amount of utility work and would involve no transportation mitigation. Existing rights of way can be used for parking, potentially converted to angle parking to maximize the available space. The park space at this location would also provide a nice visual in an otherwise industrial area.

Except for Alternative 1, all the alternatives would allow for the option of a bridge or a culvert to convey the creek. A bridge would allow for more options for relocation of the water mains where indicated as the water mains could be hung instead of being lowered. However, other elements such as cost, type of bridge, permit requirements, or freeboard of the re-routed stream may also determine the structure type.

Should you have any questions please call me at (360)255-2563 or email me at rwhitewolf@trantecheng.com

6

Disclaimer Preliminary assessment of potential utility line conflicts specific to the three evaluated alternatives was made using AutoCAD software. Utility and road elevations were determined by using GIS rim and invert elevations available from the City of Port Angeles website. Condition analysis, location and elevations should be verified during the design of the selected alternative.

7

Appendix A – Culvert Cross Sections

8

Alternative 1

Alternative 2 Structure 1

Structure 2

Alternative 3

Appendix B – Bridge Plan Views

10

Alternative 1

Alternative 2 Structure 1

Structure 2

11

Alternative 3

12

APPENDIX E Detailed Alternatives Assessment Summary Matrix

Alternative 1: Valley Street Alignment

Alternative 2: Western Alignmen

5

5

● Would improve fish passage in the lower portions of

Fish Passage

1

Criterion

2

the creek. ● Would remove the drop in the existing culvert system due to the abandoned industrial line (partial barrier at low tide). ● Includes Marine Drive crossing with Minimum Hydraulic Opening of 35ft per WDFW guidelines. ● Modeled 2-year flow velocities range from 1.5 to 4.5 ft/sec, velocities upstream of the estuary <3.7 ft/sec. ● Modeled velocities for the “High” fish passage flow range from 1.0 to 2.9 ft/sec, velocities upstream of the estuary <2.3 ft/sec. ● Fringe bank areas will have lower velocities than average velocities from hydraulic model for resting/refuge. ● Additional LWM could be added to the channel to further reduce flow velocities. ● Concept design utilizes a stream simulation approach which mimics natural velocities for a range of flow rates. ● The temporary culvert connection to existing culvert does not include fish passage improvements due to anticipated replacement in future project. ● The remaining culvert upstream will still pose a partial barrier to fish until addressed in a future project.

4

Hydraulic Performance

● Would be able to convey the FEMA 100-year flowrate. ● Marine Drive crossing available freeboard = 4.5

February 2023

Detailed Alternative As

feet (FEMA 100-yr flowrate) ● Freeboard assessment assumes 2 feet minimum thickness for the top of the structure below existing ground. ● To secure a Hydraulic Project Approval permit from WDFW, the freeboard above the 100-year water surface elevation typically needs to be 3 feet. ● Would not negatively impact hydraulic performance of the remaining portions of the existing culvert for the FEMA 100-year flowrate.

Detailed Alternatives Assessment Summary Matrix

● Would improve fish passage in the lower portions creek.

● Would remove the drop in the existing culvert syst

the abandoned industrial line (partial barrier at low

● Marine Drive Crossing includes Minimum Hydrauli

of 35ft per WDFW guidelines. ● Includes W. 2nd Street crossing with Minimum Hyd Opening of 35ft per WDFW guidelines. ● Modeled 2-year flow velocities range from 2.5 to 4 velocities upstream of the estuary <3.7 ft/sec. ● Modeled velocities for the “High” fish passage flow from 1.0 to 2.7 ft/sec, velocities upstream of the <2.0 ft/sec. ● Fringe bank areas will have lower velocities than av velocities from hydraulic model for resting/refuge. ● Additional LWM could be added to the channel to reduce flow velocities. ● Concept design utilizes a stream simulation approa mimics natural velocities for a range of flowrates. ● The temporary culvert connection to existing culve include fish passage improvements due to anticipa replacement in future project. ● The remaining culvert upstream will still pose a pa to fish until addressed in a future project.

3

● Would be able to convey the FEMA 100-year flowr ● Marine Drive crossing available freeboard = 1.8

(FEMA 100-yr flowrate) ● West 2nd Street crossing available freeboard = 1 (FEMA 100-yr flowrate) ● Freeboard assessment assumes 2 feet minimum th the top of the structure below existing ground. ● May be able to reasonably gain an additional foot freeboard with minor road/regrading. ● To secure a Hydraulic Project Approval permit from the freeboard above the 100-year water surface el typically needs to be 3 feet. ● Would not negatively impact hydraulic performanc remaining portions of the existing culvert for the F year flowrate.

1

ssessment Summary Matrix

nt

of the

tem due to w tide). ic Opening

draulic

4.3 ft/sec,

w range estuary

verage . o further

ach which

ert does not ated

artial barrier

rate.

8 feet

1.4 feet

hickness for of

m WDFW, levation

ce of the FEMA 100-

1

Alternative 3: Valley Creek Park

Alternative 4: Valley Creek Park Extension

5

5

● Would improve fish passage in the lower portions of

the creek. ● Would remove the drop in the existing culvert system due to the abandoned industrial line (partial barrier at low tide). ● Includes Marine Drive crossing with Minimum Hydraulic Opening of 35ft per WDFW guidelines. ● Modeled 2-year flow velocities range from 1.5 to 4.5 ft/sec, velocities upstream of the estuary <3.3 ft/sec. ● Modeled velocities for the “High” fish passage flow range from 1.4 to 2.8 ft/sec, velocities upstream of the estuary <1.9 ft/sec. ● Fringe bank areas will have lower velocities than average velocities from hydraulic model for resting/refuge. ● Concept design utilizes a stream simulation approach which mimics natural velocities for a range of flowrates. ● The temporary culvert connection to existing culvert does not include fish passage improvements due to anticipated replacement in future project ● The remaining culvert upstream will still pose a partial barrier to fish until addressed in a future project.

4

● Would be able to convey the FEMA 100-year flowrate. ● Marine Drive crossing available freeboard = 3.7 feet (FEMA 100-yr flowrate) ● Freeboard assessment assumes 2 feet minimum thickness for the top of the structure below existing ground ● Would not negatively impact hydraulic performance of the remaining portions of the existing culvert for the FEMA 100-year flowrate ● To secure a Hydraulic Project Approval permit from WDFW, the freeboard above the 100-year water surface elevation typically needs to be 3 feet.

● Would improve fish passage in the lower portions of the creek.

● Would remove the drop in the existing culvert system

due to the abandoned industrial line (partial barrier at low tide). ● Includes Marine Drive crossing with Minimum Hydraulic Opening of 35ft per WDFW guidelines. ● 2-year velocities range from 1.5 to 4.5 ft/sec, velocities upstream of the estuary <3.3 ft/sec ● Modeled velocities for the “High” fish passage flow range from 1.4 to 2.8 ft/sec, velocities upstream of the estuary <1.9 ft/sec ● Fringe bank areas will have lower velocities than average velocities from hydraulic model for resting/refuge. ● Concept design utilizes s a stream simulation approach which mimics natural velocities for a range of flowrates. ● The temporary culvert connection to existing culvert does not include fish passage improvements due to anticipated replacement in future project ● The remaining culvert upstream will still pose a partial barrier to fish until addressed in a future project.

4

● Would be able to convey the FEMA 100-year flowrate. ● Marine Drive Crossing available freeboard = 3.7 feet (FEMA 100-yr flowrate) ● Freeboard assessment assumes 2 feet minimum thickness for the top of the structure below existing ground ● Would not negatively impact hydraulic performance of the remaining portions of the existing culvert for the FEMA 100-year flowrate ● To secure a Hydraulic Project Approval permit from WDFW, the freeboard above the 100-year water surface elevation typically needs to be 3 feet.

Instream and Floodplain Habitat Creation and Complexity

4

Alternative 1: Valley Street Alignment

Alternative 2: Western Alignmen

1.5

2.5

● Alternative would NOT provide room for significant

Geomorphic Implications

3

Criterion

February 2023

Detailed Alternative As

geomorphic adjustments. ● Creek would be limited to straight stream corridor fit to the width bankfull width channel. ● Bankfull channel confined within 2H:1V side slopes. ● The low flow channel would have room to adjust to any habitat features within the 35 feet bankfull width channel. ● Includes a straight channelized alignment. ● Provides no floodplain for overbank flows. ● Proposed Stream Gradient = 0.21% ● The low gradient channel increases potential for sedimentation within the excavated channel. These are natural processes at a delta; however, they could be artificially high due to upstream culvert and upstream channel degradation.

1 ● The daylighted creek would be restricted to a straight

channel alignment. ● Any significant channel adjustments could be concerning due to the proximity to adjacent developed properties and utilities. ● No floodplain is provided and therefore no floodplain connectivity. No room for storage of sediments outside of the constructed channel. ● Stream area = 0.3 acres ● Does not provide room for natural geomorphic channel adjustments. ● Habitat features such as LWM could be incorporated for cover and habitat complexity along the low flow channel.

Detailed Alternatives Assessment Summary Matrix

● Would provide some room for geomorphic and str

channel adjustments within the daylighted channe

● Includes a floodplain bench beyond the 35 feet ba channel.

● Allows for floodplain connectivity within the constr

stream corridor outside of the road crossings. Con a floodplain would add potential for additional hab creation, flood refuge areas, sediment storage, etc ● The low flow channel would have room to adjust t habitat features within the 35 feet bankfull width c ● Includes a gently meandering planform. ● Proposed Stream Gradient = 0.27% ● The low gradient channel increases potential for sedimentation within the excavated channel. These processes at a delta; however, they could be artific due to upstream culvert and upstream channel deg

3

● The daylighted creek would be allowed to adjust w

constructed floodplain. ● Provides floodplain connectivity and allows storag sediments on the floodplain within constructed str corridor. ● Floodplain and stream area =~ 1 acre ● Habitat features such as LWM could be placed with floodplain and constructed creek to provide habita complexity.

2

ssessment Summary Matrix

nt

ream el reaches. ankfull width

ructed nstruction of bitat c. to any channel.

e are natural cially high egradation.

within the

ge of ream

hin the at

2

Alternative 3: Valley Creek Park

Alternative 4: Valley Creek Park Extension

3

3

● Would provide room for geomorphic and stream

channel adjustments within the daylighted channel reaches. ● Includes a floodplain bench beyond the 35 feet bankfull width channel. ● Allows for floodplain connectivity within the constructed stream corridor outside of the road crossings. Construction of a floodplain would add potential for additional habitat creation, flood refuge areas, sediment storage, etc. ● The low flow channel would have room to adjust to any habitat features within the 35 feet bankfull width channel. ● Includes a gently meandering planform. ● Proposed Stream Gradient = 0.18% ● The low gradient channel increases potential for sedimentation within the excavated channel. These are natural processes at a delta; however, they could be artificially high due to upstream culvert and upstream channel degradation.

4

● The daylighted creek would be allowed to adjust

within the constructed floodplain. ● Provides floodplain connectivity and allows the storage of sediments on the floodplain within constructed stream corridor. ● Area of stream and Floodplain = 0.8 acres ● Provides wider floodplain and additional buffer width as compared to Alternative 2 with additional room for geomorphic complexity and habitat creation. ● Habitat features such as LWM could be placed within the floodplain and constructed creek to provide habitat complexity.

● Would provide room for geomorphic adjustments within the daylighted channel reaches.

● Includes a floodplain bench beyond the 35 feet bankfull width channel.

● Allows for floodplain connectivity within the constructed stream corridor outside of the road crossings.

Construction of a floodplain would add potential for additional habitat creation, flood refuge areas, sediment storage, etc. ● The low flow channel would have room to adjust to any habitat features within the 35 feet bankfull width channel. ● Includes a gently meandering planform. ● Proposed Stream Gradient = 0.18% ● The low gradient channel increases potential for sedimentation within the excavated channel. These are natural processes at a delta; however, they could be artificially high due to upstream culvert and upstream channel degradation.

4

● The daylighted creek would be allowed to adjust within

the constructed floodplain. ● Provides floodplain connectivity and storage of sediments on the floodplain within constructed stream corridor. ● Area of stream and Floodplain = 0.8 acres ● Provides wider floodplain and additional buffer width as compared to Alternative 2 with additional room for geomorphic complexity and habitat creation. ● Depending on final design, this alternative could include a wider floodplain as compared to Alternative 3 due to increased project area. ● Habitat features such as LWM could be placed within the floodplain and constructed creek to provide habitat complexity.

Alternative 1: Valley Street Alignment

Alternative 2: Western Alignmen

● Space provided for riparian buffer on either side of

● Space provided for riparian buffer on either side o

2

Riparian Buffer

5

Criterion

6

constructed creek = 15 feet (from edge of bankfull width channel) ● Constructed riparian buffer would primarily be along the 2H:1V stream corridor side slopes. ● No riparian buffer would be provided in floodplain due to lack of floodplain. ● Side slopes along the daylighted creek would be planted, but it would limit the plant palette.

