100% BASIS OF DESIGN REPORT LAGUNITAS CREEK SALMONID WINTER HABITAT ENHANCEMENT PROJECT

Transcription

1 100% BASIS OF DESIGN REPORT LAGUNITAS CREEK SALMONID WINTER HABITAT ENHANCEMENT PROJECT Prepared For: Marin Municipal Water District 220 Nellen Avenue Corte Madera, CA and California Department of Fish and Wildlife 7329 Silverado Trail Napa, CA FRGP Agreement #P By: Kamman Hydrology & Engineering, Inc. 7 Mt. Lassen Drive, Suite B250 San Rafael, CA (415) In Association With: Fiori Geosciences September 2014

2 Acknowledgements This project was generously funded by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fisheries Restoration Grant Program, in partnership with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Pacific Coast Salmon Restoration Fund. The Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) would like to thank the National Park Service, California State Parks, and the private land owners in the watershed for granting access onto their property to conduct this assessment. i

3 Table of Contents Page No. 1.0 INTRODUCTION Site Setting Problem Statement Project Goals and Objectives DESIGN APPROACH AND ASSUMPTIONS Design Approach General Design Criteria Alternatives Considered PROPOSED PROJECT ACTIONS AND DESIGN ELEMENTS Log Bar Apex Jam Log Debris Retention Jam Log Deflector Vane Log Cross-Vane ELJ Design Life High Flow Channel Enhancement Strategies to Address Fish Stranding HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS Project Topography Sediment and Large Wood Characteristics Sediment Grain-Size Sediment Yield Large Wood Dynamics Implications on Project Performance Anticipated Morphology Changes at Treatment Sites HEC-RAS Model Configuration Design Flow Estimates / Boundary Conditions Velocity Head Calculations and Predicted Water Surface Elevations HEC-RAS Model Sensitivity DESIGN ANALYSES Force Balance Assessment Analytical Approach and Methods Force Balance Analysis Results Channel Scour Analysis Analytical Approach and Methods Literature Review Estimated Scour Bedrock Conditions and Construction Contingencies 45 ii

4 Table of Contents (continued) Page No. 6.0 CONSIDERATIONS DURING AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION Fish Relocation Clear Water Diversions Construction Dewatering Monitoring and Adaptive Management Planning Monitoring Adaptive Management Reporting LIMITATIONS REFERENCES 53 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Bar Apex Jam (BAJ) Design Criteria 9 Table 2 Log Debris Retention Jam (LDRJ) Design Criteria 11 Table 3 Annual peak flow return intervals for Lagunitas, BV & RW Cr.s 14 Table 4 Recommended Deflector Vane Log Dimensions 15 Table 5 Riffle Grain Size for Project Reaches 20 Table 6 Design Flow Estimates 27 Table 7 Predicted Ex. and Project Condition Water Surface Elevations 29 Table 8 Bar Apex Jam (BAJ) Force Balance Analysis Results 34 Table 9 Diversion Vane (DV) Force Balance Analysis Results 35 Table 10 Log Debris Retention Jam (LDRJ) Force Balance Anal. Results 36 Table 11 Specifications for Log Structures 37 Table 12 Summary of Scour Analysis Results 44 Figure 1 Figure 2 LIST OF FIGURES Lagunitas Creek Watershed Map Study Reaches APPENDICES Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F Appendix G Aerial Photograph History of Olema Creek Project Plans (Engineered Drawings) Lagunitas Creek Reference Sites (Bar Apex Jams) HEC-RAS Model Configuration and Hydraulic Analysis Results Force Balance Analysis Theory, Equations and Results Channel Scour Analyses Theory, Equations and Results Log Debris Retention Jam (LDRJ) Sediment Aggradation Analysis iii

5 1.0 INTRODUCTION The following (BOD) documents the engineering and supporting background information and calculations for the Lagunitas Creek Salmonid Winter Habitat Enhancement Project Design Drawings and Specifications. The project design and supporting were completed by Kamman Hydrology & Engineering, Inc. (KHE), in association with Fiori GeoSciences. 1.1 Site Setting Lagunitas Creek drains much of west central Marin County and is the largest watershed in the county, encompassing 109 square miles of drainage area (Figure 1). It originates on Mt. Tamalpais and flows eight miles through four reservoirs operated by the Marin Municipal Water District (District, MMWD). Kent Lake is the fourth reservoir along the main stem of Lagunitas Creek. From Kent Lake, Lagunitas Creek flows about 12 miles to Tomales Bay (Figure 2). Olema Creek is the second largest tributary to Lagunitas Creek and it supports a significant portion of the coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and steelhead (O. mykiss) populations of the watershed. Lagunitas Creek and Olema Creek meet in the estuary, at the newly restored Giacomini Wetlands, where a vast area of former dairy pasture was re-opened to tidal action in 2008, restoring vital estuary habitat. The largest tributary to Lagunitas Creek is Nicasio Creek; MMWD also operates Nicasio Reservoir on this tributary, with about one mile of stream that flows from the dam of Nicasio Reservoir to Lagunitas Creek. Other major tributaries to Lagunitas Creek include: San Geronimo Creek, Devil s Gulch, Cheda Creek, and McIsaac Creek, all of which support salmonids. Lagunitas Creek is an important stream for spawning and rearing coho salmon, which is federally listed as endangered, and steelhead trout, which is federally listed as threatened. Extensive and long-term monitoring of the populations of coho and steelhead have been conducted in the watershed, along with repeated habitat typing surveys, streambed monitoring, and targeted sediment studies. The population monitoring provided the basis for the hypotheses and conclusions of the Lagunitas Limiting Factors Analysis (Stillwater Sciences, 2008). The limiting factors analysis provides the rationale and motivation to improve winter habitat for the benefit of coho and other salmonids in the creek. The confluence of Lagunitas Creek with Olema Creek is located in the estuarine portion of the watershed, at the southern end of Tomales Bay. The 14.5 square mile Olema Creek watershed supports coho salmon and steelhead. The National Park Service, with support through California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) grants have conducted intensive life-cycle monitoring in Olema Creek, including adult, juvenile and smolt monitoring since In addition, the National Park Service completed the 550 acre Giacomini Wetland Restoration project in 2008, which has significantly added to winter/estuarine 1

6 habitat within the Lagunitas/Olema Creek watershed. The work proposed herein complements the Giacomini project salmonid habitat enhancements as it addresses limiting factors for different salmonid life stages. Lagunitas Creek is dominantly a single, entrenched channel through the project areas, with most of the floodplain inundated only during relatively high winter storm flows. A preliminary review of aerial LiDAR data revealed a number of secondary channels perched on the floodplain and this study provides some insight into the magnitude of flows that reconnect them to the main channel. The project area includes Lagunitas Creek between Shafter Bridge (at the confluence of Lagunitas Creek and San Geronimo Creek) and the Highway 1 Bridge (in Point Reyes Station), as well as lower Olema Creek, from the bridge at Bear Valley Road to the confluence with Lagunitas Creek (Figure 2). 1.2 Problem Statement The Lagunitas Limiting Factors Analysis (Stillwater Sciences 2008) identified winter habitat as the limiting factor for both coho salmon and steelhead populations in the Lagunitas Creek watershed. Fall juvenile and spring smolt survey data indicate dramatic declines in the numbers of juvenile coho during the winter months. The Lagunitas Limiting Factors Analysis estimated a winter carrying capacity of only 7,000 juvenile coho. Whether these declines are due to in-stream mortality or early emigration of coho smolts to the ocean (prior to smolt surveys commencing) is under investigation by MMWD. It is hypothesized that winter habitat in Lagunitas Creek is limited during base flow to bank-full periods. Juvenile steelhead also suffer high rates of mortality (over 90%) during their first winter, likely due to limited winter habitat. Stillwater Sciences (2008) estimated the winter carrying capacity for juvenile steelhead on Lagunitas Creek at less than 5,000. Stillwater also concluded that steelhead escapement appeared to be fairly low and that the juvenile steelhead population in the creek was being sustained by a relatively small number of adults returning to spawn. Based on comparison to other river systems, the steelhead mortality rate of Lagunitas Creek appears to fall within typical rates on natural systems. For example, Bjornn (1978) measured salmonid survival from the fry stage to downstream migration as yearling fish in Idaho; from 1962 to 1973, survival ranged from 0.4% to 3.8% in Big Springs Creek and the Lemhi River. Ward and Slaney (1993) have also reported that mean fry-to-smolt survival of Keogh River steelhead was 12.9% (minimum of 3.3%; maximum of 21.9 %). While steelhead winter survival may not be unusually poor in Lagunitas Creek, as compared to other coastal drainages, it is still the principal factor limiting the size of the population and is therefore an appropriate focus for restoration efforts to achieve recovery. Loss of habitat in the watershed, particularly as a result of dam construction, has blocked the available salmonid habitat to about half 2

7 of what it once was, and has reduced the steelhead population from historic levels. Efforts to restore and enhance the remaining available habitat are needed in order to achieve recovery of the species in the watershed. Enhancing in-stream and floodplain habitat in Lagunitas Creek is intended to help mitigate that loss of habitat and to help optimize the remaining habitat for salmonids. Results of the 2013 Winter Habitat Enhancement Assessment (KHE, 2013) center on two primary hypotheses that limit winter habitat: 1) an above average percentage of channel geometries display a high ratio of depth to wetted perimeter, resulting in elevated velocity conditions in a disproportionate amount of mainstem channel, even during winter base flow conditions; and 2) the reduced frequency, duration and magnitude of regular winter high flows has reduced the amount of inundated floodplain and side channel areas available for high flow refugia. Although a limiting factors analysis has not been completed for Olema Creek, results of the KHE 2013 Winter Habitat Enhancement Assessment, in conjunction with Point Reyes National Seashore s Fisheries Biologist, identified a 300-foot long, incised reach of channel with degraded salmonid winter habitat. This reach has experience stream capture by a historic ranch road alignment and subsequent erosion and upstream knick-point migration into a historic pasture drainage ditch (see aerial photograph history for this reach in Appendix A). The current channel is deeply incised within the span following the historic road alignment. Although cattle grazing has stopped on this parcel since the mid-1990s, the project reach continues to degrade. However, the channel appears to display geomorphic recovery from historic impacts and healthy winter habitat attributes immediately downstream of the project reach. 1.3 Project Goals and Objectives The overall goal of the project is increase the winter habitat carrying capacity for coho salmon and steelhead, in Lagunitas Creek and lower Olema Creek, Marin County, California. Winter habitat enhancement work within the National Park/Tocaloma reach of Lagunitas Creek and lower Olema Creek should also consider potential impacts to or benefits for California freshwater shrimp (Syncaris pacifica), a federally endangered species. This report presents specific designs to enhance floodplain and/or in-channel habitat with drawings prepared to a level of detail that the projects can move to construction. The design work builds off of the findings and information presented in the Lagunitas Creek Salmonid Winter Habitat Assessment Report (KHE, 2013). Specific habitat design objectives guiding project design include the following: Provide areas of sufficient water depths (2- to 3-feet) for salmonids during winter baseflows; 3

8 Provide accessible low-velocity (<0.5 ft/s) winter habitat over a range of rising/receding peak flows; Provide abundant cover to shelter juveniles from predators; Maximize the wetted perimeter to improve feeding and growth opportunities; Do not strand juvenile salmonids; Do not promote excessive erosion outside of intended areas; Allow inundated off-channel areas to dry down in summer to preclude establishment of non-native predators such as bullfrogs and bass; Do not pond waters that strand aquatic organisms or stagnate and promote poor water quality and mosquito breeding; and Do not adversely impact habitat for freshwater shrimp. 4

9 2.0 DESIGN APPROACH AND ASSUMPTIONS 2.1 Design Approach An overall self-maintaining design approach guides individual project plans in the various project reaches, with minimal earthwork and disturbance to existing riparian and wetland habitat. Design elements and structures are intended to enhance or restore natural hydrologic processes to promote geomorphic evolution of more active high flow (side) channels and floodplain. Within the Lagunitas Creek reaches, design elements include construction of log structures to raise mainstem water elevations in order to backwater or deflect regular flood flow into existing/adjacent high flow channels on a more frequent basis. In many instances, the log structures proposed are intended to evolve and grow in size over time by being designed to capture and retain wood, debris and sediment. Log jams in Lagunitas Creek are reported (Balance Hydrologics, Inc., 2010) to be one of the primary mechanisms to achieve the desired bed aggradation and geomorphic diversity (see further discussion in Section of this report) that benefit salmonids. Apart from localized grading that will redistribute soil, no significant earthwork associated with high flow channel creation or clearing is proposed. It is intended that the increased frequency, magnitude and duration of peak flows directed into existing high flow channels will lead to natural channel expansion/evolution. Self-sustained, natural evolution of a multi-thread channel within a more active floodplain is a desired outcome of project actions. This will be achieved by installation of Engineered Log Jams (ELJs) into mainstem Lagunitas Creek to both locally aggrade the channel and deflect water into existing perched side channels. Complete avulsion and redirection of the mainstem channel or bifurcation through project actions has been considered. If avulsion occurs, the abandoned mainstem channel is believed to yield an increase of winter salmonid habitat through creation of new side channel, alcoves or other backwater features. There is little influence or expression of groundwater in existing floodplain side-channels and groundwater inflow is not an anticipated or necessary component of restoration elements. Initial design grades and anticipated water levels in side channels will be above groundwater levels. However, long-term natural evolution (i.e., deepening) of high flow side channels may scour pools that intersect the water table and lead to natural seasonal ponding. Again, we ve observed very little ponding in existing side channels, so extensive development of this condition is not anticipated. The design for Olema Creek uses a more passive self-healing approach, that incorporates construction of periodic log structures intended to: a) cease knick-point and 5

10 incised channel migration; and b) capture and accumulate logs, debris and sediment to fill a long stretch of incised channel, restoring a more natural channel morphology and connection to adjacent floodplain, similar to what exists immediately downstream of the project reach. Instream structures would also reduce high flow velocities and provide instream cover. These same attributes apply to select ELJs on Lagunitas Creek. 2.2 General Design Criteria Development and evaluation of preliminary project alternatives, Stakeholder input and comments yielded a list of design criteria that shaped the overall project design. Specific design criteria that were instrumental in guiding project design include the following. 1. Restore natural hydrologic and geomorphic processes to enhance and maintain salmonid winter habitat in a self-sustaining fashion. 2. No increased flood hazard to surrounding infrastructure. Project designs should not increase flood hazards along adjacent roadways, trails or facilities, nor should they result in increased bank instability below such infrastructure. 3. Reduce, if not eliminate, need for excavation due to reuse restrictions and disposal expense. 4. Design self-maintaining structures. 5. Construction activities should not result in a net loss of riparian and/or wetland habitat. This includes reuse of excavated fill material placed on surrounding floodplain. 6. No perennial ponding. Project actions should not result in perennial ponding by surface and groundwater in order to avoid introduction of undesired invasive species and create poor water quality conditions. 7. Do not jeopardize existing salmonid or freshwater shrimp habitat. Projects should not adversely impact existing salmonid and shrimp aquatic habitats if they fail or do not perform as intended. Emphasis was placed on providing a large amount of safety in protecting existing endangered species habitats. 8. Satisfy design requirements for instream structures pursuant to federal and state guidelines, esp. the Design Plan Criteria contained in the FRGP documents. 2.3 Alternatives Considered A suite of preliminary project alternatives were developed and described within KHE s Draft and Final 2013 Winter Habitat Enhancement Assessment reports (KHE, 2013a; KHE, 2013b). A full description and presentation of these evolving alternatives is contained in these reports. However, project alternatives continued to be revised, dropped and added after release of the final Winter Habitat Enhancement Assessment Report based on the following: written and oral stakeholder review and input of preliminary alternative review meetings; at least three follow-up stakeholder field 6

11 meetings to review proposed and newly identified project sites; and further field reconnaissance/surveys of proposed project sites. In general, preliminary project elements that were dropped from consideration included: floodplain excavation; offchannel pond creation; alcove creation via mechanical excavation; upland sediment disposal (due to excessive impacts to wetland and riparian areas to access disposal areas); excavation of existing or new high flow channels; and work in reaches that already appeared to be on a trajectory of geomorphic and habitat recovery from historic disturbance. 7

12 3.0 PROPOSED PROJECT ACTIONS AND DESIGN ELEMENTS The Project proposes work in nine (9) core project sites with a varying number of instream log structures at each site. Project site locations and proposed log structures are presented on Sheet G1 of the Project Plans provided in Appendix B of this report. Eight (8) of the project sites are located on Lagunitas Creek and include up to 15 large log structures that will aid in enhancing the form and function of up to 3150 linear feet of existing secondary high flow channel. The ninth site is located on Olema Creek and includes the construction of up to 7 log structures to ameliorate channel incision and knick-point migration on the mainstem. A description of log structures and other primary winter habitat enhancements are provided below. Available natural wood recruitment has been considered through the entire project reach (Big Bend to 449 Creek site) as well as the location and spacing of individual LDRJ structures within any given project reach (e.g., Fern Rock). Field reconnaissance indicates an abundant wood supply feeding into this reach, esp. from Big Bend (Balance, 2010). Upstream sites are not expected to limit accumulation at downstream sites as there is sufficient supply and recruitment between each project reach. It is also likely that project construction will be phased over a series of years the current FRGP grant is for the construction of only the McIsaac Upstream and Downstream sites, so there won t be any upstream depletion from the Big Bend site, which will be built at a later date. The Fern Rock series of structures is probably the most challenged in terms of sufficient natural recruitment to each of the four LDRJs. Therefore, pre-loading of wood debris into the LDRJ will be completed during construction. There is more than adequate supply of large wood for pre-loading in the existing floodplain high flow channels, which is intended to be cleared as part of overall reach improvements. 3.1 Log Bar Apex Jam The general theory and design of Log Bar Apex Jams (BAJ) comes from efforts to restore forested islands and create floodplain side channels in the Pacific Northwest (McHenry et al., 2007; Abbe and Montgomery, 1996; Rocco Fiori, personal communication, November 2013). The design is based on natural log jams in large and small rivers. The proposed size and scale of these structures (approximately 30- to 35-feet wide) within each project site are consistent with other log jams observed in Lagunitas Creek. Photographs for existing BAJ-type structures on Lagunitas Creek are provided in Appendix C. As designed, the overall BAJ length is approximately 65-feet, consisting of 35-feet of soil ballasted wood, with approximately 30-feet of mounded and vegetated gravel bar extending off and downstream of the log component. The height (number of log layers) at each site are designed to achieve a target backwater level (indicated on project plans) to promote flow into side channel inlets. Based on these target water 8

13 levels, all proposed BAJ structures will be constructed with six (6) layers of logs pursuant to design details in project plans (Sheet C10, Appendix B), creating a structure approximately 6-feet above existing channel bed grade (see Table 1). Specific log sizes and layer thicknesses will need to be adjusted during construction to achieve the desired finished structure heights. TABLE 1. Bar Apex Jam (BAJ) Design Criteria BAJ # Existing Bed Elevation (ft) Target BAJ Top Elev. (ft) Height (ft) BAJ Layers BAJ BAJ BAJ BAJ For purposes of this project, BAJs are being used to rejuvenate and increase the magnitude, frequency and duration of flow through existing high flow channels on the Lagunitas Creek floodplain. This is achieved by constructing an appropriately located large wood structure (see Details on Sheets C9 and C10, Appendix B) that will reduce channel conveyance area and raise (backwater) levels to more easily split and deflect high flows between the mainstem channel and floodplain side channel. BAJs are proposed at four (4) project locations on the mainstem Lagunitas Creek at existing side channel entrance locations. BAJs are stable and capable of influencing channel morphology, stream habitat and riparian forest conditions. The stability of BAJs is attributed to the presence of multiple key pieces of large wood. Key pieces are typically large diameter conifers with the root wad attached. Key pieces are large enough to affect local channel hydraulics causing their deposition on the streambed, parallel to stream flow with rootwads oriented upstream. Each jam includes elements of natural jams including key pieces, with interstices filled with smaller rack material and alluvial backfill. Bar Apex type logjams were keyed into the streambed to the base of anticipated maximum scour (typically to a depth of around 8-feet). The intended function of the BAJs is to backwatered water elevations along the banks to increase overbank flows into existing side-channels. Over time, increased flow and channel scour will increase the frequency of overbank inundation and increase wetted habitat. The BAJs themselves provide cover and roughness that will form scour pools and 9

14 trap gravel. The soil ballast filling and covering wood structure will host recruitment of woody riparian species as well as the constructed bar/island extending downstream from the key wood structure. 3.2 Log Debris Retention Jam Log Debris Retention Jam (LDRJ) are designed to be channel spanning array/line of logs driven vertically into the bed that will act as a sieve to capture and retain woody debris and sediment. LDRJs constitute are more passive construction approach than the BAJs and are selected in channel reaches that are narrower and more entrenched relative to the adjacent floodplain surface. These structures have been termed trashracks and flood fencing as they rely heavily on the installation of vertical posts across the entire bankfull channel width to catch and retain wood and sediment. The closer the post spacing the smaller the material trapped. For this project and at the time of construction, we propose pre-installing large wood cross-pieces (horizontal) and slash to structure design heights (Table 2) in order to accelerate their sediment and debris trapping ability. Based on results of force balance assessments (Section 5.0, below), all LDRJs were designed to the elevations and heights stipulated on project plans and Table 2 (see design detail on Sheet C11, Appendix B). The desired function of these structures is to ultimately raise local channel bed grades and water elevations in the channel and along banks to backwater overbank flows into existing side-channels. The design of the LDRJs for this project are derived from German debris control systems, designed in relatively low gradient catchments (3% bed slope) to capture floating debris emanating from upstream mountainous waterways of the Bavarian Alps (Wallerstein et al., 1996). The configuration used in this project was derived from a number of physical model tests carried out at the Hydraulics Laboratory of the Technical University of Munich aimed at determining the best method to use circular posts set into the channel bed for retaining debris, while allowing the downstream movement of water and sediment. It was found that a downstream pointing "V" alignment was the configuration with the best debris retention capacity and which had the least backwater effect when the device was filled with debris. An upstream point V configuration created the greatest backwater effects and tended to allow debris to be pushed up and over the barrier. For purposes of this project, the upstream pointing V configuration was chosen for structures installed on Lagunitas Creek to maximize backwater elevations, while the downstream pointing V configuration was designed into the Olema Creek structures to prioritize sediment capture and bed aggradation. 10

15 TABLE 2. Log Debris Retention Jam (LDRJ) Design Criteria LDRJ # Project Site Existing Bed Elevation (ft) Target LDRJ Top Elev. (ft) Height (ft) LDRJ1 McIsaac Up LDRJ2 McIsaac Up LDRJ3 Fern Rock LDRJ4 Fern Rock LDRJ5 Fern Rock LDRJ6 Fern Rock LDRJ7 449 Cr LDRJ8 Olema Cr LDRJ9 Olema Cr LDRJ10 Olema Cr LDRJ11 Olema Cr LDRJ12 Olema Cr LDRJ13 Olema Cr Based on the research above, a pair of LDRJ structures were built in the 1990 s on the Lainbach and Arzbach River systems. Although these German structures were much larger than those proposed herein, the project designs for Lagunitas Creek have been scaled-down proportionally to fit selected project reaches. The ultimate design of project structures were developed through iterating through the force balance equations to achieve a structure with the desired Factor of Safety (see Section 5 below). The German designs are significantly different from the Lagunitas Creek designs in that the Alps structures were constructed with steel posts set into concrete base. The best analogies to Lagunitas Creek designs come from beaver dam replication structures constructed in the Pacific Northwest. In general, the Lagunitas Creek log designs are consistent with many in the Pacific Northwest, with the exception of the V -shaped configuration. This hybrid design is deemed advantageous for Lagunitas Creek as the angle of the jam promotes divergent flow shunting flow toward the sides of the channel or towards the floodplain and high flow channel inlets. Although the structure is somewhat permeable, it will also slow velocities and create backwater conditions, again promoting more frequent inundation of floodplain. 11

16 The location of structures on Lagunitas Creek were chosen at existing gravel bar sites at the entrance to secondary high flow channels to minimize the amount of backwater elevation needed to enter the side channels. The separation distance between structures at the McIsaac site and the single structure at 449 Creek are such that each will act as a solitary instream feature in their respective reach. The location of structures at Fern Rock range from 200- to 300-feet and backwater effects from each structure will extend to the next upstream structure. Structure spacing on Olema Creek is approximately 120- to 150-feet, or within 5- to 7-times the bankfull channel width, to mimic a natural pool-riffle sequence. Attaining the target LDRJ top elevations will require the accumulation of wood debris and sediment behind structures. It is likely that logs and debris will be integrated into the LDRJ structures at time of construction to accelerate this process. However, similar to naturally occurring log jams throughout Lagunitas Creek, large wedges of coarse sediment are desired to accumulate behind the channel spanning log jams, raising the channel bed elevation behind the log jam. The combined process of log jam establishment and bed aggradation behind the jam are intended to raise water levels onto the floodplain and into adjacent high flow channels on a more frequent basis. In order to estimate the time frame for sediment aggradation behind LDRJs after construction, KHE completed an analysis to compute the volume of sediment needed behind LDRJ structures in comparison to available bedload supply over a variety of water year types (e.g., dry, normal and wet). The data sets and detailed results of this analysis are provided in Appendix G. In terms of sediment demands to raise the bed behind the LDRJ, it was assumed that the log structure is built or quickly accumulates enough woody material to impede the passage of bedload sediment. It is assumed that the wedge of material that builds up behind the LDRJ will have a 30:1 (H:V) slope and 30-foot width. The elevation of the sediment wedge at the LDRJ is controlled by the height of the structure, which ranges from 4- to 7-feet, per Table 2 above. This geometry results in 415- to 1130-tons of sediment accumulation behind any give LDRJ structure. The required volume of sediment accumulation desired behind LDRJs varies depending on structure target height as follows: 4.25 structure height requires 415 tons of sediment; 5.00 structure height requires 580 tons of sediment; 6.00 structure height requires 825 tons of sediment; and 7.00 structure height requires 1130 tons of sediment. Cumulative total bedload sediment demands assuming all structures are constructed are provided in Appendix G. 12

17 In order to quantify the amount of bedload available to LDRJs, KHE estimated annual sediment supply using the only known available ( ) bedload sediment rating curves developed for Lagunitas Creek and mean daily flow records for the period water year (WY) 1984 through WY2014 (see Appendix G). The sediment rating curve and creek flow data were only available for Lagunitas Creek, but the general findings with respect to the anticipated time-frame for desired sediment accumulation behind LDRJs is believed applicable to the Olema Creek project site. This analysis was completed for the McIsaac project sites only; these results are considered conservative (under) estimates of sediment availability at the remaining downstream sites on at Fern Rock and 449 Creek, but again, provide a realistic time-frame for evolution of these sites. Annual bedload sediment yields to the McIsaac sites were computed by summing the daily sediment yield over the water year period. Daily sediment yield was quantified using mean daily flow rates and representative sediment rating curves for the project reach. An exceedance probability analysis was then performed on the resulting total annual sediment yields for the 32 year period of record (presented in Appendix G). The probability of exceedance analysis describes the likelihood of a specified annual sediment volume being exceeded in a given year. The resulting exceedance curve is presented in Appendix G. The results of this multi-year historical analysis reveals that annual sediment yields are below the desired demands of between 415- and 1130-tons during 60% to 70% of all water year types. However, during wet water years (e.g., less than 20% probability of exceedance), sediment yields increase exponentially. During extremely wet year types (equal to or less than 10% exceedance), sediment yields are high enough to satisfy the cumulative sediment demand of all LDRJ sites. In the context of the McIsaac Sites, it is estimated that it would take 2 years, on average, to attain the desired sediment buildup (1130 tons) in the upstream (LDRJ1) structure. Assuming this structure captures most of the sediment, the downstream structure (LDRJ2) would not begin accumulating sediment until year 3 (post construction), but would likely require only a single year of average water year-type conditions to reach the desired accumulated height as it only needs 415 tons of bedload material. Because of the low bedload yields during dry years (less than 100 tons annually), it may take several years before adequate sedimentation buildup is achieved behind even a single structure. On the other hand, annual sediment yields during very wet years range from 2750 tons (20% probability of exceedance) to 8060 tons (3% probability of exceedance). Thus, multiple if not all LDRJ sites would likely receive sufficient sediment during wet year types. 13

18 3.3 Log Deflector Vane Log Deflector Vanes are proposed as part of channel restoration efforts in the Big Bend reach. Deflector Vanes are based on a bendway weir design that consists of a core two log structure (see deflector detail on Sheet C11, Appendix B) pinned by two smaller logs. The structure is designed to invoke channel migration. The authors have installed these structures on Lower Redwood Creek (Marin County) in September 2007 and Bear Valley Creek at Point Reyes National Seashore (October 2012) and they are functioning as intended under flows that have occurred. Based on review of Lagunitas Creek peak flow records over these periods, we estimate the likely flow magnitudes these structures have encountered in Table 3. Based on these data, the Deflector Vanes at Redwood Creek have experienced at least four bankfull flow events (return interval of 2.0-years or greater) while the Bear Valley Creek structure has experienced two. The return interval for flows experienced at both sites ranged between 1.3- and 3.3-years. None of the structures experienced severe erosion and all display significant sediment aggradation and bar formation where logs are exposed along the banks, creating a narrower, increased meandering active flow channel. An evaluation of performance at flows greater than a 3.3-year recurrence interval is pending the occurrence of such flows. TABLE 3. Annual peak flow return intervals for Lagunitas, Bear Valley and Redwood Creeks (WY 2008 through 2014). Water Year (WY) Date Lagunitas Creek (SPT) Peak Flow (cfs) Return Interval (years) 2008 Jan. 04, , Feb. 22, , Jan. 20, , Mar. 20, , Mar. 14, , Dec. 02, , Feb. 209, A total of 4 Deflector Vanes are proposed and would be installed from either bank, depending on how the channel is to be directed. Deflector vanes are space at 80-foot intervals equal to approximately 5-times the bankfull channel width to mimic natural riffle-pool spacing. As a secondary benefit, where possible, Deflector Vane installations are strategically placed just upstream and on the opposite bank from existing large trees in order to direct flow and increase scour and pool depth at the base of the trees. The bottom or weir log is placed in the creek and aligned pointing upstream at an angle of 60-degrees from the host bank. The upstream end of the log is also angled slightly 14

19 downward and buried into the channel bed. The rootwad end in keyed into the channel bank. The exposed (non-buried) portion of the weir log spans from ½ to ¾ of the bankfull channel width. The weir log acts to deflect the bankfull flow. The upper or anchor log acts to pin or secure the weir log. The rootwad end of the anchor log is keyed into the same host bank, protruding into the creek (at a 90-degree angle from bank) and lying across the top of the weir log. The exposed portion of the Anchor log spans roughly 1/3 the bankfull channel width and also acts to obstruct flow. The logs cross each other at a 30-degree angle. The weir log may ultimately get buried in sediment. Two smaller diameter pinning logs (posts driven vertically) were added to the core deflector structure to increase stability and provide additional scour protection. The first pinning log is installed on the downstream side and across the in-stream end of the weir log at a steep, almost vertical angle. The second pinning log is installed on the downstream side and across the root ends of both logs adjacent to the host bank at a similar angle. The second pinning log close to the host bank will have an intact root wad for increased roughness, while the in-stream pinning log will be trimmed and more flush with the weir log so as not to overly disrupt desired flow direction. Initial log dimensions were chosen using a combination of field recommendations, professional expertise and published guidelines. When placed at a 60-degree angle upstream and keyed into the bank a minimum of 8 feet, the total weir log length ranges from 28 to 37 feet. The total length range for the anchor log based on these recommendations is 27 to 34 feet. In order to provide scour protection the pinning logs should be of sufficient length to embed at least 8 feet below the finished bed level. Prior to sediment deposition, the new active channel depth will vary from 4.0- to 5.0-feet, therefore a diameter of at least 2.5-feet is required for both the weir and anchor logs in order to sufficiently cover the depth from toe to top of bank when keyed into the bank to prevent undermining. General guidelines by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (1995) suggest a minimum diameter of 1.8 feet when treating streams with bankfull widths greater than 30 feet. Following the 2004 Stream Habitat Restoration Guidelines (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2004) a log with a minimum length of 19.7 feet and a 2.5 feet diameter is required for a bankfull width of just over 30 feet. Based on results of the force balance analysis, minimum pinning log diameters were calculated at 2.0-feet. Using this information the design dimensions presented in Table 4 were chosen for the ELJS. TABLE 4. Recommended Deflector Vane Log Dimensions ELJs 1-7 Weir Log Anchor Log Post/ Pinning Log 1 Post/ Pinning Log 2 Length (ft) Diameter (ft)

20 3.4 Log Cross-Vane A single log cross-vane is proposed for installation at the upstream end of the Olema Creek reach to act as a bed grade control structure upstream of an existing knick-point, which appears to be migrating upstream, outside of the historic alluvial channel alignment but within a former pasture drainage ditch alignment. This structure is intended to provide a hardpoint to resist erosion. It will be used in combination with a LDRJ installed downstream of the knickpoint as a grade control structure. This later structure (LDRJ) will act as a hydraulic control, creating backwater conditions to reduce energy gradients, reduce erosion and act to trap debris and sediment. The design of the cross-vane detailed on Sheet C11 of the Plans (Appendix B) was developed and installed on Redwood Creek (Marin County) to act as grade control structures is a sediment supply dominated system. The structures are performing well except for some local end cutting around selected structures. This will be better addressed on Olema Creek by widening the overall structure and keying the ends and end members of the structure deeper into both channel banks. However, due to the lack of accurate soil and grain-size information from this site, scour and force balance analyses for this structure were not completed as part of this design. Therefore, prior to construction, the project Engineer will need to complete the necessary field investigations and analyses to finalize log sizes and embedment depths, once the necessary information is available. 3.5 ELJ Design Life The design life of project structures is intended at 10- to 15-years for Bar Apex Jams (BAJ) and Log Debris Retention Jams (LDRJ). Recommended wood types for construction of all structures include cedar and/or Douglas-fir. Decay rates and durability for these types of materials are reported at between 25- and 100-years (Shields and Wood, 2007) or longer if wood remains perpetually saturated. The likely process that will adversely impact structures are excessive hydraulic forces associated with extreme flow events (e.g., 20- to 30-year flood) or channel realignment and abandonment of the structure. In either case, the structures are intended to restore natural process and therefore will have a life-span of similar naturally occurring log jams. The drag forces acting on the LDRJs will likely be highest shortly after construction when large wood and debris build up on the structure face, prior to significant sediment buildup. As observed in the field, a ramp or wedge of sediment will accumulate behind existing channel spanning log-jams on Lagunitas Creek over several years. As this sediment ramp grows in elevation, the hydraulic drag forces acting on the structure will be reduced as exposed cross-sectional structure area is reduced and a large proportion of flow energy is directed over, instead of normal to the structure face. Thus, if the structure 16

