2017 30% Basis of Design Report Memo

TECHNICAL
MEMORANDUM
Date: March10,2017
To: IrinaKogan,SMCRCD;JimRobins,AlnusEcological
From: ChrisHammersmark,DeniseTu,JonParsons,andSamDiaz;cbececoengineering
Project: ButanoChannelReconnectionandResilienceProject(project#161027)
Subject: 30%BasisofDesignReport
1 Introduction
This memorandum has been prepared in order to present hydrologic, geomorphic and hydraulic
information and a description of various elements included in the design of the Butano Channel
ReconnectionandResilienceProject(project).Thisprojectisdesignedtodelivermultiplebenefitsand
address critical fish passage, water quality, and flood risk reduction issues affecting Butano Creek and
thesurroundingcoastalcommunity.Theprimarypurposeoftheprojectistorestoreandenhancethe
longitudinalconnectivityofButanoCreekthroughtheButanoMarsh(marsh)tothePescaderoLagoon
(lagoon),reestablishingfishpassage.Inlargeportionsoftheprojectreach,thecreekchannelnolonger
exists due to sediment accumulation that has completely filled the channel to the top of its banks.
Vegetation has established on top of this accumulated sediment, acting to stabilize the accumulated
sedimentfurther,creatingnearlyimpassableconditionsforbothanadromousfishandothernativefish
species.
InadditiontoreconnectingthehistoricalchannelthroughButanoMarshandreestablishfishpassageto
the watershed, the project will increase inchannel habitat complexity and enhance the overall
ecological value of the fluvial components of the marsh to benefit multiple federal and state listed
speciesincludingtheSanFranciscogartersnake,Californiaredleggedfrog,andtidewatergoby.
The project is also a key component of a multifaceted, multistakeholder, watershedscale effort to

address longterm and shortterm flooding at the Pescadero Creek Road bridge. Associated actions
include restoration of floodplains upstream of the bridge to store sediment, installation of instream
structurestoreversechannelincision,implementationofnumeroussedimentsourcecontrolprojects,
andacurrentlyfundedfeasibilityanalysisforbuildinganewbridgeorcausewaytoreplacetheexisting
undersizedcrossing.
3/10/2017 1 cbec,inc.
ButanoChannelReconnectionandResilienceProject
30%BasisofDesignReport
Finally, actions in the marsh downstream of this bridge are also likely to improve water quality in the
marsh, which could reduce the severity and frequency of fishkills. Fishkills during late fall or early
winterareamajorfactoraffectingrecoveryofcohosalmonandsteelheadinthelargerPescaderoCreek
watershed. The scientific community has been working for a number of years to understand the
mechanismsbehindthehypoxiainducedfishkills,andrecentbreakthroughsinourunderstandingare
leading to implementation of shortterm and longerterm solutions. Two of the main longerterm
solutionswillbeimplementedthroughthisprojectandtheyinclude:(1)toreducetheamountofflow
fromButanoCreekthatslowlyseepsintothemarshasdiffuseflowthroughhighlyorganicmarshsoils
and(2)toaggradeButanomarsh,fillinginrelicditches,borrowpitsandothermanmadelowspotsthat
hold back the anoxic water, allowing it to flush into the lagoon during breaches. Reconnecting the
channelwillfocusfreshwaterflowsintothelagoonandpastthemarsh,whilereducingtheamountof
waterenteringthemarshespeciallyduringthefallandearlywinter.
2 Project Area
The project is located along Butano Creek within the Butano Marsh portion of the Pescadero Marsh
NaturalPreservealongthePacificCoastofSanMateoCounty,California(Figure1).ButanoCreekisthe
largest tributary to Pescadero Creek draining from the Santa Cruz Mountains through forested and
agricultural land, crossing under Pescadero Creek Road and into the Butano Marsh before joining
PescaderoCreek,andthenflowingtothePacificOcean.TheButanoMarshissituatedjustwestofthe
unincorporatedfarmingandranchingcommunityofPescaderoanddownstreamofthePescaderoCreek
RoadcrossingofButanoCreek,onthewestsideofthehistoricalignmentofButanoCreek.
3 Background
Human modification of the watershed (e.g., logging, grazing, agriculture, road construction, etc.) have
resultedinsignificantchangesintheamountofsedimentthatismakingitswaytothecreekchannels
andintothemarsh.Historicchannelmanagementactivities(e.g.,removaloflargewood,realignment,
vegetationremoval,roadcrossings,etc.)havechangedthewaysedimentiserodedanddepositedalong
the length of the creek upstream of the project area (Frucht, 2013). These changes, in addition to
others, have led to a dramatic increase in the amount of sediment being delivered to the lower
watershedandmarsh,somuchthatithasoverwhelmedthesystem.Thisaccumulationofsedimentin
thechannels,especiallychannelsadjacenttoinfrastructure,hasmadeanyareathatwasnaturallyprone
toflooding,floodmuchmorefrequentlyandforalongerduration.Themajorsedimentdepositthatis
currently impacting Butano Creek downstream of the Pescadero Creek Road bridge is creating an
untenablesituationwheretheroadisfloodedevenduringsmallrainevents,creatingsignificantissues
fortheeconomicresilienceofthiscoastalcommunityanddisconnectingtheemergencyservices(e.g.,
firedepartment)fromthetown.
3/10/2017 2 cbec,inc.
RemovalofsedimentfromButanoCreekhasbeensuggestedbythelocalcommunityfordecadesdueto
the chronic flooding of Pescadero Creek Road and the lack of fish passage into the Butano Creek
watershed. Prior to the State of California becoming the owner of this reach of Butano Creek, the
channelwasdredged,asneeded,bylocalresidentstoreduceflooding.Manyideasforareconnectionof
ButanoCreekthroughthemarshhavebeenproposedpreviouslybyvariousauthors(e.g.,PWA,1990;
Sigma Prime Geosciences, 2012; among others). A concept for the project was also previously
investigatedbycbec,inc.throughtheSolutionstoFloodingatPescaderoCreekRoad1project(cbecand
Stillwater Sciences, 2014), and recreating a channel through the marsh was ultimately one of the
elementsofacomprehensivesolutiondescribedinthateffort.
This effort has gained new steam through a number of recent efforts to understand the complex
interplaybetweensediment,instreamflows,waterquality,andfishkills.Assuch,thisproposalisnot
just a technical proposal to implement an isolated project, but instead the result of years of scientific
study, extensive discussions with local landowners and land managers, and a hard fought sense of
collaborationandsharedvisionbetweenprivatecitizensandlocal,stateandfederalresourceagencies.
4 Objectives
Theprimaryobjectivesoftheprojectareto:
restorefishpassagethroughthemarshtofacilitatebothupstreamanddownstreammovement
opportunities,includingprovidinganescaperoutefromthelagoonduringperiodsofpoorwater
qualityconditionsfollowingabreach;
reduce water flow through the marsh by recreating an efficient way for higher quality water
fromthewatershedtobedeliveredtothelagoonwithoutflowingthroughthemarsh,thereby
dramaticallyreducingthepotentialfordegradedwaterquality;
reduce flooding of adjacent agricultural lands and the resulting flooding of Pescadero Creek
Road;and
beneficially reuse excavated materials to fill low spots in the marsh to further improve water
qualityconditionsandreducethepotentialforanoxicconditionstopersist.
5 Geomorphology of the Project Area
Butano Marsh is situated in an area naturally prone to flooding and sediment deposition prior to any
humanmodificationofthemarshorinthewatershedupstream.However,humanmodificationofthe
watershed (e.g., logging, grazing, agriculture, road construction, etc.) has dramatically changed the
1
The Solutions to Flooding at Pescadero Creek Road project was led by the San Mateo County Resource
ConservationDistrict(SMCRCD)andfundedbyDepartmentofWaterResourcesIntegratedRegionalWatershed
Management Program, the County of San Mateo, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The Flooding
Solutionsprojectengagedamultiagencyadvisorygroupandearnedbroadbasedsupport.
3/10/2017 3 cbec,inc.
amount of sediment delivered to the creek channels, as well as the erosion, transport and storage of
sedimentinthevalleybottom.Modificationstothewatershedhaveleadtosignificanteffectsuponthe
condition and function of the stream channels, with an estimated tenfold increase of sediment
accumulationinButanoMarsh(SFBRWQCB,Inprep.).
The marsh is located at the bottom of the watershed where the channel slope flattens considerably
(Figure2andFigure3).Forinstance,theButanoCreekchannelfromPescaderoCreekRoadbridgeto
Hwy1bridgehasapproximately9feetofverticaldropoccurringoveralengthofapproximately2miles.
Meaningthereisaverylowslopethroughthe marsh,whichresultsina depositionalenvironment.In
addition,duringlargerstorms(e.g.,2yeareventsandgreater)themarshandlagoonfillfasterthanthey
candraintotheocean,resultinginalowwatersurfaceslope(i.e.,backwater),thatpromotesdeposition
in the reach downstream of the Pescadero Creek Road bridge. The area is a delta that is actively
growing, such that the area where the channel previously existed has completely filled in, and is now
higherinelevationthanthemarshareatothewest(Figure3).Assedimentdepositsintheareathereis
a positive feedback that is exacerbating the deposition, underscoring the need for continued and
additionaleffortstoreducetheelevatedsedimentloadsthatarebeingdeliveredfromthewatershed.
6 Hydrology
Inordertoestimateflowconditionsfortheprojectarea,avarietyofmethodswereused,includingflow
frequency analyses of gage data and regional regression equations. Several gages that monitor
streamflow are present in the Pescadero Creek watershed. The USGS Butano Creek near Pescadero
gage(#11162540)waslocatednearGianniniBridge,~2miupstreamofprojectareaandreflectssurface
waterrunofffromthe18.3mi2drainageareaabovethegage.DatawerecollectedbetweenJuly1,1962
andOctober7,1974;however,thisgagingstationisnolongermaintainedbytheUSGS2.Thesehistorical
dataareusefulforsomepurposes;however,cautionshouldbeusedwhenassessingsomeofthevalues
derivedfromthisshortdurationdataset(e.g.,peakflowestimatesforlarger,lessfrequenteventsare
likelynotestimatedproperly).
TheUSGSPescaderoCreeknearPescaderogage(#11162500)islocated5.3miupstreamfromthePacific
Ocean and reflects surface runoff from the 45.9 mi2 drainage area above the gage. Data have been
collectedatthislocationsinceApril,1951(FigureA1inAppendixA).Duetothelongerperiodofrecord
for this gage, it is preferable at times to the shorter period of record available for Butano Creek,
particularlywhenestimatingthemagnitudeoflarger,lessfrequentfloodevents.
6.1 Flood Peak Magnitude Estimates
Using the maximum annual instantaneous discharge data sets for each gage, a frequency analysis of
flood events was performed with the PeakFQ software package (Flynn et al., 2006), following Bulletin
2
BalanceHydrologicshascollectedstagedataandlowflowmeasurementsattheformerButanoCreekUSGSGage
locationsince2006.
3/10/2017 4 cbec,inc.
17B procedures (USGS, 1982). The magnitude of various return interval events for each gage are
provided in Table 1. Using the Pescadero Creek flow record, the magnitude of peak flow events for
ButanoCreekcanbeestimatedbyscalingthevaluesbytheratioofwatershedareas(0.4).Thisisthe
approachthatwastakenpreviouslyintheSolutionstoFloodingatPescaderoCreekRoadproject(cbec
andStillwaterSciences,2014)aswellastherecentlyconstructedButanoCreekFloodplainRestoration
Project (cbec, 2016). In addition, the flood peak magnitude estimates for Butano Creek that were
derivedfromthescaledPescaderoCreekgagedataarefairlysimilartothevaluesreportedbytheU.S.
ArmyCorpsofEngineersintheir1989feasibilitystudyforaproposedfloodcontrolprojectinthearea
(asreportedinSwansonandMBK,1999).Inadditiontothevaluescalculatedusingtheavailableflow
data,peakflowstatisticsforcommonlyreferencedrecurrenceintervaleventsweregeneratedwiththe
USGS StreamStats program based upon recently updated regional regression equations for the north
coast (Gotvald et al., 2012). These peak flow statistics for the Butano Creek gage location are also
providedinTable1.ThewatershedareaattheformerButanoCreekgagelocationis18.3mi2,however
downstreamatPescaderoCreekRoad(thisupperextentoftheprojectarea),thewatershedareais20.3
mi2,sotheflowsarelikelyslightlyhigherthanindicatedbytheanalysesconducted.
Table1.FloodPeakMagnitudeEstimatesUsingVariousMethods
EstimatedPeakFlowMagnitude(cfs)
ButanoCreek
Recurrence ButanoCreek Pescadero
Frequency ButanoCreek UsingScaled
Interval UsingRegression CreekGage
GageData1 PescaderoCreek
Equations3 Data4
GageData2
1.25yr 0.8 423 335 N/A5 839
5
1.5yr 0.667 611 545 N/A 1,363
2yr 0.5 870 870 837 2,175
5yr 0.2 1,571 1,930 1,674 4,824
10yr 0.1 2,039 2,760 2,283 6,900
25yr 0.04 2,602 3,878 3,093 9,694
50yr 0.02 2,993 4,728 3,714 11,820
100yr 0.01 3,356 5,568 4,361 13,920
Notes:
1)Developedusingmaximumannualinstantaneousdischargedatafrom19631974wateryearsfortheButanoCreekgage.
2)Developedusingmaximumannualinstantaneousdischargedatafrom19522013wateryearsforthePescaderoCreek
gage.ComputedPescaderoCreekpeakvalueswerethenscaledby0.4,theratioofthewatershedareas.
3)DevelopedfortheUSGSButanoCreekgagelocation,usingtherecentlyupdatednorthcoastregionregressionequations
2
(Gotvaldetal.,2012)withawatershedareaof18.3mi andanaverageannualprecipitationof35.3in.
4)Developedusingmaximumannualinstantaneousdischargedatafrom19522013wateryearsforPescaderoCreekgage.
5)Regionalregressionequationsarenotavailablefortheselowrecurrenceintervals.
A flood frequency analysis determines the flood peak magnitudes relating to common recurrence
intervals (e.g., 2yr 100yr events). These values indicate the size of event that would be expected
based on the statistical analysis of the available annual flood peak data. A 2yr return interval flood
3/10/2017 5 cbec,inc.
eventhasa50%probabilityofbeingequaledorexceededinanygivenyear.Inotherwords,overthe
longterm, one would expect to see at least one flood event that was this size or larger in half of the
years.Itdoesnotmeanthatthissizefloodwillhappenconsistentlyeverytwoyears.
InspectionofthevaluesprovidedinTable1showthedifferencesbetweenthevariousapproaches.The
estimatesforthesmaller,morefrequenteventsaremoresimilar,andgreaterconfidenceisgiventothe
values determined from the short period of the gage record for Butano Creek. Using the estimates
derivedfromtheButanoCreekdata,the2yreventis870cfs,whilethe1.5yreventis611cfs.Using
estimatesderivedfromthescaledPescaderoCreekdata,the10yreventis2,760cfs,the25yreventis
3,878cfs,andthe100yreventis5,568cfs.
6.2 Annual Exceedance Flows
In addition to the peak magnitude of flood events, it is also useful to estimate how long certain flow
levelsareachievedthroughthecourseoftheyear,duringtypicalconditions.Thesevaluesaretermed
annual exceedance flows, and are derived from a flow duration curve (an exceedance plot) of daily
average flow data. Figure A2 in Appendix A, provides the flow duration curve developed using the
historical data from the Butano Creek USGS gage. From this flow duration curve, annual exceedance
flow(AEF)valuescanbedetermined. Forexample,theflowratethatoccursatleasthalfofthetime
(i.e., 50% exceedance), based on the available historical data, is 4.5 cfs, while the flow rate that is
equaledorexceededforonly10%ofthetime(i.e.,10%exceedance)is51cfs.
IncontrasttothefloodpeakmagnitudesreportedinTable1,thevaluesshowninFigureA2providea
representationofflowconditionsoccurringthroughouttheyear,notjustatthepeakofthelargestflood
of each year. For example the 1% annual exceedance flow for the site is 301 cfs. This flow rate is
equaledorexceededfor1%ofthetime,or3.65daysduringtheyearonaverage.Incontrast,the100yr
floodmagnitudeisgreaterthan5,568cfs.Thisflowratehasa1%probability(i.e.,onceina100years)
ofoccurringinanygivenyear.However,thispeakflowmagnitude(>5,000cfs)onlyoccursforavery
shortperiod(i.e.,minutes)every100yearsonaverage.
7 Design Description
The project design includes reconnecting Butano Creek though the marsh by excavating the channel
from Pescadero Creek Road downstream to the confluence with Pescadero Creek to more efficiently
conveyflowsandsedimentdownstream.Detailsofthedesigncanbefoundinthe30%completeplan
set provided in Appendix B. This 30% complete design is based upon topographic conditions drawn
fromavarietyofsources,asdescribedinAppendixC.Effortsareunderwaytocollectnewtopographic
data in the project area and it is expected that these data will be used to refine the design in future
phasesoftheproject.
3/10/2017 6 cbec,inc.
Excavationofthechannelwillincreaseconveyance(i.e.,theabilityofthechanneltotransportwater)by
increasingthecrosssectionalareaofthechannelandbycreatingauniformdownstreamslopeof0.04%,
dropping3ftinelevationalongthe8,000ftextentofthedredging.Thiswillbeachievedbyremovinga
uniform20ftbottomwidthalongacontinuousslopefromtheexistingbedelevationinthelagoonat
the confluence Pescadero Creek (approximately 1.1 ft3) up to an elevation of 4.1 ft which is
approximately6ftbelowtheexistingbedelevationatthePescaderoCreekRoadBridge.
The dredge will cut vertical walls and allow the material to slump to a stable side slope, which is
expectedtobebetween1.5:1and2:1.Theplansetandvolumecalculationshaveassumedasideslope
of2:1willresult.Becausetheamountofsedimentabovethedesigngradevaries(seesheet2ofthe
planset),thetopwidthwillalsovary.Attheupstreamextentofexcavationtherestoredchannelwill
approximately 60 ft wide near the bridge, which should limit impacts to the existing woody riparian
vegetationthatispresentalongthecreekbanksintheupperreach.Thiswidthissmallerthanthewidth
of 75 ft shown in 1854 TSheet for the area (the oldest aerial map available), but is considered a
reasonablebalancebetweencreatingasufficientlylargechanneltoachievetheprojectobjectives,while
tryingtominimizedisturbancetheexistingresources.
The profile was designed to provide positive drainage in order to limit deeper pools where salt water
couldbetrappedduringtidalconditions,leadingtodegradedwaterqualityconditions.Theupstream
elevationwasselectedforanumberofreasons.The1961AsBuiltsurveyofthePescaderoRoadBridge
showsthethalweg4atslightlybelow3ftinelevation,butthenexttimethecrosssectionwassurveyed
in1965,thethalweghadaggradedto~4.5ft5inelevation.Inaddition,longtimeresidentsfamiliarwith
theareastatethatthetideusedtoextendupstreamtoPescaderoRoad.Athalwegelevationof4.1ft
wouldallowhightidestoreachupstreamtoPescaderoRoad.Aslopeof0.04%extendsdownstreamfor
approximately 8,000 ft until the profile intersects the elevation in the lagoon near the confluence of
approximately 1.1 ft. At the upper extent, the excavation extends to the southern extent of the San
MateoCountyRightofWayforPescaderoRoad,whereittransitionsbacktotheexistinggradewitha
10%slope.
Sedimentremovedfrom the channel willbe beneficiallyreusedintheButanoMarsh,whereitwillbe

