00-25 Resolution No. 00-25
RESOLUTION
AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AN
ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH HEY AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
FOR THE TYLER CREEK MANAGEMENT PROJECT
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ELGIN,
ILLINOIS, that Joyce A. Parker, City Manager, and Dolonna
Mecum, City Clerk, be and are hereby authorized and directed
to execute Amendment No . 1 to an Engineering Services
Agreement on behalf of the City of Elgin with Hey and
Associates, Inc . for the Tyler Creek Management Project, a
copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof by
reference .
s/ Ed Schock
Ed Schock, Mayor
Presented: February 9, 2000
Adopted: February 9, 2000
Omnibus Vote : Yeas 5 Nays 0
Attest :
s/ Dolonna Mecum
Dolonna Mecum, City Clerk
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 29, 2000
To: DoLonna Mecum, City Clerk
From: Haresh Modi, P.E., Civil Engineer I
Copy: Joe Evers, P.E., City Engineer, file
Subject: Tyler Creek Management Project: Amendment 1
Attached please find an original copy of amendment no. 1 for Tyler Creek Management Project
signed by Hey and Associates, Inc.; the consultant for the project. This is for your information
and records.
We are keeping a copy for our records.
If you have any questions, please call me at X-5967.
Thanks.
Encl.: Executed Amendment no. 1
HM/hm
CITY OF ELGIN, ILLINOIS
TYLER CREEK MANAGEMENT PROJECT
ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 1
This Amendment No. 1 entered into this 23 day of rtaiihwAri7y ,
2000, by and between the City of Elgin, an Illinois Municipal
Corporation (herein referred to as 'CITY" ) and Hey and
Associates, Inc. , (hereinafter referred to as 'ENGINEER" ) , shall
modify that agreement dated July 10, 1998, (hereinafter referred
to as 'AGREEMENT" ) , whereby the ENGINEER was engaged by the CITY
to perform certain professional services in connection with data
collection, conceptual design, preliminary engineering and other
construction related engineering services for the Tyler Creek
Management Project (Hereinafter referred to as 'PROJECT" ) .
Whereas the payment to the ENGINEER for additional engineering
completed on the Eagle Heights Flooding, and a feasibility study
for the partial alternative improvements for the same issue was
not included in the AGREEMENT, and,
Whereas the CITY desires to include the payments to the ENGINEER
under paragraph IV of the AGREEMENT in connection with the
aforementioned design engineering pertaining to the PROJECT.
Now, therefore, for and in consideration of the mutual
undertakings as contained herein, and the mutual undertakings as
set forth in the original AGREEMENT, and other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows :
1 . That section IV of the AGREEMENT of July 10, 1998 is hereby
amended by adding a Subparagraph C thereto to read as
follows:
C. For services listed below the ENGINEER shall be
reimbursed the total amount of $45, 700 as a total lump
sum fee regardless of actual costs incurred by the
ENGINEER.
1 . Additional engineering
completed on the Eagle
Heights Flooding $23, 000
2 . Feasibility study for partial
alternative improvements for
Eagle Heights $7, 500
3 . Prepare IEPA section 319
grant application $3, 500
-2-
4 . Adjustment to remaining
in-scope project balance
to reflect new billing
rates $11, 700
TOTAL LUMP SUM FEES, Amendment 1 $45, 700
2 . That except as amended herein the terms of the AGREEMENT of
July 10, 1998, between the CITY and the ENGINEER shall
remain in full force and effect.
3 . That in the event of a conflict between the terms of this
amendment No. 1 and the terms of the original AGREEMENT of
July 10, 1998, the terms of this Amendment No. 1 shall
control .
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have placed their hands and
seals upon and executed this Amendment No . 1 in triplicate as
though each copy hereof was in original and that there are no
other oral agreements that have not been reduced to writing in
this statement.
For the CITY:
ATTEST THE CITY OF ELGIN, ILLINOIS
ev6:
City Clerk / city Manager
(SEAL) (SEAL)
-3-
For the ENGINEER:
Dated this'lj day of �A.00.cr.:--( , A.D. , 2000
ATTEST: HEY AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
By: 1f\cxj � By:
Secretary Principal
`41 OF Etc
City of Elgin Agenda Item No.
January 14 , 2000
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Joyce A. Parker, City Manager
SUBJECT: Engineering Services Agreement Amendment No. 1
for Tyler Creek Management Project
PURPOSE
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the Mayor and members
of the City Council with information to consider the approval of
Amendment No. 1 to an engineering service agreement with Hey and
Associates .
BACKGROUND
On October 27, 1999, a report on the Tyler Creek Management Project
was presented to the City Council . The intention of that
presentation was to obtain City Council direction to proceed with
several improvement projects within the City on the main branch of
Tyler Creek. The presentation also included discussion of the Eagle
Heights flooding issue and several alternatives to reduce the
nuisance flooding most notable at Royal Boulevard and Ruth Drive.
At the time of the presentation, a significant effort had been
undertaken to study Eagle Heights alternatives which utilized
funding intended for the Tyler Creek Management projects . The City
Council concurred with the recommendation to proceed with the
projects on Tyler Creek and replace the funds used to study Eagle
Heights via an amendment to the Hey and Associates agreement . In
addition to the funds used for the engineering completed on the
Eagle Heights project ($23, 000) , the October 27, 1999
recommendation, also included funds to apply for a EPA grant
($3 , 500) , funds to investigate one additional alternative ($7, 500)
and funds to increase the contract ($11, 700) to reflect current
engineering rates .
A copy of the amendment is attached for your consideration. Staff
will bring forth a second amendment for construction services upon
the completion of the engineering of the projects .
COMMUNITY GROUPS/INTERESTED PERSONS CONTACTED
Friends of Tyler Creek
Eagle Heights Homeowner' s Association
Amendment No. 1-Tyler Creek Management Plan
January 14 , 2000
Page 2
/FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is currently $1 . 06 million remaining for engineering and
improvements to Tyler Creek. The existing contract with Hey and
Associates for projects to the main branch of Tyler Creek is in the
amount of $171, 340 . 00, and is already included as part of the
remaining monies . Amendment No. 1 will add $45, 700 to Hey' s
existing contract . Funds for Amendment No. 1 are available and
will be charged against account number 378-0000-795 . 92-32 , project
number 339501 .
The current estimate for the first 16 projects (of 27 total
projects) is $920, 000 . The costs directly related to preliminary
and final design of the projects include the original contract of
$171, 340 as well as the amendment increases of $11, 700 (increase
for current engineering rates) and $3 , 500 (EPA grant) . Therefore,
the total design costs for the 16 projects will be $186 , 540 . The
remainder ($23 , 000 and $7, 500) is for Eagle Heights exclusively.
The design engineering costs of the Tyler Creek projects ($186, 540)
does not fall within typical range of engineering costs when
compared to construction estimates . Typical design engineering
F cost are seven to ten percent of construction costs . Tyler Creek
project design engineering costs total 20 percent of the estimated
construction cost . The percentage is much higher because of the
unusual nature of the projects which require a higher degree of
effort in preliminary design, surveying, development of easements
and permitting.
LEGAL IMPACT
INIXO/None .
ALTERNATIVES
None .
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that City Council approve the subject amendment
to the original agreement with Hey and Associates in the not-to-
exceed amount of $45, 700 . 00 and authorize staff to execute the
necessary documents .
Re .ectfully submit ,
Alf. a-
J. ce . . Parker
City Manager
HM:do
Attachment
Committee of the Whole Meeting
October 27, 1999
Page 2
The four proposed programs are :
Program 1 Overnight On-Street Parking Ban
Program 2 License Inspections for Single Family
Rental Properties
Program 3 Problem Property Team
Program 4 Point of Sale Home Inspections
Frank Griffin and Jim Bell, representing the Elgin Board of
Realtors, stated the board supports the proposed rental
licensing inspections and the problem property team but not the
point of sale home inspections and the parking ban. They
requested further consideration be given to these two areas .
Members of the S .T.O. P. organization gave a presentation
describing their views and proposed solutions to the
overcrowding problem.
Recess
Councilman Wasilowski made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman
Munson, to recess and go into the regular Council meeting.
Yeas : Councilmembers Figueroa, Gilliam, Munson, Walters,
Wasilowski, Yearman and Mayor Schock. Nays : None .
The meeting recessed at 7 :45 p.m and resumed at 8 : 51 p.m.
Report on 1998 Tyler Creek Management Project
City Engineer Evers introduced Gary Schaefer and Tom Polzin of
Hey and Associates who reviewed the history of the Tyler Creek
Management Plan for the benefit of the newer Councilmembers .
Councilman Gilliam made a motion, seconded by Councilman
Walters, to direct staff to proceed with the engineering of the
16 sites and consider Eagle Heights for a separate project; to
have the staff bring back to Council an amendment to the Hey
Agreement to replace funds ($26, 500) used for the Eagle Heights
issue; to incorporate $7, 500 to investigate partial alternative
improvements and to increase the original contract by $11, 700 to
cover Hey & Associates ' increased hourly rates . Yeas :
Councilmembers Figueroa, Gilliam, Munson, Walters, Wasilowski,
Yearman and Mayor Schock. Nays : None .
