Technical Memorandum - NPS

Technical Memorandum

Limitations:

This document was prepared solely for CEMEX Construction Materials, Inc. in accordance with professional standards at the time the services were

performed and in accordance with the contract between CEMEX Construction Materials, Inc. and Brown and Caldwell dated September 13, 2013.

This document is governed by the specific scope of work authorized by CEMEX Construction Materials, Inc.; it is not intended to be relied upon by any

other party except for regulatory authorities contemplated by the scope of work. We have relied on information or instructions provided by CEMEX

Construction Materials, Inc. and other parties and, unless otherwise expressly indicated, have made no independent investigation as to the validity,

completeness, or accuracy of such information.

701 Pike Street, Suite 1200 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206-624-0100 Fax: 206-749-2200

Prepared for: CEMEX Construction Materials, Inc.

Project Title: Eliot Facility Reclamation Plan Amendment, Surface Mining Permit 23, CA Mine 91-01-0009

Project No.: 144718

Technical Memorandum 1

Subject: Hydraulic Modeling of Arroyo del Valle

Date: February 12, 2014

To: Ronald D. Wilson, Manager, Land Use Permits: Pacific Region

From: Nathan Foged, Supervising Engineer

Copy to: Andrew Kopania, EMKO Environmental Karen Spinardi, Spinardi Associates

Prepared by: Nathan Foged, Supervising Engineer California Civil Engineer C66395, Exp. June 2014

Reviewed by: Bill Faisst, Vice President California Civil Engineer C29146, Exp. March 2015

Eliot Facility Reclamation Plan Amendment Hydraulic Modeling of Arroyo del Valle

ii

DRAFT for review purposes only. Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document. CEMEX AdVHS TM01 20140212.docx

Table of Contents

List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................................... iii

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................................. iii

List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................................. iv

Section 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1

Section 2: Background ............................................................................................................................................. 2

2.1 Site Description ........................................................................................................................................ 2

2.1.1 Livermore-Amador Valley ................................................................................................................... 2

2.1.2 Arroyo del Valle .................................................................................................................................. 3

2.2 Reclamation Planning .............................................................................................................................. 4

Section 3: Model Development ............................................................................................................................... 5

3.1 Data Collection ......................................................................................................................................... 5

3.1.1 FEMA Flood Modeling ........................................................................................................................ 5

3.1.2 Modeling by Local Agencies .............................................................................................................. 6

3.2 Baseline Model Build ............................................................................................................................... 6

3.3 Modifications for Proposed Conditions ................................................................................................. 10

3.3.1 Realigned Channel and Floodplain ................................................................................................. 10

3.3.2 Lake A Diversion .............................................................................................................................. 10

Section 4: Hydraulic Evaluations ........................................................................................................................... 12

4.1 Channel Stability .................................................................................................................................... 12

4.1.1 Bed Sediments ................................................................................................................................. 12

4.1.2 Flow Magnitude and Frequency ...................................................................................................... 13

4.1.3 Sediment Load Balance .................................................................................................................. 15

4.2 Flood Impacts ......................................................................................................................................... 18

4.2.1 Realigned Channel and Floodplain ................................................................................................. 19

4.2.2 Lake A Diversion .............................................................................................................................. 22

Section 5: Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................... 25

References .............................................................................................................................................................. 26

Attachment A: Maps .............................................................................................................................................. A-1

Attachment B: Detailed Modeling Output ............................................................................................................ B-1

Attachment C: Baseline Profiles at Lakes A and B .............................................................................................. C-1


iii


List of Figures

Figure 1. Location of CEMEX’s Eliot Facility ............................................................................................................ 2

Figure 2. GIS tools were used to import new cross-section data into HEC-RAS ................................................... 7

Figure 3. Development of a land use coverage for spatially varied Manning’s roughness ................................. 9

Figure 4. Restored Arroyo del Valle corridor geometry from Amendment (Spinardi, 2013) .............................. 10

Figure 5. Right bank modifications at proposed Lake A diversion structure ...................................................... 11

Figure 6. Correlation of average daily discharge data at USGS gauges ............................................................ 13

Figure 7. Flow duration curve for Arroyo del Valle based on average daily flows at AVL (2002–13) ............... 14

Figure 8. Frequency of flows in Arroyo del Valle based on average daily flows at AVL (2002–13) .................. 15

Figure 9. Relation between applied stress and frequency of occurrence in geomorphic processes ............... 16

Figure 10. Annual sediment load profiles for baseline and proposed conditions ............................................. 17

Figure 11. Baseline water surface profiles displayed in HEC-RAS ...................................................................... 18

Figure 12. 100-year flood inundation along Study Reach based on baseline HEC-RAS modeling results ...... 19

Figure 13. Example cross-section at Station 144+00 ........................................................................................ 20

Figure 14. Comparison of 100-year profiles for baseline and proposed conditions along restored corridor .. 20

Figure 15. 100-year water surface increases upstream of restored corridor .................................................... 21

Figure 16. Potential flood inundation increase (red) resulting from restored corridor ...................................... 22

Figure 17. Water surface increases resulting from incremental adjustments to obstruction height ............... 23

Figure 18. Water surface increases resulting from a 10-foot in-channel obstruction at Station 245+00 ....... 23

Figure 19. Potential flood inundation increase (red) resulting from a 10-foot in-channel obstruction ............ 24

List of Tables

Table 1. Water Agencies Served by the South Bay Aqueduct ................................................................................ 3

Table 2. Bridge Input Data ....................................................................................................................................... 8

Table 3. Manning’s Roughness Values ................................................................................................................... 9

Table 4. Bed Material Data from Zone 7 Stream Management Master Plan ..................................................... 13

Table 5. Arroyo del Valle Peak Discharge Frequency ........................................................................................... 18

Table 6. Comparison of Hydraulic Parameters along the Restored Corridor ...................................................... 21


iv


List of Abbreviations

ACCDA Alameda County Community Development Agency

Amendment SMP-23 Reclamation Plan Amendment

AVL Arroyo del Valle at Livermore

AVP Arroyo del Valle at Pleasanton

BC Brown and Caldwell

CEMEX CEMEX Construction Materials, Inc.

cfs cubic foot/feet per second

County Alameda County, California

d depth

DFIRM Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map

DTM digital terrain model

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map

FIS Flood Insurance Study

ft foot/feet

ft/s foot/feet per second

GIS geographic information systems

GUI graphical user interface

HEC Hydrologic Engineering Center

LAVQAR Livermore-Amador Valley Quarry Area Reclamation

mm millimeter(s)

NAIP National Agriculture Imagery Program

NAVD88 North American Vertical Datum 1988

NDVI Normalized Difference Vegetation Index

NFIP National Flood Insurance Program

NGVD29 National Geodetic Vertical Datum 1929

Q-1 Alameda County Quarry Permit 1

Q-76 Alameda County Quarry Permit 76

SFEI San Francisco Estuary Institute

SFHA Special Flood Hazard Area

SMP-23 Surface Mining Permit 23

Spinardi Spinardi Associates

Site authorized mining area

Specific Plan LAVQAR Specific Plan

Study evaluation of hydraulic impacts and design feasibility related to Arroyo del Valle

Study Reach 5.4-mile-long reach of Arroyo del Valle addressed in this technical memorandum

TIN triangulated irregular network

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

V velocity

Zone 7 Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District


1

Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document. CEMEX AdVHS TM01 20140212.docx

Section 1: Introduction CEMEX Construction Materials, Inc. (CEMEX) owns and operates the Eliot Facility, a sand and gravel mining

operation located between the cities of Pleasanton and Livermore within the unincorporated area of

Alameda County (County), California. CEMEX is seeking the approval of an amendment to its existing

Reclamation Plan, which was originally approved in 1987 under Surface Mining Permit 23 (SMP-23).

In June 2013, Spinardi Associates (Spinardi) prepared the SMP-23 Reclamation Plan Amendment

(Amendment) and submitted it to the Alameda County Community Development Agency (ACCDA). ACCDA

provided comments on the Amendment in a July 8, 2013, letter from James Gilford to Ron Wilson, titled

“Completeness Review of Application to Amend Surface Mining Permit and Reclamation Plan No. 23.” The

letter requested additional technical evaluations including the following two comments (summarized here):

• Hydraulic impacts: Conduct technical analyses (e.g., hydraulic modeling) to demonstrate that the

restored channel will remain stable, and that neither the channel modifications nor the diversion

structure will increase flood risk to neighboring properties and infrastructure.

• Design feasibility: Present a complete design concept (e.g., schematic plans) and demonstrate that the

elements of the reclamation plan designed to address diversion and conveyance into the Chain of

Lakes1 can be feasibly constructed in compliance with known regulatory requirements.

In response to these comments, CEMEX retained Brown and Caldwell (BC) to evaluate design options and to

analyze hydraulic impacts along affected reaches of Arroyo del Valle (Study). This document, Technical

Memorandum 1, addresses hydraulic impacts (i.e., channel stability and flood risk) as described in the

above comment. A separate document, Technical Memorandum 2, addresses design feasibility.

Technical Memorandum 1 addresses the following Study objectives:

• develop a baseline hydraulic model representing the existing conditions of the Arroyo del Valle channel

and floodplain

• modify the baseline hydraulic model to represent the proposed (reclaimed) conditions along the affected

reaches of Arroyo del Valle

• evaluate channel stability impacts by comparing long-term sediment transport capacities for baseline

and proposed (reclaimed) conditions

• evaluate flooding impacts by comparing 100-year water surface profiles and potentially inundated areas

for baseline and proposed (reclaimed) conditions

Technical Memorandum 1 includes the following five sections:

1. Introduction: This section provides a brief introduction to the Reclamation Plan Amendment, describes

the purpose of the Study, and lists specific objectives addressed by this document.

2. Background: This section provides background information regarding the project site, Arroyo del Valle,

and the development of the reclamation plan amendment.

3. Model Development: This section discusses the development of input data for the existing-conditions

and proposed-conditions hydraulic models, including an existing-conditions terrain model, bridge data,

and new water conveyance features.

1 The original SMP-23 Reclamation Plan was developed in accordance with the Specific Plan for Livermore-Amador Valley Quarry

Area Reclamation (LAVQAR Specific Plan), adopted by the County in November 1981. The LAVQAR Specific Plan describes a “Chain of Lakes” reclamation concept that calls for the creation of a series of excavated lakes to be used for storage and groundwater recharge. See Section 2.2 for more information.


2


4. Hydraulic Evaluations: This section describes the hydraulic modeling approach, flow scenarios, key

assumptions, and simulation methods.

5. Conclusions: This section summarizes the hydraulic modeling results and draws conclusions with

respect to the evaluation objectives.

Section 2: Background This section provides background information regarding the project site (Section 2.1) and the development

of the reclamation plan amendment (Section 2.2).

2.1 Site Description

The CEMEX Eliot Facility is located in the

Livermore-Amador Valley (Valley) between

the cities of Pleasanton and Livermore,

California (see Figure 1). Mining

operations at the Eliot Facility are vested

under Alameda County Quarry Permit 1 (Q-

1) and Quarry Permit 76 (Q-76) granted in

1957 and 1969, respectively. The

authorized mining area (Site) covers

approximately 975 acres of land between

Stanley Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue.

The Shadow Cliffs Regional Recreation

Area is located directly west of the Site,

Vulcan’s sand and gravel operation is

located to the north and east, and the

Ruby Hill subdivision is located across

Vineyard Avenue to the south. The

evaluations presented in this technical

memorandum address a 5.4-mile-long

reach (Study Reach) of Arroyo del Valle,

stretching from 1,000 feet downstream of

Bernal Avenue to roughly 3,000 feet

upstream of Vallecitos Road. Map 1

(Attachment A) shows a detailed view of

the Site, Study Reach, and surrounding

area.

2.1.1 Livermore-Amador Valley

The Valley is a wide depression in the Diablo Range, bounded by the East Bay Hills to the west and the

Altamont Hills to the east. The valley’s western portion is the Amador Valley; it includes the city of

Pleasanton. The valley’s eastern portion is the Livermore Valley; it includes the city of Livermore. The two

valleys together form the Valley.

According to the San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI, 2013), the Valley was formed by geological processes

and provides a wide space for streams to spread and sink. Numerous streams that drain out of the

surrounding hills have deposited sediments over thousands of years and filled the Valley (SFEI, 2013).

Figure 1. Location of CEMEX’s Eliot Facility


3


Arroyo Mocho and Arroyo del Valle are two major streams draining into the southern portion of the Valley.

Historically, these were wide and braided streams that deposited large amounts of coarse sediment

transported from their headwaters in the Diablo Range (SFEI, 2013). Sand and gravel mining has occurred

along the Arroyo Mocho and Arroyo del Valle alluvial formations since the late 1800s, including the areas

around the Eliot Facility. Over the years, mining and development activities have rerouted and channelized

much of the lower reaches of Arroyo Mocho and Arroyo del Valle. Arroyo del Valle’s existing channel flows

along the southern portion of the Site. Section 2.2 discusses proposed mining and reclamation activities and

potential impacts to Arroyo del Valle. Section 2.1.2 provides an overview of the Arroyo del Valle hydrology

and geomorphology.

2.1.2 Arroyo del Valle

Arroyo del Valle is located in the upper Alameda Creek watershed. The arroyo drains an area of

approximately 172 square miles before it discharges to Arroyo de la Laguna west of Pleasanton. Arroyo de la

Laguna flows south and discharges into Alameda Creek near the town of Sunol. Alameda Creek then flows

west through the East Bay Hills before discharging into San Francisco Bay.

Approximately 85 percent (146 square miles) of the Arroyo

del Valle basin is located upstream of Del Valle Reservoir,

constructed in 1968 to serve as off-channel storage for

water delivered through the South Bay Aqueduct (part of

the California State Water project) and for flood control.

Zone 7 is one of three water agencies served by the South

Bay Aqueduct; Table 1 shows the annual entitlements for

each agency. Zone 7 also uses a small portion of Del Valle

Reservoir capacity to store runoff from the local

watershed2. Although Del Valle Reservoir primarily serves

as water supply storage, a portion of its 77,100-acre-foot

capacity is normally reserved for flood control.

Del Valle Reservoir has altered the hydrologic flow regime in the lower reaches of Arroyo del Valle (Kamman,

2009). Peak flows have decreased and large-magnitude flood flows have been virtually eliminated. Managed

releases during the dry season have resulted in perennial flow conditions along the valley floor rather than

the historical intermittent flow conditions when the arroyo would become dry in the summertime (Kamman,

2009; LSA, 2013). Altered flows have also contributed to changes in Arroyo del Valle channel; the once

actively braided channel network along the valley floor now has shifted to a more defined central channel

system (Kamman, 2009).

Directly downstream of the dam, Arroyo del Valle flows through a narrow, sinuous canyon until it reaches the

valley floor about 1 mile downstream, near the Veterans Administration hospital. At this point, the channel

and floodplain become wider and, in the past, more active and braided. Sycamore Grove Park is an

important community park that preserves mature Western Sycamore trees along this reach of the historical

Arroyo del Valle floodplain. This park stretches approximately 2 miles from the hospital to Vallecitos Road.

The Eliot Facility Site is located just downstream of Sycamore Grove Park. Arroyo del Valle flows along the

southern portion of the Site adjacent to Lakes A and B (see Section 2.2, Reclamation Planning). The arroyo

flows through two small lakes along the south side of the Shadow Cliffs Regional Recreation Area and then

continues west through the city of Pleasanton. Several small streams drain into Arroyo del Valle between the

dam and its confluence with Arroyo de la Laguna (see Map 2, Attachment A).

2 Del Valle Reservoir data are available on the Zone 7 Web site: http://www.zone7water.com/water-supply/48-del-valle-reservoir.

Table 1. Water Agencies Served by the South Bay

Aqueduct

Water agency Annual entitlement

(acre-feet)

Zone 7 46,000

Alameda County Water District 42,000

Santa Clara Valley Water District 100,000

Total 188,000

Source: California Department of Water Resources (1968,

2001).


