1992 Pescadero Creek (Book 4 of 5)

PESCADERO CREEK
(Book 4 of 5)
Bear Creek
Bradley Creek
Butano Creek (Big Butano Creek)
Evans Creek
Fall Creek
Honsinger Creek
Little Boulder Creek
Little Butano Creek
McCorrnick Creek
Oil Creek
Pescadero Creek
Peters Creek
Shaw Gulch
Slate Creek
Tarwater Creek
Waterman Creek
PESCADERO CREEK (continued)
Miscellaneous Scientific Studies (continued)
PESCADERO MARSH NATURAL PRESERVE
HYDROLOGIC ENHANCEMENT PROJECT
M
-
California Department of Parks and Recreation
Fzv'v;m
a413 W d
A m -
W, C A
44/04
Table of Contents
Paqe
~ntroduction 1
General Geographic Data 1
current conditions 2
project Description Summary 2
~xcavationand Fill Summary 4
~imensionsand Area Summary 5
Corps of Engineers Jurisdiction 6
Endangered Species Mitigations 7
Regulatory Agency Jurisdiction 7
~ydrologicEnhancement Plan Elements Not Part of This Project 8
Project Descriptions 8
Project A - North Pond and North Marsh 8
Project B - East Delta Marsh Levee Removal 11
Project C - Butano Marsh Partial Levee Removal 11
Project D - Excavated Soil Disposal Sites 13
Project E - Create Sage Ponds 15
Maps (all 8 1/2 by 11)
Site Location (road map) 16
Project Location (USGS map) 17
Existing Conditions (111=1000) 18
Wetlands Delineation Map (111=1000) 19
Project Overview Maps - six (111=1000I ) 20
Contractor s Work Areas (111=1000I ) 25
Existing and Post Project Condition Maps (1'1=1001)
Project A1 - two maps 26
Project A2 and A3 - four maps 28
Project B - eight maps 32
Project C (Cl,C2 ,C3,C4) - eight maps 40
Project D (Dl,D2,D3) - six maps 48
Cross Sections and Longitudinal Profiles
Project A1 - 6 pages
Project A2 (includes A3) - 23 pages
Project B - 28 pages
Project C1 - 7 pages
Project Dl - 3 pages
Project D2 - 7 pages
Project D3 - 3 pages
Project E - 1 page
Attachments
Wetland Determination Data Forms
Soils Maps from San Mateo County Soil Survey
Adjoining Property Owners Names and Addresses
Color Photos
CEQA Notice of Determination
Enclosures
Base Maps - 5 sheets (111=1001)
Pescadero Marsh Hydrologic Management Plan by John Williams
San Francisco Garter Snake Report by Mark Jennings
USGS San Gregorio, CA 7.5' QUAD Map
INTRODUCTION
The California Department of Parks and Recreation is undertaking
a project to enhance the hydrologic functions and habitat values
of Pescadero Marsh in San Mateo County. The project includes
five distinct components. The scope of the proposed physical
modifications are levee removal, levee construction, levee
breach, channel excavation, excavation material disposal, and
sag pond construction. This project description will define
each-project component including its concept, the physical
modifications involved in its implementation including volume of
material, the rationale for undertaking the project, and an
evaluation of the effect of the project on the functioning of
the marsh. The actions proposed are recommendations from the
Pescadero Marsh Natural Preserve Hydrolosic Enhancement Plan,
dated August 31, 1990, prepared by John Williams, PhD., an
associate with Phillip Williams and Associates. Measures to
create optimum habitat for the San Francisco Garter Snake and to
protect the snakes during construction are taken from California
Academy of Sciences Herpetologist Mark Jenningsl 1992 report
Final Report of Preliminary Studies on Habitat Requirements of
the San Francisco Garter Snake at Pescadero Marsh and Theodore
Hoover Natural Preserves. The Williams and Jennings reports are
enclosed. Page numbers and map sheet numbers from the ~illiams
report are referenced for each project component in this project
description.
The recommendations made in the Jennings report for San
Francisco garter snake protection during the implementation of
this project will be followed. The major recommendations regard
the timing of the work, methods of clearing brush, and methods
for excluding the snake from the project area. See page 7 and
the Jennings report for more detailed information.
GENERAL GEOGRAPHIC DATA
Pescadero Marsh is located on the central California coast, 35
miles south of San Francisco in San Mateo County. The marsh
contains 320 acres of coastal wetlands managed and owned by the
California Department of Parks and Recreation. The wetland
includes a lagoon at the confluence of Pescadero and Butano
Creeks, fresh and brackish water marshes, brackish water ponds,
and riparian woodlands along the streams.
The location of the center of the Marsh is 37 degrees 16'13"
lat, 122 degrees 23'55" long.
Tidal datums for Pescadero area in open ocean:
Datum Elevation above 0.0 (feet) NGVD
Highest Tide Level (est. ) (HTL) +5.01
Mean Higher High Water (MHHW) +2.51
Mean High Water (MHW) +1.51
Mean Tide Level (MTL) -0.24
Mean Low Water (MLW)
Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW)
Lowest Water Level (est.)
CURRENT CONDITIONS
Past and present human activities have degraded the habitat
values of Pescadero Marsh. These activities include conversion
to agricultural use, sediment deposition in the lagoon and marsh
channels>,construction of levees, and upstream diversions of
water.
~espitethese negative impacts the wetland complex still offers
valuable habitat to many species of fish and wildlife.
Waterfowl and shorebirds are seasonally abundant and the lagoon
and creeks provide important aquatic habitat for steelhead. The
wetland provides habitat for several special interest species
including the State and Federally listed San Francisco Garter
Snake, salt marsh yellow throat, black rail, tidewater goby,
red-legged frog, and brackish water snail.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
DPR has been studying the marsh for several years in an effort
to determine how best to maintain and enhance the area's habitat
values. There is widespread concern that sedimentation has and
continues to degrade the marsh's values and that without active
management the existing values will continue to decline. DPR
funded several investigations that culminated in the preparation
of William's Hydrologic Enhancement Plan (Jennings, smith,
Williams, Curry, and Swanson). The reference list at the end of
the plan identifies the major investigations that lead to
undertaking this project. One of the key conclusions of the
Enhancement Plan is that use of existing modified habitats
within the marsh by special interest species preclude simply
removing levees and allowing natural processes to take their
course. Instead the plan proposes several largely independent
actions to improve the marsh's hydrologic functions and to
maintain its habitat values.
This project has five major elements These elements represent
three of the major recommendations in the Hydrologic Enhancement
Plan.
Project A - North Pond and North Marsh
North Pond and the western edge of North Marsh will be connected
to the lagoon by excavated channels and six 4 8 " culverts. This
will permit tidal exchange into North Pond, but most of North
Marsh will be isolated from tidal exchange by a low levee.
Tidal exchange will improve the habitat value of North Pond and
the increased volume of tidal flow will help move sediment
through the lagoon. The new low levee will maintain the present
isolation of North Marsh from tidal action. The levee is
necessary to maintain the existing freshwater habitat for
red-legged frogs and San Francisco Garter Snakes.
Project B - East Delta Marsh
Most of the levee around East Delta Marsh will be removed. This
action will restore the areas natural appearance, restore the
natural hydrology of the site, increase flood storage capacity,
and facilitate overland flow across the marsh during floods.
his project element is critical to allow the use of the Butano
Creek right overbank for flood conveyance.
Project C - Butano Marsh Levee Removal
Existing breaches in the Butano Marsh levees will be enlarged
and remnant channels through the marsh will be reconnected.
This will restore a more natural hydrologic regime in the marsh
and facilitate flow across the marsh during floods. Retention
of segments of the levees is necessary because the levees are
used by Garter Snakes for basking habitat. The levees also
provide public access corridors.
Project D - Disposal of fill From Levee Removal and Channel
~xcavations
Three upland disposal sites have been selected to receive fill
from project element B and C. All three sites are fallow fields
outside Corps Jurisdiction. No wetland habitat will be impacted
by fill disposal. All snakes, including San Francisco Garter
Snakes, will be removed and excluded form the disposal sites
before deposition begins using techniques recommended by
Jennings.
Project E - Create Sage Ponds for Garter Snake Habitat
In addition to the implementation of the three elements of the
Hydrologic Enhancement Plan, DPR is proposing to create 12 sag
ponds in the marsh to enhance habitat for the San Francisco
Garter Snake and it's principal prey, the red legged-frog.
Jennings recommended creation of these ponds because they will
simulate the most optimum habitat known for the species. Large
numbers of SFGSs have been observed in sag ponds along the San
Andreas Fault.
3
EXCAVATION AND FILL SUMMARY
The physical modifications to be undertaken as part of this
project involve considerable excavation, transport, and
deposition of earth. All material excavated and deposited will
be obtained on site; there will be no importation of material
from off site. Soil characteristics of material is available
from the San Mateo County soil Survey. Relevant soil maps from
this survey are enclosed. All excavation will be performed with
an excavator; all transport will occur in 10 yard dump trucks.
The dump trucks will travel exclusively on existing roads and
levee tops. The estimated volumes of material are as follows:
Excavation Deposition
Project A1 - Remove fill and excavate
channel to connect north
pond to north marsh. 1,000 CY -0-
Project A2 - Construct levee across
north marsh -0- 2,500 CY
project A3 - Excavate channel between
north marsh and Pescadero
Creek 1,500 CY
Project B - Remove East Delta Marsh
Levee 13,000 CY -0-
Project C1 - Widen Channel 350 CY -0-
Project C2 - Widen Levee Breach 300 CY -0-
Project C3 - Widen Levee Breach 600 CY -0-
Project C4 - Remove Butano Creek
left bank levee segment 750 CY -0-
Project E - Create 12 Sag Ponds

(60 CY each) 720 CY 720 CY
TOTAL 18,220 CY 3,220 CY
Since projects A, B, C, and E all completely within Corps
~urisdiction,the above totals represent the total excavation
and deposition in Corps Jurisdiction for this project. This
summary shows an excess of 15,000 CY of material. Three upland
sites outside Corps Jurisdiction have been identified to receive
this fill. The volumes that can be deposited on these sites
safely and without adverse impacts are as follows:
Site Volume
TOTAL
There is ample capacity in the three disposal sites to
accommodate the excavated material from the project. The final
choice of which individual disposal site will receive fill from
each project site will be made by the State in consultation with
the Contractor. Site selection flexibility is needed to
minimize,transportation times and distances and to control
costs.
PROJECT SITE DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
Proiect Dimensions and Area
Project A1 - Remove fill and excavate 35 wide by 400' long
channel to connect north 14,000 sq ft = 0.3 ac
pond to north marsh.
Project A2 - Construct levee across 20' wide by 1350' long
north marsh 27,000 sq ft = 0.6 ac
Project A3 - Excavate channel between 35' wide by 1350' long
north marsh and Pescadero 10,500 sq ft = 0.25 ac
Creek
Project B - Remove East Delta Marsh 40' wide by 3,350' long
Levee 134,000 sq ft = 3.1 ac
Project C1 - Widen Channel 60' wide by 185' long
11,100 sq ft = 0.25 ac
-
1
Project C2 Widen Levee Breach C21 40' by 140' 0.13 ac

C22 20' by 200' 0.1 ac
Project C3 - Widen Levee Breach C31 60' by 170' 0.23 ac
C32 30' by 120' 0.08 ac
Project C4 - Remove Butano Creek
left bank levee segment 60' wide by 240110ng
14,400 sq ft = 0.3 ac
Project D - Disposal Sites
project E - Create 12 Sag Ponds 60' diameter ea; 2800 sf
2800 sf x 12; 0.8 ac
The total project area in Corps Jurisdiction (projects A,B,C,E)
equals 6.2 acres.
The total project area outside Corps ~urisdiction (project D )
equals 8.8 acres.
CORPS OF ENGINEERS JURISDICTION

The Department of Parks and Recreation manages 640 acres of land
east of State Highway One within Pescadero Marsh Natural
Preserve. This area includes 210 acres of uplands, 384 acres of
vegetated wetlands, and 46 acres of open water/mudflat habitat.
Since the Natural Preserve was established to preserve and
restore wetland habitat, DPR feels that a detailed wetland
delineation analysis for this project is not necessary or
useful. We recommend that the routine determination method be
accepted for this project. We have no dispute with considering
all of projects A,B,C and E in the Corps Jurisdiction as
delineated wetlands. We have delineated the full 354 acres as
wetlands in the Corps jurisdiction on the enclosed 1" = 1,0008
Wetland Delineation Map (page 19). In addition the 46 acres of
mudflats and open water should also be considered as within the
Corps Jurisdiction as "waters of the United States."
The delineation map and acreage figures include all lands in the
Natural Preserve at or below +7.0 feet NVGD. Elevations up to
+5.01 may be tidally influenced since this is the estimated
highest tide level for this area. When the lagoon mouth is
closed by the sandy ocean beach b u m , lagoon elevations may
reach as high as +7.0 feet. The lagoon remains closed for
several months per year. Therefore we concluded that all 384
acres at or below +7.0 meets the hydrologic criteria for Corps
wetland delineation. The vegetation criteria was not met for
the open water and mud flat areas of North Pond and the Lagoon.
These areas total 46 acres.
The three disposal sites, Dl, D2, and D3 are outside the Corps
Jurisdiction. Each site is above elevation +7.0 so they do not
meet hydrologic criteria for wetlands. They also support weedy
upland vegetation so the vegetative criteria is not met. Data
sheets and photos have been included for each of these sites.
DPR requests that the Corps concur that these sites are not
wetlands and not in the Corps Jurisdiction.
Most of the work planned as part of this project involves
excavation of material in Corps Jurisdiction and its deposition
in upland areas. The two exceptions are the construction of the
low levee across North Marsh and the creation of the 12 sag
ponds. DPR requests that both of these project elements be
considered regrading of the marsh plain and not wetland fill.
The final top elevation of the North Marsh levee, project A2,
will be +5.5 feet NGVD. This elevation will be inundated when
the lagoon is full. The elevation of the lagoon will exceed
+5.5 at least 30 days per year so the final grades will continue
to meet the hydrologic criteria for wetlands. There will be no
net loss of wetland habitat when this project element is
completed.
The final top elevation of the b u m s surrounding the 12 sag
ponds, project E, will be +9.0 feet. This is above the
anticipated highest lagoon water levels. These burms will be
planted with willows to provide the optimum habitat for San
~ranciscoGarter Snakes. Once the willows are established,
these burms will meet the vegetative criteria for wetlands.
There will be no net loss of wetland habitat when this project
element is completed.
ENDANGERED SPECIES MITIGATIONS
Pescadero Marsh Natural Preserve is known habitat for the State
and Federally listed San Francisco Garter Snake. A major
consideration in the design of this project was the protection
of habitat for these snakes. The following project elements are
designed to preserve SFGS habitat and protect individual snakes
during construction.
1. A low levee will be constructed across the western edge
of North Marsh to protect SFGSs from seawater
influence.
2. All construction sites will be fenced with snake proof
fences. The fences will include one way funnels to
allow snakes to escape.
3. All construction sites will be cleared of vegetation
and snakes captured and removed by hand before heavy
equipment is brought on site.
4. construction will be limited to June 1 to November 1
with a three week hiatus during early August when SFGSs
normally give birth. These construction periods will
minimize disruption of breeding SFGSs and 'minimize
injuring SFGSs during their winter hibernation.
5. Twelve sag ponds will be constructed to simulate what
is believed to be optimum habitat for SFGSs.
With these hitigation measures in effect, DPR believes that the
project will have no adverse impacts on SFGSs.
REGULATORY AGENCY JURISDICTION
In addition to Corps Jurisdiction, this project will require
Coastal Development Permits from the State Coastal Commission
7
and San Mateo County. The project elements within Corps
~urisdiction,A, B, C, and E, are also in the State Coastal
Commission's Original Jurisdiction which they have retained.
Project element D l the disposal sites are within San Mateo
County's Coastal Development Permit Jurisdiction. The project
will also require a Stream Alteration Agreement from the
~aliforniaDepartment of Fish and Game.
permits applications have been submitted to all of these
organizations. Permits will be obtained from all before any
work begins.
ENHANCEMENT PLAN ELEMENTS NOT PART OF THIS PROJECT
In addition to the above project elements, the Hydrologic
Enhancement Plan recommends several actions which are not part
of this project. These include regrading the agricultural land
between Butano Creek and Water Lane to create new wetlands and
to raise'the grade of remaining agricultural land above moderate
flood stage. The plan also recommends dredging and excavating
Butano Creek. These actions would require land acquisition,
additional funding, and cooperation from upstream landowners.
DPR is working with other agencies on these items. The
Peninsula Open Space Trust has negotiated the required land
acquisition and a CRMP has formed to develop a multi-agency
project. Separate permit applications will be submitted when a
subsequent project proposal is developed and funded.
DETAILED PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
Proiect A - North Pond and North Marsh
Project A Concept
North Pond and the northwest corner of North Marsh would be
opened to tidal action, but the hydrologic status quo would be
maintained in most of North Marsh by constructing a low levee.
Project A Rationale
As fresh or mildly brackish water marsh, North Marsh is valuable
habitat for red-legged frogs, the major food resource of the
endangered San Francisco:garter snake. The Marsh supports a
population of tidewater gobies that are protected from
competition by yellowfin gobies, which cannot reproduce in the
low salinity water. The marsh is also heavily used by birds (in
part, ironically, for eating frogs and gobies).
North Pond provides the greatest potential for increasing the
tidal scour of Pescadero Lagoon, and the pond suffers from poor
circulation of water. Tidal fluctuation in the pond would
provide valuable mud flat habitat for shorebirds in the late
fall and winter. This approach allows realization of most of
the potential tidal prism, and improvements of the habitat value
of North Pond, without threatening the existing habitat value of
North Marsh. The approach also provides control over the
hydrology of North Pond and North Marsh, and allows for flexible
responses to changed or unexpected conditions.
Project A Physical Modifications
North Pond would be connected to the lagoon by:
Proiect Element A1 - Remove the fill (1000 cubic yards)
separating North Pond and North Marsh and excavate a lower
channel into North Pond. See Project A1 cross-sections and
longitudes.
Proiect Element A2 - Construct levee across North Marsh and
install culverts. A low levee will be constructed across
North Marsh with a top elevation of +5.5 feet using
excavated material from projects A1 and A3 (2,500 CY). Six
fout foot diameter culverts equipped with slide gates will
be installed through the levee separating North Marsh and
Pescadero Creek. The inverts (bottoms) of the culverts
would be at -1.0 feet (see cross-section A2-15).
Two one foot diameter culverts would also be installed
through the Pescadero Creek levee. One, with the invert at
+4.0 feet, would be located east of the large culverts and
new levee, and would connect the Pescadero Creek channel
with North Marsh. The other, with the invert at +4.5 feet,
would be placed just above the larger culverts. Both would
be equipped with slide gates.
Two three foot diameter culverts equipped with slide gates
would also be placed through the new levee, so that the
channels along the northern and southern edges of North
Marsh could be connected to the tidal channel if that
becomes desirable (see cross-sections A2-1 and A2-14).
Proiect Element A 3 - Excavate channel between the 6 new
culverts and Pescadero Creek. This 35 foot wide channel
will allow tidal exchange from the Pescadero Creek Lagoon,
through the culverts along an existing channel west of the
new North Marsh levee to North Pond. ~pproximately 1,500 CY
will be excavated to form this channel.
Project A Operation
The large "North PondI1 culverts through the existing levee
separatinq North Marsh from Pescadero Creek will be o ~ e n e dafter
the mouth-of the lagoon opens in the fall, allowing sbbstantial
tidal circulation in North Pond. Computer simulations indicate
that the water level in North Pond, like the water level in the
rest of the lagoon, would typically vary from about +1 to +3
feet; the culverts and channel would dampen the tidal range by
only a few tenths of a foot. However, as noted before, the
interaction between increased tidal prism and the elevation of
the effective sill at the beach make precise calculations
impossible.
When the mouth closes, the gates on the North Pond culverts will
be closed, so that the brackish to fresh water conversion in the
lagoon will not be delayed by the need to dilute the large
volume of brackish water in North Marsh.
When the level of the lagoon rises to 4 . 0 feet, water will flow
through the small culvert into North Marsh, as it does now
through the existing culvert. The water level in North Marsh
will eventually equilibrate with that in the lagoon.
The top of the new levee across North Marsh will be constructed
to an elevation of + 5 . 5 feet. It will not be overtopped by
tidal flow in the channel except perhaps in extreme conditions.
On the other hand, it will routinely be overtopped in the
summer, 'after the mouth of the lagoon has closed and the water
level in the lagoon rises above 5 . 5 feet.
When the water level in the lagoon reaches 4 . 5 feet, water will
also begin to flow into the channel to North Pond through the
second one foot diameter culvert. This will eventually bring
the water level in North Pond into equilibrium with the lagoon.
If this culvert were not installed, North Pond would eventually
receive fresh water inflow from North Marsh, after the water
level in the marsh reached the top of the levee along the
channel to North Pond, about 5.5 feet. However the culvert
would provide some mitigation for a negative impact of the
preferred alternative.
When the large culverts are closed, juvenile steelhead will be
trapped on the North Pond side, where conditions eventually will
become lethal. Assuming that the water level in the lagoon
reaches +4.5 feet before that happens, the culverts will provide
some fresh water inflow, and when the water level reaches about
+ 4 . 8 feet, the culvert will provide an escape route. The small
culverts would be closed in the winter, to reduce the hazard of
clogging during high flows in Pescadero Creek.
Proj ect A Evaluation
This approach embodies several compromises. It compromises the
goal of managing the lagoon as a Itnaturalt1
system, both by
leaving most of North marsh leveed off from tidal action, and by
the need for opening and closing the gates on the culverts.
However, the compromise retains what has become highly valuable
habitat for birds, frogs, snakes, and gobies, without
sacrificing a large volume of potential tidal prism, except in
extreme high tides.
Manipulation of the culvert gates need be done only seasonally,
and the timing is not crucial - that is, if it is done a week
early or a week late it will not make a major difference. Also,
10
the timing is keyed to an event that can be seen from Highway 1,
and the gates can be operated by existing DPR staff at the
preserve.
The predicted rise in sea level should not affect this
alternative in the near future. Eventually, the levee around
the western end of North marsh may need to be raised.
Salinity in North Marsh could be further decreased by removing
or lowering the Pescadero Creek levee near the upstream end of
the marsh. This would allow more frequent flushing on North
marsh by flow that would overtop western levee and flow back to
the lagoon through the large culverts. However, this would also
reduce sediment transport and scouring in the lower channel of
Pescadero Creek.
PROJECT B - East Delta Marsh Levee Removal
See Williams page 38 and figure 6-3, map sheets 3 and 5,
longitude and cross-sections for project B.
Project B Concept
Restore the natural hydrology and appearance of East Delta
Marsh.
Project B Physical Modifications
Remove the tide gate near Round Hill. Lower the levee around
East Delta Marsh from Round ill to opposite the Triple
unction, (see cross-sections B1 through B27) to the level of
the adjacent marsh (4.5 - 5.0 feet) .
Excavate a channel 10 feet
wide from Butano Creek to the ditch inside the existing levee
(see cross-sections BlOA and BlOB). Truck the 13,000 cubic
yards generated from these operations across existing roads to
disposal sites D2 and 03 (see map sheets 3 and 5 and project D
descriptions and cross-sections D21-7 and D31-4).
Project B Evaluation
his project is crucial for using the right overbank for flood
conveyance in moderate floods, as flow on the overbank would
otherwise have no efficient exit: the existing tide gate is much
too small. It will also restore the natural appearance of Delta
Marsh from the existing trail along the Butano Marsh levee.
PROJECT C - Butano Marsh Partial Levee Removal
See Williams Report pages 49-51, Figures 6-6a and 6-6b, map
sheets 2 and 4, and longitudes and cross-sections for projects
C1, C2, C3 and C4.
Project C 'Concept
Restore natural circulation of water through the Butano marshes
by removing parts of the levees, while leaving most of the
levees for pedestrian access and basking by garter snakes.
Project C Rationale
his project will allow overbank flow across the Butano Marshes,
which will help to scour and maintain channels leading toward
the breach in the north end of the levee. These channels will
increase or allow tidal circulation in the marshes.
physical Modifications
Project Element C1
Widen the existing channel between Butano Creek and North Butano
Marsh to 50 feet at mean sea level (see map sheet 2 and
longitudes and cross-sections for project Cl). Truck the 350
cubic yards generated from this excavation to site Dl (see
project Dl and cross-sections Dl1 through D13), using existing
roads.
Project Element C2
widen the existing breach through the levee between Middle and
south Butano Marshes, near the road, by lowering the levee to
5.0 feet elevation for 100 feet, and excavating a channel 15
feet wide and 150 feet long to join the remnant channel arching
toward the break in the levee (see map sheet 4 and longitudes
and cross-sections for project C2). Truck the 300 cubic yards
of material generated from this excavation to disposal sites Dl,
D2 and/or D3 (see project D, map sheets 2, 3 and 5, and
cross-sections for project Dl, D2 and D3), using existing roads.
Project Element C3
Widen the existing breach through the levee between Middle and
North Butano Marshes, by lowering the levee to 5.0 feet
elevation for 100 feet, and excavating a channel 15 feet wide
and 125 feet long joining the remnant channels on either side of
the levee (see map sheet 4 and longitudes and cross-sections for
project C2). Build a raised wooden walkway to permit continued
access along the levee. Truck the 600 cubic yards generated
from this excavation to disposal sites Dl, D2 and/or D3 (see
projects Dl, D2 and D3, map sheets 3 and 5 and cross-sections
for Dl, D2 and D3), using existing roads.
Project Element C4
Remove 250 feet of the levee along the left bank of Butano
Creek, from the Triple Junction downstream (see map sheet 4 and
longitudes and cross-sections for project C4). ~ u i l da raised,
wooden walkway to allow pedestrian access to the levee. Truck
the 750 cubic yards of soil generated by this excavation to
disposal sites D2 and/or D3 (see projects D2 and D3, map sheets
3 and 5, and cross-sections D21-7 and D31-4), using existing
roads.
Project C Evaluation
This project would restore more natural hydrologic conditions to
the Butano marshes, but would leave most of the levees in
place. The walkway would maintain the existing pedestrian
access along the levees. Leaving the levees is inconsistent
with the goal of managing the marsh to be as natural as
possible. However, the levees do increase the diversity of
habitats in the marsh and are specifically useful for the San
~ranciscogarter snake, as well as for birders and other human
visitors to the marsh. Removing all levees would also entail
substantially more cost.
REVEGETATION FOR PROJECTS A, B and C
Because these projects are all narrow bands that occur within
tidally influenced elevations, natural revegetation should occur
quickly and exotic species are not adapted to these conditions.
Monitoring
All sites will be visually monitored quarterly to assess the
rate of natural revegetation and to check for exotic species.
Exotics will be removed during the monitoring, should they
occur.
PROJECT D - Excavated Soil Disposal Sites
Project D Concept
Create stable, permanent storage sites for levee and channel
spoils. Locate sites such that they are accessible by existing
roads, close to the excavations, and are areas that have been
previously disturbed, preferably already in need of topographic
or vegetative restoration.
Project D Rationale
Nearby sites reduce the cost of transport. selecting disposal
sites that have been previously disturbed and are in need of
restoration already enable two separate projects to be
accomplished under one.
Physical Modifications
Three sites have been identified as meeting the criteria listed
above. These sites will be used to receive fill from Projects
A, B and C. All three sites are previously disturbed upland
sites. The final choice of which individual disposal site will
receive fill from each project site will be made by the State in
consultation with the Contractor. Site selection flexibility is
needed to minimize transportation times and distances and to
control costs. No wetland habitat will be impacted by fill
disposal.
See map sheets 2,3.and 5 and cross sections Dll-3, D21-7, and
D3 1-4.
Site Dl is located on a gently sloping southeast facing slope
west of Delta Marsh. Existing elevations at the site range from
10 to 27 feet (NGVD). Excavated material from one or more of
the four elements of project C, Butano Marsh Levee Removal, will
be trucked to the site using existing roads and levees. A
maximum of 2,000 cubic yards will be placed at this site.
Site D2 is a fallow agricultural field between Nunziatti Hill
and Round Hill. The site is just west of the Pescadero Creek
Levee. Existing elevations range from 7 to 20 feet. This site
will receive approximately 13,000 cubic yards of material from .
Project B, East Delta Marsh Levee Removal. The material will be
trucked to the site using the levee as the access route. The
maximum fill depth will be 4 feet. The only compaction used
will be that associated with operating a caterpillar D6 to
smooth the fill. This level of compaction will not be high
enough to hinder revegetation. The maximum fill slope will be
3:l.
Site D3 is a gently sloping west facing bowl between Nunziati
Hill and East Delta Marsh. Site D3 will most likely not be used
during this phase of the project since site D2 will handle all
fill generated from project B and C2-4. It may be used during
future dredging of Butano Creek.
~ r oect
j D Revegetation/Erosion Control
All disposal sites will be seeded with Danthonia californica and
S t i ~ apulchra, at a rate of 8 pounds per acre (both species
combined), from locally collected seed. Seeding will occur in
early October.
The fill slopes will be mulched with clean, weed-free V u l ~ i a
meqalura straw at a rate of 1,500 pounds per acre. The level
portions of the sites will be mulched with the same straw at a
rate of approximately 500 pounds per acre.
Project D Monitoring
The disposal sites will be monitored quarterly to assess
stability. If vegetative cover is not substantial enough to
prevent surface erosion after germinating rainfall, V u l ~ i a
meqalura will be hand broadcast at a rate of 20 pounds per acre
to augment earlier seeding. Exotic, invasive species will be
eradicated as they occur. Once site has become substantially
covered with annual and perennial grasses, monitoring will no
longer be necessary because of the ability of these species to
persist.
PROJECT E - Create Sas Ponds for San Francisco Garter Snake and
Red-lessed Fros Habitat
The Jennings report, Final R e ~ o r tof the San Francisco Garter
Snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia) & Pescadero Marsh
Theodore J. Hoover Natural Preserves (attached) has identified
the desirability of creating sag ponds (see page 31-33, map
sheets 2 and 4, and cross-section E) for increasing suitable
habitat for both the San Francisco garter snake and it's
principal prey, the red-legged frog.
These ponds will be constructed using the excavator, according
to the specifications given by Dr. Jennings. The ponds will be
3-6.1 meters across and at least 1.5 meters deep. Mounds of
excavated soil will be piled 1.5 meters above the marsh plain
for basking habitat. The sides of the pond will be at an angle
of at least 1:l to allow for the growth of a fringing band of
emergent vegetation, .75 to 1.25 meters wide.
Project E Revegetation
Willows from local cuttings will be staked in at 1-2 meter
intervals around the edge of the pond during the first dormant
season. All other revegetation will occur naturally, since it
is within the tidally influenced elevation.
Project E Monitoring
The ponds will be visually monitored quarterly to assess the
rate of natural revegetation, and to check on the willow
cuttings. Exotic species are not expected to invade the site,
but they will be removed if they occur.
PEDRO YL'LY IltAC*
MYPOW LIEAC*
0 2 4 6 8 I0 I2 1 1 16
KILOMETERS KILOMETERS
ONE KILOMETER = K MILE
CARTOGRAPHIC JCPARTYZHT
CO,""lG*T .I
CALIFORNIA S T A T E AUTObfOBILE ASSOCIATION

Monterey, CA 93940
ROAD CLASSlFlCATlOPI
Med~um.duty - . Un~rnprovedd ~ r ;===,,,,;

t
r-.~
! I State
\J
Route
SAN GREGORIO,CALIF.
SW/4 HALF MOON B A Y 15' QUADRANGLE
N3715-W12222.5/7.5
, 1 ,;,1,.
' '
1951
Arns I S & I V " S W ~ S E ~ $ ~~E8S 9 s
AND RECREATION
SCALE IN FEET
AND RECREATION
purpose: sane as A 1 and t o
of new culverts t o Pescadero

: same as Al.
I n s t a l l 2 3 f c o t dim.eter
culverts throcgh zew North
Marsh Levee.
: Allow r,overnent 02
t e r e r d fish betrcjeen
and r-orth m r s h vtten
AND RECREATION
-
Remove levee between Butano Creek
, 10 foot wide chame$rom Butano

Creek to existing channel.
.. purpose : Allow use of Butano
, Creek right overbank for flood
Perinit Applicant:
Q DEFT
l. OF PARKS AND RECEATION
2211 Garden Road
Nonterey, CA 93940
p , c k b x e e d acru0 KYDROLCGIC E . t W U C m PROJECI:

San Ma.teo County, Gal ifornia
A
LW RECREATION
SCALE IM rCCT
AND RECREATION
PESCADERO W H NATURAL PRESmE

Mateo County, California
AND RECREATION
AND RECRE.4TION
HYDROLOGIC EMIAN
AND RECREATION
-
AND RECREATION
CEMENT PROJECT
ct A3 - Excavate
X = / Q V W T O P ELPVA-~WT T . ~
+ = ~ W ; JWZXL
Q A E~VAT~C..J - 1.0
AND RECF&4TION

*
Permit A~ulicant:
, CA DLPT OF P A W AND 3.ECE.A-TION PROJECT A2 - SIX FOUR FOOT
2211 Gzrden 3oad DMPETER CULVERTS DETAIL
Monterey, CA 9391;O Post Project Detail
Datum: NGVD
I
Project Title:
PESCADERO W E N A W PRESERVE
HYDROLOGIC ENHANCEMENT PROJECT
San Mateo County, California
-
5-
NEW /-e\rgE
2211 Garden Road
2211 Gzrden Rozd
AND RECREATION
Project Title :
AND RECREATION
NATURAL PRESERVE
. -
4.
P R O E C r B - DELTA MARSH LEVEE REMOVAL
2
Post Project Conditions (sheet Y of 4 )

(ram base map sheets 2 & 4 )
Datum: NGVD)
AND RECREATION
Project T i t l e :
Permit Applicmt:
CA DEFT OF PAKG AND RECREATION
2211 Garden Xoad
Monterey, CA 93940
H NATURAL PRESERVE
Existing Conditions Map
AND RECREATION
AND RECREATION
BUTANO CREEK
AND RECREATION
AND RECRE.4TION
2211 Gtrden Roed
PROJECT D - FILL DISPOSAL, SITE Dl
Post Project Conditions Map
(from base map s h e e t 2 )
Datum: NGVD
AND RECREATION
Monterey, CA 93940
NATURAL PRESERVE
PROJECT D - FILL DISPOSAL, SITE D2
2211 Garden Road

Post Project Conditions Map
(from base map sheet 5)
2211 G a d e n Xoed
PESCADmO MPP;CS:-I ~~ PRESERVE

HYDROLOGIC m C E M E N T PROJECT
W d -
7.3
S C A L E IN F E E T
2
SEPARATION PAGE
DRAFT
SECTION 205
RECONNAISSANCE REPORT
FLOOD CONTROL IMPROVEMEhTS
PESCADERO AND BUTANO CREEKS
SAN MATE0 COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
U . S . ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

SAN FRANCISCO D I S T R I C T
O c t o b e r 1989
OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
4. PESCADERO CREEK: PIAN 111

a. Plan Description
b. Plan Economics
(1) Project Benefits
(2) Project Cost
(3) Benefit To Cost ~ a t i o
c. Environmental Impacts
(1) Air Quality and Noise Conditions
(2) Water Quality
(3) Hydrology and Erosion
(4) Biological Resources
(5) ~ocioeconomicConditions
(6) Cultural Resource
(7) Aesthetics and Recreation
-- 5. BUTANO CREEK PLAN IV
a. Plan Description
b. Plan Economics
(2) Project Cost
(3) Benefit To Cost Ratio
(I) Air Quality and Noise Conditions
(2) Water Quality
(5) Socioeconomic Conditions.
V TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS
1. HYDROXDGY AND HYDRAULICS

a. Floods of Record
b. Hydrology
c. Hydraulic Analysis
d. Hydraulic Design
(1) Freeboard
(2) Permisable Velocities
(3) Channel Description
(4) Losses
(5) Riprap Design
DRAFT
SECTION 205
RECONNAISSANCE REPORT
FLOOD CONTROL IMPROVEMENTS
PESCADERO AND BUTANO CREEXS
PAGE
I INTRODUCTION
1. AUTHORITY
2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE
3. HISTORY
4. LX)CAL SPONSOR
I1 PLAN FORMULATION
1. NATIONAL OBJECTIVES
2 STUDY AREA
30 PROBIXMS, rJEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES
4. PLANNING OBJECTIVES
50 PLANNING CONSTRAINTS
I11 FORMULATION AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

1- INTRODUCTION
2. PRELIMINARY PLANS
a. No action Plan
b. Plan I
c, Plan I1
d. Plan I11
e, Plan IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
4. PESCADERO CREEK: PLAN I11

a. Plan Description
b. Plan Economics
(2) Project Cost
(3) Benefit To Cost ~ a t i o
(2) Water Quality
(5) Socioeconomic Conditions
5. BUTANO CREEK PLAN IV
a. Plan Description
b. Plan Economics
(2) Project Cost
(3) Benefit To Cost Ratio
c, Environmental Impacts
(2) Water Quality
(5) Socioeconomic Conditions
V TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS
1. HYDROIDGY AND HYDRAULICS

a. Floods of Record
b. Hydrology
c. Hydraulic Analysis
d. Hydraulic Design
(1) Freeboard
(2) Pennisable Velocities
(3) Channel Description
(4) Losses
(5) Riprap Design
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
2. ECJNOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
a. Basis of Benefits
b. Flood Damage Redzct2-n
(1) Damage to t;tr-- Lzures, Contents, and Autc-'-'--
A.,-uiles
(2) Agricultural Damages
c. Quadrant Curves
d. Benefits, Combined Average Annual
e. Total Benefits
f. Other Benefit Categories
PLAN EVALUATION
1, EVALUATION CRITERIA
2, EVALUATION OF THE DETAIflED PLANS
a. National Economic Development (NED)
b. Environmental Quality (EQ)
c. Regional Economic Development (RED)
d. Associated Evaluation Criteria
3. SCREEENING OF DETAILED PLANS
VII ESTIMATE OF DPR STUDY
VII PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
IX TXCAL SPONSOR CAPABILITY
X CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
A. Scope of Studies
B. Study Cost Sharing Agreement
C. Environmental Assessment
L I S T OF TABLES
Number Title
Plan I Project Costs 10 - 1.3

Plan I1 Project Costs 20 - 23
Plan 111 Project costs 29 - 32

Plan IV Project Costs 42 - 45
Summary Comparison of Plans 58
Economic and Financial Data (Plan I) 61

Economic and Financial Data (Plan 11) 62
Economic and Financial Data (Plan 111) 63
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
LIST OF PLATES
Plan I
Plan I1
Plan 111
Berm Detail
Typical Levee Section
Concrete Channel X - Section
Flood wall X-section
Plan I V
Butano Levee X-Section
SIST OF FIGURES
Number Title
S i t e Plan
Flood Plains Overlap Area
CPM
Draft
Section 205
Reconnaissance Report
Flood Control Improvement Project
Pescadero and Butano Creeks
San Mateo County, California
I. INTRODUCTION
1. Authoritv. This report has been prepared under the
provisions of Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948,
as amended. This law provides authority for the Chief of
Engineers to study and construct small flood control
projects without individual authorization by Congress
provided that the Federal participation in such a project
does not exceed $5,000,000.
2. p u m o s e and ScoPe. The purpose of this report is to
present the results of the Reconnaissance Study for Federal
participation in providing flood protection to areas along
Pescadero Creek and Butano Creek, in or near the town of
Pescadero, San Mateo County, California. The report
examines existing flooding problems and needs; develops
preliminary economic benefits, cost analyses and
environmental impacts for. potential alternative solutions;
identifies a plan to be considered during future more
detailed studies; and determines the local sponsor's
capability and willingness to meet local cost-sharing
requirements.
3. Pistorv. This report concludes the second phase of
the three-phase study process (which was in effect at the
time the study was initiated) of potential flood control
measures for Pescadero and Butano Creeks. An initial
appraisal report was forwarded to the Corps of Engineers,
South Pacific Division on 3 December 1984. Channel work and
levees were recommended as potential alternatives for
further study. The South Pacific Division, by letter of 26
February 1985, concurred with the findings of the initial
appraisal that further study was warranted, and authorized
a Reconnaissance Study to further assess the feasibility of
the alternatives.
4. Lpcal S~onsor. This study was initiated in response
to a letter dated 26 September 1983 from San Mateo County.
As the local sponsor, that agency is responsible for
meeting the requirements of local cooperation.
11. PLAN FORMULATION
1. National Obiectives. Plans have been formulated to
alleviate problems and take advantage of opportunities in
ways that contribute to National Economic Development
(NED). The NED objective is a national objective of all
Federal and federally-assisted water and related land
resollrces planning. Any plan which increases the net value
of the national output of goods and services contributes to
National Economic Development.
2 . Stu2v I!-rea. -:e
.
3esz~deroCreek basin encompasses an
area of 81.3 square miles (Figure 1) The major axis of
Pescadero Creek lies in an east-west direction with a
straight line length of about 14 miles and an average width
of about 5 miles. The Santa Cruz mountains are the
easternmost boundary of the basin. The basin is bounded on
the north by the Pomponio Creek and San Gregorio Creek
basins, on the south by the Gaeos Creek Basin, and on the
west by the Pacific Ocean. Within the drainage basin the
topography is nigged, slopes are predominantly steep, and
the streams are deeply entrenched in V-shaped canyons.
Elevations range from sea level in the marshland near the
mouth to a little over 2,700 feet, National Geodetic
Vertical Datum.(NGVD), at the head of Pescadero Creek. The
creeks in this area have developed a pronounced rectangular
trellis-like drainage pattern reflecting strong control by
. geological structure in the underlying rock. Pescadero
Creek flows in a sharply meandering channel throughout much
of its 26-mile length. In the reach upstream from Loma Mar,
the Creek is incised in the bedrock floor of a
flat-bottomed valley. Discontinuous erosional and
depositional terraces flank both sides of the Creek in this
reach. Except for these terraces, the only flat land in the
basin is near the mouth. This is a relatively small area
about one-half mile to a mile wide and four miles long.
This area, referred to as the Pescadero Marsh, is where the
confluence of Pescadero and Butano Creeks is located.
Butano Creek is the largest tributary of Pescadero
Creek, draining an area of 21.3 square miles into Pescadero
Creek 1700 feet above the mouth. Butano Creek, like
Pescadero Creek, flows from similar high elevations. The
gradient in the lower reach of Butano Creek is very low,
with gradients of 15 feet per mile or less.
Each creek has a well-defined channel meandering
through a broad floodplain that has little gradient and is
periodically inundated by overflows. Agriculture is the
principal economic activity in the study area. Except for
commercial establishments serving the local population,
recreation is the only other significant local industry.
The town of Pescadero is a service center for surrounding
farms and is built in the flood plain. California Highway 1
spans Pescadero Creek at its mouth with a 250-foot bridge.
3. P r o b l e m s , . The study area is
subject to flooding along Pescadero and Butano creeks. The
flooding is mainly caused by a combination of high stream
flows, inadequate channel capacities, levees of
questionable integrity, and the build-up of a sand barrier
at the mouth of Pescadero Creek during periods of low flow.
Floods were recorded in 1952, 1953, 1955 ($1,515,000 in
($500,000 in damages).
damages), 1958, 1962, 1963, 1965, 1967, 1969, and i l l 1983
From meetings with local interests and from information
gathered through independent studies conducted by the
locals (e.g. the Pescadero Watershed Management Committee),
the major concern is to provide flood protection to the
properties along the creeks and to preserve the habitat.
4 . Plannina objective. The planning objective is to reduce
the frequency and extent of flood damages to existing
properties along Pescadero and Butano Creeks.while
maintaining existing natural resource values.
5 . Plannina Constraints. The study area is within the
designated coastal zone of the State of California;
therefore, any Federal project within the study area would
be required by the Coastal Zone Management Act to be
consistent to the maximu extent practicable with the
State's approved coastal zone management program.
111. FORMULATION AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
1. ~ ~ t ~ o d u c t i o nDuring
. the Initial ~ppraisal,various
alternative flood-control measures were considered. The
alternatives included levees with and without tieback
levees, an extensive levee system for both Pescadero and
Butano creeks, and nonstructural ring levees.
2. preliminam Plans. The following are the preliminary
plans considered during the reconnaissance study for
alleviating flood damages caused by Pescadero and Butano
creeks.
a. )so Action Plan. The Corps of Engineers is required
to consider the option of 'No ActionV8.asone of the
alternatives in accordance with the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). With the No Action plan, it is assumed
that no flood control improvement project would be
implemented by either the Federal Government or local
interests. This plan is included among the plans in the
final array of alternatives.
b e PLAN I. Pescadero Creek: powntown Concrete Bmass
Without Downstream Channelization.
This plan would consist of a system of setback levees
and floodwalls along Pescadero Creek upstream and
downstream of central Pescadero, and a concrete bypass
channel through central Pescadero. This alternative would
not require modification of the existing channel around the
nhorseshoe bendw in the creek. Floodwalls would be
~ 0 n s t ~ c t eonly
d along the portions of the left (south)
bank immediately upstream and downstream of the bypass
where existing structures are too close to the streambank
to allow levees. The floodwalls and levee segment along the
left (south) bank west of central Pescadero would tie into
existing downstream levee as shown on Plate 1.
c. PLAN 11. Pescadero Creek: a11 Levees and Floodwall
Plan.
This alternative would consist of a continuous system of
setback levees and floodwalls along Pescadero Creek,
without a bypass channel. In place of a bypass channel,
floodwalls and an additional levee segment would be
constructed around the horseshoe bend in the central
Pescadero as shown on Plate 2.
1
d. PLAN 111. Pescadero Creek: powntown Concrete Bmass
With Downstream Channelization Plan.
This alternative would be the same as Plan I, except that
the downstream portion of the channel would be widened by
excavation to form a berm on the right (north) side of
Pescadero Creek. Excavation of the berm would eliminate the
need for a floodwall or levee along the left (south) side
of the creek downstream from the bypass channel outlet as
shown on Plate 3.
e. PLAN IV. Butano Creek Levee. The Butano Creek plan
would consist of a 4,500-foot long levee on the right bank
of the creek. This levee would tie into high ground 1,400
feet upstream of Pescadero Road and would continue across
Pescadero Road and across Pescadero Marsh until it would
tie into high ground near the ranger's quarters at the end
of Water Lane, as shown on Plate 8. The levee would be 10
feet high for the upstream 1,400 foot reach, from high
ground to Pescadero Road. In the remaining 3,100 feet the
levee's height would vary from 18 to 20 feet high. This
plan would involve the replacement of the Pescadero Road
bridge at Butano Creek to conform with the levee elevation.
The cost of replacing the bridge is estimated at $415,000.
This plan for Butano Creek could be considered as an
incremental element of any of the three alternative plans
of action considered above for Pescadero Creek.
IV* FORMULATION OF DETAILED PLANS
1. Jntroduction. The preliminary plans were formulated

into more detailed plans. One of these plans is the No
Action Plan, which NEPA requires the Corps of Engineers to
consider as one of the aiternative plans. The other plans
would provide 100, SO-, loo-, and 500-year levels of
protection. Typical sections of the levees, floodwalls, and
the concrete bypass channel are shown on Plates 7, 8, and
9, respectivriy, In developing the cost of the plans,
mitigation costs were calculated based on the
recommendations of the jointly developed preliminary plan
between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco
District and the U.S. Fish and Game Service which
recommended the following conceptual mitigation area/plan:
(1) In-kind mitigation for impacts to riparian and

seasonal wetland habitats, both in terms of acreage and
value.
( 2 ) The area to be evaluated as a mitigation area is
the un-riprapped portion of the downstream excavated berm
in Plan I11 and the adjoining flower field on the north
side of Pescadero Creek just west of the tho town. T ~ E
flower field is classified as upland on the National
Wetland Inventory map for the area.
(3) The mitigation would basically consist of an

expansion of the proposed downstream benn. A pcrtion of the
berm would be revegetated with riparian vegetation. A
seasonal wetland would be developed adjacent to the
riparian area. As a first cut, evaluation would be
conducted on the mitigation area as consisting of 8 acres
of riparian and 5 acres of seasonal wetland.
For planning and cost estimating purposes the following
details have been developed:
(a) The riparian mitigation area will be planted

with native tree species, in the following ratios:
willows 40%
alder 40%
cottonwood 12%
box elder 4%
black walnut 4%
(b) Understory vegetation would be allowed to
re-establish naturally.
(c) Trees would be planted at a density of
approximately 435 trees per acre.
(d) Watering of the riparian area for at least
five years.
(e) The wetland would be seeded with
grasses/cover plants suitable for prey populations used by
the great blue heron. The upland edge would be planted with
berry vines.
2. PESCADERO CREES: Downtown Concrete B m a s s Without
pownstream Channelization Plan. (PLAN 1).
a. Plan Descri~tion. This plan of improvement

would consist of constructing a combination of setback
levees and floodwalls, as well as constructing a concrete
diversion channel through downtown Pescadero. As in the
Levee and Floodwall Plan, the project would begin on the
right bank at creek station 157+10 where the setback levee
would extend 2870 feet to creek station 128+40 where it
would merge into a rise in the bank elevation. The left
bank flood protection would start at creek station 151+75,
where a setback levee would tie into the road which is
above the floodplain at that point. This setback earthen
levee would continue 1738 feet to creek station 134+37
where it would transition into a floodwall. .'
+ This floodwall would continue 197 feet where it would end
at the beginning of the concrete bypass channel. The
concrete bypass channel would start at creek station 132+40
and.trave1 475 feet perpendicular to the creek bend through
the town of Pescadero and end at creek station 113+10. The
bypass channel would be a rectangular concrete channel with
a width of 25, 35, and 55 feet for the 500, loo-, and
500-year plans, respectively. For the 50-year concrete
bypass design, the entrance invert would be 3 feet above
the natural channel invert and the channel would be 16 feet
deep. The bypass would have a slope of 0.002 and a channel
depth of 10 feet at the outlet. The 100- and 500-year
bypass channel designs would have a 1V:20H triangular weir
at the bypass entrance with a crest elevation 3 feet above
the natural channel invert and a bypass channel depth of 10
feet. The weir would extend 60 feet down the bypass channel
after which the bypass channel would continue on with a
slope of 0.002 and a channel depth of 11 feet at the
outlet. The bypass channel would be designed to take any
flows that exceed the 10,000 c.f.s- natural channel
capacity in that reach.
Downstream of the outlet of the bypass, the opposite bank
(right bank) w o ~ l dbe covered with 15-inch riprap. This
riprap would be grouted, and would have a 1V:2.5H slope
with a 5-foot deep riprapped toe to provide scour
protection. Riprap would also be placed around the base of
the entrance and exit of the bypass to prevent scour. From
the downstream end of the channel bypass, a concrete
floodwall would continue on ihe left bank 860 feet to creek
station 104+40 where it would transition into an earthen
levee. This earthen levee would continue 240 feet to creek
station 102+00, where it would join an existing levee. See
Flate 1.
b. Plan Economics.
(1) Project Benefits. The summary of the project's
average annual benefits, which are discussed in detail in
Section V of this report follows:
Average
Annual
Level of Protection Benefits
lo-year
50-year
100-year
500-year
(2) Proiect Costs. The total construction and real

estate costs to construct the plan are shown below for the
four events (January 1989 price level). The detailed
project cost estimates are presented in Tables 1-4. Both
the estimated construction cost and the real estate costs
include certain contingency allowances (expressed as a
percentage of the overall construction cost) to accomodate
possible uncertainties in the estimates. For real estate,
such items include relocation assistance for residents and
businesses that might have to be displaced and the
administrative cost of real estate acquisition.
Construction costs include items such as final engineering
and design costs for the proposed construction project,
mobilization and demobilization costs for the construction
contractor, as well as expected supervision and
administration charges during construction. Mitigation
costs are also included. The total estimated project first
cost is rounded in accordance with ER 11-2-240.
The total project first cost is amortized over 100
years at the current Federal discount rate of 8-5/8
percent. Interest during construction (IDC) is estimated
based on a one-year construction period. The annual
maintenance cost is estimated to be approximately 1% of the
project cost. The calculation of average annual costs for
the 100-year Plan are shown below.
TAB15 -
1
PBSCADBRO CREEK
FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT
PTAN 7 ( I 0 .YERR EVENT )
PROJECT COSTS
(PRICE LEVEL: JAN l s n g
-------------- - - - - - - - - ------------
No. Ttem Descri pt.S.on OuantZ t y Unj t Unjt P r i c e Total
Hobj.1.i.zat.ion 6 Demob I Job
Clearing & G n ~ b b i n g 6 AC
S t r i p p i n e L remove 5.7 AC
Foundation Preparation 27,600 SY
Compacted Rackf j.l.1 56,445 CY
Rxcavat~ion Floodvs 11 2,976 CY
Draj naqe Pipe - 6" Dja. I., 057 L.P.
Hackfill - Ploodwa7.1 1,oln CY
Concrete Fl oodwa1.1 I., 319 CY
3C" CEP 54 I,F
SUBTOTAL
CONTENGENCIEG 25%
TOTAL ESI'TYATED CONTRACT 'COST
E 6 D ( 7 % + 1.SOk f o r Hydra11.l.fc M o d e l )
TOTAT, ES1'JMATED CON3TRIICTTON COST
REAL ESTATE C MITIGATTON
TOTAJ, ES'I'JPATED PROJECT Fl RST COST

TABLE - 2
PESCADERO CREEK
FLOOD CON"S0L PROJECT
PLAN I (50-YEAR EVENT)
PROJECT COSTS
(PRICE LEVEL: JAN 1989)
No. Item Descrxption Quantity Unit Unit Price Total