21 survives the initial 5-years after construction, its life span may be significantly lengthened past the 15-year design life, especially if the majority of the wood becomes perpetually saturated due to raising bed level. Diversion and Cross Vane structures will likely have a longer life than BAJs and LDRJs and will stay intact for durations driven more by durability/decay of the wood. These structures will be less exposed to excessive hydraulic forces as they have significantly less area exposed and subject to lower drag. Given that a larger proportion of these structures will remain saturated, is not unreasonable for them to last in the range of 50- to 75-years, depending on wood type. Function of these structures will obviously be shortened if completely buried by aggrading sediment. 3.6 High Flow Channel Enhancements During construction, some large wood and vegetation debris removal will be completed along the alignments of targeted high flow side channels to enhance the initial flow of water and energy through them. This material will also serve as rack for BAJ construction. Typically, short alluvial levees have formed across the mouth of side channel inlets or the channel inlets are elevated well above the incised active channel. Limited excavation and lowering of these features may be implemented to enhance the exchange of water from mainstem to side channel. All excavated material will be reused in construction of log structures. At the time of construction, selected minimal grading of the high flow channel bed along its alignment will also be completed to maintain a constant positive slope along the channel alignment and reduce the number of depressions that could become disconnected pools and stand aquatic organisms during receding flows. Future monitoring and maintenance of reactivated high flow channels would follow the protocol set up through the Project Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan as outlined below (Section 6.4, Monitoring and Adaptive Management Planning). However, no long-term or repeated earthwork in high flow channels is intended beyond initial construction. As noted earlier, alluvial levees have formed across the mouths of most existing high flow channel connection points with the mainstem Lagunitas Creek channel. An intended function of the BAJ and LDRJ structures is to alter local flow hydraulics to promote higher energy flow into the high flow channels. BAJs are located in such a way as to block up and constrict the mainstem channel and direct flows on a higher frequency and duration into the high flow channel entrance, promoting higher energy and scour though the junction. Based on model analysis and field reconnaissance of constructed BAJs in Northern California (Rocco Fiori, personal communication, July 2014) and the Pacific Northwest (Abbe & Montgomery, 1996; Herrera, 2006; and McHenry et al., 2007), these structures tend to promote scour through adjacent channel openings and 17

22 reduce the likelihood of levee formation, even during the receding limb of storm hydrographs. In the case of the channel-spanning LDRJ structures, their intended function is to also divert flows into the adjacent high flow channels by damming the channel and promoting mainstem channel aggradation, processes that will divert flows on a more frequent basis into the adjacent high flow channels. These structures more strongly promote the possibility for complete avulsion of the mainstem channel onto the adjacent floodplain. Like the BAJ structures, there is a high probability that these structures will reduce the processes maintaining levees across the adjacent high flow channel inlets. The monitoring/verification of this specific desired function along with proposed remedial measures if the desired conditions are not realized should be incorporated into the longterm Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan. 3.7 Strategies to Address Fish Stranding A focus of the project is to increase the inundation frequency of existing secondary high flow channels. With time, project actions may also convert reaches from a single to multi-thread channel system. These actions may increase the opportunity for stranding of aquatic and semi-aquatic species due to an increase in spatial and temporal habitat area that fish can occupy 1. In order to ensure the project does not preferentially trap and strand organisms, selected elements were designed into the project to minimize stranding potential. It s important to note that the project cannot guarantee stranding will be eliminated, but project designs are intended to minimize stranding potential, arguably to natural background levels. For the most part, the project is aimed at increasing the frequency of inundation of existing high flow channels. No new channels or off-channel impoundments are planned. Currently, channels wet during floods having a 2-year recurrence interval, while the project is designed to activate these channels at flows less than the annual maximum. At the time of construction, high flow channel grades will be established to ensure the channels drain during receding flows, as discussed above. These grades will also allow high flow channels to revert to alcoves that backwater and drain appropriately during high flow events if sediment should build up in the upstream (inlet) end of the side channel. Constructing channel grades that provide positive flow in the secondary high flow channels is facilitated by the existing secondary floodplain channel grades being well elevated above the mainstem channel. However, as indicated above, no long-term or repeated earthwork in high flow channels is intended beyond initial construction. 1 Through years of fishery monitoring and site reconnaissance, MMWD field biologists have not identified stranding of salmonids at a high frequency and do not have any information to indicate it is currently a significant issue limiting populations (Eric Ettlinger and Greg Andrew, personal communication, March 5, 2014). 18

23 4.0 HYDRAULIC ANALYSES As part of project design, KHE developed a series of hydraulic models to study existing and project conditions throughout each project reach. The models were used to compare existing conditions to proposed project conditions. Individual models were prepared for: the Big Bend reach; an integrated reach including upstream and downstream of McIsaac Creek; the Fern Rock reach; the 449 Creek reach; and the Olema Creek project reach. The HEC-RAS models were used primarily to quantify and evaluate water level changes associated with project structures and the capacity to direct water into adjacent high flow channels. Model configuration and simulation results are provided in Appendix D. 4.1 Project Topography In order to develop model geometry, KHE completed site specific land-based elevation surveys at each of the project sites to augment available LiDAR data provided by MMWD. Because there was no survey control available at any of the sites, local controls (rebar stakes) we set, surveyed by GPS and used to establish rough northing and easting coordinates. KHE established at least three (3) rebar survey control points at each survey site. These control points are intended to be used to facilitate construction surveying and grade staking/checking and coordinates will be provided to the Contractor at time of construction. Land marks such as road edges, telephone poles, notable trees, tributary confluences, etc. were also surveyed to assist in rotating/shifting survey data into the LiDAR and aerial photography projection. Project site surveys were tied to the LiDAR and MMWD longitudinal profile vertical datum by shooting common site features such as bedrock control, bar apexes and known land features (e.g., roads). Based on data processing and synthesis, we estimate that vertical survey elevations were within 0.25-foot of LiDAR and MMWD longitudinal profile elevations. However, all KHE field surveys covered the entire limits of each project site and grade matching to existing LiDAR only occurred around project margins. Resulting topography has been integrated into all design sheets. Some large areas of floodplain in and around the high flow channels have also been surveyed and associated topography revised. 4.2 Sediment and Large Wood Characteristics No sediment studies apart from synthesizing available information were included in the scope of the project design work. MMWD has completed numerous long-term studies to characterize (size, composition, etc.) and quantify sediment conditions (yield and transport) in the Lagunitas Creek watershed. These data and findings were utilized to assist in project design as summarized below. Unfortunately, there is a lack of available sediment composition and yield data for Olema Creek. Peripheral information regarding 19

24 the supply and behavior of large wood in Lagunitas Creek is also provided in several reports Sediment Grain-Size MMWD has conducted annual sediment condition studies on Lagunitas Creek between the periods and More recently, MMWD has also contracted numerous studies related to understanding and managing sediment in the watershed. Of particular use to project design scour and force balance analyses is the characterization of bed grain size. Sediment grain size data for riffles within the Big Bend and McIsaac Creek site reaches was taken from Balance Hydrologics (2010), which summarizes streambed monitoring results for Sediment grain size data for riffles within the Big Bend, McIsaac, Fern Rock and 449 Creek sites is more dated, coming from HEA s 1983 report. Grain size data for each project reach is presented in Table 5. TABLE 5. Riffle Grain Size for Project Reaches (measurement in millimeters; mm) KN: Fern Rock 1 KO: 449 Creek 1 KD: Big Bend 1 KF: McIsaac 1 KD: Big Bend 2 KF: McIsaac 2 D50 D84 D50 D84 D50 D84 D50 D84 D50 D84 D50 D Avg. (mm) Sources: Balance Hydrologics, Inc., HEA,

25 4.2.2 Sediment Yield Cover (2012) provides a good introductory summary of the current sediment supply conditions within Lagunitas Creek as follows. Historic land use changes and management practices are believed to have had large impacts on stream channel conditions in the Lagunitas Creek watershed as a result of changes in the supply and transport of sediment. For example, large portions of the channel network in aggradational environments have undergone channel incision, transforming complex, multichannel fluvial ecosystems into simple, single-thread channels that are disconnected from their historic floodplains. This pervasive process of incision is likely a result of a combination of factors including reductions in wood loading to channels, direct modification of channels including the removal of wood, changes in watershed hydrology associated with timber harvest and agriculture, and ubiquitous changes in grassland composition and soil compaction from grazing and agriculture. Currently, sediment input is believed to be elevated by a factor of 2-10 times over natural levels across much of the watershed (Stillwater Sciences 2010), although dams block a large amount of coarse sediment from entering the mainstem of Lagunitas Creek. Despite the reduced supply of sediment below the dams, the delivery of large amounts of fine sediment from tributaries combined with a lack of flushing flows appear to be important controls on bed conditions in Lagunitas Creek, which have fined in recent years (Balance Hydrologics, Inc., 2010) Stillwater (2010) and Cover (2012) provide estimates of annual sediment yields for the Lagunitas Creek watershed. Based on their analysis of available sediment transport data from the USGS, Stillwater report annual yields of 339- and 715-tons/sq. mi. at the Samuel P. Taylor and Point Reyes gauges. Balance (2010) report that with the notable exception of the debris flows and the Big Bend meander cutoff, sediment enters Lagunitas Creek almost exclusively through tributaries and through localized changes in stream course. Under normal circumstances, very little sediment is mobilized from the banks of Lagunitas Creek itself, which in most locations are heavily vegetated or rocky. Tributaries appear to be one set of primary sources of coarse sediment. Balance (2010) also reports that sediment delivery varies considerably from year to year in all tributaries. Cover (2012) reports annual sediment yields from tributary channels located upstream of the Nicassio Creek confluence range from 420- to 969-tons/sq. mi., while Stillwater report yields as high as 1300-tons/sq. mi. from within the Nicassio Creek watershed, albeit the majority of this sediment is likely trapped within the reservoir. Findings presented by Balance (2010) also indicate that sediment yields and bed conditions within the design reach of Lagunitas Creek have fluctuated significantly over 21

26 the monitoring period. Most relevant to the proposed project sites, especially Big Bend and McIsaac sites, is the recent history of episodes at Big Bend. Balance (2010) report the following. Three major channel-shifting episodes at Big Bend in 1995, 1996, and 1997 delivered large volumes of coarse sediment, particularly large particles stored in basal alluvial deposits, which progressively moved downstream to and through Tocaloma. Collectively, these can be considered a major set of episodic events which introduced the equivalent of 5 to 10 years of expected bedload sediment delivery and probably several decades of the larger, matrix-forming particles critical to bed habitat. We believe it highly likely that the extensive 1- to 2-foot aggradation observed at most points downstream induced reach-scale sudden collapse of the mature riparian alder gallery, causing further localized bank erosion, formation of numerous transient logjams and a slight general widening of the channel. The effects of these events are continuing, albeit at a diminishing scale, as the central alluvial terrace at Big Bend is being progressively downcut and dissected, mobilizing stored alluvium accumulated over many years into the lower portion of the study reach. We believe that the aggradational pulse generated by these events induced waterlogging and collapse of the mature riparian gallery of alders, introducing additional coarse sediment into Lagunitas Creek. In addition to delivery of coarse material from the tributaries, sediment mobilized at Big Bend has raised the bed of Lagunitas Creek downstream to at least Tocaloma. The associated coarse-sediment influx has overwhelmed all other influences on bed conditions Large Wood Dynamics Since the mid-1990 s episodes at Big Bend, Balance (2010) reports that the amount of sediment seems to have decreased in the project reaches, while there has been a substantial increase in the amount of large wood in the channel and on the Lagunitas Creek floodplain. They speculate that this has led to an increased role of wood in influencing bed conditions. Over this time, MMWD has also increased the number of man-made ELJs into the system. With more wood entering the stream and less being removed, Balance provides the following statements. The channel has become distinctly more diverse. Localized accumulation and scour related to dragging large wood, scour at logjams or structures, or backwaters from accumulation at bridges or bedrock outcrops have become increasingly significant factors in habitat conditions at any given point in the channel. 22

27 The wood structures, both constructed and natural, are an important new aspect of the geomorphology of Lagunitas Creek, particularly since Balance hypothesize that these changes may also play a significant role in salmonid and freshwater shrimp habitat. Excerpts from their 2010 report that relate this hypothesis include the following. Seemingly significantly, use by the species of concern changes near this transition; virtually all salmonid spawning occurs upstream of Tocaloma Bridge, and the large, stable populations of Syncaris are now found downstream of the bridge. We believe it plausible that the progressive downstream shift in Syncaris populations (Serpa 2004, 2006) may reflect in large part the pulse of sedimentation that has affected the lower portion of the study reach, and urge biologists to consider this among other potential explanations and contribution factors to the re-distribution of the shrimp Implications on Project Performance Based on field observations and information provided in sedimentation studies, it appears that although heavily regulated by dams, Lagunitas Creek is not a sediment starved system, but the entrenched and confined nature of the channel is efficient at transporting the sediment through the project reaches. Balance (2010) reports that significant sediment movement within the project reaches starts at about 300 cfs during most years and scouring of many Lagunitas Creek pools seems to begin at about 600 to 800 cfs. Balance also documents their observations about the increased sediment trapping by large wood and resulting desirable geomorphic and aquatic habitat conditions a goal of this design project. The proposed project ELJs are designed to trap sediment, debris and large wood. The authors of this report have designed and participated in the construction of the Diversion Vane, Bar Apex Jam and Cross Vane structures within Central and North Coast watersheds of California. These structures have yielded the desired habitat improvements under equilibrium and transport limited (supply dominated) systems. Based on the habitat improvements observed and reported at natural and man-made log jams on Lagunitas Creek, project structures should achieve the desired project objective as long as they are constructed in a stable fashion. It s worth noting again here that project actions could lead to bifurcation or complete avulsion of the active creek channel due to sediment and wood buildup at project structures. This is recognized as a possible and acceptable outcome associated with a 23

28 return of natural hydrologic process. In fact this could be considered a desirable outcome as it would lead to increased desired winter rearing habitat through creation of side channels or alcoves Anticipated Morphology Changes at Treatment Sites. Although much of the channel at proposed project sites display incised conditions, likely a result of upstream dam formation altered hydrology, Balance reports (2010) that Lagunitas Creek channel tends to change relatively little over recent ( ) time. The banks are generally stable and generally minor elevation changes of the bed occur over time as sediment is accumulated or depleted. Superimposed on this fairly stable bed morphology are episodic inputs of sediment and generation of large wood in response to large volumes of course sediment at Big Bend (e.g., ). Balance estimates that 5 to 10 years of expected bedload sediment are introduced during these episodic events, which leads to 1- to 2-feet of aggradation at points downstream of Big Bend. This aggradation is reported to cause reach-scale collapse (drowning) of mature riparian alder trees and subsequent logjam formation, local bank erosion and sediment trapping. It is important to note that within the project reaches, no long-term channel degradation has been reported by Balance (2010) and we don t anticipate that prolonged or excessive channel erosion occur at these sites apart from channel recovery after excessive sediment accumulation during episodic events. Currently, all project sites on Lagunitas Creek display an incised character, but are generally in a state of dynamic equilibrium with the hydrologic and sediment yield/transport processes. Although the channel reach at and immediately downstream of Tocaloma Bridge is aggraded, no projects proposed herein are located in this reach. Based on our understanding of the current and recent hydrologic and geomorphic conditions, we predict that the proposed projects will respond as follows to future episodic pulses of sediment and large woody debris. Big Bend The Big Bend site is located immediately downstream of Big Bend and will experience significant sediment loading during future wet-year episodic sediment loading events. It is anticipated that the log deflector jams will perform and respond favorably in response to such events, with coarse material gravel bars building upstream and downstream of exposed logs and a more pronounced low flow channel being created around the point of the structures in response to constricted/deflected flow around bar/jam formation. During low flow and sediment delivery periods, the alternating bars/jams will persist and maintain a meandering active flow channel a desired transformation through this uniform and persistent glide. 24

29 The bar apex jam proposed at the downstream end of the project is designed to persist through large flow events and will also promote desired scour in the front and sediment accumulation on the downstream side. This structure is also designed to deflect flows onto the adjacent floodplain and promote high flow channel formation. In the event either the deflector vanes or bar apex jams are overwhelmed with sediment during an episodic event, it is anticipated that moderate high flows in subsequent years will erode excess material and structures will evolve back to a desired state, as has been observed through this reach over recent historic episodic events. McIsaac Upstream, McIsaac Downstream and 449 Creek Sites The bar apex jams (BAJ) at the McIsaac Upstream and Downstream project locations as well as 440 Creek site will perform and respond to episodic sediment loadings in a similar fashion to the Big Bend BAJ as described above. The debris retention jam (LDRJ) proposed at this site will respond favorably to periods of high sediment and debris loading as they are designed to capture wood and build instream jams that will also lead to upstream sediment trapping and bed aggradation. These structures should retain these materials during normal or drier years. Upon reaching a more developed stage of log jam formation, scour holes downstream of the structure could be more pronounced and will introduce more pool habitat. Fern Rock and 449 Creek The Fern Rock and 449 Creek project sites are located downstream of the current aggraded Tocaloma channel reach and display a distinct incised, but stable/equilibrium condition. It is anticipated that the desired LDRJ structures and bed aggradation may take longer to develop at these sites as they are less influenced by the large episodic sediment/debris inputs from Big Bend. However, field reconnaissance and high flow observations indicate that there is adequate woody debris and sediment transport through the reach to promote logjam and bed aggradation over time to drive overbank flows into adjacent high flow channels. The biggest concern at this site is that with greater flow directed into high flow channels will come more sediment delivery and potential aggradation in the side channels. However, if the log jams and aggraded bed persists, they will continue to promote connection between the floodplain and channel and maintain natural dynamic processes of channel formation, aggradation and migration. These structures are not intended to promote a static channel alignment, but to restore natural dynamic geomorphic processes, that will in turn, enhance winter rearing habitat. Olema Creek The Olema Creek site is the only site that is undergoing active aggradation/incision. The upstream log cross-vane proposed at this site is intended to halt the upstream migration of an active knick-point. The downstream LDRJ s are intended to trap debris and sediment 25

30 in order to aggrade the incised channel. Obviously, the success of this design relies on a constant sediment supply, especially given the long (>500 feet) length of currently incised channel. If for some reason the sediment supply is short-circuited around this reach, recovery will be slowed if not halted. 4.3 HEC-RAS Model Configuration Using the HEC-RAS code, KHE prepared one-dimensional steady flow models for each of the project reaches consistent with the river stationing provided on Project Plans (Appendix B). Required inputs for a HEC-RAS model include: channel cross-sections; Manning s roughness coefficients; and design flows along the project reach. The channel cross-sectional data input is derived from the site specific surveys discussed above. An active channel Manning s roughness coefficient of 0.04 was used in the model along with an overbank roughness coefficient of 0.15, characterizing the densely vegetated channel and overbank areas. These values were based on field observations at the site and methods outlined by Arcement and Schneider (1989) and model calibration adjustments to match high flow water levels observed at selected areas in early 2012 over a range of normal winter storm high flows. Estimated coefficients were also confirmed through comparison with published values (Barnes, 1967; Chow, 1959; Limerinos, 1970; and Coon, 1998). The integration and simulation of log structures was accomplished through defining scaled obstructions and ineffective flow areas in the cross sectional geometry. The addition of appropriately spaced cross-sectional profiles were necessary to capture structure lengths and integrate associated energy loss coefficients in the form of expansion and contraction coefficients. Under existing condition simulations, all expansion and contraction coefficients were set to standard values of 0.3 and 0.1, respectively. Within the estimated influence of BAJ and LDRJ log structures, these coefficients were increased to 0.5 and 0.3, respectively, and represent the effects similar to a confining bridge crossing with square-edger pier (Brunner, 2010; Henderson, 1966). No change to the coefficients were made in simulating the Diversion and Cross Vane structures at these are not considered to impart a significant change in channel conditions at high flows. 4.4 Design Flow Estimates / Boundary Conditions Based on the flood frequency analysis presented in the 2013 Winter Habitat Assessment Report for the USGS gauge in Samuel P. Taylor Park, design flows for the Lagunitas Creek reaches were calculated for winter baseflow, annual (Q1.01 or flow having a 1.0- year recurrence interval), bankfull range (Q1.5 to Q2 or peaks flows having a 1.5 and 2.0- year recurrence interval), Q10 through Q100 (see Table 6). Peak flows for each event were adjusted from the SPT values to reach specific values by applying a unit area correction 26

31 (ratio) factor. These flows target the range intended to be directed on a more regular basins into project side channels and onto project area floodplains. Peak flow estimates for Olema Creek were also derived by correlation to the Lagunitas Creek flows. These values were compared to a variety of 2-year peak flow estimates generated by KHE as part of the Giacomini Wetland Restoration design. The Q2 values were found to be within reasonable agreement. TABLE 6. Design Flow Estimates DA sq. mi. DA ratio to SPT baseflow cfs Q1.01 cfs SPT Big Bend US McIsaac DS McIsaac Fern Rock Cr Olema Cr Q1.5 cfs Q2.0 cfs Q5 cfs Q10 cfs Q25 cfs Q50 cfs Q100 cfs For the downstream boundary condition, downstream normal depth was assumed to occur with slope calculated from project site surveys. The Manning s equation is used to estimate a stage for each computed flow, which uses water surface slope, in this case same as the channel slope, downstream of the project. Based on the characteristics of the channel geometry, the model was run entirely under subcritical conditions. 4.5 Velocity Head Calculations and Predicted Water Surface Elevations Comparison of the HEC-RAS simulated existing condition and project water surface elevations indicate that all structures are effective in raising water surface elevations. However, the difference in existing and project condition HEC-RAS results only represent the change in water level associated with change in flow conveyance area. When creek flows impinge on an immovable object, there is a rapid hydraulic transformation of the velocity head component into elevation head, resulting in a rise in water level in front of the obstruction (i.e., in layman s terms, a piling up of water). Thus, another step in our analysis is to compute the velocity head elevation change associated with flow impinging on the upstream side of each log structure. This calculation uses the Bernoulli equation to convert simulated structure approach velocity into elevation rise. The HEC-RAS simulated water levels, project velocities and velocity head calculations are provided in Appendix D. The sum of the HEC-RAS project water 27

32 levels added to the velocity head elevation change result in the estimated water surface elevation immediately upstream of project structures. Calibrated existing and project condition water level rating curves developed through modeling of the main channel near upstream and downstream ends of each project channel over the design flows area also provided in Appendix D. Table 7 presents a comparison of simulated existing and final project water surface elevations for selected design flows. These results indicate that project structures are effective at increasing water levels upstream of the structures by an average of 0.75-feet to over 2-feet at many structures during annual and bankfull flow magnitudes. For comparison, target side channel inlet elevations ( High Flow Inlet Crest Elev. Ft NAVD88 ) are also presented in Table 7 and provide a reference for which design flows will overtop banks/levees and enter these channels. 28

33 TABLE 7: Predicted Existing and Project Condition Water Surface Elevations PROJECT REACH BIG BEND BIG BEND BIG BEND BIG BEND BIG BEND BIG BEND BIG BEND BIG BEND BIG BEND LOG STRUCTURE TYPE DIVERSION LOG STRU CT I.D. TOP EL. OF LOG STRUCT (FT NAVD88) BASEFL OW DESIGN FLOW (CFS) Q1.01 DESI GN FLO W (CFS) Q1.5 DESI GN FLO W (CFS) Q2.0 DESI GN FLO W (CFS) HIGH FLOW INLET CREST EL. (FT NAVD88) Baseflow EXISTIN G W.S. EL. (FT NAVD88) Q1.01 EXISTIN G W.S. EL. (FT NAVD88) Q1.5 EXISTIN G W.S. EL. (FT NAVD88) Q2.0 EXISTIN G W.S. EL. (FT NAVD88) Baseflow PROJEC T W.S. EL. (FT NAVD88) Q1.01 PROJEC T W.S. EL. (FT NAVD88) Q1.5 PROJEC T W.S. EL. (FT NAVD88) Q2.0 PROJEC T W.S. EL. (FT NAVD88) VANE DV8 N/A NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA DIVERSION VANE DV7 N/A NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA DIVERSION VANE DV6 N/A NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA DIVERSION VANE DV5 N/A NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA DIVERSION VANE DV4 N/A NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA DIVERSION VANE DV3 N/A NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA DIVERSION VANE DV2 N/A NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA DIVERSION VANE DV1 N/A NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA BAR APEX JAM BAJ U.S. MCISAAC U.S. MCISAAC U.S. MCISAAC BAR APEX JAM BAJ DEBRIS RET. JAM LDRJ DEBRIS RET. JAM LDRJ D.S. MCISAAC BAR APEX JAM BAJ FERN ROCK FERN ROCK FERN ROCK FERN ROCK DEBRIS RET. JAM LDRJ DEBRIS RET. JAM LDRJ DEBRIS RET. JAM LDRJ DEBRIS RET. JAM LDRJ

34 PROJEC T REACH 449 CREEK 449 CREEK LOG STRUCTURE TYPE DEBRIS RET. LOG STRUCT I.D. TOP EL. OF LOG STRUCT (FT NAVD88 ) BASEFL OW DESIGN FLOW (CFS) Q1.01 DESIG N FLOW (CFS) Q1.5 DESIG N FLOW (CFS) Q2.0 DESIG N FLOW (CFS) HIGH FLOW INLET CREST EL. (FT NAVD88) Baseflow EXISTING W.S. EL. (FT NAVD88) Q1.01 EXISTING W.S. EL. (FT NAVD88) Q1.5 EXISTING W.S. EL. (FT NAVD88) Q2.0 EXISTING W.S. EL. (FT NAVD88) Baseflow PROJECT W.S. EL. (FT NAVD88) Q1.01 PROJECT W.S. EL. (FT NAVD88) Q1.5 PROJECT W.S. EL. (FT NAVD88) Q2.0 PROJECT W.S. EL. (FT NAVD88) JAM LDRJ BAR APEX JAM BAJ OLEMA CR. CROSS-VANE CV1 N/A NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA OLEMA CR. DEBRIS RET. JAM LDRJ NA OLEMA CR. DEBRIS RET. JAM LDRJ NA OLEMA CR. DEBRIS RET. JAM LDRJ NA OLEMA CR. DEBRIS RET. JAM LDRJ NA OLEMA CR. DEBRIS RET. JAM LDRJ NA OLEMA CR. DEBRIS RET. JAM LDRJ NA Note: NA = not applicable 30

35 4.6 HEC-RAS Model Sensitivity Because of flow regulation by dams on Lagunitas Creek, the magnitude of daily and peak flow variability has been reduced, creating a narrow vertical amplitude in peak flow water levels compared to unimpaired conditions. The success of all log jam installations relies on creating an increased water level during annual and bankfull flows in order to reactivate the floodplain and high flow channels as desired. As indicated in the comparison of existing and project condition modeled flow rating curves at proposed log jam sites (see Appendix D), the anticipated and desired change in water level elevations during peak flow periods generally range from 1- to 2-feet. Based on simulation iteration results, the single most important variable in achieving the desired increase in elevation was a reduction in cross-sectional flow area associated with construction of log jams. Variables such as slope and channel roughness were not significant in affecting the simulated water level change as they are relatively consistent between existing condition and project simulations. In fact, simulated changes in water level elevation at each site can be considered conservative (minimal) estimates, as model runs do not account for bed aggradation in front of log structures, especially the log debris retention jams. Thus, as long as the debris structures are stable and function as intended, model results are deemed reliable and the desired target water levels will be achieved. 31

36 5.0 DESIGN ANALYSES 5.1 Force Balance Assessment All log structures proposed for the project rely on driving vertical posts or placement of soil ballast to counteract the buoyant forces acting on individual logs or the entire structure (i.e., no rock/boulder ballast is proposed, only soil ballast). In order to design stable and long-lasting structures, a force balance assessment was completed to evaluate the forces of buoyancy, gravity, drag, and friction acting on all log structures. Structure stability was quantified by using a factor of safety (FS) estimate as the ratio of resisting forces to driving forces. All structures were designed to attain a minimum FS of 1.5 with an ideal target FS of 2.0 or greater Analytical Approach and Methods The Force Balance Assessment (FBA) followed the approach, methods and equations presented in Abbe and Brooks (2011), D Aoust and Millar (2000), and U.S. Department of Agriculture s technical notes on Incorporation of Large Wood into Engineering Structures (NRCS, 2001). Log structures were analyzed to determine if they meet the required factors of safety (FS) for buoyancy (risk of floating), drag (risk of moving downstream) and post strength. The required key-in depths were determined using scour analysis as described in the next section. The following individual force balance analyses/computations were performed on each structure and considered cumulatively to evaluate the stability of proposed in-stream structures. Driving Forces 1. Buoyance analysis (vertical) 2. Horizontal drag force (drag/sliding in horizontal) Resisting Forces 3. Log Structure (post) skin friction (horizontal) 4. Post horizontal resistance force (horizontal) 5. Post strength (horizontal) The theory, equations and results of the FBA are presented in Appendix E. Much of the hydraulic information used in calculations was taken from the HEC-RAS model output presented in Appendix D. Values for wood and alluvium specific gravity were taken from field observations and the literature. 32

37 5.1.2 Force Balance Analysis Results The five (5) individual force balance analyses were completed in an iterative fashion in order to design each structure in a stable manner so that resisting forces counteract driving forces to a desired Factor of Safety (FS). Tables 8 through 10 summarize the results of the force balance analyses of the three primary ELJ structures (Bar Apex Jam [BAJ], Diversion Vane [DV] and Log Debris Retention Jam [LDRJ]) incorporated in to the project designs. The analyses were completed on a single representative structure design using conservative estimates of structure dimensions, sediment conditions and impinging forces from hydraulic modeling results. Based on these results, specifications for structure material sizes and depths of embedment were derived as summarized in Table 11. Results of the BAJ force balance analysis (Table 8) indicate this to be a stable structure as designed as it attains FS s well above a ratio of 2 in all aspects of design. The stability of this structure comes from the large volume of soil ballast and post skin friction integrated in to the design, which provides a FS of 3.22 against buoyancy. Although only the lower 5 feet of post embedment was considered in the FBA, each could also be considered embedded through the entire 15-foot thickness of the structure. In evaluating HEC-RAS model results, simulated average Q25 velocities for all structures on Lagunitas Creek, with the exception of LDRJ5 at Fern Rock, ranged from 6.8- to 9.3- ft/s. The Q25 flow event is likely the best representation of the project design flood. The Q25 flow velocity at LDRJ5 is 10.3-ft/s. Simulated average velocities for flows through the Q100 event were under 12.0-ft/s at the vast majority of project sites. Simulated average Q25 flow velocities at Olema Creek structures don t exceed 6.5-ft/s and Q100 velocities were all below 9.0-ft/s. Based on these findings, a design velocity of 10.0-ft/s was used in the force balance analyses. Integrating the structure skin friction and embedded posts, the structure has a FS of 3.58 against drag forces. Posts diameters are sufficiently sized to withstand breaking (FS = 4.70). To further stabilize this structure, large wood members could be cabled or bolted together, however, posts driven vertically with a slight batter to secure underlying logs has proven more than sufficient in securing the structure to behave as one single unit. 33

38 TABLE 8: Bar Apex Jam (BAJ) Force Balance Analysis Results A) Buoyancy (vertical) Force Analysis Lifting Force Analysis (lbs) 1. BAJ Buoyancy Resisting Force (lbs) Factor of Safety (FS) Notes 2. Post Skin Friction (FS) 3. TOTAL BAJ Buoy. + Post FS 129, , , , , Assumes 6 posts (1-ft diam.) of Douglas Fir B) Sliding (horizontal) Force Analysis Drag Force Analysis (lbs) 4. BAJ Sliding 5. Embedded Post Stability 6. TOTAL BAJ Friction + Post Stability C) Wood Post Strength (Breaking) Analysis Calc. Bending Stress of Post (ksi) Analysis 7. Wood Post Strength Resisting Force (lbs) Factor of Safety (FS) 41, , ,200 41, , Max. Bending Stress for Wood (ksi) Factor of Safety (FS) Notes Assumes max. flow velocity of 10- ft/s 6 posts with 10 embedment Notes Assumes 6 posts (1-ft diam.) of Douglas Fir The DV, as designed and specified herein, also attains the desired FS of greater than 2.0 (see Table 9). Although there is little soil ballast associated with this structure, embedding the key members and pinning them with vertical posts provide a FS of 5.84 against floating and a FS of 3.05 against drag and sliding. The lower profile of this structure reduces the overall drag forces. Posts diameters are sufficiently sized to withstand breaking (FS = 13.12). Observations of DVs installed to similar specifications at other local area sites also indicate these are stable structures (see Section 3.3). 34

39 TABLE 9: Diversion Vane (DV) Force Balance Analysis Results A) Buoyancy (vertical) Force Analysis Lifting Force Analysis (lbs) Resisting Force (lbs) Factor of Safety (FS) Notes 8. DV Buoyancy 9. Post Skin Friction (FS) 10. TOTAL DV Buoy. + Post FS 13,632 8, ,266 13,632 79, Assumes 50% of logs covered with soil ballast to avg. depth of 2.0-ft Assumes 2 posts (2-ft diam.) of Douglas Fir B) Sliding (horizontal) Force Analysis Drag Force Analysis (lbs) 11. DV Sliding 12. Embedded Posts & Embedded Weir Log 13. TOTAL DV Friction + Post Stability C) Wood Post Strength (Breaking) Analysis Calc. Bending Stress of Post (ksi) Analysis 14. Wood Post Strength Resisting Force (lbs) Factor of Safety (FS) 1,913 negligible ,913 5, Max. Bending Stress for Wood (ksi) Factor of Safety (FS) Notes Assumes max. flow velocity of 7.5-ft/s 2 posts with 8.0 embedment; assumes Pinning Log embedded min. of 6.5-feet Notes Assumes 2 posts (1-ft diam.) of Douglas Fir The LDRJ structure was the most challenging structure to design in a manner to achieve an acceptable FS. Although post skin friction is an order of magnitude greater than structure buoyancy, providing a FS of 10.8, overcoming the drag forces associated with this channel spanning, 4-foot tall structure took more work. It took the most iterations between individual FSA computations to overcome the drag forces resulting the need for 12 posts with an increased post diameter of 1.5-feet to achieve a FS of 1.53 with respect to horizontal drag. This also required keying in the ends of the structural end members 6- feet into the channel bank. We are confident that modifications to the design could be made to achieve a FS of 2.0 or greater by making one or more of following changes: 35