5

● Would improve crosswalk safety at Marine Drive and W. 1st Street through addition of HAWKs and APSs.

Pedestrian Mobility and Trail Compatibility

● Would include the relocation of the existing crosswalk

February 2023

Detailed Alternative As

across the westbound lane of Marine Drive at the Marine Drive and W. 1st Street intersection to the east side of the curb island. ● Could improve pedestrian circulation by adding a crosswalk on west side of Valley Street at Marine Drive. ● Would include ADA compliant crosswalks improvements, trails, and facilities. ● Includes a 10-foot-wide shared use trail along the daylighted creek. ● Shared use trail would provide connection with existing Waterfront (Olympic Discovery) Trail. ● Sidewalks would likely be able to be constructed along the west side of the creek. ● Would be compatible with future trails along Valley Creek. ● Would be compatible with the planned extension of the Waterfront Trail along Marine Drive west of the Friendship Bridge.

Detailed Alternatives Assessment Summary Matrix

3

constructed creek would range from 20 to 85 feet

● Constructed riparian buffer would be within the co ●

floodplain and along the stream corridor side slop

2

● Would improve crosswalk safety at Marine Drive an

Street through addition of HAWKs and APSs. ● Would include the relocation of the existing crossw the westbound lane of Marine Drive at the Marine W. 1st Street intersection to the east side of the cur ● Could improve pedestrian circulation by adding a on east side of Valley Street at Marine Drive. ● Would include ADA compliant crosswalk improvem ● Does not provide good opportunity to incorpor shared use trail due to alignment, existing pede infrastructure, and adjacent businesses. ● Would be compatible with the planned extension o Waterfront Trail along Marine Drive west of the Fri Bridge. ● Daylighting would require removing the portion o Waterfront Trail on the harbor-side of the Friendsh potential conversion to an observation/picnic area

3

ssessment Summary Matrix

nt

of

onstructed pes.

and W. 1st

walk across Drive and rb island. crosswalk

ments. rate a estrian

of the iendship

of the hip Bridge, a.

3

Alternative 3: Valley Creek Park 4

● Space provided for riparian buffer on either side of

constructed creek would range from ~25 to 130+ feet ● Constructed riparian buffer would be within the constructed floodplain and along the stream corridor side slopes.

●

5

● Would improve crosswalk safety at Marine Drive and

1st Street through addition of HAWKs and APSs. ● Would include the relocation of the existing crosswalk across the westbound lane of Marine Drive at the Marine Drive and W. 1st Street intersection to the east side of the curb island. ● Could improve pedestrian circulation by adding a crosswalk on east side of Valley Street at Marine Drive. ● Would include ADA compliant crosswalks improvements, trails, and facilities. ● Includes a 10-foot-wide shared use trail along the daylighted creek. ● Constructed park area could include additional trails, walkways, and park facilities. ● Shared-use trail would provide connection with existing Waterfront (Olympic Discovery) Trail. ● Would be compatible with future trails along Valley Creek. ● Would be compatible with planned extension of the Waterfront Trail along Marine Drive west of the Friendship Bridge. ● Daylighting would require removing the portion of the Waterfront Trail on the harbor-side of the Friendship Bridge, potential conversion to an observation/picnic area.

Alternative 4: Valley Creek Park Extension 5

● Space provided for riparian buffer on either side of

constructed creek would range from ~25 to 130+ feet

● Constructed Riparian buffer would be within the

constructed floodplain and along the stream corridor side slopes. ● Significantly more of the daylighted creek length would have 50+ feet of constructed riparian buffer due to added space within Valley Street ROW

5

● Would improve crosswalk safety at Marine Drive and 1st

Street through addition of HAWKs and APSs. ● Would include the relocation of the existing crosswalk across the westbound lane of Marine Drive at the Marine Drive and W. 1st Street intersection to the east side of the curb island. ● Could improve pedestrian circulation by adding a crosswalk on east side of Valley Street at Marine Drive. ● Would include ADA compliant crosswalks improvements, trails, and facilities. ● Includes a 10-foot-wide shared use trail along the daylighted creek. ● Constructed park area could include additional trails, walkways, and park facilities. ● Shared-use trail would provide connection with existing Waterfront (Olympic Discovery) Trail. ● Would be compatible with future trails along Valley Creek. ● Would be compatible with planned extension of the Waterfront Trail along Marine Drive west of the Friendship Bridge. ● Daylighting would require removing the portion of the Waterfront Trail on the harbor-side of the Friendship Bridge, potential conversion to an observation/picnic area.

Alternative 1: Valley Street Alignment 3

● Project would be located adjacent to downtown in

Community Utilization

7

Criterion

8

good location for community access. ● Proposed trail would connect directly to Waterfront Trail and have an urban aesthetic. ● Located near the Feiro Marine Life Center with potential for educational use opportunities and facilities. ● Trail segment for this alternative would be short, until potential future trail extensions

3.5

Stormwater Management Opportunities

● Includes the construction and retrofit of existing catch

February 2023

basin facilities with high-rate sand filtration systems at existing catch basin locations within 70 feet of proposed alternative. ● 7 existing catch basin collection points were identified. ● Estimated treatable road surface area = 37,070 sf. ● Includes potential to treat a medium scale storm drain at the Marine and W. 1st intersection. Storm drain line already has some water quality treatment installed.

Contributing impervious surface area = 114,890 sf. ● Location and timing of a future upstream daylighting project for the remaining portion of the existing culvert could impact the locations and types of the BMP’s selected.

Detailed Alternatives Assessment Summary Matrix

Detailed Alternative As

Alternative 2: Western Alignmen 2

● Project would be located adjacent to downtown in location for community access.

● Existing crosswalks are not located near the propo

alignment. To access the creek, pedestrians would walk approx. 1 block through a commercially deve neighborhood. ● No direct trail connection to the Waterfront Tra trail is proposed. ● Small pedestrian walkways could be included to pr access to the creek. ● Located near the Feiro Marine Life Center with pot educational use opportunities and facilities.

4

● Includes the construction and retrofit of existing ca

facilities with high-rate sand filtration systems at e basin locations within 70 feet of proposed alternat ● 10 existing catch basin collection points were iden ● Estimated treatable road surface area = 49,490 ● Includes potential to treat a medium scale storm d the NW side of W. 2nd Street. Contributing road su 128,250 sf. ● Marine Drive fish passable crossing intersects with sewer line. Potential to modify and separate storm during utility relocations.

4

ssessment Summary Matrix

nt

Alternative 3: Valley Creek Park

Alternative 4: Valley Creek Park Extension

n good

● Project would be located adjacent to downtown in

● Project would be located adjacent to downtown in good

osed stream have to eloped

ail and no

rovide some

tential for

atch basin existing catch tive. ntified. sf. drain along urface area =

h a combined m and sewer

4

4.5

good location for community access. ● Park space could provide a space for community use and enjoyment. ● Park and open space aesthetic may be significantly more attractive for community use than Alternatives 1 and 2. ● Provides a more naturalized setting for trails and community use. ● Located near the Feiro Marine Life Center with potential for educational use opportunities and facilities. ● Park would be surrounded on 3 sides by existing roadways. ● Trail segment for this alternative would be short, until potential future trail extensions

4

● Includes the construction and retrofit of existing catch

basin facilities with high-rate sand filtration systems at existing catch basin locations within 70 feet of proposed alternative. ● 7 existing catch basin collection points were identified. ● Estimated treatable road surface area = 37,070 sf. ● Includes potential to treat a medium scale storm drain along the NW side of W. 2nd Street. Contributing road surface area = 128,250 sf. ● Location and timing of a future upstream daylighting project for the remaining portion of the existing culvert could impact the locations and types of the BMP’s selected.

5

location for community access.

● Park space could provide a space for community use and enjoyment. ● Provides larger park/open space than Alternative 3. ● Park and open space aesthetic may be significantly more attractive for community use than Alternatives 1 and 2. ● Potentially, this alternative may be more attractive for community use than Alternative 3 due to the increased size of the open space. ● Provides a more naturalized setting for trails and community use. ● Located near the Feiro Marine Life Center with potential for educational use opportunities and facilities. ● Closure of Valley Street would mean the park is only bounded by 2 existing roadways. ● Trail segment for this alternative would be short, until potential future trail extensions

4

● Includes the construction and retrofit of existing catch

basin facilities with high-rate sand filtration systems at existing catch basin locations within 70 feet of proposed alternative. ● 7 existing catch basin collection points were identified. ● Estimated treatable road surface area = 37,070 sf. ● Includes potential to treat a medium scale storm drain along the NW side of W. 2nd Street. Contributing road surface area = 128,250 sf. ● Location and timing of a future upstream daylighting project for the remaining portion of the existing culvert could impact the locations and types of the BMP’s selected.

Alternative 1: Valley Street Alignment 4

● Each alternative received the same score. ● Project area is located within an area of high Cultural Resources

9

Criterion

10

probability for historic-era or precontact cultural deposits, structures, or isolated items. ● Ethnographically documented village sites and historic era lumbermills were located near the project area. ● Area has been heavily impacted by development and multiple fill episodes in the harbor tidelands. ● Given degree of disturbance that has occurred in the past, it is likely any cultural materials would be in a disturbed and/or redeposited context. ● Subsurface testing is recommended prior to any ground altering activity. ● Inadvertent discovery plan should be included in contract documents or work plans.

Flooding Risk

5

11

● Would be able to convey the FEMA 100-year

recurrence flowrate within the constructed daylighted creek corridor.

Detailed Alternative As

Alternative 2: Western Alignmen 4

● Each alternative received the same score with the s justification as listed in Alternative 1

4

● Will be able to convey the FEMA 100-year recurren within the constructed daylighted creek corridor.

● As noted in other criterion, less freeboard is availab

W. 2nd Street crossing during the FEMA 100-yr flow

1 Identified Potential Sewer Conflicts

Identified Potential Sewer Conflicts

Identified Potential Storm drain Conflicts

Identified Potential Storm drain Conflicts

Existing Utilities

● 4 potential conflicts (8”-30” pipe sizes) ● 1 potential conflict (18” pipe size) ● Various connector pipes

Identified Potential Electrical Utility Conflicts ● 3 poles, primary overhead lines ● 1 pole, secondary overhead lines

Identified Potential Water Line Conflicts ● 2 water lines (6”-12” pipe sizes) ● Abandoned 48” industrial line

February 2023

3.5

Detailed Alternatives Assessment Summary Matrix

● 3 potential conflicts (6”-30” pipe sizes)

● 1 potential conflict (8” pipe size) ● Leaves a portion of existing Valley Creek Culvert al Street.

Identified Potential Electrical Utility Conflicts ● 2 poles, primary/secondary overhead lines

Identified Potential Water Line Conflicts ● 4 water lines (6”-12” pipe sizes) ● Abandoned 48” industrial line

5

ssessment Summary Matrix

nt

same

Alternative 3: Valley Creek Park

Alternative 4: Valley Creek Park Extension

● Each alternative received the same score with the

● Each alternative received the same score with the same

5

5

4

same justification as listed in Alternative 1

nce flowrate

● Will be able to convey the FEMA 100-year recurrence

ble at the w event.

●

long Valley

5

flowrate within the constructed daylighted creek corridor.

4

justification as listed in Alternative 1

● Will be able to convey the FEMA 100-year recurrence

flowrate within the constructed daylighted creek corridor.

3 Identified Potential Sewer Conflicts

● 3 potential conflicts (6”-30” pipe sizes)

Identified Potential Storm drain Conflicts

● 2 potential conflicts (8” pipe size) ● Leave a portion of existing Valley Creek Culvert along Valley Street.

Identified Potential Electrical Utility Conflicts

● 2 poles, primary overhead lines ● 1 pole, secondary overhead lines - decommission

Identified Potential Water Line Conflicts ● 3 water lines (6”-12” pipe sizes) ● Abandoned 48” industrial line

3 Identified Potential Sewer Conflicts

● 3 potential conflicts (6”-30” pipe sizes) ● 1 additional (depending on use of Valley Street ROW) Identified Potential Storm drain Conflicts ● 2 potential conflicts (8” pipe size) ● Leave a portion of existing Valley Creek Culvert along Valley Street.

Identified Potential Electrical Utility Conflicts

● 2 poles, primary overhead lines ● 1 pole, secondary overhead lines – decommission ● 2 additional poles, primary OH – depending on use of ROW

11

Criterion

Alternative 1: Valley Street Alignment Notes

Existing Utilities (continued)

Power poles may have to be relocated within ROW due to excavated corridor width.

Marine Dr. and W. 1st Street has many utilities. Numerous utility relocations would be necessary for the crossing.

Post Project Transportation Impacts

3

February 2023

Alternative 2: Western Alignmen

1

Sewer lines would have to be offset from daylighted creek corridor and protected from erosion.