Motorola Service Contract for Laptop Computers for the Police
Department
Councilman Gilliam made a motion, seconded by Councilman
Figueroa, to enter into an agreement with Motorola, Inc . to
4OFE4 E
0 '\,� Agenda Item No.
City of Elgin
II,DAo'
October 19, 1999
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Joyce A. Parker, City Manager
SUBJECT: Report on 1998 Tyler Creek Management Project
PURPOSE
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the Mayor and members
of the City Council with updated information about the subject
project, as requested at the February 10, 1999 meeting.
BACKGROUND
The subject project was presented to the City Council on February
10, 1999 . A copy of the memorandum is attached as Exhibit A. The
result of this presentation included City Council ' s concurrence
ri. with proceeding with 16 of the 27 projects as recommended by the
1997 Tyler Creek Management Study. However, the City Council
requested additional information regarding the Eagle Heights
flooding issue.
The issue, as staff understands, is the nuisance flooding in the
Royal Boulevard and Ruth Drive intersection as well as concerns
that the flooding stage may increase in the future due to upstream
development. As discussed at the February lot meeting, staff had
completed preliminary investigation of the Eagle Heights issue and
developed five alternatives for addressing overbank flooding from
Tyler Creek. The concerns regarding the flood stage increasing are
being addressed with the City' s storm water ordinance (which will
be presented to the City Council in November 1999) .
Because the flooding that does occur has yet to cause property
damage to any of the homes in Eagle Heights, and because the
alternatives involve modifying roads and flood plains, staff felt
that the City should proceed with the 16 sites along Tyler Creek
and focus on Eagle Heights when road repairs come due in the next
ten years. The City Council requested that additional information
be provided and that the Eagle Heights issue be considered in
conjunction with the engineering of the proposed 16 sites .
rft- 1998 Tyler Creek Management Project
October 19, 1999
Page 2
As the alternatives Hey had developed to address the Eagle Heights
issue were at a very preliminary stage, further engineering study
was required to confirm the viability of each alternative . The
engineering for the 16 sites could not proceed until staff had firm
direction on the Eagle Heights issue. This is due to the fact that
the budget available for engineering and construction cannot
support both the 16 sites and any one of the Eagle Heights
alternatives .
Based on the City Council ' s comments of February 10, 1999, staff
developed a list of five items to be addressed:
1) Provide drawings of the suggested five alternatives for
addressing the Eagle Heights issue.
2) Provide a comparison of the different levels of protection
and related costs .
3) Provide cost comparison for storm sewer design based on ten
year and 20 year storm events .
rek 4) If an alternative is chosen which includes berms or a
higher road elevation, how do we provide compensatory
storage for the fill material?
5) What are the engineering costs for addressing the Eagle
Heights issue.
The above items are each addressed as follows :
1) Drawings for each of the alternatives has been provided as
Exhibit B. For each alternative there is a drawing
depicting overbank flooding and a drawing depicting
localized flooding from within the subdivision. The
localized flooding is essentially the flooding that occurs
when the storm sewers are surcharged and water begins
flowing over ground which, in this case, is towards the
creek via the Ruth and Royal intersection. An explanation
of each alternative will follow later in the memorandum.
2) Alternative B protects Eagle Heights against the overbank
flooding during a 100 year event at approximately $2 . 2
million. Alternative C protects Eagle Heights against the
overbank flooding during a 50 year event at approximately
$1 . 3 million. Alternative A leaves conditions as is and
does not have a cost . Alternatives D and E cost $ . 8
million and $1.2 million, respectively, and do not protect
Eagle Heights from any specific event . They do, however,
reduce the flood stage on Royal Boulevard.
1998 Tyler Creek Management Project
October 19, 1999
Page 3
3) The cost comparison for the varying size in storm sewer.
Storm Sewer Sized
to accommodate a: the cost is :
10 year rainfall event $300, 000 plus restoration
50 year rainfall event $400, 000 plus restoration
100 year rainfall event $500, 000 plus restoration
It is important to note that the above costs are specific to
storm sewer sizes to carry storm water flows in Eagle
Heights and do not consider overbank flood flows from Tyler
Creek. Restoration will depend upon the location or route
chosen for the storm sewer. As an order of magnitude cost,
the restoration would be approximately $300, 000 per
alternative .
4) In order to accommodate compensatory storage, which would be
required for alternatives B through E, the City would need
to dredge an area to the south of Royal Boulevard and just
north of the new Valley Creek School . If this site could
not be used for this purpose for any reason, the cost of
compensatory storage would increase by the cost of land the
City would have to purchase elsewhere.
5) The engineering costs to provide further evaluation of the
Eagle Heights issues was $26, 500 . If the City decides to
pursue an alternative other than Alternate A, additional
engineering funds, above the $26, 500 will need to be added
to the existing engineering agreement .
Alternative chosen: Increased engineering cost :
B $400, 000
C $300, 000
$200, 000
E $250, 000
The five alternatives depicted in Exhibit B are explained as
follows :
Alternative A - Preserve existing conditions . (Do nothing option)
Alternative B - Includes the construction of a berm to exclude the
overbank flooding from Tyler Creek up to the 100 year event . The
construction of a berm requires the construction of additional
storm sewers and overflow routes because the berm would cut off the
natural over flow route from the Eagle Heights area to Tyler Creek.
The additional storm sewers would be sized for a ten year event and
would relocate some of the existing storm sewers . The overflow
route would be accomplished by lowering a section of Royal
Boulevard between Kimberly and Carol Avenues .
rft-
1998 Tyler Creek Management Project
October 19, 1999
Page 4
Construction $1, 770, 000
Design $ 290, 000
Acquisition $ 100, 000
Permitting $ 30, 000
Study $ 30 , 000
$2, 220, 000
Alternative C - Includes the construction of a berm to exclude the
overbank flooding from Tyler Creek up to the 50 year event . Again
the construction of the berm requires the construction of
additional storm sewers and overflow routes. The difference
between this and Alternate A would be lowering Deborah Avenue
instead of Royal Boulevard. A 300 ' section of Deborah Avenue south
of Royal would be lowered.
Construction $ 930, 000
Design $ 165, 000
Acquisition $ 100, 000
Permitting $ 30, 000
Study $ 30, 000
$1, 255, 000
Alternative D - Includes the reconstruction and raising of Royal
Boulevard at Ruth Drive and Deborah Avenue thereby limiting the
stage of flood water upon the pavement . This alternative would
address the nuisance flooding at the intersection of Ruth and Royal
but would not totally resolve standing water on Ruth south of
Royal .
Construction $ 605, 000
Design $ 115, 000
Acquisition $ 50, 000
Study $ 30, 000
$ 800, 000
Alternative E - Re-grade or dredge main channel of Tyler Creek
-�downstream from Royal Boulevard and increase size of bridge opening
at Royal Boulevard. Create overflow channels to direct storm water
from intersection of Ruth Drive and Royal Boulevard. This improves
conveyance of water during any storm and would reduce the stage of
flood water on existing pavements .
Construction $ 945, 000
Design $ 125, 000
Acquisition $ 50, 000
Permitting $ 50, 000
Study $ 30, 000
$1, 200, 000
rift 1998 Tyler Creek Management Project
October 19, 1999
Page 5
The staff suggests that the City address Tyler Creek enhancement
issues separately from the Eagle Heights flooding issue. The
suggestion is based on the following reasons; 1) the projects are
dissimilar in nature as one is enhancement and the other is flood
protection, 2) both are complex projects, 3) the latter includes
ancillary issues such as storm sewer capacities unrelated to Tyler
Creek overbank flooding, 4) the first has well defined solutions
and the latter still requires direction and research and 5) the
problems along Tyler Creek addressed by the Tyler Creek Management
Plan are dynamic and continue to worsen. Additionally, with the
exception of Alternative A, the alternatives for flood proofing
Eagle Heights require filling the flood plain and/or significant
modifications to Tyler Creek. These measures are inconsistent with
the initial intent of the Tyler Creek Management Plan.
Another reason to separate the Eagle Heights flooding issue will
allow staff to investigate implementing portions of the
alternatives and then evaluate their effectiveness . For example,
Royal Boulevard or Deborah Avenue could be lowered as identified in
Alternatives B and C thereby creating an overflow route to the east
or south. Once flooding in the intersection reached the elevation
of the lowered road, the flood stage would cease to rise and begin
to overflow thereby reducing the depth of flooding that occurs
under existing conditions. Also, increasing the storm sewer
capacity identified in Alternatives B and C may further benefit the
intersection by providing yet another avenue to discharge flood
waters .
Staff believes that with these partial improvements the
intersection would still flood but not as deep so that vehicular
traffic would not be interrupted. With lowered overflow routes
less water volume would exist and with increase storm sewer
capacity the water would recede faster than it does now when the
intersection floods . The storm sewer constructed with the North
McLean Reconstruction project was oversized to anticipate increased
storm water discharge from Eagle Heights. If "partial" improvements
prove to be a viable solution, it is anticipated that this would be
the lowest cost alternative .