------------------------.-----------
1. tlobilisation & Demob 1 Job LS ~10,000.00
2. Clearing & Grubbing 6 AC $2,000.00 $12,000.00
3. Stripping & remove 5.7 AC $1,300.00 $7,400.00
4. Foundation Preparation 31,100 SY $0 90 527,900.00
5. 15" Riprap 300 TN $28 00 58,400.00
6. -
Excavation Conc. Channel 15,556 CY $24.60 ~381,600.00
7. Sub-base 1'-0" Thick Aga. 500 CY 520 00 $10,000.00
8. Compacted Backfill 78,556 CY $6.60 $518,400.00
9. Excavation Flooduall 2,976 CY 56.60 $19,600.00
10.
11.
12. Backfill
-- -
Drainage Pipe
Backfill
6 " Dia.
Flooduoll
Conc. Channel
1 ,037 L.F.
1,018
768 CY
$8.00
58.00
$8.00
.
$8 400 00
$8,100.00
E f , ::3.00
?S. Concrete Channel 1,207 CY 5350.00 5422,430.00
14. Concrete Cover 93 CY - 5425.00 $39,500.00
15. Concrete Floodwall 1,520 CY L $350.00 $532,000.00
16. 30"CFif 62 LF - $50.00 S3.100.00
17. Remove & Replace k.C, Subbase 7 SY 514.00 $1,600.00
18. .Remove & Replace A.C. 117 SY 56.20 5700.00
19. Fence 6' High 1200 LF 510.00 512,000.00
20. Pedestrian Gates 2 EA $120.00 $200.00
---------------
SUBTOTAL 52,030a400.00 52a030,40(
CONTENGENCIES 255 5507,60(
--------
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONTRACT COST $2,538,00(
E 6: D (72 + 1501: for Fttdrualic Model)

--
S 6 k (75; + - )
. --
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST
REAL ESTATE & MITIGATION'
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT FIRST COST
ROUNDED
TABLE - 3
FESCADEKO CREEK
PLAN I (100-YEAR EVENT)
PROJECT COSTS
(PRICE LEVEL: J A N 1389)
.......................................................................................
No . Item D e s c r i p t i o n Q u a n t i t y Unit Unit P r i c e Total
-----.-------------------------------
1. f l o l ~ i l i z a t i o n& Demob 1 Job LS C10,OOO.OO
2. C l e a r i n g & Grubbing 6 AC 52,000.00 512,000.00
3. S t r r p p i n g & remove 5.7 AC 51,300.00 57,400.00
4. Foundation P r e p a r a t i o n 32,760 SY $0.90 529,400.00
5. 15" Riyrap 300 TN 528.00 $8,400.00
6. E::cavation - Conc. Channel 20,000 CY 524.60 5492,000.00
7. Sub-base 1'-0" Thick Agg. 685 CY 520.00 $13,700.00
8. Compacted B a c k f i l l 84,032 CY 56.60 5554,600.00
9. Excavation Floodwall 2,976 CY 56.60 519,600.00
10.
1 1
Drainage P i p e
Backfill -
- 6" Dia.
Floodwall
1,057 L.F.
1,018 CY
58.00
58.00
58,400.00
58,100.00
12. Backfill - Conc. Channel 768 CY $8.00 56,100.00
13. Concrete Channel 1,390 CY $350.00 $486,500.00
14. Concrete Cover 130 CY 5425.00 555,200.00
95. Concrete Floodwall 1,573 CY 5350.00 $550,500.00
'16. 30" CHP 64 LF 550.00 53,200.00
17. Remove K Replace A.C. Subbase 184 SY 514.00 $2,500.00
18. Remove f Replace A.C. 184 SY 56.20 5700.00
19. Fence 6' High 1200 LF 510.00 512,000.00
20. P e d e s t r i a n Gates 2 EA 5120.00 5200.00
SUBTOTAL
CONTENGEWCIES 25.;
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONTRACT COST
E d D (77; + lSOE f o r h y d r a u l i c Model)

-
S C1 A (72 +-)
. --
REAL ESTATE 6 MITIGATION
TOTAL ESTIMATED FROJECT FIRST COST
BOUNDED
TABLE 4 -
PESCADERO CREEK
PLAN 1 (500-YEAR EVENT)
PROJECT COSTS
-----.-----------------------------
No. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Frice Tota1
--.-.--------------------------------
1. Mobilization t Demob 1 Job LS 610,000.00
2. Clearing C Grubbing 6 AC ,
92 000.00 $12,000.00
3. Stripping & remove 5.7 AC $1,300.00 $7,400.00
4. Foundation Freparation 34,800 SY $0.90 931,300.00
5. 15" Riprap 300 TN 528.00 $8,400.00
6. -
Excavation Conc. Cbannel 34,000 CY 924.60 5836,400.00
7. Sub-base 1'-0'' Thick Agg. 1,056 CY $20.00 $21,100.00
8. Compacted Backfill 95,523 CY 96.60 $630,400.00
9. <ExcavationFloodvall 2,976 CY $6.60 $19,600.00
10. -
Drainage Pipe 6 " Dia. 1,057 L.F. $8.00 98,400.00
11. -
Backfill Floodwall 1,010 CY 98.00 $8,100.00
12. -
backfill Conc. Channel 768 CY 58.00 $6,100.00
&3. Concrete Channel 1,761 CY 5350.00 $616,300.00
14. Concrete Cover 204 CY $425.00 686,700.00
15. Concrete Floodwall 1,680 CY 5350.00 $588,000.00
16. 30" CtlP 68 LF $50.00 63,400.00
17.
18.
9
Remove & Replace A.C. Subbase
Remove & Replace A.C.
Fence 6' High
250
250
1200 LF
SY
SY .
$14.00
66 20
S10.00
$3,500.00
6700.00
512.000.00
22. Pedestrian Gates 2 EA 5120.00 J200.00
SUBTOTAL
CONTENCENCIES 25';
E d D (7% + 150K for Hydraulic nodel) $404,621

REAL ESTATE & MITIGATION 5 150,O O G
------------
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT FIRST COST 54,446,750
----------
t----------=
ROUNDED 54,500,000
EVENT F I R S T COST ux FNNUAL CO!
(3) Benefit to Cost ~atio. The benefit to cost (B/C)

ratios for this plan are:
EX!%& B/C Ratio
c. Environmental ImDact~.The following impacts were

identified at this stage of planning:
(1) Air Oualitv and Noise Conditions. Construction
activities for this alternative would result in minor,
temporary impacts to air quality and noise conditions
because of equipment emissions and noise, and fugitive
dust. The study area currently experiences similar air
quality and noise impacts during the operation of f a w
"
equipment. Limiting the hours of operation and the use of
water for dust control would minimize the impacts.
(2) Water Oualitv. Minor, temporary impacts to water
quality would result from construction activities. Minimal
effect would be achieved by limiting construction to the
dry months. The design of this plan minimizes the loss of
riparian habitat through the use of set back levees and
flood walls. A preliminary discussion of the Clean Water
Act, Section 404, is included in the Environmental
Assessment of this report.
(3) J-lvdroloav and Erosion. This alternative would
significantly modify hydrologic conditions. It would
increase peak discharges during major flood events and may
increase downstream sediment deposition. Increased flow
velocities could potentially increase bank erosion. he
bypass channel would also reduce erosion in the *@horseshoe
bendM of the creek.
(4) Bioloaical Resources.
Vegetation: This alternative does not include the
excavation of a downstream benn, which is the source of
most of the impacts on riparian habitat. However, this
alternative would require the removal of some additional
riparian woodland along the left bank, downstream of the
bypass channel outlet, for the c~nstructionof a flood wall
and levee. This alternative would impact the least amount
of riparian woodland.
Fish: This alternative would have minimal impacts
on fish passage and.on water temperatures, food supply,
autrient inflow, or cover in the stream channel. The inflow
of sediments during construction, if not minimized, would
have adverse effects on stream habitat. Provisions should
be made to allow the passage of out-migrating juvenile
steelhead through the construction area.
Under this alternative, anadromous fish migrating
upstream could become stranded in the bypass channel as
flow through the bypass decreases. During the feasibility
study the design of the channel would be adjusted to reduce
the possibility of fish being stranded.
Wildlife: The loss of riparian woodland under
this alternative would adversely affect wildlife
populations in the study area. The conceptual mitigation
plan deveicped jointly with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (discussed more in the attached Environmental
Assessment) is intended to offset the impacts.
Endangered and Candidate Species: This plan may
directly effect the habitat of the San Francisco garter
snake. No other species are expected to be affected,
provided that there are no significant affects on sediment
deposition in the Pescadero Marsh and construction is
conducted in a measure which minimizes water quality
impacts. Coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Endangered Species Office should be accomplished
during the feasibility study phase.
Prime or Unique Farmland: This alternative would
result in a loss of farm land on the north side of
Pescadero Creek upstream from Stage Road. This area is
minimal and the least of all the alternatives studied
(approximately 2 acres).
Socioeconomic conditions: This alternative would
have a beneficial effect on the local economy by
significantly reducing periodic flood damages to
residential and commercial structures and farmland. No
significant growth-inducing effects are expected.
Cultural Resources: No impact on known historic
structures is expected for this alternative. The entire
length of Pescadero Creek within the study area was
surveyed 20 years ago. No archaeological sites were
identified along the Creek, but there is evidence that
sites on the floodplain have been obscured by the shifting
channel and sediment deposition. A cultural resource
investigation would be needed during the feasibility study.
Aesthetics and Recreation: This alternative
would have a significant impact on views of the creek
because of the construction of the levees and the
floodwalls. They would completely block the views of the
creekbanks from adjacent structures and nearby roads, and
would create a sense of confinement by eliminating open
space. Therefore, during the feasibility study,
consideration should be given to landscaping the proposed
levees and providing a textured surface on exposed portions
of the floodwalls.
3. gescadero Creek: All Levee and Floodwall P1an. PLAN
.cI
a. Plan ~escri~tion.This plan of improvement consists

of constructing a combination of setback levees and
floodwalls to protect the tow. of Pescadero. The project
would begin on the right bank at creek station 157+10 where
tfie existing creek earthen levee ties into an existing
levee surrounding a water reservoir. This setback levee
would extent 3110 feet to creek station 126+00, where it
would transition into a concrete floodwall (floodwalls in
this location, as well as at other locations within the
project, were used only where space limitations precluded
the use of earthen levees). This floodwall would continue
435 feet until it would merge into the embankment
approaching the Stage Road bridge. The floodwall would
continue from the embankment on the other side of the
bridge 300 feet to creek station 118+00 where the right
bank flood protection would end. The left bank flood
protection would start at creek station 151+75 where a set
back levee would tie into the road which is above the flood
plain at that point. This setback levee would continue 1738
feet to creek station 134+37 where it would transition into
a concrete floodwall. This floodwall would continue 1272
feet where it would merge with the Stage Road bridge
embankment. The floodwall would continue from the
embankment on the other side of the bridge 1660 feet to
creek station 104+40 where it would transition into an
earthen levee. This earthen levee would continue 240 feet
to creek station 102+00 where it would join an existing
levee. The lo-year design does not require any levees or
flood walls upstream of the Stage Road bridge. See Plate 2.
b. plan Economics.
(1) proiect Benefits. This plan has the following
-
benefits, detailed in Section V of this re~ort,for various
levels oi protection:
Average
Annual
lo-year
50-year
100-year
500-year
(2) Proiect Costs. The total construction and real
estate costs to construct the plan are shown below for the
four events (January 1989 price level). The detailed
project cost estimates are presented in Tables 5-8. Both
the estimated construction cost and the real estate costs
include certain contingency allowances (expressed as a
percentage of the overall construction cost) to accommodate
possible uncertainties in the estimates. Real estate
includes relocation assistance for residents and businesses
that might have to be displaced, and the administrative
cost of real estate acquisition. construction costs include
items such as final engineering and design costs for the
proposed construction project, mobilization and
demobilization costs for the construction contractor, as
well as expected supervision and administration charges
during the actual construction. Mitigation costs are also
included. The total estimated project first cost is rounded
in accordance with ER 11-2-240.
project cost. Average annual costs for the four events are
sbown below.
Em! FIRST COST L.QG
(3) Benefit to Cost Ratio. The benefit to cost

ratios for this plan are:
B/C Ratio
TABIaIS -- S
PESCADEPO CREEK
FLOOD CONTROL PROJBCT
-
P W 11 (LO YEAR EVENT)
PROJECT COSTS
(PRTCE J~EVRL: JAN 19139)
----------.-----. ----------.----..---- -----..----.-----..---------- .....................
------.
lo. Ttem Deacr.i.pt.i.on Ouantj ty tJn5 t Unf t PrS ce Tot a 1.
----------.--.. I
--
--
--
..
--
-.
--
.-
--
--
--
--
--
--
- .--------------------------------------------
1. Mob5.l.f.zat.j o n & Demob 1 Job J,G $10,000.00
3. S t r i . p p jnq 6 remove 2 AC $1 ,100.00 $2,600.00
4. FoundaiA on Rreparat ion 10,000 SY $0.90 $9.000.00
5. Compacted Rackf tll 3,030 CY $6.60 $20,050.00
6. Excavation Floodwall
3,667 L.F. $0.00 $29,100.00 '
8. Backf .ill - P1oodval.l

9. C o n c r e t e PI oodwal.1
10.30" CMP
SUDTOTAL
CONTENBENCTES 25%
E 6 1) (7% +-)
S & A ( 7 % +-.)
TOTAL F;S'I.'ItCIATED CORSTFllcTTON COST
RFAL ESTATE L MTTTGATTCN 3FI0, O O i

-----.------
TOTAL B:',I.'I !CIATDD PROJECT F'T RST COST $1,429.71:
====t===5=0=
POIINDED Sl ,.500.00(
TABLE 6 -
YESCADERO CREEK
FLAN 11 (SO-YEAR EVENT)
PROJECT COSTS
...........................................................................................
No .
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Total
1. Hobilization 6 Demob 1 Job LS S10,OOO.OO
2. Clearing & Grubbing 7 AC $2,000.00 $12,000.00
3. Stripping d remove 6.5 AC $1,300.00 ~7,400.00
4. Foundation Preparation 30,000 SY $0.90 527,000.00
5. Compacted Backfill 82,639 CY $6.60 ~545,400.00
6. Excavation Floodwall 10,325 CY

'. Drainage Pipe - 6" Dia. , 3,667 L s F .
8. Backfill - Floodwall 3,532 CY

9. Concrete Floodwall 5,274 CY
10,30" CMF 54 LF
SUBTOTAL
CONTENGENCIES 252
TOTAL ESTIMATEIi CONTRACT COST
E & D(7f+-1
S & A (72 +-)
TOTAL ESTIPiATED CONSTliUCTION COST

REAL ESTATE & MITIGATION
TOTOL ESTIMATED FKUJECT FIRST COST
ROUNDED
TABLE 6-
YESCADERO CREEK
PLAN 11 (SO-YEAR EVENT)
PROJECT COSTS
(PRICE LEVEL: JAW 1989)
-----------------------------.---------------------------
No .
-------------------..----------------------------
Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Tot a1
1. Hobilization 6 Demob 1 Job LS S10,OOO.OO
2. Clearing S Grubbing 7 AC S2,000.00 $~~,OOO.OO

3 . Stripping & remove 6.5 AC 51,30OeO0 S7,40OeO0
4. Foundation Preparation 30,000 SY 60.90 $27,000.00
5. Compacted Backfill 82,639 CY $6 60 S545.400.00
6. Excavation Floodwolf 10,325 CY $6 60 S68,lOO.OO
'. Drainage Pipe - 4" Dia. , 3,667 L.F. $1).00 C29,300e00

8. Backfill - Floodwall 3,532 CY $8.00 S28,200.00
9. Concrete Floodvall 5,274 CY $350.00 $1,845,900.00
10.30" CHP
SUBTOTAL
CONTENCENCIES 25%
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONTRACT GOST $3,22O9000eO0
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTI~UCTIONCOST

REAL ESTATE & HXTXGATION
TOTAL ESTIMATEU PROJECT FIRST COST

TABLE -t:
PESCADERO CREEK
PROJECT COSTS
(PRICE LEVELS JAN 1989)
--------------------------------)..--
----------------------------------
No. n Quantity IJnit Unit Price Total
1. Hobilizrtion & Domob 1 Job LS $10,000.00
2. Clearing & Grubbing 7 AC S2,000.00 s12,OOO.OO
3. Stripping & remove 6.5 AC Clq300e00 S7,40OeOO
4. Foundation Preparation 30,000 SY SO 90 S279000e00
5. Can,prcted Backfill 100,490 CY $6 60 S6639200.00
6. Excavation Floadwall 10,325 CY $6.60 S68,lOO.OO
7. Drainage Pipe - 6" Dia. 3,667 L.F.
0. Backfill - Fioodwall 3,532 CY
9. Concrete Floodwall 5,829 CY
10 30" CMP-
- -
SUBTOTAL
CQNTENCENCIES 252
TOTAL ESTfnATED CONTRACT COST
TUTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST

REAL ESTATE 4i tllTICATIOH
--
TOTAL.ESXMBTEU PROJECT FIRST COST
ROUNDED
c. Environmental Im~acts.The foLlowing impacts were
(1) air Oualitv and Noise Conditions. Construction
dust. The study-area currently emerietnces similar air
quality and n o b e impacts during %he operation of farm
water for dust control would minimize the im~acts.
(2' Xate~ r
&--A
-.-
--A. z L t .-.\ncraq- ,.-.~ a c t sto water
(3) Hvdrolouv and Erosion. This alternative would
velocities could potentially increase bank erosion.
(4 Rioloaical Resources.
Vegetation: This alternative does not include the
excavation of a downstream berm, which is the source of
most of the impacts on riparian habitat. However, this
alternative would require the removal of some additional
riparian woodland along the left bank and right bank along
the Mhorse shoen bend, for the construction of a flood wall
and levee. Because of the constraints created by the
location of the existing structures, a substantial amount
of riparian woodland would have to be removed.
on fish passage and on water temperatures, food supply,
nutrient inflow, or cover in the stream channel. The inflow
be made to allow the passage of out-migrating juvenile.
plan developed jointly with the U.S. ~ i s hand Wildlife
Service (discussed more in the attached Environmental
conducted in a measure which minimizes water quality
Service, Endangered species Office should be accomplished
Pescadero Creek upstream from Stage Road. This area is
minimal (approximately 4 acres).
Socioeconomic Conditions: This alternative would
Cultural Resources: The entire length of
~escaderoCreek within the study area was surveyed 2 0 years
ago. No archaeological sites were identified along the
Creek, but there is evidence that sites on the floodplain
have been obscured by the shifting channel and sediment
deposition. A cultural resources investigation would be
needed during the feasibility study. This alternative would
introduce features that may adversely affect the setting of
a historic site. Coordination with State Office of Historic
Preservation would be required in the next stage of
planning.
Aesthetics and Recreation: This alternative would
have the most significant impact, of the alternatives
studied, on views of the creek because of the construction
of the levees and the floodwallS. They would completely
block the views of the creekbanks from adjacent structures
and nearby roads, and would create a sense of confinement
by eliminating open space. Therefore, during the
feasibility study, consideration should be given to
landscaping the proposed levees and providing a textured
surface on exposed portions of the floodwalls.
4. p p
pownstream Bern (PLAN 111)
a. Plan Descri~tion. This plan is the same as Plan I

except that no set back levees or flood walls would be
buirt downstream of the concrete bypass channel. Instead,
an earthen berm would be cut on the right bank of the
creek. The benu would begin at creek station 112+40 and
continue 1040 feet to creek station 102+00. The berm would
have a width of 55, 110, 130, and 160 feet for the
10-,50-,100-, and 500-year plans, respectively. The berm
would be cut two feet above the natural invert so that the
low flows would stay in the natural channel. See Plate 3
and Plate 4.
b. plan Economics.
(1) Project Benefits. The project economic benefits

have been calculated to be as follows:
Average
Annual
(2) proiect Costs. The total construction and real

estate costs to construct the plan are shown in Tables 9-12
for the four events (January 1989 price level). The
detailed project cost estimates are presented in Tables
9-12. Both the estimated construction cost and the real
estate costs include certain contingency allowances
(expressed as a percentage of the overall construction
cost) to accomodate possible uncertainties in the
estimates. Real estate includes relocation assistance f.or
residents and businesses that might have to be displaced,
and the administrative cost of real estate acquisition.
Construction costs include items such as final engineering
and design costs for the proposed construction project,
mobilization and demobilization costs for the construction
contractor, as well as expected supervision and
administration charges during the actual construction.
Mitigation costs are also included. The total estimated
project first cost is rounded in accordance with ER
11-2-240.
project cost. Average annual costs for the four events are
shown below.
Emfz FIRST COST IP% Q&H ANNUAL COSf

TABLE -
PESCADERO CREEK
9
FLOOD CONTROL PROJBCT

PLAN J T J (10-YEAR W E N T )
PROJECT COSTS
(PRICP LBVEJ*: JAB 1.909)
lo. X t t m Descript3.on mant5.t.y UnLt Unit Price Total

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------,-----
1. Mobili.zati.on & nemob 1 Job 1.S S10,OOO.OO

2. Clearing 6 Grubbinq 6 AC $2,000.00 $12,000.00
3. Stripping &. remove 5.7 AC $1,300.00 $7,400.00
4. Fonndatf.on Preparation 27,600 SY SO. 90 $24,800.00
5, BxcavatCon Bern - 1,710 CY $6.60 511,300.00
7. Excavatj.on FJ.oodwal1 650 CY $6.60 $4,300.00
8. Drainage Pipe 6" Dia. - 200 f,.F, $0.00 $1,600.00
-
'
9. Backfj.11. F3.oodwal.3. 200 CY en. oo s I., 600.00

-0. Concrete Floodwall 250 CY $350.00 $87,500.00
LP
11. 30" CHI? 54 $50. 00
-----------
$2,700.00
SUl3TOTAYa $529,800.00 $529,fl00.0

CONTENGERCT EE 2 5 1 $132,450.0
TOTAL ES7,'T.MATED CONTRACT COST
E 6 D (7% + 150K f o r Hydtanljc Model)
S 6 A (7% +-)
TOTAJ, ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTTON COST
REAL ESTATE & MTTIGATlON

TOTAL ESTTMATBD PROJECT FfRST COST
ROUNDED
TABLE -10
PESCADERO CREEP
PLAN 111 (SO-YEAR EVENT)
PROJECT COSTS
(PRICE LEVEL; JAN 1989)
----------------------------------.--
No. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Total
---------------*-------.---------------
Mobilization & Demob 1 Job
Clearing & Grubbing 5 AC
Stripping & remove 4.5 AC
Foundation Preparation 31,100 SY
15" Riprap 300 TN
Excavation Berm -
-
Excavation Conc. Channel
3,625
18,000
CY
CY
Sub-base 1'-0" Thick Agg. 550 CY
Compacted Backfill 7g1000 C!?
Excavation Floodvall 650 CY
Drainage Pipe
-
Backfill Floodwall
-
6" Dia. 200 L.F. .
200 CY
-
Backfill Conc. Channel 768 CY
Concrete Channel 1,250 CY
Cnncrete Cover 115 CY
Concrete Floodwall 285 CY
30" CMP 62 LF
Remove C Replace A.C. Subbase 117 SY
Remove & Replace A.C. 117 SY
Fence 6' High 1200 LF
Pedestrian Gates 2 EA
SUBTOTAL
COHTEHCEHCIES 25%
E & .D ( 7 % + 150K for Hydraulic Model)

S & A (72 +-1

REAL ESTATE & MITIGATIOH
BOUNDED
TABLE -11
PESCADERO CREEK
PROJECT COSTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------..----.-----.--------.--------------
No. Item Description Ourntity Unit Unit Price Total
I. Mobilization & Demob 1 Job LS $10,000.00
2. Clearing C Grubbing 5 AC $29000.00 $10,000.00
3. Strrpping & remove 4.5 AC 519300.00 $5,800.00
4. Foundation Preparation 32,768 SY SO 90 $29,500.00
5. 15" Riprap 300 TW $28.00 ,
$8 400 00
6. Excavation Berm- 4,045 CY $6.60 $26,700.00
7.
8.
Excavation -
Cone. Channel
Sub-base 1'-0* Thick Agg.
20,000
685 CY
CY $24.60
$20.00
$492,000.00
913,700.00
9. Compacted Backfill 79,872' CY $6.60 $527,100.00
10. Excavation Floodwall 650 CY 96.60 94,300 00
-
11. Drainage Pipe 6" Dia. 200 L.F. $8.00 $1,600.00
12, Backfill -Floodwall 200 CY $8.00 $19600.00
13. Backfill
1
-Conc. Channel
Concrete Channel
768 CY
1,390 CY
$8.00
$350.00
$6,100.00
S4869500.00
15. Cnncrcte Cover 130 CV $425 00 S55,250.00
16. Concrete Floodwall 295 CY $350.00 $103,250.00
17. 30" CYP 64 LF $50,00 $3,200.00
18. Remove C Replace A.C. Subbase 184 SY $14.00 92,600.00
19. Remove & Replice A.C. 104 SY $6.20 $1,100.00
20. Fence 6' High 1200 LF 610.00 $12,000.00
21. Pedestrian Gates 2 EA 6120.00 5200 00
SUBTOTAL
.COHTEHCEHCIES 255
E & D (75 + 150X for Hydraulic Model) $307,577.-

S & A (7% +-1
REAL ESTATE C HITICATION
ROUNDED
No
Stripping 6 remove
Foundation Preparation
15" Riprap
Excavation Berm
Excavation Flooduall
Drainage Pipe 6" Dia.
Backfill Flooduall
Concrete Channel
Cnncrete Cover
Concrete Flooduall
30" CMP
-
-
Backfill Conc. Channel
-
-
+.
Item Description
,Excavation Conc. Channel

Sub-base 1'-OW Thick Aggo
Compacted Backfill
-
Remove & Replace A.C. Subbase

Remove C Replace AmCo
Fence 6' High
Pedestrian Gates
SUBTOTAL
CONTEHGENCIES 255
E & D (72
REAL ESTATE & MITIGATION

150K for Hydraulic Model)

BOUNDED
TABLE
5.7
34,800
12
PESCADERO CREEK
Ouantity Unit
300 TI!
4,980
34,000 CY
1,056
90,795
650 CY
200 LmFo
200 CY
768 CY
1,761
204 CY
313
68
250
250
1200
2
AC
SY
CY
CY
CY
CY
-
PROJECT COSTS
-----------------.----------------------.--------------------------------------------------.
-------------.------------------------------.---.-----.-----------..-------------------.---.
Uobilization 6 Demob
Clearing & Grubbing
1 Job
6AC
CY
LF
SY
SY
LF
EA
Unit Price Tot a l
(3) ~enefitto Cost Ratio. The benefit to cost (B/C)
ratios for this plan are: .
nlfC Ratio
10-Year
50 Year
100-Year
500-Year
C. Environmental Impacts. The following impacts were

(1) hir oualitv and Noise Conditions. Construction
quality and noise impacts during the operation of farm
water for dust control would minimize the impacts.
(2) Water Oualitv. Minor, temporzry impacts to water
quality would result from construction srctivities. Minrnal
( 3 ) Bvdrolom and Erosion. This alternative would
increase peak discharges during majdr flood events and may
velocities could potentially increase bank erosion. The
bypass channel would also reduce erosion in the "horseshoe
bendt@of the creek.
(4 Bioloaical Resources.
vegetation: This alternative does include the
excavation of a downstream berm, which is the source of
most of the impacts on riparian habitat. This alternative
would impact the most amount of riparian woodland.
nutrient inflow, or cover in the stream channel. The inflow
be made to allow the passage of out-migrating juvenile
Under this alternative, anadromous fish migrating
upstream could become stranded in the bypass channel as
flow through the bypass decreases. During the feasibility
study the design of the channel would be adjusted to reduce
the possibility of fish being stranded.
plan developed jointly with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (discussed more in the the attached Environmental
deposition in the Pescadero Marsh and construction is .
conducted in a manner which minimizes water quality
Service, Endangered Species Office should be accomplished
Pescadero Creek upstream from Stage Road and by excavating
the downstream berm. This area will approximate 6 acres.
Cultural Resources: No impact on known historic
structures is expected for this alternative. The entire
length of Pescadero Creek within the study area was
surveyed 20 years ago. No archaeological sites were
identified along the Creek, but there is evidence that
sites on the floodplain have been obscured by the shifting
channel and sediment deposition. A cultural resources
investigation would be needed during the feasibility study.
A e s t h e t i c s and Recreation: This a l t e r n a t i v e
would have a s i g n i f i c a n t impact on views of t h e c r e e k
because of t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e l e v e e s and t h e
floodwalls. They would completely block t h e views of t h e
creekbanks from a d j a c e n t s t r u c t u r e s and nearby roads, and
would c r e a t e a sense of confinement by e l i m i n a t i n g open
space. Therefore, during t h e f e a s i b i l i t y s t u d y ,
c o n s i d e r a t i c a should be given t o landscaping t h e proposed
l e v e e s and providing a t e x t u r e d s u r f a c e on exposed p o r t i o n s
of t h e floodwalls.
TYPICAL SECTION
CUT BERM EARTHEN
PLAN m
%OT TO SCALE
CUT WIDTH OF EARTHEN BERM FOR DIFFERENT LEVELS

-
OF PROTECTION P U N P
I
10 YEAR - 66'
SO..YEAR
100'YEAR
--1 10'
130'
-
600 YEAR 1SO'
PESCADEROCREEK
TYPICAL SECTIOS
I, 12' _(
EXISTlMG SLOPE
A PPROXIMATE GROUND
SURFACE
.
W
00
BOTTOMOFCHANNEL
HI - DESIGN FLOOD WATER SURFACE

PLUS FREE BOARD
H2 = DEPTH OF CHANNEL
TYPICAL LEVEE SECTION

FOR USE ON BOTH BANKS
PESCADERO CREEK
FLOOD PROTECTION
SCALE IN FEET
TYPICAL LEVEE SECTION
-1 VARES -----+
T Y P S A L SOCTKHI
COUCWTE 8YPASS m'
MOT TO WALE
BOTTOM WlDTHS OF CONCRETE B Y P A S S CHANNEL .

P L A N S 1 AND 3 ONLY
10 YEAR - NO B Y P A S S
60 YEAR - 26'
900 YEAR - 35'
600 YEAR - 55' b .An CO. CAU?ORU
PESCADEROCREEK
I NOTE: The C o n c r e t C h a n n e l i s c o v e r e d f o r t h e
road c r o s s i n g s e c t i o n o n l y .
,!. -&I
TYPICAL $ECTJON
u-
S W C ~w
": : r* 1
I
ti .-
U I . (-.-:I p.- rere
6 * v
natrr T? 4c:-b-v *I
*%-ru ctce
CHANNEL SlDE PROTECTED SIDE
EXISTING SLOPE I
H* HI 112 I
I
!
I
APPROXIMATE GROUND
SURFACE
' *0
BOTTOMOFCHANNEL
HI'- DESIGN FLOOD WATER SURFACE PLUS
.FREE GOARD
H2 = HI x 3' OF COVER.
H3 = DEPTH OF CHANNEL
TYPICAL FLOOD WALL SECTION
FOR USE ON BOTH BANKS
0
0
(
SAW M A T E 0 CO. CALIPORNI
PESCADERO CREEK
'FLOOD PROTECTION
SCALE IN FEET
1 TYPICAL FLOOD WALL SECTION
5.00 Butano Creek Plan (PLAN IV)
1. Jntroduction. In response to the sponsor8s request

during the course of the study, Butano Creek was added to
this study. The local concern was that flooding in the
study area is caused by both creeks. Flooding by Butano
Creek causes the closure of the main road into Pescadero
from Highway 1 and floods some adjacent housesi a nursery
and farmland. One plan was formulated at this stage for
Butano Creek that can be incorporated with any of the plans
formulated for Pescadero Creek.
2. plan Descri~tion, The Butano Creek plan would
consist of a 4,500-foot long levee on the right bank of the
creek. This levee would tie into high ground 1,400 feet
above Pescadero Road and would continue across Pescadero
Road and across Pescadero Marsh until it would tie into
high ground near the ranger's quarters at the end of Water
Lane as shown on Plate 5. The levee heights are shown on
Plate 6 for the different events. This plan would involve
the replacement of the Pescadero Road bridge at Butano
Creek to conform with the levee elevation.
3 . Plan Costs. The estimated construction and real

estate costs to construct the plan are presented in Tables
13-16. The annual costs for the four plans are shown below:
First Cost annual Cost

*
".
.I
" --
. -AN0 CREE):
Fi-;D CONTROL PROJECT
PROJECT COSTS -
10-YR PLAN
(PRICE LEVEL: JAN 19C9)
.---------------_------------------------------------------------------------
No Item Description Quantity Unit U n i t Price Total
..............................................................................................
l
1. tlobiliaatian a Demob 1 Job LS $5,000.00
2. C l e a r i n g & Grubbing 1 AC .j2,000.00 52,OOOaOO
3. S t r i p p i n g t remove 1 AC $1,300.00 S1,300.00
4. Contpacteil B a c k f i l l 90,000 CY 55aOO 5450,000.00
SIIBTOTAL
CONTENGEHClES 259
TQTAL ESTIMATm CONSTRUCTIOH COST
TEAL ESTATE 8 MlTIGATICN
TOTAL ESTSHATED FROJECT FIRST COST
HOTJNDED
TABLE
BUTANO CREEK
-14
PROJECT COSTS - 50-YR PLAN

(PRICE LEVEL: J A N 1989)
_.-.--_-_----_-------.------------
Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Total
__-----.------------.----------------
3.
Mobilization R DemoL 1 Jab LS 55,000.00
. Clearing & Grubbing 1 AC 92,000.00 S2,OOO.OO
Stripping & remove 1 AC 51,300.00 91,300.00
, Compacted Eackf ill 127,000 CY 65.00 9635,000.00
ridge- 2 Lane 80tlong 2720 SF $135.00 $367,200.00
, Approach Roads 2 EA 325,000.00 950,000.00
1 JOB
Remove Existing Bridge LS
---------------
910,000.00
SUBTOTAL 51,070,500*00 51~070,500aOO

CONTENCEWCIES 25% 5267,625.00
E & D (79 +-)

S a A (7% +-1
REAL ESTATE R HETICATION
TOTAL ESTfHATED PROJECT FIRST COST
ROUNDED
TABLE
BUTANO CREEK
-
15

PRDJECT COSTS -
100-YR PIAN
(PRICE LEVEL: JAM 1989)
UI--------------------------------------------------~------U_~-~U_-U_
Quantity Unit Unit Price

___-___-_----------------------------------------------------_
610. Item Description Total
1. Mobilization t Demob 1 Job LS $5,000.00
2. Clearing t Grubbing 1' AC S2,OOO. 00 $2,000.00
3. Stripping t remove 1 AC $1,300.00 $1,300.00
6. Brid~e- 2 Lane 8OPlong 2720 SF $135.00 $367,200.00
'. Approach Roads 2 EA $25,000.00 $50,000.00
8. Remove Existing Bridge 1 JOB LS

-I-
$10,000.00
--- --
SUBTOTAL $1,140,500.00 $1,140,500.00
CONTENGENCIES 25% $285,125.00
--------
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONTRACT COST $1,425,625.00
S f A (7% +-)
TOTAL ESTIHATED CONSTRUCTION COST

REAL ESTATE C XITIGATION
ROUNDED
TABLE
BUTANO CREEK
-16
PROJECT COSTS -500-YR PLAN

(PRICE LEVEL: JAH 1989)
------------------.-----.--------------
Item D e s c r i p t i o n Quantity U n i t Unit Price Total
...............................................................................................
30.
1. f l o b i l i s a t i o n L Demob 1 Job LS $5,OOOs00
2. C l e a r i n g & Grubbing 1 AC $2,000.00 SZ,OOO.OO

3 S t r i p p i n g t rem6ve 1 AC 519300.00 ~1,300.00
4. Compacted b a c k f i l l 172,000 CY 35.00 S860,OOO.OO
5. B r i d g e - 2 L a n e 80'long 2720 SF S135s00 $367,200.00
5. Approach R o a d s 2 EA S25,000.00 650,000.00
7. Remove E x i s t i n g Bridge
SUBTOTAL
CONTENGENCIES 252
TOTAL ESTIMATED COHTRACT COST
2 -
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTGUCTIOH COST
REAL-ESTATE C tlIT1GATION
TOTAL ESTIPIATFD PROJECT FIRST COST
ROUNDED
4. Benefit to Cost Ratio. The benefits to costs
ratios for the Butano Creek plan are:
Event p/C R s t i a
10-Year 0.74
50-Year 0.52
100-Year 0.53
500-Year 0.51
5. Environmental Im~acts. The following impacts were
(1) h i r 0ualitv and Noise Conditions. Construction
quality and noise impacts during the operation of farm
water for dust control would minimize the impacts. The
major impact of this alternative would on traffic for the
bridge replacenezt portion of the plan.
(2) Water Oualitv. Temporary impacts to water
riparian habitat through the use of set back levees. A
preliminary discussion of the Clean Water Act, Section 404,
is included in the Environmental Assessment of this report.
(3) Pvdrolouv and Erosion. This alternative would
velocities could potentially increase bank erosion.
(4 Bioloaical Resources.
Vegetation: This alternative would impact the
most amount of riparian woodland. Approximately 0.8 acre of
riparian woodland would also be removed along Butano Creek
on each side of the Pescadero Road bridge for a road detour
and construction access for the replacement of the bridge.
The cleared area near the bridge is expected to be
revegetated by root sprouts and natural re-colonization.
This levee would eliminate a 2.8-acre seasonally-flooded,
freshwater wetland along the right (east) side of the creek
immediately north of Pescadero Road. Construction of the
the levee would cover about one acre of the wetland, while
the elimination of seasonal flooding from Butano Creek
would result in the loss of wetland characteristics on the
remainder of the site.
nutrient inflow, or cover in the stream channel. The
inflow of sediments during construction, if not minimized,
would have adverse effects on stream habitat. Provisions
should be made to allow the passage of out-migrating
juvenile steelhead through the construction area.
plan developed jointly with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (discussed more in the the attached Environmental
directly affect the habitat of the San Francisco garter
conducted in a measure which.minimizes water quality
impacts. ..- . . ..

result in a loss of farmlands on the east side of Butano
Creek. The levees would be built almost entirely on
farmland (approximately.10 acres).
Aesthetics and Recreation: This alternative
would have significant impact on views of the creek because
of the construction of the levees. There is minimal
structures close to the levee site.
WATER SIDE
STATION 0+00
STATION 14+00 - lk
O
- 14+00
O 5' BUMP IN ROAD
W A T E R S1D
0
.--
STATION 15+00 - 45+00

HEIGHT
STATION -
10-YR 50-YR 1-YR m Y R
-
ALL LEVEES TO It' MGV-0..
1
-
2 1-
-
-
-
214-60
23+80
23+W 41+00
41WO -43+80
-
43+80 4-
14
15
16
15
14
17
18
10
18
17
18
19
30
10
18
20
21
22
21
30
(1 5' 3' FREEBOARD)
m c o .
bQTAM0-
- i
TYPICAL SPlCTIONS
-
I
i
Y Y U T
rm mmm em,. w
Y I . D
nwCfSC0. c Of
j
Ei
HOT T O S C A L E M.S.
u.r mt lo
m'-
la YM
-. . W C n
V. TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS
1 0 JSYDROLOGY AND HYDRAUJaICS
a. Floods of Recorq. Floods i n t h e Pescadero Creek J a s i n

a r e caused by p e r i o d s of i n t e n s e r a i n f a l l normally preceded
by p e r i o d s of moderate p r e c i p i t a t i o n . From May t o October,
P~~ =a.jercJ Butzn- -- - -
- - - :. .+-.-.--
.-v -l - - - flow. Flooding
:c..--
i n r h e Pescadero Creek b a s i n is because of inadequate
channel c a p a c i t y and d e b r i s accumulation. I n most c a s e s ,
f l o o d flows first break o u t of Pescadero Creek upstream of
t h e town of Pescadero. These flows cause damages t o houses
and b u i l d i n g s l o c a t e d upstream of t h e c e n t e r a r e a of
Pescadero.
The United S t a t e s Geological Survey (USGS) o p e r a t e s a
stream gaging s t a t i o n on Pescadero Creek c a l l e d "Pescadero
Creek n e a r PescaderoM. This stream gage is l o c a t e d 3 m i l e s
e a s t of t h e town of Pescadero, 5.3 m i l e s from t h e mouth,
and r e c o r d s runoff from 45.9 square miles of t h e 81.3
square-mile watershed. The average annual runoff a t this
gage, based on continuous r e c o r d s s i n c e 1951, is 32,670
a c r e - f e e t , There was a USGS stream gage on Butano Creek
from 1962 through 1973. The stream gage was l o c a t e d about
1.5 m i l e s above Pescadero Road, and recorded runoff from
18.3 s q u a r e m i l e s . I n t h e 11 y e a r s t h a t t h e stream gage was
o p e r a t e d , it showed an average annual runoff of 14,850
a c r e - f e e t . Records from t h e "Pescadero Creek n e a r
Pescaderow stream gage i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e two most s e v e r e
f l o o d s were experienced i n December 1955 and January 1982.
The peak flow r e s u l t i n g from t h e 1955 storm occurred on
December 22 with a maximum d i s c h a r g e of 9 , 4 2 0 c u b i c feet
p e r second. On January 1982, t h e d i s c h a r g e a t t a i n e d a peak
flow of 9,400 c u b i c f e e t p e r second. Both of t h e s e f l o o d
e v e n t s were approximately e q u i v a l e n t t o 18-year events.
b, J W d r o l o ~ y . The c l i m a t e of t h e b a s i n is dominated by
t h e b a s i n ' s proximity t o t h e P a c i f i c Ocean, and is
i n f l u e n c e d by t h e P a c i f i c high p r e s s u r e a r e a . Winters a r e
w e t and summers a r e dry. Snowfall is r a r e and h a s no
measurable i n f l u e n c e on runoff. Winters are c o o l , b u t
f r e e z i n g temperatures are seldom experienced. During t h e
w i n t e r , winds a r e from the n o r t h o r s o u t h while i n t h e
summer t h e y are more a p t t o come from t h e w e s t o r
northwest. Fog over t h e c o a s t a l p l a i n , extending i n l a n d one
t o two m i l e s , is a common event d u r i n g t h e summer months.
Precipitation in the basin averages about 39 inches,
.with approximately 90 percent of the precipitation
occurring during the six-month period from November through
April. The Pescadero and Butano creeks hydrology (i.e.
discharge vs. frequency relationships) used in this study
was taken from the San Mateo County, California,
Unincorporated .Uea Flood Insurance Study, dated January
1984. Because the hydrology in the flood insurance study
matches closely hydrology developed for the San Francisco
District's report Water Resources Develo~ment,Interim
Survev Report. Pescadero Creek, Pacific Coastal Streams,
San Mateo County, dated December 1969, no revision was made
to it. Adopted peak discharges for Pescadero and Butano
creeks are tabulated below.
Peak Discharue vs. Freauencv Relationshios
Drainage Area peak Discharqes (Cubic feet Per Secor

Jocation (Sauare Miles) 10-vear 50-vear 100-vear 500-v~
Pescadero Creek-. ...
P 'At Pescadero Rd.
East of Town 53.5 7,700 13,900 16,700 20,-
At pacific Ocean 81.3 11,000 20,000 24,000 29,O
\-
Butano Creek-
At Pescadero Rd.
West of Town 21.3 2,600 4,700 5,700 6,8
For this study, the standard project flood (SPF)

discharge for Pescadero and Butano creeks was assumed to be
the same as the 500-year peak discharge.
c. Hydraulic ~nalvsis. Three Pescadero Creek

alternatives and one Butano Creek alternative were studied.
Each Pescadero Creel plan was hydraulically modeled using .
the computer program HEC-2, Water Surface Profiles. The
topographic data used in the model were the same data that
were used for the Pescadero and Butano creeks portion of
the San Mateo County, California, Unincorporated Areas
Flood Insurance Study. A less detailed analysis was
conducted of the Butano Creek plan as it was added to the
study late in the process. The average levee and floodwall
height for the Pescadero Creek portion of the study are
10.5, 12.5, 13, and 14 feet for the 100, 500, loo-, and
500-year plans, respectively. Each of the three
alternatives plans for Pescadero Creek and the Butano Creek
zlz? are described in the Fornulation and Evaluation r e
i = z r : G ive: Ls=c;an.
d. Bvdraulic Desim. In the design of the alternatives
for Pescadero and Butano creeks, the following hydraulic
design criteria were used.
(1) Freeboard. Minimum freeboard allowances:
a. Levees: a minimum of 3 feet below levee crest
elevation.
b. Floodwalls: a minimum of 2 feet below
floodwall top elevation.
c. Box Culvert: a minimum of 3 feet below the
top of the .box.
d. Under existing bridges: a minimum of 1 foot
below the soffit.
(2) permissible Velocities. The channel is designed
so that velocities will not exceed seven feet per second in
the existing channel, and six feet per second in the
overflow channel reach. In the reaches where the flow
velocities exceed these values, the channel design includes
concrete lining or riprap.
(3) Hanninas Rouahness Factors. Channel roughness
factors adopted for design purposes were:
channel Descri~tioq p value
Natural, unmaintained
and supplemental vegetation 035- .065
Concrete
(4) o s e s Velocity head loss coefficients used in
the hydraulic analyses were 0.1 and 0.3 for the contraction
and expansion losses, respectively.
(5) R i ~ r aDesiq.
~ Riprap was designed in accordance
with provisions of EM 1110-2-1601, dated 1 ~ u l y1970, and
ETL 1110-2-120, dated 11 May 1971. Channel side slopes
requiring riprap protection which are on slopes steeper
than lV:ZH, as well as riprap on the opposite bank from
outlet of the concrete bypass, would be grouted. ~ i p r a p
would be placed in accordance with method "A' as shown on
Plate 37 oi EM 1110-2-1601 and extend 5 feet below berm or
existing channel grade at the toe of the riprapped
slope.
2. ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
a. ~ a s i p s The . flood control benefits

associated with the different levels of flood protection
for Pescadero and Butano creeks are based on two
categories: 1) flood damage reduction to structures, their
contents, and automobiles; and 2) flood damage reduction to
farm land.
Damages were determined using standard Corps quadrant
plotting procedure for four flood events: lo-, SO-, loo-,
500-year.
P
b. Flood D a m a ~ eReduction.
(1) Damage to.Structures, Contents, and Automobiles.
The flood damage evaluation was based on the following
procedure:
a. Floodplains were determined for the lo-, 500, loo-,
and 500-year events.
b. The properties within the largest floodplain area
were located.
c. Field determination of the ground level, the height of
ground upon which the structure sits, and the height of the
first floor above the ground was obtained for each structure.
d. Using the first-floor elevation information and the
water surface elevations developed for the four flood events
cited above, depths of flooding were determined. Damages for
each structure, their contents, and automobiles were then
determined based on depth-damage curves and using a damages
estimation computer program for each type of structure and for
each event. The damages for each event were integrated with a
discharge-frequency curve to ascertain the average annual
damage, under without-project conditions. The total damages
under existing conditions for the lo-, 500, loo-, and 500-year
events for the areas affected only by Pescadero Creek are
estimated as follows:
Damage to Structures,
Contents & Automobiles
(2) Agricultural Damages.

zh:r.ages t,: - -
- -- --
3. a, - srrzcturas an5 conterits, including
equipment, have c&;,. i n c l u c ~ din the flood damage reduction
computations shown above because of the similarity in the procedures.
Additional damage is incurred to farmland and crops. Most of the
damages result from silt deposition and erosion. There is also
permanent damage t o the root structure of the artichoke plants.
- Typically, the crops are harvested before the flood season and no
actual crop losses are claimed in this report. Intensification
benefits, through increasing the number of plantings or changing
crops, were not investigated. The 1982 flood caused $300,000 in
damages to 201 identifiable acres based on claims paid by the
Agricultural Stabilization Conservation Service. On a per acre basis,
the damages were $1,853 per acre.
--
The estimated r ,'--L - ~ l t y - 1 damages for various flood events,based
on this unit valuc ,sr EL- areas affected by Pescadero and Butano
creeks are:
Event pamaae Per Acre Acres Flooded Total Damaae
lo-year $1235
50-year 1853
100-Year 1853
500-Year 1853
c. Quadrant Curves
The combined urban and agriculture damages for present
conditions for the flood events for the areas affected by Pescadero
and Butano creeks are:
EX!znIL Urban Aaricultural Total
Based on the frequency of flooding, the zero point of damage has

been estimated to be a two-year event. These five points were used to
plot the Damage-Frequency Curve.
d. Benefits, Combined average annual
Under present conditions, the zero-damage point and the combined
damages for the hypothetical events were plotted using the gadrant
plotting technique to determine average annual damages and residual
damages. These resulting damages are presented below. The annual
. benefits for the different levels of protection are also presented:
AVERAGE ANNUAL DAMAGES

(Present Conditions, 1989 Prices)'
Level of Without Residual With Annual
Protection Proi ect Proi ect Benefits
10-Year $551,000 $262,000 $289 ,000
50-Year 551,000 89,000 462,000
100-Year 551,000 52,000 499,000
500-Year 551,000 Negligible 551,000
e. Total Benefits
Adjusting the above benefits for future growth, the combined
benefits; as well as the individual benefits, are:
P
TOTAL BENEFITS
? Level of Protection Combined Benefits Pescadero Butan
f. Other Benefit Categories

At this time no consideration was made of benefits associated
with freeboard. Furthermore, other benefits categories such as
intensification, and savings in emergency costs and maintenance
costs, have not been analyzed at this time. A significant flood
problem for Butano Creek is the flooding of Pescadero Road, west of
Stage Road and east of Butano Creek. This road provides an average o:
2,000 vehicles per day direct access to California State Highway 1,
the major local highway. In addition to the physical damages,
significant additional transportation costs are incurred whenever the
road floods. These damages were not estimated for this reconnaissanct
report.
VI. PLAN EVALUATION
1. ~ a l u a t i o ncriteria. The four candidate plans (including the
Butano Creek Plan) for flood protection were evaluated based on tht
System of Accounts and four criteria suggested by the U. S. Water
Resources Council. These accounts are: 1) national economic
development (NED); 2) regional economic development (RED) ; 3)
four criteria are cc-?let--ess, ef9z:ivenesz,
.
environmental quality (EQ) t 4) other social effects (OSE) The
effici~zsyand
acceptability. Initis1 anaiysrs ina,cztad that flood protectloz for
the 100-year level is the most feasible. Table 17 summarizes the
comparison of the No Action Plan, Plan I, Plan 11, Plan 111, and P1z
IV for the 100-Year Plans in term of the above System of Accounts ar
criteria, respectively.
2. Waluation of the Detailed Plans.
a. National Economic Develo~ment (NED). The NED plan is definc
as the plan that maximizes net economic benefits and thus contributc
the most to national economic development. For the final array of
plans considered in this report, increases in the economic value of
the national output of goods and services are expressed in terms of
the benefit categories discussed in Section 4.00. Investment
opportunities forfeited by the commitment of funds to the
implementation of a flood control plan are expressed in terms of t h ~
project costs. The difference between the average annual economic '
ben5fit and the average annual cost of a plan is the net benefit.
Comparison of the alternative flood control plans using the NED
account is shown in Table 17.
b- mvironmental 0ualitv (EO). The EQ account evaluates the
long-term effects the alternative plans may have on significant
environmental resources. The impacted significant resources and
characteristics associated with the proposed flood control
improvements are related to the existing, natural channel (benthos,
fish, wildlife, riparian vegetation and aesthetic quality). A
comparison of the effects the candidate plans may have on EQ
resources, compared to future conditions in the absence of a plan (N
Action), is shown in Table 17.
C. peaional Economic Develo~ment (RED). The RED account

evaluates the long-term impacts the candidate plans could have on
regional economic activity, specifically, regional income and
regional employment. The proposed action plans would temporarily
increase local construction-related employment during the
construction period, and would impact long-term regional income from
farm lands being protected by the levees.
d. Associated Evaluation Criteria. The four criteria
suggested by the U. S. Water Resources Council are defined
as: 1) effectiveness of the plan in achieving its planning
objectives; 2) efficiency of the plan in being cost
effective, expressed in terms of net benefits; 3)
completeness of the plan, including all elements necessary
to achieve the objwtive of the plan; and 4) acceptability
of the plan by the concerned public.
Under the cost sharing requirements for local
flood-control projects, the local sponsor is responsible
for providing 1) all lands, easements, rights-of-way,
disposal areas and relocations (LERDR) required for the
project; 2) 5% of the total project costs in cash during
construction; and 3) the operation and maintenance of the
project after construction. In accordance with the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986, the minimum nonoFederal
contribution is 25% of the total project costs. The maximum
nonoFederal share is not to exceed 50% of the cost of the
project assigned to flood control. In addition, any
nonoFederal contribution amount over 30% may be amortized
over a 15-year period with interest. The maximum Federal
participation in such a project is not to exceed
$5,000,000. A breakdown of the economic and financial data
is presented in Tables 18, 19 and 20 for the events with a
B/C ratio greater than one of Plans I, I1 and 111,
respectively.
3. Screenina of Detailed Plans. Plan I11 ranks the
highest among the alternatives and carries the highest
benefit to cost ratio, All the plans, except for Plan IV,
rank higher than the No Action plan since they are
economically feasible and have only minor adverse impacts
on the significant environmental resources. The Butano
Creek Plan is economically not feasible by itself. Plan IV
was studied and analyzed on its own criteria, Nevertheless,
the flood plains of Pescadero Creek and Butano Creek
overlap as shown in Figure 2.
L Etlr m ~ m a.
nam m a ~ I I L
m1w
9r* effects n tIm I.
Src rflutr n Plm I.