40 Reduce the number of horizontal structural logs (currently 4) and rely on natural recruitment of material over time to achieve the desired project height and backwater effect. Rotate the horizontal members so that root wads are embedded in channel banks instead of exposed to flow. Increase the number of posts. TABLE 10: Log Debris Retention Jam (LDRJ) Force Balance Analysis Results A) Buoyancy (vertical) Force Analysis Lifting Force Analysis (lbs) 15. LDRJ Buoyancy 16. Post Skin Friction (FS) 17. TOTAL LDRJ Buoy. + Post FS B) Sliding (horizontal) Force Analysis Drag Force Analysis (lbs) 18. LDRJ Sliding 19. Embedded Posts & Embedded Structure Logs 20. TOTAL Embedded Structure Log & Post C) Wood Post Strength (Breaking) Analysis Calc. Bending Stress of Post (ksi) Analysis 21. Wood Post Strength Resisting Force (lbs) Factor of Safety (FS) 24, ,766 24, , Resisting Force (lbs) Factor of Safety (FS) 12,696 negligible , ,600 12,696 19, Max. Bending Stress for Wood (ksi) Factor of Safety (FS) Notes Assumes 4 horizontal logs with rootwads Assumes 7 posts (1-ft diam.) of Douglas Fir Notes At time of construction; assumes 50% permeable 12 posts with 10.0 embedment; assumes horizontal logs embedded min. 6- feet into bank At time of construction; assumes 50% permeable structure Notes Assumes 12 posts (1-ft diam.) of Douglas Fir 36

41 TABLE 11: Specifications for Log Structures Structure Type # Vert. Posts Min. Dia. Posts (ft) Post Embed. Depth (ft) # Strctl.l/ Filler Logs Dia. Structural Logs (ft) Strctl. Log Embed. Depth (ft) Assumed Scour Depth (ft) BAJ / DV / LDRJ / Channel Scour Analysis In order to design stable log structures, an estimate of potential long-term scour around those structure is necessary. Channel bed scour at the proposed instream log structures was evaluated using a variety of equations depending on the type of structure and hydraulic process driving scour. Different types of scour are driven by the hydraulic processes associated with flow into and around an instream structure/obstruction. In many cases, the total scour experienced at a structure is the sum of multiple types of scour generated by a single structure. For this project, contraction, pier, abutment and plunging scour were evaluated at each structure, as described below. In order to substantiate analytical scour estimates, a literature review was completed to identify and summarize measured depth of residual pools that form in response to ELJ construction Analytical Approach and Methods The following scour analyses were performed on project structures. The theory and mathematical equations used to quantify scour at project structures is presented in Appendix F. Contraction Scour: This type of scour is induced by concentrated flow through a constriction. The BAJ and LDRJ structures decrease the channel flow area and result in possible contraction scour on the local bed and banks. Contraction scour was estimated using the modified Laursen equation for live-bed scour as presented in FHWA s Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 18 (Chapter 6, HEC- 18; FHWA, 2012a). Contraction scour was computed within HEC-RAS. Pier Scour: Pier scour considers flow around both sides of an obstruction. Pier Scour equations were used to quantify the local scour associated with flow obstruction induced by the BAJ and LDRJ structures under clear water in noncohesive sediment mixtures. A modified version of the Colorado State University (CSU) equation (the CSU equation is also referred to as FHWA s HEC-18 equation) was used for to quantify pier scour for this study (FHWA, 2012b). Pier scour was computed within HEC-RAS 37

42 Abutment Scour: Abutment scour differs from pier scour in that it only considers/reflects flow around only one side of an obstruction. However, a standard approach to estimating scour around an engineered log jam is determined by treating the ELJ like an abutment in the flow provided it extends vertically from the bed of the stream to a least bankfull flow and is relatively impermeable. Two methods were used to estimate abutment scour. a) The modified Froehlich equation, as presented in HEC-18 (FHWA, 2012a) and computed within HEC-RAS was used to quantify live-bed abutment scour around Log Diversion Vane structures, the only project elements considered to experience abutment scour. b) Karaki s and Richardson s equation for scour at an abutment as presented in Julien (2002). Plunging Scour: For purposes of this study, plunge scour is the vertical bed scour caused by plunging water that over-tops the drop structures as a result of energy dissipation and turbulence at the bed of the drop. Plunging scour for LDRJs, LDVs, and log cross vanes was estimated from the method of Bormann and Julien and presented in Julien (2002). Total Scour: As indicated above, contraction, pier and abutment scour are calculated within HEC-RAS and summed together to estimate the total scour at the modeled structure. In lieu of completing scour analyses, the NRCS (2001) also provide a simple empirical equation (rule of thumb) to estimate scour at/around ELJs, where depth of scour is equal to 2.5-times the height of the structure above bed elevation for gravel or cobble bed streams and 3.5-times the height for sand bed streams Literature Review A literature review was completed to identify and report measured scour depths associated with ELJ installations. Dozens of post-project monitoring reports and paper were obtained and reviewed that provide measured residual scour estimates associated with ELJ structures. The vast majority provided only qualitative information regarding pool/scour depths at recently installed ELJ structures. However, the following are reported summaries of measured pool depths from 6 reports/papers addressing constructed ELJs of varying form in the Pacific Northwest. 38

43 Log Debris Retention Jams (LDRJ) Fiori (2012) installed opposing log jams on East Fork Mill Creek in the Klamath River watershed in After bankfull flow in March 2009, which contributed significant racking to form a porous channel spanning structure, Fiori reported residual pool depth of 1.82 meters (6.0 feet). This structure most closely resembles our proposed LDRJ. As part of their study, Brummer et al., (2006) completed channel surveys on almost a dozen rivers throughout Washington State to quantify vertical changes in bed elevations in association with log jams. Most logjams are channel or near-channel spanning. Their results are summarized in Table 1 below and indicate that residual scour pool depth behind such jams generally range from 1 to 2 meters (3.3 to 6.6 feet). There figures are probably most applicable to the channel spanning LDRJ structures proposed on Lagunitas and Olema Creeks (this project). 39

44 Bar Apex Jams (BAJ) Abbe and Montgomery (1996) reports findings from naturally occurring bar apex jams (BAJ), bar top jams (BTJ) and meander jams (MJ) on Queets River basin located on the west slope of the Olympic Mountains in north-west Washington State. Abbe and Montgomery report the project bank-full flow (Q1.5) of 1824 m3/s. Presented below is Figure 3 from the Abbe and Montgomery report (1996), which presents the frequency distribution of (residual) depth of pools associated with LWD on the Queets River as reported by Abbe and Montgomery (1996). This graphic indicates that the central tendency of pool depth ranges from 1.0- to 2.5-meters (3.3- to 8.2-feet). Abbe and Montgomery also report that the largest and deepest pools surveyed were adjacent to MJs. Observed residual pool depths at example BAJs ranged from to 1.35-meters (3.6- to 4.4-feet). Herrera Environmental Consultants report the results of several ELJ installation projects in their 2006 report (Herrera, 2006). On the North Fork Stillaguamish River project in Washington State, five ELJs were constructed in 1998, four MJs and one BAJ. Estimates of the 1- and 5- year recurrence interval peak flows are 258 and 425- cfs, respectively. Each of the five ELJs has formed and maintained sour pools ranging from 2 to 4 meters (6.5 to 13.1 feet) in depth. Again, the deepest scour is associated with the MJ type structure. Pess et al. (1998) report that immediately after ELJ construction, residual pool depth in the treatment reach increased from an average of 0.4 meters (1.3 feet) before ELJ construction to 1.5 meters (4.9 feet) after construction. 40

45 McHenry et al., (2007) present findings of measured residual pool depth for a suite of ELJs constructed on the Elwha River, a 313 square mile watershed on the Olympic Peninsula of Washington state. The authors evaluated 18 ELJs consisting of BAJs and log deflector vanes (LDV), constructed in the lower watershed between 1999 and Figures 10 through 12 of their report (presented below) summarize their findings for studies focused in locations where 5 ELJs were constructed within existing pool habitats (Figure 10) and 13 ELJs were constructed at sites lacking preexisting pools (Figure 11). A frequency distribution for maximum pool depth of all 18 ELJs in presented in Figure 12. McHenry et al., make no distinction between pool depth at BAJs and LDVs. Pool depths associated with ELJs constructed at sites lacking preexisting pools (Figure 12) are probably most comparable to the Lagunitas Creek sites proposed in this study. These results suggest that pools associated with the Elwha River ELJs have a central tendency towards a 4 to 6 foot pool depth. 41

46 42

47 Log Diversion Vanes (LDV) As part of their study, Lacey and Millar completed field surveys of bed conditions on the Chilliwack River (1230 square kilometer drainage) in the Cascade Mountain Range in northwestern Washington and across the border into southern British Columbia. The bank full flow for the project site was estimated at between 180 and 205 cubic meters per second (6300 to 7175 cfs). Their project included the analysis of eight diversion vane-type ELJs or varying size. Up to 0.43 meters (1.4 feet) of scour was measured, with the deepest scour holes located adjacent to the apex of the multiple-lwd triangular groin structure Estimated Scour Table 12 presents a summary of scour analysis results by log structure type along with measurements of scour depths completed by the authors or found in the literature. A full presentation of analytical scour methods, equations and results are presented in Appendix F. The HEC-RAS and Abutment methods of computing scour are considered well elevated out of actual scour values for these structures. The equations for these methods were developed to estimate scour at bridges and are probably not well suited for log structures of considerable different scale (esp. width) and shape. The NRCS method, is a general (conservative) rule of thumb developed from empirical observations, but is based on a single structure height. The Plunging scour estimates for DV and LDRJ structures appear most similar measured values. Based on professional judgment and a biased towards empirical data, the estimates for anticipated scour at each structure used for design purposes are presented in the bottom line of Table 12 and include 8.0-feet for Bar Apex Jams, 2.5-feet for Diversion Vanes and 5.0 to 6.0-feet for the Log Debris Retention Jams. These design values fall within published residual pool depths for similar type ELJ structures. 43

48 TABLE 12. Summary of Scour Analysis Results (computed scour depths if feet) BAJ 7 DV 7 LDRJ 7 Method Q 2 Q 10 Q 25 Q 2 Q 10 Q 25 Q 2 Q 10 Q 25 HEC-RAS Abutment NRCS Plunging 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Measured Literature Design Est Notes: 1. HEC-RAS: total scour computed from HEC-RAS scour analysis. 2. Abutment: Karaki s and Richardson s equation for scour at an abutment as presented in Julien (2002) 3. NRCS: scour is equal to 2.5-times the height of the structure above bed elevation for gravel or cobble bed streams 4. Plunging: method of Bormann and Julien and presented in Julien (2002) 5. Measured: Based on field measurements by the authors at similarly design structures: DV, by KHE on Redwood Creek and Bear Valley Creeks in Marin County; LDRJ, by KHE on Redwood Creek in Marin County; and BAJ, by Rocco Fiori on various lower tributaries to Klamath River. 6. Design Estimate: Scour value utilized in design development and Force Balance Assessment. 7. BAJ = Bar Apex Jam; DV = Diversion Vane; and LDRJ = Log Debris Retention Jam. 44

49 5.3 Bedrock Conditions and Construction Contingencies Depth to bedrock was evaluated at each project site location using a 5-foot long steel sediment probe. Bedrock was only encountered in the vicinity of a few sites and was at least greater than feet below channel grade at each proposed project site. Bedrock appears closest and most shallow at the Below McIsaac Creek site, but is believed to slope and deepen rapidly away from the in-channel exposure. There is a chance that shallow (<10-feet below grade) bedrock will be encountered at any given site during construction (most probable are the Lower McIsaac and Fern Rock sites), which may inhibit the ability to excavate and/or drive vertical posts to specified depths. In general, structure design depths are based on estimated channel scour depths, so the presence of scour limiting bedrock would allow the structure posts to be shorter and/or layers installed to shallower depths. However, limiting the depth of the structure and limiting the ability to drive vertical posts to desired depths may alter the force balance and stability of the structure. Therefore, as part of project designs, the structure force balance associated with several scenarios of shallower Apex Jams and Log Debris Retention Jam posts were evaluated in order to develop alternative approaches and details for providing ballast to stabilize proposed structures. Suggested contingencies for increasing forces to resist structure movement and increase structure stability to a factor of safety of 1.50 to 2.00 include the following: Integrating rock boulder ballast into project structures; Installing soil nail anchors into bedrock and securing logs to anchors with cable; Pre-drilling holes into upper portion of weathered bedrock layer with auger to receive and secure vertical posts; and Reduce the structure height after careful planning 2. Specific dimensions and details of these contingency measures will need to be evaluated at the time of installation to field fit the best design strategy. The specific approach and final design of these measures would be based on site conditions encountered during installation. 2 Structure design heights have been carefully developed to achieve optimal project goals and are especially sensitive to change since there is such a narrow range of water surfaces occurring through project reaches. Careful consideration of these factors need to be considered if structure heights are reduced. Although the benefit of increased floodplain inundation frequency and duration will be realized even with a lower structure height, this remedy should be considered carefully and used as last resort and implemented only if other mitigation strategies don t work. 45

50 6.0 CONSIDERATIONS DURING AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION 6.1 Fish Relocation Prior to start of construction each day, a designated biologist must complete a check for presence of sensitive aquatic and terrestrial species within the work limit line. Once the site has been cleared, the Construction Manager will authorize the Contractor to begin work. If a sensitive species is discovered within the work site by the Contractor during work hours, the Contactor shall stop work immediately and notify the Construction Manager. A designated biologist will move the animal a safe distance away from the construction activities and out of the work limit line. All fish relocation shall adhere to project permit conditions and the standards set forth in project plans and technical specifications. 6.2 Clear Water Diversions Flow in Lagunitas Creek is perennial with expected baseflows estimated between 6.0- and 8.0-cfs during the summer construction season, depending on water year-type. A significant consideration during construction will be minimizing impacts on creek water quality and aquatic habitat when disturbing channel bed and banks. Diverting water around construction areas is the best approach to minimizing impacts. Prior to any construction work and after the necessary environmental clearances to address potential aquatic organisms (fish capture and relocation activities), clear water diversion will be constructed upstream of project reaches and water diverted around the construction area until the project work is completed and the reach is fully winterized. Gravity diversion systems will be designed where possible, but electric pumps (equipped with GFI) may be needed to extract water and divert it through fire hose or PVC pipe to a discharge point downstream of all work areas. Dewatering pump intakes will be screened to prevent other aquatic organisms from entering the pump. Water outfalls will be contained within folded and secured filter fabric sediment traps to minimize turbidity to outfall areas. Temporary dewatering structures and activities will be maintained over the entire construction period. The channel and banks will be returned to pre-project condition in those areas affected by dewatering structures/activities. Cofferdams constructed of sand bags, gravel bags, or similar and secured with visqueen will be constructed and keyed in at creek channel upstream of the work area. Water will be pumped from the upstream side of the cofferdam through one or more flexible hose or PVC pipe that will run along the top of bank to the outfall a creek outfall below the work area. Diversion pipe outlets will be directed instream structures to prevent streambed erosion. 46

51 Alternative clear water diversions may include installing sheet piling to segregate and dewater only a portion of the creek channel for example, where a structure is being constructed skewed to one bank. Turbidity curtains could also be used if they successfully prohibit the off-site movement of turbid water. It is also a consideration where in-channel work may produce minimal turbidity (e.g., locations where no bed excavation is proposed or when installing vertical posts), that maximum turbidity concentrations are established, and conditions/releases are monitored. 6.3 Construction Dewatering Because the creek channel is composed of alluvium, construction dewatering is anticipated in areas of excavation. Dewatering systems shall be designed during construction based on site-specific conditions. The Contractor would be required to dewater construction areas to provide for proper excavation and filling. Although dewatering methods are left to the discretion of the Contractor, the Contractor shall prepare a Dewatering Plan to be approved by the Construction Manager prior to beginning work. Water pumped from typical excavation areas is likely to contain suspended sediments or other materials and may not be discharged directly to surface waters. Sediment controls shall be provided to remove sediments generated during the dewatering activities. Pumped water shall be discharged in conformance with all applicable laws and permit requirements. The dewatering system will be maintained in a manner that will not cause adverse disturbance to water quality and the environment. The Contractor will conduct any maintenance or take any additional measures necessary to ensure that the dewatering system functions to limit turbidity. Measures will be taken to ensure that excessive turbidity is not caused during dewatering system installation and removal. Dewatering approaches and BMPs shall follow the standards and level or care presented in Caltrans stormwater quality manuals, including, "The Construction Site Best Management Practices (BMPs) Manual" and the "Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Water Pollution Control Program (WPCP) Preparation Manual" available on-line at Best management practices (BMPs) and construction specifications related directly to dewatering are presented, but not limited, to those below and those stipulated in project Technical Specifications. 1. Materials for cofferdams should be selected based on ease of maintenance and complete removal following construction activities. Construct cofferdams of sandbags, placed by hand. Sandbags should be filled with clean river run gravels. Cover cofferdam 47

52 with visqueen to minimize water infiltration. During construction, inspect daily during the work week. Immediately repair any gaps, holes or scour. 2. Pump intakes and outlets should be designed to minimize turbidity and the potential to wash contaminants into the stream. 3. Pump intakes should be completely screened with wire mesh not larger than 5 millimeters to prevent fish and amphibians from entering the pump system. 4. A filtration/settling system must be included to reduce downstream turbidity (i.e., filter fabric, turbidity curtain). The selection of an appropriate system is based on the rate of discharge. If feasible, water that is pumped into a pipe should discharge onto the top of bank into a densely vegetated area. This may require extra hose length. Inspect and clean sediment control devices frequently to prevent build-up or blockage of the sediment filters. Monitor effluent to ensure that no sediment is discharged into a storm drain or water of the State. 5. A dewatering structure should be sized to allow water to flow through any outlet filtering media 6. Note pre-construction grade prior to placement. Upon removal of the dewatering structure, remove sediment buildup and restore channel bed, cofferdam areas and discharge areas to pre-project grade and conditions. Recycle or re-use if applicable. Revegetate areas disturbed by BMP removal if applicable. 7. Once the project work is complete, release water slowly back into the work area to prevent erosion and increased turbidity. 8. If it is necessary to divert flow around the work site, either by pump or by gravity flow, the suction end of the intake pipe shall be fitted with screens as described above to prevent entrainment or impingement of amphibians, if present. Any turbid water pumped from the work site itself to maintain it in a dewatered state shall be disposed of in an upland location where it will not drain directly into any stream channel. 9. Prior to dewatering, the best means to bypass flow through the work area will be determined to minimize disturbance to the channel and avoid direct mortality of aquatic organisms. 10. Minimize the length of the dewatered stream channel and duration of dewatering. It is anticipated that dewatering systems will be in-place for two to three weeks during the construction period. 48

53 11. Bypass stream flow around work area, but maintain stream flow to channel below construction site. 12. The work area must often be periodically pumped dry of seepage. Place pumps in flat areas, well away from the stream channel. Secure pumps by tying off to a tree or stake in place to prevent movement by vibration. Refuel in area well away from stream channel and place fuel absorbent mats under pump while refueling. Pump intakes should be covered with 1/8" mesh to prevent entrainment of fish or amphibians that failed to be removed. Check intake periodically for impingement of fish or amphibians. 13. Discharge wastewater from construction area to an upland location where it will not drain sediment-laden water back to stream 6.4 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Planning No monitoring, mitigation or adaptive management plan was available for the project at the time project designs were developed. A comprehensive Monitoring, Mitigation and Adaptive Management Plan (Plan) will be developed as part of project environmental compliance and permitting. At a minimum, the Plan will incorporate the following elements Monitoring Monitoring will follow CDFW protocols as well as protocols developed by MMWD. MMWD will conduct pre-construction monitoring and post-construction monitoring for the first five years following project site construction. The monitoring elements will include: Photographic Monitoring: Pre- and post-project photo monitoring from established photo points, as well as photographs during construction. Flow Monitoring: Pre- and post-construction stream flow monitoring, specifically at the structural features constructed and in the floodplain channel designed to be re-inundated. Monitoring will include site inspections at various flow stages and will use photographs, video, and flow staff plates. Monitoring stations will be established at the inlet and outlet of floodplain channels that have been designed to be re-inundated, and MMWD will document when the floodplain channel features become active and/or disconnected from the base flow channel. 49

54 Geomorphic Monitoring: Post-construction geomorphic monitoring will be completed at key locations throughout project sites (structures, high flow channel inlets/outlets and reactivated channels). Monitoring will include site inspections during and after high flow flow events and will include photographs and field measurements to quantify notable geomorphic changes from as-built conditions, especially erosion and sediment/wood aggradation. The structural integrity of the instream wood structures will also be evaluated as part of this monitoring component. Biological Monitoring: MMWD conducts extensive salmonid survey monitoring in Lagunitas Creek that includes juvenile, spawner, and smolt surveys; Lagunitas Creek is an established life-cycle monitoring station in the Coastal Monitoring Plan (CMP). Through that effort, MMWD will track the long-term status of coho and steelhead in the watershed. As part of the winter habitat enhancement monitoring, MMWD will conduct electrofishing and/or snorkel surveys, for the presence of coho and steelhead, in re-inundated floodplain channels. These surveys will be done during periods of inundation, when flow conditions are at a low to moderate stage and it is safe to survey. MMWD will estimate coho and steelhead densities within the floodplain channels. MMWD will check captured coho for PIT tags, which MMWD will have implanted during the CMP juvenile salmonid surveys. MMWD will also conduct spawner surveys through the floodplain channels during our CMP spawner surveys. In addition, MMWD anticipates conducting surveys for the presence of California freshwater shrimp. Water Quality Monitoring: MMWD will selectively monitor temperature and dissolved oxygen in the floodplain channels that are re-inundated at the project sites, if water persists through the summer and early fall Adaptive Management Adaptive management is a systematic and iterative process that provides for feedback between monitoring and management actions. The feedback mechanism is engaged when monitoring data are analyzed, and the results are utilized to adjust project conditions/operations in a manner that optimizes the achievement of project goals. The adaptive management portion of the Plan will be guided by the project goals and objectives together with the regulatory permit requirements. The monitoring activities proposed above will be used to evaluate project progress towards meeting the goals and objectives. As part of Plan development, thresholds or criteria for success will be 50

55 developed as well as conditions that trigger a management action. Not meeting the specified thresholds would initiate a management response, and the Plan would describe a range of potential adaptive management actions. If project monitoring determines that a trigger has been activated then the Plan should outline possible response pathways, such as: 1. Determine if more data is required and continue (or modify) monitoring, 2. Identify and implement a remedial action, or; 3. Modify project goals and objectives (this option would only be considered as a last resort and upon careful consideration). There may be multiple management action options when a particular trigger or threshold is activated, depending on a variety of factors such as how far the project is from achieving a specific goal, whether the situation is an imminent threat to local infrastructure, ecosystem services/functions or site stability, etc. The process should be designed to be flexible to allow for a wide range of management actions. However, the Plan should also impose a structured approach as management actions must derive from monitoring results. For example, the Plan should stipulate that high flow channels should be evaluated after every high flow event equal to or greater than a 1.5-year event. If monitoring indicates excessive sediment or wood buildup in the channel that inhibits function based on some stated criteria (e.g., 10% blockage), exceeding this criteria would trigger a management decision to take a particular course of action. Such actions could include: heightened monitoring; sediment removal by hand; wood removal by hand; or any combination of these actions Reporting For the first five years after construction, an annual monitoring report will be generated to document project site conditions and effectiveness. A post-construction monitoring and adaptive management report will also be prepared and submitted as part of the final project reporting. 51

56 7.0 LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared for MMWD and their authorized agents in order to document design analysis for the 100 percent design phase of the Lagunitas Creek Salmonid Winter Habitat Enhancement Project. The information contained herein is not applicable to other sites. Conditions within the project site may change both spatially and with time. Significant changes in site conditions may require reassessment of both existing and proposed project conditions. Within the limitations of our scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with generally accepted scientific and engineering practices in the area of stream restoration and enhancement at the time this report was prepared. Engineered log jams and other large wood structures are designed and intended to emulate the natural wood accumulations found in Coastal California watersheds. Engineered log jams are intended to modify the hydraulic function of river/creek systems and to create improved habitat for aquatic species. Localized scour pools are expected to form adjacent to and beneath portions of the log jam structures after high flow events. These scour pools are desirable as key components of riverine habitat improvement. Rivers and creeks are dynamic systems and experience major changes in inter- and intraannual flow and sediment dynamics. Flood events will result in localized scour and deposition of bed sediment near the log jams. Cycles of accumulation and depletion of logs and sediment on, and adjacent to, log jam structures, primary channels and secondary channels are expected during conditions of high flow as part of natural creek processes. Like natural long jams, constructed or engineered log jams can pose risks to property and to persons who access the creek. Log jam structures may be partially or completely destroyed in extreme floods, carrying the logs and sediment downstream for accumulation in other areas. This potential downstream accumulation of logs and sediment could cause changes in channel position or unintended damage to improved and unimproved property on or near the river. 52

57 8.0 REFERENCES Abbe, T.B. and Montgomery, D.R., 1996, Large woody debris jams, channel hydraulics and habitat formation in large rivers. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management, vol. 12, pp Abbe, T.B., and Books, A., 2011, Geomorphic, engineering, and ecological considerations when using wood in river restoration. In: Stream Restoration in Dynamic Fluvial Systems Scientific Approaches, Analyses and Tools, Simon, A., Bennett, S.J., and Castro, J.M., eds., American Geophysical Union, Geophysical Monograph 194, AGU, Washington, 544p. Arcement, G.J., Jr., and Schneider, V.R., 1989, Guide for selecting Manning s roughness coefficients for natural channels and flood plains. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2339, prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 38p. Balance Hydrologics, Inc., 2010, Lagunitas Creek Sediment and Riparian Management Plan, Marin County, California: Streambed Monitoring Report, Prepared for the Marin Municipal Water District, Corte Madera, CA. Barnes, H.H., 1967, Roughness characteristics of natural channels. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1849, 213p. Bjornn, T.C., 1978, Survival, production, and yield of trout and Chinook salmon in the Lemhi River, Idaho. Univ. Idaho, Coll. For., Wildland Range Science Bull. 27, 57 pp. Brummer, C.J., Abbe, T.B., Sampson, J.R., and Montgomery, D.R., 2006, Influence of vertical channel change associated with wood accumulations on delineating channel migration zones, Washington, USA. Geomorphology, vol. 80, pp Brunner, G.W., 2010, HEC-RAS, River Analysis System Hydraulic Reference Manual. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydraulic Engineering Center (HEC), 417p. Chow, V.T., Open-channel hydraulics. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, 680p. Coon, W.F., 1998, Estimation of roughness coefficients for natural stream channels with vegetated banks. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2441, prepared in cooperation with the New York State Department of Transportation, 133p. Cover, Matthew R., 2012, Linkages between sediment delivery and streambed conditions in the Lagunitas Creek watershed, Marin County, CA. Final report for the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. D Aoust, S.G., and Millar, R.G., 2000, Stability of ballasted woody debris habitat structures. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, November, pp

58 FHWA, 2009, Bridge Scour and Stream Instability Countermeasures: Experience, Selection and Design Guidance Third Edition, Volume 2. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 23, Publication No. FHWA-NHI , September, 376p. d=49 FHWA, 2012a, Evaluating Scour at Bridges, Fifth Edition. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 18, Publication No. FHWA-HIR , April, 340p. FHWA, 2012b, Pier Scour in Clear-Water Conditions with Non-Uniform Bed Materials. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Hydraulic, Publication No. FHWA-HRT , May, 66p. x.cfm HEA, 1983, Substrate Enhancement Study/Sediment Management Plan, Marin County, Phase IIIb, Sediment transport and bed conditions HEA, a division of J.H. Kleinfelder & Associates, Prepared for the Marin Municipal Water District, Corte Madera, CA. Herrera Environmental Consultants, 2006, Conceptual design guidelines: application of engineered logjams. Prepared for: Scottish Environmental Protection Agency, Galashiels, United Kingdom, June, 131p. Henderson, F.M., 1966, Open channel flow. MacMillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York, 522p. Julien, P.Y, 2002, River Mechanics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 434p. Kamman Hydrology & Engineering, Inc., 2013, Draft Lagunitas Creek Salmonid Winter Habitat Enhancement Assessment Report. Prepared for: Marin Municipal Water District and California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Prepared in association with: Fiori Geoscience and Dr. Bill Trush, April, 39p. Kamman Hydrology & Engineering, Inc., 2013, Lagunitas Creek Salmonid Winter Habitat Enhancement Assessment Report. Prepared for: Marin Municipal Water District and California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Prepared in association with: Fiori Geoscinence and Dr. Bill Trush, June, 40p. Lacey, R.W.J. and Millar, R.G., 2001, Application of a 2-dimensional hydrodynamic model for the assessment and design of instream channel restoration works. Watershed Restoration Management Report No. 9, Department of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia, Canada, 72p. 54

59 Limerinos, J.T., 1970, Determination of the Manning coefficient from measured bed roughness in natural channels. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1898-B, 47p. McHenry, M., Pess, G., Abbe, T., Coe, H., Goldsmith, J., Liermann, M., McCoy, R., Morley, S., and Peters, R., 2007, The physical and biological effects of engineered log jams (ELJs) in the Elwha River, Washington. In: Elwha River Engineering Logjam Monitoring Report, Prepared for: Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) and Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC) April, 90p. NRCS, 2001, Incorporation of large wood into engineering structures. Natural Resources Conservation Service Technical Notes, Engineering No. 25, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Portland, OR, June, 14p. Oregon Department of Forestry and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 1995, A Guide to Placing Large Wood in Streams, Portland, Oregon. Pess, G.R., T.B. Abbe, T.A. Drury, and D.R Montgomery, 1998, Biological Evaluation of Engineered Log Jams in the North Fork Stillaguamish River, Washington. EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 79 (45):F346. Shields Jr, F.D., Wood, A.D., 2007, The use of large woody material for habitat and bank protection. Technical Supplement 14J in Stream Restoration Design, National Engineering Handbook Part 654, USDA-NRCS Washington, D. C. Stillwater Sciences, 2008, Lagunitas Limiting Factors Analysis; Limiting factors for coho salmon and steelhead, Final report. Prepared by Stillwater Sciences, Berkeley, California for Marin Resource Conservation District, Point Reyes Station, California. Stillwater Sciences, 2010, Taking action for clean water Bay Area total maximum daily load implementation: Lagunitas Creek sediment budget. Prepared by Stillwater Sciences, Berkeley, California for San Francisco Estuary Project/Association of Bay Area Governments, Oakland, California. Wallerstein, N., Thorne, C.R., and Abt, S.R., 1996, Debris control at hydraulic structures in selected areas of the USA and Europe. Prepared for: US Army Research Development & Standardization Group UK London, November, 114p. Ward, B. R., and P. A. Slaney, 1993, Egg-to-smolt survival and fry-to-smolt density dependence of Keogh River steelhead trout. In: R. J. Gibson and R. E. Cutting [ed.] Production of juvenile Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar, in natural waters, Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquatic Science 118, p

60 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2004, Stream Habitat Restoration Guidelines, Washington, 34p and Appendix E. fttp://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub.php?id=

61 APPENDIX A AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH HISTORY OF OLEMA CREEK A-1

62 Note historic migration of Olema Creek Channel westward to current alignment depicted by red line in all images. Former road is located between stationing 2+50 and Creek flow is from south to north. Current channel alignment upstream of stationing 7+00 is located in former pasture drainage ditch historic creek channel was located east of this ditch. A-2

63 APPENDIX B PROJECT PLANS (ENGINEERED DRAWINGS) B-1

64

65

66 INSTALL (N) BAR APEX JAM (BAJ1) WITH TOP ELEVATION OF 92.10' PER DETAILS ON SHEETS C9 AND C10 SIR FRANCIS DRAKE BLVD. DO NOT DISTURB EXISTING RSP AND BEDROCK ON BANK FROM STN TO 4+50 (E) LARGE BAR APEX JAM MAINTAIN (E) ACTIVE AND LOW FLOW CHANNEL INSTALL (N) LOG DIVERSION VANES (TYP) PER DETAIL ON SHEET C11. NIT (E) SMALL BAR APEX JAM DV1 K EE CR DV3 AS DV2 U AG L M TE NS FL TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ACCESS DV4 I MA APPROX MI TO BRIDGE CROSSING TO SIR FRANCIS DRAKE BLVD. OW HIGH FLOW CHANNEL INLET ELEVATION 90.10' (N) ENHANCED HIGH FLOW PATH. CLEAR VEGETATION AND RACK MATERIAL FROM (E) HIGH FLOW CHANNEL BETWEEN MAINSTEM CREEK STATIONS 1+75 THROUGH USE MATERIAL IN (N) BAJ STRUCTURE. CROSS-MARIN TRAIL / S. P. TAYLOR PARK ROAD MAINSTEM THALWEG PROFILE 8/7/2014 2:02 PM 90 FLOW 88 (N) DV3 (N) BAJ1 86 EXISTING GRADE Z:\Company Shared Folders\3108_Lagunitas_MMWD\CAD\SHEETS\Lagunitas_PlanProfiles _v5.dwg 84 (N) DV2 SAND AND GRAVEL ALLUVIUM (N) DV % SUBMITTAL ELEVATION (FT) (N) DV1

67 INSTALL (N) LOG DEBRIS RETENTION JAM (LDRJ2) WITH TOP ELEVATION OF 70.25' PER DETAIL ON SHEET C11. HIGH FLOW CHANNEL INLET ELEV ' SIR FRANCIS DRAKE BLVD. INSTALL (N) LOG DEBRIS RETENTION JAM (LDRJ1) WITH TOP ELEVATION OF 70.94' PER DETAIL ON SHEET C11. (E) UTILITY POLE OW MAINSTEM FL REMOVE (E) WILLOWS LAGUN ITAS C R EEK (E) E AST ERN HIGH FLOW CHANNEL INLET ELEV ' HIG HF LO (E) W EST ER W CHANNEL N HIGH FLOW CHANNEL (E) WE ST ER N HIGH F LOW 8/7/2014 2:02 PM TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ACCESS MAINTAIN (E) ACTIVE AND LOW FLOW CHANNELS CHA NNE L (N) ENHANCED HIGH FLOW PATH CLEAR VEGETATION AND RACK MATERIAL FROM (E) HIGH FLOW CHANNEL ALONG IMPROVED HIGH FLOW PATHWAYS. USE MATERIAL IN (N) BAJ STRUCTURES. MATCHLINE SHEET C3 APPROX MI TO BRIDGE CROSSING TO SIR FRANCIS DRAKE BLVD. Z:\Company Shared Folders\3108_Lagunitas_MMWD\CAD\SHEETS\Lagunitas_PlanProfiles _v5.dwg PROTECT AND RETAIN (E) LOG JAM FLOW CROSS-MARIN TRAIL / S. P. TAYLOR PARK ROAD INSTALL (N) BAR APEX JAM (BAJ2) WITH TOP ELEV ' PER DETAILS ON SHEETS C9 AND C10. CLEAR VEGETATION AND RACK MATERIAL FROM (E) HIGH FLOW CHANNEL ALONG IMPROVED HIGH FLOW PATHWAYS. USE MATERIAL IN (N) BAJ STRUCTURES. HIGH FLOW CHANNEL INLET ELEV ' TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ACCESS REMOVE AND REUSE (E) LOG JAM IN (N) BAJ2 STRUCTURE 100% SUBMITTAL