12

Detailed Alternative As

●

Valley Street would be closed between West 2nd Street

and W. 1st Street. ● Traffic would not be able to travel northbound on Valley Street past W. 2nd Street. ● Traffic circulation to downtown from W. 2nd Street would be rerouted west to Marine Drive and then east towards downtown. ● Alley Access along Valley Street would be closed ● Westbound traffic on Marine Drive would not be able to travel south on Valley Street. Traffic would be rerouted to the improved intersection at Marine Drive and W. 2nd Street.

Detailed Alternatives Assessment Summary Matrix

3.5

Notes

Sewer lines would have to be relocated to construct tem connection to existing Valley Creek Culvert upstream o project. It is anticipated that there is sufficient available along the sewer line to relocate it due to the depth of t Marine Drive. Relocation would include portions along Street due to depth of utility and the proposed tempor connector pipe.

4

● No change to current traffic circulation

6

ssessment Summary Matrix

nt

mporary of the e grade the sewer at Valley rary

6

Alternative 3: Valley Creek Park 3

Notes

Sewer lines would have to be relocated to construct temporary connection to existing Valley Creek Culvert upstream of the project. It is anticipated that there is sufficient available grade along the sewer line to relocate it due to the depth of the sewer at Marine Drive.

Relocation would include portions along Valley Street due to depth of utility and the proposed temporary connector pipe.

There are power poles along the perimeter of the park, some may not be needed after construction.

Alternative 4: Valley Creek Park Extension 3

Identified Potential Water Line Conflicts

● 3 water lines (6”-12” pipe sizes) ● 1 additional (6”) – depending on use of ROW ● Abandoned 48” industrial line

Notes

Sewer lines would have to be relocated to construct temporary connection to existing Valley Creek Culvert upstream of the project. It is anticipated that there is sufficient available grade along the sewer line to relocate it due to the depth of the sewer at Marine Drive. Relocation would include portions along Valley Street due to depth of utility and the proposed temporary connector pipe.

There are power poles along the perimeter of the park, some may not be needed after construction, depending on final park design.

4

● No change to current traffic circulation

3

● Valley Street Closed between West 2nd Street and West

1st Street. ● Traffic would not be able to travel northbound on Valley Street Past West 2nd Street. ● Traffic circulation to downtown from W. 2nd Street would be rerouted west to Marine Drive and then east towards downtown. ● Alley Access along Valley Street would be closed ● Westbound traffic on Marine Drive would not be able to travel south on Valley Street. Traffic would be rerouted to the improved intersection at Marine Drive and W. 2nd Street.

Alternative 1: Valley Street Alignment

Alternative 2: Western Alignmen

● The parking lot of the Marine Drive Chevron would be

● No long-term property access impacts are likely be

2.5

Existing Property Access

13

Criterion

February 2023

Detailed Alternative As

impacted, depending on final design and width of the excavated daylighted creek corridor. ● There would be a potential loss of 1 parking space at the Marine Drive Chevron store and the driveway access to the gas station along Valley Street would be removed. ● The parking lot of the Port of Port Angeles administration building on the corner of Valley Street and W. 2nd Street would be impacted. The parking lot would require reconfiguration due to the use of the ROW of Valley Street for the daylighted creek corridor. ● Depending on final design and width of the excavated creek corridor, available parking at the Port administration building on the Corner of Valley Street and W. 2nd Street may be reduced from 12 to 5 spaces with a parallel parking configuration. Access to their could be provided through alley from Marine Drive. ● There is the potential for additional on-street parking along West 2nd Street to help alleviate parking impacts ● The potential parking lot, shown on their Marine Trades Center master west of Valley Street, may be able to compensate for lost parking at the currently impacted Port administration building. ● There would be a loss of street parking along Valley Street. ● Access to businesses south of W. 1st Street would require access via Oak Street.

Detailed Alternatives Assessment Summary Matrix

5

temporary impacts during project construction.

7

ssessment Summary Matrix

nt

eyond

7

Alternative 3: Valley Creek Park

Alternative 4: Valley Creek Park Extension

● No long-term property access impacts are likely

● No long-term property access impacts are likely beyond

5

beyond temporary impacts during construction.

5

temporary impacts during construction.

● There would be a loss of street parking along Valley

Street. ● Access to businesses south of W. 1st Street would require access via Oak Street.

15

City Property and ROW – Existing and Future Land Use Impacts

Port Property – Existing and Future Land Use Impacts

14

Criterion

February 2023

Detailed Alternative As

Alternative 1: Valley Street Alignment

Alternative 2: Western Alignmen

● There would be parking impacts to the Port of Port

● This alternative would utilize 6 Port of Port Angele

4

Angeles administration building on the corner of Valley Street and W. 2nd Street due to the configuration of parking lot which appears to be partially within the Valley Street ROW (APN 063000003569). ● The daylighted creek corridor and fish passable crossing would require grading at the existing culvert outlet into the estuary located north of Marine Drive (APN 063000001305).

1 ● This alternative would require the full use of the Valley Street ROW between W. 2nd Street and W. 1st Street.

The Valley Street ROW would not be available for vehicular traffic after construction of the project.

This alternative would require modifications to the intersections of Marine Drive and W. 1st Street and Marine Drive and W. 2nd Street for traffic improvements to maintain traffic circulation.

Detailed Alternatives Assessment Summary Matrix

2

o APN 063000001035 along W. 2nd Street

o Southeast portion of planned Marine Trades Ce

(APNs 063000001035, 063000003512, 06300000 063000003527) o Existing Valley Creek estuary (APN 06300000130

● This alternative would conflict with a potential park

shown on the Marine Trades Center master plan (A 063000003563, 063000003560, 063000003554, 063000003554). ● The creek daylighting north of Marine Drive would conflict with the corner of one proposed 10,000 sf Trades Center building as shown on the Marine Tra master plan (APN 063000001035). ● The daylighted creek corridor and fish passable cro would require grading at the existing culver outlet estuary located north of Marine Drive (APN 063000

2.5

● This alternative would utilize APN 063000005000. ● This alternative would conflict with the existing use

063000005000 as a maintenance yard for the adjac substation.

8

ssessment Summary Matrix

nt

es properties:

enter site 03518, and

05)

king lot APNs

d likely Marine ades Center

ossing t into the 0001305).

e of APN cent

8

Alternative 3: Valley Creek Park 1

● This alternative would utilize 4 Port of Port Angeles properties:

o APN 063000001035 along W. 2nd Street o APN 063000003569 along Valley Street

o Southeast portion of planned Marine Trades Center

site (APN 063000001035) o Existing Valley Creek Estuary (APN 063000001305)

● This alternative could potentially be modified to

outlet directly into the estuary via a fish passable crossing and avoid impacts to the southeast portion of the planned Marine Trades Center (APN 063000001035). ● This alternative would conflict with a potential parking lot shown on the Marine Trades Center master plan (APNs 063000003563, 063000003560, 063000003554, 063000003554). ● This alternative would conflict with existing Port of Port Angeles administration building on the corner of Valley Street and W. 2nd Street (APN 063000003569). ● The creek daylighting north of Marine Drive would conflict with the corner of one proposed 10,000 sf Marine Trades Center building as shown on the Marine Trades Center master plan (APN 063000001035). ● The daylighted creek corridor and fish passable crossing would require grading at the existing culvert outlet into the estuary located north of Marine Drive (APN 063000001305).

5

● This alternative would have no impacts to City Property or ROW

Alternative 4: Valley Creek Park Extension 1

● This alternative would utilize 4 Port of Port Angeles properties:

o APN 063000001035 along W. 2nd Street o APN 063000003569 along Valley Street

o Southeast portion of Planned Marine Trades Center

(APN 063000001035)

o Existing Valley Creek Estuary (APN 063000001305)

● This alternative could potentially be modified to outlet

directly into the estuary via a fish passable culvert and avoid impacts to the southeast portion of the planned Marine Trades Center (APN 063000001035). ● This alternative would conflict with a potential parking lot shown on the Marine Trades Center master plan (APNs 063000003563, 063000003560, 063000003554, 063000003554). ● This alternative would conflict with existing Port of Port Angeles administration building on the corner of Valley Street and W. 2nd Street (APN 063000003569). ● The creek daylighting north of Marine Drive would conflict with the corner of one proposed 10,000 sf building as shown on the Marine Trades Center master plan (APN 063000001035). ● The daylighted creek corridor and fish passable crossing would require grading at the existing culvert outlet into the estuary located north of Marine Drive (APN 063000001305).

1

● This alternative would require the full use of Valley Street ROW between West 2nd Street and West 1st Street. ● The Valley Street ROW would not be available for vehicular traffic after construction of the project. ● This alternative would require modifications to the intersections of Marine Drive and W. 1st Street and Marine Drive and W. 2nd Street for traffic improvements to maintain traffic circulation.

Alternative 1: Valley Street Alignment 2.5

● The proposed alignment is located east of the Marine

Existing Site Contamination

16

Criterion

Drive Chevron (APN 063000003503), which is listed on Washington State Department of Ecology’s (DOE’s) database for sites with confirmed or suspected soil contamination (Site 94511135). ● Extents of groundwater and soil contamination outside of APN 063000003503 are unknown. ● Potentially contaminated soil encountered during project construction would likely require additional consideration and management. ● The potential for contaminated groundwater may need to be considered in project design to prevent pollutants from entering the creek.

Detailed Alternative As

Alternative 2: Western Alignmen 2.5

● The proposed alignment is generally located west

Marine Drive Chevron (APN 063000003503), which DOE’s database for sites with confirmed or suspect contamination (Site 94511135). ● Extents of groundwater and soil contamination ou 063000003503 are unknown. ● This alternative utilizes portions of the proposed M Trades Center site, which is listed as a previously re site on DOE’s database (Site 1002). These parcels h environmental covenant that currently restrict futu of the property other than for industrial use due to contamination found on other portions of the parc

o No known contamination exists along the south

portion of the Marine Trades Center site above cleanup standards defined by the Model Contro (MCTA). o Further field study/sampling would be required coordination with DOE to determine if soil cont exists. If no contamination is confirmed, the cov be allowed to be removed or modified to un-re use of the land.

● Potentially contaminated soil encountered during

construction would likely require additional consid management. ● The potential for contaminated groundwater may considered in project design to prevent pollutants entering the creek.

February 2023

Detailed Alternatives Assessment Summary Matrix

9

ssessment Summary Matrix

nt

of the h is listed on ted soil

utside of APN

Marine emediated have an ure land use o cel.

heast industrial ol Toxics Act

d in tamination venant may estrict the

project deration and

need to be s from

9

Alternative 3: Valley Creek Park

Alternative 4: Valley Creek Park Extension

● The proposed alternative would require the full use of

● The proposed alternative would require the full use of

● Use of the Marine Drive Chevron and 436 Marine Drive for the proposed park open space would require a site assessment (fieldwork and sampling) to assess the extent of contamination and to create a cleanup plan. ● These properties would need to be remediated to construct the project and may include excavation and in-situ remediation, depending on the extent and degree of contamination. ● This alternative utilizes portions of the proposed

● Use of the Marine Drive Chevron and 436 Marine Drive for the proposed park open space would require a site assessment (fieldwork and sampling) to assess the extent of contamination and to create a cleanup plan. ● These properties would need to be remediated to construct the project, and may include excavation and in-situ remediation, depending on the extent and degree of contamination. ● This alternative utilizes portions of the proposed Marine

1

the Marine Drive Chevron property (APN 063000003503), which is listed on DOE’s database for sites with confirmed or suspected soil contamination (Site 94511135). ● This alternative would require the full use of 436 Marine Drive, (APN 063000003554), another listed site on the DOE database (Site 85446658).

Marine Trades Center site, which is listed as a previously remediated site on DOE’s database (Site 1002). These parcels have an environmental covenant that currently restrict future land use of the property other than for industrial use due to contamination found on other portions of the parcel. o No known contamination exists along the

southeast portion of the Marine Trades Center site above industrial cleanup standards defined by the MCTA. o Further field study/sampling would be required in coordination with the DOE, and with appropriate permission from the Port, to determine if soil contamination exists. If no contamination is confirmed, the covenant may be allowed to be removed or modified to un-restrict the use of the land.

1

the Marine Drive Chevron property (APN 063000003503), which is listed on DOE’s database for sites with confirmed or suspected soil contamination (Site 94511135). ● This alternative would require the full use of 436 Marine Drive, (APN 063000003554), another listed site on the DOE database (Site 85446658).

Trades Center site, which is listed as a previously remediated site on DOE’s database (Site 1002). These parcels have an environmental covenant that currently restrict future land use of the property other than for industrial use due to contamination found on other portions of the parcel.

o No known contamination exists along the southeast

portion of the Marine Trades Center site above industrial cleanup standards defined by the MCTA. o Further field study/sampling would be required in coordination with DOE, and with appropriate permission from the Port, to determine if soil contamination exists. If no contamination is confirmed, the covenant may be allowed to be removed or modified to un-restrict the use of the land.