4


2.2 Reclamation Planning

The SMP-23 Reclamation Plan (1987) was developed in accordance with the Specific Plan for Livermore-

Amador Valley Quarry Area Reclamation (LAVQAR Specific Plan, or Specific Plan), which was adopted by the

County in November 1981. The LAVQAR Specific Plan describes a “Chain of Lakes” reclamation concept,

where excavated gravel quarries are to be converted into a series of open lakes and used for storage and

groundwater recharge. After mining is completed and quarry sites are reclaimed, the Chain of Lakes are to

be dedicated to Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7) for

use in managing the groundwater basin. According to the SMP-23 Reclamation Plan (1987), and consistent

with the LAVQAR Specific Plan, mining at the Site will result in the formation of two lakes:

• Lake A will be located north of Vineyard Avenue, between Isabel Avenue (State Route 84) and Vallecitos

Road.

• Lake B will be located north of Vineyard Avenue, between Isabel Avenue (State Route 84) and the

Shadow Cliffs Regional Recreation Area.

The SMP-23 Reclamation Plan (1987) indicates that excavation at Lakes A and B will extend as far south as

Vineyard Avenue, and that Arroyo del Valle will flow into and through the pits during active mining operations.

Two large concrete spillways would be constructed to control flows into each pit, one at Vallecitos Road and

one at Isabel Avenue. Outflow from Lake B would occur over a rock-lined overflow weir at the west end of the

lake, returning to Arroyo del Valle. The SMP-23 Reclamation Plan (1987) does not include provision for the

restoration or re-construction of the channel for Arroyo del Valle, indicating that the arroyo would be routed

through Lakes A and B and the spillways would remain in place after mining was completed.

The proposed SMP-23 Reclamation Plan Amendment (June 2013) reconfigures the footprints of both Lakes

A and B to maintain the channel for Arroyo del Valle separate from Lakes A and B. Lake A would no longer be

excavated as far south as Vineyard Avenue such that the existing Arroyo del Valle channel could remain

intact. Lake B still would extend south through the currently disturbed Arroyo del Valle channel alignment,

but a new channel alignment would be constructed closer to Vineyard Avenue to restore the initial hydraulic

and biological function of the arroyo. Given that the channel would no longer flow through Lakes A and B, the

reclamation plan would no longer need to include large concrete spillways at Vallecitos Road and Isabel

Avenue, or the large rock-lined overflow weir at the west end of Lake B.

After reviewing the Amendment that was submitted to the County in June 2013, ACCDA sent a letter to

CEMEX dated July 8, 2013, with several comments that focused on the following two issues related to the

water diversion and conveyance facilities:

• Hydraulic impacts: Conduct technical analyses (e.g., hydraulic modeling) to demonstrate that the

restored channel will remain stable, and that neither the channel modifications nor the diversion

structure will increase flood hazards.

• Design feasibility: Present a complete design concept (e.g., schematic plans) and demonstrate that the

elements of the reclamation plan designed to address diversion and conveyance into the Chain of Lakes

can be feasibly constructed in compliance with known regulatory requirements. For example, the

proposed diversion structure would require a bypass flow feature (e.g., fish ladder) and a screen

cleaning system to be in compliance with current fish habitat requirements.

The remainder of this document addresses the “hydraulic impacts” comment. The “design feasibility”

comment is addressed in Technical Memorandum 2.


5


Section 3: Model Development To address the ACCDA comment regarding hydraulic impacts, as described above, BC developed a hydraulic

model of the Arroyo del Valle Study Reach using HEC-RAS software (Version 4.1, 2010). HEC-RAS is a one-

dimensional step backwater flow model developed by the Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC) of the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Standard hydraulic simulations require two types of input data: (1)

geometric data, consisting of cross-sections, stream reach lengths, and bridge/culvert dimensions; and (2)

flow data, consisting of flow rates and boundary conditions. The following sections describe the geometric

data development. Flow data development is described in Section 4.

3.1 Data Collection

The hydraulic model developed for this analysis will be used not only to evaluate the proposed conditions of

the Amendment, but also likely for future design and permitting. Therefore, it is important that this modeling

effort use existing data sources, and that the modeling methodology be in accordance with accepted

modeling guidelines.

3.1.1 FEMA Flood Modeling

BC started the data collection effort by researching flood hazard information from the Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA), which administers the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)3. BC

purchased the current Flood Insurance Study (FIS) for Alameda County (FEMA, 2009), effective Flood

Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) covering the Study Reach, and the associated Digital Flood Insurance Rate

Maps (DFIRM) data from FEMA’s Map Services Center4.

Map 3 (Attachment A) shows the current effective flood hazard mapping for Arroyo del Valle based on the

DFIRM data. The entire reach of Arroyo del Valle from Arroyo de la Laguna to Del Valle Dam is mapped as a

Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). The area shown to be within the SFHA is equivalent to the area that could

be inundated by the “base flood.”5 The SFHA along Arroyo del Valle is divided into the following two flood

hazard designations:

• Zone AE is a riverine flooding hazard with established base flood elevations; the delineated areas and

flood profiles are based on detailed hydraulic modeling.

• Zone A is a riverine flooding hazard with no base flood elevations; these areas are delineated by

approximate methods that may not have included any detailed modeling.

Two reaches of Arroyo del Valle are shown as Zone AE. The first reach begins at the confluence with Arroyo

de la Laguna and ends approximately 1,300 feet upstream of Bernal Avenue. The second reach begins at

Isabel Avenue and ends at Del Valle Dam. The connecting Zone A reach covers approximately 3 miles,

including areas adjacent to Shadow Cliffs Regional Recreation Area and Lake B of the Eliot Facility.

3 FEMA provides flood insurance to the residents of communities participating in the NFIP, provided that each community adopts

and enforces floodplain regulations that meet or exceed FEMA minimum requirements (http://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program). Alameda County, the City of Pleasanton, and the City of Livermore are each participating communities.

4 FEMA provides current flood hazard mapping data at the Map Service Center: https://msc.fema.gov/.

5 The base flood is a flooding event with a 1 percent annual chance of exceedance, or a 100-year flood.


6


BC submitted an official data request to the FEMA Engineering Library6 to obtain the supporting technical

data for the two detailed studies along Arroyo del Valle. FEMA was able to provide images of the HEC-27

modeling files for the lower reach (i.e., the reach from Arroyo de la Laguna to just upstream of Bernal

Avenue). FEMA developed the HEC-2 model as part of the original FIS for the city of Pleasanton in 1983. The

HEC-2 input data include cross-sections and basic bridge configurations (most notably, Bernal Avenue).

FEMA was not able to locate any information for the reach upstream of Isabel Avenue.

3.1.2 Modeling by Local Agencies

Zone 7 is responsible for flood control along Arroyo del Valle and has conducted several studies along the

Arroyo del Valle corridor. BC met with Zone 7 on August 1, 2013, to discuss the objectives of the study

presented in this technical memorandum and to request data from Zone 7’s current modeling activities.

Zone 7 provided the following data:

• Topographic survey and aerial imagery: A digital terrain model (DTM) was developed from a 2006 aerial

survey flown using LiDAR remote sensing technology. The DTM was provided by Zone 7 on September

27, 2013, in a triangulated irregular network (TIN) format, which is a vector-based three-dimensional

representation of the physical land surface that is compatible with geographic information systems

(GIS). Zone 7 also provided aerial imagery covering the entire Site and Study Reach.

• Preliminary hydraulic model: Zone 7 provided a preliminary HEC-RAS model covering approximately 7.5

miles of Arroyo del Valle from the confluence with Arroyo de la Laguna to Vallecitos Avenue on October 8,

2013. Zone 7 labeled its model a “work in progress,” subject to change as Zone 7 continues to develop

the model. No documentation was available related to model development; however, correspondence

with Zone 7 confirmed that the model cross-sections were based on the 2006 LiDAR survey.

BC contacted the City of Livermore floodplain coordinator regarding the availability of hydraulic modeling

data for Arroyo del Valle. The floodplain coordinator passed the inquiry on to one of the City’s engineering

contractors, Schaaf & Wheeler, which had recently conducted a flood study on portions of Arroyo Mocho,

Arroyo Las Positas, and Arroyo del Valle. However, that study covered only a few thousand feet of Arroyo del

Valle near the confluence with Arroyo de la Laguna. BC did not use these data because they are located

downstream of the relevant Study Reach.

3.2 Baseline Model Build

BC reviewed Zone 7’s preliminary hydraulic model and found that it would not be sufficient for design and

permitting evaluations without significant modification. The following issues were noted at the time the

information was received:

• The Zone 7 model did not extend upstream of Vallecitos Road; modeling would require additional cross-

sections to evaluate potential flooding impacts in Sycamore Grove Park.

• In some locations, the Zone 7 model sections did not extend far enough laterally to include all of the

Arroyo del Valle floodplain.

• The bridge data were extremely coarse, which suggests that they were based on limited information

rather than surveys or as-built drawings.

• The 100-year flow data in the Zone 7 model did not match the data in the Alameda County FIS (FEMA,

2011); there was no citation as to the source of the 100-year flow data and no information as to why the

flow deviates from the current FEMA study.

6 Supporting technical data for detailed mapping studies can be obtained through the FEMA Engineering Library:

https://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program-flood-hazard-mapping/engineering-library.

7 HEC-2 is the predecessor to the HEC-RAS model; it is no longer supported by the Hydrologic Engineering Center.


7


• Manning’s roughness values were not documented, and appeared to be too low for some highly

vegetated channel areas.

To address these issues, the actions described below were taken.

Rebuild Geometry. As discussed above, Zone 7 stated that the modeling files available on October 8, 2013,

were a work in progress at the time they were received. It is possible that the issues noted above have been,

or are being, addressed by Zone 7. However, given the uncertainty regarding the timing of resolution and the

need to address ACCDA’s comments in a timely manner, CEMEX directed BC to rebuild the model using the

same 2006 LiDAR survey data. BC used a GIS-based toolbox called HEC-GeoRAS8 to assist with extracting

geometric data for import to HEC-RAS. Geometric data features such as a stream centerline, cross-section

cut-lines, overbank flowpaths, and bank stations were manually digitized in ArcGIS9 using topographic data

and aerial imagery. Map 4 (Attachment A) shows the baseline stream alignment and cross-section locations

for the Study Reach.

GeoRAS Import. BC created a HEC-GeoRAS export file using the terrain data, digitized geometries, and land

use data described above. The export file was imported directly into HEC-RAS as new geometric data files

(see Figure 2). After the data were imported, the following adjustments were made:

• Cross-section identifiers (based on stream profile stations) were rounded to the nearest integer.

• Cross-section ordinates were filtered to remove superfluous points and reduce the number of ordinates

to less than 500 per cross-section.

• Bank stations were set

on each cross-section

by visually

approximating the

main flow channel.

• Ineffective flow areas

were set in off-channel

depressions to confine

conveyance to the

main channel for all

cross-sections unless

overtopping occurs.

• Ineffective flow areas

were set on the cross-

sections upstream and

downstream of the

bridges by

approximating the

flowlines into and out

of the bridge openings.

• Horizontally varied Manning’s roughness values covering short widths (typically less than 10 feet) were

removed to reduce the number of Manning’s roughness values per cross-section to less than 20.

8 HEC-GeoRAS is a set of procedures, tools, and utilities for processing geospatial data in ArcGIS using a graphical user interface

(GUI): http://www.hec.usace.army.mil/software/hec-georas/.

9 ArcGIS is a desktop GIS application developed by ESRI of Redlands, California: http://www.esri.com/software/arcgis.

Figure 2. GIS tools were used to import new cross-section data into HEC-RAS


8


Expansion and contraction coefficients were increased from the default values (0.1 for contraction and 0.3

for expansion) to 0.3 and 0.5 for cross-sections near bridges and abrupt transitions.

Bridges. The baseline geometric data input file was augmented to include the three bridges located within

the Study Reach. Table 2 lists the sources and summarizes the input data for each bridge.

Table 2. Bridge Input Data

Bridge Source Input data summary

Bernal Avenue

Station 11+50

HEC-2 model from City of Pleasanton FIS (1983)

• Top of roadway elevation of 367.9 feet NAVD88a

• Low chord of bridge elevation of 360.2 feet NAVD88a

• Total width of obstructions = 7.0 feet (assumed to be two 3.5-foot piers)

• Drag coefficient for pier loss = 2.00

• Abutments were placed185 feet apart and centered over the channel

• The longitudinal width of the deck/roadway was assumed to be 100 feet based on aerial images

• The channel geometry through the bridge was based on upstream and downstream cross-sections cut from the 2006 LiDAR survey described previously

Isabel Avenue

Station 193+00

Baseline conditions: As-built plans by Creegan and D’Angelo (1983)

Proposed conditions: Preliminary plans for widening project (URS, 2013)

• Top of roadway elevation of 422.7 feet NAVD88a

• An additional 2 feet was added to the top of the bridge deck to represent the concrete barrier

• Low chord of bridge elevation of 418.2 feet NAVD88a

• A 1.5-foot-wide pier was added at mid-span

• Abutments were placed120 feet apart and centered over the channel

• The longitudinal width of the deck/roadway was set to 40 feet for baseline conditions

• The longitudinal width of the deck/roadway was increased to 112 feet for proposed conditions to reflect the widening project including the pedestrian bridge to be added parallel to the roadway bridge (93.5 + 18.5 = 112)


Vallecitos Road

Station 256+60

Preliminary HEC-RAS model developed by Zone 7 (2013)

• Top of roadway elevation of 454.0 feet NAVD88

• Low chord of bridge elevation of 451.0 feet NAVD88


• Abutments were placed 230 feet apart, roughly equivalent to the top width of the channel shown in the 2006 topography

• The longitudinal width of the deck/roadway was assumed to be 40 feet based on aerial images

a. Original data with elevations based on the National Geodetic Vertical Datum 1929 (NGVD29) were converted to North American Vertical Datum

1988 (NAVD88) using a +2.69-foot conversion factor obtained from http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/VERTCON/vert_con.prl.


9


Manning’s Roughness. BC developed a spatially varied land use coverage in GIS to assign horizontally varied

Manning’s roughness values to the cross-sections during the GeoRAS input data development process. To

do this, BC obtained near-infrared ortho-imagery from the National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP)10. BC

used numerical values for visual red and near-infrared to evaluate the density of vegetation using a

Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) method11. The NDVI values were visually parsed into three

primary land cover categories: water, earth/impervious, and vegetated. The NDVI raster data set was then

processed into generalized polygon coverage areas (see Figure 3). Manning’s roughness coefficients were

assigned to each area based on values presented in Chow (1959) for excavated channels and floodplain

areas (see Table 3).

(a) NAIP true color (b) NAIP near-infrared (c) NDVI land cover categories (d) generalized polygon

coverage areas

Figure 3. Development of a land use coverage for spatially varied Manning’s roughness

Table 3. Manning’s Roughness Values

Land cover category Manning’s n

Water 0.020

Earth/impervious 0.035

Vegetated 0.080

Selected values based on Chow (1959).

10 NAIP images contain intrinsic data for four color bands: red, green, blue, and near-infrared. The first three are the typical color

ranges used to display true color images. The fourth, near-infrared band can be used to assess vegetative cover. Information about NAIP imagery can be found here https://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/apfoapp?area=home&subject=prog&topic=nai. Data can be downloaded via the National Map data server: http://nationalmap.gov/.

11 NDVI is a commonly used remote sensing technique for quantitatively evaluating vegetation density. The formula is given as,

NDVI = (NIR – VIS)/(NIR + VIS); where NIR = spectral reflectance measurement for the near-infrared band, and VIS = spectral reflectance measurement for the visual red band. For general information, go to the following Web site from the NASA Earth Observatory: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/MeasuringVegetation/measuring_vegetation_2.php.


10


3.3 Modifications for Proposed Conditions

BC modified the baseline model to reflect changes associated with the Amended Reclamation Plan

(Spinardi, 2013). The following sections describe the modifications.

3.3.1 Realigned Channel and Floodplain

The Arroyo del Valle channel and floodplain (i.e., the alluvial corridor, or “corridor”) located along the south

edge of Lake B will be reconstructed and restored along a new alignment parallel to Vineyard Avenue. The

new alignment will span approximately 6,500 feet between Stations 108+98 and 175+65 in the baseline

model. The longitudinal slope of the new channel and floodplain was calculated to be 0.6 percent based on

the upstream and downstream tie-in elevations of 353.6 and 392.4 feet, respectively. The Amendment calls

for a floodplain corridor width of roughly 200 feet with 3 (horizontal)-to-1 (vertical) side slopes extending up

to a depth of approximately 10 feet (see Figure 4). In addition, a 10-foot-wide by 2-foot-deep low-flow

channel would be embedded within the floodplain.