TABLE 17
g Con t hued)-
8
1'
klr emdltla k c b q @frw n l r t l q 9wA tem Inmnr, In mlse Sa Iwat n Plm 1.

tmdltla. I m l r kcrvre of cmrtnallm
utlvltlu.
Vvlaltlcr y lncrcnr duc to

Icm cmitruct lm.
1-ary mina effutr dwlq 1-r* dvrrw lmat !ma- a d w r llout duc to
flood u l l r c~n~tructicrr~ dvinq dlwrlm chmrl klbp, cmstnctlm.
catructlm.
1-rl mlna efrutr k l q lcrpaw a h w I q a t kr n ?I& It. M m t l r l r t r d l q M m t l r l t-m &em imnr*

cmdructim. ?dmtlrl rtrdndlnq d W i y cW&~tlm. o! Iirh In bwnr dmmel. & to L r l w cmdru!lm.
of fish In bmrrr chmml.
Rlprlm h d l t d rlll P a t l a of thr r l v r l n S u l l s wdlm d thr

cmtlnr to diverse hrbitrt rill be Imt. r l p r l m Wltot m l l l k
rildllfr rpecicl. affected thm In Plm 1.
W . l c belltv kthetlc marrn -Id not k h t h d l c qurlltv rill *add Sir r f f u t r n Plm IM ta Srr a ? I n 11. Slpllflcmt i q u t m v i m of
rffutd. kt- of octl41 m a 1 r In* m. cmb oU1 to levee cantnrtlm.
of r i o r i m rratctirn nd
&rtruttlm of VIM.
Y l l l prdect hldwlc r i t n Sr3 n ? I n 1, kt Im l p u t kr a$ ? I n 11.

frw f l d u t m . Cantnrtim m H l t i q of rlti,
m l d I s a t H t t l q of m rite.
W e d flood drrpr frqurncy. Sme n Plm I Srr rr PIm I
hlr Fmlmd k chn(r frw nidlq Lmr of plr f n l r d duc to Slallr to I l m I 1, kt m t w

S l m l l r to
) . I? Lmr d rboDt 10 rmr of fmlmd
cmdltla, I m c md flrmhll catnrtlm. lmr bu to b m mwatirn. rn ent ri6r d Uutm Creek.
Larl qovmmmt to -I& tWP# Lotrl pmmt to p l & Lmb Local p m n m t to p w l & LOHtl L effect1
plu, cnh; see Table I8 fw M a l l % . plol cmhr we table I? fw brtrltr. plu, cnh: rrr ldlr 10 fw M r i l r . not umalcrlly Jwtlfied.
TABLE 17
(Continued)
h l d trroarlty lnmnc l a r l Wllld tcqarllv lncrcrr l a r l

jobs k i n g cmstructlm. h h dvlnq tatrretlm.
4. RhF Salrl Effects.
Amrt lm )(a rffat m nldlnq cmdltla. )(a rffut m r*ls!lm rmditims. k rffut rn alstlq cmdltla.
v.!trjc Ib effect m nlstlrq cmdltlm. Ibuld m d t ~ cfld-Induced trrfflcl

clmulrtim dl-.
Ibt kpllcrblr )lat rffectln. lauld )nt rrt

FImd mtwl IlbJatlm
not lpplltrblr Efflclmt. bmcfits meed cats.

Federal 75%
Nan-Federal 25%
B. Non-Federal Requirements.
y InclW .the required 5% of the total ccst plus the balanoe after the IERRD
~ibltims.
TABLE 19
Enxaac AND FIxmCIAL nxrA ;V
m n
A. FSt.i.-2ted lkp! fme*1ticm Cost. --I M - -50-vr

--.- 2L*-- 500-vr
J/ All costs in thausards of dollars.

2/ Includes the required 5% of the total cust plus the balanoe after W IERRD
!mBL& 20
ECDKKtC AND F ' I t Q W m UtTA JJ
A. Estimated B p l m t i o n Cost. AUZE sk5z fOOYr 500-YY
Fedleral 75%
Nan-Federal 25%
U All costs in of dollars.

2/ I
n cl
m the 5% of the t o t a l cost plus the balance after the LERRD
wihtims.
ESTIMATE OF DPR STUDY COST*
The estimated cost to prepare the Definite Project Report
(DPR), the decision document for project construction, is
$654,000, of which $327,000 would be a local cost. Up to
half the local cost can be in in-kind senrices. The study
elements will involve planning and engineering activities.
The engineering activities will include topographical
surveys, soil exploration and testing, hydrologic and
hydraulic analyses, real estate studies and design efforts
f c r t h e Plood control i~iproven~nt
propcsal. Espktsis of the
engineering studies will be to verify the hydrological
parameters and design elements of the proposed project as
well as to delineate the residual floodplains and define
the downstream impacts of flooding under the with-project
condition. The economic work will be studies and analyses
to confirm, revise and intensify the sample of properties
in the floodplain and to recompute the benefits. The
results of the proposed project's environmental assessment
indicate that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is
required.
The product of all these investigations will be the
development of the detailed project report and the
environmental impact statement. A breakdown of the
estimated detailed project report cost by study elements is
presented under Appendix A.
VIII. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT.

During the initial stage of the Reconnaissance study, a
presentation of the findings was presented to the Pescadero
Watershed Committee on 18 June 1986. Subsequent to this
presentation, on 5 March 1987 another presentation was
conducted to the Local Council, Pescadero Watershed
Committee, members of San Mateo County, and State
Department of Fish and Game at which the three alternatives
to--------------- on -------------------
were outlined. The findings of this report were presented
1x0 f OCAL SPONSOR C A P A B m .

( THIS PART IS TO BE ADDRESSED AFTER PRESENTATION TO
THE LOCALS)
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION*
Reduction of flooding by means of s t ~ c t u r a limprovements

can be economically justified at this time. Plan I11 is the
most feasible method of minimizing flood damages along
Pescadero Creek and warrants more detailed study. The
Butano Creek project is not economically feasible when it
is considered as an independent project from Pescadero
Creek and does not warrant further study. Therefore, it is
recommended that this report be approved and that funding
in the amount of $327,000 be provided the preparation of a
Definite Project Report for flood control on Pescadero
Creek, California.
------------- ......................
Date GALEN H. YANAGIHARA
COL, CE
commanding
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX A
SCOPE OF STUDIES
PESCADERO AND BUTANO CREEKS
SECTION 205 FEASIBILITY STUDY
PESCADERO , CALIFORNIA
I. INTRODUCTION
This Scope of Studies (SOS) is part of the
feasibility cost-sharing agreement which documents the
Federal and nonoFederal efforts to conduct the Pescadero
and Butano Creeks Flood Control Feasibility Study. The
result of this study will be a Feasibility Report.
This SOS presents the specific planning and
engineering activities, management program, study schedule
and associated costs necessary to complete the Feasibility
Study. This SOS will also serve as the basis for assigning
tasks and establishing the value for any in-kind
contributions of the nonoFederal sponsor.
11. DESCRIPTION OF THE FEASIBILITY STUDY
The Feasibility study is the final phase of the
Army Corps of Engineers 2-phase planning process which
identifies and recommends an implementable water resources
plan for Federal participation. The study will investigate
in detail and refine the alternatives recommended as a
result of the reconnaissance phase study. Detailed
development of Plan I11 to cover refinement of design, cost
estimate, and environmental documentation, and the
development of a construction cost-sharing agreement.
The study efforts will involve planning and
engineering activities. The engineering activities will
include cross section surveys, soil exploration and
testing, hydrological and hydraulic analyses, real estate
studies, and design efforts for the proposed flood control
plan. The emphasis of the engineering studies will be to
verify the hydrological parameters and design elements of
the proposed project. The economic work will consist of
studies and analyses to confirm, revise and intensify the
sample of properties in the floodplain and to recompute the
benefits. Environmental activities will include preparation
of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act report,
endangered species investigations, mitigation
determinations, and environmental assessment. The product
of all these investigations will include the preparation of
the Detailed Project Report, and an Environmental Impact
Statement which may recommend the construction of a
selected plan. Detailed descriptions of the study tasks,
with breakdown of the estimated task duration and cost, are
presented in Section IV of this appendix.
A time-sealed task diagram (Figure 3) is also
provided to show the interrelati~nshi~.~of the planning and
engineering activities and a schedule for their completion
which supports fund requirements by fiscal year. The
Feasibility Study is scheduled for completion within 20
months of initiation. (NOTE: Figure 3 is not contained in
the draft rc7ort. It will be finalized, and will be made
available fcr review, during the review of the
reconnaissance report, prior to submitting the report to
higher authority).
111. STUDY DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT
The study will be conducted in five phases. During
each of the first four phases, a Study Team meeting will be
held.
A. PHASE I -.DEVELOPMENT OF THE STUDY WITH- AND
WITHOUT-PROJECT CONDITIONS
The ;irs+ phase involves topographic survey,
geotechnical exploration and soil testing, economic
studies, hydrologic and hydraulic studies, and Fish and
Wildlife studies to update and/or develop the necessary
data for the detailed formulation of the plans evolving
from the Reconnaissance level investigation. A public
meeting will be held to provide the community an
opportunity to comment and provide their input into the
planning process. From this phase, the physical,
environmental, and hydrological characteristics of the
project area, as well as the economic 88with88
and 81withoutm
project conditions, will be defined.
PHASE I1 - PLAN SELECTION
The second phase will refine the preliminary
plans, including new plans or revisions of the previous
plans, based on the refined 88withoutwproject condition,
new data and feasibility level design criteria.
Additionally, more detailed plan evaluation will be
undertaken during this phase in order to determine the
Federal interest in the alternative plans based on Federal
laws, policies and local interests. Completion of this
phase will result in the identification of the National
Economic Development (NED) Plan and/or the recommended
plan.
C. PHASE I11 - SELECTED
DETAILED DESIGN
PLAN
& EVALUATION OF THE
The objective of phase three is the design, cost

estimation, and recommendation of an implementable plan for
construction. Activities will also involve environmental
impact assessment and the financial Capability & Ability to
Pay Analysis. Completion of this phase will conclude the
plan formulation process and begin the report preparation
phase.
D. PHASE IV - DRAFT REPORT PREPARATION
Phase four involves preparing the draft
Feasibility Study Report/EIS for the Corps South pacific
Division and public review. The main body of the report
will document the study process and findings, with the
environmental, economic, and engineering studies as
appendices. A public meeting will be held during the review
process. Also at this time, a preliminary draft
construction local cost-sharing agreement (LCA) will be
prepared. A letter of intent from the local sponsor
indicating their willingness to support the project and
provide the necessary local assurance in accordance.with
the draft LCA will be forwarded with the draft report.
The draft ~easibilityReport will be reviewed by
the support elements and the Study Management Team before
transmittal to the South Pacific Division for review and
approval.
E. PHASE V - FINAL REPORT PREPARATION
The final phase of the.study involves
incorporation of review comments into the final report. All
revisions will be coordinated with the support elements and
Study Management Team. The approval of the final report
will terminate the Feasibility Study period.
IV. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF STUDY TASKS
The total estimated cost for the Feasibility Study is
$654,000 of which $327,000 is the local share. A detailed
description of the study tasks is presented below:
A. TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
A topographic survey and a cross-section survey
will be made of the project area. These surveys will be the
basis for all hydraulic analysis and desion work.
Estimated Duration: lmonth
Estimated Costs: Fed: 4---...--
Non-Fed: -----9-
$20,000
Be HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC INVESTIGATION
Review previous work and develop new hydrology for
the study area. Based on the new hydrology, perform
hydraulic analysis to determine channel capacity, existing
profiles and floodplains, as well as residual floodplains
and profiles for the lo-, SO-, loo-, and 500-year events.
~ e v i e wReconnaissance Study results and complete design of
the bypass channel system, the setback levees and the flood
walls. Also included under this task are the technical
review meetings, site investigation, and documentation
report for inclusion in the Feasibility Repo*.
..
Estimated Duration: 5 months
Estimated Cost: Fed: $-om---
Non-Fed: ------
$85,000
C GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
The geotechnical investigation will be separated
into two task elements: an exploration and soil testing
program and geotechnical analysis/design effort.
1) SOIL EXPLORATION & TESTING

Perform geotechnical explorations and soil testing
for the determination of sub-surface material
characteristics and their physical properties for final
design purposes. This task includes scope development,
Government ~stimate,contract monitoring, boring and
testing data analysis, and report preparation.
Estimated Costs: Fed: $------.
Non-Fed : ------w
$172,000
2) GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN
Based on test results, determine foundation
conditions and design parameters for the basis of design.
~dentifysources of construction materials and perform
design analysis. Activities include technical review
meetings, site visits, report preparation, and drafting.
Estimated Duration: 2.5 months
Estimated Costs: Fed: $------
Non-Fed : --...--...
$34,000
D. ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
1) Prepare the Environmental Impact Statement
(draft and final) and a Record of Decision for the project.
Prepare a biological assessment to determine the effects of
the selected plan on listed and candidate species in
accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
obtain a Section 401 State Water Quality certification.
. Submit a Consistency Determination on the selected plan to
; the California Coastal Zone Management Act and prepare the
Environmental Assessment (draft and final). Activities
include coordination with Federal and State agencies,
concerned organizations and individuals; technical review
meetings; site investigationsf and public notices.
Non-Fed : ------
$64,000
2) Fish and Wildlife Service coordination under

the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. Transfer funds to
USFWS to prepare a Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
Report (draft and final) for the project.
Estimated
. .
Costs: Fed:
Non-Fed :
$ ------
------
$ 38,000
E. ECaNOMIC STUDIES
Complete an economic inventory of the study area,
including market value of structures and contents; obtain
first floor elevations and depths of flooding; and compile
historical flood damage data to be used in the benefit
analysis. Evaluate business and emergency iosses; recompute
project benefits; and prepare documentation report for
inclusion in the Feasibility Report. Activities include
technical review meetings and site investigation.
Non-Fed : ------
$40,000
F. DESIGN AND COST ESTIMATING

Develop the preliminary design and the cost
estimates for each of the alternatives, and the final
design and cost estimate for the selected plan. Prepare the
basis of design and project costs. Determine the
acquisition of property needed for project construction and
coordination with Real Estate Division, Sacramento
District, COE, tor the Real Estate Studies. Prepare
documentation report and drawings for inclusion in the
Feasibility Report. Activities include technical review
meetings and site investigation.
-
-
Non-Fed : ------
$70,000
Go REAL ESTATE STUDIES

The Real Estate Division, Sacramento District,
COE, will obtain the fair market values of properties
determined to be part of the land, easements and
rights-of-way requirements for the project. Prepare a real
estate acquisition report for inclusion in the feasibility
Report. -
Estimated Duration: 1 month
Estimated Costs: Fed: $-----
Non-Fed :
25,000
-----
H. STUDY MANAGEMENT
Perform s t u d y management needed t o complete
: p l a n n i n g and e n g i n e e r i n g a c t i v i t i e s d u r i n g t h e F e a s i b i l i t y
- phase. T h i s i n c l u d e s management o f s t u d y s c h e d u l i n g ; s t u d y
p r o g r e s s meetings; budget p r e p a r a t i o n ; c o r r e s p o n d e n c e
p r e p a r a t i o n ; c o o r d i n a t i o n w i t h t h e l o c a l s p o n s o r , concerned
- a g e n c i e s , o r g a n i z a t i o n s and t h e p u b l i c ; and o t h e r Corps
o f f i c e s . Determine t h e s o u r c e and t h e l o c a l s p o n s o r a b i l i t y
t o pay; and develop t h e l o c a l c o o p e r a t i o n agreement f o r
p r o j e c t c o n s t r u c t i o n . P r e p a r e p u b l i c announcements and
conduct two p u b l i c meetings.
E s t i m a t e d Duration: 1 8 Months
Estimated Costs: Fed:
Non-Fed: ------
$------
$70,000
. -
I. REPORT PREPARATION
A s s i m i l a t e a l l e n g i n e e r i n g , e n v i r o n m e n t a l and
?- economic s t u d i e s , a s w e l l as p u b l i c concerns. P r e p a r e the
d r a f t , and a f t e r a p p r o v a l , t h e f i n a l ~ e a s i b i l i t yReport.
A c t i v i t i e s i n c l u d e w r i t i n g , t y p i n g . r e p r o d u c i n g , and
f rewriting t h e report.
-
- Non-Fed: ------ *.
$20,000
V. COSTS AND COST SHARING AMOUNTS
TOTAL FEDERAL SPONSOR
CASH SERVIC
Study Management $70,000 $
~ o p os u r v e y 2.0 I000
~ n v i r o n m e n t a l (Exc F&W) 64,000
Fish & W i l d l i f e S t u d i e s 38,000
H&H I n v e s t i g a t i o n s 85,000
Economic S t u d i e s 40,000
Geotechnical I n v e s t i g a t i o n 000.
G e o t e c h n i c a l Desen-- 3 4 000
~ e s i g n& Cost E s t i m a t i n g 7 0 , 000
Real Estate S t u d i e s 25,000
Report P r e p a r a t i o n 20,000
Study and Report Review 16,000
------
$654,000
------
FIGURE 3
Figure 3 is not contained in the draft report

which was distributed for review by letter
dated 27 October 1989. Figure 3 is being
finalized, and will be available for review
during the review of this draft report.
VI. STUDY MANAGEMENT
he study management organization consists of an Executive
Committee and a Study Management Team. The ~xecutiveCommittee is
rrspons,ble for resolving any controversies that arise during the study
They will decide on the solutions and study direc-ion. The Study
Management Team consists of Corps personnel and personnel selected by
san Mate0 County, the non-Federal sponsor. The responsibility of the
team is to execute the required tasks of the study as directed in the
sOS and the executed agreement.
STUDY MANAGEMENT COORDINATION
overall study management shall be the responsibility of the
Executive Committee. The Study Management Team will coordinate all
matters related to the execution of the study and compliance with cost
sharing agreement, including cost estimates, schedules, execution of
work elements, financial transactions and recommendations to the
Executive Committee for terminations, suspensions, or amendments to the
agreement.
The study managers will keep books, records, .documents and other
evidence pertaining to study costs and expenses incurred pursuant to t h
agreement to the extent and in such detail as will properly reflect
accumulated total costs.
- The Study Management Team will act independently in the performance
of their respective functions under the agreement, and neither party is
considered the officer, agent, or employee of the other.
APPENDIX B
THIS ACRKZMBWT, mntercd into thir
' d r y of 19 by rnd
..betwoen the United S t a t e s o f America ( h e r e i n n i t e r called thr
rC~vermentu), nprrroatmd by thm Contracting Officrr rxrcuting t h i s
Aqre~rrmnt~ and San Nrtco County ( h e r e i n a f t e r c r l l e d thm "SponmrY), t a n
Mateo County, C ~ l i f o r n i s ,
991TNKSCETl4, that1
WHEREAS, t h e Congrass hro ~t8thorissdth8 &rpo o f Ynginaers t o conduct
s t u d l o o of Flood ContcaJ pursuant t o t h o enntinuing a u t h o r i t y provided by
Small F b d Contra1 Pm3acts a u t h o r i t y , Section 205, Flood Contcal Act ot
19401 and
, #WERE&S, the Corps of Ynginemro h a t conducted r p r r l i r a i a r r y study o f

flondiag rlong Percrdero And.Butrno Creeks pursuant t o Boction 205 of
Flood Control Act of 1910, berminoftar r r f r t r r d t o as t h o "Keconnaitsance
Phrra Study*, pursuant to this otrtboritp, and' has determine4 t b o t further
rtudy i n thw n a t u r e o f r, w F e r s i b i l i t y Phrtsr Study" ( h e r m l n r f t e r c811,ed the
'Study" i s roquirod t o completw t h e determination of t h e extmnt a t t!i@
Federal i n t a r v c t i n p a r t i c i p a t i n q i n a s o l u t i o n t o the idmntifimd
. prehlmms; and
'
AHEPEIS, tb Spansor has t h e r t x t l ~ a r i t y&!id c a p a b i l i t y to furnish t h e
c o o p r r t i o n hwrwinrftor sut forth and i s w i l l i n g t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n r t u d y
-cost r h h r i n g rnd ffnsncing i n accordancr with tha terms of t h i s a g m m e a t q
and
RRER.EA3, t h u Sponsor and thm Guvsmm~ntboth tmdaratand t h r t e n t e r i n g i n t o
thlr agruemont i n no way abligrtea either p a r t y t o implement r project and
tlrrt whethrr a project i u s u p p o ~ t e df o r r u t h a r i r r t i o n and budgated for
lmplurrrentrtinn dupendr upon t h e autcorno of t h i s f@8tibi2ity r t u d y and
whethrr tbm prapocrd s o l u t i o n to c o n s l e t h a t with tbe P r i n c i p l e s and
Guidoliner and with the budget p r i o r t t i m of t h e Administrmtion and t h a t
a t t h e p n u n t t i n e , f r v o r a b l o budget priority is being assigned t o
projmct 8 providing p r i m a r i l y cwnmmrcial n o v f g a t i ~ nand f load or storm
drmbgu rlductlon o u t p u t s ; and
ODROTRtAU, t h e Wrtor ~ e s a u & m Dsvelopmvnt Act af 1986 (Y.L. 99-662)
spec1firs t h e cost s h a r i n g requirntndnts a p p l i c a b l e t o t h o Study;
WON, 'MERRFORE, t h e parties r g r e e a s followmr
ARTICLE I - DWIHITIOMB
For thr purposes of thio Agreement:
a. Tl~mterm Wdtudy CootU shall aman a l l disbursements by the Covmrnmrnt
pursuant to thir Agreement, whether from Federal appropriattons or from
funds mad^ available ta the bvernmnnt by thm Sponsor, and all Hrgotiatmd
Costs o f vork performeJ by the Sponsor pursttent to thir Agrrernmnt. Such
costs shall include, but not bw limited to; labor chargest direct castst
overhead axpenseat supervision and rdminirtrbtioa costs1 and contrrctr
vitb third pbrties, including termination or surpensian charges! and any
tormiartion or susprnaion costs (ordinsrily definvd an thomm costs
necessmy to terminate engaing contracts or obligstions @adt o properly
srfmguard thm work alrmrdy rccomplirhmd) aseociatmd with this Agromnmnt.
b, Thm term W8Cudy Pmriodn shall mean the timr period f o r conducting the
Study, commencing with the ibruence of initial Federal fmraibility f m d r
follnuinq thr axacuti~nof this Agrrmmnt, and anding with tho Chief of
Et~ginearr' rcceptrncc of the Ftudy.
c. Thm term nRqatinted Costn i s the fixmd fee for a verk i t m to bm
accomplished by the npunaor as in-kind mervices rs specified In the Scope
of Studios incorporated hmrmin and uhich is accmptabJm to both partimc,
a, The Spanoar and the Covmrnnent, using funda contributsd by the Sponmor
and appropriated by t h e Congress, ahall mxpedltiourly graoecutm and
complete the Study, currently estimated to be completed in 21 m o n t h from
the date of this Agrmemmnt, nubstantiat2y i n compliance with Article XI1
herein a d in canformity vitlr applicable Federal and laws wid regulrtions,
the Keonamic and Savlronntontrl Principtvs and Guidelines for Urter and
Related Land Rtsottrtes Implementation Studies, and mutually rcccptrble
standards of enqinmorlug practice,
b, Thm Covmrnmant rnd tlaw Syonsnr s h r l l racI1 contribtrte, in cash, and
in-kind services, fifty (SO) pwrcont of 814 Ytody C m t r , which total cost
is currently cntimrtad to be #Sfl4,000, 8s specified in Article 1 V berein;
provided, that the tlpnnsar my, consistant u i t b rpplicrbla Federal
statutes and requlations, cantributn up to t w n t y - f i w (25) porcant o f the
Btody Costs as in-kind rrrviceo; provided furthrr, the C w m r n w n t shall
not obligate any cash conktibtttion by thm Sponsor towrrd Study costs until
nponsor.
such cash contribution has atturlly b.ea made rvrilrble to it by_thlr
_ . --
c. The sward of m y contract with a third party for services in
furtherance of thin Agreement uhich obligates Pedmrri appropriations shall
bm exclir,ively wittiin the control of the Governlmnt. The award of any
contrrct by the Sponsor with a third party for service@ in furtherance o f
thio Agreement which obligates funds of the Sponsor and does not obliqatm
Federal appropriatiano shrll be mxclueively vithin the contcol of the
Syonsar, but shall be subject to mpplAcrble Fmdwrrl statutes rad
ragulrtionc.
d. The Gnvcrnment and the Sponsor rhrll endeavor to rrslgn the necessary
resoursos to provide far the prompt and proper ex*cutfon of the Study bnd
shall, within the limits of law and regulation, Conduct the Ftudy with
maximum fl~xibilityas directed by tha t!xecutive Committee estrbiirhed by
Article V hmrein.
a, Thm Cevernmont will not contfnur v i t h tho $tudy i f At dmtrrminmr that
thora is tro rolution in which there is r Federrl interest or which i r not
- in rccord v i t h currmnt palicims 8nd budget prioritin unlema the Sponsor
wishes to continue under the terms o f thfr Agreement and the tkpartaont of
Army grants and nxcrptian. If tha Study i s discontinued, i t shrll be
concluded recording t o Article XI1 and all data an4 infomatian shall be
madm rvrilrblr to both parties,
f. The Fponwr may wish to conclude the Study i f It determines thrt there
is no solution i n which i t has an interest o r which i s not i n rccord with
its current policies and b n d g ~ tprieritier, When such r e r r r exists the
Otudy ohall bo cascludrd aceording to hrticlo XI1 and all drtr and
information shall be made rvailable to both prrtlrr.
go No Federal funds may be used to amat t h e Lac81 dponsor8r shrrr o f

study costs under t h i r Agreement unless the expenditures o f such funds
is mxprevsly ruthorizud by strtuto a 8 vorifimd in writing by the
granting rqency.
ARTICLE 111 - SCOPE OF RTUDIES
hppndix A, thm Scape of Studies, is hureby incnrporrtod into this

Agreemeat* Tttc p$~rLiasto t h i ~Agreement shall substmtirlly comply with
t h e Scnpa of Studims i n prosecuting oork on tho Study. The following
modificetions, to be approved by the txccutivc Committee, shall roquire an
amendment to thin Agrrmnmtr
: a, rny modi'fit~tiunwhich inenasen; tho total Study Costs by nore thrn
twonty-Ciw 123) parcmnt 4
b any extension a t the eompletioa schedule f o r r.ttu4y work item of more
thrn thirty (30) drys; or
c. any rerssignrrtant o f work items batwm~nthe Upomor and thm
Governmentr
ARTICLE I V - )(FTRllD OF PAYtfUT

a, The Covemnmt oh811 endervar to obt8in during ~ a c hfiscal year the
appropriation for thrt fircrl yerr a t least in the rnountr specified In
the Scope of Studio8 incorporrtmd heroin. Subject to the mactawnt o f
Federal appropriotienu and tho allotment of funds to tho Contrrctlng
' Otficer, the Covernnmt shrll then fund the Study at lrrst in thm amounts
specified in the Icope o f Sttrdies hecein,
be The dpunaor shall rndeavor to obtain during each Govornmnt fircrl
year the cash contribution for that Government f i s c a l year at 1O88t in the
amounts apecifiod in the dcapm of Studios incorporated herein rnd, once it
has obtained funds far a cash contribution, shall mrko nuch funds
hvrilrble to the Covornment. Tho Covernmont rhail withdraw and dimburmm
funds made rvrilatle by the Sponsor oubjoct to tha provisions of thir
Agreement,
The Cevernm~ntmd t h e Sponsor m c h s h r l l keep books, r e c o r d s , docurwnta
and othmr evidence p e r t a i n i n g t o Study CBntr rtad mxpencer i n c u r r e d
pursvnnt t o t h i s Agreement t o the e x t e n t and in aoch d e t a i l as wttl
p r o p e r l y tuflect t o t a l Bturly Costs. The Covernrnrrt and tho Sponmor r h r l l
maintain such books, records, d a c u m n t s and o t h e r ovidenca for inmpmction
and r u d i t by authorimed representatives o f thm p a r t i e s t o t h i s Agroeumnt.
Such m a t e r i a l s h a l l remrrin ~ v r i l & t l @ far review for 8 pmriod o f three ( 3 )
years f o l l o w i n g t h o t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h i s Agn8mnt.
ARTICLE VIlX - RttATIOWSHIP OF PABTXZS

a. The parties t o t h i o 4 g r m s n t a c t i n rn independent c r p r c i t y i n the
performancm of their respwctfve f u n c t i o n n under t h f s Agreement, and
rieithor party i s t u bv considered t h e a f i i c e r , agont, or enpLoyw of thr
0th8t.r
b. To t h e extmnt parmittad by a p p l i c a b l e l a u , any ~ p o r t s ,documents,
data, f i n d i n g s , c o n c l u r i o n r , or recommendations p r r t r i n i n g t o t h e Study
s h r l l not be relersed o u t s i d e t h e txmcutivr Colnaittw or the l t u d y
Management Term; nor r h r l l t h e y k r e p r e s e n t e d as prrrsontiaq t h e vimrs of
r i t h e r p a r t y unlass both P n r t i e o s h a l l i n d i c a t a agreement t h e r r t o i n
P writ ins.
ARTZCLg TX - OFFICIALS RUT TO BOHEFIT

No member o f or d e l r g r t m t o the Congress, ar other aloctmd o f i i c i r l , shall
ba admitted to rny *hare or part o f t h i s hgr-nt, or t o Bny b e n e f i t t h r t
nry rrisw therefrom.
ARTICLE X - CgDERAL AID S t A Z t WLWR

I n rctlng under its r i g h t s and o b l i g a t i o n s herrunder, the local 8p0DSor
agrees t o comply w i t h a l l rppllcatle Iredwral and state lrus and
n g u l a t i o n s , i n c l u d i n g s e c t i o n 601 of T i t l e VZ of the C i v i l R i g h t s Act of
1964 ( P u b l i c Lru 08-352) and Department of Dlfmnw Directive 5300.11
issued putnuant therrto 8nd p u b l i ~ h e di n P8rt 300 of Title 32, Codm o f
Federal Rmgulattans, re well a s Amy 8 e g u l r t i o n 600-7, e n t i t l m d
aHondiscriminrtian an t h e Brrir o f Handicap i n Proqrrms and A c t i v i t i e s
Ass$rted or Canductmd by t h e D e p r r t m n t o f t h e Army,'
ARTICLE XI - COVLRAWT AGAINST CORSXWClZWT FKg8
The l o c a l tponcar w r r r a n t s t h a t no p r o o a or s e l l i n g agency h 8 b~ H n

employed or n t r i n m d t o 9 o l i c i t or recure thiw Ayrwmmnt upan @gn.mmtor
understandinp for r cmmicsion, p t r c c n t a g a , brokrrbge, ar c a n t i n g e n t f e e ,
e x c e p t i n g bona f i d o mmployeo o r bona f i d e estrbliahmd cc#mercirl or
c e i l i n g a g e n c i e s ~ r i n t r i n e dby t h e lac81 sponsor for t h e purpose of
s e c u r i n g b u s i n e s s 8 For brerch or v i o l s t i o n of lhio warranty, thm
c. Funds made available by the Sponsor to thm Covmrnwnt rnd not
disbursed by tho Cnvernment within 8 C5vornmcmt i i ~ a r lyear nhbll be
crrried over and applied t o tha crsh contri,butian fat the succeeding
Government fiscal year; provided, that upon Study trrminrtfon any rxcers
crsh contribntion s h a l l be reiaburud t o tha Sponsor rftmr r final
rccrruntittg~ subject to the availability of appropriations, r e specified in
Article X I 1 hrrmin,
d , Should either party fail to obtain funds sufficimnt to make
obligatinns or crsh contributions or to incur Study Costs in rccardrno -
with thr rclredulc, included in the Scope of Gtudier incorporrtcd henfa, i t
shall a t once hatify the Executive Committw entrblinbed under Article V
herein. Tbc Bxacutivo Committee shall determine i f the Agreacnont should
be rnwnded, auspundmd, or tmrminated under Article XI1 b e n l n ,
4. Overall study mrnrqument shall bm tha responsibility o f rn txecut,ive

Committ~ocansirking o f t
the Covuxnment~sreprorvntativer~
Cot, Cnlen R, Ybnrqifrara, District Xnqinwr,
Il111am C. bnyeloni, Chiof, Plrnning/tnginwring Division
and the Sponsorlc mprmrentrtivesr
b, To pmvide for consistent and effoctivr cmunicrtion and proswcution~

of tho f t m s in tbr Scaps o f Studios, the h e c o t i v e Committee shall
appoint representatives t o swve sm r Study Wanrqwmnt Term.
c. The Study Hrnlqament Tmrm uill coordiarte on all mattmro mlrting to

prosecution of tbe Study and corrplirnee with t h i s Agreement, including
cost estimatmr, sch.dulor, pror~cution of w r k elements, finmcirl
transaction6 and recom~ndrtionsto thm Precutivr Comlttn tor
terminmtion, suspmnsian, or amendment o f t h i s Agncmnt,
4. The dtuby Wnnrqewnt Term will prmpara priodic roportn on the
progress of rll oork i t m r for tlro Oxocutiw C o n n i t t ~ .
a, The Study Hanrgament Team rbrll mndravor in good faith to negotiate

the resolution of conflicts. Any dioputa w i s i n g under this Agreement
which i s not disposed o f by mutual consant shrll bm n f m r d to tbe
Oxrcutivo Committoe. The &rncutivr C o w ~ i t 8kr11
t~ n w l v e such e~nflictr
or determine a mutually ngrecable process for mathing m o l u t i o n or for
termination under Article XI1 herein.
b. Pending final dmcirion of r dispute hereunder, or pending swapension
ar tormitratiatr a9 this Agreement under articlm X I 1 hmrrin, tho partior
hereto shall proceed diligently with the p r f o m r n c r of this Agraemmnt.
APPENDIX C
Government s h a l l h w s tbm right t o rnnul t h i s Agmment without
lirbility,or, i n its discretierr, t o add to the Agrm-nt or considerrtion,
or othcrulsa recover, th, full amotrnt o f such commission, perccntrgr,
brokerage, ar contiagent fee,
r. Ibis Agremnt shall be termln~teat thr cuupletion of the Study

Period1 prnvided that prior to such tin. and upon t h l r t y (90) dryr urittmn
notice, either party may temfnrte or ruopend this Agronneht without
pnalty.
b, Within ninety (901 days upon termination of this Agreement the Study
Rrnogmmant Term shall prrpnrm r f i n a l accounting o f Study Costs, which
by t h e Govrrnmont of Cedecrl fonds, crth
s h a l l display d~~bu?eements
contributions by the gponsar, mad credits for the Rogotirted Cortr of the
Bponsorl Subject to the a v a i l a b i l i t y of funds, within thirty (30) drys
thermrftor t h e Government rhdll rriabursr the Spanmor f o r tho excess, if
any, of cash contribut~onsand crodits given ovmr t i i t y (50) parcent of
tatal Study Carts, Within t h i r t y (30) dryr thereafter, tho Sponsar rhrll
provide the Government 8ny crsh contribvtlaam required so that thr total
Sponsor rhrrv equrlu fifty (50) pltrcmnt o f tcrtrl Study Custr,
IN WITHE85 UBEREQP, the parties hereto have executed thi8 Agrrement as of
the day and year first above written.
TRE UWZTED STATES OF AMERICA THE COURSY OF I A N HATXO

8TUDY SP0160R
BY
G b l c n H. Yanagihrre
Colonel, C s ~ p sof Enqinnrs
District Engineer
Contracting Oftictr
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
PESCADERO & BUTANO CREEKS FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT

Section 205 of t h e Flood Control A c t of 1 9 4 8
Revised AUGUST 1989
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED A C T I O N

The Pexadero Creek basin has expdenoed numerws damage-producing
floods in history. The two m o s t severe floods ouxmd in 1955 and
1982, both estimated to be 1: .?ear fload events. The 1955 flood resulted
in o v e r $1.1 million (IS! d o l l a r s ) in damages.
Floods in the Pescadero Creek basin are caused by periods of intense
rainfall normally preceded by periods of moderate precipitation. The
existing channel capacity in the '!horseshoe bendw reach of Pescadero Creek
as it passes through downtown Pescadero is approximatdy 10,000 cubic feet
per second (cfs), corresponding t o a 20-year flood event. However,
upstieam and downstseam of the downtown reach the channel capacity is less
than 2,500 ds, which is considerably less than the estimated 10-year peak
discharge of 7,700 cfs. The floodplain varies f r o m 2,000 t o 2,600 feet
wid& Land in the basin is principally used f o r agriculture, recreation,
and residences.
A multipurpose dam and reservoir on upper Pescadero Creek was
considered by the Corps uf Engineers in 1969. Although t h e $41.2 million
project was eamomically justified, a local contribution of $25.6 million
was requhd. Because of t h e magnitude of t h e local share, t h e project
was n o t constructed.
The Corps of Engineers is authorized by Congress t o investigate and
canstruct s m a l l flood control projects under Section 205 of t h e Flood
Control Act of 1948. The current study was initiated i n response t o a
request from t h e County of San Mateo i n September 1983. An i n i t i a l
appraisal was completed in 1984. Based on the initial appraisal, t h e
arrrent -ce study was initiated, including t h e preparation of
t h i s environmental assessment.
The i n i t i a l appraisal considered a wide r a n g e of a l t e r n a t i v e s ,
indluding: increased local maintenance efforts: construction of a groin a t
the m a r t h uE Pescadem Creek: &amel improvements; construction of ring
levees; and construction 05 extensive levees along Pescadero and Butano
Creeks w i t h o r w i t h o u t tieback levees. TIie initial appraisal concluded
that the only feasible alternative which w a i i d pruvi.de a substantial level
af prctection was construction of a levee system. During the current
study, t h e Corps has developed four project alternatives designed t o
provide flood damage reduction. The purpose of t h i s environmental
assessment is to evaluate the environmental impacts of t h e alternatives,
determine whether an environmental impact statement is required, and
assist in the swping of environmental studies to be conducted during t h e
f e a s i b i l i t y study.
ALTERNATIVES
Fo Ac m . If no a d a n is taken,. t h e farms, homes and businesses along
Pescadem and Butano Creeks wcruld continue t o incur flood damages. The
average annual damages a r e estimated t o b e $546,000.
Alternative 1: Downtown B V D ~ S SWithout Downstream Wideninq. T h i s
alternative would consist of a system of setback levees and f l o o d w a l l s
along Pescadero C r e e k abwe and below central Pescadero, and a covered
a m c r e t e bypass channd thxugh central Pescadera This a l m a t i v e would
not require mcdification of t h e existing channel around the "horseshoe
bendw in the creek. Floodwalls would be constructed only along portions
of the left (scruth) bank immediately upstream and downstream af the bypass
where existing structures. .are too close t o t h e streambank t o allow
levees. The floodwalls a-@.levee along the left (south) bank w e s t of
c e n t r a l Pescadero would: f i e i n t o an e x i s t i n g downstream levee.
JOternative 2: Levee and Floodwall Combination. This alternative would
consist of a continuous system of setback levees and floodwalls along
Pescadero Creek, without a bypass channel. In place of a bypass channel,
floodwalls and an addj+.ianal l w e e segment would be constructed around t h e
horseshoe bend i n t h e c e n t r a l Pescadero.
Alternative 3: Downtown Bmass W i t h Down- Widening. This alternative
wmld be the same as Alternative 1, except that the downstream portion of
the channel w a r l d be widened by excavation t o form -a berm on the right
(north) side of Pesmdero Creek. Excavation of t h e berm would eliminate
the need for a floodwall or lwee along the left (south)side of the creek
downstream from the bypass channel o u t l e t .
Alternative 4: Butano Creek Levee. This alternative would consist of a
4,500-foe long setback levee along t h e r i g h t (east) bank of Butano
Creek. The levee w m l d extend fram high gnxvld 1,400 f e e t upstream from
Pexadero Road, across the road and agricultural fields, t o high ground
west of the Pescadero State Beach ranger residences a t t h e end of Water
fane. The Pescadero Road bridge wauld be replaced w i t h a higher bridge to
amfonn t o the lwee elevation. If selected, t h i s alternative would n o t
be constructed separately, but as an addition t o one of t h e f i r s t three
project altenlatives. The addition of t h e Butano Creek l e v e e would
provj.de flood p m b c t h t o Pescadero Road and some adjacent houses and
a g r i c u l t u r a l areas.
Alternative Levels-of-Prutection. For each of t h e a b w e a l t e r n a t i v e
plans, pmject designs which would provide 100, 50-, loo-, and 500-year
lwels-of-preffection w e r e dwelaped and m o m i c d l l y evaluated. Because
the 100-year design would result in the greatest net .economic benefits, it
h a s been t e n t a t i v e l y i d e n t i f i e d a s t h e economically optimal
mel-of-prntection. This environmentdl assessment therefom compares the
impacts of the above alternatives for the 100-year designs. For each of
M e alternatives, t h e 10- o r 50-year d e s i g n s would have reduced
environmental impacts because of the reduction i n t h e s c a l e of t h e
project, but would result in more frequent flooding than the 100-year
design. Conversely, the 500-year design wculd have greater env*mental
impacts, but would r e s u l t i n less frequent flooding than t h e 100-year
design.
Borrow Site. Under each af the alternatives, levees would be constructed
using borrow material from the existing quarry an caurty-owned land along
Bean H o l l o w Road abart 1000 feet sarth af Pescadero Road. Excess material
excavated during cernstructh of f l o o d w a l l footings o r channels would be
used for levee construction, if suitable, o r removed t o an appropriate
d i s p o s a l site.
preferred Alternative. Based on current information,, t h e p r e f e r r e d
alternative is A l t e r n a t i v e 3, with a design providing a 100-year
level-of -protection.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The study area is located on t h e Pacific Ocean c o a s t of t h e San
FLancka3 Peninsula about 40 m i l e s south of t h e c i t y of San Francisco.
The unincorporated town of Pescadero is a small agricultural community
locate3 almost entirely within t h e floodplain of Pescadero Creek. The
lands along the creek have been cleared t o its banks f o r f i e l d s and
c o m m a and residential development, leaving a narrow band of riparian
woodland on each bank of the creek. Levees have been constructed along
some portions of the creek. A short distance down- f r o m t h e town of
Pescadero, Pescadero Creek flows into Pescadero Marsh. Butano Creek joins
Pescadero Creek within t n e marsh.
' Pescadero M -, which mers appi.codmately 600 acres near t h e mouth
cb Pescadero Creek, is t h e only extensive marsh between San Francisco and
M o r R e r e y Bays The marsh is high value habitat for a wide of fish
and wildlife, including migratory waterfowl and several threatened o r
endangered species. The marsh h a s been a l t e r e d by accelerated
s e d i x n e r h t h which has been attributed t o the constriction created by t h e
Highway 1 b r i d g e approaches.
Pescadero Creek is a spawning stream for steelhead t r o u t and a s m a l l
run of coho salmon. The portion of Butano Creek immediately above
Pescadero Road supports an unusually e x t e n s i v e r i p a r i a n woodland.
However, even .the very limited riparian growth along Pescadero Creek near
t h e town of Pescadero is considered important habitat because of its
relative scarcity and importance t o the support of fish and wildlife
populations.
The math of Pescadero Creek is locat& w i t h i n m d e r o S t a t e Beach.
. Ihe State Beach also includes the northern part of Pescadero Marsh and the
f r a g i l e sand dune h a b i t a t between the marsh and beach.
California Highway 1, t h e major scenic and recreational route along
t h e central california coast, crosses Pescadero Creek a t its mouth.
Pexadero and Stage Roads, the two main roads which pass thmugh the town
uf Pescadero, have both been designated as scwic rartes by the County of
San Mateo.
ENVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T S
Oualitv and Noise Conditions. Construction activities f o r any of t h e