Detailed Alternative As Alternative 1: Valley Street Alignment

Alternative 2: Western Alignment

2.5

2.5

Existing Site Contamination (continued)

16

Criterion

18

5

Right of Way Easement Needs/Complexity Future Daylighting Compatibility

17

February 2023

● Requires the use of 7 parcels:

● Requires the use of 2 parcels:

o 063000001305

o 063000001305

●

o 063000001035

o 063000001035

o 063000003512

Requires the use of Valley Street ROW between W. 2nd Street and W. 1

3

o 063000003518

st Street.

o 063000003527 o 063000003563 o 063000005000

5

4 ● This alternative would be compatible with future

daylighting projects along Valley Creek, upstream of the proposed end of the project. ● This alternative directly connects to existing culvert and does not require the use of any temporary pipes or storm drains.

Detailed Alternatives Assessment Summary Matrix

● This alternative would be compatible with future d

projects along Valley Creek, upstream of the propo the project. ● This alternative requires a temporary pipe or sto structure to connect to the existing Valley Creek C structure would need to be removed as part of the daylighting project.

1

ssessment Summary Matrix

daylighting osed end of

orm drain Culvert. This e future

10

Alternative 3: Valley Creek Park

Alternative 4: Valley Creek Park Extension

1

1

● Potentially contaminated soil encountered during project

● Potentially contaminated soil encountered during

construction would likely require additional consideration and management. ● The potential for contaminated groundwater may need to be considered in project design to prevent pollutants from entering the creek.

project construction would likely require additional consideration and management. ● The potential for contaminated groundwater may need to be considered in project design to prevent pollutants from entering the creek.

1.5

1

● Requires the use of 9 parcels:

● Requires the use of 9 parcels: o 063000001305

o 063000001305

o 063000003503

o 063000003503

o 063000001035

o 063000001035

o 063000003563

o 063000003563

o 063000003566

o 063000003566

o 063000003569

o 063000003569

o 063000003560

o 063000003560

o 063000003554

o 063000003554

o 063000003545

o 063000003545

● Requires the use of the ROW for the alley behind the

● Requires the use of the ROW for the alley behind the

Marine Drive Chevron. ● Requires the use of Valley Street ROW between W. 2nd Street and W. 1st Street.

Marine Drive Chevron.

4

● This alternative would be compatible with future

daylighting projects along Valley Creek, upstream of the proposed end of the project. ● This alternative requires a temporary pipe or storm drain structure to connect to the existing Valley Creek Culvert. This structure would need to be removed as part of the future daylighting project.

4

● This alternative would be compatible with future

daylighting projects for Valley Creek, upstream of the proposed end of the project. ● This alternative requires a temporary pipe or storm drain structure to connect to the existing Valley Creek Culvert. This structure would need to be removed as part of the future daylighting project.

Detailed Alternative As Alternative 1: Valley Street Alignment

3

● Includes 340 linear feet (LF) of constructed stream Cost Considerations

19

Criterion

20

corridor. ● Includes a fish passable crossing at Marine Drive: 170 LF in length. ● Includes traffic improvements at 2 intersections. ● Includes crosswalk improvements to Marine Drive and W. 1st Street. ● Includes the construction of a shared use trail. ● Would require parking lot modifications. ● Would involve multiple utility relocations, including complex relocations at intersection of Marine Drive and W. 1st Street.

3

Cost Uncertainty

● Utility relocations could be complex and expensive at

February 2023

the Marine Drive and W. 1st Street intersection and along Valley Street. ● The potential that soil or groundwater contamination may be encountered during construction with the daylighted creek proposed adjacent to the Marine Drive Chevron site could add to project costs.

Detailed Alternatives Assessment Summary Matrix

Alternative 2: Western Alignment

3

● Includes 705 linear feet (LF) of constructed stream ● Includes a fish passable crossing at Marine Drive: 1 length.

● Includes a fish passable crossing at W. 2nd Street: 9

length. ● Includes crosswalk improvements to Marine Drive Street. ● No shared use trail proposed. ● Would require the demolition of 1 structure and re existing pavement. ● Would require multiple utility relocations.

4

● The potential that soil or groundwater contaminat

encountered during construction with culvert align crosses under Marine Drive Chevron Site could add costs. ● There is still some uncertainty whether contaminat exist along the southeast corner of the Marine Trad property until further testing is conducted.

1

ssessment Summary Matrix Alternative 3: Valley Creek Park

corridor.

150 LF in

90 LF in and W. 1st

emoval of

tion may be nment that d to project

ted soils still des Center

11

2

● Includes 465 linear feet (LF) of constructed stream

corridor. ● Includes a fish passable crossing at Marine Drive: 105 LF in length. ● Includes crosswalk improvements to Marine Drive and W. 1st Street. ● Includes the construction of a shared use trail. ● Includes remediation of 2 sites of known or suspected soil and groundwater contamination. ● Would require the demolition of multiple existing structures and existing pavement. ● Would involve multiple utility relocations or decommissioning of utilities at the proposed park site.

2

● There is uncertainty regarding the extent of soil and

groundwater contamination among properties utilized for this alternative which could add to project costs. ● Utility relocations could be complex and expensive for the decommissioning or relocation of power lines and utilities within the proposed park space. ● There is uncertainty whether contaminated soils exist along the southeast corner of the Marine Trades Center property until further testing is conducted.

Alternative 4: Valley Creek Park Extension

1

● Includes 465 linear feet (LF) of constructed stream corridor.

● Includes a fish passable crossing at Marine Drive: 105 LF in length.

● Includes traffic improvements at 2 intersections. ● Includes crosswalk improvements to Marine Drive and W. 1st Street. ● Includes the construction of a shared use trail. ● Includes remediation of 2 sites of known or suspected soil and groundwater contamination. ● Would require the demolition of multiple existing structures and existing pavement. ● Would involve multiple utility relocations or decommissioning of utilities at the proposed park site.

2

● There is uncertainty regarding the extent of soil and

groundwater contamination among properties utilized for this alternative which could add to project costs. ● Utility relocations could be complex and expensive for the decommissioning or relocation of power lines and utilities within the proposed park space as well as within the Valley Street ROW, depending on the use of the ROW in the final design. ● There is uncertainty whether contaminated soils exist along the southeast corner of the Marine Trades Center property until further testing is conducted.

Detailed Alternative As

Grant Funding Potential

22

Alternative 1: Valley Street Alignment

Alternative 2: Western Alignment

3.5

3

● Projected Sea Level Rise in 50yrs (2070) Project Longevity and Future Maintenance Requirements

21

Criterion

February 2023

● Projected Sea Level Rise in 50yrs (2070)

o 1% likelihood = 2.2 feet

o 1% likelihood = 2.2 feet

o 99% likelihood = 0.2 feet

o 99% likelihood = 0.2 feet

o 50% likelihood = 1.0 feet

o 50% likelihood = 1.0 feet

● Projected sea level rise (by raising the base level) could

contribute to additional sedimentation along the creek.

Additionally, sea level rise could reduce freeboard within the daylighted creek and crossings during large flow events. ● A long-term average deposition of 1-3 feet of sediment can be expected within the daylighted creek over 20 years. Deposition will likely be higher during the initial years after construction. ● The existing culvert appears efficient at conveying sediment from the upstream steeper reaches of Valley Creek to the proposed daylighted creek. Due to low slopes along the proposed alignment, the daylighted creek may not have the capacity to convey the larger sediments, thereby increasing sedimentation potential. ● The potential for sedimentation would likely be higher until the upstream portions of Valley Creek stabilize, and the remaining portions of the culvert are daylighted and meandered to promote increased sediment storage along the creek.

2

● Would provide the least ecological lift of the 4

alternatives due to the space limitations and therefore may be the least competitive when it comes to ecological benefits.

Detailed Alternatives Assessment Summary Matrix

● Projected sea level rise (by raising the base level) c

contribute to additional sedimentation along the c Additionally, sea level rise could reduce freeboard daylighted creek and crossings during large flow e ● A long-term average deposition of 2.5 feet of se be expected over 20 years. Deposition will likely be during the initial years after construction. ● The potential for sedimentation would likely be hig the upstream portions of Valley Creek stabilize, an remaining portions of the culvert are daylighted an meandered to promote increased sediment storag creek. ● The existing culvert appears efficient at conveying from the upstream steeper reaches of Valley Creek proposed daylighted creek. Due to low slopes alon proposed alignment, the daylighted creek may not capacity to convey the larger sediments, thereby in sedimentation potential. ● The combination of sedimentation and lower a freeboard has the potential for increased maint needs over time.

●

3

Would provide the 3rd highest ecological lifts.

Wh project is longer, the project does not have as muc buffer as the streams in Alternatives 3 or 4.

1

ssessment Summary Matrix

could creek. within the events. ediment can e higher

gher until nd the nd ge along the

sediment k to the ng the t have the ncreasing

available tenance

hile this ch riparian

12

Alternative 3: Valley Creek Park

Alternative 4: Valley Creek Park Extension

3.5

3.5

● Projected Sea Level Rise in 50yrs (2070) o 1% likelihood = 2.2 feet

o 50% likelihood = 1.0 feet o 99% likelihood = 0.2 feet

● Projected sea level rise (by raising the base level)

could contribute to additional sedimentation along the creek. Additionally, sea level rise could reduce freeboard within the daylighted creek and crossings during large flow events. ● A long-term average deposition of 3 feet of sediment can be expected over 20 years. Deposition will likely be higher during the initial years after construction. ● The existing culvert appears efficient at conveying sediment from the upstream steeper reaches of Valley Creek to the proposed daylighted creek. Due to low slopes along the proposed alignment, the daylighted creek may not have the capacity to convey the larger sediments, thereby increasing sedimentation potential. ● The potential for sedimentation would likely be higher until the upstream portions of Valley Creek stabilize, and the remaining portions of the culvert are daylighted and meandered to promote increased sediment storage along the creek.

●

4

Would provide the 2nd highest ecological lift of the

alternatives. ● Potential for DOE grant funding for portions of the site remediation of listed contaminated sites. ● Would provide the 2nd highest ecological lift of the alternatives.

● Projected Sea Level Rise in 50yrs (2070) o 1% likelihood = 2.2 feet

o 50% likelihood = 1.0 feet o 99% likelihood = 0.2 feet

● Projected sea level rise (by raising the base level) could

contribute to additional sedimentation along the creek.

Additionally, sea level rise could reduce freeboard within the daylighted creek and crossings during large flow events. ● A long-term average deposition of 3 feet of sediment can be expected over 20 years. Deposition will likely be higher during the initial years after construction. ● The existing culvert appears efficient at conveying sediment from the upstream steeper reaches of Valley Creek to the proposed daylighted creek. Due to low slopes along the proposed alignment, the daylighted creek may not have the capacity to convey the larger sediments, thereby increasing sedimentation potential. ● The potential for sedimentation would likely be higher until the upstream portions of Valley Creek stabilize, and the remaining portions of the culvert are daylighted and meandered to promote increased sediment storage along the creek.

5

● Would provide the highest ecological lift of the

alternatives, more than Alternative 3 due to the added buffer between the development and the creek. This would likely make it the most competitive of the three alternatives on some grant applications. ● Potential for DOE grant funding for portions of the site remediation of listed contaminated sites.

Appendix F GLAC Alternative Ranking Anonymous Comments

GreenLink Advisory Committee Ranking Vote – Submitted Comments and Feedback **Note Authors names have been kept anonymous

1. Ranking: 4,4,3,3 Comment: To me, the greater number of functions in the space (ie, habitat, storm water treatment, recreation, multimodal transport) the more useful the project will be, and the greater likelihood it will be funded.

2. Ranking: 2,3,1,4 Comment: I like alternative 2 because I like emphasizing daylighting as far up the creek as possible but wanted to note that there was vague reference to issues with freeboard - and in this area I think this is VERY important. Based on the pattern of impact scores I also see it as the most feasible, especially in regard to impacts to the port and utilities, though I'm concerned about the project longevity score. I'm disinclined to the westward park extension in Alternative 3 and 4 just because I'm not yet convinced that a park of that size is the right use in that part of downtown - its not the best use of funds in my view. But I like the design of Alternative 3 excluding that westward park extension to improve feasibility, reduce costs, etc. Overall, I feel that something between 2-3 is the way to go, perhaps a 2a that removes the westward park elements of 3, and removes the bend and up valley extension in 2 if that improves the performance of the project in regards to feasibility, longevity, etc.

3. Ranking: 3,4,1,2 Comment: Could support Alternative 4 as top choice with roundabout at 2nd and Marine Dr.

4. Ranking: 4,3,2,1 Comment: If the City goes forward with addressing the stormwater issue (didn't Jonathan say that they had decided to pick Valley Creek instead of Peabody Creek?) then they may need space to make a large catchment basin - which would support picking either Alternative 4 or 3 and it could be turned into an element of the park to the west of the realigned creek.

5. Ranking: 2,3,4,1 Comment: I selected Alternative 2 as my primary choice because it extends the daylit segment of Valley Creek farther upstream. This would benefit fluvial (stream) processes, habitat, public use, risk mitigation for infrastructure, and - in my opinion – provide the groundwork for future restoration in the next upstream reach. Any reworking of the stream near the estuary will be challenging and expensive. More space, both in width and length, are critical for restoring any semblance of historical conditions to Valley Creek. If not proposed now, then the chance of realizing such gains are probably nil.