COMMUNITY GROUPS/INTERESTED PERSONS CONTACTED
Friends of Tyler Creek
Keeping Marianne Nelson informed of presentation dates .
Eagle Heights Homeowners ' Association
Staff met with the Eagle Heights Board on October 14, 1999 to
discuss the five alternatives . The Board confirmed that the
nuisance flooding that occurs at Ruth and Royal is their main
concern. After reviewing the alternatives, the Board
1998 Tyler Creek Management Project
October 19, 1999
Page 6
requested that the City take immediate action to implement one
of the alternatives . The cost of the alternatives and the
difficulty of including with the Tyler Creek Management
projects was also discussed. The Board' s initial wish is to
see Alternative B implemented but liked Alternative E as a
backup. The Board will follow up with a letter buthexpect it
will not be ready until after the October 27 Council
meeting.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is currently $1. 06 million earmarked for engineering and
improvements to Tyler Creek. To date, $171, 340 has been authorized
for this project for design, permitting and bid preparation, and
evaluation for improvements to the main branch of Tyler Creek.
Previously, 16 sites were identified for water quality detention
and stream bank stabilization. It is estimated that $1, 140, 300
will be required to fund the 16 sites . Upon completion of the
design for the 16 sites and more detail cost estimates, the scope
of work (ie . number of sites) may be adjusted to stay within
budget . Additional funding will be required for any of the Eagle
rm. Heights alternatives previously mentioned in this memo (i .e. , from
a low of $1, 000, 000 including engineering and construction
Alternative D to a high of $2, 620, 000 including engineering and
construction - Alternative B) .
The work considered under this memorandum is only for the
engineering of the sixteen sites for $171, 340 , the additional
engineering completed on the Eagle Heights flooding, $26, 500, and
the recommended addition of a feasibility study for the partial
alternative improvements (lowering Royal or Deborah to create an
overflow) at a cost of $7, 500 . Additionally, the original contract
($171, 340) must be increased by $11, 700 to adjust Hey & Associates '
fee given time delays experienced on the project . When engineering
is complete and prior to construction bidding, a follow up report
will be presented to City Council .
It has been suggested that the City investigate outside sources of
funding for the erosion control/ecological restoration projects and
for the Eagle Heights flooding. Such sources include the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agencies "Non-point Source
Pollution Control Program" and the Grand Victoria Foundation. It
is important that the engineering be complete when approaching
these outside funding sources .
LEGAL IMPACT
elk", None .
1998 Tyler Creek Management Project
October 19, 1999
Page 7
ALTERNATIVES
None .
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council direct staff to proceed
with the engineering of the 16 sites and consider Eagle Heights for
a separate project . It is also recommended that staff bring back to
the City Council an amendment to the Hey Agreement to replace funds
($26, 500) used for the Eagle Heights issue, to incorporate $7, 500
to investigate partial alternative improvements and to increase the
original contract by $11, 700 to cover Hey & Associates ' increased
hourly rates .
ARespectfully submit ed,
& •
Jo e . Parker
City Manager
rft JE:do
Attachments
EXHIBIT A
February 10, 1999 Council Memoradum
rik
etq,
G z • Agenda Item No.
• { City of Elgin
lb
g1fDE�'
January 15, 1999
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Joyce A. Parker, City Manager
SUBJECT: Report on the 1998 Tyler Creek Management Project
PURPOSE
•
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the Mayor and
members of the City Council with a report on the subject
project and to .request Council ' s concurrence for proceeding
with certain projects .
BACKGROUND
At the April 22, 1998 Committee of the Whole, an amendment to
the agreement with Hey and Associates for the Tyler Creek
Management Plan was approved. At this meeting, Hey and Associ-
ates presented a summary of proposed projects . The projects
were prioritized based on the type of proposed improvement and
the level of urgency.
Their agreement was structured financially to develop plans
and bid documents for 16 sites . Staff received additional
direction to investigate Eagle Heights flooding and the flood
proofing of privately owned structures . The attached letter
from Hey and Associates , dated January 12 , 1999 , provides a
brief history of the Tyler Creek Management Plan and an update
on work completed since the April 22 presentation. Hey and
Associates will be available for a brief presentation regard-
ing work to date and to answer any questions . Since the April
22 presentation, Hey and Associates has completed additional
investigation of project alternatives ( including Eagle
Heights ) , preliminary cost estimates and met with interested
parties ( including a September 4 , 1998 public meeting) .
A meeting was held on December 18, 1998 with interested
parties , staff and Hey and Associates. Mr. David Kaptain repre-
senting Eagle Heights and Mrs . Mary Ann Nelson representing
Friends of Tyler Creek attended this meeting. Five options for
the Eagle Heights flooding were developed. The cost of the
five options range from $430, 000 to $1,130, 000 as shown in
Table No. 2 of the attached letter. The options, while
tem. providing relieve from overbank flooding, could cause isolated
flooding due to the elimination of overland flood routes .
Because much of the work described in the five options is
relative to pavement, storm sewer and general roadway
+ Rprt/ ' 98 Tyler Crk Mngmnt Plan
' January 15, 1999
Page 2
modifications, the opinion of the group was that this work
should coincide with street rehabilitation projects instead of
Tyler Creek projects . The streets within Eagle Heights were
last rehabilitated in 1987 and should be rescheduled within
the next ten years .
COMMUNITY GROUPS/INTERESTED PERSONS CONTACTED
Mr. David Kaptain, President, Eagle Heights Homeowners Associ-
ation
Mrs . Mary Ann Nelson, Friends of Tyler Creek
FINANCIAL IMPACT
No additional financial impacts unless the scope or number of
projects sites are modified.
LEGAL IMPACT
None.
ALTERNATIVES _
None
rio. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council authorize the staff to
proceed with plans and bid documents for the sixteen sites . It
is further recommended that staff proceed with plans and bid
documents for the next prioritized project should any of the
sixteen projects prove inaccessible and that staff keep the
City Council informed of any changes .
Respectfully submitted,
Joyce A. Parker
City Manager
JE/do
Attachments
A
Hey and Associates, Inc.
Water Resources,Wetlands and Ecology
28045 NORTH ASHLEY CIRCLE,SUITE 101
LIBERTYVILLE,ILLINOIS 60048
PHONE(847)918-0888
FAX(847)918-0892
MEMORANDUM
TO: Joe Evers, City of Elgin ,.
i�
FROM:- Tom Polzinn,Gary Schaefer
DATE: Revised January 12, 1999
•
RE: Tyler Creek
Pursuant to our meetings of October 28, December 7, December 18 and January 5, 1999 we are
preparing a presentation for the City Council to seek concurrence on the selected streambank
stabilization and water quality sites as well as resolution of the Eagle Heights issue. This should provide
the Council with a better understanding of the project and assist with their site selection decision. The
intent is to come away from the council meeting with clear direction as to what sites to focus on. This,
memorandum summ „7es what we plan to present at the January 27th, 1999 City Council meeting.
Project Background
The original Tyler Creek Management Plan was proposed by the City of Elgin as a comprehensive
planning effort to address flood risk, stormwater runoff, water quality, ecology and open space
management. The need for the study grew out of an innovative City project to create a regional
stormwater detention reservoir above Randall Road. This plan, conceived in the 1970's, resulted in the
waiver of approximately 100 acre-feet of stormwater detention for new development below Randall
Road in exchange for cash payments to assist in the construction of the regional reservoir.
Environmental concerns about the ecological impact of the regional reservoir prevented its approval and
construction .
In response to these concerns, as well as, a desire for updated floodplain mapping and flood risk
management, the City undertook the Tyler Creek Management Plan. This effort was guided by the Elgin
Stormwater Task Force. The Task Force established goals for the Tyler Creek Management Plan which
reinforced Elgin master planning efforts, especially the Far West Plan. Using these goals, the Tyler Creek
Management Plan studies were completed and a plan prepared for City review. Plan conclusions
emphasized the following points.
• The detention waived by the City of Elgin has not resulted in increased flood heights along Tyler
Creek.
• The reservoir at Randall Road would not have resulted in a significant decrease in flood heights along
Tyler Creek.
Tyler Creek Page 2
January 12, 1999
• The lack of detention along Tyler Creek has resulted in increased ecological impacts and streambank
erosion along Tyler Creek.
• Although flood heights were found to be higher along Tyler Creek due to modern risk factors
especially for rainfall, the number of structures in the flood plain has not increased significantly and
flood damages are minimal.
• Further investigations has shown that to remove properties from the floodplain at least 3600 acre-
feet of new flood storage would be needed in the Tyler Creek watershed.
• Elgin's stormwater management ordinances need to be more stringent to prevent flood increases as
the remainder of the Tyler Creek watershed develops.
• Existing depressional storage in the Tyler Creek watershed must be preserved or flood heights will
increase in Elgin.
The Tyler Creek Management Plan established three priority levels for projects recommended to
respond to these conclusions.