alternatives would r e s u l t i n minor, temporary impacts t o a i r
qu* and noise conditions due t o equipment emissions and noise, and
fugitive dust. ~quipment-related noise would be disturbing t o nearby
residerrts, The study a r e currently experiences similar air quality and
noise impacts during t h e operation of farm equipment in the adjacent
fields. Construction-related a i r quality and n o i s e impacts w i l l be
minimized by limiting the haurs of operation and using water t o control
d u s t where appropriate.
Water Ouality. Minor, temporary impacts t o water quality would result
from constmctian of any of t h e project alternatives due t o subsequent
erosion of disturbed ground areas by streamilows and surface runoff.
These impacts would be minimized by limiting construction t o t h e dry
-
season (May September) when .the streamflow is low and diverting water
away from active construction areas. Disturbed areas would be seeded
after construction to minimize erosion impacts on water quality. The loss
of riparian vegetatiool along the cree)rbanks would tend t o increase water
tan- due to reduced shading. The pruject alternatives have been
designed t o minimize the loss of riparian vegetation through t h e use of
setback levees and floodwalls, rather than channelization. Where t h e
remwal of riparian vegetation is unavoidable due t o location of existing
structures, it wauld be limited, f o r t h e most part, t o t h e upper banks.
Therefore, impacts on water quality due t o t h e l o s s of vegetation . a t e
expected to be minor.
Any discharge of f i l l material i n t o waters of t h e United S t a t e s ,
including adjacent wetlands, would be subject t o t h e requirements of
Section 404 of t h e Clean Water Act. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 may be
C Q V by ~ a general (nationwide) penit under Section 404(e) of t h e A c t ,
depending upon t h e amount of riprap included in the f i n a l design and
whether the small amaunt riparian vegetation within t h e levee ltfootprinttl
meets t h e legal definition of Section 404 wetlands. I f t h e selected plan
is not m e r e d by a general pemit, a Section 404(b) (1) Evaluation would
..
b e prepared d u r i n g t h e f e a s i b i l i t y s t u d y , a S t a t e water quality
or waiver will be abtained under Sectbn 4 0 1 of t h e A c t , and
a pub* natice, w i t h the 0pportd.Q' for public hearings, w i l l be issued.
Pvdrolouv and Erosion. Each of t h e p r o j e c t a l t e r n a t i v e s would
significantly modify hydrologic mditions by cunfking nood ~ O W St o t h e
Pescadero Creek channel. This w i l l in- peak d k h a r g e s during major
flood wents and may increase downstream sediment deposition. Where t h e
flood flows would be confined t o the existing channel by l e v e e s o r
floodwalls, increased flow velocities could potentially increase bank
erosion. Howwer, where channel capacities are increased, flow velocities
and bank erosion may be decreased. Construction of the bypass channel
under Alternatives 1 or 3 would therefore tend t o reduce erosion in t h e
horseshoe bend. Similarly, excavation of t h e downstream berm under
Altexnative 3 may reduce erosion along M e opposite bank where severe
&on is currently encroaching upon t h e r e a r yards of several of the
residences along Pescadero Road. P o t e n t i a l erosion and sediment
deposition impacts should be waluated in detail during the feasibility
study to ensure t h a t adverse effects are avoided. This environmental
asement is based on aurent plans whi& include bank prcrtection only a t
the d e t of t h e bypass channel f o r Alternatives 1 and 3, .and a t t h e
western end of the downstream benn for A l w v e 3. If additional bank
P is reauk&, the amount cb riparian vegetation removed may be
r s a n t l y Lcreased.
Under Alternatives 1 and 3, a portion of high flows in t h e creek
channel wmld be diverted into the concrete bypass &annel The upstream
opening cb the bypass channel would be atmt thme feet abwe t h e natural
channel bottom, s o that all flows less than t h r e e f e e t in depth would
remain in the natural & a r ~ r ? l at all times. A three-foot depth of water
in t h e channel is estimated w be equivalent t o a flow of about 60 cubic
feet per seamd (ds). For comparison, the 36-year average discharge for
the creek is 44 cfs. During years w i t h typical amounts of rainfall, a
po- of the creek flow would be diverted through t h e bypass channel
d u r i n g much of t h e w e t season.
Bioloaical Resources.
Vecletation. Pescadem and Butano Creeks are bath lined w i t h narrow, dense
bands of riparian woodland. The overstory consists primaray of willows
interspersed with red alder, cottonwood, and black and English walnut.
The understory is dominated by blackberry, mixed with coyote brush,
htxseWls, and various f o r b s and grasses. The U.S. Fish and W i l d l i f e
Se- has estimated that the preferred alternative (Alternative 3) would
result in the permanent remwal of about 2.8 acres of riparian woodland
habitat along Pescadero Creek. Most of t h i s l o s s would occur due t o
e x c w a t h of the downstream berm. Additional habitat losses would occur
a t t h e inlet and outlet of t h e bypass channel and in areas where t h e
remwal of m e riparian vegetation is required f o r construction due t o
the p&ty of &sting structures to the creek. Detailed estimates of
the amount of riparian woodland which would be impacted by Alternatives 1
and 2 have not been made, but qualitative comparisons with Alternative 3
can be made. Alternative 1 would not include wcavation of a downstream
berm, which is the source of most of t h e impacts on riparian woodland
under Alternative 3. However, Alternative 1wauld require t h e removal of
some additional riparian woodLand along the left (sarth)bank of Pescadero
Creek, downstream of t h e bypass channel cutlet, for t h e construction of a
floodwall and levee. Alternative 2 wauld nut include a do- berm o r
a bypass channel, but would include additional levees and floodwalls along
the harseshoe bend in the creek. m u s e of t h e constraints created by
the locations of existing structures, a substantial amount of riparian
woodland would have t o be removed under Alternative 2. It therefore
appears t h a t Alternative 1 would impact the least amount of riparian
woodland, w h i l e A l . v e s 2 and 3 would impact m g h l y similar amounts
of woodland.
Under Alternative 4, approximately 0.8 acres of riparian woodland
waild also be m w e d along Butano Creek on each side of t h e Pescadero
Road bridge for a road detour and construction access f o r replacement of
t h e bridge. The cleared a r e a n e a r t h e b r i d g e is expected t o be
revegetated by r o o t s p r o u t s and n a t u r a l recolonization.
The levee along Butano Creek (Alternative 4) would also e m a t e a
2.8-acre seasonally-flooded, freshwater wetland along t h e r i g h t (east)
side of Butano creek immediately north of P-dem Road. Construction of
t the levee would w v e r about one. acre of the wetland, while the elimination
of seasonal flooding from Butano Creek would r e s u l t in the loss of wetland
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s on t h e remainder of t h e site.
The remaining portians of t h e alternative plans would be located in
disturbed areas, primarily agricultural fields, which have minimal habitat
value.
The US. Fish and W i l d l i f e service (US FWS), in coordination w i t h the
Corps of Engineers, has developed a conceptual mitigation plan f o r the
pref- alternative (Alternative 3). The plan would p r w i d e on-site,
in-kind mitigation for temporary and permanent impacts on riparian and
seasanal wetland habitats, in terms of both acreage and habitat value.
The mitigation would consist of e n l a r g i n g t h e downstream berm by
excavating a larger portion of the adjacent flower field. The additional
berm area would be planted w i t h riparian trees. The mitigation plan would
include irrigation t o ensure establishment of t h e planted t r e e s and
biological monitoring of t h e mitigation area. Based on t h e Habitat
Evaluation Procedure conducted by the USFWS in conjunction w i t h t h e
California Department of Fish and Game and the Corps of Engineers, 4.7
; acres of riparian woodland mitigation would be needed t o o f f s e t t h e
impacts of the preferred alternative. This mitigation plan would not be
fully cranpatible w i t h Alternatives 1 and 2. Under t h e s e alternatives,
e m w a t h af the m 3 i g a t b a .would require removal of a substantial
amount of riparian woodland because t h e flood control design would not
include a down- berm. Alternative 4, if constructed in combination
: with Alternative 3, would require an additional 2,200 s q u a r e f e e t of
r i p e wordland mitigatian and 5.2 acres of seasonal wetland mitigation
t o f u l l y o f f s e t impacts on h a b i t a t values.
m. Pescadem Creek supp& an annual nur of a p p r d m t e l y 1,500 adult
m e a d trout, w h i c h spawn in the upper reaches of Pescadero Creek and
itb tributaries. Pescadaro and Butano Creeks also prwide rearing habitat
f o r young steelhead. Coho salmon also ' spawned i n Pescadero Creek
h i s t o r i c a l l y , b u t t h e i r p r e s e n t number is unknown.
Each of the pxwject alternatives has been designed t o minimize the
removal of r i p e vegetation o r t h e alteration of t h e natural channel
bottom. Although some creekside vegetation would be lost, t h e amount
wcntld be relatively small The prwject alternatives would therefore have
- minimal impacts on passage and on water temperatures, food supply,
nutrient inflow, o r cover i n t h e stream channel. If t h e inflow of
sediments into the creek during and after construction is not minimized,
there would be adverse effects on stream habitat. Sediments could cover
spawning gravels, smukher aquatic i n v e r t e b m which are used by fish a s
focd, in- w a t e r turbidiity, and cause a general degradation of water
qua3ity. The conditions stated in t h e Water Quality section of t h i s
environmental assessment would minimize construction impacts on fish
passage and stream habitat. In addition, provisions should be made t o
allow t h e passage of out-migrating juvenile s t e e l h e a d through t h e
constn~ctionarea during the months of May and June, if t h e streamflow is
sufficient.
Under Alternatives 1and 3, anadromaus fish migrating upstream could
become stranded in t h e bypass channel as flow t h r o u g h t h e bypass
decreases. The potential f o r stranding w i l l be W t e d by t h e s h o r t
length of the bypass (475 ft.) and by elevating t h e i n l e t t o the bypass
channel abate the natural creekbed. Nonetheless, design modifications t o
reduce the stranding of upstream migrants, such a s a low flow channel or
elevating t h e outlet of t h e bypass, should be considered during t h e
f e a s i b i l i t y study.
Wildlife. losses of riparian woodland and seasonal wetland habitat would
adversely affect wildlife populations in t h e study area. The conceptual
mitigation plan discussed in the Vegetation section of t h i s environmental
assessment is intended t o offset temporary and permanent impacts on
w i l d l i f e habitat. A detailed mitigation plan, including provisions for
monitoring, would b e developed d u r i n g t h e f e a s i b i l i t y study.
mdanaerd and Candidate Species. Several Federally-listed endangered or
candidate species are known t o occur i n the study area. The California
l e a s t t e r n (endangered), California black rail (candidate), saltmarsh
yellowthroat (candidate), San Francisco g a r t e r snake (endangered), and
California brackish water s n a i l (candidate) a r e known t o occur i n
Pescadero Marsh. The tidewater goby (candidate) may also occur in t h e
vicinity of the study area. A list of endangered species provided by t h e
U.S. Fish and W i l d l i f e Service also included the Smith's blue butterfly
(endangered); however, that species occurs only in Monterey County and
would n o t be affected by t h e proposed a l t e r n a t i v e s .
The alternative p l a n s may d i r e c t l y a f f e c t h a b i t a t f o r t h e San
Wan- garter snake. Although t h e g a r t e r snake typically occurs in
freshwater pmds and emergent wetlands, r a t h e r than riparian woodlands,
there is a possibility that the garter snake occurs in t h e project impact
area, A field survey should be conducted during M e feasibility study by
. a qualified binlogist t o determine t h e suitability of the habitat in the
study area f o r t h e g a r t e r snake and t h e presence o r absence of t h e
species.
Based on a cursory review of readily available information, t h e
project alternatives a r e not expected t o a f f e c t t h e o t h e r species,
provided that there are no significant effects on sediment.deposition in
the Pescadero Marsh and construction is conducted in a manner which
minimizes w a t e r quality impacts. This preliminary conclusion should be
verified i n consultation with t h e U.S. Fish and Wildlife s e r v i c e ,
Endangered Species O f f i c e during the f d i l i t y study. Additional field
StCldies may be mqubd to determine t h e ooaurence of some endangered or
candidate wildlife species in t h e project impact area. NO threatened
wildlife species, or endangered or w t e n e d plant species, . a r e known t o
oocur in the area. There is no designated critical habitat in the area.
prime or Uniaue Farmland. According t o t h e Soil Conservation Service
(SCS), .' most of t h e fanned land surrounding t h e town of Pescadero is
classified as prime farmland pursuant t o t h e Farmland Protection policy
A c t (7 U.S.C. 4201 & w.). Each of t h e alternatives being considered
would result in losses of farmed lands due t o project construction. A l l
three of the Pescadero Creek alternatives would include a levee along the
right (north) side of the creek upstream from Stage Road which would be
built on a portion of an artichoke field. The preferred a l t e r n a t i v e
(Alternative 3) would also require t h e .excavation of a portion of a
strawflower field f o r t h e downstream berm, resulting i n the loss of a
tatal of approximately six acres of agricultural lands. Alternative 4,
the Butano Creek levee, would be built almost entirely on agricultural
lands. I n addition t o t h e d i r e c t l o s s of farmland due t o levee
~ ? n s t m c t hpmbction
, of farmland from periodic flooding may reduce its
long-term productivity by eliminating the deposition of nutrient-rich,
flood-borne sediment.
The Farmland P m t e d b n Policy A c t requires Federal agencies t o use
criteria established by the SCS t o identify and t a k e i n t o account t h e
adverse effects of prujeclts on t h e preservation of prime o r
unique farmland; wnsider alternative actions, a s appropriate, t h a t could
lessen such adverse effects; and assure that such projects, t o the extent
practicable, a .compatible with state, local, and private programs and
policies to protect farmland. During t h e feasibility study, a detailed
waluation of hpa& on prime farmland should be made in consultation
w i t h the SCS in a-rdance w i t h the SCS Farmland Protection Policy A c t
r e g u l a t i o n s a t 7 CFR P a r t 658.
~ocioeconomicConditions. The p r o j e c t a l t e r n a t i v e s would have a
beneficial effect on the locdl economy by significantly reducing periodic
flood damages to structures and agricultural fields. The project would
r e s u l t i n t h e l o s s of a s m a l l amount of agricultural land needed f o r
-&ion and maintenance access. During t h e construction period,
t h e r e would be minor impacts on l o c a l t r a f f i c , p a r t i c u l a r l y during
repboement of t h e Butano creek bridge (Alternative 4 only). A temporary
creek crossing would be provided as a detour during construction of t h e
new bridge. The project alternatives are not expected t o have significant
growth-inducing effects because of t h e relative isolation of t h e study
area, the lack of recent dwelcpment in t h e area, and t h e constraints on
dwelapment imposed by County land use plans, including t h e local coastal
plan.
Cultural Resou-. The town of Pescadem is considered one of t h e most
m r ic in tho County and has the m o s t unique m u r a l character of
any community along the San Mateo County coast. The town contains a
number of hkbriC structures. A search of cultural resource records by
the Northwest ~ o r m t i mCenter, California Ardmealogical Inventory was
amducted in March, 1989. The records search identified two churches
which are listed in t h e National Register of Historic Places: the F i r s t
Congregational church of Pescadero and the Methadist Episcopal Church of
Pescadero. A t h i r d church, St. Anthony's on North S t r e e t , h a s been
determined eligible f o r l i s t i n g in t h e National Register. The F i r s t
Congregational Church is located in close proximity t o t h e bank of
Pescadero Creek in the 81horseshoebendw. Construction of Alternative 2
would intmduce foablres t h a t may adversely affect t h e "setting8I of t h e
property. I f Alternative 2 is selected, coordination with t h e S t a t e
O f f i c e of Historic Preservation would be required The other two ~ a t i o n a l
Register properties are located sufficient distances from t h e anticipated
construction areas that substantial impacts are unlikely. The study area
may contain a d d i t i o n a l h i s t o r i c p r o p e r t i e s .
The study area is considered to be highly sensitive archaeologically.
The r e s u l t s of t h e records search showed t h a t t h e r e are no recorded
archaeological sites within t h e a n t i c i p a t e d impact a r e a s of t h e
m a t i v e plans. There are at least three identified prehistoric midden
s b s along Butano Creek and Hasinger Creek within one-half t o one mile
af the cxmstructirm impact areas. It is therefore considered likely t h a t
additional prehistoric sites a r e located in t h e vicinity, particularly
near the creeks, The entire l ~ g t h of Pescadero Creek w i t h i n the study
area was muveyed for archaeological resources about twenty years ago.
Although no ar&aeolcgical sites w e r e identified along t h e creek a t t h a t
time, evidenoe was p m t e d that there is a substantial possibility t h a t
archaeological s h s i n t h e floodplain have been obscured by the shifting
creek channel and sediment deposikbn. The portion of Butano Creek which
would be affm by Altexative 4 and t h e county quarry have not been
previously surveyed f o r archaeological resources.
The p x w h archaeological survey af Pescadero Creek does not pmvide
.the site-specific information needed f o r t h e c u r r e n t flood damage
reduction prwject. A cultural =roes investigation of t h e project area
will therefure be required during t h e feasibility study t o identify any
previously unrecorded historic o r archeological sites which may be
affected. Based on t h e r e s u l t s of t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n , appropriate
coordination with the State Office of Historic Preservation would be
initiated.
Aesthetics and Recreation. Each of the alternative plans f o r Pescadero
Creek would have a sjgr5ficant impact on views of t h e creek due t o t h e
m c t i o n of lwees and floodwalls along t h e creek. For a 100-year
level of protection, tihe average levee and floodwall height would b e
t h i r b e n feet. The levees and floodwalls w a u l d completely block views of
tAe Q.eekbanks from adjacent structures and nearby roads. The pmsenae of
- by-
..
the levees and floodwalls would also tend t o cseate a sense of confinement
' g open space and creating visual barriers. These effects
would be most severe i n t h e c a s e of A l t e r n a t i v e 2 because of t h e
d u o u s floodwalls which would be constmcted around the horseshoe bend
- in p w t o many structures. Alternative 1 would have lesser effects,
while Alternative 3 would have t h e l e a s t aesthetic impact of the three
Pescadero Creek alternatives due t o t h e elimination of t h e downstream
floodwall required under the other two alternatives. The aesthetic impact
of Alternative 4 would be relatively minor, due t o its d i s t a n c e from
structures and lesser visibility from roads. During t h e f e a s i b i l i t y
study, consideration shculd be given t o landscaping t h e proposed levees
and prwiding a texftured surface on exposed portions of t h e floodwalls.
The study area auTently receives very little recreational use due t o -
the lack cd public a m . An exception is t h e northern portion of t h e
Butano Creek (Alternative 4) levee alignment, which would be located on
State Parks property. The levees being considered would provide an
opporhmity to create creekside t r a i l s on t h e tops of t h e levees along
portions of Pescadero and Butano Creeks. Alternative 4 would provide an
cppo- to create a substantial trail along Butano Creek which could
terminate cm State Parks property near an existing vehicle access route.
These recreational opportunities should be given detailed consideration,
in coordination w i t h the state Department of Parks and Recreation, during
t h e f e a s i b i l i t y study.
The State Department of Parks and R e c r e a t i a n is currently developing
an enhancenent plan for the Pescadero Marsh area. The enhancement plan
may include acquisition and regrading of agricultural lands adjacent t o
Butano Creek downstream hcom Pescadero Road to a floodway/wetland
along t h e creek and reduce the frequency of flooding of t h e remaining
agriculbmtl lands, A s a related pruject, t h e Department is also seeking
S t a t e Coastal Conservancy funding f o r a levee along t h e east side of
Bubno Creek imme3hMLy upstream from Pescadero Road. Portions of t h e
Corps0 Butano Creek plan (Alternative 4 ) would b e incompatible o r
e u n d a n t with t h e State Parks projects if both t h e Federal and State
plans w e r e to be implemented. Coordinatj.cn wit31 t h e Department of Parks
and R e c r e a m 'should be maintained during the feasibility study t o ensure
that any proposed Federal pmjezt is compatible with S t a t e plans f o r t h e
Butano Creek area.
If the State Parks lands w i t h i n the Alternative 4 levee right-of-way
w e r e a c q h d or dwelaped w i t h Federal funds under t h e Land and Water
~onsemationFund A c t of 1965, t h a t alternative w i l l be subject t o t h e
requirements of 16 U.S.C. 4601-8(f). This section of t h e A c t prohibits
the conversion of public outdoor -tion property acquired or developed
by the State using Iand and Water Conservatinn funds to other uses without
the approval of t h e Secretary of t h e I n t e r i o r . To b e approved, a
anversion must be in accordance with the comprehensive statewide outdoor
recreation plan and must include s u b s t i t u t i o n of o t h e r recreation
properties of a t l e a s t e q u a l f a i r market v a l u e and of reasonably
equivalent usefulness and location. During t h e f e a s i b i l i t y study,
coordinathn should be conducted w i t h the S t a t e Department of Parks and
R e c r e a t h and the National Park Service t o ensure compliance with t h e
Land and Water Conservation Fund A c t .
F l o o d ~ l a i nManaaement. The alternative plans would be located i n a
floodplain and a r e therefore subject t o t h e requirements of Executive
O r d e r 11988 on Floodplain Management. The Executive Order requires
Federdl agencies to p m i d e leadership and take action t o reduce t h e r i s k
of flood loss, to minimize t h e impact of floods on human safety, health
and welfare, and to restore and preserve the naturdl and beneficial values
served by -plains. Because the functkm of the proposed prqiect would
be t o prutect existing m c t u r e s from flood damage, no p r a c t i c a b l e
alternative to siting the project in t h e floodplain exists. The detailed
plan dwelaped during the feasibility study should include measures t o
minimize impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values, as discussed
i n t h e preceeding s e c t i o n s of t h i s environmental assessment.
Consistenw with Coastal Zone Manaaement Plans. The study area is within
the designated coastal ztne of t h e State of California; therefore, any
Federal prqiect within the study area would be required by t h e Coastal
Zone Management Act to be consistent t o t h e maximum extent practicable
with t h e S t a t e ' s approved c o a s t a l zone management program.
The California Coastal Plan s t a t e s t h a t "Channelizations, dams, or
other substantial alterations of rivers and streams s h a l l incorporate the
.
best mitigation measures feasible, and be limited to.. f lood control
pmects where no other method for pmtecting existing s t r u c t u r e s in t h e
flood plain is feasible and where such -p is necessary f o r public
safety o r t o protect existing development." I n o r d e r t o meet t h i s
requirement, it w i l l be necessary t o demonstrate t h a t floodproofing
e x i s t i n g s t r u c t u r e s is n o t a f e a s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e . Po date, t h e
floodproofing alternative has not been evaluated. A detailed habitat
mitigation plan w i l l also need t o be developed during t h e feasibility
a d y to demoslstrate consistency w i t h the requirement to include 'the best
mitigation measures feasible1#.
The California Coastal Plan a l s o r e q u i r e s t h a t "The biological
... ...
productivity and t h e quality of streams a p p r o p r i a t e t o maintain
optimum populations marine oryanisms. ..shall be maintained and, where
feasible, restored through, among o t h e r means, maintaining n a t u r a l
vegetation buffer areas t h a t protect riparian habitats, and minimizing
a l m t i o n of natural streams." Each of the project alternatives has
been designed t o minFmize impacts an riparian habitats through the use of
setback l e v e e s and floodwalls, r a t h e r t h a n channelization.
The L e a l Coastal Plan for San M a t e 0 ,C- s also part of t h e
whicfi i
State's approved coastal zone management program, r e i t e r a t e s many of t h e
requirements of t h e s t a t e coastal plan. In addition, t h e Local Coastal
Plan requires that prwjects w i t h signifiimt impacts on sensitive habitats
include mitigation measures which protect resources and a program f o r
m d . g and evaluating t h e effectiveness of t h e mitigation measures.
-
The plants definition of sensitive habitats includes all perennial and
intermittent streams and their tributaries, and riparian areas. The
plants performance standards f o r projects i n riparian corridors require
t h a t projects: "(1) minimize removal of vegetation, (2) minimize land
P-
..
exposure during canstructh and use temporary vegetation o r mulching t o
areas, (3) minimhe d n , sedimentation, and runoff by
appmpriately grading and replanting modified arras, (4) use only adapted
..
native or non-invasive ex- plant species when replanting, (5) provide
s&hment passage f o r native and anadromous f i s h as specified by t h e
S t a t e Department of Fish and Game,...(P) m a i n t a i n n a t u r a l vegetation
buffer areas that protect riparian habitats, and (10) minimize alteration
ob natural streams." These performance standards s h m be considered in
the fornulatian of d-ed plans during t h e feasibility study t o ensure
that pmpovd pmject w i l l be coslsbtat with the State's approved coastal
zone management program.
A coasbl zane managemefit m c y -d should be prepared
and coordinated w i t h t h e California C o a s t a l Commission, as required by the
Coastal Zone Management A c t , during t h e f e a s i b i l i t y study.
CONCLUSION
The pmposed pmject would have a signific4nt impact cn the quality of
the human environment. Prepamtion of an e n v h m e n t a l impact statement
w i l l therefore be e e d during the feasibility study. The preferred
alternative wuuld have significant impacts on riparian woodland habitat,
hydrology, prime famland, and aesthetics. Depending on t h e results of
emrhnmental studies and detailed planning t o be conducted during the
feasibility study, the pruposed p e e may also have significant adverse
impacts on erosion, water quality, endangered s p e c i e s , and c u l t u r a l
resources.
In summary, t h e following major environmental issues, studies and
wmpliance pmcedures w i l l need t o be addressed during the feasibility
study:
- Identify appropriate mitigation measures f o r potential con*ruCtion
impacts an air q uw ,noise conditicms, and water quality. If required,
prepare
. . a Section 404(b) (1) e v a l u a t i o n and o b t a i n a water q u a l i t y
o r waiver from t h e Regional Water Quality Control Board.
- Perfom a detailed evaluation of potential impacts on erosion along t h e
creek cflannel and downstream sedimerrt'depositim i n t h e Pescadero Marsh.
- Pzepara a detailed habitat mitigation plan in coordination with the U.S.
~ i s hand W j l d l i f e Service and t h e CaWornia Department of Fish and Game,
i n c l u d i n g p r o v i s i o n s f o r monitoring and evaluation.
-s t Ensure that the design of any bypass &annel minimizes the p
r a n d i n g f i s h a s flows decrease.
- for
- R e q u ~ s at Fish and W i l d 3 i f e Coordination A c t r e p o r t from t h e U.S.

and Wildlife Service.
Fish
- Prepare a biolcgical
species, including n
of impam on endangered and candidate
v fleld -dies. If endangered species may be
affected by the prop- pruje&, cmduct a formal consultation with t h e
US. Fish and Wildlife Service pursuant t o Section 7 of t h e Endangered
Species Act.
- Evaluate t h e impacts of t h e alternatives on prime farmlands a s specified
by t h e ScS z q u h t b n s implemathg t h e Farmland Protection Policy A c t .
- Perfarm a d m investigation t o identify h i s t o r i c and prehistoric
culkxal resaurce~in the project area, including l i t e r a t u r e reviews and
field surveys. Identify appropriate mitigation measures f o r potential
impacts in coordination w i t h the S t a t e O f f i c e of Historic Preservation.
- Develop a plan f o r recreation f a c i l i t i e s on project lands which w i l l

maximhe werall project benefits, and quantify t h e resulting economic
benefits.
- Maintain cecrdinatim w i t h the State Department cb Parks and Recreation
t o ensura that any State and Federal projects in the Bubno creek area are
compatible.
- Coordinate with t h e State Department of Parks and Recreation and t h e
National P a r k S e r v i c e t o e n s u r e compliance with Land and Water
Conservation Nnd A c t requirements regarding t h e conversion of public
o u t d o o r r e c r e a t i o n l a n d s t o o t h e r uses.
- Identify beautification measures t o reduce t h e a e s t h e t i c impacts of
l e v e e s and floodwalls.
- Prepare a coastal zone management candstency determination and obtain
t h e concurrence t h e California Coastal Commission.
- Prepare and c i r c u l a t e an environmental impact statement.
SEPARATION PAGE
509-.54R-
e * INVEST1 6-if-- , ' \
HE R E S O U R C E S A G E N C Y O F C A L I F O R N I A
I
D E P A R T M E N TO F W A T E R R E S O U R C E S
/*
,r GI-rLE:. SH EET--OF-
7
,C&e,e\ ~~ed~-d~~~~.~k--dv~.1?~?.-
dm&. DATE
I
...............
....... - ............. - -
....... ,. . . . . . .- -.-.
. .- - L- .COPx C H EGKED-- DATE-.
I
..tl, .. - *--:__-AL
INVESTIGATION T H E RESOURCES
A G E N C YO F C A L I F O R N I A
.
. - - - - . . - _ -
. - CHECKED-_ - DATE
PRDPOSE-D
CORkF?CTi6)3 0 F F I S H PASSAGE
PURLEM A T BOX CULVERT SAM~ T F O
PAR<ON
COUNTYMEMOR~AL PES~DER~
< . * . . ,' . :) 4 . . .
..--".
. ... 1:-
.... GM@
Y
~..M..llfi.a$eoCb~fl-t~-. v
Lkee..k.t . .
.
. .
-.. \ l . di e ~ a y.+.....
i
. 5 .SF
~c~
. .
.
. . .-
.
. . . . . . CHECKED . DATE
SEPARATION PAGE
T Presented By The Pescadero High School Students t
Forward
When the creek s t u d y w a s f i r s t proposed, m a n y s t u d e n t s
and teachers w e r e very unsure that the idea of s u c h a pro-
ject w o u l d w o r k . W e didn't ffiink there wouEd be enough
interested students to get a are& s t u d y off the g r o u n d . They
w e r e very wrong.
TFw idea behind Creek Day was to s p l i t t h school into
f o u r groups callad modules. W e s p e n t o n e d a y a w&
learning a b o u t d i f f e r e n t aspects of o u r watershed. T h s e
modules also & w e d us to apply o u r academic skilk to
situations involving real l i f e p r o b k m s .
Older s t u d e n t s w e r e mixed w i t h younger kids and out-
going s t u d e n t s w e r e mixed with less m o t i v a t e d students. %is
made it possible for f i e w o r k to be equaUy distributed.
I n the beginning s o m e of us had a hard time
with the concept of the project. %is w a s due to the f a c t fiat
w e w e r e n ' t s u r e w h a t o u r f i n a l product was supposed to be.
The staff insti[Ced t h e main idea of the project into us and
t u r n e d us loose. Tlris gave us the chance to f i n d uses f o r
o u r personal talents and b u r n f r o m th.e mistalks w e ma&
&ng the w a y .
A c o u n c d of wfiat thz stuff c a l k "Xay K i d s " was formed.
They discussed w h a t was going o n and what needed to
be changed. This w o r m well because everyone in the
school was given a c b n c e to s h a r e his or her i n p u t .
At o n e p o i n t d u r i n g the s t u d y a poK was taken to see
w h i c h m o d u k s w e r e favored. Both- of the "3ands O n "
modules, (f iekL w o r k at the creek and data o r g a n i z a t i o n ) were
ranked the highest.
Work w a s , u n f o r t u n a t d y , slow o n t h computers. There
seemed to be two major problems. One, we had to have two
or three students per computer. 7h.e second probbzm was that
we didn't have a set format w h n we started the g r a p h .
At tcle besinning of the study it was hard to see a way to
present a l l t b information we gathered. 7he s t u h n t s decided
to d o a written report, an oraL report, a coChge, a
topographical map, and a video documentary of tha creek.
study.
What you're about to read is tCre written report. It describes
what we studied over t h fourteen project days that were W.
We hope that this report w U give you an overview of w h t
went on during the study of Pescadero Creek. watershed.
Table oJ Contents
FCelcl Work.
Nitrates and Phosphates
7abCe A
TabCe B
tati is tics noduCe
Graph
Research Nmdulk
'Lntcsrview YLodule
c.a.K.P.
Field Trips
A p e n d i x ( G r a p h of flow r a w )
Crdits
Presentations
T ~ Jwhole
Z ere& Project started because o n e of o u r newest
teacfwrs, Steve YLasfieC, took an interest in the creefi. He h d
r e a d an a r t i c l e in the n e w s p a p w a b o u t another high school
that had cleaned u p their credi. 7 h e p r o b k m was f u n d i n g .
solution to th problem c a m e w h n mr. Ttaskd
teamed up with Denise VaiLLancourt and D o n n a m o r e . These
t w o w o m e n had researched m a n y A p p k g r a n t s . T h y h e w
t h y couCd get f u n d s if tCle school hud a good project o n which
to w o r k .
These, three p w p k s t a r t e d working together to write the
g r a n t . This g r a n t gave us six macintosh LC's, a S E f i l e server,
a laser printer, o n e CD $LO?%, and a LCD Display. Our side of
this d d was to d o the creek. s t u d y . W e w e r e to c o h t data in
and a r o u n d f i e creek. Then w e w e r e supposed to brinq
together and organize f i e i n f o r m a t i o n in s e v e r d d i f f e r e n t
f o r m s . W e decided to do f i v e things,: an o r a l report, a w r i t t e n
report, a coUuge, a topographical map, and vi&eo.
Soon a f t e r w e got the g r a n t , we star^ to explore the
creek.. O n o n e of our t r i p s to f i e creak, Tom Taylor (of the
CaCifornia Department of P a r k s and Recreation) c a m e with
us. 3 - k used an electro-shoclting device to see what we could
f i n d in the creek. This device is a r o d that sends electricity
through the w a t e r . It shocfted f i s h and insects. 7h-is stuns
h m briefty ants we c a n catch h m . T h r ~ u L t w s e r e very
s u r p r i s i n g and disappointing. AU w e f o u n d w e r e a f e w
Sculptor and Caddis f l y Larvae. Not m u c h considkring the
creek is a very i m p o r t a n t ecosystem. W e f e d t h e reuson f o r
this is we did the stwdy at t h very beginning of school, in the
faU. Everything was d y i n q o u t and t h cre& was clogged in
s o m e parts.
'Ln February w e had a flood that cleaned o u t creek a d
r e v i v e d it. The f b o d w a s a m a j o r break to o u r s t u d i e s . T h r e
w a s m u c h m o r e Life a f t e r t h e f b o d . W e f o u n d m a n y d i f f e r e n t
k i n d s of i n s e c t s , Water S t r i d e r s , C a d d i s Fties, ect. A l s o , w e
f o u n d m a n y fish incLuding SteeChead, T t i n n o w s , and m o r e
ScuLpin. The c r d w a s d i v e again for s p r i n g .
I n A p r i i w e received a p e r m i t to ins- a t r a p into t h e
creeA. W e b p t c o u n t s of the fish w e c a u g h t for e u c h 24 hour
period. W e c a u g h t m a n y s m a K S t d h m d , ScuLpin, L a m p r e y s ,
and a f e w C r a y f i s h . ' T h c h a r t oJ h s e n u m b e r s is in Table A.
Their sizes a r e charted: in 'Table 8 .
A n o t h e r t h i n g we did w a s c o m p i k an artworfi. book. It
c o n t a i n s t h e a r t of m a n y diff erent s t u d e n t s . W e did d r a w i n g s
of the i n s e c t s and fish w e f o u n d . W e &o sketcfud the f o r m s
of d i a t o m s f r o m t h e w a t e r s a m p h we collected f r o m h cr&
a f t e r viewing t h m u n d e r the microscope.
A f t e r this section is a report w e did concerning w a t e r
q u a l i t y . 'Lt m e a s u r e s Nitrates and Phosphates in o u r c r d .
N i t t - a t ~ sand P h o s ~ h a t ~ s
N i t r a m and phosphates a r e m a t e r i d s essential to a n y
f r e s h w a t e r h a b i t a t . They aid p l a n t g r o w t h , which is the
backbone of the Pescadero Creek. Too m u c h of these materials
c a n c a u s e an excess g r o w t h of algae in the water. When the
abundant algae c& die, a process caCled eutrophication or
decomposition tukes place. T h i s takes u p a big portion of the
dissolved oxygen, something that affects f i s h population
greatty . When there is less dissolved oxygen avaiCahCa, fish die
m o r e r a p i d l y . A m a n - m a d e source that n i t r a t e s and
phosphates h a v e in c o m m o n is f ertiCizer run-of f s. Since
Pescadero is a p r o m i n e n t f a r m i n g c o m m u n i t y , this test for
nitrates and p b s p k a t e s seemed practicaC.
Greg S a r a b i a , Cameron 12urray , and R y a n Hayes p i c l i d
f i v e spots d o n g t h e Pescadero CreeA. as areas f o r testinq. They
gathered a U of t h samples o n n a y 23,1992, in the m o r n i n g .
m e y started at the Pescadero Beach Ttarsh a r e a , w b r e the
highst n i t r a t e CeveCs w e r e recorded at 2.2 p a r t s per muion
(pprn). Next they progressed to the Pescadero High ScCtooL.
7% nitrate reading d r o p p e d to 0.88 p p m . Every w h r e e k e
w h e r e they tested , nitrogen lev& w e r e at 0 . 4 4 ppm. The
Phosphorous lev& w e r e at 0 . 1 p p m at every site they tested.
Tests o n th tap water at o u r school revealed a 0 . 4 4 p p m
nitrate and 0 . 1 pprn phosphate mark.
'Tha test had t w o noticeable f l a w s . Tha f i r s t was that &
levels of n i t r a t e s and p h s p h a ~ fsCuctuate of ten. I n a d d i t i o n ,
t h d a y that the e x p e r i m e n t took place was an extremely clear,
bright d a y with w a r m temperatures. Due to water
evaporation as w d as o t h r factors, the n u m b e r s might h v e
been off by s o m e degree. Further tests must be d o n e to f i n d a
m o r e precise r e s d t .
t
R e s u L t s 1
dJLM./ 'TYPE OF WATER N27MT'E?i ( p p m ) P 3 f . O S P (~p p
~m )
1. f l a r s h a r m at Pescadero Beacf~ 2.2 p p m 0.1 p p m
2. Peccadrro drqh S h d Area 1 .88 p p m 0.1 p p m
3 . D w h o r n ParL Road Area .44 p p m I 0.1 p p m -
4 . L o m a Plar Area .44 p p m 0.1 p p m

,
5 . r t e m o r d Park Area .44 p p m 0.1 p p m
6 . Tap W a w (at s c f i o d ) .44 p p m 0.1 p p m

Fish 1992 4127-511
100
90
80
70
r
U)
60
C
0 50
40
0
E 30
3
= 20
10
0
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
- r ~ ~ ~ c o m 0 . - N m w ~ ~ b ~ m 0 - w
,-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-wNc,J
Fish Length
Fish 1992 5117-5120
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O U O O
-rmahaaO.-NmTtmahaao.-N
,-,-,--F-,--.-.--NN~
Fish Length
Fish 1992 5112-511 6
O O O O O O O U O O O O O O O O O O O
w m m b ~ c n o F N m w m m b m c n 0 F N
.-.-.-.-.-.-F,-.-.-njl3Jnj
Fish Length
Fish 1992 5/5-5/8
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O U
wm~b~cno-nJ0wmCDr.~mo-N
.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-YNNN
Fish Length
Figure 2 s b w s a normal year
Figure 26 s h o w s a d r y year
Figure 32 s b w s a wet year
Figure 2
1952-53
a Monthly Average
-.-.+.-. 40 Year Average
Month
Figure 26
1976-77
rn Monthly Average
-.-.*.-. 40 Year Average
Month
Figure 32
1982-83
600 1
I Monthly Average
Month
Percent of Fish of a Certain Length
1.12%
1.25%
rT\ Flsh Length (cm)
The S t a t i stics YLodule
Ttrs. A j u r i a and Ttr. W f i i u m s h a v e had a g r e a t effect o n the
statistics m o d u k . Ttrs. A j u r i a t a u g h t us b w to g r a p h
statistics, and t h correct w a y to show them in Line graphs.
Ttr. Williams f u r h r e d this by teaching us to g r a p h o n the
12acintosh U:'s h t w e r e supplied by the Apple Computer
Grant.
7tte graphs are s p l i t into figures, each s h o w i n g the monthly
f l o w rate per y e a r . Represented in t h e graphs are the c r d ' s
monthly, yearly, and forty-year average of r a i n f a E . A X
graphs have been made in the same m a n n e r to show the
differences and similarities between them. The monthty
average is combined in t h e s a m e g r a p h with- the total forty
year average. This w a y each year c a n be c o m p a r e d to t h e
forty-year average easily.
Looking at the graphs, t h e years of d r o u g h t and f b o d s a r e
a p p a r e n t . 7he graphs have been compared and n o patterns
h a v e been f o u n d between the years of d r o u g h t and years of
f looding.
Since there w e r e no obvious patterns f o u d d u r i n g the 40 year
period, w e used probability as a modei to f i n d the chances
that beCow -normaC r a i n f a w o u l d occur in a series.
W e detarmined the probabiiity of a c e r t a i n n u m b e r of d r y
years in a r o w with the f o b w i n q v a r i a b h :
P(G) = probability of b d o w n o r m d years

a n u m b e r of years b&w n o r m d r a i n in a r o w
=
7 = tFw total years = 40
P(G) =.36
W e d e r i v d P(G) by looking at the qraphs and p u t t i n g the 40
years in categories of w e t , d r y , and n o r m d .According to the
w a y w e d e f i n e d n o r m a l , it c a m e o u t that there w e r e fewer
normal. years than d r y or w e t years. I n a d d i t i o n , we assumed
that the p r o b a b i l ~ t yof a w e t year is the same as a d r y year.
W e f o u n d there w a s a 47% chance that d r y years w o u l d occur
4 years in a r o w . W e h a v e f o u n d that it is L M y f o r the
foCbwinq to occur: There w o u l d be a b o u t a 20% chance for
exactiy S yyers in a r o w of b&w n o r m a l rainfaLC, a 7.3%
chance f o r 6 years in a r o w , and a 2.6% chance f o r 7 years in a
r o w of b&w normal rainfalX, w h i c h is a very sCim chance.
T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n is very u s e f u l to us. By a n d y z i n g the data
w e h a v e greater AnowCedge of the possibilities of extended
periods of above or balow normal. rainfaw.
7h.e graphs o n the following pages a r e s o m e e x a m p h of
typical w e t , d r y , and n o r m a l years.
Our research module was supervised by Tticfiud Schuster,
Tony Ttagagnini a d s t u h n t t e a c h r D a r r e n Spencer.
7h.a m o d u k s f i r s t meetings w e r e used to b r a i n s t o r m
ideas of wfiat i n f o r m a t i o n wouL5 be needed f o r o u r s t u d y .
O n c e we hud a goaL in mind w e w e r e given severaC ideas o n
how to o b t a i n it.
A m a j o r i t y of o u r i n f o r m a t i o n g a ~ r i n fa
g o n letter
writing a n d , m o r e often h n n o t , thz YeILOw Pages. W e
contacted the A r m y Corps of Engineering, the CoastaC
c o m m i s s i o n and tJw Department of P a r k s and Recrea-
tion, j u s t to n a m e a f e w that rmponded.
I n t r y i n g to f i n d background o n the c r d we ran into
a Cot of l a w s , p e r m i t s , and history, aU connected to o u r
CittLe c o m m u n i t y . me history that w e Cearned was the
m o s t interesting.(i.e. Pescadero used to h a v e a
J a p a n e s e c o m m u n i t y ; o u r town once was a p a r t of
mob activity. )
W e got a larqe portion of the history because of the
b r d w o r k of o u r Librarians, Barbara K r a m e r and 'June
.
Hurley ?knA.s, ladies.
Dr. David R e a r w i n and n a r y O h w e r e in churye of o u r
i n t e r v i e w m o d u l e . 7his m o d u l e w a s d e s i g n e d to teach
s t u d e n t s h o w to set u p an i n t e r v i e w . W e aCso learned what
q u e s t i o n s to a s h i f a n y d i f f i c u l t s i t u a t i o n s sCro& a r i s e .
S t u d e n t s w e r e g i v e n the o p p o r t u n i t y to w o r k with the v i d e o
c a m e r a s . Ttost s t u d e n t s had trouble being o n c a m e r a for m o r e
thun a f e w seconds. O h r s t u d e n t s s h o w e d a n a t u r a l taknt in
r h t i n g to tha c a m e r a .
W e u n f o r t u n a t d y lost Dr. R e a r w i n w h n " o p p o r t u n i t y
k n o c k e d " , b u t N a r y Healy stepped in to M p in o u r c o n t i n u d
e f f e r t s . W e learned how to carry o n a c o n s t r u c t i v e
c o n v e r s a t i o n o n controversial subjects. W e aCso w r o t e articles
and poems o n the Pescadero area.
in a year or t w o . ALSOit c a n tu b u p to t w o years to obtain the
permit needed to dredqe the C a d .
Unf ortunatdy w e were unabb to stay for tha whole meeting,
as they u s d y r u n for f i v e or six hours.
W e w o u l d LiAe to thank, C.5L.Tt.P.members for
spending thair v d u a b h time with us and expCaining
everytZring so cCearLy.
Netting F i s h
We went o n severaC e d u c a t i o d field trips during our
study of our waterslid. m e f Wtrips were usuaCty by
'Tony Tlhgagnini and T t i c M Schuster .
Our first fw trip was to Pescadero State Beach. We went

to net fish with TZr. Ttaskd and Sun 'Jose S t a t e BioCoqist Jerry
Smith.
7he weather was cold and windy and it even starte& to
rain. This didn't stop us from completing our task.
We used a huge fishing net to puU s e v w d dozen fish i n
from the lagoon. We measured them an& took scale sampks.
After we had gathered UU this information from the fish it
came time to rehmse h m . Tiis trip was very successful and
we aU had f u n .
We hope to b v e a f o k w up field trip and net i n the same
area to see if the same fish came back or if the numbers h v e
increased or decreased:.
Big Creek Lumber
7he n e x t f ieC& trip was to Big Creek Lumber. W e mixed
modules so that the groups w o d X n ' t be too s m d .
Big Creek's representative, B u d TtcCrary, w o r M as o u r tour
g u i d e to show us how the Cumber i n d u s t r y w o r W .
He showed us the m u w h r e aU the c u t t i n g of t h big Cogs
into d i f f e r e n t board sizes is done. 3 - k 60 s h o w e d us how they
got rid of f i e unusable wood.
At fiis p o i n t , Big CreefL gets m o s t of their Cogs f r o m
Dearborn P a r k and f r o m S a n Ttateo County Park..
Harvesting occurs d u r i n g the d r y season. I n the winter they
start doing the "clean-up" w o r k . Before y o u c a n do a n y
c h r i n g y o u need to get permits. A n y o n e with m o r e than three
acres of land must acquire a p e r m i t .
A f t e r the p e r m i t is obtained y o u must present y o u r p l a n s to
a B o a r d of Reviewers, (Fish and Game, Department of
Forestry etc.) to see if tCle p h n is environmentalCy s a f e or not.
Before the harvesting is started the forester must mark. the
trees that a r e going to be c u t d o w n . % forester also checks to
see if tha logging roads are safe.%is s y s t e m is used f o r 50% to
60% of hurvating.
Zt has 6een proven that Butano Creek's sedimentation h a s
n o t been affected by Cogging. Less than 1 percent of
s e d i m e n t a t i o n is caused by logging. This demonstrates f i e
effectiveness of the system.
The s e d i m e n t a t i o n of other cr&s due to logging is several
t i m e s w o r s e than the sedimentation of Pescadero Creek
watershed:.
The entire student body of Pescadero Hiqh School was
d b w d to sit in o n a Coordinated h o u r c a M a n a g e m e n t
Planniy (C.R.1Z.P.) meeting. C.R.1Z.P. gets t o g e m r to
d i s c u s s what is going o n with o u r creeks and what to do
a b o u t a n y p r o b h r n that s h o u l d arise.
Zt was the f i r s t time that a m e e t i n g of this m a g n i t u d e
took p h e , f o r students and C.R.N.P. m e m b e r s alike.
Participants included a U.S. Corps E n g i w r , a soiL and
erosion specialist, a m e m b e r of tCre U.S. geological s t u d y ,
t w o P e s c d e r o C o m m u n i t y CounciC Members and s e v e r d local
b u s i n e s s m e n . Rich CasaCe of the U.S .D .A. Conservation Service
acted as c h a i r m a n .
Before the meeting got s t a r t e d , S a s c h a B r o w n g a v e a
speech o n what we'd been d o i n g during CreefL D a y . This
brought the C .R.TI..P. m e m b e r s up to date o n what was
happening a d let them know o u r l e v d of understand-
i n g whereas tha cr& was c o n c e r d .
' ?w b y issue of t
J b meeting was the sedimentation
b u U - u p of B u t u n o creek. The sedimentation has buiCt up
six to eight f e e t due to logging and nuturd erosion. As a
result of t h i s ; the n u m b e r of m a n y species in the creek. is
dropping.
Dredging with bulldozers seems to be best s o l u t i o n . B u t
t b r e is an dternate solution. W e c o u l d start at the top of the
creek and w o r k d o w n . The problem i s that the top w U be
j a m m e d a g a i n before we get to the bottom.
D r d g i n g with b u W o z e r s s o u n d s r d y good b u t it w o n ' t
work. o n a long term basis. The sediment wiU be buiCt u p again
[Beach Fidd Trip
We boarded th busses the third time to go to t4i.a coast.
The first stop was to Pescadero State Beach w b r e we had
two main objectives. One was to see Crow much sediment
6uW-up thrzre was at the mouth of Pescadero Crdi.7h.e second
was to b o b at the enormous amount of "stuff" h t was
caught up a n d carried down during the February flood. We
found things LiAa skateboard rarnps a n d garbage cans.
We reboarded the busses a n d went to the bridge by the firs-
station. There we scouted around to see what kinds of flora
and f a u n a depend on the creek.. We a b o observed the bank
veqetution that provides adequate grounds for steelhead
spawning.
After this stop we ventured o n to the Butano Cut-Of f bridge.
There we studied th different water Lines on the bank.
T h f ourffi and f i n d field t r i p w a s to the Outdoor I X u c a t i o n
t r a i n i n g f aciLities.
W e were taken o n a tour through the redwoods and given a
very i n f o r m a t i v e lecture o n logging. B u d YLcCrary, of Big C r d
Lumber Company, was very cooperative whiLe leading the
tour.
W e were s h o w n how an incremant bore is used to f i n d h e
a g e of trees. H e e x p h i n e d t h t s d w t i v e harvesting is used to
take o n e t r m o u t of every f o u r in a stand. Zach redwood stand
c a n produce h u n d r d of suckers, so that t h e e n d of o n e
generation b q i n s anothar.
L
' n order to h a v e a negative effect o n a tree's g r o w t h you
must h a v e s e v e r d years of drought. And yet, w h e n a tree is
exposed to s u n t i g h t , the tree c a n grow f i v e t i m e s larger.
Figure 1
1951-52
Y Monthly Average
Month
Figure 2
1952-53
-
Y Monthly Average
Month
Figure 3
1953-54
Monthly Average
-.-..+.-. 40 Year Average
Month
Figure 4
1954-55
Y Monthly Average
Month
Figure 5
1955-56
Id Monthly Average
-.-.+ .-. 40 Year Average
Month
Figure 6
1956-57
-
u Monthly Average
-.-.t'-.
40 Year Average
Month
Figure 7
1957-58
-
-.-.* .-.
Monthly Average
40 Year Average
Month
Figure 8
1958-59
- Monthly Average
Month
Figure 9
1959-60
Y Monthly Average
-.-* .-. 40 Year Average
Month
Figure 10
1960-61
Y Monthly Average
""f '-. 40 Year Average
Month
Figure 11
1 9 6 1- 6 2
,A Monthly Average
""f .-. 40 Year Average
Month
Figure 12
1962-63
600
500
C
400
0
V
Y Monthly Average
aJ
300 ""f.-. 40 Year Average
a
I
-g
I+.
200
100
Month
Figure 13
1963-64
b. Monthly Average
""*.-. 40 Year Average
Month
Figure 14
1964-65
Y Monthly Average
---*-- 40 Year Average
Month
Figure 15
1965-66
b4 Monthly Average
""fa-.
40 Year Average
0
> L -a , " $
i
.
5
Z ' I 7 7 <
Month
Figure 16
1966-67
L Monthly Average
-.-a- .-. 40 Year Average
- Z
T T
Month
Figure 17
1967-68
-
A
U)
U
V
400 -
P) Y Monthly Average
300-
a -.-a* .-. 40 Year Average
-
L
200-
7 - 7- 7
8 $ 8 , L , :, , , -o, , = , D J -
L L A C
Month
Figure 18
1968-69
Monthly Average
""f .-. 40 Year Average
Month
Figure 19
1969-70
-
I Monthly Average
-.-.* .-. 40 Year Average
Month
Figure 20
1970-71
IMonthly Average
Month
Figure 21
1971-72
Monthly Average
--.*.-a 40 Year Average
Month
F i g u r e 22
1972-73
Monthly Average
Month
Figure 23
1973-74
ad Monthly Average
Month
Figure 24
1974-75
-
""f .-.
Monthly Average
40 Year Average
Month
Figure 25
1975-76
.4 Monthly Average
.-. 40 Year Average
Month
Figure 26
1976-77
1
Y Monthly Average
-.-sf .-. 40 Year Average
Month
F i g u r e 27
1977-78
-
.
d Monthly Average
Month
F i g u r e 28
1978-79
Y Monthly Average
-. 40 Year Average
Month
F i g u r e 29
1979-80
Y Monthly Average
-.-.*.-a 40 Year Average
Month
F i g u r e 30
1980-81
U Monthly Average
40 Year Average
----t.-.
Month
Figure 33
1983-84
Monthly Average
Month
Figure 34
1984-85
-
rn Monthly Average
Month
Figure 35
1985-86
- u Monthly Average
Month
Figure 36
1986-87
I Monthly Average
-"-.-a 40 Year Average
Month
Figure 37
1987-88
ad Monthly Average
-5
LA.
200 j
Month
Figure 38
1989-90
-
-.-.+.-.
Monthly Average
40 Year Average
Month
Figure 39
1989-90
. Monthly Average
Month
F i g u r e 40
1990-91
IMonthly Average
Month
W r i t t a n %port
Title Page-Kier B r o w n
F o r w a r d - S h a u n Dow , EmiCy TtcXae, PLdissa CastUo, and ?%at
Simms
Creeft S t u d y - E m i l y f i T t c 3 , Greg S a r a b i a , a d Ryan 3Cuyes
C o m m u n i c a t i o n s - S h a u n Dow , EmiCy N c k and Kier B r o w n
R e s e a r c h - S h u n Dow
S t a t i s t i c s - S h i h Bruce, TtarisoC O r t q a , Chris IZeyer, D u s t i n
Sy manski, Erin D e n n i s , and H u m b e r t o T t o c t e z u m a
C.R.1Z.P.- S h a u n D o w n and Z m d y TtcXae
Field Trips- TtarisoL Ortega, Greg S a r a b i a , &x 3-Cacb-SedUo1
and S h u n Dow
Presentations- S h a u n Dow , E m i i y X-cXae, and K i e r B r o w n
ORAL REPORT
Presentation- SascCux B r o w n
Script- (iloria P i k , SascCla B r o w n , and Kier B r o w n
vzam
T a p i n g BucUy D u d k r , R o s a B a r a j a s ,
Sound LauraRuhs,OdaXaeton,
E d i t i n g and T t a t S i m m s
COLLAGE
coLLElge- A m y Bloornquist, N&Li P w r y , and IZicheUk S a r a b i a
m P o ~ a a 3 - c z c l a NAP
L
Fabrication- T t a t S i m m s , A v d i n o N a v a r r o , Scott R a , &x
H a c b - S d i l l o , Aimee R i c h , Erin D e n n i s , and S h u n n o w
SPECIAL THANKS
.
IZr NasW ( f o r rn&ing it aC1 possible)
Kier B r o w n ( f o r putting it d together)
S h a u n D o w ( f o r cracfiing t4i.a whip)
Emily TtcXee (for correcting S h u n )
Logan P a y w (for supervisinq tCre video project)
Rita Cihbr (for supevising tFm photography sessions )
Ttr. Benetua (for advising the topographicaC m a p project)
Presentations
%is cocludes our report and we hope you learned from
a n d enjoyed tCre study of the Pescadero C r h watershed. T h s e
other presentations were 60 made from t h z information
g a t h r d in the creek. study. We urge you to take the time to
see what they are about if y o u haven't already.
7he o r d report is a verbal run-thru of what we di&
during the CreeR. Day study. 7he final work was done by
S a s c h Brown, a r i a p i k , and Kier Brown.
7he 3x7 f o o t collaqe was put toqetCrer from pictures t d k n
during & Project. Volunteer Rita Cihlar supervisd while
students got the chance to take photographs of flood damage
and f Wtrips. 7he finished product came from the
imagination of Amy Bbomquist, 3 Z U i Peery , a n d ?"LZichelle
Sarabia.
7he topogaphicaC map was part of Steve ?tuskd's master
p b n . % wanted a scale modd of the Pescadero Watershed
arm.
Euch layer of the map represents 2 0 0 feet of ekvation.
7he worfi was SLOW due to the need for precise measurement
and caref d pbnning .
The r e g h r workers Ttat Simms, Rvdino Navarro, Scott
Rids, and Aimee R i d s we're grateful for d C the hdp that
" wandered; in ".
Our vi&eo of t h P e s c h r o CreefL project seems to give
observers the best feel for what went o n . Logan Payne
volunteered h r time to t u b f i e Senior C l a s s under her wing
and teach them tlw differnet aspects of video. 7he Seniors
learned how to run the camera, set up the right shots, work
with sound, a n d f i n a U y d i t the whole tape. Seniors involved
in the f i n d production were Rosa Barajas, BucACey Duher,
Ozeda h t o n , Laura Ruelas, and Rat Simms .
SEPARATION PAGE
Fish Trap Report
Pescadero High School

June 2, 1994
Students at Pescadero High School installed and maintained a weir in
Pescadero Creek on school district property for the thud year in a row.
Trapping. began on may 5 th and ended on May 2 7 th.
During the trapping period, a total of 73 8 steelhead (including 7 adults), 74

prickly sculpin, 2 9 Pacific lamprey, 11 California roach, 4 Three-Spined
Sticklebacks, and 5 Coho (silver) salmon were captured. Figure 1 shows
the percentages of each species caught during our trapping season.
All fish were idenufied by species, sized, checked for black spot disease,
and returned to the creek. In the case of steelhead, the fish was classified
into smolt of non-smolt catagories . See Figure 2 for a comparison of smolt
to non-smolt sizes. If the steelhead was adult a scale sample was taken
and the sex of the fish was determined. Scale samples from our collection
have been sent to the Department of Fish and Game for analysis. See Figure
3 for a graph of the daily steelhead catch and Figure 4 for a bar graph of
the type of steelhead captured per day (i.e. smolt, non-smolt, or adult ).
Daily tally sheets are included at the back of this report.
It appears that we captured the first coho salmon juveniles in Pescadero

Creek since 1984. The first three cohos were idenufied by Chuck Moore
and Loren Hill on Saturday, May 7th. The next was identified and
photographed by Steve Maskel and his family on May 14th. The final coho
was captured and identified by David Penrey-Fowler on May 22nd. After
discussions with Dr. Jerry Smith and Jennifer Nelson regarding the field
identification of the coho juveniles, it appears rather certain that the
identifications were correct.
The trap operated very efficiently with some modifications in its design
which were accomplished by Peter Panofsky and Dustin Syrnanski. The
central wire mesh core within the trapping box was redesigned so that it
could be readily removed, allowing easy access to the trap and also
minimizing the chance of injuring the trapped fish.
During 1992 and 1993 the trap was situated at a point removed from
nearby roads in a deep pool protected by a grove of alders. That site
became unworkable when the young alders were cut down and no deep
pool remained after the winter rains. Furthermore, the privacy of the trap
was compromised when a barking guard dog was placed near the r a p .
This year's trap was located closer to the Butano Cutoff Bridge and it was
therefore somewhat more accessible.
Vandalism and poaching struck our trap for the first time in three years.
During the weekend of May 14th the trap was taken apart and lifted onto
the bank of the creek. Later the uap box was tumbled back into the the
creek. Several juvenile steelhead were killed and one lamprey. One week
later the lock on the box was broken off. After that we decided to stop
trapping and remove the weir from the creek.
Jennifer Nelson has suggested that she will provide a more efficient trap
with a larger diameter hose connection to the trapping box. She also made
some suggestions for trap security that we will employ next year.
Figure 1 Percentage of Fish Species in Total Catch
Steelhead
Prickly Sculpin
Pacific Lamprey
California Roach
Three-Spined Stickleback
Coho Salmon
Figure 2 Size comparison of smolts verses non smolts (5117194)
Figure 3 Number of Steelhead Caught Each Day
Dates in May 1994 --I)-- Number of Steeihead

Figure 4 Types of Steelhead Captured
125
Days in May 1994 Steelhead Caught

r ! z p !' w e - - d , f -1 1
-- T
Ff5c-c-eP - I
~ ht
7f , AJT, c , G,, r d d V a
-3
7 .+
. .- 0" 3
1
9 '0=
! ij 1 I
I
I
'I ~1
II
i I
:I I
I I II I/ I/
I I/ I/ I
/
I , I ! / / 1 i
2
3 . h . 1
I
*
1 I j ~ , ;
j 1
,
' I ;
I
I
I
11 j
i i ! I1 I 11 ~ V' !
1
I Il ~
12 1
I
/
: !
I i_ I 1 I
I , - I,
I I
I / : I
I/ I ,!
131 . / i I 1 8 ,
1 1 Il
I
i I
I
I
I 1 I
1 1 : I 1 /I i ' I 1 I1 1 1 I 1
14
1- I l j
: jl
I
1 1 (
,
I i ' I
I /
I
15 / I ) I / j 1 ,
I j i i l I/ : I 8 ! ! 1 II i l 1 i I
: ./ / : # I I I ! ! I
,1
I !
16 I
I
I
# ; j j i iI I I I I '
I
1
I
I : /
17
j. I t . 1
18 1 I 1 1 1 i 1 i 1 I : : I
' 1 1 1 1 1 , 1
I
i / ; I I ' I
/ I I I j / / I 1 : I i : I 1 1 1 1 I : / j j ; ;
20
2l / I / 1 j / i / i 8 I / , 1 1 i 1 !
1
I
I 1 1 1 I I I ) < ,
I I
1
j 1 11 ~ Ij
' 1 i , :, ~I!
' I !
22 1 1 1
! I ; : l ' , /
23
1
/
i , i i 1 ;,
I
I
I I I/ i 1 I I '
1 / / 1 Ii
1 1 1 I 1 ! I
I I
, 8
I
. ,
' I
1 , ' I
I
I
1
I
,
i ,
/ : I
I
i 1
8 ,
I
I
1 ,
1 i ' 1 1 1 1 I I !! /
, / I
1 I
I ,, 5 ,
; 1
1 ' I / /
t 1 1
1 ,
28 1 1 1 1 ' I
/ I /
, I
I ! /
29 I ! ! / I , ,
I ! !,
I
, m
I I ,
I
' I ,
I
, I l l
l j ,:I I , i t
32
1 , 1 ; '
1 'J
. , ! ,! I, ',
! i[i(fT 1
1
(
j
I 4
8
i l l
1 1
I , ( / I
I!) I 1
; i /
' , Ii ! ' 1 1
, . , 1 1 ; I
I
/ I
I
, , . I
!
I
1 '
" / 4I I '
; . I ( I ( ,
1
, I I I~ I i I ' : I . , )
, ' j
8
1 :
,
, ,
I
!
,
I ! ' I
, , I :,I:: , , I
' 1 , , j I ; / : I : : /
-- -
-
-
-
-
-.
71;. 5/24 lcic

- ;T;-Z@
' 'A-
3 4 5 8 9 'U
il I I
(
--
~l ~1
~ ~,:/b-d~ l l $0G ~ +:!
I I I
bf- +LL,&-, r-4,tF

P
4
I.I,I #I
ii ,;YL&-d 'i/ I. I!
'i
-P C ~ ~ E CQT I
1' <&eiU ;I : 1 ! 1 j ; / / . I 1 I I I 1) j I I
1
i ! !
''1
I I I ' I
I
1 -i / 1 1 1 i , , I I ~i i I 1 . 11 '
iIns7.j'kI
! ! t I , , , I / i ,i i
1 ~ 9 ~ 7 , ukj l 0 , 5 i P Y ~ ~I Z 1 '
i j i b t 7 a j *i ~
2 3i 1 1
2 i i , i : 11 ; , ; i i
1 , 1 I
! !
I 1
il II l ; i !
II ' '
I
!
'
, !
i ;
1 i 1) i , (!
' I
7 I/ ' j
. ,
1 : : i /, 1 1 1 / . ~ 1
, I ' i 1 i, , /
, ,
'
I
I 1
I '
I / !
1: ; I t I
1 I
!1 . / / / I,,, 1
11
i
l i ; ! , .,
1 ' . 1
-9 i / ~ i i i 1, , 1
1
1
1
I
8
i
. ,
i I
I
i I , . l 1 , I , 1 I I /
l o j m ,
1
I ,
.
,
~
i
1
I : /. I I i
I ~ !
/ / 1 ' 1 ;
11 1 .
I .
.
1
I
' 1
1 ' 1 , I/ ( 1 r ' 1 I
I , I, I ii I // 1
12 i
I
,
i
I
I
I
, ,
i 1. i! I !
I / !
I 1
I
I I 1 , ,
,
1
; / 11 ' 1 I
! I I I ! ; , ,
I I II I/
13 ! I I
14 I 1 I i ! I 1 1 , !I I
,
i
:
i I ;I
I
I ~i
15
I
' I : 1 ; I I I I
\
I
I 1 ; I 1 ' 1 I _ I i i
1B . : I / i I: I
8 I
I' I
, ,
1 I I , i
17
, i I j ( / i I ,,l.:i i 1 I 1 i I I, , , j
18
,
i
I
i / I I ' I
1 I , I; /, , / j , !
1
I 1 ,
,
1 1 1 i : I I ,
I::] I I
i
/ / I (1 1 ; 1
I
1 , I
: I I 1 1 ,
I / )
I
19 I
! I I
! I I 1
1
I / ,8 ,
1
,
, ! i : : ~
, #
1 /
,
1 1 1 1,
4 , , < > 1 8 I I
.
201 I , I ; I ! 1 : i
,
i , , I I , /
21 j : i . 1 1 ,/I , \,,I I 1 1 i / / / ' 1 1 I