68 (N) ENHANCED HIGH FLOW PATH. CLEAR VEGETATION AND RACK MATERIAL FROM (E) DOWNSTREAM HIGH FLOW CHANNEL ALONG IMPROVED HIGH FLOW PATHWAY. USE MATERIAL IN (N) BAJ STRUCTURE. McISAAC CREEK SIR FRANCIS DRAKE BLVD. (E) LOG JAM. REUSE MATERIAL IN (N) BAJ. INSTALL (N) BAR APEX JAM (BAJ3) WITH TOP ELEVATION OF 70.00' PER DETAILS ON SHEETS C9 AND C10. REUSE (E) LOG JAM MATERIALS. (SEE NOTE 1 THIS SHEET) SIR FRANCIS DRAKE BLVD. MAINS OW TEM LAGUNITA S CRE EK FL (E) EAST ERN HIG H FLOW CHA NNE K EE CR NI LA GU (E) MAINTAIN (E) ACTIVE AND LOW FLOW CHANNELS AS T (E) WE STE R N HIGH FLOW WE ST ER N H HIG CHA NNE OW L FL CHANNEL (E) LOG JAM. REUSE MATERIAL IN (N) BAJ. EM ST IN MA HIGH FLOW CHANNEL INLET ELEV ' TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ACCESS 8/7/2014 2:02 PM L NE AN H C H G HI TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ACCESS (E) W E TR NS W DO CROSS-MARIN TRAIL / S. P. TAYLOR PARK ROAD DO NOT DISTURB (E) LOG JAM. APPROX MI TO BRIDGE CROSSING SIR FRANCIS DRAKE BLVD. 100% SUBMITTAL (N) ENHANCED HIGH FLOW PATH. CLEAR VEGETATION AND RACK MATERIAL FROM (E) DOWNSTREAM HIGH FLOW CHANNEL ALONG IMPROVED HIGH FLOW PATHWAY. USE MATERIAL IN (N) BAJ STRUCTURE. MATCHLINE SHEET C2 AM O FL Z:\Company Shared Folders\3108_Lagunitas_MMWD\CAD\SHEETS\Lagunitas_PlanProfiles _v5.dwg W O FL NOTES: 1. THE INSTALLATION METHOD FOR BAJ3 MAY NEED TO BE ALTERED AS DIRECTED BY CONSTRUCTION MANAGER DUE TO THE CLOSE PROXIMITY OF BEDROCK IN THE CREEK CHANNEL BETWEEN STATION 7+50 AND L

69 70 MAINSTEM THALWEG PROFILE 70 FLOW (N) BAJ3 McISAAC CREEK 66 ELEVATION (FT) BEDROCK ELEVATION (FT) STA MATCH LINE SEE BELOW LEFT 58 EXISTING GRADE SAND AND GRAVEL ALLUVIUM SAND AND GRAVEL ALLUVIUM MAINSTEM THALWEG PROFILE 70 FLOW 8/7/2014 2:02 PM (E) GRAVEL BAR McISAAC CREEK (N) LDRJ2 (N) LDRJ1 (N) BAJ Z:\Company Shared Folders\3108_Lagunitas_MMWD\CAD\SHEETS\Lagunitas_PlanProfiles _v5.dwg STA MATCH LINE SEE ABOVE RIGHT ELEVATION (FT) % SUBMITTAL EXISTING GRADE ELEVATION (FT)

70 PLATFORM BRIDGE ROAD HISTORIC RAILROAD GRADE ITA S CR EE K PLATFORM BRIDGE ROAD MAINSTEM LA GU N CLEAR VEGETATION AND RACK MATERIAL FROM (E) HIGH FLOW CHANNEL ALONG IMPROVED HIGH FLOW PATHWAYS. USE MATERIAL IN (N) LDRJ STRUCTURES. AS TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ACCESS W (N) ENHANCED HIGH FLOW PATH TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ACCESS (N) ENHANCED HIGH FLOW PATH MA FL OW HIGH FLOW CHANNEL INLET ELEV ' (N) ENHANCED HIGH FLOW PATH HIGH FLOW CHANNEL INLET ELEV ' Z:\Company Shared Folders\3108_Lagunitas_MMWD\CAD\SHEETS\Lagunitas_PlanProfiles _v5.dwg (N) ENHANCED HIGH FLOW PATH LAGUNIT CHANNEL )H IG H FLO (E OW FL 8/7/2014 2:02 PM HIGH FLOW CHANNEL INLET ELEV ' TEM INS INSTALL (N) LOG DEBRIS RETENTION JAM (LDRJ3) WITH TOP ELEV ' PER DETAILS ON SHEET C11. HISTORIC RAILROAD GRADE HIGH FLOW CHANNEL INLET ELEV ' INSTALL (N) LOG DEBRIS RETENTION JAM (LDRJ6) WITH TOP ELEV ' PER DETAILS ON SHEET C % SUBMITTAL INSTALL (N) LOG DEBRIS RETENTION JAM (LDRJ5) WITH TOP ELEV ' PER DETAILS ON SHEET C11. INSTALL (N) LOG DEBRIS RETENTION JAM (LDRJ4) WITH TOP ELEV ' PER DETAILS ON SHEET C11. CREE K

71 50 MAINSTEM THALWEG PROFILE 50 FLOW 48 (E) GRAVEL BAR (N) LDRJ4 48 (E) BOULDER DROP (N) LDRJ6 46 (N) LDRJ5 46 ELEVATION (FT) EXISTING GRADE (E) GRAVEL BAR ELEVATION (FT) STA MATCH LINE SEE BELOW LEFT MAINSTEM THALWEG PROFILE 50 FLOW 8/7/2014 2:02 PM 48 (N) LDRJ Z:\Company Shared Folders\3108_Lagunitas_MMWD\CAD\SHEETS\Lagunitas_PlanProfiles _v5.dwg STA MATCH LINE SEE ABOVE RIGHT ELEVATION (FT) % SUBMITTAL EXISTING GRADE (E) GRAVEL BAR ELEVATION (FT)

72 PLATFORM BRIDGE ROAD TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ACCESS FLOW (N) ENHANCED HIGH FLOW PATH CLEAR VEGETATION AND RACK MATERIAL FROM (E) HIGH FLOW CHANNEL ALONG IMPROVED HIGH FLOW PATHWAY. USE MATERIAL IN (N) BAJ4 STRUCTURE. STE HIGH FLOW CHANNEL INLET ELEV ' HIGH FLOW CHANNEL INLET ELEV ' NE (E) HIGH FLOW MAIN M CREEK NITAS LAGU L N HA (E) CHANNEL SPANNING LOG C INSTALL (N) LOG DEBRIS RETENTION JAM (LDRJ7) WITH TOP ELEV ' PER MAINTAIN (E) ACTIVE AND DETAILS ON SHEET C11. LOW FLOW CHANNELS 449 CREEK HISTORIC RAILROAD GRADE INSTALL (N) BAR APEX JAM (BAJ4) WITH TOP ELEV ' PER DETAIL ON SHEETS C9 AND C10. MAINSTEM THALWEG PROFILE 42 8/7/2014 2:02 PM FLOW (N) LDRJ7 (N) BAJ4 40 Z:\Company Shared Folders\3108_Lagunitas_MMWD\CAD\SHEETS\Lagunitas_PlanProfiles _v5.dwg (E) GRAVEL BAR % SUBMITTAL ELEVATION (FT) 38 EXISTING GRADE

73 NOTES: 1. ALL (N) LOG DEBRIS RETENTION JAMS (LDRJs) POINT DOWNSTREAM ON OLEMA CREEK WHILE ALL LDRJs POINT UPSTREAM ON LAGUNITAS CREEK. HISTORIC CHANNEL ALIGNMENT POTENTIAL BAR SKIMMING LOCATION, ONLY WITH AUTHORIZATION OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGER. INSTALL (N) LOG DEBRIS RETENTION JAM LDRJ9 WITH TOP ELEV ' PER DETAILS ON SHEET C11. INSTALL (N) LOG DEBRIS RETENTION JAM LDRJ10 WITH TOP ELEV ' PER DETAILS ON SHEET C11. OLEMA E CRE FLOW INSTALL (N) LOG DEBRIS RETENTION JAM LDRJ8 WITH TOP ELEV ' PER DETAILS ON SHEET C11. K INSTALL (N) LOG DEBRIS RETENTION JAM LDRJ11 WITH TOP ELEV ' PER DETAILS ON SHEET C11. (E) CHANNEL SPANNING LOG INSTALL (N) LOG DEBRIS RETENTION JAM LDRJ13 WITH TOP ELEV ' PER DETAILS ON SHEET C11. LDRJ9 FILL DEPRESSIONS WITH MATERIAL GENERATED LOCALLY AND AS DIRECTED BY CONSTRUCTION MANAGER. SOURCE OF MATERIAL FROM LOG JAM INSTALLATION OR FROM BAR SKIMMING AT CONFLUENCE WITH HISTORIC CHANNEL. LDRJ10 LDRJ13 LDRJ11 LDRJ12 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ACCESS INSTALL (N) LOG DEBRIS RETENTION JAM LDRJ12 WITH TOP ELEV ' PER DETAILS ON SHEET C11. APPROX. 0.2 MI TO BEAR VALLEY RD. MAINSTEM THALWEG PROFILE FLOW 8/7/2014 2:02 PM (N) LOG CROSS-VANE 32 (N) LDRJ12 (N) LDRJ13 30 (N) LDRJ10 (N) LDRJ9 FILL SCOUR HOLE TO 28.5 ELEV EXISTING GRADE (E) KNICK POINT (E) KNICK POINT (N) LDRJ8 (N) LDRJ11 (E) SCOUR HOLE AT CHANNEL SPANNING LOG DISTANCE (FT) KEY: FILL 100% SUBMITTAL ELEVATION (FT) 32 ELEVATION (FT) Z:\Company Shared Folders\3108_Lagunitas_MMWD\CAD\SHEETS\Lagunitas_PlanProfiles _v5.dwg INSTALL (N) CHANNEL SPANNING LOG CROSS-VANE PER DETAIL ON SHEET C11. LDRJ8

74

75

76

77 APPENDIX C LAGUNITAS CREEK REFERENCE SITES (BAR APEX JAMS) C-1

78 Small Bar Apex Jam less than 100-feet upstream of Big Bend project reach (view looking downstream). See Plan Sheet C1 for location. Small Bar Apex Jam less than 100-feet upstream of Big Bend project reach (view looking downstream). See Plan Sheet C1 for location. C-2

79 Small Bar Apex Jam less than 100-feet upstream of Big Bend project reach (view looking upstream of high flow channel containing groundwater low flow channel to right, on other side of bar). See Plan Sheet C1 for location. Large Bar Apex Jam approximately 300-feet upstream of Big Bend project reach (view looking downstream). See Plan Sheet C1 for location. C-3

80 Large Bar Apex Jam approximately 300-feet upstream of Big Bend project reach (view looking downstream). See Plan Sheet C1 for location. Note Small Bar Apex Jam in background. Large Bar Apex Jam approximately 300-feet upstream of Big Bend project reach (view looking upstream of high flow channel receiving some baseflow main low flow channel seen in front of jam with majority of flow to right on other side of log jam). See Plan Sheet C1 for location. C-4

81 APPENDIX D HEC-RAS MODEL CONFIGURATION AND HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS RESULTS Appendix D

82 Water Surface Elev. (ft) Big Bend BAJ1 Discharge (cfs) Existing Conditions Project Conditions US McIsaac BAJ2 Existing Conditions Project Conditions 0 Water Surface Elev. (ft) Discharge (cfs) Water Surface Elev. (ft) US McIsaac LDRJ1 Discharge (cfs) Existing Conditions Project Conditions Water Surface Elev. (ft) Appendix D: Rating Curves Page1 of 5 US McIsaac LDRJ2 Existing Conditions Project Conditions Discharge (cfs)

83 Water Surface Elev. (ft) DS McIsaac BAJ3 Discharge (cfs) Existing Conditions Project Conditions Fern Rock LDRJ3 Existing Conditions Project Conditions 0 Water Surface Elev. (ft) Discharge (cfs) Water Surface Elev. (ft) Fern Rock LDRJ4 Discharge (cfs) Existing Conditions Project Conditions Water Surface Elev. (ft) Appendix D: Rating Curves Page2 of 5 Fern Rock LDRJ5 Existing Conditions Project Conditions Discharge (cfs)

84 Water Surface Elev. (ft) Fern Rock LDRJ6 Discharge (cfs) Existing Conditions Project Conditions Cr. LDRJ7 Existing Conditions Project Conditions 0 Water Surface Elev. (ft) Discharge (cfs) Water Surface Elev. (ft) Cr. BAJ4 Discharge (cfs) Existing Conditions Project Conditions Water Surface Elev. (ft) Appendix D: Rating Curves Page3 of 5 Olema Cr. LDRJ8 Existing Conditions Project Conditions Discharge (cfs)

85 Olema Cr. LDRJ9 Olema Cr. LDRJ Water Surface Elev. (ft) Existing Conditions Project Conditions Water Surface Elev. (ft) Existing Conditions Project Conditions Discharge (cfs) Discharge (cfs) Olema Cr. LDRJ11 Olema Cr. LDRJ Water Surface Elev. (ft) Existing Conditions Project Conditions Water Surface Elev. (ft) Existing Conditions Project Conditions Discharge (cfs) Discharge (cfs) Appendix D: Rating Curves Page4 of 5

86 Olema Cr. LDRJ Water Surface Elev. (ft) Existing Conditions Project Conditions Discharge (cfs) Appendix D: Rating Curves Page5 of 5

87 1. BIG BEND REACH HEC-RAS MODEL AND RESULTS * * Lag un i tas Big Bend HEC-RAS model geometry Big Bend Reach Appendix D

88 Simulated Water Surface Profiles Big Bend Reach Appendix D

89 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Big Bend 839 baseflow EC Big Bend 839 baseflow PC Big Bend 839 Q1.01 EC Big Bend 839 Q1.01 PC Big Bend 839 Q1.5 EC Big Bend 839 Q1.5 PC Big Bend 839 Q2.0 EC Big Bend 839 Q2.0 PC Big Bend 839 Q5 EC Big Bend 839 Q5 PC Big Bend 839 Q10 EC Big Bend 839 Q10 PC Big Bend 839 Q25 EC Big Bend 839 Q25 PC Big Bend 839 Q50 EC Big Bend 839 Q50 PC Big Bend 839 Q100 EC Big Bend 839 Q100 PC Big Bend 800 baseflow EC Big Bend 800 baseflow PC Big Bend 800 Q1.01 EC Big Bend 800 Q1.01 PC Big Bend 800 Q1.5 EC Big Bend 800 Q1.5 PC Big Bend 800 Q2.0 EC Big Bend 800 Q2.0 PC Big Bend 800 Q5 EC Big Bend 800 Q5 PC Big Bend 800 Q10 EC Big Bend 800 Q10 PC Big Bend 800 Q25 EC Big Bend 800 Q25 PC Big Bend 800 Q50 EC Big Bend 800 Q50 PC Big Bend 800 Q100 EC Big Bend 800 Q100 PC Big Bend 750 baseflow EC Big Bend 750 baseflow PC Big Bend 750 Q1.01 EC Big Bend 750 Q1.01 PC Big Bend 750 Q1.5 EC Big Bend 750 Q1.5 PC Big Bend 750 Q2.0 EC Big Bend 750 Q2.0 PC Big Bend 750 Q5 EC Big Bend 750 Q5 PC Big Bend 750 Q10 EC Big Bend 750 Q10 PC Big Bend 750 Q25 EC Big Bend 750 Q25 PC Big Bend 750 Q50 EC Big Bend 750 Q50 PC Big Bend 750 Q100 EC Big Bend 750 Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\Big Bend Page 1 of 7

90 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Big Bend 700 baseflow EC Big Bend 700 baseflow PC Big Bend 700 Q1.01 EC Big Bend 700 Q1.01 PC Big Bend 700 Q1.5 EC Big Bend 700 Q1.5 PC Big Bend 700 Q2.0 EC Big Bend 700 Q2.0 PC Big Bend 700 Q5 EC Big Bend 700 Q5 PC Big Bend 700 Q10 EC Big Bend 700 Q10 PC Big Bend 700 Q25 EC Big Bend 700 Q25 PC Big Bend 700 Q50 EC Big Bend 700 Q50 PC Big Bend 700 Q100 EC Big Bend 700 Q100 PC Big Bend 685.* baseflow PC Big Bend 685.* Q1.01 PC Big Bend 685.* Q1.5 PC Big Bend 685.* Q2.0 PC Big Bend 685.* Q5 PC Big Bend 685.* Q10 PC Big Bend 685.* Q25 PC Big Bend 685.* Q50 PC Big Bend 685.* Q100 PC Big Bend DV3 680.* baseflow PC Big Bend DV3 680.* Q1.01 PC Big Bend DV3 680.* Q1.5 PC Big Bend DV3 680.* Q2.0 PC Big Bend DV3 680.* Q5 PC Big Bend DV3 680.* Q10 PC Big Bend DV3 680.* Q25 PC Big Bend DV3 680.* Q50 PC Big Bend DV3 680.* Q100 PC Big Bend 675.* baseflow PC Big Bend 675.* Q1.01 PC Big Bend 675.* Q1.5 PC Big Bend 675.* Q2.0 PC Big Bend 675.* Q5 PC Big Bend 675.* Q10 PC Big Bend 675.* Q25 PC Big Bend 675.* Q50 PC Big Bend 675.* Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\Big Bend Page 2 of 7

91 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Big Bend 650 baseflow EC Big Bend 650 baseflow PC Big Bend 650 Q1.01 EC Big Bend 650 Q1.01 PC Big Bend 650 Q1.5 EC Big Bend 650 Q1.5 PC Big Bend 650 Q2.0 EC Big Bend 650 Q2.0 PC Big Bend 650 Q5 EC Big Bend 650 Q5 PC Big Bend 650 Q10 EC Big Bend 650 Q10 PC Big Bend 650 Q25 EC Big Bend 650 Q25 PC Big Bend 650 Q50 EC Big Bend 650 Q50 PC Big Bend 650 Q100 EC Big Bend 650 Q100 PC Big Bend 600 baseflow EC Big Bend 600 baseflow PC Big Bend 600 Q1.01 EC Big Bend 600 Q1.01 PC Big Bend 600 Q1.5 EC Big Bend 600 Q1.5 PC Big Bend 600 Q2.0 EC Big Bend 600 Q2.0 PC Big Bend 600 Q5 EC Big Bend 600 Q5 PC Big Bend 600 Q10 EC Big Bend 600 Q10 PC Big Bend 600 Q25 EC Big Bend 600 Q25 PC Big Bend 600 Q50 EC Big Bend 600 Q50 PC Big Bend 600 Q100 EC Big Bend 600 Q100 PC Big Bend 550 baseflow EC Big Bend 550 baseflow PC Big Bend 550 Q1.01 EC Big Bend 550 Q1.01 PC Big Bend 550 Q1.5 EC Big Bend 550 Q1.5 PC Big Bend 550 Q2.0 EC Big Bend 550 Q2.0 PC Big Bend 550 Q5 EC Big Bend 550 Q5 PC Big Bend 550 Q10 EC Big Bend 550 Q10 PC Big Bend 550 Q25 EC Big Bend 550 Q25 PC Big Bend 550 Q50 EC Big Bend 550 Q50 PC Big Bend 550 Q100 EC Big Bend 550 Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\Big Bend Page 3 of 7

92 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Big Bend 500 baseflow EC Big Bend 500 baseflow PC Big Bend 500 Q1.01 EC Big Bend 500 Q1.01 PC Big Bend 500 Q1.5 EC Big Bend 500 Q1.5 PC Big Bend 500 Q2.0 EC Big Bend 500 Q2.0 PC Big Bend 500 Q5 EC Big Bend 500 Q5 PC Big Bend 500 Q10 EC Big Bend 500 Q10 PC Big Bend 500 Q25 EC Big Bend 500 Q25 PC Big Bend 500 Q50 EC Big Bend 500 Q50 PC Big Bend 500 Q100 EC Big Bend 500 Q100 PC Big Bend 450 baseflow EC Big Bend 450 baseflow PC Big Bend 450 Q1.01 EC Big Bend 450 Q1.01 PC Big Bend 450 Q1.5 EC Big Bend 450 Q1.5 PC Big Bend 450 Q2.0 EC Big Bend 450 Q2.0 PC Big Bend 450 Q5 EC Big Bend 450 Q5 PC Big Bend 450 Q10 EC Big Bend 450 Q10 PC Big Bend 450 Q25 EC Big Bend 450 Q25 PC Big Bend 450 Q50 EC Big Bend 450 Q50 PC Big Bend 450 Q100 EC Big Bend 450 Q100 PC Big Bend * baseflow PC Big Bend * Q1.01 PC Big Bend * Q1.5 PC Big Bend * Q2.0 PC Big Bend * Q5 PC Big Bend * Q10 PC Big Bend * Q25 PC Big Bend * Q50 PC Big Bend * Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\Big Bend Page 4 of 7

93 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Big Bend 400 baseflow EC Big Bend 400 baseflow PC Big Bend 400 Q1.01 EC Big Bend 400 Q1.01 PC Big Bend 400 Q1.5 EC Big Bend 400 Q1.5 PC Big Bend 400 Q2.0 EC Big Bend 400 Q2.0 PC Big Bend 400 Q5 EC Big Bend 400 Q5 PC Big Bend 400 Q10 EC Big Bend 400 Q10 PC Big Bend 400 Q25 EC Big Bend 400 Q25 PC Big Bend 400 Q50 EC Big Bend 400 Q50 PC Big Bend 400 Q100 EC Big Bend 400 Q100 PC Big Bend BAJ1 395.* baseflow PC Big Bend BAJ1 395.* Q1.01 PC Big Bend BAJ1 395.* Q1.5 PC Big Bend BAJ1 395.* Q2.0 PC Big Bend BAJ1 395.* Q5 PC Big Bend BAJ1 395.* Q10 PC Big Bend BAJ1 395.* Q25 PC Big Bend BAJ1 395.* Q50 PC Big Bend BAJ1 395.* Q100 PC Big Bend BAJ1 355.* baseflow PC Big Bend BAJ1 355.* Q1.01 PC Big Bend BAJ1 355.* Q1.5 PC Big Bend BAJ1 355.* Q2.0 PC Big Bend BAJ1 355.* Q5 PC Big Bend BAJ1 355.* Q10 PC Big Bend BAJ1 355.* Q25 PC Big Bend BAJ1 355.* Q50 PC Big Bend BAJ1 355.* Q100 PC Big Bend 350 baseflow EC Big Bend 350 baseflow PC Big Bend 350 Q1.01 EC Big Bend 350 Q1.01 PC Big Bend 350 Q1.5 EC Big Bend 350 Q1.5 PC Big Bend 350 Q2.0 EC Big Bend 350 Q2.0 PC Big Bend 350 Q5 EC Big Bend 350 Q5 PC Big Bend 350 Q10 EC Big Bend 350 Q10 PC Big Bend 350 Q25 EC Big Bend 350 Q25 PC Big Bend 350 Q50 EC Big Bend 350 Q50 PC Big Bend 350 Q100 EC Big Bend 350 Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\Big Bend Page 5 of 7

94 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Big Bend 300 baseflow EC Big Bend 300 baseflow PC Big Bend 300 Q1.01 EC Big Bend 300 Q1.01 PC Big Bend 300 Q1.5 EC Big Bend 300 Q1.5 PC Big Bend 300 Q2.0 EC Big Bend 300 Q2.0 PC Big Bend 300 Q5 EC Big Bend 300 Q5 PC Big Bend 300 Q10 EC Big Bend 300 Q10 PC Big Bend 300 Q25 EC Big Bend 300 Q25 PC Big Bend 300 Q50 EC Big Bend 300 Q50 PC Big Bend 300 Q100 EC Big Bend 300 Q100 PC Big Bend 250 baseflow EC Big Bend 250 baseflow PC Big Bend 250 Q1.01 EC Big Bend 250 Q1.01 PC Big Bend 250 Q1.5 EC Big Bend 250 Q1.5 PC Big Bend 250 Q2.0 EC Big Bend 250 Q2.0 PC Big Bend 250 Q5 EC Big Bend 250 Q5 PC Big Bend 250 Q10 EC Big Bend 250 Q10 PC Big Bend 250 Q25 EC Big Bend 250 Q25 PC Big Bend 250 Q50 EC Big Bend 250 Q50 PC Big Bend 250 Q100 EC Big Bend 250 Q100 PC Big Bend 200 baseflow EC Big Bend 200 baseflow PC Big Bend 200 Q1.01 EC Big Bend 200 Q1.01 PC Big Bend 200 Q1.5 EC Big Bend 200 Q1.5 PC Big Bend 200 Q2.0 EC Big Bend 200 Q2.0 PC Big Bend 200 Q5 EC Big Bend 200 Q5 PC Big Bend 200 Q10 EC Big Bend 200 Q10 PC Big Bend 200 Q25 EC Big Bend 200 Q25 PC Big Bend 200 Q50 EC Big Bend 200 Q50 PC Big Bend 200 Q100 EC Big Bend 200 Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\Big Bend Page 6 of 7

95 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Big Bend 150 baseflow EC Big Bend 150 baseflow PC Big Bend 150 Q1.01 EC Big Bend 150 Q1.01 PC Big Bend 150 Q1.5 EC Big Bend 150 Q1.5 PC Big Bend 150 Q2.0 EC Big Bend 150 Q2.0 PC Big Bend 150 Q5 EC Big Bend 150 Q5 PC Big Bend 150 Q10 EC Big Bend 150 Q10 PC Big Bend 150 Q25 EC Big Bend 150 Q25 PC Big Bend 150 Q50 EC Big Bend 150 Q50 PC Big Bend 150 Q100 EC Big Bend 150 Q100 PC Big Bend 100 baseflow EC Big Bend 100 baseflow PC Big Bend 100 Q1.01 EC Big Bend 100 Q1.01 PC Big Bend 100 Q1.5 EC Big Bend 100 Q1.5 PC Big Bend 100 Q2.0 EC Big Bend 100 Q2.0 PC Big Bend 100 Q5 EC Big Bend 100 Q5 PC Big Bend 100 Q10 EC Big Bend 100 Q10 PC Big Bend 100 Q25 EC Big Bend 100 Q25 PC Big Bend 100 Q50 EC Big Bend 100 Q50 PC Big Bend 100 Q100 EC Big Bend 100 Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\Big Bend Page 7 of 7

96 2. McISAAC REACH: HEC-RAS MODEL AND RESULTS * 870.* Mc I saac McIsaac * * 2020.* Model geometry McIsaac Reach Appendix D

97 Simulated Water Surface Profiles McIsaac Reach Appendix D

98 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) McIsaac 2234 baseflow EC McIsaac 2234 baseflow PC McIsaac 2234 Q1.01 EC McIsaac 2234 Q1.01 PC McIsaac 2234 Q1.5 EC McIsaac 2234 Q1.5 PC McIsaac 2234 Q2.0 EC McIsaac 2234 Q2.0 PC McIsaac 2234 Q5 EC McIsaac 2234 Q5 PC McIsaac 2234 Q10 EC McIsaac 2234 Q10 PC McIsaac 2234 Q25 EC McIsaac 2234 Q25 PC McIsaac 2234 Q50 EC McIsaac 2234 Q50 PC McIsaac 2234 Q100 EC McIsaac 2234 Q100 PC McIsaac 2200 baseflow EC McIsaac 2200 baseflow PC McIsaac 2200 Q1.01 EC McIsaac 2200 Q1.01 PC McIsaac 2200 Q1.5 EC McIsaac 2200 Q1.5 PC McIsaac 2200 Q2.0 EC McIsaac 2200 Q2.0 PC McIsaac 2200 Q5 EC McIsaac 2200 Q5 PC McIsaac 2200 Q10 EC McIsaac 2200 Q10 PC McIsaac 2200 Q25 EC McIsaac 2200 Q25 PC McIsaac 2200 Q50 EC McIsaac 2200 Q50 PC McIsaac 2200 Q100 EC McIsaac 2200 Q100 PC McIsaac 2150 baseflow EC McIsaac 2150 baseflow PC McIsaac 2150 Q1.01 EC McIsaac 2150 Q1.01 PC McIsaac 2150 Q1.5 EC McIsaac 2150 Q1.5 PC McIsaac 2150 Q2.0 EC McIsaac 2150 Q2.0 PC McIsaac 2150 Q5 EC McIsaac 2150 Q5 PC McIsaac 2150 Q10 EC McIsaac 2150 Q10 PC McIsaac 2150 Q25 EC McIsaac 2150 Q25 PC McIsaac 2150 Q50 EC McIsaac 2150 Q50 PC McIsaac 2150 Q100 EC McIsaac 2150 Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\McIsaac Page 1 of 22

99 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) McIsaac 2100 baseflow EC McIsaac 2100 baseflow PC McIsaac 2100 Q1.01 EC McIsaac 2100 Q1.01 PC McIsaac 2100 Q1.5 EC McIsaac 2100 Q1.5 PC McIsaac 2100 Q2.0 EC McIsaac 2100 Q2.0 PC McIsaac 2100 Q5 EC McIsaac 2100 Q5 PC McIsaac 2100 Q10 EC McIsaac 2100 Q10 PC McIsaac 2100 Q25 EC McIsaac 2100 Q25 PC McIsaac 2100 Q50 EC McIsaac 2100 Q50 PC McIsaac 2100 Q100 EC McIsaac 2100 Q100 PC McIsaac 2050 baseflow EC McIsaac 2050 baseflow PC McIsaac 2050 Q1.01 EC McIsaac 2050 Q1.01 PC McIsaac 2050 Q1.5 EC McIsaac 2050 Q1.5 PC McIsaac 2050 Q2.0 EC McIsaac 2050 Q2.0 PC McIsaac 2050 Q5 EC McIsaac 2050 Q5 PC McIsaac 2050 Q10 EC McIsaac 2050 Q10 PC McIsaac 2050 Q25 EC McIsaac 2050 Q25 PC McIsaac 2050 Q50 EC McIsaac 2050 Q50 PC McIsaac 2050 Q100 EC McIsaac 2050 Q100 PC McIsaac 2020.* baseflow EC McIsaac 2020.* baseflow PC McIsaac 2020.* Q1.01 EC McIsaac 2020.* Q1.01 PC McIsaac 2020.* Q1.5 EC McIsaac 2020.* Q1.5 PC McIsaac 2020.* Q2.0 EC McIsaac 2020.* Q2.0 PC McIsaac 2020.* Q5 EC McIsaac 2020.* Q5 PC McIsaac 2020.* Q10 EC McIsaac 2020.* Q10 PC McIsaac 2020.* Q25 EC McIsaac 2020.* Q25 PC McIsaac 2020.* Q50 EC McIsaac 2020.* Q50 PC McIsaac 2020.* Q100 EC McIsaac 2020.* Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\McIsaac Page 2 of 22

100 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) McIsaac BAJ * baseflow EC McIsaac BAJ * baseflow PC McIsaac BAJ * Q1.01 EC McIsaac BAJ * Q1.01 PC McIsaac BAJ * Q1.5 EC McIsaac BAJ * Q1.5 PC McIsaac BAJ * Q2.0 EC McIsaac BAJ * Q2.0 PC McIsaac BAJ * Q5 EC McIsaac BAJ * Q5 PC McIsaac BAJ * Q10 EC McIsaac BAJ * Q10 PC McIsaac BAJ * Q25 EC McIsaac BAJ * Q25 PC McIsaac BAJ * Q50 EC McIsaac BAJ * Q50 PC McIsaac BAJ * Q100 EC McIsaac BAJ * Q100 PC McIsaac BAJ baseflow EC McIsaac BAJ baseflow PC McIsaac BAJ Q1.01 EC McIsaac BAJ Q1.01 PC McIsaac BAJ Q1.5 EC McIsaac BAJ Q1.5 PC McIsaac BAJ Q2.0 EC McIsaac BAJ Q2.0 PC McIsaac BAJ Q5 EC McIsaac BAJ Q5 PC McIsaac BAJ Q10 EC McIsaac BAJ Q10 PC McIsaac BAJ Q25 EC McIsaac BAJ Q25 PC McIsaac BAJ Q50 EC McIsaac BAJ Q50 PC McIsaac BAJ Q100 EC McIsaac BAJ Q100 PC McIsaac 1975.* baseflow EC McIsaac 1975.* baseflow PC McIsaac 1975.* Q1.01 EC McIsaac 1975.* Q1.01 PC McIsaac 1975.* Q1.5 EC McIsaac 1975.* Q1.5 PC McIsaac 1975.* Q2.0 EC McIsaac 1975.* Q2.0 PC McIsaac 1975.* Q5 EC McIsaac 1975.* Q5 PC McIsaac 1975.* Q10 EC McIsaac 1975.* Q10 PC McIsaac 1975.* Q25 EC McIsaac 1975.* Q25 PC McIsaac 1975.* Q50 EC McIsaac 1975.* Q50 PC McIsaac 1975.* Q100 EC McIsaac 1975.* Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\McIsaac Page 3 of 22

101 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) McIsaac 1970.* baseflow EC McIsaac 1970.* baseflow PC McIsaac 1970.* Q1.01 EC McIsaac 1970.* Q1.01 PC McIsaac 1970.* Q1.5 EC McIsaac 1970.* Q1.5 PC McIsaac 1970.* Q2.0 EC McIsaac 1970.* Q2.0 PC McIsaac 1970.* Q5 EC McIsaac 1970.* Q5 PC McIsaac 1970.* Q10 EC McIsaac 1970.* Q10 PC McIsaac 1970.* Q25 EC McIsaac 1970.* Q25 PC McIsaac 1970.* Q50 EC McIsaac 1970.* Q50 PC McIsaac 1970.* Q100 EC McIsaac 1970.* Q100 PC McIsaac 1950 baseflow EC McIsaac 1950 baseflow PC McIsaac 1950 Q1.01 EC McIsaac 1950 Q1.01 PC McIsaac 1950 Q1.5 EC McIsaac 1950 Q1.5 PC McIsaac 1950 Q2.0 EC McIsaac 1950 Q2.0 PC McIsaac 1950 Q5 EC McIsaac 1950 Q5 PC McIsaac 1950 Q10 EC McIsaac 1950 Q10 PC McIsaac 1950 Q25 EC McIsaac 1950 Q25 PC McIsaac 1950 Q50 EC McIsaac 1950 Q50 PC McIsaac 1950 Q100 EC McIsaac 1950 Q100 PC McIsaac 1910.* baseflow EC McIsaac 1910.* baseflow PC McIsaac 1910.* Q1.01 EC McIsaac 1910.* Q1.01 PC McIsaac 1910.* Q1.5 EC McIsaac 1910.* Q1.5 PC McIsaac 1910.* Q2.0 EC McIsaac 1910.* Q2.0 PC McIsaac 1910.* Q5 EC McIsaac 1910.* Q5 PC McIsaac 1910.* Q10 EC McIsaac 1910.* Q10 PC McIsaac 1910.* Q25 EC McIsaac 1910.* Q25 PC McIsaac 1910.* Q50 EC McIsaac 1910.* Q50 PC McIsaac 1910.* Q100 EC McIsaac 1910.* Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\McIsaac Page 4 of 22