Level 1 included water quality detention and streambank stabilization to address the effects of the
detention waiver at six sites.
Level 2 suggested another ten similar projects with slightly less urgency than the level 1 projects.
Level 3 was an evaluation of floodproofing projects to remove properties from the floodplain. These
were ranked lowest because of the small amount of damage associated with them and the concern that
these were more properly implemented using private rather than public funds.
After a competitive proposal process, the City proceeded in 1998 with the decision to design the sixteen
Level 1 and 2 projects. The need to include an evaluation of nuisance flooding in the Eagle Heights
subdivision, which was partially addressed in a report separate from the Tyler Creek Management Plan,
was included.
It was decided that the first design steps would be to evaluate nuisance flooding in Eagle Heights,.the
feasibility of the original 16 projects and the feasibility of floodproofing measures above Route 31. Once
this was completed, the final selection of projects for design would be completed by the City, taking into
consideration the costs for addressing the Eagle Heights problem.
City Council Mandate and Status
The City Council directed that the results of the project evaluations be brought back for their review to
establish final selected design projects.
Work Performed Since April 22, 1998 City Council Presentation
• additional field reconnaissance, •
• . open house preparation, attendance and presentation (September 2, 1998),
• confirmation and refinement of stabilization and water quality basin alternatives,
Tyler Creek Page 3
January 12, 1999
• development of Eagle Heights floodproofing alternatives including hydraulic analyses and cost
estimates,
• development of costs and priorities for stabilization and water quality sites,
• initiation of ecological restoration plans,
• initiation of erosion assessment,
• concept design development for grant application, and
• attendance at various meetings (most notably a December 18, 1998 meeting with a representative of
the Eagle Heights Homeowner's Association and a representative of the Friends of Tyler Creek).
Upcoming Work
• pursue property access and easement acquisition
• continue work on ecological restoration plans
• continue work on erosion assessment
• perform site specific wetland, soils and vegetation surveys
• perform detailed site specific topographic surveying
• prepare concept design plans
• prepare finale design plans and specifications
Eagle Heights
Eagle Heights appears to be susceptible to flooding from several sources:
1. backflow through the storm sewer system as levels rise in Tyler Creek
2. overbank flooding from Tyler Creek
3. local flooding due to storm sewer capacity deficiencies
Flooding via sources 1 and 2 is tied directly to the flooding frequency of Tyler Creek, and may occur at a
2- to 5-year frequency based on a review of the available data. This flooding would generally result from
major storms occurring in the Tyler Creek watershed and could expect to persist as long as creek levels
remain at, or above, bankfull.
Local flooding (Item 3 above) could occur as a result of a storm more focused on the Eagle Heights area
as well as a heavy regional event. Typically, this flooding is of shorter duration than that resulting from
the effects of Tyler Creek. The flooding could occur because the minor drainage system (storm sewers)
have insufficient capacity. Storm sewer systems are typically designed to accommodate the 2- to 10-year
storm events. Anything in excess of the design storm will rely on the major drainage system (surface
drainage routes dictated by topography). In addition the minor system may be incapacitated by things
such as leaves or slush. The Eagle Heights minor drainage system appears to have been designed in a
manner consistent with the standards that prevailed at the time of design.
To further refine the alternatives analysis and to help define an appropriate course of action, we met with
a representative of the Eagle Heights Homeowner's Association, a representative of the Friends of Tyler
Creek and City staff on December 18, 1998 to discuss our findings and the resulting alternatives.
Tyler Creek Page 4
January 12, 1999
A significant component of all of the flood minimization alternatives for Eagle Heights includes the
provision for the safe overland conveyance of runoff by major surface drainage routes in the event that
the storm sewer system capacity is exceeded. Without this component, flooding within the area could
potentially be worsened.
Flooding in the Eagle Heights area has not apparently resulted in significant damages. Nor does flooding
appear likely to result in significant damages based on an assessment of flood elevations, frequencies and
building elevations. Rather, flooding makes access to and from certain residences difficult as long as
Royal Boulevard is inundated. A review of the costs associated with minimizing the potential of flooding
within the Eagle Heights area and the expected flood damages indicates that floodproofing may not
prove to be cost effective. Eagle Heights floodproofing alternatives and their associated costs are
presented in Table 2.
Floodproofing
Floodproofing of other sites has not been addressed in detail. The floodproofing of private structures
within the floodplain and floodway of Tyler Creek is, in all likelihood, beyond the responsibility of the
City for several reasons including:
1. the potential to set precedence for flood prone areas in other parts of the City
2. the potential liability associated with undertaking private improvements for both the City and the
Engineer
3. the variability in methods and costs in providing floodproofing
One suggestion may be to provide basic floodproofing information to the affected residents and to
possibly provide a brief seminar discussing floodproofing and flood risks. The affected residents may
also be informed about the need to maintain a flood insurance policy. This information could be
extended, as well, to residents in other flood prone areas of the City.
Site Prioritization
The following criteria was used to prioritize the project sites:
• bank stabilization projects where adjacent to structures were given a higher priority than those where
no structures were apparently threatened
• sites in which water quality basin and bank stabilization projects could be incorporated into a single
plan were given a higher priority due to their potential cost savings
• ecological restoration was prioritized consistent with the management plan while considering above
items. Kane County has proposed the removal of log jams and that cost has, therefore, been
excluded
• floodproofing projects were given a lower priority based on the fact that floodproofing activities are
not consistent with use of the fee in lieu detention funds as well as due to the potential problems
noted under Floodproofing, above
Explanation of Tables
Table 1 summarizes the individual sites, their estimated construction costs, our opinion of priority and
some pertinent commentary. No attempt has been made to assign risks or frequencies to the bank
stabilization projects due to the extremely complex nature of doing so. In accordance with the project
• . Tyler Creek Page 5
January 12, 1999
contract, the ecological restoration plans for the six reaches have been budgeted separately within the
contract and are not subject to prioritization and selection process. They are, therefore, not counted
among the 16 sites for which stream bank stabili7ation or water quality basin design has been contracted.
The Eagle Heights floodproofing project (Table 2) has been separated from the balance of the project.
This is due to the evaluation of alternatives focused solely on Eagle Heights as well as the fact the this
floodproofing will likely be undertaken as part of a separate project related to roadway rehabilitation. A
representative of the Eagle Heights Homeowner's Association was presented with the initial findings
regarding flooding causes and potential solutions in Eagle Heights. Concurrence was reached to pursue
the Eagle Heights flooding issues when the roadways within Eagle Heights are next scheduled for
rehabilitation. The roadways in Eagle Heights were last rehabilitated in 1987 and would likely be
scheduled for rehabilitation again within the next ten years.
Table 3 summarizes the costs for various alternatives for completing the project depending upon the
inclusion of either general floodproofing or the Eagle Heights floodproofing project.
Tables and Exhibits
Table 1 Site Evaluation Summary Table
Table 2 Eagle Heights Floodproofing Alternatives
Table 3 Cost Summary by Project Alternative
rift Exhibits
A map depicting project site locations by priority page 11
Typical bank stabilization details pages 12 - 27
Typical section for a water quality basin page 28
Tyler CreeK 1'ag e 6
January 12, 1999 • -
Table No. 1
Tyler Creek
Site Evaluation Summary
Priority Site2 Type Estimated Comments
i Cost4
1 Wing Park6 Site 4 (adjacent to the S $44,000 • severe erosion adjacent to road
access road east of the pool) • abandon Abbott and increase size of site
• incorporate with water quality basin
2 Wing Park6 (between Tyler Creek and Q $66,000 • adequate area available
Abbott Dr.) • high priority site
• incorporate with stabilization
3 Sta. 22000, Site 15 (by home south of S $38,500 • severe erosion adjacent to home
Kimberly Ave) • high priority
4 McLean BIvd.2(immediately east of the Q $143,000 • adequate open area available, potential land acquisition issues
intersection with Royal Blvd.) • could incorporate with new outfall from Eagle Heights
5 Sta. 24300 (east of Valley Cr. Q $77,000 • good site with adequate open area, City property
Subdivision, Unit 9) • sufficient upstream drainage
6 Illinois School (Wing St. south of Q $55,000 • Adequate site arca with sufficient urban upstream area
Royal Blvd.)
7 D.S. Randall*Site 19 (immediately east S $154,000 • Consists of many locations, perhaps easier to do reach-wide improvement
of Randall Road, north of Fletcher Dr.)
8 D.S. Randall8 (immediately east of Q $44,000 • Incorporate with reach wide improvement at 30500
Randall Road, north of Fletcher Dr.)
9 Ecological Restoration, Reach 1 Fox R $26,300 • Thin shade cover and remove invasive species
River to Big Timber Road)
10 Ecological Restoration, Reach 5 Royal R $36,900 • Native riparian prairie and wetland community restoration
Boulevard to Randall Road)
11 Ecological Restoration, Reach 6 R $52,800 • Native upland prairie and wetland restoration
(Randall Road to Elgin FPA Limit) • Restore areas damaged by off-road activities •
12 Sta. 19300, Site 12 (alternative site S $55,000 • Site advanced because erosion below condominium
north of Highland Avenue between • Active slumping noted
Lyle Ave. and I-loxie Ave.)