Alternative 3 is my second choice because it creates more buffer between the stream and built environment. A riparian buffer, or natural corridor, is essential for natural functions to return to the lower reach of Valley Creek. I think the buffer width could be optimized with project stakeholders.

Jonathan (City of Port Angeles) proposed an excellent idea to potentially eliminate a 2nd St crossing. I love the idea of a continuous reach of Valley Creek from the substation parcel down to Marine Dr. Restoration design will most definitely consider risk to infrastructure (roads, buildings, substation) and long-term maintenance. Thoughtful design can account for potential sediment deposition and transport of wood, and also protect streambanks that abut the substation or nearby buildings.

In the Master Plan, I recommend that some discussion is included on the do-nothing scenario.

What are the expected costs with inevitable repair of the current conduit?

Thanks for considering!

Valley Street Septic Systems in the Riparian Zone

Soil Contamination Sites Appendix E The Department of Ecology website’s “what’s in my neighborhood” has listed five hazardous waste sites near the lower section of Valley Creek (Figure x). These sites are either encompassed in or may impact the rerouting alternatives proposed in this Master Plan.

Figure E1. Identified hazardous waste sites within Valley Creek watershed.

The K-Ply property is owned by the Port of Port Angeles. From 1941 – 2012, various owners operated a plywood mill on the property. During 1971-1989 while Rayonier operated the mill a hydraulic oil leak contaminated a part of the site. Contaminants in soil and groundwater include diesel, gasoline, and other organic chemicals found in petroleum products and in manufacturing processes. A partial cleanup was completed in 2013 and, after a legal agreement was reached with the Department of Ecology in 2015, cleanup commenced at the site cleaning to meet industrial standards. The Port finalized the cleanup construction in 2018 and currently conducts performance monitoring. It should be noted that no contaminants were found in the southeast corner of the property. Three of the four alternatives reroute Valley Creek through this area.

The Time Oil Co. Jackpot Food Mart site was identified as a potential hazardous waste site in 1991. Site hazard characterization conducted in 1993-99 identified contamination in soil and groundwater with metals, petroleum and non-halogenated organics. In 2001 cleanup was completed under the Department of Ecology’s voluntary cleanup program and the site was listed as requiring “No Further Action.”

The FUDS Port Angeles AAF site is located on W 1st St. adjacent to Time Oil Co. Jackpot Food Mart. Very little information about this site is available on the Department of Ecology’s website.

A preliminary assessment conducted in 1999-2001. stated soil was suspected to be contaminated with metals, petroleum products, base/acid/neutral organics and non-halogenated organics. The site is awaiting cleanup. Both Time Oil Co. Jackpot Food Mart and FUDS Port Angeles AAF sites are surrounded by paved surfaces (roads and parking lot) and located approximately 200 ft. east of the currently culverted section of Valley Creek. None of the proposed alternatives brings the creek closer to the two sites.

The Marine Drive Exxon & Grocery site is located on a 0.38 acre parcel and is listed as “Cleanup Started” on the Department of Ecology’s website. In 1994 and 1995 soil contamination with petroleum and other constituents was detected during removal of seven underground storage tanks. Cleanup was conducted in 1994 – 1996 by removal of more than 1,800 cubic yards of contaminated soil; however, known contamination was left behind. A limited site investigation in 2015 detected groundwater contamination with gasoline and diesel. In 2016 the Department of Ecology requested the owner J.C. Columbia Corp. to conduct further cleanup actions. The owner entered the voluntary cleanup program, but in 2020 the Department of Ecology terminated his participation in the program because of lack of action. A Chevron gas station and minimart is currently operating on the site. Two of the proposed alternatives reroute Valley Creek through the property which would require removal of the gas station and cleanup of the site. Appendix A1 provides additional hazardous waste information on the Marine Drive Exxon & Grocery site.

The 436 Marine Drive site is listed as “Cleanup Started” on the Department of Ecology’s website. Soil contamination with benzene had been documented from a leaking underground storage tank. In 2015 the Department of Ecology sent an early notice letter to the owner Brian Albert Oman encouraging him to enter the voluntary cleanup program. The tank was later removed. A map of historical property usage in the remedial investigation/feasibility study for K-Ply states that an Ace Auto Repair (former Brian’s automotive repair shop) at some point occupied 436 Marine Drive. The website provides no further information on the cleanup status of the site. Two of the four alternatives proposed would encompass this site in a park to be located west of the rerouted creek.

Table E2. summarizes the contamination at the four hazardous waste sites as listed at the Department of Ecology’s website. K-Ply information is not included because of the extensive list of contaminants (not found in the southeast corner of the property) and the completed cleanup.

Interested readers can visit the website at https://apps.ecology.wa.gov/cleanupsearch/site/28.

Table E2. Contaminants identified at the three hazardous waste sites compared to Department of Ecology cleanup criteria .

1

Contaminant Base/neutral/acid organics Benzene Lead Metals priority pollutants Non-halogenated solvents Other non-halogenated organics Petroleum-gasoline Petroleum - diesel Petroleum – others Petroleum products unspecified

Jackpot Food Mark Soil Groundwater

B R

R R

C

C

Marine Dr. Exxon Soil

436 Marine Drive Soil

C S

RA RB

C RA RB RB

RB RB

MTCA Method A Cleanup Levels for unrestricted land use for soil and groundwater (cleanup values are listed in Appendix A1) B – Below Cleanup Level R - Remediated C – Confirmed Above Cleanup Level RA – Remediated Above RB – Remediated Below S - Suspected

sĂůůĞLJ ƌĞĞŬ tĂƚĞƌ YƵĂůŝƚLJ ĂŶĚ ŝŽůŽŐŝĐĂů /ŶƚĞŐƌŝƚLJ dŚĞ tĂƐŚŝŶŐƚŽŶ ^ƚĂƚĞ tĂƚĞƌ YƵĂůŝƚLJ ƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚ ;ϮϬϭϴ LJĐůĞͿ͕ ƉƵďůŝƐŚĞĚ ŝŶ ϮϬϮϮ ;tĂƐŚŝŶŐƚŽŶ ^ƚĂƚĞ ĞƉƚ͘ ŽĨ ĐŽůŽŐLJ͕ ϮϬϮϮͿ͕ ĚĞƐĐƌŝďĞƐ ǁĂƚĞƌ ƋƵĂůŝƚLJ ĂŶĚ ďŝŽůŽŐŝĐĂů ŝŶƚĞŐƌŝƚLJ ŽĨ sĂůůĞLJ ƌĞĞŬ͘ dŚĞƌĞ ĂƌĞ ůŝƐƚŝŶŐƐ ďĂƐĞĚ ŽŶ ƚŚĞ ĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐ ƉĂƌĂŵĞƚĞƌƐ͗ ďĂĐƚĞƌŝĂ – ĨĞĐĂů ĐŽůŝĨŽƌŵ͕ ďĞŶƚŚŝĐ ŵĂĐƌŽŝŶǀĞƌƚĞďƌĂƚĞƐ ďŝŽĂƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚƐ͕ ĚŝƐƐŽůǀĞĚ ŽdžLJŐĞŶ͕ ĂŶĚ ƚƵƌďŝĚŝƚLJ͘ dŚĞ ůŝƐƚŝŶŐƐ ŝŶ ƚŚŝƐ ĂƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚ ĂƌĞ ďĂƐĞĚ ŽŶ ĚĂƚĂ ƐƵďŵŝƚƚĞĚ ƚŽ ĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ ŽĨ ĐŽůŽŐLJ ďLJ ^ƚƌĞĂŵŬĞĞƉĞƌƐ ŽĨ ůĂůůĂŵ ŽƵŶƚLJ͘ &ŽůůŽǁŝŶŐ ŝƐ Ă ƐƵŵŵĂƌLJ ŽĨ ƚŚĞƐĞ ůŝƐƚŝŶŐƐ͘ ĂĐƚĞƌŝĂů WŽůůƵƚŝŽŶ͗ &ĞĐĂů ŽůŝĨŽƌŵ &ĞĐĂů ĐŽůŝĨŽƌŵ ďĂĐƚĞƌŝĂ ŝƐ ĂŶ ŝŶĚŝĐĂƚŽƌ ŽĨ ďĂĐƚĞƌŝĂů ƉŽůůƵƚŝŽŶ͕ ĂŶĚ ŽĨ ǁŚĞƚŚĞƌ Ă ǁĂƚĞƌ ďŽĚLJ ŝƐ ƐĂĨĞ ĨŽƌ ƉƌŝŵĂƌLJ ĐŽŶƚĂĐƚ ƌĞĐƌĞĂƚŝŽŶ – ƐǁŝŵŵŝŶŐ ĂŶĚ ǁĂĚŝŶŐ͘ ZĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐ ĨĞĐĂů ĐŽůŝĨŽƌŵ͕ sĂůůĞLJ ƌĞĞŬ ŝƐ ŝŶ ĂƚĞŐŽƌLJ ϱ ;ƉŽůůƵƚĞĚ ǁĂƚĞƌ ƚŚĂƚ ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞƐ Ă ǁĂƚĞƌ ŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚ ƉƌŽũĞĐƚͿ͘ tĂƐŚŝŶŐƚŽŶ ^ƚĂƚĞ WƌŝŵĂƌLJ ŽŶƚĂĐƚ ZĞĐƌĞĂƚŝŽŶ ĂĐƚĞƌŝĂ ƌŝƚĞƌŝĂ ŝŶ ĨƌĞƐŚ ǁĂƚĞƌ ǁĞƌĞ ďĂƐĞĚ ŽŶ ƚŚĞ ďĂĐƚĞƌŝĂů ŝŶĚŝĐĂƚŽƌ ĨĞĐĂů ĐŽůŝĨŽƌŵ ƵƉ ƵŶƚŝů :ĂŶƵĂƌLJ ϭ͕ ϮϬϮϭ͕ ǁŚĞŶ ƚŚĞ ďĂĐƚĞƌŝĂů ŝŶĚŝĐĂƚŽƌ ǁĂƐ ĐŚĂŶŐĞĚ ƚŽ ͘ ĐŽůŝ͘ ,ĞƌĞ͕ ǁĞ ƉƌĞƐĞŶƚ ĚĂƚĂ ĂŶĚ ĐŽŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶƐ ďĂƐĞĚ ŽŶ ƐĂŵƉůŝŶŐ ĨŽƌ ĨĞĐĂů ĐŽůŝĨŽƌŵ ƉƌŝŽƌ ƚŽ ϮϬϭϴ͘ WƌŝŵĂƌLJ ŽŶƚĂĐƚ ZĞĐƌĞĂƚŝŽŶ ĂĐƚĞƌŝĂ ƌŝƚĞƌŝĂ ƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ ϭϮͬϯϭͬϮϬϮϭ state that “&ĞĐĂů ĐŽůŝĨŽƌŵ ŽƌŐĂŶŝƐŵ ůĞǀĞůƐ ǁŝƚŚŝŶ ĂŶ ĂǀĞƌĂŐŝŶŐ ƉĞƌŝŽĚ ŵƵƐƚ ŶŽƚ ĞdžĐĞĞĚ Ă ŐĞŽŵĞƚƌŝĐ ŵĞĂŶ ǀĂůƵĞ ŽĨ ϭϬϬ &h Žƌ DWE ƉĞƌ ϭϬϬ ŵ>͕ ǁŝƚŚ ŶŽƚ ŵŽƌĞ ƚŚĂŶ ϭϬ ƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ ŽĨ Ăůů ƐĂŵƉůĞƐ ;Žƌ ĂŶLJ ƐŝŶŐůĞ ƐĂŵƉůĞ ǁŚĞŶ ůĞƐƐ ƚŚĂŶ ƚĞŶ ƐĂŵƉůĞ ƉŽŝŶƚƐ ĞdžŝƐƚͿ ŽďƚĂŝŶĞĚ ǁŝƚŚŝŶ ĂŶ ĂǀĞƌĂŐŝŶŐ ƉĞƌŝŽĚ ĞdžĐĞĞĚŝŶŐ ϮϬϬ &h Žƌ DWE ƉĞƌ ϭϬϬ ŵ>” (WAC 173Ͳ ϮϬϭ ͲϮϬϬͿ͘ /Ŷ ϮϬϭϲ͕ ŽĨ ĨŽƵƌ ƐĂŵƉůĞƐ ĐŽůůĞĐƚĞĚ ŝŶ sĂůůĞLJ ƌĞĞŬ͕ ƚǁŽ ƐĂŵƉůĞƐ ĞdžĐĞĞĚĞĚ ϮϬϬ ĐŽůŽŶLJͲĨŽƌŵŝŶŐ ƵŶŝƚƐ ; &hͿ ƉĞƌ ϭϬϬ ŵů͘ dŚĞ ŚŝŐŚĞƐƚ ĚĂŝůLJ ĂǀĞƌĂŐĞ ǁĂƐ ĐĂůĐƵůĂƚĞĚ ĂƐ ϳϮϴ &hͬϭϬϬ ŵů͘ /Ŷ ƉƌŝŽƌ ĐĂůĞŶĚĂƌ LJĞĂƌƐ ϭϵϵϵ ĂŶĚ ϮϬϬϬ͕ ĂŶĚ ǁĂƚĞƌ LJĞĂƌƐ ϮϬϬϮ͕ ϮϬϬϯ͕ ϮϬϬϰ͕ ϮϬϬϲ͕ ϮϬϬϴ͕ ϮϬϬϵ ĂŶĚ ϮϬϭϬ͕ ŵŽƌĞ ƚŚĂŶ ϭϬй ŽĨ ƐĂŵƉůĞƐ ĂůƐŽ ĞdžĐĞĞĚĞĚ ϮϬϬ &hͬϭϬϬ ŵů͘ ĞŶƚŚŝĐ DĂĐƌŽŝŶǀĞƌƚĞďƌĂƚĞƐ ŝŽĂƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚƐ ĞŶƚŚŝĐ ŵĂĐƌŽŝŶǀĞƌƚĞďƌĂƚĞƐ ďŝŽĂƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚƐ ŝŶǀŽůǀĞ ĐŽůůĞĐƚŝŶŐ ƐĂŵƉůĞƐ ŽĨ ƐƚƌĞĂŵ ŝŶƐĞĐƚƐ ĂŶĚ ŽƚŚĞƌ ŝŶǀĞƌƚĞďƌĂƚĞƐ ƚŚĂƚ ůŝǀĞ ŽŶ ƚŚĞ ďŽƚƚŽŵ ŽĨ ĐƌĞĞŬƐ͕ ĂŶĚ ƚŚĞŶ ŝĚĞŶƚŝĨLJŝŶŐ ĂŶĚ ĞŶƵŵĞƌĂƚŝŶŐ ŝŶǀĞƌƚĞďƌĂƚĞƐ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ƐĂŵƉůĞƐ͘ Ɛ ĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶƚ ƐƉĞĐŝĞƐ ŽĨ ďĞŶƚŚŝĐ ŵĂĐƌŽŝŶǀĞƌƚĞďƌĂƚĞƐ ǀĂƌLJ ŝŶ ƚŚĞŝƌ ƚŽůĞƌĂŶĐĞ ŽĨ ƉŽŽƌ ǁĂƚĞƌ ƋƵĂůŝƚLJ ĂŶĚ ďĞŶƚŚŝĐ ŚĂďŝƚĂƚ ƋƵĂůŝƚLJ͕ ƚŚŝƐ ƚLJƉĞ ŽĨ ďŝŽĂƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚ ŝƐ Ă ŐŽŽĚ ŵĞƚŚŽĚ ƚŽ ĂƐƐĞƐƐ ƐƚƌĞĂŵ ŚĞĂůƚŚ͘ ^ƚƌĞĂŵŬĞĞƉĞƌƐ ŽĨ ůĂůůĂŵ ŽƵŶƚLJ ŚĂƐ ĐŽŶĚƵĐƚĞĚ ďĞŶƚŚŝĐ ŵĂĐƌŽŝŶǀĞƌƚĞďƌĂƚĞƐ ďŝŽĂƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚƐ ŝŶ sĂůůĞLJ ƌĞĞŬ ƐŝŶĐĞ ϭϵϵϵ͘ dŚĞ ĚĂƚĂ ĨƌŽŵ ƚŚĞƐĞ ďŝŽĂƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚƐ ǁĞƌĞ ƐƵďŵŝƚƚĞĚ ƚŽ ĞƉƚ͘ ŽĨ ĐŽůŽŐLJ ĂŶĚ ĐŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚĞĚ ƚŽ ^ƚĂƚĞ tĂƚĞƌ YƵĂůŝƚLJ ƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚƐ ŝŶ ϮϬϬϰ͕ ϮϬϬϴ͕ ϮϬϭϬ͕ ϮϬϭϮ͕ ĂŶĚ ϮϬϭϴ͘ ĂƐĞĚ ŽŶ ƉƌŝŽƌ ďŝŽĂƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚƐ͕ ^ƚĂƚĞ tĂƚĞƌ YƵĂůŝƚLJ ƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚƐ ŝŶ ϮϬϬϰ͕ ϮϬϬϴ͕ ĂŶĚ ϮϬϭϬ ƉůĂĐĞĚ sĂůůĞLJ ƌĞĞŬ ŝŶ ĂƚĞŐŽƌLJ Ϯ ;ǁĂƚĞƌ ŽĨ ĐŽŶĐĞƌŶͿ͘ ĂƐĞĚ ŽŶ ƚŚĞ ƚǁŽ ďĞŶƚŚŝĐ ŵĂĐƌŽŝŶǀĞƌƚĞďƌĂƚĞ ďŝŽĂƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚƐ ŵŽƐƚ ƌĞĐĞŶƚůLJ ƐƵďŵŝƚƚĞĚ ƉƌŝŽƌ ƚŽ ϮϬϭϴ͕ sĂůůĞLJ ƌĞĞŬ ŝƐ ŶŽǁ ŝŶ ĂƚĞŐŽƌLJ ϭ ;ŵĞĞƚƐ ƚĞƐƚĞĚ ƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐ ĨŽƌ ĐůĞĂŶ ǁĂƚĞƌͿ͘ ŝƐƐŽůǀĞĚ KdžLJŐĞŶ dŽ ƚŚƌŝǀĞ͕ ƐĂůŵŽŶ ĂŶĚ ƚƌŽƵƚ ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞ ŚŝŐŚ ůĞǀĞůƐ ŽĨ ĚŝƐƐŽůǀĞĚ ŽdžLJŐĞŶ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ǁĂƚĞƌ ǁŚĞƌĞ ƚŚĞLJ ůŝǀĞ͘ ĂƐĞĚ ŽŶ ĚŝƐƐŽůǀĞĚ ŽdžLJŐĞŶ ŵĞĂƐƵƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ ŝŶ sĂůůĞLJ ƌĞĞŬ ĨƌŽŵ ϮϬϬϬ ƚŽ ϮϬϭϳ͕ ĚŝƐƐŽůǀĞĚ ŽdžLJŐĞŶ ǁĂƐ ƵƐƵĂůůLJ ĨŽƵŶĚ ƚŽ ŵĞĞƚ Žƌ ĞdžĐĞĞĚ ƚŚĞ ǁĂƚĞƌ ƋƵĂůŝƚLJ ĐƌŝƚĞƌŝŽŶ ŽĨ ϴ ŵŐͬ>͕ ďƵƚ ƚŚĞƌĞ ǁĞƌĞ ŽĐĐĂƐŝŽŶĂů ŵĞĂƐƵƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ

ƚŚĂƚ ĚŝĚ ŶŽƚ ŵĞĞƚ ƚŚĂƚ ĐƌŝƚĞƌŝŽŶ͘ ĂƐĞĚ ŽŶ ƚŚĞƐĞ ƌĞƐƵůƚƐ͕ ǁŝƚŚ ƌĞŐĂƌĚ ƚŽ ĚŝƐƐŽůǀĞĚ ŽdžLJŐĞŶ͕ sĂůůĞLJ ƌĞĞŬ ŝƐ ƉůĂĐĞĚ ŝŶ ĂƚĞŐŽƌLJ Ϯ ;ǁĂƚĞƌ ŽĨ ĐŽŶĐĞƌŶͿ͘ dƵƌďŝĚŝƚLJ dƵƌďŝĚŝƚLJ͕ Ă ŵĞĂƐƵƌĞ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ƌĞůĂƚŝǀĞ ĐůĂƌŝƚLJ ŽĨ ǁĂƚĞƌ͕ ŝƐ ĂƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞĚ ǁŝƚŚ ƚŚĞ ůĞǀĞů ŽĨ ƐƵƐƉĞŶĚĞĚ ƐŽůŝĚƐ ;ŵƵĚͿ ŝƐ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ǁĂƚĞƌ͘ ^ĂůŵŽŶ ĂŶĚ ƚƌŽƵƚ ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞ ǁĂƚĞƌ ǁŝƚŚ ůŽǁ ƚƵƌďŝĚŝƚLJ ƚŽ ůŝǀĞ ĂŶĚ ƚŚƌŝǀĞ͘ tĂƐŚŝŶŐƚŽŶ ^ƚĂƚĞ tĂƚĞƌ YƵĂůŝƚLJ ƌŝƚĞƌŝĂ ĨŽƌ ƚƵƌďŝĚŝƚLJ ƐƚĂƚĞ ƚŚĂƚ ŝŶ ǁĂƚĞƌƐ ĚĞƐŝŐŶĂƚĞĚ ŽƌĞ ^ƵŵŵĞƌ ^ĂůŵŽŶŝĚ ,ĂďŝƚĂƚ͕ ƚƵƌďŝĚŝƚLJ ƐŚŽƵůĚ ŶŽƚ ĞdžĐĞĞĚ ϱ Edh ĂďŽǀĞ ďĂĐŬŐƌŽƵŶĚ ǁŚĞŶ ƚŚĞ ďĂĐŬŐƌŽƵŶĚ ƚƵƌďŝĚŝƚLJ ŝƐ ϱϬ Edh Žƌ ůĞƐƐ ;t ϭϳϯͲϮϬϭ ͲϮϬϬͿ͘ ĂƐĞĚ ŽŶ ĚĂƚĂ ƐƵďŵŝƚƚĞĚ ƚŽ ĐŽůŽŐLJ ďLJ ^ƚƌĞĂŵŬĞĞƉĞƌƐ ƉƌŝŽƌ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ ^ƚĂƚĞ tĂƚĞƌ YƵĂůŝƚLJ ƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚ ;ϮϬϭϴ ĐLJĐůĞͿ͕ ƚŚĞƌĞ ǁĞƌĞ Ϯ ĞdžĐĞĞĚĂŶĐĞƐ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ϱ Edh ŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞ ĨƌŽŵ ďĂĐŬŐƌŽƵŶĚ ;ϲйͿ ĨŽƌ ϯϭ ƉĂŝƌĞĚ ƵƉƐƚƌĞĂŵ ĂŶĚ ĚŽǁŶƐƚƌĞĂŵ ƐĂŵƉůĞ ƐŝƚĞƐ͘ ĂƐĞĚ ŽŶ ƚŚĞƐĞ ƌĞƐƵůƚƐ͕ ǁŝƚŚ ƌĞŐĂƌĚ ƚŽ ƚƵƌďŝĚŝƚLJ͕ sĂůůĞLJ ƌĞĞŬ ŝƐ ƉůĂĐĞĚ ŝŶ ĂƚĞŐŽƌLJ Ϯ ;ǁĂƚĞƌ ŽĨ ĐŽŶĐĞƌŶͿ͘ ZĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞ tĂƐŚŝŶŐƚŽŶ ^ƚĂƚĞ ĞƉƚ͘ ŽĨ ĐŽůŽŐLJ͘ ;ϮϬϮϮ͕ ƵŐƵƐƚͿ͘ tĂƐŚŝŶŐƚŽŶ ^ƚĂƚĞ tĂƚĞƌ YƵĂůŝƚLJ ƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚ͘ ZĞƚƌŝĞǀĞĚ ĨƌŽŵ ĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ ŽĨ ĐŽůŽŐLJ ^ƚĂƚĞ ŽĨ tĂƐŚŝŶŐƚŽŶ͗ ŚƚƚƉƐ͗ͬ​ͬĂƉƉƐ͘ĞĐŽůŽŐLJ͘ǁĂ͘ŐŽǀͬ ƉƉƌŽǀĞĚtY ͬ ƉƉƌŽǀĞĚWĂŐĞƐͬ ƉƉƌŽǀĞĚ^ĞĂƌĐŚ͘ĂƐƉdž

Valley Creek Watershed Stormwater System Maps Screen pictures were taken in December 2022 from the City of Port Angeles’ multi-use map https://pawa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=201b67adeee447f89d720a9fbb9569f 9. The pictures show the stormwater system along Valley Creek from Marine Drive to 8th St.

WDFW Fish Data in Valley Creek

From WDFW Data and Spatial Data Manager and Developer Email communication, March 31, 2023

Per your request for Valley Creek data, we do not survey small independent streams on a routine basis to estimate population abundance and distribution. The only information we have for fish presence in Valley Creek was in 2004 when we collected cutthroat trout in minnow traps on January 29. Twenty cutthroats were identified and their fork lengths were measured. They ranged in size from 78-135mm (average 108.9 mm). No other species were collected that day but other species may be present during the year. In the future, we may be able to sample these small, independent creeks with more field staff.

Mike McHenry, LEKT, may have additional information that I am not aware of at this time.