I i (1 I
,
;
1
(
'
22 , ; 1 1 /I i , i ! . ~ I 1
I
I 1
, ,
1
I
I
23 1 / ' 1 I
/
I ! I i i 1)I 1 I I I
24: ,
I
1 i
,
1
1 1
I I i i i ! / , , /
I
1 1 1 i
I !
251 1 ! I 1_ i l l 1 i i 1 i 1 ~ i
1 I ! 1 : ' I 1I
26l ' I 1 I
I 1 r ,
, ,
i l
I /I ' : ; I / I ' ~ I 1 ' I , ,
I ! ,
,
,
.1
1 1 1 I
i l l
1 : I 1 !
8 8
: I ' , , I
(
I 8 8 ! 1 I 1 1
, ,
27 - -- I i l ! I ' , 8
'
' ! 8 8
2, I i I I li: 1 . 1 1 i 1 1 , ; I / i I i 1
, I )
I
' i
/ ! ) I
I
29
I
: '
I I/ ( 1
.
i
j
/ I
: ~ / ; I 1 / I ! ' - 1 '
$ 1
1 ;
$1
I I
, ,
1 1 ; I 111 ijlliLIy.!8 : , I 1 ,
' I
, I
1 ' I
30 I l i , 8
I
I : i/ , 8 \ , , I
3 l p @ b id) 1 . ! !!
,II , 1 1 I1
;I I/ / !1 I / I
/ I
1
i l l I
I " ! !i
/I I 1 I
1 1
I ,
32 ( i i / l i i / I i t - 1 1 , ! I 1 1 1 /1 ,j I ! I /
;;I / I/
I . I !
I ! jI , I
!8 , 1 I
I ) : I I!/
1 :
8
33 ~ ' ; ! j !, ' , '

8 ,
, , , : ( 1
~ ~* . $ ~I i b jt l
l j
34 1 1 i -. : I 1 i i i 1 1 -
35 l i i f 1 ';I I , , I
' I ' I [ I ! i i I
1 1
-
!
j
,
I
1 1)
I
' , I i
! I 1 1 , I ; I
I , , i 1
I
!, I /I I
I I
I
;i !i / i
!
I 1 , ,
I ! i I '
I
i 1 / '
! 8
I 1 , ' , j , j 1
i j :
1 1
I : I I I i / i 1 , :,
, I
I
1 I I / I 1 I I / I 1 1 j ~ 1 , , . l /
I I : j 1 ; j : : ~
SEPARATION PAGE
Butano Creek: Sedimentation and Flooding
Status Report
and
Report on Actions 1990-1996
Prepared for:
Pescadero Municipal Advisory Council
and
Pescadero Creek Watershed
Coordinated Resource Management and Planning (CRMP)
Prepared by: Kristen Schroeder, Project Manager
January 1997
Purpose of this report
The purpose of this report is to summarize the various planning efforts and actions
taken between 1990 and 1996 to address flooding and sedimentation problems in
Butano Creek. This report goes on to make several recommendations that build on
community concerns and serve as points of focus for future discussions by members of
PMAC and the Pescadero CRMP. A list of pertinent Pescadero-Butano references is
included.
Background
With a watershed area of 21 square miles, Butano Creek is the largest tributary to
Pescadero Creek in San Mateo County. Both Pescadero and Butano creeks flow into
Pescadero Marsh, which encompasses over 500 acres of salt, brackish and freshwater
habitats. Much of Pescadero Marsh is owned by the California Department of Parks
and Recreation and managed as a natural presewe. Most of the Butano Creek
watershed is privately owned, including timberlands, residential properties, and
agriculture.
Sedimentation and flooding affect the lower reaches of Butano Creek, with impacts
ranging from periodic flooding at Pescadero Road to notable aggradation of the bed of
Butano Creek and Pescadero Marsh. The causes of these significant changes in both
channel capacity and habitat conditions are a complex and variable mix of historic and
current land use, bank erosion, geologic setting of the watershed, seismic uplift and
changing sea levels. And while there is general agreement about many of the natural
forces at work in the watershed, there is no overall practical agreement on management
strategies to deal with the cycle of erosion, sedimentation, and localized flooding.
Butano Creek originates at elevations over 2,000' and then flows westerly through
steep canyons at gradients ranging from 15 feet per mile to 1000 feet per mile. When
Butano Creek intercepts the San Gregorio-Hosgri fault, the course turns abruptly
northwest, flowing at gradients of less than 15 feet per mile (Curry et al., 1985). This
lower reach of Butano Creek between the alder thicket and the confluence with
Pescadero Creek, is the area subject to flooding and sedimentation.
Since the December 1955 storm, excessive sedimentation in the Butano Creek channel
has aggraded the lower channel between six and nine feet, especially in the reach with
the Pescadero Road crossing (Curry et al., 1985; Williams 1990). As a result, with
increasing frequency, Butano Creek exceeds bankfull capacity upstream of Pescadero
Road and flows across its floodplain, inundating adjacent properties and Pescadero
Road. The flooding of Pescadero Road poses a health and safety concern for the town
of Pescadero during storm events, since the road serves as the primary access to
Highway 1 for the community.
Excessive sedimentation in Butano Creek can be largely attributed to intensive logging

in the 1950's and 60's (Osterling 1987, Curry 1985). The advent of tractors allowed the
construction of logging and haul roads in areas that had been inaccessible to oxen
teams in the late 1800's. Much of the watershed was clearcut, since logging was
largely unregulated prior to 1973 passage of the Z'berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act.
Erosion and sedimentation resulted from unprotected soils, wide haul roads (30-40')
built adjacent to creeks, uncompacted road cuts and fills, stream degradation by using
stream channels as haul roads, and excess logging debris that later created log jams
and diverted streams causing streambank erosion.
Channel incision through the middle reaches of Butano Creek is another major source
of sediment (Curry et al., 1985; Williams, 1990). Early logging may have instigated this
channel incision, but removal of large woody debris that can act as grade stabilizing
structures and armoring of streambanks in the Butano Canyon reach may also
contribute to incision (Sollars, personal communication). Williams (1990) estimated that
"assuming that the pre-incision Butano Creek channel meandered through alluvial fill at
the level of the remaining terraces, approximately 500,000 cubic yards of alluvium have
been eroded since the incision began. Channel incision may be continuing, however,
since the channel has reached bedrock in several locations, the rate has probably
slowed (Williams and Swanson, 1988 as cited in Williams 1990, p. 14).
Other factors, including geology, the drought, the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake and
rising sea levels are most likely contributing to excessive sedimentation in the lower
watershed. Pescadero and Butano creeks have high background sediment rates due
to the steep topography of the watershed, marine derived soils, and local faulting and
uplift. Curry et al. (1985) contends that the geology of the Butano watershed has
resulted in estimated sediment delivery rate five times greater than Pescadero Creek
watershed, which has a drainage area four times greater. In addition, excessive .
sediment loads have been observed throughout the Santa Cruz Mountains in the past
few years, and may be attributed to several years of drought in the late 1980's that
reduced vegetative cover in the region (Barry Hecht, personal communication). In
addition, the Loma Prieta earthquake of 1989 may have re-activated landslides and
slips and created cracks that allows surface flow to penetrate subsoils (Barry Hecht,
personal communication).
In a geologic time-frame, this sedimentation is a natural process, but is occuring at a
greatly accelerated rate in the watershed. Indeed, coastal marshes such as Pescadero
Marsh are ephemeral features in the long-term geologic time-frame. The marsh has
been created by rising sea levels, that caused aggradation of sediment in the former
creek canyon.
"Pescadero Marsh assumed its current form approximately 5,000 years ago. During the
last ice age, sea level was more than 300 feet lower than it is now, and the present site
of the lagoon was a canyon, perhaps a 100 feet deep ...About 11,000 years ago, sea
level began to rise rapidly as glaciers melted, and sediments carried down by Pescadero
and Butano Creeks began to fill the canyon in. As sea level approached its current level
about 5,000 years ago and the canyon filled, the lagoon and wetland began to assume
its current form.. (and) has probably been in approximately the same place of several
thousands of years." (Williams 1990, p. 5 )
However, despite this long-term perspective, these processes have been greatly
accelerated through short-term catastrophic land use (logging in the 1950's) and long-
term development (roads, farms in the floodplain, channelization, housing, water
diversions) (Williams, 1990).
In addition, current land-use practices will continue to contribute to sediment loads in

Butano Creek. Any development, including residential and ranch roads, agriculture,
and logging, can increase erosion.,
The State Water Resources Control Board has identified non-point source
sedimentation as the primary water quality problem in the Pescadero-Butano watershed
(SWRCB 1990). Excess sedimentation (mainly sand) has been identified by California
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) as an important factor limiting habitat for coho
salmon and steelhead (Nelson and Anderson 1996). Coho salmon have been state
listed as endangered and federally listed as threatened in the Butano Creek watershed.
California Dept. of Fish and Game has identified Butano Creek for coho reintroduction.
Actions to address flooding and sedimentation between 1990 and 1996
This section describes actions taken by various organizations and agencies to address
flooding and sedimentation in Butano Creek watershed from the period of I990 to
1996.
Coastal Conservancy Grant. In 1991, the California Coastal Conservancy granted

funds to the San Mateo County Resource Conservation District for the demonstration of
'
stream maintenance and debris jam removal techniques. The project utilized San
Mateo County's Sheriffs Honor Crew to modify and remove debris jams with hand tools
(chainsaws, etc.) While much of the project focused on clearing debris jams on
Pescadero Creek, two sections of Butano Creek (100' and 50') were cleared under this
grant in 1993.
The work, completed in 1993, demonstrated several important concepts. First of all,
crews working with hand tools were effective at modifying and removing debris jams,
which eliminated streambank erosion that typically results from the use of heavy
equipment. Second, the project demonstrated how contributions by local organizations,
such as the Sheriffs Honor Crew, and local property owners, can greatly increase the
work accomplished with a grant. Third, the project benefited from agencies involvement
with the CRMP; agency representatives were familiar with the project and able to
facilitate the permitting process for the project. Fourth, removal of log jams on
Pescadero Creek reduced the flood hazard in downtown Pescadero.
Pescadero Creek Watershed Coordinated Resource Management and Planning

(CRMP). When the Pescadero Watershed Coordinated Resource Management and
Planning process was initiated in 1990, flooding and sedimentation of both Butano and
Pescadero creeks were identified as a primary resource concern to address through
this process. In 1993, the project manager and CRMP chair organized the Butano
Working Group to facilitate solution of flooding and sedimentation of Butano Creek.
Through the 319 Grant (1993-1996), a Rural Road Management Workshop was
developed and sponsored to educate private landowners about road maintenance and
erosion control. In addition, a roadside demonstration project was implemented to test
the effectiveness of native vegetation to control erosion and reduce the use of
herbicides on road-cuts. Five treatments will be monitored over the next several
winters.
Butano Working Group. Between November 1993 and spring 1994, the Butano
Working Group met to discuss and select treatment options to address flooding of
Butano Creek at Pescadero Road, and sedimentation in Butano Creek. Organized
through the Pescadero-Butano Watershed CRMP, this group was composed of various
CRMP and community members. Options discussed included raising Pescadero Road,
pursuing an Army Corps of Engineers Section 208 treatment, and dredging the
channel. A public meeting to present and discuss treatment options was held in
Pescadero 6 June 1994 at the Russell Administration Center in Pescadero; the Butano
Working Group did not meet again following this public meeting. (Two copies of Butano
Working Group participants, meeting agendas and notes from the Butano Working
Group have been given to PMAC).
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The NRCS has served as the
sponsoring agency for the Pescadero Creek Watershed CRMP. Rich Casale, District
Conservationist, has served as CRMP chair and participated in the Butano Working
Group.
NRCS prepared a Forest Stewardship Plan for the Dias property, encompassing 220
acres immediately adjacent to lower Butano Creek. In addition, NRCS developed
several conservation plans for highly erodable landsfields through the Food Security
Act.
Army Corps of Engineers. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has two
programs that could be involved in solving the flooding problem along Butano Creek: (1)
Section 205 and (2) Section 208.
Section 205: In 1989, the Corps completed a Section 205 reconnaissance study for
flood control improvements along Pescadero and Butano creeks. This study proposed
three different plans for Pescadero Creek that included different combinations of
floodwalls, concrete bypass channels and channelization. The plan also proposed
flood control for Butano Creek consisting of levees
In November 1990, following a series of meetings between the County and Corps
personnel and the community, the County decided not to endorse further more detailed
studies (on either Pescadero or Butano Creek). A letter from the San Mateo County
Board of Supervisors in December 1990 requested that the Corps terminate activity in
the Pescadero area.
If the county is interested in further pursuing a Section 205 solution, the Board of
Supervisors'would need to write a letter modifying their previous letter. The next step
would be to proceed to a cost-shared feasibility study; the County would be expected to
pay 50% , of the which the County may expect local residents to pay 50% (or 25% of
the total cost). The actual project construction would require a 25% local match from
the County of San Mateo.
Section 208: Another option for pursuing Corps involvement in solving the flooding
problem would be to pursue a Section 208 treatment. Section 208 provides a one-time
only funding mechanism for clearing and snagging or channel excavation and
improvement. All Corps projects must be justified on a cosvbenefit basis; a feasibility
study evaluates the costlbenefit of the project and provides details on project design.
The feasibility study for a Section 208 project requires a cost-share with the County of
San Mateo of 50%, of which the County may expect local residents to pay 50% (or 25%
of the total cost). ~ollowingthe feasibility study, the Corps would require the County to
pay 25% of the actual project costs. This process could take many years; the feasibility
study for the Section 205 treatment took five years to complete. In addition, the
community would have to guarantee maintenance of the project.
-
State Parks Pescadero Marsh Natural Preserve-Pescadero. Since 1993, State
Parks have been implementing components of a Pescadero Marsh restoration plan.
Several of these components could reduce flooding of Butano Creek upstream by
providing additional area for floodwaters. Levees along lower Butano Creek have been
removed along the west side. An additional one mile of levee along the east side of .
Butano Creek will be removed in the summer of 1997. When the mouth is open, water
is allowed to flow through a culvert into North Pond, increasing the flooded area of the
marsh.
Big Creek Lumber. Since 1990, when they acquired timberland property in the Butano
Creek watershed, Big Creek Lumber has implemented a number of erosion control and
sediment removal projects. Big Creek Lumber has removed 4 dirt and log bridges and
replaced 3 of them with flatcar bridges. The last bridge, along with over 1,000 cubic
yards of sediment, was removed in summer 1996. Six humboldt crossings were
removed; these stream crossings were abandoned. Big Creek Lumber has prepared
an erosion control plan for the access road along the North Fork, and has rocked and
implemented erosion control measures along five miles of this road. Two miles of
infrequently used road have been mulched and seeded; an additional 2.5 miles of road
will be mulched and seeded summer 1997.
San Mateo County Department of Public Works. Through its participation in the
Butano Working Group, Public Works has considered raising Pescadero Road as one
part of a solution to address flooding on Pescadero Road. However, the method used
to raise Pescadero Road may create other problems. For example, raising Pescadero
Road simply by increasing the height of the road bed could exacerbate the flooding on
Level Lea Farms. In addition, this would create a low spot east of the current problem
area, which could still flood Pescadero Road and different property owners during big
storm events. Raising the road and installing culverts through the road bed would
institutionalize the current path of floodwaters across adjacent properties. Raising the
road by extending a bridge would also institutionalize the current path of the floodwaters
and could be very expensive.
Public Works has plans to raise Bean Hollow Road near the CDF station to reduce
flooding of that road.
Peninsula Open Space Trust (P.O.S.T.). In 1996, P.O.S.T. acquired an option to

purchase the 5,200 acre Cloverdale Ranch, lies partially in the Butano Creek
watershed. A management plan will be prepared for the property in 1997.
Discussion of channel dredging for Butano Creek
Dredging the channel of Butano Creek has been presented repeatedly as an option for
addressing sedimentation and flooding of Butano Creek. Dredging was proposed as
part of the Pescadero Marsh Enhancement Plan (Williams 1990), was discussed
through the Butano Working Group, and is seen as a viable option within the
community.
However, as stated in the Pescadero Marsh Enhancement Plan, "a major question is
whether the channel will fill in again so rapidly that the effort would be wasted. There is
no clear answer to this question, because of uncertainties in the estimation of future
sediment transport and sediment transport capacity of the stream.
"On the one hand, if sediment production in the watershed still significantly exceeds the
transport capacity of the channel, then dredging would be a waste of money. On the
other hand, a deep channel did persist for many decades after extensive disruption of
the watershed by early agriculture and forestry.
"Although it would be impossible to be certain, it seems probable that a deeper channel
on Butano Creek would persist long enough to make dredging a feasible option
(Williams, 1990 p 42-43).
Dredging is expensive. Philip Williams and Associates discussed three options and
costs for dredging of Butano Creek on State property, including dredging in the main
channel (estimated cost of $605,220), dredging an alternative channel ($577,825) and
minor dredging ($317,220). Financial assistance from the Army Corps of Engineers is
possible, but is not the only avenue for funding a dredging project. Corps involvement
would require the financial support of the County of San Mateo to contribute part of or
all the local match contribution. A local and inexpensive disposal site for the dredged
material, out of the wetlands area, would be critical for reducing the cost of the project.
Obtaining the permits for a dredging project could be a lengthy process. The project
would be required to obtain an individual permit under the Army Corps of Engineers,
and would need to mitigate for any potential impacts to federally and state threatened
and endangered species. Mitigation could substantially increase the cost of the project.
Despite its expense and application process, dredging of Butano Creek should remain
a viable option to reduce sediments and flooding of Butano Creek adjacent properties.
in the lower reaches. However, this option will require persistence, patience, and broad
support among the community and agency representatives to succeed. In the
meantime, better sediment transport data in Butano Creek would help to evaluate the
best dimensions of a dredged channel and better predict its effective lifespan.
Recommendations for CRMP and PMAC to address sedimentation and flooding of

Butano Creek
Form a Butano Creek subcommittee
Form a Butano Subcommittee that is composed of residents of the Butano watershed,

members of the Pescadero Municipal Advisory Council (PMAC) and CRMP agency
representatives (e.g. San Mateo County Public Works, Natural Resources Conservation
Service, Resource Conservation District, California Department of Fish and Game,
National Marine Fisheries Service, California Dept. of Parks and Recreation, etc.).
Develop a Butano Creek Watershed plan
Work to address sedimentation and flooding in Butano Creek should take a watershed
approach.
The primary objective of this plan would be to build community and agency support for
an overall approach to address sedimentation and flooding of Butano Creek. The
document could synthesize information from several studies into one document, identify
information or data needs, and make it easier to seek funding for implementation.
A watershed approach can incorporate the need to address sedimentation in the lower
reaches, and, at the same time, work to manage sediment sources in the upper
reaches. In the Pescadero Marsh Enhancement Plan, Williams (1990) stated that
solving the Butano flooding problem must include a combination of "establishing a
stable channel, an adequate bridge crossing and sedimentation management (p. 27).
Develop and implement short-term projects
In addition to developing a long-range plan, the Butano Subcommittee should identify

short-term projects that can be completed in the next year or two. In January, 1997,
beaver dams downstream of Pescadero Road were breached to reduce backwater.
Clearing of vegetation and debris in the channel has been identified as a short-term
project that could increase scour in the following rainy season. Kristen Schroeder has
spoken with Jerry Guteriez of the Sheriffs Honor Camp. This work could be scheduled
in late summerlearly fall 1997. The Sheriffs Honor Crew would be available for this
work at no charge to the community. However, some monies may need to be collected
for equipment. Volunteers could work alongside Honor Crews in this project. Neil Curry
has offered a crew for one week to help with this project.
Ask Public Works to develop alternatives analysis for raising Pescadero Road
The option of raising Pescadero Road has been discussed for years related to this
problem. Request that Public Works prepare a report that discusses the options,
opportunities and constraints for several alternatives for reducing flooding at Pescadero
Road by modifying the road. This report should include engineering analysis, costs and
funding sources, and discussions with adjacent property owners who would be affected
by this project.
Improve habitat for coho salmon and steelhead
Butano Creek has been listed by the California Department of Fish and Game as a
coho salmon stream, and will be included in the Coho Recovery Plan for reintroduction.
Consider species of special status
Species of special status may delay or constrain options for addressing sedimentation
and flooding of Butano Creek. Count your blessings that Pescadero Creek watershed
still supports the San Francisco garter snake, redlegged frog, coho salmon and other
animals. Again, a plan that improves habitat for these threatened and endangered
species, while also meeting local concerns for flooding, should find permitting easier;
and increase funding opportunities.
Stay open and creative
It is unlikely that one option alone will solve the sedimentation and flooding problem in
Butano Creek. For example, dredging of the channel may prove to be cost prohibitive
or impossible to permit. Similarly, erosion control work in the upper watershed would
be unlikely by itself to reduce sediment sources sufficiently to significantly reduce
sedimentation and flooding. A combination of approaches, including ways to "live with
the problem" will likely be the recipe for success, in the long run.
References
The San Mateo County Resource Conservafion district has a copy of documents
marked with a *. To examine these documents, please call 726-4660 to arrange an
appointment. The RCD is located at 785 Main Street, Suite C; Half Moon Bay.
Anderson, W. and R. Morgan. 1975. A flora of Pescadero Marsh, San Mateo County,
California. Santa Cruz City Museum and Santa Cruz Chapter, California Native
Plant Society.
Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants. 1988. Geotechnical Report, Pescadero Marsh,

Pescadero State Beach, Pescadero, California. For Office of the State Architect.
Blodgett, J.C. and K.P. Poeschel. 198. Peak discharge, volume, and frequency of the
January 1982 flood in the Santa Cruz Mountains and vicinity. In Landslides,
Floods and Marine Effects of the Storm of January 3-5, 1982, in the San
Francisco Bay Region, California, USGS Professional Paper 1434.
Curry, R.R. 1986. Pescadero Marsh Contract Report, DPR Contract #4-823-4010.
*Curry, R., Robert Houghton, Tom Kidwell, and Philip Tang. 1985. Pescadero Marsh
Management: A Plan for Persistence and Productivity DRAFT. University of
California, Santa Cruz. January 28, 1985.
This report provides a good summary of management challenges for Pescadero

Marsh. This report includes a detailed description of the geology of Pescadero
watershed, and the unique geologic history of Butano Creek. This report also
recommends management options for Pescadero Marsh. This report includes a
good list of references for San Mateo geology, studies for the Highway 1 bridge
replacement, and references for general marsh ecology, and a bibliography for
Pescadero Hydrology data.
Elliot, Bruce. 1973. The Natural Resources of Pescadero Marsh and Environs.
California Department of Fish and Game Draft Coastal Wetland Series # I 3. July
1975.
FEMA. 1982. Flood Insurance Study, San Mateo County, Calif., Unincorporated
Areas. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Community Number 06031 1,
480 map panels + text and profiles 16-P through 20-P (Pescadero).
Josselyn, M. (ed.). 1982. Wetland Restoration and enhancement in California.
Tiburon Center for Environmental Studies, Calif. Sea Grant Rept. No. T-CSGCP-
007, December 1982.
*McGinnis, S.M. 1985. The relationship of log jams to potential habitat for the San
Francisco garter snake and steelhead trout on Butano Creek, San Mateo
County, California. Prepared for Peninsula Open Space Trust.
Nolan, N.K. and D. Marron. 1988. Stream-channel response to the storm in the Santa
Cruz Mountains. In Landslides, Floods, and Marine Effects of the Storm January
3-5, 1982, in the San Francisco Bay Region, California, USGS Professional
Paper 1434.
*Osterling, Ralph, Consultants Inc. 1987. Analysis of the Pescadero Marsh

Watershed. For the Peninsula Open Space Trust. San Mateo, CA.
This report identifies point and nonpoint sources of sediment within the
Pescadero watershed. Mitigation measures are proposed for site specific and
overall sediment reduction or abatement within the watershed.
Rice, Raymond M. 1990. Hydrological and Erosional Analysis of the Upper Butano
Creek Watershed: Prepared for Big Creek Lumber Company.
San Mateo County Planning Dept., various dates, Photgrammetric maps of Pescadero
Lagoon area. Three map series are available at very large scale for the 6 sheets
covering the lagoonlmarsh area.
Smith, J.J. 1987. Aquatic habitat and fish utilization of Pescadero, San Gregorio,
Waddel and Pomponio Creek estuaryllagoon systems. Unpublished report to
California Dept. of Parks and Recreation.
Swanson, M. 1982. Piping and gully formation in coastal San Mateo County,
California. Master of Science thesis, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Univ. of Calif.,
Santa Cruz.
Swanson, M. 1987. Pescadero Marsh Natural Preserve Survey Report. Upublished

report from Philip Williams & Associates to the California Dept. of Parks and
Recreation.
Swanson, M.L., G.M. Kondolf and P.J. Boison. 1989. An example of rapid gully
initiation and extension by subsurface soil erosion: coastal San Mateo County,
California. Geomorphology 2:393-403.
*U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1989. Draft Section 205 Reconnaissance Report:
Flood Control improvements Pescadero and Butano Creeks San Mateo County,
California.
The purpose of this report is to present the results of the Reconnaissance study
for Federal participation in providing flood protection to areas along Pescadero
Creek and Butano Creek, in or near the town of Pescadero. The report
examines existing flooding problems and needs; develops preliminary economic
benefits, cost analyses and environmental impacts for potential alternative
solutions; identifies a plan to be considered during future more detailed studies;
and determines the local sponsor's capability and willingness to meet local cost-
sharing requirements.
Violis, F., 1979. The Evolution of Pescadero Marsh. Master's thesis, Dept. of Geology,
San Francisco State University.
*Williams, Philip, and Associates. 1990. Pescadero Marsh Natural Preserve

Hydrological Enhancement Plan.
This study was funded through the Department of Parks and Recreation to make
recommendations about management of Pescadero marsh. The report provides
a physical description of the marsh, including lower Butano Creek, physical
processes. The report presents management problems and opportunities, and
provides a description and costs for enhancement alternatives. This report
includes information and cost estimates for dredging lower Butano Creek,
creating an alternative channel for Butano Creek, and riparian restoration to shad
the channel to prevent encroachment of emergent vegetation.
Wheatley, J. 1992. A Monitoring Plan to assess the impact of forestry activities in the
Upper Butano Creek Watershed on steelhead trout habitat and drinking water
quality downstream. University of Santa Cruz.
Other Resources
The San Mateo County Resource Conservation District office (726-4660) has USGS
topographic maps and aerial photographs of the watershed.
SEPARATION PAGE
PESCADERO MARSH NATURAL PRESERVE SALINITY,
TIDEWATER GOBY AND RED-LEGGED FROG MONITORING
FOR 1995-1996
Jerry J. Smith
Dawn K. Reis
Department of Biological Sciences

San Jose State University
San Jose, CA 95192
25 June 1997
A Report Prepared for

the California Department of Parks and Recreation
3790-301-722(7)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
METHODS
Water Level and Salinity Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . .2
Frogs and San Francisco Garter Snakes ..........3
TidewaterGoby . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Sandbar orm mat ion. Water Levels and Water Movement.. .4
Water Levels and Tidal Movement in the Open Estuary . . .5
Trout Pond Water Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
salinity in North Marsh and ~ssociatedChannels . . . . .6
Salinity in Pescadero Creek and Marshes of Butano Creek .7
Red-legged Frogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
Bullfrogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
Treefrogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
San Francisco Garter Snakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Tidewater Goby . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
Western Pond Turtles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
EFFECTS OF RESTORATION EFFORTS AND MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
Effects of Completed Restoration Projects . . . . . . . .13
Management Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Table 1 . Salinity in North Pond and North Marsh . . . . . . .17
Table 2 . Salinity in Pescadero Creek and Butano Creek Marshes 19
Figure 1. Pescadero Marsh Water Sampling Stations . . . . . .20
Figure 2 . 1996 Red-legged Frog Egg Marsh Distribution . . . .21
Figure 3 . 1996 Red-legged Frog Larvae Distribution . . . . . .22
Figure 4 . 1996 Red-legged Frog Young of the Year Distribution 23
Figure 5a . 1996 Adult Red-legged Frog Distribution . . . . . .24
Figure 5b . 1996 Adult Red-legged Frog Distribution . . . . . .25
Figure 6 . 1996 Bullfrog Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
Figure 7 . 1996 Pacific Treefrog Distribution . .27
APPENDIX: Salinity and Temperature Data . . . . . . . . . . .28
INTRODUCTION
The Pescadero Marsh, a 320 acre coastal wetland, includes an estuary/seasonal lagoon at the
confluence of Pescadero and Butano creeks, fresh and brackish water marshes, brackish water
ponds, and riparian areas along the streams. Modifications to the marsh complex due to past
human land uses include restricted water flow, due to a levee system throughout the marsh, and
reduced tidal prism, due to both the levees and sedimentation from land uses in the upper
watershed.
Although it no longer functions as it did 150 years ago, Pescadero Marsh supports a high
diversity of animal and plant life, and is a refuge for a number of sensitive species (Smith 1990;
Jennings and Hayes 1990). Federally endangered tidewater gobies (Eucvclogobius newberrvi)
use the lagoon and marsh habitats. Federally threatened California red-legged frogs (Rana
aurora dravtonii) and federally endangered San Francisco garter snakes (Thamno~hissirtalis
tetrataenia) use the fresher portions of the complex. Low salinity habitat (less than 4 parts per
thousand (PPT)) is required for California red-legged frog egg survival (Jennings and Hayes
1990), and relatively low salinity habitat (less than 7.5 PPT) is required for larval survival
(Jennings, pers. comm.). Tidewater gobies tolerate fresh or saltwater habitats, but avoid
strongly tidal areas when the sandbar is open (Smith 1990). North Marsh and Butano Marsh,
partially leveed wetlands in the northern and southern portions of the lagoonlmarsh complex
(Figure I), provide extensive habitat for both California red-legged frog and for tidewater goby,
but the quality of that habitat depends upon the timing of sandbar formation, water surface
elevations, the amount of flooded marshland and upon water salinity.
Portions of the Pescadero Marsh Restoration Project were implemented in the summer and fall
of 1993. One modification involved removal of portions of the levees separaring North, Middle
and East Butano marshes (near water quality stations D3 and D6, Figure 1); previously an
opening had been made in the levee separating the eastern end of East Butano Marsh from
Butano Creek. These modifications allow Butano Creek flood waters to flow through the Butano
Marshes. They also allow tidal water, or water impounded by a closed sandbar, to move much
more easily throughout the Butano Marsh complex.
The second major restoration effort involved modifying the northern portion of the marsh
complex. A small culvert through the levee separating North Marsh and North Pond from
Pescadero Creek was replaced with 6 large culverts and two small culverts (water sampling
station B). In addition, a levee that formerly separated North Pond was removed (north of water
sampling site C2). Finally, a low levee (designed for + 5.5 feet) was added to separate North
Marsh from the channel leading to North Pond. Two large, normally-closed, culverts were
installed in the low levee (between water sampling sites C3 and F1 and between C1 and El).
One result of these modifications was to restore tidal action to North Pond, and the channel
leading to it, when the 6 large culverts are open; the culverts were to be left open except for
brief periods immediately following sandbar closure. The second intended result to was to
isolate North Marsh as a fresh-water to mildly brackish-water habitat for red-legged frogs and
San Francisco garter snakes. North Marsh would also serve as a potential refuge for tidewater
goby in case yellowfin goby (Acanthoeobius flavimanus) became established in the saltier
portions of the marsh complex. The only open connection between North Marsh and the
remainder of the lagoonlmarsh complex was to be a permanently open 12 inch culvert at +4.5
feet extending through the levee between water sampling sites B and E l .
This report describes the results of water level and salinity sampling in 1994, 1995 and 1996 and
sampling for adult and larval frogs and tidewater gobies in 1995 and 1996. The monitoring was
designed to evaluate the functioning of the estuarylmarsh complex in response to the restoration
actions and to propose additional management actions to maintain water levels, salinities and
other habitat conditions suitable for red-legged frogs, San Francisco garter snakes and tidewater
gobies.
METHODS
Water Level and Salinitv Sampling
Staff gages were installed at 18 locations in the estuarylmarsh complex and also at 3 of the
"trout ponds", seasonal, artificial upland ponds (Figure 1). The staff gages at stations S5 (near
the north parking lot), H (a ditch on the east side of North Marsh) and at Trout Ponds 1, 3 and
4 are set to arbitrary elevations, but the other 16 gages were surveyed in to read to correct MSL
elevation in November 1995. All elevations from surveyed gages given in this report are based
on the surveyed elevations; data taken prior to surveying were corrected. Surveyed staff gages
are present at the following stations: A, on the downstream side of the Highway 1 bridge; B,
on the Pescadero Creek side of the culverts between Pescadero Creek and North PondINorth
Marsh; C1, C2 and C3, in the channel between the levee and North Pond; C4, in a small pond
adjacent to the channel to North Pond; D3, just west of the levee opening between North and
Middle Butano marshes; D6, just west of the levee opening between Middle and East Butano
marshes; D5, in a small pond near D6; D8, in the channel on the south side of East Butano
Marsh; E l , in the channel on the south side of North Marsh; F1, and F2, in the north ditch and
in the open water portion of North Marsh; G2, at the opening to East Delta Marsh; and S1 and
S2, in two artificial "sag ponds" in the southwest portion of North Marsh. Most of the gages
are redundant at high water levels and when the sandbar is in place. In fact, the surveying was
delayed until sandbar formation in November 1995, so that only a small portion of the gages had
to be surveyed with a laser transit; the lagoon or marsh water surface was used to level the rest.
However, at low water levels or when the sandbar was open, gage heights reflected different
evaporation rates and tidal penetration within the estuarylmarsh complex.
Salinity and temperature sampling was conducted at the 21 staff gage sites and at 15 additional
locations: C5, near the northern shore of North Pond; D 1 and D2, in North Butano Marsh; D9
in East Butano Marsh; E2 and E3 in the ditch on the south side of North Marsh; F3, F4 and F5
in North Marsh; G1 and G4, in the channel leading to East Delta Marsh; G3, in East Delta
Marsh; PI, in Pescadero Creek; and S3 and S4, small ponds in the lagoon and North Butano
Marsh areas. Not all sites were regularly sampled, because of access problems and redundancy.
Most of the relevant information could be gathered by sampling at stations B, C1 and/or C3, C4,
D3,5,6, El-3, F1-2, GI-2; H, and S1-2. These stations were generally sampled 5-7 times in
1995 and 10-23 times in 1996.
At each water sampling site salinity and temperature profiles were determined by sampling at
0.25 meter (m) intervals with a Yellow Springs Instruments Model 30 salinity and temperature
meter. The deepest possible profile at the site was sampled by wading or, more usually, by
using an 2.5 meter PVC pole to extend the probe out into the channel (like a fishing pole).
Condition of the sandbar (open/closed) was recorded during sampling, and status of the culverts
(open/closed/leaking) at station B was also recorded.
Water salinity and temperatures were also recorded at red-legged frog egg sites and at larval
sampling sites throughout the marsh complex in spring and summer 1996.
Frogs and San Francisco Garter Snakes
In late summer 1995 frog larvae were sampled by dipnet and seine in North Marsh, and adults
were tallied during transects associated with water quality sampling.
In 1996 surveys for frog egg masses were conducted throughout the Pescadero Marsh complex
on 16 days from 22 February through 30 April; locations of individual egg masses were marked
on maps (Figure 2). Mark Jennings assisted on the initial egg and breeding frog surveys, which
were concentrated in North Marsh. Larval surveys were conducted with seines and dipnets on
20 days from 17 April through 21 June. Adult and juvenile eyeshine surveys were conducted
on 21 evening surveys from 8 March through 21 September. Adult and juvenile day surveys
were conducted on many of the above days and on others, totaling 53 surveys from 28 January
through 8 December. Larvae, juveniles and adults were identified to species and tallied or
densities roughly estimated.
Sightings of San Francisco garter snakes were recorded during water quality or frog sampling
surveys in both years.
Tidewater Goby
Tidewater gobies were sampled by seines and dipnet in North Pond, the channel leading to North
Pond, and in North Marsh and its north and south ditches in 1995. In 1996 gobies were
sampled by seine and dipnet throughout North Marsh and Butano Marsh, while sampling for
red-legged frog larvae in April through June. In August they were sampled by seine at 10 sites
in the main embayment or in Pescadero and Butano creeks.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Sandbar Formation. Water Levels and Water Movement
In 1993 the sandbar closed in August and was artificially opened to complete restoration work
through November. However, the sandbar re-formed in December, backing up saline water
throughout the marsh complex. This apparently included flooding over the new low levee and
through the small culvert into North Marsh, as salinities there jumped from 5.3 to 11.3 parts per
thousand (PPT). On 7 January 1994 the lagoon remained closed, but water levels had subsided
to 4.4 feet throughout most of the marsh complex. The sandbar was opened by January storms,
and on 2 February culverts through the low levee (at FllC3 and ElIC1) were opened to partially
drain saline water from North Marsh and from the ditch on the south side of North Marsh.
In spring of 1994 the sandbar had closed by mid-May and lagoon levels were high enough to
again back water over the low levee into North Marsh. The lowest portions of the low levee,
although designed to be at 5.5 feet elevation, were found to be at about 4.7-4.9 feet when
surveyed in November 1995. The difference is apparently due to erosion by water flowing over
the top, settling and/or improper original fill elevation. The sandbar opened with November
rains.
The wet winter of 1994-5, with major storms in January and March, eroded much of the beach,
and the "summer" sandbar did not form until late October. Although North marsh was filled
to the top of the low levee by the winter rains, it almost completely dried by mid summer. The
ditch on the south side of the North Marsh (El-3) was reduced to a puddle at its west end (El)
by evaporation and leakage through the large culvert (between E l and Cl). The remainder of
the marsh was dry in September (E2-3, F2, H), except for several shallow ( < 0.25 m) pools
in the ditch at on the northern edge of North Marsh (Fl, F5) and deeper water (0.75 m) in the
two artificial ponds (Sl-2). After the sandbar formed in October the lagoon rapidly rose (to 5.2
feet on 12 November and 5.5 feet on 26 November). Although the large culverts between the
lagoon and North Marsh/North Pond (station B) were closed, both North Marsh and the channel
to North Pond also rose quickly. On 12 November the water west of the low levee (Cl-5) was
at 4.9 feet, in North Marsh (Fl-2) it was at 4.4 feet and in the ditch on the south side of North
Marsh (El-3) it was at 4.6 feet. Water was entering through both small culverts (from B to C1
and E l ) and also flowing from the ditch to North Pond (Cl-3) across the low levee into North
Marsh. By 26 November all areas north of the Pescadero levee had reached 5.4 feet. A plastic
waste basket was used to close the small culvert between stations B and C1 on 12 November,
so that the rise was mostly due to surface water moving through the small culvert between
stations B and E l (El had much fresher water on 12 November than C1-3, and the closure was
an attempt to freshen the North Marsh as much as possible during the water level rise). The
sandbar opened in early December and remained open the rest of the winter.
In 1996 the sandbar again failed to close until late summer. The bar partially closed in early
August and completely closed at the end of August. Again the sandbar closure was too late to
prevent most of North Marsh from drying. The ditch on the east side of North Marsh (station
H), the eastern portion of the south ditch (station E3) and most of the open-water portion of the
marsh (F2-4) were dry by the end of August. The ditch on the north side of North Marsh (Fl,
FS), the west end of the south ditch (El-2) and the two ponds (Sl-2) retained pools to 0.25 m
deep. After sandbar formation the lagoon water level rose from 3.8 feet on 31 August to 4.8
feet on 17 September. The large culverts at station B were closed, but flow through the small
culverts (I3 to C1 and El) allowed water levels north of the levee to also rise. By 17-21
September water levels had risen to 3.7 feet west of the low levee (Cl-3), 4.4 feet in the south
ditch of North Marsh (El) and 3.5 feet in North Marsh (Fl-2). By 11 October the lagoon had
reached 5.0 feet, and all areas of North PondINorth Marsh had reached 4.9 feet. The sandbar
opened in early November and remained open for the winter.
The ditch at the east side of North Marsh (station H) is hydrologically isolated from the
remainder of the marsh, including the ditches along the north (F1,S) and south (El-3) sides of
the marsh, at the water levels observed in this study. It appears to fill primarily with rain and
runoff, and its salinities are lower than in the remainder of North Marsh. The two artificial
ponds in southwest North Marsh (S1,2) are not merely rainwater catchments, but respond to
raising and falling levels water levels in North Marsh and in the channel west of the low levee
(Cl-C2). The water levels in the two ponds were always with 0.2 feet of each other, and rose
0.5 feet within a week of increased water level in the channel.
Water Levels and Tidal Movements in the Open Estuarv
Without the sandbar in place water levels throughout the estuarylmarsh system are much lower,
even during very high tides. On 3 December 1994 a 6.9 foot tide peaked at about 9:40 at the
beach. At station B, upstream of the neck of the lagoon, the highest level was about 5.2 feet,
about 1 hour later. Even when the six large culverts at station B were open they slowed tidal
movement sufficiently on similar high tides to keep water levels in the channel to North Pond
(Cl-3) below the 4.7 foot level necessary to top the low levee into North Marsh.
Restricted tidal flow in the narrower channels of the marsh complex generally kept water
surfaces to less than 3.0-3.5 feet, even during very high tides. The narrow entrance to East
Delta Marsh (G2) is quite far upstream on Butano Creek, so tides are often ebbing before the
full tidal height reaches that far. In the Butano Marshes the levee openings at the north end of
North Butano Marsh and at D3 and D6 have increased tidal penetration. However, the narrow
openings and small marsh channels through which the water flows in the North and Middle
Butano marshes usually delay tidal movement enough to prevent tidal penetration into East
Butano Marsh. Significant saline water entry into East Butano Marsh would apparently occur
rarely except after sandbar formation allows flooding of the entire marsh complex.
On 19 January 1996 Butano Creek flood runoff spread freshwater at elevations of 4.7-5.1 feet
throughout the Butano Marshes and East Delta Marsh, inundating (and freshening) much of the
marsh habitat.
Trout Pond Water Levels
The "trout ponds" were originally used to raise fish, with water pumped from Pescadero Creek
to maintain summer pond levels. The Department of Parks and Recreation retains this
appropriative water right, if it is regularly exercised. In the absence of pumping the ponds go
dry in summer, even in very wet years. In 1995 they were dry before October. In 1996 Trout
Pond 2, which has less than 0.3 m of water in the middle of the rainy season, was dry by
March. Ponds 1 and 4, which support dense cattail (Tv~haspp.) growth and had winter depths
to 1 m, were dry by early August. Pond 3 is steep-sided, lacks cattails and can exceed 2 m in
depth; it was dry by September.
Salinitv in North Marsh and Associated Channels
North Marsh was to have been kept no more than mildly brackish, to ensure habitat for
red-legged frogs. However, saline water spilled over the low levee and filled the marsh within
months of the completion of the levee in 1993. In March 1994 the salinity of the Marsh (F2),
the ditch along the south side (El) and the sag ponds (Sl) exceeded 6.6 PPT (Table 1) and
remained saline all year.
Since the low levee turned out to be lower (4.7 feet) than its design elevation of 5.5 feet, the
6 large culverts at station B were kept closed more often during the study period than originally
intended (see 1995 and 1996 descriptions, below). The small culverts at station B, which were
planned to always remain open, were high enough so that the relatively fresher, lighter, surface
waters flowed through them. Most of the time that acted to both raise water levels in North
Marsh, and to also freshen them (see below). However, on 3 December 1994 the "fresher"
surface waters at station B were 24.4 PPT (compared to 3 1.7 PPT on the bottom), and this salty
water flowed through the small culvert to increase bottom salinities at station El to 19.0 PPT.
In 1995 heavy rains diluted the salinity of the marsh. The first salinity sampling was on 22
June, when salinities in the marsh (Fl-2), sag ponds (Sl-2) and the pond adjacent to the channel
to North Pond (C4) had salinities of 3.6-4.7 PPT (Table 1); salinities would have been
substantially lower in winter and early spring, when red-legged frogs were breeding and eggs
were laid. The ditch on the south side of North Marsh (El) had drained by June and was very
salty (22.6 PPT), due to seepage at the culvert (El-Cl). The marsh had largely dried, and the
remaining water was quite saline, by 2 September (7.8 PPT in S2 to 12.9 PPT at F2).
The culverts at station B were open in summer 1995 and the water in North Pond (C5) and the
channel to North Pond (Cl-3) was tidal and very saline (16.0 - 20.2 PPT) all summer (Table
1). Despite this, the small pond adjacent to the channel (C4) maintained relatively low salinities
all summer (4.4-6.7 PPT). Although the pond is connected to the channel at high water levels
(around 4.3 feet), tidal flow always remained below that level, preventing high salinity in the
pond.
Sandbar closure in late October 1995 re-flooded North Marsh. The large culverts were closed
at station B after sandbar closure, but rising saline water from the channel to North Pond (Cl-3)
flowed across the low levee. On 26 November salinities in North Marsh (Fl-2) and the sag
ponds (S 1-2) were relatively high (4.1- 5.0 PPT), although surface lagoon water flowing through
the small culvert (B-El) into North Marsh had filled the south ditch (El-3) with fresher water
(2.1 PPT) (Table 1).
In 1996 heavy January rains reduced salinities throughout the North MarshINorth Pond complex,
which was open to the lagoon only through the small culverts. On 28 January salinities in the
the top 0.5 m throughout North Marsh (El-3, F1-2, H, S1-2) and in the pond adjacent to the
channel to North Pond (C4) were 3.6 PPT or less (Table 1). By 24 February most salinities
throughout the North PondINorth Marsh complex were 2-3 PPT. The major exception was at
the east end of the ditch on the south side of North Marsh (E3). Although the surface water
there was quite fresh in January and February (1.4-2.0 PPT), the bottom water was much more
saline (5.2-6.7 PPT), apparently due to salts previously accumulated in the ditch.
The large culverts were opened in spring 1996 and North Pond (C- 5) and the channel (Cl-3)
to it were tidal and saline (14.8 - 28.8 PPT) in May through early August (Table 1). As in
1995, the pond adjacent to the channel (C4) remained relatively fresh (4.9 PPT on 15 June and
6.3 PPT on 3 1 August).
Prior to sandbar formation in late August, North Marsh habitats progressively dried to shallow
puddles and increased in salinity. On 31 August salinities ranged from 5.6 PPT in Sag Pond
2 to 8.4- 9.3 PPT in most of the rest of the remaining marsh (El, F5, Sl). Only the isolated
channel at the east end of the marsh (H) was still relatively fresh (2.4 PPT).
When the sandbar formed in late August 1996 the large culverts at station B were again closed,
and North Marsh began to fill and freshen from flows through the small culverts. By 8
December salinities in North Marsh (El-3, F1-2, S 1-2) were mostly 1.9 - 2.6 PPT (Table I).
The small seasonal pond on the west side of Highway 1, near the north parlung lot (S5) filled
with rain and runoff and was fresh (0.2 PPT); there was no evidence of seepage from North
Pond.
Salinitv in Pescadero Creek and the Marshes of Butano Creek
Since the sandbar did not close in 1995 until late October, the lagoon was very saline by late
summer. On 1 August surface salinity at station B was 13.1 PPT, but salinity at 0.25 m was
20.6 PPT, and at and below 0.5 m was 3 1.4 PPT. Salinities, especially those near the surface,
decreased upstream, closer to freshwater inflow and further from ocean tides. On 2 September
the mean salinity of the top 0.5 m near the opening between North and Middle Butano marshes
(D3) was 9.4 PPT, and at the opening between Middle and East Butano marshes (D6) it was 5.3
PPT (3.3 PPT or less in the top 0.25 m) (Table 2). Flow from East Butano Marsh was
substantially lower (2.3 PPT). A small pond near the opening between Middle and East Butano
marshes (D5) also had low salinity (1.6 PPT) .
After the sandbar formed in late October 1995 the salinity of the lagoon quickly dropped, and
upper water column salinities in Butano Marsh (D3,6) and East Delta Marsh (GI-2) were quite
fresh (1.8-2.1 PPT) (Table 2). Salinities jumped again after the sandbar opened in December,
reaching 15.3 PPT at D3 and 4.0 PPT at D6 in Butano Marsh and 11.8-13.3 PPT near and at
the entrance to East Delta Marsh on 20 December. East Butano Marsh (D8) remained fresh (0.7
PPT) .
Mid-January 1996 storm runoff freshened the marshes along Butano Creek. Salinities in Butano
Marsh and East Delta Marsh were generally 0.4 - 0.8 PPT on 19 January and 0.1 - 0.8 PPT on
24 February (Table 2). The exceptions were the ponds, potholes and backwater ditches. The
pond near the opening between Middle and East Butano Marsh (D5) is only connected to the
lagoon at high water (about 5.0 feet), and it remained somewhat saltier through January and
March (1 5 2 . 3 PPT). A backwater ditch (Dl) and saltpan pothole (D2) in North Butano Marsh
had salinities of 2.4- 2.6 PPT in February, and reached 5.4-6.6 PPT on 25 March. The pothole
near the entrance to East Delta Marsh (GI) traps saline water on its bottom and was 2.4-5.6 PPT
in the upper 0.5 m in January through March.
After high runoff through Butano Creek and Marsh ceased, salinities substantially increased.
On 15 June high tide salinity reached 17.3 PPT at the east edge of North Butano Marsh (D3)
and 10.8 PPT at the eastern edge of Middle Butano Marsh (D6) (Table 2). The station on East
Butano Marsh (D8) remained fresh (0.1 PPT). The entrance to East Delta Marsh (G2) reached
3.7 PPT on 15 June and 7.2 PPT on 26 July. Two small ponds in Butano Marsh (D5 and S4)
remained fresh (0.6-1.2 PPT) all summer.
After the sandbar formed in August, salinities were relatively low throughout Butano (D3,5,6,8)
and East Delta (GI-2) marshes (0.4-3.6 PPT on 31 August and 17 September).
Red-legged Frogs
The 1995 sampling for frogs did not begin until summer and was primarily confined to North
Marsh and associated channels. In June adult red-legged frogs were common in the two sag
ponds (Sl- 2) (14+ frogs) and in the ditch on the north side of the marsh (Fl) (5+ frogs).
Several were also present in the pond adjacent to the channel to North Pond (C4). The ditch
on the south side of the marsh (El-3) was already saline and nearly dry, and lacked frogs, as
did the edges of the tidal channel to North Pond (Cl- 3). No frogs were seen during water
quality sampling in Butano Marsh.
By August 1995 the number of frogs in the sag ponds had declined, and sightings of adults were
only in S2, the less saline pond; 4 adults were present in August (@ 5.9 PPT), and apparently
only 2 were present in September (@ 7.8 PPT). In August there were more than 20 adult frogs
near and in the culvert at the north side of North Marsh (Fl) (@ 7.2 PPT), but none were
present on 2 September (@ 12.1 PPT).
No frog larvae were captured by dipnet in the North Marsh ponds (Sl-2 or C4) in 1995, but 1
juvenile was present in S1 in August. Scarce larvae were captured in the north ditch (F1,5) in
August, but none were present in September, when salinity reached 12.1 PPT.
The apparent scarcity of red-legged frogs in summer 1995, and the loss of almost all of their
habitat to high salinity andlor drying by late summer, suggested that the population might be
quite low. However, 1996 results demonstrated that this cryptic species is both resilient and
common at Pescadero Marsh.
In Winter and early spring 1996 the entire Pescadero Marsh was searched for red-legged frog
egg masses (Figure 2). Early efforts were concentrated in North Marsh and spread outward
from there during the sampling period. All lowland egg masses were found in North Marsh or
in the pond adjacent to the channel to North Pond (C4). The highest concentrations were along
the north ditch (F1,5) and in the western portion (El-2) of the south ditch. A few egg masses
were also found towards the center of the marsh, but none were found in the sag ponds (Sl-2)
or in the ditch at the east end of the marsh (H). A single egg mass was found in Trout Pond
4, although adults were seen and heard in both Trout Pond 2 and 4 (the two ponds with dense
cattails). The lack of discovery of egg masses elsewhere may be partially due to the relatively
later searches in East Delta and Butano marshes.
Larval distribution and abundance generally matched that of egg distribution (Figure 3). Larvae
were abundant in the north ditch of North Marsh (F1,5) and common in the south ditch (El-3),
including further east than egg masses were found. They were also common in pond C4 and
surprisingly common in the open water of North Marsh. They were not collected in the ditch
on the east end of North Marsh (H), a result similar to that of Jennings and Hayes (1990).
Their failure to use this freshwater ditch is puzzling, but might be due to the relatively heavy
shading and scarcity of algae as larval food.
Larvae were absent from North Butano Marsh and most of Middle Butano Marshes, which
matches the lack of egg mass discoveries there (Figures 2,3). However, larvae were present,
and even abundant in some samples, in East Butano Marsh and East Delta Marsh, despite the
failure to find egg masses there earlier in the winter. Larvae were also common in the small
pond at the junction of Middle and East Butano marshes (DS). Larvae were common in Trout
Pond 4, where the single egg mass was found, and were also present in Trout Pond 2.
Although many of the habitats with larvae dried up early or were quite salir~eby August 1996
(Tables 1 and 2), many red-legged frogs were able to metamorphose prior to the decline in
habitat conditions. Young-of-the-year red-legged frogs were present, often in abundance, in late
summer at all sites with larvae (Figures 3 and 4). In addition, they were common to abundant
in the North Marsh sag ponds (S 1-2), Trout Pond 3, and upper Butano Creek, locations were
no larvae were collected. In East Butano and East Delta marshes summer drying and salinity
appeared to have the greatest impact on larval survival, as relatively few juveniles were observed
compared to larval abundance. However, monitoring of larval survival was stopped when the
red-legged frog was listed as threatened.
Adult red-legged frogs were observed at all the locations with larvae (Figures 5A,B), but also
showed a more widespread distribution. However, few adults were seen in areas which had
even seasonally high salinities, such as North Pond, the main lagoon embayment, lower Butano
Creek, or the North and Middle Butano marshes. Adults were commonly seen in the north
(F1,5) and south (El-3) ditches and sag ponds (Sl-2) of North Marsh. These sites offered deep
water andlor dense emergent vegetation as escape habitat. They were also common in the
northern part of East Delta Marsh, in the trout ponds, and along the western portion of East
Butano Marsh. Near North Butano Marsh red-legged frogs were abundant in a small pond (S4),
where larvae and juveniles were never observed. Adult frogs were common to abundant in the
upper portion of Butano Creek and near the banks of Pescadero Creek, areas which offered good
cover and potential foraging, but were unsuitable for breeding. Single adult frogs were observed
in North Butano Marsh, the east ditch at North Marsh (H), and near the west shore of the main
lagoon embayment. During surveys conducted in the breeding season up to 37 adults were seen
in a single night in the north ditch of North Marsh and 55 in the south ditch.
Bullfrogs
No bullfrogs were observed in North Marsh in 1995, which was probably due to the lack of
habitat in the south ditch (El). In 1996 bullfrogs began to appear in May in the south ditch
(Figure 6), but by then salinities were already increasing (3.5 PPT) (Table 1) and water levels
were low. By mid June salinity in the ditch (El) or in North Marsh (F1,2) was too high for egg
survival (4.3-5.0 PPT). No calling was heard at the ditch, and apparently no breeding occurred
in 1996. The source of the bullfrogs is unknown. They may be from upstream on Pescadero
Creek or may be holdovers from years when conditions in North Marsh allowed bullfrog
breeding and larval metamorphosis.
Adult bullfrogs were also seen in summer 1996 in the trout ponds, in East Butano Marsh and
in and near the channel to East Delta Marsh (Figure 6). No calling was heard, and no bullfrog
egg masses were found at those sites. Breeding apparently did not occur, although sampling for
larvae in late summer could not be conducted because of the federal listing of red-legged frogs.
Bullfrog larvae and juveniles were found in late spring in Butano Creek near Pescadero Road
(Figure 6). Adults in Butano Creek were first seen upstream, and then appeared to move down
the Butano Creek channel and enter East Butano Marsh through a levee opening at the northwest
corner of the marsh. The presence of bullfrogs in the channel to East Delta Marsh (G4) also
appears to have been from movements down the Butano Creek channel. Bullfrogs are present
in farm ponds upstream on Butano Creek; those ponds may be a continual source of adults and
larvae to the habitats at Pescadero Marsh.
Red-legged frogs at Pescadero Marsh were able to breed in winter and metamorphose larvae
before the habitats dried or became saline in summer 1996 (Figure 5). The summer drying that
occurred at Pescadero Marsh in 1995, 1996, and earlier in 1989, 1990 and 1993, may not
provide the best environmr~ntfor red- legged frogs, but it has apparently has not drastically
affected their abundance. However, these periodic harsh summer conditions appear to be a
major factor in preventing bullfrog success in the marsh. In many years, as in 1996, bullfrogs
would be unable to breed in portions of the the marsh, due to drying or salty conditions during
the mid-summer breeding period. Stable, freshwater habitats suitable for the 1 year larval
development usual for bullfrogs are scarce. The trout ponds, without supplemental water from
Pescadero Creek, dry each summer. East Butano Marsh and Butano Creek are rinsed by floods
in many winters and can dry or be salty in late summer. In years when the sandbar forms early
and the lagoon and marshes are converted to relatively fresh conditions for the summer,
bullfrogs may breed and become more abundant in Pescadero Marsh. However, populations
should fall again in years like 1995 and 1996. Any restoration efforts that produce permanent
freshwater habitats would probably benefit mostly bullfrogs, a major predator and competitor
of red-legged frogs.
Treefrogs
Pacific treefrogs (Hyla re~illa)used all of the habitats used by the red-legged frogs (Figure 7 ) ,
but also heavily used the more open portions of North Marsh (F3-4) and the ditch on its eastern
edge (H) for breeding. They were the only frog that used the pond (S5) on the west side of
Highway 1, and were able to successfully breed there, despite its seasonal nature. Like the
red-legged frog, they were not observed in areas of even seasonally high salinity.
San Francisco Garter Snakes
Despite the large amount of time spent in the marsh in 1995 through 1996, very few confirmed
San Francisco garter snakes were observed. However, the observations of garter snakes were
made during water quality or frog sampling, and we had no permit to capture or harass possible
San Francisco garter snakes. If a snake quickly sought cover, it was not pursued and its identity
remained unknown. Santa Cruz garter snakes (Thamno~hisatratus atratus), a subspecies of
aquatic garter snake, and the coast garter snake (T. elegans terrestris), a subspecies of western
terrestrial garter snake, were also present. Both appeared to be much more abundant than San
Francisco garter snakes.
All sightings of San Francisco garter snakes were in areas of high adult and larval frog
abundance, including the north (F1,5) and south (El-3) ditches and sag ponds (Sl-2) of North
Marsh and at the boundary of Middle and East Butano marshes (D5,6).
Tidewater Gobv
In summer 1995 no tidewater gobies were seen or captured in North Pond or the channel leading
to it (Cl-3) or in the north (F1,5) and south ditches (El) of North Marsh. North Pond and the
channel to it were strongly tidal, with the pond nearly drained at low tide and with fast currents
in the channel on incoming and outgoing tides. Sampling with seine or dipnet was difficult,
because of the very soft bottom muds. The water was clear, and habitats were also visually
inspected unsuccessfully for gobies. Both of the ditches of North Marsh were reduced to
shallow puddles, also with soft bottoms. The remaining habitat at the north ditch (F5) appeared
sufficient for gobies, but none were captured by difficult sampling.
In November 1995 North Marsh was re-flooded, and tidewater gobies were regularly captured
by seine in the open water and in north ditch in spring 1996. Apparently, gobies survived in
the north ditch in 1995, and their population rapidly grow and expanded over the winter and
spring. Tidewater gobies were also regularly captured in marshy habitats of Butano and East
Delta marshes in spring 1996, while sampling for red-legged frog larvae.
In August 1996 the non-marshy portions of the lagoon were sampled by seine for tidewater
goby, but relatively few were captured. None were captured at two sites in the main
embayment, but 3 were captured between the neck of the embayment and the lower portion of
Pescadero Creek. None were captured on the lower portion of Butano Creek, but a total of 5
were captured from 4 sites above and below station P1 on Pescadero Creek, including over
gravelly substrate. On Butano Creek near the mouth of the channel from East Delta Marsh at
least 12 tidewater gobies were captured within dense sea lettuce (m); this was the only one
of the 10 main channel sample sites where the gobies might have been common. Young-of-year
prickly sculpins (Cottus asper) were commonly taken during the sampling, but no yellowfin
gobies were captured.
In previous sampling at Pescadero Marsh (Smith 1990) tidewater gobies were always quite rare
in channels or open water with substantial tidal movement, but were usually abundant after the
sandbar had formed, creating a calm lagoon. The pattern in 1996 appeared to be the same; the
sandbar failed to form until late August, and prior to that gobies were common only in the calm,
marshy portions of Pescadero Marsh, and rare in the stream channels and lagoon embayment.
The failure of the sandbar to close in 1995 until late October may also have been a factor in the
low 1996 abundance. Overall tidewater goby abundance in Pescadero Marsh in 1996 was
probably rather low compared to the much smaller, but closed, lagoons of Santa Cruz and San
Mateo counties (including Arroyo de 10s Frijoles and Laguna, Baldwin, Wilder and Moore's
creeks) (Smith, unpublished). Thirty to 300 gobies per seine haul were often captured in those
lagoons.
Western Pond Turtles
Pond turtles were frequently observed, and a limited trapping effort was mounted for them in
summer 1996. They were most commonly observed in the upstream portion of Pescadero
Creek, where salinities were lower and where logs provided basking habitat and escape cover.
They were also captured in the channel to East Delta Marsh (G1,4) and in the north ditch of
North Marsh (F5).
Pond turtles were relatively common in the south ditch of North Marsh (El-3) in winter, but
vacated as the water level dropped and salinities increased in late spring and summer of 1995
and 1996. Pescadero Creek turtles probably regularly overwinter in the ditch, just as many
Waddell Creek lagoon turtles use the adjacent pond for overwintering (Smith, Abel and Davis
1997).
Many of the turtles, especially in Pescadero Creek, were quite large, compared to those present
at Waddell Creek (Smith, Abel and Davis 1997). Shell growth ridges of Pescadero Creek turtles
indicated very fast growth; growth of those near East Delta Marsh was more like that of Waddell
Creek.
Juvenile turtles (75-125 mm shell length) were frequently sighted, and were apparently common.
Pond turtles prefer to nest in warmer, open grasslands with finer soils, and tend to avoid sandy
soils or shady riparian or upland sites (Galen Rathbun, Biological Resources Division, U.S.
Geological Survey, pers. comm.; Smith, Abel and Davis 1997). Potential upland nest sites
appear plentiful and include open, south-facing levee banks and the cattle pasture east of
Pescadero Creek.
EVALUATION OF RESTORATION EFFORTS AND MANAGEMENT