Figure 4. Restored Arroyo del Valle corridor geometry from Amendment (Spinardi, 2013)

The corridor geometry described above was spliced into each of the affected baseline cross-sections at the

approximate lateral location between Vineyard Avenue and the proposed future location of Lake B. Note that

the cross-sections were not modified to reflect the Lake B geometry because BC assumed that all flow will

be contained within the corridor and Lake B would not contribute to flood flow conveyance.

According to the Amendment (Spinardi, 2013) the restored channel and floodplain would be enhanced with

native vegetation and a complex/varied streambed to provide riparian habitat. A Manning’s roughness value

of 0.045 was assigned to the low-flow channel and a value of 0.080 was conservatively assumed for the

floodplain areas, given the potential for dense woody vegetation.

3.3.2 Lake A Diversion

The Amendment currently calls for the construction of a diversion structure on Arroyo del Valle near the

upstream end of Lake A. The structure would divert water out of the channel and into a conduit to Lake A. In

addition to the lateral diversion facilities (screen, piping, etc.) an in-channel structure (e.g., inflatable dam or

Obermeyer gate) has been proposed to generate controlled hydraulic head for the diversion system. Cross-

sections 246+03 and 249+52 were modified by increasing the height of the right bank to an elevation of

450 feet (see Figure 5b), which is necessary to construct diversion facilities and that contain ponded water.

An in-line weir obstruction was added at Station 245+00 for a series of simulations designed to evaluate the

potential backwater flooding impacts resulting from the installation of an inflatable dam (see Figure 5c).


11


While the actual design and size of the diversion structure may vary from what is assumed here, the

increased bank height and in-stream obstruction height are considered to be conservative, near worst-case

assumptions in terms of the effects on channel hydrology. Therefore, the model results will provide a very

conservative (i.e., protective of cultural and biological resources) assessment of the potential backwater

flooding impacts related to diversion of water into Lake A.

(a) Cross-section plot at Station 246+03 for baseline conditions model

(b) Cross-section plot at Station 246+03 for proposed conditions model (no obstruction)

(c) Cross-section plot at Station 246+03 for proposed conditions model (6-foot obstruction)

Figure 5. Right bank modifications at proposed Lake A diversion structure

0 500 1000 1500 2000400

410

420

430

440

450

460

470

Station (ft)

Ele

vatio

n (

ft)

Legend

Ground

Ineff

Bank Sta

0 500 1000 1500 2000400

410

420

430

440

450

460

470

Station (ft)

Ele

vatio

n (

ft)

Legend

Ground

Ineff

Bank Sta

0 500 1000 1500 2000400

410

420

430

440

450

460

470

Station (ft)

Ele

vati

on (ft

)

Legend

Ground

Ineff

Bank Sta

LAKE A

LAKE A

LAKE A

ARROYO DEL VALLE

ARROYO DEL VALLE

ARROYO DEL VALLE

OBSTRUCTION


12


Section 4: Hydraulic Evaluations BC used the HEC-RAS hydraulic model described in Section 3 to address hydraulic impacts along Arroyo del

Valle, including potential impacts to channel stability (Section 4.1) and flooding (Section 0).

4.1 Channel Stability

Alluvial channels form and continually shift in response to temporal sequences of flow rate and sediment

supply. Over periods of many years, channels adjust to flow and sediment regimes through changes in

geometry (e.g., planform, cross-sectional dimensions, and longitudinal slope). Given a period with a relatively

constant flow regime and sediment supply, a channel approaches a stable geometry and is considered to be

in “dynamic equilibrium.” Dynamic equilibrium does not mean that the channel is static, but rather that

morphological responses to extreme events would only be temporary. Furthermore, the system’s long-term

formative conditions continually would continually restore a more stable morphology over time. Lane’s

Principle, or Lane’s Balance (1955), qualitatively represents this geomorphic concept of disturbance,

channel adjustment, and dynamic equilibrium qualitatively as:

�� ∝ ��

where:

Qs is sediment load

D50 is the 50th percentile of the sediment grain size distribution

Qw is the stream discharge

S is the slope

The relationship represented by Lane’s Principle suggests that a long-term shift in any of these factors would

destabilize the system and initiate a compensatory response in one or more of the other factors as the

system attempts to restore equilibrium. Dynamic equilibrium for a stream reach can be conceptualized in

terms of sediment continuity, where sediment loads flowing into the reach effectively equal the reach

sediment transport capacity. Thus, when sediment loads carry through the reach, the stream reach neither

aggrades nor degrades and the overall slope remains constant.

BC evaluated the restored stream corridor stability by analyzing the sediment loads balance along the entire

Study Reach for both baseline and proposed conditions. Section 4.1.1 discusses bed sediment composition

(D50). Section 0 discusses long-term stream discharges (Qw). Section 4.1.3 discusses sediment loads (Qs) based on calculated sediment transport capacities for the given geometric configuration of the channel; i.e.,

cross-section and slope (S). 4.1.1 Bed Sediments

BC collected no Arroyo del Valle bed sediment data for this study. However, BC did not need site-specific

data for this channel stability analysis because we compare baseline and proposed conditions in relative

terms. Furthermore, BC assumes that the bed sediments used to restore the Arroyo del Valle corridor under

proposed conditions will be similar to the baseline bed sediment composition. Therefore, parameters used

to characterize the bed sediments remain the same for both baseline and proposed conditions.

Zone 7 completed several studies related to geomorphic and sediment transport conditions in the Valley as

part of the development of the Stream Management Master Plan (RMC, 2006). Appendix C of that plan

describes detailed sediment transport modeling of Arroyo las Positas, Arroyo Mocho, and Arroyo de la

Laguna. Although the Zone 7 study did not include Arroyo del Valle explicitly, BC assumed that some study

information would apply to Arroyo del Valle for this study. In particular, BC assumed that Arroyo del Valle bed


13


sediment would be similar to bed sediment data collected for Arroyo Mocho. Table 4 shows two Arroyo

Mocho bed sediment data sets taken from Appendix E of the technical memorandum, included as Appendix

C of the Zone 7 Stream Management Master Plan (RMC, 2006). BC used the average of these two data

points for the Arroyo del Valle sediment transport analyses (Section 4.1.3).

Table 4. Bed Material Data from Zone 7 Stream Management Master Plan

Stream Characteristic sediment particle diameters (mm) Gradation

coefficient, Gr D16 D50 D84 D90

Arroyo Mocho 1 1.60 10.40 12.30 13.00 3.84

Arroyo Mocho 2 1.40 6.00 10.50 10.60 3.02

Average 1.50 8.20 11.40 11.80 3.43

Data obtained from Appendix E of the technical memorandum included as Appendix C of the Zone 7 Stream Management

Master Plan (RMC, 2006).

4.1.2 Flow Magnitude and Frequency

Two U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) stream gauging stations on Arroyo del Valle provide observed streamflow

data:

• Arroyo del Valle at Livermore (AVL), USGS

111176500: average daily discharge available

from 1912 to present; located just

downstream of Del Valle Reservoir and

upstream of the Study Reach

• Arroyo del Valle at Pleasanton (AVP), USGS

111176600: average daily discharge available

from 1957 to 1986; located just downstream

of Main Street in the City of Pleasanton and

downstream of the Study Reach

Construction of Del Valle Reservoir in 1968

substantially altered the hydrologic flow regime

(i.e., frequency and duration of flows) in Arroyo del

Valle (Kamman, 2009). Therefore, BC considered

only streamflow data from 1968 onward as

relevant for analyses described herein.

Figure 6 shows a correlation comparison of the

average daily discharge data for each of the USGS

stream gauges based on concurrent data ranging

from 1968 to 1985. The two gauges show a high level of correlation (i.e., R-squared = 0.96), likely due to the

dominance of regulated flow releases from Del Valle Reservoir. Although the AVL gauge is located upstream

of the AVP gauge, the average flow at AVL was about 11 percent greater than the average flow at AVP,

suggesting that the reach in between has a net flow loss. Thus, the AVL gauge provides a more conservative

estimate of flows for evaluating erosion potential. The AVL gauge also provides more recent data records.

BC visually examined the average daily discharge data for the AVL gauge and found that the 12 most recent

water years (from 2002 to 2013) had a consistent pattern of seasonal flow releases. Therefore, BC assumed

Figure 6. Correlation of average daily discharge data at

USGS gauges 11176500 (AVL) and 11176600 (AVP)


14


that these data were most representative of dam current operations. Using the 2002 through 2013 data, BC

calculated a flow duration curve (Figure 7) and constructed a flow frequency distribution chart (Figure 8) to

characterize typical flows in Arroyo del Valle. Figure 8 data exhibit a bimodal distribution with a typical

winter/springtime baseflow around 0.5 cubic feet per second (cfs) and a summer/autumn flow release

around 10 cfs.

Figure 7. Flow duration curve for Arroyo del Valle based on average daily flows at AVL (2002–13)

0.01

0.10

1.00

10.00

100.00

1,000.00

10,000.00

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

DIS

CH

AR

GE

(C

FS

)

PERCENT TIME EXCEEDED


15


Figure 8. Frequency of flows in Arroyo del Valle based on average daily flows at AVL (2002–13)

4.1.3 Sediment Load Balance

BC used bed sediment data described in Section 4.1.1, the flow frequency data described in Section 0, and

hydraulic rating tables from HEC-RAS to calculate sediment transport capacities along the Study Reach. BC’s

calculations used the same bed load sediment transport function used for the sediment analysis conducted

for the Zone 7 Stream Management Master Plan (RMC, 2006). Ayres Associates (2001) developed the

transport function (provided below) based on a regression analysis, the Meyer-Peter and Muller bed load

equation, and the Zeller and Fullerton Power Function (RMC, 2006):

�� = 0.000157��.��.��.��.��

where:

qs = unit width total load transport capacity (cfs/ft)

Gr = gradation coefficient of the bed material = ��

!" #$+ #$ &'(

V = average flow velocity (ft/s)

D50 = bed material size of which 50 percent of the sediment by weight is smaller (mm)

d = hydraulic depth (ft)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00 10000.00

FR

EQ

UE

NC

Y (

DAYS

PE

R Y

EA

R)

DISCHARGE (CFS)


16


BC estimated sediment loads in Arroyo del Valle using the above equation. BC obtained the bed sediment

variables in the above equation (D50 and Gr) from the Table 4 average values. BC obtained the average flow

velocity (V) and hydraulic depth (d) from hydraulic rating tables generated using the HEC-RAS model

described in Section 3. Rather than selecting a single discharge for performing these calculations, BC

performed a magnitude-frequency analysis, where sediment transport capacities are calculated for a full

range of stream discharges and then multiplied by the frequency of occurrence.

The magnitude-frequency concept stems from a theory

developed by Wolman and Miller (1960). They

described how the geomorphic evolution of landscapes

is strongly influenced by the amount “work” done by the

forces acting on the system (e.g., shear forces caused

by flowing water), and how the relative amount of work

done depends on both the magnitude of the force and

the frequency of occurrence.

Figure 9 is a graphical representation of the magnitude-

frequency concept, where the frequency of occurrence

is log-normally distributed and the magnitude of the

influencing force (i.e., applied stress) increases in

accordance with a power function. The product of the

frequency of the occurrences and the magnitude of the

influencing force result in an “effective work” curve. For

an alluvial system, the frequency of flows multiplied by

the sediment transport capacity results in a sediment

loading curve. The integral of the sediment loading

curve is the total sediment load.

BC performed the following steps to calculate average annual sediment loads at each cross-section for both

baseline and proposed conditions:

1. Run 100 steady-state hydraulic simulations using flow rates ranging from near zero to slightly more than

1,000 cfs (the largest average daily discharge recorded at the AVL gauge since 2002 is 1,070 cfs) to

create hydraulic rating tables. BC based flow rates used for these simulations on the logarithmically

distributed flow bins used to generate the frequency distribution shown in Figure 8.

2. Calculate sediment transport capacities for each of the 100 hydraulic profiles using the sediment

transport function developed by Ayres Associates (2001), thereby creating a sediment rating curve.

3. Multiply sediment transport capacities by the frequency of occurrence, based on the average number of

days per year the flows within each flow bin were observed at the AVL gauge, thereby creating an

average annual sediment loading curve.

4. Sum incremental sediment loads calculated for each flow bin to estimate the total annual sediment

loading.

Figure 10 shows the calculated annual sediment loads for baseline and proposed conditions. BC added a

15-point moving average to the plot to remove some of the variation and illustrate the general trend.

Figure 9. Relation between applied stress and

frequency of occurrence in geomorphic processes

Image obtained from Wolman and Miller (1960).


17


Figure 10. Annual sediment load profiles for baseline and proposed conditions

(a) Arroyo del Valle flows through two lakes along the Shadow Cliffs Regional Recreation Area; sediment

loading rates (i.e., carrying capacities) in this reach are lower than the sediment loadings in up-

stream reaches, which means this reach is likely depositional.

(b) Estimated sediment loading rates along the restored corridor of Arroyo del Valle are roughly equiva-

lent to the average sediment loading rates in the upstream reaches, which means this reach is likely

stable.

The results presented in Figure 10 indicate that the sediment loadings are roughly equivalent in both the restored and upstream reaches, and also that the average sediment loadings are similar under both base-line and proposed conditions. In other words, the restored corridor will maintain sediment continuity, and therefore it is not likely to experience substantial aggradation or degradation.

1.E-01

1.E+00

1.E+01

1.E+02

1.E+03

1.E+04

1.E+05

1.E+06

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000

AN

NU

AL S

ED

IME

NT L

OA

D (

T/Y

R)

STREAM STATION

Baseline

Proposed

15 per. Mov. Avg. (Baseline)

15 per. Mov. Avg. (Proposed)

(a) (b)


18


4.2 Flood Impacts

BC evaluated flood hazard impacts by performing steady-state hydraulic simulations of peak flood flows to

calculate peak water surface elevations and delineate potentially inundated areas.

As described in Section 3.1.1, FEMA has performed detailed flood

studies on Arroyo del Valle. FEMA’s current FIS for Alameda County

(2011) provides peak discharges for the 10-, 50-, 100-, and 500-

year floods (see Table 5). As noted previously, operations at Del

Valle Reservoir highly regulate flood flows in Arroyo del Valle. The

100-year flood flow of 7,000 cfs corresponds to a managed flood

release from the dam (USACE, 1978).

BC used the peak discharges shown in Table 5 as inflows to the

upstream end of the Study Reach in the HEC-RAS model. The model

automatically calculates upstream and downstream water surface

boundaries using normal depth calculations. Our analyses estimated

the upstream slope for the normal depth calculation to be 0.6

percent, while the downstream slope would be 0.5 percent12.

BC calculated hydraulic profiles (e.g., peak water surface elevations) along the Study Reach using the

baseline geometric model described in Section 3. Figure 11 shows an overview of the calculated water

surface profiles. Detailed output tables and profile plots are provided in Attachment B.

Figure 11. Baseline water surface profiles displayed in HEC-RAS

12 Note that if this model is later used for FEMA flood hazard map revisions, the upstream and downstream boundary conditions

may need to be adjusted to tie into the effective base flood elevations at each boundary.

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000340

360

380

400

420

440

460

480

Main Channel Distance (ft)

Ele

vation

(ft)

Table 5. Arroyo del Valle Peak Discharge

Frequency

Recurrence interval

(years) Peak discharge (cfs)

10 1,860

50 4,150

100 7,000

500 9,080

At Arroyo de la Laguna (FEMA, 2011).

100-YEAR W.S.

500-YEAR W.S.

50-YEAR W.S.

10-YEAR W.S.

ISA

BE

L A

VE

VA

LLE

CIT

OS

RD

BE

RN

AL

AV

E


19


As discussed in Section 3.1.1, FEMA uses the 100-year flood as its base flood. Local communities typically

use the 100-year flood for the management and regulation of floodplains. Therefore, BC used the 100-year

flood scenario to evaluate flood impacts. BC developed baseline flood inundation mapping using the

following steps:

1. Export the HEC-RAS results from the baseline 100-year scenario to ArcGIS using HEC-GeoRAS, which

attributes water surface elevations to modeled cross-section transects.