placedasaslurrytofilldeeperareasincludingisolatedpoolsandartificialchannelsleftoverfrompast
agriculturalefforts.Thisfillingoflowareasinthemarshwillreducethepotentialforthecurrentwater
quality issues that develop in these areas and lead to massive fishkills during breach events. These
deeper areas targeted for infilling are shown on Sheet C1 of the plan set located in Appendix B. A
related component of the project is the #1 shortterm implementation priority that focuses on
installationofaflashboarddamatthedownstreamendoftheButanoMarshtoreducethepotentialfor
flushing of the anoxic marsh water into the lagoon. This flashboard dam will be installed in the late
summerorearlyfallof2017andnotonlywillprovidefortemporaryriskreductionforfishkills,butwill
3
AllelevationsreferencedrelatetoNAVD88.
4
Thethalwegisthedeepestpointofthecreekchannel.
5
Figure5oftheFloodingSolutionsReport(cbecandStillwater,2014)provideshistoricalcrosssectiondataforthe
PescaderoCreekRoadbridgeoverButanoCreek.
3/10/2017 7 cbec,inc.
be left in place during the slurry operation to prevent movement of highly turbid water downstream
intothelagoon.Thechannelexcavationasdesignedresultsinapproximately45,000CYofmaterial.If
needed, in select areas, banks will be stabilized to control erosion using native herbaceous or native
vegetationaugmentedbyothererosioncontrolmethodsasneeded.
8 Hydraulic and Sediment Transport Analysis
Toaidinthedevelopmentandanalysisofthepreferredalternative,aonedimensionalhydrodynamic
and sediment transport model was used. This model includes Butano Creek, Pescadero Creek, the
marshandlagoonandextendstothePacificOcean.Themodelwasdevelopedpreviouslyasatoolto
aidtheanalysisconductedfortheFloodingSolutionsproject.Informationregardingthedevelopment,
assumptions,andapplicationofthemodelisprovidedinAppendixC.Atpresent,amoresophisticated
twodimensionalhydrodynamicandsedimenttransportmodelforthesameareaisunderdevelopment,
anditisanticipatedthatthismodelwillbeemployedtorefinethedesigninfuturephases.
Theinitialphaseofthisdesigneffort developedandanalyzed severaldifferentchannel configurations