RECOMMENDATIONS
Effects of Completed Restoration Efforts
Opening the levees between the 3 segments of the Butano Marsh has allowed easier flood water
movement through the marshes (freshening them in winter and early spring) and easier tidal
movement (making them more salty in late spring and summer). The marshes function more
naturally now, but North and Middle Butano marshes apparently do not now provide habitat for
red-legged frogs or for San Francisco garter snakes, which depend upon frogs for food.
The restoration of tidal action to North Pond, and the channel leading to it, has probably reduced
the value of the habitat for tidewater goby in most years. Prior to restoration, gobies were
common in both eutrophic North Pond and in the portion of North Marsh that lies west of the
new low levee (Smith 1990). In 1995 when the more natural habitats were tidal no tidewater
gobies were found. In 1996 tidewater gobies were rare in other portions of the lagoon system
that were strongly tidal. In years of earlier sandbar formation gobies at Pescadero Marsh would
be much more abundant and widespread in summer, including in North Pond. Prior to removal
of the levee, North Pond was persistently too saline for use by breeding red-legged frogs, so the
restoration of tidal conditions did not adversely affect conditions for frogs.
The low levee between North Marsh and the channel to North Pond is too low (+4.7 feet) to
prevent overflow, including of very saline water, after sandbar formation. To overcome this
potential problem, the 6 large culverts at station B have been kept closed more often than
originally intended. Incidents of overflow have also caused some erosion in the low points of
the levee.
The sag ponds (Sl-2), which were constructed in the southwest portion of North Marsh, have
worked relatively well. They fill in winter from water in North Marsh and from seepage
through the low levee from the channel to North Pond. In 1995 and 1996 they retained
significant water later into the summer than most of the other marsh habitats, and were used by
by red-legged frogs and San Francisco garter snakes. The western pond (S2) is deeper and
usually had lower salinities than the eastern pond.
Management Recommendations
Recommendation 1. The low levee should be raised to +5.5 to 6.0 feet to prevent spills of
saline water over the levee into North Marsh. The surface of the levee should be revegetated
or otherwise protected against erosion when overtopped. The raised levee will store more water
in North Marsh and delay drying of the marsh and will also allow the regular resumption of tidal
flow to North Pond (with open culverts at station B).
Recommendation 2. The large culverts at Station B and at the north (C3) and south (Cl) ends
of the low levee should be regularly maintained so that they do not leak and can be opened and
closed as needed.
Recommendation 3. The 2 small culverts at station B should be periodically checked to see that
they are not clogged. The slide gates on the small culverts do not work. A slide gate should
be installed and maintained on the culvert from station B to E l , so that it might be occasionally
closed to regulate salinity or height of water in North Marsh.
Recommendation 4. Proposed future restoration actions include the opening of the levee at the
upstream end of East Delta Marsh. This would increase flood flows through the marsh and might
freshen the marsh in winter and early spring. However, the levee opening might also increase
use of the marsh by bullfrogs, which in 1996 appeared to approach the marsh from the
downstream opening (G2) from their apparent source upstream on Butano Creek. If the levee
opening is at a high enough elevation so that a portion of flood flows, but not late spring and
summer streamflows, passed through the break fewer bullfrogs might enter East Delta Marsh.
The present inoperable tide gate at East Delta Marsh could be modified rather than removed.
This might keep the marsh wetter and fresher longer in summer, and improve red-legged frog
larval survival.
Recommendation 5. The Trout Ponds should be maintained as seasonal ponds and not converted
to permanent freshwater habitats by heavy diversion of water from Pescadero Creek; permanent
water would result in the establishment of a reproducing bullfrog population.
Recommendation 6. The water right on Pescadero Creek could be used to augment the water
level of the Trout Ponds in spring and early summer of dry years, so that red-legged frogs could
metamorphose before the pond dried. The diversion could also be used to augment and freshen
the water in the south ditch (El-3) of North Marsh in dry years.
Recommendation 7. Continue to monitor water quality and tidewater goby and red-legged frog
populations, especially in years when the sandbar forms early and conditions are different from
those observed in 1995-96. Water quality stations that should be monitored are: B, C1 or C3,
C4, D3,5,6, El-3, F1-2, G1- 2, H and S1-2. Monitoring of larval or juvenile frogs is probably
most useful.
Recommendation 8. Movements of red-legged frogs and bullfrogs are not known, but are
apparently important to the biology of both species. Red-legged frogs could be radio-tracked
in late summer to see what habitats provide refuges when the marshes dry or become salty.
Bullfrogs could be radio-tracked to determine seasonal movements and potential sources within
the watershed.
Recommendation 9. San Francisco garter snake numbers and seasonal movements are not
known. They could be trapped with drift fences and funnel traps, PIT tagged to identify
individuals, and radio-tracked to determine movements and habitat use.
Recommendation 10. If bullfrogs become abundant at Pescadero Marsh a management plan to

reduce them may be needed. Possible management actions might include periodically managing
for salinity and water levels, like those seen in 1995 and 1996, and attempts to reduce bullfrog
populations at major sources in the watershed.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Sampling techniques and understanding of red-legged frog biology benefited greatly from
discussions with Mark Jennings by phone or in chest waders, after dark, in North Marsh.
Department of Parks and Recreation rangers David Augustine and Michael Grant assisted with
access and historical information. Jae Abel directed the surveying of levee and staff gage
elevations. The field work was assisted by an army of volunteers, especially Jae Abel, Caroline
Davis, Diane Kodama, Kathy Korotaj, Pat Peterson, Dan Reis, Ruth Sundermeyer and Casey
Yturralde. Other volunteers included: Jerry Abel, John Cruz, Robin Dalun, Tiffany Hernandez,
Beth Morris, Melanie Nead, Fran Peters, the other Jerry Smith (Dawn's father), Mike Westphal,
Ben Winkler and Jerry Welch.
LITERATURE CITED
Jennings, M. R. and M. P. Hayes. 1990. Status of the California Red-legged Frog Rana aurora
draytonii in the Pescadero Marsh Natural Preserve. Report to the California Department
of Parks and Recreation.
Smith, J. J. 1990. The effects of sandbar formation and inflow on aquatic habitat and fish
utilization in Pescadero, San Gregorio, Waddell and Pomponio Creek estuaryllagoon
systems. 21985-1989. Report to the California Department of Parks and Recreation.
Smith, J. J., J. Abel and Caroline Davis. 1997. Management plan for Waddell Creek Lagoon
and surrounding habitats. Report to the California Department of Parks and Recreation.
Table 1. Mean salinity (PPT) in the upper 0.5 m (or mean upper
0.25 m / 0.5 m value) for stations in North Pond and
North Marsh and associated channels north of Pescadero
Creek. (on dates with * the sandbar was closed)
statlon
Date C1 C3 C4 El E3 F1 F2 F5 S1 S2 H
2Sep95 16.0 6.7 34.2 dry 12.9 dry 10.0/ 7.8 dry
11.0
26Nov95* 4.2 5.9 3.41 2.1 2.1 5.0 5.0 4.11 4.81 2.0
4.5 4.5 7.1
Table 1 ( C o n t i n u e d )
Date Station
C1 C3 C4 El E3 F1 F2 F5 S1 S2 H
Table 2. Salinity (PPT) in the upper 0.5 m for stations
in Pescadero Creek and in marshes of Butano Creek.
(on dates with * the sandbar was closed)
Station
Date B PI Dl D2 D3 S4 D5 D6 D8 G1 G2
F I G U R E 1.
FIGURE 2 1996 Red-legged Frog Egg Mass
Distribution In Pescadero Marsh
@ Red-legged frog egg mass
0 locations checked for egg mass
East Detta Mars

FIGURE 6 1996 Bullfrog Distribution
In Pescadero Marsh
FIGURE 7 1996 Pacific Tree Frog Distribution
zJi,A ( f '2 2
k?R
.o
United States Department of the Interior
Cc ,A
*f-p>
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE --h
$
-<I
IN REPLY REFER TO.
Ecological Services
Sacramento Field Office
3310 El Camino Avenue, Suite 130
Sacramento, California 95821-6340
1-1-97-F-96
June 25, 1997
Lt. Colonel Richard G. Thompson

District Engineer
Department of the Army
San Francisco District, Corps of Engineers
(Attn: Jeff Olberding)
333 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2197
Subject: Reinitiation of Formal Consultation on the Proposed Pescadero

Marsh Natural Preserve Enhancement Project, San Mateo county,
California (1-1-93-F-23)
Dear Lt. Colonel Thompson:
This document transmits he U.S. Fish and ~iLdlifeService's (Smvice!

biological opinion on the Pescadero Marsh Natural Preserve Enhancement
Project, San Mateo County, and its effects on the California red-legged frog
(Rana aurora draytonii) and San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis
tetrataenia) . This opinion is provided in accordance with section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act! (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) in
response to your November 19, 1996, request to initiate formal consultation on
the California red-legged frog and the tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius
newberryi). In a subsequent letter dated May 21, 1997, and received in this
office May 22, 1997, you determined that the project was not likely to
adversely affect the tidewater goby. The Service concurs with this
determination and the tidewater goby is not addressed further in this
consultation. If the project results in take of this species further review
pursuant to section 7 of the Act will be required. The project will impact
habitat for one of the few remaining populations of the San Francisco garter
snake to an extent not considered in earlier consultations with the Service
and we are including the species in this opinion.
This biological opinion is based on information provided in: (1) the Pescadero
Marsh Natural Preserve Hvdrolosical Enhancement Plan, prepared by Dr. John
Williams, dated August 31, 1990, (Enhancement plan) ; (2) Department of the
Army Public Notice No. 19006836, dated December 29, 1993, which describes the
original project proposal; (3) the Pescader~Marsh Natural Preserve Hvdrolosiq
-
Enhancement Proiect, prepared by California Department of Parks and Recreation
(DPR), dated August, 1992; (4) Final Re~ortQf. Preliminarv Studies QQ Habitat
Remirements of the San Francisco Garter Snake (Tharnno~hissirtalis
tetrataenia) & Pescader~Marsh U Theodore L Hoover Natural Preserves, f
prepared by Mark R. Jennings, dated 1992; (5) Stat= Qf. fJg California Red-
lesaed Fros (Rana aurora dravtonii) k Pescadero Marsh Natural Preserve,
prepared by Mark R . Jennings and Marc P. Hayes, dated 1990; (6) Acruati~
~abitatand Fish Utilization qf Pescadero,San ~resorio.Waddell, and Pom~onio
Lt. Colonel Richard G. Thompson
Creek Estuarv/Lasoon Svstems, prepared by Dr. Jerry J. Smith, dated

May 31, 1987; (7) Pescadero Marsh Natural Preserve Enhancement Proiect
(Additional Information) dated March 24, 1997, and received in this office
April 25, 1997; and (8) written and verbal correspondence between Ms. Jean
~erreira,District Resource Ecologist for DPR; Paul Keel, State Park Ranger;
and Ms. Kelly Geer, Mr. Matthew Vandenberg, and Mr. Mike Westphal of my staff.
Consultation History
On January 27, 1993, (received in our office January 29, 1993) the Corps
requested formal consultation with the Service on issuance of a permit to
undertake a wetland improvement project at Pescadero Marsh Natural Preserve,
owned and managed by DPR. On April 1, 1993, the Service completed a
biological opinion (Service file no. 1-1-93-F-23)on the effects of the
Pescadero Marsh Natural Preserve Enhancement Project on the federally
endangered San Francisco garter snake, (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia). On
March 28, 1996, and May 28, 1996, the Service received correspondence from
Ms. Ferreira regarding additional levee work outside the scope of the original
biological opinion. The biological opinion was amended on August 6, 1996,
(Service file no. 1-1-96-1-1119). Within this amendment the Service
determined that the additional work, which involved repairing the North Marsh
levee for the purpose of maintaining California red-legged frog habitat within
North Marsh, would not affect the San Francisco garter snake in a manner of or
to an extent not considered in the biological opinion, and was not likely to
adversely affect the California red-legged frog.
Reinitiation of formal consultation for the Pescadero Marsh Natural Preserve

Enhancement Project was prompted by the Service's listing of the California
red-legged frog as threatened on May 23, 1996, (61 FR 25813) effective June
24, 1996; the listing of the tidewater goby February 4, 1994, effective March
7, 1994; and the need for further discussion between the Service and DPR on
the biological needs of the species.
BIOLOGICAL OPINION
Description of the Proposed Action
On June 10, 1993, the Pescadero Marsh Natural Preserve Enhancement Project was
permitted by the Corps to (1) place 2,500 cubic yards of fill for levee
construction, excavate a channel between North Marsh and Pescadero Creek and
install six 48-inch culverts; (2) remove 13,000 cubic yards of levee material
with disposal at an upland site outside of Corps jurisdiction; (3) remove
750 cubic yards of Butano Creek left bank levee segment, enlarge existing
breaches in the levees and reconnect remnant channels; (4) create twelve (12)
sag ponds and place 70 cubic yards of fill; in and around Pescadero Creek,
Butano Creek, and Pescadero Marsh. To date, all of the work permitted has
been completed except for the levee removal described in (2) above. This is
the "Project B" described on page 11 of the Pescadero Marsh Natural Preserve
Hydrologic Enhancement Project.
Project B involves removal of the tide gate near Round Hill, lowering to the
level of the adjacent marsh (4.5-5.5 ft.) a 3,300 foot section of the levee
around East Delta Marsh from Round Hill to opposite the Triple Junction, an$
excavating a channel 10 ft. wide from Butano Creek to the ditch inside the
existing levee. An excavator will be used to tear down the levee, and a dump
Lt. Colonel Richard G. Thompson, District Engineer 3
truck will transport the fill (approximately 13,000 cubic yards) to an upland
site out of Corps jurisdiction.
In addition to the levee removal, DPR will undertake additional habitat

enhancement measures. A bullfrog control program will be conducted for one
season in Pescadero Marsh and evaluated for its effectiveness. The Nunziatti
trout ponds east of East Delta Marsh will be enhanced with willow plantings
and a program will be established to supplement the ponds in drought years
with creek water to sustain breeding populations of California red-legged
frogs.
To minimize take of the threatened California red-legged frog during project

construction, DPR proposes to implement measures intended to minimize take to
San Francisco garter snakes as provided in the earlier biological opinion
(reference file 1-1-93-F-231,which are expected also to minimize take on
California red-legged frogs.
Status of the S p e c i e s
San Francisco garter snake
The San Francisco garter snake was listed as a Federal endangered species in
March 1967 (32 FR 4001). The San Francisco garter snake is an extremely
colorful snake. It is identified by a burnt-orange head, yellow to greenish-
yellow dorsal stripe edged in black, and its red lateral stripe which may be
continuous or broken with black blotches and edged in black. The belly color
varies from greenish-blue to blue. Large adults can reach three feet in
length.
The San Francisco garter snakes1 preferred habitat is a densely vegetated pond
near an open hillside or levee where it can sun itself, feed, and find cover
in rodent burrows. The snakes are extremely shy, difficult to locate and
capture, and quick to flee to water or cover when disturbed (Willy, pers.
comm.). Adult snakes may seek cover in rodent burrows in hillsides and levees
during summer months when ponds may dry. On the coast, snakes hibernate
during the winter but further inland, if the weather is suitable, snakes may
be active year round. Although highly vagile, adults spend considerable time
after emergence in their hibernacula. They have been seen breeding at
entrances to these burrows shortly after emergence from hibernation (Keel,
pers. comm.) and they spend the majority of each day during the active season
in the same burrows. San Francisco garter snakes breed in the spring or late
fall and bear live young from May through October (Stebbins 1985). The
average litter size is 12-18 (Stebbins 1985).
Although primarily a diurnal species, captive snakes housed in an outside

enclosure were observed foraging after dark on warm evenings (Larsen, pers.
comm.). Adult snakes feed primarily on ~aliforniared-legged frogs, and may
also feed on juvenile bullfrogs. In laboratory studies, Larsen (1994) fed
adult San Francisco garter snakes two-year-old bullfrog tadpoles and found
that only the largest adults could eat and digest the tadpoles; smaller adults
regurgitated partially digested tadpoles, apparently unable to fully digest
them. Larsen (1994) also observed that when these smaller adult snakes were
fed bullfrogs and California red-legged frogs of comparable size, they were
unable to hold and eat the bullfrogs although they had no trouble with the f
California red-legged frogs. Newborn and juvenile San Francisco garter snakes
depend heavily upon Pacific chorus frogs (Pseudacris f= Pseudacris (= Hyla) )
Lt. Colonel ~ichardG. Thompson, District Engineer
regilla) as prey (Larsen 1994). If newly metamorphosed Pacific chorus frogs

are not available, the young snakes may not survive.
Many of the threats that led to the listing of the San Francisco garter snake
in 1967 continued to impact the species in 1985 when the Recovery Plan was
written. These included loss of habitat from agricultural, commercial and
urban development and collection by "reptile fanciers and breeders" (Service
1985).
The historical threats to the species remain, but there are now additional
threats to the species, such as the documented decline of the California red-
legged frog (an essential prey species) and the introduction of bullfrogs
(Rana catesbeiana) into San Francisco garter snake habitat. Bullfrogs are
capable of preying on both San Francisco garter snakes and California red-
legged frogs. Extirpation of California red-legged frogs in San Francisco
garter snake habitat is likely to cause localized extinction of the snake.
The Recovery Plan for the San Francisco garter snake (Service 1985) identified
six significant populations. These were the West-of-Bayshore, San Francisco
State Fish and Game Refuge (Refuge), Laguna Salada (Pacifica), Pescadero Marsh
Natural Preserve (Pescadero) and Aiio Nuevo State Reserve (Aiio Nuevo)
populations, and an isolated population north of Half Moon Bay. Of the six
populations existing in 1985, the Pacifica population was heavily impacted in
1989 and is no longer considered significant, four have declined drastically
(West-of-Bayshore,Refuge, Pescadero and Aiio Nuevo) . The status of the Half
Moon Bay population is unknown.
Of the declining populations, the Afio Nuevo population appears to have the
slowest rate of decline. Recent recovery actions at Afio Nuevo may be further
slowing the decline of that population. However, current land management
practices outside of State park lands are impacting the Aiio Nuevo population.
It is unknown whether or not recovery efforts made by the California State
Department of Parks and Recreation will be sufficient to change the trend in
that population.
The Refuge population is found on San Francisco Water Department lands in the
area encompassing the Upper and Lower Crystal Springs and San Andreas
Reservoirs. This population is highly dispersed throughout the reservoir and
watershed and is heavily impacted from predation by introduced fishes,
reservoir fluctuations and dewatering, bullfrogs, and loss of seasonal
wetlands.
The most significant decline in population numbers of San Francisco garter

snakes (apart from Pacifica) is the decline of the West-of-Bayshore
population. Data on this population has shown a dramatic downward trend in
numbers over the past several years..
California red-1egged frog
The California red-legged frog was federally listed as threatened on

May 23, 1996 (61 FR 25813) effective June 24, 1996. This species is the
largest native frog in the western United States (Wright and Wright 1949),
ranging from 4 to 13 centimeters (1.5 to 5.1 inches) in length
(Stebbins 1985). The abdomen and hind legs of adults are largely red; the f
back is characterized by small black flecks and larger irregular dark blotches
with indistinct outlines on a brown, gray, olive, or reddish background color.
Dorsal spots usually have light centers (Stebbins 1985), and dorsolateral .
Lt. Colonel Richard G. Thompson, District Engineer
folds are prominent on the back. Larvae (tadpoles) range from 14 to 80

millimeters (mm) (0.6 to 3.1 inches) in length, and the background color of
the body is dark brown and yellow with darker spots (Storer 1925).
California red-legged frogs have paired vocal sacs and vocalize in air (Hayes
and Krempels 1986). Female frogs deposit egg masses on emergent vegetation so
that the egg mass floats on the surface of the water (Hayes and Miyamoto
1984). California red-legged frogs breed from November through March with
earlier breeding records occurring in southern localities (Storer 1925).
California red-legged frogs found in coastal drainages are active year-round
(Jennings et al. 1992), whereas those found in interior sites may be more
seasonally inactive.
California red-legged frogs spend most of their lives in and near sheltered
backwaters of ponds, marshes, springs, streams, and reservoirs. The largest
densities of California red-legged frogs currently are associated with deep
pools with dense stands of overhanging willows (Salix spp.) and an intermixed
fringe of cattails (Typha latifolia) (Hayes and Jennings 1988, Jennings 1988).
This is considered optimal habitat. California red-legged frog eggs, larvae,
transformed juveniles, and adults also have been found in ephemeral creeks and
drainages and in ponds that do not have riparian vegetation. Accessability to
sheltering habitat is essential for the survival of California red-legged
frogs within a watershed, and can be a factor limiting frog population numbers
and survival. Sheltering habitat includes mammal burrows, damp leaf litter,
downed wood and other cover objects, both natural and manmade, and dense
shrubbery up to several hundred meters distant from aquatic sites. California
red-legged frogs may shelter in such places for weeks at a time in the wet
season. During winter rain events, juvenile and adult California red-legged
frogs are known to wander perhaps up to 1-2 km from summer aquatic sites
(Rathbun and Holland, unpublished data, cited in Rathbun et al. 1991).
Egg masses contain about 2,000 to 5,000 moderate-sized (2.0 to 2.8 mm L0.08 to
0.11 inches] in diameter), dark reddish brown eggs and are typically attached
to vertical emergent vegetation, such as bulrushes (Scirpus spp.) or cattail
(Jennings et dl. 1992). California red-legged frogs are-often-prolific
breeders, laying their eggs during or shortly after large rainfall events in
late winter and early spring (Hayes and Miyamoto 1984). Eggs hatch in 6 to 14
days (Jennings 1988). In coastal lagoons, the most significant mortality
factor in the pre-hatching stage is water salinity (Jennings et al. 1992).
One hundred percent mortality occurs in eggs exposed to salinity levels
greater than 4.5 parts per thousand (Jennings and Hayes 1990). Increased
siltation that occurs during the breeding season can cause asphyxiation of
eggs and small larvae. Larvae undergo metamorphosis 3.5 to 7 months after
hatching (Storer 1925, Wright and Wright 1949, Jennings and Hayes 1990). Of
the various life stages, larvae probably experience the highest mortality
rates, with less than 1 percent of eggs laid reaching metamorphosis (Jennings
et al. 1992). Sexual maturity normally is reached at 3 to 4 years of age
(Storer 1925, Jennings and Hayes 1985). California red-legged frogs may live
8 to 10 years (Jennings et dl. 1992).
The diet of California red-legged frogs is highly variable. Hayes and Tennant
(1985) found invertebrates to be the most common food items. Vertebrates,
such as ~ a c i ic
f tree frogs (Pseudacris ( = ~seudacris(= Hyla) ) regilla) and
California mice (Peromyscus californicus) , represented over half of the pre4
mass eaten by larger frogs (Hayes and Tennant 1985). Hayes and Tennant (1985)
found juvenile frogs to be active diurnally and nocturnally, whereas adult
frogs were largely nocturnal. Feeding activity probably occurs along the
shoreline and on the surface of the water (Hayes and Tennant 1985). Larvae
likely eat algae (Jennings et al. 1992).
The California red-legged frog has been extirpated or nearly extirpated f r ~ m

70 percent of its former range. Historically, this species was found
throughout the Central Valley and Sierra Nevada foothills. At present,
California red-legged frogs are known to occur in 243 streams or drainages
from 22 counties, primarily in central coastal California. The most secure
aggregations of California red-legged frogs are found in aquatic sites that
support substantial riparian and aquatic vegetation and lack non-native
predators [e.g., bullfrogs (Rand catesbeiana), bass (Micropterus spp.) , and
sunfish (Lepomis spp.) 1 .
The current status of the California red-legged frog is derived largely from
the final rule for the species (61 FR 25813), and the references cited
therein. Over-harvesting, habitat loss, non-native species introduction, and
urban encroachment are the primary factors that have negatively affected the
California red-legged frog throughout its range (Jennings and Hayes 1985,
Hayes and Jennings 1988). Ongoing causes of decline include direct habitat
loss due to stream alteration and disturbance to wetland areas, indirect
effects of expanding urbanization, and competition or predation from non-
native species.
The environmental baseline used in this analysis includes past and ongoing
impacts of all Federal, State, and private actions and other human activities
in the vicinity of the project that have impacted, or are impacting, the
listed species. The California red-legged frog has been well documented in
the vicinity of Pescadero Marsh (Jennings and Hayes 1990), a site named in the
final rule for this species (61 FR 25813) as one of only three remaining
populations of California red-legged frogs supporting more than 350 adult
frogs. Past and ongoing activities known to the Service to have impacted or
be impacting California red-legged frogs in the vicinity of Pescadero Marsh
include the Cascade Ranch proposed development south of Pescadero Marsh,
proposed projects on Calera and San Pedro Creeks near Pacifica north of
Pescadero Marsh, and the proposed Devil's Slide Highway One realignment near
Montara.
Effects of the Proposed Action
An unknown number of California red-legged frogs and San Francisco garter

snakes that may potentially be in burrows or other sheltering habitat where
they would be undetectable during preconstruction surveys would be taken by
removal of the East Delta Marsh levee. Improvement of the marsh's hydrology,
however, is expected to increase the amount of freshwater and brackish wetland
habitat available to California red-legged frogs and increase the prey base
for San Francisco garter snakes. Proposed measures to control bullfrogs and
manage the Nunziatti trout ponds for California red-legged frogs is expected
to further offset the impact of any take incidental to the levee removal. The
excavation will convert 1.97 acres of upland habitat to wetland habitat, which
will reduce the number of rodent burrows available for shelter and hibernation
for the San Francisco garter snake. The project may benefit both species by
increasing habitat for the California red-legged frog and prey base for the
San Francisco garter snake. i
8.8 acres of upland habitat potentially available for sheltering habitat in

the winter months by California red-legged frogs and year round for the
San Francisco garter snake will be temporarily impacted by fill disposal.

Replanting of the spoil disposal areas with native species will minimize this
temporary loss of upland habitat. Sufficient uplands will remain in the
Preserve to provide sheltering habitat for California red-legged frogs and San
Francisco garter snakes.. Allowance of gopher and vole activity will allow
for establishment San Francisco garter snake upland habitat.
Cumulative Effects
Cumulative effects include the effects of future State, Tribal, local or

private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area
considered in this biological opinion. Future Federal actions that are
unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section because
they require separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Act. Effects
known to the Service to occur in the action area and upstream from the marsh
include trail maintenance, public use, sport fishing, farming, residential and
commercial activity, agriculture, grazing, and logging on State and private
lands. The cumulative effect of these ongoing activities would result in the
loss of an unquantifiable number of juvenile and adult San Francisco garter
snakes and eggs, larvae and adult California red-legged frogs . However,
taking of the San Francisco garter snake and California red-legged frog and
their habitats is prohibited by section 9 of the Act. Thus, with the
exception of illegal take, no loss of San Francisco garter snakes or
California red-legged frogs is anticipated except as authorized under permits
issued by the Service under section 10 of the Act.
Conclusion
After reviewing the current status of the San Francisco garter snake and
California red-legged frog, the environmental baseline for the species, the
effects of the Pescadero Marsh Natural Preserve Enhancement Project, and the
cumulative effects, it is the Service's biological opinion that the proposed
project, as described in this document, is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the species. No critical habitat has been designated
for these species, therefore, none will be affected.
INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT
Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulation pursuant to section 4(d) of the
Act prohibit the take of endangered and threatened species, respectively,
without special exemption. Take is defined as harass, harm, pursue, hunt,
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or to attempt to engage in any
such conduct. Harass is defined by the Service as an intentional or negligent
act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to a listed species by
annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral
patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or
sheltering. Harm is defined by the Service to include significant habitat
modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species
by impairing behavioral patterns including breeding, feeding, or sheltering.
Incidental take is defined as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose
of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Under the terms of
section 7(b) (4) and section 7(0) (21, taking that is incidental to and not f
intended as part of the agency action is not considered to be prohibited
taking under the Act provided that such taking is in compliance with this
Incidental Take Statement.
The measures described below are non-discretionary, and must be implemented by

the Corps so they become binding conditions of any authorization for the
exemption under 7(0) (2) to apply. The Corps has a continuing duty to regulate
the activity that is covered by this incidental take statement. If the Corps
(1) fails to adhere to the terms and conditions of the incidental take
statement through enforceable terms, and/or (2) fails to retain oversight to
ensure compliance with these terms and conditions, the protective coverage of
7(0)(2) may lapse.
Amount or Extent of Take
After reviewing the project as proposed, the Service anticipates the

incidental take of San Francisco garter snakes and California red-legged frogs
as a result of implementing the action. The Service expects that incidental
take of the California red-legged frog and San Francisco garter snake will be
difficult to detect or quantify for the following reasons: The aquatic nature
of the organisms and their relatively small body size make the finding of a
dead specimen unlikely, the secretive nature of the species, losses may be
masked by seasonal fluctuations in numbers or other causes, and the species
occurs in habitat that makes them difficult to detect. Due to the difficulty
in quantifying the number of California red-legged frogs and San Francisco
garter snakes that will be taken as a result of the proposed action, the
Service is quantifying take incidental to the project as the number of acres
of habitat that will become unsuitable for the species as a result of the
action. Therefore, the Service estimates that 1.97 acres of California red-
legged frog and San Francisco garter snake habitat will become unsuitable as a
result of the proposed action, and any California red-legged frogs within the
1.97 acres could be killed, harmed, harassed, trapped, captured, and collected
as a result of the project. The Service has developed the following
incidental take statement based on the premise that the reasonable and prudent
measures will be implemented. Upon implementation of the following reasonable
and prudent measure 1.97 acres of habitat, and the San Francisco garter snakes
and California red-legged frogs found within those acres, will become exempt
from the prohibitions described under section 9 of the Act for direct and
indirect impacts as a result of the management activities described.
Reasonable and Prudent Measures
The Service believes the following reasonable and prudent measure is necessary
and appropriate to minimize take:
(1) Minimize the impact on California red-legged frogs and San Francisco
garter snakes.
Terms and Conditions
To be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act, the Corps must
ensure compliance with the following terms and conditions, which implement the
reasonable and prudent measure described above. These terms and conditions
are non-discretionary.
Terms and Conditions for Reasonable and Prudent Measure #1:

f
1. DPR shall implement the project as described in the project
description above, including measures to control bullfrogs and
enhance the Nunziatti trout ponds for California red-legged frogs.
Lt. Colonel Richard G. ~hompson,District Engineer
2. During pre-construction walk through surveys, any California red-

legged frogs detected within the immediate construction area shall
be captured and relocated into a perennial watercourse on-site.
3. DPR shall not plant willows at Nunziatti ponds.
4. DPR shall dewater Nunziatti ponds between October 1 and October

31, during any year that there is standing water during that
period.
5. DPR shall not use rodenticides for any purpose in Pescadero Marsh.
6. Any capture or handling of California red-legged frogs shall be

done by a Service-approved biologist or individual possessing a
10 (a)(1)(A) permit for the species.
7. For a biologist to be approved by the Service to work on this

project they must have a valid 10 (a)(1)(A) permit, or, they must
submit to the Service a resume that includes: a description of
experience with California red-legged frog or similar species; a
written description on how they propose to handle the species
(handling protocol) ; description of release site and release
methods; and a description of the work for which they are
requesting approval, including specific tasks related to
California red-legged frog mitigation. The approval must be
received in writing prior to start of project monitoring.
8. No capture or handling of San Francisco garter snakes is

authorized.
9. DPR shall submit annual summaries of bullfrog eradication results.
The reasonable and prudent measure, with its implementing terms and
conditions, is designed to minimize the impact of incidental take that might
otherwise result from the proposed.action. With implementation of these
measures the Service believes that no more than 1.97 acres of upland habitat,
supporting an undetermined number of San Francisco garter snakes and
California red-legged frogs, will be incidentally taken through project
construction activities. If, during the course of the action, this level of
incidental take is exceeded, such incidental take represents new information
requiring review of the reasonable and prudent measure provided. The Corps
must immediately provide an explanation of the causes of the taking and review
with the Service the need for possible modification of the reasonable and
prudent measure.
Reporting ~equirements
The Service shall be notified within 24 hours of the finding of any injured or
dead San Francisco garter snake or California red-legged frog, or any
unanticipated damage to San Francisco garter snake or California red-legged
frog habitat associated with project construction. Notification must include
the date, time, and precise location of the specimen/incident, the Service
file number (1-1-97-F-96), and any other pertinent information. The ~ervicd
contact person is the Assistant Field Supervisor for Endangered Species in the
Sacramento Field Office (916) 979-2725. Any dead or injured specimens shall
be reposited with the Service's Division of Law Enforcement, 3310 El Camino
Avenue, Suite 140, Sacramento, California 95821-6340 (916) 979-2987.
Lt. Colonel Richard G. Thothpson, District Engineer
CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Section 7(a)(l) of the Act directs Federal agencies to utilize their

authorities to further the purposes of the Act by carrying out conservation
programs for the benefit of endangered and threatened species. Conservation
recommendations are discretionary agency activities to minimize or avoid
adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, to
help implement recovery plans, or to develop information.
The Service proposes the following conservation recommendations for the

proposed action considered in this biological opinion:
1. The Corps shall assist DPR and other Federal, State and private entities
in developing, funding and implementing a regional bullfrog and nonnative
fish control plan in coastal San Mateo County with the goal of completely
removing these animals from Pescadero Marsh and buffering the area
against subsequent recolonization.
REINITIATION - CLOSING STATEMENT
This concludes formal consultation on the action outlined in your initiation

request received by the Service on October 21, 1996. As provided in 50 CFR
5402.16, reinitiation of formal consultation is required where discretionary
Federal agency involvement or control over the action has been retained (or is
authorized by law) and if: (1) the amount or extent of incidental take is
exceeded; ( 2 ) new information reveals effects of the agency action that may
affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not
considered in this opinion; (3) the agency action is subsequently modified in
a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat not
considered in this opinion; or (4) a new species is listed or critical habitat
designated that may be affected by the action. In instances where the amount
or extent of incidental take is exceeded, any operations causing such take
must cease pending reinitiation.
If you have any questions regarding this opinion, please contact Mike Westphal
of the Sacramento Field Office at (916) 979-2739 extension 437.
Sincerely,
e S. White
cc : RD ( A E S ) , Portland, OR
SFO-Wetlands, Sacramento, CA
EPA-Wetlands Section, San Francisco, CA
CDFG, Region 111, Yountville, CA (C. Wilcox)
LITERATURE CITED
Hayes, M.P. and M.R. Jennings. 1988. Habitat correlates of distribution of the
California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) and the foothill
yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii) : Implications for management. Pages 144-
158 In: R. Szaro, K. E. Severson, and D. R. Patton (technical
coordzators). Proceedings of the Symposium on the Management of
Amphibians, Reptiles, and Small Mammals in North America. U.S.D.A. Forest
Service General Technical Report RM-166.
Hayes, M.P. and D.M. Krempels. 1986. Vocal sac variation among frogs of the
genus Rana from western North America. Copeia 1986(4) :927-936.
Hayes, M.P. and M.M. Miyamoto. 1984. ~iochemical,behavioral and body size
differences between Rana aurora aurora and R. a. draytonii. Copeia
1984 (4):1018-1022.
Hayes, M.P. and M.R. Tennant. 1985. Diet and feeding behavior of the
California red-legged frog, Rana aurora draytonii (Ranidae). The
Southwestern Naturalist 30(4):601-605.
Jennings, M.R. 1988b. Natural history and decline of native ranids in
California. Pages 61-72 &: H.F. DeLisle, P.R. Brown, B. Kaufman, and
B.M. McGurty (editors). Proceedings of the conference on California
herpetology.- Southwestern ~ e r ~ e t o l o ~ i s t
Society,
s Special Publication
(4):1-143.
Jennings, M.R. and M.P. Hayes. 1985. Pre-1900 overharvest of California red-
legged frogs (Rana aurora draytonii) : The inducement for bullfrog (Rana
catesbeiana) introduction. Herpetologica 41(1) :94-103.
Jennings, M.R. and M.P. Hayes. 1990. Status of the Califernia red-legged frog
Rana aurora draytonii in the Pescadero Marsh Natural Preserve. Report
prepared for the California Department of Parks and Recreation,
Sacramento, CA. 30 pp. + Tables and Figures.
Jennings, M.R., M.P. Hayes, and D.C. Holland. 1992. A petition to the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service to place the California red-legged frog (Rana
aurora draytonii) and the western pond turtle (Clemmys rnamorata) on the
list of endangered and threatened wildlife and plants. 21 pp.
Johnston, D., C. Fischer, and C. Preuss. 1996. Guadalupe River Watershed
Stream Resources Inventory Summary ReDort: Volume One of Two. Prepared
for the Santa Clara Valley Water District by the Coyote Creek Riparian
Station, Alviso, CA.
Larsen, Sheila S. 1994. Life history aspects of the San Francisco garter
snake at the Millbrae habitat site. Unpubl. MS, Calif. State Univ.,
Hayward, 105pp.
Rathbun, G.B., K.W. Worcester, D.Holland, and J. Martin. 1991. Status of
declining aquatic reptiles, amphibians, and fishes in the lower Santa Rosa
Creek, Cambria, CA. 21 pp.
Stebbins, R.C. 1985. A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians.
Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA. xiv + 336 pp.
Storer, T.I. 1925. A synopsis of the amphibia of California. University of
California Publications in Zoology 27:l-342.
P
Twedt, B. 1993. A comparative ecology of Rana aurora Baird and Girard and
Rana catesbeiana Shaw at Freshwater Lagoon, Humboldt County, California.
Unpubl. MS, Humboldt State Univ. 53pp + appendix.
Wright, A.H. and A.A. Wright. 1949. Handbook of frogs and toads of the United
States and Canada. Comstock Publishing Company, Inc., Ithaca, NY. xii +
640 pp.
Personal Communications:
Keel, Paul. Afio Nuevo State Reserve, Pescadero, california, 94060.

Larsen, Sheila. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 3310 El Carnino Avenue, Suite
130, Sacramento, California, 95821.
Willy, Alison. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 3310 El Camino Avenue, Suite 130,
Sacramento, California, 95821.
Data Sets
State 0 4 California
Department of Fish and Game

WATER POLLUTION CONTROL LABORATORY
R e q t e ~ ffor Chemical Analysis and/br Bioassay Findings on Materials Submitted
Please type o r p r i n t l e z i b l y . F i l l o u t a s c o m p l e t e l y as p o s s i b i e .
Bi 11 J o n g
Name
I WCL ;TO.
( F o r L a b o r a t o r y Use O n l y J
L-17-81
P.0. Box 47 A d d i t i o n a l No. NLM

N,mber Street
Yountville CA 94599 Date Received 01-27-81
City State Zip
Date ~ompleted02-04-81
Tzlephone Number
(707) 944-2443
Source of Sample P e s c a d e r o Marsh, P e s c a d e r o & Butano Creek
D e t a i l e d D e s c r i p t i o n o f Problem Documentation of n u t r i e n t l e v e l s
Analysis Required Ammonia, N i t r i t e , Nitrate, P h o s p h a t e
Date G - i a l y s i s Required At Convenience Reason
D e l i v e r e d by Jong Qrgaaization DFG Date 11271 8 1
LABORATORY FINDEIGS
(For L a b o r a t o r y Use O n l y )
Station PO4 & NO2 NO^ N H ~ ( P r e s e r v e d w/H2S04)

A 1 PT 1 PT
B 1 PT 1 PT
C 1 PT 1 PT
D 1 PT 1 PT Jars Marked
. E 1 PT 1 PT wht-tm are m d
F 1 PT 1 PT and a r e f o r NHL, & NO?,
G 1 PT 1 PT Jars Marked " N i t r i t e w
H 1 PT 1 PT are f o r NO7 & p o t
*
I 1 PT 1 PT analysis.
' - L ~ b o r a t o r ~0 i r e c t o r
T o t a l P h o s p h a t e as P N i t r i t e as N N i t r a t e as N
Sample /I Ammonia as N
SEPARATION PAGE
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE I N T E R I O R
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Water R e s o u r c e s D i v i s i o n
CA1,IFORNIA STREAMFLOW CHARACTERISTICS
( F r o r n records t h r o u g h 1 9 6 8 )
V o l u m e 1: C o l o r a d o R i v e r B a s i n , S o u t h e r n
G r e a t Basin, a n d P a c i f i c S l o p e Basins'
excluding Central Valley
BY
L. N. J o r g e n s e n , M . A. R o s e , R. D . B u s c h ,
a n d J. S. B a d e r
P r e p a r e d i n cooperation w i t h t h e
C a l i f o r n i a D e p a r t m e n t of Water R e s o u r c e s
OPEN-FILE REPORT
Menlo Park, C a l i f o r n i a
June 7 , 1 9 7 1
PESCADERO CREEK BASIN
11162500 PESCADERO CREEK NEAR PESCADERO, CA
LCCATI0N.--Lat 37'15'39", long 122'19'4OW, in SW 114 sec.5, T.8 S . , R.4 W., San Mateo County, Hydrologic Unit
18050006, on left bank at downstream side of highway bridge, 3.0 mi east of Pescadero, and 5.3 mi upstream
from mouth.
DRAINAGE AREA. - - 4 5 . 9 mi2.
PERIOD OF RECORD.--April 1 9 5 1 to current year.
CHEMICAL DATA: Water year 1977, monthly.
WATER TEMPERATURE: Water years 1965-79, daily; 1980, 1986, monthly.
SEDIMENT DISCHARGE: Water years 1971, 1973, 1980, daily; 1986, monthly.
REVISED RECORDS.--WSP 1445: 1952-53(M). WSP 1715: Drainage area.
GAGE.--Waterstage recorder and crest-stage gage. Datum of gage is 62.3 ft above National Geodetic Vertical
Datum of 1929.
REMARKS.--No estimated daily discharges. Records fair. Minor regulation from swimning pools in San Mateo County
Memorial Park and Portola State Park during sumner months. Small diversions upstream from station by pumping.
AVERAGE DISCHARGE.--38 years, 42.1 ft3/s, 30,500 acre-ftlyr.
EXTREMES FOR PERIOD OF RECORD.-- aximum discharge, 9,420 ft3/s, Dec. 23, 1955, gage height, 21.27 ft, from rating
!I
curve extended above 2,700 ft /s on basis of slope-area measurement of peak flow; no flow at times.
EXTREMES FOR CURRENT YEAR.--Peak discharges greater than base discharge of 700 ft3/s and maximum ( * I :
Gage height
Date Time '9
Disc arge
(ft Is)
Gage height
(ft) Date Time 1
Disc arge
(ft 1s) (ft)
Mar. 11 0500 *751 "5.92
Minimum daily, 0 . 2 8 ft3/s, Oct. 2 5 .
DISCHARGE, CUBIC FEET PER SECOND. WATER YEAR OCTOBER 1988 TO SEPTEMBER 1989
MEAN VALUES
DAY OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP
TOTAL 15.94 186.24 379.8 407.7 192.4 1780.5 340.2 107.5 56.0 34.01 39.30 42.46
MEAN .51 6.21 12.3 13.2 6.87 57.4 11.3 3.47 1.87 1.10 1.27 1.42
FIAX .96 43 59 49 16 370 29 5.2 2.6 1.7 2.3 2.9
MIN .28 .47 1.3 2.4 2.5 3.5 5.4 2.5 1.2 .63 .44 .81
P.C-FT 32 369 753 809 382 3530 675 213 111 67 78 84
CAL YR 1988 TOTAL 2175.00 MEAN 5.94 MAX 222 MIN . 1 6 AC-FT 4310
WTR YR 1989 TOTAL 3582.05 MEAN 9.81 MAX 370 MIN . 2 8 AC-FT 7100
LOCATION.--Lat 37'1S139", long 122*19'40", in SW 114 sec.5, T.E.S., R.4 W., San Mateo County, Hydrologic Unit
from mouth.
DRAINAGE AREA.--4 5.9 mi .

PERIOD OF RECORD.--April 1951 to current year.
CHEMICAL DATA: Water year 1977, monthly.
WATER TEMPERATURE: Water years 1965-79. daily; 1980, 1986. monthly.
SEDIMENT DISCHARGE: Water years 1971, 1973, 1980, daily; 1986, monthly.
GAGE.--Water-stage recorder and crest-stage gage. Datum of gage is 62.3 ft above National Geodetic Vertical
Datum of 1929.
REMARKS.--No estimated daily discharges. Records fair. Minor regulation from swimning pools in San Mateo County
Memorial Park and Portola State Park during sumner months. Small diversions upstream From station by pumping.
AVERAGE DISCHARGE.--37 years, 43.0 ft3/s, 31,150 acre-ftlyr.
EXTREMES FOR PERIOD OF RECORD.--pximum discharge, 9,420 ft3/s, Dec. 23, 1955, gage height, 21.27 ft, from rating
curve extended above 2,700 ft Is on basis of slope-area measurement of peak flow; no flow at times.
EXTREMES FOR CURRENT YEAR.--Peak discharges greater than base discharge of 700 ft3/s and maximum ("1:
Date Time 9
Disc arge
(ft Is)
Gage height
(ft) Date Time
Disc arge
(ft'3 Is) Gage(it)
height
Jan. 17 1230 *475 *4.75

Minimum daily, 0.16 ft3/s, Aug. 31.
DISCHARGE, CUBIC FEET PER SECOND. WATER YEAR OCTOBER 1987 TO SEPTEMBER 1988
MEAN VALUES
TOTAL 35.93 74.6 558.2 854 200.9 131.6 179.5 111.8 66.8 29.43 12.12 6.87
MEAN 1.16 2.49 18.0 27.5 6.93 4.25 5.98 3.61 2.23 .95 .39 .23
MAX 5.9 6.1 58 222 12 6.8 24 6.6 2.9 1.5 .64 .37
MIN .40 1.5 5.0 11 4.9 3.3 2.7 2.5 1.3 .47 .16 .17
AC-FT 71 148 1110 1690 398 261 356 222 132 58 24 14
CAI. YR 1987 TOTAL 3041.97 MEAN 8.33 MAX 347 MIN .40 AC-FT 6030
UTR YR 1988 TOTAL 2261.75 MEAN 6.18 MAX 222 MIN .16 AC-FT 4490
LOCATION.--Lat 37'15'39", long 122'19'40", in SW 1/4 sec.5, T.8 S., R.4 W., San Mateo County, Hydrologic Unit
from mouth.
DRAINAGE AREA.--45.9 mi2.
WATER-DISCHARGE RECORDS
PERIOD OF RECORD.--April 1951 to current year.
GAGE.--Water-stage recorder and crest-stage gage. Datum of gage is 62.3 ft above National Geodetic Vertical
Datum of 1929.
REMARKS.--No estimated daily discharges. Records fair. Minor regulation from swinming pools in San Mateo County
Memorial Park and Portola State Park during sumner months. Small diversions upstream from station by pumping.
AVERAGE DISCHARGE.--39 years, 41.3 ft3/s, 29,920 acre-ft/yr.
EXTREMES FOR PERIOD OF RECORD.-- aximum discharge, 9,420 ft3/s, Dec. 23, 1955, gage height, 21.27 ft, from rating
E3
curve extended above 2,700 ft /s on basis of slope-area measurement of peak flow; no flow at times.
EXTREMES FOR CU'RKZNT YEAR.--Peak discharges greater than base discharge of 700 ft3/s and maximum ( * I :
Disc arge Gage height Disc arge

Date Time 3
(ft IS) (ft) Date Time 3
(ft 1s) Gage(ft)
height
Feb. 16 1915 "508 "4.94
Minimum daily, 0.76 ft3/s, Oct. 14
DISCHARGE, CUBIC FEET PER SECOND, WATER YEAR CCTOBER 1989 TO SEPTEMBER 1990
MEAN VALUES
TOTAL 2
MEAN
MAX
MIN
AC-FT
CAL YR 1989 TOTAL 4394.11 MEAN 12.0 MAX 370 MIN .44 AC-FT 8720
WTR YR 1990 TOTAL 3788.34 MEAN 10.4 MAX 122 MIN .76 AC-FT 7510
1 1 - l b 2 5 . P e s c a d e r o Creek n e a r P e s c a d e r o , Calil.
Location.--Lat 37'15'4OM, l o n g 12Z019'40", I n SW& s e c . 5 , T.8 S., R.4 W . . on l e f t bank a t downsLream s i d e of highway b r i d g e , 3 . 0 m i l e s
e a s t of P e s c a d e r o and 5 3 m i l e s u p s t r e a m from mouth.
w y d s available.--April 1951 t o Seytemher i 9 t l .
GS$.--Water-stage recorder. Datum of gage i s b2.3 f t above mearl s e a l e v e l , darcrm o f 1929.
-
AveraRe d i s c h a r g e . - - 1 0 y e a r s , 42.6 c f s ( 3 0 , 8 4 0 a c r e - f t p e r year); median of y e a r l y mean d i s c h a r g e s , 2 6 c f s ( 1 8 , 8 0 0 a c r e - I t p e l y e a r ) .
~rtrenies.--Maximum d i s c h a r g e d u r i n g y e a r . 150 c f s Mar. 1 5 ( g a g e h e i g h t , 4.16 f c ) ; no t l o w f o r p a r t of many d a y s J u l y t o September.