102 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) McIsaac 1900 baseflow EC McIsaac 1900 baseflow PC McIsaac 1900 Q1.01 EC McIsaac 1900 Q1.01 PC McIsaac 1900 Q1.5 EC McIsaac 1900 Q1.5 PC McIsaac 1900 Q2.0 EC McIsaac 1900 Q2.0 PC McIsaac 1900 Q5 EC McIsaac 1900 Q5 PC McIsaac 1900 Q10 EC McIsaac 1900 Q10 PC McIsaac 1900 Q25 EC McIsaac 1900 Q25 PC McIsaac 1900 Q50 EC McIsaac 1900 Q50 PC McIsaac 1900 Q100 EC McIsaac 1900 Q100 PC McIsaac 1890.* baseflow EC McIsaac 1890.* baseflow PC McIsaac 1890.* Q1.01 EC McIsaac 1890.* Q1.01 PC McIsaac 1890.* Q1.5 EC McIsaac 1890.* Q1.5 PC McIsaac 1890.* Q2.0 EC McIsaac 1890.* Q2.0 PC McIsaac 1890.* Q5 EC McIsaac 1890.* Q5 PC McIsaac 1890.* Q10 EC McIsaac 1890.* Q10 PC McIsaac 1890.* Q25 EC McIsaac 1890.* Q25 PC McIsaac 1890.* Q50 EC McIsaac 1890.* Q50 PC McIsaac 1890.* Q100 EC McIsaac 1890.* Q100 PC McIsaac LDRJ * baseflow EC McIsaac LDRJ * baseflow PC McIsaac LDRJ * Q1.01 EC McIsaac LDRJ * Q1.01 PC McIsaac LDRJ * Q1.5 EC McIsaac LDRJ * Q1.5 PC McIsaac LDRJ * Q2.0 EC McIsaac LDRJ * Q2.0 PC McIsaac LDRJ * Q5 EC McIsaac LDRJ * Q5 PC McIsaac LDRJ * Q10 EC McIsaac LDRJ * Q10 PC McIsaac LDRJ * Q25 EC McIsaac LDRJ * Q25 PC McIsaac LDRJ * Q50 EC McIsaac LDRJ * Q50 PC McIsaac LDRJ * Q100 EC McIsaac LDRJ * Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\McIsaac Page 5 of 22

103 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) McIsaac LDRJ * baseflow EC McIsaac LDRJ * baseflow PC McIsaac LDRJ * Q1.01 EC McIsaac LDRJ * Q1.01 PC McIsaac LDRJ * Q1.5 EC McIsaac LDRJ * Q1.5 PC McIsaac LDRJ * Q2.0 EC McIsaac LDRJ * Q2.0 PC McIsaac LDRJ * Q5 EC McIsaac LDRJ * Q5 PC McIsaac LDRJ * Q10 EC McIsaac LDRJ * Q10 PC McIsaac LDRJ * Q25 EC McIsaac LDRJ * Q25 PC McIsaac LDRJ * Q50 EC McIsaac LDRJ * Q50 PC McIsaac LDRJ * Q100 EC McIsaac LDRJ * Q100 PC McIsaac 1870.* baseflow EC McIsaac 1870.* baseflow PC McIsaac 1870.* Q1.01 EC McIsaac 1870.* Q1.01 PC McIsaac 1870.* Q1.5 EC McIsaac 1870.* Q1.5 PC McIsaac 1870.* Q2.0 EC McIsaac 1870.* Q2.0 PC McIsaac 1870.* Q5 EC McIsaac 1870.* Q5 PC McIsaac 1870.* Q10 EC McIsaac 1870.* Q10 PC McIsaac 1870.* Q25 EC McIsaac 1870.* Q25 PC McIsaac 1870.* Q50 EC McIsaac 1870.* Q50 PC McIsaac 1870.* Q100 EC McIsaac 1870.* Q100 PC McIsaac 1850 baseflow EC McIsaac 1850 baseflow PC McIsaac 1850 Q1.01 EC McIsaac 1850 Q1.01 PC McIsaac 1850 Q1.5 EC McIsaac 1850 Q1.5 PC McIsaac 1850 Q2.0 EC McIsaac 1850 Q2.0 PC McIsaac 1850 Q5 EC McIsaac 1850 Q5 PC McIsaac 1850 Q10 EC McIsaac 1850 Q10 PC McIsaac 1850 Q25 EC McIsaac 1850 Q25 PC McIsaac 1850 Q50 EC McIsaac 1850 Q50 PC McIsaac 1850 Q100 EC McIsaac 1850 Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\McIsaac Page 6 of 22

104 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) McIsaac 1830.* baseflow EC McIsaac 1830.* baseflow PC McIsaac 1830.* Q1.01 EC McIsaac 1830.* Q1.01 PC McIsaac 1830.* Q1.5 EC McIsaac 1830.* Q1.5 PC McIsaac 1830.* Q2.0 EC McIsaac 1830.* Q2.0 PC McIsaac 1830.* Q5 EC McIsaac 1830.* Q5 PC McIsaac 1830.* Q10 EC McIsaac 1830.* Q10 PC McIsaac 1830.* Q25 EC McIsaac 1830.* Q25 PC McIsaac 1830.* Q50 EC McIsaac 1830.* Q50 PC McIsaac 1830.* Q100 EC McIsaac 1830.* Q100 PC McIsaac 1800 baseflow EC McIsaac 1800 baseflow PC McIsaac 1800 Q1.01 EC McIsaac 1800 Q1.01 PC McIsaac 1800 Q1.5 EC McIsaac 1800 Q1.5 PC McIsaac 1800 Q2.0 EC McIsaac 1800 Q2.0 PC McIsaac 1800 Q5 EC McIsaac 1800 Q5 PC McIsaac 1800 Q10 EC McIsaac 1800 Q10 PC McIsaac 1800 Q25 EC McIsaac 1800 Q25 PC McIsaac 1800 Q50 EC McIsaac 1800 Q50 PC McIsaac 1800 Q100 EC McIsaac 1800 Q100 PC McIsaac 1750 baseflow EC McIsaac 1750 baseflow PC McIsaac 1750 Q1.01 EC McIsaac 1750 Q1.01 PC McIsaac 1750 Q1.5 EC McIsaac 1750 Q1.5 PC McIsaac 1750 Q2.0 EC McIsaac 1750 Q2.0 PC McIsaac 1750 Q5 EC McIsaac 1750 Q5 PC McIsaac 1750 Q10 EC McIsaac 1750 Q10 PC McIsaac 1750 Q25 EC McIsaac 1750 Q25 PC McIsaac 1750 Q50 EC McIsaac 1750 Q50 PC McIsaac 1750 Q100 EC McIsaac 1750 Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\McIsaac Page 7 of 22

105 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) McIsaac 1700 baseflow EC McIsaac 1700 baseflow PC McIsaac 1700 Q1.01 EC McIsaac 1700 Q1.01 PC McIsaac 1700 Q1.5 EC McIsaac 1700 Q1.5 PC McIsaac 1700 Q2.0 EC McIsaac 1700 Q2.0 PC McIsaac 1700 Q5 EC McIsaac 1700 Q5 PC McIsaac 1700 Q10 EC McIsaac 1700 Q10 PC McIsaac 1700 Q25 EC McIsaac 1700 Q25 PC McIsaac 1700 Q50 EC McIsaac 1700 Q50 PC McIsaac 1700 Q100 EC McIsaac 1700 Q100 PC McIsaac 1650 baseflow EC McIsaac 1650 baseflow PC McIsaac 1650 Q1.01 EC McIsaac 1650 Q1.01 PC McIsaac 1650 Q1.5 EC McIsaac 1650 Q1.5 PC McIsaac 1650 Q2.0 EC McIsaac 1650 Q2.0 PC McIsaac 1650 Q5 EC McIsaac 1650 Q5 PC McIsaac 1650 Q10 EC McIsaac 1650 Q10 PC McIsaac 1650 Q25 EC McIsaac 1650 Q25 PC McIsaac 1650 Q50 EC McIsaac 1650 Q50 PC McIsaac 1650 Q100 EC McIsaac 1650 Q100 PC McIsaac 1600 baseflow EC McIsaac 1600 baseflow PC McIsaac 1600 Q1.01 EC McIsaac 1600 Q1.01 PC McIsaac 1600 Q1.5 EC McIsaac 1600 Q1.5 PC McIsaac 1600 Q2.0 EC McIsaac 1600 Q2.0 PC McIsaac 1600 Q5 EC McIsaac 1600 Q5 PC McIsaac 1600 Q10 EC McIsaac 1600 Q10 PC McIsaac 1600 Q25 EC McIsaac 1600 Q25 PC McIsaac 1600 Q50 EC McIsaac 1600 Q50 PC McIsaac 1600 Q100 EC McIsaac 1600 Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\McIsaac Page 8 of 22

106 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) McIsaac 1550 baseflow EC McIsaac 1550 baseflow PC McIsaac 1550 Q1.01 EC McIsaac 1550 Q1.01 PC McIsaac 1550 Q1.5 EC McIsaac 1550 Q1.5 PC McIsaac 1550 Q2.0 EC McIsaac 1550 Q2.0 PC McIsaac 1550 Q5 EC McIsaac 1550 Q5 PC McIsaac 1550 Q10 EC McIsaac 1550 Q10 PC McIsaac 1550 Q25 EC McIsaac 1550 Q25 PC McIsaac 1550 Q50 EC McIsaac 1550 Q50 PC McIsaac 1550 Q100 EC McIsaac 1550 Q100 PC McIsaac 1500 baseflow EC McIsaac 1500 baseflow PC McIsaac 1500 Q1.01 EC McIsaac 1500 Q1.01 PC McIsaac 1500 Q1.5 EC McIsaac 1500 Q1.5 PC McIsaac 1500 Q2.0 EC McIsaac 1500 Q2.0 PC McIsaac 1500 Q5 EC McIsaac 1500 Q5 PC McIsaac 1500 Q10 EC McIsaac 1500 Q10 PC McIsaac 1500 Q25 EC McIsaac 1500 Q25 PC McIsaac 1500 Q50 EC McIsaac 1500 Q50 PC McIsaac 1500 Q100 EC McIsaac 1500 Q100 PC McIsaac 1450 baseflow EC McIsaac 1450 baseflow PC McIsaac 1450 Q1.01 EC McIsaac 1450 Q1.01 PC McIsaac 1450 Q1.5 EC McIsaac 1450 Q1.5 PC McIsaac 1450 Q2.0 EC McIsaac 1450 Q2.0 PC McIsaac 1450 Q5 EC McIsaac 1450 Q5 PC McIsaac 1450 Q10 EC McIsaac 1450 Q10 PC McIsaac 1450 Q25 EC McIsaac 1450 Q25 PC McIsaac 1450 Q50 EC McIsaac 1450 Q50 PC McIsaac 1450 Q100 EC McIsaac 1450 Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\McIsaac Page 9 of 22

107 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) McIsaac 1400 baseflow EC McIsaac 1400 baseflow PC McIsaac 1400 Q1.01 EC McIsaac 1400 Q1.01 PC McIsaac 1400 Q1.5 EC McIsaac 1400 Q1.5 PC McIsaac 1400 Q2.0 EC McIsaac 1400 Q2.0 PC McIsaac 1400 Q5 EC McIsaac 1400 Q5 PC McIsaac 1400 Q10 EC McIsaac 1400 Q10 PC McIsaac 1400 Q25 EC McIsaac 1400 Q25 PC McIsaac 1400 Q50 EC McIsaac 1400 Q50 PC McIsaac 1400 Q100 EC McIsaac 1400 Q100 PC McIsaac 1370.* baseflow EC McIsaac 1370.* baseflow PC McIsaac 1370.* Q1.01 EC McIsaac 1370.* Q1.01 PC McIsaac 1370.* Q1.5 EC McIsaac 1370.* Q1.5 PC McIsaac 1370.* Q2.0 EC McIsaac 1370.* Q2.0 PC McIsaac 1370.* Q5 EC McIsaac 1370.* Q5 PC McIsaac 1370.* Q10 EC McIsaac 1370.* Q10 PC McIsaac 1370.* Q25 EC McIsaac 1370.* Q25 PC McIsaac 1370.* Q50 EC McIsaac 1370.* Q50 PC McIsaac 1370.* Q100 EC McIsaac 1370.* Q100 PC McIsaac 1350 baseflow EC McIsaac 1350 baseflow PC McIsaac 1350 Q1.01 EC McIsaac 1350 Q1.01 PC McIsaac 1350 Q1.5 EC McIsaac 1350 Q1.5 PC McIsaac 1350 Q2.0 EC McIsaac 1350 Q2.0 PC McIsaac 1350 Q5 EC McIsaac 1350 Q5 PC McIsaac 1350 Q10 EC McIsaac 1350 Q10 PC McIsaac 1350 Q25 EC McIsaac 1350 Q25 PC McIsaac 1350 Q50 EC McIsaac 1350 Q50 PC McIsaac 1350 Q100 EC McIsaac 1350 Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\McIsaac Page 10 of 22

108 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) McIsaac LDRJ * baseflow EC McIsaac LDRJ * baseflow PC McIsaac LDRJ * Q1.01 EC McIsaac LDRJ * Q1.01 PC McIsaac LDRJ * Q1.5 EC McIsaac LDRJ * Q1.5 PC McIsaac LDRJ * Q2.0 EC McIsaac LDRJ * Q2.0 PC McIsaac LDRJ * Q5 EC McIsaac LDRJ * Q5 PC McIsaac LDRJ * Q10 EC McIsaac LDRJ * Q10 PC McIsaac LDRJ * Q25 EC McIsaac LDRJ * Q25 PC McIsaac LDRJ * Q50 EC McIsaac LDRJ * Q50 PC McIsaac LDRJ * Q100 EC McIsaac LDRJ * Q100 PC McIsaac LDRJ * baseflow EC McIsaac LDRJ * baseflow PC McIsaac LDRJ * Q1.01 EC McIsaac LDRJ * Q1.01 PC McIsaac LDRJ * Q1.5 EC McIsaac LDRJ * Q1.5 PC McIsaac LDRJ * Q2.0 EC McIsaac LDRJ * Q2.0 PC McIsaac LDRJ * Q5 EC McIsaac LDRJ * Q5 PC McIsaac LDRJ * Q10 EC McIsaac LDRJ * Q10 PC McIsaac LDRJ * Q25 EC McIsaac LDRJ * Q25 PC McIsaac LDRJ * Q50 EC McIsaac LDRJ * Q50 PC McIsaac LDRJ * Q100 EC McIsaac LDRJ * Q100 PC McIsaac 1330.* baseflow EC McIsaac 1330.* baseflow PC McIsaac 1330.* Q1.01 EC McIsaac 1330.* Q1.01 PC McIsaac 1330.* Q1.5 EC McIsaac 1330.* Q1.5 PC McIsaac 1330.* Q2.0 EC McIsaac 1330.* Q2.0 PC McIsaac 1330.* Q5 EC McIsaac 1330.* Q5 PC McIsaac 1330.* Q10 EC McIsaac 1330.* Q10 PC McIsaac 1330.* Q25 EC McIsaac 1330.* Q25 PC McIsaac 1330.* Q50 EC McIsaac 1330.* Q50 PC McIsaac 1330.* Q100 EC McIsaac 1330.* Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\McIsaac Page 11 of 22

109 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) McIsaac 1300 baseflow EC McIsaac 1300 baseflow PC McIsaac 1300 Q1.01 EC McIsaac 1300 Q1.01 PC McIsaac 1300 Q1.5 EC McIsaac 1300 Q1.5 PC McIsaac 1300 Q2.0 EC McIsaac 1300 Q2.0 PC McIsaac 1300 Q5 EC McIsaac 1300 Q5 PC McIsaac 1300 Q10 EC McIsaac 1300 Q10 PC McIsaac 1300 Q25 EC McIsaac 1300 Q25 PC McIsaac 1300 Q50 EC McIsaac 1300 Q50 PC McIsaac 1300 Q100 EC McIsaac 1300 Q100 PC McIsaac 1290.* baseflow EC McIsaac 1290.* baseflow PC McIsaac 1290.* Q1.01 EC McIsaac 1290.* Q1.01 PC McIsaac 1290.* Q1.5 EC McIsaac 1290.* Q1.5 PC McIsaac 1290.* Q2.0 EC McIsaac 1290.* Q2.0 PC McIsaac 1290.* Q5 EC McIsaac 1290.* Q5 PC McIsaac 1290.* Q10 EC McIsaac 1290.* Q10 PC McIsaac 1290.* Q25 EC McIsaac 1290.* Q25 PC McIsaac 1290.* Q50 EC McIsaac 1290.* Q50 PC McIsaac 1290.* Q100 EC McIsaac 1290.* Q100 PC McIsaac 1250 baseflow EC McIsaac 1250 baseflow PC McIsaac 1250 Q1.01 EC McIsaac 1250 Q1.01 PC McIsaac 1250 Q1.5 EC McIsaac 1250 Q1.5 PC McIsaac 1250 Q2.0 EC McIsaac 1250 Q2.0 PC McIsaac 1250 Q5 EC McIsaac 1250 Q5 PC McIsaac 1250 Q10 EC McIsaac 1250 Q10 PC McIsaac 1250 Q25 EC McIsaac 1250 Q25 PC McIsaac 1250 Q50 EC McIsaac 1250 Q50 PC McIsaac 1250 Q100 EC McIsaac 1250 Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\McIsaac Page 12 of 22

110 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) McIsaac 1200 baseflow EC McIsaac 1200 baseflow PC McIsaac 1200 Q1.01 EC McIsaac 1200 Q1.01 PC McIsaac 1200 Q1.5 EC McIsaac 1200 Q1.5 PC McIsaac 1200 Q2.0 EC McIsaac 1200 Q2.0 PC McIsaac 1200 Q5 EC McIsaac 1200 Q5 PC McIsaac 1200 Q10 EC McIsaac 1200 Q10 PC McIsaac 1200 Q25 EC McIsaac 1200 Q25 PC McIsaac 1200 Q50 EC McIsaac 1200 Q50 PC McIsaac 1200 Q100 EC McIsaac 1200 Q100 PC McIsaac 1150 baseflow EC McIsaac 1150 baseflow PC McIsaac 1150 Q1.01 EC McIsaac 1150 Q1.01 PC McIsaac 1150 Q1.5 EC McIsaac 1150 Q1.5 PC McIsaac 1150 Q2.0 EC McIsaac 1150 Q2.0 PC McIsaac 1150 Q5 EC McIsaac 1150 Q5 PC McIsaac 1150 Q10 EC McIsaac 1150 Q10 PC McIsaac 1150 Q25 EC McIsaac 1150 Q25 PC McIsaac 1150 Q50 EC McIsaac 1150 Q50 PC McIsaac 1150 Q100 EC McIsaac 1150 Q100 PC McIsaac 1100 baseflow EC McIsaac 1100 baseflow PC McIsaac 1100 Q1.01 EC McIsaac 1100 Q1.01 PC McIsaac 1100 Q1.5 EC McIsaac 1100 Q1.5 PC McIsaac 1100 Q2.0 EC McIsaac 1100 Q2.0 PC McIsaac 1100 Q5 EC McIsaac 1100 Q5 PC McIsaac 1100 Q10 EC McIsaac 1100 Q10 PC McIsaac 1100 Q25 EC McIsaac 1100 Q25 PC McIsaac 1100 Q50 EC McIsaac 1100 Q50 PC McIsaac 1100 Q100 EC McIsaac 1100 Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\McIsaac Page 13 of 22

111 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) McIsaac 1050 baseflow EC McIsaac 1050 baseflow PC McIsaac 1050 Q1.01 EC McIsaac 1050 Q1.01 PC McIsaac 1050 Q1.5 EC McIsaac 1050 Q1.5 PC McIsaac 1050 Q2.0 EC McIsaac 1050 Q2.0 PC McIsaac 1050 Q5 EC McIsaac 1050 Q5 PC McIsaac 1050 Q10 EC McIsaac 1050 Q10 PC McIsaac 1050 Q25 EC McIsaac 1050 Q25 PC McIsaac 1050 Q50 EC McIsaac 1050 Q50 PC McIsaac 1050 Q100 EC McIsaac 1050 Q100 PC McIsaac 1000 baseflow EC McIsaac 1000 baseflow PC McIsaac 1000 Q1.01 EC McIsaac 1000 Q1.01 PC McIsaac 1000 Q1.5 EC McIsaac 1000 Q1.5 PC McIsaac 1000 Q2.0 EC McIsaac 1000 Q2.0 PC McIsaac 1000 Q5 EC McIsaac 1000 Q5 PC McIsaac 1000 Q10 EC McIsaac 1000 Q10 PC McIsaac 1000 Q25 EC McIsaac 1000 Q25 PC McIsaac 1000 Q50 EC McIsaac 1000 Q50 PC McIsaac 1000 Q100 EC McIsaac 1000 Q100 PC McIsaac 950 baseflow EC McIsaac 950 baseflow PC McIsaac 950 Q1.01 EC McIsaac 950 Q1.01 PC McIsaac 950 Q1.5 EC McIsaac 950 Q1.5 PC McIsaac 950 Q2.0 EC McIsaac 950 Q2.0 PC McIsaac 950 Q5 EC McIsaac 950 Q5 PC McIsaac 950 Q10 EC McIsaac 950 Q10 PC McIsaac 950 Q25 EC McIsaac 950 Q25 PC McIsaac 950 Q50 EC McIsaac 950 Q50 PC McIsaac 950 Q100 EC McIsaac 950 Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\McIsaac Page 14 of 22

112 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) McIsaac 900 baseflow EC McIsaac 900 baseflow PC McIsaac 900 Q1.01 EC McIsaac 900 Q1.01 PC McIsaac 900 Q1.5 EC McIsaac 900 Q1.5 PC McIsaac 900 Q2.0 EC McIsaac 900 Q2.0 PC McIsaac 900 Q5 EC McIsaac 900 Q5 PC McIsaac 900 Q10 EC McIsaac 900 Q10 PC McIsaac 900 Q25 EC McIsaac 900 Q25 PC McIsaac 900 Q50 EC McIsaac 900 Q50 PC McIsaac 900 Q100 EC McIsaac 900 Q100 PC McIsaac 870.* baseflow EC McIsaac 870.* baseflow PC McIsaac 870.* Q1.01 EC McIsaac 870.* Q1.01 PC McIsaac 870.* Q1.5 EC McIsaac 870.* Q1.5 PC McIsaac 870.* Q2.0 EC McIsaac 870.* Q2.0 PC McIsaac 870.* Q5 EC McIsaac 870.* Q5 PC McIsaac 870.* Q10 EC McIsaac 870.* Q10 PC McIsaac 870.* Q25 EC McIsaac 870.* Q25 PC McIsaac 870.* Q50 EC McIsaac 870.* Q50 PC McIsaac 870.* Q100 EC McIsaac 870.* Q100 PC McIsaac 850 baseflow EC McIsaac 850 baseflow PC McIsaac 850 Q1.01 EC McIsaac 850 Q1.01 PC McIsaac 850 Q1.5 EC McIsaac 850 Q1.5 PC McIsaac 850 Q2.0 EC McIsaac 850 Q2.0 PC McIsaac 850 Q5 EC McIsaac 850 Q5 PC McIsaac 850 Q10 EC McIsaac 850 Q10 PC McIsaac 850 Q25 EC McIsaac 850 Q25 PC McIsaac 850 Q50 EC McIsaac 850 Q50 PC McIsaac 850 Q100 EC McIsaac 850 Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\McIsaac Page 15 of 22

113 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) McIsaac 840.* baseflow EC McIsaac 840.* baseflow PC McIsaac 840.* Q1.01 EC McIsaac 840.* Q1.01 PC McIsaac 840.* Q1.5 EC McIsaac 840.* Q1.5 PC McIsaac 840.* Q2.0 EC McIsaac 840.* Q2.0 PC McIsaac 840.* Q5 EC McIsaac 840.* Q5 PC McIsaac 840.* Q10 EC McIsaac 840.* Q10 PC McIsaac 840.* Q25 EC McIsaac 840.* Q25 PC McIsaac 840.* Q50 EC McIsaac 840.* Q50 PC McIsaac 840.* Q100 EC McIsaac 840.* Q100 PC McIsaac BAJ3 835.* baseflow EC McIsaac BAJ3 835.* baseflow PC McIsaac BAJ3 835.* Q1.01 EC McIsaac BAJ3 835.* Q1.01 PC McIsaac BAJ3 835.* Q1.5 EC McIsaac BAJ3 835.* Q1.5 PC McIsaac BAJ3 835.* Q2.0 EC McIsaac BAJ3 835.* Q2.0 PC McIsaac BAJ3 835.* Q5 EC McIsaac BAJ3 835.* Q5 PC McIsaac BAJ3 835.* Q10 EC McIsaac BAJ3 835.* Q10 PC McIsaac BAJ3 835.* Q25 EC McIsaac BAJ3 835.* Q25 PC McIsaac BAJ3 835.* Q50 EC McIsaac BAJ3 835.* Q50 PC McIsaac BAJ3 835.* Q100 EC McIsaac BAJ3 835.* Q100 PC McIsaac BAJ3 800 baseflow EC McIsaac BAJ3 800 baseflow PC McIsaac BAJ3 800 Q1.01 EC McIsaac BAJ3 800 Q1.01 PC McIsaac BAJ3 800 Q1.5 EC McIsaac BAJ3 800 Q1.5 PC McIsaac BAJ3 800 Q2.0 EC McIsaac BAJ3 800 Q2.0 PC McIsaac BAJ3 800 Q5 EC McIsaac BAJ3 800 Q5 PC McIsaac BAJ3 800 Q10 EC McIsaac BAJ3 800 Q10 PC McIsaac BAJ3 800 Q25 EC McIsaac BAJ3 800 Q25 PC McIsaac BAJ3 800 Q50 EC McIsaac BAJ3 800 Q50 PC McIsaac BAJ3 800 Q100 EC McIsaac BAJ3 800 Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\McIsaac Page 16 of 22

114 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) McIsaac BAJ3 795.* baseflow EC McIsaac BAJ3 795.* baseflow PC McIsaac BAJ3 795.* Q1.01 EC McIsaac BAJ3 795.* Q1.01 PC McIsaac BAJ3 795.* Q1.5 EC McIsaac BAJ3 795.* Q1.5 PC McIsaac BAJ3 795.* Q2.0 EC McIsaac BAJ3 795.* Q2.0 PC McIsaac BAJ3 795.* Q5 EC McIsaac BAJ3 795.* Q5 PC McIsaac BAJ3 795.* Q10 EC McIsaac BAJ3 795.* Q10 PC McIsaac BAJ3 795.* Q25 EC McIsaac BAJ3 795.* Q25 PC McIsaac BAJ3 795.* Q50 EC McIsaac BAJ3 795.* Q50 PC McIsaac BAJ3 795.* Q100 EC McIsaac BAJ3 795.* Q100 PC McIsaac 790.* baseflow EC McIsaac 790.* baseflow PC McIsaac 790.* Q1.01 EC McIsaac 790.* Q1.01 PC McIsaac 790.* Q1.5 EC McIsaac 790.* Q1.5 PC McIsaac 790.* Q2.0 EC McIsaac 790.* Q2.0 PC McIsaac 790.* Q5 EC McIsaac 790.* Q5 PC McIsaac 790.* Q10 EC McIsaac 790.* Q10 PC McIsaac 790.* Q25 EC McIsaac 790.* Q25 PC McIsaac 790.* Q50 EC McIsaac 790.* Q50 PC McIsaac 790.* Q100 EC McIsaac 790.* Q100 PC McIsaac 750 baseflow EC McIsaac 750 baseflow PC McIsaac 750 Q1.01 EC McIsaac 750 Q1.01 PC McIsaac 750 Q1.5 EC McIsaac 750 Q1.5 PC McIsaac 750 Q2.0 EC McIsaac 750 Q2.0 PC McIsaac 750 Q5 EC McIsaac 750 Q5 PC McIsaac 750 Q10 EC McIsaac 750 Q10 PC McIsaac 750 Q25 EC McIsaac 750 Q25 PC McIsaac 750 Q50 EC McIsaac 750 Q50 PC McIsaac 750 Q100 EC McIsaac 750 Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\McIsaac Page 17 of 22

115 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) McIsaac 730.* baseflow EC McIsaac 730.* baseflow PC McIsaac 730.* Q1.01 EC McIsaac 730.* Q1.01 PC McIsaac 730.* Q1.5 EC McIsaac 730.* Q1.5 PC McIsaac 730.* Q2.0 EC McIsaac 730.* Q2.0 PC McIsaac 730.* Q5 EC McIsaac 730.* Q5 PC McIsaac 730.* Q10 EC McIsaac 730.* Q10 PC McIsaac 730.* Q25 EC McIsaac 730.* Q25 PC McIsaac 730.* Q50 EC McIsaac 730.* Q50 PC McIsaac 730.* Q100 EC McIsaac 730.* Q100 PC McIsaac 700 baseflow EC McIsaac 700 baseflow PC McIsaac 700 Q1.01 EC McIsaac 700 Q1.01 PC McIsaac 700 Q1.5 EC McIsaac 700 Q1.5 PC McIsaac 700 Q2.0 EC McIsaac 700 Q2.0 PC McIsaac 700 Q5 EC McIsaac 700 Q5 PC McIsaac 700 Q10 EC McIsaac 700 Q10 PC McIsaac 700 Q25 EC McIsaac 700 Q25 PC McIsaac 700 Q50 EC McIsaac 700 Q50 PC McIsaac 700 Q100 EC McIsaac 700 Q100 PC McIsaac 650 baseflow EC McIsaac 650 baseflow PC McIsaac 650 Q1.01 EC McIsaac 650 Q1.01 PC McIsaac 650 Q1.5 EC McIsaac 650 Q1.5 PC McIsaac 650 Q2.0 EC McIsaac 650 Q2.0 PC McIsaac 650 Q5 EC McIsaac 650 Q5 PC McIsaac 650 Q10 EC McIsaac 650 Q10 PC McIsaac 650 Q25 EC McIsaac 650 Q25 PC McIsaac 650 Q50 EC McIsaac 650 Q50 PC McIsaac 650 Q100 EC McIsaac 650 Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\McIsaac Page 18 of 22

116 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) McIsaac 600 baseflow EC McIsaac 600 baseflow PC McIsaac 600 Q1.01 EC McIsaac 600 Q1.01 PC McIsaac 600 Q1.5 EC McIsaac 600 Q1.5 PC McIsaac 600 Q2.0 EC McIsaac 600 Q2.0 PC McIsaac 600 Q5 EC McIsaac 600 Q5 PC McIsaac 600 Q10 EC McIsaac 600 Q10 PC McIsaac 600 Q25 EC McIsaac 600 Q25 PC McIsaac 600 Q50 EC McIsaac 600 Q50 PC McIsaac 600 Q100 EC McIsaac 600 Q100 PC McIsaac 550 baseflow EC McIsaac 550 baseflow PC McIsaac 550 Q1.01 EC McIsaac 550 Q1.01 PC McIsaac 550 Q1.5 EC McIsaac 550 Q1.5 PC McIsaac 550 Q2.0 EC McIsaac 550 Q2.0 PC McIsaac 550 Q5 EC McIsaac 550 Q5 PC McIsaac 550 Q10 EC McIsaac 550 Q10 PC McIsaac 550 Q25 EC McIsaac 550 Q25 PC McIsaac 550 Q50 EC McIsaac 550 Q50 PC McIsaac 550 Q100 EC McIsaac 550 Q100 PC McIsaac 500 baseflow EC McIsaac 500 baseflow PC McIsaac 500 Q1.01 EC McIsaac 500 Q1.01 PC McIsaac 500 Q1.5 EC McIsaac 500 Q1.5 PC McIsaac 500 Q2.0 EC McIsaac 500 Q2.0 PC McIsaac 500 Q5 EC McIsaac 500 Q5 PC McIsaac 500 Q10 EC McIsaac 500 Q10 PC McIsaac 500 Q25 EC McIsaac 500 Q25 PC McIsaac 500 Q50 EC McIsaac 500 Q50 PC McIsaac 500 Q100 EC McIsaac 500 Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\McIsaac Page 19 of 22

117 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) McIsaac 450 baseflow EC McIsaac 450 baseflow PC McIsaac 450 Q1.01 EC McIsaac 450 Q1.01 PC McIsaac 450 Q1.5 EC McIsaac 450 Q1.5 PC McIsaac 450 Q2.0 EC McIsaac 450 Q2.0 PC McIsaac 450 Q5 EC McIsaac 450 Q5 PC McIsaac 450 Q10 EC McIsaac 450 Q10 PC McIsaac 450 Q25 EC McIsaac 450 Q25 PC McIsaac 450 Q50 EC McIsaac 450 Q50 PC McIsaac 450 Q100 EC McIsaac 450 Q100 PC McIsaac 400 baseflow EC McIsaac 400 baseflow PC McIsaac 400 Q1.01 EC McIsaac 400 Q1.01 PC McIsaac 400 Q1.5 EC McIsaac 400 Q1.5 PC McIsaac 400 Q2.0 EC McIsaac 400 Q2.0 PC McIsaac 400 Q5 EC McIsaac 400 Q5 PC McIsaac 400 Q10 EC McIsaac 400 Q10 PC McIsaac 400 Q25 EC McIsaac 400 Q25 PC McIsaac 400 Q50 EC McIsaac 400 Q50 PC McIsaac 400 Q100 EC McIsaac 400 Q100 PC McIsaac 350 baseflow EC McIsaac 350 baseflow PC McIsaac 350 Q1.01 EC McIsaac 350 Q1.01 PC McIsaac 350 Q1.5 EC McIsaac 350 Q1.5 PC McIsaac 350 Q2.0 EC McIsaac 350 Q2.0 PC McIsaac 350 Q5 EC McIsaac 350 Q5 PC McIsaac 350 Q10 EC McIsaac 350 Q10 PC McIsaac 350 Q25 EC McIsaac 350 Q25 PC McIsaac 350 Q50 EC McIsaac 350 Q50 PC McIsaac 350 Q100 EC McIsaac 350 Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\McIsaac Page 20 of 22