includingvaryingextents,slopesandcrosssectionalareas(acombinationofwidthanddepth),resulting
in a range of potential excavation volumes and project costs. These preliminary alternatives were
simulated with the model in order to understand the resulting channel depth (as it relates to fish
passage) and water surface elevations (particularly upstream of Pescadero Creek Road), immediately
afterconstructionaswellasinthefutureaftersedimentisredistributedintheprojectarea.Scenarios
wereanalyzedforboth2yrand10yrfloodevents(seeTable1),consistentwiththeanalyticalapproach
usedintheFloodingSolutionsproject.
Based on the results of the preliminary analysis and through consultation with project partners, a
preferred alternative was selected for the design. This alternative extends farther and is deeper (see
descriptionintheprevioussection),thanotheralternativesconsidered,andwasselectedforanumber
ofreasons.First,thelengthoftheexcavationallowsforapositivedownstreamslopethatconnectsto
thedeepestareaofthelagoon,ratherthanstoppingfartherupstreamwherethebedelevationishigher
andextendspastasecondriseinthethalwegthatcouldresultindegradedwaterqualityconditionsdue
to saline water being trapped upstream (see Figure 4). Excavating to this lower depth at the
downstream extent of excavation allows for a deeper depth throughout the excavated length, which
results in lower water surface elevations and flood risk during runoff events. The deeper depth also
providesmoreroomforsedimenttoaccumulateinthefuture,whichprovidesgreaterlongevityforall
project objectives, giving the system and the community more time to implement complementary
actions(seesection10).Thedeeperdepthalsotranslatesintoareducedneedforfutureinterventions
ofthismagnitude.Lastly,theadditionalexcavationwillcreatealargertidalprism,thatmayallowthe
systemtoexportmoresedimenttotheoceanduringopenmouthtidalconditions.
Simulated water surface profiles for the 2yr and 10yr events for the asbuilt topographic condition
(i.e.,immediatelyafterconstruction)areshowninFigure4,withwatersurfaceelevationsforalocation
immediatelyupstreamofPescaderoCreekRoadshowninTable2.
3/10/2017 8 cbec,inc.
Sedimenttransportsimulationsforallalternativesevaluatedindicatethatsedimentwillaccumulatein
thereachdownstreamofPescaderoCreekRoad,asisobservedinthecurrentcondition.Theresultsfor
multipletimesinthehypotheticalfuture(beforeandaftersignificantstorms,showninFigure5)inthe
sedimenttransportsimulationareprovidedinFigure6.Sedimentbeginstoaccumulatedownstreamof
the dam fairly rapidly (which is not surprising given the geomorphic setting), and this sediment
deposition will reduce the flood reduction benefits of the project through time. This emphasizes the
needtomanagethedeliveryofsedimenttotheprojectarea(discussedinmoredetailbelow),asthis
willallowformorelongevityfortheproject.Althoughsedimentdepositiondownstreamofthebridge
willreducethefloodreductionbenefitsthroughtime,theupperportionofthechannelremainsopen6,
allowingforfishpassageopportunitiestobemaintainedintothefuture.Asthisprojectispartofamuch
larger effort, the project proponent and partners will continue to address both upstream sediment
sourcesanddevelopmentoffloodplainsandbasinsforaportionofthewatershed'ssedimenttodeposit
before it enters the marsh. The project proponent and partners implemented a 100 acre floodplain
reconnectionprojectthatwillenablesignificantdepositionupstreamofthemarshandreverseincision
processesthatareconsideredamajorsedimentsourceinthiswatershed.
Table2.SimulatedWaterSurfaceElevationsforExistingandDesignConditions
SimulatedMaximumUpstreamWaterSurfaceElevation1(ft,NAVD88)
Scenario
2YearEvent 10YearEvent
ExistingConditions 14.9 16.0
DesignConditions 12.1 14.4
Notes:
1)Resultsreportedforalocationimmediatelyupstreamoftheroad.Modelresultshavebeenroundedtothenearesttenthofafoot,
althoughtheprecisionofthemodelisgreaterthanthisreportinglevel.Asthemodelwasnotformallycalibrated,theselevelsareusefulin
acomparativesense,butshouldnotbejudgedasabsolutepredictions.
2)Whenconsideringthepredictedwatersurfaceelevationsitisusefultonotethattheelevationofthebridgedeckis15.4ft,thelowest
pointofthesandbagsis14.2ft,andthelowpointoftheroadis12.8ft.Creekwaterwillflowoverthebridgedeckifthewatersurface
elevationisgreaterthan15.4ft,andwillovertopthesandbagsiftheupstreamwatersurfaceelevationisgreaterthan14.2ft.
9 Construction Approach
Construction for the Butano Channel Reconnection and Resilience Project includes excavating the
channelviasuctiondredgefromPescaderoCreekRoadbridgetotheconfluencewithPescaderoCreek.
Thisincludesnearly8,000linearfeetofchannel.Sedimentdredgedfromthechannelwillbebeneficially
reused in the Butano Marsh, where it will be strategically placed to fill deeper areas to reduce water
quality issues that arise during periods following breaching of the sandbar that forms the lagoon.
6
Thesedimenttransportmodelusedsimulatesthemovementofwaterandsediment.Itisnotabletoinclude
biologicalfeedbacksintheevolution.Biologicalfeedbacksincludethepotentialforbeaverstoconstructdams,the
influenceofthesedamsontrappingsediment,andtherecruitmentofvegetationonthissedimentwhichfurther
actstoholditinplace.
3/10/2017 9 cbec,inc.
Dredgingwillrequirespecialequipmenttoremovesedimentanddebrisfromthechannelandtodeliver
ittospecificlocationswithinthemarsh.
The specialized equipment includes a dredge7, a dredge tender, a waterbased excavator, low earth
pressureconstructionequipment,anairboat,andbarges.Adredgeisaboatbasedexcavatingmachine
that operates by mixing water with insitu material and removing the material through suction. The
dredgehasaboominthefrontwithcuttingteeththatitwillusetodigintothecreekbedtoliberate
soil.Theliberatedsoilwillbesuckedthroughan8inchdischargepipe,alongwithwater,inasuspension
of approximately 10% to 20% solids. A dredge tender is similar to a tugboat and is used to push the
dredgearoundandrelocatethedischargepipe.
Awaterbasedexcavatorwillbeusedtoclearthechanneloftreesandwoodydebristomakewayfor
the dredge and to allow for more efficient dredging. This machine is very similar to a landbased
excavator in that it has a hydraulic shovel arm, but it is mounted on a boat instead of a tracked or
wheeledvehicle.
Lowearthpressureconstructionequipmentwillbeusedtorelocatethedredgingdischargepipeinthe
marshtomorepreciselyintroducefilltopoolsandswalesthataretoberestored.Lowearthpressure
equipment is a term that includes amphibious vehicles and vehicles equipped with wider or longer
tracks,orlargerwheelsthantypicalconstructionequipmenttodispersetheirloadoveralargersurface
contactarea,allowingthemtoworkonsoftgroundandreducingtheirimpacttovegetation.Anairboat
is a flatbottomed vessel that is propelled from behind by a large fan. The airboat will be used for
shuttlingcrewandequipmentinthemarshwhereaboatwithapropellerwouldlikelybehinderedby
submerged vegetation. Barges will be used in some cases to relocate dredged sediment and woody
debris.
Dredgingwillgenerallyproceedfromthedownstreamendupstreamtoensureaconstantandadequate
supply of water to the dredge. The dredge, tender, boatbased excavator, airboat and barges, and
possiblysomeofthelowgroundpressureconstructionequipmentwillbeplacedinthelagoonusinga
truck crane positioned on the Highway 1 bridge, or another location to be determined. The dredging
operation will begin near a pedestrian bridge that is located approximately 1,300 ft upstream of the
confluence with Pescadero Creek and proceed downstream to the confluence. A schematic describing
theconstructionsequenceisprovidedinFigure7.Thedischargepipeisfusedontotheendinsections
asdredgingprogresses,soItwilllikelybemoreefficientandresultinfewerimpactstoworkawayfrom
the discharge location, adding discharge pipe to the dredge as it progresses, as opposed to working
towardthedischargeareaandpushingalongerdischargepipeintothedischargearea.Thedredgewill
thenreturntothestartingpointandproceedupstreamtothePescaderoCreekRoadbridge.Attheend
ofeachday,thedredgewillbemooredinthechannelandthecrewwillbetransportedtoshoreviaboat
orlowgroundpressureequipment.
7
Ananimationdescribingthewayadredgeworkscanbeviewedonlineathttp://www.dredge.com/dredge
equipmentmodels/360slswingingladderdredge/swingingladderdredge360sl.html
3/10/2017 10 cbec,inc.
During the dredging operation, the discharge pipe will be relocated to distribute dredged material in
selected areas of Butano Marsh. To the extent possible, the discharge pipe will be floated along
channelsinthemarsh.Thedischargepipewillneedtobelocatedonthebank,orotherhighground,to
avoidbeingburiedbydischargedsediment.Whereaccesstoselectedfilllocationscannotbeachieved
byfloatingthepipe,lowgroundpressureequipmentwillbeusedtorelocatethepipe.Dischargepipe
segmentswillbestrategicallylocatedalongthebermthatrunssouthandwestofButanoCreeksothat
they can be connected to the dredge as it moves upstream. The intent would be to minimize travel
throughthemarshtoadjustthedischargepipetoredirectdredgedmaterialtobeneficialuseareas.
UpstreamoftheTripleJunction(locationshowninFigure2),theboatbasedexcavatorwillbeusedto
clear excessive amounts of sediment, downed trees and woody debris from the channel to allow for
more efficient suction dredging. Hand crews will be used to selectively limb or cut trees to provide
accessforthedredge.Thesedimentandremovedwoodwillbeplacedonbargesandrelocatedtoareas
where it can be transported to the marsh for beneficial use. The dredging will then proceed in the
clearedchanneltoapproximately50ftupstreamofPescaderoCreekRoadbridge.
Waterqualitycontrolforsedimentfromdredgedischargematerialswillbeprovidedattheatthenorth
outlet of Butano Marsh. A water control device, likely the new flashboard dam as well as other
temporary structures, will be placed to block the channel and impound water, allowing sediment to
settleoutinthemarsh.Asiltcurtainwillbeinstalleddownstreamofthewatercontroldevicetofurther
reducesedimenttransportintoButanoCreek.
Construction staging area and access points to Butano Marsh will be located along Pescadero Creek
Road.Constructionequipment,dischargepipeandpossiblyamobileconstructionoffice(trailer)willbe
stagedatthedirtparkingareaonthenortheastcorneroftheintersectionofPescaderoCreekRoadand
Highway 1, and potentially in the marsh access area located east of Pescadero Creek Road,
approximately 0.45 miles from Highway 1. Access to Butano Marsh for low groundpressure
constructionequipmenttorelocatethedredgedischargepipetoselectedfillareasmaybegainedfrom
PescaderoCreekRoad.Accesspointswouldbeselectedtominimizeimpactstotheroadshoulder,bank
andmarsh.
The duration of the project is anticipated to be approximately 50 working days, based on anticipated
dredgingprogress.Thedredgingoperationisestimatedtoremoveupto900cubicyardsofmaterialper
day. Crews will operate over a full construction day, but due to logistics and troubleshooting, actual
operating time is expected to be approximately 6 hours each day. Construction will be scheduled to
occurwhenthelagoonisclosedandwaterlevelsintheButanoCreekchannelarehighest.Thismaybe
necessarytoprovideenoughdraftforthedredgeanddredgingsupportequipment.
Additional avoidance and minimization actions will include removal and relocation of aquatic species,
installationoffencinginselectedareas,andthepresenceofbiologicalmonitorstoensurethatimpacts
tobothspecialstatusspeciesandotherspeciesarereducedtothegreatestextentpracticable.
3/10/2017 11 cbec,inc.
10 Additional Project Elements
Excessivesedimentdeliverytothemarshisclearlyanissue.Thereareanumberofadditionalproject
elementsconcerningthemanagementofsedimentthatmaybeconsideredinthefutureorinparallel
effortsinordertolengthentheperformanceofthechannelreconnectionprocess.Theseinclude:
addressingkeysedimentsourcesupstreamoftheprojectarea,sedimentmanagementupstreamofthe
projectarea,channelexcavationupstreamoftheprojectarea,andfocusedsedimentmanagement
withintheprojectarea.Eachoftheseisdescribedinfurtherdetailbelow,howevertheyhavenotbeen
includedintheprojectdescription,plansorcostestimateatthisphaseofthedevelopmentofthe
project.
AddressKeySedimentSourcesUpstreamoftheProjectAreaControlofupstreamsedimentsourcesis
akeycomponentofreducingtheamountofsedimentdeliveredtothecreekandprojectarea.These
effortsinclude,butarenotlimitedto:thetreatmentofexistinggulliesaswellastreatmentofhillsides
topreventgulliesfrominitiating,managementofruralroads(andinparticularstreamcrossings),
reductionofincisionandbankerosion,andimprovedmanagementoftimberlands.
SedimentManagementUpstreamoftheProjectAreaSedimentmanagementupstreamoftheproject
areawouldreducetheamountofsedimentdeliveredtothemarshandtherebyslowtheinfillingthatis
occurringintheButanoCreekchannelandthelagoon.Sedimentcouldbemanagedinadedicated
sedimentbasindesignedtotrapcoarsesediment(i.e.,sandandlarger)thatisbeingtransportedas
bedload.Thissedimentbasinwouldneedtobemaintainedroutinelyandwouldideallybelocatedasfar
downstreamaspossible.
Asaproofofconcept,amodestsizedsedimentbasinwassimulatedupstreamoftherecentlycompleted
ButanoFloodplainRestorationProject.Thebasinwasexcavatedasitfilledandfollowingsignificant
floodevents.Theresultsshowedthatthesedimentmaintenanceupstreamreducedtheloadtothe
projectarea,andthatthechannelfilledlessrapidly.However,largeeventstransportenoughsediment
thatthebasinfilledandasimilarmagnitudeofdepositionoccurredbelowPescaderoCreekRoad.These
initialresultsindicatethatthebasinwouldneedtobelargerthanwassimulatedinthisproofofconcept
effortinordertosignificantlyextendthelongevityofthechannelreconnectioneffort.
ChannelExcavationUpstreamoftheProjectAreaInthecurrentcondition,largeamountsofwater
exitthechannelandflowontotheeasternfloodplainupstreamofPescaderoCreekRoad,andthen
subsequentlyovertheroadoncewaterlevelsriseabovethetopofthesandbags.Whiledredgingthe
channeldownstreamoftheroadwilllowerwaterlevels,additionalactionsupstreamwouldextendthe
longevityofthedownstreamchannelreconnectioneffortsandfurtherreducewaterlevelsupstreamof
PescaderoCreekRoad.Thiscouldincluderemovingsedimentfromthechanneltoallowmorewaterto
staywithinthechannel.
FocusedSedimentManagementwithintheProjectAreaAsshowninFigure6,thereisanareathat
extendsapproximately1500ftdownstreamfromPescaderoCreekRoadwheresedimentpreferentially
3/10/2017 12 cbec,inc.
accumulates.Inordertoprolongthebenefitsoftheprojectwithrespecttofishpassageandflood
reduction,asedimentmanagementplanforthisreachshouldbeconsidered.
11 Opinion of Probable Construction Costs
The opinion of probable construction costs based on the 30% complete design is provided in Table 3.
The cost opinion has been developed based upon a review of construction costs for similar types of
projects, consultation with construction contractors and material suppliers. The actual cost of
implementationmayvaryfromthiscostopinionduetothegeographyoftheproject,andthehighlevel
ofdemandthatiscurrentlybeingobservedintherestorationimplementationmarket.Forthisreason,
includingacostcontingency(e.g.,20%oftotalconstructioncost)isadvised.Theopinionofprobable
costsdoesnotincludeadditionalconsultingservicesrelatedtoprojectplanning,administration,design
andpermitting,nordoesitincludepostprojectconsultingservicesincludingpreparationofanasbuilt
surveytodocumenttheeffortorotherpostprojectmonitoring.
Table3.OpinionofProbableConstructionCosts
3/10/2017 13 cbec,inc.
12 References
cbecandStillwaterSciences,2014.SolutionstoFloodingonPescaderoCreekRoad.Preparedforthe
SanMateoCountyResourceConservationDistrict.
Cook,W.,2002.TheRestorationofButanoCreek,itsLowerChannelandFloodplains&TheFloodingof
PescaderoRoad.November,2002Edition.
EnvironmentalScienceAssociates(ESA),PacificWatershedAssociates,OConnorEnvironmental,Albion
Environmental,andD.Jackson,2004.PescaderoButanoWatershedAssessment.FinalReport.
PreparedforMontereyBayNationalMarineSanctuaryFoundation,Monterey,California.
Flynn, K.M., Kirby, W.H., and Hummel, P.R., 2006. User's manual for program PeakFQ, Annual Flood
FrequencyAnalysisUsingBulletin17BGuidelines:U.S.GeologicalSurveyTechniquesandMethods
Book4,ChapterB4,42pgs.
Frucht,S.B.,2013.PescaderoButanoWatershedSedimentTMDLProjectDefinitionandProjectPlan.
SanFranciscoBayRegionalWaterQualityControlBoard.September2013.
Gotvald,A.J.,Barth,N.A.,Veilleux,A.G.,andParrett,C.,2012.Methodsfordeterminingmagnitudeand
frequency of floods in California, based on data through water year 2006: U.S. Geological Survey
ScientificInvestigationsReport20125113,38p.,1pl.
SwansonHydrology&GeomorphologyandMurray,Burns,Kienlen(SwansonandMBK),1999.
PescaderoCreekRoadHydraulicStudy.PreparedfortheCountyofSanMateoPublicWorks
Department,RedwoodCity,California.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 1982. Bulletin 17B of the Hydrology Subcommittee: Guidelines for
DeterminingFloodFlowFrequency.PreparedbyInteragencyAdvisoryCommitteeonWaterData,
OfficeofWaterDataCoordination,U.S.GeologicalSurvey.Reston,VA.
3/10/2017 14 cbec,inc.