1951-61: Maximum d i s c h a r g e , 9 , 4 2 0 c f s Dec. 2 3 , 1955 ( g a g e b e i g h t . 21.27 ft), from r a t i n g c u r v e e x t e n d e d above 2.700 c f s on
b a s i s of . l o p e - a r e a measurement of peak f l o w ; n o f l o w s t t i m e s .
R&.--Records f a i r above 5 c i s , poor below. Small d i v e r s i o n s above s t a t i o n b y puntplng. S m a l l l o g g i n g pond i n h e a d w a t e c s c a n

cause r e g u l a t i o n d u r i n g f l u s h i n g o p e r a t i o n s .
R a t i l l 8 t a b l e ( g a g e h e i g h t , i n f r e t , and d i s c h a r g e , i n C L I J L C f e e t p e r second)
( S h i f t i n g - c o n t r o l .nethod t ~ s e dOct. 12 t o Nov. 1 2 )
D i s c h a r g e , i n c u b i c f e e t p e r s e c o n d , w a t e r y e a r Ocfober t 9 6 0 rr, Sepcembrz-196t

Eov. 1 Dec. I Jan. 1 fib. Me?. I A . I Mny ( June I July 1 Aug. I Sept.
3.4 22 4.9 19 5.6 3.7 Ob 0.9 05
3.4 18 4 5 12 5.6 * 3.7 9 .4 5
,1 0 50
26 3.7 25
'i. . 27 1.O 12 3.7 15
1.0 59 4 .o
$ 20
9
! 29 42 3.7 I? 3.7 5
;
\
.J,
31
1.0 7.7 ~ 3 . 7 13 - - - - ~ 15 3.7 .4
'4 ,:rsl .{<>.I

'>."$
It!. ,
* .,X. 2.
\.
i , L.6.
.i ,:.it '
, :S
t . 1 , ~ ~>.23 Hin C 1 . 2 Mean lo. ; Acre-feet '.'('/O
300 PFSCADERO CREEK BASIN
11-1625. Pescadero Creek near Pescadero, Calif.
--
Location.--Lat 37'15'140", long l22'l9'h~", in SW,? sec.5, ~ . S.,
east of Pescadero and 5.3 miles upstream from mouth.
8 ii.4 W., on left bank at downstream side of highway bridge, 3.0 miles
Dralr~wcurca. --45.9 ajq mi.
Records available.--April 1951 to September 1963.
-
Gage.--Water-stage recorder. Datum of g w e is 62.3 ft above mean sea level, datum of 1929.
Average discharge.--12 years, 42.9 cfs (31,060 acre-ft per year); median of yearly mean discharges, 25 cfs (18,100 acre-ft per year).
Extremes.--Maximumdischarge during year, 6;100 cfs Jan. 31 (gage height, 18.80 ft), from rating curve extended above 1,400cfs as
, explained below; minimum, 0.7 cfs Oct. 7.
1951-63: Maximum discharge, 9,420 cfs Dec. 23, 1955 (gege height, 21.27 ft), from rating curve extended above 2,700 cfs on
basis of slope-area measurement of peak flow; no flow at times.
Remarks.--Records fair except those for periods of no gege-height record, vhich are poor. Small diversions above stat.ionby pumping.
r- regulation in San Mateo County 14emorial Park.
Revisions (water years).--1$2 Basic Data Report: 1961.
Calendar year 1962: Max t790 Min 0 Mean 32.3 Ac-ft 23.420 t
Water year 1962-63: Hax 2930 Hin 0.9 Mean 66.0 Ac-ft 47.790
Peak discharge (base, 500 cfs) Discharge measurement made on this day.
1
+
Date
- I ~ik? I ,,zgtl isc char gel Date --miT
a No gage-height record.
11-1625. P e s c a d e r o C r c c k n c a r P e s c a d e r o , C a l i f .
L o c a t i o n . - - L n t 37'15'40", l o n g 1 2 2 1 9 ' 4 0 " , ill SW!, sr.c.5. T.8 S., R.4 W . , o n l e f t h a n k a t d o w n s t r e a m s i d e o f h i g h w a y b r i d g e . 3.0
m i l e s c a s t o l P e s c a < l r r o and 5.3 mi 1t.s ttpstru;rm rrotn m o u t h .
Drainage area.--65.9 s q mi.
Records a v a i l m . - - A p r i l 1951 t o S e p t o a l > r r 1 9 b 5 .
-.--Water-stage recorder. Datum o f t:al:c i s 6 2 . 3 f t a b o v c m a n s e a I c v e l , dattrm of 1 9 2 9 .
A v e r a g e d i s c l i n r g c - - - 1 4 y e l r s , 4 1 . 3 cCs ( 2 9 , 9 0 0 . ~ c r c - i t p e r y c a r ) ; m e d i a n o f y e a r l y mean d i s c h a r g e s , 24 c [ s ( 1 7 , 4 0 0 a c r e - i t p e r y e a r ) .
Extrem3s.--Maximum d i s c h a r g e d u r i n g y c n r , 3.310 r f s Jtln. 5 ( g a g e h e i g h t . 14..!6 I t ) ; minimum d a i l y , 0 . 6 c f s O c t . 1 4 .

1951-65: Maximum d i s c h n r g c , 9 , 4 2 0 c l s I ) r c . 2 3 , 1 9 5 5 (gnge h e i g h t , 21.27 I t ) , from r a t i n g c u r v e e x t e n d e d a b o v e 2 , 7 0 0 c i s o n
b a s i s o f s l o p e - n r - c o mcasurt.menL o f r n : l h i n ~ ~ ~f laa w ; n o f l o w a t t i m e s .
R e m a r k s . - - R e c o r d s f a i r e x c e p t t h o s e f o r p e r i o d s o f n o g a g e - h c i g l t t r e c o r d , w h i c h ;Ire p o o r . S m 1 1 d i v e r s i o n s a b o v e s t a t i o n by pumping.
Flinor r e ~ ; u l a t i o n i n S a n Mateo C o u n t y Mcmorinl P a r k . Records o f w a t c r t e q e r i l t u r c s f o r t h e w a t e r y e a r 1965 a r e p u b l i s h e d i n P a r t 2
of t h i s report.
Revisions (water years).--1962 Rcporl: 1961.
R a t i n g L a b l e ( g a g e - h e i g h t , i n f c e t , and d i s c h a r g e , i n c u b i c f e e t p e r s e c o n d )
( S h i l t 1 1 1 ) : - c o n t r o l mLliod u s e d O c t . 1 - 2 9 . Nov. 5-8, Oec. 2 3 t o J a n . 1 0 ,
J u l y 1 5 t o S c p t . 30)
l n cubt' I < <1 - p e r \ r r o n d , w a t e r -) c 3 5 O C ~ ~ 1964

~ C LLo S c p t c m b e r 1965
Jd!!. I < lr Ei.1 I .
- -.- - - -- . --
-,
Al" - .
Pl.1~
- - - June July
i
2iv 52 2 41 16 1~
205 4Y 26 32 39 16 1U 2.4
49 1 47 23 2Y 37 15 1U
546 46 22 26 36 15 Y.4
012 76 23 75 35 15 Y.V 4.5
1.550 63 26 23 34 15 Hh
RO I >' 5 26 25 32 15 H.5
$ ( 4 4Y 23 92 31 16 H.0
252 4I 20 38 1 30 15 1.6
2 10 44 20 310 29 14 7.6
1 I2 42 19 19 1 28 14 1.6 4.0 2.R

14 1 39 22 137 26 14 7.2 40 3.0
I 19 37 29 10 I 26 14 7.2 5.8
103 3I 26 91 25 13 69 3.0
90 35 22 11 4 23 14 67 3.9
H0 34 21 42'3 22 13
2
16 4.8 6.9 2.5
17 45 I2 32 19 197 22 13 66 2.5
4.H 66 31 18 149 22 13 6.2 2.5
4.0 66
9 3 64 30 17 124 21 12 2.5
60 29 16 105 20 12 2.5
21 4.2 194 55 29 16 120 20 12 5.5 2.5

22 6.2 740 3 29 15 R1 20 12 5.5 2.5
23 5.2 928 13 27 14 .I 4 19 11 5.5 7.5
24 4.0 614 I 6h 26 14 ti 6 IH 11 5.5 25
25 4.2 360 10Y 25 14 h0 151 11 55 25
?6
27
28 1.2
4.5
4.2
3.R
294
365-
34 1
YO
$3 0
72
14
22
22
25
34
7H
56
'1
4H
1
16
14
16
5.2
11
5.2
11
5.0
11
3.O
3.0
2.R
2.1
3.0
3.2
4' 29 59 35 219 <,C9 - - .-
- ..-.. 1H ,*5 15 5.0
I0 3.2
30 Y .0 3.7 2 (3 1,l .---.----- Ih 43 1 ', 50
10 5.0
31 3.8 - - - - - - . - - -
7-/ 3
-~
,<,..- - - -- -- 43
-.
.- - -
- - - - --- - - - - -
1 6 .---------
- -- .- -
5.0
- -. --- -. - - -
Total 41.5 332.0 4.91 3.2 I.111, 1.091 653 3.2 I2 766
Mean 1.34 11.1 15R 2 5 0 39.7 2 1.1 109 34 7 13.1 6.40 3.79 2 95
A'-fl H2 659 <i.1'>0 1 1 1 1 0 1.500 6.490 1.520 781 _
- - - - 464, 233 1 r'(.
L a l c n d . ~ r y c . ~ r I964 Ma< 2 MI!! 0.4 I , , 1 '1 A<- i t 1'7.8 10
!I, &>>.I 3 7.IOCJ
- - -- - - - -- . 1.350
Watcr v r . r r l Y ( ~ 4 - 6 5 M.1-
- .
MI!) :I (, 1,, A C - ~ L
. . - -. - - --
---.
Cote.--No p;~i:c.-lii~i~:l,tr e c o r d O c t . 1&11. F c b . 2 2 - 2 6 , Fcb. 78
- M,#I. 4 , Apt . 1'1-:?I.
I
t',
ll,,., I .!,I,,#,
-- .
1, 7 t i
,i
- - - ..
312 I'KSCAUERO CREEK BASIN
11-1625. Pescadrro Crctsk near I'esr.adcro, Cnl f f.
Localion.--Lat 37'15'40', long 122'1Y'40", In SWk 8er.5, T.8 S., H.4 W., on Ivft bank a t dow~~strc;~rn
side of Ilighway bridk;c, 3.0
miles east of Pescadero and 5.3 mllcs upstrrsm from mouth.
Drpinage area.--45.9 sq mi.
Records available.--April 1951 to September 1964.
-.--Water-stage recorder. Datwn of gage is 62.3 ft above mean sea level, datum of 1929.
Average discharge.--13 years, 40.4 cfs (29,250 acre-It per year); median of yearly mean discharges, 23 c f s (16,700 acre-ft per scar).
Extremes.--btaximum discharge during year, 1,170 cfs Jan. 20 (gage height, 9.06 ft); minirnu~m, 0.2 cfs Aug. 3, Scpt. I?.
1951-64: Maximum discharge, 9,420 cis D.C. 23, 1955 (gage height, 21.27 ft), from rating curve extended al,ovr ?,iOO c f s on
basis of slope-area measurement of maximun~flow; no flow at times.
Remarks.--Records fair except those for period of no gage-height record, which are poor. Small diversions above station by pumping.
Minor regulation in San Mateo County Memorial Park.
Revisions (water yerrs).--1962 Report: 1961.
Rating table (gage-height, in feet, and discharge, in cubic feet per second)
(Sl~ifting-controlmethod used Oct. 1-10, May 31, June 24 to July 3,
July 8 to Sept. 30)
1.8 0.2 2.6 30

1.9 1.2 3.0 58
2.0 3.0 4.0 156
2.1 5.5 5.0 283
2.2 9.0 6.0 h42
2.4 18
- - DISCHARGEt IN C U R l C FFFT PER SFCONO. WATER YE9R OCTOBER'1963 TO SEPTE>!RER 1964

-- -- -- . -.
-. - ....
-DAY OCT. NOV. -

DEC. JAN. -.. --.
FEE.
- MAR. APR. MAY
... . .
1 X3.3 4.3 11 5.3 23 10 A14 5.3 3.5 2.3

2 3.3 4.3 9.8 5.5 21 14 A10 5.5 u4.0 2.1 1.2
3 3.3 4.5 9.0 5.5 19 10 X9.8 6.2 3.3 2.1
4 3.3 6.2 8.7 5.3 19 9.0 9.0 8.3 3.3 1.0
5 3.5 22 8.3 5.0 17 C8.3 8.7 5.9 3.5 .9
6 3.8 54 *7.6 X5.3 16 8.0 8.7 5.5 3.3 1.1

7 3.8 12 7.6 6.6 +15 8.3 8.0 5.3 3.5 1.1
8 4.0 17.3 8.0 6.2 14 7.3 7.3 5.3 4.8 3.1
9 4.3 6.2 12 5.5 13 7.3 6.6 5.0 9.2 1.2
10 5.4 5.5 11 5.3 13 7.6 7.3 5.0 6.9 2.3 1.1
11 20 5.0 8.7 5.3 12 8.3 6.6 5.0 5.3 2.1

12 10 4.5 7.6 5.0 12 18 6.2 5.0 5.0 2 3
13 5.5 4.5 7.3 5.0 11 11 6.2 5.0 4.8 w2.1
14 4.8 18 7.3 5.9 11 9.0 6.2 5.0 3.8 2 3 1.1
15 6.2 45 6.9 5.5 13 8.0 6.9 5.0 3.8 2.5 1.2
16
17
11
6.9
16
11
6.9
6.9
5.0
5.8
12
12
7.3
6.6
5.5
5.0
5.0
5.9
3.3
3.5
1 a9
1.7
1.2
1.2
1 i.0
-9
18 5.5 8.7 6.9 16 12 6.2 5.0 5.9 3.8 1.7 1.2 .9
19 20 12 5.9 5.3 5.3 3.5 1.7 1.1 .7
20 11 5.9 5.5 5.3 3.0 1.9 1.1 .6
21 4.5 33 11 6.6 5.3 5.0 ' 2.8 1.7 1.1 , .5

22 4.5 22 10 15 5.3 5.0 2.8 1.7 1.0 ' .5
23 5.5 29 9.8 28 5.9 4.3 2.6 1.6 1.r .4
24 5.9 48 9.8 21 5.5 6.0 2.6 1.4 -9 .4
25 4.8 30 9.8 19 5.3 4.0 2.3 1.7 .9 .4
26 4.8 22 5.9 50 9.4 13 5.3 4.0 2.3 1 7 1.1 .4

27
28
4.5
4.3
18
16
5.9
6.2
41
75
9.4
9.4
12
11
5.0
x5.0
3 6
7.3
2.1
2.3
1.6
1.6
1.0
.
.9 .
.5
h
29
30
31
4.3
4.5
4.3
13
17
------
5.9
5.9
5.9
7I
,
71, ------
------
10 10
9.4
',." - - ----
5.0
5.0
5.0
3.5
2.5 ------
2.5
2.3
1.4
1.1
1.1 1.1
h
.9
-
.
.7
*
. ......
TOTAL 169.6 653.0 236.9 4 1 I 376.6 330.R 200.4 157.9 109.7 62.0 35.4 79.5
MEAN 5-47 21.8 7.64 45.h 13.0 10.7 6.68 5.09 3.66 2.09 1-14 9-97
MAX 20 12 415 29 28 14 8.3 9.2 3.0 1.7 3.6
WIN 3.3 4.93
3 5.9 5.0 9.4 5.9 5.0 2.5 2.1 1 .I 0.6 0.4
-
AC-FT 336 1~300 471 ?tBCn 71.7 656 '397 3 13 2 18 123 70 1 57
-- -. .... ....
. .. -. -. ..... .
-. . . ---..
-- ...-.......
......
YEAR
CALI:NI)AI: 196) MAX 2.'~30 MIN 2.n MWN 58.5 AC-FT 4?,370
WATEl? YEAR 1963-64 VhX 415 K I '! 0- 4 M F A F 10.3 AC-FT 7.492
- .- .... .....................................
Peat discharge (base, 500 cfs).--3all. 20 ( 2 3 3 0 ) 1,170 C I S (9.06)
....-.. . -- . -- ...--...-.. -~
.-...
* Discharge measureusent made on Lhis day.
A No gage-height record.
11 -1625. Pescadrro Creek near Pescadcro, Crrl lf.
Location.--Lat 37*15'1+0", 10116 l22'19'b@", in SW; sec.5, T.8 S., R.4 W., on lcfi. bunk nt downstream side of highway briQe, 3.0 miles
east of Pescadero and 5.3 miles upstretun from mouth.
Drainage area.--115.9 sq mi.

Records available.--April 1951 to September 1%2.
-
Gage.--Water-stoge recorder. Datum of cage is 62.3 ft above mean t;m lcvel, drtt5.m of IWL).
Average discharge.--11 years, 40.8 cfs (29,540 acre-ft per year); medisn of yearly mean discharges, 24 cfs (17,400 acre-ft prr
Extremeo..-Maximum discharge during year, 1,723 cfs Feb. 15 ((!cq:e height, l0.k ft ); no flow Sppt. 16, X), 21.
-$51-62: Maxirmun discharge, 9,420 cfs Dec. ? j , 1955, (gc~eheight, ?l.:'i ft ) , frtnn rutine, curve extended above 2,700 cfs on
basis of slope-area measur~ementof p e ~ kflow; no flow at times.
Remarks.--Records fair. Small diversions above station by pumping. S m l l loegin~:

pond in head'daters can cause refplation during
flushing operations.
~evisions.--Bevisedfigures of discharge, in cubic feet per second, for t!ie wnter year 1961, superseding tliose publistxd in Basic Data
Release 1961, are given herewith:
.&- 1*.
Aug~st
. ..... ... .. . ...
...................
September.. ..............
water year 1960-61.. . .. -5.47
326 PESCADERO CREEK BASIN
11-1625. Peacadero Creek near Peacadero, Calif.
-
loeation.--Lac 37'15'40", long 122.19'40". in SWk sec.5, T.8 S., R.4 W . .
mile. east of Peacadero and 5.3 miles upstream from mouth.
on left bank at downstream aide of highway bridge, 3.0
Drainage area.--45.9 sq mi.
Record. available.--April 1951 to September 1966.
-.--Digital water-atage recorder. Datum of gage is 62.3 ft above mean sea level, datum of 1929. Prior to Nov. 8, 1965. graphic
water-atage recorder at same aite end datum.
Averaxe diachame.--15 yaara, 39.7 cfs (28,740 acre-ft per year); median of yearly mean discharges, 23 cfa (16.700 acre-ft per year).
Extremes.--Maximum discharge during year, 626 cia k c . 28 (gage height, 6.66 ft); minimum daily, 0.40 cfa Sept. 8.
1951-66: Maximum discharge, 9,420 cfs Lkc. 23, 1955 (gage height, 21.27 ft), from rating curve extended above 2,700 cfs on
baaia of slope-area meamurement of nuximum flow; no flow at times.
-
Remarks.--Records fair. Small diveraiona above atation by pumping. Minor regulation in San Mateo County Memorial Park.
water temperaturea for the water year 1966 are published in Part 2 of this report.
Records of
Reviaions (water years1.--1962 Report: 1961.
D I S C H A R G E S IN C U B I C F E t T P t R 5tCUNDo *ATEN Y t A H U C T U b E H 1 9 6 5 TU 5EPTEMdtH 1966
DAY I OCT. ( NOV. I DEC. I JAN. I Ftbr I MAR. I APR. I MAY I 2UNL I JULY I ' AuG. I >&PI.
MEAN
C A L E N D A R YEAR 1 9 6 5 MAX 1.350 MlN 1.2 MEAN 42.3 AC-FT 30~610

W A T E R YEAR 1965-66 MAX 350 MIN .40 MLAN 18.0 AC-FT 13.010
Peak dischame (base, 500 cfa).--Dee. 28 (2400) 626 cfa (6.66 ft); Jan. 5 (time unknown) 500 cfs.
PgSCADERO CREm BASIN
11-1625. PEsCADI110 CREEK NEAR PgBCADERO, CALI?.
LOCATION.--kt 37*15~40", long l22*19~4Ow,i n SW) sec.5, T.8 8.. 11.4 W . , on l e f t bank a t d o w n s t r e u s i d e of
hi&mty bridge, 3.0 miles e a s t of Pencadem and 5.3 miles upstream from mouth.
DRAINAGE AREA.--45.9 s p mi.
RECORDS AVA1LABLB.--April 1951 t o September 1967.
GAGE.--Digital r a t e r - s t a g e recorder. Datm of gage is 62.3 i t above mean sea l e v e l , d a t u r of 1929. Prior to
NOT. 8, 1965, graphic r a t e r - s t a g e recorder a t s a w s i t e and datum.
AVERAGE DISCHARGE.--16 years, 41.6 c i s (30,120 a c r e - i t p$r year); median of yearly mean dis~charges, 25 c f e
(18,100 acre-f t per f e a r ) .
EXTREUE8.--Ylximm discharge during year. 4.100 cis Jan. 21 (gage height, 15.59 i t ) ; m i n i ~ md a i l y . 0.50 c i s
oct. 21, 22.
1851-67: Maxirum discharge, 9,420 cYs Doc. 23, 1955 (gage height, 21.27 i t ) , from ra'ting curve extended
above 2,700 c i s on b a s i e of slope-area measurement of m u i r u r f l o r ; no f l o r a t times.
REWR.KS.--Records good. Saul1 diversions above s t a t i o n by pmping. Minor regulation i n Sara Mat- County
Mormrial Park. Records of r a t e r temperaturea f o r t h e r a t e r year 1967 a r e published i n P a r t 2 of thim report.
REVISIONS ( r a t e r year).--1982 report: 1961.
DISCHARGE, I N CFSl WATER YEA9 OCTORER 1 9 6 6 Tfl 5EPTEHRFR 1 9 6 7
DAY *_ KT. I
1 .O 119 9. R 198 H? 7.5 4.5
1.0 63 9.3 167 77 76 7.4 4.1
1.6 383 9.0 136 77 7.7 8.2
6.5
6.4
h.?
6.1
6 .n
5.9
5.8
5.7
5.6
5.4
5.1
5.1
4.8
4.h
4.4
TOTAL
MEAN
MAX
MIN
AC-FT
- --
3i::j1
1.7
-
.50
69
3 ~ ~ ~7*86:~;l 1
619
lki;il
3.360
--
2.300
5.9
159600 4.470
--
*1*,:6:0I 0
9.050
-
5*ii
lltR5O 2,970
- - - -- - -- --
-
=
- -
- -
2
1,250
! ~
7.3
619
~ ~ ~ i ~
CAL YR 1 9 6 6 : TOTAL 6.R66.10 MEAN 1 8 . 8 MAX 383 MIN - 4 0 4C-FT 13.620

MAT YR 1 9 6 7 : r D r A L 2 5 . 3 9 6 . 7 0 MFAN 69.6 MAX 2 . 3 9 0 MlN - 5 0 @C-FT 5 0 . 3 7 0
Peak discharge (base, 500 cfs)

SCOT7 CREEK BASIN
11-1619. SCOTT CREEK ABOVE 1,lTTI.E CREEK, NEAR DAVENPORT, CALIF. --Continued
S l A T l S l I C S ON LOG MONTHLY MEANSIALL 04VSJ
flv R O d S I W E A N ~ V A R I A N C E t S T A N O A R O D E V l I T l O N ~SKEYNESSI COEFF. OF V~RIAT~ONIPERCENTAGE OF AVERAGE FLCIWI
UC 1 YdV DEC JAN FE8 MARCH APRIL MAV JUNE JULV A UG SEPT
0.288hC 0 0 0.6q57E 00 0.1066E 0 1 O.1548E 0 1 0.1763E 01 0-153% 0 1 O.1419F 0 1 O.ll45E 01 0.8575E 0 0 0.4930E 0 0 O.185OE 00 0.1496E 0 0
b.25346 CO O.1175E 00 0.3539E 0 0 O.2660E 0 0 O.1420E 00 0.7624E-01 O.2115F 0 0 O.1331E 00 0.1133E 0 0 O.1254E 0 0 O.1405E 00 O.1446E 0 0
d.5033f 30 O.3175E 00 3.59-9E 0 0 0.5158E OJ 0.3768E 00 0.2161E 0 0 0.4599E 00 0.3657E 00 0.3366E 0 0 0.3541E 0 0 0.3749E GO 0.3803E 00
J.13856 J L 0.5.RqE 00 O.772RC 00-0.1663F 00-0.7694b 00 0.1824E 0 0 O.lOl8E 0 1 0.1027E 01 O.8868E 00 0.5027E 0 0 0.4087E 00 0.6409E 0 0
O.ll4cE 0 1 O.5llhE 00 0.5582F 0 0 0.3332E 0 0 0.2137E 00 O.1199E 0 0 O.3241E 0 0 0.3194E 00 0.392bE 0 0 0 - 7 1 8 l E 00 0.2026E 01 0.2543E 0 1
L.2589t v l 0.6?43 01 0.9562F 0 1 0.1389E 02 O.158Lt 0.2 0.l317E 0 2 O.1273E 0 2 0.1027E 02 0.7694E 0 1 0.4424E 0 1 0.1660E 01 O.1342E 0 1
MS AN ' VIP IAYCE STIYOARD OEVIITION SKEWNESS COEFF. OF V A R I ~ ~ I O N

0.2510E 07 0.3s59E 0 3 0.1859E 0 2 0.8477E 0 0 0.7350E 0 0
S T l T l S T I C S ON LOG ANNULL UEANSIILL DAYS1
SKEWNESS COEFF. OF VARIATION

O.lOO7E 0 0 O.2522E 0 0
PESCADERO CREQC BASIN
11-1625. PESCAL>ERO CREEK NEAR PESCAnEHO, CALIF

IDEATION --LPt 37"1S139", l o n g 122'19'40". in W f s e c . 5 , T 8 S . , R.4 W , San Mateo County, on l e f t bank a t downstream s i d e o f
highwnv b r i d a e . 3.0 m i l e s e a s t o f Pesrndero, and 5 . 3 m i l e s upstream from mouth.
DnArhAGE AREA --45 9 s q m i .
RBIARliS -Small d i v e r s i o n s a h v e s t n t l o n hr pumping. Minor r e ~ u l a t i o nIn San Mateo County Memorial Park.
CLASS D 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 R 9 LO 1 1 1,' 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 1 7 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3 1 32 33 35
YEAR OF DAYS I N CLISS

19S2 26 2 1 1 0 13 23 20 20 12 12 6 4 4 6 2
38 27 19 14 12 LO 15 12 3 2 3 1
24 14 12 1 0 17 8 6 5 1
33 2 7 1 9 1 1 fl 5 2 3 2 1
CLASS CFS r O l A L ACCUM CLUS CFS TOTAL CLASS CFS TOTAL ACCUM I CLASS CFS TOTAL ACCUM PERCT
0 0.00 l 6210 9 2.30 570 18 31.0 209 1111 27 620 27 57 "9
1 0.10 24 b2Ob 10 3-10 581 19 51.0 175 902 28 820 I2 30 .C
2 8-20 41 6182 11 4.20 709 20 70.0 158 727 29 1200 7 18 .2
3 0.30 77 6141 12 5.70 521 21 95.0 132 569 30 1600 6 11 .L
4 0.50 42 6064 13 7.80 e87 22 130.0 135 437 31 2100 3 5 .O
5 0.60 147 6022 14 11.00 437 23 180.0 98 302 32 2900 2 2 .O
6 0.90 151 5875 15 15.00 348 24 240.0 71 204 33
1 1.20 188 5724 16 20.00 351 25 330.0 48 133 34
I 1.10249 5536 17 27.00 272 26: 450.0 28 85
HIGHEST MtAN OISCHIRGE~ I N CFSI AN0 RANKING. FOR THE FOLLOYING NUM8ER OF CONSECUTIVE OAVS I N YEAR ENOlNG SEPTEMBER 30
VE AII I 3 7 15 30 60 90 120 183 ANNUAL

1952 2000.0 5 1350.0 4 936.0 4 649.0 3 468.0 3 315.0 3 300.0 3 249.0 3 177.0 3 92.7 3
1953 1510.0 6 616.0 7 331.0 8 271.0 7 218.0 7 175.0 7 129.0 7 110.0 7 82.0 7 44.1 7
PESCAOERO CREEK BASIN 399
11-1625. PESCADERO CREER WWR PESCADERO, C A L I F . - - C o n t i n u e d
HIGHEST MEAN DISCHARGE, I N CFS, AN0 RANKING, FOR THE FOLLOWIffi NUMBER OF CONSECUTIVE OAYS I N YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30--CONTINUED
YEAR 1 3 7 IS 10 60 90 120 185 t

1961 84.0 17 58.3 17 39.7 11 28.3 17 19.0 17 15.0 17 13.1 17 11.2 I 7 9.7 IT
1962 736.0 9 564.0 9 377.0 7 264.0 8 197.0 8 117.0 8 82.0 8 63.8 8 44.1 8
1963 2930.0 2 1970.0 2 995.0 3 608.0 4 366.0 4 217.0 5 195.0 5 157.0 5 109.0 S
1964 415.0 12 269.0 11 161.0 11 89.9 16 52.0 I6 30.9 16 26.1 16 22.5 16 17.7 16
1965 1350.0 7 990.0 6 662.0 6 490.0 6 362.0 5 212.0 6 149.0 6 134.0 6 98.4 6
LOUEST UEbN OISCH&RGE1 1% CFSI LND RANKING* FOR THE FOLLOUIMG NUMBER OF CONSECUTIVE O I Y S I N YEAR ENDING MARCH 3 1
YEAR 90 120 183 ANNUAL

1953 3.1 9 4.1 I1 6.7 14 46.2 1 1
1954 4.0 I 4 4.7 14 5.6 12 23.1 5
1955 3.3 11 3.4 9 5.5 LO 24.3 6
STATISTICS JN NORMAL MOXTHLY ME4NS(bLL OAYSI
BY R O U S I M E A Y I V A R ~ ~ N C E I S ~ A N O A R OO E V I A T I O N ~ SKEWNESS. COEFF. OF VARlATION9PERCENTAGE OF AVERAGE FLOW1
OC I NOV DFC J AN FER MARCH APRIL WAY JUNE JULY AUb SFPI
u.C465C UL 0 . 8 j 9 0 E Ill d.707RF 0 2 0.1179E 0 3 O.IOlOE 0 3 0.7511E 0 2 0.6709F 0 2 0.1964E 0 2 0.9017E 0 1 0.4933E 0 1 0 . 3 3 5 8 t 0 1 O.Zb83E 0 1
U.4767E 0 3 O.Zfl29E 0 2 0.1377E 0 5 0.1536E 0 5 0.1098C 0 5 0.6220E 0 4 0.1036E 0 5 0.2291E 0 3 0.34966 0 2 0.1129E 0 2 0.b309E 0 1 0.7376F 01
SIATI\TICS O Y LOG W n Y l H L I WEANSIALL DAYS1
RY R U U S ( M E A N l V A R I ~ N C E ~ S T 4 N O A RDEVIATION,
0 SKEWNESS. COEFF. OF VARIATION~PERCENTAGE OF AVERAGE FLOW1
Otl NOV DEt JAN FFR MARCH APRll WAY JllNF .I111 V AlIC. CFPl
3 T A l l S r l C 5 ON NORYIL ANNUAL WEANS1 bLL OAYS I
Me &N VARIANCE STANOARO DEVIATION SKEWNESS COEFF. OF VARIATION

0.*043t 07 OllC56E 01. 0.325OF 0 2 O.(IIOOE 0 0 0.8040E 0 0
S I A l I S T f C S O Y LOG bN"IUAL MEAVS(ALL DAYS)
ME 4 4 VARIANCE STANDARD DEVIATION SKEUNE 3 5 COEFF. OF VARIATION

U.l*bZt 01 0. L4*3[: 0 0 0.3799E 0 0 -0.6946E-01 0.2599E 0 0
LOCATION - - h t S7'14'01",
J 11-1825.4.
PsscAnmo CREEK BASIN
BUTAN0 CREEK NEAR PESCADERO, CALIF
long 122'21'58". in Butano Grnnt, San Mnteo County, on right bank 0 . 2 mile below unnnaed tributary, and
1.7 miles moutheast of Pescarloro.
DRAmACL AREA.--18.3 sq mi.
RPIARKS.--Small diverPions above station for irrigation.
DURATION TABLE OF DAILY OISCHAHGt FOR YLAR ENUING SEPTEMBER 30
NUM8Eq OF OAYS I N CL4SS CFS-DAYS

3 1 1 5 8 5 4 7 1 2 6 6 2 8 2 7 2 1 1 5 1 4 3 7 1 1 1 8 2 L 1 ~ 1 0 1 0 8 3 2 2 L 1 I l 10001.3
c b 4 6 1 18 18 1 R 30 1 6 24 4 1 2 1 38 47 14 13 11 5 2 2 r 3 1 2144.h
3 2 11 I 6 II 3 24 50 28 1 4 6 15 42 32 26 I 6 11 10 9 11 3 5 5 5 3 3 I 9654.5
LLAS~ cts TUTAL ACCII* PLRCI CLASS CFS T O T A L a c c u n PEacr CLASS CFS T O T A L ACCUM PERCT CLASS CFS T O T A L ACCUM PEncr
G 3.00 4 21'22 100.0 9 1.60 186 1807 82.4 18 19.0 84 429 19.6 21 220 10 30 1.3
1 I 6 Z i t i d 99.8 10 2.10 148 1621 14.0 L9 25.0 62 345 15.7 ZR 290 8 20 Q
.
wlunEST MEIN Jl\CnARGF. I N CFS, AN0 RANKING. FOR HE FOLLOWING NUMULR OF CONSECUTIVE U4YS I N YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 3 0
YtAk 1 3 7 15 30 60 90 I20 183 ANNUAL

196) Bd4.O 2 590.0 1 316.0 3 208.0 L 112.0 3 00.4 3 12.4 2 60.2 3 45.5 3 27.6 2
1V o r 242.0 5 121.0 5 64.6 5 35.6 6 21.5 6 14.0 6 15.7 6 13.3 6 10.3 6 5.9 6
IGb3 100.0 3 475.0 3 336.3 2 200.0 3 Ih8-0 1 9.7.9 2 69.2 3 67.7 2 49.0 2 26.5 3
LuwtST MEAN DISCHARGE. I N CFS. AN0 RANKING. FOR THE FOLLOWING NUMBER OF CONSECUTIVE DAYS I N YEAR ENDING MARC?( 3 1
YcAN 1 3 7 14 30 60 90 I20 103 ANNUAL

19-4 2.0 5 2.4 5 2.4 5 2.6 5 2.9 5 3.1 5 3.1 5 3.4 5 6.3 5 13.3 1
1965 0.0 1 0.0 I 0.1 I 0.1 I 0.3 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.7 I 1.1 I 18.9 3
5IATISlIf.S ON NORWAL MONTHLY MEANSIALL DAYS)
8 V R U W S ( P C A \ ~ V A R l 4 Y C E ~ S T A Y O 4 R OOEVlAIlON, SKEWNESS. COEFF. OF VARIATlON.PERCENTAGE OF AVERAGE FLOYI
OC1 YOV llEC JIN FER MkRCH APRIL MAY JUNE JIJLV AUb SEPT
..8144k dl 0.7473E 01 ".?514E 02 0.62EjE 02 0.307lE 02 O.257OE 0 2 0-*l66E 02 O.lO85E 02 0.6204E 0 1 0.2768E 0 1 0.1792t 01 0.1509E 0 1
O.234IE 03 0.3639s 0.2 0.5OJ3E 03 O.lPOOE 04 0.1010E 04 0-4353E 0 3 0-14R3E 0 4 0.7121E 02 0.2149E 0 2 O.27ORE OL 0.1344t 01 0-0041E 0 6
t,.1531F 02 0.6432E 01 G-2255E J2 0.435JE 02 0-3178E 02 0-2086E 0 2 O.3851F 0 2 0.8439E 01 0.4636E 0 1 0.1645E 0 1 O.1159E 0 1 0-9405E 0 0
~.2410t 01 O.l)38 01 0.143LE 01 0.1525E 00 O.lI8OF 01 0.9082E 0 0 O.3467F 0 0 0.3215E 00 0.3619E 0 0 0.4534E 0 0 0.3829C-01 0.9305E 0 0
Y.1R81t 01 0.0J72E 00 0-075% 00 O.bqS8E 00 0.8206E 00 0.8117E 0 0 0.9745E 0 0 0.711bf 00 0.7472E 0 0 0.5949E 0 0 0.64686 0 0 0.6234E 0 0
1.3r89t 31 D.3702E 01 O.1101E 02 0.2b97E 02 0.1659E 02 O.1IOLE 02 O.1785E 0 2 0.4650E 01 0.2658E 0 1 O.LI86F 01 0.7611F 0 0 0.6464E 0 0
,
S T & T l S f l C S ON LOG MDYTHLV MEINSIALL DAYS1
EV ROYS(MEAY.VARIANCEIS~AYDARO OEVIATIOYI SKEYNESS. COEFF. OF V4RIATION.PERCENTAGE Of AVERAGE FLOW)
OCI YOV OEC JAN FER MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT
'+.4>zlF 3 0 O.154OE 0 0 u.1212E 0 1 0.1707E 0 1 0.1453E 0 1 0-1271E 0 1 O.1349E 0 1 0.8832 0 0 0.6615E 0 0 0.36816 0 0 O.1428E 0 0 O.1078F 0 0
0.3923C 0 0 O.1292E 0 0 0-1475E 00 0.9689E-01 0-1623E 0 0 0.1593E 0 0 0-3738E 0 0 O.188OE 0 0 0.1547E 0 0 0.8370E-01 0.1424E 0 0 0.7450E-01
u.6263F 0 0 0.3595E 0 0 0 - 3 8 4 l E 0 0 0.3113E 0 0 0-4028E 0 0 0.3991E 0 0 0.6114E 0 0 0.4336E 0 0 0.3933E 0 0 0.2893t 0 0 0.3713t 0 0 0.273OE 0 0
I T & l l S I l C ) ON NORMAL 4NNUAL MEINS(ALL DAYS)
M. L N VARIANCE STANDARD DEVIAllON SKEWNESS COCFF. OF VARIATION

O.lV36F 02 0.1254E 0 3 O.lI2OE 02 -0.2436E-01 0.5783E 00
11-1625.4. BUTANO CREEK NEAR PESCADERO, C A L I F . - - C o n t i n u e d
S l A l l 5 T l C S ON LOG ANNUAL MEANSIALL OAVSI
ME AN VARIANCE STANDARD DEVIATION SKEWNESS COEFF. OF VARIATION

0-1109E 0 1 0.9166E-01 0.3024E 0 0 -0.5332E 00 0.25OlE 00
PURISIMA CREEX .BASIN
11-1626. PURlSIMA CREEK NEAR HALF MOON BAY, CALIF.
U)CATIOW. - - L a t 37'26'08", l o n g 122"22'23", i n Canada d e V e r d e y A r r o y o d e l a P u r i s i m a G r a n t , San M a t e 0 County, o n l e f t bank 1 5 i t

d o w n s t r e a m f r o m c o u n t y r o a d b r i d g e , 3.6 m i l e s s o u t h e a s t o f H a l f Moon Bay, a n d 4 . 0 m i l e s u p s t r e a m f r o m mouth.
DRAINAGE AREA.--4 .83 s q m i .
OURATION TABLE OF OAILV DISCHARGE FOR VELR ENDING SEPTEMBER 3 0
CLASS 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 S l 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 ~ 8 2 9 3 0 3 1 3 ~ I 3 3 3 4
NUMBER OF OAVS I N CLASS

6 1 9 23 98 7 6 8 0 37 33 14 3 5 5 2 5 1 4 3 1
Z 0 83 16108 4 1 27 6 I 3 I 4 13 8 5 6 3 3 3 1 3 1 I 1
CLASS CFS 101AL ACCUM CLASS CFS TOTAL ACCUM PERCT CLASS CFS TOTAL ACCUM PERCT CLASS CFS IOTAL ACCUM PERCT
4 0.00 0 3653 9 1.40 257 1413 38.7 18 8.3 44 258 7.1 27 -49 3 13 -3
1 0.20 5 3653 10 1.70 206 1156 3 1 6 19 10.0 29 214 5.9 28 59 4 LO r2
2
3
4
0.30
0.40
0.50
157
258
198
3648
3491
3233
11
12
13
2.10
2.60
3.10
140
87
135
9 5 0 26.0
810 22-2
723 19.8
20
21
22
12.0
15.0
18.0
47
36
35
185
198
102
5-1
3.8
2.8
29
10
31
72
eb
110
2
1
1
+
6
3
.I
-1
-0
5 0.60 531 3035 14 3.80 98 5 8 8 16.1 23 22.0 23 67 1.8 32 130 2 2 .O
6 Ot80 308 2504 I 5 4.60 100 490 13.4 24 27.0 I2 44 142 33
7 1-00 531 2196 16 5.60 67 390 10.7 25 33.0 LO 32 0.9 34
8 1 - 2 0 252 1665 17 6.80 65 32 3 8 8 26 40.0 9 22 0.6
HIGHEST MEAY OISCHLRGE. I N CFSr AN0 RANKING. FOR THE FOLLOWING NUMBER OF CONSECUllVE OAVS I N VEAR ENDING SEPTENOLY 30
V t AR I 3 7 15 30 60 90 12t1 183 ANNUAL

1959 16.0 9 8.3 9 7.6 9 5.8 9 3.9 9 3.0 9 2.5 9 2-1 9 1.8 9 1.2 9
1960 26.0 8 17.3 8 12.9 7 8.7 8 5.6 0 3.9 7 3.4 7 2.8 7 2.1 5 1 3 P
YEAR I 3 1 14 30 60 9C 0 120 183 ANNUAL

1960 0.2 1 0.2 1 0.3 L 0.3 1 0.5 5 0.5 6 0.5 6 0.6 4 0.7 5 1.1 2
1 ~ 6 6 0.0 a 0.8 8 0.9 8 0.9 (1 1.0 9 1.0 I 1.1 7 1.1 7 1.4 I 3.5 5
1967 0 . 3 5 0.35 0.3 5 0.4 5 0 . 4 4 0.42 0.5 5 0.5 3 0.1 4 6.2 a
1468 0.8 9 0.8 9 0.9 9 0.9 9 0.9 7 1.0 8 1.1 8 1.2 6 1.6 8 4 6 9
S l A l l S T I C S ON NORMAL MONTHLY MEANSIALL OAVSI
OV R O W S l M t 4 N ~ V A R I A N C E ~ S I A N O A R O
OEVIAILON1 SLEWNESS. COEFF. OF VARlATlON~YERCENTAGE OF AVERASI! FLOW)
IIC 1 YOV DEC JAN FEH MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG SECT
0.14786 0 1 0 . 1 1 9 0 ~ 0 1 t l . 3 0 ~ & 0 1 0 . 5 3 n l ~ 0 1 0 . 6 3 5 6 ~ Ill 0.437%i Ill 0 . 5 ? 9 1 ~ - I l l 0.2364F 0 1 0.168ZE 0 1 O.lOI7E 0 1 O.1782E 0 0 0.7426t 00
?A' irC 1 t4uv DEO JAN FED nAR kkfi fik Y JLlri J LlL AUG LEP
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TEE INTERIOR - GEOLOGICAL S L W Y - ADAPS
STATION NUMBER 11162500 PESCADERO CFXEK NEAR PESCADERO CALIF STREAM SOURCE AGENCY USGS
LATITUDE 371539 LONGITUDE 1221940 DRAINAGE AREA 45.90 DATUM 62.30 STATE 0 6 COUNTY 0 8 1
FRDVISIOXAL DATA SUBJECT TO REVISION
DISCHARGE, CUBIC FEET PER SECOND, WATER YEAR OCTOBER 1990 TO SEPTEMBER 1 9 9 1
DAILY MEAN VALUES
DAY OCT NOV DEC JAN ?EB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP
TOTAL 53.7 63.5 111.8 85.3 101.9 3765.0 393.7 141.3 78.3 54.7 41.70 22.59
l5CAN 1.73 2.12 3.61 2.75 3.64 121 13.1 4.56 2.61 1.76 1.35 .75
ClAX 2.6 3.7 12 3.6 12 522 37 5.8 3.6 2.7 2.2 2.1
MIN 1.5 1.1 2.2 2.3 2.0 7.9 6.1 3.4 1.6 1.0 .93 .44
AC-FT 107 126 222 169 202 7470 781 280 155 108 83 45
CAL YR 1990 TOTAL 2 6 2 3 . 3 MEAN 7.19 MAX 1 2 2 MIN 1.1 AC-FT 5200
WTR YR 1 9 9 1 TOTAL 4 9 1 3 . 4 9 MEAN 13.5 MAX 522 MIN . 4 4 AC-FT 9750
e Estimated
WATERSHED ASSESSMENTS
AND
CONDITIONS
Watershed Assessments
Watershed Conditions
Watershed Assessments
Pescadero Creek Overview
Pescadero Creek enters the Pacific Ocean approximately 16 miles south of Half Moon Bay
at Twp. 8 S, R. 5 W in southern San Mateo County. The mainstem of Pescadero Creek is
approximately 26 miles in length with several additional miles of perennial tributaries. The
watershed encompasses an area of 60 square miles (39,110 acres). Annual precipitation
ranges from about 25 inches on the coast to 57 inches at the higher elevations with most of
the rainfall occurring between November and March..
The headwaters of Pescadero Creek and several of the more significant tributaries originate
at elevations ranging between 1,600 to 2,200 feet above sea level in the Santa Cruz
Mountains. From stream mile 4 up through the headwaters, redwood-Douglas Fir and
associate vegetation dominate both the slopes and much of the riparian areas. From stream
mile 4 through 2.5, alders, willows, oaks and other common riparian plant species dominate
the stream banks and coastal chaparral dominates the slopes. From stream mile 2.5 to the
upper reaches of the lagoon, the riparian corridor is still dominated by alder, willow and
other associated species, but land outside the riparian zone is flat and consists primarily of
agricultural fields or residential area.
The Pescadero Creek watershed terminates in a substantial marsh which is fed by both
Pescadero Creek and Butano Creek. The Pescadero Marsh consists of 320 acres of wetland
which has brackish, salt and freshwater habitat.
Landuse in the watershed includes timber harvest (approximately 8,500 acres zoned Timber
Production Zone), state and county parks (12,307 acres), and residential, agriculture, and
other private ownership (18,303 acres). Landuse on private ownership can include timber
harvest in addition to the other activities.
Adverse factors impacting coho salmon and steelhead habitat include low stream flows
during summer and fall months, severe lack of woody debris within stream channels,
sedimentation of spawning gravels and pool habitat, exotic vegetation on stream banks
which precludes insect production, lack of canopy cover in some reaches, and localized
areas of poor water quality. All adverse factors are reducing the carrying capacity of the
stream for coho salmon and steelhead rainbow trout.
Freshwater fish species found within the Pescadero Creek watershed include coho salmon
(Oncorhynchus kisutch), steelhead rainbow trout (Oncorhvnchus mvkiss), pacific lamprey
(Entosphenus tridentatus), prickly sculpin (Cottus as~er),coastrange sculpin (Cottus
aleuticus), and threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus). Several fish species which
reside in salt and brackish water habitat are found in the marsh. Threatened or endangered
amphibians and reptiles which reside in the Pescadero Marsh and watershed include San
Francisco garter snake (endangered under the State and Federal Endangered Species Acts)
and the California red-legged frog (threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act).
Historically, catchable rainbow trout were stocked annually within the Pescadero Creek
watershed, however the program was terminated in 1974 when the Steelhead Rainbow
Trout Policy was adopted by the Fish and Game Commission. Since 1974, fishing for coho
salmon and steelhead is limited to that portion of Pescadero Creek west of Stage Road
bridge crossing from November 16 through February 29 on opening and closing days,
Saturdays, Sundays, Wednesdays, and legal holidays. All Pescadero tributaries are closed to
fishing.
Watershed Conditions
Ocea:1
iiiver (salmon r.r3 stecllhesr!)
LI -
l'tascadero C r e e k
T e s c o a e m Creek i s :he i a r g r . 3 5 s t r e a n i2 S&E .',l,:eo ':,;.=:.::, ;.:;, l 2 :-r.e
I
most iisporzant fishlsg- s+.reaz in t h e area, s e c o d czly - to ,:'?t ;er;,-
:.~r-
enzo 3 l . i ~i~~ Sansa C n l z Z c r x : ~ y . I n e t o t a l &$ci.jh c; t L c :;A;.:, s:gr q:
yrp
---
?escadero ,..-. Creek
--. "" is e ~ r o x i z tr-al
z :J 26 miles. >' <, s:rct:z .cc:,~- . .
-:. --
-.;z,: --=:-c:
reaches oi" t h e d m i m q e i s con:)osed ;:rL,zafii:i of ;grn-;el, .A?.:.: F a zix-,-~:-c
of gravel cnd boulders is rmrc comon in the olA&dle s c c 5 i o z . Z'c: strcz--,
bed in t%? l o v e r stretches of t h e s t x n m is C ~ ~ zf O 2 S~ . . ~: i ~ : ;~f
~ e :F;T.:
and grsvel, and t 5 c - ~ tae r v e l o c i t y lcrxcas ir, 5 5 : : : a r c : t .
,-.
l. ,2:
f. - :. ; . *
, , ;-
per and portlors of t h e ?rair&.ge are c o 3 s i l e r r 2 -;:k c ./ ,--,r--::yr.;.r.-

icg arees for sahcmids.
n e r e is 8 pel-ancst Z m cit LC.,L !'&r :bat r,zs c:z*Z

L : c r ,,
; --
. ,, *
passage. Several s p l a s n b o e d O L E ir, - -.

t h e >J?-r hrd c:r,c. ct zr.? lr ~ z zc r c
~ e ? t3 . b a c k u3 sm2.L ELTCOUD~S n? ;rate:- f o r swi.~>rg ~ L I T ~ Z :h?i s7:=cr,
ar 3 t h e s e --?y hz;rc w cffec:, 01 ',hc 2 J c c s ~G,' :he c ,t.t'L.-~, c;,, ,:, a_zi
s i l v e r ssLmd m 3 e n t e r i n g the creen. The P e a c a-----
'23
d e m ZTFPK t t ~ e ' h ~ p d
is estizated to be a3prox.iFately ;,5% ? ~ s i ie r c i year. 1'; is n o t
-
presently kcoim ho.4 m y s i l v e r s a h o n che draizez. for s ? e ; r , l c ~
Tke nmbers a= pmbsbly scaU & , e n coapsred w i i5 .s-~eei2;ce2.
r~u-Lh of ? e s c d e r o Cre-k is closed Sy a s s ~ ~ da. ~r - i z z--cz ril' :n.- w
. %e bar q e n s onkJ7 wbes the s 5 r e a flov Is h'& - czz.;S: zo ;op ;he

ba,r e ~ d cut its n y +kmu& or when -&chacicel mans a r e z s c 5 . T1e n r -
-? - . .- -
-- t i.-c c?e?;(ng er,d c12sfnc of !',e s t x e s a u t l ; ~yfiyP?, -~ -. C. .~.- .,. , :
+
r ,:o:
. - ..
nd
r i g ' s e f f e c t p: t h e s t e e > e ~ _ d t r 3 u t 825 ~i1:rrt.r r e k s i ; Y S ; .
3 p l o v e r r e a c h e s ~f +he s t r e - i m t h n q # ~ f a n lar2.s. Z c l i irrc,s:ox 3:::.

ceused s o r z siltatioo & s u S s e q u e c ~ ,de teri,orntio=: cf ; - ~ t e r ;li2:L1;.* .'^--
A + V . . -:
-
J
- P3 ;a!,-,--'= >.-ra,,..-
t n e s e s t r c t z c h e u , -Aich_ "ap be r e s ~ n s i 3 l efl3z. 1;-'+'--
A-4 L
. 2.-L.L4d..,d
4,.
*
..A
-
..,
c
WATER RIGHTS
AND
BYPASS REQUIREMENTS
Instream Flow Requirements
Water Availability Analysis
Instream Flow Requirements
Pw* L - K wfi F&
5- L.
VM@XL-
Siurte of California The Resources Agency
CENTRAL DISTRICT COPY
Memorandum
TO : F i s h e r i e s Management Date: October 1, 1979
Region 3
From : Department of Fish and Game, F i s h e r i e s Management, Menlo Park
Subject: Winter and S p r i n g I n s t r e a m Flow Requirements f o r Lower Pescadero and

Butano Creeks, San Mateo County; R e s u l t s of t h e 1978 T r a n s e c t Study
The s e v e r e drought y e a r s o f 1976 and 1977 prompted w a t e r u s e r s a l o n g

lower Pescadero and Butano Creeks t o a s s e s s t h e i r w a t e r s u p p l y and de-
mand and i n v e s t i g a t e t h e s t a t u s of t h e i r w a t e r r i g h t s on t h e streams.
Water u s e r s soon began f i l i n g a p p l i c a t i o n s t o a p p r o p r i a t e water. It
immediately became a p p a r e n t t h a t i n t h e absence of c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r
i n s t r e a m f l o w needs, t h e proposed a p p r o p r i a t i o n s c o u l d a d v e r s e l y impact
t h e f i s h and w i l d l i f e r e s o u r c e s of Pescadero and Butano Creeks. By 1978,
t h e Department of F i s h and Game w a s involved i n p r o t e s t i n g seven a p p l i -
c a t i o n s f o r d i v e r s i o n a l o n g t h e lower r e a c h e s of t h e two s t r e a m s
(Pescadero Creek: WA 25318, 25338 and 25676; Butano Creek: WA 25302,
25303, 25337 and 25598). A d d i t i o n a l f i l i n g s were i n p r e p a r a t i o n . The
s u b j e c t a p p l i c a t i o n s were f o r w i n t e r and s p r i n g d i v e r s i o n t o o f f s t r e a m
s t o r a g e . P r i n c i p a l u s e was i r r i g a t i o n d u r i n g t h e summer and f a l l sea-
s o n s ; secondary u s e s i n c l u d e d s t o c k w a t e r i n g , r e c r e a t i o n , and f i r e pro-
tection.
F i s h e r y Resources
Butano Creek i s t h e l a r g e s t t r i b u t a r y i n t h e Pescadero Creek d r a i n a g e .