•

•

^t/& ŽŶůLJ ƐŚŽǁƐ ƚŚĞ ĚŝƐƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶ ĨŽƌ ƐŚŽǁƐ ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƚ ŽĂƐƚĂů ƵƚƚŚƌŽĂƚ ĂƐ Ă ĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĞĚ ƉƌĞƐĞŶĐĞ ĨŽƌ ƚŚĞ ĞŶƚŝƌĞ ůĞŶŐƚŚ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ĨƵůů ƐƚƌĞĂŵ ;ĂƐ ǁĞ ƌŽƵƚĞ ƚŚĞ ĨƵůů ƐƚƌĞĂŵ ƚŽĚĂLJͿ͘ ŶĚ ŝƚ doesn’t show presence on any of its tribs (tho streams or species that are NOT included do NOT ŵĞĂŶ ƚŚĞƌĞ ŝƐ ŶŽ ĨŝƐŚ ƉƌĞƐĞŶĐĞͿ͘ EŽƚĂďůLJ͕ ŽƵƌ ŚĂƚĐŚĞƌLJ ƌĞůĞĂƐĞ ĚĂƚĂďĂƐĞ ƐŚŽǁƐ ǁĞ ƉůĂŶƚ sĂůůĞLJ ƌ ǁŝƚŚ ĐŽŚŽ ĂƐ ƌĞĐĞŶƚůLJ ĂƐ ϮϬϮϮ ĂŶĚ ǁĞ ŚĂǀĞ ƐƉĂǁŶŝŶŐ ŐƌŽƵŶĚ ƌĞĐŽƌĚƐ ĨŽƌ ĐŽŚŽ ;ƚŚƌƵ ϮϬϬϱͿ ĂŶĚ ĐŚƵŵ ;ƚŚƌƵ ϭϵϳϱͿ͘ ^t/& ƵƐĞƐ 'ĞŽ>ŝď͘ K͘>>/ ͺƌŽƵƚĞƐ ŚLJĚƌŽŐƌĂƉŚLJ͘ 'ŽŝŶŐ ŝŶƚŽ ĚĞƚĂŝů ŚĞƌĞ ďĞĐĂƵƐĞ ƚŚĞ ƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ ĚŝĨĨĞƌ͗ o ^t/& ;ĂŶĚ >>/ ͺƌŽƵƚĞƐͿ ƵƐĞ >>/ ϭϮϯϰϯϳϮϰϴϭϮϮϮ ĨŽƌ Ăůů ŽĨ sĂůůĞLJ ƌ͕ LJĞƚ ƚŚĞ ŚĞĂĚǁĂƚĞƌ ĨŽƌ sĂůůĞLJ ƌ ŝƐ ƌŽƵƚĞĚ ĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶƚůLJ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ^ƚƌĞĂŵ ĂƚĂůŽŐ ƉƵďůŝƐŚĞĚ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ϭϵϳϬƐ ĂŶĚ ĂůƚŚŽƵŐŚ ƚŚĞ ŵĂũŽƌŝƚLJ ŝƐ ĞƋƵĂů ƚŽ >>/ ϭϮϯϰϯϳϮϰϴϭϮϮϮ͕ ƚŚĞ ƐƚƌĞĂŵĐĂƚ ŚĂƐ sĂůůĞLJ ƌ с ϭϴ͘ϬϮϰϵ ;ĂŶĚ Ăůů ƌĞůĞǀĂŶƚ >>/ Ɛ ĂƌĞ ϭϮϯϰϯϳϮϰϴϭϮϮϮ͕ϭϮϯϰϱϰϭϰϴϬϲϲϲ͕ϭϮϯϰϱϱϰϰϴϬϲϮϲͿ o dŽ ĐŽŵƉůŝĐĂƚĞ ƚŚŝŶŐƐ ĨƵƌƚŚĞƌ͕ ƚŚĞ ^'^ ĚĂƚĂ / ƉŽƐƚĞĚ ďĞůŽǁ ĐŝƚĞƐ ƐƚƌĞĂŵĐĂƚ ϭϴ͘ϬϮϰϵ ĂŶĚ >>/ ϭϮϯϰϱϰϭϰϴϬϲϲϲ ĐŽŶĨƵƐŝŶŐ ŚŽǁ ƚŽ ŝŶƚĞƌƉƌĞƚ ƚŚĞ ZD;ZŝǀĞƌ DŝůĞͿ ƌĞƉŽƌƚĞĚ ŝŶ ^'^͘ ĞƐƉŝƚĞ ƚŚĞ ĚŝƐĐƌĞƉĂŶĐLJ͕ ƐŝŶĐĞ ƚŚĞ ŶĂƚŝǀĞ ůĂŶŐƵĂŐĞ ĨŽƌ ^'^ ŝƐ ƚŚĞ ƐƚƌĞĂŵĐĂƚƐ ;ĂŶĚ ĨĞǁ ƐƵƌǀĞLJƐ ĂƌĞ ĐŽŶĚƵĐƚĞĚ ŚŝŐŚ ŝŶ ĚƌĂŝŶĂŐĞƐͿ / ƚŚŝŶŬ ŝƚƐ ůŝŬĞůLJ ƚŚĂƚ ƚŚĞ ZD ŝƐ ƚŽ ďĞ ŵĞĂƐƵƌĞĚ ĂůŽŶŐ ƐƚƌĞĂŵĐĂƚ ϭϴ͘ϬϮϰϵ ;ĂŶĚ ŶŽƚ ŵƵĐŚ ĨƵƌƚŚĞƌ ƵƉƐƚƌĞĂŵ ƐƚĂƌƚŝŶŐ Ăƚ ƚŚĞ ŵŽƵƚŚ ŽĨ ϭϮϯϰϱϰϭϰϴϬϲϲϲͿ͘

greenlink PORT ANGELES

GreenLink Port Angeles Phase 1 Summary Report February 2022

This project has been funded wholly or in part by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under assistance agreement PC01J18101 to the Washington Department of Ecology.

The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

GreenLink Port Angeles Phase 1 Summary Report

February 2022

Contents Executive Summary...................................................................................... 1 Background .................................................................................................. 1 Project Description and Goals ...................................................................... 1 The GreenLink Advisory Committee ............................................................. 2 Community Outreach and Engagement ....................................................... 3 Site Selection Process.................................................................................. 5 Project Development and Selection ............................................................. 6 Tribal Consultation ........................................................................................ 8 Timeline Delays ............................................................................................ 8 Lessons Learned .......................................................................................... 9 Next Steps for Phase II................................................................................. 9 Appendix....................................................................................................... 11

GreenLink Port Angeles Phase 1 Summary Report

February 2022

Executive Summary Background Project Description and Goals

Executive Summary

In partnership with the City of Port Angeles (the City) and Herrera Environmental Consulting (Herrera), Futurewise is coordinating GreenLink Port Angeles, a watershed-scale planning process for developing an integrated network of multi-benefit green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) projects. Modeled after a successful pilot in Bellingham, WA, a holistic, data driven approach was used to create a prioritized list of GSI projects and programmatic recommendations that maximize the value of management investments by providing overlapping improvements to water quality, habitat and other community assets like walkability (see Appendix A.1). Public outreach was conducted and a GreenLink Advisory Committee (GLAC) was formed to guide planning and provide expertise on the identification, analysis and scoring of potential project sites. Conceptual project designs were developed and ranked based on the opportunities to provide co-benefits to ecological health and quality of life using GSI and implementation feasibility. The GLAC voted to select the highest-ranking project for advancement in Phase II, Alternative A: the development of engineering plans to daylight lower Valley Creek, and added the creation of a Valley Creek Master Plan.

Background In 2016, Futurewise partnered with the City of Sequim to submit a Near Term Action (NTA) to the Puget Sound Action Agenda. The initial NTA, 2016-0199, was recommended for funding by the Stormwater Strategic Initiative, and received a $248,000 grant funded through EPA’s Puget Sound Geographic Funds. When Futurewise received the grant in 2018, Sequim decided that they were not in a position to take on the project at that time. The Sequim partners suggested that the City of Port Angeles may be interested in participating instead and it was determined that the project aligned well with the Citys’ stormwater infrastructure vision and goals.

Futurewise later applied for and received a second NTA, 2018-0615, through the Stormwater Strategic Initiative and EPA Puget Sound Geographic Funds. The second grant in the amount of $248,000 was combined with the initial grant into Phase I and Phase II of the GreenLink project.

Phase I was to be used to develop an integrated network of implementable green infrastructure project recommendations and Phase II is intended to support the advancement and implementation of selected projects identified in Phase I.

Project Description and Goals The goal of GreenLink Port Angeles Phase I was to develop a prioritized list of integrated GSI projects and policy recommendations that would provide multiple, overlapping benefits to habitat, water quality and community assets like walkability while helping the City achieve their National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit requirements and other stormwater management objectives. Potential project sites were evaluated and scored using a variety of methods including a process called “heat mapping” (see description below) and stormwater

Page 1 | GreenLink Port Angeles Phase 1 Summary Report

February 2022

The GreenLink Advisory Committee project concepts were created to address site specific concerns while simultaneously capitalizing on the unique opportunities associated with that location.

The original plan was to generate three to five detailed summary sheets for the highest-priority projects, one or more of which would be selected for implementation in Phase II. The remaining summary sheets would be used to seek funding for future project completion. Alternatively, the GLAC decided to pursue advancement of only the highest-ranking project in Phase II, daylighting lower Valley Creek to the extent allowed by time and funding. The creation of a master plan was a component added in response to GLAC discussions regarding the need for a cohesive vision for ongoing watershed-scale work. This approach will incorporate and build upon the extensive restoration and planning work already completed for Valley Creek. The construction is not included under this grant.

GLAC Meeting

The GreenLink Advisory Committee A GreenLink Advisory Committee (GLAC) was formed to provide expertise, local knowledge, and guidance throughout the iterative planning process. The GLAC has been coordinated by

Page 2 | GreenLink Port Angeles Phase 1 Summary Report

February 2022

Community Outreach and Engagement Futurewise and Herrera staff and includes representatives from the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, the City of Port Angeles, Clallam County, Olympic National Park, the Fiero Marine Life Center, Washington Sea Grant, a consultant with Natural Systems Design and other environmental professionals and stakeholders. While the composition of the group and the positions of certain participants has changed somewhat over the course of the project, the core group has remained consistent. Defining and selecting analysis categories, identifying data sources and community priorities, filling dataset gaps, vetting analysis results, ranking potential projects, and voting for an alternative to advance in Phase II, are among the many contributions of the GLAC.

Community engagement mapping exercise

Community Outreach and Engagement Several steps were taken to provide the Port Angeles community with project information and to gather local knowledge and input on creek conditions, project preferences and assets definition.

The GLAC reviewed the preliminary Outreach Plan and recommended the events attended to

Page 3 | GreenLink Port Angeles Phase 1 Summary Report

February 2022

solicit community input. The following public engagement activities were coordinated by Futurewise staff: ●

A project overview presented to the Port Angeles City Council and members of the public at a Council Meeting in May, 2019 (see Appendix A.2).

●

Four tabling/outreach events were set up at the Port Angeles Farmers’ Market and the Arts & Draughts Festival during the Summer of 2019.

●

An open house was held at the North Olympic Library System in August of 2019.

●

A walking tour in the Valley and Peabody Creek Watersheds was led by GLAC participant Ed Chadd.

Walking tour led by Ed Chadd

Page 4 | GreenLink Port Angeles Phase 1 Summary Report

February 2022

Site Selection Process

Site Selection Process Potential project sites were identified, evaluated and prioritized using a data analysis method called “heat mapping” (see below) in combination with desktop analysis, on the ground investigations, and input from the GLAC. After discussion and a review of the Bellingham model, the GLAC selected water quality, habitat and community assets as the categories for the data analysis. While Peabody Creek, Tumwater Creek, and Valley Creek were the initial focus, this scope was expanded to include the other two watersheds within the City of Port Angeles, Dry Creek and Ennis Creek, at the suggestion of the GLAC. An overview of the site selection process and scoring method follows.

Site selection process diagram

Lay of the Land Map Catalog Using government sources, Herrera compiled more than 75 spatial datasets of relevant watershed health metrics and other material related to project feasibility to create a “Lay of the Land '' map catalog (see Appendix A.3). The GLAC then identified any gaps in the data.

Heat Map Analysis A “heat mapping” data analysis was used to inform the prioritization of a list of stormwater projects and locations by greatest need and opportunity (see Appendix A.2). Individual datasets identifying watershed characteristics were grouped for analysis by water quality, habitat, and community assets. Proximity to trailheads and community gathering spaces are examples of the assets used in this process. Scoring criteria were developed for each metric that represented the overall impact of that metric on the broader analysis category. The scoring criteria was applied to a grid overlaying a given area and the individual cells of the grid were assigned a numeric value based on the scoring.

Page 5 | GreenLink Port Angeles Phase 1 Summary Report

February 2022

A cumulative watershed function map was then created by combining individual map layers related to community assets and water quality, resulting in the “stacking” of the georeferenced grids. Habitat characteristics were considered separately to avoid constraints like critical habitat that could impact permitting. The values of the grid cells overlaying a particular location were added together to give a numeric, or “heat map” value. Locations with high numeric values were identified as sites where GSI projects would provide the greatest “bang for the buck'' with overlapping benefits. The habitat maps were considered separately but in parallel to the cumulative function maps to identify synergistic opportunities for habitat improvements and avoid areas where existing habitat would constrain a project.