Notes:NAIPimagery,2012 ButanoChannelReconnectionandResilienceProject
ProjectArea
ProjectNo.161027 CreatedBy:WJL Figure1
C:\Work\Projects\161027_Butano_Marsh\ButanoMarshChannelDesign\Reporting\Figures\Fig01_Project_Area.docx
3/10/2017

Notes:Compositetopographicsurfacecreatedusingacombinationof2010LiDARdataandcrosssectiondatacollectedby ButanoChannelReconnectionandResilienceProject
PWA(2011),WEST(2012),andcbec(2014)
TopographyoftheProjectArea
ProjectNo.161027 CreatedBy:WJL Figure2
C:\Work\Projects\161027_Butano_Marsh\ButanoMarshChannelDesign\Reporting\Figures\Fig02_Topography_of_the_project_area.docx
3/10/2017
24
4
22
2
20
0
Bridgge Deck
18
8
Saandbag Elevation
16
6 (toeast)
Highway1
BridggeLocation
14
4
Pesccadero/Butano Existing10Year WaterSurface
Confluence
Elevation,ft(NAVD88)
12
2
10
0
Brid
dgeLocation
8
Existing 2Year WaterSurface
6
Deepesstpoint
4 ofButaano Marsh
2 ZZonewheresedim menthas
c
completelyfilledt
thechannel
0 a
andisobstructing
gfishpassage
Deeppestpointofchan nnel
2
2 alongghistoric alignmeent
4
4
0 1000 2000 30
000 4000 5000 6000
0 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000
Main
nChannelDistancee,ft
Notes: ButanoChan
nnelReconnectiona
andResilienceProjject
ExistiingConditionnPeakWaterSurfaceProfiile
ProjectNo.161027 CreattedBy:DM Figure
e3
R:\Projectss\161027_Butano_M
Marsh\500_Deliverab
bles\Figures\Fig03_EExistingConditionsPro
ofile.docx
3/10/20177
24
4
P
PeakWate
erSurfaceP
Profiles DesignCon
D nditions
22
2
24
4
20
0
22
2
Bridgge Deck
18
8
20
0
Bridgge Deck
18
8 Saandbag Elevation
16
6 (toeast)
Highway1 Sandbag Elevatio
on
16
6 Highway1
BridggeLocation (toeast)
14
4
BridgeLocationPesccadero/Butano
Existing10Year WaterSurface
14
4 Confluence
Pescadero/Butanoo Design10Yearr WaterSurface
12
2
Confluence
12
2
10
0
10
0 Brid
dgeLocation
8
8 Existing 2Year WaterSurface Brid
dgeLocation
6 Design 2Yeaar WaterSurface
6 Deepesstpoint
4 ofButaano Marsh
4
2 c
completelyfilledt
thechannel
0
0 Deepestpoin ntofchannel Dandisobstructing
a
Deepestpointofc gfishpassage
channel
Deeppestpointofchan
forcurrentccondition nnel fo
ordesignconditio
on
2
4
4
0 1000 2000 30
000 4000 5000 6000
0 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000
Main
Notes: ButanoChan
nnelReconnectiona
DesiignConditionnPeakWaterSurfaceProfiile
ProjectNo.161027 CreattedBy:DM Figure
e4
Marsh\500_Deliverab
bles\Figures\Fig04_D
DesignConditionsProffile.docx
3/10/20177
4500
04
24
22
2
4000
0
20
0
Bridgge Deck
18
08
3500
Saandbag Elevation
16
6 (toeast)
Highway1
End of10yearsimulation
3000
04 BridggeLocation
14
Pre BigFlowEvent
Pesccadero/Butano Existing10Year WaterSurface
PostEvent3
PostEvent4
PostEvent1
PostEvent2
Confluence
12
2
Initial
Discharge(cfs)
2500
0
10
0
Brid
dgeLocation
08
2000
6
Deepesstpoint
1500
0
4 ofButaano Marsh
1000
0 c
completelyfilledt
thechannel
0 a
andisobstructing
gfishpassage
2
4
4
0 0 1000 2000 30
000 4000 5000 6000
0 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Main
HoursofSimulatio
on
Notes:Th
hesedimenttransporrtsimulationexcludeesflowslowerthan100cfs.Inthe ButanoChan
nnelReconnectiona
heseperiodsofflowlowerthan100cfshavebeen
timeserieesprovidedabove,th
removed,,resultinginashorte
ersequencethatcoveersthe10yearperio
odextending
Sed dimentTransp portSimulationHydrograp
ph
from1991 12000.RefertoApp
pendixCformoreinfformation. ProjectNo.161027 CreattedBy:DM Figure
e5
Marsh\500_Deliverab
bles\Figures\Fig05_SST_QvsT.docx
3/10/20177
24
424
Initial
22
2 PreBigFlowEvvent
PostEvent1
20
0
20 PostEvent2
Bridgge Deck
18
8 PostEvent3
PostEvent4
Saandbag Elevation
16
6 Endof10yrSTTsimulation (toeast)
Highway1
16 PescaderoCreeekRdBridge
BridggeLocation
14
4
TopofBanks
Pesccadero/Butano
Existing10Year WaterSurface
Confluence
12
2
012
10
Brid
dgeLocation
8
68
Deepesstpoint
4 ofButaano Marsh
4 c
completelyfilledt
thechannel
0 a
andisobstructing
gfishpassage
2
0
4
4
2500 4500 6500 8500 10500 12500 14500
0 1000 2000 30
000 4000 5000 6000
0 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000
MainChannelDistancce,ft
Main
Notes:Th
hetimingofvariousp
profilesshownisprovvidedinFigure5. ButanoChan
nnelReconnectiona
FuutureConditioonBedProfiles
ProjectNo.161027 CreaatedBy:JP Figuree6
Marsh\500_Deliverab
bles\Figures\Fig06_FFutureConditionsProffile.docx
3/10/20177
Notes: ButanoChannelReconnectionandResilienceProject
ConstructionSequencingFigure
ProjectNo.161027 CreatedBy:JWP Figure7
C:\Work\Projects\161027_Butano_Marsh\ButanoMarshChannelDesign\Reporting\Figures\Fig07_ConstructionSequencing.docx
3/10/2017
APPENDIX A Additional Hydrologic Analyses

3/10/2017 cbec,inc.

11,000 2yearflood:PescaderoCreekpeakflow 2,175cfs,
Estimated ButanoCreekpeakflow,870cfs. DailyAverageFlow
10yrflood:PescaderoCreekpeakflow6,900
10,000 cfs,EstimatedButanoCreekpeakflow2,760cfs. AnnualPeak
9,000
8,000
PescaderoCreekFlow(cfs)
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
1952
1953
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
Notes:DatafromUSGSgage#11162500PescaderoCreeknearPescadero ButanoChannelReconnectionandResilienceProject
FlowDataforPescaderoCreek
ProjectNo.161027 CreatedBy:DST FigureA1
C:\Work\Projects\161027_Butano_Marsh\ButanoMarshChannelDesign\Reporting\Figures\FigA1_Pescadero_Q.docx
3/10/2017
Notes: ButanoChan
nnelReconnectiona

DailyaverrageflowdatafromttheUSGSButanoCreeeknearPescaderoggage
#1116254 40forthewateryearrsof19631974.
ButanooCreekFlowD DurationCurvve
ProjectNo.161027 CreattedBy:BST FigureA
A2
C:\Work\P
Projects\161027_Buttano_Marsh\ButanoMarshChannelDesiign\Reporting\Figurees\FigA2_AEF.docx
3/10/2017
7
APPENDIX B 30% Complete Plan set
3/10/2017 cbec,inc.
A B C D E
THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING
DESIGNS, IS AN INSTRUMENT
PROJECT AND SHALL NOT BE
WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION
PROJECT WITHOUT THE
USED FOR ANY OTHER
OF SERVICE FOR THIS
USE OF DOCUMENTS
THE INCORPORATED
OF cbec, inc.
30% FEASIBILITY LEVEL CONCEPT
BUTANO MARSH RESTORATION PROJECT
ON
1
G N
DESIGNED DOCUMENT RELEASE

I
TI
S
REVISION NOTES
E
UC
SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
D
TR
R Y
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT OF SAN MATEO COUNTY
NS
A
IN
CO
APPROVED
AND CALIFORNIA STATE PARKS IL M
REVIEWED
JWP
CTH
DRAWN
R
CBB
SLD
RE
FO
P
T
NO
PREPARED BY:
2
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT

PROJECT LOCATION
HALF MOON BAY, CA 94019

625 MIRAMONTES ST #103
SAN MATEO COUNTY
PROJECT LOCATION
(650) 712-7765
CLIENT:
3
PROJECT VICINITY MAP PROJECT LOCATION MAP
CA
(NOT TO SCALE) (NOT TO SCALE)
RESTORATION PROJECT
BUTANO MARSH
COVER SHEET
SHEET LIST TABLE
CONTACTS
-
SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE
G1 COVER SHEET
SMCRCD IRINA KOGAN , PROJECT MANAGER (650) 712-7765 C1 OVERVIEW PLAN AND PROFILE
CA STATE PARKS CHRIS SPOHRER, DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT (831) 234-5140 C2 PLAN VIEW (1 OF 3)
cbec, Inc. CHRIS HAMMERSMARK, PROJECT ENGINEER (916) 668-5236 C3 PLAN VIEW (2 OF 3)
C4 PLAN VIEW (3 OF 3)
PESCADERO
C5 SECTIONS
4 LEGEND: CONTOURS AND ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON PLANS PROVIDED BY LIMITED SITE SURVEY TIED
EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR INTO NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY FIRST ORDER, CLASS 1, VERTICAL CONTROL POINT
JOB NUMBER
EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR
16-1027
GRADING LIMIT OF 50.31 FT (NAVD88, GEOID 09). SURROUNDING TOPOGRAPHY IS FROM THE NATIONAL DATE
FILL AREA OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION 20O9-2011 LIDAR DATASET. 3/10/2017
SHEET
G1
1 OF 6
LOCATION: C:\Work\Projects\16-1027_Butano_Marsh\400_Technical_Data\403_CAD_Data\_DWGS\Production\Butano 30%-Title.dwg PLOT:3/10/2017
4
3
2
1
0
300
1" = 300'
A
600
900 FT
LOCATION: C:\Work\Projects\16-1027_Butano_Marsh\400_Technical_Data\403_CAD_Data\_DWGS\Production\Butano 30%-Overview.dwg

B
PLOT:3/10/2017
1" = 300'
PROFILE
C
H: 1" = 300'; V: 1" = 10'