2. Convert the cross-section transects in a three-dimensional TIN surface representing the hydraulic profile

along the arroyo, then convert to a gridded raster surface with 5-foot resolution.

3. Convert the 2006 LiDAR survey data into a raster surface representing existing terrain topography on the

same 5-foot grid as the water surface raster.

4. Subtract the terrain surface from the water surface grid to obtain an elevation difference raster where

the positive values represent the potential inundation depth.

5. Examine potentially inundated areas for connectivity with the main channel; then remove areas not

directly connected.

Figure 12 shows the baseline 100-year inundation area for the Study Reach. The calculated water surface

elevations in Arroyo del Valle are high enough that water could potentially flow into Lakes A and/or B (see

Attachment C for elevation profiles along each lake).

Figure 12. 100-year flood inundation along Study Reach based on baseline HEC-RAS modeling results

4.2.1 Realigned Channel and Floodplain

BC performed additional steady-state hydraulic simulations using the proposed (reclaimed) conditions

geometric model described in Section 3.3.1, which included the realigned/restored Arroyo del Valle corridor

from Stations 108+98 to 175+65. The calculated water surface elevations indicate that the newly


20


constructed corridor would contain flows associated with all four flood scenarios (10-, 50-, 100-, and 500-

year recurrence) (see Figure 13).

Figure 13. Example cross-section at Station 144+00 showing flood flows contained within restored corridor

BC examined the results for the 100-year (i.e.,7,000 cfs) flood more closely to evaluate potential flooding

impacts in the vicinity of the restored corridor. Figure 14 shows a comparison of the baseline and proposed-

conditions flood profiles, along with the channel invert and the top elevation of the restored corridor.

Figure 14. Comparison of 100-year profiles for baseline and proposed conditions along restored corridor

400 500 600 700

370

380

390

400

Station (ft)

Ele

vation

(ft)

Legend

WS 500YR

WS 100YR

WS 50YR

WS 10YR

Ground

Ineff

Bank Sta

340

350

360

370

380

390

400

410

420

10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000

ELE

VAT

ION

(F

T)

STREAM STATION (FT)

Top of Restored Corridor

Proposed 100-year W.S.

Baseline 100-year W.S.

Proposed Invert

Baseline Invert

RESTORED CORRIDOR


21


The results shown in Figure 14 indicate that the modifications to the channel along the restored corridor

raise 100-year water surface elevations above the baseline conditions. Table 6 compares baseline and

proposed conditions along the restored corridor.

Table 6. Comparison of Hydraulic Parameters along the Restored Corridor

Hydraulic parameter Reach-averaged Valuesa Change

Baseline Proposed Difference Percent

Water Surface Elevation (ft) 381.3 382.9 1.6 NA

Top width of flood flow (ft) 393 237 156 -40

Hydraulic depth (ft) 4.7 6.1 1.4b 29

Flow velocity (ft/s) 4.4 4.9 0.5 12

Conveyance-weighted Manning’s roughness 0.066 0.074 0.008 12

a. Values calculated by averaging the HEC-RAS results for all cross-sections between Station 108+98 and

175+65, weighted by the length of the corresponding reach.

b. The difference in hydraulic depth is not equal to the difference in water surface elevation because the hydraulic

depth is averaged across the width of active flow.

The results shown in Table 6 indicate that the restored corridor confines the 100-year flood to a narrower

floodplain width. The weighted Manning’s roughness is also higher under proposed conditions due to the

assumption that the entire floodplain area is vegetated. Both the narrower width and the higher Manning’s

roughness contributed to the increases in 100-year water surface elevations.

BC found that there is an average of 4.4 feet between the proposed conditions 100-year water surface and

the top elevations along either side of the restored corridor. The calculated increase in water surface at the

downstream end of the restored corridor (Station 108+98) is zero. However, the calculated increase in water

surface at the upstream end (Station 175+65) is approximately 1.6 feet. Figure 15 plots the water surface

elevation increases upstream of the restored corridor; these increases reduce to zero approximately 1,200

feet upstream of Station 175+65. To avoid potential flood impacts, the restored corridor needs to be tied

into high ground at the upstream end of the affected reach to contain flood flows.

Figure 15. 100-year water surface increases upstream of restored corridor

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

17500 18000 18500 19000

WATE

R S

UR

FAC

E I

NC

RE

AS

E (

FT)

STREAM STATION (FT)

UP

ST

RE

AM

BO

UN

DA

RY

OF

MO

DIF

IED

CR

OS

SS

EC

TIO

NS


22


BC also performed additional flood inundation mapping using the 100-year water surface profile for

proposed conditions and the existing terrain model. The revised delineation indicates that inundated areas

will increase very little and mainly within the area that will be altered by Lake B mining (see Figure 16).

Figure 16. Potential flood inundation increase (red) resulting from restored corridor

4.2.2 Lake A Diversion

BC performed additional steady-state hydraulic simulations to evaluate the potential flood impacts of an in-

channel diversion as described in Section 3.3.2. BC executed 10 simulations with incrementally increased

obstruction heights ranging from 1 foot to 10 feet. For comparison, Figure 17 shows plots of water surface

elevations for the reach upstream of the obstruction.

Baseline 100-year

Proposed 100-year

Inundation Areas


23


Figure 17. Water surface increases resulting from incremental adjustments to obstruction height

The water surface increases associated with an in-channel obstruction diminish rapidly upstream, largely

due to the relatively steep channel slope, approximately 1 percent between the obstruction and Vallecitos

Road. Figure 18 shows the upstream water surface increases associated with a 10-foot in-channel

obstruction. The results show that for the 10-foot obstruction the water surface increase at Vallecitos Road

(approximately 1,100 feet upstream) is less than 0.5 foot.

Figure 18. Water surface increases resulting from a 10-foot in-channel obstruction at Station 245+00

425

430

435

440

445

450

455

460

24000 24500 25000 25500 26000

ELE

VATIO

N (

FT)

STREAM STATION (FT)

10-FT Obstruction

9-FT Obstruction

8-FT Obstruction

7-FT Obstruction

6-FT Obstruction

5-FT Obstruction

4-FT Obstruction

3-FT Obstruction

2-FT Obstruction

1-FT Obstruction

No Obstruction

Channel Invert

OBSTRUCTION(HEIGHT VARIES)

WATER SURFACE PROFILESVALLECITOS

ROAD BRIDGE

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

24000 24500 25000 25500 26000 26500 27000

WATE

R S

UR

FAC

E I

NC

RE

AS

E (

FT)

STREAM STATION (FT)

IN-C

HA

NN

EL

OB

ST

RU

CT

ION

VALLECITOSROAD BRIDGE


24


BC performed additional inundation mapping using the water surface profile from the simulation with a 10-

foot obstruction at Station 245+00 (see Figure 19). The mapping results indicate if an in-channel diversion

with a structure as high as 10 feet was to obstruct flow during a 100-year event, there would be some

additional inundated areas in the immediate vicinity around the diversion and Lake A. Figure 19 shows

potential flooding on Vineyard Avenue and flooding in close proximity to a small residential structure near the

intersection of Vineyard Avenue and Vallecitos Road. Installation of a diversion structure as high as 10-feet

would require raising of adjacent grades to avoid these potential impacts. Note that the additional inundated

areas do not extend upstream of Vallecitos Avenue.

Figure 19. Potential flood inundation increase (red) resulting from a 10-foot in-channel obstruction

Baseline 100-year

10-FT Obstruction

Inundation Areas


25


Section 5: Conclusions BC developed a HEC-RAS hydraulic model of the Arroyo del Valle channel and floodplain. The model covers

5.4 miles from approximately 1,000 feet downstream of Bernal Avenue to roughly 3,000 feet upstream of

Vallecitos Avenue. BC used the model to evaluate potential channel stability and flooding impacts related to

the proposed/reclaimed conditions at the Eliot Facility, including the realignment and restoration of the

Arroyo del Valle corridor along Lake B and addition of an in-channel diversion structure near Vallecitos

Avenue. The following bullets summarize BC’s findings:

• Average annual sediment loads within the restored reach will be roughly equivalent to the annual

sediment loads in upstream reaches, and those loads are similar to the estimated loads for the baseline

condition. In other words, the restored corridor will maintain sediment continuity, and therefore it is not

likely to experience channel instabilities due to substantial aggradation or degradation.

• Calculated water surface elevations for baseline conditions are higher than the ground elevations

separating the channel from Lakes A and B in at least two locations, indicating that floodwaters could

potentially enter into the lakes during a 100-year flood event (see Attachment C for details).

• Water surface elevations along the restored corridor are on average approximately 1.6 feet higher than

under baseline conditions; however, the proposed geometry for the restored corridor has sufficient

depth to contain the 100-year, as well as the 500-year flood flows.

• The 100-year water surface elevation increase at the upstream end of the restored corridor is

approximately 1.6 feet; however, this increase diminishes rapidly upstream and will not result in

additional inundated areas if the modified corridor is tied into high ground.

• Water surface increases along the restored corridor are due to a combination of a narrower floodplain

width and a higher Manning’s roughness.

• An in-channel diversion with an obstruction as high as 10 feet at the upstream end of Lake A would

increase water surface elevations in the vicinity immediately upstream of the diversion; however, those

increases diminish rapidly and are negligible beyond Vallecitos Avenue.

• An in-channel diversion with an obstruction as high as 10 feet at the upstream end of Lake A could also

increase the area inundated by a 100-year flood event unless adjacent grades are raised. In particular,

the 100-year flood could potentially inundate a small portion of Vineyard Avenue, and comes close to

impacting a nearby residential structure.


26


References San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI), February 2013. Alameda Creek Watershed Historical Ecology Study.

Alameda County Community Development Agency (ACCDA), June 2013. Letter from James Gifford to Ron Wilson titled “Completeness Review of Application to Amend Surface Mining Permit and Reclamation Plan No. 23.”

Ayres Associates, December 2001. Zone 7 Water Agency Geomorphic and Sediment Transport Evaluation: Prepared for Zone 7 Water Agency and West Yost and Associates.

California Department of Water Resources, April 1968. The Resources Agency, Department of Water Resources Bulletin No. 119-29 Feasibility of Serving The South Bay Contractors from The State Water Project. http://archive.org/stream/feasibilityofsersouthbay11929calirich/feasibilityofsersouthbay11929calirich_djvu.txt

California Department of Water Resources, 2001. South Bay Aqueduct (Bethany Reservoir and Lake Del Valle) 4/01. http://www.water.ca.gov/pubs/swp/south_bay_aqueduct__lake_del_valle_and_bethany_reservoir_/south-bay-aque.pdf

Chow, V.T., 1959. “Open-Channel Hydraulics.” McGraw-Hill Companies.

E-mail correspondence from Colleen Winey to Nathan Foged, August 16, 2013. “RE: CEMEX Eliot Facility Rec Plan -- Data needs for Arroyo del Valle hydraulic study.” Attachment: “Z7 Diversion Criteria.docx” [Draft Design Criteria for the Arroyo Del Valle Diversion Structure.]

EMKO Environmental, 2013. Hydrology and Water Quality Analysis Report, Lake A And Lake B Expansion, CEMEX Eliot Quarry – SMP-23, Pleasanton, California. Prepared by: EMKO Environmental, Inc. 551 Lakecrest Drive, El Dorado Hills, California 95762,dated June 7, 2013.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2009. Flood Insurance Study for Alameda County, California and Incorporated Areas. Effective August 3, 2009. Flood Insurance Study Number 06001CV001A.

Kamman Hydrology & Environmental Engineering, Inc. (Kamman), 2009. Phase 2 Technical Report, Sycamore Grove Recovery Program, Sycamore Grove Park, Livermore, California. Prepared for Livermore Area Recreation and Park District 4444 East Avenue, Livermore, California 94550 and the Zone 7 Water Agency 100 North Canyons Parkway, Livermore, California 94551. Edited by Kamman Hydrology & Engineering, Inc., 7 Mt. Lassen Drive, Suite B250, San Rafael, California 94903.

Lane, E. W., 1955. “The Importance of Fluvial Morphology in Hydraulic Engineering.” Proceedings, American Society of Civil Engineers, No. 745, July 1955.

LSA Associates, 2013. “Results of Biological Surveys, CEMEX Eliot Quarry, Alameda County, California.” Letter to Ron Wilson, CEMEX, 5180 Golden Foothills Parkway, El Dorado Hills, California 95762 from Malcolm J. Sproul, LSA Associates, Inc., 157 Park Place Point, Richmond, California, 94801.

Raines, Melton & Carella, Inc. (RMC), 2006. Zone 7 Stream Management Master Plan. Appendix C

Spinardi Associates (Spinardi), June 2013. Reclamation Plan Amendment, CEMEX SMP-23, 1544 Stanley Boulevard, Pleasanton, California 94566, Unincorporated Alameda County, Submitted to: Alameda County Community Development Agency Neighborhood Preservation and Sustainability Department, 224 W. Winton Ave, Suite 205, Hayward, California 94544, Prepared by: Spinardi Associates, 265 Sea View Avenue, Piedmont, California 94610

USGS. Flow data obtained from United States Geological Survey stream gaging station on Arroyo del Valle (USGS #11176500 ARROYO VALLE NR LIVERMORE CA) and (USGS #11176600 ARROYO VALLE A PLEASANTON CA) http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/dv/?site_no=11176500&agency_cd=USGS&referred_module=sw http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/dv/?site_no=11176600&agency_cd=USGS&referred_module=sw

Wolman, M.G., and J.P. Miller. 1960. “Magnitude and Frequency of Forces in Geomorphic Processes.” Journal of Geology; v. 68, pp. 54–74.


A-1


Attachment A: Maps

Map 1: Site and Study Reach

Map 2: Tributary Drainages

Map 3: FEMA Flood Hazards

Map 4: HEC-RAS Model Cross-sections

Map 5: 100-Year Flood Inundation

STAN

LEY B

LVD

ISABEL AVE

VALLE

CITOS RDLIV

ERMO

REPL

EASA

NTON

RUBY HILL

SHAD

OWCL

IFFS

BORI

SLA

KE

CONC

ANNO

N BL

VD

STUD

Y REA

CHBO

UNDA

RY(DO

WNST

REAM

)

STUD

Y REA

CHBO

UNDA

RY(UP

STRE

AM)SYCA

MORE

GROV

E PAR

K

ELIOT

FACIL

ITY SI

TEAN

D ARR

OYO D

EL VA

LLE

STUDY

REAC

HTe

chnic

al Me

moran

dum

No. 1

- Atta

chme

nt A

Hydra

ulic M

odeli

ng of

Arroy

o del

Valle

Eliot

Facil

ity Re

clama

tion P

lanSu

rface

Mini

ng Pe

rmit 2

3 (“S

MP-23

”)

MAP 1

BC Pr

oject

Numb

er 14

4718

Path: P:\CEMEX\144718 Arroyo del Valle Hydraulic Study\GIS\MXD\CEMEX_AdVHS_Map01.mxd Author:

LIMITA

TIONS

: THIS

DRAW

ING OR

FILE

HAS B

EEN P

REPA

RED B

Y BRO

WN

AND C

ALDW

ELL F

OR IT

S CLIE

NT AN

D MAY

NOT B

E COP

IED O

R USE

D WI

THOU

T WRIT

TEN A

UTHO

RIZAT

ION. D

UE TO

THE A

LTERA

BLE N

ATUR

E OF

ELEC

TRON

IC MA

TERIA

LS, R

ECIPI

ENT S

HOUL

D NO

T RELY

ON T

HIS

FOR A

CCUR

ACY O

R CON

TENT

, AND

ACKN

OWLE

DGES

AND A

GREE

S IT

HAS B

EEN P

ROVID

ED SO

LELY

FOR C

ONVE

NIENC

E AND

INFO

RMAT

IONAL

PU

RPOS

ES.

BROW

N AND

CAL

DWEL

L MAK

ES N

O RE

PRES

ENTAT

IONS

REGA

RDING

SUIT

ABILIT

Y OR

FITN

ESS

FOR

A PAR

TICUL

AR P

URPO

SE.

L E G

E N D

Site B

ound

aryAr

royo d

el Va

lle

2/12/2014

1,500

01,5

00Fee

t1 i

nch =

3,00

0 fee

t

Aerial

photo

graphy

based

on NA

IP dat

a from

Nation

al Map

Data S

erver:

http://v

iewer.n

ational

map.g

ov/vie

wer/.