13 Sta. 13100, Site 9 (alternate site west of S $55,000 • Site advanced because erosion below condominium
Garden Crescent and south of Royal • active slumping noted
Blvd.) :
14 McLean, Site 10 (alternate site, east of R $16,500 • Severe bank erosion at outfall, moving towards structures
Tyler Creek '
Page 7
January 12, 1999
Priority Site2 Type3 Estimated Comments
►
Cost4
McLean and north of Illinois School)
15 Ecological Restoration, Reach 2 (Big R $15,800 • Remove woody riparian vegetation
Timber Road to Wing Street)
16 Ecological Restoration, Reach 4 (Sandy R $31,700 • Thin shade cover and remove invasive species
Creek Confluence to Randall Road) _
17 Ecological Restoration, Reach 4 (Sandy R $52,800 • Native plant community restoration on acquisition parcel
Creek Confluence to Randall Road)
18 Sta. 12600 (Realignment immediately S $99,000 • Creek realignment would take pressure off of bank near road and improve
upstream from Garden Crescent) Site 7 the geometry at the three culverts
• ' Realignment would'have reverse flow on outfall storm sewer
• Potential reduction in real flood elevations, clean out southern culvert
19 Garden Crescent Pool, Site 6 (alternate S $16,500 Bank erosion adjacent to pool and pool house
site)2 • Not on original selection list
• Advance due to proximity to structures
20 Sta. 6800 (north of Big Timber west of S $27,500 ± Sta. 6100 is the site shown on the proposal map,
Morningside Dr.) Site 3 • This site is adjacent to Oak tree, nothing else threatened, relatively simple
to stabilize, can lay bank back.
6800 is downstream from Big Timber
• Tall steep bank will make this difficult to stabilize
• • Use LWD & tie backs, extant rock
21 Sta. 16700, Site 11 (eastern crossing of S $16,500 • Conventional site with easy access and adequate space •
Eagle Road over Tyler Creek) • No structures threatened so not a high priority
22 Sta. 22500, Site 16 (between S $16,500 • Conventional site with easy access and adequate space
Woodridge Ct. and Tyler Creek) • No structures threatened so not a high priority
23 Sta. 25300, Site 17 (North of Royal S $5,500 Possibly two sites±25100 and 25300
Blvd. Near Belvidere Line Dr.) • Minimal erosion
• No structures apparently threatened
• Not a high priority
24 Sta. 36100 (immediately north of Q $44,000 • Residential area, well-established land-use and vegetation, existing
Glendower Terrace) vegetation provides water quality benefit
• Could use outfall stabilization, but very minor in relation to the best of the
project.
25 Sta. 8190 (north of Big Timber near Q $44,000 Site already provides some water quality benefit,
• Parkview Dr.) • Relatively stable suburban land use
• Probably not cost-effective
•
1 ] ,
Tyler Creek Page 8 •
January 12, 1999 •
Priority Site2 Type3 Estimated Comments
Cost'
26 Sta. 3350 (west of Rt. 31, north of West Q $16,500 • Intersection relocation has eliminated most available arca for the project
River Rd. intersection)
27 General Floodproofing(44 sites) F $242,000 • Flood proofing was lowest priority based on the Management Plan results
• The floodproofing cost includes 44 sites upstream of Route 31
Estimated Total Costs $1,492,300 •
•
Notes:
1. Hey recommendation (see Note 7)
2. Sites selection based on Management Plan results and Open I-Iouse response
3. Q= Water Quality Site; S= Bank Stabilization Site; F=Floodproofing Site; R= Ecological Restoration
4. From the Management Plan except where noted with an asterisk
. 5. Estimated fee, note that the total fee under the current contract amount cannot exceed $95,300, includes feasibility study and survey for eagle I-Ieights
6. Concurrent projects
7. Subject to feasibility study including detailed topographic survey
8. Concurrent projects
•
Tyler C �k Page 9
January 12, 1999
Table No. 2
Eagle Heights Floodproofing Alternatives
Siter Type2 Estimated Cost" Comments
Eagle Heights F $1,069,000 Tyler Creek minimization, Royal Road east overflow without improved storm sewer,
Alt. A • Eliminate flooding from Tyler Creek •
• Reduce potential internal flood elevation from local street flooding to 802±,
Eagle Heights 7 F $1,186,000 Tyler Creek flood minimization, Royal Road East overflow improved storm sewer,
Alt. B • Eliminate flooding from Tyler Creek
• Reduce potential internal flood elevation from local street flooding to 802±,
• Reduce the likelihood of local street flooding
Eagle Heights 7 F $667,000 Tyler Creek flood minimization, Deborah Road south overflow with unproved storm sewer,
Alt. C • Eliminate flooding from Tyler Creek
• Reduce potential internal flood elevation from local street flooding to 803±,
• Reduce the likelihood of local street flooding
Eagle Heights 7 F $550,000 Tyler Creek flood minimization, Deborah Road south overflow without improved storm sewer,
Alt. D • Eliminate flooding from Tyler Creek
• Reduce potential internal flood elevation from local street flooding to 803±
Eagle Heights• F $417,000 Tyler Creek flood minimization, Deborah Road/Ruth Road rear yard overflow with improved storm
Alt. E sewer,
• Eliminate flooding from Tyler Creek
• • Reduce potential internal flood elevation from local street flooding to 803±, capacity of potential
overflow route needs to be confirmed
• Reduce the likelihood of local street flooding
Notes:
1. Hey recommendation (see Note 7)
2. Sites selection based on Management Plan results and Open House response
3. Q= Water Quality Site; S= Bank Stabilization Site; F=Floodproofing Site; R= Ecological Restoration
4. From the Management Plan except where noted with an asterisk
5. Estimated fee, note that the total fee under the current contract amount cannot exceed $95,300, includes feasibility study and survey for eagle Heights
6. Concurrent projects
7. Subject to feasibility study including detailed topographic survey
8. Concurrent projects
1)
Tyler Cr )age•
10
January 12, 1999 •
Table No. 3
Cost Summary by Project Alternative
•
Selected Alternative Estimated Costs
16 streambank stabilization and water quality sites including ecological restoration $1,140,300
and excluding floodproofing and Eagle Heights
16 streambank stabilization and water quality sites including ecological restoration $1,807,300
and Eagle I-Ieights (Alt. C) and excluding floodproofing
16 streambank stabilization and water quality sites including floodproofing, ecological $2,049,300
restoration and Eagle Heights (Alt. C)
\\MARCHUKW EY TEMPORAR\1-IEY\ADMEN\981221 TOMP..DOC
, .
. _,
. . Gm
µ
. ,-- __,Lt---- ' c:7 Q t
tr\i,\P-6\.--- c33c0
D oC��clesaaDa�DD
c 1
copPEC r\Q--\\-?\-\
0 I s•SIS
.v► zuesplikiii ":\ clip& ----1QQ
-wou®@DaDa �0
D
oar e 0 firi;opz)-4
''' '' IT'a ) '' "? N
'N'Tc=30 ' , ,, ..„. 1.1-., ,? onttrip . . (ill
,gg.loui. .00 ,,, okau:. .-...,-. - ..xtgAsiT, .
,0•633 dt.:., el ' Ail . 1-01 a
,witt;,,,, 1 \,.,..... ..-- at
._ ..... /.,," co .../x\x--s-rt., . .e _,. ,._
. - g
.,.,,. w�g ,gi..,..- —",,- p 4eil :3 V:i ;. ;.
-'ux'- '-••••ik 10 gto-.::: ?______-------------
if;-•••••••• 0 Aite ..__---7--16------:_i 3 r
0 oc=3c=, ,.......„..v44 \ 0 ci
_--- i. �- i -i, r
.\
i.,t, i 46 r..s,, c::::, .
), -• /
Drc%---A1---:' i.1
21
0 \ \
c--------\ _____,- \--------\
------\-- (-----
\--1--"-- ,.,,,_c,L,
cit...,0 t.
,_ ,D,„„,,,.
.11. .„
L.
• .
l l l • •
BRANCHPACKING I r ,
• Cross section
Not to scale Existing vegetation,plantings
or soil bioengineering ""J°m
systems
4 Max.depth 4' > .i::
O , 1 O
i, 0 hstelai lig O
0. 4112
(5: tii 0
Max.depth 4' i iif'�'.'t� ir
:►i! .•`� �.
�o 4:'.:,,•;1 11i� i :., 'SII
a %L% *ItAi; N, �� �
�,. ;or*:it�� 4� Slreantbank after scour
.. ,0 Et fter
►
�e,°'��—i;}r!�,��i• a,�►, , 0„,74.4,41 Live branches
i., t �' •
,, .i 1�• // / i. (1/2-to 2-inch diameter)
• ff't's�./�:v'•i' y�. , Compacted rill material
Stream-forming flow 'I��� i�;, , / •
�•�:�; � .!