PLAN OVERVIEW
D
PR
NO EL
T IMI
FO N
R AR
CO Y
NS DE
TR SIG
UC N
TI
ON
E
PESCADERO CA CLIENT: PREPARED BY: DESIGNED DOCUMENT RELEASE USE OF DOCUMENTS

CTH THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING
DATE

SHEET
BUTANO MARSH SAN MATEO COUNTY THE INCORPORATED

DRAWN DESIGNS, IS AN INSTRUMENT
REVISION NOTES
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT JWP OF SERVICE FOR THIS
RESTORATION PROJECT PROJECT AND SHALL NOT BE
REVIEWED
C1
625 MIRAMONTES ST # 103 USED FOR ANY OTHER

JOB NUMBER
16-1027
2 OF 6
PROJECT WITHOUT THE

3/10/2017
- HALF MOON BAY, CA 94019 SLD

APPROVED OF cbec, inc.
OVERVIEW PLAN AND PROFILE (650) 712-7765
CBB
4
3
2
1
0
100
A
1" = 100'
200
300 FT
LOCATION: C:\Work\Projects\16-1027_Butano_Marsh\400_Technical_Data\403_CAD_Data\_DWGS\Production\Butano 30%-Plan.dwg

B
PLOT:3/10/2017
C
D
PRE
NO
T
IL M
FO
IN
A
R
R Y
CO
D E
NS
S I
TR
G N
UC
TI
ON
E
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET C3

SAN MATEO COUNTY CTH THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING
DATE

SHEET
BUTANO MARSH THE INCORPORATED

RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT DRAWN DESIGNS, IS AN INSTRUMENT
REVISION NOTES
JWP OF SERVICE FOR THIS
RESTORATION PROJECT 625 MIRAMONTES ST #103 PROJECT AND SHALL NOT BE
REVIEWED
C2
USED FOR ANY OTHER

JOB NUMBER
16-1027
3 OF 6
PROJECT WITHOUT THE

3/10/2017

(650) 712-7765 APPROVED OF cbec, inc.
PLAN VIEW (1 OF 3) CBB
4
3
2
1
0
100
A
1" = 100'
200
300 FT

B
PLOT:3/10/2017
C
D
PRE
NO
T
IL M
FO
IN
A
R
R Y
CO
D E
NS
S I
TR
G N
UC
TI
ON
E

DATE

SHEET

DRAWN DESIGNS, IS AN INSTRUMENT
RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT REVISION NOTES
REVIEWED
C3
USED FOR ANY OTHER

JOB NUMBER
16-1027
4 OF 6
PROJECT WITHOUT THE

3/10/2017

4
3
2
1
0
100
A
1" = 100'
200
300 FT

B
PLOT:3/10/2017
C
D
PRE
NO
T
IL M
FO
IN
A
R
R Y
CO
D E
NS
S I
TR
G N
UC
TI
ON
E

DATE

SHEET

REVISION NOTES
REVIEWED
C4
USED FOR ANY OTHER

JOB NUMBER
16-1027
5 OF 6
PROJECT WITHOUT THE

3/10/2017

4
3
2
1
A
1"=5'
SECTION
1"=5'
LOCATION: C:\Work\Projects\16-1027_Butano_Marsh\400_Technical_Data\403_CAD_Data\_DWGS\Production\Butano 30%-Sections.dwg

SECTION
C
C3
A
C2
B
PLOT:3/10/2017
1"=5'
SECTION
C
E
C4
1"=5'
D
1"=5'
SECTION
SECTION
D
C4
B
C3
PR
NO EL
T IMI
FO N
R AR
CO Y
NS DE
TR SIG
UC N
TI
ON
E

DATE

SHEET

REVISION NOTES
REVIEWED
C5
USED FOR ANY OTHER

JOB NUMBER
16-1027
6 OF 6
HALF MOON BAY, CA 94019 PROJECT WITHOUT THE

3/10/2017
- SLD
SECTIONS CBB
APPENDIX C Hydraulic and Sediment Transport Model Development
3/10/2017 cbec,inc.

APPENDIX B
Date: 10/17/2014
To: IrinaKogan,SanMateoCountyResourceConservationDistrict
From: cbececoengineeringChrisHammersmark,JohnStofleth,DeniseTu
Project: DevelopSolutionstoFloodingonPescaderoRoadProject#131032
Subject: HydrodynamicandSedimentTransportModelDevelopment
1 INTRODUCTION
ButanoCreekisthelargesttributarytoPescaderoCreeklocatedalongthePacificCoastofSanMateo
County, California. Butano Creek frequently inundates Pescadero Road during low magnitude flood
events. This flooding has impacted access to the town of Pescadero for several decades. Pescadero
RoadcrossesButanoCreekattheupstreamextentofthePescaderoMarshnearthedownstreamendof
the Butano watershed (Figure 1). The watershed is comprised of highly erodible material and the
Pescadero Road crossing is located in a depositional reach as a result of a rapid transition in channel
slopeassociatedwiththetransitionintothePescaderoMarsh.Inadditiontoitsgeographicsetting,a
numberofanthropogenicimpactstothewatershed(e.g.,timberharvestingandchannelstraightening)
havehadprofoundeffectsupontheconditionandfunctionofthechannelandwatershedwithrespect
tosedimentdelivery,storage,andaquatichabitat.ToaddressthefloodingissuesatPescaderoRoad,a
numberofprojectcomponentshavebeendevelopedandanalyzed,whichvaryfromlocalizeddredging
near Pescadero Road to watershedscale solutions involving multiple actions addressing sediment
reduction,improvementofinfrastructureandaquatichabitat.Toaidintheanalysisanddevelopment
of a longterm solution, HECRAS hydrodynamic and sediment transport models were developed and
applied. This technical memorandum describes the development of both the onedimensional
hydrodynamicandsedimenttransportHECRASmodels.
1.1 STUDY OBJECTIVES
Thegoalofthisprojectistodevelopandanalyzealongterm,sustainableandcosteffectivesolutionto
reduce flooding at Pescadero Road, while minimizing impacts to endangered species (e.g., California
redlegged frog (Rana draytonii), San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tertrataenia),
tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi) , coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), and steelhead
(Oncorhynchusmykiss)).Modelresultsandassociatedanalysisareincludedmainbodyofthereport.
2 MODEL DEVELOPMENT
Toanalyzethepotentialfortheproposedprojectcomponentstoreducefloodrisk,sedimentation,and
improvehabitatquality,aHECRASonedimensional(1D)hydrodynamicandsedimenttransportmodel
was developed to analyze several project components for lower Butano Creek. The HECRAS model
platform was developed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers Hydraulic Engineering Center
(HEC) and is widely used for hydraulic and sediment transport analysis in natural and constructed
channels(HEC,2012).
2.1 MODEL DOMAIN
The HECRAS 1D model used in this analysis extends along 5.5miles of Butano Creek from Cloverdale
RoadattheupstreammodelboundarytoitsconfluencewithPescaderoCreekinthePescaderoMarsh
(Figure1).Themodelalsoincludesapproximately4milesofPescaderoCreekextendingfromupstream
ofthetownofPescaderotothedownstreamboundaryatthePacificOcean.
2.2 BATHYMETRY AND TOPOGRAPHY
Topographicandbathymetricdatautilizedinthisprojectwerederivedfromthefollowingsources:
2010NOAALiDAR:CaliforniaCoastalConservancyCoastalLiDARProject
o Projection/Datum:NAD1983UTMZone10NFT,NAVD88FT(GEOID09)
2005SanMateoCountyLiDAR
o Projection/Datum:NAD1983UTMZone10NFT,NAVD88FT(GEOID09)
2012WestConsultants(WEST)TopographicandBathymetricSurvey
o Projection/Datum:NAD1983CAStatePlaneZone3FT,NAVD88FT(GEOID12A)
o Coverage: 17 cross sections along lower Butano Creek, water control structures,
breachedleveeswithinPescaderoMarsh(Figure2)
2011ESA/PWATopographicandBathymetricSurvey
o Projection/Datum:NAD1983CAStatePlaneZone3FT,NGVD29FT(GEOID03)
o Coverage:30crosssectionscharacterizinglowerPescaderoCreek,NorthMarsh,Butano
CreekandButanoMarsh(Figure2)
2014cbecTopographicandBathymetricSurvey
o Projection/Datum:NAD1983CAStatePlaneZone3FT,NGVD29FT(GEOID09)
o Coverage: 36 cross sections within Pescadero Marsh adjacent to Butano Creek and
Butano Creek channel and floodplain upstream of Pescadero Road, water control
features, bridges, Butano Creek channel and floodplain between Gianni bridge and
CloverdaleRoad(Figure2)

C:\Work\Projects\131032_Pescadero_Rd\Reporting\131032_Pescadero_ModelingTM_10172014.docx
10/17/2014 2 cbec,inc.

2.2.1 FIELD SURVEYS AND DATA COLLECTION
2.2.1.1 Overview
Supplemental Butano Creek channel and Butano Marsh cross sections were surveyed by cbec staff.
Multiple survey methods were employed including: footbased RTK GPS, total station and autolevel
surveys. Due to dense vegetation and limited satellite reception, total station and autolevel surveys
were necessary to collect data along most sections of Butano Creek. Topographic details collected
includedhighandlowpoints,channelexpansions,contractions,changesingrade,surfacebreaks(i.e.,
banktoeandtop),andchannelthalweg.
2.2.1.2 Control Points

cbecstaffsurveyedtwoNGSbenchmarksintheprojectareaincluding(1)HT1504and(2)HT1506.
HT1504isanNGSbenchmarklocatedpastthejunctionofBeanHollowRoadonPescaderoRoadbridge
alongthesouthernbridgeguardrail.HT1504hasaregisteredelevationof15.65ft,NAVD88.
HT1506 is an NGS benchmark located on a concrete head wall along the south east corner of the
intersectionofHwy1andPescaderoRoad.HT1506hasregisteredelevationof50.29ft,NAVD88.
2.2.1.3 Topographic Surveys

TopographicdatawerecollectedduringaseriesoffieldeffortsconductedbetweenJanuaryandMarch,
2014. During the January field survey, 21 cross sections along Butano Creek upstream of Pescadero
RoadweresurveyedusingRTKGPSandanautolevel.RTKGPSsurveyswereverticallyadjustedtoHT
1504.ForeachautolevelcrosssectionthetwoendpointsandbacksitelocationwererecordedbyGPS
and tied back to temporary control points set by RTK GPS. During a February field survey, additional
RTKbasedsurveyswereperformedtocharacterizeanadditionalcrosssectionacrosstheButanoMarsh,
watercontrolfeaturessuchaslevees,leveebreaches,deepchannels,andthepedestrianbridgeatthe
downstreamendofButanoMarsh.DuringfieldsurveyscollectedinMarch,15additionalcrosssections
were obtained. Three cross sections were taken at the river mouth after the sand bar breached on
March3,2014and12crosssectionsweresurveyedbetweenGianninibridgeandCloverdaleRoadusing
atotalstation.
2.2.2 TOPOGRAPHIC DATA INTEGRATION

All datasets were reprojected to a common horizontal projection and vertical datum referencing NAD
1983CaliforniaStatePlaneZone3(ft)andtheNAVD88(GEOID09)(ft).TheNGSGeodeticToolKitwas
usedtoconvertdatasetstoGEOID09.TheNGSVERTCONtoolwasusedtoobtainaconversionof2.68ft
fromNGVD29toNAVD88.
AcomparisonofthegroundsurveyandLiDARdatasetsrevealedshallowelevationreturnsintheLiDAR
data typically associated with dense vegetation and water in upper Butano Creek and the Pescadero
Marsh.cbecstaffcreatedacomprehensivetopographicsurfacethatincorporatedalldatabymerging
the ground based survey data with the LiDAR datasets. This process allowed for vegetation returns
presentwithintheLiDARdatasettobecorrectedwiththegroundbasedsurveydata,butonlyinareas
where overlapping data exists. This final topographic surface (Figure 3) serves as the basis for the
10/17/2014 3 cbec,inc.