E

6.4 sq

mi

4.9 sq

mi4.0

sq m

i

3.6 sq

mi2.7

sq m

i

1.8 sq

mi

1.1 sq

mi

0.9

sq mi

0.8 sq mi

LOWE

R ARR

OYO D

EL VA

LLEBA

SIN AN

D TRIB

UTAR

YDR

AINAG

E ARE

ASTe

chnic

al Me

moran

dum

No. 1

- Atta

chme

nt A

Hydra

ulic M

odeli

ng of

Arroy

o del

Valle

Eliot

Facil

ity Re

clama

tion P

lanSu

rface

Mini

ng Pe

rmit 2

3 (“S

MP-23

”)

MAP 2

BC Pr

oject

Numb

er 14

4718


LIMITA

TIONS

: THIS

DRAW

ING OR

FILE

HAS B

EEN P

REPA

RED B

Y BRO

WN

AND C

ALDW

ELL F

OR IT

S CLIE

NT AN

D MAY

NOT B

E COP

IED O

R USE

D WI

THOU

T WRIT

TEN A

UTHO

RIZAT

ION. D

UE TO

THE A

LTERA

BLE N

ATUR

E OF

ELEC

TRON

IC MA

TERIA

LS, R

ECIPI

ENT S

HOUL

D NO

T RELY

ON T

HIS

FOR A

CCUR

ACY O

R CON

TENT

, AND

ACKN

OWLE

DGES

AND A

GREE

S IT

HAS B

EEN P

ROVID

ED SO

LELY

FOR C

ONVE

NIENC

E AND

INFO

RMAT

IONAL

PU

RPOS

ES.

BROW

N AND

CAL

DWEL

L MAK

ES N

O RE

PRES

ENTAT

IONS

REGA

RDING

SUIT

ABILIT

Y OR

FITN

ESS

FOR

A PAR

TICUL

AR P

URPO

SE.

L E G

E N D

Water

body

Strea

mBa

sin bo

unda

rySu

bbas

in (ar

ea)

Site B

ound

ary

2/12/2014

3,250

03,2

50Fee

t1 i

nch =

7,50

0 fee

t

Arroyo

delVal

le

Arroy

o Moch

o

Arroyo de la Laguna

Del V

alle

Reser

voir

Arroy

odel

Valle

STAN

LEY B

LVD

ISABEL AVE

VALLE

CITOS RDLIV

ERMO

REPL

EASA

NTON

RUBY HILL

SHAD

OWCL

IFFS

CONC

ANNO

N BL

VD

FEMA F

LOOD

INSU

RANC

E STU

DYSP

ECIAL

FLOO

D HAZ

ARD A

REAS

(10

0-YEA

R INU

NDATI

ON)

Tech

nical

Memo

randu

m No

. 1 - A

ttach

ment

AHy

drauli

c Mod

eling

of Ar

royo d

el Va

lleEli

ot Fa

cility

Recla

matio

n Plan

Surfa

ce M

ining

Perm

it 23 (

“SMP

-23”)

MAP 3

BC Pr

oject

Numb

er 14

4718


LIMITA

TIONS

: THIS

DRAW

ING OR

FILE

HAS B

EEN P

REPA

RED B

Y BRO

WN

AND C

ALDW

ELL F

OR IT

S CLIE

NT AN

D MAY

NOT B

E COP

IED O

R USE

D WI

THOU

T WRIT

TEN A

UTHO

RIZAT

ION. D

UE TO

THE A

LTERA

BLE N

ATUR

E OF

ELEC

TRON

IC MA

TERIA

LS, R

ECIPI

ENT S

HOUL

D NO

T RELY

ON T

HIS

FOR A

CCUR

ACY O

R CON

TENT

, AND

ACKN

OWLE

DGES

AND A

GREE

S IT

HAS B

EEN P

ROVID

ED SO

LELY

FOR C

ONVE

NIENC

E AND

INFO

RMAT

IONAL

PU

RPOS

ES.

BROW

N AND

CAL

DWEL

L MAK

ES N

O RE

PRES

ENTAT

IONS

REGA

RDING

SUIT

ABILIT

Y OR

FITN

ESS

FOR

A PAR

TICUL

AR P

URPO

SE.

L E G

E N D

Site B

ound

arySF

HA: Z

one A

SFHA

: Zon

e AE

2/12/2014

1,500

01,5

00Fee

t1 i

nch =

3,00

0 fee

t

Aerial

photo

graphy

based

on NA

IP dat

a from

Nation

al Map

Data S

erver:

http://v

iewer.n

ational

map.g

ov/vie

wer/.

E

STAN

LEY B

LVD

ISABEL AVE

VALLE

CITOS RDLIV

ERMO

REPL

EASA

NTON

RUBY HILL

CONC

ANNO

N BL

VD

0+00

10+75

26+30

40+78

72+57

83+3296+76

118+64

132+84

157+84

170+12192+24

222+51

254+24

285+32

HEC-R

AS HY

DRAU

LIC M

ODEL

STREA

M, LA

ND CO

VER,

AND

CROS

S-SEC

TION L

OCATI

ONS

Tech

nical

Memo

randu

m No

. 1 - A

ttach

ment

AHy

drauli

c Mod

eling

of Ar

royo d

el Va

lleEli

ot Fa

cility

Recla

matio

n Plan

Surfa

ce M

ining

Perm

it 23 (

“SMP

-23”)

MAP 4

BC Pr

oject

Numb

er 14

4718


LIMITA

TIONS

: THIS

DRAW

ING OR

FILE

HAS B

EEN P

REPA

RED B

Y BRO

WN

AND C

ALDW

ELL F

OR IT

S CLIE

NT AN

D MAY

NOT B

E COP

IED O

R USE

D WI

THOU

T WRIT

TEN A

UTHO

RIZAT

ION. D

UE TO

THE A

LTERA

BLE N

ATUR

E OF

ELEC

TRON

IC MA

TERIA

LS, R

ECIPI

ENT S

HOUL

D NO

T RELY

ON T

HIS

FOR A

CCUR

ACY O

R CON

TENT

, AND

ACKN

OWLE

DGES

AND A

GREE

S IT

HAS B

EEN P

ROVID

ED SO

LELY

FOR C

ONVE

NIENC

E AND

INFO

RMAT

IONAL

PU

RPOS

ES.

BROW

N AND

CAL

DWEL

L MAK

ES N

O RE

PRES

ENTAT

IONS

REGA

RDING

SUIT

ABILIT

Y OR

FITN

ESS

FOR

A PAR

TICUL

AR P

URPO

SE.

L E G

E N D

Arroy

o del

Valle

Site B

ound

aryCr

oss-s

ectio

n

Water

(n=0

.020)

Earth

(n=0

.035)

Vege

tation

(n=0

.080)

2/12/2014

1,500

01,5

00Fee

t1 i

nch =

3,00

0 fee

t

Aerial

photo

graphy

based

on NA

IP dat

a from

Nation

al Map

Data S

erver:

http://v

iewer.n

ational

map.g

ov/vie

wer/.

E

STAN

LEY B

LVD

ISABEL AVE

VALLE

CITOS RDLIV

ERMO

REPL

EASA

NTON

RUBY HILL

CONC

ANNO

N BL

VD

E10

0-YEA

R FLO

OD IN

UNDA

TION

UNDE

R BAS

ELINE

COND

ITIONS

HEC-R

AS MO

DELIN

G RES

ULTS

Tech

nical

Memo

randu

m No

. 1 - A

ttach

ment

AHy

drauli

c Mod

eling

of Ar

royo d

el Va

lleEli

ot Fa

cility

Recla

matio

n Plan

Surfa

ce M

ining

Perm

it 23 (

“SMP

-23”)

MAP 5

BC Pr

oject

Numb

er 14

4718


LIMITA

TIONS

: THIS

DRAW

ING OR

FILE

HAS B

EEN P

REPA

RED B

Y BRO

WN

AND C

ALDW

ELL F

OR IT

S CLIE

NT AN

D MAY

NOT B

E COP

IED O

R USE

D WI

THOU

T WRIT

TEN A

UTHO

RIZAT

ION. D

UE TO

THE A

LTERA

BLE N

ATUR

E OF

ELEC

TRON

IC MA

TERIA

LS, R

ECIPI

ENT S

HOUL

D NO

T RELY

ON T

HIS

FOR A

CCUR

ACY O

R CON

TENT

, AND

ACKN

OWLE

DGES

AND A

GREE

S IT

HAS B

EEN P

ROVID

ED SO

LELY

FOR C

ONVE

NIENC

E AND

INFO

RMAT

IONAL

PU

RPOS

ES.

BROW

N AND

CAL

DWEL

L MAK

ES N

O RE

PRES

ENTAT

IONS

REGA

RDING

SUIT

ABILIT

Y OR

FITN

ESS

FOR

A PAR

TICUL

AR P

URPO

SE.

L E G

E N D

100-Y

EAR

FLOO

D

2/12/2014

1,500

01,5

00Fee

t1 i

nch =

3,00

0 fee

t

Aerial

photo

graphy

based

on NA

IP dat

a from

Nation

al Map

Data S

erver:

http://v

iewer.n

ational

map.g

ov/vie

wer/.


B-1


Attachment B: Detailed Modeling Output

10-Year Water Surface Profiles




10-Year Tabulated Hydraulic Parameters




0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

Stream Station (ft)

320

340

360

380

400

420

440

460

480

Ele

vati

on

(ft

)

L E G E N D

Proposed Water Surface

Baseline Water Surface

Proposed Channel Invert

Baseline Channel Invert

Vertical Scale: 1 inch = 20 feet, Horizontal Scale: 1 inch = 2,000 feet

Isa

be

l A

ven

ue

Be

rna

l A

ven

ue

Va

lleci

tos R

oa

d

Eliot Facility Reclamation Plan Amendment HEC-RAS Hydraulic Profiles

10-year Water Surface

Hydraulic Modeling of Arroyo del Valle

TM01 | Attachment B\\BCSEA06\projects\CEMEX\144718 Arroyo del Valle Hydraulic Study\300 Analysis\HEC-RAS\AdVHS Hydraulic Profile 10YR.grf

Restored Corridor

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

Stream Station (ft)

320

340

360

380

400

420

440

460

480

Ele

vati

on

(ft

)

L E G E N D






Isa

be

l A

ven

ue

Be

rna

l A

ven

ue

Va

lleci

tos R

oa

d





Restored Corridor

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

Stream Station (ft)

320

340

360

380

400

420

440

460

480

Ele

vati

on

(ft

)

L E G E N D



10-FT Obstruction W.S.




Isa

be

l A

ven

ue

Be

rna

l A

ven

ue

Va

lleci

tos R

oa

d





Restored Corridor

Ob

stru

cti

on

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

Stream Station (ft)

320

340

360

380

400

420

440

460

480

Ele

vati

on

(ft

)

L E G E N D






Isa

be

l A

ven

ue

Be

rna

l A

ven

ue

Va

lleci

tos R

oa

d





Restored Corridor

Eliot Facility Reclamation Plan Amendment HEC-RAS Output Page 1 of 32

Baseline 10YR Results


ReachRiver Sta

Profile Q TotalQ

ChannelMin Ch

ElInvert Slope

W.S. Elev

E.G. Elev

E.G. Slope

Hydr Depth C

Hydr Radius C

W.P. Channel

Flow Area Ch

Froude # Chl

Vel Chnl

Power Chan

Shear Chan

(cfs) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (sq ft) (ft/s) (lb/ft-s) (lb/sq ft)

ADV 28532 10YR 1860 1860.00 457.06 0.00500 462.43 462.79 0.00410 2.75 2.72 141.41 384.52 0.51 4.84 3.36 0.70ADV 28235 10YR 1860 1860.00 455.57 0.00770 461.04 461.25 0.00633 2.65 2.63 195.86 515.82 0.39 3.61 3.75 1.04ADV 27822 10YR 1860 1860.00 452.39 0.00130 458.83 459.19 0.00396 2.92 2.85 136.04 387.08 0.50 4.81 3.38 0.70ADV 27561 10YR 1860 1860.00 452.04 0.00980 457.23 457.61 0.01030 3.65 3.58 104.97 375.89 0.46 4.95 11.39 2.30ADV 27356 10YR 1860 1860.00 450.03 0.00590 456.03 456.23 0.00444 4.65 4.54 113.81 516.34 0.29 3.60 4.53 1.26ADV 27112 10YR 1860 1860.00 448.59 0.00710 453.98 454.46 0.01337 3.86 3.76 89.07 334.54 0.50 5.56 17.42 3.13ADV 26932 10YR 1860 1860.00 447.31 0.00410 452.17 452.70 0.00744 2.49 2.44 129.95 317.29 0.66 5.86 6.65 1.13ADV 26685 10YR 1860 1860.00 446.29 0.00890 450.18 450.50 0.01021 2.26 2.24 182.84 410.47 0.53 4.53 6.48 1.43ADV 26376 10YR 1860 1860.00 443.56 0.01040 448.14 448.36 0.00487 2.11 2.07 237.90 492.96 0.46 3.77 2.38 0.63ADV 26172 10YR 1860 1860.00 441.42 0.00550 447.34 447.52 0.00348 2.70 2.65 208.55 552.59 0.36 3.37 1.94 0.58ADV 25904 10YR 1860 1860.00 439.96 0.00030 446.26 446.40 0.00499 3.50 3.46 179.22 619.91 0.28 3.00 3.23 1.08ADV 25720 10YR 1860 1860.00 439.90 0.00000 445.13 445.32 0.00706 3.30 3.26 166.29 542.00 0.33 3.43 4.93 1.44ADV 25660 BridgeADV 25597 10YR 1860 1860.00 439.81 0.00710 444.10 444.30 0.00782 3.24 3.21 162.20 520.57 0.35 3.57 5.60 1.57ADV 25510 10YR 1860 1860.00 439.19 0.01660 443.52 443.72 0.00584 3.59 3.56 146.08 520.59 0.33 3.57 4.64 1.30ADV 25424 10YR 1860 1860.00 437.77 0.00230 443.15 443.31 0.00354 4.18 4.13 141.35 584.38 0.27 3.18 2.90 0.91ADV 25320 10YR 1860 1860.00 437.53 0.00400 442.68 442.89 0.00446 4.21 4.15 120.69 501.03 0.32 3.71 4.29 1.16ADV 25232 10YR 1860 1860.00 437.18 0.00440 442.07 442.42 0.00621 3.91 3.85 101.95 392.21 0.42 4.74 7.07 1.49ADV 25053 10YR 1860 1860.00 436.39 0.00380 440.92 441.19 0.00736 3.55 3.52 125.82 443.45 0.39 4.19 6.79 1.62ADV 24952 10YR 1860 1860.00 436.01 0.00910 440.02 440.30 0.01087 2.87 2.86 154.77 442.27 0.44 4.21 8.15 1.94ADV 24603 10YR 1860 1860.00 432.84 0.00630 437.22 437.46 0.00627 3.50 3.45 137.04 473.31 0.37 3.93 5.31 1.35ADV 24301 10YR 1860 1860.00 430.95 0.00680 434.84 435.10 0.00996 3.17 3.15 144.47 454.90 0.40 4.09 8.00 1.96ADV 23838 10YR 1860 1860.00 427.79 0.00300 432.57 432.81 0.00295 4.02 3.97 121.11 480.94 0.34 3.87 2.83 0.73ADV 23419 10YR 1860 1860.00 426.53 0.00530 431.06 431.31 0.00438 3.96 3.91 117.62 460.10 0.36 4.04 4.33 1.07ADV 23067 10YR 1860 1860.00 424.67 0.00860 428.19 428.66 0.01562 3.10 3.07 110.05 337.94 0.55 5.50 16.48 2.99ADV 22752 10YR 1860 1860.00 421.95 0.00250 426.92 427.11 0.00220 3.94 3.91 136.15 531.90 0.31 3.50 1.88 0.54ADV 22482 10YR 1860 1850.12 421.27 0.00200 426.31 426.43 0.00270 4.06 4.03 162.72 655.75 0.25 2.82 1.92 0.68ADV 22251 10YR 1860 1814.67 420.81 0.00090 425.66 425.80 0.00279 4.16 4.13 148.90 614.52 0.26 2.95 2.13 0.72ADV 21955 10YR 1860 1795.02 420.55 0.01050 424.23 424.43 0.00883 2.61 2.60 188.77 491.61 0.40 3.65 5.24 1.44ADV 21730 10YR 1860 1860.00 418.18 0.00800 422.08 422.35 0.00965 3.22 3.19 139.00 444.07 0.41 4.19 8.06 1.92ADV 21514 10YR 1860 1860.00 416.46 0.00870 420.98 421.12 0.00360 3.48 3.40 181.76 617.57 0.28 3.01 2.30 0.76ADV 21312 10YR 1860 1860.00 414.69 0.00380 419.67 419.95 0.01030 3.19 3.14 138.89 435.43 0.42 4.27 8.61 2.02ADV 21024 10YR 1860 1838.12 413.59 0.00860 418.18 418.42 0.00319 3.65 3.61 127.47 459.76 0.37 4.00 2.88 0.72ADV 20751 10YR 1860 1860.00 411.26 0.00130 417.07 417.31 0.00537 4.42 4.33 109.56 474.88 0.33 3.92 5.69 1.45ADV 20510 10YR 1860 1860.00 410.94 0.00270 415.66 415.95 0.00593 3.98 3.92 109.95 430.68 0.38 4.32 6.26 1.45ADV 20336 10YR 1860 1860.00 410.47 0.00900 414.34 414.68 0.00914 3.47 3.42 117.27 401.37 0.44 4.63 9.05 1.95ADV 20151 10YR 1860 1697.33 408.80 0.00360 413.18 413.38 0.00527 4.01 3.89 120.67 469.06 0.32 3.62 4.63 1.28ADV 20002 10YR 1860 1860.00 408.27 0.01040 412.07 412.50 0.00612 3.14 3.11 113.63 352.98 0.52 5.27 6.25 1.19ADV 19859 10YR 1860 1860.00 406.77 0.00800 411.09 411.42 0.00900 3.40 3.37 120.04 404.99 0.44 4.59 8.71 1.90ADV 19723 10YR 1860 1860.00 405.68 0.00550 410.19 410.41 0.00584 3.56 3.54 138.39 489.33 0.35 3.80 4.90 1.29ADV 19586 10YR 1860 1860.00 404.92 0.00930 409.59 409.91 0.00242 3.24 3.22 126.79 408.37 0.45 4.55 2.22 0.49ADV 19448 10YR 1860 1860.00 403.63 0.00110 408.67 409.17 0.01841 2.81 2.78 117.81 327.84 0.60 5.67 18.15 3.20ADV 19376 10YR 1860 1860.00 403.55 0.00000 408.31 408.59 0.00387 3.63 3.58 121.40 435.18 0.40 4.27 3.70 0.87ADV 19300 BridgeADV 19224 10YR 1860 1860.00 401.57 0.00460 407.45 407.70 0.00469 3.61 3.55 131.35 466.02 0.37 3.99 4.14 1.04ADV 19086 10YR 1860 1860.00 400.94 0.01330 406.67 406.91 0.00699 3.07 3.01 156.40 471.30 0.40 3.95 5.19 1.31ADV 18966 10YR 1860 1860.00 399.33 0.00570 405.54 405.86 0.01058 3.53 3.49 117.15 408.86 0.43 4.55 10.49 2.31ADV 18885 10YR 1860 1860.00 398.87 0.00790 404.72 405.12 0.00800 2.96 2.93 125.42 367.89 0.52 5.06 7.40 1.46ADV 18770 10YR 1860 1860.00 397.97 0.00850 403.60 403.96 0.01287 2.53 2.51 153.89 386.16 0.53 4.82 9.71 2.02ADV 18665 10YR 1860 1860.00 397.07 0.01290 402.38 402.69 0.01108 1.96 1.94 212.75 412.92 0.57 4.50 6.05 1.34