Desktop Analysis and Site Visits A desktop analysis of relevant factors including the heat mapping results, was used by Herrera to guide on the ground investigations of the most promising locations. A small team of stormwater engineers and planners visited potential project locations in the Ennis Creek, Peabody Creek, Valley Creek and Tumwater Creek watersheds in Port Angeles to further assess the opportunities identified by the desktop analysis and to gather the information needed to develop a first draft of the list of potential GSI projects. This step informed the development of site specific GSI interventions and led to the identification of additional project opportunities.

After the field reconnaissance, the team refined the project list and began developing a Project Evaluation Matrix (see Appendix A.4).

Project Development and Selection

Project Development and Selection

A list of conceptual project designs was developed for locations where the analysis indicated a high potential to benefit from GSI interventions (see link to Heat Map Analysis after Appendix).

Projects were designed to address localized issues while providing multiple improvements to water quality, habitat and community assets. A matrix was created to score and evaluate the projects with the same criteria used in the heat mapping and the addition of “feasibility". The GLAC ranked the projects following a discussion of their relative merits based on their local knowledge and expertise (see Appendix A.5). Daylighting Valley Creek and the installation of a comprehensive recreational trail system received the highest ranking. During the discussion of this concept, it was also suggested that a master plan would be an important next step for realizing the broader vision for Valley Creek. Overall, there was less enthusiasm expressed for any of the other projects on the list and it became clear that the group preferred to focus exclusively on advancing the Valley Creek projects.

Page 6 | GreenLink Port Angeles Phase 1 Summary Report

February 2022

Roadway overlaying Valley Creek

Alternatives Development and Final Project Selection To evaluate the idea of pursuing the Valley Creek project at the exclusion of further developing the other priority projects, thus deviating from the original project plan, it was determined that more information was required to understand the significant constraints associated with these sites. To compare potential approaches and options moving forward, a list of three alternatives was developed that included the most feasible or otherwise suitable components of the two highest ranking projects (see Appendix A.6). A third, more flexible alternative was created to address the preferences of some GLAC members and that would also align closely with the City’s strong interest in cleaning up Peabody Creek. This alternatives assessment was based in part on the previous work of the GLAC and extensive, additional background research. The opportunities and constraints of each option were used to inform a discussion by the GLAC prior to the vote leading to the selection of Valley Creek projects for pursuit in Phase II.

Page 7 | GreenLink Port Angeles Phase 1 Summary Report

February 2022

Summary Sheets and Feasibility Study The selection of a single project for implementation in Phase II eliminated the need to produce multiple summary sheets; however, all of all the GSI project concepts associated with Valley Creek will be included in the Watershed Master Plan for reference and in-depth consideration at a later date and stormwater infrastructure enhancement will be emphasized throughout the design process. The City has affirmed support for this adjustment because the plans produced can be used by the City to seek funding to address long standing problems with the Valley Creek culvert identified as an unfunded priority stormwater project in the Capital Facilities Plan.

The remaining time and consultant funds earmarked for Phase I were spent on developing a summary sheet outlining elements of the feasibility study necessary to implement Alternative A, including an assessment of two potential routing options for lower Valley Creek see Appendix A.7). The evaluation of an additional potential route was proposed by a GLAC participant as a way to avoid soil contamination and other constraints.

Tribal Consultation

Tribal Consultation Because of their unique political status and cultural relationship to the land, it is essential that the interested Tribes have ample opportunities for early and robust engagement in the project planning process, beyond the limits of the GLAC forum and standard Section 106 consultation requirements. To ensure that the project design and implementation are informed by, and responsive to, tribal input and preferences, we have sent an invitation for a separate, in depth consultation to the Lower Elwha Tribe Business Committee Chair that also recognizes the ongoing contributions of their staff to the GLAC (see Appendix A.8). At the outset of Phase II, additional invitations for consultation will be sent to the other interested tribes.

Timeline Delays

Timeline Delays The disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted the project timeline.

Important field surveys planned by Herrera for March, 2020, had to be postponed until June 2020 due to coronavirus related gathering restrictions. Following the successful completion of this on-site survey, the project again began to make progress and a major milestone was completed in November 2020 when a preliminary project list and prioritization matrix were presented to the GLAC. Another major delay occurred in February of 2021 due to an unexpected reduction in staffing.

Hiring a resident of Port Angeles to serve as the new project manager and obtaining an 18-month extension of the project timeline from the Department of Ecology, were among the steps taken to respond to these challenges.

Page 8 | GreenLink Port Angeles Phase 1 Summary Report

February 2022

Lessons Learned

Lessons Learned Tribal Engagement An earlier, comprehensive tribal engagement strategy may have led to a more timely and productive process by providing valuable perspective on local needs and priorities, previous efforts, and the cultural, historical, and social contexts.

Data Driven Approach Heat map analysis may not be the most effective or efficient route to achieve the desired outcome in Port Angeles and it should not be presumed that an approach that proved useful in one community will produce an equivalent benefit to another. While data analysis provides some quantitative validation of the site selection process, there may be less time consuming and costly ways to secure a comparable result given that the projects ultimately selected are mostly similar to ones identified and prioritized prior to this undertaking. The underlying assumption that the data layers used for heat mapping are additive and that sites receiving the highest score are the most suitable for project placement may be an oversimplification of the factors influencing these decisions.

The high level of site-specific knowledge and expertise held by this GLAC could have been used to select projects based on needs already identified by the City and other local organizations with the concept of multi-benefit projects as a guiding principle and the use of data analysis for additional validation. This approach also may have led to the selection of a final project more in tune with the City's most pressing stormwater management objectives.

However, that the projects ultimately chosen are of longstanding importance and high value to the community does indicate that the process was successful in identifying and prioritizing projects with merit.

Predefined Framework While there were limitations in applying the Bellingham GreenLink model in Port Angeles, having an established framework was valuable for providing a path forward and a forum for important discussions and decision making. Initiating an entirely new process would have taken time and led to untested results. It is possible that hiring someone with the type of local knowledge and expertise held by the members of the GLAC could have facilitated a rapid adaptation GreenLink process to suit the unique context at the outset.

Next Steps of forthe Phase II

Next Steps for Phase II ●

Maintain ongoing engagement with the GLAC.

●

Expand the outreach strategy to include other interested tribes.

Page 9 | GreenLink Port Angeles Phase 1 Summary Report

February 2022

●

Continue community engagement efforts with particular emphasis on outreach to affected property owners and businesses for the daylighting project and the broader community for creation of the Valley Creek Master Plan.

●

Determine components of the Valley Creek Master Plan.

●

Complete the feasibility assessment to include an evaluation of routing alternatives and logical project segments.

●

Develop the scope of work and secure an engineering contract to begin plan set development, and if time allows, permitting.

●

Evaluate the need for consultants to work on elements of the Valley Creek Master Plan and if needed develop that scope of work and secure a contract.

●

Research funding opportunities for project implementation.

Page 10 | GreenLink Port Angeles Phase 1 Summary Report

February 2022

Appendix

Appendix A.1 GreenLink Bellingham Project Report A.2 Memo to Port Angeles City Council A.3 Technical Memo A.4 Project Evaluation Matrix (DRAFT) A.5 GLAC Project Scoring Results Table A.6 Revised Project Alternatives A.7 Valley Creek Daylighting Feasibility Assessment Project Summary Sheet A.8 Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe Consultation Letter Link to Heat Map Analysis: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/40539d2ba4e143f286d4430b413062f1 Link to Potential Project List: https://arcg.is/Cqrq9

Page 11 | GreenLink Port Angeles Phase 1 Summary Report

February 2022

Four Routing Alternatives Alternative 1

Green = Daylighted Creek

Valley Street Alignment

Red line = Existing Culvert

Purple = Bridge or Culvert Maroon Dash = Future Daylighting Fish Passable Crossing ~ 35ft Wide

White Line = edge of pavement Yellow Dash = Olympic Discovery Trail

80ft ROW corridor for Daylighting.

Valley Street closed Could add baffles to improve passage until Phase 5 daylighting Phase 4 ties directly to existing culvert End of Phase 3

Alternative 1 Valley Street Alignment

TRAFFIC IMPACTS Yellow = Closed Road Red Arrow = Traffic Impact Green Arrow = Traffic Alternative Maroon = Parking/access impacts Yellow Dash = Olympic Discovery Trail

Alternative 2

Daylighting Width Shown ~ 80ft

Green = Daylighted Creek Purple = Bridge or Culvert

W estern Alignment

Red line = Existing Culvert Orange Dash = Future Daylighting White Line = edge of pavement Blue Arrow = Lateral Storm drain inputs

Fish Passable Crossing ~ 35ft Wide

Yellow Dash = Olympic Discovery Trail

100ft ROW for Daylighting.

Fish Passable Crossing ~ 35ft Wide

Potential Baffles Added (may not be necessary) End of Phase 3

Alternative 3a

Temporary 7ft pipe connection to existing culvert

Green = Daylighted Creek Daylighting Width Shown ~ 80ft

Valley Creek Park

BLUE = Park/Open Space Purple = Bridge or Culvert Red line = Existing Culvert Green Dash= Future Daylighting

Fish Passable Crossing ~ 35ft Wide

Non creek area used for Park Open Space 150-250 width for Daylighting.

Potential Baffles Added (may not be necessary)

End of Phase 3

Temporary 7ft pipe connection to existing culvert

White Line = edge of pavement Yellow Dash = Olympic Discovery Trail

Alternative 3b

Green = Daylighted Creek

Valley Creek Park

Purple = Bridge or Culvert

BLUE = Park/Open Space Red line = Existing Culvert Green Dash= Future Daylighting

Avoids K Ply Site Fish Passable Crossing ~ 35ft Wide

Non creek area used for Park Open Space

White Line = edge of pavement Yellow Dash = Olympic Discovery Trail

150-250 width for Daylighting.

Temporary 7ft pipe connection to existing culvert

Potential Baffles Added (may not be necessary)

End of Phase 3

Alternative 4

Green = Daylighted Creek Daylighting Width Shown ~ 80ft

Valley Creek Park Combo

BLUE = Park/Open Space Purple = Bridge or Culvert Red line = Existing Culvert Green Dash= Future Daylighting

Fish Passable Crossing ~ 35ft Wide

Non creek area used for Park Open Space 150-250 width for Daylighting.

Potential Baffles Added (may not be necessary)

End of Phase 3

Additional Buffer from closing Portion of Valley Street Temporary 7ft pipe connection to existing culvert

White Line = edge of pavement Yellow Dash = Olympic Discovery Trail

Education Opportunities for education and recreation in Valley Creek have been a part of the Valley Creek Watershed vision and restoration plans since the 1990s. Mike McHenry, habitat biologist with Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, noted the unique potential of this community asset realized through restoration efforts and community support. With the current and future plans of redevelopment (see downtown redevelopment section) of the Port Angeles downtown area, the Valley Creek interpretive opportunities are even more varied and plentiful.

The Valley Creek estuary is located just west of the Port Angeles Waterfront Center which serves to highlight the people, history, and natural environments of the area. The Waterfront Center will soon be joined by the Field Arts and Events Hall, currently in its final stages of construction. Construction of the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe Cultural Center and the Marine Discovery Center is planned to follow.

The Marine Discovery Center, a partnership between the Feiro Marine Life Center and NOAA’s Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary, is eager to combine its future facility with an enhanced downtown stream restoration as a central component of its education services.

The restored and daylighted lower Valley Creek that connects to the estuary will provide opportunities to monitor, explore, and steward a great example of local habitat as a model of the urban stream and habitat restoration.

The Waterfront Trail section of the Olympic Discovery Trail offers an extension of interpretive themes as it winds east towards the Port Angeles Waterfront Center and indoor/outdoor content produced by the Marine Discovery Center. Addressing one of the Marine Discovery Center’s primary interpretive themes noting “water connects us all”, the site could include a playground and science park structures, such as a kelp forest or salmon life-cycle playground, placed joining Valley Creek and Pebble Beach Park as an outdoor classroom.

Site design should consider incorporating facilities that accommodate group learning, such as an outdoor classroom. Interpretive elements can provide educational opportunities pertaining to history, stormwater, ecology, and other relevant topics.

A highly visible habitat restoration project on Valley Creek will be enhanced by interpretive signs that provide information on historic indigenous site use, impairment stories, physical restoration processes and needs, unique watershed features, Port Angeles Harbor and maritime industry, and the marine environment including water quality indicators and species identification.

The Valley Creek Master Plan seeks to provide opportunities for education and interpretation throughout planning and design. The plan envisions a space where residents, students, and tourists can see salmon spawning and learn about ecology, the cultural context, the working port, and more from the new Marine Discovery Center, the LEKT Cultural Centers, the Victoria Ferry, and other points downtown.