existingconditionshydraulicandsedimenttransportmodelgeometrydescribedinlatersectionsofthis
technicalmemorandum.
2.3 Hydrodynamic Model Boundary Conditions
StreamflowdatafromtheUSGSgage(#11162500)onPescaderoCreekwereusedtodeveloptheinflow
boundaryconditionsonPescaderoandButanoCreeks.ThePescaderoCreekgageislocated5.3miles
upstream from the mouth and measures flow from a 45.9 mi2 watershed above the gage. Peak
streamflowdatafrom19522013wereanalyzedusingtheUSGSPeakFQfloodfrequencyprogramto
calculate the recurrence interval flood events for Pescadero Creek included in Table 1 (USGS, 2014).
Flood hydrographs with peak discharge values that closely match calculated recurrence interval were
selected from historical record to serve as the inflow boundary condition from 2, 5, 10year flood
eventsonPescaderoCreek.
Table1.Magnitudeofselectfloodevents
PeakDischarge(cfs)
ReturnInterval
PescaderoCreek1 ButanoCreek2
2 2175 870
5 4824 1930
10 6900 2760
Notes
1PescaderoCreekpeakdischargevalueswereestimatedusing19522013annualpeakdatarecord
collectedatgage#11162500.
2ButanoCreekpeakdischargevalueswereestimatedbyapplyingthe0.4ratioofwatershedareasto
thePescaderoCreekdischargevalues.
The USGS Butano Creek gage (#11162540) was historically located 2.2 miles upstream of Pescadero
Roadandmeasuredflowfroman18.3mi2watershedabovethegage.Streamflowdatameasuredat
thisgagebetween1961and1974werecomparedtoflowmeasurementsrecordedforthesameperiod
at the Pescadero gage to develop a relationship / scaling factor between the Butano and Pescadero
watersheds. Analysis of the overlapping daily average flow data for the two gages indicated a high
correlationbetween the datasets,whichcorroboratedtheapplicationofa0.4watershed scalingratio
(18.3/45.9=0.40)tosynthesizeButanoCreekflows.The0.4watershedratiowasappliedtoPescadero
CreekfloodfrequencyanalysistodeterminethecorrespondingfloodeventsonButanoCreekasshown
inTable1.
Oncepeakdischargevalueswere determinedforeach creek,actualhistoricalstormhydrographsthat

bestrepresented the2year,5year,and10yearfloodeventswerechosenfromthePescaderoCreek
datarecordforbothPescaderoandButanoCreek.TheButanoCreekhydrographswereshiftedforward
by 3 hours (Curry et al., 1985) to account for the smaller drainage area resulting in a flashier system.
These hydrographs were used for the upstream boundary conditions for the 1D hydraulic model.
Additionallocalflowinputsoccurringdownstreamofthegageswerenotincluded(e.g.,BradleyCreek,
HonsingerCreek,etc.).
10/17/2014 4 cbec,inc.

Complex interaction between tides, stream discharge and marsh water levels effect the timing of the
sandbarbreachingatthemouthofPescaderoCreek.Thedetailsoftheserelationshipsaredocumented
inpaststudiesincludingPWA,2011.Forthepurposeofthisanalysis,thesandbarwasassumedtobein
an open or breached condition, with a mean higher high tide (5.95 ft, NAVD) applied as a constant
elevationatthedownstreamstageboundary.
Table2.TidesatthePresidio,SanFrancisco,CA
TidalDatum TideLevel(ft,NAVD88)
Highestobservedwaterlevel(1/27/83) 8.74
Meanhigherhighwater 5.92
Meanhighwater 5.31
Meantidelevel 3.26
Meansealevel 3.2
Meanlowwater 1.21
Meanlowerlowwater 0.08
Lowestobservedwaterlevel(12/17/33) 2.8
NOTES:
1AdaptedfromPWA,2002.TidaldatumsatthePresidioarebasedonmeasurementsmadefrom
19832001.
2Source:NationalOceanService(NOS)tidalstation9414290(www.coops.nos.noaa.gov)
2.4 Hydraulic Roughness
Hydraulicroughnessvalues,Manningscoefficient(n),areusedbyhydrodynamicmodelstodescribethe
efficiency of flow conveyance in the channel and floodplain areas. Higher values indicate "rougher"
conditions,thatresultsingreaterflowdepthsandslowerflowvelocities.Roughnessvaluesareusedto
describe both the type/density of vegetation as well as channel bed forms (boulders, cobbles and
undulationsinthebed).Roughnessvalueswereestimatedduringthefieldsurveysaswellasthrough
inspectionofaerialimages.Valueswereselectedbaseduponguidanceprovidedinpublishedliterature
(Chow, 1959). Roughness values for the main channel ranged from 0.030 to 0.045, while values for
floodplain areas ranged from 0.035 to 0.12. It is common to adjust roughness values during a model
calibrationeffort.Datawerenotavailabletosupportamodelcalibrationeffort,thereforetheinitially
selectedvalueswerenotadjusted.
2.5 Sediment Transport Theory
TheEngelundHansentotalloadequationwasusedtosimulatesedimenttransport.Thisequationwas
selected through an iterative evaluation process by which several transport equations were tested to
achieve results that were most similar to observed geomorphic trends within the study reach. The
EngelundHansen equation was used to simulate the transport of nine (9) representative grain size
classesinHECRAS.Thesegrainsizeclasseswere:
veryfinesand(dgm=0.09mm;0.062to0.125mm),
10/17/2014 5 cbec,inc.

finesand(dgm=0.17mm;0.125to0.25mm),
mediumsand(dgm=0.31mm;0.25to0.5mm),
coarsesand(dgm=0.51mm;0.5to1mm),
verycoarsesand(dgm=1.41mm;1to2mm),
veryfinegravel(dgm=2.83mm;2to4mm),
finegravel(dgm=5.66mm;4to8mm),
mediumgravel(dgm=11.3mm;8to16mm),and
coarsegravel(dgm=16mm;16to32mm).
Grain sizes less than 0.062 mm, which are typically considered to be washload that does not interact
with the bed, are not considered in the available sediment transport formulas and thus were not
simulatedintheHECRASmodel.
2.6 Sediment Transport Model Boundary Conditions
Erosionanddepositionwassimulatedfora~10yearperiodbyutilizingflowdatarecordedattheUSGS
gage on Pescadero Creek (1991 2000). Flow data for Butano Creek was synthesized by scaling
PescaderoCreekflowsbyafactorof0.4andoffsetby3hoursbasedonwatershedsizeanda12year
(1962 1974) period of overlapping flow data (Figure A4). The HECRAS sediment transport model
utilizesaquasisteadymodelplatform,whichrequiredtheinflowhydrographstobesimplifiedfroma
15minute to an hourly time series. Flows less than 100 cfs on Butano Creek (250 cfs on Pescadero
Creek)wereexcludedfromtheinflowtimeseriestoimprovecomputationalstabilityandbecausethese
lowerflowswereassumedtoaccountforarelativelysmallproportionoftheoverallsedimentload.
The incoming sediment load for Butano Creek was initially generated assuming an equilibrium load
condition,inwhichthesedimenttransportmodelcalculatesanincomingsedimentloadthatisequalto
thetransportcapacityattheupperboundaryforagivenflowrate.Thisannualizedequilibriumloadwas
then scaled to match the estimated annual average sediment yield 80,000 tons/year (SFRWQCB In
prep). Since sediment transport formulas do not consider the washload size fraction (<0.062 mm),
whicharetypicallyunderstoodtonotaffectlongtermchannelbehavior,theincomingsedimentloadfor
Butano Creek was further reduced by 50% to account for the assumed proportion of the estimated
annual average sediment load within the wash load size class. This adjustment provided an average
annualsedimentloadforButanoCreekofapproximately40,000tons/yearformateriallargerthan0.062
mmindiameter.
TheincomingsedimentloadforPescaderoCreekrelieduponthemodelcalculatedequilibriumload.This
load was not adjusted with the estimated annual sediment yield as the Pescadero Creek sediment
supplyisnotknowntoinfluenceerosionordepositionaltrendswithinthestudyreach(ButanoCreekin
thevicinityofPescaderoRoad).
2.7 Bed Material, Thickness and Representative Grain Size
The grain size distribution from the bed material within the study reach were defined using sediment
samplescollectedbyWestin2012andcbecin2014.Atotalof17samplescollectedalongButanoCreek
10/17/2014 6 cbec,inc.

were used to define the composition of the bed material within the model domain (Figure A5). The
particle size distribution for individual samples are provided in Appendix A of this memorandum. A
comparisonoftheparticlesizedistributionindicatesawiderangeofsedimentsizesvaryingfromcoarse
gravelintheupperreachesofButanoCreektoveryfinesandwithinPescaderoMarsh(FigureA6).
Thegrainsizedistributionoftheincomingsedimentloadweredefinedthroughaniterativeprocessby
which several distributions were tested in the model to achieve a result that best represents the
geomorphic trends observed within the project area. Based on the results of this study, the
representativegrainsizeandtherelativedistributionoftheincomingloadareincludedinTable3.
Table3.Representativegrainsizeandrelativedistributionusedasmodelinput
Geometricmeangrain Percentageofsizefraction
Fraction Sizeclass
size(mm) fortheincomingload
1 Veryfinesand 0.09 5
2 Finesand 0.17 5
3 Mediumsand 0.31 15
4 Coarsesand 0.51 25
5 Verycoarsesand 1.41 23.7
6 Veryfinegravel 2.83 17.5
7 Finegravel 5.66 8.5
8 Mediumgravel 11.3 0.2
9 Coarsegravel 16 0.1

2.8 Model Assumptions and Limitations

ThepreparationanduseoftheHECRASmodelforsimulatingprojectcomponentswasbasedonthe
assumptionsandlimitationslistedbelow.Anyapplicationofmodelresultsshouldtakethese
assumptionsandlimitationsintoconsideration.
1. All simulations utilize hydrographs derived from flow data recorded by the USGS gage on
PescaderoCreek (#11162500). FlowboundaryconditionsforButanoCreek werescaledfrom
these data based on watershed size and a shortterm period of overlapping flow data. Long
term sediment transport simulations utilize a simplified quasisteady representation of these
flowdata.
2. Despiteeveryefforttousethemostrecentandreliabletopographicdataavailable,floodplain
andmarshtopographywaspartiallyderivedfromLiDARdata,whoseaccuracymayhavebeen
affectedbygroundvegetationandpondedwaterpresentatthetimeofthesurvey.
3. The HECRAS model was not calibrated for hydrodynamics as appropriate data were not
available to support this type of effort. Roughness coefficients were estimated during a field
surveyandwithaerialphotographyusingpublishedguidelines(Chow,1959).
10/17/2014 7 cbec,inc.

4. The HECRAS sediment transport model is a tool for assessing potential geomorphic change.
Sedimenttransportresultsarenotintendedtobetakenasabsoluteandshouldbeinterpreted
toimplyprobabletrends(notabsolutes)withorderofmagnitudelevelsofaccuracy.
5. All sediment transport simulations rely on the EngelundHansen sediment transport equation.
This equation was selected through an iterative process by which several transport equations
weretestedwiththemodeltoachieveresultsthatweremostsimilartopatternsoferosionand
depositionobservedwithinthestudyreach.
6. The HECRAS sediment transport model was not calibrated for sediment transport and
geomorphic change, as appropriate data were not available to support this type of effort.
However, model boundary conditions were based on estimated annual sediment yield for the
Butano watershed and optimized to ensure results represent geomorphic trends observed
withintheprojectreach.
7. The annualized sediment yield utilized to derive the sediment load boundary condition was
adjustedtoexcludethewashloadsizefraction(<0.062mm),whichwasassumedtoaccountfor
50%oftheoverallsedimentload.
8. Modelingresultsarederivedfromsimplified,depthaveraged,onedimensionalrepresentations
of complex, threedimensional processes. Project components carried forward beyond this
concept level of design will require additional analysis that incorporates more advanced two
andinsomecasesthreedimensionalanalysis.
9. The HECRAS model does not have the ability to simulate the ability of beaver dams or
vegetationtoaffectchannelbehaviorintheprojectreach.

Model results from the HECRAS sediment transport model are valuable tools that aid in the
understandingofphysicalprocessesandtrendsassociatedwitherosionanddepositionofsedimentin
the project reach. HECRAS is a dynamically linked, quasisteady, onedimensional hydraulic and
sedimenttransportmodelthatprovidescontinuousresultsforsedimenttransportoverthecourseofa
seriesoffloweventsoragivenperiodoftime.Themodeloutputallowsthechangingbedleveltobe
viewedasananimationoverthecourseofthesimulation,whichillustratestheevolutionoferosionand
deposition through time. By examining these animations, one can review results at a single location
(cross section) or for the entire reach (profile) to develop a better understanding of the sediment
transportprocesses.Atthecompletionofasimulation,theresultingcumulativeerosionordepositionis
displayed graphically by the model as a variety of parameters, including the change in the
channel/floodplainelevation.
Itshouldbenotedthat,despiteeffortstoconstructacomprehensiveandfunctionalmodel,theprecision
of the modeling results (e.g., bed level change of 0.03 feet) do not equate to absolute predictions,
becausetheaccuracyofthemodelismuchlowerthantheprecision.Themodelingresultspresentedare
derivedfromsimplified,depthaveraged,onedimensionalrepresentationsofcomplex,threedimensional
processes,andtheresultshavebeeninterpretedtoimplyprobabletrends(notabsolutes)withorderof
magnitudelevelsofaccuracy.
10/17/2014 8 cbec,inc.