BRUSHMA'1"1'RESS • 1
Cross section Live and bead stout stake spacing Nor ro' B'
Not to scale 2 feet o.c. -I J
1 ►1 / r's:tvm N
o it
o•)t ..4
o%
3 %;:),..7. Ili: Brandt
cuttings
o t ,i , � t o tt• f ( / -
, ,,
:8'��if. ,.r : s.l, '1"8' • �•jri �• 'i%' 4 �` �IiF`i��jil�7.,fr& ��� o
.• • t +. 1Z• 3 0� r1. O
10.704,.....14::..
'fie.! ,... 't : — �• a �Al' t,0',�`.1� ,�.,, r /
+ 1; . 1 1r, ., .i*.•1 -....n.,,
J - 'mac
/., ,
,1— t ,•�• . 0,• , ',/mow; /J�
• `' tit- ►A' 1.0....:f,..:;, •.,-..' • ° ,
• ,• '� ,e 1, ►ti'J';/;. live stake u
Stream-forming Mw V ' t �,. o
likk4Pkil*NI O
11 0
1 7_,...
ll`t. .All . O \ live
, ri .
'.°- 01‘...:*dis0140 ° '''' fascine
bundle
C). IIMPITi'frill a. Live stake
• ,.
. Gculextile rubric .11.......•
Dead stout stake
driven on 2-foot
Dead stout stake centers each way. Hey and Associate.%Inc.
Minimum length 1•'•••—••„°..�-'`...
2 112 feeL JON!rt.v.Aw.ro.ria.m lm
Wire secured �,�\\\ r�•••,.R.+lu••o••AVM
to stakes Gc iei
141'ill
•• - 'u...,s•rt
. �,o`Q -1.:`v=77: .
sf ,[t`-,��+';►''+ C
TYLER CREEK
' �"'i,� 1•Ji/ y:'”' • S7RHAMBANK
f �i/'.�' Brush mattress STABILIZATION
.,:.• . tJ ti
•
•C., •
BR USTIMAT7RIISS
• • Note: DBTAIL
(j•- .,O % (tooted/leafed conditiun of the living
plant material is not representative
f at the time of installation. / _ �,a y _. N.
SOURCE: USDA-NRCS FIELD ENGINEERING HANDBOOK-CHAPTER 16-S•IRBAMBANK STABILIZATION&SHORELINE PROTECTION �----- v J
J
COCONUT FIBER ROLL
Nor ro AIR
Cross sectiori
Not to scale r;'s r
• urt:mm
Existing vegetation, plantings t,
or soil bioengineering systems
/ A. .. . ''.. ' - ....: '
II
. .4�1
r r
r ,�.
,
}11.'.,,k
. r, ,
1 `Y Y91
Herbaceous :'.''.'!.......)'"':•.‘,Y,',.'• .e�''�. Erosion control fabric
plugs • r: '��
tea? •.'�l;iti;t•M`�; C
I�,
.' - ••
Stream-forming flow / i5 .
WTi�'s'!+sq"it '�*�r'lR4.� l. o Coconut fiber roll .Baseflow ""''
Ii
! 1.44ti
.:44,461*.*.$1.40 . , ....
Hey and Associate.,Inc.
a - o MOO/+.nr.wi> in.is
0• o o. 0 o. 0.:,'rn M,a.
PLC P.,)111-0,00
I i
7'1'L/IR CREEK
STREAMBANIC
STABILIZATION
2 in. by 2 in. by 36 in.—* i
oak stakes
COCONUT FIBER i
ROLL DETAIL
` `j ,---- -- �
SOURCE: USDA-NAGS FIELD ENGINEERING.HANDBOOK-CHAPTER 16-STREAMBANK STABILIZATION&SI MARLINE PROTECTION s.„—. v vw„ j
COCONUT FIBER ROT.T,
NOT 7'0.7CeIL8
LI
Cross section Vegetative
Not to scale plantings
1
r 4 {
sir, r f,,
Coconut fiber ' ! "' °t'/ t
/ ' ', Y4 7YPP. l 4 f
'"Yi3ilf�i 1, '
roll I 7 \ ,1 1,-.„4l;��t l.,••Ai'1. t •.,
I ' \ 111.
°''I''••‘:).•
7Y:).•..r IN..i�♦1.? 2
5 4 t +�illt''....'1.1 1 't..,.
Mean high /I i c.
7 ��( t{ ��d,���, 7 ?'
water elevation
ter I. ti" sry��f •p
�7 . ILA.'\11
tikTriTICr4lizfie � Y •T, tY '� s i ><' r" '
K. fo 1�' .
tilt,'G .4 ..Yi4:t4f;:;c7 ',11+(�.. ,.', , t:' 1 r 7 t i � ' ,� 7 7 it; 7�17�'•
'?ji�lti ty e2 is 't 's Y7R �'+,'t�A I 7 � �: i{ k / V41...."144‘
`r1. �
� ntjBro i,y� t�iy y Rl 7r(r-kj ♦'r t ...1,__..., • .G 7 ,7� r t f t 1i71,.t'+ ijr`t'g': °
U ' Z 3 • X.9a4 ' *1 IV 1, I. ♦ i ',7`Sr •J�} t,%e O°
LTi.. . C9 L " :-ry ►a•3e3:40:1-12 • �y it i i 1It y ' d i;�G1,1L. , 1.
')04,u...01:44•4*i *lir 1.-t at ria' `J �_ ' • o ti Eroded
•'•,,'0f:,4,aa�� l ,.s. o ° o o ( O .,.r. . ° ( shoreline — —
0
Ivy and A M Ia.
w•.....,rs -r+..
,+ou x nam;of 141
2 in. x 2 in. x 3(3 in. I
c.""" III 4•11
JOU(,(7)PIS c.,,,,,
oak stakes
TYL IR CREEK
STREAMBANK
V
STAB LII/ATION
COCONUT FIBER
ROLL DETAIL
-- maw 15
• SOURCE: USDA-NRCS FIELD ENGINEERING I LANDBOOK-CHAI'IT.R 16-STIU AMU4NK STABILIZATION do SHORELINE PROTTICfON v'---- J j
DORMANT POST '
NOT To. ALE
IIK'JAQJ
Cross section Existing vegetation, plantings
Not to scale or soil bioengineering
systems
Dormant posts -'
4..' t r `
ih. , i .,
lr ( .
'''..'i.: ,.010S4::,,,:,,.‘ • .. •• L) .
•
o. ••' Strealnballlc
Stream-forming flow ;;��� �': • •'o
+•
• •1� CU. 2:1 to 5:1 slope
Baseflow 5 a • ii,1.. c:
'
- .
•
•
„PiAjk »ti n . ii 1` .A.,,:.., J' .4Rre }}i !s1A4i�i7 Ysi 4 14.[ O .•.ir •
•
'Srxeuinb'ed1-` `A `
2 ft He7.nd A "",Inc
+I J.ou r e�,r ATM..'00.in.for
o..'4°?1 I rod
nuIli awl
•
. T IUIR CREEK
STREA BANK
STABILIZATION
2 to ,l feet
triangular spacing
DORMANT POST
DETAIL
16
• SOURCE: USDA-NAGS FIELD PNGINLF.RING 1,IANDDOOK-CHAFFER 16-STREAMBANK STABILIZATION&SiTR
IORELINI PROCITON .,—- ^"'
JOINT-PLANTING
z r1v. A B• l
flit-42W)
C
o •
ice.+.\ :zr\0 C61 �
8' ‘ •.C. .•••••, • ' VI ..'•'..ib •p 7?.;TA) ... . • .
1 •. t, '.:�`�•16.111. •
•°ice i• .''�'-leV;110�:1_i. lk_t
Cross section • •- •1...!.� of �-, .;.: ),t
ik
Not to Reale Nti�;���tifj o.R 2.1 '/
�' �•
Rhyl•t
•
oti'\ •OiseN ,,, 410411ta.).41.
q 1119
/p.
e. 1 'r ��/ O
o
\i�' 1i4i1
‘1,
filt..:.:riaelfik. --.. .•1417.\ gp..ftp-,, ..
Alk.. er ' , /2_,z-..
Stream-forming flow `b 1tt
{ t o .•kalieb. . 674 ilti I OA /
' � 7Baseflow `' �-.
7'r 1;4f+vrivyi•h,cfoI�� � ' o :ti ,�P1� I• •• \��'e O 0 r• H�and A,.�d t.', no
t)3:.e t,.4;:S0:.t1.:.Y:' .i.� .:oftr?tA.T;'''zi..it``4t 4; I ,...w�....,...........
e..51.?,•;.. 1"•� .:'� a y+{i1.J : NC1'.*N.' . •. ` ,��. , r.�a...ra.�a w
1�,�14 Oi.o+.J•.
W.I..Gm* .t I . 4/A As fLdnv
• ' •. Riprap 1/ f '4404 �; 1.� Dead stout slake
./ ,,/�� • used to secure
O ' ``.. , '�,/ tio, geotextile fabric EK
CNK
0 .0 • r t
-
•
• v Live stake
JOINT PLANTING
DETAIL
$ ,_•.•_ .,. _ •
_e
SOURCE: USDA-NRCS FIELD ENGINEERING HANDBOOK-CHAPTER 16-STTR ANK STABILIZATION&SHORELINE PROTECTION \----- 17
.1
M , _
I ) ) .