118 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) McIsaac 300 baseflow EC McIsaac 300 baseflow PC McIsaac 300 Q1.01 EC McIsaac 300 Q1.01 PC McIsaac 300 Q1.5 EC McIsaac 300 Q1.5 PC McIsaac 300 Q2.0 EC McIsaac 300 Q2.0 PC McIsaac 300 Q5 EC McIsaac 300 Q5 PC McIsaac 300 Q10 EC McIsaac 300 Q10 PC McIsaac 300 Q25 EC McIsaac 300 Q25 PC McIsaac 300 Q50 EC McIsaac 300 Q50 PC McIsaac 300 Q100 EC McIsaac 300 Q100 PC McIsaac 250 baseflow EC McIsaac 250 baseflow PC McIsaac 250 Q1.01 EC McIsaac 250 Q1.01 PC McIsaac 250 Q1.5 EC McIsaac 250 Q1.5 PC McIsaac 250 Q2.0 EC McIsaac 250 Q2.0 PC McIsaac 250 Q5 EC McIsaac 250 Q5 PC McIsaac 250 Q10 EC McIsaac 250 Q10 PC McIsaac 250 Q25 EC McIsaac 250 Q25 PC McIsaac 250 Q50 EC McIsaac 250 Q50 PC McIsaac 250 Q100 EC McIsaac 250 Q100 PC McIsaac 200 baseflow EC McIsaac 200 baseflow PC McIsaac 200 Q1.01 EC McIsaac 200 Q1.01 PC McIsaac 200 Q1.5 EC McIsaac 200 Q1.5 PC McIsaac 200 Q2.0 EC McIsaac 200 Q2.0 PC McIsaac 200 Q5 EC McIsaac 200 Q5 PC McIsaac 200 Q10 EC McIsaac 200 Q10 PC McIsaac 200 Q25 EC McIsaac 200 Q25 PC McIsaac 200 Q50 EC McIsaac 200 Q50 PC McIsaac 200 Q100 EC McIsaac 200 Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\McIsaac Page 21 of 22

119 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) McIsaac 150 baseflow EC McIsaac 150 baseflow PC McIsaac 150 Q1.01 EC McIsaac 150 Q1.01 PC McIsaac 150 Q1.5 EC McIsaac 150 Q1.5 PC McIsaac 150 Q2.0 EC McIsaac 150 Q2.0 PC McIsaac 150 Q5 EC McIsaac 150 Q5 PC McIsaac 150 Q10 EC McIsaac 150 Q10 PC McIsaac 150 Q25 EC McIsaac 150 Q25 PC McIsaac 150 Q50 EC McIsaac 150 Q50 PC McIsaac 150 Q100 EC McIsaac 150 Q100 PC McIsaac 100 baseflow EC McIsaac 100 baseflow PC McIsaac 100 Q1.01 EC McIsaac 100 Q1.01 PC McIsaac 100 Q1.5 EC McIsaac 100 Q1.5 PC McIsaac 100 Q2.0 EC McIsaac 100 Q2.0 PC McIsaac 100 Q5 EC McIsaac 100 Q5 PC McIsaac 100 Q10 EC McIsaac 100 Q10 PC McIsaac 100 Q25 EC McIsaac 100 Q25 PC McIsaac 100 Q50 EC McIsaac 100 Q50 PC McIsaac 100 Q100 EC McIsaac 100 Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\McIsaac Page 22 of 22

120 3. FERN ROCK REACH: HEC-RAS MODEL AND RESULTS Fern Rock South Laguni t as * * 1365.* 1340.* * * * * HEC-RAS model geometry Fern Rock Appendix D

121 Simulated Water Surface Profiles Fern Rock Appendix D

122 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Fern Rock 1696 baseflow EC Fern Rock 1696 baseflow PC Fern Rock 1696 Q1.01 EC Fern Rock 1696 Q1.01 PC Fern Rock 1696 Q1.5 EC Fern Rock 1696 Q1.5 PC Fern Rock 1696 Q2.0 EC Fern Rock 1696 Q2.0 PC Fern Rock 1696 Q5 EC Fern Rock 1696 Q5 PC Fern Rock 1696 Q10 EC Fern Rock 1696 Q10 PC Fern Rock 1696 Q25 EC Fern Rock 1696 Q25 PC Fern Rock 1696 Q50 EC Fern Rock 1696 Q50 PC Fern Rock 1696 Q100 EC Fern Rock 1696 Q100 PC Fern Rock 1650 baseflow EC Fern Rock 1650 baseflow PC Fern Rock 1650 Q1.01 EC Fern Rock 1650 Q1.01 PC Fern Rock 1650 Q1.5 EC Fern Rock 1650 Q1.5 PC Fern Rock 1650 Q2.0 EC Fern Rock 1650 Q2.0 PC Fern Rock 1650 Q5 EC Fern Rock 1650 Q5 PC Fern Rock 1650 Q10 EC Fern Rock 1650 Q10 PC Fern Rock 1650 Q25 EC Fern Rock 1650 Q25 PC Fern Rock 1650 Q50 EC Fern Rock 1650 Q50 PC Fern Rock 1650 Q100 EC Fern Rock 1650 Q100 PC Fern Rock 1600 baseflow EC Fern Rock 1600 baseflow PC Fern Rock 1600 Q1.01 EC Fern Rock 1600 Q1.01 PC Fern Rock 1600 Q1.5 EC Fern Rock 1600 Q1.5 PC Fern Rock 1600 Q2.0 EC Fern Rock 1600 Q2.0 PC Fern Rock 1600 Q5 EC Fern Rock 1600 Q5 PC Fern Rock 1600 Q10 EC Fern Rock 1600 Q10 PC Fern Rock 1600 Q25 EC Fern Rock 1600 Q25 PC Fern Rock 1600 Q50 EC Fern Rock 1600 Q50 PC Fern Rock 1600 Q100 EC Fern Rock 1600 Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\Fern Rock Page 1 of 15

123 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Fern Rock 1550 baseflow EC Fern Rock 1550 baseflow PC Fern Rock 1550 Q1.01 EC Fern Rock 1550 Q1.01 PC Fern Rock 1550 Q1.5 EC Fern Rock 1550 Q1.5 PC Fern Rock 1550 Q2.0 EC Fern Rock 1550 Q2.0 PC Fern Rock 1550 Q5 EC Fern Rock 1550 Q5 PC Fern Rock 1550 Q10 EC Fern Rock 1550 Q10 PC Fern Rock 1550 Q25 EC Fern Rock 1550 Q25 PC Fern Rock 1550 Q50 EC Fern Rock 1550 Q50 PC Fern Rock 1550 Q100 EC Fern Rock 1550 Q100 PC Fern Rock 1500 baseflow EC Fern Rock 1500 baseflow PC Fern Rock 1500 Q1.01 EC Fern Rock 1500 Q1.01 PC Fern Rock 1500 Q1.5 EC Fern Rock 1500 Q1.5 PC Fern Rock 1500 Q2.0 EC Fern Rock 1500 Q2.0 PC Fern Rock 1500 Q5 EC Fern Rock 1500 Q5 PC Fern Rock 1500 Q10 EC Fern Rock 1500 Q10 PC Fern Rock 1500 Q25 EC Fern Rock 1500 Q25 PC Fern Rock 1500 Q50 EC Fern Rock 1500 Q50 PC Fern Rock 1500 Q100 EC Fern Rock 1500 Q100 PC Fern Rock 1450 baseflow EC Fern Rock 1450 baseflow PC Fern Rock 1450 Q1.01 EC Fern Rock 1450 Q1.01 PC Fern Rock 1450 Q1.5 EC Fern Rock 1450 Q1.5 PC Fern Rock 1450 Q2.0 EC Fern Rock 1450 Q2.0 PC Fern Rock 1450 Q5 EC Fern Rock 1450 Q5 PC Fern Rock 1450 Q10 EC Fern Rock 1450 Q10 PC Fern Rock 1450 Q25 EC Fern Rock 1450 Q25 PC Fern Rock 1450 Q50 EC Fern Rock 1450 Q50 PC Fern Rock 1450 Q100 EC Fern Rock 1450 Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\Fern Rock Page 2 of 15

124 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Fern Rock 1400 baseflow EC Fern Rock 1400 baseflow PC Fern Rock 1400 Q1.01 EC Fern Rock 1400 Q1.01 PC Fern Rock 1400 Q1.5 EC Fern Rock 1400 Q1.5 PC Fern Rock 1400 Q2.0 EC Fern Rock 1400 Q2.0 PC Fern Rock 1400 Q5 EC Fern Rock 1400 Q5 PC Fern Rock 1400 Q10 EC Fern Rock 1400 Q10 PC Fern Rock 1400 Q25 EC Fern Rock 1400 Q25 PC Fern Rock 1400 Q50 EC Fern Rock 1400 Q50 PC Fern Rock 1400 Q100 EC Fern Rock 1400 Q100 PC Fern Rock 1365.* baseflow PC Fern Rock 1365.* Q1.01 PC Fern Rock 1365.* Q1.5 PC Fern Rock 1365.* Q2.0 PC Fern Rock 1365.* Q5 PC Fern Rock 1365.* Q10 PC Fern Rock 1365.* Q25 PC Fern Rock 1365.* Q50 PC Fern Rock 1365.* Q100 PC Fern Rock 1350 baseflow EC Fern Rock 1350 Q1.01 EC Fern Rock 1350 Q1.5 EC Fern Rock 1350 Q2.0 EC Fern Rock 1350 Q5 EC Fern Rock 1350 Q10 EC Fern Rock 1350 Q25 EC Fern Rock 1350 Q50 EC Fern Rock 1350 Q100 EC Fern Rock 1345.* baseflow PC Fern Rock 1345.* Q1.01 PC Fern Rock 1345.* Q1.5 PC Fern Rock 1345.* Q2.0 PC Fern Rock 1345.* Q5 PC Fern Rock 1345.* Q10 PC Fern Rock 1345.* Q25 PC Fern Rock 1345.* Q50 PC Fern Rock 1345.* Q100 PC Fern Rock LDRJ * baseflow PC Fern Rock LDRJ * Q1.01 PC Fern Rock LDRJ * Q1.5 PC Fern Rock LDRJ * Q2.0 PC Fern Rock LDRJ * Q5 PC Fern Rock LDRJ * Q10 PC Fern Rock LDRJ * Q25 PC Fern Rock LDRJ * Q50 PC Fern Rock LDRJ * Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\Fern Rock Page 3 of 15

125 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Fern Rock LDRJ * baseflow PC Fern Rock LDRJ * Q1.01 PC Fern Rock LDRJ * Q1.5 PC Fern Rock LDRJ * Q2.0 PC Fern Rock LDRJ * Q5 PC Fern Rock LDRJ * Q10 PC Fern Rock LDRJ * Q25 PC Fern Rock LDRJ * Q50 PC Fern Rock LDRJ * Q100 PC Fern Rock 1325.* baseflow PC Fern Rock 1325.* Q1.01 PC Fern Rock 1325.* Q1.5 PC Fern Rock 1325.* Q2.0 PC Fern Rock 1325.* Q5 PC Fern Rock 1325.* Q10 PC Fern Rock 1325.* Q25 PC Fern Rock 1325.* Q50 PC Fern Rock 1325.* Q100 PC Fern Rock 1300 baseflow EC Fern Rock 1300 Q1.01 EC Fern Rock 1300 Q1.5 EC Fern Rock 1300 Q2.0 EC Fern Rock 1300 Q5 EC Fern Rock 1300 Q10 EC Fern Rock 1300 Q25 EC Fern Rock 1300 Q50 EC Fern Rock 1300 Q100 EC Fern Rock * baseflow PC Fern Rock * Q1.01 PC Fern Rock * Q1.5 PC Fern Rock * Q2.0 PC Fern Rock * Q5 PC Fern Rock * Q10 PC Fern Rock * Q25 PC Fern Rock * Q50 PC Fern Rock * Q100 PC Fern Rock 1250 baseflow EC Fern Rock 1250 baseflow PC Fern Rock 1250 Q1.01 EC Fern Rock 1250 Q1.01 PC Fern Rock 1250 Q1.5 EC Fern Rock 1250 Q1.5 PC Fern Rock 1250 Q2.0 EC Fern Rock 1250 Q2.0 PC Fern Rock 1250 Q5 EC Fern Rock 1250 Q5 PC Fern Rock 1250 Q10 EC Fern Rock 1250 Q10 PC Fern Rock 1250 Q25 EC Fern Rock 1250 Q25 PC Fern Rock 1250 Q50 EC Fern Rock 1250 Q50 PC Fern Rock 1250 Q100 EC Fern Rock 1250 Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\Fern Rock Page 4 of 15

126 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Fern Rock 1200 baseflow EC Fern Rock 1200 baseflow PC Fern Rock 1200 Q1.01 EC Fern Rock 1200 Q1.01 PC Fern Rock 1200 Q1.5 EC Fern Rock 1200 Q1.5 PC Fern Rock 1200 Q2.0 EC Fern Rock 1200 Q2.0 PC Fern Rock 1200 Q5 EC Fern Rock 1200 Q5 PC Fern Rock 1200 Q10 EC Fern Rock 1200 Q10 PC Fern Rock 1200 Q25 EC Fern Rock 1200 Q25 PC Fern Rock 1200 Q50 EC Fern Rock 1200 Q50 PC Fern Rock 1200 Q100 EC Fern Rock 1200 Q100 PC Fern Rock 1150 baseflow EC Fern Rock 1150 baseflow PC Fern Rock 1150 Q1.01 EC Fern Rock 1150 Q1.01 PC Fern Rock 1150 Q1.5 EC Fern Rock 1150 Q1.5 PC Fern Rock 1150 Q2.0 EC Fern Rock 1150 Q2.0 PC Fern Rock 1150 Q5 EC Fern Rock 1150 Q5 PC Fern Rock 1150 Q10 EC Fern Rock 1150 Q10 PC Fern Rock 1150 Q25 EC Fern Rock 1150 Q25 PC Fern Rock 1150 Q50 EC Fern Rock 1150 Q50 PC Fern Rock 1150 Q100 EC Fern Rock 1150 Q100 PC Fern Rock 1100 baseflow EC Fern Rock 1100 baseflow PC Fern Rock 1100 Q1.01 EC Fern Rock 1100 Q1.01 PC Fern Rock 1100 Q1.5 EC Fern Rock 1100 Q1.5 PC Fern Rock 1100 Q2.0 EC Fern Rock 1100 Q2.0 PC Fern Rock 1100 Q5 EC Fern Rock 1100 Q5 PC Fern Rock 1100 Q10 EC Fern Rock 1100 Q10 PC Fern Rock 1100 Q25 EC Fern Rock 1100 Q25 PC Fern Rock 1100 Q50 EC Fern Rock 1100 Q50 PC Fern Rock 1100 Q100 EC Fern Rock 1100 Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\Fern Rock Page 5 of 15

127 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Fern Rock 1050 baseflow EC Fern Rock 1050 baseflow PC Fern Rock 1050 Q1.01 EC Fern Rock 1050 Q1.01 PC Fern Rock 1050 Q1.5 EC Fern Rock 1050 Q1.5 PC Fern Rock 1050 Q2.0 EC Fern Rock 1050 Q2.0 PC Fern Rock 1050 Q5 EC Fern Rock 1050 Q5 PC Fern Rock 1050 Q10 EC Fern Rock 1050 Q10 PC Fern Rock 1050 Q25 EC Fern Rock 1050 Q25 PC Fern Rock 1050 Q50 EC Fern Rock 1050 Q50 PC Fern Rock 1050 Q100 EC Fern Rock 1050 Q100 PC Fern Rock 1035.* baseflow PC Fern Rock 1035.* Q1.01 PC Fern Rock 1035.* Q1.5 PC Fern Rock 1035.* Q2.0 PC Fern Rock 1035.* Q5 PC Fern Rock 1035.* Q10 PC Fern Rock 1035.* Q25 PC Fern Rock 1035.* Q50 PC Fern Rock 1035.* Q100 PC Fern Rock 1015.* baseflow PC Fern Rock 1015.* Q1.01 PC Fern Rock 1015.* Q1.5 PC Fern Rock 1015.* Q2.0 PC Fern Rock 1015.* Q5 PC Fern Rock 1015.* Q10 PC Fern Rock 1015.* Q25 PC Fern Rock 1015.* Q50 PC Fern Rock 1015.* Q100 PC Fern Rock LDRJ * baseflow PC Fern Rock LDRJ * Q1.01 PC Fern Rock LDRJ * Q1.5 PC Fern Rock LDRJ * Q2.0 PC Fern Rock LDRJ * Q5 PC Fern Rock LDRJ * Q10 PC Fern Rock LDRJ * Q25 PC Fern Rock LDRJ * Q50 PC Fern Rock LDRJ * Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\Fern Rock Page 6 of 15

128 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Fern Rock LDRJ baseflow EC Fern Rock LDRJ baseflow PC Fern Rock LDRJ Q1.01 EC Fern Rock LDRJ Q1.01 PC Fern Rock LDRJ Q1.5 EC Fern Rock LDRJ Q1.5 PC Fern Rock LDRJ Q2.0 EC Fern Rock LDRJ Q2.0 PC Fern Rock LDRJ Q5 EC Fern Rock LDRJ Q5 PC Fern Rock LDRJ Q10 EC Fern Rock LDRJ Q10 PC Fern Rock LDRJ Q25 EC Fern Rock LDRJ Q25 PC Fern Rock LDRJ Q50 EC Fern Rock LDRJ Q50 PC Fern Rock LDRJ Q100 EC Fern Rock LDRJ Q100 PC Fern Rock 995.* baseflow PC Fern Rock 995.* Q1.01 PC Fern Rock 995.* Q1.5 PC Fern Rock 995.* Q2.0 PC Fern Rock 995.* Q5 PC Fern Rock 995.* Q10 PC Fern Rock 995.* Q25 PC Fern Rock 995.* Q50 PC Fern Rock 995.* Q100 PC Fern Rock 955.* baseflow PC Fern Rock 955.* Q1.01 PC Fern Rock 955.* Q1.5 PC Fern Rock 955.* Q2.0 PC Fern Rock 955.* Q5 PC Fern Rock 955.* Q10 PC Fern Rock 955.* Q25 PC Fern Rock 955.* Q50 PC Fern Rock 955.* Q100 PC Fern Rock 950 baseflow EC Fern Rock 950 baseflow PC Fern Rock 950 Q1.01 EC Fern Rock 950 Q1.01 PC Fern Rock 950 Q1.5 EC Fern Rock 950 Q1.5 PC Fern Rock 950 Q2.0 EC Fern Rock 950 Q2.0 PC Fern Rock 950 Q5 EC Fern Rock 950 Q5 PC Fern Rock 950 Q10 EC Fern Rock 950 Q10 PC Fern Rock 950 Q25 EC Fern Rock 950 Q25 PC Fern Rock 950 Q50 EC Fern Rock 950 Q50 PC Fern Rock 950 Q100 EC Fern Rock 950 Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\Fern Rock Page 7 of 15

129 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Fern Rock 900 baseflow EC Fern Rock 900 baseflow PC Fern Rock 900 Q1.01 EC Fern Rock 900 Q1.01 PC Fern Rock 900 Q1.5 EC Fern Rock 900 Q1.5 PC Fern Rock 900 Q2.0 EC Fern Rock 900 Q2.0 PC Fern Rock 900 Q5 EC Fern Rock 900 Q5 PC Fern Rock 900 Q10 EC Fern Rock 900 Q10 PC Fern Rock 900 Q25 EC Fern Rock 900 Q25 PC Fern Rock 900 Q50 EC Fern Rock 900 Q50 PC Fern Rock 900 Q100 EC Fern Rock 900 Q100 PC Fern Rock * baseflow PC Fern Rock * Q1.01 PC Fern Rock * Q1.5 PC Fern Rock * Q2.0 PC Fern Rock * Q5 PC Fern Rock * Q10 PC Fern Rock * Q25 PC Fern Rock * Q50 PC Fern Rock * Q100 PC Fern Rock 850 baseflow EC Fern Rock 850 Q1.01 EC Fern Rock 850 Q1.5 EC Fern Rock 850 Q2.0 EC Fern Rock 850 Q5 EC Fern Rock 850 Q10 EC Fern Rock 850 Q25 EC Fern Rock 850 Q50 EC Fern Rock 850 Q100 EC Fern Rock * baseflow PC Fern Rock * Q1.01 PC Fern Rock * Q1.5 PC Fern Rock * Q2.0 PC Fern Rock * Q5 PC Fern Rock * Q10 PC Fern Rock * Q25 PC Fern Rock * Q50 PC Fern Rock * Q100 PC Fern Rock LDRJ * baseflow PC Fern Rock LDRJ * Q1.01 PC Fern Rock LDRJ * Q1.5 PC Fern Rock LDRJ * Q2.0 PC Fern Rock LDRJ * Q5 PC Fern Rock LDRJ * Q10 PC Fern Rock LDRJ * Q25 PC Fern Rock LDRJ * Q50 PC Fern Rock LDRJ * Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\Fern Rock Page 8 of 15

130 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Fern Rock LDRJ * baseflow PC Fern Rock LDRJ * Q1.01 PC Fern Rock LDRJ * Q1.5 PC Fern Rock LDRJ * Q2.0 PC Fern Rock LDRJ * Q5 PC Fern Rock LDRJ * Q10 PC Fern Rock LDRJ * Q25 PC Fern Rock LDRJ * Q50 PC Fern Rock LDRJ * Q100 PC Fern Rock * baseflow PC Fern Rock * Q1.01 PC Fern Rock * Q1.5 PC Fern Rock * Q2.0 PC Fern Rock * Q5 PC Fern Rock * Q10 PC Fern Rock * Q25 PC Fern Rock * Q50 PC Fern Rock * Q100 PC Fern Rock 800 baseflow EC Fern Rock 800 Q1.01 EC Fern Rock 800 Q1.5 EC Fern Rock 800 Q2.0 EC Fern Rock 800 Q5 EC Fern Rock 800 Q10 EC Fern Rock 800 Q25 EC Fern Rock 800 Q50 EC Fern Rock 800 Q100 EC Fern Rock * baseflow PC Fern Rock * Q1.01 PC Fern Rock * Q1.5 PC Fern Rock * Q2.0 PC Fern Rock * Q5 PC Fern Rock * Q10 PC Fern Rock * Q25 PC Fern Rock * Q50 PC Fern Rock * Q100 PC Fern Rock 750 baseflow EC Fern Rock 750 baseflow PC Fern Rock 750 Q1.01 EC Fern Rock 750 Q1.01 PC Fern Rock 750 Q1.5 EC Fern Rock 750 Q1.5 PC Fern Rock 750 Q2.0 EC Fern Rock 750 Q2.0 PC Fern Rock 750 Q5 EC Fern Rock 750 Q5 PC Fern Rock 750 Q10 EC Fern Rock 750 Q10 PC Fern Rock 750 Q25 EC Fern Rock 750 Q25 PC Fern Rock 750 Q50 EC Fern Rock 750 Q50 PC Fern Rock 750 Q100 EC Fern Rock 750 Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\Fern Rock Page 9 of 15

131 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Fern Rock 700 baseflow EC Fern Rock 700 baseflow PC Fern Rock 700 Q1.01 EC Fern Rock 700 Q1.01 PC Fern Rock 700 Q1.5 EC Fern Rock 700 Q1.5 PC Fern Rock 700 Q2.0 EC Fern Rock 700 Q2.0 PC Fern Rock 700 Q5 EC Fern Rock 700 Q5 PC Fern Rock 700 Q10 EC Fern Rock 700 Q10 PC Fern Rock 700 Q25 EC Fern Rock 700 Q25 PC Fern Rock 700 Q50 EC Fern Rock 700 Q50 PC Fern Rock 700 Q100 EC Fern Rock 700 Q100 PC Fern Rock 650 baseflow EC Fern Rock 650 baseflow PC Fern Rock 650 Q1.01 EC Fern Rock 650 Q1.01 PC Fern Rock 650 Q1.5 EC Fern Rock 650 Q1.5 PC Fern Rock 650 Q2.0 EC Fern Rock 650 Q2.0 PC Fern Rock 650 Q5 EC Fern Rock 650 Q5 PC Fern Rock 650 Q10 EC Fern Rock 650 Q10 PC Fern Rock 650 Q25 EC Fern Rock 650 Q25 PC Fern Rock 650 Q50 EC Fern Rock 650 Q50 PC Fern Rock 650 Q100 EC Fern Rock 650 Q100 PC Fern Rock * baseflow PC Fern Rock * Q1.01 PC Fern Rock * Q1.5 PC Fern Rock * Q2.0 PC Fern Rock * Q5 PC Fern Rock * Q10 PC Fern Rock * Q25 PC Fern Rock * Q50 PC Fern Rock * Q100 PC Fern Rock * baseflow PC Fern Rock * Q1.01 PC Fern Rock * Q1.5 PC Fern Rock * Q2.0 PC Fern Rock * Q5 PC Fern Rock * Q10 PC Fern Rock * Q25 PC Fern Rock * Q50 PC Fern Rock * Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\Fern Rock Page 10 of 15

132 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Fern Rock LDRJ * baseflow PC Fern Rock LDRJ * Q1.01 PC Fern Rock LDRJ * Q1.5 PC Fern Rock LDRJ * Q2.0 PC Fern Rock LDRJ * Q5 PC Fern Rock LDRJ * Q10 PC Fern Rock LDRJ * Q25 PC Fern Rock LDRJ * Q50 PC Fern Rock LDRJ * Q100 PC Fern Rock LDRJ6 600 baseflow EC Fern Rock LDRJ6 600 baseflow PC Fern Rock LDRJ6 600 Q1.01 EC Fern Rock LDRJ6 600 Q1.01 PC Fern Rock LDRJ6 600 Q1.5 EC Fern Rock LDRJ6 600 Q1.5 PC Fern Rock LDRJ6 600 Q2.0 EC Fern Rock LDRJ6 600 Q2.0 PC Fern Rock LDRJ6 600 Q5 EC Fern Rock LDRJ6 600 Q5 PC Fern Rock LDRJ6 600 Q10 EC Fern Rock LDRJ6 600 Q10 PC Fern Rock LDRJ6 600 Q25 EC Fern Rock LDRJ6 600 Q25 PC Fern Rock LDRJ6 600 Q50 EC Fern Rock LDRJ6 600 Q50 PC Fern Rock LDRJ6 600 Q100 EC Fern Rock LDRJ6 600 Q100 PC Fern Rock * baseflow PC Fern Rock * Q1.01 PC Fern Rock * Q1.5 PC Fern Rock * Q2.0 PC Fern Rock * Q5 PC Fern Rock * Q10 PC Fern Rock * Q25 PC Fern Rock * Q50 PC Fern Rock * Q100 PC Fern Rock * baseflow PC Fern Rock * Q1.01 PC Fern Rock * Q1.5 PC Fern Rock * Q2.0 PC Fern Rock * Q5 PC Fern Rock * Q10 PC Fern Rock * Q25 PC Fern Rock * Q50 PC Fern Rock * Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\Fern Rock Page 11 of 15

133 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Fern Rock 550 baseflow EC Fern Rock 550 baseflow PC Fern Rock 550 Q1.01 EC Fern Rock 550 Q1.01 PC Fern Rock 550 Q1.5 EC Fern Rock 550 Q1.5 PC Fern Rock 550 Q2.0 EC Fern Rock 550 Q2.0 PC Fern Rock 550 Q5 EC Fern Rock 550 Q5 PC Fern Rock 550 Q10 EC Fern Rock 550 Q10 PC Fern Rock 550 Q25 EC Fern Rock 550 Q25 PC Fern Rock 550 Q50 EC Fern Rock 550 Q50 PC Fern Rock 550 Q100 EC Fern Rock 550 Q100 PC Fern Rock 500 baseflow EC Fern Rock 500 baseflow PC Fern Rock 500 Q1.01 EC Fern Rock 500 Q1.01 PC Fern Rock 500 Q1.5 EC Fern Rock 500 Q1.5 PC Fern Rock 500 Q2.0 EC Fern Rock 500 Q2.0 PC Fern Rock 500 Q5 EC Fern Rock 500 Q5 PC Fern Rock 500 Q10 EC Fern Rock 500 Q10 PC Fern Rock 500 Q25 EC Fern Rock 500 Q25 PC Fern Rock 500 Q50 EC Fern Rock 500 Q50 PC Fern Rock 500 Q100 EC Fern Rock 500 Q100 PC Fern Rock 450 baseflow EC Fern Rock 450 baseflow PC Fern Rock 450 Q1.01 EC Fern Rock 450 Q1.01 PC Fern Rock 450 Q1.5 EC Fern Rock 450 Q1.5 PC Fern Rock 450 Q2.0 EC Fern Rock 450 Q2.0 PC Fern Rock 450 Q5 EC Fern Rock 450 Q5 PC Fern Rock 450 Q10 EC Fern Rock 450 Q10 PC Fern Rock 450 Q25 EC Fern Rock 450 Q25 PC Fern Rock 450 Q50 EC Fern Rock 450 Q50 PC Fern Rock 450 Q100 EC Fern Rock 450 Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\Fern Rock Page 12 of 15

134 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Fern Rock 400 baseflow EC Fern Rock 400 baseflow PC Fern Rock 400 Q1.01 EC Fern Rock 400 Q1.01 PC Fern Rock 400 Q1.5 EC Fern Rock 400 Q1.5 PC Fern Rock 400 Q2.0 EC Fern Rock 400 Q2.0 PC Fern Rock 400 Q5 EC Fern Rock 400 Q5 PC Fern Rock 400 Q10 EC Fern Rock 400 Q10 PC Fern Rock 400 Q25 EC Fern Rock 400 Q25 PC Fern Rock 400 Q50 EC Fern Rock 400 Q50 PC Fern Rock 400 Q100 EC Fern Rock 400 Q100 PC Fern Rock 350 baseflow EC Fern Rock 350 baseflow PC Fern Rock 350 Q1.01 EC Fern Rock 350 Q1.01 PC Fern Rock 350 Q1.5 EC Fern Rock 350 Q1.5 PC Fern Rock 350 Q2.0 EC Fern Rock 350 Q2.0 PC Fern Rock 350 Q5 EC Fern Rock 350 Q5 PC Fern Rock 350 Q10 EC Fern Rock 350 Q10 PC Fern Rock 350 Q25 EC Fern Rock 350 Q25 PC Fern Rock 350 Q50 EC Fern Rock 350 Q50 PC Fern Rock 350 Q100 EC Fern Rock 350 Q100 PC Fern Rock 300 baseflow EC Fern Rock 300 baseflow PC Fern Rock 300 Q1.01 EC Fern Rock 300 Q1.01 PC Fern Rock 300 Q1.5 EC Fern Rock 300 Q1.5 PC Fern Rock 300 Q2.0 EC Fern Rock 300 Q2.0 PC Fern Rock 300 Q5 EC Fern Rock 300 Q5 PC Fern Rock 300 Q10 EC Fern Rock 300 Q10 PC Fern Rock 300 Q25 EC Fern Rock 300 Q25 PC Fern Rock 300 Q50 EC Fern Rock 300 Q50 PC Fern Rock 300 Q100 EC Fern Rock 300 Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\Fern Rock Page 13 of 15

135 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Fern Rock 250 baseflow EC Fern Rock 250 baseflow PC Fern Rock 250 Q1.01 EC Fern Rock 250 Q1.01 PC Fern Rock 250 Q1.5 EC Fern Rock 250 Q1.5 PC Fern Rock 250 Q2.0 EC Fern Rock 250 Q2.0 PC Fern Rock 250 Q5 EC Fern Rock 250 Q5 PC Fern Rock 250 Q10 EC Fern Rock 250 Q10 PC Fern Rock 250 Q25 EC Fern Rock 250 Q25 PC Fern Rock 250 Q50 EC Fern Rock 250 Q50 PC Fern Rock 250 Q100 EC Fern Rock 250 Q100 PC Fern Rock 200 baseflow EC Fern Rock 200 baseflow PC Fern Rock 200 Q1.01 EC Fern Rock 200 Q1.01 PC Fern Rock 200 Q1.5 EC Fern Rock 200 Q1.5 PC Fern Rock 200 Q2.0 EC Fern Rock 200 Q2.0 PC Fern Rock 200 Q5 EC Fern Rock 200 Q5 PC Fern Rock 200 Q10 EC Fern Rock 200 Q10 PC Fern Rock 200 Q25 EC Fern Rock 200 Q25 PC Fern Rock 200 Q50 EC Fern Rock 200 Q50 PC Fern Rock 200 Q100 EC Fern Rock 200 Q100 PC Fern Rock 150 baseflow EC Fern Rock 150 baseflow PC Fern Rock 150 Q1.01 EC Fern Rock 150 Q1.01 PC Fern Rock 150 Q1.5 EC Fern Rock 150 Q1.5 PC Fern Rock 150 Q2.0 EC Fern Rock 150 Q2.0 PC Fern Rock 150 Q5 EC Fern Rock 150 Q5 PC Fern Rock 150 Q10 EC Fern Rock 150 Q10 PC Fern Rock 150 Q25 EC Fern Rock 150 Q25 PC Fern Rock 150 Q50 EC Fern Rock 150 Q50 PC Fern Rock 150 Q100 EC Fern Rock 150 Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\Fern Rock Page 14 of 15

136 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Fern Rock 100 baseflow EC Fern Rock 100 baseflow PC Fern Rock 100 Q1.01 EC Fern Rock 100 Q1.01 PC Fern Rock 100 Q1.5 EC Fern Rock 100 Q1.5 PC Fern Rock 100 Q2.0 EC Fern Rock 100 Q2.0 PC Fern Rock 100 Q5 EC Fern Rock 100 Q5 PC Fern Rock 100 Q10 EC Fern Rock 100 Q10 PC Fern Rock 100 Q25 EC Fern Rock 100 Q25 PC Fern Rock 100 Q50 EC Fern Rock 100 Q50 PC Fern Rock 100 Q100 EC Fern Rock 100 Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\Fern Rock Page 15 of 15

137 CREEK REACH: HEC-RAS MODEL AND RESULTS * 580.* 625.* 655.* 705.* 745.* * 800 La g un i t as Fern Creek N HEC-RAS model geometry 449 Creek Appendix D

138 Simulated Water Surface Profiles 449 Creek Appendix D

139 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) 449 Creek 1290 baseflow EC Creek 1290 baseflow PC Creek 1290 Q1.01 EC Creek 1290 Q1.01 PC Creek 1290 Q1.5 EC Creek 1290 Q1.5 PC Creek 1290 Q2.0 EC Creek 1290 Q2.0 PC Creek 1290 Q5 EC Creek 1290 Q5 PC Creek 1290 Q10 EC Creek 1290 Q10 PC Creek 1290 Q25 EC Creek 1290 Q25 PC Creek 1290 Q50 EC Creek 1290 Q50 PC Creek 1290 Q100 EC Creek 1290 Q100 PC Creek 1250 baseflow EC Creek 1250 baseflow PC Creek 1250 Q1.01 EC Creek 1250 Q1.01 PC Creek 1250 Q1.5 EC Creek 1250 Q1.5 PC Creek 1250 Q2.0 EC Creek 1250 Q2.0 PC Creek 1250 Q5 EC Creek 1250 Q5 PC Creek 1250 Q10 EC Creek 1250 Q10 PC Creek 1250 Q25 EC Creek 1250 Q25 PC Creek 1250 Q50 EC Creek 1250 Q50 PC Creek 1250 Q100 EC Creek 1250 Q100 PC Creek 1200 baseflow EC Creek 1200 baseflow PC Creek 1200 Q1.01 EC Creek 1200 Q1.01 PC Creek 1200 Q1.5 EC Creek 1200 Q1.5 PC Creek 1200 Q2.0 EC Creek 1200 Q2.0 PC Creek 1200 Q5 EC Creek 1200 Q5 PC Creek 1200 Q10 EC Creek 1200 Q10 PC Creek 1200 Q25 EC Creek 1200 Q25 PC Creek 1200 Q50 EC Creek 1200 Q50 PC Creek 1200 Q100 EC Creek 1200 Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\449 Creek Page 1 of 11