3 EXISTING CONDITIONS MODEL RESULTS
ThecurrentPescaderoRoadbridgesectionismodeledwiththebridgedeckat15.4ft(NAVD),thelow
cordat14.1ft,theupstreamchannelthalwegat9.5ft,andtheeasternspanoftheroadlinedwithsemi
permanentsandbags(FigureB7).Thelowpointinthesandbagswassurveyedat14.2ft.Duringthe
~2yearfloodeventthatwassimulated,thewatersurfaceelevationatthecrosssectionupstreamofthe
bridge/roadis14.0ft.Atthiselevationthebridgeisnotovertopped,buttheeasternspanofPescadero
roadwouldfloodasthesandbagsareovertopped.Duringthe~10yearfloodeventthatwassimulated,
the water surface elevation at the upstream cross section is 16.0 ft, which would result in both the
bridgeandPescaderoRoadbeingovertopped.

Theprofilegraph(Figure B8)givesanotherviewtothecurrentchannel conditionandhowitmaybe
effectingfloodingatPescaderoRoadbridge.Thisprofileshowsabuildupofsedimentbelowthebridge
makingthehistoricchannelelevatedcomparedtotheupperportionoftheButanoMarsh.Inthisarea,
thechannelhasfilledincompletelyanditcannotbedistinguishedfromtheadjacentfloodplainareas.
Thetransitiontoextremelylowgradientsinthemarshcontributetothedepositionofsedimentandin
turn this accumulation of sediment is contributing to the decrease in capacity at the bridge opening.
Table3showstheincreaseofchannelflowareaaswatersurfaceelevationincreaseinthe10yearflood
event. Channel discharge refers to the amount of flow going through the bridge opening. Total
dischargereferstothetotalamountofflowgoingthroughthebridgeopeningandovertheroad.The
capacityofthebridgeisexceededwhenflowsexceedapproximately500cfs.
Table 3. Simulated total flow and flow going through the bridge opening in the existing condition
duringa10yearevent.Theelevationsprovidedreflecttherisingandfallinglimbsofthehydrograph.
Watersurfaceelevation(ft, Channel Total
NAVD88) discharge(cfs) discharge(cfs)
13.8 400.0 400.0
14.0 483.8 483.8
15.7 755.5 1873.9
16.0 765.2 2389.6
16.0 770.3 2451.0
15.6 725.8 1607.9
15.5 569.6 1221.8
15.4 476.7 1007.7
15.1 565.1 817.5
14.5 608.4 658.3
Inundation maps help to show the potential extents of flooding. Figure B9 shows the potential
inundationextentsatthemaximumwatersurfaceelevationfor2yearevent.UpstreamofPescadero
roadbridgethefloodwaterextendsacrossitsfloodplainalongthewidthofthelowerportionsofthe
willowforestandinundatesthefieldssouthofPescaderoRoad.Atthiswatersurfaceelevationtheover
toppingof theroadcausesfloodingnorthoftheroadandeast ofcreekin thevicinityofWaterLane.
Additionallythisinundationmaphelpstoillustratetheelevatedhistoricchanneldownstream(north)of
10/17/2014 9 cbec,inc.

thePescaderoRoadbridgeandthetendencyforfloodwaterstomovewestintothelowerelevationsof
theButanoMarsh.FigureB10showsthepotentialfloodingextentsofa10yearevent.Notonlywould
abiggerfloodeventfurtherinundateareasalreadyfloodedina2yearevent,butwouldalsoovertop
BeanHollowroad,floodthecurrentfirestationandovertopthebridgeitself.Additionalresultsfrom
thehydrodynamicandsedimenttransportmodelsareprovidedinthebodyofthemainreport.
4 REFERENCES
Cook,W.2002.TheRestorationofButanoCreek,itsLowerChannelandFloodplains&TheFloodingof
PescaderoRoad.November,2002Edition.
Curry,R.,R.Houghton,T.Kidwell,andP.Tang.1985.PescaderoMarshManagement:Aplanfor
persistenceandproductivity.forCaliforniaStateParksbyUniversityofSantaCruz.DraftReport.
ESA(EnvironmentalScienceAssociates).2002.ButanoCreekCrosssectionsSurveyReport.California
DepartmentofParksandRecreation,BayAreaDistrict,SanFrancisco,CA.13pp.
ESA.2003.ReSurveyofthe1987PescaderoMarshCrosssectionsonPescaderoCreek.Departmentof
ParksandRecreation,BayAreaDistrict,SanFrancisco,CA.14pp.
ESA.2008.PescaderoMarshrestorationassessmentandrecommendationsforecosystemmanagement.
FinalReport.PreparedforCaliforniaDepartmentofParksandRecreation,HalfMoonBay,
California.
ESA(EnvironmentalScienceAssociates),PacificWatershedAssociates,OConnorEnvironmental,Albion
Environmental,andD.Jackson.2004.PescaderoButanoWatershedAssessment.FinalReport.
PreparedforMontereyBayNationalMarineSanctuaryFoundation,Monterey,California.
ESAPWA.2011.GeomorphicEvolutionofPescaderoMarsh:19872011ResultsofFieldMonitoringand
DataCollection.PreparedforSanMateoCountyResourceConservationDistrictandCalifornia
DepartmentofParksandRecreation.
FEMA(FederalEmergencyManagementAgency).1982.FloodInsuranceStudy,SanMateoCounty,
California,UnincorporatedAreas.CommunityNumber060311,480mappanels,textand
profiles.
HydrologicEngineeringCenter(HEC)2012,UserManualandModelDocumentationforHECRASVersion
4.1.http://www.hec.usace.army.mil/software/hecras/documentation.aspx
PWA(PhilipWilliams&Associates,Ltd.).1987.PescaderoMarshNaturalPreserveSurveyReport.
CaliforniaDepartmentofParksandRecreation,NaturalHeritageSection,CA35pp.
PWA. 1990. Pescadero Marsh hydrological enhancement plan. Prepared for California Department of
ParksandRecreation.
SFBRWQCB(SanFranciscoBayRegionalWaterQualityControlBoard).Inpreparation.PescaderoButano
WatershedSedimentTMDLandHabitatEnhancementPlan.StaffReport.
Swanson(SwansonHydrology&Geomorphology)andMBK(Murray,Burns,Kienlen).1999.Pescadero
CreekRoadHydraulicStudy.PreparedfortheCountyofSanMateoPublicWorksDepartment,
RedwoodCity,California.
Swanson(SwansonHydrology&Geomorphology)andWRC(WRCNevada).2002.Memorandum
PreliminaryModelingResultsPescaderoCreekRoadRaisingHydraulicStudy.Preparedforthe
CountyofSanMateoPublicWorksDepartment,RedwoodCityCalifornia.
UnitedStatesGeologicSurvey(USGS),2014.UserManualandModelDocumentationforPeakFQModel
Software.http://water.usgs.gov/software/PeakFQ/.
WEST(WESTConsultants,Inc.).2013.FieldDataCollectionandLiDARAssessmentforButanoCreek.
PreparedforNOAA'sNationalMarineFisheriesServiceSouthwestRegion.
10/17/2014 10 cbec,inc.
Notes: Solutions to Flooding at Pescadero Road
Background image: NAIP
2012
HEC-RAS Model Domain
Project No. 13-1032 Created By: DST Figure B-1
R:\Projects\13-1032_Pescadero\Reporting\Modeling_TM\figures\Fig01_ModelDomain.docx
10/17/2014
Background image: NAIP Surveyed channel cross sections and water control features
2012
R:\Projects\13-1032_Pescadero\Reporting\Modeling_TM\figures\Fig02_SurveyedData.docx
10/17/2014
Project topographic surface
R:\Projects\13-1032_Pescadero\Reporting\Modeling_TM\figures\Fig03_ProjectTopographicSurface.docx
10/17/2014
4100
1993 1995 1998 2000
3600
3100
2600
Discharge (cfs)
2100
1600
1100
600
100
Quasi- Steady State Time
Notes: quasi-steady state hydrograph represents flows over a 100 cfs converted Solutions to Flooding at Pescadero Road
from a continuous 15 minute flow data to an hourly time step.
Quasi-Steady Hydrograph: 1991-2000
R:\Projects\13-1032_Pescadero\Reporting\Modeling_TM\figures\Fig04_QuasiSteadyHydrograph1990_2000.docx
10/17/2014
Background image: NAIP Butano Creek sediment samples
2012
R:\Projects\13-1032_Pescadero\Reporting\Modeling_TM\figures\Fig05_SedimentSamples.docx
10/17/2014
100
90
80
70
Percent Passing
60
50
40
30
20
Butano Marsh: Sediment Sample SS13
Above Pescadero Road Bridge: Sediment Sample 8
10
Upper Butano Creek: Sediment Sample B
0
100 10 1 0.1
Particle Size, mm
Butano Creek: Sediment Size Distribution
R:\Projects\13-1032_Pescadero\Reporting\Modeling_TM\figures\Fig06_SedimentSizeAnalysis.docx
10/17/2014
Existing condition cross section of the bridge and adjacent areas
R:\Projects\13-1032_Pescadero\Reporting\Modeling_TM\figures\Fig07_ExistingConditionsBridgeSection.docx
10/17/2014
24
22
20
Bridge Deck
18
Sandbag Low Point
(to east)
16 Highway 1
Bridge Location
14
Pescadero / Butano Existing 10-Year Water Surface
Confluence
Elevation, ft (NAVD88)
12
10
Bridge Location
8
Existing 2-Year Water Surface
6
Deepest point
4 of Butano Marsh
0 Deepest point of channel

along historic alignment
-2
-4
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000
Main Channel Distance, ft

Existing condition peak water surface profile
Project No. 13-1032 Created By: DM Figure B-8
R:\Projects\13-1032_Pescadero\Reporting\Modeling_TM\figures\Fig08_ExistingConditionsProfile.docx
10/17/2014
Inundation depth (ft)
Existing
An emphasis was placed on Butano Creek.

Flooding associated with Pescadero Creek
and Bradley Creek may not be accurate.

Background image: NAIP
2012
Existing condition 2-yr inundation
R:\Projects\13-1032_Pescadero\Reporting\Modeling_TM\figures\Fig09_EC2yrinundation.docx
10/17/2014

Inundationdepth(ft)
Existing
AnemphasiswasplacedonButanoCreek.
FloodingassociatedwithPescaderoCreek
andBradleyCreekmaynotbeaccurate.
Notes: SolutionstoFloodingatPescaderoRoad
Backgroundimage:NAIP
2012
Existingcondition10yrinundation
ProjectNo.131032 CreatedBy:DST FigureB10
R:\Projects\131032_Pescadero\Reporting\Modeling_TM\figures\Fig10_EC10yrinundation.docx
10/17/2014

APPENDIX A
WESTandcbecSieveAnalyses
10/17/2014 21 cbec,inc.
Project No.: cbec
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS Project Name: Pescadero Flooding-#13-1032
Sample: SED 01-02
Date: March 11, 2014

Tested By: SSC
Description:
SIEVE HYDROMETER
Gross Dry Wt.: 3091.8 Dry Wt. of Sample:

Washed Gross Dry Wt.: 3039.7 Specific Gravity of Soil:
Tare No.: Unit Wt. Correction :
Temperature of Water:
Temp. Correction CT:
SIEVE CUMULATIVE K Value:
NO. WEIGHT Hydro Zero Correction:
3" 0.0
1 1/2" 60.3 ELAPSED HYDRO EFFECT.
3/4" 280.1 TIME TIME READING DEPTH (L)
3/8" 988.4
No.4 1451.8
No.10 1730.1
No.20 1990.6
No.40 2496.5
No.100 3008.9
No.200 3035.9
PAN: 3039.7
PROJECT: cbec #13-1032 Pescadero Flood. REPORT DATE: March 11, 2014
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS - ASTM D 422
SAMPLE: SED 01-02 % PASSING % PASSING
SOIL TYPE: SP No. 4 No. 200
53.0% 1.8%
PARTICLE DIAMETER (mm)
100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001

100%
90%
80%
70%
PERCENT PASSING
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY
GRAVEL SAND FINES

47.0% 51.2% 1.8%
Bauldry Engineering, Inc.