LIVE CRIBWALL . )
ht7T111 C4IB
► Existing vegetation, plantings
or soil bioengineering systems
Cross section
Not to scale
•
0 (i 1..„0/4fr . .
arip :Ag/if
. I I
. •_,;,:„1„,.... 0.,.i 1 1 ' 1� �, I 1 j11`���•1 1,111
� J.-- :;;;;trol
11 )h In4.
Stream-forming flow ‘;: •, . '• wniw i...... � o
Allk
Baseflow 3 to 4 feet '' �..,nor�.... ,11 ,.:,..,weassme I.�lj .
�"^ hn'�� `_`r,.` -'� ��i� 1 Live branch
�$ f.::.I<<•�.Pg,, `: `r^L i t .rf'' 1T 0-4,A..
� . ...��..,,„'•�_ -„wry •AS/—...."21112 cuttings
i !!t •
2 to 3 feet .' 11 �.wiI� � ��` r�.l1,
lam/ .„, �'
00
p0., ' •amindlideriptiti tioi , t.....441, ' AIMS?trot Lax Ow"mi.Bum.MIO
O p o Rock fill TY/ER CREEK
0 STREAMBANK
I4 to 5 feet STABILIZATION
LIVE CRIB WALL
Note:
DETAIL
Rooted/leafed condition of the living
plant material is not representative of
the time of installation.
,' SOURCE USDA-NAGS FIELD ENGINEERING HANDBOOK-CHAPTER 16-STRLAMBANK STABILIZATION&SHORELINE PROT13Cr'ION --- = 18
LIVE FAS CINE r 7::\
Cross section a Top of live fasciae•
Jrjf j�J.KALI'
o a9 slightly exposed
Not to xale .',•'LS%d c • after installationJ
:i1: },� rMolvt soil backfill
•
o try a .Or,:� Alt`o, =,':a; , ,14.4411' ,•!• ► .1 1
.. • %�, • �f +r' ifs; .n0 • ..... , Br 4 ���M.�.,I ff �Prepared trench
71i. • •t •�t 151'. (' •
�tt '., , �� •( 1 w4 �.. f•:y (f,•.�.,�'1
tta•-4:, 1-04:*4 • C.1 ) ' siTy 4 . •• • • .r-- •
lifiv
jag
sem. } . . -. • 0..
41 ,i:\I 1 0 >>'i(alto faklii)Arl iii,.`. Erosion control
Stream-formingflow �,�T• '• fabric&seeding p 0 �^--C-
*� 1,f�eCvr g
�� 11,War
Baseflow �► ��
\teSW1Vj •
Live fasciae bundle
Geotexlile fabric a Live stake
(2•l0 9-foot spacing between
• dead stout stakes)
O .
Toe protection e
:.
•
Note: Dead stout stake
Rooted/leafed condition of the living (2-to 3-foot spacing along bundle) ��
plant material is not representative of
the time of installation. Hey AndA..orl rsy inc.
Live branches J.o"c14..A...*ow�w
�—+.. a o...,.w.
(stagger throughout o...0.7)nanw
bundle) ���� "`s"�'"�OSO
0.,„ •����}}
' .tD,4i..t.Yii1K�r..__:•1141;4141rOiliartLrii•Yt•'r. TYLER
CREEK1..arJn irA �irsi4i.t' y. 1.••.'•.t...: ...�.ti itahle.m !"Iris �K. t �lrt il " ' •4nWt .
a.vCLi;rsitaoilla+iitttai*f a siiwr S7AAITf7AT7ONr..:+ f3.A ' n v.rm% ,Av.a L = , ;„.,,«.,.,
1 A
LIVE FASC.INE
DETAIL
Bundle
(13 to 8Inches Twine
i
in diameter) .. __
SOURCE: USDA-NAGS FIELD ENGINEERING HANDBOOK-CHAPTER 16-STREAMBANK STABILIZATION&SHORELINE PROTECTION Y °'
--_ 19J
r
LIVE STAKE
lar•TO KALI{ . )
/
Incrwn
Cross sectioIl J• ,
1.• i -�
Not to scale o0o , fio
o
O• iJ f 0,'.v^, ••1 f , Streambank
0 �,`. ,• % N ,.�C.
° t•�'• ••� / • 2 to 3 feet
. ' :'• �o i)t-O.. '.�' '0� Erosion
..i .,e 1'� control
A' ,* 1 Ct, `• ( • ,AO fabric
�. `o o�S�„ •1t1•',/�SF,66.�41,fli�` i �1; I,.-."• 'P a 4—Dead stout
ii.,.0 ' ` ,.., •.,,,„ �, i' �,T. I I U stake
1. a`,111.
t
O •
\. f•�•' . • ►• 2to3feet.
Stream-forming flow .` ��. c (triangular spacing)
. . .
�� . . .
`
Hey,.odetroai.my Inc'
Base flow
•:'3 �7'�';�3''•7'.�`• t,;:c}L"n;rtir'" •
�1 Ilk
: • Live cutting ADM
• ,.�so,u-0w
±; kti� ,f9, ,�;.t•...li. fit,.
;.I,ytT:y t��,;�•y.y�s:•y.�. ;dpi•,}ys`r.� ,��/ 1/2 to 1 1/2 inches in diameter
"sa:,;it?,•.u;w>: ;.4 '�� ).�I'•►a, '. TYLER CREEK
'.,�•��� .,'�� Toe protectionS�O
,�f`. � ./ Note:
•�1,•,P� RootecUleated condition of the living
�_ Geotextile fabric plant material is not representative of
the time of installation.
LIVE
DETAIL
i •
SOURCE: USDA-NRCS FIELD ENGINEERING I-IANDIIOOK-CHAPTER 16-STREAMI3ANK STABILIZATION&SI IORIIL1 PROTECTION L.�t v u•-.• 20
.9
•
l .l )
LOG, ROOTWAD & BOULDER REVETMENT 1
,O . J
Cross section Existing vegetation,plantings or
Not to scale soil bioengineering system [...s \
1i 1. •
alt yt1 . -
It-
...?..17.11011‘1,1e
&to 1foot
Length
\•/-->' ,rit.i1;''1
* ,.\e
•
Stream-forming flow i+ +
Rootwad � r /
•
trrn,"•701A. 1.1trs'AintqW,0,7•,-,.."--"-Nl'Itil"71/4•170 '-'" ,• ,
Ba loWe : L.. (. . .t :F r.,r yrt:t.: 32„ a • ,..-As. 4j7A
. 7 } „ 1.ra, 1.---/..1),,...r...--1:I$.i, ; •14p t r?if ,�,+t+.„ ' .R . k6, „,,• t
%,. ....,..� ...)..y41,b,'' it ” f: ) 1. Jr tet
CD 0
Ina
c"'.:61414:4.12.5�;••,jam _ Y:i,•»+t�c,'�13 �j,✓ .}.t5�� 1 ji iti ' He.. ..d y...
11 . i�f „+4 r�-. t v�,•• / ,...rMarne.....o.v.um,a
ti 4 •'✓;'I a alaijh y.'5•N'r+\','.1* �v++ritnara mw
b'"*;;Y+S.+.I;JS"111e31:51rf�,t ..-1.7..-1,\.,‘••••••:,,,...,
ups iWM
Thalweg channel' '. 141 +'4,.. "' .l ~ • \
44.1?}�..�'- �
Q `+ie.S "41141 ir1 .. �,' ` TYLER CREEK
o. 1 ,( . • Q` Diameter of log= S7REAMBANN
0 ((`� ` 16-in inui.
• .
!r ° . o ---"-----------.. LOG,ROOTWAD
• o • Boulder 1 1/2 times • &BOULDER
diameter of log REVETIVENT
• DLT'I'AIL
. • Footer log .
•
SOURCE: USDA-NAGS PIELD ENGINEEIUNG HANDBOOK-CHAPTER 16-ST'RL+AMBANK STABILIZATION&SHORELINE PROTECTION 1/4.--- v 21
•
REED CLUMP •
• Cross section NM'II)r,lR
Not to scale `
00j 00 .110
4 4 - 'O
illy
Natural gcotextlle
Backfill . l / fabric wrap
Mean high
o' water elevation
rY,ttii • .. .�Z,r,s.V . I I' 1 r nti.�;;
ROCK RIPRAP
MOTTO KALE 1
J
Incawn
Cross section
Not to scale Existing vegetation, plantings --i
or soil bioengineering systems
Erosion control
.t+.•, (�. fabric
Stream-forming flow �. 1 { `
�� . �5�-.
rr- To of riprap minimum
. . 1 ...„,„;i.5,,,,,-,t :o O Lli1CICnesJ = maximum
/..411.1:i. i' rock size
1
.�. : 0: 1.5 (max.)