AdVHS_HECRAS_BaseProp_Results_v03.xlsx | Baseline 10YR TM01 | Attachment B




ReachRiver Sta

Profile Q TotalQ

ChannelMin Ch

ElInvert Slope

W.S. Elev

E.G. Elev

E.G. Slope

Hydr Depth C

Hydr Radius C

W.P. Channel

Flow Area Ch

Froude # Chl

Vel Chnl

Power Chan

Shear Chan


ADV 18556 10YR 1860 1860.00 395.66 0.00800 401.42 401.68 0.00757 2.03 2.01 222.70 447.32 0.51 4.16 3.95 0.95ADV 18439 10YR 1860 1860.00 394.73 0.00840 401.00 401.12 0.00293 2.65 2.62 250.76 657.69 0.31 2.83 1.36 0.48ADV 18339 10YR 1860 1860.00 393.89 -0.00520 400.71 400.80 0.00327 3.13 3.10 241.36 748.75 0.25 2.48 1.57 0.63ADV 18172 10YR 1860 1860.00 394.76 0.01270 399.90 400.06 0.00628 2.25 2.24 262.10 586.62 0.37 3.17 2.78 0.88ADV 18057 10YR 1860 1860.00 393.30 -0.00890 399.11 399.32 0.00652 2.11 2.09 242.17 505.66 0.45 3.68 3.12 0.85ADV 17960 10YR 1860 1860.00 394.17 0.01020 398.43 398.67 0.00666 1.93 1.92 245.26 470.15 0.50 3.96 3.15 0.80ADV 17868 10YR 1860 1860.00 393.23 0.00600 397.78 398.06 0.00668 2.22 2.19 201.76 441.12 0.50 4.22 3.84 0.91ADV 17729 10YR 1860 1860.00 392.40 -0.00020 397.37 397.50 0.00233 3.19 3.14 199.13 624.78 0.29 2.98 1.36 0.46ADV 17565 10YR 1860 1860.00 392.43 0.00740 396.76 396.92 0.00600 2.63 2.61 222.36 579.81 0.35 3.21 3.13 0.98ADV 17349 10YR 1860 1860.00 390.83 0.00180 395.57 395.71 0.00523 2.33 2.32 272.61 632.32 0.34 2.94 2.23 0.76ADV 17158 10YR 1860 1860.00 390.48 -0.00160 394.74 394.83 0.00393 2.37 2.35 329.81 773.77 0.28 2.40 1.38 0.58ADV 17012 10YR 1860 1860.00 390.72 0.01470 393.68 393.89 0.01220 1.90 1.90 267.42 507.02 0.47 3.67 5.30 1.44ADV 16856 10YR 1860 1860.00 388.43 -0.00370 392.85 392.95 0.00341 2.13 2.12 338.96 718.76 0.31 2.59 1.17 0.45ADV 16775 10YR 1860 1860.00 388.73 0.00950 392.58 392.68 0.00316 2.52 2.51 285.09 714.42 0.29 2.60 1.29 0.49ADV 16684 10YR 1860 1860.00 387.87 0.00370 392.34 392.43 0.00246 3.29 3.28 243.92 799.10 0.23 2.33 1.17 0.50ADV 16536 10YR 1860 1860.00 387.32 0.00690 391.87 391.97 0.00395 3.28 3.26 219.91 716.05 0.25 2.60 2.08 0.80ADV 16435 10YR 1860 1860.00 386.62 -0.00380 391.50 391.62 0.00308 3.50 3.48 197.70 687.07 0.25 2.71 1.81 0.67ADV 16253 10YR 1860 1860.00 387.31 0.01200 390.64 390.80 0.00710 1.96 1.96 294.67 576.61 0.41 3.23 2.80 0.87ADV 16146 10YR 1860 1860.00 386.03 0.00960 389.59 389.82 0.01217 2.55 2.54 192.50 488.14 0.42 3.81 7.34 1.93ADV 15966 10YR 1860 1860.00 384.30 0.00890 387.70 387.87 0.00954 2.54 2.52 219.14 552.56 0.37 3.37 5.05 1.50ADV 15784 10YR 1860 1860.00 382.68 0.00580 386.16 386.35 0.00739 2.16 2.15 247.60 532.37 0.42 3.49 3.47 0.99ADV 15620 10YR 1860 1860.00 381.73 0.00420 385.37 385.47 0.00387 2.75 2.73 260.50 711.18 0.28 2.62 1.72 0.66ADV 15442 10YR 1860 1860.00 380.98 0.00660 384.67 384.80 0.00363 2.86 2.84 220.39 625.61 0.31 2.97 1.91 0.64ADV 15328 10YR 1860 1860.00 380.23 0.00330 384.21 384.34 0.00461 3.27 3.26 195.50 637.07 0.28 2.92 2.74 0.94ADV 15207 10YR 1860 1860.00 379.83 0.00520 383.65 383.78 0.00459 3.20 3.18 204.98 652.23 0.28 2.85 2.60 0.91ADV 15052 10YR 1860 1860.00 379.02 0.01790 382.68 382.86 0.00778 3.09 3.06 175.62 538.08 0.35 3.46 5.15 1.49ADV 14970 10YR 1860 1860.00 377.55 0.00290 382.03 382.23 0.00769 3.27 3.25 158.69 515.03 0.35 3.61 5.63 1.56ADV 14866 10YR 1860 1860.00 377.25 0.00160 381.13 381.35 0.00933 2.83 2.80 177.32 497.31 0.39 3.74 6.11 1.63ADV 14816 10YR 1860 1860.00 377.17 0.00950 380.30 380.68 0.01868 2.14 2.12 176.35 373.03 0.60 4.99 12.30 2.47ADV 14711 10YR 1860 1055.45 376.17 -0.00370 379.31 379.60 0.00630 1.93 1.93 221.10 425.80 0.31 2.48 1.88 0.76ADV 14557 10YR 1860 674.23 376.73 0.00520 378.67 378.81 0.00556 1.45 1.45 228.29 331.99 0.30 2.03 1.02 0.50ADV 14400 10YR 1860 160.96 375.92 0.00090 378.35 378.55 0.00066 1.41 1.41 191.89 269.70 0.09 0.60 0.03 0.06ADV 14356 10YR 1860 222.43 375.88 0.00750 378.25 378.48 0.00090 1.60 1.59 181.81 289.82 0.11 0.77 0.07 0.09ADV 14084 10YR 1860 1860.00 373.83 0.00400 377.96 378.10 0.00530 2.97 2.95 206.46 608.50 0.31 3.06 2.98 0.98ADV 13816 10YR 1860 1860.00 372.77 0.00880 375.28 375.58 0.02072 1.59 1.59 267.21 425.05 0.61 4.38 9.00 2.06ADV 13550 10YR 1860 1860.00 370.43 0.00030 373.59 373.70 0.00339 1.95 1.95 362.57 706.02 0.33 2.63 1.08 0.41ADV 13431 10YR 1860 1860.00 370.40 0.00810 372.94 373.10 0.00803 1.59 1.59 363.27 577.30 0.45 3.22 2.57 0.80ADV 13284 10YR 1860 1860.00 369.21 0.00870 371.75 371.93 0.00784 1.39 1.39 394.76 549.26 0.51 3.39 2.31 0.68ADV 13046 10YR 1860 1860.00 367.15 0.00420 370.23 370.36 0.00559 1.26 1.26 517.86 651.16 0.45 2.86 1.25 0.44ADV 12863 10YR 1860 1860.00 366.37 0.00500 369.47 369.56 0.00336 1.32 1.32 569.17 749.78 0.38 2.48 0.68 0.28ADV 12603 10YR 1860 1860.00 365.06 -0.00170 368.61 368.67 0.00343 1.40 1.40 652.36 911.31 0.30 2.04 0.61 0.30ADV 12446 10YR 1860 1860.00 365.32 0.00390 367.89 367.96 0.00626 1.18 1.18 726.81 854.82 0.35 2.18 1.00 0.46ADV 12249 10YR 1860 1860.00 364.56 0.00340 366.93 366.99 0.00401 1.60 1.60 583.78 932.87 0.28 1.99 0.80 0.40ADV 12061 10YR 1860 1860.00 363.92 0.00970 365.90 365.96 0.00799 1.35 1.35 664.34 894.16 0.32 2.08 1.40 0.67ADV 11864 10YR 1860 1860.00 362.01 0.00980 364.65 364.72 0.00511 1.74 1.74 512.11 889.32 0.28 2.09 1.16 0.55ADV 11650 10YR 1860 1860.00 359.91 0.01730 363.21 363.31 0.00876 1.60 1.59 474.16 754.81 0.34 2.46 2.15 0.87ADV 11508 10YR 1860 1860.00 357.45 -0.00320 362.41 362.49 0.00408 1.77 1.76 468.22 825.97 0.30 2.25 1.01 0.45ADV 11268 10YR 1860 1860.00 358.21 0.01370 360.96 361.07 0.00926 1.65 1.65 441.51 729.31 0.35 2.55 2.44 0.95ADV 11119 10YR 1860 1860.00 356.16 0.01170 360.64 360.67 0.00114 3.40 3.39 383.81 1302.86 0.14 1.43 0.34 0.24ADV 10898 10YR 1860 1860.00 353.58 -0.00530 360.45 360.48 0.00066 4.15 4.13 326.82 1349.99 0.12 1.38 0.24 0.17