Project No.: cbec
Sample: SED 03

Tested By: SSC
Description:
SIEVE HYDROMETER

3" 0.0
3/8" 1069.2
No.4 1622.0
No.10 1983.9
No.20 2322.7
No.40 2644.6
No.100 3027.1
No.200 3055.9
PAN: 3059.7
SAMPLE: SED 03 % PASSING % PASSING
SOIL TYPE: GP No. 4 No. 200
47.7% 1.4%
100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001

100%
90%
80%
70%
PERCENT PASSING
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
GRAVEL SAND FINES

52.3% 46.3% 1.4%

Project No.: cbec
Sample: SED 04

Tested By: SSC
Description:
SIEVE HYDROMETER

3" 0.0
3/8" 1103.9
No.4 1596.0
No.10 1943.4
No.20 2225.9
No.40 2575.0
No.100 3003.4
No.200 3044.8
PAN: 3050.2
48.2% 1.2%
100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001

100%
90%
80%
70%
PERCENT PASSING
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
GRAVEL SAND FINES

51.8% 47.0% 1.2%

Project No.: cbec
Sample: SED 05

Tested By: SSC
Description:
SIEVE HYDROMETER

3" 0.0
3/8" 769.2
No.4 1361.2
No.10 1770.3
No.20 2080.7
No.40 2487.7
No.100 2947.3
No.200 2980.4
PAN: 2986.8
55.1% 1.6%
100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001

100%
90%
80%
70%
PERCENT PASSING
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
GRAVEL SAND FINES

44.9% 53.5% 1.6%

Project No.: cbec
Sample: SED 06

Tested By: SSC
Description:
SIEVE HYDROMETER

3" 0.0
3/8" 619.8
No.4 1121.0
No.10 1428.2
No.20 1749.9
No.40 2305.8
No.100 2967.2
No.200 3008.7
PAN: 3013.6
63.2% 1.2%
100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001

100%
90%
80%
70%
PERCENT PASSING
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
GRAVEL SAND FINES

36.8% 62.0% 1.2%

Project No.: cbec
Sample: SED 07

Tested By: SSC
Description:
SIEVE HYDROMETER

3" 0.0
3/8" 194.4
No.4 546.9
No.10 978.5
No.20 1596.6
No.40 2394.6
No.100 2876.1
No.200 2901.9
PAN: 2905.9
81.3% 0.7%
100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001

100%
90%
80%
70%
PERCENT PASSING
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
GRAVEL SAND FINES

18.7% 80.5% 0.7%
Bauldry Engineering, Inc. Figure No.

Project No.: cbec
Sample: SED 08

Tested By: SSC
Description:
SIEVE HYDROMETER

3" 0.0
3/8" 0.0
No.4 10.2
No.10 80.9
No.20 336.7
No.40 903.2
No.100 1423.5
No.200 1502.7
PAN: 1511.3
99.3% 4.0%
100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001

100%
90%
80%
70%
PERCENT PASSING
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
GRAVEL SAND FINES

0.7% 95.4% 4.0%

Project No.: cbec
Sample: Sample A

Tested By: SSC
Description: XS
SIEVE HYDROMETER

3" 0.0
3/8" 742.2
No.4 1206.8
No.10 1453.3
No.20 1665.8
No.40 2112.6
No.100 2516.9
No.200 2532.1
PAN: 2535.6
SAMPLE: Sample A % PASSING % PASSING
53.9% 3.3%
100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001

100%
90%
80%
70%
PERCENT PASSING
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
GRAVEL SAND FINES

46.1% 50.6% 3.3%

Project No.: cbec
Sample: Sample B

Tested By: SSC
Description: XS 9
SIEVE HYDROMETER

3" 0.0
3/8" 1991.4
No.4 2655.2
No.10 3034.5
No.20 3354.5
No.40 3789.4
No.100 4345.9
No.200 4386.9
PAN: 4391.9
SAMPLE: Sample B % PASSING % PASSING
41.1% 2.7%
100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001

100%
90%
80%
70%
PERCENT PASSING
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
GRAVEL SAND FINES

58.9% 38.4% 2.7%

Project No.: cbec
Sample: Sample C

Tested By: SSC
Description: XS 7
SIEVE HYDROMETER

3" 0.0
3/8" 140.1
No.4 371.0
No.10 747.6
No.20 1447.3
No.40 2083.8
No.100 2410.9
No.200 2444.7
PAN: 2449.2
SAMPLE: Sample C % PASSING % PASSING
85.1% 2.1%
100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001

100%
90%
80%
70%
PERCENT PASSING
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
GRAVEL SAND FINES

14.9% 83.0% 2.1%

Project No.: cbec
Sample: Sample D

Tested By: SSC
Description: XS 3
SIEVE HYDROMETER

3" 0.0
3/8" 943.2
No.4 1310.4
No.10 1579.9
No.20 2010.6
No.40 3010.5
No.100 3494.5
No.200 3528.3
PAN: 3533.9
SAMPLE: Sample D % PASSING % PASSING
63.7% 2.2%
100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001

100%
90%
80%
70%
PERCENT PASSING
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
GRAVEL SAND FINES

36.3% 61.5% 2.2%

SAMPLE
Sample C
Sample B
Sample D
Sample A
SOIL TYPE
SP
SP
SP
GP
WET DENSITY (pcf)
MOISTURE
9.8
7.7
10.6
11.9
CONTENT (%)
IN-SITU
DRY DENSITY (pcf)
COHESION (psf)
(PEAK)
FRICTION ANGLE
(PEAK)
DIRECT SHEAR
UNCONFINED
COMPRESSION (psf)
GRAVEL
36
15
59
46
Page 1 of 1
SAND
62
83
38
51
SILT
2
2
3
3
GRAIN SIZE (%)
CLAY
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
PASSING #200 (%)
EXPANSION INDEX
LL (%)
PL (%)
ATTERBERG
PI
SOLUBLE SULFATES
(ppm)
Copy of Sieves-Pescadero Flooding2
SIEVE ANALYSIS TEST REPORT
Coarse Gravel Fine Gravel Coarse Sand Medium Sand Fine Sand Silt Clay
U. S. Standard Sieve Size

3" 2" 11/2" 1" 3/4" 1/2" 3/8" #4 #8 #10 #16 #20 #30 #40 #50 #100 #140 #200
100
90
80
70
Percent Passing
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
Particle Size, mm
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE PERCENT
SIEVE SIZE SIZE, mm PASSING
3 INCH 76.2
2 INCH 50.8
1 1/2 INCH 38.1
1 INCH 25.4
3/4 INCH 19.1
1/2 INCH 12.7
3/8 INCH 9.5 99
NO. 4 4.75 96
NO. 8 2.36 88
NO. 16 1.18 74
NO. 30 0.60 40
NO. 50 0.30 5
NO.100 0.15 2
NO 200 0.075 1
Test Method: ASTM C136
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION: SS1 SAMPLE DEPTH, ft. : NA Lab Number: 3180
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: Brown poorly graded sand Group Symbol: SW
REMARKS: Cu = 2.5 Cc = 0.8
PROJECT NUMBER: 6448-03-12 October 16, 2012
Pesacadero Creek
Carlton Engineering, Inc .
3883 Ponderosa Road, Building B
Shingle Springs, California 95682

3" 2" 11/2" 1" 3/4" 1/2" 3/8" #4 #8 #10 #16 #20 #30 #40 #50 #100 #140#200
100
90
80
70
Percent Passing
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100.00 10.00 1.00 0.10 0.01
Particle Size, mm
3 INCH 76.2
2 INCH 50.8
1 1/2 INCH 38.1
1 INCH 25.4
3/4 INCH 19.1
1/2 INCH 12.7
3/8 INCH 9.5
NO. 4 4.75 97
NO. 8 2.36 90
NO. 16 1.18 78
NO. 30 0.60 50
NO. 50 0.30 21
NO.100 0.15 16
NO 200 0.075 13
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: Brown silty sand with organics Group Symbol: SM
Pesacadero Creek

3" 2" 11/2" 1" 3/4" 1/2" 3/8" #4 #8 #10 #16 #20 #30 #40 #50 #100 #140 #200
100
90
80
70
Percent Passing
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100.00 10.00 1.00 0.10 0.01
Particle Size, mm
3 INCH 76.2
2 INCH 50.8
1 1/2 INCH 38.1
1 INCH 25.4
3/4 INCH 19.1
1/2 INCH 12.7
3/8 INCH 9.5
NO. 4 4.75 99
NO. 8 2.36 91
NO. 16 1.18 74
NO. 30 0.60 35
NO. 50 0.30 5
NO.100 0.15 3
NO 200 0.075 2
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: Brown poorly graded sands Group Symbol: SP
Pesacadero Creek

2017 30% Basis of Design Report Memo

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2017 30% Basis of Design Report Memo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TECHNICAL

The project is also a key component of a multifaceted, multistakeholder, watershedscale effort to

5 Geomorphology of the Project Area

6.1 Flood Peak Magnitude Estimates

6.2 Annual Exceedance Flows

Sedimentremovedfrom the channel willbe beneficiallyreusedintheButanoMarsh,whereitwillbe

8 Hydraulic and Sediment Transport Analysis

Theinitialphaseofthisdesigneffort developedandanalyzed severaldifferentchannel configurations

10 Additional Project Elements

11 Opinion of Probable Construction Costs

Pesccadero/Butano Existing10Year WaterSurface

APPENDIX A Additional Hydrologic Analyses

APPENDIX B 30% Complete Plan set

THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING

PROJECT AND SHALL NOT BE

DESIGNED DOCUMENT RELEASE

RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT

HALF MOON BAY, CA 94019

LOCATION: C:\Work\Projects\16-1027_Butano_Marsh\400_Technical_Data\403_CAD_Data\_DWGS\Production\Butano 30%-Overview.dwg

H: 1" = 300'; V: 1" = 10'

PESCADERO CA CLIENT: PREPARED BY: DESIGNED DOCUMENT RELEASE USE OF DOCUMENTS

30% FEASIBILITY LEVEL CONCEPT

BUTANO MARSH SAN MATEO COUNTY THE INCORPORATED

625 MIRAMONTES ST # 103 USED FOR ANY OTHER

PROJECT WITHOUT THE

- HALF MOON BAY, CA 94019 SLD

LOCATION: C:\Work\Projects\16-1027_Butano_Marsh\400_Technical_Data\403_CAD_Data\_DWGS\Production\Butano 30%-Plan.dwg

MATCHLINE SEE SHEET C3

PESCADERO CA CLIENT: PREPARED BY: DESIGNED DOCUMENT RELEASE USE OF DOCUMENTS

30% FEASIBILITY LEVEL CONCEPT

BUTANO MARSH THE INCORPORATED

USED FOR ANY OTHER

PROJECT WITHOUT THE

- HALF MOON BAY, CA 94019 SLD

LOCATION: C:\Work\Projects\16-1027_Butano_Marsh\400_Technical_Data\403_CAD_Data\_DWGS\Production\Butano 30%-Plan.dwg

MATCHLINE SEE SHEET C4

PESCADERO CA CLIENT: PREPARED BY: DESIGNED DOCUMENT RELEASE USE OF DOCUMENTS

30% FEASIBILITY LEVEL CONCEPT

BUTANO MARSH THE INCORPORATED

USED FOR ANY OTHER

PROJECT WITHOUT THE

- HALF MOON BAY, CA 94019 SLD

LOCATION: C:\Work\Projects\16-1027_Butano_Marsh\400_Technical_Data\403_CAD_Data\_DWGS\Production\Butano 30%-Plan.dwg

PESCADERO CA CLIENT: PREPARED BY: DESIGNED DOCUMENT RELEASE USE OF DOCUMENTS

30% FEASIBILITY LEVEL CONCEPT

BUTANO MARSH THE INCORPORATED

USED FOR ANY OTHER

PROJECT WITHOUT THE

- HALF MOON BAY, CA 94019 SLD

LOCATION: C:\Work\Projects\16-1027_Butano_Marsh\400_Technical_Data\403_CAD_Data\_DWGS\Production\Butano 30%-Sections.dwg

PESCADERO CA CLIENT: PREPARED BY: DESIGNED DOCUMENT RELEASE USE OF DOCUMENTS

30% FEASIBILITY LEVEL CONCEPT

BUTANO MARSH THE INCORPORATED

USED FOR ANY OTHER

HALF MOON BAY, CA 94019 PROJECT WITHOUT THE

APPENDIX C Hydraulic and Sediment Transport Model Development

1.1 STUDY OBJECTIVES

2.1 MODEL DOMAIN

2.2 BATHYMETRY AND TOPOGRAPHY

2.2.1 FIELD SURVEYS AND DATA COLLECTION

2.2.1.2 Control Points

2.2.1.3 Topographic Surveys

2.2.2 TOPOGRAPHIC DATA INTEGRATION

2.3 Hydrodynamic Model Boundary Conditions