Baseflow .•��.1•
t ' l.74r;i `;:."- " t , ,Pi� �I, Gravel bedding, g
e
otoxle'•: ri ' , . 3:y : 1
. .,r of' Gn .4M.t,v4i . ih dipe fabric, as needed
'• is • .0.14 �,.'u11' i ) i0
HeT,nd Inc.� 4 :
O � A1i. ru....Am...mia.tiw1 •r w
Lamm.,ru'wow awl
riif o j. RA AA. 4, ift •_ 'II VIPSIIIIIINIr' 43-• O o
r `:X.-sriiroa' . o . . TYLER CREEK
Bottom of riprap o • STRS.AMBANK
minimwn STAIIILIZA77ON
thickness =
2 x maximum
rock size
ROCK RIPRAP
DETAIL
.• SOURCI USDA-NR.CS FIELD ENGINEERING HANDBOOK-CHAPTER 16-STREAMIIANK STABILIZATION do SHORELINE PROTECTION `----- ""'23 J
STREAMREAM NOT 113 KALB
1
Plan view •
Not to scale 1.8GFC,113•
kVA aii 8 ft min.
IAA: (L)
V. •
44$nteli014
klik•
44
46 imooN
• kik
•
50° to 80°
No.-41140641 (t. of Hey mod ANOtAftd,
r,r* i St1 E alTlLA[whew AcP•I
VV.&r ' barb er%
•� 11
w 46 TYLER CREEK
STREAMBANK
Vegetative bank STABILIZATION
between barbs —�
STREAM aARA-
Flow • PLAN DETAIL
^"" 24a
SOURCE: USDA-NRCS MELD BNGINP.ERING HANDBOOK-CI-APTER 16-STREAMEANK STABILIZATION&SIIORRLINB PROTECTION
STREAM BARB '
NOT TV
Cross section
Not to scale
Existing Len;th determined
grade 4 8 ft. min.
by design
N (L)
It
rie
0 •
0. �' �� Stream-forming flow
o '�',Nipdim Sloe
•��_a ' ,o Baseflow
. N fiip,,w (ir p . gib PlIC-Ii.V- .1 1. `le,...4.1;014.4._,44-;:t
*NI -10 VID4 -Ii.tio0M:',4:.ogrAt.044. ..... •-••,•-• ....,
Geotextile fabric ►\`� • 611 1 A1 ��!%' , ,ir...t fk Hey aoeA..ocian�.
rne AomarOsa.mt/ma NI
��o avrirst• �, ���.�
0 0 . ` Key •into
U �, 4%91 lei . streambed nLER CREEK
I•�1 �. . approx• D ioo sr,�A 'rN N
. , O r4
:. 0 6 O. . o.
0 STR2MMBARB-
• 0 SECTION DETAIL
r
SOURCE: USDA-NAGS FIELD ENGINEERING HANDBOOK-CHAPTER 16-STREAMBANK STABILIZATION&SHORELINE PROTECTION �.�- N �: 24b J
Arlt„--,:rte
TREE REVE'I`N�NT _____�
�
Not to scale
�./I' , Li
KJCQJ
\�
r ft ilii i,'or
ft
i/ y%
II,—"---
ilk t.
�
eY
,t. 1 •
9r
p5P '
" .
Ofill .,....i" ----, I:
ItJr-,rPiling may be substituted for earth anchors
���.� Existing vegetation,
f i % plantings or soil
bioengineering systems
----,1‘7_1. Stof slope Allure appropriate to lop
—� of stupe where appropriate
•
r• , .. .. r-....a— r..,
•
Earth anchors(S-inch dia.by afoot min.) 1 e. Horand Associates,Im
+ .. • ct s•��.rrrr a...
U
}}U Mame tat ai OrH Am 1M
ra..rm.;Da..r.aew
Two-thirds of bank height covered o..teram nam"
g 11 �� n,arra)Pit am"
Slrcnn+-forming flow G
t
�--Second row applied TYLER CREEK
r.
1 •
•• j
S7RBAMJJANK
STrL ZATION
O 0o
, 1 UCross section tefow �•
Not to sole TREE REVETMENT; . r. . .
i ill: w . DETAIL
flank toe•
a Earth
.— 6 feet deep - „,,, ,,,,,,. 25
wen
•a SOURCE: USDA-NRCS FIELD ENGINEERING J-LANDBOOK-CHAPTER 16-STREAMBANK STABILIZATION do SHORELINE PROTECTION L--- v 041.1 /
)____:____:•'-
• VEGETATED GEOGRID
KALE '
Cross section Dead stout stake used to secure geotextile fabric Ranro
Not to scale Install additional vegetation such as live stakes,rooted seedlings,etc.
rarECrm
, Eroded streambank
%
!;1.i
Il '
VEGETATED ROCK GABION
Existing vegetation, Mr79fA18
plantings or soil
bioengineering e LBGBIZD
Cross section systems
Not to scale1
Compacted fill material
Live branch cuttings
(1/2-to 1-inch diameter) ''� •
•
i� ..l'fint i :ff"
.� �. •
0•' �1 14•�� o O •
.l
►\L(.' .`' "';qatq � +; 0 • " , Erosion control fabric
0 o I��,:; bra► -``w-.+•.�.i. •/
• /
Stream-forming flow .•t►.'ts t..r ' ,.• ,4 eo//
Z�1•Y, ���,. //jGeolextile fabric
•
p %'7t 4r.S•3 / /
o 1. \���.r \ i \ // 4" PPuP
Basedow _I -• 1 /OpGabion baskets
•
!M. .'•. . .t• 'k1r7_,•,,•te a:%.,"-.' -.,..Zttii: :�`
Hey And Aseocistes,Inc.
/ \ •r.vlerrr►r�
�`/ '\ \ " \ • AVM MSMMlTOUA IIa1 MI
• • 0' • /,/ \%' '\ /��``•< \/i•-•.\`. O.o Las•w•1+.1
\ Su 041)11I-tma
2to3feet ferill\\\ ,'" \ � �x' \- n
"�. �• �`\010441, : TYLER CREEK
j • . . •
��. =� S77iEAhfBANK
. o C) .
STABILIZATION
VEGETATED ROCK
GABION DETAIL
Note:
Rooted/leafed condition of the living •
plant material is not representative of �"" "" '--
the time of installation. uw- 7
•. SOURCE USDA-NAGS FIELD II4GINEERING HANDBOOK-CHAPTER 16-STRL�AMBANK STABILIZATION be SHORELINE PROTECTION ..- v 2 2` /
) / l , ^,
WATER QUALITY BASIN .l
,1;. .. j
• MT 773 KAU
^•`W W 4 4' •".yy:,...1....w:...,.. '4b .4, 4, 4, ..ay:i:.. \
W 4, 4, 4, 4, 4- 4, 4, ., W 4, 4, 4/..‘ -
i'W �, �, 4, 4, �, LOW FLOW.CHANNEL 4, y, ':Ni
A ',; J, ,/• y ^,,„:„4"---"
J,..,,.. 4, 4, ..._..,:,y 4. �\ 4, 4, .1 ' A
/ •I .,/`•, 4- .4 ., 4' ��5k9 4, 4, �
}
1__ _:lE_XISTING
STORM /� `\ • / W .4 W W W * W, .4 \ .4 �l
qEWER( \ W W 4, W W y ::1i 4 4, V) —
'4, .`'I 1 4, W W * W W W W '•5•Y \ * 1
II PLUNGE ; y * PLANTINGS W W ! y y 1111`
"1' `\ POOL J .4 4, 4' w 4, 4, .4 44 \ . 11
4. i 4, 1 4, 4. 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, , 4,
tL `� "�J 54 .4 .4 4, .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 \ 4' BERM TYLER
.4 7'4,, .4 .4 •4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .Y , \, CREEK
S.
4- 4. 4. ,,s .ly.:.:a1....._.,:,--:.... ....4 .4 4. •1• .4 �'�rw•'..,j3,�
.t.•�....._....*._..,._--;..= POND EDGE —V '''`k..., 4, 4, 44 W L.,;e,O''+
PLAN VIEW
•
•
',- A...Mr e.1
EXISTING Hey
and
`' .Mi,Inc
STORM SEWER PLANTINGS '°":Qt Loa"'
. . ,R. .
0
6' •
1' m(M7)r`°"°
NWL
\\\\N - - TI)41 illk T RAI, !in 1 int N,M1.1 1711 11 ,IgA1 N.�- BERM TYLER CREEK
\% /\// Yi\ •••,, •A i�%��/l.!`h�Y',... i�c%r/shs:�%i ,../.\/ ;\��li1;Y'i1y��jL
•\� 4' PLUNGE POOL ,�\ EXISTING GROUND \j�,. ' TYLER
`;: / ••,•\ > \ CREEK
/•/< .. ETAIL
. PROPOSED GROUND LOW FLOW \ WATER
j' .,\ ���j%�.� CHANNEL \
•
— J
CROSS SECTION A-A - -- 7 N,. 28
`.._.--
EXHIBIT B
Eagle Heights Alternatives