Both s t r e a m s d i s c h a r g e i n t o Pescadero Lagoon and s h a r e a common d i s c h a r g e
t o t h e P a c i f i c Ocean.
P e s c a d e r o and Butano Creeks s u p p o r t s e l f - s u s t a i n i n g p o p u l a t i o n s of s t e e l -

head t r o u t (Salmo g a i r d n e r i i ) , s i l v e r salmon (Oncorhynchus k i s u t c h ) ,
r e s i d e n t rainbow t r o u t , anadromous P a c i f i c lamprey (Lampetra t r i d e n t a t u s )
and t h r e e s p i n e s t i c k l e b a c k ( G a s t e r o s t e u s a c u l e a t u s ) . P r i c k l y s c u l p i n
( C o t t u s a s p e r ) have been found i n Pescadero Creek and probably a r e pre-
s e n t i n Butano Creek. Resident p o p u l a t i o n s of r i f f l e s c u l p i n (2. g u l o s u s )
and C a l i f o r n i a roach (Hesperoleucus symmetricus) are p r e s e n t i n Butano
Creek. Both s p e c i e s e v e n t u a l l y may b e found i n Pescadero Creek.
The s u b j e c t water d i v e r s i o n s a r e l o c a t e d a l o n g t h e lower f i v e m i l e s of

Pescadero Creek and lower f o u r m i l e s of Butano Creek. These stream r e a c h e s
serve as m i g r a t i o n r o u t e s f o r w i n t e r and s p r i n g r u n s of s i l v e r salmon
Fisheries Management
Region 3 . October 1, 1979
and steelhead trout seeking upstream spawning habitat and adult steel-
head returning to the ocean upon completion of spawning. The stream
reaches also serve as migration routes for the downstream migration of
juvenile (smolt) salmon and steelhead during late winter and spring.
In addition, the streams provide summer nursery (rearing) habitat for
juvenile salmonids and perennial habitat for resident trout and nongame
fishes. Surface waters also support other aquatic life, wildlife species
and riparian vegetation - an important wildlife habitat.
Impacts of Appropriation
In the absence of adequate mitigation, reduction of downstream flow re-

sulting from the subject appropriations (alone or in combination) could
adversely affect fish and wildlife resources and habitats. The appro-
priations could reduce streamflow in some periods below that necessary
for the successful upstream and downstream migrations of adult and juve-
nile salmonids. This would endanger the perpetuation of these anadromous
species. Flow reduction also could reduce the frequency and duration of
Pescadero Creek's confluence with the ocean, adversely influencing or
impeding upstream and downstream migrations of anadromous salmonids.
In addition, severe reduction or elimination of flow during critical low-
flow periods would adversely affect survival of juvenile salmonids and
resident fishes utilizing the stream reach and degrade the wildlife habi-
tats and resources.
Approach to Mitigation
In protesting the subject water applications on the basis of potential

detrimental impact on fish and wildlife resources, the Department was
obligated to formulate protest dismissal conditions (=mitigation measures).
Mitigation was defined in terms of the bypass flow requirements neces-
sary to satisfy the instream needs of fish and wildlife resources.
Anadromous silver salmon and steelhead, with their complex life cycles,
were selected as the target species for defining the winter and spring
bypass flow requirements on lower Pescadero and Butano Creeks. Flow
regimes suitable for salmon and steelhead also would be satisfactory for
the desired perpetuation and maintenance of resident nongame fishes and
wildlife uses.
Streamflow Transects
The principal method employed in this limited study to define winter and spring
bypass flow needs involved cross-sectional transect measurements of stream
width, depth and velocity. These basic hydraulic parameters were mea-
sured at various streamflows during May and June 1978. The results were
evaluated in reference to the physiological and environmental needs of
salmon and steelhead. The bypass flows recommended as a result of this
study are those minimum flows necessary to achieve effective preservation
and perpetuation of the existing silver salmon and steelhead resources.
F i s h e r i e s Managemen'
Region 3 October 1, 1 9 7 9
The lower r e a c h e s of Pescadero and Butano Creeks were surveyed. A r i f -

f l e t r a n s e c t s i t e was s e l e c t e d on e a c h s t r e a m t h a t was r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of
r i f f l e s found a l o n g t h e s u b j e c t s t r e a m r e a c h e s . M e t a l f e n c e p o s t s were
d r i v e n i n t o b o t h streambanks above t h e h i g h w a t e r mark t o e s t a b l i s h per-
manent r e f e r e n c e p o i n t s f o r each t r a n s e c t . A t e a c h measured streamflow,
a s u r v e y o r ' s t a p e was s t r e t c h e d a l o n g t h e t r a n s e c t l i n e between r e f e r e n c e
p o s t s . Water d e p t h and v e l o c i t y measurements were r e c o r d e d a t 1 o r 2-
f o o t i n t e r v a l s a l o n g t h e t a p e depending on s t r e a m width. These t r a n s e c t s
s e r v e d t h e d u a l purpose of streamflow gauging and w a t e r d e p t h / v e l o c i t y
p r o f i l e documentation.
I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e representative o r "typical r i f f l e " s t a t i o n s described

above, a c r i t i c a l r i f f l e t r a n s e c t s i t e w a s e s t a b l i s h e d on e a c h stream.
These s i t e s r e p r e s e n t e d t h e s h a l l o w e s t r i f f l e c r o s s s e c t i o n a l o n g t h e
two s t r e a m r e a c h e s t h a t would b e encountered by upstream and downstream
m i g r a t i n g a d u l t and smolt salmonids. Water d e p t h measurements were r e -
corded a t 1-foot i n t e r v a l s a l o n g t h e t a p e a t t h e s e c r i t i c a l r i f f l e t r a n -
sects.
Streamflows sampled and corresponding w a t e r d e p t h , w i d t h and v e l o c i t y

measurements a t t h e r i f f l e t r a n s e c t s t a t i o n s were a s f o l l o w s :
Flow Representative R i f f l e : Critical Riffle:

Mean a x mum
(cfs) Width ( f t ) Depth ( f t ) ~e?oc:ty (fps) Width ( f t ) Depth ( f t )
Pescadero Creek
10.93 22.0 0.53 1.40 35 0.29
Butano Creek
5.85 13.0 0.56 1.08
* No measurements o b t a i n e d
F i s h Passage Flows
The v a r i a v s d i v e r t o r s a l o n g lower Pescadero and Butano Creeks propose sub-

s t a n t i a l d i v e r s i o n d u r i n g t h e season of salmon and s t e e l h e a d upstream m i -
g r a t i o n . G e n e r a l l y , s i l v e r salmon e n t e r t h e s e s t r e a m s d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d
from November through January; s t e e l h e a d e n t e r December through A p r i l .
Most upstream movement i s s t i m u l a t e d by and c o i n c i d e s w i t h p e r i o d s of
storm runoff.
I n p r e l i m i n a r y d i s c u s s i o n w i t h t h e d i v e r t o r s , i t appeared t h a t upstream
f i s h p a s s a g e flow requirements would b e t h e major t o p i c o f c o n t e n t i o n and
n e g o t i a t i o n . A p p l i c a n t s were r e q u e s t i n g d i v e r s i o n s e a s o n s e x t e n d i n g from
F i s h e r i e s manage me^ +
Region 3 October 1, 1979
November through A p r i l - t h e p e r i o d of upstream m i g r a t i o n . During l a t e

w i n t e r and e a r l y s p r i n g , flow n e e d s f o r upstream m i g r a t i n g a d u l t s and
downstream m i g r a t i n g smolt c o i n c i d e . However, t h e g r e a t e r f l o w r e q u i r e -
ment f o r upstream passage becomes t h e governing c o n s i d e r a t i o n d u r i n g t h i s
p e r i o d and a d e q u a t e l y p r o v i d e s f o r downstream smolt movement. It was of
paramount importance t h a t t h i s s t u d y a d d r e s s t h e t o p i c of f i s h p a s s a g e re-
q u i r e m e n t s w i t h q u a n t i f i c a t i o n . Adult salmon and s t e e l h e a d must b e a b l e
t o f r e e l y m i g r a t e t o upstream spawning a r e a s i f l i f e c y c l e s a r e t o con-
t i n u e . The a b i l i t y t o r e a c h upstream a r e a s i s governed by many f a c t o r s ;
u s u a l l y t h e most i m p o r t a n t a r e w a t e r d e p t h and v e l o c i t y over s h a l l o w ,
critical riffles.
S t a n d a r d Department c r i t e r i a employed f o r d e f i n i n g t h e p a s s a g e r e q u i r e -
ments. of a d u l t s i l v e r salmon and s t e e l h e a d t r o u t a r e :
(1) Minimum w a t e r depth of 0.6 f o o t ( 7 . 2 i n c h e s ) ; and

( 2 ) Maximum w a t e r v e l o c i t y of 8.0 f e e t p e r second.
A 1 0 p e r c e n t c o n t i n u o u s p o r t i o n and 25 p e r c e n t of t h e t o t a l t r a n s e c t
l e n g t h a t r i f f l e s must meet t h i s c r i t e r i a f o r a c c e p t a b l e m i g r a t i o n flows.
I n t h i s s t u d y , e x c e s s i v e w a t e r v e l o c i t i e s were n o t encounterd. There-

f o r e , t h e v e l o c i t y c r i t e r i o n w a s not a defining f a c t o r i n determining
p a s s a g e flows. Water d e p t h became t h e s o l e governing c r i t e r i o n i n f o r -
m u l a t i n g flows n e c e s s a r y f o r s u c c e s s f u l m i g r a t i o n of a d u l t f i s h .
The maximum w a t e r d e p t h o c c u r r i n g a l o n g a 1 0 p e r c e n t c o n t i n u o u s p o r t i o n
and 25 p e r c e n t of t h e t o t a l t r a n s e c t l e n g t h was found f o r e a c h f l o w mea-
s u r e d . These d e p t h s were as f o l l o w s :
Flow 10125% Depth Value ( f t )

(cfs) Representative R i f f l e Critical Riffle
Pescadero Creek
10.93 0.73
12.53 0.78
13.53 0.89
Butano Creek
5.85 0.68 0.33
-- -
1.1 Simulated v a l u e s d e r i v e d from t h e e m p i r i c a l r e l a t i o n

- de-
f i n e d by p a i r e d measurement a t 10.93 c f s streamflow. Such
r e l a t i o n s a p p e a r v a l i d f o r flows w i t h i n a narrow range of
magnitude; i.e. r a n g e of 10.93 t o 13.53 c f s .
F i s h e r i e s ManagemenC
I n f o r m u l a t i n g minimum bypass flow recommendations, w e chose t o employ

a "composite" approach t h a t would g i v e e q u a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o b o t h rep-
r e s e n t a t i v e o r t y p i c a l r i f f l e s and t h e v e r y s h a l l o w c r i t i c a l r i f f l e s .
T h e r e f o r e , t h e d e p t h c r i t e r i o n v a l u e s (10125% v a l u e s ) found f o r r e p r e -
s e n t a t i v e and c r i t i c a l r i f f l e t r a n s e c t s were combined and a mean d e p t h
c a l c u l a t e d f o r each flow t o exemplify a composite r i f f l e . These d e p t h s
were a s f o l l o w s :
Flow (cfs) Mean 10125% Depth ( f t )

Pescadero Creek:
10.93 0.53
12.53 0.56
Butano Creek:
5.85 0.51
The d e p t h v a l u e s were p l o t t e d t o d e p i c t a graph f o r each stream r e l a t i n g

t h i s d e p t h p a r a m e t e r t o streamflow on which t h e minimum d e p t h c r i t e r i o n
of 0.6 f o o t c o u l d b e d e l i n e a t e d t o i d e n t i f y t h e minimum a c c e p t a b l e pas-
s a g e f l o w ( s e e a t t a c h e d g r a p h s ) . The c r i t e r i o n of 0.6 f o o t minimum water
d e p t h o v e r 1 0 p e r c e n t continuous p o r t i o n and 25 p e r c e n t of t h e t o t a l com-
p o s i t e r i f f l e t r a n s e c t l e n g t h w a s a t t a i n e d a t a f l o w of 13.0 c f s on lower
P e s c a d e r o Creek and 9.4 c i s on lower Butano Creek, as d e s i g n a t e d on t h e
flow: d e p t h g r a p h s .
Recommended Bypass Flows
The i n s t r e a m f l o w needs of f i s h and w i l d l i f e must b e g i v e n c o n s i d e r a t i o n

commensurate w i t h o t h e r b e n e f i c i a l u s e s when a l l o c a t i n g streamflow among
c o m p e t i t i v e u s e s . S p e c i f i c bypass flow terms p r o v i d i n g f o r f i s h and wild-
l i f e i n s t r e a m n e e d s must b e i n c l u d e d i n a p p r o p r i a t i v e w a t e r p e r m i t s i f we
a r e t o a c h i e v e e f f e c t i v e p r e s e r v a t i o n and s u b s t a n t i a l p e r p e t u a t i o n of t h e s e
r e s o u r c e s i n t h e f a c e of competing w a t e r demands.
A s a r e s u l t of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n , we recommend t h a t w i n t e r and s p r i n g d i -
v e r s i o n s (November 1 through May 1 ) a l o n g lower Pescadero apd Butano Creeks
b e s u b j e c t t o t h e f o l l o w i n g minimum bypass f l o w r e q u i r e m e n t s :
Pescadero Creek (lower 5-mile r e a c h )

Bypass a minimum of 13.0 c f s . The t o t a l
streamflow s h a l l b e bypassed whenever i t i s
l e s s t h a n 13.0 c i s .
Fisheries Management
Butano Creek (lower 4.4-mile reach)

Bypass a minimum of 9.4 cfs. The total
streamflow shall be bypassed whenever it is
less than 9.4 cfs.
Keith R. Anderson
Associate Fishery Biologist
Region 3
Ivan L. Paulsen
Assistant Fishery Biologist
Region 3
Attachments
1 ~ 1 t r -t; 1 1I q + t , - ++ A - - a --
$ o r t i b n aria I 15 bet f erit &f 'th;.
1 1 i I L
- - - Maximud wak&$-[dk+td .over:ID be$jiik~-do,iitinuoih
-
-
- t o t a l width o e :b6$6sk jb ,~~iffidfb_~;-i&kii Pestadero Creek,. San hA5&dL CC6rinty.

. Ci
' 1
L
L i t I ' 1 L , --k l L I 1 I I i l ,
1 , , I , , I
4
144-1
- !
i 1 -+, 1 1- 1 L - L -
I
i t 6 I t -1 1 t i - 4
i
?
r l I I 1 1 . + I & -
, r l l I I L * L +
- - I I L 1 I - 4 +-I --,-- 4 1
- 4 Silver Salmon
and Steelhead Passage
Minimum Flow to Provide Adequate

Water Depth for Upstream Migration
0 9 10 11 12 13 14
FLOW (CFS)
A
Maximum water depth over 10 percent continuous portion and 25 percent of the
total width of composite riffle for lower Pescadero Creek, San Mateo County.
I
Minimum Flow t o P r o v i d e Adequate
Water Depth f o r Upstream M i g r a t i o n
I
1 I I I
J- 1 I'
A
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
FLOW (CFS)
Maximum w a t e r d e p t h o v e r 1 0 p e r c e n t c o n t i n u o u s p o r t i o n and 25 p e r c e n t of t h e
t o t a l w i d t h of composite r i f f l e f o r lower Butano Creek, San Mateo County.
Water Availability Analysis
State Water Resources Control Board @ '"'
$. '
8
John P. Caffrey, Chairman "A'&
Pete Wilson
Peter M. Rooney Division of Water Rights Governor
Secretary for 901 P Street. Sacramento, Callfornla 95814. (916) 657-0765 FAX (916) 657-1485
Environmental
Protection
.
Mailing- Address P 0 Box 2000 Sacramento, Californ~a 95812-2000
Internet Address: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. Pat Coulston

Senior Biologist Supervisor
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
20 Lower Ragsdale Drive, Suite 100
Montere CA 93940
ORI&NAL SIGNED
BY GERALD E. JOHKC
FROM: Gerald E. Johns
Assistant Division Chief
DIVISION OF WATER RIGHTS
DATE:
SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY ANALYSIS-PESCADERO CREEK WATERSHED

IN SAN MATE0 COUNTY
This memo provides information to assist the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) in issuing a
biological opinion on pending water right applications within the Pescadero Creek watershed in
San Mateo County
By letter dated May 23, 1997 the Division of Water Rights (Division) requested that DFG
provide a biological opinion relating to coho salmon in accordance with Fish and Game Code
sections 2090-2097. By letter dated February 11, 1998 DFG requested additional information
including watershed hydrology. On May 29, 1998 DFG and Division staff met to discuss this
issue. The information requested by DFG during the May meeting included environmental
conditions, hydrology analysis of water availability, and proposed permit terms.
All references to maps, tables, and charts are found immediately following this memo.
Pending Applications: The Division currently has 11 pending applications in the

Pescadero Creek Watershed requesting the right to divert a total of 522.5 acre-feet of water
per annum (afa) (See Table 1). Map 1 shows the Pescadero Creek watershed, major streams or
sub-basins, the location of the pending applications and all existing water diversions on file with
the Division. Most of the pending applications are located within the Bradley Creek sub-basin and
Mr. Pat Coulston
request the right to store water during the winter, primarily for agricultural irrigation and
stocltwatering. Two applications are located within the Butano Creek sub-basin. One application
(Application 30458 of the Portola Improvement Association) requests the right to divert a total of
12 afa from Peters Creelt tributary to Pescadero Creek, from December 1 to May 14 for
supplemental municipal use, when necessary.
Environmental Conditions: The Pescadero Watershed has historically provided spawning and
rearing habitat for coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), it contiilues to support steelhead trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss), tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi), California red-legged frog
(Ranu aurora draytonii), San Francisco garter snalte (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia) and other
fish, amphibian, bird and plant species. Pescadero's fresh water flow is needed for salmonid
immigration, spawning, and emigration of young into the rearing habitat of estuary waters.
Sandbar closure at the mouth of Pescadero Creelc results in a closed lagoon with little or no tidal
exchange; stratification of waters within the lagoon may be harmful to steelhead fry. and a system
which remains brackish will be potentially lethal to red-legged frog eggs and larvae. Water quality
within the lagoon depends on freshwater inflows to convert the system from saline to fresh and to
mix the waters. reduce temperature, and increase dissolved oxygen (Attachment A).
Studies indicate that the estuaryllagoon at Pescadero provides rearing habitat for up to 80 percent
of the steelhead within the watershed; an estimated 25,000 steelhead use the embayment for certain
life stages each season (Jerry Smith, 1111/96, Attachment A). Pescadero Marsh is recognized as
one of the largest remaining continuous areas of habitat suitable for California red-legged frogs,
and is identified as one of only four geographic areas Imown to support a population of 2350 adults
of the species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Federal Register for May 23, 1996.). Successful
steelhead spawning and rearing in tributaries of the lower Pescadero Watershed was verified using
limited electro-shock sampling in Bradley Creelt (Attachment B). Salmonid spawning habitat and
the presence of multiple age-class steelhead trout were documented in a 1995 stream survey with
qualitative electrofishing sampling of Pescadero Creelt and tributaries of the mid and upper
watershed (DFG, 311196-1130197). Reports of coho salmon immigration and spawning within the
Pescadero channel near the Pescadero High School and near the County Park have come from local
residents, active in stewardship and watershed restoration activities.
There are no structural barriers to fish passage from the mouth of Pescadero Creek up into the
upper stream reach. Much of the tributary system within the upper watershed is accessible to
salmonids. Highly erosive soils and agricultural practices within the watershed have resulted in
sediment deposition in Butano Creek, lower Pescadero Creelt, and tributaries of the lower
drainage. Stream restoration activities conducted on Bradley Creelt in 1994 (Pescadero
Coordinated Resource Management Planning Process) breached the channel, providing salmonid
access to tributaries of the Bradley sub-basin. Shaw Gulch, tributary to Bradley Creek, offers
suitable habitat for salmonid spawning and rearing; however, the dam of permitted water right
A 28507 impedes access into the stream's mid-reach in all but the wettest precipitation years
(Attachment C). The lowest reach of Shaw Gulch provides habitat suitable for salmonid use; it
also provides a corridor for upstream movement either toward the spillway obstruction or into an
unnamed stream tributary to Shaw Gulch.
Mr. Pat Coulston
The upper and mid reaches of Shaw Gulch produce abundant spawning gravels, but recruitment
downstream toward Bradley Creek is unsuccessful due to impoundment in the onstream reservoir
(A 28507). Gravels within the lowest reach of Shaw Gulch appear to originate primarily in the
watershed of the unnamed stream. This tributary to Shaw Gulch thence Bradley Creelt may be an
important source of spawning gravels in the Bradley Creel<channel. Division staff finds that the
dam on Shaw Gulch. in most years, prevents upstream passage to potential salmonid habitat. and
downstream recruitment of spawning gravels.
Hydrology and Water Availability: Prior to issuing a permit. the Division must determine that
sufficient water is available for appropriation. (Water Code section 1375(d)). A determination of
water availability must take into consideration the amount of water that needs to remain in the
stream for the protection of public trust resources. (Water Code section 1243.5). Division staff has
reviewed hydrologic data for the Pescadero Creek watershed to determine the amount of water
- available for appropriation at each project site. These data were then compared to data developed
by DFG's John Waithrnan. The Division's data appear to be more conservative since the
calculated unimpaired flows are lower (i.e. indicates less water is available) than those computed
by DFG. Therefore, Division data were used as the base for the computations.
Chart 1 shows the total annual impaired flows as measured at the Pescadero Creelt gage for each
year during the period of record from 1952-199 1. These data show a substantial variation in
annual flow as calculated from the sum of all daily flows for each year. Charts 2 through 5 show
both the impaired flow (i.e., the measured flow) and the estimated unimpaired flow (i.e., the
natural flow that would occur without any dams or diversions) within the three main sub-basins
(i.e. Pescadero Creelt, Butano Creelt. and Bradley Creelt.)
Division staff also estimated the quantity of water that would be available at each site based on the
available hydrologic data, prior water rights, and proposed permit terms designed to protect coho
salmon and other public trust resources. The proposed permit terms include a bypass flow equal to
60 percent of the average annual unimpaired flow and an allowable season of diversion from
January 1 to March 3 1. The 60 percent bypass term has been developed by Division staff and is
considered a conservative value that should protect anadromous fish resources. Attachment B to
the Russian River staff report1provides a detailed description of the methodology used to develop
this bypass flow requirement. The allowable season of diversion was determined based on a
comparison of the percentile exceedence hydrographs of impaired monthly flows and the proposed
bypass flow equal to 60 percent of the average annual unimpaired flow at the gage. Charts 6 and 7
show these exceedence curves for Pescadero and Butano creelts.
Chart 8 shows Pescadero Creek daily flows for a dry year and an average water year. For the
smaller Bradley Creelt sub-basin, peak flows occur for short periods immediately following
storms.
' Russian River Watershed - Staff Repbrt, Division of water Rights, State Water Resources Control Board, August 15.
1997
Mr. Pat Coulston FEB 2 2 1999
The following table summarizes the amount of water requested by the applicant and the total
amount of water above the recommended bypass in average years. It should be noted that although
water is available in average years there might not be the amount of water requested for diversion
each year and probably less than 50% of the time will there be sufficient water to satisfy demand
for the pending applications.. Division staff calculated the runoff at each site by measuring the
tributary area upstream of each applicant's diversion and determining the annual rainfall in each of
these sub-basins. These runoff data were then compared to existing unimpaired runoff for the
larger basins (i.e. PescaderoIButano creeks) to compute the unimpaired flow for the individual
sub-basins (Charts 9 to 15). Impairments (prior water right demands) upstream and downstream,
when applicable, were estimated and subtracted from the unimpaired data in the table below. As
indicated below, sufficient water does not appear to be available to supply the requested amount
and diversion seasons for some water right applications within the Bradley Creek sub-basin.
Specifically, sufficient water may not be available for Applications 28220 (partial availability),
29642,29643, 29644, 29658, 29770, and the direct diversion portion of 30261.
1 28220 / 26 afa / 24 afa 1 YES (FOR 24 AF) I

/ 29643 / 0
I
/ YES
1
/ NO 1
29644 6 afa 0 YES NO
29658 75 afa 20 afa YES NO
29770 50 afa 0 YES / NO
30261 direct 0.25 cfsI30 afa 0 - outside proposed YES NO
diversion season
3026 1 storage 48 afa 50 afa NO MAYBE
B U C C$:: ':.;ea,,
~~
29398 199 afa 6222 afa NO YES
29941 I 14.5 afa I 6222 afa I NO I YES I
30205 9 afa 92 afa NO YES

30458 0.025 cfsIl0 afa 1440 afa NO YES
-
(large watershed)
1
\
I I
30458 / 2 afa 1 26 afa / NO / YES

1 (small watershed) 1 I1 1
Mr. Pat Coulston
A water right permit (Permitted Application 28507) has been issued for a dadreservoir that has
been constructed downstream of Application 28220. This dam acts as a barrier to fish passage in
Shaw Gulch. Based on the above information, it may be possible to issue a water right permit for
Application 28220 for storage of a lesser amount of water than requested in the application, with
the inclusion of appropriate permit terms. DFG may file a complaint against Permitted
Application 28507 with the Division under California Code of Regulations, Title 23,
sections 855 and 856 to address the barrier issue as harmful to public trust resources (see
California Supreme Court Decision, National Audubon Society vs. Superior Court, Alpine County,
1983) or as an unreasonable method of diversion and use of water (CA Constitution, Article X).
On the Butano Creelt applications, to account for water used upstream, the water availability
determination compared impaired (gage) flow to the 60 percent average annual unimpaired flow.
Since their points of diversion were below the old gage site, the watershed above the gage on
Butano Creelt would be included in each application's runoff calculations. By using the gage
flows, the water availability for Applications 29398 and 29941 taltes into account the water used
above the gage and below the gage that is not available to these pending applications on
Butano Creek (Chart 15).
Division staff has also evaluated the l~ydrologyto determine the potential impact to the
geo-morphological conditions within the each sub-basin for those applications where this data is
needed to further determine if a permit should be issued. See table below for summary of peak
flow impacts by sub-basin. Peak flow charts are available upon request. The peak winter flows are
essential for maintaining the proper conditions within the streambed, which in turn is important for
the anadromous fishery resources. Charts 16 is a hydrograph of peak daily flows within the
Butano Creek sub-basin during the 1962-1974 period of record. The data have been compressed to
emphasize the amplitude and frequency of peak winter flows. As indicated, peak flows greater
than 500 CFS occurred in 7 of the 12 years. Chart 17 shows a comparison of the estimated average
monthly unimpaired flow, the measured (or monthly gage flow), and the cumulative impact on
flow with approval of the pending applications (for which water is available) within Butano Creek
sub-basin for an average year. As indicated on this chart, approval of the pending applications
would have an insignificant impact on the peak flows. In addition, the limitations on the allowable
season of diversion would prevent any reduction in peak flows before January 1 or after March 3 1.
The Division is sending letters to all applicants in the Pescadero Creek watershed requesting that
each applicant do one of the following: (1) modify their application(s) to meet the proposed terms.
(2) submit information demonstrating that water is available for appropriation and conduct site
specific studies and an environmental document acceptable to the Division on flows needed to
protect public trust resources and the environmental effects of the project, or (3) cancel their
applications, as appropriate.
PERCENTAGE IMPACT OF DIVERSION DEMAND ON FLOWS IN NORMAL YEARS
BRADLEY
CREEK
28220 17.14 YES 0.42 NO
30261 LW 10.43 YES 0.42 NO
30261 SW 43.64 YES 0.42 NO
28220&28507 17.14 YES 8.5 MAYBE
21293&26801&30261LW 10.43 YES 9.1 MAYBE
29642-
- 29643, , ASTHER@"NO
ANALYSIS NOT N ~ ~ D E D ~ A T E ABOVE
I~ 7X.E
BYPASS FLOWS
29644 :-- - -
29658 -
29770
BUTANO
CREEK
29198 ANALYSIS NOT NEEDED, THERE WOULD BE VERY MINIMAL
IMPACT .
PESCADERO CREEK
30205 1.37
30458 ANALYSIS NOT NEEDED AS PETERS CREEK IS
A LARGE WATERSHED AND APP DEMAND IS SMALL
Proposed Permit Terms: Division staff propose a "pacltage" of terms to protect fish, wildlife,
and riparian resources and allow for the issuance of water right permits that would authorize
diversion during the peak water runoff season. The methodology used to develop these terms was
developed for the Russian River and is based on 60 percent of the average annual unimpaired flow
being bypassed. The proposed permit terms specific to this watershed would address:
Season: Permittees would be allowed to divert from January 1 to March 3 1 except that
Application 30458 of Portola Improvement Association would be approved from December 1
to May 14 because the small use amount requested compared to the water available in the
Peters Creek watershed and there would be sufficient water available during the season
requested.
Bypass: Permittees would be required to bypass at the point of diversion 60 percent of the
average annual unimpaired flow, or the natural flow, whenever it is less than the designated
bypass. This analysis proposes that on Pescadero Creek, the minimum bypass flow would
equal 25.1 cubic feet per second (CFS); on Butano Creelt, 17.8 CFS; and on Bradley Creek.
1.59 CFS at the mouth of each stream
Sand bar: Permittees would not be allowed to divert water when the sand bar is present at the
moutl~of Pescadero Creek.
Barriers: Permittees would not be allowed to construct barriers to fish movement, e.g., dams
on tributaries that provide habitat for fishery resources. (This may require construction of
off-stream reservoirs; or fish ladders, as appropriate, and meeting criteria acceptable to DFG.)
Compliance: Permittees would be required to submit a plan, that is acceptable to the Chief of
the Division, describing the measures to be talten to comply with the above permit terms.
Passive bypass systems are recommended. The Chief of the Division would submit the plan to
DFG for review and comment, prior to approval. The required measures would be installed in
conjunction with the development of the project as stated by appropriate permit terms included
in any permit issued. Approval of the compliance plan would talte place prior to issuance of
the permit with the Division committed to providing the permit upon approval of the plan.
Although average daily flows (runoff) are adequate for appropriation in most water years starting
December 1, such flows are not available in dry years, typically until January. By restricting
diversions to begin on January 1 we are allowing an opportunity in the average rain year for the
first few storm events to be bypassed. This is intended to benefit the stream's fluvial processes and
riparian habitat and should aid in breaching the sand bar if not already open. On the other end of
the diversion season, there is adequate runofflflow into late April in normal water years. However,
such flows are not reliably available in dry years. By ceasing diversion at the end of March, more
water would be available as fresh water supply to convert the estuary when the sandbar begins to
close. as indicated in Attachment A.
Storage reservoirs would ideally be built offstream, but onstream reservoirs may be approved, if it
can be shown that such facilities would not be a barrier to fish passage or significant gravel
recruitment. To build onstream, permits with the above bypass measures and an approved
compliance plan would be required.
Fully Appropriated Streams: Water Right Decision (D)- 125 (adopted October 2 1, 1926) and
D- 194 (adopted June 13, 192 8) established a Fully Appropriated Stream System (FAS) for
Pescadero Creelt with unappropriated water available from November 1 to June 14. D-1567
(adopted September 18, 1980) requires certain projects with permits on Pescadero and Butano
Creelts to bypass flows for fish, with measuring devices rated to bypass 13 cubic feet per second
(CFS) for permits on Pescadero Creek, 9.4 CFS for permits on Butano Creelt, and 3 CFS for
licenses 011 Butano Creek. D-3 15 (adopted April 14, 1932) established a FAS for Peters Creek with
unappropriated water available from December 1 to May 14. The above proposed permit terms are
in compliance with FAS decisions for the Pescadero Watershed.
Based on the results of this analysis, the Division will recommend that Bradley Creek be added to
the FAS listing, establishing a season of water unavailability from April 1 to December 3 1.
Proposed Division Process: If DFG agrees with the proposed permit terms and issues a No
Jeopardy Biological Opinion, Division staff will resume processing these applications in
accordance with provisions of the Water Code and the California Environmental Quality Act.
Division staff will conduct environmental field reviews to identify site-specific environmental
impacts and may prepare additional permit terms.
Once the biological opinion is issued:
Division staff will contact applicants to determine if they agree to the permit terms.
Staff will contact protestants to determine if they agree to the permit terms and withdraw their
protests.
Appropriate documents in compliance with CEQA will be completed.
If the protests are not resolved Division staff will perform a field investigation and write a staff
decision as necessary.
An applicant who does not agree to the proposed permit terms would be required to contract
with qualified professionals to conduct studies and to prepare the appropriate environmental
document. The Divisioil would defer further processing of those applications until the
applicant completed an acceptable environmental document.
For Further Information: Please call me at (9 16) 657- 1981, Terry Snyder for water availability
at (916) 657-2061, or Sharon Stohrer for environmental concerns at (916) 657-1960. if you have
any questions or would like to meet to discuss this issue further.
ATTACHMENTS
cc: Department of Fish and Game

C/OMr. John Emig
Senior Fishery Biologist Supervisor
P.O. Box 47
Yountville, CA 94599
Department of Fish and Game bcc: MF, RAS, SJS (w/o attachments)
C/OMs. Patricia Anderson
P.O. Box 4008 9-3,lO-9,13,
TNSnyder:tns/pminer/rmontoya:
Aromas. CA 95004 12-21-98
u:\tns\memo to pat coulson
Department of Fish and Game
C/OMr. John Waithman
P.O. Box 47
Yountville, CA 94599
BUTANO CREEK BASIN

-- - DECEMBER 1 TO APRIL 15
14.5 DECEMBER 1 TO APRIL 15-----
BRADLEY CREEK SUB-BASIN

-- -- -. . -
DECEMBER 1 TO APRIL 15
-- - -- -- -- - --- - -- - --
SHEET E
PESCADERO CREEK ANNUAL
PERIOD OF RECORD 1952-1991
1 IANNUAL
!
1952-53 1954-55 1956-57 1958-59 1960-61 1962-63 1964-65 1966-67 1968-69 1970-71 1972-73 1974-75 1976-77 1978-79 1980-81 1982-83 1984-85 1986-87 1988-89 1990-91
1953-54 1955-56 1957-58 1959-60 1961-62 1963-64 1965-66 1967-68 1969-70 1971-72 1973-74 1975-76 1977-78 1979-80 1981-82 1983-84 1985-86 1987-68 1989-90
YEAR
SHEET E
CHART 2 - PESCADERO CREEK HYDROGRAPH 1952-91
AVERAGE MONTHLY IMPAIRED AND UNIMPAIRED FLOW ABOVE THE CONFLUENCE WITH BUTANO CREEK
OCT NOV DEC JAN FEE MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP
MONTH
SHEET E
CHART 3 - BUTANO CREEK HYDROGRAPH 1962-74
AVERAGE MONTHLY IMPAIRED AND UNIMPAIRED FLOW AT THE MOUTH OF BUTANO CREEK
+ IMPAIRED (GAGE) FLOW

UNIMPAIRED FLOW
- 60% AVERAGE ANNUAL UNIMPAIRED FLOW (17 8 CFS)
OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP
MONTH
SHEET C
----
CHART 4 - PESCADERO WATERSHED COMBINED HYDROGRAPH

AVERAGE IMPAIRED AND UNIMPAIRED COMBINED FLOW OF PESCADEROIBUTANO CREEKS AT THE MOUTH OF PESCADERO CRK
SHEET G
CHART 5 - BRADLEY CREEK BASIN
ESTIMATED AVERAGE UNIMPAIRED & IMPAIRED RUNOFF AT THE MOUTH (UNPERMITTED USE TAKEN IN JAN NOT DEC)
BASIN UNIMPAIRED FLOW FROM DATA COMPARISONS ( NO GAGE DATA AVAILABLE)
- 60% AVERAGE ANNUAL UNIMPAIRED FLOW (1.59 CFS)
IMPAIRED FLOW WlTH PERMITTED USES
o IMPAIRED FLOW WlTH UNPERMllTED AND PERMITTED USES
1 I
I
j
j ,'
1
I w \
/ I
I
+
\
i I \
,' \
\ %\'
I $
I \'
1
,/ I
\
\
i ,' 1 \
/
I
I
I
! 1.59 CFS
/ I
I ,>.\ \%
b.>\\
i .
i I D \
.I I \ -..
I \ .-- -.
1
,
\
\
@. - --.--g+.. - 4
-L I I 1 I I I 1 L L L
MONTH
SHEET B
1 CHART 6 - PESCADERO CREEK BASIN EXCEEDENCE CURVES I
GAGE FLOW & PERCENTILE FLOWS IMPAIRED & 60% AVE ANNUAL UNIMPAIRED AT GAGE
I
-
SHEET F
SHEET B
~TFFYPAR
, CSH~RT DAIiYGAGr FCoWS
PESCADEROCREEK I
L OCTOBER TO SEPTEMBER
#AVERAGEYEAR DAILY GAGE FLOWS

PESCADERO CREEK
L - - -- ---
OCTOBER TO SEPTEMBER - --- -- - . -- --
SHEET A
CHART 9
WATER FLOWS ABOVE 60% BYPASS BY APPLICATION
A028220
SHAW GULCH
DEMAND = 26 AF
TOTAL ABOVE
BYPASS = 24 AF
f" 178 \ L AmQunt Avatlable for Appropnatoon
January 1 to Ma* 31
= 24 A F
+~n~rnpatred Monthly
Flow
--B-60% Average Annual
Un~rnpalred
39
MONTH
CHART 13
A030205
UNST TRlB PESCADERO CREEK
DEMAND = 9 AF
Amount Avallaele lot ADprop"a11on = 92 A F from

TOTAL ABOVE
January 1 lo Marcn 31 BYPASS = 92 AF
0 544
+Unlrnpalred Monthly
Flow I
+60% Average Annual
un~rnpa~red
I
I
48
I OCT NOV DEC JAN FEE! MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP
I
I MONTH
I
CHART 10
A029643
UNST TRlB BRADLEY CREEK
DEMAND = 3 AF
TOTAL ABOVE
BYPASS = 8 AF
--
-- - i +unlrnpa~red Monthly
Flow
/ -4-6046 Average Annual
1 Un~rnpa~red -
12
MONTH
A029644
0.030 1 UNST TRlB BRADLEY CREEK

1 DEMAND = 6 AF
- -
BYPASS =: 3 AF
- .---.
-
1-~ncrn~acred Monthly Flow
---
I OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP . I
1 MONTH 1
CHART 11
A029658
DEMAND = 75 AF
TOTAL ABOVE
BYPASS = 20 AF
1 -&u&kpalred Monthly I
Flow
-4-60% Average Annual
-
Unlnipa~red
MONTH
SHAW GULCH
DEMAND = 50 AF
I
TOTAL ABOVE
BYPAS!; = 9 AF
.. - . -~ --
; -+Unlnipalred Monthly
Flow
1 --&-60% Average Annual
Uninipaired
~
- -
MONTH
CHART 12
A030261(small watershed)
UNST TRIB BRADLEY CREEK
DEMAND = 24 AF
TOTAL ABOVE
. . . . . .
...
January 1 to March 31
BYPASS = 10 AF
0 0%
( z ~ n i r n ~ a l r Monthly
e d
i Flow
I --B-60% Average Annual
Un~mparred
-
15
OCT NOV DEC JAN FEE MAR , APR MAY JUN JUL AUG
I MONTH I
A030261(large watershed area)

] 0'400 I DEMAND = 24 AF
I
-
/t" "'
AvatlaMe for AppmpnaQon= 40 AF
- -.
-
1 TOTAL ABOVE
BYPASS 40 AF -
from January 1 lo March 31
-+~ n l r n ~ a r r e~do n t h i ~ -
Flow (does not ~ncludeI
portlor1 of the
Watershed for
A029642)
I-B--60% Average Annual
Untmpatred
- >
65
MONTH
A030261 (both watersheds)

CHART 13
A030205
UNST TRlB PESCADERO CREEK
DEMAND = 9 AF
-
Amount Available for Appmpnrbw, = 92 AF from
TOTAL ABOVE
-- .
January 1 to ~ a c 31
h BYPASS = 92 AF
/ &uGpalred ~onthly
I Flow
I
I 1
I -B-60%, Average Annual
Unrrnpalred
-.
148
OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APj? MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP
MONTH
A028507 (PERMITTED)
SHAW GULCH
DEMAND = 372 AF
4
-- - ---
-
--
-
IAmount AvallaMe for Appropnabon = 164
AF from Januar 1 to March 31
- -- TOTAL ABOVE,
BYPASS = 160 AF
. -. -
I -+Un~rnpa~red Monthly
Flow
, --6)--60h Average Annual
I Unlrnpalred
.- .
03
I OCT NOV DEC JAN FEE MAR
MONTH
APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP
I
-
CHART 14
A030458 (small watershed-storage reservoir)

PETERS CREEK
TOTAL ABOVE
Amount Avadable lor Appmp~ton
= 26 AF
from Janoary 1 to March 31
BYPASS = 26 AF
--
--
+Unimpaired Monthly i
Flow
-+60% Average Annual
--
Un~rnpaired
2
MONTH I
A030458 (large watershed area)

PETERS CREEK
DEMAND = 70 AF
- - -- - TOTAL ABOVE.
Amount AvatlaMe for Appropnabon = 1540 AF
fmm January 1 to March 31 BYPASS = 1540 AF
+i)nlmpalred Monthly
Flow (does not ~nclude
portlor) of Watershed for
the Storage Reservo~r)
+60% Average Annual
Un~mpa~red
OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR AP,R MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP
MONTH
A030458 (both watersheds)

CHART 15
A029398
BUTANO CREEK
80.00
DEMAND = 199 AF
TOTAL ABOVE
BYPASS = 6562 AF
+Gage Average Monthly t
Flow
-+-60% Average Annual

Un~rnpalredFlow
MONTH
A029941
BUTANO CREEK
- DEMAND = 14.5 AF
- - -
--
A +I
--$,EL .
Amount avatlaMe for Appropnafion = 6562 AF

from January 1 to March 31
TOTAL ABOVE
BYPASS = 6562 AF
-
.-
+Gage Average Monthly

Flow
%604% Average Annual
Unlrnpa~redFlow
.. -- ---
MONTH
A029398-A029941 Butano 1017198

CHART 16 BUTANO CREEK DAILY GAGE
I
FLOWS
DAYS
CHART 17 - BUTANO CREEK HYDROGRAPH 1962-74
VERAGE MONTHLY IMPAIRED, UNPERMITTED IMPAIRED, AND UNIMPAIRED FLOW AT THE MOUTH OF BUTANO CREE
UNPERMITTED IMPAIRED FLOW

IMPAIRED (GAGE) FLOW
UNIMPAIRED FLOW
60% AVERAGE ANNUAL UNIMPAIRED FLOW (17.8 CFS
I I L I I - I
MONTH
SHEET D
SEPARATION PAGE
State of California The Resources Agency
Memorandum
TO : Mr. Gerald Johns Date: May 28, 1999

Assistant Division Chief
Division of Water Rights
State Water Resources Control Board
Post Office Box 2000
Sacramento, California 95812-2000
From : Department of Fish and Game
Subiect: Water Availability Analysis - Pescadero Creek Watershed, San

Mateo County
This memo responds to your February 22, 1999 memo to

Mr. Patrick J. Coulston of my staff regarding the subject water
availability analysis. Your memo includes proposed permit terms
for 11 pending water right applications in the subject drainage
and requests a determination from the Department of Fish and Game
as to whether the diversions, constrained by the proposed terms,
would jeopardize the existence of any species listed under the
California Endangered Species Act (CESA).*.Theprimary species of
concern with respect to the proposed diversions is the coho
salmon (Oncorhynchus k i s u t c h ) . Coho salmon spawning in streams
south of San Francisco are listed as "endangered" under CESA and
statewide as "threatened" under the Federal ESA. Other species
of concern in evaluating the pending permits are steelhead trout
(Oncorhynchus , m y k i s s ) , tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi) ,
California red-legged frog (Rana aurora d r a y t o n i i i ) , and San
Francisco garter snake (Thamnopolis sirtalis tetrataeniai) .
Steelhead trout, tidewater goby, and red-legged frog are
Federally listed as "threatened," while the San Francisco garter
snake is State- and Federally-listed as "endangered."
The water availability analysis and biological assessment

information developed by State Water Resources Control Board
(Board), Division of Water Rights (Division) staff is well
crafted and presented, and was very helpful in making the
requested determination. Although the permit terms Division ,
staff proposes provide substantial protection for listed species
in the Pescadero drainage, they are probably insufficient to
confidently conclude that the continued existence of listed
species, particularly coho salmon listed species will not be
jeopardized by the proposed diversions. We recommend enhancing
permit terms and limiting the permitting process as follows to
avoid jeopardy:
Mr. Gerald Johns
May 28, 1999
Page Two
Stream Gauuinq: Division staff proposes minimum bypass flows for

Pescadero, Butano, and Bradley creeks of 25.1, 17.8, and 1.59
cubic feet per second, respectively. Although these proposed
flows may be sufficiently protective of special status species,
it is our understanding that stream gauges are not currently in
place at appropriate locations for monitoring-these proposed
bypass flows. Routine monitoring and reporting of stream flows
is essential to monitoring compliance with, and the impacts of,
proposed permit terms. We recommend that the Board require new
and existing water right holders to gauge and report stream flows
at locations appropriate for the three bypass requirements
referenced above, in addition to any gauging required at their
individual diversions. If gauges are to be used for compliance,
we need some assurances that the provision is enforceable
r,
Permit Term Limitation, Monitorinu, Ada~tiveManauement: Given
the uncertainty about current flows and diversion rates in the
drainage and associated impacts on special status species, we
think it would not be prudent to permit new diversions for
unlimited time periods. We recommend that permits provide for
revisiting terms after no more than five years. The Board,
Department, and permittees should design and implement a
cooperative effectiveness and compliance monitoring program that
is used to adapt permi't terms as new information becomes
available. It may be possible for the Department to conduct an
instream flow study during this period to establish more
scientifically supportable flow bypass terms.
Coo~erativeCom~lianceMonitorinq: Permits should include terms

providing for reasonable access to diversion facilities for
compliance monitoring purposes by Board & Department personnel.
Monitoring compliance with eventual permit terms will be
difficult for the Board to accomplish on its own. The Department
has several law enforcement and resource personnel headquartered
in the area that could assist with complianc'e monitoring if
provided with appropriate access authority.
Instantaneous Diversion Rates: Short term "peak" flows are

ecologically important in coastal streams. For example, they
interact with large woody debris and boulders to scour pools and
clean gravel areas. In order to protect these peak flows and the
benefits they provide, we recommend that permits include a term
limiting the allowable instantaneous rate of diversion.
Specifically, we recommend that the instantaneous diversion rates
be limited based on the total annual appropriation, as follows:
Mr. Gerald Johns
May 28, 1999
Page Three
Appropriation: IDR
Up to 30 ac-ft : 0.5 cfs

31 to 60 ac-ft : 1.0 cfs
61 to 90 ac-ft : 1.5 cis
91 to 120 ac-ft : 2.0 cfs
12T to 150 ac-ft : 2.5 cfs
151 to 190 ac-ft : 3.0 cfs
> 190 ac-ft : 3.5 cfs
Drv Year, Earlv Season B m a s s Flows: Division staff proposes a
diversion season extending from January 1 through March 31, which
generally provides sufficient protection for coho and steelhead.
However, in dry years when substantial precipitation has not
occurred by January 1, the beginning of the diversion season
should be delayed to allow the first substantial freshet to be
bypassed. This is critical for coho because of their relatively
early spawning season (November through January). If seasonal
precipitation has been insufficient prior to January 1 to breach
the Pescadero Creek mouth adequately for coho migration.
diversions to storage after January 1 could further delay the
breaching, cause reformation of the sandbar, or otherwise inhibit
the upstream migration of adult coho to the extent that spawning
will be too late to be~successful. This issue may be covered by
Division staffs proposed "sandbar" term, but we were not certain
of this.
Bradley Creek Over-subscription: The proposed Division staff

permit terms with the enhancements we recommend should be
sufficient to protect listed species in Pescadero and Butano
Creeks, allowing the permitting process to proceed for pending
permits in these two drainages. However, the water availability
information you provided and our own observations suggest
strongly that existing diversions and diversion facilities in the
Bradley Creek drainage are having unacceptable levels of impact
on anadromous fish. We recommend that the Board suspend or delay
the granting of additional water right permits in the Bradley
Creek drainage until a better assessment can be made of flows,
permitted and unpermitted diversion rates, and the impacts of
existing diversion facilities.
This concludes our response to your February 22. 1999 memo.

Thank you for the substantial, high-quality water availability
and biological assessment information provided by ~ivisionstaff.
The information was very helpful in formulating our response. If
Mr. Gerald Johns
May 28, 1999
Page 4
you have any questions about our response or wish to discuss

implementation of any of the actions we propose above, please
contact Mr. Coulston, Senior Fishery Biologist, at
(831) 649-2882.
rian Hunter
Regional Manager
Central Coast Region
END OF FILE

1992 Pescadero Creek (Book 4 of 5)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1992 Pescadero Creek (Book 4 of 5)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PESCADERO CREEK

Project E - Create 12 Sag Ponds

Project C2 Widen Levee Breach C21 40' by 140' 0.13 ac

CORPS OF ENGINEERS JURISDICTION

CALIFORNIA S T A T E AUTObfOBILE ASSOCIATION

Med~um.duty - . Un~rnprovedd ~ r ;===,,,,;

of new culverts t o Pescadero

, 10 foot wide chame$rom Butano

p , c k b x e e d acru0 KYDROLCGIC E . t W U C m PROJECI:

PESCADERO W H NATURAL PRESmE

PESCADERO MARSH NATURAL PRESERVE

Post Project Conditions (sheet Y of 4 )

2211 Garden Road

PESCADmO MPP;CS:-I ~~ PRESERVE

U . S . ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

4. PESCADERO CREEK: PIAN 111

1. HYDROXDGY AND HYDRAULICS

I11 FORMULATION AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

4. PESCADERO CREEK: PLAN I11

1. HYDROIDGY AND HYDRAULICS

VII ESTIMATE OF DPR STUDY

VII PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

IX TXCAL SPONSOR CAPABILITY

X CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plan I Project Costs 10 - 1.3

Plan 111 Project costs 29 - 32

Economic and Financial Data (Plan I) 61

1. Jntroduction. The preliminary plans were formulated

(1) In-kind mitigation for impacts to riparian and

(3) The mitigation would basically consist of an

(a) The riparian mitigation area will be planted

a. Plan Descri~tion. This plan of improvement

(2) Proiect Costs. The total construction and real

TOTAL ESI'TYATED CONTRACT 'COST

TOTAT, ES1'JMATED CON3TRIICTTON COST

REAL ESTATE C MITIGATTON

TOTAJ, ES'I'JPATED PROJECT Fl RST COST

No. Item Descrxption Quantity Unit Unit Price Total

E 6: D (72 + 1501: for Fttdrualic Model)

REAL ESTATE & MITIGATION'

TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT FIRST COST

TOTAL ESTIMATED CONTRACT COST

E d D (77; + lSOE f o r h y d r a u l i c Model)

REAL ESTATE 6 MITIGATION

TOTAL ESTIMATED FROJECT FIRST COST

E d D (7% + 150K for Hydraulic nodel) $404,621

TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST

(3) Benefit to Cost ~atio. The benefit to cost (B/C)

c. Environmental ImDact~.The following impacts were

a. Plan ~escri~tion.This plan of improvement consists

(3) Benefit to Cost Ratio. The benefit to cost

3. S t r i . p p jnq 6 remove 2 AC $1 ,100.00 $2,600.00

4. FoundaiA on Rreparat ion 10,000 SY $0.90 $9.000.00

5. Compacted Rackf tll 3,030 CY $6.60 $20,050.00

3,667 L.F. $0.00 $29,100.00 '

8. Backf .ill - P1oodval.l

TOTAL ESTIMATED CONTRACT COST

TOTAL F;S'I.'ItCIATED CORSTFllcTTON COST

RFAL ESTATE L MTTTGATTCN 3FI0, O O i

2. Clearing & Grubbing 7 AC $2,000.00 $12,000.00

3. Stripping d remove 6.5 AC $1,300.00 ~7,400.00

4. Foundation Preparation 30,000 SY $0.90 527,000.00

5. Compacted Backfill 82,639 CY $6.60 ~545,400.00

6. Excavation Floodwall 10,325 CY