ReachRiver Sta

Profile Q TotalQ

ChannelMin Ch

ElInvert Slope

W.S. Elev

E.G. Elev

E.G. Slope

Hydr Depth C

Hydr Radius C

W.P. Channel

Flow Area Ch

Froude # Chl

Vel Chnl

Power Chan

Shear Chan


ADV 10698 10YR 1860 1860.00 354.64 0.00530 360.19 360.26 0.00204 3.85 3.83 222.24 851.01 0.20 2.19 1.07 0.49ADV 10480 10YR 1860 1860.00 353.48 0.00110 359.94 359.99 0.00081 3.90 3.89 291.83 1135.08 0.15 1.64 0.32 0.20ADV 10301 10YR 1860 1860.00 353.29 0.00690 359.72 359.77 0.00194 3.31 3.30 311.10 1026.10 0.18 1.81 0.72 0.40ADV 10128 10YR 1860 1860.00 352.09 0.00580 359.63 359.65 0.00032 4.57 4.55 446.58 2032.90 0.08 0.91 0.08 0.09ADV 9980 10YR 1860 1859.67 351.23 0.00000 359.63 359.64 0.00002 7.01 6.98 675.23 4714.40 0.03 0.39 0.00 0.01ADV 9840 10YR 1860 1860.00 351.23 0.00000 359.63 359.64 0.00001 7.72 7.68 755.22 5796.50 0.02 0.32 0.00 0.00ADV 9676 10YR 1860 1859.97 351.23 0.00000 359.63 359.63 0.00000 8.25 8.22 877.87 7214.71 0.02 0.26 0.00 0.00ADV 9557 10YR 1860 1860.00 351.23 0.00000 359.63 359.63 0.00000 7.96 7.92 838.40 6644.35 0.02 0.28 0.00 0.00ADV 9406 10YR 1860 1860.00 351.23 0.00000 359.63 359.63 0.00000 7.71 7.65 775.48 5933.77 0.02 0.31 0.00 0.00ADV 9297 10YR 1860 1860.00 351.23 0.00000 359.63 359.63 0.00000 8.15 8.11 722.14 5853.17 0.02 0.32 0.00 0.00ADV 9153 10YR 1860 1856.88 351.23 0.00000 359.63 359.63 0.00000 8.05 8.01 635.01 5087.24 0.02 0.37 0.00 0.00ADV 9030 10YR 1860 1860.00 351.23 0.00000 359.63 359.63 0.00000 7.93 7.90 562.90 4444.65 0.03 0.42 0.00 0.00ADV 8865 10YR 1860 1839.66 351.23 0.00000 359.63 359.63 0.00001 7.75 7.69 411.13 3161.96 0.04 0.58 0.00 0.00ADV 8747 10YR 1860 1860.00 351.23 0.00230 359.62 359.63 0.00001 7.74 7.67 392.42 3011.12 0.04 0.62 0.00 0.00ADV 8498 10YR 1860 1860.00 350.67 0.00280 359.62 359.63 0.00005 7.37 7.26 340.05 2467.84 0.05 0.75 0.02 0.02ADV 8332 10YR 1860 1860.00 350.20 0.00000 359.58 359.61 0.00058 3.84 3.78 379.07 1431.85 0.12 1.30 0.18 0.14ADV 8115 10YR 1860 1860.00 350.20 0.00000 359.53 359.54 0.00017 5.54 5.44 427.05 2321.27 0.06 0.80 0.05 0.06ADV 7846 10YR 1860 1860.00 350.20 0.00000 359.52 359.53 0.00002 7.54 7.47 508.93 3801.56 0.03 0.49 0.00 0.01ADV 7694 10YR 1860 1860.00 350.20 0.00000 359.52 359.52 0.00003 7.46 7.36 422.81 3112.89 0.04 0.60 0.01 0.02ADV 7546 10YR 1860 1860.00 350.20 0.00000 359.51 359.52 0.00002 8.04 7.96 449.46 3577.30 0.03 0.52 0.01 0.01ADV 7257 10YR 1860 1860.00 350.20 0.00000 359.51 359.51 0.00000 8.06 8.01 564.60 4522.17 0.03 0.41 0.00 0.00ADV 6994 10YR 1860 1860.00 350.20 0.00000 359.51 359.51 0.00000 8.36 8.30 547.72 4547.21 0.02 0.41 0.00 0.00ADV 6869 10YR 1860 1860.00 350.20 0.00000 359.51 359.51 0.00001 7.92 7.87 556.18 4378.65 0.03 0.42 0.00 0.00ADV 6724 10YR 1860 1860.00 350.20 0.00000 359.51 359.51 0.00001 8.02 7.95 549.94 4369.73 0.03 0.43 0.00 0.00ADV 6570 10YR 1860 1860.00 350.20 0.00000 359.51 359.51 0.00002 7.82 7.77 536.95 4172.42 0.03 0.45 0.00 0.01ADV 6437 10YR 1860 1860.00 350.20 0.00000 359.50 359.51 0.00003 6.86 6.83 500.23 3417.68 0.04 0.54 0.01 0.01ADV 6318 10YR 1860 1860.00 350.20 0.00000 359.50 359.50 0.00005 6.44 6.42 521.26 3345.18 0.04 0.56 0.01 0.02ADV 6112 10YR 1860 1860.00 350.20 0.00000 359.48 359.49 0.00007 6.66 6.64 506.16 3360.19 0.04 0.55 0.02 0.03ADV 6023 10YR 1860 1860.00 350.20 0.00000 359.48 359.48 0.00006 6.90 6.88 399.08 2744.91 0.05 0.68 0.02 0.02ADV 5936 10YR 1860 1860.00 350.20 0.00000 359.47 359.48 0.00002 5.94 5.92 467.03 2764.97 0.05 0.67 0.00 0.01ADV 5829 10YR 1860 1860.00 350.20 0.00000 359.47 359.48 0.00007 6.76 6.72 452.76 3043.68 0.04 0.61 0.02 0.03ADV 5721 10YR 1860 1860.00 350.20 0.00000 359.47 359.47 0.00005 7.47 7.41 427.48 3167.07 0.04 0.59 0.01 0.02ADV 5579 10YR 1860 1860.00 350.20 0.00000 359.46 359.47 0.00002 7.22 7.18 429.80 3086.65 0.04 0.60 0.01 0.01ADV 5422 10YR 1860 1860.00 350.20 0.00000 359.45 359.46 0.00002 7.20 7.13 320.66 2287.30 0.05 0.81 0.01 0.01ADV 5264 10YR 1860 1860.00 350.20 0.00000 359.45 359.46 0.00004 7.19 7.07 356.88 2524.32 0.05 0.74 0.01 0.02ADV 5177 10YR 1860 1860.00 350.20 0.00000 359.44 359.45 0.00012 6.83 6.80 337.68 2296.10 0.05 0.81 0.04 0.05ADV 5099 10YR 1860 1860.00 350.20 0.00000 359.41 359.43 0.00038 5.12 5.06 311.52 1577.67 0.09 1.18 0.14 0.12ADV 5015 10YR 1860 1860.00 350.20 0.00000 359.30 359.38 0.00124 5.36 5.29 155.64 823.51 0.17 2.26 0.92 0.41ADV 4960 10YR 1860 1860.00 350.20 0.00000 359.19 359.29 0.00197 4.89 4.83 153.51 740.79 0.20 2.51 1.49 0.59ADV 4883 10YR 1860 1860.00 350.20 0.00000 359.00 359.13 0.00199 5.99 5.82 109.19 636.04 0.21 2.92 2.12 0.72ADV 4783 10YR 1860 1860.00 350.20 0.00000 358.70 358.90 0.00255 5.52 5.34 95.84 511.64 0.27 3.64 3.09 0.85ADV 4729 10YR 1860 1860.00 350.20 0.00000 358.49 358.74 0.00352 5.15 4.96 93.36 462.80 0.31 4.02 4.37 1.09ADV 4657 10YR 1860 1860.00 350.20 0.00000 358.33 358.52 0.00218 6.15 5.94 90.18 535.70 0.25 3.47 2.80 0.81ADV 4587 10YR 1860 1860.00 350.20 0.00000 358.21 358.32 0.00300 3.75 3.70 187.40 693.66 0.24 2.68 1.86 0.69ADV 4488 10YR 1860 1860.00 350.20 0.00000 358.10 358.16 0.00086 5.62 5.54 168.91 936.45 0.15 1.99 0.59 0.30ADV 4384 10YR 1860 1860.00 350.20 0.00000 358.02 358.08 0.00076 5.89 5.81 169.40 984.78 0.14 1.89 0.52 0.27ADV 4313 10YR 1860 1860.00 350.20 0.00000 357.90 358.00 0.00165 5.16 5.05 147.29 743.73 0.19 2.50 1.30 0.52ADV 4232 10YR 1860 1860.00 350.20 0.00000 357.84 357.91 0.00065 6.00 5.91 154.47 912.39 0.15 2.04 0.49 0.24ADV 4078 10YR 1860 1860.00 350.20 0.00000 357.75 357.80 0.00066 5.23 5.16 198.33 1023.04 0.14 1.82 0.38 0.21ADV 3961 10YR 1860 1860.00 350.20 0.00000 357.72 357.74 0.00032 5.36 5.29 271.84 1439.42 0.10 1.29 0.13 0.10





ReachRiver Sta

Profile Q TotalQ

ChannelMin Ch

ElInvert Slope

W.S. Elev

E.G. Elev

E.G. Slope

Hydr Depth C

Hydr Radius C

W.P. Channel

Flow Area Ch

Froude # Chl

Vel Chnl

Power Chan

Shear Chan


ADV 3857 10YR 1860 1860.00 350.20 0.00000 357.70 357.72 0.00018 5.60 5.56 280.84 1560.13 0.09 1.19 0.07 0.06ADV 3791 10YR 1860 1860.00 350.20 0.00000 357.69 357.71 0.00013 5.75 5.70 299.87 1708.41 0.08 1.09 0.05 0.05ADV 3717 10YR 1860 1860.00 350.20 0.00000 357.67 357.69 0.00017 5.40 5.35 296.06 1584.60 0.09 1.17 0.07 0.06ADV 3645 10YR 1860 1860.00 350.20 0.00000 357.66 357.68 0.00018 5.31 5.25 274.60 1442.11 0.10 1.29 0.08 0.06ADV 3587 10YR 1860 1860.00 350.20 0.00000 357.65 357.67 0.00018 6.44 6.37 264.08 1682.60 0.08 1.11 0.08 0.07ADV 3480 10YR 1860 1860.00 350.20 0.00000 357.64 357.66 0.00005 6.89 6.81 269.91 1837.56 0.07 1.01 0.02 0.02ADV 3375 10YR 1860 1860.00 350.20 0.00000 357.64 357.65 0.00008 6.91 6.83 282.53 1928.46 0.06 0.96 0.03 0.03ADV 3321 10YR 1860 1860.00 350.20 0.00000 357.63 357.65 0.00014 6.59 6.49 260.91 1693.79 0.08 1.10 0.06 0.06ADV 3251 10YR 1860 1860.00 350.20 -0.01140 357.61 357.63 0.00023 6.20 6.10 237.39 1449.05 0.09 1.28 0.11 0.09ADV 3177 10YR 1860 1860.00 351.04 -0.00060 357.54 357.60 0.00134 4.65 4.60 214.46 987.08 0.15 1.88 0.73 0.39ADV 3069 10YR 1860 1860.00 351.11 0.00190 357.41 357.48 0.00094 4.63 4.58 203.32 930.65 0.16 2.00 0.54 0.27ADV 2979 10YR 1860 1860.00 350.94 -0.00580 357.25 357.34 0.00252 4.25 4.16 181.64 754.90 0.21 2.46 1.61 0.65ADV 2907 10YR 1860 1860.00 351.36 0.00450 357.08 357.16 0.00240 4.15 4.08 196.13 800.65 0.20 2.32 1.42 0.61ADV 2794 10YR 1860 1860.00 350.85 0.00370 356.92 356.98 0.00104 4.65 4.58 207.12 948.25 0.16 1.96 0.58 0.30ADV 2701 10YR 1860 1860.00 350.51 0.00000 356.85 356.90 0.00067 4.80 4.75 218.35 1038.20 0.14 1.79 0.36 0.20ADV 2670 10YR 1860 1860.00 350.51 0.00000 356.83 356.88 0.00067 5.11 5.04 195.06 983.91 0.15 1.89 0.40 0.21ADV 2630 10YR 1860 1860.00 350.51 -0.00460 356.74 356.84 0.00122 4.89 4.82 154.08 742.34 0.20 2.51 0.92 0.37ADV 2505 10YR 1860 1860.00 351.08 -0.00030 356.48 356.63 0.00230 4.50 4.45 133.84 595.63 0.26 3.12 2.00 0.64ADV 2361 10YR 1860 1860.00 351.13 0.00100 356.37 356.48 0.00055 4.03 3.98 173.38 689.98 0.24 2.70 0.37 0.14ADV 2270 10YR 1860 1860.00 351.04 0.00040 356.33 356.40 0.00091 4.03 4.00 226.33 904.54 0.18 2.06 0.47 0.23ADV 2159 10YR 1860 1860.00 351.00 0.00910 356.25 356.31 0.00073 4.17 4.13 226.19 933.38 0.17 1.99 0.37 0.19ADV 2029 10YR 1860 1860.00 349.82 -0.00620 356.19 356.25 0.00029 4.59 4.56 205.79 938.79 0.16 1.98 0.16 0.08ADV 1915 10YR 1860 1860.00 350.53 -0.00140 356.10 356.19 0.00156 4.39 4.36 180.46 786.24 0.20 2.37 1.00 0.42ADV 1827 10YR 1860 1860.00 350.65 -0.00020 355.93 356.05 0.00155 4.13 4.10 163.45 669.37 0.24 2.78 1.10 0.40ADV 1697 10YR 1860 1860.00 350.68 0.00230 355.60 355.74 0.00377 3.90 3.86 156.10 602.55 0.28 3.09 2.80 0.91ADV 1648 10YR 1860 1860.00 350.57 0.00000 355.40 355.55 0.00436 3.75 3.72 162.03 602.67 0.28 3.09 3.13 1.01ADV 1584 10YR 1860 1860.00 350.57 0.00000 355.24 355.39 0.00158 3.40 3.39 179.84 609.11 0.29 3.05 1.02 0.33ADV 1500 10YR 1860 1860.00 350.57 0.00000 355.12 355.24 0.00182 3.69 3.67 183.85 675.22 0.25 2.75 1.15 0.42ADV 1433 10YR 1860 1860.00 350.57 -0.00100 354.98 355.10 0.00212 3.29 3.27 197.71 647.19 0.28 2.87 1.24 0.43ADV 1373 10YR 1860 1860.00 350.63 0.00610 354.89 354.99 0.00151 3.58 3.56 207.28 737.28 0.24 2.52 0.85 0.34ADV 1343 10YR 1860 1860.00 350.45 0.00230 354.87 354.96 0.00069 3.59 3.57 221.54 790.89 0.22 2.35 0.36 0.15ADV 1255 10YR 1860 1860.00 350.25 0.00000 354.77 354.86 0.00172 3.27 3.26 237.06 773.70 0.23 2.40 0.84 0.35ADV 1200 10YR 1860 1860.00 350.25 0.00000 354.67 354.80 0.00072 3.53 3.53 181.23 640.38 0.27 2.90 0.46 0.16ADV 1150 BridgeADV 1075 10YR 1860 1860.00 349.93 0.00680 353.94 354.10 0.00698 3.03 3.00 191.59 575.54 0.33 3.23 4.23 1.31ADV 964 10YR 1860 1860.00 349.18 0.01450 353.52 353.60 0.00271 3.51 3.49 240.00 837.08 0.21 2.22 1.31 0.59ADV 870 10YR 1860 1860.00 347.82 -0.00910 353.41 353.45 0.00089 4.63 4.58 265.23 1215.66 0.13 1.53 0.39 0.26ADV 769 10YR 1860 1860.00 348.74 -0.00710 353.24 353.31 0.00229 3.51 3.49 252.71 882.37 0.20 2.11 1.05 0.50ADV 632 10YR 1860 1860.00 349.71 0.02000 352.59 352.75 0.00884 2.36 2.35 247.06 581.24 0.37 3.20 4.15 1.30ADV 496 10YR 1860 1860.00 346.99 -0.00090 351.54 351.67 0.00697 2.54 2.53 253.75 641.46 0.32 2.90 3.19 1.10ADV 388 10YR 1860 1860.00 347.09 0.00390 350.94 351.06 0.00467 3.10 3.09 222.85 688.66 0.27 2.70 2.43 0.90ADV 297 10YR 1860 1860.00 346.74 0.01740 350.22 350.41 0.01154 2.38 2.38 220.15 523.29 0.41 3.55 6.09 1.71ADV 223 10YR 1860 1860.00 345.45 -0.00340 349.97 350.05 0.00233 3.49 3.48 245.29 853.84 0.21 2.18 1.10 0.51ADV 153 10YR 1860 1860.00 345.69 0.00420 349.79 349.87 0.00282 3.45 3.44 240.27 826.69 0.21 2.25 1.36 0.61ADV 75 10YR 1860 1860.00 345.36 0.01870 349.48 349.59 0.00438 3.26 3.25 211.90 689.20 0.26 2.70 2.40 0.89ADV 0 10YR 1860 1860.00 343.96 349.10 349.24 0.00501 3.41 3.38 185.77 628.19 0.28 2.96 3.13 1.06