140 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) 449 Creek 1150 baseflow EC Creek 1150 baseflow PC Creek 1150 Q1.01 EC Creek 1150 Q1.01 PC Creek 1150 Q1.5 EC Creek 1150 Q1.5 PC Creek 1150 Q2.0 EC Creek 1150 Q2.0 PC Creek 1150 Q5 EC Creek 1150 Q5 PC Creek 1150 Q10 EC Creek 1150 Q10 PC Creek 1150 Q25 EC Creek 1150 Q25 PC Creek 1150 Q50 EC Creek 1150 Q50 PC Creek 1150 Q100 EC Creek 1150 Q100 PC Creek 1100 baseflow EC Creek 1100 baseflow PC Creek 1100 Q1.01 EC Creek 1100 Q1.01 PC Creek 1100 Q1.5 EC Creek 1100 Q1.5 PC Creek 1100 Q2.0 EC Creek 1100 Q2.0 PC Creek 1100 Q5 EC Creek 1100 Q5 PC Creek 1100 Q10 EC Creek 1100 Q10 PC Creek 1100 Q25 EC Creek 1100 Q25 PC Creek 1100 Q50 EC Creek 1100 Q50 PC Creek 1100 Q100 EC Creek 1100 Q100 PC Creek 1050 baseflow EC Creek 1050 baseflow PC Creek 1050 Q1.01 EC Creek 1050 Q1.01 PC Creek 1050 Q1.5 EC Creek 1050 Q1.5 PC Creek 1050 Q2.0 EC Creek 1050 Q2.0 PC Creek 1050 Q5 EC Creek 1050 Q5 PC Creek 1050 Q10 EC Creek 1050 Q10 PC Creek 1050 Q25 EC Creek 1050 Q25 PC Creek 1050 Q50 EC Creek 1050 Q50 PC Creek 1050 Q100 EC Creek 1050 Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\449 Creek Page 2 of 11

141 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) 449 Creek 1000 baseflow EC Creek 1000 baseflow PC Creek 1000 Q1.01 EC Creek 1000 Q1.01 PC Creek 1000 Q1.5 EC Creek 1000 Q1.5 PC Creek 1000 Q2.0 EC Creek 1000 Q2.0 PC Creek 1000 Q5 EC Creek 1000 Q5 PC Creek 1000 Q10 EC Creek 1000 Q10 PC Creek 1000 Q25 EC Creek 1000 Q25 PC Creek 1000 Q50 EC Creek 1000 Q50 PC Creek 1000 Q100 EC Creek 1000 Q100 PC Creek 950 baseflow EC Creek 950 baseflow PC Creek 950 Q1.01 EC Creek 950 Q1.01 PC Creek 950 Q1.5 EC Creek 950 Q1.5 PC Creek 950 Q2.0 EC Creek 950 Q2.0 PC Creek 950 Q5 EC Creek 950 Q5 PC Creek 950 Q10 EC Creek 950 Q10 PC Creek 950 Q25 EC Creek 950 Q25 PC Creek 950 Q50 EC Creek 950 Q50 PC Creek 950 Q100 EC Creek 950 Q100 PC Creek 900 baseflow EC Creek 900 baseflow PC Creek 900 Q1.01 EC Creek 900 Q1.01 PC Creek 900 Q1.5 EC Creek 900 Q1.5 PC Creek 900 Q2.0 EC Creek 900 Q2.0 PC Creek 900 Q5 EC Creek 900 Q5 PC Creek 900 Q10 EC Creek 900 Q10 PC Creek 900 Q25 EC Creek 900 Q25 PC Creek 900 Q50 EC Creek 900 Q50 PC Creek 900 Q100 EC Creek 900 Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\449 Creek Page 3 of 11

142 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) 449 Creek 850 baseflow EC Creek 850 baseflow PC Creek 850 Q1.01 EC Creek 850 Q1.01 PC Creek 850 Q1.5 EC Creek 850 Q1.5 PC Creek 850 Q2.0 EC Creek 850 Q2.0 PC Creek 850 Q5 EC Creek 850 Q5 PC Creek 850 Q10 EC Creek 850 Q10 PC Creek 850 Q25 EC Creek 850 Q25 PC Creek 850 Q50 EC Creek 850 Q50 PC Creek 850 Q100 EC Creek 850 Q100 PC Creek 800 baseflow EC Creek 800 baseflow PC Creek 800 Q1.01 EC Creek 800 Q1.01 PC Creek 800 Q1.5 EC Creek 800 Q1.5 PC Creek 800 Q2.0 EC Creek 800 Q2.0 PC Creek 800 Q5 EC Creek 800 Q5 PC Creek 800 Q10 EC Creek 800 Q10 PC Creek 800 Q25 EC Creek 800 Q25 PC Creek 800 Q50 EC Creek 800 Q50 PC Creek 800 Q100 EC Creek 800 Q100 PC Creek * baseflow EC Creek * baseflow PC Creek * Q1.01 EC Creek * Q1.01 PC Creek * Q1.5 EC Creek * Q1.5 PC Creek * Q2.0 EC Creek * Q2.0 PC Creek * Q5 EC Creek * Q5 PC Creek * Q10 EC Creek * Q10 PC Creek * Q25 EC Creek * Q25 PC Creek * Q50 EC Creek * Q50 PC Creek * Q100 EC Creek * Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\449 Creek Page 4 of 11

143 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) 449 Creek * baseflow EC Creek * baseflow PC Creek * Q1.01 EC Creek * Q1.01 PC Creek * Q1.5 EC Creek * Q1.5 PC Creek * Q2.0 EC Creek * Q2.0 PC Creek * Q5 EC Creek * Q5 PC Creek * Q10 EC Creek * Q10 PC Creek * Q25 EC Creek * Q25 PC Creek * Q50 EC Creek * Q50 PC Creek * Q100 EC Creek * Q100 PC Creek LDRJ * baseflow EC Creek LDRJ * baseflow PC Creek LDRJ * Q1.01 EC Creek LDRJ * Q1.01 PC Creek LDRJ * Q1.5 EC Creek LDRJ * Q1.5 PC Creek LDRJ * Q2.0 EC Creek LDRJ * Q2.0 PC Creek LDRJ * Q5 EC Creek LDRJ * Q5 PC Creek LDRJ * Q10 EC Creek LDRJ * Q10 PC Creek LDRJ * Q25 EC Creek LDRJ * Q25 PC Creek LDRJ * Q50 EC Creek LDRJ * Q50 PC Creek LDRJ * Q100 EC Creek LDRJ * Q100 PC Creek LDRJ7 750 baseflow EC Creek LDRJ7 750 baseflow PC Creek LDRJ7 750 Q1.01 EC Creek LDRJ7 750 Q1.01 PC Creek LDRJ7 750 Q1.5 EC Creek LDRJ7 750 Q1.5 PC Creek LDRJ7 750 Q2.0 EC Creek LDRJ7 750 Q2.0 PC Creek LDRJ7 750 Q5 EC Creek LDRJ7 750 Q5 PC Creek LDRJ7 750 Q10 EC Creek LDRJ7 750 Q10 PC Creek LDRJ7 750 Q25 EC Creek LDRJ7 750 Q25 PC Creek LDRJ7 750 Q50 EC Creek LDRJ7 750 Q50 PC Creek LDRJ7 750 Q100 EC Creek LDRJ7 750 Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\449 Creek Page 5 of 11

144 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) 449 Creek 745.* baseflow EC Creek 745.* baseflow PC Creek 745.* Q1.01 EC Creek 745.* Q1.01 PC Creek 745.* Q1.5 EC Creek 745.* Q1.5 PC Creek 745.* Q2.0 EC Creek 745.* Q2.0 PC Creek 745.* Q5 EC Creek 745.* Q5 PC Creek 745.* Q10 EC Creek 745.* Q10 PC Creek 745.* Q25 EC Creek 745.* Q25 PC Creek 745.* Q50 EC Creek 745.* Q50 PC Creek 745.* Q100 EC Creek 745.* Q100 PC Creek 705.* baseflow EC Creek 705.* baseflow PC Creek 705.* Q1.01 EC Creek 705.* Q1.01 PC Creek 705.* Q1.5 EC Creek 705.* Q1.5 PC Creek 705.* Q2.0 EC Creek 705.* Q2.0 PC Creek 705.* Q5 EC Creek 705.* Q5 PC Creek 705.* Q10 EC Creek 705.* Q10 PC Creek 705.* Q25 EC Creek 705.* Q25 PC Creek 705.* Q50 EC Creek 705.* Q50 PC Creek 705.* Q100 EC Creek 705.* Q100 PC Creek 700 baseflow EC Creek 700 baseflow PC Creek 700 Q1.01 EC Creek 700 Q1.01 PC Creek 700 Q1.5 EC Creek 700 Q1.5 PC Creek 700 Q2.0 EC Creek 700 Q2.0 PC Creek 700 Q5 EC Creek 700 Q5 PC Creek 700 Q10 EC Creek 700 Q10 PC Creek 700 Q25 EC Creek 700 Q25 PC Creek 700 Q50 EC Creek 700 Q50 PC Creek 700 Q100 EC Creek 700 Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\449 Creek Page 6 of 11

145 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) 449 Creek 655.* baseflow EC Creek 655.* baseflow PC Creek 655.* Q1.01 EC Creek 655.* Q1.01 PC Creek 655.* Q1.5 EC Creek 655.* Q1.5 PC Creek 655.* Q2.0 EC Creek 655.* Q2.0 PC Creek 655.* Q5 EC Creek 655.* Q5 PC Creek 655.* Q10 EC Creek 655.* Q10 PC Creek 655.* Q25 EC Creek 655.* Q25 PC Creek 655.* Q50 EC Creek 655.* Q50 PC Creek 655.* Q100 EC Creek 655.* Q100 PC Creek 625.* baseflow EC Creek 625.* baseflow PC Creek 625.* Q1.01 EC Creek 625.* Q1.01 PC Creek 625.* Q1.5 EC Creek 625.* Q1.5 PC Creek 625.* Q2.0 EC Creek 625.* Q2.0 PC Creek 625.* Q5 EC Creek 625.* Q5 PC Creek 625.* Q10 EC Creek 625.* Q10 PC Creek 625.* Q25 EC Creek 625.* Q25 PC Creek 625.* Q50 EC Creek 625.* Q50 PC Creek 625.* Q100 EC Creek 625.* Q100 PC Creek BAJ4 620.* baseflow EC Creek BAJ4 620.* baseflow PC Creek BAJ4 620.* Q1.01 EC Creek BAJ4 620.* Q1.01 PC Creek BAJ4 620.* Q1.5 EC Creek BAJ4 620.* Q1.5 PC Creek BAJ4 620.* Q2.0 EC Creek BAJ4 620.* Q2.0 PC Creek BAJ4 620.* Q5 EC Creek BAJ4 620.* Q5 PC Creek BAJ4 620.* Q10 EC Creek BAJ4 620.* Q10 PC Creek BAJ4 620.* Q25 EC Creek BAJ4 620.* Q25 PC Creek BAJ4 620.* Q50 EC Creek BAJ4 620.* Q50 PC Creek BAJ4 620.* Q100 EC Creek BAJ4 620.* Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\449 Creek Page 7 of 11

146 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) 449 Creek BAJ4 580.* baseflow EC Creek BAJ4 580.* baseflow PC Creek BAJ4 580.* Q1.01 EC Creek BAJ4 580.* Q1.01 PC Creek BAJ4 580.* Q1.5 EC Creek BAJ4 580.* Q1.5 PC Creek BAJ4 580.* Q2.0 EC Creek BAJ4 580.* Q2.0 PC Creek BAJ4 580.* Q5 EC Creek BAJ4 580.* Q5 PC Creek BAJ4 580.* Q10 EC Creek BAJ4 580.* Q10 PC Creek BAJ4 580.* Q25 EC Creek BAJ4 580.* Q25 PC Creek BAJ4 580.* Q50 EC Creek BAJ4 580.* Q50 PC Creek BAJ4 580.* Q100 EC Creek BAJ4 580.* Q100 PC Creek 575.* baseflow EC Creek 575.* baseflow PC Creek 575.* Q1.01 EC Creek 575.* Q1.01 PC Creek 575.* Q1.5 EC Creek 575.* Q1.5 PC Creek 575.* Q2.0 EC Creek 575.* Q2.0 PC Creek 575.* Q5 EC Creek 575.* Q5 PC Creek 575.* Q10 EC Creek 575.* Q10 PC Creek 575.* Q25 EC Creek 575.* Q25 PC Creek 575.* Q50 EC Creek 575.* Q50 PC Creek 575.* Q100 EC Creek 575.* Q100 PC Creek 515.* baseflow EC Creek 515.* baseflow PC Creek 515.* Q1.01 EC Creek 515.* Q1.01 PC Creek 515.* Q1.5 EC Creek 515.* Q1.5 PC Creek 515.* Q2.0 EC Creek 515.* Q2.0 PC Creek 515.* Q5 EC Creek 515.* Q5 PC Creek 515.* Q10 EC Creek 515.* Q10 PC Creek 515.* Q25 EC Creek 515.* Q25 PC Creek 515.* Q50 EC Creek 515.* Q50 PC Creek 515.* Q100 EC Creek 515.* Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\449 Creek Page 8 of 11

147 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) 449 Creek 500 baseflow EC Creek 500 baseflow PC Creek 500 Q1.01 EC Creek 500 Q1.01 PC Creek 500 Q1.5 EC Creek 500 Q1.5 PC Creek 500 Q2.0 EC Creek 500 Q2.0 PC Creek 500 Q5 EC Creek 500 Q5 PC Creek 500 Q10 EC Creek 500 Q10 PC Creek 500 Q25 EC Creek 500 Q25 PC Creek 500 Q50 EC Creek 500 Q50 PC Creek 500 Q100 EC Creek 500 Q100 PC Creek 450 baseflow EC Creek 450 baseflow PC Creek 450 Q1.01 EC Creek 450 Q1.01 PC Creek 450 Q1.5 EC Creek 450 Q1.5 PC Creek 450 Q2.0 EC Creek 450 Q2.0 PC Creek 450 Q5 EC Creek 450 Q5 PC Creek 450 Q10 EC Creek 450 Q10 PC Creek 450 Q25 EC Creek 450 Q25 PC Creek 450 Q50 EC Creek 450 Q50 PC Creek 450 Q100 EC Creek 450 Q100 PC Creek 400 baseflow EC Creek 400 baseflow PC Creek 400 Q1.01 EC Creek 400 Q1.01 PC Creek 400 Q1.5 EC Creek 400 Q1.5 PC Creek 400 Q2.0 EC Creek 400 Q2.0 PC Creek 400 Q5 EC Creek 400 Q5 PC Creek 400 Q10 EC Creek 400 Q10 PC Creek 400 Q25 EC Creek 400 Q25 PC Creek 400 Q50 EC Creek 400 Q50 PC Creek 400 Q100 EC Creek 400 Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\449 Creek Page 9 of 11

148 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) 449 Creek 350 baseflow EC Creek 350 baseflow PC Creek 350 Q1.01 EC Creek 350 Q1.01 PC Creek 350 Q1.5 EC Creek 350 Q1.5 PC Creek 350 Q2.0 EC Creek 350 Q2.0 PC Creek 350 Q5 EC Creek 350 Q5 PC Creek 350 Q10 EC Creek 350 Q10 PC Creek 350 Q25 EC Creek 350 Q25 PC Creek 350 Q50 EC Creek 350 Q50 PC Creek 350 Q100 EC Creek 350 Q100 PC Creek 300 baseflow EC Creek 300 baseflow PC Creek 300 Q1.01 EC Creek 300 Q1.01 PC Creek 300 Q1.5 EC Creek 300 Q1.5 PC Creek 300 Q2.0 EC Creek 300 Q2.0 PC Creek 300 Q5 EC Creek 300 Q5 PC Creek 300 Q10 EC Creek 300 Q10 PC Creek 300 Q25 EC Creek 300 Q25 PC Creek 300 Q50 EC Creek 300 Q50 PC Creek 300 Q100 EC Creek 300 Q100 PC Creek 250 baseflow EC Creek 250 baseflow PC Creek 250 Q1.01 EC Creek 250 Q1.01 PC Creek 250 Q1.5 EC Creek 250 Q1.5 PC Creek 250 Q2.0 EC Creek 250 Q2.0 PC Creek 250 Q5 EC Creek 250 Q5 PC Creek 250 Q10 EC Creek 250 Q10 PC Creek 250 Q25 EC Creek 250 Q25 PC Creek 250 Q50 EC Creek 250 Q50 PC Creek 250 Q100 EC Creek 250 Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\449 Creek Page 10 of 11

149 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) 449 Creek 200 baseflow EC Creek 200 baseflow PC Creek 200 Q1.01 EC Creek 200 Q1.01 PC Creek 200 Q1.5 EC Creek 200 Q1.5 PC Creek 200 Q2.0 EC Creek 200 Q2.0 PC Creek 200 Q5 EC Creek 200 Q5 PC Creek 200 Q10 EC Creek 200 Q10 PC Creek 200 Q25 EC Creek 200 Q25 PC Creek 200 Q50 EC Creek 200 Q50 PC Creek 200 Q100 EC Creek 200 Q100 PC Creek 150 baseflow EC Creek 150 baseflow PC Creek 150 Q1.01 EC Creek 150 Q1.01 PC Creek 150 Q1.5 EC Creek 150 Q1.5 PC Creek 150 Q2.0 EC Creek 150 Q2.0 PC Creek 150 Q5 EC Creek 150 Q5 PC Creek 150 Q10 EC Creek 150 Q10 PC Creek 150 Q25 EC Creek 150 Q25 PC Creek 150 Q50 EC Creek 150 Q50 PC Creek 150 Q100 EC Creek 150 Q100 PC Creek 100 baseflow EC Creek 100 baseflow PC Creek 100 Q1.01 EC Creek 100 Q1.01 PC Creek 100 Q1.5 EC Creek 100 Q1.5 PC Creek 100 Q2.0 EC Creek 100 Q2.0 PC Creek 100 Q5 EC Creek 100 Q5 PC Creek 100 Q10 EC Creek 100 Q10 PC Creek 100 Q25 EC Creek 100 Q25 PC Creek 100 Q50 EC Creek 100 Q50 PC Creek 100 Q100 EC Creek 100 Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\449 Creek Page 11 of 11

150 5. OLEMA CREEK REACH: HEC-RAS MODEL AND RESULTS * 255.* 275.* * * * * 530.* 550 O l em a Olema * 705.* * 785.* * 859.* 886 HEC-RAS model geometry Olema Creek Reach Appendix D

151 Simulated Water Surface Profiles Olema Creek Reach Appendix D

152 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Olema 886 baseflow EC Olema 886 baseflow PC Olema 886 Q1.01 EC Olema 886 Q1.01 PC Olema 886 Q1.5 EC Olema 886 Q1.5 PC Olema 886 Q2.0 EC Olema 886 Q2.0 PC Olema 886 Q5 EC Olema 886 Q5 PC Olema 886 Q10 EC Olema 886 Q10 PC Olema 886 Q25 EC Olema 886 Q25 PC Olema 886 Q50 EC Olema 886 Q50 PC Olema 886 Q100 EC Olema 886 Q100 PC Olema 859.* baseflow EC Olema 859.* baseflow PC Olema 859.* Q1.01 EC Olema 859.* Q1.01 PC Olema 859.* Q1.5 EC Olema 859.* Q1.5 PC Olema 859.* Q2.0 EC Olema 859.* Q2.0 PC Olema 859.* Q5 EC Olema 859.* Q5 PC Olema 859.* Q10 EC Olema 859.* Q10 PC Olema 859.* Q25 EC Olema 859.* Q25 PC Olema 859.* Q50 EC Olema 859.* Q50 PC Olema 859.* Q100 EC Olema 859.* Q100 PC Olema 850 baseflow EC Olema 850 baseflow PC Olema 850 Q1.01 EC Olema 850 Q1.01 PC Olema 850 Q1.5 EC Olema 850 Q1.5 PC Olema 850 Q2.0 EC Olema 850 Q2.0 PC Olema 850 Q5 EC Olema 850 Q5 PC Olema 850 Q10 EC Olema 850 Q10 PC Olema 850 Q25 EC Olema 850 Q25 PC Olema 850 Q50 EC Olema 850 Q50 PC Olema 850 Q100 EC Olema 850 Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\Olema Creek Page 1 of 16

153 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Olema 840.* baseflow EC Olema 840.* baseflow PC Olema 840.* Q1.01 EC Olema 840.* Q1.01 PC Olema 840.* Q1.5 EC Olema 840.* Q1.5 PC Olema 840.* Q2.0 EC Olema 840.* Q2.0 PC Olema 840.* Q5 EC Olema 840.* Q5 PC Olema 840.* Q10 EC Olema 840.* Q10 PC Olema 840.* Q25 EC Olema 840.* Q25 PC Olema 840.* Q50 EC Olema 840.* Q50 PC Olema 840.* Q100 EC Olema 840.* Q100 PC Olema LDRJ8 835.* baseflow EC Olema LDRJ8 835.* baseflow PC Olema LDRJ8 835.* Q1.01 EC Olema LDRJ8 835.* Q1.01 PC Olema LDRJ8 835.* Q1.5 EC Olema LDRJ8 835.* Q1.5 PC Olema LDRJ8 835.* Q2.0 EC Olema LDRJ8 835.* Q2.0 PC Olema LDRJ8 835.* Q5 EC Olema LDRJ8 835.* Q5 PC Olema LDRJ8 835.* Q10 EC Olema LDRJ8 835.* Q10 PC Olema LDRJ8 835.* Q25 EC Olema LDRJ8 835.* Q25 PC Olema LDRJ8 835.* Q50 EC Olema LDRJ8 835.* Q50 PC Olema LDRJ8 835.* Q100 EC Olema LDRJ8 835.* Q100 PC Olema LDRJ8 825.* baseflow EC Olema LDRJ8 825.* baseflow PC Olema LDRJ8 825.* Q1.01 EC Olema LDRJ8 825.* Q1.01 PC Olema LDRJ8 825.* Q1.5 EC Olema LDRJ8 825.* Q1.5 PC Olema LDRJ8 825.* Q2.0 EC Olema LDRJ8 825.* Q2.0 PC Olema LDRJ8 825.* Q5 EC Olema LDRJ8 825.* Q5 PC Olema LDRJ8 825.* Q10 EC Olema LDRJ8 825.* Q10 PC Olema LDRJ8 825.* Q25 EC Olema LDRJ8 825.* Q25 PC Olema LDRJ8 825.* Q50 EC Olema LDRJ8 825.* Q50 PC Olema LDRJ8 825.* Q100 EC Olema LDRJ8 825.* Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\Olema Creek Page 2 of 16

154 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Olema 820.* baseflow EC Olema 820.* baseflow PC Olema 820.* Q1.01 EC Olema 820.* Q1.01 PC Olema 820.* Q1.5 EC Olema 820.* Q1.5 PC Olema 820.* Q2.0 EC Olema 820.* Q2.0 PC Olema 820.* Q5 EC Olema 820.* Q5 PC Olema 820.* Q10 EC Olema 820.* Q10 PC Olema 820.* Q25 EC Olema 820.* Q25 PC Olema 820.* Q50 EC Olema 820.* Q50 PC Olema 820.* Q100 EC Olema 820.* Q100 PC Olema 800 baseflow EC Olema 800 baseflow PC Olema 800 Q1.01 EC Olema 800 Q1.01 PC Olema 800 Q1.5 EC Olema 800 Q1.5 PC Olema 800 Q2.0 EC Olema 800 Q2.0 PC Olema 800 Q5 EC Olema 800 Q5 PC Olema 800 Q10 EC Olema 800 Q10 PC Olema 800 Q25 EC Olema 800 Q25 PC Olema 800 Q50 EC Olema 800 Q50 PC Olema 800 Q100 EC Olema 800 Q100 PC Olema 785.* baseflow EC Olema 785.* baseflow PC Olema 785.* Q1.01 EC Olema 785.* Q1.01 PC Olema 785.* Q1.5 EC Olema 785.* Q1.5 PC Olema 785.* Q2.0 EC Olema 785.* Q2.0 PC Olema 785.* Q5 EC Olema 785.* Q5 PC Olema 785.* Q10 EC Olema 785.* Q10 PC Olema 785.* Q25 EC Olema 785.* Q25 PC Olema 785.* Q50 EC Olema 785.* Q50 PC Olema 785.* Q100 EC Olema 785.* Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\Olema Creek Page 3 of 16

155 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Olema 780.* baseflow EC Olema 780.* baseflow PC Olema 780.* Q1.01 EC Olema 780.* Q1.01 PC Olema 780.* Q1.5 EC Olema 780.* Q1.5 PC Olema 780.* Q2.0 EC Olema 780.* Q2.0 PC Olema 780.* Q5 EC Olema 780.* Q5 PC Olema 780.* Q10 EC Olema 780.* Q10 PC Olema 780.* Q25 EC Olema 780.* Q25 PC Olema 780.* Q50 EC Olema 780.* Q50 PC Olema 780.* Q100 EC Olema 780.* Q100 PC Olema 765.* baseflow EC Olema 765.* baseflow PC Olema 765.* Q1.01 EC Olema 765.* Q1.01 PC Olema 765.* Q1.5 EC Olema 765.* Q1.5 PC Olema 765.* Q2.0 EC Olema 765.* Q2.0 PC Olema 765.* Q5 EC Olema 765.* Q5 PC Olema 765.* Q10 EC Olema 765.* Q10 PC Olema 765.* Q25 EC Olema 765.* Q25 PC Olema 765.* Q50 EC Olema 765.* Q50 PC Olema 765.* Q100 EC Olema 765.* Q100 PC Olema LDRJ9 760.* baseflow EC Olema LDRJ9 760.* baseflow PC Olema LDRJ9 760.* Q1.01 EC Olema LDRJ9 760.* Q1.01 PC Olema LDRJ9 760.* Q1.5 EC Olema LDRJ9 760.* Q1.5 PC Olema LDRJ9 760.* Q2.0 EC Olema LDRJ9 760.* Q2.0 PC Olema LDRJ9 760.* Q5 EC Olema LDRJ9 760.* Q5 PC Olema LDRJ9 760.* Q10 EC Olema LDRJ9 760.* Q10 PC Olema LDRJ9 760.* Q25 EC Olema LDRJ9 760.* Q25 PC Olema LDRJ9 760.* Q50 EC Olema LDRJ9 760.* Q50 PC Olema LDRJ9 760.* Q100 EC Olema LDRJ9 760.* Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\Olema Creek Page 4 of 16

156 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Olema LDRJ9 750 baseflow EC Olema LDRJ9 750 baseflow PC Olema LDRJ9 750 Q1.01 EC Olema LDRJ9 750 Q1.01 PC Olema LDRJ9 750 Q1.5 EC Olema LDRJ9 750 Q1.5 PC Olema LDRJ9 750 Q2.0 EC Olema LDRJ9 750 Q2.0 PC Olema LDRJ9 750 Q5 EC Olema LDRJ9 750 Q5 PC Olema LDRJ9 750 Q10 EC Olema LDRJ9 750 Q10 PC Olema LDRJ9 750 Q25 EC Olema LDRJ9 750 Q25 PC Olema LDRJ9 750 Q50 EC Olema LDRJ9 750 Q50 PC Olema LDRJ9 750 Q100 EC Olema LDRJ9 750 Q100 PC Olema 745.* baseflow EC Olema 745.* baseflow PC Olema 745.* Q1.01 EC Olema 745.* Q1.01 PC Olema 745.* Q1.5 EC Olema 745.* Q1.5 PC Olema 745.* Q2.0 EC Olema 745.* Q2.0 PC Olema 745.* Q5 EC Olema 745.* Q5 PC Olema 745.* Q10 EC Olema 745.* Q10 PC Olema 745.* Q25 EC Olema 745.* Q25 PC Olema 745.* Q50 EC Olema 745.* Q50 PC Olema 745.* Q100 EC Olema 745.* Q100 PC Olema 705.* baseflow EC Olema 705.* baseflow PC Olema 705.* Q1.01 EC Olema 705.* Q1.01 PC Olema 705.* Q1.5 EC Olema 705.* Q1.5 PC Olema 705.* Q2.0 EC Olema 705.* Q2.0 PC Olema 705.* Q5 EC Olema 705.* Q5 PC Olema 705.* Q10 EC Olema 705.* Q10 PC Olema 705.* Q25 EC Olema 705.* Q25 PC Olema 705.* Q50 EC Olema 705.* Q50 PC Olema 705.* Q100 EC Olema 705.* Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\Olema Creek Page 5 of 16

157 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Olema 700 baseflow EC Olema 700 baseflow PC Olema 700 Q1.01 EC Olema 700 Q1.01 PC Olema 700 Q1.5 EC Olema 700 Q1.5 PC Olema 700 Q2.0 EC Olema 700 Q2.0 PC Olema 700 Q5 EC Olema 700 Q5 PC Olema 700 Q10 EC Olema 700 Q10 PC Olema 700 Q25 EC Olema 700 Q25 PC Olema 700 Q50 EC Olema 700 Q50 PC Olema 700 Q100 EC Olema 700 Q100 PC Olema 675.* baseflow EC Olema 675.* baseflow PC Olema 675.* Q1.01 EC Olema 675.* Q1.01 PC Olema 675.* Q1.5 EC Olema 675.* Q1.5 PC Olema 675.* Q2.0 EC Olema 675.* Q2.0 PC Olema 675.* Q5 EC Olema 675.* Q5 PC Olema 675.* Q10 EC Olema 675.* Q10 PC Olema 675.* Q25 EC Olema 675.* Q25 PC Olema 675.* Q50 EC Olema 675.* Q50 PC Olema 675.* Q100 EC Olema 675.* Q100 PC Olema 655.* baseflow EC Olema 655.* baseflow PC Olema 655.* Q1.01 EC Olema 655.* Q1.01 PC Olema 655.* Q1.5 EC Olema 655.* Q1.5 PC Olema 655.* Q2.0 EC Olema 655.* Q2.0 PC Olema 655.* Q5 EC Olema 655.* Q5 PC Olema 655.* Q10 EC Olema 655.* Q10 PC Olema 655.* Q25 EC Olema 655.* Q25 PC Olema 655.* Q50 EC Olema 655.* Q50 PC Olema 655.* Q100 EC Olema 655.* Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\Olema Creek Page 6 of 16

158 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Olema LDRJ baseflow EC Olema LDRJ baseflow PC Olema LDRJ Q1.01 EC Olema LDRJ Q1.01 PC Olema LDRJ Q1.5 EC Olema LDRJ Q1.5 PC Olema LDRJ Q2.0 EC Olema LDRJ Q2.0 PC Olema LDRJ Q5 EC Olema LDRJ Q5 PC Olema LDRJ Q10 EC Olema LDRJ Q10 PC Olema LDRJ Q25 EC Olema LDRJ Q25 PC Olema LDRJ Q50 EC Olema LDRJ Q50 PC Olema LDRJ Q100 EC Olema LDRJ Q100 PC Olema LDRJ * baseflow EC Olema LDRJ * baseflow PC Olema LDRJ * Q1.01 EC Olema LDRJ * Q1.01 PC Olema LDRJ * Q1.5 EC Olema LDRJ * Q1.5 PC Olema LDRJ * Q2.0 EC Olema LDRJ * Q2.0 PC Olema LDRJ * Q5 EC Olema LDRJ * Q5 PC Olema LDRJ * Q10 EC Olema LDRJ * Q10 PC Olema LDRJ * Q25 EC Olema LDRJ * Q25 PC Olema LDRJ * Q50 EC Olema LDRJ * Q50 PC Olema LDRJ * Q100 EC Olema LDRJ * Q100 PC Olema 635.* baseflow EC Olema 635.* baseflow PC Olema 635.* Q1.01 EC Olema 635.* Q1.01 PC Olema 635.* Q1.5 EC Olema 635.* Q1.5 PC Olema 635.* Q2.0 EC Olema 635.* Q2.0 PC Olema 635.* Q5 EC Olema 635.* Q5 PC Olema 635.* Q10 EC Olema 635.* Q10 PC Olema 635.* Q25 EC Olema 635.* Q25 PC Olema 635.* Q50 EC Olema 635.* Q50 PC Olema 635.* Q100 EC Olema 635.* Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\Olema Creek Page 7 of 16

159 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Olema 600 baseflow EC Olema 600 baseflow PC Olema 600 Q1.01 EC Olema 600 Q1.01 PC Olema 600 Q1.5 EC Olema 600 Q1.5 PC Olema 600 Q2.0 EC Olema 600 Q2.0 PC Olema 600 Q5 EC Olema 600 Q5 PC Olema 600 Q10 EC Olema 600 Q10 PC Olema 600 Q25 EC Olema 600 Q25 PC Olema 600 Q50 EC Olema 600 Q50 PC Olema 600 Q100 EC Olema 600 Q100 PC Olema 595.* baseflow EC Olema 595.* baseflow PC Olema 595.* Q1.01 EC Olema 595.* Q1.01 PC Olema 595.* Q1.5 EC Olema 595.* Q1.5 PC Olema 595.* Q2.0 EC Olema 595.* Q2.0 PC Olema 595.* Q5 EC Olema 595.* Q5 PC Olema 595.* Q10 EC Olema 595.* Q10 PC Olema 595.* Q25 EC Olema 595.* Q25 PC Olema 595.* Q50 EC Olema 595.* Q50 PC Olema 595.* Q100 EC Olema 595.* Q100 PC Olema 550 baseflow EC Olema 550 baseflow PC Olema 550 Q1.01 EC Olema 550 Q1.01 PC Olema 550 Q1.5 EC Olema 550 Q1.5 PC Olema 550 Q2.0 EC Olema 550 Q2.0 PC Olema 550 Q5 EC Olema 550 Q5 PC Olema 550 Q10 EC Olema 550 Q10 PC Olema 550 Q25 EC Olema 550 Q25 PC Olema 550 Q50 EC Olema 550 Q50 PC Olema 550 Q100 EC Olema 550 Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\Olema Creek Page 8 of 16