ReachRiver Sta

Profile Q TotalQ

ChannelMin Ch

ElInvert Slope

W.S. Elev

E.G. Elev

E.G. Slope

Hydr Depth C

Hydr Radius C

W.P. Channel

Flow Area Ch

Froude # Chl

Vel Chnl

Power Chan

Shear Chan







ReachRiver Sta

Profile Q TotalQ

ChannelMin Ch

ElInvert Slope

W.S. Elev

E.G. Elev

E.G. Slope

Hydr Depth C

Hydr Radius C

W.P. Channel

Flow Area Ch

Froude # Chl

Vel Chnl

Power Chan

Shear Chan







ReachRiver Sta

Profile Q TotalQ

ChannelMin Ch

ElInvert Slope

W.S. Elev

E.G. Elev

E.G. Slope

Hydr Depth C

Hydr Radius C

W.P. Channel

Flow Area Ch

Froude # Chl

Vel Chnl

Power Chan

Shear Chan







ReachRiver Sta

Profile Q TotalQ

ChannelMin Ch

ElInvert Slope

W.S. Elev

E.G. Elev

E.G. Slope

Hydr Depth C

Hydr Radius C

W.P. Channel

Flow Area Ch

Froude # Chl

Vel Chnl

Power Chan

Shear Chan







ReachRiver Sta

Profile Q TotalQ

ChannelMin Ch

ElInvert Slope

W.S. Elev

E.G. Elev

E.G. Slope

Hydr Depth C

Hydr Radius C

W.P. Channel

Flow Area Ch

Froude # Chl

Vel Chnl

Power Chan

Shear Chan







ReachRiver Sta

Profile Q TotalQ

ChannelMin Ch

ElInvert Slope

W.S. Elev

E.G. Elev

E.G. Slope

Hydr Depth C

Hydr Radius C

W.P. Channel

Flow Area Ch

Froude # Chl

Vel Chnl

Power Chan

Shear Chan







ReachRiver Sta

Profile Q TotalQ

ChannelMin Ch

ElInvert Slope

W.S. Elev

E.G. Elev

E.G. Slope

Hydr Depth C

Hydr Radius C

W.P. Channel

Flow Area Ch

Froude # Chl

Vel Chnl

Power Chan

Shear Chan







ReachRiver Sta

Profile Q TotalQ

ChannelMin Ch

ElInvert Slope

W.S. Elev

E.G. Elev

E.G. Slope

Hydr Depth C

Hydr Radius C

W.P. Channel

Flow Area Ch

Froude # Chl

Vel Chnl

Power Chan

Shear Chan







ReachRiver Sta

Profile Q TotalQ

ChannelMin Ch

ElInvert Slope

W.S. Elev

E.G. Elev

E.G. Slope

Hydr Depth C

Hydr Radius C

W.P. Channel

Flow Area Ch

Froude # Chl

Vel Chnl

Power Chan

Shear Chan







ReachRiver Sta

Profile Q TotalQ

ChannelMin Ch

ElInvert Slope

W.S. Elev

E.G. Elev

E.G. Slope

Hydr Depth C

Hydr Radius C

W.P. Channel

Flow Area Ch

Froude # Chl

Vel Chnl

Power Chan

Shear Chan







ReachRiver Sta

Profile Q TotalQ

ChannelMin Ch

ElInvert Slope

W.S. Elev

E.G. Elev

E.G. Slope

Hydr Depth C

Hydr Radius C

W.P. Channel

Flow Area Ch

Froude # Chl

Vel Chnl

Power Chan

Shear Chan







ReachRiver Sta

Profile Q TotalQ

ChannelMin Ch

ElInvert Slope

W.S. Elev

E.G. Elev

E.G. Slope

Hydr Depth C

Hydr Radius C

W.P. Channel

Flow Area Ch

Froude # Chl

Vel Chnl

Power Chan

Shear Chan





Proposed 10YR Results


ReachRiver Sta

Profile Q TotalQ

ChannelMin Ch

ElInvert Slope

W.S. Elev

E.G. Elev

E.G. Slope

Hydr Depth C

Hydr Radius C

W.P. Channel

Flow Area Ch

Froude # Chl

Vel Chnl

Power Chan

Shear Chan



AdVHS_HECRAS_BaseProp_Results_v03.xlsx | Proposed 10YR TM01 | Attachment B




ReachRiver Sta

Profile Q TotalQ

ChannelMin Ch

ElInvert Slope

W.S. Elev

E.G. Elev

E.G. Slope

Hydr Depth C

Hydr Radius C

W.P. Channel

Flow Area Ch

Froude # Chl

Vel Chnl

Power Chan

Shear Chan


ADV 18556 10YR 1860 1860.00 395.66 0.00800 401.42 401.69 0.00756 2.03 2.01 222.79 447.51 0.51 4.16 3.94 0.95ADV 18439 10YR 1860 1860.00 394.73 0.00840 401.00 401.12 0.00292 2.65 2.62 250.80 658.14 0.31 2.83 1.35 0.48ADV 18339 10YR 1860 1860.00 393.89 -0.00520 400.71 400.81 0.00326 3.13 3.10 241.37 749.36 0.25 2.48 1.57 0.63ADV 18172 10YR 1860 1860.00 394.76 0.01270 399.91 400.07 0.00621 2.26 2.25 262.17 588.91 0.37 3.16 2.75 0.87ADV 18057 10YR 1860 1860.00 393.30 -0.00890 399.15 399.36 0.00610 2.14 2.12 243.55 516.48 0.43 3.60 2.91 0.81ADV 17960 10YR 1860 1860.00 394.17 0.01020 398.58 398.78 0.00564 1.90 1.89 268.47 506.93 0.47 3.67 2.44 0.66ADV 17868 10YR 1860 1860.00 393.23 0.00600 398.12 398.32 0.00444 2.31 2.27 226.50 513.94 0.42 3.62 2.28 0.63ADV 17729 10YR 1860 1860.00 392.40 -0.00020 397.87 397.97 0.00144 3.68 3.61 200.32 722.96 0.24 2.57 0.83 0.32ADV 17565 10YR 1860 1860.00 392.43 0.00600 397.57 397.66 0.00248 3.42 3.38 224.42 757.92 0.23 2.45 1.28 0.52ADV 17349 10YR 1860 1860.00 391.17 0.00600 396.72 396.88 0.00598 2.69 2.67 216.14 576.17 0.35 3.23 3.21 0.99ADV 17158 10YR 1860 1860.00 390.06 0.00600 395.61 395.77 0.00598 2.69 2.66 216.13 575.97 0.35 3.23 3.21 1.00ADV 17012 10YR 1860 1860.00 389.21 0.00600 394.76 394.92 0.00599 2.69 2.66 216.12 575.67 0.35 3.23 3.22 1.00ADV 16856 10YR 1860 1860.00 388.30 0.00600 393.85 394.01 0.00598 2.69 2.67 216.14 576.06 0.35 3.23 3.21 1.00ADV 16775 10YR 1860 1860.00 387.83 0.00600 393.38 393.54 0.00600 2.69 2.66 216.12 575.54 0.35 3.23 3.22 1.00ADV 16684 10YR 1860 1860.00 387.30 0.00600 392.85 393.01 0.00602 2.69 2.66 216.10 574.96 0.35 3.24 3.23 1.00ADV 16536 10YR 1860 1860.00 386.43 0.00590 391.99 392.15 0.00595 2.70 2.67 216.16 576.98 0.35 3.22 3.20 0.99ADV 16435 10YR 1860 1860.00 385.85 0.00600 391.40 391.56 0.00602 2.69 2.66 216.10 574.89 0.35 3.24 3.23 1.00ADV 16253 10YR 1860 1860.00 384.78 0.00600 390.33 390.49 0.00597 2.69 2.67 216.15 576.39 0.35 3.23 3.21 0.99ADV 16146 10YR 1860 1860.00 384.16 0.00600 389.71 389.87 0.00599 2.69 2.66 216.13 575.74 0.35 3.23 3.22 1.00ADV 15966 10YR 1860 1860.00 383.11 0.00600 388.66 388.82 0.00600 2.69 2.66 216.12 575.54 0.35 3.23 3.22 1.00ADV 15784 10YR 1860 1860.00 382.05 0.00600 387.60 387.76 0.00597 2.70 2.67 216.15 576.58 0.35 3.23 3.20 0.99ADV 15620 10YR 1860 1860.00 381.10 0.00600 386.65 386.81 0.00601 2.69 2.66 216.11 575.28 0.35 3.23 3.23 1.00ADV 15442 10YR 1860 1860.00 380.06 0.00600 385.61 385.77 0.00601 2.69 2.66 216.11 575.20 0.35 3.23 3.23 1.00ADV 15328 10YR 1860 1860.00 379.39 0.00590 384.94 385.11 0.00596 2.70 2.67 216.16 576.88 0.35 3.22 3.20 0.99ADV 15207 10YR 1860 1860.00 378.69 0.00600 384.24 384.40 0.00597 2.69 2.67 216.15 576.41 0.35 3.23 3.21 0.99ADV 15052 10YR 1860 1860.00 377.79 0.00600 383.34 383.50 0.00601 2.69 2.66 216.11 575.23 0.35 3.23 3.23 1.00ADV 14970 10YR 1860 1860.00 377.31 0.00600 382.86 383.02 0.00600 2.69 2.66 216.12 575.37 0.35 3.23 3.23 1.00ADV 14866 10YR 1860 1860.00 376.70 0.00600 382.25 382.41 0.00598 2.69 2.67 216.14 576.17 0.35 3.23 3.21 0.99ADV 14816 10YR 1860 1860.00 376.41 0.00600 381.96 382.12 0.00599 2.69 2.66 216.13 575.90 0.35 3.23 3.22 1.00ADV 14711 10YR 1860 1860.00 375.80 0.00600 381.35 381.51 0.00599 2.69 2.66 216.12 575.62 0.35 3.23 3.22 1.00ADV 14557 10YR 1860 1860.00 374.90 0.00600 380.45 380.61 0.00597 2.70 2.67 216.15 576.57 0.35 3.23 3.20 0.99ADV 14400 10YR 1860 1860.00 373.99 0.00610 379.54 379.70 0.00600 2.69 2.66 216.12 575.54 0.35 3.23 3.22 1.00ADV 14356 10YR 1860 1860.00 373.73 0.00600 379.28 379.44 0.00597 2.69 2.67 216.15 576.43 0.35 3.23 3.21 0.99ADV 14084 10YR 1860 1860.00 372.15 0.00600 377.70 377.86 0.00599 2.69 2.66 216.13 575.74 0.35 3.23 3.22 1.00ADV 13816 10YR 1860 1860.00 370.58 0.00600 376.13 376.29 0.00599 2.69 2.66 216.13 575.71 0.35 3.23 3.22 1.00ADV 13550 10YR 1860 1860.00 369.03 0.00600 374.58 374.74 0.00598 2.69 2.67 216.14 576.26 0.35 3.23 3.21 0.99ADV 13431 10YR 1860 1860.00 368.34 0.00600 373.89 374.05 0.00600 2.69 2.66 216.12 575.49 0.35 3.23 3.22 1.00ADV 13284 10YR 1860 1860.00 367.48 0.00600 373.03 373.19 0.00597 2.70 2.67 216.15 576.56 0.35 3.23 3.20 0.99ADV 13046 10YR 1860 1860.00 366.10 0.00600 371.65 371.81 0.00600 2.69 2.66 216.11 575.34 0.35 3.23 3.23 1.00ADV 12863 10YR 1860 1860.00 365.03 0.00600 370.58 370.74 0.00598 2.69 2.67 216.14 576.12 0.35 3.23 3.21 0.99ADV 12603 10YR 1860 1860.00 363.52 0.00600 369.07 369.23 0.00601 2.69 2.66 216.11 575.25 0.35 3.23 3.23 1.00ADV 12446 10YR 1860 1860.00 362.60 0.00600 368.15 368.31 0.00599 2.69 2.66 216.12 575.64 0.35 3.23 3.22 1.00ADV 12249 10YR 1860 1860.00 361.45 0.00600 367.00 367.16 0.00598 2.69 2.67 216.14 576.20 0.35 3.23 3.21 0.99ADV 12061 10YR 1860 1860.00 360.36 0.00600 365.91 366.07 0.00599 2.69 2.66 216.13 575.70 0.35 3.23 3.22 1.00ADV 11864 10YR 1860 1860.00 359.21 0.00600 364.76 364.92 0.00602 2.69 2.66 216.10 574.89 0.35 3.24 3.23 1.00ADV 11650 10YR 1860 1860.00 357.96 0.00600 363.51 363.68 0.00596 2.70 2.67 216.16 576.81 0.35 3.22 3.20 0.99ADV 11508 10YR 1860 1860.00 357.13 0.00600 362.70 362.86 0.00586 2.71 2.68 216.25 579.93 0.34 3.21 3.15 0.98ADV 11268 10YR 1860 1860.00 355.74 0.00600 361.41 361.56 0.00524 2.81 2.78 216.91 602.30 0.32 3.09 2.81 0.91ADV 11119 10YR 1860 1860.00 354.87 0.00600 360.74 360.87 0.00427 2.99 2.96 218.17 645.10 0.29 2.88 2.27 0.79ADV 10898 10YR 1860 1860.00 353.58 -0.00530 360.47 360.50 0.00065 4.17 4.15 327.04 1355.98 0.12 1.37 0.23 0.17





ReachRiver Sta

Profile Q TotalQ

ChannelMin Ch

ElInvert Slope

W.S. Elev

E.G. Elev

E.G. Slope

Hydr Depth C

Hydr Radius C

W.P. Channel

Flow Area Ch

Froude # Chl

Vel Chnl

Power Chan

Shear Chan







ReachRiver Sta

Profile Q TotalQ

ChannelMin Ch

ElInvert Slope

W.S. Elev

E.G. Elev

E.G. Slope

Hydr Depth C

Hydr Radius C

W.P. Channel

Flow Area Ch

Froude # Chl

Vel Chnl

Power Chan

Shear Chan







ReachRiver Sta

Profile Q TotalQ

ChannelMin Ch

ElInvert Slope

W.S. Elev

E.G. Elev

E.G. Slope

Hydr Depth C

Hydr Radius C

W.P. Channel

Flow Area Ch

Froude # Chl

Vel Chnl

Power Chan

Shear Chan







ReachRiver Sta

Profile Q TotalQ

ChannelMin Ch

ElInvert Slope

W.S. Elev

E.G. Elev

E.G. Slope

Hydr Depth C

Hydr Radius C

W.P. Channel

Flow Area Ch

Froude # Chl

Vel Chnl

Power Chan

Shear Chan







ReachRiver Sta

Profile Q TotalQ

ChannelMin Ch

ElInvert Slope

W.S. Elev

E.G. Elev

E.G. Slope

Hydr Depth C

Hydr Radius C

W.P. Channel

Flow Area Ch

Froude # Chl

Vel Chnl

Power Chan

Shear Chan







ReachRiver Sta

Profile Q TotalQ

ChannelMin Ch

ElInvert Slope

W.S. Elev

E.G. Elev

E.G. Slope

Hydr Depth C

Hydr Radius C

W.P. Channel

Flow Area Ch

Froude # Chl

Vel Chnl

Power Chan

Shear Chan







ReachRiver Sta

Profile Q TotalQ

ChannelMin Ch

ElInvert Slope

W.S. Elev

E.G. Elev

E.G. Slope

Hydr Depth C

Hydr Radius C

W.P. Channel

Flow Area Ch

Froude # Chl

Vel Chnl

Power Chan

Shear Chan







ReachRiver Sta

Profile Q TotalQ

ChannelMin Ch

ElInvert Slope

W.S. Elev

E.G. Elev

E.G. Slope

Hydr Depth C

Hydr Radius C

W.P. Channel

Flow Area Ch

Froude # Chl

Vel Chnl

Power Chan

Shear Chan







ReachRiver Sta

Profile Q TotalQ

ChannelMin Ch

ElInvert Slope

W.S. Elev

E.G. Elev

E.G. Slope

Hydr Depth C

Hydr Radius C

W.P. Channel

Flow Area Ch

Froude # Chl

Vel Chnl

Power Chan

Shear Chan







ReachRiver Sta

Profile Q TotalQ

ChannelMin Ch

ElInvert Slope

W.S. Elev

E.G. Elev

E.G. Slope

Hydr Depth C

Hydr Radius C

W.P. Channel

Flow Area Ch

Froude # Chl

Vel Chnl

Power Chan

Shear Chan







ReachRiver Sta

Profile Q TotalQ

ChannelMin Ch

ElInvert Slope

W.S. Elev

E.G. Elev

E.G. Slope

Hydr Depth C

Hydr Radius C

W.P. Channel

Flow Area Ch

Froude # Chl

Vel Chnl

Power Chan

Shear Chan







ReachRiver Sta

Profile Q TotalQ

ChannelMin Ch

ElInvert Slope

W.S. Elev

E.G. Elev

E.G. Slope

Hydr Depth C

Hydr Radius C

W.P. Channel

Flow Area Ch

Froude # Chl

Vel Chnl

Power Chan

Shear Chan







ReachRiver Sta

Profile Q TotalQ

ChannelMin Ch

ElInvert Slope

W.S. Elev

E.G. Elev

E.G. Slope

Hydr Depth C

Hydr Radius C

W.P. Channel

Flow Area Ch

Froude # Chl

Vel Chnl

Power Chan

Shear Chan







ReachRiver Sta

Profile Q TotalQ

ChannelMin Ch

ElInvert Slope

W.S. Elev

E.G. Elev

E.G. Slope

Hydr Depth C

Hydr Radius C

W.P. Channel

Flow Area Ch

Froude # Chl

Vel Chnl

Power Chan

Shear Chan





C-1


Attachment C: Baseline Profiles at Lakes A and B

Figure C-1. Potential inundation of Lake A under 100-year baseline conditions

Figure C-2. Potential inundation of Lake B under 100-year baseline conditions


C-2

Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document. CEMEX AdVHS Draft TM01 20140212 (att).docx

Figure C-1. Potential inundation of Lake A under 100-year baseline conditions


C-3

Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document. CEMEX AdVHS Draft TM01 20140212 (att).docx

Figure C-2. Potential inundation of Lake B under 100-year baseline conditions

Documents

Technical Memorandum - NPS