160 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Olema 530.* baseflow EC Olema 530.* baseflow PC Olema 530.* Q1.01 EC Olema 530.* Q1.01 PC Olema 530.* Q1.5 EC Olema 530.* Q1.5 PC Olema 530.* Q2.0 EC Olema 530.* Q2.0 PC Olema 530.* Q5 EC Olema 530.* Q5 PC Olema 530.* Q10 EC Olema 530.* Q10 PC Olema 530.* Q25 EC Olema 530.* Q25 PC Olema 530.* Q50 EC Olema 530.* Q50 PC Olema 530.* Q100 EC Olema 530.* Q100 PC Olema LDRJ * baseflow EC Olema LDRJ * baseflow PC Olema LDRJ * Q1.01 EC Olema LDRJ * Q1.01 PC Olema LDRJ * Q1.5 EC Olema LDRJ * Q1.5 PC Olema LDRJ * Q2.0 EC Olema LDRJ * Q2.0 PC Olema LDRJ * Q5 EC Olema LDRJ * Q5 PC Olema LDRJ * Q10 EC Olema LDRJ * Q10 PC Olema LDRJ * Q25 EC Olema LDRJ * Q25 PC Olema LDRJ * Q50 EC Olema LDRJ * Q50 PC Olema LDRJ * Q100 EC Olema LDRJ * Q100 PC Olema LDRJ * baseflow EC Olema LDRJ * baseflow PC Olema LDRJ * Q1.01 EC Olema LDRJ * Q1.01 PC Olema LDRJ * Q1.5 EC Olema LDRJ * Q1.5 PC Olema LDRJ * Q2.0 EC Olema LDRJ * Q2.0 PC Olema LDRJ * Q5 EC Olema LDRJ * Q5 PC Olema LDRJ * Q10 EC Olema LDRJ * Q10 PC Olema LDRJ * Q25 EC Olema LDRJ * Q25 PC Olema LDRJ * Q50 EC Olema LDRJ * Q50 PC Olema LDRJ * Q100 EC Olema LDRJ * Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\Olema Creek Page 9 of 16

161 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Olema 510.* baseflow EC Olema 510.* baseflow PC Olema 510.* Q1.01 EC Olema 510.* Q1.01 PC Olema 510.* Q1.5 EC Olema 510.* Q1.5 PC Olema 510.* Q2.0 EC Olema 510.* Q2.0 PC Olema 510.* Q5 EC Olema 510.* Q5 PC Olema 510.* Q10 EC Olema 510.* Q10 PC Olema 510.* Q25 EC Olema 510.* Q25 PC Olema 510.* Q50 EC Olema 510.* Q50 PC Olema 510.* Q100 EC Olema 510.* Q100 PC Olema 500 baseflow EC Olema 500 baseflow PC Olema 500 Q1.01 EC Olema 500 Q1.01 PC Olema 500 Q1.5 EC Olema 500 Q1.5 PC Olema 500 Q2.0 EC Olema 500 Q2.0 PC Olema 500 Q5 EC Olema 500 Q5 PC Olema 500 Q10 EC Olema 500 Q10 PC Olema 500 Q25 EC Olema 500 Q25 PC Olema 500 Q50 EC Olema 500 Q50 PC Olema 500 Q100 EC Olema 500 Q100 PC Olema 470.* baseflow EC Olema 470.* baseflow PC Olema 470.* Q1.01 EC Olema 470.* Q1.01 PC Olema 470.* Q1.5 EC Olema 470.* Q1.5 PC Olema 470.* Q2.0 EC Olema 470.* Q2.0 PC Olema 470.* Q5 EC Olema 470.* Q5 PC Olema 470.* Q10 EC Olema 470.* Q10 PC Olema 470.* Q25 EC Olema 470.* Q25 PC Olema 470.* Q50 EC Olema 470.* Q50 PC Olema 470.* Q100 EC Olema 470.* Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\Olema Creek Page 10 of 16

162 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Olema 450 baseflow EC Olema 450 baseflow PC Olema 450 Q1.01 EC Olema 450 Q1.01 PC Olema 450 Q1.5 EC Olema 450 Q1.5 PC Olema 450 Q2.0 EC Olema 450 Q2.0 PC Olema 450 Q5 EC Olema 450 Q5 PC Olema 450 Q10 EC Olema 450 Q10 PC Olema 450 Q25 EC Olema 450 Q25 PC Olema 450 Q50 EC Olema 450 Q50 PC Olema 450 Q100 EC Olema 450 Q100 PC Olema 420.* baseflow EC Olema 420.* baseflow PC Olema 420.* Q1.01 EC Olema 420.* Q1.01 PC Olema 420.* Q1.5 EC Olema 420.* Q1.5 PC Olema 420.* Q2.0 EC Olema 420.* Q2.0 PC Olema 420.* Q5 EC Olema 420.* Q5 PC Olema 420.* Q10 EC Olema 420.* Q10 PC Olema 420.* Q25 EC Olema 420.* Q25 PC Olema 420.* Q50 EC Olema 420.* Q50 PC Olema 420.* Q100 EC Olema 420.* Q100 PC Olema 400 baseflow EC Olema 400 baseflow PC Olema 400 Q1.01 EC Olema 400 Q1.01 PC Olema 400 Q1.5 EC Olema 400 Q1.5 PC Olema 400 Q2.0 EC Olema 400 Q2.0 PC Olema 400 Q5 EC Olema 400 Q5 PC Olema 400 Q10 EC Olema 400 Q10 PC Olema 400 Q25 EC Olema 400 Q25 PC Olema 400 Q50 EC Olema 400 Q50 PC Olema 400 Q100 EC Olema 400 Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\Olema Creek Page 11 of 16

163 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Olema LDRJ * baseflow EC Olema LDRJ * baseflow PC Olema LDRJ * Q1.01 EC Olema LDRJ * Q1.01 PC Olema LDRJ * Q1.5 EC Olema LDRJ * Q1.5 PC Olema LDRJ * Q2.0 EC Olema LDRJ * Q2.0 PC Olema LDRJ * Q5 EC Olema LDRJ * Q5 PC Olema LDRJ * Q10 EC Olema LDRJ * Q10 PC Olema LDRJ * Q25 EC Olema LDRJ * Q25 PC Olema LDRJ * Q50 EC Olema LDRJ * Q50 PC Olema LDRJ * Q100 EC Olema LDRJ * Q100 PC Olema LDRJ * baseflow EC Olema LDRJ * baseflow PC Olema LDRJ * Q1.01 EC Olema LDRJ * Q1.01 PC Olema LDRJ * Q1.5 EC Olema LDRJ * Q1.5 PC Olema LDRJ * Q2.0 EC Olema LDRJ * Q2.0 PC Olema LDRJ * Q5 EC Olema LDRJ * Q5 PC Olema LDRJ * Q10 EC Olema LDRJ * Q10 PC Olema LDRJ * Q25 EC Olema LDRJ * Q25 PC Olema LDRJ * Q50 EC Olema LDRJ * Q50 PC Olema LDRJ * Q100 EC Olema LDRJ * Q100 PC Olema 380.* baseflow EC Olema 380.* baseflow PC Olema 380.* Q1.01 EC Olema 380.* Q1.01 PC Olema 380.* Q1.5 EC Olema 380.* Q1.5 PC Olema 380.* Q2.0 EC Olema 380.* Q2.0 PC Olema 380.* Q5 EC Olema 380.* Q5 PC Olema 380.* Q10 EC Olema 380.* Q10 PC Olema 380.* Q25 EC Olema 380.* Q25 PC Olema 380.* Q50 EC Olema 380.* Q50 PC Olema 380.* Q100 EC Olema 380.* Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\Olema Creek Page 12 of 16

164 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Olema 350 baseflow EC Olema 350 baseflow PC Olema 350 Q1.01 EC Olema 350 Q1.01 PC Olema 350 Q1.5 EC Olema 350 Q1.5 PC Olema 350 Q2.0 EC Olema 350 Q2.0 PC Olema 350 Q5 EC Olema 350 Q5 PC Olema 350 Q10 EC Olema 350 Q10 PC Olema 350 Q25 EC Olema 350 Q25 PC Olema 350 Q50 EC Olema 350 Q50 PC Olema 350 Q100 EC Olema 350 Q100 PC Olema 340.* baseflow EC Olema 340.* baseflow PC Olema 340.* Q1.01 EC Olema 340.* Q1.01 PC Olema 340.* Q1.5 EC Olema 340.* Q1.5 PC Olema 340.* Q2.0 EC Olema 340.* Q2.0 PC Olema 340.* Q5 EC Olema 340.* Q5 PC Olema 340.* Q10 EC Olema 340.* Q10 PC Olema 340.* Q25 EC Olema 340.* Q25 PC Olema 340.* Q50 EC Olema 340.* Q50 PC Olema 340.* Q100 EC Olema 340.* Q100 PC Olema 300 baseflow EC Olema 300 baseflow PC Olema 300 Q1.01 EC Olema 300 Q1.01 PC Olema 300 Q1.5 EC Olema 300 Q1.5 PC Olema 300 Q2.0 EC Olema 300 Q2.0 PC Olema 300 Q5 EC Olema 300 Q5 PC Olema 300 Q10 EC Olema 300 Q10 PC Olema 300 Q25 EC Olema 300 Q25 PC Olema 300 Q50 EC Olema 300 Q50 PC Olema 300 Q100 EC Olema 300 Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\Olema Creek Page 13 of 16

165 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Olema 275.* baseflow EC Olema 275.* baseflow PC Olema 275.* Q1.01 EC Olema 275.* Q1.01 PC Olema 275.* Q1.5 EC Olema 275.* Q1.5 PC Olema 275.* Q2.0 EC Olema 275.* Q2.0 PC Olema 275.* Q5 EC Olema 275.* Q5 PC Olema 275.* Q10 EC Olema 275.* Q10 PC Olema 275.* Q25 EC Olema 275.* Q25 PC Olema 275.* Q50 EC Olema 275.* Q50 PC Olema 275.* Q100 EC Olema 275.* Q100 PC Olema 255.* baseflow EC Olema 255.* baseflow PC Olema 255.* Q1.01 EC Olema 255.* Q1.01 PC Olema 255.* Q1.5 EC Olema 255.* Q1.5 PC Olema 255.* Q2.0 EC Olema 255.* Q2.0 PC Olema 255.* Q5 EC Olema 255.* Q5 PC Olema 255.* Q10 EC Olema 255.* Q10 PC Olema 255.* Q25 EC Olema 255.* Q25 PC Olema 255.* Q50 EC Olema 255.* Q50 PC Olema 255.* Q100 EC Olema 255.* Q100 PC Olema LDRJ baseflow EC Olema LDRJ baseflow PC Olema LDRJ Q1.01 EC Olema LDRJ Q1.01 PC Olema LDRJ Q1.5 EC Olema LDRJ Q1.5 PC Olema LDRJ Q2.0 EC Olema LDRJ Q2.0 PC Olema LDRJ Q5 EC Olema LDRJ Q5 PC Olema LDRJ Q10 EC Olema LDRJ Q10 PC Olema LDRJ Q25 EC Olema LDRJ Q25 PC Olema LDRJ Q50 EC Olema LDRJ Q50 PC Olema LDRJ Q100 EC Olema LDRJ Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\Olema Creek Page 14 of 16

166 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Olema LDRJ * baseflow EC Olema LDRJ * baseflow PC Olema LDRJ * Q1.01 EC Olema LDRJ * Q1.01 PC Olema LDRJ * Q1.5 EC Olema LDRJ * Q1.5 PC Olema LDRJ * Q2.0 EC Olema LDRJ * Q2.0 PC Olema LDRJ * Q5 EC Olema LDRJ * Q5 PC Olema LDRJ * Q10 EC Olema LDRJ * Q10 PC Olema LDRJ * Q25 EC Olema LDRJ * Q25 PC Olema LDRJ * Q50 EC Olema LDRJ * Q50 PC Olema LDRJ * Q100 EC Olema LDRJ * Q100 PC Olema 235.* baseflow EC Olema 235.* baseflow PC Olema 235.* Q1.01 EC Olema 235.* Q1.01 PC Olema 235.* Q1.5 EC Olema 235.* Q1.5 PC Olema 235.* Q2.0 EC Olema 235.* Q2.0 PC Olema 235.* Q5 EC Olema 235.* Q5 PC Olema 235.* Q10 EC Olema 235.* Q10 PC Olema 235.* Q25 EC Olema 235.* Q25 PC Olema 235.* Q50 EC Olema 235.* Q50 PC Olema 235.* Q100 EC Olema 235.* Q100 PC Olema 200 baseflow EC Olema 200 baseflow PC Olema 200 Q1.01 EC Olema 200 Q1.01 PC Olema 200 Q1.5 EC Olema 200 Q1.5 PC Olema 200 Q2.0 EC Olema 200 Q2.0 PC Olema 200 Q5 EC Olema 200 Q5 PC Olema 200 Q10 EC Olema 200 Q10 PC Olema 200 Q25 EC Olema 200 Q25 PC Olema 200 Q50 EC Olema 200 Q50 PC Olema 200 Q100 EC Olema 200 Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\Olema Creek Page 15 of 16

167 Reach Structure River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Olema 195.* baseflow EC Olema 195.* baseflow PC Olema 195.* Q1.01 EC Olema 195.* Q1.01 PC Olema 195.* Q1.5 EC Olema 195.* Q1.5 PC Olema 195.* Q2.0 EC Olema 195.* Q2.0 PC Olema 195.* Q5 EC Olema 195.* Q5 PC Olema 195.* Q10 EC Olema 195.* Q10 PC Olema 195.* Q25 EC Olema 195.* Q25 PC Olema 195.* Q50 EC Olema 195.* Q50 PC Olema 195.* Q100 EC Olema 195.* Q100 PC Olema 150 baseflow EC Olema 150 baseflow PC Olema 150 Q1.01 EC Olema 150 Q1.01 PC Olema 150 Q1.5 EC Olema 150 Q1.5 PC Olema 150 Q2.0 EC Olema 150 Q2.0 PC Olema 150 Q5 EC Olema 150 Q5 PC Olema 150 Q10 EC Olema 150 Q10 PC Olema 150 Q25 EC Olema 150 Q25 PC Olema 150 Q50 EC Olema 150 Q50 PC Olema 150 Q100 EC Olema 150 Q100 PC Olema 100 baseflow EC Olema 100 baseflow PC Olema 100 Q1.01 EC Olema 100 Q1.01 PC Olema 100 Q1.5 EC Olema 100 Q1.5 PC Olema 100 Q2.0 EC Olema 100 Q2.0 PC Olema 100 Q5 EC Olema 100 Q5 PC Olema 100 Q10 EC Olema 100 Q10 PC Olema 100 Q25 EC Olema 100 Q25 PC Olema 100 Q50 EC Olema 100 Q50 PC Olema 100 Q100 EC Olema 100 Q100 PC Lagunitas Creek Hydraulic Analysis Results.xlsx\Olema Creek Page 16 of 16

168 APPENDIX E FORCE BALANCE ANALYSIS THEORY, EQUATIONS AND RESULTS The following sections present the methods and results of a force balance analysis of the three primary ELJ structures (Bar Apex Jam [BAJ], Diversion Vane [DV] and Log Debris Retention Jam [LDRJ]) incorporated in to the project designs. The analyses were completed on a single representative structure design using conservative estimates of structure dimensions and impinging forces from hydraulic modeling results. E-1

169 1A BUOYANCY ANALSYIS BAR APEX JAM (modified from Wright, 2003) E-2

170 1B POST SKIN FRICTION BAR APEX JAM (Derived from Geotechnical Info.com, 2014) Qf = Afqf for one homogeneous layer of soil Qf = p qfl for multi-layers of soil Where: Qf = Theoretical bearing capacity due to shaft friction, or adhesion between foundation shaft and soil, kn (lb) Af = pl; Effective surface area of the pile shaft, m 2 (ft 2 ) qf = k tan = Theoretical unit friction capacity for cohesionless soils, kn/m 2 (lb/ft 2 ) p = perimeter of pile cross-section, m (ft) for a circular pile; p = (B/2) for a square pile; p = 4B L = Effective length of pile, m (ft) (assume 4.5 feet) *See Notes below = angle of internal friction (deg) (use 30 degrees) = D = effective overburden pressure, kn/m 2, (lb/ft 2 ) k = lateral earth pressure coefficient for piles = effective unit weight of soil, kn/m 3 (lb/ft 3 ) *See notes below B = diameter or width of pile, m (ft) D = Effective depth of pile, m (ft), where D < Dc 2/3 (Broms) Notes: Determining effective length requires engineering judgment. The effective length can be the pile depth minus any disturbed surface soils, soft/ loose soils, or seasonal variation. The effective length may also be the length of a pile segment within a single soil layer of a multi layered soil. Effective unit weight,, is the unit weight of the soil for soils above the water table and capillary rise. For saturated soils, the effective unit weight is the unit weight of water, w, 9.81 kn/m 3 (62.4 lb/ft 3 ), subtracted from the saturated unit weight of soil. E-3

171 1C HORIZONAL DRAG FORCE BAR APEX JAM (Wright, 2003) E-4

172 1D POST HORIZONTAL RESISTANCE FORCE BAR APEX JAM (Modified from Wright, 2003) E-5

173 1E POST STRENGTH AND SIZING (DIAMETER) BAR APEX JAM (modified from Entrix, 2010) E-6

174 This analysis is used to estimate the design post diameter based on the forces applied to the entire ELJ. Assumptions in this analysis include: 1) The ELJ behaves as a single structure; 2) The effect of soil pressures on the posts is negligible; 3) The effect of buoyancy is negligible; 4) The structure will be submerged during the design flow; and 5) Each post carries an equal share of the load at all times. E-7

175 E-8

176 2A BUOYANCY ANALSYIS DIVERSION VANE (modified from Wright, 2003) E-9

177 2B POST SKIN FRICTION DIVERSION VANE (Derived from Geotechnical Info.com, 2014) Qf = Afqf for one homogeneous layer of soil Qf = p qfl for multi-layers of soil Where: Qf = Theoretical bearing capacity due to shaft friction, or adhesion between foundation shaft and soil, kn (lb) Af = pl; Effective surface area of the pile shaft, m 2 (ft 2 ) qf = k tan = Theoretical unit friction capacity for cohesionless soils, kn/m 2 (lb/ft 2 ) p = perimeter of pile cross-section, m (ft) for a circular pile; p = (B/2) for a square pile; p = 4B L = Effective length of pile, m (ft) (assume 4.5 feet) *See Notes below = angle of internal friction (deg) (use 30 degrees) = D = effective overburden pressure, kn/m 2, (lb/ft 2 ) k = lateral earth pressure coefficient for piles = effective unit weight of soil, kn/m 3 (lb/ft 3 ) *See notes below B = diameter or width of pile, m (ft) D = Effective depth of pile, m (ft), where D < Dc 2/3 (Broms) Notes: Determining effective length requires engineering judgment. The effective length can be the pile depth minus any disturbed surface soils, soft/ loose soils, or seasonal variation. The effective length may also be the length of a pile segment within a single soil layer of a multi layered soil. Effective unit weight,, is the unit weight of the soil for soils above the water table and capillary rise. For saturated soils, the effective unit weight is the unit weight of water, w, 9.81 kn/m 3 (62.4 lb/ft 3 ), subtracted from the saturated unit weight of soil. E-10

178 2C HORIZONAL DRAG FORCE DIVERSION VANE (Wright, 2003) E-11

179 2D POST HORIZONTAL RESISTANCE FORCE DIVERSION VANE (Modified from Wright, 2003) E-12

180 E-13

181 2E POST STRENGTH AND SIZING (DIAMETER) DIVERSION VANE (modified from Entrix, 2010) This analysis is used to estimate the design post diameter based on the forces applied to the entire ELJ. Assumptions in this analysis include: 1) The ELJ behaves as a single structure; 2) The effect of soil pressures on the posts is negligible; 3) The effect of buoyancy is negligible; 4) The structure will be submerged during the design flow; and 5) Each post carries an equal share of the load at all times. E-14

182 E-15

183 3A BUOYANCY ANALSYIS LOG DEBRIS RETENTION JAM (Modified from Wright, 2003) E-16

184 3B POST SKIN FRICTION LOG DEBRIS RETENTION JAM (Derived from Geotechnical Info.com, 2014) Qf = Afqf for one homogeneous layer of soil Qf = p qfl for multi-layers of soil Where: Qf = Theoretical bearing capacity due to shaft friction, or adhesion between foundation shaft and soil, kn (lb) Af = pl; Effective surface area of the pile shaft, m 2 (ft 2 ) qf = k tan = Theoretical unit friction capacity for cohesionless soils, kn/m 2 (lb/ft 2 ) p = perimeter of pile cross-section, m (ft) for a circular pile; p = (B/2) for a square pile; p = 4B L = Effective length of pile, m (ft) (assume 4.5 feet) *See Notes below = angle of internal friction (deg) (use 30 degrees) = D = effective overburden pressure, kn/m 2, (lb/ft 2 ) k = lateral earth pressure coefficient for piles = effective unit weight of soil, kn/m 3 (lb/ft 3 ) *See notes below B = diameter or width of pile, m (ft) D = Effective depth of pile, m (ft), where D < Dc 2/3 (Broms) Notes: Determining effective length requires engineering judgment. The effective length can be the pile depth minus any disturbed surface soils, soft/ loose soils, or seasonal variation. The effective length may also be the length of a pile segment within a single soil layer of a multi layered soil. Effective unit weight,, is the unit weight of the soil for soils above the water table and capillary rise. For saturated soils, the effective unit weight is the unit weight of water, w, 9.81 kn/m 3 (62.4 lb/ft 3 ), subtracted from the saturated unit weight of soil. E-17

185 3C HORIZONAL DRAG FORCE LOG DEBRIS RETENTION JAM (Wright, 2003) E-18

186 3D POST HORIZONTAL RESISTANCE FORCE LOG DEBRIS RETENTION JAM (modified from Wright, 2003) E-19

187 E-20

188 3E POST STRENGTH AND SIZING (DIAMETER) LOG DEBRIS RETENTION JAM (modified from Entrix, 2010) This analysis is used to estimate the design post diameter based on the forces applied to the entire ELJ. Assumptions in this analysis include: 1) The ELJ behaves as a single structure; 2) The effect of soil pressures on the posts is negligible; 3) The effect of buoyancy is negligible; 4) The structure will be submerged during the design flow; and 5) Each post carries an equal share of the load at all times. E-21

189 E-22

190 8. Force Balance Analysis Bibliography and Sources of Information Entrix, 2010, Draft Trinity River Engineering Log Jam Design Synopsis. Prepared for Bureau of Reclamation, October 1, 29p. Geotechnical Info.com, 2014, Bearing capacity technical guidance website. Wright, Scott, 2003, Spreadsheet Spreadsheet developed by Scott Wright, P.E. - revision YQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dnrc.mt.gov%2Fwrd%2Fwater_op%2Ffloodp lain%2fstreambank_course%2felj_ xls&ei=9x03u9hph6tnsqtl9olwdw&usg=afqjcngbqgpksr_krrwkjsdua8zyyq8qg E-23

191 APPENDIX F CHANNEL SCOUR ANALYSIS THEORY, EQUATIONS AND RESULTS F-1

192 1. Total Scour Analysis using HEC-RAS Total Scour is the combination of contraction scour and local scour consisting of pier scour and abutment scour. HEC-RAS was used to estimate total scour for existing conditions and proposed conditions after engineered log structures were added to the creek channel. Total scour combines the results from #2, #3, and #4 below. 2. Contraction Scour: Theory and Equations (Taken directly from Chapter 6, HEC-18; FHWA, 2012a) Contraction scour is computed using Laursen s clear-water (Laursen, 1963) and live-bed (Laursen, 1960) contraction scour equations. The establishment of contraction scour conditions (live-bed scour or clear water scour) determines which equation to use (Eq. 6.1, Chapter 6, HEC-18; FHWA, 2012a). If critical velocity of the bed material is greater than mean velocity, the clear-water contraction scour equation is used. If critical velocity is less than the mean velocity, the live-bed contraction scour equation is used. F-2

193 If live-bed contraction scour is determined, live-bed contraction scour equation is utilized (Laursen, 1960). (Eq. 6.2 and 6.3, Chapter 6, HEC-18; FHWA, 2012a). F-3

194 If clear-water contraction scour is determined, the clear-water contraction scour equation is utilized (Laursen, 1963). (Eq. 6.4 and 6.5, Chapter 6, HEC-18; FHWA, 2012a). F-4

195 3. Local Scour: Pier Scour: Theory and Equations (Taken directly from Chapter 7, HEC-18; FHWA, 2012a) Pier scour is computed in HEC-RAS using the Colorado State University (CSU) equation (Richardson, et al, 1990). (Eq , Chapter 7, HEC-18; FHWA, 2012a). F-5

196 F-6

197 4. Local Scour: Abutment Scour: Theory and Equations (Taken directly from Chapter 8, HEC-18; FHWA, 2012a) Abutment scour is computed in HEC-RAS using the either the Froehlich (TRB, 1989) abutment scour equation or the HIRE abutment scour equation (FHWA, 2001). (Eq , Chapter 8, HEC-18; FHWA, 2012a). F-7

198 F-8

199 HEC-RAS Modeled Total Scour Results (sum of contraction, pier and abutment scour calculations) CONDITIONS EQUATION FLOW (cfs) STRUCTURE LOCATION SCOUR DEPTH (ft) EX HEC-RAS baseflow LDV1 (1-7) Big Bend 0 PC HEC-RAS baseflow LDV1 (1-7) Big Bend 0.08 EX HEC-RAS Q2 LDV1 (1-7) Big Bend 0.85 PC HEC-RAS Q2 LDV1 (1-7) Big Bend 1.24 EX HEC-RAS Q10 LDV1 (1-7) Big Bend 1.79 PC HEC-RAS Q10 LDV1 (1-7) Big Bend 1.23 EX HEC-RAS Q25 LDV1 (1-7) Big Bend 2.24 PC HEC-RAS Q25 LDV1 (1-7) Big Bend 1.23 EX HEC-RAS baseflow BAJ1 Big Bend 0 PC HEC-RAS baseflow BAJ1 Big Bend 9.46 EX HEC-RAS Q2 BAJ1 Big Bend 0 PC HEC-RAS Q2 BAJ1 Big Bend EX HEC-RAS Q10 BAJ1 Big Bend 0.33 PC HEC-RAS Q10 BAJ1 Big Bend 32.2 EX HEC-RAS Q25 BAJ1 Big Bend 0.51 PC HEC-RAS Q25 BAJ1 Big Bend 34.5 EX HEC-RAS baseflow BAJ2 & 3 McIsaac 0 PC HEC-RAS baseflow BAJ2 & 3 McIsaac 9.95 EX HEC-RAS Q2 BAJ2 & 3 McIsaac 0 PC HEC-RAS Q2 BAJ2 & 3 McIsaac EX HEC-RAS Q10 BAJ2 & 3 McIsaac 5.69 PC HEC-RAS Q10 BAJ2 & 3 McIsaac EX HEC-RAS Q25 BAJ2 & 3 McIsaac PC HEC-RAS Q25 BAJ2 & 3 McIsaac EX HEC-RAS baseflow LDRJ1 & 2 McIsaac 0 PC HEC-RAS baseflow LDRJ1 & 2 McIsaac 5.71 EX HEC-RAS Q2 LDRJ1 & 2 McIsaac 7.74 PC HEC-RAS Q2 LDRJ1 & 2 McIsaac EX HEC-RAS Q10 LDRJ1 & 2 McIsaac PC HEC-RAS Q10 LDRJ1 & 2 McIsaac EX HEC-RAS Q25 LDRJ1 & 2 McIsaac PC HEC-RAS Q25 LDRJ1 & 2 McIsaac EX HEC-RAS baseflow LDRJ3 Fern Rock 0.07 PC HEC-RAS baseflow LDRJ3 Fern Rock EX HEC-RAS Q2 LDRJ3 Fern Rock 1.38 PC HEC-RAS Q2 LDRJ3 Fern Rock EX HEC-RAS Q10 LDRJ3 Fern Rock 9.05 PC HEC-RAS Q10 LDRJ3 Fern Rock EX HEC-RAS Q25 LDRJ3 Fern Rock PC HEC-RAS Q25 LDRJ3 Fern Rock F-9

200 CONDITIONS EQUATION FLOW (cfs) STRUCTURE LOCATION SCOUR DEPTH (ft) EX HEC-RAS baseflow LDRJ4 Fern Rock 0 PC HEC-RAS baseflow LDRJ4 Fern Rock EX HEC-RAS Q2 LDRJ4 Fern Rock 1.81 PC HEC-RAS Q2 LDRJ4 Fern Rock EX HEC-RAS Q10 LDRJ4 Fern Rock 2.05 PC HEC-RAS Q10 LDRJ4 Fern Rock EX HEC-RAS Q25 LDRJ4 Fern Rock 3.32 PC HEC-RAS Q25 LDRJ4 Fern Rock EX HEC-RAS baseflow LDRJ5 Fern Rock 0.11 PC HEC-RAS baseflow LDRJ5 Fern Rock 9.84 EX HEC-RAS Q2 LDRJ5 Fern Rock 0.91 PC HEC-RAS Q2 LDRJ5 Fern Rock EX HEC-RAS Q10 LDRJ5 Fern Rock 1.03 PC HEC-RAS Q10 LDRJ5 Fern Rock EX HEC-RAS Q25 LDRJ5 Fern Rock 1.06 PC HEC-RAS Q25 LDRJ5 Fern Rock EX HEC-RAS baseflow LDRJ6 Fern Rock 0.08 PC HEC-RAS baseflow LDRJ6 Fern Rock EX HEC-RAS Q2 LDRJ6 Fern Rock 4.94 PC HEC-RAS Q2 LDRJ6 Fern Rock EX HEC-RAS Q10 LDRJ6 Fern Rock 4.07 PC HEC-RAS Q10 LDRJ6 Fern Rock EX HEC-RAS Q25 LDRJ6 Fern Rock 4.05 PC HEC-RAS Q25 LDRJ6 Fern Rock EX HEC-RAS baseflow LDRJ PC HEC-RAS baseflow LDRJ EX HEC-RAS Q2 LDRJ PC HEC-RAS Q2 LDRJ EX HEC-RAS Q10 LDRJ PC HEC-RAS Q10 LDRJ EX HEC-RAS Q25 LDRJ PC HEC-RAS Q25 LDRJ EX HEC-RAS baseflow BAJ PC HEC-RAS baseflow BAJ EX HEC-RAS Q2 BAJ PC HEC-RAS Q2 BAJ EX HEC-RAS Q10 BAJ PC HEC-RAS Q10 BAJ EX HEC-RAS Q25 BAJ PC HEC-RAS Q25 BAJ Notes: 1. EX = existing conditions; PC = project conditions 2. Sediment grain size data from report Section Sediment Grain-Size) F-10

201 F-11

202 5. Plunge Scour: Theory and Equations (Taken from Julien, pg. 301, 2002) F-12

203 Plunge Scour Results F-13

204 6. Scour Calculations Around an Engineered Log Jam Scour was predicted at engineered log structures by using the following analysis (Wright, 2003). Scour Calculations Around an Engineered Log Jam Spreadsheet developed by Scott Wright, P.E. - revision 1.0 Scour around an engineered log jam (ELJ) can be determined by treating the ELJ like an abutment in the flow provided it extends vertically from the bed of the stream to at least bankfull flow and is relatively impermeable. Pierre Julien (River Mechanics p. 313) presents Karaki's & Richardson's equation for scour at an abutment to estimate scour depths utilized in this spreadsheet. d s 0.4 Le Fr d1 d 1 Le = 20.0 d1 = 4.0 Fr = 0.50 (ft) Effective length of log jam protruding into flow (ft) Average upstream flow depth in channel Froude number upstream of ELJ (HEC-RAS Output) ds = 6.66 (ft) Depth of scour below existing streambed Results BAJ 1 Big Bend McIsaac Fern Rock 449 LDV BAJ LDRJ LDRJ BAJ LDRJ LDRJ LDRJ LDRJ LDRJ Series scour depth (ft) (baseflow) scour depth (ft) (Q2) BAJ 4 scour depth (ft) (Q10) scour depth (ft) (Q25) F-14

205 7. NRCS Scour Depth Equation The Natural Resources Conservation Service provides a scour depth prediction equation for engineered log structures (NRCS, 2001). Results Big Bend McIsaac Fern Rock 449 Olema BAJ1 LDV Series BAJ 2 LDRJ 1 LDRJ 2 BAJ 3 LDRJ 3 LDRJ 4 LDRJ 5 LDRJ 6 LDRJ 7 BAJ 4 LDRJ TYP Average height above bed (ft) scour depth (ft) (2.5*h) F-15

206 8. Scour Analysis Bibliography Brunner, G.W., 2010, HEC-RAS, River Analysis System User s Manual. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydraulic Engineering Center (HEC), 417p. FHWA, 2012a, Evaluating Scour at Bridges, Fifth Edition. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 18, Publication No. FHWA-HIR , April, 340p. HEC-RAS River Analysis System Users Manual Version 4.1, Chapter 12, January US Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center. Julien, P.Y, 2002, River Mechanics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 434p. NRCS, 2001, Incorporation of large wood into engineering structures. Natural Resources Conservation Service Technical Notes, Engineering No. 25, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Portland, OR, June, 14p. Wright, Scott, 2003, Spreadsheet Spreadsheet developed by Scott Wright, P.E. - revision YQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dnrc.mt.gov%2Fwrd%2Fwater_op%2Ffloodp lain%2fstreambank_course%2felj_ xls&ei=9x03u9hph6tnsqtl9olwdw&usg=afqjcngbqgpksr_krrwkjsdua8zyyq8qg F-16

207 APPENDIX G LOG DEBRIS RETENTION JAM (LDRJ) SEDIMENT AGGRADATION ANALYSIS G-1

208 TABLE 1: Estimated sediment accumulation (demand) at LDRJs Design Height Structure (ft) Length of Accumulation Upstream/Behind Structure (ft) Volume (CY) Volume (tons) Notes: 1. Length of accumulation calculated assuming slope of sediment wedge is 30:1 (H:V) cubic yard of gravel = tons (2750 lbs gravel per cubic yard). TABLE 2: Estimated incremental and cumulative sediment demands at LDRJs LDRJ # LDRJ1 LDRJ2 LDRJ3 LDRJ4 LDRJ5 LDRJ6 LDRJ7 Project Site Height (ft) Incremental Volume (tons) Cumulative Volume (tons) McIsaac Up McIsaac Up Fern Rock Fern Rock Fern Rock Fern Rock Cr LDRJ8 LDRJ9 LDRJ10 LDRJ11 LDRJ12 LDRJ13 Olema Cr Olema Cr Olema Cr Olema Cr Olema Cr Olema Cr G-2

209 FIGURE G-1: Bedload sediment rating curves for Lagunitas Creek at S.P. Taylor State Park campground bridge and Tocaloma Bridge, WY Source: HEA, 1981, Substrate enhancement/sediment management study, Lagunitas Creek, Marin County, Phase IIIA: Sediment transport and substrate conditions: Prepared for: Marin Municipal Water District, November, 128p. G-3

210 FIGURE G-2: Lagunitas Creek hydrograph of mean daily flow at McIsaac project sites October 1, 1983 through September 1, 2014 (WY ). G-4

211 FIGURE G-3: Estimated total annual bedload yield to McIsaac project sites. Bedload volumes quantified by applying rating curve above to reported mean daily flow rates using the following equation (derived from rating curves): Q s = 2.47e10-5 * Q w 2.24 Where Q s = sediment yield in tons and Q w is MDQ in cfs. G-5